# US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)



## mongey

*MOD EDIT: This thread is heavily monitored and heavily moderated.

Discourse is allowed and even encouraged but trolling will not be tolerated. No insults, no name calling and no carrying arguments into the other subforums. Debate begins and ends here or the PM box.

Report any abusive posts immediately.*

I'm an Australian and I fully admit whats going on in the US right now with your preselection process confuses the hell out of me . we don't do it here

our media here is reporting how well Trump is doing and it seems by their reports that he is going to win selection to run for president .

the whole world really is watching this in fascination , it started as some weird bystory or tag line in the news but it's incomprehensible that he is actually winning .

Maybe he has some good polices. all we really hear about on our media is building a wall on the southern border with Mexico and nuking north Korea and ISIL/ISIS

so you guys actually living in the USA do you think he will be running for president ? and how do you actually feel about it the possibility of Trump being your president ?

I'm genuinely curious


----------



## SpaceDock

Looks like he will win the Republican nomination. He has no policies, he is just firing up a bunch of idiots to get them to vote for him. If he wins the presidency, I'm leaving the usa.


----------



## pwsusi

The political establishment (both sides), the media, wealthy donors and special interests created Trump. Trump is a reflection of the anger by a significant number Americans across many different demographics (not just a few idiots). There are people that are going to be hard left and hard right and always tow the party line, but every two or three election cycles we tend to see a shift in power because the swing voters in the middle get fed up with the party in power and vote the other side in for a change. In reality though nothing changes and there is frustration that has built up. I think there is also a feeling that we are no longer governed by the people but instead by a ruling class that is bought and paid for and there is a desire to send a message and disrupt the status quo. I think Bernie Sanders has done well this election cycle for similar reasons. I suspect while there are many that genuinely support him, i also suspect there are many that are just voting anti-establishment to send a message (i.e. like the idea of Trump more than they like Trump himself). The fact that he has had personal success in his life and is direct in the way he talks is probably enough for people to just give the guy a shot....ie think he'll be a successful leader/surround himself with the right people to take the country in a different direction even though he hasn't really provided much substance (actually have any of the candidates?). While not providing a lot of solutions he has been successful in articulating problems, or at least some of the things that people are angry about. He has successfully connected with people and emotion always wins over logic. Just like in 2008 people are voting their heart and not necessarily their minds. I'm not saying anything good or bad about Obama, but on paper one could argue strongly for McCain. The fact is people were so sick of the previous administration's policies though no republican on earth stood a chance. Obama was the right guy at the right time...kind of like Trump. 

While the president is very important obviously, we do have 3 branches of govt and balance of powers. so i suspect even if he gets in there will be much of the same. Even more so because at least with a Dem or Repub you tend to get support from your party....but Trump will get support from neither...they both dispise him lol. Anyway if he gets in, and i believe he will, it will at the very least be entertaining


----------



## SmashinWithTone

I personally feel that trump is a grade A idiot. Its amazing that if you have the money in this country you can possibly be elected president, just like you can get away with murdering your ex wife and her lover. God i love this country.


----------



## will_shred

Trump is the figurehead of what I can only describe as a neo-fascist movement in America. This was brought about by our own liberal elites (namely, the Clintons) selling out the blue collar working class with bad trade deals and deregulation. NAFTA sent away millions of manufacturing jobs without accounting for helping the displaced workers, and financial deregulation allowed the sub-prime bubble to go unchecked which further destroyed the wealth of blue collar america when the bubble finally burst in 2008. Trump supporters are rightfully pissed off and fed up with the system, but they're not informed enough to really understand what's going on. Trump is acting like a protective father figure to them. He will protect us from the scary Muslims who want to hurt your family, he will protect us from the gays who want to corrupt the youth, he will stand up to our enemies and show them how great and powerful America is. He is the kind of figure that is often embraced by disenfranchised citizens of a dying empire. Of course if these people understood the history of postwar American foreign policy they would understand that militarism is partly what got us into this mess, and it is certainly not the path to a way out of it. 

Chris Hedges just wrote a really great piece on the rise of Trump, its lengthy but well worth the read. 



> "The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game by anointing Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate. She epitomizes the double-dealing of the college-educated elites, those who speak the feel-your-pain language of ordinary men and women, who hold up the bible of political correctness, while selling out the poor and the working class to corporate power."



Chris Hedges: The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism - Chris Hedges - Truthdig


----------



## asher

Uh, what?

Have you not been paying attention to the rhetoric the right has been using since the Southern Strategy with Nixon?

This is far, far more racial politics than anything else.

And yes, he's going to win the Republican nomination. Why would voters pick xenophobia-lite and dog whistles when they can have the full, unapologetic bullhorn?


----------



## will_shred

asher said:


> Uh, what?
> 
> Have you not been paying attention to the rhetoric the right has been using since the Southern Strategy with Nixon?
> 
> This is far, far more racial politics than anything else.
> 
> And yes, he's going to win the Republican nomination. Why would voters pick xenophobia-lite and dog whistles when they can have the full, unapologetic bullhorn?



Racism is a symptom of the underlying socioeconomic currents. I don't think its the core cause of his popularity. I made the same argument when discussing radical Islam in the middle east. Racidal Islam is what people embraced when faced with dire circumstances. Much like how so many blue collar Americans embrace radical Christian evangalism with an anti-government undercurrent in the face of increasing socioeconomic hardship. Of course much of it can be traced back to good ol' Ron Raygun. But the Clintons also shoulder a good amount of the blame for being complicit in the rise of crony capitalism.


----------



## celticelk

The terms of NAFTA were negotiated by the first President Bush; after he took office, Clinton negotiated side agreements to protect American workers and strengthen the environmental regulations in the agreement.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement


----------



## will_shred

I don't think the agreement ever should have been signed in the first place, but that's just me.


----------



## asher

will_shred said:


> I don't think the agreement ever should have been signed in the first place, but that's just me.



Hindsight is 20/20.

Which is not to be snark: as it was understood then, it wasn't transparently pretty terrible.


----------



## celticelk

As far as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (which repealed Glass-Steagall) goes, the final version of the bill passed both houses of Congress with massive majorities. You could certainly argue that Clinton should have executed a protest veto anyway, but at that point the legislation was happening whether he agreed or not.


----------



## awake69

Some valid points on both sides here. Personally, I see Trump as a blowhard and little more than an ape demonstrating full blown chest out puffery. I wasn't a fan before, I'm certainly not a fan now. 

The two party system is the true enemy here. I think that's something people are really lashing out at. Democrats and Republicans are simply two opposing sides of the same corrupt coin. At this point, Washington need to be cleaned out entirely. A full blown political enema is in order. Sanders, Clinton, Trump....all the same. Trump may not be a career politician, like Sanders and Clinton, but he's certainly not a better option. 

I just get annoyed with all the hate on Trump when no one seems to be recognizing that Sanders and Clinton's tongues are every bit as forked as Trumps. Just different lies. 

I'm voting Libertarian this year...and if I don't like who THEY put up, then I'm staying home. I'm tired of all these years of "lesser of two evils" voting.


----------



## asher

...I think it has to do with the fact that the things Clinton and Sanders are saying _are not explicitly or implicitly hateful bigotry which incites supporters into real acts of violence_ and are not proposing objectively terrible and harmful policy.


----------



## awake69

asher said:


> ...I think it has to do with the fact that the things Clinton and Sanders are saying _are not explicitly or implicitly hateful bigotry which incites supporters into real acts of violence_ and are not proposing objectively terrible and harmful policy.



No. They simply pander and say what their constituents want to hear. As long as Trump has been in the spotlight (over thirty years now) when has he not been combative, controversial, and brash in his spoken opinions? At least he's honest about it. Sanders and Clinton are almost worse in that they often speak out of two sides of their mouths. The operative word being "almost". 

I get what you're saying, but I still think they all suck.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Yes, he'll be nominated and it's mildly terrifying because the only person predicted to soundly beat him in the current polls floating around is Bernie Sanders, and he's a _very_ long shot away from the nomination. 

Kasich and Paul were the only people on the Republican side who seemed like they were actually living in the same reality as the rest of us, no matter how I disagreed with how they think things should be run. Now the Republicans choices are: the token black guy with a narcolepsy problem, an establishment golden child, a theocratic psycho, and Donald Drumpf.


----------



## asher

Head to head polls this far out are barely above "completely useless".


----------



## mongey

I think the rest of the world have been looking on with a " he can't possibly become president "view but it seems it is possible 

Right or wrong who the president of the USA is has an impact on the rest of the world . even though I don't live there i'm sacred he's going to get in cause i don't know what it means for the rest of the world. Every country has moronic politicians with moronic ideas, we just got rid of onewho became prime minister here , but Trump is just so off the scale


----------



## QuantumCybin

Oh yeah, Trump is definitely going to win the republican nomination and it's quite possible he'll win the whole damn thing. Just like in 2012 though, I'm voting libertarian and going with Gary Johnson. I just want him to get that 5% vote he needs to give a third party the attention it rightfully deserves from the federal government...bipartisanship clearly isn't working.


----------



## Hollowway

Oddly, I like Trump and Sanders over any of the other candidates. Or perhaps not oddly. I'm definitely antiestablishment at this point. Clinton is practically frothing at the mouth she wants the power and prestige of the presidency so much. She'll say and do anything to get there, and I like her far, far less than Bill. I think Trump the person is much more reasonable and centrist than Trump the candidate. I think we'd be better off with him leading than Cruz or Rubio because he deposit have any particular loyalty to the party. But, who knows. I do hope he gets the nomination so that the Republicans address all the crap that got him there, and try to come up with some sort of decent candidates in the future. And I think the Democrats need to look at all these banks giving Clinton money, and address the fact that she is moving much closer to the right than the rest of the party.


----------



## Aymara

I think it's time for the first female president. Not that I think that Clinton is the right candidate, but as it seems, she is the only one, that has a chance against this idiot named Trump.

Most people here in Germany think, that this guy is too weird to have a chance ... I hope, that's right.

I myself have the impression that the US can choose between the Devil and Belzebub, as we say in Germany.

Incompetence rules the world


----------



## MrWulf

Clinton to me is a bigger risk than Trump. Trump might be a nutter, but he's the manifestation of the US' frustration and agony throughout the last 8 years of the Obama administration. And also, he can shakes the establishment up. Clinton meanwhile is a clog in the machine, someone who is backed by the Wall Street elites, and also is pulling out every tricks of the book because if she won't be the president, she will be a convict instead. I will back a lulzy nutter over a corporate backing machine that promised to continue Obama's rather lackluster terms.


----------



## flint757

Aymara said:


> I think it's time for the first female president. Not that I think that Clinton is the right candidate, but as it seems, she is the only one, that has a chance against this idiot named Trump.
> 
> Most people here in Germany think, that this guy is too weird to have a chance ... I hope, that's right.
> 
> I myself have the impression that the US can choose between the Devil and Belzebub, as we say in Germany.
> 
> Incompetence rules the world



It's time for the right candidate at any point in time; gender/race politics is quite an ignorant way to vote IMO (if it's your main driving force to vote for someone that is). We vote more minorities into office by bringing more of them to the proverbial table and then make an objective choice on who we think will do a better job, or is saying/doing what you want them to. To vote for someone purely because of race or gender is worse than 'voting for the other guy'. 

Things would be so different had they backed someone like Elizabeth Warren rather than another Clinton. I'd be fully okay with her as the nomination and I imagine the Democrat party wouldn't be so divided like it is currently. As it stands, knowing what I know, Clinton won't be getting my vote; not that it matters in our current voting system.


----------



## Aymara

flint757 said:


> It's time for the right candidate at any point in time; gender/race politics is quite an ignorant way to vote IMO ...



Yes, absolutely, but what I wanted to say is, that I believe, that Clinton will win and that in the end it doesn't really matter, because there is no "right" candidate available this time, who has a chance to win ... as I said Devil vs. Belzebub 

But I'm just a foreigner, who looks at this election with a bit of fear for the future.


----------



## Chiba666

American Politis are just plain crazy, in my humble opinion. Please not Trump though, pretty please,us Brits promise to be nice and not mention the way you have butchered the English language or your confusion of the phrase football.


----------



## flint757

If your concern is war/invasions pretty much all of the mainstream candidates are dangerous. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk.


----------



## Sumsar

Well as a danish guy I hope for Bernie Sanders  in the overall thing, but yes it seems pretty obvious that Trump will get to be the republican candidate.

However neither Sanders nor Drumpf will get much done as both parties in the congress / senate will probably block pretty much everything.

Clinton can probably get things through the congress and senate, but as others have stated she is brought and paid for by pretty much everyone it seems.

I guess the term "Whore of Wall-street" is now both the title of a porn movie and the description of the next possible presidentess of the USA.

Also it is hillarious that someone edited the part with "Trump" originally being "Drumpf" out of the english wikipedia site on Drumpf following Jon Oliver's latest "last week tonight".


----------



## QuantumCybin

Has anyone seen this? I found it to be absolutely hilarious and I haven't ever watched Game of Thrones. Mods, if this isn't considered on-topic please remove it, I just figured since this is a Trump megathread (  ) other people might get a kick out of it as well.


----------



## will_shred

I think that Clinton is okay, I don't think she's as evil as most characterize her to be. I also worry about how eager she is to continue to continue the policy of forced regime change, and bombing the way to peace. Both of which have never worked in the past, and will never work in the future. I am also worried about her fixation to Obamacare. Obamacare is a ....ty law that hurts a lot of working class people in order to enrich insurance companies, and also does nothing to control drug prices. Bernie's medicare for all plan would save working class families a lot of money by eliminating the need for private health insurance all together. And I think its painfully obvious to anyone who has dealt with our private health insurance companies that they are overpriced, ineffective, and far to corrupt from the top down to actually accomplish what the ACA intended. I wouldn't bat an eye if we scraped the entire industry and jailed all the executives.


----------



## TheStig1214

Drumpf becoming president is a radically scary idea, but he's really just a bullhorn to America's racist subconscious. 

In all reality though, he's alienating himself from both the GOP and Dems. Even if he gets the Republican nomination, he'll .... all over their party platforms. He may be pro-1%, but I really don't think he holds the same values as the psychochristian Tea Party wingnuts, who are the real driving force of the GOP. If he can't make the Bible thumpers happy no Republican in Congress is going to back his proposals, and he already has every Democrat checked out. He's going to have a Congress that collectively hates him. Really just shaping up to be the least productive 4 years in the US's political history.


----------



## vilk

I think many people forget that Ronald Reagan, one of our most celebrated Republican presidents, was a s***y movie actor who enacted a buttf***ton of bad economic policies. And he's still people's favorite president ever.


----------



## TheStig1214

vilk said:


> I think many people forget that Ronald Reagan, one of our most celebrated Republican presidents, was a s***y movie actor who enacted a buttf***ton of bad economic policies. And he's still people's favorite president ever.



Let's not forget the whole Iran/Contra bit.


----------



## celticelk

will_shred said:


> Obamacare is a ....ty law that hurts a lot of working class people in order to enrich insurance companies, and also does nothing to control drug prices. Bernie's medicare for all plan would save working class families a lot of money by eliminating the need for private health insurance all together. And I think its painfully obvious to anyone who has dealt with our private health insurance companies that they are overpriced, ineffective, and far to corrupt from the top down to actually accomplish what the ACA intended. I wouldn't bat an eye if we scraped the entire industry and jailed all the executives.



On an entirely practical level, the choice was never between Obamacare and single-payer. The choice was between Obamacare and no health care reform at all. Obama and the Democratic leadership spent every ounce of political capital they had in 2009-2010 to get the program that we got, and the Republicans have not stopped fighting it tooth and nail ever since. Where exactly were the votes for a *more* centralized program going to be found?

In theory, I support single-payer nationalized healthcare as well. I have yet to see anyone propose a viable path to get there *from where we are now*.


----------



## TheStig1214

celticelk said:


> On an entirely practical level, the choice was never between Obamacare and single-payer. The choice was between Obamacare and no health care reform at all. Obama and the Democratic leadership spent every ounce of political capital they had in 2009-2010 to get the program that we got, and the Republicans have not stopped fighting it tooth and nail ever since. Where exactly were the votes for a *more* centralized program going to be found?
> 
> In theory, I support single-payer nationalized healthcare as well. I have yet to see anyone propose a viable path to get there *from where we are now*.



Agreed, Obamacare had a sh*tty rollout, and still isn't the greatest. But we needed to enact _something_ other than what we had. Change for change's sake (as much as I hate Obama's usage of the word change as a catchphrase). I hate this right wing rhetoric that the ACA's failure is because the Dems wrote it that way to enrich insurance companies. It's because right wing lobbyists fought it and beat it down to what it is now.

Only now finally are the Dems going back on their promise and making insurance companies and medication companies negotiate for reasonable costs.


----------



## Church2224

Trump popularity is quite simple. The man is not a politician and, as said before, he represents a portion of the populace that is angry at the system and they think he is going to make everything better. There is also the mentality of "Well, Trump's gonna win it anyways, might as well vote for him" a lot of people have, which is a prime reason he is getting elected. 

Plus, just passively listen to him talking for a bit. Like it or not, the man has a lot of charisma. However if you actually listen to what he says the man is insane. He caters to fear a lot of people have, which turns into bigotry, which turns into something completely asinine. 

Honestly, I am looking at the positives of the eventual outcome. I think that this will probably the GOPs wake up call. For years a lot of conservatives have been frustrated with the Republican party and this election has been a huge headache. I'm a Conservative and know a lot of other conservatives, none of them have supported Trump, or really any other of the major GOP candidates so far. We are just as frustrated as every one else. Rand Paul and Kasich had some good ideas that I do not think the entirety of the GOP will adopt unless a major party overhaul happens. The GOP is hurting right now and unless it makes some drastic changes, it is going to collapse.


----------



## n4t

This thread is a much better read than I expected. Some pretty good posts. I am becoming used to the idea that Trump will be President. I think too many people outright hate Clinton, and people are too small and greedy to allow Sanders in for fear of their wallets. 

I personally despise our political system and government. I do not vote or participate. It is an enormous failure and the nearly inevitable downfall will be spectacular, if not the end of the human species. The rest of the world should probably be hoping we have a very bloody civil war, as I suspect that will be the least globally damaging outcome possible.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

n4t said:


> I do not vote or participate.



This is why things are broken. 

Only half of this country bothers to vote for the POTUS, and even fewer, almost a third, vote midterms. 

It's pathetic. 

Say what you will about the _a_ssholes and the crazies, at least they bother to show up to vote. 

Poor turnout is how terrible politicians stay in power and justifies the existence of antiquated systems like the electoral college. 

The worse part? People are freaking proud of not participating. It's like being proud of not wiping your own _a_ss.


----------



## Edika

Concerning Drumpf, wow what an unfathomably unlikable life form. Human garbage is one of the kindest epithets that comes to mind.
On a more general comment, it seems that people in all countries tend to radicalize towards the crazy side of the political spectrum when are faced with difficulties and a corrupt political system. Instead of re-evaluating the causes that led to the current state they trend towards ideologies that will deteriorate in a faster pace.


----------



## Sang-Drax

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is why things are broken.
> 
> Only half of this country bothers to vote for the POTUS, and even fewer, almost a third, vote midterms.
> 
> It's pathetic.
> 
> Say what you will about the _a_ssholes and the crazies, at least they bother to show up to vote.
> 
> Poor turnout is how terrible politicians stay in power and justifies the existence of antiquated systems like the electoral college.
> 
> The worse part? People are freaking proud of not participating. It's like being proud of not wiping your own _a_ss.




There's almost always a better candidate and a worse one.


----------



## celticelk

n4t said:


> This thread is a much better read than I expected. Some pretty good posts. I am becoming used to the idea that Trump will be President. I think too many people outright hate Clinton, and people are too small and greedy to allow Sanders in for fear of their wallets.
> 
> I personally despise our political system and government. I do not vote or participate. It is an enormous failure and the nearly inevitable downfall will be spectacular, if not the end of the human species. The rest of the world should probably be hoping we have a very bloody civil war, as I suspect that will be the least globally damaging outcome possible.



Personal rule: if you habitually and proudly don't vote, I'm not listening to your opinion on American politics.


----------



## Arkeion

Doubt a republican wins this race. Party is split. A divided party = no bueno come vote time.


----------



## lemeker

While I like the fact that Drumpf isn't afraid to say what he wants regardless of what people think, the idea of him becoming president scares me. I think Clinton has the best chance of winning in the end. I really don't like any of the candidates running for this election, but feel that Sanders, who will get my vote unless I can write my own name down, really has the ideas to get us back on the right track. 

What bothers me more than all though is our do nothing Congress. Cronies who spend more time fighting against each other and shutting down every so often, rather than actually solving anything.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

lemeker said:


> I like the fact that Drumpf isn't afraid to say what he wants regardless of what people think



How is what he says any different from the myriad of candidates who would sell out their own mother for votes and attention?

I know, because it's not "PC", because somewhere sometime someone decided it was lame to be a decent human being to those who might just be a little bit different than one's self. 

It's almost like folks want this country to stay crappy for everyone but older, well off, straight, white, Christian men. They don't realize that once it's better for the other 30% of the country things might actually get nicer, even for those old white guys.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

lemeker said:


> While I like the fact that Drumpf isn't afraid to say what he wants regardless of what people think...



Ever go to a party where some guy is drunk and yelling about his ....ty beliefs and opinions? Did you consider that a redeeming quality of his?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ Worth watching if you don't know where the Drumpf came from.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's almost like folks want this country to stay crappy for everyone but older, well off, straight, white, Christian men. They don't realize that once it's better for the other 30% of the country things might actually get nicer, even for those old white guys.



Well put.

As for Trump, from what i've been gathering it sounds like he'll have no shot in the main election - the GOP guys are concerned about this, as he will blow their chance. As I understand it, some of the GOP guys behind him for the party nomination would actually fare much better vs Hillary. 

But i'm no political scientist, just a guy that will be able to vote for the first time this year (UK citizen until last year). Never thought i'd feel such obligation, but i surely do. My main concern is catching up with the rest of the civilized world in useful social programs and labor laws.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Will shred +1

Trump isn't the problem, he's the symptom. And seen by some as a potential remedy.

Honestly, Barack being a relatively political unknown and supposed "outsider" was a big part of his win. The establishment really getting in with him should have been a big clue about how wrong we were there, but hindsight is 20/20.

The reaction by the media and political elite to Trump so far has actually made me like him as a candidate.... The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.

Good luck to all this election year. Get your popcorn ready!


----------



## canuck brian

Does Trump have any policies to speak of or does he just get on stage and flap his gums?


----------



## jeremyb

I'm betting at the end of all of this when Hilary wins he'll come out and say "Gotcha!, I was only in the race to help my friend Hilary win, jokes on you losers!"


----------



## RUSH_Of_Excitement

I fear a Trump presidency, because I believe someone who describes his/her vocabulary by saying "I know words... I have the best words", attacks the 1st amendment by threatening to sue the media should they publish negative comments about him, stereotypes different ethnicities and wants to ban Muslims, and refuses to denounce the FORMER GRAND WIZARD of the KKK and white supremacy outright should not be president of this great nation. I have hope that the American populace won't f*ck us all over this badly


----------



## TheStig1214

canuck brian said:


> Does Trump have any policies to speak of or does he just get on stage and flap his gums?



Well, we know he hates the idea of any non-white people coming into the country..... that's kinda it....


----------



## CapnForsaggio

TheStig1214 said:


> Well, we know he hates the idea of any non-white people coming into the country..... that's kinda it....



He has never said that. He opposes illegal immigration because the entrants are not vetted for criminal history. 

That is very different from what you have said. 

Most Americans agree with his stance. No illegal immigration.


----------



## vilk

...to me, it seems kind of naive to really believe that. I have heard many racist people offer various excuses for why it was ok for them to approve of some slight against a group, but just because you can find legal reasons to justify what you wanted anyway doesn't somehow undo your actual feelings, which more than likely you had long before Trump ever said a thing about "vetting for criminals". 

Also, it seems like many people are unaware that legal immigration is limited by quotas set by region... which, to me, seems patently like systematized discrimination. Legal immigration is racist... well, "regionist". I don't believe white Mexicans will have an easier time getting in than brown Mexicans. But yeah, saying "we just want them to do it legally! that's all!" essentially means "I don't want any more Latino people". 

For so many foreigners, there is actually no honest way to legally immigrate. You can marry someone, but past a certain point that's no longer honest, is it?


----------



## lemeker

MaxOfMetal said:


> How is what he says any different from the myriad of candidates who would sell out their own mother for votes and attention?



It's not any different. I never implied that it was. I disagree with the majority (more like everything really) of what he says. I think the guy is a sideshow attraction. 



> I know, because it's not "PC", because somewhere sometime someone decided it was lame to be a decent human being to those who might just be a little bit different than one's self.
> 
> It's almost like folks want this country to stay crappy for everyone but older, well off, straight, white, Christian men. They don't realize that once it's better for the other 30% of the country things might actually get nicer, even for those old white guys.


I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying here. I think the world would be a much better place, and hope one day we can truly be....




Adam Of Angels said:


> Ever go to a party where some guy is drunk and yelling about his ....ty beliefs and opinions? Did you consider that a redeeming quality of his?



I actually have a friend who isn't afraid to voice his opinion on a wide range of subjects. would I call it a redeeming quality, no....but it doesn't make a bad guy either.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater

canuck brian said:


> Does Trump have any policies to speak of or does he just get on stage and flap his gums?



I was reading a bit about his health care plans and some of it made good sense. Again i stress _some_. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but the answer to your question appears to be "Yes, some policy on real issues has actually seen the light of day between the circus act."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

lemeker said:


> It's not any different. I never implied that it was. I disagree with the majority (more like everything really) of what he says. I think the guy is a sideshow attraction.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying here. I think the world would be a much better place, and hope one day we can truly be....



Then what's the appeal that made you say:



> I like the fact that Drumpf isn't afraid to say what he wants regardless of what people think


If you know it's a ruse, then what you said makes no sense.


----------



## Aymara

RUSH_Of_Excitement said:


> ..., stereotypes different ethnicities and wants to ban Muslims, and refuses to denounce the FORMER GRAND WIZARD of the KKK and white supremacy outright should not be president of this great nation.



That sounds to me as if it is (or should be) well known in the US, that Trump is a racist?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Aymara said:


> That sounds to me as if it is well known in the US, that Trump is a racist?



That's the goofy thing. 

It's pretty much established that he is at best biased against those who are not like him, and at worst a real, by definition, racist. Though, it's not absolutely written in stone. He can say racist and xenophobic things without folks labeling him a true racist. 

Being labeled as racist is worse than actually being racist in this country. So he'll say terrible things and then deny any real racism. 

Like I said, goofy.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I hear ya Vilk, but the reality is, resources are not unlimited.

I cannot go across the border to Mexico illegally, live there permanently, and open a business where I make money. I would be arrested and deported.

I think the "moral high ground" in this issue ends up being damaging to the country.

Think about it, 'why wouldn't Mexico allow unfettered immigration of Americans to their country?' 

Answer: It is not worth it for them or any other country to do so. And we are some of the richest and most educated world citizens available. Still, no other country allows illegal immigration of Americans into their borders.....


----------



## TheStig1214

CapnForsaggio said:


> He has never said that. He opposes illegal immigration because the entrants are not vetted for criminal history.
> 
> That is very different from what you have said.
> 
> Most Americans agree with his stance. No illegal immigration.



He doesn't want criminals in his country but he called all Mexicans criminals and proposed we have a travel ban on all Muslims to keep them from coming in the country.



CapnForsaggio said:


> I hear ya Vilk, but the reality is, resources are not unlimited.
> 
> I cannot go across the border to Mexico illegally, live there permanently, and open a business where I make money. I would be arrested and deported.
> 
> I think the "moral high ground" in this issue ends up being damaging to the country.
> 
> Think about it, 'why wouldn't Mexico allow unfettered immigration of Americans to their country?'
> 
> Answer: It is not worth it for them or any other country to do so. And we are some of the richest and most educated world citizens available. Still, no other country allows illegal immigration of Americans into their borders.....



No other country allows illegal immigration like the US does because no other first world nation has a ~2000 mile border to take care of. And in other first world nations they have laws that allow citizens from other countries to travel, live and work freely within other countries.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CapnForsaggio said:


> And we are some of the richest and most educated world citizens available.



Have a citation on that one? 

Besides wealth, last I checked, we're falling pretty far back as far as education compared with most of the developed world. With the wealth gap how it is, I don't see us having the market cornered on that forever either.


----------



## asher

Why am I no longer surprised that we have Trump apologists here?


----------



## lemeker

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then what's the appeal that made you say:
> 
> 
> If you know it's a ruse, then what you said makes no sense.



Recently it seems people are quick to say what they feel only to apologize a short time later for fear of being chastised. 

I just like that he has the audacity to say what he feels regardless. It doesn't mean I have to agree with what he says, and most cases I don't.

Honestly, I don't think it's a ruse, I think he actually believes everything he says.


----------



## Aymara

TheStig1214 said:


> And in other first world nations they have laws that allow citizens from other countries to travel, live and work freely within other countries.



That's the freedom of the EU, that currently is in huge danger, because of millions of refugees from Syria. Might that be the muslims Trump fears ... well, he has a reason to, when I see how tricky it becomes in Europe to take care of these poor people. And yes, even in Europe people are afraid of criminals and terrorism sleepers.

Compared to what happens in Europe currently, the Mexican border is peanuts, sorry, no offence intended.


----------



## TheStig1214

Aymara said:


> That's the freedom of the EU, that currently is in huge danger, because of millions of refugees from Syria. Might that be the muslims Trump fears ... well, he has a reason to, when I see how tricky it becomes in Europe to take care of these poor people. And yes, even in Europe people are afraid of criminals and terrorism sleepers.
> 
> Compared to what happens in Europe currently, the Mexican border is peenuts, sorry, no offence intended.



Refugees and illegal immigration are not one in the same. The Syrian crisis is recent and meant a massive influx of refugees into Europe. It's bad, yes. But The US/Mexico situation has been a thing for decades. It's a chronic problem.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Aymara, exactly.

And I don't consider myself a trump apologist.... But I do consider myself unbound to the DNC. I am equally dissatisfied with both parties.

The DNC is going to nominate Hillary over the wishes of most normal people.... Is this the party of true democracy? I think not.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> The DNC is going to nominate Hillary over the wishes of most normal people....



As far as I can see, they're going to nominate Clinton because she's winning the primary election. That's how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?


----------



## asher

FFS wait until the primaries are done at least. It's entirely possible Hillary walks away with more delegates without using supers. How is that anything other than the will of [the subset of Democratic voters who vote in the primaries]?


----------



## NoodleFace

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see a career politician in the whitehouse over a career buffoon. 

I know there's some crossover between the two.


----------



## jeremyb

MaxOfMetal said:


> Have a citation on that one?
> 
> Besides wealth, last I checked, we're falling pretty far back as far as education compared with most of the developed world. With the wealth gap how it is, I don't see us having the market cornered on that forever either.



This gives a good measure of "greatness" over a scale of things, wealth, education etc... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Patriotism seems to come before common sense with some people


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the goofy thing.
> 
> It's pretty much established that he is at best biased against those who are not like him, and at worst a real, by definition, racist. Though, it's not absolutely written in stone. He can say racist and xenophobic things without folks labeling him a true racist.
> 
> Being labeled as racist is worse than actually being racist in this country. So he'll say terrible things and then deny any real racism.
> 
> Like I said, goofy.



I have yet to hear one of these Trump conundrums ("How can he say that and his poll numbers go up?" "How can he not rebuke David Duke and not be considered a white supremacists sympathizer?") that doesn't line up completely with the fact that being wealthy totally changes the amount of latitude people give him.


----------



## will_shred

celticelk said:


> On an entirely practical level, the choice was never between Obamacare and single-payer. The choice was between Obamacare and no health care reform at all. Obama and the Democratic leadership spent every ounce of political capital they had in 2009-2010 to get the program that we got, and the Republicans have not stopped fighting it tooth and nail ever since. Where exactly were the votes for a *more* centralized program going to be found?
> 
> In theory, I support single-payer nationalized healthcare as well. I have yet to see anyone propose a viable path to get there *from where we are now*.



I know its going to sound like i'm just parroting Bernie, but I really do agree with pretty much everything he has to say. We obviously need some structural reforms of our governance system before we can even start to think about tackling any of the issues in any serious way. If I could name two pieces of legislation that would be the building blocks for more general reform I think it would be 

1. election reform, starting with extending the actual voting period, as well as automatic voter registration. You can't just have a single election day in a country of almost half a billion people and expect high voter turnout. Especially not when most working class people are too busy, you know, trying to hold their lives together. I think if we had an entire week to go vote instead of a single day, turnout would be much higher just because it would work with people's schedules. Not to mention just get rid of superdelegates all together. 

2. Campaign finance reform, I don't think I need to explain why. 

From there, I think it would be much easier for the American people to exercise their right to weed corruption out of our government via the democratic process. From there we could outlaw gerrymandering, so voters pick the candidates, and candidates don't pick the voters. Outlaw omnibus budget bills, ect, ect. But like Bernie has said, without a total revitalization of the very heart of our democracy, nothing can get done in any meaningful way.


----------



## asher

jeremyb said:


> This gives a good measure of "greatness" over a scale of things, wealth, education etc...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index
> 
> Patriotism seems to come before common sense with some people



I think it is very much worth breaking that out for the US; we're a strange mix of extreme wealth but huge inequality, unevenly distributed education levels, really high tech development but also shockingly high infant mortality rates for some groups, etc.


----------



## asher

will_shred said:


> I know its going to sound like i'm just parroting Bernie, but I really do agree with pretty much everything he has to say. We obviously need some structural reforms of our governance system before we can even start to think about tackling any of the issues in any serious way. If I could name two pieces of legislation that would be the building blocks for more general reform I think it would be
> 
> 1. election reform, starting with extending the actual voting period, as well as automatic voter registration. You can't just have a single election day in a country of almost half a billion people and expect high voter turnout. Especially not when most working class people are too busy, you know, trying to hold their lives together. I think if we had an entire week to go vote instead of a single day, turnout would be much higher just because it would work with people's schedules. Not to mention just get rid of superdelegates all together.
> 
> 2. Campaign finance reform, I don't think I need to explain why.
> 
> From there, I think it would be much easier for the American people to exercise their right to weed corruption out of our government via the democratic process. From there we could outlaw gerrymandering, so voters pick the candidates, and candidates don't pick the voters. Outlaw omnibus budget bills, ect, ect. But like Bernie has said, without a total revitalization of the very heart of our democracy, nothing can get done in any meaningful way.



Will, I think Celtic and I probably both wholeheartedly agree with those positions (or most of them, at least), but none of that is actually a response to the discussion


----------



## will_shred

I can only think so hard. I wish I had a better answer to the question.


----------



## celticelk

will_shred said:


> 1. election reform, starting with extending the actual voting period, as well as automatic voter registration. You can't just have a single election day in a country of almost half a billion people and expect high voter turnout. Especially not when most working class people are too busy, you know, trying to hold their lives together. I think if we had an entire week to go vote instead of a single day, turnout would be much higher just because it would work with people's schedules. Not to mention just get rid of superdelegates all together.
> 
> 2. Campaign finance reform, I don't think I need to explain why.
> 
> From there, I think it would be much easier for the American people to exercise their right to weed corruption out of our government via the democratic process. From there we could outlaw gerrymandering, so voters pick the candidates, and candidates don't pick the voters. Outlaw omnibus budget bills, ect, ect. But like Bernie has said, without a total revitalization of the very heart of our democracy, nothing can get done in any meaningful way.



I'm fully on-board with election reform, especially things like extended voting periods that make it easier for working-class people to cast ballots. Fully 3/5 of the states, in fact, already allow unconditional early voting, so theoretically you could make this happen by bringing appropriate political leverage to bear in the states that don't currently allow it. The superdelegates are a different issue - that's a Democratic Party (read: private entity) policy, not a government policy, so you have to bring entirely different leverage to bear to make that change. (Additionally, superdelegates have never altered the outcome of a Democratic primary - the popular-vote winner has always received the nomination.) Gerrymandering is a state-level problem, not a national problem, so you're going to have to work on that state-by-state; I think you'd have a high Constitutional bar to argue that all states have to adhere to a federally-dictated system for determining voting districts. Campaign finance probably has to be solved at the federal level.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

NoodleFace said:


> Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather see a career politician in the whitehouse over a career buffoon.
> 
> I know there's some crossover between the two.



I disagree. More of the same is going to get us more of the same.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> I disagree. More of the same is going to get us more of the same.



If the alternative is "ever so much worse," I'll take "more of the same" for $500.


----------



## celticelk

We're way OT here, but as long as we're on the subject: I support voting reform because it's morally the right thing to do. The existing data, however, does not suggest that we're likely to see massive changes in American voter turnout as a result of those changes. A number of studies from the past decade or so show conflicting results, with some even indicating that early voting *depresses* turnout by lowering urgency. A 2015 conference paper (meaning: probably not peer-reviewed) that I found (https://electionconference2015.mit....images/Convenience Voting and Turnout_MIT.pdf) suggests that the difference in turnout between the most-restrictive voting states and the most-permissive states was about 7% - a change from 36.5% turnout to 43.7% turnout (Figure 3, p. 18). Compared to turnout rates in other advanced democracies - see, for example, U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries | Pew Research Center - that's still pathetic.


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> ...to me, it seems kind of naive to really believe that. I have heard many racist people offer various excuses for why it was ok for them to approve of some slight against a group, but just because you can find legal reasons to justify what you wanted anyway doesn't somehow undo your actual feelings, which more than likely you had long before Trump ever said a thing about "vetting for criminals".
> 
> Also, it seems like many people are unaware that legal immigration is limited by quotas set by region... which, to me, seems patently like systematized discrimination. Legal immigration is racist... well, "regionist". I don't believe white Mexicans will have an easier time getting in than brown Mexicans. But yeah, saying "we just want them to do it legally! that's all!" essentially means "I don't want any more Latino people".
> 
> For so many foreigners, there is actually no honest way to legally immigrate. You can marry someone, but past a certain point that's no longer honest, is it?



Too bad? Why should we freely let anyone, from anywhere in? I do not like Trump the Candidate at all but you know what? I'm very supportive of a stricter immigration policy (interestingly enough, so is the half of my family that came from South America legally). Couple tighter border controls with heavy fines on companies that rely on illegal migrant labor and you get my vote 

If it wasn't for the racist pandering and fear mongering (hell, actual racism. Who know what he actually believes) I wouldn't be that opposed to voting Trump. The guy was fairly liberal most of his life so I'm pretty skeptical about a lot of his claims. Not worth the risk currently though. I'd hate to play any part in getting a honest to god racist in the oval office.



celticelk said:


> If the alternative is "ever so much worse," I'll take "more of the same" for $500.



 Though I want him to get the nomination so we can continue to watch the GOP implode. The faster the party falls apart the better for American politics in the long run.


----------



## asher

wannabguitarist said:


> Though I want him to get the nomination so we can continue to watch the GOP implode. The faster the party falls apart the better for American politics in the long run.



The backflips and contortions they're trying to do to suddenly disavow Trump, or claim he can't/isn't winning, or NOW get their .... together, or to pretend that he's anything other than the natural culmination of their politics and language, are hysterical.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> I disagree. More of the same is going to get us more of the same.



Different =/= Better

A plate of spaghetti is different than a plate of rigatoni.

A plate of broken glass is also different than a plate of rigatoni.

Blindly doing things just because they're different is reactive, not proactive. It's also very dangerous and yields VERY wide ranging (and typically _bad_) results.


----------



## TheStig1214

Randy said:


> A plate of broken glass is also different than a plate of rigatoni.


----------



## asher

TheStig1214 said:


>



OT, but it just made me think of this and now I'm loling:


----------



## TheStig1214

asher said:


> OT, but it just made me think of this and now I'm loling:



"Bag, rip. Wine, smash. Drink it up, avoid the glass." 

Infinite words of wisdom from David McWane.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> As far as I can see, they're going to nominate Clinton because she's winning the primary election. That's how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?



Well, considering the race has actually been pretty close, yet everyone is under the impression she's wiping the floor with him, I'd say no. It's not illegal and quite normal, but lets not pretend that they aren't playing on low info voters biggest weakness, lack of in-depth knowledge and research. Their goal is pretty much what people have been saying with Trump, to get more people voting because 'it's the inevitable choice'. If that's true our choices are between someone who presents himself as a loon and a crook, but hey it's 'democratic'.

Slight derail, a two party system is inherently not Democratic. Couple that with the electoral college, winner-take-all, gerrymandering, most elections not being run-off votes, and only two platforms ever being used as a blanket to smother everyone who in fact isn't Republican or Democrat and we have a ridiculously jacked up undemocratic system. We need a system where votes literally divide representation between multiple parties and we need a system where you vote on a scale, not for one individual that was predetermined by a rather small number of people in our country. 



asher said:


> FFS wait until the primaries are done at least. It's entirely possible Hillary walks away with more delegates without using supers. How is that anything other than the will of [the subset of Democratic voters who vote in the primaries]?



Well, so far the only states she outright won are states that are going to vote for Trump in the general election, and they had an incredibly low turnout compared to 2008. 

I'd argue they, include my own state, do a poor job of actually representing the liberal community at large.



will_shred said:


> I know its going to sound like i'm just parroting Bernie, but I really do agree with pretty much everything he has to say. We obviously need some structural reforms of our governance system before we can even start to think about tackling any of the issues in any serious way. If I could name two pieces of legislation that would be the building blocks for more general reform I think it would be
> 
> 1. election reform, starting with extending the actual voting period, as well as automatic voter registration. You can't just have a single election day in a country of almost half a billion people and expect high voter turnout. Especially not when most working class people are too busy, you know, trying to hold their lives together. I think if we had an entire week to go vote instead of a single day, turnout would be much higher just because it would work with people's schedules. Not to mention just get rid of superdelegates all together.
> 
> 2. Campaign finance reform, I don't think I need to explain why.
> 
> From there, I think it would be much easier for the American people to exercise their right to weed corruption out of our government via the democratic process. From there we could outlaw gerrymandering, so voters pick the candidates, and candidates don't pick the voters. Outlaw omnibus budget bills, ect, ect. But like Bernie has said, without a total revitalization of the very heart of our democracy, nothing can get done in any meaningful way.





asher said:


> Will, I think Celtic and I probably both wholeheartedly agree with those positions (or most of them, at least), but none of that is actually a response to the discussion



He was saying that we got what we could pass. Election reform has the potential to clean out at least some of the corruption making alternatives to the ideas we're being told we want to actually pass as well. Whether it succeeds remain to be seen, but Hillary is not in a position to actually do anything about it, considering she actively participates in what is in fact wrong with our elections. She'd come across like a gigantic hypocrite.



celticelk said:


> We're way OT here, but as long as we're on the subject: I support voting reform because it's morally the right thing to do. The existing data, however, does not suggest that we're likely to see massive changes in American voter turnout as a result of those changes. A number of studies from the past decade or so show conflicting results, with some even indicating that early voting *depresses* turnout by lowering urgency. A 2015 conference paper (meaning: probably not peer-reviewed) that I found (https://electionconference2015.mit....images/Convenience Voting and Turnout_MIT.pdf) suggests that the difference in turnout between the most-restrictive voting states and the most-permissive states was about 7% - a change from 36.5% turnout to 43.7% turnout (Figure 3, p. 18). Compared to turnout rates in other advanced democracies - see, for example, U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries | Pew Research Center - that's still pathetic.



Yes, but a two party system, a do nothing congress, lack of proper representation, and most states for national elections being winner-take-all doesn't exactly give ANYONE motivation. I vote every single year at all levels of government, but I'm always doing so as a disheartened citizen who knows how little my vote where I live matters. It's not surprising many choose the more pessimistic route of simply not voting in that system. Year after year only ~7 states even matter for the presidential race. Making the means to vote better doesn't make it better for many if it doesn't aid in better representation.


----------



## Aymara

celticelk said:


> especially things like extended voting periods that make it easier for working-class people ...



What about old or ill people, who aren't mobile enough? That's why we Germans are able to vote by snail mail on demand.

But that doesn't help with lack of interest, which also exists here ... not to forget people, who think, they can set a kind of sign and show their dissatisfaction by not voting.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Aymara said:


> What about old or ill people, who aren't mobile enough? That's why we Germans are able to vote by snail mail on demand.



I don't think it's 50 statewide (of course it isn't, that would make sense), but you can do that here too


----------



## flint757

It's not that there aren't options, but more that people are so apathetic towards our political system that out of those who 'might' vote won't when even the smallest roadblock is placed in front of them. Then there's also the timing of votes and that right-to-work states can fire you for any reason making it far harder to take off work even though you are legally allowed to for elections (they'll just find another reason to let you go).

The trick to getting more people to vote is to make it stupid easy for people to do so. It's either that or actually convince people that they have something worth voting for, and many don't seem to think so. I think the prior might just be easier to achieve personally.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Your assumption is that MORE voters = better voting.

People who care only about themselves, don't vote for public office.... You might not like HOW they vote if you force them to.

Be careful what you wish for. Just wait until the Hispanic population starts to vote with their faith on issues like abortion. The DNC is in for a rude awakening.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> Well, considering the race has actually been pretty close, yet everyone is under the impression she's wiping the floor with him, I'd say no.



OK, stop right there. Put aside your candidate bias and look at the [email protected] math: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/. Clinton has a 200-delegate lead in pledged delegates. There are no winner-take-all states, or even winner-take-most states, in the Democratic primaries where a narrow win in a key state can completely upend the race; all states assign delegates proportionally. Clinton is strong in high-population (and therefore high-delegate-count) states that have yet to vote; Sanders is strong in low-population states. Narrow wins in high-population states net more delegates than blowouts in low-population states. Barring a complete reversal in the voting patterns we've seen so far - not impossible, but you must admit it's highly unlikely - Clinton is going to be the nominee. Sanders supporters are in *exactly* the same place now that Clinton supporters were in 2008 after Obama's Super Tuesday wins: trying to argue against the math.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> It's not that there aren't options, but more that people are so apathetic towards our political system that out of those who 'might' vote won't when even the smallest roadblock is placed in front of them. Then there's also the timing of votes and that right-to-work states can fire you for any reason making it far harder to take off work even though you are legally allowed to for elections (they'll just find another reason to let you go).
> 
> The trick to getting more people to vote is to make it stupid easy for people to do so. It's either that or actually convince people that they have something worth voting for, and many don't seem to think so. I think the prior might just be easier to achieve personally.



Did you read my post? The data do not support the idea that extended voting periods, etc. make a large difference in turnout. If you want a massive change in American voter participation, you have to change the culture, not the mechanism.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Your assumption is that MORE voters = better voting.
> 
> People who care only about themselves, don't vote for public office.... You might not like HOW they vote if you force them to.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for. Just wait until the Hispanic population starts to vote with their faith on issues like abortion. The DNC is in for a rude awakening.



Lacking any other information, a good first approximation is that the preferences of the nonvoting population would mirror those of the voting population: that is to say, ~40-45% consistent support for each of the two major parties, and the rest shifting depending on individual candidates, issues, etc. If the nonvoting population demonstrates specific demographic biases that tend to be predictive of voting behavior (for example, race, especially for nonwhite voters), then we could make a more accurate prediction, but we'd need the data.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CapnForsaggio said:


> Your assumption is that MORE voters = better voting.



Well, wouldn't more people voting give us a better idea of what the population as a whole wants? Isn't that the point? 

Honestly, I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote. 

Of course I want "my guy" to win, or rather not "that guy", but I don't deserve any more of a say than any other tax paying citizen.


----------



## mongey

seems voting turnout is a big part of how this plays out

here we have mandatory voting . you go and get your name checked off and they will fine you if you don't vote 


I don't always feel that invested in our political process but I do pay attention at election time as i know I have to vote , I'd rather make some kind of informed decision then go in a waste my time anyway


----------



## celticelk

celticelk said:


> Lacking any other information, a good first approximation is that the preferences of the nonvoting population would mirror those of the voting population: that is to say, ~40-45% consistent support for each of the two major parties, and the rest shifting depending on individual candidates, issues, etc. If the nonvoting population demonstrates specific demographic biases that tend to be predictive of voting behavior (for example, race, especially for nonwhite voters), then we could make a more accurate prediction, but we'd need the data.



...and the data exist: 

The Party of Nonvoters | Pew Research Center
The Policy Ramifications of Increasing Voter Turnout - The Atlantic
Nonvoters: Who They Are, What They Think | Pew Research Center


Nonvoters in the US are (as a group) less white, less wealthy, less educated, and less religious. Their views on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, possibly others) mirror the voting population, but they're more in favor of government intervention to aid poor people and reduce inequality.


----------



## RUSH_Of_Excitement

Guys, he is openly admitting that he would force the military to commit war crimes against women and children... Is this our next Commander in Chief? Political policies aside, this is not ok anymore!


----------



## Grindspine

wannabguitarist said:


> Too bad? Why should we freely let anyone, from anywhere in? I do not like Trump the Candidate at all but you know what? I'm very supportive of a stricter immigration policy (interestingly enough, so is the half of my family that came from South America legally). Couple tighter border controls with heavy fines on companies that rely on illegal migrant labor and you get my vote .



If we fine companies that hire illegal workers, will they:
a) help to get their workers legally documented
b) hire legal residents instead
c) move operations overseas to keep labor costs low?


----------



## celticelk

Grindspine said:


> If we fine companies that hire illegal workers, will they:
> a) help to get their workers legally documented
> b) hire legal residents instead
> c) move operations overseas to keep labor costs low?



A lot of those businesses can't move operations overseas. You're not moving large portions of US agriculture overseas, for example, and it's nonsensical to even ask the question of service industries like hotels and restaurants.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Anyone else feel like Trump got hammered in the last debate? Too late to turn the tide but the other candidates had fairly good showings comparatively. 



Grindspine said:


> If we fine companies that hire illegal workers, will they:
> a) help to get their workers legally documented
> b) hire legal residents instead
> c) move operations overseas to keep labor costs low?



A) Maybe, and if they do that's great. 
B) This would be ideal
C) Might happen in some case but I think it's highly unlikely for the reasons celticelk noted.

All three are better alternatives to using illegal labor in my eyes.


----------



## jwade

I don't know a lot about how your political system works, but it really doesn't seem like there are any 'good' options for you guys. Hillary is a terrifying individual that seems likely to start WWIII, Trump says a hell of a lot without ever answering anything conclusively (aside from 'no immigrants, y'all'), and that Cruz guy seems like a psycho used car salesman. Sanders seems to be the only one in the race that appears to be genuinely trying to make changes, but from up here, it looks like it would be a miracle if Hillary wasn't chosen. I've heard people saying things like 'we had the first black president, let's have the first female president! america!' as if that's the only thing worth paying attention to. Kind of scary.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> OK, stop right there. Put aside your candidate bias and look at the [email protected] math: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/. Clinton has a 200-delegate lead in pledged delegates. There are no winner-take-all states, or even winner-take-most states, in the Democratic primaries where a narrow win in a key state can completely upend the race; all states assign delegates proportionally. Clinton is strong in high-population (and therefore high-delegate-count) states that have yet to vote; Sanders is strong in low-population states. Narrow wins in high-population states net more delegates than blowouts in low-population states. Barring a complete reversal in the voting patterns we've seen so far - not impossible, but you must admit it's highly unlikely - Clinton is going to be the nominee. Sanders supporters are in *exactly* the same place now that Clinton supporters were in 2008 after Obama's Super Tuesday wins: trying to argue against the math.





celticelk said:


> Did you read my post? The data do not support the idea that extended voting periods, etc. make a large difference in turnout. If you want a massive change in American voter participation, you have to change the culture, not the mechanism.



The saddest part about your comments are that you seem oblivious that you are quite biased yourself (who isn't?). I know I'm biased, because unlike most Hillary supporters I actually like my candidate of choice rather than simply thinking she's just better than the potential boogeyman Trump. 

You basically walked away from the conversation in the other thread about presidential candidates after asking for sources, which you were given, of her rather poor record as well and couldn't be bothered.

---

Anyhow, the results were better than expected for Sanders in those states. She performed better in states she WILL NOT WIN in the general. This Super Tuesday BTW is vastly different than 2008 and for one huge reason:

Super Tuesday 2008 had 23 State Primaries 
Super Tuesday 2016 had 11 State Primaries

We aren't even at half-time yet so lets stop calling it like the South is some beacon of progressive liberalism (the majority of states who have already voted).

I'm not implying he's absolutely going to win, but you in fact are making the counter claim and at this point you sound like a very typical Hillary Supporter who's kept their ears a bit too close to CNN.

---

As for the second comment, I don't think you really read mine honestly. I said when you put any roadblock on voting at all people can't be bothered and that many voters are apathetic. That includes registration, time of day, method of voting, having to wait in line, taking off work, requiring party affiliations, having transportation to get to a voting station, and more importantly feeling like you have a reason to vote in the first place. Early voting is, but only one solution and it isn't that great considering it's still strictly during business hours and is only more complicated if you happen to not live near where you work, making you out of district for the most easily accessibly voting stations. During primaries many states also require you be registered for their party which excludes a huge chunk of our population that do not directly identify with either party, even if they may vote for them in the generals due to lack of other choices.

The world you live in though seems so black and white. We can improve the mechanism of voting while also removing peoples apathy towards the system, but indeed levels of apathetic voters will go unchanged if Hillary is the nomination since she is the epitome of status quo.


----------



## Aymara

Why is Hillary so popular? Might people think, that Bill will help her as some kind of unofficial co-president?

Just a thought.


----------



## vansinn

My bet is that Hillery has been pre-selected by everyone 'in the know' long ago, but, she's know for quite a hawkish policy, they need to present an even worse picture in order to finally make the turnaround at election time, and have the voters swing around.

As such Trump plays much the same role as 'more sables and horses' did in the Bombama V2 campaign, where, in the end, Bombama did win the election - and launched even more wars afterwards.
The election shootout on TV was a pure bread joke, complete with much huggin'n'almost-kissin', but no real topics up for debate - all while Jill Stein was arrested by the NY Police and held for hours, so she couldn't disturb the show. Can anyone say banana republic - and we see this elsewhere too, just check the politics in my country (DK), though not quite as bad [yet].

Hell yeah! "Changes you can believe in!" - ya bet'cha.. "Yes we can!" - _who_ can _what_?


----------



## oc616

At first I found Trump hilarious. It was entertaining to observe this clear con-artist fail at conning me into believing he cared or knew much about any of the topics he was addressed with. But now it's getting sad. Sad to see how many people believe he is genuine. 

There was an event to which he was invited to speak for $250,000. After all the advertising that had been done to pull people to this event, the day before he says "I'm not coming unless you give me a million." Do you think they stopped and cancelled the whole ordeal, deciding to sue Trump or whatever legal actions they were able to? No. Because he waited until the DAY that their big event was going to place, knowing how important this was to them and exploiting it. What makes his supporters think that won't be the first thing he does once he's won?


----------



## Jaxcharvel

On a side note, Donald Trump looks like an older, fatter Dave Mustaine with less cool hair.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> The saddest part about your comments are that you seem oblivious that you are quite biased yourself (who isn't?). I know I'm biased, because unlike most Hillary supporters I actually like my candidate of choice rather than simply thinking she's just better than the potential boogeyman Trump.
> 
> You basically walked away from the conversation in the other thread about presidential candidates after asking for sources, which you were given, of her rather poor record as well and couldn't be bothered.



You're right. I couldn't be bothered. I don't have any personal loyalty to Hillary Clinton - I honestly don't understand the cult of personality around politicians, or most other public figures - and I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through the Why I Hate Hillary Reading List you posted. It was a mistake to engage you and Randy on that issue, but it's not one I have to keep making.



flint757 said:


> She performed better in states she WILL NOT WIN in the general.



So what? That has no bearing at all on whether she'll win the nomination, which was the point under discussion.



flint757 said:


> As for the second comment, I don't think you really read mine honestly. I said when you put any roadblock on voting at all people can't be bothered and that many voters are apathetic. That includes registration, time of day, method of voting, having to wait in line, taking off work, requiring party affiliations, having transportation to get to a voting station, and more importantly feeling like you have a reason to vote in the first place. Early voting is, but only one solution and it isn't that great considering it's still strictly during business hours and is only more complicated if you happen to not live near where you work, making you out of district for the most easily accessibly voting stations. During primaries many states also require you be registered for their party which excludes a huge chunk of our population that do not directly identify with either party, even if they may vote for them in the generals due to lack of other choices.
> 
> The world you live in though seems so black and white. We can improve the mechanism of voting while also removing peoples apathy towards the system, but indeed levels of apathetic voters will go unchanged if Hillary is the nomination since she is the epitome of status quo.



As I said, I support voting reform, and I support it *in spite of* the fact that I think it will have relatively modest effects on voter turnout. Improving access to the polls is the right thing to do. It just can't be the *only* thing we do.


----------



## will_shred

Aymara said:


> Why is Hillary so popular? Might people think, that Bill will help her as some kind of unofficial co-president?
> 
> Just a thought.



I think it really just comes down to name recognition and voter turnout. Hillary won in states with very low caucus turnout, Bernie one in states where the turnout was much higher. Almost every American knows who Hillary Clinton is and at least knows a little bit about her record, when Sanders was virtually unknown until he started his presidential campaign. Sanders has also never been a part of either party until his election bid, he has served Vermont as an independent from day 1. If you don't play ball with the party machine its very difficult to get your name out there. It's honestly amazing that Sanders has made it as far as he has. 


Side note, if Sanders loses the nomination, or gets the nomination and loses the general election, I think it might actually give a huge boost to the progressive movements that back him by adding fuel to their already raging fire. Or if the democrats just lose the general election and we have president Trump, I think it will cause a lot of people to seek alternative outlets for their activism outside the two party system, which is arguably what we really need in this country. No matter what happens, we are on the verge of a radical shift in the way our political system works.


----------



## celticelk

will_shred said:


> Hillary won in states with very low caucus turnout, Bernie one in states where the turnout was much higher.



Since I've been seeing this statement a lot, a caveat: claims of "low" turnout on the Democratic side have been comparing turnout to 2008, in which Democratic primary turnout broke records in approximately 80% of the states. Simple regression to the mean suggests that 2016 primary turnout would probably be lower. When you add a couple more data points, 2016 doesn't actually look so bad: 

IA turnout was a full 50% higher than 2004. 
NH turnout was still down from 2004, when turnout was only slightly lower than in 2008, but 2016 turnout is still 66% higher than 2000. 
AL turnout was nearly double 2004's, and about a third higher than 2000. 
GA turnout was 20% higher than 2004, and more than double 2000's. 
MA turnout was double 2004's and more than that compared to 2000. 
MN turnout is slightly up compared even to 2008, but it's more than *triple* 2004's numbers. 
OK is up 10% against 2004, and well over double the 2000 turnout. 
TX in 2016 is about half what it was in 2008, but it's 70% higher than 2004, and about double 2000's turnout. 
VT is down about 13% from 2008, but about 50% higher than 2004 and well over double 2000.

(Those interested in checking my work can get the raw data from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections)


----------



## asher

538:



> Sanders won Kansas and Nebraska. That&#8217;s the good news for him. The bad news is he&#8217;s even further from the nomination than he was before the day started: He lost Louisiana, and, in doing so, fell even further behind in the delegate hunt.
> 
> Let&#8217;s take a look at the math. Sanders won 23 delegates in Kansas to Clinton&#8217;s 10. He won &#8212; preliminarily &#8212; 14 delegates in Nebraska to Clinton&#8217;s 11. That&#8217;s a margin of 16 delegates.
> 
> In losing Louisiana, however, Sanders only claimed 12 delegates to Clinton&#8217;s 39.
> 
> Combine the three states, and Clinton gained 11 delegates on Sanders.
> 
> Now you might be saying, but didn&#8217;t we expect Sanders to do poorly in Louisiana? Yes, that&#8217;s true. But according to our delegate targets, which takes that into account, Sanders is now 3 delegates further behind the pace he needs to win a majority of pledged delegate than he was at the beginning of the day. Considering he was already running 82 delegates behind his delegate goals, he needs to be exceeding his delegate targets.
> 
> Overall, it was actually a bad day for Sanders by the math, even with his two wins.


----------



## Hollowway

Anyone know why Hillary is so popular? In my eyes she just says whatever she needs to to whomever she needs to in order to look good. Everything I can find on her shows she doesn't change her views based on the big picture, but only on what she can gain from it. I can't find the same info about Sanders, or most of the Republican candidates (except Trump, and I'm not sure he actually has any strict policies he's vacillated on). I'm just surprised that soooo many people are pro-Hillary, when it seems that she's less concerned with what needs to happen, and more concerned with what she can get. So I'm in this weird position of liking Sanders and a few of the Republicans, but not Hillary. And it seems weird that I'm odd man out on that.


----------



## Aymara

A further question from a foreigner:

The downsides of only two parties have been mentioned several times. Which leads to to the question, why no third party gets founded? Isn't that possible for whatever reason?

In Germany the situation is similar and different at the same time. We have two major parties and several smaller parties. As soon as they get 5% of the votes, they enter the parliament. And nearly everytime a major party built a coalition with a smaller party in the past to form the government. Currently we have an exception to this rule ... a so called big coalition, which consists of the two major parties.

Maybe it's time that the US looks over the big pond (as we say in Germany) and get inspired by Europe?


----------



## chopeth

Aymara said:


> Maybe it's time that the US looks over the big pond (as we say in Germany) and get inspired by Europe?



I hope they don't, our refugee politics are a shame (just to name one) and they're showing what we really are


----------



## Aymara

chopeth said:


> I hope they don't, our refugee politics are a shame (just to name one) and they're showing what we really are



Well, there are more topics, than immigration politics. I guess the US can e.g. learn a lot from Germany, when it comes to health care, environmental policy, our "political party concept", etc..

Not that I want to say, that we make it better ... our politics definitely deserve a lot of critique ... but it can be an inspiration for a new and hopefully better future.

My idea is not to copy blindly what other countries do, but to get inspired by them.

Compare it to music ... usually it's boring to just copy the style of other bands, but it can be very creative to get inspired by what others to ... to develop your own style further.

Do you know, what I mean?


----------



## flint757

The US system is too convoluted to have a flourishing 3rd party system. We'd need to get rid of the electoral college, change all states to popular voting for all elections, turn our first-to-pass-the-post voting system to a runoff system, remove winner-take-all and this would have to happen at all levels of government in all states and territories to work. Each state has its own constitution, as well as the federal constitution, and amendments would have to be written to address this for every single state, as well as the federal level. Passing amendments is deliberately difficult in the US and states like my home state, Texas, have zero incentive to make these changes as it hurts the party in power's political standing. Even if all of that were to happen gerrymandering in many states is so horrible that it could still lead to a concentration of party power. The whole system is ....ed.

It's a large part of why many people are becoming anti-establishment on both sides of the aisle. At the state and federal level politicians have no incentive to fix campaign financing, to fix salaries, to fix the voting system, or to even motivate voters at all as the system currently benefits those already in charge.


----------



## Aymara

flint757 said:


> The US system is too convoluted to have a flourishing 3rd party system.



We'll it was to be expected, that it won't be easy  But I bet, it's not impossible.


----------



## flint757

I'd certainly like to think not, but it's one of those things that has to have extremely strong support and then it'll happen gradually over a decade or so, if at all. Progress in the US is mind numbingly slow unless the courts get involved.


----------



## Aymara

flint757 said:


> Progress in the US is mind numbingly slow unless the courts get involved.



I think, it's your state concept, that is the main "progress brake" ... the single state has too much power. In Germany we also have a state concept, but the country as a whole has always more power than the single state.

That's the reason, why important law is always equal in every country. In Germany it's impossible to escape the law after committing a bad crime just by moving over to a different state.

PS: It's out of question, that it will be hard to implement a multiple party system and that it will take several years. But imagine some popular VIPs would found a new party and fight for their right all over the US. For sure this will require a marketing campaign and a huge budget. But I think, the fact that people begin discussing such topics, might be the first step into that direction. It needs visionaries in the first step willing to fight for new ideas.


----------



## chopeth

Aymara said:


> Well, there are more topics, than immigration politics. I guess the US can e.g. learn a lot from Germany, when it comes to health care, environmental policy, our "political party concept", etc..
> 
> Not that I want to say, that we make it better ... our politics definitely deserve a lot of critique ... but it can be an inspiration for a new and hopefully better future.
> 
> My idea is not to copy blindly what other countries do, but to get inspired by them.
> 
> Compare it to music ... usually it's boring to just copy the style of other bands, but it can be very creative to get inspired by what others to ... to develop your own style further.
> 
> Do you know, what I mean?



I know what you mean, but I'm sick of Europe giving lessons on morality and good practice. The problem with the refugees exile is such a big thing the others you mention are nothing but insignificant boasts of an pretended advanced culture. The moral decadence of Europe is a fact and the new ascension of right-wing extremist parties supported by people is just an example of how wrong we are in almost everything. We have a Donald Trump in most countries here in Europe so I don't think we have the right to provide advice to anyone, even to those crazy yankees. That's my point.


----------



## Aymara

chopeth said:


> We have a Donald Trump in most countries here in Europe so I don't think we have the right to provide advice to anyone, even to those crazy yankees. That's my point.



There's a lot going wrong in Europe, that's out of question. As I said before ... I don't think, that what we do is better, but it can be an inspiration (!) to find new better ways.

And the current refugee problem was made / self-inflicted by the first world, that mainly means, Europe, the US and Russia. The first world didn't care for Syria ... there's no oil or something like it was the case with Iraq and Libya.

Now Europe has to fight with the consequences for geographical reasons ... it's easier for the refugees to reach Europe, than the US for example.

PS: And the behaviour of the Arabic nations in this crisis doesn't need to be commented 

PPS: But this refugee discussion is pretty off-topic here, right?


----------



## Thrashman

MaxOfMetal said:


> Well, wouldn't more people voting give us a better idea of what the population as a whole wants? Isn't that the point?
> 
> Honestly, I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote.
> 
> Of course I want "my guy" to win, or rather not "that guy", but I don't deserve any more of a say than any other tax paying citizen.



This is exactly why people like Trump get spotlight. 

I, myself, firmly believe that you shouldn't vote at all if you don't have a defendable pinion and knowledge about what you are voting on/for. 
Otherwise we'll keep getting all of these " I vote for Trump cuz he is rich"-reasonings which are not really reasons to vote at all, for example, and do not in any way represent anyone's honeest opinion in a way that matters.


----------



## MFB

Hollowway said:


> Anyone know why Hillary is so popular?



She's popular because she's the "tried and testedd" candidate for the Democratic side, or at least, that's what I seem to gather so far. Most people who said they 'don't care about electability' or whatever phrase they used in polling prior to the Iowa caucus are eating their own words when they go to the polls and end up siding with the one who'll most likely get the nomination - ie Hillary. Whether or not they fully support isn't important, moreso just getting another dem into the White House so that changes made in the past 8 years aren't immediately thrown out the window by a GOP'er.


----------



## asher

Hollowway said:


> Anyone know why Hillary is so popular? In my eyes she just says whatever she needs to to whomever she needs to in order to look good. Everything I can find on her shows she doesn't change her views based on the big picture, but only on what she can gain from it.



Her current primary run is completely contrary to this and demonstrates quite a bit of adjustment left. Is that not what you mean?

Or is that "saying what people need to hear?"

You can't have both.

She's also possibly the single most accomplished and powerful woman in the country, she has a long history of advocating and working towards women's rights (especially abroad), and she and Bill worked their damn assess off to get where they are.


----------



## wankerness

She's also exactly the personification of Trump's establishment boogeymen, and has next to no ability to shrug off attacks. A Trump-Clinton race would be like watching Ivan Drago and Apollo Creed. The fact she's probably about to get investigated for all that email crap just adds more fuel to the fire. She's got a million flaws and a lot of bad stuff is coming up at exactly the right time to torpedo her election chances in the most ugly way possible. 

The fact she's been so vicious towards Sanders and might win the nomination just in time to get destroyed thanks to scandals and essentially being Trump's ideal target is really eye-rolling. Sanders would be nearly invincible to Trump attacks since he just doesn't get involved in this crap. He has next to nothing to be attacked on compared to Hillary, and has a habit of staying laser-focused on issues instead of taking time to address every irrelevant BS thing that comes up. If she really cared about the democratic party, she'd either back off or find a better candidate. Elizabeth Warren would have been a godsend, as she's like Sanders but without being 80 and being able to appear presentable. (from what I've heard from MA friends, though, she's got some stuff that would backfire against her majorly in a wide election, not that I've bothered to research what any of it is)

Additionally, there's also some not-inconsiderable overlap in the Sanders and Trump crap, cause contrary to popular belief, a lot of Trump fans are not racist mongoloids, they're extremely angry people that simply want someone who is against the "establishment" and that they believe will fight for the middle class instead of getting in bed with Wall Street. You can laugh all you want about the hypocrisy there, but it's a real feeling on a wide scale. There are many people who like Trump and like Bernie Sanders and hate everyone else. All of these people would be firmly in Trump's camp if Hillary gets the nomination, and many of those who are firmly on the Sanders side now I think would possibly go over to Trump instead of going for Hillary.

Hillary is the worst possible candidate to run against Trump.


----------



## celticelk

As of Super Tuesday, exit polls of actual Democratic voters indicate that 79% would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee; only 62% would be satisfied with Sanders. Compared with historical data on the same question, she's doing very well with her party's voters - better than Obama was doing in 2008, and far better than the current Republican candidates, who are scoring 49-53% on that question from this year's primary voters.

Republican Voters Kind Of Hate All Their Choices | FiveThirtyEight


----------



## kmanick

wankerness said:


> Additionally, there's also some not-inconsiderable overlap in the Sanders and Trump crap, cause contrary to popular belief, a lot of Trump fans are not racist mongoloids, they're extremely angry people that simply want someone who is against the "establishment" and that they believe will fight for the middle class instead of getting in bed with Wall Street. You can laugh all you want about the hypocrisy there, but it's a real feeling on a wide scale. There are many people who like Trump and like Bernie Sanders and hate everyone else. All of these people would be firmly in Trump's camp if Hillary gets the nomination, and many of those who are firmly on the Sanders side now I think would possibly go over to Trump instead of going for Hillary.
> 
> Hillary is the worst possible candidate to run against Trump.


I totally agree.
the progressive "Pro Open border" advocates just refuse to see it.
Trump did not say all Mexicans (over and over he has clarified his statements)
he has renounced David duke at least 1/2 a
dozen times. 
He has not said "never allow any Muslims in our country" he said until we can Vet them we should put a hold on.
How the hell is that racist and just not Common Sense.
They have been rounding up MS-13 gang members in massachusetts
where the hell do you think they came from? Not from Sweden.
Should we have 15 San Bernardino incidents all over the country
before using common sense isn't tagged islamophobic?
More than 20,000 democrats abandoned the Democrat party on Super Tuesday and voted for Trump............For Trump in the bluest of blue states.
there are a lot of people who are sick of being labeled as something because they don't fall in line with the radical far leftists who claim "tolerance" but only practice it if you are on board with them. Otherwise is it seek and destroy and silence. How is that tolerant. Those that have had enough of this BS are the ones voting for Trump. I get it.
I'm not a big Trump fan but I clearly see why he is doing as well as he is.
When We have politicians pandering to a population that is here illegally over the US citizens that have put them in office ....I get it.
I hope it's Sanders and Trump in the general election.
Maybe then, finally the elites and the puppets controlled by the donor class 
who are so openly ready to dismiss what the people actually want will finally
get it.
When Bernie said 'we need a Revolution" he was right on target


----------



## isispelican

It's really f'd how people eat up all the garbage and lies these "politicians" so easily spout around. It's happening in my country as well but seeing it on such a big scale is just.. aaarggh


----------



## Hollowway

asher said:


> Her current primary run is completely contrary to this and demonstrates quite a bit of adjustment left. Is that not what you mean?
> 
> Or is that "saying what people need to hear?"
> 
> You can't have both.
> 
> She's also possibly the single most accomplished and powerful woman in the country, she has a long history of advocating and working towards women's rights (especially abroad), and she and Bill worked their damn assess off to get where they are.



Yeah, what I mean is that since a year ago she's changed some of what she is saying. And she's denied saying things in the past that she definitely said on tape. So while she is by far the most accomplished person running for the presidency, I'm curious why these things don't come up. I remember when Kerry was running people had a difficult time with his "flip flopping." And countless other politicians get skewered when they embellish the facts or deny saying things that are on tape. So is the idea that people don't mind those in light of what she has accomplished? Like, my mom is definitely voting for Hillary, and she said that those things don't matter, because she has the most experience, so she's the best choice, and all politicians lie, so who cares. So maybe she has some of the "Teflon"-ness that Reagan was said to have had?


----------



## flint757

Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think

For those baffled by Sanders strong support, this article articulates what's at stake more than anything else I've read recently. It isn't about one election, one candidate, or the next 4 years; it's about how we define the Democrat party entirely. The article articulates my, and likely many others, frustration with the party and it started even before Reagan entered office. Bill Clinton perpetuated it further as a neoliberal candidate and since then that's exactly what the Democrat party has become. The egalitarian branch of the Democrat party has all, but evaporated and this election is the potential upswing in a new direction or traversing down the same road that we know has only furthered the divide between classes. Even losing this election would be more beneficial for the party than Clinton winning. If Clinton wins it means they don't have to adjust the parties narrative at all.


----------



## Aymara

I read some interesting statistics in German yellow press, that I found pretty interesting, but because of the newspaper that published it, I'm very sceptic, how much truth there is.

They wrote, that Trump and Sanders have the most "fans" in the Facebook generation, meaning people below 30. But also the people between 30-60 seem to prefer one of those two. Hillary fans are said to be mostly over 60.

As I said, I'm sceptic about that article, but wouldn't be astonished, if Trump really has a lot of very young fans, because of his "loose mouth" or let's say, the way he speaks. But why Sanders?


----------



## asher

Sanders indeed is getting the young crowd in the Democratic primary, but I don't know age breakdowns for the Republicans.


----------



## Hollowway

I can't tell you how appreciative I am of being able to come in here and talk about this with you guys. We all have different view points, and we are probably voting for a decent spread of candidates, but I'm able to discuss things with you guys, and actually learn things, and think about things. I can't talk about stuff at work because people get all pissed off, and FB is like tapping into the part of people that makes a serial killer. Politically, I'm all over the place, and could be considered just about anything, depending on what the issues are. And who I like, and who I think would be good for the country (not necessarily the same thing) changes. So I think it's damn cool that a bunch of metal musicians can have a reasonable, thoughtful discussion in a way that virtually no one else I've seen can.


----------



## tacotiklah

asher said:


> Her current primary run is completely contrary to this and demonstrates quite a bit of adjustment left. Is that not what you mean?
> 
> Or is that "saying what people need to hear?"
> 
> You can't have both.
> 
> She's also possibly the single most accomplished and powerful woman in the country, she has a long history of advocating and working towards women's rights (especially abroad), and she and Bill worked their damn assess off to get where they are.



Hillary is a political insider that has spent much of her earlier political career advocating policy COMPLETELY OPPOSITE of what she is now purporting. Name a social issue and she was advocating for an opposite stance then as opposed to now. Gay rights? Nah, she spent forever advocating DOMA. DOMA gets struck down and now she's all about how gays should have every right ever. The only thing she has remained consistent in is spending more congressional money bombing poor brown people and gutting the middle class to benefit her wall street friends. You know, the ones who she kinda half-heartedly scolded with "cut it out", even as I and countless millions in this country lost our jobs and financial security. All those people that lost their homes and everything they ever owned, but it's okay because Hillary said for the corrupt bankers to cut it out. And that was literally the only action she ever took on it. She is an admitted war hawk that will keep us in perpetual conflicts across the globe, even as the planet continues to head towards cataclysm via global warming. 

No, Hillary is golden child of the rich elite that wants to pretend they give a crap about you even as they continue to crap on you and everything you love. I put Trump and Hillary on the same tier of absolute horrible ....-level candidates. You could write in a dead tilapia and it would benefit the country better as president than either Trump or Hillary. Both appeal to the uneducated voters, regardless of party. People wanna vote in Hillary simply because she is a woman (protip: so is Jill Stein and she has phenomenally better progressive policies) and people want to vote for Trump because he's rich. People think that by having a woman as POTUS we're somehow more progressive, even if said woman in question has made flip-flopping on policy both an art and science. People think if they vote in someone that is rich, somehow that will make them rich. 
It's asinine and illogical to believe either things, but people believe them anyways. 

The really funny thing is that even though Hillary did pick up a number of primaries on super tuesday, nobody takes into account that they were all southern democratic primaries. Of course they'd vote for Hillary over Sanders because Sanders scares the hell out of them with his progressive policies. Anything involving rocking the boat and making real change scares people and they react accordingly. Now, keep following those democratic primaries and see how fast Sanders picks up steam. The only worry I have is when it comes to the major democratic primaries like New York and California. Those are deal makers/breakers and Texas has already gone to Hillary. Win those 3 and you pretty much have nailed it. And NY and Cali both have rich af dems that don't wanna see someone like Sanders close those tax loopholes that forces them to actually pay their taxes. 

As far as Trump goes, I see him as a flash in the pan. He's on fire right now, but I'm almost positive that the republican candidate is going to be Ted Cruz. That said, I just don't see the GOP winning this election because of Trump. Trump has put the GOP basically into a political civil war and that division is going to be their downfall. So imo, the real election is who wins the Dem nomination. Hate me for going down the path of Godwin's law here, but the similarities in how Trump uses and plays the media to influence people is frighteningly similar to how Hitler and Goebbles enchanted a defeated and hurting German nation and convinced them all that a minority was to blame for everything wrong. Back then it was Jews. Now it's all the muslims fault. Scary muslims are coming to blow up everything, and everyone with the slightest amount of melanin in their skin is somehow muslim. Scary mexicans are stealing everyone's jobs, so we're going to build a giant berlin wall around mexico and make THEM pay for it. Trump is playing on the most basic human flaw that if something is wrong, then naturally it's someone else's fault somehow and that taking personal accountability and responsibility for the poor choices that lead up to our current frustrations is not an option. He says to make America great again, even if it was all along but just needed to get its head out of its ass and stop making poor decisions that lead us down the road to hell. 

You know what would make America truly shine though? Not by overhauling POTUS or the executive branch. American needs to get real excited about midterm elections and overhaul Congress. That's where the real cancer and failing exists. Congress is full of career politicans that care more about staying there than their constituents. It has the lowest job approval rating of ANY profession. I know that if I were running a business and I had employees that had job approval ratings that didn't even make it to double digits, I'd fire them in a heartbeat. But we as voters don't take the country's business serious enough to remove the dead weight, dead beat politicians that clutter up our political processes with trivial crap (like ..... size. I mean, c'mon... really, Trump?) and ignore the real pains and concerns. We as voters forget that we're the boss and these candidates work for us. Not the other way around. But we spend so much time talking about the executive branch whose sole purpose is to enforce the crazy laws that Congress is spewing out left and right. I promise you guys, get good people in Congress and the system will start to heal itself. Clear out the obstructionists, the lazy, the PAC leeches, the religious zealots. Send them packing with a metaphorical foot in their ass. Leave such a deep footprint in their ass when you kick them out that it sends a message to any future candidates that those traits have no place at all in American politics. Once the world sees that we take our own domestic policies seriously, foreign policy will become easier as well. 

What I would give though to show people like Trump supporters how they are literally voting to have all the bad .... that they fear by voting against their own interests. The super wealthy is gutting the middle class via income inequality and they are the reason that the 2008 crash (which I along with many others lost their jobs) happened because of toxic trading. So of course the first thing people do when that happens is go and pledge support to a member of that toxic wealthy elite that screwed them over in the first place.


----------



## flint757

I vote in every election, but it's kind of hard to weed out corrupt politicians when often times only one or two candidates are running at all. Or when multiple candidates are running that are all equally terrible (read as identical). I wish we had a system where if enough people abstained in local/state elections we'd have to either re-vote or find new candidates. In my area in almost all of my elections there is no real choice. It's either a single GOP establishment candidate or a toss up between the GOP and Democrat establishment candidate, and in this case the Democrat never wins in my district. Texas suburbia is not a beacon of positive politics. It almost feels like, 'whomever wants the job can have it', kind of mentality for a LOT of positions.

I did donate money to a Florida politician, Tim Canova, so that Debbie Schultz can get canned hopefully. Perhaps that is how we weed out the bad politicians. We find progressives around the country and fund their campaigns. Slowly, but surely we very well could change the map that way I suppose.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

flint757 said:


> I vote in every election, but it's kind of hard to weed out corrupt politicians when often times only one or two candidates are running at all. Or when multiple candidates are running that are all equally terrible (read as identical). I wish we had a system where if enough people abstained in local/state elections we'd have to either re-vote or find new candidates. In my area in almost all of my elections there is no real choice. It's either a single GOP establishment candidate or a toss up between the GOP and Democrat establishment candidate, and in this case the Democrat never wins in my district. Texas suburbia is not a beacon of positive politics. It almost feels like, 'whomever wants the job can have it', kind of mentality for a LOT of positions.
> 
> I did donate money to a Florida politician, Tim Canova, so that Debbie Schultz can get canned hopefully. Perhaps that is how we weed out the bad politicians. We find progressives around the country and fund their campaigns. Slowly, but surely we very well could change the map that way I suppose.



We just have to all vote. 

The attitude you're talking about is due to woefully awful voter turn out. 

Yes, you might have to vote for someone who is not 100% ideal, but by showing that you want to vote will change things considerably, and I'd argue much faster than throwing money at people.


----------



## TheStig1214

Okay this is more of a personal rant but I feel it applies to the whole Trump/GOP discussion. I wanted to share a few pictures from my days working for AMAC. If you've never heard of AMAC, it's essentially AARP for people who vote for Reagan every election. I would have labeled myself as "centrist" maybe even liberal Republican before working there. After working there that all changed, I am for the most part Democrat. This change came from seeing just how bad even _slightly_ extremist right wingers could be. I pulled the two greatest hits from my collection but both of these envelopes are standard mailers asking for renewal of membership, I even included a guitar pick for scale. 

















There is one worse than these I didn't even save because it was so bad, talking about "exterminating and castrating all Muslim pigs" and nuking all of the Middle East and Africa after "deporting the n*gg*rs and r*gheads back where they came from". Never before did I realize just how much hate speech the extreme right promoted and condoned. I never even wanted to chance being associated with this. In total I got 4 or 5 pieces of mail like this and I worked there 5 months just opening mail.


----------



## celticelk

tacotiklah said:


> The really funny thing is that even though Hillary did pick up a number of primaries on super tuesday, nobody takes into account that they were all southern democratic primaries. Of course they'd vote for Hillary over Sanders because Sanders scares the hell out of them with his progressive policies.



Clinton's victories in Southern states have been mainly the result of overwhelming support by black voters. I'm not sure how you square your assertion with that fact.

Hillary Clinton Dominates With Nonwhite Voters On Super Tuesday


----------



## tacotiklah

I said conservative democrats, not exclusively white ones. Unless you're asserting that black people cannot be conservative democrats? 

I never brought up race when mentioning that, but since you opened that can of worms, here's a great article that black voters should keep in mind before they keep supporting Hillary and voting against their own interests (yeah I know, huffington, but the author is very correct on this. Hillary made attacking Obama's ethnicity a thing during that primary):
How Can Black People Trust Hillary Clinton After the 2008 Campaign?

Hillary will pretend to be the champion of black voters if she thinks it will help, but she will also start attacking black people if she thinks it will get her ahead. She is for Hillary first, second, and lastly. Why anyone would vote for her, I will never know. Even after all the shenanigans she pulled, Obama still made her secretary of state but she couldn't even manage to keep that position for too awfully long. If you remember 2008, Hillary and her husband made the primary an ugly one with very divisive and with plenty of ad hominem attacks. Attacks that included painting Obama as an illegal, dope pushing muslim. Let's see how long it takes before she tries going back to her old methods and painting Sanders with racist jewish stereotypes, then claiming no responsibility for any of it while giving a half-assed apology.

I swear, people have such limited memories. Hillary made an ass out of herself and did plenty to piss of the black voting base, so the notion that she's somehow now their champion makes me 
She's the archetype of rich white people trying to pretend to give a crap about poor black ones when she doesn't. I can't STAND fake people like that. You ever been to the hood? Have you seen up close the suffering and struggles of impoverished black people? I have. I live with them. I'm poor like them. I stand in the same unemployment and welfare lines as them. I don't think Hillary has ever once in her spoon fed life ever had to ask for assistance for anything. Wtf could she POSSIBLY know about what it means to have to choose between eating and paying the electric bill that month? Or instead of eating anything close to healthy, deciding to live on ramen just so that you can pay both the gas AND the light bill that month?
It's hard to relate to broke people struggles when your net worth is over 100 million and never in your life had you ever been in need or want for anything. But somehow Hillary has people convinced that she'll be the one person in washington that actually cares. Nope! She'll be too busy finding more people to step on and backstab as she reaches for that oval office.


----------



## celticelk

tacotiklah said:


> I said conservative democrats, not exclusively white ones. Unless you're asserting that black people cannot be conservative democrats?



That's not my argument at all - it's fairly well-known that African-American Democrats are at least more *socially* conservative than the white members of the party (on average). It's not necessarily obvious that they're more *economically* conservative, though, and your reply seems to want to have it both ways: you credit Clinton's victories to "conservative" Southern Democrats, but argue that black voters *ought* to be more supportive of Sanders' economic policies, and more critical of Clinton's history. Maybe they can make up their own minds?




tacotiklah said:


> Wtf could she POSSIBLY know about what it means to have to choose between eating and paying the electric bill that month? Or instead of eating anything close to healthy, deciding to live on ramen just so that you can pay both the gas AND the light bill that month?



Probably about as much as Bernie Sanders. Clinton's mom grew up poor, and left home at 14 to work as a housekeeper while finishing high school. Clinton was canvassing on the South Side of Chicago in 1960, while Bernie Sanders was at the University of Chicago; having attended U of C for grad school, I'm pretty sure that Clinton was in a better position to see the African-American experience on the South Side than Sanders was.


----------



## wankerness

Except while Bernie Sanders was getting arrested at civil rights rallies back then (yeah, there's even photographic evidence of that), Hillary was president of the young republicans. :/


----------



## CapnForsaggio

wankerness said:


> Except while Bernie Sanders was getting arrested at civil rights rallies back then (yeah, there's even photographic evidence of that), Hillary was president of the young republicans. :/



Yeah, but she found a black guy that knew Dr. King to getup and say that "he didn't see Bernie anywhere back in the day..."

Disgusting DNC tactics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VT67f09lBc


----------



## gunch

The thing you should be worried about is the open slot in the supreme court


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Oh, we are. We are. I don't want any of these A Holes choosing the next justice. I think the sitting justices should choose the next justice.... Maybe next time we write up a Constitution huh?


----------



## Randy

Like it or not, Obama should be picking supreme court appointment; the guy's president for 4 years, not 3 1/2.


----------



## TheStig1214

Randy said:


> Like it or not, Obama should be picking supreme court appointment; the guy's president for 4 years, not 3 1/2.



I said it in another thread, Reagan got to do the same thing. He was a year away from being out, and he got to appoint Justice Kennedy.


----------



## tacotiklah

Randy said:


> Like it or not, Obama should be picking supreme court appointment; the guy's president for 4 years, not 3 1/2.



Don't worry, Obama has run out of f**ks to give and he's going to nominate someone:
President Obama Announces Intent to Nominate Replacement for Justice Scalia - ABC News

I remember back in 2008 when he naively tried to be bipartisan and give the GOP a fair shake. Looks like he simply just doesn't care about being nice anymore. Kind of wish we had him at that point back when Dems still held the house and senate.


----------



## bostjan

How did we end up with an election cycle in this country where I am pulling for Ted Cruz? I really don't like the guy, but standing next to Trump...it's like the GOP is asking everyone if they'd prefer a turd on a hot dog bun or a turd on a taco shell with a little hot sauce.

And to the DNC...Clinton again? I never liked the Clintons - personally, I feel that they are some of the most corrupt politicians of our time. In light of the current economy here in Vermont, I'd say Sanders' policies are going to be very rough on the US economy, but if you think it all out, none of these jokers are going to be able to get their campaign promises fulfilled. No one ever does. Obama did better than most with his campaign promises, yet Gitmo is still operating, the FBI can still wiretap without a warrant, illegal immigrants have no real path to citizenship, and there is no foreclosure prevention fund. Anybody who thinks Trump or Sanders will be able to pull off all of their promises with a bipartisan congress has been duped.

My biggest concern over all of this is the realization that I live in a country with a bunch of morons. Out of all the people who are running for president, look at the two ..., no, four most likely candidates. Really? This is what we want? No wonder congress is such a pool of crap. These same morons who pick the presidential forerunners are the ones choosing their congressmen. This, folks, is why democracy is so limited. It assumes people make rational choices. History books are a collection of rash choices people have made in the past and the stupidity of the human race for allowing those choices to be made, at least for a while, until someone finally says enough is enough.

EDIT: Regarding Obama's Supreme Court nomination - as president, he is obliged to nominate someone for the vacancy. Expecting him not to do so is stupid. I'm sorry if that insults anyone, but if you claim to know US government law at all, and expect him not to nominate someone, you're misguided in a bad way. The constitution says it's his responsibility to nominate a new justice. Now...the Senate has to approve the nomination. So Obama could nominate Mickey Mouse, and the Senate could say no. That's the way it goes, according to the law of the land. Anyone who doesn't like it can try to get it changed, but good luck with that. So Democrats and Republicans alike will hate the process, since Obama is sure to nominate someone as he is obligated by law to do, and the Senate will certainly say no as they promised to do. There might be a wild card or two in the political game between the two, but this is what you get when you elect senators who define themselves solely by being contrary to the president. Maybe Obama can nominate someone like Trump for Supreme Court just to fuel this whole "crapshow." The senate has already promised to fight it no matter whom he nominates, so it might just cause enough division in the GOP to end the screw up the election.


----------



## Aymara

bostjan said:


> My biggest concern over all of this is the realization that I live in a country with a bunch of morons.



Welcome to the real world 

It's not much different here in Germany and I guess elsewhere too.


----------



## bostjan

Aymara said:


> Welcome to the real world
> 
> It's not much different here in Germany and I guess elsewhere too.



Haha, yeah, you have a point there, but I really don't think Germany has anything on the USA at the moment, in terms of the ratio of morons to smart people within the general population. We don't really have widespread IQ data to support that conjecture, but, from a practical standpoint, do we really need more evidence than the fact that a presidential frontrunner bragged about the size of his genitals in a debate, and people cheered wildly?


----------



## TheStig1214

bostjan said:


> Haha, yeah, you have a point there, but I really don't think Germany has anything on the USA at the moment, in terms of the ratio of morons to smart people within the general population. We don't really have widespread IQ data to support that conjecture, but, from a practical standpoint, do we really need more evidence than the fact that a presidential frontrunner bragged about the size of his genitals in a debate, and people cheered wildly?



If history is any indication of anything, all people have had roughly the same intellectual capacity since the dawn of man. We just know more stuff now, we aren't more intelligent. 

The first recorded joke is a fart joke, other earliest jokes are dick jokes. 

"Think about how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin.


----------



## bostjan

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a good dick joke. I just prefer to keep my comedians doing comedy and my musicians doing music, and stay away from reality TV stars and politicians. When we start voting for reality TV stars for president, we have a problem. When we care more about dick jokes than political conversation at presidential debates, we have a problem.

Regarding people's intelligence, I do believe it does wax and wane over time, but periodically rather than as a grand trend. As a species, we tend to overpopulate our environment with idiots until things get really bad and then some major event kills off a portion of the people, such that idiots are more affected than non-idiots, and the demographic fluctuates as a result. My observation is simply that the USA is supersaturated with idiots. Not everyone in the USA is an idiot, but the overall level of idiocy is unsustainable long term, so something's going to snap sooner rather than later. Even if it's not this election, I feel that it's coming. Maybe it won't be until Honey Booboo is old enough to run for president...


----------



## Aymara

TheStig1214 said:


> We just know more stuff now, we aren't more intelligent.



Confirmed ... like Romans with atom bombs


----------



## tacotiklah

TheStig1214 said:


> "Think about how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin.




This is the single best quote on the subject. And the more you think on it and meditate on it, the scarier the world around you becomes.


----------



## Promit

bostjan said:


> How did we end up with an election cycle in this country where I am pulling for Ted Cruz?


I'm a Sanders person, but looking at the Republican field... _I'd take Trump_. I actually think Cruz is a worse person and would be a more negatively consequential president. He lives in a Tea Party bubble entirely divorced from reality where gutting government services and laws without regard for consequences is the only true goal. Trump may be a demagogue psychopath, but he's still more connected to reality and somehow less dishonest than Cruz. I deeply hope Cruz doesn't pull it out in the end. I'd much rather risk Trump.

Of course Rubio is a tool with no spine and no beliefs, and Kasich's an also-ran poser who will play 'moderate' without doing anything of the sort.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Say what you will, but those stupid folks are smart enough to show up and vote.........


----------



## bostjan

Promit said:


> I'm a Sanders person, but looking at the Republican field... _I'd take Trump_. I actually think Cruz is a worse person and would be a more negatively consequential president. He lives in a Tea Party bubble entirely divorced from reality where gutting government services and laws without regard for consequences is the only true goal. Trump may be a demagogue psychopath, but he's still more connected to reality and somehow less dishonest than Cruz. I deeply hope Cruz doesn't pull it out in the end. I'd much rather risk Trump.
> 
> Of course Rubio is a tool with no spine and no beliefs, and Kasich's an also-ran poser who will play 'moderate' without doing anything of the sort.



I'm surprised that you see things that way, but I see the negative sides of Cruz. I really don't like the guy. But I think Trump is everything I hated about dubya, but with more cult of personality and less logic, or, more logic, if you look at it a certain way - for example, if he says Mexico will build a wall along the USA-MX border, I agree they would do so if the USA turned into the flaming pile of  that he might turn it into, if he makes good on his campaign promises.

I get why people like what Bernie is saying, and I get why the average person who doesn't like what Bernie is saying is wrong in their reasoning why. I have my own reasons why I don't like Bernie. I have strong reasons why I don't like Trump, nor Clinton. This is actually typical for me to not like anybody.  The difference is that I feel genuine fear over Trump's rise, as I did over dubya's reaction to 9/11. I believe I was 100% correct on my fears with dubya, since we ended up in a long and pointless war, as I predicted we would, and as he tanked the economic prosperity of the USA, as I predicted he would. At least the war and the recession could have been worse than they were, but dubya crapped all over our Constitution, and, rather than backlash, people loved him for it. If Trump gets elected, his supporters will expect him to take us back into the pre-civil rights era. I don't believe he can effectively do this, but any half-baked attempt to try cannot be good for the USA. He's not going to boost our economic prosperity or make us safer, in fact, I have strong reasons to believe, through simple logic, that he would do exactly the opposite of such, if he's elected. But, I don't think he'll get elected. I bet Hillary would eat his lunch in a general election. Dead people have always voted almost exclusively for Clintons in past elections, and there are a lot of dead people in the USA.


----------



## Promit

I do wish you hadn't taken a sudden violent left into tinfoil hat territory at the end, there.


----------



## bostjan

Promit said:


> I do wish you hadn't taken a sudden violent left into tinfoil hat territory at the end, there.



Ok, fair enough, that sounded unwarranted; however, do you think the Clintons obey campaign laws when it comes to voters? It seems that every time there is a controversy or allegation of voter impersonation or intimidation, or allegations of campaign workers trying to confuse voters, it involves a Clinton or a Bush.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

0% districts were reported all over the map during the last presidential election. Ohio's were most flagrant. 

0% for the challenger in so many districts is impossible, thus is proof of poll problems. 

Weird thing is, these last districts to report were unimportant to the win. ... Were they just trying out new vote change malware for the next election?


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> 0% districts were reported all over the map during the last presidential election. Ohio's were most flagrant.
> 
> 0% for the challenger in so many districts is impossible, thus is proof of poll problems.
> 
> Weird thing is, these last districts to report were unimportant to the win. ... Were they just trying out new vote change malware for the next election?



Source? Also, I think what you meant to say is "0% for the challenger in so many districts is *highly unlikely*." "Impossible" is a very high bar.


----------



## JD27

Worst Election Year ever!


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Here you go CelticElk:

Romney earned zero votes in some urban precincts - CBS News

The consensus seems to be that it is POSSIBLE that all of these districts were 0 votes R. In my opinion, that says more about the education level in those districts...... 

You could argue that they are possibly more educated.  It would have to be one hell of an argument though. It is low education party fascism in my opinion.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ So basically some urban African-American districts, at least some of which are known to have almost no registered Republicans living there, tallied zero votes for Republican candidates. I think you're making a lot out of nothing.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Celtic, 1000x people won't even get their sex correct on a DMV form. Some percentage of them can't read....

When people like me see a "goose egg" in data sets this large, it means only 1 thing:

This data is false.

No I don't have evidence to prove this. But I have worked with large data enough to know to be VERY suspicious of Zeroes like these.


----------



## Promit

bostjan said:


> Ok, fair enough, that sounded unwarranted; however, do you think the Clintons obey campaign laws when it comes to voters? It seems that every time there is a controversy or allegation of voter impersonation or intimidation, or allegations of campaign workers trying to confuse voters, it involves a Clinton or a Bush.


I'm not exactly inclined to defend the Clintons, I mean: https://www.rt.com/usa/334360-68000-clinton-arrest-electioneering/ (Don't mind the source, several others are paywall nonsense)
But there's enough ways to legally buy an election without having to go into conspiracy territory. If you find some _actual_ statistics or studies on voter fraud, and want to discuss those, that's different.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

*Tinfoil hat on*
To me, this election really shows just how uninformed the average American is. Which I think is almost certainly a result of the media. I don't trust anything I hear from any news channel regarding politics, its agenda is not impartial. Unfortunately most people 45+ are so reliant on the news for what each candidate stands for and the things they are hearing are just so biased.
I have a lot of old as$ friends of my dad friended on FB so that he can talk to them occasionally and it just seems like they are absolutely terrified of Bernie Sanders becoming President. 
I've seen things like, "you stupid freeloader, do you think that I should pay 50% of my income to government so that you can go to college?" albeit with more expletives and poorer grammar. It just seems like these people do not know the actual figures of candidates policies and the breakdown of costs. Obviously I'm biased as a college student in one of the most liberal major cities in America but its scary to me. 
Blind faith in media or ignorance, I'm not sure which it is. 
Also fvck Clinton, she's a republican lite as far as I'm concerned. On top of hopping the fence on policies to suit her agenda. Wolf in sheeps clothing. 
*tinfoil hat off*


----------



## Aymara

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Blind faith in media or ignorance, I'm not sure which it is.



This problem exists all around the world and it's mainly a matter of education and especially (social) intelligence, because though people know what a newspaper hoax is and usually don't trust the yellow press, most people blindly trust, what they see in TV.

They are not aware of the fact, that "video" can be manipulated and that it is totally easy to manipulate the meaning of a politician's speech, by choosing only a few phrases and change their sequential arrangement.

I have often enough seen even academics argue: "But I've seen it with my own eyes."


----------



## flint757

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> *Tinfoil hat on*
> To me, this election really shows just how uninformed the average American is. Which I think is almost certainly a result of the media. I don't trust anything I hear from any news channel regarding politics, its agenda is not impartial. Unfortunately most people 45+ are so reliant on the news for what each candidate stands for and the things they are hearing are just so biased.
> I have a lot of old as$ friends of my dad friended on FB so that he can talk to them occasionally and it just seems like they are absolutely terrified of Bernie Sanders becoming President.
> I've seen things like, "you stupid freeloader, do you think that I should pay 50% of my income to government so that you can go to college?" albeit with more expletives and poorer grammar. It just seems like these people do not know the actual figures of candidates policies and the breakdown of costs. Obviously I'm biased as a college student in one of the most liberal major cities in America but its scary to me.
> Blind faith in media or ignorance, I'm not sure which it is.
> Also fvck Clinton, she's a republican lite as far as I'm concerned. On top of hopping the fence on policies to suit her agenda. Wolf in sheeps clothing.
> *tinfoil hat off*



I was reading an interesting piece on this awhile back and the media went through like 3 or 4 stages of being sold out from a source of objective truth to what they want you to know instead. The first time was in the early 1900's when JP Morgan bought out several influential newspapers and hired his own editorial chiefs, then in the 50's or 60's the CIA either forced or merely convinced several newspapers to tell the stories they wanted told about the wars and things going on at the time, and then in the 80's during Reagan's deregulation the media went for sale to the highest bidder. All TV news is owned by one of 6 individuals now and they are all well acquainted with each other. The media is very biased because it is bought and paid for by both our government and some of the richest people in this country. Frankly, it isn't all that surprising, but it is terrifying that some people only have one of these 6 individual sources to get their news information from.

I know a lot of people love the man [Reagan], but he was an awful president.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ You could say that about nearly any major industry. Is there a conspiracy to cripple our smartphones because the heads of Apple, Google, and Samsung all know each other? Or our cars? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> ^^^ You could say that about nearly any major industry. Is there a conspiracy to cripple our smartphones because the heads of Apple, Google, and Samsung all know each other? Or our cars? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



Uhhh, what are you on about. JP Morgan DID buy out 25 newspapers and the media IS owned by 6 individual conglomerates. These are easily googled facts.

It's not a big deal from a business standpoint, but media was supposed to be the last leg to fight off corruption and allow for objective news. You can't do that when you are either not allowed to write certain stories, or voice your opinion, because it paints their shareholders in a bad light or the individuals they might be working with. Look no further than FOX news to see just how corrupt media has gotten thanks to deregulation, allowing Rupert Murdoch to turn his news agency into a joke.


----------



## flint757

Since you brought it up, the auto industry is actually very much so an oligopoly and they in fact did, many years ago, lobby to turn the market in their favor. One could argue some of the decisions they made, for the benefit of the auto industry, has had severely negative impacts on our society as a whole (massive road systems, laws against anything, but pretty much cars being allowed on roadways, lack of public transportation in many cities, businesses spreading further out making it necessary to own a vehicle, dealerships exclusively allowed to sell vehicles, etc.).

In any case, nice try trying to turn my comment into something outlandish and ludicrous, but it's none of my business what you choose to believe.


----------



## tacotiklah

MaxOfMetal said:


> Say what you will, but those stupid folks are smart enough to show up and vote.........



And here's the clincher right here. And before anyone can say "well how do you know?"
I'm a poll clerk. 
I'm one of the people that when you go and sign in, I can see what you're registered as and I check your name off before the person next to me hands you a ballot. You know how many more Republicans show up to vote than Democrats? A lot more. I'm talking like 5:1 margins. At the end of my shift, I have to count up the number of people that didn't show. The number of democrats that don't show up is crazy and breaks my heart every time. I remember working midterms and seeing inaction on democrats hand the house and senate over to Republicans.

Call them nutty fundies all you want (please do, because they are and I laugh every time), but make sure you laugh at yourself for making everything under the sun more important than exercising a basic human right that takes 20 minutes tops. The part that is even more  worthy is that people think they have a right to bitch about things when they didn't even get off their lazy asses to do anything about it. 

Nope, you deserve nothing but shame and scorn for being the type of person that complains about bad things in their lives and politics, but does nothing to actually try to bring around change.

Edit: To clarify, I mean you in a broad general context, not at any one individual. But if the shoe fits...


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

celticelk said:


> ^^^ You could say that about nearly any major industry. Is there a conspiracy to cripple our smartphones because the heads of Apple, Google, and Samsung all know each other? Or our cars? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



I believe if you source your information from a wide enough range of sources you'll eventually be close to the objective truth at the very least. It's difficult to control the vast majority of info on the Internet. That being said I also try to take what I hear from far left organizations with a grain of salt as much as I do CNN. okay not nearly as much as CNN but still, a small grain. A pebble if you will


----------



## Pav

As an Ohio native, I don't even want to entertain the idea of Kasich winning the nomination.


----------



## TheStig1214

flint757 said:


> Uhhh, what are you on about. JP Morgan DID buy out 25 newspapers and the media IS owned by 6 individual conglomerates. These are easily googled facts.
> 
> It's not a big deal from a business standpoint, but media was supposed to be the last leg to fight off corruption and allow for objective news. You can't do that when you are either not allowed to write certain stories, or voice your opinion, because it paints their shareholders in a bad light or the individuals they might be working with. Look no further than FOX news to see just how corrupt media has gotten thanks to deregulation, allowing Rupert Murdoch to turn his news agency into a joke.



It is funny though because at least from my standpoint the World News on BBC America is probably the least biased news source. But is more or less owned by a government.


----------



## flint757

It's not that odd when you consider PBS and NPR are probably the most objective media you can get here in the states and they too are funded by the government.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, it makes sense the government-funded ones would be more objective since they're not the ones that have to make money off their content, they make money either way! The private ones all have to sensationalize things to keep the viewer count up to keep the ad money coming in.


----------



## will_shred

Trump said he would put up to 30,000 troops on the ground in Syria  

Do republicans not remember the Iraq War? I don't understand how anyone but a complete moron could support more intervention in that region, when history consistently shows that military intervention has only made the situation worse. I would like to think that both sides have valid opinions and points, but the Republican field just seems to be completely immune to the lessons of history. Even really recent history. More war and more tax breaks for the rich aren't going to do anything but hasten the disintegration of our society. And I don't think that there is really much room to argue on that.

On the democratic side you have two extremely intelligent adults, mostly respectfully debating genuine solutions to the many problems that face our country. On the Republican side you have textbook demagoguery, with vague notions of making our country great "again", though military strength and destroying our 'enemies' and weeding out nay sayers from the society. Its the same kind of reckless militaristic nationalism that got us into the first world war. We will not progress as a society by waging more war. All that will accomplish is to bankrupt us, enrich military contractors, and waste untold amounts of resources that we could use to build our society. That .... really scares me. I couldn't really make out much about domestic fiscal policy because whenever they're asked about it, they either try to dodge the question by attacking the reporter, or make some vague statement about simplifying the tax code and cutting taxes. They have not addressed Wallstreet regulation, they have not addressed the national debt, they have not addressed the cost of healthcare, they have not addressed the cost of college, they have not addressed the dire need for education reform, they have not addressed our aging infrastructure, they have not addressed climate change, they have not addressed NSA spying, they have not addressed the war on drugs/mass incarceration, they have not addressed any of the issues that require a little deep thinking and fact checking. Could it be, that their base doesn't want to hear deep thinking and facts, that they don't want to hear about the scary realities we have to confront, but meaningless (yet comforting) rhetoric about how great our nation is or could be? 

Sorry for the rant, i'm a little pissy today. I'm just astounded by the sheer depth of people's ignorance. Like hello people, there are real issues that are really hurting our society, and you're busy worrying over Bill and Ted's marriage, preventing women from accessing reproductive healthcare, and sending more of our troops to die in a failed war of attrition.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe destroying our enemies is the answer. Who are our enemies, though? The GOP would say Obama or Clinton or Sanders are our enemies. That's what sets the GOP leadership apart from the moderate people. Americans are all Americans. Obama is not trying to kill you. I hate that the USA has taken to absolutism. "You're either with me, or you're against me!  " What happened to being able to disagree with someone, but still liking them?!


----------



## will_shred

bostjan said:


> Maybe destroying our enemies is the answer. Who are our enemies, though? The GOP would say Obama or Clinton or Sanders are our enemies. That's what sets the GOP leadership apart from the moderate people. Americans are all Americans. Obama is not trying to kill you. I hate that the USA has taken to absolutism. "You're either with me, or you're against me!  " What happened to being able to disagree with someone, but still liking them?!



By our enemies i'm generally referring to Islamic jihadist organizations. I don't think the answer is to bomb them out of existence, which is what every single person on the GOP side is calling for. That's like neanderthal level thinking. The Anti-American sentiment in that region goes all the way back to post-war US impearialism in that region (Like assassinating the democratically elected president of Iran and installing the Shah, just as one example). So I don't think that more heavy handed imperial policies are going to fix the problem that they started. 

and just to reiterate my point about the disparity between one side being grounded in reality, and the other side being in some kind of alternate universe, lets see what Politifact has to say about the candidates.

According to Politifact 50% of Hillary Clinton's statements rate between true and mostly true, 13% of her statements rate as false, and only 1% of her statements rate as "pants on fire". 50% of Sanders statements rate between true and mostly true, 15% of his statements rate as false, and %0 of his statements rate as "pants on fire".

Now lets take a look at the GOP field. Only 7% of Trump's statements rate between true and mostly true with only 1% being rated as true. 17% of his statements rate as mostly false, 41% of his statements rate as false, and 19% "as pants on fire" (outright lies). %5 of Ted Cruz's statements rate as true, 16% rate as "mostly true". So 21%, better then Trump, but nowhere close to either dem candidates. 28% of his statements rate as "mostly false" and 30% rate as false, with an additional 7% being rated as pants on fire. Rubio fares the best out of them all, which is still rather abysmal. With 36% of his statements being rated between true and mostly true, 39% of his statements rating between mostly false, and false, and 3% of his statements being rated as pants on fire. 

There is no contest here. Sanders and Clinton's arguments are both far more grounded in reality then anyone then GOP has to offer. 

If you're curious about the source, Politifact, they have an overview of their procedures on their website. 

The Principles of PolitiFact, PunditFact and the Truth-O-Meter | PolitiFact

and to answer your question, this is why the two sides can't just "get along". One group of people is largely brainwashed by fox news and the right wing echo chamber, completely out of touch with the rest of the world, and another group of people generally tries their best to be open minded and get to the bottom of the issues of the day. and of course there are also plenty of non-brainwashed people who just plain don't care, and i'm not even going to go into that demographic at the moment. 

If you need more evidence of the ignorance of the right wing, let me direct you to this study which shows that Fox News viewers are less likely to correctly answer questions about domestic affairs then people who watch no news at all. While people who listen to NPR and international news sources were the most informed on average, people who listen to Fox were the least informed. And this is coming from Business Insider, not exactly a left leaning periodical. 

STUDY: Watching Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All - Business Insider


----------



## bostjan

Politifact is a great site.

There is no contest between DNC and GOP as far as the amount of logic applied to actual facts. My point above was, that at the end of the day, the Democrats will try to compromise and the Republicans will stick to dealing in absolutes. If you disagree with one, you will get into a discussion. If you disagree with the other, you will be threatened. Dubya made that the precedent, and it will continue until the party is gone. 

That's not to say the DNC is doing a great job. I think they suck, personally. But, if something is not working very well, the correct course of action is to either repair it or replace it with something that works better. The GOP seems to be on a path now that leads me to believe they prefer to watch everything burn to the ground and then rebuild it their way on top of the smoldering ashes of the nation.


----------



## IChuckFinleyI

It cracks me up how many people think Trump is an idiot. The success he's had with everything was just all by dumb luck. 

Take a serious look at the candidates backgrounds and accomplishments. What's Hillary actually done? She had the gall to call one of the mothers of the fallen men in Benghazi a liar. What has she accomplished? What has she done on her own that makes her qualified to run a country?

Obama has torn this country apart with making everything about race, tripling the national debt and screwed so many people with ACA/Obamacare. Trust me, I work in healthcare and handle billing, coding and general insurance benefits. Every single week someone comes in with insurance from the marketplace and guess what? Do they get to keep their doctor? Nope. Where they able to keep their health plan? Nope. Does their Obamacare cost less? God no it doesn't. For most people it's cheaper to take the uninsured fine and pay for everything out of pocket. 

How people still think Democrats/Liberals are out to help the little guys/under privileged is amazing. Of course a lot of it boils down to the entertainment industry making Dems look cool and impressionable idiots buy into it hook, line and sinker. 

There needs to be a test given to people before they're allowed to vote.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

IChuckFinleyI said:


> It cracks me up how many people think Trump is an idiot.



I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually say that. 

He's not an idiot at all, _he's a piece of absolute scum_, but not an idiot. The folks who vote for him on the other hand........

As for Obamacare, even as someone who typically leans to the left (I do really dislike both parties, truthfully), I can see that it really isn't a "win" just yet. It did a lot of positive, and negative, but it really didn't have a shot given the state of the House and Senate. 

I think it introduced a lot of good ideas, like guaranteed coverage, expanded Medicaid, extended dependent child coverage, and forcing smaller employers to invest in benefits. 

I say that as someone who is actually getting "screwed" by Obamacare. I had "Cadillac Coverage" but thanks to reforms my company is moving to a more "responsible" rolleyes system which means reduction in benefits for me, albeit with a lower cost, but I rather pay more for better coverage. But, I rather take a small hit (I can afford it. ) for the greater good. 

I think that's what really separates the left and the right in this country. The right is all about "what am I directly getting/giving" where as the left is more about "what do I have to give/get to make things better".


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually say that.
> 
> He's not an idiot at all, _he's a piece of absolute scum_, but not an idiot. The folks who vote for him on the other hand........
> 
> As for Obamacare, even as someone who typically leans to the left (I do really dislike both parties, truthfully), I can see that it really isn't a "win" just yet. It did a lot of positive, and negative, but it really didn't have a shot given the state of the House and Senate.
> 
> I think it introduced a lot of good ideas, like guaranteed coverage, expanded Medicaid, extended dependent child coverage, and forcing smaller employers to invest in benefits.
> 
> I say that as someone who is actually getting "screwed" by Obamacare. I had "Cadillac Coverage" but thanks to reforms my company is moving to a more "responsible" rolleyes system which means reduction in benefits for me, albeit with a lower cost, but I rather pay more for better coverage. But, I rather take a small hit (I can afford it. ) for the greater good.
> 
> I think that's what really separates the left and the right in this country. The right is all about "what am I directly getting/giving" where as the left is more about "what do I have to give/get to make things better".



I believe that BOTH sides are corrupt and wasteful. Therefore I am a "small government libertarian." Any small government is better than large in my opinion. Because of this, I vote more often for "conservative" candidates than not. For me, it is about how not to get TAKEN by taxes, waste, and pandering to special interests.....

I just think there are actual, REAL, intellectual reasons to be a "conservative." My reason is that all pols are POSs......


----------



## Dog Boy

IChuckFinleyI said:


> It cracks me up how many people think Trump is an idiot. The success he's had with everything was just all by dumb luck.
> 
> Take a serious look at the candidates backgrounds and accomplishments. What's Hillary actually done? She had the gall to call one of the mothers of the fallen men in Benghazi a liar. What has she accomplished? What has she done on her own that makes her qualified to run a country?
> 
> Obama has torn this country apart with making everything about race, tripling the national debt and screwed so many people with ACA/Obamacare. Trust me, I work in healthcare and handle billing, coding and general insurance benefits. Every single week someone comes in with insurance from the marketplace and guess what? Do they get to keep their doctor? Nope. Where they able to keep their health plan? Nope. Does their Obamacare cost less? God no it doesn't. For most people it's cheaper to take the uninsured fine and pay for everything out of pocket.
> 
> How people still think Democrats/Liberals are out to help the little guys/under privileged is amazing. Of course a lot of it boils down to the entertainment industry making Dems look cool and impressionable idiots buy into it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> There needs to be a test given to people before they're allowed to vote.



Is Obama running again? And why isn't Ted dead or in jail? And why do I still own my gun? 

The right talks and talks and talks, They are on their last legs, soon to be extinct...enjoy your defeat this fall.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CapnForsaggio said:


> I just think there are actual, REAL, intellectual reasons to be a "conservative."



To be conservative, yes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a conservative political view. 

The problem is that "conservatives" in the GOP have lost sight of what being conservative actually is.


----------



## TheStig1214

will_shred said:


> Trump said he would put up to 30,000 troops on the ground in Syria
> 
> Do republicans not remember the Iraq War? I don't understand how anyone but a complete moron could support more intervention in that region, when history consistently shows that military intervention has only made the situation worse.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MaxOfMetal said:


> To be conservative, yes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a conservative political view.
> 
> The problem is that "conservatives" in the GOP have lost sight of what being conservative actually is.



And the "liberals" in the DNC have forgotten what being a NATION is:

1) Having borders
2) Having a monetary policy (other than print/spend)
3) Having equal opportunity (and NOT equal outcome)
4) etc. etc.


----------



## TheStig1214

CapnForsaggio said:


> And the "liberals" in the DNC have forgotten what being a NATION is:
> 
> 1) Having borders
> 2) Having a monetary policy (other than print/spend)
> 3) Having equal opportunity (and NOT equal outcome)
> 4) etc. etc.



1) Last time I looked at a map, we have some pretty well defined borders. They can get a bit weird sometimes, but they are there.

2) Do you have any idea how national debt works? It's not Obama's policy, it's Congress', and we all know how Congress is right now.

3) This I can't really debate. But there is no doubt racism and lack of equal opportunity still exists, just look at how successful the Southern Strategy still in with the GOP. 

4) ???? 

You can't just put "ect. ect." to make it look like you have more points than you do.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> And the "liberals" in the DNC have forgotten what being a NATION is:
> 
> 1) Having borders
> 2) Having a monetary policy (other than print/spend)
> 3) Having equal opportunity (and NOT equal outcome)
> 4) etc. etc.



1. The undocumented immigrant population has actually been going *down* over the past several years: fewer people are trying to get in, and the Obama administration has been aggressively deporting people. Check the numbers.

2. As opposed to the Republican approach of cutting taxes on the richest Americans and never specifying where the lost revenue is supposed to come from? How did the budget work out during the eight years of our last Republican president?

3. If we actually had equal opportunity, you might have an argument. Until then...

4. Translation: I can't think of anything else, but surely those pesky Democrats are doing something else wrong!


----------



## IChuckFinleyI

Dog Boy said:


> Is Obama running again? And why isn't Ted dead or in jail? And why do I still own my gun?
> 
> The right talks and talks and talks, They are on their last legs, soon to be extinct...enjoy your defeat this fall.



Oh I'm sorry, I figured since people have thrown Bush's name around in this topic it would be okay to talk about Obama. I forgot the double standard silly Liberals have lol


----------



## will_shred

IChuckFinleyI said:


> It cracks me up how many people think Trump is an idiot. The success he's had with everything was just all by dumb luck.
> 
> Take a serious look at the candidates backgrounds and accomplishments. What's Hillary actually done? She had the gall to call one of the mothers of the fallen men in Benghazi a liar. What has she accomplished? What has she done on her own that makes her qualified to run a country?
> 
> Obama has torn this country apart with making everything about race, tripling the national debt and screwed so many people with ACA/Obamacare. Trust me, I work in healthcare and handle billing, coding and general insurance benefits. Every single week someone comes in with insurance from the marketplace and guess what? Do they get to keep their doctor? Nope. Where they able to keep their health plan? Nope. Does their Obamacare cost less? God no it doesn't. For most people it's cheaper to take the uninsured fine and pay for everything out of pocket.
> 
> How people still think Democrats/Liberals are out to help the little guys/under privileged is amazing. Of course a lot of it boils down to the entertainment industry making Dems look cool and impressionable idiots buy into it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> There needs to be a test given to people before they're allowed to vote.



This will be fun. 

Hillary Clinton served in the senate from 2001 up until 2009 when she was appointed as secretary of state. In the senate she served on 5 committees with 9 subcommittee assignments. In the senate she: Served on the Committee on the Budget from 2001 to 2003, served in the senate armed services committee from 2003-2009. On the armed services committee she served in the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, and on the subcommittee on readiness and management support. From 2001-2009 she also served on the committee of environment and public works. While serving on that committee her subcomittee assignments were: Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and was the chair of the subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental health. From 2001-2009 she served on the committee of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where her subcommittee assignments were: Subcommittee on children and familites, and the subcommittee on employment and workplace safety. She was also a commissioner of the Commission for security and cooperation in Europe. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) The page on her accomplishments as secretary of state is way to long for me to type out here, so i'll let you read it if you're so inclined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton's_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State) 

Next point


> Obama has torn this country apart with making everything about race, tripling the national debt and screwed so many people with ACA/Obamacare



1. systematic racism isn't a debatable issue. Just because _you_ didn't know it existed, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Lucky for me, John Green took the liberty of breaking down the numbers in a nice bite sized video with sources for all his data. If you choose not to watch the video, you lose the right to argue that systematic racism doesn't exist because of your own ignorance on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQdMgtncpoE

2. The national debt is an age old problem that has a lot to do with a lot of things. However the rate of increase of the national debt hasn't really changed much between the Bush and Obama presidencies. The national debt doubled under Bush, and it also doubled under Obama (source: US Treasury departmenthttps://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm). However the federal budget deficit gradually grew under Bush (two wars and tax cuts for the rich are expensive, who woulda thought?) until it peaked during his last year in office/Obama's first year because of the recession/global financial crisis. The TARP program and economic stimulus were expensive, but they kind of saved the entire global and domestic economy from total collapse. Since then, the budget deficit has been gradually shrinking. 





(source, Mediamatters, who sourced their info from the department of the treasury New Data Debunks Years Of Fox News Paranoia About The Federal Budget Deficit | Research | Media Matters for America) 

One last point, I would agree that the ACA is a ....ty law, but that hardly has anything to do with Obama since he didn't write the law, and he was initially for a single payer system which would have been far more cost effective. In my opinion, that blame rests on the members of congress who caved to the demands of various groups who make enormous amouts of money off of the sick and dying. Which is why I don't think that healthcare should be run on a for-profit basis at all, as it basically creates an incentive to hold sick people hostage until you can milk them for all the money they're worth.


----------



## IChuckFinleyI

will_shred said:


> This will be fun.
> 
> Hillary Clinton served in the senate from 2001 up until 2009 when she was appointed as secretary of state. In the senate she served on 5 committees with 9 subcommittee assignments. In the senate she: Served on the Committee on the Budget from 2001 to 2003, served in the senate armed services committee from 2003-2009. On the armed services committee she served in the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, and on the subcommittee on readiness and management support. From 2001-2009 she also served on the committee of environment and public works. While serving on that committee her subcomittee assignments were: Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and was the chair of the subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental health. From 2001-2009 she served on the committee of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions where her subcommittee assignments were: Subcommittee on children and familites, and the subcommittee on employment and workplace safety. She was also a commissioner of the Commission for security and cooperation in Europe. The page on her accomplishments as secretary of state is way to long for me to type out here, so i'll let you read it if you're so inclined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton's_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State)
> 
> Next point
> 
> 1. systematic racism isn't a debatable issue. Just because _you_ didn't know it existed, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Lucky for me, John Green took the liberty of breaking down the numbers in a nice bite sized video with sources for all his data. If you choose not to watch the video, you lose the right to argue that systematic racism doesn't exist because of your own ignorance on the subject
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQdMgtncpoE
> 
> 2. The national debt is an age old problem that has a lot to do with a lot of things. However the rate of increase of the national debt hasn't really changed much between the Bush and Obama presidencies. The national debt doubled under Bush, and it also doubled under Obama (source: US Treasury departmenthttps://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm). However the federal budget deficit gradually grew under Bush (two wars and tax cuts for the rich are expensive, who woulda thought?) until it peaked during his last year in office/Obama's first year because of the recession/global financial crisis. The TARP program and economic stimulus were expensive, but they kind of saved the entire global and domestic economy from total collapse. Since then, the budget deficit has been gradually shrinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (source, Mediamatters, who sourced their info from the department of the treasury New Data Debunks Years Of Fox News Paranoia About The Federal Budget Deficit | Research | Media Matters for America)
> 
> One last point, I would agree that the ACA is a ....ty law, but that hardly has anything to do with Obama since he didn't write the law, and he was initially for a single payer system which would have been far more cost effective. In my opinion, that blame rests on the members of congress who are beholden to insurance companies. The ACA was a giant handout to insurance companies and big pharma. Which is why I don't think that healthcare should be run on a for-profit basis at all, as it basically creates an incentive to hold sick people hostage until you can milk them for all the money they're worth.



I'll ask again: What has she accomplished? All you did was list committees she's been in. Not a single thing that she accomplished with them. 

Further more, if you don't think the left and the Liberal media have fanned the flames of racism, you're out of your mind. Lets just look at the George Zimmerman case. They labeled him a "white hispanic". He couldn't just be a latino, they had to make him white somehow. Everybody knows, making someone white, makes them that much worse. 

Let's not forget if you're a white person who isn't a Liberal, you're instantly branded a racist. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've lost your argument on that. 

It's also to the point where if you think #bluelivesmatter, you're a racist because you support the police. Because all cops are white and shoot every black person they see. 

We live in an Entitlement Nation. Where people are handed everything. Why get a job when you can collect unemployment? The more kids you have, the more welfare and food stamps you can get. Which also goes along with unemployment. Who ends up paying paying for their welfare checks, food stamps, Medicaid etc? Everyone who wakes up and get their ass to work everyday. We're the ones who pay for it all. I busted my ass to get where I am today. If someone doesn't want to work and get everything handed to them, why should I have to pay for it? If you get up and actually apply yourself, you can accomplish almost anything. It's not that difficult. Which is one of the things Trump represents. 

Yet people are okay with voting for another Liberal who's not going to do anything different. It'll be more of the same. The rift between Americans will just get worse. Police officers will have to tiptoe on eggshells because if they do anything to anyone who isn't white, it'll make the news. Honest taxpayers will have even more of their money go to people who are playing the system. God forbid a single American dies in a foreign country, because Hillary won't do anything about it. 

People claim they want a change, yet they'll be voting for more of the same. 

Have good 'un. Peace.


----------



## Andromalia

The weirdest thing about Trump is, why would you want to have for president someone who crashed half his companies and only got through because of inherited money ? When you inherit 300M$ you _are _de facto part of the establishment.

I've always wondered how a country could run where 80% of the people accept slavery while dreaming they can become part of the other 20%. It mathematically won't happen.



> The more kids you have, the more welfare and food stamps you can get


Oh yeah, more food stamps. The dream life. Doesn't the fact that food stamps even have to exist ring a bell ?


----------



## flint757

Food stamps don't even sort of cover how much raising a child costs so that logic doesn't hold any water anyhow. You are still running in the negative with each child you have even if you get more food stamps.


----------



## will_shred

Yeah... This is why I will never be able to get along with a conservative. All talk no substance. Just skirting around every single point I made while spewing more nonsense and blaming poor people for the woes of the nation.  The talking point about Welfare fraud has been debunked so many times i'm amazed that there are people who still believe it. examples: 

On average, 20 to 25 cents of every $1 spent on four government assistance programs is lost to fraud, Sen. Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact Wisconsin



> Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program's requirements include that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service.





> A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That's below than the Census Bureau's 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.
> 
> About 41 percent of female-headed households with children under age 18 were living in poverty in 2011, according to the bureau. That's up from 33 percent in 2000.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/100975718

Of course, its not like i'm going to get anywhere with this. You're perfectly happy giving the finger to people in poverty, even if they work, because you got your own right?


----------



## tacotiklah

IChuckFinleyI said:


> I'll ask again: What has she accomplished? All you did was list committees she's been in. Not a single thing that she accomplished with them.
> 
> Further more, if you don't think the left and the Liberal media have fanned the flames of racism, you're out of your mind. Lets just look at the George Zimmerman case. They labeled him a "white hispanic". He couldn't just be a latino, they had to make him white somehow. Everybody knows, making someone white, makes them that much worse. *[citation needed]*
> 
> Let's not forget if you're a white person who isn't a Liberal, you're instantly branded a racist. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've lost your argument on that. *[citation needed]*
> 
> 
> It's also to the point where if you think #bluelivesmatter, you're a racist because you support the police. Because all cops are white and shoot every black person they see.  *[citation needed]*
> 
> 
> We live in an Entitlement Nation. Where people are handed everything. Why get a job when you can collect unemployment? The more kids you have, the more welfare and food stamps you can get.*[citation needed]*
> Which also goes along with unemployment. Who ends up paying paying for their welfare checks, food stamps, Medicaid etc? Everyone who wakes up and get their ass to work everyday. We're the ones who pay for it all. I busted my ass to get where I am today. If someone doesn't want to work and get everything handed to them, why should I have to pay for it? If you get up and actually apply yourself, you can accomplish almost anything. It's not that difficult. Which is one of the things Trump represents. *[bull.... detected]*
> 
> 
> Yet people are okay with voting for another Liberal who's not going to do anything different. It'll be more of the same. The rift between Americans will just get worse. Police officers will have to tiptoe on eggshells because if they do anything to anyone who isn't white, it'll make the news. Honest taxpayers will have even more of their money go to people who are playing the system. *[citation needed]*
> God forbid a single American dies in a foreign country, because Hillary won't do anything about it.
> 
> People claim they want a change, yet they'll be voting for more of the same.
> 
> Have good 'un. Peace.



Lots of assertions made in this post with no facts posted or sources. I'm almost finding myself regretting asking for sources on these because I have a gut feeling it will be either based from Fox News/Alex Jones/Rush Limbaugh/etc.

But let's break all this bull.... down (because it largely is bull....) one item at a time.

1.) George Zimmerman is a repeat offending criminal whose other legal woes involve violent crimes...
(I'll be damned, even fox news got this right) 
A list of George Zimmerman's past run-ins with the law | Fox News 
(CNN timeline on this for more credibility because I still hate citing anything from fox news)
George Zimmerman's history with the law - CNN.com

I'm sorry, but given how the man seems to be bat.... insane and guns are usually involved whenever he is around, along with his own cousin coming right out and saying that he is a known racist as well as a molestor ( 'Witness 9' Accuses Zimmerman Of Molestation : NPR) it's hard to believe that he is anything other than a disgusting excuse of a human being that gunned down a black kid on racist premises. I don't consider him a "white hispanic". I consider him to be a psycho that the NRA and gun lobby propped up based on racist pretenses. Remember, a 17 year old kid lost his life because he went to the store in a hoodie to get some skittles. Treyvon's crime in all of this? Being black at night.

2.) To the #bluelivesmatter and #alllivesmatter crowds out there, we're all well aware that those lives matter as well. We're focusing here on the disproportionate amount of black people being assaulted, shot, incarcerated, and murdered by improper police practices and by inhuman people that happen to be wearing a badge. I'm well aware that #notallpolice and whatnot is in play. But if you truly care about the health and future of law enforcement, wouldn't getting rid of these ....ty cops so that good cops aren't tarred with the same brush be of a high priority for you? We need less dirty harry types in the world right now and more cops like this:
Police Give Presents Instead of Tickets During Holiday Traffic Stops in Michigan : People.com
We need police that think of themselves as members of the community and not ones that develop a god complex once they get their badge.

3.) As you can see here, the amount spent on welfare in the budget is the lowest it has been since 2008
Government Spending Chart: United States 2006-2021 - Federal State Local Data
You're working SOOOOO hard to cover "dead beats" even though the figures say you're full of crap. Try again.

4.) Trump represents success? Really??? 
First off, his start was being handed what he claims to be just "a small loan" of $1 million. Did Donald Trump inherit $100 million? | PolitiFact Florida
Yeah, because in America, dads around the world can give their children a million bucks to make something of themselves. But let's see what Trump ACTUALLY did with that money...
Donald Trump bankruptcy: Everything you want to know - Aug. 31, 2015
Yep, he is using bankruptcy law and government assistance to keep his failing businesses afloat. Any time the financial wind blows in a course less than optimal, the first thing he does is file chapter 11 bankruptcy. The point of chapter 11 in the bankruptcy code is to allow a business to continue to operate while a full restructuring is done to save the business. This is intended as a last resort option to keep a company from failing. Trump abuses the hell out of this. Now in fairness, sometimes things happen that no one can predict and chapter 11 is needed to get a company back on track. But the need for it usually arises as a mixture of both bad business practices in tandem with unfavorable market scenarios. 
He is taking his rather large inheritance and starting a bunch of crap, failing companies (Trump steaks that can only be bought at the sharper image anyone?  ) in an attempt to make his name a brand that he can market off of. Reminds me an awful lot of what Bernie Madoff did and look at how many people lost everything they had to that man. If Trump dropped out or lost this race, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were to be forced to appear in court for his business practices at some point. You can only buy so much loyalty until those being bought start asking for more than what you have.

5.) And just how many people do you think are "playing the system"? What about Fortune 500 companies that are obscenely rich and are on government assistance:
Forbes Welcome (you'll need to turn adblocker off to view link for whatever reason. Forbes is still a great resource for financial/business/economic related topics)

What about the fact that 15 of these companies paid NO federal taxes:
15 Fortune 500 Companies Paid No Federal Income Taxes in 2014 | The Fiscal Times

Who are the real welfare queens here? Who are the ones that are sucking the life out of your paycheck? It's not the latina mom with 5 kids trying to make ends meet. It's the Boeings and General Electrics of the US that are incredibly wealthy and using your hard earned money to make themselves even more rich. Thanks to citizens united, they can then use your own money against you by lobbying for even more tax loopholes to help them and buy off politicans to convince you to vote against your own interests and allow this circus to continue. Congrats on being your own worst enemy and having the audacity to complain about any of it. You made your bed, now lie in it. Or maybe excise your head from your backside and see the greatest con in American history being played out right in front of you and make your vote count for something other than being wasted on a failed racist loudmouth with no political platform other than blaming people with more melanin in their skin for the countries woes.

6.) Voting for the same? You know what would be voting for the same? Another lame ass "christian" that enforces the christian version of sharia law on people by telling women what to do with their bodies and who can fuck who because their imaginary friend told them its wrong. Or voting for another bought and paid for politician that promised them for the umpteenth time that trickle down economics 'really does work!(&#8482' despite many respected economists saying otherwise:
The "trickle down theory" is dead wrong - Jun. 15, 2015
Strange how when you spend more from the budget than what you're paying into the system because muh tax cuts that suddenly there's a national debt that we can't seem to keep up with. And before you start lambasting Obama because he had to spend money to actually stop the financial hemorrhaging in 2008 (my guess is that you're looking at raw dollar amounts instead of taking GDP rate into play), we can see that with other factors considered, Reagan was the WORST president in recent memory when it came to government spending:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...record-on-any-president-on-the-national-debt/


Coming from one white person to another on the issue of race:
Stop blaming other races for the things the rich and bought for politicians that you cast your ballot for are doing to you. Open your eyes and see how much it is in their best interests to keep you fighting the imaginary 'they terk er jerrrrrrbs!' hispanics and 'omg mooslem tereests' while they continue to just take money right out of your wallet. Basically as a white person, I'm sick of the racist bull.... that white people are currently doing and I'm tired of being ashamed of being white. However, I know that shame is well deserved when the best offering that modern white America has for presidential candidacy is Donald f_u_cking Drumpf.


----------



## Spinedriver

There's nothing wrong with being _fiscally_ Conservative. Sadly, over the past decade or two, the Republican party is becoming more and more _socially_ Conservative but that has nothing to do with governing a country. 

The reason for having a government is to make sure communities have sanitation, decent roads, medical facilities, etc.. All of the things that are either too big or too important for a single company to be in control of. Gay marriage, women's right to an abortion, etc.. should be of ZERO concern to whichever party is in control.

The problem with Trump is that the whole election is all about HIM. He will literally contradict himself just to focus attention to himself. I realize people are attracted to him because he's not a career politician. What people are failing to realize his that whenever he got into a bind (financially or otherwise) he just pulled the ripcord and bailed out by declaring bankruptcy or calling a bunch of lawyers to settle whatever mess he made. If there's a summit meeting, is he going to send a lawyer because it's "not worth his time to go" ? 

Being President is just a "goal" for himself. He has no idea how to make policy or how to bargain. All he knows is how to bully people into giving him what he wants and I would imagine that it won't be too long now before the RNC gets fed up and just kicks him off the ticket completely. Then we'll see how committed he is if he decides to continue on as an independent.


----------



## TheStig1214

Spinedriver said:


> There's nothing wrong with being _fiscally_ Conservative. Sadly, over the past decade or two, the Republican party is becoming more and more _socially_ Conservative but that has nothing to do with governing a country.
> 
> The reason for having a government is to make sure communities have sanitation, decent roads, medical facilities, etc.. All of the things that are either too big or too important for a single company to be in control of. Gay marriage, women's right to an abortion, etc.. should be of ZERO concern to whichever party is in control.
> 
> The problem with Trump is that the whole election is all about HIM. He will literally contradict himself just to focus attention to himself. I realize people are attracted to him because he's not a career politician. What people are failing to realize his that whenever he got into a bind (financially or otherwise) he just pulled the ripcord and bailed out by declaring bankruptcy or calling a bunch of lawyers to settle whatever mess he made. If there's a summit meeting, is he going to send a lawyer because it's "not worth his time to go" ?
> 
> Being President is just a "goal" for himself. He has no idea how to make policy or how to bargain. All he knows is how to bully people into giving him what he wants and I would imagine that it won't be too long now before the RNC gets fed up and just kicks him off the ticket completely. Then we'll see how committed he is if he decides to continue on as an independent.



Finally someone says it. The government doesn't have any leg to stand on when social issues are concerned. It's strictly public safety and utilities, military, and national spending. That should be it. 

I am curious what sort of implications or upheavals there will be if he wins the GOP nomination fair and square and they just boot him off the ticket and take Cruz.


----------



## Hollowway

IChuckFinleyI said:


> Obama has torn this country apart with making everything about race, tripling the national debt and screwed so many people with ACA/Obamacare. Trust me, I work in healthcare and handle billing, coding and general insurance benefits. Every single week someone comes in with insurance from the marketplace and guess what? Do they get to keep their doctor? Nope. Where they able to keep their health plan? Nope. Does their Obamacare cost less? God no it doesn't. For most people it's cheaper to take the uninsured fine and pay for everything out of pocket.
> 
> How people still think Democrats/Liberals are out to help the little guys/under privileged is amazing. Of course a lot of it boils down to the entertainment industry making Dems look cool and impressionable idiots buy into it hook, line and sinker.
> 
> There needs to be a test given to people before they're allowed to vote.



I don't generally quote people to pick apart arguments, but in a thread like this, where we are actually trying to get to the truth, you're doing a disservice to everyone by being misinformed or actually lying. 

Obama has not tripled the national debt. He's almost doubled it. That's still a HUGE increase, and an increase I am very unhappy with. But why would you lie about this, just to have your argument shot down? Lying like this makes it difficult for people t like me, who actually want to decrease the national debt, to be taken seriously. Do you really think you need to exaggerate an increase of $10 trillion dollars to make a point? Why would you even do that? Either your pulling numbers out of thin air, or are intentionally lying. Either way, do fiscal conservatives a favor and don't participate in the argument, because you're making those of us who want real governmental spending to decrease look bad.

And it is also completely untrue that it makes more sense for people to take the ACA fine and pay for healthcare out of pocket. If you're in medical billing you know what healthcare actually costs, and the majority of people bill more than their premiums. Obviously it works for some people, who are not likely to need any substantial medical care, to pay out of pocket, but there are no statistics that back up your statement. And there are those who don't like the law, and choose to save a few hundred or a thousand dollars, and roll the dice that they won't need anything medical for the year. But these do not add up to a majority. Again, PLEASE don't contribute to the discussion if you are not going to actually help the side you say your supporting. If you are on the opposite side, and are saying these things just to diminish the arguments you're making, then bravo, because you got me!


----------



## Hollowway

IChuckFinleyI said:


> Further more, if you don't think the left and the Liberal media have fanned the flames of racism, you're out of your mind. Lets just look at the George Zimmerman case. They labeled him a "white hispanic". He couldn't just be a latino, they had to make him white somehow. Everybody knows, making someone white, makes them that much worse.
> 
> Let's not forget if you're a white person who isn't a Liberal, you're instantly branded a racist. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've lost your argument on that.
> 
> It's also to the point where if you think #bluelivesmatter, you're a racist because you support the police. Because all cops are white and shoot every black person they see.
> 
> We live in an Entitlement Nation. Where people are handed everything. Why get a job when you can collect unemployment? The more kids you have, the more welfare and food stamps you can get. Which also goes along with unemployment. Who ends up paying paying for their welfare checks, food stamps, Medicaid etc? Everyone who wakes up and get their ass to work everyday. We're the ones who pay for it all. I busted my ass to get where I am today. If someone doesn't want to work and get everything handed to them, why should I have to pay for it? If you get up and actually apply yourself, you can accomplish almost anything. It's not that difficult. Which is one of the things Trump represents.
> 
> Yet people are okay with voting for another Liberal who's not going to do anything different. It'll be more of the same. The rift between Americans will just get worse. Police officers will have to tiptoe on eggshells because if they do anything to anyone who isn't white, it'll make the news. Honest taxpayers will have even more of their money go to people who are playing the system. God forbid a single American dies in a foreign country, because Hillary won't do anything about it.
> 
> People claim they want a change, yet they'll be voting for more of the same.



I think you're being incredibly paranoid. There are tens of millions of white conservative Americans who no one considers racist. Where are you getting your data on this?

And you are being tremendously swayed by the media yourself. Take a look at the numbers for what food stamps, unemployment, and welfare cost, and compare it to the tax shelters corps use, the tax dodges that wealthy people have, and get back to me how poor people are making it more difficult for you to survive. It's not even close. Does it not interest you that you bust your ass to get ahead, and you are in a higher tax bracket than the top .001%? I don't disagree with you on entitlement, and the odd welfare incentive to have more kids, but don't think that people below the poverty line are eating your lunch. You're missing the big picture. 

I personally want to see a lot of change in our government. But I'm not going to toe the line with the GOP, and I'm not particularly enthused about the Democrats either. Both of the parties are so corrupt that they owe far to much to the status quo to rock the boat.


----------



## Spinedriver

TheStig1214 said:


> Finally someone says it. The government doesn't have any leg to stand on when social issues are concerned. It's strictly public safety and utilities, military, and national spending. That should be it.
> 
> I am curious what sort of implications or upheavals there will be if he wins the GOP nomination fair and square and they just boot him off the ticket and take Cruz.



My wife follows politics much more than I do and her theory is that every Democrat to hold office for the last few decades has been very pro "big business". So at this point, the Republicans could care less if they win the Presidency because if Hillary wins, they'll just bully her into giving them what they want, just like Obama. Let the Democrats "win" the election but when it comes to making policy, they'll just use the house and/or Senate to block what they don't like. 

That's why Bernie Sanders is the real wild card in this scenario. If Hillary wins, it'll be business (pardon the pun) as usual. It'll basically be Obama 2.0 for the next 4 years where nothing will be done about huge tax incentives for large corporations and although she probably won't do anything horrible, she won't be doing anything spectacular either. 

Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.


----------



## estabon37

Spinedriver said:


> Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.



I'm not trying to invalidate your point here, because I think there's a lot of truth in it, but isn't this fairly similar to the impression everyone had of Obama when he ran the first time?

By memory (a memory that is decreasingly reliable) Obama represented something genuinely different in mainstream politics (Sanders and Trump[?]), spoke about issues that favoured the general population over big business (Sanders), and at least initially used a lot of 'tough-talk' to promote the idea that he was going to get things done with or without anyone else's support (and has made virtually annual speeches about how he'll shut down Guantanamo Bay "by the end of the year" ever since).

In some instances, he has succeeded in forcing an issue, in others, his hands have been tied. If the senate remains roughly the same (and jerrymandering has all but guaranteed that outcome), Sanders will have no choice but to either accept that his hands will be tied occasionally or risk looking like an 'underachiever' if he opens his mouth every time someone blocks him in the senate. 

I say all of this knowing that I want Sanders in the White House more than any other current (and many former) candidates. Obama wanted to shake things up and it scared the hell out of a lot of people. When people are scared, they behave irrationally. It would explain a lot about the last eight years.


----------



## flint757

I was talking to some of my family today and many of them are Rubio and Kasich supporters. They pretty much said they'd vote for Sanders over Trump or Cruz if it came down to it due to him being probably the only genuinely honest candidate running. This is despite them disagreeing with his policy ideas. They seem to be in agreement that his heart's in the right place regardless compared to Clinton and Trump, whom come across as more self serving.


----------



## flint757

estabon37 said:


> I'm not trying to invalidate your point here, because I think there's a lot of truth in it, but isn't this fairly similar to the impression everyone had of Obama when he ran the first time?
> 
> By memory (a memory that is decreasingly reliable) Obama represented something genuinely different in mainstream politics (Sanders and Trump[?]), spoke about issues that favoured the general population over big business (Sanders), and at least initially used a lot of 'tough-talk' to promote the idea that he was going to get things done with or without anyone else's support (and has made virtually annual speeches about how he'll shut down Guantanamo Bay "by the end of the year" ever since).
> 
> In some instances, he has succeeded in forcing an issue, in others, his hands have been tied. If the senate remains roughly the same (and jerrymandering has all but guaranteed that outcome), Sanders will have no choice but to either accept that his hands will be tied occasionally or risk looking like an 'underachiever' if he opens his mouth every time someone blocks him in the senate.
> 
> I say all of this knowing that I want Sanders in the White House more than any other current (and many former) candidates. Obama wanted to shake things up and it scared the hell out of a lot of people. When people are scared, they behave irrationally. It would explain a lot about the last eight years.









This gives a pretty solid layout to show that ideologically he's quite significantly different from Obama. I'd personally prefer someone more ideologically like Jill Stein, but in our screwed up voting system she'd never have a chance (especially since 3rd parties get almost zero national exposure).

Obama didn't run his campaign on cleaning up corruption though, which is what even he needed to do to get done what he wanted IMO. I don't recall it even being mentioned in the last two presidential races. Healthcare was his swan song and he somewhat succeeded in doing what he set out to do, even if it's lackluster and problematic in areas. I think Obama was a necessary step for someone like Sanders to be in a position to be elected though. Healthcare has been a hot topic for the last 8 years and a lot has happened in that time period. People are finely fed up and as long as the support doesn't end with voting for president I think real change within the system can genuinely occur. However, if people get whomever they want in office and then they ignore politics for the next 4 years, like people usually do, then indeed nothing will change.

Congress is not necessarily interested in helping or executing the things he wants to do (especially when it comes to cleaning up corruption I imagine since that ends the extra pay days they've been receiving), which is why he hasn't had more success on some of his campaign plans in the first place. If he is to succeed we all have to be far more active in politics. This applies to whomever gets the nomination realistically, but is especially true if Bernie is to succeed in his endeavors.


----------



## Spinedriver

estabon37 said:


> I'm not trying to invalidate your point here, because I think there's a lot of truth in it, but isn't this fairly similar to the impression everyone had of Obama when he ran the first time?
> 
> By memory (a memory that is decreasingly reliable) Obama represented something genuinely different in mainstream politics (Sanders and Trump[?]), spoke about issues that favoured the general population over big business (Sanders), and at least initially used a lot of 'tough-talk' to promote the idea that he was going to get things done with or without anyone else's support (and has made virtually annual speeches about how he'll shut down Guantanamo Bay "by the end of the year" ever since).
> 
> In some instances, he has succeeded in forcing an issue, in others, his hands have been tied. If the senate remains roughly the same (and jerrymandering has all but guaranteed that outcome), Sanders will have no choice but to either accept that his hands will be tied occasionally or risk looking like an 'underachiever' if he opens his mouth every time someone blocks him in the senate.
> 
> I say all of this knowing that I want Sanders in the White House more than any other current (and many former) candidates. Obama wanted to shake things up and it scared the hell out of a lot of people. When people are scared, they behave irrationally. It would explain a lot about the last eight years.



You're absolutely right. When Obama ran the first time, he was the candidate of "change". Even now, given what he's done in the past 8 years, his run was pretty good. The thing of it is that he's a bit of a corporatist and that's the reason why the Gov't hasn't cracked down on the "Wall St." gang and big oil industries. He gets a lot of donations from those people and as the saying goes, "You don't bite the hand that feeds". 

I'm sure there will be plenty of times where Sanders will be blocked from getting certain things done but a lot has to be said for effort. When the big Wall St. bailout came around, people were up in arms about it but Obama passed the bill without hesitation. If Sanders were in charge, I'd say there was a good chance even he would have passed it too but I guarantee he would have seen to it that those that caused it would have been held accountable, rather than let them retire/walk away with Millions in their bank accounts. So yeah, I'm not saying that Bernie will turn the Gov't on it's head and everything will change overnight but at least he's not "indebted" to special interest groups that will keep him from doing what he's set out to do.
ie: He doesn't owe any "favors" to anyone because of large donations or super pacs given to his campaign.


----------



## celticelk

Spinedriver said:


> Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.



And the GOP voters who put them there will respond "yes, that's exactly what we elected them to do!" See: the last six years. I think a lot of you have unrealistically optimistic ideas about how much change the president can make.


----------



## bostjan

Spinedriver said:


> My wife follows politics much more than I do and her theory is that every Democrat to hold office for the last few decades has been very pro "big business". So at this point, the Republicans could care less if they win the Presidency because if Hillary wins, they'll just bully her into giving them what they want, just like Obama. Let the Democrats "win" the election but when it comes to making policy, they'll just use the house and/or Senate to block what they don't like.
> 
> That's why Bernie Sanders is the real wild card in this scenario. If Hillary wins, it'll be business (pardon the pun) as usual. It'll basically be Obama 2.0 for the next 4 years where nothing will be done about huge tax incentives for large corporations and although she probably won't do anything horrible, she won't be doing anything spectacular either.
> 
> Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.



Obama's batting average on campaign promises is roughly 0.450 versus the GOP's batting average of 0.380 on campaign promises [source: The Obameter: Tracking Obama's Campaign Promises | PolitiFact GOP Pledge-O-Meter: Tracking the promises of the GOP Leadership in Congress | PolitiFact ]

The point I made earlier, however, still stands, that it's not the president's job to write bills. Congress is supposed to write bills, the president is supposed to check them, and enforce them (should they become laws), and the supreme court is supposed to decide them (once they are laws) when they aren't clear enough.

Not that the government works this way, but that's the way it is supposed to work, in writing.

No matter who stands at the podium and no matter what promises are made, the government is all checks and balances, so the president does not become omnipotent. So Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim-Busstop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel can tell you that if you elect him for president, he'll replace all of the fish in the ocean with sea monsters named "Eric", and stop people from stacking things on top of other things, but it'll mean nothing either way, because it'll never be within his power to do so.


----------



## flint757

All else aside, an honest candidate is far superior to a dishonest one and the president being the last step in the process of bills being passed means two things:

1) He can set policy into motion by passing nothing else until they attempt to pass what progressives are wanting done.

2) More importantly, he can prevent policy from being passed into law all together.

Number two coupled with an honest president who has spent his career fighting for regular Joe's and not succumbing to the negatives of the political machine sounds worth it all on its own even if he accomplishes nothing else. All of the republican candidates and Clinton are dishonest and beholden to people that don't have America's best interest at heart.

This election IMO is also about party direction because the Clinton's have pushed the Democratic party further and further right. All else aside, this brings the party back to the left where it belongs and potentially creates momentum where more people with more progressive principals try for political seats across the country giving progressives some much needed wind in their sails. This is already happening to a degree as Tim Canova is running to take down Debbie Schultz for her seat and his political views are far better aligned with Sanders than the current crop of Dem's. I think this will bolster existing progressives in the party as well, like Warren, allowing them to accomplish their policy ideas without being blocked by Republicans AND Democrats alike (Debbie Schultz is trying to pass a very Republican bill as we speak to allow predatory payday lenders to avoid CFPB's new regulations).

DNC Chair Joins GOP Attack On Elizabeth Warren's Agency

If presidents had zero say or power we wouldn't have the ACA at all in any form, whether or not it's good. They would have ignored it all together.


----------



## bostjan

Not that veto is a soft power, but veto is only a means of getting things not done, not a means of getting things done. It's also not bullet-proof, if a 2/3 majority of congress gets behind a bill, the president can no longer block it with a veto.


----------



## flint757

Doesn't happen typically.

Would you prefer congress pass bills that are bad for regular citizens just so we 'get things done'? Being able to veto and having the conscience to do so doesn't sounds like a thing to consider bad to me. Had Clinton done so more frequently while he was president it's likely policy like glass-steagall would still be in effect.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> Doesn't happen typically.
> 
> Would you prefer congress pass bills that are bad for regular citizens just so we 'get things done'? Being able to veto and having the conscience to do so doesn't sounds like a thing to consider bad to me. Had Clinton done so more frequently while he was president it's likely policy like glass-steagall would still be in effect.



Of course not. However, if congress is typically not getting anything done, having a president who blocks stuff a lot is not going to change the way things are going in Washington.

I'm just being realistic. Everyone hates congress, and they hope the president will fix things. The president does not have the power to change congress. Also, the reason everyone hates congress is because of the idiots everyone else is electing, but these people, on average, like the idiot they are electing. That's a result of districting.

So, the Trumpers can elect Trump, and expect him to run the democrats from the Northers states out of congress, but it's not going to happen. The Bernie supporters can elect Bernie Sanders hoping for him to run the GOP out of Washington, or to get them to behave a little better, but that won't happen, either. Everyone can go and vote for a new congressman in their own districts, but no one in Boston is going to vote out the guy in rural Wyoming.


----------



## flint757

Sometimes being realistic just turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy much like when most people like a 3rd party candidate, but vote red or blue anyhow. It becomes a reality because it is made into one, not because it was necessarily destined to be the case regardless. 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said, but pessimism isn't going to get people more active in politics so that things can change. Most places have abysmal voter turnout for non-presidential elections, so the majority of potential voters haven't even offered their opinion on their local politicians. In any case, people at least being more aware of their politicians actions allows them to hold them accountable on some level. 

As for Bernie, he's for fixing the Democratic party just as much as congress in general, so it isn't just Republican districts in play here. I'd also contend that we've had major sways in our political system over the last 100 years so this notion that 'nothing will ever change' is largely bull..... We had the Dixiecrat split during the 60's, Carter's push for neo-liberalism in the 70's, Reagan's neo-con push in the 80's, Clinton's push for further neo-liberal policies in the 90's, the tea party takeover of the Republicans in the 2000's, and parties have come and gone throughout our nations history. Things can and have changed for better or worse many times. I fail to see why all of a sudden it's simply impossible.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> Sometimes being realistic just turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy much like when most people like a 3rd party candidate, but vote red or blue anyhow. It becomes a reality because it is made into one, not because it was necessarily destined to be the case regardless.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said, but pessimism isn't going to get people more active in politics so that things can change. Most places have abysmal voter turnout for non-presidential elections, so the majority of potential voters haven't even offered their opinion on their local politicians. In any case, people at least being more aware of their politicians actions allows them to hold them accountable on some level.
> 
> As for Bernie, he's for fixing the Democratic party just as much as congress in general, so it isn't just Republican districts in play here. I'd also contend that we've had major sways in our political system over the last 100 years so this notion that 'nothing will ever change' is largely bull..... We had the Dixiecrat split during the 60's, Carter's push for neo-liberalism in the 70's, Reagan's neo-con push in the 80's, Clinton's push for further neo-liberal policies in the 90's, the tea party takeover of the Republicans in the 2000's, and parties have come and gone throughout our nations history. Things can and have changed for better or worse many times. I fail to see why all of a sudden it's simply impossible.



Where did I say change is impossible? I only said that the president has some serious limits to his power, and that most people in the USA have limited understanding of that.

Also, if you want Bernie for president, vote for him. I'm not discouraging that.

The best way to change the government is to get congress and parties sorted out. That's either going to be a difficult change to pull off, or it's going to take a very long time. It's not like Bernie's going to get elected and suddenly congress is going to change.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> 1) He can set policy into motion by passing nothing else until they attempt to pass what progressives are wanting done.



That's called "hostage-taking," and if you wouldn't support Republicans doing it, then you shouldn't support the Democrats doing it either. It's the political equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until you pass out.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> That's called "hostage-taking," and if you wouldn't support Republicans doing it, then you shouldn't support the Democrats doing it either. It's the political equivalent of threatening to hold your breath until you pass out.



It's also exactly how every president has set the policy agenda for their terms. Obama has done exactly this as president. The president's duty is to veto bills he doesn't approve of and sign bills he does. It's one out of a hand full of things he's capable of doing. If we had a Republican president and he did it I may not agree with his decision, but it is well within his right and powers to do so. I don't blindly support the Democratic party.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> It's also exactly how every president has set the policy agenda for their terms. Obama has done exactly this as president. The president's duty is to veto bills he doesn't approve of and sign bills he does. It's one out of a hand full of things he's capable of doing. If we had a Republican president and he did it I may not agree with his decision, but it is well within his right and powers to do so. I don't blindly support the Democratic party.



There's a difference between "I'm going to veto a bill I don't like" and "I'm not signing anything until you do what I say," the latter being what you were suggesting originally. I'm not in favor of elected officials behaving like six-year-olds. Again, see: the last six years of Congress.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> Being able to veto and having the conscience to do so doesn't sounds like a thing to consider bad to me. Had Clinton done so more frequently while he was president it's likely policy like glass-steagall would still be in effect.



Glass-Steagall had enough votes when it passed to override a presidential veto, so no, probably not.


----------



## Spinedriver

Domestic issues aside, The President is also in charge of dealing with foreign leaders as well. Can you imagine Trump going into Middle East countries to conduct trade agreements ?? If he negotiates half as well as he runs his businesses, within 6 months the only countries the US will be trading with are the ones HE gets his junk made in.


----------



## tacotiklah

bostjan said:


> The best way to change the government is to get congress and parties sorted out. That's either going to be a difficult change to pull off, or it's going to take a very long time. It's not like Bernie's going to get elected and suddenly congress is going to change.



The first part of this is the damned honest truth. Citizens United MUST be overturned and religion and our political system MUST have a complete and total divorce from one another. We need to get religion and corporate money out of the way of how we do things in our government. Remember that for all the blaming and finger-pointing that we do for how and why things are the way they are, we all still share blame and have fingers coming right back at us. This government was founded on "of the people, for the people, by the people". We elect these people into office and there are plenty of options in place to remove them. We as citizens must take back our government from aristocrats and the plutocracy that is very much now obviously in place. 

The impeachment process must be use more frequently because as the saying goes, "Politicians and diapers must be changed often and for the same reasons". Term limits for congress must be put in place. Lobbyists HATE when districts get new congressional leaders because it takes more time and money for them to be bought. 

Now while I fully expect the obstructionist right to continue making life miserable for the president should Sanders be elected, I also know that he has been saying these things for years and has been supporting any legislation that attempts to crack down on it. If he were elected, I would know that the president would be on my side and the side of many people who are tired of the way things are being run and want real reform. That's no small matter when the president has your back. 

But as I've said in this thread and countless times over the years, the only REAL change will come when American voters stop with the "congress sucks, but my congressman is amazesauce" mentality and keep voting in the low lifes that sell out their constituents interests to the highest corporate bidder. We keep telling ourselves that this time will somehow be different, but are still shocked when nothing changes. 

If there's anything I've learned from Obama's presidency is that some of the things you thought should happen in the world will change once you actually get to that oval office. I also know that you may have to sacrifice a couple things on your agenda in order to achieve a meaningful compromise that will ultimately benefit all. I do allot for these kinds of variables. But the points I'm bringing up are core issues that just need to happen as is if the US is going to save itself from its own political instability. 

To summarize, the ideal changes to our politics will happen in Congress, not in the white house. Super PACs, career politicians, and religion are all parasites on our system of government; sucking the life out of it until we as country will wither up and die. And it will if we let it. But a step in the right direction is getting a president into office that has SOME power and standing to make some changes (like appointing justices to SCOTUS and if push comes to shove, executive orders). All historical evidence and voting record points to Bernie being the guy that can take initiative to handle the country's affairs. Getting Bernie into the white house is just a first step, but it's an important first step.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> There's a difference between "I'm going to veto a bill I don't like" and "I'm not signing anything until you do what I say," the latter being what you were suggesting originally. I'm not in favor of elected officials behaving like six-year-olds. Again, see: the last six years of Congress.



And that's one voters opinion (assuming you vote). You get to use that opinion with your own vote to make things the way you want them to be on election days. Feel free to do so.

The threat of a veto alone is quite often how presidents get congress to stay the course on their agenda. 

Obama has done exactly this when it came to the Republicans 'Repeal Obamacare' initiatives and I see nothing wrong with this.



celticelk said:


> Glass-Steagall had enough votes when it passed to override a presidential veto, so no, probably not.



I guess we'll never know since he did in fact sign it. Less than 5% of vetoes are overturned last time I checked the numbers so I doubt you're right.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> And that's one voters opinion (assuming you vote). You get to use that opinion with your own vote to make things the way you want them to be on election days. Feel free to do so.
> 
> The threat of a veto alone is quite often how presidents get congress to stay the course on their agenda.
> 
> Obama has done exactly this when it came to the Republicans 'Repeal Obamacare' initiatives and I see nothing wrong with this.



Again, you're conflating the veto of specific legislation with the threat to veto *all* legislation unless Congress does something specific. Make up your mind, will you? And yes, I vote. Even in off years. Even when only local races are at stake.



flint757 said:


> I guess we'll never know since he did in fact sign it. Less than 5% of vetoes are overturned last time I checked the numbers so I doubt you're right.



Or you could bother to do some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley_Act. It takes a two-thirds majority to override a veto; I'll assume you can do the math.


----------



## Spinedriver

One thing that could DEFINITELY make things interesting would be viable 3rd and possibly 4th political parties. Here in Canada, we often get "minority" governments which means that parties have to cooperate in order to enact policy changes. Meaning that just like in the US, whenever a policy vote comes up, it must get a majority vote to carry. However, if the Liberal party doesn't have enough votes in Parliament to pass the piece of Legislature being voted on, they need to get the support of another party to help them. Sadly, this set up doesn't work so well when there are only 2 parties.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> I guess we'll never know since he did in fact sign it. Less than 5% of vetoes are overturned last time I checked the numbers so I doubt you're right.



Wow. Keep in mind that when you make arguments like that, it really could hurt your credibility.

In total, about 7% of regular vetoes are overridden. This is absolutely a useless statistic, though, because it depends on how well congress is getting along with the president. If the president is willing to work with congress and make concessions, the chance of a veto override is essentially nil. When the president is hostile toward congress, they can override every veto. For example, 71% of Andrew Johnson's regular vetoes were overridden by 2/3 majority vote in congress. That was during a time when there was a great deal of hostility between the states and the federal government.

The point is that if Bernie was elected and decided to go full on hostile against congress, the number would very likely be much higher than 5%.

Also, did you bother to look up the bill you two are arguing about? Maybe you should get the details before you get too deep into the discussion.


----------



## celticelk

^^^^ Bear in mind also that he numbers are greatly skewed by the fact that Grover Cleveland and FDR alone account for about *half* of all vetoes, but only about 1% of the overrides. Most Republican presidents since Nixon have had 25-33% override rates (except Bush 41); override rates for the last few Democrats have been around 10%.

Source: Presidential Vetoes | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Again, you're conflating the veto of specific legislation with the threat to veto *all* legislation unless Congress does something specific. Make up your mind, will you? And yes, I vote. Even in off years. Even when only local races are at stake.



I haven't conflated anything. Presidents use the threat of veto to shape and steer the course of legislation so that often times they don't even have to bother vetoing legislation at all. I'm not his campaign manager and I won't be working in the white house so I'm unclear as to why you're taking my opinion as a point of fact anyhow. My opinion on the matter is not necessarily how his presidency will play out if he is elected in case you weren't aware. 



celticelk said:


> Or you could bother to do some research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley_Act. It takes a two-thirds majority to override a veto; I'll assume you can do the math.



Yes, thank you, I understand how the process works. Clinton was largely not hostile towards congress and congress hovered around the middle, as far as Democrat and Republican head count, during his entire presidency. If the Democratic president vetoed a bill, and made a big enough deal about it in the press, the Democrats are spineless enough to step in line and likely not add their support for an override.

Also:



> During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.



He was like a prophet. 



> The act is "often cited as a cause" of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis "even by some of its onetime supporters." President Barack Obama has stated that GLBA led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression. Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.
> 
> Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis. In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm&#8211;Leach&#8211;Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered &#8220;too big to fail". Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of "eliteconomics" that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.



There are certainly multiple arguments supporting and denouncing these theories, but that's the beauty of politics and free thought. Feel free to think whatever you please.



bostjan said:


> Wow. Keep in mind that when you make arguments like that, it really could hurt your credibility.
> 
> In total, about 7% of regular vetoes are overridden. This is absolutely a useless statistic, though, because it depends on how well congress is getting along with the president. If the president is willing to work with congress and make concessions, the chance of a veto override is essentially nil. When the president is hostile toward congress, they can override every veto. For example, 71% of Andrew Johnson's regular vetoes were overridden by 2/3 majority vote in congress. That was during a time when there was a great deal of hostility between the states and the federal government.



Not really since I doubt you knew that offhand. I'm certain you typed 3 words into google and selected the first link. My apologies, however, for not doing the same (sincerely).

Why do people assume that my statement is somehow how it is and how I intend it to play out. Presidents set the policy agenda and often use the threat of a veto to steer congress in a preferred direction, or at the very least to avoid wasting anyone's time. Sanders has actually been able to get a lot of legislation passed with the backing of Republicans and Democrats alike so I doubt it'd be this constant barrage of vetoes. 

I stand by my assertion that him being able to when it counts is still something I feel more comfortable leaving in his hands than the likes of Clinton, Trump, or Cruz. 



bostjan said:


> The point is that if Bernie was elected and decided to go full on hostile against congress, the number would very likely be much higher than 5%.
> 
> Also, did you bother to look up the bill you two are arguing about? Maybe you should get the details before you get too deep into the discussion.



Yes, actually I have.

Read above for your first point. He wouldn't necessarily _be_ going hostile towards congress and he has many allies in congress. The ability to address the public in conjunction with his other powers is something else to be considered. If he vetoes a bill because it is bad for the middle and lower class, assuming it comes to that, then addresses the media on the topic, it'd be political suicide for at least liberals to then override it. Also, at times they just let the bills sit until congress adjourns and then it cannot be overturned at all. Based on the link I found confirming your point, it said 42% of vetoes have been executed in this fashion.

This is all speculative anyhow as it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> I haven't conflated anything. Presidents use the threat of veto to shape and steer the course of legislation so that often times they don't even have to bother vetoing legislation at all. I'm not his campaign manager and I won't be working in the white house so I'm unclear as to why you're taking my opinion as a point of fact anyhow. My opinion on the matter is not necessarily how his presidency will play out if he is elected in case you weren't aware.
> 
> ...
> 
> Why do people assume that my statement is somehow how it is and how I intend it to play out. Presidents set the policy agenda and often use the threat of a veto to steer congress in a preferred direction or at the very least to avoid wasting anyone's time. Sanders has actually been able to get a lot of legislation passed with the backing of Republicans and Democrats alike so I doubt it'd be this constant barrage of vetoes.



I'm harping on this because you're doing what I so frequently see Sanders supporters doing: insisting that electing Sanders will lead to real change without laying out any realistic path for that to happen. The reasoning seems to be:

1. Elect Sanders!
2. ...something something send a message be tough with Congress...
3. Liberal utopia!

The veto thing is a perfect example. You seem not to understand that while yes, presidents can and do veto legislation as a way to try to steer the lawmaking process, there's a huge difference between doing that and (to quote your earlier message again) "set(ting) policy into motion by passing nothing else unless they attempt to pass what progressives are wanting done.". That is, in a nutshell, the equivalent of the recent Republican efforts to shut down the government rather than raise the debt ceiling, etc. It's incredibly damaging political brinksmanship, and given the way the powers of the Executive are structured under the Constitution, using it does not favor the President, because a Congress controlled by the other party can always shrug its shoulders and say "OK, we took up your bill. It got voted down. Now what? Are you going to veto this funding bill for the Department of Education?"

By design, the power to positively set domestic policy is assigned by the Constitution almost entirely to the Legislature. The Executive and the Judiciary can exert some *negative* control over the process through veto and judicial review, but sufficient legislative power can almost always overcome the former, and quite frequently the latter. The Republicans seem to understand this, which is why they spent several decades building their legislative power at the state and federal level, and are now in a position to block our policy agenda at almost every turn. The Democrats could theoretically do this as well, but it would take time and sustained effort, and a fair number of them seem to prefer to rally around a charismatic progressive candidate for President and then assume that the "revolution" is underway (and fail to, for example, do something as simple as GOTV for progressive candidates in off years).

You asked.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> Also, at times they just let the bills sit until congress adjourns and then it cannot be overturned at all. Based on the link I found confirming your point, it said 42% of vetoes have been executed in this fashion.



Yes, the "pocket veto." If you'd read the entire page, you'd have learned that this is only possible under *very* specific circumstances (Congress must adjourn less than 10 days after the legislation is passed, because unsigned bills passed by Congress *automatically* become law after that period), and it's been largely unavailable recently due to court decisions about what properly counts as a "recess" for this purpose. (Did you think the reported lack of pocket vetoes during the Bush 43 and Obama presidencies was a coincidence?)


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> Not really since I doubt you knew that offhand. I'm certain you typed 3 words into google and selected the first link. My apologies, however, for not doing the same (sincerely).



So if I look information up in a book, or on the internet, it makes it less worthy of being used as a point? Sorry, but that does not follow logic. In fact, you brought up the statistic, not me. If you are going to go around shooting out numbers, you ought to expect people to look them up.




flint757 said:


> Why do people assume that my statement is somehow how it is and how I intend it to play out.



wat



flint757 said:


> Presidents set the policy agenda and often use the threat of a veto to steer congress in a preferred direction, or at the very least to avoid wasting anyone's time. Sanders has actually been able to get a lot of legislation passed with the backing of Republicans and Democrats alike so I doubt it'd be this constant barrage of vetoes.




Coming back to my point. As a legislator, Sanders wrote legislation. As an executive, his job will be to execute the law, not to write it, in accordance with division of powers in the US Constitution.



flint757 said:


> I stand by my assertion that him being able to when it counts is still something I feel more comfortable leaving in his hands than the likes of Clinton, Trump, or Cruz.



Vote for whomever you feel is best. I'm simply saying that the president cannot perform miracles, and, furthermore, the president will not make good on all campaign promises. This is evident from the past few dozen presidents. They never make good on all campaign promises. Not for lack of heart, but they simply aren't powerful enough to do everything they promise.



flint757 said:


> Yes, actually I have.
> 
> Read above for your first point. He wouldn't necessarily _be_ going hostile towards congress and he has many allies in congress. The ability to address the public in conjunction with his other powers is something else to be considered. If he vetoes a bill because it is bad for the middle and lower class, assuming it comes to that, then addresses the media on the topic, it'd be political suicide for at least liberals to then override it. Also, at times they just let the bills sit until congress adjourns and then it cannot be overturned at all. Based on the link I found confirming your point, it said 42% of vetoes have been executed in this fashion.
> 
> This is all speculative anyhow as it hasn't happened yet.



Pocket vetos cannot be used all of the time. In fact, if congress expects a pocket veto, and expects that they can override, the veto, they simply have to stay in session a few days longer and it's a done deal. It might be useful nowadays, since congress is pretty lazy right now, but few recent presidents have used pocket veto extensively. And before you go saying I can find that out using a google search, keep in mind that this stuff is taught in the USA in 9th grade civics, and then go ahead and look it up on google, because sometimes people forget stuff, and google is a great way to get in touch with information.

My comment was in response to another person's post:



Spinedriver said:


> Sanders wants to seriously shake things up and that scares the hell out of a LOT of people. If he gets elected and the GOP starts in with the filibustering and putting insane riders onto bills he's trying to pass, he's not going to just sit there, throw his hands up and go 'Oh well, what can you do'. He's gonna start yankin' some leashes and finally show the general public why things don't get done in Washington.



And this line of logic:



> 1. Elect Sanders!
> 2. ...something something send a message be tough with Congress...
> 3. Liberal utopia!



It takes time and a lot more effort from the general population than most people think. Odds are, just like last time, once the maverick liberal is elected, the activists all go back to everyday life, status quo, the president makes compromises, and things are typically business as usual. Things change, but very little changes fast. What will Bernie be able to get done in four years as president? Will it be more than what he could get done in six years as a senator? I'll let history decide on that, if he gets elected. It's all a bunch of "ifs," but until then, there are reasonable expectations and pipe dreams.


----------



## estabon37

Sorry, I'm gonna backtrack ever so slightly (a lot of conversation has taken place in the last 48 hours) and then catch up again.



flint757 said:


> This gives a pretty solid layout to show that ideologically he's quite significantly different from Obama.



I agree that in terms of ideology and agenda, Obama and Sanders are very, very different. As you point out, the current state of politics is also very different than it was even just eight years ago, but these were not the points I was trying to make.

The rhetoric surrounding Sanders as an 'agent of change', whether generated by the public or by Sanders' and his handlers / supporters, is by my interpretation quite similar to the more heavy-handed rhetoric espoused by the 2008 Obama campaign. I don't mean the word 'rhetoric' as an insult, by the way, I mean it as 'targeted persuasive techniques'. Both Obama and Sanders want(ed) the public to believe they were personally capable of instilling change in a system that is monolithic, complex, and resistant to change. Their personal ideologies and agendas don't have to be similar for that particular message to be essentially the same.

Closer to the recent conversation ...



bostjan said:


> Things change, but very little changes fast. What will Bernie be able to get done in four years as president? Will it be more than what he could get done in six years as a senator? I'll let history decide on that, if he gets elected. It's all a bunch of "ifs," but until then, there are reasonable expectations and pipe dreams.



Shit, I hope I don't wind up seeming like I'm contradicting myself here, but here we go...

I feel the need to be honest: I prefer Sanders essentially *because* of the 'pipe dream' aspect of his pitch. I actually think it's important for leaders to take on a role as a visionary and an advocate, and I think most of us feel this way if we think about it. If I take the view of an objective realist, as a foreigner, Clinton seems like the better choice because she's already established a lot of relationships with both leaders and corporations, theoretically leading to smoother interactions with the international community. Internationally, Sanders is somewhat of an unknown, and Trump is often considered unrespectable and essentially intolerable. Spinedriver made this point earlier just in relation to Trump, but it applies to every candidate. Hell, I think I can only take the 'objective realist' perspective so far before I give up on politics entirely, as many people have.

The pipe dream is actually important because it presents both a 'best case scenario', and an intended pathway for the next four years. I understand approaches these parts of the political pitch cynically, but they have functional purpose, even if they largely go unrealised.


----------



## bostjan

estabon37 said:


> I feel the need to be honest: I prefer Sanders essentially *because* of the 'pipe dream' aspect of his pitch. I actually think it's important for leaders to take on a role as a visionary and an advocate, and I think most of us feel this way if we think about it. If I take the view of an objective realist, as a foreigner, Clinton seems like the better choice because she's already established a lot of relationships with both leaders and corporations, theoretically leading to smoother interactions with the international community. Internationally, Sanders is somewhat of an unknown, and Trump is often considered unrespectable and essentially intolerable. Spinedriver made this point earlier just in relation to Trump, but it applies to every candidate. Hell, I think I can only take the 'objective realist' perspective so far before I give up on politics entirely, as many people have.
> 
> The pipe dream is actually important because it presents both a 'best case scenario', and an intended pathway for the next four years. I understand approaches these parts of the political pitch cynically, but they have functional purpose, even if they largely go unrealised.



Yeah, you have to elect the candidate whom you believe is best. Let's not call that into question. But, just to keep expectations realistic, know that your candidate, if elected, does not suddenly become all-powerful. I say this in light of Obama, who made some really shocking campaign promises, and abandoned a large portion of them after he was elected, which irked a lot of his supporters. The fact that he made good on a few of them should count for something, but I think the notion of "candidate of change" gets too much clout, since the "change" here is a change of something that is not exactly actionable in any immediate sense, but rather a change of mind about a portion of what you will hear on the campaign trail.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeah, you have to elect the candidate whom you believe is best. Let's not call that into question. But, just to keep expectations realistic, know that your candidate, if elected, does not suddenly become all-powerful. I say this in light of Obama, who made some really shocking campaign promises, and abandoned a large portion of them after he was elected, which irked a lot of his supporters. The fact that he made good on a few of them should count for something, but I think the notion of "candidate of change" gets too much clout, since the "change" here is a change of something that is not exactly actionable in any immediate sense, but rather a change of mind about a portion of what you will hear on the campaign trail.



The only hair I'll split is that I don't know how much of this was he "abandoned" them, vs how much of this was he realized he wasn't something he could actually _do_. Stuff like Gitmo or pulling out of Afghanistan is maybe a little debatable since the fact it was going to be a logistical nightmare certainly became more of a problem _after_ he got elected than before, but he probably could have ordered it and gotten it done. But, he damned near DIDN'T get the ACA passed, and he used up most of his political capital and goodwill on that. I think most of the rest of his agenda was limited to what he could do via executive action, since Congress was anywhere from unresponsive to outright hostile on virtually everything else he did. It's amazing he's done as well as he has on budgetary negotiations, and even then it's doubtful that would have happened had the GOP not done such a horrible job bungling the debt ceiling debate that got the US's credit rating cut by S&P.


----------



## bostjan

I think Obama's got a lot more done than other presidents, and I think he's done a better job than the past several. Not to say I think he couldn't have done a little more or managed better.

On a side note, I just did the math, and if Kasich gets 99.0% of the remaining delegates, he still won't get the nomination by a show of delegate force. He actually needs 99.3% minimum. Why he's still in the race is a mystery to me, since he can't win, but if he drops out, it leaves Cruz and Trump. 

On another side note, the media this morning was calling the whole primary in favour of Clinton. Sanders will need 2/3 of the remaining delegates to cinch a sure win. While that's an incredible margin, 67% is more likely than 99.3%, right?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> On another side note, the media this morning was calling the whole primary in favour of Clinton. Sanders will need 2/3 of the remaining delegates to cinch a sure win. While that's an incredible margin, 67% is more likely than 99.3%, right?



Does that figure take super delegates into consideration?


----------



## tacotiklah

Rich lefties trying to shape public opinion in favor of Clinton before the convention? Who would have thought!?







Good to see that there totally non-biased media showing that Bernie isn't that far behind Clinton at all...
Bernie Sanders Had a Phenomenal Night 
In fact, two of the states that our totally factual, neutral-sided liberal media called for Clinton were actually ties and were "too close to call". People wonder why I hate Clinton? Maybe it has to do with some of this bull.... shenanigans. It's okay, Bernie will forgive. Bernie will forget. And he will give Hillary a nice cushy cabinet posting that she'll later screw up and be replaced on for a second time. 


But since this thread is all about the Drumpf, I thought I'd share this nugget when he's asked who he will pick as his national advisors...


Donald J. Drumpf said:


> "I'm speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain, and I've said a lot of things," Donald Trump said when asked who his top foreign policy advisors are. "I speak to a lot of people, but my primary consultant is myself, and I have a good instinct for this stuff."



Source:
Trump's top foreign policy advisor? 'I'm speaking with myself' | TheHill


As an American citizen speaking to forumers on here from other countries, I'm just as f_u_cking horrified as you when it comes to the thought of this man running foreign policy. NASA needs to hurry up and terraform Mars because we need to peace tf out if Drumpf gets the presidency. It turns my stomach to think of the number of brown people that are going to die at the hands of this sick bastard. Keep in mind, outside of being a CEO, Donald hasn't really had much in terms of real power. Give him the nuclear "football" and we're all screwed. He'd punch in those launch codes just because Mexico pulled production of his menswear in protest of his wall comments. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


----------



## tacotiklah

Sorry for double post, but I felt this should be a post all unto itself because of lulz.
Lightning struck Trump Tower in Chicago Tuesday night | TheHill


For the more religious on these forums, doesn't it almost feel like some divine entity was smashing their hands down on a table while screaming, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!" and the lightning bolt was the end result? 
Someone needs to make a vine of this.


----------



## flint757

If people are sincerely going to claim everything Sanders wants to do is a pipe dream that will never come to pass, something he's never claimed he'd do alone anyhow for those actually following, then I don't honestly think the boogeyman routine for Trump is justifiable, because the same rules apply for him as well (and all the candidates still in play). Trump's getting as much coverage as he is anyhow for the ratings, and more likely, to boost Clinton's appeal. Trump has made a lot of awful politicians seem like grand ideas in his run. Cruz is actually far scarier IMO and he's making him seem reasonable to voters. Kasich is probably the most sane and even he is a horrible choice. If a Republican ends up walking away with the win this election I honestly hope it is Trump because his anti-establishment stance means he will accomplish far less than a Cruz, Rubio or Kasich presidency. He's not only an anti-establishment outsider, but most people don't even respect the man in congress.



celticelk said:


> I'm harping on this because you're doing what I so frequently see Sanders supporters doing: insisting that electing Sanders will lead to real change without laying out any realistic path for that to happen.



And you're doing what I so frequently see Clinton supporters do: insist Clinton is the only one who can win in the general (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary), insist that she will have an easier time passing policy (despite Republicans hating her), and ignoring the plethora of evidence that she lies, tells half-truths, and deliberately misleads voters anytime she has ever run for office. In the other thread about the presidential election you have brushed off literally all evidence of her untrustworthiness and inconsistency.

If the going notion is I have egg on my face because I think Sanders is more honest and actually holds progressive values that this party was built on then you most certainly do as well for the level of cognitive dissonance you employ by supporting a habitual liar/manipulator.



celticelk said:


> The reasoning seems to be:
> 1. Elect Sanders!
> 2. ...something something send a message be tough with Congress...
> 3. Liberal utopia!



Why don't you just go to his page and inform yourself on what he's intending. 

His goal isn't just policy. It's to get people motivated to be involved in politics by actually participating, whether that be by running or voting. He's done a hell of a good job doing that so far and as long as he keeps pushing that 'message' then over the next decade (who's claiming instantaneous change exactly?) we can change this country for the better rather than stewing in the status quo cluster.... we currently reside in.

I'm a realist who aims high in hopes that when the die is cast we have moved into an ever so slightly more progressive direction, at worst. Unlike Clinton, I also know he absolutely will not pass something that is detrimental for the people who voted for him. You may consider that naive, and by all means feel free to, but his record shows it to not be a bluff for the sake of getting elected (unlike his opponent). 

Clinton's starting point her entire career has been firmly already in the red, since she considers herself a 'moderate' and in this country a moderate is a left leaning conservative. This means when policy meets in the middle it's already in Republican territory. I simply like my potential outcomes better with Sanders.


----------



## celticelk

tacotiklah said:


> It's okay, Bernie will forgive. Bernie will forget. And he will give Hillary a nice cushy cabinet posting that she'll later screw up and be replaced on for a second time.



Points for standing by your man, but you can't seriously think that Sanders winning the nomination is at all likely at this point. *Possible*, yes, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't throw away good money betting on it no matter what odds you offered.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Points for standing by your man, but you can't seriously think that Sanders winning the nomination is at all likely at this point. *Possible*, yes, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't throw away good money betting on it no matter what odds you offered.



You weren't anyhow.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> And you're doing what I so frequently see Clinton supporters do: insist Clinton is the only one who can win in the general (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary), insist that she will have an easier time passing policy (despite Republicans hating her), and ignoring the plethora of evidence that she lies, tells half-truths, and deliberately misleads voters anytime she has ever run for office. In the other thread about the presidential election you have brushed off literally all evidence of her untrustworthiness and inconsistency.



In order of those charges:

-Your "lot of evidence to the contrary" consists of low-predictive-power general election polls, conducted in the absence of any sustained media campaign against Sanders. You can continue to insist that his self-identification as a socialist won't hurt him in the general if you like; I'll continue to think that you're being absurdly naive.

-When did I ever say that Clinton would have an easier time passing policy? I think her policy solutions are more realistic. Whether she can get them passed is another story. If Sanders is actually the nominee, I will feel slightly better about pulling the lever for him in November *because* I think his policies are unlikely to pass Congress. (And yes, if he's the nominee, I'll vote for him.)

-After two decades of watching Republicans fling sh!t at Hillary Clinton, I'm basically desensitized to it. Someone accused Clinton of treason - must be Tuesday. The fact that it's now progressives who are doing it doesn't really make me inclined to pay more attention. And no, I don't care what you think that makes me.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine




----------



## Captain Butterscotch

So they'll send odd tweets from his Twitter account? Take down his website? Woop dee doo. Anonymous is a goddamn joke.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Captain Butterscotch said:


> So they'll send odd tweets from his Twitter account? Take down his website? Woop dee doo. Anonymous is a goddamn joke.


----------



## AndruwX

Hi, it's the first time I see this thread. I honestly don't like politics too much because an unimaginable amount of corruption destroyed my country and all thanks by this fake socialists that made the country a communist dystopia. My suggestion to all of you:

Don't vote neither Sanders or Trump
Why? If you add Sander's "everyhting will be free" and Trump's xenophobic and populistic attitude, you get:







This evil motherfvcker.
If you are not convinced, it's okay, some people have to learn with their own skin.


----------



## bostjan

Again, you have to vote for the best choice. That's how things ever get done. But, again, no one is going to make it happen over night. If Trump wins, no good will come of it, but yes, I am saying that the USA will not suddenly become a post-apocalyptic wasteland. If Sanders is elected, the USA will not suddenly become a socialist dystopia. If Clinton is elected, well, the same corrupt BS will keep happening that has been gradually ruining the USA for over a decade. If Cruz is elected, the USA will not suddenly become a military state. If Kasich is elected, Hell will, however, freeze over.

Each candidate, although not causing this crap to happen over night, or even in four years, is a big step that direction. I think people are seeing Trump as anti-corruption, but I do not believe this is anywhere near the case with him. He's a cult of personality who lives a lavish baroque lifestyle and has never done anything to help out the common people. Is there a Donald Trump Foundation? Of course. Look them up if you'd like, but it is one of the most controversial charities that allegedly raises money for vets and funnels it into presidential campaigns. Did you know Trump is the least charitable billionaire?

Sanders is not without controversy, as he and his wife were alleged to have received golden parachutes from Burlington College as it went bankrupt, but he is a saint compared to the two frontrunners.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think Obama's got a lot more done than other presidents, and I think he's done a better job than the past several. Not to say I think he couldn't have done a little more or managed better.
> 
> On a side note, I just did the math, and if Kasich gets 99.0% of the remaining delegates, he still won't get the nomination by a show of delegate force. He actually needs 99.3% minimum. Why he's still in the race is a mystery to me, since he can't win, but if he drops out, it leaves Cruz and Trump.
> 
> On another side note, the media this morning was calling the whole primary in favour of Clinton. Sanders will need 2/3 of the remaining delegates to cinch a sure win. While that's an incredible margin, 67% is more likely than 99.3%, right?



Simply, and I suspect you know this but I'll make the argument anyway, Kasich isn't running to win. He's running to stop Trump from getting enough votes to win the nomination outright, in the hope that the GOP can force a contested election. Kasich should do well in traditional "liberal" states like California and New York that if he can win enough of the urban, liberal-leaning districts, he may be able to block Trump from getting to 1,237. The actual math is a bit dicy and I'm not going to bother, but Politico is telling me that there are 1,061 GOP delegates remaining and with Trump at 673, to get to 1,237, he needs to win 564 of them, or just over 53%. I'm going to hazard a guess that Kasich is likely to pick up more from Rubio than Cruz is, and anecdotally what little polling I've seen has seen him jumping substantially, partly because of Rubio and partly because he's the most plausible anti-Trump (and, partly because there's finally some suggestion of Republicans voting tactically to block Trump rather than to support their anti-Trump, after the last round of primaries). 

None of this isn't to say that Trump is in a bad spot - I think there are enough winner-take-all or winner-take-most states left that he should be able to eek out slight electoral wins that translate into large delegate totals. But, if Kasich and Cruz can combine to take more than 47% of the remaining delegates, then Trump fails to win outright and we go to a contested election, and Kasich becomes a very plausible candidate at that point if he can build a case that he was instrumental in holding off Trump. And he just may pull it off - he's risen from low single digits in national polling to about 10%, and not many polls have come out including his win in Ohio in the survey period. If he and Cruz can combine to take a couple key states, say by asking Cruz supporters to vote for Kasich in CA and Kasich supporters to vote for Cruz in the bible belt, that might be enough to move the needle at the margins and block Trump.

Sanders, meanwhile, needs to win. He's in a two-way race with an establishment candidate; a contested convention is not in the cards for him. Whereas Kasich is running a defensive race (block Trump), Sanders is running an offensive one (beat Clinton). He has a much harder objective to meet than Kasich.


----------



## bostjan

All very well said, Drew.

To be frank, I've been telling people since January that this is going to come down to Clinton beating Trump in the general election.


----------



## Spinedriver

I just thought about this today... Back in the 90's, when she was First Lady, Hillary was very adamant about being called Hillary *Rodham* Clinton because she didn't want to live in the shadow of Bill and accomplish things on her own merit. 20 years on however, how come there's no mention of Rodham any where. 

It seems she's not so shy about acknowledging her husband's Presidency and using it to her advantege now. 

On top of that, what the hell has happened to the United States of America where an election has devolved from 'people electing the best person qualified to lead a country' into 'we have to _prevent_ someone FROM getting elected'.  

I hear a lot of people say it's "awesome" and "hilarious" that he's running but unlike jocks who vote for the worst candidate for Class President as a joke, voting for this clown is anything BUT a joke. Should the system fail and Trump make it through to the White House, the results will be catastrophic.


----------



## wankerness

AndruwX said:


> Hi, it's the first time I see this thread. I honestly don't like politics too much because an unimaginable amount of corruption destroyed my country and all thanks by this fake socialists that made the country a communist dystopia. My suggestion to all of you:
> 
> Don't vote neither Sanders or Trump
> Why? If you add Sander's "everyhting will be free" and Trump's xenophobic and populistic attitude, you get:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This evil motherfvcker.
> If you are not convinced, it's okay, some people have to learn with their own skin.



Fantastic insight, you should become a political analyst.


----------



## AndruwX

wankerness said:


> Fantastic insight, you should become a political analyst.



I know you are being sarcastic and that demonstrates that I hit a nerve.
Let's leave it at that. It's just a friendly warning of what .... can happen when you election the wrong person.

A friend who used to play drums in a band with me was shot to death yesterday just to steal his phone, and they are so valuable thanks to hyperinflation. I'm not political expert, but boy I can say I am a victim of it.


----------



## Humbuck

"Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks"...

Trump presidency rated among top 10 global risks: EIU - BBC News


----------



## Drew

Spinedriver said:


> I just thought about this today... Back in the 90's, when she was First Lady, Hillary was very adamant about being called Hillary *Rodham* Clinton because she didn't want to live in the shadow of Bill and accomplish things on her own merit. 20 years on however, how come there's no mention of Rodham any where.
> 
> It seems she's not so shy about acknowledging her husband's Presidency and using it to her advantege now.



Possibly. Another thing I'd consider, though, is that today, when she's known as much for being a former Senator from New York and a former Secretary of State, she's stepped pretty solidly outside of Bill's shadow.


----------



## synrgy

Not to fan the alarmist flames or anything, but, this election cycle has me feeling very lucky to have married a Canadian. I feel like I have _options_, now. 

I spent the 2008 cycle _terrified_, and there are plenty of threads lingering around here to prove it. I was convinced we were polarized to the point of breaking, that civil war was looming, etc.

This time around, I'm largely apathetic: If Palin and 'the Tea Party' didn't scare America and the GOP into coming back _toward_ the center? I've got *nothing*. I hate to say it - I really do - but at this point I feel like we _deserve_ Drumpf, and every bit of ruin he helps us achieve faster than we already were.

I mean, to be clear, I don't support him or his candidacy/rhetoric/etc. I'm just not surprised by it.

I'll quietly vote my way and hope for the best.

And quite possibly end up moving north in the next few years, anyway, no matter the electoral outcomes, because, honestly, eff this dung. Drumpf aside, my country has become like that annoying acquaintance who has a Napoleon complex and talks nonsense to _everyone_, and always manages to get _me_ in trouble, by association. I'm tired of its crap, and have reached the stage of ignoring all of its phone calls.


----------



## synrgy

And, as if to underscore my train of thought, the following exchange just took place on my Dad's FB (my Dad is OP in attached screenshot.)


----------



## wankerness

AndruwX said:


> I know you are being sarcastic and *that demonstrates that I hit a nerve.*
> Let's leave it at that. It's just a friendly warning of what .... can happen when you election the wrong person.
> 
> A friend who used to play drums in a band with me was shot to death yesterday just to steal his phone, and they are so valuable thanks to hyperinflation. I'm not political expert, but boy I can say I am a victim of it.



"I'm right because U MAD" is total Trump logic. You basically said "Bernie and Trump are equally bad because their opposite traits together = Chavez." Which makes no sense, because wouldn't the candidates between them have more of a balance between those two bad traits and thus be CLOSER to Chavez? It's not a Sanders/Trump ticket!

This is going to be the worst race of my lifetime. We have a democratic nominee that essentially no one likes who will minimize the number of people going out and voting for her, vs someone playing the character of a wrestling heel who is funny as long as you don't try too hard to consider that the same behavior in office would probably cause World War III. Should be GREAT TIMES for the next year. This is the epitome of the "vote against the other candidate instead of for the person you want to win" kind of race.


----------



## bostjan

What ever happened to logical debate? We might as well have the candidates tag team wrestle each other for office.


----------



## synrgy

bostjan said:


> What ever happened to logical debate? We might as well have the candidates tag team wrestle each other for office.



Wouldn't be Drumpf's first foray into wrestling, either.


----------



## celticelk

wankerness said:


> We have a democratic nominee that essentially no one likes



Except for the majority of Democratic voters in the primaries, who've made her the nominee. And the ~80% of Democratic primary voters (through Super Tuesday, anyway) who said they would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. But apart from them, no one.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Except for the majority of Democratic voters in the primaries, who've made her the nominee. And the ~80% of Democratic primary voters (through Super Tuesday, anyway) who said they would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. But apart from them, no one.



I don't know of any serious political commentators who think Trump will beat Clinton in the general election. However, if 80% of a party's constituents stand behind a candidate, it really means nothing. There could be 100% of the other party's constituents who might vote against her. There might be some percentage of non-affiliated voters who would vote against her, which is an unknown chunk of a large percentage of voters and an even larger percentage of potential voters.

So 80% of what might be as high as 40% or as low as 20% of potential voters = 16-32%. Not bad as a more or less guaranteed vote, but not a sure win, either, in general circumstances. In this case, I'm not bringing up the fact that Trump has an even smaller percentage of Republicans willing to support him. But that's beside wankerness's point that you contested.

Obviously, a lot of people love Clinton. I never liked her. I never liked Bill, either. But then, none of my favourite people are politicians.


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> Except for the majority of Democratic voters in the primaries, who've made her the nominee. And the ~80% of Democratic primary voters (through Super Tuesday, anyway) who said they would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee. But apart from them, no one.



Satisfied =/= like, and the majority of democratic voters is a minority of the country. The polls on considering her honest was 35%! I'll hold my nose and vote for her, obviously, but LIKE her? Definitely not!


----------



## celticelk

wankerness said:


> Satisfied =/= like, and the majority of democratic voters is a minority of the country. The polls on considering her honest was 35%! I'll hold my nose and vote for her, obviously, but LIKE her? Definitely not!



Obviously, but I think the fact that she's pulling those numbers casts serious doubt on any assertion that "no one likes her." She may not be inspiring Sanders levels of zealous enthusiasm, but it's simply not possible that her *entire* voting base is supporting her for tactical reasons. Word choice matters.


----------



## ASoC

Hopefully stuff like this happens more and more as election season gets closer 

Protesters Just Shut Down Traffic to Trump Rally in Arizona


----------



## pwsusi

ASoC said:


> Hopefully stuff like this happens more and more as election season gets closer
> 
> Protesters Just Shut Down Traffic to Trump Rally in Arizona



Breaking the law and trying to silence/deny free speech of the opposition is not the way to win the debate. Protest peacefully, abide by the law and go out and vote against him if you don't agree. This isn't showing a lot of tolerance for a bunch of people who are protesting Trump because of his intolerance. God forbid an ambulance needed to get through.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> What ever happened to logical debate? We might as well have the candidates tag team wrestle each other for office.



I mean, one of the last large debates was, quite literally, a cock measuring contest. I think we've hit a new low in American political discourse. 

Clinton is the odds-on favorite to win the presidency at this point, but what worries me about Trump is his unpredictability. On paper, he shouldn't have been any more than a flash in the pan novelty candidate, yet (while it's unclear if he'll win an outright majority before the convention) he's currently the GOP front runner. For that reason alone I can't bring myself to totally write him off; it's Bayesian probability at this point, that if he had a low probability of being competitive in the primaries and yet is now winning, then maybe we need to rethink his probability of winning the general election, too. 

On paper, everything I've heard, read, and seen about American politics tells me Clinton should win a head-to-head with Trump. But the very fact Trump is still winning suggests maybe I need to rethink everything I've heard, read, and seen about American politics.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> On paper, everything I've heard, read, and seen about American politics tells me Clinton should win a head-to-head with Trump. But the very fact Trump is still winning suggests maybe I need to rethink everything I've heard, read, and seen about American politics.



It's easy to write him off. I think how he made it this far was a bit of a perfect storm:

1. Run against a dozen other candidates. Run as the outsider and paint those candidates as insiders.
2. Generate buzz by taking the lead, even if it's far from a majority.
3. Use that buzz and that lead to claim even more momentum. Breed a cult of personality that cements supporters.
4. As more candidates drop out, be more outrageous and appeal to the lowest common denominator. Use experience as a reality tv star to get more popular and generate more buzz.

If he goes head to head with Clinton, all he has to do is let Clinton demotivate her own base. At this point, with the negative stuff going around about her generated from the primary, and her sordid history as first lady of Arkansas, all he'd have to do is repeat the mantra "Whitewater Benghazi" enough and he could sideline her. If Bernie Sanders runs as an Independent, it's not hard to believe Trump could win the general election.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If Bernie Sanders runs as an Independent, it's not hard to believe Trump could win the general election.



That's a REALLY big if, though - I can't see Sanders actually launching a 3rd party bid after losing to Clinton in the primary. He knows the stakes well enough, and knows all he'd do is split the Democratic vote and hand the election to Trump (or whoever manages to grab the nomination if this ends in a contested election).

Say what you will about Sanders, he isn't an idiot. He knows where that will end.


----------



## bostjan

There's already been quite a bit of chatter about it. I think some of Sander's supporters will write him in either way.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> There's already been quite a bit of chatter about it. I think some of Sander's supporters will write him in either way.



From the Sanders campaign or credible sources close to it?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> From the Sanders campaign or credible sources close to it?



No.

Here's one article: 
Bernie Sanders Independent Run: If He Doesn

The point is whether he runs or not, his supporters generally hate Hillary Clinton. There is a good possibility that a portion of them would vote either write-in for Sanders or for some other third party, rather than vote for Clinton.

The way I see it, we will, most likely, see a Clinton vs. Trump election. Depending on running mates, it could be a very unpredictable election.

You have:

General Anti-Trump people who will vote for anything but Trump.
General Anti-Hillary people who will vote for anything but Clinton.
Trump supporters.
Clinton supporters.
Swing voters who vote unpredictably.

This time around, we have both democrats and republicans who might fit oddly into the first two categories. It might seem impossible, but I personally know at least a few folks who support Sanders but have told me they'd rather see Trump elected than Clinton, although they'll adamantly vote for neither.

It doesn't take a very large chunk of any group of people to screw up an election. Ross Perot spoiled Bush the First's reelection. But that was an extreme example. Some political pundits thought that Ralph Nader spoiled Al Gore's election.

So, how does this get worked out? Maybe Clinton and Sanders run on the same ticket. Maybe Trump gets someone similarly divisive on his ticket, such that republicans who would vote not-Trump might come around. If neither is the case, then we might end up with a four-way split for the first time in a long time in a US presidential election. It could get simple, like how Ross Perot appealed to both people who wanted to oust Bush and people who didn't like Bill Clinton, with some third party candidate appearing with a broad appeal, who might even snag some portion of the popular vote that has a non-zero number on the left side of the decimal. Or we could have two spoilers, one on each side, or it might just be a cluster flock.

At any rate, just about every election I can remember had a sort of "none-of-the-above" attitude among my friends. This one seems to be particularly strong in this sense.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> The point is whether he runs or not, his supporters generally hate Hillary Clinton. There is a good possibility that a portion of them would vote either write-in for Sanders or for some other third party, rather than vote for Clinton.



Except that this notably did *not* happen in 2008, when Obama was registering lower "I'd be satisfied with him as the nominee" numbers in exit polling than Clinton is this year. I've referenced this before, but as a refresher: Republican Voters Kind Of Hate All Their Choices | FiveThirtyEight

What you're describing is not an *impossible* scenario, to be sure, but I want to see more than anecdotal reports about BernieBro Facebook feeds before I start to become concerned about it affecting the general election.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Maybe Clinton and Sanders run on the same ticket.



Not a chance. The Sanders voters who are vehemently anti-Hillary will just accuse Sanders of "selling out," and the ones who won't were probably going to vote Clinton in the general anyway. Adding Sanders to the ticket also makes the Democrats vulnerable to all of the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST" attacks that the Republicans would have run against Sanders in the general, and denies the party a chance to groom a young up-and-comer for future presidential runs. There's no upside for Clinton in choosing Sanders as her VP, and plenty of downside.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> What you're describing is not an *impossible* scenario, to be sure, but I want to see more than anecdotal reports about BernieBro Facebook feeds before I start to become concerned about it affecting the general election.



I had just posted an article about it that had nothing to do with facebook.

At any rate, we'll see. I still think Clinton is going to mop the floor with Trump in the general election, most likely.

Before you say "never" about a running mate, just look who John McCain picked in 2008. I don't think most rational people saw that one coming. I was really pulling for McCain in 2000. That's not to say anybody knows anything about Clinton's running mate at this point in time.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> No.
> 
> Here's one article:
> Bernie Sanders Independent Run: If He Doesn
> 
> *The point is whether he runs or not, his supporters generally hate Hillary Clinton. There is a good possibility that a portion of them would vote either write-in for Sanders or for some other third party, rather than vote for Clinton.*
> 
> The way I see it, we will, most likely, see a Clinton vs. Trump election. Depending on running mates, it could be a very unpredictable election.
> 
> You have:
> 
> General Anti-Trump people who will vote for anything but Trump.
> General Anti-Hillary people who will vote for anything but Clinton.
> Trump supporters.
> Clinton supporters.
> Swing voters who vote unpredictably.
> 
> This time around, we have both democrats and republicans who might fit oddly into the first two categories. It might seem impossible, but I personally know at least a few folks who support Sanders but have told me they'd rather see Trump elected than Clinton, although they'll adamantly vote for neither.
> 
> It doesn't take a very large chunk of any group of people to screw up an election. Ross Perot spoiled Bush the First's reelection. But that was an extreme example. Some political pundits thought that Ralph Nader spoiled Al Gore's election.
> 
> So, how does this get worked out? Maybe Clinton and Sanders run on the same ticket. Maybe Trump gets someone similarly divisive on his ticket, such that republicans who would vote not-Trump might come around. If neither is the case, then we might end up with a four-way split for the first time in a long time in a US presidential election. It could get simple, like how Ross Perot appealed to both people who wanted to oust Bush and people who didn't like Bill Clinton, with some third party candidate appearing with a broad appeal, who might even snag some portion of the popular vote that has a non-zero number on the left side of the decimal. Or we could have two spoilers, one on each side, or it might just be a cluster flock.
> 
> At any rate, just about every election I can remember had a sort of "none-of-the-above" attitude among my friends. This one seems to be particularly strong in this sense.



I don't think so. Almost everyone I know is a Sanders supporter, and very few of them actually hate Clinton, and NONE of them I know would vote for a third party. They consider voting for her being the same as voting for Obama's second term, or whatever. None of them are under any impression that Hillary would be worse than Trump or Cruz. Worst case scenario, they just wouldn't vote (but they're millennials, so they probably wouldn't have voted for Sanders anyway because they're lazy).


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Not a chance. The Sanders voters who are vehemently anti-Hillary will just accuse Sanders of "selling out," and the ones who won't were probably going to vote Clinton in the general anyway. Adding Sanders to the ticket also makes the Democrats vulnerable to all of the "EHRMAGERD SOCIALIST" attacks that the Republicans would have run against Sanders in the general, and denies the party a chance to groom a young up-and-comer for future presidential runs. There's no upside for Clinton in choosing Sanders as her VP, and plenty of downside.



Putting a little too sharp a point on that one.

I agree she probably won't take him, but Clinton/Sanders is the only Hillary scenario where I'll consider voting Democrat (as opposed to third party) or showing up at all. I've floated the Clinton/Sanders ticket by a handful of other Sander supporters and they said they'd hold their nose and vote for that ticket.

"No upside" is a bit of an overstatement considering, even if he loses, he's likely going to be <10% below her in pledged candidates by the time this wraps up. That's a lotta people and no guarantee they WON'T vote for them (since my anecdote rebuts yours).

If you've got such a 'hellfire and brimstone' perspective on the potentially 45%+ of Democratic voters that will sit out the general election if Hillary gets it, how on Earth do you see her winning against whoever the GOP nominee is?


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> Putting a little too sharp a point on that one.
> 
> I agree she probably won't take him, but Clinton/Sanders is the only Hillary scenario where I'll consider voting Democrat (as opposed to third party) or showing up at all. I've floated the Clinton/Sanders ticket by a handful of other Sander supporters and they said they'd hold their nose and vote for that ticket.
> 
> "No upside" is a bit of an overstatement considering, even if he loses, he's likely going to be <10% below her in pledged candidates by the time this wraps up. That's a lotta people and no guarantee they WON'T vote for them (since my anecdote rebuts yours).
> 
> If you've got such a 'hellfire and brimstone' perspective on the potentially 45%+ of Democratic voters that will sit out the general election if Hillary gets it, how on Earth do you see her winning against whoever the GOP nominee is?



The whole much-ado-over-nothing flap of the PUMAs in 2008 suggests that the burden of proof is on the side arguing that substantial numbers of Sanders supporters *will* defect or sit out the general election if Sanders is not the nominee (or on the ticket, or whatever). The satisfaction numbers from the primary exit polls (laid out in the article I linked above) indicate that a higher percentage of Democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee this year than said the same for either Clinton or Obama in mid-2008. Combine that with the fact that Donald Trump - arguably the worst possible candidate for the Republicans this year - is likely to be her general-election opponent, and I don't see how you get a large enough contingent of disaffected Sanders supporters to throw the election.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> I had just posted an article about it that had nothing to do with facebook.



That article is ten weeks old. In the primary season, that's rather a long time. And the article doesn't provide any data either.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> I don't think so. Almost everyone I know is a Sanders supporter, and very few of them actually hate Clinton, and NONE of them I know would vote for a third party.





Randy said:


> ....Clinton/Sanders is the only Hillary scenario where I'll consider voting Democrat (as opposed to third party) or showing up at all. I've floated the Clinton/Sanders ticket by a handful of other Sander supporters and they said they'd hold their nose and vote for that ticket.



There ya go.



celticelk said:


> That article is ten weeks old. In the primary season, that's rather a long time. And the article doesn't provide any data either.



Why does a ten week age of the article have anything to do with there being a possibility he could run as a third party or that people might write him in if he doesn't obtain the nomination?

Look, you already complained that there were no articles outside facebook substantiating the statement, even after I posted an article that was not linked to facebook. Now that I've pointed that out, you are complaining about the age of the article. To me, it just sounds like you are making excuses to shoot down the argument that something may possibly happen in an already hypothetical situation. You're argument would be much stronger if you simply said "well, let's wait and see, I know you're wrong, but time will tell."


----------



## AndruwX

wankerness said:


> This is the epitome of the "vote against the other candidate instead of for the person you want to win" kind of race.



Hasn't been always like that?


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Why does a ten week age of the article have anything to do with there being a possibility he could run as a third party or that people might write him in if he doesn't obtain the nomination?
> 
> Look, you already complained that there were no articles outside facebook substantiating the statement, even after I posted an article that was not linked to facebook. Now that I've pointed that out, you are complaining about the age of the article. To me, it just sounds like you are making excuses to shoot down the argument that something may possibly happen in an already hypothetical situation. You're argument would be much stronger if you simply said "well, let's wait and see, I know you're wrong, but time will tell."



I'm making a point about the age of the article because I think that there's a rather substantial difference in analysis written before anyone had cast a single vote in the primary compared to analysis written now, especially since third-party runs tend to have to adhere to state filing deadlines. But if it makes you feel better, fine, let's wait and see.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Putting a little too sharp a point on that one.
> 
> I agree she probably won't take him, but Clinton/Sanders is the only Hillary scenario where I'll consider voting Democrat (as opposed to third party) or showing up at all. I've floated the Clinton/Sanders ticket by a handful of other Sander supporters and they said they'd hold their nose and vote for that ticket.
> 
> "No upside" is a bit of an overstatement considering, even if he loses, he's likely going to be <10% below her in pledged candidates by the time this wraps up. That's a lotta people and no guarantee they WON'T vote for them (since my anecdote rebuts yours).
> 
> If you've got such a 'hellfire and brimstone' perspective on the potentially 45%+ of Democratic voters that will sit out the general election if Hillary gets it, how on Earth do you see her winning against whoever the GOP nominee is?



Clinton/Sanders is a tough ticket, though, because they're both old (both 74, correct?), white, Senators associated with the Northeast. You could split hairs with the fact Clinton is technically from Arkansas, and that you've got an establishment/progressive ticket... But, in Clinton's shoes, I'd be looking for someone younger, if possible Hispanic, and from somewhere other than New England or the South/Southeast. Knowing that at a minimum both the President and Vice President will be 78 after one term, 82 after two... That's a tough sell. 

Randy and bostjan - how do you think this scenario would play out in the general election? After a surprisingly long and drawn out primary season, Clinton emerges with a clear lead in elected delegates over Sanders, as well as the majority of superdelegates, and wins the nomination. Elizabeth Warren, who has been awfully quiet (tactically, I think) endorses Clinton and begins advocating for her strongly. Sanders does too, saying that while he was grateful for the opportunity to discuss their differences on the campaign trail, now is not the time to divide the Democratic party, and that Clinton and he share enough common ground that he is happy to vote for her. Instead of the current memes going around the net stressing their differences ("Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to $15, and Clinton doesn't!), the Sanders camp starts sharing memes stressing their similarities ("Both Clinton and Sanders want to hike the minimum wage from where it is today; if elected, Clinton would raise it by 66%, to $12!"). The party does a credible job unifying around Clinton, in stark contrast to the GOP, which is a razor's edge away from a convention-floor fight for a nominee, at this point. 

When push comes to shove, how many anti-Clinton Sanders supporters do you think would come around and grudgingly support her, against either Trump or whoever unseats him in a divided convention? I'd guess, speaking personally, a high percentage. Most of the ones I've talked to have admitted that at the end of the day, they'd do it to stop Trump.


----------



## bostjan

I can't speak for other people outside of what they tell me. I've personally heard a lot of Sanders supporters say they'd never vote for Clinton. I do not like any of the candidates at all for president. I typically vote third party anyway, even though I did vote for Obama, which, I suppose, makes me a democrat (although I'd simply argue that the Republican party has lost touch with reality).

I think what you propose will happen in the future, Drew, from a logical standpoint, is most likely; however, I offer a strong caution of optimism at that, which is how many of the last elections have followed logic?! George HW Bush got us into a stupid war, and it cost him reelection, but his son did *exactly* the same thing and was comfortablly reelcted (technically elected, since he was appointed by the SCotUS the first time). Bill Clinton committed perjury and was impeached, but was still reelected. Obama came out of nowhere in national politics, became Senator, then quickly became president, despite strong opposition from both the right and from the left. John McCain was a Republican favourite, but was defeated by George Bush in the primaries in 2000, despite plenty of dirt coming out about Bush during primary season. Then won the primary in 2008, but chose who may have been the most moronic running mate, and was destroyed in the general election. And now here we stand with two of the biggest liars I've ever witnessed as the two clear frontrunners. Neither one would even arguably be good for the country on foreign policy (Clinton was a horrible SoS, and Trump thinks we can just build a stupid wall around the country).

My longwinded point is that nothing makes sense in this election cycle. So, yes, what you guys are saying makes the most logical sense, but no, I do not believe with a high level of confidence that what's most logical will happen.

Incidentally, there was a programme on NPR a few minutes ago, interviewing Tom Hayden. He said exactly what I've been saying: that there is a real possibility, if not a highly likely one, that Sanders supporters will refuse to vote for Clinton and it might just be enough, if circumstances are just so, to get Trump elected.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Randy and bostjan - how do you think this scenario would play out in the general election?



I think you're mostly right, that a lot of people unify between Clinton to "stop Trump" but there will absolutely be a large number of apathetic/disenfranchised voters that will stay home or vote 3rd party.

Like it or agree with it or not, a lot of Sanders supporters are Socialist and Progressive purists. Not all, but several. 

Whether or not that has a substantive effect on Democratic votes and turnout has yet to be seen, but could very likely have a lot do with who Hillary's VP pick is. Outside of Elizabeth Warren, I'm not entirely sure there's a sitting, big name pick that would be enough to quell the purists. And that pick isn't without it's issues. 

Will people vote for a two woman ticket? Former Arkansas resident or not, Hillary comes from Chicago, was Senator in NY and her family's currently staked in Dutchess County; a Clinton/Warren ticket could very easily look like a 'New England Elite' ticket that will NOT go over well in the south (especially if Trump picks somebody like Sessions as his VP). 

Despite Clinton's wins in the south, she had VERY heavy turnout from black voters that still make up a significantly smaller amount of the overall electorate in those states, versus their Caucasian counter parts. It's not 1:1 comparable, but it stands to reason that those are all considered RED states and Trump (despite being in a 5 way race in several of them) garnered more TOTAL votes than Hillary and sometimes even Hillary and Bernie COMBINED in those states. For being a Democrat, being "competitive" in the south means hopefully breaking 30%; that will have no substantive favorable results for the Dem. ticket in those states.

A Democrat with some real,marketable southern bonafides is the only way you turn any of those states 'purple' but it will most assuredly leave some disaffected Bernie voters at home. So which camp brings a better ROI? At any other time, I'd say inarguably the former. This go around? I dunno, I'd consider it too close to call. 

As far as I'm personally concerned, I've been a progressive Bernie/Kucinich/Feingold supporter for as long as I've been old enough to vote. I absolutely thing the corruption and influence of big money and corporations are the _single biggest_ issue in this country (military/industrial lobby decides the wars you fight and the munitions you pay to manufacture [_war_], big oil decides your emissions standards and proliferation of renewable energy [_environment_], big pharma and insurance decide the cost of healthcare [_quality of life_], etc).

I think Obama had a lot of ground to cover cleaning up after two terms of Bush... some of which he did a very amiable job at. Obama billed himself as a progressive that would "work across the aisle" (not sure how that part worked out ) and could have some progressive outcomes, despite the still money-influenced environment he had to do it in. It was probably the best we could have gotten considering what we were working with.

Right now, 2016, I personally think the only way we move forward is making some ground on the amount of influence corporations have on policy. "Just because they contribute to my campaign doesn't mean that I'll do what they want" or denying transcripts of *paid* speeches to 'king maker' corporations is a pretty transparent admission that severing that bond with big money isn't something that will happen in a Clinton white house (and a cynic might argue, not something she wants to happen either).

As such, basically a Trump v. Hillary ticket sounds (to me) like 'Status Quo with some societal backsliding vs. Status quo with more status quo'. 

You can call me a purist or a fundamentalist or naive or stupid or whatever, but I'd almost rather the DNC suffer the loss so that they can rejigger where being pro-corporate and being populist fit into their priorities and see if we can give it a better shot in 2018 and 2020


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> George HW Bush got us into a stupid war, and it cost him reelection, but his son did *exactly* the same thing and was comfortablly reelcted (technically elected, since he was appointed by the SCotUS the first time). Bill Clinton committed perjury and was impeached, but was still reelected.



Review your political history. Bush 41 was a one-term president based on the economy, not the first Gulf War; Bill Clinton's famous line from that campaign was "it's the economy, stupid!" and Ross Perot ran a third-party spoiler campaign based on economic issues. Clinton was impeached during his *second* term; he was not reelected after his impeachment.



bostjan said:


> Incidentally, there was a programme on NPR a few minutes ago, interviewing Tom Hayden. He said exactly what I've been saying: that there is a real possibility, if not a highly likely one, that Sanders supporters will refuse to vote for Clinton and it might just be enough, if circumstances are just so, to get Trump elected.



The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> As such, basically a Trump v. Hillary ticket sounds (to me) like 'Status Quo with some societal backsliding vs. Status quo with more status quo'.
> 
> You can call me a purist or a fundamentalist or naive or stupid or whatever, but I'd almost rather the DNC suffer the loss so that they can rejigger where being pro-corporate and being populist fit into their priorities and see if we can give it a better shot in 2018 and 2020



And you can afford to say that, because you're in the demographic least likely to suffer immediately from the effects of total Republican control of the federal government. (Meaning: you're a reasonably well-off white male - obviously I don't know that for sure, but given the demographics of this site in general, it's a safe bet.)


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Review your political history. Bush 41 was a one-term president based on the economy, not the first Gulf War; Bill Clinton's famous line from that campaign was "it's the economy, stupid!" and Ross Perot ran a third-party spoiler campaign based on economic issues. Clinton was impeached during his *second* term; he was not reelected after his impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> The plural of "anecdote" is still not "data."



And how was Bush II on the economy? Good/Bad? Did he get reelected? Is there a general perception that Sanders is weak on the economy compared to Hillary Clinton? Is the perception that Trump is better or worse for the economy than H. Clinton?

And what, exactly, is the data which you are expecting? If I said "there is a possibility it might rain tomorrow," would you respond with "where's the data?" and if I told you I heard the weather man say it on the radio, would you respond with "the plural of anecdote is still not data?" I'll point out at this moment that you seem to me to simply be taking a contrary side to me for the sake of argument.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> And what, exactly, is the data which you are expecting? If I said "there is a possibility it might rain tomorrow," would you respond with "where's the data?" and if I told you I heard the weather man say it on the radio, would you respond with "the plural of anecdote is still not data?" I'll point out at this moment that you seem to me to simply be taking a contrary side to me for the sake of argument.



People arguing that a significant number of Sanders voters will not support Clinton ought to be able to point to a reasonably-sized survey (preferably exit polling of primary voters, rather than all-comers Internet surveys) that asks clearly whether Sanders voters would support Clinton in the general election. I've repeatedly linked to exit poll data that show that more Democratic voters would be satisfied with Clinton as their nominee compared to Sanders, and that Clinton's position in such surveys is stronger than either hers or Obama's in the 2008 primary season (after which, despite the media coverage of the PUMAs, there was no evidence of a systematic defection of Clinton supporters, and Obama won the general election handily).

I've never denied that there's a *possibility* that Sanders hardliners could throw the election by staying home or voting Trump/third party. I just don't think that it's *likely*, and I've been making a data-driven argument for my position. Similarly, I tend to point to Gallup's polling about the unwillingness of Americans to vote for a socialist candidate when talking about Sanders' electability, rather than relying on the fact that my mother, a lifelong Republican, doesn't know anything about Sanders other than that he's a socialist.* I'd like to see at least an attempt to bring similar data to bear on the other side of those arguments.

*From an actual conversation I had with my mom last week. She assumed I was a Sanders supporter, presumably because she knows that I'm politically liberal.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> And you can afford to say that, because you're in the demographic least likely to suffer immediately from the effects of total Republican control of the federal government. (Meaning: you're a reasonably well-off white male - obviously I don't know that for sure, but given the demographics of this site in general, it's a safe bet.)



Well, you're partially right. I'm a white (well, mulatto but I guess culturally white) male but I make less than $20,000/year... so I'd be somewhere approximately in the 'splash zone' from whatever egregious program cutting they decide to do.


----------



## tacotiklah

Randy said:


> As such, basically a Trump v. Hillary ticket sounds (to me) like 'Status Quo with some societal backsliding vs. Status quo with more status quo'.
> 
> You can call me a purist or a fundamentalist or naive or stupid or whatever, but I'd almost rather the DNC suffer the loss so that they can rejigger where being pro-corporate and being populist fit into their priorities and see if we can give it a better shot in 2018 and 2020



And this is where I'm at as well. I am currently registered as a democrat, but I'm finding the DNC to be just as corrupt and greedy as the RNC. The differences between the two largely seem to be over social issues, which are then further mitigated by any possible legislation that could affect corporate bottom lines. In the end, American politics are becoming more and more about the right to write policy being sold to the highest bidder. Don't believe me? Read up on Mitch McConnell explicitly stating that any new SCOTUS justice must have NRA's approval before the senate will give confirmation. At what point did the American public elect the National Rifle Associate to represent them in the Senate? 

We're at a point now where not only have these "representatives" been lying and serving their own interests at the expense of the will of voters, but now they seem to brazenly flaunt it and state that it will be lobbyists that decide nominations and policy.

And I'm seeing Hillary and the DNC do the same damn thing. Whenever coverage of the election is mentioned, all they bring up is incessant lauding of HRC and call Sanders "a fringe candidate". They sure don't mention Bill Clinton borderlining on electioneering at polling places (seriously, the fastest way for HRC to torpedo her campaign is to turn Bill loose on it. That's how she lost to Obama last time), or how poor voter registration laws have skewed election results (like in Maricopa County in Arizona) in her favor. Simply put, much of the "liberal" mainstream media has cast their lot with her and thrown non-biased reporting right out the window. For all the lambasting of Fox News that these outlets give, they're basically the same turd sandwich.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> People arguing that a significant number of Sanders voters will not support Clinton ought to be able to point to a reasonably-sized survey (preferably exit polling of primary voters, rather than all-comers Internet surveys) that asks clearly whether Sanders voters would support Clinton in the general election. I've repeatedly linked to exit poll data that show that more Democratic voters would be satisfied with Clinton as their nominee compared to Sanders, and that Clinton's position in such surveys is stronger than either hers or Obama's in the 2008 primary season (after which, despite the media coverage of the PUMAs, there was no evidence of a systematic defection of Clinton supporters, and Obama won the general election handily).
> 
> I've never denied that there's a *possibility* that Sanders hardliners could throw the election by staying home or voting Trump/third party. I just don't think that it's *likely*, and I've been making a data-driven argument for my position. Similarly, I tend to point to Gallup's polling about the unwillingness of Americans to vote for a socialist candidate when talking about Sanders' electability, rather than relying on the fact that my mother, a lifelong Republican, doesn't know anything about Sanders other than that he's a socialist.* I'd like to see at least an attempt to bring similar data to bear on the other side of those arguments.
> 
> *From an actual conversation I had with my mom last week. She assumed I was a Sanders supporter, presumably because she knows that I'm politically liberal.



All I said was that there was a lot of chatter on the internet about it and that it was an unlikely but possible scenario. 

In any election, you can collect all sorts of data, if you'd like, but the only "sure" thing will be the data collected on the second Tuesday in November. Even that, in theory, could be set aside if the electoral college decides to say  to the voters.


----------



## bostjan

tacotiklah said:


> And this is where I'm at as well. I am currently registered as a democrat, but I'm finding the DNC to be just as corrupt and greedy as the RNC. The differences between the two largely seem to be over social issues, which are then further mitigated by any possible legislation that could affect corporate bottom lines. In the end, American politics are becoming more and more about the right to write policy being sold to the highest bidder. Don't believe me? Read up on Mitch McConnell explicitly stating that any new SCOTUS justice must have NRA's approval before the senate will give confirmation. At what point did the American public elect the National Rifle Associate to represent them in the Senate?
> 
> We're at a point now where not only have these "representatives" been lying and serving their own interests at the expense of the will of voters, but now they seem to brazenly flaunt it and state that it will be lobbyists that decide nominations and policy.
> 
> And I'm seeing Hillary and the DNC do the same damn thing. Whenever coverage of the election is mentioned, all they bring up is incessant lauding of HRC and call Sanders "a fringe candidate". They sure don't mention Bill Clinton borderlining on electioneering at polling places (seriously, the fastest way for HRC to torpedo her campaign is to turn Bill loose on it. That's how she lost to Obama last time), or how poor voter registration laws have skewed election results (like in Maricopa County in Arizona) in her favor. Simply put, much of the "liberal" mainstream media has cast their lot with her and thrown non-biased reporting right out the window. For all the lambasting of Fox News that these outlets give, they're basically the same turd sandwich.



Everything you said here is why Trump has come this far. He's an outsider to Washington DC's political machine. People voting for him think they are voting against corruption. My issue with this line of thinking is that replacing a corrupt politician with a corrupt businessman is not a step forward, only a step to the side, and in the case of Trump, it's a step in a steaming pile of 

I fully believe HRC is corrupt. Her supporters will say I'm a looney, tin-foil-hat-wearing, moon-landing-was-faked, 911-was-staged, conspiracy theorist for saying that, but it's not a stretch of the imagination with Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Cattle Futures, Benghazi, Emails, exaggerations, lies, and Wikileaks - all making her seem, at best, really sketchy.


----------



## wankerness

AndruwX said:


> Hasn't been always like that?



No. While not overly enthusiastic about Obama in round 2, I don't know of anyone that was like "boy, I hate that Obama, the only reason I'm voting for him is because I hate Romney even more!!!" Apart from the guys on South Park, of course. It's usually "choose the person you like slightly more," not "vote to keep the person you really hate out of office."


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> The whole much-ado-over-nothing flap of the PUMAs in 2008 suggests that the burden of proof is on the side arguing that substantial numbers of Sanders supporters *will* defect or sit out the general election if Sanders is not the nominee (or on the ticket, or whatever). The satisfaction numbers from the primary exit polls (laid out in the article I linked above) indicate that a higher percentage of Democrats would be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee this year than said the same for either Clinton or Obama in mid-2008. Combine that with the fact that Donald Trump - arguably the worst possible candidate for the Republicans this year - is likely to be her general-election opponent, and I don't see how you get a large enough contingent of disaffected Sanders supporters to throw the election.



Right, it's just people blowing smoke. It's the same kind of people that said they were going to move to Canada if Bush got reelected (spoiler: none of them did).


----------



## Hollowway

With Trump this far ahead, like him or not, he is ahead. What I'm currently concerned about is what happens if he doesn't make the 1237, and they go to a contested convention, and the GOP tries to put Kasich in (which is what I've been reading) as the nominee. I understand that we are not in a true democracy with our delegate system, and I understand that this may actually be a good thing, but this country goes on and on about, "democracy's great, we're a democracy, blah blah blah." So we need to either stop talking about how our voices are heard and votes matter, or don't do these backroom brokered conventions where the party picks whoever they want, irrespective of the voters.


----------



## bostjan

The political parties are not run democratically. They also only hold political power as long as people believe that they hold political power.


----------



## ArtDecade

I suppose people say that I throw away my vote when I go with a third party, but I don't compromise my beliefs.


----------



## celticelk

ArtDecade said:


> I suppose people say that I throw away my vote when I go with a third party, but I don't compromise my beliefs.



Better to vote third party than not vote. At least you're helping one of the small parties get infinitesimally closer to receiving federal funding.


----------



## tacotiklah

ArtDecade said:


> I suppose people say that I throw away my vote when I go with a third party, but I don't compromise my beliefs.



What throws away votes is when enough people buy into the belief that their vote doesn't matter and then they stay home on election day. They do this even when they can actually WRITE IN the name of their choice if none of the other candidates are desirable. Then they have the gall to sit at home and gripe about how bad things in the world are, even as the post-election statistics show an estimated 65 percen of people that simply didn't show up to vote ( 2014 midterm election turnout lowest in 70 years | PBS NewsHour ). Awesome. You just let 36.5% of the country decide everything for you. Vote red, vote blue, vote green, vote tea, vote coffee, vote turd sandwich for all I care, just friggin' vote. 

As it currently stands, the idea that the US is a democracy (or republic since I know someone will bring that up) deserves a gigantic asterisk with these voter turn-out numbers. We have an electoral system in place that, while it has definite issues that are in need of addressing, has sustained the country since 1789. 
Those that stay at home citing "well I don't like the leading candidates", to me, is simply throwing a tantrum because of the fact that you CAN write in the name of someone whose ideals align more closely with yours. They don't need the backing of the DNC or RNC or even GNC (though with Arnold Schwarzenegger that might have helped some) provided enough people write them in. At every turn I want to kill the false belief that "my vote doesn't count" and instead instill the more factual belief that "the surest way to ensure my vote doesn't count is by not casting one at all".


----------



## Hollowway

Yeah, I'm also of the opinion that people should vote for who they really want. I don't like the idea of voting for the person who is most likely to win and is closest to what you want. That's like saying you aren't going to start your own company because it's riskier than just getting a safe stable job. If we all voted for what we really want we just might get it!


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> My longwinded point is that nothing makes sense in this election cycle. So, yes, what you guys are saying makes the most logical sense, but no, I do not believe with a high level of confidence that what's most logical will happen.



But, I feel like in every primary I can remember with some legitimate competition, that's aways been the case. In 2008, there was definitely concern that Clinton supporters wouldn't unite behind Obama. When push came to shove, they did. That was an example of a progressive candidate (which, as centrist as he is, that's more or less how he ran, as progressive buty post-partisan) hijacking the establishment. You could argue that when the shoe is on the other foot and it's the establishment candidate who comes out on top then the progressives have less connection to the party, but I'm not sure I believe it - Clinton's core constituency (well, in 2008 - older, whiter moderates) probably felt like they were losing control of the Democratic party.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You can call me a purist or a fundamentalist or naive or stupid or whatever, but I'd almost rather the DNC suffer the loss so that they can rejigger where being pro-corporate and being populist fit into their priorities and see if we can give it a better shot in 2018 and 2020



That's actually a popular line of thought amongst the GOP right now, that maybe it would be for the best if Trump just won the ticket, went into the general election, and train-wrecked spectacularly, because in the aftermath the GOP establishment could re-solidify their grip on the party and move on to 2020. 

So, you can kind of see the natural contradiction as I'm now hearing this from a fellow Democrat - we can't BOTH lose.


----------



## Drew

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I'm also of the opinion that people should vote for who they really want. I don't like the idea of voting for the person who is most likely to win and is closest to what you want. That's like saying you aren't going to start your own company because it's riskier than just getting a safe stable job. If we all voted for what we really want we just might get it!



Why? I think voting is _absolutely_ a form of protest. Look at the job of President. You don't think you'd actually LIKE anyone who wants and thinks they deserve that kind of power, do you? I have no problem at all voting for the lesser of two evils just to keep the one I really hate out of office.


----------



## TheStig1214

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I'm also of the opinion that people should vote for who they really want. I don't like the idea of voting for the person who is most likely to win and is closest to what you want. That's like saying you aren't going to start your own company because it's riskier than just getting a safe stable job. If we all voted for what we really want we just might get it!



I wish this would work in reality though. Because of the electoral college and bipartisan politics voting for a third part is voting for the party you least want. It's a game of calculated risk.

Let's say it is Clinton v Trump and for some reason Sanders ran as an Independent. I'm all for Sanders, but I would vote for Clinton. Sanders would never win electoral votes in this situation, so voting for him is one less vote for Clinton, which is turn is more power to Trump. 

Voter participation matters, but it's easy to see why some would be discouraged.


----------



## wankerness

If there were no political ads at all, I think teh "vote for who you want" thing might work, but as things are, it tends to be whoever spends the most ad money wins and whoever spends the second most gets second place and anything else might as well not exist. Unless half the population all goes to the trouble of becoming fully educated themselves and learning about things that aren't forced in their face nonstop for months (yeah right) third party votes will continue to be a waste unless something changes greatly with campaigns and the two-party system. Trump causing the GOP to implode might be a good first step, and Bernie Sanders causing the establishment democrats to slightly implode might have been a good second step, but it looks like that's not going to happen, unfortunately.


----------



## flint757

To vote Democrat after all of the dubious things that have occurred this cycle (or likely simply more aware of it than past election cycles) is to give them tacit approval of their behavior and that is something I will not do. Without any consequences what reason do they have to cut down on their shady behavior. The Republicans behaving in an even more shady way does not negate the other parties responsibility on the matter.

The only way I'd even consider voting for Clinton is if she picked a progressive as a running mate. I don't personally see that happening. Warren, from a popularity standpoint, would be a logical pick, but Clinton and Obama both back Debbie Schultz (the lady trying to dismantle Warren's work) and the 3 of them (Obama, Clinton, and Debbie) are not what I'd describe as progressive anyhow. I foresee her picking someone the south can get behind and that's a ticket I won't vote for.

People have to either be pissed or enthusiastic to get involved with government and also hold them accountable. Keeping on with the status quo quells the pissed off voters and smothers everyone's enthusiasm. How is that a preferable scenario? A Clinton presidency is the passing of Keystone, TPP, changing nothing with our criminal justice system or our tax codes (in a way that actually makes an impact), an assured continuation of insurance and lobby influence in our healthcare, and most assuredly more military intervention. No thanks.

Living in a state where politicians regularly break the law I can assure you that voting for them anyhow doesn't make them stop. They only change when they are at risk of losing (see Clinton's miraculous switch to most of Bernie's ideas as the primaries moved forward).


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> If there were no political ads at all, I think teh "vote for who you want" thing might work, but as things are, it tends to be whoever spends the most ad money wins and whoever spends the second most gets second place and anything else might as well not exist.



Devil's advocate, Trump has spent about $10mm on ads so far this cycle.


----------



## vilk

or Jeb Bush. That guy burnt a lot of cash to lose hard and early.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> Devil's advocate, Trump has spent about $10mm on ads so far this cycle.



And has received far more media coverage than any other candidate, to the tune of nearly $2 billion dollars in equivalent spending: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...d-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html.


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> And has received far more media coverage than any other candidate, to the tune of nearly $2 billion dollars in equivalent spending: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...d-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html.



No doubt. But, I think my point was more that you can't distill it down to JUST how much candidates spend - it's obviously not easy to do what Trump is doing, but if you can make sure you can dominate media coverage, then you don't HAVE to spend very much money.

Trump is obviously not a typical candidate, of course.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> To vote Democrat after all of the dubious things that have occurred this cycle (or likely simply more aware of it than past election cycles) is to give them tacit approval of their behavior and that is something I will not do.



Ok, I'll bite - what have the Democrats done in the past 8 years that's so bad?


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

Drew said:


> Ok, I'll bite - what have the Democrats done in the past 8 years that's so bad?



I know he's a hero around these parts and I can already sense the collective pants wetting, but how about Baracks entire god damn presidency.


----------



## estabon37

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I know he's a hero around these parts and I can already sense the collective pants wetting, but how about Baracks entire god damn presidency.



This doesn't really answer anything. I could conversely say "George W's entire god damn presidency", and while certain events may come to mind for you, they may not for me. 

For example, I could respond to the "Barack's entire presidency" statement by saying: "Yeah, it's great that a person belonging to a social minority was finally elected to the highest political position in the country, Bin Laden paid for his crimes, marriage equality became a reality, and though the ACA wasn't perfect, it was a step in the right direction.". 

I don't see what negative behaviour Americans would be 'approving' by voting democrat that doesn't have a similar or equivalent negative behaviour in the Republican Party. Implying that the actions of one party are so egregious that they're unelectable without providing reasons for this opinion really hurts your point: a contention without premises is not an argument; it's a complaint.


----------



## bostjan

Obama was president during the biggest economic recovery since I've been alive. If his policies were a help or a hindrance, I don't know, but at least he didn't cause it. He also got our involvement in the middle east more well-managed, although not as full-on as I'd hoped. The USA's foreign policy is in much better shape than it was eight years ago, IMO, but some might disagree with that statement.

In my eyes, Obama's presidency was okay. And I'm happy with that, since I spent many of the Bush years fearful for the prospect of a peaceful future. Seeing as how he got us involved in two big wars, I think that fear was justified. And then there was the economy, which nearly or arguably tanked during Bush. Remember that the economy was in great shape when Bush took office and was a disaster when he left. Whether that was due to his policies or not, may well be a discussion, but I hold the opinion that Bush's policies contributed to the recession, but that we would have had some sort of recession either way. Note that most of what I'm saying is opinion, yet it is descriptive and reinforced with facts, unlike saying "Bush's entire presidency was bad," which I could also say.


----------



## tedtan

celticelk said:


> Drew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Devil's advocate, Trump has spent about $10mm on ads so far this cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> And has received far more media coverage than any other candidate, to the tune of nearly $2 billion dollars in equivalent spending: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...d-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html.
Click to expand...


Like him or not, Trump is both a master self promoter and a master bullsh_i_t artist; I suspect that much of the crazy sh_i_t he says is said intentionally in order to get press coverage. And once he has the coverage, he knows how to work it to keep himself in the limelight, so this approach seems to be working fairly well for him.




bostjan said:


> Remember that the economy was in great shape when Bush took office and was a disaster when he left. Whether that was due to his policies or not, may well be a discussion, but I hold the opinion that Bush's policies contributed to the recession, but that we would have had some sort of recession either way.



There is what's called a business cycle aspect of the economy, where the ups (expansion, or "a good economy") and downs (recessions, or "a bad economy") occur every so often (averaging around six or so years between peaks), so some of the recession can be blamed on "natural causes". But Clinton's policies in the 90's and Bush's policies in the early part of this century combined to make the recession much worse than it would have otherwise been, so I think you're correct here.




estabon37 said:


> I don't see what negative behaviour Americans would be 'approving' by voting democrat that doesn't have a similar or equivalent negative behaviour in the Republican Party. Implying that the actions of one party are so egregious that they're unelectable without providing reasons for this opinion really hurts your point: a contention without premises is not an argument; it's a complaint.



Going back to the original point, I think flint was saying that he believes that the democrats are no better than the republicans and that the US needs more than two viable political parties. If that is correct, it's a sentiment with which I largely agree, though I don't see it happening short term.


----------



## estabon37

tedtan said:


> Going back to the original point, I think flint was saying that he believes that the democrats are no better than the republicans and that the US needs more than two viable political parties. If that is correct, it's a sentiment with which I largely agree, though I don't see it happening short term.



I agree with the sentiment as well; I consider myself lucky to live in a country that has minor parties that can actually have an effect on the policies and practices of the major parties. There are unique problems tied to the existence of minor and 'micro' parties (Australia's last election resulted in minor party shenanigans that are way too complex and off-topic to be a part of this thread), but I think it's important that voters in democratic elections associate themselves with a candidate or party that actually represents their 'voice' and opinions. This is a difficult proposition when there are only two parties. 

I think cold water has been thrown on the 'third party' idea as a result of the Tea Party. Their presence in the 2012 election cycle was ultimately destructive (more for the Repubs than the Demos); the Parties have no incentive to incorporate a smaller movement into their messaging any more and the movements lack the necessary political frameworks that would allow them to become parties in their own rights.


----------



## Drew

FILTHnFEAR said:


> I know he's a hero around these parts and I can already sense the collective pants wetting, but how about Baracks entire god damn presidency.



Only thing off the top of my head I can really fault Obama for is not going into Syria. The stock market is up almost 60% since he took office, the unemployment rate is 5% today, nearly half of where it was on the day he stepped in, workforce participation is picking back up, and inflation and interest rates are still low. More Americans have health insurance than ever before, and we're on one of the longest-running periods of private sector job creation ever in the history of this country. Taxes are largely unchanged from when Bush left office, until you get up to the $439k income level, at which point they're a, wait for it, whopping 5 cents on the dollar higher. The biggest "terrorist" scandal he's faced is Benghazi, where three Americans died and even the GOP finally quietly admitted there was zero evidence of any wrongdoing or coverup, releasing their report at 6pm on a Friday and hoping no one would notice. 

I mean, did you have anything specific in mind?


----------



## Drew

In other news, last night severely hurt Trump's chances of winning the nomination outright, and IMO there's no chance in hell he walks away with the nomination if this goes to a contested convention.


----------



## jwade

I think he reeeeeeeally stepped in it with the abortion issue.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Well, yay because that just means Ted Cruz can land the nomination and launch us all into a goddamn theocracy. This election is horrifying.


----------



## Hollowway

I'm curious what Trump will do if he doesn't get the nomination outright. Trump isn't going to fall in line behind Cruz if he's ahead in delegates. My suspicion is that if the GOP wants him to not be the nominee, and to fall in line behind whoever is, they're going to have to pay him off. Trump isn't going to accept being a failure - he has to win somehow. If he can say they paid him a half or quarter billion dollars to drop out, that might be a win for him. Otherwise I think there's a very real chance he'll make noise about running as an independent. Maybe for real, maybe for leverage.


----------



## vilk

^Well, he's said that he's going to release the hotel room numbers of the delegates for one!


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> ^Well, he's said that he's going to release the hotel room numbers of the delegates for one!



Strictly speaking, that was one of his surrogates, but yeah, that was horrifying.


----------



## vilk

What's the implication? That those people would get harmed? Just annoyed?


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> What's the implication? That those people would get harmed? Just annoyed?



It's all so wonderfully nonspecific and legally unactionable, isn't it?


----------



## Drew

Hollowway said:


> I'm curious what Trump will do if he doesn't get the nomination outright. Trump isn't going to fall in line behind Cruz if he's ahead in delegates. My suspicion is that if the GOP wants him to not be the nominee, and to fall in line behind whoever is, they're going to have to pay him off. Trump isn't going to accept being a failure - he has to win somehow. If he can say they paid him a half or quarter billion dollars to drop out, that might be a win for him. Otherwise I think there's a very real chance he'll make noise about running as an independent. Maybe for real, maybe for leverage.



I don't think he has much of a choice - if he doesn't hit 1,237 outright, then he's going to lose in the first round of voting, which is the only one where his delegates are obliged to vote for him. After that, well, remember that the delegates are selected separately, and perhaps one of his biggest gaffes this season was not putting any effort or infrastructure into the delegate election process to try to ensure that his delegates were Trump-friendly and not establishment. If he doesn't win outright, he's going to lose. 

How's he going to take it? Tough to say. I've heard from enough sources close to him that this whole thing was just a publicity stunt until suddenly he started winning, so when push comes to shove I don't know what his appetite will be to actually take on the GOP establishment as a 3rd party. And, perhaps more importantly, I don't think he can win that fight. I think if the GOP gives him a plausible enough out, he'll probably jump on it.


----------



## wannabguitarist

estabon37 said:


> I don't see *what negative behaviour Americans would be 'approving' by voting democrat* that doesn't have a similar or equivalent negative behaviour in the Republican Party. Implying that the actions of one party are so egregious that they're unelectable without providing reasons for this opinion really hurts your point: a contention without premises is not an argument; it's a complaint.



Not electing the candidate they feel should win despite him not receiving the votes actually needed to win the nomination 



Drew said:


> Taxes are largely unchanged from when Bush left office, until you get up to the $439k income level, at which point they're a, wait for it, whopping 5 cents on the dollar higher



Is there a quick and dirty source for this if I wanted to crunch some numbers? I believe it, but the fact that it's true is still kind of mind-blowing to me after all the ranting about him raising taxes and destroying small businesses


----------



## bostjan

The democratic one might actually be a close call at this point. Obviously, neither candidate has an easy battle at this point. I have a feeling Clinton will take a bigger lead after New York, but it'll all come down to how people vote April 26th. That's pretty historic for a primary to go this long without a clear winner on either side. 

For the republicans, really, does anyone stand a chance beating Trump's delegate count? No. The trouble is that Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are all bad. I don't think any of them combined could beat Clinton nor Sanders in the general election without a serious spoiler getting involved. 



Me in 1996 said:


> Worst election ever blech!





Me in 2000 said:


> Worst election ever blech!





Me in 2004 said:


> Worst election ever blech!





Me in 2008 said:


> Phew! Finally two candidates I don't hate! Excellent!





Me later in 2008 said:


> Sarah Palin?





Me this year said:


> Worst election ever!



I guess my golden age is over.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> The democratic one might actually be a close call at this point. Obviously, neither candidate has an easy battle at this point. I have a feeling Clinton will take a bigger lead after New York, but it'll all come down to how people vote April 26th. That's pretty historic for a primary to go this long without a clear winner on either side.



It was closer in 2008: only about 120 delegates separated Obama and Clinton at the beginning of the 6-week lull that started in mid-March, and more states had voted at that point (New York, for example, was a Super Tuesday state in 2008).


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> It was closer in 2008: only about 120 delegates separated Obama and Clinton at the beginning of the 6-week lull that started in mid-March, and more states had voted at that point (New York, for example, was a Super Tuesday state in 2008).



You're right. In 2008, neither primary had been decided by this point in time either. I guess I forgot that McCain had so much trouble.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

Drew said:


> Only thing off the top of my head I can really fault Obama for is not going into Syria. The stock market is up almost 60% since he took office, the unemployment rate is 5% today, nearly half of where it was on the day he stepped in, workforce participation is picking back up, and inflation and interest rates are still low. More Americans have health insurance than ever before, and we're on one of the longest-running periods of private sector job creation ever in the history of this country. Taxes are largely unchanged from when Bush left office, until you get up to the $439k income level, at which point they're a, wait for it, whopping 5 cents on the dollar higher. The biggest "terrorist" scandal he's faced is Benghazi, where three Americans died and even the GOP finally quietly admitted there was zero evidence of any wrongdoing or coverup, releasing their report at 6pm on a Friday and hoping no one would notice.



What utter fantasy.


----------



## bostjan

FILTHnFEAR said:


> What utter fantasy.



Thank you for your detailed, descriptive post, which adds so much to the thread.


----------



## flint757

The only thing I've always felt was spin by the Obama administration was while unemployment is down and workforce participation is up, wages have dropped and the people who were on unemployment didn't get jobs at the same pay prior to being unemployed (or even in the same field). I don't really consider that a 'good' thing in the long run. We need to get a handle on outsourced labor. I know quite a few programmers and IT personnel who were laid off in the past couple of years so their companies could move their jobs outside the US. It started with labor and manufacturing jobs and has crept into technology jobs. Fairly soon pretty much no job will be safe if we just keep allowing these companies to completely screw the American people over.


----------



## wannabguitarist

FILTHnFEAR said:


> What utter fantasy.



Go on, let hate guide you, refute his claims


----------



## Drew

FILTHnFEAR said:


> What utter fantasy.



Ok, the stage is yours. Please tell me why you think the Obama presidency was such a disaster. 



bostjan said:


> For the republicans, really, does anyone stand a chance beating Trump's delegate count? No. The trouble is that Trump, Cruz, and Kasich are all bad. I don't think any of them combined could beat Clinton nor Sanders in the general election without a serious spoiler getting involved.



I feel like we've already discussed this around here somewhere and you know this, but Trump's problem is that he can't just get more delegates than anyone else - he has to get cleanly over 1237 delegates in the first round of voting. Delegates are only "bound" to support the candidate who won them in the first round, and in subsequent rounds via a tiered process more and more of them become unbound. Since the delegates are, by definition, establishment, and since Trump focused entirely on the voting and not the delegate selection process so there's no reason to think his delegates will be at all friendly to him, he's gotta win this outright. If he doesn't, his lead will shrink with every subsequent vote until someone else - likely Cruz, but who knows - eventually wins the nomination.

Also, on the Democratic side, very few of the remaining states are particularly friendly to Sanders, and he needs to win maybe 60% of the outstanding delegates (as opposed to 45% or so of the ones who have voted so far that he's picked up) to clinch this. It's a somewhat closer race than I would have expected it to be coming into this, but a lot of his recent "surge" is more a product of the calendar and a bunch of Sanders-friendly states voting in a row than it's any change in the race itself.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I feel like we've already discussed this around here somewhere and you know this, but Trump's problem is that he can't just get more delegates than anyone else - he has to get cleanly over 1237 delegates in the first round of voting. Delegates are only "bound" to support the candidate who won them in the first round, and in subsequent rounds via a tiered process more and more of them become unbound. Since the delegates are, by definition, establishment, and since Trump focused entirely on the voting and not the delegate selection process so there's no reason to think his delegates will be at all friendly to him, he's gotta win this outright. If he doesn't, his lead will shrink with every subsequent vote until someone else - likely Cruz, but who knows - eventually wins the nomination.



It's all very sticky. Also, Cruz, Trump, or Kasich, it's like choosing between a kick in the kneecap, a blow to the head, or a shot to the groin.



Drew said:


> Also, on the Democratic side, very few of the remaining states are particularly friendly to Sanders, and he needs to win maybe 60% of the outstanding delegates (as opposed to 45% or so of the ones who have voted so far that he's picked up) to clinch this. It's a somewhat closer race than I would have expected it to be coming into this, but a lot of his recent "surge" is more a product of the calendar and a bunch of Sanders-friendly states voting in a row than it's any change in the race itself.



I don't know that that's an unfair statement; however, which states were projected to be Sanders-friendly? I'd say CT, RI, OR, and CA are some of the more Sanders-friendly states, even though they are projected to be a loss for him - but so were so many other states where he actually ended up winning. I still don't think he'll win, but I am impressed with how much of a fight he's been putting up.


----------



## Drew

Pretty much everything between 3/22 and 4/29. Lots of caucus states, lots of white, liberal voters. 4/19 and 4/26 are likely to be more neutral ground, then we hit another patch of states that are likely to be pretty friendly to Sanders for demographic reasons. The problem is they're all relatively small, don't have many delegates, and New York, Pennsylvania, and California are likely to favor Clinton, and that's where the majority of the remaining delegates are from. He's got a shot in Jersey, the other large state outstanding, but he's the underdog there as well.

Sanders has basically been winning a bunch of causus states and northern, predominantly white, sparsely populated states, whereas Clinton has been racking up the vote in more diverse, densely populated states, and is likely to continue to do so. Based on the delegate apportionment rules, Sanders is actually able to keep the delegate count closer than the popular one for this reason, whereas Clinton is up significantly further in the popular vote.

I keep referring back to this as the vote goes on - note that the bars aren't projections, but rather how the vote would likely break down if the national race were a dead heat, based on patterns of demographic support: 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...t-need-momentum-he-needs-to-win-these-states/

With Clinton about a 10-point favorite in the polls, anything less than Sanders+10 is likely to go to Clinton. And, we just hit the biggest patch of Sanders +double digits states in the calendar. It's not a surge, it's just the order the states happened to vote playing out such that a bunch of Sanders' strong states just voted.


----------



## bostjan

Drew, I'm a little confused. There is no national popular vote count in a primary. If you have data to the contrary of this, I'd like to see it, but I'd be very surprised, based upon how primaries work in some states.

Also, as I asked before, which states were projected for Sanders to win before? Vermont? Where else? Some of the states he has won were not just projected to be wins for Clinton, but were projected so with very small uncertainty, yet the projections were wrong for several states.

As I said before, Clinton is the projected winner, but she's been the projected winner, and some projections had her clinching the nomination by now, so the projections, as all projections go during election season, were not fully accurate. So, odds are Clinton wins, but there are odds, unfavourable odds, but nonetheless possible, that Sanders could pull off an upset that blocks Clinton from getting enough votes to win the nomination by pledged delegates alone. There are also slim odds, yet less slim now than before, that Sanders could be the nominee.

This is just an observation of the obvious. Also, I am not a Clinton supporter nor a Sanders supporter. I may well vote for a "none of the above" candidate this cycle. The candidate whose platform most closely resembles my personal beliefs is not likely to even get a third party nomination.


----------



## Drew

Bernie Sanders Is Even Less Competitive Than He Appears | FiveThirtyEight

They total the overall popular votes cast in that article. Sanders has won 45% or so of the delegates, but those delegates represent only 40% of the votes cast, largely because Sanders has done so well in smaller northern states and (low turnout) caucuses.

And, the point I'm trying and clearly failing to make lol is that, given a 10-point national race, we just saw a whole bunch of states votes where, given their demographic makeup, Sanders SHOULD have won. It's not that he's pulling ahead in the race, it's that if you have a national race where Sanders is 10 points behind Clinton, then these are states that Sanders _should_ be winning. His supporters are calling this a comeback, but again, this is pretty consistent with where the votes should be coming in if Sanders is 10 points behind Clinton nationally. 

Think of it through this filter - the US is not even close to demographically homogeneous, and those demographic groups have distinct political leanings. If you chop the county up into 50 chunks, and if you assume a certain amount of demographic clustering, then if you order those chunks at random there's a good chance you'll get a run of six or so states where the demographic makeup favors one candidate over the other. That doesn't mean that six or seven straight wins for Sanders "means" anything - he just hit a pocket of states that all else equal are demographically a little more friendly to him than the average, by enough that he was able to pull out a few wins. What we're seeing is random noise from the way the states are ordered.


----------



## jsmalleus

Not sure if he'll make it all the way to the white house, but he's officially made it to our first round of Inoculum band Tees.

I grew up a few miles from camp David and worked at an orchard there as a kid. The farmers used to say that's where they got all their manure for the fields, the bulls*** just rolled right down off the hill


----------



## MaxOfMetal

FILTHnFEAR said:


> What utter fantasy.



Next post like this without substance is going to be a perma-ban. 

I don't care who you are, how long you've posted here. 

It's the laziest trolling.


----------



## bostjan

Disclaimer: I do not condone irresponsible gambling, nor do I partake in gambling at all.

I just looked up betting odds on the election, for the sole reason that I believe people putting their "money where their mouths are" will be less biased.

The odds right now are:

Clinton Nomination -700
Sanders Nomination +400

That pretty much sums up as Sanders winning would be a tremendous upset. Nobody's going to pay 4:1 odds on a bet that has any predictable chance of happening.

That said, it's still in the voters hands.

But yeah, I think those odds mean that Clinton is calculated to become the nominee with little statistical margin of error.

Back OT: on the Republican side:
Donald Trump -125
Ted Cruz +150
John Kasich +700

Interesting. Ted Cruz is more likely to be nominated than Sanders.

Also, people are already betting on the winner of the general presidential election:
Hillary Clinton -225
Donald Trump +500
Bernie Sanders +700
Ted Cruz +700
John Kaisch +1600


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Back OT: on the Republican side:
> Donald Trump -125
> Ted Cruz +150
> John Kasich +700
> 
> Interesting. Ted Cruz is more likely to be nominated than Sanders.



Subjective gut feeling, that's too favorable to Trump. I'd take him losing the nomination at those odds, rather than winning. I do agree that Cruz is more likely to get nominated than Sanders, though I think how close Cruz and Trump are is somewhat illusory. One, because I think Trump's odds are probably less than 50-50 right now (though not by much), and two, because I think it masks the dispersion a little bit - it's more binary than you'd expect from the close odds, either Trump barely ekes it out, or Trump gets crushed in a contested convention and Cruz has a pretty good shot but really it's anyone's game. 

And, maybe, reading between the lines, that's what the betting is suggesting - the markets are a little too bullish on Trump (who's about 1:1, maybe less, by my read), but other than that Cruz's odds are based entirely on the fact that Trump likely will fall short and he's the favorite in a contested convention. There's almost no chance of Cruz winning the nomination outright by delegate count before the convention, I think.

FilthnFear - I'd actually love to hear a nuanced, articulate, and well-thought-out argument from you about why you think Obama has been so horrible. I'm happy to play ball and hear you out. What've you got?


----------



## flint757

Gambling odds are based more on perception than facts. A perfect example is the Holmes/Rousey fight. The odds were in Rousey's favor because she has the better exposure and marketing, but Holmes was the on paper better fighter and ended up dominating her; yet the odds said the exact opposite. 

Trusting a gambler is like trusting an alcoholic to get you home safe. 

Given a great deal of this election is completely out of the public's hand it doesn't really matter. I suspect the Republican party will be handpicking their candidate, which means someone could be picked that wasn't even on the primary ticket. What Trump does at that time is an unknown, as well as whom anti-establishment voters will vote for.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Subjective gut feeling, that's too favorable to Trump. I'd take him losing the nomination at those odds, rather than winning. I do agree that Cruz is more likely to get nominated than Sanders, though I think how close Cruz and Trump are is somewhat illusory. One, because I think Trump's odds are probably less than 50-50 right now (though not by much), and two, because I think it masks the dispersion a little bit - it's more binary than you'd expect from the close odds, either Trump barely ekes it out, or Trump gets crushed in a contested convention and Cruz has a pretty good shot but really it's anyone's game.
> 
> And, maybe, reading between the lines, that's what the betting is suggesting - the markets are a little too bullish on Trump (who's about 1:1, maybe less, by my read), but other than that Cruz's odds are based entirely on the fact that Trump likely will fall short and he's the favorite in a contested convention. There's almost no chance of Cruz winning the nomination outright by delegate count before the convention, I think.



There are a lot of nuances. It makes things interesting to say the least.

Trump is a political outsider who promises to shake things up. Cruz, if you recall, made his start in politics, by telling people that he was the political outsider who promised to shake things up. In a lot of ways, Cruz's appeal is Trump's appeal with a different spin on it and under a different context. Kasich, I think, is a "none of the above" candidate for a lot of people, since his angle seems to be "I'm not as horrible as these other guys."

Trump and Cruz and Kasich are actually all quite different candidates, as far as platforms are concerned. Sadly, I doubt platform has a heck of a lot to do with anything at this point, although it did determine how the cards fell early on. Most people I know who support Trump, actually don't agree with his platform, they just are sick of whatever BS that they mistakenly think Trump will eradicate.



flint757 said:


> Trusting a gambler is like trusting an alcoholic to get you home safe.



Maybe; however, trusting a whole lot of gamblers to make a prediction about an election is not. I'd say it'd be more akin to trusting an organization that supports alcoholics to come up with a system of getting people home safe from the pub.

I never said that the prediction was perfect, but I still think it's worth noting in this discussion. There are no perfect predictors, otherwise, there would be little fun in this discussion.



flint757 said:


> Given a great deal of this election is completely out of the public's hand it doesn't really matter. I suspect the Republican party will be handpicking their candidate, which means someone could be picked that wasn't even on the primary ticket. What Trump does at that time is an unknown, as well as whom anti-establishment voters will vote for.



That'd be a cool discussion. What would be the ramifications on the party, and the primary process in general, if they choose a nominee who dropped out of the race already, or had not even run?


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Gambling odds are based more on perception than facts. A perfect example is the Holmes/Rousey fight. The odds were in Rousey's favor because she has the better exposure and marketing, but Holmes was the on paper better fighter and ended up dominating her; yet the odds said the exact opposite.
> 
> Trusting a gambler is like trusting an alcoholic to get you home safe.



I can't speak specifically to the Holmes/Rousey fight, but I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule. What I WILL say is that as long as we're talking about fairly well known and understood conflicts, such as NFL games, match-ups between big name tennis players, or, pertinently, presidential politics, the betting odds do have a LOT of predictive power. 

Trusting a gambler in general may be dangerous; trusting an informed gambler to correctly suss out a matter of probability on something they know well enough to put money on the line... Different story.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> There are a lot of nuances. It makes things interesting to say the least.



No crap, right? If the outcome didn't actually matter, this would be the most fascinating election ever.


----------



## flint757

bostjan said:


> That'd be a cool discussion. What would be the ramifications on the party, and the primary process in general, if they choose a nominee who dropped out of the race already, or had not even run?



There's too much in play to know what the true ramifications will be. The Republican party has screwed up at a consistent rate over the last 20 or so years and they seem largely bulletproof in the long term. Many Republicans and Democrats hate the 'other' party so much they will still support a party that screwed them over, or ignored them, simply to prevent the other party from winning. There's no real way to know how many people will stick to their convictions in the end and who will simply back the party that they think is the lesser evil for themselves. 

For conservatives the only upset I potentially see is a Trump third party run. If he stays off the ticket entirely I suspect most conservatives will vote for whomever they decide on; or they might abstain all together, but if Clinton does indeed take the whole thing I suspect many will vote in the conservative camp to simply avoid her being president. They do not like her much at all. 

The number of potential unknowns this election has definitely kept it interesting. 

The two established parties have their teeth so deep in our political system I doubt we'll ever shake them loose.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> There's too much in play to know what the true ramifications will be. The Republican party has screwed up at a consistent rate over the last 20 or so years and they seem largely bulletproof in the long term. Many Republicans and Democrats hate the 'other' party so much they will still support a party that screwed them over, or ignored them, simply to prevent the other party from winning. There's no real way to know how many people will stick to their convictions in the end and who will simply back the party that they think is the lesser evil for themselves.
> 
> For conservatives the only upset I potentially see is a Trump third party run. If he stays off the ticket entirely I suspect most conservatives will vote for whomever they decide on; or they might abstain all together, but if Clinton does indeed take the whole thing I suspect many will vote in the conservative camp to simply avoid her being president. They do not like her much at all.
> 
> The number of potential unknowns this election has definitely kept it interesting.
> 
> The two established parties have their teeth so deep in our political system I doubt we'll ever shake them loose.



I think you will have three basic kinds of voters: 1. Autopilot Republican voters, 2. Autopilot Democrat voters, and 3. Thinking/deciding voters.

No matter who the Republican and Democrat nominees are, 1. and 2. will not likely vary their voting behaviour. "OMG a Clinton," "OMG a Socialist," or "OMG a Libertard!" all precipitate out the same for group 1. "OMG, a Fascist," "OMG a Theocrat," or "OMG that other guy whom I know little about, but he's a Republican!" also have little difference for group 2.

I'd personally like to see an end to the two party system. It's only in place because people continue to allow it to exist. If we end up with a Clinton vs. Trump election, I say it'd be as good a time as any to tell the two parties to ES/FOD.


----------



## Drew

So, Sanders is done, if it'll still be a while before he admits it. Trump alas is hanging in there.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> So, Sanders is done, if it'll still be a while before he admits it. Trump alas is hanging in there.



I don't think he's any more or less done than he was last week. A loss in NY was not what they were looking for, but losing by 4% less than expected could be spun a lot of different ways. The maths, however, state that Sanders will have to get about 60.5% of the remaining electoral votes to pull ahead, and that's virtually impossible. But, before this week, that number was about 58%...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I don't think he's any more or less done than he was last week. A loss in NY was not what they were looking for, but losing by 4% less than expected could be spun a lot of different ways. The maths, however, state that Sanders will have to get about 60.5% of the remaining electoral votes to pull ahead, and that's virtually impossible. But, before this week, that number was about 58%...



I disagree - it's less that the numbers _themselves _have changed much since before New York - to your point, they haven't, and that the share Sanders needs to win going forward only increased a few percentage points. What HAS changed, though, and not to be intentionally obtuse here, but the biggest difference is before that primary, New York hadn't voted. Sanders didn't lose much ground to Clinton in the primary, but he lost one of his three remaining changes to gain back significant amounts of ground. It was the lost opportunity that, IMO, means he's probably toast - it'll be incredibly hard for him to gain enough ground back in PA tomorrow and CA in June.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I disagree - it's less that the numbers _themselves _have changed much since before New York - to your point, they haven't, and that the share Sanders needs to win going forward only increased a few percentage points. What HAS changed, though, and not to be intentionally obtuse here, but the biggest difference is before that primary, New York hadn't voted. Sanders didn't lose much ground to Clinton in the primary, but he lost one of his three remaining changes to gain back significant amounts of ground. It was the lost opportunity that, IMO, means he's probably toast - it'll be incredibly hard for him to gain enough ground back in PA tomorrow and CA in June.



Well, you can have it one of two ways, he's not toast, because there are still enough votes that could, hypothetically, get him the nomination, or, he is toast, because he doesn't have the support he needs to win the nomination.

Either way, he's no more or less toast than he was before NY.


----------



## Drew

Eh, I still think it's an important distinction - the "only thing that changed" before and after New York is the universe of available votes for him got a LOT smaller. That matters. Her's racing the clock, and every time a state votes and he merely falls no farther behind (or only modestly so), he's that much closer to running out of time.


----------



## toner

SpaceDock said:


> Looks like he will win the Republican nomination. He has no policies, he is just firing up a bunch of idiots to get them to vote for him. If he wins the presidency, I'm leaving the usa.



I'm giving rides to the airport for anyone that wants to abandon their country. If he is who my country chooses then so be it. You don't abandon your country....


----------



## Randy

toner said:


> You don't abandon your country....



Bold statement. What about refugees from war torn counties? Does that opinion change if they're women, children or the elderly?


----------



## mongey

I OP'd this thread. Haven been replying as its way out of my knowledge where its gone . been reading through it all and there's allot of interesting ,well thought out stuff.

it safe to say the rest of the world doesn't want a bar of him so its going to be interesting


----------



## A-Branger

toner said:


> I'm giving rides to the airport for anyone that wants to abandon their country. If he is who my country chooses then so be it. You don't abandon your country....




what about for security better quality of life, economy, life ect ect.

I left the country I was born 9 years ago. I left Venezuela when "it was bad", people called me crazy, go a see hows the situation right now over there. I would be broke, with no toilet paper on my bathroom, still living with my parents at 32yrs old with no job and risking my life every day I go to the streets.


I loved the country and the people there (the ones close to me). But that country I grew up changed away and today only the land stays. You dont have the choice to where you are born, but you can make the choice to where you want to live. Home is where you are happy, it can be anywhere and multiple places.

That "patriotic" mentality is what makes today's worlds problems (pretty much the whole hate speech from Trump comes from that). If something I learn by living overseas is that "Countries" are just a magical line that divides a piece of land, its a way to tell people from where you come from, and thats it. The more you forget about the frontiers, your "patriotism", and your "country pride", the "ME vs you", the better the world becomes to everyone.

you have to look for yourself first, then the ones close to you and then the ones around you. So yes, try to make the best you can for the place you are living (house, street, suburb, country) and I get the fight for it. But at any given point you have to know when it is time to move on and look a better life for yourself, IF that is what you want, and there is nothing wrong about that. IF you want to stay and "fight" then you are welcome to do so too, but it is YOUR personal choice, so dont blame a "flag" for it.

Also remember at any given point in history your family was an immigrant looking for a better place to live


----------



## vilk

"I'm very proud of myself for being born on this side of an invisible line drawn by people who organized mass murders"


----------



## RUSH_Of_Excitement

toner said:


> I'm giving rides to the airport for anyone that wants to abandon their country. If he is who my country chooses then so be it. You don't abandon your country....



My mother and I are from Colombia, but we could not live the life we wanted in Colombia and she knew I would have a better life elsewhere, still don't think we should have left? What about all the people who fear for their lives on a daily basis? Should they stay where they are just because "you don't abandon your country"? I'm genuinely curious


----------



## Mr Violence

toner said:


> I'm giving rides to the airport for anyone that wants to abandon their country. If he is who my country chooses then so be it. You don't abandon your country....









To clarify, I'd rather read into why people feel that way before jumping on the nationalism train. Nationalism is an excuse to not fix anything or make life better for yourself. This sometimes includes, if the situation is bad enough, leaving your country.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

Cruz is out. To answer the question in the title, Trump pretty much got there.


----------



## Randy

Kasich still in and all the non-Trump delegates free floating, there's still a lot that can happen if Trump doesn't get to the convention with the magic number.


----------



## flint757

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Cruz is out. To answer the question in the title, Trump pretty much got there.



Nothing makes me happier than knowing that Cruz isn't going to be in the nomination. He was definitely my worst case scenario.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Randy said:


> Kasich still in



He just bowed out this morning.


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> He just bowed out this morning.



Well, there goes all the excitement


----------



## Drew

By the end, I was just rooting for the contested convention.


----------



## vinniemallet

Same situation here. Left Brazil in 2002, living in Portugal atm. My life is way better here and the Brazil I used to know changed a lot. I still like my country and my friends from there, I still go in vacation there to have a good time but living there it's not a option for me anymore. You totally nailed when you said "Home is where you are happy".



A-Branger said:


> what about for security better quality of life, economy, life ect ect.
> 
> I left the country I was born 9 years ago. I left Venezuela when "it was bad", people called me crazy, go a see hows the situation right now over there. I would be broke, with no toilet paper on my bathroom, still living with my parents at 32yrs old with no job and risking my life every day I go to the streets.
> 
> 
> I loved the country and the people there (the ones close to me). But that country I grew up changed away and today only the land stays. You dont have the choice to where you are born, but you can make the choice to where you want to live. Home is where you are happy, it can be anywhere and multiple places.
> 
> That "patriotic" mentality is what makes today's worlds problems (pretty much the whole hate speech from Trump comes from that). If something I learn by living overseas is that "Countries" are just a magical line that divides a piece of land, its a way to tell people from where you come from, and thats it. The more you forget about the frontiers, your "patriotism", and your "country pride", the "ME vs you", the better the world becomes to everyone.
> 
> you have to look for yourself first, then the ones close to you and then the ones around you. So yes, try to make the best you can for the place you are living (house, street, suburb, country) and I get the fight for it. But at any given point you have to know when it is time to move on and look a better life for yourself, IF that is what you want, and there is nothing wrong about that. IF you want to stay and "fight" then you are welcome to do so too, but it is YOUR personal choice, so dont blame a "flag" for it.
> 
> Also remember at any given point in history your family was an immigrant looking for a better place to live


----------



## tedtan

flint757 said:


> Nothing makes me happier than knowing that Cruz isn't going to be in the nomination. He was definitely my worst case scenario.



This. I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I'd take her over Cruz without hesitation.

Plus, I think a Trump nomination all but guarantees a democrat in the white house, regardless of who that democrat is. Which, even though I may lean a bit more independent, is a good thing given the other option.


----------



## tacotiklah

Watching trump become the presumed republican nominee has pretty much robbed me of my faith in America. Not that there were many other great offerings, but Kasich didn't seem like that bad of a guy. At the very least, he was the most moderate of anyone on the Republican side. Between McConnell being an obstructionist douchebag and trump being the only one left in the race, it seems that the Republican party has gone of the reservation completely and risks total collapse. The whole race started with SIXTEEN nominees, lending credence to the belief that this was going to be a massive circus. This was then exacerbated when Trump started winning and Cruz and Kasich formed an alliance, not to win, but to just steal enough delegates to force a contested convention. It seems like the only one that was in it to win it was Trump. And to me, that's sad.

Then again, the democrats this election aren't doing all that much better. This election overall has completely underwhelmed me and made me wonder wtf is wrong with us as a nation. We've made our electoral process into a bastardized version of Celebrity Apprentice, except that the underachievers are celebrated, not fired.

Still waiting for Trump to lay out a detailed plan for his presidency. All I've heard so far is that mexicans and muslims are bad, insulting anyone (including the handicapped) that disagrees with you is desirable, and that Meghan Kelly is a meanie. Oh and CHYYYYYYNA! Or something like that. 

The man has literally NO substance whatsoever to his candidacy, and he got the republican nomination. I weep for the future.


----------



## wankerness

I think Hillary is the best candidate the Dems could choose to make the election close, since she's so universally despised by the right, and even many on the left are less than enthusiastic about her. Some recent polls show Trump narrowly beating her. I kind of hope some scandal sticks and she gets out, since I think some random person that no one knows anything about would have a better chance against Trump than her.


----------



## tacotiklah

Bernie was the one guy that I felt legitimately cared about other people, and nobody seems to wanna vote for him. Apparently our political system fits Einstein's definition of insanity right down to the letter. We hate the way things are, but we feel that by voting the same way and for the same people that make our lives so crappy will somehow "change it for the better THIS time". At this point, I'm willing to try ANYTHING other than the same crap because it just doesn't work.


----------



## vilk

Bernie would beat Trump with all his limbs amputated. With Hillary, the vote is going to turn into people choosing which candidate they hate less. Someone is gonna walk into office with a lower approval rating than presidents leaving office.

Some republicans would have voted for Sanders over Trump, but there's not a red colored soul in this nation who will go out of their way to vote for Clinton. Actually, my dumb co-worker who's been a Bernie man all along just told me that if Clinton gets it he'll have to vote for Trump. The thing is, I do get why he said it.


----------



## flint757

Tell him to vote green not red if he's choosing to not vote Clinton. It still serves as a protest vote against Clinton while not completely selling out ones values in the process. Or tell him to do a write-in.


----------



## vilk

^smart.


----------



## tacotiklah

I plan to do a write in for Bernie if Clinton gets the dem nomination. I'm not letting my support for the man go wasted because people think that "no matter who, vote blue" is a good thing. I vote for the person I think most qualified to do the job, not a political party. This is exactly why people like John Adams and James Madison DETESTED political parties. The pressure that democrats are putting on people to vote for anyone the party picks as opposed to providing candidates that aren't scum of the earth is pushing me more and more towards independent.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Do a write in. Hillary Clinton can go get a papercut.

This is a fun article. Nobody wants either of them. 

Americans&#8217; Distaste For Both Trump And Clinton Is Record-Breaking


----------



## tacotiklah

I saw this come up on my facebook feed and I couldn't think of a better way to visualize a part of why I dislike Hillary so much...






She believed in almost NONE of the things she claims until Bernie said it first. Then she started parroting a lot of it and suddenly people are like "Hey Hillary, that's a great and original idea!"
Meanwhile the guy that's been saying all of this since back when Clinton was still defending a child molester (and getting him acquitted of charges by claiming that the poor 12 year old girl liked it and wanted it to happen: CNN panel unloads on Hillary for trivializing something as &#8216;sensitive as rape&#8217; « Hot Air ) is completely ignored like he's the crazy grandpa that forgot his meds and wandered out of a nursing home.

And yeah, the democratic frontrunner is a slimeball that allowed a child molester to walk free. She even knew he was guilty, knew that he duped a polygraph test (and LAUGHED about it), and still invited a quack child psychologist to come in and talk about how young girls fantasize about being with older men and that somehow made it okay for this guy to sexually assault her. The more I learn about her, the more disgusted I am and the more I really hate that bitch. To me, she embodies all of the criticism I've made against politicians that sell out their humanity for money and power.


----------



## mongey

tacotiklah said:


> Watching trump become the presumed republican nominee has pretty much robbed me of my faith in America. .





this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other. 

Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics 

how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it


----------



## A-Branger

mongey said:


> this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other.
> 
> Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics
> 
> how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it



Im in the same boat as you. I do not get it at all. I understand the whole "reality show" thing, were the "villan" usually gets to the end, because people like controversy and drama. But this in a president election I do not get it.

Same with Bernie. Even if ^those people only are into the superficial side of things and they are not looking at the whole picture, then Sanders is perfect. I mean FREE universities and healtcare???... sign me up no matter what else the guys does. honestly what else you want. Even the dumbest person should see a difference "f&* mexicans taking our jobs, make 'murica great again" vs "FREE healtcare" ....????

even if those promises are un-realistic. I muhc rather take my chances to see IF a guy delivers free universities and healtcare vs to see IF the other actually builds a fricking wall between Mexico


I never understood USA politics with the two party systems and I never will. It only helps to people to choose a team and pick that team blindfolded because "its my team" like if president elections were a baseball game. People should vote for a person not a party. And that person should rule the way he wanted not the way their party demands him to do


----------



## Given To Fly

mongey said:


> this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other.
> 
> Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics
> 
> how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it



When I followed politics, I was miserable. When I stopped following politics, I was happy. American politics can make Americans incredibly malicious and the sad thing is they learn to love that feeling;"they learn to love to hate" which is no way to live. What I'm saying is I'm about 99% uninformed about what is going on with the Presidential Election. 

With that said, I am as bamboozled as the rest of humanity as to how this happened, or that people actually wanted it to happen in the first place.  I do know a thing or two about business though. Based off what I've heard Trump say about building a a wall along the U.S./Mexico border, this is actually very straight forward. Do any of you pay other people money to provide them services? I hope not! Do other people pay you to provide them with a service? I hope so! Trump's statement makes perfect sense, he just leaves out the part about the wall belonging to Mexico because they paid for it. I'll even support the idea if the wall resembles the "Black Gates of Morder," is visible from space, and is larger than the Great Wall of China. I think both Americans and Mexicans would be proud of such a a wall, especially Mexico, because they would own it. 

I'm more with the Cavaliers win over the Hawks in which they broke the single game record for most 3-pointers made: 25!


----------



## Given To Fly

A-Branger said:


> I
> I never understood USA politics with the two party systems and I never will. It only helps to people to choose a team and pick that team blindfolded because "its my team" like if president elections were a baseball game.



You understand baseball?!  I know Little League is gaining momentum in Australia but to reference it in a post is impressive!


----------



## A-Branger

Given To Fly said:


> When I followed politics, I was miserable. When I stopped following politics, I was happy. American politics can make Americans incredibly malicious and the sad thing is they learn to love that feeling;"they learn to love to hate" which is no way to live. What I'm saying is I'm about 99% uninformed about what is going on with the Presidential Election.



I dont follow it either, neither here or back in my country. Since my grandfather was in some way a politician you can imagine how awkward was lunch every saturday with the family when most of the talk topic was politics, and I had to sit down there waiting for the perfect moment to run away to the tv to watch cartoons lol.

I never cared about US politics, but this time things are too extreme, and like ti or not the US has too much influence over the rest of the World. Meaning is Trump wins and makes a big pile of crap, it would affect everyone not just the US



Given To Fly said:


> You understand baseball?!  I know Little League is gaining momentum in Australia but to reference it in a post is impressive!



LOL thats because Im from Venezuela  and believe me I have NO idea on how cricket works and the WHY people like it


----------



## RUSH_Of_Excitement

mongey said:


> this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other.
> 
> Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics
> 
> how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it



There are a plethora of reasons why we're in the position that we are right now. The most important thing to remember is that a Trump nomination (or someone like him) has been a long time coming and the underlying reasons for his popularity have been brewing for a while. A good majority of his supporters are white, non-college educated blue collar workers who have or have had jobs in fields such as manufacturing. As the modern economy has advanced, technology has led to the mechanization of many jobs and massive wealth has been created in other fields. As a result, these blue collar workers have seen their wages stagnate and a lack of opportunities for social mobility, which is also why suicide rates among this demographic have been increasing (pm or ask me for sources on ask this info, I can provide them). All the meanwhile, the Republican party has become a party mostly of well off politicians who are out of touch with their constituents (more so than other politicians) and as this previously mentioned demographic votes heavily Republican, they notice this disconnect and have begun to respond to it by voting for someone anti establishment who claims to have the solution for all their problems and who claims to care about them but not the politicians in Washington. The Republican party has been digging themselves into this hole for years and this was bound to happen eventually. My opinion on the outcome of this situation is another matter and I guess we'll have to wait until November to see if it comes to fruition, but I hope this was helpful!


----------



## Ibanezsam4

RUSH_Of_Excitement said:


> All the meanwhile, the Republican party has become a party mostly of well off politicians who are out of touch with their constituents (more so than other politicians) and as this previously mentioned demographic votes heavily Republican, they notice this disconnect and have begun to respond to it by voting for someone anti establishment who claims to have the solution for all their problems and who claims to care about them but not the politicians in Washington. The Republican party has been digging themselves into this hole for years and this was bound to happen eventually. My opinion on the outcome of this situation is another matter and I guess we'll have to wait until November to see if it comes to fruition, but I hope this was helpful!



you had me until here. It's happening to both parties at pretty much the same rates. 

the two parties have pretty much homogenized and there's huge amounts of discontent in both aisles. 

and for the blue collar, white working vote. it swings both ways. both parties hate the demographic because its not loyal. It goes blue and red depending on who campaigns directly for their interests. 

In this case, Trump (wisely) campaigned on it before anyone else noting that the past 16 years the demographic has been ignored. 

what causes the wrinkle (and why data journalism bonked when it came to Trump), is that Trump won the past 8 states with 50% of the vote and with wealthy and lower class voters.

his nationalist/populist message is resonating at all levels, similar to how Obama's did 8 years ago. It's cult of personality. 

The GOP is in a hole for a very different reason, and this will help explain it. One of the few GOP groups Trump doesn't carry is evangelicals. Guess who the party base has been appealing to for 25 years?


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Probably unrelated to anything being talked about, but did anybody else see that cringeworthy post trump made of him saying "I love Hispanics" while eating texmex as if it legit Mexican cuisine? Like eating a "Mexican inspired" American dish made on his property makes up for any of the horribly racist things he's done or said. 

A trump supporting friend of mine posted that and said "see? Not racist." It's getting really hard to not mouth off to some of these people.


----------



## flint757

Texas is filled with racists and we all eat texmex. It's probably the best thing about Texas. My family and the food are the only reasons I haven't jumped ship. 

Not the best case against Trump being a racist.


----------



## wankerness

mongey said:


> this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other.
> 
> Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics
> 
> *how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it*



Here's how:

After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016 - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This election is so messed up that I saw a video from a few months ago where ANN F'N COULTER, who has a history of being an extreme conservative troll, was the voice of reason against all the liberal panelists recently. She called Trump the most likely of the nominees (prompting the entire audience to laugh at her mockingly), and said she preferred Bernie cause unlike Clinton he actually gave a S*** about the middle class. A few months later, and we see who's laughing now!


----------



## A-Branger

Señor Voorhees;4579810 said:


> Probably unrelated to anything being talked about, but did anybody else see that cringeworthy post trump made of him saying "I love Hispanics" while eating texmex as if it legit Mexican cuisine? Like eating a "Mexican inspired" American dish made on his property makes up for any of the horribly racist things he's done or said.
> 
> A trump supporting friend of mine posted that and said "see? Not racist." It's getting really hard to not mouth off to some of these people.










Worst part is that he didne even eat that. Do people know how these bussines/politics guys works..... *yells at assistant*--"bringme one of those stupid taco things from the restaurant"...."here take me a photo eating it"...*mm mr Trump, can you smile?*.."hows this..  ..."...*good*.."let me see.... good... here now go and write something and post it, and take this taco thing away, thats all"


----------



## Rev2010

tacotiklah said:


> Apparently our political system fits Einstein's definition of insanity right down to the letter.



Einstein never actually said that, people just keep parroting it. It's likely attributed to an author that used it in her book or something to that affect. Plus, there are many instances of doing something repetitively and getting a different result, like asking out a girl and getting turned down then later getting a date, or taking a test several times then passing, or playing the lottery, etc. Just sayin'. Professionals in psychology hate that saying. And there are plenty of brilliant insane people that don't keep doing repetitive tasks expecting different results. The definition of insanity is quite different. Look it up. 


*edit - here's two links from a really quick Google search from my phone :

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-therapy/200907/the-definition-insanity-is

http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/insanity-definition_n_1159927.html


Rev.


----------



## estabon37

A-Branger said:


> I have NO idea on how cricket works and the WHY people like it



How: Willow; spinners; silly mid on/off; fours & sixes; knock the bails off the stumps; howzat! Why: Irony. Cricket is the gentleman's sport, so asking a bunch of strutting, arrogant 'men's men' to stand in a field all day in their pajamas and insult one another is just a wonderfully delicious idea. I mean, I genuinely love cricket, but cricketers are dickheads. 

But that's enough about the greatest sport ever. Time to speak to the actual topic.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> his nationalist/populist message is resonating at all levels, similar to how Obama's did 8 years ago. It's cult of personality.



Nailed it. Personality politics and identity politics are two sides of the same coin that is dominating politics right now. These political ideas have been steadily progressing for decades, and we've reached a point where it is more important for a politician to be able to establish a connection between their personality and an 'identity group' (race, gender, religion, cause, etc) than to create meaningful or effective policy. A good politician can have both personality and policy, but a successful politician only needs the former. 

The frustrating thing is that identity politics emerged and evolved for good reasons and in some cases lead to real social and political progress. It's just become so easy to exploit. When you can get away with saying "I'm one of you!" instead of "What can I do to help you?" to secure a vote, there's no need to create substantive policy. Hell, Ted Cruz only seemed to get through as long as he did by waving his 'Conservative Christian' banner and seeing who came to the table. Weirdly the banner that Trump has been flying that seems to have caused so many to identify with him is 'I'm Not a Politician'. The fact that he's bad at politics and pubic relations connects him to a huge, previously ignored identity group: people that are sick of politics.

It's almost genius.


----------



## Rev2010

estabon37 said:


> Weirdly the banner that Trump has been flying that seems to have caused so many to identify with him is 'I'm Not a Politician'. The fact that he's bad at politics and pubic relations connects him to a huge, previously ignored identity group: people that are sick of politics.



His point in touting that statement is because there is a lot of corruption in politics. Campaign contributions nearly always results in favors being done for the donor if elected. Not trying to defend Trump, just pointing out why many people are sick of lifetime politians. Unfortunately there's obviously the negative aspect as you're pointing out - getting someone with zero political experience. 


Rev.


----------



## bhakan

mongey said:


> this is what I don't get. I have traveled a good chunk of the world and spent time living with Americans in various countries , and have I spent time cruising around the USA and meet allot of people doing it . 90% of Americans I have really known in my years are intelligent people with a good outlook on the world same as any other.
> 
> Allot of forums I go to are full of Americans expressing intelligent ,thought provoking views on the world including politics
> 
> how the hell did this bloke get the nomination ? He has nothing to offer and has given no polices . even in a bad and worse case scenario, this guy is worse than worst . I really don't get it


Keep in mind though, the population voting for Trump would never live outside the US because of their intense nationalism, they mostly live in the rural areas which make up an absolutely massive portion of the country (I'm assuming you spent most of your time in America in cities and such, not in the middle of nowhere) and they're mostly older and not as active on the internet. Obviously these are all sweeping generalizations and there are plenty of exceptions.

This election really brings up how backward a lot of the rural areas of the US can get. I live in the suburbs but I have family who live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, its like a different world out there. It feels a couple decades behind the suburbs/cities sometimes.


----------



## scottro202

bhakan said:


> This election really brings up how backward a lot of the rural areas of the US can get. I live in the suburbs but I have family who live on a farm in the middle of nowhere, its like a different world out there. It feels a couple decades behind the suburbs/cities sometimes.



It's easy to assume the hicks are to blame for Trump's success. But it would be woefully neglect-able to not realize the core of his success lies not in anything necessarily regarding political policy, but with a general distaste for the current political system. That is why the Trump campaign is now targeting Bernie supporters. 

After that you throw racism and sexism in there, make a couple chants, say you're going to build a wall and once you think you've created a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert you get the hicks to come make a show of it and before you know it you're in the front seat of the Republican party.


----------



## bostjan

Now is the perfect time for a third party to replace the republicans. Trump has little pull with the religious right. Hilary has little pull with progressives. One pretty big constituency in the south and a moderately small group in the north are completely disenfranchised with the nominees.

Looking back, I'm still astonished that Trump made it to the finish line at all, let alone did it in a fairly clean sweep. What is his message? What is his platform? What does he represent? His supporters don't seem interested in telling me...

As far as blue collar manufacturing workers, well, I'm from Detroit. Plenty of people there who work for car manufacturers and never voted republican in their lives. 

When I think of Trump supporters, I'm thinking of farmers and yahoos. But, that's no longer accurate. He is appealing to a broader group now that it's Trump vs Clinton. All either of them have to do at this point to gain a huge chunk of votes is be the viable alternative to one another. It's not so much Trump vs Clinton as it is "Not Clinton" vs "Not Trump." (from what I've observed in my limited sphere)


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Looking back, I'm still astonished that Trump made it to the finish line at all, let alone did it in a fairly clean sweep.



Interesting paradigm going on here.

You can find innumerable articles about how the two likely candidates in the general election (Hillary and Trump) both have historically low approval ratings. But they both won the nomination for the two major parties with a considerable enough lead. How does that happen?

Here's my guess (and I haven't seen the numbers to back this up yet, so I'm just shooting from the hip):

Participation in elections (especially primaries) in this country have historically been piss-poor versus other modern societies. You've got the typical voters that show up and vote _fairly_ predictably and make up less than 50% of the population ELIGIBLE to vote but are usually a healthy enough sampling size of the electorate that the results aren't incredibly skewed.

In the specific example of the Republican primary, the primary turnout wasn't outrageously higher than previous primaries, but I think you had a drop-off on "typical Republican primary voters" from the collective malaise over who was on the ballot and that corresponded with an energized group of people who usually stay out of the primary process and showed up (several for the first time) to vote for Trump. I believe the two mostly offset one another. As a result, the MAJORITY of Republicans either don't like the guy and voted against him or chose to stay home entirely, but the minority of Republicans that support Trump and non-estalishment type fundamentalism answered the clarion call and showed up to tip the scales.

In essence, I think there's a good chance Trumps support only represents 1/3rd or less of the Republican party, and considering how polarizing he is, his support among independents and anyone on the left (several of which might've shown interest in McCain or Romney) drops off steeply. So if you do the math, 1/3rd of the party that makes up about ~1/3rd of the voters in this country (the other 2/3rds split between Dems and Ind. or unaffiliated) and the small handful of defectors would lend themselves to that ~25% approval ratings he boasts.

The Hillary dynamic is a little different, IMO. I believe Hillary is actually the VERY clear leader of support in the Democratic party (probably 2/3rds or more) but the issue is, independent, left-leaning voters are more likely to register independent than right-leaning independents are. As such, I think participation among registered Democrats were normal or high in this primary, which would heavily favor Hillary, but I don't think she has majority support (v. Bernie) among all voters left of center. As such, independents who were able to make the deadline to register on time and states with open primaries made things a lot closer than they would've been if the primary were locked into, say, only people who were registered Democrat in the last election. THAT race she would've won in a landslide.

But, just like Trump, the number of voters who are registered to the appropriate party to vote in the primary, and actually DO is not entirely reflective of everyone with similar ideologies. As such, I'd bet Hillary also tracks somewhere in the 1/3rd number among those 'left of center' and she's polarizing in a way similar to Trump, so she ALSO loses the remaining large group of people 'right-of-center'. As such, her ~25-30% approval rating tracks pretty accurately.

I can't speak to Trump strategy to win because personally, I think he played with fire too much in how he handled the primary. I know I've been hearing about the "new Trump" he's going to march out for the general election (he's already floating it, with the 'Rich pay more tax' 'modest raise in minimum wage' talk) but left-of-center voter's memory is a little less forgiving of the kind of politics he's been playing. As such, short of a miracle, I think he's sunk and he's sunk by a large number.

As for Hillary, she's already showing her hand and it's likely going to pay off. Jeb Bush (who were George W. Bush) and Romney style Republicans are neo-cons. Spending lots of money and marrying the government and corporations is something they enjoy doing and something they have in common with 'blue-dogs'. Hillary will secure the same people that voted for her, some Sanders supporters and independents who are 'afraid of Trump' and even some right of center Republicans who think she'll have a more pragmatic approach to keeping things comfortable for them. Hillary in a landslide.

My one caveat to this (and it's a big one) is the independent thing that's been alluded to. The thing that I think most people missing is, the disenfranchised independents that are looking for a voice aren't in the middle, they're to the left of Hillary and they're to the right of Trump. With how polarized this country has become steadily over the last 30 years, those people make up a LARGE part of the electorate but they're impossible for a candidate to crack into in a national election because neither group is large enough to win a majority and they're too far apart for any one candidate to grab both. As such, regardless of the results, I find both sides will be further disenfranchised and, rather than the formation or solidification of a third party, you might see a third _and fourth_.

Regardless, I have a feeling there's going to be an unprecedented number of people either holding their nose at the polls in November or just staying home.


----------



## Jaxcharvel

Let me start by saying that I am a Trump "supporter". It's already been touched on numerous times, but my reasoning is because he's the lesser evil. I don't think that he will be a great president, or even a good one, but I think he'll do less damage than Hillary and i'll have my sh^t pushed in a little less with taxes. I think that if there was a more traditional candidate on either side then they would walk away with the presidency without a problem, but these are your choices.


----------



## Randy

Jaxcharvel said:


> i'll have my sh^t pushed in a little less with taxes.



If you're taking home over $250k a year, I'm disappointed you haven't been gracing us with more NGDs.


----------



## Jaxcharvel

Randy said:


> If you're taking home over $250k a year, I'm disappointed you haven't been gracing us with more NGDs.



I wish


----------



## Axayacatl

Jaxcharvel said:


> Let me start by saying that I am a Trump "supporter". It's already been touched on numerous times, but my reasoning is because he's the lesser evil. I don't think that he will be a great president, or even a good one, but I think he'll do less damage than Hillary and i'll have my sh^t pushed in a little less with taxes. I think that if there was a more traditional candidate on either side then they would walk away with the presidency without a problem, but these are your choices.



Mr. Trump, the guy who has gone on record saying over and over again that he wants to violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans be they Muslim, Hispanic, etc, is the lesser evil? Did Hillary propose forced male circumcisions and I simply missed the speech? 

Do us all a favor and let us know if you're part of the 20% of Trump ''supporters'' that think the abolition of slavery was a mistake. I'm using quotes because you used them to describe your support for Mr. Trump, but its not clear what statement is actually being qualified in your sentence. BTW, I "love" ISIS. 

Also, just FYI, this week was the first week that Mr. Trump made _any_ mention remotely associated with a tax policy under his presidency, so, supporting Mr. Trump viz-a-viz Hillary based on his alleged tax policy puts you in the awkward position of supporting something based on *nothing*. Sorry, "support", based on nothing. 

Hillary has been in government for decades, has experience in almost every relevant branch, has the relevant training and education. She's about as establishment as you can get. Leading Republican figures with real-world executive branch experience like Sec. of Defense Gates and Gen. Petraeus have gone on the record saying that Hillary is an establishment candidate that would make a "formidable President" (Gen. Petraeus). 

When you write things like ''a more traditional candidate'' I'm left wondering if you're talking about her snatch specifically or if it's just another baseless manifestation of your "support" for Trump. 

The chances that you know more about government, leadership, or the travails of executive power than Sec. Gates and Gen. Petraeus are about as slim as any President Obama tax hike being relevant to you. If you're pulling in less than $250k a year, then you're part of the demographic that President Obama was trying to ease the tax burden for throughout the entire course of his presidency. If you're *not* taking home more than *$250k a year (or $300k as a couple)* then any tax hikes proposed by President Obama are irrelevant to you. That is, unless your vote belongs to the rich white men looking after themselves. Your pick, either you're lying to us or just not very smart about your own money?

Randy asked if you make less than $250k a year just so the rest of us could confirm you as a representative sample of the demographic that make up Trump supporters : less informed, less educated, less analytical, less monied, more white, less healthy and with a lower life expectancy, but 100% in support of rich white men who's interests do not coincide with their own, for reasons they themselves cannot fully articulate without getting angry or physically violent.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Love it!


----------



## vilk

dudeman's post got ripped apart. I hope he can reflect on that.


----------



## MrWulf

As much as people like Hilary as the new US president due to experience alone, i feel like there's something amiss here. I remember there's an infographic flying around that recounts about how inept she was back when Bill was in the White House. And of course thats not to mention her Wall Street backers, her overlooked history as a warhawk (iirc she voted in favor of Libya, Iraq and Syria. And we all know how that turned out to be). Also, using a general's opinion as a way to justify that Hilary is suitable as the successor of Obama's rather underwelmed tenure reeks of appealing to authority to me. Lastly, her experience, connections and longevity might be her own undoing as the amount of trash and irt on her is a lot more dirty than Trump ever have (Benghazi, for one). Donald might get a lot of flak for his rhetoric and mouthy nature, but to me as an outsider, choosing between Hilary or Trump is like between a fatal poison, or "just" a near death experience. The upcoming election is going to be really fun to watch, nonetheless.


----------



## Randy

MrWulf said:


> Donald might get a lot of flak for his rhetoric and mouthy nature



This is the fatal issue, right here. I'm no Hillary fan or even a Hilly apologist but the central issue is that Donald Trump has held no public office, so all we have to go on is his rhetoric and his history as a businessman as a projection of how he'd be as a leader.

His rhetoric is unarguably poisonous and he's had several bankruptcies of businesses and he has several ongoing lawsuits over one (probably more) of the businesses he's operated. I'd say he's been no more successful and no less controversial of a businessman than Hillary Clinton's been as a politician. 

And to add to that, you can't just whitewash what he says as "mouthy". The man promises to build a wall of extraordinary size and cost, and he's promising to ban Muslims from coming into this country. That's not conjecture, that's what the actual guy says he wants to do. So either you take his own word on it, he makes good on it and makes the USA the most despised bastion of racial intolerance in the world or he DOESN'T succeed at doing these things, which makes him a liar or a failure, which is no better than the issues you take up about Hillary.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Honestly, you all look like idiots. You have bought in hook, line, and sinker.

You are now engaged in trying to justify (to yourselves?) voting for a 4-decades-long warmongering neocon with ties to every scandal since watergate, who takes policy form Henry Kissinger (unapologetic baby killing, village burning Kissinger), and is proven to be corrupt and beholden to special interests.

This is now considered "progressive" and "inclusive."

Trump could be a donkey in a hat. He will still win, because this is not about Trump. this is about the political parties' and media's REACTION to Trump.

As they flail and get more belligerent, a positive feedback loop is created, validating our support of this wonky candidate.

Just my .02 - Go ahead and flame on.


----------



## MrWulf

Randy said:


> This is the fatal issue, right here. I'm no Hillary fan or even a Hilly apologist but the central issue is that Donald Trump has held no public office, so all we have to go on is his rhetoric and his history as a businessman as a projection of how he'd be as a leader.
> 
> His rhetoric is unarguably poisonous and he's had several bankruptcies of businesses and he has several ongoing lawsuits over one (probably more) of the businesses he's operated. I'd say he's been no more successful and no less controversial of a businessman than Hillary Clinton's been as a politician.
> 
> And to add to that, you can't just whitewash what he says as "mouthy". The man promises to build a wall of extraordinary size and cost, and he's promising to ban Muslims from coming into this country. That's not conjecture, that's what the actual guy says he wants to do. So either you take his own word on it, he makes good on it and makes the USA the most despised bastion of racial intolerance in the world or he DOESN'T succeed at doing these things, which makes him a liar or a failure, which is no better than the issues you take up about Hillary.



It will really depended on what you think as the failure state. Of course, I was skimping Trump's issues as a candidate but I feel like Trump is the lesser evil vs Hilary (but the margin is not that exactly wide). A Wall Street backed Warhawk is more terrifying to me but YMMV. In an ideal world Bernie probably should get elected but Democrats had rigged the system to ease Hilary's ascendancy. And personally speaking, i dont think Trump will make good on his words. It had a lot of PR stunt elements and also, since when a US president will actually follow through with all his rhetoric pre-presidency? The answer is a resounding no. Thats why it is call rhetoric. But then thats the metric which the US votes so WTF do I knoe about elections in this chaotic country



CapnForsaggio said:


> Honestly, you all look like idiots. You have bought in hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> You are now engaged in trying to justify (to yourselves?) voting for a 4-decades-long warmongering neocon with ties to every scandal since watergate, who takes policy form Henry Kissinger (unapologetic baby killing, village burning Kissinger), and is proven to be corrupt and beholden to special interests.
> 
> This is now considered "progressive" and "inclusive."
> 
> Trump could be a donkey in a hat. He will still win, because this is not about Trump. this is about the political parties' and media's REACTION to Trump.
> 
> As they flail and get more belligerent, a positive feedback loop is created, validating our support of this wonky candidate.
> 
> Just my .02 - Go ahead and flame on.



Every time I heard about how Hilary will champion tolerance and inclusiveness I feel a bit sick to the stomach. Hillary have been flip floping for ages, just pandering to the causes that beneficial to her (she was against gay marriage, mind you). And just look at Europe and their handle of the refugee (or the mostly-economic-migrants) crisis to see how tolerance and inclusiveness had failed rather miserably. 

It is a circus, a circus of which will determind the fate of US for the next 4 years.


----------



## vilk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honestly, you all look like idiots. You have bought in hook, line, and sinker.
> 
> You are now engaged in trying to justify (to yourselves?) voting for a 4-decades-long warmongering neocon with ties to every scandal since watergate, who takes policy form Henry Kissinger (unapologetic baby killing, village burning Kissinger), and is proven to be corrupt and beholden to special interests.
> 
> This is now considered "progressive" and "inclusive."
> 
> Trump could be a donkey in a hat. He will still win, because this is not about Trump. this is about the political parties' and media's REACTION to Trump.
> 
> As they flail and get more belligerent, a positive feedback loop is created, validating our support of this wonky candidate.
> 
> Just my .02 - Go ahead and flame on.





Bought in? Last I checked no one in this thread likes Clinton. We're all Bernie. Everyone is all Bernie. Clinton is only headed for the nomination because (aside from purchasing her delegates with superPac money) most voters are elderly and they do not understand how to evaluate information they read online (if they even go online) so they just vote in accordance with their preferred TV network, which Clinton would have purchased. 


When you put forth the point that she is corrupt--no one is denying it. Corruption is the status quo. That being said, we're used to the status quo. We know that she can't/won't really do anything even if she's the president. Just like Trump can't/won't really do anything even if he's the president.

However, what they both CAN and HAVE TO do is have diplomatic relations with foreign nations, which is going to be difficult for someone like Trump to do. I don't believe he's actually racist. I don't believe he gives a flying f/// about any sort of social issue. He just wants to be president because. But unfortunately, the things he says and does make him into an asshole. And assholes aren't really the best folks to hire for diplomatic relations. A lady like Clinton on the other hand will make for an excellent figurehead.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> Bought in? Last I checked no one in this thread likes Clinton. We're all Bernie. Everyone is all Bernie. Clinton is only headed for the nomination because (aside from purchasing her delegates with superPac money) most voters are elderly and they do not understand how to evaluate information they read online (if they even go online) so they just vote in accordance with their preferred TV network, which Clinton would have purchased.
> 
> 
> When you put forth the point that she is corrupt--no one is denying it. Corruption is the status quo. That being said, we're used to the status quo. We know that she can't/won't really do anything even if she's the president. Just like Trump can't/won't really do anything even if he's the president.
> 
> However, what they both CAN and HAVE TO do is have diplomatic relations with foreign nations, which is going to be difficult for someone like Trump to do. I don't believe he's actually racist. I don't believe he gives a flying f/// about any sort of social issue. He just wants to be president because. But unfortunately, the things he says and does make him into an asshole. And assholes aren't really the best folks to hire for diplomatic relations. A lady like Clinton on the other hand will make for an excellent figurehead.



"A lady like Clinton on the other hand will make for an excellent figurehead."

Be nice to Hillary Clinton online &mdash; or risk a confrontation with her super PAC - LA Times

You can get paid to do this now, you know....


----------



## Jaxcharvel

Axayacatl said:


> Mr. Trump, the guy who has gone on record saying over and over again that he wants to violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans be they Muslim, Hispanic, etc, is the lesser evil? Did Hillary propose forced male circumcisions and I simply missed the speech?
> 
> Do us all a favor and let us know if you're part of the 20% of Trump ''supporters'' that think the abolition of slavery was a mistake. I'm using quotes because you used them to describe your support for Mr. Trump, but its not clear what statement is actually being qualified in your sentence. BTW, I "love" ISIS.
> 
> Also, just FYI, this week was the first week that Mr. Trump made _any_ mention remotely associated with a tax policy under his presidency, so, supporting Mr. Trump viz-a-viz Hillary based on his alleged tax policy puts you in the awkward position of supporting something based on *nothing*. Sorry, "support", based on nothing.
> 
> Hillary has been in government for decades, has experience in almost every relevant branch, has the relevant training and education. She's about as establishment as you can get. Leading Republican figures with real-world executive branch experience like Sec. of Defense Gates and Gen. Petraeus have gone on the record saying that Hillary is an establishment candidate that would make a "formidable President" (Gen. Petraeus).
> 
> When you write things like ''a more traditional candidate'' I'm left wondering if you're talking about her snatch specifically or if it's just another baseless manifestation of your "support" for Trump.
> 
> The chances that you know more about government, leadership, or the travails of executive power than Sec. Gates and Gen. Petraeus are about as slim as any President Obama tax hike being relevant to you. If you're pulling in less than $250k a year, then you're part of the demographic that President Obama was trying to ease the tax burden for throughout the entire course of his presidency. If you're *not* taking home more than *$250k a year (or $300k as a couple)* then any tax hikes proposed by President Obama are irrelevant to you. That is, unless your vote belongs to the rich white men looking after themselves. Your pick, either you're lying to us or just not very smart about your own money?
> 
> Randy asked if you make less than $250k a year just so the rest of us could confirm you as a representative sample of the demographic that make up Trump supporters : less informed, less educated, less analytical, less monied, more white, less healthy and with a lower life expectancy, but 100% in support of rich white men who's interests do not coincide with their own, for reasons they themselves cannot fully articulate without getting angry or physically violent.



I don't really see the reason to be a bonersmooch just because i voiced my opinion. I didn't attack anyone. Trump has many traits that would make him suck as a president, but IN MY OPINION he sucks a bit less than Hillary. I wasn't in any way referring to her lady parts. I was more concerned with all the scandal that she has floating around before she even gets into office. And anyone thinking that anyone other than one of these two will get into office is delusional.


----------



## bostjan

Regardless of truth or not, the _only_ reason a democrat or republican *has* to be the next president, is the fact that everyone believes it to be true.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> You are now engaged in trying to justify (to yourselves?) voting for a 4-decades-long warmongering neocon with ties to every scandal since watergate.



Every scandal since Watergate? Are you too young to have heard of the Iran-Contra affair?


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> Bought in? Last I checked no one in this thread likes Clinton.



*ahem*


----------



## Randy

MrWulf said:


> A Wall Street backed Warhawk is more terrifying to me but YMMV.



Trump Names Dune Capital&#39;s Mnuchin as National Finance Chairman - Bloomberg Politics

Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> Every scandal since Watergate? Are you too young to have heard of the Iran-Contra affair?



You have got to be Fracking kidding me....

Ever heard of Mena, Arkansas and an 11 and 14 year old boy that were murdered there over the Iran/Contra drug shipments?

billy had alot to do with that PROVEN coverup of a murder!


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> You have got to be Fracking kidding me....
> 
> Ever heard of Mena, Arkansas and an 11 and 14 year old boy that were murdered there over the Iran/Contra drug shipments?
> 
> billy had alot to do with that PROVEN coverup of a murder!



Sources? Also, weren't we talking about *Hillary* Clinton? You know they're not the same person, right?


----------



## MrWulf

Randy said:


> Trump Names Dune Capital's Mnuchin as National Finance Chairman - Bloomberg Politics
> 
> Donald Trump Won't Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS - Fortune



That same guy also donated to Hillary, as stated in the article. And I don't recall Trump getting paid for just merely speaking to them. Of course, Trump is a businessman and tied to the Wall Street, but he's not as rooted as Hillary. And also again, Hillary voted for Libya, Iraq and Syria. That's clear cut history of advocating for war there. But somehow Trump with his usual hysterical rhetoric is somehow listed in the same category as her?

Meh, whatever. This is getting heated and I will just excuse myself out.


----------



## Randy

MrWulf said:


> That same guy also donated to Hillary, as stated in the article. And I don't recall Trump getting paid for just merely speaking to them. Of course, Trump is a businessman and tied to the Wall Street, but he's not as rooted as Hillary. And also again, Hillary voted for Libya, Iraq and Syria. That's clear cut history of advocating for war there. But somehow Trump with his usual hysterical rhetoric is somehow listed in the same category as her?
> 
> Meh, whatever. This is getting heated and I will just excuse myself out.



It's only going to be as heated as you allow it to be. I hate both of them, so consider my postings and exploration in sadomasochism. 

I just think Trump gets too much credit just because he hasn't been in a leadership position in the government. All of my posts directed toward Trump supporters so far have been solely targeted at simply taking the guy at his word, nothing more, nothing less.

I think rhetoric (which is fancy word for "the stuff somebody says") has some value and even by your own admission (Trump's attachments to Wall Street, being that he's attached to money and private industry; contributions to Hillary's campaign, etc), Trump is painted in much the same colors as Hillary. You're free to resolve this internally however you choose but objectively (since I hate both their guts and I'll be voting for neither of them), I find it hard to say it's anything more than 'zero sum' between one or the other.


----------



## flint757

The only advantage Trump has over Clinton for myself is merely that the Democrats didn't win when they put all their chips in the neo-lib choice. It would mean that ignoring the wants of the independents means a loss for the Democrats, so they either have to include progressives or begin a losing streak. Clinton winning means they can ignore everything we've been fighting for up to this point and that's a step backwards. I personally don't want either to outright win this election.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> Sources? Also, weren't we talking about *Hillary* Clinton? You know they're not the same person, right?



So you are presuming that they run in different goverment circles or something?, that is BS.....

As for source, how's the WSJ?:

The Mena Coverup - WSJ

It's actually a really interesting read if you like crime drama.

Synopsis:

11 and 14 yr old boys found dead.
Police say they "laid on tracks to commit suicide by train" - No autopsy.
Parents convince them to dig up boys and perform necropsy.
Boys killed by gunshot and blow to head.
Medical examiner who signed off on death cert was appointed and rewarded by Bill as gov.

Here's the speculatory part:

The rumor is these boys came across a drug drop related to Iran/Contra.
Killed by gov.
Covered up by Clinton.

The reason it carries weight, is that there are very few reason for covering up these murders in such a sloppy way, and Mena has been confirmed as one of the drop points for the cocaine running affair.....


----------



## 7 Dying Trees

Personally I never thought the film Idiocracy would turn out to be a documentary


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> The only advantage Trump has over Clinton for myself is merely that the Democrats didn't win when they put all their chips in the neo-lib choice. It would mean that ignoring the wants of the independents means a loss for the Democrats, so they either have to include progressives or begin a losing streak. Clinton winning means they can ignore everything we've been fighting for up to this point and that's a step backwards. I personally don't want either to outright win this election.



Because joining the Democratic Party and building coalitions to change its policy positions is too much like work.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> So you are presuming that they run in different goverment circles or something?, that is BS.....
> 
> As for source, how's the WSJ?:
> 
> The Mena Coverup - WSJ
> 
> It's actually a really interesting read if you like crime drama.
> 
> Synopsis:
> 
> 11 and 14 yr old boys found dead.
> Police say they "laid on tracks to commit suicide by train" - No autopsy.
> Parents convince them to dig up boys and perform necropsy.
> Boys killed by gunshot and blow to head.
> Medical examiner who signed off on death cert was appointed and rewarded by Bill as gov.
> 
> Here's the speculatory part:
> 
> The rumor is these boys came across a drug drop related to Iran/Contra.
> Killed by gov.
> Covered up by Clinton.
> 
> The reason it carries weight, is that there are very few reason for covering up these murders in such a sloppy way, and Mena has been confirmed as one of the drop points for the cocaine running affair.....



Your article is behind a paywall, and based on your description, that allegation is so thin it's transparent. Got anything else?


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Because joining the Democratic Party and building coalitions to change its policy positions is too much like work.



You like Clinton and don't like the idea that independents might not be voting for the candidate the DNC has chosen before this election ever really started. Notice I said for myself, as in you don't need to agree with it, and that I was stating that this is the only good thing I see coming out of a Trump win, not that it is my preferred choice. I personally will be registering myself as an independent after this election is over because, frankly, I hope the two major parties implode on themselves. Nothing would make me happier at this point than a contested vote; then maybe people who aren't paying as much attention will be forced to recognize how flawed our voting system, and by extension, our government is in its current state. I'm not holding my breath either way because it's blind loyalists and apathetic voters that have created this mess to begin with (then complain and do it all over again next election! ).

What are you talking about anyhow? What coalitions am I personally supposed to be building exactly? It's very clear that their core supporters are individuals like yourself and you don't like Sanders (and by extension his ideas). So what does it accomplish exactly? You don't want actual progress nor do you want politicians to be held accountable, since you've been nothing but dismissive these past months about the blatant issues within your preferred party/candidate. I personally have no interest in joining 'ranks' with people like yourself. One of the major issues I personally have with our government is the two party system so emboldening it isn't on my to-do list. 

There is pretty much nothing that would get me to vote for Clinton aside from maybe Ted Cruz, and he's no longer in the race. I don't like the Clinton's anymore than I do the Bush family or Reagan. Had the DNC run with Senator Warren instead my feelings on the matter would be quite different. She's a Democrat I'd actually be willing to vote for. At this point I really hope she doesn't join on Clinton's ticket as VP because it's a waste of her time when she can do so much more good running her committee. I'd rather her not be wasted as a puppet to swing votes their way only to ultimately be dismissed when the real 'work' begins.


----------



## big_aug

I will never understand how any rational human being could ever want someone like Donald Trump representing themselves and their country. I just don't get it. No matter how disenfranchised one is about the government in the US, how can you possibly believe a Trump presidency will end with the country in a better overall position in 2020? That's what it's all about isn't it? Improving the overall situation in the country?

Donald ....ing Trump. Holy .....


----------



## jwade

You guys really need a third/fourth/fifth party. This whole two flavors of the same poison setup is awful.


----------



## dhgrind

i just want to know, does anyone actually support Hillary ?


----------



## Chokey Chicken

jwade said:


> You guys really need a third/fourth/fifth party. This whole two flavors of the same poison setup is awful.



Parties in general are a pretty dumb idea. It should just be whoever is most fit for the job. You shouldn't have to commit to a groups set of morals just to gain acceptance.


----------



## big_aug

Parties exist for a reason. A group of people come together with common beliefs, goals, and agenda. It makes sense for them to rally behind and nominate a candidate who represents that. 

The issue now is that it is unlikely either of the major parties represents most people's views. People feel that they have to choose one or the other because that's all there is to pick from. Candidates feel they must pick one if they want to be elected.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Bought in? Last I checked no one in this thread likes Clinton. We're all Bernie. Everyone is all Bernie. Clinton is only headed for the nomination because (aside from purchasing her delegates with superPac money) most voters are elderly and they do not understand how to evaluate information they read online (if they even go online) so they just vote in accordance with their preferred TV network, which Clinton would have purchased.



Throwing it out there, Sanders' strongest constituency is white male voters aged 18-25. Sevenstring.org's voting public is mostly white males between 18-25. I wouldn't make too much of the fact that everyone in this thread supports Sanders.  



dhgrind said:


> i just want to know, does anyone actually support Hillary ?



I do. She's not a person I have any particular excitement for, exactly, but I don't think you need to be excited about someone for them to be a good president. And, I think of all the options we saw this cycle, seventeen republicans and three democrats, she's hands down the best. She's a moderate-left Democrat, which is about where I fall on the political spectrum, she hasn't taken any social policy positions I find repugnant (which rules out the entire GOP field), the fact she's a fiscal moderate and reasonably pro Wall Street is totally fine with me - you could call me biased since I'm a financial professional (though I don't work for a "big bank"), but I think there's value in having a healthy, functioning financial system. She has excellent foreign policy credentials, and despite the fact she's a very divisive _public_ figure, she had a pretty good track record working across the aisle as a senator. 

Part of it too is I'd have a hard time supporting anyone else in the race - the entire GOP is out purely on social issues, and Sanders economic plans, while he seeks to accomplish some pretty admirable things, simply don't hold up to scrutiny - the math doesn't work. Bloomberg would have been interesting had he run, but he didn't, so from my standpoint, not only is Clinton the least _objectionable_ candidate, she's also one that on paper is a pretty good idealogical match for me. 

That said, I do think the protracted Clinton/Sanders primary is probably a good thing for the Democrats. I don't think Sanders was the right candidate (too focused on the banks as the cause of all of our problems, too disinterested in the economics of his policies), but he's certainly exposed a large progressive wing of the Democratic party that's very interested in social and economic inequality. A lot of the issues he's ran on - the rising cost of college tuition, the impossibility of supporting yourself on minimum wage - are likely to become parts of the Democratic platform for decades to come, and I think that's a good thing for the party. He certainly has been able to pull Clinton - already more liberal than she's often given credit for - further to the left, and there's essentially no chance that her platform this fall won't contain proposals on increasing the minimum wage, expanding access to health care, and making college more accessible and affordable to American students. She may not go as far as Sanders wanted, but she'll be moving the party in that direction, and that's a good thing.


----------



## bostjan

big_aug said:


> Parties exist for a reason. A group of people come together with common beliefs, goals, and agenda. It makes sense for them to rally behind and nominate a candidate who represents that.
> 
> The issue now is that it is unlikely either of the major parties represents most people's views. People feel that they have to choose one or the other *because that's all there is to pick from.* Candidates feel they must pick one if they want to be elected.





bostjan said:


> Regardless of truth or not, the _only_ reason a democrat or republican *has* to be the next president, is the fact that everyone believes it to be true.



Let me ask this: specifically, what is Trump's agenda? What is Clinton's agenda?


----------



## Drew

Jaxcharvel said:


> I wish



Doubt you'll be back to see this, but to drive Randy's point home for you, your taxes wouldn't change under Hillary Clinton's proposals unless you either 1) receive a significant amount of income from capital gains with an investment holding period of less than 5 years, or 2) you make more than $5mm a year. Which, I'm assuming, you don't. 

Unless you make an _extremely_ high income, it's hard to see supporting Trump just because of his tax proposals... Which he admitted, to much GOP furor the other night, he'd probably have to back away from and "negotiate" (because that's his thing, I guess) to higher rates if he tried to bring them into law.


----------



## bostjan

Everyone forgets, that, according to the US Constitution, levying taxes is congress's prerogative, not the president's. 

Just harkening back to GHWB, claiming "Read my lips, no new taxes," then congress said "f&#* you, we're raising taxes," to which GHWB responded "not my job, as president, to raise taxes," to which the US voting population retorted "f&#* you, you lied!" Yet every presidential election since, it's come up. I want to know what the president's job is, and how the candidate will perform that job.

1. Power of veto (To say "no way" to a law passed by congress, although, congress can override the veto with a larger majority)
2. Chief diplomat (the president essentially decides how foreign policy will be conducted)
3. Chief executor of the law (will the president choose to execute or ignore any enforcement of the law)
4. Commander in chief of the US military (how many countries are we going to bomb or how many doctors without borders are going to be hunted down by drones)

Balancing the budget, domestic policy, blah blah blah, it's all very important, but that stuff is all congress stuff. If the people of the USA are too stupid to put a congress in place to execute their will, and elect some intolerant facist demagogue like Trump, expecting him to do congress's job, whilst no one cares to research their congressional election for more than ten seconds, then maybe we deserve to be obliterated. After GWB got us involved in the new age where terrorists rule the world, and all we had to show for it was an unsuccessful campaign without clear goals in Afghanistan and a totally unrelated to anything pertinent war in Iraq, and a broken economic model for the nation, yet so many people are quick to defend him as doing the right thing. I've already lost faith in the people who live in this country.


----------



## TemjinStrife

One big thing that many people forget about the office of the Executive is that the President controls appointments to and can place a lot of pressure on administrative agencies, which are a large portion of the regulatory, enforcement, and quasi-judicial functioning of the government. All of the administrative agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS, HHS, FCC, FTC, SEC, DOJ, FDA, EPA, IRS, etc., etc.,) fall within the executive branch of the government.


----------



## Randy

Fantastic editorial

Hillary Clinton Does Not Represent Values that Help Women


----------



## TheHandOfStone

> There is a palpable deficit of feminist values in this countrys politics, after sixteen dark years of war, surveillance, vigilantism, police controls, economic servitude, and debt. To the extent that we can generalize about feminine and masculine values, the country desperately desireswell, two thirds of it anyway, those besides Trump and Cruz fansa reinjection of feminine values. That means compassion, acceptance, and understanding for those left behind by misguided economic policies. That means valuing, once again, as this nation has done for the periods it has shone brightest, imagination, beauty, soft-spokenness, and unexpected generosity.


Should I buy the claim that these are "feminine" values? I know they've historically been viewed as such, but don't (at least some) feminists object to that too? It's certainly the case that "feminist" and "feminine" values _aren't_ necessarily the same. Of course, you can probably restate the author's concerns in a more gender-neutral way, but when you do that the passage loses some rhetorical sting.

Actually, this might just illustrate how little a practical difference it makes whether someone identifies as "feminist." Two different feminists can envision radically different societies in order to enact similar principles. The actual effects of proposed policies are all that matters, and those don't neatly track stated ideological affiliation.


----------



## Randy

TheHandOfStone said:


> Should I buy the claim that these are "feminine" values? I know they've historically been viewed as such, but don't (at least some) feminists object to that too? It's certainly the case that "feminist" and "feminine" values _aren't_ necessarily the same. Of course, you can probably restate the author's concerns in a more gender-neutral way, but when you do that the passage loses some rhetorical sting.
> 
> Actually, this might just illustrate how little a practical difference it makes whether someone identifies as "feminist." Two different feminists can envision radically different societies in order to enact similar principles. The actual effects of proposed policies are all that matters, and those don't neatly track stated ideological affiliation.



Can't disagree with you on any of that. I think defining what "is" and "isn't" feminine or feminist qualities _can be_ extremely weedy and subjective territory. I am inclined to agree with you that it's too sharp a point to imply (paraphrasing) that war is inherently masculine and peace is inherently feminine.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Everyone forgets, that, according to the US Constitution, levying taxes is congress's prerogative, not the president's.
> 
> Just harkening back to GHWB, claiming "Read my lips, no new taxes," then congress said "f&#* you, we're raising taxes," to which GHWB responded "not my job, as president, to raise taxes," to which the US voting population retorted "f&#* you, you lied!" Yet every presidential election since, it's come up. I want to know what the president's job is, and how the candidate will perform that job.
> 
> 1. Power of veto (To say "no way" to a law passed by congress, although, congress can override the veto with a larger majority)
> 2. Chief diplomat (the president essentially decides how foreign policy will be conducted)
> 3. Chief executor of the law (will the president choose to execute or ignore any enforcement of the law)
> 4. Commander in chief of the US military (how many countries are we going to bomb or how many doctors without borders are going to be hunted down by drones)
> 
> Balancing the budget, domestic policy, blah blah blah, it's all very important, but that stuff is all congress stuff. If the people of the USA are too stupid to put a congress in place to execute their will, and elect some intolerant facist demagogue like Trump, expecting him to do congress's job, whilst no one cares to research their congressional election for more than ten seconds, then maybe we deserve to be obliterated. After GWB got us involved in the new age where terrorists rule the world, and all we had to show for it was an unsuccessful campaign without clear goals in Afghanistan and a totally unrelated to anything pertinent war in Iraq, and a broken economic model for the nation, yet so many people are quick to defend him as doing the right thing. I've already lost faith in the people who live in this country.



While that may be literally true about the way the Constitution is written, it's also a role that has clearly expanded in the 200-some-odd years since the constitution was written. 

If nothing else, there is LONG precedent for the president proposing legislation to Congress to ask them to consider - the president proposes his own budget every year, the Bush tax cuts were proposed by Bush and passed by a Republican congress, while Congressional Democrats worked out the minutia Obama proposed the guts of what became the ACA, etc etc etc. So, if Sanders or Clinton or Trump propose changes to the tax code, you can be pretty sure that, in at least the case of the second two, those changes are going to be _considered._ 

The constitution, as written, was based on the principle of strong state and weak federal government. That's clearly no longer even remotely the case - the Civil War answered that one pretty concretely. Things evolve.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> While that may be literally true about the way the Constitution is written, it's also a role that has clearly expanded in the 200-some-odd years since the constitution was written.
> 
> If nothing else, there is LONG precedent for the president proposing legislation to Congress to ask them to consider - the president proposes his own budget every year, the Bush tax cuts were proposed by Bush and passed by a Republican congress, while Congressional Democrats worked out the minutia Obama proposed the guts of what became the ACA, etc etc etc. So, if Sanders or Clinton or Trump propose changes to the tax code, you can be pretty sure that, in at least the case of the second two, those changes are going to be _considered._
> 
> The constitution, as written, was based on the principle of strong state and weak federal government. That's clearly no longer even remotely the case - the Civil War answered that one pretty concretely. Things evolve.



However, the law is the same, so nothing has changed. The president can propose whatever laws he wants, but if congress is loaded with the opposing political party, the law might as well be proposed by you or me. If you recall, the ACA was very nearly shut down many times, because congress holds the responsibility to pen laws.

Also, if the president were given the power to pen laws, then what would be the use of even having a legislative branch? It's like hiring bassist to play bass on your album, then you have him play drums, too, even though your band already has a drummer who only plays drums.

Even if the concept of having the president legislate for congress is a good idea, the president already has tons of .... on his plate.


----------



## TemjinStrife

bostjan said:


> However, the law is the same, so nothing has changed. The president can propose whatever laws he wants, but if congress is loaded with the opposing political party, the law might as well be proposed by you or me. If you recall, the ACA was very nearly shut down many times, because congress holds the responsibility to pen laws.
> 
> Also, if the president were given the power to pen laws, then what would be the use of even having a legislative branch? It's like hiring bassist to play bass on your album, then you have him play drums, too, even though your band already has a drummer who only plays drums.
> 
> Even if the concept of having the president legislate for congress is a good idea, the president already has tons of .... on his plate.



It's actually more complicated than that. Look up the history of the line-item veto, for instance, as well as the litigation over administrative agency authority (which includes legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial function). Congress has been trying to pass authority to the Executive for almost a century. Sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.


----------



## Drew

TemjinStrife said:


> It's actually more complicated than that. Look up the history of the line-item veto, for instance, as well as the litigation over administrative agency authority (which includes legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial function). Congress has been trying to pass authority to the Executive for almost a century. Sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.



Yeah, this - there are two things that matter when it comes to government structure and the constitution. One is the literal letter of the law, which almost never changes. The other is the prevailing interpretation, which absolutely does.


----------



## bostjan

Ok, still, as I said, if congress agrees with the president, it works out fine, but when congress disagrees with the president, nothing the president promises to legislate goes anywhere. Look at how many people complain that Obama didn't make good on his campaign promises, but then the promises were mostly (not all) legislative prerogatives. And moving beyond Obama, the same can be said to varying degrees about all recent presidents.


----------



## will_shred

Drew said:


> Throwing it out there, Sanders' strongest constituency is white male voters aged 18-25. Sevenstring.org's voting public is mostly white males between 18-25. I wouldn't make too much of the fact that everyone in this thread supports Sanders.
> 
> 
> 
> I do. She's not a person I have any particular excitement for, exactly, but I don't think you need to be excited about someone for them to be a good president. And, I think of all the options we saw this cycle, seventeen republicans and three democrats, she's hands down the best. She's a moderate-left Democrat, which is about where I fall on the political spectrum, she hasn't taken any social policy positions I find repugnant (which rules out the entire GOP field), the fact she's a fiscal moderate and reasonably pro Wall Street is totally fine with me - you could call me biased since I'm a financial professional (though I don't work for a "big bank"), but I think there's value in having a healthy, functioning financial system. She has excellent foreign policy credentials, and despite the fact she's a very divisive _public_ figure, she had a pretty good track record working across the aisle as a senator.
> 
> I think that they are both great candidates, and that the democratic party should be happy with how we're doing relative to the Republicans. I mean, Trump seriously got the nomination
> 
> Part of it too is I'd have a hard time supporting anyone else in the race - the entire GOP is out purely on social issues, and Sanders economic plans, while he seeks to accomplish some pretty admirable things, simply don't hold up to scrutiny - the math doesn't work. Bloomberg would have been interesting had he run, but he didn't, so from my standpoint, not only is Clinton the least _objectionable_ candidate, she's also one that on paper is a pretty good idealogical match for me.
> 
> That said, I do think the protracted Clinton/Sanders primary is probably a good thing for the Democrats. I don't think Sanders was the right candidate (too focused on the banks as the cause of all of our problems, too disinterested in the economics of his policies), but he's certainly exposed a large progressive wing of the Democratic party that's very interested in social and economic inequality. A lot of the issues he's ran on - the rising cost of college tuition, the impossibility of supporting yourself on minimum wage - are likely to become parts of the Democratic platform for decades to come, and I think that's a good thing for the party. He certainly has been able to pull Clinton - already more liberal than she's often given credit for - further to the left, and there's essentially no chance that her platform this fall won't contain proposals on increasing the minimum wage, expanding access to health care, and making college more accessible and affordable to American students. She may not go as far as Sanders wanted, but she'll be moving the party in that direction, and that's a good thing.



As far as her being pro-wall street, if you just look at her stated policy positions, I don't think that not breaking up the big banks is the biggest pro-wallstreet position. The debate on ideal bank size, from what I understand, is still pretty lively within economics. Some say that having fewer banks actually makes them easier to regulate effectively, some say that breaking them up into more smaller banks makes them easier to regulate. That seems to be the largest area where they disagree on wallstreet, and Clinton isn't even opposed to breaking up the banks, as there are provisions for that in the Dodd-Frank act. Both Clinton and Sanders recognize the need for further wallstreet regulation, but they fall into different camps as to how to accomplish that.

Also, I will love to see a Clinton v. Trump debate. She will rhetorically eviscerate him. IMO she was the stronger debater when she went up against Bernie, and she will carve up Trump's fallacious arguments like a hot knife though butter. You thought she was tough on Bernie during the primary? just wait until its her vs Trump.


----------



## MFB

will_shred said:


> Also, I will love to see a Clinton v. Trump debate.



But ...how can she beat a man who claims to have "the best words" when a debate is nothing BUT words!

It's a trap Hillary!


----------



## Drew

will_shred said:


> As far as her being pro-wall street, if you just look at her stated policy positions, I don't think that not breaking up the big banks is the biggest pro-wallstreet position. The debate on ideal bank size, from what I understand, is still pretty lively within economics. Some say that having fewer banks actually makes them easier to regulate effectively, some say that breaking them up into more smaller banks makes them easier to regulate. That seems to be the largest area where they disagree on wallstreet, and Clinton isn't even opposed to breaking up the banks, as there are provisions for that in the Dodd-Frank act. Both Clinton and Sanders recognize the need for further wallstreet regulation, but they fall into different camps as to how to accomplish that.



I'm not even entirely sure where you're going with this.  

Let's just say that bank regulation is a really, really, REALLY complex thing, and very difficult to do right. I think Dodd-Frank accomplished a lot of good (for me, the single biggest thing we got from it was a central clearinghouse for derivatives, which makes a _tremendous_ difference in stopping the kind of contagion that we were risking when Lehman went down. However, there's a bunch of things that it didn't get right, and I think one of the big ones is that a lot of the regulation was conceived top-down with an eye on the biggest banks, and as a result it's both extremely expensive to comply with, and there's very little flexibility when it comes to tailoring approaches that make sense for a bank of 200,000 people, to one of 5,000 people. 

Basically, it gets two things wrong - one, it increases the barriers to entry in the financial space, making it much harder to create new companies to compete with existing ones, and two, in practice it's actually led to further consolidation of financial assets, rather than a tendency to make banks smaller, as some firms have chosen to exit financial activities to avoid the SIFI designation (especially in the insurance industry), but other already-large financial players have been only too happy to buy their business, since if you apply higher fixed costs to an industry that primarily makes its money from asset-based fees or the spread between assets and liabilities on its book of business, then the best way to improve profitability is to get bigger.


----------



## Tech Wrath

It doesn't matter that trump doesnt have any policies and that he wont be the best president etc etc. There's enough balance in power his lack of knowledge on politics wont matter. he'll flip the whole system for the better of our future and this ....hole of a media we got and all this PC etc. Let's just hope the next president isn't a .... up.


----------



## vilk

lol


----------



## celticelk

Tech Wrath said:


> It doesn't matter that trump doesnt have any policies and that he wont be the best president etc etc. There's enough balance in power his lack of knowledge on politics wont matter. he'll flip the whole system for the better of our future and this ....hole of a media we got and all this PC etc. Let's just hope the next president isn't a .... up.



It _looks_ like English, but....


----------



## tacotiklah

Axa got pretty savage with the truth. Love it! 

Just like when people say that Bernie is bull....ting everyone with "free stuff". Except that it isn't free, he knows it isn't free, and he has laid out a plan to pay for it at the expense of incredibly wealthy people that have been manipulating US tax laws for their own gain for far too long. He's going after them to pay their fair share, which will ease the burden on the middle class and allow these "free" programs to exist. We're so busy spending trillions of dollars on failed military projects like the F-35 and that money could have been used on our crumbling infrastructure (hey, new jobs!), education (less idiots voting against their own self interests!), and research and development on renewable energy sources (less dependence on a volatile part of the world that has factions who hate us and wants to blow us up!)

Nope, we'll spend all of that money on a plane that doesn't work, only has 2 made over the course of decades, and cost the government several hundred billion dollars. But it sure looks cool, right?


----------



## vilk

We need those planes. To protect ourselves. 9/11, remember?


----------



## Tech Wrath

celticelk said:


> It _looks_ like English, but....



There were two run-ons, but...? Nothing incomprehensible, especially by internet standards.


----------



## crg123

MFB said:


> But ...how can she beat a man who claims to have "the best words" when a debate is nothing BUT words!
> 
> It's a trap Hillary!



I actually laughed out loud at this.


----------



## wankerness

Tech Wrath said:


> There were two run-ons, but...? Nothing incomprehensible, especially by internet standards.



The auto-filters changing some of your words to ... didn't help comprehensibility there, which isn't really your fault, but you should preview posts or edit them when that happens.


----------



## Ebart

I don't have the patience to read 18 pages of this thread to see if this has been said, but yes, I think he will win the presidency. He's the only one who says exactly what he means, which consequently is what most of America is thinking. I trust his honesty. I trust that he isn't a puppet for lobbyists. I don't agree 100% with some of his stances on things, but I really think he is what this country needs right now.


----------



## hairychris

^ Really?

He's *amazingly* thin-skinned - he can dish it out fine but can't take it being thrown back at him. 

I'd make a bet that the Dems will go full-bore at him around the time of the RNC to try to make him s**t the bed in style.

Popcorn at the ready.

EDIT: As he's a real-estate developer with several bankruptcies associated with his ventures I'm sure that there is dirt on him. This will come out during the main campaign. Why should the Dems get this out now? The Repubs are doing a good job of self-immolating right now as it is.

And, after that, if he still manages to win then he's the president that US deserves. May the gods have mercy on all of our souls.


----------



## thraxil

Ebart said:


> He's the only one who says exactly what he means, which consequently is what most of America is thinking. I trust his honesty. I trust that he isn't a puppet for lobbyists.



This I don't really get. Looking into nearly everything he says, it's clear that he's a pathological liar who contradicts himself at every turn. He says whatever he thinks will go over well with whomever he's addressing at the time. He doesn't seem to actually believe anything he says, except maybe some of the racist, misogynist stuff. While he had competition in the primaries he was against super PACs, lobbyists, and Goldman Sachs. Now he's got a super PAC of his own, is hiring lobbyists left and right, and has a new finance chairman who was a former Goldman Sachs executive. His business has hundreds of millions of dollars of outstanding loans to nearly every bank on Wall Street, but we're supposed to believe that he isn't beholden to them at all.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ebart said:


> I don't have the patience to read 18 pages of this thread to see if this has been said, but yes, I think he will win the presidency. He's the only one who says exactly what he means, which consequently is what most of America is thinking. I trust his honesty. I trust that he isn't a puppet for lobbyists. I don't agree 100% with some of his stances on things, but I really think he is what this country needs right now.


I'm sure most of America is thinking Mexico should pay for a giant wall and Muslims should wear badges.

Jokes aside, being the businessman and all he is I doubt he's honest all that much. He reminds me of Geert Wilders here a couple years ago, who claimed his position on retirement age/when people can start receiving retirement benefits was a 'breaking point' for him yet the second it turned out his position might Decrease his chance of winning he dismissed his points and acted like he never said a thing.


----------



## vilk

It seems very apparent that Trump says whatever he thinks people want to hear without having thought it through first. If it turns out that he "can't" mean what he already said, he just goes back on it irreverently. Granted, Clinton does the exact same thing...


----------



## hairychris

vilk said:


> It seems very apparent that Trump says whatever he thinks people want to hear without having thought it through first. If it turns out that he "can't" mean what he already said, he just goes back on it irreverently. Granted, Clinton does the exact same thing...



No. He doesn't say what he thinks, he seems to spout the first thing that comes into his mind in any situation.

It's very difficult to pin down what he *actually* thinks for any situation as he is the dictionary definition of a "bulls**t artist": appears not to care whether his statements are true or false, it's all part of the show.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

It's not clear to me that Trump actually believes everything he says or is simply saying it _because_ it's what the vast majority of America wants to hear right now. Contrary to belief, he is not a stupid man, and possesses every bit as much tactical prowess as anyone else in this election cycle. I suspect Scott Adams nailed it when he said Trump is a "master persuader." He may not actually believe what he says, but he can convince you he does and that you should believe it too. And so he'll probably win, and it will probably suck.


----------



## Drew

tacotiklah said:


> Axa got pretty savage with the truth. Love it!
> 
> Just like when people say that Bernie is bull....ting everyone with "free stuff". Except that it isn't free, he knows it isn't free, and he has laid out a plan to pay for it at the expense of incredibly wealthy people that have been manipulating US tax laws for their own gain for far too long. He's going after them to pay their fair share, which will ease the burden on the middle class and allow these "free" programs to exist. We're so busy spending trillions of dollars on failed military projects like the F-35 and that money could have been used on our crumbling infrastructure (hey, new jobs!), education (less idiots voting against their own self interests!), and research and development on renewable energy sources (less dependence on a volatile part of the world that has factions who hate us and wants to blow us up!)
> 
> Nope, we'll spend all of that money on a plane that doesn't work, only has 2 made over the course of decades, and cost the government several hundred billion dollars. But it sure looks cool, right?



I'm all for progressive taxation, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and scaling back tax credits.

But, Bernie's plans still fall something like $13 trillion shy of what they'll cost over the next decade. THAT is a problem, I think.


----------



## Drew

Ebart said:


> I don't have the patience to read 18 pages of this thread to see if this has been said, but yes, I think he will win the presidency. He's the only one who says exactly what he means, which consequently is what most of America is thinking. I trust his honesty. I trust that he isn't a puppet for lobbyists. I don't agree 100% with some of his stances on things, but I really think he is what this country needs right now.



While I suppose there's something to be said for the directness of "we need to kick all the Muslims out of America, and then build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" vs something more couched like "Domestic security is a top priority of mine and we need to identify ways to keep America safe from Islamic extremism," when both candidates mean the same thing, well, the problem is I don't want EITHER of those viewpoints to represent this country. Whether you're an open xenophobic fear-mongerer or a closeted xenophobic fear-mongerer, you're still an xenophobic fear-mongerer, and for a country founded by a bunch of immigrants, I think we're better than that. F that.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> But, Bernie's plans still fall something like $13 trillion shy of what they'll cost over the next decade. THAT is a problem, I think.



Assuming that he'd have them passed 100% the way he envisioned them with no compromise... which pretty much literally never happens. It's easy to paint Bernie as an "all or nothing" kinda guy if you're on the team fighting against him, but I'd be inclined to believe there's a fair bit of ground between "free healthcare and college for all" and where we are right now; and I think he'd agree with something like that as long as it remains strong to the original principal and it's at least moderately effective.

BTW, the frequency which you throw out that $13 trillion number (which you know is designed to sound hilariously large) belies any image of your commentary having objectivity... it sounds like nothing more than "Bernie's a joke and a fairytale, Hillary all day err'y day" and personally makes it difficult for me to stomach reading whatever else you type in along with it. It comes across as knowingly and deliberately dismissive. 

Related/unrelated... with all the volatility at the Nevada caucus and the rhetoric that's being slung around this late into the season, is everybody still standing by the notion this is "just like 2008" and everyone left of center is going to unite behind Hillary as the nominee, or are we projecting the possibility there's a legitimate split in the Democratic party that can't be fixed in time for November?


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> While I suppose there's something to be said for the directness of "we need to kick all the Muslims out of America, and then build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" vs something more couched like "Domestic security is a top priority of mine and we need to identify ways to keep America safe from Islamic extremism," when both candidates mean the same thing, well, the problem is I don't want EITHER of those viewpoints to represent this country. Whether you're an open xenophobic fear-mongerer or a closeted xenophobic fear-mongerer, you're still an xenophobic fear-mongerer, and for a country founded by a bunch of immigrants, I think we're better than that. F that.



We ain't no immagrants! We're 'Mericun!


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> Assuming that he'd have them passed 100% the way he envisioned them with no compromise... which pretty much literally never happens. It's easy to paint Bernie as an "all or nothing" kinda guy if you're on the team fighting against him, but I'd be inclined to believe there's a fair bit of ground between "free healthcare and college for all" and where we are right now; and I think he'd agree with something like that as long as it remains strong to the original principal and it's at least moderately effective.



Which is to say: in the policy space currently occupied by Hillary Clinton.


----------



## chickenxnuggetz91

I honestly feel like American politics is nothing more than a distraction. While everyone looks for a mascot and argues about bathrooms, there is some really messed up stuff going on that clandestine groups don't want us to know about. No need for me to tell you this, you already know, but it baffles me how people think that whoever lives in the White House actually controls the USA. I'm sorry, but a guy making 250k/year does not have more power than the guy making 40 billion a year. Maybe I'm getting a little off-topic, but my opinion is that it's all just a dog and pony show.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Assuming that he'd have them passed 100% the way he envisioned them with no compromise... which pretty much literally never happens. It's easy to paint Bernie as an "all or nothing" kinda guy if you're on the team fighting against him, but I'd be inclined to believe there's a fair bit of ground between "free healthcare and college for all" and where we are right now; and I think he'd agree with something like that as long as it remains strong to the original principal and it's at least moderately effective.
> 
> BTW, the frequency which you throw out that $13 trillion number (which you know is designed to sound hilariously large) belies any image of your commentary having objectivity... it sounds like nothing more than "Bernie's a joke and a fairytale, Hillary all day err'y day" and personally makes it difficult for me to stomach reading whatever else you type in along with it. It comes across as knowingly and deliberately dismissive.
> 
> Related/unrelated... with all the volatility at the Nevada caucus and the rhetoric that's being slung around this late into the season, is everybody still standing by the notion this is "just like 2008" and everyone left of center is going to unite behind Hillary as the nominee, or are we projecting the possibility there's a legitimate split in the Democratic party that can't be fixed in time for November?



Eh, blame my profession. One, as a financial analyst, of course I'm going to be accused of being biased here, but if you'll look past that for a second, I'm also predisposed to want to drill into numbers, make sure they tie out, and when they don't, present evidence for my viewpoint. 

So, I could drop the stats and figures and whatnot, and say that "Bernie may have some admirable things he wants to do, but even with his hefty tax increases, he doesn't have a way to pay for them," but to me that sounds like I'm talking out of my ass, so I want to throw some numbers behind that. And I definitely see that to a Sanders supporter, that in and of itself could make me sound biased... But, idunno. How else should I argue it? I hate making unsupported assertions. Ultimately I feel that Sanders has a bunch of good ideas, but his plans to pay for them don't even come close to doing so. If that's an argument you find more persuasive without any data attached, then I'm happy to drop the math, but at some point, if you believe something, I feel like you kind of have to _prove_ it, you know?


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> Which is to say: in the policy space currently occupied by Hillary Clinton.



Devil's advocate - if I was a Sanders supporter, I'd counter that you never bring what you consider a workable compromise to a negotiation; instead, you bring a plan that favors you and a pretty good idea of where you're going to need to make concessions to get a deal done, leaving yourself enough space to come to an acceptable compromise. 

For the most part, I think what Sanders wants to do is admirable. I disagree with him on the evils of big banks, of course, and I think his "free college for all" plan doesn't do a single thing to address the real problem, spiraling tuition inflation partially caused by colleges being in an arms war too add more and more perks to attract students, and - let's face it - augmented by the fact that as a college student you can essentially borrow as much money as you want to pay for any degree at any school in America; you're told a college degree is ALWAYS worth having from a very young age, and since student loans are protected from bankruptcy proceedings, banks have no reason NOT to lend. It's a problem he does nothing to address. But, I'm going on a tangent here. Sanders has a lot of admirable goals. For the MOST part, my problem isn't the goals themselves, or whether or not I think he can enact them. My problem is he either doesn't realize he doesn't have enough in the way of revenue generation to offset the new spending in his agenda, or he does and doesn't care, because he figures someone else will have to deal with it. That's why I struggle to support him. If somehow he were to win the Democratic nomination then I'd be happy to vote for him in the primary, but he'd never be my first choice. 

All that said - give Sanders' plans another cycle or two to ferment. It's going to be part of the Democratic agenda for some time to come, and while a lot of his capital markets reforms are either misguided or disastrous - by my read, his proposed capital markets tax would likely _increase_ volatility rather than reducing it - I think a lot of his social/inequality platform is solid. I just think he's the wrong candidate, an angry old white man with an axe to grind against the banking industry.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Again, a vote for Hillary is a vote for:

1) Endless war
2) Financial Rule (banks too big to fail)
3) Lobbyist defining our laws
4) Crony appointments and govt contract awards
5) Basically a continuation of every negative aspect of our politic

A vote for anyone else (trump or bernie) MIGHT be worth something else.

I am willing to try it.

You will never legitimize voting for her. It takes a willful act of ignorance or malice to do so.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What exactly might a vote for Trump be worth (vs Hillary)? After all Trump has said, doesn't tit take a willful act of ignorance to vote for him as well?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

And a healthy dose of "hope" ironically.....


It is certainly not an ideal situation. But the definition of insanity is......


----------



## synrgy

CapnForsaggio said:


> But the definition of insanity is......



in·san·i·ty
in&#712;san&#601;d&#275;/
noun
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.

/pedant


----------



## jaxadam

CapnForsaggio said:


> Again, a vote for Hillary is a vote for:
> 
> 1) Endless war
> 2) Financial Rule (banks too big to fail)
> 3) Lobbyist defining our laws
> 4) Crony appointments and govt contract awards
> 5) Basically a continuation of every negative aspect of our politic
> 
> A vote for anyone else (trump or bernie) MIGHT be worth something else.
> 
> I am willing to try it.
> 
> You will never legitimize voting for her. It takes a willful act of ignorance or malice to do so.



:highfive:


----------



## vilk

synrgy said:


> in·san·i·ty
> in&#712;san&#601;d&#275;/
> noun
> the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
> 
> /pedant



I think he was referencing the Einstein quote I can't tell if you got it (because you put a smiley) or not


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> I think he was referencing the Einstein quote I can't tell if you got it (because you put a smiley) or not



The joke is that it's not even a definitive Einstein quote but no one cares to fact check it and takes it simply as fact; which is precisely why he gave the literal definition, because he knows what the person was intending when they lead with that statement but didn't play into it.

Feel free to see all the different places that quote has popped up here The Big Apple: &#8220;Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result&#8221;)


----------



## Randy

MFB said:


> The joke is that it's not even a definitive Einstein quote but no one cares to fact check it and takes it simply as fact; which is precisely why he gave the literal definition, because he knows what the person was intending when they lead with that statement but didn't play into it.
> 
> Feel free to see all the different places that quote has popped up here The Big Apple: Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result)



:naren:


----------



## vilk

Well if Einstein didn't say it I guess it's pretty worthless then


----------



## MFB

Randy said:


> :naren:



Not only do I accept this, but I take it with pride, given how much I hate that stupid quote and how horribly pretentious it sounds


----------



## vilk

I can't figure out what naren is other than an Indian surname.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Naren was an OG SS.org user who had a ton of posts and was pretty smart.

"Einstein is like the #1 person who people attribute fake quotes to, ya numbskulls."  Aristotle


----------



## Randy

TheHandOfStone said:


> Naren was an OG SS.org user who had a ton of posts and was pretty smart.



That's true, though not the complete synopsis of what Narenism is all about.

He was/is famous for quoting people and being deliberately, comically pedantic in response. 

Someone would post something with a very clear and obvious point to what they're saying but rather than engaging them on the overarching point they were making, he would nitpick little bits of what they said, diverting the context of the post completely but doing it in such a concise way, the OP would have a hard time answering or getting the thread back on topic.

That's more or less exactly what happened regarding the "Einstein" quote.


----------



## vilk

Well I'm glad it happened because otherwise I'd be going around spouting 12 step .... telling people that its Einstein


----------



## tacotiklah

So yeah, today I went with some friends to this one rally to hear an old crazy "socialist" from Vermont speak...







I was a fan already, but after hearing it in person, I could tell he genuinely believes in what he says. It's not a hoax, it's not a thing to score political points, it's a man that really does care about people. 
And the biggest shock of the rally was when he was talking about the failed war on drugs and asked the audience if they had a friend or loved one struggling with addiction. Over half the room had their hands raised and upon seeing this, he looked absolutely stunned and shocked. 

Whether he wins the primary or not, this man needs to be at the helm of the country. For too long we've all been hearing canned, poll-oriented, focus group-approved bull.... and it's so refreshing to hear someone engage the crowd and truly want to know what it is that they struggle with. And the fact that he specifically went out of his way to come hold a rally in my middle-of-nowhere desert town because he feels that we don't have enough say in what goes on has left me gobsmacked. 

I feel that California is his last real shot if he plans to win the primary and he has to win pretty much all of the delegates to get it (or at least force a contested convention). It seems like hail mary for damn sure, but if he can get over 5,000 people to show up for his rally in one of the most staunchly conservative areas in Southern California, then I feel that it's not too foolish to still hope. 

And for the record, there was no violence (at least that I saw) despite there being both Clinton and Trump counter-protesters. Just a lot of people that believe in the man and wanna cheer him on. If anything, I saw a lot of people recognizing other friends and hugging and bouncing heart-shaped balloons and having a blast. It's a hell of a lot of fun being at a Sanders rally.


----------



## celticelk

tacotiklah said:


> And the biggest shock of the rally was when he was talking about the failed war on drugs and asked the audience if they had a friend or loved one struggling with addiction. Over half the room had their hands raised and upon seeing this, he looked absolutely stunned and shocked.



NPR was reporting on candidate conversations with voters about addiction in the run-up to Iowa and New Hampshire. I'm suspicious of anyone who appears "stunned and shocked" at the extent of the problem at this stage.


----------



## bostjan

As humans, we always want to believe in something, and believe that something is good. I have yet to see one thing stay worth believing in. Sanders won't make it all the way. Even if he did, there'd be something to ruin it. Clinton will beat Trump in the general election, but I think Trump is going to make the race closer than everyone expects. Either one wins, though, and we all lose. Neither candidate gives a .... about you or me. Congress doesn't give a .... about much of anything these days, except chaos. The supreme court doesn't matter, because the states are proving to everyone now that they will write laws in blatant opposition to supreme court findings and, without an execute arm of the court, well, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. In short, the USA is going to hell in a handbasket.


----------



## wankerness

Clinton is being a complete idiot when it comes to confronting Trump. Calling him "DANGEROUS DONALD" actually feeds the guy and makes him stronger. If she just referred to him as "Small Hands Donald" in every sentence the guy's brain would implode and she'd win the election in a landslide. But nope, she and her team seem determined to try and lose this thing if it's remotely possible.

The most infuriating thing about this election is how Clinton is becoming MORE right wing instead of LESS as the Bernie Sanders thing has picked up steam. At first, her supporters were like "oh, it's good that Sanders is in the race, because he'll push her further to the left!" But we sure are seeing how THAT turned out. She's now courting the Neocons that are pissed off about Donald Trump being too anti-Wall Street and moving even further over to that side, while many of her supporters continue to insist she's great and all her policies are reasonable, blah blah. She's now picking up endorsements from the same reprehensible types (ex Max Boot, who just declared his support for her) that George W Bush was in bed with. One of the Koch brothers endorsed her recently, to which she said "I refute this," but that should tell you how "liberal" she really is. She also has made it her mission to get back in bed with Israel (read any coverage of her AIPAC speech, for example) and essentially undo all the work Obama has done over the last 8 years to get us back to the Bush state of things.

Donald Trump is crazy, but if Hillary continues down this path and wins the election, we might see LESS reform. It's insane. I predict the "left" wing will see the culmination of this next election cycle and see a Sanders-style candidate destroy the party the same way Trump destroyed the GOP. And they deserve it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> Not only do I accept this, but I take it with pride, given how much I hate that stupid quote and how horribly pretentious it sounds



I don't recall "quoting" anyone.... I just fell like this saying was perfectly appropriate when discussing potentially voting for someone as entrenched in dirty politics as Hillary Clinton.


----------



## wankerness

She's terrible as far as pandering to lobbyists and she's quite likely to start even more problems than we already are involved in (as well as undoing all the diplomatic work done with Iran), but I'd still vote for her over Trump because I think the supreme court nominations will have more lasting consequences for longer than anything else that either candidate is going to do in the next four years. I just will not be at all disappointed if some meteor dropped on the earth in the next month or two that happened to wipe out her campaign and put in just about anyone else the democrats could come up with. Obviously only a handful of them are truly progressive (Elizabeth Warren, for example) and they're not practical, but it would be hard to find someone more hawkish!

Here's a good article with heavy citations focusing on the international relation problems with Clinton from a left-wing perspective:

https://electronicintifada.net/content/hillary-clinton-more-dangerous-donald-trump/16316

NOTE that this author is known for being pro-Palestine at all costs, but as Hillary is known for being pro-Israel at all costs it kind of balances out


----------



## Xaios

Hopefully Donald Trump doesn't sue me for making this:


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Devil's advocate - if I was a Sanders supporter, I'd counter that you never bring what you consider a workable compromise to a negotiation; instead, you bring a plan that favors you and a pretty good idea of where you're going to need to make concessions to get a deal done, leaving yourself enough space to come to an acceptable compromise.
> 
> For the most part, I think what Sanders wants to do is admirable. I disagree with him on the evils of big banks, of course, and I think his "free college for all" plan doesn't do a single thing to address the real problem, spiraling tuition inflation partially caused by colleges being in an arms war too add more and more perks to attract students, and - let's face it - augmented by the fact that as a college student you can essentially borrow as much money as you want to pay for any degree at any school in America; you're told a college degree is ALWAYS worth having from a very young age, and since student loans are protected from bankruptcy proceedings, banks have no reason NOT to lend. It's a problem he does nothing to address. But, I'm going on a tangent here. Sanders has a lot of admirable goals. For the MOST part, my problem isn't the goals themselves, or whether or not I think he can enact them. My problem is he either doesn't realize he doesn't have enough in the way of revenue generation to offset the new spending in his agenda, or he does and doesn't care, because he figures someone else will have to deal with it. That's why I struggle to support him. If somehow he were to win the Democratic nomination then I'd be happy to vote for him in the primary, but he'd never be my first choice.
> 
> All that said - give Sanders' plans another cycle or two to ferment. It's going to be part of the Democratic agenda for some time to come, and while a lot of his capital markets reforms are either misguided or disastrous - by my read, his proposed capital markets tax would likely _increase_ volatility rather than reducing it - I think a lot of his social/inequality platform is solid. I just think he's the wrong candidate, an angry old white man with an axe to grind against the banking industry.



I don't disagree with Sanders about the cost of college, but I do disagree with the global initiative to get everyone college educated, and the financial consequences that follow. Ideally I think everyone should be as educated as possible as probably the biggest issue plaguing this country is how uneducated so many people really are. The thing that bugs me is that the job market is only shrinking as time goes forward. Jobs that don't require a college degree, but still paid fairly well, pretty much disappeared and moved to other nations through trade deals, and we're seeing the same effect in college educated fields as well. So we currently have a shrinking job market, a huge increase over the last 20 years in the cost of education, and an increase in those seeking a college degree due to fewer jobs hiring that don't require one. So now the job market has disappeared for non-secondary educated positions and we're seeing a large increase in those seeking secondary education. This leads to secondary educated jobs having too many people looking for work and again many of those jobs have also been shipped overseas. 

We need a better primary system that puts people in trade or secondary school right out of primary and we need to bring jobs back home. Simply making it easier for everyone to go to college won't solve anything if we don't stop jobs leaving the country. I'd rather pay double for luxury goods and America as a whole get paid more, and unemployment drop, than have cheap products personally.


----------



## big_aug

Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best on Real Time last night. Donald Trump is not the problem. The real issue is we have a massive number of people who actually support him. If you took Trump put of the equation, it would be some other fool that these people support. They are supporting an outright lying, deceitful, fraudulent individual for the Presidency. They do not use or understand data. Facts are not important to them. It's terrifying. It's a failure of our country's educational system that has lead to us having a population that cannot make a rational decison based upon facts and evidence.




&#8220;As an educator I care about the population and the electorate. And all this attention going to complain about Donald Trump. You&#8217;re not really complaining about Donald Trump, there&#8217;s a major portion of the electorate who likes him, and so they are your obvious object of your ire. Then shouldn&#8217;t you be looking at the educational system that somehow allows people to not think about data, to not think about what is or is not true in this world?&#8221;


----------



## oversteve




----------



## Ibanezsam4

flint757 said:


> I don't disagree with Sanders about the cost of college, but I do disagree with the global initiative to get everyone college educated, and the financial consequences that follow. Ideally I think everyone should be as educated as possible as probably the biggest issue plaguing this country is how uneducated so many people really are. The thing that bugs me is that the job market is only shrinking as time goes forward. Jobs that don't require a college degree, but still paid fairly well, pretty much disappeared and moved to other nations through trade deals, and we're seeing the same effect in college educated fields as well. So we currently have a shrinking job market, a huge increase over the last 20 years in the cost of education, and an increase in those seeking a college degree due to fewer jobs hiring that don't require one. So now the job market has disappeared for non-secondary educated positions and we're seeing a large increase in those seeking secondary education. This leads to secondary educated jobs having too many people looking for work and again many of those jobs have also been shipped overseas.
> 
> We need a better primary system that puts people in trade or secondary school right out of primary and we need to bring jobs back home. Simply making it easier for everyone to go to college won't solve anything if we don't stop jobs leaving the country. I'd rather pay double for luxury goods and America as a whole get paid more, and unemployment drop, than have cheap products personally.



All of this.



big_aug said:


> Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best on Real Time last night. Donald Trump is not the problem. The real issue is we have a massive number of people who actually support him. If you took Trump put of the equation, it would be some other fool that these people support. They are supporting an outright lying, deceitful, fraudulent individual for the Presidency. They do not use or understand data. Facts are not important to them. It's terrifying. It's a failure of our country's educational system that has lead to us having a population that cannot make a rational decison based upon facts and evidence.
> 
> 
> As an educator I care about the population and the electorate. And all this attention going to complain about Donald Trump. Youre not really complaining about Donald Trump, theres a major portion of the electorate who likes him, and so they are your obvious object of your ire. Then shouldnt you be looking at the educational system that somehow allows people to not think about data, to not think about what is or is not true in this world?



this isn't an american problem exclusively. a lot of first world countries are seeing this trend. 

Professor Guy Standing of UoL wrote this piece about Canada; sound familiar? A new class: Canada neglects the precariat at its peril - The Globe and Mail

this topic is reportedly going to be a discussion at the Bilderberg meeting this year


----------



## schwiz

Chris Johnson for president.


----------



## vilk

^You mean Gary?


----------



## bostjan

schwiz said:


> Chris Johnson for president.





vilk said:


> ^You mean Gary?



I thought maybe he was Chris Johnson. 

In all seriousness, though, I'm 90% decided on voting for Gary Johnson.


----------



## vilk

4 prez


----------



## Randy

CJ2K16


----------



## Joose

Gary Johnson all the way. Voted for him last time too.

Libertarianism is the way.


----------



## will_shred

I'm starting to worry that angry Bernie supporters are going to throw the election for the democrats, all because their candidate didn't get the nomination, even though he will still be the chairman of the senate budget committee, one of the most powerful positions in the legislative branch. Because of their little temper tantrum, we will actually have a president Trump, and with it, almost the entire US government will be controlled by the Republican party (They already control %70 of state governments, and congress). Then the Berniebots will be like.


----------



## vilk

As far as I knew, neither candidate has actually "gotten" the nomination. They still have to have that convention, right? 

Also, couldn't it just as easily be said that, rather than "Bernie supporters threw the election", it was the super-delegates who threw the election by nominating Clinton even though the Bernie-base would never support her?


----------



## bostjan

Bernie supporters aren't going to get Trump elected. Trump supporters are going to get Trump elected.

If neither party can manage to nominate a non-....ty candidate, then the parties are to blame, but parties are run by people.

And, it's my opinion, but come on, Trump and Clinton are both ....ty candidates. I can't blame anybody who would rather vote for Spongebob Squarepants or Mickey Mouse or a pet rock than either of those. One's a corrupt politician and the other is a corrupt businessman. I find it insane how anyone is willing to defend either of them.

And the mentality of "vote for one horrible person over the more horrible person" is a tiny step away from a North Korean election (Vote for Kim or don't vote at all). Personally, I won't fall in line with that, call it based on principle, but no.


----------



## flint757

There's nothing angry about it anyhow. Many people who support Bernie have said from the get go they had no intention on voting for Clinton. Just because the 'blue no matter who' Democrats didn't believe them doesn't make it their fault. To say that Bernie supporters threw the election is to imply that:

1) She doesn't have enough supporters to actually win.
2) Trump in fact did.
3) That the opposite also holds true.

If you think Bernie supporters should turn against what they believe in or want you're not actually being as selfless as you're making it out to be in the first place. The same exact argument could have been made during the primaries for either side. At the end of the day, a lot of his supporters are not just Democrats and the ones who don't identify as such likely weren't going to vote for Clinton anyhow, or perhaps vote at all. Note, I'm not saying this means he should have been picked instead, but that the argument falls flat, as it isn't a strong argument no matter who we're discussing. People tried to claim the same thing about Nader, but the truth is more eligible voters, by a large margin, didn't vote at all than voted for Nader. It's all scare tactic nonsense to get people to fall in line even if they don't feel represented by someone else's choice. You should be more pissed that the Democrats this primary likely turned a lot of people off of voting this election entirely more than anything, as that hurts Democrats the most (since Republicans fair better with lower voter turnout).

Since a candidate hasn't officially been chosen yet, and it would seem many people are actually thinking she might lose, perhaps y'all should course correct before driving off the bridge. If you really believe that and you still push for her to run as the nominee you aren't any less culpable to the end result.

The condescension in Hillary's camp is strong all over the web though. 

We all have particular policy issues we prioritize when it comes to who we choose to support politically. This is exactly why both sides have supporters and the whole process is so subjective. The reason a large chunk of Bernie supporters choose Bernie, and only Bernie, isn't because they're _'bots'_  it's because there are indeed policy decisions where Clinton and Sanders are near polar opposites. Those issues may not be as important to some people, hence why they may not see much of a difference between the two, but that doesn't negate the fact that differences exist and to some people those differences matter.


----------



## will_shred

it seems like you guys are implying there will only be small differences if any between a Clinton presidency and a Trump presidency, and that couldn't be further from the truth. At least Clinton might not completely DESTROY America's international standing, and possibly our economy. Clinton might be to close to wallstreet, but at least she actually understands how to be president, and she doubtless learned a hell of a lot about the world during her time with the Obama administration. Plus, its not like because Sanders _lost the primary _the revolution is over, it's only just the beginning. Sanders proved you can run a presidential campaign without corporate money, and we need to take this grassroots energy into congress and local governments.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> There's nothing angry about it anyhow. Many people who support Bernie have said from the get go they had no intention on voting for Clinton. Just because the 'blue no matter who' Democrats didn't believe them doesn't make it their fault. To say that Bernie supporters threw the election is to imply that:
> 
> *1) She doesn't have enough supporters to actually win.*
> *2) Trump in fact did.*
> 3) That the opposite also holds true.
> 
> If you think Bernie supporters should turn against what they believe in or want you're not actually being as selfless as you're making it out to be in the first place. The same exact argument could have been made during the primaries for either side. At the end of the day, a lot of his supporters are not just Democrats and the ones who don't identify as such likely weren't going to vote for Clinton anyhow, or perhaps vote at all. Note, I'm not saying this means he should have been picked instead, but that the argument falls flat, as it isn't a strong argument no matter who we're discussing. People tried to claim the same thing about Nader, but the truth is more eligible voters, by a large margin, didn't vote at all than voted for Nader. It's all scare tactic nonsense to get people to fall in line even if they don't feel represented by someone else's choice. You should be more pissed that the Democrats this primary likely turned a lot of people off of voting this election entirely more than anything, as that hurts Democrats the most (since Republicans fair better with lower voter turnout).
> 
> Since a candidate hasn't officially been chosen yet, and it would seem many people are actually thinking she might lose, perhaps y'all should course correct before driving off the bridge. If you really believe that and you still push for her to run as the nominee you aren't any less culpable to the end result.
> 
> The condescension in Hillary's camp is strong all over the web though.
> 
> We all have particular policy issues we prioritize when it comes to who we choose to support politically. This is exactly why both sides have supporters and the whole process is so subjective. The reason a large chunk of Bernie supporters choose Bernie, and only Bernie, isn't because they're _'bots'_  *it's because there are indeed policy decisions where Clinton and Sanders are near polar opposites. *Those issues may not be as important to some people, hence why they may not see much of a difference between the two, but that doesn't negate the fact that differences exist and to some people those differences matter.



Bolded for emphasis - I'll concede this point if Trump does successfully rally the GOP behind him, and if Clinton does not manage to rally the Democratic party behind her. For now, though, Clinton won the primary (and it's all over but the singing - even Bernie's campaign manager has quietly conceded that they're not actually trying to flip superdelegates) with the support of more voters than Trump, and as of today is up about 7 points vs Trump in head to head polls. Trump got a bit of a post-nomination bump when the GOP started to rally behind him whereas Clinton still hadn't clinched, but in the subsequent weeks Trump continued to alienate the party base, and Clinton DID wrap up the nomination, though yes, it won't be 100% official until the convention. Clinton's seen a bit of a bounce from that, and I think what we're looking at now is a more accurate depiction of the state of the race. 

As for "condescension" from the Clinton camp, I don't think it's that, exactly - maybe befuddlement is closer to the truth. The closest I can come to understanding what's going on is is that voters who supported Clinton are predominately voting for the Democratic party, not the candidate, and their read is that Clinton is both the most representative of the current party thinking, and most electable candidate that they were given to vote for. Sanders supporters, meanwhile, seem to have voted for the candidate, rather than the party. The result is kind of a miscommunication of epic proportions, where Clinton voters can't figure out why for god's sake Sanders supporters can't get on board with the Democratic candidate who won and support the platform, make sure we get some liberal justices, and ensure at a minimum the executive branch stays in liberal hands. And, Sanders supporters can't figure out why for god's sake they're even being asked to support Clinton, since she isn't Sanders. 

Also, for the second bolded bit, I'd love a few examples of policies where Hillary and Bernie are "near polar opposites," to use your phrase.


----------



## vilk

^overturning of citizens united


----------



## flint757

Any and all trade deals and most of our world skirmishes just off the top of my head. She's far more willing to go into war than Sanders. When it comes to the political machine itself I think it is more self explanatory. She falls into one of two categories (or both):

1) Abusing politics to her advantage is necessary to get things done.
2) It benefits her politically and financially.

Sanders is trying to put the power of voting back in the hands of the people and unions, who actually work on behalf of their members compared to big businesses.

This last bit has less to do with her specifically and more to do with the party overall, but Nevada was the last straw for me. If you were there, or watched the mountains upon mountains of video footage, there is absolutely no denying how screwed up the DNC is, especially when they try to pretend like they are not compared to the GOP. Many of the DNC leaders behave like they are above the people and that's not something I'm for either. The media spin on everything just grosses me out. I wouldn't consider our news 'liberal' in the global sense, but it is very pro Democrat to the point of being ridiculous at times.

Did Sanders Supporters Throw Chairs at Nevada Democratic Convention? : snopes.com

There's pretty much only 1 scenario where Hillary gets my vote (or rather support for the party I should say). If Sanders heads the DNC in some major capacity and heavily reshapes the platform I'll vote Clinton. It's the only scenario where I don't have to trust that Clinton will follow through because the party will make her. At the end of the day, my state goes Trump because the two existing parties have no interest in fixing our outdated voting system, so I'll likely vote Jill Stein anyhow, but we shall see.


----------



## P-Ride

It amazes me that people attempt to compare Trump saying provocative, tasteless things with Clinton flying around the world as Secretary of State, collecting donations for her foundation from regimes with appalling human rights records, in exchange for arms deals.

She is an utterly appalling person.


----------



## big_aug

P-Ride said:


> It amazes me that people attempt to compare Trump saying provocative, tasteless things with Clinton flying around the world as Secretary of State, collecting donations for her foundation from regimes with appalling human rights records, in exchange for arms deals.
> 
> She is an utterly appalling person.



Source showing she collected money from said regimes for her foundation while she was Secretary of State? I would like to read about it.


----------



## vilk

^Idk about this source, I wasn't looking for it but coincidentally ran into it, and I knew you had asked, so here we go!

Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims | Zero Hedge


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> ^Idk about this source, I wasn't looking for it but coincidentally ran into it, and I knew you had asked, so here we go!
> 
> Saudi Arabia Has Funded 20% Of Hillary's Presidential Campaign, Saudi Crown Prince Claims | Zero Hedge



Yeah, that's a credible source. /s


----------



## vilk

So, you figure Hillary didn't get any money from any Saudis? idk how credible a newsource is or isn't. I've read some total horse sh/t written on NPR before but most people seem to think they're kosher. I mean, that link I wrote has a link to public documentation in Arabic that states what's up, right? Anyone here read Arabic?


----------



## bostjan

Politifact: Hillary Clinton took money from the kings of four countries


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> So, you figure Hillary didn't get any money from any Saudis? idk how credible a newsource is or isn't. I've read some total horse sh/t written on NPR before but most people seem to think they're kosher. I mean, that link I wrote has a link to public documentation in Arabic that states what's up, right? Anyone here read Arabic?



The author is using an obvious pseudonym and the article starts with the phrase "In what may be the pinnacle of hypocrisy...". That doesn't exactly telegraph "responsible journalism" to me. I'll consider that claim seriously when I see it from a credible news source.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Politifact: Hillary Clinton took money from the kings of four countries



Except Clinton's campaign didn't receive the money; the Clinton Foundation did, and disclosed the contributions as part of their donor-transparency efforts. The Clinton Foundation is not the Clinton campaign.

EDIT: A relevant PolitiFact piece from yesterday that lays out the situation more completely: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...steve-chabot-compares-trump-u-clinton-founda/


----------



## bostjan

"Half True."

Keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of it's income on charitable work, so much of this money ends up getting pocketed. Either way, it's sketchy as hell.

The Clinton campaign does not receive funds from foreign governments, but, rather, from Emily's List (an organization whose focus is to get a woman who is "pro-choice" on the abortion issue elected president), from big banks, and from media outlets. Take that with a grain of salt.

Trump, on the same hand, is an individual whose business dealings have always been and continue to be shady as hall.

Choosing between Trump and Clinton is choosing between a corrupt businessman and a corrupt politician.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Keep in mind that the Clinton Foundation only spends 15% of it's income on charitable work, so much of this money ends up getting pocketed. Either way, it's sketchy as hell.



Source? Preferably with some evidence that the Foundation's ratio of charitable redistribution to administrative overhead and other costs is substantially different than other large foundations?

For context: Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

Here's a particularly relevant passage:



> Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or &#8220;charity&#8221, higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Source? Preferably with some evidence that the Foundation's ratio of charitable redistribution to administrative overhead and other costs is substantially different than other large foundations?
> 
> For context: Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?
> 
> Here's a particularly relevant passage:



You are trying to change the rules of the ballgame. If the industry norm for charitable organizations is to pay six figure salaries to "volunteers" and/or administration, it does not make it right.

BTW, some of the links to sources in the link you provided were broken, particularly the ones that supposedly had hard numbers.

Here is a ny post article, although there are not many details, and here is a list of some of the salaries of "volunteers" reported to the IRS.


----------



## vilk

I think some people feel its only horrible for her to take money from Islamist freaks if she uses it directly for her presidential campaigning, as opposed to just finding it principally wrong.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> I think some people feel its only horrible for her to take money from Islamist freaks if she uses it directly for her presidential campaigning, as opposed to just finding it principally wrong.



By "Islamist freaks" do you mean the legitimate governments of several large and wealthy Middle Eastern nations? Maybe allowing them to be involved in charitable activities, which could create opportunities to convince them to change their policies, is a better strategy for engagement than labeling them "Islamist freaks" and treating them like pariahs.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> You are trying to change the rules of the ballgame. If the industry norm for charitable organizations is to pay six figure salaries to "volunteers" and/or administration, it does not make it right.
> [/URL]



You can thank the free market for that. A lot of high-level administrators at major foundations could easily be making several times their salaries working in the for-profit private sector. There are limits to how little one can offer in compensation and still get the best people.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> ^overturning of citizens united




Both Clinton and Sanders want to overturn Citizens United. Even most Republicans favor overturning it, though their candidates have been slower to embrace the cause.



flint757 said:


> Any and all trade deals and most of our world skirmishes just off the top of my head. She's far more willing to go into war than Sanders.



Yes, but that kind of speaks to my broader point - Clinton's a little more willing to use military force than Sanders, but if Sanders is on one end of the spectrum with "only as a means of last resort," then the other end of that spectrum isn't "tactical strikes with clear objectives combined with a 'war of information' against ISIS to limit their recruitment, and supporting stable, functioning democracies so as not to leave a vacuum for extremism to flourish" isn't the other - it's more like where Ted Cruz was with "I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but let's bomb the middle east until we can find out!"

Trade deals are a slightly different matter, though Clinton is cooling on the TPP and now opposes it - as it happens, as a pro-free-trade Democrat I'm not wild about her reversal, even though it brings her closer to Sanders which you'll probably like. But, on free trade she's moved closer to Sanders' position over the campaign, and both are quite a bit less pro-business than the GOP. Meanwhile, on military action, she was only ever a couple degrees off Sanders to begin with, and _quite _a ways further on the dovish side compared to most of the GOP. 

If you're more distrustful of Clinton because of her connections to the political establishment, that's fine and I can understand that (and, honestly, it kind of goes along with my thinking on why the Clinton/Sanders divide might be tough to bridge). But, judged purely on policy, Sanders and Clinton are pretty close, and have a lot more in common than they do apart. 

Nevada was kind of a low point for both Clinton AND Sanders, to be honest - the Clinton camp blew what happened there out of proportion, which was kind of embarrassing for them I thought, but Sanders also failed to get something like 60 delegates seated because they _failed to register as Democrats before the convention deadline_, which was a requirement to participate, and to then turn around and try to blame the DNC for that (when a panel of equal parts Clinton and Sanders supporters were the ones that voted to not seat them) was pretty disingenuous, and then while I don't believe any of the voicemail and text threats left on the convention head's voicemail were quite over the legally actionable line - "I think you should be hung" isn't quite the same as "I'm gonna hang you" - they were definitely flirting with that line. Neither side came out of that looking good, which is a pity for BOTH sides, I think, and speaks to how divisive the primary is/was getting at the very end.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Joose said:


> Gary Johnson all the way. Voted for him last time too.
> 
> Libertarianism is the way.



I used to feel this way, but I have little faith in the market actually punishing corrupt individuals in an effective manner. Or the ability for the average individual to effectively seek recourse.



vilk said:


> ^overturning of citizens united



I'm pretty sure they both support overturning that ruling. The original ruling was over a negative film about her that was released during her 2008 campaign.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> By "Islamist freaks" do you mean the legitimate governments of several large and wealthy Middle Eastern nations? Maybe allowing them to be involved in charitable activities, which could create opportunities to convince them to change their policies, is a better strategy for engagement than labeling them "Islamist freaks" and treating them like pariahs.



Sorry, but political campaigns should not be taking foreign money from ANY nation, "Islamicly freaky" or not.....

Don't you see the issue with foreign money in our election?


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Sorry, but political campaigns should not be taking foreign money from ANY nation, "Islamicly freaky" or not.....
> 
> Don't you see the issue with foreign money in our election?



Apparently you missed the part above where the money was *not* given to her campaign, but to the Clinton Foundation.


----------



## vilk

celticelk said:


> By "Islamist freaks" do you mean the legitimate governments of several large and wealthy Middle Eastern nations? Maybe allowing them to be involved in charitable activities, which could create opportunities to convince them to change their policies, is a better strategy for engagement than labeling them "Islamist freaks" and treating them like pariahs.



Yes, I definitely do. If your law is to kill homosexuals, I don't care if you're a "legitimate government", you're a freak as far as I'm concerned. 

Also, I have yet to see them change their policies, and in fact I believe Saudi Arabia just made a NEW law to prevent even _more_ women (bedouines?) from driving cars. 

Also, as far as I know, we don't treat them like pariahs. Aren't like lots of gov't folks real tight with the royal Saudi family?


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> You can thank the free market for that. A lot of high-level administrators at major foundations could easily be making several times their salaries working in the for-profit private sector. There are limits to how little one can offer in compensation and still get the best people.



So, when a volunteer for a non-profit makes over half a million a year in salary, you have no issues with that? Noted.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> Apparently you missed the part above where the money was *not* given to her campaign, but to the Clinton Foundation.



I can't tell if you are serious. I probably shouldn't ask....


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> So, when a volunteer for a non-profit makes over half a million a year in salary, you have no issues with that? Noted.



You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime you like.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> I can't tell if you are serious. I probably shouldn't ask....



When you can document that Clinton Foundation money is instead going to her campaign, then you can take me to task for that argument. Eyerolls and "really, are you serious?" are not arguments.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Sorry, but political campaigns should not be taking foreign money from ANY nation, "Islamicly freaky" or not.....
> 
> Don't you see the issue with foreign money in our election?



 You realize the Clinton Foundation isn't the same thing as Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, right?


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> You can stop putting words in my mouth anytime you like.



What words did I put in your mouth? I quoted you and asked a question, related to a logical conclusion one could reasonably draw from the combination of data and your defense of the Foundation's budget.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> What words did I put in your mouth? I quoted you and asked a question, related to a logical conclusion one could reasonably draw from the combination of data and your defense of the Foundation's budget.



You don't get to assume my moral approval from my argument that high salaries at nonprofits are neither out of the ordinary or inexplicable apart from corruption.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> You don't get to assume my moral approval from my argument that high salaries at nonprofits are neither out of the ordinary or inexplicable apart from corruption.



So do you approve or not? I did ask.


----------



## vilk

I think he's that people who make that kind of money at a nonprofit have indeed earned it through their hard work?


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> So do you approve or not? I did ask.



I would want to decide based on the job and the person. Life isn't one-size-fits-all.


----------



## Randy

big_aug said:


> as a pro-free-trade Democrat I'm not wild about her reversal



As "bleeding heart" as you seem to be on a lot of issues (moreso than me on a lot), I'm not entirely sure how supporting trade deals that decimate blue collar workers and middle class in the US fit into the rest of your ideologies.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> When you can document that Clinton Foundation money is instead going to her campaign, then you can take me to task for that argument. Eyerolls and "really, are you serious?" are not arguments.



Honest question: How do you know it's not?

She's not exactly forthcoming....about anything.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honest question: How do you know it's not?



I don't know that aliens *didn't* land at Roswell, but I'm not about to waste my time trying to prove that they didn't. Let me know when you have something that pretends to be evidence. You could start with the public financial disclosures made by the Clinton Foundation and her campaign, if you think you can do better than the legions of journalists and political operatives who have no doubt already been combing that ground.


----------



## vilk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honest question: How do you know it's not?
> 
> She's not exactly forthcoming....about anything.



How do you know it's not not?


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> I would want to decide based on the job and the person. Life isn't one-size-fits-all.



Ok, well, whatever the case about how you feel about it or don't or which points you wish to obfuscate, I do *not* approve of volunteers for a non-profit organization being paid over half a million dollars in salary. I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's just morally wrong, in my worldview. Evidently your worldview is that you disagree with me, but cannot commit to saying that it is not wrong.

As far as the equivalence of the Clinton foundation collecting money from Saudi Arabia, and also paying money to the banks and corporations that happen to fund Clinton's campaign and aliens landing in Roswell, NM, I'll just have to chuckle at that point, since I wasn't directly involved in that little debate.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Ok, well, whatever the case about how you feel about it or don't or which points you wish to obfuscate, I do *not* approve of volunteers for a non-profit organization being paid over half a million dollars in salary. I'm not saying it's illegal, but it's just morally wrong, in my worldview. Evidently your worldview is that you disagree with me, but cannot commit to saying that it is not wrong.



Yes, I disagree with you, but no, I'm not going to say that it's "not wrong," because that's a blanket statement that serves no purpose except for someone else to use as a "gotcha!" if they find a particularly egregious example of a cushy sinecure job at a particularly badly-run foundation. I'm not willing to make the blanket statement that it's "morally wrong" to pay any given person, working any given job, a ton of money without more context about the person and the work. (I *do* think it's possible to define *too little pay* as a moral wrong, but exact levels of "too little" are also context-dependent: $10/hr would have been a ton of money in 1974.)

And just as a point of clarification: if you're being paid for your work at a nonprofit, you're an employee, not a volunteer.



bostjan said:


> As far as the equivalence of the Clinton foundation collecting money from Saudi Arabia, and also paying money to the banks and corporations that happen to fund Clinton's campaign and aliens landing in Roswell, NM, I'll just have to chuckle at that point, since I wasn't directly involved in that little debate.



If you want to think that's the point I was trying to make, I'm not inclined to correct you.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Yes, I disagree with you, but no, I'm not going to say that it's "not wrong," because that's a blanket statement that serves no purpose except for someone else to use as a "gotcha!" if they find a particularly egregious example of a cushy sinecure job at a particularly badly-run foundation.



....except that it's not, because we are talking about one specific foundation and a salary of over half a million a year.

Which leads me to a question for you: If bostjan posts in the PC&E forum, but no one reads it, is he still wrong?


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> ....except that it's not, because we are talking about one specific foundation and a salary of over half a million a year.



You're talking about Eric Braverman, who CharityWatch reported as earning $532,361 as CEO of the Clinton Foundation (according to your previous link: https://www.charitywatch.org/salaries/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478). Before that, he spent fifteen years at McKinsey and Company, a global management consulting firm whose senior partners earn $1-3 million a year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_&_Company#Recruiting_and_compensation). The Clinton Foundation position was therefore probably a pay cut - possibly a serious one - for him. Maybe he felt strongly about the work the Foundation was doing?

Relatedly, the Clinton Foundation doesn't even crack the top 25 of most-highly-compensated charity CEOs: https://www.charitywatch.org/top-charity-salaries. Some groups that *are* on that list: Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces, the NRA, and the Boy Scouts.

What are we outraged about, again?


----------



## vilk

I can only speak for myself but I'm outraged simply that it is legal for organizations that work upon donations to pay themselves far more than the average salary, regardless of their involvement with a presidential candidate.

If you work for an NPO, and the money you use is given to you by people who want to ultimately help the "end user" of that money, to pay yourself what would be much more than the person who donated likely makes themselves, seems morally corrupt at face value.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> As "bleeding heart" as you seem to be on a lot of issues (moreso than me on a lot), I'm not entirely sure how supporting trade deals that decimate blue collar workers and middle class in the US fit into the rest of your ideologies.



Randy, not sure what happened there, but that was me, not big_aug. And I don't think my support for free trade would surprise you, though I don't agree that it's decimated blue collar workers and the middle class, which I also don't think would surprise you.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honest question: How do you know it's not?
> 
> She's not exactly forthcoming....about anything.



Take the tin foil hat off, dude, you're clutching at straws and destroying your credibility in the process.  

The Clinton Foundation is legally required to disclose their donations to maintain their nonprofit status, and Hillary Clinton's campaign is legally required to disclose where they're receiving donations, in order to demonstrate they're not violating campaign finance law. So, yes, you DO know the Clinton Foundation isn't funneling millions of dollars into Hillary Clinton's campaign.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> I can only speak for myself but I'm outraged simply that it is legal for organizations that work upon donations to pay themselves *far more than the average salary*, regardless of their involvement with a presidential candidate.



What "average" are we talking about here? The management skills needed to run a major nonprofit are not substantively different from those needed to run a major for-profit corporation. Median CEO compensation of S&P 500 companies in 2014 was *$10.1 million* (https://philanthropy.com/article/As-the-Economy-Heats-Up/152597).


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I can only speak for myself but I'm outraged simply that it is legal for organizations that work upon donations to pay themselves far more than the average salary, regardless of their involvement with a presidential candidate.
> 
> If you work for an NPO, and the money you use is given to you by people who want to ultimately help the "end user" of that money, to pay yourself what would be much more than the person who donated likely makes themselves, seems morally corrupt at face value.



There's a lot of room for interpretation on this, but whoever suggested that the salaries paid to management at nonprofits needs to be enough to compete with private sector is essentially right - if you have the skillset to be the CEO of a multi-billion-dollar endowment, you also have the skillset to be the CEO of a large publicly traded company. If a nonprofit was offering $60,000 a year to administer a $250 million dollar annual grant program on a $50 billion dollar endowment, they wouldn't be getting many candidates, and the ones they would be getting would probably be a little, ahem, ethically questionable. 

I don't think you're going to find too many even fairly small nonprofits where the CEO isn't taking a 6-figure salary. This is why disclosure is so important, and why a lot of people suggest focusing on the ratio between money taken in and money given out when deciding where to donate.


----------



## vilk

Average as in what to many users on this particular website would consider: low, small amount of money, just enough to get by.

I imagine it makes sense to do it by state or region or area that the HQ is located or whatever.


----------



## Randy

I don't have a specific quote to pull out for this, but I figured I'd chime in since we're talking about non-profits and I happen to be involved with a few.

It's a little bit of an unfair belief/representation that people have about executive compensation for running a non-profit organization. You hear the name and you see what the organization does, you hear the word "volunteers" and you assume everyone works for free or cheap, and that's not entirely accurate.

An organization qualifies as a 501(c) based on meeting certain criteria, which varies by type, but more-or-less centers around providing a service that has significant, redeeming benefits to the public directly, with that benefit as their fundamental motivation as opposed to profit margins (which is the incentive structure in a 'for profit' corporation). That doesn't mean they have to give away 100% of the money they take in every year, nor does that mean everyone works there for free, or that they should. 

They do, however, have to have a charter that's accepted by the Departments of State and the IRS that determines their cause fits with that model, and that they're structured in a way that's fair. Part of that structure is having a 'board of directors', who follow a strict set of guidelines regarding conflicts of interest, 'up and down' votes, adding and removing members over time, voting on expenditures (including salaries), etc. Most legally operating 'non-profits' will have a set of by-laws (which the DoS and IRS are aware of) that allow for people like executives to be added or removed with a vote (which the executive doesn't have a say in, as they're a paid employee). 

So if there's some shenanigans, the board has the opportunity to remove someone at their leisure, likewise the rotation of board members serves as 'checks and balances' to make sure it's no just designed to funnel money to a specific group of people and if all that fails, they need to file with the IRS every year, and operating as a 'slush fund' isn't in the purview of legally operation of a non-profit, so they can have their status revoked, pay taxes through the nose and ultimately be forced to close or worse (depending on what kinda shenanigans is being done on the tax side).

So yeah, there's a lot of rules and a lot of risk if you don't follow them.

On the other side of it, non-profits are open to both donors and obviously grants from charitable organizations or the government. Grants typically have written directly into their application what the money can and CANNOT be used for, and salaries usually fall into the 'no-no' section. Donations are a little less formal, but it's normal for a big donor to dictate what their contribution should be spent on. When you stick money in the little tin can at the grocery store, unless it explicitly says otherwise, they can use that money however they want, as long as it fits within the legal guidlines of their existence (see previous paragraph(s). So yeah, TECHNICALLY, most people contributing to an organization are or SHOULD BE aware of how they spend the money, before they give it to them.

Which brings me to the last part, which is executive compensation. What's morally RIGHT is a matter of what the board of directors and the principal contributors decide is right. A guy getting half a million dollars a year as the head of Clinton Foundation might piss us off we're contributing to them and think that's where all our money is going, but in a (legally operating) non-profit, the person in charge would seemingly be compensated so highly because their position facilitated funding worth a lot higher than his salary. So, if you raise a lot of money, you're entitled to a lot more than somebody else who would work the same job and raise significantly less money. If your salary is excessive and you're not generating a proportionate amount of money for the organization, the board has the ability to drop you, and if you're bilking the organization for exorbitant sums of money, you can also be sued or end up in jail.

I've got a lot of issues with the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation, but unless that organization is completely rigged (which it could be, but that's a separate accusation), they're all aware of his compensation and they seem to find it fitting for what he delivers.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Randy, not sure what happened there, but that was me, not big_aug. And I don't think my support for free trade would surprise you, though I don't agree that it's decimated blue collar workers and the middle class, which I also don't think would surprise you.



My bad (to you and aug both) for misreading it.

So, I'm still curious to hear you elaborate on how you think free trade's benefits to blue collar and middle class are greater than their detriments.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My bad (to you and aug both) for misreading it.
> 
> So, I'm still curious to hear you elaborate on how you think free trade's benefits to blue collar and middle class are greater than their detriments.



Excellent post on nonprofits, first off - there's certainly grounds for foul play (and while the charity itself is an awesome cause, if we ever do shoot the .... over a few beers, ask me about the Pan Mass Challenge's CEO, Billy Starr, and the changes to Mass nonprofit disclosure laws he was indirectly responsible for about a decade ago). 

Well, simply, because I haven't really seen much evidence that US workers have been hurt by free trade laws. Remember that "giant sucking sound" of US jobs leaving for Mexico in the wake of NAFTA? That never actually happened. Meanwhile, when people talk about the detrimental impact of global trade on US workers, it always seems to be cheap goods from China we talk about, or jobs outsourced to India, yet we don't actually have free trade agreements with either country. Free trade has nothing to do with it.

I think globalization as a whole is probably causing the cost of labor worldwide to converge a bit, and that's probably not a great thing for labor in relatively "expensive" countries like the US. But, that's happening one way or another, simply due to technological advancement. What free trade does is just eliminates some of the frictional costs in the form of tarrifs and import duties and whatnot that raise the overall cost to the consumer yet have nothing to do with the actual cost to create a good. 

Especially when in turn free trade deals can be used as a "carrot" to spur increased liberalization (in the economic, not political, sense) of less developed economies and encourage democratic reforms, I think it's absolutely worth pursuing.


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> Average as in what to many users on this particular website would consider: low, small amount of money, just enough to get by.
> 
> I imagine it makes sense to do it by state or region or area that the HQ is located or whatever.



That doesn't really address Drew's point though; non-profis tend to pay less than the private sector, but they still have to pay comparable wages if they want to attract and retain talent. There's a high likelihood that those individuals in high paid administrative positions could get paid more if they job to a position in a different industry.

Also, beyond salaries and wages, the administrative costs of running a non-profit are still high. I briefly ran one with some friends with the goal of raising money for homeless veteran families in San Diego. We paid ourselves minimum wage, had myself and another Big 4 accountant deal with the finances, and ran the operation out of the cheapest office space we could find. Despite all that we were still spending a huge amount of money on non-charity related activities. Hiring employees is not cheap. Keeping good employees is extremely hard if Green Peace (or just basic corporate sales jobs which rely on the same skill set) pays more than your "fair wage." Spending time meeting with city officials to get permits for events and canvassing locations is not cheap. Setting up fundraisers is not cheap. 

Running a successful non-profit is hard as .....

EDIT: And Randy's excellent post makes this somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

My guess is the Clinton Foundation is a "non-profit" because they want to dodge the 35% corporate tax rate. I do not believe with any shred of my being that they are doing and "charitable" work for anyone.

Call me a pessimist.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> My guess is the Clinton Foundation is a "non-profit" because they want to dodge the 35% corporate tax rate. I do not believe with any shred of my being that they are doing and "charitable" work for anyone.
> 
> Call me a pessimist.



I'm not disagreeing with you, but immorality is a separate complaint than saying what they're doing is criminal. If you believe they're not delivering a proportionate amount of the services they claim they are and they're just operating as a fund to make them all wealthy and dodge income tax, that's an accusation of criminal misconduct. 

In that case, you must be under the impression the IRS is in on the ruse as well?


----------



## vilk

wannabguitarist said:


> That doesn't really address Drew's point though; if non-profit tend to pay less than the private sector, but they still have to pay comparable wages if they want to attract and retain talent. There's a high likelihood that those individuals in high paid administrative positions could get paid more if they job to a position in a different industry.
> 
> Also, beyond salaries and wages, the administrative costs of running a non-profit are still high. I briefly ran one with some friends with the goal of raising money for homeless veteran families in San Diego. We paid ourselves minimum wage, had myself and another Big 4 accountant deal with the finances, and ran the operation out of the cheapest office space we could find. Despite all that we were still spending a huge amount of money on non-charity related activities. Hiring employees is not cheap. Keeping good employees is extremely hard if Green Peace (or just basic corporate sales jobs which rely on the same skill set) pays more than your "fair wage." Spending time meeting with city officials to get permits for events and canvassing locations is not cheap. Setting up fundraisers is not cheap.
> 
> Running a successful non-profit is hard as .....
> 
> EDIT: And Randy's excellent post makes this somewhat irrelevant.





yeah, but like, you said you paid yourselves minimum wage. You had to spend a bunch of money running the company. That seems fine to me. 

I don't think we need people trying to make big-bucks working at NPOs. I think that it's fine to pay themselves a living wage, but not half a million bucks. NPOs should be run, organized, and staffed by charitably minded people. You say they won't get anyone to work for them? I'm sure that's not true. After all, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay them. I'm just saying you shouldn't pay them that many tens of times more than me. I think there are plenty of people idealistic enough to accept an 'average' salary to do work that is charity. In 2016, simply having a salaried job as opposed to working for hourly wages or tips is already considered a "pretty sweet gig".

Randy says: You should try to be aware of how the NPO you're donating to uses money before you donate. HOWEVER, I don't believe that's what happens in reality. Most people are simple--they see a person asking for money for a cause, they give money, they assume that money goes to the cause. Yeah, if EVERYONE knew a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff about EVERYTHING it would be really easy to pick and choose who you donate to. But that's just not the way things are. And that's why paying yourself enough to live a lavish lifestyle of wealth and grandeur to an amount that should be considered excessive by the average donation giver, it becomes unethical. Yeah, sure, there are rules, it's all legal, it's good by the books, people should know better yadayada, but it's just not _right_, is all I mean to say.

ps sorry for derailing


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> yeah, but like, you said you paid yourselves minimum wage. You had to spend a bunch of money running the company. That seems fine to me.



But we stopped because we couldn't retain employees at that wage and we all got paid significantly more doing other things . 



vilk said:


> I don't think we need people trying to make big-bucks working at NPOs. I think that it's fine to pay themselves a living wage, but not half a million bucks. NPOs should be run, organized, and staffed by charitably minded people. You say they won't get anyone to work for them? I'm sure that's not true. After all, I'm not saying you shouldn't pay them. I'm just saying you shouldn't pay them that *many tens of times more than me*. I think there are plenty of people idealistic enough to accept an 'average' salary to do work that is charity. In 2016, simply having a salaried job as opposed to working for hourly wages or tips is already considered a "pretty sweet gig".
> 
> Randy says: You should try to be aware of how the NPO you're donating to uses money before you donate. HOWEVER, I don't believe that's what happens in reality. Most people are simple--they see a person asking for money for a cause, they give money, they assume that money goes to the cause. Yeah, if EVERYONE knew a WHOLE BUNCH of stuff about EVERYTHING it would be really easy to pick and choose who you donate to. But that's just not the way things are. And that's why paying yourself enough to live a lavish lifestyle of wealth and grandeur to an amount that should be considered excessive by the average donation giver, it becomes unethical. Yeah, sure, there are rules, it's all legal, it's good by the books, people should know better yadayada, but it's just not _right_, is all I mean to say.
> 
> ps sorry for derailing



I'll put it as simply as I can, a non-profit will not pay huge amounts of money for executives that don't have track records of bringing in significant funds or political clout. If the executive is bringing more value to organization than they're receiving, how is that immoral?

I think I understand where you're coming from, and it's definitely a well meaning position. I just don't agree with you. And I mean that in the least dickish way possible 

Anyways, back to discussion about Clinton, the orange man, and the Bernie Sanders echo chamber of delusion


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> My guess is the Clinton Foundation is a "non-profit" because they want to dodge the 35% corporate tax rate. I do not believe with any shred of my being that they are doing and "charitable" work for anyone.
> 
> Call me a pessimist.



So basically: it's not them, it's you. Got it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> So basically: it's not them, it's you. Got it.



Correct. But I am willing to learn. According to the Clinton Foundation, they do the following, among other things. But they presented the following:

Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.



In my humble and worthless opinion, this list describes a whole lot of NOTHING.... 

But that is just,like, my opinion, man.


----------



## wannabguitarist

How is that list nothing?  What are you expecting?

EDIT: At the bottom of this article there is a download link to the Clinton Foundation's 2013 audit by PWC (Price Waterhouse Cooper). Pages 5-6 have the independent auditor's report where the foundation receives an unmodified opinion (this is good, modified opinions are bad). If you want insight into how they spend money this is probably the best place to start, and probably more information than you ever wanted 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/


----------



## big_aug

Randy said:


> As "bleeding heart" as you seem to be on a lot of issues (moreso than me on a lot), I'm not entirely sure how supporting trade deals that decimate blue collar workers and middle class in the US fit into the rest of your ideologies.



Did you edit this quote? I don't ever remember saying this. Where is this post?

Edit: I saw the clarification posts.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Correct. But I am willing to learn. According to the Clinton Foundation, they do the following, among other things. But they presented the following:
> 
> Clinton Development Initiative staff in Africa train rural farmers and help them get access to seeds, equipment and markets for their crops.
> Clinton Climate Initiative staff help governments in Africa and the Caribbean region with reforestation efforts, and in island nations to help develop renewable energy projects.
> Staff at the Clinton Health Access Initiative, an independent, affiliated entity, work in dozens of nations to lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medicine, scale up pediatric AIDS treatment and promote treatment of diarrhea through life-saving Zinc/ORS treatment.
> Clinton Health Matters staff work with local governments and businesses in the United States to develop wellness and physical activity plans.
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble and worthless opinion, this list describes a whole lot of NOTHING....
> 
> But that is just,like, my opinion, man.



Yeah, dude, this is a high level _summary_ of what they do. You may not like the Clinton Foundation, or you may not think these are important enough goals, but they report to the IRS in extensive detail where their money is being spent evey year to maintain their non-profit status. 

To believe they're not "really" giving money to support these goals entails either 1) a blind hatred for all things Clinton, or 2) a total lack of understanding of how nonprofits function. It doesn't jive with reality.

I mean, if this was some tax dodge to get around paying the 35% corporate tax rate, then what is the Clinton foundation doing to turn a profit? Where's the taxable income?


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> To believe they're not "really" giving money to support these goals entails either 1) a blind hatred for all things Clinton, or 2) a total lack of understanding of how nonprofits function. It doesn't jive with reality.



My suspicion is that it's a little of both, blended with the Cap'n's libertarian philosophy - if you're not making and/or distributing a tangible *thing*, you're obviously not doing any "real" work. (That is, as he astutely noted, just his opinion, man.)


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> My suspicion is that it's a little of both, blended with the Cap'n's libertarian philosophy - if you're not making and/or distributing a tangible *thing*, you're obviously not doing any "real" work. (That is, as he astutely noted, just his opinion, man.)



Are you saying that the libertarian philosophy is that "if you're not making and/or distributing a tangible thing, you're obviously not doing any real work," or are you simply making an observation about that particular user?


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Are you saying that the libertarian philosophy is that "if you're not making and/or distributing a tangible thing, you're obviously not doing any real work," or are you simply making an observation about that particular user?



More the latter than the former, riffing off of his previously-stated admiration for Rand's works. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of American libertarians hold some version of that belief, though, again based largely on Rand's influence. (Should they be properly called Objectivists rather than libertarians? I seem to encounter them mostly in places where libertarian ideas are being discussed.)


----------



## bostjan

No doubt objectivism had influence on early libertarianism, but, there are different sorts of libertarians, if you can believe that: right-libertarians, left-libertarians, and center-libertarians... The objectivist views are a lot more strongly associated with right-libertarianism, if it makes any difference to you.


----------



## celticelk

NPR fact-check on Trump's speech today attacking Clinton: Donald Trump's Speech Wednesday Laid Out Campaign Promises And Attacked Hillary Clinton : NPR

Apart from being generally useful as a collection and analysis of Clinton's various alleged misdeeds, specific points also contain links to data addressing topics that have come up in this thread, like the effect of trade deals on US jobs.


----------



## bostjan

All I see are reasons to not vote for Hillary. I am still waiting to hear one specific reason to vote for Donald, other than extremely vague stuff like "I'll create jobs" (how?!) or "I'll fix America and make it great again" (how?!).

This election is a bust. We're doomed unless voters really pull off a miracle or one of these two cleans up, neither are likely.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> So basically: it's not them, it's you. Got it.



Is Donald Trump right about Hillary Clinton? - CNN.com

CNN no less.... It's a great read.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Is Donald Trump right about Hillary Clinton? - CNN.com
> 
> CNN no less.... It's a great read.



Ignoring the fact this is an editorial and not a news piece, the tl;dr version is "while there are certainly some legitimate areas you can attack Clinton, Trump is instead choosing to go way off the reservation and make pretty absurd claims, to pander to Clinton-haters," and answers the titular question with a resounding "No." 

I'm a little surprised you're choosing to link this to bolster your argument.


----------



## bostjan

The article pretty much sums up how I feel: Can we dump both candidates and start over?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The article pretty much sums up how I feel: Can we dump both candidates and start over?



Both Sanders supporters and anti-Trump Republicans are still hoping to.  

Neither is likely to happen. But, I'd give the GOP slightly better odds than the Dems - the "problem" with Clinton, to a Sanders supporter, is that she's pretty much a straight-up establishment Democrat, while the problem with Trump for the GOP is that he's NOT an establishment republican. The barrier for tossing a democratically-chosen nominee is awfully high, and the GOP would have to decide that undermining the process and the long term damage that would cause was worth the short term benefit of running someone else, but there's really no natural replacement to settle on, which is a large part of why Trump won in the first place; he just made the most noise in a very divided field. 

Long term, the GOP might arguably be better off letting Trump get crushed by Clinton in the general and then rebuilding, so unless things get really ugly for him between now and the convention, I don't think the "Dump Trump" movement is going to get anywhere. 

Clinton, well, it's not realistic to expect establishment Democrats to turn out one of their own. She'd need a true disaster between now and the convention, and I think it'd have to be a fair amount more serious for the Dems to punt on Clinton than it would be for the GOP to dump Trump. Even then, I don't know if Sanders would be the nominee - I'd watch Biden, in that scenario.


----------



## bostjan

I'd vote for Biden in a Biden/Trump matchup. To me, I could care less who is establishment or not, I just think Clinton is shady as hell, and Trump is insane. I'd say Sanders had little grasp on reality. Cruz was a theocrat. Even if, by a double miracle, Clinton and Trump both get dumped for Sanders and Cruz, I wouldn't be happy. I don't think of myself as being hard to please with presidential candidates, but it sure seems that way. I mean, after eight years of Bush, Obama, to me, looked like a brain surgeon. I didn't hate McCain, either, but he lost me when he chose Palin as running mate.

Anyway, I'm leaning heavily toward Gary Johnson at this juncture. If more dirt comes up on Clinton and Trump continues to be an asshole, I think Mr. Johnson might start to be a viable third party candidate in the general election.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Clinton, well, it's not realistic to expect establishment Democrats to turn out one of their own. She'd need a true disaster between now and the convention, and I think it'd have to be a fair amount more serious for the Dems to punt on Clinton than it would be for the GOP to dump Trump. Even then, I don't know if Sanders would be the nominee - I'd watch Biden, in that scenario.



Again, not saying it should be him if she were to somehow get the boot, but I'd be willing to bet all my money and possessions that if they chose someone other than Sanders in that scenario the 'Bernie Or Bust' movement would not only grow, but be cemented. All Trump would have to do from there on out is stop talking and he'd easily have the win. Considering how well he did in the primaries, despite the medias best attempt to stop it, it'd be a huge slap in the face to those who voted for him, and the Democratic process in general, for them to pick someone nobody voted for to begin with.


----------



## flint757

bostjan said:


> I'd vote for Biden in a Biden/Trump matchup. To me, I could care less who is establishment or not, I just think Clinton is shady as hell, and Trump is insane. I'd say Sanders had little grasp on reality. Cruz was a theocrat. Even if, by a double miracle, Clinton and Trump both get dumped for Sanders and Cruz, I wouldn't be happy. I don't think of myself as being hard to please with presidential candidates, but it sure seems that way. I mean, after eight years of Bush, Obama, to me, looked like a brain surgeon. I didn't hate McCain, either, but he lost me when he chose Palin as running mate.
> 
> Anyway, I'm leaning heavily toward Gary Johnson at this juncture. If more dirt comes up on Clinton and Trump continues to be an asshole, I think Mr. Johnson might start to be a viable third party candidate in the general election.



Yes, but you're also a libertarian so it is unlikely you'll ever like the choices that the two main parties offer (or that you'll ever find socialism of any sort to be something that is 'realistic'). The Paul's are as close as you'll get and they have never been able to grab the nomination. I'm admittedly curious what the Republican party platform and candidate choice will be next go around though. There's no doubt that Trump has made a mess of things. I hope they don't replace him as their candidate though, as any choice they make it will only be a worse choice. Raphael Cruz, Paul Ryan, etc. just the idea of them running makes me cringe.

McCain was just as shady by the way. From what I had read when he was in the running, and the interviews I had watched, what our government did giving weapons to Syrians whom eventually became factions of ISIS he did with Al Qaeda. It's actually depressing how often we repeat history in that region expecting different results. I remember a few years ago him actually suggesting to making his mistake again as if it wasn't a mistake at all. It's honestly dumbfounding.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Again, not saying it should be him if she were to somehow get the boot, but I'd be willing to bet all my money and possessions that if they chose someone other than Sanders in that scenario the 'Bernie Or Bust' movement would not only grow, but be cemented. All Trump would have to do from there on out is stop talking and he'd easily have the win. Considering how well he did in the primaries, despite the medias best attempt to stop it, it'd be a huge slap in the face to those who voted for him, and the Democratic process in general, for them to pick someone nobody voted for to begin with.



Well, we're talking about pretty extreme hypotheticals, anyway - Clinton's the nominee, and that's not changing short of a miracle. The Bernie camp still seems to think they've got a chance to shake things up at the convention, but I'd argue the same argument you're making why only Sanders could be the runner up is even more true when it comes to why Sanders won't be the nominee - he got outvoted, plain and simple. 

It's an interesting hypothetical, though - what would happen if Clinton somehow became unviable. Almost as interesting as what would happen if the GOP decided Trump was unviable.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> Yes, but you're also a libertarian so it is unlikely you'll ever like the choices that the two main parties offer (or that you'll ever find socialism of any sort to be something that is 'realistic'). The Paul's are as close as you'll get and they have never been able to grab the nomination. I'm admittedly curious what the Republican party platform and candidate choice will be next go around though. There's no doubt that Trump has made a mess of things. I hope they don't replace him as their candidate though, as any choice they make it will only be a worse choice. Raphael Cruz, Paul Ryan, etc. just the idea of them running makes me cringe.
> 
> McCain was just as shady by the way. From what I had read when he was in the running, and the interviews I had watched, what our government did giving weapons to Syrians whom eventually became factions of ISIS he did with Al Qaeda. It's actually depressing how often we repeat history in that region expecting different results. I remember a few years ago him actually suggesting to making his mistake again as if it wasn't a mistake at all. It's honestly dumbfounding.



As much as I identify as a libertarian, I was fully behind Obama by the time the day of reckoning came around. I stuck with him, too. I really am not a huge fan of his, but I think I made the right choice by him, as I personally feel that he's been the best president we've had in my lifetime (probably not saying much).


----------



## TheStig1214

A good, somewhat short read on each Trump and Hillary's promises about fiscal reform and spending and the like. Looks like Trump's goal is to put us even further in a nosedive than we already are.

Promises and Price Tags: A Fiscal Guide to the 2016 Election | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> As much as I identify as a libertarian, I was fully behind Obama by the time the day of reckoning came around. I stuck with him, too. I really am not a huge fan of his, but I think I made the right choice by him, as I personally feel that he's been the best president we've had in my lifetime (probably not saying much).



I disagree very much. I was a supporter of his election, as I (and most) saw him as an "outsider" to established politics.

It turns out we were wrong, and that corrupt politicians from Chicago are corrupt.... In retrospect, we were blinded by the media love fest that took place. 

While the list of his lies is REALLY long (going clear back to 'I'm closing Guantanamo.....'), there are only 2x things that make him the WORST president in my lifetime:

1) He has killed more people, by remote control, without congressional approval of war, than ALL of his successors combined. Think about the ....storm that would happen if China used a drone to kill someone inside the US..... 

2) He has killed American citizens (albeit in other countries, hanging out with terrorists) without due process. This is NOT how we are supposed to operate. Ever.


These 2x line items are the most serious violations of established law he has committed, in my opinion. 

I am not looking for false equivalencies about Bush.... but that is what I'm gonna get.


----------



## flint757

Obama definitely disappointed me when it came to his policies on war. I'd argue he was a very average president though. It isn't like he accomplished nothing of value; although a lot of it happened in courtrooms, so arguably had nothing to do with him specifically (some of it that is). It doesn't seem to be uncommon among our presidents to use drones, missile strikes, bombers, etc., even though I agree it is abhorrent, so I honestly can't lay all the blame for it at his feet. 

The military industrial complex is too powerful it seems for anyone to end secret prisons, illegal detention centers, drone strikes, and worldwide occupation. I get the feeling he genuinely meant to close Guantanamo and was likely told no by those in charge of our military. I'm sure his idea behind backing drone strikes was driven by an attempt to lessen the number of boots on the ground as well. The thing I feel like our government failed to realize is that we want nothing to do with these wars/occupations at all, not turn it into a video game where civilian casualties are a given. 

On a personal note, if we insist on strategically infiltrating and killing 'bad guys' around the world I'd prefer we use surgical strike teams. Still not a lot of boots on the ground and only intended targets end up six feet under.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> While the list of his lies is REALLY long (going clear back to 'I'm closing Guantanamo.....')



...conveniently ignoring that Congress has been stonewalling him on this, as on so many other things.


----------



## bostjan

He promised to close Gitmo and he didn't do it. If he couldn't do it, he shouldn't have promised he would.

As for ignoring due process- it breaks my heart that this is the new normal. Bush ignored due process fully by everything leading there to be a Gitmo in the first place, and the things he did get approval for were still wrong. Clinton's regime also ignored due process quite often, particularly with the debacle in Waco, TX, in which the ATF burned dozens of people who may have been hostages in order to get a guy who might have escaped (they never found his remains), and Reno gave the administration's blessing on the action. Due process of the law is and has been a luxury afforded by the rich and powerful for a very long time, not a right.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> He promised to close Gitmo and he didn't do it. If he couldn't do it, he shouldn't have promised he would.



Because foreseeing the most obstructionist Congress in modern history should have been a piece of cake. What else is the first black president good for, right?

/s


----------



## synrgy

Can we maybe stop the false equivalency between "Trying, and failing, to accomplish something one said they would do" and "lying"?


----------



## bostjan

If he wanted to close Gitmo, all he'd have to do is write up an executive order to do so; it's actually well within the president's power, and outside of congress's power.

Where he's getting hung up is what to do with all of the inmates there, which is foreseeable, in fact, anyone who promises to close a prison and put no thought into where all of the inmates would go was not earnest about closing the prison in the first place.


----------



## synrgy

bostjan said:


> all he'd have to do is write up an executive order



Because he totally doesn't get slandered by opposition for 'overuse' of executive orders _despite_ having yet to outpace any of the previous five Presidents?

I'm not saying he couldn't have done it; I'm saying that implying that the obstructionism he's faced isn't a _major_ factor in the equation is disingenuous.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Where he's getting hung up is what to do with all of the inmates there, which is foreseeable, in fact, anyone who promises to close a prison and put no thought into where all of the inmates would go was not earnest about closing the prison in the first place.



The plan was to move them to prisons in the US. That's what Congress has been blocking. So, in fact, Congress *has* effectively been blocking the closure of Gitmo, as I said. I don't see what your argument is here.


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> Because he totally doesn't get slandered by opposition for 'overuse' of executive orders _despite_ having yet to outpace any of the previous five Presidents?
> 
> I'm not saying he couldn't have done it; I'm saying that implying that the obstructionism he's faced isn't a _major_ factor in the equation is disingenuous.



And...by not doing it, alienates his base of supporters. So, which makes more sense, risk slander from your opposition (people who will slander you regardless) or risk alienating your base (people who otherwise support you)?

Look, Obama *knew* the right wing would oppose him, so it's not an excuse. None of the stuff you guys have brought up so far about Gitmo are even close to an excuse.

It's like I told you that if you hired me, I'd polish your floor, then you hire me, pay me, and I tell you my excuse is that I don't own a floor polisher and that I'm too busy.



celticelk said:


> The plan was to move them to prisons in the US. That's what Congress has been blocking. So, in fact, Congress *has* effectively been blocking the closure of Gitmo, as I said. I don't see what your argument is here.



Sorry for repeating myself, but I brought this up and it's already been covered. It's shortsighted. Like, seriously, Obama would think that there would *not* be opposition. He promised, he didn't deliver, all roadblocks were apparent before the promise was made. That's my argument.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Sorry for repeating myself, but I brought this up and it's already been covered. It's shortsighted. Like, seriously, Obama would think that there would *not* be opposition. He promised, he didn't deliver, all roadblocks were apparent before the promise was made. That's my argument.



And I'll repeat myself: anyone who claims that the obstructionism of the current Congress could have been foreseen before the 2008 election needs some serious evidence to back their claim. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Look, Obama *knew* the right wing would oppose him, so it's not an excuse. None of the stuff you guys have brought up so far about Gitmo are even close to an excuse.



Eh, I don't know if I agree with that - Obama tried to run on a post-partisan platform and seemed to really believe he could get the right to compromise and work with him - this was early in his term so the details are fuzzy, but right off the bat I believe he proposed an initial stimulus package that was about a third tax cuts, as an olive branch to the right. He took some heat from his own party for that, all the more so when the GOP stonewalled him anyway. 

I think he really did think he'd be able to find some common ground with Republicans, and didn't expect to get blocked with uniform resistance. 

...


In other news, Trump is holding a fundraiser at the (really swank) hotel abutting my office right now, so the neighboring block is closed down and while I can't see them from here I understand there are a crowd of protesters out in front of the hotel right now. I'd join them, but 1) I'm at work, and 2) most of them probably ALSO have an issue with "Wall Street and the 1%," know they're in the financial district, and would have a problem with any guy in a button-down oxford and khakis, too, so I'm just going to steer clear.


----------



## synrgy

I disagree:

Yes, all politicians will face opposition, but the extreme level of opposition THIS politician has faced has been previously unseen in contemporary politics, therefore unforeseeable prior to his tenure as President.

And with apologies for being repetitive, myself: Trying and failing to do something is _absolutely not_ the same thing as lying. It's not even the same ballpark.

And to be clear: I _agree_ that he failed (due to obstruction), but that's not my contention. My contention is that failure and dishonesty are neither synonymous nor comparable.


----------



## Drew

synrgy said:


> I disagree:
> 
> Yes, all politicians will face opposition, but the extreme level of opposition THIS politician has faced has been previously unseen in contemporary politics, therefore unforeseeable prior to his tenure as President.
> 
> And with apologies for being repetitive, myself: Trying and failing to do something is _absolutely not_ the same thing as lying. It's not even the same ballpark.
> 
> And to be clear: I _agree_ that he failed (due to obstruction), but that's not my contention. My contention is that failure and dishonesty are neither synonymous nor comparable.



I think what you CAN accuse him of, fairly, is that closing Gitmo has gradually fallen by the wayside as a priority of his. 

By the way, I totally disagree with Captain Formaggio or whatever re: drone strikes - I am 100% ok with targeted drone and SEAL team strikes being used to take out terrorist leaders. I like that a LOT more than massive ground invasions like we saw in Iraq, and they seem to be a little more effective while doing less to destabilize a region.


----------



## bostjan

But no one has the power to stop him from closing Gitmo. 

You guys keep saying the republicans stopped him from doing it, but that's just a lame excuse.

CelicElk - It's common sense. I don't know what to say - you think it's silly to have expected republicans to be unhappy with democrat policy and I say it's silly to have expected to close Gitmo smoothly without a plan for what to do with all of the inmates there.

The point is that it didn't get done and the blame for it not getting done should fall on the guy who said he'd do it. I'm all for blaming republicans for pretty much everything else, but this one is on Obama.



Drew said:


> By the way, I totally disagree with Captain Formaggio or whatever re: drone strikes - I am 100% ok with targeted drone and SEAL team strikes being used to take out terrorist leaders. I like that a LOT more than massive ground invasions like we saw in Iraq, and they seem to be a little more effective while doing less to destabilize a region.



I guess I'm in the minority that prefers neither.  I don't feel warm and fuzzy about regime changes or nation building or the hail of bullets of democracy for countries with other forms of government.


----------



## synrgy

*edit*

Actually, nevermind. I'm just gonna leave it alone. Carry on.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But no one has the power to stop him from closing Gitmo.



I'm doing some googling on this one, and it looks like this one has a really complex answer. 

It appears the President, as the Commander in Chief, does *in general* have the authority to close military bases by executive order, but that there are restrictions on that power - it needs to be done in the annual appropriations process, the president needs to present a study on the military, strategic, operational, and economic impact of the closure, as well as the criteria used to determine a closure was appropriate, and then go through a lengthy waiting period. 

In practical terms, actually doing this would be VERY hard, and would likely trigger an ugly political fight and probably a trip to federal court over the constitutionality of the move, as it appears that power has never been tested, at least against opposition: 

Will Obama Use Executive Order to Close Guantanamo Bay? - NBC News

His strategy, in the meantime, seems to be doing everything he can to reduce the number of prisoners held there - from an initial 500 or so, it looks like he's down to 91 as of this February, and hopeful to cut that by at least a further 2/3 in the next several months. 

So, it's not quite so simple. He could, but not without an ugly fight.


----------



## celticelk

For your information and/or entertainment, the FiveThirtyEight general election forecast is now live: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> CelicElk - It's common sense. I don't know what to say - you think it's silly to have expected republicans to be unhappy with democrat policy and I say it's silly to have expected to close Gitmo smoothly without a plan for what to do with all of the inmates there.



As I've tried to explain, there *was* a plan - move the inmates to federal prisons on the US mainland. You can't reasonably claim that since the Republicans blocked the plan from execution, there was therefore no plan. And while, yes, you can generally assume that there's going to have to be some horse-trading between parties to get things done, I still maintain that the degree to which the Republicans have dug in their heels and screamed "NO!" like whiny four-year-olds is unprecedented in modern politics.

Whatever. Clearly neither of us is convincing the other on this.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'm doing some googling on this one, and it looks like this one has a really complex answer.
> 
> It appears the President, as the Commander in Chief, does *in general* have the authority to close military bases by executive order, but that there are restrictions on that power - it needs to be done in the annual appropriations process, the president needs to present a study on the military, strategic, operational, and economic impact of the closure, as well as the criteria used to determine a closure was appropriate, and then go through a lengthy waiting period.
> 
> In practical terms, actually doing this would be VERY hard, and would likely trigger an ugly political fight and probably a trip to federal court over the constitutionality of the move, as it appears that power has never been tested, at least against opposition:
> 
> Will Obama Use Executive Order to Close Guantanamo Bay? - NBC News
> 
> His strategy, in the meantime, seems to be doing everything he can to reduce the number of prisoners held there - from an initial 500 or so, it looks like he's down to 91 as of this February, and hopeful to cut that by at least a further 2/3 in the next several months.
> 
> So, it's not quite so simple. He could, but not without an ugly fight.



Ok, so then why has no one in the Obama administration started with step one of the process you outlined? As I said, I never expected it to be easy, but, common sense says that it is not going to be easy. You still do things one step at a time. If Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within his first 100 days in office, something would have happened, other than what ended up happening, right?

It's like just bringing up that Obama failed to do something he promised to do gets people so fired up. I think it's clear from my post that kicked all of this off, that I don't particularly like Obama, but I dislike him a lot less than any of the other numbskulls who have been in the Oval Office lately.

From my standpoint, a *big* part of why I supported him was getting our boys (and ladies) out of the middle east and sorting out the nonsense with Gitmo. He was very clear that he was going to get 'er done, yet, here we are at the end of his second term, and, well, the best I can say for him is that he half did what he said he'd do. Recall that the PotUS is the Commander in Chief of the US Military, so the buck stops there with everything military. If the military screws something up, then he either holds someone accountable, or I hold him accountable, as a voter and a citizen. While I support Obama fully as our leader, I am still discontented by the non-closure of Gitmo, as he promised.

Before you go comparing this to other presidents who lied or failed in keeping promises, I know, I'm not saying he's worse than x president, because I don't think he is worse than any other president I've known - I still think he should have done what he should have done. Period.

As far as it being hard to do, a) no one said it would be easy, b) if it was easy, I would have trusted less of a leader to get it done and c) he shouldn't have said he'd do it if it was going to be too hard for him. I don't recall him ever saying, on the campaign trail, "I will close Gitmo if and only if you elect a congress that fully supports such."



celticelk said:


> Whatever. Clearly neither of us is convincing the other on this.



Sigh. I guess you are right about that. We rarely agree on anything political, even when we seem to start out agreeing. Perhaps we are more alike than we think. It think if we ever met in person and had a couple beers or whatever, we'd probably get along just fine as long as politics didn't get discussed for more than a few seconds. 

I guess I don't really feel like I'm trying to convince you of anything ever, other than that I can logically defend my initial point, but that's a pretty short-sighted long game. When it comes to me convincing you that Obama is not perfect, or that Hillary is pretty damn far from perfect, or anything related to gun control, it would be hopeless, yet I am convinced of my worldview by the evidence that I post here, and generally unconvinced by your arguments. I suppose I should stay out of the P C E subforum, but I can't help myself.



celticelk said:


> For your information and/or entertainment, the FiveThirtyEight general election forecast is now live: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/



I would say "good, I hope Trump gets his clock cleaned," but actually, I hope he loses even worse. I'd love to see him lose in a few solid red states. The guy is a sham - he is a corrupt businessman with no moral center, no political experience, no plan for our future, and no plan for his own future other than to step on other people. The fact that the republican party has fallen for his thinly veiled ruse is disgusting. You know that I have no love for Hillary, either, but I have no doubt that she can eat him alive in the general election, barring some sort of grand revelation or one of the scandals in which she's involved actually coming to some sort of messy conclusion.

I fear for our future in any case. Life in the USA is not ever going to be as easy as it was in the 80's and 90's.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Ok, so then why has no one in the Obama administration started with step one of the process you outlined? As I said, I never expected it to be easy, but, common sense says that it is not going to be easy. You still do things one step at a time. If Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo within his first 100 days in office, something would have happened, other than what ended up happening, right?



Well, the broader point I'm trying to make, is I think Obama didn't think he'd HAVE to resort to executive action to get it done, when he committed to do it. I think he really believed he could get Congress to support the closure through the normal channels, and I think he (naively) didn't think he'd see quite the level of obstructionism he got. 

And, I'm going back and reviewing the history of what exactly went down, and he made a pretty sincere attempt to close it - suspended all cases for a 120 day review of the base the day of his inauguration, then on day 2 he actually DID issue an executive order to close the base. The problem was the House then refused to fund it, and the Executive branch can unilaterally order base closings (within restrictions), but they can't unilaterally authorize funds to pay for them, so he hit an impasse. Then, Congress refused to allow them to be transferred onto US soil, further tying his hands. 

Start at the bottom and scroll up: 

Will Obama Use Executive Order to Close Guantanamo Bay? - NBC News

So, to answer your question, he DID sign such an order, on his second day in office. Congress did a pretty thorough job stonewalling him, however, by refusing to pay for closure, and then refusing to allow any of the prisoners to be brought into the US.

EDIT - also, perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but his commitment to close Gitmo in 100 days wasn't a campaign process, but was his commitment in the executive order he signed. On the campaign trail, he didn't stipulate a timeline. He clearly hasn't given up, he's got the number of prisoners way down, and we have somewhat-normalized relations with Cuba now; he just may pull it off before January of 2017. He's running out of time, but he hasn't failed yet.


----------



## bostjan

Except Obama did promise to close it as part of his campaign.

Obama did sign an executive order, not to close the facility, but to grant the power of some cabinet members to move the detainees.
Not the house, but his own cabinet refused to follow through.

Note that the cabinet members report directly and only to the president. If my boss told me to do something and I responded with "I don't wanna," my ass would be fired PDQ, unless my boss never really wanted me to do it that bad. Right?

I think the facts are getting a bit muddy here. The point, again, is that he said he would, and he didn't. 

If you say congress stonewalled him, well, it doesn't really matter, so I'm not even going to go there.

I mean, he promised to close it down, not to reduce the number of prisoners.


----------



## synrgy

I mean, my disappointment was more to do with his stumping on Universal/single payer health care. That was the biggest issue that won him my vote and volunteer work in '08. Well, that, and Palin, but I digress.

We're rabbit holing. My only real beef was the conflation of "liar" and "failure". Maybe a silly distinction to some, but I know which I'd prefer.


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> I mean, my disappointment was more to do with his stumping on Universal/single payer health care. That was the biggest issue that won him my vote and volunteer work in '08. Well, that, and Palin, but I digress.
> 
> We're rabbit holing. My only real beef was the conflation of "liar" and "failure". Maybe a silly distinction to some, but I know which I'd prefer.



I don't recall saying "liar," but if I did, I apologize - that's too strong of a term, I feel. I don't really feel that "failure" is too strong a term for the situation.

What SS.O rabbit holing in a thread?! We never do that! [/sarcasm]

The health care thing, I have to hand that to him. I had my reservations about it, because I had assumed we would end up with some sort of frankensystem with the weaknesses of private medicine and none of the benefits of socialized medicine. What we ended up with wasn't perfect, by my measures, but I do feel is an improvement over the old system. I do really wish that the corruption in the system was excised with prejudice, but nothing of the sort will happen in the USA, as long as there is corruption in Washington.

As I said, Obama has done more good than harm, IMO. I think there is enough evidence that, although he allowed several Bush-era and Clinton-era policies to continue, despite needing to do otherwise, he *has* made a measurable amount of headway. I have no faith whatsoever that Clinton nor Trump (shudder) would be as good a leader for the country. In fact, I fear that they (particularly Trump) would be able to undo everything in a matter of months, if not weeks. And before you tell me that at least Clinton would keep Obamacare going, my stance is that corruption within the system is the primary issue, and I do *not* have _any_ reason to believe Clinton would do anything about the corruption in the health care system.

I am concerned, though, living in the bluest state of the bluest region of the nation, that there are a lot of Trump banners and whatnot. The reports say that Trump doesn't stand a chance at beating Clinton, but what I fear, is that Trump will come just close enough to make Clinton cheat in some way, and then when the world finds out that she cheated, or hell, even if she didn't cheat and enough people get convinced that she did, then all hell will break lose within the USA.


----------



## synrgy

I should have been more specific: You weren't the one who made the 'liar' accusation. I just don't like calling people out. 

I agree that what we have is - in many, many ways - an improvement over what we had, and I agree that he has largely been a successful President. I know I don't post as much as I used to, but if you didn't already know, I'm - for better or worse - pretty far left on the overall spectrum. I am generally a supporter of Obama (see prior reference to volunteering with his '08 campaign). I'm certainly not afraid to call out his many shortcomings as I see them, and I also defend him a fair bit from accusations I find to be more based in rhetoric than reality.

The whole 'failure' versus 'liar' thing was specifically in reference to Gitmo, and another user's post. The conversation kinda shifted more toward your position from there, and then I got hung up on other minor details, as per usual. Whee!

To clarify my last post, where I feel disappointed in his stumping versus the reality we ended up with, is in seeing how well my wife's family is taken care of by the Canadian system, and knowing we're unlikely to see anything like that here in my lifetime, because the whole "me, me, ME!" mentality seems to be hard-encoded into our cultural DNA. It's clear that my generation isn't going to change that, anyway, which adds to the overall disappointment I'm feeling.

Not to mention: I'm also still mad that the GOP managed to successfully re-brand the ACA 'Obamacare' despite it bearing zero resemblance to Obama's plan. Not that I'm trying to open up THAT rabbit hole. We did that elsewhere in this forum at the time. 

ANYHOO, as for Trump's overall chances in the general -- should it come to that, and I'm not yet convinced it will -- I'm finding some comfort, this morning, in this:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus


----------



## bostjan

Oh, it's all good. I guess going deep into detail hell is what is in our DNA as guitarists.

Hmm, it looks like he is gaining, slightly, from an electoral college perspective. As long as he doesn't get a solid grip on PA, OH, or FL, I think things will not even get too close for him, though, except for the one caveat I outlined. If Clinton gets overconfident (I think she has shown that she may already be), there is a strong chance she could play into a trap. Not that Trump is smart enough to set an effective trap, but he might be just manipulative enough to hire someone else who is smart enough to do it. So Clinton would do well to hire someone smart to strategize a step ahead or two.


----------



## synrgy

I would _like_ to presume Clinton is smart and experienced enough to recognize that she's under the highest level of scrutiny she's ever been, and it's only going to get worse.

Given the history, I'm not convinced, and share a bit of your concern. That said, in fairness, it's as-or-more probable that Drumpf will do something (or several things) to further deteriorate his standing with the public. I feel like there's a big chance that, by go time, he'll have alienated most pro-Trump folks, leaving him only with anti-Clinton folks, and I'm not convinced there are enough of those to make a difference.

Amusingly, there's a bit of pot-calling-kettle-black to that, as at this point, I'm way more anti-Drumpf than I am pro-Clinton.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Except Obama did promise to close it as part of his campaign.
> 
> Obama did sign an executive order, not to close the facility, but to grant the power of some cabinet members to move the detainees.
> Not the house, but his own cabinet refused to follow through.
> 
> Note that the cabinet members report directly and only to the president. If my boss told me to do something and I responded with "I don't wanna," my ass would be fired PDQ, unless my boss never really wanted me to do it that bad. Right?
> 
> I think the facts are getting a bit muddy here. The point, again, is that he said he would, and he didn't.
> 
> If you say congress stonewalled him, well, it doesn't really matter, so I'm not even going to go there.
> 
> I mean, he promised to close it down, not to reduce the number of prisoners.



I apologize, I accidently copied and pasted the same link twice, rather than the one I was looking at in my last post. Here's what I meant to share. Read THIS one from the bottom up, since it's a series of articles in reverse order. 

The Obameter: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center | PolitiFact

Basically, Obama DID order the closure - Executive Order 13492, available here - and halted the proceedings for 120 days while the existing prisoners were reviewed. What you linked isn't the executive order, but was a memorandum about 10 months later trying to keep the ball rolling, and in fact one that _references_ 13492, where he orders it closed.

That's when he started running into problems: 

1) First, as the article you shared above states, his staff found out after the Bush Administration handed over files, that there were no comprehensive case files for the prisoners, and that each prisoner's files were "scattered throughout the executive branch," annd that these would first need to be assembled before they could do much. Since by law they weren't allowed to review classified materials until after the inauguration, they got blindsided here. 

2) Second, as I argued above and as the page I just linked in the article dated May 20th (still within the 120 day halt) points out, Congress balked, Republicans and Democrats alike, and refused to provide the $80mm Obama had asked for to close the base. Obama, as the Commander and Chief and thhe head of the Executive branch, could order Gitmo's closure, but he couldn't pay for it without Congress authorizing funds to do so. Thus far, they have refused, and as subsequent articles point out, they have added stipulations to subsequent Defense spending bills preventing him from using funds to move prisoners to the US, and from moving them to foregin countries without first meeting a number of conditions. I don't know what those conditions are, but I'm going to go out on a limb and sayy that, considering all the quotes from Republican leadership that "Gitmo remains the appropriate place to hold terrorism suspects," they were probably onerous. 

And, back to that hair splitting - this page notes in a few places that on the campaign trail, he never specified a timeline, and the first time he mentioned "one year" was in the executive order I linked. So, it's not that he _didn't_ deliver on a promise, it's that he hasn't _yet_, and he's down to about 6 months. Those are two different things. 

So, I don't know what more you wanted from him - he ordered the base closed within one year via executive order on 1/22/09, his second day in office, only to find out that Congress wouldn't authorize funds to do it. Congress controls the purse strings, the Executive branch doesn't, which is why we're still at an impasse here.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I apologize, I accidently copied and pasted the same link twice, rather than the one I was looking at in my last post. Here's what I meant to share. Read THIS one from the bottom up, since it's a series of articles in reverse order.
> 
> The Obameter: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center | PolitiFact
> 
> Basically, Obama DID order the closure - Executive Order 13492, available here - and halted the proceedings for 120 days while the existing prisoners were reviewed. What you linked isn't the executive order, but was a memorandum about 10 months later trying to keep the ball rolling, and in fact one that _references_ 13492, where he orders it closed.
> 
> That's when he started running into problems:
> 
> 1) First, as the article you shared above states, his staff found out after the Bush Administration handed over files, that there were no comprehensive case files for the prisoners, and that each prisoner's files were "scattered throughout the executive branch," annd that these would first need to be assembled before they could do much. Since by law they weren't allowed to review classified materials until after the inauguration, they got blindsided here.
> 
> 2) Second, as I argued above and as the page I just linked in the article dated May 20th (still within the 120 day halt) points out, Congress balked, Republicans and Democrats alike, and refused to provide the $80mm Obama had asked for to close the base. Obama, as the Commander and Chief and thhe head of the Executive branch, could order Gitmo's closure, but he couldn't pay for it without Congress authorizing funds to do so. Thus far, they have refused, and as subsequent articles point out, they have added stipulations to subsequent Defense spending bills preventing him from using funds to move prisoners to the US, and from moving them to foregin countries without first meeting a number of conditions. I don't know what those conditions are, but I'm going to go out on a limb and sayy that, considering all the quotes from Republican leadership that "Gitmo remains the appropriate place to hold terrorism suspects," they were probably onerous.
> 
> And, back to that hair splitting - this page notes in a few places that on the campaign trail, he never specified a timeline, and the first time he mentioned "one year" was in the executive order I linked. So, it's not that he _didn't_ deliver on a promise, it's that he hasn't _yet_, and he's down to about 6 months. Those are two different things.
> 
> So, I don't know what more you wanted from him - he ordered the base closed within one year via executive order on 1/22/09, his second day in office, only to find out that Congress wouldn't authorize funds to do it. Congress controls the purse strings, the Executive branch doesn't, which is why we're still at an impasse here.



...and the funding was to come from the Department of Defense, which is under the President's control, and which already pays more in operating costs to keeping Gitmo open than what it costs to close it.

The fact that he was re-elected pretty much throws the campaign promise out the window. If he had not been re-elected, the campaign promise would have meant nothing.

If he did everything in his power to close it, then why would he say:



Barack Obama said:


> I think I would have closed Guantanamo on the first day. I didnt at that time because we had a bipartisan agreement that it should be closed.



source


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The long lens of history will say this about Guantanamo:

America operated a torture camp outside of the laws of the Geneva convention (and probably other warfare conventions) by using technicalities like putting it in Cuba, and building soccer fields for the inmates. 

Guantanamo is our Hanoi Hilton. We even have politicians that were in torture camps who somehow aren't having a fit right now (John McCain). 

Guantanamo is a blemish on my country, unlawful drone killings are a blemish on my country, a country that used to fight wars over this ..... 

Now we don't even declare war.... we just go pick people up and put them in torture camps. It's a travesty.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

AAAANNNDDDDD!

What influence do you think the torture camp and unlawful drone killings have on our ongoing war with ISIS?

Do you think they reduce or increase the amount of terrorists willing to do us harm?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> ...and the funding was to come from the Department of Defense, which is under the President's control, and which already pays more in operating costs to keeping Gitmo open than what it costs to close it.
> 
> The fact that he was re-elected pretty much throws the campaign promise out the window. If he had not been re-elected, the campaign promise would have meant nothing.
> 
> If he did everything in his power to close it, then why would he say:
> 
> 
> 
> source



Source, on the president having authority to control Department of Defense spending? High school civics was a long time ago, but I recall Congress having pretty much carte blanc authority over spending, and that being a check against the executive branch. 

And as for that quote, I can't tell you exactly what he was thinking when he said that, but my hunch is he means that he would have shut it immediately, and not order it closed within a year. Considering he DID order it closed within a year via executive order on his second day in office, I don't know what else he could mean.

And, the article you linked goes on to outline the problem - technically, Obama COULD close it immediately... But, to do so, he'd have to veto (and sustain his veto in Congress) each year's defense spending authorization bill, which has contained language prohibiting him from using allocated funds to move prisoners held at Gitmo to the US. That's a pretty drastic move, and one I'm having a hard time faulting him from making (especially since I don't know if his veto would have held in 2009, and it certainly would have been overturned today). 

So, again, you say Obama never ordered Gitmo closed via executive order. He did. It failed because Congress would not let him use any DOD funding to close it (even if keeping it open cost more than closing it, he was prohibited from using allocated funds to move prisoners). I think you're being a little hard on him here for failing to do something he clearly tried very hard to do. 

I mean, this is the pertinent part, and this is pretty explicit: 



> Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.



Can you read that and still tell me he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Do you think they reduce or increase the amount of terrorists willing to do us harm?



I mean, quite literally, every time we kill one, there's one less. 

Drone strikes ALONE aren't a solution here, as we need to take steps to lessen the appeal of ISIS overseas, including promoting stability in the region, building infastructure and supporting economic development... But, making peaceful relations with the West more valuable while simultaneously killing off ISIS leadership with targeted drone strikes is reasonably effective.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, this is the pertinent part, and this is pretty explicit:
> 
> Can you read that and still tell me he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo?



Did I say he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo, or did I say read the executive order signed less than a week later that shuffled responsibility to cabinet members who failed to do anything about it? Or did I say that no one in his administration bothered to take steps to get it done? Or are we just going in circles?

Let's recap, maybe it'll make us both feel better that we can both be right, at least a little bit:

1. Obama signs an executive order to close Gitmo.
2. The executive office administration can't find Bush's documentation regarding the prisoners there.
3. Obama signs another executive order delegating a bunch of stuff to his cabinet.
4. The cabinet refuses to do what they were told.
5. Gitmo doesn't get closed.

I think where we differ is who is to blame. Is congress to blame? Is Obama to blame? Is the cabinet to blame? No one can tell me Gitmo was closed as promised. Is Obama responsible for the lack of follow through? Is congress to blame for refusing to cooperate? Is the cabinet responsible for dropping the ball? I say yes, yes, and yes. I guess you say no, yes, and no.


----------



## synrgy

bostjan said:


> Did I say he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo





bostjan said:


> If he wanted to close Gitmo, all he'd have to do is write up an executive order to do so; it's actually well within the president's power, and outside of congress's power.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Did I say he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo, or did I say read the executive order signed less than a week later that shuffled responsibility to cabinet members who failed to do anything about it? Or did I say that no one in his administration bothered to take steps to get it done? Or are we just going in circles?
> 
> Let's recap, maybe it'll make us both feel better that we can both be right, at least a little bit:
> 
> 1. Obama signs an executive order to close Gitmo.
> 2. The executive office administration can't find Bush's documentation regarding the prisoners there.
> 3. Obama signs another executive order delegating a bunch of stuff to his cabinet.
> 4. The cabinet refuses to do what they were told.
> 5. Gitmo doesn't get closed.
> 
> I think where we differ is who is to blame. Is congress to blame? Is Obama to blame? Is the cabinet to blame? No one can tell me Gitmo was closed as promised. Is Obama responsible for the lack of follow through? Is congress to blame for refusing to cooperate? Is the cabinet responsible for dropping the ball? I say yes, yes, and yes. I guess you say no, yes, and no.



It's possible you may have inadvertently written something that sounded like it was saying something different than what you meant, but, yes, it looked rather a lot like you said Obama never signed an executive order to close Gitmo. He did, so I linked it for you. He then seems to have realized it wasn't as easy as simply signing an executive order, which is why we have the mess that followed.

But, if you do agree that #1 did happen, I think where we're disagreeing is #4 - I don't think it was a matter of his cabinet disobeying orders, so much as not being _able_ to follow through, because Congress decided to use their "power of the purse" to stop them from going through with it. 

And, I think that may be the other area where we're disagreeing - Obama DOESN'T have carte blanc ability to spend money from the Department of Defense budget on whatever he wants - Congress sets that budget, and can impose controls on how and where it can be spent. Which they did. 

So, are we closer to being on the same page? I don't like Gitmo any more than you do, and I'd love to see it closed, but looking at what went down, it's hard to not come away with the impression that Obama made a good-faith effort to get the base closed.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> It's possible you may have inadvertently written something that sounded like it was saying something different than what you meant, but, yes, it looked rather a lot like you said Obama never signed an executive order to close Gitmo. He did, so I linked it for you. He then seems to have realized it wasn't as easy as simply signing an executive order, which is why we have the mess that followed.
> 
> But, if you do agree that #1 did happen, I think where we're disagreeing is #4 - I don't think it was a matter of his cabinet disobeying orders, so much as not being _able_ to follow through, because Congress decided to use their "power of the purse" to stop them from going through with it.
> 
> And, I think that may be the other area where we're disagreeing - Obama DOESN'T have carte blanc ability to spend money from the Department of Defense budget on whatever he wants - Congress sets that budget, and can impose controls on how and where it can be spent. Which they did.
> 
> So, are we closer to being on the same page? I don't like Gitmo any more than you do, and I'd love to see it closed, but looking at what went down, it's hard to not come away with the impression that Obama made a good-faith effort to get the base closed.



I think we are on the same page. I think there's one word or clause on that same page that is different, and I think that another user here has pointed that out already. Unfortunately, both of us feel pretty strongly and oppositely about that word or phrase.

If you'd allow me to take a step back:

Gitmo was opened by the US DoD for the purpose of detaining people without trial, torturing people, and keeping secrets. It was the executive branch that was responsible for creating the facility. Obama's promise to shut down the facility was taken (obviously many of us were wrong) to mean that the parts about holding people without trial, torture, and maybe even keeping secrets about detainees were all going to go away. Moving the detainees to Illinois and continuing the lack of due process and continuing the torture does not address the root problem with Gitmo.

Congress and the President played a gambit with each other. I think the whole thing is ridiculous, so I'm not going to side with either, because liberty and justice suffer either way.

But, Gitmo is the DoD's baby, it remains the DoD's baby, and the DoD reports to the Secretary of Defense, who reports to Obama, who reports to voters like you and me. I'm stonewalled at the fact that the buck stops at Obama, since that's the highest concentration of power regarding the issue. If Obama wanted to make Gitmo go away, he makes the order, and if those who receive the order don't do it, he's also responsible for replacing them with someone who will. To believe that any person can snap his fingers and make the entire facility vanish is ludicrous, but I really do not see how Obama was presented with any insurmountable roadblock to make the facility cease functionality.

For our reference, here is the excerpt Senate Bill in question, passed May of 2009:



US H.R.2346 Title XIV said:


> (Sec. 14103) Prohibits any funds from being used to release an individual who is detained, as of the date of enactment of this Act, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or the District of Columbia. Prohibits any such release for the purpose of detaining or prosecuting any such individual until 45 days after Congress receives from the President a plan regarding the proposed disposition. Requires the plan to include: (1) the risk to national security posed by the transfer; (2) costs associated with transferring an individual; (3) the legal rationale and associated court demands for transfer; (4) a plan to mitigate transfer risk; and (5) a copy of a notification to the governor of the state to which an individual will be transferred (or Mayor, with respect to the District of Columbia) with a certification by the Attorney General that the individual poses little or no security risk.
> 
> Prohibits any funds from being used to transfer or release such an individual to the country of such individual's nationality or last residence, or to any country other than the United States, unless the President submits to Congress, at least 15 days prior to such release or transfer: (1) the name of the individual and the country involved; (2) an assessment of the risk to U.S. national security posed by the transfer or release, as well as actions taken to mitigate such risk; and (3) the terms of any agreement with another country for the acceptance of such individual, including any financial assistance related to the agreement.
> 
> Directs the President, prior to termination of detention operations at Guantanamo Bay, to report to Congress describing the disposition or legal status of each individual detained there.



source

So, and I don't agree with congress on this, the law states that the President has to issue a report on each prisoner to be released, before the prisoner is released. Also, keep in mind that this bill had wide bipartisan support, I reserve the right to argue later that Democrats and Republicans both participated in this gambit, at a later time.

My problem with this debate is that it keeps coming back to the President and his lackeys (the cabinet) being sinless in this mess. But, evidence is significant that he/they is/are not. That's my main point, and everyone and their brother here wants to disagree with me on that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that it's correct to get the issues all conflated and mixed up, or to try to red herring the discussion into something else in order to try to "gotcha" me by putting words in my mouth, then quoting what I actually said and implying that it is something else:


synrgy said:


> bostjan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say he never signed an executive order to close Gitmo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bostjan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he wanted to close Gitmo, all he'd have to do is write up an executive order to do so; it's actually well within the president's power, and outside of congress's power.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree there is a lot of goal-post adjusting going on here, but I am not the guilty party, nor are you, nor Drew. The user who regularly argues this way keeps making appearances in this thread getting me fired up, which is my own fault. At any rate, I'm a little sad that you made the accusation, but I'll get over it. 

From my perspective, the discussion goes like this (just for fun, heavily paraphrased, as my intent is not to show accuracy here):

Me: Obama wasn't so bad
Other guy: No, Obama was horrible for lying (about closing Gitmo) and killing and ignoring due process
Other other guy: But congress didn't let him close Gitmo
Me: He should not have promised to close Gitmo if he didn't have the ability to do it, and not following due process is bad, but everybody's been doing it anyway.
Everyone in this thread (including me) repeating themselves a lot and generally disagreeing with me, while other guy and other other guy pop in and out.

My stance is this:

1. Gitmo is a big deal. To say that I hate the idea of my country having a torture camp somewhere on foreign soil to detain innocent and guilty people alike and torture them all would be an understatement.
2. Obama promised to close Gitmo in his campaign for election.
3. Obama got re-elected
4. Gitmo is still open. I do not feel sufficiently reassured that the part about innocent people being detained and possibly tortured has stopped happening.
5. I'm pretty upset with Obama about that, as well as other parties involved.


----------



## synrgy

I will readily concede that my goal-post interpretation may have been predicated on a misunderstanding of your initial post on the subject. Thanks for taking it in stride. Was intended for levity more than anything.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, and I don't agree with congress on this, the law states that the President has to issue a report on each prisoner to be released, before the prisoner is released. Also, keep in mind that this bill had wide bipartisan support, I reserve the right to argue later that Democrats and Republicans both participated in this gambit, at a later time.
> 
> My problem with this debate is that it keeps coming back to the President and his lackeys (the cabinet) being sinless in this mess. But, evidence is significant that he/they is/are not. That's my main point, and everyone and their brother here wants to disagree with me on that, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that it's correct to get the issues all conflated and mixed up, or to try to red herring the discussion into something else in order to try to "gotcha" me by putting words in my mouth, then quoting what I actually said and implying that it is something else:
> I agree there is a lot of goal-post adjusting going on here, but I am not the guilty party, nor are you, nor Drew. The user who regularly argues this way keeps making appearances in this thread getting me fired up, which is my own fault. At any rate, I'm a little sad that you made the accusation, but I'll get over it.



Let's focus on this section, then, because I think a lot of the rest we're either in agreement, or in the areas we disagree, not likely to sway the other. 

I fully agree with you that BOTH Democrats and Republicans are at fault for the ways in which Congress tried (and I use "tried" intentionally - we both agree, I think, that Congress did their damndest to make it hard for Obama to close Gitmo, regardless of how we feel about Congress's later inaction). I'm not happy about that either, as I consider the whole thing a blot against everything this country stands for. 

I think, then, where we're mostly disagreeing is how we're evaluating Obama's failure. He failed to close Gitmo in his first term, and it's shaping up to, despite making good progress shrinking it, still be open at the end of his second. I suspect where we disagree is in degree; I think this is mostly a product of Obama being naive and not realizing Congress was going to make it very, very hard on him, and am a little more inclined to give him a pass for that - best intentions, but couldn't get the ball over the goal line. I think you're arguing that, if he said he was going to do it, he should have found some way to do that. I don't think that's entirely fair, since I don't know how you do this without spending a dime, but at the end ot he day the ball isn't getting over the goal line no matter how you look at it. 

Like, I don't know if we'd be in a different position today if he'd fired the members of his cabinet he tasked with moving prisoners, in December of 2009, you know? I think if he wanted to get this done, he would have had to keep vetoing defense spending bills until he got a clean one, and I don't know if that wouldn't be a treatment worse than the cure. 

Anyway, apologies for prior misunderstandings about thinking you were denying he ever signed an executive order. It gets a little tough over the net sometimes.


----------



## bostjan

No problem here.

Here's what should have happened: Obama should have sworn in, and closed the facility, immediately returned the detainees whence they came, outlawed torture, pulled out of the middle east, and stuck to playing hardball when it comes to things of highly dubious international legality.

Here's what we got: Obama sworn in, signed an executive order to make preparations for thinking about closing the facility, signed another order less than a week later pulling his punches, signed another executive order after that halted the process of closing the facility by acknowledging that some detainees needed to be held as prisoners of war, balked a little (IMO) about outlawing torture (but *did* follow through), slowly withdrew from Iraq, and tried to compromise with the idiots in congress to make them happy when he should have known full well that they would never be happy as long as they held seats that they could continue holding as long as they made people unhappy.

Well, frankly, I am unhappy about that, because it failed to meet my expectations. It sounds as though you are not much happier about it than I am. I blame everyone involved: Bush and Rumsfeld and their guys for creating this piece of political toxic waste, Obama and his guys for not disposing of it immediately, congress for being complacent and then getting in the way of taking care of business, and the list goes on. I'm not even going to rank my list of people who ....ed up, other than to put Bush at #1, since he started the whole huge mess, but no way am I going to give Obama a pass


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Here's what we got: Obama sworn in, signed an executive order to make preparations for thinking about closing the facility, signed another order less than a week later pulling his punches, signed another executive order after that halted the process of closing the facility by acknowledging that some detainees needed to be held as prisoners of war,



I'm a little confused by this - that first executive order was to close the facility, "as soon as feasible, but within one year," on the second day of his term. What's the second one "pulling his punches," you're referring to? 

What you're suggesting is basically Obama should have closed it before Congress had the chance to react and try to stop him. I don't know if he could have - to close the base, given that it employed 2,000 troops, he would have had to present a case to congress demonstrating it's impact, and given then 90 days before he actually proceeded to closer the base and transfer troops and prisoners (which would have taken some time to complete, especially because of the shambles Bush left this in). With the benefit of hindsight I'd have preferred this too, but only because I would have enjoyed watching Congress scramble - I think they would have responded in much the same way, to block him. 

I really think Obama's single biggest failure here, trying to close Gitmo, was not realizing the limitations on Executive branch power, and/or thinking Congress would work with him. He either overestimated what he could do alone, or thought he'd have congressional support, and it's hard to fault him TOO much for that.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Here's what should have happened: Obama should have sworn in, and closed the facility, immediately *returned the detainees whence they came*, outlawed torture, pulled out of the middle east, and stuck to playing hardball when it comes to things of highly dubious international legality.



What does "returned the detainees whence they came" mean in this context? Does it mean "released," as in "you're free to go now?" Or does it mean "we're handing you over to the authorities in your home nation or the nation in which you were captured," most of which have much worse records than the US when it comes to due process and human rights?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'm a little confused by this - that first executive order was to close the facility, "as soon as feasible, but within one year," on the second day of his term. What's the second one "pulling his punches," you're referring to?





bostjan said:


> Obama did sign an executive order, not to close the facility, but to grant the power of some cabinet members to move the detainees.
> Not the house, but his own cabinet refused to follow through.



Referring to the memo in the link provided, and to executive order 13567.



Drew said:


> What you're suggesting is basically Obama should have closed it before Congress had the chance to react and try to stop him. I don't know if he could have - to close the base, given that it employed 2,000 troops, he would have had to present a case to congress demonstrating it's impact, and given then 90 days before he actually proceeded to closer the base and transfer troops and prisoners (which would have taken some time to complete, especially because of the shambles Bush left this in). With the benefit of hindsight I'd have preferred this too, but only because I would have enjoyed watching Congress scramble - I think they would have responded in much the same way, to block him.
> 
> I really think Obama's single biggest failure here, trying to close Gitmo, was not realizing the limitations on Executive branch power, and/or thinking Congress would work with him. He either overestimated what he could do alone, or thought he'd have congressional support, and it's hard to fault him TOO much for that.





Candidate Obama said:


> Why don't we close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus, because that's how we lead, not with the might of our military, but the power of our ideals and the power of our values? It's time to show the world we're not a country that ships prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far off countries.





Candidate Obama said:


> As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.





President Obama said:


> The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable and no later than one year from the date of this order.





President Obama said:


> There shall be established a Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition (Special Task Force) to identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.





President Obama said:


> ...the status of those detainees designated by the Executive Order 13492 review as eligible for transfer if one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) the security situation improves in Yemen; (2) an appropriate rehabilitation program becomes available; or (3) an appropriate third-country resettlement option becomes available.



So we went from Gitmo needs to be closed ASAP, to Gitmo closes in a year, to we need a task force to think about how to go about closing Gitmo, to we will close Gitmo once a bunch of other stuff happens.

Also, Bush opened Gitmo. Did he .... around with congress when he did it?



celticelk said:


> What does "returned the detainees whence they came" mean in this context? Does it mean "released," as in "you're free to go now?" Or does it mean "we're handing you over to the authorities in your home nation or the nation in which you were captured," most of which have much worse records than the US when it comes to due process and human rights?



It means you put them where you found them. If you have no writ of habeas corpus, then why are you detaining them? If Bush/Rumsfeld can pluck them from wherever, why doesn't Obama have the power to put them back? And...if you disagree, I'd like to see what your plan is, and how it compares to Obama's campaign promises above.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> It means you put them where you found them. If you have no writ of habeas corpus, then why are you detaining them? If Bush/Rumsfeld can pluck them from wherever, why doesn't Obama have the power to put them back? And...if you disagree, I'd like to see what your plan is, and how it compares to Obama's campaign promises above.



The government doesn't have to have a writ of _habeas corpus_ to detain someone. The detainee exercises his right to petition for a writ of _habeas corpus_, by which the government compels his jailers to produce him to a court for the purpose of determining whether his imprisonment is lawful. Guantanamo detainees have had this right since the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 (Boumediene v. Bush) that Constitutional rights were in effect at Guantanamo.

As far as "putting them back" - yes, Obama has the power to simply release the imprisoned. As a general solution, that's a really bad idea. Some of the detainees may be wrongfully imprisoned, but you also have undoubted bad actors like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed imprisoned at Guantanamo. Ideally, these guys would be treated like maximum-security prisoners within US federal prisons, where their jailers and interrogators can be carefully monitored under civilian standards of accountability while they await trial, but as we've established, Congress keeps nixing that idea. Some of the detainees can't be feasibly sent back to their home countries even if we determine that they're innocent - China is not very hospitable to the Muslim Uyghurs, for example. I don't know the right thing to do here. I believe that it's not as easy as you're making it out to be, but that's just, like, my opinion.


----------



## Given To Fly

I'm sure "the wall" has been discussed already but I have couple of things I need to say. 
First, I live closer to the border than most people. Its simple geography. Right now, the local news tells us we have a shabby fence and a few spots of a solid wall with nice footholds and crevice making it easy to climb over, realize you've been seen, climb back over, wait a while, and climb over to the U.S side again. 

Here is how I see it, if a wall is to be built, lets build a proper wall. What is a proper wall you may ask?
1. It would automatically be considered the 8th man made wonder of the world.
2. It would easily seen from space. 
3. Mexico would be equally proud of the grandeur of the wall.

Some people may think this sounds crazy. But whats crazier, "We will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!!" (which actually means its Mexico's wall and they paid the U.S to build it...) or "Hi Mexico! Lets collaborate on building the 8th man made wonder of the world: the greatest wall ever imagined, something we both can be proud of, and U.S will contribute a lot of money." 

A wall is decisive, unless the two sides it is dividing happen to be proud of the wall, in which case it is unifying.


----------



## big_aug

It still boggles my mind that the two major candidates for President of the United States of America are:

1) A con artist who out right lies and makes racist, xenophobic comments regularly and in front of the entire country.

2) An individual who is the subject of an FBI criminal investigation.

I turn on the news and see a story about either candidate and contemplate how the candidacy for these individuals would have been completely over in a previous elections.

It's hard to get over it. Man, how low are we going to go.


----------



## FEcorvus

big_aug said:


> It still boggles my mind that the two major candidates for President of the United States of America are:
> 
> 1) A con artist who out right lies and makes racist, xenophobic comments regularly and in front of the entire country.
> 
> 2) An individual who is the subject of an FBI criminal investigation.
> 
> I turn on the news and see a story about either candidate and contemplate how the candidacy for these individuals would have been completely over in a previous elections.
> 
> It's hard to get over it. Man, how low are we going to go.



if we make it to 2020 Kanye thinks he's going to run that's how low
it really boggles my mind that instead of voting 3rd party this time around most are just committing to voting party line because their candidate is "not that other piece of .... running"

if there were ever an election to kill the 2 party system and get an actual variety of candidates and end this stale ass system we have now that allows these 2 clowns to get their chance....this would be it 
why must the public cling so stubbornly to the idea it has to be one of these two


----------



## big_aug

I still believe Trump's candidacy was nothing more than a publicity stunt for the Trump brand. The moons aligned and he actually has a chance to win lol.


----------



## bostjan

Given To Fly said:


> 2. It would easily seen from space.



The anecdote that the Great Wall of China is visible from space is a myth. [/the more you know]



FEcorvus said:


> if we make it to 2020 Kanye thinks he's going to run that's how low
> it really boggles my mind that instead of voting 3rd party this time around most are just committing to voting party line because their candidate is "not that other piece of .... running"
> 
> if there were ever an election to kill the 2 party system and get an actual variety of candidates and end this stale ass system we have now that allows these 2 clowns to get their chance....this would be it
> why must the public cling so stubbornly to the idea it has to be one of these two



The 2 party system is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that mandates it, and the only reason it affects people's voting behaviour is that people believe that it affects people's voting behaviour.

I'm sick of celebrities who are celebrities because these celebrities think that they are celebrities, music that is popular because the music industry says it should be popular, and the two-party system that is in place because people think it is in place.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Referring to the memo in the link provided, and to executive order 13567.
> 
> 
> So we went from Gitmo needs to be closed ASAP, to Gitmo closes in a year, to we need a task force to think about how to go about closing Gitmo, to we will close Gitmo once a bunch of other stuff happens.
> 
> Also, Bush opened Gitmo. Did he .... around with congress when he did it?



On your latter point, I think it's the reverse - Congress didn't mess around with Bush when he started transferring prisoners there. Transferring prisoners from Cuba to US soil, however, is a little more controversial. 

And, reading that executive order, really what that order did wasn't outsource the problem to his AG, it was to identify a base to hold the prisoners and authorize his AG to do what he needed to bring it back up to operational status and transfer the prisoners. I suspect the problem was twofold - one, Thomson, IL didn't WANT terrorism suspects held there, and two, the bigger one, that Congress refused to release funds to reactivate the prison, which they'd already reserved the right to do in previous spending bills. 

And, even the Wikipedia page says the reason the detention center is still open is Congress refuses to release funds for use in its closure. It's not like I'm talking out of my butt here, it's that Obama has really reached the limit of executive power here. If you have a problem with him for promising to do something that, as it turned out, wasn't fully within his power, that's fine, but I think when he said he wanted to close Gitmo, it was entirely in good faith and he's just as surprised by this as you are.


----------



## Drew

big_aug said:


> It still boggles my mind that the two major candidates for President of the United States of America are:
> 
> 1) A con artist who out right lies and makes racist, xenophobic comments regularly and in front of the entire country.
> 
> 2) An individual who is the subject of an FBI criminal investigation.
> 
> I turn on the news and see a story about either candidate and contemplate how the candidacy for these individuals would have been completely over in a previous elections.
> 
> It's hard to get over it. Man, how low are we going to go.



Well, I've got some good news for you on #2.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> Well, I've got some good news for you on #2.



Yup: FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe - POLITICO


----------



## FEcorvus

bostjan said:


> The 2 party system is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that mandates it, and the only reason it affects people's voting behaviour is that people believe that it affects people's voting behaviour.
> 
> I'm sick of celebrities who are celebrities because these celebrities think that they are celebrities, music that is popular because the music industry says it should be popular, and the two-party system that is in place because people think it is in place.



well said


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> The 2 party system is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that mandates it, and the only reason it affects people's voting behaviour is that people believe that it affects people's voting behaviour.
> 
> I'm sick of celebrities who are celebrities because these celebrities think that they are celebrities, music that is popular because the music industry says it should be popular, and the two-party system that is in place because people think it is in place.



Hear hear!


----------



## celticelk

The two-party system may not be legally mandated, but as long as US elections are run with a first-past-the-post/winner-take-all system, that's what we're going to have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> The anecdote that the Great Wall of China is visible from space is a myth. [/the more you know]
> 
> The 2 party system is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that mandates it, and the only reason it affects people's voting behaviour is that people believe that it affects people's voting behaviour.
> 
> I'm sick of celebrities who are celebrities because these celebrities think that they are celebrities, music that is popular because the music industry says it should be popular, and the two-party system that is in place because people think it is in place.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> The 2 party system is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that mandates it, and the only reason it affects people's voting behaviour is that people believe that it affects people's voting behaviour.
> 
> I'm sick of celebrities who are celebrities because these celebrities think that they are celebrities,




The US dollar's value is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that ties it to gold, silver or anything else of intrinsic value; it is fiat currency, and the only reason it affects people's buying power is that people believe that it has value and affects people's buying power.

I'm sick of currencies that are valuable because people think that they are valuable.


----------



## bostjan

You laugh, but there are many out there who feel that way, and technically, they are correct. If people lose confidence in the currency, the value of the currency drops. And you had better believe that if someone with no sense of large scale economics, i.e. Trump, there will be a real threat that the value of the dollar will decrease beyond what would be possible had it remained tied to a precious metal.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> The US dollar's value is a superstition. There's nothing in the law that ties it to gold, silver or anything else of intrinsic value; it is fiat currency, and the only reason it affects people's buying power is that people believe that it has value and affects people's buying power.
> 
> I'm sick of currencies that are valuable because people think that they are valuable.



Will you accept it if I just keep this short and merely say that tying a currency to a physical commodity like gold is cataclysmicly, epically stupid, or do I have to actually take the time to give you reasons and spell it out? 

Because, it is. Keep in mind that this is kind of what I do for a living.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Will you accept it if I just keep this short and merely say that tying a currency to a physical commodity like gold is cataclysmicly, epically stupid, or do I have to actually take the time to give you reasons and spell it out?
> 
> Because, it is. Keep in mind that this is kind of what I do for a living.



Currency all started out tied to commodities, such as gold and silver. Bad things happened to economies, and since coming off the gold standard bad things continued to happen.

I would not go so far as to suggest that we should even consider going back on the gold standard, but if the US economy did collapse, there would be no reason to believe unbacked dollars would be worth ....


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Currency all started out tied to commodities, such as gold and silver. Bad things happened to economies, and since coming off the gold standard bad things continued to happen.
> 
> I would not go so far as to suggest that we should even consider going back on the gold standard, but if the US economy did collapse, there would be no reason to believe unbacked dollars would be worth ....



No, but if the US economy did collapse, there's also no reason to believe gold-backed dollars would be worth anything, either. Given a total collapse of the US financial system, and with it - let's be honest - the US government and rule of law, who in their right mind would exchange dollars for gold? 

I mean, even so-called "non-fiat currencies" backed by some hard "store of value" are ultimately fiat, since their value depends on the strength of the belief of the issuing body's willingness to honor their commitment to back them. 

Personally, I think just calling a spade a spade, making the value of a currency explicitly the strength of that commitment, and then freeing the currency from non-monetary fluctuations in value related to economic pressures on the underlying commodity - as a hypothetical, what would happen to the value of a gold-backed dollar if the Russian government announced the proven existence of previously-unknown gold reserves tripling the world's known stores, crushing the price of gold, or if industrial demand for gold went through the roof due to technological change and the value tripled overnight - makes a lot more economic sense, and allows for a more stable monetary policy.

EDIT - I'd also split hairs here and say that currencies started out as an _alternative_ to commodities, which themselves started off as an alternative to direct barter.


----------



## bostjan

I'm sure I'll get flamed for the history lesson, but, if you recall, the early USA did not have dollars, but several different forms of currency. Each state had its own unbacked (fiat) notes, and there were also many Spanish Pesos in circulation, which were made of silver. State notes depreciated drastically and became completely worthless by the time the US Dollar (which took its name from the German name of the Peso, "Thaler," and it's symbol from the Spanish Peso symbol, "$") was introduced. The US dollar was tied to the price of silver off and on, but remained a viable currency ever since.

If the coins in your pocket are made of silver, then it's a non-issue, but if the money in your bank account is tied to silver, and your bank collapses, then you are still S.O.L., but, at least if you can manage to nab your silver before things completely deteriorate, you would have that. Then again, if things become completely dire and apocalyptic, then neither silver nor gold will do you a heck of a lot of good.

I just think that the statements here tend to not follow each other in a one-to-one manner. I say that the two party system is no good for us, because we end up with Trumps vs Clinton, and compare it to Paris Hilton, and another user sarcastically compares my comparison to the fiat nature of the US dollar, and then you come in with a declaration that gold-backed currency is unworkable. Now I feel I should try to either get the analogies to come full circle, or try to steer it toward wizards and dragons.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for the history lesson, but, if you recall, the early USA did not have dollars, but several different forms of currency. Each state had its own unbacked (fiat) notes, and there were also many Spanish Pesos in circulation, which were made of silver. State notes depreciated drastically and became completely worthless by the time the US Dollar (which took its name from the German name of the Peso, "Thaler," and it's symbol from the Spanish Peso symbol, "$") was introduced. The US dollar was tied to the price of silver off and on, but remained a viable currency ever since.
> 
> If the coins in your pocket are made of silver, then it's a non-issue, but if the money in your bank account is tied to silver, and your bank collapses, then you are still S.O.L., but, at least if you can manage to nab your silver before things completely deteriorate, you would have that. Then again, if things become completely dire and apocalyptic, then neither silver nor gold will do you a heck of a lot of good.
> 
> I just think that the statements here tend to not follow each other in a one-to-one manner. I say that the two party system is no good for us, because we end up with Trumps vs Clinton, and compare it to Paris Hilton, and another user sarcastically compares my comparison to the fiat nature of the US dollar, and then you come in with a declaration that gold-backed currency is unworkable. Now I feel I should try to either get the analogies to come full circle, or try to steer it toward wizards and dragons.



Well, the early states weren't exactly strong, dependable, and robust currencies whose word was worth all that much.  

I'm trying to think of a way to get this onto wizards and dragons. Let me brainstorm a bit, I'm SURE we can do this.


----------



## big_aug

Hilary looks just absolutely awful after this Senate hearing with Comey. I can't vote for her. She may not have committed crimes, but damn does she look completely incompetent.

So we are ....ed this election cycle. I really feel like we need someone else to run third party. Beyond libertarian. Someone who could at least pull a decent amount of votes. I can't believe this is where we're at choosing our president. 

Neither one of these candidates should even be in the race. It's as if rules that govern behavior and how we judge people don't apply at all this election.


----------



## MFB

big_aug said:


> So we are ....ed this election cycle. I really feel like we need someone else to run third party. Beyond libertarian. Someone who could at least pull a decent amount of votes



Quick, someone call Ross Perot!


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Will you accept it if I just keep this short





bostjan said:


> another user sarcastically compares my comparison to the fiat nature of the US dollar



Just having a bit of fun (notice the smiley) while trying to illustrate the power of belief. I can use religion as an alternate example, but I'm not yet sure how to get to wizards and/or dragons. Let me work on that.


----------



## FEcorvus

big_aug said:


> Hilary looks just absolutely awful after this Senate hearing with Comey. I can't vote for her. She may not have committed crimes, but damn does she look completely incompetent.
> 
> So we are ....ed this election cycle. I really feel like we need someone else to run third party. Beyond libertarian. Someone who could at least pull a decent amount of votes. I can't believe this is where we're at choosing our president.
> 
> Neither one of these candidates should even be in the race. It's as if rules that govern behavior and how we judge people don't apply at all this election.



Gary Johnson is a libertarian and pulled nearly 1% last election, that's quite a bit for a third party


----------



## Drew

Honestly, at this point I'd RATHER talk about wizards and dragons than US politics.  



Targaryen/Snow 2012. Fire and Blood is coming!


----------



## TemjinStrife

Drew said:


> Honestly, at this point I'd RATHER talk about wizards and dragons than US politics.
> 
> 
> 
> Targaryen/Snow 2012. Fire and Blood is coming!



Well, closer to Ice and Fire. A song, thereof, perhaps?


----------



## BlackSG91

Here is Donald Trump after he is elected which will take attention off his small hands!


----------



## Drew

That is REALLY disturbing, somehow!


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Bernie endorses Hillary

This was the right move.


----------



## synrgy

Yeah. I saw a fair bit of outrage bubble up on my feed yesterday, regarding that. As one who voted for him in my State's primary, I don't get it:

Having lost the popular vote by just shy of 4 _million_, there are two clear options left at this stage:


A diminished voice
No voice at all

Seems like a no-brainer, to me.


----------



## sharedEQ

big_aug said:


> Hilary looks just absolutely awful after this Senate hearing with Comey. I can't vote for her. She may not have committed crimes, but damn does she look completely incompetent.
> 
> So we are ....ed this election cycle. I really feel like we need someone else to run third party. Beyond libertarian. Someone who could at least pull a decent amount of votes. I can't believe this is where we're at choosing our president.
> 
> Neither one of these candidates should even be in the race. It's as if rules that govern behavior and how we judge people don't apply at all this election.



Regardless of how you feel about Trump, he did something remarkable. He is an outsider who hijacked the Republican party.

We have a true outsider on the presidential ballot for the first time since... ?

He has been engaged in complex business ventures his entire life, that kind of education should be worth something when applying for the job of running the country. When people discount his experience, they are basically saying that only "career politicians" are qualified to hold office. God help us if that is true.

I don't think Trump is any less moral or capable than any of his business peers, but he is one of the only people from his generation who was able to "master" new forms of social media. He should be recognized for that accomplishment. Who knew when he was running The Apprentice that he was developing political capital?


----------



## wankerness

sharedEQ said:


> Regardless of how you feel about Trump, he did something remarkable. He is an outsider who hijacked the Republican party.
> 
> We have a true outsider on the presidential ballot for the first time since... ?



I kind of feel like by the time he gets in office, he might as well not be an outsider at all. Maybe I've watched season 4 of The Wire too many times. I'm sure he'll still be a loudmouth idiot and infuriate all other countries, though. As long as he doesn't start getting into big dick contests with the likes of middle eastern countries or especially Russia, I suppose. Him and Putin in a room together would be a recipe for disaster. Or maybe they'd love each other, who knows.

EDIT:


----------



## celticelk

sharedEQ said:


> He has been engaged in complex business ventures his entire life, that kind of education should be worth something when applying for the job of running the country. When people discount his experience, they are basically saying that only "career politicians" are qualified to hold office. God help us if that is true.



His experience in filing lawsuits, going bankrupt, and screwing over his contractors? That's not the kind of experience America needs in the White House. Then there's his appalling inability to articulate anything that actually sort of looks like a policy proposal....


----------



## tedtan

sharedEQ said:


> He has been engaged in complex business ventures his entire life, that kind of education should be worth something when applying for the job of running the country. When people discount his experience, they are basically saying that only "career politicians" are qualified to hold office. God help us if that is true.



I disagree.

Trump is a successful businessman, and I think he's a lot smarter than most on SSO give him credit for. I also think he's merely talking a lot sh1t in order to drum up support (because that's something he's always been good at) rather than actually intent on following through with any of his asinine ideas (e.g., building a wall between the US and Mexico or bankrupting the US government).

Having said that, let's look at his experience.

He's the CEO of his company, so he's accustomed to dictating what will be done to his employees and they go along with it because they want to keep their jobs. When he makes a deal on a new business venture, he typically finds a distressed property in need of help and swoops in to "save" it. In this capacity, he's able to dictate what will be done and the terms of the deal and the seller is so desperate they'll go along with it. Then, once he's actually bought the entity via heavily leveraged buyout (lots of debt), he uses the bankruptcy laws to his advantage by filing for a reorganization style bankruptcy (chapter 13) in order to reorganize the debt and produce more cash flow for himself. How can he do this? The bank would rather get their money back at a later date than originally promised rather then lose it in a liquidation bankruptcy (chapter 7). Because of this, the bankers are (somewhat) desperate and Trump is able to dictate the terms of the reorganization (note that he wasn't able to dictate these terms up front in the initial financing stage of the acquisition, only once he has some power).

What is the common element in all of that? He puts himself in a position of dominance over the other party and dictates the outcome, which the other party has little option other than to accept.

That approach won't work in politics. Obama has tried numerous times to close Guantanomo through executive order, but has been stymied by the republicans each time. Why? Obama is not in a position to dictate the outcome in such situations. No president will be - congress is. And to get congress on your side, you have to work with them, not dictate to them.

And this gets even more important with international relations. The only time the US would be able to dictate terms to another country is if 1) we've defeated them in a war, 2) they've been invaded by a third country and need our military help, or 3) their entire economy is so dependent upon sales to the US that it will collapse without our continued purchasing. And how often are we truly in such situations?

In short, the president doesn't have the ability to dictate in most situations; he has to be a diplomat in order to win support for his ideas and win people to his side. And without the ability to dictate the outcome, Trump won't be a success in any given venture. As such, Trump won't be a successful president. That role is just not a good match for his personality and personal style.


----------



## sharedEQ

tedtan said:


> What is the common element in all of that? He puts himself in a position of dominance over the other party and dictates the outcome, which the other party has little option other than to accept.



I think you need to look at the diversity of enterprises Trump has been involved in. Perhaps he has converted some distressed properties, and played the bankruptcy laws (the way they were designed to be played), but also he builds new properties and was involved in television and has mastered new forms of social media.

All the businessmen of his ilk are "alpha" and operating from a position of dominance. Are you saying that businessmen are incapable of understanding and working within the nuances of the government? It sounds like you are arguing for career politicians.

I live in the DC area and the people who enter public service are several levels of talent below those who enter private sector. You have people who are bottom of the barrel from a talent perspective with high positions in government agencies. Its appaling.

Its not clear to me that someone like Hillary would have even survived in the private sector. Her sense of entitlement and willingness to break rules would have got her dick punched many times over in the private sector.

Career politician means nothing to me. Just someone who knows how to read speeches and pander to voters.


----------



## tedtan

sharedEQ said:


> I think you need to look at the diversity of enterprises Trump has been involved in. Perhaps he has converted some distressed properties, and played the bankruptcy laws (the way they were designed to be played), but also he builds new properties and was involved in television and has mastered new forms of social media.



I find Trump and his company an interesting business case study, so I'm familiar with his holdings and his typical business tactics. 

What I'm not familiar with is your statement that he "has mastered new forms of social media"; care to elaborate on that one?




sharedEQ said:


> All the businessmen of his ilk are "alpha" and operating from a position of dominance.



While this is true, it is not relevant to my comment. There is a big difference between this and only being able to make things happen when you have the other guy by the balls.




sharedEQ said:


> Are you saying that businessmen are incapable of understanding and working within the nuances of the government? It sounds like you are arguing for career politicians.



You can do better than that - I never said either of those things. 

What I said is that 1) Trump is no diplomat, and 2) diplomacy is a necessary skill for someone in the office of POTUS.




sharedEQ said:


> I live in the DC area and the people who enter public service are several levels of talent below those who enter private sector. You have people who are bottom of the barrel from a talent perspective with high positions in government agencies. Its appaling.



I'm not surprised by this. 




sharedEQ said:


> Its not clear to me that someone like Hillary would have even survived in the private sector. Her sense of entitlement and willingness to break rules would have got her dick punched many times over in the private sector.



Perhaps, but Trump (as just one example) has done pretty well for himself in spite of his sense of entitlement and his willingness to break rules, so I don't see how these two characteristics in particular would stymie Hillary.




sharedEQ said:


> pander to voters.



This is exactly what Trump has been doing all along, career politician or not. He hasn't provided the slightest bit of policy, he just spews BS. How are the following not mere pandering to bigots?

- Build a wall between the US and Mexico and make Mexico pay for it;

- Keep the Muslims out of the US;

- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists."

- Etc.


----------



## bostjan

This is a lot of speculation.

The short version of it is that all you have to do is watch Trump on TV, pay attention to his soundbites, read his book (keeping in mind he did not actually write it), etc., and you see what kind of person he is.

We've heard a great deal of rhetoric from him with little to no substance.

If this is the kind of guy you want at the helm of the country, well, I don't know how to say it nicely, so I just won't say it... 

EDIT: As for HRC - a completely different reasoning behind it, but I am equally disgusted by her. She is far subtler, though, in her brand of evil.

I will vote neither. I am adamant about that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Honestly, compared to the stream of lies and pandering that come out of the competitions mouth, I'll take him.

Idiotic, yes. Demonic, no. Vote dumb Trump.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honestly, compared to the stream of lies and pandering that come out of the competitions mouth, I'll take him.
> 
> Idiotic, yes. Demonic, no. Vote dumb Trump.



You do realize if you change the word Trump/him for Hillary/her, that you'd have the exact sentiment that most Democrats feel towards Trump, yes?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

This is a case where I will tkae the devil we don't know, over the devil we do know.

There is no PROOF that Trump will sell out US policy to big corporations, lie to the American people about his actions, or play favorites with other dirty pols....

There IS evidence that his opponent does these things.

Supporting Trump is scientific on this level. Supporting Hillary is religion.


----------



## bostjan

It's a two party system, take your pick:

Beelzebub - Lord of Lies, Torturer of Souls, Master of Evil

-OR-

Satan - Prince of Darkness, Devourer of Souls, Destroyer of Worlds

I'll take Gary Johnson. 

Trump and Clinton can both be described as:

Dishonest. Megalomaniacs. Irresponsible. Unable to learn from mistakes...etc.


----------



## mnemonic

celticelk said:


> His experience in filing lawsuits, going bankrupt, and screwing over his contractors? That's not the kind of experience America needs in the White House. Then there's his appalling inability to articulate anything that actually sort of looks like a policy proposal....



Your comment is misleading, as he has never personally been bankrupt, four of his companies have filed for chapter 11 restructuring (company didn't go out of business). 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/



tedtan said:


> Then, once he's actually bought the entity via heavily leveraged buyout (lots of debt), he uses the bankruptcy laws to his advantage by filing for a reorganization style bankruptcy (chapter 13) in order to reorganize the debt and produce more cash flow for himself. How can he do this? The bank would rather get their money back at a later date than originally promised rather then lose it in a liquidation bankruptcy (chapter 7). Because of this, the bankers are (somewhat) desperate and Trump is able to dictate the terms of the reorganization (note that he wasn't able to dictate these terms up front in the initial financing stage of the acquisition, only once he has some power).
> 
> What is the common element in all of that? He puts himself in a position of dominance over the other party and dictates the outcome, which the other party has little option other than to accept.



as stated in the link above, and again here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump#Use_of_bankruptcy_laws

the businesses were restructured under chapter 11 bankruptcy, and he took significant shareholding reductions in the restructure, so its not like he played everyone to make a load of cash on those bankruptcies. Not everyone can win all the time. 

That being said, those are four businesses out of the hundreds he has started or owned. I don't know if there is a solid figure out there, but I've read between 500 and 600 companies. Four companies out of 500 or 600 is a ridiculously good success rate, especially given that something like 80% of new businesses fail in the first year. 

You don't make 5 billion dollars by being a bad businessman, anyone who questions his business acumen is being disingenuous.


----------



## sharedEQ

bostjan said:


> We've heard a great deal of rhetoric from him with little to no substance.



I think what you're saying is that he has made less promises to break.

I'm not disagreeing with you about Trump's lack of specifics, but most politicians are throwing all kinds of policy promises at this stage, and four years later we realize they did none of them.

Maybe in pandering to people's emotions and making generalizations like "theres something not right here", he is avoiding making empty promises that he knows he can't keep.

A politican making promises is like interviewing for a job and telling the interviewers exactly what you are going to do for the company before you have even joined the company, before you even knows what issues and constraints you will be facing. The reality is that until you join the company, you have no idea what specific issues you will face. The best you can do is impress upon the interviewers your past success and hope that ability translates to solving new problems.

If the problems are systemic, it may be that an outsider is the only kind of person that can solve them.


----------



## bostjan

If you want to spin it that way, fine, as long as we acknowledge that such wording is quite artistically spun.

If Trump wins this election, he'll have to face Snooki in 2020, I'm sure.


----------



## MFB

sharedEQ said:


> I think what you're saying is that he has made less promises to break.



Even if he says, "I'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" without telling us how he intends to make them pay for it, that's still a promise. A very vague, highly improbable promise, but a promise nonetheless. 

Any good politician should be able to extrapolate on their policies, not just back it up with eight other statements afterwards that mean the same thing in different words.


----------



## sharedEQ

MFB said:


> Even if he says, "I'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it!" without telling us how he intends to make them pay for it, that's still a promise. A very vague, highly improbable promise, but a promise nonetheless.
> 
> Any good politician should be able to extrapolate on their policies, not just back it up with eight other statements afterwards that mean the same thing in different words.



Lets say that he announces we should attack ISIS, should he also explain the battle plan to the American people (and isis)? Thats something you want to keep secret.

Getting mexico to pay for the wall is plausible. Taxation. embargoes. Threaten to modify nafta. Illegal immigrant chain gangs. Lots of things he can do. Do you really think its a good idea for him to share his battle plan?


----------



## bostjan

So, evidently, according to your logic, someone making insane and bizarre claims should not be disbelieved because it *might* be part of some secret plan?

Hey, I have a bridge in Nebraska to sell you, but the details are all top secret, just trust me!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Let's hope so, I'd love to see a presidential assassination in my lifetime.


----------



## MFB

sharedEQ said:


> Lets say that he announces we should attack ISIS, should he also explain the battle plan to the American people (and isis)? Thats something you want to keep secret.
> 
> Getting mexico to pay for the wall is plausible. Taxation. embargoes. Threaten to modify nafta. Illegal immigrant chain gangs. Lots of things he can do. Do you really think its a good idea for him to share his battle plan?



I don't recall making a country pay for wall between their neighbor equating to taking multiple lives, but maybe it got lost in the details somewhere? 

That said, it sounds even shadier when you put it like that. Hey, I've got dozens of ideas for ways to make America great, but I can't tell you until I've got the chair that puts me as the figurehead of the country. Don't trust me? Well now I guess you'll never know how great they are!

It's almost like holding the Presidential seat hostage in the most childish way


----------



## sharedEQ

bostjan said:


> So, evidently, according to your logic, someone making insane and bizarre claims should not be disbelieved because it *might* be part of some secret plan?



Its not insane and bizarre. Its his choice to keep the specifics to himself. The liklihood is that until he gets in office he won't be able to flesh out the strategy. There are absolutely so many different ways this could be accomplished on "Mexico's dime."

Not the least of which is to relay the cost of free social services given to Mexican illegals to the mexican government.

But the reality is that he would be putting the screw to Mexico, illegals, or both.

If your kids come into my yard and wreck the landscaping, you are going to get a bill. Mexico is so depedent on us for aid, they can hardly refuse.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> So, evidently, according to your logic, someone making insane and bizarre claims should not be disbelieved because it *might* be part of some secret plan?
> 
> Hey, I have a bridge in Nebraska to sell you, but the details are all top secret, just trust me!



It's more specific than "hope and change"....


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> It's more specific than "hope and change"....



That's antiparallel. "Hope and change" was a slogan, akin to "Make America Great Again," "I'm gonna build a wall," on the other hand, is akin to "I'm going to close down Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp." I don't think he's going to simply build a wall, just as I don't think Obama had an in-depth plan to close Gitmo. It's one of those things that sounds simple enough to a select few people, but when you think about it, it's actually too big a task.

And this post will probably piss off Trump and Obama supporters alike, but we should all be pissed that we continue to hear promises like this only to find out after January that it was far more difficult than anybody thought, even though guys like me were skeptical from the beginning that it was going to be a significant task.

If you took away all of the negative attacks from each candidate, there really is little substance on either side at this point. I have a suspicion that the debates are going to be really silly on both ends. I really really hope that they get Johnson in on the debates, just so someone can say something at some point that isn't simply sensationalist-media fodder.

Anyway, no hope, no change, still Gitmo, blah blah, we're kittened.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> That's antiparallel. "Hope and change" was a slogan, akin to "Make America Great Again," "I'm gonna build a wall," on the other hand, is akin to "I'm going to close down Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp." I don't think he's going to simply build a wall, just as I don't think Obama had an in-depth plan to close Gitmo. It's one of those things that sounds simple enough to a select few people, but when you think about it, it's actually too big a task.
> 
> And this post will probably piss off Trump and Obama supporters alike, but we should all be pissed that we continue to hear promises like this only to find out after January that it was far more difficult than anybody thought, even though guys like me were skeptical from the beginning that it was going to be a significant task.
> 
> If you took away all of the negative attacks from each candidate, there really is little substance on either side at this point. I have a suspicion that the debates are going to be really silly on both ends. I really really hope that they get Johnson in on the debates, just so someone can say something at some point that isn't simply sensationalist-media fodder.
> 
> Anyway, no hope, no change, still Gitmo, blah blah, we're kittened.



Exactly! What does it matter what they say. We have empirical evidence that one choice has acted against our interests for profit. She says things. We have a challenger that the status quo does not like, and he has not (yet) acted against our interests or lied to us as a nation. He says things.

I'll take a chance on a new guy. Thanks. It can't get worse.


----------



## MFB

> We have a challenger that the status quo does not like, and he has not (yet) acted against our interests or lied to us as a nation. He says things.



My interests lie in not committing war crimes, which he has stated he would commit by harming the families of ISIS members; therefore he has acted against at least one persons, and I can assure you there are others who feel the same way.

And yes, it can get worse. It can get much worse.


----------



## sharedEQ

MFB said:


> My interests lie in not committing war crimes, which he has stated he would commit by harming the families of ISIS members; therefore he has acted against at least one persons, and I can assure you there are others who feel the same way.
> 
> And yes, it can get worse. It can get much worse.



Link?


----------



## MFB

Multiple sources just in case one of them happens to be not as moderate in their leanings as others with content.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/03/3727303/donald-trump-kill-isis-family-members/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/
http://time.com/4132368/donald-trump-isis-bombing/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> My interests lie in not committing war crimes, which he has stated he would commit by harming the families of ISIS members; therefore he has acted against at least one persons, and I can assure you there are others who feel the same way.
> 
> And yes, it can get worse. It can get much worse.



So, you won't vote for him because he MIGHT act against the interests of an ISIS family. Interesting.

And Hillary's arming of the Syrian factions while in the State department is not big deal.

Very interesting.


----------



## bostjan

sharedEQ said:


> Link?



Washington Times

He's also threatened freedom of the press and freedom of religion outright. And his supporters don't seem to give a .....



CapnForsaggio said:


> So, you won't vote for him because he MIGHT act against the interests of an ISIS family. Interesting.
> 
> And Hillary's arming of the Syrian factions while in the State department is not big deal.
> 
> Very interesting.



As I've said, they are both a mess. We need a leader who will focus on domestic issues. Nothing going on in the middle east is worth our time as long as our own country is a mess. We cannot enforce our own laws. The land of the free is having its human rights taken away, not one by one, but by the dozen, and no one cares, because of all of this hullabaloo and the sound bites and short attention spans of the general population.

We have one candidate who promises to limit our freedom. He is a bona fide cult of personality. He is unscupulous. He will destroy us.
We have one candidate who is above the law. She cannot go ten seconds talking without getting caught in a lie. She has been at the forefront of several political scandals.

Meanwhile, here in the USA, there a lot of attention on the ongoing police brutality and race inequality that is leading us to a potential real life helter skelter in the streets, and rather than responding with a detante in tension, protesters and police are both escalating the issues, and the media is accelerating the unrest as fast as they can. Our economy is stagnating again and no one can do anything about it because of over-regulation.


----------



## sharedEQ

MFB said:


> Multiple sources just in case one of them happens to be not as moderate in their leanings as others with content.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
> http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/12/03/3727303/donald-trump-kill-isis-family-members/
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/
> http://time.com/4132368/donald-trump-isis-bombing/
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html



I'm trying to evaluate this without the distortions of the MSM. . . 

You know, in context of terrorists using their families as shields to protect and hide their actions, he may have a point.

If I'm building a bomb in the basement of my parents house, and a missile strike wipes out my parents, wouldn't I be the one to blame for their deaths? Trump is saying that these terrorists value their families and if they know that they can't use them as a shield, that they won't. Makes sense to me.

But when the message is distorted in those articles, taken out of context, it makes Trump look like a boogeyman as opposed to someone who has applied some logic to the problem.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> So, you won't vote for him because he MIGHT act against the interests of an ISIS family. Interesting.
> 
> And Hillary's arming of the Syrian factions while in the State department is not big deal.
> 
> Very interesting.



Considering Paul Manafort's record and being Trump's senior adviser, it's not hard to imagine how quickly they'd go from just words to action. But I mean, there's no skeletons in Manafort's closet is there?

I'd put dollars to donuts that it was also his idea from the start, and he fully stands behind it.



> If I'm building a bomb in the basement of my parents house, and a missile strike wipes out my parents, wouldn't I be the one to blame for their deaths? Trump is saying that these terrorists value their families and if they know that they can't use them as a shield, that they won't. Makes sense to me.



That's called collateral damage. 

The families themselves aren't out there committing crimes with whatever member of the family is actually a member of ISIS, and in most cases (without going on a mad Google hunt to confirm) I'm sure 99% of them have cut ties with that same family member because of their involvement. If we know that family members ARE associating with them and aiding them, then that's a different story and they're no longer separate. They're now another person of interest.

It's crudely phrased because I keep thinking of different phrases/points, but hopefully the broad strokes get the idea across

Edit:


> I'm trying to evaluate this without the distortions of the MSM. . .



Another reason for multiple sources


----------



## sharedEQ

BTW, I have just noticed an interesting trend. Those in this forum with liberal attitudes have post counts 10x those with conservative leanings. 

I'm seeing guys with 50-400 posts face off against guys with 10K+ posts. Interesting.


----------



## bostjan

sharedEQ said:


> BTW, I have just noticed an interesting trend. Those in this forum with liberal attitudes have post counts 10x those with conservative leanings.
> 
> I'm seeing guys with 50-400 posts face off against guys with 10K+ posts. Interesting.



What are you getting at, there, slugger?


----------



## sharedEQ

bostjan said:


> What are you getting at, there, slugger?



Correlation is not causation. But potential explanations.. 

Liberals have run off those with conservative views?
More liberals with time to run up 10K post count?
Liberals are more argumentative?
Liberals have greater need for validation of their views?

You have to admit, it is interesting. That said, I don't see myself posting much more in this neck of the woods. Not making any headway, and it doesn't really matter (to me) what you all think.

Later.


----------



## MFB

sharedEQ said:


> I'm seeing guys with 50-400 posts face off against guys with 10K+ posts. Interesting.



I'm assuming it's just because most are new, but I assure you this is probably the most P&CE discussion I've done in my entire time here; and my 11K worth of posts is mostly dumb off the cuff comments.

Also, just for the record, I have no malice or ill-will towards anyone on the opposite side of this discussion; and hopefully none of my posts have come across as such. Hence, keeping them usually short and to the point so I don't develop foot-in-mouth


----------



## bostjan

The two guys here saying to vote for Trump both joined in 2016. I've been around since late 2005. This board was a real happening place for guitar discussions (well, it still is, but I used to be more involved). Also, I'm a moderate. I can say that, because a lot of people around here consider me too conservative. But I've voted for more democrats than republicans in elections, albeit by maybe two.


----------



## vilk

You guys, I'm having an identity crisis. I'm starting to think Trump would make an alright president. 

He's not really a social conservative in the least, and I believe he's pandering to them with absolutely no intention of following through. Punishments for women who have abortions? Yeah, right. I'm surprised he even said it with the expectation that anyone would take it seriously, but you know those bass ackwards fundies probably loved it.

Let's say that both HRC and Trump are big ol liars, all they do is lie lie lie. They are, to be sure. If what Clinton says is all lies, it means she's not really going to do anything on her socially progressive agenda, at least not any more than superficially. It means she does work for Wall Street, and it means she's just gonna maintain the status quo of America being an oligarchy. 

Well, if Trump is lying about everything, that means that he's not really gonna build a wall, and he's not really gonna 'round up' illegals, he's not really going to do all this r/tarded stuff that he talks about to pander to conservatives. What he'll probably actually do is just try to make a bunch of money--but here's the kicker--for _himself_, and not for the incumbent oligarchy. At least I'd hope. I mean, he doesn't owe them anything, after all. We think.

It's kind of an impossible task to take the promises of two liars and try to guess which bits are truth. I think it makes more sense to assume everything that both of them says is a lie, and then what are we left with? An agent of the incumbent oligarchy vs. some random schmuck just trying to make a buck.... they're still not the best of choices. But the one that seems arguably preferable becomes more clear.

My boss said something the other day, and at the time I heard it I thought it was a dumb thing to say, but then I couldn't stop thinking about it. He said something like: "Diplomacy these days has become bending over. People think being a good diplomat just means to give in and let people have their way."
I don't know if he's right, but I have to admit the meaning of diplomacy has changed a lot. It used to mean doing your best to resolve an issue without blowing each other to smithereens. Now it kinda means doing your best to make sure everything is "fair" and everything is compromised in an unbiased way... even when sometimes being objectively unfair and biased would have eventually yielded a better result. In case I'm not making sense in the context of this conversation: It's my belief that Trump doesn't give a flying f/// about Muslims and their conflicts, but he wants all that oil. I think that _should_ be our approach in the middle east. Wanna trade? Lets trade. Oh, you've got issues? Tell it to someone who cares. Maybe use some of that money we're giving you to fix it up.

Has anyone considered this way of looking at it before? Just me? I swear I didn't think any of this stuff yesterday. Maybe I'm just having a weird morning.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> You guys, I'm having an identity crisis. I'm starting to think Trump would make an alright president.
> 
> He's not really a social conservative in the least, and I believe he's pandering to them with absolutely no intention of following through. Punishments for women who have abortions? Yeah, right. I'm surprised he even said it with the expectation that anyone would take it seriously, but you know those bass ackwards fundies probably loved it.
> 
> Let's say that both HRC and Trump are big ol liars, all they do is lie lie lie. They are, to be sure. If what Clinton says is all lies, it means she's not really going to do anything on her socially progressive agenda, at least not any more than superficially. It means she does work for Wall Street, and it means she's just gonna maintain the status quo of America being an oligarchy.
> 
> Well, if Trump is lying about everything, that means that he's not really gonna build a wall, and he's not really gonna 'round up' illegals, he's not really going to do all this r/tarded stuff that he talks about to pander to conservatives. What he'll probably actually do is just try to make a bunch of money--but here's the kicker--for _himself_, and not for the incumbent oligarchy. At least I'd hope. I mean, he doesn't owe them anything, after all. We think.
> 
> It's kind of an impossible task to take the promises of two liars and try to guess which bits are truth. I think it makes more sense to assume everything that both of them says is a lie, and then what are we left with? An agent of the incumbent oligarchy vs. some random schmuck just trying to make a buck.... they're still not the best of choices. But the one that seems safer becomes more clear.
> 
> My boss said something the other day, and at the time I heard it I thought it was a dumb thing to say, but then I couldn't stop thinking about it. He said something like: "Diplomacy these days has become bending over. People think being a good diplomat just means to give in and let people have their way."
> I don't know if he's right, but I have to admit the meaning of diplomacy has changed a lot. It used to mean doing your best to resolve an issue without blowing each other to smithereens. Now it kinda means doing your best to make sure everything is "fair" and everything is compromised in an unbiased way... even when sometimes being objectively unfair and biased would have eventually yielded a better result. In case I'm not making sense in the context of this conversation: It's my belief that Trump doesn't give a flying f/// about Muslims and their conflicts, but he wants all that oil. I think that _should_ be our approach in the middle east. Wanna trade? Lets trade. Oh, you've got issues? Tell it to someone who cares. Maybe use some of that money we're giving you to fix it up.
> 
> Has anyone considered this way of looking at it before? Just me? I swear I didn't think any of this stuff yesterday. Maybe I'm just having a weird morning.



No, because Trump is a foul person. Period.

Here are some things he supports:

Torturing suspects. Torturing suspects' families.

Although I give him kudos for opposing the Iraq invasion, he supports similar tactics in Syria. Not only reprehensible, but hypocritical.

More taxes on the poor and fewer taxes on the rich, through reductions in upper brackets of income taxes, doing away with estate tax, obliterating investment taxes, taking corporate taxes to a flat rate of 15% without loopholes for budding or small businesses, which would bolster large corporations and be an instrument of extreme harm to mom&pop type businesses.

He wants to make same-sex marriage a crime nationwide.

To me, if you are the least bit liberal or moderate, what little information he's given on his platform is not just bad, it's a ....ing nightmare.

A guy like him should be limited to running his mouth on TV or radio at worst, not running the country.

His pandering to xenophopia and intolerance toward anyone in any way different from him should also be considered for what it is.

If I was given a choice between DJT, HRC, and a seasick crocodile, I'd go with the seasick crocodile.


----------



## UnderTheSign

sharedEQ said:


> BTW, I have just noticed an interesting trend. Those in this forum with liberal attitudes have post counts 10x those with conservative leanings.
> 
> I'm seeing guys with 50-400 posts face off against guys with 10K+ posts. Interesting.


That's because people like Capn (and previously Trenchlord) come in here, make some random comments or make unbacked claims (see socialised healthcare thread), then bugger off while the rest actually get to discussing things


----------



## vilk

@bost

We already torture suspects and their families. Obama has been "trying to" shut down gitmo for his entire presidency. I don't really think we have any reason to believe Clinton will.

I might not know the finer details about the Syria thing, but I was under the impression that Trump's whole deal is that us invading Iraq and taking out Sadam was a mistake, and he doesn't want to do it again. To my knowledge the guy is pretty anti-war. I mean, he even said he wouldn't back up NATO if they were attacked. While that could be looked at as diplomatically irresponsible... it's also not fighting more endless war. Hasn't Clinton ALREADY screwed up a bunch of sh/t when she's put in charge of coordinating war-type stuffs?

I was claiming that I do not believe he genuinely wants to make same-sex marriage a crime. It's obvious pandering to religious folk. How long has this man been a celebrity? You really think you can spend that much time with that many make-up artists and still hate gay people? The dude probably has more gay friends than straight ones.



I think you're really missing the main point of my statement: *You can't really take anything that either of these two candidates say seriously*. Their both wholly disingenuous. No wall. No mass deportation. None of the... what was it again that Clinton is claiming to improve? Understanding that, and working within that assumed context, doesn't it change some things?


----------



## bostjan

How about neither of them?

I am at a loss. You are not the first person to say something about if Trump says he'll be an awful human being and he is also a liar, then maybe he's actually a decent guy. Look, it doesn't work that way. You know it doesn't work that way. Don't give these guys more ammunition to support him.


----------



## vilk

Well, obviously. I've been saying all along I'm writing in Bernie or voting Johnson. Though I'm leaning towards writing in Bernie just because I'm sure that statistic will get put on the news. 

But in reality, Clinton or Trump is going to win. My vote may not count, but it's not like it's worthless for me to think about which one would make a better president.


----------



## sharedEQ

It bothers me that every picture posted by the MSM of Clinton is from 15 years ago and severely airbrushed.

This is as bad as the fat middle aged woman who uses pics from HS in her dating profile.

In contrast, the MSM posts the most unflattering pics of Trump.

This is an obvious way that even liberals can recognize and really helps to underscore the MSM bias.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Well, obviously. I've been saying all along I'm writing in Bernie or voting Johnson. Though I'm leaning towards writing in Bernie just because I'm sure that statistic will get put on the news.
> 
> But in reality, Clinton or Trump is going to win. My vote may not count, but it's not like it's worthless for me to think about which one would make a better president.



Well, maybe you'll think things will be fine under Trump, but that's neither here nor there, because a) they would not be, and b) Clinton will win anyway, either by hook or by crook, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, there is a much bigger issue at play here. Most republicans I know hated Trump at first, and then adopted him remorsefully when he clinched the nomination. What happened? A vocal minority managed to sway things their way because the status quo could not produce a sane candidate from a tattered party. I know a few avid Clinton supporters, however, 90% of the democrats I know preferred Sanders, young and old. Obviously "people I know" is not a statistically significant sampling, but after all of the nonsense about how the party colluded against Sanders, and now the woman who spearheaded the party collusion is being given laurels and a hardy handshake from Clinton for her role. What does that say? It says , that's what it says. Clinton is flaunting that she doesn't give a .... about anyone who isn't going to bow down to her as the new demagogue.

So, what we have here is a choice between two candidates that a majority of Americans strongly dislike. Is that how democracy works?! No, because this whole thing is ....ed up.

Is the more important choice for whom to vote or is it whether or not we stay quiet about this and all be good cogs in the wheel of corrupt politics?! 



sharedEQ said:


> It bothers me that every picture posted by the MSM of Clinton is from 15 years ago and severely airbrushed.
> 
> This is as bad as the fat middle aged woman who uses pics from HS in her dating profile.
> 
> In contrast, the MSM posts the most unflattering pics of Trump.
> 
> This is an obvious way that even liberals can recognize and really helps to underscore the MSM bias.



Who cares? They are both the ugliest people I know, on the inside.


----------



## tedtan

mnemonic said:


> those are four businesses out of the hundreds he has started or owned. I don't know if there is a solid figure out there, but I've read between 500 and 600 companies. Four companies out of 500 or 600 is a ridiculously good success rate, especially given that something like 80% of new businesses fail in the first year.



First, a reorganization bankruptcy shouldn't be looked at as a failure. It's not optimal, by any means, but it is far better than that business simply closing up shop and liquidating its assets and often works out as the best option for both the business itself and for its their creditors, so I wouldn't look at this as failure. I had a client that underwent reorganization a few years back and, while I had to wait longer to get paid for the work I performed for that client than I would have preferred, I did get paid, which is better than not getting paid at all.

Everyone who is an entrepreneur has failures along the way, and Trump is no exception. So what I would look at as failures are the many businesses that Trump has started that failed rather than a few reorganizations. You can look at

- Trump Airlines/ Trump Shuttle
- New Jersey Generals (a United States Football League team)
- Trump Casinos
- Trump University
- Trump Tower Tampa
- Etc. (there are many more if you care to do some research).




mnemonic said:


> You don't make 5 billion dollars by being a bad businessman, anyone who questions his business acumen is being disingenuous.



I haven't questioned him as a business person. He's found an approach that works for him and has made billions for himself by taking advantage of that approach.

What I did say is that the very characteristics that have made him the successful business person that he is are the same characteristics that will likely prevent him from being a good POTUS. Different jobs require different skill sets, plain and simple, and the role of POTUS is very different from the role of chief executive officer/chairman of the board/majority stockholder.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

He's not been accused of breaking any laws...

Can you say that about the Clinton? Her list is pretty long.

If she was a guitar luthier, she would be on SSOs shiatlist. Just saying.

You all pretend to be principled people!


----------



## sharedEQ

tedtan said:


> What I did say is that the very characteristics that have made him the successful business person that he is are the same characteristics that will likely prevent him from being a good POTUS. Different jobs require different skill sets, plain and simple, and the role of POTUS is very different from the role of chief executive officer/chairman of the board/majority stockholder.



But the problem with your assertion is that Trump is just like every other successful businessman. You are essentially saying that businessmen are incapable of being POTUS.

The MSM has demonized Trump, but he is no different than other businessmen of his generation, besides the fact that he has learned how to master social media platforms and personal branding.

When evaluating cadidates for a job, it is the scope and complexity of tasks they have worked on that is most important.

For instance, Trump is 100x more qualified to be POTUS than a community organizer would be.


----------



## Drew

sharedEQ said:


> Correlation is not causation. But potential explanations..
> 
> Liberals have run off those with conservative views?
> More liberals with time to run up 10K post count?
> Liberals are more argumentative?
> Liberals have greater need for validation of their views?
> 
> You have to admit, it is interesting. That said, I don't see myself posting much more in this neck of the woods. Not making any headway, and it doesn't really matter (to me) what you all think.
> 
> Later.



Actually, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that pretty much from inception this board has had a fairly liberal lean on politics. Turns out, metalheads seem to be a pretty liberal group, and over and above that the age demographic here has always been heavily 35-and-under, which is *also* traditionally a pretty liberal demographic.

There's also probably a little bit of self reinforcement in there, in that since most of the opinions expressed here have been fairly liberal, then people who lean conservative feel less inclined to join in the discussion, unless they enjoy picking fights.


----------



## sharedEQ

CapnForsaggio said:


> He's not been accused of breaking any laws...
> 
> Can you say that about the Clinton? Her list is pretty long.
> 
> If she was a guitar luthier, she would be on SSOs shiatlist. Just saying.
> 
> You all pretend to be principled people!



Exactly. He has done nothing wrong. His worst "real" offense is Trump University. However, his real estate courses were priced equivalent to professional training courses I have taken. A week seminar usually costs 3-5K.

Earlier in my career I received an Oracle DB certification which probably cost my company 15K for a series of courses I took, including air fare, hotels, and cost of me not doing other project work. I would never have been able to afford these courses personally. The Trump U courses were priced similar to other industrial training. The complaints about Trump U were from people who invested in something they thought would be a get rich quick scheme and did not get the payout they expected. 

The attacks on his person have been a result of his "non PC" approach and voicing things that other people would not dare. The MSM pounces on his, distorts and takes things out of context to demonize him, yet there is nothing fundamentally wrong with him as a person, beyond being an alpha buisness type. Speaking his mind is part of his appeal to americans who are fed up with political correctness run amok.

What scares the .... out of me is exactly how much power the establishment has in being able to support such a flawed candidate. They would rather run one of the most corrupt politicians in generations because of her name recognition, rather than put up a decent candidate with less chance of winning.


----------



## sharedEQ

Drew said:


> Actually, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that pretty much from inception this board has had a fairly liberal lean on politics. Turns out, metalheads seem to be a pretty liberal group, and over and above that the age demographic here has always been heavily 35-and-under, which is *also* traditionally a pretty liberal demographic.
> 
> There's also probably a little bit of self reinforcement in there, in that since most of the opinions expressed here have been fairly liberal, then people who lean conservative feel less inclined to join in the discussion, unless they enjoy picking fights.



This may be true, but anyone staking a liberal viewpoint in this forum will get 10x the affirmation and agreement. This is not a platform for fair and balanced debate. As long as you all know that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Actually, it probably has a lot to do with the fact that pretty much from inception this board has had a fairly liberal lean on politics. Turns out, metalheads seem to be a pretty liberal group, and over and above that the age demographic here has always been heavily 35-and-under, which is *also* traditionally a pretty liberal demographic.
> 
> There's also probably a little bit of self reinforcement in there, in that since most of the opinions expressed here have been fairly liberal, then people who lean conservative feel less inclined to join in the discussion, unless they enjoy picking fights.



I love that you are so far from understanding (classic) conservatism that you can reduce it to a 'desire to pick fights.'

I could similarly reduce modern liberalism to the 'desire to self deprecate oneself to the point of absurdity.' 

I don't think either of these are true. But then it takes an open mind to re evaluate political issues, as opposed to reading them out of CNN.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I love that you are so far from understanding (classic) conservatism that you can reduce it to a 'desire to pick fights.'
> 
> I could similarly reduce modern liberalism to the 'desire to self deprecate oneself to the point of absurdity.'
> 
> I don't think either of these are true. But then it takes an open mind to re evaluate political issues, as opposed to reading them out of CNN.



You TOTALLY misunderstood me.  My point there was that conservatives are less likely to get into a discussion where they're the minority, unless they's ALSO argumentative. I'm not saying aregumentative = conservative, but rather "conservative = probably not get involved" but "conservative + argumentative = way more likely to get involved."


----------



## Drew

sharedEQ said:


> This may be true, but anyone staking a liberal viewpoint in this forum will get 10x the affirmation and agreement. This is not a platform for fair and balanced debate. As long as you all know that.



Yet, strangely enough, every once in a while fair and balanced debates DO occur here, when members share opinions honestly and sincerely and try to understand the other's perspectives. It's only when they devolve into name-calling and character attacks that it becomes a total waste of time. 

I don't post here all that much any more, so maybe decent discussion is rarer than it used to be. Who knows.


----------



## Mordacain

CapnForsaggio said:


> I love that you are so far from understanding (classic) conservatism that you can reduce it to a 'desire to pick fights.'
> 
> I could similarly reduce modern liberalism to the 'desire to self deprecate oneself to the point of absurdity.'
> 
> I don't think either of these are true. But then it takes an open mind to re evaluate political issues, as opposed to reading them out of CNN.



Actually both your examples are reductions of modern conservatism to my mind. To be fair, I also do not agree with either as an accurate description.

To me, classic conservatism is best embodied by Theodore Roosevelt and is not at all at odds with progress, though they are both at odds with neoliberalism in wide measure, specifically on economic policy grounds.

Neither modern example have much in common with their classic roots.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Yet, strangely enough, every once in a while fair and balanced debates DO occur here, when members share opinions honestly and sincerely and try to understand the other's perspectives. It's only when they devolve into name-calling and character attacks that it becomes a total waste of time.
> 
> I don't post here all that much any more, so maybe decent discussion is rarer than it used to be. Who knows.



I would say that "discussion" is hard to come by anywhere. Most political discourse is based on the few things that differ (abortion, immigration, BLM) than on the things that are the same (education, taxes, roads and bridges).

The reality is most of us need the same most important things. A small minority of us actually will need any of the lesser important things. But thinking like that is no fun


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I would say that "discussion" is hard to come by anywhere. Most political discourse is based on the few things that differ (abortion, immigration, BLM) than on the things that are the same (education, taxes, roads and bridges).
> 
> The reality is most of us need the same most important things. A small minority of us actually will need any of the lesser important things. But thinking like that is no fun



For me, the difference between a conservative really comes down to the delivery. In the "real world" I have a couple conservative friends (conservatives are rare, if you're a 35-year old from Massachusetts, even if you work in the invesment world) and a number of colleagues of mine at work are Republicans. For the most part, we can respect each other's opinion - we're starting from the same points and looking to achieve the same goals, we just don't always agree on what the best way to get there is. And that's cool; life demands a range of solutions, and intelligent people can disagree on which is the most optimal solution. 

Then there are the a-holes.  I think, for me, the difference between a conservative I'm willing to discuss politics with and will at least find the conversation thought provoking, and one I just want to avoid politics at all cost, is in the former, there's a clear logical process toward their concussions and their beliefs, whereas in the later, the beliefs come first, then they pull together whatever they can to support them. I imagine a conservative would bucket liberals similarly, as well. The former group (or even other liberals I happen to disagree with), I'll always be happy to hear them out over a round of drinks. The latter I try to avoid to the greatest extent possible.


----------



## sharedEQ

Drew said:


> For me, the difference between a conservative really comes down to the delivery. In the "real world" I have a couple conservative friends (conservatives are rare, if you're a 35-year old from Massachusetts, even if you work in the invesment world) and a number of colleagues of mine at work are Republicans. For the most part, we can respect each other's opinion - we're starting from the same points and looking to achieve the same goals, we just don't always agree on what the best way to get there is. And that's cool; life demands a range of solutions, and intelligent people can disagree on which is the most optimal solution.
> 
> Then there are the a-holes.  I think, for me, the difference between a conservative I'm willing to discuss politics with and will at least find the conversation thought provoking, and one I just want to avoid politics at all cost, is in the former, there's a clear logical process toward their concussions and their beliefs, whereas in the later, the beliefs come first, then they pull together whatever they can to support them. I imagine a conservative would bucket liberals similarly, as well. The former group (or even other liberals I happen to disagree with), I'll always be happy to hear them out over a round of drinks. The latter I try to avoid to the greatest extent possible.


The problem I have with political discussion is that there is absolutely no creative, original thought. People that engage in political discussion are mostly rehashing what they have heard elsewhere in an attempt to "win" arguments and make themselves feel intelligent or enlightened, or whatever.

There is no original political discourse. Beyond casting votes, there isn't much that most people can/should do.

People who engage in heated debate or enjoy political discourse, but do nothing more than cast their alloted votes, are just wasting time. Nothing comes from it besides boosting ones ego.

Its like playing chess. I used to play, but I play no longer. There is this momentary sense of accomplishment, this ego rush of dominating someone or finding something clever, but I found it did absolutely ZERO to advance my life or my goals.

I think most internet political discussion is based around procrastination and loneliness, a need for people to feel something they aren't getting in real life.

It goes like this: They take a break from work. They read a news site. There is a biased story that rubs them the wrong way. They feel a need to talk about it, to vent. They come to sevenstring.org and make a contribution to this thread. They feel a little better. They feel momentarily clever. They might repeat something provocative that they read. They step over the line, say something provocative or nasty, slightly untrue, but it sounds good and it furthers their emotional/ego needs, so they do it anyway. 

But its just a waste of time.

Thats why the observation that all the people here with 10K+ posts are liberal is an important observation.


----------



## bostjan

Is it more interesting that political discussion is a waste of time, or that you believe political discussion is a waste of time, yet you come here in order to engage in it regardless of that opinion?


----------



## sharedEQ

bostjan said:


> Is it more interesting that political discussion is a waste of time, or that you believe political discussion is a waste of time, yet you come here in order to engage in it regardless of that opinion?



I don't think I can change anyone's political position, but maybe someone will realize how foolish this kind of discussion is, do something else and be a better person.

I've got 78 posts, I'm not invested in this. I don't post much anywhere on the internet anymore. I've never had an account with more than 1K posts. I can't imagine running up 10K posts.

Usually by the time I get 200-330 posts, I get a sense for the dynamics of the place, see all the negativity and then stop posting.


----------



## tedtan

sharedEQ said:


> But the problem with your assertion is that Trump is just like every other successful businessman. You are essentially saying that businessmen are incapable of being POTUS.



No. You simply can't draw that conclusion from my comments.

Different people have different personalities, different IQs, different emotional maturity, different knowledge, skills and abilities, different manners of carrying themselves and interacting with others, and so on.

Trump (the individual, not some business guy who is magically the same as all other business people) has a particular methodology to his businesses, especially lately. He tends to focus on consumer oriented products (and sometimes services) that appeal to individuals rather than to businesses. He focuses in on areas where his name and branding will carry the day rather than actually developing a superior product. Much like musicians, actors and athletes, he's developed himself into a brand. In that capacity, he is able to dictate how things will be done to his employees and contractors and then BS the general public with his name and branding when it comes time to make a sale. This provides him with a certain skill set.

How much time has he spent in dealing with customers bigger and more powerful than he is, though? Has he ever

- Been in the oil business and had to make international deals with giants like Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil?

- Been in the aerospace industry and had to make international deals with giants like General Electric, Siemens, Boeing or Air Bus?

Those companies are MUCH larger than Trump's businesses. Hell, they're worth more than most non-first world countries. Dealing with the legal, purchasing and engineering departments of these companies requires a different skill set than that what Trump's business requires. There is no playing dictator here - if you want to be successful, you have to be diplomatic and work cooperatively towards a common goal.

I point that out because those who have worked in that capacity have a very different set of knowledge, skills and abilities than does someone in Trump's position. And as it so happens, this set of knowledge, skills and abilities is more aligned with those required to be a good POTUS than are those that Trump posses.


----------



## sharedEQ

tedtan said:


> No. You simply can't draw that conclusion from my comments.
> 
> Different people have different personalities, different IQs, different emotional maturity, different knowledge, skills and abilities, different manners of carrying themselves and interacting with others, and so on.
> 
> Trump (the individual, not some business guy who is magically the same as all other business people) has a particular methodology to his businesses, especially lately. He tends to focus on consumer oriented products (and sometimes services) that appeal to individuals rather than to businesses. He focuses in on areas where his name and branding will carry the day rather than actually developing a superior product. Much like musicians, actors and athletes, he's developed himself into a brand. In that capacity, he is able to dictate how things will be done to his employees and contractors and then BS the general public when it comes time to make a sale. This provides him with a certain skill set.
> 
> How much time has he spent in dealing with customers bigger and more powerful than he is, though? Has he ever
> 
> - Been in the oil business and had to make international deals with giants like Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil?
> 
> - Been in the aerospace industry and had to make international deals with giants like General Electric, Siemens, Boeing or Air Bus?
> 
> Those companies are MUCH larger than Trump's businesses. Hell, they're worth more than most non-first world countries. Dealing with the legal, purchasing and engineering departments of these companies requires a different skill set than that what Trump's business requires. There is no playing dictator here - if you want to be successful, you have to be diplomatic and work cooperatively towards a common goal.
> 
> I point that out because those who have worked in that capacity have a very different set of different knowledge, skills and abilities than does someone in Trump's situation. And as it so happens, this set of knowledge, skills and abilities is more aligned with those required to be a good POTUS than those Trump posses.



OK, we get it. You work in engineering management. Maybe for a large multinational tech company.

I hear entirely what you're saying. But you haven't made the case that Trump is different than his peers.

I think there is some intelligence in your posts, I see what you are trying to do, but there are usually so many incorrect assertions that I can't go back and correct them all.


----------



## vilk

everyone knows condescension makes you seem smarter!


----------



## tedtan

sharedEQ said:


> OK, we get it. You work in engineering management. Maybe for a large multinational tech company.
> 
> I hear entirely what you're saying. But you haven't made the case that Trump is different than his peers.
> 
> I think there is some intelligence in your posts, I see what you are trying to do, but there are usually so many incorrect assertions that I can't go back and correct them all.



Let's see, you have the time to make ad hominem attacks on SSO members, calling us lonely procrastinators seeking to stroke our ego via anonymous online political discourse in order to fulfill unmet needs in our real lives, yet you don't have the time to correct my allegedly incorrect statements?

I would have expected more...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

UnderTheSign said:


> That's because people like Capn (and previously Trenchlord) come in here, make some random comments or make unbacked claims (see socialised healthcare thread), then bugger off while the rest actually get to discussing things



Hey come on. Just because I won't get down with a 3 page yelling contest, you blame me.

Some arguments are not worth having. Don't take it personal. I also have more to do with my time during the day, usually


----------



## TheHandOfStone

The last few pages of this thread have been a bucket of


----------



## bostjan

sharedEQ said:


> I don't think I can change anyone's political position, but maybe someone will realize how foolish this kind of discussion is, do something else and be a better person.
> 
> I've got 78 posts, I'm not invested in this. I don't post much anywhere on the internet anymore. I've never had an account with more than 1K posts. I can't imagine running up 10K posts.
> 
> Usually by the time I get 200-330 posts, I get a sense for the dynamics of the place, see all the negativity and then stop posting.



Well, I think that explains your observation pretty well. The guys with ~10k posts here have learned to get along with each other at least a little better than the ones with only a few posts and a few months here. If you stay too long on a board, you get dogpiled and quit posting there. Maybe because everyone on that particular board is a butthead. But, I would caution you (you seem cool to me so far, so don't read into this, please), that if this tends to happen to you regularly, maybe the multiple different people on multiple different boards are not the crux of the conflict.

Back to Trump, though - does anyone actually believe he is going to "make America great again?" or is it just that you hate the other candidate so much that you don't care if you are voting for Trump or Cruz or George W. Bush or Adolf Hitler Jr.?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Well, I think that explains your observation pretty well. The guys with ~10k posts here have learned to get along with each other at least a little better than the ones with only a few posts and a few months here. If you stay too long on a board, you get dogpiled and quit posting there. Maybe because everyone on that particular board is a butthead. But, I would caution you (you seem cool to me so far, so don't read into this, please), that if this tends to happen to you regularly, maybe the multiple different people on multiple different boards are not the crux of the conflict.
> 
> Back to Trump, though - does anyone actually believe he is going to "make America great again?" or is it just that you hate the other candidate so much that you don't care if you are voting for Trump or Cruz or George W. Bush or Adolf Hitler Jr.?



You are in denial. Liberalism is cool. People have been wearing it like a bad hipster beard since Obama got elected. All other thought is to be stamped out.

A page back, I have Bostjan dredging up some weeks old statement I made about Healthcare. This was done to show the hive that I am not "one of them" and do not have liberal leanings. 

This is the face and action of modern liberalism: Punish those who are not liberal enough!


----------



## MFB

Capn, are you one of those people that also uses the term "sheeple"?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> Capn, are you one of those people that also uses the term "sheeple"?



Why don't you do a search of my post history, and tell everyone for me? Geez.

Thank you for the great site guitar players and mods! Capn, signing out.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> You are in denial. Liberalism is cool. People have been wearing it like a bad hipster beard since Obama got elected. All other thought is to be stamped out.
> 
> A page back, I have Bostjan dredging up some weeks old statement I made about Healthcare. This was done to show the hive that I am not "one of them" and do not have liberal leanings.
> 
> This is the face and action of modern liberalism: Punish those who are not liberal enough!



I don't follow you.

1. I don't like HRC. I don't like Sanders, either, as presidential material. Are you saying I am a liberal in denial of his liberal political views? Why is that? Is it because I do not support Trump?!
2. Which post? I do not recall that one, and what does it have to do with this post?
3. You and I should be closer in political views than, say, me and Drew, who is a member established deeper and longer here than any of us. I often get into debates with guys like Vilk. I feel that we can have political debates about whatever differences we have, and still, at the end of the day, get along just great, as I respect these guys. As for if they respect me or not, I don't really know, but I don't feel disrespected.
4. I've been around here a while. I don't feel like I have anything to prove to these guys to get their approval. Not that I don't desire approval, but I disagree with a lot of people here a lot, and it has no bearing upon my personal values.

I guess I'm a little confused. If I've offended you somehow, I assure you that I didn't mean to do so. If not, let's move on.

EDIT:



CapnForsaggio said:


> Why don't you do a search of my post history, and tell everyone for me? Geez.
> 
> Thank you for the great site guitar players and mods! Capn, signing out.



...., I guess I'll never know.

It's a real shame the PC&E forum would scare people off.


----------



## Drew

sharedEQ said:


> I think most internet political discussion is based around procrastination and loneliness, a need for people to feel something they aren't getting in real life.
> 
> It goes like this: They take a break from work. They read a news site. There is a biased story that rubs them the wrong way. They feel a need to talk about it, to vent. They come to sevenstring.org and make a contribution to this thread. They feel a little better. They feel momentarily clever. They might repeat something provocative that they read. They step over the line, say something provocative or nasty, slightly untrue, but it sounds good and it furthers their emotional/ego needs, so they do it anyway.
> 
> But its just a waste of time.
> 
> Thats why the observation that all the people here with 10K+ posts are liberal is an important observation.



You realize this argument is basically tantamount to blaming the other guys?  You're basically saying, reading between the lines, that all liberals are lonely sissies who need safe zones. Which is, speaking of opinions picked up elsewhere, pretty much the working theory underlining all of Fox News.  

Myself, I think bostjan's on the money here. We've "known" each other over the 'net for more than a decade now, and increasingly we don't see eye to eye on politics, but he's a guy I have no problems discussing politics with, because we'll disagree, at times heatedly, but also respectfully. Sometimes he'll raise points I hadn't thought of or point me to thinks I wasn't aware of, and I'll learn from that, and I'll humor myself by thinking I do the same for him occasionally. I think it's a longevity thing more than anyone else, and the guys who are just here to troll - and you seem to be flirting with that line - usually get banned before their post counts get up very high.

As to whether or not he's lonely, I have no effin' clue, but I spend my days on a muni trading desk and usually have a calendar booked up outside of work two weeks in advance, so I look FORWARD to the nights I don't have plans. I'm practically drowning in people, and if effin' sucks!


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> You realize this argument is basically tantamount to blaming the other guys?  You're basically saying, reading between the lines, that all liberals are lonely sissies who need safe zones. Which is, speaking of opinions picked up elsewhere, pretty much the working theory underlining all of Fox News.
> 
> Myself, I think bostjan's on the money here. We've "known" each other over the 'net for more than a decade now, and increasingly we don't see eye to eye on politics, but he's a guy I have no problems discussing politics with, because we'll disagree, at times heatedly, but also respectfully. Sometimes he'll raise points I hadn't thought of or point me to thinks I wasn't aware of, and I'll learn from that, and I'll humor myself by thinking I do the same for him occasionally. I think it's a longevity thing more than anyone else, and the guys who are just here to troll - and you seem to be flirting with that line - usually get banned before their post counts get up very high.
> 
> As to whether or not he's lonely, I have no effin' clue, but I spend my days on a muni trading desk and usually have a calendar booked up outside of work two weeks in advance, so I look FORWARD to the nights I don't have plans. I'm practically drowning in people, and if effin' sucks!



Given the way literally every news site is completely overrun with racists and gun-rights wackos, I think his theory is backwards. Seriously, it's mind-blowing. Read yahoo news, read fox news, read the atlantic, no matter what side of the spectrum it is, any story about black people immediately gets covered with incredibly racist tirades, any story about gun violence immediately is drowned by gun-rights people spouting off as rudely as possible, etc.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Given the way literally every news site is completely overrun with racists and gun-rights wackos, I think his theory is backwards. Seriously, it's mind-blowing. Read yahoo news, read fox news, read the atlantic, no matter what side of the spectrum it is, any story about black people immediately gets covered with incredibly racist tirades, any story about gun violence immediately is drowned by gun-rights people spouting off as rudely as possible, etc.



To be fair, I definitely have run into way more conservatives looking to shove their opinions down someone else's throats than I have liberals looking to shove their opinions down everyone's throat. And, certainly, it's not hard to extrapolate from an increasingly anti-immigration pupulist GOP and a pro civil liberties DNC to the opinion that liberals tend to be more tolerant of others while conservatives tend to be more intolerant of others who differ from them. 

Myself, I'm just concerned that SharedEQ is lonely and has too much time on his hands, based on the fact he's discussing politics on a discussion forum, and I hope he gets the health he needs before he becomes another statistic on the lack of available mental health resources to combat depression in this country.  We're here for you, bro. We'll listen.


----------



## aesthyrian

Just remember, there is no age limit for the internet. Especially with the comments on the sites that wankerness mentioned, it mostly seems like rage filled 13 year olds that want to play grown up and talk "politics".

I always question if it's worth arguing over the internet with what could be a child on the other end. I mean, the grammar and spelling alone tells me that they must be children. Maybe I just don't want to believe that adults could lack such critical thinking skills and harbor such hate? Plus, what employed adult has the time to spend trolling several websites, daily? 

Also, trolling seems like the sort of activity that would have only "fulfilled" me when I was 13-16. I just can't believe that these are adults that spew such racist crap, and then worship their gun shrine after every gun masscare. These are also the same people that love childish wordplay like "Libtards", "Sheeple" and such. 

If they are adults, lets hope they don't "raise" any children... please no.


----------



## synrgy

I used to think 'they' were all kids, too, until Facebook came around, and I started 'reconnecting' with peers I used to go to school with..

They're _definitely_ not all kids. 

FWIW this forum is one of the only places I've ever felt comfortable discussing politics. I've even had my opinion changed, once or twice! Imagine that! 

We have a relatively pragmatic bunch here, which I find refreshing, among the dredge of the rest of the 'net.


----------



## QuantumCybin

You guys make me feel so dumb  I feel like I should know way more about our current political climate but for reasons you guys have been talking about, like the toxicity of so many people, I sort of just tuned it all out this election. Still though, I love reading sh!t like this, I've certainly learned a lot hahah


----------



## wankerness

aesthyrian said:


> Just remember, there is no age limit for the internet. Especially with the comments on the sites that wankerness mentioned, it mostly seems like rage filled 13 year olds that want to play grown up and talk "politics".



No, it's definitely not 13 year olds. It's almost entirely middle aged (late 30s to late 50s) men. Any site that links comments to facebook will bear this out.


----------



## ThomasUV777

CapnForsaggio said:


> He's not been accused of breaking any laws...



Say what? 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

Ow, and any man behaving like this should be deemed unfit for presidency from the get-go:


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Michele Bachmann: I'm advising Trump on foreign policy

Oh dear God.


----------



## bostjan

This world...  I can't even tell if news is from the Onion or from a reputable real news source anymore.


----------



## russmuller

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Michele Bachmann: I'm advising Trump on foreign policy
> 
> Oh dear God.



I saw this headline on another source as "Person with shoe size higher than IQ now advising Trump on foreign policy."


----------



## bostjan

I'm surprised Trump would be taking foreign policy advice from her, actually. He seems like the kind of guy who would try to hire someone based upon reputation as an expert. Not that I'm trying to give him credit or anything, but I could totally see him with a team of highly paid advisers whom he totally ignores.


----------



## flint757

I think the most hilarious aspect of Trumps presidential run is that a good chunk of conservative voters are voting for him on the basis that he is anti-establishment yet he's surrounding himself with establishment Republicans. If he wins he'll end up being another Reagan who basically just does whatever his adviser's says and never reads anything before signing it. In essence you won't be voting for Trump, but Trumps team of adviser's and VP pick.

On the flip side, Hillary isn't even trying to pretend that she will be a 'progressive' candidate anymore. Literally every single person she has picked thus far has neoliberal written all over it.


----------



## narad

flint757 said:


> If he wins he'll end up being another Reagan who basically just does whatever his adviser's says and never reads anything before signing it.



The Republican dream?


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> The Republican dream?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'm surprised Trump would be taking foreign policy advice from her, actually. He seems like the kind of guy who would try to hire someone based upon reputation as an expert. Not that I'm trying to give him credit or anything, but I could totally see him with a team of highly paid advisers whom he totally ignores.



I actually saw that headline and my first thought was, "Did Trump _ask_ her to, or did she just decide to start offering unsolicited advice?"


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> I actually saw that headline and my first thought was, "Did Trump _ask_ her to, or did she just decide to start offering unsolicited advice?"



I thought that Ann Coulter had that position locked up.


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> I thought that Ann Coulter had that position locked up.



She hates him now, considering she released a book about how great he was for his anti-immigration policy on the same day that he announced he was backing off on it.


----------



## celticelk

wankerness said:


> She hates him now, considering she released a book about how great he was for his anti-immigration policy on the same day that he announced he was backing off on it.



Ah, the sweet smell of infighting.


----------



## wankerness

He's really circling the drain at this point. If he doesn't drop out before election day I bet he's going to get the lowest percentage of votes of any two-party candidate in modern history. Which is quite an achievement given who he's up against.


----------



## extendedsolo

wankerness said:


> He's really circling the drain at this point. If he doesn't drop out before election day I bet he's going to get the lowest percentage of votes of any two-party candidate in modern history. Which is quite an achievement given who he's up against.



Anyone care to see how poorly he does at the first debate? I mean it's pretty much appointment viewing for me. I just can't envision Clinton's team messing up so badly that he comes out looking sane. 

I really think his supporters will be the most vocal, but find themselves in a minority. I'm guessing he'll get right around 40% of the popular vote with Johnson getting 6-7 and the rest going to clinton.


----------



## bostjan

My hope is that people will all snap out of this trance and elect Johnson.

I'm really not sure what Johnson will be able to change, but he won't be screwing us as hard as the two mainstream options.

But the main thing would be to send a message to these parties that they are not omnipotent. All of their power lies in the fact that people believe what they say, despite getting caught lying on a regular basis.

If anybody wanted a long term change with Obama, the message from the Democratic party is clear: If you want a real change, you have to eliminate the two-party system entirely.


----------



## Randy

extendedsolo said:


> Anyone care to see how poorly he does at the first debate? I mean it's pretty much appointment viewing for me. I just can't envision Clinton's team messing up so badly that he comes out looking sane.



Eh, we'll see. 

I absolutely don't want to normalize Trump and his grand standing, "lowest common denominator" style of whipping up degenerates but I've watched the guy pretty closely and when it comes to his press conferences, his stats and numbers are usually surprisingly accurate. By comparison, Hillary's been avoiding press conferences all together and has never come across as a strong debater. 

If you're expecting the Clinton - Trump debates to just be him picking his nose while she puts on a clinic for the audience, I think you'll be sorely disappointed.


----------



## bostjan

Clinton and Trump are not stupid. But, they both think that we are all stupid.

The debate is going to be a total ....ing disaster. Neither one of them can apply logic in any productive way, and neither of them can manage to keep the high ground in an argument long enough to make it through an entire debate. That's why we need GJ at the debate. Basically, all he'd have to do is not be an ass, and he'd be able to easily come off looking the most professional.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Clinton and Trump are not stupid. But, they both think that we are all stupid.
> 
> The debate is going to be a total ....ing disaster. Neither one of them can apply logic in any productive way, and neither of them can manage to keep the high ground in an argument long enough to make it through an entire debate. That's why we need GJ at the debate. Basically, all he'd have to do is not be an ass, and he'd be able to easily come off looking the most professional.



I'd like to see some restructuring to get 'alternative parties' into at least one debate per cycle to shake things up a little. Not entirely sure how you'd manage that but it'd be nice.


----------



## extendedsolo

Randy said:


> Eh, we'll see.
> 
> I absolutely don't want to normalize Trump and his grand standing, "lowest common denominator" style of whipping up degenerates but I've watched the guy pretty closely and when it comes to his press conferences, his stats and numbers are usually surprisingly accurate. By comparison, Hillary's been avoiding press conferences all together and has never come across as a strong debater.
> 
> If you're expecting the Clinton - Trump debates to just be him picking his nose while she puts on a clinic for the audience, I think you'll be sorely disappointed.



I'm not expecting that, but rather I'm curious to see which of the two is less self aware. I also want to see the interplay between the two. I know Clinton won't back down from Trump since she has been prepping for his style. From my understanding Trump isn't prepping for the debates at all so it's possible he's going to wing it. That's why it's so interesting.


----------



## flint757

I'm personally boycotting the debates. I have no intention on voting for either of them anyhow and until they realize that they have to cater to more than just the two main parties I'll enjoy their ratings/viewership slip hopefully. I will be throwing my support and attention behind Jill Stein as I can't get behind Gary personally, although any party with the ability to win, as far as ballot access, should be included in the debates (which includes both the Green and Libertarian party). Gary's support for the TPP leaves him completely off my radar, Trump is just a puppet, and we already know where the majority of the Democratic establishment really stands on the issue of trade. I'm not buying the manipulation personally.

Under NAFTA Trans-Canada is suing US taxpayers for 15 billion dollars because we didn't approve the construction of the Keystone pipeline (really their goal is to get it overturned). Look forward to more of that bull.... with the TPP, TTIP, and TISA. For a free trade agreement not a lot in these bills is actually about free trade. It seems most of our trade agreements are a lot more about corporate sovereignty rather than jobs and making trade better for the majority of us. No thanks.


----------



## bostjan

What, specifically, is your problem with the TPP? Is there nothing at all that you like about it?


----------



## flint757

By and large the ISDS, Investor-state dispute settlement.


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> By and large the ISDS, Investor-state dispute settlement.



I see. So, then how would you recommend international laws be enforced?


----------



## flint757

I don't think foreign companies should have any rights to demand laws in other countries be struck down or changed, nor do I think having laws on the books that hurt a companies profits should warrant a company getting reparations.

These bills are written tailor made for big multinational corporations that ultimately hurt competition, destroy local economies, and take more than they give back. A great example is Nestle siphoning off public water for pennies on the dollar to be sold back to the public for profit. They don't help small companies or medium sized companies, it's for the big 10 in the food industry, Walmart, Pharmaceuticals, Oil, etc.

Do you believe Trans-Canada should have even had the opportunity to sue the US government or manipulate our laws (whether successful or not)? Do you think a company has the right to overrule a country and its people's sovereignty? Do you think a company has the right to demand people who gain nothing from a corporation to pay them back for theorized losses with their tax dollars?

[EDIT]

I should note as well that the TPP revives aspects of SOPA and PIPA which we soundly prevented, and I was firmly against.

[EDIT][EDIT]

I'm also consistently against 'free' trade agreements (that's rarely what they actually are about). These agreements and laws have wonderful results if you work on Wall Street, in the finance industry, or for a massive multinational corporation; everyone else at best doesn't benefit at all and at worst gets totally screwed.

Lets not pretend these companies are remotely ethical in nature. You have companies like Mylan who spike drug prices because a generic was going to be entering the market in a couple of years, raising the price from $50 to $600. This same corporation has done an inversion so that they can avoid paying taxes, mind you this drug was made in the public sector, and the CEO in charge has given herself a fluffy bonus for her days work (and her father is a senator).

IMO free trade agreements, and in general globalization, hurts local economies. They certainly don't have to, but they're always written to cater to those who have the most to offer to our government.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

^^^

Well said.


----------



## odibrom

Disclaimer: I am not American.

Since I believe (haven't read all these 30 pages) most or at least many of you guys aren't Trump fans, I hereby share a link about an internet tool to stop this _______(insert your own pejorative adjective) man to get to the "throne":
AVAAZ link to stop Trump. I hope it hasn't been posted before, if it has, consider it a bump . Because of the disclaimer, I cannot use it, but please all of you who can, USE AND SHARE.

For all of you who are his fan or follower, I am sorry, but I could not in my conscience let this go unshared.


----------



## thraxil

odibrom said:


> I hereby share a link about an internet tool to stop this _______(insert your own pejorative adjective) man to get to the "throne":
> AVAAZ link to stop Trump.



Well, I'm an American abroad and I'm voting absentee. Unfortunately, the way it works, your vote goes to the last residence you had in the US, which for me is New York State, so my vote doesn't really matter much in the presidential election.


----------



## bostjan

If Clinton keels over before the election... what will happen?


----------



## Hogie34

bostjan said:


> If Clinton keels over before the election... what will happen?


The Democratic Party would elect a new nominee .


----------



## flint757

Hogie34 said:


> The Democratic Party would elect a new nominee .



And knowing the DNC's arrogance it'd probably be Kaine or Biden rather than the runner up who people actually voted for. Call me cynical.

Not that it matters. She won't drop out even if her health were poor enough to warrant it. She'll just keel over in her first term and we'll be stuck with an even more conservative president than Clinton.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Hillary Clinton will say the oath of office even if the Grim Reaper personally told her that she will pass away the 2nd day in office.


----------



## mnemonic

Wow, didn't know I would be able to vote, I just assumed I wouldn't be able to since I moved out of the country. I was from California too, so my vote might actually matter a bit. 

Most of you guys probably won't like that I have this information though.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> And knowing the DNC's arrogance it'd probably be Kaine or Biden rather than the runner up who people actually voted for. Call me cynical.



I don't think we've ever had precident before, but if something happened to the nominated presidential candidate on a ticket, my expectation WOULD be that the Vice Presidential candidate, who is also already on the ballots in all 50 states, would be the expected replacement. If something happened before the ballot deadline there might be a little more flexibility, but I'd think Sanders' best shot would be for Kaine to nominate him as his vice presidential pick. 

...which is a little tricky, now that he's no longer a Democrat.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> I don't think foreign companies should have any rights to demand laws in other countries be struck down or changed, nor do I think having laws on the books that hurt a companies profits should warrant a company getting reparations.
> 
> These bills are written tailor made for big multinational corporations that ultimately hurt competition, destroy local economies, and take more than they give back. A great example is Nestle siphoning off public water for pennies on the dollar to be sold back to the public for profit. They don't help small companies or medium sized companies, it's for the big 10 in the food industry, Walmart, Pharmaceuticals, Oil, etc.
> 
> Do you believe Trans-Canada should have even had the opportunity to sue the US government or manipulate our laws (whether successful or not)? Do you think a company has the right to overrule a country and its people's sovereignty? Do you think a company has the right to demand people who gain nothing from a corporation to pay them back for theorized losses with their tax dollars?



The TPP creates a mechanism through which companies can request laws be struck down in member states, as well as a means through which reparation MAY be awarded when a law specifically targets a company. In both cases, the intent here is to prevent protectionism and member countries creating artificial trade barriers within a free trade zone. I don't see that as a bad thing.

To use your final paragraph, if the US passed legislation, after the TPP was signed into law, that imposed strict regulations on imported Canadian timber that artificially increased costs relative to US timber and created artificial barriers to competition, then yes, I do think Canada should be able to sue to have the law overturned. 

Now, don't even get me started on the idiocy of US water policy.  Marc Reisler's "Cadillac Desert" is a _great_ read, if you have the time.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Clinton and Trump are not stupid. But, they both think that we are all stupid.
> 
> The debate is going to be a total ....ing disaster. Neither one of them can apply logic in any productive way, and neither of them can manage to keep the high ground in an argument long enough to make it through an entire debate. That's why we need GJ at the debate. Basically, all he'd have to do is not be an ass, and he'd be able to easily come off looking the most professional.



I disagree with your assessment of Clinton, of course (she has a well-earned reputation as an excellent debater), but I hope after Johnson's Aleppo gaffe, he'd at least put a little more time into preparations if he makes the cut (which looks very unlikely at this point). It was a pretty crappy question and was intended to be a bit of a "gotcha" moment anyway... But he tripped right over it and came off looking rather clueless. He can't afford that, running as a 3rd party candidate with about 8% support in the polling.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> I don't think we've ever had precident before, but if something happened to the nominated presidential candidate on a ticket, my expectation WOULD be that the Vice Presidential candidate, who is also already on the ballots in all 50 states, would be the expected replacement. If something happened before the ballot deadline there might be a little more flexibility, but I'd think Sanders' best shot would be for Kaine to nominate him as his vice presidential pick.
> 
> ...which is a little tricky, now that he's no longer a Democrat.



I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I can almost guarantee they'd lose with Kaine as their nominee. Not that any of this is actually going to be happening.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> The TPP creates a mechanism through which companies can request laws be struck down in member states, as well as a means through which reparation MAY be awarded when a law specifically targets a company. In both cases, the intent here is to prevent protectionism and member countries creating artificial trade barriers within a free trade zone. I don't see that as a bad thing.
> 
> To use your final paragraph, if the US passed legislation, after the TPP was signed into law, that imposed strict regulations on imported Canadian timber that artificially increased costs relative to US timber and created artificial barriers to competition, then yes, I do think Canada should be able to sue to have the law overturned.
> 
> Now, don't even get me started on the idiocy of US water policy.  Marc Reisler's "Cadillac Desert" is a _great_ read, if you have the time.



We'll just have to agree to disagree on this I suppose. Egypt getting sued because they raised their minimum wage and the US being sued because we decided against allowing a pipeline to be built right down the middle of our country, despite the fact that clearly it's basically still happening, as we're seeing with DAPL, is something I'm not okay with. Multinational corporations already use sneaky methods to pay almost no taxes and skirt EPA laws, and trade deals like this benefit these companies the most. A more recent example of the pitfalls of NAFTA is that FORD is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. More jobs fleeing our country cannot be swung as a good thing IMO.

Slightly off topic, but I think artificial trade barriers and tariff's should especially exist for US companies that move their companies or factories outside of the US to only end up bringing whatever they're making back into the US to be sold. There's a reason wealth inequality is so bad in this country and it has been since the 80's. If you disagree, don't care, or can't see it then I'm not sure there's much to be discussed.


----------



## celticelk

flint757 said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I can almost guarantee they'd lose with Kaine as their nominee. Not that any of this is actually going to be happening.



I find that difficult to believe. Kaine doesn't have any of Clinton's trustworthiness problems, and Trump is still Trump.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> I find that difficult to believe. Kaine doesn't have any of Clinton's trustworthiness problems, and Trump is still Trump.



Well, like I said, she has to be the one to step down and I don't see her doing that even if she were too sick to continue. Anyone who voted for Bernie this primary that switched because of party loyalty wouldn't likely be okay with him being snubbed twice for someone nobody voted for. I don't think Trumps lack of appeal will be enough for many. It certainly hasn't been for myself. This mental exercise is pointless though, she's not going to step down.


----------



## vilk

They could replace Clinton with a cardboard cutout of Indiana Jones and play sound clips from the movies at the debate and it would beat Trump by a wider margin than Clinton could.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I can almost guarantee they'd lose with Kaine as their nominee. Not that any of this is actually going to be happening.



Hey, I don't want to sell Clinton short - I think she's an extremely qualified candidate and will likely make an effective president. However, she's also undeniably a _historically_ divisive candidate with lower approval ratings than Trump (which blows my mind). And, she's STILL beating him, by about a 3 point margin. The biggest risk would be just a spooked electorate, with them having to go back to the drawing board and learn about a new candidate weeks before the election.



flint757 said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree on this I suppose. Egypt getting sued because they raised their minimum wage and the US being sued because we decided against allowing a pipeline to be built right down the middle of our country, despite the fact that clearly it's basically still happening, as we're seeing with DAPL, is something I'm not okay with. Multinational corporations already use sneaky methods to pay almost no taxes and skirt EPA laws, and trade deals like this benefit these companies the most. A more recent example of the pitfalls of NAFTA is that FORD is moving all of their small-car production to Mexico. More jobs fleeing our country cannot be swung as a good thing IMO.
> 
> Slightly off topic, but I think artificial trade barriers and tariff's should especially exist for US companies that move their companies or factories outside of the US to only end up bringing whatever they're making back into the US to be sold. There's a reason wealth inequality is so bad in this country and it has been since the 80's. If you disagree, don't care, or can't see it then I'm not sure there's much to be discussed.



There's a distinction I think you're missing, though. Just because a mechanism _exists_ doesn't mean every time someone tries to use it, it's going automatically go in their favor. It's an arbitration mechanism, no more no less. I don't know what's going on in the Egyptian suit, but in the US/Canada one, the Canadian companies are essentially trying to argue that they were economically harmed when a pipeline they reasonably believed was going to be built, and if they can demonstrate that they did experience economic harm and had been reasonably assured that the pipeline was to be built, then I don't think it's unfair for them to be compensated for money they lost investing in a pipeline that the US Government killed. A "suit" sounds kind of evil and scary, but it's just the mechanism for a legal settlement, and the suit can't force the pipeline to go ahead, so it's not an attack on national sovereignty. Basically, what it is is Canadian oil companies saying, "hey, we invested money in making this pipeline work, and the American government blocked it, making our investment worthless. We want to be compensated for money we lost on this project." Again, that's not an affront to US sovereignty, that's just asking us to treat our trading partners fairly. I'm ok with that. 

On Ford, a couple comments. One, this is an announcement that literally happened _yesterday_, so attributing it to a deal that was signed more than 20 years ago seems a bit of a stretch - if this was because of NAFTA, then whyt did Ford drag their feet for 20 years? Two, while small car production is moving to Mexico, the plants in the States currently producing small cars will instead be producing mid to large sized cars. There's no cut in domestic headcount. 

Also, as far as free trade and income inequality... It's a REALLY complex subject that I think you're oversimplifying. We absolutely have an income inequality problem in this country, but protectionism isn't a solution, and IMO is far more likely to make things worse than better (with a higher cost of living due to the sole reliance on US labor, and significantly lower demand for US produced goods as we exit free trade zones and start facing protective tariffs slapped on American goods in retaliation, which will in turn lead to job losses in the shipping and importing industries, job and revenue losses at US ports, job losses in financial jobs related to the currency transactions necessary to facilitate international trade, etc). It's not that simple. I'd rather see inequality addressed directly through progressive taxation, and indirectly through stimulus spending on infastructure (which is BADLY needed anyway), education and career transition spending, and ways to make the American workforce the best educated and most skilled in the world.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> We absolutely have an income inequality problem in this country, but protectionism isn't a solution, and IMO is far more likely to make things worse than better (with a higher cost of living due to the sole reliance on US labor, and significantly lower demand for US produced goods as we exit free trade zones and start facing protective tariffs slapped on American goods in retaliation, which will in turn lead to job losses in the shipping and importing industries, job and revenue losses at US ports, job losses in financial jobs related to the currency transactions necessary to facilitate international trade, etc). It's not that simple. I'd rather see inequality addressed directly through progressive taxation, and indirectly through stimulus spending on infastructure (which is BADLY needed anyway), education and career transition spending, and ways to make the American workforce the best educated and most skilled in the world.



This is carrying over from the debating we've been doing on MG, but I find it hard to believe there's enough "skilled jobs" out there to fill all gaps for what were factories employing hundreds of people at comparable salaries and benefits to jobs that require a college education now. I agree it's complex, but even if you taught everyone IT or engineering or any one of the more complicated "higher income" type jobs out there now, that it'd be enough jobs to accomodate all the people who are currently working minimum wage, food and similar service type jobs right now. 

The numbers just aren't there, which means the separation is going to continue to exist as time goes on and the two halves get pulled further apart. 

What's hilarious is the Census numbers that came out at the beginning of the week, touting "record gains" for the middle class, yet also characterizing near record levels of income inequality. The part I find funny is that you can go back over the last 20 years of Democratic rhetoric about what IS the middle class, why the middle class is important, etc. but in 8 years of a Democratic administration and now projecting into the next one going forward, the notion of a middle ground of income has all but been abandoned.

I'm just not seeing the nuts and bolts of a jobs plan that actually has the kinda numbers necessary to replace the big hole in the middle where the MAJ-ority of people have been employed for the previous 100+ years of this country.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> This is carrying over from the debating we've been doing on MG, but I find it hard to believe there's enough "skilled jobs" out there to fill all gaps for what were factories employing hundreds of people at comparable salaries and benefits to jobs that require a college education now. I agree it's complex, but even if you taught everyone IT or engineering or any one of the more complicated "higher income" type jobs out there now, that it'd be enough jobs to accomodate all the people who are currently working minimum wage, food and similar service type jobs right now.



There have always been people working those jobs and always will be; we can't bring *everyone* up. What we can do is begin to help those who are underemployed rise up, but even then we're only building the foundation at this point. We won't see large scale change in this area for 10+ years IMO. It's just not something that can be addressed in the short term (beyond setting those things in place that will improve things over a longer period).


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> There have always been people working those jobs and always will be



I don't disagree. My point is, I'm failing to see what the modern equivalent to a "next step up" profession there is? Seems like there's a large area between grocery store clerk and degree or even vocational training jobs .That was space traditionally filled with unionized, living-wage paying factory and manual labor jobs.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Hey, I don't want to sell Clinton short - I think she's an extremely qualified candidate and will likely make an effective president. However, she's also undeniably a _historically_ divisive candidate with lower approval ratings than Trump (which blows my mind). And, she's STILL beating him, by about a 3 point margin. The biggest risk would be just a spooked electorate, with them having to go back to the drawing board and learn about a new candidate weeks before the election.



Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, it isn't going to happen. I'm not voting for them either way and without it _actually_ happening the rest is just pure baseless speculation on both our parts.



Drew said:


> There's a distinction I think you're missing, though. Just because a mechanism _exists_ doesn't mean every time someone tries to use it, it's going automatically go in their favor. It's an arbitration mechanism, no more no less. I don't know what's going on in the Egyptian suit, but in the US/Canada one, the Canadian companies are essentially trying to argue that they were economically harmed when a pipeline they reasonably believed was going to be built, and if they can demonstrate that they did experience economic harm and had been reasonably assured that the pipeline was to be built, then I don't think it's unfair for them to be compensated for money they lost investing in a pipeline that the US Government killed. A "suit" sounds kind of evil and scary, but it's just the mechanism for a legal settlement, and the suit can't force the pipeline to go ahead, so it's not an attack on national sovereignty. Basically, what it is is Canadian oil companies saying, "hey, we invested money in making this pipeline work, and the American government blocked it, making our investment worthless. We want to be compensated for money we lost on this project." Again, that's not an affront to US sovereignty, that's just asking us to treat our trading partners fairly. I'm ok with that.



Have you read the TTP, TTIP, and TISA in their entirety. Even pro trade people are saying it isn't good for anyone, but the elite business class of this country. I have a laundry list of reasons I disagree with these trade agreements, not solely based in 'protectionist' ideals.

It's as I said before, we aren't going to agree on this. I know where you stand on this trade deal, globalization, and Wall Street policy from past forum conversations and I couldn't be further from your position on the issue.



Drew said:


> On Ford, a couple comments. One, this is an announcement that literally happened _yesterday_, so attributing it to a deal that was signed more than 20 years ago seems a bit of a stretch - if this was because of NAFTA, then whyt did Ford drag their feet for 20 years? Two, while small car production is moving to Mexico, the plants in the States currently producing small cars will instead be producing mid to large sized cars. There's no cut in domestic headcount.



You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not saying NAFTA was signed and they just decided to jump ship over it. I'm saying that NAFTA makes their decision to move to Mexico a favorable decision, since NAFTA removes any barriers that would make it unfavorable for them to do so. They're going there because of cheap labor and lax regulation in Mexico. Lets not play dumb on this issue. Trade deals make it so huge corporations can game the system even more in their favor. They already control most of the system via lobbying. If our politicians weren't bought and paid for by these companies they would have so many antitrust laws thrown in their faces as we speak. The mergers and acquisitions that we've allowed to occur in this country are horrifying to me. Although I'm straying off topic a bit. 



Drew said:


> Also, as far as free trade and income inequality... It's a REALLY complex subject that I think you're oversimplifying. We absolutely have an income inequality problem in this country, but protectionism isn't a solution, and IMO is far more likely to make things worse than better (with a higher cost of living due to the sole reliance on US labor, and significantly lower demand for US produced goods as we exit free trade zones and start facing protective tariffs slapped on American goods in retaliation, which will in turn lead to job losses in the shipping and importing industries, job and revenue losses at US ports, job losses in financial jobs related to the currency transactions necessary to facilitate international trade, etc). It's not that simple. I'd rather see inequality addressed directly through progressive taxation, and indirectly through stimulus spending on infastructure (which is BADLY needed anyway), education and career transition spending, and ways to make the American workforce the best educated and most skilled in the world.





Randy said:


> This is carrying over from the debating we've been doing on MG, but I find it hard to believe there's enough "skilled jobs" out there to fill all gaps for what were factories employing hundreds of people at comparable salaries and benefits to jobs that require a college education now. I agree it's complex, but even if you taught everyone IT or engineering or any one of the more complicated "higher income" type jobs out there now, that it'd be enough jobs to accomodate all the people who are currently working minimum wage, food and similar service type jobs right now.
> 
> The numbers just aren't there, which means the separation is going to continue to exist as time goes on and the two halves get pulled further apart.
> 
> What's hilarious is the Census numbers that came out at the beginning of the week, touting "record gains" for the middle class, yet also characterizing near record levels of income inequality. The part I find funny is that you can go back over the last 20 years of Democratic rhetoric about what IS the middle class, why the middle class is important, etc. but in 8 years of a Democratic administration and now projecting into the next one going forward, the notion of a middle ground of income has all but been abandoned.
> 
> I'm just not seeing the nuts and bolts of a jobs plan that actually has the kinda numbers necessary to replace the big hole in the middle where the MAJ-ority of people have been employed for the previous 100+ years of this country.



I agree with Randy on this one entirely. Do you not see the healthy dose of irony that you listed your industry under positions that would be at risk if we didn't have these trade deals (financial industry)? Education will not solve our problems AT ALL. The job market is a pyramid. The further up you go the fewer positions are available. It won't solve income inequality and it won't solve unemployment or people being underpaid. It will only increase the competitiveness of the tiers above the ones we've dismantled leading to drops in wages and salary due to supply and demand.

Ford is moving their small car production to Mexico, Nabisco shipped jobs to Mexico, Carrier Corporation is moving jobs to Mexico, international trade companies regularly take advantage of policies like transfer pricing and corporate inversions to avoid paying as much or any taxes. Corporations don't know how to do the 'right' thing, only what is best for their bottom line.

I want you to think about this. Autoworkers make about $80,000 starting, not including overtime (38 per hour) with benefits. Now you're suggesting that they get an education that will not only take anywhere from 1-8 years to complete, pending on which path they go, but will also cost them a substantial amount of money, if not through cost of education then through simply lost income while they pursue an education. Then you expect them to go find work in which most people are at best making about 10k less than what they were already making before all this went down.


----------



## Drew

Flint - I don't think irony is the word you're looking for, but either way - no, I'm not a currency trader. I work for a firm that predominately manages fixed income investment portfolios, the bulk of which are municipal bonds. If anything, I should be OPPOSED to infrastructure spending, since an increase in muni supply would likely cause rates to trade off a little. I still think it's one of the best things we can do to stimulate wage growth and aggregate demand, though, because it creates a LOT of "shovel ready" jobs and will rebuild transportation infrastructure that will allow smoother domestic trade. 

My point being, though, is that international trade impacts a HUGE range of professions, from "unskilled" ones like dock hands or long distance truck drivers up to "white collar" ones like currency traders at investment banks making sure that if a US company needs to settle a contract in Korean won, they have access to the appropriate currency and have options available to them if they want to hedge out currency risk on the deal so if exchange rates move against them the contract doesn't become unprofitable. 

Randy - to your point, no, I CAN'T be sure that there will be 1:1 opportunities to replace lost American manufacturing jobs. That's no reason not to try to invest in our workforce, however; I don't think we can afford to let perfect be the enemy of good. 

Flint - to your second post, again, you're only looking at one side of this. I don't know exactly what auto workers make so I'll go with your $80,000 number for now, but 1) that's ludicrously high for starting wages for virtually ANY industry, and I can tell you when I started in the finance industry in the early 2000s, it was for a heck of a lot less than that. And, if you look at what actually _happened_ in the auto industry coming into the Great Recession (which the market crash and what happened to the workforce is a large part of why we're having this conversation in the first place), well, GM required a government bailout, GMC required a bailout and ended up shuttering the Pontiac brand to try to return to profitability, and Ford BARELY scraped by on the skin of its teeth, largely because labor costs and associated pension liabilities meant they were losing money on every car out the door. 

So, you can point to the fact that auto manufacturing wages used to start at $80k/year and now we're asking people to go back to school and take jobs that may not even pay as much. I'd argue, though, that the problem was $80k/year wasn't a sustainable starting salary for a manufacturing line job _in the first place_, but maybe with appropriate training and government assistance to bridge the transition, we can get more Americans back closer to those kinds of wages than they are today. 

Anyway, I'd argue automation is the FAR bigger risk to American manufacturing jobs than outsourcing, if we want to talk about employment trends.

EDIT - if there's any takeaways I have from this long-running conversation about free trade and globalism, it's that I don't think there are enough public figures discussing free trade with any degree of nuance. Supporters fail to talk about the costs of free trade (which, while in general I support expanding free trade, there absolutely ARE costs), whereas opponents fail to acknowledge the benefits. It gets simplified into an argument about a bigger economic pie means more for all vs the evils of large corporations only caring about their bottom line. And, free trade is in no ways unique in this extremely polar dichotomy, there's clearly a lot of middle ground here where there ARE benefits from free trade for normal everyday American citizens in the form of increased purchasing power and better quality of life, though they do come at the cost of some job losses. As long as the benefits are greater than the costs, and for average Americans I do believe they are, then free trade is a good thing. It's just not a costless good thing, so supporters of free trade need to be a little more open about this, and need to find ways of addressing those who ARE impacted by it.

EDIT #2 - also:



flint757 said:


> Even pro trade people are saying it isn't good for anyone, but the elite business class of this country.



This is absolutely not right, unless you define "pro free trade" and "elite business class" as one and the same. Economists as a group only rarely agree on something unanimously, but free trade in general, and the Trans Pacific Partnership in specific, enjoy pretty broad support as pro-growth policies.


----------



## celticelk

The *engineers* in the automotive industry don't make $80K a year starting: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Automotive_Manufacturing/Salary

Assembly line workers make half of that at best, and almost certainly not as a starting salary: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Factory/Hourly_Rate

I have two masters' degrees from well-regarded schools, and a combined total of 15 years' experience, and I don't make $80K a year at the public university where I'm employed.

EDIT: Revised: auto workers do better than assembly line workers generally, but it's still not $80K a year, and that's including overtime: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Automotive/Hourly_Rate


----------



## Mathemagician

This trump thread was never supposed to make it past the end of last summer.....


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> I don't disagree. My point is, I'm failing to see what the modern equivalent to a "next step up" profession there is? Seems like there's a large area between grocery store clerk and degree or even vocational training jobs .That was space traditionally filled with unionized, living-wage paying factory and manual labor jobs.



I didn't think you would disagree.

As far as the jobs, if memory serves, you're in upstate New York, so I imagine things look a bit different back east from what they look like in Houston. Houston has quite a number of people moving here from all parts of the country because we still have a pretty good economy, middle class jobs and a relatively low cost of living. Aside from the industries we're known for (medicine, energy and energy trading, aerospace, etc.) there are quite a few lesser known industries here: we have the second busiest sea port in the US, a fishing industry (shrimping, red snapper, grouper, flounder, etc.) trucking, oil refining, petrochemical production, etc. We're also the third largest city in the US population-wise (we've just overtaken Chicago, though that won't be official until the 2020 census), but have no decent public transportation to speak of, so everyone drives.

These industries still provide for a wide range of middle class jobs here ranging from mechanics (auto, big rig, marine, aviation) to skilled labor like electricians, plumbers, welders, etc. The Port of Houston definitely has a longshoreman's union. And all the people moving here from elsewhere has caused a bit of a mini housing boom, so there are plenty of construction jobs to be had as well.

So while I agree that moving certain jobs to Mexico (or wherever) will lead to local employment issues in the area of the closed factory/plant, I think that there are jobs to be had in many places, people just need to consider 1) working in a new industry, and 2) relocating. And this isn't something new. My grandparents on both sides of my family moved from Louisiana to Houston in search of employment after WWII because they couldn't find anything locally. Many people moved west looking for work during and right after the great depression, etc. I think this is one of those transition periods where we need to look at things a bit differently in order to find the solutions to our problems, even if that difference is just geographic.


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> The *engineers* in the automotive industry don't make $80K a year starting: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Automotive_Manufacturing/Salary
> 
> Assembly line workers make half of that at best, and almost certainly not as a starting salary: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Factory/Hourly_Rate
> 
> I have two masters' degrees from well-regarded schools, and a combined total of 15 years' experience, and I don't make $80K a year at the public university where I'm employed.
> 
> EDIT: Revised: auto workers do better than assembly line workers generally, but it's still not $80K a year, and that's including overtime: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Automotive/Hourly_Rate



Thank you, that number seemed suspect to me. $80k starting salary for what's essentially unskilled/lightly skilled manual labor seemed insanely high, but I didn't have the data to back that.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> So while I agree that moving certain jobs to Mexico (or wherever) will lead to local employment issues in the area of the closed factory/plant, I think that there are jobs to be had in many places, people just need to consider 1) working in a new industry, and 2) relocating. And this isn't something new. My grandparents on both sides of my family moved from Louisiana to Houston in search of employment after WWII because they couldn't find anything locally. Many people moved west looking for work during and right after the great depression, etc. I think this is one of those transition periods where we need to look at things a bit differently in order to find the solutions to our problems, even if that difference is just geographic.



This was actually one of the major problems after the crash - after 20 years of federal policies seeking to expand home ownership for American families, and a renewed desire to invest in "safe" assets like a home after the Dot Com crash, when the market turned suddenly we had large numbers of Americans out of work who COULDN'T relocate for work because, prior recessions, a whole bunch more of them were homeowners and underwater on their mortgages, and couldn't sell.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> I didn't think you would disagree.
> 
> As far as the jobs, if memory serves, you're in upstate New York, so I imagine things look a bit different back east from what they look like in Houston. Houston has quite a number of people moving here from all parts of the country because we still have a pretty good economy, middle class jobs and a relatively low cost of living. Aside from the industries we're known for (medicine, energy and energy trading, aerospace, etc.) there are quite a few lesser known industries here: we have the second busiest sea port in the US, a fishing industry (shrimping, red snapper, grouper, flounder, etc.) trucking, oil refining, petrochemical production, etc. We're also the third largest city in the US population-wise (we've just overtaken Chicago, though that won't be official until the 2020 census), but have no decent public transportation to speak of, so everyone drives.
> 
> These industries still provide for a wide range of middle class jobs here ranging from mechanics (auto, big rig, marine, aviation) to skilled labor like electricians, plumbers, welders, etc. The Port of Houston definitely has a longshoreman's union. And all the people moving here from elsewhere has caused a bit of a mini housing boom, so there are plenty of construction jobs to be had as well.
> 
> So while I agree that moving certain jobs to Mexico (or wherever) will lead to local employment issues in the area of the closed factory/plant, I think that there are jobs to be had in many places, people just need to consider 1) working in a new industry, and 2) relocating. And this isn't something new. My grandparents on both sides of my family moved from Louisiana to Houston in search of employment after WWII because they couldn't find anything locally. Many people moved west looking for work during and right after the great depression, etc. I think this is one of those transition periods where we need to look at things a bit differently in order to find the solutions to our problems, even if that difference is just geographic.



That's all true and a very optimistic, "go getter", "up by your bootstaps" etc type mentality that I typically subscribe to, but the original complaint still rings true. If everybody in rust belt America came rushing to Houston or other areas around this country that are experiencing a renaissance, there wouldn't be enough jobs for everybody and likewise, a large population of people vying for space in a finite area means increased competition for housing, which means increased cost of living. The east coast has already perfected that model (see: New York City)

Not to poopoo what you're talking about, because there's some fundamental truth to your point of change and adjusting as climates shift, but I still think it can't be over emphasized how diverse this nation has always been in makeup. 

Certain regions had certain prominence in certain industry (in times past, typically based on geography vs. natural resources) and others were prominent for their respective positives. With the move to free-trade and globalization, essentially the place you're harvesting the resources doesn't need to be anywhere near where you turning them into finished goods, likewise, wherever you're manufacturing them doesn't need to be anywhere near where you're selling them and whoever's owning/managing the company doesn't need to be located anywhere near any of those things. 

In the newer, modern model of the economy, harvesting/shipping materials/products seems to have become several levels of importance below cost of labor or added incentives for (re)location.

I mean, whatever... even if we abandon any complaining over PAST decisions that may have factored into ending up where we are today, we still have the decisions were left with making here and now. Call me behind the times, but I don't think expediting the export of the 'old jobs' we have in lieu of these "better, newer, more skilled, modern jobs" we're SUPPOSED to be warming up to is all that wise, when the solution for what replaces them still seems so murky. To me, the acceptance of ever expanding 'free trade' sounds like doing exactly that.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> if there's any takeaways I have from this long-running conversation about free trade and globalism, it's that I don't think there are enough public figures discussing free trade with any degree of nuance. Supporters fail to talk about the costs of free trade (which, while in general I support expanding free trade, there absolutely ARE costs), whereas opponents fail to acknowledge the benefits. It gets simplified into an argument about a bigger economic pie means more for all vs the evils of large corporations only caring about their bottom line. And, free trade is in no ways unique in this extremely polar dichotomy, there's clearly a lot of middle ground here where there ARE benefits from free trade for normal everyday American citizens in the form of increased purchasing power and better quality of life, though they do come at the cost of some job losses. As long as the benefits are greater than the costs, and for average Americans I do believe they are, then free trade is a good thing. It's just not a costless good thing, so supporters of free trade need to be a little more open about this, and need to find ways of addressing those who ARE impacted by it.
> 
> This is absolutely not right, unless you define "pro free trade" and "elite business class" as one and the same. Economists as a group only rarely agree on something unanimously, but free trade in general, and the Trans Pacific Partnership in specific, enjoy pretty broad support as pro-growth policies.


A real free trade agreement is one paragraph. Country A and Country B take their tariffs to zero tomorrow, period. But thats not what our trade agreements look like. They tend to be a thousand pages long.  Anne Krueger



> Historically, the free trade debate has centered on reducing or eliminating tariffs (taxes on imports). But U.S. tariffs are already at historic lows. If the TTIP and TPP were truly about free trade and tariffs, they could be written in a few pages. But they, purportedly, are hundreds of pages long. This is because they deal with what the glob-alization lobby calls non-tariff barriers to trade, which can be just about anything and everything. Here are some of the things the U.S. Trade Representatives website lists as matters that are covered by the TTIP: Agricultural Market Access, Competition, Cross-Border Services, Customs and Trade Facilitation, Electronic Commerce and Telecommunications, Energy and Raw Materials, Environment Financial Services, Government Procurement, Intellectual Property Rights, Investment, Labor,  Rules of Origin, Sanitary and Phyto¬sanitary (SPS) Measures, Sectoral Annexes/Regulatory Cooperation, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, State-Owned Enterprises, Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), Textiles, Trade Remedies.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...0-10-reasons-why-you-should-oppose-obamatrade

Theres a difference between free trade and free trade agreements. If it was just about opening borders between countries they wouldnt need to be larger than novels.

Also, middle ground doesnt make the middle always the correct position. Argument to moderation implies that the extremes are always in the wrong and that is simply not true.



celticelk said:


> The *engineers* in the automotive industry don't make $80K a year starting: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Industry=Automotive_Manufacturing/Salary
> 
> Assembly line workers make half of that at best, and almost certainly not as a starting salary: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Factory/Hourly_Rate
> 
> I have two masters' degrees from well-regarded schools, and a combined total of 15 years' experience, and I don't make $80K a year at the public university where I'm employed.
> 
> EDIT: Revised: auto workers do better than assembly line workers generally, but it's still not $80K a year, and that's including overtime: http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Assembly_Line_Worker,_Automotive/Hourly_Rate





Drew said:


> Thank you, that number seemed suspect to me. $80k starting salary for what's essentially unskilled/lightly skilled manual labor seemed insanely high, but I didn't have the data to back that.





> Roughly speaking, the average hourly pay for a member of the United Auto Workers currently ranges from $28 to $38 or so for those hired before September 2007, and between $16 and $20 for workers hired afterward. The many variables involved in paying production workers make it difficult to calculate a more precise figure. Different jobs pay different rates, for instance, and those who work the second or third shift earn a shift differential. In addition, wage rates are higher for those with longer service.



http://work.chron.com/average-pay-auto-workers-union-member-24071.html

$38 is admittedly on the high end, but they also get full benefits, pension, insurance, etc. to go with it. Or rather they did.



tedtan said:


> I didn't think you would disagree.
> 
> As far as the jobs, if memory serves, you're in upstate New York, so I imagine things look a bit different back east from what they look like in Houston. Houston has quite a number of people moving here from all parts of the country because we still have a pretty good economy, middle class jobs and a relatively low cost of living. Aside from the industries we're known for (medicine, energy and energy trading, aerospace, etc.) there are quite a few lesser known industries here: we have the second busiest sea port in the US, a fishing industry (shrimping, red snapper, grouper, flounder, etc.) trucking, oil refining, petrochemical production, etc. We're also the third largest city in the US population-wise (we've just overtaken Chicago, though that won't be official until the 2020 census), but have no decent public transportation to speak of, so everyone drives.
> 
> These industries still provide for a wide range of middle class jobs here ranging from mechanics (auto, big rig, marine, aviation) to skilled labor like electricians, plumbers, welders, etc. The Port of Houston definitely has a longshoreman's union. And all the people moving here from elsewhere has caused a bit of a mini housing boom, so there are plenty of construction jobs to be had as well.
> 
> So while I agree that moving certain jobs to Mexico (or wherever) will lead to local employment issues in the area of the closed factory/plant, I think that there are jobs to be had in many places, people just need to consider 1) working in a new industry, and 2) relocating. And this isn't something new. My grandparents on both sides of my family moved from Louisiana to Houston in search of employment after WWII because they couldn't find anything locally. Many people moved west looking for work during and right after the great depression, etc. I think this is one of those transition periods where we need to look at things a bit differently in order to find the solutions to our problems, even if that difference is just geographic.



Relocating is no simple proposition though (kids in school, house ownership, debt, extended family) and while Houston, I live here as well, may be doing well business wise, our state has the worst healthcare coverage, education, teen pregnancy rates, highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world, horrible public transportation, etc.; So what has attracted the businesses to our state is also exactly why so much is falling apart as well. Its business first, people second and it reflects in our communities.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ Thank you for conceding that your original assertion, that auto assembly line workers make "$80,000/year starting," was incorrect.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> ^^^ Thank you for conceding that your original assertion, that auto assembly line workers make "$80,000/year starting," was incorrect.



Yeah, if we base it off the number in the chron article, prior to 2007 it'd be more like 58k up to 80k. After 2007 it went down to 33k up to 41k.

---

A point I missed on the discussion of the TTP, TTIP, and TISA, they also were originally, before they were leaked to the public, supposed to be classified. TTP I believe for 4 years after it was signed and TISA I believe it was for 5 years. If what is in these documents is so spectacular for our countrymen why was it being negotiated in secret with lobbyist and our congressmen, who are supposed to be representing us. Feelings aside about the trade deal, or free trade in general, that _should_ infuriate you. It's the secret backdoor part of our government that has led to so many crisis in our country as of late. The Flint water crisis (the governor just changed the law so that residents can no longer sue without the state's approval), DAPL pipeline disrupting treaty land, Georgia and Alabama declaring a state of emergency due to pipeline leaks. You've got folks like Scott Walker who skirt the law, thanks to citizens united, using bribes and then a judge he helped get elected through his financial groups voting to destroy the records. That same court voted in favor of a law that violates the 4th amendment. Then there is the newly exposed pay-to-play revelations within the upper levels of our government. At this point, if you're not incredibly skeptical of our current leaderships ability to make healthy, rational decisions, and if you believe that they aren't just looking out for themselves and the money they can get from it, then I'd list you under gullible/naive (nonspecific you; just generally speaking). Everyone should at the very least be skeptical of these trade deals given what has been uncovered at every level of our government, especially since they were authored entirely in secret and meant to stay that way long after they've been written into law. They most definitely don't deserve our undying trust or devotion on the issue. It's the lack of transparency and apparent corruption that has led to well deserved skepticism and criticism of these policies.

---

On a separate note, it seems like people have a strong misconception of how government spending is supposed to work. There's private surplus/debt, public surplus/debt, and international trade. 500 billion dollars leaves the country annually and never returns. Private debt when out of control can have pretty extreme ramifications, but this does not apply to public debt, especially for monetarily sovereign countries (so Greece and Venezuela are not comparable examples against public spending, since they are not monetarily sovereign nations and Venezuela tied their currency to oil if I recall). When we have a leakage to that level the government should be pumping more money back into the economy either directly or through programs and jobs. People who claim we can't afford single payer healthcare or free college have a fundamental misunderstanding of how US monetary and fiscal policy works, and likely fail to acknowledge we are a monetarily sovereign nation.


----------



## tedtan

I wasn't implying that people should move to Houston, I just using Houston as one example that many companies and many of the jobs available are moving in a generally southerly and westerly direction. (If anything, we have too many people here already and I'd like to see at least half of them move elsewhere so our roads don't get as congested as Los Angeles', and we're not all that far off the way things are going; I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though ).

As far as relocating goes, I'm sure that picking up your family and belongings and moving them to an unfamiliar place in search of work sucks. But what is worse, that or staying in place with no job, no money, no nothing?

And as concerns the rust belt, those cities will see businesses and jobs return one day, but we'll have to see the equivalent of a level playing field in terms of corporate taxes and environmental/employee laws before companies really start moving back IMO.Tax abatements and otherwise subsidized factories can help attract and encourage small businesses and start ups, but the big businesses are looking for more. And right now, they get to keep more in their bank accounts/put more in their shareholders' hands by relocating to Texas and similarly favorable states, so I think this will likely have to come in the form of national level taxes and regulation replacing those of the individual states. But time will tell.


----------



## flint757

tedtan said:


> I wasn't implying that people should move to Houston, I just using Houston as one example that many companies and many of the jobs available are moving in a generally southerly and westerly direction. (If anything, we have too many people here already and I'd like to see at least half of them move elsewhere so our roads don't get as congested as Los Angeles', and we're not all that far off the way things are going; I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though ).



Tell me about it. If everyone could just go back home that'd be great. Traffic is horrendous. 



tedtan said:


> As far as relocating goes, I'm sure that picking up your family and belongings and moving them to an unfamiliar place in search of work sucks. But what is worse, that or staying in place with no job, no money, no nothing?
> 
> And as concerns the rust belt, those cities will see businesses and jobs return one day, but we'll have to see the equivalent of a level playing field in terms of corporate taxes and environmental/employee laws before companies really start moving back IMO.Tax abatements and otherwise subsidized factories can help attract and encourage small businesses and start ups, but the big businesses are looking for more. And right now, they get to keep more in their bank accounts/put more in their shareholders' hands by relocating to Texas and similarly favorable states, so I think this will likely have to come in the form of national level taxes and regulation replacing those of the individual states. But time will tell.



Agreed for the most part.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> &#8220;A real free trade agreement is one paragraph. Country A and Country B take their tariffs to zero tomorrow, period.&#8221; But that&#8217;s not what our trade agreements look like. They tend to be a thousand pages long. &#8211; Anne Krueger
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...0-10-reasons-why-you-should-oppose-obamatrade
> 
> There&#8217;s a difference between free trade and free trade agreements. If it was just about opening borders between countries they wouldn&#8217;t need to be larger than novels.
> 
> Also, middle ground doesn&#8217;t make the middle always the correct position. Argument to moderation implies that the extremes are always in the wrong and that is simply not true.



Couple points worth addressing - 

1) Ever met a lawyer?  What makes a free trade agreement longer than a sentence or two is specifying one, what they cover, two, how quickly and in what manner they'll be implemented, and three, what sort of provisions are in place if a member tries to violate their terms. When's the last time you've seen ANY law enacted that's a sentence long? You're holding free trade to a standard that doesn't exist in reality. 

2) The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I suspect their opposition to the TPP is based mostly on 1) Obama is for it, so they're against, and 2) they don't want the US government regulating trade, period.  But, yes, non-tarrif barriers to trade are a huge part of trade deals. As I recall, one of the biggest barriers to getting the deal done was that Japan didn't want to eliminate quotas on imported rice that were limiting the ability of the US to participate in the Japanese rice market. They eventually recanted, and we now have a trade deal on the table. That's not a tariff... But it's _absolutely_ a barrier to trade. I don't see how the fact the TPP tackles things like import quotas as well as tarrifs is a reason to oppose it.  

3) While it is technically true that just because there's a middle ground between two sides it doesn't automatically make the middle ground right, it's ALSO true that it doesn't automatically make the middle ground wrong, either. The extremes may not always be in the wrong, but one of them isn't always in the right. You're saying, in other words, precisely nothing by making that observation. 

My sincere belief is that free trade and globalization is largely a good thing. It's reduced the cost of living in this country, given us an array of economic choices that we've never had before, and generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before. It is, however, not a costless good, and more needs to be done to assist workers who have been negatively impacted by globalization. Still, on the measure, it's been a good thing for this country.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before



Eeeesh, that's incredibly subjective.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Eeeesh, that's incredibly subjective.



You could debate over the last ten or fifteen or so years where middle class wages have, until very recently, been stagnant. At a minimum I'd say we haven't gotten worse though. Prior to that, though... Today vs the mid 80s? the mid 70s? The mid 60s?


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Couple points worth addressing -
> 
> 1) Ever met a lawyer?  What makes a free trade agreement longer than a sentence or two is specifying one, what they cover, two, how quickly and in what manner they'll be implemented, and three, what sort of provisions are in place if a member tries to violate their terms. When's the last time you've seen ANY law enacted that's a sentence long? You're holding free trade to a standard that doesn't exist in reality.
> 
> 2) The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I suspect their opposition to the TPP is based mostly on 1) Obama is for it, so they're against, and 2) they don't want the US government regulating trade, period.  But, yes, non-tarrif barriers to trade are a huge part of trade deals. As I recall, one of the biggest barriers to getting the deal done was that Japan didn't want to eliminate quotas on imported rice that were limiting the ability of the US to participate in the Japanese rice market. They eventually recanted, and we now have a trade deal on the table. That's not a tariff... But it's _absolutely_ a barrier to trade. I don't see how the fact the TPP tackles things like import quotas as well as tarrifs is a reason to oppose it.
> 
> 3) While it is technically true that just because there's a middle ground between two sides it doesn't automatically make the middle ground right, it's ALSO true that it doesn't automatically make the middle ground wrong, either. The extremes may not always be in the wrong, but one of them isn't always in the right. You're saying, in other words, precisely nothing by making that observation.
> 
> My sincere belief is that free trade and globalization is largely a good thing. It's reduced the cost of living in this country, given us an array of economic choices that we've never had before, and generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before. It is, however, not a costless good, and more needs to be done to assist workers who have been negatively impacted by globalization. Still, on the measure, it's been a good thing for this country.





> COALTION FOR A PROSERPEROUS AMERICA (CPA) ISSUES PAPERS
> 
> 1) CPA link to USITC REPORT FLIER: http://bit.ly/2bDtaTz
> The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) typically is over optimistic about &#8220;free trade&#8221; agreements. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s significant that the USITC report on the TPP projected loss in most economic sectors.
> USITC Report: http://1.usa.gov/1TgmviD
> 
> 2) CPA 21st Century Trade Agreement Principles: http://bit.ly/2bLwtWa
> The Coalition for a Prosperous America has identified principles that should be incorporated into trade agreements.
> 
> 3) CPA: Tax Reform for Trade Competitiveness: http://bit.ly/2bDtu4G
> &#8220;After 40 years of multilateral tariff reduction, other countries replaced tariffs with BATs [Border Adjustable Taxes] but the U.S. did not. American exporters face the nearly same border taxes (tariffs + consumption tax) as they did in the early 1970&#8217;s.
> 
> 4) CPA: TPP And Agriculture: http://bit.ly/2beDDB0
> This piece contains the top 10 reasons why the Farm Bureau&#8217;s report is incorrect. The Farm Bureau reported modest future farm income gains, but none of their previous reports on past trade agreements have been correct.
> 
> 5) CPA: America's Sheep and Cattle Farmers Harmed by Free Trade Deals: http://bit.ly/2bfECVT
> &#8220;Politicians mistakenly focus only upon exports. But farmers and ranchers need net exports to win.&#8221;
> 
> 6) CPA: TPP and Currency: "No Currency provision in the TPP&#8221;: http://bit.ly/2bechOg
> The TPP &#8220;has no provisions regarding currency misalignment in its text. Instead, there is a side agreement called a &#8220;Joint Declaration of Macroeconomic Policy Authorities&#8221; that is being promoted as addressing the issue. Unfortunately, the Joint Declaration simply restates existing obligations, fails to provide any enforcement tools and merely relies upon more diplomatic talk.&#8221;
> 
> 7) CPA: How Currency Manipulation Helps Japan and Hurts Others: http://bit.ly/2bSz2sz
> &#8220;The TPP won&#8217;t stop Japan from helping Toyota make easy money through currency manipulation.&#8221;
> 
> 8) CPA: The national security case against TPP: http://bit.ly/2bfrPOo
> &#8220;Brigadier General John Adams: By facilitating the further offshoring of America&#8217;s manufacturing base, the trade pact would actually undermine America&#8217;s military readiness and global economic standing. TPP would hurt our national security interests more than it would help.&#8221;
> ____________________
> 
> OTHER CONSERVATIVE LINKS
> 
> 1) Sessions: TPP is a failed agreement and must be rejected: http://bit.ly/2bLxuO1
> 
> 2) Curtis Ellis: TPP Is About &#8216;Redistributing the Wealth of America to the Rest of the World&#8217;: http://bit.ly/2bed6GQ





> LABOR
> 
> The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) typically is over optimistic about &#8220;free trade&#8221; agreements. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s significant that the USITC report on the TPP projected loss in most economic sectors.
> 
> 1) Manufacturing Jobs Lost in Each State: http://bit.ly/TradeLossStateByState
> 
> 2) USITC Report: http://1.usa.gov/1TgmviD
> 
> 3) USITC: New Study Shows Projections are Unreliable: http://bit.ly/1WAVLtF
> 
> 4) USITC: AFL-CIO Critical Analysis: http://bit.ly/28Osztm
> 
> 5) Labor Advisory Council&#8217;s Report on TPP: http://1.usa.gov/1RvWOaL
> 
> 6) Tufts Study: Unemployment, Inequality & Other Risks of TPP: http://huff.to/1TdyueC
> ______________________
> 
> ISDS - Corporate &#8220;Courts&#8221;
> 
> The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision in the TPP allows foreign multinationals to sue our government when they deem our laws, policies and regulations to be a &#8220;technical barrier to trade&#8221; costing them &#8220;loss of potential profit.&#8221; Multinationals can sue for unlimited financial fines which come out of taxpayer pockets. Or, we can opt to change our laws to avoid a fine. These challenges would be made in corporate &#8220;courts&#8221; which skirt domestic law.
> 
> 1) Summary of Public Citizen&#8217;s Analysis of ISDS in TPP: http://bit.ly/ISDSanalysis
> 
> 2) TransCanada Suit: http://on.msnbc.com/29ZJ31X
> 
> 3) ISDSCorporateAttacks.org
> 
> _______________________
> 
> ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS
> 
> The TPP threatens environmental protections primarily through the ISDS mechanism and lax, non-binding environmental protection language. The Sierra Club had this to say: &#8220;While the range of conservation issues mentioned in the TPP may be wide, the obligations &#8211; what countries are actually required to do &#8211; are generally very shallow. Vague obligations combined with weak enforcement, as described below, may allow countries to continue with business-as-usual practices that threaten our environment.&#8221; http://bit.ly/1kwHPAf
> 
> 1) 450+ Environ. Groups Letter to MOCs: http://reut.rs/1VHqHHZ
> 
> 2) TPP at Odds with UN Global Sustainable Development Goals: http://bit.ly/1P5Lbl9
> 
> 3) Sierra Club Report Nov. 25: http://bit.ly/1Qg2uon
> 
> 4) Climate Roadblocks: http://bit.ly/1q2nFBc
> 
> 5) Why Mining Corps Love Trade Deals: http://huff.to/28NrELk
> 
> 6) ISDSCorporateAttacks.org
> ______________________
> 
> FOOD & GMOS
> 
> Provisions in the TPP would further erode food safety measures exposing Americans to more contaminants in our food. Through the ISDS mechanism, any laws requiring GMO labeling or GMO bans that would be passed after the TPP was in force could be challenged as &#8220;technical barriers to trade.&#8221;
> 
> 1) 161 Food & Farm Groups TPP Letter to Congress: http://bit.ly/1XX8Evw
> 
> 2) Specific Food Related Provisions in TPP: http://bit.ly/1SvnbAr
> 
> 3) TPP Text Reveals Broad New Powers for Corporations to Attack Food Labeling Laws: http://bit.ly/1QjkAGi
> 
> 4) TPP SPS chapter analysis by Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy: http://bit.ly/1XCCWCl
> 
> 5) Letter from Sustainable Ag, Dev., faith-based on UPOV-91 Treaty & TPP: http://bit.ly/1VC6Evo
> 
> 6) US Ag Exports Lag Under Past FTAs: http://bit.ly/2cP6FZw
> ____________________
> 
> HEALTHCARE
> 
> Affordable healthcare is already inaccessible for many Americans. The TPP would only make this worse.
> 
> 1) TPP&#8217;s Threat to Affordable Healthcare: http://bit.ly/1QpuUch
> 
> 2) TPP Intellectual Property Chapter - Patent Provisions, P. 8-9: http://bit.ly/1P9quea
> 
> 3) How the TPP Could Stifle the Discovery of New Drugs: http://bit.ly/2bRKUI1
> 
> 4) Letter about TPP Healthcare Implications: http://bit.ly/2avZjv0
> 
> 5) Médecins Sans Frontières Briefing Note: http://bit.ly/2c6LccW
> ____________________
> 
> &#8220;FREE TRADE&#8221; IMPACT IN YOUR STATE
> 
> Click on the your state on the US map in this link.
> 
> 1) &#8220;Free Trade&#8221; Impact in Your State: http://bit.ly/TradeLossStateByState
> ________________________
> 
> INTERNET
> 
> The TPP threatens internet freedom. It would require ISPs to take down sites without a court order, further criminalize whistleblowers, export the worst of US copyright law without mandating Fair use, make it illegal to unlock, modify or tinker with a device you own and give companies the right to sue governments for not protecting their intellectual property.
> 
> 1) TPP & THE INTERNET: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
> 
> 2) EFF Analysis of TPP Final IP Chapter: http://bit.ly/1ZOX2gz
> 
> 3) Final TPP Text Confirms Worst Fears: http://bit.ly/22qCPzd
> 
> 4) TPP Limits Internet Freedom: . http://bit.ly/28NFEG0 (from www.nordvpn.com)
> ______________________
> 
> NATIONAL SECURITY
> 
> National security is the argument historically made in order to pass &#8220;free trade&#8221; agreements after the argument that jobs and exports would increase has failed.
> 
> 1) The National Security Case Against the TPP: http://bit.ly/2b3HZgX
> 
> ______________________
> 
> CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT
> 
> The TPP was negotiated in secret for 7 years with trade representatives from each of the 12 Pacific Rim countries and 500+ multinational CEOs, executives and lobbyists.
> 
> 1) Revolving Door Between Wall St. & Office of USTR: http://bit.ly/1r1O95L
> 
> 2) Corporate Advisory Committees: http://wapo.st/22j6fOs
> 
> 3) Trade Advisory Committees (midway through): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/o...
> 
> 4) U.S. Business Coalition for TPP: http://bit.ly/USbusiness4TPP





> TOKYO -- An official admission that importers and wholesalers may have been circumventing a government program designed to protect domestic farmers by controlling prices for imported rice could have a negative impact on upcoming Diet discussions regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.
> 
> Under the so-called SBS, or simultaneous buy and sell, system used for a portion of Japan's rice imports, an importer and a wholesaler pair up and put in their bids at once. The importer names the price at which it is willing to sell foreign rice to the government, and the wholesaler specifies the price it would pay to buy the rice. Prices are artificially inflated to prevent cheap foreign rice from impacting domestic prices. The auction system is allowed under the Uruguay round of multilateral trade talks, which ended in 1993.
> 
> In a Friday news conference after a cabinet meeting, Agriculture Minister Yuji Yamamoto revealed a possibility that auction participants may have employed a shady scheme to sell rice at lower prices than the prices they bid through the government program.
> 
> Importers purportedly have been paying rebates to wholesalers under the name of "adjustment." With this payment, wholesalers could make profits even if they sold imported rice at a lower price than what they paid to the government. Some suggest that was exactly what happened in some cases.
> 
> If confirmed, this is a damaging blow to the agriculture ministry's efforts to convince Japanese rice farmers that they have nothing to fear from the TPP. If Japan ratifies the trade pact, the country will have to increase annual rice imports under the SBS mechanism by as much as 78,000 tons, from the current 100,000 tons. The ministry has told Japanese farmers that under the SBS system, imported rice is sold at similar prices as domestic rice.
> 
> In the news conference, Yamamoto admitted that some agricultural ministry personnel knew about the "adjustments" at least two years ago.
> 
> The realization that they have been lied to is certain to make farmers more resistant to the TPP. The scandal likely will also be used by opposition parties to attack the government's efforts to push through the trade deal in the extraordinary Diet session this autumn.



http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...e-import-scandal-may-ignite-TPP-spat-in-Japan

Feel free to do the leg work on your end. Here are progressive, conservative, and international reasons why the TPP, TTIP, and TISA are raw deals.

Look, I'm hesitant about trade deals and globalism, but I'm not discussing the merits of globalization, free trade, or our opinions on the subject outside of policy debate. The TPP, TTIP, TISA, and CETA are simply put not good deals and I will NOT support any politician that has in the past or currently supports them. It's as simple as that.

Not entirely unrelated to the issues with free trade is the persistence of corporate control over our lives, removing our personal liberties and in some cases endangering our safety. In Big Bend and Sioux Tribal Lands in Dakota, Energy Transfer is destroying tribal lands and historical landmarks, the Alabama pipeline leak that has led to Alabama and Georgia declaring a state of emergency, politicians sneaking the removal of the Country of Origin Label (COOL) law through the omnibus spending bill, the radioactive waste leaking into Florida aquifers, the chemicals spilling into the rivers and lakes causing algae blooms, the millions of bees killed by airborne pesticides in South Carolina, the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical lobbies pushing back on medical marijuana in EVERY state that is discussing the policy, the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies pushing back on ColoradoCare referendum, the eerily scary ties between private investments and where our government chooses to go to war, etc.

Ideally, I've got nothing against international trade, but I don't have an issue with a nation protecting its citizens from outside influences.


----------



## Drew

Listen, man, you're stretching if you're trying to tie the TPP to what's going down in Dakota over pipelines (hey, I'm glad that one got stopped, too) or Alabama pipeline leaks, or any of the other laundry list of unrelated things you just mentioned. 

I'm also struggling to understand where you're going here - I point out that reducing non-tarrif barriers to competition is a good thing, regardless of whatever the John Birch society things, so you reply with a copy-and-paste list of other links? I don't see the connection. 

Some of these are pretty tenuous too - the CPA's major problem with the TPP, it seems, is that it doesn't include additional prohibitions on currency manipulation? And a couple posts back you were arguing that any trade deal more than a single sentence long isn't a good one, because that should be all it takes? That's a little logically inconsistent, no? 

And the article you quote about Japanese rice tarrifs and quotas and how the Japanese were manipulating the system - You realize that what we're discussing here is policies that keep the price of rice artificially high for Japanese consumers, right? That these existing policies are ones that hurt Japanese citizens? 

At least you've gone from saying you were opposed to free trade, in general, to being relatively ok with it, but just not liking _this particular deal_. That's progress, I suppose...


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Listen, man, you're stretching if you're trying to tie the TPP to what's going down in Dakota over pipelines (hey, I'm glad that one got stopped, too) or Alabama pipeline leaks, or any of the other laundry list of unrelated things you just mentioned.
> 
> I'm also struggling to understand where you're going here - I point out that reducing non-tarrif barriers to competition is a good thing, regardless of whatever the John Birch society things, so you reply with a copy-and-paste list of other links? I don't see the connection.
> 
> Some of these are pretty tenuous too - the CPA's major problem with the TPP, it seems, is that it doesn't include additional prohibitions on currency manipulation? And a couple posts back you were arguing that any trade deal more than a single sentence long isn't a good one, because that should be all it takes? That's a little logically inconsistent, no?
> 
> And the article you quote about Japanese rice tarrifs and quotas and how the Japanese were manipulating the system - You realize that what we're discussing here is policies that keep the price of rice artificially high for Japanese consumers, right? That these existing policies are ones that hurt Japanese citizens?
> 
> At least you've gone from saying you were opposed to free trade, in general, to being relatively ok with it, but just not liking _this particular deal_. That's progress, I suppose...



I don't necessarily agree with every reason listed in those links, but they are reasons to be against the deal pending on ones political leanings. I agree entirely with the second list of links and I don't honestly agree much with the complaints in the first set of links, but I figured given your slightly conservative views when it comes to economics that maybe something in that list would appeal to you personally.

There's no direct link to my other comment other than that it is simply more reasons to be against the trade deal.

I said that list of company malfeasance shows a bigger issue of corporate control over our lives and the risks that poses. My point in bringing it up is that the trade deals on the table extend the reach of corporations and gives them an even greater level of control over our lives. The issues I mentioned have nothing to do with trade itself and I never claimed it did. Feel free to ignore it if it bothers you that much.

If higher prices keep more Japanese people employed I see nothing wrong with that at all, apparently you do. Cheaper doesn't always equate to better for everyone involved. The price increase is specifically on imported rice, not all rice in general, and this is meant to protect local farmers from being priced out of existence by foreign companies. The article in question says that foreign companies were circumventing the law to price it lower than they claimed, which forces prices and wages down locally. I realize to you this isn't a problem, but just be aware IMO it is a huge problem and lets move on from the subject.

Also, you bought the public narrative when it comes to the Dakota Access Pipeline. It hasn't been stopped at all. Only a very small stretch was halted, the rest is still under construction and at a breakneck pace. Also, Obama's administration approved for the same company being investigated for the Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer) two more pipelines, one of which is being built through Big Bend, another native site. The whole letter and press conference by the Obama administration was a dog and pony show.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> If higher prices keep more Japanese people employed I see nothing wrong with that at all, apparently you do. Cheaper doesn't always equate to better for everyone involved. The price increase is specifically on imported rice, not all rice in general, and this is meant to protect local farmers from being priced out of existence by foreign companies. The article in question says that foreign companies were circumventing the law to price it lower than they claimed, which forces prices and wages down locally. I realize to you this isn't a problem, but just be aware IMO it is a huge problem and lets move on from the subject.



Ok, so much here I don't even know where to begin. Forst, though, some basic facts. Poke around some of the articles linked off this - i did five minutes of research before writing this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Japan

About 3.6% of the Japanese population is engaged in agriculture, and of that, 85% is in rice farming - it's the dominant agricultural crop in Japan. Most rice farmers are only part time, work small lots of land, and for these reasons are using (very fertile) land at only a fraction of its capacity. There's no need to try to boost capacity, because the Japanese government oversees rice production, and has been actively encouraging farmers to reduce production. By reducing production, while limiting/severely tariffing imports, the government has been able to keep the supply of rice artificially low. This in turn keeps the price artificially high, meaning 3.6% of the population can afford to work part time (because rice farming in Japan is considered a part time endeavor) and still make a living. Japanese consumers have been tolerant of this because they view Japanese rice as a differentiated good, of higher quality than imported rice (which adds a whole new layer of irony here, in that Japanese farmers might very well be able to compete without tariffs by arguing their rice was worth more - this whole mess of tariffs and quotas could easily be replaced by an industry lobby group. But I digress...) 

So, we have a situation where 3.6% of the population receives higher prices for a good, to the extent that rice farming is considered a part-time endeavor, and in return 96.4% of the country pays quite a bit more for a staple good. And you're ok with that, which means yo're putting the interest of 3.6% of the population over the interest of 96.4% of the population. Which I have a hard time understanding. 

And, to take it a step further, this is fertile farmland, in a country with extremely high population density and a shortage of good land, being used almost entirely to produce a single crop that the government has to control the sup[ply of to keep prices artificially high. Not only does that make poor economic sense, but let me remind you that we live in a world where food shortages are a real, significant problem for much of the third world. Opening the borders, removing price controls, tarriffs, and quotas, removing production limits, and putting that farmland to use much more efficiently could turn Japan into a net exporter of rice, pruducing a far higher volume, and potentialy providing a food source to the third world, where, once again, starvation is a fact of life. 

Not only is the current system prioritizing the interests of those 3.6% of part time rice farmers over those of the entire rest of Japan, but that 3.6% of the population, which is about 0.6% of the world's population, is having their interests prioritized over the 795 million people worldwide (or about 11% of the world) that the UN considers malnourished. 

So, please. Tell me that free trade is a bad thing, and that Japanese rice farmers need protection. Tell me that there are no positives to breaking down borders to trade. I'm just the evil financial analyst, what the .... do I know, after all, except maybe for a whole heck of a lot about economics. But, can you at least read this, think honestly about it, and admit that sometimes artificial barriers to trade DO hurt people? You say globalization and free trade is wrong, because through treaties we're picking winners and losers. Well, we're doing that already, by imposing barriers, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Drew

Honestly, that's the thing I find so incredibly infuriating about this whole conversation, thinking about it a bit more. 

I have no doubt, at ALL, that your intentions are good here. You think protectionist policies are the best way to help farmers and manufacturers and normal people, and I'm sure you sincerely believe that free trade agreements are just a handout to big business. I'm disagreeing with you, quite passionately, above, but it's not because I think you're a bad person. I think you really believe what you're saying, that it's worth putting up trade barriers to help farmers make a living. And, hey, if nothing else, I'd like to pause and at least acknowledge that I respect your intentions.  

But, the problem here is, economics at its most fundamental is the study of the allocation of scarce resources to maximize human utility, and like them or not free markets are an awfully good way of reaching an optimal allocation. Putting barriers up against market forces may seem like a good idea - here you're trying to help ensure farmers in Japan can live a comfortable life - but by doing so you're perpetuating a situation where Japanese citizens are paying more of their incomes than they would otherwise have to to put food on their tables, where Japanese farm land and farm labor is severely underutilized, and where a more efficient allocation could help address fod shortages elsewhere in the world. Your intensions are great, you're just not seeing how they're hurting a whole lot of other people in the process. 

If you want a really eye opening read about the dangers of artificial price controls, pick up Marc Reisler's "Cadillac Desert." It's a fascinating tale of he history of American water policy, which sounds like it should be -forgive the pun- dry as ...., but is actually a really sordid tale and a great read. The thing that blew my mind about the book, though, is that Reisler writes from the perspective of an evironmentalist, not an economist, so a lot of the time he spends talking about beautiful river valleys lost to damns or inefficient water usage and growing salinity of american farmlands, damage to samon and migratory bird populations, etc. 

But, more or less in passing, he nods to the fact that the US government is spending millions of dollars building dams to deliver water to arid sections of the country, then selling the water to farmers at pennies on the dollar of the cost of delivery - because, hey, everyone needs water, right? - and then these farmers are then turning around, using the water in incredibly inefficient irrigation systems to grow food - because, hey, everyone needs food, right? - except the're predominately growing high-water-input, low value crops like alfalfa with this heavily subsidized water, which are then being sold in a very inefficient domestic market with heavy federal price subsidies and in some instances direct federal buying to artificially boost demand for low value crops to keep the prices high - because, hey, farmers have to make a living because we need food, right? - meaning all in were talking about a system where we're essentially giving the American farmin industry a hundreds of billions of dollar federal subsidy to take subsidized water and grow subsidized crops with little nutritional or economic value, simply because we have a whole bunch of good intentions that have some realy ugly negative unintended consequences. 

And Reisler, as an environmentalist first and foremost, only aludes to this in passing. "Hey, and this comes out to a couple hundred billion dollars over ten years. Shame, isn't it?" 

Anyway, awesome read, and I really encourage you to buy a copy. But, point of all this being, is that sometimes really well intentioned policies end up being really, really, _really_ bad in some of their consequences, and I just think you're focusing on your good intentions to help people when we're discussing free trade, and you're not realy seeing how some of the policies you're advocating can actually do a lot of real harm.


----------



## Drew

Oh, come on, I was sure this would generate some discussion.  I put a lot of work into that, and raised a few points I thought were worth discussing. 

Anyway, in better news, Trump was a trainwreck in the debate. Clinton came across looking rather prepared, collected, and dare-I-say presidential.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Drew said:


> Clinton came across looking rather prepared, collected, and dare-I-say presidential.



Apparently she was TOO prepared to TOO presidential, according to some naysayers. 

 

Trump started off pretty good, but then fell apart about 15 - 20 mins in. He lost it during the race and birther discussions. Clinton just kept baiting him, and just kept stumbling.

Of course, he's relying on Reddit/the_donald/4chan-influenced polls to show he was a winner, so if he lets all that .... go to his head, he's going to REALLY suffer during the town hall and 3rd debate.


----------



## celticelk

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Apparently she was TOO prepared to TOO presidential, according to some naysayers.



Haters gonna hate. I've been getting concerned about the tightening race over the past few weeks, but the first debate has relieved at least a little of that concern.


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> if he lets all that .... go to his head, he's going to REALLY suffer during the town hall and 3rd debate.



Meaningless, IMO.

The first debate was SO hyped and it was essentially supposed to be Trump's coming out party to non-Republican. Just like the XFL or Sara Palin's Alaska, when it's fresh it's a premier event but drop-off afterward is very steep. The audience was SO large and Trump looked SO unprepared that I doubt anybody's going to waste their time tuning in for another dose.

Trump might as well have packed up his tent and headed back to Mar-A-Lago after that disaster.


----------



## Xaios

I come into the thread to read the discussion about Trump, and see a boatload of posts regarding the US involvement in the Japanese rice market.


----------



## TemjinStrife

Xaios said:


> I come into the thread to read the discussion about Trump, and see a boatload of posts regarding the US involvement in the Japanese rice market.



SS.org derail game is strong.


----------



## stuglue

As an Englishman looking over the pond at the run up to the presidency election I speak from oour experience with this year's EU referendum and the build up to it.
Much was made of various polls based on TV debates and think tanks all who were second guessing the result, the majority stating we would vote to remain and that as the voting day drew closer the Leave campaign was dropping further and further behind. Fast forward to June24th and 17 million people voted out which didn't look like anything that the polls had predicted. 
I wouldn't let one or two debate shows be the yardstick for second guessing what will happen in November.


----------



## Drew

TemjinStrife said:


> SS.org derail game is strong.



Heck, I damn near invented it.  

Even better, Randy, while some Trump supporters are legitimately concerned about his performance (Guliani is suggesting he skip the next two, citing "moderator bias") and telling him he needs to prepare better, Trump seems to think he did just fine and isn't going to bother with more prep. 

I kind of see it going down like Trump comes in, starts off OK, Clinton manages to get under his skin, Trump melts down, and starts following through on his vague threats to go after Clinton for her husband's infidelity, and if there's anything left beyond the pale in American politics, it's probably that.


----------



## mnemonic

The moderator was pretty biased though.


----------



## vilk

^why do you say so? 
I didn't get to watch it


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> ^why do you say so?
> I didn't get to watch it



I can't point out anything specific but I just got the impression the moderator clearly disliked Trump. I don't care as by all accounts he's a detestable individual, but as the moderator you're supposed to be neutral.

Not scientific at all, but hey, my conservative friends felt the same way 

Drew: Can't add anything to the free trade discussion but I've ordered "Cadillac Desert" because of your post. Really anything about unintended consequences of well intentioned policy is fascinating


----------



## ElysianGuitars

wannabguitarist said:


> I can't point out anything specific but I just got the impression the moderator clearly disliked Trump. I don't care as by all accounts he's a detestable individual, but as the moderator you're supposed to be neutral.
> 
> Not scientific at all, but hey, my conservative friends felt the same way
> 
> Drew: Can't add anything to the free trade discussion but I've ordered "Cadillac Desert" because of your post. Really anything about unintended consequences of well intentioned policy is fascinating



Trump was a disaster in the debate, no need to blame moderator bias. He would have been a disaster with Sean Hannity moderating.


----------



## Axayacatl

wannabguitarist said:


> I can't point out anything specific but I just got the impression the moderator clearly disliked Trump.



I just wanted to point out that we are glossing over Mr. Trump's tactics leading up to the debate. 

He spent months talking about how we would not do the debate, how it was unfair. Then when a moderator was set he spent a lot of time denigrating the moderator and calling into question the fairness of the debate setting and the stance of the moderator. 

I'm just pointing out that Mr. Trump strategically set things up so that he would not be OK with the moderator, regardless of how the debate went for him. 

In the end it is a brilliant tactic by Mr. Trump. He was able to get on stage, denigrate long-held American values, denigrate his fellow Americans, talk constantly about his wealth in a way that is really poor taste, had no policy recommendations, kept on making the same point over and over, but your 'conservative' friends are all focused on how the moderator was unfair. 

Mr. Trump, I am ready for you to be my overlord. 

I volunteer to go down on Ivanka on a daily basis with a day off every other week. 

I do truly love and respect her!!!


----------



## Axayacatl

ElysianGuitars said:


> Trump was a disaster in the debate, no need to blame moderator bias. He would have been a disaster with Sean Hannity moderating.



Yes, thank you, exactly my point. In fact, Mr. Trump would have not liked Hannity to moderate because it would have ruined his constant bait and switch tactic of selling you experience and leadership, delivering none, and then being able to blame the moderator. 

Again, from this very same thread, we didn't read: "my conservative friends are aghast at how Mr. Trump portrays conservative values."

No, instead we hear that "conservative friends" thought the debate was unfair!

Mr. Trump,



Respectfully, 

Your Biggest Fan.

PS1: has Ivanka mulled over my offer yet? 
PS2: do brown skittles smell like goat?
PS3: never owned one
PS4: have one now but don't play it


----------



## Drew

mnemonic said:


> The moderator was pretty biased though.



The moderator was biased because on two occasions he told Trump he was wrong (that he had been in favor of the Iraq war, and that stop-and-frisk actually HAD been found unconstitutional)? 

That's funny. Most of the country was disappointed with the moderator for being spineless and not doing MORE fact-checking of the candidates. Those two moments, and the moment when he returned Clinton to the subject of her email server after she'd distracted Trump with more talk about his taxes, were really the only two moments where I felt like he was doing a good job.


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> Drew: Can't add anything to the free trade discussion but I've ordered "Cadillac Desert" because of your post. Really anything about unintended consequences of well intentioned policy is fascinating



Awesome, man. It's a surprisingly interesting book - I'd love to hear what you think about it.


----------



## wannabguitarist

ElysianGuitars said:


> Trump was a disaster in the debate, no need to blame moderator bias. He would have been a disaster with Sean Hannity moderating.



I 100% agree. Moderator really couldn't have made a difference in his piss poor performance. 



Axayacatl said:


> I just wanted to point out that we are glossing over Mr. Trump's tactics leading up to the debate.
> 
> He spent months talking about how we would not do the debate, how it was unfair. Then when a moderator was set he spent a lot of time denigrating the moderator and calling into question the fairness of the debate setting and the stance of the moderator.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that Mr. Trump strategically set things up so that he would not be OK with the moderator, regardless of how the debate went for him.
> 
> In the end it is a brilliant tactic by Mr. Trump. He was able to get on stage, denigrate long-held American values, denigrate his fellow Americans, talk constantly about his wealth in a way that is really poor taste, had no policy recommendations, kept on making the same point over and over, but your 'conservative' friends are all focused on how the moderator was unfair.
> 
> Mr. Trump, I am ready for you to be my overlord.
> 
> I volunteer to go down on Ivanka on a daily basis with a day off every other week.
> 
> I do truly love and respect her!!!



 The moderator was bad. Didn't push back on either candidate regarding the truth of their answers and it seemed to me like he disliked Trump. Like Elysian said though, Trump's performance was horrible and still would have been horrible if a moderator was biased towards him.



Drew said:


> Awesome, man. It's a surprisingly interesting book - I'd love to hear what you think about it.



I'll let you know in 6-12 months. Got three CPA exam sections to finish


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> I'll let you know in 6-12 months. Got three CPA exam sections to finish



I periodically have CFA exam-related nightmares, and that was three years ago. Good luck!


----------



## Axayacatl

wannabguitarist said:


> and it seemed to me like he disliked Trump. Like Elysian said though, Trump's performance was horrible and still would have been horrible if a moderator was biased towards him.



Oh no! Oh ....! The moderator didn't like the racist pig who spews hate and denigrates women and people of different cultures! 



wannabguitarist said:


> Trump's performance was horrible and still would have been horrible if a moderator was biased towards him.



No worries, I truly don't mind explaining things again. Mr. Trump would have never entered a debate where the moderator was biased towards him because his long term strategy - and it is a very deliberate and focused one at that - has been to set himself up to be in a position where he can't lose no matter what happens. 

Don't gloss over his political genius. Mr. Trump very evidently speaks in only two types of public forums. 

One forum is where everybody agrees with him no matter what he says and he can be relaxed and himself. That's where he is at his best. Quick witted, conversational, off the cuff, love it. It is a cult of personality of which he has plenty. 

The other forum is one where he has pre-ordained everything by convincing all his supporters that the venue is unfair and corrupt and the system is built against him. He enters those venues already winning. If he does well, he's decisive, manly, has command presence. If he doesn't do well, ''heck folks, the system is rigged.''

Take a step back and enjoy his genius....


----------



## Drew

I don't think it's QUITE that simple, but I agree that at a high level he's always got a plan B in mind. He's gotten caught in situations that should have been pretty friendly to him - let's not forget that Megyn Kelly is a Fox News commentator who was co-hosting one of the GOP debates, and has solid conservative credentials - and his aproach has always been to spin it to bias, that someone's out to get him and it's not his fault,


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

ElysianGuitars said:


> Trump was a disaster in the debate, no need to blame moderator bias. He would have been a disaster with Sean Hannity moderating.



Too bad we couldn't call him. 

We have Chris Wallace moderating the last one. He's one of the more more moderates at Fox News (not at the same level as Shep), but even if Trump bombs there, he's done. The only thing that would save lol a Trump presidency is a miracle. It seems like the news corps are done playing coy with him.


----------



## bostjan

People don't care about the debates. People don't care about facts. People don't care about the future. They only know that they are mad and they want to do something about it, and Trump has told everyone that he is that something, so they should vote for him.

Sadly, this line of not-even-wrong thinking is possible to get Trump into the oval office. And the democratic party is doing nothing to fix it - at least I don't see any tactics from them to counter Trump's tactics, only tactics to polarize people even more.

If Clinton wins, Trump's supporters will simply elect a congress to .... .... up in Washington, so that they can blame Clinton for the ....ed up .....

If Trump wins, ....'s going to get ....ed up, and they'll revel in it, saying it's just part of making America great again.

Hell, if a miracle occurs and Gary Johnson wins (he's been getting destroyed in the media, so this is less likely than America crashing into China, and sinking into the Pacific Ocean before the election), we're still doomed, because he won't be able to do anything at all.

The thing is, that a lot of folks don't really want to vote for either candidate, but are fired up enough about hating the candidates that they want to voice their opinions by voting, so there is going to be an unstable situation leading up to election day. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton tries to steal the election through some sort of shenanigans, but if Trump is smart, he might set the trap and then use that against her.

Or maybe Dr. Herbert West and I will finish our serum before November, and bring George Washington back from the dead, so that undead George Washington can put an end to all of this nonsense before it's too late.


----------



## synrgy

^Sorry to be a picker of nits, and not to imply that any one person is the sole perpetrator of this, but..

Can we _please_ stop blaming Johnson's poor positioning on 'the media', and start blaming it on his _repeated demonstrations of a complete lack of aptitude for the position_, and/or his fanatically anti-government viewpoint which has allowed for his extreme platforms like _closing the DoE_ and ending the ACA without a plan to replace it?

Let's be real, here: He's not Nader v2.0; that was Sanders, and _that ship has sailed_. Despite his 'progressive' position on marijuana, Johnson's practically a Tea-Party candidate disguised in Third-Party clothing, espousing the same black-and-white 'Government/Regulations = _Bad_; Free Market = _Good_' platforms that have caused or otherwise kept us mired in most of our contemporary economic and social problems.


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> ^Sorry to be a picker of nits, and not to imply that any one person is the sole perpetrator of this, but..
> 
> Can we _please_ stop blaming Johnson's poor positioning on 'the media', and start blaming it on his _repeated demonstrations of a complete lack of aptitude for the position_, and/or his fanatically anti-government viewpoint which has allowed for his extreme platforms like _closing the DoE_ and ending the ACA without a plan to replace it?
> 
> Let's be real, here: He's not Nader v2.0; that was Sanders, and _that ship has sailed_. Despite his 'progressive' position on marijuana, Johnson's practically a Tea-Party candidate disguised in Third-Party clothing, espousing the same black-and-white 'Government/Regulations = _Bad_; Free Market = _Good_' platforms that have caused or otherwise kept us mired in most of our contemporary economic and social problems.



As you pointed out, no one here, yet, has said that it was the media's fault the Johnson is doing horrible in the polls. I said the media was ripping him apart, which they are, and I assign no blame to anyone other than Johnson. Johnson ran for president last time around, too, and I didn't vote for him then. Before that, Bob Barr ran as a Libertarian, which was a joke. As much as I stand for libertarianism, I think I can safely say that I've sufficiently distanced myself from the Libertarian party, because of what they've become.

What is my determining factor this time around, is that there is no way I am going to put my support behind either of the two corrupt, lying snakes running for big parties this time around. So, I am going to try my best to make a difference with local matters, and just hope that the federal government doesn't turn into the "fourth Reich."

It looks like the nation has failed in the important job of selecting a leader. I think we have become too polarized and divided, and the divisions no longer even can coherently explain what sets them apart anymore - it's red or blue team. The dysfunction is that, instead of the winning team going on to the playoffs against the real enemies of global economic competition, social responsibility, and prudent legislation, they simply continue fighting ad infinitum. Ultimately, we end up regressing, as a nation.


----------



## synrgy

^I can't 'like' posts, but: +1, , etc. Doubly appreciated for not taking my bit personally. Wasn't so much a response to your post as it was that the one little phrase in your post triggered my response to a general sentiment I've been seeing all over the place.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton tries to steal the election through some sort of shenanigans, but if Trump is smart, he might set the trap and then use that against her.



You can't actually be serious. That's a joke, right?


----------



## TemjinStrife

Drew said:


> You can't actually be serious. That's a joke, right?



Sarcasm is a lost art when there are people who legitimately take positions that one would ordinarily deem sarcastic . . .


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

It is sad how people here actually do think that. The only way Clinton will "steal" the election is through a FAR superior ground game, Trumps buffoonery, and his recent _legit_ scandals. 

Seriously, Trump isn't smart enough to set traps. If anything, he's dumb for falling for all of Clinton's traps since the 1st debate.


----------



## TemjinStrife

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> It is sad how people here actually do think that. The only way Clinton will "steal" the election is through a FAR superior ground game, Trumps buffoonery, and his recent _legit_ scandals.
> 
> Seriously, Trump isn't smart enough to set traps. If anything, he's dumb for falling for all of Clinton's traps since the 1st debate.



I think Trump, and his staff, are plenty smart to set traps. The problem is remaining on message enough to actually pull them off.

Also, it's crazy to me that no one is hitting Mike Pence on his horrible abortion/LGBT record. They're making him sound like a pleasant, normal person, when in reality he presided over some incredibly invasive "women's health" legislation that women protested by calling/messaging his office to talk about their ......l health. 

Plus, let's not forget that fight over a state RFRA that Pence pushed through which caused a national outcry and cost Indiana a $40m expansion from Angie's list and a bunch of other things before he recanted and explicitly added language prohibiting discrimination against LGBT individuals to the statute.

And that's not even getting into the fact that he has publicly taken the position that smoking isn't bad for you.

I wonder if this is because Clinton is taking the tack of separating Trump from the Republican party and branding him as an outlier, rather than someone who says a lot of what more mainstream candidates mean, without using code words or dog whistles.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> You can't actually be serious. That's a joke, right?



Her campaign has already been caught pulling shenanigans in the primary, which is common knowledge. Why is it a stretch to say that she will likely do the same in the general election?

Trump sure does seem like an ignorant baboon. Yet he won the primary (against more ignorant baboons), and he is doing much better than expected in the polls. Maybe it's all an act? Not likely, but I'm in purely hypothetical land.

In reality, Clinton will win the election, unless something really surprising happens, and here is why:

1. Clinton has powerful allies to make sure she has an edge.
2. Clinton is a lot tougher than Trump seems to believe she is.
3. Clinton is more openly calculated.
4. There are more democrats than republicans.
5. Trump is not well liked by the standard republican base, which could be a liability next month.

And some things just don't matter:

1. Clinton comes off much smarter than Trump. But, consider GW Bush versus Al Gore. Also consider GW Bush versus John Kerry. Dan Quayle. Sarah Palin. People don't care, generally. If an orangutan ran on a conservative platform, and the other option was a democrat, the orangutan could get a lot of votes, simply because the conservative base will try to stop the democrat.
2. Trump comes off as a belligerent bully with no idea how to conduct foreign policy. Again, consider Bush.

So what is vastly different here, is that Trump does not have the religious right on board, where Bush did. What I predict, though, is that the religious right will hold their noses and vote for him to stop Clinton, but some percentage of them might just stay home, or write in Pat Robertson, so Trump's numbers simply won't be as strong with the right wing. The other wild card is that Trump is a total outsider, so he gains appeal with a lot of people who will simply punch his name on their ballot because they think that he'll change things. These people probably don't really think about the difference between change for better and change for worse, and Clinton has missed the opportunity, so far, to convince these people. I think that demographic is her greatest threat, by far. Hell, I fit into that group, save for the fact that I know Trump is extremely risky and stupid for our nation, but I supported Obama, because he promised a change, and he was fresh and new and different. Trump has done a great job getting people to think that he is the harbinger of change.

Sometimes, when you are dealing with public opinion, as painful as it is to say, facts don't really matter. People, in general, are ignorant, because they have little patience these days to read an actual news article. A lot of people would rather scan the headline and make a judgement, then go back to playing with their phones. I guess years before smart phones, it was the same, just with a different distraction, but the point is the same: people don't care about facts and logic and .... like that, in general. You and I do, but for each 100 of us, if there are 101 people who don't do their research, the behaviour of the masses is uninformed. I don't claim to know the demographic of how many people care about facts versus how many don't, but I assert without citation that I believe it is a substantial enough amount. Why else would people be in favour of the Iraq invasion?!

So who will win in November? Sheesh, I don't know. If I were a betting man, and the odds paid 1:1, I'd take Clinton without a second guess. Actually, hopping on some sites with betting odds, after having the thought, gamblers are picking Clinton more than 70% of the time. While that's not going to tell you much, I still think it's better than any of the other polls we have at the moment. In fact, we had the same discussion about Sanders versus Clinton, in which I assessed that Clinton would likely beat Sanders either way, but that I wouldn't be surprised if she pulled some sort of shenanigans just to make sure, and guess what?

Let's just say that, as a thought experiment, I was the CEO of America. I have to hire a president. The only two applicants for the job who made it through HR's vetting process are Clinton and Trump. HR tells me that I have to pick one, and it's solely up to me. I would tell HR to bring me another candidate and I would send them both away.

But that doesn't matter. What I predict, and I'm no psychic, is that Clinton will _probably_ wipe the floor with Trump in the general election, and that the right wing folks will be upset as hell, and we will end up with four years of bloated government, US involvement in foreign wars, and at least two fill-in-the-blank-gate incidents that will have the right wing screaming for her impeachment. The net result of this will only lead to further polarize the USA and make our federal government more dysfunctional.

On the other hand, if Trump wins (by some slight-of-hand or by some surprise), then I predict that the economy of the USA will tank and our military will end up knee-deep in some sort of unnecessary garbage that will only lead to make the USA less safe in the long run.

Either way, we are ....ed.


----------



## celticelk

@bostjan: Can we please get off the "shenanigans" meme? There's no proof that either Clinton or the DNC rigged the primaries. Yes, DNC members trash-talked Sanders in private email exchanges. That moves exactly zero votes. Moreover, since state elections are organized independently, and Clinton did not outperform her polling, the "shenanigans" argument is really that there was a massive conspiracy involving the DNC, multiple independent state party organizations, and basically all of the independent pollsters. That's absurd. The simple fact is that Clinton won more states in the primary.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, I'm with celticelk here - the DNC definitely had a preference in the outcome, but that's not the same thing as Clinton actively "stealing" the primary, for all the vague suggestions by ex-Sanders voters, which, when push comes to shove, was never even all that close. Clinton jumped to an early lead, and Sanders never came close to showing that. The perception of closeness from the primary had everything to do with the calendar, and a few weeks of one or two Sanders-friendly states a week voting before California right before the primary, and nothing to do with this ever being a horserace. 

My favorite conspiracy theory, and I'm not accusing you of this one bostjan but I've seen it all over the place in news story comments on the net, is that Sanders only endorsed Clinton "so he wouldn't get murdered." Right. Because, whatever happened to that last guy who ran against her, with that funny Muslim-sounding name? Wonder whatever happened to him. Poor dude is probably dead in a back ally somewhere, poor sap.


----------



## bostjan

So the question to me is whether or not I even respond to CelticElk's deliberate mis-paraphrasing of what I said.

Both Clinton's campaign and the DNC were caught in some misbehaviour during the primary. I guess it's up to you whether you want to believe the facts or not, and then what you wish to make of it, but I'm not talking about simply allegations of misbehaviour here, of which there are also plenty.

In a vacuum (forget about Trump for a minute), do you think Clinton is trustworthy? If you say yes or no, that's your opinion, but she has been the center of a lot of controversy, and there are a lot of unanswered questions still, ...and the questions that have been answered don't make her look too good. But it's all opinion, based on facts or otherwise.


----------



## wannabguitarist

celticelk said:


> @bostjan: Can we please get off the "shenanigans" meme? There's no proof that either Clinton or the DNC rigged the primaries. Yes, DNC members trash-talked Sanders in private email exchanges. That moves exactly zero votes. Moreover, since state elections are organized independently, and Clinton did not outperform her polling, the "shenanigans" argument is really that there was a massive conspiracy involving the DNC, multiple independent state party organizations, and basically all of the independent pollsters. That's absurd. The simple fact is that Clinton won more states in the primary.



My favorite tidbit related to that whole clusterf*ck was Sander's advantage seemed to come from lower turnout caucus states; he was losing the popular vote by a fairly large margin too


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> So the question to me is whether or not I even respond to CelticElk's deliberate mis-paraphrasing of what I said.
> 
> Both Clinton's campaign and the DNC were caught in some misbehaviour during the primary. I guess it's up to you whether you want to believe the facts or not, and then what you wish to make of it, but I'm not talking about simply allegations of misbehaviour here, of which there are also plenty.



I have yet to see anything that proves that any of the alleged "misbehavior" from the primaries is anything more than you would expect from a decentralized 50-state process run largely by volunteer amateurs. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. And again: if the primaries were rigged for Clinton, then you would expect a larger mismatch between her polling and her performance, unless you're positing that all of the polling was rigged too.



bostjan said:


> In a vacuum (forget about Trump for a minute), do you think Clinton is trustworthy? If you say yes or no, that's your opinion, but she has been the center of a lot of controversy, and there are a lot of unanswered questions still, ...and the questions that have been answered don't make her look too good. But it's all opinion, based on facts or otherwise.



Generally, yes, I do. Do I think she's the most noble, trustworthy politician I've ever seen? No. (Mandela's kind of a high bar, you know?) But I'll cast my ballot for her without any reservations about the way that she'll act in the White House, and I'd do so even if her opponent was a sane Republican (McCain or Romney, say).


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> My favorite conspiracy theory, and I'm not accusing you of this one bostjan but I've seen it all over the place in news story comments on the net, is that Sanders only endorsed Clinton "so he wouldn't get murdered." Right. Because, whatever happened to that last guy who ran against her, with that funny Muslim-sounding name? Wonder whatever happened to him. Poor dude is probably dead in a back ally somewhere, poor sap.



A very few Sanders supporters are apparently so invested in the ideological purity of the Bernie in their heads that paranoid conspiracy theories seem like a more reasonable explanation than perceivable reality. I'm grateful that it appears to be a very few.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> I have yet to see anything that proves that any of the alleged "misbehavior" from the primaries is anything more than you would expect from a decentralized 50-state process run largely by volunteer amateurs. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. And again: if the primaries were rigged for Clinton, then you would expect a larger mismatch between her polling and her performance, unless you're positing that all of the polling was rigged too.
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, yes, I do. Do I think she's the most noble, trustworthy politician I've ever seen? No. (Mandela's kind of a high bar, you know?) But I'll cast my ballot for her without any reservations about the way that she'll act in the White House, and I'd do so even if her opponent was a sane Republican (McCain or Romney, say).



As I say, you are entitled to draw your opinionated conclusion as you wish, but to say that there was no evidence is borderline on delusional.

Q: What is this picture?







A: It's Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife at a primary polling location in Boston on super Tuesday.

So what? 

Right, well it's illegal to campaign within 150 feet of a polling station during a vote.

Does doing something illegal constitute "shenanigans?"

I suppose you have decided on "no," but clearly the answer should be "yes," as law is our only written enforceable rule for what constitutes shenanigans versus what does not.

If you don't care, that's fine, but you can't tell me there are not shenanigans going on.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ My mistake. I assumed you were talking about things that could conceivably affect the outcome of the primary.

(And yes, what Bill Clinton was doing there was illegal in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm willing to cut him a little slack because those laws vary from state to state, and it's entirely likely that he was simply never briefed on that detail. Never attribute to malice....)

[EDIT: As pointed out downthread, this happened in MA, not PA. My mistake.]


----------



## FEcorvus

celticelk said:


> ^^^ My mistake. I assumed you were talking about things that could conceivably affect the outcome of the primary.
> 
> (And yes, what Bill Clinton was doing there was illegal in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm willing to cut him a little slack because those laws vary from state to state, and it's entirely likely that he was simply never briefed on that detail. Never attribute to malice....)



this is the best thing about this forum, even when people argue here you still act reasonable and professional, I don't think I've ever seen any of you people be ...holes to one another, that's rare on the internet


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> ^^^ My mistake. I assumed you were talking about things that could conceivably affect the outcome of the primary.
> 
> (And yes, what Bill Clinton was doing there was illegal in the state of Pennsylvania. I'm willing to cut him a little slack because those laws vary from state to state, and it's entirely likely that he was simply never briefed on that detail. Never attribute to malice....)





FEcorvus said:


> this is the best thing about this forum, even when people argue here you still act reasonable and professional, I don't think I've ever seen any of you people be ...holes to one another, that's rare on the internet



You must be reading a different post than me. He totally got called out on something, and other than "my mistake", the entire rest of his post is still downplaying the guy who he just "apologized" to.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> He totally got called out on something



Let's recap this line of discussion, shall we? Here's bostjan's reasoning on this subject over the last several posts:



bostjan said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton tries to steal the election through some sort of shenanigans, but if Trump is smart, he might set the trap and then use that against her.





bostjan said:


> Her campaign has already been caught pulling shenanigans in the primary, which is common knowledge. Why is it a stretch to say that she will likely do the same in the general election?





bostjan said:


> Both Clinton's campaign and the DNC were caught in some misbehaviour during the primary.





bostjan said:


> As I say, you are entitled to draw your opinionated conclusion as you wish, but to say that there was no evidence is borderline on delusional.
> 
> Q: What is this picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A: It's Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife at a primary polling location in Boston on super Tuesday.
> 
> So what?
> 
> Right, well it's illegal to campaign within 150 feet of a polling station during a vote.
> 
> Does doing something illegal constitute "shenanigans?"
> 
> I suppose you have decided on "no," but clearly the answer should be "yes," as law is our only written enforceable rule for what constitutes shenanigans versus what does not.
> 
> If you don't care, that's fine, but you can't tell me there are not shenanigans going on.



In other words, he started with a claim that Clinton might try to steal the general election, defended that claim by asserting that she and the DNC had perpetrated "shenanigans" in the primary, and when pressed on the matter, settled on...Bill Clinton campaigning inside the no-campaigning zone at a single Pennsylvania polling place. And your conclusion from this sequence of events is that *I* got "called out"? I don't follow that logic at all.

[EDIT: As pointed out downthread, this happened in MA, not PA. My mistake.]


----------



## MFB

He clearly said Boston, and to be even more pedantic, it's actually a New Bedford rally - which is in MA. 

I don't know where you're getting PA from, but it wasn't there that he did that.


----------



## celticelk

MFB said:


> He clearly said Boston, and to be even more pedantic, it's actually a New Bedford rally - which is in MA.
> 
> I don't know where you're getting PA from, but it wasn't there that he did that.



You're right - I misremembered the actual event, rather than reading bostjan's post closely. I don't think the argument turns on where the event happened, but I admit my error.


----------



## bostjan

As I said, you are free to form your own opinion based on whatever path to that conclusion you choose.

I thought I stated my point fairly well, and I'm not really feeling your rebuttal has much to which I can respond without repeating myself again (as I already feel that I repeated myself once for the sake of clarification).

If I had some sort of agenda to try to convince you to vote for someone else, I'd waste more energy trying to reason with you; however, I cannot suggest a candidate who would be less bad than either of the two mainstream options and still likely to win, and I also do not believe any sort of logical discourse between the two of us would get either one of us in a position any better than either of us started, so let's just agree that we disagree with each other and neither of us will likely see the other's points as meaningful, and simply not directly respond to one another again until after the election?

If you want to vote for Clinton, go ahead. In fact, I wouldn't even encourage you, at this point, to do anything different, even if I could.


----------



## FEcorvus

Randy said:


> You must be reading a different post than me. He totally got called out on something, and other than "my mistake", the entire rest of his post is still downplaying the guy who he just "apologized" to.



I meant that most places on the net things would have devolved into name calling and ....slinging, rather than just arguing, nobody is losing their head and openly insulting others

everyone is staying level headed and civil despite not agreeing is all I'm saying haha


----------



## QuantumCybin

Yeah, I lurk a lot in this section but I have to agree that this is one of the most civil political discussions I've read. I've actually more from you guys than _anything_ on TV


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> As I say, you are entitled to draw your opinionated conclusion as you wish, but to say that there was no evidence is borderline on delusional.
> 
> Q: What is this picture?
> 
> A: It's Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife at a primary polling location in Boston on super Tuesday.



Wait, so in response to a question on whether or not Hillary Clinton is somehow "untrustworthy," the argument you're going to choose to make was that Bill Clinton was seen shaking hands outside a polling station in Massachusetts? _That's_ where you're going to pick your battleground?

Or are you conceding the argument about whether or not she's trustworthy (and I think by and large she is - the GOP has tried to pin scandal after scandal on her for more than 30 years, and the best they've come back with, after Whitewater, Benghazi, some other crap from the early 90s I'm forgetting because I was like 12 at the time, and all that other crap, is that about 12 email chains containing about 35 total messages were sent to her private email server by others, and the senders forgot the necessary classified headings. That's _it_. mThanks to the Republican Party, Clinton is probably the best vetted presidential candidate we as a country have ever seen.) and instead arguing that this is "election shenanigans"? 

I'm gonna assume the later - I'm not fully up on the story, but a Boston Globe story from the time says he had an impromptu rally not far from the polling station lasting a couple minutes, but that allegations he blocked voters from entering the polling station were false and that while they were annoyed with him, it wasn't proven he was within 150 feet of the station. He DID enter two MA stations elsewhere, but our AG pointed out he was entirely within his rights to do so, provided he didn't encourage anyone to vote for his wife, which there are no reports he did. 

Now, if you want to argue it was _tone-deaf_ of him to be out in public on the day Massachusetts voted, that's fine. But, while it's an incident that outraged a whole bunch of Sanders supporters, there's also no evidence he broke any electoral law. 

Anyway, you know as well as I do most talk of "primary shenanegans aren't about Bill Clinton shaking hands with voters outside of polling stations, but are about accusations of systematic voter fraud, and I've seen NO evidence of that.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> Anyway, you know as well as I do most talk of "primary shenanegans aren't about Bill Clinton shaking hands with voters outside of polling stations, but are about accusations of systematic voter fraud, and I've seen NO evidence of that.



That's exactly where I'm coming down. The DNC emails are embarrassing and unprofessional, but they don't prove that anyone actually *did* anything to affect the primary, and all of the registration/voting problems in various states that have been touted as "evidence" of fraud in the primary are much more easily explained as effects of the general institutional incompetence of large volunteer organizations. (I don't mean that pejoratively - you basically can't *have* volunteer organizations that large and decentralized without those types of things happening.) Add the social media echo chamber and a subset of Sanders supporters already primed to believe the worst about Clinton/the Democrats/American political parties, and suddenly you've got "proof."


----------



## Randy

I can't believe either side is still salty about the primary. 

That said, I don't think that somebody should be assaulted for arguing that they find Hillary Clinton (or any candidate, for that matter) to be dishonest or untrustworthy, or to say they'd make an effort to rig an election in their favor if the opportunity were to present itself.


----------



## watson503

The latest from Garrison:






http://grrrgraphics.com/index.html


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I can't believe either side is still salty about the primary.
> 
> That said, I don't think that somebody should be assaulted for arguing that they find Hillary Clinton (or any candidate, for that matter) to be dishonest or untrustworthy, or to say they'd make an effort to rig an election in their favor if the opportunity were to present itself.



I hope it doesn't seem like I'm assaulting bostjan - I don't agree that Clinton is untrustworthy, but I hope it doesn't read like I'm attacking him when I refute that, so much as attacking the claim. 

I'm also surprised we're still talking about the primary - Sanders himself has said he has no doubts Clinton won the primaries cleanly. Every once in a while I still run into that argument from one of his supporters, though, that Clinton is only the nominee because she "stole" the election, or that she lost the pledged delegate race but only won from superdelegates (which is provably not the case). 

Also, I don't know how one even WOULD rig the election, man. Is that a realistic and plausible criticism to level at a candidate in this day and age?  The closest we've seen was 2000 under GWB, and that was a very transparent (if clearly politically driven) process in the courts, and not some secret back-door proceeding.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The closest we've seen was 2000 under GWB, and that was a very transparent (if clearly politically driven) process in the courts, and not some secret back-door proceeding.



How could you forget a face like this?







I'd say that whole debacle certainly qualified as a "back-door proceeding".

EDIT: Fixed weird quote thing.


----------



## Drew

Oddly, that quote was me, attributed to someone else? 

And I didn't_ forget_ that face, I _repressed_ it. Important distinction! 

I guess my point was that nothing was happening behind closed doors - we had a pretty good understanding of the facts ("hanging chad" ballots), and we knew that the Republican party wanted to block a recount, and the Democratic one wanted one to proceed. It got escalated up through the courts and decided along party lines. 

That's not the same as the sort of "voter fraud" conspiracies that often get kicked around in conjunction with Clinton - "I don't trust her, and I bet she's going to try to rig this election!" and the like.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> That said, I don't think that somebody should be assaulted for arguing that they find Hillary Clinton (or any candidate, for that matter) to be dishonest or untrustworthy, or to say they'd make an effort to rig an election in their favor if the opportunity were to present itself.



Like Drew, I hope that it's clear that I'm attacking bostjan's claim about Clinton potentially rigging the election, rather than bostjan himself. But I'd argue that such claims (about any candidate, not just Clinton) should be vigorously contested. The accusation that a candidate has stolen a democratic election has the potential to raise very serious doubts about the integrity of the electoral system and the legitimacy of American government. Such a charge requires extraordinary evidence, and that evidence needs to be presented openly and tested rigorously.


----------



## Axayacatl

Drew said:


> I don't think it's QUITE that simple, but I agree that at a high level he's always got a plan B in mind. He's gotten caught in situations that should have been pretty friendly to him - let's not forget that Megyn Kelly is a Fox News commentator who was co-hosting one of the GOP debates, and has solid conservative credentials - and his aproach has always been to spin it to bias, that someone's out to get him and it's not his fault,



I guess you didn't see this follow-up interview with hard hitting questions and unfriendly bias from Megyn Kelly?



Jump to minute 3:00. Then jump to minute 5:22. Not exactly a hard hitting, uncomfortable interview. Definitely not a bad outcome for Mr. Trump. 

My whole schtick is that I use Mr. Trump tactics to attack Mr. Trump. But if you look at the video, you'll have to concede that, yes, it is quite that simple as I have outlined it. Unless you find the other counter example. And in that case, hopefully there's no video of that person blatantly kowtowing to Mr. Trump shortly after.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Like Drew, I hope that it's clear that I'm attacking bostjan's claim about Clinton potentially rigging the election, rather than bostjan himself. But I'd argue that such claims (about any candidate, not just Clinton) should be vigorously contested. The accusation that a candidate has stolen a democratic election has the potential to raise very serious doubts about the integrity of the electoral system and the legitimacy of American government. Such a charge requires extraordinary evidence, and that evidence needs to be presented openly and tested rigorously.



I just can't seem to keep myself quiet about this.

The US electoral system _is_ a sham. The government does tons of bull.... to try to keep people from voting, or keeping their votes from counting equally, and these practices go back hundreds of years. If you think that it calls into question whether the USA is a pure democracy or not, then you are onto something, because the USA is not a democracy, but rather, a democratic republic. There's nothing wrong with that, except that we are less of a democracy than most people are lead to believe.

16 years ago might be a long time now, but the what ifs are endless. To recap through history, though, you had a guy who lost the popular vote, and was within tens of votes of losing the electoral vote. It all pivoted on districts with widespread allegations of issues with voting, and, the government decided not to recount those votes. This speaks volumes. We are not talking about recounting all the votes across America, but just a few hotly contested districts where the outcome of the entire election was ultimately decided, and they resisted doing a recount. Less than a year later, the USA faced the worst (by orders of magnitude) terrorist attack on its own soil, and that attack was used as an excuse by the administration who had come to power through that most likely fraudulent election to get the nation into a war that was absolutely irrelevant.

Fast forward to present day. We are about to hand over nuclear launch capabilities to either a raving lunatic or a person who is either slimy enough to hide and destroy evidence or incompetent enough with technology to have no clue how emails work.

So, are we not supposed to raise questions about our electoral system, particular in a system where popular vote doesn't get people elected?! I find it odd that you place more importance on vetting the question called on the system than the system called into question, since they should be equal, as two sides of the same coin.

As far as Mr. Clinton campaigning in polling locations in Boston on voting day, well, I thought that spoke for itself. I didn't know that Clinton's supporters would choose, as a comeback, that she had done so many worse things to call into question her legitimacy, but you're right: I'm picking at a tiny bone in the smorgasbord of shenanigans that surrounds Mrs. Clinton.

From my personal standpoint, I'm really a lot more upset about how she handles things after the failures take place. We all make mistakes, but Clinton makes them, then takes an "I'm teflon coated" approach to responsibility. The thing is, if she's lying, that's bad and you can't trust her, but, if she's not lying, and these things that should have been her responsibility were out of her control, that's even worse.

Just to balance the post a tiny bit, Trump is terrible. What little details he gives on his plans make no sense at all, and the rest is either undisclosed because he doesn't have a kittening clue what the kitten he's doing. As much as I like the idea of an outsider taking control, Trump is not an outsider to politics - he's the son of a very wealthy man and he's being playing politics his whole life. His speeches, to me, boil down to if he doesn't like it, he's going to brute force it until something pops. While such policies might have worked for Attila the Hun, in the modern world, this just doesn't work.

And Gary Johnson doesn't seem like he has a damn clue. But at least he seems to not try to hide his cluelessness. 

These VP candidates...I thought it couldn't get any worse, but it has.  I have serious doubts that either one of them could run the Senate, and even more serious doubts as to what either would do with the keys to the White House.


----------



## vilk

I'd rather take a candid rube.

Let's face it, Americans are mostly candid rubes.

candid rube
bought and paid for puppet
soulless demigogue

who do you choose?


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I'd rather take a candid rube.
> 
> Let's face it, Americans are mostly candid rubes.
> 
> candid rube
> bought and paid for puppet
> soulless demigogue
> 
> who do you choose?



Funny, how a couple months ago, I was crying for a third choice. Now I no longer feel so gung-ho about the third choice, but I'd still take him over the other two.

I appreciate the language you've used here. I might quote that extensively in the future.


----------



## vilk

I feel that both "candid" and "rube" are both at the positive end of the implicitly negative word spectrum.


----------



## Drew

Axayacatl said:


> My whole schtick is that I use Mr. Trump tactics to attack Mr. Trump. But if you look at the video, you'll have to concede that, yes, it is quite that simple as I have outlined it. Unless you find the other counter example. And in that case, hopefully there's no video of that person blatantly kowtowing to Mr. Trump shortly after.



Um, I don't follow - this is a matter of interpretation, not "proof," since we're speculating on Trump's thoughts (such as he has) and motives.  

But, as a convenient example, the debate wasn't "rigged" against him until he "lost," except he didn't lose because about a dozen polls from the fringe right and Russia thought he won, but if he didn't win, it was because the debate organizers were biased against him and gave him a bad mic, because he wanted to keep to the high ground and not bring up personal matters about the Clintons' marriage (which hew brought up he wasn't bringing up at the very end), and because the "liberal mainstream media" was against him anyway. 

But, I'm pretty sure had he been - somehow - judged to "win" the debate, we wouldn't have heard any of these excuses after the fact, and I don't recall hearing them beforehand. 

Again, though - matter of interpretation. We can both dissagree, and that's fine, because neither of us has any special insight into what's going on inside the mind of The Donald.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I just can't seem to keep myself quiet about this.
> 
> The US electoral system _is_ a sham. The government does tons of bull.... to try to keep people from voting, or keeping their votes from counting equally, and these practices go back hundreds of years. If you think that it calls into question whether the USA is a pure democracy or not, then you are onto something, because the USA is not a democracy, but rather, a democratic republic. There's nothing wrong with that, except that we are less of a democracy than most people are lead to believe.



But again, though, none of that is any proof that Clinton "stole" the nomination in the primary, and is preparing/hoping to do so again in the general election. 

I'm not going to sit here and say that the American democratic system is flawless, but it's also one that, flaws and all, is still held to be a model for the rest of the world BY the rest of the world, and all this talk about alleged electoral fraud with zero in the way of factual evidence just cheapens what is arguably the thing that made this country so great in the first place. 

Is it perfect? No. But as Churchill famously quipped, talking about us, "democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all of the other forms." It functions pretty well here, and while you may not like the current outcome of this particular cycle, I'd caution against confusing a particular result with the process that led to it.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> ..and all this talk about alleged electoral fraud with zero in the way of factual evidence just cheapens what is arguably the thing that made this country so great in the first place.



So, even when it was the GOP that were accused of doing it, you didn't buy into the possibility that there were shenanigans afoot like low number of voting machines in minority polling places, or voter ID laws that disproportionately effect minority voters, or robocalls to minority neighborhoods giving them incorrect polling place information? 

All of this on the heels of the very well known and very public strategy from the GOP, that lower turnout (especially minorities) favor GOP candidates. 

Are you denying these things happened, or denying that they were done with a partisan outcome in mind?

Is it that much of a stretch to think somebody in your party of choice could be inspired to use similar tactics to win?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> But again, though, none of that is any proof that Clinton "stole" the nomination in the primary, and is preparing/hoping to do so again in the general election.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and say that the American democratic system is flawless, but it's also one that, flaws and all, *is still held to be a model for the rest of the world BY the rest of the world*, and all this talk about alleged electoral fraud with zero in the way of factual evidence just cheapens what is arguably the thing that made this country so great in the first place.
> 
> Is it perfect? No. But as Churchill famously quipped, talking about us, "democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all of the other forms." It functions pretty well here, and while you may not like the current outcome of this particular cycle, I'd caution against confusing a particular result with the process that led to it.



Nope, according to the Economist website, the USA is the 20th best example of democracy in the world, and that is trending worse every year, in comparison with other nations.

What made this country great in the first place was people standing up against the BS like what has been happening in our elections these past years. Did Martha Washington campaign for her spouse at polling locations?! Did Gen Washington's lackeys work at those polling locations counting the votes?! Did Washington's political allies collude against his rivals to get him in the presidency? Did the ballots cast for Washington have hanging chads?

As far as bashing democracy, well, it's my right of free speech to bash it, based on the democracy that gave me that right.  Seriously, though, being a democracy doesn't make a government better. Nazi Germany was a democracy, at least on paper. People get gathered together to vote for whichever eldest living Kim is fearless leader of North Korea. Just because there is no option B on the ballot does not mean that people don't get to vote.

And no, the proof that there was some under-the-table and below-the-belt shadiness going on is not proof that she stole the election. Also, proof that the Earth is round does not prove that it is a perfect sphere. Proof of a claim, in general, does not prove a hyperbole taken off a tangent to that claim. Likewise, said hyperbole being false does not prove the initial statement false.

Also, again, the USA is not a pure democracy.

Drew, having a strong background in civics, I know that you know all of this already. I'm really not sure what your motives are in this discussion.

We started this election cycle with so many candidates that I honestly couldn't keep track of all of them. What floated to the top what not the cream of the crop, so something went rotten during the process. I generally feel icky about politicians, in general, but this batch is truly, in my opinion, the worst I have ever seen. I didn't like Bush or Kerry, but in hindsight, I'd rather go through that again than this. I hated Bush's policies, but I am far more afraid of Trump. And I thought Kerry was a little shady, but I'd take him over Clinton, by a long shot. And that leaves me comparing Badnarik with Gary Johnson. ... well, I don't know, since Badnarik was a bit of a loose cannon, and Johnson seems clueless (he's been at it again, this time refusing to say the name of Kim Jong Un, either because he forgot or just didn't want to say it, who knows).

Anyway, my point was that Clinton is a shady character. She's been involved in shady stuff, caught in lies regularly, and the polls show that people don't trust her, in general. They trust Trump more than they trust her. Maybe that doesn't say anything, since Trump is transparent about how he'll be a bull in a china shop if he takes office, so there's really not anything to distrust.

I'm not saying throw Clinton in jail because she lies and she is generally shady, I'm just calling lying shady politician a lying shady politician for lying, being shady, and being a politician.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html



> Donald Trump bragged in vulgar terms about kissing, groping and trying to have sex with women during a 2005 conversation caught on a hot microphone &#8212; saying that &#8220;when you&#8217;re a star, they let you do it&#8221; &#8212; according to a video obtained by The Washington Post.
> 
> The video captures Trump talking with Billy Bush of &#8220;Access Hollywood&#8221; on a bus with Access Hollywood written across the side. They were arriving on the set of &#8220;Days of Our Lives&#8221; to tape a segment about Trump&#8217;s upcoming cameo on the soap opera.
> 
> The tape obtained by The Post includes audio of Bush and Trump&#8217;s conversation inside the bus, as well as audio and video once they emerge from it to begin shooting the segment.
> 
> In that audio, Trump discusses a failed attempt to seduce a woman, whose full name is not given in the video.





> &#8220;I moved on her, and I failed. I&#8217;ll admit it,&#8221; Trump is heard saying. It was unclear when the events he was describing took place. The tape was recorded several months after he married his third wife, Melania.
> 
> &#8220;Whoa,&#8221; another voice said.
> 
> &#8220;I did try and f--- her. She was married,&#8221; Trump says.
> 
> Trump continues: &#8220;And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, &#8216;I&#8217;ll show you where they have some nice furniture.&#8217;&#8201;&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn&#8217;t get there. And she was married,&#8221; Trump says. &#8220;Then all of a sudden I see her, she&#8217;s now got the big phony .... and everything. She&#8217;s totally changed her look.&#8221;
> 
> At that point in the audio, Trump and Bush appear to notice Arianne Zucker, the actress who is waiting to escort them into the soap-opera set.
> 
> &#8220;Your girl&#8217;s hot as s---, in the purple,&#8221; says Bush, who&#8217;s now a co-host of NBC&#8217;s &#8220;Today&#8221; show.
> 
> &#8220;Whoa!&#8221; Trump says. &#8220;Whoa!&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;I&#8217;ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her,&#8221; Trump says. &#8220;You know I&#8217;m automatically attracted to beautiful &#8212; I just start kissing them. It&#8217;s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don&#8217;t even wait.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;And when you&#8217;re a star, they let you do it,&#8221; Trump says. &#8220;You can do anything.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;Whatever you want,&#8221; says another voice, apparently Bush&#8217;s.
> 
> &#8220;Grab them by the p---y,&#8221; Trump says. &#8220;You can do anything.&#8221;



It's over. This is how you abandon women and evangelical voters.


----------



## BrailleDecibel

I really do hope it's over now. I know that if it were Obama, Hillary, or just about anyone else that were to be found saying something like this during his or her campaign, their ship would be sunk. Here's hoping the same happens to Trump.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Drew, having a strong background in civics, I know that you know all of this already. I'm really not sure what your motives are in this discussion.



Well, I'll pause and say the reverse, before addressing your points - I've known you for a LONG time, man, and you're saying stuff in this thread that seems totally out of character, such that (and I think Josh was confused, too, reading his comment) I actually thought you were joking when you started talking about "electoral shenanigans." You're making arguments that, frankly, are out of character based on the conversations we've had over the years, and I'm just surprised by that. 

Ok, so the Economist. I'm a subscriber, and a fan of the magazine - in particular, I think their political coverage is excellent. They ranked us 20th in the world on their Democracy Index, out of 167 ranked countries. Not great, right? 

Dig a little deeper, though. We're talking very specifically about electoral PROCESS here, the process by which we elect a government. We have an overall score of 8.05, but on "electoral process and pluralism," we score strongly (as does everyone in this category) with the 3rd highest score they give, while in "political participation" we outscore a lot of the countries above us, as well. Really, if you want to look for the outlier, we stand out the most for our (relatively, compared to our peers) low civil liberties score. You and I both know that this is a huge problem in America, thanks to things like the Patriot Act, the fact we're only recently seeing progress on LGBT rights, and this country's long-standing issues with racism and religious tolerance... But, if you want to talk about the actual electoral process, this doesn't really apply. I don't know how they weight these different factors and how we'd score with a peer-average score here vs the category low, but I think you can look at that and agree that it's not the manner in which we elect people that's dragging our score down. Which is pertinent because what we're talking about here is, quite literally, the manner in which we elect people. 

We also are both well aware that the United States is not a direct democracy, but is a republic that functions through representational democracy. I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion, but if you want to split hairs, yes, we're a constitutional representative democratic republic. 

We're also a representative democratic republic whose constitution has served as an example and an inspiration for countries all over the world when it came time for them to write their own constitutions, which was more what I had in mind when I mentioned how we're a "model to the rest of the world." I meant that 100% literally, like "hey, let's look at this document, while we write our own." 

So, back to my original point - American democracy isn't perfect and probably never will be, but I've seen no even REMOTELY credible evidence that Clinton "stole" the election, which is normally what progressives unhappy with Clinton on the ticket mean when they refer to "electoral shenanigans." You may have meant something different and literally ONLY meant that Bill Clinton was seen at three polling places in Massachusetts, and if so, then I apologize.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

BrailleDecibel said:


> I really do hope it's over now. I know that if it were Obama, Hillary, or just about anyone else that were to be found saying something like this during his or her campaign, their ship would be sunk. Here's hoping the same happens to Trump.



I just can't see him rebounding at all this month. 

The Cuba story shows he's not for "law and order", the tax story shows his "good businessman" image is a sham, and the recent "grab her by the ....." story DEFINITELY shows he's not for family values. If he bombs the town hall or doesn't appear at all, say hello to your first female president. This isn't the GOP primaries anymore.

Oh, and the fact that he thinks the Central Park 5 are still guilty.  This guy is a ....ing idiot.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So, even when it was the GOP that were accused of doing it, you didn't buy into the possibility that there were shenanigans afoot like low number of voting machines in minority polling places, or voter ID laws that disproportionately effect minority voters, or robocalls to minority neighborhoods giving them incorrect polling place information?
> 
> All of this on the heels of the very well known and very public strategy from the GOP, that lower turnout (especially minorities) favor GOP candidates.
> 
> Are you denying these things happened, or denying that they were done with a partisan outcome in mind?
> 
> Is it that much of a stretch to think somebody in your party of choice could be inspired to use similar tactics to win?



The one credible thing I've seen lobbied at the Democrats (aside from widespread gerrymandering performed by both parties, which you know my distaste for rather well) is that they're resistant to moving the election day from a Tuesday to a weekend or making it a national holiday because union members, who generally vote Democrat, have an easier time voting on a Tuesday than the general public (I forget the reasons why - maybe it's usually negotiated in the union contract?), so it gives them a demographic edge. And yeah, I have a problem with that, too. 

But, what I'm talking about here is stories like this: 

http://yournewswire.com/stanford-university-confirm-democratic-election-fraud/

This is pure bull..... Yet, there are people out there who believe that this is how Clinton "stole" the primary election, and that she plans to do it again. And when I read things like "I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton tries to steal the election through some sort of shenanigans," for better or for worse that's the kind of stuff that comes to mind; it obviously isn't going to be by some diabolical plan to hold the election on the second Tuesday in November, because that's been the law since our country was founded, so she isn't "trying" to do anything, you know?  And the districts aren't going to change between now and November 8th, so that's right out, too.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> We started this election cycle with so many candidates that I honestly couldn't keep track of all of them. What floated to the top what not the cream of the crop, so something went rotten during the process.



Actually, I disagree. I happened to vote for Clinton, so of course I'm fine with her, but let's toss that out the window for a second. What floated to the top were _the two candidates with the most popular support._. The fact you don't like either candidate isn't proof that the process broke or "went rotten." It didn't. All that proves is you don't agree with the majority of voting Democrats and plurality of voting Republicans who voted in the primary election. 

Hell, man, in some ways the fact that your view is a minority and it DIDN'T get reflected in the choice of candidates is actually perverse proof that the process _works_.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Nope, according to the Economist website, the USA is the 20th best example of democracy in the world, and that is trending worse every year, in comparison with other nations.
> 
> What made this country great in the first place was people stan



What's their point really though? Do they find it sensible to compare the efficiency of a democracy for Norway, with just over half the population of New York City, to the US? Or Iceland, which has the population of major sporting event? That's like playing the democracy game on easy mode.


----------



## Axayacatl

Drew said:


> Um, I don't follow - this is a matter of interpretation, not "proof," since we're speculating on Trump's thoughts (such as he has) and motives.
> ....
> Again, though - matter of interpretation. We can both dissagree, and that's fine, because neither of us has any special insight into what's going on inside the mind of The Donald.



I agree, it is up to interpretation, because the sample is so small. If the sample were 'large' in some appropriate sense then there would be little room for debate, but I agree that with a small sample its really up to interpretation (small sample result). Now, I think my interpretation is accurate, because hottie McMegyn was 'super against' Mr. Trump until in the video I showed you she is very clearly pro-Trump so Mr. Trump was happy to talk to her. Fast forward to today, suddenly she's anti-Trump again. So our sample size is n=2 and I'm more than happy to call it the way I've been calling it: Mr. Trump picks his venues and his strategy delivers phenomenal success relative to his actual speaking performance.

But you and I are politely spit spatting about old news....

Clearly Mr. Trump's got 'America by the .....' and I can't wait for our follow-up collective response. 

Will we do what 'the star' wants us to do?

Edit: I wrote that Mr. Trump has America by the Pu$$y but got censored. Mr. Trump gonna buy us new furniture (we are looking for new furniture after all).


----------



## Axayacatl

narad said:


> What's their point really though? Do they find it sensible to compare the efficiency of a democracy for Norway, with just over half the population of New York City, to the US? Or Iceland, which has the population of major sporting event? That's like playing the democracy game on easy mode.



Agreed. Iceland has the population of 3.5 Wembley stadiums packed to capacity (each sold out, big games each one, maybe Iceland is humiliating 300k/week Rooney each time?). 

A bad economist is exposed whenever their analysis is an obvious result of their assumptions. 

The 'Economist' is written by very educated, talented writers who are *not* economists, but are master click-baiters. 

E.g., The Economist's Top 10 Democracies You Didn't Know Were Transgendered

BTW, wtf is the laik button


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> The one credible thing I've seen lobbied at the Democrats (aside from widespread gerrymandering performed by both parties, which you know my distaste for rather well) is that they're resistant to moving the election day from a Tuesday to a weekend or making it a national holiday because union members, who generally vote Democrat, have an easier time voting on a Tuesday than the general public (I forget the reasons why - maybe it's usually negotiated in the union contract?), so it gives them a demographic edge. And yeah, I have a problem with that, too.



i have never heard of this one before. going to need to check it out because my curiosity is peaked. 

i laugh every time voter suppression is mentioned because it breaks down predictably like this:

General elections: tend to favor Democrats because the every day, not as connected voter is looking to exercise their right at the polls.

Mid term or off year elections: tend to favor Republicans because a president isn't being elected and so the not-as-connected voter doesn't care.

pay attention to which side complains the most during those times and it typically adds up.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Actually, I disagree. I happened to vote for Clinton, so of course I'm fine with her, but let's toss that out the window for a second. What floated to the top were _the two candidates with the most popular support._. The fact you don't like either candidate isn't proof that the process broke or "went rotten." It didn't. All that proves is you don't agree with the majority of voting Democrats and plurality of voting Republicans who voted in the primary election.
> 
> Hell, man, in some ways the fact that your view is a minority and it DIDN'T get reflected in the choice of candidates is actually perverse proof that the process _works_.



1. Neither candidate has a positive approval rating.
2. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I highly suspect that Trump would have lost the primary if there had been a run-off. But then again, what the Republicans would have offered us, either way, would have been equally bad.

Your second paragraph is a little difficult for me to follow. Are you saying that the fact that I do not like either candidate proves that there is no possibility of election fraud?! I'm not seeing the connection, in fact, I have issues with the general logic that I'm perceiving from you, that the fact that Clinton won means that she could not have possibly done anything wrong.

And when I point out evidence that something was done wrong, the retort is along the lines of (paraphrasing) "Is that the best you can come up with? She's certainly done worse!" I'm at a loss. If I've proved myself wrong because I proved myself right in a way that was not the most efficient way to prove myself right, then this thread is simply devoid of logical discussion.



narad said:


> What's their point really though? Do they find it sensible to compare the efficiency of a democracy for Norway, with just over half the population of New York City, to the US? Or Iceland, which has the population of major sporting event? That's like playing the democracy game on easy mode.



So is democracy adjusted for population somehow?

And if someone wins on easy mode, does that necessarily mean that they lose on hard mode?!

If you can offer a better analysis, then, by all means...

My point was that the USA is not a pure democracy, but a republic with democratic elements. Drew's argument was that the entire rest of the world is in agreement that the USA is somehow the best example of Democracy, aside from that crazy bostjan.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Just going to point out real quick that your candidate not getting picked isn't proof of fraud. It's proof of most Americans not feeling as you do. Doesn't mean there isn't fraud, but that alone is not proof. Didn't get to read the rest of the post, so appologies if you understood that already. Busy busy day today.


----------



## bostjan

Chokey Chicken said:


> Just going to point out real quick that your candidate not getting picked isn't proof of fraud. It's proof of most Americans not feeling as you do. Doesn't mean there isn't fraud, but that alone is not proof. Didn't get to read the rest of the post, so appologies if you understood that already. Busy busy day today.



Sigh.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Just read more of the thread. REALLY should have done that beforehand. Carry on.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> So is democracy adjusted for population somehow?
> 
> And if someone wins on easy mode, does that necessarily mean that they lose on hard mode?!



The difficulty of imposing any form of government is heavily influenced by the size and demographics of the population. Somebody has the #1 ranking democracy over a racially/ethnically homogenous population the size of Woodstock...not going to care. It doesn't necessarily mean that their policies won't scale, but pragmatically speaking, yes, it means that their policies won't scale.

Unless you don't think that the dysfunctionings of the US government aren't heavily due, if not almost entirely due, to the size and diversity of the people living there, in terms of: race, religion, occupation, and culture, none of which are comparatively diverse in Scandinavian countries.


----------



## bostjan

Narad, that is a strong point.

A great deal of the difficulty in the states is not simply from the diversity of the population, but how that diversity affects the federal government. Our system was initially set up for each state to retain quite a bit of autonomous authority, until the American Civil War, after which the government was partially restructured to consolidate more power federally, but, despite the fact that the war ended 150 years ago, some groups in the south still resent that power shift. Anyway, that combined with the autonomy of government that the states still retain means that, politically speaking, there is a great deal of diversity between states. A Democrat in Texas will likely hold very different views from a Democrat in New Jersey.

Back to an earlier point I made, Nazi Germany was a democracy. In that case a majority group tried to completely eliminate minority groups. So, when a nation is radicalized, the opinion of the majority of people in that country might be the majority opinion, but it doesn't make it right.

I guess where I am at a loss, is that Trump fits into a really different shoe than candidates preceding. He isn't that popular with voters in the South (which, I believe was Bush's strength in elections), where Republicans are in the majority. He seems to have some sort of appeal with people who are generally fed up with government (but not with me, since I think he's a looney).

You guys all know that the primary results do not necessarily reflect who wants whom to be president, in the general population, right? Don't put this into me saying something I am not, (someone here might anyway, oh well), but a very small portion of the electorate votes in primaries. Also, the entire idea of the primary has the weakness that I, a non-partisan, could register for whichever party and vote for the candidate I think is more likely to lose, in order to get the winner from the other party a better chance. I don't know that anyone does this, but there is little to stop it from happening.

Also, in the general election, regularly, most eligible voters don't vote. Maybe they don't care, but maybe some of them do care, but are otherwise stopped from voting (not just funny-business, but issues like transportation, work schedules, etc.). So just because someone is elected, does not necessarily mean that a majority of Americans prefer that one out of all possibilities. In the case of this election, neither candidate has a very favourable rating, so people might opt to stay home, rather than vote for the candidate they happen to dislike less. That means that the election results might be more unpredictable. In the sense of voter turnout, North Korea beats the USA every election (if we ignore the fact that voters are fearful about what might happen to them if they do not vote for fearless leader, or, to your point, the lack of ethnic diversity there, which I believe is considered the lowest on Earth).

In the debate, Clinton and Trump were asked to compliment each other. It didn't seem like Clinton could find anything good to say about Trump, yet Trump surprised me by saying that Clinton was a fighter, and that he respected that about her. What's funny is that I don't fault Clinton for failing to say anything good about Trump, mainly because I really don't see anything that great about him, in terms of leading the USA for the next 4-8 years.

I guess the reaction here to pointing out that the Clinton campaign has not been playing above the board has shocked me quite a bit. When it comes to documented facts, popular opinion really means very little to me. I guess I'm old enough and disenfranchised enough to have become deeply skeptical of the worth of popular opinion in general. But in an election, all that matters is how the votes tally up. In that sense, as I have said over and over, I am quite confident that Clinton will tally up more votes than any other candidate.

As for the accusations that I'm only sore because my own candidate didn't win, well, I don't even know how to respond to that, since I highly doubt anyone saying that even has the faintest clue for whom I was cheering, because I don't recall ever mentioning it publicly, and I don't think any of you could guess, even if I gave three tries. Anyway, the statement that my candidate did not win his nomination is a true one, regardless.


----------



## Explorer

Having not been on SS.org much during this election cycle, I thought I should read thus topic in its entirety before posting. There are a few themes which arisen a few times since March/page 1 which are interesting, and it's also interesting to see how some predictions, and claims of inevitability, actually played out.

I've been reading for a few hours, so I might not get this wrapped up today....


----------



## Explorer

Okay... (deep breath)

There are a few themes which arose a few times since page 1 which are interesting.

There have been those decrying that there are only two parties which typically get presidential nominees onto the ballot. However, those parties which are supposedly being "excluded" just don't seem to put in the work and to build the infrastructure to win elections in local races. If those parties don't manage to present a compelling reason for voters to embrace them at the local level, it's not surprising that they lack sufficient credibility at the national level to garner support from the voters. That's not on the Dems or GOP, because the voters are not a monolithic block. 

At this point Sanders is back to self-identifying as an independent. I've never been able to square his documented avoidance of being an actual Democrat, outside of his attempt to get the Democratic nomination, with the notion that he himself was part of a sinister cabal which conspired to deny him that nomination. Instead, the evidence suggests that Sanders recognizes that his aims diverge from those of most Democrats, and that's the reason he couldn't convince the majority of Democrats voting in the primary to suddenly embrace his policies over Clinton's. 

Thumbs up and the Nostradamus Party Pak to @Drew for mentioning intervention in Syria way back on page 14.

I like that on page 18, Ebart states that he doesn't have patience to read what other people have written, while obviously wanting others to read his ideas. 

The Trump and Clinton Foundations come up by page 21. The Trump Foundation has been documented as having misused donations for settling lawsuits and for purchases of Trump portraits. The Clinton Foundation has been determined to funnel at least 80% of donations to charitable work, with less than 15% going to overhead. 

Synergy also wins a Nostradamus Party Pak on page 25 for predicting that Trump would lose support through his own actions.

On page 28, the observation is made that there are quite a few liberal members of SS.org. It's worth mentioning, for those who weren't around for such things, that members who engage in personal attacks get bans, either temp or perma, and that (I suspect) such bans happened often when there were topics on things related to marriage equality, whether a builder was correct in insulting a group based on its sexuality, and so on. There has definitely been a strong correlation on SS.org between being against giving certain groups full equality, and being willing to be insulting to such people to the point of attackng them in spite of knowing a ban would ensue. I do find it distressing that those two thngs have been so strongly coupled, but that's on those who went there, and their self-selection to leave the forum.

Xaios and TemjinStrife made me laugh on page 32, with Xaios having come into the topic to read about Trump and instead getting Japanese rice farmers. 

It's been no surprise to see the the core of the Southern Strategy employed even at this point in the GOP campaign. There are many evangelicals and many other conservatives for whom repudiating even the recent revelations regarding Trump's business dealings and his bragging about committing sexual assault (whether he was lying or not about it) would damage their chances of retaining Congress, of influencing who is placed on the Supreme Court. Accordingly, they continue the same strategy of holding their noses and embracing deplorable words and actions because to do otherwise would threaten the loyalty of those who are only in it for the racism, the misogyny, the discrimination. If you know that you might strip away the needed votes to support your agenda by calling out, say, white supremacists and risking driving them away, then you're left to decide between principle and desire. 

The biggest problem with using innuendo without proof against Clinton is that there is a huge track record and a lot of money thrown at attempting to find such proof over many years, but a failure to actually dig up something actionable. I'm positive that if Republicans had discovered a smoking gun during all those hearings and investigations, it would have been used by now.

In contrast to that, it can only hurt Trump that he and his surrogates have been demonstrably dishonest in many of their attempted claims, and that video and facts are not their friends. When they again make a claim which has even been disproven very strongly on previous occasions, it makes them look stupid when the previous refutation is again rolled out, along with confirmation that the previous refutation took place.

I don't think Clinton would be doing so well if she wasn't facing a candidate who has been unable to advance coherent policies instead of platitudes and outright lies. If a different Republican candidate were to intelligently discuss why they would fear Democratic control of the White House and Congress, it would have a much stronger effect on those in the middle than the current situation, where Trump routinely gets his asinine assertions handed back to him by even the moderators at the debates.

The Southern Strategy might have helped the Republican Party hold on without needing to fix their internal problems, but the decades which have passed since its institution without any attempts to fix those problems have now doomed the GOP to irrelevance for a while.

I'll be very surprised if Trump wins, and I think his loss will be firmly centered on unforced errors of judgment on his part, rather than on Clinton having run a campaign of any brilliance other than that of staying out of Trump's way as he sinks himself.


----------



## Explorer

One more comment:

I've been on other forums as well, and SS.org has managed to have a great discussion on this compared to them. I think that the calming effect of effective moderation over the years has reduced the number of clowns to a manageable level, to where the noise level is very low, but I also suspect the removal of the rep system has equalized the conversation a little. 

Great conversation, fellow SS.org members!


----------



## bostjan

That's a very good post, Explorer.



Explorer said:


> There have been those decrying that there are only two parties which typically get presidential nominees onto the ballot. However, those parties which are supposedly being "excluded" just don't seem to put in the work and to build the infrastructure to win elections in local races. If those parties don't manage to present a compelling reason for voters to embrace them at the local level, it's not surprising that they lack sufficient credibility at the national level to garner support from the voters. That's not on the Dems or GOP, because the voters are not a monolithic block.



Some of these parties have had limited success locally in the past. And I am not suggesting that the major parties are to blame for the two party system, since they will obviously do whatever they can to ensure their own survival. But what I was saying, so long ago, was that the two major parties do not represent what the typical US citizen believes, in terms of platform. Rather, they have become a hyperbole of polarization: red team or blue team, and voters have espoused that doctrine. If the American public only had longer attention spans, I think that third party candidates would stand a fighting chance in an election such as this one, where neither candidate has a high approval rating, and people here are, by and large, deciding to vote for "other one," rather than vote for a candidate they genuinely like. (Before everyone bandwagons against me, I am not saying that there are not people who genuinely like Clinton or Trump)



Explorer said:


> At this point Sanders is back to self-identifying as an independent. I've never been able to square his documented avoidance of being an actual Democrat, outside of his attempt to get the Democratic nomination, with the notion that he himself was part of a sinister cabal which conspired to deny him that nomination. Instead, the evidence suggests that Sanders recognizes that his aims diverge from those of most Democrats, and that's the reason he couldn't convince the majority of Democrats voting in the primary to suddenly embrace his policies over Clinton's.



This is one of few examples of what I stated above.



Explorer said:


> Thumbs up and the Nostradamus Party Pak to @Drew for mentioning intervention in Syria way back on page 14.
> 
> I like that on page 18, Ebart states that he doesn't have patience to read what other people have written, while obviously wanting others to read his ideas.
> 
> The Trump and Clinton Foundations come up by page 21. The Trump Foundation has been documented as having misused donations for settling lawsuits and for purchases of Trump portraits. The Clinton Foundation has been determined to funnel at least 80% of donations to charitable work, with less than 15% going to overhead.



Here's the 2014 tax statement.



Explorer said:


> The biggest problem with using innuendo without proof against Clinton is that there is a huge track record and a lot of money thrown at attempting to find such proof over many years, but a failure to actually dig up something actionable. I'm positive that if Republicans had discovered a smoking gun during all those hearings and investigations, it would have been used by now.



This is where you totally lost me, Explorer. Clinton is far from innocent, and investigations have turned up dirt on her. Her supporters choose to ignore it, which does not make it go away. To say "innuendo without proof" is somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence. She f...ed up with the email thing, claiming incompetence, and the FBI backed down, but said some damaging things. Her campaign f...ed up during the primary by breaking laws, and getting caught colluding with the DNC to ensure her nomination, but she claimed to have nothing to do with that (yet, those who were caught in it and reprimanded were offered positions in her campaign). That is all shenanigans, and if Trump had pulled this level of shadiness, people would be talking about it, except he did and they are already.



Explorer said:


> In contrast to that, it can only hurt Trump that he and his surrogates have been demonstrably dishonest in many of their attempted claims, and that video and facts are not their friends. When they again make a claim which has even been disproven very strongly on previous occasions, it makes them look stupid when the previous refutation is again rolled out, along with confirmation that the previous refutation took place.



Absolutely, and the same can be said for Clinton. She's been caught in several mistruths already, or did you conveniently forget about landing under heavy fire in Bosnia, being for gay rights all along, etc.?

The fact is that both candidates have been caught lying, and neither of them show any sort of remorse, if you ask me. I think they are both scum. In fact, show me a politician who has never been caught in a mistruth.



Explorer said:


> I don't think Clinton would be doing so well if she wasn't facing a candidate who has been unable to advance coherent policies instead of platitudes and outright lies. If a different Republican candidate were to intelligently discuss why they would fear Democratic control of the White House and Congress, it would have a much stronger effect on those in the middle than the current situation, where Trump routinely gets his asinine assertions handed back to him by even the moderators at the debates.
> 
> The Southern Strategy might have helped the Republican Party hold on without needing to fix their internal problems, but the decades which have passed since its institution without any attempts to fix those problems have now doomed the GOP to irrelevance for a while.
> 
> I'll be very surprised if Trump wins, and I think his loss will be firmly centered on unforced errors of judgment on his part, rather than on Clinton having run a campaign of any brilliance other than that of staying out of Trump's way as he sinks himself.



I agree 100%, again.

I said right off that it'd turn into a contest to see which mouth runs the most. Trump can't seem to shut his mouth, so he keeps losing credibility. I'd go so far as to say that Trump started off with an uphill battle against Clinton, and he hasn't done anything to make himself look better to undecided voters. Even some of the folks where I work, who started off Trump fanatics are now having second guesses about his sanity. The fact is that none of those people will vote for Clinton, but if they don't get out to vote at all, Trump will lose the election by a landslide, because people like Drew will go out to vote for Clinton. I believe a lot of people who don't trust Clinton will vote for her anyway, simply because they are so fearful of Trump, which takes us full circle back to my first point.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> This is where you totally lost me, Explorer. Clinton is far from innocent, and investigations have turned up dirt on her. Her supporters choose to ignore it, which does not make it go away. To say "innuendo without proof" is somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence. She f...ed up with the email thing, claiming incompetence, and the FBI backed down, but said some damaging things. Her campaign f...ed up during the primary by breaking laws, and getting caught colluding with the DNC to ensure her nomination, but she claimed to have nothing to do with that (yet, those who were caught in it and reprimanded were offered positions in her campaign). That is all shenanigans, and if Trump had pulled this level of shadiness, people would be talking about it, except he did and they are already.



I think what strikes me with the email thing, in as much as I understand it, is that there never seemed to be an incentive for her to be intentionally distributing classified content. That's why I accept it as a F-up -- what did she gain from that? Then when it comes to Trump scandals, it's usually clear to see the line of intentional reasoning -- paying for these things from the Trump charity saves him money, etc.

And regarding the DNC -- were there laws broken? I'm not happy about that situation, as I would have loved for Bernie to get the nomination and it's the first time that I've seen such a degree of favoritism from within the committee, but at the same time, it's what I expect from them. Aren't they completely entitled to play favorites, legally speaking?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> I think what strikes me with the email thing, in as much as I understand it, is that there never seemed to be an incentive for her to be intentionally distributing classified content. That's why I accept it as a F-up -- what did she gain from that? Then when it comes to Trump scandals, it's usually clear to see the line of intentional reasoning -- paying for these things from the Trump charity saves him money, etc.
> 
> And regarding the DNC -- were there laws broken? I'm not happy about that situation, as I would have loved for Bernie to get the nomination and it's the first time that I've seen such a degree of favoritism from within the committee, but at the same time, it's what I expect from them. Aren't they completely entitled to play favorites, legally speaking?



I don't think anyone is defending Trump's history. 

The DNC did not break federal nor local laws by favouring Clinton, only their own internal laws, which are not enforced outside of the DNC. Clinton's campaign did break local laws by campaigning inside polling locations. Just because something is not against federal law or local law does not make it proper. So, in separate instances, laws were broken and documented as such, and conspiracy was performed and documented. People saying that claims that Clinton's campaign has not been playing above the board, so to speak, are baseless, though, are somehow missing the facts.

Back to Trump: he's a goon. I feel, on one hand, I have to keep saying that or the forum will dogpile on me as a Trump supporter (which I am not, by any stretch), and on the other hand, since he does little to hide the fact that he is a goon, I feel like I shouldn't have to say that he is.

Statements about his womanizing whilst married, with married women, don't surprise me, and frankly, don't concern me. I think statements like these are a symptom of his demagoguery and that is far greater infidelity (on the other hand, if someone like Cruz has obtained the nomination and then got caught saying the same thing, I think he'd be ruined - Trump seemed ruined from the getgo).


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> The biggest problem with using innuendo without proof against Clinton is that there is a huge track record and a lot of money thrown at attempting to find such proof over many years, but *a failure to actually dig up something actionable*. I'm positive that *if Republicans had discovered a smoking gun during all those hearings and investigations, it would have been used by now.*





bostjan said:


> This is where you totally lost me, Explorer. Clinton is far from innocent, and investigations have turned up dirt on her. Her supporters choose to ignore it, which does not make it go away. To say "innuendo without proof" is somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence. She f...ed up with the email thing, claiming incompetence, and the FBI backed down, but said some damaging things. Her campaign f...ed up during the primary by breaking laws, and getting caught colluding with the DNC to ensure her nomination, but she claimed to have nothing to do with that (yet, those who were caught in it and reprimanded were offered positions in her campaign). That is all shenanigans, and if Trump had pulled this level of shadiness, people would be talking about it, except he did and they are already.





bostjan said:


> I don't think anyone is defending Trump's history.
> 
> The DNC did not break federal nor local laws by favouring Clinton, only their own internal laws, which are not enforced outside of the DNC. Clinton's campaign did break local laws by campaigning inside polling locations. Just because something is not against federal law or local law does not make it proper. So, in separate instances, laws were broken and documented as such, and conspiracy was performed and documented. People saying that claims that Clinton's campaign has not been playing above the board, so to speak, are baseless, though, are somehow missing the facts.



My point isn't that Clinton is a choirgirl. My point is that nothing produced so far by the years of intense scrutiny, the many manhours and the millions of dollars thrown at investigations, have been solid enough to bring a successful court action at the level of crminality which is claimed to exist.

And the failure to produce any such claimed hard evidence after decades of intense focus by Republicans raises the possibility to many that, incompetence aside, there might not *be* such evidence, and that it's a partisan witch hunt. That possibility becomes larger in people's minds when Republican claims of what they're what they think they will find with yet more investigation will *finally* prove what they've not managed to prove thus far.

Unless all that time, money and effort were just a conspiracy throrist's wet dream of a false flag operation, Republicans have *not* found anything truly actionable so far.



bostjan said:


> She's been caught in several mistruths already, or did you conveniently forget about landing under heavy fire in Bosnia, being for gay rights all along, etc.?
> 
> The fact is that both candidates have been caught lying, and neither of them show any sort of remorse, if you ask me. I think they are both scum. In fact, show me a politician who has never been caught in a mistruth.



My point is that Trump is the only one who has repeatedly doubled, tripled, and quintupled down on things which have been debunked, to the point where news shows started putting up titles like "Trump claims he didn't support this (he did)".

Unfortunately for such claimants, but forunately for the US, with so much available video *and* with higher scrutiny by the media on all candidates, it goes poorly for anyone who not just makes a false claim, but who sticks with it.

The height of ridiculousness for this, in my mind, was Pence claiming repeatedly in the VP debate that Trump had not made numerous statements which I had actually seen Trump make. I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one who noticed, and I was proven right when a campaign ad was released intercutting Pence's denials of Trump having said something with video of Trump saying the very thing. 

The fact is, the Trump/Pence ticket has faced a large amount of ads which consist, for the most part, of letting those candidates speak for themselves. I heard Trump talk about how the ads using his statements about women, in his own voice, showed him in a negative light, just before he launched into another negative comment towards a woman who didn't meet Trump's standards of what a woman should be, "big ....," skinny and all. 

It's this tendency to double down on defending something which has faced scrutiny and has been disproved *hard* that is hurting Trump.

Well... that, and the mounting evidence that he is a misogynist in a way which Republicans would feel uncomfortable having directed specifically at their daughters.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> 1. Neither candidate has a positive approval rating.
> 2. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I highly suspect that Trump would have lost the primary if there had been a run-off. But then again, what the Republicans would have offered us, either way, would have been equally bad.
> 
> Your second paragraph is a little difficult for me to follow. Are you saying that the fact that I do not like either candidate proves that there is no possibility of election fraud?! I'm not seeing the connection, in fact, I have issues with the general logic that I'm perceiving from you, that the fact that Clinton won means that she could not have possibly done anything wrong.
> 
> And when I point out evidence that something was done wrong, the retort is along the lines of (paraphrasing) "Is that the best you can come up with? She's certainly done worse!" I'm at a loss. If I've proved myself wrong because I proved myself right in a way that was not the most efficient way to prove myself right, then this thread is simply devoid of logical discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> So is democracy adjusted for population somehow?
> 
> And if someone wins on easy mode, does that necessarily mean that they lose on hard mode?!
> 
> If you can offer a better analysis, then, by all means...
> 
> My point was that the USA is not a pure democracy, but a republic with democratic elements. Drew's argument was that the entire rest of the world is in agreement that the USA is somehow the best example of Democracy, aside from that crazy bostjan.



Bostjan - couple things. 

1) Actually, I'm arguing the exact reverse - the fact you don't like either candidate ISN'T proof of election fraud. You're saying "the fact these two candidates are the ones we got is proof something was rotten in the process," to which I'm saying, simply, the fact you don't like them proves nothing. 

2) Not really. I'm saying, "she's been accused, wrongly, of worse, and if the best you can prove is something that legitimately wouldn't move the needle on the outcome and, while certainly in poor taste, doesn't actually appear to have violated campaign law (unless Bill did speak within 150 feet of the polling station, which remains unproven), then that's hardly proof she stole the election. Which, to me, seems to be what you're implying. 

3) That's also not what I'm saying. You're putting words into my mouth. I said that the rest of the world considers us an _example_ of what a good representative democracy should be, and that our Constitution is a model starting point for other countries creating their own. Not the best - we could debate that endlessly, and ultimately I don't think it matters - just one that is widely held to be _very_ good.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I think what strikes me with the email thing, in as much as I understand it, is that there never seemed to be an incentive for her to be intentionally distributing classified content. That's why I accept it as a F-up -- what did she gain from that? Then when it comes to Trump scandals, it's usually clear to see the line of intentional reasoning -- paying for these things from the Trump charity saves him money, etc.
> 
> And regarding the DNC -- were there laws broken? I'm not happy about that situation, as I would have loved for Bernie to get the nomination and it's the first time that I've seen such a degree of favoritism from within the committee, but at the same time, it's what I expect from them. Aren't they completely entitled to play favorites, legally speaking?



The email thing, as I understand - Clinton received classified material that was sent without the appropriate identification on her personal server, maybe 30 emails in a dozen chains. I think she also replied to one or two, though don't quote me on that. It was kind of sloppy of her to have her own server, but not even close to unprecedented, and it's definitely possible that when she said there was no classified material on that server, because it had been mislabeled, she may very well have thought she was telling the truth. 

The polling station thing - legally Bill Clinton had every right to go inside polling stations, provided while inside or while within 150 feet he didn't tell anyone to vote for his wife. No one has claimed he did the former, and while he did hold an impromptu rally outside (the latter), it hasn't been proven that he was within 150 feet of the entrance, so he may not have violated that law, either. 

Certainly, though, it wasn't _a good idea_ to have her own email server, and it wasn't _a good idea_ to visit polling stations. Both were bad decisions because they created the potential that might _appear_ to be a violation of respective laws, which, to be fair, is a common accusation for the Clintons - they act with impunity when it comes to ignoring the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's a valid concern here.


----------



## Drew

Anyway, this is all a moot point, because the Trump campaign is officially a dumpster fire at this point.


----------



## Explorer

I've thought it strange that many Trump tweets have had material from white supremacist sources, as I've never accidentally done so over the years.

Most recently though, there's the weird case of Trump quoting a Russian news story which attributed an altered/falsified quote to Sidney Blumenthal, when the original source of the unaltered quote was Kurt Eichenwald.

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

How did Trump get access to a falsified Russian propaganda piece, originating from Putin's circle, which Sputnik had pulled after some further investigation? 

I personally find it troubling to combine this current example with not just Trump's pro-Putin stance over the course of his campaign, but even his campaign's successful work to tweak the GOP's party platform at the convention regarding Ukraine in favor of Putin.

I personally don't think Trump is intelligent enough to be purposefully manipulating things in favor of Russia and Putin, but it definitely looks like Russia has influence over parts of Trump's campaign, and has had for some time.


----------



## tedtan

Explorer said:


> I personally don't think Trump is intelligent enough to be purposefully manipulating things in favor of Russia and Putin, but it definitely looks like Russia has influence over parts of Trump's campaign, and has had for some time.



I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that there is MUCH more to the Russia/Trump relationship than has bubbled to the surface to date.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> My point isn't that Clinton is a choirgirl. My point is that nothing produced so far by the years of intense scrutiny, the many manhours and the millions of dollars thrown at investigations, have been solid enough to bring a successful court action at the level of crminality which is claimed to exist.



No, just a lesser level of criminality.



Explorer said:


> And the failure to produce any such claimed hard evidence after decades of intense focus by Republicans raises the possibility to many that, incompetence aside, there might not *be* such evidence, and that it's a partisan witch hunt. That possibility becomes larger in people's minds when Republican claims of what they're what they think they will find with yet more investigation will *finally* prove what they've not managed to prove thus far.



Except for the little bits that have been proven.



Explorer said:


> Unless all that time, money and effort were just a conspiracy throrist's wet dream of a false flag operation, Republicans have *not* found anything truly actionable so far.



Just because someone makes an untrue allegation about something, doesn't mean all allegations are untrue. I've given specific examples, so, unless you can specifically address those, then this discussion is just going to turn into "no, it isn't," / "yes it is!" ad infinitum.



Explorer said:


> My point is that Trump is the only one who has repeatedly doubled, tripled, and quintupled down on things which have been debunked, to the point where news shows started putting up titles like "Trump claims he didn't support this (he did)".



Yes, and so has Clinton, with LGBT rights, for example.



Explorer said:


> Unfortunately for such claimants, but forunately for the US, with so much available video *and* with higher scrutiny by the media on all candidates, it goes poorly for anyone who not just makes a false claim, but who sticks with it.



This paragraph applies to Clinton, as well, in fact, that's how the idea originated during the primaries.



Explorer said:


> The height of ridiculousness for this, in my mind, was Pence claiming repeatedly in the VP debate that Trump had not made numerous statements which I had actually seen Trump make. I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one who noticed, and I was proven right when a campaign ad was released intercutting Pence's denials of Trump having said something with video of Trump saying the very thing.



And I have no doubt that Pence knew that Trump said those things. These folks have no regard for facts. Pence will never address this, either.



Explorer said:


> The fact is, the Trump/Pence ticket has faced a large amount of ads which consist, for the most part, of letting those candidates speak for themselves. I heard Trump talk about how the ads using his statements about women, in his own voice, showed him in a negative light, just before he launched into another negative comment towards a woman who didn't meet Trump's standards of what a woman should be, "big ....," skinny and all.



Both campaigns have almost exclusively run negative ads.



Explorer said:


> It's this tendency to double down on defending something which has faced scrutiny and has been disproved *hard* that is hurting Trump.



But that's what politicians do, if something isn't right, just keep repeating it until people believe it is. Look at the candidates' websites! They both have their platforms presented in a pretty non-descript way. Lots of text and few pictures. Trump has two bar graphs that really show no useful information, and Clinton has no graphs that I can find. Then look at the rest of their sites, aside from the platform part - flashy graphics, different fonts, etc., and nearly every word is about the *other* candidate.



Explorer said:


> Well... that, and the mounting evidence that he is a misogynist in a way which Republicans would feel uncomfortable having directed specifically at their daughters.



Did anyone ever think that he was wholesome?!



Drew said:


> Bostjan - couple things.
> 
> 1) Actually, I'm arguing the exact reverse - the fact you don't like either candidate ISN'T proof of election fraud. You're saying "the fact these two candidates are the ones we got is proof something was rotten in the process," to which I'm saying, simply, the fact you don't like them proves nothing.



Drew, you are using a circular argument.

My point has nothing to do with how much I like or dislike the candidates and everything to do with their level of unscrupulousness.



Drew said:


> 2) Not really. I'm saying, "she's been accused, wrongly, of worse, and if the best you can prove is something that legitimately wouldn't move the needle on the outcome and, while certainly in poor taste, doesn't actually appear to have violated campaign law (unless Bill did speak within 150 feet of the polling station, which remains unproven), then that's hardly proof she stole the election. Which, to me, seems to be what you're implying.



There is a level of ridiculousness in the above paragraph. What was Mr. Clinton doing inside of the polling station? You say no one can prove that he was campaigning, so what was he doing there? We know that he was campaigning there and that he went inside during the process, so how is he 150 feet away? Did he have some business there, and if so, why are there photos of him campaigning inside? If the photos of him campaigning inside are not proof enough, then what would be?



Drew said:


> 3) That's also not what I'm saying. You're putting words into my mouth. I said that the rest of the world considers us an _example_ of what a good representative democracy should be, and that our Constitution is a model starting point for other countries creating their own. Not the best - we could debate that endlessly, and ultimately I don't think it matters - just one that is widely held to be _very_ good.



Here's what you said:



Drew said:


> I'm not going to sit here and say that the American democratic system is flawless, but it's also one that, flaws and all, is still held to be a model for the rest of the world BY the rest of the world, and all this talk about alleged electoral fraud with zero in the way of factual evidence just cheapens what is arguably the thing that made this country so great in the first place.
> 
> Is it perfect? No. But as Churchill famously quipped, talking about us, "democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except for all of the other forms." It functions pretty well here, and while you may not like the current outcome of this particular cycle, I'd caution against confusing a particular result with the process that led to it.



And my quote was not even a response to you, but to another forum member. His quote was in my post, but was removed from yours.


----------



## Explorer

@bostjan - I have stated a few times that *the Republicans have not yet uncovered anything actionable*, as evidenced by their not then using such to take action. 

Do you disagree with that statement? 

If so, why do you think they're holding back on taking action on such?

Also, *what* actionable thing have they proven yet are currently holding back on?


----------



## bostjan

They already took legal action against her, which resulted in the hearings over Benghazi and her emails, so I'm not sure what you are trying to fish out of me here. How far back are we going and what sort of action are you talking about? We don't have to go back that far. If you are talking about jail, politicians of her rank never go to jail.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> 1) Drew, you are using a circular argument.
> 
> My point has nothing to do with how much I like or dislike the candidates and everything to do with their level of unscrupulousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) There is a level of ridiculousness in the above paragraph. What was Mr. Clinton doing inside of the polling station? You say no one can prove that he was campaigning, so what was he doing there? We know that he was campaigning there and that he went inside during the process, so how is he 150 feet away? Did he have some business there, and if so, why are there photos of him campaigning inside? If the photos of him campaigning inside are not proof enough, then what would be?
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Here's what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> And my quote was not even a response to you, but to another forum member. His quote was in my post, but was removed from yours.



1) ...except, that your original statement, "We started this election cycle with so many candidates that I honestly couldn't keep track of all of them. What floated to the top what not the cream of the crop, so something went rotten during the process." is ITSELF a judgment call, and a matter of opinion and not fact. You're saying that because you believe the two best candidates didn't win, "something went rotten during the context." I'm simply pointing out that this doesn't follow logically, since it's a subjective, not objective prior observation. Just because you don't LIKE the outcome doesn't prove it was fraudulent. 

2) I don't know. Neither do you. The fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter, because as a private citizen he couldn't legally be barred from entering a polling station. He could be removed if he did anything that could bee considered advocating his wife's candidacy, but thus far there is no evidence that happened, and the only complaints that have been lodged have been that he might not have been at least 150 feet away when he spoke. Which, at this point, is an allegation, not a proven fact. I agree it LOOKS bad, him being there, but it's not actually illegal to do things that _look_ bad, only things that _are_. 

3) ...which I later further elaborated here, since your response made it clear that the way I had phrased it made it appear like I was saying something stronger than I was. Doesn't matter if you were addressing me or not, if you're going to mention me by name, then I'm going to take a moment to point you back to the additional clarification I wrote for you, since if I was going to spend all that time writing it, I'd certainly want you to know it existed.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> They already took legal action against her, which resulted in the hearings over Benghazi and her emails, so I'm not sure what you are trying to fish out of me here. How far back are we going and what sort of action are you talking about? We don't have to go back that far. If you are talking about jail, politicians of her rank never go to jail.



I think his use of "actionable" is pretty clear - after due process, she was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in both instances. Hearings and trials are the process by which we determine if someone has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, at that point action is taken. She was cleared of wrongdoing in both instances - neither charge proved actionable. 

I don't see what you're getting at here. His usage was pretty standard in a legal context - are you being willfully obtuse, or are you legitimately unfamiliar with that usage? And, if you ARE unfamiliar, why are you arguing about legal proceedings anyway?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Anyway, this is all a moot point, because the Trump campaign is officially a dumpster fire at this point.



Not a moot point because Trump being a poor candidate =/= his competitor being a good candidate.

I conceded HRC was going to be the next president when the Democrats couldn't muster up anybody but an Independent Socialist to run against her. What GWB did to his party was going to take a decade or more to rectify, so I didn't expect a serious competitor to emerge from them regardless.

The question, to me, is whether or not any of the supposed 'Hillary scandals' blipped on anybody else's radar as things to be concerned about WHEN SHE INEVITABLY WINS AS PRESIDENT, and whether or not those issues should elevate the scrutiny she should be given on certain subjects in the interim.

Maybe I'm putting words in people mouths but it feels like you can't say something negative about Hillary Clinton without it being interpreted as a passive endorsement of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. I mean, there's a chance people legitimately believe there are literally no concerns regarding any of the things that have been brought up about her (which you're free to believe) but if you're going to minimize those issues that you'll inevitably have to face once she's in office just because you're afraid of BS/DT, I think you're doing yourself no favors.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The question, to me, is whether or not any of the supposed 'Hillary scandals' blipped on anybody else's radar as things to be concerned about WHEN SHE INEVITABLY WINS AS PRESIDENT, and whether or not those issues should elevate the scrutiny she should be given on certain subjects in the interim.
> 
> Maybe I'm putting words in people mouths but it feels like you can't say something negative about Hillary Clinton without it being interpreted as a passive endorsement of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. I mean, there's a chance people legitimately believe there are literally no concerns regarding any of the things that have been brought up about her (which you're free to believe) but if you're going to minimize those issues that you'll inevitably have to face once she's in office just because you're afraid of BS/DT, I think you're doing yourself no favors.



Two excellent points, and I'll hit them in reverse order. 

I think part of that is due to just how divisive this campaign season is. I won't speak for the GOP, but on the Democratic side, the Hillary/Bernie campaign got pretty ugly in its final days, and while the convention helped smooth things over, there are still pro-Sanders holdouts. A lot of the nastier attacks I've seen against Clinton, at least until the past week, have come from there, which I think is a useful filter for understanding some of the knee-jerk reaction from Democrats. There's also the fact that some of the charges being lobbied (I.e - Trump saying Clinton likely won through election fraud in the debate) are straight-up lunacy.

To the first... As a Clinton supporter, when she's in the White House, I think her record on transparency will be my biggest concern. She's been hit with a number of scandals now, and in all of them she's ultimately been cleared of wrongdoing. She hasn't managed any of them well, though, and has a bad record on being transparent and open about accusations with the public, which is doubly hard to understand because she actually _hasn't_ had much in the way of wrongdoing to hide. So, I think in the meantime, the issues we've seen have been heavily scrutinized (she's probably the best vetted candidate you and I will ever see, simply because the GOP has been after her for 30 years now) and we're past the point of learning anything new and these are mostly still alive to try to do political damage, but the big take-away from me, from this campaign, is that the Clinton Administration 2.0 is probably going to be more secretive than you or I will really like, and that's something that we will need to watch.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> 1) ...except, that your original statement, "We started this election cycle with so many candidates that I honestly couldn't keep track of all of them. What floated to the top what not the cream of the crop, so something went rotten during the process." is ITSELF a judgment call, and a matter of opinion and not fact. You're saying that because you believe the two best candidates didn't win, "something went rotten during the context." I'm simply pointing out that this doesn't follow logically, since it's a subjective, not objective prior observation. Just because you don't LIKE the outcome doesn't prove it was fraudulent.



It's not a judgement call that these candidates have the lowest approval ratings of any candidates of our time, which I am using as a gauge of just how bad the options are. I don't think that you can rightly call that a stretch of logic.

Then I quipped that if that's the best we can do, then something must be wrong with the system. I also think it's a pretty safe statement.



Drew said:


> 2) I don't know. Neither do you. The fact of the matter is, that doesn't matter, because as a private citizen he couldn't legally be barred from entering a polling station. He could be removed if he did anything that could bee considered advocating his wife's candidacy, but thus far there is no evidence that happened, and the only complaints that have been lodged have been that he might not have been at least 150 feet away when he spoke. Which, at this point, is an allegation, not a proven fact. I agree it LOOKS bad, him being there, but it's not actually illegal to do things that _look_ bad, only things that _are_.



I have no response to this. I simply don't think that's a reasonable argument. It's not a place where he lives, so, again, what was he doing there? There are no reasonable explanations other than what was reported, which was that Mr. Clinton was breaking the rules. If he wants to go inside a polling station nowhere near where he is registered to vote and just hang out there and chill out while people are voting, and give no reason for his presence, and say it has nothing to do with campaigning, you would believe him. That's naive.



Drew said:


> 3) ...which I later further elaborated here, since your response made it clear that the way I had phrased it made it appear like I was saying something stronger than I was. Doesn't matter if you were addressing me or not, if you're going to mention me by name, then I'm going to take a moment to point you back to the additional clarification I wrote for you, since if I was going to spend all that time writing it, I'd certainly want you to know it existed.



Ok, but you did say: that the USA "is still held to be a model for the rest of the world *by* the rest of the world," when it has not been the leading example for more than a century, it's not actually a pure democracy, and we have an incident like the 2000 election less than two decades behind us. You even went on to try to call shame on me for doubting the legitimacy of our electoral system.



Drew said:


> I think his use of "actionable" is pretty clear - after due process, she was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in both instances. Hearings and trials are the process by which we determine if someone has committed a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, at that point action is taken. She was cleared of wrongdoing in both instances - neither charge proved actionable.
> 
> I don't see what you're getting at here. His usage was pretty standard in a legal context - are you being willfully obtuse, or are you legitimately unfamiliar with that usage? And, if you ARE unfamiliar, why are you arguing about legal proceedings anyway?



I'll counter by asking you to please look up the legal definition of the words of which you say I do not know the meaning. Actionable does not mean leading to a conviction, it means leading to legal action, like the legal action brought forward against Clinton.



Drew said:


> She's been hit with a number of scandals now, and in all of them she's ultimately been cleared of wrongdoing.



If you are going to use the word "wrongdoing," then, again, I disagree. Being found "extremely careless" is not the same as being cleared of any wrongdoing.


----------



## Explorer

@bostjan - I'm sorry I might have been imprecise enough so as to invite confusion.

As far as has been demonstrated, the Republicans have been unable to produce evidence which led to a successful conviction against Clinton. 

You seem to be implying, especially with your claims of Clinton's "criminality" due to numerous attempts to find proof of such, that if numerous audits have been conducted of Trump's taxes, he is in fact engaging in criminal tax fraud. I think that makes an unwarranted leap. 

Equating "investigation to determine whether one can indict" with "actually found evidence which went to a successful trial" is inaccurate.

It seems obvious that claiming such clinching evidence has been found, but not acted upon, is also silly. However, that seems to be the narrative which is constantly presented. 

If Republicans *do* have such evidence, but are refusing to move forward with it, what explanation would there be for not doing so?


----------



## russmuller

bostjan said:


> I'll counter by asking you to please look up the legal definition of the words of which you say I do not know the meaning. Actionable does not mean leading to a conviction, it means leading to legal action, like the legal action brought forward against Clinton.



An act, event, or occurrence is said to be actionable when there are legal grounds for basing a lawsuit on it. For example, an assault is an actionable tort. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/actionable

So to which lawsuits against Clinton are you referring?


----------



## bostjan

russmuller said:


> An act, event, or occurrence is said to be actionable when there are legal grounds for basing a lawsuit on it. For example, an assault is an actionable tort. - http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/actionable
> 
> So to which lawsuits against Clinton are you referring?



From the site you posted:

"Actionable - affording grounds for legal action."

Go ahead and dogpile on me over the definition of a word, if it makes you feel good about each other or yourselves. It doesn't change what the definitions of words are nor the facts at hand, though.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> @bostjan - I'm sorry I might have been imprecise enough so as to invite confusion.
> 
> As far as has been demonstrated, the Republicans have been unable to produce evidence which led to a successful conviction against Clinton.
> 
> You seem to be implying, especially with your claims of Clinton's "criminality" due to numerous attempts to find proof of such, that if numerous audits have been conducted of Trump's taxes, he is in fact engaging in criminal tax fraud. I think that makes an unwarranted leap.
> 
> Equating "investigation to determine whether one can indict" with "actually found evidence which went to a successful trial" is inaccurate.
> 
> It seems obvious that claiming such clinching evidence has been found, but not acted upon, is also silly. However, that seems to be the narrative which is constantly presented.
> 
> If Republicans *do* have such evidence, but are refusing to move forward with it, what explanation would there be for not doing so?



Okay, let's play your game, then, the game for which you seem to want to define rules.

Has Trump been convicted? Does that mean that he's honest and trustworthy?

I've never been convicted of a crime. So you should trust me, too.

As far as I know, you've never been convicted of a crime, so I should trust you.

But oh, wait, we disagree. So who do I trust? Maybe we should all just trust each other, yet Drew and I disagree on the definition of a word easily found in the dictionary online. Hmm, seems to be a contradiction. Where did we go wrong. Maybe with the assumption that someone who was never convicted of a crime is necessarily trustworthy, since that seems to be the thing in question in the first place.

This discussion is so off track!  It was supposed to be about the odds of Trump getting there. I guess that has been settled. Trump ain't gonna get there. At his best, he maybe had a chance almost within reach, but recently, it's been an understatement to say that his polling numbers have been bleak.


----------



## Edika

Drew said:


> 3) That's also not what I'm saying. You're putting words into my mouth. I said that the rest of the world considers us an _example_ of what a good representative democracy should be, and that our Constitution is a model starting point for other countries creating their own. Not the best - we could debate that endlessly, and ultimately I don't think it matters - just one that is widely held to be _very_ good.



No, no and no we don't  (speaking arrogantly in behalf of the whole world).


----------



## russmuller

bostjan said:


> From the site you posted:
> 
> "Actionable - affording grounds for legal action."
> 
> Go ahead and dogpile on me over the definition of a word, if it makes you feel good about each other or yourselves. It doesn't change what the definitions of words are nor the facts at hand, though.



I think this came across the wrong way. Not trying to dogpile on you (though I'd point out that you're the one who suggested looking up definitions), but looking back at Explorer's post yesterday where he told you "I have stated a few times that the Republicans have not yet uncovered anything actionable, as evidenced by their not then using such to take action." If you're disputing that, I'm asking you to provide evidence. If you're not, then I am mistaken and I apologize.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> From the site you posted:
> 
> "Actionable - affording grounds for legal action."
> 
> Go ahead and dogpile on me over the definition of a word, if it makes you feel good about each other or yourselves. It doesn't change what the definitions of words are nor the facts at hand, though.



Ok, let's take this the next step: 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/legal+action

Legal action: any lawsuit, petition, or prosecution. 

Has Hillary Clinton ever been sued? Has she ever been prosecuted? She was investigated in relation to Benghazi and her handling of the email server, but in both instances she was cleared of criminal wrongdoing and the decision was made to not prosecute. 

I mean, I may be forgetting something, but I can't think of a single case involving Hillary that actually made it into a courtroom. Which, by definition, would mean that the GOP has yet to find anything "actionable" that she's actually done, no?


----------



## Explorer

Okay, just to be clear about what i stated originally...



Explorer said:


> The biggest problem with using innuendo without proof against Clinton is that there is a huge track record and a lot of money thrown at attempting to find such proof over many years, but *a failure to actually dig up something actionable*. I'm positive that *if Republicans had discovered a smoking gun during all those hearings and investigations, it would have been used by now.*





bostjan said:


> This is where you totally lost me, Explorer. Clinton is far from innocent, and investigations have turned up dirt on her. Her supporters choose to ignore it, which does not make it go away. To say "innuendo without proof" is somewhat insulting to everyone's intelligence. She f...ed up with the email thing, claiming incompetence, and the FBI backed down, but said some damaging things. Her campaign f...ed up during the primary by breaking laws, and getting caught colluding with the DNC to ensure her nomination, but she claimed to have nothing to do with that (yet, those who were caught in it and reprimanded were offered positions in her campaign). That is all shenanigans, and if Trump had pulled this level of shadiness, people would be talking about it, except he did and they are already.



Then some back and forth ensued, involving claims that the hearings did produce something, or not actually related to the hearings I was talking about... It's unclear, because no example was given of such a smoking gun.



bostjan said:


> Okay, let's play your game, then, the game for which you seem to want to define rules.
> 
> Has Trump been convicted? Does that mean that he's honest and trustworthy?



Ah... but now you've gone to where there is a huge amount of video available of Trump being either deliberately dishonest, or being completely stupid. In either case, his word is demonstrably untrustworthy.

One easy example is Trump repeatedly lying about not having supported the invasion of Iraq. He's done so this whole campaign, and I believe he even did so again in the last debate. Going further, Politifact and other news organizations which do sourced and verified fact checking have found Trump to be the most dishonest in his statements in this whole campaign, and at a dishonesty level far exceeding all other candidates.

One current lawsuit against Trump involves Trump stating in advertising that he handpicked and knew the instructors for his educational venture... but admitting under deposition that he hadn't and didn't. 

Somethng I don't like going into, because I don't like national security leaks, are the reports that Trump has actually been briefed about Russia's hacking starting back in August as part of his security briefings, and that such information has continued to be part of his briefings.

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...-dnc-attacks-before-shrugging-on-debate-stage

So, every time Trump claims he doesn't know anything about Russian hacking, he's lying.

This is another distressing datapoint to me regarding Trump's intersections with Russia and Putin. I've already mentioned how Trump had access to a falsified news report appearing purely in Russian, generated by Putin forces but pulled by Sputnik due to inaccuracy, and never translated to English. The story isn't something that hit any American or European wire services, so it had to come straight from Russia before the story was pulled for inaccuracy. And, of course, there's the direct action taken by Trump and his team to remove parts of the GOP platform which would have put pressure on Putin over Ukraine.

Anyway, it sounds like you're saying if Trump hasn't been convicted, therefore Clinton has been just as dishonest. That's a weird stance, and still doesn't get to the lack of actionability of any information uncovered in the lengthy and expensive ongoing investigations driven by Clinton's Republican political enemies on Capitol Hill, as I stated.

If you want to refute my claim, that no such actionable information has come out, or want to claim that it has come out but Republicans are holding back for some reason, I welcome discussing it. 

----

It's funny to think that this discussion about honesty/dishonesty, as evidenced by legal evidence and lawsuits, is happening in the context of a presidential campaign wherein Trump has fought to have a lawsuit dismissed (motion denied) or posponed until after the election wherein Trump advertised having handpicked and knowing the instructors for his courses, and admitting in a sworn deposition that he didn't know them and hadn't handpicked them. This is the same case which, upon Trump's motions to dismiss being denied, Trump then made racist accusations against the judge which just seem like a tantrum thrown by a tiny child.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It's not a judgement call that these candidates have the lowest approval ratings of any candidates of our time, which I am using as a gauge of just how bad the options are. I don't think that you can rightly call that a stretch of logic.
> 
> Then I quipped that if that's the best we can do, then something must be wrong with the system. I also think it's a pretty safe statement..



But, is that a product of the candidates, or the modern political environment? Clinton's popularity with Democrats is perfectly normal by historical standards, and while Trump's was initially low he's energized the party base (he remains exceptionally unpopular with party leadership, which is a problem the GOP is going to have to address after the election, the growing divide here). Taking it a step further, Clinton's approval ratings are generally pretty high (look at her tenures as a senator or secretary of state), but also generally tank when she's running for election.

I'd be more inclined to blame a political environment that is exceptionally polarized and a time when ALL politicians have low approval levels (Clinton and Trump's numbers look positively _awesome_ compared to Congress's whopping 11% approval rating) for the fact that both candidates have historically poor net favorability ratings. Here at least there's room for legitimate disagreement over interpretation. 

What I think is NOT debatable, though, is that the two candidates who had the most support within their parties each won the nomination, which makes it hard to understand claims of electoral fraud. That's the simplest "gut test" - that the two candidates with the support of the most voters did, in fact, win the nomination.

EDIT - by the way, bostjan, the last day or so of this discussion has become a little heated, and I'm going to try to scale that back - in particular, implying you were being willfully ignorant about Explorer's use of "actionable" was kind of obnoxious, and I'd like to apologize for that.


----------



## Explorer

Regarding Trump's chances of being elected... I think they're not good, but there's a chance. 

Republicans are in a hard place. They can't abandon the Southern Strategy and completely disavow the white supremacist voting block which they previously courted because they don't want to lose the ability to name the next Supreme Court Justice. After all their talk and obstruction about the next Justice belonging to the next President, and after they refused to confirm a moderate compromise candidate under Obama, they know they can't expect Clinton to also attempt compromise with their entrenched position as the Party of No. 

If Republicans repudiate Trump too strongly, they lose the down-ballot votes of Trump supporters, damaging their ability to block Clinton proposals. 

If they don't repudiate Trump enough, then female voters and others will not vote for them. 

They are now facing an election where two or more large constituencies in their voting bloc are at odds, and desperately trying to find a compromise position which lets them play both ends against the middle. 

Trump's performance at the last debate was enough to prevent him from being completely abandoned by the GOP, which means the GOP must now face that aftermath and attempt to steer it. 

----

This election has been interesting in exposing those fault lines in the Republican Party, as well as exposing the variance between the stated principles and actual goals of their various constituent groups. 

Social conservatives, evangelicals in particular, have been vocal in supporting and even defending a candidate's position purely because of what they hope to get out of it. Phyllis Schlafly seemingly went insane in embracing a candidate who embodied evrything she had previously fought against. So have evangelicals. 

I suspect that it won't be clear to the Republican Party until after the election that the sound they've been hearing isn't thunder, but just the sheer multitude of chickens landing on the roof, all coming home to roost at once. 

And even then, they'll probably attempt to explain the roof caving in on other factors, ignoring even the best internal analyses in the same way they ignored the last best advice they had on minority recruitment and enfranchisement.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> This election has been interesting in exposing those fault lines in the Republican Party, as well as exposing the variance between the stated principles and actual goals of their various constituent groups.



I think there's a very real chance that the GOP splits in half over this election.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Drew said:


> I think there's a very real chance that the GOP splits in half over this election.


That would be fascinating. I imagine it'd help Democrats quite a bit unless one or both parties morphed in such a way as to significantly cut into their voting bloc.


----------



## Explorer

This election has also produced some stunning moments regarding Fox News in particular. 

The conversations regarding sexual harassment which were started at Fox because of Ailes' conduct have been continued because of Trump. The women at Fox aren't necessarily willing to defend such actions, which means that Fox must either change its culture, or attempt to put a muzzle on such women. The latter will damage the Fox brand even further. 

----

Going further regarding the Republican Party...

Maybe fiscal conservatives will break away from the sandwich they've been a part of, and will stand on principle instead of being part of a coalition which includes one or more groups which advocate against adult citizens not having full rights.

It could hurt fiscal conservatives' chances of getting an agenda enacted immediately, but it could form the nucleus of a successful political movement. Further, if such a group did start working in Congress completely divorced from a need to insert social conservatism into the same legislation, there would be much more likelihood of hands reaching across the aisle on Capitol Hill. Many times, the only reason some financial legislation gets derailed is because a socially conservative cause is inserted into it. Removing those attempts at inserting such social issues into financial matters will strengthen not just such a party, but the US in general. 

I'd rather that, then wait to see when enough is enough for some, and this finally happens.


----------



## bostjan

@Russ: But a lawsuit was brought against Clinton, thus the hearing (two lawsuits, as of late - one over Benghazi and one over emails). I don't know why everyone keeps saying there was no legal action against HRC, when this is all very well documented in the media. As in, I don't even know how to respond to these arguments. In fact, these lawsuits are still ongoing: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...oke-justice-dept-during-email-lawsuit-n664711

@Explorer: You are engaging in a double standard. Trump is guilty of tax fraud (I don't doubt that he is), but he has not been convicted of a crime. Clinton is innocent of wrongdoing, because she has not been convicted of a crime (despite her mishandling of classified information, which, if you or I did, we would be locked up in a blink).

@Drew: I really appreciate the apology. I'm sorry I've been so caught up in this discussion. You're a great guitar player and I look up to you as a human being, in general. 

I think where we disagree is in the role of the party. It is obviously a major decision maker in the political world. What I am failing to parse is how a candidate can be the most popular in the majority party, yet extremely unpopular with the general public, in both instances.

Also, I'm not going to debate it myself, but it seems to me that it may well be debatable whether or not Trump is the most supported in his party, throughout the entire process.


----------



## bostjan

EDIT: There's my post. I guess it took a minute to show up.

Back OT: I predict Clinton will win the election with 300+ electoral votes. The only scenario where I see Trump winning is highly unlikely if not borderline impossible.

Here's my best guess:


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Drew: I really appreciate the apology. I'm sorry I've been so caught up in this discussion. You're a great guitar player and I look up to you as a human being, in general.
> 
> I think where we disagree is in the role of the party. It is obviously a major decision maker in the political world. What I am failing to parse is how a candidate can be the most popular in the majority party, yet extremely unpopular with the general public, in both instances.
> 
> Also, I'm not going to debate it myself, but it seems to me that it may well be debatable whether or not Trump is the most supported in his party, throughout the entire process.



No worries, man, I appreciate that.  These are more fun over a couple beers anyway since it's harder to lose track of the fact you generally get along with the other dude.  

I'd point to the extreme level of polarization in today's political environment - at present, bipartisan compromise is essentially dead. The GOP's stated legislative goal for the last two years was to block Obama, and while there was a time where Supreme Court Justices were basically rubber stamped by Congress, we're now in a situation where a (fairly moderate) nominee isn't even going to get an up-or-down vote (or, more likely, will, once it becomes clear Clinton will win and appoint a less moderate justice instead). I'm using examples involving the GOP, but just because they're the current opposition party; the Democratic party is in general maybe a little less unified than the Republicans, but when push comes to shove they're hyper-partisan these days as well. 

Long story short - I suspect Trump and Clinton are only mildly less popular than generic Democrats and Republicans, outside their party. 

Re: Trump... I think this all started when I raised the point that Trump was only nominated with a plurality, not majority, of GOP support, due to their winner takes all rules (come to think of it, that may have been a facebook conversation with someone else, though). I think you still see that today, in the fact that a modest majority of Clinton voters rank "supporting Clinton" over "stopping Trump" as the reason for their vote, whereas a majority of Trump voters cite "stopping Clinton" as their motivation - don't have the citation handy, but this was from a survey a buddy of mine screen-printed and posted as an image during a facebook discussion on this. So, I DON'T think Trump necessarily enjoys the support of the majority of GOP voters, although he enjoyed plurality support with GOP voters in the primary, and thus far seems to still today. 

Now, Trump was only short of a majority by something like 5-7 percentage points, measured by votes cast, but I'd also say he's probably harmed that a little in recent weeks. Either way, it's a problem - he has enough voter support to make things REALLY hard for GOP party officials - Ryan in particular is in a bind - but not nearly enough to actually win.


----------



## russmuller

bostjan said:


> @Russ: But a lawsuit was brought against Clinton, thus the hearing (two lawsuits, as of late - one over Benghazi and one over emails). I don't know why everyone keeps saying there was no legal action against HRC, when this is all very well documented in the media. As in, I don't even know how to respond to these arguments. In fact, these lawsuits are still ongoing: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...oke-justice-dept-during-email-lawsuit-n664711



I stand corrected. To be honest, there's an overload of information and a lot of noise to sort through in the media (which I avoid). So when claims are made without a specific reference, despite the fact that they might be true, I lean on skepticism which is why I pressed for more details. Thank you for your patience and enlightening me.


----------



## synrgy

Pedantry and semantic-insanity aside - I think I must have missed where anyone claimed she'd never been _charged_?

As I read it, the claim being made (and not so much disputed, as avoided) is that she's never been _convicted_, despite efforts spanning multiple decades.

Not to be overtly presumptuous or to speak for anyone else, but this is what I'm reading:

"Her lack of conviction history proves her lack of criminality"
versus
"Her lack of conviction history does not disprove her criminality"

Neither are _inherently_ correct, but the latter is a lot more circular in its logic than the former..


----------



## Drew

synrgy said:


> Pedantry and semantic-insanity aside...



Please. This is the internet. What fun would THAT be?


----------



## synrgy

Drew said:


> Please. This is the internet. What fun would THAT be?



I certainly don't mean to imply that I'm not usually more guilty than most!


----------



## TemjinStrife

I was gonna say, there's a lot of arguing over definitions here. That's MY job


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> Pedantry and semantic-insanity aside - I think I must have missed where anyone claimed she'd never been _charged_?
> 
> As I read it, the claim being made (and not so much disputed, as avoided) is that she's never been _convicted_, despite efforts spanning multiple decades.
> 
> Not to be overtly presumptuous or to speak for anyone else, but this is what I'm reading:
> 
> "Her lack of conviction history proves her lack of criminality"
> versus
> "Her lack of conviction history does not disprove her criminality"
> 
> Neither are _inherently_ correct, but the latter is a lot more circular in its logic than the former..



Here is the start of the rather trivial argument:



Explorer said:


> @bostjan - I have stated a few times that *the Republicans have not yet uncovered anything actionable*, as evidenced by their not then using such to take action.
> 
> Do you disagree with that statement?
> 
> If so, why do you think they're holding back on taking action on such?
> 
> Also, *what* actionable thing have they proven yet are currently holding back on?





bostjan said:


> They already took legal action against her, which resulted in the hearings over Benghazi and her emails, so I'm not sure what you are trying to fish out of me here. How far back are we going and what sort of action are you talking about? We don't have to go back that far. If you are talking about jail, politicians of her rank never go to jail.



I would say that I generally disagree with your statements, which is probably unsurprising to you.

The point I had made earlier was that any statement that Trump is up to some legal transgressions (due to the yet-to-be-started investigations) is difficult to understand coming from the same person who would claim that the lack of criminal charges against Clinton (despite the ongoing lawsuits and investigations against her) proves that she is innocent. I have some suspicion that you will disagree with that, and I'm perfectly okay to disagree with that and still think you are a nice person. 

The fact is that I really don't care, because Trump is shady as .....

Back OT:

I found this interesting, maybe something with which some of you can agree with me.

I was told by a coworker (who supports Trump) that the people have stood up against the politicians who bend their will to pressure for big businesses, so that is why the people support Trump (his words). I retorted with "Trump is the big businesses," to which he responded, "Right, so no big businesses will pressure him to do anything he doesn't want to." I guess I don't get it.

My question: Is the above a fair representation of people who support Trump? If so, does anyone agree with that logic?


----------



## Explorer

I suspect this little discission is centered around confabulation of two different ideas.

I stated that Trump has held onto certain claims even after those claims have been well established to be false.

I questioned the assertion of Clinton's "criminality" regarding the Congressional hearings, and that the Republicans had been able to pursue crimnal charges based on those hearings. 

I don't think I addressed the numerous civil lawsuits either Trump or Clinton have been involved with, only the lack of criminal prosecution arising from decades of hearings by Republican lawmakers. I did later comment upon Trump's sworn deposition in the Trump University case which I believe is a federal RICO case, which would make it a criminal matter. 

----

At this point, it looks like independent candidate and LDS member Evan McMullin has appeared in heavily Mormon Utah to challenge Trump's position as the conservative candidate, and is currently polling as likely winning 22% of Utah's votes to the current numbers of 26% for Clinton and 26% for Trump. McMullin might also siphon away votes from Trump in Idaho, which also has a large Mormon population. McMullin is on the ballot in both states. 

As Trump has previously been seen as attempting to use someone's Mormon faith against them, and as Mormons have not approved of Trump going after ethnic and religious minorities, the accessibility of a candidate who is not only acceptable to them but is actually of their faith can only lower Trump's chances of getting their votes.


----------



## Explorer

Hey, and as a big shout out to everyone here, including bostjan: 

I love you guys, and I love learning where I'm wrong and being able to expand my knowledge. 

If rep were still in use, all of you would have gotten poz rep at this point, and i'd also be calling for Drew to be love-bombed for clarifying with bostjan, and for bostjan to be similarly bombed for not just his being classy in his response back, but also for being intelligent and courteous in his responses all along in this topic. We disagree on a few things, I'm sure, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't loan you my guitar at an SS.org get-together. 

Sevenstring.org. Where the more strings there are, the more united we are.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well now that we've had a good hug and feel good session, allow me to throw kerosene on the flames that we all thought we just put out and post this...

https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/repeal-the-19th?bffbmain&utm_term=.suz4ERRvl#.nteO488Kw
(it's buzzfeed, I know, but still)

Look, if trump supporters don't want to be generalized as xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, self-serving sh_i_tbags, then they shouldn't be starting utterly ridiculous hashtags and ideas like this one. Trump is more than capable of being a deplorable, miserable bastard with the most ridiculous, hateful, and entirely unfeasible ideas all on his own without your help.


----------



## Explorer

Let me raise you two.

Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately - NY Times

Donald Trump threatens to sue New York Times over sexual harassment report - CNN Money

Since the folks in one case were told decades ago and have corroborated being told at that time about Trump's actions, it is clearly impossible for Trump to attack that person as having just invented the story to hurt his campaign. Threatening to sue to prevent publication of this information was likely the only possible way to try to limit the damage to come.

What I found interesting previously is that Trump never declared that there would be no further bombshells of this nature. Instead, he vowed to attack if yet more materials proving such allegations about his words and conduct were released. That certainly seemed like a direct acknowledgment from Trump himself that there was more to be found.


----------



## watson503




----------



## Explorer

That hashtag now being used about stripping the vote from women has been around for a while in the Alt Right. I am shocked Trump supporters stumbled upon it out of the blue like that just now.

Shocked, I tell you.

----

I'm also shocked that Trump supporters would break the law by hacking Podesta's account. Trump is the law and order candidate, so we'll soon see him making a strong statement against hacking which interferes with the election process laid out in the Constitution.

That will take the wind out of the sails of those who claim Trump is just spouting rhetoric that he doesn't mean. 

I'm sure, if he's honest, that he'll acknowledge and denounce Russian hacking at the same time.


----------



## tacotiklah

Explorer said:


> I'm sure, if he's honest, that he'll acknowledge and denounce Russian hacking at the same time.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-hacking-assuming-anyone-was-even-hacked/





Sorry, but you gave Trump wayyyyyyyyy too much credit. At what point in this entire election has he EVER shown a propensity for being honest? 
Not trying to be a dick or attack you or anything. I just found it beyond hilarious that right as you put that last sentence, there were articles where he said LITERALLY the exact opposite of what you had hoped. And again that's not a diss to you, but rather a testament to Trump's uncanny ability to do completely the opposite of what any sane, rational person would do at any given moment.


----------



## Explorer

At first, i thought the recent news, that previous contestants at the Miss Teen USA contest had shared stories on a private Facebook page, limited to such contestants, about Trump walking into the dressing room while 15-year-olds were naked, was to be deplored.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing?utm_term=.ud6v0A8yl#.rsDoKl2r8

Clearly this has to be the bottom, right?

Nope.

46-year-old Man Talks with 10-year-old Girl, Then Tells Interviewer He Will Be Dating Her in 10 Years - CBS News

How does a guy in his 40s even start thinking that way about a prepubescent girl, let alone think it'a normal to let someone else know he's thinking that way?

That's deplorable.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Doesn't end there. This was just released a few hours ago.

http://people.com/politics/donald-trump-attacked-people-writer/



> We walked into that room alone, and Trump shut the door behind us. I turned around, and within seconds, he was pushing me against the wall, and forcing his tongue down my throat.
> 
> Now, I&#8217;m a tall, strapping girl who grew up wrestling two giant brothers. I even once sparred with Mike Tyson. It takes a lot to push me. But Trump is much bigger&#8212;a looming figure&#8212;and he was fast, taking me by surprise, and throwing me off balance. I was stunned. And I was grateful when Trump&#8217;s longtime butler burst into the room a minute later, as I tried to unpin myself.
> 
> The butler informed us that Melania would be down momentarily, and it was time to resume the interview.
> 
> 
> I was still in shock, and remained speechless as we both followed him to an outdoor patio overlooking the grounds. In those few minutes alone with Trump, my self-esteem crashed to zero. How could the actions of one man make me feel so utterly violated? I&#8217;d been interviewing A-list celebrities for over 20 years, but what he&#8217;d done was a first. Did he think I&#8217;d be flattered?
> 
> I tried to act normal. I had a job to do, and I was determined to do it. I sat in a chair that faced Trump, who waited for his wife on a loveseat. The butler left us, and I fumbled with my tape recorder. Trump smiled and leaned forward.
> &#8220;You know we&#8217;re going to have an affair, don&#8217;t you?&#8221; he declared, in the same confident tone he uses when he says he&#8217;s going to make America great again. &#8220;Have you ever been to Peter Luger&#8217;s for steaks? I&#8217;ll take you. We&#8217;re going to have an affair, I&#8217;m telling you.&#8221; He also referenced the infamous cover of the New York Post during his affair with Marla Maples. &#8220;You remember,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Best Sex I Ever Had.&#8221;


----------



## Explorer

Trump is now in a good position if he is innocent.

If he knows he is innocent, and also knows there are no further audio or video recordings which could endanger him, he can absolutely file the defamation suits as he is threatening.

At the point he files, he will be subject to discovery. His innocence will be reinforced by the fact that the tapes from The Apprentice will contain no incidents which will undermine his case. As discovery will also (I believe) allow looking at any sexual harassment lawsuits involving Trump as a defendant, he will be able to demonstrate that no similar allegations were made which were sealed under non-disclosure agreements previous to discovery. 

----

Really, I'm still stuck on Trump being able to look at a 10-year-old girl as a future conquest. To me, that tape is a clear indication that Trump not only doesn't feel a need for adult consent from someone with whom (or to whom) he wants to engage in such behavior, but also doesn't feel too constrained by the need for a consenting adult.

Which makes the following case even more interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html

If there are in fact independent witnesses and corroboration of the allegations in this case, this will likely be the big one that brings Trump down completely over the next few years. There are already affidavits filed, and if the emerging stories share details of Trump behavior and speech with the stories in this case, it all combines in the same inexorable way Cosby's accusers' stories shared so many details across the decades. 

It will be interesting if Trump files defamation lawsuits, as he has strongly threatened... or not.


----------



## Explorer

By the way... what happens now with those elected officials who gave in to GOP pressure and supported Trump after either originally not, or after leaving Trump during one of the numerous problematic episodes?

And, what happens to those who applied that pressure, now that it's clear they damaged the party by applying it?


----------



## synrgy

Explorer said:


> By the way... what happens now with those elected officials who gave in to GOP pressure and supported Trump after either originally not, or after leaving Trump during one of the numerous problematic episodes?
> 
> And, what happens to those who applied that pressure, now that it's clear they damaged the party by applying it?



My best guess? Probably nothing. Drumpf will be the convenient scapegoat. The party will be able to point their collective finger and say "don't blame _us_, it's all _his_ fault!"

That said, I'm interested to see how this shapes up in terms of the ever splintering wings of the party. I'm starting to get a sense that the 'old school' fiscally-focused conservatives may have finally had enough of their 'new school' socially-focused counterparts. I'm not holding my breath or anything, but it'd be nice to see a shift away from all the fundamentalism and zealotry. A guy can dream, anyway.


----------



## bostjan

+



tacotiklah said:


> Well now that we've had a good hug and feel good session, allow me to throw kerosene on the flames that we all thought we just put out and post this...
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/repeal-the-19th?bffbmain&utm_term=.suz4ERRvl#.nteO488Kw
> (it's buzzfeed, I know, but still)
> 
> Look, if trump supporters don't want to be generalized as xenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, self-serving sh_i_tbags, then they shouldn't be starting utterly ridiculous hashtags and ideas like this one. Trump is more than capable of being a deplorable, miserable bastard with the most ridiculous, hateful, and entirely unfeasible ideas all on his own without your help.



While I agree with what you are saying, I would clarify your reasoning that people who are proud to tell others that they are supporting a candidate who is unabashedly xenophobic, racist, sexist, and homophobic, and makes fun of the less fortunate and physically disadvantaged, and whose platform is openly xenophobic and self-serving to big businesses and the wealthy - are inviting statements such as what you said and much more.

Generally, supporting something that other people, who happen to be assholes, support, does not make you an asshole yourself; however, supporting a policy that has no positive effect on your own freedoms, but limits the freedoms of others to do as they wish, makes a person a political asshole.



synrgy said:


> My best guess? Probably nothing. Drumpf will be the convenient scapegoat. The party will be able to point their collective finger and say "don't blame _us_, it's all _his_ fault!"
> 
> That said, I'm interested to see how this shapes up in terms of the ever splintering wings of the party. I'm starting to get a sense that the 'old school' fiscally-focused conservatives may have finally had enough of their 'new school' socially-focused counterparts. I'm not holding my breath or anything, but it'd be nice to see a shift away from all the fundamentalism and zealotry. A guy can dream, anyway.



That's what makes me sad about politics. If you only knew the hopes I had for Obama! I knew he would be fighting an uphill battle, but I really thought he'd at least get the executive branch under control. So when he ran against Hilary in the primary, I felt that the future of the nation was riding on the American people, and when Obama won, I felt that the future of the nation was riding on him, but my expectations were unfair. At any rate, it seemed like the American people, after letting me down by re-electing GWB, had finally done something symbolically heartwarming, by electing this new guy who stood for a brighter future. Alas, too many people have stood in the way of that future, and what we see now as the Republican nominee is, in many ways, the backlash to the changes that have taken place or that we tried to make take place...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The point I had made earlier was that any statement that Trump is up to some legal transgressions (due to the yet-to-be-started investigations) is difficult to understand coming from the same person who would claim that the lack of criminal charges against Clinton (despite the ongoing lawsuits and investigations against her) proves that she is innocent. I have some suspicion that you will disagree with that, and I'm perfectly okay to disagree with that and still think you are a nice person.



Well, first, I think the reminder that this is America and we believe in due process is incredibly important. In this highly partisan firefight, it's possible to lose track of that, so it's good to get the occasional reminder that Trump is only definitely guilty of what we can prove.  

I think, though, that there are reasons I'd be more inclined to give Clinton more of a pass than Trump, for things that have nothing at all to do with my partisan affiliation. 

First, Clinton has been under constant investigation since Bill's first Presidential run, back in 1992. Arguably, since before then. We have literally had people investigating her and looking for dirt for the better part of 30 years. Trump has only been a politician for about a year and a half now, and I just got a bloomberg breaking news alart on my phone about a story on how he basically stonewalled his own campaign when they tried to do due diligence on his past, meaning they're just as shocked by what's emerging as the public is. Long story short - someone who's been investigated for 30 years and thus far has not had enough evidence uncovered to prosecute you can probably conclude is _more likely_ to be clean than someone who's only been under scruitiny for about a year, and thus far has not been prosecuted. 

Second, Trump HAS gotten nailed a few times, though so far most of the examples coming to mind are with the Trump Foundation. New York found them in violation of the regulatory requirements for a nonprofit soliciting outside donations, and forced them to stop last month. A campaign donation made by the Trump Foundation to a prosecutor investigating the Trump University (the day before or day after she dropped charges, I forget) was incorrectly accounted for as a donation to a different nonprofit, and the prosecutor was ordered to return the donation because it violated the Foundation's prohibition on political activities. For all the suspicion around the Clinton Foundation, there still haven't been any instances where wrongdoing was proven and the Foundation was penalized. 

So, for me, it's the combination of those two factors. Trump has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar whereas Clinton has not, and 30 years of investigation into Clinton have yet to result in any criminal prosecution, whereas Trump has only been under the microscope for a year. 

Though, again, you're right that we need to be clear that Trump is only _suspected_ of wrongdoing until we've had time for due process to unfold.



EDIT - I'm going to go full-on finance nerd here, because this is the crux of my opinion. What we're talking about is the difference between a Type 1 error and a Type 2 error - rejecting the null hypothesis when true vs failing to reject the null hypothesis when it is false. If your hypothesis is "Clinton is a criminal" and you're testing the null hypothesis that she is NOT a criminal, a Type 1 error would be deciding there IS enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that she's NOT a criminal, when the (assumed to be unobservable, but still statistically valid) reality is that she actually ISN'T a criminal - basically a "false positive" conclusion. This is an approach often used in finance to evaluate investment manager performance (i.e - is the excess return this manager has generated due to skill, or due to luck?), and from a purely statistical standpoint, the likelihood of making a Type 1 error at a given confidence interval declines with time. Since this is skill vs chance, think of it like a coin flip - the liklihood of getting heads 75% of the time isn't that low if you flip a quarter 4 times, but if you do it 400 times, while it's still _possible_, it becomes extremely unlikely and you have to start exploring alternative explanations, such as one side of the quarter is weighted. 

So, this is the filter I'm thinking about here - over a span of 30 years, Clinton has been constantly investigated by the right for any potential lawbreaking they can use against her. Over the past yeart and a half, the left has done the same to Trump. The fact that both have seen a lot of allegations, but haven't actually been proved of any criminal wrongdoing, doesn't actually prove that neither is a criminal... But, if we assume there's a certain random statistical probability of either of them getting away with a crime, the fact that Clinton has not been found guilty (rightly or wrongly) in about 30 years implies a higher probability that Clinton is NOT a criminal, than it does that Trump is not a criminal because he hasn't been convicted in a year and a half. 

It's just a simple probabilistic approach, really - longevity gives you a bit more confidence in the conclusions, all else equal.


----------



## Axayacatl

bostjan said:


> Generally, supporting something that other people, who happen to be assholes, support, does not make you an asshole yourself; however, supporting a policy that has no positive effect on your own freedoms, but limits the freedoms of others to do as they wish, makes a person a political asshole.



Supporting Mr. Trump or being undecided has become a litmus test for misogyny in our country (it is a term, not an Asian soup). The guy is the walking embodiment of rape culture. This is really not about being an asshole or not. Billy Bush is not good enough with women to be on NBC, but Mr. Trump is good enough to be President and NBC will not release any tapes.

If being OK with this gross level of double standards don't make people assholes then we need a new term. Political asshole seems soft. 

How about this for fun: "Hey, Hitler was not so bad apple, he had good some good ideas, at least he didn't delete his emails! Oh, I'm not an asshole, I'm a genocide asshole."


----------



## wannabguitarist

Axayacatl said:


> misogyny...it is a term, not an Asian soup



Are you sure about this? I had a steaming bowl of it this weekend.


----------



## Explorer

Speaking of misogyny...

I was just reading on CNN about a thwarted US domestic terror plot.

www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/mosque-attack-thwarted-kansas/index.html 

Three US citizens have been arrested for plotting to bomb an apartment complex with many Somali residents, and a mosque.

One of the terrorists arrested, Patrick Stein, had previously told an undercover investigator, who was posing as a terror sympathizer who would help with weapons, that another of the terrorists, Craig Allen, had recently been arrested on domestic violence charges, and that Steinberg was concerned that Allen's girlfriend might say something to authorities. 

*sigh*

So, terrorism, domestic violence... and one more tidbit. 

https://t.co/EtivprPOc9

I've found some of the rhetoric throughout this particular election to be distasteful, especially when some would be outspoken about defending violence. 

In the wake of that rhetoric, and also in the wake of supporting other illegal activities like the Bundy terrorist actions, there needs to be a serious purge of all vestiges of these inclinations from US politics. 

To not firmly push out those who engage in such rhetoric, even if it hurts one's short-term goals, is to hurt democracy.


----------



## Viginez

oh boy


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Viginez said:


> oh boy




I hope you posted this for sarcastic reasons, given he's known to have a history to heavily edit his videos. 



> But the more likely answer is in James O&#8217;Keefe himself. The conservative filmmaker has gained a reputation for videos that appear politically damning on their face but turn out to be deceptively edited &#8212; or even outright falsified. O&#8217;Keefe&#8217;s signature project has been his 2009 video claiming to show employees at the community activist group ACORN advising a pimp in how to apply for benefits and grant funding while concealing his sex trafficking.
> The videos led to a congressional backlash against ACORN and moves to de-fund the organization, but months later the full and unedited video revealed that the expose was a case of deception. O&#8217;Keefe failed to show ACORN workers acting appropriately when faced with the fake pimp, and ultimately he paid a $100,000 settlement to ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera, who was fired as a result.
> As Think Progress noted, it was not the only time James O&#8217;Keefe used deception in a political hit piece.
> &#8220;O&#8217;Keefe&#8217;s other videos have been exposed as either complete lies or deceptively edited. ThinkProgress reported last year that O&#8217;Keefe&#8217;s attempt to expose voter fraud by non-citizens actually featured US citizens. The conservative activist has also been arrested for trying to bug a Senator&#8217;s phone. In his ACORN pimp sting, O&#8217;Keefe deceptively edited in the famous pimp costume later, though he actually wore a suit and tie at the ACORN office.&#8221;


----------



## TheHandOfStone

This shocking video will confirm exactly what many people want to believe! 

I predicted deception before I even read up on O'Keefe. For what it's worth, I'd suspect the same if it'd been about Trump. Footage compilations like this one are generally of negative informational value.


----------



## Viginez

how can that be edited? they talk in front of the camera how they work.
do we need more in this case? it's not about the editing in this video and how dramatic it may be, it's about the content. and it's shocking. idk how can someone defend this and question it...


----------



## synrgy

Viginez said:


> how can that be edited?



Adobe Premiere.. Final Cut.. Windows Movie Maker.. It's not exactly wizardry.

I only got 30 seconds in, and already he had strung together 5-6 quotes from different people talking about different things, and each were completely stripped of necessary context.

To spell it out with a hypothetical: I could say something like "It's crazy.. Everyone keeps saying the sytem is rigged, but no one is presenting any evidence."

An editor could then quote me as saying "the system is rigged", and, apparently, you would then believe that's what I said, because 'it's not about the editing, it's about the content'...


----------



## watson503

Viginez said:


> how can that be edited? they talk in front of the camera how they work.
> do we need more in this case? it's not about the editing in this video and how dramatic it may be, it's about the content. and it's shocking. idk how can someone defend this and question it...



I don't get it, either. I watched the ACORN videos when they came out in 2009 and no amount of editing could make the ACORN staffers appear worse than they did themselves. This country is seriously chingaled and it is hard for most to accept just how bad it is.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

synrgy said:


> Adobe Premiere.. Final Cut.. Windows Movie Maker.. It's not exactly wizardry.
> 
> I only got 30 seconds in, and already he had strung together 5-6 quotes from different people talking about different things, and each were completely stripped of necessary context.
> 
> To spell it out with a hypothetical: I could say something like "It's crazy.. Everyone keeps saying the sytem is rigged, but no one is presenting any evidence."
> 
> An editor could then quote me as saying "the system is rigged", and, apparently, you would then believe that's what I said, because 'it's not about the editing, it's about the content'...



Pretty much all this. Taking quotes out of context, making word soup... Just recently we had the same issue with the planned parenthood video. 

But sure, as said before, people will believe what they want to believe. If you're a conspiracy theorist that thinks everything is rigged, this video is gold. If you're like me and think things are relatively nornal and guys like Okeefe are just trying to spread fud... Then the video is bull.....


----------



## bostjan

Here are some Marco Rubio quotes taken without context (for fun, mostly, but also to show an example of how quotes out of context are often misleading):

"40% of the people who come here illegally come legally."
"The only people that follow the law are law-abiding people."
"He became a conservative, even though he got his news in Spanish."
"The federal government does all kinds of things it shouldn&#8217;t be doing. It regulates bathrooms."
"America is not a planet!"


----------



## vilk

^I don't get what's misleading about that. 

The first one, I assume meant to say "40% of people who ARE here illegally came legally". Just seems like he fumbled his words. 
Second one is a 'captain obvious' statement
The third one is funny, I gotta admit
Fourth is a legitimate political stance
Not knowing the context, 5th statement is almost kinda _deep_


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> how can that be edited? they talk in front of the camera how they work.
> do we need more in this case? it's not about the editing in this video and how dramatic it may be, it's about the content. and it's shocking. idk how can someone defend this and question it...



Oh man, I had a LONG conversation about this on facebook last night.  

It's edited. Heavily. This is a conversation that happened, but the video editing provides context that isn't there and, I suspect, rearranges the sequence of the conversation and puts snippets next to each other to imply they're related, which they're not. 

I'm curious about that first bit where he's talking about "if we do these things, we'll get a reaction, which is what we want." I'm wondering if this was even just a hypothetical question - "so, if your hands were untied, how would you go about discrediting the Trump campaign" or something like this. It's an answer which you're told is about how this Foval guy started riots, but you're not actually shown the question he's replying to. I'd LOVE to see this in context.

Then there's some narration, and it then cuts to another section where Foval is explaining who he works for, who they work with, how they interact, and how he's not allowed to directly work with the DNC or with Clinton. The implication is that's because he's up to something nefarious. The far more plausible reason, though, if you throw out the narrative frame, is that a Super PAC isn't allowed to work directly with the candidate or the national party. This sounds a LOT like an answer to a question to the effect of "so, how do you make sure that you don't fall afoul of Super PAC requirements that prevent you from working directly with Clinton?" or something along those lines. Again, you don't know what the question was, but you're asked to believe that this is evidence that the Clinton campaign is encouraging them to start riots and that this is how they covered their tracks, because these two clips are juxtaposed and only separated by a bit of narration about "hey, and one time, this other guy fell afoul of the IRS for not paying taxes," which is embarrassing, but doesn't actually prove anything about what Foval is talking about, and only serves to imply he's a criminal. 

Listen, end of the day, it's an Occam's Razor thing. If this video interview was so absolutely damning, why edit it at all? Why keep cutting it and interspersing narration, why the mix of audio-only and audio/video recording from the same interview? If Foval came out and said, "Clinton is secretly paying me to incite violent riots at Trump campaign events," wouldn't it be a far more effective piece if they just let the raw footage do the talking? 

Instead, it's been heavily diced up and carefully arranged to create a narrative that most likely never existed. 

Which is kind of this guy's MO. He did the same thing with ACORN - the videos looked awfully damning, until investigators got their hands on the raw footage and saw that they'd been chopped up and rearranged until the point they were basically a work of fiction. By then, of course, the damage was done and the GOP-controlled Congress had already cut their funding, so they folded. But, they were cleared of all wrongdoing. 

Seriously, though - the simplest answer is usually right. If there was really a smoking gun here that the Clinton camp was using Scott Foval to start riots at Trump events, they would have maybe tacked an introduction onto the unedited tape. They didn't, and there's a very good reason for that.


----------



## Drew

watson503 said:


> I don't get it, either. I watched the ACORN videos when they came out in 2009 and no amount of editing could make the ACORN staffers appear worse than they did themselves. This country is seriously chingaled and it is hard for most to accept just how bad it is.



The US Courts would disagree with you, and eventually awarded a $100,000 settlement to the ACORN employee who sued O'Keefe after he was fired.


----------



## watson503

Drew said:


> The US Courts would disagree with you, and eventually awarded a $100,000 settlement to the ACORN employee who sued O'Keefe after he was fired.



The courts and I have a long history of disagreement between each other so that wouldn't be anything new! Hahahaha Drew, you're a good dude (as are the majority of people here) as far as what I've seen you post here at 7string and elsewhere, but my reality and take on things is way different than most here and I kick myself for even opening these political threads, let alone posting in them as it's not going to change my views and neither are others.


----------



## Drew

watson503 said:


> The courts and I have a long history of disagreement between each other so that wouldn't be anything new! Hahahaha Drew, you're a good dude (as are the majority of people here) as far as what I've seen you post here at 7string and elsewhere, but my reality and take on things is way different than most here and I kick myself for even opening these political threads, let alone posting in them as it's not going to change my views and neither are others.



Thanks, man.  But, it's not like this is still under appeal or anything - O'Keefe eventually signed a non-prosecution agreement in return for turning over the raw footage (meaning he wasn't eligible for criminal prosecution) and the unedited footage showed that Vera had provided no help whatsoever to the undercover recorder in their attempt to smuggle someone into the country illegally, contrary to what the edited video had implied, and additionally Vera had documentation to prove that he'd escalated the conversation immediately both to his supervisors and tipped of Mexican police that this dude was trying to circumvent immigration law. It was cut and dry - Vera filed a civil suit against O'Keefe, and was awarded $100k plus a (very terse) apology from O'Keefe, who also was required to admit (truthfully or otherwise) that he was unaware at the time he released the video that Vera had escalated the matter to Mexican immigration authorities. 

Basically, he got caught in a bold-faced lie, and lost a civil suit over the matter.


----------



## mnemonic

Nobody posted the second video yet? 



There are some much longer quotes in this one, with not cuts in them for those who think it could have been taken out of context.


----------



## Drew

I'm sure that one is bull.... too, man. Unless a broken clock really IS right once twice a day.


----------



## Randy

Haven't watched it (well, I watched about 5min. of the first clip) because I can't stomach the guy, but I haven't heard any substantive complaints about the video other than the source.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Haven't watched it (well, I watched about 5min. of the first clip) because I can't stomach the guy, but I haven't heard any substantive complaints about the video other than the source.



The first video, from the 6-7 minutes I stomached, is mostly him talking about how a Super PAC coordinates with a candidate without actually breaking any of the laws about how Super PACs and candidates can't work together, though by setting it up with a clip of how Trump supporters could be induced to riot, coupled with the narration, it creates the impression that the DNC/Clinton campaign was paying Foval to start riots at Trump events. At least, that's what all the Trump supporters I know were telling me this video is about. 

Naturally, I think every single person in this thread has a huge problem with Super PACs and would love to see them outlawed, but what Foval is describing isn't him breaking the law - it's how he ensures he DOESN'T break the law.  It's just been given a context that makes it look suspicious as hell.


----------



## synrgy

mnemonic said:


> There are some much longer quotes in this one, with not cuts in them for those who think it could have been taken out of context.



 Seriously?

The first several minutes are literally _nothing but_ quick cuts of quotes out of context... How far into this drivel do I have to make it to get these 'quotes with no cuts in them' of which you speak?

*edit* Maybe it's just because I do editing as a hobby, but, man.. I don't understand how anyone can watch this kind of thing and take it seriously.


----------



## synrgy

Not to completely derail this thing, but here's another recent example of the same kind of deceptive editing:



> In a recent segment, CNN used a short clip featuring the sister of Sylville Smith, a man who was shot dead by a Milwaukee police officer on Saturday. In CNNs version of the clip, Sherelle Smith can be heard telling a crowd of onlookers, Dont bring the violence here, and the ignorance here. Later, in a portion of her speech that CNN didnt air, Smith suggested that if the crowd wanted to riot, they should take that .... to the suburbs, burn that .... down. - source



Here's another example in which Fox uses deceptive editing to make Obama's words carry different meaning than they did in their original context.

John Stewart made an entire career of highlighting all the selective/deceptive editing that contemporary news lives by.


----------



## Drew

So they're doing the same thing in this one as in the last? Taking clips and putting them in a new context to imply Foval is talking about something nefarious?

I haven;t watched it, don't really want to waste my time on it, but I guess the gist is this one is evidently the dude "confessing" to voter fraud. I've seen a freeze-frame with a caption about him bringing people to the polls "by the busload," presumably with the implication that they're committing voter fraud. My guess looking at that was he was actually talking about get-out-the-vote efforts and efforts to get voters with limited mobility some sort of transportation to get to a polling place - is that more or less the case?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

synrgy said:


> *edit* Maybe it's just because I do editing as a hobby, but, man.. I don't understand how anyone can watch this kind of thing and take it seriously.



Because presidential elections brings out the worst and/or dumb in people.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So, to those of you watching the debate...

Do you think is really gonna get there?


----------



## celticelk

He really said that he might not accept the outcome of the election if he loses, right? This isn't some fever dream I'm having from getting a bad piece of fish for dinner?

Worst. Candidate. Ever.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

That, and the personal attack against an opponent. It wasn't anything major... calling Hillary "a nasty woman", but still, it shows how low he's willing to go.


----------



## DeathChord

celticelk said:


> He really said that he might not accept the outcome of the election if he loses, right? This isn't some fever dream I'm having from getting a bad piece of fish for dinner?
> 
> Worst. Candidate. Ever.



Ditto! totally unacceptable.


----------



## mnemonic

Whole lot of opinions on that video from people who havent watched it.


----------



## synrgy

*edit*

Nevermind. I'm just gonna let it go.


----------



## Drew

mnemonic said:


> Whole lot of opinions on that video from people who havent watched it.



Whole lot of past work from this guy makes me feel comfortable dismissing it out of hand as another heavily edited out of context hatchet job. 

And yeah, in 2016, in the United States of America, we had a major presidential candidate effectively say, "I know you are, but what am I?" in a debate, and then refuse to say whether he would respect the will of the voters. I'm kind of in disbelief. 

The good news is we only have about another 19 days of this.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

celticelk said:


> He really said that he might not accept the outcome of the election if he loses, right? This isn't some fever dream I'm having from getting a bad piece of fish for dinner?
> 
> Worst. Candidate. Ever.




Okay... his exact quote "I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense." Given that everybody in this discussion remembers Florida 2000, this isn't an "out of this world response." 

Scarborough put it best this morning 



> JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): What was [Trump's] exact quote?
> 
> MIKA BRZEZINSKI (CO-HOST): He said I will leave you in suspense.
> 
> WILLIE GEIST (CO-HOST): He said I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense.
> 
> HAROLD FORD JR.: So that means he is not willing to say I will accept the outcome.
> 
> SCARBOROUGH: No, what that means is he will look at it at the time. I love everybody saying -- I woke up to these screaming headlines saying, "Donald Trump will not respect election results." He actually said I will look at it at the time. I'll see.
> 
> FORD JR.: Has there ever been a presidential candidate to say that?
> 
> SCARBOROUGH: If there are voting irregularities, then any presidential candidate, anybody --
> 
> MIKE BARNICLE: What would you have said? What would your response be to that question?
> 
> SCARBOROUGH: I'd say yeah, I'll certainly respect the outcome of the election. I of course would want to make sure that's fair. I will want to make sure that it's fair, it's on the up and up.
> 
> BARNICLE: Well, he didn't say that.
> 
> SCARBOROUGH: Yeah but you know what? This is an example the media got something they can absolutely freak out about and claim that he is an agent of Vladimir Putin and destroying democracy in America. And it's just another example of the media having to find a little phrase and freak out. When as a Republican I have listened to Democrats talk about the only two times we won the White House in like 800 years that we stole both elections. I had to sit through Fahrenheit 911 and a lady was sobbing violently behind me on the Upper West Side about the election being stolen from George Bush and I patted her halfway through. I go, it's all right, it's all right, ma'am. It's all right. It's all a lie anyway. Democrats have been whining for 16 years, they are still writing articles about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. So this holier than though attitude about, "this is the first time anyone has suggested that the election is not a sacrosanct process," it's a joke. So you guys bathe in that hypocrisy if you want to, I'd just like to hear how the debate went. Go ahead, bathe.



selective memory has been, and always will be, selective.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

And then today he outright says he will accept it.


*
...IF HE WINS.
*
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/3055391

If he left out that last part, then we'll be fine. But no, once again he has to be vague as .... and make everyone think he's going to go down crying. 

Also, since we're talking about 2000... Al Gore disagreed, but he accepted defeat. He didnt go out all kicking and screaming "RIGGED RIGGED RIGGED" like Trump is.


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Okay... his exact quote "I will look at it at the time and keep you in suspense." Given that everybody in this discussion remembers Florida 2000, this isn't an "out of this world response."
> 
> Scarborough put it best this morning
> 
> 
> 
> selective memory has been, and always will be, selective.



Gotta disagree. Here's the actual transcript: 



> CHRIS WALLACE
> Mr. Trump, I want to ask about one must question in this topic. You have been warning at rallies recently that this election is rigged and that Hillary Clinton is in the process of trying to steal it from you. Your running mate Governor Pence pledged on Sunday that he and you, his words, will absolutely accept the result of this election. Today your daughter Ivanka said the same thing. I want to ask you here on the stage tonight, do you make the same commitment that you will absolutely, sir, that you will absolutely accept the result of the selection?
> 
> DONALD TRUMP
> I will look at it at the time. I'm not looking anything now I will look at it at the time. What I've seen, what I've seen it so bad. First of all the media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing that the New York Times actually wrote an article about it that they don't even care. It's so dishonest and they poison the minds of the voters but unfortunately for them I think the voters are seeing through it.
> 
> CHRIS WALLACE
> But, sir.
> 
> DONALD TRUMP
> I think they&#8217;re going to see right through it. We will find out on November eighth but I think they&#8217;re going to see through it. Excuse me Chris if you look at your voter rolls you will see millions of people that are registered to vote, millions, this isn't coming for me this is coming from Pew Report and other places millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn't be registered to vote so let me just give you one other thing. I talk about the corrupt media I talk about the millions of people I&#8217;ll tell you on other thing. She shouldn't be allowed to run. It&#8217;s -- she's guilty of a very very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run. And just in that respect I say it's rigged because, Chris, she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with e-mails and so many other things.
> 
> CHRIS WALLACE
> But sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact one of the prides of this country, is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard fought a campaign is, that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner, not saying that you are necessarily going to be the you loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country, are you saying that you are not prepared now to commit to that principle?
> 
> DONALD TRUMP
> What I'm saying now is I will tell you at the time. I will keep you in suspense, okay?



Bush/Gore is certainly an interesting parallel, but what we were wrestling with there was a matter of how votes were being counted, and whether they had been counted accurately. The Supreme Court decision was over whether a recount should be allowed to continue when the (Republican) Florida governor was trying to stop it and certify it. Recounts are a part of the American electoral process, and are (especially in the wake of 2000) often automatically required if a race falls within a certain band. In many cases these rules have been clarified since 2000 based on the uncertainty in Florida law, but at the end of the day a vote recount is part of the American political process. 

Trump is alleging something different - he's alleging that he's the victim of, well, of two things - first, that he's the victim of unfair media coverage that's biasing the election against him. Second, he's alleging that he's going to be the victim of wide-scale electoral fraud. Not any uncertainty in how votes are counted, but massive voter fraud involving millions of people. Call it two and a half, since he's also alleging Clinton shouldn't be eligible to run. What Wallace is asking him, essentially, is that after the conclusion of the electoral process, including any recounts in close races that are deemed necessary, if the process concludes and Clinton is determined to have won, fair and square, will he accept the outcome. And he's saying he's not willing to commit to that. 

Essentially, Gore/Bush would be analogous if we assume that, after the Supreme Court decision halted the recount, Gore still refused to concede. He didn't. And THAT'S what's problematic about Trump's statements. In 2000, there's a very real possibility the Democrats DID win the electoral college, and had the Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, we may have known that for sure. And even knowing that, Gore _accepted the outcome of the electoral process._ That's why I can't agree with Scarborough here - if anything, 2000 is an example of a time when a candidate _didn't_ put his own interests above that of preserving the electoral process.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So, since some of you are still on the O'Keefe topic...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381?cid=sm_fb


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> Trump is alleging something different - he's alleging that he's the victim of, well, of two things - first, that he's the victim of unfair media coverage that's biasing the election against him. Second, he's alleging that he's going to be the victim of wide-scale electoral fraud. Not any uncertainty in how votes are counted, but massive voter fraud involving millions of people. Call it two and a half, since he's also alleging Clinton shouldn't be eligible to run. What Wallace is asking him, essentially, is that after the conclusion of the electoral process, including any recounts in close races that are deemed necessary, if the process concludes and Clinton is determined to have won, fair and square, will he accept the outcome. And he's saying he's not willing to commit to that.



so essentially what Kerry claims happened in 2004?


----------



## HerbalDude420

If you take out all the bull.... and just listen to trump. Would you ever vote for a man so unintelligible about the topics being ask of him? A man that spews nothing but hate? That just blatantly on national television interrupts countless times?


----------



## celticelk

Ibanezsam4 said:


> so essentially what Kerry claims happened in 2004?



The problem with both of your examples (Gore and Kerry) is that they were reacting to events that *actually happened* - very close votes in FL and OH in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Trump, on the other hand, is saying *in advance of the vote* that he may not respect its outcome, based on allegations of voter fraud that elections officials, election lawyers, and other experts on both sides of the political fence have dismissed as completely unsubstantiated. False equivalence. Got anything else?


----------



## mnemonic

Drew said:


> And yeah, in 2016, in the United States of America, we had a major presidential candidate effectively say, "I know you are, but what am I?" in a debate, and then refuse to say whether he would respect the will of the voters. I'm kind of in disbelief.



I agree, how big of a meanie someone is, is way more important than policy.

Democrats cry voter fraud pretty regularly, I guess republicans aren't allowed? ok.


----------



## celticelk

mnemonic said:


> Democrats cry voter fraud pretty regularly, I guess republicans aren't allowed? ok.



What are you even talking about? Have you missed all of the Republican-proposed voter ID laws of the past decade that were justified by the need to combat this nonexistent voter fraud?


----------



## mnemonic

celticelk said:


> What are you even talking about? Have you missed all of the Republican-proposed voter ID laws of the past decade that were justified by the need to combat this nonexistent voter fraud?



so you're saying democrats never cry voter fraud?


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> so essentially what Kerry claims happened in 2004?



How old are you? I'm not asking to be demeaning, I'm just curious if you actually were an adult in 2004, lived through that election, and are remembering this firsthand, or talking about something you've read about on breitbart.com? 

I'm 35, and 2004 was the second election I voted in. I voted for Kerry, and while I remember Edwards making some noise about wanting to contest the results, Kerry conceded the morning after the election (which wasn't called until the early hours of that morning, so essentially he conceeded a couple hours after the results were in, once people started waking up). Kerry and the DNC essentially told Edwards to shut up when he started grumbling about wanting recounts. 

I checked the Wikipedia page a moment ago to see if there was anything about a timeline, and it turns out the Ohio results WERE challenged after the election... By the Green and Libertarian parties, not by Kerry and the Democrats. 

So, I'm kind of at a loss as to what you're talking about here, and I'm really curious if this was actually your impression at the time, or if this is based on something you read on some right wing site or something.


----------



## Drew

mnemonic said:


> I agree, how big of a meanie someone is, is way more important than policy.
> 
> Democrats cry voter fraud pretty regularly, I guess republicans aren't allowed? ok.



I think it speaks to the level of sophistication Trump brought to the debate. His performance was almost shockingly devoid of policy, and when Clinton accused him of acting like a russian puppet in the way he refused to recognize the US intelligence community's conclusion that Russia was behind the DNC hack, rather than trying toa ctually provide substantive reasons for his belief, he replied "I'm not a puppet, you're a puppet," and then never went on to explain what he meant by that. 

So, yes, I'd have preferred a debate about policy too. Unfortunately, one candidate came prepared to talk policy, the other came prepared to trade school yard insults.  

And Democrats cry voter fraud regularly? Right, because I'm sitting here making a list of all the Democratic Party sponsored voter ID laws. I've got... ...a blank piece of paper?


----------



## Drew

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> So, since some of you are still on the O'Keefe topic...
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381?cid=sm_fb



That's amazing. 

EDIT - on a couple of levels, because if so this is probably another violation of charitable foundation law, donating to a political activist.


----------



## synrgy

mnemonic said:


> so you're saying democrats never cry voter fraud?



_You_ said that democrats cry voter fraud "regularly", which seems to be in dispute.

I'm curious to see you substantiate your claim with verifiable facts.


----------



## Drew

You know, talking about this with a buddy not that long ago, and he raised a pretty interesting point - the major riots that occured at a Trump campaign event were in Chicago in March, on the 11th. Clinton wouldn't informally clinch the nomination until about three months later, in June. On the 11th of March, Clinton was the favorite and considered likely to win the nomination, but by no means was assured of a win. 

So, to take this video at face value, you have to believe that at a time when the Clinton campaign was committing everything they had to defeating Sanders and locking down the nomination, they decided to divert their attention in a covert effort to try to embarrass Donald Trump by inciting violence at his rallies. That would be stupid.  

And, it begs a second question - if Clinton considered this fair game, why wasn't it happening at Sanders rallies?


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> How old are you? I'm not asking to be demeaning, I'm just curious if you actually were an adult in 2004, lived through that election, and are remembering this firsthand, or talking about something you've read about on breitbart.com?



le sigh 

"In 2004, when Kerry lost the Presidential race to George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era, he refused to challenge the results, despite his suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines." 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind 

i frankly don't care how old you are, because i don't think it applies to having an opinion. i think i have a decent rep on this board of not blowing smoke out my butt too much and typically presenting my evidence. 

i've said this earlier in the thread, but in general elections the GOP cries voter fraud and in mid-term elections it the DNC. Why? because a presidential election brings in more typically less than engaged voters than an off-election year. 

i don't have a horse in this race - so when i see statements about the DNC trying to act like angels over voter rolls i actually  

even recently some of the Podesta emails have him freaking out that Barack Obama won Colorado by bringing in unregistered voters. it's all rather funny really. 

"&#8220;They are both old friends of the Clintons and have lots of experience. Mike hosted our Boulder Road Show event. They are reliving the 08 caucuses where they believe the Obama forces flooded the caucuses with ineligible voters." Podesta email.



Drew said:


> And, it begs a second question - if Clinton considered this fair game, why wasn't it happening at Sanders rallies?



because she needs Sanders voters to win. her primary win did not entail a large enough total of young voters. Sanders however carried that demographic. plus, the optics of trying to appeal to violent protesters isn't great... however if you now the other side is never going to vote for you (GOP), yeah, go for it, rile them up and make them look bad. 

there is so much political naivete in this thread it's ridiculous. your leaders are not angels, and the system that supports them is far from innocent.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Ibanezsam4 said:


> there is so much political naivete in this thread it's ridiculous. your leaders are not angels, and the system that supports them is far from innocent.



I mean with Trump as the nominee, no .....


----------



## celticelk

Ibanezsam4 said:


> there is so much political naivete in this thread it's ridiculous. your leaders are not angels, and the system that supports them is far from innocent.



Nor is anyone claiming that. We just don't buy into your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Explorer

You all are missing the most important turning point, as noted by Chuck Todd. 

Trump lost the Al Smith Dinner, and it wasn't even previously known that one *could* lose at the Al Smith Dinner. 

For someone who claimed he would show others how to win, Trump clearly isn't up to the task.

And now, with his Grievanceburg Address, as promised by Kellyanne Conway to be a firm statement of Trump's vision for the country, such vision turns out to be "of the Trump, by the Trump and for the Trump," and how he will sue those women who claim that Trump has engaged in the behavior Trump himself has stated he engaged in. 

To me, the funniest part of the allegations of Trump's sexual assaults (yes, there's a funny part) is that Trump has denied he had met any of these women... and then provided a witness who stated that Trump had meet one of the accusers on a plane while sitting beside her. Why provide a claimed witness who says you''re lying? This is the problem with not just sticking with your own claims, or even with the truth, and getting confused about your different narratives.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Also, just throwing out there...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clin...d-boosted-broad-disapproval/story?id=42993821

A 13-point lead.

On top of that...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-bat...ds-florida-donald-trump-narrowly-leads-texas/

Clinton is leading by 3 points in Florida, so it's still somewhat tied, but looking in her favor. 

And yeah, no surprise, Donald is leading in Texas... *but only by 3 points.* Romney won Texas by 17.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

B-b-but...Scott Adams said Trump was a master persuader.


----------



## Explorer

TheHandOfStone said:


> B-b-but...Scott Adams said Trump was a master persuader.



I read Adams' rant that he suspected he had been shadowbanned from Twitter. I logged out, looked at his feed, and laughed that he never thought to do a simple check in his claim.

When someone who has even a minor undeserved rep for understanding of technical matters, that just undermines further claims outside of that area of expertise.


----------



## synrgy

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, or to dredge us back down into semantics, but I keep turning this over in my head and I wanted to provide some clarity. Feel free to ingore me. 

_Gerrymandering_ is to manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

_Disfranchisement_ (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

_Voter fraud_ (also known as vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud) refers to the specific offenses of fraudulent voting; impersonation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, etc.

I've definitely seen Dems regularly complain about the first two, but - extreme Berniecrats aside - I have not seen them complain much (if at all) about the third.

Caveat/Exception = There is an expanded definition of 'voter fraud' which considers 'voter suppression' as being synonymous. I definitely see Dems complain about voter suppression, so that, I concede.


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> le sigh
> 
> "In 2004, when Kerry lost the Presidential race to George W. Bush, who is widely considered the worst President of the modern era, *he refused to challenge the results*, despite his suspicion that in certain states, particularly Ohio, where the Electoral College count hinged, proxies for Bush had rigged many voting machines."
> 
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/negotiating-the-whirlwind



Emphasis mine - I mean, isn't that consistent with the point I was making, that the fact that Kerry _accepted the outcome_, which is a very different thing than what Trump is trying to do? 

Listen, I only asked about your age because I was wondering how much of the media coverage from right around the election you can remember, first-hand. I don't know how old you are, and with that one caveat, I normally wouldn't even consider it a factor while discussing politics with you. And I'm sorry I gave you that impression - I absolutely wasn't trying to "talk down to you" or anything like that. 

But, I'm 35, and in 2004 I was a pretty politically aware and active 23 year old. I followed the race very closely, and of course I wasn't happy that Kerry lost. And heck, I was young, idealistic, naive, and didn't trust the Bush administration any farther than I could throw them - I should have been PRIMED for that kind of story abotu voter fraud. But, I can also tell you that this narrative about "voting machines stole the election in Ohio" was an absolute non-story at the time (as evidenced by Kerry's quick concession). In fact, I remember Edwards holding a separate rally and talking about wanting recounts, and thinking, "what the heck is this guy smoking?" and just wanting him to move on (which he did, no doubt after a phone call from Kerry telling him to shut the hell up). In fact, the single biggest voting-related takeaway I can recall was that the Drudge Report released some VERY favorable Democratic-leaning exit polling early in the day, and in the aftermath of the election we now have a tacit media agreement not to report exit polling until after the polls are closed, in the event it impacts voter motivation to actually get in line at the polling station. But, that was totally a forward-looking thing - I can't remember a single media source implying there was anything "invalid" about the results in the aftermath, it was more of a collective, "oh, maybe we need to be a little more careful about things that can create feedback loops in the voting cycle."

2016 is shaping up to be a very different election than 2004, though, simply because, three weeks out, Trump IS threatening not to accept the results of the election, and alleging voter fraud. That IS unprecedented, and is very different than Kerry, whatever private reservations he may have had, respecting the process and accepting the outcome. 

I don't think that's a matter of looking at any elected official as a "savior" or anything like that, or thinking they're "angels." I just think what we're seeing from Trump is _profoundly_ non-democratic. I expect that kind of talk from Latin American dictators, not from a major US presidential candidate.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

James O'Keefe was supposed to have a giant ace-in-the-hole for Donna Brazille, Tim Kaine, and Killary herself.

...And it's Donald Duck apparently.  Was apparently such a nothingworthy video that _nobody_ is covering it except for your usual Breitbarts and Drudges.


----------



## Explorer

I'm curious as to when US media might finally pick up this story from the the Telegraph UK.

Pro-Trump fundraisers agree to accept illicit foreign donation 

Having these people on tape colluding to hide an illegal $2 million foreign contribution to a presidental political campaign seems like an interesting story to pursue, especially since it doesn't have the negatives of O'Keefe's unreliability involved. 

Does anyone else know of any American follow up from reputable sources?


----------



## bostjan

Ugh, I've lost faith in humanity.


----------



## coreysMonster

bostjan said:


> Ugh, I've lost faith in humanity.


Look at this guy, he used to have faith in humanity! *points and laughs*


----------



## bostjan

coreysMonster said:


> Look at this guy, he used to have faith in humanity! *points and laughs*


----------



## Drew

At this point, I have a hard time picturing a story or event that could actually move the needle. Trump accepts an illegal foreign $2mm donation? He's been caught actively soliting foreign donors so many times this cycle (as an example, various British PMs have complained about getting unsolicited requests for donations) that what's one more? Another sex scandal? Would that really make a difference at this point? 

I've joked that Clinton could shoot someone in cold blood on national TV, and STILL probably win, at this point. I think the reverse is probably true as well - Trump could shoot someone in cold blood, and his margin probably STILL wouldn't deteriorate much further than it has already. 

I think most persuadable voters have already make up their mind.


----------



## Drew

Also, this is an argument I've made a LOT - here, other boards I post, facebook, in person - and I'm glad to see FiveThirtyEight picking up the data as well and coming to the same conclusion (as well as providing some context that I didn't have)

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/

Basically, for all the talk of "a choice between two evils" and "both candidates suck" and whatnot you're hearing, if you look at the _reason_ voters are choosing their candidate, voters are voting FOR Clinton (rather than against Trump) in levels roughly in line with historical norms. Trump voters, meanwhile, are voting AGAINST Clinton more than they are FOR Trump. 

In other words, broken record here, the Democrats nominated a candidate they're broadly pretty happy with who is popular within her own party at about the usual rate. The Republicans, however, nominated a candidate that isn't even popular within her own party.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Also, this is an argument I've made a LOT - here, other boards I post, facebook, in person - and I'm glad to see FiveThirtyEight picking up the data as well and coming to the same conclusion (as well as providing some context that I didn't have)
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/
> 
> Basically, for all the talk of "a choice between two evils" and "both candidates suck" and whatnot you're hearing, if you look at the _reason_ voters are choosing their candidate, voters are voting FOR Clinton (rather than against Trump) in levels roughly in line with historical norms. Trump voters, meanwhile, are voting AGAINST Clinton more than they are FOR Trump.
> 
> In other words, broken record here, the Democrats nominated a candidate they're broadly pretty happy with who is popular within her own party at about the usual rate. The Republicans, however, nominated a candidate that isn't even popular within her own party.



But that's not what the graph shows, other than Kerry and Dukakis, who both lost by large margins, Hillary is the lowest rated democrat in recent history.

If you look at winners and losers, Hillary Clinton is going to be the least liked winner of a presidential election since the 1980's for either party.


----------



## Explorer

bostjan said:


> But that's not what the graph shows, other than Kerry and Dukakis, who both lost by large margins, Hillary is the lowest rated democrat in recent history.
> 
> If you look at winners and losers, Hillary Clinton is going to be the least liked winner of a presidential election since the 1980's for either party.



Interesting.

So, HR Clinton will likely win with the lowest likability rating among her supporters since George HW Bush and WJ Clinton. In perspective, she's likely to win with the same initial number as WJ Clinton, two Democratic Presidents and three Presidents ago. 

And DJ Trump, the GOP-nominated and -endorsed Presidential candidate, is the lowest rated candidate ever of either party in that same recent history span you mentioned, and as shown in that graph. 

----

I'm thinking this election will lead to a driving below ground yet again of many racist and misogynistic elements currently in the Republican Party, and that those elements will continue to simmer below the surface until the crust cracks and they spray forth in a red-hot geyser in a later election, similar to how DJ Trump let go this time around with the racism and misogyny. 

I'm going to admit, although I did expect the Democratic Party to be the first major party to have a female VP candidate, female Presidential candidate and a black Presidential candidate, and expect them to be first with all other minority candidates, I thought we'd see a female President before we'd see a black one. I wasn't counting on the coalitional nature of the Democratic Party to combine with the changing racial demographics in the way they have over the past two decades to push politics in the direction they are heading. 

I did think Powell had a strong chance, but he apparently doesn't agree with a lot of what happens on the Republican side.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But that's not what the graph shows, other than Kerry and Dukakis, who both lost by large margins, Hillary is the lowest rated democrat in recent history.
> 
> If you look at winners and losers, Hillary Clinton is going to be the least liked winner of a presidential election since the 1980's for either party.



Interesting critique, actually. 

Here's the chart, for anyone too lazy to click through: 







So, Clinton has lower affirmative voting support (not quite the thing as "least liked," but close enough) than Romney in 12 and McCain in 08, Kerry in 04, Bush and Gore in 00, etc, and you have to go back to '92 before you see a winner where she was a virtual tie with (1-point, and we're still 3 weeks out from the election). 

So, tossing it out there, then - how much of that is because Trump is such an _exceptionably_ unaxcceptable candidate? I.E - if we were seeing Clinton/Rubio, would her affirmative voting numbers be higher? Clearly there;s a certain amount of balancing in play here, where, to use myself as an example, I'm both voting for Clinton because I proactively want her to be president, but I'm also motivated to ensure that Trump DOESN'T become president. In a normal cycle, say Obama/McCain as an example, I was proactively supporting Obama, but if McCain won I could at least deal with the prospect of a McCain presidency because even if his party scared me, I considered him a guy with a good amount of personal integrity who wasn't afraid to stand up to them on occasion. So, the motivation to oppose McCain was lower than to support Obama (I could say the same about 12 and Romney, but that was a 2nd term election...). With Trump, though, the impetus to make sure he DOESN'T get elected is exceptionally strong. I think for me wanting to see Clinton elected is the bigger factor and if asked I'd come out as ann affirmative supporter, but if the race suddenly tightened up, simply keeping Trump out of the white house could become my biggest motivation. And where that pain point is is going to vary voter by voter - I'm a white, reasonably affluent, non-religious-minority male, so Trump poses no special risk to me. If I was a gay black Muslim man, even a 15-point race might be too close for comfort and I'd be more concerned with keeping Trump out of the white house, even if I LIKED Clinton, than proactively supporting anyone. 

Still, interesting critique.


----------



## bostjan

Drew, absolutely!

Trump's candidacy has lots of people preparing to pull the lever for Clinton simply in hopes of stopping Trump. The reverse statement is also a majority of Trump's potential votes.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I can't find the picture right now, but IIRC there was a pie graph showing that a majority of people voting Clinton because they want her, while 1/3rd were voting to stop Trump. On the other hand, it also showed around 45% of Trump voters going for him because they want him, while 55% are voting with him to stop Hillary. That actually surprised me. 

Also, throwing this out there since it relates to the recent "rigged" stuff.



EDIT: Found it


----------



## bostjan

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I can't find the picture right now, but IIRC there was a pie graph showing that a majority of people voting Clinton because they agreed with her, while 1/3rd were voting to stop Trump. On the other hand, it also showed around 45% of Trump voters going for him because they agreed with him, while 55% are voting with him to stop Hillary. That actually surprised me.
> 
> Also, throwing this out there since it relates to the recent "rigged" stuff.




Well, I don't know about what you remember or don't remember, but the matter is pretty much settled by Drew's article and accompanying graph, as well as other sources ( here ) that it's about 55% affirmative support for Clinton, according to a couple of polls. And that is after it's been on the rise for a while ( according to ABC news ).

EDIT: Any data on that, or just a graph? It could be interpreted as a sharp increase in Clinton support, or as a large error in polling, or maybe the data of your report or Drew's report and mine are both wrong.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Actually just linked the graph above. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/uttt-poll-trump-holds-narrow-lead-over-clinton/

The source.

EDIT: It could be because of her approval rating rising like you said. The recent debates did her huge favors.


----------



## Drew

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Actually just linked the graph above.
> 
> https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/uttt-poll-trump-holds-narrow-lead-over-clinton/
> 
> The source.
> 
> EDIT: It could be because of her approval rating rising like you said. The recent debates did her huge favors.



That's actually even more striking, but it appears to be just in Texas, not nation wide.


----------



## Frey

Not that your votes or opinions mean anything because I'm certain that they don't but I'd take the rude guy over the criminal any day.


----------



## Drew

Frey said:


> Not that your votes or opinions mean anything because I'm certain that they don't but I'd take the rude guy over the criminal any day.



And if the "rude guy" and "the criminal" are the same person?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Frey said:


> Not that your votes or opinions mean anything because I'm certain that they don't but I'd take the rude guy over the criminal any day.



Truth. 

Oh, and also the FBI just reopened the case into Hillary's emails. New info about how she raised a half million dollars for the wife of the lead investigator at the FBI or something....

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Truth.
> 
> Oh, and also the FBI just reopened the case into Hillary's emails. New info about how she raised a half million dollars for the wife of the lead investigator at the FBI or something....
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html



Saw that, though as for what the "new info" is, there's no information yet save that the FBI found additional emails of hers while working on an additional matter, and figured it made sense to 1) reopen the investigation and 2) notify Congress that they were doing so. Certainly nothning about them containing evidence of illicity fundraising or anything like that. Doesn't mean they DON'T, of course, but as of this point the FBI is saying they don't know if they're significant or not, but think it's worth finding out.

Scan of the letter: 

https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/792049409244663809/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

Text: 



> In previous Congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
> 
> In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
> 
> Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.



As a Clinton voter, I just find it refreshing that this is an independent 3rd party and not another GOP witch-hunt.


----------



## Drew

Update - MSNBC is now reporting that emails were recovered from "a device," and that they were allegedly NOT sent from her private server. 

Commentators are also pointing out that Comey was very careful to not say that they were "reopening" the investigation - "review(ing) these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation" is not actually reopening the investigation, though if any new evidence emerged, it certainly could result in a reopening. 

What a weird development.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

CapnForsaggio said:


> Truth.
> 
> Oh, and also the FBI just reopened the case into Hillary's emails. New info about how she raised a half million dollars for the wife of the lead investigator at the FBI or something....
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html



Turned out to be a farce. They weren't from her servers. They weren't even written by her.






















A colossal ....up and misinterpretation to give everyone the giant HRC-related "GOTCHA!" they all wanted. You guys _really_ want to complain about the "liburl media?" 

Also, the emails you are talking about were debunked. It was given to her for her husband's campaign, who was up for re-election at the time. She wasn't even a lead investigator at the time.

EDIT: It's ....ing Anthony Weiner's sexting case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/u...e-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The reason this most likely happened is because Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, is the vice-chaiwoman of Clinton's campaign.


----------



## Drew

Yeah. None of this precludes something incriminating coming up, but the FBI has NOT reopened the investigation, the emails were NOT sent by Clinton or recovered off her server, and the GOP has gone off the deep end on this one.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So, this is what the hubub seems to be about. Huma recieved some of Hill's emails to print.

And of course, I hear Fox in the background "Case reopened! Hillary's October Surprise!"


----------



## Drew

Reports are now saying this is about 3 emails on a computer Huma shared with Anthony Weiner. 

Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign has made a brief statement asking the FBI to make public the full details of this review. While it could be an act, that's not really the move of an organization that thinks it has something to hide.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

No classified info was found, it seems. 

Yeah, good ....ing job.


----------



## Drew

What a weird story.


----------



## celticelk

For three emails, they could have done the review *before* sending a notice to Congress.

Meanwhile, Trump's been calling this the "biggest thing since Watergate." Smells like desperation.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

I like to see that everybody has already made up their mind. People pointing out that there are new e-mails on a device as if that means anything. If somebody found my phone, they'd find e-mails on it too. I guess I should be in jail, because we all know that every e-mail ever sent is criminal apparently... I mean, that's the impression I get seeing as people are pointing at the e-mails, which they don't know the content of, as being the smoking gun.

As far as I'm concerned, they already went through tons of e-mails to no avail... Why does anyone think another handful will mean anything? Besides, if the government is as corrupt as they say it is, then none of it matters... The election is rigged, remember? Doesn't matter if she's murdering babies for a hobby... If it's truly rigged, she'd win regardless.

To be honest, I'm getting pretty damn sick of all the Trump nonsense popping up on my facebook. ....ing parrots, the whole lot of them. Maybe it's just the people I know/live around, but there's not an original thought among them. They like to mock people for believing everything the mainstream media says, meanwhile they're doing the exact same damn thing on the other side of the fence, only they lack sources. (outside of... You know... The _best_ un-named sources.) The same recited insults and flawed opinions. Using puns like "Killery" in serious conversations. 

I have a million things I want to rant about, but it's all a little off topic so I won't do it here. I may be fixing to lose some friends if I don't say something to someone soon though.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Señor Voorhees;4662801 said:


> As far as I'm concerned, they already went through tons of e-mails to no avail... Why does anyone think another handful will mean anything? .



Clinton has a 6 - 9 point lead in a lot of polls, some leads even in the teens. They're desperate as .... to to chip away at that lead, and this is their final chance. Make a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So, to add to the ....ery...

Comey wasn't even forced to reveal that stuff. He chose to do it willingly. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...vestigation/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.eeb2edcf884c



> To all:
> 
> This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
> 
> Of course,* we don&#8217;t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so* given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don&#8217;t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don&#8217;t want to create a misleading impression. *In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood,* but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.



So, he _felt_ like he should have done it. He wasn't legally required to. And he knew there was a risk this could cause disruptions election-wise. _He didn't even know whats in the damn emails. _

EDIT: And hours after it was debunked this had anything to do with new Clinton emails, you still have news organizations making this out to be a campaign killer for her. Once again, tell me how the media is in Hillary's pocket.


----------



## Frey

I see nothing funny about this. I would suggest that anyone that supports this monster read Guilty As Sin. It neatly sums up everything you will need to know.


----------



## Viginez

it could be the fbi realized trump has a big chance to win and they now try to save face


----------



## zappatton2

I'm not American, and I've really been trying to hold my tongue here, but SERIOUSLY, how is this even a contest? I don't care how criminal Hillary may or may not be, what could possibly be even slightly appealing about a clearly fascistic strongman? What part of his aggression, ignorance, racism, misogyny, contempt for basic documented facts or extreme sense of self-important narcissism is appealing to anybody? How is this not the most terrifying person to step up to plate for the Presidency ever to everybody?

I realize there are checks and balances to keep the office of President in line, but the U.S. has been moving in the direction of militarising police forces, incarcerating civilians at alarming rates, cops shooting unarmed civilians; I'm not suggesting America is currently a top-down autocracy, but he is exactly the personality to ramp up the momentum in that direction.

Yeah, I get that everybody thinks everything is too PC these days, but is unhinged racism and general horribleness really that refreshing? Clinton is faaaar from perfect, but christ on a cross, how could she possibly be worse? I can't possibly understand this, and the fact that he is popular to anybody makes me genuinely concerned for the future of North America even if he loses by a decent margin. I mean, I thought Bush Jr was bad, but even if this objectively unhinged lunatic doesn't win, who's going to be on the Republican ticket the next time around?!

EDIT*** Just to be clear, I'm well aware the majority of Americans do not support this man, I don't mean to imply otherwise.


----------



## extendedsolo

zappatton2 said:


> I'm not American, and I've really been trying to hold my tongue here, but SERIOUSLY, how is this even a contest? I don't care how criminal Hillary may or may not be, what could possibly be even slightly appealing about a clearly fascistic strongman? What part of his aggression, ignorance, racism, misogyny, contempt for basic documented facts or extreme sense of self-important narcissism is appealing to anybody? How is this not the most terrifying person to step up to plate for the Presidency ever to everybody?
> 
> I realize there are checks and balances to keep the office of President in line, but the U.S. has been moving in the direction of militarising police forces, incarcerating civilians at alarming rates, cops shooting unarmed civilians; I'm not suggesting America is currently a top-down autocracy, but he is exactly the personality to ramp up the momentum in that direction.
> 
> Yeah, I get that everybody thinks everything is too PC these days, but is unhinged racism and general horribleness really that refreshing? Clinton is faaaar from perfect, but christ on a cross, how could she possibly be worse? I can't possibly understand this, and the fact that he is popular to anybody makes me genuinely concerned for the future of North America even if he loses by a decent margin. I mean, I thought Bush Jr was bad, but even if this objectively unhinged lunatic doesn't win, who's going to be on the Republican ticket the next time around?!




I speak for many Americans when I say that I don't understand it either, but realize it's very complicated why he has risen to power.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> Truth.
> 
> Oh, and also the FBI just reopened the case into Hillary's emails. New info about how she raised a half million dollars for the wife of the lead investigator at the FBI or something....
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html



I read through the link you provided, and it contains nothing to support the claim you made.

Please provide links for your claimed new information. Otherwise, your claim looks like an outright lie.

If you don't have support for your claim... why would you do that? Does it bother you at all to not have a factual basis for your world view? And, is this the first time someone has pointed it out?

Informed and supported political discussion is allowed here in P&CE, but just trolling and untruth is not. The rules don't seem so hard to follow unless one really finds facts to be the enemy of one's worldview.

Here's hoping your worldview actually comports with reality, regardless of whether the facts are hostile towards one of the candidates or not. Otherwise... what good is such a worldview if one has to use untruth to support it?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

extendedsolo said:


> but realize it's very complicated why he has risen to power.



Not really. He stands for what a lot of republicans want, but are afraid to say. It's not really that complicated. Racism, bigotry, white supremacy, "anti-establishment", "anti-PC"... It's juust what they want from a candidate. 

Also, seriously, this recent "scandal" is just ....ing annoying. "The next Clinton Crisis!" No ...., because you ....s are tying something to her that she didn't even do, just because Comey was all "boo hoo I feel bad I should share this even though it's not normal procedure." 

That and that slimebag Jason Chaffetz for misleading everyone to think the case was re-opened, when that wasn't even the case. There's even some rumblings that Chaffetz was the one that told him to write the letter, even when several higher-ups told him not to release it. 

What a ....show.

EDIT: And apparently it was _against_ policy to release the letter.


----------



## celticelk

Frey said:


> I see nothing funny about this. I would suggest that anyone that supports this monster read Guilty As Sin. It neatly sums up everything you will need to know.



Having lived through the last 25 years of smear campaigns on Clinton, I see no need for a smear-campaign recap, especially one that's being pushed by Breitbart and the Washington Times.


----------



## Explorer

While waiting on CapnForsaggio to pay off the check written by his claims (and personally, I think that check's gonna bounce sky high), I'm curious if anyone else thinks it's odd that Trump's sarcastic comment about the adult film actress having been grabbed before is another weird Trump admission, like his admission in anger during the dabate that he doesn't pay federal taxes.

For someone to make comments about a woman's likelihood of having been grabbed before that person himself grabbed them is just clueless.

This also teminds me of Trump stating that he had never met the women claiming Trump sexually assaulted them... and himself then producing a witness who claims Trump indeed shard a seat with Trump.

It's like watching a four-year-old doing a knee-jerk denial upon being caught red-handed in a lie... except the four-year-old managed to spend an adult lifetime not learning how to be mature.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

The story about the adult film star is interesting, because instead of yielding the usual denial from Trump supporters, they seemed to give it a unanimous roll of the eyes, saying something about how "she gets paid to have sex with people and get groped all day - as if Trump would really expect it to be a problem if he made a move on her." By that logic, Wellfare is a non-issue, in that most of the American workforce are used to working like dogs for low pay while somebody else benefits from their efforts. Why would those lazy poor people ever expect it to be a problem for them to just stay on the take?

The most alarming phenomenon in the Western world today is the wide-spread, passionate support of Donald Trump despite the fact that I have literally never heard him say anything even vaguely interesting. For that matter, he almost never completes a sentence like an adult who graduated from High School - it's usually some scatterbrained salad of talking points, self-worship, and fabricated statistics/factoids. Does hatred for Hillary Clinton really justify his campaign's success?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

A lot of voters are gonna vote the R candidate no matter what. IIRC the floor for republican candidates seem to be around 37% - 39%. Trump was pretty close to getting there, but Comey decided to .... things over by being careless as possible.


----------



## Drew

Couple thoughts on this one, with some more time to digest -

1) Comey's career is toast. Probably was anyway, but barring something sensationally incrimidating being found before the election, he's done. I won't make much of the DOJ strongly cautioning him to hold off since the AG IS a politically appointed position, but the most charitable explanation was that due to the unprecidented transpparency Comey provided in his press conference about their foundings, and then with saying under oath he'd keep Congress appraised of any new developments, he may have felt he had no choice but to notify Congress. And, painting yourself into that corner, while better than intentionally trying to influence an election, is hardly an endorsement of one's professionalism. 

2) I also think the risks this poses to TRUMP are being under-appreciated. Face it - the polls have tightened somewhat in the last week and a half, and that's primarily because Trump has done a pretty good job staying out of the news, allowing some reversion to the mean. While this is unquestionably a story that's damaging to Clinton, it's also put Trump back into the spotlight, which (IMO) exponentially increases the odds of him shooting himself in the foot again. If Trump were, in a videotaped press conference, to use one of at least two nasty words to refer to a woman in reference to Clinton, or if he would stop insinuating and flat-out call for one of his supporters to assassinate her, this story quickly becomes far more damaging to The Donald than it does to Hill.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/31/fbis-comey-opposed-naming-russians-citing-election-timing-source.html

Well then. Comey didn't want to say that Russians were in fact influencing the election, because he felt the announcement would influence the outcome. 

...

What a ....ing hypocritical dickwad.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Explorer said:


> While waiting on CapnForsaggio to pay off the check written by his claims (and personally, I think that check's gonna bounce sky high), I'm curious if anyone else thinks it's odd that Trump's sarcastic comment about the adult film actress having been grabbed before is another weird Trump admission, like his admission in anger during the dabate that he doesn't pay federal taxes.
> 
> For someone to make comments about a woman's likelihood of having been grabbed before that person himself grabbed them is just clueless.
> 
> This also teminds me of Trump stating that he had never met the women claiming Trump sexually assaulted them... and himself then producing a witness who claims Trump indeed shard a seat with Trump.
> 
> It's like watching a four-year-old doing a knee-jerk denial upon being caught red-handed in a lie... except the four-year-old managed to spend an adult lifetime not learning how to be mature.



How did my check come in? Bounced or no?


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> Truth.
> 
> Oh, and also the FBI just reopened the case into Hillary's emails. New info about how she raised a half million dollars for the wife of the lead investigator at the FBI or something....
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28/fbi-probing-new-clinton-emails.html





Explorer said:


> I read through the link you provided, and it contains nothing to support the claim you made.
> 
> Please provide links for your claimed new information. Otherwise, your claim looks like an outright lie.
> 
> If you don't have support for your claim... why would you do that? Does it bother you at all to not have a factual basis for your world view? And, is this the first time someone has pointed it out?
> 
> Informed and supported political discussion is allowed here in P&CE, but just trolling and untruth is not. The rules don't seem so hard to follow unless one really finds facts to be the enemy of one's worldview.
> 
> Here's hoping your worldview actually comports with reality, regardless of whether the facts are hostile towards one of the candidates or not. Otherwise... what good is such a worldview if one has to use untruth to support it?





CapnForsaggio said:


> How did my check come in? Bounced or no?



Did you post evidence of your claims yet, not contained in the link you provided, that Clinton raised those funds?

I'm always happy to learn solid information, so I look forward to your check paying off if that's the case. If you instead don't have evidence, then your check is bouncing.

Incidentally, writing a check when you don't actually have the funds yet is called "kiting." It falls under the same statutes as writing a bad check.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'd leave it, he's basically another Trenchlord. All buzzwords, no substance.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

UnderTheSign said:


> I'd leave it, he's basically another Trenchlord. All buzzwords, no substance.



Did he get perma-banned? 
I use to love talking about lifting weights with that guy! Never bothered arguing politically with him though.


----------



## McKay

This is the first election I can remember where people here are dreading either outcome equally. I haven't met anyone who likes Clinton OR Trump.


----------



## bostjan

McKay said:


> This is the first election I can remember where people here are dreading either outcome equally. I haven't met anyone who likes Clinton OR Trump.



There are at least a couple guys here who are avid Clinton fans, and at least a few that work at the factory where I work who are avid Trump fans. Most people I know cannot stomach either of them, though. I'm not going to vote for either one, but I'm not going to vote for a candidate I like, either. My last hope for this country is that whoever gets elected will cool it on rhetoric and shady business as soon as that president-elect is sworn in.


----------



## Don Vito

McKay said:


> This is the first election I can remember where people here are dreading either outcome equally. I haven't met anyone who likes Clinton OR Trump.


Here are the Hilary voters.






edit: f*cking hell imgur


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Did he get perma-banned?
> I use to love talking about lifting weights with that guy! Never bothered arguing politically with him though.



Pretty sure he got a bit too heated and got perma'd.


----------



## BrailleDecibel

McKay said:


> This is the first election I can remember where people here are dreading either outcome equally. I haven't met anyone who likes Clinton OR Trump.



Being from Orofino, Idaho, I've met a ....-ton of Trump supporters, seen huge signs everywhere, and all of that, but met not one Hillary supporter. Not surprised at all, but either way, just looking forward to this election being over.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

We have a ....load of trump and sanders supporters. I haven't personally seen a clinton sign or someone who supports her. Tons of people who are choosing her because she's not trump, but no actual supporters.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

^Throwing this out there.

Again.



Drew said:


> That's actually even more striking, but it appears to be just in Texas, not nation wide.



It's still a lot of people, but it's not a majority like people make it out to be. Hell, more people are voting for Trump because they hate Clinton so much, while over a majority of Clinton supporters support her because they agree with her. 

And given how insane the Trump supporters I've seen are, and how vocals Sanders supporters can be, I wouldn't want to say I'm a Clinton supporter in public, either.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ As usual, trust the data, not the anecdotes.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Hard to trust the data when everything's #rigged #maga #draintheswamp


----------



## Randy

>



Based on who's polling data? I've seen polls that had that paradigm reversed.

I find the Hillary apologist "no, people aren't settling for her... they really really like her!" thing to be hilarious and offensive. Does it make you feel dirty if you're voting for a person that's unpopular but just less unpopular than the other guy, or something? Your candidate had the strongest likelihood of winning over a year out from this thing. Why the Hell do you care why other people are voting for her, and why do you care what everyone else's anecdotal experience is or isn't?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

That's from a Texas poll mid last month. 

Also, lol at being offended. I'm showing what I saw in a poll.


----------



## Randy

Right, because you only posted that singular graphic with no added commentary and haven't be persistently laying into that point.


----------



## Chokey Chicken

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> ^Throwing this out there.
> 
> Again.
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a lot of people, but it's not a majority like people make it out to be. Hell, more people are voting for Trump because they hate Clinton so much, while over a majority of Clinton supporters support her because they agree with her.
> 
> And given how insane the Trump supporters I've seen are, and how vocals Sanders supporters can be, I wouldn't want to say I'm a Clinton supporter in public, either.



To be fair, I wasn't trying to imply that what I've experienced locally is an indication of the country at large. My town was split between Trump and Sanders. Sanders won by a landslide I think in my state. (Not that RI matters all that much in the grand scheme of things, but it goes to show that people around here's first choice wasn't Clinton.) We have plenty of people who are VERY vocal against trump, and will likely vote Clinton regardless. I actually don't personally have any strong feelings for or against her. I do, however, feel repulsed by trump since he's pretty much _for_ many things that personally effect me. Blatant racism and sexism being two huge factors, since I'm a non-white woman. He has a personal beef even with Hispanics, which is where I fall. I'm not even Mexican, and I've been personally harassed by trump supporters.

Basically, I fall somewhere in between I guess is my point. She wasn't my first pick, but I'm also not voting JUST because she's not trump. She's just way more qualified, and certainly wouldn't make a terrible president from my point of view.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, I had asked for more details on the graphic a few days ago. Now I know that it's data from Texas, but still don't know the source. By the way, the graphic is contrary to data for which I've already posted links.


----------



## celticelk

Don Vito said:


> Here are the Hilary voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: f*cking hell imgur



In other words, men who won't play the "I have the biggest d!ck" game? Yeah, that's me.


----------



## bostjan

Is it just me, or does the guy in the center, just below the text look different from the rest? Also, what the hell is that just below the photo - is it someone's hands?

Anyway, the polls are all over the damn place. Just a few more days and then my feelings of dread turn into different feelings of dread.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Just a few more days and then my feelings of dread turn into different feelings of dread.



Yeah, I have a lot of people saying "man, I can't wait to get this over with!", to which I respond "Why, because you're looking forward to the next 4 years?", which usually results in all the color draining out of their face.


----------



## Edika

It's really funny how Trump is presenting himself and is being presented as non corrupt and that his "sole" transgressions are only racism, misogyny, narcissism, compete disregard of human decency. 
The guy is a billionaire that refuses to reveal his IRS declaration and has bragged about cheating paying taxes, has huuuuge a record of failed businesses, is a horrible boss, he has cut all sorts of dirty deals and is involved in economic scandals (along with being a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic piece of .... of a human being). A shining example of a model citizen and premier presidential candidate for the "beacon of democracy and the western way of life".

I guess we should sent James Cameron to the center of the earth now to raise the bar.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

I _guess_ that nu-male graphic is supposed to present a stereotype, but I don't think those guys look remotely the same.


----------



## Randy

TheHandOfStone said:


> I _guess_ that nu-male graphic is supposed to present a stereotype, but I don't think those guys look remotely the same.



Theres some patterns. LOTS of eyeglasses, most have patchy facial hair, several have thinning and/or unkempt hair. I mean, overall theyre almost all very average which is kind of the point.

The pattern is more obvious when you take into account what you DON'T see. Black guys, very obese guys, handsome model-esque guys, so on.

The graphic is meant to be funny and a segment of comedy comes from subtle observation ("..and what's the deal with airline food, right?"). The more nuanced the target is while still being reltable, the better the joke lands. When walking that line, you always risk either being too unrelatable or whitewashing your audience and turning them off. 

I shared the graphic with some friends and the reaction was (2) thought it was hilarous, (2) didn't get it/find it funny, and (1) found it offensive. I personally got what the creator was after but I thought some of the qualifiers were too varied and the pics they used weren't hyperbolic enough to drive home the point OR be funny.


----------



## narad

Don Vito said:


> Here are the Hilary voters.



The flip-side is a lot simpler...

Here are the Trump voters: uneducated assholes and octogenarians living in rural areas.


----------



## Fat-Elf

TheHandOfStone said:


> I _guess_ that nu-male graphic is supposed to present a stereotype, but I don't think those guys look remotely the same.



That's nu-male talk!


----------



## vilk

The reason the meme comes off as ... [idk, hickish and stupid? I'm not sure how to describe it exactly. No offense to randy plz don't ban me] is because it tries to make a case that "true" masculinity would involve shaving, having bad fashion (as opposed to trendy), having a poor vocabulary (as opposed to knowing big long words like "problematic"), being assertive and aggressive but somehow not outspoken (does that even make sense?), not using social media, being disinterested with art and design, and ostensibly anti-feminist. 

That's not masculinity. That's being old fashioned. The whole meme could just be some Microsoft Word art that says "libs r pusies" or "back in my day we could punch a f*g it was no big deal"

Am I reading into it too far?


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> The reason the meme comes off as ... [idk, hickish and stupid? I'm not sure how to describe it exactly. No offense to randy plz don't ban me] is because it tries to make a case that "true" masculinity would involve shaving, having bad fashion (as opposed to trendy), having a poor vocabulary (as opposed to knowing big long words like "problematic"), being assertive and aggressive but somehow not outspoken (does that even make sense?), not using social media, being disinterested with art and design, and ostensibly anti-feminist.
> 
> That's not masculinity. That's being old fashioned. The whole meme could just be some Microsoft Word art that says "libs r pusies" or "back in my day we could punch a f*g it was no big deal"
> 
> Am I reading into it too far?



I think the subtext was more subtle than that but it's really in the eye of the viewer.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> The reason the meme comes off as ... [idk, hickish and stupid? I'm not sure how to describe it exactly. No offense to randy plz don't ban me] is because it tries to make a case that "true" masculinity would involve shaving, having bad fashion (as opposed to trendy), having a poor vocabulary (as opposed to knowing big long words like "problematic"), being assertive and aggressive but somehow not outspoken (does that even make sense?), not using social media, being disinterested with art and design, and ostensibly anti-feminist.
> 
> That's not masculinity. That's being old fashioned. The whole meme could just be some Microsoft Word art that says "libs r pusies" or "back in my day we could punch a f*g it was no big deal"
> 
> Am I reading into it too far?



That's not what I got out of it, but I am pretty much a unique butterfly stereotype.  I dress like an engineer, but my hair looks like the archetypal Jesus and my facial hair like the caricaturized Satan. I also like big words, but I like to invent my own words some times, like "caricaturized." I don't wear glasses or flannel shirts nor have a Twitter account and I am extremely stubborn, yet get along with most people, because I don't give a .... about superfluous social nonsense, including any mainstream trends, nor arbitrary protocols, although I really like the logical protocols. I also like to call things arbitrary when I don't understand them, and I like to .... with people via aggressive or sometimes subtly passive-aggressive sarcasm, which few people notice.


----------



## celticelk

vilk said:


> The reason the meme comes off as ... [idk, hickish and stupid? I'm not sure how to describe it exactly. No offense to randy plz don't ban me] is because it tries to make a case that "true" masculinity would involve shaving, having bad fashion (as opposed to trendy), having a poor vocabulary (as opposed to knowing big long words like "problematic"), being assertive and aggressive but somehow not outspoken (does that even make sense?), not using social media, being disinterested with art and design, and ostensibly anti-feminist.
> 
> That's not masculinity. That's being old fashioned. The whole meme could just be some Microsoft Word art that says "libs r pusies" or "back in my day we could punch a f*g it was no big deal"
> 
> Am I reading into it too far?



I think that's exactly what the intent was: define a regressive "real man" and show that male Clinton supporters are too "feminine" to meet that ideal. The giveaway there is the use of the term "beta male," which is pretty much exclusive to a vocal segment of self-styled "alpha male" Internet jerks, of the "harassing women on Twitter" variety.


----------



## TedEH

I read that image basically as claiming that this "new type of male" is weak or feeble compared to what the author thinks masculinity should mean. I don't really think there's anything new ("nu-"?) about these kinds of men. There's always been less-than-super-manly men by this rough definition out there. Edit: ^ celticelk worded it better than me.

Stuff like that has always been a big part of why I don't like politics. One way or another, it almost always boils down to basically just name-calling, making some kind of subtle or not-subtle jabs at people that are different or disagree, etc.

IMO, people aren't as simple as that. It's easy and common to lump people into groups of left vs right, etc., but that strips away the complexity and reasoning behind peoples political opinions. I can agree with or identify with some of the things on that list, but not with other things. My views are more left leaning than right, but I know I have a lot of opinions that are politically-incorrect enough that they'd piss off my more self-identified-"progressive" (I hate that word) friends if I ever voiced them.


----------



## Demiurge

Regarding that meme, I'm shocked- _shocked_- that there is an apparent intersection between Trump supporters and MRAs, Gamergaters, and stangry manchildren. Luckily for Hillary, 13 year-olds aren't allowed to vote.

I totally understand that a crappy candidate of X-party isn't going to transform members or voters of X-party into members or voters of Y-party- that's fine and I can respect that; however, seeing all the people actually engaging in the ridiculous claptrap and mental gymnastics to justify their positions is beyond the pale. Related: I've been counting-down the number of times I have to see my in-laws (where they invariably want to start arguing politics) before the election.


----------



## TedEH

Demiurge said:


> MRAs, Gamergaters, and stangry manchildren.



There's that name calling. Both sides of any polarizing discussion are inevitably going to do it. Being a not-very-politically-minded person watching people discuss politics is not unlike watching my <10 year old nephews fight over who should get to decide what TV channel to watch.

I don't mean that as a jab at Demiurge, 'cause I get it. It's easy and tempting to draw parallels between different groups of people we disagree with, or that seem to stand on one side of a particular line.

I just wish there was a more meaningful discussion to be had about who we pick as world leaders. The name calling and memes and grouping people into categories that we can disregard- these are meaningless. The people we disagree with on the whole potentially have ideas we can draw from, and I feel like that's the kind of thing we should be discussing, not "I bet people with man buns support Trump, cause man-bun-wearers and Trump-supporters are equally dumb".


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Right, because you only posted that singular graphic with no added commentary and haven't be persistently laying into that point.



To be fair, there was originally an article associated with it, and I'd posted a similar though less striking result from a national poll a few days back - let me hunt down the source for you, but it's in this thread.

EDIT - here you go: 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/



> Right now, 56 percent of Clinton voters say they are mainly for her compared with just 42 percent of the same voters who say they are voting against Trump. This 56 percent is the highest it&#8217;s been all year in the ABC News poll, and it&#8217;s been steadily climbing for Clinton since July. In the same survey, only 41 percent of Trump supporters say they are voting for him, while 54 percent say they are mostly voting against Clinton. Those numbers are about the same as they&#8217;ve been all year.



This was based on an ABC News Survey, and the raw survey is linked from the FiveThirtyEight article. My original post with commentary: 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/showpost.php?p=4661867&postcount=986

and bostjan and I went back and forth a bit on that one, so the next few posts after that are worth a look. But, the short version is that national polling from fairly reputable sources suggest that this is a referendum on Clinton more than it is a choice between two candidates - more Clinton supporters are focused on electing Clinton than stopping Trump, while more Trump supporters are focused on stopping Clinton than electing Trump. Clinton supporters tend to like their candidate, while Trump supporters don't.


----------



## big_aug

It's name calling and bull.... because most of the time the people participating don't even understand what they're discussing. They couldn't objectively look at facts and evidence to draw a conclusion. It's not just those we think of as uneducated or lacking intelligence. I would guess the vast majority of people have never looked up a source cited in an article they read or even pay attention as to if there was a source cited at all. So many will make a choice having never done any of their own research at all.


----------



## bostjan

I won't disagree with what you might be thinking there, Drew, but I would refute that language...Trump supporters, by definition, support Trump. I think what is apparent is that there are far fewer Trump supporters than Clinton supporters, and that the only shot Trump has at winning is to grab some of the votes of people who do not support him. That, by itself, sets him up to fail. This whole time, it's been about whether Clinton will lose enough of her lead to give Trump a fighting chance or not. Tomorrow, we will likely find out that she did not.

Odds shark gives Clinton 85% odds of becoming the next president.


----------



## TedEH

big_aug said:


> It's name calling and bull.... because most of the time the people participating don't even understand what they're discussing.



I'll usually stay out of political discussions for that reason... lots of it I just don't follow or don't understand. I know some would prefer to say anything at all rather than not participate.


----------



## Demiurge

TedEH said:


> There's that name calling. Both sides of any polarizing discussion are inevitably going to do it. Being a not-very-politically-minded person watching people discuss politics is not unlike watching my <10 year old nephews fight over who should get to decide what TV channel to watch.
> 
> I don't mean that as a jab at Demiurge, 'cause I get it. It's easy and tempting to draw parallels between different groups of people we disagree with, or that seem to stand on one side of a particular line.



Well, that meme that was posted used a lot of pointed terminology that I have seen MRAs and Gamergater people use to impugn on the masculinity of those they are picking-on. I wasn't exactly taking a swing in the dark making the connection, but if I couldn't hide my disdain then that's on me. I'll sing an extra Kumbaya tonight, and if Massachusetts' Question 4 passes, there'll be another way for me to establish some chill.


----------



## TedEH

^ I don't doubt that there may be some validity to the connection, although it was your own choice to add the word "manchildren" into the mix. 

Like I said, not meant as a jab or an argument, so much as a quick observation, and maybe part of the reason I avoid political discussions usually. 

I've had pretty much all of those labels applied to me at one point or another (manchild, MRA, etc.), including on this forum, for expressing things that really aren't fitting of those labels (in my opinion). I find it odd that I usually, from a political standpoint, lean more left than right, but it's the left that's more eager to put my beliefs in a box and group me in with "the bad guys". There's commonly an "us vs them" mentality in political conversations, maybe people want to find ways to distance themselves from "the bad guys" in whatever way they can. I won't claim to know what motivates people to discuss in particular ways.  It is what it is.


----------



## celticelk

Whoever you choose to vote for, vote.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I won't disagree with what you might be thinking there, Drew, but I would refute that language...Trump supporters, by definition, support Trump. I think what is apparent is that there are far fewer Trump supporters than Clinton supporters, and that the only shot Trump has at winning is to grab some of the votes of people who do not support him. That, by itself, sets him up to fail. This whole time, it's been about whether Clinton will lose enough of her lead to give Trump a fighting chance or not. Tomorrow, we will likely find out that she did not.
> 
> Odds shark gives Clinton 85% odds of becoming the next president.



Apologies, I did get a little sloppy with my language there. Trump _supporters_ clearly support Trump. But, Trump _voters_ are predominately motivated by wanting to stop a Clinton/Democratic presidency, while a minority are actually Trump supporters. A majority of Clinton voters, however, are actual Clinton _supporters_, and I think that distinction matters.

Anyway, it's election day here. Get out there and vote! I got to my polling place 20 minutes early to make sure I had time to vote before work and there were already 1-2 dozen people in line. By the time they opened the doors at 7, it was probably more like 100-150, and Somerville had a robust early voting system. It's going to be a big election.


----------



## bostjan

Polls here in our little tiny speck of a town were packed at lunch time! This is exciting - I don't think I've ever seen so many people at the polls ever before. I'm not sure how it'll turn out, but if we get people motivated enough to get out there, then that's something.

I've gotten pretty caught up in a couple of our local elections here, so I am quite interested to see how those turn out. Historically, I always vote for the losing candidate, though. My fear is that with so many folks showing up to vote, there might be a sizable portion who have not followed any local politics and vote for whomever had the most television ads, which could lead to a rocky two years of local policy. I can honestly say that I researched every person for whom I voted, big or small.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I literally walked in and only had to wait behind my girlfriend. Easy as can be. Some other towns near me have lines no shorter than 100 people long.


----------



## bostjan

So...

Being rather vocal about voting third party, I think I have made some of my family and friends quite cross.

Now that it's done, I hope to lay low for a couple of days and maybe by this weekend, start to patch things up.


----------



## UnderTheSign

"When you trust your wife to vote for you, but not really"


----------



## Randy

UnderTheSign said:


> "When you trust your wife to vote for you, but not really"



The only surprising part of that is the fact he allowed her to vote at all.


----------



## Fat-Elf

if Trump doesn't win I'll commit suicide. .... Clinton.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Randy said:


> The only surprising part of that is the fact he allowed her to vote at all.



Maybe she just posed for the picture 

News over here was already saying Trump filed a complaints about some voting stations staying open longer. I know people here staying up all night to see everything go down, it's that much of a crapshow, even overseas.

Realistically, how big are his chances still? Or rather, how big is the chance we can pawn off Fat-Elf's gear tomorrow?


----------



## You

Fat-Elf said:


> if Trump doesn't win I'll commit suicide. .... Clinton.



That's gross. Who would be willing to dive into that bottomless pit that is her genitalia?


----------



## Don Vito

Fat-Elf said:


> if Trump doesn't win I'll commit suicide. .... Clinton.


I'm gonna ....ing OD on pepto bismol if Trump doesn't win. Voted for him on my way to mcdonalds today.

Seriously I'm tired of looking at fat latina mamas with their 10 billion kids every time I leave the house.


----------



## JamesM

Fat-Elf said:


> if Trump doesn't win I'll commit suicide. .... Clinton.



I hope you have a self-eradication plan cooked up then, else you're going to have to do all the planning while upset.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

celticelk said:


> Whoever you choose to vote for, vote.



Exactly... I'm a little ticked with a relative right now that they are not voting. Said they just can't, in clear conscience, vote for either of the candidates... I get it, neither of the big names are exactly my cup of tea either, but there are a couple dozen more names and amendment issues needed to be addressed on the ticket too... local school district leaders, tax collectors. etc. That's why there is always the option to write in a completely different person than simply who's listed. You could vote Kermit the Frog if you wanted to...

anyway... sorry bout the rant, don't mind me, carry on.




EXERCISE YOUR RIGHTS PEOPLE!!!


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I recommend one or two or thirty beers to help make the end of the Republic easier to swallow. 

I voted and now it's just waiting. It's amazing that we have the right to vote and I hope everyone tries to exercise that right.


----------



## possumkiller

I would have but I'm a felon... Two more years...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Did my part today. 

And IIRC, Trump's biggest chance to win is Florida. If he loses that, he's toast. And all signs point to no.


----------



## Demiurge

If people don't want to make a decision on the president, there are still other races and ballot questions to decide on.

Hell, the governor of Massachusetts publicly stated that he wasn't voting for any candidate.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Georgia is too close to call. 


*Georgia is too close to call. *

Trump may win by a point or two, but jeez.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Demiurge said:


> If people don't want to make a decision on the president, there are still other races and ballot questions to decide on.
> 
> Hell, the governor of Massachusetts publicly stated that he wasn't voting for any candidate.



We were laughing with my parents today how complicated the US political system is. In Finland we vote for the president every 5 years and everyone who is 18 years old can automatically vote, no need for some bull.... registration system and that you need to vote for some other political people you have no idea about. Same goes for the parliament campaign that's held every 4 years. 

Well, the next president should be elected in 4-6 hours or so and I should really go to bed but I'm too nervous to see who wins. Why do I even care? Nobody knows.


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> We were laughing with my parents today how complicated the US political system is. In Finland we vote for the president every 5 years and everyone who is 18 years old can automatically vote, no need for some bull.... registration system and that you need to vote for some other political people you have no idea about. Same goes for the parliament campaign that's held every 4 years.



It wasn't that cumbersome, or at least where I was. We had the presidential ticket, a couple local offices (which, yes- no idea about ), and the congressman in our district was running unopposed. Then we had four ballot questions that were fairly interesting, including the legalization of marijuana. 

It is kind of strange, though, that we elect lawmakers to make decisions for us but every so often they throw us a bone and have us make the decisions directly on certain issues.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Demiurge said:


> including the legalization of marijuana.



I hope you voted yes.


----------



## jaxadam

I have it on good authority that Trump will get 269 electoral votes.


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> I hope you voted yes.



Our state will be able to fund our own space program with the tax revenue. That will likely mean that the first colony on Mars will be named after a Boston sports player but you take the good with the bad.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Demiurge said:


> Our state will be able to fund our own space program with the tax revenue. That will likely mean that the first colony on Mars will be named after a Boston sports player but you take the good with the bad.



Today, I actually read that the Colorado weed tax revenue has been disappointinlgy low. But I guess youre state is diffent. At least I hope so so they would legalize that .... here sometime soon.


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> Today, I actually read that the Colorado weed tax revenue has been disappointinlgy low. But I guess youre state is diffent. At least I hope so so they would legalize that .... here sometime soon.



If our state knows how to do something, it's taxation.

It looks like the MJ initiative is losing right now 48-52 so dreams of Star Ship BigPapiOrtiz may go on hold.


----------



## wannabguitarist

jaxadam said:


> I have it on good authority that Trump will get 269 electoral votes.



Been hanging out with Chad?


----------



## jaxadam

I also have it on good authority that Trump University, and not the Electoral College, will be handling this one tonight.


----------



## Randy

Fat-Elf said:


> Today, I actually read that the Colorado weed tax revenue has been disappointinlgy low.



Wouldn't be surprised. With a plant that's so easy to homebrew or truck in from elsewhere, Colorado becomes a safe place to burn with little to no mechanism to guatentee all the plant being burned has been taxed. Seems an easy thing to skirt.


----------



## Fat-Elf

I should be at work in 10 hours but I'm monitoring this thing. We're definitely living interesting times. 

#MAGA


----------



## Xaios

Oooookay, is anyone else starting to freak out yet?


----------



## Fat-Elf

Xaios said:


> Oooookay, is anyone else starting to freak out yet?



Yes. I'm freaking out that Hillary is going to win after all.


----------



## Demiurge

Xaios said:


> Oooookay, is anyone else starting to freak out yet?



Not as much as if I were one of those stats/polling mavens like Nate Silver. Refreshing fivethirtyeight.com and watching the heads spin is a little bit funny. Polls _are definitely not_ the election.


----------



## Don Vito

Fat-Elf said:


> Yes. I'm freaking out that Hillary is going to win after all.



https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/796180529792057350?ref_src=twsrc^tfw


----------



## Fat-Elf

Don Vito said:


> https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/796180529792057350?ref_src=twsrc^tfw



Suicide has never been a problem in Finland according to the statistics


----------



## Demiurge

FWIW fivethirtyeight.com has officially flipped their projection. Before voting, Hillary had ~70% chance of winning- now 44%- and Trump is projected to break 270 electoral votes.

It is like the liar's paradox, though. Since they've been shamefully wrong in their predictions so far, this might be a big, huge jinx.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ and now she's back up to 52% because Virginia was called for her. My advice is to disregard their dynamically-updated model and just watch the incoming returns.


----------



## jaxadam

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/11/08/ny-times-just-predicted-a-trump-win-n2243338


----------



## Demiurge

celticelk said:


> ^^^ and now she's back up to 52% because Virginia was called for her. My advice is to disregard their dynamically-updated model and just watch the incoming returns.



So their jinx is working?! Aces!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The record white votes ....ing annihilated the record minority votes.

Fear and hate really does overcome hope. 

....ing ....ing hell.


----------



## Demiurge

NC just called for Trump.

This wall had better be _really_ nice.


----------



## Xaios

America tomorrow:


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So if Brexit and this has showed me anything... Is that racists are strong as ..... 


In ....ing 2016.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Xaios said:


> America tomorrow:



If Clinton wins then that gif is relevant.


----------



## Randy

So Trump leads because we're all racists (I'm Mulatto, dual citizen and child of an immigrant), not because Hillary Clinton is an abortion of a candidate?


----------



## Demiurge

Randy said:


> So Trump leads because we're all racists (I'm Mulatto, dual citizen and child of an immigrant), not because Hillary Clinton is an abortion of a candidate?



But Trump was supposed to be more abortiony, right?  The crap he's said, the stuff he's done... how does one lose to someone like that? Cripes!


----------



## Don Vito

It's the white guilt mentioned in the nu male meme. 

I'm more worried about the LGBT with Pence.


----------



## mongey

Keeping my eye on it here from Australia. 

I can't believe he's in with a strong chance. I started this thread 40 something pages ago cause I didn't get it , and now I get it even less and I worry for the world. 

Good luck all you out there.


----------



## Necris

Don Vito said:


> It's the white guilt mentioned in the nu male meme.
> 
> I'm more worried about the LGBT with Pence.




You don't need to worry when you know exactly what will happen under what is likely to be total Republican control. I should probably pencil in being a 2nd class citizen by law for the next 30 or so years.


----------



## Dooky

Randy said:


> So Trump leads because we're all racists (I'm Mulatto, dual citizen and child of an immigrant), not because Hillary Clinton is an abortion of a candidate?



I think they're both abortion of a candidates. But geez, I'm constantly amazed that the human race has somehow made it to 2016. This whole election has been a fine example of just how many stupid people there are in the world.


----------



## Randy

Demiurge said:


> But Trump was supposed to be more abortiony, right?  The crap he's said, the stuff he's done... how does one lose to someone like that? Cripes!



Relative to center hes more abortiony but relative to his competition in the primary, eh, he was kinda median.

Hillary (who still might squeak by) had SO much baggage and so much more than her primary opponents. We spent the last time being force fed her and told about how the fact she was never found guilty of anything was all that matters etc. That might wash with other Dems but that clearly isnt washing with everyone else.

If the Dems (of which I'm one) lose this, it lands squarely on HRC, the DNC and the rest who installed her.


----------



## big_aug

It's good news for white males. License to grab ..... mother ....er! Get my fingers wet 'ery day! Say what I want when I want to whoever I want and it's going to be totally fine. Sometimes you just feel like dropping racist remarks in public and now we don't have to be called for it by the liberal pussies.*






*Sarcasm but also reality. That's my silver lining. I the can be deplorable if I want.


----------



## Fat-Elf

big_aug said:


> It's good news for white males. License to grab ..... mother ....er! Get my fingers wet 'ery day! Say what I want when I want to whoever I want and it's going to be totally fine. Sometimes you just feel like dropping racist remarks in public and now we don't have to be called for it by the liberal pussies.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sarcasm but also reality. That's my silver lining. I the can be deplorable if I want.



Sounds good. I'm ....ing tired of this SJW bull.... atmosphere. Really makes me want to move to US even if that would make me an immigrant.


----------



## Don Vito

Fat-Elf said:


> Sounds good. I'm ....ing tired of this SJW bull.... atmosphere. Really makes me want to move to US even if that would make me an immigrant.


Alabama is My Summer Car without sauna. You just go outside.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Don Vito said:


> Alabama is My Summer Car without sauna. You just go outside.



No sauna. No fun. Even though Alabama means more guns. 

I want the next president candidate's slogan to be "make america have saunas".


----------



## Demiurge

big_aug said:


> It's good news for white males. License to grab ..... mother ....er! Get my fingers wet 'ery day! Say what I want when I want to whoever I want and it's going to be totally fine. Sometimes you just feel like dropping racist remarks in public and now we don't have to be called for it by the liberal pussies.*
> 
> *Sarcasm but also reality. That's my silver lining. I the can be deplorable if I want.



Now I feel sh*tty for making the joke, but this morning, my wife & I were preparing to vote early. I was trying to encourage her to get ready quickly and I said, "Hey, I'm a white male- I'll be fine no matter what- get going!"


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> I want the next president candidate's slogan to be "make america have saunas".



I'm in favor of this.


----------



## celticelk

Randy said:


> Relative to center hes more abortiony but relative to his competition in the primary, eh, he was kinda median.
> 
> Hillary (who still might squeak by) had SO much baggage and so much more than her primary opponents. We spent the last time being force fed her and told about how the fact she was never found guilty of anything was all that matters etc. That might wash with other Dems but that clearly isnt washing with everyone else.
> 
> If the Dems (of which I'm one) lose this, it lands squarely on HRC, the DNC and the rest who installed her.



Because circular firing squads are going to be so helpful at this point.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> Because circular firing squads are going to be so helpful at this point.



Because being smug and dismissive united the party together so well, clearly.


----------



## Don Vito

Fat-Elf said:


> No sauna. No fun. Even though Alabama means more guns.
> 
> I want the next president candidate's slogan to be "make america have saunas".


Has to be analog. I had an eletric sauna once and it sucked.

Also I hate how all the TV networks report different things. Of course Fox news show more votes for Trump


----------



## Fat-Elf

Don Vito said:


> Has to be analog. I had an eletric sauna once and it sucked.



Sounds like someone has been watching too much Varg's youtube channel.


----------



## Don Vito

Fat-Elf said:


> Sounds like someone has been watching too much Varg's youtube channel.


tfw no diy camoflauge lada niva


----------



## Demiurge

celticelk said:


> Because circular firing squads are going to be so helpful at this point.



It's true- and that's the problem. Conservatives and Republicans apparently fell in-line and voted party-line, and Trump apparently gathered-up a boatload of undecided & swing voters. Can't say the same for the other side- and I say this as one of them- unfortunately.


----------



## Xaios

This is a screenshot I just took of the the Canadian Immigration website. It's really, actually down.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Xaios said:


> This is a screenshot I just took of the the Canadian Immigration website. It's really, actually down.



So, basically Trump is making America great again by making all the SJW cucks move out of the country. 

This thing just keeps going. Might as well go for a smoke. It's not like I don't have to be at work in 9 hours and I haven't slept at all.


----------



## Randy

Fat-Elf said:


> I want the next president candidate's slogan to be "make america have saunas".



Not too sure about saunas, but I'm fairly certain Trump is a proponent of packing groups of people into windowless rooms that produce excessive heat. Kinda the same thing.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Randy said:


> Not too sure about saunas, but I'm fairly certain Trump is a proponent of packing groups of people into windowless rooms that produce excessive heat. Kinda the same thing.



I'm kinda hoping so that your post wouldn't seem so retarded as you're clearly comparing him to the nazis.


----------



## wankerness

Eh, we're going to turn into another Wisconsin over the next few years, where the unilateral control of the Republicans just enables them to make more and more policies that make it more and more impossible to get them out of power. ANYTHING they want to do will get through, since everyone these days just votes the party line.

Things will get much worse, but I REALLY don't think there's any chance of nuclear war or whatever the fearmongers were saying. He will probably be the worst president in history. We'll be OK, as long as the stockmarket follows the Brexit path of a gigantic crash followed by even-ing out over time as people realize the world isn't going to end, instead of something worse. 

Unfortunately, it's probably going to take several months of him being in power. 

The big thing to be concerned about is global warming, as there absolutely, positively will not be any positive movement on that front during this presidency, and most of the forecasts on that state that we can't afford another four years of business as usual unless we want some cataclysmic change. If you live in a coastal state, you probably want to move inland!

I think the VP would be another W. Bush type. The fact he would have total control over both houses means he could do whatever he wants for two years, at least, though.

So yeah, get your abortions now, and don't make long-term plans for living in areas that are projected to be affected by global warming. Also, you might want to cancel any trips abroad to anything other than resorts, haha. 

The one positive here is at least he'll be a Putin crony instead of trying to provoke war with Russia?


The other positive is that as long as he isn't able to put the smack down on negative media like he wants to (or prosecute anyone who says anything mean about him, like he always has), comedy will sure have a lot of good material!


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> So, basically Trump is making America great again by making all the SJW cucks move out of the country.



Eh, anybody looking to move out of the country because a presidential election doesn't go their way doesn't deserve their citizenship. We're a young country, but we've weathered some serious sh*t in our time. Certainly, there are times where the US represents the paradox of the bully pulpit versus the aggrieved masses, but that's pretty much our MO. I don't think that a Trump presidency is going to be a boot on our faces for four years as much as it will be a wake-up call for our country to truly define what our values are going to be. If Trump's presidency proves to be a failure, we might see our sh*tty two-party system come to a much-deserved end- something that I think we truly need for our country to truly prosper.


----------



## Xaios

Fat-Elf said:


> So, basically Trump is making America great again by making all the SJW cucks move out of the country.



Hey, I'm Canadian, so that sounds great to me. We'll take all the decent, thoughtful people and be that much more awesome.


----------



## Fat-Elf

Demiurge said:


> We're a young country



Don't tell that to a Finnish person who is celebrating their 100th year of independence next year. 

But you're right about the two-part system. As an non-american I think it's retarded and America should really have a multi-party system like all the real democratic countries.


----------



## Necris

Xaios said:


> Hey, I'm Canadian, so that sounds great to me. We'll take all the decent, thoughtful people and be that much more awesome.


I was going to ask "But do you really want a festering cancer of a country directly to your south?" then I realized that would be the status quo, anyway.


----------



## Demiurge

Fat-Elf said:


> Don't tell that to a Finnish person who is celebrating their 100th year of independence next year.
> 
> But you're right about the two-part system. As an non-american I think it's retarded and America should really have a multi-party system like all the real democratic countries.



I wanted to appeal to our youth as an excuse, but maybe we don't deserve it.

The problem is that we have an alleged mutli-party system that somehow only manages to sustain just two parties. We could have so many possibilities but alas- we have Republicans and Democrats and sometimes rando third parties represented by ridiculous people (like Johnson and Stein) and what happens is that the majority votes the two major parties and the minority votes for the "third parties" that really only sabotages the two bigger parties more than it promotes their own positions.


----------



## Xaios

Necris said:


> I was going to ask "But do you really want a festering cancer of a country directly to your south?" then I realized that would be the status quo, anyway.



Eh, we'll just build a wall and make America pay for it.


----------



## jaxadam

Xaios said:


> Eh, we'll just build a wall and make America pay for it.



With all the bricks being sh!t tonight, it'll take no time!


----------



## Alberto7

Demiurge said:


> Eh, anybody looking to move out of the country because a presidential election doesn't go their way doesn't deserve their citizenship.



I don't think I can be any more insightful on this matter than everyone else has been, but speaking from experience, leaving the country because of a presidential election not going anyone's way may actually be the smartest move someone could ever make. Venezuela turned to absolute f*cking sh*t, and many people saw it coming and left early. My family and I left in the nick of time, and we were lucky. However, it's true that it's hard to predict just how bad it will get, and in the US's social, economic, and political context, it might well be ludicrous. Like you said, maybe it won't be as bad as everyone says it will, but will just serve as a wake up call.


----------



## wankerness

There's practically no point in moving out of America to Canada, since nearly anything bad that happens here will affect them almost equally. You'll probably end up having more women's and LGBTQ rights in the unlikely event anything gets overturned, sure, but everything else is pretty tied to us.

Plus, don't you actually have to prove, you know, financial value to Canada to move there? I know most countries in the EU will not take US citizens unless they can get an employer that will make a case to the government that this position could not possibly have been filled by someone from their own country. Maybe it's easier in Canada, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

Anyone saying they will move to another country based on election results doesn't care if "they don't deserve their citizenship." No s***, clearly they don't even WANT it, do you really think that's an insult?

You'll still see his stupid face on the news, you'll still have your economy pulled down by anything bad he does here, and if he starts nuclear wars like the fearmongers say, you'd obviously get hit with the same literal fallout.

EDIT: Regarding the Venezuela thing above, yes, obviously if you live in one of those little countries that can have isolated horrible things happen to them then moving out can be the best thing you could possibly do. I just think in the case of living in the US, there's not much you can do. If the country really goes to s*** and he starts rounding up people who've been accused of liberal thought, then you can tell me I was wrong. At that point, you could probably get to another country through refugee status, at least!!


----------



## Alberto7

^ Absolutely. I just felt the comment was left a little too general. Then again, this is a thread about the US and, as we both said, within that context, it is quite ridiculous to think that way from now, beyond it being a cheeky comment.


----------



## QuantumCybin

Aaaaaand Trump wins. Holy fvck. I'm sad.


----------



## Black Mamba




----------



## QuantumCybin

^ 

At least we will have some funny memes the next four years...


----------



## Don Vito

I've still got my noose on stand by until it's over.


----------



## Fathand

Even though I've followed the US election closely, I don't really think I'm in a position to comment about it because it's your election. It is what it is. 

...buuuut I'm really interested too see if this "surprise" rattles & shakes the eurocrats in Brussels (+ Berlin, the de facto capital of EU right now) to make some quick policy changes over here before the entire EU starts unravelling, one election win after another. A load of populist (word used here with slightly negative connotations) parties waiting in the sidelines to cash in on the confusing situation in Europe right now.

Strange times, indeed.


----------



## Kidneythief

Fathand said:


> A load of populist (word used here with slightly negative connotations) parties waiting in the sidelines to cash in on the confusing situation in Europe right now.



Oh that is already happening here in Hungary, except that the already ruling party is using certain events to strengthen their power 

(Sorry for going off-topic)


----------



## Blytheryn

Well this is going to be weird.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'm mostly worried about your whole government and supreme Court going republican now tbh. Doubt there will be any advancements in lgbt rights the next few years.


----------



## blacai

He won... so... yes... he is there.


----------



## Demiurge

So, ultimately a mixed night.

In Massachusetts, we are not getting a second slot parlor, as we believe that allowing the Commonwealth to maintain a near-monopoly over gambling (to wit, scratch tickets, Keno, and traditional lottery) is apparently proper. We will not be funding charter schools, so whatevertheufck on that. We will allow all animals raised for meat to be treated better... in 6 years. We elected a television character as our new president, but we will be able to smoke all the weed we want to cope with it.

Huzzah?


----------



## M3CHK1LLA

> Is Trump really gonna get there ?



he got there...


----------



## QuantumCybin

If I may just lighten the mood a little bit...


----------



## Given To Fly

Demiurge said:


> NC just called for Trump.
> 
> This wall had better be _really_ nice.



Its funny you should say that. Since America apparently needs to be made great again ( it needs to done every 4 years ), and we apparently need a wall, why not make a "great wall?" Why not build the 8th Wonder of the World? It would be expensive. It would also generate revenue. It would create jobs for just about everyone and it would be something Mexico might actually want to be apart of. 

This might sound crazy, but who did America just elect as president? I'm simply turning lemons into lemonade.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Some it turns out this was the lowest turn out since 2000. Hillary severely underperformed. Not only that but trump supposedly didn't even beat Romney's result. ....ing 2014 all over again

As a gay person it makes me sick to my stomach to have Mike fuciing pence in the White House. 

The Nintendo Switch better be affordable as .... to counteract this bul.....


----------



## Andromalia

Guys, seriously ? T_T



> I'm kinda hoping so that your post wouldn't seem so retarded as you're clearly comparing him to the nazis.



On the other hand, he IS supported by the Nazi party of america (yay free speech....) and the KKK. you guys are in for some very unpleasant years. I guess I should be happy the EU will profit most from Trump but I've never been the style to enjoy other people's misery.


----------



## tacotiklah

California and Massachusetts just legalized weed, so there's always that.


----------



## jwade

This is disgusting and unsettling.


----------



## sawtoothscream

jwade said:


> This is disgusting and unsettling.



How I would feel if Clinton won.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

To think I burst out laughing when I read the title of this thread a few months back and thought that's stupid, he won't win.


----------



## flexkill

This is the biggest let down by the American people in my lifetime. Donald "Fvckface" Trump being elected POTUS proves that everything we preach as US citizens about humanity and having equality for everyone was just lip service. 

Deep down inside we are as filled with as much hate and vile as we ever were. The election of this buffoon to POTUS proves it.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I am quite sad for all of my fellow Americans. Especially LGBT folks. You deserve so much more.


----------



## tacotiklah

sawtoothscream said:


> How I would feel if Clinton won.



How I feel to anyone that voted for Trump, thus gutting every civil right I have. Ban me on here, I don't care. If you voted for that dickbag, I take that as a personal insult to me as an LGBT person. I hope every guitar you own in the future warps, and never has good intonation ever again. 

Clinton was awful, but being a moron that can't handle more than one email account > telling every minority in your life to go f_u_ck themselves and that their rights don't matter.

And if the latter is how you really feel, go f_u_ck yourself. I hate you with the burning intensity and fury of a thousand suns.


----------



## Fat-Elf

We did it...


----------



## ZeroS1gnol

It's really a sad day for the entire Earth if you think about it. I'm especially worried how this will affect climate agreements. Trump can deny climate change, but the effects of it will not be averted by denying them. It is quite real.

Then his stance on NATO, his proposed isolationist views could mean destabilising USA's ally states in Europe and put them under the influence of Russia. One could wonder what is desirable about losing allies.

However, in light of this all, I am still quite curious about how it will play out. I wonder if Trump supporters will get what they asked for, it seems highly unlikely, since there are still plenty of people in the USA that have their hearts in the right place and have a sense of reason.


----------



## RobPhoboS

It's a fantastic day.


----------



## Genome

As a Brit I thought you'd have to go some to find a dumber nation in 2016, but the USA have, well, trumped us.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

ZeroS1gnol said:


> Then his stance on NATO, his proposed isolationist views could mean destabilising USA's ally states in Europe and put them under the influence of Russia. One could wonder what is desirable about losing allies.



This would've happened naturally anyway when our empire collapsed under its own (military) weight. The West has been too dependent on the USA to be its muscle for so long we've bought wholesale into the military industrial complex as a form of wealth. 

Look, i get the aversion to isolationist policies, especially when it comes to a candidate you don't agree with... but g*ddamned Chomsky has been writing about this for years and he is revered outside the beltway. and he is right.



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I am quite sad for all of my fellow Americans. Especially LGBT folks. You deserve so much more.



have some imagination people! culture is determined by the movers and shakers (entertainers, artists) not politics. the mistake of modern liberalism has been to legislate culture; i consider the GOP to be a part of the neo-liberal problem too. Look at modern entertainment, is it hostile to trans/gay characters? Last time i checked it's not... and more people watch Bravo than vote for president (alright, that's not true, but it's closer to truth than this above statement).


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

I can rest a little easier knowing my job is a little more stable now. I work in the medical field, I have seen my facility and many others similar to mine rocked by the waves of cut backs Obamacare has sent through us, it's such a rough system. There were multiple times where we faced possible lay-offs. That ends today... new reforms coming. I'm definitely happy about that.


----------



## Randy

Fat-Elf said:


> I'm kinda hoping so that your post wouldn't seem so retarded as you're clearly comparing him to the nazis.



It was a joke about everyone freaking out over the guy so much. I'm mostly indifferent though.

Not that any of that matters because you just got pernabanned, so have fun with that.


----------



## flexkill

Randy said:


> It was a joke about everyone freaking out over the guy so much. I'm mostly indifferent though.
> 
> Not that any of that matters because you just got pernabanned, so have fun with that.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

This is what happens when the DNC facefvcks itself. It should have been Bernie.


----------



## cwhitey2

I still think Trump is a Democrat in disguise.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

leftyguitarjoe said:


> This is what happens when the DNC facefvcks itself. It should have been Bernie.




More accurately, this is what happens when the DNC abandons its most consistent voter base and hopes union associations are enough to maintain support. 

Trump didn't win the rust belt accidentally. a lot of those states went to Obama twice. Hell, PA hasn't gone red for 22 years.

also the shafting of Bernie plus ongoing email server controversry and speaking engagements with big banks didn't help


----------



## wankerness

leftyguitarjoe said:


> This is what happens when the DNC facefvcks itself. It should have been Bernie.




Yep, I've said all along the democrats managed to nominate the only person that could possibly lose to Trump. People HATED her.

I'll be curious to see what happens with the pending rape trials and the sexual assault allegations with Trump, though. There was news about at least one being held off till after the election to avoid influencing it. I think there is a VERY high chance Trump will not be president for four years. I mean, LGBTQ rights are still totally gone, as are the environment and obamacare (which has serious issues right now anyway), but I think it would just be like the Bush years on steroids instead of something insane.


----------



## ncfiala

I for one am glad that Trump prevailed. Immigration is the main issue for me. If you're not from Minnesota you may not be aware of this, but here our communities are being overrun by muslim "refugees." I live in a small town and recently a somalian refugee stabbed 10 people at the mall here. He ran through the mall with two steak knives screaming something about allah. Crime is up and for whatever reason the media doesn't like to report it or at least downplays it. A lot of the news stories about the mall stabbings barely mention the victims or the hero who shot the attacker, instead focusing on the somalians fear of backlash. A few days ago I went to get groceries and there was a pack of muslim women screaming profanity at a white woman in the parking lot. I went inside to get my groceries and when I came out there were three cop cars and an ambulance in the parking lot. This is a small town but I don't feel safe here anymore. This bringing over of "refugees" en masse and then just dumping them in our communities has got to stop.


----------



## Axayacatl

Ibanezsam4 said:


> have some imagination people! culture is determined by the movers and shakers (entertainers, artists) not politics. the mistake of modern liberalism has been to legislate culture; i consider the GOP to be a part of the neo-liberal problem too. Look at modern entertainment, is it hostile to trans/gay characters? Last time i checked it's not... and more people watch Bravo than vote for president (alright, that's not true, but it's closer to truth than this above statement).



I think the gay/trans people whose lives are actually affected are more focused on the actual ideas and policies of VP Mike Pence and less concerned with what is playing on Bravo.


----------



## Axayacatl

ncfiala said:


> I for one am glad that Trump prevailed. Immigration is the main issue for me. If you're not from Minnesota you may not be aware of this, but here our communities are being overrun by muslim "refugees." I live in a small town and recently a somalian refugee stabbed 10 people at the mall here. He ran through the mall with two steak knives screaming something about allah. Crime is up and for whatever reason the media doesn't like to report it or at least downplays it. A lot of the news stories about the mall stabbings barely mention the victims or the hero who shot the attacker, instead focusing on the somalians fear of backlash. A few days ago I went to get groceries and there was a pack of muslim women screaming profanity at a white woman in the parking lot. I went inside to get my groceries and when I came out there were three cop cars and an ambulance in the parking lot. This is a small town but I don't feel safe here anymore. This bringing over of "refugees" en masse and then just dumping them in our communities has got to stop.



Thanks for taking in refugees. I know it is a large burden on any community. The Somalian guy with a knife was a really scary moment, too. Was the Somalian guy a refugee? BTW, the refugees entering the US are actually refugees. No quotes needed. Just turn on the news sometime. You'll see why they are called refugees. That's not saying they have to live in my backyard, or that it is a good idea, and I'm certainly not expecting for you to be happy with them in yours. But they're real people escaping some really pretty horrible stuff.


----------



## Don Vito

As someone who lives in a city where the white population is somewhere around 20%, I just don't feel this obligation to be extra nice to minorities from other countries, especially largely illegal hispanic workforces. It's not the people, it's the economic competition.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Axayacatl said:


> Thanks for taking in refugees. I know it is a large burden on any community. The Somalian guy with a knife was a really scary moment, too. Was the Somalian guy a refugee? BTW, the refugees entering the US are actually refugees. No quotes needed. Just turn on the news sometime. You'll see why they are called refugees. That's not saying they have to live in my backyard, or that it is a good idea, and I'm certainly not expecting for you to be happy with them in yours. But they're real people escaping some really pretty horrible stuff.



Pssh the somalians coming over anymore aren't even refugees. Their country isn't as ....ed as it was back in the 90s when they started flooding Minnesota. The vast majority of them are hardworking decent people in my experience, though it's the younger 2nd generation Somalians and some fresh off the boat extremists that are the real problem. But yeah he's right, it barely made a blip on the news except for on conservative news channels. The more liberal channels tried to downplay the fact that he was a muslim and just said "man stabs 10 people at mall" as the headline.


----------



## Andromalia

If I wanted to be sarcastic, Id say it's better to have a refugee committing those kind of attacks: an american would have done it in a school with an automatic machinegun.


----------



## ncfiala

Axayacatl said:


> Thanks for taking in refugees. I know it is a large burden on any community. The Somalian guy with a knife was a really scary moment, too. Was the Somalian guy a refugee? BTW, the refugees entering the US are actually refugees. No quotes needed. Just turn on the news sometime. You'll see why they are called refugees. That's not saying they have to live in my backyard, or that it is a good idea, and I'm certainly not expecting for you to be happy with them in yours. But they're real people escaping some really pretty horrible stuff.


 
Yes he was a somalian refugee and the attack was clearly motivated by the islamic religion. And I couldn't care less why they are called refugees or why they are here. What I care about is feeling safe in my community. What I care about is not having my tax dollars supporting them. Many of them do not work. They get money from the government. Every day I see them out driving (always in nicer cars than I have) and shopping while I see homeless American vets standing on the street corner begging for money. It's absolutely outrageous.


----------



## ncfiala

Andromalia said:


> If I wanted to be sarcastic, Id say it's better to have a refugee committing those kind of attacks: an american would have done it in a school with an automatic machinegun.


 
Islamic terrorists usually use guns too. Your comment is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Andromalia said:


> If I wanted to be sarcastic, Id say it's better to have a refugee committing those kind of attacks: an american would have done it in a school with an automatic machinegun.



do you know how hard it is to get an automatic weapon in the US? You have to have a class 3 license and it costs a ton of money. Automatic weapons are very uncommon in most of the US. Considering the damage people have done with semi-automatic weapons (and how much worse it would be if they were trained) in Colorado and Massachusetts, it's a good thing they don't have access to full auto weapons. 
If I was being sarcastic I would say it's a good thing the somalian didn't strap a bomb to his chest and blow a bunch of people up, or didn't use a truck to run down a parade like in Marseilles.


----------



## bostjan

I guess that settles it. 

Congratulations, USA, when given the choice between a crook and bully, you chose the bully. I can't say I blame you one bit. The sad part of this, though, is that, on Jan 20th, Donald Trump will have the nuclear launch codes, assuming we last that long.

/thread


----------



## Andromalia

ncfiala said:


> Islamic terrorists usually use guns too. Your comment is absolutely ridiculous.



That's the point: pinning it on "refugees" is just racism. But given your new president I guess that's to be expected.


----------



## ncfiala

Andromalia said:


> That's the point: pinning it on "refugees" is just racism. But given your new president I guess that's to be expected.


 
So it is racism to state facts now. He was a somalian refugee who committed these atrocious acts in the name of allah. I'm not "pinning" this crime on anyone. These are facts. You can refuse to believe them but that doesn't stop them from being true.

Much like the word "prog" on sso, the word "racism" has lost all meaning in this world.


----------



## Fraz666

Now I'm worried about Fender Mexico.
my Strat is too old to climb the wall


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Axayacatl said:


> I think the gay/trans people whose lives are actually affected are more focused on the actual ideas and policies of VP Mike Pence and less concerned with what is playing on Bravo.



what ideas and what policies can survive a court of law? Really? Gay marriage is now constitutionally upheld and trans rights are being decided on a state to state level. 

again, what magic imperial powers is the VP granted to hold sway over that one particular segment of the population?

it. can't. be. done. 

and this is why hyperbole is bad.


----------



## sawtoothscream

bostjan said:


> I guess that settles it.
> 
> Congratulations, USA, when given the choice between a crook and bully, you chose the bully. I can't say I blame you one bit. The sad part of this, though, is that, on Jan 20th, Donald Trump will have the nuclear launch codes, assuming we last that long.
> 
> /thread



Would be way more worried with Clinton having them. She can't even handle classified material correctly and would have us at war with Russia. 

Will see what happens but nuke codes are on the bottom of my worry list.


----------



## Thaeon

Ibanezsam4 said:


> what ideas and what policies can survive a court of law? Really? Gay marriage is now constitutionally upheld and trans rights are being decided on a state to state level.
> 
> again, what magic imperial powers is the VP granted to hold sway over that one particular segment of the population?
> 
> it. can't. be. done.
> 
> and this is why hyperbole is bad.



What is scary here is Pence's potential power. If Trump is impeached (this is a real potentiality considering how many republicans don't like him) Pence becomes President. Which is just as scary. His far right religiosity is as scary as Ted Cruise. Maybe more so.

For me, being a parent of two little girls, the very real threat is the cultural blow back of the nation selecting a misogynist, maybe even a rapist, and elevating those ideals. I literally fear for the cultural and potentially visceral impact this will have on my daughters. This is a truly terrifying time to live in the states. Even for a suburban white dude.


----------



## icipher

I have nothing particularly wordy or intelligent to say here other than that today is remarkably satisfying. The social justice warriors who have been blindly screaming racism, misogyny, fascist at everything they don't like are finally shut down. I relish in their misery.

Enjoy your day people.

PS, build that wall.

Deplorable


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Thaeon said:


> What is scary here is Pence's potential power. If Trump is impeached (this is a real potentiality considering how many republicans don't like him) Pence becomes President. Which is just as scary. His far right religiosity is as scary as Ted Cruise. Maybe more so.



not answering the question. the POTUS doesn't have that power either. his executive orders only pertain to federal employees, but sexuality is federally protected.

once again, what can be done legally that can survive a court of law? everything you guys are apparently afraid of is legally protected and you don't seem to realize it. 

and the president doesn't have imperial power, and congress won't cede it over and the supreme court would strike it down based on their track record (even short one justice). 

so what is the real issue to be afraid of? lack of civic knowledge? <-- yes


----------



## BrailleDecibel

Something I am quite worried about, being on it myself and all, is how will this affect Social Security? As far as I know, Republicans want to privatize it, but I would like some more details than that. Thanks in advance!


----------



## celticelk

Trump supporters: You wanted this? You got this. What's your plan now? You understand that "make America great again!" is not a plan, right?

In four years, when nothing you wanted has gotten better:


when the manufacturing jobs have not come back...
when economic growth is, at best, what it's been for the last five years...
when millions of people in your communities no longer have healthcare for their children, and the rest are seeing a return to the rate-of-increase in costs that Obamacare largely arrested...
when the Middle East is still a mess...
when Russia and China are flexing their muscles regionally at our expense...
when terror incidents within the US have not ceased...

...we're going to have another conversation, and it will not be a conversation that you'll enjoy.


----------



## cwhitey2

ncfiala said:


> These are facts. You can refuse to believe them but that doesn't stop them from being true.



Very much like science!




Fraz666 said:


> Now I'm worried about Fender Mexico.
> my Strat is too old to climb the wall





This made the thread for me. A guy I work with (just had this convo 5 min ago) just told me he wanted to volunteer to go build the wall. He 100% serious too


----------



## Frey

Keep crying libs


----------



## ncfiala

icipher said:


> I have nothing particularly wordy or intelligent to say here other than that today is remarkably satisfying. The social justice warriors who have been blindly screaming racism, misogyny, fascist at everything they don't like are finally shut down. I relish in their misery.
> 
> Enjoy your day people.
> 
> PS, build that wall.
> 
> Deplorable


 
Hear, hear my fellow Minnesotan.


----------



## celticelk

Sanders supporters: a couple of questions about your if-only counterfactuals:


Sanders lost the Democratic primary largely because of his lack of support among voters of color. Given Clinton's inability to hit Obama's levels of support with those voters, which probably cost her a few key states, on what basis do you believe that Sanders would have done better?
If Clinton's problem was that she was too well-defined, Sanders' would have been that he was undefined: there was an awful lot of room for the Republicans to fill in voters' lack of knowledge about him with their own narrative. On what basis do you believe that a self-described democratic socialist would have won over some significant number of the voters who supported Trump?

I recognize that many of you will start and end your responses with "he's not Hillary Clinton." That's not actually an answer to the questions I've posed, but given how little progressives have to feel good about today, I understand the impulse to reach for any small scrap of comfort you can find. If anyone wants to offer other answers, I'm interested in the conversation.


----------



## ncfiala

cwhitey2 said:


> Very much like science!


 
I have no idea what you mean by this. But whatever.


----------



## blacai

I have no idea about how that works in the USA, but if republicans control congress and senate ... what are the limitations for Trump and his will?

For what I understood, there are some issues they can only be legislated by federal law...?


----------



## Necris

icipher said:


> The social justice warriors who have been blindly screaming racism, misogyny, fascist at everything they don't like are finally shut down. I relish in their misery.


Enjoy it, meanwhile, I'll hold on to some faint hope that the results of the election will at least have finally hammered home to SJWs that tumblr and twitter-hashtag-based slacktivism is as worthless as doing nothing.
Maybe now some of these big talkers will finally be motivated to actually do real work for the ideals they claim to hold so dear.


----------



## TedEH

icipher said:


> I have nothing particularly wordy or intelligent to say here other than that today is remarkably satisfying. The social justice warriors who have been blindly screaming racism, misogyny, fascist at everything they don't like are finally shut down. I relish in their misery.



I also have very little of intelligence to add to the conversation, but I reaaaally doubt that "SJW-types" are going to feel shut down by any means. I very much expect that this will only make people MORE vocal about the issues they advocate for, not the other way around.

Don't get me wrong, I get annoyed at some of the online activism as much as anyone else, not a huge fan of being politically correct all the time, etc., but legit activism does have it's function and it's place.


----------



## russmuller

I'm terribly disappointed by the outcome. I think Trump will be an incredibly reckless and dangerous president, but it's really going to happen. I'd actually love nothing more than to be proven wrong, but I expect that his presidency be a disaster. Here's to 4 years of searching for silver linings.


----------



## Cloudy

As a Canadian I must say I am amazed that Donald was elect. Hilary was not a good choice by any means but you guys literally put an orange potato of a TV celebrity in the white house. Well done. 

These will be a very interesting 4 years to come.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Sanders supporters: a couple of questions about your if-only counterfactuals:
> 
> 
> Sanders lost the Democratic primary largely because of his lack of support among voters of color. Given Clinton's inability to hit Obama's levels of support with those voters, which probably cost her a few key states, on what basis do you believe that Sanders would have done better?
> If Clinton's problem was that she was too well-defined, Sanders' would have been that he was undefined: there was an awful lot of room for the Republicans to fill in voters' lack of knowledge about him with their own narrative. On what basis do you believe that a self-described democratic socialist would have won over some significant number of the voters who supported Trump?
> 
> I recognize that many of you will start and end your responses with "he's not Hillary Clinton." That's not actually an answer to the questions I've posed, but given how little progressives have to feel good about today, I understand the impulse to reach for any small scrap of comfort you can find. If anyone wants to offer other answers, I'm interested in the conversation.



 With whom are you arguing? I didn't see anyone bring up Sanders or make any of the points you are attempting to counter.
 Is your entire point that Sanders would have lost worse than Clinton? Does it matter/Does anyone care?
 I believe that Clinton lost, because people didn't vote for her. Maybe we will find out why people didn't vote for her, but there is already tons of data. The time for this discussion was during the primary. People told you that Clinton would not beat Trump at that juncture. Now that those people were proven correct in their prediction, you want to drum up that argument again. Why?! Frankly, it makes you feel like it's a good idea to resurrect that argument now? You're certainly not in any stronger position to do so.
 The bullet points do make your points seem more organized and well presented, so I'll give you that.


----------



## wankerness

I remember when Alabama passed draconian laws about illegal immigrants working, and the farmers lost massive amounts of their crops cause white people refused to do the work. It was "beneath them." Millennials especially won't do any of that kind of thing and would rather be unemployed.


----------



## extendedsolo

icipher said:


> I have nothing particularly wordy or intelligent to say here other than that today is remarkably satisfying. The social justice warriors who have been blindly screaming racism, misogyny, fascist at everything they don't like are finally shut down. I relish in their misery.
> 
> Enjoy your day people.
> 
> PS, build that wall.
> 
> Deplorable



I think the general feeling among liberals and the left is resolve, not defeat. The feeling that they have to get out and fight harder, not to just lay down. They got their a$$ beat last night and have a reminder every day for four years.


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> Sanders supporters: a couple of questions about your if-only counterfactuals:
> 
> 
> Sanders lost the Democratic primary largely because of his lack of support among voters of color. Given Clinton's inability to hit Obama's levels of support with those voters, which probably cost her a few key states, on what basis do you believe that Sanders would have done better?
> If Clinton's problem was that she was too well-defined, Sanders' would have been that he was undefined: there was an awful lot of room for the Republicans to fill in voters' lack of knowledge about him with their own narrative. On what basis do you believe that a self-described democratic socialist would have won over some significant number of the voters who supported Trump?
> 
> I recognize that many of you will start and end your responses with "he's not Hillary Clinton." That's not actually an answer to the questions I've posed, but given how little progressives have to feel good about today, I understand the impulse to reach for any small scrap of comfort you can find. If anyone wants to offer other answers, I'm interested in the conversation.



To answer BOTH of your points:

This election was all about throwing bombs at the establishment. Running the very archetype of an establishment figure, one who was OPENLY contemptuous of all of middle america, was a HORRIBLE move. Bernie Sanders tapped into the same vein of severe upset and distrust of authority that Trump did. People were EXCITED about him. Virtually no one was about Hillary, especially when she was basically advertised as "it's inevitable" or "do your part and vote for her, not because you like her, but because she's like taking your medicine - you need it!" She was THE PERFECT candidate to energize any Trump supporters, and also to turn off excitement for anyone liberal. She was awful. This is all the left's fault, and attempts to blame the other side are just lazy and trying to shirk responsibility. All racists supported Trump, but definitely not all Trump supporters were racist. The majority of lower-income families were horribly suffering and desperately wanted change, and Hillary essentially ran on "NO CHANGE" and Trump appealed to everyone's sense of "SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE." The fact she had about a hundred scandals going on at the same time obviously made things that much worse. Just terrible. 

If you noticed, all media outlets apart from the typically hysterical Fox News were also contributing to the problem by repeatedly acting as if it was a foregone conclusion that she would win. This made it seem all the less important that anyone pay attention or do anything.

Bernie absolutely would have done better. He may still have lost, but at least it would have energized much of the base, while Hillary made approximately no one excited. This was the lowest turn-out in years. Biden would have CRUSHED, and it's really too bad about the personal tragedy in his life that prevented him from doing so.


----------



## extendedsolo

wankerness said:


> I remember when Alabama passed draconian laws about illegal immigrants working, and the farmers lost massive amounts of their crops cause white people refused to do the work. It was "beneath them." Millennials especially won't do any of that kind of thing and would rather be unemployed.



This is kind of my thought with many of his ideas. Yes they sound good if that's what you believe, but aren't particularly well thought out. 

It's similar when people used to get mad that things were made in China, if it wasn't for that I most likely wouldn't be able to afford an iphone (ethics of that are a different situation).



wankerness said:


> To answer BOTH of your points:
> 
> This election was all about throwing bombs at the establishment. Running the very archetype of an establishment figure, one who was OPENLY contemptuous of all of middle america, was a HORRIBLE move. Bernie Sanders tapped into the same vein of severe upset and distrust of authority that Trump did. People were EXCITED about him. Virtually no one was about Hillary, especially when she was basically advertised as "it's inevitable" or "do your part and vote for her, not because you like her, but because she's like taking your medicine - you need it!" She was THE PERFECT candidate to energize any Trump supporters, and also to turn off excitement for anyone liberal. She was awful. This is all the left's fault, and attempts to blame the other side are just lazy and trying to shirk responsibility. All racists supported Trump, but definitely not all Trump supporters were racist. The majority of lower-income families were horribly suffering and desperately wanted change, and Hillary essentially ran on "NO CHANGE" and Trump appealed to everyone's sense of "SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE." The fact she had about a hundred scandals going on at the same time obviously made things that much worse. Just terrible.
> 
> Bernie absolutely would have done better. He may still have lost, but at least it would have energized much of the base, while Hillary made approximately no one excited. This was the lowest turn-out in years. Biden would have CRUSHED, and it's really too bad about the personal tragedy in his life that prevented him from doing so.



There are a lot of places that detest middle america, when in reality many of the people they are picturing are good people. Like you said not all Trump supporters are racist, and I know several people that have voted for Trump that are good people but want a shake up and didn't like hillary. I'm not a big fan of people making big over arching statements about any voter since everyone has their reasons. One thing that I wished had happened though was that the people who didn't vote for voted for a 3rd party hadn't sat this one out and tried to be the smartest guy in the room. Yes I know some of those would've gone for Trump, and he would've won anyway, but it would've given the Dems one less scapegoat. 

Everyone get your popcorn ready and strap on your seat belt because the next 4 years are going to be quite the ride.


----------



## wankerness

extendedsolo said:


> I think the general feeling among liberals and the left is resolve, not defeat. The feeling that they have to get out and fight harder, not to just lay down. They got their a$$ beat last night and have a reminder every day for four years.



I'd give it a couple years until we see what kind of stuff starts going down. I don't want to show up on any lists if we get Kristallnacht 2.0.


----------



## Cloudy

Sanders was popular among rural white voters, trumps strength was rural white voters. If sanders had won the DNC primary I have no doubt he would have done better than Trump. 

Unfortunately that isnt what happened and now democrats everywhere (especially hillary supports) are going to have to deal with a rep house, senate, scotus and presidency. Democracy has spoken and the stronger of the two candidates won.


----------



## Konstantine

Cloudy said:


> As a Canadian I must say I am amazed that Donald was elect. Hilary was not a good choice by any means but you guys literally put an orange potato of a TV celebrity in the white house. Well done.
> 
> These will be a very interesting 4 years to come.



So electing someone who has been quoted on multiple occasions saying she wanted war with russia is better than someone who wants to mend relations with russia? electing a lady just because she is a lady? 

-Electing someone who defended a child rapist in court and said that the young girl "was asking for it" and later she laughed about getting the rapist out scott free

-Electing someone who conspired with the DNC to snub bernie and cheated her fellow democratic competition out of the election race?

-Electing someone who pushes for a globalist agenda and wants to implement similar destructive policies that Merkel in Germany has? 

-Electing someone who ran a fake charitable organization and used it as means to increase self wealth and not even use the donations for charities and have outsiders (saudis and friends) pay huge sums of money to in essence gain access and influence to the secretaries office of our government?

-Electing someone who had in her tax plan an increase to the estate tax so when your loved ones die, any money they had leftover was taxed even more?

-Elect someone who was involved in the creation of ISIS that our government had worked feverishly on to intentionally keep the middle east an unstable region?

Yeah, I'm glad that "orange potato" won instead of that evil witch thank you very much.


----------



## Cloudy

Konstantine said:


> So electing someone who has been quoted on multiple occasions saying she wanted war with russia is better than someone who wants to mend relations with russia? electing a lady just because she is a lady?
> 
> -Electing someone who defended a child rapist in court and said that the young girl "was asking for it" and later she laughed about getting the rapist out scott free
> 
> -Electing someone who conspired with the DNC to snub bernie and cheated her fellow democratic competition out of the election race?
> 
> -Electing someone who pushes for a globalist agenda and wants to implement similar destructive policies that Merkel in Germany has?
> 
> -Electing someone who ran a fake charitable organization and used it as means to increase self wealth and not even use the donations for charities and have outsiders (saudis and friends) pay huge sums of money to in essence gain access and influence to the secretaries office of our government?
> 
> -Electing someone who had in her tax plan an increase to the estate tax so when your loved ones die, any money they had leftover was taxed even more?
> 
> -Elect someone who was involved in the creation of ISIS that our government had worked feverishly on to intentionally keep the middle east an unstable region?
> 
> Yeah, I'm glad that "orange potato" won instead of that evil witch thank you very much.



Did you even read my post? I said Hillary was not a good choice. You make all these points about her character but completely gloss over the fact that Donald Trump is just as terrible, if not worse. Take the blinders off amigo and realize you had two of the most laughable presidential frontrunners of all time and you had to pick one. It was lose lose for the US this election.


----------



## extendedsolo

wankerness said:


> I'd give it a couple years until we see what kind of stuff starts going down. I don't want to show up on any lists if we get Kristallnacht 2.0.



I suppose, I really don't think those kinds of changes would happen until the second term. I think they have to spend the next 4 years making Trump appealing to reelect. It's similar to obamacare in the regard that if Obama had done it with his first term it's a huge gamble and he might not get reelected. Yes, truly awful people would be all for those kinds of things, but not everyone who voted for trump is a monster. 

At the same time I underestimated what the feeling is in America right now this entire election, so who knows what's really going to happen.



Cloudy said:


> Did you even read my post? I said Hillary was not a good choice. You make all these points about her character but completely gloss over the fact that Donald Trump is just as terrible, if not worse. Take the blinders off amigo and realize you had two of the most laughable presidential frontrunners of all time and you had to pick one. It was lose lose for the US this election.



I'm not a big fan of this type of thinking as it completely ignores reality of the fact that most presidential candidates aren't that good and are very flawed, and this type of thinking sounds like someone trying to be the smartest guy in the room/above it all. Start listing the characteristics that you desire in a presidential candidate. I think you would quickly realize that the person doesn't exist and the situation for that person to thrive doesn't either. Even Obama, who was/is adored, had no political experience and zipped right through the ranks and became president. You could site his lack of experience as a problem. Trying to say it's a lose lose implies that the entire democratic process is broken, when in reality it's the best system the world has ever seen.


----------



## narad

Yo, to the guys spending a page arguing about a Somali stabbing a bunch of people in Minnesota...



ncfiala said:


> I for one am glad that Trump prevailed. Immigration is the main issue for me. If you're not from Minnesota you may not be aware of this, but here our communities are being overrun by muslim "refugees." I live in a small town and recently a somalian refugee stabbed 10 people at the mall here. He ran through the mall with two steak knives screaming something about allah.



He wasn't a refugee, and he would have entered the country more than 15 years ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...i-computer-student-who-stabbed-nine-in-minne/

Just like Brexit, misinformation influencing people's perception and their voting choices.


----------



## Sumsar

celticelk said:


> Sanders supporters: a couple of questions about your if-only counterfactuals:
> 
> 
> Sanders lost the Democratic primary largely because of his lack of support among voters of color. Given Clinton's inability to hit Obama's levels of support with those voters, which probably cost her a few key states, on what basis do you believe that Sanders would have done better?
> If Clinton's problem was that she was too well-defined, Sanders' would have been that he was undefined: there was an awful lot of room for the Republicans to fill in voters' lack of knowledge about him with their own narrative. On what basis do you believe that a self-described democratic socialist would have won over some significant number of the voters who supported Trump?
> 
> I recognize that many of you will start and end your responses with "he's not Hillary Clinton." That's not actually an answer to the questions I've posed, but given how little progressives have to feel good about today, I understand the impulse to reach for any small scrap of comfort you can find. If anyone wants to offer other answers, I'm interested in the conversation.



Some pretty vague answers to your questions:
- I think some amount of Sanders supporters ended up voting Trump.
Clinton very much stands for what has been status que the last 30 years*, so with her you would expect the middle and lower class to get even more poor and the rich to become somewhat richer. She would probably also start a meaningless war somewhere.
Both Sanders and Trump signifies a rebellion againts how things are and has been. So if those two had come to the finals, I think Sanders had some better answers as to how to make US a better place for basicly 60 - 80% of the population.

For me this election is very much like Brexit, its a piss poor decision but I totally understand the reasoning behind it. People want change.

* yeah don't blame me if thats not exactly correct, I am not a US citizen.


----------



## extendedsolo

Sumsar said:


> Some pretty vague answers to your questions:
> - I think some amount of Sanders supporters ended up voting Trump.
> Clinton very much stands for what has been status que the last 30 years*, so with her you would expect the middle and lower class to get even more poor and the rich to become somewhat richer. She would probably also start a meaningless war somewhere.
> Both Sanders and Trump signifies a rebellion againts how things are and has been. So if those two had come to the finals, I think Sanders had some better answers as to how to make US a better place for basicly 60 - 80% of the population.
> 
> For me this election is very much like Brexit, its a piss poor decision but I totally understand the reasoning behind it. People want change.
> 
> * yeah don't blame me if thats not exactly correct, I am not a US citizen.



I mean with Brexit are people willing to admit after a while "hey maybe this isn't working?" if it truly isn't. I feel like here in America right leaning people have blamed Obama for everything and will continue to blame immigrants/blacks/obama for everything for the next 4 years.


----------



## ncfiala

narad said:


> Yo, to the guys spending a page arguing about a Somali stabbing a bunch of people in Minnesota...
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't a refugee, and he would have entered the country more than 15 years ago:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...i-computer-student-who-stabbed-nine-in-minne/
> 
> Just like Brexit, misinformation influencing people's perception and their voting choices.


 
Why is he not a refugee? I purposely put quotes around the word refugee because I really have no idea what that really means and the word is constantly thrown around here. It says right here he was a refugee.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-st-cloud-minnesota-stabbing-suspect-n651061

Regardless, it makes no difference to me what you call him.


----------



## Cloudy

extendedsolo said:


> I'm not a big fan of this type of thinking as it completely ignores reality of the fact that most presidential candidates aren't that good and are very flawed, and this type of thinking sounds like someone trying to be the smartest guy in the room/above it all. Start listing the characteristics that you desire in a presidential candidate. I think you would quickly realize that the person doesn't exist and the situation for that person to thrive doesn't either. Even Obama, who was/is adored, had no political experience and zipped right through the ranks and became president. You could site his lack of experience as a problem. Trying to say it's a lose lose implies that the entire democratic process is broken, when in reality it's the best system the world has ever seen.



Except there was a candidate I was closely alligned with and preferred over both Donald and Hilary and had suitable experience so that is kind of a moot point. Either way I am canadian and my say doesn't really matter, I voted Liberal during our election and I'm more than happy with our current PM. My personal beliefs do not support Republican policies, my little sister being transgendered is one of the biggest driving forces behind my vote, most people who care about transgenered issues are not a fan of Pence or the republican party.


----------



## Alberto7

Not sure this has been posted yet, and Cracked isn't usually a site I go to for political information or opinion, but I found this article very interesting, if not obvious:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

The same thing caught my eye when I noticed that most counties containing large cities were all blue, even amidst an overwhelming sea of red. Trump's kind of rhetoric always works the same way, and not just in the US.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> That's not actually an answer to the questions I've posed, but given how little progressives have to feel good about today, I understand the impulse to reach for any small scrap of comfort you can find. If anyone wants to offer other answers, I'm interested in the conversation.



U mad?


----------



## Andromalia

> -Electing someone who defended a child rapist in court and said that the young girl "was asking for it" and later she laughed about getting the rapist out scott free


Yeah, you chose the rapist instead. Good job.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Too much hyperbole on both sides, but especially from the SJW tumblerinas. Trump will probably make some much needed changes to immigration legislation (that Bush AND Clinton passed ffs). If he has some good advisors he'll take a moderate approach and make it easier for illegals to work here, but get rid of the whole anchor baby problem. We are one of the few countries that still lets people become citizens just by being born here. There should be some clarifications like one or both of your parents must be citizens for the kid to be a citizen. Also, driver's licenses should be required for voting so we can cut down on voter fraud (as evidenced by all the dumbasses trying to used dead people's names to vote). Building a wall isn't economically feasible, nor is it practical, and most people can understand that. People forget that the president is essentially a mouthpiece who has *some* power but isn't likely to pass extreme laws without the majority of congress and the supreme court being complicit (which won't happen as long as there are democrats lol). Trump probably won't accomplish anything more than Obama "accomplished". There's perception that the president alone is both responsible for when things go right and when they go wrong, instead of the government as a whole. 

*TLDR: ignore the hyperbole, trump probably won't be that bad, all of the government is inefficient and ...., we need better immigration policies and to impose term limits on everyone in government.*


----------



## sawtoothscream

Andromalia said:


> Yeah, you chose the rapist instead. Good job.



Case was BS and dropped last week. Easy just to throw out BS and hope it sticks.


----------



## extendedsolo

KnightBrolaire said:


> *TLDR: ignore the hyperbole, trump probably won't be that bad, all of the government is inefficient and ...., we need better immigration policies and to impose term limits on everyone in government.*



As someone who didn't vote for Trump, this is probably what really will happen. I think he has shown that he will change his stance on stuff and I wonder if much of what he said on the campaign trail was posturing just to win the election. His whole deporting muslims/wall rhetoric really toned down towards the end. My biggest concern is him being completely unhinged and the lengths to which it could go bad (nuclear weapons/petty revenges/russia) are enough for me to be worried.


----------



## feraledge

sawtoothscream said:


> Case was BS and dropped last week. Easy just to throw out BS and hope it sticks.



Case was dropped because her identity was leaked and she was overwhelmed with death threats. It wasn't thrown it, she dropped it because she feared for her life. Hardly the same thing.


----------



## wankerness

extendedsolo said:


> As someone who didn't vote for Trump, this is probably what really will happen. I think he has shown that he will change his stance on stuff and I wonder if much of what he said on the campaign trail was posturing just to win the election. His whole deporting muslims/wall rhetoric really toned down towards the end. My biggest concern is him being completely unhinged and the lengths to which it could go bad (nuclear weapons/petty revenges/*russia*) are enough for me to be worried.



Trump is a nut and very well could start wars, but Hillary was absolutely more dangerous as far as Russia was concerned. Trump seems to want to shmooze with Putin, which isn't great, but I'd take that over Hillary wanting to implement a no-fly zone over Syria, which would drastically escalate things with them. War with Russia is absolutely the worst thing that could happen. I doubt it would have come to that, but I think Russia is the ONE area with Trump where he's unambiguously better. Even escalating the cyber-war would probably have been disastrous. 

Of course, it will probably piss off virtually everyone else in the world, but I don't think any of them are as unhinged and posturing as Putin. The concept of escalating things with them was scary, and I think this will slam the brakes on it.

He seems like an isolationist, anyway. He's probably going to do things like let the middle east go up in flames, which might not be the responsible/moral thing to do, but probably is the best for the US from a very selfish point of view.


----------



## Alberto7

extendedsolo said:


> I wonder if much of what he said on the campaign trail was posturing just to win the election.



My guess is quite a lot of his rhetoric was strategic. He knew the demographic he was targetting and managed to get to them. It's too coincidental and whenever I've seen this happen before, it sure hasn't happened by chance. I don't know how he'll do as president, but I'm not sure he'll implement even half of the things he said he would. Hell, I'm not even entirely sure LGBTQ rights will be hurt as much as most people seem to think they will. That said, that fear is still there in the back of my head.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

wankerness said:


> Trump is a nut and very well could start wars, but Hillary was absolutely more dangerous as far as Russia was concerned. Trump seems to want to shmooze with Putin, which isn't great, but I'd take that over Hillary wanting to implement a no-fly zone over Syria, which would drastically escalate things with them. War with Russia is absolutely the worst thing that could happen. I doubt it would have come to that, but I think Russia is the ONE area with Trump where he's unambiguously better. Even escalating the cyber-war would probably have been disastrous.
> 
> Of course, it will probably piss off virtually everyone else in the world, but I don't think any of them are as unhinged and posturing as Putin. The concept of escalating things with them was scary, and I think this will slam the brakes on it.
> 
> He seems like an isolationist, anyway. He's probably going to do things like let the middle east go up in flames, which might not be the responsible/moral thing to do, but probably is the best for the US from a very selfish point of view.



Honestly we've gained nothing from interfering with the middle east's issues/politics. everytime we do it we open a ....ing hornet's nest. We need to stop trying to fix the world when we can't even fix America. The less money we spend on needless things like congress getting pensions/healthcare for life, or on newer military aircraft, etc., the better for us economically.


----------



## extendedsolo

Alberto7 said:


> My guess is quite a lot of his rhetoric was strategic. He knew the demographic he was targetting and managed to get to them. It's too coincidental and whenever I've seen this happen before, it sure hasn't happened by chance. I don't know how he'll do as president, but I'm not sure he'll implement even half of the things he said he would. Hell, I'm not even entirely sure LGBTQ rights will be hurt as much as most people seem to think they will. That said, that fear is still there in the back of my head.



no I agree. Hindsight being 20/20 it's obvious the left ignored the people that turned out for him. The left just tried to be "right" and use logic and say "you can't argue with this!" which is just completely ignoring the feelings of many of the voters. It's that liberal elitism that is talked about so much and was parodied in a Southpark episode about the 2000 election (the one where Rosie O'Donnell shows up). 

Trump and/or his team saw this and capitalized on it hard. Now maybe it was just happenstance, but that seems kind of far fetched. What changes in 4 years? I'm not sure entirely at this point. I know that Obamacare is as good as gone, but there are several more people that have a vested interest in keeping this country afloat and not doing anything extreme to disrupt the course America is on.



KnightBrolaire said:


> Honestly we've gained nothing from interfering with the middle east's issues/politics. everytime we do it we open a ....ing hornet's nest. We need to stop trying to fix the world when we can't even fix America. The less money we spend on needless things like congress getting pensions/healthcare for life, or on newer military aircraft, etc., the better for us economically.



This, within reason though. Really we only have ourselves to blame for the entire Iraq/middle east/isis thing at this point. While I don't agree with ISIS in any sense of the word, I definitely see how they have reached their conclusion of hating America. I mean we get one foreigner causing a problem we hate all of them, imagine a country coming in and killing your innocent friends and family. 

Yes we also need to cut congress pensions and defense spending.


----------



## sawtoothscream

feraledge said:


> Case was dropped because her identity was leaked and she was overwhelmed with death threats. It wasn't thrown it, she dropped it because she feared for her life. Hardly the same thing.



please tell me her identity, I bet you cant find anything on who she is. No name listed anywhere and if it was leaked it would be all over by now. 

Also that was the excuse for not doing a press conference, not grounds to drop the case.

It was BS


----------



## Jzbass25

KnightBrolaire said:


> Honestly we've gained nothing from interfering with the middle east's issues/politics. everytime we do it we open a ....ing hornet's nest. We need to stop trying to fix the world when we can't even fix America. The less money we spend on needless things like congress getting pensions/healthcare for life, or on newer military aircraft, etc., the better for us economically.



You say that but if we were to drop all military actions then control of crucial resources could be taken over and then leveraged against us and Europe which would be extremely bad for our economy. Global policies are extremely complex, hell economics is complex but often people pretend it's simple and they completely understand it.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Jzbass25 said:


> You say that but if we were to drop all military actions then control of crucial resources could be taken over and then leveraged against us and Europe which would be extremely bad for our economy. Global policies are extremely complex, hell economics is complex but often people pretend it's simple and they completely understand it.



I never said drop all military actions. I meant more along the lines of once we deal with ISIS and some other problems we created in the Middle East we should back off a bit and quit trying to micromanage other countries. We don't need to constantly stick our noses in another country's affairs since that willingness to play benevolent imperial overlord is what keeps getting us into ....shows like Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm in the military and I'm totally for helping to fix the mess we made, but past that I say we focus on improving the USA.


----------



## buffa d

A joke is what it is.


----------



## bostjan

A guy at work just said, "On January 20th, orange is the new black."

These are the some of guys who voted for Trump. They think this is just hilarious.

What's odd, to me, is that I worked with these guys for years, and until this election cycle started, seemed like normal blue collar guys, but now everything I hear about politics is loaded with racism, sexism, anti-educational-ism, etc. I've even had a supervisor tell my I couldn't possibly know anything about mathematics, because I have a college degree. I then proceeded to tell him my undergrad was a double major in physics and maths, and he scoffed and puffed something about all college educations being "useless" liberal arts.

Most of you guys were probably still kids (I know more than a few of you are my age or older, but most of you are not) when Bush was inaugurated the first time. The level of anti-intellectualism seemed to blow up all of the sudden. It frightens me to think that people are thick enough to insist that something as simple as the calculation of the surface area of a sphere is open to interpretation.

But this is life in America. These folks with their science denial and anti-intellectualism will never go away. We have delved deeply into the us-vs.-them mentality, perhaps as a negative side effect of living in a nation where widespread war is more or less unimaginable to most people. When I'm trying to get something done, I need a team of helpful people to GSD; what those people do after 5 PM on their own time is no concern of mine short of small talk about bowling league or local bands or whatever.

This whole idea that it somehow is public business where people go to the toilet, or in which nation they were born, or whether they go to church on Sunday or not, needs to get dropped like a hot potato. It has no effect on our reeling economy, our vulnerability to foreign attackers, or whatever.


----------



## TedEH

Alberto7 said:


> Not sure this has been posted yet, and Cracked isn't usually a site I go to for political information or opinion, but I found this article very interesting, if not obvious:
> 
> http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
> 
> The same thing caught my eye when I noticed that most counties containing large cities were all blue, even amidst an overwhelming sea of red. Trump's kind of rhetoric always works the same way, and not just in the US.



This was a much better read than I was expecting. Thanks for posting that one.


----------



## extendedsolo

TedEH said:


> This was a much better read than I was expecting. Thanks for posting that one.



This is also a good one and has a podcast to go along with it. Really informative and worth your time. The article is useful no matter which side you are on. 

http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...ns-why-new-civil-war-possible-terrifying.html


----------



## feraledge

sawtoothscream said:


> please tell me her identity, I bet you cant find anything on who she is. No name listed anywhere and if it was leaked it would be all over by now.
> 
> Also that was the excuse for not doing a press conference, not grounds to drop the case.
> 
> It was BS



http://www.inquisitr.com/3680028/donald-trump-rape-accuser-drops-civil-suit-after-allegedly-receiving-death-threats-earlier-in-the-week-video/
And that's just the first hit on Google.


----------



## Womb raider

I did a lot of traveling this summer and outside of a few major cities, everywhere else was largely pro Trump. I was confused watching the polls leading up to the race, nearly every media outlet had Clinton winning handily. Turns out either the media mislead the public, or they severely underestimated the amount of supporters, or both. looking at the electoral map, the outcome didn't shock me one bit.


----------



## Randy

Womb raider said:


> I was confused watching the polls leading up to the race, nearly every media outlet had Clinton winning handily. Turns out either the media mislead the public, or they severely underestimated the amount of supporters, or both.




Should be one of the biggest takeaways from this whole mess


----------



## extendedsolo

Womb raider said:


> I did a lot of traveling this summer and outside of a few major cities, everywhere else was largely pro Trump. I was confused watching the polls leading up to the race, nearly every media outlet had Clinton winning handily. Turns out either the media mislead the public, or they severely underestimated the amount of supporters, or both. looking at the electoral map, the outcome didn't shock me one bit.



And that's what was reflected last night. Urban areas go Dem and rural go Rep. Nate Silver actually had been ringing the alarm bells saying "yes Hillary is likely to win but don't rule out a Trump close victory because of the polling not being 100% accurate because this election is unlike the others." His models had Trump winning about 30% of the time. Not impossible but improbable.


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> A guy at work just said, "On January 20th, orange is the new black."
> 
> These are the some of guys who voted for Trump. They think this is just hilarious.
> 
> What's odd, to me, is that I worked with these guys for years, and until this election cycle started, seemed like normal blue collar guys, but now everything I hear about politics is loaded with racism, sexism, anti-educational-ism, etc. I've even had a supervisor tell my I couldn't possibly know anything about mathematics, because I have a college degree. I then proceeded to tell him my undergrad was a double major in physics and maths, and he scoffed and puffed something about all college educations being "useless" liberal arts.
> 
> Most of you guys were probably still kids (I know more than a few of you are my age or older, but most of you are not) when Bush was inaugurated the first time. The level of anti-intellectualism seemed to blow up all of the sudden. It frightens me to think that people are thick enough to insist that something as simple as the calculation of the surface area of a sphere is open to interpretation.
> 
> But this is life in America. These folks with their science denial and anti-intellectualism will never go away. We have delved deeply into the us-vs.-them mentality, perhaps as a negative side effect of living in a nation where widespread war is more or less unimaginable to most people. When I'm trying to get something done, I need a team of helpful people to GSD; what those people do after 5 PM on their own time is no concern of mine short of small talk about bowling league or local bands or whatever.
> 
> This whole idea that it somehow is public business where people go to the toilet, or in which nation they were born, or whether they go to church on Sunday or not, needs to get dropped like a hot potato. It has no effect on our reeling economy, our vulnerability to foreign attackers, or whatever.



What was once just thoughts in their heads and talk behind close doors with "like minded individuals" has now become widely embraced because guess what? Those are the same thoughts the idiot we just elected president has.

So why hide it?


----------



## bostjan

The Cracked article was pretty good; however, there is no data (it is a Cracked article), and it's missing a few things.

I grew up in urban Detroit in the 1980's, and my childhood wasn't much different from what he described. There were different neighbourhoods, people were poor, and most everybody held the same attitudes David listed in his article. Now I live in rural Vermont, and, well, pretty much all of the same stuff applies to an even greater extent, and neither of these places are the least bit "red." I lived a while in Indianapolis, another urban area that is "a mix or "red" and "blue."

Every place has it's own culture, for sure, but the human condition is the same, unless you are filthy rich, and basic values are generally the same, except maybe values placed on education and preparedness versus hard work and brawniness. I think that's the basic difference between "red" and "blue." I know some really nice people on both sides of the fence, and some real assholes on both sides of this as well.

The reason race keeps coming up is because people kept bringing it up at Trump rallies.

Social movements always have a backlash. "Black Lives Matter" had a backlash. It's all because people don't understand each other, and don't care to try to understand each other. It pisses me off how much deliberate ignorance there is around social movements.

The Cracked article compares urban areas to the evil empire from Star Wars and rural areas to the rebellion. That's a pretty perfect example. The thing is, if it were real, there would be good guys and bad guys on both sides.


----------



## vansinn

I think Trump won because of his [careful use of] rough manners, his use of social media, and use of rallies.
To me, this simply means that the controlled, complicit, corporate main stream media that supported Hillary, lost out.
Main stream media has met it's maker, social media.

I also think Trump will change his tone once in office. As such, it remains to be seen what he really will do, and importantly, given the power of the banksters, corporate business and the military complex - will they let him?

Had Hillary won, I would've given it till sometime February/March to see attempts on boots in the sand in Syria.

One of the things I'll be following closely, is that of the TTIP.
Trump is seemingly very much against this mechanism, that has nothing to do with 'free trade', but rather is all about corporate control and to allow big corporations to sue countries outside of these countries normal jurisdiction, rather in private courts. Yikes.
But again, will they let him?

Peace to everybody. I hope this historical election will be a, albeit slow, start to something better in our world, like fewer wars..


----------



## fantom

I'm middle of the road. Grew up in FL, so I'm pretty far conservative for a CA resident, but more liberal than some FL voters.

When 46% of 18-35 year olds vote and 69% of 45+ year olds vote, I think it is pretty clear what happened. Baby boomers had a voice 1.5x louder than millennials (at about the same total population). Considering younger voters heavily favored Clinton (and assume that the sampling is representative of the whole), Millennials had a chance to be heard and simply didn't show up.

Whatever policies are overturned or enacted over the next 4 years, especially regarding the environment, I really hope they understand the protests and social media outlash are meaningless. They decided this vote with inaction when it mattered. It's their future...


----------



## UnderTheSign

bostjan said:


> What's odd, to me, is that I worked with these guys for years, and until this election cycle started, seemed like normal blue collar guys, but now everything I hear about politics is loaded with racism, sexism, anti-educational-ism, etc.


Look at any political discussion (my interactions with Americans is mostly online so this is my experience there) on the web and see how instead of actually arguing, people turn it into a giant Trump debate. Cuck, libtard, SJW, feminazi, ...... It's one big mess of insults and any substance, if present at all, is brought in the form of memes and Breitbart articles. 

You'd think it's the younger generation (like mine, I'm 25) doing this, but I've seen tons of middle aged people do it as well. Like dear lord, you're a 56 year old plumber, why are you on Facebook all day posting memes and insulting everyone in the comments section? 



wankerness said:


> Trump is a nut and very well could start wars, but Hillary was absolutely more dangerous as far as Russia was concerned. Trump seems to want to shmooze with Putin, which isn't great, but I'd take that over Hillary wanting to implement a no-fly zone over Syria, which would drastically escalate things with them. War with Russia is absolutely the worst thing that could happen. I doubt it would have come to that, but I think Russia is the ONE area with Trump where he's unambiguously better. Even escalating the cyber-war would probably have been disastrous.
> 
> Of course, it will probably piss off virtually everyone else in the world, but I don't think any of them are as unhinged and posturing as Putin. The concept of escalating things with them was scary, and I think this will slam the brakes on it.
> 
> He seems like an isolationist, anyway. He's probably going to do things like let the middle east go up in flames, which might not be the responsible/moral thing to do, but probably is the best for the US from a very selfish point of view.


As a European, I'm not sure how to feel on your relations to Russia. On one hand, I'd be happy to see some de-escalation. Having lost a school friend to the MH17 plane attack, it's a sore spot. On the other hand, if Trump does disregard the NATO agreements like he said he might in interviews and Russia decides to go further into Eastern Europe... I don't even want to think about having the Russians coming closer to us again.


----------



## Veldar

As an Australian I don't really know much about obamacare can someone please explain what it is and why it's bad?

Because as far as my understanding goes it's just publicly funded health care?


----------



## fantom

Veldar said:


> As an Australian I don't really know much about obamacare can someone please explain what it is and why it's bad?
> 
> Because as far as my understanding goes it's just publicly funded health care?



The system is still private insurance companies and patients having a choice of doctors and facilities, which is not true for some social healthcare countries.

My understanding, it gives health insurance to the people who don't qualify (pre-existing conditions) or cannot afford it.

People complained because insurance companies had to increase their premiums for people who don't qualify to cover the costs.


----------



## mongey

he told you every little lie you wanted to hear and it worked . you knew he was lying to you and you still got into bed cause it felt good 

I'll take care of isis 
I'll build a wall
I'll make you great again

I get the disillusionment . I feel it too.The whole world does, but the way to protest the establishment is not to put a completely unqualified and unsuitable person into power. yeah maybe you stuck your middle finger up to politics but now you got to live with it . hope it felt good


----------



## extendedsolo

mongey said:


> he told you every little lie you wanted to hear and it worked . you knew he was lying to you and you still got into bed cause it felt good
> 
> I'll take care of isis
> I'll build a wall
> I'll make you great again
> 
> I get the disillusionment . I feel it too.The whole world does, but the way to protest the establishment is not to put a completely unqualified and unsuitable person into power. yeah maybe you stuck your middle finger up to politics but now you got to live with it . hope it felt good



kinda my same feeling. If you want to feel good now, Trump supporters have to own everything he does good and bad.

It's easy to say he will take care of ISIS and he will build a wall, but those are multi year multi billion dollar proposals. One of those will cost American lives too.


----------



## Aymara

Veldar said:


> what it is and why it's bad?



Google for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to learn more about it.

But I also would like to know, why so many Americans criticize it ... in Germany we have something like that for many, many decades, and while we also have criticism, nobody criticises that it's generally needed. So maybe the american "version" is very different?


----------



## fantom

mongey said:


> I get the disillusionment . I feel it too.The whole world does, but the way to protest the establishment is not to put a completely unqualified and unsuitable person into power. yeah maybe you stuck your middle finger up to politics but now you got to live with it . hope it felt good



I don't think this summarizes things well. People didn't put him in power to stick it to the system. Maybe people who didn't vote wanted to stick it to the system. The demographic that voted for Trump agrees with his view of America. They don't want a global economy. They want America to go back to the "great country" it was. It truly is white privilege and tribalism from an older generation that can't take the ego hit that they aren't really that special compared to the people they frown upon.


----------



## bostjan

This confirms that extremely vague promises are what people want to hear. Or maybe it helped that he repeated himself a lot.

"Vote for me! Listen to me when I say, I'll do good stuff and great things, great things! I'll make stuff better than before, better than before! Vote for me! Listen when I say 'Vote for me!'"


----------



## DerBomber

UnderTheSign said:


> On the other hand, if Trump does disregard the NATO agreements like he said he might in interviews and Russia decides to go further into Eastern Europe... I don't even want to think about having the Russians coming closer to us again.



Not only Eastern Europe, I live right across the Baltic Sea from St Petersburg and the Russian aggression is real here too. I dont think Americans understand (and I don't blame them)..Putin respects and understands one thing and that's power. Everything else he'll consider a weakness.


----------



## wankerness

The thing with Obamacare is that any household that made ~60,000 a year or more HATED it, because they couldn't qualify for it if they wanted to, and it caused their own costs to go up. As those people have basically total control over the national narrative, it was portrayed in a terrible light. I guess some health providers were at the verge of crisis and it looked like a lot of them were going to stop supporting it, too. I remember reading several articles like that over the last few months. It needed some restructuring.

Apparently, the amount of people without health care went down to 9% from 16% because of it. We can probably assume that we'll go back to the 16% level or higher if it gets repealed. My brother's a musician, so obviously it's his only alternative. I have a pre-existing condition (severe atypical odontalgia), so if my place of employment ever drops the complimentary health care, I'm totally f***ed.

On the other hand, one other thing for me personally that will be better is this: I work at a private college, so there's no longer the threat of Hillary 100% putting us out of business by making public schools free (not that I think there was a serious chance of that ever passing).


----------



## Womb raider

In a nutshell, the premise of the ACA (Obamacare) relied on the young and healthy signing up for the plans in droves to offset the high costs the sick and elderly would incur. One group signed up, but not the other, thus insurance companies are taking big losses and ultimately, backing out of these plans.


----------



## Steinmetzify

tacotiklah said:


> How I feel to anyone that voted for Trump, thus gutting every civil right I have. Ban me on here, I don't care. If you voted for that dickbag, I take that as a personal insult to me as an LGBT person. I hope every guitar you own in the future warps, and never has good intonation ever again.
> 
> Clinton was awful, but being a moron that can't handle more than one email account > telling every minority in your life to go f_u_ck themselves and that their rights don't matter.
> 
> And if the latter is how you really feel, go f_u_ck yourself. I hate you with the burning intensity and fury of a thousand suns.



I honestly don't get people with this viewpoint. Everyone is supposed to care and be tolerant and vote for your rights because that's PC/right thing to do/human but if I disagree then you hate me and I can go fvck myself? Where's the tolerance on your side? Do you not have to have any, just other people?



Aymara said:


> But I also would like to know, why so many Americans criticize it ... in Germany we have something like that for many, many decades, and while we also have criticism, nobody criticises that it's generally needed. So maybe the american "version" is very different?



People criticize it because it's an unsustainable system and it was never going to work long term.

Being that it's a private system, doctors can refuse it and many do, simply because more and more they aren't being paid by insurance companies. I work in the insurance field and talk to people that have Obamacare daily; the main complaint is that while people are paying more every year, their benefits are going down and they can't find doctors that will take their plan. 

I talked to a woman a week or so ago who has no doctors readily available in her entire city, and has to travel over 100 miles to get healthcare. Unfortunately, she doesn't drive being that she's blind, so she has to rely on funded transportation to get to appointments, and there isn't any available in her area. I was able to find a workaround and get her some help, but that's just one person out of millions that I WON'T talk to, and it's ongoing.

It's a huge cluster.... and has been since about a month after it started. 

As far as it goes for my family, I don't have medical insurance as it's much cheaper to just pay out of pocket and take the fine at the end of the year, and has been the whole time. I simply can't afford the rate I'd have to pay given my income level and don't know very many people who can.

Also not for nothing but it chaps my ass big time that 

A: the G got to mandate the fact that I have to buy something and 

B: the fact that I have a certain income level means I have to pay substantially more $ than someone that doesn't work and sits on welfare collecting checks and their free healthcare comes out of my pocket. That to my mind is a flawed system and could only ever be long term sustainable in the mind of a Democrat.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> I don't think this summarizes things well. People didn't put him in power to stick it to the system. Maybe people who didn't vote wanted to stick it to the system. The demographic that voted for Trump agrees with his view of America. They don't want a global economy. They want America to go back to the "great country" it was. It truly is white privilege and tribalism from an older generation that can't take the ego hit that they aren't really that special compared to the people they frown upon.



Well, yes, to an extent, at least, from what I've seen. There is a lot of talk about bringing back industry. A lot of independent industry is gone now, in the USA. Where there used to be a steel foundry in PA, or a paper mill in ME, or a tire factory in IN, there are now fading small rural villages full of old people hanging on to the hope that their little town will one day boom again. I can't blame them for that. A great deal of the trouble is that they falsely lay blame on Obama for these factory closings (which almost exclusively happened long before Obama took office). There is a lot of half-baked logic spouting out when I speak to these folks. Maybe it's different everywhere, but I do think that the whole idea of "Make America Great Again" stuck with a lot of people for the same reason, no matter where they lived.

A lot of places down south, or even around Indianapolis, the old days of the KKK and blatant out-in-the-open racism never even went away. Safe to say, the folks who live their lives by that sort of philosophy voted for Trump as well.

The religious folks didn't seem to really like Trump deep down, but hated Clinton with a passion, so they voted for Trump for that reason.

People who place a high value on the second amendment voted for Trump, because they felt that Trump would protect the second amendment and Clinton would attack it.

And, I've come across at least one guy who voted for Trump simply because he thought it was "sticking it to the man." This guy was outwardly very vocal about supporting Trump, yet when people debated with him, he'd quickly concede - maybe he just didn't want to get into the argument too deep, who knows.

So now, all of those different kind of stereotypes of people got their way. I think maybe some didn't expect him to win.

Now, as I've vocally stated here, I don't support Trump, I didn't vote for Trump, and I would not/could not stomach him. I have many simple and complex reasons for that; however, I also could not get behind Clinton - at all. So, blame me if you want for Trump being in power, but that does not mean that I like it any more than you do...That said, here is my word of caution:

A lot of people supported Trump. Maybe they did it for the wrong reasons, or whatever, but, we *have* to make the most out of what we've got at this moment. If you were protesting social injustices before, keep doing that. This is not a mandate that things will be a certain way, and I don't think it will come to that, but these are going to be hard times ahead.

Trump is a Wall Street guy. A lot of people voted for him thinking he was going to hit Wall Street guys like a wrecking ball and smack some sense into the markets. I said it then, and I will reinforce that now: That ain't happening. We will see money go upstream, just like with Bush, maybe worse.

Trump ran failed businesses. A lot of people voted for him because he is a rich guy, and assumed he would make America rich. Maybe he will make money for some people, but it is going to cost average people like you and me. His arrogance in running failed businesses will likely be applied to the US economy where ever he can. I do believe that he will face some opposition even from his own party, and likely congress will take the blame for any failures he cooks up for the economy. It won't be the end of the world, though.

The ACA is history. Let's face it: Trump wasn't the only one promising to axe the ACA. Once he's sworn in and congress changes hands, the ACA will melt away. I don't think it will happen instantly, but that's just my gut feeling. Either way, the ACA is gone. If you are a relying on it for healthcare, you are going to need to not get sick starting January.

Social tolerances will be challenged. Make no mistake, even though life goes on, and Trump lost the popular vote, some people will take the election to mean that they can be assholes. These people were assholes before, and non-asshole people will not suddenly become assholes, but I think the brash people will be emboldened by this. I saw it already today at work, and I don't expect it to be a temporary thing. If you are gay or trans, or hell, if you have a different skin colour than white orange, you probably are used to being hassled - well, it may get worse, at least for a while, or you will at least get more push back. You still have rights, and there are still non-asshole people who are willing to help you assert those rights, though.

This one I'm not so certain about, but I think we might likely be heading back into war in the middle east. Trump is likely to try to make "a deal" with the Saudis and that means back to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, wherever, for some fighting. If you are in the military, your life is likely going to get more miserable. If it were up to me, I'd rather you stay near home and defend us from bad guys, but Trump doesn't seem to see things that way. Okay, we've dealt with that before with Bush...but it was complete bull.... then, and this will likely be worse in some ways. If spending gets pulled back hard, yet you are out in the desert somewhere, prepare for some supply chain issues. If manufacturing continues to deteriorate, prepare for cheap-ass imported equipment.

This guy has no experience in government. Things are going to get rough politically. Washington is likely going to be a mess. If a democratic congress comes two years from now (which I doubt), it'll just get worse. This might slow down some of our downward spiral, but it might also make things difficult to establish controls to ease the pain.

And, for the record, I would likely make just as long a post of warnings and dread if Clinton would have been elected instead.

Let's hope I'm totally wrong about this, and it'll be puppies and rainbows for the next four years.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

steinmetzify said:


> I honestly don't get people with this viewpoint. Everyone is supposed to care and be tolerant and vote for your rights because that's PC/right thing to do/human but if I disagree then you hate me and I can go fvck myself? Where's the tolerance on your side? Do you not have to have any, just other people?



You can't really just say "be tolerant of people who are trying actively to oppress you."

I can totally tolerate and respect differing opinions on things, but there is a line to be crossed. Shocking the gay out of someone is kind of over that line of things I don't feel like I need to tolerate. You can't just tell black people, as another example, to be tolerant of the KKK. It's no longer a simple disagreement but active oppression. Gays, Trans, and minorities aren't a threat to anyone's safety or way of life... People like Trump ARE a danger to the well-being of certain innocents.


----------



## EdgeC

What an absolute unmitigated disaster. A return to the pre-WWII days of nationalistic populism. It didn't end well then, and it won't end well now.

For those revelling in the misery of those who can see this for what it is, enjoy it while you can, for when it becomes your misery too it will taste all the more bitter.


----------



## wankerness

I can see LGBTQ people feeling that angry over this, but not because of Trump - because of Pence. That guy is ten times scarier than Trump when it comes to any sort of cultural issues. Is everyone aware he actually has a law in the state that all abortions require the facility (or the "mother") to pay for funerary services for the aborted fetus? Or that he believes in conversion therapy? Guy's a Christian psycho of the worst variety. I pray Trump doesn't get impeached, as I'd rather have him at the head than Pence.

I agree with most of what Bostjan is saying. I have coworkers that voted for Trump, and they're not evil racist bigots. I always try to focus on what I have in common with people instead of trying to be a tribalist idiot. The latter is exactly what got us in this predicament. Here's a really good article on the whole subject:

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09...gerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/


----------



## Aymara

steinmetzify said:


> Being that it's a private system, doctors can refuse it ...



The explains a major flaw of this system. In Germany everybody needs a health care insurance, because doctors only get payed by these insurances. The only exception are veterinarians, who usually get payed with cash. Animal health care insurances exist, but are seldom used.

In Germany this system isn't flawless too, but overall it works.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Señor Voorhees;4667869 said:


> *You can't really just say "be tolerant of people who are trying actively to oppress you."
> 
> *I can totally tolerate and respect differing opinions on things, but there is a line to be crossed. Shocking the gay out of someone is kind of over that line of things I don't feel like I need to tolerate. You can't just tell black people, as another example, to be tolerant of the KKK. It's no longer a simple disagreement but active oppression. Gays, Trans, and minorities aren't a threat to anyone's safety or way of life... People like Trump ARE a danger to the well-being of certain innocents.



This is not what I was saying at all, man. 

My point is the people that are LGBT that are blaming ME for voting for Trump, when in fact anything to do with LGBT is of zero concern to me. I voted the way I did for other reasons, and they're all things I consider more important to our country and way of life, not because I hate gays or whatever. LGBTs are always going to be ostracized to some extent depending on where they live/peoples' viewpoints etc...and no political party/president/resident figurehead is going to change that regardless of what people think.

Having said that, I think it's crap that people that expect tolerance and kindness (which I'm happy to provide, btw) in every aspect of their struggle to be who they are don't afford other people the same courtesy. You can't have it both ways.

Don't take this the wrong way.....I'm not singling out TT for anything other than that one post, which seems to be par for the course today across all social media by anyone who isn't white and/or straight. TT has always been cool to interact with and a badass fount of video game knowledge, which has always been appreciated.



Aymara said:


> The explains a major flaw of this system. In Germany everybody needs a health care insurance, because doctors only get payed by these insurances. The only exception are veterinarians, who usually get payed with cash. Animal health care insurances exist, but are seldom used.
> 
> In Germany this system isn't flawless too, but overall it works.



Do you guys pay out of pocket for this, or is it national or work related or what?



Womb raider said:


> In a nutshell, the premise of the ACA (Obamacare) relied on the young and healthy signing up for the plans in droves to offset the high costs the sick and elderly would incur. One group signed up, but not the other, thus insurance companies are taking big losses and ultimately, backing out of these plans.



BOOM.....much more eloquent than I put it. Thanks man.


----------



## TedEH

steinmetzify said:


> LGBTs are always going to be ostracized to some extent depending on where they live/peoples' viewpoints etc...and no political party/president/resident figurehead is going to change that regardless of what people think.



If we were talking about only enduring a bit of vocal harassment from time to time, then yeah, you're on to something maybe, but that's not what the worry is. The worry is that this is going to result in laws that open the doors for people to make others' lives much more difficult to live. Things like making abortions illegal, making it legal to refuse service to gay or black people, etc. I fully expect this to lead to some very [everything]-phobic laws being passed. If the worst case happens, people are literally going to have rights and freedoms taken away from them. It's easy to say that it's a fair trade off if you're not the one affected by it, but it's also easy to see why anyone would be angry if they're the ones who suddenly are unable to just go about their lives.


----------



## extendedsolo

EdgeC said:


> For those revelling in the misery of those who can see this for what it is, enjoy it while you can, for when it becomes your misery too it will taste all the more bitter.



The issue is that they won't see it as Trumps fault.


----------



## ESPImperium

Im not going to wade in on the politics of the USA, but just when i thought us here in the UK punched ourselves in the face hard with Brexit, you guys made sure you did it bigger and better than us.


----------



## Steinmetzify

.


----------



## Steinmetzify

TedEH said:


> If we were talking about only enduring a bit of vocal harassment from time to time, then yeah, you're on to something maybe, but that's not what the worry is. The worry is that this is going to result in laws that open the doors for people to make others' lives much more difficult to live. Things like making abortions illegal, making it legal to refuse service to gay or black people, etc. I fully expect this to lead to some very [everything]-phobic laws being passed. If the worst case happens, people are literally going to have rights and freedoms taken away from them. It's easy to say that it's a fair trade off if you're not the one affected by it, but it's also easy to see why anyone would be angry if they're the ones who suddenly are unable to just go about their lives.



Man, I am the EXACT same person I was when I woke up yesterday morning. Do I actively campaign for LGBT rights? No. would I actively campaign if those rights were threatened with complete homophobic destruction? Yup. 

But I get your point. I just think the country is better than that and that we need to have some faith in people. Women's suffrage didn't go away because someone new got elected, no huge amounts of women got fired and relegated back to the kitchen when WWII/Korea/Vietnam ended, and this is no different. 

I really cannot see anyone getting away with making refusal of service to blacks/gays/whoever even remotely legal. Abortions maybe, but that's years gone too and I don't see anyone just sitting back and letting it happen, ever. Politicians can have viewpoints as they're people too, but it won't make them right or make their agendas successful. 

We've all come a long way in the last hundred years or so regarding human rights and the right to make a choice to be who we are and do what we do, and as a country I don't see anyone just sitting back and letting the G tell us what rights we get to keep. People would march like they have before with success, people are more informed and better armed, and in point of fact the G is in less of a position to tell us what we can and can't have than they ever have been.

All THAT said, Pence is an asshole.


----------



## Humbuck

ESPImperium said:


> Im not going to wade in on the politics of the USA, but just when i thought us here in the UK punched ourselves in the face hard with Brexit, you guys made sure you did it bigger and better than us.



I'd say it was pretty equal but yep.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm afraid I can't understand. How can you look racism, narcissism, truly horrifying misogyny, ignorance and contempt for basic facts and a non-existent regard for the bare minimum in human decency in the face, and decide "I want that as my president"? 

A man who built a (or at least didn't lose all of his inherited) fortune on predatory business practices. All that, with a generous side helping of fundamentalist homophobia for VP. What about Clinton is even close to as terrible as this man? Why would you vote for someone just to revel in punishing the rest of your country for not being terrible and hateful enough?

I've made a serious and fundamentally difficult effort to divest from buying products from China and other seriously despotic nations, and now I'm truly sickened and saddened that as a person who values the better nature of humanity, I will have no choice but to practice the same thing with Trump's America. That he is a repulsive strongman should be obvious to anyone who values empathy over mindless aggression, but it is what it is. Repulsive.


----------



## extendedsolo

zappatton2 said:


> That he is a repulsive strongman should be obvious to anyone who values empathy over mindless aggression, but it is what it is. Repulsive.



Right but I think the issue is that many populist voters feel like no one empathizes with them, so why do they care? They feel like they are being jumped in line when it comes to the government caring about them. I think the voters also like mindless aggression since it seems like a strong leader when someone is yelling and barking commands, which couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## Blytheryn

Just read up on Pence earlier... The dude is a creep.


----------



## Demiurge

One of the big stories was how projections and polling were so off from the actual results. There are probably issues with regard to selection, sampling, etc., but one thing that's still bugs me is the promotion of the "Republican that refuses to vote for Trump and will vote for Hillary instead" demographic that was either made-up or statistically insignificant (only Ted Cruz). Saw literally no sign of them in the results; hell, I was reading about some places that voted for Obama twice that went to Trump. Did someone in the DNC watch the old Anti-Goldwater Republican commercial and throw some coins in a wishing well?

In general, it has been a weird day online. Of course, now all the pieces come out stating that everything Hillary and the DNC did was wrong, likely written by the same people who, 24 hours earlier, were ready to watch Trump lose in a landslide. It's disingenuous but immediately comprehended. America voted and this is what we're getting. The most negative representation one could concoct of Trump- Hillary failed to beat him.


----------



## Womb raider

Honestly, I think THE biggest sticking point in this whole election was jobs. Trump nailed this point over and over, while Hilary kind of glossed over this. This election boiled down to half the voters hoping Trump will change their short term outlook. It's just human nature to vote for people that you think will improve your situation.

Most people just want to make a decent living, feel safe in where they live, take care of their family and have some leftover scrap for a rainy day (if Trump can help them do that is another debate). I truly don't think this was an orchestrated assault on LGBT rights, abortion issues, minorities or anything else people are claiming. Following Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the people in the bottom rungs could give a rat's azz about anything else. I just think that many people in this country are more concerned about if their job is going overseas, where their next paycheck is coming from and if they have enough for rent, food or gas in their car. Any other issue will take a back seat until those needs are met. 

Seeing usually left-leaning, union rust belt states going red is definitely eye-opening, and I believe this is why he was elected.


----------



## Spinedriver

steinmetzify said:


> B: the fact that I have a certain income level means I have to pay substantially more $ than someone that doesn't work and sits on welfare collecting checks and their free healthcare comes out of my pocket. That to my mind is a flawed system and could only ever be long term sustainable in the mind of a Democrat.



That might be a bit misleading. I'm pretty sure that not everyone that signed up for Obamacare is "on welfare". What of the thousands upon thousands that earn minimum wage ? They work 40 hours a week just like everyone else but probably can't afford the medical plan their employer offers, if they even offer one at all. Perhaps if the minimum wage were raised, more people could afford the employers' option and ease the burden a little bit. It also doesn't really help that the insurance companies themselves are in the business of collecting money, not paying it out. Perhaps the reason for rates going up is less about Obamacare including poor people and more about them maintaining their 'profit margins'.

Here in Canada, a portion of our federal income taxes pay for our medical system. Granted, it doesn't pay for everything. People are individually on the hook for prescriptions, dental and eyeglasses. It's the trips to the doctor and procedures after that that are covered by Medicare.


----------



## Spinedriver

Womb raider said:


> Honestly, I think THE biggest sticking point in this whole election was jobs. Trump nailed this point over and over, while Hilary kind of glossed over this. This election boiled down to half the voters hoping Trump will change their short term outlook. It's just human nature to vote for people that you think will improve your situation.



This is a HUGE voting point in my area as well. In the last election, the mayor went on & on about how she was going to attract "all kinds of employers" and so far, all she's done was give a 35% increase to the city councillors and a 21% increase to herself. Over the past few years, we've had several manufacturing places leave, only to be replaced by retailers that hire mostly part time, minimum wage positions with no medical benefits.


----------



## BlackMastodon

I swore to stay out of this section but this sh*tstorm couldn't be ignored. If this has been covered earlier than sorry, but serious question here: What is going to happen when Trump has to go to court to face a statutory rape charge as well as a fraud charge in the next 2 months? I take it if he's impeached before he even starts then Mike Pence will take the reigns?


----------



## extendedsolo

BlackMastodon said:


> I swore to stay out of this section but this sh*tstorm couldn't be ignored. If this has been covered earlier than sorry, but serious question here: What is going to happen when Trump has to go to court to face a statutory rape charge as well as a fraud charge in the next 2 months? I take it if he's impeached before he even starts then Mike Pence will take the reigns?



Nothing will probably happen. I suppose the electoral college doesn't have to give him the presidency, but more than likely Pence would take over which is pretty scary in it's own right. Remember when there were rumors of him dropping out?


----------



## Randy

extendedsolo said:


> Nothing will probably happen. I suppose the electoral college doesn't have to give him the presidency, but more than likely Pence would take over which is pretty scary in it's own right. Remember when there were rumors of him dropping out?



The fear of Pence is overstated, IMO. 

I'm a libby Democrat so yeah, the typical Republican mumbo jumbo is offensive enough to me but the issue with Trump is that he seems unhinged, inexperienced and unwilling to follow the normal rules of political discourse. The big fear of Trump seems to center around the idea he could tweet his way into nuclear war.

Pence is no saint but hes got experience in government as an executive and his state didn't turn into The Road Warrior under his watch. He might be absolutely clown shoes on religion/women's issues, and he rightly deserves criticism for those things but we do ourselves no favors implying the known and unknowns of Pence are on the same tier as Trump.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Spinedriver said:


> *That might be a bit misleading. I'm pretty sure that not everyone that signed up for Obamacare is "on welfare". What of the thousands upon thousands that earn minimum wage ? They work 40 hours a week just like everyone else but probably can't afford the medical plan their employer offers, if they even offer one at all.*



Taken out of context, man. I never said everyone that signed up for Obamacare is on welfare. I said the ones that sit on welfare and collect a check and get free healthcare on my dime bug me...especially considering that I cannot afford it myself without drastic lifestyle cuts I'm unwilling to make. Why in the hell should I move myself to a less safe area to afford to pay enormous amounts for healthcare I don't use when people that do nothing get it for free? 

I did this as a topic here on SSO a few years ago....asked people which was more desirable to them, more $ for things/emergencies/vacations but living in a sketchy area, or living with less $/material things but in a safer/nicer area for their families and children. The overwhelming response was to live with less in a safer area, and that's what I choose to do, regardless of what the G tells me is my responsibility as a citizen. 

As far as minimum wage? That is not my problem. If you're a 40 yr old guy that's working at a fast food joint, your life choices got you there, nothing I did was responsible. Check your lifestyle and choices, get an education and better your situation. Don't like your life or situation? CHANGE THAT SH!T. Everyone that says they can't is making up excuses. For those who think (from this post) I might have been born with a silver spoon, I wasn't. I came from one of the most economically decrepit areas of our country and saw what it could be like if I slacked...I moved, got motivated and educated and where I am now financially is more than enough to afford the lifestyle my family deserves, and WAS enough to afford healthcare before this latest fiasco. 

The part where we're all expected to take care of people who won't bother to do it for themselves is what bothers me, and led me to vote the way I did. I want Obamacare repealed and done. It's failing now just as it was 2 years ago and just as it was destined to do when the idea was brought up and put into effect. As far as it goes, it was a fine idea and could have worked if everything happened the way it was supposed to, but it didn't. So now it's time for everyone to recognize that it failed and time to change it, not blather on about how much better free healthcare is for everyone. The 30 plus people I talk to every day for work are the literal proof that it isn't.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

steinmetzify said:


> So now it's time for everyone to recognize that it failed and time to change it, not blather on about how much better free healthcare is for everyone. The 30 plus people I talk to every day for work are the literal proof that it isn't.



Maybe Obamacare isn't better for everyone, but free healthcare done properly absolutely would be. Anyone who tells me it isn't is pretty much telling me that my sister should just go ahead and die. Anecdotal or no, that's unacceptable and indefensible to me.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Maybe Obamacare isn't better for everyone, but free healthcare done properly absolutely would be. Anyone who tells me it isn't is pretty much telling me that my sister should just go ahead and die. Anecdotal or no, that's unacceptable and indefensible to me.



Got no rag on it done right Tim. I'd love that, matter of fact. Be nice to actually be able to go to a doctor when there's something wrong and not have it cost what it does.


----------



## big_aug

The scariest thing is that the Republicans control Congress as well. There is nothing to stop them from doing whatever they want. Trump doesn't even matter on his own. Controlling everything though? 

We already saw they'll fall in line behind Trump no matter what he does. I'm curious to see how it all goes down. I'm a single white male so my life won't likely be impacted. I'll be watching from the sidelines in horror I suppose.


----------



## Given To Fly

Fraz666 said:


> Now I'm worried about Fender Mexico.
> my Strat is too old to climb the wall



I do not know what Trump has in mind for a wall but my "8th Wonder of the World Wall" would have doors, beautiful doors at that. ( See earlier post.) I am not too concerned with Fender. 



extendedsolo said:


> kinda my same feeling. If you want to feel good now, Trump supporters have to own everything he does good and bad.
> 
> It's easy to say he will take care of ISIS and he will build a wall, but those are multi year multi billion dollar proposals. One of those will cost American lives too.



I distinctly remember Donald talking about his plan for ISIS. It was more or less the following: Once Donald takes office, his generals will have 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. (It was on the Today Show.) His wording suggested ISIS would be defeated 30 days after the inauguration. His generals could make a plan that consisted of the following: "throw rocks at bad guys, don't throw rocks at good guys, hope for the best." That is a plan, it could defeat ISUS but probably not, and it would be an example of Donald following through on his word.

As for the wall, see my earlier post. 



Womb raider said:


> In a nutshell, the premise of the ACA (Obamacare) relied on the young and healthy signing up for the plans in droves to offset the high costs the sick and elderly would incur. One group signed up, but not the other, thus insurance companies are taking big losses and ultimately, backing out of these plans.



That is a really good, efficient, and accurate (on a macro level) explanation. I'm impressed! You get the nearly extinct "Holy.gif."


----------



## Aymara

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Maybe Obamacare isn't better for everyone, but free healthcare done properly absolutely would be.



Healthcare is never free, even in Germany. But what you say clearly shows, that Obamacare should be corrected and not cancelled.

In Germany we pay between 10-15% of our monthly income for health care insurance and basic medical care like visits to a doctor that are payed by that, while some medical services like new teeth require further payment, which can be reduced by additional optional insurances. A further example are hospital stays, which cost additional 10 bucks per day.

So overall it's a very complex topic, but it's a must in my opinion to insure, everybody even the poorest of the poor get basic health care.


----------



## Glosni

I don't think you guys realize how utterly insane all of this is. 60M Americans voted for an obviously unqualified bag of wind who talks about killing family members of terrorist, torturing "because they deserve it" and in january is going to be commander in chief.

Way to go America!


----------



## sawtoothscream

BlackMastodon said:


> I swore to stay out of this section but this sh*tstorm couldn't be ignored. If this has been covered earlier than sorry, but serious question here: What is going to happen when Trump has to go to court to face a statutory rape charge as well as a fraud charge in the next 2 months? I take it if he's impeached before he even starts then Mike Pence will take the reigns?



again, that .... was dropped a week or two ago.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Aymara said:


> Healthcare is never free, even in Germany.



To clarify, generally when we talk about "free health care," it's pretty rare that anyone actually thinks it's healthcare that just magically appears out of thin air. I understand the money has to come from somewhere, and that even in systems with healthcare paid for by taxes there are often still some things that must be paid for out of pocket.

I'm fine paying a bit more in taxes or having some tax programs shuffled around so more money goes to healthcare (rather than, say, foreign wars), if it means people like my sister don't have to choose between soul-crushing medical debt and death.


----------



## Andromalia

steinmetzify said:


> I don't use when people that do nothing get it for free?



Stop right there. I don't have the time to develop, but the idea that people on welfare or minimal wage are stupid/lazy is just rightwing bull..... Those people certainly are uneducated and didn't get the education some others got because they were born from the "right family". Even "being more intelligent" and "being able to work hard" is just genetic privilege and has nothing do to with personal merit. (Especially those "hard working people" have a very large definition of "hard work")

Guess what, you don't live comfortably on whatevercare. Whoever told you that has been lying to you. why ? To set you up against some of your compatriots and get your vote. You got scammed.


----------



## Aymara

Grand Moff Tim said:


> To clarify, ...



... I just wanted to show, how complex this topic is, but it's needed and worth it for sure.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Andromalia said:


> Stop right there. I don't have the time to develop, but the idea that people on welfare or minimal wage are stupid/lazy is just rightwing bull..... Those people certainly are uneducated and didn't get the education some others got because they were born from the "right family". Even "being more intelligent" and "being able to work hard" is just genetic privilege and has nothing do to with personal merit. (Especially those "hard working people" have a very large definition of "hard work")
> 
> Guess what, you don't live comfortably on whatevercare. Whoever told you that has been lying to you. why ? To set you up against some of your compatriots and get your vote. You got scammed.



Stop right where? The part that you don't agree with and think is wrong? Nah. 

You're wrong. Like I said. I do this for work. All day, every day. There ARE people that use the system and will continue to do so. There are people in my family that do it, and in my wife's family as well, and it's the major reason we don't talk to those people any more. They're reasonably intelligent people that are both capable of learning and working, and they choose to do neither. 

Being 'born into the right family' has .... all to do with it, given the endowments people can take advantage of, including student grants for education from both public and private universities and charitable foundations. These people don't want to put in the work. They'd rather pop out kids they can't afford and ride a government check than put in the effort. 

Being able to work hard and being more intelligent is something that you can develop, not 'genetic privilege' and I'm pretty resentful of that statement. You're actually trying to tell me that I had absolutely nothing to do with my own intelligence, that it was an accident of birth? Pure crap. I worked damn hard to be as intelligent as I am, and you don't get to take it from me with a ....ing buzzword phrase because you don't agree with my ideas. It has everything to do with personal merit and commitment, something people on welfare don't seem to care about. 

Guess what? I'm not uninformed about matters in my country, despite what you seem to think. 

You can talk all day about right wing bull...., but thinking that you should be able to do much less than someone and reap equal benefits 'because life isn't fair' is what got us here in the first place.

Also, just so we're clear. I don't have any problem with people using the welfare system as it was intended, as a hand up for a few months to survive while they put things back together. I do and always will have a problem with people using it as a hand OUT, and riding the system while doing nothing to contribute, day in and day out, while teaching their children to do so as well. 

If you feel differently, go ahead. We can agree to disagree, and maybe welfare is different in France...but this is an example of how it's abused here.


----------



## tacotiklah

Cloudy said:


> Did you even read my post? I said Hillary was not a good choice. You make all these points about her character but completely gloss over the fact that Donald Trump is just as terrible, if not worse. Take the blinders off amigo and realize you had two of the most laughable presidential frontrunners of all time and you had to pick one. It was lose lose for the US this election.



This. And you know, I wish all those things were the worst concerns I had. With Obamacare gone, my access to diabetic medication is gone too. Hope you guys will remember me at least somewhat fondly as I will in all likelihood die of this crap because I couldn't afford to stay alive. Apparently living and breathing isn't meant for poor people.

The love of my life? If I wanted to marry her, I sure as hell can't now thanks to the prospect of conservative justices overturning Windsor vs US. Nice to be relegated back to second-class citizenship again. My right to not see "straights-only" on storefronts? Gone. HIV prevention and care for my gay uncle? That's gone too; in favor of the policy of electrocuting gay kids to "cure" them. 

But please, do continue to gloat and patronize me about f_u_cking emails and false claims of WW3 starting. Just remember though, a man that has been proven to have immensely thin skin now has access to nuclear launch codes and has even gone on record stating that he would use them. 

This isn't just "dumb libs being sore losers". This is literally millions of human beings fearing for their goddamn lives given the campaign shenanigans of the last 16-18 months. If it were Kasich or someone similar that won, I'd be a little salty but it would be w/e. No, we had to go and pick literally the scariest sonofabitch for the oval office over the second scariest one. 

But while you all gloat, just remember one thing. You now have to own your vote. Every violent race-based assault that happens because you shared your vote with actual klansmen is on you. Every failed economic policy that gets rammed through and forces the country into another recession is on you. You now have to own your vote. And you'll be the one that has to explain yourself when the country is worse off in four years than it is now. 

Hope you like living with that kind of pressure and responsibility. Enjoy!


----------



## Dcm81

It's not that black and white though. I am perfectly aware of the fact that a lot of dirty fu...rs never, or hardly ever worked, push out the babies like rabbits and feed off the system which we are paying for. On the other side though, there are plenty of people that have worked decades in a well paying job that required a good education. Then due to whatever financial reasons, their employer had to make some cuts or close shop completely. Now they are dependant on welfare and are unlikely to get a replacement job anytime soon because 1) nobody wants him cause he's too old and 2) nobody wants him because they find his justified salary wishes to high and instead they could just find someone younger who'll do it for less as the market has drastically changed over the last ~30 years.

Free healthcare? No such thing! But anybody thinking that a government run social healthcare program that offers every citizen the opportunity for medical care regardless of income has been brainwashed by that "right wing bullpoop".
AS Aymara stated, we get around 10-15% of our monthly wages docked automatically for health insurance. That covers all medical necessities. If it's a purely cosmetic situation/procedure the insurance will only cover a fraction of it if any at all. At the end of the day, it's not medically necessary. If it's medically necessary but you want it a bit nicer than the most basic job offered (i.e. filling a hole in your tooth) you pay for anything above that base cost of the most simple fillament. On top of that you also have the possibility to pay for extra insurance packages that cover said "upgrades" i.e. for your teeth or your eyes (designer glasses aren't cheap ;-).
On top of all that, anybody has the option of being privately insured! No automatic docking of your salary, no decisions made for you. Good old "american freedom" for those that can afford it and think that public insurance is just paying for lazy, fat, uneducated, societal trash.

BTW - I'm talking from a German viewpoint and my experiences here.


----------



## blacai




----------



## will_shred

I wouldn't have been able to get health insurance without Obamacare, even though its insanely expensive. Now I probably won't be able to get insurance at all without it.


----------



## bostjan

Womb raider said:


> Honestly, I think THE biggest sticking point in this whole election was jobs. Trump nailed this point over and over, while Hilary kind of glossed over this. This election boiled down to half the voters hoping Trump will change their short term outlook. It's just human nature to vote for people that you think will improve your situation.
> 
> Most people just want to make a decent living, feel safe in where they live, take care of their family and have some leftover scrap for a rainy day (if Trump can help them do that is another debate). I truly don't think this was an orchestrated assault on LGBT rights, abortion issues, minorities or anything else people are claiming. Following Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the people in the bottom rungs could give a rat's azz about anything else. I just think that many people in this country are more concerned about if their job is going overseas, where their next paycheck is coming from and if they have enough for rent, food or gas in their car. Any other issue will take a back seat until those needs are met.
> 
> Seeing usually left-leaning, union rust belt states going red is definitely eye-opening, and I believe this is why he was elected.



Well said; however, there is one thing that really irks me and I hear it all of the damn time.

What is Trump's plan to create jobs? Have you read his proposal? It says:



DJT said:


> Create a dynamic booming economy that will create 25 million new jobs over the next decade.



Want more details? No, good, vote for Trump. Yes? Okay, here are "more details:"



DJT said:


> For each 1 percent in added GDP growth, the economy adds 1.2 million jobs. Increasing growth by 1.5 percent would result in 18 million jobs (1.5 million times 1.2 million, multiplied by 10 years) above the projected current law job figures of 7 million, producing a total of 25 million new jobs for the American economy.



If that convinced you that this guy knows what he's talking about, then I just don't know.

This guy is all handwaving and bull..... I hope he really does come up with an actual plan, but there is exactly zero evidence that there is any plan beyond getting elected (up to this point). I think he is going to fly by the seat of his pants for the next four years. If the country is still standing then, maybe he'll get another four years.

My qualm is his supporters keep saying that he has this and that figured out and there is a plan, but go to his damn website and look at his rhetoric there, or watch the damn debates. It's clear that he has no ....ing clue what he is doing.

I can accept the argument that Clinton's plan for the economy is garbage, but I am not willing to let the statement stand that Trump has a solid plan for the economy. His thinly-veiled attempt to convince people that he does actually being effective makes me feel like our country is full of morons.

Vote however you want, for whatever reason, sure, but don't try to make facts where there is only fluff.



tacotiklah said:


> This. And you know, I wish all those things were the worst concerns I had. With Obamacare gone, my access to diabetic medication is gone too. Hope you guys will remember me at least somewhat fondly as I will in all likelihood die of this crap because I couldn't afford to stay alive. Apparently living and breathing isn't meant for poor people.
> 
> The love of my life? If I wanted to marry her, I sure as hell can't now thanks to the prospect of conservative justices overturning Windsor vs US. Nice to be relegated back to second-class citizenship again. My right to not see "straights-only" on storefronts? Gone. HIV prevention and care for my gay uncle? That's gone too; in favor of the policy of electrocuting gay kids to "cure" them.
> 
> But please, do continue to gloat and patronize me about f_u_cking emails and false claims of WW3 starting. Just remember though, a man that has been proven to have immensely thin skin now has access to nuclear launch codes and has even gone on record stating that he would use them.
> 
> This isn't just "dumb libs being sore losers". This is literally millions of human beings fearing for their goddamn lives given the campaign shenanigans of the last 16-18 months. If it were Kasich or someone similar that won, I'd be a little salty but it would be w/e. No, we had to go and pick literally the scariest sonofabitch for the oval office over the second scariest one.
> 
> But while you all gloat, just remember one thing. You now have to own your vote. Every violent race-based assault that happens because you shared your vote with actual klansmen is on you. Every failed economic policy that gets rammed through and forces the country into another recession is on you. You now have to own your vote. And you'll be the one that has to explain yourself when the country is worse off in four years than it is now.
> 
> Hope you like living with that kind of pressure and responsibility. Enjoy!



Whoah there!

You see what is happening? The backlash against this garbage has, so far, been even more garbage-worthy. I'm not saying your post is wrong, but it is making a lot of assumptions.

The protesters out there right now have every right to protest, yet the violence and the words coming out of people's mouths in interviews is making us all look even more stupid than we looked for electing this guy.

As far as the costs of your drugs, look at the drug manufacturers. Insulin can be made very inexpensively compared to the way things were just a couple decades ago, yet the drug costs too damn much. Is that the government's fault? Obama's policy of subsidizing expensive drugs to make them affordable didn't address the root of the problem - that the cost is too high. Maybe it's a step in the right direction, but since the coverage costs under the ACA are already getting out of control, the solution obviously wouldn't work long-term anyway. If you want to protest this, take it to the drug manufacturers who are raking in cash hand over fist. OR get on board against the government for not enforcing existing consumer protection laws.

Where are these "Straight-only" storefronts?! Again, if that's happening, it sounds like an issue with the storefront. Electrocuting gay kids?! Sounds like a protest against whomever did that. Has law enforcement been notified? If they are aware and not doing anything about it, then that sounds like an issue to take up in protest against law enforcement *in the region of concern*. Taking to the streets to riot is not going to address this at all.

I understand that you are mad. I'm mad, too, but you *have* to be rational about this if you want to make a _difference in changing it_, because a compelling argument will get you 100 times further than a misguided rant.

To be direct, Trump said some very frightening things. His most vehement supporters have said much more frightening things. But to riot now over things that were said months ago, well, the opportunity has come and gone for that to be effective. Now people are just looking like a bunch of babies. And this is coming from me, a person who would not vote for Trump if you held a gun to my head.

So, I know you want my advice about as much as you want Trump in the Oval Office, but here it is anyway - pull yourself together, get active, find other level-headed and like-minded people, and address the root of the problem in the most effective way.


----------



## big_aug

People who put down welfare systems and safety nets have never experienced true hardship. Plain and simple. I lost my job a few years back. Unemployment for EIGHT months with a post-graduate level education even when I was willing thinking work for $12 an hour. I got seriously ill 2014. I spent three months in the hospital and six months recovery time followed that. I just had my last surgery in June. Thank God for disability and FLSA and FLMA. Those are safety nets too.

You can try and say they need to go because people abuse them. That reeks of someone who never dealt with any circumstance that would have ruined their forever had those safety nets not existed.


----------



## flexkill

Lets relive some of the buffoons "finer" moments.

1. An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obamas birth certificate is a fraud

2. Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again  just watch. He can do much better!

3. Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man  he made a good decision.

4. You know, it really doesnt matter what the media write as long as youve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ***. 

5. I will build a great wall  and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me  and Ill build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words. 

6. When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending the best. Theyre not sending you, theyre sending people that have lots of problems and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bring crime. Theyre rapists And some, I assume, are good people. 

7. Our great African-American President hasnt exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.

8. All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me  consciously or unconsciously. Thats to be expected.

9. The beauty of me is that Im very rich.

10. Its freezing and snowing in New York  we need global warming!

11. Ive said if Ivanka werent my daughter, perhaps Id be dating her.

12. My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.

13. I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that Im more honest and my women are more beautiful.

14. The point is, you can never be too greedy.

15. My IQ is one of the highest  and you all know it! Please dont feel so stupid or insecure; its not your fault.




This is our next POTUS ladies and gentlemen, take a bow.


----------



## Thaeon

will_shred said:


> I wouldn't have been able to get health insurance without Obamacare, even though its insanely expensive. Now I probably won't be able to get insurance at all without it.



This is a big issue for me. A lot of people who could not be denied insurance under Obamacare, are now unable to get the treatment that will keep them alive, due to having a pre existing condition and insurance denying them coverage even paying out of pocket. This is a heartless decision for the American public to be making.

My biggest concern is how this affects rape culture. Potentially emboldening would be predators and human traffickers. I have two daughters and live in the part of the country with the highest amount of disappearances of young female children due to human trafficking. I'm terrified for my kids. I'm thankfully a stay at home dad because I work out of the home. But that doesn't change them being at school part of the day. And as they get older and into their teenage years, they'll have to deal with the sexual assault and/or rape that their mother had to deal with (her virginity was stolen by her supposed best friend while another kid watched). I have a good friend who recently came out to me as Trans. I'm one of three people in this state that knows about it. He's trying to move, but now even that is soured for him because it doesn't matter where he goes in this country he's in fear for his life. I have an awesome friend that has introduced me to Muslim culture. There is nothing but love in him. He doesn't have the capacity for hate or judgement. I am more afraid for him now than ever. I have myriad friends of color. This decision ENCOURAGES violence. Against women. Against LGBTQ+. Against Muslims. Against POC. This isn't the American dream. Go read the quote on the Statue of Liberty and tell me it is. We're SO much better than this. And I literally HATE the Clintons. At least they weren't advocating wholesale hate and fear or encouraging sexual predation.


----------



## Thaeon

flexkill said:


> Lets relive some of the buffoons "finer" moments.
> 
> 1. An extremely credible source has called my office and told me that Barack Obamas birth certificate is a fraud
> 
> 2. Robert Pattinson should not take back Kristen Stewart. She cheated on him like a dog & will do it again  just watch. He can do much better!
> 
> 3. Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man  he made a good decision.
> 
> 4. You know, it really doesnt matter what the media write as long as youve got a young, and beautiful, piece of ***.
> 
> 5. I will build a great wall  and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me  and Ill build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.
> 
> 6. When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending the best. Theyre not sending you, theyre sending people that have lots of problems and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bring crime. Theyre rapists And some, I assume, are good people.
> 
> 7. Our great African-American President hasnt exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore.
> 
> 8. All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me  consciously or unconsciously. Thats to be expected.
> 
> 9. The beauty of me is that Im very rich.
> 
> 10. Its freezing and snowing in New York  we need global warming!
> 
> 11. Ive said if Ivanka werent my daughter, perhaps Id be dating her.
> 
> 12. My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.
> 
> 13. I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that Im more honest and my women are more beautiful.
> 
> 14. The point is, you can never be too greedy.
> 
> 15. My IQ is one of the highest  and you all know it! Please dont feel so stupid or insecure; its not your fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is our next POTUS ladies and gentlemen, take a bow.



"My Women"

This comment BLOWS my mind. He talks about the women in his life like Property.


----------



## Andromalia

edit: and next time I'll read twice before answering a topic.


----------



## flexkill

Thaeon said:


> "My Women"
> 
> This comment BLOWS my mind. He talks about the women in his life like Property.



How about the fact he is even commenting on the relationship of two "Twilight" actors.....LMAO wtf?


----------



## blacai

flexkill said:


> How about the fact he is even commenting on the relationship of two "Twilight" actors.....LMAO wtf?



Better than the President of Spain...
"Es el vecino el que elige el alcalde y es el alcalde el que quiere que sean los vecinos el alcalde"
-->"It is the neighbor who elects the major and it is the major the one who wants the neighbors to be the major"


----------



## wankerness

Trump's list of goals in office is absolutely horrifying on an environmental and military front, and the anti-immigrant stuff also seems rough, but much of the rest of it is actually pretty good. The anti-corruption stuff in particular would be a godsend. 

I fully expect NONE of the anti-corruption stuff will get passed, though, since most of the Republicans in office would be negatively affected by it. It will make him look good for trying, but nothing else. I assume only the bad stuff on the list will get passed. (IE, the huge tax cut on the middle class will be gutted, the tax cut on the rich will be passed, the funding for infrastructure will be gutted, the funding for military will be passed, etc). I am guessing also that Obamacare will get repealed and the stated replacement will not be put into effect.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

So yeah, basically, if ALL of that was put into effect, I think we'd be OK. If the Republican congress/senate gets to pick and choose off the list, it will be an environmental disaster and like the Bush administration on steroids.


----------



## narad

wankerness said:


> So yeah, basically, if ALL of that was put into effect, I think we'd be OK. If the Republican congress/senate gets to pick and choose off the list, it will be an environmental disaster and like the Bush administration on steroids.



This is what worries the most. I'd like the social liberties I believe in to be passed universally now, but waiting a few more years is not going to kill anyone. On the other hand, poor environmental policy on top of an already critical situation could be something we may never recover from, given the current state and pace of helpful technology.


----------



## celticelk

wankerness said:


> Trump's list of goals in office is absolutely horrifying on an environmental and military front, and the anti-immigrant stuff also seems rough, but much of the rest of it is actually pretty good. The anti-corruption stuff in particular would be a godsend.
> 
> I fully expect NONE of the anti-corruption stuff will get passed, though, since most of the Republicans in office would be negatively affected by it. It will make him look good for trying, but nothing else. I assume only the bad stuff on the list will get passed. (IE, the huge tax cut on the middle class will be gutted, the tax cut on the rich will be passed, the funding for infrastructure will be gutted, the funding for military will be passed, etc). I am guessing also that Obamacare will get repealed and the stated replacement will not be put into effect.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
> 
> So yeah, basically, if ALL of that was put into effect, I think we'd be OK. If the Republican congress/senate gets to pick and choose off the list, it will be an environmental disaster and like the Bush administration on steroids.



His anti-regulation measures will probably pass, but there's no chance that the term limit and anti-lobbying measures even get out of conference, let alone to a floor vote. Trump is basically telling Congress to fire themselves regularly *and* to sign an anti-compete clause with the government. No chance.

His infrastructure package is the one that really burns me. The Democrats have wanted increased infrastructure spending for *years*. Congressional Republicans objected, either because they didn't want to increase government spending or because they didn't want the black man in the White House to get the credit. It'll be interesting to see if they roll over for Trump. McConnell sounds like he's holding the line, maybe because he's not up for re-election in the next cycle and figures that his voters won't remember this in four years.


----------



## ncfiala

Andromalia said:


> "being able to work hard" is just genetic privilege



Wow. I can hardly believe what I just read. There you have it folks. If you don't want to work and just want to be a lazy piece of .... who lives off the rest of us, it's not your fault. It's just your genetics.


----------



## Mordacain

celticelk said:


> McConnell sounds like he's holding the line, maybe because he's not up for re-election in the next cycle and figures that his voters won't remember this in four years.



Chances are most of his voters won't be around in 4 years judging by relative ages of the electorate. So there's a small silver lining. Time is running out on how much longer the baby boomers can continue to screw the rest of the country.


----------



## bostjan

Mordacain said:


> Chances are most of his voters won't be around in 4 years judging by relative ages of the electorate. So there's a small silver lining. Time is running out on how much longer the baby boomers can continue to screw the rest of the country.



Same thing is said pretty much every time a republican wins.


----------



## Mordacain

bostjan said:


> Same thing is said pretty much every time a republican wins.



Yea, but exit polling for this year shows it was unlike any other year. Rural America doesn't come out in droves like it did this year. White nationalism is what showed up at the polls this year, not just anger towards the establishment. Combine that with a completely lackluster youth vote and there you go.


----------



## celticelk

Mordacain said:


> Chances are most of his voters won't be around in 4 years judging by relative ages of the electorate. So there's a small silver lining. Time is running out on how much longer the baby boomers can continue to screw the rest of the country.



According to the exit polls, the 45-64 bracket votes the same R/D split as the 65+ bracket, so I'm not hopeful in that respect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/


----------



## celticelk

Mordacain said:


> Yea, but exit polling for this year shows it was unlike any other year. Rural America doesn't come out in droves like it did this year. White nationalism is what showed up at the polls this year, not just anger towards the establishment. Combine that with a completely lackluster youth vote and there you go.



Rural America didn't, previously. What we now have to find out is whether this is a flash in the pain or a new pattern. n=1 is not predictive either way. Relatively low youth voting rates, unfortunately, are pretty common historically.


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> Wow. I can hardly believe what I just read. There you have it folks. If you don't want to work and just want to be a lazy piece of .... who lives off the rest of us, it's not your fault. It's just your genetics.



Alternate reading: genetic disabilities (physical or mental) can disrupt your *ability* to work full-time, no matter your *will* to do so. Maybe Andromalia could clarify before you continue biting his head off?


----------



## Mordacain

celticelk said:


> According to the exit polls, the 45-64 bracket votes the same R/D split as the 65+ bracket, so I'm not hopeful in that respect: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/



We can't rely on this year as a benchmark in any capacity really. I know in my area, there was equal parts hatred of Clinton at play. In the South at least, that was common. I still pass signs on the highway that read "string her up." There is regular water cooler talk at my work about Trump following through on his promise to prosecute her.

I doubt that any candidate on the horizon can match that level of vitriol without having another 30 years of continuous Fox News propaganda.


----------



## Frey

steinmetzify said:


> I honestly don't get people with this viewpoint. Everyone is supposed to care and be tolerant and vote for your rights because that's PC/right thing to do/human but if I disagree then you hate me and I can go fvck myself? Where's the tolerance on your side? Do you not have to have any, just other people?
> 
> 
> 
> People criticize it because it's an unsustainable system and it was never going to work long term.
> 
> Being that it's a private system, doctors can refuse it and many do, simply because more and more they aren't being paid by insurance companies. I work in the insurance field and talk to people that have Obamacare daily; the main complaint is that while people are paying more every year, their benefits are going down and they can't find doctors that will take their plan.
> 
> I talked to a woman a week or so ago who has no doctors readily available in her entire city, and has to travel over 100 miles to get healthcare. Unfortunately, she doesn't drive being that she's blind, so she has to rely on funded transportation to get to appointments, and there isn't any available in her area. I was able to find a workaround and get her some help, but that's just one person out of millions that I WON'T talk to, and it's ongoing.
> 
> It's a huge cluster.... and has been since about a month after it started.
> 
> As far as it goes for my family, I don't have medical insurance as it's much cheaper to just pay out of pocket and take the fine at the end of the year, and has been the whole time. I simply can't afford the rate I'd have to pay given my income level and don't know very many people who can.
> 
> Also not for nothing but it chaps my ass big time that
> 
> A: the G got to mandate the fact that I have to buy something and
> 
> B: the fact that I have a certain income level means I have to pay substantially more $ than someone that doesn't work and sits on welfare collecting checks and their free healthcare comes out of my pocket. That to my mind is a flawed system and could only ever be long term sustainable in the mind of a Democrat.



Thank you for contributing a voice of reason to this thread. I applaud you for maintaining a very reasonable composure at that.

It's funny and sad to see libs crying after all of the trash they talked. Sorry the world doesn't revolve around them sheesh


----------



## wankerness

Frey said:


> Thank you for contributing a voice of reason to this thread. I applaud you for maintaining a very reasonable composure at that.
> 
> It's funny and sad to see libs crying after all of the trash they talked. Sorry the world doesn't revolve around them sheesh



Thanks for the pure gloat post, really interesting.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

President, House, Senate, SUPREME COURT!

I endured your leftist vitriol in here for the whole campaign, because I offered that Clinton was a totally flawed candidate....

Water under the bridge. 

This vote was against corruption. 

MAGA!


----------



## Frey

wankerness said:


> Thanks for the pure gloat post, really interesting.



Thanks for the pure salt post, very interesting.


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> Alternate reading: genetic disabilities (physical or mental) can disrupt your *ability* to work full-time, no matter your *will* to do so. Maybe Andromalia could clarify before you continue biting his head off?



What you just wrote and what he wrote are not even remotely the same. If that's what he wanted to say he would have said it.

He's welcome to clarify all he wants, but I think his use of the absurd phrase "genetic privilege" is very telling. What I have I owe to genetics. And if you have less than me, then I owe you. Ridiculous.

Let's just face facts here. Life is not fair. It never has been. It never will be. It's not the government's role to make life fair and governmental attempts at making life fair have never worked and never will.


----------



## flexkill

ncfiala said:


> What you just wrote and what he wrote are not even remotely the same. If that's what he wanted to say he would have said it.
> 
> He's welcome to clarify all he wants, but I think his use of the absurd phrase "genetic privilege" is very telling. What I have I owe to genetics. And if you have less than me, then I owe you. Ridiculous.
> 
> Let's just face facts here. Life is not fair. It never has been. It never will be. It's not the government's role to make life fair and governmental attempts at making life fair have never worked and never will.



Dude, if you are born with a disability that does not allow you to work your answer is sucks for you life isn't fair? For fvks sake man grow up! 

You go through life with that attitude I hope you never get an illness and are treated the way you seem to think is acceptable.


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> What you just wrote and what he wrote are not even remotely the same. If that's what he wanted to say he would have said it.



Andromalia's from France. Is English his first language? Is it so absurd that maybe you should give him the opportunity to clarify?



ncfiala said:


> Let's just face facts here. Life is not fair. It never has been. It never will be. It's not the government's role to make life fair and governmental attempts at making life fair have never worked and never will.



That's a cheap line when life is unfair in your favor.


----------



## vilk

this dude watched thunderdome and thought it was a utopia


----------



## bostjan

ncfiala said:


> Let's just face facts here. Life is not fair. It never has been. It never will be. It's not the government's role to make life fair and governmental attempts at making life fair have never worked and never will.



I think you hit a nerve, based on others' responses.

As a thought experiment, let's say there are two people; let's call them A and B for simplicity's sake. A is smart, healthy, and athletic, and B is disabled.

A has a job that makes $50k/year. B is unable to work. Should we take $25k/year from A and give it to B to make it fair?

If yes, then what if A says "this is horse....! I'm not going to work for $25k/year if not working also yields me $25k/year?" Well, then both A and B make $0. I assume, at some point, A needs money, so he will have to return to work, but he sufficiently killed the system immediately in the process of protest. If A's thinking is rational (which it seems to be), then having 100 A's and 100 B's could likely lead to the same situation.

If yes, but A is a good-natured fellow and thinks B deserves half his income, then what if A is injured on the job?

If no, what divide is fair, and why?

Now, forget the hypothetical anecdote and think about the USA. You have lots of folks making lots of goods getting paid lots of different wages. A CEO might make $10M/yr. A subsistence farmer might make $10k/yr plus grow enough food to not starve himself. A fast food restaurant worker might make $17k/yr. A factory worker, who defined the middle class of the 20th century, would make about $40-60k/yr. The fast food guy has virtually no specialized skills, and does not make enough money to support himself based on that income alone, not to mention a family. The factory worker makes enough to support himself and maybe his family, but probably not indefinitely as more kids are born and older kids eat more and demand electronic devices and their own cars. You want to introduce some form of socialism to help out the fast food guy, but then what about the subsistence farmer, who makes less money? Do you regulate how much food is grown, too? What about the factory worker who plants tomatoes in his garden, then? Where do you draw the line?

Anyway, enter the 21st century, where manufacturing is not in the USA, and your factory worker guy is laid off. The white collar guy is also laid off, because his job was accounting for the company that made staplers, which is now in China, along with a Chinese accountant who works for $5/day. Who supports all of these fast food workers and grocery baggers?

It's not an economic model that works in a nation where your industry is collapsing. That's why Trump is in there, I think. The democratic party was hoping to squeeze the orange that was already thrown in the compost pile to give everyone orange juice.

Right now, the nation needs something to spark innovation and get industry back or else replace it with some other job that just hasn't come along yet. They voted for the orange windbag because he stood up at the podium and said a lot of vague things about people having more jobs and how more jobs are good and more jobs means economic growth. Hopefully those were not empty words, but I have no indication that they were anything but just that.

But if you are going to try to tell a guy trying to support a family, barely making enough money, that he should be partaking in socialism to support the less fortunate, you are likely not going to get anywhere, especially when we all know that Mr. $10M/yr. CEO is going to inevitably find every loophole to keep making $10M/yr.

So, the A and B analogy might be oversimplified, but, in many ways it is accurate, and also, simplicity is a lot easier to understand than complexity. Standing at the podium saying "I'll make this country great again!" is a really indirect, yet simple, statement. Showing charts and tables and graphs, like H Ross Perot did in the 1990s, as direct as it is, it's too complex, and people will just laugh at you, no matter how good or bad your logic is. If it takes more than ten seconds of attention span to get your point across, you're done in politics. Evidently, that attention span this cycle was closer to 2-3 seconds. 

Well, whatever, now there's Trump and you can either team up and try to get something constructive done in this country, you can team up and get destructive and ruin a whole bunch of stuff for everybody, or you can do nothing but complain about it and accomplish nothing at all. Government starts at the local level and ends at the local level. This guy called the president just sets the mood for everybody else, essentially. Maybe we can simply focus on the vague positive stuff and try to make our own answers out of it. Either way, it comes down to the footmen getting .... done or not.

So, ncfiala, what do you propose? The less fortunate are SOL, or let someone/something else handle taking care of them? Or do you even care?


----------



## Black Mamba

Mob beats Trump supporter



Such tolerance coming from the left...


----------



## vilk

If I'm a liberal, but I never officially submitted my application for being THE LEFT, does it mean the stuff in that video is my fault and I am in the wrong for those people's actions? Also, how can you be certain that that dude is not _double-undercover_?? He seems ostensibly like a NU-MALE


----------



## Necris

vilk said:


> If I'm a liberal, but I never officially submitted my application for being THE LEFT, does it mean the stuff in that video is my fault and I am in the wrong for those people's actions?


Yes. How? Don't worry about it. Nothing needs to make sense anymore, that won't make America great again!


----------



## Vrollin

vilk said:


> If I'm a liberal, but I never officially submitted my application for being THE LEFT, does it mean the stuff in that video is my fault and I am in the wrong for those people's actions? Also, how can you be certain that that dude is not _double-undercover_?? He seems ostensibly like a NU-MALE



Wtf a Nu-male? Sounds like some petty left talk to me...


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Mordacain said:


> White nationalism is what showed up at the polls this year, not just anger towards the establishment. Combine that with a completely lackluster youth vote and there you go.



not what happened at all. unless you like to think white nationalism is responsible for Bill Clinton being elected twice; since he carried that same rust belt vote consistently. 

what people aren't considering is that voter participation has been slipping for over 20 years. the reason is simple, the ruling class in america has been on each coast with no eye for the heartland. 

a blue collar guy/gal in Ohio sees Washington looking out for silicone valley and the Acela corridor, but not Toledo. so s/he doesnt hit the polls "washington doesnt care about us, the politicians are crooked." <-- that statement has existed for decades in blue collar america. i've heard it my whole life. 

these voices used to be consistent Democrats, not because they necessarily have agreed with the party's direction, but because for 60 years the until the 1980s Democrats were the little man's party. 

but suddenly union participation isn't enough to keep party loyalties intact. and a guy with a bad haircut but astute observational skills realizes that the ivory tower approach to politics has disenfranchised the single biggest and consistent voting block in America. middle class workers. and he got elected. 

yes they may be white, but that is only because rural america lost manufacturing a little later after the factories near cities had already closed their doors and left black america unemployed. bill clinton then took care of the rest by increasing the black male incarceration rate and crippling the inner cities for decades to come. 

call it white pride if it makes you feel better. but there's a reason Pennsylvanian turned from blue to red for the first time in 22 years. and it wasn't skin tone. it was something more powerful. that salt of the earth drive to work your ass off and give your kids something better. 

once you take that away from people who never went to college and really only have the sweat of their brow to offer.. well we already know what happens


----------



## Steinmetzify

Interesting read from a Muslim woman who voted for Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?0p19G=c

Hyperbole doesn't get to everyone.


----------



## big_aug

Ibanezsam4 said:


> not what happened at all. unless you like to think white nationalism is responsible for Bill Clinton being elected twice; since he carried that same rust belt vote consistently.
> 
> what people aren't considering is that voter participation has been slipping for over 20 years. the reason is simple, the ruling class in america has been on each coast with no eye for the heartland.
> 
> a blue collar guy/gal in Ohio sees Washington looking out for silicone valley and the Acela corridor, but not Toledo. so s/he doesnt hit the polls "washington doesnt care about us, the politicians are crooked." <-- that statement has existed for decades in blue collar america. i've heard it my whole life.
> 
> these voices used to be consistent Democrats, not because they necessarily have agreed with the party's direction, but because for 60 years the until the 1980s Democrats were the little man's party.
> 
> but suddenly union participation isn't enough to keep party loyalties intact. and a guy with a bad haircut but astute observational skills realizes that the ivory tower approach to politics has disenfranchised the single biggest and consistent voting block in America. middle class workers. and he got elected.
> 
> yes they may be white, but that is only because rural america lost manufacturing a little later after the factories near cities had already closed their doors and left black america unemployed. bill clinton then took care of the rest by increasing the black male incarceration rate and crippling the inner cities for decades to come.
> 
> call it white pride if it makes you feel better. but there's a reason Pennsylvanian turned from blue to red for the first time in 22 years. and it wasn't skin tone. it was something more powerful. that salt of the earth drive to work your ass off and give your kids something better.
> 
> once you take that away from people who never went to college and really only have the sweat of their brow to offer.. well we already know what happens



They voted for a billionaire who never worked a day in his life or ever struggled one bit. That's what blows my mind. This rich old guy convinced a whole lot of people that he somehow understood their pain when has no clue. Not even close. He shouted a bunch of provocative loaded talking points to appeal to people's emotions. 

The guy was born into wealth. His business was started on money given to him by his family. I can't believe people buy into his bull..... I get why they don't want to vote for Clinton, but this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Donald Trump will make America great again for the rich mother ....ers who haven't been making as many millions lately. There is NO reason to think otherwise. You think a billionaire businessman with a family who will inherit that business is going to do anything but promote his own self interest? People are delusional.

We should have had riots in the streets demanding different candidates.


----------



## Black Mamba

*mod edit: this is P&CE not Off Topic...*







My sincerest apologies to those triggered by the image above. I'm sure a safe space is nearby.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

The goofy thing is that there are plenty of people who take delight in that sort of joke, because they think it's a game and their team won.


----------



## big_aug

Black Mamba said:


> My sincerest apologies to those triggered by the image above. I'm sure a safe space is nearby.





The good news is that we will definitely have an endless supply of presidential memes, gifs, and quotes. Can't wait actually. I'll be watching the late night shows again


----------



## Aymara

steinmetzify said:


> Interesting read from a Muslim woman who voted for Trump



The reader's comments are even more interesting, because they show, why she will regret it.


----------



## tacotiklah

I'll be honest, I'm kind of over the emotional rollercoaster of all of this and I will probably need a small amount of time to kick back and enjoy some of those prop 64 results. As I've written on my facebook timeline:

"Everyone I know keeps telling me 'It's going to be fine, it's going to be okay. Everyone needs to calm down and stop freaking out. Nobody is going to come for your rights, nobody is going to target minorities. Trump has you back, so stop buying into the hyperbole and propaganda'. Okay then. I'll give you and your candidate a fair chance. But the burden of proof is on you guys. You're the ones making the lofty promises that the rest of us are expecting to collect on. And if you're wrong, you'll be the ones having to live with guilt of condemning minorities to a living hell. Yet again.

I'm not a sore loser, and there are even a couple trade policies I agree with Trump on (killing TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, etc), so there's some common ground there to work on. But the moment he flips 180 and comes after Windsor vs US and/or Obergefell vs Hodge, I'm completely losing my sh*t."

So with that in mind, I need some damn humor in my life. Something that makes me shake my head due to its irreverence and give a deep-bellied laugh. And I had that happen just a moment ago....

With the Trump victory, apparently the knee-jerk reaction to it is #Calexit. That's right, people here in CA want to actually secede from the union now. To me, it's a complete and utter joke and doomed to fail if Brexit taught us anything. 

Now that you have the context, here's the moment that had me rolling...

Friend on facebook: "I thought Brexit was a cereal."
Me: "Well if Calexit were a cereal, I wouldn't eat it. It'd be too salty."


----------



## bostjan

big_aug said:


> They voted for a billionaire who never worked a day in his life or ever struggled one bit. That's what blows my mind. This rich old guy convinced a whole lot of people that he somehow understood their pain when has no clue. Not even close. He shouted a bunch of provocative loaded talking points to appeal to people's emotions.
> 
> The guy was born into wealth. His business was started on money given to him by his family. I can't believe people buy into his bull..... I get why they don't want to vote for Clinton, but this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Donald Trump will make America great again for the rich mother ....ers who haven't been making as many millions lately. There is NO reason to think otherwise. You think a billionaire businessman with a family who will inherit that business is going to do anything but promote his own self interest? People are delusional.
> 
> We should have had riots in the streets demanding different candidates.



^This.

You think Trump will do things like stop congress from taking political bribe money, because he was never in Congress, but you are ignoring the fact that he's the sort of guy paying those bribes. You say Trump will stop congress from being controlled by big business, because he's an outsider. That's ridiculous- he *is* big business. You just cut out the middle man to all of your nightmares. But here's the thing...Clinton was the middle (wo)man, just as you suspected. Either way, our nightmares come true, so when you make it a choice between one and the other loss, you will lose.


----------



## extendedsolo

bostjan said:


> ^This.
> 
> You think Trump will do things like stop congress from taking political bribe money, because he was never in Congress, but you are ignoring the fact that he's the sort of guy paying those bribes. You say Trump will stop congress from being controlled by big business, because he's an outsider. That's ridiculous- he *is* big business. You just cut out the middle man to all of your nightmares. But here's the thing...Clinton was the middle (wo)man, just as you suspected. Either way, our nightmares come true, so when you make it a choice between one and the other loss, you will lose.



I don't think this point can be overstated. The US was in for a very rough 4 years no matter who won. Lets not act like if Hillary had won that the white nationalist movement would've went away. Really I think that movement will be less and less, but it will take several generations. Many Clinton supporters, myself included, sincerely thought we were in a different place when it came to equality in America. It's a big wake up call to be reminded that it's simply not true.

To think Trump will change is silly. In my opinion, he is completely over matched by career politicians here that he will need to guide him. I think that in the first four years they will be thinking about a second term so we have to vote him out in 4 years, which I think is very possible considering Hillary lost by very close margins in a few states and won the popular vote overall. Yes I think Trump will do whatever benefits him and can already imagine him looking at what the play is after the election.



steinmetzify said:


> Interesting read from a Muslim woman who voted for Trump:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?0p19G=c
> 
> Hyperbole doesn't get to everyone.



At least she is willing to own her vote for Trump, unlike many cowards who won't if things go bad.


----------



## UnderTheSign

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...der-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/

Is this some really elaborate satire or did I just find myself appreciating his attitude?


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> ^This.
> 
> You think Trump will do things like stop congress from taking political bribe money, because he was never in Congress, but you are ignoring the fact that he's the sort of guy paying those bribes. You say Trump will stop congress from being controlled by big business, because he's an outsider. That's ridiculous- he *is* big business. You just cut out the middle man to all of your nightmares. But here's the thing...Clinton was the middle (wo)man, just as you suspected. Either way, our nightmares come true, so when you make it a choice between one and the other loss, you will lose.



How's that false equivalence taste, bostjan?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-gop-insiders-lobbyists-231224

"Trumps transition team is also flush with lobbyists, raising questions about the president-elects promises to limit the influence of lobbyists in government."

"Unlike Trump, Hillary Clintons transition team banned lobbyists altogether and made staff sign a code of ethics requiring transition officials to recuse themselves from working on any issue on which they have lobbied in the past year."


----------



## wankerness

UnderTheSign said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...der-people-should-use-the-bathroom-they-want/
> 
> Is this some really elaborate satire or did I just find myself appreciating his attitude?



Nah, he's showing what I think many of us suspected all along, that he was basically treating this whole thing as reality TV and playing a wrestling heel. I feel like he's about the last guy to actually want to rock boats considering how much he's benefited from the system over the years. I would be far, far more scared of a president Pence. His liberal thoughts on things like abortion and healthcare were known for years before this election cycle.



Black Mamba said:


> My sincerest apologies to those triggered by the image above. I'm sure a safe space is nearby.





Frey said:


> Thanks for the pure salt post, very interesting.



I just have a problem with posts that do not contain anything other than whining or taunting. If you have no content to your posts other than "hell yeah" or "wahhhh," does it REALLY need to be clogging up what's mostly been actual discussion? 

1) Does your post contain information?
2) Is it helpful?
3) Is it contributing to a discussion?

No to all 3? Is it simply a loud wet fart into the internet? Maybe we need to make a quarantine thread called "here's the thread for simpletons that merely want to scream at each other and troll." And yes, there's a ton of liberals that belong in that thread. This kind of thing is ALL over the internet and annoys me to no end!! Basically the entire AV club commentariat is the same as the following image. It's unbearable. There are a couple people that view it like me, and they all just get shouted down by this kind of idiocy.






It's like these people just have never actually lived in society outside of whatever bubble they've put themselves in and don't realize MOST people contain good and bad and it's easy to have a ton in common or even be friends with someone that voted for the other candidate. Crybabies, the lot. They should be locked in a room with the people commenting on the internet like the two above trolls.


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> We should have had riots in the streets demanding different candidates.



That's what primaries are for. There were seventeen candidates for the Republican nomination. How much more choice do you want?


----------



## big_aug

celticelk said:


> That's what primaries are for. There were seventeen candidates for the Republican nomination. How much more choice do you want?



I didnt vote in that primary. I voted for Bernie Sanders. When we saw that we had two terrible candidates, someone needed to step up and do something. Instead, we just accepted it. No matter who won the election, we should be protesting in the steeets. Neither Clinton nor Trump is a an acceptable choice. My only justification for even votung is "not the other person."

I imagine tens of millions of others on both sides are in that same group. Sad times.


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> When we saw that we had two terrible candidates, someone needed to step up and do something. Instead, we just accepted it. No matter who won the election, we should be protesting in the steeets.



Having a democracy means that sometimes you don't get the result you hoped for, because other people voted for something else. If you don't respect the democratic process when you lose, you don't respect the democratic process.


----------



## bostjan

Ahh, the old, "this is Lacy Green, your argument is invalid" strawman (analog with the "this is Ann Coulter, your argument is invalid").



celticelk said:


> That's what primaries are for. There were seventeen candidates for the Republican nomination. How much more choice do you want?



...and if there were seventeen more, I doubt the pool would have been any better.

A lot of people voted for Trump, more than any other candidate besides Clinton. What does it mean? It means that people bought his spiel. Now we wait to see how that plays out, but so far, it sure looks like it was all just a dog and pony show. You had tons of people (myself included) telling Trump supporters that it was just a dog and pony show, but they did not care. 

Every reason I have heard for supporting Trump has been bull..... Now I have about two months to come around and support him, since he's going to be the boss like it or lump it.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Having a democracy means that sometimes you don't get the result you hoped for, because other people voted for something else. If you don't respect the democratic process when you lose, you don't respect the democratic process.



What is your point?


----------



## big_aug

celticelk said:


> Having a democracy means that sometimes you don't get the result you hoped for, because other people voted for something else. If you don't respect the democratic process when you lose, you don't respect the democratic process.



I dont have to accept it to respect the process. I can disagree and advocate against it all the way. I could protest if I was ambitious enough or in a state that wasnt massively pro Trump. Just because someone wins an election doesn't meam you lay down and take it. We saw it when Obama was president. We need to do everything possible to make sure Donald Trump cant implement anything. We'll have to elect the right people to congress during the next midterm election, but it can be done. Might not happen but we can try. 

That IS respecting the process. We have to continue to stall until a true uniter who speaks to us all comes along. It might never happen. Probably just endless cycles of swinging back and forth.


----------



## bostjan

Why don't you wait to see what he wants to implement before you say that you will do everything in your power to stop it? I'm not even being optimistic, just practical.


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> I dont have to accept it to respect the process. I can disagree and advocate against it all the way. I could protest if I was ambitious enough or in a state that wasnt massively pro Trump. Just because someone wins an election doesn't meam you lay down and take it. We saw it when Obama was president. We need to do everything possible to make sure Donald Trump cant implement anything. We'll have to elect the right people to congress during the next midterm election, but it can be done. Might not happen but we can try.
> 
> That IS respecting the process. We have to continue to stall until a true uniter who speaks to us all comes along. It might never happen. Probably just endless cycles of swinging back and forth.



I'm certainly not advocating "laying down and taking it." We need to aggressively push back against Trump's agenda with every effective means at our disposal. Setting fires in the streets and chanting "he's not my president!" is not effective. First, legally, he *is* your president. That's what happens when you win an election. Second, it plays directly into the narrative of our opponents, who are gleeful at the opportunity to paint the political left as "whiny cry-baby safe-spacers who don't respect American democratic values." Like it or not, we have to be the adults in the room now.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Why don't you wait to see what he wants to implement before you say that you will do everything in your power to stop it? I'm not even being optimistic, just practical.



Have you read his first-100-days agenda?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501597652/fact-check-donald-trumps-first-100-days-action-plan


----------



## big_aug

celticelk said:


> I'm certainly not advocating "laying down and taking it." We need to aggressively push back against Trump's agenda with every effective means at our disposal. Setting fires in the streets and chanting "he's not my president!" is not effective. First, legally, he *is* your president. That's what happens when you win an election. Second, it plays directly into the narrative of our opponents, who are gleeful at the opportunity to paint the political left as "whiny cry-baby safe-spacers who don't respect American democratic values." Like it or not, we have to be the adults in the room now.



We shouldn't be setting fires. Protests are fine though. Protesting is part of being an adult in the United States.



bostjan said:


> Why don't you wait to see what he wants to implement before you say that you will do everything in your power to stop it? I'm not even being optimistic, just practical.



He told us what he was going to try to do. Why would we do anything but take him at his word? Maybe youre implying it was all bull.... designed to rile people up to vote for him? If thats the case, then it"s just as bad and a huge part of the problem.


----------



## Steinmetzify

tacotiklah said:


> I'll be honest, I'm kind of over the emotional rollercoaster of all of this and I will probably need a small amount of time to kick back and enjoy some of those prop 64 results. As I've written on my facebook timeline:
> 
> "Everyone I know keeps telling me 'It's going to be fine, it's going to be okay. Everyone needs to calm down and stop freaking out. Nobody is going to come for your rights, nobody is going to target minorities. Trump has you back, so stop buying into the hyperbole and propaganda'. Okay then. I'll give you and your candidate a fair chance. But the burden of proof is on you guys. You're the ones making the lofty promises that the rest of us are expecting to collect on. And if you're wrong, you'll be the ones having to live with guilt of condemning minorities to a living hell. Yet again.
> 
> I'm not a sore loser, and there are even a couple trade policies I agree with Trump on (killing TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, etc), so there's some common ground there to work on. But the moment he flips 180 and comes after Windsor vs US and/or Obergefell vs Hodge, I'm completely losing my sh*t."
> 
> So with that in mind, I need some damn humor in my life. Something that makes me shake my head due to its irreverence and give a deep-bellied laugh. And I had that happen just a moment ago....
> 
> With the Trump victory, apparently the knee-jerk reaction to it is #Calexit. That's right, people here in CA want to actually secede from the union now. To me, it's a complete and utter joke and doomed to fail if Brexit taught us anything.
> 
> Now that you have the context, here's the moment that had me rolling...
> 
> Friend on facebook: "I thought Brexit was a cereal."
> Me: "Well if Calexit were a cereal, I wouldn't eat it. It'd be too salty."



I'm really glad to see this post and I'm glad you calmed down, dude...and was sorry to see how upset you got. Was worried about you a bit. Despite what's been said, I honestly can't see anyone going after LBGT rights, and despite the way I voted, I'd be first in line to stand up and say "nope". As far as your medical issues.....I have high hopes for Ben Carson putting something in place. The guy is a genius and I can barely think of someone better for the job.

As far as Calexit....aren't you pretty much the only state with like ZERO water? I say that with all knowledge that most of your water in the summer comes from UT, because that's where I live lol. What are they thinking they're going to drink? Seceding pretty much means they don't want anything to do with the rest of the country, yeah? Pretty sure CA doesn't have anything UT wants in trade for water rights...

The protests and violence are irking me. It reminds me of the stories about a guy that broke into someone's house, got shot and is now suing the homeowner. What exactly do these violent protesters think they're going to do? The dude won, fair and square....I didn't see any of this from Rs when Obama won the first or second time. Everyone I knew that didn't vote for him just basically said "fine....4 more years of this crap. Whatever."


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> We shouldn't be setting fires. Protests are fine though. Protesting is part of being an adult in the United States.



Honestly, I still don't see the point. Protesting is usually a way to draw attention to the uncaptured popular sentiment in favor of or against an idea, in order to influence the people making decisions. The protests against the Iraq War are a perfect example. There's no doubt how much popular sentiment opposes Donald Trump: we just ran a massive nationwide survey to quantify it.


----------



## wankerness

steinmetzify said:


> I didn't see any of this from Rs when Obama won the first or second time. Everyone I knew that didn't vote for him just basically said "fine....4 more years of this crap. Whatever."



You don't remember the tons of people that thought Obama was a communist muslim nazi or whatever? A lot of republicans acted like it was the end of the world when he was re-elected. None that I knew personally, of course. Fortunately, I don't really know any liberal nutjobs in person, either, except one girl I haven't interacted with during the last couple months. I know a few college students that are besides themselves, but they actually have a right to be - one girl with illegal immigrant parents in the final stages of becoming legal, and one totally legal muslim immigrant. The latter is incredibly americanized, doesn't wear a burka or anything, is very light-skinned and has no accent, but is terrified nonetheless about the racists feeling empowered and getting a lot more brash and loudmouthed, especially towards her much more conservative grandmother. She feels like she has to hide her identity now.

When Obama was FIRST elected, I don't remember it being as bad, cause they hadn't yet decided that he was a communist muslim that was born in Kenya.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Ahh, the old, "this is Lacy Green, your argument is invalid" strawman (analog with the "this is Ann Coulter, your argument is invalid").



I've never heard of her before. Is she really an Ann Coulter? That's EXACTLY the same kind of crap I'm seeing EVERYWHERE on left-leaning boards and summed it up nicely, so I posted it. Just read the AVClub for a while. And that's not even a political/social board!!

EDIT: Examples:

http://www.avclub.com/article/stephen-colbert-makes-case-unity-election-special--245638
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/jokes-failed-us-colbert-didnt-245631
http://www.avclub.com/article/seth-meyers-just-hopes-trump-presidency-wont-be-ba-245689
http://www.avclub.com/article/internet-not-funny-245649

It's just comment after comment like "I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE WHO VOTED TRUMP, ALL OF THEM ARE BIGOTED SEXIST PEOPLE THAT WANT TO KILL ALL LGBTQ PEOPLE, 50% OF THE COUNTRY IS PURE EVIL. ALSO, EVERYONE WHO WAS ON OBAMACARE IS GOING TO DIE" All comments like that have tons of upvotes, everything more reasonable has nothing and has the shrill people trying to shout them down with things like "nope, you're wrong, they're inhuman!!!" I dread to even think what it's like on say, Jezebel or Tumblr. This isn't simply an Ann Coulter-level thing where a tiny minority is like this, this is a very substantial portion of liberals, especially the younger ones. I'm starting to see it go down at the college here, and it's aided by pick-up truck driving football players wearing American flag shirts with TRUMP emblazoned on them sorta laughing and rubbing it in the face of those who are upset. It's really dumb.

The main discussion page for the election seems to be gone, or I can't find it in the news feed in my five minutes of looking.


----------



## Drew

So, obviously I'm not happy with what happened, and considering most of the people I care about are a minority in SOME sense of the word - either women, religious minorities, racial minorities, gay or lesbian, whatever - I have some major concerns for what the future will bring for them. I've also, obviously, been doing a lot of soul searching about what went wrong.



Womb raider said:


> Honestly, I think THE biggest sticking point in this whole election was jobs. Trump nailed this point over and over, while Hilary kind of glossed over this. This election boiled down to half the voters hoping Trump will change their short term outlook. It's just human nature to vote for people that you think will improve your situation.
> 
> Most people just want to make a decent living, feel safe in where they live, take care of their family and have some leftover scrap for a rainy day (if Trump can help them do that is another debate). I truly don't think this was an orchestrated assault on LGBT rights, abortion issues, minorities or anything else people are claiming. Following Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the people in the bottom rungs could give a rat's azz about anything else. I just think that many people in this country are more concerned about if their job is going overseas, where their next paycheck is coming from and if they have enough for rent, food or gas in their car. Any other issue will take a back seat until those needs are met.
> 
> Seeing usually left-leaning, union rust belt states going red is definitely eye-opening, and I believe this is why he was elected.



This is what I keep coming back to. For my entire adult life (and I first voted in 2000), the Democratic party has been the party that tried to protect the rights of black americans, of latino americans, of gay and lesbian americans, and basically fought for the rights of the traditional have-nots in America. That's an honorable thing to do, and I don't regret supporting the party concerned with social equality and justice. Where I think we went wrong as a party, though, was that over the last 16 years, we'd kind of neglected blue collar working class white voters. They felt hung out to dry (which should have been a lesson we learned from Brexit, but didn't). So, when Trump explicitly pitched to them, gave them a bogeyman in the form of globalization, and said he could give them better jobs, they looked back, couldn't really point to anything the Democrats had done for them, and figured they might as well give the other guy a shot. 

One of the things I'd argued time and time again around here was that while globalization was a net benefit to our economy, it wasn't a costless one for all Americans, and the Democratic party (and really supporters of Globalization from across all party lines) needed to do a better job of helping those who had been negatively impacted by globalization, to make sure that we had no net losers. The Dems didn't do that, and we paid for that in the polls. 

The problem, as a Democrat, I see is this - one of the few things Trump wants to do that I support is significantly expand infastructure spending. One of the reasons I support that is we can borrow cheaply given the current level of yields (even after the insane backup in the Treasury curve we've seen - at 2.15%, that's still cheap relative to long-run inflation trends and there's reason to believe inflation will be higher under Trump), but the main reason is that it WILL create blue collar jobs, something our recovery has been lacking thus far (at least outside of the shale oil industry, which did a boom/bust on us anyway). And, if he does, then he's in for 8 years, and that really worries me from the civil liberty side...

Idunno. I'm still digesting. I just want to make sure the Democrats learn the right lesson from this one.

EDIT - also, what the .... was up with Comey's fake-out? That cost Clinton about 3 points in the polls, which was the difference between this and a 4-5 point popular vote win. We'll only get an investigation if the Dems take back the House and Senate in 2018, but man, I'd love some more transparency into what his motivations were there.


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> Honestly, I still don't see the point. Protesting is usually a way to draw attention to the uncaptured popular sentiment in favor of or against an idea, in order to influence the people making decisions. The protests against the Iraq War are a perfect example. There's no doubt how much popular sentiment opposes Donald Trump: we just ran a massive nationwide survey to quantify it.



I have no problem with nonviolent protest. I think it helps to drive home the point that Donald Trump won, despite his electoral college totals, by the SLIMMEST of margins, and that a lot of the country strongly opposes what he stands for. If he wants his presidency to be a success, he needs to be reminded that he's gotta find some way to meet these people in the middle


----------



## Steinmetzify

Well said on both posts, Drew.

@Wankerness:

I don't remember shizz like this, no. I don't recall if there were people attacking people in the streets and setting fires etc....and maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, most of the people I know were just bent, not OMGZZZBIRTHERFAKEPRESIDENTETC....

I'm irritated with the immigrant crap too. Those people are straight nuts...like they think we're going back to before the 60s and racism is coming back in a big way. Just no. I will fight that bull.... tooth and nail and so would most of the Trump supporters I know. Even people I know that don't want that lifestyle still support peoples' right to choose and that's an important distinction to me. One of my best friends is a Bible thumping minister who doesn't really agree with LGBT stuff religiously, but completely supports peoples' rights regardless of personal choices or beliefs and would never allow it to be taken away.

The whole illegal alien thing is interesting to me too...I haven't heard of anything remotely resembling a plan for this stuff, but "HEY I'M GONNA PUT EM ALL ON A BIG TRUCK AND SEND EM OUT" doesn't really work.

What I'd like to see and what I think we WILL see is a government mandate that all illegals will be given a term of amnesty to become citizens...get a year or two to get it done, start paying taxes/paying into SS etc or else.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Inch or a mile....

House, Senate, Presidency, and soon supreme court majorities.

They don't have to meet ANYONE ANYWHERE.

That said, I hope that we are pleasantly surprised. At least we will not be normally pandered too (which I saw as the alternative).


----------



## wankerness

steinmetzify said:


> I don't remember shizz like this, no. I don't recall if there were people attacking people in the streets and setting fires etc....and maybe I'm wrong. Like I said, most of the people I know were just bent, not OMGZZZBIRTHERFAKEPRESIDENTETC....
> 
> I'm irritated with the immigrant crap too. Those people are straight nuts...like they think we're going back to before the 60s and racism is coming back in a big way. Just no. I will fight that bull.... tooth and nail and so would most of the Trump supporters I know. Even people I know that don't want that lifestyle still support peoples' right to choose and that's an important distinction to me. One of my best friends is a Bible thumping minister who doesn't really agree with LGBT stuff religiously, but completely supports peoples' rights regardless of personal choices or beliefs and would never allow it to be taken away.
> 
> The whole illegal alien thing is interesting to me too...I haven't heard of anything remotely resembling a plan for this stuff, but "HEY I'M GONNA PUT EM ALL ON A BIG TRUCK AND SEND EM OUT" doesn't really work.
> 
> What I'd like to see and what I think we WILL see is a government mandate that all illegals will be given a term of amnesty to become citizens...get a year or two to get it done, start paying taxes/paying into SS etc or else.



Read Trump's first 100 days plans. I don't think most of them will get passed, but they do give more specific goals. Some of them are awful, some of them are quite good, but they do give anyone who cares about the environment and doesn't want their kids to live in a severely messed-up environment pause. Same with anyone who knows any illegal immigrants. Other than those, I think they're pretty benign. I didn't see anything that should scare anyone about abortion or LGBTQ rights, tbph.

EDIT: I read the last part of your post more closely. Trump's stated goals didn't really give a hint about amnesty, just about kicking 2 million out ASAP and giving really harsh punishment to anyone that got deported and came back. Also, I don't think this was in there, but I was hearing from one of my immigrant student workers that it looked like OPT was going to get cut in half (I don't know anything about this personally, so I don't know where he heard that, but it's a pretty big deal since only affects US college-graduated, LEGAL immigrants, and basically says "we don't want you here"). Again, though, I don't think he personally truly wants to just deport everyone.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> This is what I keep coming back to. For my entire adult life (and I first voted in 2000), the Democratic party has been the party that tried to protect the rights of black americans, of latino americans, of gay and lesbian americans, and basically fought for the rights of the traditional have-nots in America. That's an honorable thing to do, and I don't regret supporting the party concerned with social equality and justice. Where I think we went wrong as a party, though, was that over the last 16 years, we'd kind of neglected blue collar working class white voters. They felt hung out to dry (which should have been a lesson we learned from Brexit, but didn't). So, when Trump explicitly pitched to them, gave them a bogeyman in the form of globalization, and said he could give them better jobs, they looked back, couldn't really point to anything the Democrats had done for them, and figured they might as well give the other guy a shot.
> 
> One of the things I'd argued time and time again around here was that while globalization was a net benefit to our economy, it wasn't a costless one for all Americans, and the Democratic party (and really supporters of Globalization from across all party lines) needed to do a better job of helping those who had been negatively impacted by globalization, to make sure that we had no net losers. The Dems didn't do that, and we paid for that in the polls.



The kicker is, the Democrats *did* have policy proposals that would benefit the white working class: retraining, infrastructure, recruiting advanced manufacturing, etc. But that's complicated, and in an election cycle that spent amazingly little time actually talking about policy, it doesn't sell as well as Trump's promise to "bring the jobs back! Make America great again!" even when there's absolutely no substance behind that facade.



Drew said:


> The problem, as a Democrat, I see is this - one of the few things Trump wants to do that I support is significantly expand infastructure spending. One of the reasons I support that is we can borrow cheaply given the current level of yields (even after the insane backup in the Treasury curve we've seen - at 2.15%, that's still cheap relative to long-run inflation trends and there's reason to believe inflation will be higher under Trump), but the main reason is that it WILL create blue collar jobs, something our recovery has been lacking thus far (at least outside of the shale oil industry, which did a boom/bust on us anyway). And, if he does, then he's in for 8 years, and that really worries me from the civil liberty side...



Well, Trump wants to do this without actually spending any federal money, by providing tax credits for private industry to take up the work. That's a completely unproven idea. Mitch McConnell was pretty cool to the infrastructure proposal yesterday, probably because there's no way the Congressional Republicans can win with it. I'm sure the Democrats would love to be able to run ads in '18 and '20 saying: "You like this new infrastructure program? We could have had this TEN YEARS AGO if the Republicans cared about this country instead of themselves." On the other hand, if they don't do it, they risk being painted as obstructionists and primaried from the right in 2018. (McConnell's not up for reelection until 2020; maybe he doesn't think his voters will remember that far back?) But yeah, this is probably the one thing on the agenda that I'd actively support, depending on the details.



Drew said:


> We'll only get an investigation if the Dems take back the House and Senate in 2018, but man, I'd love some more transparency into what his motivations were there.



Given the gerrymandering in the House and the Senate seats that are up for grabs in 2018, I have no expectation that the Democrats are taking back either chamber, barring a spectacular screwup by the GOP.


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> Given the gerrymandering in the House and the Senate seats that are up for grabs in 2018, I have no expectation that the Democrats are taking back either chamber, barring a spectacular screwup by the GOP.



I don't think the gerrymandering really would have enough of an effect to stop them from losing seats most places if they really mess up the next couple years. MAYBE in Wisconsin, but we're about the worst in the country at this point. It's set up to keep traditional republican voters in the majorities, but as we're seeing, the demographics can change very rapidly.


----------



## ncfiala

I just need to say something to all the people talking about racism and LGBT rights, etc. Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things? Really? What fantasy world do you live in? The average American wants to be able to take care of their family and live in peace and safety and maybe have a few comforts for all of their hard work. And he is going to vote for the candidate that he perceives is going to give him the best chance of having that. Was Trump their best choice in this regard? I have no idea and that's not what this post is about. The fact that that average American voted for Trump does not make him a racist. It doesn't make him a homophobe. It doesn't make him stupid. It doesn't mean that he hates you. It means that he has priorities and you aren't one of them.


----------



## 1b4n3z

celticelk said:


> The kicker is, the Democrats *did* have policy proposals that would benefit the white working class: retraining, infrastructure, recruiting advanced manufacturing, etc. But that's complicated, and in an election cycle that spent amazingly little time actually talking about policy, it doesn't sell as well as Trump's promise to "bring the jobs back! Make America great again!" even when there's absolutely no substance behind that facade.



As an outsider - but as someone seriously interested (also professionally) I wonder why a lot of Democrat leaning pundits and politicians kick themselves in the butt over 'not reaching out to the blue-collar whites'. From over here it seemed obvious they would not have listened anyway and, sorry to say this, appear absolutely impervious to substantial arguments. Trump went for gut feeling and repetition of fantastical but meaningless superlatives with pretty much every topic he brought up. Clinton would have been harshly criticized by her own supporters if she had tried that kind of populist crap. 

I'd like to think people were betrayed by the press - in the sense that Trump's 'cake for everyone and you get to keep it too' program was not ridiculed from the first, but I don't find that was all that decisive a turning point. More likely he found all the right buttons and went for it without care for consistency or realism. A Democrat candidate can't do that as neither base would support that


----------



## wankerness

ncfiala said:


> I just need to say something to all the people talking about racism and LGBT rights, etc. *Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things? Really? What fantasy world do you live in? * The average American wants to be able to take care of their family and live in peace and safety and maybe have a few comforts for all of their hard work. And he is going to vote for the candidate that he perceives is going to give him the best chance of having that. Was Trump their best choice in this regard? I have no idea and that's not what this post is about. *The fact that that average American voted for Trump does not make him a racist. It doesn't make him a homophobe. It doesn't make him stupid. It doesn't mean that he hates you. It means that he has priorities and you aren't one of them.*



1) Yes, a lot of scared and/or angry people do believe that
2) Yes, really
3) I think it's the fantasy world of either still being in college where everyone reinforces your beliefs, or living in a big city and thus being able to surround yourself exclusively with people that can create an echo chamber for your crazy paranoia of "everyone who voted Trump hates me and wants to put me in a death camp."

For the last few sentences, a lot of them argue that the fact they don't care about you as a priority is exactly as bad as actively hating them. If they don't think about you at all when making decisions, then they don't care about your rights at all, and by extension they won't care when Trump puts you in the death camps, is I guess their line of thinking?


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things? Really?



Yes...? Is that very difficult to believe? Think of it this way: the "average" person, if there is such a thing, very likely belongs to at least one type of minority group. If you're not poor, maybe you're black. If you're not poor or black, maybe you're gay. If you're not poor, gay, black, etc., you're bound to be part of some other kind of group, by some stretch, that in some way feel disenfranchised- either from one of the reasons mentioned, or maybe because you're concerned about something that threatens your livelihood as you've mentioned.

And you're right, nobody cares about the problems that don't apply to them, not directly. 



> It doesn't mean that he hates you. It means that he has priorities and you aren't one of them.



You're absolutely right, but that doesn't negate the damage it's going to do to the people that are now, in a slightly more literal and direct way, not a priority anymore. If you're ok with deciding that whole groups of people and their issues are not important enough, then that's your decision, but lots of people are going to disagree with you on that. It's priority for the individual vs priority for everyone, I guess? I can't think of a good way to word it, but hopefully you get what I mean.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

1b4n3z said:


> As an outsider - but as someone seriously interested (also professionally) I wonder why a lot of Democrat leaning pundits and politicians kick themselves in the butt over 'not reaching out to the blue-collar whites'. From over here it seemed obvious they would not have listened anyway and, sorry to say this, appear absolutely impervious to substantial arguments. Trump went for gut feeling and repetition of fantastical but meaningless superlatives with pretty much every topic he brought up. Clinton would have been harshly criticized by her own supporters if she had tried that kind of populist crap.
> 
> I'd like to think people were betrayed by the press - in the sense that Trump's 'cake for everyone and you get to keep it too' program was not ridiculed from the first, but I don't find that was all that decisive a turning point. More likely he found all the right buttons and went for it without care for consistency or realism. A Democrat candidate can't do that as neither base would support that



NPR had an episode yesterday interviewing an exit pollster.

Hillary got an estimated 55% of the registered Dem vote. That is pitiful.

She didn't have her base saying the things she was saying, so what does it matter? She literally had nothing to stand on the whole campaign, except for more of the same.


----------



## Necris

ncfiala said:


> I just need to say something to all the people talking about racism and LGBT rights, etc. Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things?


Not one bit, and that's exactly why some people are worried. Do I think a Trump administration will bring us back to the era of segregation? Not really, but I do think LGBT rights represent something of an "easy sacrifice" for the Trump administration to make to strengthen support from certain groups who are in their base, such as the the religious right. Gay rights are a much more recent development so I don't honestly think they're ingrained enough that people would bat an eye if one day the Trump administration decided to "restore religious freedom" by hacking away at LGBT protections or maybe trying to challenge Marriage Equality. Like you said, the average person doesn't care, so it's not high risk. Why not try it if his other promises don't come through and support from his base begins to dwindle?

I'd love to be wrong really, I'd even take no movement forward if it meant there was also no movement backward. I hope my brain is merely fabricating nightmare scenarios and will entertain the idea that that's all it is, but it's a concern.

On the subject of other people not being a voter's priority, you're right. Personally, I'd be lying if I said I thought about farmers when casting my vote, I didn't _want_ to hurt them but if the results of my vote did I'm not sure I would have cared. By the same token I don't really think my father, who is absolutely a racist, made his vote for Trump out of malice towards black people, or me, he despised Obama and his policies and wanted a change.


----------



## 1b4n3z

CapnForsaggio said:


> NPR had an episode yesterday interviewing an exit pollster.
> 
> Hillary got an estimated 55% of the registered Dem vote. That is pitiful.
> 
> ...
> 
> She didn't have her base saying the things she was saying, so what does it matter? She literally had nothing to stand on the whole campaign, except for more of the same.



Yep a little too mainstream candidate maybe? Radicalism doesn't actually work so a candidate with stories about magical unicorn-riding fairies fixing everything up just like that (believe me) would have been shot down by all parties, since blind tribalism seems to be limited to the extremists only. See: Sanders criticism by notable economists. The message was there, but that's quite useless without a somewhat credible plan. As I see it, Clinton had a very credible and thought out plan, but it wasn't what people wanted. (Re: earlier post)


----------



## celticelk

wankerness said:


> 1) Yes, a lot of scared and/or angry people do believe that
> 2) Yes, really
> 3) I think it's the fantasy world of either still being in college where everyone reinforces your beliefs, or living in a big city and thus being able to surround yourself exclusively with people that can create an echo chamber for your crazy paranoia of "everyone who voted Trump hates me and wants to put me in a death camp."
> 
> For the last few sentences, a lot of them argue that the fact they don't care about you as a priority is exactly as bad as actively hating them. If they don't think about you at all when making decisions, then they don't care about your rights at all, and by extension they won't care when Trump puts you in the death camps, is I guess their line of thinking?



I've been contributing to a similar conversation over on Volokh Conspiracy, and I'll advance here an argument that I've been making there. A lot of college students are from the rural and suburban towns that went heavily for Trump. Many of them went away to college specifically to escape the repressive social cultures of their hometowns. They're looking at Trump supporters and seeing their casually-racist neighbors, or their homophobic classmates, and realizing that the candidate who appealed to *those people* is running the federal government for the next four years. Being afraid of what happens to them and the members of their adopted communities - which, for many of them, may be the first place where they've felt really understood and *safe* for much of their lives - is hardly irrational.


----------



## Steinmetzify

wankerness said:


> EDIT: I read the last part of your post more closely. Trump's stated goals didn't really give a hint about amnesty, just about kicking 2 million out ASAP and giving really harsh punishment to anyone that got deported and came back. Also, I don't think this was in there, but I was hearing from one of my immigrant student workers that it looked like OPT was going to get cut in half (I don't know anything about this personally, so I don't know where he heard that, but it's a pretty big deal since only affects US college-graduated, LEGAL immigrants, and basically says "we don't want you here"). Again, though, I don't think he personally truly wants to just deport everyone.



I know there's no hint of amnesty, it was just something I was thinking about. If you're here illegally you're breaking the law. If I get caught breaking the law, I have to suffer the mandated punishment for doing so and in this country these people should be no different. I just figured that amnesty would soften the blow and shut up the whiners, really. It's win/win for both....they get a chance to stay and if they choose not to comply, well...they had their shot and didn't take it. No one could blame him for that.



ncfiala said:


> I just need to say something to all the people talking about racism and LGBT rights, etc. Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things? Really? What fantasy world do you live in? The average American wants to be able to take care of their family and live in peace and safety and maybe have a few comforts for all of their hard work. And he is going to vote for the candidate that he perceives is going to give him the best chance of having that. Was Trump their best choice in this regard? I have no idea and that's not what this post is about. The fact that that average American voted for Trump does not make him a racist. It doesn't make him a homophobe. It doesn't make him stupid. It doesn't mean that he hates you. It means that he has priorities and you aren't one of them.



Dude? Yeah. I'm an 'average American citizen', and I do care. You know why? Because all the LGBTs are Americans too, and they all want the exact same things we do... to take care of their family and live in peace and safety and maybe have a few comforts for all of their hard work. Dividing our population along any line whatsoever is not productive, ever. 

As far as racism goes, I can't think of a single person more outmoded or stuck into some ideal that couldn't be more incorrect than a racist. Hating someone because of the color of their skin or background is one of the most completely idiotic things I think anyone could ever do and I feel like my IQ gets lowered anytime I have to hear some of that BS rhetoric. 

I will state for the record that during this election LGBT right were not a concern when it came time to pick my vote, because as far as I'm concerned the state of the country as a whole is more important to me than any one group's rights or feelings, which to my mind is the way things should be.


----------



## bostjan

ncfiala said:


> I just need to say something to all the people talking about racism and LGBT rights, etc. Do you honestly believe that the average American citizen gives a .... about these things? Really? What fantasy world do you live in? The average American wants to be able to take care of their family and live in peace and safety and maybe have a few comforts for all of their hard work. And he is going to vote for the candidate that he perceives is going to give him the best chance of having that. Was Trump their best choice in this regard? I have no idea and that's not what this post is about. The fact that that average American voted for Trump does not make him a racist. It doesn't make him a homophobe. It doesn't make him stupid. It doesn't mean that he hates you. It means that he has priorities and you aren't one of them.




Average American what? Who won the popular vote?! HRC actually got more of the popular vote (from what's been counted so far, about 1%)

I think people will likely take your post as more incendiary than you intended.

I think the average American absolutely cares about the things you mentioned. The average American is:

62.5% employed, making $39k/yr as a male or $26k/yr. as a female
Is 37 years old
Is $15k in debt
63.7% white
51.3% protestant

So, the average American want to be more securely employed and making more money and have less debt, because both of those statistics are trending worse.

Anyway, I'd say that just about everyone in the USA knows someone who is *not* the average American. I doubt they wish ill will upon their own friends.

All of that aside, though, DJT is going to be the next president. As far as I've heard, and please correct me if I'm wrong, he has not taken any action against the LGBT community, nor the racial minorities, nor announced plans to do so, yet, so there is nothing concrete to protest, yet. I think protesting at this juncture, is a legal right (as long as it's peaceful, of course), but kind of makes the protesters look like whiny children.

Plus, did you really want Clinton? Did the average American even vote? I don't know.


----------



## Necris

Considering that only something like 54.8% of the voting population actually went to the polls I don't know if any conclusions can be drawn from who won the popular vote.


----------



## bostjan

Necris said:


> Considering that only something like 54.8% of the voting population actually went to the polls I don't know if any conclusions can be drawn from who won the popular vote.



But people keep saying that the average American voted for Trump, and I'm calling shenanigans on that claim. If most eligible voters stayed home, and then those who did vote, didn't give anyone a majority, and then the plurality of popular vote went to HRC (I'm seeing data at this point is incomplete, but has her ahead by <400k votes), then I'm going to flat out say that the statement or insinuation that the average American chose Trump is wrong. Whether the point is moot or not, if that's the point you want to make, it's still flat out wrong.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

steinmetzify said:


> Interesting read from a Muslim woman who voted for Trump:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?0p19G=c
> 
> Hyperbole doesn't get to everyone.



Good read, thanks for the post. There is such great political and religious struggle in the world today... great to see people like her crossing lines and going against the normal to help bring peace and show others that we can still help each other.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So Trump apparently just made a bit of a u-turn on obamacare. 

Curious to see how his presidency is going to play out now.


----------



## Aymara

UnderTheSign said:


> So Trump apparently just made a bit of a u-turn on obamacare.



Well, he is not going to become a king, but a president 

This will not be his last u-turn.


----------



## big_aug

UnderTheSign said:


> So Trump apparently just made a bit of a u-turn on obamacare.
> 
> Curious to see how his presidency is going to play out now.





Didnt take long. Three days after his election he is already going back on things he used to get votes. Im sure he will continue doing whatever and saying anything to look out for his own best interest.

Repeal repeal repeal. Repeal and replace. Amend?

People bought into it


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Your definitions of "Uturn" are special.

I for one, did NOT want to see him crash into Obamacare like a bull in a china shop. 

The more gracefully he deals with things like Obamacare and immigration the better!

I can't believe you are arguing that he isn't being forceful enough in his campaign promises. It's ridiculous.


----------



## big_aug

CapnForsaggio said:


> Your definitions of "Uturn" are special.
> 
> I for one, did NOT want to see him crash into Obamacare like a bull in a china shop.
> 
> The more gracefully he deals with things like Obamacare and immigration the better!
> 
> I can't believe you are arguing that he isn't being forceful enough in his campaign promises. It's ridiculous.



Its ridiculous to expect someone to do the things they say? This is how he got people to vote for him. This is exactly why people are pissed. This guy basically just made .... up and said WHATEVER people wanted to hear to get their vote. His whole campaign was BS.


----------



## celticelk

UnderTheSign said:


> So Trump apparently just made a bit of a u-turn on obamacare.
> 
> Curious to see how his presidency is going to play out now.



Yeah, he's saying he wants to keep the ban on denial of insurance for pre-existing conditions. That plays well with voters, until they figure out that people just don't bother to get insurance until they have a major medical condition. That means that insurance companies have to pay out more per customer, on average, which means that - you guessed it - insurance premiums go up. The ACA is a tripod: ban on denial for pre-existing conditions, the individual mandate, and the subsidies and exchanges. No part stands up by itself.


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> Its ridiculous to expect someone to do the things they say? This is how he got people to vote for him. This is exactly why people are pissed. This guy basically just made .... up and said WHATEVER people wanted to hear to get their vote. His whole campaign was BS.



It's going to be very interesting to see how that first-100-days agenda works out for him.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

big_aug said:


> Its ridiculous to expect someone to do the things they say? This is how he got people to vote for him. This is exactly why people are pissed. This guy basically just made .... up and said WHATEVER people wanted to hear to get their vote. His whole campaign was BS.



His campaign won. And the people who voted for him are not pissed.

Many of those people were facing 150% increases in ACA eligible insurance rates.

Many of those people had their lives negatively impacted by lax immigration policy.

I know we are still very close to the whole win/lose thing, but you are going to have to get over this. Stay open to being able to recognize if he actually is making improvements.

He hasn't yet, but he might. And we will judge him on his merits. Not the color of his skin, or his political affiliations.


----------



## big_aug

CapnForsaggio said:


> His campaign won. And the people who voted for him are not pissed.
> 
> Many of those people were facing 150% increases in ACA eligible insurance rates.
> 
> Many of those people had their lives negatively impacted by lax immigration policy.
> 
> I know we are still very close to the whole win/lose thing, but you are going to have to get over this. Stay open to being able to recognize if he actually is making improvements.
> 
> He hasn't yet, but he might. And we will judge him on his merits. Not the color of his skin, or his political affiliations.




Its not about winning or losing. Its about just saying anything to get the people to vote for him. He said for two years he was repealing Obamacare to get those votes. He gets elected and immediately starts saying things other people want to hear which is conpletely against what he ran on.

I dont care he won. I want to see him do EVERYTHING he said. I dont agree but im OK with the people who voted for him getting what they want. They arent going to though.


----------



## protest

big_aug said:


> Its not about winning or losing. Its about just saying anything to get the people to vote for him. He said for two years he was repealing Obamacare to get those votes. He gets elected and immediately starts saying things other people want to hear which is conpletely against what he ran on.
> 
> I dont care he won. I want to see him do EVERYTHING he said. I dont agree but im OK with the people who voted for him getting what they want. They arent going to though.



That is politics 101 unfortunately. Say whatever to get elected and then do what you actually intended all along. No one ever follows through on the things they campaign on. We were getting absolved of student loan debt according to Obama, in his second term I believe, but instead the interest rates went up. This issue is not particular to Trump.


----------



## celticelk

A good summary of the issues involved with repealing the ACA: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-will-trump-do-to-obamacare/

Most of its provisions are fairly popular (70% approval and up), except for the mandate, which is the glue that holds the rest of it together.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> His campaign won. And the people who voted for him are not pissed.
> 
> Many of those people were facing 150% increases in ACA eligible insurance rates.
> 
> Many of those people had their lives negatively impacted by lax immigration policy.
> 
> I know we are still very close to the whole win/lose thing, but you are going to have to get over this. Stay open to being able to recognize if he actually is making improvements.
> 
> He hasn't yet, but he might. And we will judge him on his merits. Not the color of his skin, or his political affiliations.



Or, y'know, you could have judged him on whether he had any concrete plans that could accomplish the things he was promising, ideally *before* you voted for him.


----------



## kmanick

Well a point that I don't see anyone here discussing is an important one.
I know lot of people that voted for Trump , most of them independents, that frankly had finally had enough of the Snark and arrogance from the left that their way was the only way.
That if you weren't on board then you're a racist/xenophobe......blah blah, blah. 
The Contrite arrogance of people like John Stewart and Colbert and Samatha Bee......................please keep it up and see if you have any chance at all of getting back into the oval office in 2020 or 2024. the entire country is not Manhattan or LA.
The majority of middle America basically just said oh ya....well F you Liberals, you think you know what's better for me than I do?.........................wrong.
this shouldn't be overlooked, the political correctness era was just rejected by 6 million American Voters. Also I think Drew hit it right on the head. Globalization was also rejected. I have relatives that live in middle america, and they despise the hollywood elites and the way that mainstream media talks down to them and about them, and they are sick of seeing people on both coasts that live in these prosperous bubble getting richer and smugger , while everyone around them is either stagnant or struggling.
Amy Schumer said something about Mike Pence the other day in the vein of "why don't you go to Walmart at midnight in your pajamas and buy some ammo".
Wow...... keep it up Amy and Sarah Silverman and Stewart and Colbert, you are your own worst enemies.
And please try to remember that the racist, sexist ....blah ,blah, blah, was a life long New York Democrat for far longer than the right wing Monster CNN and MSNBC paint him out to be. He will not go after abortion, he actually is a friend to the LGBT community (always has been), the Obamacare issue will be handled correctly, he's not coming to take your puppies at midnight, and he's not canceling X-mas. The only people he is really interested in deporting are criminals, he will not break up families. he was a liberal elite darling for almost 30 years....... until that night in 2011 when Obama and Seth Meyers went after him for being a birther. It all started right there.  
Take a deep breath, the markets are hitting record highs, if he keeps his head out of his ass and his foot out of his mouth and surrounds himself with some centrists that actually have a clue, we may actually see some good stuff coming our way.
oh and Kobain called it a long time ago


----------



## Hogie34

kmanick said:


> Well a point that I don't see anyone here discussing is an important one.
> I know lot of people that voted for Trump , most of them independents, that frankly had finally had enough of the Snark and arrogance from the left that their way was the only way.
> That if you weren't on board then you're a racist/xenophobe......blah blah, blah.
> The Contrite arrogance of people like John Stewart and Colbert and Samatha Bee......................please keep it up and see if you have any chance at all of getting back into the oval office in 2020 or 2024. the entire country is not Manhattan or LA.
> The majority of middle America basically just said oh ya....well F you Liberals, you think you know what's better for me than I do?.........................wrong.
> this shouldn't be overlooked, the political correctness era was just rejected by 6 million American Voters. Also I think Drew hit it right on the head. Globalization was also rejected. I have relatives that live in middle america, and they despise the hollywood elites and the way that mainstream media talks down to them and about them, and they are sick of seeing people on both coasts that live in these prosperous bubble getting richer and smugger , while everyone around them is either stagnant or struggling.
> Amy Schumer said something about Mike Pence the other day in the vein of "why don't you go to Walmart at midnight in your pajamas and buy some ammo".
> Wow...... keep it up Amy and Sarah Silverman and Stewart and Colbert, you are your own worst enemies.
> And please try to remember that the racist, sexist ....blah ,blah, blah, was a life long New York Democrat for far longer than the right wing Monster CNN and MSNBC paint him out to be. He will not go after abortion, he actually is a friend to the LGBT community (always has been), the Obamacare issue will be handled correctly, he's not coming to take your puppies at midnight, and he's not canceling X-mas. The only people he is really interested in deporting are criminals, he will not break up families. he was a liberal elite darling for almost 30 years....... until that night in 2011 when Obama and Seth Meyers went after him for being a birther. It all started right there.
> Take a deep breath, the markets are hitting record highs, if he keeps his head out of his ass and his foot out of his mouth and surrounds himself with some centrists that actually have a clue, we may actually see some good stuff coming our way.
> oh and Kobain called it a long time ago


 Holy crap!! I've stayed out of this one for reason but this Kurt quote is BS and it takes all but 2 seconds to verify it was never said. That being said, the rest of your post is dead on!


----------



## celticelk

You thought that the best guy to be the symbolic middle finger from the heartland to the coastal elites was a New York City con artist well-known for breaking contracts with workers, whose policy proposals consist largely of "trust me, it'll be great"?


----------



## big_aug

Do you even read or think about what you write? You just pointed out exactly what I'm saying. This guy was a "Democrat" for years. He didn't suddenly change. He is what he always has been. He's a rich billionaire who will do or say whatever he has to in order to get the best for himself. He pretended to be a right wing wacko so he could get elected. He spouted a bunch of talking points designed to directly target a certain group of people to get elected. Now that he's elected, he will say or do whatever he has to in order to continue bettering his own position. He gives no ....s about you or me. I still can't believe you people have been convinced by this guy. 

I didn't vote for him. It wasn't because I liked the other candidate or thought they would do what's best for me. I thought they would do less bad than this guy. He is a complete liar with no regard for facts or truth. He lies compulsively. He did it almost every day about everything during his campaign. He didn't lie about one thing or a couple things. He lied constantly. He just made up ..... And yet, somehow, no one gave a .... that he just made completely false and ignorant statements repeatedly. 

Your post is completely contrary to what the guy ACTUALLY said. How the hell do you people draw these conclusions about this guy? Just listen to what he said. I mean, my god. He wasn't nuanced or subtle. He outright said .... like mothers who get abortions should be punished (implying going after abortion). That's just one example of something he directly stated that you say he isn't going to do. 

My mind continues to be blown.


----------



## Steinmetzify

big_aug said:


> I still can't believe you people have been convinced by this guy.



Yeah...been hearing this a lot. We can go back and forth like this all day. I think HRC is a mother ....ing criminal, and can't believe you were convinced by her. I recall a news story about 6 months ago about a member of the armed forces who did exactly what she's been accused of doing, and he had his government clearance revoked and was stripped of his job. They talk about 'intent', as if that means anything. If she intended to do it knowing it was against the law she's a criminal and should suffer at least the same punishment of any other member of government that did the same thing. If she didn't mean to do it, then it means she sent classified emails from an unprotected server because she's a ....ing moron and didn't know better. This is the woman you want as your President? One who either thinks the law doesn't apply to her or a complete and utter idiot? She couldn't handle a lesser job so you want to give her one with an order of magnitude more responsibility and pressure?

And now I'm hearing about a Presidential pardon for her. For what? If she didn't do anything she doesn't need a pardon, because innocent people aren't criminals, right? On the other hand, if she needs a pardon it's because she's a criminal and if that's the case then WHAT THE .... WAS SHE DOING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?!



big_aug said:


> I didn't vote for him. It wasn't because I liked the other candidate or thought they would do what's best for me. I thought they would do less bad than this guy.



Same here. I didn't vote for her. It wasn't because I liked Trump, or thought that he'd be the best candidate for the job, but because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. As a 42 yr old middle class guy apparently full of white privilege, I'm sick to death of the PC bull.... that's been going on in this country. I'm tired of entitled whiny liberals that think the world owes them a favor, and I'm tired of the entire country bowing down to crybabies who need consoling because someone hurt their feelings or because they need a ....ing nap. I can't tell you how many stories I've read about colleges cancelling classes because of 'distraught students'. This is utter crap....I didn't get a day off from work 8 years ago when Obama got elected, but somehow cancelling classes for ADULTS is ok? This kind of .... is EXACTLY what's wrong with this country and has been for most of the last decade. I've seen live news reports with grown ass men crying as they're released from classes because their fragile egos can't take the pain of the day. GROW THE .... UP, GO TO SCHOOL AND HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS you candy ass. 



big_aug said:


> My mind continues to be blown.



Mine too, every time I turn on the news and see people burning American flags because the electoral process didn't go their way. I'm shocked that people are actually signing a petition to try and convince the EC electors to 'change their votes' so that HRC can be the President. They can get as many signatures as they want to. A million, 10 million, a hundred million. All they want, it doesn't matter. In the history of all the American elections EVER, I can count on one hand the number of times ONE elector changed his vote, and she'd need at least 20 just from this election alone to change anything at all. The people running this petition honestly think this could happen. 

My mind is also blown at the weirdness of these 'protests', knowing that it's going to do absolutely nothing.....setting things on fire or looting or rioting or even just standing around in big groups crying at each other? Nothing changes, no matter what anyone does, and the entitled babies really aren't seeming to grasp this. 

BTW Aug....I'm not trying to be smarmy about any of this. I get where you're coming from, and just wanted you to know that as much as you feel the way you do, people like me feel exactly the opposite about your views just like you feel about ours. Doesn't make anyone stupid, or me better or you smarter or whatever. Just differing opinions on the situations we find ourselves in in this country, ok?


----------



## Axayacatl

kmanick said:


> I have relatives that live in middle america, and they despise the hollywood elites and the way that mainstream media talks down to them and about them, and they are sick of seeing people on both coasts that live in these prosperous bubble getting richer and smugger , while everyone around them is either stagnant or struggling.



Tell them to come out West. There are plenty of jobs and we'd welcome them with open arms. Heck, I'm sick as $hit of everything being in Spanish. 


kmanick said:


> was a life long New York Democrat for far longer than the right wing Monster CNN and MSNBC paint him out to be. He will not go after abortion, he actually is a friend to the LGBT community (always has been), the Obamacare issue will be handled correctly, he's not coming to take your puppies at midnight, and he's not canceling X-mas. The only people he is really interested in deporting are criminals, he will not break up families. he was a liberal elite darling for almost 30 years.......


 I wouldn't be surprised if this turned out to be true, but then he picks Mike Pence and seems overall hands off so it gets confusing, really. It's a 50-50 coin toss at best, isn't it?



kmanick said:


> ..until that night in 2011 when Obama and Seth Meyers went after him for being a birther. It all started right there.



Wouldn't it make more sense to say it started before then, like when Trump became a birther in the first place? And then he dropped it like nothing 5 years later while promoting a hotel. That guy is the man. 



kmanick said:


> Take a deep breath, the markets are hitting record highs,



This makes sense though. Trump promotes an unregulated environment that favors banks. Banks were a big part of the record upswing. I don't have an opinion on this either way, it really depends if money is coming my way. Does your family in middle America have investments in these banks? If so they must have scored big on those payouts after the financial crisis following the bailout. I wouldn't be too worried about them stagnating or struggling, but I get it that they worry about two Americas.


----------



## McKay

I feel like this video applies to a few people here more than they'd like to admit.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Watched that earlier and laughed really hard.


----------



## Necris

steinmetzify said:


> Mine too, every time I turn on the news and see people burning American flags because the electoral process didn't go their way. I'm shocked that people are actually signing a petition to try and convince the EC electors to 'change their votes' so that HRC can be the President. They can get as many signatures as they want to. A million, 10 million, a hundred million. All they want, it doesn't matter. In the history of all the American elections EVER, I can count on one hand the number of times ONE elector changed his vote, and she'd need at least 20 just from this election alone to change anything at all. The people running this petition honestly think this could happen.


I agree with your post I just wanted to highlight this in particular. (We've done the impossible everyone, someone on "THE LEFT" and and a Trump voter found common ground!  )
That petition popped up among people in my friends list and I got jumped on for commenting my thoughts that "Hey, maybe all things considered, that's still a stupid ....ing idea." I'm honestly not sure how people think that would play out if it were to happen but their mental image must be filled with far more sunshine and roses than mine because in my eyes this is the nuclear option. 

There were times where more than one elector changed their vote or abstained entirely, far more, even. However, it certainly hasn't been in our lifetimes and the most significant, where 63 electors voted differently, only occurred because the candidate they were supposed to vote for died. Hillary would need 42, aside from the aforementioned election which occured in 1872 none have gone over 40, few have gone above 2.


----------



## extendedsolo

McKay said:


> I feel like this video applies to a few people here more than they'd like to admit.




That is pretty spot on. I think the sooner all people accept that Trump is president the sooner we can figure out the how this came to be. Obviously pro Trump people might not care as much, but the opponents of him can figure out how to change things. Some really good points in this thread so far.



steinmetzify said:


> Same here. I didn't vote for her. It wasn't because I liked Trump, or thought that he'd be the best candidate for the job, but because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. As a 42 yr old middle class guy apparently full of white privilege, I'm sick to death of the PC bull.... that's been going on in this country. I'm tired of entitled whiny liberals that think the world owes them a favor, and I'm tired of the entire country bowing down to crybabies who need consoling because someone hurt their feelings or because they need a ....ing nap. I can't tell you how many stories I've read about colleges cancelling classes because of 'distraught students'. This is utter crap....I didn't get a day off from work 8 years ago when Obama got elected, but somehow cancelling classes for ADULTS is ok? This kind of .... is EXACTLY what's wrong with this country and has been for most of the last decade. I've seen live news reports with grown ass men crying as they're released from classes because their fragile egos can't take the pain of the day. GROW THE .... UP, GO TO SCHOOL AND HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS you candy ass.



While I didn't vote for Trump, I could've seen a scenario where I did and I completely understand the many reasons why others did. I just couldn't get behind how he is making people are are actually sexist, racist, xenophobic feel empowered now. I didn't feel good about voting for Clinton, and I"m not about to be a 3rd party voter who thinks they are above it all. I just saw the potential damage he could do and still may do so that's why. I don't think being PC is a bad thing within reason. I'm pretty left leaning on most social issues and there are times when I see reactions to non PC behavior and think "really? just chill out." It's like the left used up all of their outrage equity because they get upset about the stupidest things. Yes, lets actually get upset by people doing actual racist things like the college who had the public lynching group recently (assuming the university didn't handle it appropriately). Lets not get overly upset because someone doesn't like Caitlyn Jenner or disagrees her decision. For the most part, universities tend to be very far left, and the best lesson they should've taught kids that day is that the world does not care if you are upset. One of your family members is going to die one day and your job is going to expect you to come back at 100% very soon after. Class is going on as normal because the world keeps turning. IT's going to happen several times in your life so deal with it. Lets not start crying in public over this, if you want to be emotional in private fine, but this is how democracy works. Everyone's voice is equal whether you like it or not. 

I get why people are protesting also, but lets not be the boy who cried wolf here. If something bad actually happens people will think "oh stupid libs protesting again." Lets not spend that outrage capital or else it'll be written off the same as the people who have nothing positive to say about Obama. He's a secret Muslim, not an american, criminal blah blah blah it's just noise that no one on the other side will take seriously. I think the biggest thing is these people need to come in contact with people who hold different view points. I work with several conservative leaning people and they aren't monsters. They aren't hood wearing degenerates either. Both sides i think need to step out of their comfort zone once in a while. 

Also, have we determined what constitutes "overly PC"?


----------



## celticelk

Necris said:


> I agree with your post I just wanted to highlight this in particular. (We've done the impossible everyone, someone on "THE LEFT" and and a Trump voter found common ground!  )
> That petition popped up among people in my friends list and I got jumped on for commenting my thoughts that "Hey, maybe all things considered, that's still a stupid ....ing idea." I'm honestly not sure how people think that would play out if it were to happen but their mental image must be filled with far more sunshine and roses than mine because in my eyes this is the nuclear option.
> 
> There were times where more than one elector changed their vote or abstained entirely, far more, even. However, it certainly hasn't been in our lifetimes and the most significant, where 63 electors voted differently, only occurred because the candidate they were supposed to vote for died. Hillary would need 42, aside from the aforementioned election which occured in 1872 none have gone over 40, few have gone above 2.



This is a stupid idea whether it's notionally possible or not. There was an election, and we lost. The adult thing to do here is to respect the democratic process, suck it up, and get to work on limiting the damage done going forward, rather than giving our political opponents (additional) reasons to pre-emptively dismiss us.


----------



## extendedsolo

celticelk said:


> This is a stupid idea whether it's notionally possible or not. There was an election, and we lost. The adult thing to do here is to respect the democratic process, suck it up, and get to work on limiting the damage done going forward, rather than giving our political opponents (additional) reasons to pre-emptively dismiss us.



THIS X10000000000000000000000000000


----------



## Necris

I agree with you, I wasn't arguing in favor of it in my last post, just sharing some information that really, for me, highlights how desperate (and even crazy) that petition is. It's absolute hypocrisy, too, considering that, at least among my facebook friends, some of the people pushing this are the exact same ones who were up in arms about Trump "destroying faith in our democratic system" or whatever, when he was arguing the election was rigged and saying he wouldn't accept the results of the election unless he won. Now the result isn't what _they_ want and they want the result nullified, how is that better?


----------



## celticelk

Really, that goes for the protests too. I understand the impulse get together to demonstrate our resolve, and frankly to remind ourselves that there are lots of people in our communities who feel the way that we do, because isolation makes everything that much worse. Chanting "not my president!" and destroying property makes us no better than the Trump supporters that wore "Lock the b!tch up" shirts and harassed reporters. (And I understand that the anarchist bloc has been hijacking our gatherings for the last fifteen years, but that's ultimately just another exercise in blame-shifting.) If we want to build a better America, we have to *be* that better America, even in (temporary!) defeat.


----------



## tacotiklah

McKay said:


> I feel like this video applies to a few people here more than they'd like to admit.




Literally just came in here to post this. Good job on being on the ball with it. 
This video is why I stopped being pissy on my facebook and grew tf up in a hurry. Trump is president despite all the protesting and ruckus going on. If we really want to know why Trump is president, there are mirrors in the bathroom. We stopped holding leaders on the DNC side accountable, and let them do whatever tf they wanted. We let them rig primaries, cozy up to corporations, and continue to kiss the ass of the oligarchy in the country and we said "meh, why not". 

This is the lesson we learn from. We completely remove all leadership in the DNC and replace them with people that can't be bought by wall street. We fill the DNC leadership with people of unimpeachable character and work ethic. We learn to stop hurling insults at people we disagree with and start finding common ground (however small) to work with. Our message becomes one of unity and not division and that said unity doesn't stop at party lines. 

Lots of lessons to be learned here. We deal with it like adults and we undo whatever damage through the democratic process that gets done. 


And for the record, if anyone's been paying attention to Trump over the last couple days instead of bitching and moaning, you'll realize just how badly he catfished the country. Remember him saying he'd completely gut Obamacare on the campaign trail? Obama just abandoned the TPP in a deal with Trump to keep most of the ACA intact. Remember "the wall"? Trump has now outlined that there will be no wall built, but rather some immigration reform with a few minor outposts here and there. The ban on all muslims entering in the country? Not happening.


I've seen plenty politicians renege on campaign promises in my time, but never so many within just 4 days of an election. So for those that voted for him based on his inflammatory rhetoric? You just got played. Badly. Welcome to why you take campaign promises with entire mines of salt.


Edit: And now there are reports coming in of Trump deciding not to cancel the Iran nuclear deal. The word that needs to be on everyone on the right's lips right now? Catfished.


----------



## bostjan

I can't help but feel a little bitter. The time when it was of the highest consequence, I was in the minority trying to explain the rational outcome of this cause and effect, but we were dismissed as being whackos. Now that it basically doesn't matter anymore, some, who were most vocal about disagreeing with us, are reiterating the same things we were saying during primary season. Will you listen more closely next time? No, because I've gone through the same thing with Bush/Gore, and it played out the same way then for the same basic reasons.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well if I was asleep at the wheel before, you have my apologizes and undivided attention now. I treated Trump's candidacy as a running joke and underestimated it greatly and to my own peril. I got nobody to blame for that but myself. /real talk


Now before anyone gets too heated up or bitter, there's at least one good thing that's coming out of all of this.... Joe/Obama emeritus memes that are of the utmost top quality:






I don't care where you fall in line politically, that stuff is funny as hell.


----------



## celticelk

Uncle Joe gives zero fvcks.


----------



## tacotiklah

The caption itself is great, but read it, then look at Obama's expression. I lose it every time I think about it.


----------



## oc616

So the Donald only wants to work part time eh?

http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dona...-only-part-time-in-white-house-report-1624823


----------



## Aymara

oc616 said:


> So the Donald only wants to work part time eh?
> 
> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dona...-only-part-time-in-white-house-report-1624823



Quote from above article: _*Mr Trump advisers say the President-elect was "shocked" when he won the election, ...*_

When we saw his first speech in TV after he won, my wife said: "Look at his face ... he didn't expect to win and he's not happy about it ... his body language clearly shows that."

And it seems, my wife was right


----------



## Ibanezsam4

oc616 said:


> So the Donald only wants to work part time eh?
> 
> http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dona...-only-part-time-in-white-house-report-1624823



you realize that in the age of encrypted technology and secured phone lines you can be president from pretty much anywhere?

The White House at this point is more a fortress and not very essential to the running of country. Obama has pretty much spent the majority of his second term on a golf course and nothing seemed to go spinning wildly out of control


----------



## Axayacatl

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you realize that in the age of encrypted technology and secured phone lines you can be president from pretty much anywhere?
> 
> The White House at this point is more a fortress and not very essential to the running of country. Obama has pretty much spent the majority of his second term on a golf course and nothing seemed to go spinning wildly out of control



Unlike your facts which are really spinning wildly out of control. You also seem to think that leadership is only about trading secret messages. And to think that a few pages ago you were telling people to learn civics.

Serious question: are you a 12 yo little girl? Maybe a really angry little girl?


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Axayacatl said:


> Unlike your facts which are really spinning wildly out of control. You also seem to think that leadership is only about trading secret messages. And to think that a few pages ago you were telling people to learn civics.
> 
> Serious question: are you a 12 yo little girl? Maybe a really angry little girl?



how cute, accuses me of not being factual but goes for a personal attack. so mature. 

presidential business has been conducted remotely for a couple of decades now. being in the same room is a matter of convenience now more than anything. given how integrated technology has become to the daily briefings it can really be done more easily than ever now. 

case and point, air force one is a flying oval office equipped with everything you need to run the country. the same with all of the presidential vacation homes. you can run the country from them. same with Camp David, same with any embassy room the president stays at. same with his motorcade. 

Source: every goddamed history channel and discovery channel special on the life of the president.

this isn't the 1980s anymore, and this ain't civics. this is how the presidency is run in the 21st century. 

given how much a president travels did you honestly think the work stopped because he wasn't in Washington? really now. you don't need civics you need logic. and documentaries.


----------



## Axayacatl

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Source: every goddamed history channel and discovery channel special on the life of the president.



 I think that settles everything and illustrates how much you know about ... pretty much anything.

Source: your own post.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Axayacatl said:


> I think that settles everything and illustrates how much you know about ... pretty much anything.
> 
> Source: your own post.



okay you're officially trolling. 

the secret service has an information and technologies team that sets up all the president's communication stuff. they secure and wire one alternate residence and all places where the president visits. and in case you didn't know, both those channels are verified sources that use journalists to write their pieces (at least they did before they went full reality tv.. god i miss the early 2000s) so cram that where the sun don't shine. 

the biggest problem regarding an alternate residence in NYC is you can't turn the city into a no fly zone whenever the president is in town. it's impractical and will be shut down as an idea soon. 

plus, they only president proof one residence, so his home in Florida(?) will probably get the treatment. (that's via the New York Times btw) 

however this notion of you don't work outside the White House is absurd.


----------



## celticelk

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you realize that in the age of encrypted technology and secured phone lines you can be president from pretty much anywhere?
> 
> The White House at this point is more a fortress and not very essential to the running of country. Obama has pretty much spent the majority of his second term on a golf course and nothing seemed to go spinning wildly out of control



First, Obama has spent a *lot* less time on vacation during his 8 years than GWB did during his, so maybe you want to extend your criticism? (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-presidential-vacations/)

Second, it's about the commitment. Not committing to living in the White House during his term sends a signal that Trump isn't taking the job seriously. And who do you think is going to foot the bill for his every-weekend travel between DC and NYC/FL?


----------



## extendedsolo

Aymara said:


> Quote from above article: _*Mr Trump advisers say the President-elect was "shocked" when he won the election, ...*_
> 
> When we saw his first speech in TV after he won, my wife said: "Look at his face ... he didn't expect to win and he's not happy about it ... his body language clearly shows that."
> 
> And it seems, my wife was right



He actually said that he thought he would be out of the running in October 2015. You can tell just by looking at him right now that he has no idea what he is in for. As much as some people like to think being the President is easy, I'm willing to bet my entire net worth that it's the complete opposite. President's don't even get to pick out what they wear because it's thought that it could affect their decision making. They get briefings early in the morning and are up late at night. It's a very mentally taxing job, even more so for a 71 year old man. I don't think Trump knows what he has gotten himself into, and I'm not sure he likes it that much. I just wonder who is really going to be running things if he doesn't want to.


----------



## celticelk

extendedsolo said:


> I just wonder who is really going to be running things if he doesn't want to.



Based on the way things are going right now, some combination of Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, and Reince Priebus seems likely, probably with heavy input from Trump's sons and son-in-law. It depends on who else gets nominated for the cabinet, but current signs are not hopeful.


----------



## extendedsolo

celticelk said:


> Based on the way things are going right now, some combination of Steve Bannon, Mike Pence, and Reince Priebus seems likely, probably with heavy input from Trump's sons and son-in-law. It depends on who else gets nominated for the cabinet, but current signs are not hopeful.



This is not good, but at the same time I don't think it's going to be the end of America or anything. 

I really think the people who are the best at politics are going to take control with Donald just being the figure head. He will get all of the blame and will be the fall guy when things go wrong. At the same time I think the biggest question is this; will the people that voted for obama last election and trump this election see what has happened and vote him out in 2020? Much of this falls on the Democrats to put up a nominee that can inspire people much more than Hillary did (or didn't in this case). If they put up a safe boring nominee like John Kerry again they will lose. I'm not all doom and gloom at this point but this presidency, much more so than past, should be watched very closely by opponents. Not necessarily Trump himself, as I think he won't run again but rather Pence will, but everyone surrounding him. 

This is pretty similar to when Jesse Ventura was elected back in 98, and he came to loathe politics. I can envision the same thing happening to Trump.


----------



## tacotiklah

The cabinet picks so far are beyond cringe-inducing. Any alt-right folks out there? Welp you the president's ear through Steve Bannon. On a more personal note: .... you for being a part of the alt-right and all the racism, sexism, and homophobia that comes with it.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Inch or a mile....
> 
> House, Senate, Presidency, and soon supreme court majorities.
> 
> They don't have to meet ANYONE ANYWHERE.
> 
> That said, I hope that we are pleasantly surprised. At least we will not be normally pandered too (which I saw as the alternative).



They do if they hope to hold onto those majorities. The Senate will be tough given only 8 of the 33 seats up for election in 2018 are Republican held, but the Democrats picked up seats in both the House and Senate this term, and despite having control of all three chambers, we're looking at a deeply divided Republican party. Two years out if we have a GOP mired in internal squabbles that's passed tax cuts but not much else from Trump's agenda, a backlash is totally possible. 



celticelk said:


> This is a stupid idea whether it's notionally possible or not. There was an election, and we lost. The adult thing to do here is to respect the democratic process, suck it up, and get to work on limiting the damage done going forward, rather than giving our political opponents (additional) reasons to pre-emptively dismiss us.



This. As much as I'd love to see Trump blocked here, as an American I think the democratic process must be respected. The bar for something that would justify overturning the Electoral College results is AWFULLY high - direct, clear evidence of Russian tampering or something along that line. Barring that, he won the election by the rules of the race so he should be formally elected. End of story.

Meanwhile, Steven ....ing Bannon? Really? 

Which, serious question for Trump supporters here. You voted for him, you've claimed your reasons for doing so are not racist, but rather wanting to toss out the "insider" government, overturn the ACA and free trade deals, pull out of NATO, etc. So, today, with Steve Bannon as Trump's chief advisor, with the former head of the RNC as Trump's chief of staff, with Steve Mnunchin, former Goldman partner and head fund manager, as his likely Treasury secretary pick, with Trump now saying he intends to leave a lot of the ACA in place, with him saying he plans to remain in NATO and backtracking on NAFTA, and with the Congressional Republicans saying his infastructure projects are "not a priority," and the wall is becoming a fence, what are you guys thinking? Is this what you pictured one week out from the election?


----------



## bostjan

Just what do we hope to accomplish by cussing out people for having opposing political views to our own?


----------



## Drew

By the way, is anyone else confused by what's going on in the markets right now? A rising dollar, rising stock market, and (dramatically) rising bond yields seems kind of internally inconsistent to me...


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> By the way, is anyone else confused by what's going on in the markets right now? A rising dollar, rising stock market, and (dramatically) rising bond yields seems kind of internally inconsistent to me...



I'm not really a money guy, but at a guess: rising stock market because a bunch of companies/industries expect that deregulation will increase their profits in the short term; rising bond yields because investors expect that the gov't will have to borrow a bunch of money to do what Trump's promised, esp. if they're serious about cutting taxes. Not sure about the rising dollar.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> Just what do we hope to accomplish by cussing out people for having opposing political views to our own?



100x this.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Just what do we hope to accomplish by cussing out people for having opposing political views to our own?



I'm willing to have a civil discussion with Republicans, even relatively conservative Republicans. White nationalists get no tolerance whatsoever.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> By the way, is anyone else confused by what's going on in the markets right now? A rising dollar, rising stock market, and (dramatically) rising bond yields seems kind of internally inconsistent to me...



Not really, instead of big businesses having to pay politicians for policy changes that favour them, they now have one of their own in power. Maybe it sounds like a tin-foil hat-wearing statement on the surface, but we all know it's true.



celticelk said:


> I'm willing to have a civil discussion with Republicans, even relatively conservative Republicans. White nationalists get no tolerance whatsoever.



Wow, really?!


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Wow, really?!



Really. Liberal tolerance doesn't mean that you roll over for the demonstrably evil. If you're describing yourself as the inheritor of the KKK and/or the Nazis, you've opted out of the expectation of civility, in my opinion.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

celticelk said:


> I'm willing to have a civil discussion with Republicans, even relatively conservative Republicans. White nationalists get no tolerance whatsoever.



I feel ya. I went to school with a few guys who are now outspoken Nazi's/White Nationalists on Facebook. They call me a bigot for not tolerating their views and then proceed to call gays mentally ill and that all non-whites should be kicked out of America, Canada, Europe and South Africa. I get called intolerant for not believing that races are different species and that whites are the best. 

I absofvckinglutely do not understand.


----------



## Steinmetzify

extendedsolo said:


> Also, have we determined what constitutes "overly PC"?



I can throw some examples, but the problem is that if you don't think any of this stuff is overly PC then it doesn't make any difference, right?

College law professors being unable to teach rape defense because it triggers people.

Huckleberry Finn being removed from school curriculums because of its use of the N word.

Woman must be hired as a firefighter even though she's unable to pass the fitness exam, because she's a woman.

Yale students signing a petition to end the 1st Amendment...random school not so much, but when a large percentage of our country's most powerful leaders come from Ivy League schools this is a bit concerning.

Student suspended for threatening to use 'The One Ring' from Lord of the Rings on another student....blind enforcement of zero tolerance policy for something that can't even exist? Cmon...

Warnings that The Great Gatsby portrays misogyny and physical abuse, because students that have been victims of this might get triggered.

Thinking that white rappers should stop because it's infringing on black music. 

People uttering statements like "he raped me with his eyes" and expecting the same sympathy, courtesy and treatment that an actual rape victim gets. 

'Friendly reminders' to use gender neutral language when referring to animals as they can't communicate their preferred pronouns.

Saying 'cultural appropriation' like it's a bad thing...what exactly is supposed to be so bad with using aspects of another culture?

I'm not saying that there aren't social injustices in the world, but somewhere along the line people started believing that they have the right not to be offended, and that's ridiculous. You want to live in a democracy but never be offended again.  People like this think they have a ridiculous right to never have to hear anything they don't agree with, but never realize that 90% of the .... they're spitting offends other people because gosh darnit they're the only ones that are correct in their thinking.

And finally....FORCING OTHER PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR SELF IMAGE. Just because you have an opinion about something doesn't make you right, no matter what you think. These types of people need to stop believing that their ideals are facts instead of opinions.

tl;dr....if you honestly believe that all of your PC ideals are facts instead of a carefully cultivated media driven opinion, you might be overly PC.


----------



## tacotiklah

steinmetzify said:


> And finally....*FORCING OTHER PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR SELF IMAGE. *Just because you have an opinion about something doesn't make you right, no matter what you think. These types of people need to stop believing that their ideals are facts instead of opinions.



I can agree that pretty much all of that is PC run amok, but with this quoted part, what exactly are you driving at here? Because this can easily be misconstrued to mean something that you might not mean, and can be fighting words with the wrong group of people (myself among them). And it wouldn't be 'pc run amok' either, it could be taken to mean some seriously prejudiced language if no further clarification was given. This is a bad thing. And if you can't figure out WHY it's a bad thing, that speaks more negatively of their character than me telling them to .... off would ever say about my own.

Of course, I could just be hearing/reading something that's not there, and if so, my bad. But I've heard wording along these lines before and it came from people trying to deny me who I am in favor of discriminatory actions. So I just wanna be sure it's just me being "too-PC" and that it's not something else.




bostjan said:


> Just what do we hope to accomplish by cussing out people for having opposing political views to our own?



I'm willing to sit at the table and discuss issues even with fairly conservative republicans. The second someone embraces racism, sexism, or homophobia, they no longer deserve (nor will they get) any respect from me. Respect is a mutual thing, and they need to hand it out in the form of tolerance for the existence of other human beings or they need to gtfo. There's no compromise on my end there, and giving that kind of compromise is how we got those assholes in important cabinet positions in the first place. The kinds of people that think all female protesters are dykes, that their kids having to go to school with jews is bad, and the kind that would use any power given to them to belittle and oppress people over who they love, what their skin color is, or where they come from now has the ear of the president and a direct line to shape the ideology in the white house. This is a bad thing. And anyone that can't see/disagrees with why that would be a bad thing, well that speaks more negatively of their character than me telling them to .... off for it ever would.

Anyone that tries defending that loses all credibility and should forever be mocked and scorned for it. Just remember something here, history will NOT remember people like that (or anyone that supported them) fondly and while they may live it up now, their remaining days are going to be one of exile. And rightfully so. 

Edit: To reiterate, why are people more offended about me cussing out known racists than they are with the racist people themselves? Is this opposite ethics day and no one informed me?


----------



## Steinmetzify

tacotiklah said:


> I can agree that pretty much all of that is PC run amok, but with this quoted part, what exactly are you driving at here? Because this can easily be misconstrued to mean something that you might not mean, and can be fighting words with the wrong group of people (myself among them). And it wouldn't be 'pc run amok' either, it could be taken to mean some seriously prejudiced language if no further clarification was given. This is a bad thing. And if you can't figure out WHY it's a bad thing, that speaks more negatively of their character than me telling them to .... off would ever say about my own.
> 
> Of course, I could just be hearing/reading something that's not there, and if so, my bad. But I've heard wording along these lines before and it came from people trying to deny me who I am in favor of discriminatory actions. So I just wanna be sure it's just me being "too-PC" and that it's not something else.



What I'm driving at is that having other priorities and actively NOT supporting a cause is not even remotely the same thing. IDGAF who or what you identify as, and you said it lower down in this same post. Respect is a mutual thing, and that means respecting people even when they don't have the exact same views you do, otherwise your 'mutual respect' is just noise. To be CLEAR on this, I'm NOT talking about supporting racism/xenophobia/homophobia etc....I'm talking about people that are none of these things but just don't happen to believe exactly the same things you believe, and you can take me as an example.

Regardless of what some people seem to think, the fact that I have other priorities doesn't make me a racist/homophobe/xenophobe or whatever. I'm a 42 year old guy with a family to support....my main concern is keeping them fed, clothed, warm and with lights available. I would never try to dissuade you or block you in any way from being who you are, but I have large concerns of my own that don't involve you or anything to do with you or your problems. If you can't accept that and hang out anyway and play some Doom or Diablo or whatever, then that's an example of you trying to make me participate in your self image; the only way I get to be around you then is to believe exactly the same things you believe, or at least fake it and kowtow to you for the pleasure of your company.

I get that you have some incredibly large obstacles to overcome with regard to public opinion, but assuming that everyone that doesn't immediately jump to support your cause(s) is a racist homo hater is just flat out incorrect. This is also what I meant by 'participating in your self image'...meaning people that apply their guesses and opinions regarding why people act the way they do as fact, and then spit it to other people as facts, i.e.

:"Stein doesn't believe he should march for gay rights, that makes him prejudiced against gays". 

The people that think this is a viable tactic irk me. I don't hate anyone, certainly not for reasons as mundane as race or gender, but some people seem to think that my lack of mobilization for their causes makes me so. We have an entire generation of people attempting to follow PC correct viewpoints and fear of looking like a bad person, and for fear of enraging their SJW friends they say whatever it is they have to say to get out of looking bad in the moment, and that's pure crap. 

Seems everyone wants the freedom to be who they are, but unless my beliefs coincide with your own, your morality is the only one that's (politically) correct.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Really. Liberal tolerance doesn't mean that you roll over for the demonstrably evil. If you're describing yourself as the inheritor of the KKK and/or the Nazis, you've opted out of the expectation of civility, in my opinion.



Are we talking about Nazis and the KKK or white nationalists? Because you said "white nationalists," as if someone being white was a problem for you. For reference, a nationalist is defined as someone who supports national independence or, in some contexts, someone who is for a strong national government. Or, does "white nationalists" mean something else to you?



tacotiklah said:


> I'm willing to sit at the table and discuss issues even with fairly conservative republicans. The second someone embraces racism, sexism, or homophobia, they no longer deserve (nor will they get) any respect from me. Respect is a mutual thing, and they need to hand it out in the form of tolerance for the existence of other human beings or they need to gtfo. There's no compromise on my end there, and giving that kind of compromise is how we got those assholes in important cabinet positions in the first place. The kinds of people that think all female protesters are dykes, that their kids having to go to school with jews is bad, and the kind that would use any power given to them to belittle and oppress people over who they love, what their skin color is, or where they come from now has the ear of the president and a direct line to shape the ideology in the white house. This is a bad thing. And anyone that can't see/disagrees with why that would be a bad thing, well that speaks more negatively of their character than me telling them to .... off for it ever would.
> 
> Anyone that tries defending that loses all credibility and should forever be mocked and scorned for it. Just remember something here, history will NOT remember people like that (or anyone that supported them) fondly and while they may live it up now, their remaining days are going to be one of exile. And rightfully so.
> 
> Edit: To reiterate, why are people more offended about me cussing out known racists than they are with the racist people themselves? Is this opposite ethics day and no one informed me?



It is not my intention to defend these guys, but you are talking about an administration that has not had a chance to do anything yet, and will, come 20 Jan 2017, be in charge of the way things are run. All of the aggressive "Rape Melania" signs and the like are just going to aggravate things. Is that what the community that wants tolerance really wants, in the long run?

I guess what I don't understand, as a moderately-left-libertarian white cis hetero male, is what these protesters believe to be the rules of the game, and I see a lot of inconsistencies.

Honestly, look at my posts in this very thread. I couldn't ....ing stand Trump and his rhetoric and especially his most vocal supporters during primary season and during election season. But now I hear these interviews on the radio of college kids protesting, and the reporter asks them if they voted for Clinton or a third party, and maybe only one in the entire group voted at all. I see rhetoric posted on facebook, coming from the left, that is as bad, or dare I say, in some cases, worse, than any of the garbage that was coming from the right leading up to this debacle.

So, what is your end-game? You want more LGBT+ rights? I want that, too. You are mad? Well, I'm kind of over it, now. I mean, this whole pile of .... we now look back upon and call an election was never any good from the get-go. The more people screamed about how horrible Trump was, the more people showed up to support his candidacy. And then everyone, including myself, thought that HRC was going to get the support she needed to become president. Plain and simple, not enough of the right people voted for her. So now what? Protest? Who are we even protesting? Trump? That's going to work out great, because I'm sure he's going to quickly become convinced not to be president (as if he can even back out at this point, without causing even more damage). The voters? Okay, but, other than geographic locations, we don't know who they are.

Stand up for your rights - all in, yes, but if we are going to start spitting out rhetoric that sounds just like the rhetoric people were spewing when we got into this nonsense to begin with, count me the .... out.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> I'm not really a money guy, but at a guess: rising stock market because a bunch of companies/industries expect that deregulation will increase their profits in the short term; rising bond yields because investors expect that the gov't will have to borrow a bunch of money to do what Trump's promised, esp. if they're serious about cutting taxes. Not sure about the rising dollar.



Ok, this .... is all pretty interrelated, but here's the lay of the land as I see it. 

*part of what's kept equity prices up lately is low bond yields - the S&P500 was outyielding the 10yr treasury, so equities were being bought as a bond proxy, and low rates were supporting equity valuations. Higher yields should weaken this support, and cause prices to fall to increase the dividend yields.
*a rising dollar, all else equal, should be deflationary - since we're a net importer, a stronger dollar causes consumer goods to fall in price. This should _depress_ longer dated bond yields.
*A stronger dollar should be a headwind for large multinational US corporations, who report earnings in USD but actually earn them in different currencies. The dollar going up in lock step with the market seems a little strange. 

Idunno. Inflation should be rising given the expectation of greater borrowing, but isn't. The dollar is strengthening, which would be consistent with lower inflation, which also ins't happening, and is the exact opposite reaction you should see from the election of a leader who wants to impose trade barriers (since it weakens global demand for dollars, since they'll be less useful). Longer yields are rising, while the front of the curve remains locked, and fed funds futures imply a "one and done" rate hike expectation in the market, so it's not the expectation of a more active fed. 

Best I've got is maybe the presence of a large net seller of Treasuries in the market? China, perhaps? I'll be curious to see the month over month change in their Treasaury holdings in coming months, though that doesn't really explain the equity or USD side... Maybe they're selling bonds and holding spot USD? Can't see why they'd want to though.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not really, instead of big businesses having to pay politicians for policy changes that favour them, they now have one of their own in power. Maybe it sounds like a tin-foil hat-wearing statement on the surface, but we all know it's true.



Why are borrowing costs rising, then? 

The other odd thing is credit spreads, so far, have held in - it's literally just the term premium just blew out.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

bostjan said:


> Are we talking about Nazis and the KKK or white nationalists? Because you said "white nationalists," as if someone being white was a problem for you. For reference, a nationalist is defined as someone who supports national independence or, in some contexts, someone who is for a strong national government. Or, does "white nationalists" mean something else to you?



It means something different to _everyone but you_, apparently. 

White Nationalists aren't Nationalists who happen to be white. They're proponents of White Nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It means something different to _everyone but you_, apparently.
> 
> White Nationalists aren't Nationalists who happen to be white. They're proponents of White Nationalism.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism



So, would you say that a white man is allowed to be "nationalist" in any nation? If not, why not?

Is this just another 'thing' that white men can't have? Because racism?

What a joke.


----------



## Steinmetzify

CapnForsaggio said:


> So, would you say that a white man is allowed to be "nationalist" in any nation? If not, why not?
> 
> Is this just another 'thing' that white men can't have? Because racism?
> 
> What a joke.



In this connotation, white nationalism is something used to denote supremacy, while black nationalism is supposedly a response to racial discrimination. 

Both definitions are crap, as both are continuing to be used to promote racial division, and neither promotes healthy harmony between races. 

Until people get rid of the idea that we're not all the same, this crap is going to keep coming.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

steinmetzify said:


> In this connotation, white nationalism is something used to denote supremacy, while black nationalism is supposedly a response to racial discrimination.
> 
> Both definitions are crap, as both are continuing to be used to promote racial division, and neither promotes healthy harmony between races.
> 
> Until people get rid of the idea that we're not all the same, this crap is going to keep coming.



Exactly.

I am proud of my country. I am not a racial supremacist. These are very different things.

America is what it is, but among other things:

1) The first place to legally advocate for the equality of all men.
2) The only place to spend millions around the globe protecting the rights of others.

Are we perfect, no. Are we better than your damned country, you ....ing bet!


----------



## TedEH

CapnForsaggio said:


> Are we perfect, no. Are we better than your damned country, you ....ing bet!



All things considered, I'm perfectly happy in Canada...
Even as an English person in Quebec.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Let me break it down for you because I've argued with these folks a lot
The White Nationalist believes that culture and race should be preserved at all costs, separation=preservation. These people believe that cultural diversity is "a code word for white genocide". They are convinced that cultural diversity and immigration are conspiracies to rid the world of the white race and dethrone them from the power structure. 
I am not kidding. 
A lot of these people are also National Socialist's, which you might know better as Nazi's. You would not believe the growth that this sect of thinking has undergone over the last few years. 
Steve Bannon, the man Trump just appointed as a chief strategist, is a White Nationalist propaganda spreader. We have a man advising the president who believes whites should reclaim the nations they "founded". This is dangerous, plain and simple. 
White Nationalists are delusional, you can not reason with one. I've tried. I get called a white hater for not caring about mixing of races by these people. 
They are playing the victim card. A lot of these people have guns. 
You might think this sounds crazy but it's true. 
Look up Stormfront. A lot of these people are dead convinced that whites, blacks and asians are different species. I've heard the argument, "we call dogs different species for small changes, it's not just the "dog" breed".


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

CapnForsaggio said:


> So, would you say that a white man is allowed to be "nationalist" in any nation? If not, why not?
> 
> Is this just another 'thing' that white men can't have? Because racism?
> 
> What a joke.



Did you read the link at all?

Do you honestly not see the difference between a nationalist who happens to be white, and a person who "rejects equality as an ideal and insists on an enduring core of human nature transmitted by heredity"?

There is another word for a white person who happens to be a nationalist. You know what it is? _A nationalist._ Absolutely nobody who is opposed to White Nationalism is saying that white people can't be nationalists.

It's honestly a bit perplexing that this needs to be explained.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's honestly a bit perplexing that this needs to be explained.



Amen.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

*EDIT:* This a response to AngstRiddenDreams' elucidation of "white nationalist" ideas.

That's pretty funny, 'cuz dogs are all the same species. The concept of "species" is a bit nebulous, but the ability of two organisms to _consistently_ produce viable offspring is a strong indication that they belong to the same one. We wouldn't be able to discuss the merits of "race-mixing" if different groups of humans were actually that distinct from each other. That doesn't necessarily mean that _all_ variation between groups will be cosmetic, but it should give anyone who wants to argue the different species angle pause.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I've never used that argument before. Generally I'll just say that skin color is a result of proximity to the equator (in general terms) and then I'll get a reply of albino Africans with a caption like, "then why do they still look different". 
It's honestly scary how dead set these people are on believing this hateful ideology as well as their cherry picking of data to suit the view.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Oh I know it's not your argument. 

*EDIT:* But maybe you meant _my_ argument. D'oh...


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Are we talking about Nazis and the KKK or white nationalists? Because you said "white nationalists," as if someone being white was a problem for you. For reference, a nationalist is defined as someone who supports national independence or, in some contexts, someone who is for a strong national government. Or, does "white nationalists" mean something else to you?



Tim and others in this thread have already dealt thoroughly with the definition question. I just want to add, for those unclear where I stand in this conversation: I am a straight white male, like (I'm guessing) >90% of the posters here.


----------



## big_aug

The Steve Bannon thing is kind of scary when you do some digging. How the .... did we get to a point where this guy is that close to the White House?

Steve Bannon used Breitbart to promote the alt right. Here's one of the alt right's guys: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

Holy .....

That's just one. Do some googling. Go ahead. These ....ing people have the President's Senior Strategst?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Yeah I'm also a straight white male too. I just don't understand how they could be so terrified of other cultures/races. 
@big_aug I know man, it's absolutely terrifying. Between this and Pence's anti-LGBT, and Trump's desire to repeal Roe v. Wade I feel like I'm living in the 19th century. 
What scares me the most though is the day I become an enemy of the state for talking about stuff like this negatively.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> America is what it is, but among other things:
> 
> 1) The first place to legally advocate for the equality of all men.



Well, not so much... 
But hey, there's always "The first place to have In-N-Out Burger"


----------



## UnderTheSign

CapnForsaggio said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I am proud of my country. I am not a racial supremacist. These are very different things.
> 
> America is what it is, but among other things:
> 
> 1) The first place to legally advocate for the equality of all men.
> 2) The only place to spend millions around the globe protecting the rights of others.
> 
> Are we perfect, no. Are we better than your damned country, you ....ing bet!


I'd like sources on both of those statements. Considering you only approved of gay marriage like what, a year or at most two ago? I'd say you were far from the first. 
You're also far from the only one spending millions on foreign affairs so again, source?


----------



## bostjan

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It means something different to _everyone but you_, apparently.
> 
> White Nationalists aren't Nationalists who happen to be white. They're proponents of White Nationalism.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism



Wow, okay, I stand humbly corrected. I had never heard that term before. What a euphemism for militant racism!


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> I'm willing to have a civil discussion with Republicans, even relatively conservative Republicans. White nationalists get no tolerance whatsoever.


 
Of course not. Because most people on the so-called "left" are only tolerant if you agree with them. The most intolerant people I have ever met were on the left. If you don't agree with them, watch out. They hate you. They despise you. They will call you every "ist" word they can think of. It's their only defense. Many of them think they are educated and intelligent, but they can't think for themselves. They went to college, were quickly indoctrinated into the dogma and ideology of the left, and then spent the next several years surrounded only by people who agree with them and never confronted with anything else. I've taught at universities for the last 20 years and a college education means next to nothing at this point.

And for the record, I'm a straight white Christian male (yes, I am single-handedly responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened to anyone or anything in the history of the universe). I'm more educated than 99.9%
of the people on the planet. I can think for myself. I'm so sick of political correctness, safe spaces, triggers, microaggressions, etc. I think people should see and hear things that they don't like. I think people should be made to feel uncomfortable. I think people's beliefs should be challenged. That's how we grow and how we learn to think for ourselves. But many on the left don't want to grow. They want to act like two-year-olds. Just look at the things going on in this country right now. Do you think Trump supporters would be having a tantrum if Clinton would have won? I bet not.


----------



## ncfiala

I'm also going to say something that I said before. Just because someone doesn't make YOUR cause the center of THEIR life doesn't mean that they hate you or your cause. It means they have other more pressing priorities. If you can't understand that, you are ignorant, self-centered, and out-of-touch.


----------



## 1b4n3z

ncfiala said:


> ...



Donald, the campaign is over - get some rest.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> Do you think Trump supporters would be having a tantrum if Clinton would have won? I bet not.



That statement right there makes me question how much you really got out of all that education.


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> Do you think Trump supporters would be having a tantrum if Clinton would have won? I bet not.



Did you sleep through the presidential campaign? Or just the bits where Trump repeatedly said that the only way he could lose was if the election was "rigged"? Maybe the parts where journalists covering the Trump campaign ended up hiring private security because of the way that they were being treated by Trump supporters at his rallies, egged on by Trump's regular Two Minute Hate the Media segments?


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> Did you sleep through the presidential campaign? Or just the bits where Trump repeatedly said that the only way he could lose was if the election was "rigged"? Maybe the parts where journalists covering the Trump campaign ended up hiring private security because of the way that they were being treated by Trump supporters at his rallies, egged on by Trump's regular Two Minute Hate the Media segments?


 
I don't really follow politics frankly. The day to day lying by politicians is of little interest to me. There was just no way in hell that I could support Clinton given what I know about her.

And to the person questioning my education, I really have no idea what you are talking about. I don't really follow the minutia of politics. I didn't get a Ph.D. in following the news. The things that were brought up were pre-election and in my opinion don't rise to the level of the Clinton supporters rioting and committing illegal acts.

I also find it very telling that neither of you really said anything relevant about anything I said.


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> Of course not. Because most people on the so-called "left" are only tolerant if you agree with them.



I was raised by Republicans. My father-in-law is an administrator at Hillsdale College, which is one of the intellectual bastions of conservatism in the US. I am perfectly willing to hang out with people who have much more conservative political views than I do. I can even have civil discussions about political issues with them. I also have friends who are further to the left than I am, and I can have civil political discussions with them.

Once we get to the point where you're openly advocating for the superiority of the white race, and explicit white rule in America, that tolerance is out the window. I'm the same age as steinmetzify, give or take a year. My grandfather fought in WWII. The Klan was still actually lynching actual black people in actual America when my parents were teenagers. We know what's at the end of that road. I'm not sitting back to watch us go there again.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> I also find it very telling that neither of you really said anything relevant about anything I said.



You're just bashing and generalizing liberals. Why would that be worth discussing?


----------



## 1b4n3z

ncfiala said:


> I also find it very telling that neither of you really said anything relevant about anything I said.



There was nothing of substance to reply to. A tiresome copypaste straight off a extr. right website about 'but THEY are nazies for not tolerating us 100%". Should be obvious to a Ph.D - hence the remark about education

(of course this is a troll message, but the original is kinda plausible if you imagine Donald bellowing it at a rally)


----------



## ncfiala

1b4n3z said:


> Donald, the campaign is over - get some rest.


 
Haha +1, I didn't even vote for Trump.


----------



## ncfiala

1b4n3z said:


> There was nothing of substance to reply to. A tiresome copypaste straight off a extr. right website about 'but THEY are nazies for not tolerating us 100%". Should be obvious to a Ph.D - hence the remark about education
> 
> (of course this is a troll message, but the original is kinda plausible if you imagine Donald bellowing it at a rally)


 
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It should be obvious? This is how the left thinks. Their opinions are facts and if you don't agree you are stupid.


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about. It should be obvious? This is how the left thinks. Their opinions are facts and if you don't agree you are stupid.



Which is not in any way behavior that *you're* engaging in right now. How about everyone backs away from the stereotypes and talks to the human beings who are actually in the conversation?


----------



## 1b4n3z

ncfiala said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about. It should be obvious? This is how the left thinks. Their opinions are facts and if you don't agree you are stupid.



...to a Ph.D. Unless one assumes extreme relativism, which is again something used to bash the left with


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> Which is not in any way behavior that *you're* engaging in right now. How about everyone backs away from the stereotypes and talks to the human beings who are actually in the conversation?


 
I don't believe I insulted anyone in this thread, but I see your point.

Anyway, I'm out. I almost never discuss these sorts of things because it really serves no purpose most of the time, but I was bored in office hours one day and got dragged into it because I think what is happening in America right now is fascinating. Back to the things that really matter. Family and friends, guitars and gear, and video games.


----------



## wankerness

Alright, Trump's behavior recently is starting to get me actually worried about the presidency. Things might NOT be OK or business as usual. Particularly the way the guy's sort of throwing a temper tantrum and firing anyone with even a tiny connection to Chris Christie, a non-stop stream of tweets about how he hates the NY times, and how he's already refusing to let the press have anything to do with any of his actions and how he's blowing off presidential events. Greattttt. 

Chris Christie is a POS, but these are not the actions of a rational human being, they're the actions of a vengeful baby. And attempting to make himself BY FAR the least transparent president in history and put up a wall against all press is very worrisome. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...1b2f40-ab2f-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...d-steak-dinner-admin-shaping-be-least-n684511


----------



## celticelk

^^^ Relevant quote from that NBC article:



> A week after the election, Trump hasn't yet held a press conference, the longest any recent president has waited to speak to the press. That continues a weeks-long drought that's been going on since mid-summer, when Trump last answered questions from the press.



This is the guy whose campaign was constantly bashing Hillary Clinton for not holding press conferences for X days.


----------



## celticelk

It'll be interesting to compare Trump's performance to the last major presidential transition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_transition_of_Barack_Obama#Administration_appointments

For those keeping score at home, Obama's first post-election press conference was three days after the election. AFAICT, Trump's last press conference was on July 27, unless you count his appearance with Bill Clinton's accusers immediately before the second presidential debate.


----------



## Necris

His apparent intent to gain top secret clearance for each of his children (who will be running his companies for him while simultaneously being considered members of his transition team) as well as a son-in-law have me wondering where this is all going. He may have backed off on the clearance portion a bit recently, but we all know based upon his own precedents that he could very well say "nevermind" today and make the request tomorrow.

_*Purely Hypothetically: *_If he does it, refusing a salary as president doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice (if it ever was for him to begin with) considering the fact that his children could potentially gain access to unique information not available to the rest of the market while simultaneously having direct access to the President of the United States who holds a vested interest in their success. $1.6 Million over 4 years is nothing in exchange for the kind of advantage he could give his businesses.

But I could also be crazy.


----------



## vansinn

^ no, you're not crazy. Whatever he'll be/do as President, family must pursue own careers, and not mingle with the ol'man's job.


----------



## DredFul

ncfiala said:


> Of course not. Because most people on the so-called "left" are only tolerant if you agree with them. The most intolerant people I have ever met were on the left. If you don't agree with them, watch out. They hate you. They despise you. They will call you every "ist" word they can think of. It's their only defense. Many of them think they are educated and intelligent, but they can't think for themselves. They went to college, were quickly indoctrinated into the dogma and ideology of the left, and then spent the next several years surrounded only by people who agree with them and never confronted with anything else. I've taught at universities for the last 20 years and a college education means next to nothing at this point.
> 
> And for the record, I'm a straight white Christian male (yes, I am single-handedly responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened to anyone or anything in the history of the universe). I'm more educated than 99.9%
> of the people on the planet. I can think for myself. I'm so sick of political correctness, safe spaces, triggers, microaggressions, etc. I think people should see and hear things that they don't like. I think people should be made to feel uncomfortable. I think people's beliefs should be challenged. That's how we grow and how we learn to think for ourselves. But many on the left don't want to grow. They want to act like two-year-olds. Just look at the things going on in this country right now. Do you think Trump supporters would be having a tantrum if Clinton would have won? I bet not.



Claims to be more educated than 99.9% of humanity and posts about stereotypes. Dude seriously wtf? This is exactly why some are unwilling to have any respect for far right. Every time I see someone trying to even express a different opinion to a white supremacist they just start flipping .... and posting memes or something.

I guess it goes both ways since folks on the right have the same stereotypes about those on the left. They both think the others are way too far up their asses to have any sort of meaningful conversation with.

Everyone definitely should have their beliefs challenged. I try my best to absorb and dissect every argument and claim I come across as well as examine them from different angles even if it's difficult, as it offen is. Maybe you should challenge your own views a bit more? You sound like some conspiracy theorist right now.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is "It's hard to tolerate someone who doesnt tolerate you back".

I probably sound like a conspiracy theorist myself now but I think everyone should questions everything more. No matter if you are on the right or on the left. For example: I understand the issues with the current refugee crisis in Europe. I understand why people dont want refugees in their country. I dont agree with them but I understand them. But if I would go to some anti-immigration facebook page to express my views I would be called names and probably even receive death threats.

But if both sides are ready to understand both views, pro- and anti-immigration, then we can have a meaningful discussion.


Just late night rambling


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Both of you are failing to address the central issue:

Some stereotypes are earned.
Some stereotypes are unjustly assigned.

If you believe that ALL stereotypes are earned, or vice versa, you are being less than objective.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Both of you are failing to address the central issue:
> 
> Some stereotypes are earned.
> Some stereotypes are unjustly assigned.
> 
> If you believe that ALL stereotypes are earned, or vice versa, you are being less than objective.



Which I think misses the point that approaching a random person from group X and already judging them based on the values or behaviors of other people in that group is doing them a disservice. Some stereotypes may be truer than others, but all stereotypes are just introducing unnecessary bias and error into a discourse. 

I mean, they have all the "simplifying your woldview" power of statistics, without any of the scientific backing to guarantee an accurate reflection of reality. Sign me up! Especially when the stereotype is for a label that roughly 30-40% of Americans prescribe to.... that sounds reeeeally helpful


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> Anyway, I'm out. I almost never discuss these sorts of things because it really serves no purpose most of the time, but I was bored in office hours one day and got dragged into it because I think what is happening in America right now is fascinating. *Back to the things that really matter. Family and friends, guitars and gear, and video games.*



I'm just letting this speak for itself.


----------



## Necris

The only thing I took issue with from ncfiala's post is that the shoe fits the right foot too, so to speak, since a large portion of White Nationalists/Supremacists follow the same "I'm right because the truth of my opinion is self-evident" non-logic as do some more mainstream conservatives. Two ex-bandmates of mine went down the White Nationalist path and the ideological bubble, inability to tolerate any challenge to their views and lack of substance to their reasoning were all strikingly similar to what ncfiala describes, just change some background details and the nature of the insults.

Also, and this probably wasn't intentional, ncfalia seems to have reduced the reason for Celticelk's opposition to tolerating White Nationalism to Celticelk's inability to handle a difference of opinion, which I doubt it is (but I won't put words in his mouth).


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

ncfiala said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about. It should be obvious? This is how the left thinks. Their opinions are facts and if you don't agree you are stupid.



Way to generalize an entire group of people and then claim they're close minded. 

I've had to explain this to the literal Nazi I went to high school with. Yes I (and a lot of liberals) are tolerant. Yes there are liberals that are quick to call anyone who isn't left leaning a fascist. And those people are idiots. 
I live in one of the most progressive cities in the country and go to one of the most liberal schools, I still think safe spaces are absolutely moronic. The world isn't a safe place, you can't go through life without being offended. 
But that's not saying I'm going to call someone a bigot for opposing abortion. 
White Nationalism is a different story entirely. These are people who believe our country is suffering because its not entirely white. That is hateful. I am tolerant of opposing views, but to be tolerant of hate would be spineless plain and simple. 
It's like, sure you don't think gun control laws should be greater. Cool, I don't think banning guns is a great idea either (even though no one is saying that as a politician). Conservative economics? All right cool.
Women shouldn't vote? We should kick out all the blacks, asians, etc? No, fvck you. I will oppose hate. 

Honestly it sounds like you're just tired of college students whining. I get it. I'm highly liberal, grew up in a republican household in a rural area that voted largely for Trump. I think people can overreact, for sure. But it happens on both sides and you are indicative of that.


----------



## tacotiklah

Well I gotta say that while there's a lot of back and forth here, there's good dialogue too. So I guess I can share where I, a staunch liberal ( my position on the political compass in case anyone was curious: http://i1358.photobucket.com/albums/q771/jessicametal69/my political compass_zpsqerlljjt.png ) now find themselves in a post-trump presidential victory. I will do so by recounting my experiences from election day moving forward.

A number forumers here are also on my facebook friend's list and can vouch/refute anything that follows as they see fit, but here it goes. On election day, I woke up at 4:30am PST and showered, dressed, and got all made up and walked to the bus stop. Every election is a busy day for me because I almost always serve as a ballot clerk for them. Local elections (sometimes the county registrar office forgets I'm on the list for these too, which explains why I missed a couple in the past), state elections, and definitely for federal elections. I do the full 15 hour shift with a single lunch hour break, work damn hard to maintain the integrity and secrecy of the ballot, and refuse to go home until our count is 100% accurate (putting ballots in stacks of 10s instead of trying to count them all at once helps in this greatly and also speeds things along). I had to remind a Trump supporter that wearing a any kind of insignia of a candidate within 100 feet of a polling place is expressly outlawed and is considered a second-degree felony. We actually measure this distance while setting up and place a sign indicating this right at the 100 foot mark so that there is no mistaking where that mark starts. It's election law and we are bound to follow it to the letter. There was nobody there with any kind of hat/shirt/sign/etc. of any other candidate, though I promise on the fate and well-being of my gear and all I hold dear that I would have given the same stern warning to anyone with a Hillary, Johnson, Stein, or (if the online rumors about a lot of people writing him in as a candidate) freaking Harambe for prez logo. 
I help people of all political leanings get their vote in, and no matter how hard I sometimes found myself wanting to be otherwise, I stayed as centrist and neutral throughout the day in my fb posts encouraging people to vote.

I clock out, and all my obligations to remain neutral are now gone. I come home to find that Trump has 263 electoral votes to Clinton's 225. I freely confess to losing my mind because I too could not believe that, with as hate-mongering as Trump was on the campaign trail, any sane, rational, decent human being would actually cast their vote for that man. I remember the arguments, then anger, then promises of mass fb friend's list culling, and all that. Yeah, I didn't handle it with that much grace at first. I will be the first to own up to and admit it. Now over the coming days those that read my status posts will find an almost sudden change in my posting style on this topic. Why?
I happened to come across a video on my feed (christ I wish I could find and share it here because it's something we liberals REALLY need to watch and internalize) in which a liberal newscaster/tv host/wtf ever he really was went on a huge rant about the echo chambers that liberals lived in for the last year and a half, how the removal of differing ideas and opinions completely divorced everyone from the reality of how many people were really fed up with Obama's policies and were going to make that voice heard at the ballot. I don't know how staged it was, but it was exactly what I needed to hear at that time. 

Since then, I've made it a point to completely gut my feed of blatantly-slanted/skewed political "news" pages (regardless of which direction it slants, though obviously I had plenty skewed far to the left because again, I'm apparently a dumb libtard), to try and put myself in the position of people who did vote Trump, and to sit down and have a conversation with them that didn't consist of "YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP, YOU'RE A BIGOT!" Instead, I simply asked them why and the responses I got were pretty varied actually. You'd be surprised at them too. The biggest being that Hillary Clinton is beyond shady af, and any kind of digging on her will back this in some way. The DNC really dug its own grave in this election when Debbie Weissman Schultz diverged from candidate impartiality in primaries for whatever reason and got popped for it. Without even needing to dig further (though I have and encourage others to keep digging), we're already starting to see where in-fighting and mistrust started creeping into the left side of politics. Then of course you start digging on the candidate herself, and no, it's not a pleasant or comforting read there either. Her whole political career has been one of adopting just about any position should it get her votes, along with nudging shoulders with many of the same CEOs and power elite that were behind the 2008 great recession. It gets worse from there. As musicians, I'm shocked that no-one here remembers her and Tipper Gore being co-founders of the PMRC. You know all those parental advisory stickers on albums? Yeah, that PMRC. And the lobbying/cozying up to evangelicals that they did to have artists like Run DMC and Twisted Sister banned from store shelves. Then there's things like her stumping for her husband signing the 1994 crime bill which experts have pinpointed as being the leading cause of the influx of mass incarceration in the US, or her stumping for the passage of DOMA, which was only just struck down last year after over a decade of enshrining discrimination into law. Every time you look at her personal positions on political affairs, you will find her on exactly the wrong side of history. Every single set of values that liberals hold near and dear to their hearts, she has been against at some point in her life when it wasn't politically expedient for her to be for, yet that's who we apparently picked to be our champion. This is strike one on us and conservatives do have every right in the world to have that concern. The very fact that it did not even dawn on us on the left is pretty concerning in and of itself if we're being honest.


The next issue is one of economics. Despite it being hated by people on both sides of the aisle, TPP was pushed forward and was working its way to becoming policy. Many people saw this as abhorrent. There are many economic policies being put into place that people cannot and will not accept. Is it ethically correct to value economic policies over things like civil rights and protections of minorities? Not for me to say really, though I certainly have seen people say that it is in so many words. I'm not the final judge on what is or isn't morally acceptable, though for the record, I do feel that throwing groups of people under the bus to make an extra buck or two is personally abhorrent to me. I also recognize what is/isn't ethically acceptable to me will not be necessarily be shared by others. 

And the third big reason was that while they disagreed and disliked Trump on pretty much everything, their fears that Clinton was going to start WWIII with Russia had them voting for Trump. Given Clinton's rhetoric on being tough with Russia and enforcing no-fly-zones and what not, their fears were not completely unfounded. Perhaps far-fetched, but not completely left-field, tin-foil conspiracy nutter talk. And on that score, we aren't even out of the woods there given that Intelligence officials in the US are now claiming that Russia very much did have a hand in getting Trump elected, including but not limited to, financial donations and backing through Ukraine's ousted pro-Putin government to Trump's now former campaign chair Paul Manafort ( http://fortune.com/2016/11/03/donald-trump-russia-putin-election/ )
Rumors abound are now circulating that wikileaks founder Julian Assange did in fact collude to use his site and resources to alter the outcome of the election in an attempt to get Trump elected so that he could receive a full pardon. Remember that these accusations come directly from Homeland Security and and the director of national intelligence. Not particularly encouraging stuff to be reading about. Very bloody wars have been started over much more trivial things than one country hacking and meddling in the affairs of another country, though I would completely understand if anyone offered the rebuttal that the US has been making that tactic part and parcel of its foreign policy for ages now. The difference here is simply one of the fact that when the US does it, it's "foreign policy". When it affects the US, it's considered an act of war and those who conspire to help it happen will be charged and thrown in jail, with treason being at the top of the list of charges. Not exactly what I would call fair, but there you have it. Assange already is looking at that charge should he be extradited here, so it wouldn't be like that would be a deterrent from him actually participating in helping get Trump elected. Which then begs me to start questioning the validity of the DNC hacks on top of the John Podesta emails as well. Nothing is above being questioned in my eyes, and that even includes those that claim to be a champion OF questioning the government. 


So I'm fine with talking and debating issues and removing junk echo chamber "news" pages from my feed and I STRONGLY encourage others to do the same. You might find that everyone was scared over who was going to get elected this year, though their reasons for that vary greatly. And I ask people that, excluding cases of blatant and obvious xenophobia, resist the urge to throw those labels out there in favor of trying to understand the actual reasons and motivations of others. It may not seem like it matters on first glance, but trying to "read the tea leaves" as the saying goes does a hell of a lot of good in trying to keep something like this disaster of an election from ever happening again. If not for the obvious reasons, then at the very least so that I stop feeling like a dope dealer for being active part of the US electoral process (in this case, the "dope" being the belief that your voice actually matters and that voting holds an important place as part of being a US citizen) and more like I'm actually working to be more than just another online arm-chair political pundit. Or not. In the overall scheme of things, I'm a nobody from a sand-and-joshua tree-laden hellhole that nobody gives a damn about. Your apathy there is probably justified.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Damn good post, dude. Information, true information, is what these discussions should be about. I'm glad you've gotten to where you are, and I'm glad to see this post.


----------



## tacotiklah

I would also point out that an lgbt-identifying friend of mine over the years who has actually gone out of his way to help me in my transition and has a pregnant gf and a son on the way saw me losing my sh*t and was actually considering eating a bullet because he fell into the category of people who loathed Trump for just about everything but still voted for him because of fears of impending WW3 with Russia and thought all his friends now hated his guts and was abandoning him. He was in goddamn tears over it. Keep in mind that this man is naming his son after what my legal name was before I came out and started transitioning. That's how highly he thought of me and how I let him down so badly because of my opinions on Donald f**king Trump.

Upon hearing that, I was f***ing horrified (and I will never not be bothered with the damn swear filter we have here, but I digress). I felt like a damn monster. That was the first slap in the face to wake tf up, if i'm being 100% real here. No matter how much people wanna put it, behind every label of "libtard" and "repugnican" is an actual human being whose reasons and motivations are simply impossible to glean based on split-second snap judgment and impressions. If they're terrible people, you'll know soon enough when they open their mouth and/or do anything noteworthy.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I lean fairly to the right, but I'll say this: I don't think that anyone who is innocent should have to live in fear. I understand that many minorities are scared ....less right now because of who won, and I cannot tell you that I've been in the position you have been, because I haven't. I'm a straight white male and the way I look at anyone is, you respect me, and I'll respect you. I don't give a .... what you like or what you look like. I'm not saying I know what the people in the house are going to do, I don't think they're going to start rounding up minorities, but I could be wrong and I hope that these people have more compassion than that. I've had some fairly controversial views as far as abortion and the whole transgender bathroom deal, but I'm starting to become more lax on it, mainly due to the recent things I've read and seen myself. I think a transgendered person should use the bathroom they are comfortable with.

I, as a person who leans right, and many others have some work to do in understanding things from both sides. I do not condone either side, left or right, fighting just over their differences. I think that we can come together and I think we can be productive, but that's going to mean that people on both sides understand that not everyone will believe the same as they do. As far as political correctness goes, I'm a huge fan of stand up comedy. Louis C.K., George Carlin, Nicky DiPaulo and I'll admit I like some ....ed up humor. But even for me, some jokes I find offensive simply because my wife and I have lost 5 children (load of different pregnancy complications) so some things I don't laugh at. That said, I think everyone should ease up in some way. I'm not saying go out and call someone a name they would despise just because you can. That's ....ing rude and the person at hand would be right to be pissed. I'm saying we all need to break out of our comfort zone a little bit and shake your own beliefs to the core. Sometimes, a little shaking up will do wonders. 

It took me looking at cold hard reality to understand that the right wing don't have everything right. There are some real assholes and I'm ashamed of them. That said, I do agree with a lot of what we tend to stand by. But as a person, once again from this side, it's time to stop making people feel like .... just because of appearance/orientation. Hell, it's been way past time to stop.


----------



## Fathand

steinmetzify said:


> Same here. I didn't vote for her. It wasn't because I liked Trump, or thought that he'd be the best candidate for the job, but because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. As a 42 yr old middle class guy apparently full of white privilege, I'm sick to death of the PC bull.... that's been going on in this country. I'm tired of entitled whiny liberals that think the world owes them a favor, and I'm tired of the entire country bowing down to crybabies who need consoling because someone hurt their feelings or because they need a ....ing nap. I can't tell you how many stories I've read about colleges cancelling classes because of 'distraught students'. This is utter crap....I didn't get a day off from work 8 years ago when Obama got elected, but somehow cancelling classes for ADULTS is ok? This kind of .... is EXACTLY what's wrong with this country and has been for most of the last decade. I've seen live news reports with grown ass men crying as they're released from classes because their fragile egos can't take the pain of the day. GROW THE .... UP, GO TO SCHOOL AND HANDLE YOUR BUSINESS you candy ass.



 I think with this you summed (in addition to the US) the more global situation in the western world. Hanging around on the top half of the maslovian pyramid (which someone brought up) for a century or seems to be leading to a new culture where the right to whine, drop out, sit on your ass and think that it is your right to be insulted for anything that doesn't tickle YOUR fancy is overriding the (IMO) basic things of speaking your mind freely, getting up and getting some s..t done. 

EDIT: Applies to your responses after the above too.

I'd buy you a beer if I was in Utah. 

That's all OT, please continue on the election topic.


----------



## tacotiklah

I still can't find that dang video, but I did find some commentary from another source whose contents are along similar lines. i implore other liberals out there to read it, ponder on it, internalize it, and keep it in mind when mid-term elections happen in 2018 and the next general election happens in 2020:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ld-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals

Hubris is an awful, awful thing and with the 2016 primaries all of us on the left, while having Biden, Sanders, and O'Malley as choices, decided to say "hold my beer and watch this" and went with the most cringe choice. And yes, I say all of us on the left, even though my primary vote was for Sanders. I am registered as a democrat, as such I gotta take accountability for my association with the party. Maybe deep down we were so certain that Trump couldn't be elected that we had to be petty in our desire to defeat him by picking the weakest candidate available. Go back to earlier pages in this post and you'll certainly see me saying that there is definitely no way he'd ever have a snowball's chance in hell of doing it. 

Crow is not a nice thing to eat, despite any assertion to the contrary.


----------



## Fathand

It's interesting to see how Trump & Co. will handle the "vested interests" part of the equation - looks like his son-in-law is already cleaning house out of revenge and the president-elect is trying to get a security clearance for the entire family.. 

Political game is brutal, we all understand that - but how can they expect to get any support from the senate or congress if they're already running the place like an ex-USSR state?  Trump might be able to live in his own literal ivory tower, but the rest of them will have to respond to their constituents.

I'm pretty pessimistic about the political climate in the "Western world" (US, Europe) already as it is, but this is getting pretty ridiculous. There is already talk over this side of the pond about "strengthening the collective European defence - but by not trying to replace NATO" which is pretty normal eurocrat BS for: "We were caught off guard and are trying to come up with something until we get reassurances from the US that status quo is back online or we're f****d because we have no plan B". Most worried states are south from here, the smaller baltic states just a bit larger than Crimea..


----------



## tacotiklah

Trump is currently doing what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail; sit back and do rallies and "make America great again" while leaving the picking of the administration to Pence and those he considers "the little people". Is it then any wonder that known white nationalist (not to be confused with a white person that happens to have nationalist views, but the actual historical context of white supremacy) Steve Bannon got tapped for chief advisor? ( http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/14/politics/white-nationalists-on-bannon/ )

Or the one of the justices on the shortlist for SCOTUS pick goes by the name of William H Pryor Jr, whose notoriety comes from him filing an amicus curiae on behalf of the states of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah in Lawrence vs Texas (the case deciding if gay sex was legal or not) with this...

""Petitioners' protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects "the choice of one's partner" and "whether and how to connect sexually" must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia," Brief of the States of Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Lawrence v. Texas, No. 02-102" 
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.#cite_note-27
Note that I tried damn hard to not use wikipedia as a source because academia has taught me better, but it was either that or the sources being pro-lgbt and I figured I was going to be accused of being biased or slanted either way. At least here there are some citations for people to look up for themselves)


But at any rate, my point stands. Trump thinks that being POTUS is sitting on your ass, kissing babies, inciting rabble-rousing among proponents and opponents alike, all while VP and others do the actual work. And it's showing when he lets Pence to the staff selection, and signs off on any and everything anyone else does. Surely there's no other presidential administration where this has happened before right? *coughs* Bush Jr *coughs* Nope, not a single one and this is totally uncharted waters where there was no precedent at all that we could have learned from in history. *cough* bush was cheney's puppet the way trump is pence's *cough*

Excuse me, clearly I have a frog in my throat and can't stop coughing. And by frog I mean a total lack of the temporary amnesia that has somehow gripped the nation.


----------



## Andromalia

I'll be a good french and offer political asylum to poor ladies persecutd by the evil mysoginist american regime.


----------



## Randy

Andromalia said:


> I'll be a good french and offer political asylum to poor ladies persecutd by the evil mysoginist american regime.


----------



## wankerness

Andromalia said:


> I'll be a good french and offer political asylum to poor ladies persecutd by the evil mysoginist american regime.



Marine Le Pen feels pretty excited about this worldwide trend, right? Maybe you guys are next! I think Italy was ahead of the rest with Mr. Berlusconi, but there are probably people like that in charge of other Euro countries we never hear about.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Tacotiklah, your posts have been wonderful. Thank you for sharing, I wish we still had likes and rep so I could give you some 

But what you've brought up is important, I think people are finally starting to learn they need to digest news from a variety of sources as TV just isn't cutting it.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Tacotiklah, your posts have been wonderful. Thank you for sharing, I wish we still had likes and rep so I could give you some
> 
> But what you've brought up is important, I think people are finally starting to learn they need to digest news from a variety of sources as TV just isn't cutting it.



 !

Fake news, I truly believe, had an influence in this election.

Some fake news seems to blatantly attempt to mislead people. Other fake news seems to subtly attempt to mislead people. (Fox News) Other fake news seems to be made assuming no one will take it seriously, yet some people still do. (The Onion)


----------



## tacotiklah

It's not just TV though. In many cases, it's the "news" pages that clog up people's facebook feeds. All the "Occupy Democrats" and "Breitbart" gunk that dirties up people's minds with heavily slanted crap that nobody can be bothered to fact check, and they laugh all the way to the bank with that ad-revenue. People are being told what to think instead of being taught how to think for themselves. This is a big part of why we have "us vs them" in political discussions all the time. People on the right being feed all kinds of nutty crap about how government wants to take _____ from them and steal all their hard earned cash and how people on the left are going to have their every civil right removed and are under threat from *insert choice of -ism/-ist/-phobia from all corners of the right.

It takes things that in and of themselves might have some sort of truth, and embellishes and exaggerates it to the point of unparalleled hyperbole, all because they know its what people want to believe anyways and they're happy to give them that kind of confirmation bias and get fat and rich off that ad revenue anyways. As one fake news writer (or what he claims to be as satire) says in this interview with washington post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw

(note that it may not let you see the article on an actual computer because of whatever subscription pay wall, but I found viewing it on my android phone didn't cause that problem)


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Wow, okay, I stand humbly corrected. I had never heard that term before. What a euphemism for militant racism!



I get the sense that this isn't sarcasm, and you actually mean what you're saying.  

If so, well, that's kind of an interesting observation - I guess it's entirely possible that when a lot of the country heard the left talking about Trump's ties to the white nationalist movement, they thought we were literally talking about a bunch of white guys who were proud of their country and thought, "what's the big deal?" 

Kind of like this, actually, as a super convenient example: 



CapnForsaggio said:


> So, would you say that a white man is allowed to be "nationalist" in any nation? If not, why not?
> 
> Is this just another 'thing' that white men can't have? Because racism?
> 
> What a joke.



The problem here is that "white nationalism" ISN'T just a bunch of patriotic white dudes. It's the belief that America should be a racially pure society, that only Aryans are "real" americans, that racial intermarriage should be fought, and that non-white races should be banned from immigrating here. That "white" and "nation" are intrinsically linked. That the whole "white genocide" thing (fun fact, 31% of Twitter users who use that hashtag follow Breitbart.com, as opposed to 5% for the ultra-conservative-but-not-white-nationalist Conservative Review), that immegration and intermmairage is destroying the Aryan race, and with it America. In short, it's neo-Nazism. 

Which, again, the left was alarmed by the fact that Trump was actively cultivating support of white nationalists. So, that begs the question, was this whole thing just a giant miscommunication where moderates and mainstream conservatives literally thought we were all talking about pro-America white dudes, as opposed to regular Stormfront readers? Or is Formaggio's "what, is nationalism something I can't have because I'm white" thing just one of the talking points they teach you on Stormfront to try to legitimize the movement?


----------



## Drew

tacotiklah said:


> It's not just TV though. In many cases, it's the "news" pages that clog up people's facebook feeds. All the "Occupy Democrats" and "Breitbart" gunk that dirties up people's minds with heavily slanted crap that nobody can be bothered to fact check, and they laugh all the way to the bank with that ad-revenue. People are being told what to think instead of being taught how to think for themselves. This is a big part of why we have "us vs them" in political discussions all the time. People on the right being feed all kinds of nutty crap about how government wants to take _____ from them and steal all their hard earned cash and how people on the left are going to have their every civil right removed and are under threat from *insert choice of -ism/-ist/-phobia from all corners of the right.
> 
> It takes things that in and of themselves might have some sort of truth, and embellishes and exaggerates it to the point of unparalleled hyperbole, all because they know its what people want to believe anyways and they're happy to give them that kind of confirmation bias and get fat and rich off that ad revenue anyways. As one fake news writer (or what he claims to be as satire) says in this interview with washington post:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw
> 
> (note that it may not let you see the article on an actual computer because of whatever subscription pay wall, but I found viewing it on my android phone didn't cause that problem)



Man, so much agreement here. That, plus, as you noted, Facebook and Twitter are essentially giant news aggregators that allow you to filter out any news source that doesn't already confirm your point of view. I'm glad this is getting some attention, because I think it's pretty clearly a major threat to american democracy. 

I admit it isn't for everyone, but I always thought Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" was absolutely brilliant. Interspersed in it are a couple "proverbs for paranoids," and one of my favorites is #3, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." I think that's kind of appropriate here.


----------



## extendedsolo

tacotiklah said:


> It's not just TV though. In many cases, it's the "news" pages that clog up people's facebook feeds. All the "Occupy Democrats" and "Breitbart" gunk that dirties up people's minds with heavily slanted crap that nobody can be bothered to fact check, and they laugh all the way to the bank with that ad-revenue. People are being told what to think instead of being taught how to think for themselves. This is a big part of why we have "us vs them" in political discussions all the time. People on the right being feed all kinds of nutty crap about how government wants to take _____ from them and steal all their hard earned cash and how people on the left are going to have their every civil right removed and are under threat from *insert choice of -ism/-ist/-phobia from all corners of the right.
> 
> It takes things that in and of themselves might have some sort of truth, and embellishes and exaggerates it to the point of unparalleled hyperbole, all because they know its what people want to believe anyways and they're happy to give them that kind of confirmation bias and get fat and rich off that ad revenue anyways. As one fake news writer (or what he claims to be as satire) says in this interview with washington post:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw
> 
> (note that it may not let you see the article on an actual computer because of whatever subscription pay wall, but I found viewing it on my android phone didn't cause that problem)




I completely agree with you. I'm socially pretty left but that occupy democrats stuff is a little too like "PEACE AND LOVE MAAAAAN". 

I really believe that historians will look back at the current time and realize that the amount of information available to us exploded so quickly that we had no idea how to process any of it. They'll think "those morons 200 years ago believe anything!" Before you would've had to subscribe to a stack of newspapers to get the amount of info available now. I wouldn't be surprised if in 200 years, assuming we haven't blown ourselves up, if there are classes taught from a young age on how to discern good information from bad. It's just not there right now, and older generations are specifically unequipped to process what is honest information and what isn't. I know there is a tendency to sit here and be cynical that everyone is stupid and we are doomed, but people used to think that witches existed.


----------



## wankerness

tacotiklah said:


> It's not just TV though. In many cases, it's the "news" pages that clog up people's facebook feeds. All the "Occupy Democrats" and "Breitbart" gunk that dirties up people's minds with heavily slanted crap that nobody can be bothered to fact check, and they laugh all the way to the bank with that ad-revenue. People are being told what to think instead of being taught how to think for themselves. This is a big part of why we have "us vs them" in political discussions all the time. People on the right being feed all kinds of nutty crap about how government wants to take _____ from them and steal all their hard earned cash and how people on the left are going to have their every civil right removed and are under threat from *insert choice of -ism/-ist/-phobia from all corners of the right.
> 
> It takes things that in and of themselves might have some sort of truth, and embellishes and exaggerates it to the point of unparalleled hyperbole, all because they know its what people want to believe anyways and they're happy to give them that kind of confirmation bias and get fat and rich off that ad revenue anyways. As one fake news writer (or what he claims to be as satire) says in this interview with washington post:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/?tid=sm_tw
> 
> (note that it may not let you see the article on an actual computer because of whatever subscription pay wall, but I found viewing it on my android phone didn't cause that problem)



Yeah, TV is bad, but Facebook is far, FAR worse. I saw a statistic recently that said something like 43% of people now depend on Facebook for news, which is hilarious as Facebook just posts whatever echo chamber un-fact-checked crap that people are reading. And another story that outright fake stories were the top-read "news" stories during the election. Here's one link, I can't find the more detailed list of top stories offhand.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/more...-most-popular-real-reporting-report-says.html


----------



## MFB

Facebook and Twitter are nothing more than echo chambers, and when someone you know doesn't line up with what you want to hear - it's easier to filter them out than try and find out their POV.

Edit: oh hey, didn't see you use the same exact words. I saw so many posts in a row complaining about it that I threw them out there


----------



## extendedsolo

wankerness said:


> Yeah, TV is bad, but Facebook is far, FAR worse. I saw a statistic recently that said something like 43% of people now depend on Facebook for news, which is hilarious as Facebook just posts whatever echo chamber un-fact-checked crap that people are reading. And another story that outright fake stories were the top-read "news" stories during the election. Here's one link, I can't find the more detailed list of top stories offhand.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/16/more...-most-popular-real-reporting-report-says.html



That unreal. The issue is that if someone disagrees with the viewpoint they will just dismiss it because "(news source) is telling lies because it's (liberal/conservative)" It's so much easier to do that than to actually dig a little deeper. 

I think we are so far away from that being fixed. Cris Collinsworth was on a podcast with Bill Simmons this week and says that no matter what people think he hates their team, even though he is trying to remain unbiased. As someone who just watched Joe Buck announce 13 games in the MLB playoffs that my team was a part of, I just don't get it. Yes he talks about the other team, but I had no feeling ever that he hated the Cubs. If people can't accept that an announcer doesn't hate their team, how are we ever going to move past the idea that some news sources aren't out to get our point of view.


----------



## Demiurge

extendedsolo said:


> I think we are so far away from that being fixed. Cris Collinsworth was on a podcast with Bill Simmons this week and says that no matter what people think he hates their team, even though he is trying to remain unbiased. As someone who just watched Joe Buck announce 13 games in the MLB playoffs that my team was a part of, I just don't get it. Yes he talks about the other team, but I had no feeling ever that he hated the Cubs. If people can't accept that an announcer doesn't hate their team, how are we ever going to move past the idea that some news sources aren't out to get our point of view.



 I think that sportscasting is a great example of what the media does: they identify the most attention-getting narrative and promote it. They go for the elite players making history, the big upsets, the long-suffering fanbases, the controversies, and the big personalities & trash-talkers. Like in sports, in politics there are winners and losers and when your side doesn't win, it always looks the the media was rooting the other way because they do their best to exploit the outcome.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I get the sense that this isn't sarcasm, and you actually mean what you're saying.
> 
> If so, well, that's kind of an interesting observation - I guess it's entirely possible that when a lot of the country heard the left talking about Trump's ties to the white nationalist movement, they thought we were literally talking about a bunch of white guys who were proud of their country and thought, "what's the big deal?"
> 
> Kind of like this, actually, as a super convenient example:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that "white nationalism" ISN'T just a bunch of patriotic white dudes. It's the belief that America should be a racially pure society, that only Aryans are "real" americans, that racial intermarriage should be fought, and that non-white races should be banned from immigrating here. That "white" and "nation" are intrinsically linked. That the whole "white genocide" thing (fun fact, 31% of Twitter users who use that hashtag follow Breitbart.com, as opposed to 5% for the ultra-conservative-but-not-white-nationalist Conservative Review), that immegration and intermmairage is destroying the Aryan race, and with it America. In short, it's neo-Nazism.
> 
> Which, again, the left was alarmed by the fact that Trump was actively cultivating support of white nationalists. So, that begs the question, was this whole thing just a giant miscommunication where moderates and mainstream conservatives literally thought we were all talking about pro-America white dudes, as opposed to regular Stormfront readers? Or is Formaggio's "what, is nationalism something I can't have because I'm white" thing just one of the talking points they teach you on Stormfront to try to legitimize the movement?



I rarely advocate violence, but anyone wanting to turn the USA into an all-white nation can go tapdance in a minefield during target practice.

The entire attitude of the new right wing toward "Mexicans" is disgusting. Think about it, the people to whom they are referring are 60% indigenous American, and 30% mixed indigenous American and white European.

Is this the new American Dream?

Comparisons of Trump with Hitler, coming from the left - maybe they are premature. I think they are, but, perhaps foolishly, I have faith, still, in the US government's system of checks and balances. If he does get out of control or something, congress and the supreme court should be able to stymie him. Do I trust the federal government to move forward? Hell no, but at least, I don't think they are going to let Trump go full dictator.


----------



## extendedsolo

Demiurge said:


> I think that sportscasting is a great example of what the media does: they identify the most attention-getting narrative and promote it. They go for the elite players making history, the big upsets, the long-suffering fanbases, the controversies, and the big personalities & trash-talkers. Like in sports, in politics there are winners and losers and when your side doesn't win, it always looks the the media was rooting the other way because they do their best to exploit the outcome.



I don't think it's coincidence that sports have become the level of popular they are now and that politics are what they are now either. It's seen as "i want to be rooting for the winning team OR the team that's exceeding expectations." There is definitely some of that blind tribalism that permeates sports in with politics now. Not to say it hasn't always been there, but it's been amplified for sure. The thing is that sports 1)do not matter in the grand scheme of the world 2)exist in a vacuum. Politics have a very real impact on the world, which is proven by almost any book in the history section of a book store. I've never heard of a super bowl champion being given the title of "the one that changed american history."


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Comparisons of Trump with Hitler, coming from the left - maybe they are premature. I think they are, but, perhaps foolishly, I have faith, still, in the US government's system of checks and balances. If he does get out of control or something, congress and the supreme court should be able to stymie him. Do I trust the federal government to move forward? Hell no, but at least, I don't think they are going to let Trump go full dictator.



I think we're at a point where maybe it's a _little_ premature, but if we learned anything from Nazi Germany is that there are huge risks in complancency, so it's absolutely NOT premature to monitor, prepare, and resist any policies that would take us down that road. 

I mean, bare minimum, if he actually does what he says he wants to, it's not premature. His transition team was recently defending a plan to require Muslims to register by pointing to Japanese internment camps as having set precedent. I think THAT is why we need to be concerned, that Trump is a moving target, sure, but we can't discount the possibility that he means what he says. 

In other news, I went for a long ride through New Hampshire on my road bike over the weekend, on a dirt road rec trail in the southern part of the state (riding road bikes on dirt is kind of an odd guilty pleasure of mine). There was a bridge I crossed on the trail at one point, that had a freshly spraypainted white swastika in the middle, that wasn't there a month ago the last time I did the ride. 

It just makes me sad to actually SEE that .... happening here, you know? :/


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> I think we're at a point where maybe it's a _little_ premature, but if we learned anything from Nazi Germany is that there are huge risks in complancency, so it's absolutely NOT premature to monitor, prepare, and resist any policies that would take us down that road.



If the choice is "too paranoid" or "too late," I'm opting for paranoid.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> There was a bridge I crossed on the trail at one point, that had a freshly spraypainted white swastika in the middle, that wasn't there a month ago the last time I did the ride.



I think it's a 'flash' of these types being emboldened by the election results, but I think it's temporary. This is their victory lap. At the end of the day, all of the things they're doing (graffiti, violence, etc.) is all illegal and they'll have to face the consequences for it.


----------



## bostjan

...but what does one do to prepare for a potential fascist government takeover? Umzug in die Schweiz?


----------



## Axayacatl

Randy said:


> I think it's a 'flash' of these types being emboldened by the election results, but I think it's temporary. This is their victory lap. At the end of the day, all of the things they're doing (graffiti, violence, etc.) is all illegal and they'll have to face the consequences for it.



But then if you look at the data, these behaviors are not a flash, they are a troubling long term trend. For example, a well known figure:






And the views underlying these acts have been validated at a national level with the election of Mr. Trump and have been given an unprecedented amount of power in the appointment of Mr. Bannon as a chief advisor. 

I have a lot of belief that our laws and our institutions protect basic rights and that doing so is a deep part of American legal tradition no matter what your background is, even if the ideal is grossly unequally applied in practice. 

But the first defense is to be vigilant and a little weary. Apparently we can never be too paranoid about ISIS and the like, so hopefully we can be equally paranoid about other forces that menace basic American rights, that inspire even more attack than ISIS, and have been elevated to an office next the Oval Office. 

Remember, when fellow forumnites/guitar players/gearheads who happen to be gay/trans voiced concern, the response on SS.org (a friendly place) was ''go take civics lesson''. So let's not be hypocritical and criticize people for waiting anxiously for said 'civics' to kick in.


----------



## bostjan

I'm not sure the story behind the graphic. It isn't going to take any hard data to convince me that extremism is more dangerous than moderation (regardless of the modifier - "Islamic," "Christian Fundamentalist," "Branch Davidian,"etc.)

Is the graphic trying to say that homegrown terrorists are more dangerous than radical Islam? Is that domestically, or worldwide?

Anyway, maybe it does not matter.

If you are convinced that Trump is a terrorist, then what do you do next? Are we waiting for him to sign an executive order to move all of the "ay-rabs" into concentration camps, then what? Riot?

Recall how the Nazis came to power in the early 1930's in Germany. The voters could not unite behind a party. There were Marxists, Communists, Centrists, Monarchists, and Nazis. The Nazis didn't win a majority, but they won a plurality at one point, and took the opportunity to murder their opponents and seize power. Maybe more German voters in 1932 were Nazis than any other individual party, but if you combined Marxists and Communists, they were just about tied with the Nazis, and the Centrists and Democrats had strong showings as well.

I'm not saying that he would be motivated to do so in any way, but *if* (that's a big if) Trump tried to seize power in the same way as Hitler, he'd have to bump off a lot of Democrats in the federal government and still manage to keep the Republicans loyal to him (which they are not). If he had such nefarious plans, he might have to wait until installing an upheaval during the mid-term elections, or else, he'd have to become very violent very quickly without any forewarning.


----------



## Axayacatl

bostjan said:


> Is the graphic trying to say that homegrown terrorists are more dangerous than radical Islam? Is that domestically, or worldwide?



My own perspective is to not read too much into the graph. The graph simply plots the cumulative number of deaths from attacks inspired by the two broad ideologies since 2002, and shows that at many points in time, white nationalist terrorism (for lack of a better term) was responsible for a similar number or more deaths as jihadist terrorism. Behind the graph it may be that there are many more jihadist plots big and small and that they get snuffed out at a higher rate because they get more scrutiny from law enforcement, or maybe white people just got 'better' at terrorism right around 2012. Or maybe jihadist terror in the ISIS era was mostly focused on the ME and Europe. The graph doesn't offer a story either way. I'm just saying maybe the most remarkable thing about Mr. Bannon in the White House is that it is not remarkable, and that Drew and celtick's points about being vigilant and never too paranoid is entirely justified by the raw data. To the best of my knowledge, the historical data offers no precedent for anybody to be 'chill' about recent events. 

BTW, I do not think and never said that Mr. Trump was a terrorist or Hitler-like, but this is a really interesting read, enjoy:


Book Review said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.html
> 
>  Hitler was often described as an egomaniac who only loved himself  a narcissist with a taste for self-dramatization and what Mr. Ullrich calls a characteristic fondness for superlatives. His manic speeches and penchant for taking all-or-nothing risks raised questions about his capacity for self-control, even his sanity. But Mr. Ullrich underscores Hitlers shrewdness as a politician  with a keen eye for the strengths and weaknesses of other people and an ability to instantaneously analyze and exploit situations.
> 
>  Hitler was known, among colleagues, for a bottomless mendacity that would later be magnified by a slick propaganda machine that used the latest technology (radio, gramophone records, film) to spread his message. A former finance minister wrote that Hitler was so thoroughly untruthful that he could no longer recognize the difference between lies and truth and editors of one edition of Mein Kampf described it as a swamp of lies, distortions, innuendoes, half-truths and real facts.
> 
>  Hitler was an effective orator and actor, Mr. Ullrich reminds readers, adept at assuming various masks and feeding off the energy of his audiences. Although he concealed his anti-Semitism beneath a mask of moderation when trying to win the support of the socially liberal middle classes, he specialized in big, theatrical rallies staged with spectacular elements borrowed from the circus. Here, Hitler adapted the content of his speeches to suit the tastes of his lower-middle-class, nationalist-conservative, ethnic-chauvinist and anti-Semitic listeners, Mr. Ullrich writes. He peppered his speeches with coarse phrases and put-downs of hecklers. Even as he fomented chaos by playing to crowds fears and resentments, he offered himself as the visionary leader who could restore law and order.
> 
>  Hitler increasingly presented himself in messianic terms, promising to lead Germany to a new era of national greatness, though he was typically vague about his actual plans. He often harked back to a golden age for the country, Mr. Ullrich says, the better to paint the present day in hues that were all the darker. Everywhere you looked now, there was only decline and decay.
> 
>  Hitlers repertoire of topics, Mr. Ullrich notes, was limited, and reading his speeches in retrospect, it seems amazing that he attracted larger and larger audiences with repeated mantralike phrases consisting largely of accusations, vows of revenge and promises for the future. But Hitler virtually wrote the modern playbook on demagoguery, arguing in Mein Kampf that propaganda must appeal to the emotions  not the reasoning powers  of the crowd. Its purely intellectual level, Hitler said, will have to be that of the lowest mental common denominator among the public it is desired to reach. Because the understanding of the masses is feeble, he went on, effective propaganda needed to be boiled down to a few slogans that should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.
> 
>  Hitlers rise was not inevitable, in Mr. Ullrichs opinion. There were numerous points at which his ascent might have been derailed, he contends; even as late as January 1933, it would have been eminently possible to prevent his nomination as Reich chancellor. He benefited from a constellation of crises that he was able to exploit cleverly and unscrupulously  in addition to economic woes and unemployment, there was an erosion of the political center and a growing resentment of the elites. The unwillingness of Germanys political parties to compromise had contributed to a perception of government dysfunction, Mr. Ullrich suggests, and the belief of Hitler supporters that the country needed a man of iron who could shake things up. Why not give the National Socialists a chance? a prominent banker said of the Nazis. They seem pretty gutsy to me.
> 
>  Hitlers ascension was aided and abetted by the naïveté of domestic adversaries who failed to appreciate his ruthlessness and tenacity, and by foreign statesmen who believed they could control his aggression. Early on, revulsion at Hitlers style and appearance, Mr. Ullrich writes, led some critics to underestimate the man and his popularity, while others dismissed him as a celebrity, a repellent but fascinating evenings entertainment. Politicians, for their part, suffered from the delusion that the dominance of traditional conservatives in the cabinet would neutralize the threat of Nazi abuse of power and fence Hitler in. As far as Hitlers long-term wishes were concerned, Mr. Ullrich observes, his conservative coalition partners believed either that he was not serious or that they could exert a moderating influence on him. In any case, they were severely mistaken.
> 
>  Hitler, it became obvious, could not be tamed  he needed only five months to consolidate absolute power after becoming chancellor. Non-National Socialist German states were brought into line, Mr. Ullrich writes, with pressure from the party grass roots combining effectively with pseudo-legal measures ordered by the Reich government. Many Germans jumped on the Nazi bandwagon not out of political conviction but in hopes of improving their career opportunities, he argues, while fear kept others from speaking out against the persecution of the Jews. The independent press was banned or suppressed and books deemed un-German were burned. By March 1933, Hitler had made it clear, Mr. Ullrich says, that his government was going to do away with all norms of separation of powers and the rule of law.
> 
>  Hitler had a dark, Darwinian view of the world. And he would not only become, in Mr. Ullrichs words, a mouthpiece of the cultural pessimism growing in right-wing circles in the Weimar Republic, but also the avatar of what Thomas Mann identified as a turning away from reason and the fundamental principles of a civil society  namely, liberty, equality, education, optimism and belief in progress.


----------



## bostjan

> &#8226; Hitler&#8217;s ascension was aided and abetted by the naïveté of domestic adversaries who failed to appreciate his ruthlessness and tenacity, and by foreign statesmen who believed they could control his aggression. Early on, revulsion at Hitler&#8217;s style and appearance, Mr. Ullrich writes, led some critics to underestimate the man and his popularity, while others dismissed him as a celebrity, a repellent but fascinating &#8220;evening&#8217;s entertainment.&#8221; Politicians, for their part, suffered from the delusion that the dominance of traditional conservatives in the cabinet would neutralize the threat of Nazi abuse of power and &#8220;fence Hitler in.&#8221; &#8220;As far as Hitler&#8217;s long-term wishes were concerned,&#8221; Mr. Ullrich observes, &#8220;his conservative coalition partners believed either that he was not serious or that they could exert a moderating influence on him. In any case, they were severely mistaken.&#8221;



Like how the DNC promoted and elevated Trump in order to give HRC a "beatable" opponent?

I'd like to dig up some articles about Hitler contemporary with Hitler's earlier power. I bet he was more of a controversial leader than a universal villain early on, particularly from within Germany. WW II didn't start until after six years of Hitler, and the Holocaust a couple years after that. Earlier than that, Hitler had succeeded in drastically lowering unemployment, bolstering the economy, procuring automobiles for the general public, curbing inflation (also losing control of inflation a few times), etc. He was a bad guy who came through on some of his campaign promises, before completely diving headlong into the conflict that would nearly destroy the world.


----------



## Randy

You gotta keep in mind that Hitler rose to power in a country ravaged by war, that was in absolutely dire financial shape. The power vacuum he took over in was nearly unprecedented. We've got real issues in this country but I don't think we're to the point where large populations of people are willing to look the other way while we exterminate millions of other people. Call me an optimist.


----------



## bostjan

I guess I was going for a few subtler points. I'll try to make them less subtle, at the risk of coming off brashly:

1. As much as we associate Hitler with the entire Nazi movement, it really didn't happen that way. Nazi-ism was a grass roots movement in Germany in the 20's and 30's that put Hitler in power. The Nazi party was a machine driven by an ideology, not a man. The man was just a cog in that machine.
2. The desperate situation in Germany may have driven people more quickly to extremism, but it people can be driven to extremism in different ways, as well.
3. Hitler took power violently, yes, but for a few years afterward, Germany actually prospered economically from his (read: the Nazi party's) policies. This gained the trust of the people. The Nazi party wanted to commit genocide all along, and their rhetoric reflected that, but the Holocaust didn't start until the 1940's. So, what I am saying is that lack of action does not necessarily establish a pattern. Things might look nice, and these folks who want to string up the Muslims and the Hispanics might back off their agenda, but if they say that is their agenda, then it very likely is. Now that they have someone backing that agenda in the White House, even if he's trying to play it off now as if it were lip service to those people just to get elected, we might still be in for a mess at any given time.
4. Trump is not Hitler and the Republican party is not the Nazi party. These are not intended to be taken as parallels. However, we just elected a guy to the presidency who is openly hateful toward certain people and openly accepting of some extreme ideas. He's said some good things, too. Maybe Trump will make hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans. That would be pretty great if he did. Maybe Trump will bolster the US economy to make us #1 in manufacturing again. That would also be great, in the short term, at least. But maybe he will also get us into another pointless war in the middle east, maybe he will cause the alienation of the USA from the UN, and maybe he will strip away people's civil liberties.

I am furtively positive about his presidency. I think that he might try to do some good things. I think, if nothing else, this sends a message to the federal government powers that they need to make some changes. I wouldn't mind seeing a boost in manufacturing here, particularly as an employee of a manufacturer. But if the cost of a better economy is a war and a loss of civil liberties, then we do not have a net positive.


----------



## Randy

So you believe that the Holocaust would've happened, even without Hitler running things? I haven't heard that one before.


----------



## extendedsolo

Randy said:


> So you believe that the Holocaust would've happened, even without Hitler running things? I haven't heard that one before.



The war for sure would've ended differently if Hitler wasn't in power and if there were a different leader.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So you believe that the Holocaust would've happened, even without Hitler running things? I haven't heard that one before.



That's the mother of all counter-factuals. 

I'll take the bait, though. It's possible, but it's by no means certain. While nothing bostjan is saying is actually WRONG (except that Hitler tried to take power violently, failed spectacularly, and then took it diplomatically), in the points pertaining to Hitler below, but there's a bit more to it than that, IMO. 

The Nazi party existed before Hitler, yes. But, he was a _very_ early member of the party, at the time when they were a fringe group that wasn't taken terribly seriously within the Weimar Republic. He became an early leader within the party, and his infamous "beer hall putsch," a laughably botched attempted coup, gave him an international platform and cemented his position as the de facto leader of the party, further cemented when "Mein Kampf," which he wrote during his time in jail, became a German best-seller. He was also an incredibly charismatic speaker - even not speaking a word of german, I'll admit his delivery is hypnotic. 

So, while the Nazi party existed before Hitler, he was the figurehead who popularized it, brought it mainstream, and gave them a charismatic leader. Could the Holocaust have happened without him? Absolutely... But I think you would have needed someone _like_ him, to break it into the mainstream of German politics. 

I do think it's important though that the Weimar Republic was in far worse shape than the States are today. In the early 1920s, when Hitler began his rise, the country was still reeling from a humiliating military defeat, was following the rest of the world into a global recession, was experiencing a period of hyperinflation, and was struggling with a cultural identity crisis after having its place within the world overturned and then dealt further setbacks in terms of crippling provisions in the Treaty of Versailles. I think that last point, though, the struggling with questions of national identity, is maybe where we need to be the most careful - white working class voters are clearly feeling disenfranchised, if we've learned anything from this election, and I do wonder if questions of national identity trump economics in voters minds, both in 1933 and in 2016. 

I think the checks against executive power and the civil institutions in the United States are stronger today than those of the Weimar Republic in the 20s and 30s, but that will only matter if we empower them. Trump might not try to implement some of the xenophobic policies he spoke about on the campaign, but if he does try, then we as a nation absolutely have to oppose them.


----------



## Necris

bostjan said:


> WW II didn't start until after six years of Hitler, and the Holocaust a couple years after that.


To follow up Drew's post, the Nuremberg laws which disenfranchised German Jews were passed in 1935 and were later extended to other "undesirable" groups. Kristallnacht happened in 1938 and is generally considered the start of the holocaust proper. Things were in motion before the war started.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-investigation.html

The flip-flops begin.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> He was also an incredibly charismatic speaker - even not speaking a word of german, I'll admit his delivery is hypnotic.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> That's the mother of all counter-factuals.
> 
> I'll take the bait, though. It's possible, but it's by no means certain. While nothing bostjan is saying is actually WRONG (except that Hitler tried to take power violently, failed spectacularly, and then took it diplomatically), in the points pertaining to Hitler below, but there's a bit more to it than that, IMO.
> 
> The Nazi party existed before Hitler, yes. But, he was a _very_ early member of the party, at the time when they were a fringe group that wasn't taken terribly seriously within the Weimar Republic. He became an early leader within the party, and his infamous "beer hall putsch," a laughably botched attempted coup, gave him an international platform and cemented his position as the de facto leader of the party, further cemented when "Mein Kampf," which he wrote during his time in jail, became a German best-seller. He was also an incredibly charismatic speaker - even not speaking a word of german, I'll admit his delivery is hypnotic.
> 
> So, while the Nazi party existed before Hitler, he was the figurehead who popularized it, brought it mainstream, and gave them a charismatic leader. Could the Holocaust have happened without him? Absolutely... But I think you would have needed someone _like_ him, to break it into the mainstream of German politics.
> 
> I do think it's important though that the Weimar Republic was in far worse shape than the States are today. In the early 1920s, when Hitler began his rise, the country was still reeling from a humiliating military defeat, was following the rest of the world into a global recession, was experiencing a period of hyperinflation, and was struggling with a cultural identity crisis after having its place within the world overturned and then dealt further setbacks in terms of crippling provisions in the Treaty of Versailles. I think that last point, though, the struggling with questions of national identity, is maybe where we need to be the most careful - white working class voters are clearly feeling disenfranchised, if we've learned anything from this election, and I do wonder if questions of national identity trump economics in voters minds, both in 1933 and in 2016.
> 
> I think the checks against executive power and the civil institutions in the United States are stronger today than those of the Weimar Republic in the 20s and 30s, but that will only matter if we empower them. Trump might not try to implement some of the xenophobic policies he spoke about on the campaign, but if he does try, then we as a nation absolutely have to oppose them.



The Nazi party was a whole lot of bad guys, not just Hitler. And what was special about Hitler? As you pointed out, he was a colourful speaker, and you say he had charisma. I disagree about the charisma part, and I think plenty of folks during that era were just as colourful with their speaking.

In the vacuum of the crumbling Weimar Republic, if Hitler had not existed, what would have happened?

I guess the general consensus in the thread is that the Nazis never would have made any headway. That's where I disagree. The Nazi takeover of the German parliament was a populist movement. Antisemitism was widespread throughout many parts of Europe, but especially prevalent in Germany: and not just among the working class (although that's where it was strongest). The sentiments toward Marxism were strong, but polarized. I really highly doubt a Marxist party would have been able to seize power the way the Nazis did.

Hitler's ascension to power was interesting, for sure, and I don't doubt that Hitler didn't play a strong part in his own rise to absolute power in Germany, even for a second. Hell, maybe the Nazi party would have not survived, had it not been for Hitler; however, all of the bad men around Hitler did not become bad men solely because of his ideologies. Hitler's ideologies reflected the sentiments many of his contemporaries already held. Many Germans thought that Germany won WWI and had been betrayed by their own government into a treaty. I am quite certain that, had it not been for Hitler, some other asshole would have done the same thing.

Think about it. Hitler tried to get people fired up about the Nazis in the early 1920's, and he really failed at doing it. Germany was reeling economically then. Hitler went away for awhile, the Nazi party weakened. Hitler was released and got back to work, and the Nazi party weakened still. Then the Nazis moved Gregor Strasser in the late 1920's from leadership to start a propaganda campaign targeted at garnering grass roots support among the lower class. The propaganda worked, and the Nazis started winning elections. Once they held the power, and Strasser, a former leader of the party, had no longer any use to them in obtaining support from the lower classes, Strasser was assassinated.

The paradigm shift that brought the Nazis to power was not Hitler himself, nor was it economic strife. The "eureka" moment for them was when they realized that they could harness the hate of the lower class. Hitler was a part of that, but it wasn't his idea alone.

As human beings, we like to find a villain to be the poster boy for a problem. For WWII, it was Hitler. But Hitler didn't suddenly appear and take power out of nowhere. There were also Mussolinis and Francos and all sorts of similar populist fascists seizing power in different places. All of them utilized the hate of the working class toward things they didn't understand, and managing misinformation, to gain popular support and ultimate power.

If you could go back in a time machine for ten seconds and kill Hitler, it would not have made a damn bit of difference in the long run. Maybe it wouldn't have been Nazis and swastikas, but it could have just the same been some other word with some other symbol trying to take over Europe and start a genocide.

Call me a pessimist when it comes to people, but, when you do, keep in mind that the Holocaust was not an isolated incident. Hitler was a symbol for the hate a lot of people felt at the time. People have done it over and over since then. But the demon isn't just the person who figureheaded the hatred, but also the hatred itself, which, believe me, people are all too capable of on their own.


----------



## bostjan

Necris said:


> To follow up Drew's post, the Nuremberg laws which disenfranchised German Jews were passed in 1935 and were later extended to other "undesirable" groups. Kristallnacht happened in 1938 and is generally considered the start of the holocaust proper. Things were in motion before the war started.



And Hitler came to power years before either of those. My point was that it didn't happen over night. I believe that point is still firm.


----------



## tacotiklah

bostjan said:


> And Hitler came to power years before either of those. My point was that it didn't happen over night. I believe that point is still firm.



Indeed, Hitler's use of violence to achieve political ends and put down rivals can be traced back to his "Beer Hall Putsch", in which he and his brownshirts decided to violently overthrow the government by any means necessary. He got put down and thrown in jail for it. The sentence given his crime was unbelievably tame (just a few months). 

Around the time of that attempted coup de'tat, he and his brownshirts were beating the hell out of Jewish and Slovakian people, as well as political rivals with clubs, chains, etc. There was no mistaking what his intentions were, even before he wrote Mein Kampf while in jail.

The way that Americans and others at the time turned a blind eye to what he was up to is one of the greatest tragedies of our age. And it seems that nobody has ever bothered to crack open a history book and try to learn from the past. I was all for bipartisanship and friendly understanding with the current administration in the hope of things not getting too crazy.

With the recent appointments, it seems that crazy is doubling down on itself and I'm 100% done with it. I'm still in shock that in this day and age, actual racists are given government positions, instead of the middle finger like they deserve. I'm just done.


----------



## You

May I make a friendly suggestion? 

 

I believe that the purpose of this thread has been achieved, seeing as how the elections are officially over. Let us all agree to disagree, and acknowledge that we all are different ideologically. This is what truly allows us to be different from one and another, and that is perfectly okay. 

All of us have come here for guitars, metal, and music altogether, and that brings us together ultimately. And it is through this, our common interest as people, that brings forth unity and brotherhood. 

Perhaps to summarize my message: 

"_I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it._"-Voltaire 

Let us set aside our differences and do what we all love most.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Seconded, we have proven Godwin's Law. If this thread is valuable for anything, it is that.


----------



## Necris

^ To quote the man who created the law:


Mike Godwin said:


> "If you&#8217;re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician... To be clear: I don&#8217;t personally believe all rational discourse has ended when Nazis or the Holocaust are invoked. But I&#8217;m pleased that people still use Godwin&#8217;s Law to force one another to argue more thoughtfully. "


 
Would the thread being retitled "Trump really got there, now what?" make things better?
The arguments here aren't completely off the wall, no-one invoked Nazi's just for the sake of tying Trump to Hitler. Potential similarities were found and now their validity and accuracy are being discussed, rational discourse has been maintained. Why are you so eager to shut down what has thus far been a civil discussion between people of differing political views?


----------



## Drew

Yeah, if anything the rise of Trump speaks to the dangers posed by Godwin's law, rather than as proof that it exists - because Hitler comparisons get thrown around so readily on the internet, when we actually DO have a president-elect talking about requiring an ethic/religious group to register with the government, we've kind of gone and cried wolf so it doesn't actually carry any weight anymore.  

Anyway, I agree - I think we're on the tip of the iceberg, as far as things to discuss.


----------



## tacotiklah

Yeah as far as things to say about Trump, well... we have 4 years worth of crazy to post in here since he's president-elect. Unless somehow Jill Stein's attempt at a recount in Wisonsin (and possibly two more states) yields any major changes. But to me, that's a hail mary at best.

So we're staring at the possibility of the most singularly unqualified person to be president doing just that, while he appoints people just as unqualified as he is to various important positions simply because they kissed his ass during his campaign. It's going to be a real sh*tshow these next four years and while I fed on my share of crow for doubting Trump would get this far, I'm going to be helping to make sure that there's plenty of crow to go around for his supporters to feast on when he finally proves beyond all doubt that he did a bait-and-switch on them. There won't be enough 'I told you so's in the world when that happens.


----------



## Hollowway

I hope the Stein recount dies soon. I'm not thrilled that trump won (though, I honestly think he's more centrist than people think, and that he will do far more to shake up Washington than Hillary could), but I worry that if this recount "finds" errors in the original tally it's going to create significant unrest and shake the foundation of elections in general. I specifically use quotes around that word, because there's no guarantee that those who are doing the recount are any more honest, or less prone to fraud, than those who they're accusing. In other words, the DNC had its share of fraud allegations in the primary cycle, so I don't know that I trust any party to be impartial to the results. While Stein herself may be honest, for all we know there will be a Debbie Wasserman Schulz character who is put in charge of the whole thing.


----------



## extendedsolo

Hollowway said:


> I hope the Stein recount dies soon. I'm not thrilled that trump won (though, I honestly think he's more centrist than people think, and that he will do far more to shake up Washington than Hillary could), but I worry that if this recount "finds" errors in the original tally it's going to create significant unrest and shake the foundation of elections in general. I specifically use quotes around that word, because there's no guarantee that those who are doing the recount are any more honest, or less prone to fraud, than those who they're accusing. In other words, the DNC had its share of fraud allegations in the primary cycle, so I don't know that I trust any party to be impartial to the results. While Stein herself may be honest, for all we know there will be a Debbie Wasserman Schulz character who is put in charge of the whole thing.



I think that Hillary wants it to be done, but can't do it herself. By getting Stein to head this it shifts the blame away. 

I hope nothing comes of this. As much as I don't like Trump winning, the unrest if they change who the president is based on the recount would be pretty high. I'm talking it would make hatred of Obama pale in comparison. It would completely shatter some American's faith in the democratic process, which is a pretty dangerous thing.


----------



## tacotiklah

^which, if that's the case, just makes me despise Hillary even more. *sigh*
There's no winning in this. I guess this is one of those cases where you have to hope that Hillary wins the recount despite hating literally EVERYTHING about her.

You know this year has been a rough one when even Fidel Castro decides to give up on life.


----------



## Hollowway

Well, Hillary has officially joined in the recount now, saying that they just want to make sure Americans can trust the process. Which is rich, considering all of the allegations of vote tampering in the primary.


----------



## Demiurge

So... I was under the impression that the "official" complaints about malfeasance were purges of registered voter rolls and voter intimidation, but now there's an implied complaint of misrepresentation of vote counts in addition? Did the Illuminati truly spare no expense or is Clinton looking to come off as the _biglier_ conspiracy theorist of the election?


----------



## tacotiklah

So now Trump is tweeting that he only lost the popular vote because over 2 million "illegals" voted in the election. If that were true, I'd welcome a recount as opposed to his team claiming that the recount is simply sour grapes. 

I can't help but have some sort of cynicism about the whole thing. It's like he wants to be president, but then says crazy stuff like he wants the possibility of not being president to exist. 

It's so hard to keep score right now tbvh.


----------



## wankerness

tacotiklah said:


> So now Trump is tweeting that he only lost the election because over 2 million "illegals" voted in the election. If that were true, I'd welcome a recount as opposed to his team claiming that the recount is simply sour grapes.
> 
> I can't help but have some sort of cynicism about the whole thing. It's like he wants to be president, but then says crazy stuff like he wants the possibility of not being president to exist.
> 
> It's so hard to keep score right now tbvh.



Yeah, that is COMPLETE bs. The "source" of that was only one guy who refused to provide any evidence, and who just made the remark on frickin twitter. Social media is destroying any kind of legitimacy of the "news." Reporting and research no longer matter at all, just off-the-cuff remarks by some idiot that don't require a lick of evidence.

Oh, I guess Infowars also ran a story based entirely on that Tweet, maybe THAT'S what Trump read! I like how they were just a punchline for YEARS now, and now we have a president elect who takes them as reality. Maybe next he'll start issuing executive orders to ban chemtrails.

https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/11/trump-pence-transition/507404/11903/


----------



## flint757

Does nobody remember when PBS, New York Times, and pretty much every other news outlet was broadcasting bull.... news before the Iraq invasion? The mainstream media stopped being the 4th estate decades ago and has become mostly entertainment with enough spin sometimes to feel like straight up propaganda. In a 24 hour news environment they hardly ever fact check like they should anymore and when they get it wrong they apologize in the least public ways they can get away with. People only turned to alternative media and social interaction for news because the news has become less honest, less neutral, and at times just an extension of the government spin machine.

If it weren't for alternative media and Facebook Bernie's campaign would have never made it as far as it did. There was a media blackout for the majority of his campaign and they only bothered mentioning him at all when he was having an unavoidable stellar performance. The networks on one evening during the better part of Sanders campaign aired everyone, but Bernie's speeches after the results rolled in. They even chose to air an empty podium for Trump's speech over airing Bernie talk. The media bias was off the charts. The Sioux Tribe and Dakota Access Pipeline are being given the same abysmal treatment by 'reliable' news. They mentioned them when Stein spray painted a bulldozer and when a ladies arm got practically blown off by the authorities recently. Other than that it's almost nil and if they mention it at all they are choosing to side with the militant police over the protesters.

How exactly do people expect them to react to 'reliable' news when they behave in such deceptive ways? They find sources that are willing to talk about what mainstream media is either not allowed to or doesn't want to talk about. Yes, there is a lot of BS in the mix, but instead of people advocating for censorship you should be advocating for people to do more to verify their sources. While censorship in this context may not legally be a violation of the 1st amendment you'd be hard pressed to prove that it isn't a violation of the spirit of that law. The problem, honestly, is who gets to decide what isn't real. Washington Post posted a list of 'fake' news websites, but it gave no reasoning for its assessment and Washington Post isn't exactly a bastion of truth in itself either; yet this list was passed around all over the web as if it had any weight to it in the first place. Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al are political in the sense that they give money to politics and so do their owners. Are we supposed to just take their word for it that they aren't also removing narratives they simply don't want people to hear? Legally they can do whatever they want, but it just boggles my mind that it's liberals who think censorship is okay. It seems to be true that the 'whatever it takes to win' mentality has really taken hold in the psyche of literally all sides of politics these days.

tangent:

The 1st amendment applies to less and less every single day. The right to free press, assembly, and speech only apply to public places and only in regard to interference from the government, but they found a nice loophole. Did anyone notice that almost every campaign stop was done on private property during the election. Or how companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. serve as gateways to information, but are privately owned. They even passed a bill a couple of years ago making it illegal to protest when secret service is present, or something to that effect, which means it's now harder to protest the president in person for instance. Just because something might not be legally violating the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it isn't violating the spirit of it or is ethical.


----------



## bostjan

Ugh. This is like when you have a nightmare, and you wake up, and everything is still messed up, and you realize you never woke up, only dreamed that you woke up and you are still stuck in the nightmare. Only this is worse, because the only ones asleep are the ones running the circus.

Regarding the first amendment, well, it should be no surprise that the Bill of Rights, in its entirety, is a faded memory.

Read this. You hardly hear of the 3rd amendment. The seventh claim in the suit is right out of the 3rd amendment, though, and it was dismissed in court, because a SWAT team shooting your dog and taking your house by force for >9 hours, simply to watch your neighbour, when there is no suspicion you've done anything wrong yourself, is not "quartering," as interpreted by the court. WTF?! The claim under the 4th amendment protections was dismissed as well, so...

Honestly, if law enforcement wants to do something to you, they will do it. If they do it illegally, then it's sketchy, at best, as to whether they will face any consequences or even be told by the courts not to do it again. That's life in the USA. Anybody who thinks that "Am I being detained, officer, or am I free to go?" is going to get him anywhere in a place like Detroit city, is a fool. If you are rich and white, then maybe you have a chance, but if you are poor or not white, you are ....ed.

Anyway, that's a tangential topic to a tangential topic to a thread that's already been settled.

Is Trump going to get there? Yes. Really?! Yes. WTF?! Yes. It happened.

What does it mean for everybody? Who knows. Maybe it won't really be any worse then it has been for years already. It's not like having a black president made it any easier on black people, in general. So maybe having an orange president won't make it any easier for crab-people.


----------



## narad

flint757 said:


> They even chose to air an empty podium for Trump's speech over airing Bernie talk.



I'll never forget that. Before this election I considered a lot of media bias to be less orchestrated and intentional, but when they were literally showing an empty podium for 20 minutes it was like, okay, wow, we're not even going to maintain the appearance of being an unbiased outlet.


----------



## Syphon

LOL this forum truly never disappoints for delivering lefty butt-hurt and denial. The pure amount of effort most of you go through just to heap the sand over your heads is hilarious. If you bury them any deeper it's going to end up in your ass. 

Sharing snippets of this forum truly is the best.


----------



## jaxadam

Syphon said:


> LOL this forum truly never disappoints for delivering lefty butt-hurt and denial. The pure amount of effort most of you go through just to heap the sand over your heads is hilarious. If you bury them any deeper it's going to end up in your ass.
> 
> Sharing snippets of this forum truly is the best.


----------



## Drew

tacotiklah said:


> So now Trump is tweeting that he only lost the popular vote because over 2 million "illegals" voted in the election. If that were true, I'd welcome a recount as opposed to his team claiming that the recount is simply sour grapes.
> 
> I can't help but have some sort of cynicism about the whole thing. It's like he wants to be president, but then says crazy stuff like he wants the possibility of not being president to exist.
> 
> It's so hard to keep score right now tbvh.



It's almost insanely stupid on his part. 

I don't think that the recount is going to change anything, and I agree that there are some real costs to a recount that determines there WAS maniupulation in the vote and Clinton was actually the winner. Likewise, if the Electoral College decides Trump is a threat to democracy and decides to elect Clinton instead (which constitutionally they ARE in their right to do), while I would welcome seeing Trump not end up in the White House, I also think the backlash would be pretty ugly. Yet, four years of Trump are also incredibly ugly - let's call a spade here and admit to ourselves that between his refusing press conferences, privately browbeating journalists, and with his recent comments on the flag, he's actively trying to gut our First Amendment rights. Pull that off, and the rest of our constitutionally protected rights are toast; not for nothing do dictators always go after media control. 

So, let's pause for a moment and acknowledge that ALL of our options here are bad ones. 

That said, we're in a situation where Clinton is participating in a Stein-led recount. Not likely to change anything, but worth auditing the results to confirm the process worked, especially given ample evidence that Russia was trying to interfere. I like 538's take - the dollar costs here are pretty marginal, so the only real "cost" is a risk of creating the appearance of lack of faith in the democratic process. 

That might NORMALLY be enough to give civic-minded voters pause... Until Trump's comments that he won the popular vote (which Clinton currently leads by 2.3 million votes) had there not been voter fraud, and his ensuing Twitter meltdown. 

Basically, Trump just gave the Democrats (and his Republican opponents) cover. He may not even have realized it, but by arguing the whole election was fraudulent, he can't realistically complain that a recount/verification of results is occuring, because based on his arguments it should *benefit* him. 

It's actually really tough to see what he's getting at here, and I've only got two plausible alternatives, neither of which I like: 

1) Trump is acting like a petulant child, and we're about to give him the nuclear codes, or
2) Trump is worried that the recount is going to expose something, and that he's doing damage control in advance of evidence of fraud in his favor comes out, so he can accuse a corrected tally that gives some/all of the contested states to Clinton as being a further example of fraud. 

Basically, this is a no-win situation; Trump is hard at work undermining the First Amendment, which scares the .... out of me, so if the recount confirms the results were valid, then we have what looks awfully like the early phases of a leader seeking to consolidate power and undermine a democracy. Or, the recount confirms fraud, in which case, one we have to contend with the fact that more likely than not an enemy state (Russia) has successfully corrupted our democratic process, and two, that Trump's angry white followers are going to _melt down_ and unlike the mostly peaceful Democratic protests, I don't have much faith that these won't get violent, or that Trump won't encourage violence. 

So, either way we're probably ....ed, but Trump basically ensured that this recount HAS to continue, by stating, basically, that he AGREES there was voter fraud.


----------



## wannabguitarist

^reading .... like that makes me happy I'm white, live in an upper middle class area, and have lots of moderate left leaning friends with guns 

Honestly, I would prefer Trump keeping the presidency over the Electoral College deeming him unfit (barring any sort of foreign involvement, which I truly doubt happened). While the Electoral college can legally choose to not back Trump I think it would set a dangerous precedent to go against the votes of the American people. What's going to stop the electors from deeming a fit candidate as unfit in the future? Once the ground work is laid we're one step closer to that being an actual possibility.


----------



## Randy

wannabguitarist said:


> Honestly, I would prefer Trump keeping the presidency over the Electoral College deeming him unfit (barring any sort of foreign involvement, which I truly doubt happened). While the Electoral college can legally choose to not back Trump I think it would set a dangerous precedent to go against the votes of the American people. What's going to stop the electors from deeming a fit candidate as unfit in the future? Once the ground work is laid we're one step closer to that being an actual possibility.



Enter one of the ideological separations I've had with Obama and the current Democratic Party.

GWB took all kinds of unprecedented powers when he took office, and the Democrats cried foul. Warrantless wire tapping? Imprisoning people in a foreign county without ever bringing them to trial? Droning people in sovereign nations, including American citizens without any legal oversight? MADNESS! So then their guy got in, and they had both Houses to make some significant movement on things, and they decided that they kinda liked having those same tools in their pocket. The rub is that:

1.) You lose the moral high ground and compromise your principals and objectivity by doing that

2.) If the country is overtaken by a lunatic, there's a lot of very scary ways he can use those powers (like a lot of people are in fear of now).

I don't like the idea of taking actions that might help my causes NOW, but can be used against me or anyone else in dangerous ways in the future. I've been rather disappointed by the extent to which Democrats have been willing to overlook things to suit their ends this election cycle, and I'd be further disappointed and frankly scared if the party used those kinds of shenanigans to flip this race.


----------



## bostjan

Randy, you are quite correct. Both the GOP and the DNC have, for a very long time, been allowing the bill of rights to erode away, due to the apathy of the people. Nearly every new president wins under the guise of some sort of change. Bill Clinton ran against an incumbent; GWB ran as a "neo-conservative," as if that rejected the views of his own father's administration; Obama ran under the banner of "Hope and Change;" and Trump ran a campaign as an "outsider;" but none of these people are cut from any different sort of fabric than any of the others.

Let's look at the First Amendment and how the US federal government has .... all over it:
1. Establishment of a religion - I think we are okay with that one, so far. 
2. Freedom of speech - well, the alien and sedition acts took care of that a long time ago. 
3. Freedom of the press - Janet Reno shut down CNN after they aired live footage of the Branch Davidian compound being flame-throwered in Waco, TX. I was one of hundreds of thousands of people who saw it live on the television at the time. The official story ever since then was that the people immolated themselves somehow, or maybe there was an electrical accident within the compound. You can believe that story if you want, and call me a tin-hat man, but you cannot convince me that I didn't see what I saw. Maybe those people (including many women and children) deserved to be burnt to a crisp, but that's not the point, and even if it was the point, there is another clause in the Constitution, called the Sixth Amendment, which should also apply.


----------



## Drew

Randy, I like how the Economist described that problem - that Obama had left the executive branch a fair amount of power on surveillance and overseas military programs, with the understanding that his successors would be as adult and responsible in exercising it as he was. Then, enter Trump. It's concerning.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Randy, I like how the Economist described that problem - that Obama had left the executive branch a fair amount of power on surveillance and overseas military programs, with the understanding that his successors would be as adult and responsible in exercising it as he was. Then, enter Trump. It's concerning.



Like I said, I was very heavily involved with politics when Kerry ran, when the Dems flipped the Congress and when Obama ran. Being conscientious about who MIGHT take office next was ALWAYS something they brought up when it came to sensitive programs. I don't feel any more comfortable giving those powers to Trump as I would've giving them to Ted Cruise or Ben Carson or anyone else from that clown car.


----------



## tacotiklah

Syphon said:


> LOL this forum truly never disappoints for delivering lefty butt-hurt and denial. The pure amount of effort most of you go through just to heap the sand over your heads is hilarious. If you bury them any deeper it's going to end up in your ass.
> 
> Sharing snippets of this forum truly is the best.




Pray tell, what butt-hurt and denial are you referring to? Any chance on elaborating or is this just one of those posts where someone comes in thinking they left "a sick burn" and then running off having themselves a giggle?


----------



## oc616

tacotiklah said:


> Pray tell, what butt-hurt and denial are you referring to? Any chance on elaborating or is this just one of those posts where someone comes in thinking they left "a sick burn" and then running off having themselves a giggle?


_
"The answers are obvious if you open your mind."

"You just don't 'get' it kid."

"This is why (X opposing party believers) are dumb."

"Generic insult using popular e-buzz words rather than providing substance that doesn't exist."_

These guys are a dime a dozen on any forum I'm afraid.


----------



## vilk

srsly, just reading the word "femsplain" makes me cringe. My co-worker said "libtard" the other day, and I felt so embarrassed for him. I told him about how I use the word libtard when writing _satirical_ comments on the internet to mock people who use words like 'libtard', and he had accidentally made himself into the butt of my jokes.


----------



## TedEH

As soon as I see any sort of "something-splain" in a conversation, I immediately can't take whatever statement is being made seriously. It makes it clear that whoever you're talking to is more interested in dismissing what you said on the basis of their opinion of you, rather than the content of the message.

Sooooo much effort is put into characterizing the argument and it's participants instead of saying anything of value.


----------



## bostjan

Remember the days when an argument could stand or fall on its own merits?


...

Yeah, neither do I. 

You know how South Park tends to expose how stupid something is, simply by explaining what it is, and then showing the kids, speechless, with eyes glazed over and mouths agape? That's how I feel real life has gotten. If one of my coworkers starts explaining to me their thoughts on evolution, global warming, flag burning, or, in one case, how magnets were all just a myth, I tune them out.

Crazy people have always been everywhere. In the 80's and most of the 90's, it seemed like, in general, ignorant people were a lot more willing to admit that they didn't know, but now, every idiot is an expert in everything. It seemed to have started online, but now it's bubbled over into the workplace, classroom, etc. I think a lot of it has to do with each generation, since the 30's or 40's, confusing arbitrary denial for healthy skepticism. Maybe some of it has to do with all of the asylums closing down, too. Maybe crazy has some contagious elements to it. 

I know I'm crazy, but I think I know my science pretty well (well enough to know when we don't know something, and to know when we know something well enough to have a really hard time ruling it out). At the very least, I have a couple of pieces of paper from University that tell me that I do.

Back to Trump: If Trump outright denies science, in the face of a mound of evidence, do you think that makes him less likely to listen to his own advisors?


----------



## TedEH

Reminds me of a conversation I had at work recently about how the less knowledgeable or skilled a person is, the more likely they seem to be to over-estimate their abilities, while someone who really has those abilities will underestimate themselves. Sort of like only the most knowledgeable on a subject really recognize how much more there is that they don't know.


----------



## Randy

In fairness, Trump's a pretty large scale business executive. He's used to not knowing ...., hiring people who supposedly know their ...., and keeping them or replacing them based on results. Not that I'm any fan of the guy or planning to be, but I'm just pointing out that that's his methodology and part of the reason he appealed to the people who voted for him. Those people don't expect him to be an expert or even competent at everything.

My main concern is that he's surrounded himself with the worst of the worst alt-right, Tea Party and Bush cronies for cabinet positions. There's a lot of harm they can do and a lot of ways they can (as they have in the past) mask them to prevent any oversight.


----------



## flint757

It's too bad the tenure of office act isn't still in play as he'd likely throw a similar temper tantrum as Jackson did when he decides he doesn't like one of his cabinet members anymore. Although I'm not so sure impeaching him is in actuality a better move given his VP is a hell of a lot worse than Trump IMO.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> I don't know that aliens *didn't* land at Roswell, but I'm not about to waste my time trying to prove that they didn't. Let me know when you have something that pretends to be evidence. You could start with the public financial disclosures made by the Clinton Foundation and her campaign, if you think you can do better than the legions of journalists and political operatives who have no doubt already been combing that ground.



http://observer.com/2016/11/foreign-donors-begin-pulling-out-from-clinton-foundation/

Took awhile (months), but I submit evidence now. $0 coming into the Clinton Foundation now.

This serves as defacto proof of pay-toplay by the bad candidate put forth by the DNC.

If your eyes were open to what the $500K speaking arrangements (with no substance) obviously were in the first place, he defeat isn't surprising at all.

It takes an act of willful ignorance not to believe that the CF was dirty.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://observer.com/2016/11/foreign-donors-begin-pulling-out-from-clinton-foundation/
> 
> Took awhile (months), but I submit evidence now. $0 coming into the Clinton Foundation now.
> 
> This serves as defacto proof of pay-toplay by the bad candidate put forth by the DNC.
> 
> If your eyes were open to what the $500K speaking arrangements (with no substance) obviously were in the first place, he defeat isn't surprising at all.
> 
> It takes an act of willful ignorance not to believe that the CF was dirty.



Could we stop citing opinion articles as evidence? Not enough of the right opinion on SSO? Just outsource it to some random other guy on some other part of the internet.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://observer.com/2016/11/foreign-donors-begin-pulling-out-from-clinton-foundation/
> 
> Took awhile (months), but I submit evidence now. $0 coming into the Clinton Foundation now.
> 
> This serves as defacto proof of pay-toplay by the bad candidate put forth by the DNC.
> 
> If your eyes were open to what the $500K speaking arrangements (with no substance) obviously were in the first place, he defeat isn't surprising at all.
> 
> It takes an act of willful ignorance not to believe that the CF was dirty.



As @narad said, this is an opinion article, and one that's fairly bad at linking its sources. It also appears to be making a sweeping argument based on the single example of Norway, and the allegation that CF donations have fallen off sharply since she announced her presidential bid, which doesn't actually make any sense - if donors were really paying-to-play with a political figure, shouldn't her candidacy for the presidency and assumed victory throughout the campaign have *increased* contributions? In addition, as the Observer itself notes, this is a media outlet owned by Trump's son-in-law, and therefore its own conflict of interest needs to be considered here. Finally, I'll note that this line of reasoning is only possible because of CF's adherence to norms around financial transparency, which our president-elect is not particularly noted for.


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://observer.com/2016/11/foreign-donors-begin-pulling-out-from-clinton-foundation/
> 
> Took awhile (months), but I submit evidence now. $0 coming into the Clinton Foundation now.
> 
> This serves as defacto proof of pay-toplay by the bad candidate put forth by the DNC.
> 
> If your eyes were open to what the $500K speaking arrangements (with no substance) obviously were in the first place, he defeat isn't surprising at all.
> 
> It takes an act of willful ignorance not to believe that the CF was dirty.



I have a serious, honest question.

For me personally the election outcome was a huge wake up call that millions of my fellow Americans were hurting and feeling marginalized. There is no country to speak without this voting demographic on board so I welcome the chance to hear them loud and clear. So I am asking you very seriously.

Why do Rudy Giulani's paid speaking and legal engagements on behalf of shadowy Iranian groups and/or private enterprises who want to flout international sanctions and do business with Iran not disqualify him from being your Sec. of State?

Why does Gen. Petraeus get a free pass to being nominated as Sec. of State after being _actually_ charged by the FBI for mishandling of highly classified information?

Possibly the biggest act of willful ignorance being played out on this forum and elsewhere is to keep pretending that one can have a civilized, adult, intelligent conversation with you people like you who are afraid of Hillary Clinton's huge beveled clit and keep citing 'The New England Journal of Some Person Who Just Posted on my Facebook Wall'.


----------



## Axayacatl

celticelk said:


> Finally, I'll note that this line of reasoning is only possible because of CF's adherence to norms around financial transparency, which our president-elect is not particularly noted for.



This. And Mr. Trump's tax returns. And also, you forgot to mention that this line of reasoning is only possible when a person is really stupid. 

Btw, anybody with enough money donate to any sort of foundation understand very clearly that Mr. Trump and his team are saving the 'lock her' up dynamic for when and if they struggle in the polls. Stay tuned. 

I love it how the Clinton Foundation was a pay-for-play thing, but, say, making diplomatic phone calls based on personal business ties is like, 'bigly' smart, and 'tremendously' ethical.

America, I am tired of winning at stupid! Sad!


----------



## Axayacatl

Another question for CapnIntellect.

Real news items (not FakNForsaggio news):

- President Elect Trump picked General Mattis as his choice for Defense Sec. 

- Gen. Mattis famously has called Iran an existential threat to Western civilization.

- Rudy Giulani has famously helped embargo-era Iran do business with the West. 

- President Trump goes on and on during debates about the danger of making deals with Iran. 

What are your thoughts regarding this fascinating dynamic between policy making (Mattis) and money making (Giulani/Trump) in this context?

Please discuss. Try not to choke on your own tongue while you are at it.


----------



## Drew

celticelk said:


> ...and the allegation that CF donations have fallen off sharply since she announced her presidential bid, which doesn't actually make any sense - if donors were really paying-to-play with a political figure, shouldn't her candidacy for the presidency and assumed victory throughout the campaign have *increased* contributions?



This, so much.  

Also, considering that 20% of their GDP is from oil exports, I can't _imagine_ why Norway might have cut charitable giving after 2015.


----------



## bostjan

Axayacatl said:


> I have a serious, honest question.
> 
> For me personally the election outcome was a huge wake up call that millions of my fellow Americans were hurting and feeling marginalized. There is no country to speak without this voting demographic on board so I welcome the chance to hear them loud and clear. So I am asking you very seriously.
> 
> Why do Rudy Giulani's paid speaking and legal engagements on behalf of shadowy Iranian groups and/or private enterprises who want to flout international sanctions and do business with Iran not disqualify him from being your Sec. of State?
> 
> Why does Gen. Petraeus get a free pass to being nominated as Sec. of State after being _actually_ charged by the FBI for mishandling of highly classified information?
> 
> Possibly the biggest act of willful ignorance being played out on this forum and elsewhere is to keep pretending that one can have a civilized, adult, intelligent conversation with you people like you who are afraid of Hillary Clinton's huge beveled clit and keep citing 'The New England Journal of Some Person Who Just Posted on my Facebook Wall'.



As someone accused of being right-wing by those on the left-wing and also accused of being left-wing by those on the right wing, I will say that the two wings in politics have officially thrown this country into a tailspin that may wreck us all. But, pessimism aside, can the voice of reason possibly say that maybe the bad people are just bad people, including Trump, Clinton, Wasserman-Schultz, Guiliani, etc. ...

It's like we're reaching the level where the red team versus the blue team is really just all symbolic and nothing else. Too many folks saying they voted for Trump because he doesn't bow to the big corporations, neglecting the fact that he IS the big corporations, and too many folks on the other side saying that they voted for Clinton because she stood for all of the correct things, yet many (certainly not all) unable to actually list any policies on her platform, and, so many others still who are very upset that Trump won, who didn't even vote. 

Maybe Trump's presidency will be worse than the Black Plague, but nobody knows, yet, and, well, at this point, what are you going to do? He won. You know what? Get involved in local politics, and make a difference where you can. No one who makes a difference will hear your voice unless you get them to listen. All politics starts at the local level and ends at the local level.


----------



## Drew

So, um, surprised no one is talking about how the CIA seems to think Russia was explicitly trying to influence the election with their hacking. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Mitch McConnell is even backing an investigation into this now, and a group of 10 electors (9 Democrats, including Pelosi's daughter, and one Republican) have called for the Electoral College to be given security clearance so they can be briefed on what exactly US intelligence knows.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

This is the same CIA that was flying bails of drugs into Mena Arkansas when Bill was governor? No?

The same CIA that was running guns to jihadists under the guise of an embassy during Hillary Clinton's State Department?

The same CIA that has the purpose of conducting warfare using misinformation?

We should totally believe everything they have to say about this.....


----------



## vilk

Like, it's cool to believe a conspiracy theory because you want to, but trying to pretend that it's real without any proof is kinda... well, the same thing as faith. You might as well be telling us to believe that God and Jesus are from planet Kolob.

Yeah, it might be true. It is _definitely_ true according to people who already believe it's true. But you can't blame or pretend someone is ignorant for not believing it.

I mean, there are a few conspiracy theories that I myself feel inclined to believe, and if someone asked me I might even say "Yeah, I do really think that." But I'm certainly not going to suggest someone is foolish for not believing it. After all, I understand that I believe this without any real proof.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> Like, it's cool to believe a conspiracy theory because you want to, but trying to pretend that it's real without any proof is kinda... well, the same thing as faith. You might as well be telling us to believe that God and Jesus are from planet Kolob.
> 
> Yeah, it might be true. It is _definitely_ true according to people who already believe it's true. But you can't blame or pretend someone is ignorant for not believing it.



I'm not trying to convince you of anything.... Just saying to consider the source.

Can you point me to an instance of the CIA being truthful to the public? I can't.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> So, um, surprised no one is talking about how the CIA seems to think Russia was explicitly trying to influence the election with their hacking.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
> 
> Mitch McConnell is even backing an investigation into this now, and a group of 10 electors (9 Democrats, including Pelosi's daughter, and one Republican) have called for the Electoral College to be given security clearance so they can be briefed on what exactly US intelligence knows.



it would have no impact on the election's outcome. They're just blaming the hacking of the DNC on Russia. which, while troubling and should be investigated, shined more sunlight on the corrupt state of our two-party system. 

per USA Today 



> Q: Is there suspicion that Russian hackers may have tampered with votes?
> 
> A: No. Federal officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey, have said that the decentralized nature of voting systems across the U.S. poses a difficult target for hackers.
> 
> "In our judgment, it would be very difficult to alter a ballot count in any one place and have a significant consequence,'' Johnson said in an interview last month with USA TODAY.



and to the above points on the CIA bringing this forward. 



> Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?
> 
> A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.



article: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sian-election-hacking-trump-clinton/95329212/


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Drew said:


> So, um, surprised no one is talking about how the CIA seems to think Russia was explicitly trying to influence the election with their hacking.



I've been talking about it frequently with friends of mine and our consensus has been that the effect this will have on electors will be insignificant, that being said we understand the magnitude of the situation and just how dangerous the implications are. 
At this point 10 electors have expressed worry about this information, though the fact that it's 10 makes me disheartened. Especially when 9 of those electors are from states that voted Hilary anyhow. It's like how of those two Republican electors who stated they will not pledge their vote to Trump, one of them resigned and was replaced by a Trump supporter. At this point it seems like the electors who actually have a problem with this were casting their vote to Hilary already. 
But there could be electors who decide to remain silent about their feelings until the day they cast their vote.
This should be a much bigger deal. I don't think most people understand how terrifying is that a foreign government has had a hand in influence who will lead our country, the lack of general understanding of our/the world's standing with Russian relations adds to this as well. 

Bottom line is though, if Hilary's email scandal getting reopened by the FBI was such a huge deal, where nothing was even found. Sure-fire evidence of foreign interference should send people through the roof.
I just hope that the quantity of crazy sh1t that's happened this cycle doesn't make people complacent, like a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation. Or maybe Stockholm Syndrome is more suited. 

Anyways, I'm worried. My biggest question now is what do we do going forward?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

This is my favorite, you dems you:

"Hillary Clinton called Trump's comments "horrifying" and alleged the Republican nominee says things are "rigged" against him when things don't go his way.

"This is a mindset. This is how Donald thinks and it's funny, but it's also really troubling," she said. "That is not the way our democracy works."

It "must be expected" that presidential candidates accept the outcome of the election when they "may not like them," Clinton said.

"Let's be clear about what he is saying and what that means," she said. "He is denigrating  he is talking down our democracy and I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position."


And compare that with where we are today, in the middle of the Hillary/Stein proxy war on electors....

I sure hope corrupt smelly grandma runs for the DNC ticket again in 2020! She'll get destroyed again.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> stuff



see my post above yours. this changes nothing. this is an investigation into the hack of the DNC and other servers, it has nothing to do with stealing votes. 

until the DNC proves those emails are fabricated (which they've made no moves to do and their shuffling of higher ups suggests they're authentic) all the hackers did was expose a truth. which in my opinion is necessary in the current political climate.


----------



## Andromalia

The thing is, Russia has been promoting right wing extremist leaders whenever possible for some time now. They fund the french racist party for exemple. It would make sense that they fund and promote the KKK candidate.

That said, with the ongoing nominations, it seems like your "anti-establishment" government will be full of generals and bankers. Well done. It absolutely couldn't be foretold. Really. Who would have thought about it. How strange.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, but _how_ did they interfere with the election? By airing dirty laundry? I don't know about you, but I hardly think there is an appropriate comeback for that.

Russian spies: "Hey, wikileaks, check out how corrupt HRC is!"
Wikileaks: "Hey America, check out how corrupt HRC is!"
HRC: "Yeah, well, umm...look at Trump, he's bad, too!"
American voting public: "Ugh, I guess I won't vote for her as much as I was going to."
Trump: "What the? I won?!"
American voting public: "WTF did we do?!"
Me ten months before: "WTF are we doing?!"

None of this ...., incrementally, is the least bit surprising, yet, when you step back and look at it as a whole - seriously, guys, we just allowed HRC and DJT to be nominated for the presidency.


----------



## vilk

that's great


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Andromalia said:


> The thing is, Russia has been promoting right wing extremist leaders whenever possible for some time now. They fund the french racist party for exemple. It would make sense that they fund and promote the KKK candidate.



annnnnnnd don't care. Russia and Clinton had a very cozy relationship when she was secretary of state; don't let selective reporting tell you otherwise. 

the problem with this whole line of Russian inquiry is that it's rehashing an old cold war trope to distract from what really happened: the DNC admitted the leaked emails were real. 

Up until now they were always referred to as unverified emails, now the prefix has been dropped. they've indirectly admitted to rigging their own primary and are now trying to blame the Russians for it. 

which is really weird because we have confirmed hacks of government servers originating from installations inside China and we have never retaliated this publicly or legally. which makes me think its a red herring.

the truth was exposed and the DNC is trying to save face by saying "the Reds are to blame! the pulled a curtain you guys weren't supposed to see!!" 

so, when you complain about Russian hacking, you're complaining about the disinfectant, instead of the festering flesh wound. 

**still no legal proof hacking was done by Russia. DNC has been alleging since Oct. with no proof. CIA is saying they have sources who say there was Russian involvement. Wikileaks still asserts the informant was not Russian.


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> see my post above yours. this changes nothing. this is an investigation into the hack of the DNC and other servers, it has nothing to do with stealing votes.
> 
> until the DNC proves those emails are fabricated (which they've made no moves to do and their shuffling of higher ups suggests they're authentic) all the hackers did was expose a truth. which in my opinion is necessary in the current political climate.



I think you're misunderstanding the story. This isn't about stealing votes, this is about an enemy state trying to influence voters. 

The CIA's assessment that not only were Russian agents trying to weaken the democratic process, they were actually trying to influence American voters to favor Trump over Clinton runs as follows - we have evidence that two groups of state-affiliated Russian hackers infiltrated BOTH the DNC and RNC email systems, and systems of members of both parties. The DNC hack resulted in the leak of emails via Wikileaks to the American public, but the RNC hack, barring a few emails from Colin Powell being irritated that he was being mentioned for helping Clinton set up her server, resulted in no leaks. It's not "proof" in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense that will hold up in court (which is why we're seeing some disagreement on the extent of the conclusion between the CIA and the FBI, the later of which generally tries cases while the former does pure intelligence work), but at a minimum the fact that Russian agents were selective in releasing emails that would only damage one party is certainly consistent with them wanting the (overtly pro-Russian) Republican candidate to win. 

The fact Trump just nominated the CEO of Exxon Mobile, who'd spent 20+ years in the company working in their Russian operations and who was named to the Order of Friends in 2013, the highest recognition for non-Russian citizens, is REALLY not doing him any favors here. 

Capn - while arguing with you is clearly a waste of time since you're not going to bother to reply nor would you accept anything that doesn't fit neatly into your world-view, but I think the big difference here is Trump was saying he wouldn't concede because he alleged, with no evidence, that the system was "rigged" against him, whereas now, presented with _actual evidence _of Russian involvement (which the CIA and FBI believe both clearly points to two known Russian groups with ties to the state and military, respectively, of Russia), Clinton is, along with noted liberal sympathizers like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, calling for an investigation into what happened, because most of the Republican party finds this whole thing deeply concerning.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the story. This isn't about stealing votes, this is about an enemy state trying to influence voters.
> 
> The CIA's assessment that not only were Russian agents trying to weaken the democratic process, they were actually trying to influence American voters to favor Trump over Clinton runs as follows - we have evidence that two groups of state-affiliated Russian hackers infiltrated BOTH the DNC and RNC email systems, and systems of members of both parties. The DNC hack resulted in the leak of emails via Wikileaks to the American public, but the RNC hack, barring a few emails from Colin Powell being irritated that he was being mentioned for helping Clinton set up her server, resulted in no leaks. It's not "proof" in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense that will hold up in court (which is why we're seeing some disagreement on the extent of the conclusion between the CIA and the FBI, the later of which generally tries cases while the former does pure intelligence work), but at a minimum the fact that Russian agents were selective in releasing emails that would only damage one party is certainly consistent with them wanting the (overtly pro-Russian) Republican candidate to win.
> 
> The fact Trump just nominated the CEO of Exxon Mobile, who'd spent 20+ years in the company working in their Russian operations and who was named to the Order of Friends in 2013, the highest recognition for non-Russian citizens, is REALLY not doing him any favors here.
> 
> Capn - while arguing with you is clearly a waste of time since you're not going to bother to reply nor would you accept anything that doesn't fit neatly into your world-view, but I think the big difference here is Trump was saying he wouldn't concede because he alleged, with no evidence, that the system was "rigged" against him, whereas now, presented with _actual evidence _of Russian involvement (which the CIA and FBI believe both clearly points to two known Russian groups with ties to the state and military, respectively, of Russia), Clinton is, along with noted liberal sympathizers like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, calling for an investigation into what happened, because most of the Republican party finds this whole thing deeply concerning.



Good points, Drew. I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "enemy state," though.

So, if Russian spies did hack into the DNC's server, then what is the appropriate action for follow up?


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the story. This isn't about stealing votes, this is about an enemy state trying to influence voters.



Russia. is an independent nation, not a member of a state. if they are our enemy congress should pass an act, if not then what is this enemy business? 

if you mean Julian Assange... he has more evidence in his corner of his innocence than we have for continued diplomatic pressure against him. but i completely understand the story as you will see 



Drew said:


> The CIA's assessment that not only were Russian agents trying to weaken the democratic process, they were actually trying to influence American voters to favor Trump over Clinton runs as follows - we have evidence that two groups of state-affiliated Russian hackers infiltrated BOTH the DNC and RNC email systems, and systems of members of both parties.



the CIA has said there was but offered no proof. the CIA tends to collect intel but not evidence. wait for what the FBI says. 



Drew said:


> The DNC hack resulted in the leak of emails via Wikileaks to the American public, but the RNC hack, barring a few emails from Colin Powell being irritated that he was being mentioned for helping Clinton set up her server, resulted in no leaks.



because there was nothing on those servers. it's well known the RNC is less organized at the national level with tons of power changes and in-fighting leading to a less centralized party. the DNC is the exact opposite. and with that power came the creation of their scandals. 



Drew said:


> It's not "proof" in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense that will hold up in court (which is why we're seeing some disagreement on the extent of the conclusion between the CIA and the FBI, the later of which generally tries cases while the former does pure intelligence work), but at a minimum the fact that Russian agents were selective in releasing emails that would only damage one party is certainly consistent with them wanting the (overtly pro-Russian) Republican candidate to win.



or, the DNC is just that corrupt. once again, you have a problem with the disinfectant and not the infection. this is the watergate of the moderns era. and hackers played the role the third estate once occupied. had the press been watchdogs, i would expect the hacker would've gone to them directly. 



Drew said:


> The fact Trump just nominated the CEO of Exxon Mobile, who'd spent 20+ years in the company working in their Russian operations and who was named to the Order of Friends in 2013, the highest recognition for non-Russian citizens, is REALLY not doing him any favors here.



so, a pro trade (trade being the single greatest peace keeper in history) guy is bad because he trades well with Russians? i don't know if you've noticed, but keeping a superpower with mineral and energy wealth as an antagonist has done nothing to keep peace and frankly is a tired relic of the 80s. 

you seem to be a guy who speaks to peace a lot, but has no idea how it's actually done. when two sides see value in another (so far only done with trade), they tend to work together and not blow each other up. it worked with France and England and any other country we used to have hostile relations with. 

WWII for the USA was started because of exclusionary trade policy. 

so you go "ermagahd.... he is a friend of Russia!!!! cue the red panic of 40 years ago!!!" you look childish. it's better to be friends through trade than enemies constantly bringing each other down and feeding the military industrial complex. 

but please educate me on how peace through economics is bad and morally reprehensible. 



Drew said:


> while arguing with you is clearly a waste of time since you're not going to bother to reply nor would you accept anything that doesn't fit neatly into your world-view, but I think the big difference here is Trump was saying he wouldn't concede because he alleged, with no evidence, that the system was "rigged" against him, whereas now, presented with _actual evidence _of Russian involvement (which the CIA and FBI believe both clearly points to two known Russian groups with ties to the state and military, respectively, of Russia), Clinton is, along with noted liberal sympathizers like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, calling for an investigation into what happened, because most of the Republican party finds this whole thing deeply concerning.



once again, China has hacked Government serves frequently over the last 16 years, yet you only seem to care when it shined a light on how bad your party had become. hackers didn't create a problem they exposed a problem. i would suggest altering your sights on the real problem and not the course of the election.

before you reply, force yourself to switch the roles of the hack or breach. had this been the RNC would you be upset? defending people you disagree with is a great way to see where your principals really lie. in this case i think you need a serious adjustment as your socio-political philosophy is tied too closely with your party affiliation.


----------



## bostjan

I know most of you disagree with me, but, to me Snowden is a hero. This DNC hack is very Snowden-esque. The fact that Snowden is in exile in Russia means that our government has no shame about spying on its own citizens against its own rules, but it also means that Russia has an invaluable asset at its fingertips, as far as getting a grasp on how such things are done and can be done. Snowden may have not been personally involved this time, but I am fairly certain, under the circumstances, that what Russia knows because of Snowden _did_ play a part in whatever hack happened.

Furthermore, I don't doubt that Russia hacked the DNC. Why wouldn't they? But I am not convinced that they were the only ones to do so. If Russia found a way in, odds are that someone else could have found a way in. Wikileaks is pretty good at hacking into government servers, independently, so I also would not have any reason to doubt that they didn't get their information from Russia.

And again, we are faced with the same conundrum we were faced with when the Snowden thing was news. When government secrets are leaked, and those secrets are exposing some shenanigans that the government is trying to pull over on the people, do you correct course against the leak, or against the government? I'll give you three guesses as to which I believe.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> I know most of you disagree with me, but, to me Snowden is a hero. This DNC hack is very Snowden-esque. The fact that Snowden is in exile in Russia means that our government has no shame about spying on its own citizens against its own rules, but it also means that Russia has an invaluable asset at its fingertips, as far as getting a grasp on how such things are done and can be done. Snowden may have not been personally involved this time, but I am fairly certain, under the circumstances, that what Russia knows because of Snowden _did_ play a part in whatever hack happened.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't doubt that Russia hacked the DNC. Why wouldn't they? But I am not convinced that they were the only ones to do so. If Russia found a way in, odds are that someone else could have found a way in. Wikileaks is pretty good at hacking into government servers, independently, so I also would not have any reason to doubt that they didn't get their information from Russia.
> 
> And again, we are faced with the same conundrum we were faced with when the Snowden thing was news. When government secrets are leaked, and those secrets are exposing some shenanigans that the government is trying to pull over on the people, do you correct course against the leak, or against the government? I'll give you three guesses as to which I believe.



100%. 'Don't kill the messenger.'

Corruption got exposed. The problem is the corruption. I'm glad I I have PROOF that the DNC/Hillary was totally corrupt. I don't care who found it.


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam - yeah, "enemy state" = Russia. It's a pretty widely used phrase in international politics, and I'm surprised it's confusing you here - "state-owned enterprise" is a pretty commonly used term in the intersection of politics and business for companies suxh as Gazprom where they're owned by Russia the nation rather than Russian citizens. I was speaking in general terms as this would be concerning no matter who the state in question was, but yeah, we're talking Russia. 

And as far as passing an act, you're familiar with all the sanctions we're currently imposing on them, right? We don't generally do that to states/nations we're on friendly terms with.

The FBI agrees with the CIA that there is evidence two Russian affiliates have hacked both parties. The FBI doesn't feel there is clear proof that their aim was to get Trump elected, whereas the CIA is more comfortable working with circumstantial evidence that all the leaks favored one party over the other, but both organizations are in agreement that at least ONE of Russia's aims was to weaken faith in the democratic process by hacking into the communications of our two major parties. 

You REALLY believe the GOP is squeaky-clean, and the DNC is totally corrupt? And you're telling _me_ I'm the childish and naive one?  

Honestly, if the GOP had emails leaked by the Russians to try to sway the outcome of the election, while I'd certainly be a bit smug about it, I'd also just as certainly be honest about the fact that having ANY outside party try to meddle in American politics is deeply concerning. And, I think with Paul Ryan, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and most of the remaining Republican leadership calling for an investigation of what happened, I'm at least comfortable that the Republican party believes this is bigger than either party - Mitch McConnell was very vocal about how "we cannot afford to let this become a partisan issue," and much as it pains me to agree with him on anything, he's right. This is a nnational security issue, and letting Trump brush it under the rug because it was convenient for him would be a massive mistake. 

Now, I can't wait to hear how a Trump supporter is suddenly pro-trade, or how we're supposed to use capitalism to encourage closer ties with a state-controlled, centrally-planned communist state.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> 100%. 'Don't kill the messenger.'
> 
> Corruption got exposed. The problem is the corruption. I'm glad I I have PROOF that the DNC/Hillary was totally corrupt. I don't care who found it.



You know, this is probably worth a mention too. 

We're talking about the DNC hacking in the context of Snowden, which I don't feel is entirely fair. Snowden, like him or not (and I don't think his situation lends itself to simple right or wrong analysis), exposed some actual illegal activity. 

Wikileaks? Thanks to them, we know the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders, and that lots of people tried to use the Clinton Foundation to get access to Hillary and were brushed off. While that's maybe a little embarrassing, that's also not exactly corrupt and none of that should be a surprise to anyone. Of course the party preferred the establishment candidate to the Socialist who decided to run as a Democrat. Of course people tried to get access to Clinton through her foundation - if anything, what we learned in the Wikileaks hack there was that there WERE controls in place, and they appear to have been effective. 

The problem is both the fact that the DNC had a preference in the outcome and the fact that donors tried to get access to Clinton played into an existing narrative that the Clintons saw themselves as "above the law," and that itself did far more damage than any of the leaks, which were mildly embarrassing at a glance but didn't actually contain any "smoking guys." 

I mean, NPR's comment at the time was that the single most embarrassing thing about the DNC hack was that evidently the only person in the entire Clinton campaign who knew how to make a decent risotto was John Podesta. 

So, let's stop pretending like there was some massive skeleton in the Clinton's closet that Wikileaks unveiled - there wasn't. They just managed to discredit Clinton by keeping the narrative that she was above the law going a bit longer, and let's be honest, any further linking of Clinton to emails was probably going to drag _that_ story out longer too, which, as you might recall, also eventually ended with her being fully cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. 

I don't see where the "total corruption" referenced here is coming from.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> You know, this is probably worth a mention too.
> 
> We're talking about the DNC hacking in the context of Snowden, which I don't feel is entirely fair. Snowden, like him or not (and I don't think his situation lends itself to simple right or wrong analysis), exposed some actual illegal activity.
> 
> Wikileaks? Thanks to them, we know the DNC preferred Clinton to Sanders, and that lots of people tried to use the Clinton Foundation to get access to Hillary and were brushed off. While that's maybe a little embarrassing, that's also not exactly corrupt and none of that should be a surprise to anyone. Of course the party preferred the establishment candidate to the Socialist who decided to run as a Democrat. Of course people tried to get access to Clinton through her foundation - if anything, what we learned in the Wikileaks hack there was that there WERE controls in place, and they appear to have been effective.
> 
> The problem is both the fact that the DNC had a preference in the outcome and the fact that donors tried to get access to Clinton played into an existing narrative that the Clintons saw themselves as "above the law," and that itself did far more damage than any of the leaks, which were mildly embarrassing at a glance but didn't actually contain any "smoking guys."
> 
> I mean, NPR's comment at the time was that the single most embarrassing thing about the DNC hack was that evidently the only person in the entire Clinton campaign who knew how to make a decent risotto was John Podesta.
> 
> So, let's stop pretending like there was some massive skeleton in the Clinton's closet that Wikileaks unveiled - there wasn't. They just managed to discredit Clinton by keeping the narrative that she was above the law going a bit longer, and let's be honest, any further linking of Clinton to emails was probably going to drag _that_ story out longer too, which, as you might recall, also eventually ended with her being fully cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.
> 
> I don't see where the "total corruption" referenced here is coming from.



She had the freaking debate questions before at least 2x debates. That is cheating. 

That is corruption of your political process. No one cares though because Trump is mean!


----------



## bostjan

Since when was Russia an enemy state?! You realize that this isn't the cold war, Putin is not Josef Stalin, and the Russian Federation is not the USSR, right?

To my earlier point, maybe Russia hacked the DNC and the GOP. Maybe Wikileaks published the DNC emails and not the GOP email, because they didn't get their information directly from Russia. If that's the case, who is the bad guy here?

Anyway, the GOP emails are not the topic here. Unless there is something damning in them, I call that point a red herring. If there was something juicy in those emails, then I would love to know about it. Anyway, we all know the GOP is screwed up - it has been for a long time, but as I said, that discussion, as interesting as it may be, has no direct effect on the topic at hand. To be fair, I don't think anything in the DNC email leaks was the least bit shocking - so the DNC laughed at John Kasich, so they talked about Ted Cruz's father assassinating JFK, so they had a problem with Sanders being Jewish, and so they created some fake Trump ads to confuse people - nothing _explicitly_ illegal. ...but you are talking about an organization with tons of public power, and, as I have said many times and will say again, just because something is not illegal, doesn't make it right. The DNC acting like a bunch of elementary school bullies makes them look like idiots. But if it's true, then, well, I guess many of them are a bunch of idiots, as many of us suspected, anyway. Somebody hacked in and exposed the idiocy. The hack found nothing explicitly illegal - okay, but it's not like the hack took naked pictures of the DNC while it was sleeping, it's more like the hack took photos of the DNC while it was paddling it's kids with a stack of coathangers, and now the DNC is embarrassed, because it knew what it did was wrong.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Since when was Russia an enemy state?! You realize that this isn't the cold war, Putin is not Josef Stalin, and the Russian Federation is not the USSR, right?
> 
> To my earlier point, maybe Russia hacked the DNC and the GOP. Maybe Wikileaks published the DNC emails and not the GOP email, because they didn't get their information directly from Russia. If that's the case, who is the bad guy here?
> 
> Anyway, the GOP emails are not the topic here. Unless there is something damning in them, I call that point a red herring. If there was something juicy in those emails, then I would love to know about it. Anyway, we all know the GOP is screwed up - it has been for a long time, but as I said, that discussion, as interesting as it may be, has no direct effect on the topic at hand. To be fair, I don't think anything in the DNC email leaks was the least bit shocking - so the DNC laughed at John Kasich, so they talked about Ted Cruz's father assassinating JFK, so they had a problem with Sanders being Jewish, and so they created some fake Trump ads to confuse people - nothing _explicitly_ illegal. ...but you are talking about an organization with tons of public power, and, as I have said many times and will say again, just because something is not illegal, doesn't make it right. The DNC acting like a bunch of elementary school bullies makes them look like idiots. But if it's true, then, well, I guess many of them are a bunch of idiots, as many of us suspected, anyway. Somebody hacked in and exposed the idiocy. The hack found nothing explicitly illegal - okay, but it's not like the hack took naked pictures of the DNC while it was sleeping, it's more like the hack took photos of the DNC while it was paddling it's kids with a stack of coathangers, and now the DNC is embarrassed, because it knew what it did was wrong.



Cheating in a national debate for the presidency isn't in violation of a specific statute, sure. But it is cheating BIGLY, and should discredit the entire party. Most of America seemed to agree....


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Since when was Russia an enemy state?! You realize that this isn't the cold war, Putin is not Josef Stalin, and the Russian Federation is not the USSR, right?
> 
> To my earlier point, maybe Russia hacked the DNC and the GOP. Maybe Wikileaks published the DNC emails and not the GOP email, because they didn't get their information directly from Russia. If that's the case, who is the bad guy here?
> 
> Anyway, the GOP emails are not the topic here. Unless there is something damning in them, I call that point a red herring. If there was something juicy in those emails, then I would love to know about it. Anyway, we all know the GOP is screwed up - it has been for a long time, but as I said, that discussion, as interesting as it may be, has no direct effect on the topic at hand. To be fair, I don't think anything in the DNC email leaks was the least bit shocking - so the DNC laughed at John Kasich, so they talked about Ted Cruz's father assassinating JFK, so they had a problem with Sanders being Jewish, and so they created some fake Trump ads to confuse people - nothing _explicitly_ illegal. ...but you are talking about an organization with tons of public power, and, as I have said many times and will say again, just because something is not illegal, doesn't make it right. The DNC acting like a bunch of elementary school bullies makes them look like idiots. But if it's true, then, well, I guess many of them are a bunch of idiots, as many of us suspected, anyway. Somebody hacked in and exposed the idiocy. The hack found nothing explicitly illegal - okay, but it's not like the hack took naked pictures of the DNC while it was sleeping, it's more like the hack took photos of the DNC while it was paddling it's kids with a stack of coathangers, and now the DNC is embarrassed, because it knew what it did was wrong.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis

We're talking about a nation we've been imposing sanctions on since their annexation of parts of Georgia and the Ukraine - yes, technically, we're not openly at war with them, but we're talking about a nation where relations are CLEARLY strained. And this is even before we caught them hacking into our major parties before an election. 

I mean, taking a giant step back here, you agree that, everything else aside, Russia hacking the Democratic and Republican party email servers is a _problem_, right?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> She had the freaking debate questions before at least 2x debates. That is cheating.
> 
> That is corruption of your political process. No one cares though because Trump is mean!



You know, to be fair, I totally forgot about that. 

But, again, if that's the "smoking gun" of the entire Wikileaks campaign, like, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is good music and 10 is the latest Nickelback release, what are we talking in terms of corruption here, a 2.5? 

Let's be honest, it's not like anyone actually answers the questions they're asked in a debate.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> You know, to be fair, I totally forgot about that.
> 
> But, again, if that's the "smoking gun" of the entire Wikileaks campaign, like, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is good music and 10 is the latest Nickelback release, what are we talking in terms of corruption here, a 2.5?
> 
> Let's be honest, it's not like anyone actually answers the questions they're asked in a debate.



What would happen if Trump had gotten those same questions? We would have a revolution... just saying.

Also, new to the news:

I know who leaked them. Ive met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and its an insider. Its a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIAs statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and its not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.

-Craig Murray British Ambassador


----------



## isotropy

I'm no prophet but in response to the OP title, I'd have to say "Yes."

;P


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> What would happen if Trump had gotten those same questions? We would have a revolution... just saying.
> 
> Also, new to the news:
> 
> I know who leaked them. Ive met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and its an insider. Its a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIAs statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States. America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and its not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.
> 
> -Craig Murray British Ambassador



Nah, he still wouldn't have answered them.  

That's interesting, but also in stark contrast to the intelligence community and (non-governmental) cybersecurity assessments of the matter. Also, his claim that the fact the US hasn't arrested anyone is certainly, well, odd, because the US has asserted that these were Russian citizens operating within Russia sith state sponsorship, which would make them somewhat tricky to arrest...

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...d-russian-hacker-being-attacked-two-bear-bear

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election 



> Security firms believe a single operation is behind the attacks into the closed digital systems. The hacking group has been assigned different shorthand names by different analysts  including the flamboyant moniker Fancy Bear  as well as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 28 and the Sofacy group. Fancy Bear is believed to be operating under the aegis of the GRU, Russias largest intelligence service.
> 
> A second group, codenamed Cozy Bear or CozyDuke, appears to have broken into the DNC as well, but has not yet distributed whatever information it may have retrieved. Cozy Bear is believed to be affiliated to the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency most directly descended from the KGB.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_sanctions_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis
> 
> We're talking about a nation we've been imposing sanctions on since their annexation of parts of Georgia and the Ukraine - yes, technically, we're not openly at war with them, but we're talking about a nation where relations are CLEARLY strained. And this is even before we caught them hacking into our major parties before an election.
> 
> I mean, taking a giant step back here, you agree that, everything else aside, Russia hacking the Democratic and Republican party email servers is a _problem_, right?



I would think that classifying Russia as an "enemy state" would be going clearly too far. The US Dept. of Treasury doesn't list sanctions against Russia, but rather Sanctions relating to the Crimean Crisis, as opposed to sanctions against, say, Cuba or North Korea, in which the US does not mince words.

To take a step back from that, really, I don't know that anybody can say who is in the right here. The areas you mentioned seem to want to be annexed by Russia, and I understand why; it's because they are in countries that are falling apart, and Russia is stable.

Russia hacking the GOP and DNC servers is a problem for the GOP and the DNC. Honestly, I don't give a flying .... about either party's right to privacy. Would you see a problem with American spies hacking into Putin's email server? I bet they do. I mean, it's kind of something I expect to be happening all around. Then again, the DNC and the GOP should invest in better cyber security, for sure.

If Russia hacked the pentagon, I would not feel comfortable about that. Then again, I wouldn't say "naughty Russians," because, as I pointed out, our spies' job descriptions include hacking cyber information from foreign countries, whether they are hostile or not. Russia shouldn't be expected to do any differently than we do. 

As far as political parties: why should they be treated in any special way? They certainly don't play by the same rules as the federal government itself, as we saw in the leaked emails, so why should they have the right to classify their own information above other organizations?

TL;DR - Yes, it's a problem - for the DNC, not for me.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> TL;DR - Yes, it's a problem - for the DNC, not for me.



And, as an American citizen, when what we're talking about is a foreign nation making a clear attempt to coverly influence the outcome of the American presidential election? 

This is a great read, by the way, that showed up earlier today in the Top News section on my Bloomberg terminal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?partner=bloomberg&_r=0 

While theres no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.



> There shouldnt be any doubt in anybodys mind, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily, he said. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.
> 
> There shouldnt be any doubt in anybodys mind, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily, he said. This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.
> 
> For the people whose emails were stolen, this new form of political sabotage has left a trail of shock and professional damage. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a key Clinton supporter, recalls walking into the busy Clinton transition offices, humiliated to see her face on television screens as pundits discussed a leaked email in which she had called Mrs. Clintons instincts suboptimal.
> 
> It was just a sucker punch to the gut every day, Ms. Tanden said. It was the worst professional experience of my life.
> 
> The United States, too, has carried out cyberattacks, and in decades past the C.I.A. tried to subvert foreign elections. But the Russian attack is increasingly understood across the political spectrum as an ominous historic landmark  with one notable exception: Mr. Trump has rejected the findings of the intelligence agencies he will soon oversee as ridiculous, insisting that the hacker may be American, or Chinese, but that they have no idea.



Incidently, this one's a bit personal for me - a very close friend of mine worked for the firm handling the Clinton campaign, and would periodically send reports to Podesta on their media placement efforts. Some of those emails leaked, and a Trump supporter tracked him down, tweeted his work address and direct line, and he started getting death threats. So I think, yes, as ciotizens of this country, this matters, even if you're not a member of the political party impacted.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Incidently, this one's a bit personal for me - a very close friend of mine worked for the firm handling the Clinton campaign, and would periodically send reports to Podesta on their media placement efforts. Some of those emails leaked, and a Trump supporter tracked him down, tweeted his work address and direct line, and he started getting death threats. So I think, yes, as ciotizens of this country, this matters, even if you're not a member of the political party impacted.



'Dress like a storm trooper, get hell from the rebels.'

Even if he wasn't complacent in illegal campaign activity (like cheating at the debates), his leader was. We must each evaluate the forces we serve.


Also, WTF is "Clear" about Russia's hacking here? We have absolutely zero factual evidence of this. No names or places. We don't even have evidence that they moved digital information to a source....

Wikileaks says it wasn't Russia. Britain says it wasn't Russia. The FBI won't say that it is Russia.

We have zero information here.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Drew said:


> Ibanezsam - yeah, "enemy state" = Russia. It's a pretty widely used phrase in international politics, and I'm surprised it's confusing you here - "state-owned enterprise" is a pretty commonly used term in the intersection of politics and business for companies suxh as Gazprom where they're owned by Russia the nation rather than Russian citizens. I was speaking in general terms as this would be concerning no matter who the state in question was, but yeah, we're talking Russia.



1) an enemy of a state is an individual. 2) they are not classified currently as an enemy state. so in both cases you're wrong but not admitting to it. i see where this is going. 



Drew said:


> And as far as passing an act, you're familiar with all the sanctions we're currently imposing on them, right? We don't generally do that to states/nations we're on friendly terms with.



and many experts would say sanctions are terrible ways of maintaining peace or building diplomacy. the english and french imposed serious financial punishments on post-WWI germany and helped created the breeding ground for the Nazi party. sanctions don't help with anything, and getting pulled into land wars in Asia is doubly ridiculous as historically (for western civilization) has only resulted in money lost and nothing gained. including peace. 



Drew said:


> The FBI agrees with the CIA that there is evidence two Russian affiliates have hacked both parties. The FBI doesn't feel there is clear proof that their aim was to get Trump elected, whereas the CIA is more comfortable working with circumstantial evidence that all the leaks favored one party over the other, but both organizations are in agreement that at least ONE of Russia's aims was to weaken faith in the democratic process by hacking into the communications of our two major parties.



once again, for people who refuse to be wrong when presented with contrary evidence to their claims 



> Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?
> 
> A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.
> 
> There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?
> 
> Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.



there is no proof yet. and once again, foreign hacks happen frequently you're only mad because.....



Drew said:


> You REALLY believe the GOP is squeaky-clean, and the DNC is totally corrupt? And you're telling _me_ I'm the childish and naive one?



this is how i know you can't separate what you want to believe from what happened. both servers were hacked and someone came out dirty. your line of thought is that you wanted both parties to look smeared. but there are only two possibilities on why the RNC never got smeared. 

1) they found nothing. 2) the candidate who was running as the party nominee is not friendly with the party and any such leak would've simply revealed they all hated Trump. 

your problem is, the hack is your biggest concern, not what was found, which was a systematic disruption and fix of the primary against Bernie Sanders and major influence peddling to the point where Chelsea Clinton said to back away from as it was going to bite them in the ass later. 

the alleged Russians didn't create the controversy, the exposed it. It's not the Russians fault Hillary Clinton is the Nixon of this era. she as a candidate is was faulty and there was a long line of evidence to prove it.

once again, sunlight is the best disinfectant and you're mad at the sunlight. 



Drew said:


> Honestly, if the GOP had emails leaked by the Russians to try to sway the outcome of the election, while I'd certainly be a bit smug about it, I'd also just as certainly be honest about the fact that having ANY outside party try to meddle in American politics is deeply concerning.



i don't believe you. at all. 



Drew said:


> Now, I can't wait to hear how a Trump supporter is suddenly pro-trade, or how we're supposed to use capitalism to encourage closer ties with a state-controlled, centrally-planned communist state.



you mean like we're currently doing with Cuba?  

i would like to point out that you, as a Democrat, represent a complete 180 degree shift from what your party said 20 years ago regarding Russia. you are repeating McCarthy-esque panic and it's hilariously awful. 

this will be investigated like every Chinese, Israeli, Korean, and Russian breach we've been on the receiving end of. and like before, nothing will happen. 

except the Democratic party implodes... but it was already dying after losing several midterm elections and the majority of state legislatures and governor's seats.




Drew said:


> Incidently, this one's a bit personal for me - a very close friend of mine worked for the firm handling the Clinton campaign, and would periodically send reports to Podesta on their media placement efforts. Some of those emails leaked, and a Trump supporter tracked him down, tweeted his work address and direct line, and he started getting death threats. So I think, yes, as ciotizens of this country, this matters, even if you're not a member of the political party impacted.



i feel bad for your friend, but this happens on both sides without hacking. your appeal to pathos is not helping your case.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

but let's just hammer the point home shall we? 



> *Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources*
> 
> The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community *have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election*, three American officials said on Monday.
> 
> While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, _*it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton*_, said the officials, who declined to be named.
> 
> The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.
> 
> Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.
> 
> An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.
> 
> "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."
> 
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.
> 
> The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.
> 
> In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against American political organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic President Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks.
> 
> Reports of the assessment by the CIA, which has not publicly disclosed its findings, have prompted congressional leaders to call for an investigation.
> 
> Obama last week ordered intelligence agencies to review the cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the presidential election and to deliver a report before he turns power over to Trump on Jan. 20.
> 
> The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.
> 
> Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.
> 
> "THIN REED"
> 
> *The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.
> 
> "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.*



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

people tend to forget that intelligence positions are by appointment. and as such are subject to the politics of the president, and even party, at the time. 

this might prove to be that kind of case


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Merkel's "Democrats" in Germany are playing this game now too:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...says-putin-would-like-to-see-her-fall-in-2017

Putin must be the most powerful man in the world, controlling all of these elections in world power democracies....

Give me a break. This is the last heaves of a dying globalist cabal. Russia is their last good boogeyman.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> And, as an American citizen, when what we're talking about is a foreign nation making a clear attempt to coverly influence the outcome of the American presidential election?
> 
> This is a great read, by the way, that showed up earlier today in the Top News section on my Bloomberg terminal:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?partner=bloomberg&_r=0
> 
> While theres no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.
> 
> 
> 
> Incidently, this one's a bit personal for me - a very close friend of mine worked for the firm handling the Clinton campaign, and would periodically send reports to Podesta on their media placement efforts. Some of those emails leaked, and a Trump supporter tracked him down, tweeted his work address and direct line, and he started getting death threats. So I think, yes, as ciotizens of this country, this matters, even if you're not a member of the political party impacted.



So, just to paraphrase what you are saying with an appropriate amount of sardonic subtext,

You are accusing Russia for trying to subtly an election by exposing emails that show that the DNC was trying to subtly influence a primary?

I'm sorry about your friend. I'm sorry about Trump winning. I'm sorry about people generally being assholes, sometimes including myself, but really, this whole Russian hacker wikileaks thing is a distraction. If it's true or not, it really doesn't matter. Kudos to your friend for working for something ideological. Kudos to Russia for being a good sport in all of this so far. If this leads to the apocalypse, at least I got to listen to some great metal.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

CapnForsaggio said:


> Merkel's "Democrats" in Germany are playing this game now too:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...says-putin-would-like-to-see-her-fall-in-2017
> 
> Putin must be the most powerful man in the world, controlling all of these elections in world power democracies....
> 
> Give me a break. This is the last heaves of a dying globalist cabal. Russia is their last good boogeyman.




while he will ignore you, Drew would be wise to notice this post and hopefully cure some of his ignorance.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Ibanezsam4 said:


> while he will ignore you, Drew would be wise to notice this post and hopefully cure some of his ignorance.



Useful Idiots (proper) do not often wake up. Especially when they are as "useful" as some on this board


----------



## Andromalia

Ibanezsam4 said:


> annnnnnnd don't care. Russia and Clinton had a very cozy relationship when she was secretary of state; don't let selective reporting tell you otherwise.



If you don't care and use strawman arguments, what are you doing here ? Clinton wasn't elected. Trump was. "Yes but Clinton..." has no intrinsic value. Clinton isn't going to destroy your country. Wake up, dudes. Unless you're part of the 0.01% you're on the losing side here.
And just in case, if you're not in the 0.01%, you won't be in the future either. (Because I heard it said that poor americans are ok with favoring the rich because they believe they'll get rich someday. Hahaha.)


----------



## chiliphil1

Drew said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the story. This isn't about stealing votes, this is about an enemy state trying to influence voters.
> 
> The CIA's assessment that not only were Russian agents trying to weaken the democratic process, they were actually trying to influence American voters to favor Trump over Clinton runs as follows - we have evidence that two groups of state-affiliated Russian hackers infiltrated BOTH the DNC and RNC email systems, and systems of members of both parties. The DNC hack resulted in the leak of emails via Wikileaks to the American public, but the RNC hack, barring a few emails from Colin Powell being irritated that he was being mentioned for helping Clinton set up her server, resulted in no leaks. It's not "proof" in the "beyond a reasonable doubt" sense that will hold up in court (which is why we're seeing some disagreement on the extent of the conclusion between the CIA and the FBI, the later of which generally tries cases while the former does pure intelligence work), but at a minimum the fact that Russian agents were selective in releasing emails that would only damage one party is certainly consistent with them wanting the (overtly pro-Russian) Republican candidate to win.
> 
> The fact Trump just nominated the CEO of Exxon Mobile, who'd spent 20+ years in the company working in their Russian operations and who was named to the Order of Friends in 2013, the highest recognition for non-Russian citizens, is REALLY not doing him any favors here.
> 
> Capn - while arguing with you is clearly a waste of time since you're not going to bother to reply nor would you accept anything that doesn't fit neatly into your world-view, but I think the big difference here is Trump was saying he wouldn't concede because he alleged, with no evidence, that the system was "rigged" against him, whereas now, presented with _actual evidence _of Russian involvement (which the CIA and FBI believe both clearly points to two known Russian groups with ties to the state and military, respectively, of Russia), Clinton is, along with noted liberal sympathizers like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, calling for an investigation into what happened, because most of the Republican party finds this whole thing deeply concerning.



Honestly, as a "right wing extremist" I'm going to have to ask a question.. Why is Russia doing this, if they did it at all a bad thing? 

Clinton was possibly going to run away with this election and these emails proved just how corrupt and nasty she really was. Without these emails we would have never known as the media was NEVER under ANY circumstance going to tell us any of that information. Thus I believe that Russia provided a GREAT service to this country. By "influencing" voters (telling the truth) we avoided the most vile and corrupt politician who has ever run for office in this country and depending on the truth of ALL of the emails may have even uncovered a massive international ring of fraud, pedophilia, human trafficking, etc. 

A great service indeed. Did they persuade voters to favor Trump? or did they make people see the real HRC?


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> stuff



Don't even know where to begin, but

1) The FBI doesn't yet embrace the CIA's conclusion that the Russians were trying to _favor_ Trump over Clinton, because they have no hard evidence of that, whereas the CIA (as is the norm in intelligence) is a little more comfortable making inferences on patterns of behavior. They DO, howver, agree that there is evidence that the Russians were behind the hacking, however, which is the statement I was making, and that your own quotation acknowledges: 



> "*ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent,"* said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."
> 
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.



Again, the FBI or ODNI doesn't claim the CIA is mistaken - just that they don't _prove_ intent, merely conclude the pattern they're seeing is consistent with intent. 

Or, to quote the passage you quoted of mine when you posted that:



me said:


> The FBI agrees with the CIA that there is evidence two Russian affiliates have hacked both parties. The FBI doesn't feel there is clear proof that their aim was to get Trump elected, whereas the CIA is more comfortable working with circumstantial evidence that all the leaks favored one party over the other, but both organizations are in agreement that at least ONE of Russia's aims was to weaken faith in the democratic process by hacking into the communications of our two major parties.



...which is awfully close to verbatim to what you quote the ODNI as saying.  

And I don't really care if you believe me or not, but not for nothing I'll point out that I've generally been critical of Snowden because, while he embarrassed a Republican administration, I think he did so in a manner that severely jeopardized US national security. Bostjan can attest to this, as it's something he and I have discussed in the past.


----------



## Drew

chiliphil1 said:


> Honestly, as a "right wing extremist" I'm going to have to ask a question.. Why is Russia doing this, if they did it at all a bad thing?
> 
> Clinton was possibly going to run away with this election and these emails proved just how corrupt and nasty she really was. Without these emails we would have never known as the media was NEVER under ANY circumstance going to tell us any of that information. Thus I believe that Russia provided a GREAT service to this country. By "influencing" voters (telling the truth) we avoided the most vile and corrupt politician who has ever run for office in this country and depending on the truth of ALL of the emails may have even uncovered a massive international ring of fraud, pedophilia, human trafficking, etc.
> 
> A great service indeed. Did they persuade voters to favor Trump? or did they make people see the real HRC?



There's obviously some subjectivity here, but I think we just _elected_ the most vile and corrupt politician who has ever run for office in this country.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> There's obviously some subjectivity here, but I think we just _elected_ the most vile and corrupt politician who has ever run for office in this country.



Vile, sure.

Corruption is relative.... Was he or his opponent caught blatantly cheating, via CNN news outlet complicity, in the televised Presidential debates?

If this is not the most ACTUAL corrupt thing that happened in the entire election cycle, can you point me to something that is more corrupt than this?!


----------



## ncfiala

CapnForsaggio said:


> Merkel's "Democrats" in Germany are playing this game now too:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...says-putin-would-like-to-see-her-fall-in-2017
> 
> Putin must be the most powerful man in the world, controlling all of these elections in world power democracies....
> 
> Give me a break. This is the last heaves of a dying globalist cabal. Russia is their last good boogeyman.


 
If she loses it will of course be Putin's fault. It couldn't possibly be what she has done to Germany with her absurd immigration policies.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> Vile, sure.
> 
> Corruption is relative.... Was he or his opponent caught blatantly cheating, via CNN news outlet complicity, in the televised Presidential debates?
> 
> If this is not the most ACTUAL corrupt thing that happened in the entire election cycle, can you point me to something that is more corrupt than this?!



The entire debate circuit was a joke, and it's all soft-ball questions down the middle that the candidates pad and try to out-bluff their opponent on why they're better. 

She may have had the questions ahead of time, but still not answering them with nothing but buzz phrases doesn't help anything. So her 'cheating' on a couple bull.... "debates" does absolutely nothing to sway me and go "Oh wow! Look how corrupt she is!"


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> The entire debate circuit was a joke, and it's all soft-ball questions down the middle that the candidates pad and try to out-bluff their opponent on why they're better.
> 
> She may have had the questions ahead of time, but still not answering them with nothing but buzz phrases doesn't help anything. So her 'cheating' on a couple bull.... "debates" does absolutely nothing to sway me and go "Oh wow! Look how corrupt she is!"



The debates are the only forums that most Americans see/hear during the campaign. I think they are very important.

And also, I think that if the positions were switched, and Trump had cheated, you would be frothing at the mouth, breaking car windows in the streets about it.

I don't want to hear more of your, "it was cheating, but it doesn't matter because the debates are stupid..."

I don't feel they are stupid. Only Useful Idiots that are sour about their crooked candidate's loss think the debates were "stupid."


----------



## MFB

Even if Donald had the answers, you think he would have stuck to them?

We both know the answer to that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> Even if Donald had the answers, you think he would have stuck to them?
> 
> We both know the answer to that.



I am being trolled. What does this even mean?

I have proof that one cadidate cheated in the presidential debates. I propose that the cheating candidate is more corrupt.

Now you go try to find something more agregious that Donald did, and counter that HE is the more corrupt... OR, admit that Hillary was the more corrupt candidate, by the evidence produced.


----------



## MFB

I'm saying I wouldn't be frothing at the mouth because even if your candidate did it, he would've screwed up using the information 

Did she cheat? Yes. 
Is the context of which she treated really the biggest "GOTCHA" moment? Absolutely not.

To requote Drew, who I don't think you ever answer



> She had the freaking debate questions before at least 2x debates. That is cheating.
> 
> That is corruption of your political process. No one cares though because Trump is mean!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, to be fair, I totally forgot about that.
> 
> But, again, if that's the "smoking gun" of the entire Wikileaks campaign, like, on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is good music and 10 is the latest Nickelback release, what are we talking in terms of corruption here, a 2.5?
> 
> Let's be honest, it's not like anyone actually answers the questions they're asked in a debate
Click to expand...


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Vile, sure.
> 
> Corruption is relative.... Was he or his opponent caught blatantly cheating, via CNN news outlet complicity, in the televised Presidential debates?
> 
> If this is not the most ACTUAL corrupt thing that happened in the entire election cycle, can you point me to something that is more corrupt than this?!



Sure. For one, The Trump Foundation _actually_ broke tax laws, soliciting outside donations while filed within the state of New York as a closely held nonprofit not authorized to solicit outside donations. The lower nonprofit status came with significantly lower disclosure requirements, that the Foundation is now being asked to produce. 

Trump also got caught using Trump Foundation money to make a campaign donation (~$50,000, I believe) to the state prosecutor overseeing the Trump University lawsuit in the state of, I believe, Texas, the day before she decided not to press charges. Another case went ahead anyway - which, incidentally, Trump settled out of court a month ago for $25mm days before it was scheduled to go to trial - but the prosecutor had to return the donation, and I believe the Trump Foundation was fined for this as well. The annual disclosure of donations listed this money as going to another nonprofit and not as a campaign donation (which is illegal under nonprofit law), which the Foundation swore was a paperwork mistake. 

I mean, I'll be honest - I hope to god you guys are right. But I'm seeing a candidate who was a vocal supporter of Putin all through the election, took some heat from his own party during the primary and the general campaign for repeatedly complimenting Putin's leadership, and had a meltdown in one of the debates when Clinton suggested he might be a Russian puppet, then late in the election after the DNC is hacked and Wikileaks starts releasing hacked emails, both the FBI and CIA conclude the hack is the release of two state-offiliated Russian groups. Then, Trump appoints as secretary of state a businessman who spent 20 years in Russia working with state-controlled oil businesses who stand to make billions if sanctions are lifted, billions the Russian government, cash strapped after a collapse in the price of oil, badly needs, even after the pick got roundly criticized by _both_ parties over the weekend when he first floated it. And we still don't know much about Trump's own exposure to Russian business interests, because he _still_ hasn't released his tax returns, and delayed tomorrow's press conference on how he plans to mitigate his conflicts of interest until January. 

I mean, I _really_ hope in four years' time I'm eating my hat here, but we have a President-elect who appears to be trying to cozy up to Russia at a time where the extent of Russian hacking of the two major US political parties and many party officials - not the US government, but unaffiliated political parties whose sole purpose it to get their candidate elected - is starting to come to light. If it looks like a cow, and smells like a cow, and tastes delicious when you thick-slice the tenderloin and sear it over very high heat and serve it up with a side of mashed potatoes and that creamed spinach that steakhouses always seem to have...

EDIT - though, I'll also say, I agree that what Donna Brasile did was totally unacceptable. No arguments there. Should never have happened, and I'm glad CNN did the right thing and fired her. Considering how spectacularly bad Trump was in his debates, though, I also wonder why she even bothered.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> EDIT - though, I'll also say, I agree that what Donna Brasile did was totally unacceptable. No arguments there. Should never have happened, and I'm glad CNN did the right thing and fired her. Considering how spectacularly bad Trump was in his debates, though, I also wonder why she even bothered.



You do know where she is employed now, right?

She leads the DNC! (the most corrupt political party in America)

Also, you have not convinced me that Russia had anything to do with this. Only political hacks have been sourced saying that.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Also, you have not convinced me that Russia had anything to do with this. Only political hacks have been sourced saying that.



Huh, I thought they'd fired her too. I agree that they should - if nothing else, it's just bad optics. 

That said - the entire US intelligence community - yes, all 17 agencies - agree that Russia is behind the hacks: 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07...omeland-security-and-office-director-national 



> Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
> Release Date: October 7, 2016
> DHS and ODNI Seals
> 
> For Immediate Release
> DHS Press Office
> Contact: 202-282-8010
> 
> The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow&#8212;the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
> 
> Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.
> 
> Nevertheless, DHS continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance from DHS. A number of states have already done so. DHS is providing several services to state and local election officials to assist in their cybersecurity. These services include cyber &#8220;hygiene&#8221; scans of Internet-facing systems, risk and vulnerability assessments, information sharing about cyber incidents, and best practices for securing voter registration databases and addressing potential cyber threats. DHS has convened an Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group with experts across all levels of government to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks potentially affecting election infrastructure and the elections process. Secretary Johnson and DHS officials are working directly with the National Association of Secretaries of State to offer assistance, share information, and provide additional resources to state and local officials.



This is the statement released October 7th, by the Department of Homeland Security. And, I have no clue if you like Republicans any more than Democrats - you may, or you may hate them all - but Republican leadership also accepts the assessment that Russia was behind these hacks, and that they're deeply concerning: 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/republi...of-russian-hacking-of-u-s-election-1481589660



> Mr. Trump appeared to lose a key ally in the dispute Monday when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) said he supported an inquiry, effectively guaranteeing that some probe will occur.
> 
> &#8220;Any foreign breach of our cybersecurity measures is disturbing, and I strongly condemn any such efforts,&#8221; Mr. McConnell said. He added, &#8220;This simply cannot be a partisan issue,&#8221; and said the Senate Intelligence Committee &#8220;is more than capable of conducting a complete review of this matter.&#8221;



http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...democratic-senators-call-joint-action-n694531



> Four powerful U.S. senators &#8212; two on each side of the aisle &#8212; on Sunday called for Republicans and Democrats to join forces to probe and fight Russian interference in the U.S. political process.
> 
> The "stakes are too high" for the issue to become partisan, the group of senior lawmakers wrote.
> 
> "For years, foreign adversaries have directed cyberattacks at America's physical, economic, and military infrastructure, while stealing our intellectual property," Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., said in the statement released Sunday.
> 
> "Now our democratic institutions have been targeted. Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American," they added.



This isn't a Democratic Party issue, although it IS the DNC that had materials released. This is a bipartisan issue, and a democratic process issue.

Incidently - no comment on the Trump Foundation corruption? I didn't even get into the low hanging fruit like the painting he bought with Foundation funds.


----------



## bostjan

Bush was an asshat in that he was unwilling to speak with world leaders with which he disagreed. If DJT is willing to pursue diplomacy, then our foreign policy, at least, shouldn't be much worse than it was with Bush.

Regarding domestic policy issues, though, I think DJT is going to be a mixed bag. I really don't see him being overall good for the economy, but I don't think he's going to trash it as badly as Bush did in 2007-2008, either. I don't think DJT's administration, though, is going to give two ....s about civil liberties, and I hope I am wrong about that.

The crazy thing, is that HRC's policies would have likely taken us back toward what we had with Bush, with a few things carried over from Obama. Personally, I thought the positive things about Obama were the things she would most likely have been quick to back down on, but that's just a gut feeling.

Neither of the candidates were anywhere near what I would have chosen, as you know, and now the time to discuss that has passed.

What will Trump do? is the present question. If this thing with Russia comes to some sort of a head, what would be the appropriate response? It's a question I keep asking, yet I have not seen a response as of yet.

I say leave it alone: there is no positive outcome. We are ready to jump into a gambit with Russia that will either be more negative or less negative for us. The best way to win at a negative sum game is to not play at all.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Incidently - no comment on the Trump Foundation corruption? I didn't even get into the low hanging fruit like the painting he bought with Foundation funds.



Honestly, don't care. He boughtt a painting with foundation funds, and it hangs somewhere. The painting was auctioned for charity. It passes the smell test, but wasn't tabulated correctly.

With regards to his greater foundation activities, I compare them directly with the Clinton Foundation activities, and thus they don't bother me anymore.

At least he wasn't selling foreign interests access to the white house....


----------



## vilk

"_Look, I only care about corruption that confirms my feedback loop. If it doesn't ratify the opinions I already have, then I certainly don't care about it._"


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> "_Look, I only care about corruption that confirms my feedback loop. If it doesn't ratify the opinions I already have, then I certainly don't care about it._"



Show me corruption equal to cheating in the televised debates.

You have nothing to equivocate with here.

Your damaged candidate couldn't even win whilst cheating....


----------



## mongey

actually nvmd

not my problem


----------



## big_aug

Why is there any debate about investigating the hacks? Someone hacked us. We're pretty sure it was Russia. Why is there any resistance at all to digging into that and going as far as it goes? 

I don't know how anyone can be against it. The President has been elected and that's not changing. Anyone who is saying that is an idiot. So why is any rational person against an inquiry? Oh wait, they're not. Only ....ing morons have a problem with it.


----------



## bostjan

big_aug said:


> Why is there any debate about investigating the hacks? Someone hacked us. We're pretty sure it was Russia. Why is there any resistance at all to digging into that and going as far as it goes?
> 
> I don't know how anyone can be against it. The President has been elected and that's not changing. Anyone who is saying that is an idiot. So why is any rational person against an inquiry? Oh wait, they're not. Only ....ing morons have a problem with it.



It was investigated. I don't think anyone is saying to go back in time and not investigate it. I guess I'm not clear what your point is. If you are simply saying that the FBI is correct in assessing that they should have investigated the hacks, then I agree. However, it's still worth noting that the DNC and GOP servers are not government property, and that political parties are not government agencies. So, treating a DNC hack like a pentagon hack is ridiculous.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

bostjan said:


> However, it's still worth noting that the DNC and GOP servers are not government property, and that political parties are not government agencies. So, treating a DNC hack like a pentagon hack is ridiculous.




this times 1 goddamned million. 

now a former British minister with known ties to Wikileaks has come out saying he personally received the emails during a clandestine meeting in NYC. he says the source is a Democratic operative who had legal access to the files and was angered by Clinton's corruption and the snubbing of Sanders (let's not forget Wikileaks was a liberal darling until this year). 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

it's an unverifiable story and certainly a convenient one, but it's been a consistent claim from Wiki that they were given the files from someone who had access. 

and let's be real, this scenario makes way more sense than state sponsored hackers from Russia hacking both parties but selectively going after a candidate who already had a chummy relationship with the Kremlin prior to the election. 

While the email leak was large, it was very specified. that sounds like an inside job to me from disenfranchised Democrats (read: principled).

not saying the Russians never hacked the parties - they've hacked everything in the last 8 years with little repercussions from OB until they potentially hit his party (i.e. donor base) - but Wiki has maintained this narrative so far rather unflinchingly; it also fits their MO


----------



## thraxil

Ibanezsam4 said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html



Everything else aside, it needs to be noted that the Daily Mail has about as stellar a journalistic reputation over here as The National Enquirer.


----------



## bostjan

I guess it appears no one is really arguing that Russia didn't hack the DNC.

This comes back to my question, for the fourth time, now:

What do you think we ought to do about it? Nothing? Hack them back? Cross Putin off our Christmas card mailing list? Tell them they are a bunch of booger-eaters? Bomb Russia? What?

Personally, I think this should be a clear sign that the DNC needs better cyber security. Maybe this was a dry run for hacking the pentagon (haha as if they haven't already hacked the pentagon), so the comment needs to be applied doubly to government agencies.

Remember, what, a year or so ago, when there was a hack and spies from foreign countries obtained medical information about key US policy people? Well, we were supposed to beef up cyber security because of that. Maybe we need to beef it up more, or _actually_ do stuff instead of just talking about doing it.

As far as hacking them back - why not? Turnabout is fair play, but we probably already are trying, but, you know what, the Russians probably have better cyber security than we do. I don't see anything more aggressive than that doing us anything other than harm in the long run, though. You?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Honestly, don't care. He boughtt a painting with foundation funds, and it hangs somewhere. The painting was auctioned for charity. It passes the smell test, but wasn't tabulated correctly.
> 
> With regards to his greater foundation activities, I compare them directly with the Clinton Foundation activities, and thus they don't bother me anymore.
> 
> At least he wasn't selling foreign interests access to the white house....



...except, the Clinton Administration DOES have excellent transparency, discloses their donors, and is routinely reviewed by charity watchdogs and generally gets high marks. A lot is made of the fact that Charity Navigator withdrew their rating in 2013 - if you actually read their website, however, they explain that they didn't feel they could compare the CF annual financials post-CGI merger, asked the CF to prepare prior-period consolidated statements for their use, the CF obliged, and when they did they restated their rating, which is currently 94.74 out of 100. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation IS unrated, and under Moderate Risk watch.  

And, the Wikileaks leaks showed that foreign interests tried to buy access, but were rebuffed. I'd love to see where you're drawing this conclusion that the Clintons were selling access.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> Everything else aside, it needs to be noted that the Daily Mail has about as stellar a journalistic reputation over here as The National Enquirer.



 No ...., right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I guess it appears no one is really arguing that Russia didn't hack the DNC.
> 
> This comes back to my question, for the fourth time, now:
> 
> What do you think we ought to do about it? Nothing? Hack them back? Cross Putin off our Christmas card mailing list? Tell them they are a bunch of booger-eaters? Bomb Russia? What?
> 
> Personally, I think this should be a clear sign that the DNC needs better cyber security. Maybe this was a dry run for hacking the pentagon (haha as if they haven't already hacked the pentagon), so the comment needs to be applied doubly to government agencies.
> 
> Remember, what, a year or so ago, when there was a hack and spies from foreign countries obtained medical information about key US policy people? Well, we were supposed to beef up cyber security because of that. Maybe we need to beef it up more, or _actually_ do stuff instead of just talking about doing it.
> 
> As far as hacking them back - why not? Turnabout is fair play, but we probably already are trying, but, you know what, the Russians probably have better cyber security than we do. I don't see anything more aggressive than that doing us anything other than harm in the long run, though. You?



To your first post, that IS an important distinction, but let's not underestimate the risk here, either - what Russia did wasn't the same as hacking into the Pentagon, but what they, quite literally, did was attempt to hack into the political infrastructure of this country that exists to elect candidates (and I'll pause to acknowledge that I understand how you feel about the two party system, don't like the power it has, and want to do away with it, but at the same time I think you DO realize that this is the way candidates become President, even if you don't like it). They didn't attack the pentagon, but they -quite literally - attacked the democratic (small-d, not the party) process. And that's concerning. 

The second... Honestly, I don't know what the answer is, aside from doing some SERIOUS investment in cybersecurity, both in this country as a whole (the Yahoo hack coming out today is an unhappy reminder), but in our non-governmental AND governmental political infastructure. 

Above that... I'm really not sure what the right answer is here. I mean, in some ways, this IS a direct cyber attack, an outside nation going after a major political party. All the more so now that there's evidently fairly strong evidence that Putin himself was involved in this. Whether we choose to respond in kind, respond with actual military power, take the "high road," acknowledge it and call Russia out and do nothing, or whatever, I don't think the answer is downplaying what happened. And sanctions are probably off the table - we can call for international sanctions, but anything Obama does, Trump will just unwind once he comes into office - maybe Congress could act with enough support to override a Presidential veto and apply sanctions. I actually kind of like the idea of Congress overriding Trump's veto to hit Russia with stiff sanctions in retribution. 

I'll say this - if we as a nation do respond in any form, we have to do so in the next month, because god knows Trump isn't going to do a thing.


----------



## bostjan

I don't think sanctions would work, really. Assume that we could impose sanctions against Russia in retribution for the hack. Seeing as how it's a sanction as punishment for past action, rather than a sanction as a negative reinforcement for some ongoing action, Russia could respond by hacking us even deeper. With the context of the hack being a sort of "Freedom of information" sort of thing pointing out what some consider corruption (I think it's safe to say that it pointed out some embarrassing things that simply point back to the DNC itself), Russia could come out in the international forum as the hero in this. And if they do hack deeper (or already have the dirt on Trump - quite likely), they could simply unload that ostensibly more embarrassing information, at an even more damaging time, and make us look even more like a bunch of buffoons.

I certainly don't think this should be ignored, but I don't think handling it publicly is going to be a winning strategy. The fact that we are talking about how the US is handling this here, on a public forum, just means that they aren't doing much to keep this quiet. A little tact can go a long way, especially in matters of international espionage.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I don't think sanctions would work, really. Assume that we could impose sanctions against Russia in retribution for the hack. Seeing as how it's a sanction as punishment for past action, rather than a sanction as a negative reinforcement for some ongoing action, Russia could respond by hacking us even deeper. With the context of the hack being a sort of "Freedom of information" sort of thing pointing out what some consider corruption (I think it's safe to say that it pointed out some embarrassing things that simply point back to the DNC itself), Russia could come out in the international forum as the hero in this. And if they do hack deeper (or already have the dirt on Trump - quite likely), they could simply unload that ostensibly more embarrassing information, at an even more damaging time, and make us look even more like a bunch of buffoons.
> 
> I certainly don't think this should be ignored, but I don't think handling it publicly is going to be a winning strategy. The fact that we are talking about how the US is handling this here, on a public forum, just means that they aren't doing much to keep this quiet. A little tact can go a long way, especially in matters of international espionage.



The only thing I'm going to - maybe not disagree with, but at least play devil's advocate to - is that the value to a public response is that it becomes a deterrent. I have NO idea what a suitable response is here, but let's say hypothetically that there IS a response the US could do where the whole thing will blow up in Russia's face and leave them clearly and obviously worse off for compromising the integrity of the US party system. I think the likelihood of anyone else trying to do the same thing next election becomes WAY lower than if we do something quietly behind the scenes that Putin and Russian cyberintelligence groups know about, but no one else does.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The only thing I'm going to - maybe not disagree with, but at least play devil's advocate to - is that the value to a public response is that it becomes a deterrent. I have NO idea what a suitable response is here, but let's say hypothetically that there IS a response the US could do where the whole thing will blow up in Russia's face and leave them clearly and obviously worse off for compromising the integrity of the US party system. I think the likelihood of anyone else trying to do the same thing next election becomes WAY lower than if we do something quietly behind the scenes that Putin and Russian cyberintelligence groups know about, but no one else does.



So, in other words, we are going to do something, but we are going to expose our inflated ego and overestimate our reach, so that if it works, we can flaunt it, and if it does not work, we will be even more red-faced over the ordeal. (?)


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, in other words, we are going to do something, but we are going to expose our inflated ego and overestimate our reach, so that if it works, we can flaunt it, and if it does not work, we will be even more red-faced over the ordeal. (?)



Doing something covertly, THEN publicly calling attention to it, actually isn't a bad middle ground. 

I think, though, that considering the highly public nature of our election process, that third party cybersecurity firms had already been brought in by the DNC to secure their servers and figure out what happened after the hack, and that the resulting emails were leaked publicly, having the fact that we were aware the Russians were behind this kept a state secret was probably never going to be a realistic response here - the cat was already out of the bag. At this point, if we know this was a state-sponsored attack, we might as well be open about it, even if we then choose to be covert (at least initially) about how we respond.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Doing something covertly, THEN publicly calling attention to it, actually isn't a bad middle ground.
> 
> I think, though, that considering the highly public nature of our election process, that third party cybersecurity firms had already been brought in by the DNC to secure their servers and figure out what happened after the hack, and that the resulting emails were leaked publicly, having the fact that we were aware the Russians were behind this kept a state secret was probably never going to be a realistic response here - the cat was already out of the bag. At this point, if we know this was a state-sponsored attack, we might as well be open about it, even if we then choose to be covert (at least initially) about how we respond.



Agreed. 

...if this had been a government hack. With it being a party hack, I think that getting the public fired up about it serves no positive function, though.


----------



## vilk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Show me corruption equal to cheating in the televised debates.
> 
> You have nothing to equivocate with here.
> 
> Your damaged candidate couldn't even win whilst cheating....



OK let me just pull out my corruption to evil sliderule. I think I left wedged it in my old Calculus of Ethics text


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> ...if this had been a government hack. With it being a party hack, I think that getting the public fired up about it serves no positive function, though.



A hack on a political party in this fashion is not so divorced from an attack on the government, though.

I don't give two sh_i_ts about either party in and of itself, but this appears to have been a hack that not only obtained information from each of the parties, but selectively disseminated that information in order to influence the outcome of the electoral process. The very process that determines who will be in office as POTUS for the next four years (barring impeachment or similar).

That is an attack on both the US government and on the people of the US, as it subverts our voice in the electoral process in favor of that of a third party.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> A hack on a political party in this fashion is not so divorced from an attack on the government, though.
> 
> I don't give two sh_i_ts about either party in and of itself, but this appears to have been a hack that not only obtained information from each of the parties, but selectively disseminated that information in order to influence the outcome of the electoral process. The very process that determines who will be in office as POTUS for the next four years (barring impeachment or similar).
> 
> That is an attack on both the US government and on the people of the US, as it subverts our voice in the electoral process in favor of that of a third party.



1. Why? I am not convinced, and I happen to disagree with you here.
2. Do we know it was selective? I am not convinced one way or the other, because both sides' arguments boil down to "yes it is/no it's not."
3. In light of 1 and 2, your third paragraph is meaningless to me.

So...a political party is *not* a government organization, despite what the general populace seems to think (until they study civics). It's not much different from a corporation, actually. If the Russian government hacked into Walmart's website, there would be cause for concern, but you can't go drumming up a war over something like that. It's a sin with subtle subtexts to it.

Incidentally, arguing that the political parties have all of the power in government anyway merely goes to show that we are not really any better than ....ing North Korea, in terms of the legitimacy of our electoral process. Choose any candidate, as long as that candidate is fearless leader installed by glorious majority party. That's a ....ing aristocracy! And, yes, I realize that I sound just like an idealist, but, in this case, I'm not wrong.

So, I mean, if your first point is right, then everything else is wrong. If our government boils down to the system implied by your point that the DNC is essentially the federal government, then, I would argue that anything Russia does to undermine the absolutist party would be doing us a favour. If you concede the point that the party is *not* espoused to the federal government itself, then we are back to my original argument.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> 1. Why? I am not convinced, and I happen to disagree with you here.



The political parties are obviously not government entities, but a foreign nation influencing election results in order to achieve an outcome favorable to that foreign nation is nonetheless an indirect attack on the government and the voting public.




bostjan said:


> 2. Do we know it was selective? I am not convinced one way or the other, because both sides' arguments boil down to "yes it is/no it's not."



Do we know that it was selective dissemination? No, there is no 100% definitive evidence at this point (and there may never be); that's why I used the phrase "this appears to have been" immediately preceding the rest of my comment. 




bostjan said:


> 3. In light of 1 and 2, your third paragraph is meaningless to me.



Because there is no definitive, conclusive evidence? 

In many real word situations, we cannot wait for complete and/or perfect information before making a decision. We have to use the information at hand, make a decision, and run with it. This is one of those situations because we'll likely never have your definitive/conclusive evidence.




bostjan said:


> Incidentally, arguing that the political parties have all of the power in government anyway merely goes to show that we are not really any better than ....ing North Korea, in terms of the legitimacy of our electoral process. Choose any candidate, as long as that candidate is fearless leader installed by glorious majority party. That's a ....ing aristocracy! And, yes, I realize that I sound just like an idealist, but, in this case, I'm not wrong.



As a parent, sometimes you want your child to eat dinner when the child would prefer to play with friends or something. You can't ask the child if he is ready to eat, or even what he wants to eat. You have to 1) assume that he will eat, and 2) simplify things for him so it is easy for him to make a decision. So you instead ask if he wants pizza or a hamburger. This gets you an answer from the child, gets the child thinking about a food he likes, and the child ends up eating. The result? Getting your child to eat dinner without hassle.

The two party electoral system in the US is essentially the same thing for adults except that instead of getting to make the choice between pizza and a burger, we get to make the choice between the proverbial giant douche and the proverbial turd sandwich. Like you, I would like to see that system changed. However, those two parties do hold the power at this point in time; and while that power is not official power granted by the constitution, it is still very real. And in order to change this, you'll have to change people's belief systems around politics which should prove a bit easier than getting them to change their religions.




bostjan said:


> So, I mean, if your first point is right, then everything else is wrong.



How so?




bostjan said:


> If our government boils down to the system implied by your point that the DNC is essentially the federal government, then, I would argue that anything Russia does to undermine the absolutist party would be doing us a favour. If you concede the point that the party is *not* espoused to the federal government itself, then we are back to my original argument.



I think you misunderstood, as that was never my point.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> ...if this had been a government hack. With it being a party hack, I think that getting the public fired up about it serves no positive function, though.



Let me pose a question, then. Functionally, is there a significant difference between an attack on the government _itself_, and an attack on the means by which we _form _that government?

I personally think that if you're going to answer that in the affirmative, then it involves a certain amount of hair-splitting and relying on technicalities.


----------



## bostjan

So we are to run our government as if the voting public is kindergarteners and the political parties are the parents?!

A foreign nation influencing the election results how? By exposing embarrassing facts about how the political party is behaving during the election?! I don't know, man, ... honestly, I am not going to sympathize with Trump, but this is going into crazy-ass territory. A lot of people keep saying "Russia influenced the election results," and it sounds like they meddled with the voting machines when you say it that way, but when you call it what it is, that some nasty dirt got exposed about the DNC, and that the Russians hacked the DNC, and somehow the CIA inferred that the two are related, although they admittedly cannot prove it, who cares?!

Back to my initial points:

1. I don't doubt the Russian government has cyber spies hacking us every damn day.
2. If they hacked the DNC and this was the worst they could do, that's actually kind of funny. Sorry, but some emails about various people in the DNC being, well, assholes, and, umm, nothing really super meaningful, except a little debate cheating, which, I hate to say, doesn't really seem like a huge deal to me. HRC might have had one or two questions in advance. That's really not a big deal, in the grand scheme of things. Now think about this, is the dirt that came up on the DNC any order of magnitude worse, in effect, to the efficacy of the dirt itself? I think that, by induction, the answer is no.
3. Ok, I get where you are coming from with the idea that you jump to a conclusion of your own opinion on some news stories based on the evidence that is available, but, until things are conclusive in some way, different people will take things in different ways. This is kind of silly to me, that we are trying to make a big deal out of some embarrassing emails getting leaked by maybe someone in the Russian government.

Honestly, if we could go back in time and unelect Trump, I would be all for it. This whole story, to me, just stinks heavily of desperate finger-pointing. You realize that what you are implying by saying that "Russia influenced the election:"

A. That a political party's emails could potentially contain information that could completely de-stabilize an election. (Wow!)
B. That the candidate, herself, could be doomed to fail, based on party-specific information.
C. That the information that was actually leaked caused a statistically significant number of voters to abandon their candidate.
D. That, even though true, the information leaked should have remained secret. (I disagree to the point that I feel that there is actual silliness in that statement).


Taking those a little further, just combining ideas above, the political parties have more power than the candidates. This may be true, but _that_ is actually scary.



Drew said:


> Let me pose a question, then. Functionally, is there a significant difference between an attack on the government _itself_, and an attack on the means by which we _form _that government?
> 
> I personally think that if you're going to answer that in the affirmative, then it involves a certain amount of hair-splitting and relying on technicalities.



Drew, to be frank, I think we are both splitting some really thin hairs here.

If Russia attacked something abstract, that formed our government, then yes, that would be significant. But, the political parties are not anything that form up our government. I don't see any evidence here of any significant attack, either.

Look, if the DNC did some stupid things, and those stupid things got exposed, it's on them. Period. If the stupid things that they did have some potential to harm our government, then the DNC should be held accountable.

Also, frankly, if the voting public is dumb enough to have cast their votes solely based on the information that was leaked, and nothing else, then shame on us all, as a general body of voters.

And if this actual information was spun in such a way that made it look like something far more sinister, then that is on the media.

And...if it turns out to be the case that someone within the DNC leaked those emails, then for what sin, exactly, is Russia accountable?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Let me pose a question, then. Functionally, is there a significant difference between an attack on the government _itself_, and an attack on the means by which we _form _that government?



So what the DNC did in the primary is completely fair and reasonable but Russia selectively releasing information to effect opinions in the general election is an attack on our democratic process?


----------



## vilk

^Well, at least "we" are the DNC. We can say "The DNC this" and "The DNC that", but you or I could conceivable be the DNC if we chose to. The Russians aren't even us. I do see your point though.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> ^Well, at least "we" are the DNC. We can say "The DNC this" and "The DNC that", but you or I could conceivable be the DNC if we chose to. The Russians aren't even us. I do see your point though.



The Russian's intentions may be murky based on whatever their own interests are, but the actions they carried out were on to the benefit of Donald Trump, the Republican candidate. Donald Trump and the Republican Party aren't foreign nationals.

Considering Hillary Clinton's 'arm's length' relationship with foreign countries (via Clinton Foundation and others), it's not a colossal stretch to say other countries wanted her elected and had their own means of TRYING to effect that outcome in their favor.

I'd be much more 'up in arms' if we were talking about doctored information (which, so far, 100% of the wikileaks and similar have been verified undoctored) or Russians actually hacking polling machines. I'd be standing on the front lines of that fight. But saying they had undue influence because they made public stuff that people actually said/did, meh, that's very sour grapes-ish. Made even more sour by the fact we were told "it's the right of the DNC to leak debate questions and selectively remove candidates from accessing their mailing list, etc." months previous.

Either we fully believe in the right/ability for voters to make decisions on their own or we don't.


----------



## vilk

I only just wish they would have leaked Trump's shiz as well. And that we elected a third party.

I wish nominated candidates could be disqualified from running for being like either Trump or Clinton.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Wikileaks today: 'It's still not the Russians guys! We are actually really serious, it's not the Russians.'

When this finally gels into reality, and the DNC/establishment hacks are shown to be fools again, what does the leftist narrative do then? 

I can't wait, they've burned every bit of capital they had....


----------



## Yodel

Nothing left to do for liberals than whine for 4 years... Imagine what's gonna happen if Bernie Sanders cashes his chips in before the next election


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I only just wish they would have leaked Trump's shiz as well. And that we elected a third party.
> 
> I wish nominated candidates could be disqualified from running for being like either Trump or Clinton.



Not to say it's believed but I heard Assange on the radio last night and he said they had only, like, 3 pages of RNC related stuff. He said they'd release more if they had more, and he said (assuming the election results go through as they're expected), there will assuredly be a lot more incendiary material to be used against Trump 4 years from now.

Considering Trump was the outsider candidate inside his own party and most of the incendiary material against Hillary came from the primary and earlier, it's not beyond belief that there just wasn't enough relevant chatter going on in whatever documents they had access to that it would've effected Trump at all.

I'm not happy with Trump, I wasn't going to be happy with Clinton and I don't think I'd have been happy with a 3rd partier either. If I had my druthers, we'd have had a more robust and more substantive primary in both parties. The Republicans had too many candidates and it watered down the results and the Democrats had too few and a party favoring one exclusively. If we had a solid 5 to 8 candidates in both primaries, I bet the results would've been different and we could all feel more confident on the outcomes.


----------



## Randy

Yodel said:


> Nothing left to do for liberals than whine for 4 years... Imagine what's gonna happen if Bernie Sanders cashes his chips in before the next election



If? The average life expectancy in the US is 78 years old. Trump, nor Hillary, nor Bernie are going to be incredibly far from that number by 2020 and they'll be overlapping it if any of them serve out a term starting on that date. The whole field of people who were even close to this office were too damn old this year.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> If? The average life expectancy in the US is 78 years old. Trump, nor Hillary, nor Bernie are going to be incredibly far from that number by 2020 and they'll be overlapping it if any of them serve out a term starting on that date. The whole field of people who were even close to this office were too damn old this year.



Kanye is going to carry Trump's torch in 2020. 

They had a meeting about it a few days ago. They have been good friends for a very long time.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> A foreign nation influencing the election results how? By exposing embarrassing facts about how the political party is behaving during the election?! I don't know, man, ... honestly, I am not going to sympathize with Trump, but this is going into crazy-ass territory. A lot of people keep saying "Russia influenced the election results," and it sounds like they meddled with the voting machines when you say it that way, but when you call it what it is, that some nasty dirt got exposed about the DNC, and that the Russians hacked the DNC, and somehow the CIA inferred that the two are related, although they admittedly cannot prove it, who cares?!



The intelligence assessment has strenghened in the last 48 hours - they're now saying they have a "high level of confidence" which I understand is NSA speak for "we can prove this" that Putin directed both the hacking and the release of information. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146 

Both you and Randy are arguing - "so, the DNC got caught doing some shady things, who cares if it was by the Russians?" While, that's not entirely wrong, you also have to keep in mind what exactly was released in the hack - the only actual straight-up wrongdoing Wikileaks released evidence of was Donna Brazile learning about debate questions in advance on two or three occasions, and forwarding them to members of the Clinton team. Wrong, absolutely. But, likely to move the needle in the campaign? Not at all. 

I think the bigger problem here is the "Hillary Clinton is corrupt" narrative _itself_ was far more damaging to Clinton than any actual evidence that was uncovered, even though the evidence itself never really personally implicated her nor was really all that damning. 

Randy - re: right/ability of voters to make decisions - I guess my reaction to that is while ultimately it's the American public who elects the president, I think it's _highly_ problematic that a foreign nation was trying to influence those decisions. By way of metaphor, a guy on our trading desk has a bunch of kids who play youth hockey, and a fight almost broke out in the bleachers at a recent game because one of the parents was caught shining a laser pointer at the face of a goalie while he was trying to make a save (which, for christ's sake, this is youth hockey). So, I'd say, while ultimately it's the goalie out on the ice who has to either make the save or miss and let in a goal, if you're going to be standing on the sidelines with a laser pointer shining it in his eyes to try to make him miss, while you're not the one who actually lets the goal in, you're still a titanic asshole.  That's kind of what we're dealing with, IMO - the voters decide, but if you're not a citizen and trying to push them in one particular direction, then I as a citizen have a problem with that. 

And, re: other countries wanting Clinton elected, I don't think anyone's denying that they had a preference there - most of our trading partners were perfectly clear about that, given the choice between a cool, rational, pro-business internationalist and an xenophobic projectionist jerk entitled rich boy with his finger on the Twitter button, they couldn't understand why this was even close. The difference here, and IMO an absolutely critical difference, is they were perfectly open about their preference and for the most part left it at mild statements of diisapproval for the Republican candidate. There is zero evidence of anything covert being done by a foreign nation to try to get Clinton elected - and I think we both agree that if there WAS evidence the Russians would have leaked it - whereas Russia engaged in a targeted, covert attempt to sway the opinion of American voters. 

Or, put another way, there's a world of difference between Angela Merkel saying she values Clinton's experience and the work she's done for women's rights, and Putin directing his intelligence team to hack into DNC servers and leak whatever they can find.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Wikileaks today: 'It's still not the Russians guys! We are actually really serious, it's not the Russians.'
> 
> When this finally gels into reality, and the DNC/establishment hacks are shown to be fools again, what does the leftist narrative do then?
> 
> I can't wait, they've burned every bit of capital they had....



I think you deserve a brownie. I can't believe how fast some were to attach the wikileaks directly to Russia. Oh well. I suppose those people might still consider it up in the air. And this will probably still be all about punishing Russia for... umm, well, whatever they did.

An analogue of this is, like, if I wanted to eat at a new restaurant, and Russia knew that one of the waiters there was rude, but my friend Steve ate their and had the rude waiter and told me about it, so I didn't go there to eat, and the restaurant loses business, because none of Steve's friends want to go there to eat...and the restaurant blames Russia? Wat?

I guess the whole thing just comes off as extremely petty. Randy just said it more clearly and concisely than I did.

Drew - I think you might be behind the news a few hours. That was yesterday. Today, it seems that the leak was someone within the DNC.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> Kanye is going to carry Trump's torch in 2020.
> 
> They had a meeting about it a few days ago. They have been good friends for a very long time.



I've heard joking/ranting/panic about that on social media for a while. Just like meeting with that Congresswoman from Hawaii, Gore and Leonard DiCaprio, I'm sure Trump thought meeting with a black guy was going to be positive optics for people who have no other reason to trust/like him.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> I've heard joking/ranting/panic about that on social media for a while. Just like meeting with that Congresswoman from Hawaii, Gore and Leonard DiCaprio, I'm sure Trump thought meeting with a black guy was going to be positive optics for people who have no other reason to trust/like him.



I honestly believe that he met with him because he thought it would be great for BOTH of their images. 

Kanye's been having a hard time. I belive that Trump wanted to help in any way he could. 

You all have been making him out to be the biggest sack of $h!t in history for the last 2 years.... When is it going to dawn on you all that he might be a good person, albeit an eccentric one?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Or, put another way, there's a world of difference between Angela Merkel saying she values Clinton's experience and the work she's done for women's rights, and Putin directing his intelligence team to hack into DNC servers and leak whatever they can find.



I don't disagree on that, but I find that line to be too fuzzy to say one is absolutely unarguably fair and the other is absolutely unarguably unfair. As someone that wants to see the Democratic Party succeed two and four years from now, I'd like to see more consistency in their positions rather than preferring their shade of grey over the Republicans' shade of grey.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> I honestly believe that he met with him because he thought it would be great for BOTH of their images.
> 
> Kanye's been having a hard time. I belive that Trump wanted to help in any way he could.
> 
> You all have been making him out to be the biggest sack of $h!t in history for the last 2 years.... When is it going to dawn on you all that he might be a good person, albeit an eccentric one?



Kanye?!


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> You all have been making him out to be the biggest sack of $h!t in history for the last 2 years.... When is it going to dawn on you all that he might be a good person, albeit an eccentric one?



My opinions on Trump go back a lot further than that, and they're not as black/white as that either. My opinion on the guy mostly comes down to "he is who he is".

I'm from New York and my family grew up in the city around the time he was coming into prominence. Everybody knows who Trump is and how he works. He's about 50% about doing what's best for him and his friends financially, and 50% about not letting incompetence rule the day. He likes coming into town and finding something that the government or another developer is failing at consistently, pushing them out of the project/area and showing he can build something better, faster and cheaper. That's where his reputation lies.

On one side, he's pretty consistent in getting positive results on projects he's taken over(moreso than the poor reporting on this election would make people on the outside believe), on the flipside, they almost always enrich him or his friends and frequently involve seedier elements (mob, bribery, illegal immigrant labor, unscrupulous finances) to make happen. I mean, he gets results, which matters, but lets not at like he builds skyscrapers with his own two hands and gives all the proceeds to orphans.

If I was going to have even one iota of confidence in Trump's presidency, it's that the leadership of this country (regardless of party) has stalled and willfully accepted incompetence as the norm on several levels, while stealing or allowing others to steal from people throughout the process. Even if Trump tried to line his pockets, his predecessors already were doing the same and he's got at least an over .500 record on delivering on his projects.

I'd have probably been more indifferent to him throughout the whole process were it not for all the dog whistling he did for the bigot vote.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> So we are to run our government as if the voting public is kindergarteners and the political parties are the parents?!



I'm not suggesting that we are to do so at some point, I'm pointing out that the fact that having the two major political parties give us the opportunity to choose between their chosen two candidates is essentially the same thing: dumbing down the choice so that the average Joe can make an easy choice between Candidate A and Candidate B.




bostjan said:


> A foreign nation influencing the election results how? By exposing embarrassing facts about how the political party is behaving during the election?! I don't know, man, ... honestly, I am not going to sympathize with Trump, but this is going into crazy-ass territory. A lot of people keep saying "Russia influenced the election results," and it sounds like they meddled with the voting machines when you say it that way, but when you call it what it is, that some nasty dirt got exposed about the DNC, and that the Russians hacked the DNC, and somehow the CIA inferred that the two are related, although they admittedly cannot prove it, who cares?!



The specific information exposed is not the issue here. The issue is that a foreign state 1) illegally hacked the political parties' servers, and 2) used the information obtained in an effort to change the election results such that the outcome of the election would be more favorable to that foreign state. The specifics are largely irrelevant here.




bostjan said:


> 3. Ok, I get where you are coming from with the idea that you jump to a conclusion of your own opinion on some news stories based on the evidence that is available, but, until things are conclusive in some way, different people will take things in different ways. This is kind of silly to me, that we are trying to make a big deal out of some embarrassing emails getting leaked by maybe someone in the Russian government.



The specific conclusion derived from partial information is dependent upon the specific information available and the context at hand. Furthermore, whether or not it reinforces a given individual's opinion is also dependent upon that individual's preconceived ideas and opinions on the subject at hand.

Nevertheless, in many aspects of the real world (business, military, politics, etc.) incomplete information is the status quo, but a decision must still be made. Sometimes the decision made is the right decision, sometimes its the wrong decision. Either way, its better than indecision (ostensibly caused by the wait for perfect and complete information).




bostjan said:


> You realize that what you are implying by saying that "Russia influenced the election:"
> 
> A. That a political party's emails could potentially contain information that could completely de-stabilize an election. (Wow!)



Potentially, yes (I never underestimate people's propensity towards stupidity).

In this specific case, it does not appear to have been anything near shocking enough to destabilize an election. Influence, yes, but not destabilize.




bostjan said:


> B. That the candidate, herself, could be doomed to fail, based on party-specific information.



A candidate is tied very closely to his or her party, so yes - as the party rises or falls with the candidate, so the candidate rises and falls with the party.




bostjan said:


> C. That the information that was actually leaked caused a statistically significant number of voters to abandon their candidate.



Not necessarily.

Clinton was leading in the polls prior to the leak, at which point her lead began to diminish, though she retained a lead in most polls up until the end. I suspect what happened is that the leak caused more people who were already against Clinton to get off their @ss and go vote than otherwise would have voted rather than causing people to change their choice of candidate.




bostjan said:


> D. That, even though true, the information leaked should have remained secret. (I disagree to the point that I feel that there is actual silliness in that statement).



You're missing the point again; the specific information leaked is not my concern. My concern is that 1) Russia used illegal means (both hacking and espionage in general are illegal activities) to gain access to information and then 2) used the information they obtained in an attempt to interfere with/influence election results (whether or not the attempt was successful). And while I doubt that this type of activity is out of the ordinary, it is cause for concern.




bostjan said:


> Taking those a little further, just combining ideas above, the political parties have more power than the candidates. This may be true, but _that_ is actually scary.



You can bet your @ss that the political parties hold more power than the individual candidates. In order for a potential candidate to have access to the higher offices, the candidate must affiliate with either major party and tow the party line close enough to gain and maintain that party's support. Without that support, there is only unemployment for the candidate at the higher levels of US government (presidency, senate, house, most state governorships, most appointed positions (e.g., secretary of state). etc.).


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> I'm not suggesting that we are to do so at some point, I'm pointing out that the fact that having the two major political parties give us the opportunity to choose between their chosen two candidates is essentially the same thing: dumbing down the choice so that the average Joe can make an easy choice between Candidate A and Candidate B.



If those two parties promote HRC and DJT, then, I strongly recommend ditching them. These were terrible choices, and demonstrate that the DNC doesn't give a flying .... what people want and that the GOP is openly racist.



tedtan said:


> The specific information exposed is not the issue here. The issue is that a foreign state 1) illegally hacked the political parties' servers, and 2) used the information obtained in an effort to change the election results such that the outcome of the election would be more favorable to that foreign state. The specifics are largely irrelevant here.



The specifics are absolutely relevant. I suggest that your statement that the specifics are largely irrelevant displays questionable judgement. For example, #2 is not even a true statement, and thus, an invalid point.



tedtan said:


> The specific conclusion derived from partial information is dependent upon the specific information available and the context at hand. Furthermore, whether or not it reinforces a given individual's opinion is also dependent upon that individual's preconceived ideas and opinions on the subject at hand.



...and everyone has different preconceived ideas, therefore, the details and specifics are important to know to draw an accurate conclusion.



tedtan said:


> Nevertheless, in many aspects of the real world (business, military, politics, etc.) incomplete information is the status quo, but a decision must still be made. Sometimes the decision made is the right decision, sometimes its the wrong decision. Either way, its better than indecision (ostensibly caused by the wait for perfect and complete information).



...and, in this case, what decision must be made so hastily?!



tedtan said:


> Potentially, yes (I never underestimate people's propensity towards stupidity).
> 
> In this specific case, it does not appear to have been anything near shocking enough to destabilize an election. Influence, yes, but not destabilize.



This, in and of itself, is a bigger problem.



tedtan said:


> A candidate is tied very closely to his or her party, so yes - as the party rises or falls with the candidate, so the candidate rises and falls with the party.



This is also a huge problem. We elect leaders, not a new system. The system is already in place, via the laws in the Constitution.



tedtan said:


> Not necessarily.
> 
> Clinton was leading in the polls prior to the leak, at which point her lead began to diminish, though she retained a lead in most polls up until the end. I suspect what happened is that the leak caused more people who were already against Clinton to get off their @ss and go vote than otherwise would have voted rather than causing people to change their choice of candidate.



A. If not, then there is no impact here worth discussing, and many of your other points are no longer valid.
B. Polls are largely full of problems with determining the next president, who is not elected by popular vote. In fact, Clinton led the popular vote, thereby leading in the most official poll there is, but could not win swing states.



tedtan said:


> You're missing the point again; the specific information leaked is not my concern. My concern is that 1) Russia used illegal means (both hacking and espionage in general are illegal activities) to gain access to information and then 2) used the information they obtained in an attempt to interfere with/influence election results (whether or not the attempt was successful). And while I doubt that this type of activity is out of the ordinary, it is cause for concern.



1) In breach of what law or treaty?
2) This has been all but completely proven false. And if it were true, then we've established a circular argument.




tedtan said:


> You can bet your @ss that the political parties hold more power than the individual candidates. In order for a potential candidate to have access to the higher offices, the candidate must affiliate with either major party and tow the party line close enough to gain and maintain that party's support. Without that support, there is only unemployment for the candidate at the higher levels of US government (presidency, senate, house, most state governorships, most appointed positions (e.g., secretary of state). etc.).



This is simply not true. For example, Bernie Sanders is independent, yet has held many high level positions. Arguably, he had a legitimate chance at becoming president. The fact that his choice to affiliate with the democratic party ended up sabotaging him, really only further muddles your point, IMO.


----------



## Drew

This whole "The FBI doesn't agree with the CIA" was kind of a dumb semantical argument anyway, since both groups agreed that Russia was behind the hacks, and the only disagreement was on motive, but that question just got answered: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.c62650e62f91

The FBI has announced that they now agree with the CIA that one of Russia's objectives was to try to influence the outcome of the election and get Trump elected.



> FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.
> 
> Comeys support for the CIAs conclusion  and officials say that he never changed his position  suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.
> 
> Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election, CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agencys workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.



This is important in that the CIA and FBI are held to different evidence standards - the CIA is an intelligence agency and can make conclusions based on inference, whereas the FBI is held to basically a courtroom criminal justice standard - if they're saying they agree that the Russians were trying to influence the election, in other words, it means that they have actual proof of Russian intentions.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'd have probably been more indifferent to him throughout the whole process were it not for all the dog whistling he did for the bigot vote.



IMO this is the biggest problem with Trump as a president. His business record isn't as sterling as he makes it out to be, and there are some legitimate concerns about the way he's routinely screwed vendors, but he's also clearly not a complete train-wreck as a businessman, either. 

The reason I strongly opposed him was the degree to which he overtly courted the alt-right. And, with Steven Bannon and Jeff Sessions as early administration picks, I think there's reason for concern over how he will govern, now that he's elected.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Neither of those institutions have provided any proof or evidence of anything...

Wikileaks, which has not been accused of manipulating stories, ever, has said flatly, 'Russia did not provide us the information.'

I think you should be careful about where you place your bets here. My money is on Wikileaks.

You heard it here:

The DNC/Podesta hacks were an intelligence insider in the US gov. 

Just wait.


----------



## Drew

You two pages ago: 



CapnForsaggio said:


> Wikileaks says it wasn't Russia. Britain says it wasn't Russia. The FBI won't say that it is Russia.



You, now:



CapnForsaggio said:


> Wikileaks, which has not been accused of manipulating stories, ever, has said flatly, 'Russia did not provide us the information.'



If Wikileaks admits it was Russia, will you still say we don't know it was Russia?  Becase the UK hasn't made an official statement that I'm aware of - and why should they, they're not involved - and the FBI has come around to the CIA's thinking. Both the FBI and CIA both now agree that they have enough evidence to both prove that it was Russia who hacked the DNC, and that there is enough proof to show that Russia was trying to get Trump elected when they did so. I mean, at this point, if you want to hold on to this as a matter of faith, well, go right ahead.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> You two pages ago:
> 
> 
> 
> You, now:
> 
> 
> 
> If Wikileaks admits it was Russia, will you still say we don't know it was Russia?  Becase the UK hasn't made an official statement that I'm aware of - and why should they, they're not involved - and the FBI has come around to the CIA's thinking. Both the FBI and CIA both now agree that they have enough evidence to both prove that it was Russia who hacked the DNC, and that there is enough proof to show that Russia was trying to get Trump elected when they did so. I mean, at this point, if you want to hold on to this as a matter of faith, well, go right ahead.



We will return to this soon enough. I still do not believe it is Russia.

Have a great weekend everyone! Rock on!


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> The DNC/Podesta hacks were an intelligence insider in the US gov.



Also, that doesn't make logical sense. 

For one, we KNOW the DNC was hacked by the russians. That they were hacked was public knowledge back as early as June, I believe, Russian involvement was immediately suspected, and back in early October every intelligence agency in the US was in agreement that the hack was done by two Russian groups. The debate here isn't over whether or not the DNC was hacked, but 1) _why_ the russians hacked the DNC, and 2) whether this hack was the source of the Wikileaks emails. 

Question 1 has not been effectively settled, at least from the perspective of US intelligence - they're all in agreement. If you personally disagree with the US intelligence community, hey, whatever, but if the question here was whether the US intelligence community was in agreement, they now are. 

Question 2, then, would be that while the Russians hacked the DNC, it was for internal intelligence reasons, and that they didn't provide emails to Wikileaks. So, for this to be the case, and if this was an insider, basically what Wikileaks is claiming is that a rogue DNC operator took these emails off the network and provided them to Wikileaks. That _could_ explain how they got the DNC emails... But it _wouldn't_ explain how they got emails from Podesta's account and from Colin Powell's account. Those CAN'T be a DNC inside job, unless this DNC operator was also a proficcient computer hacker, and broke into Podesta and Powell's accounts as well, in addition to taking emails off the DNC server and providing them to Wikileaks. 

Basically, this can't be an inside job, because they're releasing data from multiple sources that no one insider would have access to. If you want to argue we're looking at a combination of hacking AND inside whistleblowing you can try to make that argument, but that leaves the Russians still implicated.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> We will return to this soon enough. I still do not believe it is Russia.
> 
> Have a great weekend everyone! Rock on!



Hey, arguing politics aside, you too. It's freezing here in Boston, hope you're getting better weather than we are!


----------



## Kanye

This is going to make a great movie one day. If its not already hilariously sad that the US let Trump get voted in... now that the reality has sunk in.... you blame the Russians... as usual.


We ....ed up... quick, blame Russia.

Take responsibility for your own actions. Russia had nothing to do with Trump getting voted in. Stop trying to to shift the blame from your own actions elsewhere.

Of course the good ol U.S. would never do a single thing to influence politics in other countries right?

This is not aimed at any comments here in particular, more the news I've been reading and the social media commentary. 

Good luck guys.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Hey, arguing politics aside, you too. It's freezing here in Boston, hope you're getting better weather than we are!



I'm in Oregon, we are getting slammed with ice this week.

It's been rough, but it did put the election protesters back inside.


----------



## Drew

Well, two comments. 

One, an actual source of conversation on the trading desk yesterday is how this is the 90's Tom Clancy movie that never got made. It'd be a damned good one, too, if it wasn't real life. 

Two... I think you're underestimating Russia's ability to, through releasing hacked material, influence the media converage of this campaign (and "Wikileaks" was one of the most discussed media subjects), and how in turn that coverage can, in fact, move the needle at the margin. Trump lost the popular vote, and only won the Electoral college by about 100,000 votes, give or take, or about 0.07% of the 138 million votes cast. 

He won by the thinnest of margins, so yeah, I think this matters.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm in Oregon, we are getting slammed with ice this week.
> 
> It's been rough, but it did put the election protesters back inside.



F'ing conservatives.  

Well, stay warm. I'm going to sign off the the week here at work, go home, throw my bike on the trainer, and try to burn off all the booze I've been drinking at holiday parties.


----------



## Kanye

Yes, I agree, could be great viewing indeed.

From what I saw, the media really didn't need Russia's help. Not in the least. 

I don't have a horse in this race, but find it hilarious that America are now blaming Russia for Trump. Which is basically what is happening here. Russia didn't do this. The American voting institution did.

Sounds like a great way to burn the booze carbs too Drew. Enjoy.


----------



## bostjan

Am I the only one reading those posts in my head in Kanye's voice? I even tried not to, and couldn't stop.


----------



## Kanye

Haha #VOTEKANYE2024


----------



## chiliphil1

Drew said:


> There's obviously some subjectivity here, but I think we just _elected_ the most vile and corrupt politician who has ever run for office in this country.



Yeah, I guess we're never going to agree on anything. 



ncfiala said:


> If she loses it will of course be Putin's fault. It couldn't possibly be what she has done to Germany with her absurd immigration policies.



Wow, someone with sense.. 



bostjan said:


> What will Trump do? is the present question. If this thing with Russia comes to some sort of a head, what would be the appropriate response? It's a question I keep asking, yet I have not seen a response as of yet.
> 
> I say leave it alone: there is no positive outcome. We are ready to jump into a gambit with Russia that will either be more negative or less negative for us. The best way to win at a negative sum game is to not play at all.



Man, that is a good question and I really don't have a good answer. That's a very slippery slope if it indeed was Russia. The absolute last thing we want to do is go to war with them. 

Personally, and I'm gonna toss a little conspiracy theory at you, I think it was an internal DNC issue. I honestly think that either A, someone inside was frustrated by either the candidate, the direction, or possibly even the contents of the emails, or B, it was some Bernie type who was looking to destroy Clinton as a little "pay back" and for that reason I don't think we will ever get a straight and honest answer about what actually happened. 



big_aug said:


> Why is there any debate about investigating the hacks? Someone hacked us. We're pretty sure it was Russia. Why is there any resistance at all to digging into that and going as far as it goes?
> 
> I don't know how anyone can be against it. The President has been elected and that's not changing. Anyone who is saying that is an idiot. So why is any rational person against an inquiry? Oh wait, they're not. Only ....ing morons have a problem with it.



I have no issue with investigation at all. If there was a hack, and not an internal leak then we need to know about it. However, as someone mentioned before the DNC server is private property, not government thus there is no reason to go hucking bombs over it. The DNC just needs to do a better job of cyber security. With all that though, my money is on an internal leak.


----------



## Demiurge

Kanye said:


> I don't have a horse in this race, but find it hilarious that America are now blaming Russia for Trump. Which is basically what is happening here. Russia didn't do this. The American voting institution did.



Absolutely- the people still voted, and that's that. This was a hugely divisive election, and it's a bit far-fetched to believe that there were enough people on the fence who were compelled by leaked emails to swing the election. Enough has been made about how flawed polling can be, yet The Myth of the Undecided Voter, that there are legions of people who can't make up their minds (and when they do, it's based on stupendously minor issues), has inexplicably survived. 

Still, it would be disturbing if the Russian government _at least tried_ to meddle and steer the outcome. Russia probably doesn't want a more contentious relationship with the US but it seems like they don't want a less contentious relationship, either... they certainly don't want us to be "great again".


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Basically, this can't be an inside job, because they're releasing data from multiple sources that no one insider would have access to. If you want to argue we're looking at a combination of hacking AND inside whistleblowing you can try to make that argument, but that leaves the Russians still implicated.



Assume the Russians hacked the DNC. Assume they sent the emails to wikileaks. Assume they did it for the sole purpose of helping Trump win the election. Assume it actually did help Trump win the election. Then the USA's voting public is too easily swayed.

Yet, we know, that a majority of voters made up their minds very early in the election cycle. This seems to be a contradiction, but... it's really not if you take into account the weaknesses in the electoral college system.

So, assuming what you've assumed to be true, the #1 take-away should be that the electoral college can be exploited by a breach in cyber-security pertaining to a political party that is not a governmental agency.

As you know, I don't agree with all of those assumptions. I do not think that Russia would estimate that they could steer the election in this way.

On the other hand, allegations made by _Rolling Stone_ that voting machines threw out the votes of urban-area voters in swing states, particularly Michigan and Pennsylvania, particularly minorities, is a pretty serious allegation. Perhaps the election was steered through a series of multiple small adjustments that were assumed to go unnoticed. But, as much as I would like to confidently say that there is some proof here that the election was mucked up and we need to get rid of the result and try again, I honestly can't say that with a straight face at this point. It appears that Trump managed to get a sort of grass-roots vote, similar to what Obama did in 2008. And now it really seems like the news outlets are grasping at straws to make some sort of election story.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Assume the Russians hacked the DNC. Assume they sent the emails to wikileaks. Assume they did it for the sole purpose of helping Trump win the election. Assume it actually did help Trump win the election. Then the USA's voting public is too easily swayed.
> 
> Yet, we know, that a majority of voters made up their minds very early in the election cycle. This seems to be a contradiction, but... it's really not if you take into account the weaknesses in the electoral college system.
> 
> So, assuming what you've assumed to be true, the #1 take-away should be that the electoral college can be exploited by a breach in cyber-security pertaining to a political party that is not a governmental agency.
> 
> As you know, I don't agree with all of those assumptions. I do not think that Russia would estimate that they could steer the election in this way.
> 
> On the other hand, allegations made by _Rolling Stone_ that voting machines threw out the votes of urban-area voters in swing states, particularly Michigan and Pennsylvania, particularly minorities, is a pretty serious allegation. Perhaps the election was steered through a series of multiple small adjustments that were assumed to go unnoticed. But, as much as I would like to confidently say that there is some proof here that the election was mucked up and we need to get rid of the result and try again, I honestly can't say that with a straight face at this point. It appears that Trump managed to get a sort of grass-roots vote, similar to what Obama did in 2008. And now it really seems like the news outlets are grasping at straws to make some sort of election story.



They didn't make Hillary cheat on the televised debates.....


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> They didn't make Hillary cheat on the televised debates.....



Haha, well, I bet we might hear how they "did" yet.

If anybody remembers hanging chad, I wonder to which catch phrase this election will forever be attached. "Russian Hackers?" No, that's too general.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Haha, well, I bet we might hear how they "did" yet.
> 
> If anybody remembers hanging chad, I wonder to which catch phrase this election will forever be attached. "Russian Hackers?" No, that's too general.



"Fake news" is the doublespeak word being added to the lexicon now after the election.

This will enable the corporate elite full and total control of the news media narrative, probably via some FCC rules yet TBD.


----------



## vilk

fake news is just slang for "not breitbart" right?


----------



## bostjan

Re: "Fake news"

There was a lot of fake news on social media this cycle, but it isn't something new. Before, there were "urban legends," "rumours," and also plenty of inaccurate stories in the mainstream media. Now that the mainstream media is working out a few kinks, there are lots of these sites that post zany weird bull.... and people repost it like crazy on facebook and twitter, just like how they used to tell their friends around the water cooler or dinner table.

And I know it happens on both sides of the political fence, so I hope nobody tries to drum up some partisan thing because of my statement there.

As HRC's supporters look for a reason why she didn't win, I'm sure there will continue to be chatter about the role of these fake news sites, recounting the votes in three states, crazy Russian hackers, voter de-enrollment due to common names, and more. All of these seem to be true, but the question is why people don't choose their battles more wisely when striking up the argument that something went wrong.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Why is "fake news" dangerous?
Can it cause me to have "Fake Ideas?"
Can I have "Fake Beliefs?" and what is the punishment for them?

<Answer: you would become an idiot.>



What is different about fake news vs. legal govt propoganda?

<Answer: you would become an idiot, THEIR Useful Idiot.>


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> Why is "fake news" dangerous?
> Can it cause me to have "Fake Ideas?"
> Can I have "Fake Beliefs?" and what is the punishment for them?
> 
> <Answer: you would become an idiot.>
> 
> 
> 
> What is different about fake news vs. legal govt propoganda?
> 
> <Answer: you would become an idiot, THEIR Useful Idiot.>



I think we're having a disagreement over what fake news and "fake news" is. I'll agree that I don't like the idea of MSM vetting what's real and not to closeout alternative sources or places carrying stories that haven't pierced the mainstream (ie: Hillary Clinton being sick) but I think it's silly if we're going to draw NO lines (moral or otherwise) between something like Reuters and The Onion.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> I think we're having a disagreement over what fake news and "fake news" is. I'll agree that I don't like the idea of MSM vetting what's real and not to closeout alternative sources or places carrying stories that haven't pierced the mainstream (ie: Hillary Clinton being sick) but I think it's silly if we're going to draw NO lines (moral or otherwise) between something like Reuters and The Onion.



Along with the Freedom of Speech (personal), is an implied responsibility to assess and evaluate that speech.

Each is meaningless without the other. 

It means nothing to be able to say anything, only to have it censored from other people's ears. It also means nothing to freely evaluate the words of others, only after those words have passed censorship inspection....

If you are suggesting that people are not capable of assessing/evaluating speech, you are also advocating for the removal of their free speech rights.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> Along with the Freedom of Speech (personal), is an implied responsibility to assess and evaluate that speech.
> 
> Each is meaningless without the other.
> 
> It means nothing to be able to say anything, only to have it censored from other people's ears. It also means nothing to freely evaluate the words of others, only after those words have passed censorship inspection....
> 
> If you are suggesting that people are not capable of assessing/evaluating speech, you are also advocating for the removal of their free speech rights.



No there's a difference between institutionalized censorship and saying that its silly to treat facts as a constant grey area, like there's no such thing as reporting things factually vs. making them up. 

Maybe you're loose with your words but the way they look on the page when you wrote them, it sounds like you're individually claiming there's no such things as facts and no discernible difference between real (factual) and fake (fabricated) news.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> No there's a difference between institutionalized censorship and saying that its silly to treat facts as a constant grey area, like there's no such thing as reporting things factually vs. making them up.
> 
> Maybe you're loose with your words but the way they look on the page when you wrote them, it sounds like you're individually claiming there's no such things as facts and no discernible difference between real (factual) and fake (fabricated) news.



I'm saying that there is no government entity that dictates truth and fiction. I also do not want to create a "Ministry of Truth."

Truth and fiction have ALWAYS been up to the individual to decide. That is why we praise Stephen Hawkings, and make fun Jenny McCarthy.

I don't understand how Hillary's loss has created an unbearable situation with regards to "fake news" that we suddenly need to rectify. 

This is a slippery slope, and one that we should not be on.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

CapnForsaggio said:


> 'Dress like a storm trooper, get hell from the rebels.'
> 
> Even if he wasn't complacent in illegal campaign activity (like cheating at the debates), his leader was. We must each evaluate the forces we serve.


I didn't really care that you or anyone else here supported Trump, and have mostly just been lurking this whole time, but this comment actually irked me. We're talking about _death threats_, not level-headed criticism here. So because his firm had been employed by someone who did some bad stuff, Drew's friend deserves to personally fear for his life? Bull.....


----------



## tacotiklah

Welp, the electoral college has made it official: Trump is indeed president. From what I hear, despite people lobbying electoral voters to swap from Trump to Clinton, there were people actually defecting from Clinton to other people like Tim Kaine. Because clearly that's what people wanted. 

This is why I hate the electoral college.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm saying that there is no government entity that dictates truth and fiction.



That is exactly how the entire legal branch of any government works. If we remove the concepts of truth and falsehood in law, we do away with the entire legal branch of government, and doing so, install anarchy.

I'm curious, do you consider yourself to be an anarchist? Because your sympathies seem to be with neo-conservatives, but the actual policies you want are anarchist.


----------



## bostjan

tacotiklah said:


> Welp, the electoral college has made it official: Trump is indeed president. From what I hear, despite people lobbying electoral voters to swap from Trump to Clinton, there were people actually defecting from Clinton to other people like Tim Kaine. Because clearly that's what people wanted.
> 
> This is why I hate the electoral college.



11 Faithless votes, from what I read - 4 for Bernie Sanders, 3 for Colin Powell, 2 for John Kasich, 1 for Ron Paul, and 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle. About half of those were deemed by law to be invalid and were changed by the Secretary of State of their respective states. (Some news sources say 10, so I might be off by one)

That's crazy. I remember there was one faithless elector in 200, and it was kind of a big deal in the news at the time. This is certainly the most anyone alive today has ever seen.

It just goes to show, though, how ....ty the choices were this election, if there were faithless electors on both sides of the fence.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm saying that there is no government entity that dictates truth and fiction. I also do not want to create a "Ministry of Truth."
> 
> Truth and fiction have ALWAYS been up to the individual to decide. That is why we praise Stephen Hawkings, and make fun Jenny McCarthy.
> 
> I don't understand how Hillary's loss has created an unbearable situation with regards to "fake news" that we suddenly need to rectify.
> 
> This is a slippery slope, and one that we should not be on.



Nobody's suggesting a "government entity that dictates truth and fiction." Facebook and other social media platforms are private entities, and so are the media companies that they're planning to bring in as fact-checkers. There are no First Amendment implications to anything that they're proposing.


----------



## bostjan

Once again, everything in life is not so black and white.

Some things are illegal. Some things are legal. Something might be legal to do, yet you ought not to do them. Other things are illegal to do, but maybe no one really cares if you do them anyway.

It's up to society to decide what is socially acceptable and what is not socially acceptable, regardless of what the government deems legal and illegal.

There is no universal social constitution.

For example, say that a famous football player murdered his wife and her boyfriend. Say that this football player hired expensive lawyers to get him acquitted, even though DNA evidence proved that he was guilty. By law, if the jury finds him not guilty, he is absolved of the criminal consequences of the murder, yet, still, he might be a social pariah, because socially, everybody knew that he did it.

Anyway, I think the electoral college felt that, regardless of the legal consequences, they had a humanitarian responsibility to cast their votes for neither candidate. In the case of fake news, I think we all know that these sites and the people who promote them deserve a social backlash as a result. Anybody saying that someone should face criminal charges for spreading lies over facebook is off his or her rocker.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Along with the Freedom of Speech (personal), is an implied responsibility to assess and evaluate that speech.
> 
> Each is meaningless without the other.
> 
> It means nothing to be able to say anything, only to have it censored from other people's ears. It also means nothing to freely evaluate the words of others, only after those words have passed censorship inspection....
> 
> If you are suggesting that people are not capable of assessing/evaluating speech, you are also advocating for the removal of their free speech rights.



But I think it's also a problem to have "news" organizations whose sole objective is to lie to people. I think when people are talking about "fake news" stories from this cycle, one of the most commonly discussed example is the story that broke that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump (hint: he didn't). It was a story that got spread around widely, and probably did help shore up evangelical support for The Donald, who did way better with that demographic than anyone whose most memorable line from the campaign was "grab them by the ....." should have. 

The problem is, when people are presented with a story that fits neatly with their worldview, they often don't _bother_ to try to independently assess/evaluate the comment. It's unfortunately simple human psychology, that we tend to fall trap to confirmation bias.

I also think the doubly troubling thing here is that the right, who by and large doesn't give a .... about "fake news" this cycle because hey, they won, has dismissed this as "there's no such thing as the truth," over and over again.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Assume the Russians hacked the DNC. Assume they sent the emails to wikileaks. Assume they did it for the sole purpose of helping Trump win the election. Assume it actually did help Trump win the election. Then the USA's voting public is too easily swayed.
> 
> Yet, we know, that a majority of voters made up their minds very early in the election cycle. This seems to be a contradiction, but... it's really not if you take into account the weaknesses in the electoral college system.



Well, right up to "that it really did help Trump win the election," our national intelligence agencies - all seventeen of them - are in agreement. 

As to the last claim, assuming that it helped Trump win, there were a LOT of things that happened at the very end of the election so it's tough to distangle them, but it might have. FiveThirtyEight just published a piece put together by UPenn that, using a large panel survey, Clinton lost 1.7 percentage points' worth of support while Trump grabbed 2.3%, for a net Trump +4.0 move in the last two weeks of the campaign. Why that is is subject to debate - it could be the Comey letter, it could be that Conway really is some sort of crazy snake charmer who can walk on water and the fact that she kept Trump muzzled and on a leash for the final weeks of the campaign helped rally the core GOP vote behind him while Clinton's support was still fractured post-Sanders, or it could have been the last Wikileaks leak. Likely, it was all of the above. But, there WAS a late break for Trump good for about 4 points on a race that wasn't much wider than that, so I don't think it's as simple as "voters tend to make their mind up early, so none of this mattered."

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-really-did-switch-to-trump-at-the-last-minute/


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Truth and fiction have ALWAYS been up to the individual to decide. That is why we praise Stephen Hawkings, and make fun Jenny McCarthy.



Also, be serious. Stephen Hawking is a scientist, and the application of the scientific method is starting by assuming you're wrong and only changing your mind when you can prove that can't be the case. Jenny McCarthy is an actress who believes, more or less as a matter of faith and on the basis of no actual evidence, that vaccines cause autism. The former is famous because he's brilliant, the latter because she looks great in a red swimsuit. 

If you're trying to prove that you personally think facts don't exist, then you're doing a damned good job by equating these two.


----------



## bostjan

Science is generally aware of its own limitations. People seem to have a difficult time admitting that we don't know something. For ages, the counter-argument to evolution of humans from other ape species was that there was a missing link. Science, at the time, simply didn't know where the missing link was, which people widely criticized, arguing that with no missing link there could not be evolution, but then, BAM, somebody found fossil remains of an ape that was more human than a chimp and more chimp-like than a human, and then the argument about the missing link morphed into "if chimps evolved into humans, why are there still chimps?" which, on its own, just proves that people aren't even listening to what evolution is before deciding it's wrong.

Is the government hiding the cure for cancer? Are there aliens from another planet living among us? Do we not have any idea how magnets really work? Blah blah blah... None of these conspiracy conjectures are even candidates for being wrong, because they are so mind-numbing.

Now about this Russian hacker thing. I'm half on the same page with Drew, but I cannot reach the conclusion of Drew's stance, because there is too much stuff that simply doesn't add up for me. Sure, Russians hacked the DNC. Again, I don't think that's really surprising in any way on any level. I'm sure the CIA has hacked into much more sensitive information in Russia before. Did wikileaks get their information from Russia? Maybe, but #1, it doesn't matter, and #2, I don't think they did. The argument of how else would they get the information, I think it's already been thoroughly covered in previous posts. To deny feasibility of an inside leak or an indirect leak, at this point, is just cherry picking denial. Assuming they leaked the information, did they do all of this to influence the election? Again, #1, it doesn't matter why. The information is true, so ... well, if it's unimportant, then who cares, and if it's important, then they were doing us a favour. If the information was false, then there'd be something to talk about.

I'm not thinking the next 4 years will be great, but, if I was a vehement HRC supporter, I would have chosen my strongest argument and put most of my energy into that. This whole line of: Russia is bad. Russia wants Trump. Russia exposed the DNC. Therefore, Trump is bad and it's all Russia's fault. Is just too much of a non sequitor for me to not pick on the flawed logic, let alone jump on board.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> This whole line of: Russia is bad. Russia wants Trump. Russia exposed the DNC. Therefore, Trump is bad and it's all Russia's fault. Is just too much of a non sequitor for me to not pick on the flawed logic, let alone jump on board.



You know, it's actually possible to agree that the DNC engaged in some legitimate wrongdoing (se: CapnForsaggio's broken record argument about the debate questions) *and also* think that it's troublesome to have Russia actively interfering in our electoral process. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> You know, it's actually possible to agree that the DNC engaged in some legitimate wrongdoing (se: CapnForsaggio's broken record argument about the debate questions) *and also* think that it's troublesome to have Russia actively interfering in our electoral process. Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.



The only reason we know that she cheated in the debates was because of:

A) the "russians"
B) "Fake news"
C) All of the above

They want to stop up the leaks so they won't be exposed next time.

I offer Donna Brasille as the currrent DNC chair as evidence of this.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'm not thinking the next 4 years will be great, but, if I was a vehement HRC supporter, I would have chosen my strongest argument and put most of my energy into that. This whole line of: Russia is bad. Russia wants Trump. Russia exposed the DNC. Therefore, Trump is bad and it's all Russia's fault. Is just too much of a non sequitor for me to not pick on the flawed logic, let alone jump on board.



Oh, don't get me wrong, I see this as a separate matter - that Russia hacked the DNC, and we have strong reason/evidence to believe that their hacks were politically motivated to attack the Clinton campaign and favor Trump is reason we as a nation, not one political party or the other, should be deeply concerned and should be dedicating resources to find out what happened, why, what we can do to prevent it in the future, and if/how we should retaliate. For the most part this is happening, but if anything the way this dovetails into this election is that the fact Trump is totally unconcerned about the fact Russia hacked into his opponents, and likely his own, networks and is currently cozying up to Russia while denying US intelligence has any idea what they're talking about is deeply unsettling, and the kind of thing Reagan would be rolling over in his grave about, for everything Trump lifted from his campaign. 

I think Clinton's stronger argument was this; that Trump, who lost the popular vote by the second largest margin ever and eked out a fairly narrow EC victory by historical standards, has since becoming the president-elect already tossed gasoline onto the tense, simmering US/China relationship, has sought to constrain first amendment rights, has browbeat the press and blocked access to them, has systematically appointed Cabinet heads who have beliefs in opposition to the Cabinets they're supposed too head (a lawyer who made a career out of suing the EPA to head the EPA, an opponent of public education as the Sec. of Education, etc), and even though he's the President-Elect, has continued to allege widespread election fraud, while simultaneously fighting all attempts to actually audit the results. 

In short, I think Clinton's strongest argument here has nothing to do with Russia, but rather that Trump is a threat to American democracy, and has tried or indicated he'll try to undercut some very core civil liberties while simultaneously is *already* doing damage to US foreign relations. That electing him as President is both going to damage the civil liberties and democratic structures of this country, while simultaneously quite possibly pulling us into an actual war. 

Unfortunately, Kate McKinnon has done a more effective job making this argument than Clinton has, although I suppose you could argue that a president who is dangerous to American democracy is in the long run less damaging than blocking his victory in the Electoral College...


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> B) "Fake news"



Bull. 

"Fake news" are stories that are blatantly, provably false that get passed around claiming to be true. That the Pope and Samuel L. Jackson endorsed Trump are examples of fake news. That Brazile leaked a couple questions to the Clinton camp is provably true. That's "actual" news. 

Like it or not, while I object to the methods - a foreign nation attacking a party's communication infastructure - I don't disagree that the actual content is wrong, and Brazile deserved to be terminated by CNN. She's also only the Acting Chair of the DNC, which means her days are numbered as soon as we formally select a replacement - even that is more than I'd like, but she's on her way out. 

You CAN, however, simultaneously be critical of something that was uncovered, while ALSO being critical of the way it was done. As it happens, what Brazile did was clearly wrong... But, so was what Russia did. Both should face repercussions for their actions.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

You know damned well that Wikileaks is included in the "fake news" category.

Ironically, their honesty record is better than MSM.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Drew said:


> You CAN, however, simultaneously be critical of something that was uncovered, while ALSO being critical of the way it was done. As it happens, what Brazile did was clearly wrong... But, so was what Russia did. Both should face repercussions for their actions.


This is obviously the sane response, but it would require abandoning hyperpartisanship. I predict that a sizable number of both rightists and leftists won't be willing to concede the smallest bit of ground.


----------



## tedtan

I've been tied up at work recently, so I've missed participating in the past few days' worth of discussion, but Drew and celticelk have hit the nail on head and done so more eloquently that I would have.

Now where is that [email protected] like button?


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> You know damned well that Wikileaks is included in the "fake news" category.



Only if you ignore all of the discussion that's actually been happening around fake news, which has clearly been about the kind of clickbait fictional stories that Drew's describing. Feel free to cite counterexamples if you'd like to argue otherwise.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> You know damned well that Wikileaks is included in the "fake news" category.
> 
> Ironically, their honesty record is better than MSM.



While I think some of the Wikileaks content got blown out of proportion - as an example, you're talking about people using the Clinton Foundation to "buy" access to the state department, and I saw a lot of Breitbart and the like stories to that effect, yet if you look at the actual emails, there were a bunch of people trying, but also responses from the Clinton Foundation rebuffing them - in general, the _material_ leaked by Wikileaks appears to be factually sound. So, no, I don't agree they're included in the "fake news" story. 

Fake news is stuff like the "story" that Michelle Obama is a transvestite. Total bull...., yet got passed around all over facebook by certain elements of the fringe hard right as fact.


----------



## Drew

TheHandOfStone said:


> This is obviously the sane response, but it would require abandoning hyperpartisanship. I predict that a sizable number of both rightists and leftists won't be willing to concede the smallest bit of ground.



Honestly? It depends how bad things get under Trump, now that the populist wing of the GOP has a bully pulpit. I could totally see moderates from both parties trying to find common ground if he gets too distanced from reality.


----------



## vilk

^I wish that I could totally see that, too. But I can't.
History shows us that the tendency is simply to blame the other side for everything wrong with your life until there is a resource dispute, then go to war and physically destroy each other. Does access to education and information have the power to override human nature? I do wish that it did/does...


----------



## Given To Fly

bostjan said:


> People seem to have a difficult time admitting that we don't know something.



Now that is what I call wisdom.


----------



## celticelk

The performing lineup for the inauguration is...underwhelming.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/donal...s-celebrities-performances-list-all-american/


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> The performing lineup for the inauguration is...underwhelming.
> 
> http://heavy.com/news/2016/12/donal...s-celebrities-performances-list-all-american/



I don't see Kid Rock on the list. A bunch of people had told me that he would be the main musical attraction. Guess not.

I've never heard of these acts, aside from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.


----------



## Drew

Link isn't working. I heard the Nuge was playing...?


----------



## vilk

The headliner is Johnny Rebel


----------



## Andromalia

> I think when people are talking about "fake news" stories from this cycle, one of the most commonly discussed example is the story that broke that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump (hint: he didn't). It was a story that got spread around widely, and probably did help shore up evangelical support for The Donald



Evangelists hate catholics so I don't think this was the plan. ^^


----------



## CapnForsaggio

With all of Obama's lame ducking:

1) Reigniting the cold war without providing proof of espionage, and
2) Throwing 5 decades worth of foreign policy under the bus with Israel...

'Is Trump really gone get there?' has become:
'When is Trump gonna finally get here!'

It seems that the petulance of Obama knows no bounds. He will not have to deal with the fallout from these actions, and doesn't care what the fallout is. It is improper and unprecedented to act in this way while there is a new Pres Elect.

He has disappointed me at every opportunity, and has crafted this final disappointment for us all. 

Here's to hoping that karma is real.

Someone clued me in: Providing proof of "hacking" would provide authenticity to DNC emails. They don't want this (Donna Brazille cheating in the debates, going after Bernie, Clinton pay to play, etc.) . Hoping they don't need to show "proof."


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> With all of Obama's lame ducking:
> 
> 1) Reigniting the cold war without providing proof of espionage, and
> 2) Throwing 5 decades worth of foreign policy under the bus with Israel...
> 
> 'Is Trump really gone get there?' has become:
> 'When is Trump gonna finally get here!'
> 
> It seems that the petulance of Obama knows no bounds. He will not have to deal with the fallout from these actions, and doesn't care what the fallout is. It is improper and unprecedented to act in this way while there is a new Pres Elect.
> 
> He has disappointed me at every opportunity, and has crafted this final disappointment for us all.
> 
> Here's to hoping that karma is real.
> 
> Someone clued me in: Providing proof of "hacking" would provide authenticity to DNC emails. They don't want this (Donna Brazille cheating in the debates, going after Bernie, Clinton pay to play, etc.) . Hoping they don't need to show "proof."



Aw damn, how did my dad get on SSO?


----------



## TheHandOfStone

^ 

Anyway, provided our own intel agencies aren't BSing us (and I doubt they are), sanctions don't seem out of line. I'm still not entirely clear on _how_ they confirmed Russian interference, but I'm also not sure if that's something they can make public. I guess I'm going with "more likely than not" based on what we know.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> With all of Obama's lame ducking:
> 
> 1) Reigniting the cold war without providing proof of espionage, and
> 2) Throwing 5 decades worth of foreign policy under the bus with Israel...
> 
> 'Is Trump really gone get there?' has become:
> 'When is Trump gonna finally get here!'
> 
> It seems that the petulance of Obama knows no bounds. He will not have to deal with the fallout from these actions, and doesn't care what the fallout is. It is improper and unprecedented to act in this way while there is a new Pres Elect.
> 
> He has disappointed me at every opportunity, and has crafted this final disappointment for us all.
> 
> Here's to hoping that karma is real.
> 
> Someone clued me in: Providing proof of "hacking" would provide authenticity to DNC emails. They don't want this (Donna Brazille cheating in the debates, going after Bernie, Clinton pay to play, etc.) Hoping they don't need to show "proof."



Someone's a little bitter that Obama is actually showing some backbone.  

Listen, to your final point - the DNC (or anyone else, I think...?) has never argued they WEREN'T authentic, and has lost no time in condemning the Russian hack of their systems. CNN fired Brazille - that's not something you do if you don't believe the evidence is real. Some of your conclusions aren't supported by the leaks - there's no evidence of "pay to play," for one, and plenty of evidence of the Clinton Foundation pushing back when asked - but no one has suggested the hacks are fake, and clearly the fact we're pursuing sanctions here tacitly provides additional support that the emails are real. The whole argument doesn't hold water.  

Meanwhile, I think it's kind of rich that, when Russian intelligence hacks US political parties and tries to influence the outcome of a Presidential election, you blame OBAMA for reigniting the cold war. 

This was the public release statement on the hacking that NIS put out over the weekend - naturally, it doesn't contain any classified information (and odd that the same people who were so concerned with the possibility that classified information might have ended up on Clinton's email system are now pushing for us to publicly release classified information - funny how the tide has turned ), but a separate report including classified information has evidently been produced for internal use that gets quite a bit farther into the nitty-gritty of how we know what we know. 

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf


----------



## Drew

TheHandOfStone said:


> ^
> 
> Anyway, provided our own intel agencies aren't BSing us (and I doubt they are), sanctions don't seem out of line. I'm still not entirely clear on _how_ they confirmed Russian interference, but I'm also not sure if that's something they can make public. I guess I'm going with "more likely than not" based on what we know.



From what little I know, it was evidently good old fashioned cloak and dagger spying - we have agents implanted in Russian intelligence. This would make revealing our sources a _little_ tricky, to say the least, at least without getting any Americans killed in return for their service.

I'd love to know more too, but I'm not going to sacrifice American security interests and possibly American lives for my idle curiosity.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Someone's a little bitter that Obama is actually showing some backbone.
> 
> Listen, to your final point - the DNC (or anyone else, I think...?) has never argued they WEREN'T authentic, and has lost no time in condemning the Russian hack of their systems. CNN fired Brazille - that's not something you do if you don't believe the evidence is real. Some of your conclusions aren't supported by the leaks - there's no evidence of "pay to play," for one, and plenty of evidence of the Clinton Foundation pushing back when asked - but no one has suggested the hacks are fake, and clearly the fact we're pursuing sanctions here tacitly provides additional support that the emails are real. The whole argument doesn't hold water.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think it's kind of rich that, when Russian intelligence hacks US political parties and tries to influence the outcome of a Presidential election, you blame OBAMA for reigniting the cold war.
> 
> This was the public release statement on the hacking that NIS put out over the weekend - naturally, it doesn't contain any classified information (and odd that the same people who were so concerned with the possibility that classified information might have ended up on Clinton's email system are now pushing for us to publicly release classified information - funny how the tide has turned ), but a separate report including classified information has evidently been produced for internal use that gets quite a bit farther into the nitty-gritty of how we know what we know.
> 
> https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf



I read that report. It is vague, and without evidence.

Also, even if ther is proof of hacking, it doesn't justify Obama's breaking with our Isreal policy.

What motive could he possibly have for destabilizing the middle east on his way out the door?!

It's dangerous and embarassing.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Related, and back to fake news:

Infowars.com writes a story exposing government propaganda within a CNN story.
http://www.infowars.com/cnn-runs-fa...ssia-closing-anglo-american-school-in-moscow/


Would facebook and google consider infowars or CNN the fake news here? 
Which story would they run on their webpages?

I think I know the answer, and I dont like it.


----------



## narad

The answer is: whichever one is promoted by the activity of users similar to you. If enough conspiracy theory weirdos 'like' infowars, and you 'like' things similar to their other interests, the infowars article will be more likely to be trending on your Facebook feed. But I don't think that's what you were implying...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> The answer is: whichever one is promoted by the activity of users similar to you. If enough conspiracy theory weirdos 'like' infowars, and you 'like' things similar to their other interests, the infowars article will be more likely to be trending on your Facebook feed. But I don't think that's what you were implying...



I was referring to both Facebook and Google's desire to "vet" legitimiate news before presenting on their platforms....

Hopefully you can see why this would be dangerous. In the case I presented, it is evident that CNN is spreading US gov propoganda. Would this be considered "fake" by the primary avenues of information for today's voters?


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Would facebook and google consider infowars or CNN the fake news here?



Seriously?

Infowars is a website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and is widely known to be a fake news site.

Sources:

Washington Times
Los Angeles Times
US News

If, infowars dot com was a real news site, many things reported there fly in the face of pretty much every mainstream news outlet, so, there would need to be a smoking gun of some sort to redeem the source, but, since there is not, and many of the stories run there have hence been disproven, it is damn clear that the site runs fake news.

Read the infowars article. Pay attention to the paraphrasing made there and contrast it with the links provided as a source. The paraphrased material is not even close to the information provided in the links. That's actually pretty serious. Blatant misrepresentation of quotes through malicious paraphrasing is considered plagiarism, or, in cases like this, libel. I think, in this case, simply looking objectively at the information in front of me, there is no way that infowars dot com looks the least bit legitimate, regardless of political leanings.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> I was referring to both Facebook and Google's desire to "vet" legitimiate news before presenting on their platforms....
> 
> Hopefully you can see why this would be dangerous. In the case I presented, it is evident that CNN is spreading US gov propoganda. Would this be considered "fake" by the primary avenues of information for today's voters?



Getting a bit ahead of ourselves aren't we...

Maybe you could wait until there was a serious move to detect fake news on either of these websites. You can be certain that what wouldn't be happening is a some policy document listing which sites are and aren't allowed on Google/Facebook. It'd be some algorithm, probably with a heavy crowdsourcing component - perhaps similar to how explicit content on Facebook is currently identified.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Infowars is a website run by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and is widely known to be a fake news site.
> 
> Sources:
> 
> Washington Times
> Los Angeles Times
> US News
> 
> If, infowars dot com was a real news site, many things reported there fly in the face of pretty much every mainstream news outlet, so, there would need to be a smoking gun of some sort to redeem the source, but, since there is not, and many of the stories run there have hence been disproven, it is damn clear that the site runs fake news.
> 
> Read the infowars article. Pay attention to the paraphrasing made there and contrast it with the links provided as a source. The paraphrased material is not even close to the information provided in the links. That's actually pretty serious. Blatant misrepresentation of quotes through malicious paraphrasing is considered plagiarism, or, in cases like this, libel. I think, in this case, simply looking objectively at the information in front of me, there is no way that infowars dot com looks the least bit legitimate, regardless of political leanings.



read the disclaimer posted at the TOP of the "Russian interferance report":

The disclaimer clearly states that the report is provided on an "as is" basis and that the Department of Homeland Security "...does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."

What a load of BS.

Infowars is the only source in the right here. And the gov wants to be able to keep you from reading them and other sources they can't control.

And you are just itching to help them. Good for you, citizen.


----------



## narad

How is the government trying to stop me from reading infowars? It's my better judgement that's doing that.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> And the gov wants to be able to keep you from reading them and other sources they can't control.



I would LOVE to see you cite a source for this one


----------



## UnderTheSign

MFB said:


> I would LOVE to see you cite a source for this one


You can't,the government is keeping it from you


----------



## MFB

UnderTheSign said:


> You can't,the government is keeping it from you



....in' aye, should've seen that coming


----------



## Andromalia

In 2045, I'll write a book called "how twitter destroyed america".


----------



## narad

Andromalia said:


> In 2045, I'll write a book called "how twitter destroyed america".



In 2045 we won't have books. Only tweets.


----------



## Andromalia

That's what the government will tell you.


----------



## Glosni

CapnForsaggio said:


> Infowars is the only source in the right here.



 Oh America...

On a related note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGgN-uk5o9w


----------



## oc616

I've come to accept that Alex Jones fanatics have a masochistic fetish regarding their beliefs. It's almost like they want to be threatened just so they can be angry. Like they are proud internet warriors, for some kind of justice. Perhaps some of them want it for society? And they defend their Infowars-type sites like it is some kind of space they can feel safe in. Curious.

"SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM ME! WAKE UP TRAITORS!"


----------



## will_shred

The entire logic of the alt-right is sealed away in an airtight, fact free linguistic construct. Because if any fact goes against my bias, it must be a lie and the source a liberal shill. There is no other explanation. I am so great and my brain so powerful that my ideology cannot possibly be the problem, it must be that the government controls all centers of information that I disagree with! Wake up sheeple! 



....in idiots.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

CapnForsaggio said:


> It seems that the petulance of Obama knows no bounds.



Please share 10 examples of "petulance" on Obama's part. I don't love the guy, but he's nothing if not mature and measured.


----------



## USMarine75

On the topic of fake news... check out VeteransToday website. I accidently stumbled on them years ago when I googled "veterans benefits". They actually call out Alex Jones as a sellout and stooge for the main stream media lol. If you like your JFK, Jews-control-the-world, Hitler, and Bush+Jews did 9/11 conspiracies... this is your website!


----------



## bulb

I really want to visit infowars to get real news but it's says my access is blocked by Obama.

Now I know a bunch of you are going to say that's not true, but that's how it feels to me, and that's all the truth I need, what with all this fake news going around.


----------



## You

bulb said:


> I really want to visit infowars to get real news but it's says my access is blocked by Obama.
> 
> Now I know a bunch of you are going to say that's not true, but that's how it feels to me, and that's all the truth I need, what with all this fake news going around.


Serious reply: I trust Infowars and Breitbart far better than establishment media, such as Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc. (which are the ACTUAL fake news) for as if anything, they represent anti establishment, anti political correctness,anti social justice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Many of these fake news publications (Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc.) are attempting to enforce orwellian leftist ideologies (for example hate speech laws) that are counter to the first amendment and freedom of speech. I respect Alex Jones in the fact that he stands up against mainstream media and government control. 

People should be able to express their opinions, regardless if hateful or not.

If you are not serious: FROG PEEPULL OEMGEE


----------



## USMarine75

*AllNewsMatters


----------



## bulb

You said:


> Serious reply: I trust Infowars and Breitbart far better than establishment media, such as Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc. (which are the ACTUAL fake news) for as if anything, they represent anti establishment, anti political correctness,anti social justice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Many of these fake news publications (Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc.) are attempting to enforce orwellian leftist ideologies (for example hate speech laws) that are counter to the first amendment and freedom of speech. I respect Alex Jones in the fact that he stands up against mainstream media and government control.
> 
> People should be able to express their opinions, regardless if hateful or not.
> 
> If you are not serious: FROG PEEPULL OEMGEE


TIL any news outlet that doesn't support my confirmation bias = fake news


----------



## MFB

> Serious reply: I trust Infowars and Breitbart far better than establishment media, such as Buzzfeed



What in the ever living fvck gave you the idea that a site who made it big off articles that are nothing but lists pandering to nostalgia babies, should be considered REAL news?


----------



## narad

You said:


> Serious reply: I trust Infowars and Breitbart far better than establishment media, such as Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc. (which are the ACTUAL fake news) for as if anything, they represent anti establishment, anti political correctness,anti social justice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Many of these fake news publications (Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, esc.) are attempting to enforce orwellian leftist ideologies (for example hate speech laws) that are counter to the first amendment and freedom of speech. I respect Alex Jones in the fact that he stands up against mainstream media and government control.
> 
> People should be able to express their opinions, regardless if hateful or not.
> 
> If you are not serious: FROG PEEPULL OEMGEE



Theres nothing serious about that reply:
1. Dont lump Buzzfeed in there next to The Guardian, or what happened next will shock you! Its about as establishment media as Kim Kardashians twitter account.
2. The Guardian is a UK print. So yeafirst amendment...
3. The non-Buzzfeed things are not fake news. Or give an example - should be super easy.
4. These are publications. They dont "enforce ideologies."
5. Orwellian denotes a heavy degree of surveillance and control. Is this the same as filtering out the n-word or what have you from your news companys comments section? No, obviously.

I mean, is it crazy that I havent met a single person who subscribes to infowars, breitbart, or zerohedge that isnt a total nutjob spouting off nothing but a mix of conspiracy and hyperbole? If a news outlet doesn't spew hate then it's fake? Fantastic metric.


----------



## TedEH

You said:


> establishment media, such as Buzzfeed, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian



I'll admit you lost me at Buzzfeed. I only know that site as an aggregator of click-bait nonsense list articles that have nothing to do with "news".

At the same time I think there's a point to be made of how there's a recent muddying of what tends to be considered "news"- a trend that exacerbates the whole "fake news" thing. I mean this in the sense that any time I catch "the news" on TV or the radio, regardless of the channel, I hear Twitter getting used as a source, as if that were a legitimate/reliable/trustworthy source of information. And that's on top of all the "satire".

The barrier to being a "source of news" is incredibly low - websites can (and are) made by anyone, for whatever reason they feel like. Any nobody with a blog is now a "journalist". Anyone with internet access and a social media account now has an audience too, just to muddy up that information space even more.

I really appreciate how the internet opens up vast amounts of information to anyone who wants it, but I'm not sure every average facebook user is well equipped to navigate all that info.


----------



## USMarine75

You can dislike the mainstream media, because it tells you what to think about the news... but fake news like Breitbart just makes stuff up and then calls it news.


----------



## bulb

USMarine75 said:


> You can dislike the mainstream media, because it tells you what to think about the news... but fake news like Breitbart just makes stuff up and then calls it news.



I love Milo Yiousfdiudfnsoplous's Breibart article about how women shouldn't take birth control because it causes cellulite, makes women and their voices unsexy and no men will want them. Also we should just have all those kids to keep the muslim invaders at bay. 

Yeah I know it sounds like I'm totally making this up, so:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/

Definitely not fake news, I wish Obama and the leftist hippie cucks who run this country would stop the oppression that stopped you all from reading that article!


----------



## You

I'll admit, I was speaking from my anal cavity vortex, and likely had an uninformed opinion. I apologize for my ignorance. 

I will say this, however, never trust any single source of information, regardless if it conforms with your perspective. An article shall always be biased towards the writer, which is why in hindsight, this "fake news" debacle is simply a worthless witch hunt. Besides, I came here for guitars and metal, not political discourse.


----------



## USMarine75

bulb said:


> I love Milo Yiousfdiudfnsoplous's Breibart article about how women shouldn't take birth control because it causes cellulite, makes women and their voices unsexy and no men will want them. Also we should just have all those kids to keep the muslim invaders at bay.
> 
> Yeah I know it sounds like I'm totally making this up, so:
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/
> 
> Definitely not fake news, I wish Obama and the leftist hippie cucks who run this country would stop the oppression that stopped you all from reading that article!



Wait, what, that's fake? Man, my wife and our eleven kids are gonna be pissed when I tell them that sh*t wasn't true.

You really need to check out VeteransToday! I feel like you came to me with the Monkees and i just introduced you to the Beatles. You're welcome. 

On a separate note... I love that Milo looks like a movie villain. Like if Kylo Ren took off his mask and boom it was Milo, you'd be like, yeah... ok... that's what I thought he would look like.


----------



## oc616

1. Right wingers defend their marginalised culture for a sense of justice, like staunch online warriors.

2. Info-Wars and Trump favouring sites/pages are their safe spaces.

3. Uniting people against something that disturbs their bias-quo is their agenda. 

4. They use scathing buzzwords like "libtard" or "cucks" to separate themselves from their opposition and boost their sense of superiority.

5. Being "enlightened" without giving sure-as-stone proof of such a claim is a top priority to them.

Now keep no.1, 3 + 5 the same, swap no.2 for Tumblr, swap no.4 for "racist, bigot etc", and it turns out Right AND Left wing politics have obnoxious SJWs?


----------



## bulb

oc616 said:


> 1. Right wingers defend their marginalised culture for a sense of justice, like staunch online warriors.
> 
> 2. Info-Wars and Trump favouring sites/pages are their safe spaces.
> 
> 3. Uniting people against something that disturbs their bias-quo is their agenda.
> 
> 4. They use scathing buzzwords like "libtard" or "cucks" to separate themselves from their opposition and boost their sense of superiority.
> 
> 5. Being "enlightened" without giving sure-as-stone proof of such a claim is a top priority to them.
> 
> Now keep no.1, 3 + 5 the same, swap no.2 for Tumblr, swap no.4 for "racist, bigot etc", and it turns out Right AND Left wing politics have obnoxious SJWs?



To be clear I think the ultra left SJWs are just as bad for the same reasons. I forget who said it, but they said politics was less like a line and more like a circle. The extreme right and left have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates. I think that's a big reason why there was a contingent of Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump.


----------



## You

bulb said:


> To be clear I think the ultra left SJWs are just as bad for the same reasons. I forget who said it, but they said politics was less like a line and more like a circle. The extreme right and left have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates. I think that's a big reason why there was a contingent of Sanders voters who ended up voting for Trump.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory 
'Twas the Horseshoe Theory


----------



## oc616

That Horseshoe theory makes sense. It's less about the topic and more about how passionately you portray your view on a topic. So those telling everyone to wake up are the biggest sheep of all? Surprise surprise. 

It would also better explain the centre-left/right's tendencies towards calm and measured approaches to keep the status quo chugging over either extremes often rash rhetoric and practices.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bulb said:


> TIL any news outlet that doesn't support my confirmation bias = fake news



The same is true on both sides, buddy.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

USMarine75 said:


> Wait, what, that's fake? Man, my wife and our eleven kids are gonna be pissed when I tell them that sh*t wasn't true.
> 
> You really need to check out VeteransToday! I feel like you came to me with the Monkees and i just introduced you to the Beatles. You're welcome.
> 
> On a separate note... I love that Milo looks like a movie villain. Like if Kylo Ren took off his mask and boom it was Milo, you'd be like, yeah... ok... that's what I thought he would look like.



He's even coming out with a book. Dear god, no!!!


----------



## USMarine75

I'll wait for the audiobook narrated by Mel Gibson...


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I personally think both sides (libs and conserves) are full of .... when it comes to arguing about news, but that's just me.


----------



## tacotiklah

So I've been pondering on this whole fake news phenomenon and i wanted to float a crazy idea here. Now before I even mention it, I know that conservatives will flat out say no because they're the party of no to any kind of meaningful reform, but I'm curious what civil liberties peeps think on it...


Passing a "Truth in Reporting" act. In the law, you have to report incidents exactly as they occurred, without adding any kind of spin to it at all. Now I know people are going to decry this as infringing on freedom of press and freedom of speech, but there's precedent here in SCOTUS rulings regarding the limits of free speech. It's been shown in studies that people who watching "news" like fox news actually have an even WORSE understanding of current events in the world than people that don't watch any type of news at all. This leads to uninformed voting, which can be disastrous and dangerous to both the country and the rest of the world. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech. One of the most dangerous things imaginable in my mind is filling the public with bullsh*t, causing them to overreact in harmful and dangerous ways. 

So the idea and aim of a law like this is to remove "personalities" from the news and have people just tell it like it is. Now obviously there's some hurdles in this (outside of civil liberty concerns) such as things like national security, but I'm more interested in forcing a conversation on this than actually pushing for such an extreme law. 

My goal here is to get people talking about what solutions they would want to see happen to force the FCC to do its job and stop letting MSM fill people's heads with nonsense in the name of profit. This day and age has no place for people like Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes.


----------



## narad

People want analysis with their news, and analysis is inherently biased. So I think that pretty much rules out that suggestion. And news bias is not at all the same as fake news. Previously fake news existed, but it mostly just died somewhere up the journalistic path to being broadcast to a large amount of people. Now the filters are gone, and fake news can go directly from person A, to person B, where person B is the president-elect of the USA and retweets it because it's exactly what he wants to hear...

Honestly I think common sense goes a long way. I'll never forget having this pop up on imgur and seeing hundreds of enraged comments while shaking my head that people are so gullible for it.

Funny enough when I went to find the example the first hit was Zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...lance-resulting-death-man-4-year-old-daughter

You know, usually it's best not to trust news stories from anonymous sources. It's best not to trust anything that's a facebook screenshot. It's best not to trust anything that fits too perfectly into someone's agenda. I mean, we mostly all know this. It's the less frequent social media users that haven't built up their own internal credibility filters yet.


----------



## vansinn

Interesting seeing how far this thread has gone already.

It'll be interesting to see where things really do go when he's become inaugurated.
I mean, I still have a problem seeing what his policies really will be.

I find it troubling seeing that it seemingly already three Goldman Sacks'er has been hired. Plus the Uber guy..

Has Trump already been told "Mr. President [elect], these are your orders. Now execute, if you please. We wouldn't want to have to pull a Kennedy, would we now.."


----------



## TedEH

tacotiklah said:


> Passing a "Truth in Reporting" act. In the law, you have to report incidents exactly as they occurred, without adding any kind of spin to it at all.



I see what you're going for, but I don't think what you're suggesting is possible, in a literal sense. "Truth" is not absolute enough to measure in that way- if it was, we wouldn't have politics like this in the first place. Everything a person considers to be truth is only really a "fact" in the context of that persons experience and frame of mind. People don't deal with literal objective facts- because we cant. We don't have access to that. Every piece of information we receive is filtered through our senses and sensibilities, whether we like it or not. How is anyone supposed to distinguish a "lie" from telling something we think is true but really isn't?

I always hesitate to call anything a "lie", simply because I understand that it's very possible for people to believe almost anything. A lie has intent. Spreading misinformation unintentionally because you think it's true doesn't have malicious intent, but calling it a lie implies that it does.

I think trying to regulate "what is truth" and "what is bias" would get really messy really quickly.


----------



## Andromalia

> How is anyone supposed to distinguish a "lie" from telling something we think is true but really isn't?



The previous record of the media regarding such matters is usually a good clue.


----------



## TedEH

^

My point was more that there is a tendency to call something a lie on the internet as soon as it turns out to be untrue on any level, with complete disregard for the speakers intent or context.

I don't doubt that the news involves an amount of intentional misinformation, but I'm not talking about those cases. I'm talking about saying something that's untrue because you believe it's true. Or just making mistakes, as people do all the time.

Better example of what I meant to say, maybe: Can you imagine the horrible religious arguments that would pop up if you tried to regulate "truth"? I don't believe in a god, but I don't think religious people are lying to me when they say that they think their particular belief is an objective truth.


----------



## bostjan

I'm just here to say how sad I am that it has come to this.

This could have been the next age of enlightenment, with the internet bringing billions of bits of information right to your face every second, we ought to be smarter than ever before.

And this is nothing new. I used the internet to write a report for my astronomy class, back in 1992. Back then, the internet was pretty much just academic stuff, national geographic, and a few bulletin boards. I looked up a star and found some very detailed information, then read a little further, only to find out that all of the data was from Star Trek, even though nothing obvious about the website lead me to believe that it was affiliated with the fictional universe. I guess nowadays such a thing is not at all surprising, but back then, I was shocked. Fast forward 25 years and now news is handled the same way, but the most shocking difference is that people are so dense that they generally can't tell the difference between satire and real news. I could post an article on Facebook about a hedgehog being elected God by the Catholic Church, and, if I got enough people to share it, at least one person out there would believe that it was real news. If the article spread virally, I guarantee that a statistically significant portion of the internet-using population would buy it.

So why have we come to this point? It's programmed into our DNA. Homo sapiens is a cultural creature. In the early days, this helped our species to survive. If the Ooogs in the thatch hut next door used a flint axe, you'd use a flint axe. When they added a wooden handle to their flint axe, you'd do the same, ... or else. Now, when Timmy in the McMansion next door has his parents buy him an XBox One, you'd better get your kids an XBox One. This idea of culture took mankind through the stone age, the bronze age, and the iron age, through the industrial revolution, and culminated with the atomic age, where humans possessed the power to destroy the entire planet. Now, however, in the information age, memes are not just used for entertainment, but also to educate and to miseducate (propaganda). When I was a kid, there was always that kid who thought he knew everything, and would spout off untruths, like "There's a hole in planet Venus bigger than the Earth!" "You know, snot is really dead brains leaking out of your head!" and "Every time you sneeze, you clinically die for three seconds!" That kid now controls a corner of the internet.

So, do you outlaw these sorts of memes? No, I deeply feel that doing such things simply opens up the possibility of the government to abuse people. I mean, the government has not exactly had a good track record at determining truth on its own, and if untruth became illegal, it might be a very dangerous thing to contradict the government when it's wrong about something... No, I think we all ought to simply get smarter about handling information, and handle those who are unable to tell ridiculous satire from real news with more care. If you read a headline that says that Michele Obama is a transsexual, and you buy it, knowing, for one, that she has had children, then you ought to probably receive some medication, or see a doctor.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> That kid now controls a corner of the internet.



I think this sort of sums up a lot of things. We're basically a bajjilion kids who have been introduced into a much larger community than has ever existed previously. Everything happening now has always been around - propaganda, slanted news, differences of opinion, "satire", people whose sense of humor involves intentionally misleading people, people who lie as a social defense rather than admitting they don't know something, etc etc.

The difference is that it used to be within smaller communities where the volume of information to parse was smaller, and the sources were more familiar. You know to ignore the class clown, cause he's the only one being a jack*ss. You know to avoid the crazy uncle who spouts extremist nonsense cause you've been around him long enough to know that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You know that your siblings will make up stuff just to see how far they can push you, cause that's what siblings do, and you're doing it right back to them.

But when the community is suddenly made up of billions of people you know nothing about, you can no longer depend on your familiarity with the community to serve as a lens to view all the nonsense through.

To me, facebook, twitter, etc. is basically just the new town center. It's just a HUGE town, and I don't think we've learned to deal with that yet.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I read that report. It is vague, and without evidence.
> 
> Also, even if ther is proof of hacking, it doesn't justify Obama's breaking with our Isreal policy.
> 
> What motive could he possibly have for destabilizing the middle east on his way out the door?!
> 
> It's dangerous and embarassing.



Oh, Israel is a different story, though I'm not sure how much of a break this is - our policy for a LONG time has been to espouse a two state solution, and that Israel's building settlements in Palestinian territories puts that at risk. Kerry just became a lot more open and public about the US's long held position than has been the historical norm.



CapnForsaggio said:


> read the disclaimer posted at the TOP of the "Russian interferance report":
> 
> The disclaimer clearly states that the report is provided on an "as is" basis and that the Department of Homeland Security "...does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."
> 
> What a load of BS.
> 
> Infowars is the only source in the right here. And the gov wants to be able to keep you from reading them and other sources they can't control.
> 
> And you are just itching to help them. Good for you, citizen.



You've obviously never worked in a bureaucracy. Every single statement or report we send out or receive from another firm in the financial sector is loaded up with similar information, that while we're presenting data from sources we believe to be reputable, we make no assurances of the accuracy of any of the information contained within, etc. etc. etc. That doesn't mean that, when I send out a research piece with our standard disclaimer on it, I don't stand behind my conclusions fully and believe that the argument I've made IS valid. It's standard CYA boilerplate. 

What _do_ you do for a living anyway? It's clearly nothing even remotely corporate.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

tacotiklah said:


> So I've been pondering on this whole fake news phenomenon and i wanted to float a crazy idea here. Now before I even mention it, I know that conservatives will flat out say no because they're the party of no to any kind of meaningful reform, but I'm curious what civil liberties peeps think on it...
> 
> 
> Passing a "Truth in Reporting" act. In the law, you have to report incidents exactly as they occurred, without adding any kind of spin to it at all. Now I know people are going to decry this as infringing on freedom of press and freedom of speech, but there's precedent here in SCOTUS rulings regarding the limits of free speech. It's been shown in studies that people who watching "news" like fox news actually have an even WORSE understanding of current events in the world than people that don't watch any type of news at all. This leads to uninformed voting, which can be disastrous and dangerous to both the country and the rest of the world. SCOTUS has ruled in the past that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not protected speech. One of the most dangerous things imaginable in my mind is filling the public with bullsh*t, causing them to overreact in harmful and dangerous ways.
> 
> So the idea and aim of a law like this is to remove "personalities" from the news and have people just tell it like it is. Now obviously there's some hurdles in this (outside of civil liberty concerns) such as things like national security, but I'm more interested in forcing a conversation on this than actually pushing for such an extreme law.
> 
> My goal here is to get people talking about what solutions they would want to see happen to force the FCC to do its job and stop letting MSM fill people's heads with nonsense in the name of profit. This day and age has no place for people like Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes.



The problem with the idea is they essentially wanted to go after their opposing party competition. It's an absolute joke. It was fake news that the election would be rigged when The Donald said that he was afraid the election was rigged and that it was "a threat to our democracy," but now Crooked Hillary is somehow not a threat to our democracy and the Russians did it. Frankly, when the hell did the left become warhawks and McCarthyists? 

There's also the problem of selectively enforcing the law, which seems to be the intent. MSM, or as I call it, the sewer stream media, mainly the left, can have these presstitutes out there falsely reporting [ie, Fake News] all day, and they are still considered the "vanguards of honest reporting." In addition, the CIA used to control the narrative of news reporting for quite awhile [from about 1948 to 1976 though it still continued], so this new push to "stop fake news" is absolutely ridiculous. Aside from that, I also have an issue with the state running the media and nannying everyone as if the majority of us are too stupid to determine for ourselves what is false and what isn't. The nanny state in all or at least most forms needs to go away.

And besides, if we were to get rid of fake news, CNN and MSNBS would be defunct and their "reporters" out of jobs. Look at Glenn Beck since losing his job at Fox. I'd rather he was still with Fox and being kept in check in some form or fashion instead of turning into the goofball spastic type he's turned into. 

For full disclosure, other than Tucker and Hannity, I think Fox is useless and Megyn Kelly even moreso. HLN, CNN, MSNBS and CNBC are also best removed from your cable listings. And regardless of "spin" or "dishonest reporting" or whatever one wishes to call it, I'm more than able to make up my own mind about something, thank you very much.

sorry the russians made me say it


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

TedEH said:


> I see what you're going for, but I don't think what you're suggesting is possible, in a literal sense. "Truth" is not absolute enough to measure in that way- if it was, we wouldn't have politics like this in the first place. Everything a person considers to be truth is only really a "fact" in the context of that persons experience and frame of mind. People don't deal with literal objective facts- because we cant. We don't have access to that. Every piece of information we receive is filtered through our senses and sensibilities, whether we like it or not. How is anyone supposed to distinguish a "lie" from telling something we think is true but really isn't?
> 
> I always hesitate to call anything a "lie", simply because I understand that it's very possible for people to believe almost anything. A lie has intent. Spreading misinformation unintentionally because you think it's true doesn't have malicious intent, but calling it a lie implies that it does.
> 
> I think trying to regulate "what is truth" and "what is bias" would get really messy really quickly.



You sort of hint at it but don't say it outright: There's also the telephone game version of news spreading. Whether or not there is "truth in reporting" which is kinda silly to start with because people are not robots [or lizards or whatever the ....], they've already filtered it. Then the person reading or hearing their reporting filters it and tells their friends and they discuss it with other people. So even if you started with something "free of 'bias'" and "total truth in reporting" you're still going to end up with disinformation out there. 

Maybe when the government will tell us the truth about JFK, MLK and RFK, I might give them the benefit of the doubt in 'cracking down in dishonest reporting' and not discredit their effort as being that of shutting up the other side. Snopes is certainly not the one to be basing whether or not something is the truth either.


----------



## narad

Please stop referring to actual news outlets as fake news. Fake news is some random kid posting a made-up story on the internet, for fun, profit, or political agenda. When Hillary talks about fake news -- that's the fake news. When Google/Facebook say, man, we'd like to deal with fake news -- that's the fake news.

It is entirely separate from your dislike of particular news organizations, and unrelated to the Russian hacking. There's no reason to bother posting at all if you're not on point.


----------



## Vrollin

It always brightens my day to come in here and read a few posts from lefties having a mad cry...


----------



## flint757

narad said:


> Please stop referring to actual news outlets as fake news. Fake news is some random kid posting a made-up story on the internet, for fun, profit, or political agenda. When Hillary talks about fake news -- that's the fake news. When Google/Facebook say, man, we'd like to deal with fake news -- that's the fake news.
> 
> It is entirely separate from your dislike of particular news organizations, and unrelated to the Russian hacking. There's no reason to bother posting at all if you're not on point.



Really? There are several instances of MSM posting legit fake news, or highly unsubstantiated news. Look at any of our international reporting or the Standing Rock bias for some less apparent versions of such practices. WMD and the Iraq war are great examples of ....ty reporting by MSM. Are you actually contending that if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. reports something that it is fact, and not fake, purely because of their namesake? Hell, the New York Times even posted an article apologizing for their horrendously skewed coverage this election cycle. When it comes to war, veterans, protesters, etc. MSM at best lies a lot and at worst posts a lot of 'fake' news; or they make the even worse choice of not reporting on important issues all together, likely at the behest of either one of the five major media players or political organizations that have managed to weasel their way into the organizations (not a difficult feat when they've been so heavily consolidated thanks to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush). Was it not fake news when CNN tried to imply that reading Wikileaks files was illegal and you were only allowed to get the reports from them [CNN]?


----------



## narad

flint757 said:


> Really? There are several instances of MSM posting legit fake news, or highly unsubstantiated news. Look at any of our international reporting or the Standing Rock bias for some less apparent versions of such practices. WMD and the Iraq war are great examples of ....ty reporting by MSM. Are you actually contending that if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. reports something that it is fact, and not fake, purely because of their namesake? Hell, the New York Times even posted an article apologizing for their horrendously skewed coverage this election cycle. When it comes to war, veterans, protesters, etc. MSM at best lies a lot and at worst posts a lot of 'fake' news; or they make the even worse choice of not reporting on an important issue all together, likely at the behest of either one of the five major media players or political organizations that have managed to weasel their way into the organizations (not a difficult feat when they've been so heavily consolidated thanks to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush). Was it not fake news when CNN tried to imply that reading Wikileaks files was illegal and you were only allowed to get the reports from them [CNN]?



I'm contending that fake news and news bias are separate things. If people want to talk about fake news -- i.e., what Hillary was referring to, what Google/Facebook are looking at ways to combat, it's this type of news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37992793/i-write-fake-news-that-gets-shared-on-facebook

You know, and not media bias, which is what the last couple pages of posts have been about.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

flint757 said:


> Really? There are several instances of MSM posting legit fake news, or highly unsubstantiated news. Look at any of our international reporting or the Standing Rock bias for some less apparent versions of such practices. WMD and the Iraq war are great examples of ....ty reporting by MSM. Are you actually contending that if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. reports something that it is fact, and not fake, purely because of their namesake? Hell, the New York Times even posted an article apologizing for their horrendously skewed coverage this election cycle. When it comes to war, veterans, protesters, etc. MSM at best lies a lot and at worst posts a lot of 'fake' news; or they make the even worse choice of not reporting on important issues all together, likely at the behest of either one of the five major media players or political organizations that have managed to weasel their way into the organizations (not a difficult feat when they've been so heavily consolidated thanks to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush). Was it not fake news when CNN tried to imply that reading Wikileaks files was illegal and you were only allowed to get the reports from them [CNN]?



How about throwing babies out of incubators? Or the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Yeah, MSM is totally infallible.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> I'm contending that fake news and news bias are separate things. If people want to talk about fake news -- i.e., what Hillary was referring to, what Google/Facebook are looking at ways to combat, it's this type of news:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37992793/i-write-fake-news-that-gets-shared-on-facebook
> 
> You know, and not media bias, which is what the last couple pages of posts have been about.



Maybe it's because you are taking it at face value vs how it will actually be enacted. The people that want "fake news" and "anti-propaganda" laws are the same types that want the fairness doctrine to come back.


----------



## Andromalia

Vrollin said:


> It always brightens my day to come in here and read a few posts from lefties having a mad cry...



You know, somehow it's funny.

People who will suffer the most from Trump are the uneducated right wingers who believe in intelligent design, who usually have poor jobs, poor pay and basically a poor life. (Hey, they do believe in intelligent design, seriously...)
The "lefties" are usually much better off and won't be those who suffer, but they have the intellectual baggage and education to actually assess the situation, so I suppose the joke is on you. Some will tell me I shouldn't answer to a stupid taunt, but that seems to actually be representative of the US right level of education.

I'm a lefty in my own country, and I'm having a laugh when I see countryside rightwingers vote for "less state". Because the state employee reductions are done in the country, but in the city where I live and where an important right wing dude is mayor, we have a new post office full of new state employees. The victims aren't the educated lefties, thanks for worrying about us though.


----------



## Dcm81

Spaced Out Ace said:


> as if the majority of us are too stupid to determine for ourselves what is false and what isn't.





Good one


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Maybe it's because you are taking it at face value vs how it will actually be enacted. The people that want "fake news" and "anti-propaganda" laws are the same types that want the fairness doctrine to come back.



Not sure what you mean -- there won't be a law, and it won't affect broadcasters. People aren't really clamoring for a law. It will just be smart filtering on your Facebook feed, because it's about fake news on social media, and not news bias on major broadcasting networks.


----------



## tacotiklah

Vrollin said:


> It always brightens my day to come in here and read a few posts from lefties having a mad cry...



Reading that reminds me of this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMTkedIUX8U


You really should get that smug looked at before it worsens. 


That said, I'm not seriously advocating for any kind of law. I'm just trying to open discussion on what people think should be done in regards to improving accuracy in reporting. I do, however, maintain the firm belief that misinformation is very dangerous. Lies can shape government policies in harmful and violent ways with massive blowback. It's bad enough when a country institutes its own propaganda rooted in dishonesty. It's even worse when people add to the lies to push their own agendas as well. 

I really don't want my headstone to read: "Lived a quiet life right up until she was completely buried in sh*t"


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Really? There are several instances of MSM posting legit fake news, or highly unsubstantiated news. Look at any of our international reporting or the Standing Rock bias for some less apparent versions of such practices. WMD and the Iraq war are great examples of ....ty reporting by MSM. Are you actually contending that if CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. reports something that it is fact, and not fake, purely because of their namesake? Hell, the New York Times even posted an article apologizing for their horrendously skewed coverage this election cycle. When it comes to war, veterans, protesters, etc. MSM at best lies a lot and at worst posts a lot of 'fake' news; or they make the even worse choice of not reporting on important issues all together, likely at the behest of either one of the five major media players or political organizations that have managed to weasel their way into the organizations (not a difficult feat when they've been so heavily consolidated thanks to Reagan, Clinton, and Bush). Was it not fake news when CNN tried to imply that reading Wikileaks files was illegal and you were only allowed to get the reports from them [CNN]?



Not singling you out in particular, but I think a lot of the conservative leaning members of this discussion are misusing the term "fake news." 

Trump claiming the election was rigged against him was not fake news. It was an unverified claim, sure, with no factual basis to the claim, but it was 100% true that it was something he was saying. Likewise, there is no denying that, while the Bush Administration's conclusions turned out to be wrong, Colin Powell went to the floor of the UN and made the case that Iraq had chemical weapons capabilities. Those are both 100% valid news stories, just ones about people who turned out to be mistaken. 

Fake news, as is discussed here, is news reported by a media source as fact, that they know is not accurate. Stories like the Pope endorsing Donald Trump - that never happened, but the story run by a number of fake news outlets that went viral before the election claimed that it had. Not in the way that, 
"hey, Colin Powell said Iraq had WMDs, and then later admitted he was mistaken," but just straight-up lying in a news story - not making a mistake interpreting information from sources they reasonably believed to be valid, or running a story factually reporting that someone was saying something, but running stories with conclusions with no basis in reality. 

So, Trump being reported in by major media outlets for claiming the election was rigged isn't fake news. Alt-right media outlets claiming that Michelle Obama is a transgender man who kidnapped her children and their family is seeking a reward, however, IS. 

Also, that NY Times piece you referenced - did you actually read it? It was an apology, but not for "inaccurate reporting" - rather, they said they should have taken the threat Trump posed more seriously, and vowed to use the power of the press to do everything they could to do a better job holding him accountable in the future. It was a shot across the bows for the Trump administration, and not an apology to them. 

tl;dr - fake news is not news that just happens to be wrong - it's news that's knowingly wrong, and published with the intent do deceive. Let's be clear on this.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

When all of the MSM outlets were parroting the same groping stories about Donald Trump during the campaign, was that fake news?

What happened to those 8 women, or 12 women who were so savagely groped by Donald? Huh.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> When all of the MSM outlets were parroting the same groping stories about Donald Trump during the campaign, was that fake news?
> 
> What happened to those 8 women, or 12 women who were so savagely groped by Donald? Huh.



Considering there were a number of women making public claims stating that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted them, yeah, that was a verifiability true news story that a number of women had alleged he had sexually assaulted them. Similarly, news coverage of Trump's press conference before the second debate with three women who alleged Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted them was also "real" news - there was no denying these allegations had been made. 

Whether or not the allegations end up being true is a different story - that's for the courts to decide, but that the allegations were made was "real" news. 

The Pope endorsing Donald Trump, however, never happened, and news stories claiming he has and quoting his "endorsement" are fake news. 

You understand the distinction, I trust?


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> You understand the distinction, I trust?



You said it so much better than me. I can only hope it's 100% clear at this point: fake news is not media bias.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Accusations are "news" to you when they are about Trump. See 'Trump gropes women'

Accusations are sensationalist right wing "fake news" when they are about the DNC. See '#pizzagate'


All accusations are created equally, or they are not?. 

Is that what your "fake news ministry" will be determining?


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Accusations are "news" to you when they are about Trump. See 'Trump gropes women'



They're news when they have some degree of credibility. Who would have thought that a guy who says you have to "grab them by the ....." is accused of having grabbed women inappropriately? Accusations which date back long before his run for office.



CapnForsaggio said:


> Accusations are sensationalist right wing "fake news" when they are about the DNC. See '#pizzagate'



"It has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be false by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News."

Quick question: do you believe the DNC is in charge of a food-restaurant-based child sex trafficking ring? Because I've been thinking of you as someone with an opposing viewpoint and not a complete idiot up until this point.


----------



## TedEH

CapnForsaggio said:


> All accusations are created equally, or they are not?



The distinction is whether or not an accusation really happened in the first place. Reporting on a lie is not in itself a lie.

Someone makes a claim, news reports the claim was made = news.
Nobody made any claim, news reports that someone made a claim anyway = fake news.

Whether or not the accusation turns out to be true or false has no bearing on whether or not it was "real news".


----------



## You

Andromalia said:


> You know, somehow it's funny.
> 
> People who will suffer the most from Trump are the uneducated right wingers who believe in intelligent design, who usually have poor jobs, poor pay and basically a poor life. (Hey, they do believe in intelligent design, seriously...)
> The "lefties" are usually much better off and won't be those who suffer, but they have the intellectual baggage and education to actually assess the situation, so I suppose the joke is on you. Some will tell me I shouldn't answer to a stupid taunt, but that seems to actually be representative of the US right level of education.
> 
> I'm a lefty in my own country, and I'm having a laugh when I see countryside rightwingers vote for "less state". Because the state employee reductions are done in the country, but in the city where I live and where an important right wing dude is mayor, we have a new post office full of new state employees. The victims aren't the educated lefties, thanks for worrying about us though.


Ignorance and stupidity is universal. It applies to all individuals, regardless of political leanings, race, gender, esc. There are just as many uneducated "leftists" as there are "right-wingers". An example of such would be radical SJWs and feminists. There are as well a plethora of highly educated right leaning individuals as well. An individual political beliefs should not be a determining factor in making a critical judgement of their intelligence.


----------



## TedEH

You said:


> An individual political beliefs should not be a determining factor in making a critical judgement of their intelligence.



We need those like buttons back.


----------



## narad

You said:


> Ignorance and stupidity is universal. It applies to all individuals, regardless of political leanings, race, gender, esc. There are just as many uneducated "leftists" as there are "right-wingers". An example of such would be radical SJWs and feminists. There are as well a plethora of highly educated right leaning individuals as well. An individual political beliefs should not be a determining factor in making a critical judgement of their intelligence.



Yes, but statistically if you're uneducated, it's highly likely you voted Trump. To the largest extent we've ever measured with extensive exit polling:







I think it's fair to argue that with lack of education, an individual is consequently less capable of making a reasoned, well-informed decision.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

narad said:


> Yes, but statistically if you're uneducated, it's highly likely you voted Trump. To the largest extent we've ever measured with extensive exit polling:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's fair to argue that with lack of education, an individual is consequently less capable of making a reasoned, well-informed decision.



so what part of populism was not understood before? 

then again this statement ignores the actual plight of blue collar workers and hides it behind stats of education. 

best way to ignore the needs of a population? disown it with a statistic

-----------------------------------------------

but most importantly, Assange once again maintained his leak source was not russian and clapper admitted he has no idea where the Wikileaks info came from. 

that should be infuriating to all forum members whose moniker rhymes with poo


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> I think it's fair to argue that with lack of education, an individual is consequently less capable of making a reasoned, well-informed decision.



If you're implying that a lack of formal education makes a person stupid, I can't disagree more. I've never liked that association, despite the fact that being college educated, I'd be the "smart" one person in the comparison - I know plenty of people who are very educated but not very smart, as well as people who never finished even a high school level education but are easily above average intelligence.

There's an important distinction to be made between people who have gone through a system designed to give people employable skills, and people who have general knowledge or the ability to use logic and reason, etc.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> They're news when they have some degree of credibility. Who would have thought that a guy who says you have to "grab them by the ....." is accused of having grabbed women inappropriately? Accusations which date back long before his run for office.
> 
> 
> 
> "It has been discredited by a wide array of sources across the political spectrum, described as a "fictitious conspiracy theory" by the District of Columbia Police Department and determined to be false by multiple organizations including Snopes.com, The New York Times, and Fox News."
> 
> Quick question: do you believe the DNC is in charge of a food-restaurant-based child sex trafficking ring? Because I've been thinking of you as someone with an opposing viewpoint and not a complete idiot up until this point.



I am not trying to sell you on pizzagate.... I AM trying to convince you that you have exactly as much evidence that Trump gropede those women as you have of the DNC trafficking children. 

Considering one of them "fake news" and one of them "real news" is a construction within your mind.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am not trying to sell you on pizzagate.... I AM trying to convince you that you have exactly as much evidence that Trump gropede those women as you have of the DNC trafficking children.
> 
> Considering one of them "fake news" and one of them "real news" is a construction within your mind.



I don't agree. Trump vs. women-groped is he-said/she-said, but with first person accounts. He has been placed in these locations, with many of these people. What's undetermined is merely the exact nature of their interaction. But the story, as presented, is a real news story.

In comparison, the idea that information in a wikleaks document contains a secret code for organizing a child sex ring is just speculation with no grounding in reality. There are no first hand accounts. You might as well look in to wikileaks for text patterns indicating the end of the world, or a UFO take-over. 

So these are different things: one has many first-hand sources, whose validity has not been determined. The other has no sources (and defies common sense, motive, opportunity, etc.) 

Now, if a girl came forth and said, "Help! I escaped from the DNC sex ring!" I would trust that it would no longer be considered a fake news / conspiracy, until further information to substantiate or discredit her was found.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> If you're implying that a lack of formal education makes a person stupid, I can't disagree more. I've never liked that association, despite the fact that being college educated, I'd be the "smart" one person in the comparison - I know plenty of people who are very educated but not very smart, as well as people who never finished even a high school level education but are easily above average intelligence.
> 
> There's an important distinction to be made between people who have gone through a system designed to give people employable skills, and people who have general knowledge or the ability to use logic and reason, etc.



I won't argue that it makes them stupid, so don't put words in my mouth, but it would be hard to deny that there isn't a statistical correlation between someone's degree of education and their ability to reason and to think critically, their experience with peers of different cultures/races/values, as well as their engagement with current events, when assessed at a macro level (like the whole of the US). All of these being very important for understanding how to vote in your own best interest -- something that was clearly lacking in brexit, and would probably be true of the US election if we had figured out exactly what we should expect from Trump. 

We'll see though -- I'm actually liking this Trump push for US-based manufacturing, though his appeal to produce iphones in the US also demonstrates a huge lack of understanding when it comes to the economies of microelectronics.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> I won't argue that it makes them stupid, so don't put words in my mouth, but it would be hard to deny that there isn't a statistical correlation between someone's degree of education and their ability to reason and to think critically, their experience with peers of different cultures/races/values, as well as their engagement with current events. All of these being very important for understanding how to vote in your own best interest -- something that was clearly lacking in brexit, and would probably be true of the US election if we had figured out exactly what we should expect from Trump.
> 
> We'll see though -- I'm actually liking this Trump push for US-based manufacturing, though his appeal to produce iphones in the US also demonstrates a huge lack of understanding when it comes to the economies of microelectronics.



If the so-called "higher educated" were able to think with reason and critically, they wouldn't have needed safe spaces, play-doh and crayons.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If the so-called "higher educated" were able to think with reason and critically, they wouldn't have needed safe spaces, play-doh and crayons.



That would be a much better burn if you were on a right-wing circle jerk site and not a guitar forum.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I don't agree. Trump vs. women-groped is he-said/she-said, but with first person accounts. He has been placed in these locations, with many of these people. What's undetermined is merely the exact nature of their interaction. But the story, as presented, is a real news story.
> 
> In comparison, the idea that information in a wikleaks document contains a secret code for organizing a child sex ring is just speculation with no grounding in reality. There are no first hand accounts. You might as well look in to wikileaks for text patterns indicating the end of the world, or a UFO take-over.
> 
> So these are different things: one has many first-hand sources, whose validity has not been determined. The other has no sources (and defies common sense, motive, opportunity, etc.)
> 
> Now, if a girl came forth and said, "Help! I escaped from the DNC sex ring!" I would trust that it would no longer be considered a fake news / conspiracy, until further information to substantiate or discredit her was found.



Yeah, this. I wish I had something to add, but what we're talking about is firsthand accounts from real confirmed people who had provably interacted with Trump, vs. wild internet conspiracy theories. 

The irony is "pizzagate" became a real story when someone went to the pizza place and started shooting the place up, which is part of the reason why we're having this conversation.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> That would be a much better burn if you were on a right-wing circle jerk site and not a guitar forum.



It wasn't a burn; it was pointing out the flaw in your attempt at logic.


----------



## Drew

Ibanezsam4 said:


> then again this statement ignores the actual plight of blue collar workers and hides it behind stats of education.
> 
> best way to ignore the needs of a population? disown it with a statistic



Maybe this is just nitpicking, but I'm not quite sure I see your point here. I mean, clearly there's a pretty big correlation between "not having a college degree" and "being a blue collar worker," and I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that a lot of the reason Trump won was that he won over blue collar white voters. You could argue that narad is being overly reductionist by equating "stupidity" and "not having a college degree, and I'd probably agree with that, but there's also absolutely no denying that one of the biggest predictors of whether or not someone would vote for Trump was whether or not they'd graduated from college.

And maybe the biggest challenge Trump will face, and one IMO I'm still very uncertain on whether he actually has any interest in addressing, is how he plans on improving the lot of blue collar workers in this country, or barring that how he plans to expand access to college education. Otherwise he's likely to have a little bit of a backlash on his hands, and the fact that the GOP seems on track to start his presidency by focusing on dismantling the ACA doesn't leave me with much hope for his odds of success.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It wasn't a burn; it was pointing out the flaw in your attempt at logic.



Really? Because I'm sure most members here can recognize that someone's sensitivity has no bearing on their ability to think critically. That's apart from the hyperbole that is safe spaces and the like, which I have yet to encounter -- and I work at a university. 

So in short, what you're saying doesn't accurately characterize the population we're trying to discuss, and even if it did, it would be a poor leap to think that overly sensitive students can't follow a logical discourse.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> Really? Because I'm sure most members here can recognize that someone's sensitivity has no bearing on their ability to think critically. That's apart from the hyperbole that is safe spaces and the like, which I have yet to encounter -- and I work at a university.
> 
> So in short, what you're saying doesn't accurately characterize the population we're trying to discuss, and even if it did, it would be a poor leap to think that overly sensitive students can't follow a logical discourse.



Being hysterical hinders one from thinking critically and using sound reasoning. Kinda hard to be rational when you're hysterical. Just saying.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Maybe this is just nitpicking, but I'm not quite sure I see your point here. I mean, clearly there's a pretty big correlation between "not having a college degree" and "being a blue collar worker," and I think it's pretty widely acknowledged that a lot of the reason Trump won was that he won over blue collar white voters. You could argue that narad is being overly reductionist by equating "stupidity" and "not having a college degree, and I'd probably agree with that, but there's also absolutely no denying that one of the biggest predictors of whether or not someone would vote for Trump was whether or not they'd graduated from college.
> 
> And maybe the biggest challenge Trump will face, and one IMO I'm still very uncertain on whether he actually has any interest in addressing, is how he plans on improving the lot of blue collar workers in this country, or barring that how he plans to expand access to college education. Otherwise he's likely to have a little bit of a backlash on his hands, and the fact that the GOP seems on track to start his presidency by focusing on dismantling the ACA doesn't leave me with much hope for his odds of success.



He's expanding their access to jobs based on his promises. He's also said that he plans to dismantle the ACA to replace it with something that will work better for people. While parts of the ACA are fine, ie existing conditions, other parts, such as being forced to buy it or pay a fine, are utter bull.....


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Being hysterical hinders one from thinking critically and using sound reasoning. Kinda hard to be rational when you're hysterical. Just saying.



Your premises:
-- People who call for safe spaces are hysterical [*no one is hysterical most of the time]
-- Hysterical people can't think rationally

Your conclusion:
-- People with higher education can't think critically

Missing pieces:
-- Higher educated people call for safe spaces [*people who actively protest about safe spaces represent an extremely tiny portion of those with higher education. Most of the people who have a higher education received it well before that would have even been a term]

Make sense now? This is at the level where you can basically type it into Prolog.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> Your premises:
> -- People who call for safe spaces are hysterical [*no one is hysterical most of the time]
> -- Hysterical people can't think rationally
> 
> Your conclusion:
> -- People with higher education can't think critically
> 
> Missing pieces:
> -- Higher educated people call for safe spaces [*people who actively protest about safe spaces represent an extremely tiny portion of those with higher education. Most of the people who have a higher education received it well before that would have even been a term]
> 
> Make sense now? This is at the level where you can basically type it into Prolog.



Yeah, smug liberal millennials certainly definitely aren't get hysterical at all over the election results or some meager slight, either real or imagined [microaggressions]. My apologies for missing the term "millennials" to differentiate.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, smug liberal millennials certainly definitely aren't get hysterical at all over the election results or some meager slight, either real or imagined [microaggressions]. My apologies for missing the term "millennials" to differentiate.



It doesn't help any -- the proportion of millennials that actively protest for safe spaces is negligible. Classic hasty generalization fallacy. Which you know...many people learn about during their higher education.


----------



## wankerness

Jesus christ. What a terrible set of posts. I never thought I'd see someone defending pizzagate. 

I like that a lot of people that rant about millennials actually are one (it's anyone currently 18-34).


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> It doesn't help any -- the proportion of millennials that actively protest for safe spaces is negligible. Classic hasty generalization fallacy. Which you know...many people learn about during their higher education.



Smugness isn't a very good personality trait on you. Maybe you should try something else for a change.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Smugness isn't a very good personality trait on you. Maybe you should try something else for a change.



You're mistaking annoyance for smugness. You can't be smug without a sense of satisfaction, and I find no satisfaction in wasting an entire page of posts to deconstruct your argument, which was stupid even when taken at face value, in the hopes that it might evolve into a more refined argument of an opposing viewpoint, and that I might learn something in the process. That's the nice thing about discussing something like politics on a forum of a completely unrelated topic: you get exposed to some different viewpoints from outside og your usual clique. 

But here you are constructing posts like you're reaching into a bag of conservative buzzwords, throwing them up here with little rhyme or reason, continually shying away from addressing criticisms with the things you say, and frankly just fulfilling all the poor stereotypes of the alt-right. So can we just go ahead and swap you out for some pro-Trump member who actually knows what they're talking about?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> You're mistaking annoyance for smugness. You can't be smug without a sense of satisfaction, and I find no satisfaction in wasting an entire page of posts to deconstruct your argument, which was stupid even when taken at face value, in the hopes that it might evolve into a more refined argument of an opposing viewpoint, and that I might learn something in the process. That's the nice thing about discussing something like politics on a forum of a completely unrelated topic: you get exposed to some different viewpoints from outside og your usual clique.
> 
> But here you are constructing posts like you're reaching into a bag of conservative buzzwords, throwing them up here with little rhyme or reason, continually shying away from addressing criticisms with the things you say, and frankly just fulfilling all the poor stereotypes of the alt-right. So can we just go ahead and swap you out for some pro-Trump member who actually knows what they're talking about?



Jesus Christ, man. For being "educated," you sure do enjoy run on sentences. Oh, and ad hominem attacks. You're quite good at that. But just for the sake of continually laughing at your smug, rude level of discourse, what "poor stereotypes" are you referring to? This should be comical. 

Don't be afraid to make absurd assumptions about people; you haven't thus far.


----------



## vilk

^Ace, that sh/t is pathetic. Just cut it out. Narad comes off as a smart-ass because at least outwardly he seems actually to be a smart guy, and all the points I see that he's written seem reasonable, while what you write is literally trash. The worst kind of provocative, substance-less crap. That post you've just made is not discussion of politics, it's legible butthurtedness, and it makes no real point. I realize the same could be said about this post I'm writing now, but at least I'm not trying to put on the facade that it is intellectual discourse. Just an invitation to take a step back and actually look at your own spew. Hey, people should probably do it to me now and then as well. 


There might be 15-20 obese women with ugly hair that are offended by anything and everything on some select college campuses, but to suggest that anyone politically liberal is somehow a "snowflake", "SJW", [buzzword], [buzzword], or [buzzword] is literally the same thing as calling yourself a Klansman for being politically conservative.

And what's with this recent motif of being educated as a demerit? Look, even if it were true, it doesn't bring merit to lack of education; that would be a false dichotomy.


----------



## wankerness

vilk said:


> ^Ace, that sh/t is pathetic. Just cut it out. Narad comes off as a smart-ass because at least outwardly he seems actually to be a smart guy, and all the points I see that he's written seem reasonable, while what you write is literally trash. The worst kind of provocative, substance-less crap. That post you've just made is not discussion of politics, it's legible butthurtedness, and it makes no real point. I realize the same could be said about this post I'm writing now, but at least I'm not trying to put on the facade that it is intellectual discourse. Just an invitation to take a step back and actually look at your own spew. Hey, people should probably do it to me now and then as well.
> 
> 
> There might be 15-20 obese women with ugly hair that are offended by anything and everything on some select college campuses, but to suggest that anyone politically liberal is somehow a "snowflake", "SJW", [buzzword], [buzzword], or [buzzword] is literally the same thing as calling yourself a Klansman for being politically conservative.
> 
> And what's with this recent motif of being educated as a demerit? Look, even if it were true, it doesn't bring merit to lack of education; that would be a false dichotomy.



Agreed with all this, completely.

As someone who works at a college campus and regularly has to deal with fallout from complaints of the student body, there are a single digit of the "rage-o-sphere" on campus. Like, I think TWO students on the entire campus have ever done any of that crap that you're accusing "millennials" in general of doing (micro-aggressions, etc). It's just a boogeyman of some particular online echo chambers. To be perfectly frank, we've gotten FAR more complaints from conservatives who say they're being attacked when the feminist club puts up a poster that's shaped like a vulva, or when a group says they're having an anti-racism speech day, etc. I can remember at least 20 incidents of conservatives demanding their own safe-space this year alone.


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> I won't argue that it makes them stupid, so don't put words in my mouth



I don't think that was the statement you intended to make, but the implication is there between the lines, intentional or not. I agree that there's what looks like a correlation between level of education and the direction people vote - but I don't think they're directly linked in the way that's implied, or at the very least, it's not as surface-level a connection as that.

I feel like, in more broad terms, we're comparing people who practically live in different worlds. I'm generalizing of course, but the person whose life exists within campuses and office buildings experiences an entirely different world than one whose entire life exists in a vehicle, field, factory, etc. I think people voted the way they did because they use entirely different systems of valuations and priorities, not necessarily because of any disagreements on individual points, or for lack of being able to comprehend those points. I don't doubt that people who voted either way likely share a lot of individual values, but don't weigh those points the same way in terms of motivation to vote. In other words, it's less "I disagree" and more "I have other things to worry about".

I just wanted to make a point of steering around the whole idea that intelligence and formal education mean the same thing- because they don't.



> it would be hard to deny that there isn't a statistical correlation between someone's degree of education and their ability to reason and to think critically


I don't think that's even close to true - which was my point. Ability to reason or lack thereof isn't something we have a stat for, so we've substituted in "voted for Trump" (or whatever other thing we disagree with) in the place of a fair measurement for stupidity (if there even is such a thing). We're applying our own value systems to people and assuming that if people don't line up with that, then it must be because they lack reason.


----------



## bostjan

It's really fun interacting with you guys here. 

To me, this thread is starting to smell like it's a couple months past its expiry date, though.  I would expect a mod to likely shut it down pretty soon at this rate. 

Just thought I'd throw that into the fray.

Happy New Year everyone!


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Jesus Christ, man. For being "educated," you sure do enjoy run on sentences. Oh, and ad hominem attacks. You're quite good at that. But just for the sake of continually laughing at your smug, rude level of discourse, what "poor stereotypes" are you referring to? This should be comical.
> 
> Don't be afraid to make absurd assumptions about people; you haven't thus far.



Alright. I don't think there's anything to gain from continuing this is discussion, for you, for me, or for anyone else reading this thread. There's one thing I do know for certain -- like Godwin's law, when someone's trying to criticize your grammar instead of discussing the content of what you're saying, any chance at a fruitful discourse has truly run its course.

But at any rate, 'ad hominem' is when you similarly evade addressing someone's points by insulting their character. We don't appear to be debating anything, so it's not a logical fallacy -- it's just an insult.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> It's really fun interacting with you guys here.
> 
> To me, this thread is starting to smell like it's a couple months past its expiry date, though.  I would expect a mod to likely shut it down pretty soon at this rate.
> 
> Just thought I'd throw that into the fray.
> 
> Happy New Year everyone!



Honestly, Bost, I hate this sort of post even worse than trolling. If this is how you feel, why would you bother to write it?

Also, any of the other posts in PC&E that say "this website is for guitars not for no-no meanie heads"... you do understand that this section of SSO isn't about guitars, right?


----------



## TedEH

vilk said:


> @Ted Are you sure you're not confusing correlation with causation?



No? At no point have I correlated anything that wasn't already related by someone else. If I did, I didn't mean to. If anything I'm trying to specifically do the opposite. I'm saying lack of ability to reason is NOT caused by lack of education.

I'm suggesting that we're substituting personal valuations in place of where we have no data for something as vague as "ability to reason" - which is all the more reason to avoid attaching causation to correlation. "Educated = Smart = Better" is a personal valuation (and not true in any absolute sense), despite being generally accepted as true, but that's what a big chart mapping level of education to a choice we'd disagree with strongly implies.

To put it blunt, I'm basically saying "inb4 voting differently than I would is a sign of being dumb. See here's a chart showing dumb people voted for trump."


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Honestly, Bost, I hate this sort of post even worse than trolling. If this is how you feel, why would you bother to write it?
> 
> Also, any of the other posts in PC&E that say "this website is for guitars not for no-no meanie heads"... you do understand that this section of SSO isn't about guitars, right?



I'm assuming you read my post wrong. I have no problem with the thread, in general, just the posts back and forth between two particular users seemed to be going off on a tangent of personal attacks rather than discussion of the topic. I take that to mean that the thread has likely covered any interesting topics at hand already and is now fading into stuff like that, and this post, and your post that prompted this post. It no longer really has anything to do with Trump, or even the alt-right, for that matter. It's simply OT off of OT, and can just so easily spiral into a ....storm that means the end of the thread. I think you guys have a lot of insightful things to say about guitars, metal, music, politics and current events, etc., and I'd hate to see anybody get banned for posting something personal in a thread that's in its death throes. I thought I could keep my point lighthearted by adding emoticons and not getting at all specific about it, but I suppose that strategy failed as well.


----------



## vilk

@ted Yeah I get that other stuff, and I already changed my post to say "nvm". HOWEVER




TedEH said:


> I'm saying lack of ability to reason is NOT caused by lack of education.



I didn't notice that anyone suggested that. At least, the quote you had in the comment I responded to said clearly "correlation", and not causation. That's all I meant by it.


----------



## TedEH

You're right, the thing I quoted did say "correlation". I guess the cause part was either implied or entirely absent, and could have just been how I interpreted the info.

I still stand by my opinion though that "ability to reason" is not a meaningfully measurable thing that we have any data for, and that we're using that as a placeholder for personal valuations of people's intelligence.

Edit: But again, that's an opinion, and possibly just a matter of how I interpret people's intentions.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> I have no problem with the thread, in general, just the posts back and forth between two particular users seemed to be going off on a tangent of personal attacks rather than discussion of the topic. I take that to mean that the thread has likely covered any interesting topics at hand already and is now fading into stuff like that, and this post, and your post that prompted this post. It no longer really has anything to do with Trump, or even the alt-right, for that matter. It's simply OT off of OT, and can just so easily spiral into a ....storm that means the end of the thread. I think you guys have a lot of insightful things to say about guitars, metal, music, politics and current events, etc., and I'd hate to see anybody get banned for posting something personal in a thread that's in its death throes. I thought I could keep my point lighthearted by adding emoticons and not getting at all specific about it, but I suppose that strategy failed as well.




It might just be a particular pet peeve of mine. Maybe no one else cares  

It's my opinion that threads are "alive" and should be allowed to grow and change and devolve and then perhaps re-right themselves, I've seen it happen... and honestly, I like a good debate. or even an argument. I enjoy writing and reading them. I understand if you don't, but I guess I just don't appreciate people whining about it because it's no bother to me.

In my experience using online forums, when two users are allowed to bother each other back and forth it's because the thread is dead or dying. In that case, who cares? Why is it a problem?
But on the other hand, if it's a thread that isn't dead or dying, other users will generally jump in to start writing on topic and then replying to each other, the little feuds get lost by the wayside. ymmv


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> I don't think that was the statement you intended to make, but the implication is there between the lines, intentional or not.



Well I think I can clarify. I don't mean to say that because someone isn't educated that they're dumb or don't know how to think logically, and I don't think that implication is even there. That's really the contrapositive of what I want to say. I think there's more of a guarantee climbing up the educational ladder that one has to have reasoning and critical thinking skills, as they become a prerequisite for performance well and making it to the next step. So if I'm talking to an MIT PhD, I'm just going to assume that person has a really top notch ability to absorb information, think critically about it, and apply it in a novel way, because for the most part, that's their day job. It's not to say that a lack of education is a guarantee that someone lacks this.

There's also some entry barrier that would help reinforce that -- people who have trouble thinking critically will find it more difficult to get into (good) universities, and therefore bolster the average critical thinking skills of college graduates over the general population. 

So in general, if you're going to pool two populations for a decision, where you provide them with a briefing on the background knowledge, the outcome is not directly relevant to either of them, I mean - you'd choose the college graduates, right? Generally I think on the macro level this is a safe call. I realize this doesn't apply to elections, but I just want to put some of the anti-educational talk behind us.



TedEH said:


> I feel like, in more broad terms, we're comparing people who practically live in different worlds. I'm generalizing of course, but the person whose life exists within campuses and office buildings experiences an entirely different world than one whose entire life exists in a vehicle, field, factory, etc. I think people voted the way they did because they use entirely different systems of valuations and priorities, not necessarily because of any disagreements on individual points, or for lack of being able to comprehend those points. I don't doubt that people who voted either way likely share a lot of individual values, but don't weigh those points the same way in terms of motivation to vote. In other words, it's less "I disagree" and more "I have other things to worry about".



I totally agree.



TedEH said:


> I don't think that's even close to true - which was my point. Ability to reason or lack thereof isn't something we have a stat for, so we've substituted in "voted for Trump" (or whatever other thing we disagree with) in the place of a fair measurement for stupidity (if there even is such a thing). We're applying our own value systems to people and assuming that if people don't line up with that, then it must be because they lack reason.



Mmm, in the US election I don't have a strong argument either way. But 2 things: with Brexit, it has been absolutely shown that a huge group of people voted against their own interests, in exit polling that broke down their stances on particular subcomponents of what Brexit entails. And in this particular case, you had primarily educated city dwellers voting against Brexit, and quieter towns / rural areas voting in ways that will in many ways hurt them disproportionately more than those in the city.

I don't know how prevalent that sort of thing was with the US elections - as I hinted earlier - it was really hard to discern what candidates stood for in terms of policy, so it's in many ways a lot harder to, in ignorance, vote against your own interests.

But just an anecdote: I was on the phone with my grandmother prior to the election and while we don't usually get into politics I said something to the point of, "I mean, no one in this family is going to vote for Trump, right?" ...a pause... "Well Hillary - she has some crazy ideas" (we had just talked about the wall, so I thought this was a ridiculous segue) "What crazy ideas?" "Well, she wants to tax inheritance." -- Now my grandmother is basically terminal, and my grandfather's dying words were to leave something for my dad, so this is *the* defining issue for her. 

But I did some Googling -- Hillary wanted to decrease the minimum inheritance which triggers heavier taxation to something like 5 million. Trump wanted to get rid of it altogether. And here is my grandma, ready to vote for Trump over an issue which doesn't affect her or my family in the least, and is a pretty terrible policy change in general IMO. I dug deeper -- she has a knitting circle, literally, in which they discuss politics and there's one slightly younger women that's basically their sole source of political information. When I think about how misinformation played a part in the election, this is actually where my mind goes, and in terms of education, I have to believe that people who are educated have, on average, less of a tendency to wind up being mislead by poor sources of information. I can't prove that, it's just accumulation of anecdotal experiences through life, but I'd be open if anyone had studies to prove otherwise.


----------



## wankerness

One thing I really hate about current political discussions is how any criticism of Trump tends to result in "HILLARY IS JUST AS BAD." She's totally out of the equation! The discussion should solely be about Trump's policies now. It doesn't matter at all whether Hillary would have been worse, his stuff should be examined for what it is, cause that's all that matters.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> It might just be a particular pet peeve of mine. Maybe no one else cares
> 
> It's my opinion that threads are "alive" and should be allowed to grow and change and devolve and then perhaps re-right themselves, I've seen it happen... and honestly, I like a good debate. or even an argument. I enjoy writing and reading them. I understand if you don't, but I guess I just don't appreciate people whining about it because it's no bother to me.
> 
> In my experience using online forums, when two users are allowed to bother each other back and forth it's because the thread is dead or dying. In that case, who cares? Why is it a problem?
> But on the other hand, if it's a thread that isn't dead or dying, other users will generally jump in to start writing on topic and then replying to each other, the little feuds get lost by the wayside. ymmv



So if you perceived my comment as complaining, and that bothered you, why hasn't your complaining about it bothered you? I don't know, it just seems...inconsistent.

I think I already explained the motivation behind my comment, so, well, if that isn't clear, then I don't know what else to say.

In general, this thread just sort of reflects the political climate in the USA - everyone wanting to jump down someone else's throat over something.

I thought this entire nonsense with Russia was about as hypocritical as it gets: the DNC was exposed, and no one within the DNC faced any consequences for it, yet Obama lashed back at Russia, over the intelligence that pointede the leak toward Russia. Guys, are you forgetting that this is the same intelligence agency that found nukes in Iraq?!

...but then, this fake news debate. Seriously, what are people arguing over?! The facts are the facts. And if a news agency reports something it received from another reporting agency, how on Earth is that equivalent to people just flat out making .... up?! And why is this even a debate? It seems all pretty damn elementary to me. We might as well argue whether the sky is more purple or green, before we have a picnic -who cares whether it will rain or snow or get hit by a hurricane?

What I'm saying is that the facts are that the DNC specifically favoured one candidate in the primaries, cheated in the debates, and did some generally low quality and relatively inconsequential cheating during the election, and got caught. Who caught them is really not as interesting as what they got caught doing, especially when the evidence is pretty unclear who did it. When Nixon was caught in Watergate, were people right or wrong to witch-hunt after the informant? 

And "Pizzagate?" Come on, seriously, it's only a thing because someone believed it. Why can we not seem to agree that crazy shooter is crazy?!

I'm all for intelligent debate, too, but what are we even debating? Is there anything over which to disagree, without someone seeming to be arguing from absurdity?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

wankerness said:


> One thing I really hate about current political discussions is how any criticism of Trump tends to result in "HILLARY IS JUST AS BAD." She's totally out of the equation! The discussion should solely be about Trump's policies now. It doesn't matter at all whether Hillary would have been worse, his stuff should be examined for what it is, cause that's all that matters.



When you have to vote relative to the lesser of 2 evils, you frame your political thoughts that way... why is this incorrect?


----------



## vilk

^I think he means because the election is now over.

It just happened to me on another site. I said something about Trump being caught in a lie...

"Hillary was caught in many lies!"

Yeah, ok, and...? Trump's the president[elect], and he still got caught in a lie.


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> [lots of stuff]



I can't argue against any of that. 

Honestly, I think that my poking at the whole education vs intelligence thing just ended up prompting a deeper exploration of what either of us was trying to get at - so mission accomplished on my end I guess.

My thinking was along the lines of how there's been a lot of projection of traits onto people based on their voting habits rather than trying to step back and examine the situation (or, as you just did, step closer and expose details that put everything into a clear context).


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> I'm all for intelligent debate, too, but what are we even debating?



Discussion doesn't have to be debate. Nothing wrong with just putting thoughts out there.


----------



## vilk

^it's also worth noting something most obvious: Politics are opinions. Just like heavy metal vs hip hop. I can try to explain using data or statistics why heavy metal is "better", but in the end it's probably not going to make sense on an objective level. Because it's not an objective matter. It's a subjective matter. As in, correct vs incorrect, good vs bad, right vs wrong is subject to individual evaluation on the basis of personal taste. To try to say that everyone with a shared political opinion is "the same" is tantamount to saying that everyone who listens to heavy metal is the same.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> I can't argue against any of that.
> 
> Honestly, I think that my poking at the whole education vs intelligence thing just ended up prompting a deeper exploration of what either of us was trying to get at - so mission accomplished on my end I guess.
> 
> My thinking was along the lines of how there's been a lot of projection of traits onto people based on their voting habits rather than trying to step back and examine the situation (or, as you just did, step closer and expose details that put everything into a clear context).



Yea, I think it's made me realize that what I want to see are charts of how people vote based on education, controlled for area, and how people vote based on area, controlled for education. It doesn't wholly "un-conflate" the two issues, but it would be much more informative.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> ^it's also worth nothing something most obvious: Politics are opinions. Just like heavy metal vs hip hop. I can try to explain using data or statistics why heavy metal is "better", but in the end it's probably not going to make sense on an objective level. Because it's not an objective matter. It's a subjective matter. As in, correct vs incorrect, good vs bad, right vs wrong is subject to individual evaluation on the basis of personal taste. To try to say that everyone with a shared political opinion is "the same" is tantamount to saying that everyone who listens to heavy metal is the same.



Whether hip hop is better or worse than heavy metal has nary the ramifications of whether Hitler is better than Hindenburg, for example.

Complex is not equivalent to subjective. I repeat complex *is not* equivalent to subjective. In politics, time will tell if predictions are correct, and there is no scientific method for determining anything, but you still try something and observe the correlations between those things you try and the events that follow. Causation is not really clear, but, just because a scientific approach is not completely viable does not mean that it's all a matter of opinion, it's just complicated and the data set is never complete.

That said, we are now on the brink of entering the era of Donald Trump as president. It could be a good era, or it could be a bad era, based upon a lot of things. But still, we can predict which it will be, and then, in four years, we will see if those predictions were right or wrong. People are predicting things all over the map, because we have managed to become so incredibly polarized as a nation, politically. In how many other cases, though, has such a drastic political move as electing an outsider with totalitarian inklings and binary morals ever been a good thing for any other nation in history?

I'm no political expert, but I took politics at university. If anybody here has a graduate degree in politics, or economics, I would love to hear what they thought of our hope for the future under these circumstances.


----------



## TedEH

vilk said:


> everyone who listens to heavy metal is the same.



Immediately makes me think of those articles you see passed around on facebook about how "science has proven drummers are smarter than average!" or some other nonsense.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> It could be a good era, or it could be a bad era, based upon a lot of things.



Including but not limited to: Individual opinion. For example:

[A] Is a man brought up Muslim in a strict Sharia setting (and thought it was good). If Donald Trump takes away women's rights, it will be a good era for [A]

But * was brought up in the USA, and is a woman. If Donald Trump takes away women's rights, it will be a bad era for *


----------



## wankerness

CapnForsaggio said:


> When you have to vote relative to the lesser of 2 evils, you frame your political thoughts that way... why is this incorrect?



Cause she no longer matters. She's not the greater/lesser of two evils anymore. If Trump does something bad now, and someone says something about it, bringing up a total hypothetical that can't happen means nothing as the defense and makes no sense. It did when talking about policies BEFORE THE ELECTION. 

It just has been driving me nuts. It always seems to be the response in the handful of discussions I've gotten pulled into IRL. "I can't believe Trump appointed that guy!!" "WELL BWAHHH EMAILS CORRUPT ARGH!" O K ???? How is that responding to the point, in any way? She's gone! You're not defending his actions, you're practically saying "well, in an alternative universe things could be worse!!"


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> While parts of the ACA are fine, ie *existing conditions*, other parts, such as *being forced to buy it or pay a fine*, are utter bull.....



You understand how those parts are related, though, right? 

The insurance industry, at least unless we choose to nationalize it, is a for-profit industry. Insurance companies are effectively economic risk aggregators - they agree to take on the economic risk of large but unlikely medical bills in return for guaranteed small reoccurring payments, with the idea being that over a large pool of policies, money in (in the form of small reoccurring payments) is larger than money out (in the form of insurance claims), and that the insurer can earn a profit while its customers no longer have to worry about the fairly remote chance of large unexpected medical bills. 

That works well enough when the insurer's customers are expected to be reasonably healthy and claims are expected to be relatively unlikely. If you bring a customer with a pre-existing condition requiring expensive treatment into the pool, though, then suddenly those claims become _highly_ likely. At that point, one of three things has to happen: 


The insurance company takes on the high risk customer, and the overall pool of customers has to absorb higher claim payouts, which means that the per-customer cost of coverage has to go up (we'll come back to this, as this is what is happening)
The insurance company takes on the high risk customer, but does so at a significantly higher policy premium cost. This, under the ACA, is no longer legal, because insurance companies are no longer allowed to take pre-existing conditions into account when selling policies. 
The insurance company chooses NOT to take on the high risk customer so as not to raise costs for the rest of the customer pool. This in practice was what happened the vast majority of the time prior to the ACA. This is also no longer legal

So, if you do not allow for-profit insurance companies to discriminate against customers with pre-existing conditions, then you're left with option 1, which involves the cost of insurance increasing for everyone. If you DON'T want prices to increase, you need one of two things to happen: 


You need to expand the size of the pool, and bring more low risk customers in to offset the high risk customers. The low risk customers will offer incoming cashflow to offset the cost of the high risk customers.
You need to pass the cost of the excess risk off to someone else who's willing to take an economic loss for reasons of social good and not economic profit.

Option 2 is nationalization; having the federal government bear the cost of losses over the premium payments. That's politically unpalatable in the US. That leaves us with Option 1, which is getting people who wouldn't normally take out insurance coverage because they're so low risk to take out coverage. This is where the individual mandate comes in. 

And, ironically, this is where the ACA is struggling - the tax penalty behind the mandate is too low, as evidenced by the fact young Americans are signing up for insurance coverage at lower rates than was assumed when the costs were modeled. This means that private-sector insurance companies are in a position where they're having to raise rates for their entire pool, because the pre-existing condition clause prohibits them from booting customers they're losing money on, or charging them higher prices to offset the higher cost of providing insurance. 

The supreme irony of this, of course, is the most universally popular part of the ACA, no longer allowing insurance companies to opt not to take on customers with expensive pre-existing medical conditions, is almost singlehandedly responsible for the insurance premium increases that are the _least_ popular part, yet a lot of people like yourself think part of any fix needs to be tossing out the individual insurance mandate, which is the one thing making the cost increases a lot smaller than they might otherwise be.


----------



## wankerness

Great post, however I think it may be too detailed for him to actually read it and process the info


----------



## vilk

That's the beauty of conservatism. Ignorance of something is the same as it being wrong.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Great post, however I think it may be too detailed for him to actually read it and process the info



I wouldn't be so sure. I disagree with him, of course, but nothing he's said so far has me thinking he's stupid. 

I'd legitimately love to hear a well thought out counterpoint about how you can simultaneously preserve the pre-existing condition coverage clause, while also maintaining private sector insurance and preventing costs to consumers from ballooning. I don't see one, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Including but not limited to: Individual opinion. For example:
> 
> [A] Is a man brought up Muslim in a strict Sharia setting (and thought it was good). If Donald Trump takes away women's rights, it will be a good era for [A]
> 
> But * was brought up in the USA, and is a woman. If Donald Trump takes away women's rights, it will be a bad era for *


*

Could be. But, then again, there is an objective element to what you said. There are far more Americans in category B than category A. Maybe category A only gains a slight advantage anyway, then there is a policy era that is looked upon as a bad era in hindsight.

I mean, the Nazi era was bad for Germany. There is no spinning it. Maybe the Jewish people faced much more challenges than most other ethno-cultural groups, but I don't think anybody benefitted from the policies of the era, in the long run.

But I see what you are saying. Even in hindsight, it's not a simple topic. Maybe the abolition of slavery was the right policy for most, but some would still argue that it was a mistake. In the grand scheme of things, there are plenty of data nowadays, though, that can tell us who benefits and who does not, economically, as well as socially. If Trump's platform was strong on economics and industry, then we should know what data to watch once he's in office. If domestic industry booms, we should see it in the GNP. Maybe the GNP increases tenfold, but the wealth gap increases significantly, and then there will be an interesting discussion to have, but, for the time being, we have to face facts:

1. Obama is still in office.
2. At least a portion, if not all, of the DNC's shenanigans has been exposed.
3. Trump won the electoral vote.

Some other topics are speculative. Maybe Trump will do this, or maybe he will do that, or maybe he won't do much of anything, since both political parties are pretty much against him. Maybe the DNC scandal played a part in the election, or, well, maybe not. Maybe Russians hacked the DNC (why not?).

Other stuff is just silly, for me, at least. Like, why am I reading anything about Pizzagate in this thread? Why are people so quick to attack Russia over the DNC data leak? And, why is it, that every time I read something, and think "oh, this has got to be a straw-man set up," do I find out that it's an actually two-way discussion in here?

But what is silly to me can well be serious to other people. It means nothing, except maybe that I'm a bit condescending.

Regarding the ACA - I've said it long long ago, and I continue to say it: it's not an awful policy in spirit, but it needed to be a prong in a fork of healthcare reform. Since the other tines of the fork have not been developed, it's more like a solitary chopstick, which is fairly useless.

I understand that the health insurance industry is a for-profit industry, and, in principle, I have no problem with the legality of such an industry, on the surface, but, there are some moral things with which I just cannot jive. I mean, all of the conditions and red tape make it really sketchy. And if reduction of the industry's philosophy to most basic terms makes it financially nonviable, then it's a dumb industry.

What I mean is that if the point of health insurance is to protect patients from financial ruin due to unforseen health problems, then it ought to be as simple as "You pay us, and if you get sick, we cover you." Mother....ing full stop. We all know that this is not how the insurance industry works, because the people running these industries need profits. Okay, then it shouldn't be mandatory. You should not be sanctioned into supporting a for-profit industry. The road commission is not for-profit. Sure the construction companies are, but the construction company in this analogy is like the doctor who treats you, not the insurance company.

I've said this before and people connected to the insurance industry were greatly offended. I know I may be offending you, and I'm not saying that you should have bad things happen to you, or wishing you any ill will at all, but, to be frank, your industry has made a habit out of preying on people's misfortunes in order to make money, and, I think that is a problem and needs to be addressed, before the people, in bulk, will be able to safely go about their lives. Period.

Without reforming the insurance industry more aggressively, then, I feel confident that the ACA will not survive.*


----------



## CapnForsaggio

wankerness said:


> Cause she no longer matters. She's not the greater/lesser of two evils anymore. If Trump does something bad now, and someone says something about it, bringing up a total hypothetical that can't happen means nothing as the defense and makes no sense. It did when talking about policies BEFORE THE ELECTION.
> 
> It just has been driving me nuts. It always seems to be the response in the handful of discussions I've gotten pulled into IRL. "I can't believe Trump appointed that guy!!" "WELL BWAHHH EMAILS CORRUPT ARGH!" O K ???? How is that responding to the point, in any way? She's gone! You're not defending his actions, you're practically saying "well, in an alternative universe things could be worse!!"



Now, you FINALLY understand how we felt when Obama blamed everything on Bush for 8 years!

I'm not saying it is right, but it is the way humans justify their actions:

'I went to work this morning and it sucks, but it is better than losing my job which sucks more...'


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> Great post, however I think it may be too detailed for him to actually read it and process the info



And this is the kind of personal attack that stresses me out on this thread. I thought the discussion was getting away from this sort of thing. I mean, you aren't outright calling another user stupid, but it certainly seems to come off that way, and I don't see much else in this post aside from that. 

Maybe it's offensive to call this out as I am, though, so, if it is, feel free to pile on me. 

I do like these discussion as long as they stay clean.


----------



## MFB

Except that Bush's actions actual DID affect where Obama started his presidency, and it was a terrible spot to be in; whereas Hillary is now a totally separate path from where we are now that has no bearing on anything. Her policies and all that are out the window and dreams of what could have been for some, but now it's Trump train until 2020, for better or worse. 

It'd be more like if Barack tried to blame Gore for everything he had to deal with


----------



## bostjan

Since you didn't mention a specific incident, I get to cherry pick until you do.

For example, Obama was paraphrased as saying that although he took some responsibility for the VA health crisis of 2014, that it started with Bush. Looking at the actual data, the policies put in place in 2002 started the problem, were made worse by new 2007 policies, and again made worse by 2013 policies. So yeah, Obama's administration made the problem worse, but, since the policies that caused the problem dated back to 2002, it is no stretch to say that Bush's administration may have caused the problem, because, well, 2002 was not Obama's administration, and it was Bush's.

Now, a fair argument would be "Why does it matter now? It's up to you to fix it," because, well. it was exposed in 2014, long after Bush had passed the torch, so even if it was fully Bush's fault, it's no longer up to him to fix it...

What about the economic crisis of fall 2008. Obama was sworn in January 2009. No brainer.

What else have you got? I'm happy to blame Obama for things going wrong, but I'm also happy to blame Bush. And, if it's my fault, I'm happy to tell you that I ....ed it up. This is fun, let's play...


----------



## MFB

Unemployment rates?
Annual/GDP deficit?
Housing market/pricing?
Healthcare reform?

Now, I'll accept that if something is discovered 6 years after you've been in office - which is y'know - a term and a half, then it's now on you to fix it. You can say it _started_ back when he was in office, but it's still on you to fix it at the end of the day.

As for the economic crisis, to say that Obama can't put fault on Bush for that is ludicrous since it was going on around him and he couldn't do anything (although I might be mis-judging the tone of the 'no brainer' part of that, so discredit this if I am). Does he have to fix it now? Yup. But to think he has to sit there and say, "Oh gee, thank you for these problems President Bush, I'd love to get to work on fixing them" is a stretch.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Other stuff is just silly, for me, at least. Like, why am I reading anything about Pizzagate in this thread?



To address this one question real quick, because we had a long conversation on so called "fake news," and what exactly "fake news" is. Pizzagate was an example of a "fake news" story that was brought up.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> Unemployment rates?
> Annual/GDP deficit?
> Housing market/pricing?
> Healthcare reform?
> 
> Now, I'll accept that if something is discovered 6 years after you've been in office - which is y'know - a term and a half, then it's now on you to fix it. You can say it _started_ back when he was in office, but it's still on you to fix it at the end of the day.
> 
> As for the economic crisis, to say that Obama can't put fault on Bush for that is ludicrous since it was going on around him and he couldn't do anything (although I might be mis-judging the tone of the 'no brainer' part of that, so discredit this if I am). Does he have to fix it now? Yup. But to think he has to sit there and say, "Oh gee, thank you for these problems President Bush, I'd love to get to work on fixing them" is a stretch.



Ha ha, yeah, I think you misinterpreted my no brainer comment. I thought it was clear in the context. Unless I misunderstood you entirely.

To add some context that I should have made clearer, I was responding to the post above your previous post, and, no, whatever happened before Obama was president is pretty clearly not his administration's fault.



Drew said:


> To address this one question real quick, because we had a long conversation on so called "fake news," and what exactly "fake news" is. Pizzagate was an example of a "fake news" story that was brought up.



Coming back to the broader picture, though, I guess I am sort of at a loss as to how we ended up in a modern society where we have nearly infinite amounts of information, and most of it is good information, yet so many people focus on the misinformation that is out there, that it becomes a topic. And I'm not saying it isn't happening, just that it seems crazy that it *is* happening.

When someone reported that the DNC was trafficking children through a pizzeria in DC using codewords like pepperoni and sausage, the only response I can imagine being appropriate would be "pfft!" Yet enough people believed it that it became a real news story (the story being that people bought it).

But then again, Donald Trump is going to be president of the USA, so, I guess the unthinkable _can_ become reality.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Coming back to the broader picture, though, I guess I am sort of at a loss as to how we ended up in a modern society where we have nearly infinite amounts of information, and most of it is good information, yet so many people focus on the misinformation that is out there, that it becomes a topic. And I'm not saying it isn't happening, just that it seems crazy that it *is* happening.
> 
> When someone reported that the DNC was trafficking children through a pizzeria in DC using codewords like pepperoni and sausage, the only response I can imagine being appropriate would be "pfft!" Yet enough people believed it that it became a real news story (the story being that people bought it).
> 
> But then again, Donald Trump is going to be president of the USA, so, I guess the unthinkable _can_ become reality.



Well, it may be as simple as people are way more willing to believe information that they WANT to believe. 

As you can imagine, I work in a very Republican-dominated industry. Most of them are pretty reasonable, but there's this one older guy who does account reconciliation for us, and he REALLY hates the Clintons. No clue why, he gets on my nerves pretty quickly so I usually try not to get into it with him, but Bill and Hillary are some dual form of the Antichrist, in his eyes. He also ISN'T the sharpest tack in the box, and I'm not generalizing all Republicans here because again I know a whole bunch of them who are quite thoughtful who I just disagree with, but this guy tends to just parrot whatever the local Republican talk radio guys are saying. 

Anyway, the point of this story, is that I remember a couple weeks before the election this guy was talking to another, older, Republican guy on our trading desk (who is in the former set - we disagree on a lot, but I'm always happy to talk politics with him because he's a pretty bright guy and occasionally we do find common ground), and I overheard him say, talking about Hillary;

"...and you know what? I hate her so much, that I think she really must have killed that guy in Whitewater." 

For me, that was kind of a mind-boggling statement to make - hating someone is one thing, but it doesn't actually _prove_ anything. I think that was exactly what we're seeing here, though - I think, if pushed, this guy would even admit that his hating her doesn't prove she killed someone. He might even, if pushed, admit that she *probably* didn't, which, let's remember, is the decision law enforcement came to, as well. However, his hatred makes him absolutely willing to _believe_ she did, even in light of evidence to the contrary.

And that's at the root of what happened in Pizzagate - there's zero evidence that Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring out of a DC pizza parlour, and most of the things put forward as "proof" are totally laughable. But, if you REALLY hate Hillary Clinton? If you REALLY want to believe she's a pedophile? You're going to be a little more inclined to go with it. And, if you're a little less grounded in reality or a little more subject to getting caught up in conspiracy theories or whatever, and you happen to be a gun owner, well, clearly someone's gotta go there and save all the little kids in the back room getting ordered up like pizza toppings, right? And suddenly a "fake news" story becomes an armed gunman situation. 

It's absolutely ludicrous, but yes, some people do want to believe things enough that they're willing to ignore the lack of evidence for or even actual evidence against, just because the belief fits into their world view more neatly than rejecting it does. That's just a fancy way of saying confirmation bias.


----------



## tacotiklah

Just reminding people that CNN actually did report a banner with sex toys at a pride festival as being arabic script. MSM is not infallible.


----------



## You

Edit: It appears that the posts I was replying to disappeared, which I find to be quite strange.


----------



## Drew

tacotiklah said:


> Just reminding people that CNN actually did report a banner with sex toys at a pride festival as being arabic script. MSM is not infallible.



No one's infallible.  On the flip side is Fox's "terrorist hand jab" coverage of a Barack/Michelle Obama fist bump. Christ, I taught my 14 month old nephew how to fist bump.  

There's a HUGE difference, though, between an honest if stupid screw-up, and intentionally misleading/straight up made up reporting masquerading as accurate and unbiased.


----------



## Drew

Also, back on topic (more or less), US intelligence says they can tie the Wikileaks content to Russian hackers, and are planning on releasing their report publicly next week, and will "push the limits" to declassify as much as they absolutely can. I think we're ALL really curious to see this.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Also, back on topic (more or less), US intelligence says they can tie the Wikileaks content to Russian hackers, and are planning on releasing their report publicly next week, and will "push the limits" to declassify as much as they absolutely can. I think we're ALL really curious to see this.



Better be good. 

If this report is empty of evidence (again), it means the end of Trump opposition. 

They will have lost ALL credibility, and he will have been "right" for the umpteenth time.


----------



## You

CapnForsaggio said:


> Better be good.
> 
> If this report is empty of evidence (again), it means the end of Trump opposition.
> 
> They will have lost ALL credibility, and he will have been "right" for the umpteenth time.


By "ALL", I would infer the last remaining abundance of credibility that they might have. I have no confidence or trust in the United States government, or any government in particular. I am firm in my belief that governmental power should only be limited to military power, and serve as means of keeping peace. The government should NOT have heavy involvement in the lives of its citizens, and the economy.


----------



## tedtan

^ CapnForsaggio

Trump won't be able to wipe out the various intelligence agencies single handedly, and he doesn't exactly have the support of the House and the Senate (even within his own party), so I don't see that playing out in quite that manner.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

tedtan said:


> ^ CapnForsaggio
> 
> Trump won't be able to wipe out the various intelligence agencies single handedly, and he doesn't exactly have the support of the House and the Senate (even within his own party), so I don't see that playing out in quite that manner.



I said they would have lost their credibility. I stand by that.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> If this report is empty of evidence (again), it means the end of Trump opposition.



Opposition? Opposition to Trump is not dependent in any way on the Russian hacking?? Besides, I don't like Trump, but my "opposition" to him stopped the minute he became the leader(-elect) of the US. Now it's up to him to actually generate some policies to be for or against.

""The idea that you may know more than the intelligence community knows - it's like saying I know more about physics than my professor. I didn't read the book, I just know I know more." -- ha, Biden. I'm going to miss him.


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> I said they would have lost their credibility. I stand by that.



Well, partially. What you actually said in that post is that:
1. The report better be good (e.g., to your satisfaction); and

2. If the report doesn't include evidence satisfactory to you that Russia hacked the DNC computers that opposition to Trump will end (and by this I assume that you meant opposition from within the intelligence agencies); and

3. That the intelligence agencies will lose ALL credibility (with you, I presume); and

4. Trump will be proven "right". (I notice that you put the word right in quotation marks here; why is that)?​Aside from point 3 (the intelligence community losing credibility with you, and is that even possible given your current lack of respect for them?), I simply don't see those assertions playing out because:
1. Regardless of what is in the report, I suspect that you and many others on the far right will not like it.

2. Opposition to Trump will continue on many fronts over the course of his administration (from pundits, from political opponents, from constituents, from the republican itself party if he doesn't tow the party line a little closer than he has so far, etc.).

4. A lack of evidence in the report can only fail to prove the assertions made in the report itself (e.g., that Russia hacked the DNC computers). It cannot prove whether or not Trump is correct on this particular point because it would merely be a lack of evidence to support the original claim that Russia hacked the DNC. Even if the report doesn't contain sufficient evidence to prove that assertion, it is reasonable to assume that there is more evidence available that cannot be made public due to it's sensitive nature, so it is possible that the assertion could still be true, and provably so, just not to the public at large. I get that many here won't like that, but it is a reasonable possibility.​


----------



## CapnForsaggio

tedtan said:


> Well, partially. What you actually said in that post is that:
> 1. The report better be good (e.g., to your satisfaction); and
> 
> 2. If the report doesn't include evidence satisfactory to you that Russia hacked the DNC computers that opposition to Trump will end (and by this I assume that you meant opposition from within the intelligence agencies); and
> 
> 3. That the intelligence agencies will lose ALL credibility (with you, I presume); and
> 
> 4. Trump will be proven "right". (I notice that you put the word right in quotation marks here; why is that)?​Aside from point 3 (the intelligence community losing credibility with you, and is that even possible given your current lack of respect for them?), I simply don't see those assertions playing out because:
> 1. Regardless of what is in the report, I suspect that you and many others on the far right will not like it.
> 
> 2. Opposition to Trump will continue on many fronts over the course of his administration (from pundits, from political opponents, from constituents, from the republican itself party if he doesn't tow the party line a little closer than he has so far, etc.).
> 
> 4. A lack of evidence in the report can only fail to prove the assertions made in the report itself (e.g., that Russia hacked the DNC computers). It cannot prove whether or not Trump is correct on this particular point because it would merely be a lack of evidence to support the original claim that Russia hacked the DNC. Even if the report doesn't contain sufficient evidence to prove that assertion, it is reasonable to assume that there is more evidence available that cannot be made public due to it's sensitive nature, so it is possible that the assertion could still be true, and provably so, just not to the public at large. I get that many here won't like that, but it is a reasonable possibility.​



The "" marks were a clue, but I think that went over your head.

Why do leftist believe that anyone who questions DNC talking points are "far right"?

Am I "far right" because I think the CIA has no credibility? 

If it were 4 years ago, and I had the same opinion (during the WMD fiasco), would I still be considered "far right"?

Have any of you considered that your official positions have changed since the last president, but you don't actually know why? I'm looking at you, all of you "but-the-cia-said-it-so-its true!" camp....

Think for yourself.


----------



## Drew

Nitpicking, for the upteenth time, maybe, but the WMD fiasco as you call it was in 2002, which in 2017 is now fifteen years ago. Which, let's stop and appreciate this for what it is for a moment - Trump thinks that US intelligence can't be trusted, because once, fifteen years ago, either they made a mistake or the Bush administration selectively interpreted one of their reports. 

And I think you're pretty clearly "right," at least.  If you want to talk about "official positions changing," incidentally, we don't have to go back in time all that far to see a time when the right-wing members of this board (and, Trump himself) were lauding the intelligence agency for re-opening the investigation into Clinton two weeks before the election and praising Comey, a couple months after the right was condemning the FBI and Comey for not pressing charges on Clinton. But yeah, you're right, inconsistency in position is clearly a problem for weak-minded liberals, that conservatives are entirely immune to, I'm sure.


----------



## narad

This just in: Trump conceding that Russia may be a culprit in the hacking. Nothing nicely quotable, and plenty of qualifications. NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...ll-hack-russia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> This just in: Trump conceding that Russia may be a culprit in the hacking. Nothing nicely quotable, and plenty of qualifications. NYT:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...ll-hack-russia.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur



He hedges like crazy, but he cites them as one of a number of nations known to have hacked groups in and affiliated with the US, mentions the need to boost cybersecurity, then spends most of his time talking about how there was no effect on the outcome of the election.  

Basically, it reads a lot like the statement of a man knowing his position that Russia did not hack the DNC nor did they provide documents to Wikileaks is getting increasingly untenable (you know, standing in opposition to the national intelligence infastructure and leaders of both political parties and all), and he's trying to leave himself some wiggle room, because if there's anything we know about Trump, it's that if there's anything he's more of than a sore winner, it's a sore loser.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38538002

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## Axayacatl

leftyguitarjoe said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38538002
> 
> I'll just leave this here.



Sorry, Lefty, news is only real news if spewed by rightys. But thanks for playing. 

Enjoy carving risotto into little boys' butts at Comet pizzeria. Say hi to Podesta and the Hilldog while you are there. Now that was real news. Just ask CapN Stupid who keeps posting here. First Ammendment, working wonders for the lowest common denominator. Until it works against them. 

In other news, uncompetitive* American workers who need government asssistance to keep their jobs for 3 months longer are calling everyone else in the country 'whiney liberals'.

* uncompetitive here is used to refer to Americans who cannot compete with illiterate Mexican workers.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

So you wanna try contributing? Perhaps commenting on the content of the article?


----------



## Axayacatl

leftyguitarjoe said:


> So you wanna try contributing? Perhaps commenting on the content of the article?



You posted a reasonable article on a complicated subject so I attacked you. 'Tis the spirit of the times, or perhaps any time, but I did it by way of being sarcastic. Sorry if I was offensive, I didn't mean anything against you personally, I honestly was just kidding. 

Regarding the article. No, I do not believe President-elect Trump is in cahoots with the Russians. Yes, I think he is in a difficult position because throughout the election he used Mr. Putin as a model for leadership and called him a friend and now everybody is talking about overt Russian influence to help secure President-elect Trump's victory. But so far the evidence points to a strategic dissemination of information, the leak of mundane emails with boring political gossip, risotto recipes leaked, Bernie's religion revealed, but no evidence of a direct manipulation of votes. In that sense, any influence on the election seems to be completely self-inflicted. It was like an act of information terrorism without any casualties; the repercussions from the act far outlast and outsize the very itself. 

So we are stuck between an electorate that let itself be swayed by clever Russian influence, and a President-elect who reasonably fears any political costs from the coincidence of his Russia talk and the reality of Russian action.

I hope we can find some middle ground where our intelligence agencies can actively protect us from a very real threat and where our President is not weakened and does not feel legitimized by Russian meddling that in the end had little to do with him (other than ''Russia, please hack us" lol).

But I think the real threat to national security is completely internal, self-made, which is really disturbing, so I turned to sarcasm, but didn't mean to aim it at you. In my defense, today has been rough. Somebody told me that the entire world is controlled by the Rothschild family. And a black lady who seemed really sane and was otherwise really pleasant tried to convince me that First Lady Michelle Obama has a dick. And on this very forum a NYT article is cast as illuminati stuff, not reasonable journalists wrapping their heads about a complex web of events. If you're not getting your news form the 'Journal of Some Quack I Just Friended on Facebook' then you're being controlled by the mainstream media, etc, etc. The transaction costs to communication have reached near zero and our species is going to $hit.


----------



## flint757

leftyguitarjoe said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38538002
> 
> I'll just leave this here.





> Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are
> consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian effortsincluding specific
> cyber operationsand Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources.
> Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlinloyal
> political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either
> directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests
> significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting
> what it views as consistent, self-reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and redlines, whether on
> Ukraine, Syria, or relations with the United States.



My problem with this report is the section listed under source. First and foremost what's most absent is the actual items that were supposedly hacked. From what I've gathered they were asked to give up the servers, they never did, and the last report I had read about it they are currently playing stupid about being asked to give up the servers to aid into the investigation. My second problem with this report is that they are starting with a conclusion and filling in the gaps to match their conclusion. Not the most scientific method of reaching objectivity. I mean two of their 'sources' listed here are Twitter and RT. Loads of probably's, maybe's, etc. littered in this report as well. Not the most reassuring way to convince people of something.

One of the allegations listed in the report I find incredibly amusing though is the allegation of online trolls spreading propaganda because that is exactly how I viewed the 'Correct The Record', CTR, trolls all over Facebook this election cycle. I suppose it's a-okay though when we're doing it to ourselves.

One piece of 'evidence' listed is that RT favored Trump over Hillary and I find that laughable when I actually watch RT, along with numerous other sources. They mostly favored Bernie and Jill Stein. A great deal of accusations being thrust around are purely based on where Wikileaks decided to hold interviews apparently. Perhaps Bill Maher is a Russian spy if that's the case [sarcasm]. Also, as much as I despise Trump I agree with many 'outside' sources that were saying that Trump was being treated unfairly by the media. Having seen some of the cleverly edited footage to move sentences around in some of his speeches that actually seems to be pretty accurate (happened to Stein as well), especially with the disclosure through Wikileaks that Hillary and her team got to screen many of the articles before they actually aired them with a couple of 'journalists'. MSM took huge dumps on the 3rd party candidates and Bernie over and over again through the election. If pro-Trump or anti-Clinton automatically lends proof to Russia interfering with our elections then the way our 'vetted' news went down on everyone but Clinton 90% of the time would imply the US interfered heavily with its own election. In either case, a news source choosing to not support Clinton isn't any more damning than the likes of CNN and MSNBC lauding over her like she's the second coming of Jesus. It's not evidence, just conjecture.

If we're going to argue how significant an influence a single event could have on the election I'd argue that Comey is more culpable than anyone for arbitrarily opening and closing the case like the day before the election was held. 

I personally think almost everyone had made up their minds by August though. The way Bernie delegates were treated at the convention was unpalatable for me so I moved on as an independent. I voted for Obama twice and mostly Democrat in every other seat over the last 8 years in nearly every election, but the way the DNC behaved, with or without the emails, was too much for me to take. The only thing the emails did was confirm what I had already witnessed. It was like spousal abuse so I walked away. I'm sure I'm not the only one who did the same, although many probably just stayed home instead.

The report seems to conclude, for instance, that because they can't 100% verify if Guccifer was in fact Guccifer that he could have been a Russian agent. Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Perhaps trying to fill a conclusion they've all already decided to agree on with little evidence being presented.

More significantly this report goes on to deliberately undermine Russia on a global scale which is convenient for us IMO when we're trying so very hard to get a pipeline built through Syria and if Assad or Russia ultimately when that fight it will not come to fruition.

Some of the speculation they use in that report that is meant to be perceived as evidence is mildly amusing as well because the basic premise is 'Russia doesn't like us so of course they'd want to undermine us' yet that goes both ways, like the US accusing Russia of hacking the election.



> In an effort to highlight the alleged "lack of
> democracy" in the United States, RT
> broadcast, hosted, and advertised thirdparty
> candidate debates and ran reporting supportive of the political agenda of these candidates.
> The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third
> of the population and is a "sham."



This piece of 'evidence' strikes me as funny as well. It seems that they're asserting that because he said this that this aids in proving Russia is responsible, but it's an odd thing to lob when he's right. Half this country isn't properly being represented and 3rd parties are unfairly shut out from the process by having ridiculously unachievable barriers being thrown at them. So if you have any sort of Russian tie at all and dislike the way politics are going in this country I guess you're by default a Russian spy in this new Cold War we've decided to participate in. They've even tried to tie anti-fracking into this as proof that Russia did it. I mean the EPA just recently said that fracking can cause many of the problems we've been seeing all over the country, but RT telling us what we see with our own eyes and what the EPA is also saying is clearly 'proof' as well.

The last page under Annex B is probably the most important, where they essentially admit to this all being about plausibility and number of sources to build a narrative rather than whether or not any of it is fact. It's all speculative, but I guarantee you that people who've already bitten into the Russian narrative are going to run around yelling like this is a smoking gun proof when that is not what this is at all. Pretty much nothing that has been released this year from anyone has been actionable. 

Last and most definitely not least even if it all turns out to be true, nothing leaked was fake and is easily verifiable if you have the skill set. Even this report states that the data released on Wikileaks is factual. Russia did not hack the voting machines, did not kill citizens and put in spies to vote on their behalf, didn't force people to stay home, etc. People were disgusted with what they had learned from the emails and decided they either wanted someone else or no one at all.

In general while reading this report I feel like I stepped into a time portal where anyone who doesn't toe the line is a commie traitor. It's ridiculous. 'You're being ridiculous'. I also really dig the every page disclaimer that this particular report contains none of the actual proof.

Last note, I agree with Bostjan that again, if it happens to be true, that the organizations in question are private entities and as such this does not constitute an 'attack' on the US anymore than a hacker taking on Sony or Home Depot would be considered as such. The DNC used the 'private' entity as a scapegoat the entire primary season as justification for their horrendous behavior so I see no reason why they should all of a sudden be treated like a public institution when it's now favorable to do so. That's the problem with US politics though I suppose, the system is just chuck full of hypocrites.

---

Sorry if it seems a bit disjointed. Sort of compiling it as I read and it's late.


----------



## narad

Eh, I think it's about time that people accepted that there are foreign efforts to influence elections, as there's a great incentive to do so. The US has been doing this by less subtle means for forever, and for the US, victory margins are often so thin, and the country so involved internationally, that it makes a lot of sense to bias it towards you best interest. It's a lot cheaper than setting up a government militarily!

But once we get that behind us I think we can turn to the real issue, which is that regardless of the hacking, ultimately it's the American people who voted, and if they were swayed by leaked emails, then they were still swayed by Hillary's own words, just as they were swayed by Trump's own words with the "_ssy grabbing" debacle. So while I like to keep my private discourse private, ultimately this was legitimate information that was leaked, and not a misrepresentation of either party's character. The documents are illegal, but in a way Russia played fair -- they didn't subvert the voting mechanism, they simply played upon Americans' over-reliance on media spin. And so maybe we can start looking ahead to what the role quick spread of information, private information, and misinformation will play on future elections -- maybe it even means caring about the actual policy issues!

But I agree with Flint in that I don't know of anyone would was really swayed that last minute that the leaks made a difference. Some people wanted to believe Hillary was satan long before there was any email leak. Then again, I don't know any undecided OH/PA/FL residents, and I'd probably not have to know many to have made a difference!


----------



## Axayacatl

narad said:


> Eh, I think it's about time that people accepted that there are foreign efforts to influence elections, as there's a great incentive to do so. The US has been doing this by less subtle means for forever...



Agreed. Moreover, check out this description of Russia: "This nod from the American government illustrates Ms. Shevchenkos ambiguous role and, more broadly, the diversity of people believed to be working inside Russias government hacking program. The inclusion of Ms. Shevchenkos company on the American sanctions list sheds light on the sprawling scope of the effort, which drew in students, civilians and possibly criminal hackers to bolster the military and intelligence agencies cyberwar abilities." Source: The Failing NYT

Sounds *exactly* like the US except the reliance on criminal hackers is less overt in the US.



narad said:


> But I agree with Flint in that I don't know of anyone would was really swayed that last minute that the leaks made a difference.



I think the carefully timed leaks, together with FBI Director Comey's last-minute announcement that the FBI was going to take a second look at a set of Clinton-related emails played a pivotal role in the election outcome. Clinton lost by a few thousand votes in a few key states. Ambiguous revelations so close to election day could in theory have had an influence on getting marginal voters to the poll. And I believe that in practice this was the case. 

The reaction to mundane information in emails was self-inflicted, but Russian action was clearly premeditated and influential.


----------



## narad

Axayacatl said:


> I think the carefully timed leaks, together with FBI Director Comey's last-minute announcement that the FBI was going to take a second look at a set of Clinton-related emails played a pivotal role in the election outcome. Clinton lost by a few thousand votes in a few key states. Ambiguous revelations so close to election day could in theory have had an influence on getting marginal voters to the poll. And I believe that in practice this was the case.
> 
> The reaction to mundane information in emails was self-inflicted, but Russian action was clearly premeditated and influential.



Eh, the lowest red state was MI -- 13k margin with 16 votes, then WI with a 27k margin and 10 votes, but by the time you're talking about swaying key necessary states like PA and FL, you're looking at 60-100k+ vote margins. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I think taken at face value I'm not really sure how likely that would be. 

I don't know, I don't find the hacked email content to be a huge revelation, and doesn't really strike me as anything pertinent to performance to the role of president. If Hillary was running against someone with a near infallible reputation, I would think, "wow, now we have some real contrast" - maybe that could change positions. But against Trump, eh, there's already 20-30 years of scummy dealings in that candidate, so if you're viewing Hillary as the dishonest one overall -- or if you're even able to sit down and ponder on this -- I don't feel that the emails have the power to change you're opinion one way or the other.


----------



## flint757

My biggest problem with the report after sitting with what I said, and it, for a bit is that they are trying to red scare RT's US branch, which has next to no affiliation with the mother station. It was one of the only channels picking up 3rd parties, spreading news about Bernie, talking about Standing Rock, discussing the water problems and fracking we've seen all over the country (Flint and lead poisoning across the country), etc. and now the intelligence community, at the behest of our government, are trying to brand them all as 'comrades'. Seems awfully convenient when both parties are pro-oil and fracking and both parties have large incentives to maintain the establishment just how it is (apparently Flint was only useful as a political tool and doesn't warrant actual reparations or a national discussion). It's all too familiar in a historical context.

I don't think anything this election cycle has 'encouraged' people to go out and vote at all either way. We hit a 20 year low in voter turnout. Trump won with fewer votes than past losers. It's not impossible, but it doesn't reflect in the tally IMO.


----------



## Axayacatl

narad said:


> I don't know, I don't find the hacked email content to be a huge revelation, and doesn't really strike me as anything pertinent to performance to the role of president.



Each one of my posts has called the leaked information 'mundane', 'run-of-the-mill', etc, and President Obama said the same thing many times. So we are saying the same thing. The only place I disagree with you is that it is not about whether the information is pertinent to executive power for Narad, what matters is how the information affects the American electorate. The leaks and the FBI actions where the last salvo of an anti-Clinton campaign that was 20 years in the making. Elections are about the marginal voter. We saw a record low voter turnout. One of the main headlines throughout the election was the Clinton and DNC emails. It was such a salient issue during the whole campaign. So in light of those facts it is difficult for me to believe that the hacks and the leaks were not influential. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## narad

Axayacatl said:


> The only place I disagree with you is that it is not about whether the information is pertinent to executive power for Narad, what matters is how the information affects the American electorate.



Until there's proper polling, my own intuition regarding me and my peers is all I have to go on. And all anyone else has to go on, for that matter...


----------



## narad

Pretty good article regarding Breitbart, its advertising revenue, and the activism trying to cut it off.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/o...-and-fake-news.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur


----------



## Drew

The only thing I have to add on the declassified report is that they redacted the one thing I (and most people in this thread) really wanted to see, the supporting evidence. Even high level descriptions of how they had arrived at their conclusions - i.e whether it was cyber forensic analysis or good old fashioned espionage that allowed us to determine with a high degree of confidence that the Russians had, in fact, provided Wikileaks with their DNC emails to leak - would have been valuable, I think. 

Either way, the fact that Trump started hedging immediately after receiving this briefing and mostly reacted by claiming legitimacy and that no voting machines were hacked (which has never been alleged) kind of speaks volumes.  And, I guess I understand why we can't just leak top secret information just to satisfy my curiosity...


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Eh, the lowest red state was MI -- 13k margin with 16 votes, then WI with a 27k margin and 10 votes, but by the time you're talking about swaying key necessary states like PA and FL, you're looking at 60-100k+ vote margins. I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I think taken at face value I'm not really sure how likely that would be.
> 
> I don't know, I don't find the hacked email content to be a huge revelation, and doesn't really strike me as anything pertinent to performance to the role of president. If Hillary was running against someone with a near infallible reputation, I would think, "wow, now we have some real contrast" - maybe that could change positions. But against Trump, eh, there's already 20-30 years of scummy dealings in that candidate, so if you're viewing Hillary as the dishonest one overall -- or if you're even able to sit down and ponder on this -- I don't feel that the emails have the power to change you're opinion one way or the other.



Two comments on this: 

1) The national race tightened from Clinton +5-7 before Comey, to Clinton +3 or so. An extra 2-3 points in swing states, and we DO have a Clinton victory. It didn't takke much to change the outcome at the margin.

2) I think the bigger issue for Clinton wasn't the content of the leaks - as you say, the content was fairly mundane, and there wasn't much in there that either was or should have been a surprise - in the first batch, a Times columninst joked that the most damning thing they showed was that evidently the only person on the Clinton team who knew how to make a decent risotto was Podesta - and really, Donna Brazile was the only person who was actually implicated in any wrong-doing in the leaks, and despite CaptnFormaggio's hand-wringing, leaking a single question to the Clinton camp was pretty small potatoes. Wrong, but not likely to change anything. 

Rather, I think the bigger issue was the seeming reinforcement of a pre-existing narrative, that "Clinton was untrustworthy." The leaks, and the Comey re-investigation, turned out to be more smoke than fire, but for a skittish electorate, evidently smoke was enough.


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> The "" marks were a clue, but I think that went over your head.



Perhaps it did.




CapnForsaggio said:


> Why do leftist believe that anyone who questions DNC talking points are "far right"?



I would guess that it is the typical partisan bickering and fighting rather than actually trying to address pertinent issues of the day.




CapnForsaggio said:


> Am I "far right" because I think the CIA has no credibility?



No. I think most reasonable people realize that people have an agenda, including groups of people like the CIA.

My far right assumption was based on the "news" sources you had previously mentioned (e.g., infowars). Perhaps tin foil hatter would have been more accurate (no offense intended as that's not a shot at you, its a shot at that nut job Alex Jones who runs that sh_i_thole site).




CapnForsaggio said:


> If it were 4 years ago, and I had the same opinion (during the WMD fiasco), would I still be considered "far right"?



See above regarding far right.

As far as the question itself, if you mean 15 years back, I was against going to war at the time, so it appears that I don't blindly follow what I'm told (then or now). And thinking that the intelligence community is onto something regarding the hacking doesn't mean that I'm putting blind faith in them. Bush had many reasons to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, but neither Obama nor Trump benefit from the Russian hacking angle, nor does the DNC itself; if anything, it makes the DNC look bad.




CapnForsaggio said:


> Have any of you considered that your official positions have changed since the last president, but you don't actually know why? I'm looking at you, all of you "but-the-cia-said-it-so-its true!" camp....



What position do you allege that I've changed since the last president? And why don't I know why I changed it?




CapnForsaggio said:


> Think for yourself.



Likewise, though I would preface that sentiment with learn how to think. Again, that's not a shot at you, its just a skill I find lacking in many people I meet these days.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> The only thing I have to add on the declassified report is that they redacted the one thing I (and most people in this thread) really wanted to see, the supporting evidence. Even high level descriptions of how they had arrived at their conclusions - i.e whether it was cyber forensic analysis or good old fashioned espionage that allowed us to determine with a high degree of confidence that the Russians had, in fact, provided Wikileaks with their DNC emails to leak - would have been valuable, I think.
> 
> Either way, the fact that Trump started hedging immediately after receiving this briefing and mostly reacted by claiming legitimacy and that no voting machines were hacked (which has never been alleged) kind of speaks volumes.  And, I guess I understand why we can't just leak top secret information just to satisfy my curiosity...



Agreed.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Direct link to the report.

I am not really impressed by the report. There really isn't much evidence provided, not that I think it's particularly that interesting one way or the other. Furthermore, from the wording of the report, I am under the impression that the FBI, CIA, and NSA, really don't agree solidly on anything.

The CIA, in particular, has a pretty low batting average at investigating facts. I say that in reference to the Iraq debacle, the Afghanistan debacle, the lack of timely data on terror activities in Syria and Pakistan, ignorance in the somewhat compelling evidence prior to 9/11 that it was brewing, etc. I assert that my poor assessment of the CIA's investigative effectiveness is non-partisan.

That said, maybe Russia was the force behind the leak of embarrassing DNC emails. My overall opinion, if that was the case, would be rather flippant. Is it concerning if Russia is spying on us? I think the only obvious answer to that question is "have you been living under a rock for the last century?!"

The bigger concerns here are:

1. Is the CIA so ineffective, that it is out of it's league against Russian spy agencies?
2. Is the information leaked important enough to be responsible for HRC's loss? If not, then why are we putting energy into this investigation anyway?
3. Ok, it's safe to assume Putin prefers Trump. So what? Maybe HRC prefers Medvyedev to Putin? Who cares? If Russian propaganda was aimed at favoring Trump, then, umm, okay... All this means is either A) Trump will be in Putin's pocket, or B) Trump and Putin will actually manage to Thaw the leftover frost of the Cold War. In case B, good for world peace! In case A, then Trump was a ....ty candidate to elect as president. I'm hoping for the (more surprising) latter option, since I want US diplomacy to be more effective in bolstering the USA economy, not starting wars and crap.

Anyway, in this investigation, it's as if the CIA set out to prove that Russia did something wrong, and came back with a claim that they are pretty sure that Putin likes DJT more than HRC, kind of sure that the Russian media takes orders from Putin, that Russia has spies, and that Putin probably let the Russian media know his preference, and that they might have reflected that in their programming, and that maybe Russian spies spied on the DNC.

In other news, the CIA is pretty sure that water is wet, after several weeks of investigating.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I am not really impressed by the report. There really isn't much evidence provided, not that I think it's particularly that interesting one way or the other. Furthermore, from the wording of the report, I am under the impression that the FBI, CIA, and NSA, really don't agree solidly on anything.



While I agree that I was hoping they'd be able to unclassify some of the evidence supporting their conclusions (and I hope they do in coming weeks), I disagree on the second part - there's a certain degree of variaton in the strength of their beliefs, but I believe without exception the three agencies are in agreement on the conclusions presented in the report. 

And, while I agree that anyone who's shocked that Russia is spying on the US is naive, I think what we're seeing here is a step beyond that - an attempt to first infiltrate the American two-party system, and second use that information to influence US voters. There's a significant difference between keeping tabs on a rival country, and trying to actively influence the makeup of that country's government and in turn the country's decision-making process.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> And, while I agree that anyone who's shocked that Russia is spying on the US is naive, I think what we're seeing here is a step beyond that - an attempt to first infiltrate the American two-party system, and second use that information to influence US voters. There's a significant difference between keeping tabs on a rival country, and trying to actively influence the makeup of that country's government and in turn the country's decision-making process.



Support your assertions.

Show me 1 thing that the Russians did that influenced the elections, OTHER than expose the corruption of HRC. That is entirely on her and the DNC.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Support your assertions.
> 
> Show me 1 thing that the Russians did that influenced the elections, OTHER than expose the corruption of HRC. That is entirely on her and the DNC.



What HRC corruption? The DNC screwing over Bernie was hardly news to anyone who was following the democratic primaries.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Support your assertions.
> 
> Show me 1 thing that the Russians did that influenced the elections, OTHER than expose the corruption of HRC. That is entirely on her and the DNC.



Considering that the national intelligence community and congressional leadership of BOTH parties is united in the belief that the Russians attempted to sway voters, and that even Trump himself has started hedging on the subject of the hacks after receiving the full classified briefing, I think the shoe is on the other foot here - support your dissertation that they DIDN'T try to sway the outcome, considering you're the one arguing from a discredited position. 

While you're at it, support your dissertation that Hillary is corrupt, because the only evidence that someone was corrupt I recall seeing pegged Donna Brasille, not Hillary Clinton.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> While I agree that I was hoping they'd be able to unclassify some of the evidence supporting their conclusions (and I hope they do in coming weeks), I disagree on the second part - there's a certain degree of variaton in the strength of their beliefs, but I believe without exception the three agencies are in agreement on the conclusions presented in the report.
> 
> And, while I agree that anyone who's shocked that Russia is spying on the US is naive, I think what we're seeing here is a step beyond that - an attempt to first infiltrate the American two-party system, and second use that information to influence US voters. There's a significant difference between keeping tabs on a rival country, and trying to actively influence the makeup of that country's government and in turn the country's decision-making process.



Did you read the report? The most basic things are not even completely agreed upon, and most of the CIA's conclusions don't even mention how the other agencies have concluded.

As I said before, the CIA has a piss poor track record of getting things right. That's not to say that they are necessarily wrong, but it makes a report like this almost complete hearsay. If the more interesting bits had any evidence backing them up, or mention of some evidence, or mention of another agency reaching the same conclusion, then the report as a whole would potentially have something mildly interesting in it. I know the CIA, an agency that deals heavily in secrets, speculations, and bull...., isn't going to name names or give explicit evidence, or any justification, for that matter, but as a persuasive report, it is devoid of substance.



So, I think I understand what you are saying. You are concerned that the Russians have gone further than they have ever gone before, and undermined USA democracy. But, I think where you are losing me, is in the lack of specifics here, besides what I don't particularly see as novel, and what I don't particularly see as threatening, and nothing that I see as surprising.

If the Russians hacked into voting machines, influences vote counts, or interfered with people's ability to effectively vote, in some way, directly or indirectly, then I'd be fired up, too, but I'm not seeing that.

If the Russians had spread false information and managed to sway people that way, I think we would have a pretty interesting discussion on how that is a problem and who is to blame and how to correct it.

But, what I'm seeing as an argument, is that the Russians spread truths that were embarrassing for the DNC, and, to a more limited extent, to HRC. Truths that they came to know through hacking the email servers of a political party, not the government itself. I am seeing, presented as an argument, as if it is damning information, that Putin preferred one candidate over another, that Russian news media developed some English language materials to distribute that were biased against HRC, and that Putin might have given orders to media under his control to run certain stories. Only the last part of that sounds the least bit interesting, and it's still, IMO, to be proven. The CIA says it's proven because they say so. I don't care about their circular arguments, nor their findings, for that matter, unless someone more credible backs the argument independently, or, if they present solid evidence.

Obviously, the CIA doesn't care about convincing people that their report is correct. If they did care, then, an obvious question would be why. What are the stakes? Trump won, so, well, unless they can block him somehow from taking power, or if he just ups and gives up - it doesn't matter, does it? Assume all of this is some sort of conspiracy to get Trump into the White House. Then, the Russians have already won, unless the CIA has a damn good smoking gun and they are willing to share it's existence with the rest of the world, so that something can be done about it. Otherwise, this is just blowing smoke, and it's not going to get anyone anywhere.

IDK, maybe I am just too jaded, but it seems that the media really cares about this story, and I'm trying to figure out why I should care, why the media wants me to care, and why the CIA seems to think that anyone needs to care (yet their evidence, so far, is "because we say so").

And, as a final disclaimer, even as I am skeptical about how much involvement the Kremlin had in the US presidential election last year, I don't know that Russia didn't do whatever crazy spy things. But you can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the people claiming that they do know. If foreign policy is molded by this (it won't, assuming Trump becomes president, which is 99.95+% likely), then it's between the federal government agencies, but if I am to care, I need something better than "we said so."


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Considering that the national intelligence community and congressional leadership of BOTH parties is united in the belief that the Russians attempted to sway voters, and that even Trump himself has started hedging on the subject of the hacks after receiving the full classified briefing, I think the shoe is on the other foot here - support your dissertation that they DIDN'T try to sway the outcome, considering you're the one arguing from a discredited position.
> 
> While you're at it, support your dissertation that Hillary is corrupt, because the only evidence that someone was corrupt I recall seeing pegged Donna Brasille, not Hillary Clinton.



While your latter demand is fair, it is not fair to demand someone to prove a negative. Proving that Russia did *not* interfere in the election is just that. It's equivalent to demanding that you prove that there are no worms on the moon.

As for HRC's corruptness or not, I believe that matter has been discussed at nauseating length already in this thread (I was an active participant in that discussion), and is no longer of much relevance. If anything claimed to be true through the email leaks is disputed, it'd be the first I had heard of such.

For that matter, I think the question of "what relevance does any of this have on anything anymore" seems to be a very common theme in my posts. The CIA issued a report saying we ought to be offended, but doesn't provide sufficient detail as to why. Any sort of "this is unprecedented, so you should be upset," or "we know this is the case, because we know this is the case," is so logically vapid, that it makes my head hurt worse than the MKUltra project and the WMD false claims combined.

Here's a question (maybe you don't think it relevant): What good thing has the CIA ever done right?


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> For that matter, I think the question of "what relevance does any of this have on anything anymore" seems to be a very common theme in my posts.



Certainly we should learn from this experience as it pertains to: a.) more damaging / less political cyber attacks, and b.) future elections. So the continual push to better define the details of the hack and the orchestration of such attacks is all pretty warranted imo. Even if some of the details need to be left off the public record, at the risk of sabotaging our own espionage efforts.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Certainly we should learn from this experience as it pertains to: a.) more damaging / less political cyber attacks, and b.) future elections. So the continual push to better define the details of the hack and the orchestration of such attacks is all pretty warranted imo. Even if some of the details need to be left off the public record, at the risk of sabotaging our own espionage efforts.



I can't really argue with that point. My biggest concern, though, is the line we draw between political parties and the government itself.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> While your latter demand is fair, it is not fair to demand someone to prove a negative. Proving that Russia did *not* interfere in the election is just that. It's equivalent to demanding that you prove that there are no worms on the moon.
> 
> As for HRC's corruptness or not, I believe that matter has been discussed at nauseating length already in this thread (I was an active participant in that discussion), and is no longer of much relevance. If anything claimed to be true through the email leaks is disputed, it'd be the first I had heard of such.
> 
> For that matter, I think the question of "what relevance does any of this have on anything anymore" seems to be a very common theme in my posts. The CIA issued a report saying we ought to be offended, but doesn't provide sufficient detail as to why. Any sort of "this is unprecedented, so you should be upset," or "we know this is the case, because we know this is the case," is so logically vapid, that it makes my head hurt worse than the MKUltra project and the WMD false claims combined.
> 
> Here's a question (maybe you don't think it relevant): What good thing has the CIA ever done right?



Well, a couple quick hits, at any rate: 

1) fair point, re: proving a negative. However, at this point, I also think it's a fair point that any demands for evidence to support what's a widely held consensus amongst people who 1) do have top security clearances, and 2) in at least some cases have strong incentives NOT to agree with the report, but still do, is akin to burying your head in the sand or saying "I know you are, but what am I?"

2) What revelance does this have? Well, I too agree that overturning the results of the election based on probable Russian tampering is not the right answer here... But, at a bare minimum, I think the Trump administration could be a hair more explicit in acknowledging this as a threat and an act by a hostile actor. So far Trump has moved from outright denial to merely refusing to deny, which is a pretty weak first step, and considering as we speak the GOP controlled Senate is trying to ram Tillerson's nomination through without the customary Ethics Committee conflict of interest check and considering Tillerson spent 20 years of his career working for Exxon in Russia, working closely with the Russian government and state-owned oil companies, I think we could at least slow the process down and allow all appropriate vetting to occur. Over and above that, this was a cyber attack by a foreign nation. We could start by treating it as such, which the Obama administration has but thus far the Trump transition team has not.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I can't really argue with that point. My biggest concern, though, is the line we draw between political parties and the government itself.



Is your argument that there IS a pronounced line here, and therefore a Russian hack of the DNC is not actually an attack on the US government? 

I don't buy that, if so. By hacking one party during the election and releasing information to Wikileaks for release, there was clearly an attempt to influence the _composition_ of the government (what other motivation could Russia have? An altruistic desire to fight corruption? From Russian government agents, who aren't exactly known for their scruples? That defies reason.) and in doing so favor the overtly pro-Putin candidate over the candidate that was not pro-Putin. I think if you're going to make the argument that trying to elect a pro-Russian government that saw no problem with Russia invading former Soviet bloc territories and look the other way on internal human rights abuses was NOT an attack on the American government, then what precisely would be the aims of a direct attack on the American government, if not that? 

From my perspective, going after the DNC to try to give pro-Putin candidate Trump an edge was simply the more effective strategy, than going directly after the US government servers. Why bother to launch cyber attacks at the US government, if you can instead discredit the DNC to ensure that you don't HAVE to go after the government itself, because you now have a pro-Putin president who's willing to look the other way as you continue to annex the old Soviet Union and lock up dissenters?


----------



## Drew

Listen, put more simply, I think the reason you can't easily draw a line there is this: claiming that an attack on a political party is not an attack on the government ignores the fact that the government in the United States of America is democratically elected rather than a separate, independent, free standing entity, and that political parties, _whether you believe this should be the case or not_, are an instrumental part of that process. Attack the election process, and indirectly you're attacking both 1) the government itself, and 2) the validity of and trust in the democratic process, which I think we ALL agree is currently reeling. 

Long story short - I don't think you can distangle an attack on a party from an attack on the government that party is running to form.


----------



## vilk

If I rob a Jewel-Osco, but only from the Osco half, did I not just rob a supermarket?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, a couple quick hits, at any rate:
> 
> 1) fair point, re: proving a negative. However, at this point, I also think it's a fair point that any demands for evidence to support what's a widely held consensus amongst people who 1) do have top security clearances, and 2) in at least some cases have strong incentives NOT to agree with the report, but still do, is akin to burying your head in the sand or saying "I know you are, but what am I?"



But what of the CIA's piss-poor track record being right about things? To not be skeptical of the things that they say, at this juncture, is a bit odd, to me, at least.

We are talking about an organization who thought that LSD could be used as a mind control drug to turn people into mindless zombie slaves to their whim. That was way wrong. This organization had the evidence that Al Queda was planning the 9/11 attacks, and thought "No big deal," and they were wrong. This is also the organization who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD - wrong again. Training the rebels in Syria, many of whom went on to become ISIS...The Iran Contra Affair, the Bay of Pigs...I mean, have they ever had the right answer?



Drew said:


> 2) What revelance does this have? Well, I too agree that overturning the results of the election based on probable Russian tampering is not the right answer here... But, at a bare minimum, I think the Trump administration could be a hair more explicit in acknowledging this as a threat and an act by a hostile actor. So far Trump has moved from outright denial to merely refusing to deny, which is a pretty weak first step, and considering as we speak the GOP controlled Senate is trying to ram Tillerson's nomination through without the customary Ethics Committee conflict of interest check and considering Tillerson spent 20 years of his career working for Exxon in Russia, working closely with the Russian government and state-owned oil companies, I think we could at least slow the process down and allow all appropriate vetting to occur. Over and above that, this was a cyber attack by a foreign nation. We could start by treating it as such, which the Obama administration has but thus far the Trump transition team has not.



In the context of the CIA being usually wrong, I think wait-and-see is far more prudent than "accuse Russia of cyber warfare," at this point in time. The fact that the details boil down to "trust us, we know what we are doing" from the CIA, is not nearly enough to call it an attack of cyber warfare. Coming back to the WMD debacle, we invaded Iraq over "trust us, there are WMD, for sure - we just know that there are" blew up in the face of the CIA, and there were no repercussions domestically. Repeating the same stupid mistake in this context, but with a much larger, vastly more powerful nation, would be the dumbest damned decision in history.



Drew said:


> Is your argument that there IS a pronounced line here, and therefore a Russian hack of the DNC is not actually an attack on the US government?



Clearly that is the case. The DNC is not the USA.



Drew said:


> I don't buy that, if so. By hacking one party during the election and releasing information to Wikileaks for release, there was clearly an attempt to influence the _composition_ of the government (what other motivation could Russia have? An altruistic desire to fight corruption? From Russian government agents, who aren't exactly known for their scruples? That defies reason.) and in doing so favor the overtly pro-Putin candidate over the candidate that was not pro-Putin. I think if you're going to make the argument that trying to elect a pro-Russian government that saw no problem with Russia invading former Soviet bloc territories and look the other way on internal human rights abuses was NOT an attack on the American government, then what precisely would be the aims of a direct attack on the American government, if not that?



Again, I'm not convinced they did any malicious act. Secondly, if they had done a malicious act, is the argument that Trump is president solely because of a Russian cyber attack?! No way. So what, then?! Trying to figure out the motivation of why someone did something, when you have no explicit evidence that they did, outside of motive, motive, and more motive, yet, the very deed of which you are accusing them, would not have had the effect, anyway, is just silly.

I honestly don't know why you seem so hot to take the side of getting World War III going over this. If the Russians instigated something halfway concrete, then there should be diplomacy, but, these very public allegations coming from an agency that couldn't intelligence its way out of the Iraq war, 9/11, Iranian Contras, the Bay of Pigs, or some really stupid ideas about mind altering drugs - are bad news for us. What I am saying is that there is no happy ending if you follow this line of reasoning to its conclusion.

The argument is so weak on so many fronts, still. It's easy to get distracted. I know people are angry that Trump is going to be president, but this just seems like a big fat red herring.



Drew said:


> From my perspective, going after the DNC to try to give pro-Putin candidate Trump an edge was simply the more effective strategy, than going directly after the US government servers. Why bother to launch cyber attacks at the US government, if you can instead discredit the DNC to ensure that you don't HAVE to go after the government itself, because you now have a pro-Putin president who's willing to look the other way as you continue to annex the old Soviet Union and lock up dissenters?



So again, this entire paragraph hinges on the idea that Russia is solely responsible for Trump winning the presidential election. That's too far fetched. If you dial it back, even a little bit, then the paragraph you wrote just doesn't apply.

So, do you think Russia is solely responsible for Trump winning the presidential election?!



vilk said:


> If I rob a Jewel-Osco, but only from the Osco half, did I not just rob a supermarket?



Hmm. I think the analogy is more like: If I am accused by the CIA of posting embarrassing photos of the CEO of Osco, and it is alleged that it caused the public to boycott Osco, did I not just rob the US government of their tax income from that business?

Is Russia even being accused of tampering with votes here? If you deal in some crazy logic, trust the CIA, and deal only with absolutes (no gray areas), then, I guess I can see how you might reach that conclusion, otherwise, not.


----------



## wankerness

You have listed out like, 5 bad things the CIA has done out of thousands. You dismiss them because of that?! The vast majority of what they do does not get reported. It's like writing off airplanes after listing some crashes.


----------



## Drew

Even then, some of them aren't exactly times where they were wrong. 



bostjan said:


> But what of the CIA's piss-poor track record being right about things? To not be skeptical of the things that they say, at this juncture, is a bit odd, to me, at least.
> 
> We are talking about an organization who thought that LSD could be used as a mind control drug to turn people into mindless zombie slaves to their whim. That was way wrong. This organization had the evidence that Al Queda was planning the 9/11 attacks, and thought "No big deal," and they were wrong. This is also the organization who were convinced that Saddam Hussein had WMD - wrong again. Training the rebels in Syria, many of whom went on to become ISIS...The Iran Contra Affair, the Bay of Pigs...I mean, have they ever had the right answer?



LSD as mind control? I mean, I'm not 100% familiar with the study but I thought the point was more to get enemy armies high and then when they were tripping and too ....ed up to know what was going on, THEN attack. They eventually opted not to purse, but IIRC it was more about the ethics of what is within spitting difference of chemical warfare, rather than efficacy. 

al Quaeda and 9/11? Again, the CIA was right. Clinton agreed with their assessment and considered them a significant risk. I think they almost even struck at one point, but opted not to launch an attack in the middle of the presidential election, for fear of being seen as trying to influence the outcome. Then, when Bush won, they sat down to brief his team, and were dumbfounded that all they wanted to talk about was whether or not Iraq was involved and if they should go after them. This is the story as Wesley Clark told it, at least, and to be fair iit was a LONG time ago I read his account, but the CIA was spot on, the Bush administration dropped the ball. 

WMD - it's the subject of some discussion if the CIA got this one wrong, or the Bush administration cherry picked evidence for from their assessment and ignored evidence against and opted to move forward as if it was a done deal, and not a questionable assessment. 

Training rebels in Syria was short sighted, true, but wasn't exactly an inteligence analysis failing. Also, wasn't this mostly Afghanistan, to stop the Russians, and not Syria? 

Iran Contra and Bay of Pigs were both before my time, but in the former it strikes me a lot like Syrian rebel situation, where it was a short sighted move but not an intelligence failing. And the Bay of Pigs, my recollection was the reason JFK felt like he could play hardball was because we had intercepted Russian communications, and knew that if we pushed them on missile systems in Cuba, they were going to back down. That if anything would be an intelligence _success_, I would think. 

Overall, I suspect spying is a lot like IT work, where when things go wrong, they go spectacularly wrong and everyone wants to know WTF we pay you guys for, and when things go right, no one notices and everyone wants to know WTF we pay you guys for.  Overall, I don't see much cause to conclude when the CIA says one thing, the other is most likely true.



bostjan said:


> Is Russia even being accused of tampering with votes here? If you deal in some crazy logic, trust the CIA, and deal only with absolutes (no gray areas), then, I guess I can see how you might reach that conclusion, otherwise, not.



Functionally, what's the difference between a campaign to change votes after they've been cast, versus a campaign to change votes before they're cast? Doesn't that get you to the same place? 

Also, what's with your insistence that the Russian hacking has to be the SOLE reason Trump won? Isn't it being a factor in his victory enough for concern? And given how many things were happening at once, similar to your point about proving a negative I'm not sure you COULD prove any one of them was the sole factor and without its occurrence you don't have Trump winning. Heck, I wish it was that easy to do, because I think the only situation where you could rightly throw out the outcome of the election and have a re-vote would be if you COULD prove that Russian interference, beyond a reasonable doubt, was responsible for Trump's victory.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> You have listed out like, 5 bad things the CIA has done out of thousands. You dismiss them because of that?! The vast majority of what they do does not get reported. It's like writing off airplanes after listing some crashes.



A few posts ago, I asked what they ever did right. If I can list six times they did absolutely horrible things, then you should be able to list at least three things that they got right, no?

And, no, I don't buy your analogy. The CIA is one organization. It's like one airplane crashing six times, and me not wanting to get on it on it's seventh flight. I'd say that if you want to get on, you'd be insane.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Even then, some of them aren't exactly times where they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> LSD as mind control? I mean, I'm not 100% familiar with the study but I thought the point was more to get enemy armies high and then when they were tripping and too ....ed up to know what was going on, THEN attack. They eventually opted not to purse, but IIRC it was more about the ethics of what is within spitting difference of chemical warfare, rather than efficacy.



Umm, no. The CIA was working on actually using it as a mind control drug, at one point. They even drugged their own agents and tried to coerce them into doing things against their will. They eventually gave up on the project, after decades of ruining people's lives with the drugs (including civilians and Canadian citizens), because the effects were far less predictable than they thought. The entire project was flat out stupid.



Drew said:


> al Quaeda and 9/11? Again, the CIA was right. Clinton agreed with their assessment and considered them a significant risk. I think they almost even struck at one point, but opted not to launch an attack in the middle of the presidential election, for fear of being seen as trying to influence the outcome. Then, when Bush won, they sat down to brief his team, and were dumbfounded that all they wanted to talk about was whether or not Iraq was involved and if they should go after them. This is the story as Wesley Clark told it, at least, and to be fair iit was a LONG time ago I read his account, but the CIA was spot on, the Bush administration dropped the ball.



No. Recall that one of the biggest flaws was that the CIA failed to notify the FBI, so no one actually acted, despite the knowledge that the attackers were terrorists.

Ron Wyden, a prominent Democrat in congress then and now, said, "The American people have a right to know what the Central Intelligence Agency was doing in those critical months before 9/11."

The Democratic party itself concluded that the CIA messed up.



Drew said:


> WMD - it's the subject of some discussion if the CIA got this one wrong, or the Bush administration cherry picked evidence for from their assessment and ignored evidence against and opted to move forward as if it was a done deal, and not a questionable assessment.



The CIA supplied the report, as they are now. Bush's administration messed up, but they did get their information from the CIA, and that information said that there were WMD. Are you arguing that it did not?



Drew said:


> Training rebels in Syria was short sighted, true, but wasn't exactly an inteligence analysis failing. Also, wasn't this mostly Afghanistan, to stop the Russians, and not Syria?
> 
> Iran Contra and Bay of Pigs were both before my time, but in the former it strikes me a lot like Syrian rebel situation, where it was a short sighted move but not an intelligence failing. And the Bay of Pigs, my recollection was the reason JFK felt like he could play hardball was because we had intercepted Russian communications, and knew that if we pushed them on missile systems in Cuba, they were going to back down. That if anything would be an intelligence _success_, I would think.
> 
> Overall, I suspect spying is a lot like IT work, where when things go wrong, they go spectacularly wrong and everyone wants to know WTF we pay you guys for, and when things go right, no one notices and everyone wants to know WTF we pay you guys for.  Overall, I don't see much cause to conclude when the CIA says one thing, the other is most likely true.



So every day the world does not end is thanks to the CIA? I'm not buying that. Before the CIA existed, the world didn't end.

I'm not saying that the CIA is wrong in this instance, but, I am saying that I put little clout into their findings. I mistakenly thought that I made that stance clear.



Drew said:


> Functionally, what's the difference between a campaign to change votes after they've been cast, versus a campaign to change votes before they're cast? Doesn't that get you to the same place?



Umm, no. Changing people's minds is fair game. Changing people's votes after the fact is obviously totally different. I guess if we disagree there, then we are going to have a difficult time having a conversation about this.



Drew said:


> Also, what's with your insistence that the Russian hacking has to be the SOLE reason Trump won? Isn't it being a factor in his victory enough for concern? And given how many things were happening at once, similar to your point about proving a negative I'm not sure you COULD prove any one of them was the sole factor and without its occurrence you don't have Trump winning. Heck, I wish it was that easy to do, because I think the only situation where you could rightly throw out the outcome of the election and have a re-vote would be if you COULD prove that Russian interference, beyond a reasonable doubt, was responsible for Trump's victory.



I simply asked if you thought it was. I never said it has to be one or the other. After all of that, I still don't 100% know your answer, I'm guessing "no," but you could help me out there.

I just think it has a bearing on the conversation. I'm really not sure what the main idea is behind the argument that Trump won because of Russian hackers, in total, nor even in part. Is the idea that some swing voters voted for Trump rather than HRC because of the embarrassing emails from the DNC? I mean, no one is contesting the truth of those, as far as I know, so I'm having a difficult time digesting that part of the argument, as well as several other parts of it, but it's certainly a weak point in this whole story.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Umm, no. Changing people's minds is fair game. Changing people's votes after the fact is obviously totally different. I guess if we disagree there, then we are going to have a difficult time having a conversation about this.



Ok, let's take this a step farther. If we swap Russia for Goldman Sachs, how do you feel about their changing voters' votes before they're cast, vs changing them after? 

I mean, isn't this kind of what Citizens' United is about? Limiting the power of, ahem, AMERICAN entities to campaign on behalf of a candidate? If you're not comfortable with large american companies having this kind of power, then why the hell are you comfortable with the Russians doing it? 

Hell, man, I thought one of the few things we actually _agreed _on was the need to overturn Citizens' United, because it gave large corporations too much power to influence voters.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Ok, let's take this a step farther. If we swap Russia for Goldman Sachs, how do you feel about their changing voters' votes before they're cast, vs changing them after?
> 
> I mean, isn't this kind of what Citizens' United is about? Limiting the power of, ahem, AMERICAN entities to campaign on behalf of a candidate? If you're not comfortable with large american companies having this kind of power, then why the hell are you comfortable with the Russians doing it?
> 
> Hell, man, I thought one of the few things we actually _agreed _on was the need to overturn Citizens' United, because it gave large corporations too much power to influence voters.



Citizens United is about money as political speech....

Show me where Russia contributed monetarily to any campaign.

Overturning CU before this election would have TANKED HRC, as a majority of her campaign funding was Wall Street.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Overturning CU before this election would have TANKED HRC, as a majority of her campaign funding was Wall Street.



That's not true in the least. Politifact claims up to 64M of her funding came from Wall Street. That's out of 380M total raised.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> A few posts ago, I asked what they ever did right. If I can list six times they did absolutely horrible things, then you should be able to list at least three things that they got right, no?
> 
> And, no, I don't buy your analogy. The CIA is one organization. It's like one airplane crashing six times, and me not wanting to get on it on it's seventh flight. I'd say that if you want to get on, you'd be insane.



WELL, for starters, the main goal of the CIA is simply gaining information. Big operations are kind of outside of their regular operating procedures. Obviously they're not going to go around telling everyone every time they dig up intelligence on other countries. Partly because they probably want to continue repeating those successes.

When it comes to actually orchestrating things, they constantly do things that are "right" for the time. They're doing crap like taking out al qaeda/isis members left and right. Do I think that's unambiguously good? Not really. Do they have a ton of day to day operations that go fine? Yes. We only hear about their spectacular f-ups. Most of the time, their stuff is classified so as not to compromise other work, so it's not like we hear about it one way or the other, unless you want to go digging through the repositories of info that's been released over the decades. It's only really when something goes spectacularly bad that nothing could ever be continued that it's even safe for them to release it close to the time. Osama Bin Laden is a rare example of a "win" that was actually released to the public, since there weren't further operations going on in that area. And of course, they took forever to do that.

There were a lot of things that were considered big wins that if you say them now is like "omg, we were evil." Stuff like successfully installing the guys we wanted in charge in various countries, or helping to pit rebel factions against whatever force we were trying to get rid of. But, it WAS a big success at the time. LIKE, for example, arming the guys that later became Al Qaeda against the Soviet Union. Obviously we look back on it now and go "those idiots."

To find a list of "big stuff" that is unambiguously good given 20-50 years of history, good luck. They caused the development of some cool spy plane? They discovered the Russian base in Cuba before they actually tested the missiles, which may have prevented WWIII, but there's no way of knowing! There was the Cuban missile crisis afterwards, but who knows what would have happened if they'd actually launched something surprise without us having any idea. They kicked out a ruler dude in Guatemala and that actually hasn't had any negative repercussions. Etc. I think the point is they're operating constantly, their main job is intelligence-gathering, and we never hear about any of it unless it's major enough there's no way we wouldn't hear about it and they couldn't deny involvement, which is mainly with bad things. You can say "they must suck at it if 9/11 happened," but who knows if they found a lot of information that got ignored by those responsible for doing something about it. Etc. 

There was an AMA on Reddit with a guy that actually had to DO stuff instead of gather info, it's worth a read. Here's an article that has some highlights and a direct link towards the bottom. I personally can't navigate Reddit worth a damn, so I dunno if you can find the interesting info either 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20446/former-cia-agent-ama/

I realize I'm coming off as "ra-ra government rules lol," when that couldn't really be further from the truth, I just find it ridiculous to totally dismiss a huge, constantly operating agency's several decades of work based on the 10 or so things they've done that you've ever heard of.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Citizens United is about money as political speech....
> 
> Show me where Russia contributed monetarily to any campaign.
> 
> Overturning CU before this election would have TANKED HRC, as a majority of her campaign funding was Wall Street.



Odd, considering Clinton was the target of the documentary the Citizens United folks produced. You knew that, right? I also don't particularly recall addressing this question to you.


----------



## Drew

In other news: 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Alleg

This is allegedly the British intelligence memo that US Intelligence has just validated the sources to the degree that they now have confidence in its veracity. If accurate, this is pretty ....ing insane.

High level, they alledge Trump was actively cultivated as far back as '07-08, there was frequent back and forth communication between Trump surrogates (including Manaford and Michael Cohen) and Russia, Russia has adequate material on Trump (in the form of "sexual perversion") to blackmail him as far back as 2015, that Russia chose to hold it in reserve given that Trump was working with them.

EDIT - in the spirit of bipartisanship, Snopes ran a story two hours ago listing this as "not confirmed," but subsequently updated it to point out that Trump was now tweeting asbout "fake news" being a "total political witch hunt," all caps.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It's like one airplane crashing six times, and me not wanting to get on it on it's seventh flight. I'd say that if you want to get on, you'd be insane.



Smartass response, but have you ever flown American Airlines? 

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/american.htm

How about US Airways?

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/usair.htm

Or United? 

http://www.airsafe.com/events/airlines/united.htm

Or do you just not fly?


----------



## wankerness

My point to him was that they do stuff CONSTANTLY and he just never, ever hears about any of it other than the big mess-ups. Like, he sure can't name anything they've done other than the mess-ups he's heard about, and may not even know their basic function. Similar to how in the NEWS, you never, ever hear about any flights going well, just the crashes, but thousands of them are just fine all the time. You just know through personal experience that all those are going on, while it's not like you know anyone that works in the CIA that's complaining about all the boring stuff he has to do.


----------



## russmuller

So I'm surprised that the latest garbage hasn't been hashed up here. Now news outlets are reporting that a Russian entity (an individual? an agency? a boogeyman?) has blackmail material over Trump in the form of sex tapes showing him engaged in illicit acts with Russian prostitutes. The most sensational allegation being that he urinated on the prostitutes on camera.

While I actually wouldn't doubt those details at all based on Trump's character (or lack thereof), I'm highly skeptical of headlines like this in the absence of hard evidence.

On a side note... I do believe that there is a connection between Trump and Russia that has a very strong influence on the president-elect. This is something I heard on a podcast, but it really made sense: Consider the fact that Donald Trump has changed his mind and rhetoric on absolutely every issue brought up... except for Putin and Russia. For someone whose stances flip-flop within the same sentence, it's uncanny how Russia is the only issue about which he is consistent. To me, that is a red flag that we really don't know something important about his Russian ties.


----------



## bostjan

Drew - of course I am not comfortable with Russia hacking the DNC. My point is that it looks like we are handling this like a bunch of idiots. You cannot undo the wrong in the past, but what do you do about it moving forward? Beef up internet security, get your own people under control, and work hard to rebuild your reputation. Crying foul very publicly, and stating you have the proof it was a big conspiracy, whilst being very dodgy about the details is just plain stupid, especially if you are dealing with a world superpower in all of this. 9 times out of 10 subtlety wins the day. If it's a private corporation hacking the DNC, then, yes, handle it differently. The corporation is under your governance. Russia is not. This is very much related to economics. In economics, if you have a situation that you want to influence, that requires some sacrifice, you measure the level of sacrifice that is most appropriate and then tackle the problem with that in mind.

Wankerness - I am well aware of what the CIA is supposed to do, as well as the lack of boundaries involved in what they do. I'll give them a qualified half credit for Bin Laden, since they did play a role in finding him, although, there were plenty of people already saying he was where he was long before the CIA set him up. I won't get into the weirdness about Bin Laden's body being destroyed immediately after his death or any of that stuff. Needless to say, I don't see it as a very impressive win, but I will give them a win for that.

Now, if you can dig up two solid wins on top of that by the CIA, I will capitulate my point that the CIA fails more often than not. Otherwise, their public folly is far too much to consider them a trustworthy organization. Period.

Furthermore, there have been a lot of dissident voices, particularly among educated people and foreign intelligence agencies, stating that the CIA was wrong before the final results were public. So, it's like an agency who is almost always wrong when something public comes out, and in many of those cases, I, among others, said that they were wrong before it was public opinion.

All - Yes, I know that planes crash. I'm not sure why you think that point is worth beating a dead horse. But, you are using the analogy to depict an organization for which I listed six significant failures, and another user listed one tick in the win column, for all of his many paragraphs about how great they are and how they are simply secretive. But the secretive aspect has to work both ways. If six major failures and one (assist credit for a) win is our sample size, I have to assume that there are roughly 5-10 times as many failures as wins (as best as we can determine). No matter how many unknown failures and wins, if the data are correct, then that's a success rate of about 8%, or a batting average of 80. I'm not willing to trust this organization at bat, and neither should you.

Look, again, I'm not saying that I know for sure one way or the other that the Russians had X level of involvement. I'm saying that A) we don't know, and B) once we do know, we need to respond wisely. Over-reacting to this is going to be a disaster. The risk of this gambit does not reflect the potential reward; it's like playing Russian Roulette with a penny ante.

And yes, I understand that it is easy to criticize leadership when you are not a part of that leadership, but this will potentially be a major mistake, if we pursue it too far without a fair amount of tact. So far we have shown little tact.


----------



## Axayacatl

wankerness said:


> You have listed out like, 5 bad things the CIA has done out of thousands. You dismiss them because of that?! The vast majority of what they do does not get reported. It's like writing off airplanes after listing some crashes.



You're gonna lose your mind trying to apply any sort of reasonable logic with us. 

Remember, if 17 intelligence agencies coordinate to report on Russian action and four spy chiefs follow-up with further intel briefings, well, then you gotta 'think for yourself' and 'be skeptical', but if President-elect Donald Trump goes on the record saying that he 'grabs women by the .....' all he has to do is refer to '33,000 Clinton emails' (that never amounted to anything, really) to distract our attention.

Email about a risotto recipe (no money trail) --> "I do not trust Hillary"

Hundreds of lawsuits, a history of discrimination against minorities, defrauding students, video tape evidence bragging about sexual assault, no tax returns ever revealed, family members and close advisors with very murky business ties, personal lawyer meets with Russian envoys, etc (yes money trail) --> "I do not trust Hillary"

Remember that in the human brain emotion is processed before reason. That fact alone could save you a lot of time and grief. Otherwise what is going is a total mindphuck


----------



## Axayacatl

bostjan said:


> Beef up internet security, get your own people under control, and work hard to rebuild your reputation.



You do understand that it is a known _fact_ that RNC documents were also hacked, but not released? 

Does the RNC have to beef up security as well? Or just continue to play nice with Russia? Maybe the DNC could lower their information security costs by being chummy with Russia?



bostjan said:


> Crying foul very publicly, and stating you have the proof it was a big conspiracy, whilst being very dodgy about the details is just plain stupid



Stupid? Why? It worked for Trump, didn't it?



bostjan said:


> This is very much related to economics. In economics, if you have a situation that you want to influence, that requires some sacrifice, you measure the level of sacrifice that is most appropriate and then tackle the problem with that in mind.



What the heck are you even talking about? Look, I can change your words and still make the same amount of sense. 



bostjan said:


> This is very much related to religion. In religion, if you have a situation that you want to influence, that requires some sacrifice, you measure the level of sacrifice that is most appropriate and then tackle the problem with that in mind.


----------



## Drew

Trump's press conference... I didn't know you _coukld_ live broadcast an abortion on national television. 

re: the memo - as it turns out, it appears the memos THEMSELVES are valid (no major news outlet disputes this either) as the work of a former Briitish inteligennce agent hired to do opposition research over the span of about a year. What ISN'T known is whether or not the conclusions are valid, but US intelligence is working on providing independent verification. 

The water sports stuff is getting the most attention (and is ....ing hilarious), but the more concerning allegations are the ones that the Trump campaign was in regular communication with Russia during the campaign, and agreed to change the GOP's stance on Ukraine in return for Russia leaking the DNC emails to wikileaks. The former is highly embarrassing; the latter would likely qualify as treason, which, last I heard, is still punishable by death. No wonder Trump freaked the .... out on twitter. 

Also, that Trump totally dodged the question about whether or not he was in communication with Russia during the press conference, when a simple flat denial would have been the easier approach, is pretty concerning.

EDIT - MSNBC just observed something that actually got past me in the rest of that ....storm - Trump point-blank stated that he believed Russia hacked Podesta's email, which is the first time he's actually done so.


----------



## Drew

Bostjan, I still think Citizen's United is a useful frame here. You find it highly problematic that Citizen's United gives US corporations a large influence on US voters, but on the other hand you have no problem with foreign nations exerting that same level of universe? Where's the difference that I'm missing?


----------



## Drew

This is actually a pretty good, informative, and unbiased "what we know, don't know, and still need to know" about the leak.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/...AudDevGate&referer=http://m.facebook.com&_r=0


----------



## wankerness

I saw some posts from 4Chan back in November from some dude saying they he was trying to plant that story, so I'm skeptical of it. It would sure be hilarious if it was true, though. Not that it would make a lick of difference considering everything else he 100% for sure did before the election. :/

Here's a link, I have to do it as code since anything from imgur gets taken down if you link to it from this site, they hate us!!



Code:


http://i.imgur.com/Ax2nuji.jpg


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> I saw some posts from 4Chan back in November from some dude saying they he was trying to plant that story, so I'm skeptical of it. It would sure be hilarious if it was true, though. Not that it would make a lick of difference considering everything else he 100% for sure did before the election. :/
> 
> Here's a link, I have to do it as code since anything from imgur gets taken down if you link to it from this site, they hate us!!
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/Ax2nuji.jpg



Only problem is all those posts are dated November 1st, and Mother Jones ran this story October 31st. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump


----------



## wankerness

I still kinda feel like this is going to end up being the left wing equivalent to the birther movement. Again, I sure HOPE it's true. Twitter has gone nuts with it, so Trump's head is about to explode. I guess it's good he doesn't yet have the nuclear button, or there'd be craters on the east and west coasts.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I feel like I am inside a fever dream:

12/2016: '#pizzagate is fake news. = Not worth covering. Oh, and it cost HRC the win.'

1/2017: 'The Donald peed on Obama's bed. John McCain told us so, but doesn't have proof. = Totally worth covering.'


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I feel like I am inside a fever dream:
> 
> 12/2016: '#pizzagate is fake news. = Not worth covering. Oh, and it cost HRC the win.'
> 
> 1/2017: 'The Donald peed on Obama's bed. John McCain told us so, but doesn't have proof. = Totally worth covering.'



Close. 

Pizzagate - fake news. It was also a story that got traction amongst your people AFTER the election, but that's neither here nor there.

CNN - "Trump received briefing based on memo prepared by ex British intelligent agent's private intelligence firm suggesting Russia may be hoping to blackmail Trump" - series of events _that actually occurred_. Content of the memo itself is presumably unsubstantiated and has been treated as such both here and by every media source I've seen cover the story. Valid news. Thanks for playing, though. 

Buzzfeed's decision to leakm the memo itself was probably a bad one, but hey, it at least made for a hilarious read. 

EDIT - and you know, I'll say one further thing. The media has had this memo since at LEAST October, seeing as Mother Jones ran their story on the 31st. CNN was aware about it, but chose not to report on it at all until they were informed Trump was briefed on it and a two page summary was included in the (redacted) appendices of the national security report on the Russian hacking. At that point, CNN decided to run a story not on the sensational content of the memo itself, but that the CIA had briefed Trump on allegations Russian intelligence was prepared to blackmail him. It was only _after_ Buzzfeed leaked it that all the water sports and communication between the campaign and Russia and suggestions that Trump had been cultivated as far back as 8 years ago by Russia to run became public knowledge (and again, these are allegations, and have not been independently verified so should be treated as such - which broadly they have been). 

So, paradoxically, while you and Trump want to write this off as fake news (and hey, speaking of flip flops, it's awesome to see how quickly the right lined up to condemn fake news, lol), it's actually kind of a textbook example of responsible journalism - CNN had a collection of memos containing insanely sensational allegations, and chose not to run the story because they didn't think they had enough proof.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Buzzfeed's decision to leak the memo itself was probably a bad one, but hey, it at least made for a hilarious read.



Hey, stop talking about leaks. You're turning me on


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> Only problem is all those posts are dated November 1st, and Mother Jones ran this story October 31st.
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump



Well, the post is clearly referring to an already-published story in which they beefed up the material received from him to make it sound more impressive, and added a russian spy angle to it. Could be BS, but the date alone doesn't discredit it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Close.
> 
> Pizzagate - fake news. It was also a story that got traction amongst your people AFTER the election, but that's neither here nor there.
> 
> CNN - "Trump received briefing based on memo prepared by ex British intelligent agent's private intelligence firm suggesting Russia may be hoping to blackmail Trump" - series of events _that actually occurred_. Content of the memo itself is presumably unsubstantiated and has been treated as such both here and by every media source I've seen cover the story. Valid news. Thanks for playing, though.
> 
> Buzzfeed's decision to leakm the memo itself was probably a bad one, but hey, it at least made for a hilarious read.
> 
> EDIT - and you know, I'll say one further thing. The media has had this memo since at LEAST October, seeing as Mother Jones ran their story on the 31st. CNN was aware about it, but chose not to report on it at all until they were informed Trump was briefed on it and a two page summary was included in the (redacted) appendices of the national security report on the Russian hacking. At that point, CNN decided to run a story not on the sensational content of the memo itself, but that the CIA had briefed Trump on allegations Russian intelligence was prepared to blackmail him. It was only _after_ Buzzfeed leaked it that all the water sports and communication between the campaign and Russia and suggestions that Trump had been cultivated as far back as 8 years ago by Russia to run became public knowledge (and again, these are allegations, and have not been independently verified so should be treated as such - which broadly they have been).
> 
> So, paradoxically, while you and Trump want to write this off as fake news (and hey, speaking of flip flops, it's awesome to see how quickly the right lined up to condemn fake news, lol), it's actually kind of a textbook example of responsible journalism - CNN had a collection of memos containing insanely sensational allegations, and chose not to run the story because they didn't think they had enough proof.



That doesn't seem like a convoluted thought process to me. /s

You are in for a VERY long 8 years, my friend.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> That doesn't seem like a convoluted thought process to me. /s
> 
> You are in for a VERY long 8 years, my friend.



Yeah, it's not a convoluted thought process...?

Did it happen, and someone is claiming it did? News. 

Did it not happen, and someone is claiming it did? Fake news. 

Trump got a briefing from national security that there were allegations the Russians were trying to blackmail him. CNN reports that he received a briefing. This is verifiable fact. 

CNN's story: 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

You'll note any talk of, and I quote, "The Donald peeing on Obama's bed," is absent, and there's plenty of mention of the fact that the content of the memos has not been verified: 



> Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.
> 
> The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. *The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.*


----------



## Drew

This is interesting - BBC's Washington correspondent is reporting that there are actually multiple sources for the claim that the Russians had audio/video recordings of Trump engaged in compromising sexual activity during his 2013 trip to Moscow. Wood points out that just because an intelligence source claims something doesn't mean it's true, but the fact that they've heard this claim repeatedly gave it a little more credence. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

This kind of dovetails with CNN's coverage - they had the memos and chose not to run a story on them because they couldn't verify them, until the CIA briefed Trump, Obama, and a number of senators about the allegations last week. Then on Friday night they ran a story that part of the Russian hacking briefing included allegations presented in the memo, and the only one that was alluded to in the story, rather than the more sensationalist golden shower stuff or the claims that Trump and Russia had colluded over Wikileaks in return for the concessions on Ukraine, was that the CIA was concerned Russia may have incrimidating information on Trump they were trying to use to blackmail him with. That's actually one of the _least_sensationalist claims those memos make, but if it's one that national intelligence has multiple sources for that corroborate this memo, it's also one that CNN might be more willing to print.


----------



## narad

I like how that if Obama had to deny sex with a prostitute it would have been along the lines of, ~"No, I love my wife and I'm a respectable person." Trump does it and it's, ~"No way - the germs! I hate germs, trust me!"


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Yeah, it's not a convoluted thought process...?
> 
> Did it happen, and someone is claiming it did? News.
> 
> Did it not happen, and someone is claiming it did? Fake news.
> 
> Trump got a briefing from national security that there were allegations the Russians were trying to blackmail him. CNN reports that he received a briefing. This is verifiable fact.
> 
> CNN's story:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/
> 
> You'll note any talk of, and I quote, "The Donald peeing on Obama's bed," is absent, and there's plenty of mention of the fact that the content of the memos has not been verified:



Trickling (pun intended) in now: the entire salacious story was fabricated by someone on 4Chan's fan fiction sub. And now it is in a CIA "report."

They even have screenshots from early Nov where they are shopping the fake story to the media. 

Want to discuss "fake news" some more?


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Trickling (pun intended) in now: the entire salacious story was fabricated by someone on 4Chan's fan fiction sub. And now it is in a CIA "report."
> 
> They even have screenshots from early Nov where they are shopping the fake story to the media.
> 
> Want to discuss "fake news" some more?



It's also pretty unclear whether 4Chan is truly behind this. It's hard to say - but 4Chan trolling the media that hard, or having Trump so quickly engrossed with a weird sex scandal -- it's win/win.


----------



## You

I will simply leave this here.


----------



## wankerness

12 minute video with no explanation? I sure am not clicking that with my internet-reduced attention span!! "Leave this here" is right.

PS: There's an article on WSJ now that seems to source all this to some former british intelligence officer. It's full of idiotic statements from various intelligence officials and seems pretty damning. It's all just vague enough that I'm sure these stories will keep flying around indefinitely, though. But yeah, it basically says "all of this information came from one guy and none of it was properly sourced and if this had come from an FBI or CIA guy no one would have believed it for a second."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/christo...-to-have-prepared-dossier-on-trump-1484162553

SO, yeah, that takes me from 80% to 99% sure this is all BS.

Oh, you need a subscription to read the link. Here's the full text:



> A former British intelligence officer who is now a director of a private security-and-investigations firm has been identified as the author of the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump&#8217;s activities and connections in Russia, people familiar with the matter say.
> 
> Christopher Steele, a director of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., prepared the dossier, the people said. The document alleges that the Kremlin colluded with Mr. Trump&#8217;s presidential campaign and claims that Russian officials have compromising evidence of Mr. Trump&#8217;s behavior that could be used to blackmail him. Mr. Trump has dismissed the dossier&#8217;s contents as false and Russia has denied the claims.
> 
> Mr. Steele, 52 years old, is one of two directors of the firm, along with Christopher Burrows, 58.
> 
> Mr. Burrows, reached at his home outside London on Wednesday, said he wouldn&#8217;t &#8220;confirm or deny&#8221; that Orbis had produced the report. A neighbor of Mr. Steele&#8217;s said Mr. Steele said he would be away for a few days. In previous weeks Mr. Steele has declined repeated requests for interviews through an intermediary, who said the subject was &#8220;too hot.&#8221;
> 
> 
> The dossier consists of a series of unsigned memos that appear to have been written between June and December 2016. Beyond creating the document, Mr. Steele also devised a plan to get the information to law-enforcement officials in the U.S. and Europe, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter.
> 
> &#8220;We have no political ax to grind,&#8221; Mr. Burrows said, speaking about corporate-intelligence work in general terms. He said when clients asked a firm like Orbis to investigate something, you &#8220;see what&#8217;s out there&#8221; first and later &#8220;stress test&#8221; your findings against other evidence.
> 
> No presidential campaigns or super PACs reported payments to Orbis in their required Federal Election Commission filings. But several super PACs over the course of the campaign reported that they paid limited liability companies, whose ultimate owners may be difficult or impossible to discern.
> 
> The dossier&#8217;s emergence&#8212;it was published online and widely circulated Tuesday&#8212;has generated a firestorm less than 10 days before Mr. Trump&#8217;s inauguration. U.S. officials have examined the allegations but haven&#8217;t confirmed any of them. The Wall Street Journal also hasn&#8217;t corroborated any of the allegations in the dossier.
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s all fake news,&#8221; Mr. Trump said in a news conference Wednesday. &#8220;It&#8217;s all phony stuff. It didn&#8217;t happen.&#8221;
> 
> The dossier contains lurid and hard-to-prove allegations. The FBI has found no evidence, for example, supporting the dossier&#8217;s claim that an attorney for Mr. Trump went to the Czech Republic to meet Kremlin officials, U.S. officials said. The attorney has also denied the claim.
> 
> The allegations in the document, while unsubstantiated, provoked concern in official circles in Washington. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he received a copy of the document late last year and forwarded it to the FBI.
> 
> &#8220;Upon examination of the contents, and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy, I delivered the information to the director of the FBI,&#8221; Mr. McCain said.
> 
> The author of the report had a good reputation in the intelligence world and was stationed in Russia for years, said John Sipher, who retired in 2014 after 28 years in the CIA&#8217;s clandestine service, where he specialized in Russia and counterintelligence. Mr. Sipher is now director of client services at CrossLead Inc., a Washington-based technology company set up by retired U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
> 
> Private-intelligence firms like Orbis have a growing presence. Major corporations use them to conduct due diligence on potential business partners in risky areas, but quality control can be loose when it comes to high-level political intrigue, executives of private intelligence companies say.
> 
> &#8216;If the head of the CIA were to declare he got information of this quality, you wouldn&#8217;t believe it.&#8217;
> 
> When government intelligence agencies produce clandestine political reports, they often include thick sections about sources, possible motivations behind their information and the methods used to approach them. Such background helps decision makers determine how reliable the information is.
> 
> Andrew Wordsworth, co-founder of London-based investigations firm Raedas, who often works on Russian issues, said the memos in the Trump dossier were &#8220;not convincing at all.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;It&#8217;s just way too good,&#8221; he said. &#8220;If the head of the CIA were to declare he got information of this quality, you wouldn&#8217;t believe it.&#8221;
> 
> Mr. Wordsworth said it wouldn&#8217;t make sense for Russian intelligence officials to expose state secrets to a former MI6 officer. &#8220;Russians believe once you are an agent, you&#8217;re an agent forever,&#8221; he said.
> 
> &#8212;Jenny Gross and
> Jason Douglas
> contributed to this article.



EDIT: Here's a considerably longer but much clearer piece on the whole thing. It's written basically from the perspective of a left-wing realist, saying that this whole thing is BS and decrying the actions of all the people that have latched onto it, especially those in non-internet media. It calls out a lot of sites who have spread this, and I'm pretty surprised at some of them - apart from the cesspool that is buzzfeed, some major, historically somewhat reliable sites have been reporting this!! Basically, it's doing a lot more harm than good even in the short run, and will definitely do a lot more in the long run since now Trump's people will be able to point to the media and just say "remember last time when they spread COMPLETE LIES?!" Good luck getting anything accomplished if something REAL comes along now!

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11...-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/


----------



## chopeth

Disgusting... considering the new leader of the "free world" I'm even proud of the asshole the president of my country is, corrupt and stupid as a fvk. I can't believe how post-truth won in the states.


----------



## bostjan

Axayacatl said:


> You do understand that it is a known _fact_ that RNC documents were also hacked, but not released?
> 
> Does the RNC have to beef up security as well? Or just continue to play nice with Russia? Maybe the DNC could lower their information security costs by being chummy with Russia?
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid? Why? It worked for Trump, didn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you even talking about? Look, I can change your words and still make the same amount of sense.



1. I'd like to see those RNC emails, too. But probably there just wasn't anything juicy in them. TBH, there really wasn't anything that damning in the DNC emails, just some low level sketchy stuff, IMO. Nothing that changes my mind about party politics in any way.

2. The RNC also needs too beef up cyber security, of course. I think maybe you are looking for a "gotcha" with that question, but I don't get your motive. You must think I support Trump or the RNC or something. My guess is that the RNC doesn't use email as much as the DNC, or they keep their emails more kurt than the the DNC. In any case, it is difficult to provide as much detail in commentary when the information is unknown.

3. I think I made myself clear. Let me break it down for you, though, anyway:
A. Trump is an idiot who was elected because he provided a more relate-able cult of personality to follow than Clinton.
B. Russia, I'm certain, had its preference for who was going to be president. This means nothing on its own, because I am sure most government administrations around the world did. Read the CIA's report, though, because that is the only point the CIA makes upon which it gives any explicit evidence.
C. If the USA is going to go after Russia for some sort of breach of trust or international law, or whatever, publicly, then the USA had better have something to back that up, beyond "because we said so." Otherwise, we look like a bunch of asshats, just like we did with Iraq.
D. Just as you cry for consequences against Russia, there will likewise be consequences for the USA if this turns out to be bull...., and I have a strong suspicion that this is bull...., despite being anti-Trump and being American.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Trickling (pun intended) in now: the entire salacious story was fabricated by someone on 4Chan's fan fiction sub. And now it is in a CIA "report."
> 
> They even have screenshots from early Nov where they are shopping the fake story to the media.
> 
> Want to discuss "fake news" some more?



You're not getting this, are you?  

CNN reported that a memo was presented to Trump as part of a security briefing. That happened. CNN did not report on the content of the memo, because they couldn't verify it. 

Are you denying that the US intelligence community briefed Trump on the contents of the memo that eventually leaked? 

Meanwhile, let's say for the sake of discussion that the memo WAS a 4chan creation - how does that improve the situation any? Trump is having a ....ing MELTDOWN on twitter and in his first press conference in 6 months about something that we're going to assume some kid in his bedroom put together? Should we really feel any safer because our president-elect is THAT easy to rile? Jesus ....ing christ, in 8 days this guy gets the nuclear codes, and this is your idea of a _defense_ for Trump?  

Good lord, man. Absolutely _nothing_ about this scenario is good for Trump.  Hell, on some level I almost hope this IS a 4chan fabrication, because the idea of 4chan as the battle front for the war against an American despot is just too damned rich for belief, right up there with Teen Vogue, of all publications, suddenly being a soruce for hard-hitting investigative journalism.  Listen, I know conservatives are increasingly anti-science and all, but you can't just call anything you don't like "fake news" - last I checked, fact still exists.


----------



## Drew

Incidently, Capn, I'll also point out that your boy Trump is slowly but surely losing control of this narrative. Trump in the debates: "How do we know it was russia? We don't know it was russia. How do we know it wasn't a 400 pound man in his bedroom in his parents' house in New Jersey?" Trump last week - "Wikileaks says it wasn't Russia. Russia says it wasn't Russia. Why do we say it's Russia?"

You several weeks ago:



CapnForsaggio said:


> Neither of those institutions have provided any proof or evidence of anything...
> 
> Wikileaks, which has not been accused of manipulating stories, ever, has said flatly, 'Russia did not provide us the information.'
> 
> I think you should be careful about where you place your bets here. My money is on Wikileaks.
> 
> You heard it here:
> 
> The DNC/Podesta hacks were an intelligence insider in the US gov.
> 
> Just wait.



Now, yesterday, Trump in his first press conference, when asked who he thought hacked Podesta's email: "I believe it was Russia. But other nations hack us too." 

He's slowly but grudgingly backtracking - after denying Russia had anything to do with this since the story first broke back in the campaign, he's now, after seeing what the CIA knows about the hacks, agreeing that Russia was behind the Podesta Wikileaks emails. 

Whether or not you think it MATTERS that Russia was hacking a political rival of the most overtly pro-Russian presidential candidate we've had since before the Cold War, and then feeding emails to Wikileaks to try to discredit her campaign, hey, you're your own person, I think you're being amazingly naive but whatever. Your call. But even Trump isn't denying it's happened anymore, which is a _massive_ backtrack from his stance even as recently as the beginning of last week.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> ...except, the Clinton Administration DOES have excellent transparency, discloses their donors, and is routinely reviewed by charity watchdogs and generally gets high marks. A lot is made of the fact that Charity Navigator withdrew their rating in 2013 - if you actually read their website, however, they explain that they didn't feel they could compare the CF annual financials post-CGI merger, asked the CF to prepare prior-period consolidated statements for their use, the CF obliged, and when they did they restated their rating, which is currently 94.74 out of 100. Meanwhile, the Trump Foundation IS unrated, and under Moderate Risk watch.
> 
> And, the Wikileaks leaks showed that foreign interests tried to buy access, but were rebuffed. I'd love to see where you're drawing this conclusion that the Clintons were selling access.



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/01/16/clinton-global-initiative-closing-n2272226

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-global-initiative-closing-doors/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/clin...ns-to-shut-down-following-hrcs-election-loss/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-staff-closes-Clinton-Global-Initiative.html

Huh. None of us saw that coming.....

I guess that the Clintons have given up on "charitable activities."


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/01/16/clinton-global-initiative-closing-n2272226
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-global-initiative-closing-doors/
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/clin...ns-to-shut-down-following-hrcs-election-loss/
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-staff-closes-Clinton-Global-Initiative.html
> 
> Huh. None of us saw that coming.....
> 
> I guess that the Clintons have given up on "charitable activities."



I'm not saying there was no wrong-doing, but you know it was closing down prior to the election, yes? So you should see it coming -- it was announced several months ago.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


----------



## will_shred

All it takes to verify if its "real" news or "fake" news is clicking the links provided in the article and trying to trace it back to its primary source, I don't see what's so difficult about that. I've seen fake news pieces that only cite other fake news pieces as their source, either that, or they take a primary source and heavily twist it to line up with whatever ideological agenda they're pushing. It usually doesn't take more then 5 minutes to determine if any given piece of information is credible or not. 

From everything I know about the Trump memo, it seems to be credible. Considering the person who published it was an M16 agent who had ties to Russia going back to the cold war, and the depth of detail given in the report. If this person had published false information, he would be risking his career, and his life, for literally no reason. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-steele-prepared-explosive-trump-memo-n705891

Just read the memo and decide for yourselves what to make of it, taken in the context of who wrote it. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.



Well the fact you bring it up would suggest you expected them to just now reverse their decision to continue the charity. Now _that_ would be strange, given that they've publicly stated their intent to leave mainstream politics.


----------



## Axayacatl

bostjan said:


> D. Just as you cry for consequences against Russia



I liked your reply and learned from it. Thanks for the thoughtful riposte. Just to be clear, I didn't cry (or write, or sing, or dance, etc) for consequences against Russia. I know there are a lot of posts and separate conversations going on and that you are replying to a lot of people, so no worries there, but don't fake news me, brah!

Edit: just to clarify, I do believe in consequences.

Consequences for the *WHITE SUPREMACIST ORANGE RUSSIA POODLE PUPPET WHO IS NOW MY PRESIDENT AS WELL AS HIS ENTIRE ENTOURAGE THAT COMMIT TREASON AND BLATANTLY CAVORT WITH THE ENEMY.*

There, I cried for consequences. I just find consequences against Russia irrelevant.


----------



## hairychris

Personal opinion - peeing prostitute story may well be false, but I am willing to think that the FSB have something on Trump. We know he likes Slavic women and has poor impulse control so it would be trivial for them to arrange a set-up. This was SOP for Soviet security services so stupid to think that anything changed post-1991. Any prominent businessman (as Trump was) would be a target.

However, if the various _other_ rumours are correct, Trump is badly compromised by Russia financially (including links to Putin's personal banker IIRC) to the tune of hundreds of millions of USD.

I'm also certain that non-US western security services are well aware of all of the above which puts them in a terrible position - up to an including asking for guarantees that their agents in Russia won't get exposed by the US.

My wild guess over the outcome: Trump gets back-stabbed by the GOP and Pence put in as President within the next 2 years.


----------



## bostjan

Axayacatl said:


> I liked your reply and learned from it. Thanks for the thoughtful riposte. Just to be clear, I didn't cry (or write, or sing, or dance, etc) for consequences against Russia. I know there are a lot of posts and separate conversations going on and that you are replying to a lot of people, so no worries there, but don't fake news me, brah!
> 
> Edit: just to clarify, I do believe in consequences.
> 
> Consequences for the *WHITE SUPREMACIST ORANGE RUSSIA POODLE PUPPET WHO IS NOW MY PRESIDENT AS WELL AS HIS ENTIRE ENTOURAGE THAT COMMIT TREASON AND BLATANTLY CAVORT WITH THE ENEMY.*
> 
> There, I cried for consequences. I just find consequences against Russia irrelevant.



Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I think too many folks are trying too hard to beat around the bush.

If the foundation of the idea here is that Trump is not fit to lead, let's take it that direction. I think it's a more directly debatable argument. If we take the argument through multiple tangential arguments, then no one will care by the time you get to the actual point.

If the CIA really wants to remove Trump from power, they are going to have to either be blatant and bold, or be subtle and sneaky. It seems to me that they are trying to straddle the two positions, and I don't see that working out. I suppose time will ultimately tell.


----------



## hairychris

bostjan said:


> Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I think too many folks are trying too hard to beat around the bush.
> 
> If the foundation of the idea here is that Trump is not fit to lead, let's take it that direction. I think it's a more directly debatable argument. If we take the argument through multiple tangential arguments, then no one will care by the time you get to the actual point.
> 
> If the CIA really wants to remove Trump from power, they are going to have to either be blatant and bold, or be subtle and sneaky. It seems to me that they are trying to straddle the two positions, and I don't see that working out. I suppose time will ultimately tell.



As CIA's remit is outside the US's borders they'd need to be sneaky... Would make more sense if the Republican party threw him out themselves, possibly using leaked info but after shouldering him with the blame for whatever unpopular decisions they make now.

It's easy to see them "finally discovering" something hugely illegal in Trump's finances in the near future, but after Jan 20th so the presidency is safe.


----------



## You

It is official. Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States.


----------



## TedEH

/thread, I guess?


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> ...the USA is an idiot, but the overall level of idiocy is unsustainable long term, so something's going to snap sooner rather than later. Even if it's not this election, I feel that it's coming. Maybe it won't be until Honey Booboo is old enough to run for president...



Quote of me wayyy earlier in this thread.

Trump's speech was actually far above my expectations.

We are still totally ....ed, though, well, most likely. 

But yeah, I guess this thread is unequivocally run it's course, as far as the original post is concerned.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Quote of me wayyy earlier in this thread.
> 
> Trump's speech was actually far above my expectations.
> 
> We are still totally ....ed, though, well, most likely.
> 
> But yeah, I guess this thread is unequivocally run it's course, as far as the original post is concerned.



I like the thread title as a perspective on how far over the odds it took for us to get here, and I think it'll be a good reminder of where we started from, when we start discussing what he'll actually do now that it's his time to govern.

FWIW, I've been a "lets be patient and see" type person with regard to how he's going to be in office, and I thought his speech was fairly well executed and that most people would enjoy it, but I got some very unsettling nationalist undertones from it.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I like the thread title as a perspective on how far over the odds it took for us to get here, and I think it'll be a good reminder of where we started from, when we start discussing what he'll actually do now that it's his time to govern.
> 
> FWIW, I've been a "lets be patient and see" type person with regard to how he's going to be in office, and I thought his speech was fairly well executed and that most people would enjoy it, but I got some very unsettling nationalist undertones from it.



"Patriotic," and "nationalistic" are in the thesaurus together. It all depends on whether you look at it from the right or from the left.


----------



## You

Think of the memes that will be conceived in the next 4 years. I believe that the memes will be splendid, if the 2016 election were to indicate.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I'm already starting


----------



## narad

Funny stuff. 4 more years of memes this clever? Can't wait. Awesome.

On a similar note, nothing says greatness like having 3 Doors Down play your inauguration XD


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Did you just try to burn me by transferring the responsibility of 3 doors down playing the inaug?

I suppose that's not a stretch.... 'Capn Forsaggio is responsible for 3 Doors down, and Putin is responsible for Hillary losing!'

Keep the tears rollin. I love how they taste. 

Make the weekend great again! Peace everyone.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Did you just try to burn me by transferring the responsibility of 3 doors down playing the inaug?
> 
> I suppose that's not a stretch.... 'Capn Forsaggio is responsible for 3 Doors down, and Putin is responsible for Hillary losing!'



Nope, not sure where you found anything personal in that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> play your inauguration XD



Right there?


----------



## wankerness

Sections of Trump's speech today reminded me of Dwight Schrute's at the regional salesman awards.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Right there?



 Really? I thought this would be pretty clear given that you're not the person being inaugurated today, but for further reading please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you


----------



## Science_Penguin

The anarchist in me is a little disappointed the riots didn't actually disrupt anything... Didn't even show up on the news except for a little blurb at the bottom of the screen for a minute or two.

Not that I care about the reasons for it- I mean, it was either Trump or Hilary; you could find a reason to riot against either one- but at least we would've had something interesting happen.


----------



## Vrollin

narad said:


> Funny stuff. 4 more years of memes this clever? Can't wait.



I guess if it was a trump meme you'd have been all for it?


----------



## Science_Penguin

Vrollin said:


> I guess if it was a trump meme you'd have been all for it?



4 more years of conversations going exactly this direction. Can't wait... (yes I can)


----------



## flint757

Science_Penguin said:


> 4 more years of conversations going exactly this direction. Can't wait... (yes I can)



My least favorite part of this election has been those sort of interactions. Anytime I made a fact based criticism of Trump or Hillary or Warren or any other politician from whatever party I got accused by either side of being a supporter of their opponent and it went much worse than that typically with Hillary supporters. Criticize Obama for his war record and I get called a racist. Criticize Hillary for similar negative issues, must be a sexist and a Trump supporter. I guess we can add being called a 'comrade' or a Russian plant as well after the election.

I'm glad people are finally paying attention after sitting by for the last 8 years, but it'll be nice when the actual election is in the distance so a lot of that can chill out.


----------



## estabon37

My primary problem with Trump right now is what I see as his failure to fulfil one of his earliest and most often repeated promises: "I will hire the best people". 

Betsy De Vos stands out to me as an example of somebody who is completely ignorant of how the education system works, who is intent on deflecting all responsibility for her role ("the states can handle that"), and who in all likelihood do her best to cut education funding in favour of charter and for-profit schooling. Finding unbiased information about charter schools is extremely difficult, but generally speaking, it seems that they do not substantially improve student learning outcomes, to the point where the results are essentially the same. De Vos has shown up with a history of favouring a specific type of educational institution, despite having very little knowledge of how educational institutions operate. This is not a case of hiring "the best people".

Maybe De Vos is an anomaly. I work in education, so it's easy for me to see that she's clueless. Maybe every other member of Trump's cabinet is the best possible choice for that position. But based on De Vos, I find it difficult to believe.



hairychris said:


> My wild guess over the outcome: Trump gets back-stabbed by the GOP and Pence put in as President within the next 2 years.



It's pretty unlikely within the boundaries of American politics, isn't it? Australia has had three Prime Ministers fired by their parties in the last ten years (Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard [replaced by Kevin Rudd, who then lost an election to -->], Tony Abbott), but Australians don't get to vote for a leader. Americans directly vote for a leader, so how much power does an American political party have to depose that leader? Genuinely curious.


----------



## flint757

Given Perry is the nominee for Department of Energy and he didn't even realize it was about domestic nuclear programs and the nuclear arsenal I'm going to say he's hired a number of people not qualified for the jobs being given. He thought he was going to be working for the oil companies or some such nonsense. Talk about not even doing your homework.


----------



## narad

Vrollin said:


> I guess if it was a trump meme you'd have been all for it?



I can appreciate wit regardless of the target, as can many people. Otherwise there'd be no such thing as self-deprecating humor. However, using a platform -- memes -- which are supposed to be witty or humorous, and generally in good spirits, to just push unfunny vitriol is just a waste of everyone's time. Taking an insult and sticking it in a black jpeg with a photo doesn't mask what it really is and has the added effect of making the meme creators/distributors look dumb and out of touch.

Like I'm sure I'd be able to listen to Malcolm Tucker make fun of Hillary all day long, but I'd rather not see/hear any jokes about Trump's hair because it's just stale and not entertaining.


----------



## coreysMonster

I wish Trump memes were at least clever. "*group's* tears" is a ....ty meme no matter who does it. There's plenty to make fun of the way the democratic party is run but they just ....post the stupidest things they can think of.

Reddit Rage comics had more value as memes


----------



## Demiurge

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/rea...emium-rate-cut/index.html?iid=surge-stack-dom

Inauspicious that one of the first moves is something as petty as this. I bought my home right out of college with an FHA loan because I believe that property ownership was preferable to renting, and I can attest that this isn't some bloated entitlement program (you still need a lot to qualify). FHA insurance is less than PMI- a reduction isn't game-changing relief, but if the administration's aim is to help out those for whom anything might make an impact, this is in the wrong direction.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Demiurge said:


> http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/20/rea...emium-rate-cut/index.html?iid=surge-stack-dom
> 
> Inauspicious that one of the first moves is something as petty as this. I bought my home right out of college with an FHA loan because I believe that property ownership was preferable to renting



and many experts are debating whether or not that is even true anymore



Demiurge said:


> and I can attest that this isn't some bloated entitlement program (you still need a lot to qualify). FHA insurance is less than PMI- a reduction isn't game-changing relief, but if the administration's aim is to help out those for whom anything might make an impact, this is in the wrong direction.



if you read the LA Times the rate reduction suspension is under review and the reduction has a decent shot of making it back. it was suspended because there is a reasonable belief that expanding home affordability will create another housing bubble. since the government made no reforms after the housing collapse and subprime traunches came back and are being sold under other names... then yes this suspension of a rate reduction is worth looking into during a transition.



flint757 said:


> Given Perry is the nominee for Department of Energy and he didn't even realize it was about domestic nuclear programs and the nuclear arsenal I'm going to say he's hired a number of people not qualified for the jobs being given. He thought he was going to be working for the oil companies or some such nonsense. Talk about not even doing your homework.



and this is a myth started by the NYT misquoting a former transition staffer. the domestic nuclear programs have had a substantial presence in Texas for years and years. him being governor and not knowing about DE facilities in his state borders on the absurd.


----------



## Demiurge

Ibanezsam4 said:


> and many experts are debating whether or not that is even true anymore



I'll concede as much that maybe it's a YMMV situation. I bought at the height of the market before the bubble burst, so it took me longer to be 'right-side up'; a friend of mine bought a house post-bubble, thinking it was a steal, and is still upside-down. If I were going to send cautionary advice to myself back in time, it would have been about mobility more than economics.



> if you read the LA Times the rate reduction suspension is under review and the reduction has a decent shot of making it back. it was suspended because there is a reasonable belief that expanding home affordability will create another housing bubble. since the government made no reforms after the housing collapse and subprime traunches came back and are being sold under other names... then yes this suspension of a rate reduction is worth looking into during a transition.



I'll take a look at that article. The popular conception of the collapse, it seems, was that people bought 'too much house' with variable interest-rate loans that started at a low rate and later blew-up on the homeowners (and the investors and the insurers). I can see that as a dangerous version of said "home affordability"- lenders acting like those "No Cash No Credit No Problem!" used car dealers.  On the other hand, my FHA loan was a standard fixed-rate mortgage that was looser only on the money-down requirement but otherwise still pretty strict in terms of pre-inspection, debt-to-income ratio, and credit rating. If I were offered a variable rate, I would have run for the hills.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Demiurge said:


> I'll take a look at that article. The popular conception of the collapse, it seems, was that people bought 'too much house' with variable interest-rate loans that started at a low rate and later blew-up on the homeowners (and the investors and the insurers). I can see that as a dangerous version of said "home affordability"- lenders acting like those "No Cash No Credit No Problem!" used car dealers.  On the other hand, my FHA loan was a standard fixed-rate mortgage that was looser only on the money-down requirement but otherwise still pretty strict in terms of pre-inspection, debt-to-income ratio, and credit rating. If I were offered a variable rate, I would have run for the hills.



it's worth checking out. they get Carson on record saying he will consider lowering the rate (holding him to that, even tho the current rate aint half bad). the important part is they aren't _raising _it. the downside is the fracked over a ton of buyers who were told by their agents to wait until the end of the month


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Conway: Spicer used 'alternative facts' in press briefing

When you're accused of having fascistic tendencies it would seem prudent to avoid introducing terms like "alternative facts" into your administration's vocabulary.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The whole attendance thing is amazing and ridiculous at the same time. Alternative facts, flooring that makes the crowd look smaller?


----------



## Axayacatl

My President lies about verifiable facts that not even a North Korean leader would lie about. 

Who would have thought that 'Big Brother' would come not through expansive and invasive government, but by the guy at the top talking directly to his supporters through private communication platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. 

Interesting times.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Axayacatl said:


> My President lies about verifiable facts that not even a North Korean leader would lie about.




this is a terrible comparison


----------



## Axayacatl

Ibanezsam4 said:


> this is a terrible comparison



I know. I, too, shudder. 

But enough about me. What else did you learn on the History Channel today? Did they grant you your History Ph.D. yet or is that still in the mail?

My man Pres. Donald J. Trump is at the top of the world, winning constantly, yet his (p)sycophant press officer lies about verifiable facts. 

I was at both inaugurations, Obama 1st and 2nd time, and also the one for President Trump. 

The crowds just do not compare. 

Crowds mean nothing. President Trump won fair and square.

But why lie about verifiable facts? I was there. Were you?

Check back in with me when the History Channel airs their special 2 years from now.

Again, *did you go to the Inauguration? *

Pretend you were giving advice on gear. Maybe an amp, a guitar, whatever. On this forum we put a lot of importance on people actually playing the gear they recommend or criticize.

*Did you go to the Inauguration? *

Here's my guess given the attendance: probably not.


----------



## wankerness

Axayacatl said:


> I know. I, too, shudder.
> 
> But enough about me. What else did you learn on the History Channel today? Did they grant you your History Ph.D. yet or is that still in the mail?
> 
> My man Pres. Donald J. Trump is at the top of the world, winning constantly, yet his (p)sycophant press officer lies about verifiable facts.
> 
> I was at both inaugurations, Obama 1st and 2nd time, and also the one for President Trump.
> 
> The crowds just do not compare.
> 
> Crowds mean nothing. President Trump won fair and square.
> 
> But why lie about verifiable facts? I was there. Were you?
> 
> Check back in with me when the History Channel airs their special 2 years from now.
> 
> Again, *did you go to the Inauguration? *
> 
> Pretend you were giving advice on gear. Maybe an amp, a guitar, whatever. On this forum we put a lot of importance on people actually playing the gear they recommend or criticize.
> 
> *Did you go to the Inauguration? *
> 
> Here's my guess given the attendance: probably not.



Are you SURE you're from the USA? Or are you on some primo weed? The repeated bold/italic question makes me read it in the voice of that "hello my future girlfriend" kid from the dawn of the internet.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## big_aug

Alternative facts. 

I love it. I'm going to use that every day.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

big_aug said:


> Alternative facts.
> 
> I love it. I'm going to use that every day.



I am going to use "alternative lifestyle" as a derogatory description for lifestyles I don't agree with.

See how words work?


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am going to use "alternative lifestyle" as a derogatory description for lifestyles I don't agree with.
> 
> See how words work?



About 40 years late on that one, Hoss. People did that in the 70s and it didn't matter then either


----------



## Axayacatl

wankerness said:


> Are you SURE you're from the USA? Or are you on some primo weed? The repeated bold/italic question makes me read it in the voice of that "hello my future girlfriend" kid from the dawn of the internet.



Like Henry Kissinger I have an accent. 

You are not the first person to question my 'USA-ness'.


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am going to use "alternative lifestyle" as a derogatory description for lifestyles I don't agree with.
> 
> See how words work?



I'm with you on the words thing. 

But the crowds is a simple math thing. 

Alternative math: "2 + 2 = 5"

No wonder Trump supporters need his direct help to keep their jobs... lol...


----------



## big_aug

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am going to use "alternative lifestyle" as a derogatory description for lifestyles I don't agree with.
> 
> See how words work?



Well, there certainly are different lifestyles out there. There are alternative ways to live one's life.

Your post leaves me wondering if you know how words work.

Alternative facts isn't derogatory at all. In context, it was used as a much more positive way to describe demonstrably false statements. I will definitely be utilizing it frequently. I won't have to lie or be wrong about anything ever again. Alternative facts will make my life much easier.


----------



## Andromalia

estabon37 said:


> My primary problem with Trump right now is what I see as his failure to fulfil one of his earliest and most often repeated promises: "I will hire the best people".



Since when hiring the best people for a job is a right wing value ? It has always been nepotism and money grabbing. Things that, unsurprisingly, Trump has already started doing. Totally as expected. You just got fooled into electing that dude.


----------



## Edika

big_aug said:


> I won't have to lie or be wrong about anything ever again. Alternative facts will make my life much easier.



QFT


----------



## bostjan

big_aug said:


> I won't have to lie or be wrong about anything ever again. Alternative facts will make my life much easier.





I will go revise my resume now...


----------



## Drew

I was out of the country for a week. Did I miss anything important?



CapnForsaggio said:


> I am going to use "alternative lifestyle" as a derogatory description for lifestyles I don't agree with.
> 
> See how words work?



I'm not sure you do. 

"Alternative" is an adjective here, modifying the noun "lifestyle." It's also not an adjective of negation - it's saying, basically, there are a whole bunch of things described by this noun, and I'm using this adjective to describe a particular class of them. 

In the case of "alternative lifestyle," the phrase indicates that there are a whole _bunch_ of different lifestyles, and the adjective "alternative" is being used to identify them as being different from a "normal" lifestyle, whatever that is. If collecting Pokemon Go cards is your idea of a not-normal lifestyle, then you could fairly describe this as an "alternative lifestyle," in a derogatory manner or otherwise. That it IS a lifestyle is never under debate. 

In the case of "alternative facts," however... Remember, "alternative" is a modifier of "facts." What Conway was claiming, essentially, is that there are a whole range of facts, and the ones Spicer was citing are just not the "normal" ones. Except, the problem was, what Spicer was citing was provably false; i.e - not a "fact" _at all_. And, since "alternative" isn't an adjective used to _negate_ the verb that follows it, that's problematic. 

tl;dr - the problem with Conway's language here is not her use of the word "alternative," it's her use of the word "fact." She's just throwing a modifier in front of it in the hopes that no one will notice. 

It's one of the most blatantly Orwellian examples of real-life doublespeak I've ever seen - I'll hand her that.


----------



## Drew

My favorite part of the whole thing, of course, is that technically speaking, by citing "alternative facts," you can describe yourself as being "alt-right."


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I'm not sure you do.
> 
> ...



+1 for the thorough linguistic breakdown.


----------



## bostjan

Riffing off of Drew's post: Imagine a society where only one lifestyle is considered legitimate, yet several contradicting series of facts are considered legitimate. I fear that is where the US's culture has been taking us for quite some time now, and it appears to be culminating with this administration (at least until we see what's next!). We are days into this presidency, and, well, a lot is changing...the USA is out of the TPP, the Mexico City Protocol is back, the ACA is sinking fast, federal housing assistance programs are being deconstructed, anti-nepotism laws are nullified, NAFTA is on the table now to be taken apart next - some of this is actually good stuff, most is bad, though.

What's really scary is that there have been murmurings from Trump about Iraqi oil being taken over by force. I may be grossly premature in even hinting at this, but if Trump gets us into another Iraq war, then we are f*d.


----------



## Drew

Hey, back before I sacrificed my soul on the alter of the Old Financial Gods and New, I used to be a literature major. Words matter. 



bostjan said:


> What's really scary is that there have been murmurings from Trump about Iraqi oil being taken over by force. I may be grossly premature in even hinting at this, but if Trump gets us into another Iraq war, then we are f*d.



Allegedly, Iraq was NOT happy about that little blurb, and US-Iraqi relations with our peacekeeping forces are a little strained at the moment.


----------



## MFB

> What's really scary is that there have been murmurings from Trump about Iraqi oil being taken over by force. I may be grossly premature in even hinting at this, but if Trump gets us into another Iraq war, then we are f*d.



This is the thing that scares me most since my best friend, a woman who I've genuinely cared about since first meeting her, just joined the Air Force and it couldn't have been under a worse president.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Axayacatl said:


> I know. I, too, shudder.
> 
> But enough about me. What else did you learn on the History Channel today? Did they grant you your History Ph.D. yet or is that still in the mail?
> 
> My man Pres. Donald J. Trump is at the top of the world, winning constantly, yet his (p)sycophant press officer lies about verifiable facts.
> 
> I was at both inaugurations, Obama 1st and 2nd time, and also the one for President Trump.
> 
> The crowds just do not compare.
> 
> Crowds mean nothing. President Trump won fair and square.
> 
> But why lie about verifiable facts? I was there. Were you?
> 
> Check back in with me when the History Channel airs their special 2 years from now.
> 
> Again, *did you go to the Inauguration? *
> 
> Pretend you were giving advice on gear. Maybe an amp, a guitar, whatever. On this forum we put a lot of importance on people actually playing the gear they recommend or criticize.
> 
> *Did you go to the Inauguration? *
> 
> Here's my guess given the attendance: probably not.



I read all of that in Charlie Sheen's voice. Not only did it make sense, but it made me feel pretty good.


----------



## DudeManBrother

Axayacatl said:


> My President lies about verifiable facts that not even a North Korean leader would lie about.
> 
> Who would have thought that 'Big Brother' would come not through expansive and invasive government, but by the guy at the top talking directly to his supporters through private communication platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.
> 
> Interesting times.



Does that mean you don't think the Government is too expansive and invasive already!?


----------



## big_aug

Did you guys see the photo Trump tweeted of the inauguration? The one he's going to be hanging in the White House? It showed the date January 21, 2017. It's nothing really, but I found it hilarious given his recent obsession with the crowds.

On a related subject, is anyone else secretly looking forward to one of these goofy hacking groups hijacking Trump's Twitter and posting some stupid ....?

Now that I read that... Hahaha


----------



## flint757

The .... he's posting isn't stupid enough for you.


----------



## Veldar

I feel for all you Americans right now, at least when Australia gets more conservative right wing parties in power they're not where near as obnoxious as Trump is.


----------



## TheStig1214

big_aug said:


> Did you guys see the photo Trump tweeted of the inauguration? The one he's going to be hanging in the White House? It showed the date January 21, 2017. It's nothing really, but I found it hilarious given his recent obsession with the crowds.
> 
> On a related subject, is anyone else secretly looking forward to one of these goofy hacking groups hijacking Trump's Twitter and posting some stupid ....?
> 
> Now that I read that... Hahaha



Just saw it. Conveniently leaves out whole swathes of half filled National Mall areas.


----------



## celticelk

Interesting non-alternative fact: if Trump's proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration from seven countries had been in place before 9/11 and continued through today, they would have prevented one terror attack (the stabbings at Ohio State last November) and saved zero American lives.


----------



## big_aug

celticelk said:


> Interesting non-alternative fact: if Trump's proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration from seven countries had been in place before 9/11 and continued through today, they would have prevented one terror attack (the stabbings at Ohio State last November) and saved zero American lives.



You should post a source. I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. It's just nice if you post a legitimate source when posting non-alternative facts so we can check it out.


----------



## big_aug

Wow, watching his interview on ABC somehow makes me even more appalled that this guy is president.

Edit: He really did hang that picture with wrong date


----------



## Axayacatl

DudeManBrother said:


> Does that mean you don't think the Government is too expansive and invasive already!?



Hmmmm.... I'm a drug addict and sexual deviant with plenty of credit card space to spare... so I'm with you on the big, invasive government thing... I guess my poorly worded comment was more about 1st Amendment rights. 

President Trump lies about crowd size. That's OK, I lie about my dick size _constantly_ (it is bigger than you can imagine or hold with two hands). But then the White House spokesperson comes out swinging, cites invented studies, misquotes other studies, and proceeds to threaten an entire room of White House correspondents. 

Dunno. Whether it is raping kids in a DC pizza parlor ala Hillary and Podesta, or secretly meeting Russian KGB operatives ala Flynn and Monafort, I kind of like to be able to read about what my government is doing. They take my tax money after all. 

I'm starting to think perhaps my fellow Americans do not care as much about the First Amendment as much as I do.

Next they'll take our guns.


----------



## Syphon

oc616 said:


> _
> "The answers are obvious if you open your mind."
> 
> "You just don't 'get' it kid."
> 
> "This is why (X opposing party believers) are dumb."
> 
> "Generic insult using popular e-buzz words rather than providing substance that doesn't exist."_
> 
> These guys are a dime a dozen on any forum I'm afraid.



You just summed up this entire board when talking about any topic. The culture here is generally indicative of "I know I'm right so I won't think twice about this" topics. No one has conceded to a single point made in this thread, which speaks both to the original quality of the arguments as well as the lack of concession of the participants. 

Pretending SSO hasn't ALWAYS had a liberal (not necessarily democratic) bias, and hasn't fervently and aggressively defended that bias with disingenuous tactics such extremely verbose arguments that move the goal posts, is silly. So no, I will never put effort into "discussing" topics on SSO outside of the occasional gear talk because its met with rhetoric dressed up with references to interest groups dressed as legitimate organizations. And yeah, that's both sides in general. But what's ridiculous about sso/politics is that its antagonistic of moderate positions as if they exist merely to push liberal policies down a slippery slope.

So I guess just cry about it some more? That'll change things for sure! Just like any forum, there is a "right think" on sso as well. It doesn't really represent reality or any other demographic other than "people who visit sso" which has been traditionally laughed at by most other boards for the reasons indicated above. So go ahead and keep your head in the sand, and provide us with further jackassery for our entertainment, please.


----------



## TedEH

Syphon said:


> Pretending SSO hasn't ALWAYS had a liberal (not necessarily democratic) bias



This forum definitely leans left for the most part, but not every member does it. This place isn't that bad, relatively speaking, for political discussion. Lots of the regulars here are pretty decent as discussing things even if they don't strictly agree with it.

It's unfortunately the nature of political discussions in general that most people just plain think that they're right, even if they're pretty far off from reality. I mean, that's what holding an opinion is, by definition. If you didn't believe it, then it wouldn't be your opinion. Sounds obvious, because it is. Every complaint about "they talk about things as if they think it's true!" is because.... they DO think it's true. It has nothing to do with being "on the left", everyone does it.

For the record, I've changed my mind on some topics, or have been able to clarify an unpopular view or two, on this forum. Discussion can't move forward if you just say "well, you're not going to listen anyway" and refuse to participate.

And I'm saying these things from the point of view of having a lot of not-compatible-with-the-left views. Sometimes someone will jump into a thread to unfairly try to tear me a new one for "having the wrong opinion", but I don't think that's the majority here.


----------



## bostjan

Syphon said:


> You just summed up this entire board when talking about any topic. The culture here is generally indicative of "I know I'm right so I won't think twice about this" topics. No one has conceded to a single point made in this thread, which speaks both to the original quality of the arguments as well as the lack of concession of the participants.
> 
> Pretending SSO hasn't ALWAYS had a liberal (not necessarily democratic) bias, and hasn't fervently and aggressively defended that bias with disingenuous tactics such extremely verbose arguments that move the goal posts, is silly. So no, I will never put effort into "discussing" topics on SSO outside of the occasional gear talk because its met with rhetoric dressed up with references to interest groups dressed as legitimate organizations. And yeah, that's both sides in general. But what's ridiculous about sso/politics is that its antagonistic of moderate positions as if they exist merely to push liberal policies down a slippery slope.
> 
> So I guess just cry about it some more? That'll change things for sure! Just like any forum, there is a "right think" on sso as well. It doesn't really represent reality or any other demographic other than "people who visit sso" which has been traditionally laughed at by most other boards for the reasons indicated above. So go ahead and keep your head in the sand, and provide us with further jackassery for our entertainment, please.



You're wrong; I just can't prove it.

 Just kidding.

But seriously, I have heard that sentence uttered in a conversation before.

The thing about political opinions, is that it's not all speculation, but a majority of it is, so it always comes back to the whole "my opinion is right/your opinion is wrong" volley that often ends up circling around over and over.

I love discussions and debates, but they never solve anything on boards like this; it's not like SS.O has any influence at all on world peace or anything even close to that. Even in gear discussions where a factual thing is being debated, sometimes the users involved won't reach any agreement at all...

I was deeply wrong in my political opinions in this thread, since I had stated that Trump would not win. There were things that I had grossly misjudged. Trump won, and I'm eating my words.


----------



## Drew

Syphon said:


> You just summed up this entire board when talking about any topic. The culture here is generally indicative of "I know I'm right so I won't think twice about this" topics. No one has conceded to a single point made in this thread, which speaks both to the original quality of the arguments as well as the lack of concession of the participants.
> 
> Pretending SSO hasn't ALWAYS had a liberal (not necessarily democratic) bias, and hasn't fervently and aggressively defended that bias with disingenuous tactics such extremely verbose arguments that move the goal posts, is silly. So no, I will never put effort into "discussing" topics on SSO outside of the occasional gear talk because its met with rhetoric dressed up with references to interest groups dressed as legitimate organizations. And yeah, that's both sides in general. But what's ridiculous about sso/politics is that its antagonistic of moderate positions as if they exist merely to push liberal policies down a slippery slope.
> 
> So I guess just cry about it some more? That'll change things for sure! Just like any forum, there is a "right think" on sso as well. It doesn't really represent reality or any other demographic other than "people who visit sso" which has been traditionally laughed at by most other boards for the reasons indicated above. So go ahead and keep your head in the sand, and provide us with further jackassery for our entertainment, please.



I won't speak for the broader board, but in this forum at least, while the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low here, there are some very thoughtful people who post who represent a range of opinions, and I've had some very thought-provoking conversations over the years I've been a member here. 

Now, if it's the fact that there's a _liberal_ majority consensus here that you have a problem with, then I can't help you there, but I'd argue that's not a problem with groupthink per se, but rather the fact you just don't _agree _with that consensus.


----------



## narad

Syphon said:


> It doesn't really represent reality or any other demographic other than "people who visit sso" which has been traditionally laughed at by most other boards for the reasons indicated above. So go ahead and keep your head in the sand, and provide us with further jackassery for our entertainment, please.



Uh...what other boards?


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> Interesting non-alternative fact: if Trump's proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration from seven countries had been in place before 9/11 and continued through today, they would have prevented one terror attack (the stabbings at Ohio State last November) and saved zero American lives.


 
If it would have saved one American citizen from injury then it would have been worth it. I'm sure the victims at Ohio State (my graduate school alma mater) and their families would appreciate your comments.

The St. Cloud, Minnesota (my home) mall attack last year (10 people were stabbed) was committed by a Somalian, although he was technically born in Kenya.


----------



## Mordacain

Drew said:


> I won't speak for the broader board, but in this forum at least, while the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty low here, there are some very thoughtful people who post who represent a range of opinions, and I've had some very thought-provoking conversations over the years I've been a member here.
> 
> Now, if it's the fact that there's a _liberal_ majority consensus here that you have a problem with, then I can't help you there, but I'd argue that's not a problem with groupthink per se, but rather the fact you just don't _agree _with that consensus.





Something to consider is that this board is _largely_ populated by a younger demographic. All other things being equal, polling data strongly suggests that a rather large majority of the under 30 set are more liberal-minded than not.

Extrapolate from that what you will, but that would certainly explain the appearance of a liberal majority. I won't say bias, because bias implies a belief regardless of evidence.


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> If it would have saved one American citizen from injury then it would have been worth it. I'm sure the victims at Ohio State (my graduate school alma mater) and their families would appreciate your comments.
> 
> The St. Cloud, Minnesota (my home) mall attack last year (10 people were stabbed) was committed by a Somalian, although he was technically born in Kenya.



But how many lives would it have cost, from those unable to escape from war-torn regions, to try to find a better life? 

This is America. We're Americans. We all came from somewhere else, and most of us came from elsewhere to seek a better life, or to escape persecution, and to hope that our children would have a better life than our own. Closing American borders to people from war zones just because of their religion is at a fundamental conflict to what it means to be a citizen of this country. 

We have no obligation to save lives outside this country, true. However, we as a nation have chosen to, and this world becomes a darker place if we turn our back on that today.


----------



## ncfiala

Drew said:


> But how many lives would it have cost, from those unable to escape from war-torn regions, to try to find a better life?
> 
> This is America. We're Americans. We all came from somewhere else, and most of us came from elsewhere to seek a better life, or to escape persecution, and to hope that our children would have a better life than our own. Closing American borders to people from war zones just because of their religion is at a fundamental conflict to what it means to be a citizen of this country.
> 
> We have no obligation to save lives outside this country, true. However, we as a nation have chosen to, and this world becomes a darker place if we turn our back on that today.


 
It my opinion, our government should prioritize protecting American citizens over allowing other people into this country, especially at this point in time. Most people with your opinion talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. If you want to help them, invite them to live with you. Give them money. Help them get jobs. Will you do any of these things? I doubt it. You'd rather force the unnecessary burden on everyone. Your "compassion" is hollow when it is nothing more than words.

And don't give me the "we're all immigrants" BS. That line is so tired. You know as well as I do that there's a big difference between the people that came here when this country was young and a lot of the people that do so now. Even some of the founding fathers knew Islam was a threat.


----------



## Mordacain

ncfiala said:


> If it would have saved one American citizen from injury then it would have been worth it. I'm sure the victims at Ohio State (my graduate school alma mater) and their families would appreciate your comments.
> 
> The St. Cloud, Minnesota (my home) mall attack last year (10 people were stabbed) was committed by a Somalian, although he was technically born in Kenya.



Despite the fact that the majority of terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 have been committed by white native sons?

The argument that by racially and religiously profiling and excluding those who match the profile that we will cut down on terrorism and other acts of violence is what I would consider a 'false clause' (and a bit of the 'appeal to emotion' fallacy thrown in).

I've yet to see any proof that limiting immigration and establishing a religious test (while taking a giant crap all over the 1st Amendment in the process) will result in lower rates of attacks. If anything, it is more likely to increase violence in general while civilians engage in vigilantism and violence against those they think match the profile of a terrorist. Since we're being specific, my last thought there is an opinion.

Oh, for reference material (i.e. the facts of the non-alternate variety): https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> If it would have saved one American citizen from injury then it would have been worth it.



I think that's very debatable. I feel like stopping a bunch of immigration might have a larger impact than a single person being injured- with implications I'm not going to claim I can predict or fully understand, but I can speculate... or just flat out guess/make stuff up. It becomes a question of how you view that trade-off. Yeah, you may have prevented the injury of an American, but maybe instead it caused a person to be unable to escape worse injury. Groups trying to flee legitimately dangerous situations no longer have that escape route. There's also the cost to America's image- which I would argue is a lot of what causes at least some politically motivated hostility (what some would classify as terrorism). Closing the borders down is going to be read as a hostile action by a lot of people. The more you p*ss off other countries, the more likely you are to be the target of the extremists you're trying to keep out in the first place.

I responded before to the comment about the Somalian guy - something along the lines of how those attacks are not "random" and that there is motivation behind those kinds of things. I think that ignoring those motivations not only indicates to the world that we don't care about anyone but our own, but prevents us from looking at the root cause of why we're a target in the first place.


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> It my opinion, our government should prioritize protecting American citizens over allowing other people into this country, especially at this point in time. Most people with your opinion talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. If you want to help them, invite them to live with you. Give them money. Help them get jobs. Will you do any of these things? I doubt it. You'd rather force the unnecessary burden on everyone. Your "compassion" is hollow when it is nothing more than words.
> 
> And don't give me the "we're all immigrants" BS. That line is so tired. You know as well as I do that there's a big difference between the people that came here when this country was young and a lot of the people that do so now. Even some of the founding fathers knew Islam was a threat.



Great, then let's actually pass some gun control - as Mordicain points out, white men with guns are responsible for an insane number of preventable violent deaths in this country, and if we were to screen by demographic, by the data they're the one to worry about. 

And your second paragraph? People have seen immigrants as a threat to their way of life for virtually the entire history of this country. First Germans, then Italians, then the Chinese, then Jews, then the Irish... We go through a cycle where we treat immigrants as inhuman, then we gradually assimilate them and forget about them as soon as another immigrant group starts showing up. Let's not pretend this time is any different - let's just hope that this time, we can be better than our ancestors, so that maybe in a hundred years our great grandkids can have something to be proud of.


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> If you want to help them, invite them to live with you. Give them money. Help them get jobs. Will you do any of these things? I doubt it.



Lots of people do those things.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Uh...what other boards?



Stormfront?


----------



## celticelk

big_aug said:


> You should post a source. I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. It's just nice if you post a legitimate source when posting non-alternative facts so we can check it out.



I figured it out independently by looking stuff up on Wikipedia, but this Vox article nicely summarizes the details: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> I figured it out independently by looking stuff up on Wikipedia, but this Vox article nicely summarizes the details: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...n-immigration-visas-terrorism-executive-order



Not to give Trump any more credit than he deserves but he's smart enough to know all those points, which means this is akin to GWB attacking Iraq and Afghanistan as retaliation for 9/11 when none of the hijackers came from there, and neither country sponsored their mission. 

The question we should start asking ourselves is if the US doesn't benefit from banning people from those countries, who does?


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> If it would have saved one American citizen from injury then it would have been worth it. I'm sure the victims at Ohio State (my graduate school alma mater) and their families would appreciate your comments.
> 
> The St. Cloud, Minnesota (my home) mall attack last year (10 people were stabbed) was committed by a Somalian, although he was technically born in Kenya.



I'd rather do something that could have actually prevented the attacks that have happened, like fighting radicalization and Islamophobia (they're two sides of the same coin).


----------



## CapnForsaggio

celticelk said:


> I'd rather do something that could have actually prevented the attacks that have happened, like fighting radicalization and Islamophobia (they're two sides of the same coin).



Can you please explain to us how you believe that being afraid of Muslim terrorism, breeds Muslim terrorism?

This reeks of liberal indoctrination and just more white guilt.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The question we should start asking ourselves is if the US doesn't benefit from banning people from those countries, who does?



While that's a very interesting line of thought worth pursuing, I think it's worth arguing at least that the US, or parts of it, THINKS they stand to benefit by banning people from these countries. 

Rightly or not, there's this belief right now that Muslims are dangerous, so millions of Republican voters believe that Trump is making them safer by banning Muslim immigrants from these countries. And, Trump definitely stands to gain by throwing red meat to his base.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> While that's a very interesting line of thought worth pursuing, I think it's worth arguing at least that the US, or parts of it, THINKS they stand to benefit by banning people from these countries.
> 
> Rightly or not, there's this belief right now that Muslims are dangerous, so millions of Republican voters believe that Trump is making them safer by banning Muslim immigrants from these countries. And, Trump definitely stands to gain by throwing red meat to his base.



Yeah but he already won the race. He doesn't need to give them red meat for another 3 1/2 years. He could've offered up banning visas from ACTUAL dangerous places but he chose places that don't help the cause at all, you know? He could've closed his eyes and thrown a dart at a board to pick them and gotten at least one right. 

Picking a few ineffectual targets, while effectual targets DO exist is suspect.

EDIT: To be a little less cryptic about this, my point is, I've gotta think he's got allies (political, business or other) who benefit from this choice and the whole "save us from Mooslimbs!" stuff is a smoke screen. I'm just curious who's knob he's polishing and why.


----------



## TedEH

CapnForsaggio said:


> Can you please explain to us how you believe that being afraid of Muslim terrorism, breeds Muslim terrorism?



Fear leads people to take up defensive positions that get read by people as aggressive or offensive, which paints you an an enemy. I thought that was pretty straightforward. Has nothing to do with liberalism or white guilt.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

TedEH said:


> Fear leads people to take up defensive positions that get read by people as aggressive or offensive, which paints you an an enemy. I thought that was pretty straightforward. Has nothing to do with liberalism or white guilt.



I'm afraid of dying in a plane crash.... It doesn't breed plane crashes.

This whole idea that Islam owes us NOTHING, and that just a few terries are the problem is absurd. Totally absurd.


----------



## wankerness

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/media/stephen-bannon-trump-news-media.html



> The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile, Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
> 
> 
> I want you to quote this, Mr. Bannon added. The media here is the opposition party. They dont understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
> 
> The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong, Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.
> 
> The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign, Mr. Bannon said. Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.
> --
> 
> On the telephone, Mr. Bannon spoke in blunt but calm tones, peppered with a dose of profanities, and humorously referred to himself at one point as Darth Vader. He said, with ironic relish, that Mr. Trump was elected by a surge of support from the working class hobbits and deplorables.
> 
> ---
> Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the news media, Mr. Bannon chortled. Are you kidding me? he said. We think thats a badge of honor. Questioning his integrity  are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.
> 
> The paper of record for our beloved republic, The New York Times, should be absolutely ashamed and humiliated, Mr. Bannon said. They got it 100 percent wrong.
> 
> 
> He added that he has been a reader of The Times for most of his adult life.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...485447148486&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b6104046021a



> I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Departments long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.
> 
> 
> Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
> 
> In addition, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.
> 
> Its the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and thats incredibly difficult to replicate, said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.



GOOD TIMES


----------



## TedEH

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm afraid of dying in a plane crash.... It doesn't breed plane crashes.



Are you ACTIVELY trying to misinterpret what I said? Plane crashes are not sentient people with feelings. Plane crashes don't get offended when you make political choices to their detriment, or insult their beliefs, or build walls to keep them out, or invade their country for oil, or paint an entire group of people as dangerous. When you antagonize large groups of people, some of them, the extreme ones, will fight back.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> This whole idea that Islam owes us NOTHING, and that just a few terries are the problem is absurd.



How would you like your payments?


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Can you please explain to us how you believe that being afraid of Muslim terrorism, breeds Muslim terrorism?
> 
> This reeks of liberal indoctrination and just more white guilt.



It's really not that difficult. People who feel marginalized tend to be susceptible to outsider voices that tell them that they are special. It's not a dynamic that's particular to Islamic fundamentalism.


----------



## bostjan

I'm *not* in favour of banning immigration from the nations rumoured to be included in Trump's upcoming Executive Order; however, let me pick at some of your arguments, as I think everyone here is beating around the proverbial bush.

First, fear of Islamic extremists is a somewhat irrational fear, unless you have some reason specifically; but, there are a few things to consider that make it not totally irrational:

1. Trump is in office. I'd say the odds of a large scale attack being planned by Islamic extremists is higher than it has been since Bush. And think about it 911 was during Bush's first term, we are now in the next republican president's first term. A president who also happens to be vocally anti-Islam.
2. 9/11 was a serious attack. A lot of lives were ruined. That carries a lot of weight, even almost 16 years later.
3. Terrorist attacks, while unlikely to affect any particular person in the USA, based on past statistics, are not so much aimed at maximizing physical harm as they are aimed at maximizing public disarray. This ends the lives of a lot of people, for sure, but the ripple effect is much much wider reaching, as intended by the perpetrator.

And, as far as the nations to block, if one was going to block nations, it ought not to be based solely on nations whose citizens were involved in devastating attacks 16 years ago, but moreso based upon the nations whose citizens are most likely to attack, taking that history into account with other factors.

So, places where a lot of radicalization is currently and recently occurring, like Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan, make some sense in appearing on that list (Again, not condoning such a list at all).

The biggest problem with all of this, which I think you ought to be choosing as your argument, is that national heritage is too arbitrary a metric for determining intent in any legal matter.

"We can't let you into the USA, because you are a Syrian" is the logical equivalent to "We can't let you be a doctor because you are a Jew." And that is wrong.

Look, even if 10% of all Iranians hated the USA, does that warrant exclusion of all Iranians? What if a guy is a political asylum seeker who stood up for human rights in Iran?

IDK, I think judging people's worth based on nationality is bigoted and foolish.

But that's the way a portion of the extreme right sees things: "Women, statistically, earn less income than men, so women should stay in the kitchen; black, statistically, are more likely to go to prison, so they are all thugs; smart people, in my experience, annoy me, so they are all whiny idiots..." I see it too much and it needs to stop, because if others play the same game with their group, the entire right starts to look pretty rotten.

EDIT: IDK if it's worth the effort trying to argue that Islamophobia breeds Islamic extremism. If we get into a debate about can it or does it, then, I think, we are picking the wrong thing to argue about. It's like arguing about whether the apple is poisoned with strychnine or cyanide before we consume it.


----------



## Randy

celticelk said:


> People who feel marginalized tend to be susceptible to outsider voices that tell them that they are special. It's not a dynamic that's particular to Islamic fundamentalism.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> And, as far as the nations to block, if one was going to block nations, it ought not to be based solely on nations whose citizens were involved in devastating attacks 16 years ago, but moreso based upon the nations whose citizens are most likely to attack, taking that history into account with other factors.
> 
> So, places where a lot of radicalization is currently and recently occurring, like Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan, make some sense in appearing on that list (Again, not condoning such a list at all).



Not really, because the other factor that's been missing from the argument here is that there's very little reason to believe - apart from 9/11, where the attackers were clearly sent here in order to perpetrate the attacks - that recent arrivals from Muslim countries are actually a terrorist threat. Virtually every Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11 has been committed by someone who is either a natural-born US citizen or who arrived in the US as a child. The preponderance of the evidence is that *radicalization of US residents* is the biggest threat. The Vox article I linked above goes into some detail about why, operationally, this makes sense from a terrorist group's perspective.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> Not really, because the other factor that's been missing from the argument here is that there's very little reason to believe - apart from 9/11, where the attackers were clearly sent here in order to perpetrate the attacks - that recent arrivals from Muslim countries are actually a terrorist threat. Virtually every Muslim terror attack in the US since 9/11 has been committed by someone who is either a natural-born US citizen or who arrived in the US as a child. The preponderance of the evidence is that *radicalization of US residents* is the biggest threat. The Vox article I linked above goes into some detail about why, operationally, this makes sense from a terrorist group's perspective.



Well, yeah, but, I mean, I was already talking in the hypothetical tense. I was assuming that "USA" would not be a feasible option to include on the list.  But I think your point serves my greater point even better than my smaller point.

But, here's another discussion we've been kind of touching on but not really addressing: what radicalizes these people? I don't think this boils down to a proverbial chicken-egg problem of radicals radicalizing more radicals, but there is something fueling the fire. I'd say that generally, people tend to radicalize when their situation depreciates steadily. If people are completely subjugated or marginalized, they really do not tend to radicalize as much as if they are given some freedoms and those freedoms are gradually taken away. Is it that, or something else? I ask, because I really don't know.

To me, it seems like Islam in the USA had never really been accepted by mainstream culture. Coming from Detroit, a diverse city, I saw a lot of tolerance toward Islam from other minority groups, but not generally from the group of white folks who seemed to not tolerate anything. After 911, though, the general attitude changed.

Maybe the 911 guys were radicalized for one reason, and attacked, which caused mainstream culture to knee-jerk, causing, eventually, radicalization of some US Muslims.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm afraid of dying in a plane crash.... It doesn't breed plane crashes.
> 
> This whole idea that Islam owes us NOTHING, and that just a few terries are the problem is absurd. Totally absurd.



I was unaware plane crashes had become sentient. Now, that IS scary.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeah but he already won the race. He doesn't need to give them red meat for another 3 1/2 years. He could've offered up banning visas from ACTUAL dangerous places but he chose places that don't help the cause at all, you know? He could've closed his eyes and thrown a dart at a board to pick them and gotten at least one right.
> 
> Picking a few ineffectual targets, while effectual targets DO exist is suspect.
> 
> EDIT: To be a little less cryptic about this, my point is, I've gotta think he's got allies (political, business or other) who benefit from this choice and the whole "save us from Mooslimbs!" stuff is a smoke screen. I'm just curious who's knob he's polishing and why.



Well, on one hand, I think he feels like he has to show action here, since he ran as a straight shooter who says what he thinks, and then does it. He threatened to ban Muslims, so now he has to come up with something to show for it. 

That doesn't change the fact that I think your broader point is probably right.


----------



## flint757

bostjan said:


> Well, yeah, but, I mean, I was already talking in the hypothetical tense. I was assuming that "USA" would not be a feasible option to include on the list.  But I think your point serves my greater point even better than my smaller point.
> 
> But, here's another discussion we've been kind of touching on but not really addressing: what radicalizes these people? I don't think this boils down to a proverbial chicken-egg problem of radicals radicalizing more radicals, but there is something fueling the fire. I'd say that generally, people tend to radicalize when their situation depreciates steadily. If people are completely subjugated or marginalized, they really do not tend to radicalize as much as if they are given some freedoms and those freedoms are gradually taken away. Is it that, or something else? I ask, because I really don't know.
> 
> To me, it seems like Islam in the USA had never really been accepted by mainstream culture. Coming from Detroit, a diverse city, I saw a lot of tolerance toward Islam from other minority groups, but not generally from the group of white folks who seemed to not tolerate anything. After 911, though, the general attitude changed.
> 
> Maybe the 911 guys were radicalized for one reason, and attacked, which caused mainstream culture to knee-jerk, causing, eventually, radicalization of some US Muslims.



Honestly, and IMO, the only thing terrorists have in common is hunger for power and a belief in nihilism, or the purity of violence and destruction, as a political force.

People try to argue that poverty and education are factors, and we can't discount that I'm sure that applies to at least 1 given their numbers, but in the studies I've read on the matter it would seem that colleges and social media are actually where they do most of their recruiting. More than just a few of them come from wealthy or connected families as well.

In Nigeria the radicalization leading up to actual violence was instigated by the government of Nigeria executing Boko Haram's extreme, but less violent, leader. It created a power vacuum and the leader was replaced by a legit radical terrorist. In doing so the group has started mirroring ISIS and Al Qaeda tactics. 

Not so coincidentally it's why I entirely disapprove of Bush and Obama's interventionism. It's only made things worse.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

You mean like giving Palestine $220 million on his way out the door?

A country that pays the living relatives of suicide bombers hansomely?


----------



## russmuller

I just have to say, after less than a week this presidency is already going way worse than I had even imagined.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

russmuller said:


> I just have to say, after less than a week this presidency is already going way worse than I had even imagined.




After voting for "I will close Guantanamo bay" Hussein, and watching him break Every. Single. One of his campaign promises, I gladly observe real and swift action in government.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> After voting for "I will close Guantanamo bay" Hussein, and watching him break Every. Single. One of his campaign promises, I gladly observe real and swift action in government.



Well (while their are admittedly a bunch of other big news things to happen we've all read about) a bunch of colleagues had their EPA-derived research grants frozen this week, which means next month you'll have PhD students with no source of income, and will likely have to drop out of the program. This may not seem like a big deal, but if the US doesn't lead the world in science and tech, it won't lead in anything. So good luck with that. And professors under these programs have been barred from speaking publicly about this, which is simply insane.


----------



## ncfiala

narad said:


> Well (while their are admittedly a bunch of other big news things to happen we've all read about) a bunch of colleagues had their EPA-derived research grants frozen this week, which means next month you'll have PhD students with no source of income, and will likely have to drop out of the program. This may not seem like a big deal, but if the US doesn't lead the world in science and tech, it won't lead in anything. So good luck with that. And professors under these programs have been barred from speaking publicly about this, which is simply insane.



Well I'm not going to comment on this specifically, but I will say this. As someone with a Ph.D., at least in my program, very few students were supported by their advisor's research dollars. Students typically got tuition and fees waived and supported themselves by being a TA. Professors used their research dollars to "buy themselves out" of some or all of their teaching duties. Other fields may be quite different though.


----------



## celticelk

CapnForsaggio said:


> After voting for "I will close Guantanamo bay" Hussein, and watching him break Every. Single. One of his campaign promises, I gladly observe real and swift action in government.



Wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> Well I'm not going to comment on this specifically, but I will say this. As someone with a Ph.D., at least in my program, very few students were supported by their advisor's research dollars. Students typically got tuition and fees waived and supported themselves by being a TA. Professors used their research dollars to "buy themselves out" of some or all of their teaching duties. Other fields may be quite different though.



While I have heard of this type of situation, I'd still argue it's exceedingly rare amongst top science and engineering programs. In social science departments, like linguistics, I've seen much more of the TA/ fee waiving strategy, but I've still never seen grants as a mechanism to opt out of teaching in that department -- there's often no one else to teach that course otherwise.

The good news is that in today's news it was reported that the freeze should end tomorrow, and it seems the administration is rolling back whatever push they were trying to make there. The EPA may even be able to continue to include mentions of climate change on their website! Woweee


----------



## ncfiala

This is not rare at all. The tuition waiver and TA stipend model is employed pretty much everywhere. Most people who have Ph.D.s didn't pay any tuition and were probably TAs.

As far as the buying out of teaching duties, they would typically do that with undergraduate courses and then the department would hire adjuncts to teach them.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

I've had difficulty finding complete statistics on immigrant crime rates. The information I've seen is conflicting and I haven't worked through it all yet. What I do know is that people die from stupid preventable causes all the time, yet few people care when the cause in question doesn't have a human face. If you really want to make the US a better place to live, I'm not sure why you'd start by focusing on immigration one way or the other. I guess I shouldn't expect an instinct as ancient as fear to line up with rational risk assessment. I know I worry about some things that realistically won't ever kill me.


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> After voting for "I will close Guantanamo bay" Hussein, and watching him break Every. Single. One of his campaign promises, I gladly observe real and swift action in government.



That's absurd. Politics takes a long time to come to reasonable conclusions. Steamrolling through every democratic process, freezing government workers' paychecks and dumping money into pipe-dreams and projects that FEEL good to the un- or misinformed but are actually useless money sinks is exactly how a country loses a lot of jobs and a lot of money.

What's next? Trump said on camera that he thinks torture works and implied that he would be okay with using it. Is rounding up people who oppose him and torturing them until they admit they're ISIS real and swift enough action, too?



TheHandOfStone said:


> If you really want to make the US a better place to live, I'm not sure why you'd start by focusing on immigration one way or the other.



Scapegoats, nothing new. Uneducated conservatives are very easily led to believe everything would be fine if not for X group of people.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> This is not rare at all. The tuition waiver and TA stipend model is employed pretty much everywhere. Most people who have Ph.D.s didn't pay any tuition and were probably TAs.
> 
> As far as the buying out of teaching duties, they would typically do that with undergraduate courses and then the department would hire adjuncts to teach them.



Yes, that is not rare, but I believe buying your way out of teaching is quite rare, especially if you're viewing it from the pov of "where does my grant funding go?". A majority of grant funding isn't used to get professors of the hook of their teaching duties, so really it's the subtext that's in poor taste. You're posting in regards to the EPA grant freeze with really nothing more than an implication that the freeze won't be heavily affecting the students, who don't receive this grant money. Not true. 

Such policies impact students, which feels like a dangerous precedent for a country whose higher education system is one of its few internationally competitive industries, and which relies on brain power to produce its big exports.


----------



## bostjan

ncfiala said:


> This is not rare at all. The tuition waiver and TA stipend model is employed pretty much everywhere. Most people who have Ph.D.s didn't pay any tuition and were probably TAs.
> 
> As far as the buying out of teaching duties, they would typically do that with undergraduate courses and then the department would hire adjuncts to teach them.



As I worked both as a TA and an RA, they are both exceedingly common, but have different demographics in different departments. Almost all of the grad students I knew in the Mathematics and Economics departments worked as TA's. The ones doing research outside of their dissertations usually did so for a little extra stipend money, but that was rare. In Physics, about 80% of the graduate students were TA's, and 20% were RA's. Most, if not all, of the RA's worked closely with the medical field. I found my time as a TA quite enjoyable, because our department gave us almost full autonomy, as long as we stuck with department policies. So we developed lectures, demonstrations, assignments, and labs. It was a great way to reinforce the foundations of what we were learning in our own classes, whilst being able to be fairly effective at understanding what it was like to be in those classes, having taken them only four years prior. After one year as a TA, I was hired by the University as a special instructor, so I shifted gears to become an RA for my graduate advisor.

Anyway, in other departments, there were typically more RA's. For example, we had an Environmental and Atmospheric Science Department that only offered graduate classes, so there were no opportunities there for TA's.

Whichever the case, if the federal government places a freeze on grants for a long enough span, it will cause students to drop out. In my experience, the number of graduate students paid to get a doctoral degree by their employers, or the ones wealthy enough to pay their own way from savings, are extremely rare, at least in schools like the ones I went to. My RA money, which paid for half of my degree, came from government organizations like NIST.

That said, the guy signing the checks is DJT now. You can't say that it'd be a big surprise if he ruins the day for anyone reliant on money from the EPA, or hell, any non-defense oriented agency.

Guys wanting to build the next rail gun or fiber-coupled laser weapon are probably going to get that money that used to go to the guy studying the effects of PCB on river trout.


----------



## wankerness

celticelk said:


> Wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/



Hey, get that out of here, facts have a strong liberal bias!


----------



## Dcm81

Why does anybody actually humor that CapnWhatever guy? It's quite perplexing...


----------



## wankerness

Dcm81 said:


> Why does anybody actually humor that CapnWhatever guy? It's quite perplexing...



Well, at first he seemed to actually have substance to most of his posts. At this point, with what's happened in the last week, it's getting to be very strained. It's impossible to spin some of this stuff.


----------



## ncfiala

narad said:


> Yes, that is not rare, but I believe buying your way out of teaching is quite rare, especially if you're viewing it from the pov of "where does my grant funding go?". A majority of grant funding isn't used to get professors of the hook of their teaching duties, so really it's the subtext that's in poor taste. You're posting in regards to the EPA grant freeze with really nothing more than an implication that the freeze won't be heavily affecting the students, who don't receive this grant money. Not true.
> 
> Such policies impact students, which feels like a dangerous precedent for a country whose higher education system is one of its few internationally competitive industries, and which relies on brain power to produce its big exports.


 
Course buyout is not at all rare.

I'm just telling you how it was for me, as someone who has actually been there. In fact, my advisor lost his NSA grant while I was working under him and it didn't impact me in the least.


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> I'd rather do something that could have actually prevented the attacks that have happened, like fighting radicalization and Islamophobia (they're two sides of the same coin).


 
And what exactly are you doing to this end? If your answer is spouting buzzwords and paying lip service to the cause on sso, then your words mean nothing.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> Lots of people do those things.


 
I didn't ask lots of people. I asked Drew. Of course he didn't answer.

And I would bet my life that you are wrong. I would bet that the vast majority of people who are up in arms over this Trump immigration stuff do nothing. Some may show up at a protest and hold a sign, but when push comes to shove they would never get their hands dirty.


----------



## bostjan

Obama kept a lot of his campaign promises. The ones that caught my attention during his race for office, though, either didn't get done, or got done, but so many compromises were made in the process that the end result was bad.

Trump has been very busy keeping his campaign promises. I think the promises were what frightened a lot of voters, though. A huge wall between the USA and Mexico paid for by Mexico, ban Muslims from the USA, repeal the ACA, piss off Iran, go to war with ISIS, cut taxes for the rich, etc., these are things that are just bad ideas. Other things sounded good: get out of the TPP, cut unemployment, strengthen manufacturing, stop draining the social security account, etc.

I'm sure at least one of these will get a botched execution and cause things to go south for us, but oh well, what can you do? America has spoken, and a majority of people in a majority of the states (yet not a majority of the people in all of the states) wanted this guy.


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> And I would bet my life that you are wrong. I would bet that the vast majority of people who are up in arms over this Trump immigration stuff do nothing.



I disagree with you, but that's not really of any importance.

I don't quite understand your reasoning here though... being pessimistic about whether or not people are willing to actively support immigrants shouldn't be a reason to actively keep them out. If you were to tell me that you want to avoid Muslims moving to your country because you were afraid of them, then I would understand. I wouldn't agree, but I would understand. But if you want to avoid Muslims moving to your country just because you're not convinced that anyone would bother helping them out (letting them move here counts as helping them out, IMO), then that doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe this is my Canadian-ness showing again, but I know a not-insignificant amount of people who absolutely "get their hands dirty" when it comes to things they believe in supporting- volunteering, donating food, running free classes, I've seen benefit concerts for all kinds of things- and yes, some of this support goes to homeless people, veterans, refugees, etc., and some of it happens through our taxes since the gov't does a lot of things you can't do as an individual.

I'm pretty convinced that the whole "I bet nobody would help them" is a projection of your own views more than anything else. I'm sure YOU wouldn't help them, but that has no bearing on what other people might do.


----------



## Drew

Dcm81 said:


> Why does anybody actually humor that CapnWhatever guy? It's quite perplexing...



He's not stupid, he's just willfully only accepting things that agree with his prior convictions. One, I haven't given up that he may gradually become more open minded (though talking about him openly in front of him probably isnt helping ) and two, it's a good intellectual exercise - by taking the time to refute a lot of what he's saying, I usually learn and improve my own understanding in the process. 

Also, it occasionally gets slow at work, and I enjoy beating dead horses.


----------



## TedEH

^ What he said.


----------



## ncfiala

Drew said:


> But how many lives would it have cost, from those unable to escape from war-torn regions, to try to find a better life?


 
There is a big difference between the lives of American citizens and these other people. I'm not saying that our lives are worth more than theirs, I'm saying that it should be the priority of the United States government to protect the lives of United States citizens.

I go to Walmart here all the time. Yeah, yeah, I know, but they have the cheapest groceries and I like to save my money for more gear. A lot of the time you would almost think you were in a muslim country in there. I've seen many of them pay for their items with government hand-outs of some kind. At the same time, nearly every time I go there, there is at least one vet on the corner begging for change. Does this seem right to you?


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> There is a big difference between the lives of American citizens and these other people. I'm not saying that our lives are worth more than theirs, I'm saying that it should be the priority of the United States government to protect the lives of United States citizens.
> 
> I go to Walmart here all the time. Yeah, yeah, I know, but they have the cheapest groceries and I like to save my money for more gear. A lot of the time you would almost think you were in a muslim country in there. I've seen many of them pay for their items with government hand-outs of some kind. At the same time, nearly every time I go there, there is at least one vet on the corner begging for change. Does this seem right to you?



I mean, literally what you're saying is you DO think American lives are worth more than non-American lives.


----------



## ncfiala

Drew said:


> I mean, literally what you're saying is you DO think American lives are worth more than non-American lives.


 
That's not what I said at all. I said that the government of the UNITED STATES should prioritize the safety of CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES.

And you never answered my question in the second paragraph. Do you think that is right? Do you think that we should be throwing money at non-citizens before we bother to take care of our own? You didn't answer my other question either.


----------



## Randy

ncfiala said:


> Do you think that we should be throwing money at non-citizens before we bother to take care of our own?



We should be doing both


----------



## celticelk

ncfiala said:


> And what exactly are you doing to this end? If your answer is spouting buzzwords and paying lip service to the cause on sso, then your words mean nothing.



So my opinion is only valid if I work for an anti-radicalization NGO?


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> There is a big difference between the lives of American citizens and these other people.



Nope, there isn't.



> A lot of the time you would almost think you were in a muslim country in there.



When I read that, I immediately head the Cinema-Sins guy in my head say "thaaaaat's racist" with the little ding noise.



> I've seen many of them pay for their items with government hand-outs of some kind.



What does it matter what they pay with? You just complained that nobody helps people, but now you're complaining that people received help. 

Oooooh but it's the wrong people. It's


> these other people


 as you called them.



> there is at least one vet on the corner begging for change



Again, my reference point is Canadian, but vets here also have systems and groups that provide them with some support. I'm not saying it's perfect, or that they've got it easy, but it's meaningless to compare how one group is being helped out to how another group is being helped out. It entirely ignores the dynamics of the situation, and the systems providing that support in the first place. I have my doubts that there's zero support for vets wherever you are.


----------



## vilk

Many people we slander for being either illegal or refugees would probably like to become citizens if it weren't prohibitively expensive. 

My wife and I applied for her greencard while already married, and it cost several thousand dollars. It's actually far more money if you're not married to an American citizen, and especially if your money isn't worth a tiny fraction of a US dollar.

Wanna know how much it cost our white grandpas? Nothing. It was free. They just had to pass a health check. My great grandpa came here with no money, just a bag of sugar. You try doing that in 2017.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, literally what you're saying is you DO think American lives are worth more than non-American lives.



I think he's going for the contention point of jurisdiction. You protect your own children, because they are your responsibility, legally. US citizens are like the USA's children, legally, and we fall under the jurisdiction of the USA. The USA has no jurisdiction over Syria, and thus cannot protect Syrian people in Syria. If those people come to the USA as refugees, though, then, they are in the USA's jurisdiction, so it can become, what seems to me, to be a circular argument. 

But I see what he's saying: the US government has one purpose, in the grand sense, which is to protect the US citizens. Period. If Syrian refugees are seen as a threat (which is what we are really disagreeing about in this thread today), then the role of the US government is to exclude them from the country. If not, though, then, well, not.


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> That's not what I said at all. I said that the government of the UNITED STATES should prioritize the safety of CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES.
> 
> And you never answered my question in the second paragraph. Do you think that is right? Do you think that we should be throwing money at non-citizens before we bother to take care of our own? You didn't answer my other question either.



To Randy's point, we should, and we do, take care of both. We see ourself as the leader of the free world, and reap a LOT of benefit from that (the dollar is the safe haven currency of the world for that reason), but it also leaves us with a moral obligation to be a force of good. Trump is abandoning that. 

And your second paragraph was so bloody racist, I didn't even know where to begin. You know for a fact that every single person you're seeing in Walmart who looks muslim is NOT an American citizen, huh? They don't "look like Americans," so obviously they're not? And I'm sure you checked the vet's dog tags and discharge status, while you're at it? 

We need to do more for our vets, sure. We also need to do more for poor Americans of all stripe, veteran, muslim, christian, agnostic, whatever. It's funny, however, how quick the right is to say we need to do more for our vets with one breath, and that we have to shrink the government and lower taxes on the other.

EDIT - jesus, man, at the most fundamental level, "they don't look like me, they can't be Americans." Come on, really?


----------



## narad

Poor form trying to place Muslim immigrants and vets on a spectrum like one group takes from the other. If you feel for that vet, maybe try to use a tiny fraction of the defense spending budget to take care of the Americans it sends to war.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Poor form trying to place Muslim immigrants and vets on a spectrum like one group takes from the other. If you feel for that vet, maybe try to use a tiny fraction of the defense spending budget to take care of the Americans it sends to war.



To say nothing about the fact that we do have Muslims serving in our armed forces, you know?


----------



## UnderTheSign

People have the same complaints over here and it's stimulating right wing populist votes. Oh, elderly care has gone down the drain and since we stuffed grandma in a retirement home she only gets bathed twice a week, but that refugee we just saw has an iPhone AND a blanket to keep him warm this winter? Stupid refugees are taking away from our elderly!

Just because your government fooked up and doesn't take good care of group A doesn't mean they shouldn't be taking care of B. Ideally, they should take care of both.


----------



## ncfiala

celticelk said:


> So my opinion is only valid if I work for an anti-radicalization NGO?


 
You said "I'd rather do something...," implying that you do something. I guess you don't do anything. But you'd "rather," so I guess there's that.


----------



## ncfiala

Randy said:


> We should be doing both


 
Yes, because money is infinite in supply. I'm saying that we have a finite amount of resources and we should be taking care of citizens first. It's absolutely crazy to me that this country is in a ridiculous amount of debt and we have lots of people here who need help and yet you think bringing over tons more people is what we should be doing.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> I have my doubts that there's zero support for vets wherever you are.


 
I never said that. Quit putting words in my mouth. But there are vets who need help and are not getting it. And you want to bring more and more people over. It's absolutely senseless.


----------



## ncfiala

Drew said:


> And your second paragraph was so bloody racist, I didn't even know where to begin. You know for a fact that every single person you're seeing in Walmart who looks muslim is NOT an American citizen, huh?


 
Hahaha, I knew it was only a matter of time before the "ist" words started flying.

Minnesota has the highest population of Somalian "refugees" in the country and my city in particular has tons. No I don't know for a fact that they are all non-citizens, although when you wear something on your head and don't speak English I have a pretty good guess. Regardless, if even one American needs help, that should come first.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> Yes, because money is infinite in supply. I'm saying that we have a finite amount of resources and we should be taking care of citizens first. It's absolutely crazy to me that this country is in a ridiculous amount of debt and we have lots of people here who need help and yet you think bringing over tons more people is what we should be doing.



Everyone knows we're working with finite resources, however...

You are given 100 apples, and you have three mouths to feed: defense, vets, and refugees. You feed 99.999 apples to defense, and split the remainder between the vets and refugees. Upon seeing a hungry vet you say, "Damn, refugees! Eating all the food! Why should they get any apples at all when vets are hungry!"

You implement a policy barring refugees. A bunch of them die, but it's not important. Now vets get all .001 apples, and their circumstances have not appreciated at all. You start to think those reproductive health clinics look awfully well fed...


----------



## Randy

ncfiala said:


> Yes, because money is infinite in supply. I'm saying that we have a finite amount of resources and we should be taking care of citizens first. It's absolutely crazy to me that this country is in a ridiculous amount of debt and we have lots of people here who need help and yet you think bringing over tons more people is what we should be doing.



I think the issue we're having here is that you're buying the argument that our resources (meaning cash) so so scarce that we're in an "us or them" situations or worse, you think we're indebted to the extent someone (idk, China?) is going to foreclose on the US or something. That's taking some themes that are maybe relate-able to daily life and trying to scale them up to fit a model that just does not compare apples-to-apples.

The number of refugees the US takes in compared to the number of citizen we pay for fully or heavily subsidize (elderly, disabled, poor, vets, etc.) is just a drop in the bucket. Saying that our resources are stretched so far that taking care of refugees is the straw that breaks the camel's back is hyperbole, plain and simple.

Where I'll agree with your anecdote and why I say "why not both?" is that I'm in absolute agreement that navigating the system and getting assistance (be it financial, or just help finding where to go) for regular, working class citizens is overly cumbersome, whereas it's often streamlined and made simple for refugees, people coming in who are unfamiliar with the language, or the uneducated. That doesn't make me begrudge those groups or the overall leadership; it tells me that we need to do a better job in certain places, most of which is simply in "getting the word out".

As a quick anecdote, I rely on help from NYS to get health insurance. I think it's a component of ACA, so I'm assuming most states have them, but in NYS they're referred to as "navigators". The system is complicated, so this is the person in your region who you can meet in person or on the phone, you tell them your living situation and they figure out how you fit into the system, gather basic information and get you setup. 

Easy, right? Well in my case, I live in a small unpopulous county, which means they assign a third party group to handle navigation, and that group only assigns one or two people to navigate residents of the entire county. As a result, the phone line is always busy, meetings get cancelled without notice, paperwork gets lost, so on. As a result, I went 6 months without coverage and expecting I wouldn't get any at all. Now, eventually I got it straightened out but that is absolute an example of just a total whiff at managing something.

That's juxaposed with refugee advocacy groups in the region, that handle SEVERAL areas, a smaller population of people and they deal directly with the state or the insurance companies. So rather than the onus being on the individual who comes here to find healthcare for themselves, there's likely somebody stateside getting them signed up before they even boarded the plane in the first place. That just means their advocates or "navigators" are better organized; that's a disparity that can be fixed in inches rather than miles like you're implying.


----------



## ncfiala

narad said:


> Everyone knows we're working with finite resources, however...
> 
> You are given 100 apples, and you have three mouths to feed: defense, vets, and refugees. You feed 99.999 apples to defense, and split the remainder between the vets and refugees. Upon seeing a hungry vet you say, "Damn, refugees! Eating all the food! Why should they get any apples at all when vets are hungry!"
> 
> You implement a policy barring refugees. A bunch of them die, but it's not important. Now vets get all .001 apples, and their circumstances have not appreciated at all. You start to think those reproductive health clinics look awfully well fed...



Do we spend too much money on defense? Yeah, although that's partly because the country pokes it's nose where it doesn't belong. I would still give all 0.001 apples to citizens before I would start bringing in refugees literally by the hundreds of thousands.

Here is a hypothetical for you. I don't know anything about you, but let's say you have a wife and two kids. Would you endanger your and their lives, even if the danger is fairly minute, as well as spread the country's resources even thinner (which could impact your children's life in the future) to bring five people over? Six people? Seven people? Sure I suppose people do things all the time that put their children in a minute amount of danger, but bringing over hundreds of thousands of refugees is something we can avoid. We don't have to do it. We have no obligation to anyone.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

I get where you're coming from (especially since there's been a influx of somalis from MN getting involved with al shabaab/isis, which the FBI has been investigating/dealing with). It makes me a little paranoid, but I've also dealt with tons of Somalians and the vast majority of them are super hard working people who've been nothing but kind to me over the years (My dad and I ran a couple of apartment buildings filled with them). I just watched a clip from Samantha Bee where she shows the vetting process for a syrian refugee to even get into the US and they essentially have to undergo like 5 background checks (CIA, FBI,DHS, and a few others), get sponsored by someone, and that's AFTER they somehow get out of the refugee camps. the total number of refugees that would be coming should be pretty small. I'd be more worried about the illegal aliens who exploit our citizenship laws by having a kid here deliberately (so that their child is a US citizen and they can get benefits). One of my coworkers is married to a social worker who sees this loophole getting abused all the time. I have nothing against them for wanting to work here, but I think the first step to fixing our illegal immigration flow is changing the citizenship laws. Just being born here shouldn't be enough to be a citizen anymore. Also, we need to updating our immigration courts, since there's like 10 judges in the US that focus on that and hundreds of cases a day. 
The VA is garbage and definitely needs to take better care of vets- 22 vet suicides a day is horrible, let alone the fact that people died in VA hospitals due to negligence/poor standards/crushing bureaucracy.
Relevant:


----------



## bostjan

In 2015: 
$600 billion spent on defense,
$180 billion spent on VA,
$1.6 billion spent on refugees.

There are also a lot of other expenditures. It's all in the public record.


----------



## ncfiala

bostjan said:


> In 2015:
> $600 billion spent on defense,
> $180 billion spent on VA,
> $1.6 billion spent on refugees.
> 
> There are also a lot of other expenditures. It's all in the public record.



The amount spent on refugees should be $0.00 until our crap at home is taken care of.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> Here is a hypothetical for you. I don't know anything about you, but let's say you have a wife and two kids. Would you endanger your and their lives, even if the danger is fairly minute, as well as spread the country's resources even thinner (which could impact your children's life in the future) to bring five people over? Six people? Seven people? Sure I suppose people do things all the time that put their children in a minute amount of danger, but bringing over hundreds of thousands of refugees is something we can avoid. We don't have to do it. We have no obligation to anyone.



Absolutely if it was saving people from near certain harm and a treacherous life.

I don't really take a national view on this. I did nothing to make myself safe, well fed, healthy. These are just things I inherit by virtue of being a middle class new yorker. It is generally this way for many Americans. So to say to some Somalian woman, "I don't care about your hardships. It is an absolute necessity that I stay safe, healthy, in a room full of guitars, even if it costs you your life or your children", that is terrible. I can take the .0000001% risk of being the victim of terrorist attack in order to improve the lives of thousands of people. Absolutely.

On the flip side, you want to keep a wife and two kids safe? But what are you feeding them? What are you feeding yourself? Statistically heart disease and cancer will likely strike one of you, yet how hard is the push to get carcinogenic chemicals out of food and water supplies? It's neglecting the certain threat to focus attention on the improbable. I imagine this would follow immediately from, "I want to keep my family safe." to "What is the greatest threat to my family?" The answer to that question was never Somalian refugees.


----------



## bostjan

ncfiala said:


> The amount spent on refugees should be $0.00 *until our crap at home is taken care of*.



The emboldened phrase is an unnecessary qualifier, since the condition is never met.

You know, you are totally right. What have refugees ever done productive for this country?! We should have never accepted Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Niels Bohr, James Franck, etc. etc., into our fine country during WWII...[/sarcasm]

The UK should also have done the same. It would have kept out that pesky Freddie Mercury[/more sarcasm]

Honestly, some of my best friends are refugees from eastern Europe. But, emotional attachments aside, refugees and their progeny make up a vast majority of the population of this country. Even some of the First Nations came here to escape from other violent peoples further north or south. So, unless you are Cree, or something, I think your point is a little hypocritical. Although, looking back- the refugee Puritans and Calvinists who came here to escape religious persecution certainly made America a lot less safe for the people who lived here before them.


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> Hahaha, I knew it was only a matter of time before the "ist" words started flying.
> 
> Minnesota has the highest population of Somalian "refugees" in the country and my city in particular has tons. No I don't know for a fact that they are all non-citizens, although when you wear something on your head and don't speak English I have a pretty good guess. Regardless, if even one American needs help, that should come first.



Well, obviously. If you're going to assume people who don't look like you aren't American, what do you prefer I call it? 

Furthermore, if you have an opinion that you fully expect you'll be called racist for holding, isn't that a pretty good reason to rethink that opinion? Instead, you seem proud. 

A spade's a spade, man.


----------



## Mr Violence

ncfiala said:


> The amount spent on refugees should be $0.00 until our crap at home is taken care of.



Well, I haven't posted in a while but I still lurk a lot. Here's my take:

*This kind of thinking has nothing to do with budget. This viewpoint has everything to do with scapegoating the less fortunate.

* 
There's a couple of common threads in every conversation I've had about this topic:

*1.) "If one thing isn't taken care of, then another thing shouldn't be given a thought until the first is set."*In my mind, this thought is already clownshoes. Greater suffering doesn't negate lesser suffering. 

Example: I break my toe on my coffee table. Concurrently, someone else broke their leg the same day. My toe still f_u_cking hurts and the fact that someone else is hurting more does not remove my need for help.

To imply that an entire type of person should be written off and that our people are more important is f_u_cking dumb. Have a little humanity.
​*2.) "I'm sick of my tax dollars going to these refugees/immigrants/freeloaders/drug addicts/minorities! I'M paying to put food on THEIR plates while I'm here WORKING to do the same for ME!"*Your tax dollars are going to the government and they allocate them dependent on laws and acts from our representatives. Some of these are welfare programs that help people in need. If you don't agree with where they're going, address your representative. Statistically, most welfare beneficiaries actually need help, but that brings me to my last point.
​*3.) "We'd be so much better off if we stopped paying into these programs to support free loading abusers."*This is my favorite one because it highlights the blatant hatred for less fortunate people and the hypocrisy in an opinion on our budget.

As it's been pointed out in this thread numerous times, the amount of your federal taxes that go towards these programs is virtually zero. If you removed them completely, save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, you would see _*no change*_ in the taxes you pay. Nothing. Mainly, because these programs are a drop in the bucket, but also, those dollars are going to be allocated to other programs by the federal government. Maybe they'll go to one of these "more important" topics you hold so dear, but even if it goes to veterans, which you like to cite, some of those veterans could be abusing the system in the same way. But God forbid anyone suggests that.

I absolutely refuse to see this is a budget problem because whenever someone who holds these opinions gets actual figures of how much money is spent on these things, it doesn't sway them at all.
​*Conclusion:* It's a class war thing. You have to have something to set yourself higher than others for whatever reason. You hate refugees, immigrants, welfare abusers, drug addicts, whatever. You hate that your life isn't as good as it could be. You hate that your government is failing you. Whatever it is, you paint these groups as the bad guys because you're powerless or too lazy to do anything or address anything else.



If 99% of the people using refugee sanctuary/welfare/ACA healthcare/food stamps/etc were abusing the system, I'd still gladly pay it for the sake of the 1% of people that truly, genuinely need help. Everyone should value other people, regardless of how sh_i_tty you think they are.


I am a rampant misanthrope, but seeing people lose rights and get food taken off their plates does not make me feel good. I would never wish that on anyone, and f_u_ck anyone who does.


----------



## bostjan

Mr Violence said:


> Well, I haven't posted in a while but I still lurk a lot. Here's my take:
> 
> ...



Who was that masked man? 






Nice post!


----------



## ncfiala

Implicit in all of this is the assumption that someone from another country has exactly the same right to help as a citizen of this country. I simply don't agree with that. You can call me a racist or whatever "ist" or "phobia" word you want but you're wrong. I rent a room in my house to a black guy from Haiti (who also thinks the Somalian invasion around here is ridiculous). The best man at my wedding is gay. But just go ahead and call me a bigot or whatever, I don't care.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> Implicit in all of this is the assumption that someone from another country has exactly the same right to help as a citizen of this country. I simply don't agree with that. You can call me a racist or whatever "ist" or "phobia" word you want but you're wrong. I rent a room in my house to a black guy from Haiti (who also thinks the Somalian invasion around here is ridiculous). The best man at my wedding is gay. But just go ahead and call me a bigot or whatever, I don't care.



http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument


----------



## MFB

ncfiala said:


> I rent a room in my house to a black guy from Haiti (who also thinks the Somalian invasion around here is ridiculous). The best man at my wedding is gay. But just go ahead and call me a bigot or whatever, I don't care.



Oh wow, is this really what we've come to in our conversations?


----------



## vilk




----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Who was that masked man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice post!



*applause*


----------



## Mr Violence

ncfiala said:


> Implicit in all of this is the assumption that someone from another country has exactly the same right to help as a citizen of this country. I simply don't agree with that. You can call me a racist or whatever "ist" or "phobia" word you want but you're wrong. I rent a room in my house to a black guy from Haiti (who also thinks the Somalian invasion around here is ridiculous). The best man at my wedding is gay. But just go ahead and call me a bigot or whatever, I don't care.



The first 2 sentences were good at conveying your message. Although, it plays directly into my first point that you're prioritizing and I think that's dumb. However, that's my opinion. The USA was founded on being a refuge for the weary. "Give me your tired, your poor..." But somewhere along the line that value has been lost on half our country.

I accused you of none of your "ists". I just said this whole "us before them" thing is a scapegoat and avenue to hating other people to make oneself feel better and to comfort oneself in finding an end all be all solution to a very nuanced issue. It also quite effectively distracts from issues that really should be addressed that aren't.


----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> Implicit in all of this is the assumption that someone from another country has exactly the same right to help as a citizen of this country. I simply don't agree with that. You can call me a racist or whatever "ist" or "phobia" word you want but you're wrong. I rent a room in my house to a black guy from Haiti (who also thinks the Somalian invasion around here is ridiculous). The best man at my wedding is gay. But just go ahead and call me a bigot or whatever, I don't care.



I mean, if you're making perjorative assumptions about an entire group of people based on their race and religions, then yes, that makes you racist and bigoted. 

You are *literally* saying, "I'm not a bigot, I have a gay friend." I hope you at least realize how much of a cliché that is. You should have stopped after your first two sentences.


----------



## ncfiala

Drew said:


> I mean, if you're making perjorative assumptions about an entire group of people based on their race and religions, then yes, that makes you racist and bigoted.
> 
> You are *literally* saying, "I'm not a bigot, I have a gay friend." I hope you at least realize how much of a cliché that is. You should have stopped after your first two sentences.



Do you realize how cliche your bleeding heart liberal speak is?

As many of you get older, your views will probably change. I probably would have been for bringing over anyone and everyone when I was 16. Then I grew up and realized life isn't fair and you can't save the world. You can only try to protect your little niche of it.


----------



## vilk

^You might as well have written "OK I admit I said something silly", because that's what we all just read.

Also, have you seen the NGDs on this site and how expensive they are? My assumption of the average age of a given user on here is definitely not 'teenaged'.


----------



## ncfiala

vilk said:


> ^You might as well have written "OK I admit I said something silly", because that's what we all just read.
> 
> Also, have you seen the NGDs on this site and how expensive they are? My assumption of the average age of a given user on here is definitely not 'teenaged'.



I didn't mean to imply teenage, that's just probably about when my views changed. I meant to imply that the average user here, as someone else has also said, is probably on the young side.


----------



## ncfiala

Mr Violence said:


> you're prioritizing and I think that's dumb.



I don't think it's dumb.


----------



## TedEH

ncfiala said:


> I don't care.



I think I get where you're coming from, to a point. The way I was raised included this idea that you help your own first - and there's some value to that. If I've got $100 to donate, for example, I'll donate it to something that I know will benefit my own family and friends first - Like my family has dealt with cancer, and brittle bone syndrome, etc. so it wouldn't be a stretch to say that if I was going to offer anyone any type of support, then that's where it would go. Absolutely makes sense, and I agree with you on that point.

There's also value in saying that we shouldn't necessarily help any/every person or group that asks for help without considering the implications - without considering if there's a legitimate risk involved - and I get that too. I really do. It's a lot of the reason that I don't think very many people go far out of their way to help homeless people or addicts, there's a fear that this person will do more to damage your life than the amount of good you'll be able to do for them. I won't make any judgement as to whether or not that's right or wrong, but I understand it.

However -

I think that an anti-immigrant stance is based on a poor assessment of the level of risk involved compared to the amount of good it would do. I've run into a lot of people who were convinced that pretty much anyone who comes from outside of their country is dangerous by default- not because of race or anything, and to be honest, I don't fully know the reasons in ever case, but it always boils down to an irrational fear - fear of the unknown, I guess?

Part of the issue is that there are political forces that benefit from creating that narrative that foreigners are dangerous, and Trump is the obvious example.

I think that I understand you, and agree to some point that home, your own citizens, your allies, etc. - there's definitely a system of priorities in terms of who to help first, or who to protect, etc. It's my opinion (and likely that of the others here who are continuing the argument) that you've drawn that line in accordance with a sort of unrealistic xenophobia. 

In other words- Yes, definitely protect your own first. But that doesn't mean closing the borders, because foreigners and other cultures are not dangerous as you're making them out to be.


----------



## vilk

TedEH said:


> it always boils down to an irrational fear - fear of the unknown, I guess?


"Taco trucks on every corner"


----------



## TedEH

^ Dunno if this is what you were going for but

I'm pretty used to people being very defensive of their culture being lost or taken over - being from Quebec, where there's this weird fear that anglophones are going to take away their culture.

I don't know if being an English-only person who has always lives in Quebec has had a significant impact on how I view these kinda of relations - I'm always the "outsider" who's "taking their jobs" or "ruining their culture" - regardless of which province I'm in. Ontario people talk to me about how Quebecers are stealing their jobs (lol, I'm a Quebecer working in Ontario, so jokes on you, I guess?), but I'm the outsider in Quebec too, since there are things like laws that say if I ever have kids, I'm not allowed to enroll them in an English school. So many laws here that are meant to encourage me to move away, but I won't do it. I like it here despite how oddly hostile it can be sometimes. (Not physically hostile, just sort of awkward.)


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> I think I get where you're coming from, to a point. The way I was raised included this idea that you help your own first - and there's some value to that. If I've got $100 to donate, for example, I'll donate it to something that I know will benefit my own family and friends first - Like my family has dealt with cancer, and brittle bone syndrome, etc. so it wouldn't be a stretch to say that if I was going to offer anyone any type of support, then that's where it would go. Absolutely makes sense, and I agree with you on that point.
> 
> There's also value in saying that we shouldn't necessarily help any/every person or group that asks for help without considering the implications - without considering if there's a legitimate risk involved - and I get that too. I really do. It's a lot of the reason that I don't think very many people go far out of their way to help homeless people or addicts, there's a fear that this person will do more to damage your life than the amount of good you'll be able to do for them. I won't make any judgement as to whether or not that's right or wrong, but I understand it.
> 
> However -
> 
> I think that an anti-immigrant stance is based on a poor assessment of the level of risk involved compared to the amount of good it would do. I've run into a lot of people who were convinced that pretty much anyone who comes from outside of their country is dangerous by default- not because of race or anything, and to be honest, I don't fully know the reasons in ever case, but it always boils down to an irrational fear - fear of the unknown, I guess?
> 
> Part of the issue is that there are political forces that benefit from creating that narrative that foreigners are dangerous, and Trump is the obvious example.
> 
> I think that I understand you, and agree to some point that home, your own citizens, your allies, etc. - there's definitely a system of priorities in terms of who to help first, or who to protect, etc. It's my opinion (and likely that of the others here who are continuing the argument) that you've drawn that line in accordance with a sort of unrealistic xenophobia.
> 
> In other words- Yes, definitely protect your own first. But that doesn't mean closing the borders, because foreigners and other cultures are not dangerous as you're making them out to be.



And I understand where everyone is coming from as well. It would be great to just save everybody and we all live happily ever after. But my naive idealism died long ago.

Perhaps your opinion who be different if terrorist attacks had happened in two places close to your heart. The St. Cloud, Minnesota mall attack and the Ohio State attacks were both perpetrated by Somalian refugees. If they wouldn't have been brought here 21 people here in the US wouldn't have been injured. Sure, the chances of this happening to me or someone I love is slim, but the probability of being attacked by a refugee is zero if there are none. I like those odds better.


----------



## coreysMonster

ncfiala said:


> but the probability of being attacked by a refugee is zero if there are none. I like those odds better.


The odds of getting in a car and dying are thousands of times higher than getting killed by a refugee and yet we drive millions of them every day. It's an absolutely irrational fear born out of xenophobia and nothing else.

I used to live in Berlin, where terrorist attack by a failed Tunisian asylum seeker recently took place. Nobody I know was hurt or killed, and if they were it's very possible I'd think differently, but even then it would still be as irrational as being angry at all drivers for the one driver that killed a friend.


----------



## ncfiala

vilk said:


> "Taco trucks on every corner"



That doesn't bother me. I ....ing love tacos. But the people running them should be here legally.


----------



## vilk

Part of me believes it's literally as simple as: People are intimidated by foreign language.

My reasoning is that, in my personal experience, Mexican people have more in common with American conservatives than they do with liberals. 
-lack college education
-religiously Christian
-homophobic
-pro-life
-racist against blacks (often openly if speaking Spanish)
-very family oriented
-grew up in a rural place

^I understand those are all stereotypes. Let me repeat I'm only talking about the people I've met in my life. 


When you share a religious belief system, social values, and hell even the food culture is very similar for basically all the boarder states... what's left but language and melanin? 

It's only a hypothesis though.


----------



## ncfiala

coreysMonster said:


> The odds of getting in a car and dying are thousands of times higher than getting killed by a refugee. It's an absolutely irrational fear born out of xenophobia and nothing else.



You fail to appreciate that one of these things is entirely avoidable and the other really isn't. I can't reasonably give up driving. I have to drive. But this country can refuse to bring in hundreds of thousands of "refugees." You're comparing apples to oranges.

You also fail to appreciate that one of these things is possibly a personal choice. Maybe someone doesn't really need to drive. They can individually make the decision whether or not to take the risk. The decision to take in all of these refugees is a decision that is thrust upon all of us.


----------



## coreysMonster

ncfiala said:


> You fail to appreciate that one of these things is entirely avoidable and the other really isn't. I can't reasonably give up driving. I have to drive. But this country can refuse to bring in hundreds of thousands of "refugees." You're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> You also fail to appreciate that one of these things is possibly a personal choice. Maybe someone doesn't really need to drive. They can individually make the decision whether or not to take the risk. The decision to take in all of these refugees is a decision that is thrust upon all of us.


I am comparing apples to oranges because one is a quantifiable very real risk that we choose to take every day that endangers lives and damages the environment, and the other is less likely than getting hit by lightning yet people are arguing about saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people because of it.

I'm making the point that being scared of a terrorist attack because of refugees is laughable and is not a valid reason for not wanting to let refugees in. Matters of personal choice don't matter when the argument is a bad one from the start. Might as well be against refugees because they wear green a lot and that bothers you for some reason, just as silly a reason.


----------



## ncfiala

vilk said:


> Part of me believes it's literally as simple as: People are intimidated by foreign language.
> 
> My reasoning is that, in my personal experience, Mexican people have more in common with American conservatives than they do with liberals.
> -lack college education
> -religiously Christian
> -homophobic
> -pro-life
> -racist against blacks (often openly if speaking Spanish)
> -very family oriented
> -often from a rural place with agriculture/livestock knowledge
> 
> 
> When you share a religious belief system, social values, and hell even the food culture is very similar for basically all the boarder states... what's left but language and melanin?
> 
> It's only a hypothesis though.



You're just spouting a bunch of stereotypes. College educated people are maybe more likely to be liberal, at least when they're young, but a big reason for that is that college is all about indoctrination into liberal dogma at this point. Strangely enough, academia is more intolerant of opinions that don't toe the line than anywhere. I've worked in academia for 20 years.


----------



## ncfiala

coreysMonster said:


> I am comparing apples to oranges because one is a quantifiable very real risk that we choose to take every day that endangers lives and damages the environment, and the other is less likely than getting hit by lightning yet could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
> 
> I'm making the point that being scared of a terrorist attack because of refugees is laughable and is not a valid reason for not wanting to let refugees in. Matters of personal choice don't matter when the argument is a bad one from the start.



You can say it's not a valid reason, but that is simply your opinion. We all do our own cost-benefit analysis.


----------



## coreysMonster

ncfiala said:


> You can say it's not a valid reason, but that is simply your opinion. We all do our own cost-benefit analysis.


"Me first and .... the rest" is not a cost-benefit analysis, it's just plain selfish and cynical.


----------



## ncfiala

TedEH said:


> It's a lot of the reason that I don't think very many people go far out of their way to help homeless people or addicts, there's a fear that this person will do more to damage your life than the amount of good you'll be able to do for them.



Hell I've even done that. I let an alcoholic friend live with me for three months for free. He eventually stole my car and got a DUI and went to jail. I let an alcoholic vet who I didn't even know live with me for two months for free. He took off and left all his crap here. I got burned in both cases, but I chose to take the risk.


----------



## ncfiala

coreysMonster said:


> "Me first and .... the rest" is not a cost-benefit analysis, it's just plain selfish and cynical.



Maybe it isn't to you, but that is your opinion. Many liberals fail to see that these are matters of opinion, not fact. They are right and I'm wrong. That's BS. I have my opinion and you have yours. You have every right to it and I'm not going to say it's wrong. I just disagree.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> but a big reason for that is that college is all about indoctrination into liberal dogma at this point.



Ah yes, good ol' LIBDEM 101: Intro to Liberal Dogma

I'm guessing this is more an effect of overgeneralizing outside of your particular university.


----------



## ncfiala

Well I'm out. I usually only post here at work and I've been home for two hours. Priorities...


----------



## coreysMonster

ncfiala said:


> Maybe it isn't to you, but that is your opinion. Many liberals fail to see that these are matters of opinion, not fact. They are right and I'm wrong. That's BS. I have my opinion and you have yours. You have every right to it and I'm not going to say it's wrong. I just disagree.


I never said you're wrong, I said your fear is irrational. Discussions don't work that way.



> Many liberals fail to see that these are matters of opinion, not fact. They are right and I'm wrong. That's BS. I have my opinion and you have yours.


And your opinion is based off of an irrational fear. That makes your opinion objectively not based in reality. That's how arguing works, you have to make a logical connection between facts and your opinion. You can't just say "the sky is green, that's my opinion so I'm not wrong and hurr durr liberals and their 'facts'", if your logic is flawed then of course other people can tell you you're wrong. That's not a liberal or conservative thing, that's the basis of rational thought.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> He's not stupid, he's just willfully only accepting things that agree with his prior convictions. One, I haven't given up that he may gradually become more open minded (though talking about him openly in front of him probably isnt helping ) and two, it's a good intellectual exercise - by taking the time to refute a lot of what he's saying, I usually learn and improve my own understanding in the process.
> 
> Also, it occasionally gets slow at work, and I enjoy beating dead horses.



My personal beliefs and voting record is fairly moderate. You'll have to take my word on that one.

I find dyed-in-the-wool progressives to be dangerous group thinkers, who force their views on everyone and vote for ever-larger government.

I find dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to be dangerous group thinkers, who mind their own damned business and vote for smaller government.

It is obviously more important to "do battle" with one of these mindsets, especially considering my geographical location. Portland is an S-hole.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> I find dyed-in-the-wool conservatives to be dangerous group thinkers, who mind their own damned business and vote for smaller government.



Yeah, they've really minded their own business when it comes to gay marriage and a woman's right to choose


----------



## TheHandOfStone

coreysMonster said:


> The odds of getting in a car and dying are thousands of times higher than getting killed by a refugee and yet we drive millions of them every day.


No joke, I almost brought up the death toll of rising speed limits in my last post. People don't even have to stop driving; they could just drive slower. Convenience is worth at least 33,000 lives to some Americans, but there are people here who think a single death from admitting refugees is too many.

Anyway, I think I'm done arguing this point now.


----------



## big_aug

I mean, when the President cites some total random with zero credibility (Gregg Phillips) as a source for his voter fraud investigation....

What in the ....? Did you see this guy get interviewed by Chris Cuomo? The .... is he even doing getting interviewed? He has zero facts or evidence. I guess I applaud them for making the guy look like a complete fool. And our president uses this as his source? I could actually get on board with some stuff he wants to do. But holy ...., my brain cannot operate on a level so low as to over look stuff like this.


----------



## big_aug

I do give Trump props for convincing many Americans that a tax (tariff) on imported goods is paid by the country that exports them.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I have to say that I also subscribe to the idea of having your family and you come first. I mean, the way I look at it, I don't have very long on this Earth and neither does my family and I feel it's my job to make sure they have what they need/want before anyone else, refugee or not. I really don't give a damn if that's considered selfish because I'm not here to appease anyone but those I love and care for. I really don't give a damn about the rest of the planet/humanity, and if the world was to end tomorrow, I honestly would have no regrets.

Now to address another point. The man said he rented a room to a Haitian man and he had a gay guy at his wedding, while also being accused of being a racist. Now whether he is or not, I have to say that I've never understood why it's so easy to label someone a racist/bigot and the person at hand's retort that gives examples of why they wouldn't be is attacked. Obviously, it didn't bother him to entrust a man with a different skin color than himself to one of his rooms and it didn't bother him to have a gay guy at his wedding. So what the hell is he supposed to say/do to defend himself? It appears that it's easy to call someone a bigot these days and even less options for a person to defend their position.

Maybe he's racist, maybe he's not. But I would think he's a bit more open minded in some regards than he's being given credit for and it's like the other side has a bit of a hard time losing as well.


----------



## feraledge

big_aug said:


> I do give Trump props for convincing many Americans that a tax (tariff) on imported goods is paid by the country that exports them.



#alternativetariffs


----------



## flint757

MFB said:


> Yeah, they've really minded their own business when it comes to gay marriage and a woman's right to choose



That one always gets me. The politicians conservatives consistently vote into office are NOT for smaller government. I don't think corporatism, endless war, policing the world, federal approved pet projects (a wall), etc. can possibly qualify as small government. Bathroom bills, bills meant to close health clinics, bills about gay sex, etc. have nothing to do with 'shrinking' government, but an attempt to make our laws more like a Christian theocracy.



big_aug said:


> I do give Trump props for convincing many Americans that a tax (tariff) on imported goods is paid by the country that exports them.



Luckily, no one I know has made a comment supporting this maneuver, even on the conservative front; although they haven't brought it up either. I can't tell if he thinks we're dumb or if it's just him.


----------



## ncfiala

narad said:


> Ah yes, good ol' LIBDEM 101: Intro to Liberal Dogma
> 
> I'm guessing this is more an effect of overgeneralizing outside of your particular university.



The extreme liberal bent in academia is pretty well known and documented. Read Tenured Radicals.


----------



## ncfiala

coreysMonster said:


> And your opinion is based off of an irrational fear. That makes your opinion objectively not based in reality. That's how arguing works, you have to make a logical connection between facts and your opinion. You can't just say "the sky is green, that's my opinion so I'm not wrong and hurr durr liberals and their 'facts'", if your logic is flawed then of course other people can tell you you're wrong. That's not a liberal or conservative thing, that's the basis of rational thought.



You can say my opinion is irrational or illogical all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking. In other words, two people that are both "rational" and "logical" will always arrive at the same conclusion. This is simply not so. You use these two words but do you even know what they mean? What's rational to you and what's rational to me may be vastly different because we may have very different utility functions.

Do you even know what a logic is? I'm a mathematician. Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.

I don't know why you can't just admit that this is a matter of opinion. But like many liberals, you have to be right and I have to be wrong. I couldn't care less about being right because I don't think there is such a thing. I just have an opinion.


----------



## Axayacatl

ncfiala said:


> ...You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking.
> 
> ...Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.



Each one of these logical constructions can be different, for sure. And I agree that it is ultimately a matter of 'opinion' to pick which logical construction one will apply. Heck, different applications in science and engineering use different notions of 'distance'. So maybe there is a bit of practicality mixed in with the choice.

1) as a mathematician, you probably agree it is important to be internally consistent within these logical constructions.
2) what logical construction are you picking to interpret the world around you?
3) are you applying your own logical construction in an internally consistent fashion?

As a species we are starting to understand how emotion is processed before reason, but it is relatively new (for example:How Emotions Affect Logical Reasoning). The animal brain clearly evolved milenia before our advanced human brain (i.e., that big brain that got you your math Ph.D, mega kudos for that).

I guess the part that confuses me is why you are using logical constructions (e.g., the real numbers) to defend an opinion. 

Instead of telling us what you think, you should tell us how you _feel_.

Once we are honest to ourselves about our _*feelings*_ we can grow and start being a bit more objective about the world and what 'logical' construction we are really using to interpret what happens around us.


----------



## ncfiala

Axayacatl said:


> I guess the part that confuses me is why you are using logical constructions (e.g., the real numbers) to defend an opinion.



I never said anything about the real numbers. And I never really defended my opinion. One of the axioms that I live by is that I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. What I was defending is my opinion that the different views espoused in this thread are just that, opinions, and not facts.


----------



## Axayacatl

ncfiala said:


> I never said anything about the real numbers. And I never really defended my opinion. One of the axioms that I live by is that I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. What I was defending is my opinion that the different views espoused in this thread are just that, opinions, and not facts.



Lol dude you literally brought up hundreds of 'different logics' in mathematics. It's literally posted just above, you can't alternative fact that one. Kelly Anne is that you? 

Also, I pointedly didn't ask you to justify your opinion. 

I asked you how you feel.


----------



## fps

ncfiala said:


> You can say my opinion is irrational or illogical all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking. In other words, two people that are both "rational" and "logical" will always arrive at the same conclusion. This is simply not so. You use these two words but do you even know what they mean? What's rational to you and what's rational to me may be vastly different because we may have very different utility functions.
> 
> Do you even know what a logic is? I'm a mathematician. Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.
> 
> I don't know why you can't just admit that this is a matter of opinion. But like many liberals, you have to be right and I have to be wrong. I couldn't care less about being right because I don't think there is such a thing. I just have an opinion.



That's a very fancy way of saying you have no evidence and don't care that what you think fails to follow any logical rules. You're letting yourself down.


----------



## narad

ncfiala said:


> The extreme liberal bent in academia is pretty well known and documented. Read Tenured Radicals.



Academic staff are generally left-leaning, true. It's just the leap from that stat to the claim that college is "all about indoctrination into liberal dogma at this point." It's hard having discussions with you because it's such an odd mix of factual statements and foolish conclusions.


----------



## Axayacatl

Maybe think of it like this. I get on a plane not because it was someone's opinion that things can fly, nor because there is some collective opinion that the thing can fly. I presume someone did something scientific somewhere at some point. And then I witness the fact that things can fly and then land ok most of the time. Whether you still want to get on a plane or not is always up to you, there is absolutely nothing irrational about having the personal risk profile that says I prefer not to fly, but science is based on testable hypothesis, a simple one being for example how many people were in a crowd on Inauguration Day. To say that everything is based merely on opinion is to deny reality as billions of people live it in practice. So the question is where is the need to deny reality coming from in the first place? It's also about keeping ourselves honest, in my case I usually deny reality (to put it mildly) when I'm scared, and I worry that this is happening on a mass scale in this country.


----------



## narad

^^ To your example, I would say that wanting to ban / remove Somalian immigrants in an effort to keep my family safe is akin to not wanting to board the plane because it's too risky, and then playing Russian roulette on the weekends. While there's certainly nothing illogical about wanting to remove immigrants to keep your family safe, it is certainly _suboptimal_. I would gladly support the million other policy changes that would do more to accomplish this goal.

If some guy on some forum is spouting off about how we should ban coconut trees because a kid was killed by a falling coconut, it's like sure, I'm not going to deny that technically your family is safer without coconut trees in your town. Technically there are many things we could do to make your family infinitesimally more safe. It's just that statistically speaking, with the current set of threats facing your family, you're being absurd.


----------



## coreysMonster

ncfiala said:


> You can say my opinion is irrational or illogical all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You, along with many others it seems, seem to think that "rationality" and "logic" emcompass a single way of thinking. In other words, two people that are both "rational" and "logical" will always arrive at the same conclusion. This is simply not so. You use these two words but do you even know what they mean? What's rational to you and what's rational to me may be vastly different because we may have very different utility functions.


One aspect of rational thought that is unilaterally agreed upon is that is has to be based in facts and causality. Anything that is based on myth or emotion can by the definition of the word rational, not be rational.



ncfiala said:


> Do you even know what a logic is? I'm a mathematician.


And I'm a programmer. I have a firm grasp of logic, thanks.



ncfiala said:


> Mathematicians have devised and studied literally hundreds of different logics (and we can devise infinitely many more), each with its own grammar and rules for making inferences. In other words, each with its own way of "reasoning." None of these ways is "right" and none of these ways is "wrong," they are simply different.


And I'm sure as a mathematician you are aware that each of these logics are based on agreed upon axioms, and that anything that does not follow those axioms is not allowed within those logics. One axiom of reality is causality, and you can't just ignore causality and say your logic is different, because causality is an axiom. If you ignore it, you are objectively wrong, even if you still stand by your opinion.



ncfiala said:


> I don't know why you can't just admit that this is a matter of opinion. But like many liberals, you have to be right and I have to be wrong. I couldn't care less about being right because I don't think there is such a thing. I just have an opinion.



This is not a liberal or conservative thing, I don't even care about this in the context of refugees, it's your flawed logic that bothers me. There are many rational arguments against accepting refugees, in Germany many people are arguing that accepting this many refugees will cause similar effects to our economy and social systems as the reunification did in 1990. This is a logical, rational conclusion, and if it is true (and it probably is) then further discussion can be had whether or not that economic impact is too severe or whether the humanitarian cause is more important (and that's where I stop arguing because I know nothing about economics, so I don't pretend to have anything other than a loosely-formed opinion based on my narrow knowledge).

Your constant deflection to opinion and "muh libruls" tells me you know your opinion is based on irrational fear because you have no arguments to back it up.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bash the fash


----------



## big_aug

Welp, I just did my taxes. Bought a home last year, paid student loan debt, and I end up paying $1200 in additional taxes for 2016. I used an old IRA I had as a part of my down payment. I didn't have to pay taxes on the IRA itself, but the disbursement was added to my total income even though I already paid taxes on that money before I deposited it into my Roth IRA over the years. That pushed me into the next tax bracket.

Our billionaire President probably pays no taxes and I end up paying an additional $1200. And I don't make much money at all. At all. 'murica!

Just needed to rant a bit as I want to see this ....ing guys tax returns.


----------



## Axayacatl

big_aug said:


> Welp, I just did my taxes. Bought a home last year, paid student loan debt, and I end up paying $1200 in additional taxes for 2016. I used an old IRA I had as a part of my down payment. I didn't have to pay taxes on the IRA itself, but the disbursement was added to my total income even though I already paid taxes on that money before I deposited it into my Roth IRA over the years. That pushed me into the next tax bracket.
> 
> Our billionaire President probably pays no taxes and I end up paying an additional $1200. And I don't make much money at all. At all. 'murica!
> 
> Just needed to rant a bit as I want to see this ....ing guys tax returns.



I feel ya, man. Let me add this. People like President Trump boast of a global business and they like shipping goods overseas and having global protection of their private property. I'm sure Rex Tillerson likes the fact that the US Navy patrols the blue seas making sure that Exxon oil tankers can get from point A to point B safely. Trust me, it isn't the Chinese navy that is patrolling the Malacca straight where so many oil and car products get shipped. 

What irks me is that is is US men and women in uniform putting their life in danger to make this happen. And people like President Trump boast on TV about not paying their fair share. It really angers me. 



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> bash the fash



This cracked me up a lot. I try not to be aggressive, and I'm sorry if I came across as bashing. I was really just trying to be factual and logical. But just to be serious for a second. I truly believe that people who deny reality to this extent should be objects of our compassion and concern. 60 million+ Americans are afraid enough to go back on all of our shared values to elect a reality star showman genius who constantly talks about himself and spews hatred. And we have math Ph.D.s pulling 'logics' out of their dickholes. These people need our hugs.


----------



## big_aug

And don't get me wrong, I'm fine paying taxes. I think that's the way it has to be and we all need to do it. But when the billionaires like our President boast about not paying taxes it pisses me the .... off.

Effectively, I paid about 10% in federal income tax. That's if you count in the IRA disbursement. If I just considered my actual wages, I paid probably 15% or so. I don't like to say how much money I actually make because I'm kind of embarrassed that I make so little. That 10-15% is a lot to me but it isn't even a fraction of a drop in the bucket for many. Luckily, I'm pretty good with my money in general and have quite good credit and a nice chunk of money saved (a nice chunk for me, probably not much for others). I can just throw the $1200 additional taxes on a 0% credit card and pay it off over the next six months.

I had done my research, at least I thought I had, on using the IRA. I had talked with financial company that held it and read a lot online to determine that I wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money if used for a first time home purchase. I did not realize it would still factor into my total income which would push me way into the next tax bracket. I will have a tax professional double check it all instead of using turbo tax this year just to be sure.

There goes my gear money for the year


----------



## Axayacatl

narad said:


> ^^ To your example, I would say that wanting to ban / remove Somalian immigrants in an effort to keep my family safe is akin to not wanting to board the plane because it's too risky, and then playing Russian roulette on the weekends. While there's certainly nothing illogical about wanting to remove immigrants to keep your family safe, it is certainly _suboptimal_. I would gladly support the million other policy changes that would do more to accomplish this goal.
> 
> If some guy on some forum is spouting off about how we should ban coconut trees because a kid was killed by a falling coconut, it's like sure, I'm not going to deny that technically your family is safer without coconut trees in your town. Technically there are many things we could do to make your family infinitesimally more safe. It's just that statistically speaking, with the current set of threats facing your family, you're being absurd.



Thanks buddy, for sure, that is the point I wast trying to make. 

The famous David Hume quote seems really appropriate here: _"`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. `Tis not contrary to reason for me to chuse my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me."
_

And just right now, I got a breaking news alert that gunmen in Quebec City killed 5 people at a mosque during evening prayers. 

I guess we're banning Canadians next?

And why isn't Dylan Roof tried as a terrorist? 

He had white supremacist propaganda, manifestos, associations with other white supremacists, and he purposely targeted people of color in their place of worship to intimidate the group at large. 

He's not a terrorist... why?

I'm just waiting for somebody to explain to me how that is not inconsistent given our nation's views on the definition of terrorism.


----------



## Axayacatl

big_aug said:


> And don't get me wrong, I'm fine paying taxes. I think that's the way it has to be and we all need to do it. But when the billionaires like our President boast about not paying taxes it pisses me the .... off.
> 
> Effectively, I paid about 10% in federal income tax. That's if you count in the IRA disbursement. If I just considered my actual wages, I paid probably 15% or so. I don't like to say how much money I actually make because I'm kind of embarrassed that I make so little. That 10-15% is a lot to me but it isn't even a fraction of a drop in the bucket for many. Luckily, I'm pretty good with my money in general and have quite good credit and a nice chunk of money saved (a nice chunk for me, probably not much for others). I can just throw the $1200 additional taxes on a 0% credit card and pay it off over the next six months.
> 
> I had done my research, at least I thought I had, on using the IRA. I had talked with financial company that held it and read a lot online to determine that I wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money if used for a first time home purchase. I did not realize it would still factor into my total income which would push me way into the next tax bracket. I will have a tax professional double check it all instead of using turbo tax this year just to be sure.
> 
> There goes my gear money for the year



Super sucks man. I don't know how much money you make, I just know you're not rich enough to pay for help to game the system. 

My man President Donald Trump literally got tax exemptions from _other_ people failing in their business. 

That's like if I could get a tax exemption because my neighbors are poor and foreclose on their house.


----------



## narad

Axayacatl said:


> And why isn't Dylan Roof tried as a terrorist?
> 
> He had white supremacist propaganda, manifestos, associations with other white supremacists, and he purposely targeted people of color in their place of worship to intimidate the group at large.
> 
> He's not a terrorist... why?
> 
> I'm just waiting for somebody to explain to me how that is not inconsistent given our nation's views on the definition of terrorism.



Can't argue with that one. If you do something terrible and you're Muslim, you're a "religious extremist." Do the same thing as a Christian or atheist and you have "mental health issues."


----------



## bostjan

TheHandOfStone said:


> No joke, I almost brought up the death toll of rising speed limits in my last post. People don't even have to stop driving; they could just drive slower. Convenience is worth at least 33,000 lives to some Americans, but there are people here who think a single death from admitting refugees is too many.
> 
> Anyway, I think I'm done arguing this point now.



Read the article you posted. Deaths due to crashes have gone down since the speed limits were increased. This study reaches the wrong conclusion. It's actually more dangerous to drive 10 mph slower than the flow of traffic than 10 mph faster than the flow of traffic (although safest is staying home and not going anywhere, and next safest is keeping up with traffic).

There are obvious problems with driving too fast for road conditions, including the rate of other vehicles. But, raising the speed limit has not caused the highways to become more dangerous. Period. Try to find data that breaks accidents down by state. The correlation just isn't there, or else we would see a lot more accidents on TX highways.

And the foundation of this all is from simple logic. You don't get hurt from speed, it's acceleration that causes the force that leads to bodily injury. If no one is moving at all, then there is no danger of collision. If everything moves at the same rate of speed in the same direction, it's no different. That's why only motor vehicles are allowed on highways.

EDIT: I couldn't find the article I read in a magaIs driving faster safer?zine a couple of weeks ago, but here is a similar one:


----------



## feraledge




----------



## Drew

ncfiala said:


> Do you realize how cliche your bleeding heart liberal speak is?
> 
> As many of you get older, your views will probably change. I probably would have been for bringing over anyone and everyone when I was 16. Then I grew up and realized life isn't fair and you can't save the world. You can only try to protect your little niche of it.



I don't know how old you are, but I'm 35, fairly successful and with the tax bill to show for it, and have had a pretty good luck. I'm well aware that life isn't fair, because the vast majority of people don't have it as well as I do. And, while I certainly have worked hard for my success, I also am perfectly aware that the fact I'm a white male from a majority religious group with upper middle class parents gave me opportunities that very few others have had. 

So, hey, I figure if life isn't fair but it's broken predominately in my favor, then the least I can do is to try to use that good fortune to make it fairer for others, and not being a racist seems like a great first step to me.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/videos/10154617813246998/?pnref=story
an interesting video about the exponential rise of violence in sweden largely stemming from refugees. definitely worth a watch.


----------



## Drew

KnightBrolaire said:


> https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/videos/10154617813246998/?pnref=story
> an interesting video about the exponential rise of violence in sweden largely stemming from refugees. definitely worth a watch.



A staunch fundamentalist conservative Jew alleges Muslim violence in a secular nation? Say it isn't so.


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/videos/10154617813246998/?pnref=story
> an interesting video about the exponential rise of violence in sweden largely stemming from refugees. definitely worth a watch.



It says exponential rise in violence in Sweden largely stemming from refugees, yet the statistics don't support this at all. The video tries to take away from this by claiming it's a big cover-up, but I'm skeptical.

It's important to remember that the refugee population only makes up something like 0.02% of the total population in Sweden, so common sense dictates they're not going to contribute heavily to an exponential increase _in anything._

When you bring in refugees it's a near certainty that some refugee is going to commit some crime, but it's mind-boggling to me that this immediately flags it as a mistake. There will be some refugee crime. There will be some refugee good deeds. Some refugee lives will be saved. But ultimately this is not changing the face of the country, and these pros/cons are all statistically small fries.

I don't know. As the refugees in the video were claiming they received, if you bring me to Sweden, give me a house and spending money and a Swedish girlfriend, you really think the first thing on my mind is messing stuff up?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> It says exponential rise in violence in Sweden largely stemming from refugees, yet the statistics don't support this at all. The video tries to take away from this by claiming it's a big cover-up, but I'm skeptical.
> 
> It's important to remember that the refugee population only makes up something like 0.02% of the total population in Sweden, so common sense dictates they're not going to contribute heavily to an exponential increase _in anything._



Well, I disagree with that aspect of your point. If I added 0.02% hydrogen cyanide to the air in a person's lungs, it would certainly have a noticeable effect, so, I don't agree with your logic, but, that does not mean that I don't reach the same conclusion as you, because, well:



narad said:


> When you bring in refugees it's a near certainty that some refugee is going to commit some crime, but it's mind-boggling to me that this immediately flags it as a mistake. There will be some refugee crime. There will be some refugee good deeds. Some refugee lives will be saved. But ultimately this is not changing the face of the country, and these pros/cons are all statistically small fries.
> 
> I don't know. As the refugees in the video were claiming they received, if you bring me to Sweden, give me a house and spending money and a Swedish girlfriend, you really think the first thing on my mind is messing stuff up?



is a good point. The refugees are fleeing a place where everything is messed up. bad. And, then they are moved some place nice, where they are accepted by 90% of the population (or so). It would seem pretty foolish to mess that up.

The thing is: *IF* these refugees simply wanted to spread chaos, it would not take many of them to cause chaos. Civility is difficult to maintain in the company of x people, if one person is decidedly dead set on breeding chaos, regardless of the size of x. But honestly, in the USA, when we have people like David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, etc., trying to spread chaos already, adding a few tens of thousands of Syrians fleeing the current armpit of the world, odds are that it will more likely straighten things out more than mess things up worse.

That said, at the rate Trump is going, there may not be that much more worth it to them to blow up after a few years.


----------



## Randy

KnightBrolaire said:


> https://www.facebook.com/DennisPrager/videos/10154617813246998/?pnref=story
> an interesting video about the exponential rise of violence in sweden largely stemming from refugees. definitely worth a watch.



The editing in that video was grotesque.


----------



## mongey

thing that blows my mind about all this is Muslim bans stuff, and for the record I think its appalling , is do the powers that be, i.e Trump and his cronies , not think that a terrorist cell who are clever enough to plan an attack are not clever enough to just travel to a country that isn't on a banned list to gain access ?


----------



## bostjan

mongey said:


> thing that blows my mind about all this is Muslim bans stuff, and for the record I think its appalling , is do the powers that be, i.e Trump and his cronies , not think that a terrorist cell who are clever enough to plan an attack are not clever enough to just travel to a country that isn't on a banned list to gain access ?



Is there going to be a big sign on the Mexican Border Wall that says "No Rule Breakers Allowed!" 

Obviously, no matter what the policy is, there are going to be people who transgress the policy. 

Applying conservative philosophy to this, a la "If they take our guns by writing a law, only criminals will have guns and they will destroy us all!", well, if you ban Muslims from entering the USA, in order to keep out violent extremists, then, well, guess who is going to continue coming in: violent extremists, because they don't give two shts about our rules.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

bostjan said:


> Read the article you posted. Deaths due to crashes have gone down since the speed limits were increased. This study reaches the wrong conclusion.


You may have read it, but you didn't address their actual methodology: comparing actual and expected deaths (with all else but speed held constant). You can't derive this kind of stuff a priori from "simple logic" either, especially not from an argument that could just as easily "prove" it was safe to drive 500 mph given that vehicles were capable of doing so.

*EDIT:* I just realized this post came off sounding kind of rude, and for that I apologize. I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I don't think your criticism is sound.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I'm 35, fairly successful and with the tax bill to show for it, and have had a pretty good luck. I'm well aware that life isn't fair, because the vast majority of people don't have it as well as I do. And, while I certainly have worked hard for my success, I also am perfectly aware that the fact I'm a white male from a majority religious group with upper middle class parents gave me opportunities that very few others have had.
> 
> So, hey, I figure if life isn't fair but it's broken predominately in my favor, then the least I can do is to try to use that good fortune to make it fairer for others, and not being a racist seems like a great first step to me.



This 40 year old couldn't agree more! And seeing the fallout from Trump's refugee policies right now should be enough to turn anyone's stomach. To the Canadians out there, if you are equally disgusted, write to your local MP and encourage the government here to do it's part and take some of these people in. I think with enough concerted global effort between governments that still have a sense of human decency, we could really help to offset some of Trump's disruption collectively (including teaming with the Dutch to offset the abortion cuts).


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> A staunch fundamentalist conservative Jew alleges Muslim violence in a secular nation? Say it isn't so.



This right here!!


----------



## oc616

I really don't get how Trump starting beef with China in his (now) official capacity is going to bring about any good. If you're picking a fight with Mexico, at least that's a semi-nobody country without a nuclear arsenal and close ties to Russia, who get's to back whichever horse it likes if this goes further than militaristic muscle flexing because "their trade policies make me sad".


----------



## bostjan

TheHandOfStone said:


> You may have read it, but you didn't address their actual methodology: comparing actual and expected deaths (with all else but speed held constant). You can't derive this kind of stuff a priori from "simple logic" either, especially not from an argument that could just as easily "prove" it was safe to drive 500 mph given that vehicles were capable of doing so.
> 
> *EDIT:* I just realized this post came off sounding kind of rude, and for that I apologize. I'm not trying to antagonize you, but I don't think your criticism is sound.



No worries, your post sounds fine to me.

The point is that actual deaths dropped. If you look closely, the difference between their calculated "expected" and the actual is not very great, and the methodology for exactly how they calculated the "expected" amount is unclear.

As far as the simple logic applied: why not? If you can't poke a hole in the logical argument, other than "it isn't sound", maybe it boils down to confirmation bias?

Again, picking on highway driving, if speed and speed limits correlate to deaths, shouldn't Texas have more deaths on the highway than states with a 55 or 65 mph speed limit? Seems like an obvious question to me.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

bostjan said:


> No worries, your post sounds fine to me.
> 
> The point is that actual deaths dropped. If you look closely, the difference between their calculated "expected" and the actual is not very great, and the methodology for exactly how they calculated the "expected" amount is unclear.
> 
> As far as the simple logic applied: why not? If you can't poke a hole in the logical argument, other than "it isn't sound", maybe it boils down to confirmation bias?
> 
> Again, picking on highway driving, if speed and speed limits correlate to deaths, shouldn't Texas have more deaths on the highway than states with a 55 or 65 mph speed limit? Seems like an obvious question to me.


It's possible that their method of estimating expected deaths is wrong, but only because there are a lot of factors that go into death rates besides speed limits. This is why simple state-to-state comparisons don't necessarily tell us about the effect of speed limits either. You potentially have to account for vehicle types, weather and road conditions, difference in pedestrian behavior, seatbelt usage, differences in passenger counts, state drinking habits, and probably a host of other things I'm forgetting.

I think your argument from acceleration proves too much, which is why I made the comment about hypothetical cars that could drive 500 mph being obviously fine by your logic.

According to this source, Texas has the highest number of road deaths of any state in 2015. However, that's misleading because they also have a large population. When you transform this into a "deaths per x number of people" statistic, they come out somewhere in the middle. Then I found a different analysis (this one using 2013 statistics) that looked at vehicle fatalities as a percentage of overall fatalities. Here, Texas came in at 1.9%, the 6th highest of all states. Speed limits are notably higher in states with higher vehicle fatality %s, but then the host of other confounds I already mentioned also come into play.


----------



## bostjan

Well, as far as the fallacy of proving too much via reducto ad absurdum, I think your example of cars going 500 mph is the case of that, not my statement that highway speed is not as important as law enforcement makes it out to be.

The source you posted actually has the per capita driving fatality rate. As I said, if the speed limit correlated to road fatalities, as you claim, then the speed limit should correlate to road fatalities. I don't think that's really expecting too much by way of evidence. And, well, the evidence is not there. The three most dangerous roadways in the USA have 65, 70, and 50 mph speed limits, far below the maximum of 85 mph in Texas, and those roadways that are 85 mph roadways don't even make the lists of most dangerous roads, either by numbers of fatalities, nor by numbers of accidents. So, again, the data is there that should prop up your assertion that speed limits correlate to road fatalities, yet, the data does not support that assertion.

Your second source seems to be making a correlation between voting Republican and road fatalities, rather than speed limits...hmm.


----------



## wankerness

oc616 said:


> I really don't get how Trump starting beef with China in his (now) official capacity is going to bring about any good. If you're picking a fight with Mexico, at least that's a semi-nobody country without a nuclear arsenal and close ties to Russia, who get's to back whichever horse it likes if this goes further than militaristic muscle flexing because "their trade policies make me sad".



I don't think the offensive rhetoric will lead to much in terms of conflict. The bigger worry is that his isolationist policies like attempting to destroy imports are just going to make China the new trade center of the world. Making America great again, indeed.


----------



## bostjan

I saw a little anecdote online the other day about the economics of the border wall.

Jose from Mexico sells John in the USA an avocado for $5.
Donald builds a wall, and raises the taxes on Mexican imports 20% to pay for the expense.
Jose raises the price of the avocado 20%, from $5 to $6.
John now pays six dollars for the same avocado.
Who paid for the wall?


----------



## Drew

oc616 said:


> I really don't get how Trump starting beef with China in his (now) official capacity is going to bring about any good. If you're picking a fight with Mexico, at least that's a semi-nobody country without a nuclear arsenal and close ties to Russia, who get's to back whichever horse it likes if this goes further than militaristic muscle flexing because "their trade policies make me sad".



Trump is a man used to negotiating from a position of power, and either getting his terms, or moving on to a new target. I think it may be as simple as he's doing it because he thinks he can. 

I think he's wrong - even Mexico could be disasterous, both in terms of the direct impact on US trade, and also the potentially destabilizing impact that the peso's collapse post-Trump will have on the Mexican economy. It wasn't that long ago that it was being speculated that Mexico was at risk of becoming a failed state, but the current president has done a good job, relatively speaking, of fighting corruption and drug violence. A falling peso will (and already is) increasing inflation in Mexico, and if that results in a popular backlash that pulls down the government, well, the last thing we want is a drug cartel calling the shots on our southern border. 

And of course the biggest problem with trashing the TPP even if you're neutral to somewhat against free trade agreements in principle is that we're creating a giant vacuum in the Pacific for China to fill. He's abdicating American influence in the region, and that's something we've fought hard to obtain and preserve under previous administrations. 

I also think the real risk with Trump's posturing with China is he's flying blind - he doesn't seem to realize what the pain points are that he can absolutely not touch. The One China policy is a political third rail that he's already hit, and as he's gutted most experienced senior staff from the State Department, he's almost certainly going to hit others. If Trump throws a twitter hissy fit about something non-negotiable to the Chinese, this absolutely could escalate into war.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I saw a little anecdote online the other day about the economics of the border wall.
> 
> Jose from Mexico sells John in the USA an avocado for $5.
> Donald builds a wall, and raises the taxes on Mexican imports 20% to pay for the expense.
> Jose raises the price of the avocado 20%, from $5 to $6.
> John now pays six dollars for the same avocado.
> Who paid for the wall?



I HAVE to assume at least the vast majority of Trump supporters realize an import tax on Mexican goods is going to come out of American pockets. We can debate demand elasticity and the impact this has on pricing power, but the number of import good with perfect demand elasticity makes that an extremely moot discussion.

Whether they care, of course, is the real question.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> I HAVE to assume at least the vast majority of Trump supporters realize an import tax on Mexican goods is going to come out of American pockets. We can debate demand elasticity and the impact this has on pricing power, but the number of import good with perfect demand elasticity makes that an extremely moot discussion.
> 
> Whether they care, of course, is the real question.



We don't care. Also we are banking on the soft costs of 30 million illegals being reduced significantly. 

8 years from now, who knows if we break even. But that is SECONDARY to the idea that everyone is here with legal status now.


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> We don't care. Also we are banking on the soft costs of 30 million illegals being reduced significantly.
> 
> 8 years from now, who knows if we break even. But that is SECONDARY to the idea that everyone is here with legal status now.


So the idea is to spend a lot of money now, that we might not recoup, to save money maybe somewhere down the line, but ehh who cares at least no more illegal Mexicans (maybe, but not really)?

 I'm sorry but that is_ the worst _argument for spending this much taxpayer money I have ever heard.

I'm surprised this hasn't been called a "War on Illegal Immigration", because we all know how well all those other poorly thought-out crime-fighting and supposed money-saving measures went (and how ineffective, harmful and expensive they've all been).


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> We don't care. Also we are banking on the soft costs of 30 million illegals being reduced significantly.



You'll care when you find yourself paying more for most of the things you buy (higher taxes to pay for the wall plus import tariffs).




CapnForsaggio said:


> 8 years from now, who knows if we break even.



I doubt very seriously that Trump will get a second term in office. Voter turnout was very low this past election, but the democrats will not make that mistake again. Nor will they run Clinton again.




CapnForsaggio said:


> But that is SECONDARY to the idea that everyone is here with legal status now.



A wall and a tariff will not ensure that all immigrants are here legally. If you want to ensure people are here legally, you need to reform the immigration process so that it is easier, faster and much less expensive so people CAN get here legally. They'll get here either way.


----------



## big_aug

There is still that perception that illegal immigrants are somehow stealing jobs from Americans when I don't think that's true at all. I haven't looked up the data, but I bet situations where an illegal being employed results in a US citizen not getting the same job is pretty low.

People just want to blame someone. No one is defending illegal immigration. Building a wall that the US citizens suffer for is not the answer. We will be paying for it and it probably isn't going to stop illegal immigration anyway. People that want to come here will find a way. 

Perhaps people will buy more American made goods when prices of things from Mexico dramatically increase. Maybe. Even with a 20% tariff that US citizens pay, Mexican made goods will probably still be cheaper so people will probably still buy whatever is cheapest. They'll just have less money than they do now or they'll have less stuff.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> You'll care when you find yourself paying more for most of the things you buy (higher taxes to pay for the wall plus import tariffs).



I think a lot of people don't realize how much stuff comes from Mexico. It's basically the commodities breadbasket of the USA.




tedtan said:


> I doubt very seriously that Trump will get a second term in office. Voter turnout was very low this past election, but the democrats will not make that mistake again. Nor will they run Clinton again.



We'll see. I never thought the Republican party would run GWB, since he was really a bad candidate, at that time, but they did...and he won.  I never thought they'd put Sarah Palin with McCain, but they did.  How surprised would I be if they ran a complete lunatic against Trump in 4 years? Mmm, a little bit...




tedtan said:


> A wall and a tariff will not ensure that all immigrants are here legally. If you want to ensure people are here legally, you need to reform the immigration process so that it is easier, faster and much less expensive so people CAN get here legally. They'll get here either way.



Well, there are two sides to this, and both sides of it are missing important pieces. 

Part I - the carrot: Make it so that people want to come here legally, and they will. Make the process of obtaining a visa to the USA straight-forward, yet make sure you cover the essentials.

Part II - the stick: Make it so that people do not want to come here illegally and they won't. Maybe if you are caught in the USA illegally, you should be deported automatically, like pretty much every other country. I know it's not easy to make the change, but it is something that is necessary, and it keeps the people who came here legally happy that they went through the trouble that they did.


----------



## big_aug

bostjan said:


> I think a lot of people don't realize how much stuff comes from Mexico. It's basically the commodities breadbasket of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see. I never thought the Republican party would run GWB, since he was really a bad candidate, at that time, but they did...and he won.  I never thought they'd put Sarah Palin with McCain, but they did.  How surprised would I be if they ran a complete lunatic against Trump in 4 years? Mmm, a little bit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there are two sides to this, and both sides of it are missing important pieces.
> 
> Part I - the carrot: Make it so that people want to come here legally, and they will. Make the process of obtaining a visa to the USA straight-forward, yet make sure you cover the essentials.
> 
> Part II - the stick: Make it so that people do not want to come here illegally and they won't. Maybe if you are caught in the USA illegally, you should be deported automatically, like pretty much every other country. I know it's not easy to make the change, but it is something that is necessary, and it keeps the people who came here legally happy that they went through the trouble that they did.



No matter what, it's going to cost the American people. Doing those things aren't free. Stepping up enforcement and deporting will have increased costs over where we are. If everyone is OK paying for that, then cool. But pretending someone just says it's going to happen doesn't make it so. Changes have to happen and that will probably be expensive. 

I can't imagine what it would cost to have a functioning team of immigration officers and the infrastructure to go with it to deport people from all across the country. I don't think we can expect normal local and state police officers to enforce immigration laws. Then we have to have personel to man thousands of miles of border wall or be ready to respond. Otherwise, what's the point of a wall? It has to be monitored or it might as well not even exist.

Tax increases are OK with everyone I guess when it's going towards "fighting" something they view as a threat.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

You can quote me on this:

8 years ago you liberals gave us 'Canadian Healthcare'...
We are going to give you 'Canadian Immigration.'

Deal with it!


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

CapnForsaggio said:


> You can quote me on this:
> 
> 8 years ago you liberals gave us 'Canadian Healthcare'...
> We are going to give you 'Canadian Immigration.'
> 
> Deal with it!





It's like seeing my dad's Facebook posts.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Captain Butterscotch said:


> It's like seeing my dad's Facebook posts.



Is that the same logic you used to refute the opinion of the conservative who financially cradles you?

Or were you just snarky and dismissive of him also?


----------



## narad

Captain Butterscotch said:


> It's like seeing my dad's Facebook posts.



You know...now that I think about it I've never seen a new CapnForsaggio post at a time when my dad isn't on his laptop reading zero hedge...


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> You can quote me on this:
> 
> 8 years ago you liberals gave us 'Canadian Healthcare'...
> We are going to give you 'Canadian Immigration.'
> 
> Deal with it!



You mean the one that's based on a legal system without a $20B wall?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MFB said:


> You mean the one that's based on a legal system without a $20B wall?



I would take EXACTLY Canadian Immigration:

1) Deport everyone without papers
2) Only allow immigrants that have their own savings, or own earning potential.

All welfare cases must go. You don't have a right to prosperity.
All "refugees" must go. They have their own country to make great.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> I would take *EXACTLY Canadian Immigration*:
> 
> 1) Deport everyone without papers
> 2) Only allow immigrants that have their own savings, or own earning potential.
> 
> All welfare cases must go. You don't have a right to prosperity.
> *All "refugees" must go. They have their own country to make great*.


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> 8 years ago you liberals gave us 'Canadian Healthcare'...



 When did that happen?

EDIT: I realise how pointless it is to argue with a Trump fan because they have no arguments to back anything they say up with something that is based in any measurable form of reality. Not once has a Trump fan managed to argue a point outside of their echo chamber long enough without deflecting, posting a meme, a thread getting closed, or giving up and saying "we won deal with it", as if winning an election makes any difference as to whether or not their arguments are right or wrong.

"Liberals did it!" is another favorite argument, as if a liberal doing something wrong makes it okay for them to do it. It's the most childish way of arguing I've ever seen on the internet. Teenagers arguing about anime and cartoons have better reasoning skills.
It's especially frustrating because you can never tell who is trolling, who is just spouting memes for the heck of it, who actually believes the memes but is misinformed, and who just genuinely is so brainwashed that they can't fathom that Republicans could ever do anything wrong, or that liberals are anything other than Satan's hippie messengers of the Apocalypse.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> We'll see. I never thought the Republican party would run GWB, since he was really a bad candidate, at that time, but they did...and he won.  I never thought they'd put Sarah Palin with McCain, but they did.  How surprised would I be if they ran a complete lunatic against Trump in 4 years? Mmm, a little bit...



I suspect they'll learn their lesson from this past election. If they don't, they deserve to lose again.




bostjan said:


> Well, there are two sides to this, and both sides of it are missing important pieces.
> 
> Part I - the carrot: Make it so that people want to come here legally, and they will. Make the process of obtaining a visa to the USA straight-forward, yet make sure you cover the essentials.
> 
> Part II - the stick: Make it so that people do not want to come here illegally and they won't. Maybe if you are caught in the USA illegally, you should be deported automatically, like pretty much every other country. I know it's not easy to make the change, but it is something that is necessary, and it keeps the people who came here legally happy that they went through the trouble that they did.



Here in Texas we already have the stick you mentioned, and I suspect other states do as well. The problem is that it isn't much of a stick, really. All that deportation ultimately amounts to is an all expenses paid trip to visit their family for a short while before coming back to the US.

I'll take a free vacation, too, please.


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> 8 years ago you liberals gave us 'Canadian Healthcare'...



Well, Obama tried to create a healthcare system on par with other countries, but the republican House and Senate watered it down so much that it barely resembles what it should be, then they blame Obama for it being less than it should be. Politics, anyone?




CapnForsaggio said:


> We are going to give you 'Canadian Immigration.'



Canada has neither a wall nor a tariff on goods imported from south of their border (they're part of NAFTA, too). In what manner do Trump's plans to eliminate illegal immigration resemble Canada's policies on the subject?




CapnForsaggio said:


> Deal with it!



If Trump is able to change his immigration policies such that they resemble Canada's, there won't be much to deal with, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Care to elaborate?


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> I suspect they'll learn their lesson from this past election. If they don't, they deserve to lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Texas we already have the stick you mentioned, and I suspect other states do as well. The problem is that it isn't much of a stick, really. All that deportation ultimately amounts to is an all expenses paid trip to visit their family for a short while before coming back to the US.
> 
> I'll take a free vacation, too, please.



While the Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out which trainwreck to run for the Oval Office, the American people continue to suffer worse and worse...

Yeah, I guess you are right. Even in Russia, illegal immigrants from other former Soviet nations are often rounded up and deported, and from the photos of their deportation buses, they seem to enjoy the process:


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> While the Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out which trainwreck to run for the Oval Office, the American people continue to suffer worse and worse...
> 
> Yeah, I guess you are right. Even in Russia, illegal immigrants from other former Soviet nations are often rounded up and deported, and from the photos of their deportation buses, they seem to enjoy the process:



Judging by the picture, they seem to have enjoyed the snacks, and haven't been working so hard.

Which is exactly the point of all this. Don't come to my country for snacks and naps.


----------



## feraledge

CapnForsaggio said:


> Judging by the picture, they seem to have enjoyed the snacks, and haven't been working so hard.
> 
> Which is exactly the point of all this. Don't come to my country for snacks and naps.



Just wow. 
I guess you wouldn't have come to many of your own conclusions without a ton of assumptions based off a picture, so maybe this one will come in handy. This is what Kobanî looks like now:





Probably doesn't hurt to remind you that "your" country is built by genocidal colonizers and then filled with refugees. Ones like my grandfather, possibly yours too. 
If you think they acted in valor and weren't free loaders, it's worth looking into the story of Croatoan. 
Hubris is not a virtue.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

feraledge said:


> Just wow.
> I guess you wouldn't have come to many of your own conclusions without a ton of assumptions based off a picture, so maybe this one will come in handy. This is what Kobanî looks like now:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably doesn't hurt to remind you that "your" country is built by genocidal colonizers and then filled with refugees. Ones like my grandfather, possibly yours too.
> If you think they acted in valor and weren't free loaders, it's worth looking into the story of Croatoan.
> Hubris is not a virtue.



I'm just trying to convince you all that I, and everyone like me will never change on this issue.

We have laws and borders, or we don't.

A person who illegally travels to another country, for any reason is STEALING.

We don't let the poor and hungry steal from the grocery store.... we shouldn't let the poor and hungry steal from the national reserves.

Sure, legislate something that will help them out. Get them legitimiate refugee status if they deserve it. But do not expect me to allow them to steal without repurcussion. I will not.


----------



## feraledge

History has shown that the world hardly shows sympathy for those discovering empathy too late. 
As an anarchist, I have no respect for the laws or borders. But as someone who was born a US citizen who has been paying more in taxes over the last 18 years, while a billionaire like Trump has paid none, you'll just have to deal with the fact that I say "refugees welcome" won't you?


----------



## vilk

_I deserve to live on this side of the invisible line and you do not, on account of that my ancestors had the foresight to come here before they changed the rules and made it prohibitively expensive_


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm just trying to convince you all that I, and everyone like me will never change on this issue.



Fortunately the ideals of primarily older demographic. Some ideas just don't die off until those generations do.

Also, ...dad?


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm just trying to convince you all that I, and everyone like me will never change on this issue.


Your only problem seems to be that an arbitrary law says they're illegals. What if all illegals were suddenly made legal citizens?


----------



## zappatton2

Nobody has ever been able to clarify to me what exactly it is that immigrants/refugees are "stealing". I work with plenty of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, and sure it's anecdotal, but I don't know harder workers anywhere. They certainly aren't sitting back and sponging off the system.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

zappatton2 said:


> Nobody has ever been able to clarify to me what exactly it is that immigrants/refugees are "stealing". I work with plenty of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, and sure it's anecdotal, but I don't know harder workers anywhere. They certainly aren't sitting back and sponging off the system.



http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households * See table1 = More than 50% on welfare.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-by-illegal-aliens

That's 2 very big ones there. Anything over zero in either of these categories is totally unecessary, if real immigration is enforced.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

coreysMonster said:


> Your only problem seems to be that an arbitrary law says they're illegals. What if all illegals were suddenly made legal citizens?



I have NO PROBLEM with this, if accomplished through legislative channels.

Not rule by fiat executive order.


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> I have NO PROBLEM with this, if accomplished through legislative channels.
> 
> Not rule by fiat executive order.


How would being legal change them being on welfare, living in poverty or committing crimes? Wouldn't that only mean that we'd have to stick criminals in prisons instead of deporting them, putting further strain on tax payers?


----------



## narad

Major discrediting of cis.org headlines:

https://www.cato.org/blog/cis-exaggerates-cost-immigrant-welfare-use

Could we leave the science to the scientists? There's enough data and aspects to control in these usage reports to support any welfare use story you'd like.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

coreysMonster said:


> How would being legal change them being on welfare, living in poverty or committing crimes? Wouldn't that only mean that we'd have to stick criminals in prisons instead of deporting them, putting further strain on tax payers?



It wouldn't! That's the point. You would need to PASS such legislation, which you would NEVER be able to do.

People aren't stupid enough to vote for such things. It's been tried. Hillary's campaign, was in part, a campaign for open borders. How did that go?>


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> Major discrediting of cis.org headlines:
> 
> https://www.cato.org/blog/cis-exaggerates-cost-immigrant-welfare-use
> 
> Could we leave the science to the scientists? There's enough data and aspects to control in these usage reports to support any welfare use story you'd like.



Do you have alternative study to demostrate something else?

No.


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> It wouldn't! That's the point.


I thought the point was they're stealing from Americans because they're illegal? If making them legal would change nothing then what difference does it make whether or not they're illegal?


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Do you have alternative study to demostrate something else?
> 
> No.



Yea - it was the one I posted. You understand that the term "study" here means nothing more than interpreting surveys collected by other parties? 

Most of this has to do with family size, where the beneficiaries are born here, and equally as American as you are. Have a problem with that, take it up with the birthright citizenship policy.



> &#8220;In one estimate, immigrants earn about $240 billion a year, pay about $90 billion a year in taxes, and use about $5 billion in public benefits,&#8221; a 2010 report by the Council found. &#8220;In another cut of the data, immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they use.&#8221; And a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2013 found that &#8220;more than half of undocumented immigrants have federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks.&#8221; Those immigrants are essentially helping to underwrite the welfare system, providing an enormous subsidy to it every year without being able to reap any of the benefits.



Links to _studies_ in article.

https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it


----------



## Andromalia

This thread has convinced me that Intelligent Design is real. There's no way evolution could have come up with the Trump supporters.


----------



## narad

Andromalia said:


> This thread has convinced me that Intelligent Design is real. There's no way evolution could have come up with the Trump supporters.



In a world where you rarely get what you want, self delusion is a powerful adaptation.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

narad said:


> Links to _studies_ in article.
> 
> https://newrepublic.com/article/122714/immigrants-dont-drain-welfare-they-fund-it



not disagreeing with the article, but the problem with these studies is they don't factor in the immediate cost to municipalities that take in undocumented or refugees. 

the easiest example i can point to is school budgets, those are set in advance and when lots of children are brought in who aren't well versed in English you have the need for ESL teaching aids that weren't budgeted for and you have increased class sizes + the need to budget more in the future. 

if you're a city like my old hometown, this means you take money away from infrastructure and DOT budgets to cover because the city hasn't not posted a budget deficit in a decade. or post increasingly higher taxes which is pushing young income owners out to other states. 

so there is a cost and an offset. but it occurs at the local level.


----------



## narad

Sounds like a problem with implementation rather than overall policy. An extra couple of ESL teaching aids shouldn't throw a wrench into the entire system, increase taxes, and thus be responsible for pushing young income owners to other states...

But it really needs to be clarified whether any of this discussion refers to migrants/refugees going to school, the American-born children of migrants, or illegals. Each is its own very distinct situation.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

narad said:


> Sounds like a problem with implementation rather than overall policy. An extra couple of ESL teaching aids shouldn't throw a wrench into the entire system, increase taxes, and thus be responsible for pushing young income owners to other states...



schools are just one example, but it's the easiest to understand for most people because the process goes "budget --> added expense --> no money --> expense to the entire system." 

this is more eye opening. in my old town of Providence, there are 160 spoken languages. there were only ESL for about half. in these cases you're hurting both the ESL kids and the other kids in the class. 

my point is, you can site the sources saying they pay taxes -- because they do -- but what is never mentioned is the initial impact to municipalities. 

the only way you can get around this is by distributing people to less cash strapped areas who can afford a budget hiccup... but the system up until now has been: 

Pres: which states wants them? 

States Govs: We do! We do!

Pres: okay, guys, i care nothing for how you'll actually pay for this in the current fiscal year.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


>



Yeah, no ..... I WISH we were being as mature, responsible, and adult about immigration as Canada is right now. They're making us look bad.


----------



## narad

That sounds like a bad system, but it doesn't sound like it's really the refugees that contribute significantly to this problem. 

For instance, the most Syrian refugees relocated into any one state in 2016 were the ~1500 put in California. That's everyone -- adults, children, etc. And the 2016 california state budget was $160 BILLION. That money has to go a lot of places, but clearly it's not these 1500 people that are stressing out a system on that scale. So if people want to argue that we can't afford to bring in these people I think there's a whole lot of details that need to fill the gaps in that argument. And to the thought that they're raising taxes and this is forcing people to move away, just raising every Californian's annual tax by $1 would give every refugee a quarter of a million in support, so the numbers don't seem to add up there either.

Meanwhile if the money is poorly distributed, fix the distribution system. I'm sure refugees aren't the only unaccounted for expense that pops up during the year.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households * See table1 = More than 50% on welfare.
> 
> http://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-of-serious-crimes-by-illegal-aliens
> 
> That's 2 very big ones there. Anything over zero in either of these categories is totally unecessary, if real immigration is enforced.



On the flip side, illegal immigrants pay about $11.8B in federal impact taxes. 

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes

And, for reasons that should be obvious to you, illegal immigrants are no more likely, and in fact may be LESS likely, to commit violent crime, simply because they have a STRONG incentive not to attract the attention of lawmakers.  

Can't link directly to the WSJ story, but here's a story about Johnson talking about it: 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-johnson/mexican-immigrants-more-law-abiding/


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> On the flip side, illegal immigrants pay about $11.8B in federal impact taxes.
> 
> http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/04/16/Study-Finds-Illegal-Immigrants-Pay-118B-Taxes
> 
> And, for reasons that should be obvious to you, illegal immigrants are no more likely, and in fact may be LESS likely, to commit violent crime, simply because they have a STRONG incentive not to attract the attention of lawmakers.
> 
> Can't link directly to the WSJ story, but here's a story about Johnson talking about it:
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-johnson/mexican-immigrants-more-law-abiding/



They pay their federal taxes, and then take additional child tax credits worth over $5 BILLION a year:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-eligible-for-up-to-eight-refundable-tax-credits/

If you believe that 30 million, uneducated illegal immigrants don't "cost" you anything, you are an idiot. 

How many of you have children in public schools where there is the problem? The soft costs in our schools alone is atrocious!


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> They pay their federal taxes, and then take additional child tax credits worth over $5 BILLION a year:
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-eligible-for-up-to-eight-refundable-tax-credits/
> 
> If you believe that 30 million, uneducated illegal immigrants don't "cost" you anything, you are an idiot.
> 
> How many of you have children in public schools where there is the problem? The soft costs in our schools alone is atrocious!



Aaaand....



> Under this current system for ITIN filers, "the government isn&#8217;t losing out," according to Bob Greenstein, president of the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It gets more money in revenues than it gives out in credits.





> "The vast majority of that $4.2 billion, the filer may be undocumented, but you have to have a child to receive it. And the children are overwhelmingly U.S. citizens," he said.
> 
> In other words, the $4.2 billion in tax credits largely benefits American-born children, whose parents are admittedly undocumented immigrants.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-illegal-immigrants-four-two-billion/


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> They pay their federal taxes, and then take additional child tax credits worth over $5 BILLION a year:
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-eligible-for-up-to-eight-refundable-tax-credits/
> 
> If you believe that 30 million, uneducated illegal immigrants don't "cost" you anything, you are an idiot.
> 
> How many of you have children in public schools where there is the problem? The soft costs in our schools alone is atrocious!



Just a question, but have you ever filed your own tax return?


----------



## coreysMonster

CapnForsaggio said:


> If you believe that 30 million, uneducated illegal immigrants don't "cost" you anything, you are an idiot.


I feel like the 63 million uneducated Trump voters are going to cost us a helluva lot more...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Just a question, but have you ever filed your own tax return?



Stupid question. Are you somehow under the impression that I am soooo rich that I don't know or care what is itemized on my tax form, and what the money gets spent on?! Why the .... do you think I am having this argument with you statists?

People become conservative when they earn well, against all odds. 

People become soft and liberal when they don't value and respect labor and capital.


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> People become conservative when they earn well, against all odds.
> 
> People become soft and liberal when they don't value and respect labor and capital.



Congrats on beating the odds! I guess you were born in a land with no jobs or opportunities. Though I could have sworn you were from the US? Is the greatest economy in human history not vibrant enough for you? Or just your particular skill set?

Just curious, serious question: what do you mean by "don't value and respect labor and capital."?

Right now it doesn't seem to mean much. Please clarify.


----------



## bostjan

"Oh cool, the argument has come down to mathematics. No chance this can be finagled into polarized political 'no it isn't / yes it is' volley..."


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> People become conservative when they earn well, against all odds.
> 
> People become soft and liberal when they don't value and respect labor and capital.



I disagree.

I'm more conservative than many here on SSO, certainly, but not in a social sense; I'm more fiscally conservative. However, even though I am 43 and "earn well" (and also own investments that make money for me beyond my income from my job), I still don't see how anything Trump is doing actually benefits the US, let alone anyone else.

- The wall between the US and Mexico: if this were to actually be built (and I'm pretty certain it will not be) it will be ineffective and waste a lot of tax payers' money. Don't believe me? Go look at the wall between San Diego and Tijuana; make sure not to miss the tunnels under it.

- Ban on immigration: the US is already hated by many in the Middle East because we butt in and demand they do what we want them to do because oil. Here we've gone even further insulting them and causing actual issues for people who are not terrorists. And this is supposed to reduce the risk of terrorism? Think again.

- Making America great again by bringing back manufacturing: the economic and competitive forces that allowed the US to have a boom period after WWII do not exist any more, so we are in no position to return to manufacturing anything more than luxury items in the US. We simply cannot compete on price with products made elsewhere without imposing a massive tariff. And if that tariff is imposed, the average American will see their standard of living fall drastically because they won't be able to afford very much beyond the base necessities.

- Appointing/attempting to appoint unqualified people to many federal positions: I think that's enough said already.

- Etc.

Where is the actual benefit to the US (or anyone else outside the wealthy individuals that receive tax reductions) in Trump's agenda?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Stupid question. Are you somehow under the impression that I am soooo rich that I don't know or care what is itemized on my tax form, and what the money gets spent on?! Why the .... do you think I am having this argument with you statists?
> 
> People become conservative when they earn well, against all odds.
> 
> People become soft and liberal when they don't value and respect labor and capital.



Just curious then, I can see how you can file a W-2 with a fake or stolen social security number and all if you're not a legal immigrant in this country, but how precisely do you file your income taxes using someone else's social and your name and address, and have any expectation of getting a check? 

I mean, I'm not even going to pretend I have any clue how this is all supposed to work, and I'm a financial analyst and not a tax attorney... But I'd think as an illegal immigrant, it's not all that hard to have income and payroll taxes taken out of your paycheck like any legal resident of this country, but it's nigh-on impossible to actually file an income tax return, meaning I would *think* on average illegal immigrants pay a higher tax liability at a given income level than a legal immigrant or natural born citizen. 

Also, I don't think this is terribly relevant to this discussion, but I'm not exactly hurting for money over here, and I'm pretty damned liberal. I think it has more to do with concern for your fellow human beings than it does the pure self interest you conservatives make it out to be.


----------



## bostjan

Trump's proposals during his campaign were all based on brute force solutions to poorly defined problems.

Present state: The USA's economy is slipping to #2 in the world market.
Problem definition: Too many Mexican illegals.
Solution: Build a bigass wall between the USA and Mexico.
Problem definition: China is stealing our money.
Solution: Raise tariffs on China.

Present state: Islamic extremists are attacking civilian people worldwide.
Problem definition: Too many Muslims.
Solution: Ban Muslims from the entering USA legally.
Problem definition: ISIS needs to burn.
Solution: Ground war in Iraq.

Present state: The USA's health care system has not improved as much as was hoped under the ACA.
Problem definition: The ACA is evil.
Solution: Abandon the ACA.

And so on. Maybe some of this will make a little progress if handled with a little tact, but, so far, what we've seen from Trump is the opposite of tact. His way of handling this stuff is that if he doesn't like it, he signs an executive order to ban it. If he wants something to happen, he signs an executive order to mandate it. That alone is not a problem; I wish Obama had taken a harder line on some of his campaign promises... but the problem definitions are lousy. I'm just waiting now for the line of logic to be applied to Iran, or worse. I can just see Trump saying "Iran is bad, bad news, okay, horrible. This country is our enemy. Let's bomb them." And that'll be that. I don't think he's capable of going through the thought process that maybe Iran is it's own nation; maybe the Iranian government poses no direct threat to the USA... but anyway, Trump has identified his governing style to the masses now, and I think we are in for some trouble because of it. This is going to be worse than the Bush years...



Drew said:


> Just curious then, I can see how you can file a W-2 with a fake or stolen social security number and all if you're not a legal immigrant in this country, but how precisely do you file your income taxes using someone else's social and your name and address, and have any expectation of getting a check?
> 
> I mean, I'm not even going to pretend I have any clue how this is all supposed to work, and I'm a financial analyst and not a tax attorney... But I'd think as an illegal immigrant, it's not all that hard to have income and payroll taxes taken out of your paycheck like any legal resident of this country, but it's nigh-on impossible to actually file an income tax return, meaning I would *think* on average illegal immigrants pay a higher tax liability at a given income level than a legal immigrant or natural born citizen.
> 
> Also, I don't think this is terribly relevant to this discussion, but I'm not exactly hurting for money over here, and I'm pretty damned liberal. I think it has more to do with concern for your fellow human beings than it does the pure self interest you conservatives make it out to be.



Related information on fact check dot org

I think you'll find that the wealthiest Americans tend to, on average, be more conservative, yet, the poorest Americans, on average, also tend to be more conservative, than the average American, if that makes sense. In other words, average-income Americans tend to be the most liberal Americans.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> Yeah, no ..... I WISH we were being as mature, responsible, and adult about immigration as Canada is right now. They're making us look bad.



Just to address this quickly, the Liberal government has done pretty much nothing to help the people stranded by "that man's" executive order. This was a political statement that plays well at home, nothing more. The New Democratic Party has moved to lift the 1000-case cap on refugee sponsorship to fast-track the process, but has sadly been stonewalled by the government.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Just curious then, I can see how you can file a W-2 with a fake or stolen social security number and all if you're not a legal immigrant in this country, but how precisely do you file your income taxes using someone else's social and your name and address, and have any expectation of getting a check?



They would use the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) filing procedure that I only learned about when posting my previous comment. The conclusion sticks regarding their net contribution though -- they pay in more for benefits than they're eligible to use, even with child tax credits, by a huge margin.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> Just a question, but have you ever filed your own tax return?



I feel like this question should be asked anytime people start discussing taxes in general. Most older people blow me away by their lack of understanding of tax brackets as an example. They seem to believe that if I tax you at say 15% up to 100k and the next bracket is 25% from 100k-200k that they are now entirely being taxed 25% for all of their income. The fact that any adult can lack an understanding of something we all have to do makes me wonder what else people are just winging on the regular.



Axayacatl said:


> Just curious, serious question: what do you mean by "don't value and respect labor and capital."?
> 
> Right now it doesn't seem to mean much. Please clarify.



Yeah, I don't get where he comes to that conclusion either. Leftist and most liberals believe in organized labor. They believe in workers taking their power back for better compensation and hours. The only things Republicans are for are pro-business owners that exploit capital and labor. It's the state Republicans approving 'right to work' laws. How is taking away worker rights and their right to organize pro-worker exactly?


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> I feel like this question should be asked anytime people start discussing taxes in general. Most older people blow me away by their lack of understanding of tax brackets as an example. They seem to believe that if I tax you at say 15% up to 100k and the next bracket is 25% from 100k-200k that they are now entirely being taxed 25% for all of their income. The fact that any adult can lack an understanding of something we all have to do makes me wonder what else people are just winging on the regular.



I mean, I'd love to tell you you're joking... 

...but I am close friends with otherwise extremely intelligent people who think takes work like that. I once had a very close friend tell me that progressive taxation was unfair in practice, but if only they tiered it so that it was only the balance OVER the higher tax rate that was taxed at the higher rate he'd be cool with it. He was bowled over when I explained that's how it actually works. And this guy is bright as hell, it was just that it had never been explained to him HOW taxation works. 

Honestly, the way we file taxes doesn't help, either - rather than having you actually calculate your tax rate based on your income, they direct you to a tax table in the back of the 1040EZ where you find the income range (in $50-100 or so breakpoints) and appropriate filing status, and they tell you what you should have paid in taxes. There's zero clarity in _how_ that number is calculated, so this myth that if you make $1 more than a tax bracket, suddenly your whole tax bill jumps to the new rate is surprisingly pervasive.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> Just to address this quickly, the Liberal government has done pretty much nothing to help the people stranded by "that man's" executive order. This was a political statement that plays well at home, nothing more. The New Democratic Party has moved to lift the 1000-case cap on refugee sponsorship to fast-track the process, but has sadly been stonewalled by the government.



To be fair, he hasn't done as much as I'd have liked, but they've arranged to provide temporary housing and residency for however long it takes to get this stuff sorted out. That's more than we're doing south of your border, unless you consider "detained in an airport immigration zone" as providing housing.


----------



## vilk

I didn't know that's how our taxes work either, lol. So, if that's true, then that frequently referenced scenario: _"if your boss gave you a pay raise and then you make less money that year because you've moved into the bracket"_, could not actually happen.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I didn't know that's how our taxes work either, lol. So, if that's true, then that frequently referenced scenario: _"if your boss gave you a pay raise and then you make less money that year because you've moved into the bracket"_, could not actually happen.



Yeah, lol, you hear that all the time, and assuming the tax code doesn't change or anything, that is literally not true. 

Super simple example -- say we have two tax brackets, 20% up to $100k, and 40% above that. Say you make $99,999 - you'd expect to pay $19,999.80 in taxes and take home $79,999.20. Then, let's say you get a raise to, oh, $100,100 that next year. Your taxes increase to 20,000 on the first 100k, and $40 on the last $100. You pay $20,040 in taxes, take home $80,060. Yet, all these people talk like because they got bumped up into a higher marginal bracket, their take-home pay decreased.  It's insane. I suppose it's possible that there are income levels where deductions start to phase out where because you're losing elligibility your deductions drop, but one I don't know that for a fact (I merely don't know it's NOT possible), and two, those situations would be _exceedingly_ rare. 

I think a lot of people just assume they took home less after getting a raise because they're in a higher tax bracket, and don't bother to actually check the math...? Idunno. I mean, I get i'm a financial analyst so I'm just more comfortable with numbers than a layperson, but I think a lot of people just really don't get how taxes work.


----------



## wankerness

So, now Trump is attempting to remove the (Dodd Frank) law and regulations that were put in place after the financial crisis in wall street, which will primarily benefit bankers. He has Goldman Sachs members in his frickin cabinet. I'm glad that Trump supporters like our Dad in this thread primarily care about "the tears" over whether anything at all is actually done to help them. Draining the swamp, indeed. This is getting WORSE than it was under Obama regarding the exact same stuff that Trump railed against as a major campaign promise. While I find it darkly amusing on some level that the very people that elected him will suffer the most under Trump, we're all going to as well.

The repeated outright lies that then get sneakily retracted (the most major recent one being this Bowling Green Massacre thing from Conway) are ridiculous. The first statement can then be glommed onto by the zealots, and the retraction can safely be ignored by them as something forced by the fake news.

I can't believe how bad things have gotten so fast. I just pray some terrible evidence comes to light that will put the brakes on the Bannon administration before the EPA gets slashed like they're currently trying to do.


----------



## JSanta

wankerness said:


> So, now Trump is attempting to remove the (Dodd Frank) law and regulations that were put in place after the financial crisis in wall street, which will primarily benefit bankers. He has Goldman Sachs members in his frickin cabinet. I'm glad that Trump supporters like our Dad in this thread primarily care about "the tears" over whether anything at all is actually done to help them. Draining the swamp, indeed. This is getting WORSE than it was under Obama regarding the exact same stuff that Trump railed against as a major campaign promise. While I find it darkly amusing on some level that the very people that elected him will suffer the most under Trump, we're all going to as well.
> 
> The repeated outright lies that then get sneakily retracted (the most major recent one being this Bowling Green Massacre thing from Conway) are ridiculous. The first statement can then be glommed onto by the zealots, and the retraction can safely be ignored by them as something forced by the fake news.
> 
> I can't believe how bad things have gotten so fast. I just pray some terrible evidence comes to light that will put the brakes on the Bannon administration before the EPA gets slashed like they're currently trying to do.



Count me in the camp that thinks Dodd-Frank needed to go - but NOT by this administration. The bill was reactionary and as such was perhaps not the best solution to what happened. I wrote this for a class during my masters - take it as you will:

Congress passes bills in response to crisis, rather than leveraging their huge collections of data to see patterns or problems, and either enact or enforce legislation already in place. Disregarding the obvious flaws prior to (and still) the global financial meltdown, Acharya (2012) and his colleagues take a similar stance of lack of responsiveness in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Acharya (2012) makes the point that: 

"The Dodd-Frank Act makes little headway on the issue of government guarantees. While admittedly such guarantees have been a problem for many years, the Act nonetheless makes little attempt to re-address the pricing of deposit insurance. And while the GSEs are the most glaring examples of systemically important financial firms whose risk choices went awry given their access to guaranteed debt, the Act makes no attempt to reform them."

Reworking the law (much like they do with incremental changes to the Basel Accords) would perhaps make much more sense, but I can't say that I would trust the current administration do so in a way that works for the country. 

I am not a financial expert, nor do I pretend to be one - but there is a fine line between over-regulation and free markets. I don't trust the current Congress to get this one right. I wouldn't have trusted a Clinton administration, but that is obviously a moot point. 

http://www.adbi.org/files/2012.10.29.wp392.dodd.frank.act.basel.iii.emerging.markets.pdf


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> stuff



See, I kinda AM a financial expert. I'm conflicted on Dodd-Frank. 

Some parts of it are unquestionably good - I think a central clearinghouse for swap transactions was the single biggest improvement to come out of the regulatory overhaul in terms of promoting financial stability, and while you can't separate Dodd Frank from Basel III, broadly speaking capitalization requirements made a lot of sense to me too. The good news is these aren't going away, partly because even if DFA died we'd still have Basel III.

Then there are the "good idea in theory, but maybe not in execution" parts - the Volker rule seems like a no-brainer, except, well, 1) arguably allowing companies to co-invest along with their clients in commingled funds boosts their fiduciary responsibility, 2) the rule has the effect of outlawing "seeder" investments to get strategies off the ground, which I don't think is in the market's best interest, and 3) speaking to my particular corner of the investment world, brokers have slashed bond inventories and cut way back on market-making to avoid even the appearance of proprietary trading over and above routine market making. We're concerned that this will have the impact of creating a feedback loop for market corrections - if the bond market drops sharply, retail fund selling will overwhelm the broker-dealer's willingness to take on inventory, depressing prices further, causing more investors to sell mutual funds, causing more mutual funds to have to liquidate inventory to raise cash, except those same broker-dealers STILL won't be able to take on inventory on their balance sheets... There's a lot of concern that the next financial crisis could be triggered this way. So, the idea is sound, but the way it was done was imperfect. 

Then there's the stuff that Trump actually plans on targeting, that's kind of insane to me that this stuff is even on the docket to be cut. His second executive order today was to reverse the DoL's "fiduciary rule," which requires advisors to serve as a fiduciary agent to their clients, making recommendations based on an assessment of their financial best interests, rather than suggesting less-ideal products where they would maximize fee income or referral/kickbacks. The fact Trump wants to do away with this, to me (and in fact as of today HAS done so) is absolutely criminal - the fiduciary rule basically brought my industry to the same ethical standard as one would find amongst medical professionals, and I think would have done a lot to rebuild trust in the wake of the Great Recession. 

Some of this stuff is debatable, I'll concede, but the revocation of the fiduciary rule is basically a gimmie to financial advisors and big banks everywhere. 




(piece of advice, if you're looking for a financial advisor and you're also upset that they no longer have to act as a fiduciary - there are voluntary industry groups that require their members to maintain a fiduciary relationship with their clients. I'm a CFA charterholder and I'm held to a fiduciary standard; the CFP program also holds its members to a fiduciary standard. Any advisor with the right to the CFA or CFP designation can be trusted to manage your money or provide investment advice in a way that they believe will be in your best interest, and should be an absolute prerequisite before entering into an investment relationship, I believe).


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> other stuff



I'm not going to disagree that there is merit in the legislation. I am going to argue that it did not do enough to mitigate the completely abhorrent behavior from the banking and investment sector. 

You have quite valid thoughts and the experience to back those up; I can certainly concede that your opinion has more merit than mine, to a degree at least. 

Like I wrote, the Trump administration was the wrong one to tackle any change to what we've both written.

EDIT: Drew - thanks for the friendly discourse as well. It's good to see that for the most part, people on this thread have been respectful and have used facts.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Drew said:


> Just curious then, I can see how you can file a W-2 with a fake or stolen social security number and all if you're not a legal immigrant in this country, but how precisely do you file your income taxes using someone else's social and your name and address, and have any expectation of getting a check?



https://www.irs.gov/individuals/general-itin-information

There is a substantial list of credits you do not qualify for (like EITC) if you use an ITIN to complete your returns. I just learned this was a thing yesterday and I'm currently working on the CPA so this is far from common knowledge 




CapnForsaggio said:


> They pay their federal taxes, and then take additional child tax credits worth over $5 BILLION a year:
> 
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-eligible-for-up-to-eight-refundable-tax-credits/



1) The actual study within that link is fairly interesting if you're into taxes. A little dense at times, but nothing the average person can't handle

2) The key word is that article is eligible (the study is about whether or not they're legally eligible under certain laws), and even if someone is eligible for a credit, they have to know it exists, and then file their return to claim it. I agree there's a problem with providing tax credits for illegal aliens, but I think it's vastly overstated.

It's also worth nothing that the child tax credits are for children that are citizens. That does make overhauling the how credits are doled out fairly complicated.



> In addition, illegal immigrants are eligible for the earned income tax credit, which allows low-income families to receive a refundable tax credit even if they do not owe any taxes



The article seems to contradict itself here seeing as EITC requires a SSN to claim, not an ITIN like the other credits.

Anyways, your assertion is generally correct, illegal immigrants do receive a fairly substantial amount of tax credits every year. However, that amount is much lower than the actual federal and state taxes they pay so revenue (note, I used revenue here for a reason) is generated for the government. The credit earned also have no impact on payroll taxes so illegal immigrants are funding Social Security and Medicare with zero chances of ever collecting.

Does all this offset the soft costs you're talking about (and I agree these exist)? Maybe, maybe not, but I haven't seen a convincing study yet that takes all these factors into account.


----------



## AxeHappy

Drew said:


> Yeah, no ..... I WISH we were being as mature, responsible, and adult about immigration as Canada is right now. They're making us look bad.




As a Canadian my response to Trudeau's...grand standing:


----------



## leftyguitarjoe

CapnForsaggio said:


> Stupid question. Are you somehow under the impression that I am soooo rich that I don't know or care what is itemized on my tax form, and what the money gets spent on?! Why the .... do you think I am having this argument with you statists?
> 
> People become conservative when they earn well, against all odds.
> 
> People become soft and liberal when they don't value and respect labor and capital.




I became liberal when I decided that I didnt want a christian autocracy elected by redneck psychopaths and ruled by billionaires.


----------



## MFB

leftyguitarjoe said:


> I became liberal when I decided that I didnt want a christian autocracy elected by redneck psychopaths and ruled by billionaires.



If we were actually Christian we wouldn't be building a wall and deporting people who are in search of a better life.

We're Christian when it's convenient


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I do think it's funny that most assume that all Conservatives are Christian. And what's even funnier is, this is coming from the party who hates when people generalize and stereotype others. 

Meet your very first unChristian Conservative right here.


----------



## Axayacatl

.... it .... logic


----------



## vilk

PunkBillCarson said:


> this is coming from the party who hates when people generalize and stereotype others.



That's just a stereotype. Everyone smart knows that it's practically impossible to talk about social issues without generalizing to some degree. 

Statistically, what percent of conservatives do you suppose are not Christian? 1-2%? I mean, only 22% of all Americans don't identify as Christian, so how would you guess that that 22% splits, party-wise?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I'm not sure, but a stereotype is a stereotype. Point is, they get us nowhere and it's one of the biggest causes of our problems in my opinion.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> I'm not sure, but a stereotype is a stereotype. Point is, they get us nowhere and it's one of the biggest causes of our problems in my opinion.



So to the statement of: 

"I became liberal when I decided that I didnt want a _christian autocracy elected by redneck psychopaths and ruled by billionaires._" 

this whole detour has been to say:

~"Hey! Who are you calling _christian_!?"


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> So to the statement of:
> 
> "I became liberal when I decided that I didnt want a _christian autocracy elected by redneck psychopaths and ruled by billionaires._"
> 
> this whole detour has been to say:
> 
> ~"Hey! Who are you calling _christian_!?"



Pretty much, yes. Problem? I personally don't believe that I have to subscribe to Christianity to have similar moral standpoints. I could point out what some of these so called liberal progressive psychopaths have done, but I've been banned for doing just that. All I did was call someone weak minded for calling me a redneck and I got banned and they didn't. So if I dance around my points a little more than what most people here do, that's why.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I'm not going to disagree that there is merit in the legislation. I am going to argue that it did not do enough to mitigate the completely abhorrent behavior from the banking and investment sector.
> 
> You have quite valid thoughts and the experience to back those up; I can certainly concede that your opinion has more merit than mine, to a degree at least.
> 
> Like I wrote, the Trump administration was the wrong one to tackle any change to what we've both written.
> 
> EDIT: Drew - thanks for the friendly discourse as well. It's good to see that for the most part, people on this thread have been respectful and have used facts.



Right on, man, thanks.  I actually thought you were arguing that Dodd-Frank should be overturned, not because it didn't go far enough, but because regulatoin was in general bad for the market. That's a VERY different conversation. 

It's also a conversation that would get VERY complex very quickly. I'm not sure how far I'd go - banks are a popular punching bag these days, and I get a little uneasy about crossing the line from "effective at stabilizing the industry" and over into "punitive." It's not a popular view today perhaps, but there IS value in having a functional, efficient, profitable, and stable banking system in this country.

That's neither here nor there, though - there are clearly parts of the bill that were a pretty good idea, and I think the fiduciary rule was front and center amongst them, and Americans should be outraged about that executive order because it's basically Trump, who ran as an anti-bank populist, giving financial advisors permission to rip off their clients.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> That's just a stereotype. Everyone smart knows that it's practically impossible to talk about social issues without generalizing to some degree.
> 
> Statistically, what percent of conservatives do you suppose are not Christian? 1-2%? I mean, only 22% of all Americans don't identify as Christian, so how would you guess that that 22% splits, party-wise?



Well, I mean, it's pretty easy mathematics. Say you have a group called "Americans." 22% of that group identifies as "Christian." 29% of that group identifies as "Republican." At minimum, then, 7% of the group or more must identify as Republican and not as Christian. And that's assuming one group is a subset of the other. The upper bound would be 29% that is "Republican" and not "Christian." 

I think we can all agree that there is a faction of this group of Republicans who incorporate their religious beliefs into their political ideology. Thus, the stereotype of the Conservative Christian Republican... I think it's safe to say that Trump doesn't really fit into that box- right?


----------



## vilk

22% are NOT Christian. As in 78% identify as Christian. And of the numbers you get when you look it up, that's a conservative estimation. The other stat that I saw was 83% identify as Christian, but I went with the lower one. 

Trump himself is clearly not a Christian, but he panders to them with his policies and decisions, and does at least claim that he is Christian. It's my opinion that in fact _nearly all_ politicians who work to push a religious agenda to further their popularity are themselves not religious. I don't think it makes much difference to separate the idea of Christian politics from religious devotion (in the context of political discussion), since there's no way to test if someone really "believes".


----------



## TedEH

> identify as Christian



I'm always kind of weirded out by the idea of anything being based on what religion a person associates with. It doesn't really mean anything anymore. I realize that there's some of that echo-chamber, surrounding-yourself-with-like-minded-people kind of bias here, but I know very few people who identify themselves as Christian who are either practicing or know enough about religion to understand what any of it means. I mean that in the sense that lots of people will respond with "yeah, I'm Christian", only because they're from a family that has a vague connection to that faith- despite not knowing any of that religions teachings, and never having stepped foot in a church or spoken to a priest or anything like that. Similarly, my own family used to get mad at me for saying that I'm not a Christian (because I'm not) because they consider us to be a "christian family" despite none of us practicing anything. I've seen very little evidence that the number of people who actually believe in those ideas is anywhere close to 78% of people, even if that's an accurate number of people that *identify* as such.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> I'm always kind of weirded out by the idea of anything being based on what religion a person associates with. It doesn't really mean anything anymore. I realize that there's some of that echo-chamber, surrounding-yourself-with-like-minded-people kind of bias here, but I know very few people who identify themselves as Christian who are either practicing or know enough about religion to understand what any of it means. I mean that in the sense that lots of people will respond with "yeah, I'm Christian", only because they're from a family that has a vague connection to that faith- despite not knowing any of that religions teachings, and never having stepped foot in a church or spoken to a priest or anything like that. Similarly, my own family used to get mad at me for saying that I'm not a Christian (because I'm not) because they consider us to be a "christian family" despite none of us practicing anything. I've seen very little evidence that the number of people who actually believe in those ideas is anywhere close to 78% of people, even if that's an accurate number of people that *identify* as such.



Yup.

If 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, I guess that's what they say, but I'd be absolutely shocked if that many go to church semi-regularly or even semi-semi-regularly.

I guess folks feel bad, somehow, about checking the box marked "none" on their survey, despite their actions outside of being asked such a question.

And yeah, Trump is definitely pandering to the religious right faction, no doubt. Listen to the guy talk or read about the comments he had made during White House prayers, and it's obvious that he has little interest in religion outside of what it can do to make him look good. And, as much as I would love having a non-religious guy leading the country, having a non-religious guy badly pretending to be a religious guy is kind of freaky for me.


----------



## jaxadam

PunkBillCarson said:


> Pretty much, yes. Problem? I personally don't believe that I have to subscribe to Christianity to have similar moral standpoints. I could point out what some of these so called liberal progressive psychopaths have done, but I've been banned for doing just that. All I did was call someone weak minded for calling me a redneck and I got banned and they didn't. So if I dance around my points a little more than what most people here do, that's why.



Glad to have you around. Don't dance around your points, tell it like it is. Us poor white trash gun totin' bible thumpin' Confederate flag flying huntin' fishin' bbq eatin' Busch Light drinkin' momma tattoo on the shoulder 4-wheel drivin' Conservative rednecks need to stick together.


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> 22% are NOT Christian. As in 78% identify as Christian. And of the numbers you get when you look it up, that's a conservative estimation. The other stat that I saw was 83% identify as Christian, but I went with the lower one.
> 
> Trump himself is clearly not a Christian, but he panders to them with his policies and decisions, and does at least claim that he is Christian. It's my opinion that in fact _nearly all_ politicians who work to push a religious agenda to further their popularity are themselves not religious. I don't think it makes much difference to separate the idea of Christian politics from religious devotion (in the context of political discussion), since there's no way to test if someone really "believes".



Where are you getting those numbers? 22% of Americans don't affiliate with any religion. About 70% identify as Christian.


----------



## flint757

StevenC said:


> Where are you getting those numbers? 22% of Americans don't affiliate with any religion. About 70% identify as Christian.



I personally think more people are agnostic theists and atheists than not. I live in the bible belt and even then I don't encounter a huge number of people who practice their faith, although I suppose I wouldn't since I don't go to church . A few of my friends are either not religious or atheists and they have to go to church for their wive's sake and that's the only reason. With the stigma surrounding NOT being a Christian in the US, the way people arbitrarily identify as religious without actually being religious, and the likely grouping of households as sharing the same beliefs lead me to believe that number is way lower than what is reported. I'd even go as far to say that maybe half the country at most is truly Christian and religiously devoted.


----------



## StevenC

flint757 said:


> I personally think more people are agnostic theists and atheists than not. I live in the bible belt and even then I don't encounter a huge number of people who practice their faith, although I suppose I wouldn't since I don't go to church . A few of my friends are either not religious or atheists and they have to go to church for their wive's sake and that's the only reason. With the stigma surrounding NOT being a Christian in the US, the way people arbitrarily identify as religious without actually being religious, and the likely grouping of households as sharing the same beliefs lead me to believe that number is way lower than what is reported. I'd even go as far to say that maybe half the country at most is truly Christian and religiously devoted.



The interesting thing is that while 22% of Americans don't identify as religious, only 3% and 4% identify as atheist or agnostic, the others won't commit because of the stigma attached to it.

It's not just America either. Where I live specific brand of christianity is biggest cultural identifier and people just won't accept atheist as an answer to that question.


----------



## Axayacatl

StevenC said:


> The interesting thing is that while 22% of Americans don't identify as religious, only 3% and 4% identify as atheist or agnostic, the others won't commit because of the stigma attached to it.
> 
> It's not just America either. Where I live specific brand of christianity is biggest cultural identifier and people just won't accept atheist as an answer to that question.



Back to facts and figures! Finally!

More interesting facts:

55% of Americans are liberal psychopaths

0.000001% of conservative Americans are not Christian (unChristian, if you will)
like our very own Sideways Tampon Tiffany

Finally, 3.33e-10 percent of Americans are President and never wanted to be President and never expected to be President and have no idea what they are doing on a day to day basis.

Sorry for the scientific notation while discussing religion, it's just literally there is one dude out there in the last category, so it's an even smaller percentage than 'unChristian Conservatives' in America.

In other news, my University library has an entire section dedicated to the history of the American Christian conservative movement, but I'm gonna ask them to close shop because it's really simply just not true. Like religion.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I've got news for you, bud. If you think I'm the only non Christian Conservative there is, maybe you should check into something called "Norwegian Black Metal" and hell really other countries have non Christian Conservatives. Quit thinking that America is the only country on Earth.


----------



## vilk

Left and Right in America are pretty different from Left and Right in Europe. I've often heard it said that Europe's Right is farther left than America's Left. Any Europeans agree? Furthermore, this thread is specifically about American politics, and really it's the only context of conservatism we've been talking about for the past 89 pages.


----------



## bostjan

So, there is a battle over Betsy DeVos and the travel ban (or not "ban?").

My thought is that DeVos seems to be a dingbat. I think there could have been a worse pick, though, which we might find out about in the next round.

I'm not sure how the travel ban thing will work out. Personally, I think it's stupid, but, from a legal standpoint, this could redefine presidential executive powers, or maybe the power of checks and balances as this unfolds. I think that might have much larger implications.

Mostly, with all due respect to my more conservative friends, I think it seems that the Trump administration is maybe hitting on two cylinders right now, they are getting stuff done, albeit sloppily, and perhaps with the wrong ultimate outcome. Time will tell. I actually don't want to see the administration self destruct, like many of my more liberal friends are hoping. I want this situation to stabilize and for some less radical rhetoric to prevail at the end of the day, and, unfortunately for me, it seems that such a situation is quickly disappearing over the horizon as these legal battles and debates heat up in Washington...


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> Left and Right in America are pretty different from Left and Right in Europe. I've often heard it said that Europe's Right is farther left than America's Left. Any Europeans agree? Furthermore, this thread is specifically about American politics, and really it's the only context of conservatism we've been talking about for the past 89 pages.



I'd say in the UK our mainstream right lies between your left and right, and our mainstream left lies to the left of yours. Probably slightly more of a gap between them though. 

Can't speak for the rest of Europe, though.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> I've got news for you, bud. If you think I'm the only non Christian Conservative there is, maybe you should check into something called "Norwegian Black Metal" and hell really other countries have non Christian Conservatives. Quit thinking that America is the only country on Earth.



..in the Trump-specific American politics thread?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Mostly, with all due respect to my more conservative friends, I think it seems that the Trump administration is maybe hitting on two cylinders right now, they are getting stuff done, albeit sloppily, and perhaps with the wrong ultimate outcome. Time will tell. I actually don't want to see the administration self destruct, like many of my more liberal friends are hoping. I want this situation to stabilize and for some less radical rhetoric to prevail at the end of the day, and, unfortunately for me, it seems that such a situation is quickly disappearing over the horizon as these legal battles and debates heat up in Washington...



I think there's a LOT going on behind the scenes that would make me worried if I was a conservative. I'll try to keep this pretty short and bullet point it a bit. 

1) Growing tension between Trump, Bannon, and his security Cabinet picks. Mattis and Kelly were not happy that the immigration ban was rolled out without their input. Kelly decided, with no input from Trump, to issue his statement exempting green card holders. Bannon was furious, alolegedly fought Kelly on it, and Kelly reportedly told him that Bannon was not in his chain of command and unless he heard it from Trump, his order was standing. The order stood. Meanwhile, the NY Times has reported that Trump evidently hadn't been fully briefed on the executive order putting Bannon on the Security Council, and evidently isn't happy about it. Let that one sink in. Long story short, Mattis and Kelly are pissed at Trump, and everyone's pissed at Bannon. 
2) Trump is spending political capital like he beat McGovern, not Clinton. He's going all in on the immigration ban, even taking swipes at "so called" judges, while meanwhile the market surged on his election based on expectations for tax cuts and deregulation. Trump, let's not forget, won the electoral college by a small margin by recent norms, actually lost the popular vote by about two percentage points, and already has a majority of Americans disapproving of his performance. His focus on immigration and the wall may burn enough bridges in congress (and erode his popular support) to the degree where he may NOT be able to act on tax reform - we're currently pegging it as, a 50-50 shot that they pass something by late '17, and in the best case scenario it probably will be too late to be retroactive. 
3) There is evidently evidence that after the immigration ban was temporarily blocked by the courts, Trump tried to order DHS to go ahead with enforcing that anyway. That's technically grounds for impeachment, and a congressman from Florida has indicated he plans on acting. At this point, it'll go nowhere - even 40% approval is probably too high for the GOP to decide to put the proverbial rabid dog down, and with Nixon as the nearest analogue, it wasn't until he got into the low 20s that his own party turned on him. But, that's not an impossible scenario to imagine, and Trump has evidently provided enough ammunition to do so, if it comes to that.

Idunno. From here, I agree with you - I think there's a Bannon/Kuchner power struggle brewing (he and Ivanka are believed to have blocked the LGBT executive order Trump had been working on, and it's been alledged that Bannon rushed it out on Friday knowing Kuchner would have to leave for the sabbath before sunset, and that he would have wanted to delay and have it given further review) that Bannon's not likely to win, and Trump has burned some significant goodwill with Kelly and Mattis. I could see this whole thing blowing appart at the seams inside a couple months. And, if you're a mainstream American conservative, you were likely supporting Trump because you wanted to see you're taxes go down, regulation be cut, and a conservative on the Supreme Court. It's possible some of that stuff may happen, but while the Court is still possible, the ACA and tax reform are events whose probabilities of happening in 2017 is dropping rapidly, I think.


----------



## Drew

DeVos evidently just got confirmed - first ever 50-50 vote on a Cabinet post where the VP had to vote as the tie breaker. 

Fun fact - Biden never once cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Pence made it less than three weeks.


----------



## celticelk

Drew said:


> DeVos evidently just got confirmed - first ever 50-50 vote on a Cabinet post where the VP had to vote as the tie breaker.
> 
> Fun fact - Biden never once cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Pence made it less than three weeks.



Quayle never did, either. Gore and Cheney each got a few months under their belt before a tie-breaker, and GHWB got over 2 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._States#List_of_tie-breaking_votes_since_1981


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> DeVos evidently just got confirmed - first ever 50-50 vote on a Cabinet post where the VP had to vote as the tie breaker.
> 
> Fun fact - Biden never once cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Pence made it less than three weeks.



Welcome Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, Brought to you by Karl's Jr.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles




----------



## odibrom

EDIT: never mind...


----------



## Axayacatl

odibrom said:


> EDIT: never mind...



Buddy, don't be shy! Remember that nowadays what one writes or says:

1. Doesn't have to be real.
2. Doesn't have to make sense.

Give it a go!

It's fun!

And if you're good/bad enough at it you can be a superstar and grab women by the p'ssay.


----------



## odibrom

Axayacatl said:


> Buddy, don't be shy! Remember that nowadays what one writes or says:
> 
> 1. Doesn't have to be real.
> 2. Doesn't have to make sense.
> 
> Give it a go!
> 
> It's fun!
> 
> And if you're good/bad enough at it you can be a superstar and grab women by the p'ssay.



LOL, I came here to ask if a JPEG image with Trump on CNN news was true or fake, but then I went to search the image location and searched for the same news on google and there was nothing about it, so...

This because Trump has been completely smashed over youtube with "America First, Netherlands Second" kind of videos (all awesome, by the way) and all kind of weird news about Trump's politics that someone here on my country forged a CNN video captured image and tailored it to some fake news site... kind of a bad joke...


----------



## Drew

odibrom said:


> LOL, I came here to ask if a JPEG image with Trump on CNN news was true or fake, but then I went to search the image location and searched for the same news on google and there was nothing about it, so...
> 
> This because Trump has been completely smashed over youtube with "America First, Netherlands Second" kind of videos (all awesome, by the way) and all kind of weird news about Trump's politics that someone here on my country forged a CNN video captured image and tailored it to some fake news site... kind of a bad joke...



 Points for doing your research, though, that puts you ahead of about 40-50% of America, near as I can tell.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Flynn resigned.


----------



## Randy

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Flynn resigned.



FWIW, considering the lengths Trump's people went to 'stick their fingers in their ears' over the concerns about this guy, his resignation is 100% a result of the public scrutiny against him and should serve as a reminder that these people need their feet held to the fire.


----------



## Drew

So, um, anyone want to talk about the Trump administration's ties to Russia?  

Meanwhile, Trump having an emergency meeting in the middle of the crowded Mar-a-Lago dining room with his aids illuminating top secret documents by phone flashlight while guests snap pictures after the North Korean rocket launch, and a guest posing for a picture and sharing it on facebook with the guy carrying the "nuclear football" with launch codes is _dumbfounding_. But please, those emails...


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> So, um, anyone want to talk about the Trump administration's ties to Russia?
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump having an emergency meeting in the middle of the crowded Mar-a-Lago dining room with his aids illuminating top secret documents by phone flashlight while guests snap pictures after the North Korean rocket launch, and a guest posing for a picture and sharing it on facebook with the guy carrying the "nuclear football" with launch codes is _dumbfounding_. But please, those emails...



Your average person who isn't driven by partisan politics can be outraged by both.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Your average person who isn't driven by partisan politics can be outraged by both.



This is a LITTLE beyond a private email server - a buddy of mine who used to work in the hospitality industry before quitting to become an accountant has been joking that he's now qualified to be an international spy, simply because he knows his way around private golf clubs. Say what you will about Clinton's email server, while it was private, it was at least secure. The dining room of Mar-A-Largo, not so much.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> This is a LITTLE beyond a private email server - a buddy of mine who used to work in the hospitality industry before quitting to become an accountant has been joking that he's now qualified to be an international spy, simply because he knows his way around private golf clubs. Say what you will about Clinton's email server, while it was private, it was at least secure. The dining room of Mar-A-Largo, not so much.



Secure, you have got to be fracking kidding me....

Guys, she was a BAD candidate, and lost. We still don't want smelly-old-neocon-grandma.

Give it up.


----------



## narad

Can you explain how it was not secure?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> Can you explain how it was not secure?



It was penetrated by foreign actors, and also:

BACKED UP ON ANTHONY WEINERS CHILD-PEDO LAPTOP!

how much we have forgotten...


----------



## mongey

no matter how anyone feels about Clinton, surely this Trump train wreck cant go on for 4 years .


----------



## CapnForsaggio

mongey said:


> no matter how anyone feels about Clinton, surely this Trump train wreck cant go on for 4 years .



I'm banking on 8, actually.

When the tax reform goes through, all of your employers and corporate overlords are going full Trump.

Also, he's keeping the support he was elected with.

You need him to make a SERIOUS MATERIAL mistake. So far, the DNC doesn't have much to grasp onto that doesn't ake them look petty or hypocritical....


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> It was penetrated by foreign actors, and also:
> 
> BACKED UP ON ANTHONY WEINERS CHILD-PEDO LAPTOP!
> 
> how much we have forgotten...



That's been generally discredited and the guy who actually claimed to have hacked the server was shown to be lying / his claimed exploits referred to a previous breach unrelated to the private email servers.

And a staffer used Weiner's pedo laptop. That's not an vulnerability in the network, that's just human negligence. No server is secured against people copying data and bringing it to other locations...

Such a stupid topic really. It's amazing that a private email server, for which there was plenty of precedence of, somehow became a talking point for the election when nothing's happened as a result of it.

Meanwhile the nuclear football's in play at a restaurant. Absolutely nuts. And Trump's approval rating is still pretty good!


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> Guys, she was a BAD candidate, and lost. We still don't want smelly-old-neocon-grandman





CapnForsaggio said:


> It was penetrated by foreign actors, and also:
> 
> BACKED UP ON ANTHONY WEINERS CHILD-PEDO LAPTOP!



hesrightyouknow.jpg


----------



## flint757

mongey said:


> no matter how anyone feels about Clinton, surely this Trump train wreck cant go on for 4 years .



That I can agree with, BUT I don't see the alternatives as any better. It'd take like 6 people getting impeached before someone reasonable, IMO obviously, to be up for the job. If only Trump is removed from office, a rather big if given the current makeup of congress, Pence takes over and we get the same craptastic decision making just without all of the public fumbles. The one nice thing about Trump is that he's so in over his head and public perception matters so much to him that he's exposing some major problems within our government that would otherwise go unnoticed if he were a competent politician.

---

And like I said, people not driven by partisan politics can be outraged and offended by things happening on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The solution:

Lottery. Random lottery.

Anyone chosen must have a medical reason NOT to serve the term of 4 years. Anyone chosen may not show any income EXCEPT for their federal salary for the duration of their term.

All federal positions.

No one would be "qualified," and I assure you that this is a benefit to the lottery system.

I'm quite serious.


----------



## mongey

CapnForsaggio said:


> The solution:
> 
> Lottery. Random lottery.
> 
> Anyone chosen must have a medical reason NOT to serve the term of 4 years. Anyone chosen may not show any income EXCEPT for their federal salary for the duration of their term.
> 
> All federal positions.
> 
> No one would be "qualified," and I assure you that this is a benefit to the lottery system.
> 
> I'm quite serious.



conscription is the new democracy ? 

interesting idea


----------



## CapnForsaggio

It removes money and political influence from the game, and probability dictates that the person would most likely be a reasonable American.

What are the chances that the lottery would pick Donald, or a Bush/Clinton/Kennedy? Pretty low....

Seems like a win/win to me.


----------



## vilk

We should have elections using _ordered preference_. Clinton would have lost, Trump would have lost, and it would have been a race between Sanders and Kasich and Johnson... maybe...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> We should have elections using _ordered preference_. Clinton would have lost, Trump would have lost, and it would have been a race between Sanders and Kasich and Johnson... maybe...



I guess I feel like the random sandwich shop owner, or trashman, is superior to ANY of those choices....

just my 0.02


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> It was penetrated by foreign actors, and also:
> 
> BACKED UP ON ANTHONY WEINERS CHILD-PEDO LAPTOP!
> 
> how much we have forgotten...



Um, no it wasn't.  

The _DNC_ server was hacked by Russia, not Clinton's server. The FBI included, as part of their assessment, that there was no evidence that it had been hacked or otherwise compromised. 

And, the server wasn't backed up on Weiner's laptop; rather, her assistant (who was married to Weiner at the time) had emails sent from Clinton _to_ Huma, who received them on that computer. That's no different than saying Sweetwater's server is backed up in my Gmail account because they email me.  

That said: 



CapnForsaggio said:


> The solution:
> 
> Lottery. Random lottery.
> 
> Anyone chosen must have a medical reason NOT to serve the term of 4 years. Anyone chosen may not show any income EXCEPT for their federal salary for the duration of their term.
> 
> All federal positions.
> 
> No one would be "qualified," and I assure you that this is a benefit to the lottery system.
> 
> I'm quite serious.



This is actually not the most insane thing I've read today.  I'd be willing to hear this one out - it's an interesting approach.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Um, no it wasn't.
> 
> The _DNC_ server was hacked by Russia, not Clinton's server. The FBI included, as part of their assessment, that there was no evidence that it had been hacked or otherwise compromised.
> 
> And, the server wasn't backed up on Weiner's laptop; rather, her assistant (who was married to Weiner at the time) had emails sent from Clinton _to_ Huma, who received them on that computer. That's no different than saying Sweetwater's server is backed up in my Gmail account because they email me.




This is either an intentional mischaracterization of what was found on his laptop, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth....

He had an outlook .pst file on his PC with 650,000 emails from her server on it.

He might not even have been aware it was there.... extremely careless. Worse than Maralago. Worst leak of state department in history. Still being investigated.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm banking on 8, actually.
> 
> When the tax reform goes through, all of your employers and corporate overlords are going full Trump.
> 
> Also, he's keeping the support he was elected with.
> 
> You need him to make a SERIOUS MATERIAL mistake. So far, the DNC doesn't have much to grasp onto that doesn't ake them look petty or hypocritical....



Serious response, from someone who's job is partly to stay on top of changes in the tax code and how that will impact the capital markets. 

I think it's no longer a "when," and is increasingly an "if." Certainly, our read (and that of a lot of the larger trading partners and investment platforms we're working with) is that this is increasingly likely to be a 2018 event, at the earliest. Part of that is procedural; the GOP has chosen to prioritize the ACA repeal, and given they don't have a veto-proof majority, they have two opportunities this year to push this through via reconciliation with a simple minority, it's not extremely likely that they're going to try to use the first reconciliation of the budget to get an ACA repeal/replace through. The read on the street i some sort of a "grand bargain" doing both at once is virtually impossible to finish in time, and honestly I think the odds of getting an ACA repeal through on reconciliation are dropping fast; if you want the bull case from my perspective for tax reform, it's that the GOP realizes in the next couple weeks that they have no shot of getting a revenue-neutral ACA repeal/replace plan together in time for the next budgetary reconciliuation and instead decides to spite Trump, shelf it, and instead go after tax reform... and even then there's probably too little support for the border tax proposals being mooted to get that through. So, long story short, the most likely time for them to attempt tax reform via reconciliation is Oct/Nov 2017, at which point it's too late for 2017 retroactive treatment, and will be a FY18 event.

Now, I'll take this a step further. Bear with me, this is a lot more speculative. Budgetary mechanisms aside, I think Trump is burning political capital too fast to maintain course. His approval has already tanked from around 55% in Gallop polling at the time of his inauguration to 40% as of last poll, his executive order on immigration got shut down by the courts, Russia is now back in the spotlight because of Flynn, and by opting for a solid but very conservatrive Supreme Court Justice after the GOP blocked a solid moderate choice in the form of Garland for 10 months, he's likely going to have a showdown there. His Cabinet confirmation process has already been the messiest of the modern era. He's trying to govern like he won with the soort of mandate that came with a blowout, and instead he lost the popular vote by a large margin, and won the Electoral College by a margin putting him in about the lower 3rd of past presidencies. He's not trying to govern from the center, which would be the normal course of action given that result, and I think he's struggling for it. 

Now, Congress hasn't substantially fought him so far, because the GOP wants an ACA repeal and tax reform. The calculation is, for all the bad that comes with Trump, it's worth it if they can accomplish those two objectives. Except, they're quickly realizing that they don't HAVE an ACA replacement plan that won't cause their constituents to lose coverage, see premiums increase, and impact the quality of health care. So, that leaves tax reform. Good, right? Should be an easy area to find common ground? Except, put that against the backdrop of a president with tanking popularity, strong opposition resistance gearing up for a midterm battle, and against tax reform (a "good" policy), they're also being saddled with the baggage of all the "bad" policies (from the mainstream GOP standpoint) Trump is trying to push. 

At that point it becomes simple math - with ACA repeal/replace unfeasible and a tax compromise in place, what value does Trump have to the GOP? If the goose won't lay any more golden eggs, in other words, why not send it to the butcher's block? I think there's a real risk to the tax reform agenda that, even if a plan COULD be crafted (and doing it in a revenue neutral manner without the border tax, which I don't think will fly, will be hard, even under dynamic scoring), Trump will realize that once its done he's outlived his utility to the GOP, and he's no idiot. 

Idunno. Bare minumum, I wouldn't bet on anything getting done this year. Remember we're already past the "big announcement" on taxes he was supposed to make last week.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> This is either an intentional mischaracterization of what was found on his laptop, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth....
> 
> He had an outlook .pst file on his PC with 650,000 emails from her server on it.
> 
> He might not even have been aware it was there.... extremely careless. Worse than Maralago. Worst leak of state department in history. Still being investigated.



Yes, but that's not CLINTON's server that was backed up. That was a server she'd sent messages to.


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> This is either an intentional mischaracterization of what was found on his laptop, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth....
> 
> He had an outlook .pst file on his PC with 650,000 emails from her server on it.
> 
> He might not even have been aware it was there.... extremely careless. Worse than Maralago. Worst leak of state department in history. Still being investigated.



You are defending the President of the USA by comparing him to some sicko who's a big nobody by the name of Anthony Weiner and then citing as ongoing an investigation that was very publicly called off. 

Hey, at least you're feeding a family in Macedonia with all the bull.... you read and spew about.


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> This is either an intentional mischaracterization of what was found on his laptop, or you are willfully ignorant of the truth....
> 
> He had an outlook .pst file on his PC with 650,000 emails from her server on it.
> 
> He might not even have been aware it was there.... extremely careless. Worse than Maralago. Worst leak of state department in history. Still being investigated.



Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

How many Anthony Weiners is this worth on your Anthony Weiner Scale of Bad Things?


----------



## hairychris

CapnForsaggio said:


> The solution:
> 
> Lottery. Random lottery.
> 
> Anyone chosen must have a medical reason NOT to serve the term of 4 years. Anyone chosen may not show any income EXCEPT for their federal salary for the duration of their term.
> 
> All federal positions.
> 
> No one would be "qualified," and I assure you that this is a benefit to the lottery system.
> 
> I'm quite serious.



IIRC this was how public officials were selected in at least one ancient city state, maybe Athens, can't remember off the top of my head though. However you needed to be a citizen to vote and to qualify. To be a citizen required various property and other thresholds (maybe including military service like Roman republic, again I can't remember right now). Citizens were also a small minority compared to non-citizens, which included all women, slaves, regular peasants/workers, etc.

All candidates in this system had experience of management - in the military or on family estates with extended family/staff/slaves - which is not the case now.

What is required to run a modern state is also much more complex, and to do so you need skill at management... which is where we're seeing a major problem with Trump as whatever you think of his policies he's a spectacularly bad manager. He's the first president to have taken office without previous government or military experience, and to be frank it shows. FWIW he'd be a disaster in almost any multinational company too as well, as they run very differently to his family business where he can be as dictatorial as he likes. ANOTHER EDIT: I work for a Fortune 500 company, >100,000 employees globally... our big boss, who built the company from nothing, is not a very nice man but he is extremely competent at what he does.

EDIT: The party political and electoral college systems is also supposed to filter out cases like this. If candidates are not capable of the job then they should never reach the final candidacy. How this failed is an interesting sideline to the whole story.

In theory your idea is attractive, however in practice it would be fatal to whatever modern state tries to implement it *UNLESS* everyone eligible had a base level of competency in management. But that ruins the whole idea behind your comment...


----------



## Randy

Axayacatl said:


> Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
> 
> How many Anthony Weiners is this worth on your Anthony Weiner Scale of Bad Things?



Approximately 12 Anthony Weiners


----------



## ElysianGuitars

Axayacatl said:


> Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence
> 
> *How many Anthony Weiners is this worth on your Anthony Weiner Scale of Bad Things?*


----------



## hairychris

Drew said:


> Snip for clarity



My take is that once Trump looked like winning the candidacy, the GOP decided to use him as a particularly blunt battering ram. They have Pence and Ryan at 2 & 3, use Trump to push through unpopular stuff for progressives like killing ACA/immigration controls/environment/etc and then impeach him once he gets too toxic. This within next 18 months so they hope not to take too much of a hit at the mid-terms and have a clear run-up at 2020 with another candidate.

I'll call this the "Glossu Harkonnen Gambit" - read Dune if you need the reference.

More wild finger-in-the-air stuff:

1) Trump and his administration are absolutely compromised, so any serious effort to impeach will almost certainly be successful as it will be trivial to find some law or technicality that Trump et al has breached.

2) The GOP are absolutely cold-blooded and shameless enough to do this. Cause damage to the USA for political goals? Yep, they've shut down government, etc.

3) Progressives need to make sure that whatever the Trump administration (arf, "administration"...) does in a sketchy fashion gets nailed to the GOP as enablers.

4) Upshot being, IMO, that Trump getting thrown under the bus is a "when" not an "if" but the big question is how much of the GOP will he take with him which to a degree is up to the opposition.

I'm probably wrong, TBH. What I have done is to assume that the Republican party is hugely cynical + amoral, and have extrapolated from there.


----------



## MFB

hairychris said:


> 3) Progressives need to make sure that whatever the Trump administration (arf, "administration"...) does in a sketchy fashion gets nailed to the GOP as enablers.



Given that GOP have been steamrolling the Dems on their victory lap of Trump winning, I think it's well known that this is their chance to show "We're the ones who can fix it because the left broke it!" but public opinion seems to be not in their favor, so people are aware that anything that's broken from now on is their fault.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

hairychris said:


> In theory your idea is attractive, however in practice it would be fatal to whatever modern state tries to implement it *UNLESS* everyone eligible had a base level of competency in management. But that ruins the whole idea behind your comment...



Seems like a great way to get our priorities straight....


----------



## thraxil

hairychris said:


> 4) Upshot being, IMO, that Trump getting thrown under the bus is a "when" not an "if" but the big question is how much of the GOP will he take with him which to a degree is up to the opposition.



I'm curious if Trump sees that conclusion as well and is working on a counter. Ie, right now all it would take is some carefully leaked confirmation that Pence had more knowledge of Flynn's actions than he admitted to (but somehow Trump didn't) and a good case could be made for removing Pence and Trump could replace him with someone less appealing to the GOP (Bannon? an actual rabid orangutan?). That would give him some protection.


----------



## hairychris

MFB said:


> Given that GOP have been steamrolling the Dems on their victory lap of Trump winning, I think it's well known that this is their chance to show "We're the ones who can fix it because the left broke it!" but public opinion seems to be not in their favor, so people are aware that anything that's broken from now on is their fault.



Yep. However they've got to be dogged on it which seems to have been a problem for them.



thraxil said:


> I'm curious if Trump sees that conclusion as well and is working on a counter. Ie, right now all it would take is some carefully leaked confirmation that Pence had more knowledge of Flynn's actions than he admitted to (but somehow Trump didn't) and a good case could be made for removing Pence and Trump could replace him with someone less appealing to the GOP (Bannon? an actual rabid orangutan?). That would give him some protection.



My guess is that Trump isn't clever enough to see it. He's never had to deal with this sort of situation before and it seems that he does not learn new things easily - being 70 doesn't help, plus his upbringing.

Bannon and his other advisors might be, but even this isn't certain as they aren't insiders and have shown that they don't know how the mechanisms of government work... plus plenty of hubris - EO legal SNAFU, etc.

So, dangerous that this team might be, they strike me as being a blunt instrument against a system who's members have decades of experience in way more subtle shenanigans.

This has just popped up on my timeline: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/831910276689690624

Graham is.... not a junior GOP politician, so this could easily be the start of an early attempt to sink Trump.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I'm curious if Trump sees that conclusion as well and is working on a counter. Ie, right now all it would take is some carefully leaked confirmation that Pence had more knowledge of Flynn's actions than he admitted to (but somehow Trump didn't) and a good case could be made for removing Pence and Trump could replace him with someone less appealing to the GOP (Bannon? an actual rabid orangutan?). That would give him some protection.



Interesting argument.

I don't think it's safe to just assume "Trump isn't smart enough," because I haven't seen any evidence that he isn't at least of average intelligence. Short attention span, bored with details, megalomaniac ego, sure, but he's not dumb. 

I COULD see one of his other personality flaws giving him a blind spot, though. Certainly, this is a man used to being in a position of more-or-less-unquestioned authority; I think the bigger risk to Trump is he just doesn't see himself as vulnerable to the degree that he feels like he needs to be prepared to blackmail or even remove Pence as a check against the GOP trying to remove him. 

But, I think you raise an interesting point - as I argue above re: the liklihood of a tax deal following, I think Trump is intelligent enough and objective enough to realize that the GOP wants a finite number of things from him (off the top of my head I'll say that when elected the list included tax reform, ACA repeal, and deregulation) and that as that list dwindles his liabilities to the party start to outweigh the opportunities he offers. How Trump plays that remains to be seen, though. 

I can't see him preemptively eliminating Pence for Bannon; Pence has been a valuable concession chip for moderates, and I think finding some way to force him out and nominate someone more in line with Trump's thinking would lead to open revolt - all the more so because a nominated replacement for the Vice President would need a majority vote from both the House and the Senate to be confirmed, and in particular in the Senate, without a sitting VP as a tiebreaker, Trump's margin of error is EXTREMELY small. In fact I'll take it a step further and say that if Pence does get pushed out, if one of the "future of the party" Republicans like Paul Ryan were to get nominated and confirmed, I would say the odds of impeachment increase significantly, to limit the damage and give Ryan an unchecked hand. 

But, wondering what kind of leverage Trump may have over Pence and/or Ryan, or might be trying to obtain, is certainly a line of thought worth pursuing here. He may be egotistical enough to believe he's invulnerable, but if he's not, well, he's not dumb. 



Also, I'll say this - if on November 9th you'd told me that in the fourth week of the Trump presidency with the GOP controlling both chambers of congress, if someone gave me even odds or better on tax reform NOT happening in time for FY17, I'd have laughed at you. I think it's worth pausing and thinking about that; Trump has an extremely ambitious agenda, but this should be the easy stuff, and even that is increasingly shaky.


----------



## bostjan

I hope Trump pulls his act together. I would much rather see him figure this out and govern fairly than to see him removed from power as a tyrant and replaced with Pence.


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> Interesting argument.
> 
> I don't think it's safe to just assume "Trump isn't smart enough," because I haven't seen any evidence that he isn't at least of average intelligence. Short attention span, bored with details, megalomaniac ego, sure, but he's not dumb.
> 
> .



I'm an outsider but I think a person in a position of extreme power, communicating with the country using phrases like " very,very bad " shows lower than average intelligence.


would you send an email at work describing something as "very , very bad "


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> I'm an outsider but I think a person in a position of extreme power, communicating with the country using phrases like " very,very bad " shows lower than average intelligence.
> 
> 
> would you send an email at work describing something as "very , very bad "



Oh, as a former literature major, his vocabulary _kills_ me. What I don't know though is if that's the sort of vocabulary that he uses in personal conversation - I mean, the hot mic tape, content aside, didn't jump out as the conversation of someone with an impaired vocabulary - or if he dumbs it down while speaking and tweeting as a "lowest common denominator" type thing.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

Having worked with people of below-average intelligence, Trump does not strike me as one of them. He's by no means exceptional, but he's not actually dumb. The average person's vocabulary just isn't that extensive. When it comes to math, bright people can easily calculate 17x6, yet there are a lot of average people who can't do that either.


----------



## narad

But the average person with the unexceptional vocabulary doesn't publicly claim to "know words, [/] have the best words"


----------



## bostjan

TheHandOfStone said:


> Having worked with people of below-average intelligence, Trump does not strike me as one of them. He's by no means exceptional, but he's not actually dumb. The average person's vocabulary just isn't that extensive. When it comes to math, bright people can easily calculate 17x6, yet there are a lot of average people who can't do that either.



I think the idea of having an president who is of average intelligence is quite frightening, since most people of lower-than-average intelligence tend to be aware that they are such, whereas a person of average intelligence given a fair amount of power will often think he's invincible. Take GWB, a guy who is pretty much average intelligence, and look at the damage he did to this country despite having a family well steeped in politics. Now we have Trump, likely more intelligent than GWB, but hardly enough to make mention about, with no experience in politics, and with a god complex, and we have potentially a huge problem.

And before anybody goes off the deep end with the claims of Trump's IQ at 156, you aren't fooling me. That estimate was based off of Wharton's MBA admissions test, giving a lower bound of about 150 IQ (with a wide margin of error) required to pass the test. Trump never took the test, in fact, never was admitted to Wharton's MBA program. If we were to solely base an estimate of Trump's IQ on his academic record, it'd be crazy stupid, since none of his academic record is public. We know he graduated with a BS in Economics, and that he transferred into Wharton, so he didn't even take the admissions exam. There is no record of him ever making the Dean's List nor graduating with any noted honours, so, at best, he was an average student.


----------



## hairychris

Drew said:


> Oh, as a former literature major, his vocabulary _kills_ me. What I don't know though is if that's the sort of vocabulary that he uses in personal conversation - I mean, the hot mic tape, content aside, didn't jump out as the conversation of someone with an impaired vocabulary - or if he dumbs it down while speaking and tweeting as a "lowest common denominator" type thing.



It's the things like his 1 page of bullet-points for the intelligence briefing and signing orders without reading them, stuff like that, that cause concern.

I doubt that he's any worse than averagely bright - he's certainly a master of sharp business practices which needs a good amount of cunning - but he definitely seems to be crappy at processing information in the volumes that this job requires. He also seems very stuck in his ways, which is unsurprising for his age, so I doubt that things will change by much.


----------



## TheHandOfStone

bostjan said:


> I think the idea of having an president who is of average intelligence is quite frightening, since most people of lower-than-average intelligence tend to be aware that they are such, whereas a person of average intelligence given a fair amount of power will often think he's invincible.


Oh, I agree very much with this. I just want to be clear that this is the real problem.


----------



## Drew

Well that news conference today was an embarrassment, huh? 30 seconds on the labor secretary, then an hour and change bashing the press.

It can't be simultaneously "fake news" and based on "an illegal leak of classified information." And, Flynn was asked to resign for lying to Pence and not because of the content of the conversation, though Trump knew that he'd lied to Pence for two weeks and only acted when the story gathered legs?


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> Well that news conference today was an embarrassment, huh? 30 seconds on the labor secretary, then an hour and change bashing the press.
> 
> It can't be simultaneously "fake news" and based on "an illegal leak of classified information." And, Flynn was asked to resign for lying to Pence and not because of the content of the conversation, though Trump knew that he'd lied to Pence for two weeks and only acted when the story gathered legs?



"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words..."


----------



## vilk

The problem is that he has no incentive not to make sh/t up. His support base has literally no interest whatsoever in whether or not the things he says are true.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> The problem is that he has no incentive not to make sh/t up. His support base has literally no interest whatsoever in whether or not the things he says are true.



That's fine, but that's going to lose his party the mid-terms and it'll lose him re-election in 4 years, assuming he makes it that far.

Considering the makeup of who voted for Trump and who enabled him to win by disenfranchisment and not showing up (combined with the BIG fact his opposition win popular vote by over 2.5 million), his actual "base" makes up a very small amount of the population overall. What he's doing might fire up maybe 75% of his voters, but overall, that's probably no more than 20% of the actual population of this country. Everyone who didn't vote for him, regrets voting for him or was sitting on the sidelines is being thoroughly fired up over his handling of, well, everything.


----------



## vilk

^I hope you're right.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> The problem is that he has no incentive not to make sh/t up. His support base has literally no interest whatsoever in whether or not the things he says are true.



That's because big government has spent the last 40 years making "truth" subjective:

'Russia is a boogie man.'
'Read my lips, no new taxes'
'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.'
'I will close guantanamo bay.'
'Russia is a boogie man.'

They don't even have any new material....

Trump is a symptom, not a disease.


----------



## Danukenator

I try not to get overly worked up about politics because I don't need ulcers but I caught part of Trump's press conference today on the NYT website.

It's ....ing unreal how he can barely string a coherent set of full sentences together or make a point without tangential statements. Also you have to pick one:

1. The NYT is correct because they are reporting on accurate leaks OR
2. The NYT is wrong because they are reporting on inaccurate leaks.

The leaks can't be this "serious illegal problem" and the story's about said leaks also be fake. Unless what? The NYT is accurately reporting leaks but the rest of the article is wrong? It's the most lazy, transparent spin in the world to watch and it makes my blood boil.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Danukenator said:


> I try not to get overly worked up about politics because I don't need ulcers but I caught part of Trump's press conference today on the NYT website.
> 
> It's ....ing unreal how he can barely string a coherent set of full sentences together or make a point without tangential statements. Also you have to pick one:
> 
> 1. The NYT is correct because they are reporting on accurate leaks OR
> 2. The NYT is wrong because they are reporting on inaccurate leaks.
> 
> The leaks can't be this "serious illegal problem" and the story's about said leaks also be fake. Unless what? The NYT is accurately reporting leaks but the rest of the article is wrong? It's the most lazy, transparent spin in the world to watch and it makes my blood boil.



It's almost exactly the inversion of the Podesta hacks. wait, no it isn't 

The hacks are an outrage!
(but the information is true)

But since hypocracy is the game, keep on keeping on, Citizens!

Edit: Walnut sauce. You sickos.


----------



## Black Mamba

Danukenator said:


> It's ....ing unreal how he can barely string a coherent set of full sentences together or make a point without tangential statements.



I'll take occasional tangents over constant stutters and "uhs":


----------



## Axayacatl

CapnForsaggio said:


> That's because the new big government has spent the last 3 weeks making "truth" subjective:
> 
> 'Muslims who served this country are the boogie man.'
> 'Read my lips, "Putin is nice!"'
> 'Millions of dead people voted illegally.'
> 'I will fill up Guantanamo bay.'
> 'Muslims who served this country are the boogie man.'
> 
> They have plenty of new material if you're not a white supremacist...



I fixed the quote for you so you do not sound like you have your tin foil hat on.



CapnForsaggio said:


> Trump is a symptom, not a disease.



Agree. President Trump is a symptom of sick, diseased minds like yours. Finally, one of your empty John Wayne one liners actually made sense.


----------



## Axayacatl

Black Mamba said:


> I'll take occasional tangents over constant stutters and "uhs":




I'll take the Constitutional Scholar from Harvard with a Nobel Peace Prize over the newly-minted Conservative Icon who raped his former wives and grabs women by the p'ssay and is now doing the same with our Constitution.

I guess it is just a matter of different tastes.

It is also funny because Fmr. Pres. Obama is a world-reknown public speaker. But I guess you prefer your leaders to be very, very, hugely, tremendous.


----------



## Black Mamba

Axayacatl said:


> I'll take the Constitutional Scholar from Harvard with a Nobel Peace Prize over the newly-minted Conservative Icon who raped his former wives and grabs women by the p'ssay and is now doing the same with our Constitution.
> 
> I guess it is just a matter of different tastes.
> 
> It is also funny because Fmr. Pres. Obama is a world-reknown public speaker. But I guess you prefer your leaders to be very, very, hugely, tremendous.



Bush 43 graduated from Harvard and Yale. Ted Cruz graduated from Princeton and Harvard. Bill O'Reilly graduated from Harvard. I'm sure you're a fan of all three... Yes, Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize; he is also the longest wartime President in history. In Obama's last year, his administration dropped over 26,000 bombs in 7 countries. Obama also deported more illegal aliens than any other President. Where were the protests? Selective moral outrage at its finest. 

1: Your "wives" comment is nothing but slander. Ivana said that during their divorce, later disavowed and said he'd make an incredible President.

2: In the Access Hollywood video Trump says "they let you do it", he wasn't bragging about assault. 

3: Liberals only "care" about The Constitution when it fits their agenda.

Hating Trump seems to be the Liberal Collective's raison d'être. Quite sad.


----------



## Black Mamba

Axayacatl said:


> I fixed the quote for you so you do not sound like you have your tin foil hat on.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. President Trump is a symptom of sick, diseased minds like yours. Finally, one of your empty John Wayne one liners actually made sense.



Nice personal attack. I'm sure the mods will get right on this.


----------



## flint757

Axayacatl said:


> I'll take the Constitutional Scholar from Harvard with a Nobel Peace Prize...



Fat lot of good that Nobel Peace Prize was for actual peace. We started something like 4 additional wars, destroyed a country, in the process of destroying 2 other countries, and something like 26,000 bombs were dropped in 2016 alone. To make the humanitarian disaster sound less awful we then redefined who qualifies as an enemy combatant and our government has seriously fudged the civilian casualty numbers according to countless humanitarian organizations. 

Bush wasn't any better, and Trump likely won't be either, but lets not paint a pretty picture that never existed either. Him receiving and keeping the Nobel Peace Prize made a joke of the institution. It's about as ludicrous as the CIA giving a medal to the leader of Saudi Arabia for the fight against terrorism when they're a large part of how it's being financed and armed.


----------



## Axayacatl

flint757 said:


> Fat lot of good that Nobel Peace Prize was for actual peace. We started something like 4 additional wars, destroyed a country, in the process of destroying 2 other countries, and something like 26,000 bombs were dropped in 2016 alone. To make the humanitarian disaster sound less awful we then redefined who qualifies as an enemy combatant and our government has seriously fudged the civilian casualty numbers according to countless humanitarian organizations.
> 
> Bush wasn't any better, and Trump likely won't be either, but lets not paint a pretty picture that never existed either. Him receiving and keeping the Nobel Peace Prize made a joke of the institution. It's about as ludicrous as the CIA giving a medal to the leader of Saudi Arabia for the fight against terrorism when they're a large part of how it's being financed and armed.



Hey, good points, and all taken, but to clarify, I'm not sure anybody is trying to paint a pretty picture. I just pointed the Nobel Prize out because Pres. Obama clearly won the Nobel Peace Price on the basis of his public speaking skills alone, which was the topic I was replying to, because we were comparing his public speaking skills to President Trump's. It was all about the public speaking (Nobel Peace Prize plus being a lawyer), not so much about the actual prize, which is of no consequence either way. 

Not trying to derail the thread. I guess the unnamed countries in your list are Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan and the additional wars are references to Yemen, Sudan, Somalia... and which other country?

I'm not sure you're being serious right now when you write that 'Bush wasn't any better'. Just to be clear, you're saying that the dude who started two unnecessary wars that cost so much blood and treasure is not measurably _worse_ or is the _same_ than the guy who did a bad job at ending them and containing the fallout? If the other unnamed country that was destroyed that are talking about is Syria in that case Fmr. Pres. Obama chose not to start a war. So I think it's kind of a complicated situation. 

But I agree that Fmr. Pres. Obama made very conscious personal decisions to expand several zones of conflict and he made use of new very lethal technologies that were not always as precise as promised.


----------



## MFB

> Bush 43 graduated from Harvard and Yale. Ted Cruz graduated from Princeton and Harvard. Bill O'Reilly graduated from Harvard. I'm sure you're a fan of all three.



And all three of them speak, and act, far more coherently and concisely than Trump, so I'd wager it's safe to say yes in this case - he probably is.


----------



## bostjan

Nobody seems to be looking at the bigger picture here. Trump wants to come off looking tough, so he's going to get more and more out of control the more resistance he faces. At some point, something is going to give. We can't go on indefinitely with government fighting against itself, and the longer we do, the more policy is going to take a turn. I'm not absolving Trump from fault in that, but it is a situation that could escalate from one end or the other or both (most likely both), in which case, both sides are partially at fault for whatever mess results.

The DNC should not have promoted HRC with such disregard. That's really where things went awry. Trump would very likely not have won against a stronger candidate.


----------



## Axayacatl

Black Mamba said:


> 1: Your "wives" comment is nothing but slander. Ivana said that during their divorce, later disavowed and said he'd make an incredible President.
> 
> 2: In the Access Hollywood video Trump says "they let you do it", he wasn't bragging about assault.



1. You naive little boy. Ivana and Pres. Trump signed an agreement as part of the divorce settlement. It doesn't mean what transpired isn't true. It just means she cannot sue him for it. Born yesterday much?

2. He said "they let you do it when you are a superstar" which legally constitutes assault. Are you weekend night buddies with Bill Cosby or something like that? 

It is scary how many males in this country cannot understand what legally constitutes assault. 

Frankly, your comment is disgusting. I feel disgusting after reading it. 

Capn Flrsaggio irritates me. You, sir, are disgusting.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> It's almost exactly the inversion of the Podesta hacks. wait, no it isn't
> 
> The hacks are an outrage!
> (but the information is true)
> 
> But since hypocracy is the game, keep on keeping on, Citizens!
> 
> Edit: Walnut sauce. You sickos.



I'll take this as a serious question, even though you're probably just looking to stir the pot.  

There ARE parallels - we're talking about leaked evidence of wrongdoing, and just as Clinton supporters - including myself - have argued that the leaks didn't really show anything THAT significant, Trump supporters have been quick to point out that Flynn hasn't actually been shown to have violated the Logan act. 

The biggest difference, of course, is that Trump is referring to American government employees leaking embarrassing information to the press, while in the case of Clinton it was Russian agents releasing information to the press. One is an internal matter, the other is cyberespionage. 

Still, there are undoubtably parallels here, which makes Trump's sudden opposition to the media talking about leaks a little hypocritical.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> Hating Trump seems to be the Liberal Collective's raison d'être. Quite sad.



I'm not even going to touch your other bullets - others are already doing so - but I'll merely point out that while we knew Trump wasn't going to have much support from the left, he's also losing the middle fast: 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

As of today his numbers have actually WORSENED, and he has a 56% dissaproval, 38% approval, for a -18 point favorability rating.

It's tough to really stress how bad these numbers are: 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/204050/trump-job-approval-points-below-average-one-month-mark.aspx

With their prior-day rating of 40%, Trump had approval ratings 21 points under the average and 11 points below the worst rating they'd ever measured in mid-February. These are _shockingly_ bad numbers. 

Anecdotal evidence is always pretty suspect, but I'll say this, as well - I work in a republican dominated industry, and even my colleagues who voted for Trump are pretty disgusted by his last couple weeks. 

So, at this point, I'd amend your statement to say that hating Trump is quickly becoming a _national_ pastime, rather than just the way liberals try to maintain their political relevancy.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> I'm not even going to touch your other bullets - others are already doing so - but I'll merely point out that while we knew Trump wasn't going to have much support from the left, he's also losing the middle fast:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
> 
> As of today his numbers have actually WORSENED, and he has a 56% dissaproval, 38% approval, for a -18 point favorability rating.
> 
> It's tough to really stress how bad these numbers are:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/204050/trump-job-approval-points-below-average-one-month-mark.aspx
> 
> With their prior-day rating of 40%, Trump had approval ratings 21 points under the average and 11 points below the worst rating they'd ever measured in mid-February. These are _shockingly_ bad numbers.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is always pretty suspect, but I'll say this, as well - I work in a republican dominated industry, and even my colleagues who voted for Trump are pretty disgusted by his last couple weeks.
> 
> So, at this point, I'd amend your statement to say that hating Trump is quickly becoming a _national_ pastime, rather than just the way liberals try to maintain their political relevancy.



Not to mention, from a quick Google search, looks like Bush's lowest approval rating was 37.3% and that's coming close to - if not THE - lowest of all-time; so within 2 days shy of being a full month of taking office, he's 1.3% above the _lowest all-time approval rating._

But ya know, those are results from a couple different Google searches, so it's more fake info I'm sure


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'm not even going to touch your other bullets - others are already doing so - but I'll merely point out that while we knew Trump wasn't going to have much support from the left, he's also losing the middle fast



He never had the middle. HRC never had the middle, either. That was the problem with the election all along; there were no electable candidates, so we ended up with Trump, somehow, who was the less electable of the two frontrunners.

Moderate folks didn't support Trump, might have wanted to support Trump on inauguration day, and now are not supporting Trump again.

In 2020, the DNC could probably nominate a Black & Decker Toaster Oven to run against Trump and have a decent chance of winning, from the way things have been going the last few weeks.

As far as approval ratings...yeah, it's this bad, and we are still in the honeymoon.  I'm sure California is thinking about calling for a recall.


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> Not to mention, from a quick Google search, looks like Bush's lowest approval rating was 37.3% and that's coming close to - if not THE - lowest of all-time; so within 2 days shy of being a full month of taking office, he's 1.3% above the _lowest all-time approval rating._
> 
> But ya know, those are results from a couple different Google searches, so it's more fake info I'm sure



Unfortunately, that's not true: 

http://www.gallup.com/interactives/...ource=WWWV7HP&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

He has the lowest approval ratings ever on record since GWB, who was down to about 27% when he left office. A few presidents registered lower than 36% approval prior to that - Bush Sr dipped into the 30s briefly at the end of his term, as did Reagan, and Carter got into the 20s for a bit, recovered, and then later fell back into the 30s. 

The all-time low is still Richard Nixon, though, who appears to have bottomed out at 24%. Keep in mind that this is a president who was impeached by his own party, so considering Trump has given probable grounds (ordering DHS to continue to enforce his immigration ban over a justice department ban, for one, even if this whole Russia thing turns out to be a whole bunch of smoke but no fire), that's a useful precedent to watch. If he falls into the 20s, I think you run the risk of Ryan et al turning against him to try to salvage their 2020 chances. 

The fact that we're even having this conversation a little more than four weeks into his term, and a six point drop in approval would get him there, is kind of mind-boggling.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> He never had the middle. HRC never had the middle, either. That was the problem with the election all along; there were no electable candidates, so we ended up with Trump, somehow, who was the less electable of the two frontrunners.
> 
> Moderate folks didn't support Trump, might have wanted to support Trump on inauguration day, and now are not supporting Trump again.
> 
> In 2020, the DNC could probably nominate a Black & Decker Toaster Oven to run against Trump and have a decent chance of winning, from the way things have been going the last few weeks.
> 
> As far as approval ratings...yeah, it's this bad, and we are still in the honeymoon.  I'm sure California is thinking about calling for a recall.



Arguably, Trump can claim the middle gave him a shot. In the first Gallup poll he was evenly split with 45% of Americans approving of his presidency and 45% disproving (with 10% of the country having no opinion). To go from 45/45 to 56/38, he lost 4 points' worth of undecideds, but that also means he had to lose 7 points from somewhere else. There's obviously some room for interpretation here, but I think at least a decent percentage of moderates were prepared to give him a shot, to the point of at least being modestly pro-Trump on Inauguration Day.

I'd also that for a while there, after the hot mic video broke and before the second FBI letter, Clinton had made some inroads into winning over moderates, as she was polling too strongly to have been relying on just Democrats alone, but that's kind of besides the point today.


----------



## Black Mamba

Axayacatl said:


> 1. You naive little boy. Ivana and Pres. Trump signed an agreement as part of the divorce settlement. It doesn't mean what transpired isn't true. It just means she cannot sue him for it. Born yesterday much?
> 
> 2. He said "they let you do it when you are a superstar" which legally constitutes assault. Are you weekend night buddies with Bill Cosby or something like that?
> 
> It is scary how many males in this country cannot understand what legally constitutes assault.
> 
> Frankly, your comment is disgusting. I feel disgusting after reading it.
> 
> Capn Flrsaggio irritates me. You, sir, are disgusting.



Did you just assume my gender? 

1: She made a statement during a heated divorce, and later recanted. Nobody pressured her to do so. I guess nothing is good enough...

2: Bill Cosby drugged women and took advantage of them. Trump said when you're a star you can do anything. He's highlighting that some women are attracted to fame and status. Calm down, bud.

3: Once again, you hit with personal attacks. "Your comment is disgusting. I feel disgusting after reading it." "You, sir, are disgusting."  Sorry to offend, I'll take a good hard look at myself...



Axayacatl said:


> I just pointed the Nobel Prize out because Pres. Obama clearly won the Nobel Peace Price on the basis of his public speaking skills alone



Cool! So maybe if I talk about making the ultimate bouillabaisse I'll win a James Beard Award! *Fingers crossed*

*At least you recognize you're not the brightest:*









Drew said:


> I'm not even going to touch your other bullets - others are already doing so - but I'll merely point out that while we knew Trump wasn't going to have much support from the left, he's also losing the middle fast:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx
> 
> As of today his numbers have actually WORSENED, and he has a 56% dissaproval, 38% approval, for a -18 point favorability rating.
> 
> It's tough to really stress how bad these numbers are:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/204050/trump-job-approval-points-below-average-one-month-mark.aspx
> 
> With their prior-day rating of 40%, Trump had approval ratings 21 points under the average and 11 points below the worst rating they'd ever measured in mid-February. These are _shockingly_ bad numbers.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is always pretty suspect, but I'll say this, as well - I work in a republican dominated industry, and even my colleagues who voted for Trump are pretty disgusted by his last couple weeks.
> 
> So, at this point, I'd amend your statement to say that hating Trump is quickly becoming a _national_ pastime, rather than just the way liberals try to maintain their political relevancy.



According to the HuffPost Pollster, Trump's approval rating roughly mirrors the percentage of the vote he received: 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval

Without looking at the internals of the polls, one may assume some oversample Dems. That was the case during the election, (especially with the Post-Debate polls).

Also, trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx

One poll shows more people trust the Trump Administration than the MSM:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/318514-trump-admin-seen-as-more-truthful-than-news-media-poll

Even Trump's most controversial Executive Order has a 55% approval according to Morning Consult/Politico: 

https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/

I'm not sure why anyone who voted for Trump would suddenly be upset. Whether you love him or hate him, he's fulfilling campaign promises.


----------



## Axayacatl

Black Mamba said:


> Did you just assume my gender?
> 
> 1: She made a statement during a heated divorce, and later recanted. Nobody pressured her to do so. I guess nothing is good enough...
> 
> 2: Bill Cosby drugged women and took advantage of them. Trump said when you're a star you can do anything. He's highlighting that some women are attracted to fame and status. Calm down, bud.
> 
> 3: Once again, you hit with personal attacks. "Your comment is disgusting. I feel disgusting after reading it." "You, sir, are disgusting."  Sorry to offend, I'll take a good hard look at myself...
> 
> 
> 
> Cool! So maybe if I talk about making the ultimate bouillabaisse I'll win a James Beard Award! *Fingers crossed*
> 
> *At least you recognize you're not the brightest:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the HuffPost Pollster, Trump's approval rating roughly mirrors the percentage of the vote he received:
> 
> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval
> 
> Without looking at the internals of the polls, one may assume some oversample Dems. That was the case during the election, (especially with the Post-Debate polls).
> 
> Also, trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
> 
> One poll shows more people trust the Trump Administration than the MSM:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/media/318514-trump-admin-seen-as-more-truthful-than-news-media-poll
> 
> Even Trump's most controversial Executive Order has a 55% approval according to Morning Consult/Politico:
> 
> https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone who voted for Trump would suddenly be upset. Whether you love him or hate him, he's fulfilling campaign promises.



This is your second apology of textbook sexual assault.


----------



## Black Mamba

Axayacatl said:


> This is your second apology of textbook sexual assault.



Let me guess, you also get triggered when you hear "Baby, it's cold outside", right? Feminist, I presume?


----------



## Science_Penguin

Axayactl said:


> This is your second apology of textbook sexual assault.





Black Mamba said:


> Let me guess, you also get triggered when you hear "Baby, it's cold outside", right? Feminist, I presume?



Once again, I'd like to point out: We've got at least four more years of this scheiße to look forward to.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Black Mamba said:


> Let me guess, you also get triggered when you hear "Baby, it's cold outside", right? Feminist, I presume?



The one universal positive out of this whole thing is being able to tell exactly who is making this world a worse place in such little time.


----------



## Andromalia

CapnForsaggio said:


> It removes money and political influence from the game, and probability dictates that the person would most likely be a reasonable American.



Well, there's those 48ish% of americans who vote Trump who are, de facto, not reasonable, since they voted Trump to begin with. So you'd get a 48% chance of getting a Trump at every election. Given that duide seems crazy on a Kim Jong Un level, I'm nto sure this is a good idea.


----------



## blacai

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/5uwazi/yellowcake_uranium/?st=izcvc3g2&sh=ebf4229c

One of the best gifs I've seen...


----------



## jwade

For those of us not overly well-verses in US politics, is there any possibility of a hard reset? For example like calling an early election/referendum/etc? Something to the effect of a vote of no confidence leading to a redo for the whole election process?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jwade said:


> For those of us not overly well-verses in US politics, is there any possibility of a hard reset? For example like calling an early election/referendum/etc? Something to the effect of a vote of no confidence leading to a redo for the whole election process?



Possibility? Kinda. He can be impeached, but we don't get a fresh election, we just get the next in line who, in this case, is arguably worse if not any better. 

I think Pence would be worse. He's a career politician. He knows how to low key _f_uck us all.


----------



## JustMac

Haha this guy is great! Trump is a legend, wonder if he'll pop by Eire for paddy's day?!


----------



## StevenC

JustMac said:


> Haha this guy is great! Trump is a legend, wonder if he'll pop by Eire for paddy's day?!



There's enough orange in the flag already.


----------



## ElysianGuitars

MaxOfMetal said:


> Possibility? Kinda. He can be impeached, but we don't get a fresh election, we just get the next in line who, in this case, is arguably worse if not any better.
> 
> I think Pence would be worse. He's a career politician. He knows how to low key _f_uck us all.



I think that's probably true, but he also knows to work within the Constitution. I can't say the same for Trump.


----------



## crg123

blacai said:


> https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/5uwazi/yellowcake_uranium/?st=izcvc3g2&sh=ebf4229c
> 
> One of the best gifs I've seen...



lmao


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think Pence would be worse. He's a career politician. He knows how to low key _f_uck us all.



Yeah, Pence could do some serious long-term institutional damage (from the perspective of a non-fundamentalist Christian), probably more than Trump, but I'd still like to see an impeachment for a few reasons:

* Trump's attitude toward nuclear weapons, along with his emotional volatility and thin skin legitimately worry me. Constitutional issues aren't very important if we're all radioactive dust.
* Trump as national embarrassment. I'm an American living abroad, so I'm acutely aware of how our nation is perceived and how that's changed since Trump was elected. It's not good when South Africans are making fun of your country's corrupt and incompetent president. Pence at least comes across as dignified.
* Bannon. I see him as ideologically more dangerous than either of them and I think if Trump was out, Bannon would have to go with him. In general, it seems like Trump seems dead set on surrounding himself with incompetent, inexperienced yes-men or campaign donors (apparently that's what he meant by "drain the swamp"). I don't know for sure that Pence would be better, but I think he'd have to try pretty hard to do worse.
* Just plain accountability. If Trump has actually done some of the things he's been accused of, the message needs to be clear that even the president can be held accountable for his actions.

Also, Trump seems petty enough that if he were getting impeached, he'd figure out a way to drag Pence down with him...

Anyway, whether that happens or not, what I'm more afraid of this this kind of thing: https://www.thenation.com/article/t...fraud-will-lead-to-massive-voter-suppression/


----------



## zappatton2

The thing that gets me is this idea that if professional journalists aren't telling you what you want to hear, then it's "fake news", with no distinction that that term was coined to reference articles put into circulation on social media to deliberately spread unthruths (which is vastly different from real media sources sometimes getting their facts wrong and printing retractions).

The constant undermining of real media sources will do legitimate damage to the basic underpinnings of democracy and an informed electorate, and this cannot be understated. The media exists to speak truth to power, and this administration is seeking to impose power over truth. 

Has there ever been a point in American history where you literally have a government standing in front of you saying "two plus two equals five", and nearly half the electorate is willing to convince themselves of it to the point of repeating the same talking point the next day? I worry, because though I'm not American, there are enough people the world over who are willing to ignore what their eyes can see in front of them should it not feel personally validating enough, and at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it doesn't bode well for our future in any country.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> According to the HuffPost Pollster, Trump's approval rating roughly mirrors the percentage of the vote he received:
> 
> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval
> 
> Without looking at the internals of the polls, one may assume some oversample Dems. That was the case during the election, (especially with the Post-Debate polls).
> 
> Also, trust in the mainstream media is at an all-time low:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
> 
> One poll shows more people trust the Trump Administration than the MSM:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/media/318514-trump-admin-seen-as-more-truthful-than-news-media-poll
> 
> Even Trump's most controversial Executive Order has a 55% approval according to Morning Consult/Politico:
> 
> https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/
> 
> I'm not sure why anyone who voted for Trump would suddenly be upset. Whether you love him or hate him, he's fulfilling campaign promises.



Fivethirtyeight did a piece on this today, coincidentally, looking at dispersion in approval polling. Their conclusion was that Trump's approval is pretty close to even in polls that sample likely voters or registered voters, while he does a fair amount worse in polls surveying all adults. While the former will be important to watch as we get closer to the midterms to gauge the impact on those races, 1) as the president represents all americans and not merely those who voted for him (a distinction Trump often misses ) all adults polls like Gallup are probably the more reasonable standard here when gauging public sentiment of job performance 2) they were always the norm historically so they're the most sensible for long term comparisons with past presidents, and 3) no matter how you dice it, Trump's numbers are abysmal.  

And there's been a not-insignificant amount of regret amongst Trump voters, as a quick look at the Trump Regrets hashtag shows - less anecdotally, about a third of Americans in surveys were unaware that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing, so that's going to get awkward for him in a hurry once Americans start losing coverage.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Unfortunately, that's not true:
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/interactives/...ource=WWWV7HP&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles
> 
> He has the lowest approval ratings ever on record since GWB, who was down to about 27% when he left office. A few presidents registered lower than 36% approval prior to that - Bush Sr dipped into the 30s briefly at the end of his term, as did Reagan, and Carter got into the 20s for a bit, recovered, and then later fell back into the 30s.
> 
> The all-time low is still Richard Nixon, though, who appears to have bottomed out at 24%. Keep in mind that this is a president who was impeached by his own party, so considering Trump has given probable grounds (ordering DHS to continue to enforce his immigration ban over a justice department ban, for one, even if this whole Russia thing turns out to be a whole bunch of smoke but no fire), that's a useful precedent to watch. If he falls into the 20s, I think you run the risk of Ryan et al turning against him to try to salvage their 2020 chances.
> 
> *The fact that we're even having this conversation a little more than four weeks into his term, and a six point drop in approval would get him there, is kind of mind-boggling.*



I knew I forgot to come back to this, and thank you for the correction - I knew I wouldn't be 100% right given how hastily I Googled up and read the numbers, but I knew I'd ballpark it 

The bold I added was what all that was leading to.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> a third of Americans in surveys were unaware that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing, so that's going to get awkward for him in a hurry once Americans start losing coverage.



Some fault of that falls on Obama. 

He was strong about calling it the ACA to push back against the negative conduction of "Obamacare" as Republicans were billing it, then he did the interview where he said he liked the term "Obamacare" (seemingly in an attempt to show confidence in the program in a positive, so much so that he's willing to tether his name to it) signaling relaxed emphasis on ACA, then I started seeing the term "Obamacare" more and more in official or pseudo-official nomenclature about it.

Obama had a pretty good overall approval rate by most measures, but people just get bored/fatigued with ANYBODY who's in the public eye for a certain amount of time. We can get into a whole analysis about what variables created a Trump presidency, but suffice to say, a "billed as a progressive" black guy rumored to be Muslim Democrat is pretty close to the polar opposite of Donald Trump. 

Being able to connect people's frustrations over the ACA to the "let's shake things up" moving on from Obama was a narrative pretty much gift wrapped to Trump and Co. with the insistence on preserving "Obamacare", in name and practice.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Some fault of that falls on Obama.
> 
> He was strong about calling it the ACA to push back against the negative conduction of "Obamacare" as Republicans were billing it, then he did the interview where he said he liked the term "Obamacare" (seemingly in an attempt to show confidence in the program in a positive, so much so that he's willing to tether his name to it) signaling relaxed emphasis on ACA, then I started seeing the term "Obamacare" more and more in official or pseudo-official nomenclature about it.



That's a very good point.


----------



## wankerness

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/

Legislation underway in AZ to make it illegal to participate in a protest if "it might get violent," even before any violence actually happens. Whether it would get violent or not is totally up to the discretion of the arresting officers. Assets of those involved in the protest would be seized, and they would be criminally prosecuted. Literally no evidence of this "impending violence" would be necessary before slamming the protesters with this punishment.

That sure couldn't be abused!! I sure hope this becomes a national law so we don't have to put up with any voices of dissent from our overlords.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Apparently stuff is going down at the Dakota protests as well.

A man of the people, clearly.


----------



## vilk

Too many people are violently protesting.
_What should we do?_
Just fine'em, lock'em up, whatever we gotta do to f///'em. 
_You really think that will fix the problem?_
I don't give a sh/t.


----------



## flint757

vilk said:


> Too many people are violently protesting.
> _What should we do?_
> Just fine'em, lock'em up, whatever we gotta do to f///'em.
> _You really think that will fix the problem?_
> I don't give a sh/t.



That's short-sighted. The long game is that laws like this seriously impede freedom of assembly and free speech. In a better world it would be criminal for our representatives to choose not to represent us. If it worked that way there'd be no need for protesting.


----------



## UnderTheSign

It's funny/weird because the few alt righters I am friends with on Facebook all fanatically support free speech (especially when their golden boy Milo gets crap for being an a-hole again). Yet it's the "regressive left" that's the authoritarian danger.


----------



## vilk

flint757 said:


> That's short-sighted. The long game is that laws like this seriously impede freedom of assembly and free speech. In a better world it would be criminal for our representatives to choose not to represent us. If it worked that way there'd be no need for protesting.



My post was satirical. I guess that means it's good satire if you believed it? idk sometimes I try to like... screenplay a thought process to highlight how stupid it is


----------



## flint757

vilk said:


> My post was satirical. It's satire. I guess that means it's good if you believed it, eh?





Indeed.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2017/02/22/arizona-senate-crackdown-on-protests/
> 
> Legislation underway in AZ to make it illegal to participate in a protest if "it might get violent," even before any violence actually happens. Whether it would get violent or not is totally up to the discretion of the arresting officers. Assets of those involved in the protest would be seized, and they would be criminally prosecuted. Literally no evidence of this "impending violence" would be necessary before slamming the protesters with this punishment.
> 
> That sure couldn't be abused!! I sure hope this becomes a national law so we don't have to put up with any voices of dissent from our overlords.



I'm pretty sure that's unconstitutional, although, that's rarely stopped anybody before.

The problem with this mentality, is that it either breaks the people's spirits or bolsters them. If this bolsters anti-government sentiment, then things just escalate.

The government is not supposed to intervene, unless it is necessary to protect life, liberty, or property of its citizens. In the case where citizens are denied the right to assemble maybe-violently, which is still peacefully in deed, we are simply talking about authoritarianism beyond the bounds set in place by the founding fathers of the US.


----------



## thraxil

vilk said:


> My post was satirical. I guess that means it's good satire if you believed it? idk sometimes I try to like... screenplay a thought process to highlight how stupid it is



Poe's law is increasingly relevant on a daily basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law


----------



## vilk

^Haha wow! It's my first time to hear it. That's funny, because I post satirical sh/t online like alllll the time (on a different website).


----------



## Danukenator

thraxil said:


> Poe's law is increasingly relevant on a daily basis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law



If anything Poe's law is almost losing power in a certain sense. I'm not usually a Joe Rogan listener but after seeing clips of his interviews with Milo and Gavin, it's impossible to tell the difference between "oh, that was just an obnoxious statement to rile people up" and their genuine beliefs. That way, you can always pull the classic "it was obviously a joke, dude" card. Supporters will give the most charitable interpretation and say it was obvious when they were joking and when they were being serious.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Now Trump's coming after my legal weed. What the fvck happened to state's rights? I guess that just meant pertaining to abortion, gay marriage and discrimination laws.


----------



## thraxil

Danukenator said:


> If anything Poe's law is almost losing power in a certain sense. I'm not usually a Joe Rogan listener but after seeing clips of his interviews with Milo and Gavin, it's impossible to tell the difference between "oh, that was just an obnoxious statement to rile people up" and their genuine beliefs. That way, you can always pull the classic "it was obviously a joke, dude" card. Supporters will give the most charitable interpretation and say it was obvious when they were joking and when they were being serious.



That's kind of what I was getting at though. It used to be enough that extremists' views were so crazy that you couldn't parody them without risking being taken for serious. Now they parody themselves and wrap everything in layers of irony and jokes to blur things even further. The point of Poe's law stands though: especially online, parody and satire are no longer distinguishable from real arguments.


----------



## Demiurge

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Now Trump's coming after my legal weed. What the fvck happened to state's rights? I guess that just meant pertaining to abortion, gay marriage and discrimination laws.



I can't say I'm surprised, really. The Trump supporters I know who were pro-marijuana had projected this sort of Libertarian image upon him, but we all know that with American politics, the federal government is always going to be big enough to stick their fingers in other people's business.

It's not much of a loss here in MA as retail sales of product weren't slated to be allowed until 2018, and with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle working furiously to push-back and limit what we voted for, the DOJ would pretty much be performing a mercy-killing.


----------



## vilk

I don't understand how marijuana prohibition is constitutionally able to exist. I mean, it is on the record as having been started for the specifically racist reasons, like it causes white women to sleep with black jazz musicians, or it makes a black man able to look a white man in the eye and step on his shadow.

It's never been shown to be dangerous to use--at least, there are no recorded deaths from using marijuana. There is literally no foundation for prohibition other than antiquated propaganda nonsense that's been disproved 100 times over.

Like, doesn't anyone ask politicians to defend their position of pro-prohibitionism? What could someone even say? I don't feel I need to actually hear Trump's speech to know that he didn't even attempt to offer any kind of convincing reason based in reality.


----------



## Randy

Because marijuana is still listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. The argument is that you can't arbitrarily de-regulate or choose not to enforce one drug on that list and not another, because of the precedent it sets.

The solution to this would've been to have the drug removed from Schedule I status, which the Congress or the DEA or the FDA could've made recommendations to do but clearly that hasn't been the government's priority.


----------



## vilk

I don't understand why they aren't obligated to take it off the list then? Or why marijuana advocates don't try to get the list thrown out? I mean, if we call this a two sided issue, only ONE side has ANY foundation, so it veritably couldn't lose I would imagine.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The ceaseless creation of ever-more arbitrary and needless federal laws will eventually make a "criminal" of everyone.

The goal is to enable the state to assassinate your character/person at their whim.

What do you think the NSA data collection/Patriot Act/ Telecom act/ Internet neutrality was about?


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I don't understand why they aren't obligated to take it off the list then? Or why marijuana advocates don't try to get the list thrown out? I mean, if we call this a two sided issue, only ONE side has ANY foundation, so it veritably couldn't lose I would imagine.



Because members of Congress from both parties and even the previous administration deliberately leave arcane and archaic laws on the books for the sake of selective enforcement where it suits them. 

Obama or the Democrats might've thought they could leave marijuana prohibition on the books as a tool for law enforcement to attack larger inner city crime (I'm just speculating here), but miscalculated the likelihood the next president would be an autocratic psychopath who would use it to imprison and deport scores of people (oh, and further enrich the for-profit prison industry, which they newly rekindled).

This is exactly the problem with the current Democratic party, and their constantly measured and focus tested approach to legislating. Obama (and a majority Democratic House and Senate) were elected to mop up after the Authoritarian nightmare laid out by GWB, and instead they left the "surveillance state" and scores of stone aged laws intact because they suited their purpose. You had a couple rushed pieces and executive orders in the last few months to stem the fallout of Trump having those powers, but it was a paper thin attempt. The Dems had 2 years in leadership in both houses and Obama had 8 years to "take the reins" on these issues, and they opted for incrementalism instead; now here we are.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> The ceaseless creation of ever-more arbitrary and needless federal laws will eventually make a "criminal" of everyone.
> 
> The goal is to enable the state to assassinate your character/person at their whim.
> 
> What do you think the NSA data collection/Patriot Act/ Telecom act/ Internet neutrality was about?


----------



## flint757

Randy said:


> Because members of Congress from both parties and even the previous administration deliberately leave arcane and archaic laws on the books for the sake of selective enforcement where it suits them.
> 
> Obama or the Democrats might've thought they could leave marijuana prohibition on the books as a tool for law enforcement to attack larger inner city crime (I'm just speculating here), but miscalculated the likelihood the next president would be an autocratic psychopath who would use it to imprison and deport scores of people (oh, and further enrich the for-profit prison industry, which they newly rekindled).
> 
> This is exactly the problem with the current Democratic party, and their constantly measured and focus tested approach to legislating. Obama (and a majority Democratic House and Senate) were elected to mop up after the Authoritarian nightmare laid out by GWB, and instead they left the "surveillance state" and scores of stone aged laws intact because they suited their purpose. You had a couple rushed pieces and executive orders in the last few months to stem the fallout of Trump having those powers, but it was a paper thin attempt. The Dems had 2 years in leadership in both houses and Obama had 8 years to "take the reins" on these issues, and they opted for incrementalism instead; now here we are.





Randy said:


>


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Because members of Congress from both parties and even the previous administration deliberately leave arcane and archaic laws on the books for the sake of selective enforcement where it suits them.
> 
> Obama or the Democrats might've thought they could leave marijuana prohibition on the books as a tool for law enforcement to attack larger inner city crime (I'm just speculating here), but miscalculated the likelihood the next president would be an autocratic psychopath who would use it to imprison and deport scores of people (oh, and further enrich the for-profit prison industry, which they newly rekindled).
> 
> This is exactly the problem with the current Democratic party, and their constantly measured and focus tested approach to legislating. Obama (and a majority Democratic House and Senate) were elected to mop up after the Authoritarian nightmare laid out by GWB, and instead they left the "surveillance state" and scores of stone aged laws intact because they suited their purpose. You had a couple rushed pieces and executive orders in the last few months to stem the fallout of Trump having those powers, but it was a paper thin attempt. The Dems had 2 years in leadership in both houses and Obama had 8 years to "take the reins" on these issues, and they opted for incrementalism instead; now here we are.







You basically just articulated my thoughts of the political situation in the USA over the past fifteen years more clearly than I could have done.


----------



## Danukenator

Randy said:


> Obama (and a majority Democratic House and Senate) were elected to mop up after the Authoritarian nightmare laid out by GWB, and instead they left the "surveillance state" and scores of stone aged laws intact because they suited their purpose. You had a couple rushed pieces and executive orders in the last few months to stem the fallout of Trump having those powers, but it was a paper thin attempt. The Dems had 2 years in leadership in both houses and Obama had 8 years to "take the reins" on these issues, and they opted for incrementalism instead; now here we are.



I definitely agree with this. With the benefit of hindsight, it looks especially bad now. However, I can see the logic in the incremental approach to governance following an especially rotten taste left in peoples mouths from the GWB administration. In theory, the idea was get everyone on the same page again.

However, after it became clear compromise wouldn't happen, the Obama administration should have pivoted to the sledge hammer approach. Especially once the far-right began to gain traction, the appearance of a strong, Democratic counterpart was necessary and failed to manifest. In general, it seems the Democrats are failing to translate complex and, at times, technocratic policies and positions into something people can get behind. I'm not a fan of populism but at the same time it's clear being devoid of populism is destined to fail.

My big fear is that we won't get a strong, center-left leadership. It seems that the progressive agendas like what Warren and Sanders generally put forward appear untenable or implausible (ex. free college) to the voting majority. 

Who are the major center-left figures at the moment? I feel like I'm only familiar with the ones who are more progressive.


----------



## flint757

Danukenator said:


> Who are the major center-left figures at the moment? I feel like I'm only familiar with the ones who are more progressive.



That's because all of the 'center' Democrats are spineless and prone to (legal) corruption. They don't make waves and they take loads of corporate money. It's not a recipe for standing out.

Tulsi Gabbard stands out as someone who can't be pinned to just one part of the spectrum, but she is supportive of single payer and cheaper education. 

Just so it's a bit more clear, what do you qualify as center-left in a policy discussion?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

What I find most ridiculous about marijuana prohibition (well I think it's all dumb) is that the DEA claims it has no medicinal benefit therefore it is schedule one. How do you prove it has medicinal benefits? By researching it. But oh yeah, because it's schedule one it's illegal to research it. 
Such bullsh1t


----------



## bostjan

Every time I watch the election coverage



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> What I find most ridiculous about marijuana prohibition (well I think it's all dumb) is that the DEA claims it has no medicinal benefit therefore it is schedule one. How do you prove it has medicinal benefits? By researching it. But oh yeah, because it's schedule one it's illegal to research it.
> Such bullsh1t



It's actually not illegal to research it, it's just extremely difficult to research it legally.

Also, a lot of Schedule I drugs have medicinal uses. Most of them started out being used as medicine long before the FDA.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> What I find most ridiculous about marijuana prohibition (well I think it's all dumb) is that the DEA claims it has no medicinal benefit therefore it is schedule one. How do you prove it has medicinal benefits? By researching it. But oh yeah, because it's schedule one it's illegal to research it.
> Such bullsh1t



Who were the biggest lobbyist associated with ACA?

1) Pharma
2) Insurance (that pays for the use of pharma)

Do you need me to spell out EXACTLY why Obama's DEA didn't de-list mj?

Edit: States that have med MJ show massive decreases in prescriptions for opioid pain killers.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Who were the biggest lobbyist associated with ACA?
> 
> 1) Pharma
> 2) Insurance (that pays for the use of pharma)
> 
> Do you need me to spell out EXACTLY why Obama's DEA didn't de-list mj?
> 
> Edit: States that have med MJ show massive decreases in prescriptions for opioid pain killers.



Huh?
source: Forbes

Also, what is your point?
source: Denver Post


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Huh?
> source: Forbes
> 
> Also, what is your point?
> source: Denver Post




Source, among many: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-pharmas-obamacare-reward-1423180690

I believe I presented the most logical explanation for why the DEA didn't de list MJ.

Do you have an alternative explanation that doesn't defy reality?

It seems like an easy decision for Obama's DEA to delist, to me and EVERYONE ELSE. So I am curious to hear what you propose was the reason:>


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Source, among many: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-pharmas-obamacare-reward-1423180690
> 
> I believe I presented the most logical explanation for why the DEA didn't de list MJ.
> 
> Do you have an alternative explanation that doesn't defy reality?
> 
> It seems like an easy decision for Obama's DEA to delist, to me and EVERYONE ELSE. So I am curious to hear what you propose was the reason:>



I don't have a subscription to the WSJ, so I can't see your article.

I'm not saying that your ultimate point is wrong, just that the logic you are using to get there is unclear to me.

The answer to the question "Why doesn't the DEA de-list cannabis from Schedule I?" is not as simple as everyone wants it to be, but here are some points (not that I agree with these, just paraphrasing the DEA's stance):

1. There isn't enough peer-reviewed data proving the benefits.
2. There is peer-reviewed data proving some dangers.
3. There is a lot of political clout behind the prohibition. There may be almost as much clout behind legalization, but, until the tides are fully turned, it'd be foolish for the DEA to decide to de-list if they are uncertain congress will back the decision, and, most likely, congress would not, at this point in time, approve of de-listing the substance.
4. Change moves slow at the federal level.

The pharma industry might well likely be a part of that, but how big a part is unclear.

As far as the ACA: The legislation started out as a campaign promise that resonated with people. It was then met with tons of resistance, and was modified to try to please more people, but, the end result, was a big mess. I'm not disagreeing with that, or the fact that the healthcare industry and insurance industry played a major role in that story. Where I'm unclear here, thus the "huh?", was in your wording, trying to parse what you were getting at. That's all, no sarcasm.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Occam's Razor. or, Follow the money.

I don't believe you have presented any evidence those items were considered at all.

On the otherhand, it is readily findable that big pharma was a MAJOR lobbyist during the Obama years.

And here we are at the ROOT of our political problem in the US:

Just because politicians like Obama or Hillary can say, 'we don't know why this company gave us a billion dollars to get elected, but it has NOTHING to do with our actions as leaders.' doesn't mean American's have to believe them.

Stop believing them, and own it. Just own it.

Big pharma was Obama's dose. Big banks were Hillary's dose.


----------



## Randy

Well, since we're being speculative... what's Trump's dose?


----------



## Danukenator

flint757 said:


> Just so it's a bit more clear, what do you qualify as center-left in a policy discussion?



That's actually a really good question and I'm not 10% sure I can articulate it well (though I should be able to).

I suppose in general, a center-left Democrat would be a supporter of "big" government programs which provide economic/social benefits (science funding, investment into infrastructure development, providing social services, etc), an advocate for a strong federal government (this is issues dependent but I see education as a prime example here), and a protector of minority or disenfranchised groups. To be clear, though it seems I'm in good company here, "big" government doesn't just mean having a ....load of federal employees that do nothing but rather a willingness to spend on programs which provide that aforementioned benefits. 

There is probably more but I feel like a lot of the smaller stuff (ex. a commitment to preserving the environment) falls near the stuff I already mentioned.


----------



## Danukenator

Randy said:


> Well, since we're being speculative... what's Trump's dose?



A pure desire to make America great again! DUH!


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Occam's Razor. or, Follow the money.
> 
> I don't believe you have presented any evidence those items were considered at all.



Try this: http://time.com/4447462/marijuana-dea-schedule-i-drug/

I just googled "Why the DEA won't de-list cannabis" and it was one of the first things to come up, and it basically covers 80% of what I just said in one article.

Here's one example of a scholarly paper on cannabis/cannabinoids. You can find tons with the same tone as this. Most of the papers supporting legalization are less "professional." I don't see them too often in peer-reviewed journals.

Here's a really well-written paper on the adverse long-term effects of cannabis on developing brains.

This is your brain on drugs...any questions?



CapnForsaggio said:


> On the otherhand, it is readily findable that big pharma was a MAJOR lobbyist during the Obama years.
> 
> And here we are at the ROOT of our political problem in the US:
> 
> Just because politicians like Obama or Hillary can say, 'we don't know why this company gave us a billion dollars to get elected, but it has NOTHING to do with our actions as leaders.' doesn't mean American's have to believe them.
> 
> Stop believing them, and own it. Just own it.
> 
> Big pharma was Obama's dose. Big banks were Hillary's dose.



Are we playing the pronoun game, now? Or is this Mad Libs? (ha ha "libs," I made a pun)

I mean, big pharma was a major lobbyist during the GWB years. Big pharma was a major lobbyist during the Bill Clinton years. Big pharma was a major lobbyist during the _________ ( president ) years.

If Trump shuts out big pharma, which it appears he is doing, he'll be the first president to do so in my life, and I'm old.

So, again, I'm kind of missing the point. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't understand you.

I support legalization. Again, I'm explaining to you *why* the DEA _does not_. And, well, it should be pretty obvious. If you think that the legalization of cannabis is being held up solely by big pharma, then you are wrong. And if not, well, either way, I just don't really know what you _are_ saying.

As for the ACA, I really don't know what you are saying. You just dropped "ACA" into a post in response to something about drug use with no context. It seemed almost like you just wanted to say "ACA."

I mean, if I did that sort of thing, I'm sure you would be confused, as well.

My dog hates daylight savings time. You know who was the biggest lobbyist associated with DST? The electric company. Yeah, that's right. Booyah.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Randy said:


> Well, since we're being speculative... what's Trump's dose?



If you want to evaluate this honestly, we can say a few things:

1) It probably isn't corporate sponsorship, as demonstrated by his campaign activities during his first election.

2) He probably IS beholden to SOMETHING... albeit less financially traditional. Could we say the "hot button issues" of his support? Things like "the wall" and "banning terrorists"

3) Or maybe pissing prostitutes?


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> 1. There isn't enough peer-reviewed data proving the benefits.
> 2. There is peer-reviewed data proving some dangers.
> 3. There is a lot of political clout behind the prohibition. There may be almost as much clout behind legalization, but, until the tides are fully turned, it'd be foolish for the DEA to decide to de-list if they are uncertain congress will back the decision, and, most likely, congress would not, at this point in time, approve of de-listing the substance.
> 4. Change moves slow at the federal level.



I know that's you channeling the DEA, so this is me responding the the DEA being channeled through you

1. Since when does a product need to proven to be beneficial in order that it not be illegal? Should anime figurines be Schedule I?
2. Putting veritably any substance into your body constantly affects your brain development. I believe it's even true of super-caloric foods like McDonalds. Should I need a doctors note to purchase a Big Mac? Irrespective of that not-so-good point, we already have precedent for this with alcohol, which is not illegal anywhere except Tennessee. 
3. This is a valid point, I guess, though the [teeny-tiny, feeble] optimist in me thinks congress would de-list it. Is the solution to never even try? If you bring it up one time and it doesn't get through, does that mean you can't try again for some period? (that's a legit question; I do not know the answer).
4. I know Uncle Sam isn't famous for his speed, but I'm not aware of ANY efforts being made _whatsoever_ to end pot prohibition. On the federal level, that is.

Sorry, this is turning into a weird derailment. No one need reply unless they're interested to continue it


----------



## wankerness

Part of the thing that makes the marijuana thing look especially bad is his administration ALSO just rescinded the order to start phasing out for-profit prisons. So essentially, the administration is saying that we'll continue indefinitely enforcing laws that were on their way out (that also massively disproportionately affect black people thanks to the three strike thing, and obviously filthy hippies), and thus continue feeding the prison industry more and more people, boosting their profits. It's sick. It COULD be totally unconnected, but it seems really unlikely. And it serves the same purpose either way.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

^ This guy gets it. Regardless of controlling party, your government has NEVER done anything that didn't make someone ALOT of money.

Never.

Choose small government, and personal rights. Everything else is fantasy.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Marijuana use may affect a developing brain by so does alcohol. Also, my phrasing was bad. The scheduling of the drug makes it difficult to get it researched. When it is it is typically funded by the government, which makes it hard for me to view as being without bias.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I know that's you channeling the DEA, so this is me responding the the DEA being channeled through you
> 
> 1. Since when does a product need to proven to be beneficial in order that it not be illegal? Should anime figurines be Schedule I?
> 2. Putting veritably any substance into your body constantly affects your brain development. I believe it's even true of super-caloric foods like McDonalds. Should I need a doctors note to purchase a Big Mac? Irrespective of that not-so-good point, we already have precedent for this with alcohol, which is not illegal anywhere except Tennessee.
> 3. This is a valid point, I guess, though the [teeny-tiny, feeble] optimist in me thinks congress would de-list it. Is the solution to never even try? If you bring it up one time and it doesn't get through, does that mean you can't try again for some period? (that's a legit question; I do not know the answer).
> 4. I know Uncle Sam isn't famous for his speed, but I'm not aware of ANY efforts being made _whatsoever_ to end pot prohibition. On the federal level, that is.
> 
> Sorry, this is turning into a weird derailment. No one need reply unless they're interested to continue it



There is no good reason it was ever prohibited.
The DEA is a policing agency, though.
Alcohol is illegal in quite a few places, actually.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> 3. There is a lot of political clout behind the prohibition. There may be almost as much clout behind legalization, but, until the tides are fully turned, it'd be foolish for the DEA to decide to de-list if they are uncertain congress will back the decision, and, most likely, congress would not, at this point in time, approve of de-listing the substance..



In Trump and the "too-cowardly-to-throw-a-punch-but-not-ashamed-to-kick-someone-while-theyre-down" GOP Congress's version of America? No, probably not.

But regarding your point about about benefits, its legal for medical use in 28 states (as in, more than half of them). I don't know what the threshold to meet that was in other States but in NY, it was based on reputable studies showing it was effective at treating certain ailments and as such, a script for medical marijuana can be written when diagnosed with one of those ailments.

If NY can research and reach consensus medical determination on marijuana, and apparently more than half the states in this country can reach the same conclusion, I think we're past the tipping point of considering marijuana as a practical medical treatment. That fact alone should be enough to push the DEA or the FDA for a nod on the subject. 

The fact that hasn't happened is a pretty clear indication political shenanigans are at least mildly in play here. I know it's not fashionable to agree with Cap'n, but the fact marijuana is medicine you can grow at home cheap and the federal government chooses to wear blinders regarding extensive findings its benefits outweigh it's risks cannot be ignored.

Considering more than half the states (that alone should be threshold for a rewrite of the law) have made the determination its safe enough for recreational or medical use (backed up by their own medical studies), I'm all ears on alternative theories why the federal level are so behind the times on this one

Trump and Obama both had no problems moving at lightning pace issuing executive orders when it suits them. Congress have fielded, voted on, amended and revoted a million items since states had reached consensus on marijuana. Regulatory agencies have fielded and created regulations on things that didn't even exist before marijuana consensus had been established (see: FAA regulations, licensing and procedures for UAVs), so on. The excuses as to why there hasn't been any movement sounds more and more like, well, excuses.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Randy said:


> If NY can research and reach consensus medical determination on marijuana, and apparently more than half the states in this country can reach the same conclusion, I think we're past the tipping point of considering marijuana as a practical medical treatment. That fact alone should be enough to push the DEA or the FDA for a nod on the subject.
> 
> The fact that hasn't happened is a pretty clear indication political shenanigans are at least mildly in play here.



Exactly this. One of the indicators that our political system and federal government are far from representative of the people's will in my opinion. I personally don't understand why things like this can't be left up to a vote. It just seems so contradictory to Democracy to criminalize something while so many Americans see no problem in it's use. But then again, the war on drugs
has never been anything more than a way to demonize political opponents and create revenue. 

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," and "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

And:

"Belita Nelson told a group of doctors and nurses at the Marijuana for Medical Professionals Conference in Denver that the DEA&#8217;s philosophy was: 'Marijuana is safe, we know it is safe. It&#8217;s our cash cow and we will never give up.'"

http://medicine.news/2017-02-02-for...ts-the-agencys-cash-cow-for-more-funding.html


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> In Trump and the "too-cowardly-to-throw-a-punch-but-not-ashamed-to-kick-someone-while-theyre-down" GOP Congress's version of America? No, probably not.
> 
> But regarding your point about about benefits, its legal for medical use in 28 states (as in, more than half of them). I don't know what the threshold to meet that was in other States but in NY, it was based on reputable studies showing it was effective at treating certain ailments and as such, a script for medical marijuana can be written when diagnosed with one of those ailments.
> 
> If NY can research and reach consensus medical determination on marijuana, and apparently more than half the states in this country can reach the same conclusion, I think we're past the tipping point of considering marijuana as a practical medical treatment. That fact alone should be enough to push the DEA or the FDA for a nod on the subject.
> 
> The fact that hasn't happened is a pretty clear indication political shenanigans are at least mildly in play here. I know it's not fashionable to agree with Cap'n, but the fact marijuana is medicine you can grow at home cheap and the federal government chooses to wear blinders regarding extensive findings its benefits outweigh it's risks cannot be ignored.
> 
> Considering more than half the states (that alone should be threshold for a rewrite of the law) have made the determination its safe enough for recreational or medical use (backed up by their own medical studies), I'm all ears on alternative theories why the federal level are so behind the times on this one
> 
> Trump and Obama both had no problems moving at lightning pace issuing executive orders when it suits them. Congress have fielded, voted on, amended and revoted a million items since states had reached consensus on marijuana. Regulatory agencies have fielded and created regulations on things that didn't even exist before marijuana consensus had been established (see: FAA regulations, licensing and procedures for UAVs), so on. The excuses as to why there hasn't been any movement sounds more and more like, well, excuses.



Hi Randy,

I was paraphrasing the DEA's position, not my own. Sorry for the confusion.

In the federal government's eyes, the official position is that cannabis is dangerous, somehow. The states seem to have taken either the position to let the voters decide, or simply not to care one way or the other.

In my personal opinion, there is reliable evidence that cannabinoids can have some lasting (permanent or semi-permanent) effects on developing brains (aged <~13-14 years). If there were a minimum age to purchase the substance, say 18, then it's really a totally moot point, though.

As a firm believer that the role of government is to impose a rule of law that
protects people's lives, liberties, and personal property from others (could be people within the same government, the people from another government, or people involved in the government itself), I really do not see regulation of cannabis as any of the government's business, from an ideological standpoint. I, myself, do not use the substance, and I would urge others to stay away from it, but if they want to ignore my urging, and use the substance anyway, it's really not any of my business, either.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Do you urge people to stay away from alcohol?


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Do you urge people to stay away from alcohol?



Do you urge people not to?

Look, alcohol, in excess, is horrible for you. It kills your liver, chokes out your brain, and seriously impairs your judgement.

Weed, in excess, can damage your lungs. Moderate use impairs your judgement more than moderate amounts of alcohol, and your liver and brain are still affected acutely.

I don't want to get into another pissing match over whether weed is good for you or bad for you. I've seen, firsthand, what it does to people when used in excess. I've seen what happens when people use it and then decide to operate a vehicle, and I've seen people lose their inhibitions and do stupid stuff at work after coming in high. In none of these situations, would it be prudent to substitute alcohol to make it any better.

If you want to do drugs, recreationally, then you aren't going to listen to reason anyway, are you? I'm certainly not going to stop you. If you are going to sit at home and smoke whatever drugs you want, it's none of my business. If a friend of mine is letting his life get out of control because of some substance, a video game, or even addiction to french fries, I'm going to try to talk him out of it. I'd be way more concerned about him smoking an ounce of weed a day than drinking a beer every Friday night to relax, but I'd be _way_ more concerned about him if he was drinking a fifth of hard liquor daily.

Weed has chemicals in it that mess with your brain. I don't think anyone would deny that. The long term effects in adults are probably negligible. The long term effects in teens and preteens, however, has been studied and it is not good.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

No. My point is you literally said,"I, myself, do not use the substance, and I would urge others to stay away from it". 
So do you urge people to stay away from alcohol or do you just have a negative bias against weed? 
Seeing that you've never smoked you have zero reference for regular smoking. No one is smoking an ounce of weed a night, that's absolutely ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is comparing that to drinking a beer. Drinking a beer is like taking a single puff. It's far from a fair comparison. 
Weed is significantly safer for you than alcohol, that's undebatable. Even if used by adolescents it will still harm them less than alcohol. Of course I'm not advocating that we should have kids smoke weed, my desire to legalize doesn't mean, "Everyone should blaze it 420, kids, adults, grandparents!" 

Alcohol and tobacco have age restriction so pot should as well. I'll leave you with one more thing. It's much easier for a teen to get weed when it's illegal and the guy selling it is breaking the law regardless of who he sells it to, versus a store where they check your ID before you can even enter. Street weed and the black market have died out significantly in Seattle since regulation. It's created thousands of jobs and plenty of tax revenue.

Also, +1 for your "I have a friend argument". That always works with convincing me someone is an expert. Like those claiming they aren't racist, "I have a black friend, but..."

I'll counter with my own I have a friend. 
I have multiple friends, mostly in Computer Science programs or engineering, who smoke weed on a daily basis. I'm a mathematics major and I smoke just about every day as well. None of us have ruined our lives and are objectively in good situations. 
Maybe your friends have poor will or are predisposed to addictive tendancies. Blaming pot is failing to see it is inchangeable for people like this.


----------



## mongey

bostjan said:


> Do you urge people not to?
> 
> Look, alcohol, in excess, is horrible for you. It kills your liver, chokes out your brain, and seriously impairs your judgement.
> 
> Weed, in excess, can damage your lungs. Moderate use impairs your judgement more than moderate amounts of alcohol, and your liver and brain are still affected acutely.
> 
> I don't want to get into another pissing match over whether weed is good for you or bad for you. I've seen, firsthand, what it does to people when used in excess. I've seen what happens when people use it and then decide to operate a vehicle, and I've seen people lose their inhibitions and do stupid stuff at work after coming in high. In none of these situations, would it be prudent to substitute alcohol to make it any better.
> 
> If you want to do drugs, recreationally, then you aren't going to listen to reason anyway, are you? I'm certainly not going to stop you. If you are going to sit at home and smoke whatever drugs you want, it's none of my business. If a friend of mine is letting his life get out of control because of some substance, a video game, or even addiction to french fries, I'm going to try to talk him out of it. I'd be way more concerned about him smoking an ounce of weed a day than drinking a beer every Friday night to relax, but I'd be _way_ more concerned about him if he was drinking a fifth of hard liquor daily.
> 
> Weed has chemicals in it that mess with your brain. I don't think anyone would deny that. The long term effects in adults are probably negligible. The long term effects in teens and preteens, however, has been studied and it is not good.



As someone who smoked a ton for about 15 years but now like once or twice a year I'd disagree with your perception that moderate weed use effects you more than moderate drinking. I think you make much better choices stoned than drunk. I do anyway. Also weed doesn't mess with your perception and coordination like booze. 

If you spend time in Amsterdam the weeds cafes are way more chill and socially heathy places than bars.

anyway back to trump I guess.


----------



## narad

Scumbag US: 
"No smoking pot because it might affect your developing IQ!"

..doesn't invest anything into a failing education system.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The fact I can, today, go buy a rife, a handgun, two handles of hard liquor, a carton of cigarettes, a giant stogie, a large extra meat lovers pizza with a 32oz+ energy drink soda and partake in the use of all of it in public but can't smoke a bowl in my own bedroom is hilarious, or at least it would be if it wasn't so freaking insane. 

The government doesn't care if I kill myself with any vice as long as it doesn't upset some clueless baby boomer.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Well Max we couldn't deviate from our wholesome Puritan values now could we? 

On a Trump related note, I find it hilarious that George W. is sounding like a voice of reason in the current climate. I was too young to ever fully grasp what he did but I know the common consensus was that he was a dumbass. 
Trump is like the 3 that a group of 7's hang out with to look like a 10


----------



## MaxOfMetal

While Dubya was known for being a socially awkward bafoon, he really wasn't on the level of what Trump is turning out to be thus far. I'd even go as far as to say that Pence is probably more of a monster than Cheney even was. At least Cheney was in it for the money, Pence just wants people to suffer.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> No. My point is you literally said,"I, myself, do not use the substance, and I would urge others to stay away from it".
> So do you urge people to stay away from alcohol or do you just have a negative bias against weed?
> Seeing that you've never smoked you have zero reference for regular smoking. No one is smoking an ounce of weed a night, that's absolutely ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is comparing that to drinking a beer. Drinking a beer is like taking a single puff. It's far from a fair comparison.
> Weed is significantly safer for you than alcohol, that's undebatable. Even if used by adolescents it will still harm them less than alcohol. Of course I'm not advocating that we should have kids smoke weed, my desire to legalize doesn't mean, "Everyone should blaze it 420, kids, adults, grandparents!"
> 
> Alcohol and tobacco have age restriction so pot should as well. I'll leave you with one more thing. It's much easier for a teen to get weed when it's illegal and the guy selling it is breaking the law regardless of who he sells it to, versus a store where they check your ID before you can even enter. Street weed and the black market have died out significantly in Seattle since regulation. It's created thousands of jobs and plenty of tax revenue.
> 
> Also, +1 for your "I have a friend argument". That always works with convincing me someone is an expert. Like those claiming they aren't racist, "I have a black friend, but..."
> 
> I'll counter with my own I have a friend.
> I have multiple friends, mostly in Computer Science programs or engineering, who smoke weed on a daily basis. I'm a mathematics major and I smoke just about every day as well. None of us have ruined our lives and are objectively in good situations.
> Maybe your friends have poor will or are predisposed to addictive tendancies. Blaming pot is failing to see it is inchangeable for people like this.



What are you trying to debate with me?


----------



## bostjan

mongey said:


> Also weed doesn't mess with your perception and coordination like booze.



I strongly disagree:

Effect of cannabis use on cognitive functions and driving ability.
Effects of marijuana on equilibrium, psychomotor performance, and simulated driving.
Effects of cannabis on driving

That's really the danger in cannabis use - people who use cannabis are impaired. Period. But they believe that they are not impaired, so they make stupid decisions.



> Cannabis is currently one of the leading substances reported in arrests, emergency room admissions, autopsies and treatment admissions.



Changing the focus: the case for recognizing and treating cannabis use disorders.

Drunks do the same thing, of course.

If you want to use pot, fine. Just please please stop spreading lies about it. It should be no debate that any psychoactive drug has an effect on the brain. THC is a depressant on the nervous system, which is well known, and quite obvious from its effects. Any depressant taken in large enough doses will cause slower reasoning and impaired judgement. These are things that are very basic logic. If we are on the same page there, which I think we ought to be, then it's merely a question of potency, right?


----------



## vilk

^Don't tell that to my high score on Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> ^Don't tell that to my high score on Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> ^Don't tell that to my high score on Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4



Well, yeah, but ask just about any amateur bowler about bowling sober versus bowling buzzed.

There is an effect with light intoxication that allows a drug user to tune out some distractions, and thus focus more on something like a game, but in the context of driving, this could be dangerous in certain circumstances.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Hi Randy,
> 
> I was paraphrasing the DEA's position, not my own. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> In the federal government's eyes, the official position is that cannabis is dangerous, somehow. The states seem to have taken either the position to let the voters decide, or simply not to care one way or the other.
> 
> In my personal opinion, there is reliable evidence that cannabinoids can have some lasting (permanent or semi-permanent) effects on developing brains (aged <~13-14 years). If there were a minimum age to purchase the substance, say 18, then it's really a totally moot point, though.
> 
> As a firm believer that the role of government is to impose a rule of law that
> protects people's lives, liberties, and personal property from others (could be people within the same government, the people from another government, or people involved in the government itself), I really do not see regulation of cannabis as any of the government's business, from an ideological standpoint. I, myself, do not use the substance, and I would urge others to stay away from it, but if they want to ignore my urging, and use the substance anyway, it's really not any of my business, either.



With all due respect, you're ignoring a significant part of my argument, which is that those states have cleared marijuana for MEDICAL use. As some background, here's the ailments NYS has deemed marijuana can be used to treat:



> The program provides access to medical marijuana to certified patients suffering from cancer, HIV/AIDS, ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, intractable spasticity caused by damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, neuropathies and Huntington's disease.



Look at that list.

Can you tell me, in all honesty, that the 'long term effects' you outlined of marijuana are any worse than the effects of the medications you'd take to treat those ailments? Do you think some kind of cryptic "maybe" effects on the brain from marijuana are relevant next to the progression of something like Huntington's Disease?

All I'm saying is, marijuana was cleared for MEDICAL use in more than half the states. That's to say that they determined it has positive, verifiable medical use, it's use is regulated and it's effects will be monitored by your physician. Likewise, just like any medication, age of the patient and length of exposure would be taken into account.

My appeal is that, I'm not saying, "HEY HEY HEY! SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY!" or hotbox your infants in the car with the stuff. I'm saying the specific designation of Schedule I, having "NO currently accepted medical use" is an absolute miscategorization.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Let me describe Oregon's "medical use" :

1) You pay some "doctor" from India $300, and fax over your medical file that says you have had backpain 3 times in the last 5 years.

2) You get to buy and administer ANY AMOUNT, of ANY TYPE, at ANY TIME. 

3) A product that came from a hippie farm, not a compounding pharmacy.

At what point does this sound like "medicine" as practiced by real doctors?

This diminishes the idea of real medicine, but only because it is not implemented as real medicine.


----------



## Randy

CapnForsaggio said:


> Let me describe Oregon's "medical use" :
> 
> 1) You pay some "doctor" from India $300, and fax over your medical file that says you have had backpain 3 times in the last 5 years.
> 
> 2) You get to buy and administer ANY AMOUNT, of ANY TYPE, at ANY TIME.
> 
> 3) A product that came from a hippie farm, not a compounding pharmacy.
> 
> At what point does this sound like "medicine" as practiced by real doctors?
> 
> This diminishes the idea of real medicine, but only because it is not implemented as real medicine.



All the more reason for the federal government to drop the "it will kill you the first time you take it!" BS type designation, so that the prescription and distribution can be standardized.


----------



## vilk

Is having medicinal value a zero-sum game against having recreational value?

Does something having recreational value decrease its medicinal value, or vise versa? 

Because I have had many good times getting wasted drinking vodka, does it mean that I should not use it to sterilize a needle or knife for first aid?


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> Is having medicinal value a zero-sum game against having recreational value?
> 
> Does something having recreational value decrease its medicinal value, or vise versa?
> 
> Because I have had many good times getting wasted drinking vodka, does it mean that I should not use it to sterilize a needle or knife for first aid?



At this point, I think we're just trying to get baby steps here. I mean, alcohol use to be prescribed as a cure for things, so maybe if weed starts the same way, we can get it to the same point of being OK for recreational consumption.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> Is having medicinal value a zero-sum game against having recreational value?
> 
> Does something having recreational value decrease its medicinal value, or vise versa?
> 
> Because I have had many good times getting wasted drinking vodka, does it mean that I should not use it to sterilize a needle or knife for first aid?



Separate argument. Hydros and oxy are fun as f_u_ck to pop, on top of being a pretty good pain killer. 

Having a medical designation doesn't negate having a recreational use, it just presents the distinction that it's something that can be fun to take, it's something that CAN help you, but it can have adverse effects on your health, so it's use should be limited. 

If this Schedule I nonsense was gone and the excuses surrounding the lack of pot research are gone, yeah, eventually you might be able to say it's ALSO medically verified safe for recreational use, with or without some caveats.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> With all due respect, you're ignoring a significant part of my argument, which is that those states have cleared marijuana for MEDICAL use. As some background, here's the ailments NYS has deemed marijuana can be used to treat:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at that list.
> 
> Can you tell me, in all honesty, that the 'long term effects' you outlined of marijuana are any worse than the effects of the medications you'd take to treat those ailments? Do you think some kind of cryptic "maybe" effects on the brain from marijuana are relevant next to the progression of something like Huntington's Disease?
> 
> All I'm saying is, marijuana was cleared for MEDICAL use in more than half the states. That's to say that they determined it has positive, verifiable medical use, it's use is regulated and it's effects will be monitored by your physician. Likewise, just like any medication, age of the patient and length of exposure would be taken into account.
> 
> My appeal is that, I'm not saying, "HEY HEY HEY! SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY!" or hotbox your infants in the car with the stuff. I'm saying the specific designation of Schedule I, having "NO currently accepted medical use" is an absolute miscategorization.



And I don't disagree. Medicinal use makes perfect sense and I believe that cannabis is safer than a majority of synthetic drug alternatives for a multitude of brain diseases, including Parkinson's, Huntington's, and even schizophrenia, but, you have to understand that the DEA is a federal agency, and, as such, doesn't give a .... what the states decide... If all 50 states passed medicinal marijuana laws and the federal government told the DEA to bust people for pot, guess which the DEA will most likely do.

I think we are trying to argue two different things here: I'm saying that the DEA is not under the states' chain of command and you are saying that it's dumb that marijuana is Schedule I.

As far as recreational use, that's another discussion going on in the same thread, and that basically boils down to the fact that you'll never stop people from doing it, and, I think, most of us agree that it is ridiculous to try to stop people from recreational use by threatening prison time. There seems to be a faction here who wants to promote recreational use as perfectly safe, and I'm trying to post some scientific abstracts (those of you in university can easily access the full articles via your university library) and a few full articles with thorough data showing that cannabis use impairs judgement (for example: driving) and can have some permanent effects on developing brains.

I don't know why my non-confrontational moderate stance of "legalize it, but don't encourage it socially" is taking so much flak from certain forum users, especially at a time when the government's stance is much harsher, but I do feel that there is significant proof that a lot of pot users' arguments about it being perfectly safe are flat out wrong. When you want to defend a position, and you give wrong information, it can seriously discredit your position, even if the position is perfectly viable for other reasons.



vilk said:


> Is having medicinal value a zero-sum game against having recreational value?
> 
> Does something having recreational value decrease its medicinal value, or vise versa?
> 
> Because I have had many good times getting wasted drinking vodka, does it mean that I should not use it to sterilize a needle or knife for first aid?



Where are you going with that?

Your point merely makes it obvious that drugs can and will be abused.

Also, I would never sterilize a needle with vodka, unless I had nothing better to use. For one, ethanol is not as good a disinfectant as, well, disinfectant, and for two, it could have some ingredients that actually promote infection. So, like, if there was an emergency and all I had access to was one thing, then I would obviously use that one thing as best as I can, but that's totally apples and oranges to the argument that something should be condoned for medicinal use.

If they stopped making vodka, the number of people who risk infection through treatment by a healthcare professional is zero. No one uses it like that on purpose.


----------



## vilk

I was just responding to capn's point about how people who get "medical" are more or less using it recreationally, and whether or not that should affect its perception as medicine. 

I didn't know vodka was bad for disinfecting. I've heard it said that you should keep your razor in vodka.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I think we are trying to argue two different things here: I'm saying that the DEA is not under the states' chain of command and you are saying that it's dumb that marijuana is Schedule I.



You're right, they don't. You're focusing solely on the enforcement and I agree that an ENFORCEMENT agency has a responsibility to ENFORCE the law on the books.

But the DEA's mission and it's priorities are steered by legislation drafted by our elected officials. I keep bringing up other agencies (FDA, DOH) because it's their instruction and recommendation that are delivered to Congress and effect the way the legislation is written.

The DEA might not give a crap about what public opinion is on something, but our elected officials should. It's kinda silly that more than half the states can elect people (or pass themselves via referendum) to change marijuana law in their state but somehow that same process of electing people from those states isn't reflected in the marijuana law nationally.

EDIT: Also, the President is elected official, and his appointments and actions are supposed to be a reflection of the people who elected him. If the President is able to instruct the DEA to up their enforcement of marijuana (even in states where it's use is deemed legal, internally), than he's just as capable of telling them to relax those efforts. So to some degree, the DEA's office CAN be steered by public opinion, seemingly as we're currently seeing right now; it just so happens the candidate of the people, this time, is not a fan of marijuana or it's use being a 'blind spot' to federal law enforcement. The opposite could just as easily be made true.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I was just responding to capn's point about how people who get "medical" are more or less using it recreationally, and whether or not that should affect its perception as medicine.
> 
> I didn't know vodka was bad for disinfecting. I've heard it said that you should keep your razor in vodka.



Well, in the tradition of me either strongly agreeing or strongly disagreeing with Cap'n on this forum, I think I see where he's coming from.

Face it, there are enough pot users out there abusing the medicinal designation for it to be a topic of discussion.

But, of course, just because a substance is abused does not mean that it is not useful; if anything, its potency is a testament that it can be used for something or other.



Randy said:


> You're right, they don't. You're focusing solely on the enforcement and I agree that an ENFORCEMENT agency has a responsibility to ENFORCE the law on the books.
> 
> But the DEA's mission and it's priorities are steered by legislation drafted by our elected officials. I keep bringing up other agencies (FDA, DOH) because it's their instruction and recommendation that are delivered to Congress and effect the way the legislation is written.
> 
> The DEA might not give a crap about what public opinion is on something, but our elected officials should. It's kinda silly that more than half the states can elect people (or pass themselves via referendum) to change marijuana law in their state but somehow that same process of electing people from those states isn't reflected in the marijuana law nationally.
> 
> EDIT: Also, the President is elected official, and his appointments and actions are supposed to be a reflection of the people who elected him. If the President is able to instruct the DEA to up their enforcement of marijuana (even in states where it's use is deemed legal, internally), than he's just as capable of telling them to relax those efforts. So to some degree, the DEA's office CAN be steered by public opinion, seemingly as we're currently seeing right now; it just so happens the candidate of the people, this time, is not a fan of marijuana or it's use being a 'blind spot' to federal law enforcement. The opposite could just as easily be made true.



Well, what is, is.

The DEA enforces federal law above state law, being a federal agency. Elected officials are elected to represent the people who elected them, but, you and I both know full well that it's not as simple in practice as it ought to be on paper. Not that it is correct, but representatives are beholden to those who pay for federal programs more than to those who do not, and they are not immune to outside influence from the wealthy and powerful. Also, if Vermont and New Hampshire want medicinal marijuana, and Texas does not, then how will that work in congress, where Texas has 36 representatives in the house, versus the one each of the little states?

If Trump wanted to sign an executive order declaring pi (the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) is exactly 4:5/4, then, as stupid as that is, our teachers would be teaching kids that pi is 3.2, as almost happened in Indiana with State Bill #246


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Well, what is, is.
> 
> The DEA enforces federal law above state law, being a federal agency. Elected officials are elected to represent the people who elected them, but, you and I both know full well that it's not as simple in practice as it ought to be on paper. Not that it is correct, but representatives are beholden to those who pay for federal programs more than to those who do not, and they are not immune to outside influence from the wealthy and powerful. Also, if Vermont and New Hampshire want medicinal marijuana, and Texas does not, then how will that work in congress, where Texas has 36 representatives in the house, versus the one each of the little states?
> 
> If Trump wanted to sign an executive order declaring pi (the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) is exactly 4:5/4, then, as stupid as that is, our teachers would be teaching kids that pi is 3.2, as almost happened in Indiana with Stae Bill #246



No disagreement there.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bostjan said:


> As far as recreational use, that's another discussion going on in the same thread, and that basically boils down to the fact that you'll never stop people from doing it, and, I think, most of us agree that it is ridiculous to try to stop people from recreational use by threatening prison time. There seems to be a faction here who wants to promote recreational use as perfectly safe, and I'm trying to post some scientific abstracts (those of you in university can easily access the full articles via your university library) and a few full articles with thorough data showing that cannabis use impairs judgement (for example: driving) and can have some permanent effects on developing brains.
> 
> I don't know why my non-confrontational moderate stance of "legalize it, but don't encourage it socially" is taking so much flak from certain forum users, especially at a time when the government's stance is much harsher, but I do feel that there is significant proof that a lot of pot users' arguments about it being perfectly safe are flat out wrong. When you want to defend a position, and you give wrong information, it can seriously discredit your position, even if the position is perfectly viable for other reasons.



Because your stance is strange. You seem skewed more against recreational use of marijuana than you are alcohol. I never claimed that marijuana was "perfectly safe", you're putting words into my mouth. I never gave out, "wrong information", you've just discredited everything I say because you don't like the idea of people smoking weed. Why is that? Because you're friends with people who have substance abuse problems and weed is what they happened to choose. It could have been anything, you can abuse anything. 

What I said was that marijuana is undeniably safer than alcohol. There's no more to look into than that. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. Period. It's not 100% safe, but neither is a fast food diet as Max pointed out earlier. 


You keep falling back on this argument of it, "affecting developing brains". Again I'll say, absolutely nobody is advocating for legalization to allow teens or children to consume it. That argument is irrelevant in regards to legalization as it currently exists. You have to be 21 in Washington. 

Alcohol impairs you more heavily than weed. If I had to choose I'd get in a car with someone who had smoked hands down over someone that is drunk. I'm not saying it doesn't impair you, but texting and driving or having a child in the car are probably closer to the impairment of driving stoned than driving drunk. But then again, as someone who doesn't smoke you don't know what it's like.

As far as the DEA goes with enforcing laws...sure, it may be the law, but history has shown that legality /=/ morality. I don't excuse horrible things being done because it's, "just their job" and going to prison/being criminalized for marijuana is absolutely insane.

The prohibition and enforcement may not seem too related but they are. As Randy said, you're just saying the DEA is doing their job. We're saying that it's some bull sh_i_ttery that this is something their job entails.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> But then again, as someone who doesn't smoke you don't know what it's like.



That's not a valid point. Period.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bostjan said:


> That's not a valid point. Period.



Where's my aloe vera 

I believe it is. You're making claims based off "impairment" resulting from marijuana being the same as alcohol impairment. They aren't the same. I'm saying that I trust the impairment of stoned person more than a drunk person based on my experiences with each. Of which you don't have the same reference to make a judgement on. 

But boy, I'm glad you could find one thing with my response to disagree with.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

"Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas with alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies."


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/

So if you're stoned, you can make more conscious decisions than when you're drunk. This demonstrates that the impairment from each is not equivalent.

Also:
"Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations..."

"Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, 'Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.' This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication."
http://norml.org/library/item/marijuana-and-driving-a-review-of-the-scientific-evidence

So it's not even true that stoned driving leads to more crashes.
Maybe if you had reference for the effects, you would understand this. That is what I'm getting at.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I believe it is.



Would you get into a car with a guy who just swallowed a cyanide capsule? No? But you've never swallowed a cyanide capsule before, so how could you know?

You seriously think that not doing drugs disqualifies a person from judging the impairment of another from doing drugs?!

Also, take a look at the article you posted. Look at the chart right below your quote. After one hit, you are not any more likely to crash, according to the model, but after two hits (~10 ppm THC-Blood) you're 3.5x more likely, and after three hits, you are off the chart.



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> So it's not even true that stoned driving leads to more crashes.



LOL! Read the article or the quote you just posted! OMG!


----------



## Randy

It's hard to argue with bostjan on this one because that part of his argument is entirely subjective, and it's hard to argue with someone's opinion. The science on long term effects of marijuana use or the level of impairment that it causes is SO thin that you can't entirely compare it apples-to-apples to anything else that's currently legal.

I personally support recreational use of marijuana based on the fact it's side effects appear to be comparable or less than any other intoxicating or mood altering substances that are legal and widely accessible, but there's just as many studies saying one thing as there is saying the opposite, so I can't hold it against someone if they take the other side. 

I'd like to peel back the taboo or at least the official status of it enough that higher institutions would be more forthcoming and capable of enhancing our understanding of it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Never going to happen....

You all want to live in a world where medicine can just GROW anywhere?! /s

Your corrupt federal government would never allow this competition with big pharma. Never.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bostjan said:


> LOL! Read the article or the quote you just posted! OMG!




LOL! I did! 
'Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.' 
They have failed to show that stoned people are more likely than sober drivers to be blamed for crashes. What about that is so contradictory?? 

Also, tolerance is a thing. For some people, smoking a joint doesn't impair them as much as a single toke for others. 
Both of those studies say that marijuana users are more aware of their impairment than alcohol users. Meaning that they can judge their impairment more effectively. In other words, people who are stoned are more likely to realize that they are too stoned to operate a vehicle than someone who is drunk.


No, I don't think that abstaining from a drug completely disqualifies you from judging it. But when I'm providing you studies that show that stoned driving isn't as dangerous as drunk driving and you plug your ears and say, "but it's impairment!" while disregarding the difference in impairment, that disqualifies you.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> LOL! I did!
> 'Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.'
> They have failed to show that stoned people are more likely than sober drivers to be blamed for crashes. What about that is so contradictory??
> 
> Also, tolerance is a thing. For some people, smoking a joint doesn't impair them as much as a single toke for others.
> Both of those studies say that marijuana users are more aware of their impairment than alcohol users. Meaning that they can judge their impairment more effectively. In other words, people who are stoned are more likely to realize that they are too stoned to operate a vehicle than someone who is drunk.
> 
> 
> No, I don't think that abstaining from a drug completely disqualifies you from judging it. But when I'm providing you studies that show that stoned driving isn't as dangerous as drunk driving and you plug your ears and say, "but it's impairment!" while disregarding the difference in impairment, that disqualifies you.



Maybe you need a visual:






Odds of crashing versus THC concentration in whole blood.

Keep in mind that one hit can yield between 2-8 ppm THC in blood, depending on technique and type of product.

EDIT: By the way, the graphic is not my own, it is, in fact, from the article YOU posted.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Yes, but THC concentration in the blood does not indicate linear impairment. 
THC tolerance is an actual thing.
"...marijuana isn't like that. The height of your intoxication isn't at the moment when blood THC levels peak, and the high doesn't rise and fall uniformly based on how much THC leaves and enters your bodily fluids, says Marilyn Huestis, who headed the chemistry and drug metabolism section at the National Institute on Drug Abuse." 
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...to-make-a-solid-test-for-driving-while-stoned

Not only that, but due to the nature of being stoned and being more aware of your intoxication versus alcohol, people won't choose to drive. It's much easier to know you're too baked to get in a car versus when you're drunk begging your buddy for your keys.

From the same article: 
"Pot smokers, she says, 'tend to be more aware they're impaired than alcohol users.' Drunk drivers are more aggressive, and high drivers are slower. But in her studies, she found that being blazed enough, as when a smoker's blood THC level peaks at 13 nanograms per milliliter, could be just as a dangerous as driving drunk. " 

So yes, driving uber mega blazed is not good. But if you're more aware you're intoxicated it's less likely you'll be driving.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Yes, but THC concentration in the blood does not indicate linear impairment.



Umm, correct. It's not linear. According to your source, it's cubic, which is much worse! I already touched on that in my other posts.



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> THC tolerance is an actual thing.
> "...marijuana isn't like that. The height of your intoxication isn't at the moment when blood THC levels peak, and the high doesn't rise and fall uniformly based on how much THC leaves and enters your bodily fluids, says Marilyn Huestis, who headed the chemistry and drug metabolism section at the National Institute on Drug Abuse."
> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...to-make-a-solid-test-for-driving-while-stoned



Ok. Sooo...since adaptable THC tolerance is a real thing, it's safer to drive stoned?

You do realize that alcohol works the same way- the more people drink, the more tolerance they adapt. Does that mean that it's safe for an alcoholic to drive after four beers?



AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Not only that, but due to the nature of being stoned and being more aware of your intoxication versus alcohol, people won't choose to drive. It's much easier to know you're too baked to get in a car versus when you're drunk begging your buddy for your keys.
> 
> From the same article:
> "Pot smokers, she says, 'tend to be more aware they're impaired than alcohol users.' Drunk drivers are more aggressive, and high drivers are slower. But in her studies, she found that being blazed enough, as when a smoker's blood THC level peaks at 13 nanograms per milliliter, could be just as a dangerous as driving drunk. "
> 
> So yes, driving uber mega blazed is not good. But if you're more aware you're intoxicated it's less likely you'll be driving.



13 ppm THC in whole blood is somewhere between smoking two joints by yourself and taking two little hits, depending on the strength of the drug taken. At least with alcohol, and I am not going to defend drunk driving, the bottle tells the consumer how much dose is inside. Strong weed versus weak weed varying more than four times in potency is like drinking a beer and not knowing whether it's 5% ABV or 20% ABV. It makes a big difference when you are talking about level of impairment.

And maybe things are different in Seattle, but in Vermont, we have potheads crashing cars every day. Drunks, too. If some impaired dude runs me over with his car, I am not going to care whether he's drunk or stoned. As you said yourself:



> But in her studies, she found that being blazed enough, as when a smoker's blood THC level peaks at 13 nanograms per milliliter, *could be just as a dangerous as driving drunk*.



13 ppm. 2-6 hits.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

"The conclusion echoes that of other researchers that also noted no correlation between blood THC levels and impairment. The disconnection may be linked to the fact that THC is quickly metabolized, and its presence in blood can depend on both the dose and a person's usage patterns. Infrequent smokers tend to see quick drops in blood THC levels, while regular users may sustain higher THC levels for longer."
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...dui-are-arbitrary-and-unsupported-by-science/

I'm saying that in the case of a regular smoker, blood levels are not an effective way to measure impairment. 
You could test above the legal limit in Washington up to a month after the last time you smoked if you were a regular enough smoker. Even though it's been a month since you were under the influence. 
Also in Washington, THC percentages are listed on the packages of marijuana you purchase. They are required by law to be lab tested. So you know exactly what you are getting. 

I still standby my statement that due to being able to judge impairment more while stoned, those that are too impaired will more likely elect not to drive than if drunk.

Also, the fact that it remains in your system so long causes problems. If you haven't smoked in a month but still tested over the legal limit because of the fat solubility, you get a DUI regardless of actual intoxication. So just because you are hearing of people crashing stoned doesn't mean they were actually impaired.


----------



## narad

Why are we discussing the safety of driving while high? Don't drive while under the effect of anything that alters your perception and motor control. Alcohol, weed, cough syrup, head injuries, spinning around repeatedly, tilt shift cameras, fun house mirrors, deep-seated conservatism, etc.

Personally I've never seen anyone who was unable to walk in a straight line, touch their nose, or speak grammatical sentences as a result of marijuana, though I've probably exhibited all three at some point while drunk. I'd choose to replace all drunk drivers with high drivers in an instant. So what's with the double standard?


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> "The conclusion echoes that of other researchers that also noted no correlation between blood THC levels and impairment. The disconnection may be linked to the fact that THC is quickly metabolized, and its presence in blood can depend on both the dose and a person's usage patterns. Infrequent smokers tend to see quick drops in blood THC levels, while regular users may sustain higher THC levels for longer."
> https://arstechnica.com/science/201...dui-are-arbitrary-and-unsupported-by-science/
> 
> I'm saying that in the case of a regular smoker, blood levels are not an effective way to measure impairment.
> You could test above the legal limit in Washington up to a month after the last time you smoked if you were a regular enough smoker. Even though it's been a month since you were under the influence.
> Also in Washington, THC percentages are listed on the packages of marijuana you purchase. They are required by law to be lab tested. So you know exactly what you are getting.
> 
> I still standby my statement that due to being able to judge impairment more while stoned, those that are too impaired will more likely elect not to drive than if drunk.
> 
> Also, the fact that it remains in your system so long causes problems. If you haven't smoked in a month but still tested over the legal limit because of the fat solubility, you get a DUI regardless of actual intoxication. So just because you are hearing of people crashing stoned doesn't mean they were actually impaired.



I don't disagree with you that the THC staying in your system so long could be misleading for studies like the ones you and I have been posting.

But... I do think a few things might be necessary to point out:

1. THC is the thing everyone keeps talking about, but there are at least three active compounds shown to affect the human body in different ways. No one really seems to talk as much about the others.
2. THC is not a chemical compound, but a family of closely related chemical compounds. The variations of THC are still called THC, but, from what little data exists, it seems they have slightly different effects.
3. If THC has an effect on the body, and it stays in the body so long, it is pretty difficult to argue that there would not be expected long term effects. Keep in mind that the metabolites of THC used to determine drug test results have been shown to have subdued, but measurable effects on the human body as well.

As for my opinion/your opinion, it's true, basically. I am confident that if I had a research paper proving a link between pot smoking and ball cancer, you wouldn't change your opinion. If you show me a paper that says that smoking pot makes it dangerous to drive, and pull one meta-quote from it that states that it's okay to smoke pot and drive, I am not going to change my opinion, either (seeing as how I already posted four links previously supporting my position).



> But in her studies, she found that being blazed enough, as when a smoker's blood THC level peaks at 13 nanograms per milliliter, *could be just as a dangerous as driving drunk*.



13 ppm. 2-6 hits.



narad said:


> Why are we discussing the safety of driving while high? Don't drive while under the effect of anything that alters your perception and motor control. Alcohol, weed, cough syrup, head injuries, spinning around repeatedly, tilt shift cameras, fun house mirrors, deep-seated conservatism, etc.
> 
> Personally I've never seen anyone who was unable to walk in a straight line, touch their nose, or speak grammatical sentences as a result of marijuana, though I've probably exhibited all three at some point while drunk. I'd choose to replace all drunk drivers with high drivers in an instant. So what's with the double standard?



Agree with the first sentence, especially the deep-seated conservatism part.

I agree that people who are drunk can't do simple motor things that people can do high, but both high and drunk people make shi_t_ty decisions.

And to reinforce your point at the severe risk of sounding like a broken record:



> But in her studies, she found that being blazed enough, as when a smoker's blood THC level peaks at 13 nanograms per milliliter, *could be just as a dangerous as driving drunk*.



13 ppm. 2-6 hits.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bostjan said:


> 13 ppm. 2-6 hits.



Medicinal users function in day to day life with concentrations upwards of 100ppm. To people like this, 13ppm is barely noticeable.


THC tolerance and alcohol tolerance are wildly different. It'd be like function without being noticeably impaired after drinking a fifth. If I don't smoke for a month, you better believe I don't get off the couch for hours. But if it's every day regularity it's smoke and proceed to do homework.


----------



## vilk

There are more factors to driving than simply reaction times.

For example, _this one guy_ gets serious road rage when he drives home through bumper to bumper traffic for an hour every day. But when he takes a hit at the first stop light on his route, the ride home becomes far less infuriating, and consequentially he makes fewer anger-influenced driving decisions which might be reckless.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> And to reinforce your point at the severe risk of sounding like a broken record:
> ...
> 13 ppm. 2-6 hits.



Yea, I'm a bit reluctant to accept that point without investigating the study further. Maybe check it out in a bit. But from an anecdotal perspective, I don't think I've ever seen anyone as impaired (in terms of motor control) from marijuana in my life as I'll see from alcohol on any given weekend. But I still would rather people who are giggly, tired, and distracted, to just refrain from driving in the first place.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Medicinal users function in day to day life with concentrations upwards of 100ppm. To people like this, 13ppm is barely noticeable.
> 
> 
> THC tolerance and alcohol tolerance are wildly different. It'd be like function without being noticeably impaired after drinking a fifth. If I don't smoke for a month, you better believe I don't get off the couch for hours. But if it's every day regularity it's smoke and proceed to do homework.



You do have a good point there. To compare THC to alcohol, 100 ppm THC in whole blood isn't going to kill anybody. An alcoholic drinking two fifths of hard liquor in a night would very likely die. Alcohol's higher dose:toxicity ratio means that an alcoholic cannot build as much tolerance before killing himself from an overdose.

But again, THC is a family of things, and we don't understand how each works individually. There are also at least two other chemicals in marijuana that likely could lead to operator impairment that are not THC, and could vary in dose wildly from one product to another. These could be more or less adaptive in terms of tolerance. I honestly don't know.

If two drivers are sitting, each behind the wheel of a car, and one is 13 ppm THC blood level and the other 0.08 BAC, you would choose the THC guy and I would choose to walk away from both of them.

I would urge people not to use cannabis, and you would have a problem with that.

I would urge the federal government to abandon all criminalization of cannabis use, and, I assume, you would agree with that.

At least there's something we can agree upon. Haha.

Maybe we can also agree that the whole idea that cannabis is a "gateway drug" is totally unfounded. Maybe folks who are less inhibited would simply be more likely to do socially unacceptable things, in general. But anyway...

Did you see where people are up in arms about Conway putting her shoes on the couch in the Oval Office? I mean, here this guy is trying to block people from entering the country based on religious beliefs, and the news is upset enough to run a story about shoes on the sofa. 

I wish people would do a better job choosing their battles. (This wish brought to you by a guy who just spend a page and a half of forum posts debating whether pot impairs driving or impairs driving)


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> There are more factors to driving than simply reaction times.
> 
> For example, _this one guy_ gets serious road rage when he drives home through bumper to bumper traffic for an hour every day. But when he takes a hit at the first stop light on his route, the ride home becomes far less infuriating, and consequentially he makes fewer anger-influenced driving decisions which might be reckless.



Sounds like _that guy_ needs therapy to overcome his chemical dependence. I mean, replace "hit" with "sip" and the same story becomes ridiculous. Yet, we've established several times now that driving under the influence of alcohol, pot, cough syrup, head injury, etc., is dangerous.

Hell, replace "hit" with "quickie" and I'd say that guy has an unhealthy sex addiction, and I'm not going to discourage anyone (consenting adult) from having sex (with another consenting adult, obviously).

Back on topic (I'm heading out soon):

Check this out: Trump calls Obama's clean water rule 'horrible, horrible'

The chief wants to take a deep budgetary cut into the EPA, and repeal the work Obama did to try to prevent another Flint water crisis (which is still not entirely resolved, BTW).


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

bostjan said:


> I would urge people not to use cannabis, and you would have a problem with that.
> 
> I would urge the federal government to abandon all criminalization of cannabis use, and, I assume, you would agree with that.
> 
> At least there's something we can agree upon. Haha.
> 
> Maybe we can also agree that the whole idea that cannabis is a "gateway drug" is totally unfounded. Maybe folks who are less inhibited would simply be more likely to do socially unacceptable things, in general. But anyway...


Yup, I think we have common ground on a lot. It was a good discussion, I appreciated hearing your side of things. My hypothetical getting in a car scenario isn't something I'd advocate, it's just hypothetical. I just find the umbrella term "impaired" to be too broad and hard to measure/determine with different drugs. Ask anyone who's ever tripped balls if that impairment is relative to anything else. 

But yes, we probably should re-rail this thread. I didn't see the Conway thing, but Devos comments about the black college are just plain ignorant.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

We need a separate "smoke weed in moderation & responsibly" thread.


----------



## vilk

I like to cling to the old adage: "It's not a chemical dependence unless you experience physical withdrawal symptoms"


----------



## TedEH

I'd argue that there are other types of dependence at play than just chemical, but people get mad at me when I talk about behavioral patterns and vices, so I'll leave it at that.

Agreed, we talk about drugs often enough here that I think a dedicated thread for it wouldn't be a terrible idea so that we don't derail the rest of the forum.


----------



## vilk

It's not _that_ irrelevant. The whole discussion of it has come about because of the Trump administration and them trying to re-spark Nixon's War on Dissent.


----------



## bostjan

So, this Executive Order...

It completely reverses the EPA's Clean Water Rule.

The supplanting regulation is extremely vague, perhaps intentionally, and refers to a Supreme Court opinion (which was a plurality opinion in a case that was not decided by the majority of justices).

Scalia's opinion in that case was that the EPA has no jurisdiction over swamps, bogs, ditches, etc., so you can dump whatever you want into them without legal consequences.

As for the pot thread: here you go

Now to see if anyone else cares about this clean water executive order. Is Trump's action prudent? Was the EPA's rule an over-reach? Was this simply spurred by backlash over the Flint water crisis, without enough forethought? What would be the appropriate level of regulation?

Meanwhile, today, it's 64°F in Antarctica.


----------



## narad

If it was an over-reach it should be pruned back with a replacement regulation, but this culling of environmental protection just fits too well with the general idea of helping out fossil fuel companies and boosting the economy by boosting the number of ....ty jobs with ....ty ramifications for one of the countries greatest assets: an abundance of pristine land, clean air, etc. These rollbacks strike me as a "If you want to compete with China, become like China!" strategy...which is great if you want to work with dangerous chemicals and not care about where you dump them, but it's not so great if you want your air and water free of carcinogens. 

I mean, this is where we were heading...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html?_r=0

And honestly why do we care about coal miners? It's a terrible energy source! It's a terrible job! How did we wind up singling these guys out as deserving special governmental protection?


----------



## Drew

So, um, back to "fake news," Russia...



> Campaign-finance-disclosure records show Mr. Sessions&#8217; re-election campaign account was used for travel expenses in Cleveland at the same time the Republican National Convention was held in July, rather than using official funds that would pay for travel by him or other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
> 
> On July 16, two days before the convention began, his campaign account made two payments of $1,395 to the Sheraton Cleveland Airport. A week later, the account made two payments to the Westin Hotel in Cleveland totaling $223. All payments were described as for &#8220;lodging.&#8221;
> 
> No payments reimbursing Mr. Sessions appear in Mr. Trump&#8217;s campaign account, the records show.
> 
> Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for Mr. Sessions, said she was unable to comment on his convention expenses.
> 
> Larry Noble, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan advocacy group, said Mr. Sessions likely used his campaign account, rather than official Senate funds, because as a senior adviser to the Trump campaign it would have been difficult to argue that he wasn&#8217;t attending the convention for any political purpose.
> 
> &#8220;If he was truly there solely as a member of the Armed Services Committee, then he could&#8217;ve used his legislative account,&#8221; Mr. Noble said.
> 
> One person at the Heritage event in Cleveland said Mr. Sessions left the impression he was there because of his role in the Trump campaign. This person said Mr. Sessions&#8217; remarks in part were focused on Mr. Trump&#8217;s trade policy, saying the then-candidate would do away with multilateral trade deals.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/jeff-s...for-republican-convention-expenses-1488509301



> &#8220;And, so, we talked about &#8211; a little bit about terrorism, as I recall, and somehow the subject of the Ukraine came up. I had had the Ukrainian ambassador in my office the day before to listen to him,&#8221; Sessions said, then seemingly describing the ambassador&#8217;s position: &#8220;Russia had done nothing that was wrong in any area and everybody else was wrong with regard to the Ukraine. It got to be a little bit of a testy conversation at that point. It wrapped up. He said something about inviting me to have lunch. I did not accept that, and that never occurred."



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-discussed-ukraine-with-russian-ambassador

After saying on oath he'd never met with senior russian officials during his hearings, and then backtracking and saying that he did, but in his role as a senator and not a Trump surrogate, one, he used campagin finance funds to go to the convetion in Cleveland rather than his Senate Armed Forces Committee funds, and two, he did so to talk about Trump's trade policies. And, in his second, private meeting with Kislyak, the subject of Russia's role in Ukraine was a substantial part of the conversation, which let's recall the Trump campaign's efforts to soften the RNC platform's language condemning Russia's intervention in Ukraine and Putin's desire to have the heat taken off Russia was one of the early warning signs that something was amiss. 

Oh, and Kushner took part in the meeting with Kislyav and Flynne, too, word broke yesterday, and at least two other Trump campaign officials had private meetings during the election. 

I mean, that's a whole _heck_ of a lot of smoke, and while it's possible that it's all smoke and no fire, this is the second Trump Cabinet pick who lied under oath about his dealings with Russian agents. Even the GOP was demanding he recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations after that.


----------



## flint757

Regardless of the Russia accusations of election interference, Sessions should step down or face legal repercussions for lying under oath at the very least. Frankly, knowingly lying at all for political gain should disqualify you from public office all together IMO.


----------



## bostjan

Ugh...

Pence used private email acct for official government business as Gov. of Indiana

This administration is straight out of a comic book or something.

You know, to all of the folks who didn't want Gary Johnson because they thought he'd be too out of control and cause too much controversy...how do you feel about that now?


----------



## MFB

flint757 said:


> Regardless of the Russia accusations of election interference, Sessions should step down or face legal repercussions for lying under oath at the very least. Frankly, knowingly lying at all for political gain should disqualify you from public office all together IMO.



Which is made all the more hilarious by the fact that in 1998 when talking about Clinton and his scandal, "I have no doubt that perjury qualifies under the Constitution as a high crime, [...] It goes to the heart of the judicial system."


----------



## JSanta

flint757 said:


> Regardless of the Russia accusations of election interference, Sessions should step down or face legal repercussions for lying under oath at the very least. Frankly, knowingly lying at all for political gain should disqualify you from public office all together IMO.



But did he actually lie under oath?

Here's a snippet of the transcript and comments:

Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump. These documents also allegedly say quote, There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.

"Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"

Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have  did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."

Sessions and spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores have said his statement was truthful because he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a senator, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign  not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," Flores told the Washington Post.

While one can argue that Sessions should have mentioned his meetings with Kislyak at the hearing, its possible he didnt perjure himself based on the question Franken asked. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-what-jeff-sessions-told-al-franken-about-m/

I'm not taking a position one way or the other, but this might be a loophole for him.


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> But did he actually lie under oath?
> 
> Here's a snippet of the transcript and comments:
> 
> Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, &#8216;Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.&#8217; These documents also allegedly say quote, &#8216;There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.&#8217;
> 
> "Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
> 
> Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have &#8212; did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."
> 
> Sessions and spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores have said his statement was truthful because he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a senator, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.
> 
> "He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign &#8212; not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," Flores told the Washington Post.
> 
> While one can argue that Sessions should have mentioned his meetings with Kislyak at the hearing, it&#8217;s possible he didn&#8217;t perjure himself based on the question Franken asked.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-what-jeff-sessions-told-al-franken-about-m/
> 
> I'm not taking a position one way or the other, but this might be a loophole for him.



I do not follow. If I asked you what you would do if evidence surfaced that the Trump campaign had communications with Russia, and you answered that you did not have communications with Russia, then we find out that you had communications with Russia, how did you not lie under oath? I mean, I get that the question Franklin asked was poorly worded, but didn't he say "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have &#8212; did not have communications with the Russians?"

I mean, if you asked me if I played guitar, but did it poorly and mentioned six strings or something, and I responded "No, I have not ever played a guitar," how is it not a lie, in spite of your flub wording the question?!


----------



## vilk

Can any senator do that whenever they want? Like, they get busted lying or doing some criminal sh/t or whatever, they can just say _Oh yeah no that wasn't me. It was me, the senator, but not ME me._


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> Can any senator do that whenever they want? Like, they get busted lying or doing some criminal sh/t or whatever, they can just say _Oh yeah no that wasn't me. It was me, the senator, but not ME me._



It worked for Hulk Hogan during the Gawker lawsuit, as he said H.H. and Terry Whateverhislasnameis are two separate people/personalities.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> I do not follow. If I asked you what you would do if evidence surfaced that the Trump campaign had communications with Russia, and you answered that you did not have communications with Russia, then we find out that you had communications with Russia, how did you not lie under oath? I mean, I get that the question Franklin asked was poorly worded, but didn't he say "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have  did not have communications with the Russians?"
> 
> I mean, if you asked me if I played guitar, but did it poorly and mentioned six strings or something, and I responded "No, I have not ever played a guitar," how is it not a lie, in spite of your flub wording the question?!



You're not thinking like a politician! Wording and the context of the question matter (at least to them they do). 

I'm not saying he didn't lie, but I am saying the context of the question (and answer) can/will be different between perjury.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Can any senator do that whenever they want? Like, they get busted lying or doing some criminal sh/t or whatever, they can just say _Oh yeah no that wasn't me. It was me, the senator, but not ME me._



That's comedy gold right there! 

...

Except, it's not funny...  I mean, what you said was funny but what happened is not.

"Things that make you go 'hmm'"



JSanta said:


> You're not thinking like a politician! Wording and the context of the question matter (at least to them they do).
> 
> I'm not saying he didn't lie, but I am saying the context of the question (and answer) can/will be different between perjury.



Yeah, maybe he can get off with <<lying under oath, not perjury, there's a difference, you know, I'm a very important person.>> 

Seriously, though, we're what, 50-ish days into the administration, and we've already had one cabinet member resign, another who is inevitably going to resign, a VP caught in a reasonably serious controversy, a secretary of energy who was on record saying he wanted to do away with the DOE, etc., etc., etc. ...

I knew we'd be in for a ride, I guess, and this is delivering. Wow.

And coming back to the clean water rule - anyone here from Flint, Michigan? I'm curious as to what you Michiganders think of that little gem. I don't know how it's not getting more press than it is. I guess the media is too distracted with everything else going on.


----------



## JSanta

Bostjan - you may find this article interesting. I heard it driving home this week on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-subsidies-to-flint-despite-mayors-opposition 

The water subsidy ended on 01 Mar 17.


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> Bostjan - you may find this article interesting. I heard it driving home this week on NPR:
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-subsidies-to-flint-despite-mayors-opposition
> 
> The water subsidy ended on 01 Mar 17.



Yeah, I heard that a few days ago as well. 

I don't understand how this can be happening how it is happening. Here you have a large city, already down on it's luck for decades, and the tap water is poisonous. The tap water has been poisonous for 2-3 years, and people cared for a little while, but now no one cares anymore. The residents there got bottled water for a little bit, but they don't anymore, then they had their water bills subsidized, because, well, if you can't drink the water without injuring your health, why not give you some water for free (?), and now, just nothing.

To rub salt in that wound before it heals, Trump made an executive order nullifying much of the EPA's control over clean water and promised to downsize the EPA to the point where it would be ineffective anyway.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I heard that a few days ago as well.
> 
> I don't understand how this can be happening how it is happening. Here you have a large city, already down on it's luck for decades, and the tap water is poisonous. The tap water has been poisonous for 2-3 years, and people cared for a little while, but now no one cares anymore. The residents there got bottled water for a little bit, but they don't anymore, then they had their water bills subsidized, because, well, if you can't drink the water without injuring your health, why not give you some water for free (?), and now, just nothing.
> 
> To rub salt in that wound before it heals, Trump made an executive order nullifying much of the EPA's control over clean water and promised to downsize the EPA to the point where it would be ineffective anyway.



The EPA is not without fault - and have caused their fair share of environmental damage - the 2015 Gold King Mine spill comes to my mind, as well as the cotton mill accident in Georgia. 

One could hope that if this administration does get infrastructure projects going, the modernization of our water system would be on that list. 

I'm of course not saying we don't need the EPA, just that some change may be warranted. If they want to manage the water of the country, they need to police themselves much better.


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> The EPA is not without fault - and have caused their fair share of environmental damage - the 2015 Gold King Mine spill comes to my mind, as well as the cotton mill accident in Georgia.
> 
> One could hope that if this administration does get infrastructure projects going, the modernization of our water system would be on that list.
> 
> I'm of course not saying we don't need the EPA, just that some change may be warranted. If they want to manage the water of the country, they need to police themselves much better.



Right, but Trump is talking about making the EPA much smaller, not restructuring it to be more effective. Lifting all regulations on dumping in ditches, ponds, and swamps is certainly not a step in the right direction.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> Right, but Trump is talking about making the EPA much smaller, not restructuring it to be more effective. Lifting all regulations on dumping in ditches, ponds, and swamps is certainly not a step in the right direction.



Completely agree - much like I feel about the Dodd-Frank act. They both need restructuring, but this is the wrong administration to do so.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

JSanta said:


> Completely agree - much like I feel about the Dodd-Frank act. They both need restructuring, but this is the wrong administration to do so.



Wrong. Which administration were you hoping was going to deal with it?!


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Wrong. Which administration were you hoping was going to deal with it?!



Johnson/Weld


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> But did he actually lie under oath?
> 
> Here's a snippet of the transcript and comments:
> 
> Franken: "CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, &#8216;Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.&#8217; These documents also allegedly say quote, &#8216;There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.&#8217;
> 
> "Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
> 
> Sessions: "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn't have &#8212; did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm unable to comment on it."
> 
> Sessions and spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores have said his statement was truthful because he met with the Russian ambassador in his capacity as a senator, not as a Trump campaign surrogate.
> 
> "He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign &#8212; not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," Flores told the Washington Post.
> 
> While one can argue that Sessions should have mentioned his meetings with Kislyak at the hearing, it&#8217;s possible he didn&#8217;t perjure himself based on the question Franken asked.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-what-jeff-sessions-told-al-franken-about-m/
> 
> I'm not taking a position one way or the other, but this might be a loophole for him.



You can split hairs, I suppose. But when push comes to shove, I think there's a very strong case to be made that yes, he did. 

1) the literal argument - you could possibly defend his private meeting with Kislyak in that it would not be unheard of for a Senator to meet with a Russian ambassador (though, doing so during a time when Russia was suspected to have interfered in the US election was a clear faux pas). His meeting in Cleveland, however... He flew to Cleveland and paid for his hotel room not using RNC funding provided for his official work as a member of the armed forces committe, but out of his political fund. Arguing Sessions used political funds when he could have just expensed the trip defies belief - furthermore, he was there to speakk about Trump's trade policies; he was clearly acting as a surrogate. 

2) the logical/linguistic argument. Sessions actually volunteered something he didn't have to in that testimony - Franken didn't ask if HE had met with the Russians, rather he asked how he would respond if Sessions was, as AG, presented with evidence that Trump surrogates had met with Russians. Sessions then, while not actually answering Franken's question, made two statements - "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign," and "I didn't have &#8212; did not have communications with the Russians." Note the way they're linked - the second doesn't depend on the first or even really reference the first in any particular manner; rather, he points out that others have referred to him as a surrogate, and then goes on to say "I haven't communicated with the Russians." He doesn't say, "I haven't communicated with the russians _as a Trump surrogate_" or "_while working on the Trump campaign_," but rather makes a broad, categorical statement. 

He could try to argue that the statement he made was a slip of the tongue, or an accidental misspeaking that wasn't intended to be made so broadly, or that he had meant to say something other than what he actually did, and I'm not a lawyer so I won't weigh in on whether a statement has to be made intentionally to mislead and statements that are unintentionally misleading don't count. And who knows, maybe that'll fly. But, as spoken, the statement "I didn't have &#8212; did not have communications with the Russians" was incorrect, since he had offered himself up as an example of someone who had been called a surrogate before then categorically denying having spoken with russians during the campaign. 

Either way, his written testimony, which I assume was also under oath, point blank asked if he had talked with Russian agents at any point during the campgain (with no attempt to limit it to strictly campaign business), and he bluntly replied "no."


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Regardless of the Russia accusations of election interference, Sessions should step down or face legal repercussions for lying under oath at the very least. *Frankly, knowingly lying at all for political gain should disqualify you from public office all together IMO.*



I wish Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real too, man.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> I wish Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real too, man.





Indeed.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Drew said:


> I wish Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real too, man.



I wish I could laugh at this, but... it's just TOO real...


----------



## bostjan

This is just like Bill Clinton, all over again. The major difference is that Bill got a BJ from an intern and Sessions met with a representative of a foreign nation that had been recently accused of high-level espionage. In the 90's, I thought Bill was in the wrong, and now, I think Sessions is in the wrong. One transgression damaged the integrity of the office of President, and the other needs a hell of a lot more investigation. I don't see how that investigation can be completed in an unbiased way so long as Sessions is in his position, so it only makes sense that, since he was caught out in the open in a fat juicy lie, he needs to be removed from office. Then, after the investigation is complete, decide whether he goes to club fed or not.

Reading that back, it's sort of ridiculous. Why should there be any debate? 

Meanwhile, Trump is back to his old travel ban, but now everyone is supposed to be okay with it, because he crossed Iraq off of the list.

The Democrats, being the leading minority voice by far in DC, need to step up their game. We have a guy in the Oval Office now who is dismantling the EPA (which needs restructuring, yes, but we cannot give up on it entirely at this exact moment), closing our borders in an arbitrary way (yes, our borders need revamping, indeed, but this method is too haphazard), and his administration is well under 100 days old and already had its hands caught in a few really nasty cookie jars. But the Democrats are not the group we need in DC to stand up to this garbage. Trump won't do it, we should all well know by now, so we're screwed.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, sorry guys, that might have been a little close to home. 

The Democrats have, in some respects, held their own here, but for the most part it's been in the form of theatrics (Schulmer's re-addressing of an old McConnell memo on supreme court picks, and a couple good tweets, as much as I've enjoyed the, were symbolic resistance that didn't actually accomplish much). We need to see more from them. 

But, let's also be realistic - the Democrats are the minority party, and even fully united there's still a lot Trump can do with House and Senate majorities. What's been the most dissapointing to me so far as an American is how the Republican Party has by and large stoood idly aside and let Trump do his thing, hoping he'll eventually get to tax reform. 

Really, the biggest disappointment for me has been Paul Ryan - I didn't agree with a lot of his budget plan, but he was at least a Republican who was trying to bring some fiscal discipline back to the party without just gutting Social Security or other social welfare programs - I felt like I didn't' agree with his conclusions, but he was starting from the right place and was at least trying. Now, he's content to sit back and play second fiddle to Trump, and keep saying "Obamacare has failed" like maybe if he says it enough times it'll become true. 

Based on what I've seen in the first month and a half of the Trump administration, I fully expect this to end in impeachment. And, if the GOP is too late to the game on turning on the rabid dog they've elected, they're going to pay a high price for that.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, sorry guys, that might have been a little close to home.
> 
> The Democrats have, in some respects, held their own here, but for the most part it's been in the form of theatrics (Schulmer's re-addressing of an old McConnell memo on supreme court picks, and a couple good tweets, as much as I've enjoyed the, were symbolic resistance that didn't actually accomplish much). We need to see more from them.
> 
> But, let's also be realistic - the Democrats are the minority party, and even fully united there's still a lot Trump can do with House and Senate majorities. What's been the most dissapointing to me so far as an American is how the Republican Party has by and large stoood idly aside and let Trump do his thing, hoping he'll eventually get to tax reform.
> 
> Really, the biggest disappointment for me has been Paul Ryan - I didn't agree with a lot of his budget plan, but he was at least a Republican who was trying to bring some fiscal discipline back to the party without just gutting Social Security or other social welfare programs - I felt like I didn't' agree with his conclusions, but he was starting from the right place and was at least trying. Now, he's content to sit back and play second fiddle to Trump, and keep saying "Obamacare has failed" like maybe if he says it enough times it'll become true.
> 
> Based on what I've seen in the first month and a half of the Trump administration, I fully expect this to end in impeachment. And, if the GOP is too late to the game on turning on the rabid dog they've elected, they're going to pay a high price for that.



Maybe, but who's going to bring up the charges? Are the Dem's going to wait until the mid term elections, in hopes that they will pick up some seats (they likely won't) before they make a move? I mean, what is it going to take for the Democrats to make a move? Are they waiting for him to sacrifice a virgin on the front steps of the White House?!

Let's be realistic. Trump's administration seems to be self-destructing, but what is the end-game?

If the Democrats were truly about saving this country and not just about saving their political face and keeping their careers in tact, they'd make a move very soon. Get Sessions ousted, hit Pence hard for his transgressions under the flag of hypocrisy, curtail Trump on his over-reaches, and try to reach some sort of equilibrium where the USA doesn't end up burning.

Bush got away with crazy stuff during his reign. Obama didn't reach far enough after promising some grand things. Now Trump is over-reaching on some things and pulling away from some of his promises. Do you still think the democratic process has been well executed?


----------



## jwade

This is easily the worst season of a tv show ever.


----------



## bostjan

So, Woody Kaine (Tim Kaine's son) was allegedly involved in bombing a Trump rally.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> So, Woody Kaine (Tim Kaine's son) was allegedly involved in bombing a Trump rally.



Just dolling out leftist "tolerance" to those hate mongering Trump supporters.

What's SSO's problem with this? /s


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Just dolling out leftist "tolerance" to those hate mongering Trump supporters.
> 
> What's SSO's problem with this? /s



I think I might become a radical moderate, to add to the mess. "Stop fighting each other or I'll fight you!"

In all seriousness, though, I don't see how sh.. like this ever accomplishes anything aside from hurting your own cause.

And with all of this garbage going on, I honestly want to see Trump become a good president. ...but in order to do that, he's going to need to plan things out better and start cracking down on the people around him who are f...ing up. I have no problem with second chances for people who f... up and then admit that they f...ed up. Sessions needs to go, though. Having the Justice czar lie under oath is like a vice detective caught doing lines in a brothel.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

"Centrist Fundamentalist"

or

"Wing Extremist", if you really want to confuse them.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> I think I might become a radical moderate, to add to the mess. "Stop fighting each other or I'll fight you!"
> 
> In all seriousness, though, I don't see how sh.. like this ever accomplishes anything aside from hurting your own cause.
> 
> And with all of this garbage going on, I honestly want to see Trump become a good president. ...but in order to do that, he's going to need to plan things out better and start cracking down on the people around him who are f...ing up. I have no problem with second chances for people who f... up and then admit that they f...ed up. Sessions needs to go, though. Having the Justice czar lie under oath is like a vice detective caught doing lines in a brothel.



I don't think I could have described my own sentiment any better than you just did. Why would anyone really want to see our President fail? Like or loathe, it's simply not good for this country. But it appears than an abrupt shift in they way he's handling the people around him must occur for any true progress to be made.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Maybe, but who's going to bring up the charges? Are the Dem's going to wait until the mid term elections, in hopes that they will pick up some seats (they likely won't) before they make a move? I mean, what is it going to take for the Democrats to make a move? Are they waiting for him to sacrifice a virgin on the front steps of the White House?!
> 
> Let's be realistic. Trump's administration seems to be self-destructing, but what is the end-game?



Once things pass a certain point, the GOP. It's a simple calculation - "Impeaching Trump will hurt our electoral prospects, but at what point does simply leaving him in the White House hurt us MORE?" Remember that the Republicans voted to impeach Nixon. 



CapnForsaggio said:


> Just dolling out leftist "tolerance" to those hate mongering Trump supporters.
> 
> What's SSO's problem with this? /s



If true, it's stupid. Violence isn't the answer here. A smoke bomb is a lot less insane than an actual attempt to blow up a protest, but it's still detrimental to the Democratic cause.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Once things pass a certain point, the GOP. It's a simple calculation - "Impeaching Trump will hurt our electoral prospects, but at what point does simply leaving him in the White House hurt us MORE?" Remember that the Republicans voted to impeach Nixon.



I have no expectation that this GOP is anything like the GOP of the early 1970's.

Ragardless, I agree 100% that it would take the GOP to impeach Trump. The thing is, that Trump hasn't really done anything that both crosses the GOP and is impeachable simultaneously...yet, at least. He hasn't even really done anything flat out impeachable at all...yet. He's done some bad stuff, and he's done quite a bit to annoy the GOP, but, Trump's supporters are the one's who elect GOP congressmen. And, well, Trump hasn't done anything to upset them, AFAIK, so we have not yet approached that balancing point you mentioned.

As a self-proclaimed moderate libertarian, I see some of what Trump is trying to do as just misguided. It's like a teenager was elected president, has some good intentions, but has no idea how to effectively enact anything without screwing a bunch of other stuff up. I think people are somewhat endeared to him, and they just see him as a mover and shaker, but they are missing the fact that he's moving like a bull shaking up the China shop.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I have no expectation that this GOP is anything like the GOP of the early 1970's.
> 
> Ragardless, I agree 100% that it would take the GOP to impeach Trump. The thing is, that Trump hasn't really done anything that both crosses the GOP and is impeachable simultaneously...yet, at least. He hasn't even really done anything flat out impeachable at all...yet. He's done some bad stuff, and he's done quite a bit to annoy the GOP, but, Trump's supporters are the one's who elect GOP congressmen. And, well, Trump hasn't done anything to upset them, AFAIK, so we have not yet approached that balancing point you mentioned.
> 
> As a self-proclaimed moderate libertarian, I see some of what Trump is trying to do as just misguided. It's like a teenager was elected president, has some good intentions, but has no idea how to effectively enact anything without screwing a bunch of other stuff up. I think people are somewhat endeared to him, and they just see him as a mover and shaker, but they are missing the fact that he's moving like a bull shaking up the China shop.



Thing is, though, I don't think he has to cross the GOP, at least directly, for them to turn on them. 

Let's first assume that individual GOP Congressmen (and women) are self-interested; they want to hold onto their seats. 

There's a pretty solid correlation between the sitting president's popularity, and midterm elections. The more popular the president, the better his party will do in the midterms. The less popular, the more likely they are to lose seats. 

Trump's popularity is at record lows for the first say 45 days of a new president's term. Probably first OR Second term, at that. 

If it continues to fall, into say the 30s or 20s, a pragmatic, self-interested Republican Congressman is probably going to hit a point where he knows that impeaching a sitting president is always a negative for the party in power, but that just getting Trump out of there and having Pence put in in his place may do enough to improve the image of the GOP that it's worth the ugliness of the impeachment simply to have a less-loathed president in the White House come the 2018 midterm elections. What exactly that threshold is may be tough to pin down, but if you go to extremes, if precicely 0% of the country approves of Trump and 100% disapproves, it's clearly in the best interest of a Republican who has a seat to defend to just get the guy out and take a chance with a guy with stronger favorability numbers. 

As far as impeachable offenses, Trump ordered DHS to continue enforcing his travel ban even after the Judicial stay, there's a lot of smoke about Russia right now and despite Trump's assertations to the contrary the Wall Street Journal, that noted liberal rag, was in the news yesterday as a story they wrote back in April of 16, I think, referenced Trump having a "really great" meeting with the Russian ambassador just before giving a foreign policy speech, and Bloomberg is arguing that, since Trump's accusation that Obama had ordered a wiretap on him during the election would have been grounds to impeach Obama if he was in office and it was found true, then as a sitting president it reasonably should be considered grounds to impeach Trump if he (as the highest elected official in the country) made those claims baselessly. I think what it actually is that triggers the impeachment proceedings is an unknown at this point, but if someone gave me even odds on Trump getting impeached before the mid-terms, I'd take that bet.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The GOP "turned on" Trump during the primaries 

You all fail to understand, that for many people like me, it was a BONUS that the GOP didn't like him either.

At this point, if you get the McCain-GOP and the Clinton DEMs to unify against him, all you are going to do is validate the Donald for his base. 

I wouldn't enable him. Like the art of war says, 'Don't intervene when an enemy is destroying themselves...'


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Thing is, though, I don't think he has to cross the GOP, at least directly, for them to turn on them.
> 
> Let's first assume that individual GOP Congressmen (and women) are self-interested; they want to hold onto their seats.
> 
> There's a pretty solid correlation between the sitting president's popularity, and midterm elections. The more popular the president, the better his party will do in the midterms. The less popular, the more likely they are to lose seats.
> 
> Trump's popularity is at record lows for the first say 45 days of a new president's term. Probably first OR Second term, at that.
> 
> If it continues to fall, into say the 30s or 20s, a pragmatic, self-interested Republican Congressman is probably going to hit a point where he knows that impeaching a sitting president is always a negative for the party in power, but that just getting Trump out of there and having Pence put in in his place may do enough to improve the image of the GOP that it's worth the ugliness of the impeachment simply to have a less-loathed president in the White House come the 2018 midterm elections. What exactly that threshold is may be tough to pin down, but if you go to extremes, if precicely 0% of the country approves of Trump and 100% disapproves, it's clearly in the best interest of a Republican who has a seat to defend to just get the guy out and take a chance with a guy with stronger favorability numbers.
> 
> As far as impeachable offenses, Trump ordered DHS to continue enforcing his travel ban even after the Judicial stay, there's a lot of smoke about Russia right now and despite Trump's assertations to the contrary the Wall Street Journal, that noted liberal rag, was in the news yesterday as a story they wrote back in April of 16, I think, referenced Trump having a "really great" meeting with the Russian ambassador just before giving a foreign policy speech, and Bloomberg is arguing that, since Trump's accusation that Obama had ordered a wiretap on him during the election would have been grounds to impeach Obama if he was in office and it was found true, then as a sitting president it reasonably should be considered grounds to impeach Trump if he (as the highest elected official in the country) made those claims baselessly. I think what it actually is that triggers the impeachment proceedings is an unknown at this point, but if someone gave me even odds on Trump getting impeached before the mid-terms, I'd take that bet.



I follow you, but I disagree. The GOP is certainly self-interested, as is the Democratic party...but anyway, as I pointed out, the districts with the most power to oust GOP leaders are still firmly pro-Trump. Remember that the nation does not vote for representatives, the districts do, many of which are drawn into fun shapes like snakes, dragons, grotesque alphabet letters, etc. 

And redistricting of the USA is not going to happen, because the folks responsible for making it happen are the same ones suing some of the states who have tried to do it using unbiased computer algorithms...but I digress.

The main idea is that GOP congressmen will turn on Trump when it serves them. At this point in time, it would not serve them to do so, in spite of everything. With any luck at all, things will start getting better from here, not worse, which means no impeachment. On the other hand, if Trump turns on congress, in some way, I can totally see congress getting him ousted post-haste.

As for the story with Obama and wiretapping- well, I don't know. I would not be surprised if someone within the executive branch had surveillance on Trump during the election season. I would be truly shocked if Obama himself had something to do with it, but you know how facts and stuff get totally twisted around so that they are 99.9% BS and maybe 0.1% truth...



CapnForsaggio said:


> The GOP "turned on" Trump during the primaries
> 
> You all fail to understand, that for many people like me, it was a BONUS that the GOP didn't like him either.
> 
> At this point, if you get the McCain-GOP and the Clinton DEMs to unify against him, all you are going to do is validate the Donald for his base.
> 
> I wouldn't enable him. Like the art of war says, 'Don't intervene when an enemy is destroying themselves...'





I actually have nothing to add to that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Here's the problemo:

Trump is a media cash cow. They will "enable" him.

They WANT to energize the Trump base, and the opposition base. They have never 'sold so many copies.'

America be damned.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> The GOP "turned on" Trump during the primaries
> 
> You all fail to understand, that for many people like me, it was a BONUS that the GOP didn't like him either.
> 
> At this point, if you get the McCain-GOP and the Clinton DEMs to unify against him, all you are going to do is validate the Donald for his base.
> 
> I wouldn't enable him. Like the art of war says, 'Don't intervene when an enemy is destroying themselves...'



Interesting argument, and one I can't completely disagree with. I guess I only have two observations I'll make: 

1) The Trump "base" isn't all THAT big - his primary ceiling was somewhere in the 30s, which was enough to win in a divided field but was still a plurality and not majority. And he won the general, but he won in a political climate where a generic Republican should have had a slight lead over a generic Democrat, and in an election where the two least popular major party nominees in modern history faced off. I also think as the "repeal/replace" thing gains steam, that base could shrink, but that's neither here nor there. It's also not perfectly evenly distributed - some Republicans would need to be careful about alienating them and facing a primary challenger, but others would likely shore up their support by turning against a deeply unpopular president (remember, we're talking about a scenario with favorability ratings 10-15 points below where he is today).

2) At the end of the day... In an impeachment, it doesn't matter how his "base" feels about him. He isn't tried in a jury of his voters, he is tried in the Senate. Two Republicans breaking against an otherwise united GOP would be enough to remove him from office.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Here's the problemo:
> 
> Trump is a media cash cow. They will "enable" him.
> 
> They WANT to energize the Trump base, and the opposition base. They have never 'sold so many copies.'
> 
> America be damned.




This, however, I CAN critique. 

You're not wrong, but what better trophy to hang over your mantle than the head of a sitting president, mounted on a plaque, to prove the importance and relevance of media to the American political process? 

In aggregate, Trump may be worth more alive than dead to the press. But, the investigative journalist and editor who bring him down? This will be a career-defining accomplishment. The guy who broke the Watergate story on Nixon still gets trotted out for interviews every now and then and that was almost 50 years ago.

It's just a game theory/rule of the commons sort of thing. The economically optimal solution for the group isn't the same as the economically optimal one for individual participants, so they either need to collude (not likely), or the interests of the individual participants, rather than the collective, will drive the action here.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

An impeachment based on....?

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. The DNC needs a platform and some cohesion. You're not ready to charge into battle. 

Ellison vs. Perez shenanigans probably lost you any of the BernieFire you had left.

I am still seeing alot of "let's throw this at the wall and see what sticks." So far, nothing really has.

I think it's a bit early to be talking impeachment.


----------



## vilk

Has anyone ever heard of "the Curse of Tippecanoe"...? Of all people, I heard about it from my not American wife. But I wonder if it will come to fruition this time around...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> Has anyone ever heard of "the Curse of Tippecanoe"...? Of all people, I heard about it from my not American wife. But I wonder if it will come to fruition this time around...



I hadn't heard of that. Pretty interesting.

In my opinion, the 'curse' was probably broken when they resorted to including "almost choked on a pretzel." Distinguishing work, Dubya!


----------



## vilk

Someone threw a grenade at him in Georgia but it didn't detonate because it was wrapped in a handkerchief that would not let the lever click or something.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> An impeachment based on....?



Two ways to address that. 

One is at face value, and I already covered that several posts back - right off the bat, his ordering DHS to ignore the judicial stay on his immigration ban is grounds for impeachment. There are others, I'd say, but we only need one. 

The other is pragmatically. If Trump's approval numbers get so bad that he really begins pulling down the GOP with him, they will FIND some reason to impeach him. Remember that Clinton got impeached not for whatever the GOP was originally investigating him for (Whitewater, probably - I was young at the time), but because in passing he lied about having an affair with an intern. It was a total tangent, but the GOP was looking for a reason, and it was technically enough. So, yes, if things get that bad, the GOP WILL put the cart before the horse.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> Someone threw a grenade at him in Georgia but it didn't detonate because it was wrapped in a handkerchief that would not let the lever click or something.



Wow. Georgia the nation, not Georgia the state everyone.

This was PROBABLY not American leftists  Although that was my first knee-jerk reaction.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Two ways to address that.
> 
> One is at face value, and I already covered that several posts back - right off the bat, his ordering DHS to ignore the judicial stay on his immigration ban is grounds for impeachment. There are others, I'd say, but we only need one.
> 
> The other is pragmatically. If Trump's approval numbers get so bad that he really begins pulling down the GOP with him, they will FIND some reason to impeach him. Remember that Clinton got impeached not for whatever the GOP was originally investigating him for (Whitewater, probably - I was young at the time), but because in passing he lied about having an affair with an intern. It was a total tangent, but the GOP was looking for a reason, and it was technically enough. So, yes, if things get that bad, the GOP WILL put the cart before the horse.



If you try, and fail to impeach, you will create the God-Emperor none of us want.

If you let him look like a jackass for 4 or 8 years, you convince everyone to take more responsibility with their choices.

He is worth WAY more to the DNC in office, at least until they have some policy in their platform beyond identity politics and white guilt....


----------



## bostjan

Trump is old, and probably not the healthiest president. He's not well liked at home nor around the world, and, as I had not noticed until you guys pointed out, he's subject to Tecumseh's curse. If he makes it eight years without being impeached or dying in office, it'll really say something.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> If you try, and fail to impeach, you will create the God-Emperor none of us want.
> 
> If you let him look like a jackass for 4 or 8 years, you convince everyone to take more responsibility with their choices.
> 
> He is worth WAY more to the DNC in office, at least until they have some policy in their platform beyond identity politics and white guilt....



Um, no, really, he's not - the DNC wants him out as fast as possible, because they don't want to have to spend the next 8 years undoing all the crap he's trying to do, like gutting the EPA, privatizing public education, building a $22 billion dollar wall, dismantling the ACA, etc etc etc and basically destroying America's reputation internationally. 

If the Democrats had the votes today, impeachment proceedings would already be underway. If you think the Democrats would even _risk_ watching the ACA get torn up just to improve their 2018 electoral chances, you're crazy.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Trump is old, and probably not the healthiest president. He's not well liked at home nor around the world, and, as I had not noticed until you guys pointed out, he's subject to Tecumseh's curse. If he makes it eight years without being impeached or dying in office, it'll really say something.



A friend of mine has been arguing that his combination of extreme deep state paranoia on twitter coupled with an almost weirdly nonreactive calm afterwards is rather reminiscent of her grandmother in the months before her dementia was formally diagnosed. It's not likely, but it's certainly a possible explanation for his behavior.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Um, no, really, he's not - the DNC wants him out as fast as possible, because they don't want to have to spend the next 8 years undoing all the crap he's trying to do, like gutting the EPA, privatizing public education, building a $22 billion dollar wall, dismantling the ACA, etc etc etc and basically destroying America's reputation internationally.
> 
> If the Democrats had the votes today, impeachment proceedings would already be underway.



And you'd be left with Pence, and a totally unified/pissed off conservative voter base behind him.

You don't know what you ask for....


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> And you'd be left with Pence, and a totally unified/pissed off conservative voter base behind him.
> 
> You don't know what you ask for....



I'll take Pence. He's a hard right bible belt conservative, but at least he's not likely to start a nuclear war over Twitter. Or, as an ex of mine half-joked during the midst of the first muslim ban, "At this point, I'd happily give up some of my reproductive rights just to make this immigration ban go away." She wasn't entirely kidding, either.

Came back to amend this, since you're both cynical and anti-DNC enough to think the Dems WOULD jeopardize the ACA for political points, so, if you prefer - if you think the DNC would risk letting Democratic voters even think there was an outside chance they weren't doing everything they could to protect the ACA, up to and including siezing any plausible opportunity to impeach Trump, you're crazy. 

Sure, there's a liberal bubble, and sure, sometimes that leaves the left with blind spots, but it goes both ways, so maybe there's some stuff you're missing - right now, the Democratic attitude towards Trump ranges from "impeach him as soon as we can," in the center-left, to "I want his head on a stake," as you go progressively left. If there's an opportunity, they're going to demand blood.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I agree with everything you've said.

But the liberal half isn't doing battle with Trump.... They need to worry about the reaction of the people who elected Trump.

Removing him without convincing them, will embolden them.

You do not want to "teach these people a lesson" - you need to convert them to your ideals. They were teaching libs a lesson when they elected him.

They = conservatives, and a LOT of independents that voted for Obama 4 years ago.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I agree with everything you've said.
> 
> But the liberal half isn't doing battle with Trump.... They need to worry about the reaction of the people who elected Trump.
> 
> Removing him without convincing them, will embolden them.
> 
> You do not want to "teach these people a lesson" - you need to convert them to your ideals. They were teaching libs a lesson when they elected him.
> 
> They = conservatives, and a LOT of independents that voted for Obama 4 years ago.



Holy ...., I also agree with everything you just wrote. WTF sort of alternate reality are we in right now?  

I think that's one of the biggest weaknesses on the left right now - we're laser-focused on what we think is "right" and "just" and arguing from what's essentially a perspective of self-righteousness, which in my experience is the fastest way to get anyone to shut down and tune you out. I think there needs to be less attention paid to what makes the left feel justified and better about themselves, and more on what might _actually convince people_. But that's neither here nor there. But, you DID hit on my biggest issue with the liberal opposition to Trump right now, so kudos for that. 

Again, though, I'm talking about a hypothetical point in the future where Trump's support HAS tanked with independents and moderates, and all he's got left is his core. If he was pulling about 35% of the GOP and the GOP is about 40% of registered voters, if you cut him down to just his base, he's got the support of 14% of Americans. At that point, frankly, the nature of representative democracy is that while that 14% is going to be pretty angry that Trump was impeached and removed from office (and, potentially, depending on the nature of the offense he was impeached for, thrown in jail and/or executed - let's not forget that treason is a capital crime, and if he's found to have colluded with the Russians for political gain in return for modifying the GOP platform on Ukraine, that's the charge he'll be facing), there's not a whole heck of a lot they can do about it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

There is that big 40% group of "undecided" independents.

They have not been processing the news cycle of the last 3 months in the same way that partisans do.

They see most of the news cycle as partisan BS.

If they read Drudge, which many do, they are seeing the American revival. Jobs are back, Stock market is up. Unemployment is down.

If they interpret Trump as economically successful, you don't have them. Sorry.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> There is that big 40% group of "undecided" independents.
> 
> They have not been processing the news cycle of the last 3 months in the same way that partisans do.
> 
> They see most of the news cycle as partisan BS.
> 
> If they read Drudge, which many do, they are seeing the American revival. Jobs are back, Stock market is up. Unemployment is down.
> 
> If they interpret Trump as economically successful, you don't have them. Sorry.



Well, again, this is why I keep predicating this on a scenario where Trump's approval numbers HAVE tanked, and saying that it's extremely unlikely he'll get impeached until that happens. 

Obviously, if he has the support of a solid majority (or even, as at present, a large minority) of Americans, the bar for impeachment becomes extremely high. That's a little bit of a circular argument thoughh because the sort of crime that would be necessary to get him impeached - again, he and his campaign working with Russian intelligence on the DNC leaks is a great hypothetical example - would _also_ cause him to lose the moderate vote in a hurry.

EDIT - also, I'll say this: Today's Gallup numbers are a bit more favorable than some recent ones, but they have him at 42% approve/52% disapprove. You can interpret this in a couple ways of course but Pew bundles Democrats and "lean Democrat" independents (which IMO is safe, as it's statistically about as strong an indicator of voting as registering as one) and Republicans and "lean republican" independents, and the Dems have a slight edge, 48%/44%. One, that suggests that a lot of the "independent" voter block is illusory, and two, bouncing that against Trump's approval numbers suggests that his support is likely already down to "dependable" Republican voters, and he's *already* lost the middle. Any further degradation in his approval numbers would be strongly suggestive of his own party turning against him.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The independents don't trust media polls anymore either. Remember the 98% chance of Hillary winning the election? What a crock....

Today's Drudge headlines (not opinions, but data):

1) New jobs growth +235,000 jobs
2) Private sector growth 3x of public
3) Bloomberg: America economy better on ALL metrics
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-u-s-is-getting-better-by-almost-any-measure

Independents notice these things. Honestly, I hope whatever has happend continues, I will retire before he leaves office.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Yeah those are the same numbers of job growth under Obama but Trump claimed they were lies and that unemployment was at 40%. 
He's taking credit for Obama's success.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Yeah those are the same numbers of job growth under Obama but Trump claimed they were lies and that unemployment was at 40%.
> He's taking credit for Obama's success.



With job numbers, I agree.

The stock market is something else... I don't know what it is specifically, I guess "optimism" about deregulation, but it is Trump related.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

CapnForsaggio said:


> With job numbers, I agree.
> 
> The stock market is something else... I don't know what it is specifically, I guess "optimism" about deregulation, but it is Trump related.



The stock market will continue to increase under the bubble we've created until it reaches it's cyclical downfall yet again.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> With job numbers, I agree.
> 
> The stock market is something else... I don't know what it is specifically, I guess "optimism" about deregulation, but it is Trump related.



I think we're getting very different reads from the stock market and bond market. 

Stock market, by and large, I agree with you - I'd say it's equal parts "deregulation" and "tax reform," with a sprinkle of "ACA repeal" thrown in for measure. However, I also think that the market is way ahead of its skis right now; we've seen more deregulation, though in the financial industry I don't think we're likely to see anything meaningful, and I don't know how much gutting the EPA will really do to the bottom line. In the industry commentary I've read, generally tax reform is pointed to as the bigger driver, yet I just don't see it - with a 2 vote senate majority, any changes will have to be done through reconciliation. One, there are only two opportunities to do so this year and Ryan has indicated that the first will be used for the ACA (itself hardly certain, there's too much opposition from within the GOP to the current plan to take its passage for granted), meaning they can't pick it up until October, way too late to retroactively make it a 2017 event. And two, to pass through reconciliation means it has to be revenue neutral over a 10 year horizon. Even under dynamic scoring that's impossible without the border tax to offset the revenue loss from cuts elsewhere, and it looks very unlikely that a border tax has enough votes to clear the Senate. That means the best case scenario may be a plan with a 10 year sunset (similar to the Bush tax cuts) that doesn't go into effect before 2018. Yet, the market rally seems to be taking a 2017 reform with no sunset as a done deal. It's nuts - I won't even try to pin a date or reason on this, but IMO we're do for a correction (and I've been building up a cash/bond position to buy the dip when it happens).

The bond market, though... Everyone talks about the "Trump Rally" and points to the stock market, but the bond market got _spooked_. Yields jumped 80bps between the election and the end of the month, which is maybe the 2nd or 3rd biggest nominal move since 1963, the earliest date the St. Louis Fed has data on their site, and their biggest as a % of starting yield _ever_ in a one-month period. The traditional thought process is bonds underperform when equities rally based on GDP growth and, in turn, higher expected inflation (which makes distant cash payments "worth" less in present value terms), but inflation barely budged, and most of the yield increase was due to expansion in the term premium. It looks like the Chinese may have accelerated Treasury selling after Trump won, but that's only part of the story. One way or another, the market suddenly started demanding a much higher premium for holding longer dated bonds than shorter ones, which suggests a lot more uncertainty about the future path of economic growth. This is something equity investors should be way more worried about than they are. 

Idunno. The markets aren't making hell of a lot of sense right now. given a surging stock market and widening yields, the dollar should be weaking or remaining unchanged. Instead it's strengthening. That suggests the market believes the Fed will have to move a lot more aggressively in raising the short term rates to fight inflation in coming months, which means global investors will receive higher interest if they buy USD. With the term premium increasing, though, it looks like buyers aren't willing to take duration risk and instead are focusing on short maturities... 

Either way, yeah, I think the stock market is responding extremely optimistically to the Trump agenda (and remember, in the past, it traded up when Clinton's polling numbers were improving, and off when Trump started to close the gap, so this is a new preference), and not discounting the fact that few details exist and there's a lot of uncertainty around it actually becoming law.


----------



## bostjan

To look at it from the highest, vaguest level, the stock market could be bumping because of the expectation that a Trump presidency will bolster some industries, and the bond market could be dipping because of the expectation that a Trump presidency will tank the federal government. We might not see a tug-of-war between the two for some months, yet.

Market economics are a very deep and reactive study; however, just like the "guess 2/3rds of the average game," it's dominated by first order approximations enough that higher order approximations are potentially embarrassingly inaccurate.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> I'll take Pence. He's a hard right bible belt conservative, but at least he's not likely to start a nuclear war over Twitter. Or, as an ex of mine half-joked during the midst of the first muslim ban, "At this point, I'd happily give up some of my reproductive rights just to make this immigration ban go away." She wasn't entirely kidding, either.



Are you kidding? Do you honestly think another country or Trump is going to start a nuclear war over a stupid Twitter comment? Please tell me you see how saying a comment like this is unfounded and fear-mongering. To me, it sounds just as silly as someone saying that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers.

Honestly, I think Trump would nuke Tijuana [and part of Southern California] before a country like North Korea reacts to Trump's twitter feed with nuclear intent. Yes, also unfounded. Point is: I don't think a single country takes his twitter feed seriously when it comes to foreign policy.

And the longer Trump wastes fighting this immigration ban, the less time he has to do things that actually could be passed. Ya, building a wall is dumb. Ya deporting people who lived here 20+ years is dumb [from my standpoint]. However, I understand why it is happening [even though I don't agree with it and think the facts don't justify it].

The government is horrendous right now, but I'd rather watch Trump than have someone with worse policies and better ability to work within the government. Not to mention Trump's lack of work ethic and flip-flopping on stances is completely slowing down the entire government [which is preventing them from passing as much as Pence would].

In 2018, there is a chance to re-balance. The more Trump looks like... himself... the more animosity will grow. An impeachment to me is far worse than letting him play golf in Florida and act like an insecure fool on Twitter.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> Are you kidding? Do you honestly think another country or Trump is going to start a nuclear war over a stupid Twitter comment? Please tell me you see how saying a comment like this is unfounded and fear-mongering. To me, it sounds just as silly as someone saying that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers.
> 
> Honestly, I think Trump would nuke Tijuana [and part of Southern California] before a country like North Korea reacts to Trump's twitter feed with nuclear intent. Yes, also unfounded. Point is: I don't think a single country takes his twitter feed seriously when it comes to foreign policy.
> 
> And the longer Trump wastes fighting this immigration ban, the less time he has to do things that actually could be passed. Ya, building a wall is dumb. Ya deporting people who lived here 20+ years is dumb [from my standpoint]. However, I understand why it is happening [even though I don't agree with it and think the facts don't justify it].
> 
> The government is horrendous right now, but I'd rather watch Trump than have someone with worse policies and better ability to work within the government. Not to mention Trump's lack of work ethic and flip-flopping on stances is completely slowing down the entire government [which is preventing them from passing as much as Pence would].
> 
> In 2018, there is a chance to re-balance. The more Trump looks like... himself... the more animosity will grow. An impeachment to me is far worse than letting him play golf in Florida and act like an insecure fool on Twitter.



I think people forget how close the world was to nuclear war in the past, and why.

5 Nov 1956 - False alarm of nuclear war instigation during the Suez crisis
5 Oct 1960 - The moon triggered a false alarm of nuclear launch
24 Nov 1961 - A relay station malfunctioned; many missiles armed to launch
27 Oct 1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis
9 Nov 1965 - False alarm of a nuclear attack during power outage
23 May 1967 - A large solar flare nearly caused nuclear missiles to launch
9 Nov 1979 - Faulty computer chips
15 Mar 1980 - Soviets launched dummy nukes during training, USA misidentified their trajectory and nearly counter-attacked
26 Sep 1983 - A Soviet radar system malfunctioned and identified clouds as nukes, luckily, a Soviet officer (Stanislav Petrov) refused to follow military protocol that would have ended the world as we know it by not launching a counter-attack
25 Jan 1995 - After Norwegian scientists launched a rocket with atmospheric measurement equipment, Boris Yeltsin activated a nuclear briefcase. Luckily, the matter was sorted out moments before he was to press the button.
23 Oct 2010 - After computer hackers infiltrated a nuclear missile silo in Wyoming (for ~45 minutes), military technicians had to manually disarm ICBMs to prevent them from launching.

Keep in mind that these events happened while we had presidents like JFK, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, Carter, etc., ... If Trump got the call that North Korea was attacking us, do you think he would wait the 7-9 minutes to make sure, or would he just say "Nukes, Korea, very bad, very bad, never liked them at all, very bad" and press the button.

IDK.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Are you kidding? Do you honestly think another country or Trump is going to start a nuclear war over a stupid Twitter comment? Please tell me you see how saying a comment like this is unfounded and fear-mongering. To me, it sounds just as silly as someone saying that all Mexicans are rapists and murderers.
> 
> Honestly, I think Trump would nuke Tijuana [and part of Southern California] before a country like North Korea reacts to Trump's twitter feed with nuclear intent. Yes, also unfounded. Point is: I don't think a single country takes his twitter feed seriously when it comes to foreign policy.
> 
> And the longer Trump wastes fighting this immigration ban, the less time he has to do things that actually could be passed. Ya, building a wall is dumb. Ya deporting people who lived here 20+ years is dumb [from my standpoint]. However, I understand why it is happening [even though I don't agree with it and think the facts don't justify it].
> 
> The government is horrendous right now, but I'd rather watch Trump than have someone with worse policies and better ability to work within the government. Not to mention Trump's lack of work ethic and flip-flopping on stances is completely slowing down the entire government [which is preventing them from passing as much as Pence would].
> 
> In 2018, there is a chance to re-balance. The more Trump looks like... himself... the more animosity will grow. An impeachment to me is far worse than letting him play golf in Florida and act like an insecure fool on Twitter.



Trump is badly lacking in impulse control - in fact, I haven't seen any evidence that he has any. He also seems to have a questionable grasp on reality - see his twitter meltdown on wiretaps that his own staff is now backing away from. 

Combined, do I see a chance that Trump will lose his temper and just nuke someone? Yes. Is it likely? Not extremely, but it's non-negligible, and nuclear war tends to escalate pretty quickly - allegedly, a lot of Russian auto-response systems from the cold war are still active. All in, even a 10% chance of nuclear holocaust in the next four years is WAY more than I'm prepared to take. 

So, yes. I'm dead serious. I'm not worried about someone else nuking us because of something Trump says. I'm worried about them nuking us because he struck first.

EDIT - also, what bostjan said. I haven't yet bought a decent bottle of scotch to leave at my desk, but I'm going to. If word breaks that we've launched a nuclear strike at someone, I'll be opening it - if I have to die because of Trump's lack of impulse control (and Boston is a probable counter-strike target) then I'm going to at least have the decency to do it with a good single malt in hand.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Trump is badly lacking in impulse control - in fact, I haven't seen any evidence that he has any. He also seems to have a questionable grasp on reality - see his twitter meltdown on wiretaps that his own staff is now backing away from.
> 
> Combined, do I see a chance that Trump will lose his temper and just nuke someone? Yes. Is it likely? Not extremely, but it's non-negligible, and nuclear war tends to escalate pretty quickly - allegedly, a lot of Russian auto-response systems from the cold war are still active. All in, even a 10% chance of nuclear holocaust in the next four years is WAY more than I'm prepared to take.
> 
> So, yes. I'm dead serious. I'm not worried about someone else nuking us because of something Trump says. I'm worried about them nuking us because he struck first.



Being fully hypothetical, but applying realistic logic:

IF the USA launched nukes directed toward any nation anywhere near Russia, Russia would respond AUTOMATICALLY by launching everything they've got. The entire end of the world would be assured in less than an hour, unless someone holding a launch key or responsible for pressing a button made a conscious decision to stand in the way.



Drew said:


> EDIT - also, what bostjan said. I haven't yet bought a decent bottle of scotch to leave at my desk, but I'm going to. If word breaks that we've launched a nuclear strike at someone, I'll be opening it - if I have to die because of Trump's lack of impulse control (and Boston is a probable counter-strike target) then I'm going to at least have the decency to do it with a good single malt in hand.



I'll have time. St. Johnsbury is probably about 178 or 179 on the list of targets, but the fallout from Boston would be enough to get some nasty radiation poisoning. Thinking about how none of the above information was ever public at the time, though, I think it might be safe to say that John Q Public wouldn't even ever know what hit him.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Trump is badly lacking in impulse control - in fact, I haven't seen any evidence that he has any. He also seems to have a questionable grasp on reality - see his twitter meltdown on wiretaps that his own staff is now backing away from.
> 
> Combined, do I see a chance that Trump will lose his temper and just nuke someone? Yes. Is it likely? Not extremely, but it's non-negligible, and nuclear war tends to escalate pretty quickly - allegedly, a lot of Russian auto-response systems from the cold war are still active. All in, even a 10% chance of nuclear holocaust in the next four years is WAY more than I'm prepared to take.
> 
> So, yes. I'm dead serious. I'm not worried about someone else nuking us because of something Trump says. I'm worried about them nuking us because he struck first.
> 
> EDIT - also, what bostjan said. I haven't yet bought a decent bottle of scotch to leave at my desk, but I'm going to. If word breaks that we've launched a nuclear strike at someone, I'll be opening it - if I have to die because of Trump's lack of impulse control (and Boston is a probable counter-strike target) then I'm going to at least have the decency to do it with a good single malt in hand.



The fear mongering sentiments above are the liberal equivalent to, 

"Obama's gonna take our guns and make use part of the NWO...."

I can't believe you would think this.

What part of "making America great again" would include nuclear war?!

The only people talking about "buttons" or twitter-causing-warfare are on MSNBC, and they have been saying this for a year.

You are allowed to think for yourself again, reasonably.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> The fear mongering sentiments above are the liberal equivalent to,
> 
> "Obama's gonna take our guns and make use part of the NWO...."
> 
> I can't believe you would think this.
> 
> What part of "making America great again" would include nuclear war?!
> 
> The only people talking about "buttons" or twitter-causing-warfare are on MSNBC, and they have been saying this for a year.
> 
> You are allowed to think for yourself again, reasonably.



Agreed.

To pick on the "What part of 'making America great again' would include" -statement, though, what part of making America great again includes:
Repealing the Clean Water Act
Banning Muslims
Selling guns to the psychologically and mentally compromised
Removing transparency regulations requiring energy companies to publicly disclose public funding
Dumping coal mining waste into rivers and streams
Hiking FHA insurance rates for low income housing
etc. etc.

I agree that he's done some good things in office. He started out doing a lot. Some good, some bad... but not everything he's done is in the interest of "making America great again."


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> To pick on the "What part of 'making America great again' would include" -statement, though, what part of making America great again includes:
> 
> Selling guns to the psychologically and mentally compromised
> 
> Hiking FHA insurance rates for low income housing



I disagree with your hyperbole on the 2 items I've listed above, but that's being pretty picky.

My sentiments are as follows:

Guns > Doctors don't get to decide my rights. The courts do.

FHA > Rates were way too low. Anyone in the industry would confirm this.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Trump is badly lacking in impulse control - in fact, I haven't seen any evidence that he has any. He also seems to have a questionable grasp on reality - see his twitter meltdown on wiretaps that his own staff is now backing away from.
> 
> Combined, do I see a chance that Trump will lose his temper and just nuke someone? Yes. Is it likely? Not extremely, but it's non-negligible, and nuclear war tends to escalate pretty quickly - allegedly, a lot of Russian auto-response systems from the cold war are still active. All in, even a 10% chance of nuclear holocaust in the next four years is WAY more than I'm prepared to take.
> 
> So, yes. I'm dead serious. I'm not worried about someone else nuking us because of something Trump says. I'm worried about them nuking us because he struck first.



I agree he has no impulse control. It takes 2 people to launch nukes. 10% is ridiculous. Nonzero, yes. But not 10%. We had higher threat of nukes with Cuba and Russia during the cold war.

The chance of Pence with GOP control of the other branches passing agenda that will negatively strip rights and empower religious zealots and rich people is way over 50%


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> The fear mongering sentiments above are the liberal equivalent to,
> 
> "Obama's gonna take our guns and make use part of the NWO...."
> 
> I can't believe you would think this.
> 
> What part of "making America great again" would include nuclear war?!
> 
> The only people talking about "buttons" or twitter-causing-warfare are on MSNBC, and they have been saying this for a year.
> 
> You are allowed to think for yourself again, reasonably.



If you feel that way, how does it feel to be on the other side of that coin for a change? 



fantom said:


> I agree he has no impulse control. It takes 2 people to launch nukes. 10% is ridiculous. Nonzero, yes. But not 10%. We had higher threat of nukes with Cuba and Russia during the cold war.
> 
> The chance of Pence with GOP control of the other branches passing agenda that will negatively strip rights and empower religious zealots and rich people is way over 50%



Not really - there are other people involved in the process, but none of them are actually authorized to _stop_ - once Trump gives the order and provides the nuclear launch codes (carried by an agent with him at all times) you technically need someone to opt to ignore a direct order from the commander in chief, or otherwise within about 5 minutes missiles are in the air. 

Now, I'd HOPE that the general who receives the order has the forethought and balls to say no... But again, the possibility is still there. And, from what I know about Trump, he doesn't deal well with people not following orders. I could easily see him immediately firing the general and giving the order to his second in command, or just calling another general who's in a position to launch and hit the intended target, until someone is willing to launch a nuclear missile. If Trump loses his cool and decides to nuke someone, I see this ending in one of two ways - either a nuclear attack, or a military coup/25th amendment-section 4 removal of Trump from office. 

Anyway, we're splitting hairs. I'm not prepared to accept a nonzero change of nuclear obliteration just because Trump can't keep his temper in check and isn't used to taking no for an answer.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Anyway, we're splitting hairs. I'm not prepared to accept a nonzero change of nuclear obliteration just because Trump can't keep his temper in check and isn't used to taking no for an answer.



Everything is relative. 

I see using Russia as a political boogeyman as needlessly risking nuclear war....

I was given a choice between Hillary and Trump. I believe that less war will be fought by Trump. I offer Clinton's tenure as SOS as evidence of her hawking.

I stand by that choice still.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Anyway, we're splitting hairs. I'm not prepared to accept a nonzero change of nuclear obliteration just because Trump can't keep his temper in check and isn't used to taking no for an answer.



I mean this with respect, but you should buy lottery tickets with this attitude. Your stance here is that the issue with lowest probability of affecting the lives of Americans should be the basis for decision making. I'm honestly much more worried by the GOP stance on climate and the EPA ending modern civilization than I am about Trump losing his cool and launching nukes. And Pence in charge will have more impact to Americans than Trump.

Again, I agree with you that Trump loses his cool, but I am more worried about North Korea attacking Japan or South Korea than Trump going nuts because someone doesn't like him on Twitter.


----------



## wankerness

I have to agree that Hillary wanting to implement a no fly zone over syria, which would have basically required us to shoot down Russian planes, which would have caused insane escalation, would have been far worse than Trump's "Russia is cool" attitude.

Anyway, anyone see the CBO report? 14 million more people uninsured by 2018 with this new Trumpcare taxcuts for the rich plan, 24 million more by 2026. NOICE

I almost want it to go through, cause at this point I am starting to want these people to receive what they voted for.  It's just too bad the rich will make out the biggest winners again, as usual.


----------



## bostjan

1. Regarding gun sales to the mentally infirmed. That's just outrageously stupid. Not sure how you get off calling that a hyperbole. I see what you are saying about doctors making that decision for you, though, but that's another issue. Having a doctor take away other rights of mine, like my basic rights, but being, at least on paper, allowed to buy a gun, is just all out of priority.

2. Since 1945, there has not ever been a nonzero chance of being nuked.

3. I'm not sure how the odds of a nuclear war are calculated, to be honest. It's widely known that I had little love for HRC, and I never saw her as a safe option, particularly as she wished to escalate tensions with Russia. Trump; however, is at risk for becoming a despot. It could be the case that either of the two options would have led us into oblivion. That's when it is time to weigh other options. If Monty Hall offers you to chose door number one or door number two, and you know that one door hides a man eating tiger, and the other door hides a cloud of deadly poison gas, which door do you open? How about kick Monty in the kneecap and run away? 

4.Even if Trump goes completely mad, the odds of a nuclear war are still mitigated by checks and balances. Most sane people, given a choice to be fired from their job or to end life on Earth, will chose the former.


----------



## vilk

wankerness said:


> Anyway, anyone see the CBO report? 14 million more people uninsured by 2018 with this new Trumpcare taxcuts for the rich plan, 24 million more by 2026. NOICE



But you already know the right wing counter-argument: "_that's fake news. That's false statistics reported as part of an anti-Trump agenda"_

What's more--feeding said confirmation bias holds by and far the most weight with regards to most of Trump's support base. The moment he says 'Those numbers are wrong', it doesn't matter what he says next. It doesn't matter if he does or doesn't give an explanation, irrespective of whether it's good or makes sense.


----------



## wankerness

vilk said:


> But you already know the right wing counter-argument: "_that's fake news. That's false statistics reported as part of an anti-Trump agenda"_
> 
> What's more--feeding said confirmation bias holds by and far the most weight with regards to most of Trump's support base. The moment he says 'Those numbers are wrong', it doesn't matter what he says next. It doesn't matter if he does or doesn't give an explanation, irrespective of whether it's good or makes sense.



The CBO is a neutral organization, so most of the right wing response is more like "they're a good organization, but we disagree with them." Some others are like "of course less people will have health care, cause we don't force them to!"  I do think that would account for maybe a million or more of them (I understand why some lower-class citizens hated having to, since they had to pay more than they could afford and their deductibles were so high it was basically just a huge tax for them since they couldn't afford to get treatment anyway), but 14? Jesus. I thought much of their plan wasn't going to hit till 2020 anyway, so they could get Trump reelected before the really bad parts went into effect. Guess not.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> I mean this with respect, but you should buy lottery tickets with this attitude. Your stance here is that the issue with lowest probability of affecting the lives of Americans should be the basis for decision making. I'm honestly much more worried by the GOP stance on climate and the EPA ending modern civilization than I am about Trump losing his cool and launching nukes. And Pence in charge will have more impact to Americans than Trump.
> 
> Again, I agree with you that Trump loses his cool, but I am more worried about North Korea attacking Japan or South Korea than Trump going nuts because someone doesn't like him on Twitter.



Two comments - 

1) Twitter maybe isn't the greatest example, but the idea that someone is going to piss Trump off enough to make him want to start dropping nukes is, while not particularly likely, also not inconceivable. 

2) This is nuclear warfare we're talking about - I want the odds of a nuclear war to be as close to "inconceivable" as humanly possible, which clearly they're not. I think lottery tickets are a less apt metaphor than is the human tendency to underestimate the likelihood of low-probability events - basically, to ignore the tails of a probability distribution. Even a 1-in-100 chance even still happens, you know?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Everything is relative.
> 
> I see using Russia as a political boogeyman as needlessly risking nuclear war....
> 
> I was given a choice between Hillary and Trump. I believe that less war will be fought by Trump. I offer Clinton's tenure as SOS as evidence of her hawking.
> 
> I stand by that choice still.



Hey, I disagree with your conclusions here, but that's at least a reasonable basis for your belief. I hope you're right.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> I have to agree that Hillary wanting to implement a no fly zone over syria, which would have basically required us to shoot down Russian planes, which would have caused insane escalation, would have been far worse than Trump's "Russia is cool" attitude.
> 
> Anyway, anyone see the CBO report? 14 million more people uninsured by 2018 with this new Trumpcare taxcuts for the rich plan, 24 million more by 2026. NOICE
> 
> I almost want it to go through, cause at this point I am starting to want these people to receive what they voted for.  It's just too bad the rich will make out the biggest winners again, as usual.



Bigger than that - the CBO explicity stated in the opening of their report that their believe was that ever RyanCare OR ObamaCare were likely to be stable for the period of the analysis - i.e., all this "ObamaCare has failed" and "death spiral" talk is pure BS.

We've had a health care system virtually identical to Obamacare for something like ten years now here in MA - in fact, the ACA borrowed heavily from it - and Utah passed a very similar plan some time ago as well. Both systems are still going strong today. The rumors of the ACA's demise seem to have been "somewhat exaggerated."


----------



## wankerness

Well, the new budget proposal COMPLETELY ELIMINATES several federal programs (including the National Endowment for the Arts and everything with the CPB) to offset spending increases on the f'in military, while not reducing the federal debt one iota. AWESOME. AMERICA, F*** YEAH. One of my parents will be out of a job, flat-out, if this passes. And of course, it eliminates huge swaths of the EPA, because climate change is fake, and any federal help for cleaning up poisoned freshwater would be welfare. At least it also eliminates several programs directed at poor americans who voted for Trump. I hate this.


----------



## vilk

I don't understand how there aren't crowds of people everywhere the man goes just screaming "F*** YOU!!" and "RESIGN!" and sh/t like that.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I don't understand how there aren't crowds of people everywhere the man goes just screaming "F*** YOU!!" and "RESIGN!" and sh/t like that.



There are.  They're not as large as the big protests early on (which isn't saying much - those were HUGE), and they're not as big a story any more, but there are definitely still protesters out there. 

In other news, when's the last time you've heard a story about Sessions and Russia?

EDIT - and in the spirit of bipartisanship, how was that tax return thing for being a total non-event?


----------



## simonpimonpoo

People clearly aren't aware of what is happening. So Trump cut the government funding of communist NGO's (art ....). Your mother is out of a job but atleast your children won't live in a 1984 geroge orwell dystopia?!


----------



## narad

simonpimonpoo said:


> People clearly aren't aware of what is happening. So Trump cut the government funding of communist NGO's (art ....). Your mother is out of a job but atleast your children won't live in a 1984 geroge orwell dystopia?!



Was cutting art programs important to preventing the dystopia? Sorry, I'm not up-to-date on my ....-logic.


----------



## wankerness

simonpimonpoo said:


> People clearly aren't aware of what is happening. So Trump cut the government funding of communist NGO's (art ....). Your mother is out of a job but atleast your children won't live in a 1984 geroge orwell dystopia?!



I'm 99.999% sure you're joking, but regardless, here's the actual amount of money being taken up by some of these, proving that eliminating them are pure spite/political statement:

NEA: $148 Million/year (.0112% of budget)
CPB: $149 Million/year

By comparison, the current yearly budget for SECURITY for TRUMP TOWER is:

$183 Million/year



This is to balance out THIS increase in getting us more nukes and soldiers for...no reason other than showing off our massive peen to other countries.

$54 BILLION

And THIS amount of money towards his idiotic wall that will probably never happen:

$1.46 BILLION


----------



## Drew

Proposing that we cut all funding to PBS and NEA is just window dressing. It probably won't happen, and it won't do a goddamn thing to balance the budget if it does. 

And, speaking as a guy who has a super serious, adult, boring finance job, I think I got more from my music classes in high school than anything else I took - this stuff is important.


----------



## Ralyks

Anyone else seeing the FBI Director speaking to Congress in regards to Russia ties and the wire tap claims?


----------



## tedtan

No, I can't watch ATM. What am I missing?


----------



## Drew

Had it on in the background at work, but I'm on a trading desk so it wasn't ideal listening - there were a couple great exchanges (someone trying to get him to confirm who was in the meeting where Trump was briefed on the dossier, while Comey was being very careful to state that publicly he couldn't confirm or deny that the meeting even happened - it was actually a really fun interchange to watch). 

Big one is that there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that the Trump Tower was wiretapped, of course.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Drew said:


> Big one is that there's no evidence to support Trump's claim that the Trump Tower was wiretapped, of course.



Well, that and, the FBI director confirmed they're investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, "...and that includes the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government..."

I'm personally more interested in what comes of that.


----------



## Drew

Science_Penguin said:


> Well, that and, the FBI director confirmed they're investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election, "...and that includes the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government..."
> 
> I'm personally more interested in what comes of that.



I thought that was pretty widely known, though to be fair I guess it's highly unusual for the FBI to confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation...


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> I thought that was pretty widely known, though to be fair I guess it's highly unusual for the FBI to confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation...



You are talking about Comey? No?

You must be aware of his track record... 

This is like the 3rd time he's publicly announced an FBI investigation. Usually he just does it without provocation


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> You are talking about Comey? No?
> 
> You must be aware of his track record...
> 
> This is like the 3rd time he's publicly announced an FBI investigation. Usually he just does it without provocation



 Fair. But even then it's not FBI practice to comment on an ongoing FBI investigation. In the first time, he evoked public interest to testify about the Clinton email investigation, and the second time his motives were a little less clear, but it's been theorized that by promising to keep Congress updated of any changes, he felt he had to go public with the additional email review, as if they found anything and that came out afterwards it would be taken very badly. This third time, again, he notes that given the nature of the investigation its in the best interest of the American public for him to comment. 

Serious question - you're a Trump supporter, and not shy about speaking your mind. What's your honest read on this? That it's all "fake news the Democrats made up because they were embarrassed they lost," like Trump tweets? Or that there's legitimate cause for concern in the fact that now Flynn, Sessions, and even Trump have been confirmed to have met with Russian agents, despite their subsequent denials, and that whether or not you think anything was unusual in the meetings occurring, the decision to subsequently deny them is troubling? 

Like, as a Trump supporter, is everything groovy here and this is all just an ugly distraction by the sad loser Dems to distract Trump from Making America Great Again, or do you still like the guy and are glad he won, but you're a little concerned by his attitude towards Russia? I promise I won't try to talk you out of whatever your opinion is, I'm just trying to understand what this looks like from the other side of the partisan aisle.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Fair. But even then it's not FBI practice to comment on an ongoing FBI investigation. In the first time, he evoked public interest to testify about the Clinton email investigation, and the second time his motives were a little less clear, but it's been theorized that by promising to keep Congress updated of any changes, he felt he had to go public with the additional email review, as if they found anything and that came out afterwards it would be taken very badly. This third time, again, he notes that given the nature of the investigation its in the best interest of the American public for him to comment.
> 
> Serious question - you're a Trump supporter, and not shy about speaking your mind. What's your honest read on this? That it's all "fake news the Democrats made up because they were embarrassed they lost," like Trump tweets? Or that there's legitimate cause for concern in the fact that now Flynn, Sessions, and even Trump have been confirmed to have met with Russian agents, despite their subsequent denials, and that whether or not you think anything was unusual in the meetings occurring, the decision to subsequently deny them is troubling?
> 
> Like, as a Trump supporter, is everything groovy here and this is all just an ugly distraction by the sad loser Dems to distract Trump from Making America Great Again, or do you still like the guy and are glad he won, but you're a little concerned by his attitude towards Russia? I promise I won't try to talk you out of whatever your opinion is, I'm just trying to understand what this looks like from the other side of the partisan aisle.




Thank you for asking, even though you called me a "Trump supporter." I think "Clinton Hater" is more appropriate....

I am beginning to believe that Trump is using the 'Russian narrative' against the media/DNC. Hear me out:

1) Would you say that Comey is MOST responsible for tanking Clinton in the final days of her campaign? Why would he "change teams" now?

2) If Trump and team ABSOLUTELY KNOW there is no Russia connection, the longer they drag these proceedings out, the more free time they have to enact their agenda while no one watches. 
2a) Consider Comey's interview yesterday. 
2b) Consider what the rabid DNC is going to look like in a year when nothing turns up....

In short, I think that someone has written better palybook than Saul Alinski, finally!

Time will tell what this administration achieves. If lower taxes, lower crime, and diminished international intervention are in-store than I am all for it!


----------



## Drew

That's a fair distinction, to a point. However, the election ended about 5 months ago - at this point, Clinton is a non-factor. If you're defending Trump, you're defending Trump, not hating Clinton. 

That's an interesting argument, and I don't think we're yet at a point where we can prove or disprove it. Definitely worth watching and thinking about. 

The one big issue I see, though, is that we DO know that there are at least elements of truth to the "Russia narrative" that the Trump administration has lied about. Flynn resigned amid the blowback after it became clear he had had a phone conversation with the Russian ambassador the day we announced sanctions in retaliation for the hacking, that he later lied about. Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador, once privately, and by his own admission they discussion sanctions in retaliation for Russia's Ukrainian intervention, which again he denied doing in his Senate testimony. He thus far has merely reclused himself from any investigation. And, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump met with the Russian ambassador in March of 2016, while Trump still denies having ever met with Russian officials. And then there's Tillerson's connection with the Russian government from his 20 year career in Russia - he, at least, hasn't lied about his connections, but the first three have. 

So, I don't agree with 2b) - things HAVE turned up. Nothing truly damning to Trump has come up (though Sessions I'm surprised has gotten off as easily as he has), but Trump and his team have been caught in a number of lies about their connections with Russia already. That doesn't prove there's something deeper lurking out there for the investigations to uncover, but at a minimum this is clearly a high-cost strategy for Trump - it's already cost him one Cabinet official and compromised another. 

EDIT - and yes, I apologize, I said I wasn't going to try to change your mind and here I am...  Still, you pose an interesting theory here. The other thing I wonder is if Trump really has the self control to play that long an end game.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> That's a fair distinction, to a point. However, the election ended about 5 months ago - at this point, Clinton is a non-factor. If you're defending Trump, you're defending Trump, not hating Clinton.
> 
> That's an interesting argument, and I don't think we're yet at a point where we can prove or disprove it. Definitely worth watching and thinking about.
> 
> The one big issue I see, though, is that we DO know that there are at least elements of truth to the "Russia narrative" that the Trump administration has lied about. Flynn resigned amid the blowback after it became clear he had had a phone conversation with the Russian ambassador the day we announced sanctions in retaliation for the hacking, that he later lied about. Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador, once privately, and by his own admission they discussion sanctions in retaliation for Russia's Ukrainian intervention, which again he denied doing in his Senate testimony. He thus far has merely reclused himself from any investigation. And, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump met with the Russian ambassador in March of 2016, while Trump still denies having ever met with Russian officials. And then there's Tillerson's connection with the Russian government from his 20 year career in Russia - he, at least, hasn't lied about his connections, but the first three have.
> 
> So, I don't agree with 2b) - things HAVE turned up. Nothing truly damning to Trump has come up (though Sessions I'm surprised has gotten off as easily as he has), but Trump and his team have been caught in a number of lies about their connections with Russia already. That doesn't prove there's something deeper lurking out there for the investigations to uncover, but at a minimum this is clearly a high-cost strategy for Trump - it's already cost him one Cabinet official and compromised another.
> 
> EDIT - and yes, I apologize, I said I wasn't going to try to change your mind and here I am...  Still, you pose an interesting theory here. The other thing I wonder is if Trump really has the self control to play that long an end game.



Game or no game.... I wouldn't bet everything on Russia if I were the DNC.

It's not a platform that will move any voters (on its own), and if it never 'gels' they wasted time and political capital. 

It's a 6 month old story now. How much life do you think it has in it?


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> It's a 6 month old story now. How much life do you think it has in it?



But it's not a six-month old "story"; it's an ongoing investigation. How much life it has depends upon what turns up/fails to turn up during the investigation.

If the results of the investigation amount to something along the lines of Trump's tax returns, it won't have much life left in it. But should something particularly damning turn up, it could mean not only impeachment proceedings, but potentially a trial for treason as well.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Game or no game.... I wouldn't bet everything on Russia if I were the DNC.
> 
> It's not a platform that will move any voters (on its own), and if it never 'gels' they wasted time and political capital.
> 
> It's a 6 month old story now. How much life do you think it has in it?



Oh, no, I agree - nor are they. The backlash to the AHCA has been pretty staggering, I think, and stories like the annual cost of the Meals on Wheels program Trump's budget eliminates costs almost exactly as much to taxpayers as one weekend of Trump traveling to Mir A Lago have also embarrassed and hurt him, not just with democrats but with moderates as well. Turns out causing 24 million people to lose health insurance and deciding a weekend of golf is more important than their grandma eating (or, similarly, his budget director's proposal that lunch programs for students "have no value and show no results" caused similar outrage) is something that people don't respond well to, and while you can nitpick the CBO's analysis, the important takeaway is not whether or not YOU think they're right, but the fact that a whole bunch of other people, including necessary Republican House votes, have taken them seriously. 

His approval numbers continue to fall, and the House vote on Thursday to send the AHCA to the Senate is going to come down to a razor margin and may actually fail (and while it's not likely to get out of the Senate anyway, this would be a HUGE embarrassment to Trump and Ryan and would likely further fray their already fractured relationship). Meanwhile, his second executive action on immigration is on judicial stay, his tax reform looks questionable too since it's becoming increasingly apparent that there aren't enough votes to support a border tax, there are lawsuits underway that the Trump Hotel is negatively impacting the business of other vent centers in the city because foreign diplomats are trying to incur favor with Trump by booking there. And that's just scratching the surface. 

Don't risk letting Russia become a distraction for you, either - Trump is under assault on virtually every conceivable area of weakness. Russia just happens to be one that's been particularly fruitful.

EDIT - what TedTan said. IT was only, what, two weeks ago that Sessions' private meeting came out, and only yesterday that the FBI formally confirmed they were investigating contact between Trump campaign aids and Russian intelligence? This one is still unfolding, and has already pulled down one Cabinet member.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Oh, no, I agree - nor are they. The backlash to the AHCA has been pretty staggering, I think, and stories like the annual cost of the Meals on Wheels program Trump's budget eliminates costs almost exactly as much to taxpayers as one weekend of Trump traveling to Mir A Lago have also embarrassed and hurt him, not just with democrats but with moderates as well. Turns out causing 24 million people to lose health insurance and deciding a weekend of golf is more important than their grandma eating (or, similarly, his budget director's proposal that lunch programs for students "have no value and show no results" caused similar outrage) is something that people don't respond well to, and while you can nitpick the CBO's analysis, the important takeaway is not whether or not YOU think they're right, but the fact that a whole bunch of other people, including necessary Republican House votes, have taken them seriously.
> 
> His approval numbers continue to fall, and the House vote on Thursday to send the AHCA to the Senate is going to come down to a razor margin and may actually fail (and while it's not likely to get out of the Senate anyway, this would be a HUGE embarrassment to Trump and Ryan and would likely further fray their already fractured relationship). Meanwhile, his second executive action on immigration is on judicial stay, his tax reform looks questionable too since it's becoming increasingly apparent that there aren't enough votes to support a border tax, there are lawsuits underway that the Trump Hotel is negatively impacting the business of other vent centers in the city because foreign diplomats are trying to incur favor with Trump by booking there. And that's just scratching the surface.
> 
> Don't risk letting Russia become a distraction for you, either - Trump is under assault on virtually every conceivable area of weakness. Russia just happens to be one that's been particularly fruitful.
> 
> EDIT - what TedTan said. IT was only, what, two weeks ago that Sessions' private meeting came out, and only yesterday that the FBI formally confirmed they were investigating contact between Trump campaign aids and Russian intelligence? This one is still unfolding, and has already pulled down one Cabinet member.



Yes, but all of those "other fronts" are REAL things.... That I and a bunch of other people hope he actually accomplishes....

I want a smaller federal government, with real borders. For the first time in the lifetimes of my grandfather, father, and myself, it is a real possibility.

Either Trump gets it done, or you take all of the President's power away, and YOU get it done.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Yes, but all of those "other fronts" are REAL things.... That I and a bunch of other people hope he actually accomplishes....
> 
> I want a smaller federal government, with real borders. For the first time in the lifetimes of my grandfather, father, and myself, it is a real possibility.
> 
> Either Trump gets it done, or you take all of the President's power away, and YOU get it done.



I'm a little confused here. 

Nothing I listed there was related to shrinking the federal government (a large part of the AHCA opposition is from the conservative wing of the GOP which thinks the repeal/replace bill is a government overreach), and the only thing I mentioned that could be considered related to border security - the immigration ban - is on judicial stay because the courts have believe it "more likely than not" to be deemed unconstitutional upon a full review. 

If you want to kick Muslims out of the country, electing Trump isn't the way to go - amending the Constitution is.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> I'm a little confused here.
> 
> If you want to kick Muslims out of the country, electing Trump isn't the way to go - amending the Constitution is.



I am not a racist, and have not referred to race. (or religion)

You are a fracking @sshole.


----------



## vilk

LOL


----------



## CapnForsaggio

vilk said:


> LOL
> 
> Drew didn't write the word "racist", and he didn't refer to race either.
> 
> Of all the users on this website, there is especially ONE user that I would describe as being a *snowflake*...



You can call it whatever you want. It was a low-intelligence response that attempted to bully with alt-left talking points. Again.

I am just pointing out that I don't have an anti Muslim agenda. 

Snowflake me away.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am not a racist, and have not referred to race. (or religion)
> 
> You are a fracking @sshole.



Way to jump to conclusions. 

The only part of the Trump agenda I listed that has _anything _to do with border control, which prompted you to talk about how we finally have a chance to secure our borders, was his travel ban from select Muslim majority countries. If this ISN'T what you were talking about, then what WERE you talking about? 

Also, I'm totally reminding you of this moment the next time you make a comment about liberals being easily offended snowflakes and getting their panties in a bunch because something offends them. 

EDIT - I mean, you don't think the _border tax_ has anything to do with border security, do you?  That's basically a VAT he's proposing, more or less. That does ....-all to secure our border though.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Snowflake me away.



Six hours later, no response - sorry, man, you just lost the right to make snowflake jokes.


----------



## vilk

Actually, Trump's got dudeman beat when it comes to snowflakeism

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/tru...-teen-for-site-where-kittens-can-punch-potus/

what a f///in loser. The man is emotionally pathetic.


----------



## Drew




----------



## flint757

vilk said:


> Actually, Trump's got dudeman beat when it comes to snowflakeism
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/tru...-teen-for-site-where-kittens-can-punch-potus/
> 
> what a f///in loser. The man is emotionally pathetic.



I saw this in the comment section of that article: 



> A couple things. Trump has no such legal protection as he is the President of the United States and his name can be used for any type of political satire. Next, by asserting protection for TrumpCo via the White House legal team Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and, yet again, has committed an impeachable offense the minute that letter was transmitted.



I'm not at all familiar with constitutional law, so can anyone verify how true this is? It's indeed fascinating because he seems to just be racking up a laundry list of potential chargeable offenses. All that'll be necessary is getting the votes to make it happen. Once a hearing actually happens he'd be screwed.

Not sure how I feel about that with Pence and Ryan being next in line though.


----------



## vilk

My only legal background is a class I took in high school called Indiana Law, and I believe it was only about state law, but we learned about a law concerning being "in the public eye", which essentially boils down to that you can't just sue everyone who makes fun of you if you're a celebrity.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I am not a racist, and have not referred to race. (or religion)
> 
> You are a fracking @sshole.



By the way, I promise I wont' refer to you as CapnSnowflake for the rest of this discussion if you do the right thing and apologize for a baseless personal insult - if you act like a reasonable adult I'm perfectly ok looking past a momentary overreaction and continuing our discussion, and I think in some ways you were actually starting to constructively engage, which would be a shame to see that end. And, if you're not going to be a reasonable adult, then I have to wonder what you're even doing posting in this forum.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

CapnForsaggio said:


> alt-left talking points.



There is no such thing as alt-left. No one identifies as alt-left.


----------



## vilk

This just occurred to me and I'm talkin out my butt, but... I would say that there's not really an "alt-right" either. Everyone who is "alt-right" was just regular right before they realized that there were enough people already saying sh/tty horrible things that they could join in without consequence. I feel the difference between "alt-right" and plain ol' conservatism is just the degree of pretense and euphemism.

Conservative: welfare queen
Alt-right: lazy n*****

(no, I'm not talking about economic conservatives. If you're smart enough to have a good grasp on macro-econ you're already quite different from the average right-wing American... at least the ones I talk to every day...)


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

vilk said:


> This just occurred to me and I'm talkin out my butt, but... I would say that there's not really an "alt-right" either. Everyone who is "alt-right" was just regular right before they realized that there were enough people already saying sh/tty horrible things that they could join in without consequence. I feel the difference between "alt-right" and plain ol' conservatism is just the degree of pretense and euphemism.



But people identify as alt-right. There are people who will say they consider themselves alt-right if asked about ideology. But on the left Communists/Anarchists/Socialists do not want to be grouped together because their ideas are all differing. 
Alt-left is a weak attempt at an umbrella term of the left by alt-right'ers who are miffed that there is negative association with the set of beliefs they hold.

One way or the other identity politics are ridiculous and this doesn't further our discourse at all so I won't elaborate more.


----------



## Drew

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> But people identify as alt-right. There are people who will say they consider themselves alt-right if asked about ideology. But on the left Communists/Anarchists/Socialists do not want to be grouped together because their ideas are all differing.
> Alt-left is a weak attempt at an umbrella term of the left by alt-right'ers who are miffed that there is negative association with the set of beliefs they hold.
> 
> One way or the other identity politics are ridiculous and this doesn't further our discourse at all so I won't elaborate more.



I agree with most of this - to take it one step further, the few times I've heard "alt-left" tossed around, it's usually from the alt-right in the contest of "your calling our beliefs racist or sexist and protesting them is an attempt to silence our right to free speech!" so I'd say that while "alt-right" is a self-identification and a way to describe a belief structure without using loaded terms like "white nationalist" or "neo-nazi," "all-left" is a label used to attack and marginalize people of a different political belief than those who use it. 

Despite superficial similarities, from a structural standpoint they function VERY differently.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The term "alt-right" was coined by their own kind; Richard Spencer wanted something to describe the movement he was forming and promoting

The term "alt-left" was formed by the same people only recently to be like "NUH UH, YOU TOO!!!"


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> The term "alt-right" was coined by their own kind; Richard Spencer wanted something to describe the movement he was forming and promoting
> 
> The term "alt-left" was formed by the same people only recently to be like "NUH UH, YOU TOO!!!"



This is exactly what I was getting at. 

So what do y'all think about the AHCA failing to be voted in and Trump's threats of keeping Obamacare as a result? I find it to be one of most ironic things I've seen happen in a long time.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Obamacare was "killed" a month and a half ago, when he said the IRS was not going to penalize anyone who didn't have qualifying insurance, thus initiating the death spiral of runaway insurance premiums.

This little bit of "Trumpcare" theatre was never supposed to pass. If it had, and it might have if they voted today, then Trump would own the death spiral.

In 6 months, after premiums have skyrocketed to unseen amounts, he will again offer his help and salvation from "Obamacare."

Playing the DNC/media like a fiddle.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

CapnForsaggio said:


> In 6 months, after premiums have skyrocketed to unseen amounts, he will again offer his help and salvation from "Obamacare."
> 
> Playing the DNC/media like a fiddle.



'Member when Trump said he was going to repeal and replace on day 1? I 'member.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Obamacare was "killed" a month and a half ago, when he said the IRS was not going to penalize anyone who didn't have qualifying insurance, thus initiating the death spiral of runaway insurance premiums.
> 
> This little bit of "Trumpcare" theatre was never supposed to pass. If it had, and it might have if they voted today, then Trump would own the death spiral.
> 
> In 6 months, after premiums have skyrocketed to unseen amounts, he will again offer his help and salvation from "Obamacare."
> 
> Playing the DNC/media like a fiddle.



Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Freedom Caucus, not Trump, killed this. Ryan was 33 votes shy of getting this one done, which is actually _worse_ than the 25 he had when they deferred yesterday's vote, and well off his 22 vote margin of error. Uneasy bedfellows, sure, but for now I'll take them.

After seven years of opposition, Ryan couldn't get a bill across the line, and had to go on national television today to admit that his own plan was deeply flawed and wasn't one that his own party could pass. The most flattering interpretation for Trump I've heard thus far is that today's antics with pulling the vote when it became apparent that it was going to fail was him taking advantage of an opportunity to try to marginalize Ryan. 

Taking it a step further, Trump's press conference afterwards was a serious misstep - his argument was basically "fine, we're just going to let the ACA fail, it's not our fault, the Democrats own it." Problem is, as the sitting president, and as a man who has a constitutional duty to serve the American people, you can't exactly go on national television and say you're perfectly willing to sacrifice the interests of your constituents to score a few political points against the other party. So, Trump cold very well just be an idiot, and at the very least I don't think anyone would deny he's a sore loser, but more plausible is the fact that he KNOWS the ACA isn't failing, and that the electoral costs for not repealing it are very, very low. Which just makes him look like a sore loser. 

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you don't actually believe a word you're saying, and you're just here to troll.


----------



## Drew

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> The term "alt-right" was coined by their own kind; Richard Spencer wanted something to describe the movement he was forming and promoting
> 
> The term "alt-left" was formed by the same people only recently to be like "NUH UH, YOU TOO!!!"



"No puppet! No puppet! YOU'RE the puppet!"


----------



## celticelk

@CapnForsaggio: If you're going to argue that Trump is a secret 11-dimensional chess master, you're going to have to provide more evidence. The current state of affairs is entirely consistent with Trump simply having no skill at or interest in the actual work of governance, and per Occam's Razor, that's a much more likely explanation.


----------



## fps

Trump the special snowflake, tantrum tantrum tantrum. He's like a reverse Midas, so far everything he touches turns to s***.


----------



## EdgeC

Drew said:


> I'm becoming increasingly convinced you don't actually believe a word you're saying, and you're just here to troll.



Yeah, I've been thinking that for a while now. I haven't participated in the debate thus far as, being in Australia, I don't have the requisite understanding of the finer points of American politics. But the repeated attempts to defend the indefensible are laughable at best. The latest suggestion that Trump is some kind of political genius belies an increasingly tenuous grasp on reality.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Scary part is, he might not be trolling and might totally believe what he's saying...

It's becoming increasingly hard to tell.


----------



## Drew

EdgeC said:


> Yeah, I've been thinking that for a while now. I haven't participated in the debate thus far as, being in Australia, I don't have the requisite understanding of the finer points of American politics. But the repeated attempts to defend the indefensible are laughable at best. The latest suggestion that Trump is some kind of political genius belies an increasingly tenuous grasp on reality.



It's not impossible... But, with every further public setback, it becomes harder to attribute it to some sort of master plan. 


Flynn is forced to resign, allegedly at Trump's request, allegedly a week after Trump first heard about his conversations, and only when it became clear that he WASN'T going to get away with it, for discussing sanctions with Russia before Trump's inauguration. 
Sessions is caught lying about his converesations with Russia as well, including a conversation in private with their ambassador about Ukraine. So far here has merely reclused himself from the investigation.
The FBI has confirmed that Trump's campaign, including possibly Trump himself, are being investigated for possible collusion with Russia over the Wikileaks dump
The FBI has confirmed that Trumps' phone was NOT tapped by Obama, despite his claims to the contrary
Trump's first immigration ban rollout was an unmitigated disaster, both in terms of the logistics (a lot of the chaos was DHS didn't immediately know how to interpret it), the fact that key advisors such as Matthis and Tillerson were totally out of the loop and Matthis found out it was already signed at the start of the meeting where he was to be briefed on it, and in terms of the fact that it was overturned by the courts with a temporary stay (that Trump tried to ignore) by the weekend and a permanent one within a week. 
Trump's _second_ attempt at the Muslim ban was blocked within days of its being signed and before it could come into effect. 
The ACA repeal/replace tranwrecked. No other polite way to say it. It was a huge setback for the GOP, who after opposing it for seven years lived up to Demmocratic claims that they were a party of "no" with no workable plan of their own. And, it was am emarrassment to Trump, who made some huge campaign promises about health care only to then be quoted as saying "who knew health care could be so complicated" as a defense. 
and now, CNN is reporting that Flynn may have flipped, and be working with the FBI on Russia. If so, the only two people above him are Pence and Trump, which bodes VERY badly for the president.

Did I miss anything? 

Looking back at the campaing, the "bull case" for Trump from the Republicans I know basically went "He doesn't actually mean most of what he's saying, he's just saying what he needs to to get elected. He won't actually try to ban Muslims or build a wall with Mexico. Meanwhile, we need a president with experience running a company to cut out the fat, get this government running like a well oiled machine, and negotiate with the Democrats to get a tax bill done and invest in American infrastructure. Besides, he's not Hillary Clinton." 

Of that, I'd say only the last sentence is still holding up to be true.  Now they're talking about how he's been really good at "photo op" announcements, like Charter's 25,000 jobs from Friday, which are part of an initiative Charter has been pushing since 2015. He's quite literally getting on TV and taking credit for things that happened under Obama's watch.


----------



## bostjan

For all of the policy changes that trainwrecked, there are as many or nearly as many that have gone through. Which is worse?

For example, the EPA no longer holds jurisdiction over enforcing conservation of wetlands. 

When your plan on dealing with policies that need reform is to smash everything with a mallet, you are pretty much bound to have a few trainwrecks.


----------



## flint757

Well, it's definitely not the first, or the last, time they've used a subject as a political football to distract the masses from the smaller things they really care about getting passed.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Well, one thing I can say Trump did: he killed the TPP. Everything I was reading and hearing about that thing spelled "bad news."

Still deciding if everything else he's doing will make that worth it...


----------



## Drew

Science_Penguin said:


> Well, one thing I can say Trump did: he killed the TPP. Everything I was reading and hearing about that thing spelled "bad news."
> 
> Still deciding if everything else he's doing will make that worth it...



It won't. 

The TPP may not have been a perfect trade deal, but cancelling it like Trump did creates an economic vacuum in the Asian Pacific. China is currently actively stepping forward to fill that gap, so essentially we just ceeded the entire region as a Chinese sphere of influence.

A lot of people have been quick to attack the TPP as a trade deal, but in doing so are completely missing the geopolitical power it gave us.


----------



## bostjan

China was never part of the TPP.


----------



## flint757

Why do we need to be at the center of the sphere of influence, especially in a region of the world we don't occupy? It makes sense for China or Japan to be the sphere of influence in their own region. Frankly, I think the US has too much geopolitical power and overuses it on the regular, especially in regard to war/regime changes. How would we feel if China or Russia tried to take control of the sphere of influence in the Americas? What makes us so important to justify such logic? Also, it was pretty much dead in the water by the time Trump dealt the final blow.

It gave the larger corporations the power, not we the people. It wasn't written for the little guys benefit.


----------



## flint757

[double post]


----------



## bostjan

flint757 said:


> Why do we need to be at the center of the sphere of influence, especially in a region of the world we don't occupy? It makes sense for China or Japan to be the sphere of influence in their own region. Frankly, I think the US has too much geopolitical power and overuses it on the regular, especially in regard to war/regime changes. How would we feel if China or Russia tried to take control of the sphere of influence in the Americas? What makes us so important to justify such logic? Also, it was pretty much dead in the water by the time Trump dealt the final blow.
> 
> It gave the larger corporations the power, not we the people. It wasn't written for the little guys benefit.



I agree with what you are saying; however, this entire argument is off base with reality.

Here are the nations in the TPP:

Australia
Brunei
Canada
Chile
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Peru
Singapore
United States 
Vietnam

It's roughly the same number of nations in the Americas as in Asia represented. The idea of the thing was to band together smaller nations so as to provide a better level playing field with China, in terms of negotiating trade across the Pacific.

In reality, the TPP probably would have been largely ineffective at doing anything good or bad for us.  Withdrawing from such an agreement is not really a big win or a big loss, I believe. Meanwhile, there are domestic issues no one seems to give two ....s about that are potentially going to cause serious problems down the road. Killing off the EPA is just bad, even if you don't like the EPA, some sort of reform would be far better.


----------



## flint757

I agree with pretty much everything you said as well. The comment about Asia was in response to what Drew was saying about China filling the vacuum, and how apparently that is unacceptable. The idea that we have a right to be 'in charge' is something I just can't get behind. Frankly, I think we do a horrible job of being 'in charge' globally.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> China was never part of the TPP.



Yeah, that's kind of the point.  The TPP strengthened trade relationships between the US and Asia/Latin America, so by pulling out we left a gap for the Chinese to fill, that they're rushing in to try to bridge.

Flint - long story short, there's a lot of benefit that accrues to us as being the sole superpower in the world - not for nothing is the USD the currency of international trade and English is the language of business - and you'd be crazy to voluntarily give that up. If we're worried about an insurgent China breaking out onto the global stage as a rival to American power, backing out of trade agreements and letting China step in in our place is probably not the best way to manage them. 

Maybe look at it like that - it's kind of like white privilege, being a superpower. It's easy to overlook how much it benefits you, having all the soft power that comes from being the most powerful economic and military nation in the world, and just take it for granted, when you ARE that superpower.


----------



## flint757

Oh, I'm fully aware that it is beneficial for us as a nation for that to be the case. That's a poor justification regardless. Try that logic with your race metaphor and it'd sound really bad, no? 

I'm perfectly fine with someone else taking the reigns or no one at all. If globalization is about spreading the wealth and whatnot then deciding that we're king of the hill seems rather self-serving, which runs counter to my personality. I'm fine with the US losing some of its 'privilege', clearly you are not.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Oh, I'm fully aware that it is beneficial for us as a nation for that to be the case. That's a poor justification regardless. Try that logic with your race metaphor and it'd sound really bad, no?
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with someone else taking the reigns or no one at all. If globalization is about spreading the wealth and whatnot then deciding that we're king of the hill seems rather self-serving, which runs counter to my personality. I'm fine with the US losing some of its 'privilege', clearly you are not.



I mean, this is a pretty fundamental difference of opinion - what you're essentially saying is you want the US to have less power, a lower standard of willing, a weaker economy, and be seen as a less important nation on the global stage. Not to be flip, but that's the kind of stuff conservatives think about when they accuse liberals of hating America. 

EDIT - I also don't think we'd even be having this conversation if it wasn't for the Great Recession, and the fact we've seen a fairly unequal recovery, with returns on capital increasing much faster than returns on labor. And, I think a lot of that has been unfairly laid at the foot of globalization, that the problem here is competition from cheap overseas labor, which IMO isn't really the case - the cost advantage from labor of building an iPhone in China is only a couple bucks a phone over building it here, it's more about being able to build a fully integrated supply chain in a small geographic area in one of China's manufacturing cities. And that, I think, maybe speaks a little more directly to the problem - that, given fairly tepid global demand in the wake of the Recession, companies tended to invest more in technology and learning how to operate more leanly, and returned to profitability not by utilizing more labor, but by utilizing more capital; automation, computing, robotics in manufacturing, etc. The real kicker is we're starting to see that change, as we're getting very close to full employment and finally starting to see some respectable wage inflation. But, take that global crash out of the picture, and I don't think free trade would have ever become the punching bag it did for populists like Trump on the right and Sanders on the left, and that's kind of a shame.


----------



## flint757

I think the US plays the role of the bully on the playground. I think we currently wield so much power that we can, and often do, ignore the will of nearly every other country in existence. We're a nosy body country that often causes more harm than good by our actions. I'd even go so far as to say that objectively you could argue that we terrorize the world, albeit that's a bit hyperbolic.

So what you're really saying is that you hold a position much closer to conservatives than I do. That isn't surprising considering I'm a leftist and you're a moderate. I don't really expect us to agree on this point because the last time we discussed something similar we didn't agree either.

As for your edit, you very well could be right, but it did happen so the point is moot. The likelihood of it not happening with the way we run this country is IMO unlikely anyhow. The fact that it did happen adds some weight to that opinion I think.

I hold a fairly negative opinion about how business is run in this country, so the notion that companies sought to bring their profits back before employing people or raising wages doesn't engender me with positive feelings.


----------



## Randy

I would gladly give up my $150 4K UHD TV and a $200 phone with the internet if I could afford a house without committing 50% of my income for 30 years at a time, on top of another 10%-25% of my income for the rest of my life to staying healthy.


----------



## vilk

^yet the people who live in some places such as you describe do often still have nice tvs and smartphones because that's just where tech is at this point.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> ^yet the people who live in some places such as you describe do often still have nice tvs and smartphones because that's just where tech is at this point.



Not my point. As I've repeated several times on here (it's been what, 11 years? ), a paycheck might go a lot further in purchasing knick-knacks than it did 50 years ago, but things that were considered essential back then (and still are today) such as healthcare, education and housing, have become totally in-affordable on a median income. 

Whether it's manufacturing overseas, automation, higher efficiency of manufacturing, whatever... costs of toys relative to income have kept pace or are cheaper, corporate profits from those items have risen exponentially but buying power of american dollars domestically, on things that matter don't go as far. Pick your blame, but I think solving that is a lot more important than playing 12-dimensional chess with foreign economies.


----------



## vilk

I understood that that was what you were saying. I was just saying that it's not on a zero-sum scale. That we (well, not we Americans, not yet) could have both. It's kind of a lesser point in comparison to yours tho


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Not my point. As I've repeated several times on here (it's been what, 11 years? ), a paycheck might go a lot further in purchasing knick-knacks than it did 50 years ago, but things that were considered essential back then (and still are today) such as healthcare, education and housing, have become totally in-affordable on a median income.
> 
> Whether it's manufacturing overseas, automation, higher efficiency of manufacturing, whatever... costs of toys relative to income have kept pace or are cheaper, corporate profits from those items have risen exponentially but buying power of american dollars domestically, on things that matter don't go as far. Pick your blame, but I think solving that is a lot more important than playing 12-dimensional chess with foreign economies.





We make stuff cheaper than ever before, so it seems like we have a higher standard of living, but essential stuff that can't be done cheaper is getting further and further out of reach for the middle class. Essentially, what that really means, is that the middle class is fading away. It's just more difficult to notice.

It's funny how big the world is, but yet we still have so much influence over our own corner of the world. I think that Gen X and the Millennial generation both, in general, have trouble parsing that into daily life. Everybody wants a good job, a house, a car, a dog in a yard with a nice fence, blah blah blah. The people who initially broke away from the working class into the middle class took advantage of opportunities. We don't really have the opportunities to move up anymore. But you can make your own way...


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> But you can make your own way...



Theoretically. If you pull out a pad of paper and write down every "good job" you can think of, pretty quickly you'll notice that they're all "good" because they're high skill, high demand, low supply jobs. I don't think it's sustainable for everyone to be a computer programmer, engineer, doctor, stock trader, HR executive, etc. 

The bar for what it takes to live what would have been considered a middle class lifestyle 40 or 50 years ago is so high that the jobs that supply that opportunity, by design, are finite. Even if we could all or even majority work in high skill jobs (which is literally impossible), the over supply of those positions would lower demand and lower salaries, and we'd be back in the same boat again. 

Competition for access to housing, education and healthcare means the more money you have, the more access you'll have to each, and the inverse will also remain true; so there will always be "winners" and "losers" as long as those items are categorized as premium rather than essentials (like they were at other times in this country).


----------



## bostjan

Well, right... not everyone can be a doctor nor an engineer, but there are a couple of points here:

1. Somebody has to be a doctor.
2. Somebody has to be an engineer.
3. Somebody has to be an architect.
.
.
.
999. Somebody has to maintain the sewage treatment plant.

There are rich sewage treatment plant maintenance guys (I know one of them), and there are doctors who are up to their eyeballs in debt (I know one of these, too). There is income, and then there is what you do with that income. Unless you live off the grid and grow and can your own food, you are a part of this complex economic system.

Having a lot of income means you have a faster paced mobility up the ladder, but it doesn't mean that you are up the ladder.

On the other hand, the entire economic system is driven off of innovation. You don't need to be on the list of jobs at all to be innovative. That's where entrepreneurship comes into play.

Without any new ideas flowing into the economy, it will stagnate. I think we are at that point now, and essentially have been since 2008. When the USA joined the industrial revolution, the economy got off to a booming start. When cars started rolling off the assembly line, we got a nice economic pop in the roaring 20's, when the USA started making tons of consumer electronics and appliances, we got the excess of the 50's and 60's, and when the internet became a key economic player, and home computing became a booming industry, we got the nice bubble of the 1990's. People had to innovate all of those things. Whatever the next game-changer will be for the economy, it will have to come from someone's idea.

So, what I'm trying to say, is that we, as a nation, need to put our problem-solving skills to the test, and invent something big that will change the world. Maybe it's space travel, or self-driving cars, or a toilet that doesn't use any water. Maybe the space travel makes new spaceship-pilot jobs, but destroys the airline industry; maybe self-driving cars make tons more jobs for automotive engineers, but put truckers out; maybe this new toilet revolutionizes our wastewater infrastructure, providing much better sanitation and prevents the spread of disease, but put the sewer worker in the unemployment line. If we spend more time sitting around debating whether or not it's ethical to make progress or not, though, then the US economy will crumble apart.


----------



## Randy

I get where you're going with that but waiting for flying cars, or individually having to climb every rung of the ladder at the sewage treatment to guarantee a roof over your head and that illness (or insuring yourself incase of illness) will not bankrupt you, to me, is an unfair expectation for what middle class life should look like. I don't think we got to this point by happenstance; I mean, I'm not saying it was designed that basics of a stable life would become so hard to acquire and maintain, but I find it hard to believe the middle class has fallen this far behind because we cumulatively haven't been working hard enough or being innovative enough, or that it's because we're all wasting our money on Xbox.

tl;dr


----------



## Drew

We are going WAY off topic, in what's a pretty interesting tangent. Should this maybe be it's own thread, seperate and apart from Trump? 

I guess the crux of my argument is while we're hitting on some VERY important themes here and I think the role of labor in the 21st century is something that will be one of the defining problems to solve for ourselves and our children, protectionist trade policies are _not_ going to solve the problems, and in many ways may actually make things worse, directly by increasing costs for daily living expenses without doing much to increase salaries, and indirectly by delaying the implimentation of _other_ potential solutions that might actually make a difference. 

I think we're going to have to get a little outside the box on this one. The EU got a lot of flack for proposing "income taxes" for robots recently, but it's actually kind of an interesting solution; it removes a tax incentive for preferring automated labor over human labor that comes with payroll taxes, and it keeps taxation in line with the "labor required" pool so that tax income doesn't decline as human workers are phased out for automated labor. This theoretically creates more money to be available for social programs, subsidzed housing, etc. Is it a good solution here? Effed if I know, but it's an interesting approach to a society where human labor is simply less in demand, and it's one at least worth thinking about. 

The upshot, though, is that putting up trade barriers and moving car production from Mexico to Tennessee will not save many jobs; move to a higher cost labor pool, and the incentive to rely more on automation and run leaner becomes higher. The real problem is a generation that grew up expecting to get a union job and work at the car factory for 30 years and support their family in a modest but not excessive comfort are quickly finding out that thanks to computing and robotics those jobs just aren't there anymore. 

The irony is for most of modern human history we all dreamed of a world where humanity WOULDN'T need to work, and maybe an hour of labor a day would be enough to support human needs due to the advances of technology. And as that's happening, it's disproportionately accrued to capital, not to labor, and we need to find some reasonably fair and equitable (if nothing else, because that's going to be required to get it to pass into law ) way to change that. 

I blame millenials. You and your goddamn startup culture and if you're not working seven days a week and not sleeping three hours a night you're not trying and all that crap.  It's OK to not work so hard.


----------



## Randy

FDR's 'Second Bill of Rights'



> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.



At $52,000/yr median HOUSEHOLD income and $27,000/yr for individuals, how much of that of that list do you think is within reach?

EDIT: That was meant as an extension of my previous post.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not my point. As I've repeated several times on here (it's been what, 11 years? ), a paycheck might go a lot further in purchasing knick-knacks than it did 50 years ago, but things that were considered essential back then (and still are today) such as healthcare, education and housing, have become totally in-affordable on a median income.



I mean, to me the clear solution here is we need to focus on increasing the supply of and lowering the cost of production of healthcare, education, housing, and food. 

Part of that is expectations on the part of the consumer, too - you and I live in very different circumstances than a lot of the rest of the world when it comes to how we "consume" housing. I have a thousand square foot condo in a three family house, which is spacious for one, and would require two people who get along pretty well to live there as roomates, but could be done. For a lot of the country, the idea of sharing walls with neighbors is a non-starter, and I have friends who basically get into cock measuring contests about their "4,500 reasons" for living where they do, meaning their square footage. Adjust US housing consumption patterns in the country to away from McMansions and towards more urban standards, and not only would you have a direct impact on the pricing in terms of a sudden preference for less space, but you'd also have second-order effects where the demand for costruction supplies would be slashed - a $250k 4,000 square foot house in Georgia could just as easily have been three $83k 1,333 square foot houses, reducing material usage per family as well as debt-to-income by two-thirds. 

I'm going off on a tangent here too, because this clearly isn't the ONLY problem, but for example we definitely over-consume housing compared to global or urban standards, our health care system provides us no incentive to self-ration care so we do a TON of needless testing and generally avoid lifestyle changes in favor of something where we can just take a pill, and we don't really do a good job of cost-benefit analysis on college degrees or fields of study, instead encouraging people to borrow because "a college degree is worth it," without thinking about the long-term earning potential of a field of study and how likely it is you'll be able to repay the debt you're taking on, which is bankruptcy-remote so you're stuck with it after you graduate no matter what happens, etc. 

I'm mostly discussing problems and not solutions, but investing in technology to produce homes at lower cost and finding some way to incentivize americans to consume less housing, a reshaping of the health insurance incentive structure to reward outcomes and not the number of procedures done (and the ACA was a first step in this direction but only a step), and a rethinking the way we distribute education (so-called Massive On-line Courses will be an area to watch, IMO) as well as probably how we finance it could do a lot to tackle these issues. 

Humans are pretty smart and resourceful. I'm sure we can figure it out, but I'm also just as sure that the "traditional" bogeymen and solutions - more access to borrow for housing and education, expanding insurance coverage with no change to the way we actually administer medicine, etc - are not going to be able to keep up here.



Randy said:


> FDR's 'Second Bill of Rights'
> 
> 
> 
> At $52,000/yr median HOUSEHOLD income and $27,000/yr for individuals, how much of that of that list do you think is within reach?
> 
> EDIT: That was meant as an extension of my previous post.



These are all worthy goals. However, there's two ways to bring them within reach - either increase income (tricky, and where we've been focused thus far) or reduce the costs and barriers to obtaining these, which IMO is the more fruitful approach.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> We are going WAY off topic, in what's a pretty interesting tangent. Should this maybe be it's own thread, seperate and apart from Trump?
> 
> I guess the crux of my argument is while we're hitting on some VERY important themes here and I think the role of labor in the 21st century is something that will be one of the defining problems to solve for ourselves and our children, protectionist trade policies are _not_ going to solve the problems, and in many ways may actually make things worse, directly by increasing costs for daily living expenses without doing much to increase salaries, and indirectly by delaying the implimentation of _other_ potential solutions that might actually make a difference.
> 
> I think we're going to have to get a little outside the box on this one. The EU got a lot of flack for proposing "income taxes" for robots recently, but it's actually kind of an interesting solution; it removes a tax incentive for preferring automated labor over human labor that comes with payroll taxes, and it keeps taxation in line with the "labor required" pool so that tax income doesn't decline as human workers are phased out for automated labor. This theoretically creates more money to be available for social programs, subsidzed housing, etc. Is it a good solution here? Effed if I know, but it's an interesting approach to a society where human labor is simply less in demand, and it's one at least worth thinking about.
> 
> The upshot, though, is that putting up trade barriers and moving car production from Mexico to Tennessee will not save many jobs; move to a higher cost labor pool, and the incentive to rely more on automation and run leaner becomes higher. The real problem is a generation that grew up expecting to get a union job and work at the car factory for 30 years and support their family in a modest but not excessive comfort are quickly finding out that thanks to computing and robotics those jobs just aren't there anymore.
> 
> The irony is for most of modern human history we all dreamed of a world where humanity WOULDN'T need to work, and maybe an hour of labor a day would be enough to support human needs due to the advances of technology. And as that's happening, it's disproportionately accrued to capital, not to labor, and we need to find some reasonably fair and equitable (if nothing else, because that's going to be required to get it to pass into law ) way to change that.
> 
> I blame millenials. You and your goddamn startup culture and if you're not working seven days a week and not sleeping three hours a night you're not trying and all that crap.  It's OK to not work so hard.



I can get on board with all that. And while we disagreed during the election (and will likely disagree now, and forever ), I think there's a large part of this we're totally on the same page about.

I don't believe steel mills and coal mines, or even traditional manufacturing are something that needs to be artificially kept on life support just to keep the middle class working and earning living wage. To some degree, I accept those jobs are gone or extinct and we're probably better off culturally that we moved away from SOME of them or exclusively relying on them. So, I think that's a concession I'm willing to make that may separate from some of the pre-election rhetoric.

But I also think a focus on academia and white collar skilled jobs is futile and just like blue collar manufacturing died off after ~150 - 200 years of dominance, those jobs will die too, and probably in a much shorter period of time. There are certainly blue collar skilled jobs, and soft skilled jobs that can be done in higher volume (cable installers, etc.) but as I've said before, there's only so much of trading services we can do and still float the economy. 

Leaning on vocational and tradesman job training, or low/no-cost retraining for workers TODAY was a crutch, at best, and even by that standard, a crutch with an extremely questionable lifespan.

To your point about "taxing robots", that's something I've heard before and certainly hearkens to some IDEAS I've heard/thought of before. You ever watch "How It's Made?"? You ever think to yourself "boy, they make those toilet seats a LOT faster than I can imagine anybody actually using them"? You ever watch a car being built and think "Wow, a half dozen multimillion dollar robotic arms to spot weld a couple specific panels, that a single person could do much more efficiently"? 

I know I've been there. 

And I've worked in small business half my life, with some experience in operations, read several books and have apprenticed with people in a broad spectrum of industries. The fact is, those may be novice questions but it turns out they're frequently valid. We have a supply chain in manufacturing specifically that operates SO efficiently, there's over-supply and over production, even over-automation, that results in things like period layoffs (a lot of my friends in warehousing and manufacturing experience this); where essentially the factory produced enough to meet all the outstanding orders, so your employees are being paid partially to sit at home for a few weeks/months until business picks up again. The company is stuck paying people for not working, the pay itself is less than those guys are expecting to live off of, morale drops, guys find part-time work and/or leave all together. So you've got a pile of product that you're not going to get full price from (assuming they sell at all), you're paying people to sit (unhappily) at home, and you're likely paying groups of people to be trained when some of the old workers get peeled off.

That's just a single example.

I produce programs for local television as part of my day job. We recently had a guy in who started and owns a very well respected marketing/advertising agency in the area. He currently has 15 employees and more business than he could've ever hoped for. He was faced with the option of expanding several times over and/or selling out, and when he assessed things, he opted to stay exactly the size they are. Based on what he can afford to pay his staff, how close to home he can continue to work, how personal his relationships can be with his clients, etc., it just made sense to stay a 15 employee operation, and be damn good at it. Instead, he's used some of the excess money they make to guarantee wages for his workers and for interns, and to spin off other experimental ventures with less pressure on them being successful.

Long way to go in an explanation, but I think those are some themes to look at. I know it'll sound like a dirty word, or communism or something else to suggest it, but if we're looking at a total 'top down' analysis of where we are and how we get to where we want to be, maybe ideas like self regulating size of our operations is potentially somewhere to look? And if not that specifically, other kind of 'culture meets economy meets industry' concepts?



Drew said:


> reduce the costs and barriers to obtaining these, which IMO is the more fruitful approach.



I'm in full agreement there. For more on that, cross reference my post about cost-cutting in medical industry over on MG 

EDIT: Also, seconding what you said above on things such as focusing on technology to reduce cost of building homes, etc.


----------



## Drew

I'm just wrapping up my lunch break and I'll come back and, in the spirit of friendly discourse, see if there's anything I can nit-pick there. But, I think we're largely in agreement. 

Technology itself may be the root cause of the decline in value of labor here - we simply need less labor than we used to. However, I think paradoxically more technology could be a solution here, and with it a rethink in the WAY we consume. 

Idunno. Again, it'd make an interesting conversation to have over a few drinks, if we ever get the chance.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I get where you're going with that but waiting for flying cars, or individually having to climb every rung of the ladder at the sewage treatment to guarantee a roof over your head and that illness (or insuring yourself incase of illness) will not bankrupt you, to me, is an unfair expectation for what middle class life should look like. I don't think we got to this point by happenstance; I mean, I'm not saying it was designed that basics of a stable life would become so hard to acquire and maintain, but I find it hard to believe the middle class has fallen this far behind because we cumulatively haven't been working hard enough or being innovative enough, or that it's because we're all wasting our money on Xbox.
> 
> tl;dr



But we aren't and we don't...

I mean, I'm all for having rights, but when we start talking about "rights" with a monetary value, something has to be given in exchange for those "rights," otherwise they simply would not exist. That's not a right, but a privilege.

The right not to starve to death sounds great, but we _have_ to be rational. If we are to have a right not to starve to death, we have to have people working to find starving people and provide them with food. Do those people do such work for free? What if the economic system you have breaks down for some reason, then you might find yourself in a situation where that right simply cannot be delivered.

An public welfare program to eliminate starving is a good idea, but you can't go calling it a "right."

If it is truly a "right," then everyone could, in theory, abandon the entire economic system and become dependent upon this right, which would force a breakdown in the system.

I see what FDR was doing, though - the right to have certain things available...that's great.

But now we come full circle, back to our generation. We are not, on average, as hard-working as the WWII generation. We are not, on average, as innovative as the generation that was born at the turn of the century. We do, on average, tend to spend more time playing xbox and watching Seinfeld reruns than any other generation.... so, what is the point? I'm not demonizing entertainment or slack time activities, but man, I really do wish we had a culture that was more open to innovation and outside-the-box ideas that actually address universally identified problems, and I really think that a few more people who think like Elon Musk, but in other industries, would yield a stronger economy for the USA.

Trump's agenda of creating manufacturing jobs is okay. But it's like a bandaid. Manufacturing is the past, not the future. Sure, we need to make stuff, but honestly, if we are making stuff no one really needs, then we're going to be in serious trouble in just a couple years. Cutting science programs, cutting education, dismantling agencies that bolster science jobs - it's bad, long term.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> But we aren't and we don't...
> 
> I mean, I'm all for having rights, but when we start talking about "rights" with a monetary value, something has to be given in exchange for those "rights," otherwise they simply would not exist. That's not a right, but a privilege.
> 
> The right not to starve to death sounds great, but we _have_ to be rational. If we are to have a right not to starve to death, we have to have people working to find starving people and provide them with food. Do those people do such work for free? What if the economic system you have breaks down for some reason, then you might find yourself in a situation where that right simply cannot be delivered.
> 
> An public welfare program to eliminate starving is a good idea, but you can't go calling it a "right."
> 
> If it is truly a "right," then everyone could, in theory, abandon the entire economic system and become dependent upon this right, which would force a breakdown in the system.
> 
> I see what FDR was doing, though - the right to have certain things available...that's great.



But you can take that same theme and drop it overtop of things that we accept as the commons. Police, fire department, roads, etc. 

You could argue not locking your doors or living in a ....ty neigborhood means that the police will be spending more time working on your behalf, whereas I live in a nicer neighborhood and I lock my doors constantly, and I never have any interaction with the police. Kinda unfair I'm paying for you being so irresponsible, right? 

And I mean, if you're at all Libertarian or fiscally conservative in your principals, then by all means, feel free to stop reading my posts now because obviously my principals lie far afield from your own.

To my point of the idea of these things "as rights", it's not to say that the government needs to swoop in and buy everybody a house at $250,000, full market priced TODAY. If you establish a right to these things, you use the strength of the government AND industry AND innovation to find answers to making it affordable (some of what Drew hinted toward). My dad (who's lived his life in mostly working in operations) used to have an old saying "When the bridge is flooded, you can either lower the water or raise the bridge". Either you make the housing itself more affordable or you find a way to raise wages to make buying homes possible. 

The first step is establishing where that lies on your rank of priorities. For me, housing, healthcare and education are the highest priorities, because with them, all other things become possible (such as self sufficiency).


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> But you can take that same theme and drop it overtop of things that we accept as the commons. Police, fire department, roads, etc.
> 
> You could argue not locking your doors or living in a ....ty neigborhood means that the police will be spending more time working on your behalf, whereas I live in a nicer neighborhood and I lock my doors constantly, and I never have any interaction with the police. Kinda unfair I'm paying for you being so irresponsible, right?
> 
> And I mean, if you're at all Libertarian or fiscally conservative in your principals, then by all means, feel free to stop reading my posts now because obviously my principals lie far afield from your own.
> 
> To my point of the idea of these things "as rights", it's not to say that the government needs to swoop in and buy everybody a house at $250,000, full market priced TODAY. If you establish a right to these things, you use the strength of the government AND industry AND innovation to find answers to making it affordable (some of what Drew hinted toward). My dad (who's lived his life in mostly working in operations) used to have an old saying "When the bridge is flooded, you can either lower the water or raise the bridge". Either you make the housing itself more affordable or you find a way to raise wages to make buying homes possible.
> 
> The first step is establishing where that lies on your rank of priorities. For me, housing, healthcare and education are the highest priorities, because with them, all other things become possible (such as self sufficiency).



I think the only part I am stuck on is what is a "right" versus what is a granted privilege.

I think the government's function in providing for the general welfare should cover police, fire, food assistance, housing, etc. But those are not guaranteed rights, they are provided programs that are seen as highly important.

You know, when you prioritize government's functions, you are not listing "rights," because "rights" do not really have priority. The right to religious freedom does not take a higher nor lower priority over or under the right to a fair trial. One doesn't cost something over the other.

When you get into budgetary things, like what role the government should play in providing services and stuff to its people, it's another topic, altogether. You know?

And I'm not saying we should not have programs to provide people with the stuff that they need, I'm saying that it's a different topic that the topic of inalienable rights, that's all.

So, back to providing people with food and housing, etc. We already do that. In terms of providing people with jobs, we do that, too. If you want to expand those programs, it will cost money, so you have to raise taxes, but, in turn, if you raise taxes, rich folks vote for people like Trump to lower taxes. On the other hand, if you get your priorities in check and find something you can do for yourself to generate revenue, then you have economic mobility - for yourself, and for your nation.

I see all of these kickstarters and gofundmes and whatnot, and there are some nifty ideas, and every once in a while, I see something really groundbreaking, but most of it is white noise. A new playing card game, or a razor that uses an IR laser to slowly burn hair off of your beard... ideas that solve a problem no one ever noticed before.

I think the reason is that we tend to think small, in general. There is a bigger picture, and there are some really great innovations that will come. It's just a matter of who will think of them and how they will go about turning their ideas into marketable products.

Anyway, Drew is right, this is way off topic...back to Trump.


----------



## bostjan

If the system only offers you two bad choices, choose the least bad _the system is broken_.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Anyway, Drew is right, this is way off topic...back to Trump.



Disagreed. Didn't go far enough off topic to necessitate a new thread. We're looking at what the administration can and will pass regard budget, plus a still have yet to be decided healthcare (band-aid or overhaul) bill. Our priorities and ideologies going into the process are totally relevant. 

If we were going to expand on it further then I might be inclined to agree but for now, it was totally apt.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Disagreed. Didn't go far enough off topic to necessitate a new thread. We're looking at what the administration can and will pass regard budget, plus a still have yet to be decided healthcare (band-aid or overhaul) bill. Our priorities and ideologies going into the process are totally relevant.
> 
> If we were going to expand on it further then I might be inclined to agree but for now, it was totally apt.



Question: If congress cannot pass a budget with the GOP in full majority power (which I'm thinking is more than just a remote possibility), will they blame the Democrats?

-----
I've heard a lot of talk on the radio from political pundits, that the GOP will lose votes because of the healthcare debacle, and might experience a midterm power shift. I'm not convinced. Voters these days don't seem to be too concerned with facts nor with rational logic.
-----
Every damn day since Trump's election, one of the top headlines on google news has been something about Trump. I checked today and, of six "top stories," five have to do with Trump. None of my coworkers talk about Trump anymore, though, and many of them were very very vocal supporters of his during the election. This has to be the most controversial president ever. I'm thinking that a lot of the people who voted for him would vote for him again, but do you think the middle is fed up enough yet, that if there was some sort of recall vote, Trump would get ejected? There is no such thing as a recall vote for the POTUS, but, I really think that an impeachment could lead to some cheering in the streets. That all aside, I think that if some congressmen banded together to disestablish the electoral college, they might not have any better chance of doing so than now.


----------



## Drew

I'll catch up later, but for now here's a remarkably timely Bloomberg piece: 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ashing-u-s-wages-and-worsening-pay-inequality


----------



## Randy

Who knew that Skynet was going to kill us through our bank accounts first?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Who knew that Skynet was going to kill us through our bank accounts first?



Turns out Skynet isn't attacking with a bang, but with a protracted siege. After starving us out for a decade or two, our robot overlords won't even HAVE to go for the nukes.


----------



## bostjan

Vladimir Putin, when asked by the press if Russia interfered with the US election, said


Vladimir Putin said:


> &#1063;&#1080;&#1090;&#1072;&#1081;&#1090;&#1077; &#1087;&#1086; &#1075;&#1091;&#1073;&#1072;&#1084; &#8212; No!


Meaning "Read my lips - No!" (harkening back to GHWB and pronouncing the last word in English)


----------



## Andromalia

Randy said:


> Theoretically. If you pull out a pad of paper and write down every "good job" you can think of, pretty quickly you'll notice that they're all "good" because they're high skill, high demand, low supply jobs.



Not really. Most of them also fall into the "gated entry" category, such as "being the son of", "having rich and educated parents", "having inherited huge sums of money" (it can even get you to be POTUS these days), "having to pay XXXXXX$ for school" etc.

I'm not really a US politics specialist but do you really believe *all* the Kennedys are geniuses ? They all got some sweet paycheck light labor jobs, though.
Never wondered why CEOs of big companies, with fat paychecks, always got another job when their company goes under, showing they aren't very good ? Anybody can get away with being Trump if they inherited hundreds of millions.


----------



## Drew

Bannon just got kicked off the National Security Council. The White House is spinning it as he was only there to monitor Flynn, and now that Flynn is there there's really no point, but Flynn was asked to resign on 2/13, almost 45 days ago. I'm calling bull..... 

Heads of intelligence agencies are back on, as well.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Bannon just got kicked off the National Security Council. The White House is spinning it as he was only there to monitor Flynn, and now that Flynn is there there's really no point, but Flynn was asked to resign on 2/13, almost 45 days ago. I'm calling bull.....
> 
> Heads of intelligence agencies are back on, as well.



Hmm, same time as John Kelley with DHS is stating that the border wall won't be, necessarily a wall, and won't cover the entire border.


----------



## Randy

I'm going to guess this is based on the increased pressure from all the activity around North Korea and the difficult position Syria (allied by Russia) has put the US in. I'm not giving Trump any more credit than he deserves, but I'm figuring they decided now isn't a good time to be overly experimental with things like National Security.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Whatever the reason is, it's a step in the right direction. My gut tells me though that there's an unfavorable press release inbound implicating Bannon in gnarly sh1t.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Whatever the reason is, it's a step in the right direction. My gut tells me though that there's an unfavorable press release inbound implicating Bannon in gnarly sh1t.



That's been my gut feeling about the guy since I first really heard of him.


----------



## Drew

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Whatever the reason is, it's a step in the right direction. My gut tells me though that there's an unfavorable press release inbound implicating Bannon in gnarly sh1t.



You mean, more than a list of articles published by Brietbart under his watch?  

Senate invoked the nuclear option today and banned judicial filibusters. IMO McConnell ....ed this one up; I'm not even sure if the Dems DID filibuster, it was just clear that they had the votes to do so if they wanted, so he eliminated the filibuster. Gorsuch was a reasonably popular nominee, so there was support for getting him confirmed, but meanwhile eliminating the filibuster was reasonably unpopular. IMO a smarter strategy would have been to let the filibuster proceed for a week or two, hope it would fail on its own, and if it didn't then lament the Dem's obstructionism and "much as I hate to do this," state that he was pushing through the rule change.


----------



## bostjan

I'd bet a dollar that the GOP will end up regretting that measure at a later date.

This is ultra-ironic, though, after the GOP went one step beyond a filibuster in not even proceeding at all with debate over Obama's nomination.


----------



## mongey

well, now its gonna get messy


----------



## will_shred

United States launches its first attack against Syria, bombing a regime airbase. Opinions? 

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/6/15214758/us-syria-assad-bomb-cruise-missile


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

inb4 conscientious objector


----------



## oc616

2016: "Hillary is a warhawk, I'll never vote for her, Trump understands conflict in the middle east is bad."

Today: "Action in Syria was inevitable, it would have happened whether Hillary or Trump got in."

Can this man do nothing to invalidate any argument for him?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Daddy knows best


----------



## UnderTheSign

oc616 said:


> 2016: "Hillary is a warhawk, I'll never vote for her, Trump understands conflict in the middle east is bad."
> 
> Today: "Action in Syria was inevitable, it would have happened whether Hillary or Trump got in."
> 
> Can this man do nothing to invalidate any argument for him?


Came here to post this. Really, did no one see this coming? Like, man, we over here on this side of the ocean might have made some bad political decisions but at least in our elections a month ago we kept our crazy blondie away from any form of power, for a reason.


----------



## bostjan

So, in mechanics alone, this is no different than what Obama did, really.

But, in terms of the context around it, IMO, there is a night and day difference. Trump seems to be trying to make a power play of this. But this sort of gambit has never paid off in the past- why is it any different now? Maybe Trump isn't doing this to make a statement in the middle east. Maybe he's doing it to make a statement in East Asia. Whatever the case, I have little confidence that he actually knows what he's doing.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ Obama's actions in Syria were against ISIS, not the Assad government, so yes, this is a significantly different action.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> ^^^ Obama's actions in Syria were against ISIS, not the Assad government, so yes, this is a significantly different action.



Be still my heart! CelticElk and Bostjan agreed on something in the PC&E forum! 

In all seriousness, though, what's Trump's next move in this? Hopefully nothing.


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> In all seriousness, though, what's Trump's next move in this? Hopefully nothing.



Digging his heels in to his own opinion that whatever he does next will be the right move


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> Digging his heels in to his own opinion that whatever he does next will be the right move



Heh, well, that's not really his next move, so much as just a general description of everything he does.

I just get this sinking feeling like this is going to end up going the wrong way soon.


----------



## will_shred

I feel like there's something to be said for enforcing international treaties against the use of chemical weapons. I think that it was a mistake of the Obama administration to not enforce their "red line" back in 2013. I feel like the Russians and the Assad regime have been deliberately pushing the boundaries of what NATO/America will tolerate, and allowing it to go unchecked could be more dangerous then doing nothing at all.


----------



## flint757

Wasn't Assad found innocent in 2013. I thought that they proved it was actually the rebel groups, which have been recently accused of having more than mild ties to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Al-Nusra as well. It makes zero sense IMO for Assad to deliberately do what he's currently being accused of doing on the eve of peace talks just after the White House made a statement that they would let the people decide.

The version of the story I heard that sounds more plausible, to me at least, is that they blew up a terrorist weapon arsenal and the arsenal contained an unknown quantity of sarin gas. The rebels and ISIS have chemical weapons, so that's not a stretch and they have every reason to get the world to turn on Assad.

As for looking for some sort of justice in this situation, it's like we conveniently forget what deposing a leader inevitably leads to in the middle east. The more destabilized the country the more likely ISIS will take it over. Even if our motives were righteous, which they absolutely are not, the end result is a worse situation quite similar to Libya and Iraq. Going on the offensive is only going to continue to agitate the likes of Iran and Russia as well. Iran is not an enemy we want to take on and I don't think bringing us closer to nuclear war is a smart move regardless of the person who's leading us there.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I just get this sinking feeling like this is going to end up going the wrong way soon.



I've felt that way since back when no one thought he had a chance of winning the election. Unfortunately, he continues proving me correct at every opportunity.




will_shred said:


> I feel like the Russians and the Assad regime have been deliberately pushing the boundaries of what NATO/America will tolerate, and allowing it to go unchecked could be more dangerous then doing nothing at all.



Absolutely correct on both points.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> Wasn't Assad found innocent in 2013. I thought that they proved it was actually the rebel groups, which have been recently accused of having more than mild ties to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Al-Nusra as well. It makes zero sense IMO for Assad to deliberately do what he's currently being accused of doing on the eve of peace talks just after the White House made a statement that they would let the people decide.
> 
> The version of the story I heard that sounds more plausible, to me at least, is that they blew up a terrorist weapon arsenal and the arsenal contained an unknown quantity of sarin gas. The rebels and ISIS have chemical weapons, so that's not a stretch and they have every reason to get the world to turn on Assad.
> 
> As for looking for some sort of justice in this situation, it's like we conveniently forget what deposing a leader inevitably leads to in the middle east. The more destabilized the country the more likely ISIS will take it over. Even if our motives were righteous, which they absolutely are not, the end result is a worse situation quite similar to Libya and Iraq. Going on the offensive is only going to continue to agitate the likes of Iran and Russia as well. Iran is not an enemy we want to take on and I don't think bringing us closer to nuclear war is a smart move regardless of the person who's leading us there.



No - Assad claimed it wasn't him in 2013, and similarly blamed a terrorist group this time around, but the international consensus and intelligence estimate then and today was pretty clear that he was behind both. 

IMO, both Obama and Trump got this wrong, for different reasons. Obama drew a hard line on the use of chemical weapons, and Assad tested that line. Rather than following through, Obama put the measure to vote in Congress, where (and if you want to try to build a defense for him, this is the only one I could see - the Republican) Congress voted it down. He talked the talk, but then didn't walk the walk. 

Trump, meanwhile, spent the last week publicly distancing America from the conflict, saying it wasn't our problem, Assad could do what he wanted inside his borders, etc, only really publicly condemning the attack in fairly strong terms yesterday, before unexpectedly dropping 59 Tomahawks on the air base the attack originated from (but not before alerting the Russians to warn their troops there, who I'm SURE did not alert their Syrian allies ). Basically, while Trump walked the walk, he never talked the talk - that last week could have been spent building international support for a targeted military strike, and instead spent that time saying it wasn't America's problem. 

Obama came away looking weak and ineffectual, Trump came away looking uninformed and impulsive. Neither looked in control. 

(FWIW, I think some sort of retaliation was necessary, and I mostly object to how Trump handled this, not what he did.)


----------



## bostjan

Well, the questions I think about are:

1. Why is the USA unilaterally responsible for enforcing international law?
2. What is the due process in this case?
3. What is the appropriate punishment for violating chemical weapons treaties?
4. If the answer to #3 is to be removed from power, then who receives the transfer of power?

My opinion:

1. We are not.
2. A UN investigation and hearing.
3. Military sanctions.
4. Not an entirely new government, but this should go down the chain of command until a suitable replacement leader is in power.

What do you think?


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> No - Assad claimed it wasn't him in 2013, and similarly blamed a terrorist group this time around, but the international consensus and intelligence estimate then and today was pretty clear that he was behind both.



'Pretty clear' it has not been at all, especially for the most recent event. Before an investigation could fully unfold we went and bombed the $hit out of Syria yet again. The incident is still only allegedly Assad's doing. Nothing has been definitively proven. 

We can argue whether or not Assad is insane, but it makes zero sense for him to drop chemical weapons on the eve of peace talks when the White House said they were going to back off.


----------



## flint757

bostjan said:


> Well, the questions I think about are:
> 
> 1. Why is the USA unilaterally responsible for enforcing international law?
> 2. What is the due process in this case?
> 3. What is the appropriate punishment for violating chemical weapons treaties?
> 4. If the answer to #3 is to be removed from power, then who receives the transfer of power?
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> 1. We are not.
> 2. A UN investigation and hearing.
> 3. Military sanctions.
> 4. Not an entirely new government, but this should go down the chain of command until a suitable replacement leader is in power.
> 
> What do you think?



I'm in 100% agreement with you on this.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> 'Pretty clear' it has not been at all, especially for the most recent event. Before an investigation could fully unfold we went and bombed the $hit out of Syria yet again. The incident is still only allegedly Assad's doing. Nothing has been definitively proven.
> 
> We can argue whether or not Assad is insane, but it makes zero sense for him to drop chemical weapons on the eve of peace talks when the White House said they were going to back off.



I thought it was also pretty widely understood that Assad was testing Trump and his desire to stay out of it, immediately before a US-Russia meeting where he thought (especially after Obama, and with Trump an avowed "America First" isolationist) he could get away with it. 

Bostjan, to answer your question - because, after the Cold War, America was the last remaining global superpower, and we have historically been at the leading front of preserving international law. We have the power necessary to do so, and we've set the precident that we will. Pulling back would leave a void, voids breed chaos, and we have enough of that as things stand. With great power comes great responsibility, and all of that. 

You may not LIKE it, but we've defined this as our role in the world for at least the last 30 years, and arguably the last 80 since WWII.


----------



## flint757

Drew said:


> ...because, after the Cold War, America was the last remaining global superpower, and we have historically been at the leading front of *preserving international law*. ...


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> Well, the questions I think about are:
> 
> 1. Why is the USA unilaterally responsible for enforcing international law?
> 2. What is the due process in this case?
> 3. What is the appropriate punishment for violating chemical weapons treaties?
> 4. If the answer to #3 is to be removed from power, then who receives the transfer of power?
> 
> My opinion:
> 
> 1. We are not.
> 2. A UN investigation and hearing.
> 3. Military sanctions.
> 4. Not an entirely new government, but this should go down the chain of command until a suitable replacement leader is in power.
> 
> What do you think?



What do I think? I think that as long as Russia is allied with Syria and holds a veto on the Security Council, none of this is happening.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> What do I think? I think that as long as Russia is allied with Syria and holds a veto on the Security Council, none of this is happening.



I agree. But if the outcome of due process is not what the USA expects, is it cool to bypass it all? I guess that's a rhetorical question. Obviously, that's where the differences of opinions come into play.

My opinion on that (no one asked  ) is that the USA could play a harder long-term game. Put the thing up at the UN, let Russia veto, prove that the Russian veto is bull, then take away Russia's veto power or over-ride it using the case of them irresponsibly using that power. If they don't play the gambit, you don't win the big points, but you still win the small points in the Syria thing. Meanwhile Assad continues being Assad, but he's probably not going to cool it on fighting ISIS anyway, because, well, ISIS isn't going to cool it until Assad is completely destroyed.


----------



## celticelk

bostjan said:


> I agree. But if the outcome of due process is not what the USA expects, is it cool to bypass it all? I guess that's a rhetorical question. Obviously, that's where the differences of opinions come into play.
> 
> My opinion on that (no one asked  ) is that the USA could play a harder long-term game. Put the thing up at the UN, let Russia veto, prove that the Russian veto is bull, then take away Russia's veto power or over-ride it using the case of them irresponsibly using that power. If they don't play the gambit, you don't win the big points, but you still win the small points in the Syria thing. Meanwhile Assad continues being Assad, but he's probably not going to cool it on fighting ISIS anyway, because, well, ISIS isn't going to cool it until Assad is completely destroyed.



There's no mechanism in the UN Charter to deny or override the veto power, and in fact the veto-wielding nations can use that power against amendments to the Charter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Veto_power_reform.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> There's no mechanism in the UN Charter to deny or override the veto power, and in fact the veto-wielding nations can use that power against amendments to the Charter: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Veto_power_reform.





The wikipedia article you posted said:


> By adopting A/RES/377 A, on 3 November 1950, over two-thirds of UN Member states declared that, according to the UN Charter, the permanent members of the UNSC cannot and should not prevent the UNGA from taking any and all action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise its "primary responsibility" for maintaining peace. Such an interpretation sees the UNGA as being awarded "final responsibility"rather than "secondary responsibility"for matters of international peace and security, by the UN Charter. Various official and semi-official UN reports make explicit reference to the Uniting for Peace resolution as providing a mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any UNSC vetoes; thus rendering them little more than delays in UN action, should two-thirds of the Assembly subsequently agree that action is necessary.



So, what you say is correct only as it applies to the UN Security Council, not to the UN in general, where the investigation and hearing would take place. Let's not confuse the UNSC with the UN General Assembly.


----------



## celticelk

^^^ The Security Council is the only UN body that can issue binding resolutions on member states. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. You'll also note that the language around the "Uniting for Peace" option is all speculative - it's an interpretation of the Charter, and one that's never been tested.


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> ^^^ The Security Council is the only UN body that can issue binding resolutions on member states. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. You'll also note that the language around the "Uniting for Peace" option is all speculative - it's an interpretation of the Charter, and one that's never been tested.



But the UNGA can over-ride a UNSC resolution as quoted above. That's all I was trying to say before.

Anyway, if your point is that the UN is too slow and too spineless to do anything about Russia, maybe Trump is playing his cards right anyway, since they won't do anything about the USA, either. I guess the USA's international prestige is pretty much sunk to the bottom of the toilet bowl at any rate, so there is no need to try to save face or act according to protocol. Might as well unleash Trump on the rest of the world in the form of cruise missiles and smartbombs, heck, take care of Somali pirates, too, with torpedoes and sea to sea missiles and rail guns and MIRV's. We have all of this stuff to blow up other stuff, just sitting around. What about North Korea? Oh, we haven't gotten to our collection of ICBM's yet...

I mean, I really hope it never comes to that. And you can argue about how the USA is the last remaining 20th century superpower overlord, but that doesn't mean that we have to go and police everyone. Shaq is a huge dude, but that doesn't mean that I should run to him if someone bigger than me is picking on me.

...phew, well, regardless of what is right and what is wrong, what's done is done, and probably, launching 50 missiles at Homs is just a drop in the bucket. I just really hope Trump doesn't bush our military out to Syria.


----------



## wankerness

This is funny, because not dragging the US into a vietnam-ish situation and/or getting us into a warmongering game of chicken with Russia was literally the only positive I thought he had over Hillary. GOOD TIMES


----------



## gunch

wankerness said:


> This is funny, because not dragging the US into a vietnam-ish situation and/or getting us into a warmongering game of chicken with Russia was literally the only positive I thought he had over Hillary. GOOD TIMES



Yeah remember all those tweets lmao


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> This is funny, because not dragging the US into a vietnam-ish situation and/or getting us into a warmongering game of chicken with Russia was literally the only positive I thought he had over Hillary. GOOD TIMES



"but her emails."


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I agree. But if the outcome of due process is not what the USA expects, is it cool to bypass it all? I guess that's a rhetorical question. Obviously, that's where the differences of opinions come into play.
> 
> My opinion on that (no one asked  ) is that the USA could play a harder long-term game. Put the thing up at the UN, let Russia veto, prove that the Russian veto is bull, then take away Russia's veto power or over-ride it using the case of them irresponsibly using that power. If they don't play the gambit, you don't win the big points, but you still win the small points in the Syria thing. Meanwhile Assad continues being Assad, but he's probably not going to cool it on fighting ISIS anyway, because, well, ISIS isn't going to cool it until Assad is completely destroyed.



Ignoring all the UN procedural stuff that follows which I don't feel qualified to critique....

The other major issue with your argument is I have yet to see any evidence that Trump HAS a "long game" necessary to set something like this in motion that would take a year or two to unfold. Clinton, sure, this is way more her style. Trump doesn't have the short term self control necessary to engage in the a sort of boring staid, long-term diplomacy necessary to get Russia ostracized at the UN for aiding and abetting war criminals. 

I honestly think some sort of retaliation was not a bad decision here. I just think we probably could have done a lot more to lay the groundwork before we did anything, to mitigate some of the second and third order effects we now will have to contend with.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Ignoring all the UN procedural stuff that follows which I don't feel qualified to critique....
> 
> The other major issue with your argument is I have yet to see any evidence that Trump HAS a "long game" necessary to set something like this in motion that would take a year or two to unfold. Clinton, sure, this is way more her style. Trump doesn't have the short term self control necessary to engage in the a sort of boring staid, long-term diplomacy necessary to get Russia ostracized at the UN for aiding and abetting war criminals.
> 
> I honestly think some sort of retaliation was not a bad decision here. I just think we probably could have done a lot more to lay the groundwork before we did anything, to mitigate some of the second and third order effects we now will have to contend with.



Of course he doesn't have a long game, but I can still carry the deluded hope it hasn't all gone to pot, right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Of course he doesn't have a long game, but I can still carry the deluded hope it hasn't all gone to pot, right?



I'll drink to that. *raises beer*


----------



## Demiurge

This is way too much playing World Police for my tastes. Strip away the supposed emotional gratification of "The Syrian government- f*ck those guys anyway, amirite?!" and you realize that an administration with very little moral high-ground ordered the bombing of a military installation of a sovereign nation with obviously very little forethought. That's not the US' first rodeo of actions like this, but it seemed like after Iraq II- when the absence of yellowcake was re-spun into "The Iraqi government- f*ck those guys anyway, amirite?!" too- both sides of the aisle seemed resolute that we'd think before we act.

But here we go, anyway. With military action, it always draws a "what's next- let's see the endgame" from the public so the administration has their misdirection for however long they want to play it. Sean Spicer is probably practicing his "WE'RE AT WAR" bellow for the press corp as I type this.

EDIT: o hai guys http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/index.html


----------



## celticelk

A useful historical overview of the conflict in Syria: http://www.vox.com/2017/4/8/15218782/syria-trump-bomb-assad-explainer


----------



## bostjan

Anyone know if the claims are true that Trump has already spent $24 million (US) on vacations, so far? ( source ) 

On top of that, the added security at Trump Tower is $410k (US) per day.

And now heightened possibilities of war in both Syria and N. Korea. 

I honestly wanted to see him prove the nay-sayers wrong, but he's just been an extreme hypocrite, so far. Nothing he promised seems to be getting done, and just about everything we feared is coming into place.


----------



## StevenC

He's apparently up to 15 of those $3M golf trips now in 11 weeks.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What a mess Trumps team is.
https://www.apnews.com/54102ee56945...-says-even-Hitler-didn't-use-chemical-weapons


----------



## bostjan

UnderTheSign said:


> What a mess Trumps team is.
> https://www.apnews.com/54102ee56945...-says-even-Hitler-didn't-use-chemical-weapons



I saw that report last night. I don't think anyone really expected much more political sensitivity from these guys, though... 

A headline like: "Spicer apologizes for 'insensitive' reference to Holocaust" might as well read "Cat apologizes for antagonizing mouse"


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> He's apparently up to 15 of those $3M golf trips now in 11 weeks.



FiveThirtyEight ran, as one of their Significant Digits, $24mm, yesterday. That's what Trump has spent (using taxpayer money) to travel to Trump-branded properties in the first 10 weeks of his term. For contrast, they note that Obama spent about $97mm for _all_ travel, across the entire 8 years he served, for an average of $12 million a year. 

Trump has spent DOUBLE what Obama did in an average year, in ten weeks, just going to places he owns. 




Spicer's comments were a stupendously bad faux pas, as was his recovery - that he misspoke and that he'd hate it if his accidental word choice distracted from the valuable work Trump is doing destabilizing the middle east. 


Meanwhile, so, how do you conservatives still feel about Putin?


----------



## bostjan

Just 10 or 15 minutes ago, Trump said that foreign relations with Russia were at an "all time low." I'm hoping this is just his typical hyperbole.

Jeez, the one thing I thought Trump would be good about was relations with Russia, and that's even turned into a cluster.

Is there any silver lining? Hmm, well, at least Hitler never used chemical weapons, anymore...  

Trump needs to get his act together, stop tweeting about stupid ...., and start using his head for more than just a giant orange peg to hold his ugly toupee. The entire chemical weapons thing is looking like Iraqi yellow cake uranium redux. Sadly, if the choice comes down to admitting a mistake and losing political capital or standing firm on a naked lie and causing WWIII, I don't think Trump would even deliberate before pressing the big red button. As we discussed before, hopefully our military officers are capable of doing what's right for planet Earth.


----------



## mongey

ok guys. you had your little experiment with putting an inexperienced , illiterate fool into power. Power to you . Shake up that system , but now he is jeopardizing the safety of my family and loved ones on the other side of the world. 

can you just band together and get him kicked out now before he kills us all ?


----------



## bostjan

celticelk said:


> ^^^ The Security Council is the only UN body that can issue binding resolutions on member states. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding. You'll also note that the language around the "Uniting for Peace" option is all speculative - it's an interpretation of the Charter, and one that's never been tested.



So, you were correct that Russia would use its veto. They even surprised me by vetoing the UNSC resolution to investigate the poison gas incident from last week.

_They vetoed the investigation._

I suspected that they would veto sanctions, but this move seems extra sketchy, no?

So Russia has shown their true colours already in this matter. I think that the UNGA should already have reason to suspect that the Russians are not out for a fair deal.

In other news, a US-led attack on Deir el-Zour has been reported to have hit a weapons cache and released mustard gas.


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> ok guys. you had your little experiment with putting an inexperienced , illiterate fool into power. Power to you . Shake up that system , but now he is jeopardizing the safety of my family and loved ones on the other side of the world.
> 
> can you just band together and get him kicked out now before he kills us all ?



Dude, a majority of American voters didn't even vote for him. We don't like it either. Best case scenario may be that he actually pisses off Putin enough to leak something proving collusion in the election, and we get to impeach him (though so far US journalists are doing a good job slowly peeling back the onion and exposing more and more levels of connection)


----------



## bostjan

I don't think he's close to being impeached yet, but he certainly has pissed off more than enough folks here to get a lot of people looking for any excuse.


----------



## vilk

It doesn't matter what we can prove or how much we don't want him. We're at the mercy of our elected officials to have the man at least removed but hopefully punished, and I have no faith in them to do it.

Our government, or populace for that matter, isn't in the business of holding celebrities responsible for... well, anything, really. And as far as I'm concerned, politicians are celebrities, DC is Hollywood, and CNN is TMZ.

it's like that documentary about Steve-O where he's so desperate for attention that he's trying to get arrested and he's standing on his car waiving around this HUGE branch of cannabis buds, and the cops are just like "Hey look it's Steve-O!" and taking his picture and sh/t, and he doesn't get arrested.


----------



## Drew

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...spot-trump-team-links-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

Turns out British intelligence were the first to become concerned about communication between suspected Russian intelligence agents they were monitoring, and people tied to the Trump campaign, who they were NOT targeting, but they started to become concerned with the volume of communication. 

At the time Trump, out of nowhere, started tweeting about Obama wire-tapping him, my first thought was that he knew he had been monitored, knew there was dirt, and was trying to pre-empt the story so that when details started to emerge he could claim it as evidence he had been persecuted, rather than evidence of wrongdoing. I'm starting to think I might have been right, and the fact he claimed the Brits were behind it was because he was aware they'd tipped off the FBI, and that if he sensationalized the story enough he could try to spin it as him being the victim and not the perpetrator.


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> Dude, a majority of American voters didn't even vote for him. We don't like it either. Best case scenario may be that he actually pisses off Putin enough to leak something proving collusion in the election, and we get to impeach him (though so far US journalists are doing a good job slowly peeling back the onion and exposing more and more levels of connection)



I know man. I feel for you guys. 

At first it was a weird freak show for the world , the whole trump thing. 

But now it is really the whole worlds problem. 

Let's hope the Russian blackmail stories are true and it all takes care of itself.


----------



## narad

mongey said:


> I know man. I feel for you guys.
> 
> At first it was a weird freak show for the world , the whole trump thing.
> 
> But now it is really the whole worlds problem.
> 
> Let's hope the Russian blackmail stories are true and it all takes care of itself.



Well c'mon man... US foreign policy isn't going to have a huge impact on _Australia_.


----------



## StevenC

Secret Service has spent $35,185 on golf cart rentals since Trumps inauguration. Per CBS: 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-...to-mount/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=36519689


----------



## Drew

In other news, sounds like Gorsuch is having an awesome first day.  

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/17/52439...right-into-questioning-in-supreme-court-debut


----------



## Dcm81

narad said:


> Well c'mon man... US foreign policy isn't going to have a huge impact on _Australia_.



Possible nuclear war with North Korea would beg to differ


----------



## bostjan

There's something about nuclear non-proliferation. The more nations have access to nuclear weapons, the higher the risk of global destruction. Thus, the nations who do have nuclear weapons are stupid to allow new nations to join the club.

On the other hand, if the only way to deter them is through the use of nuclear weapons, it's a sort of Catch-22 situation.


----------



## Drew

Dcm81 said:


> Possible nuclear war with North Korea would beg to differ



You're PROBABLY outside of the path of radiaton released by a nuclear blast once it starts to enter the jetstream. _Probably_.



bostjan said:


> There's something about nuclear non-proliferation. The more nations have access to nuclear weapons, the higher the risk of global destruction. Thus, the nations who do have nuclear weapons are stupid to allow new nations to join the club.
> 
> On the other hand, if the only way to deter them is through the use of nuclear weapons, it's a sort of Catch-22 situation.



Not to go all Obama on the situation, but how would you feel about one well-placed drone strike to remove the guy with decision-making authority to launch North Korea's nukes?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Not to go all Obama on the situation, but how would you feel about one well-placed drone strike to remove the guy with decision-making authority to launch North Korea's nukes?



In reality, it's a complex and tricky situation. Will China retaliate? That's the big question. I would say that the #1 option would be to sweet talk China into getting their little demented cousin under control. They ought to have a stake in this situation, but honestly, I can't see why they would condone all of this aggression coming from NK. If the cards all go down on the table, I wouldn't be at all surprised if China sides with North Korea. They don't like us, and we are playing along with the tough talk rather than behaving more appropriately.

Really, this is a major failure of the UN. Back in 2005, when NK sought out nuclear weapons openly, having signed the NPT, the UN should have given the okay to zap them right then and there and be done with it. That's pretty much the foundation point of the UN - to avoid WWIII, which NK is clearly after in all of this. The trouble was, it was 2005, and the USA was already neck deep in a bunch of poorly justified wars all over the middle east, so the UN derelicted its duties and just shrugged off the impending apocalypse.

What to do right now? As much as I'm staunchly anti-war, I think your proposal to remove Kim from power with extreme prejudice needs to be on the table, but we *need* to have some form of international resolution in place, also. If the international community has a bad taste in its mouth because of Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., then I don't know what should be done. Certainly this situation is very different from Hussein, Gaddafi, or Assad. We have a regime who is _already at war with the Western World_ and openly advocates *the use of nuclear force to enact mass murder and destruction*. I have serious doubts that NK could nuke the USA with their technology any time soon, but they are probably not far off from hitting Japan, which, might I add, is one of the most densely populated places on planet Earth.


----------



## narad

Dcm81 said:


> Possible nuclear war with North Korea would beg to differ



It can beg to differ when it's significantly more likely than a unicorn attack.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> In reality, it's a complex and tricky situation. Will China retaliate? That's the big question. I would say that the #1 option would be to sweet talk China into getting their little demented cousin under control. They ought to have a stake in this situation, but honestly, I can't see why they would condone all of this aggression coming from NK. If the cards all go down on the table, I wouldn't be at all surprised if China sides with North Korea. They don't like us, and we are playing along with the tough talk rather than behaving more appropriately.
> 
> Really, this is a major failure of the UN. Back in 2005, when NK sought out nuclear weapons openly, having signed the NPT, the UN should have given the okay to zap them right then and there and be done with it. That's pretty much the foundation point of the UN - to avoid WWIII, which NK is clearly after in all of this. The trouble was, it was 2005, and the USA was already neck deep in a bunch of poorly justified wars all over the middle east, so the UN derelicted its duties and just shrugged off the impending apocalypse.
> 
> What to do right now? As much as I'm staunchly anti-war, I think your proposal to remove Kim from power with extreme prejudice needs to be on the table, but we *need* to have some form of international resolution in place, also. If the international community has a bad taste in its mouth because of Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., then I don't know what should be done. Certainly this situation is very different from Hussein, Gaddafi, or Assad. We have a regime who is _already at war with the Western World_ and openly advocates *the use of nuclear force to enact mass murder and destruction*. I have serious doubts that NK could nuke the USA with their technology any time soon, but they are probably not far off from hitting Japan, which, might I add, is one of the most densely populated places on planet Earth.



First, my suggestion was clearly very tongue in cheek, but, yes, needs to be on the table. 

Two specific comments, though - One, I think China is losing patience with North Korea. A couple reasons, but the big ones, I think, are that North Korea state media has become openly hostile to China, and I forget if it was North Korea buying coal from China, or selling coal to China as one of their few ways of actually generating state income, but that was blocked by the Chinese very early this year, well short of the maximum agreed-upon quota (which in the past they'd routinely exceeded anyway). Over and above that I believe modest criticisms of North Korea have been tolerated inside China, which again is unprecidented. I don't think the Chinese like the situation any more than we do, which means that provided Trump doesn't do anything stupid and piss off the Chinese, there's at least room for us to work together. And yes, that's a big "if."  

Also, two, not to continue to be pragmatic with your talk on the UN, but wasn't it China that blocked any UN intervention when NK started aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program? In theory I agree with you, the point of the UN is to allow the international community as a whole to self-police, but in practice as long as any of the security council members have unilateral veto power, that's not going to happen and in reality the US is going to have to step forward and fill that void. 

This would be VERY tough to do domestically, and would be impossible under Trump, but for the UN to become an effective alternative to the USA as the global arbiter of rule of law, the security council nations would have to all agree to give up veto power. And, that's never gonna happen. 

Still, I'm glad to see that there are at least certain situations where you believe that isolationism isn't the answer.


----------



## bostjan

The UN is not very effective at much of anything. When the NPT was signed, it said "we (nations thus far without nuclear weapons) promise not to pursue nuclear weapons." In return, the nuclear powers are supposed to cool it on their path to assured global destruction, by not building up huge arsenals. It's the kind of treaty that only works if all signatory parties make good on the promise. I guess, at the time, nobody really expected one of the little countries to be the one to break up the treaty.

Anyway, if the UN is so useless in preventing WWIII from breaking out, then they might as well not exist anymore.

The sticky bit is that if we hit NK, then China (whether they like NK or hate them) will be pissed, and Russia, who is already pissed, will get more pissed. Having the three major nuclear powers in a state where they are all pissed is pretty bad. All because of little old North Korea (recall, though, that it was little old Bosnia that kicked off WWI).

But, your suggestion, humourous or not, might end up being the best net move, it just all depends on what position we are in at the time. With our current position, I think our best move is to try to get into a better position, if you know what I mean, but where a war with NK would be messy for US-China relations, a move against Kim, directly, with China giving a nod, or at least looking away for a minute, could be a step in cleaning up a little bit of a mess.

A huge part of this, of course, is the consideration of who follows Kim in power. NK might get reunited with South Korea and just be Korea again. I would see that as ideal. But that won't simply happen on its own if you take Kim out of the story, I think. NK is more closely tied to China than anybody else, and hardly tied to them, at that, so the power struggle will be totally internal until external force is applied. You know?

I don't know what Mr. Trump and his toupee are planning with NK right now, but I doubt he's at a point where he's thought enough moves ahead to make a solid plan just yet. We'll have to see how things unfold.


----------



## Demiurge

I think we'll be fine if Trump can just settle down, be less vindictive, less thin-skinned or petty or... oh, nevermind...

https://www.boston.com/sports/new-e...brady-during-his-speech-honoring-the-patriots


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> A huge part of this, of course, is the consideration of who follows Kim in power. NK might get reunited with South Korea and just be Korea again. I would see that as ideal.



That's a pretty big welfare problem to force upon the South Koreans. Like, it would kill them economically. 25 million incoming people who are likely unskilled, uneducated and indoctrinated isn't exactly desirable for a country of 50 million. The actual solution to this problem, even if the Kim regime is removed today, is a generations long rehabilitation of a whole nation. And the planet doesn't have a great track record of installing leaders and governments into countries where there are none (See: Middle East, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, North Korea)

There's a good chance that the North Korea problem won't be solved because no one wants to deal with the 25 million people, not because anyone has a problem with removing a Supreme Leader or succession thereof.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Not to go all Obama on the situation, but how would you feel about one well-placed drone strike to remove the guy with decision-making authority to launch North Korea's nukes?



Drone strike, Navy Seal mission, CIA mission, whichever gets the job done with the least civilian casualties.




bostjan said:


> In reality, it's a complex and tricky situation. Will China retaliate? That's the big question. I would say that the #1 option would be to sweet talk China into getting their little demented cousin under control.



While I agree that China stepping in to check North Korea is ideal, don't forget that the US is the largest buyer of Chinese exports, so they need us economically even if they don't like us. Russia would be the bigger threat.

But none of these countries are stupid/crazy enough to start nuclear war (except North Korea (I suspect that there are some type of constraints in place in Trump's case to prevent him taking that route)), so nuclear war very improbable in any event.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> That's a pretty big welfare problem to force upon the South Koreans. Like, it would kill them economically. 25 million incoming people who are likely unskilled, uneducated and indoctrinated isn't exactly desirable for a country of 50 million. The actual solution to this problem, even if the Kim regime is removed today, is a generations long rehabilitation of a whole nation. And the planet doesn't have a great track record of installing leaders and governments into countries where there are none (See: Middle East, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, North Korea)
> 
> There's a good chance that the North Korea problem won't be solved because no one wants to deal with the 25 million people, not because anyone has a problem with removing a Supreme Leader or succession thereof.



No process is going to be all beer and skittles when dealing with North Korea, but ignoring them isn't really a good long term strategy. I wonder really how indoctrinated the average North Korean would be without fearless leader threatening them with extermination if they fart when the wind is blowing the wrong direction. The situation of the North Korean citizen is probably not fully comparable to anything else, but the situation in East Germany during the age of informants would probably be the closest. East Germany became east Germany, and the way things are there now (not perfect, I know), IMO, justify the risk Germans took in the reunification.

It's certainly predicting the future based on sparse data, so feel free to disagree with my opinion. I really wish that I could say ignoring North Korea would be a viable strategy, but I think there is good reason to fear a nuclear attack against South Korea, and even Japan and pretty much everywhere that isn't North Korea.



tedtan said:


> Drone strike, Navy Seal mission, CIA mission, whichever gets the job done with the least civilian casualties.



That's the one thing that has my attention. Even if we had a space LASER that could death ray Kim from outer space without so much as damaging the wing of a housefly taking the shot, the power vacuum that would follow his removal is more likely to result in violence.



tedtan said:


> While I agree that China stepping in to check North Korea is ideal, don't forget that the US is the largest buyer of Chinese exports, so they need us economically even if they don't like us. Russia would be the bigger threat.
> 
> But none of these countries are stupid/crazy enough to start nuclear war (except North Korea (I suspect that there are some type of constraints in place in Trump's case to prevent him taking that route)), so nuclear war very improbable in any event.



Understood, but we can't really predict that China will act in its own economic interest without any limits. Even though the USA is a huge economic customer for China, we're also a huge competitor. Think of a manufacturer who buys their parts from another manufacturer, but also sells a lot of assembled goods that compete with that same manufacturer. Would that stop one company from a hostile takeover of the other? I think no. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see why, as of yet.

Regarding Russia, I really don't think they'd be thrilled about US activity ramping up in North Korea, but I would venture a really wild intuitive guess that the number of ....s Russia gives over North Korea since, well, the fall of the USSR, has dropped to an insignificant number. They certainly would not like us in their back yard, but if, hypothetically, North and South Korea reunited as a democracy without the USA building more military bases there, I really don't think Putin would place that on his list of things to brood over while looking menacing.

----------------------------------------

I'm wondering what North Korea's master plan is in all of this. They *seem* like that crazy little dude who thinks he can beat up everyone in the bar after a few beers, but I don't doubt that they have some sort of plan. North Korea itself seems to think very highly of itself and its military effectiveness as a threat to the west, but Kim Jong Un is no idiot, either. Seeing that we just elected, most likely, the least emotionally stable president in the history of the USA, all of these threats and taunts aimed at the USA seem like some sort of trap. Think of it this way, if Trump and Kim had a friendly battle-of-the-wits, who would win? Which one is more crazy? We know who has the biggest army, but is there a way Kim could be playing a political trap or otherwise to make up for that?

Hell, maybe Kim is waiting for the US to fill South Korea with every enlisted man ready to move in, just to launch his duct-tape-reliant nukes to destroy his two worst foes with one press of a button.

What's the USA's end-game in this? I fear that Trump is going to try moving troops around to try to intimidate Kim, or to shock and awe, or whatever bull.... isn't going to work. If a rabid squirrel approaches you to bite your leg, foaming at the mouth and looking crazed, do you try to scare it away? No, that won't work, because whatever psychological game you are trying to win at, the squirrel isn't even capable of playing. I don't think Kim would be intimidated if you marinated him in chum and threw him in a tank full of hungry sharks.

And, like I said, even though the USA never declared war, officially, on North Korea, North Korea is at war with the USA, according to North Korea.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> That's a pretty big welfare problem to force upon the South Koreans. Like, it would kill them economically. 25 million incoming people who are likely unskilled, uneducated and indoctrinated isn't exactly desirable for a country of 50 million. The actual solution to this problem, even if the Kim regime is removed today, is a generations long rehabilitation of a whole nation. And the planet doesn't have a great track record of installing leaders and governments into countries where there are none (See: Middle East, South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, North Korea)
> 
> There's a good chance that the North Korea problem won't be solved because no one wants to deal with the 25 million people, not because anyone has a problem with removing a Supreme Leader or succession thereof.



We already went through that with East and West Germany. It would be hard, and international aid would be necessary, but it would be doable. 

Bostjan - I think there's room to negotiate with China to get them to, if not actually actively back us on action against North Korea, then at least not condemn it. And, if there's anything Trump loves, it's seeing himself as a negotiator. I'd more be worried about what would happen if the terms of the deal - say, not labeling them a currency manipulator - were subsequently violated by Trump who has the impulse control of a four year old on a sugar high, but I could definitely see US action backed by China against North Korea, perhaps not warmly but at least willingly, and Russia being put in a position where they, who have never been nearly as close to North Korea, can't really say anything because it would draw the ire of both the US and China. 

Again, China REALLY isn't happy with what's going on in North Korea right now.

EDIT - oh, and I'd lay good money on the fact North Korea doesn't have a sophisticated end game "master plan." They're extremely cut off from the rest of the world, and the entire country basically revolves around telling Kim he's right. That's not a good combination for subtle scheming.


----------



## bostjan

North Korea is talking tough again...







Yeah, China seems pretty annoyed at NK. Russia seems to be distancing themselves, and I don't see any of this going well for NK at all, but I still think Kim has something that he at least thinks is an "ace in the hole." Who knows, though, maybe it's a huge pistol with a flag that pop's out of the barrel that reads "bang."


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Who knows, though, maybe it's a huge pistol with a flag that pop's out of the barrel that reads "bang."



You mean like their missile program?


----------



## flint757




----------



## narad

Honestly I don't know why a bomber or two didn't just fly over NK and drop a couple big crates of .... in the middle of their pompous military parade. The longer they stay isolated from military comparison with the rest of the world, the more dangerous they are -- like a bunch of frat bros pumping each other up before doing something stupid. I feel like some non-lethal reminder of their status in front of their entire military would be useful.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Science_Penguin

narad said:


> Well c'mon man... US foreign policy isn't going to have a huge impact on _Australia_.





Dcm81 said:


> Possible nuclear war with North Korea would beg to differ



From the BBC:



> "North Korea has said it is ready to sink the Carl Vinson, and on Sunday said it would strike Australia with nuclear weapons if it remained an ally of the United States."


(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39683518)

Mongey... I'm sorry... We didn't know!!

No, but seriously, what possible motive could anyone have for nuking Australia? Unless they really want to see the already scary wildlife mutated into freakish kaiju monsters...


----------



## Andromalia

Drew said:


> We already went through that with East and West Germany. It would be hard, and international aid would be necessary, but it would be doable.



From what I gather, the state of North Korea is nothing like old East Germany, which was a country with heavy industry, resources and a working education system. North Korea is an agricultural country, with no industry to speak of, subject to frequent famines, and with a population indoctrinated way beyond the mere political control that happened in the eastern europe democratic republics.


----------



## bostjan

Andromalia said:


> From what I gather, the state of North Korea is nothing like old East Germany, which was a country with heavy industry, resources and a working education system. North Korea is an agricultural country, with no industry to speak of, subject to frequent famines, and with a population indoctrinated way beyond the mere political control that happened in the eastern europe democratic republics.



The situation is NK is unique, unlike any other nation ever before. You have this dictator in charge of a communist/socialist republic with a staunch isolationist attitude toward the rest of the world. They do very little trade, and their culture is easily 40-50 years behind the rest of the developed world, yet they have nuclear weapons and "guided" "missiles," and their government has this attitude of extreme aggression toward anything and everything. A lot of people in SK think it's all talk, but, looking at the history books, NK has killed plenty of folks in the DMZ and who knows how many more within its own borders. They are also the only nation to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and then publicly reneg. How would the world react if Germany publicly reneg'd the Geneva Protocol?


----------



## Drew

Comey asked for a significant funding increase shortly before he was fired, to bring on additional staff and expoand the Russia investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/...eakingNews&contentID=65276543&pgtype=Homepage

What a wholly unexpected development! Who could have possibly ever foreseen this twist to the story?!?

/sarcasm


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

Drew said:


> Comey asked for a significant funding increase shortly before he was fired, to bring on additional staff and expoand the Russia investigation.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/...eakingNews&contentID=65276543&pgtype=Homepage
> 
> What a wholly unexpected development! Who could have possibly ever foreseen this twist to the story?!?
> 
> /sarcasm



Richard Nixon? I'm guessing he could have added a few well informed insights to the current situation...


----------



## Drew

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> Richard Nixon? I'm guessing he could have added a few well informed insights to the current situation...



His Presidential Library certainly didn't hesitate to chime in! 

It's also being reported that sources in the Justice Department are saying that Rod Rosenstein almost resigned after hearing Asst. Press Secretary Sanders' claim that Rosenstein had picked up the Comey question on his own, and over a span of a couple weeks came to the conclusion that he should be fired, so he wrote it up and put it in a memo to Trump. Rather, the day before his firing Trump came to Rosenstein and Sessions and asked them to write a formal justification for him to remove Comey. Sessions, as you'll recall, had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, which ostentatiously this was about Comey not prosecuting Trump's chief political rival and not Russia, yet Trump went out of his way to claim that Comey had assured him three times that he was not being investigated, in the termination letter, so you know exactly what was on his mind.


----------



## bostjan

Regardless of whatever guilt or innocence over this investigation, the way the administration is handling the investigation itself is deplorable. As someone who said "ok, America, if this is what you _really_ want, then let's go ahead and try it," I think I can honestly say that we gave it a shot and it didn't work out. This has ended up being the worst presidential administration ever, and not by a small margin. If there is no course correction, then it'll just get worse with future administrations.


----------



## EdgeC

We all see the farcical nature of Trump's presidency, but as an outsider, what are the opposition parties doing about it? Are the democrats assuming he'll fall on his own sword?

How can a president and his staff constantly display their ineptitude in decision making, make assertions which are demonstrably false, have a Damoclean investigation hanging over them and a house full of nepotism and cronyism without someone in opposition doing something about it?

Are they powerless?

Surely it is clear that the longer this goes on the more likely it will be that long lasting and potentially catastrophic damage will be done?


----------



## Science_Penguin

EdgeC said:


> We all see the farcical nature of Trump's presidency, but as an outsider, what are the opposition parties doing about it? Are the democrats assuming he'll fall on his own sword?
> 
> How can a president and his staff constantly display their ineptitude in decision making, make assertions which are demonstrably false, have a Damoclean investigation hanging over them and a house full of nepotism and cronyism without someone in opposition doing something about it?
> 
> Are they powerless?
> 
> Surely it is clear that the longer this goes on the more likely it will be that long lasting and potentially catastrophic damage will be done?



As far as I understand, with the Republicans making up the majority of Congress at the moment, we're really waiting for Trump's ineptitude to reach a point that even his own party has to oppose him. No telling when that is, but considering only a quarter of Republican congressmen openly supported his firing of Comey (last I heard, from BBC news) I'm holding out hope that it must be close... But, it's generally wishful thinking that a politician will put the greater good ahead of their party.

So, I guess, in essence, yeah, Democrats are kind of hoping he falls on his sword...


----------



## EdgeC

Science_Penguin said:


> As far as I understand, with the Republicans making up the majority of Congress at the moment, we're really waiting for Trump's ineptitude to reach a point that even his own party has to oppose him. No telling when that is, but considering only a quarter of Republican congressmen openly supported his firing of Comey (last I heard, from BBC news) I'm holding out hope that it must be close... But, it's generally wishful thinking that a politician will put the greater good ahead of their party.
> 
> So, I guess, in essence, yeah, Democrats are kind of hoping he falls on his sword...



So, in sum, Democrats are waiting for him to fall on his sword and technically so are the disgruntled Republicans. The old 'wait and see' approach. 

If it were here in Australia the opposition party would be absolutely tearing the PM apart. Even the PM's own party would have the knives out. We've had three PM's knifed by their own party while in power, and that's within the last 5 years.


----------



## flint757

Greater good is the wrong phrase for it though, because Pence is a million times worse. If Pence goes down with him then Paul Ryan becomes president. If you're not a tea party Republican, or a religious fanatic, this doesn't end well on any level whether we act or not.


----------



## narad

EdgeC said:


> So, in sum, Democrats are waiting for him to fall on his sword and technically so are the disgruntled Republicans. The old 'wait and see' approach.



What would you prefer? You can't remove someone from office for policies and decisions you don't like.


----------



## thraxil

EdgeC said:


> So, in sum, Democrats are waiting for him to fall on his sword and technically so are the disgruntled Republicans. The old 'wait and see' approach.
> 
> If it were here in Australia the opposition party would be absolutely tearing the PM apart. Even the PM's own party would have the knives out. We've had three PM's knifed by their own party while in power, and that's within the last 5 years.



Yeah, unfortunately, the way it works in the US is that it is largely up to Congress to keep the Executive branch in check. The Republicans firmly control Congress. IMO, the Democrats ought to at least be protesting a little more loudly, but ultimately they don't have any direct power right now. They *had* the ability to filibuster in the Senate which could slow things down, but the Republicans already used the "nuclear option" an eliminated the filibuster so now they can do anything with a 51% majority.

The Republicans' behavior has been really shameful. It would only take a few of them to grow a spine and a lot could be done but that doesn't seem to be happening. Trump spent most of the election insulting them but they lined up right behind him once he had the nomination. Right now I think most of them are drunk on power having control of the Presidency and Congress. Even if they hate Trump, they think they can take advantage of the situation to get their policies (tax breaks for their rich donors) though. Unless Trumps approval ratings get so low that they see their own seats at risk in the next election, I don't think that will change much. (Senators have a six-year term though so it'll take a while and there are a substantial number that come from such conservative districts that no matter how bad Trump is, they are probably safe).

In two years, if the Democrats get control of Congress back, things might change. But never underestimate the Democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In the meantime, it's up to the relatively non-political agencies like the FBI and courts.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe the good that comes of this is that it causes establishment of a competency test before someone can become PotUS.

So, now news outlets are saying that Trump might have secret tape recordings of his conversations with Comey. I'm starting to think Trump wrote a playbook based on everything Nixon did wrong.


----------



## Science_Penguin

flint757 said:


> Greater good is the wrong phrase for it though, because Pence is a million times worse. If Pence goes down with him then Paul Ryan becomes president. If you're not a tea party Republican, or a religious fanatic, this doesn't end well on any level whether we act or not.



Wow, I forgot all about that...

Maybe that's why he picked such laughably bad choices for all these jobs- he knew they were going to want to impeach him so he made sure all his possible replacements would be someone they REALLY didn't want.


----------



## Dredg

narad said:


> What would you prefer? You can't remove someone from office for policies and decisions you don't like.




Yes, you absolutely can. That's why the 2018 midterms will most likely see a mass exodus of GOP from their offices, most likely because of Trumpcare. The town halls that dare be held are vicious.


----------



## narad

Dredg said:


> Yes, you absolutely can. That's why the 2018 midterms will most likely see a mass exodus of GOP from their offices, most likely because of Trumpcare. The town halls that dare be held are vicious.



Well yea, I mean, that's the established process. This guy's referring to just magically ousting the guy right now rather than "wait and see". Not to mention the rest of the world outside of the US essentially lives in the liberal microcosm too -- last month Trump still had pretty good approval numbers. Not sure where we're at now though..it's been a busy week


----------



## MFB

narad said:


> last month Trump still had pretty good approval numbers. Not sure where we're at now though..it's been a busy week



Where did you see that? 

His approval rating as a whole is still at 39%, only a point or so lower than he was throughout the majority of April, and I'd wager 3/4 of that are the people who voted for him originally and won't be swayed at all.


----------



## narad

MFB said:


> Where did you see that?
> 
> His approval rating as a whole is still at 39%, only a point or so lower than he was throughout the majority of April, and I'd wager 3/4 of that are the people who voted for him originally and won't be swayed at all.



Well I guess we have to go about 7 weeks back for 44% approval. My point is that approval ratings like that are not too uncommon - they're right in line with just about any Obama second term measure, and yet this guy is saying Trump needs to be dealt with now. It's not like the whole country agrees that Trump is making tons of bad decisions. You have to wait for him to do something that's clearly beyond the bounds of the power of the office.

But yea, I mean, I agree a huge amount of the people who originally voted won't be swayed -- not that that's different from any presidency!


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

So he literally admits that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigations that "aren't happening" and we're just supposed to okay with this? What the actual fuck is happening?


----------



## StevenC

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> So he literally admits that he fired Comey to stop the Russian investigations that "aren't happening" and we're just supposed to okay with this? What the actual fuck is happening?



Yeah, and then told the Russian foreign minister highly classified information.


----------



## Demiurge

StevenC said:


> Yeah, and then told the Russian foreign minister highly classified information.



It was probably just his plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days. I suppose he's waiting for network sweeps to actually employ it.


----------



## Dredg

At this point it's just a waiting game to see how many times he can commit an impeachable offense before the GOP is forced to act.


----------



## Viginez

smear campaign


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Viginez said:


> smear campaign



What? Are you defending Trump?


----------



## bostjan

Trump's all time high approval rating was at inauguration, and that was 45%. Obama wasn't a particularly popular president, and his all time low was around 40%, about even with Trump's average approval so far (keep in mind that a president's first 100 days in office, historically, have been his most popular).

But, to me, at least, popularity is not congruent, necessarily, with good leadership.

So, what are the characteristics that define a good leader?!


 Honesty/Integrity/Respect
 Focus/Passion/Confidence
 Persuasiveness
 Transparency/Clarity
 Patience/Care
 Innovation/Inspiration

1. Honesty/Integrity/Respect: Can we trust Trump? No. Of course not. He lies constantly, he's involved in tons of scandal and political shenanigans, and he has flip-flopped on almost all of his campaign promises. Is that not just like all other politicians? Void argument, since his platform was that he was not a politician and therefore, he would not behave at all like a politician once he was elected. 

What is this garbage with Russia? At first, I was quick to write it off as nitpicking, but now that he's gone way out of his way to try to obfuscate his relationship with Putin and with Russia, it only goes to show that there's something worth hiding from the public.

2. Focus/Passion/Confidence: I wish I could give him this one, but he's been really flip-floppy, which Obama could do too, but again, his selling point was that he wouldn't do that.

3. Persuasiveness: Again, one of his biggest selling points during the election. "I can make a deal..." well, now that he's in the Oval Office, he should be moving and shaking...but he's run into problems and he's running into more problems. Most optimistic thing to say is that this is still up in the air. Maybe it'll remain in the air until he's out of office...

4. Transparency/Clarity: He doesn't speak clearly, his mission statements are vague and devoid of substance, and, as far as transparency, refer to the rest of this thread:  Hiding stuff by firing the people responsible for investigating it, withholding documents that have historically always been presented to the public, and refusing to comment on stuff that is too controversial is just not good leadership.

5. Patience/Care: No room for argument here - he's a hothead. If you think that a hothead makes a good leader, then take it up with the people who make lists of good leadership traits.

6. Innovation/Inspiration: I'll give him that. He's branded himself as "outside of the box," which, so far he has been unlike other presidents in many ways....I just don't think it's been the ways that we really needed. Oh well, maybe one out of six isn't that bad. ...., who the hell am I kidding, one out of six is horrible. It's not as bad as zero, but, really, a random garden slug could probably hit three of the traits on this list. That makes Trump three times worse than a random garden slug. 

EDIT: I'm not saying that bad approval is a good thing. I guess I'm trying to say that whilst it indicates potential trouble with a leader, it's not a definitive measure of effectiveness. Just look at the list I posted. Somebody like Dwight D Eisenhauer does a pretty good job matching the description. Somebody like Obama matches a couple of descriptors and might be able to fudge his way through a few more. Trump just falls flat. I think that now that we are past the honeymoon period, we are going to see his approval dip into the low thirties, maybe even high twenties, as his former supporters start to either run out of patience with what they hoped to see or just give up caring. This is going to be a historic period for the office, as we had the worst two candidates in US history. You can't *not* blame the political parties for this mess.


----------



## Stealth7

His name was Seth Rich.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Stealth7 said:


> His name was Seth Rich.





http://www.snopes.com/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-murder/


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

When did t_d leak into here?


----------



## Stealth7

MaxOfMetal said:


> http://www.snopes.com/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-murder/









*tips tin foil fedora*


----------



## narad

That settles it. He definitely murdered that guy.


----------



## vilk

He's admitting that it's a conspiracy theory. Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it can't be true.


----------



## flint757

Seth Rich's murder was absolutely sketchy as hell, especially the timing of it all. Wikileaks has never been caught in a lie and insists that it was a leak, not a hack. That isn't exactly a guarantee that it was Seth, but there's plenty of smoke that points towards that having at least some validity.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> He's admitting that it's a conspiracy theory. Just because something is a conspiracy theory doesn't mean that it can't be true.



Right, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Which bins in it with alien abductions, big foot, skervesens being good guitars, 9/11 as an inside job, scientology, and other such things that are difficult to definitively disprove.

However, what is the point of bringing it up?


----------



## flint757

narad said:


> Right, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Which bins in it with alien abductions, big foot, skervesens being good guitars, 9/11 as an inside job, scientology, and other such things that are difficult to definitively disprove.
> 
> However, what is the point of bringing it up?



Those are deliberately disingenuous comparisons.

Our country has been responsible for the death of leaders all over the world and have started wars that have killed millions of people. Lets not pretend they believe in the sanctity of life. It's not beyond reality that someone within our government could be responsible for something such as this. There's certainly plenty of motive if he was the leak.

The timing of events, Wikileaks offering a reward, and Wikileaks piggybacking off of any new info that gets dropped does lend the story 'some' credibility that at the very least he was likely the leak. 

Now, that doesn't mean they had him killed, but it being labeled a robbery when his fancy watch, his gold chain, his wallet full of money and his smartphone weren't taken, and he was shot from the back in a low crime neighborhood does make his death, and the immediate dismissal of it, suspect.


----------



## narad

flint757 said:


> Those are deliberately disingenuous comparisons.
> 
> Our country has been responsible for the death of leaders all over the world and have started wars that have killed millions of people. Lets not pretend they believe in the sanctity of life. It's not beyond reality that someone within our government could be responsible for something such as this. There's certainly plenty of motive if he was the leak.
> 
> The timing of events, Wikileaks offering a reward, and Wikileaks piggybacking off of any new info that gets dropped does lend the story 'some' credibility that at the very least he was likely the leak.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean they had him killed, but it being labeled a robbery when his fancy watch, his gold chain, his wallet full of money and his smartphone weren't taken, and he was shot from the back in a low crime neighborhood does make his death, and the immediate dismissal of it, suspect.



And yet, I would give alien abduction more credence than the Seth Rich conspiracy stuff -- at least that caters more to our ignorance of the universe.

I'll admit his death has some suspicious details and timing, but any thought of conspiracy seems ridiculous given the dull details of the leaks -- or is there something supposedly more scandalous out there? And what would be the point of murdering someone _after_ they leak the documents? I feel like you should have a really good motive before hopping to a conspiracy with extremely thin bits of circumstantial happenstance.

btw, you're talking about DC at 4am. Not the kind of place you'd catch me walking around alone.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

if you were to assume it was true it still wouldn't make Trumps cabinet ties to Russia and his own obstruction of justice into the investigation any less serious.


----------



## flint757

narad said:


> And yet, I would give alien abduction more credence than the Seth Rich conspiracy stuff -- at least that caters more to our ignorance of the universe.
> 
> I'll admit his death has some suspicious details and timing, but any thought of conspiracy seems ridiculous given the dull details of the leaks -- or is there something supposedly more scandalous out there? And what would be the point of murdering someone _after_ they leak the documents? I feel like you should have a really good motive before hopping to a conspiracy with extremely thin bits of circumstantial happenstance.
> 
> btw, you're talking about DC at 4am. Not the kind of place you'd catch me walking around alone.



The leak was by no means dull, unless you think collusion and proof of fraud is dull. The leak is in fact one of the stronger pillars in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit case that is moving forward. They stand to lose almost 300 million dollars if the DNC loses the case. During the discovery and testimony phase they stand to lose all of their credibility regardless of the outcome. That's no small potatoes.

There's more credence to the leak being Seth than there is to the murder being linked to the leak. I won't deny that at all, but the story doesn't add up and the police have been told to stand down on investigating the case. Podesta was aware that an internal leak existed within the organization based on his Wikileaks release as well. 

I personally think it's naive to think that powerful people don't do this sort of thing. LBJ is responsible for 3 1/2 million deaths during the Vietnam war. Bush and Cheney are responsible for the death of 1/2 million people in Iraq. It's not like these elite power players value life, especially if it threatens their power. Skepticism is healthy, but straight up disbelief is just cognitive dissonance. These people have plenty of motive and plenty of power to make things like this happen even if it winds up not being the case in this instance.

Believe whatever you want to believe though. Your appeal to ridicule fallacy shows that you aren't really interested in anything to do with the story to begin with. I can understand that.


----------



## flint757

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> if you were to assume it was true it still wouldn't make Trumps cabinet ties to Russia and his own obstruction of justice into the investigation any less serious.



I agree. An independent commission needs to be doing the investigation.

I'm still not entirely sure what the claim is though. I mean Clinton has ties to Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Israel. Ties to a country aren't by default treasonous. Russia isn't being accused of hacking voting machines either, so the 'meddling' falls neatly under doesn't really matter, unless we think that media needs to be censored.

Trump's an idiot regardless though. He's constantly screwing up and sticking his foot in his mouth. There's plenty of minor things he's done that could be considered impeachable offenses (certainly more severe than a blow job), even if nothing comes of the Russia investigation. 

This administration is a hot mess and I don't see that changing anytime soon, not even if he's successfully impeached. All we'll have upgraded to is Pence as president and probably Cruz or McConnell or someone similar as VP. If we impeach Pence we'll then get his VP pick as the new president (assuming that's even possible). The problem will not resolve itself until next election either way. If he's not impeached the problem might not resolve itself until 2025.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I think the claim has always been that Russia compromised the campaign by some means and therefore influenced it. Even removing the claim that the DNC leaks were Russia still leaves a lot of questionable things.


----------



## flint757

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I think the claim has always been that Russia compromised the campaign by some means and therefore influenced it. Even removing the claim that the DNC leaks were Russia still leaves a lot of questionable things.



Unless they physically changed the votes or hacked the machine any of their claims are pointless. The report I read basically said their media talked negatively about the Democrats and Hillary. My question is, how exactly is that a crime? We do it all the time here. We interject our political opinions on England, #BREXIT, Syria, Israel, etc.. Our leaders have leaned on particular candidates in German and French elections. If it turns out that Wikileaks were leaks and not hacks there's nothing they can be accused of that warrants outright war and impeachment. Even if it turns out that say, for instance, Guccifer was working for Putin; nothing that was leaked was a lie. I imagine you'd have to successfully prove that Trump was aware of it as well. Is there nothing more specific than that being claimed?

It's ultimately not necessary for Russia to play a fault to impeach Trump either way, as he's already done many things wrong he could be impeached over. They don't need Russia to be involved for him to be removed from office if that's the ultimate goal.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Double post


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I get what you're saying. But look at through the lens of the claim that Russia has financial leverage over Trump and other members of his cabinet. Foreign influence, especially from Russia, should not be effecting American policies because our leaders are benefitting from it. 
Say this doesn't bother you. We still have an administration that has said so many contradictory things about it as well as obstructing justice with regards to figuring out what is going on. So even if the action doesn't rub you the wrong way, the way the administration has been treating it can be looked at as impeachable offenses. They've shown themselves to be incompetent handling things, which I believe reflects even more poorly if they have nothing to hide. If no wrong doing occurred, there should be no reason there are so many contradictory claims and sketchy activity coming from the White House


----------



## flint757

That I agree with. Regardless of the validity of the claim the way Trump has been handling it is impeachable all by itself.


----------



## vilk

narad said:


> Right, it doesn't mean it can't be true. Which bins in it with alien abductions, big foot, skervesens being good guitars, 9/11 as an inside job, scientology, and other such things that are difficult to definitively disprove.
> 
> However, what is the point of bringing it up?



Distrusting a gov't narrative isn't really the same as believing in cryptozoological beasts, imo.

Let us not forget that to suggest the North Vietnamese did not "start" the Vietnam War by firing on us at the Gulf of Tonkin was considered a _conspiracy theory_ until 2007 when the military finally decided to admit it.

You act like there's absolutely no reason to ever distrust any narrative fed to us by our government. Surely someone as smart and historically aware as yourself can understand that dismissing anything and everything that could ever be categorized as a conspiracy theory would end up with you being mistaken about some things.


----------



## Drew

Stealth7 said:


> *tips tin foil fedora*



He wanted to give the guy a lesson in risotto making he wouldn't soon forget, I'm sure.

EDIT - so, hey, since i tune out Breitbart, Fox, and all that other alt-right garbage, I wasn't aware this was actually a story that broke recently, that this staffer might have leaked info rather than it being a hack, and that someone claimed they had evidence. 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/16/med...sponse-claims-of-wikileaks-contact/index.html

Turns out within a few hours of Fox running the story, the investigator in question came forward to say he had no evidence of such contact, the video purported to be proof of evidence was a video of him previewing the Fox story for a local network, and the first he'd heard of any evidence of contact was when the Fox interviewer asked him if he had any. Which he hadn't. 

So, one I clearly didn't miss anything of substance, and two, your story is about 18 hours out of date.


----------



## Drew

flint757 said:


> That I agree with. Regardless of the validity of the claim the way Trump has been handling it is impeachable all by itself.



What I don't get is why we're going back to the DNC primaries in a conversation about Trump potentially commiting impeachable crimes; obstruction of justice by firing Comey to try to block an ongoing investigation into an associate's ties to Russia, and then very likely violating the Presidential Oath of Office by dropping highly sensitive classified information into a conversation with an adversary - the same Russian at the heart of the Flynn investigation, no less - evidently by way of bragging about how he gets "the best intel." 

I mean, you go back to Comey's investigation of Clinton's email server potentially holding classified information, and this was *literally* the bogeyman lurking in the corner - "what if the Russians hacked her server, and got their hands on extremely sensitive classified information?" Because evidently a minority of Americans representing a majority of electoral votes thought this was too big of a risk to bear, we instead elected this buffoon who went and casually dropped that same sort of sensitive information in conversation with the Russians, just to brag about how well informed he was. Double-you tee actual eff. "But, her emails."

Honestly, if Trump somehow doesn't get impeached by his own party, if someone gave me better than even odds on him getting impeached after the 2018 midterms, I'd take them.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> Distrusting a gov't narrative isn't really the same as believing in cryptozoological beasts, imo.
> 
> Let us not forget that to suggest the North Vietnamese did not "start" the Vietnam War by firing on us at the Gulf of Tonkin was considered a _conspiracy theory_ until 2007 when the military finally decided to admit it.
> 
> You act like there's absolutely no reason to ever distrust any narrative fed to us by our government. Surely someone as smart and historically aware as yourself can understand that dismissing anything and everything that could ever be categorized as a conspiracy theory would end up with you being mistaken about some things.



But just in as much as I'm over-exaggerating in one direction, comparing this to military cover-up-ish things over-exaggerates in a different one. The military painting a different picture of foreign affairs is one thing, an American politician having another American politician assassinated on US soil, for leaking documents, ...that's really another. 

I mean, I don't know exactly how/why he died, but you know it's BS conspiracy stuff when people are trying to link his death to Podesta via an unrelated email correspondence a year earlier.


----------



## USMarine75

^ Regarding Killary and her Hand, Podesta.... Some people will believe every conspiracy theory they come across...

Now excuse me I have some chemtrails to stare up at.


----------



## Spencervmurph

Anyone wanna take a bet on how long it'll take Trump to get inpeached? After the firing of the FBI director my bet is October.


----------



## narad

Spencervmurph said:


> Anyone wanna take a bet on how long it'll take Trump to get inpeached? After the firing of the FBI director my bet is October.



Aaaaand thread title becomes relevant again.


----------



## EdgeC

Ok, so as far as I'm concerned the sooner Trump is removed the better. Honestly, the fact that he was even a serious candidate is beyond me.

But...if there is a chance of impeachment the narrative needs to be carefully managed. If not, Trumps supporters will be galvanized in their belief that he went to Washington to 'drain the swamp' and fake news and the entrenched establishment set him up and removed him. Their champion thwarted by a broken system that can never again be trusted. 

I'm not suggesting Civil War II, but that's a seriously big block of people likely to be pretty pissed off. And, from what I understand about America, those are the same people that have all the guns.


----------



## Science_Penguin

EdgeC said:


> Ok, so as far as I'm concerned the sooner Trump is removed the better. Honestly, the fact that he was even a serious candidate is beyond me.
> 
> But...if there is a chance of impeachment the narrative needs to be carefully managed. If not, Trumps supporters will be galvanized in their belief that he went to Washington to 'drain the swamp' and fake news and the entrenched establishment set him up and removed him. Their champion thwarted by a broken system that can never again be trusted.
> 
> I'm not suggesting Civil War II, but that's a seriously big block of people likely to be pretty pissed off. And, from what I understand about America, those are the same people that have all the guns.



Realistically speaking, I think the majority of Trump supporters (including the gun nuts) won't be dedicated enough to start any kind of conflict. Granted the few who would go on solo shooting sprees are something to consider, and I suppose a fringe group might end up going the way of the Branch Dividians, but... all in all, despite the problems they have with the system, a lot of them still live comfortable lives, so starting a war and driving all that into chaos probably won't seem worthwhile.


----------



## Explorer

It was pretty funny to watch conservative news outlets scramble to avoid reporting on the Trump/Russia story. Too bad the Seth Rch story collapsed due to a lack of facts.

Story on DNC staffer's murder dominated conservative media -- hours later it fell apart - CNN

----

Speaking of what they were scrambling to avoid, I like that Trump himself today released a press statement that said a thorough investigation will confirm what he says is already known: that there was no collusion between his presidential campaign and "any foreign entity."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/was...gation-will-show-no-1495064828-htmlstory.html

That means that Trump, if he is not lying, expects Flynn and Manafort to be cleared.

Which makes it even stranger that Trump has been opposing a special counsel on the matter. If he knows it will absolutely clear him, his campaign and his staff, why oppose the idea? Why put pressure on Comey to drop it? Why fire Comey for not doing so?

What's oddest for me is that, for all that my conservative friends told me told me there'd be no more evidence surfacing of a Russia connection, more scum keep rising to the surface of the bog Trump said he would drain.

From October 11 2016, for those who don't remember the two things with which Trump and his staff demonstrated a Russia connection....



Explorer said:


> I've thought it strange that many Trump tweets have had material from white supremacist sources, as I've never accidentally done so over the years.
> 
> Most recently though, there's the weird case of Trump quoting a Russian news story which attributed an altered/falsified quote to Sidney Blumenthal, when the original source of the unaltered quote was Kurt Eichenwald.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635
> 
> How did Trump get access to a falsified Russian propaganda piece, originating from Putin's circle, which Sputnik had pulled after some further investigation?
> 
> I personally find it troubling to combine this current example with not just Trump's pro-Putin stance over the course of his campaign, but even his campaign's successful work to tweak the GOP's party platform at the convention regarding Ukraine in favor of Putin.
> 
> I personally don't think Trump is intelligent enough to be purposefully manipulating things in favor of Russia and Putin, but it definitely looks like Russia has influence over parts of Trump's campaign, and has had for some time.



On the plus side, a special counsel with bipartisan support and confidence, as Robert Mueller is, will allow Trump to clear his name, his campaign and his administration of any suspicion. People might look at Trump's long history of lying and judge his future statements based on that history, but Mueller finding innocuous reasons behind what looks like connections, including for Manafort and Flynn as Trump is claiming in his latest press release, will remove the taint. 

Why have Trump and Republicans been fighting so hard against the very thing which can settle any possible question of Trump, his campaign and his administration of being guilty of collusion with foreign entities? 

And, since so many Republicans have already acknowledged Mueller as being a man of integrity, those who hate the rule of law and the Constitution will just have to suck it up when they're hating America.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Anyone who thinks Trump being impeached is a good thing hasn't taken a look at Mike Pence enough. The guy is, no exaggeration, a monster. I'd much rather a doofus run the country. Trump is has thus far been rather ineffective overall, relying heavily on flimsy executive orders. If Pence is running the show he will get terrible, terrible things done. He's the candidate the GOP really wanted.


----------



## oc616

Called he wouldn't last a year.


----------



## Explorer

I agree that Pence is a monster.

With that said, I think Trump is a threat to American democracy. 

I've thought he was possibly being influenced by the Russians even during the campaign. I've since come to suspect that the Russians have actually compromised him. 

Knowing what we all have seen of Trump's behavior, in the event of Trump being threatened with exposure as a Russian patsy, we can be sure that Trump will put preservation of his own image ahead of the nation. 

Given that it was felt necessary to keep Pence out of the loop on the Flynn matter by Flynn and Trump, I'm positive Pence has not been similarly compromised. 

Given that Pence is principled enough to hold to not being alone with a woman not his wife, it stands to reason that Trump wouldn't trust Pence to stay loyal if Pence thought there was a threat to national security, like the one posed by Flynn. 

I do not trust Pence to care about the needy or the sick, or about equal rights.

However, I *do* think Pence is dedicated to American exceptionalism, and would never bend the knee to Putin to protect any personal secrets. 

Trump panders, as would Pence, to the religious fundamentalists. At this point though, it's a question of which one is more an enemy of our democratic institutions.


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> Anyone who thinks Trump being impeached is a good thing hasn't taken a look at Mike Pence enough. The guy is, no exaggeration, a monster. I'd much rather a doofus run the country. Trump is has thus far been rather ineffective overall, relying heavily on flimsy executive orders. If Pence is running the show he will get terrible, terrible things done. He's the candidate the GOP really wanted.



Well, I've said it before, but impeaching Trump isn't about whether Trump's policies are bad and whether Pence would be worse. It's about protecting the basic functioning of the government's constitutional checks and balances and the rule of law.

If Trump can obstruct justice, collude with Russians, violate the emoluments clause, etc. without any consequences, that undermines the structures that the government is built on. If that fails, we can just stop pretending that it's a functioning democracy.

Policy-wise, Pence basically already runs things. Remember during the election when Trump offered Kasich the VP slot telling him he'd be in charge of "domestic and foreign policy". Most likely Pence got the same offer. OK, it's probably a combination of Pence and Bannon setting policy. As bad as Pence is, I have a hard time believing that Pence alone would be worse than Pence + Bannon. (assuming Bannon would be tossed along with Trump).

The only real argument I can think of in that direction is that Trump's bumbling is so distracting and harmful that it's impeded the GOP's ability to actually act on any of their goals and removing him would clear the path for them. I can see that, but I think impeachment will be such a messy drawn out process that not much will get done between now and 2018.

Meanwhile, Trump has demonstrated over and over that he is dangerous to national security. From knowingly appointing a national security director who's been compromised by foreign agents to revealing classified intel to the Russians. A serious journalist will go to jail rather than revealing their sources because they know that if they get a reputation for turning over their sources, their reputation is blown and no one will ever tell them anything sensitive again. Right now, every asset out there who could potentially give us important information on ISIS, etc. is now reconsidering that because they know that Trump might just blurt it out and blow their cover. Getting rid of Trump is the only way that can be repaired.

I totally agree that Pence is a stain on human decency, but at least he's a grownup. What we have right now is a mental toddler throwing tantrums next to a twitter account and the nuclear football whenever he doesn't get two scoops of ice cream.


----------



## Viginez

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> What? Are you defending Trump?


no. but i'm accusing activist media.


----------



## bostjan

I kind of don't understand the idea that Pence being a threat to human rights means that Trump should remain in office, no matter what. We've become a nation that is a slave to the notion of false dichotomy. Either this or that. Don't like this, well, my friend, it's better than that. "Oh, okay, I hate that, but at least it's not this..."

No.

We need to do what's right and make things right, even if it takes us on a journey that might be difficult.


----------



## Drew

Viginez, if what they're reporting is true, I don't think you can call it a smear campaign. 

So, let's recap the last, say, 36 hours. 

*Comey's memo. 
*An audio recording of Mike McCarthy saying, after a Congressional briefing in june, that he really believes Trump was being paid by the Russians, followed by Ryan telling everyone present "keep this off the record, no leaks. That's how we know we're family." 
*Times is now reporting they've obtained evidence of 18 undisclosed contacts between Russia and Trump's campaign, although as of yet they have not clear evidence of impropriety (aside from lying that it ever happened).

...and now Comey's former mentor is the special counsel investigating this, appointed by the AG who was pissed it was implicated he was the driving force behind the firing. Thankfully, BOTH parties have responded favorably to this news. Aside from of course Trump, who considers it "the greatest witch-hunt."

....'s getting _real_. I think, whatever your political persuasions, we can all agree that Trump firing Comey was clearly a _tactical_ mistake, in that the public backlash has not only returned the Russia story to the headlines, it's also drastically sped up the speed of the narrative.

Re: Pence, yeah, he's an awful human being. But that's no reason not to prosecute Trump for what's looking increasingly like grounds for impeachment. Best case, they're both implicated (as well as possibly Ryan, if he believed Russia was paying off Trump but urged his peers to cover it up).


----------



## Explorer

From October 17th.



Viginez said:


> oh boy




From April.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/25/wisconsin-doj-james-okeefes-project-veritas-tape-did-not-show-election-law-violations/100885192/

Basically, Viginez is one of those people who doesn't let facts interfere with his assertions or worldview, and who will only accept a story if it fits his prejudices.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> From October 17th.
> 
> 
> 
> From April.
> http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/25/wisconsin-doj-james-okeefes-project-veritas-tape-did-not-show-election-law-violations/100885192/
> 
> Basically, Viginez is one of those people who doesn't let facts interfere with his assertions or worldview, and who will only accept a story if it fits his prejudices.



Oh, HE was the guy who was sharing those around here? Those things were so edited to hell it was impossible to tell with any certainty WHAT was being said.


----------



## Explorer

And that's why his calling independent, converging sources a smear campaign so hilarious. It's like those topics where someone is posting an anti-evidence pseudoscience argument, and just hand-waving away anything inconvenient true.

I can't wait for him to start spinning a conspiracy theory about the death of Roger Ailes....


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> And that's why his calling independent, converging sources a smear campaign so hilarious. It's like those topics where someone is posting an anti-evidence pseudoscience argument, and just hand-waving away anything inconvenient true.
> 
> I can't wait for him to start spinning a conspiracy theory about the death of Roger Ailes....



Chris Cornell killed him, obviously, and then was killed to ensure his silence. Thanks, Obama. 


Admittedly it's not even his fault, since Fox and Breitbart are doing their damndest to convince guys like this that this is some sort of deep state conspiracy, but at the end of the day, reporting on the deeply troubling, unethical, and potentially criminal things that Trump has actually done isn't a smear campaign - it's an accurate assessment of things that Trump has actually done. 

If you have a problem with the editorial pages of the Times calling the Trump presidency a dangerous attack on the integrity of American democracy, hey, I disagree, but I respect your right to an opinion. If you think the Times reporting on the fact that Comey documented a request from Trump to drop the Flynn investigation is a smear campaign, however... The facts are the facts. You may not like them, but the facts don't particularly care what you think.


----------



## Science_Penguin

So, in the interest of adding a little levity to this, I rather enjoyed Trump addressing the Coast Guard graduates and, unsurprisingly, finding some way to twist it around to being about him.

"No politician in history has been treated worse..." he says.

Twitter users were quick to correct him, pointing out examples such as Abe Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, and JFK, two of whom, I don't think I need to remind anyone here, were SHOT DEAD. But, no, Trump's the one who's REALLY got it bad...

There's also video out of Trump being presented with the ceremonial saber, after which you can hear John Kelly remark "Use that on the press, Sir." Benign enough in the face of all the actual controversy, but some sick part of me is really hoping the last image we see of Trump before his impeachment is him brandishing that sword, pointing it at all the news cameras and shouting "You won't get rid of me that easily!"... after which he's swiftly escorted away.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Anyone who thinks Trump being impeached is a good thing hasn't taken a look at Mike Pence enough. The guy is, no exaggeration, a monster. I'd much rather a doofus run the country. Trump is has thus far been rather ineffective overall, relying heavily on flimsy executive orders. If Pence is running the show he will get terrible, terrible things done. He's the candidate the GOP really wanted.



Also in the spirit of levity, but this time on Pence -- an ex of mine who I'm still fairly close friends with quipped, in the middle of the immigration ban fiasco, joking but also at least half serious: 

"You know, at this point, I think I'd happily give up some of my reproductive rights just to ensure the civil liberties of the rest of this country." 

That's kind of how I feel about Pence.  

Anyone also get the sense that he's the "designated survivor" here? He's doing an AWFULLY good job staying out of the media, and while there's that old joke about a mother having two sons and one ran away to join the circus and the other became Vice President, and neither was heard from ever again, you also kind of have to wonder if they're just trying to keep his name untainted in the court of public opinion.


----------



## bostjan

Also, keep in mind that if Trump somehow makes it 8 years, we'll likely have Pence run for president, likely with the endorsement of supermegagigastar DJ Trump. Get Trump out now, and you will have Pence in power as the replacement. That will rid you of Trump, set back the power rise of the GOP, and even though you get Pence, you get him without a mandate.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also, keep in mind that if Trump somehow makes it 8 years, we'll likely have Pence run for president, likely with the endorsement of supermegagigastar DJ Trump. Get Trump out now, and you will have Pence in power as the replacement. That will rid you of Trump, set back the power rise of the GOP, and even though you get Pence, you get him without a mandate.



That's actually an excellent point I'm not hearing much. If Trump actually manages to survive 8 years, I'd say the conditional probability of his being popular enough to get Pence elected becomes pretty high. The worst case scenario here is even if Pence takes Trump's place and wins a second term, we're getting a Trump/Pence presidency for a combined 8 (if it's after 2018) or 12 (if it's this year) years, which in both cases is an improvement over 16.


----------



## Drew

Moulton is DEFINITELY prepping for a 2020 bid, and is IMO a name to watch.


----------



## bostjan

^ 

Seriously, though, we have a PotUS who behaves like a hormonal teenager publicly, and otherwise has been pretty much like every other politician of the recent era. I don't get why people say he's "at least better than HRC," when he's exactly the same, except unable to control his emotions.

He tweets stuff like that, which, I'm sure, isn't meant to be taken literally, but, then again, he just tweets random emotional garbage...

I think it will likely end up being his downfall. One of these days, he's going to slip and say something incriminating in public. All it will take is for the context to shift and for him to drop his guard.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think it will likely end up being his downfall. One of these days, he's going to slip and say something incriminating in public. All it will take is for the context to shift and for him to drop his guard.



Arguably, he already has - the story that Rosenstein had recommended Comey's firing over the handling of Clinton's emails MIGHT have stuck (if they could have placated him) had it not been for the fact that the next day Trump turned around and bragged that he was going to do it anyway because of Russia. Plausibly that's obstruction of justice, and grounds to impeach.


----------



## Explorer

Here I was thinking Pence likely didn't know a lot of things.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/18/politics/mike-pence-michael-flynn-trump-russia/index.html

I'm going to be doing more reading....


----------



## oneblackened

Yeah, that's the thing. It looks like the top 3 or 4 people are complicit in all of this. Meaning it falls to I believe Orrin Hatch as the most likely "definitely clean" highest in the line of succession.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

oneblackened said:


> Yeah, that's the thing. It looks like the top 3 or 4 people are complicit in all of this. Meaning it falls to I believe Orrin Hatch as the most likely "definitely clean" highest in the line of succession.



Complicit in "all this" .......?

I am yet to hear anyone articulate what "all this" is. 

So far, the most cogent answer i have gotten is: "Russia did Pizzagate"

And my followup question was unanswered: 

"So some rusky went on 4chan and created pizzagate, and then most of America was eager to believe Hillary was a child-raping Molloch worshiper. Is that Russia's fault, or Hillary's fault?"


----------



## oneblackened

CapnForsaggio said:


> Complicit in "all this" .......?
> 
> I am yet to hear anyone articulate what "all this" is.
> 
> So far, the most cogent answer i have gotten is: "Russia did Pizzagate"
> 
> And my followup question was unanswered:
> 
> "So some rusky went on 4chan and created pizzagate, and then most of America was eager to believe Hillary was a child-raping Molloch worshiper. Is that Russia's fault, or Hillary's fault?"


it's not so much that "russia did pizzagate", it's that there seems to be plenty of evidence that the GOP presidential campaign (and perhaps some of the other major party leaders) actually colluded with a foreign, semi-hostile intelligence agency in order to undermine the main opposition.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

oneblackened said:


> it's not so much that "russia did pizzagate", it's that there seems to be plenty of evidence that the GOP presidential campaign (and perhaps some of the other major party leaders) actually colluded with a foreign, semi-hostile intelligence agency in order to undermine the main opposition.



There you go again, Maxine Waters. "Colluded."

Explain, please!

According to Maxine, the evil ruskies "colluded" by writing Trumps campaign phrase, "Lock her up."

Those sneaky ruskies are masters of language, I guess.


----------



## USMarine75

So those thinking that Trump will be impeached, believe that >50% of the Republican controlled House will vote to impeach, and >2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate will vote to remove? 

Also, if Speaker Ryan is not removed, then he would become the President, not the Senate Pres Pro Tem. I haven't seen anything that claims Speaker Ryan can be clearly implicated in any of this (enough that he could be removed). That Louise Mensch story claiming Hatch was imminent for the WH was debunked (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/16/fake-news-sites-reports-facts-louise-mensch).


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I guess I'll have to wait longer before somoeone can explain to me the "collusion" that took place....

I'm not surprised really. As most nervous leftists have begun to realize, 6 months or more without any evidence of "collusion" (whatever that means) is too long.

I look forward to Muellers findings


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> There you go again, Maxine Waters. "Colluded."
> 
> Explain, please!
> 
> According to Maxine, the evil ruskies "colluded" by writing Trumps campaign phrase, "Lock her up."
> 
> Those sneaky ruskies are masters of language, I guess.


First off, I'm sorry it took me a few moments to verify my facts on collusion. I didn't realize I had a deadline.

To provide one simple example which disproves your claim, Flynn resigned because he had been caught on a wiretap by the NSA colluding with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. Kislyak even confirmed to the media that he had communicated with Flynn by phone, text, and in person.

There are strong indications of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian interests which I gave back in October, including Trump quoting a false story planted by Russian intelligence which only appeared briefly in a Russian paper before being withdrawn. How Trump, who has a very small capacity for remembering or even understanding long briefing materials, would have run across an obscure and deleted Russian-language-only story is a mystery, unless it was provided to Trump by someone in contact with those in Russia who either read it... or planted it.

There is evidence Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort received laundered payments from Russian interests in exchange for undefined services. In fact, I believe there is still a warrant for Manafort in Europe for this.

There have been numerous strange behaviors, including Trump firing Comey over the Russia investigation when Comey wouldn't drop it, which are problematic to a reasonable person. 

But, on the plus side, appointing a special counsel, especially someone who was a loyal Republican appointment, will let this matter rise above partisan accusations. He will look at everything, likely including Trump's financial interests, and (assuming your narrative is correct) will clear Trump completely. 

Which leads to another troubling behavior: Since you and Trump are arguing there has been no collusion, why is Trump opposed to having his name cleared by a person with bipartisan support? Surely that will end any reasonable accusations by the Democrats. Even *you* claim to be looking forward to Mueller's findings. Why isn't Trump?

----

If you're going to deny even the proven Flynn collusion, you might run astray of the SS.org rules against trolling in the P&CE section. Claiming that a story with as many independent sources of evidence is false, like the Flynn story, doesn't seem like reasonable debate. Why not start with disproving that one example of collusion without resorting to personal insults?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CapnForsaggio said:


> I guess I'll have to wait longer before somoeone can explain to me the "collusion" that took place....



You posted at 16:58, and are complaining that you don't have a large, eloquent and fully sourced reply ready for you in an hour? 

Sounds like you're just being argumentative. That usually works pretty well.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

MaxOfMetal said:


> You posted at 16:58, and are complaining that you don't have a large, eloquent and fully sourced reply ready for you in an hour?
> 
> Sounds like you're just being argumentative. That usually works pretty well.



Half the people in the land are foaming at the mouth, and none of them can articulate why.....


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> Half the people in the land are foaming at the mouth, and none of them can articulate why.....



He said while conveniently ignoring Explorers post giving him the answers he was asking for


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CapnForsaggio said:


> Half the people in the land are foaming at the mouth, and none* of them can articulate why.....



*No one at rush hour on a guitar forum on a Thursday for your benefit. 

Keep up the taunting, the name calling and jabs. It's a cute shtick.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> And my followup question was unanswered:
> 
> "So some rusky went on 4chan and created pizzagate, and then most of America was eager to believe Hillary was a child-raping Molloch worshiper. Is that Russia's fault, or Hillary's fault?"



Most of America? You shift the needle from 0.001% (or whatever it would actually be --
those that believed the pizzagate story) to > 50%... And you wonder why the question went unanswered? 

Basically took one look at the post, made a guess who the poster was, and nailed it. Welcome back.



CapnForsaggio said:


> Half the people in the land are foaming at the mouth, and none of them can articulate why.....



It's hard with all this foam in there!


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> Half the people in the land are foaming at the mouth, and none of them can articulate why.....



I posted eleven minutes before this latest "foaming" from you, articulating just a few of the many items you've missed in the news regarding collusion. Here's the link, for those who might suffer an impairment preventing them from doing the deep research of looking just a bit up-thread for themselves.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/showthread.php?p=4743503#post4743503


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explorer said:


>



Nothing relevant to contribute but holy crap is that an ancient meme template. 
Cap'n has his head in the sand


----------



## Frey

Been a few months since I've logged on here and WOW all the liberals are still salty, what a pack of crybabies. 

How about you answer for all of the extreme violence the left has been partaking in since the election? Violence against innocent and unarmed people typically.

Not even a Trump supporter here although I love how much he's making the left show their true colors.


----------



## oneblackened

Frey said:


> Been a few months since I've logged on here and WOW all the liberals are still salty, what a pack of crybabies.
> 
> *How about you answer for all of the extreme violence the left has been partaking in since the election?* Violence against innocent and unarmed people typically.
> 
> Not even a Trump supporter here although I love how much he's making the left show their true colors.


Evidence or it didn't happen.

Oh, wait. It didn't.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I guess I'll have to wait longer before somoeone can explain to me the "collusion" that took place....
> 
> I'm not surprised really. As most nervous leftists have begun to realize, 6 months or more without any evidence of "collusion" (whatever that means) is too long.
> 
> I look forward to Muellers findings



And here I was thinking we'd lost you when Trump's administration began to come apart at the seams.  

You're going to ignore this anyway and keep trolling, but I'll take the bait - there are things we KNOW, which even you can't deny, and then there's what's merely suspected, which is what will be at the heart of the investigaton. What we know: Flynn was caught lying about contact with Russian agents, where he suggested the Obama sanctions might not last past the Inauguration. He was subsequently fired, but troubling questions exist that Trump (and presumably Pence) were aware of this investigation well before his appointment, and proceeded anyway. Sessions too had contact with the russian agent in question that he initially denied and then as evidence started to emerge admitted they'd talked on two occasions, once a private meeting in Sessions' office, where the global backlash to the Ukraine invastion was discussed. Condemnation of this was dropped from the GOP's campaign platform, incidentally. 

We also know that Trump fired Comey over the Russian investigation, and prompted Rosenstein to write the memo recommending it, and furthermore that Rosenstein knew that Comey was about to be fired when he wrote it. While ostentaciously over the handling of the Clinton email scandal, Trump subsequently made statements in interviews and I believe tweets saying it was about Russia. 

The next day, we know that after bragging that he "gets the greatest intel," Trump provided highly confidential information to the Russians he met with the next day, and after his staff initially denied it, he took to twitter to say that it was in his right to do so. This was information provided by the Israelis that we hadn't even shared in full with our allies, so there's a massive foreign relations component to this too - allies are pissed we're holding out, and Israel is pissed we released their sources. The agent in the room was the same guy that Flynn and Sessions interacted with. 

The assessment of every US intelligence agency, unanimously after some initial disagreement about the strength of the assessment was resolved, is that the Russians were behind the DNC email hack and subsequent release to Wikileaks, and that they had a strong preference for Trump beating Clinton.

There's probably some more I'm forgetting, but you get the point. 

What we suspect - either Trump is spectacularly good at putting his foot in his mouth, or there's some foul play afoot here. The "collusion" alleged is that the Trump campaign may have made some platform concessions (Ukraine) and warmer public statements to Russia in return for Russia releasing the Wikileaks emails, as well as potentially not releasing similar material from the Trump campaign. This is the suspected worst case scenario, will be at the heart of the investigation, and of course is suspicion and not proof. Sen. Mike McCarthy swears it was a joke (after trying to silence initial laughter with a "swear to god," and Ryan immediately telling everyone present not to discuss what he just said), but during the campaign believed Trump was being paid by the Russians. The conversation is fact; the allegations are not yet proven. 

So, we know a LOT of Trump confidants had close relationships with Russian agents, close enough to get one fired and another forced to recluse himself. I'm not even getting into Manafort or Stone here either, and they have their share of suspicious ties, as well. What's merely suspected is that these ties may have gone further, and that the Trump campaign was working in conjunction with the Russian intelligence group we have concluded is behind the Wikileaks leak. 

We'll see, though - the things we know are probably impeachable as it is (Trump could very fairly be accused of violating the code of office by sharing classified intelligence as a way to brag to the Russians, and that's the offense that's been at the heart of past impeachments). I for one will be curious to see what ELSE comes out.

EDIT - also, really: 


CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm not surprised really. As most nervous leftists have begun to realize, 6 months or more without any evidence of "collusion" (whatever that means) is too long.



Hi, have you been paying attention the last week? The sheer amount of new information that's come out in the past ten days is absolutely mind-boggling.  But, let me guess, that Trump tried to get Comey to drop the Russia investigation is fake news, that someone leaked the memo where he summarizes the conversation where it happened, that's REAL news. Am I getting the hang of thinking like a Trump supporter?


----------



## Drew

oneblackened said:


> Evidence or it didn't happen.
> 
> Oh, wait. It didn't.



Yeah, this is news to me too. All I can recall are things like the Boston Police tweeting a thank you to the Women's March participants for a peaceful event that resulted in not a single arrest. Shocking violence, that.


----------



## Frey

Clearly you're living in the typical liberal world in which you willfully stay ignorant to anything that may challenge your ideals. It has been happening non-stop and you need only follow ONE of the groups such as "Antifa" to see how militant and violent most of the left is. You must still believe in mainstream media too 

I'm not doing all of you're homework for you, take to Youtube and google yourself.

https://youtu.be/y3z_jqbLCz0

Followed by a LEFT LEANING BLACK MAN explaining what it was like. Just because if it was anyone else I'm sure you'd say it was racist, misogynist BS.

https://youtu.be/Toaz4m3SmCc

Liberal mayor controlling the police.

https://youtu.be/EDTX7LmF14Y


Random leftist thug hitting an unsuspecting victim over the head with a bike lock. Delightfully busted for it afterwards.

https://youtu.be/DTlyOB_I7yc

Here's a good channel if you ever want to get red-pilled.

https://youtu.be/PMviZCjUoSY



Taking to the streets in black masks and shutting down freedom of speech by setting fire to towns, destroying public property, and attacking innocent bystanders. What a peaceful and reasonable group.


P.S.
Oh wait, it DID happen.


----------



## Frey

Oh here are a few demonstrating leftist hypocrisy.

https://youtu.be/iJ4b6B_M9sI

She's a fetish porn actor by the way. Great folks you have reping the left 

https://youtu.be/nxFo-ETO5Kg

Oh and just Google "liberals are"


----------



## Drew

Frey said:


> I'm not doing all of you're homework for you, take to Youtube and google yourself.



That's a SUPER compelling way of making an argument.  I've seen no evidence of a wave of violence, and if you want to change my mind, that's on you, man. 

So, we have some raw footage from Berkley, someone talking about Berkley, some more raw footage from Berkley, some more on Berkley... 

So, one protest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that one start non-violent, a group was responsible for most of the violence, the reaction from the left could probably best be summarized as "you guys, get your .... together, that's not cool," and the whole thing was protesting that Milo Yianopolis guy, who now the right can't distance themselves from fast enough, because hey, he thinks pedophilia can be a valuable support network for gay teenagers? 

Either way, one incident does not a wave of violence make. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating violence either. Everything that went down at Berkley was unfortunate, and thank god that's been an isolated incident, as almost across the board anti-Trump protests have been nonviolent and peaceful, which considering the sheer scope of some of them, is pretty impressive. I don't know what kind of news sources YOU'RE looking at, but so far Fax and Beritbart's track record for accuracy has been pretty poor, and if the best they've got is "but, Berkley," they're not doing so hot.


----------



## Science_Penguin

I'm sorry... I came here expecting a discussion about Donald Trump, and I get faced with something akin to college frat boys talking sh.t about their rival school.

What the hell happened?


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.google.com/amp/www.tele...rs-opponents-donald-trump-clash-southern/amp/

http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-seattle-may-day-rallies-2017/


----------



## Drew

Science_Penguin said:


> I'm sorry... I came here expecting a discussion about Donald Trump, and I get faced with something akin to college frat boys talking sh.t about their rival school.
> 
> What the hell happened?



We seem to have riffled Frey's feathers a bit.  

Tangent aside, looks like things are heating up: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...-banner:homepage/story&utm_term=.88a78a099c39

A current senior White House official - as of yet unnamed - is a person of interest in the investigation (previously, the major players were former campaign officials or former WH officials like Flynn). Meanwhile, separately the Times is reporting that Trump bragged to the Russians the day after Comey that he had been under "so much pressure" because of "nutjob" Comey, but now that he was fired the pressure was gone. WH officials are calling this a negotiation tactic to make the Russians feel like they owed Trump something, but it's one more piece of evidence from Trump's big mouth against the original claim that this was about Clinton's emails. 

This whole thing is really absolutely insane.


----------



## jaxadam

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/v...inst-republicans-are-becoming-the-new-normal/


----------



## Frey

Drew said:


> That's a SUPER compelling way of making an argument.  I've seen no evidence of a wave of violence, and if you want to change my mind, that's on you, man.
> 
> So, we have some raw footage from Berkley, someone talking about Berkley, some more raw footage from Berkley, some more on Berkley...
> 
> So, one protest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that one start non-violent, a group was responsible for most of the violence, the reaction from the left could probably best be summarized as "you guys, get your .... together, that's not cool," and the whole thing was protesting that Milo Yianopolis guy, who now the right can't distance themselves from fast enough, because hey, he thinks pedophilia can be a valuable support network for gay teenagers?
> 
> Either way, one incident does not a wave of violence make. I don't see anyone in this thread advocating violence either. Everything that went down at Berkley was unfortunate, and thank god that's been an isolated incident, as almost across the board anti-Trump protests have been nonviolent and peaceful, which considering the sheer scope of some of them, is pretty impressive. I don't know what kind of news sources YOU'RE looking at, but so far Fax and Beritbart's track record for accuracy has been pretty poor, and if the best they've got is "but, Berkley," they're not doing so hot.







So you refuse to research alternate ideas yourself. Clearly you have no desire to reach the objective truth of the matter. I shouldn't be surprised as the left has literally denounced objective truth. 

Clearly you didn't watch all of my links either or even sit all the way through any of them. Because instead of commenting on the content you just looked for the one common theme as a means to talk about anything other than the actual content which casts are very disturbing light on the nature of the left.

And do you really expect me to go link every single video or article to you? Just Youtube search "Trump supporters attacked" or "liberal violence" and you will see countless raw videos from different events showing masked leftist thugs attacking people with no provocation.

The fact that you brush something like Berkley off shows you do in fact support the violence. That one event was completely inexcusable and people were severely hurt because of you violent crybabies. Never mind that it happened YET AGAIN in Berkley! But the second time the free-speechers drove them back with their bare hands while all of the left "protestors" were amply armed. Berkely happens to be one of the more famous and large scale instances so it's a good starting point for those who want to venture down the rabbit hole. I'm sure you're very happy believing whatever media tells you though.

And almost all Trump rallies have been peaceful? I went to a rally in Melbourne FL last year and there were multiple arrests that I witnessed just while trying to get into the event, all shrieking leftists going on about "Nazis nazis derrrrrr!!!!!!". But I heard not so much of a whisper of said arrests on the local news in the following days. Youtube footage from many other people that were actually at these events also tells a different story. Even the scarce few that don't have severe conflicts have leftists screaming every derogatory name in the book at anyone who dares attend the event and possibly have a different view than themselves. You will find that elderly and children are far from off limits to these sickos either.

Enjoy another 7 1/2 years of Trump because you leftists are guaranteeing it with your deplorable behavior.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/14/v...inst-republicans-are-becoming-the-new-normal/



There's been isolated violence, Adam, but nothing even close to as widespread as Frey is insinuating. 

On the other hand, there are far more stories like this: 

http://www.fox25boston.com/news/pol...-womens-march-respectful-refreshing/486834277



> "At a news conference, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said the event was peaceful and smooth. We had no issues, we had no arrests and it was refreshing to see so many people come out in something they believe in, Evans said.


----------



## Frey

Drew said:


> We seem to have riffled Frey's feathers a bit.



Your middle school caliber rhetoric bounces right off me. And apparently even isolated acts of violence are okay?


----------



## Drew

Frey said:


> The fact that you brush something like Berkley off shows you do in fact support the violence. That one event was completely inexcusable and people were severely hurt because of you violent crybabies. Never mind that it happened YET AGAIN in Berkley! But the second time the free-speechers drove them back with their bare hands while all of the left "protestors" were amply armed. Berkely happens to be one of the more famous and large scale instances so it's a good starting point for those who want to venture down the rabbit hole. I'm sure you're very happy believing whatever media tells you though.



Hardly. The Berkley violence was absolutely uncalled for - I'm not even trying to justify it. I'm just saying that it's also an anomaly, and that the protests on the left against Trump have almost across the board been peaceful affairs. When violence HAS occurred, it has often been when anti-Trump protesters and pro-Trump protesters clash. Not something to be tolerated, sure, but also not something you can solely attribute to "violent liberals." 

Also, come on. Let's keep our insults consistent. The left are violent radicals, yet also "crybabies"? 

Meanwhile, we're going to be here talking about how your president is making an embarrassment out of himself with every passing day.


----------



## Frey

Drew said:


> There's been isolated violence, Adam, but nothing even close to as widespread as Frey is insinuating.
> 
> On the other hand, there are far more stories like this:
> 
> http://www.fox25boston.com/news/pol...-womens-march-respectful-refreshing/486834277



Thanks for providing an example of how right leaning folks actually let people conduct their events peacefully.


----------



## Drew

Frey said:


> Your middle school caliber rhetoric bounces right off me. And apparently even isolated acts of violence are okay?



No, they're not. They're probably unavoidable, but that doesn't make them acceptable, and they should absolutely be condemned when they happen. 

Now, for kicks, let's see if you can maybe ratchet up the civility a little bit and not insinuate I'm a middle schooler just because we don't agree.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> There's been isolated violence, Adam, but nothing even close to as widespread as Frey is insinuating.
> 
> On the other hand, there are far more stories like this:
> 
> http://www.fox25boston.com/news/pol...-womens-march-respectful-refreshing/486834277



What do I know, I'm just a poor white trash north Florida redneck who gets all his REAL news from Cops!


----------



## Frey

I'm done.


----------



## Drew

Frey said:


> Thanks for providing an example of how right leaning folks actually let people conduct their events peacefully.



The Women's March was right-leaning? Or the Boston Police Department is right-leaning? I have NO idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> What do I know, I'm just a poor white trash north Florida redneck who gets all his REAL news from Cops!



 They DO tend to love your state, for some reason.


----------



## oneblackened

Drew said:


> The Women's March was right-leaning? Or the Boston Police Department is right-leaning? I have NO idea what you're trying to say.


I dunno, because I'm pretty sure neither of them are. 



Drew said:


> We seem to have riffled Frey's feathers a bit.
> 
> Tangent aside, looks like things are heating up:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russia-probe-reaches-current-white-house-official-people-familiar-with-the-case-say/2017/05/19/7685adba-3c99-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_fbiprobe-banner%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.88a78a099c39
> 
> A current senior White House official - as of yet unnamed - is a person of interest in the investigation (previously, the major players were former campaign officials or former WH officials like Flynn). Meanwhile, separately the Times is reporting that Trump bragged to the Russians the day after Comey that he had been under "so much pressure" because of "nutjob" Comey, but now that he was fired the pressure was gone. WH officials are calling this a negotiation tactic to make the Russians feel like they owed Trump something, but it's one more piece of evidence from Trump's big mouth against the original claim that this was about Clinton's emails.
> 
> This whole thing is really absolutely insane.



Can you believe Comey was only fired roughly a week ago?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Frey said:


> Been a few months since I've logged on here and WOW all the liberals are still salty, what a pack of crybabies.
> 
> How about you answer for all of the extreme violence the left has been partaking in since the election? Violence against innocent and unarmed people typically.
> 
> Not even a Trump supporter here although I love how much he's making the left show their true colors.



I watched a Trump supporter and his wife shoot a protestor on my campus. They are now being tried for attempted murder. 
BUT MUH REGRESSIVE LEFT


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I still don't understand what a small, misguided and violent portion of the far left has to do with the chaos in the White House. 

Are you insinuating that "liberals" violently forced Michael Flynn to have back room dealings with foreign adversaries? That hypocritical, leftists made Trump try and compromise the integrity of an ongoing FBI investigation?

As Archer once said "classic misdirection!"


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

MaxOfMetal said:


> a small, misguided and violent portion of the far left has to do with the chaos in the White House. :



1.) Not as small as you'd think 
2.) Misguided is arguable. As a commie antifa sympathizer myself there's really no alternative to violence from that perspective. When you define violence as taking many forms other than literal physical violence, it's easy to see how some of their actions are being justified retaliation, self-defense even. I'm not saying I'm going to go do it, but I understand their rationale. 

The USSR and Russia didn't politely ask Hitler to stop his conquest for the Third Reich and genocide.

Richard Spencer deserves to be punched for example.


----------



## Science_Penguin

So, what we've learned today is that there is, in fact, recorded evidence of Liberals being violent.

Okay.

Was that just an incidental fact that needed to be proven? Cause, far as I can tell, it doesn't serve as any kind of argument in favor of Trump right now. Doesn't make him look any better with all this controversy surrounding him.

It certainly shows that Liberals are capable of being stupid, which I don't think comes as a shock. Is this a way to say "Well, Trump may not look so good right now, but look at these people who are against him! Is that the side you want to be on?"

Well, clearly no one here approves of violence, so if your intention was to make everyone arguing against Trump look bad because "THIS is the side you're taking!" then you failed. And, even if, by some miracle, someone in here was screwed up enough to say "Yes! I approve of this! More violence! Kill 'em all!" That still does nothing to make Trump look better, it just makes his opposition look bad.

AND EVEN THEN, anyone with two brain-cells to rub together could tell you that's not an accurate representation of the entire left wing, just like old white southern racist gun-nuts aren't an accurate representation of the entire right wing (I would know, I have friends who are Conservative.)

So, in the end, nothing was accomplished.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> 1.) Not as small as you'd think
> 2.) Misguided is arguable. As a commie antifa sympathizer myself there's really no alternative to violence from that perspective. When you define violence as taking many forms other than literal physical violence, it's easy to see how some of their actions are being justified retaliation, self-defense even. I'm not saying I'm going to go do it, but I understand their rationale.
> 
> The USSR and Russia didn't politely ask Hitler to stop his conquest for the Third Reich and genocide.
> 
> Richard Spencer deserves to be punched for example.





I hate this administration as much as the next guy and my familial heritage makes me no fan of Hitler, but can we please refrain from using that comparison so freely. 

Trump and his team are obviously corporate shills playing petty self interest politics, but I don't see him going all railcars and crematoriums on us. That's Pence's thing.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

MaxOfMetal said:


> I hate this administration as much as the next guy and my familial heritage makes me no fan of Hitler, but can we please refrain from using that comparison so freely.
> 
> Trump and his team are obviously corporate shills playing petty self interest politics, but I don't see him going all railcars and crematoriums on us. That's Pence's thing.



I think my point that I failed to mention is that Socialists/Communists/Anarchists/Anti-Fascists are not liberals and tarnishing "liberals" because of their actions is misguided and a tell tale sign of a lack of understanding. 

Also, I'm not comparing the administration to Hitler. It was an example of historical events where violence was countered with violence. 
If you look at things from a Communist lens then any form of government that upholds Capitalism is reinforcing the oppression created by class struggle. If you look at it from an Anarchist standpoint then any power structure whatsoever is oppressive and inflicting violence. 
Can you honestly tell me that taking away insurance from Americans is not a form of violence? 
Leftist's and Right wingers have all committed acts of violence. However one side is doing so because they feel the dismantling of rights is direct violence towards them. Allowing speakers to scapegoat problems on minority groups and perpetuating racial supremacy are all forms of violence. 
The right however don't seem to understand this, because apparently the right to free speech means that it's perfectly fine to advocate for societal cleansings.

TL;DR
The Trump administration is the embodiment of class and power structures oppressing and causing violence towards others. Supporting this administration is being complicit to this violence and leftist actions are viewed as almost self defense. 
This is my summary from talking to many involved in these activities.


----------



## narad

Frey said:


> Oh here are a few demonstrating leftist hypocrisy.
> 
> https://youtu.be/iJ4b6B_M9sI
> 
> She's a fetish porn actor by the way. Great folks you have reping the left
> 
> https://youtu.be/nxFo-ETO5Kg
> 
> Oh and just Google "liberals are"



We have reached a milestone: someone tried to use Google auto-complete to support a political argument. I weep for the future.


----------



## Science_Penguin

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I think my point that I failed to mention is that Socialists/Communists/Anarchists/Anti-Fascists are not liberals and tarnishing "liberals" because of their actions is misguided and a tell tale sign of a lack of understanding.
> 
> Also, I'm not comparing the administration to Hitler. It was an example of historical events where violence was countered with violence.
> If you look at things from a Communist lens then any form of government that upholds Capitalism is reinforcing the oppression created by class struggle. If you look at it from an Anarchist standpoint then any power structure whatsoever is oppressive and inflicting violence.
> Can you honestly tell me that taking away insurance from Americans is not a form of violence?
> Leftist's and Right wingers have all committed acts of violence. However one side is doing so because they feel the dismantling of rights is direct violence towards them. Allowing speakers to scapegoat problems on minority groups and perpetuating racial supremacy are all forms of violence.
> The right however don't seem to understand this, because apparently the right to free speech means that it's perfectly fine to advocate for societal cleansings.
> 
> TL;DR
> The Trump administration is the embodiment of class and power structures oppressing and causing violence towards others. Supporting this administration is being complicit to this violence and leftist actions are viewed as almost self defense.
> This is my summary from talking to many involved in these activities.



Ehhhh... I dunno if I can agree with that...

My definition of violence is pretty strict, so I'm not sure I can construe taking insurance and platforming on racial supremacy an act of violence.

Taking insurance could be viewed as "oppression," sure, and just talking about racial supremacy certainly seems like a threat (if they're talking about ethnic cleansing or bringing back the days of segregation). The violence and the riots are certainly understandable as aggressive responses to that, but does that justify them? That's my question.

Freedom of speech guarantees racists the right to say stupid things, yes, but that same freedom of speech gives you the right to stand up and tell them why what they're saying is stupid. That's how it works. So, until actual violent action is taken by them, I don't know that I can really claim "defense," on the riots against them.

If we're talking about rioting against the government itself if you deem oppressive actions are being taken, that's not unheard of, but I've yet to see anyone march on government buildings with molotovs in hand (not that I want to...). All I've seen is riots in the streets, where the damage is all being done to common citizens and their property- the same citizens who are ALSO living under oppression, apparently.

Now, we all know what would happen if people decided to attack government buildings, they'd be shot dead before they even got there. So, from my point of view, it's almost like "We NEED to get violent, but we can't take it here cause we'll die. Let's just take it into the streets."

And, I'm sorry, but if you can't attack the right target, attacking the wrong target isn't going to do you any favors. I feel like, at that point, maybe you shouldn't attack anyone, maybe you should try something else.



narad said:


> We have reached a milestone: someone tried to use Google auto-complete to support a political argument. I weep for the future.



Yeah, that was funny... apparently the fact that it's a popular enough view means it MUST be true.

Type "The earth is..." in google and see what the top result is. Oh, I guess our geography classes have failed us...


----------



## Explorer

I did leave some of the videos Frey posted on in the background. Several were about the Berkeley protest. 

One was about how someone kept insulting someone until she finally reacted by threatening him, and then the police refused to charge her because he was caught on video deliberately trying to provoke her. 

One was about how someone had a punch coming to her because she's a porn actress, even though the founder of a white supremacy group who punched her is shown on video coming out of nowhere and runnng over to her to punch her in the face. I think Frey's point is that reacng to insults is unexcusable, but sucker-punching someone with no previous interaction is upstanding.

The best aspect of the videos Frey posted is the violent hate speech in the comment sections. If that was his proof of how violent the right is, then he got it right. If it was his proof of how violent the left is, he should have provided the left-wing examples of hate speech instead, because those right-wing comment sections were deplorable. 

Dude, if you're going to lecture people on how to use google effectively, you should definitely not provide overflowing cesspools of right-wing hate speech as your example of how the left is full of hate. 

I do like that such examples of open latrines were the easy examples for him to find, from sources Frey is obviously familiar with. It was an interesting look at those information sources, containing that hate, upon which Frey builds his world view. Thanks for the clarification on your views!


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

Both sides are trying to make morality about political positions, while there's clearly a fringe terrorist group (antifa) on the left, and plain old thugs on the right. 

In my experience, people will be dicks, regardless of their origins, ideas and affiliations. The only thing that changes is who they are dicks to.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So first trump talks crap about Muslims and all his supporters deem then terrorists, then his first foreign visit is to seal an arms deal with... Muslims. Or do they not count because they're rich oil owners?

I'm glad he'll also be visiting his favourite city, even though he once deemed it a hellhole.
http://www.politico.eu/article/dona...llhole-us-presidential-election-2016-america/


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Yeah this thread does nothing more than further instill in me that no one knows how to come together and that goes for the left and the right. You've both got good people and you both also have nutjobs. Why can't you understand this, is it really that hard?


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> Yeah this thread does nothing more than further instill in me that no one knows how to come together and that goes for the left and the right. You've both got good people and you both also have nutjobs. Why can't you understand this, is it really that hard?



Wow, what's it like from the outside?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> Wow, what's it like from the outside?





It's pretty damn nice, actually. I don't let the fact that I love guns interfere with how I feel about immigration. I don't just fall into one line and subscribe to a certain party's beliefs like many do and forsake everything else. I take life one step at a time and live as best I can. We all have a finite number of years here and yet some of us are concerned what bathrooms someone should be able to use or what people do in their bedrooms. Humanity as a whole has honestly made me feel like we are the laughing stock of every known entity. A hard reset would do us some good, or hell, maybe not at all. Maybe .... people. If the best we can do is build a computer and bitch and complain about what everyone else does that isn't hurting anyone, then why even try? The few people out there living their lives who don't bother anyone, yeah they shouldn't be lumped in with everyone else, but since we all want to generalize because that's the game and the language that the left and the right love to use, maybe .... people. Maybe I'm too cynical and I don't put a whole lot of stock into humanity, but then again, there's probably a reason for that. So again, to answer your question, being on the outside is pretty goddamn good.


----------



## feraledge

MaxOfMetal said:


> I hate this administration as much as the next guy and my familial heritage makes me no fan of Hitler, but can we please refrain from using that comparison so freely.
> 
> Trump and his team are obviously corporate shills playing petty self interest politics, but I don't see him going all railcars and crematoriums on us. That's Pence's thing.



As a descendent of Russian & Polish jews, some of whom barely escaped the Nazis, I agree with this to a degree. Trump is a lunatic narcissist, a poster boy for entitled neoteny. His turn towards fascism is incidental, "I want the power and I want the bad people to stop saying bad things about me." Which isn't saying he can't get to the same end point (though I personally think the thread should be titled "Is Trump really going to stay there?" as I suspect not). 
On the flip side, the Anti-Fa response is more about the company he keeps or is willing to keep to get where he needed to go. The fascist rise is legitimate and they're riding the wake well after he'd move on to the next group. Spencer got a platform because of Trump, but he no longer needs him to be heard. That's a major issue, fortunately fists still work nicely. 
But drawing correlations with Hitler are almost giving Trump credit. The schmuck's meal of choice is well done NY Strip with ketchup and he gives himself twice the scoops of ice cream than anyone else. He's not exactly a plotting guy, he's a shill of whoever snuck paper on his desk last to manipulate his immediate responses and is willing to lend an ear towards whoever complimented him last. All that is about as long lasting as the cans of Coke he gets with the press of a button he seriously had installed on the Oval Office desk. He's a world-class moron. A simpleton, at best. Where he ends up isn't a matter of philosophy, just singular vision, if any. 

As a side note, as an anarchist, I reject being called a liberal or a leftist. Both are insulting when you're against government as a whole.


----------



## extendedsolo

Frey said:


> I'm done.



OH MY GOD SO MUCH IRONY WITH THIS POST AND YOU DON'T EVEN SEE IT!

This dude over here trying to mic drop and claim victory with an internet meme.


----------



## vansinn

Fascinating discussions.

I don't think Trump has voluntary changed side; I feel sure 'they' threatened his family.
I wrote long ago it would be interesting to see how long it would take before they'd pull a Kennedy on him.

He's now about to learn what it's like being CEO of the corporation known as US Inc.
The share holders has stated their demands, time to execute, Mr. CEO.
The 350 deal with the Saudis is forced upon him, as is the case with one of his family stating how satisfied she is with Saudi Arabia's progress on women's rights.

America hasn't selected a president since Lincoln has killed, after issuing Presidential order #100, which placed America under Marshall law so he could become Commander in Chief and implement strategies against the gang-banging banksters and the military-industrial complex.
And then they shot him before he could finish his work. What a loss for America - and all the rest of us.


----------



## narad

Well I see that your location setting is correct.


----------



## Drew

So, since a troll has suceeded in railroading this into a discussion on whether or not the left is violent (hint - by and large, no, and only then generally only with significant provokation), let's maybe go back to Trump.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334326-the-memo-trump-base-shows-signs-of-cracking

New Reuters poll today suggesting Trump's base is beginning to crack. While an intra-party approval of 75% certainly sounds respectable, the historical norm is north of 85-90%, and anything below 80% is generally "downright alarming." 

Certainly could be an outlier, but on the flipside Irish betting markets are implying that people willing to put their money where their mouth is think Trump finishing a term is a 50-50 proposition, and there's a 25% shot he doesn't finish the year. Meanwhile, the "left-wing" yet still reasonably credible media - see: MSNBC, partisan as hell but they don't just make .... up (see: Breitbart) - has largely moved on from Trump to stories about what Pence knew and when about Flynn, which if I were Trump I'd consider the fact they're treating my political demise like a foregone conclusion is also deeply alarming. 

Hey, who knows, though. Maybe he'll shock pretty much everyone and negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal where thousands before him have failed, this week while overseas.


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> So, since a troll has suceeded in railroading this into a discussion on whether or not the left is violent (hint - by and large, no, and only then generally only with significant provokation)



Yeah, the violent riots that have occurred since the 2016 election campaign began are the result of significant provocation. The rioters that broke windows, attacked people, attacked vehicles, etc... were simply provoked when Trump held a rally or when a conservative was to speak on campus.

No, I do not think this is indicative of the left in general, but can only imagine how the media and liberals would react if the situation were reversed.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Hey, who knows, though. Maybe he'll shock pretty much everyone and negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal where thousands before him have failed, this week while overseas.



Hey, Nixon did some pretty cool stuff for human rights and global politics before he was forced to resign. I honestly could see something like that from Trump. After all, he is a dreamer.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> No, I do not think this is indicative of the left in general, but can only imagine how the media and liberals would react if the situation were reversed.



You mean the fact we've been pretty level-headed about the fact that white supremacist rallies and KKK parades have been on the rise? Yeah, I'd say we've reacted pretty calmly and coolly, all things considered. 



bostjan said:


> Hey, Nixon did some pretty cool stuff for human rights and global politics before he was forced to resign. I honestly could see something like that from Trump. After all, he is a dreamer.



To be fair, the ACA basically was a version of Romney's universal coverage plan for Massachusetts, which drew its inspiration from the Republican alternative to Hillarycare, which in turn was based on Nixon's proposals before he went down for spying on his political rivals. 

On one hand, the fact that Nixon was brought down by his own paranoia (he either authorized or was "more likely than not generally aware" of a breaking into the campaign headquarters of a campaign he was winning by a landslide) is something that should not be lost on Trump. 

On the other, say what you will about Nixon and everything he stood for, he certainly was a whole heck of a lot more _effective_ than Trump has been thus far.


----------



## tedtan

^

Well, Nixon was possibly a bad guy, but he was also a good politician and understood politics whereas Trump is an outsider who doesn't understand how things pertaining to politics and the office of POTUS work, so the fact that Nixon was more successful in the political arena shouldn't come as a surprise.


----------



## synrgy

The "all liberal positions are now invalid because Black Bloc" thing must be getting disseminated on troll boards. I'm seeing it all over my FB. Doesn't matter what the topic is; somehow it always comes back to "no, you're wrong, because I can't tell the difference between fringe anarchists and domesticated liberals."


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> You mean the fact we've been pretty level-headed about the fact that white supremacist rallies and KKK parades have been on the rise? Yeah, I'd say we've reacted pretty calmly and coolly, all things considered.



Yet, since the election campaign began, all of the violence has come from the left. Time after time a supposed hate crime has turned out to be a hoax.


----------



## Black Mamba

synrgy said:


> The "all liberal positions are now invalid because Black Bloc" thing must be getting disseminated on troll boards. I'm seeing it all over my FB. Doesn't matter what the topic is; somehow it always comes back to "no, you're wrong, because I can't tell the difference between fringe anarchists and domesticated liberals."



If you read my initial post I clearly state: 

_"No, I do not think this is indicative of the left in general, but can only imagine how the media and liberals would react if the situation were reversed."_

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have any prominent liberal leaders condemned the repeated riots?


----------



## synrgy

To be clear, I wasn't responding to you, but a line of logic I keep seeing come up from (presumably) unrelated people.

In this thread, I noticed a different user raise the topic first, anyway, but my point was more that I was seeing it in multiple places; not just here.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> Yet, since the election campaign began, all of the violence has come from the left. Time after time a supposed hate crime has turned out to be a hoax.



You don't really believe that, do you? ALL violence since the election was the work of the left? 

I mean, at the most basic level, we have a guy in this very thread who witnessed a Trump supporter shoot a protester, with the shooter currently being tried for murder. You really think ALL violence after the election was the work of liberals?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

My mistake they're only being charged with assault since the guy didn't die 
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-melee-during-uw-speech-by-milo-yiannopoulos/


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I hate this administration as much as the next guy and my familial heritage makes me no fan of Hitler, but can we please refrain from using that comparison so freely.
> 
> Trump and his team are obviously corporate shills playing petty self interest politics, but I don't see him going all railcars and crematoriums on us. That's Pence's thing.



As someone who's been stuck at school between Benhaim and Cohen and having my grandather dying in the camps, I know where you come from, but as a french, I also know that most rights aren't benevolently given by the elite to the people, they are taken by personal violence, or threat of personal violence. There _are_ some exceptions, but they are few and far between. Establishing democracy in the US caused tens of thousand of deaths, in France it required a few thousand trimmed necks and 20 years of europeanwide war. Paid holidays, 16 y.o age limit for child work, all of those were obtained with violence.
That said, democracy now suffers from internal problems, mainly that it refuses to use the same weapons its opponents don't hesitate to make use of.

I define democracy (that's a personal definition, not everybody has that one) by the expression of the enlightened vote of the people. "Enlightened" meaning that the people actually know what they vote for, which is absolutely not the case at the moment. Misinformation is the key tool of right wing parties around the world. Start to wonder how in the nine hells can parties serving 10% of the population get a majority vote.


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> You don't really believe that, do you? ALL violence since the election was the work of the left?
> 
> I mean, at the most basic level, we have a guy in this very thread who witnessed a Trump supporter shoot a protester, with the shooter currently being tried for murder. You really think ALL violence after the election was the work of liberals?





AngstRiddenDreams said:


> My mistake they're only being charged with assault since the guy didn't die
> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-melee-during-uw-speech-by-milo-yiannopoulos/



Rioters show up to shut down a speaking event, and the people being charged with assault were also looking for a fight. Isn't this an extreme case of _"two wrongs don't make a right"_? Any and all violence should immediately be condemned, of course. It's just, I don't see conservatives showing up to liberal events looking to shut them down.


----------



## Drew

Andromalia said:


> Misinformation is the key tool of right wing parties around the world. Start to wonder how in the nine hells can parties serving 10% of the population get a majority vote.



It makes more sense as an American, I think - "pulling yourself upo by your bootstraps" and the "American dream" are such an innate part of our cultural identity, as is the, ...., I'm blanking on which particular christian sect this attributes back to, but the attitude that worldly success is proof of God's favor (I want to say Protestant, but that seems the antithesis of Martin Luther... Which, I suppose doesn't pre-empt it being protestantism anyway). It all kind of blends together into this attitude where wealth is proof of a life well lived and if you haven't gotten there yet, it's either someone else's fault - say, those dirty Mexicans we just need to build a wall to keep out - or it's just a matter of time before you get there, and you're only dealing with some temporary setbacks along the way. So, Americans tend to vote in the best interests of the class they WANT to be in, rather than the one they currently are; they don't want to sell themselves down the river for the day they're rich, too, and anyway why would they want to interfere with what's clearly a sign of the grace of God? 

In reality, of course, class mobility has been steadily declining for generations now, and prenatal nutrition, parents' social class, and attendance to select private schools (as well as the usual suspects - race, sex, religious and sexual orientation, etc) is a much bigger predictor of personal success than any self-made-man type work ethic. And I say this as someone who's _benefited_ from this, and not because I'm looking for any justification to "explain" any personal failings.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> Rioters show up to shut down a speaking event, and the people being charged with assault were also looking for a fight. Isn't this an extreme case of _"two wrongs don't make a right"_? Any and all violence should immediately be condemned, of course.* It's just, I don't see conservatives showing up to liberal events looking to shut them down.*



I mean, that's LITERALLY what AngstRiddenDreams just posted, a story about conservatives showing up to a liberal protest carrying mace and a pistol, hoping to prompt a reaction that would allow them to use at least one of the two. And that somehow makes a conservative shooting a liberal protester who was trying to *diffuse* a situation an example of *liberal* violence?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Tomorrow's gonna be a tough day for the DNC...

Kim Dotcom has offered proof Tuesday that Seth Rich was source of DNC hack. We'll see if this pans out....

Today's reply from Assange:
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920

But, ma Ruhssia! REEEEEEEE!


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> I mean, that's LITERALLY what AngstRiddenDreams just posted, a story about conservatives showing up to a liberal protest carrying mace and a pistol, hoping to prompt a reaction that would allow them to use at least one of the two. And that somehow makes a conservative shooting a liberal protester who was trying to *diffuse* a situation an example of *liberal* violence?



Wrong. The event was a speech by a conservative speaker. Leftists showed up _(just like they have been since Trump announced his candidacy)_ to the conservative event to shut it down. They are the ones who provoke people that simply want to go to a Trump rally, or hear a conservative speaker. They are the ones showing up with weapons looking to cause destruction. Have you not seen Trump supporters beaten, windows smashed, vehicles attacked and set on fire?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Tomorrow's gonna be a tough day for the DNC...
> 
> Kim Dotcom has offered proof Tuesday that Seth Rich was source of DNC hack. We'll see if this pans out....
> 
> Today's reply from Assange:
> https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
> 
> But, ma Ruhssia! REEEEEEEE!



That story is so last week.

EDIT - you know, I'm not giving you full engagement here, making an easy joke rarther than actually making a substantive reply. I give you right-wing guys flack for doing just that, ignoring the crux of an argument and just taking cheap shots, so I owe you a proper reply here, I figure.

I don't buy the argument you're making. Not that Seth Rich is somehow responsible for the DNC leak and was killed for it - I REALLY doubt that, but that's neither here nor there and if there's actual evidence then of course I'll reconsider - but the false equivalence you're implying. Let's say, purely hypothetically, that Rich WAS the source of the leak. That doesn't automatically discount any impropriety between the Trump campaign team and Russia. Some of that is already pretty well documented - we know for a fact now that Flynn spoke with the Russians before Trump was inaugurated and that he suggested to Russian agents that Obama-imposed sanctions would be dropped after Trump was sworn in. We know Sessions lied about his contacts during the campaign during his testimony, as well, and despite the "day one" story to the contrary, Trump's letter informing Comey of his termination and a lot of his subsequent statements makes it more probable than not that Comey was fired over the Russia investigation. None of this stuff is debatable (with the possible exception of Comey, and we have a special prosecutor getting to the bottom of that as we speak), and both have already had real-world consequences; Flynn was fired, Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, and Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein to carry on the investigation into what if any connections Russia had to the Trump team during the investigation. 

So, even if somehow Rich WAS the source of the wikileaks material and was killed by the Clintons for it (and the continued existence of Anthony Weiner sort of undercuts this argument, but hey, if someone has evidence, then by all means bring it forward), that doesn't make the Russia investigation "fake news" or a "false flag" or whatever the alt-right term du jour is. There's enough concrete evidence of improper contact between Russia and the Trump team to have already brought down one member of Trump's cabinet and caused another to recuse himself from the further investigation, which, again not that these two have ANYthing to do with each other, is certainly more than we can say for the theory that the Clintons had Seth Rich killed. 

But hey, if there's evidence, let's see it.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> Wrong. The event was a speech by a conservative speaker. Leftists showed up _(just like they have been since Trump announced his candidacy)_ to the conservative event to shut it down. They are the ones who provoke people that simply want to go to a Trump rally, or hear a conservative speaker. They are the ones showing up with weapons looking to cause destruction. Have you not seen Trump supporters beaten, windows smashed, vehicles attacked and set on fire?



Did you read the article? Serious question.

EDIT - I'll save you a mouse-click: 



> According to the charges, the day before Yiannopoulos was scheduled to talk at Kane Hall, Marc Hokoana had messaged a friend on Facebook, stating, I cant wait for tomorrow. Im going to the milo event and if the snowflakes get out off hand Im going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls.
> 
> His friend asked him if he was going to carry.
> 
> Hokoana responded, Nah, Im going full melee, but then wrote Lily  is, referring to his wife, Elizabeth.





> One video clip reviewed by a detective showed Elizabeth Hokoana with her right hand under her coat as her husband, Marc Hokoana, was directly in front of her in the video assisting a person as he confronted the protesters.
> 
> The movement, the detective said, was consistent with a person who was attempting to pull a concealed pistol from a holster.
> 
> That video clip was taken a half-hour before the shooting, according to the charges.
> 
> A review of several videos of the actual shooting by Grant Fredericks of Forensic Video Solutions, an independent video expert, indicated that Mark Hokoana was facing away from Dukes at the time of the shooting while Elizabeth Hokoana was looking right at Dukes when the shot was fired, and then backed away from him.
> 
> David Hallimore, an audio specialist with Recorded Evidence Solutions, said he was able to extract some audio from the recording. *He says Marc Hokoana can be heard telling Elizabeth to calm down and Dont shoot anyone.
> 
> Marc Hokoana can then be heard telling Elizabeth Hokoana that others in the crowd, They have to start this. They have to start it.&#8201;*


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> Did you read the article? Serious question.
> 
> EDIT - I'll save you a mouse-click:



Did you read my post? Serious question. 

I clearly stated:

_"The people being charged with assault were also looking for a fight"

_You realize antifa organize several days in advance of an event, correct? Unless you've been living under a rock, you've seen the countless leftist riots; which are planned days in advance. Since Trump's candidacy, leftist groups have repeatedly organized to shut down his rallies, or any event in which a conservative speaks.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

The guy and his wife showed up to the event after posting in Facebook prior that they were going to, "crack skulls". The man pepper sprayed protestors who were NOT in altercation with him. A protestor tried grabbing the mans arm to stop him from pepper spraying people who were not endangering him and then his wife shoots the guy.

I was there for hours that night. There were plenty of Antifa that evening but they were not the ones instigating violence. I saw groups of Trump supporters who were incredibly inflammatory, getting in people's faces and screaming insults at them. So essentially what you have is a group trying to incite a group of people to be violent towards them so they can be deligitimized.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Black Mamba said:


> Since Trump's candidacy, leftist groups have repeatedly organized to shut down his rallies, or any event in which a conservative speaks.



Shutting down rallies /=/ violence 
Nor does it violate rights. Keep in mind the first Amendment protects you from the government, not other people.

Also pretending that Milo hasn't been provacative with his statements is ignorance at best


----------



## Black Mamba

Multiple times antifa has shut down events at Berkeley, a school which receives public funding. The latest being Ann Coulter's appearance. They consistently infringe upon the right to peacefully assemble. They shut down the Portland Rose Parade, etc... but yeah, they're the good guys who do nothing wrong. Attacking people, threatening people, smashing windows, lighting cars on fire is fine as long as you're on the left.


----------



## Black Mamba

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Shutting down rallies /=/ violence



Yeah, they "peacefully" shut down rallies. I wonder what the reaction would be if conservatives shut down Bernie Sanders or Black Lives Matter rallies?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Black Mamba said:


> Yeah, they "peacefully" shut down rallies. I wonder what the reaction would be if conservatives shut down Bernie Sanders or Black Lives Matter rallies?



The Milo speech at UW got shut down because of he man who was shot. The protesting was not enough to have it canceled, it was a wrongful shooting that shut it down. 

Where does that fit in your narrative?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Black Mamba said:


> Yeah, they "peacefully" shut down rallies. I wonder what the reaction would be if conservatives shut down Bernie Sanders or Black Lives Matter rallies?



I missed the part where Bernie advocated for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing and death squads towards the left like Alt-Right speakers have. 

Not all platforms are equal and insinuating that leftist politicians are advocating for the same degree of violence is absurd.


----------



## Black Mamba

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> The Milo speech at UW got shut down because of he man who was shot. The protesting was not enough to have it canceled, it was a wrongful shooting that shut it down.
> 
> Where does that fit in your narrative?



Berkeley, Chicago, the Portland Rose Parade. Where does that fit in your narrative?


----------



## Black Mamba

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I missed the part where Bernie advocated for "peaceful" ethnic cleansing and death squads towards the left like Alt-Right speakers have.
> 
> Not all platforms are equal and insinuating that leftist politicians are advocating for the same degree of violence is absurd.



The rhetoric coming from multiple people in the Black Lives Matter movement is quite violent.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

My narrative has never been there are no violent leftist acts. My narrative is that the violence is in response to Alt-Right calls for ethnic cleansing and violence towards the left. 
Your narrative however seems to be that the violence is only instigated and carried out by the left which I have shown to not be true. 
Also, fringe BLM speakers do not represent the movement as a whole. People like Richard Spencer on the other hand have a huge role in the Alt-Right, especially because he kinda ya know coined he term


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Drew said:


> It makes more sense as an American, I think - "pulling yourself upo by your bootstraps" and the "American dream" are such an innate part of our cultural identity, as is the, ...., I'm blanking on which particular christian sect this attributes back to, but the attitude that worldly success is proof of God's favor (I want to say Protestant, but that seems the antithesis of Martin Luther... Which, I suppose doesn't pre-empt it being protestantism anyway).



Kind of off topic but I'm pretty sure you're talking about predestination (which was a relatively common belief among Calvinists/Puritans). If you did well in life it was because of God, if you had a .... life it was because God willed it. A crude way to put it but you get the idea.


----------



## Black Mamba

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> My narrative has never been there are no violent leftist acts. My narrative is that the violence is in response to Alt-Right calls for ethnic cleansing and violence towards the left.
> Your narrative however seems to be that the violence is only instigated and carried out by the left which I have shown to not be true.
> Also, fringe BLM speakers do not represent the movement as a whole. People like Richard Spencer on the other hand have a huge role in the Alt-Right, especially because he kinda ya know coined he term



Actually, Paul Gottfried _kinda ya know_ was the first to use the term "alt-right". As for your _"ethnic cleansing" _comment, Spencer was referring to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. 

Also, the co-founder of Toronto BLM isn't exactly fringe, is it?

Let me guess, you're one of those _"Trump is uniquely evil, but generic Republican Mike Pence is even worse!!!" _guys, right?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Black Mamba said:


> Actually, Paul Gottfried _kinda ya know_ was the first to use the term "alt-right". As for your _"ethnic cleansing" _comment, Spencer was referring to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
> 
> Also, the co-founder of Toronto BLM isn't exactly fringe, is it?
> 
> Let me guess, you're one of those _"Trump is uniquely evil, but generic Republican Mike Pence is even worse!!!" _guys, right?



Pence is worse only because his platform is understood. Trump doesn't have blatantly Christian principles at the forefront of all policies. Pence passed a law allowing religious discrimination in Indiana. So he can get fvcked.

"The Alternative Right is a term coined in 2008 by Richard Bertrand Spencer, who heads the white nationalist think tank known as the National Policy"
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right

One way or the other you are defending White Nationalists.


----------



## Explorer

Getting badk to the topic...

Flynn is pleading the Fifth Amendment.

Http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-campaign-staff-fifth-amendment-flynn/ 

President Donald Trump and Flynn himself all suggested that doing so (pleading the Fifth) was on par with an admission of guilt. "You see the mob takes the Fifth," Trump said. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

No further comment yet has been made by the White House on why Trump suggested Flynn's guilt.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explorer I don't know if you use Reddit but you should check out the subreddit r/trumpcriticizestrump 
It's chock full of old tweets of his that directly contradict his actions.


----------



## bhakan

So I have a couple questions for anyone supporting Trump or just generally less left leaning in this thread. This isn't meant to be argumentative, but having spent the last 4 years at college I feel like I've been in a bit of a liberal echo chamber and want to seek out some opposing opinions. 

The first, does anyone have a clear, well thought out defense of some of the current administration's recent actions? Stuff like firing Comey and the possible rollback of net neutrality. I feel that every discussion I see on this falls to ad hominem attacks and am curious to actually read some other perspectives. 

The second is what threat does the far left actually pose to you? I see lots about antifa and tumblr social justice warriors and BLM and so on, but I see very little of these peoples' "extreme" views represented in the democratic party. What actions has our government taken that are in line with the far left, and if there aren't any particularly significant examples, what threat do these groups really pose then?

At this point nothing will make me support Trump, but I want to be able to empathize with those who do better.


----------



## Explorer

Well, this is an unfortunate developement.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html

Unfortunately, Trump apparently asked the Director of National Intelligence and the NSA director to deny there was any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, a request they each denied. 

Of course, the memos documenting this are now available to Mueller, who is the special investigator into the questions of both Russian influence on the election, *and* collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Also inconvenient...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/trump-taj-mahal/

...is that congressional investigators have gotten records indicating that Trump's Taj Mahal casino was a money laundering concern shortly after it opened, and a favorite spot of Russian mobsters.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bhakan said:


> So I have a couple questions for anyone supporting Trump or just generally less left leaning in this thread. This isn't meant to be argumentative, but having spent the last 4 years at college I feel like I've been in a bit of a liberal echo chamber and want to seek out some opposing opinions.
> 
> The first, does anyone have a clear, well thought out defense of some of the current administration's recent actions? Stuff like firing Comey and the possible rollback of net neutrality. I feel that every discussion I see on this falls to ad hominem attacks and am curious to actually read some other perspectives.
> 
> The second is what threat does the far left actually pose to you? I see lots about antifa and tumblr social justice warriors and BLM and so on, but I see very little of these peoples' "extreme" views represented in the democratic party. What actions has our government taken that are in line with the far left, and if there aren't any particularly significant examples, what threat do these groups really pose then?
> 
> At this point nothing will make me support Trump, but I want to be able to empathize with those who do better.



I think the most honest and understandable reason I've heard so far, from some of my coworkers and family, is less that they like Trump or his administration but more about hating the other side, more specifically democratic politicians. 

As someone who typically votes democrat, I get it.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> Did you read my post? Serious question.
> 
> I clearly stated:
> 
> _"The people being charged with assault were also looking for a fight"
> 
> _You realize antifa organize several days in advance of an event, correct? Unless you've been living under a rock, you've seen the countless leftist riots; which are planned days in advance. Since Trump's candidacy, leftist groups have repeatedly organized to shut down his rallies, or any event in which a conservative speaks.





Black Mamba said:


> Multiple times antifa has shut down events at Berkeley, a school which receives public funding. The latest being Ann Coulter's appearance. They consistently infringe upon the right to peacefully assemble. They shut down the Portland Rose Parade, etc... but yeah, they're the good guys who do nothing wrong. Attacking people, threatening people, smashing windows, lighting cars on fire is fine as long as you're on the left.



No doubt. However, this wasn't Berkley - this was the University of Washington, in Seattle. 

Again, we have liberals who were exercising their right to free expression - generally events like this even set aside space FOR protesters - and a couple showed up looking to "crack some skulls" and for at least a half hour before the shooting, there was video and photographic evidence of the man trying to instigate a fight, and the woman staying a few feet back with her hand under her jacket, around where her gun would have been. When she shot, the victim was walking _away_ from her husband. 

See, this is why I can't understand conservatives - since we're clearly at a point in this debate where you guys are just going to make broad statements with minimal justification, I may as well join in., You guys don't believe in _personal responsibility_, all that Ayn Rand BS notwithstanding. 

Near as I can tell, this is how the left and right respond to violence perpetrated by their own: 

*Liberals:* Someone suckerpunches Richard Spencer. For the next two or three weeks on facebook and various politics subforums: "Is it _ever _justifiable to punch someone unprovoked and not in self defense, even if that person is an actual neo-Nazi? Maybe we should get some legal and ethics scholars to weigh in on this and reflect on it."

*Conservatives:* Someone shoots a protester at a University of Washington event. "Stupid libtard snowflake shouldn't have been protesting, it's their own damned fault for getting shot. Liberal violence is ruining this country." 

I mean, come _on_.  If you honestly believe there has been NO right-wing violence and no concerted right-wing effort to instigate violence at liberal protests, I honestly don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Drew

KnightBrolaire said:


> Kind of off topic but I'm pretty sure you're talking about predestination (which was a relatively common belief among Calvinists/Puritans). If you did well in life it was because of God, if you had a .... life it was because God willed it. A crude way to put it but you get the idea.



Sounds familiar - thanks!


----------



## Black Mamba

Drew said:


> No doubt. However, this wasn't Berkley - this was the University of Washington, in Seattle.
> 
> Again, we have liberals who were exercising their right to free expression - generally events like this even set aside space FOR protesters - and a couple showed up looking to "crack some skulls" and for at least a half hour before the shooting, there was video and photographic evidence of the man trying to instigate a fight, and the woman staying a few feet back with her hand under her jacket, around where her gun would have been. When she shot, the victim was walking _away_ from her husband.



You had antifa looking to shut down an event. Something they have done multiple times. As I've already stated, the people charged with assault were also looking for a fight, and all violence should be condemned.



Drew said:


> See, this is why I can't understand conservatives - since we're clearly at a point in this debate where you guys are just going to make broad statements with minimal justification, I may as well join in., You guys don't believe in _personal responsibility_, all that Ayn Rand BS notwithstanding.
> 
> Near as I can tell, this is how the left and right respond to violence perpetrated by their own:
> 
> *Liberals:* Someone suckerpunches Richard Spencer. For the next two or three weeks on facebook and various politics subforums: "Is it _ever _justifiable to punch someone unprovoked and not in self defense, even if that person is an actual neo-Nazi? Maybe we should get some legal and ethics scholars to weigh in on this and reflect on it."
> 
> *Conservatives:* Someone shoots a protester at a University of Washington event. "Stupid libtard snowflake shouldn't have been protesting, it's their own damned fault for getting shot. Liberal violence is ruining this country."
> 
> I mean, come _on_.  If you honestly believe there has been NO right-wing violence and no concerted right-wing effort to instigate violence at liberal protests, I honestly don't know what to tell you.



You're lumping together peaceful protesters with violent rioters. You're saying there is a concerted right-wing effort to instigate violence at liberal protests? Outside of the two people in the situation mentioned above, where? 

Leftist groups have repeatedly shut down or attempted to shut down conservative events. Right-wing groups have not done so to the left.


----------



## Drew

Black Mamba said:


> You had antifa looking to shut down an event. Something they have done multiple times. As I've already stated, the people charged with assault were also looking for a fight, and all violence should be condemned.
> 
> 
> 
> You're lumping together peaceful protesters with violent rioters. You're saying there is a concerted right-wing effort to instigate violence at liberal protests? Outside of the two people in the situation mentioned above, where?
> 
> Leftist groups have repeatedly shut down or attempted to shut down conservative events. Right-wing groups have not done so to the left.



We're covering the same territory in the other thread on political violence, and I just replied to you there - I think what we're getting hung up on is your use of "shut down." I don't see that, but let's keep that debate to a single thread.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Tomorrow's gonna be a tough day for the DNC...
> 
> Kim Dotcom has offered proof Tuesday that Seth Rich was source of DNC hack. We'll see if this pans out....
> 
> Today's reply from Assange:
> https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
> 
> But, ma Ruhssia! REEEEEEEE!



24 hours later, I haven't heard a thing about this. Is the mainstream media lying to me, or was this another false alarm?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> 24 hours later, I haven't heard a thing about this. Is the mainstream media lying to me, or was this another false alarm?



Haven't looked very hard.

He has asked Mueller for travel assurances to and from the US.

This is a "fugitive" that does not need to come to the US. 

What do you propose his angle is, if he doesn't have evidence?


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> 24 hours later, I haven't heard a thing about this. Is the mainstream media lying to me, or was this another false alarm?



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html

Don't get your hopes up.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> But, ma Ruhssia! REEEEEEEE!



That's a pretty stupid way of characterizing the testimony of former CIA chief John Brennan regarding the fact of Russian interference in the US election. Why not explain why you think there's no evidence of Russian interference, including contact with numerous Trump staff?


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and speaking of Seth Rich...

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-news-removes-seth-rich-story/index.html

...Fox News finally removed its story on Seth Rich six days after it was debunked by CNN.

I asked a journalist I know if that's the normal amount of time, and was told that actual journalism requires confirming and vetting all sources *before* publishing a story, including getting multiple sources if a source has previously proven unreliable, and that Fox is bad at maintaining journalistic standards. 

Oh, and Twitter is not a news source.


----------



## StevenC

Explorer said:


> Oh, and speaking of Seth Rich...
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-news-removes-seth-rich-story/index.html
> 
> ...Fox News finally removed its story on Seth Rich six days after it was debunked by CNN.
> 
> I asked a journalist I know if that's the normal amount of time, and was told that actual journalism requires confirming and vetting all sources *before* publishing a story, including getting multiple sources if a source has previously proven unreliable, and that Fox is bad at maintaining journalistic standards.
> 
> Oh, and Twitter is not a news source.



To that end, according to a NYT reporter the Trump administration has tried spreading fake leaks a few times, but proper vetting means none have been published.


----------



## Drew

I know WaPo is a bunch of filthy unpatriotic libtard snowflake scum and all that, but two pertinent articles; 

Statement from Seth Rich's parents:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-card-a:homepage/story&utm_term=.fdf9028b2ea7

Article on Fox/Hannity backtracking on the story and basically admitting they've got nothing; 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...ch-715a:homepage/story&utm_term=.f73ebea47333

tl;dr - Rich's parents say there's zero evidence of Scott either leaking anything to Wikileaks or being killed by the Clinton campaign, who in fact he'd been offered a new job by the day of his murder, and frankly they're getting pretty sick of having to refute conspiracy theories involving their dead son, which is kind of a ....ty thing to have to do about one of your kids. And, Hannity is dropping the story "for now" because even he admits he's got zero evidence to go on, and Kim DotCom is backtracking from saying he's got any evidence. 

But, don't worry, conservative snowflakes, I'm sure they're just afraid the Clintons are going to kill them, and there's still a story here. 



StevenC said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/23/statement-on-coverage-seth-rich-murder-investigation.html
> 
> Don't get your hopes up.



Honestly, I wonder how solid the legal underpinnings would be if the Riches wanted to sue Fox over the treatment of this story? I'm no legal expert, but I think you could build a case that by continuing to implicate Rich for leaking DNC emails with no credible evidence and by their own admission violating their typical vetting protocols while doing so, they've engaged in libel. And, considering Fox makes their money off this kind of shoddy sensationalism, they're highly likely to keep doing it until it starts to cost them more than they make.


----------



## Fraz666




----------



## Drew

Fraz666 said:


>



So, they cover their heads in the Vatican, but not in Islamic nations? Are you SUPPOSED to cover your head when you meet the Pope? Not my area of expertise. 

I'll say this, however - the black veil is really not a great look for Melania.


----------



## Drew

Pertinent in light of yesterday's Reuters poll: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

Polling suggests that the percentage of voters who "strongly approve" of Trump has fallen by about a third from near-election peaks. Meanwhile, "somewhat approve" and "somewhat disapprove" respondents (a fairly small group as you would expect) have been pretty stable, but "strongly disapprove" voters have been steadily rising. 

My guess is not that voters are flipping from strongly approving to strongly disapproving of Trump, but rather that there's a migration going on, where about enough former strong approval voters are becoming somewhat approval respondants to replenish the numbers that are going from somewhat approving to somewhat disapproving etc etc etc. 

However, it's one more bit of evidence that Trump's supposedly ironclad base is weakening.


----------



## jaxadam

Are those the same people who said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?


----------



## tedtan

Explorer said:


> I asked a journalist I know if that's the normal amount of time, and was told that actual journalism requires confirming and vetting all sources *before* publishing a story, including getting multiple sources if a source has previously proven unreliable, and that Fox is bad at maintaining journalistic standards.
> 
> Oh, and Twitter is not a news source.



Yeah, let's not equate Fox (Breitbart, Twitter, et. al.) with actual journalism; that would be foolish. 




Drew said:


> IHonestly, I wonder how solid the legal underpinnings would be if the Riches wanted to sue Fox over the treatment of this story? I'm no legal expert, but I think you could build a case that by continuing to implicate Rich for leaking DNC emails with no credible evidence and by their own admission violating their typical vetting protocols while doing so, they've engaged in libel. And, considering Fox makes their money off this kind of shoddy sensationalism, they're highly likely to keep doing it until it starts to cost them more than they make.



I'm no expert, either, but I believe that a libel suit would only be possible if Seth were still alive. His parents may still be able to sue for harassment or something else, though.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Pertinent in light of yesterday's Reuters poll:
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/
> 
> Polling suggests that the percentage of voters who "strongly approve" of Trump has fallen by about a third from near-election peaks. Meanwhile, "somewhat approve" and "somewhat disapprove" respondents (a fairly small group as you would expect) have been pretty stable, but "strongly disapprove" voters have been steadily rising.
> 
> My guess is not that voters are flipping from strongly approving to strongly disapproving of Trump, but rather that there's a migration going on, where about enough former strong approval voters are becoming somewhat approval respondants to replenish the numbers that are going from somewhat approving to somewhat disapproving etc etc etc.
> 
> However, it's one more bit of evidence that Trump's supposedly ironclad base is weakening.



Every president takes a hit on approval/popularity about midway through the first year. It's normal, except, in this case, Trump started out with an exceptionally low approval rating out of the box. There are weekly polls on presidential approval ratings throughout Obama's administration, and there is a ton of data from Bush and Clinton.



Fraz666 said:


>



What if Gomez and Morticia were blondes?

Dubba da-dum *snap* *snap*
Dubba da-dum *snap* *snap*
Dubba da-dum, dubba da-dum, dubba da-dum *snap* *snap*


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Are those the same people who said Hillary was going to win by a landslide?



Polling on the popular vote was actually pretty accurate - the fivethirtyeight model had Clinton winning the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, and her final margin was 2.1 percentage points, within the margin of error. 

A lot of _commentators_ got it wrong, and the electoral college vote (which Trump barely eked out by around a hundred thousand votes in a couple swing states, despite his claims that he won by a landslide) decides the outcome, not the popular vote. But, the popular vote polling was pretty accurate in 2016, and anyway if we're talking a shift of ten percentage points, Trump is going to need a little more than a 2-3 point typical polling error to explain this away.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> Polling on the popular vote was actually pretty accurate - the fivethirtyeight model had Clinton winning the popular vote by 3.6 percentage points, and her final margin was 2.1 percentage points, within the margin of error.



But since their probability model was constructed on ELECTORAL votes, it seems they were very wrong. 

They just happened to get popular vote numbers close to right, but if you asked their web-team at the beginning of the campaign how they were tracking probability of win, they would have replied "Electoral college."

The URL of their site is made in reference to the number of electoral votes...


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> But since their probability model was constructed on ELECTORAL votes, it seems they were very wrong.
> 
> They just happened to get popular vote numbers close to right, but if you asked their web-team at the beginning of the campaign how they were tracking probability of win, they would have replied "Electoral college."
> 
> The URL of their site is made in reference to the number of electoral votes...



They actually ran a number of seperate models - a "polls only" and "polls plus" (which also incorporated fundamental adjustments, though that gradually factored out of the model allowing the models to converge on Election Day) of both the popular vote, and of the electoral vote. I think, considering the numbers we're talking about here are national, the popular vote one is the more meaningful metric here, but in the spirit of devil's advocacy they actually were an outlier compared to a number of other projection/metapolling sources in that their final forecast had Trump about a 1-in-3 chance of winning, as opposed to the 1-in-50 to 1-in-100 that most more "conventional wisdom" commentators were calling for. Somewhat presciently, Harry Enton's final editorial column before the election was titled "Trump is Just a Normal Polling Error Behind Clinton" . Which, again, is based on the national vote and not the electoral, but they'd been arguing as far back as the primaries that the EC favored Trump rather than Clinton. 

Long story short - the polls actually were pretty good in 2016, and their deviation from the final outcome was actually _less_ than the historical average of about 2 percentage points. The problem (for Clinton) was that her margin of error was too small to allow a normal-sized error term miss on the down side, and still win the Electoral College. 

The fact the majority of commentators were expecting a Clinton landslide, however, is an interpretation problem, and one that is impossible to reconcile with the polling immediately before the election. That's something that a lot of people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum seem to be forgetting.


----------



## bostjan

A lot of polls incorrectly predicted several states' electoral votes, all of those went for Trump. A lot of polls called Wisconsin and Virginia for Clinton with a fair degree of confidence. Other swing states usually were predicted to go for Clinton, but with less room for error: PA, MI, NC, and FL, in particular. The results seemed to all go Trumpways.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> A lot of polls incorrectly predicted several states' electoral votes, all of those went for Trump. A lot of polls called Wisconsin and Virginia for Clinton with a fair degree of confidence. Other swing states usually were predicted to go for Clinton, but with less room for error: PA, MI, NC, and FL, in particular. The results seemed to all go Trumpways.



...which is all consistent with a narrow 1-2 point miss in the same direction. 

Interpreting this stuff seems a lot easier than it is because outcomes are binary; either Clinton wins, or she loses. Either Trump wins, or she loses. It seems totally black and white because, well, it is. And, if you had a lot of people saying "Clinton's going to win," and then she doesn't, that seems like a huge miss. 

The problem though is prior to that it's a question of probability and a range of outcomes, rather than binary. While it's usually talked about in terms of the probability of a candidate winning because, well, binary outcomes, it's really kind of the reverse of that; a poll is basically a sample-based estimation of the underlying population of voters. Assuming that it's the day before the election and no voters are going to change their mind by election day, where a poll is probabilistic is "given the true population values, what is the probability that our estimation drawn from a random sample of a certain size is an accurate estimation, with accuracy defined as the true value following within a certain confidence band around the estimation?" 

All by the way of background; where I'm going with this is this. Polls are a sample-based estimation of the actual voting preferences of a population. They're generally considered "accurate" if the results fall within a certain confidence range - say, a two standard deviation band on either side, for a 95% confidence band. This is a pretty good approach for determining a range where a value is likely to fall, and with the exception of a couple high profile examples - say, Sanders in the Michigan primary - polling was pretty good in the primaries and general election at estimating the range within where actual voting preferences would fall. 

The problem, is you're taking all of these range-based measurements, and then putting them into a binary decision based model, where rather than estimating the range at which a value falls within say 2 percentage points, you're instead using them to predict a binary outcome - Trump wins, or Clinton wins. And, this is where we saw a major poll interpretation issue; commentators were by and large correct in showing that the polls generally favored Hillary Clinton, certainly in the popular vote, but also arguably in the Electoral College. Where they went wrong, however, was in ignoring the fact that within the confidence band on either side of the mean, however, were totally plausible scenarios where the polls would still be accurate within their margin of error, but that the binary outcome we would receive would be a Trump victory. 

Long story short - the polls got the _outcome_ wrong in 2016 in the most literal sense, but looking objectively at what happening, they were fairly accurate in forcasting the range within which voter preference should fall. The problem is that within that range, either candidate winning was a distinct possibility, and a lot of commentators assumed it was not.

EDIT - taking this a step further, a case could be made that Fivethirtyeight's estimation of Trump at about a 29% chance of winning was actually too generous. If the typical popular vote error term is +/-2 points, and given how narrowly Clinton lost the swing states that tipped the election we assume that underperformance of 1.5% was about the breakpoint between her winning and her losing, and furthermore assuming the error terms are serially correlated across all states (which we saw in practice, and my suspicion is modeling this is one of the reasons 538 gave Trump a much better shot than most other models), then you could simplify the argument far enough to say that Trump needed to outperform the projected mean sampled value of a 3.6 point Clinton margin in the top octile in order to win. That's equivalent with saying that in 12.5% of possible error terms, he wins, which is about 2 1/2 times smaller than the liklihood the 538 model gave him.

Long story short, looking at polling as a fixed value rather than a probabalistic range is a mistake when trying to use it to interpret binary outcomes. To come full circle and return to the original gist here, it's NOT nearly as risky when you're trying to measure the value itself, and not how the value could impact a binary outcome. I don't know off the top of my head what the margin of error is in the polling data fivethrityeight was using in this analysis, but to explain a 10 point swing, it would need to be bigger than +/-5 points, which would definitely be seriously high for aggregated polling data. Anything inside of five points, however, and we're seeing a statistically significant erosion in Trump's base. 

EDIT #2 - I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this, however, seeing as the right is evidently not fond of science or statistics.


----------



## Drew

Drew said:


> stuff



You know, that's a LOT of text. The tl;dr version for anyone who doesn't want to wade through it all is two basic points;

1) polls aren't an attempt to directly measure the winner of a race (though that's the end goal of analyzing them), so much as to estimate within a hopefully-tight range what the intentions of voters are through sampling. The actual results of the 2016 election fell within this range and the range itself was within historical norms for tightness, which is another way of saying the polls were "accurate" by any statistical measure. The people interpreting them, however, by and large overlooked the fact that the estimated range included values that could plausibly project both binary outcomes, a Clinton victory but also a Trump one. 

2) that's less of a concern when you're not trying to take an estimated measurement and use it to project a binary outcome. Here, when analyzing how Trump's "core base" support is doing, that isn't a concern. And, given a ten point deterioration, for that to be statistical noise you'd need to swing from one end to the other end of a 5 point margin of error. That would be an _unusually_ high margin of error from aggregated polling data, which makes the argument that this deterioration isn't statistically significant awfully hard to make. 

For anyone who wants to go into it in greater depth, refer to my original, longer post. If you want to attribute this slide to bad polling, however, the short of it is that polls were pretty _good_ in 2016 despite being used to project the wrong outcome, and that they would have to be unusually _bad_ subsequently for this erosion to be a measurement error.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> So, they cover their heads in the Vatican, but not in Islamic nations? Are you SUPPOSED to cover your head when you meet the Pope? Not my area of expertise.
> 
> I'll say this, however - the black veil is really not a great look for Melania.



Women are very much supposed to cover their heads and wear black when meeting the Pope. However, women can be allowed to wear white specifically by the Pope. It's to the point that when the Pope is doing tours and appearances that women in the crowds, not even close to the Pope cover their heads. Also, it's not even a respect thing in deference to Catholic culture, as you won't be granted access to him otherwise.

The interesting parts about this encounter are that this usually cheerful Pope didn't smile once during his time with the Trumps, and in the traditional gift exchange gave Trump a copy of his 2015 speech about climate change and reducing use of fossil fuels.


----------



## CapnForsaggio




----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


>



At least we can agree on George Carlin.


----------



## Explorer

Although the majority-Republican Congress hasn't really gotten into it, one of the items to be looked at by the special investigator is the forensic evidence regarding Russian hacking of voting machines. There was found to be evidence of strange but small amounts of votes being flipped, enough to change the election. 

Personally, I prefer any such questions be resolved by the special investigator. I look forward to him proving that 538 was completely off, or not.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> stuff



It should go without saying that, if a prediction is 70% sure that Clinton would win, it's saying that there is a ~30% chance of Trump winning. The fact stands, though, that if I predicted Clinton would win, which I did, then I would have been wrong, which I was. The same goes for the pre-election polls. The polls with lower confidence levels were still wrong; it's just less embarrassing.

Here's my take as to why:

1. Trump supporters were less likely to talk to pollsters.
2. Trump supporters were far more likely to state that they were undecided than Clinton supporters.
3. Clinton supporters in swing states didn't turn out in the numbers polls predicted, due to a relative lack of enthusiasm in those places.

HRC received 6% more votes than DJT in the popular vote. This is a pretty big margin in a presidential election. But DJT received 33% more electoral votes, which, love it or hate it, is a landslide. How can an election be a landslide win for one candidate in the electoral college (despite several protest votes) and, yet, still be a fairly robust win for the other candidate in the popular vote? I suppose that should be a rhetorical question.

Anyway, the election is long over now, but the consequences are only just beginning. 

For one, this exposed the level of imbalance between the popular vote and the electoral college, which was never intended by our nation's founders to be. This needs to be the focus of reform over the coming years.

For two, we now have a dude in the Oval Office who seems to be flying the nation by the seat of his pants. This has been the most scandalous president since Nixon, and the lowest peak approval rating ever (20 points less than Nixon's peak) and the lowest average approval rating ever. He's generally non-cooperative, he's wrong a lot, and he's super sure of himself to boot.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It should go without saying that, if a prediction is 70% sure that Clinton would win, it's saying that there is a ~30% chance of Trump winning. The fact stands, though, that if I predicted Clinton would win, which I did, then I would have been wrong, which I was. The same goes for the pre-election polls. The polls with lower confidence levels were still wrong; it's just less embarrassing.



Well, that's the point of forecasting in a probabilistic distribution, rather than as a binary. Remember,t he 538 model never said "we predict Clinton will win, end of story," so much as "we predict there's a 70% chance Clinton will win, and a 30% chance Trump will win." I realize this may seem like a subtle distinction, but polling was never a DIRECT attempt to project the winner, so much as to measure voter support. The polls did a pretty good job of this (nationally, 1.5 points off the final margin), but the race was close enough that small differences could change the outcome. 

All of this is a lead-in to this simple conclusion - if you see a 10 percentage point slide in Trump's "strongly approve" ratings, if you're a Trump supporter and are going to attribute that to "the polls are inaccurate," well, we're a long way from 2018 and 2020 and things could still change between now and then, but if things don't, Trump and his supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening. 

Neither here nor there, but I also think the "divided government" effect is being ignored by the GOP - it's easy to forget with the benefit of hindsight after a Trump win, but a lot of the GOP candidates explicitly ran on a pledge to be a check against President Clinton if they were sent to Washington. That shoe is now on the other foot, in a big way.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, that's the point of forecasting in a probabilistic distribution, rather than as a binary. Remember,t he 538 model never said "we predict Clinton will win, end of story," so much as "we predict there's a 70% chance Clinton will win, and a 30% chance Trump will win." I realize this may seem like a subtle distinction, but polling was never a DIRECT attempt to project the winner, so much as to measure voter support. The polls did a pretty good job of this (nationally, 1.5 points off the final margin), but the race was close enough that small differences could change the outcome.



Mmmm...well, mostly yes. The problem is, during an election, if you very carefully come out and say: "here's some data that shows that X is 70% likely to beat Y, but we are not directly attempting to project a winner," and Y somehow wins, then people are still going to say that you were wrong. I guess the question is how you view data as right or wrong... data is only as good as your sampling, but the data is what it is, and there's really no wiggling around with it, unless you are a politician or a salesman. I think the problem with the data, in this case, was what I outlines above, which essentially equates to an internal bias in the sample.

That's the funny thing about people. You know, you can collect data on pretty much whatever, and, if you are careful enough in your sampling and your data collection, you WILL get good data, UNLESS there is a human influence. People play games with surveys and polls and things of that nature.

I will reference a game called "guess 2/3 of the average." It's a simple game, and I bet you know all about it. Maybe I even brought it up in this thread before - I don't recall if I did. Anyway, a bunch of people guess a number between 0 and 100 and the closest to 2/3 of the average wins a significantly nice prize. So, what would be the winning guess? Well, if a computer were to guess, it'd guess zero. Why? Well, if a number were chosen at total random, the average would be 50, 2/3 of which would be 33. But, knowing that it is not random, seeing as how there is motivation to win, single iteration would yield more guesses of 33, so the 2/3 average would be more like 22. After a substantial number of iterations of this logic, the best strategy is to guess zero. But...every time this simulation is run IRL with humans, the winning number is around 22. So, on average, people assume one iteration. Guessing a lower number doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you less in touch with the way people think, on average.

That's why these elections are so difficult to predict. I thought this one was in the bag for HRC, not because I knew a bunch of people who were voting for HRC, but because of the complex soup of circumstances: DJT was an awful candidate, he was receiving horrible press, he crashed hard at the debates, he was a joke - polls were saying that HRC was likely to win, gambling outlets had very high paying odds for Trump and almost no returns on HRC, the GOP seemed to be fading away, and HRC was basically the incumbent. But Trump won in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, because people in those places really hated HRC, generally leaned toward GOP values, and put less stress on DJT's flaws. Trump won in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, because people in those places thought he'd improve the industrial economy. Between the factory belt and the southern swing states, HRC failed to gain an inch of ground, so she was obliterated in the electoral college. In my mind, I never considered Trump a viable economic choice, since he couldn't seem to put together a coherent thought about the economy, but, I guess "Make America Great Again" resonated with people, despite the lack of concrete meaning in it.



Drew said:


> All of this is a lead-in to this simple conclusion - if you see a 10 percentage point slide in Trump's "strongly approve" ratings, if you're a Trump supporter and are going to attribute that to "the polls are inaccurate," well, we're a long way from 2018 and 2020 and things could still change between now and then, but if things don't, Trump and his supporters are going to be in for a rude awakening.
> 
> Neither here nor there, but I also think the "divided government" effect is being ignored by the GOP - it's easy to forget with the benefit of hindsight after a Trump win, but a lot of the GOP candidates explicitly ran on a pledge to be a check against President Clinton if they were sent to Washington. That shoe is now on the other foot, in a big way.



My only point was that this first four± months of Trump have been historically bad. When Trump says that no other president has been treated so poorly in office, he's, well, he's technically wrong, but I think he is on to something. No other president has performed so poorly with public opinion during the first five months, since public opinion of the president was recorded. No other president has faced so much scrutiny in the media, since the advent of television - but what is his point if he points this stuff out?! If he wants to go down in history as a shakeup president who fearlessly stood up for the little voices of people who had been wronged by society, or whatever, then he's going to face this sort of opposition. Or...maybe he's just a bad president. We'll know better in hindsight, but, man, hindsight of the past few months already looks really cringe-worthy.


----------



## Explorer

Ouch. 

Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin

Well... that's unfortunate.

It's also interesting to read that Comey didn't dismiss a story because doing so would have alerted the Russians that the FBI knew the story had been faked, which would have alerted the Russians as to US intelligence capabilities.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/polit...tigation-fake-russian-intelligence/index.html

It'a distressing to me to think that a political party might downplay Russian involvement, buying advancement of their agenda by selling out American democracy. 

Why do they hate America?


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> That's the funny thing about people. You know, you can collect data on pretty much whatever, and, if you are careful enough in your sampling and your data collection, you WILL get good data, UNLESS there is a human influence. People play games with surveys and polls and things of that nature.
> 
> I will reference a game called "guess 2/3 of the average." It's a simple game, and I bet you know all about it. Maybe I even brought it up in this thread before - I don't recall if I did. Anyway, a bunch of people guess a number between 0 and 100 and the closest to 2/3 of the average wins a significantly nice prize. So, what would be the winning guess? Well, if a computer were to guess, it'd guess zero. Why? Well, if a number were chosen at total random, the average would be 50, 2/3 of which would be 33. But, knowing that it is not random, seeing as how there is motivation to win, single iteration would yield more guesses of 33, so the 2/3 average would be more like 22. After a substantial number of iterations of this logic, the best strategy is to guess zero. But...every time this simulation is run IRL with humans, the winning number is around 22. So, on average, people assume one iteration. Guessing a lower number doesn't make you smarter, it just makes you less in touch with the way people think, on average.
> 
> That's why these elections are so difficult to predict.



Is that really the case? I mean, the polls were off because of poor sampling, but I don't think humans were playing games. Seems like pollers didn't go the extra mile to get good uncertainty estimates of the population that wasn't being included in the polling samples.

But yea, I also think it's funny if polling is fed into a predictive model and the model predicts something like Hillary 70%, and Trump wins, and everyone says, "What did we get so wrong?" A lot of questions on a probability theory exam, most likely.


----------



## LosingSleep

I love how much Trumps victory pisses everyone off so much. The butthurt alone makes me glad he won. That being said, I didn't vote for him or Clinton. We basically got the choice between a babbling idiot and a lying sociopath. It was lose lose either way. 
I think Trumps disregard for the United States Constitution is what is really grinding my gears. You can't attack another country without congressional approval or an imminent threat. That is unconstitutional by a mile. That paired with the fact that he previously shamed Apple for upholding the Fourth Amendment and refusing to create a back door for government agencies to access citizens private data.


----------



## StevenC

I wouldn't call Hillary a babbling idiot, exactly.


----------



## narad

'babbling idiot' is the new 'nasty woman'


----------



## LosingSleep

StevenC said:


> I wouldn't call Hillary a babbling idiot, exactly.


You got 'em backwards son.


----------



## LosingSleep

narad said:


> 'babbling idiot' is the new 'nasty woman'


She is pretty nasty  
As my dad says; "That fucking dyke pissing standing up."


----------



## StevenC

Should I try again Pop Pop? I'll try again.



LosingSleep said:


> We basically got the choice between a babbling idiot and a lying sociopath.



...Or Clinton?


----------



## narad

Well my dad thinks that global warming is caused by metallic aerosols that are being sprayed from commercial airliners. Dads are not to be consulted.


----------



## Blytheryn

narad said:


> Well my dad thinks that global warming is caused by metallic aerosols that are being sprayed from commercial airliners. Dads are not to be consulted.


Mine too, it seems to be a common dad thing.


----------



## LosingSleep

StevenC said:


> Should I try again Pop Pop? I'll try again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...Or Clinton?



...that would imply Clinton would be a third choice.

You seem to be hesitant to judge Clinton. No politicians get to that level by being honest. Not Trump, Clinton, Bush, or Obama.


----------



## LosingSleep

narad said:


> Well my dad thinks that global warming is caused by metallic aerosols that are being sprayed from commercial airliners. Dads are not to be consulted.



Dads give the best pseudo knowledge though!


----------



## EdgeC

narad said:


> Well my dad thinks that global warming is caused by metallic aerosols that are being sprayed from commercial airliners. Dads are not to be consulted.



Yeah, but Dads also vote. That's part of the problem I think. I'm sure mine would have voted Trump if we were Americans.


----------



## EdgeC

Over here the Mexicans come by boat apparently. Gotta stop those boats!


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

@EdgeC


----------



## Insomnia

Essentially what you guys in the USA had was:

A xenophobic, idealistic narcissist who lied to his main vote about getting them jobs.

Or...

A lying, cheating, corrupt politician who's pushed her way to power through


AngstRiddenDreams said:


> @EdgeC



So they admit the majority of immigrants don't assimilate well?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Insomnia said:


> So they admit the majority of immigrants don't assimilate well?


It's parody dude


----------



## EdgeC

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> @EdgeC






I miss these guys.


----------



## Insomnia

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> It's parody dude


Obviously. But they were essentially mocking the anti-immigration guy, but in doing that, gave stats that say the majority of immigrants don't assimilate well.


----------



## bostjan

Those tin-foil-hat-level conspiracies are pretty laughable, but really, until you approach them logically, and look at the evidence, you can't really disprove them.

The claim that global climate change is influenced by the airline industry might have some solid evidence to support it...the caveat that it has something to do with metal particles sprayed out of engines might even have a tiny shred of truth to it.

One of the strangers ones I've heard, though, was that the Titanic never sunk, and that the people who died were all a part of some sort of military weapons test gone wrong. In that case, there are tons of eyewitness testimonies from people who survived the incident, so it's highly unlikely that any of those stories about conspiracy are feasible at the fundamental level.

You can pick apart the Moon-landing, the JFK assassination, the 9/11 attacks, etc. etc., and each and every one of them has little weird things that people seem to get stuck on- most of which can be satisfactorily explained to fit conventional knowledge of the facts, but these older guys usually just shrug off logical explanations of things, and then bring up talking points that are progressively less and less accepted.

Probably Trump is one of those guys who thinks that Hitler is sipping a Pina Colata on the beaches of Argentina right now, despite his advanced age. But, this is a world where guys like Trump rule the roost, and things don't have to make sense or be right to be imposed as the truth, where if you like the guy in office, you don't need to see his tax returns, but, if you don't like him, then he's obviously an illegal immigrant, in spite of the birth certificate (obviously faked, I mean, come on, his name sounds foreign).

When I was a kid, I was told not to dish it out if I couldn't take it back.

Tell me why we didn't vote for Gary Johnson? He was ill-prepared for office? Well, hmm, he was way better prepared than what we ended up with. Wasn't up-to-date on Syria? Well, I'd rather have someone uninterested than a guy willing to stomp on Russia's toes and accidentally release chemical weapons in the area.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Tell me why we didn't vote for Gary Johnson? He was ill-prepared for office? Well, hmm, he was way better prepared than what we ended up with. Wasn't up-to-date on Syria? Well, I'd rather have someone uninterested than a guy willing to stomp on Russia's toes and accidentally release chemical weapons in the area.



That's why I wish we could have a second or third choice when voting. 

Looking back, if I had known Trump was going to make it I would have welcomed Johnson, as much as I disliked a lot of his platform.


----------



## bostjan

I just couldn't bring myself to pull the handle for HRC. Of course, living in VT, I highly doubt there would ever be a situation where my state's electors would go toward a republican candidate for president. Our local republicans are probably, on average, more liberal than Wisconsin's democrats.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> My only point was that this first four± months of Trump have been historically bad. When Trump says that no other president has been treated so poorly in office, he's, well, he's technically wrong, but I think he is on to something. No other president has performed so poorly with public opinion during the first five months, since public opinion of the president was recorded. No other president has faced so much scrutiny in the media, since the advent of television - but what is his point if he points this stuff out?! If he wants to go down in history as a shakeup president who fearlessly stood up for the little voices of people who had been wronged by society, or whatever, then he's going to face this sort of opposition. Or...maybe he's just a bad president. We'll know better in hindsight, but, man, hindsight of the past few months already looks really cringe-worthy.



Well, there's also a cart-before-horse element to this. Is he doing so poorly in the polls because he's being "treated so poorly"? Or is he polling so horribly because he's making a grade-A screw-up of his presidency? Considering he's allegedly in the process of a reshuffling to lawyer up and put together a "war room" on the Russia scandal, and is deprioritizing policy objectives to do so (and the departure of the WH communications director today adds some public credence to those rumors), well, I'd argue there's a pretty strong case to be made that he IS botching this, and the polls are a product of the fact he's just really, really, really bad at being president. 

Which, in some ways, is a shame. Without getting deep into specifics, I spent the weekend WAY off the beaten path in New England, way outside of the urban/suburban economic centers, which drove home all over again a few impressions spending some time in Appalachia a month and change after the election left me with. Essentially, there ARE large swaths of this company that have been economically left behind, and that in my day to day life here in the greater Boston area, while I'm seeing a lot of income inequality, barring the homeless (of which they're unchanged from pre-market crash days in number and quality of life, and if anything doing a little better as more support is being provided to them) there really isn't all that extreme a low end; there are people here struggling to make ends meet, but while it's by no means easy, there's enough of a chance that people are still struggling. In some parts of the country, I feel like they've stopped; the economy has moved on and forgot about them, if there ever was a place for them in the first place. 

And that's the real tragedy of all this - in addition to the more overt stuff, like a direct attack on the healthcare system that expanded coverage to many of the working poor and a war on the civil liberties of muslims, blacks, and the LGBT community, the election of Trump in a scandal-plagued election that's now collapsing into a protracted battle on just how deep his ties to Russia were during the election and if there was any knowing collusion means that the absolute BEST case for those Americans is two to four years of lost time where we could be trying to make things better for them. And that lost time could be absolutely crushing for their chance of ever getting back on their feet. 

I guess as a related observation, I do feel that if Americans traveled more, both domestically and abroad, we'd probably have a lot more empathy. It's too easy to assume everything is the same as the life you live if you never step outside of that comfort zone. Someone who's never left a small town in West Virginia will struggle to understand what the "liberal elite" think about racial tension if they haven't spent any meaningful time in a major city, while someone whose life revolves around a five block area of Manhattan will never understand poverty in the same way if all he or she ever sees of it is a bunch of homeless guys panhandling, and has never seen a town struggling for its economic survival because the mills closed twenty years before and nothing's left.


----------



## Drew

LosingSleep said:


> ...that would imply Clinton would be a third choice.
> 
> You seem to be hesitant to judge Clinton. No politicians get to that level by being honest. Not Trump, Clinton, Bush, or Obama.



Wait, so Clinton's problem was "she's the same as every other politician," and Trump's was he was a "babbling idiot," and somehow this was even a decision to mull over? 

I give zero f*cks about how Clinton pees. I care a whole heck of a lot more about how she'd govern, and I think even if you didn't love her on policy, she'd do worlds better than the "babbling idiot" we did elect.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Insomnia said:


> Obviously. But they were essentially mocking the anti-immigration guy, but in doing that, gave stats that say the majority of immigrants don't assimilate well.


I beg to differ. The only statement made with regards to that is them saying that the immigrants by plane have more success. To interpret that as meaning the majority of immigrants don't assimilate well is far from true. Especially when they said the majority of the immigrants come by plane, meaning the majority of them have higher success.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, there's also a cart-before-horse element to this. Is he doing so poorly in the polls because he's being "treated so poorly"? Or is he polling so horribly because he's making a grade-A screw-up of his presidency? Considering he's allegedly in the process of a reshuffling to lawyer up and put together a "war room" on the Russia scandal, and is deprioritizing policy objectives to do so (and the departure of the WH communications director today adds some public credence to those rumors), well, I'd argue there's a pretty strong case to be made that he IS botching this, and the polls are a product of the fact he's just really, really, really bad at being president.
> 
> Which, in some ways, is a shame. Without getting deep into specifics, I spent the weekend WAY off the beaten path in New England, way outside of the urban/suburban economic centers, which drove home all over again a few impressions spending some time in Appalachia a month and change after the election left me with. Essentially, there ARE large swaths of this company that have been economically left behind, and that in my day to day life here in the greater Boston area, while I'm seeing a lot of income inequality, barring the homeless (of which they're unchanged from pre-market crash days in number and quality of life, and if anything doing a little better as more support is being provided to them) there really isn't all that extreme a low end; there are people here struggling to make ends meet, but while it's by no means easy, there's enough of a chance that people are still struggling. In some parts of the country, I feel like they've stopped; the economy has moved on and forgot about them, if there ever was a place for them in the first place.
> 
> And that's the real tragedy of all this - in addition to the more overt stuff, like a direct attack on the healthcare system that expanded coverage to many of the working poor and a war on the civil liberties of muslims, blacks, and the LGBT community, the election of Trump in a scandal-plagued election that's now collapsing into a protracted battle on just how deep his ties to Russia were during the election and if there was any knowing collusion means that the absolute BEST case for those Americans is two to four years of lost time where we could be trying to make things better for them. And that lost time could be absolutely crushing for their chance of ever getting back on their feet.
> 
> I guess as a related observation, I do feel that if Americans traveled more, both domestically and abroad, we'd probably have a lot more empathy. It's too easy to assume everything is the same as the life you live if you never step outside of that comfort zone. Someone who's never left a small town in West Virginia will struggle to understand what the "liberal elite" think about racial tension if they haven't spent any meaningful time in a major city, while someone whose life revolves around a five block area of Manhattan will never understand poverty in the same way if all he or she ever sees of it is a bunch of homeless guys panhandling, and has never seen a town struggling for its economic survival because the mills closed twenty years before and nothing's left.



Well, either:

A) He's catching flack for being bad at his job.

OR

B) He's catching flack because he is shaking things up in such a way that would directly precipitate trouble.

So... either way, he should be expecting to catch flack. Whether you believe A or you believe B, the end result is that Trump will catch a lot of flack.

Whether A or B is more correct still stand to be 100% determined, but, I mean, come on, the guy has not made good on any of his promises except to block the US's involvement in the TPP (not that that does us a damn bit of good if the TPP still happens without us).

I guess each individual is free to judge, but if he's judged to some sort of rubric, then maybe we can have a discussion.

So far, the rubrics used to judge a president are based upon measured policy change, changes in the economic strength of the nation, and approval ratings. The economy, so far this year, seems to be following, more or less, the trends of 2015 and 2016, so it's too early to tell, but overall he has not been bad enough to tank it. The other two metrics, though, reflect poor performance. That's not to say that any of those metrics are 100% in Trump's control either, for better or worse. It's safe to say, though, that his overall scorecard so far is poor. I have a number of issues to take up with his work, myself, but that's a biased way to grade him, you know?



Drew said:


> Wait, so Clinton's problem was "she's the same as every other politician," and Trump's was he was a "babbling idiot," and somehow this was even a decision to mull over?
> 
> I give zero f*cks about how Clinton pees. I care a whole heck of a lot more about how she'd govern, and I think even if you didn't love her on policy, she'd do worlds better than the "babbling idiot" we did elect.



You can say fuck on here now. 

Anyways, while I agree that HRC has a few qualities that would make her better overall than Trump, her disregard for facts coupled with her aggressive military policy meant that I simply could not support her. I'm certain that I was not the only one who felt that way.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Anyways, while I agree that HRC has a few qualities that would make her better overall than Trump, her disregard for facts coupled with her aggressive military policy meant that I simply could not support her. I'm certain that I was not the only one who felt that way.



For the life of me I don't understand how you could say that about Clinton and not Trump. 

Really, all the things that folks seem to drag Clinton for Trump embodies in some way. 

I'm not even a major Clinton supporter and it just comes off as some real cognitive dissonance.

What am I missing? What makes her dishonesty worse than his? What makes her sword rattling worse than his?


----------



## narad

^^ I was on the phone with my grandmother a bit prior to the election. We were kind of discussing the wall, as that was big in the media at the time. After a bit of that, I was like, 

"So, does that mean you're voting for Hillary?" 

"Mmmm....I don't know...Hillary has some crazy ideas..."

..BUT GRANDMAAAA


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> For the life of me I don't understand how you could say that about Clinton and not Trump.
> 
> Really, all the things that folks seem to drag Clinton for Trump embodies in some way.
> 
> I'm not even a major Clinton supporter and it just comes off as some real cognitive dissonance.
> 
> What am I missing? What makes her dishonesty worse than his? What makes her sword rattling worse than his?



But I have said the same thing about Trump, just not in that particular post.

That was my issue with the last election. Both mainstream candidates embodied horrible things, many of the same horrible things, to me, at least.

I saw both HRC and DJT as mentally unstable, and I simply could not rationalize a scenario in which I should have supported either candidate. The idea that a vote for a third option was a vote for the worse of those two did not resonate with me. And, to be fair, I didn't like the third option or the fourth option much, either, but I saw those as far less threatening. Again, not that my vote made any difference at any rate.


----------



## vilk

You know why Gary Johnson didn't know about Aleppo? Because his policy would have pulled us out. Even as someone who reads the news constantly, I myself didn't know about Aleppo until I saw that clip of Johnson. You see, it's less important to know the particulars of civil wars in distant, sovereign states when you have no intention of furthering our interference.


Honestly, I'm not sure how we're going to fix partisan politics until we integrate an ordered preference system of elections.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> You know why Gary Johnson didn't know about Aleppo? Because his policy would have pulled us out. Even as someone who reads the news constantly, I myself didn't know about Aleppo until I saw that clip of Johnson. You see, it's less important to know the particulars of civil wars in distant, sovereign states when you have no intention of furthering our interference.



Agreed. The Libertarian platform is all about domestic policy and avoiding involvement in foreign wars. I mean, if George Foreman wanted to become a chef at a restaurant, I'd not be surprised if he wanted to grill up some lean burgers. 

My turn off with Johnson was mainly with the sarcasm he put on exhibition during public interviews. I know he may have been trying to get people's attention, but I think he might have handled it better.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> You know why Gary Johnson didn't know about Aleppo? Because his policy would have pulled us out. Even as someone who reads the news constantly, I myself didn't know about Aleppo until I saw that clip of Johnson. You see, it's less important to know the particulars of civil wars in distant, sovereign states when you have no intention of furthering our interference.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure how we're going to fix partisan politics until we integrate an ordered preference system of elections.





bostjan said:


> Agreed. The Libertarian platform is all about domestic policy and avoiding involvement in foreign wars. I mean, if George Foreman wanted to become a chef at a restaurant, I'd not be surprised if he wanted to grill up some lean burgers.
> 
> My turn off with Johnson was mainly with the sarcasm he put on exhibition during public interviews. I know he may have been trying to get people's attention, but I think he might have handled it better.



Like it or not, and I tend to fall into the "not" category, the United States is a very active abroad when it comes to military intervention.

Even if we were to unilaterally pull out of all foreign conflicts we'd have to do it properly and the first step of that is having an idea of what's going on.

Johnson's ignorance of foreign affairs is on par with Trump's ignorance of how healthcare works, or doesn't, for much of this nation. How can you ever hope of making legitimate positive change when you have no clue?

All that aside, it was Johnson's views on worker's rights, health care and economics that made me ultimate not even consider him as a candidate.


----------



## Drew

What Max said, basically, though I'll add that there's another wrinkle, in that if he'd immediately replied exactly what you just said, that Aleppo wasn't even on his radar because part of his platform was to pull the US out of the whole region, that actually would have been a pretty reasonable response. The fact that he basically just stammered showed that not only was he unprepared to speak to foreign policy (which, last I checked, is important if you're the President of the US), he also wasn't prepared for the interview, either by doing his homework to talk intelligently about foreign policy in an interview where he knew it would come up, or by at least having coherent reasons why he WOULDN'T be getting deep into the weeds on foreign policy. 

The problem with any anti-engagement platform is if the US were to just pull anchor and send all the troops home, we'd be leaving a massive leadership gap in the international community and god only knows what would fill it. I personally think that as a force of moral authority (accurately or not, we're often seen as such) that gives us a lot more international leverage than we might otherwise have and that's a good thing, but if you truly DID want to cede the US's place as the sole global superpower, it would have to be an orderly wind-down where pan-national organizations like the UN and NATO were gradually ramped up to fill the void we were leaving, rather than a sudden shutting off of the lights, drawing the blinds, and walking out the door. Great power, great responsibility, and all that - we really can't walk away without making a mess of things, at least not without a transition plan.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The problem with any anti-engagement platform is if the US were to just pull anchor and send all the troops home, we'd be leaving a massive leadership gap in the international community and god only knows what would fill it.



Some would say "so?"

The biggest mistakes our country has made in recent history have been Vietnam and Iraq. If Bush Sr. had not intervened in the Kuwait/Iraq affair, 911 would have very likely not happened years later. GJ might have been silly and brushed things off, in my mind, he did it to make a statement, sarcastically, but whether he did or not, as I said, he handled things poorly. That said, I would much rather pull out of these foreign wars that are costing American lives overseas and running up bills of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars (for nothing) and deal with the rest of his platform (Weld seemed to be a better candidate, but that might simply be because he hid from the spotlight) and leave a mess than to continue making a mess and continue the senseless killing and pointless fighting and unbounded spending.

The USA is a huge player in international politics. But a) we do not have any obligation to do so and b) we could continue being such without pushing as much of a wartime agenda. It's pretty simple if you make it so.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Some would say "so?"



If I learned anything from 9/11, it's this - if we destabilize the world elsewhere, it CAN come home and effect us here. The oceans aren't as effective a buffer, in this globalized world, as they used to be, so we no longer can think of maintaining global stability as an option, when it comes to our own security at home.

That's something we have to weigh very carefully when engaging overseas, but it's ALSO something we have to weigh very carefully when choosing to DIS-engage, too.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> That's something we have to weigh very carefully when engaging overseas, but it's ALSO something we have to weigh very carefully when choosing to DIS-engage, too.



Sure....except the candidate who promises to carefully disengage merely ends up not doing anything, and eventually engaging in more foreign wars. What the hell is so challenging about not getting involved in the first place?!

There are plenty of people who believe strongly that going to war with Iraq was the right choice. I felt very strongly at the time that it was a bad choice, and I feel as though I could not have been any more validated in that particular opinion with the way things turned out.

I think we ought to hold our politicians at least to the same standard we hold our peers, if not a higher one. If somebody gets my vote by claiming to have a strategy to disengage, then I expect results, not excuses. Do you think, if I got a job nailing jello to the wall by promising I had a strategy worked out, then, weeks later said "Yeah, but you don't understand how challenging it is to actually nail actual jello to an actual wall," do you think that would be sufficient for me not to be fired immediately? Good intentions coupled with a fibbed level of preparedness still makes for disappointment.

Anyway, Trump did the same damn thing to his followers. Here's a partial list of his promises:

1. 1st executive order was supposed to be death penalty for cop killers: X
2. Not signing any executive orders: X
3. No cuts to Social Security: X
4. No cuts to Medicaid: X
5. Immediate travel ban on Muslims: X
6. Build a border wall: ...
7. ...and have Mexico pay for it: X
8. Immediately impose term limits on congress: X
9. Immediately open an investigation on HRC: X
10. Immediately stop Common Core: X
11. Ban White House officials from becoming lobbyists: +
12. Go down to 3 tax brackets: ...
13. Eliminate the death tax: ...
14. Deport all illegal immigrants: ...
15. Reneg NAFTA: ...
16. Take no salary: + (so far)


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Sure....except the candidate who promises to carefully disengage merely ends up not doing anything, and eventually engaging in more foreign wars. What the hell is so challenging about not getting involved in the first place?!



I mean, I was strongly opposed to Iraq, too. But, the problem is, unless you've got a time machine, we can't go back and undo that, so we own what happens next. There's no sense in pretending otherwise. We can be careful about engaging in NEW conflicts, instead deferring to UN or NATO action, but we can't just walk away without an exit plan - bare minimum, we need to work with NATO or the UN to gradually replace a US presence with a UN one. 

If Johnson's plan was "what the fuck do I care about Aleppo, since I plan on pulling US troops out of the Middle East," well, that's optimism, that's not a realistic plan.


----------



## synrgy

bostjan said:


> 11. Ban White House officials from becoming lobbyists: +



I love how, despite that, he hired lobbyists to help run his campaign and then after getting elected he hired lobbyists to official White House positions.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> If Johnson's plan was "what the fuck do I care about Aleppo, since I plan on pulling US troops out of the Middle East," well, that's optimism, that's not a realistic plan.



Perhaps it's just semantics, but I disagree. For one, the US wasn't in Syria at the time, so I think you are being overly dismissive.



synrgy said:


> I love how, despite that, he hired lobbyists to help run his campaign and then after getting elected he hired lobbyists to official White House positions.



Well, haha, I don't have enough time left in the day to go over Trump's hypocrisy. Maybe I should have marked that with an asterisk. At any rate, his scorecard for campaign promises coming true is piss poor. He made a lot of promises, and, he stressed that his promises would be kept, unlike all of the politician-types before him. That was a flaming bag of dog shit. Trump knocked, and the US public stepped right in it. Right in it.


----------



## Drew

Fair point. Nor are we currently in Aleppo or Syria. However, I think my broader point - we can't just diplomatically and militarily withdraw from the entire Middle East region, since you break it you buy it - still stands.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Fair point. Nor are we currently in Aleppo or Syria. However, I think my broader point - we can't just diplomatically and militarily withdraw from the entire Middle East region, since you break it you buy it - still stands.



We can't afford it, in this case, and we already broke it.

A full military withdrawal from Iraq is what is best (read:least bad) for the region and for the USA, in my assessment. I'm open to debate why, but probably we already have, and I don't want us to bore ourselves with a debate we already had in a tangentially related thread. I think, at this point, we could both agree that the topic is still hotly debated.

If Trump wants to dive deeper into the middle east, which it seems like he only wants to do that when ISIS is on his mind, and not at all when he's distracted by other things, then he's going to do it whether I like it or not, and whether I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's logically a flawed idea, or not.

North Korea is another issue. I'd hate to end up in a war with them, considering that it would really complicate foreign relations with east Asia, but, I mean, we are technically still at war with them, and they have a really shitty attitude toward the rest of the world, and are under complete authoritarian control of a despot. I'm quite conflicted over that situation, but I don't think anyone is predicting Trump is going to actually do anything.

HRC wanted to go into Syria. But why? Why get involved in a three-way war between factions to which we are diametrically ideologically opposed?


----------



## zappatton2

I think there is definitely a place for America and the West generally in the world, but it doesn't always have to be with such an overwhelming military emphasis. Terrorism is less a pure product of religion as much as it is a product of instability. Diplomacy coupled with targeted foreign aid with an emphasis on feeding and educating people, and development not always (but sometimes) tied to profit driven companies can stabilize a region and could be infinitely more cost-effective than large-scale conflict or occupation (though of course modest, targeted military involvement could help safeguard such efforts).

It always baffles me just how much people in the West are willing to invest in military weapons, but how the moment you speak of aid (which is horribly underfunded), it's always a "let's take care of our own". And yet, adding stability in the form of food, sanitation, infrastructure, and education (particularly of women) can boost our security at home for so much less money. Right now South Sudan and Nigeria are going through a serious food crisis (Oxfam is taking donations BTW) and are on the verge of complete collapse and rising inter-ethnic conflict. Some military involvement can be useful, but diplomacy and aid (targeted aid, through agencies already conducting the heavy lifting, not cash handed to warlords) are our best friends right now, as they can easily be the next hotbeds for the next generation of disaffected radicals. 

I suppose a bit off topic, though perhaps on topic, as I'm certain Trump doesn't give a whit about such things.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> I think there is definitely a place for America and the West generally in the world, but it doesn't always have to be with such an overwhelming military emphasis. Terrorism is less a pure product of religion as much as it is a product of instability. Diplomacy coupled with targeted foreign aid with an emphasis on feeding and educating people, and development not always (but sometimes) tied to profit driven companies can stabilize a region and could be infinitely more cost-effective than large-scale conflict or occupation (though of course modest, targeted military involvement could help safeguard such efforts).
> 
> It always baffles me just how much people in the West are willing to invest in military weapons, but how the moment you speak of aid (which is horribly underfunded), it's always a "let's take care of our own". And yet, adding stability in the form of food, sanitation, infrastructure, and education (particularly of women) can boost our security at home for so much less money. Right now South Sudan and Nigeria are going through a serious food crisis (Oxfam is taking donations BTW) and are on the verge of complete collapse and rising inter-ethnic conflict. Some military involvement can be useful, but diplomacy and aid (targeted aid, through agencies already conducting the heavy lifting, not cash handed to warlords) are our best friends right now, as they can easily be the next hotbeds for the next generation of disaffected radicals.
> 
> I suppose a bit off topic, though perhaps on topic, as I'm certain Trump doesn't give a whit about such things.


 
I disagree.

When has the USA ever intervened in any sort of war in the east and did a damned bit of good? It doesn't happen. Vietnam. Fucked up. Korea. Fucked up. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, ... all fucked up.

We send aid to wherever, what good does it do? Nothing, our food rots before it can make it to the mouths of the poor, our money intercepted by our enemies, our weapons end up used against our allies and ourselves. None of it does any good.

Why do we keep telling ourselves that we need to intervene, when all it does it fuck everything up?! What's the point? And if we fuck up twelve times in a row, then isn't it a sin at that point to continue without regard for our track record?

No. Please stop.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I think there is definitely a place for America and the West generally in the world, but it doesn't always have to be with such an overwhelming military emphasis. Terrorism is less a pure product of religion as much as it is a product of instability. Diplomacy coupled with targeted foreign aid with an emphasis on feeding and educating people, and development not always (but sometimes) tied to profit driven companies can stabilize a region and could be infinitely more cost-effective than large-scale conflict or occupation (though of course modest, targeted military involvement could help safeguard such efforts).
> 
> It always baffles me just how much people in the West are willing to invest in military weapons, but how the moment you speak of aid (which is horribly underfunded), it's always a "let's take care of our own". And yet, adding stability in the form of food, sanitation, infrastructure, and education (particularly of women) can boost our security at home for so much less money. Right now South Sudan and Nigeria are going through a serious food crisis (Oxfam is taking donations BTW) and are on the verge of complete collapse and rising inter-ethnic conflict. Some military involvement can be useful, but diplomacy and aid (targeted aid, through agencies already conducting the heavy lifting, not cash handed to warlords) are our best friends right now, as they can easily be the next hotbeds for the next generation of disaffected radicals.
> 
> I suppose a bit off topic, though perhaps on topic, as I'm certain Trump doesn't give a whit about such things.



Excellent post. I think military power has to be _on the table_, but I think it has to be a combination of military power, as well as soft-power support for the state institutions and trying to build up a stable enough infrastructure and government that we don't NEED troops there. That's probably the only real long term exit strategy we have. 

Bostjan, I don't agree that we CAN'T afford it, but again that's neither here nor there, since we've already there. I at least share your concern with North Korea, as I think in the next 3-6 months that will be our more immediate threat. I'll also say that precicely nothing Trump is doing - bombing Syria for chemical weapons use in one breath after shrugging and saying whatever when they first did it earlier that week, threatening to tear up the nuclear agreement with Iran, then embracing Erdogan as a strong and effective leader, then praising the Saudis and saying as long as they support him against ISIS he'll ignore civil rights abuses, and then shitting all over NATO and refusing to even mention Article 5 at a speech in front of a new memorial commemorating the only time NATO ever invoked Article 5, in response to an attack on the US - is helping improve the security of the Middle East, so all of this is a moot point since we elected another guy hell bent on making it worse. At least Clinton was pretty vehement that a military solution alone was doomed to fail.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I disagree.
> 
> When has the USA ever intervened in any sort of war in the east and did a damned bit of good? It doesn't happen. Vietnam. Fucked up. Korea. Fucked up. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, ... all fucked up.
> 
> We send aid to wherever, what good does it do? Nothing, our food rots before it can make it to the mouths of the poor, our money intercepted by our enemies, our weapons end up used against our allies and ourselves. None of it does any good.
> 
> Why do we keep telling ourselves that we need to intervene, when all it does it fuck everything up?! What's the point? And if we fuck up twelve times in a row, then isn't it a sin at that point to continue without regard for our track record?
> 
> No. Please stop.



I mean, I suppose you could nit-pick World War I, but I think World War II is pretty unequivocally in the "win" column under "times the US intervened internationally."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

bostjan said:


> I disagree.
> 
> When has the USA ever intervened in any sort of war in the east and did a damned bit of good? It doesn't happen. Vietnam. Fucked up. *Korea. Fucked up. * Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, ... all fucked up.



Gonna have to disagree with you there. Before the US and UN forces entered Korea, NK had taken the entire country apart from the southeastern porn city Busan. With Western intervention, SK was able to push back nearly to the northern end of the peninsula, and was only forced back to the area around the current DMZ as a result of China's involvement.

You may consider it a fuck up that we weren't able to recover the entire peninsula, I suppose, but from where I'm sitting here in SK, things look much better than they do across the border. The two countries' economies would probably support that assessment. Sure, it wasn't the "success" that the more glamorized wars are generally seen as, but I still say it's a net positive.


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> the southeastern porn city Busan.



huehuehue

Now I understand why "Train to Busan" was so popular ;-)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> huehuehue
> 
> Now I understand why "Train to Busan" was so popular ;-)



lolololol

POR*T*.

I can't figure out how to edit my posts with this new layout.


EDIT: There's an "Edit" option for this post, but not my previous one. Is there a time limit?


----------



## russmuller

Grand Moff Tim said:


> lolololol
> 
> POR*T*.
> 
> I can't figure out how to edit my posts with this new layout.


It's easy. You just covfefe


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, I suppose you could nit-pick World War I, but I think World War II is pretty unequivocally in the "win" column under "times the US intervened internationally."





bostjan said:


> When has the USA ever intervened in any sort of war in the east and did a damned bit of good?


I don't think it's nitpicking to say that WWI and WWII clearly do not meet the condition I laid out. I guess having our military bases bombed could still lead to us "intervening," but those wars were clearly widespread over the globe, and not merely in the east.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Gonna have to disagree with you there. Before the US and UN forces entered Korea, NK had taken the entire country apart from the southeastern porn city Busan. With Western intervention, SK was able to push back nearly to the northern end of the peninsula, and was only forced back to the area around the current DMZ as a result of China's involvement.
> 
> You may consider it a fuck up that we weren't able to recover the entire peninsula, I suppose, but from where I'm sitting here in SK, things look much better than they do across the border. The two countries' economies would probably support that assessment. Sure, it wasn't the "success" that the more glamorized wars are generally seen as, but I still say it's a net positive.



The Korean War was precipitated directly out of the dissolution of the Japanese Empire and the escalation of tensions we call the Cold War. It is not a simple thing to contrast what might have happened if the US had not been involved, but check out the history books if you want, Korea wasn't split at the 38th parallel because of the Korean War, it was split there at the Postdam conference immediately after WWII. The North Koreans, in an attempt to reunify Korea, marched south almost immediately after US forces stationed there as an occupying force for the years following WWII evacuated. When the USA redeployed to Korea to stop them, they were largely unprepared and the ensuing fight was very messy, but still pushed the North Korean forces into China. When the USA withdrew from NK, they destroyed almost everything as a barbaric attempt to ensure that the North Koreans wouldn't desire to continue fighting, but all that really did was galvanize their hatred for the USA and for the West, which continues to this day. Granted, if the USA had not intervened, then there would have undoubtedly been a reunified communist Korea. But having not had relied on the USSR and China, and having not been victim of a "scorched earth" style of withdrawal, that nation would have, most likely, been the Asian analogue to Yugoslavia, with a functioning economy. 

If the capitalism that followed US intervention in SK can be seen as a good thing, then I'll concede that you have a better point than I do.  I still point to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Vietnam, though, as an overwhelming mass of evidence that the USA tends, more often than not, to fuck up a region by intervening.


----------



## Drew

But that's kind of the thing I think we're getting at here, man. 

War is never pretty. It should never be undertaken lightly, it should only be done as a last resort, because we KNOW things tend to get messy, people will die, people will be upset, we'll make as many enemies as friends, it'll probably trigger unintended consequences we weren't aware of, and it's extremely unlikely that it'll all get wrapped up with a neat little bow and a happy ending. I think we BOTH agree there. 

The problem, then, is that when you then go and look at past US military interventions, yeah, you're going to see a lot of bad stuff. Even the successes spawned problems - WWI gave us the League of Nations and eventually the UN, and stopped a massively bloody conflict, but it also set the stage for WWII and the rise of Hitler with a incredibly punitive Treaty, while part of the WWII treaty, in most ways an improvement over the first, was the creation of the Israeli state, which has spawned a whole MESS of conflicts in the Middle East. And these are the clear success stories I'm talking about. 

The heart of the problem is that the evaluation of intervention requires a counter-factual; what would have happened if we _hadn't_ gotten involved? In Korea, I think you're being far too optimistic; the entirety of the state would have likely ended up like the North, and you may not love capitalism, but it sure beats starving in a brutal dictatorship. Afghanistan, back in the cold war, was actually a moderate success, until we fully withdrew after blocking the Russians and the tribal warlords seized power, fueled by the poppy trade. Vietnam was a bloody mess when we got involved, and while US sentiment eventually turned against the war and we pulled out, leading to the eventual full collapse, we at least held it off for a decade and potentially could have prevented the fall of the south and the civilian slaughter that came with it. And times when we _hadn't_ intervened - we were criticized widely for not intervening in the Rwandan genocide, for example, either directly or through the UN - provide ample examples of what could have happened in countries we _had_ intervened in, had we instead sat on the sidelines. Heck, if we'd intervened in Syria when Obama wanted to instead of letting the GOP vote it down, the country would undoubtedly still be a mess, but it very well might be better off today for having a US or UN peacekeeping force. 

War is always going to be messy. Pointing to the mess it made doesn't in and of itself prove that it wasn't still worth fighting, and I can't with a clear conscience advocate abdicating our role as a force of good in the world, and letting people die for it that we might otherwise be able to protect.


----------



## Drew

Trump is about to announce that the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Fuck that guy.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov

In the past, war used to be idealistically gainful. Countries would attack each other and maybe grab a bit of land, maybe some mines, maybe even constituents. However, many things always came with the war - corruption, rape, pillaging and massive loss of human life. Corruption benefited politicians and entrepreneurs, rape and pillaging benefited the soldiers, and the loss of human life benefited no one. 

Nowadays, constituents realize no war is going to be gainful for them personally, so they are only up for it if it means protecting their country or ideals. Therefore, soldiers aren't in it for the raping and pillaging either, although it still does always occur. 

The only reason for modern war, is that it creates incredible avenues for corruption. That's why the US does it, Russia does it and Turkey does it. It's not about justice, and it's not to prevent being "criticized". No politician worth their salt is worried about a toothless entity criticizing them.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

bostjan said:


> If the capitalism that followed US intervention in SK can be seen as a good thing, then I'll concede that you have a better point than I do.



I'm glad we can agree on that. And for the record...



bostjan said:


> I still point to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Vietnam, though, as an overwhelming mass of evidence that the USA tends, more often than not, to fuck up a region by intervening.



I wasn't disputing that when I disagreed, I was just disagreeing with Korea's placement on that list, haha.


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> Trump is about to announce that the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Fuck that guy.


yep

and yep


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Trump is about to announce that the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Fuck that guy.


Meanwhile an iceberg the size of Delaware is detaching from the Larsen C ice shelf.


----------



## vilk

That's not because of us! You're all just scientismists!!


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> That's not because of us! You're all just scientismists!!





Freeman Dyson said:


> There's no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than the tropics, in the winter more than the summer, at night more than the daytime.
> 
> I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.



The above guy is often cited by right wing folks as the poster child scientist who denies climate change. Prof. Dyson is a really smart guy, but if you read what he says, he's not denying climate change, his quotes are poking holes in the conventional approach to it. While I don't always agree with what he says, I think the right is sometimes far out of context quoting him.

Now, there is this disconnect between several steps in the logic used by folks like Trump, who deny climate change is even a thing, and it goes something like this:

1. Scientists are smart.
2. This scientist said something criticizing another scientist. Total pwn.
3. Therefore the other scientist is dumb.
4. This third scientist agrees with the second scientist about another issue.
5. Therefore, all scientists are dumb.
6. Hated science in high school. Teacher was only a 4/10.
7. Therefore science is dumb.
8. Therefore climate change is false. Total lie. Liberal agenda.


----------



## vilk

You know what, I think that I agree that those specific aforementioned issues are larger problems than climate change. I think the EPA should focus more energy on Brownsfield clean-up type projects instead of bothering all that they do with carbon emissions. Even so, I had a layover in China once, and being outside looking at the sky as I walked to the bus from the airplane (the jetways weren't attached to the airport gate) it was super frightening to see that dark ass sky with sun shining on the ground. It's like, if you were looking at the ground, you'd say it's sunny, but if you look at the sky, you don't see anything.


----------



## Science_Penguin

bostjan said:


> The above guy is often cited by right wing folks as the poster child scientist who denies climate change. Prof. Dyson is a really smart guy, but if you read what he says, he's not denying climate change, his quotes are poking holes in the conventional approach to it. While I don't always agree with what he says, I think the right is sometimes far out of context quoting him.
> 
> Now, there is this disconnect between several steps in the logic used by folks like Trump, who deny climate change is even a thing, and it goes something like this:
> 
> 1. Scientists are smart.
> 2. This scientist said something criticizing another scientist. Total pwn.
> 3. Therefore the other scientist is dumb.
> 4. This third scientist agrees with the second scientist about another issue.
> 5. Therefore, all scientists are dumb.
> 6. Hated science in high school. Teacher was only a 4/10.
> 7. Therefore science is dumb.
> 8. Therefore climate change is false. Total lie. Liberal agenda.



Strange to me how much I'm reminded of conspiracy theorists...

You have this fairly universally agreed-upon idea, but we've found some ways to poke some holes in it, therefore it must be completely false and the world is being lied to. Wake up, sheeple! Get red pilled!


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Meanwhile an iceberg the size of Delaware is detaching from the Larsen C ice shelf.


Fake news! Sad!


----------



## bostjan

I know, somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing The Weather Channel and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!


----------



## Drew

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05...ian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

This is of course fake news and the only real news is the leak, not the hack, and the woman who leaked the document has already been arrested. Sad! 

But, US intelligence has evidence that GRU hacked an election software vendor, then used that access to target local election officials in the days before November's election. There's no evidence that any vote totals were changed, and officials believe that the chaos with this vendor's software in North Carolina was due to user error and not malicious actors, but we have pretty clear evidence that the Russians were at least _trying_ to compromise the voting mechanism, and while we have no evidence at present that it was actually materially changed, it appears possible that they may have actually succeeded.


----------



## bostjan

Hmmm, well, I guess the Russians did meddle directly after all. I don't even know where to begin with how I feel about all of this.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Hmmm, well, I guess the Russians did meddle directly after all. I don't even know where to begin with how I feel about all of this.


To be fair (and, to split hairs a little), we know they TRIED to meddle. We don't know for sure (or, if we do, that knowledge has not yet been leaked to the press) if they SUCCEEDED. 

But, yeah, the intent was absolutely there. It's not likely this would have led to changes in the vote counting process since this vendor doesn't seem to have been related to that part of the process, but it's certainly possible to see how they could have impacted the voting process - for example, by using hacked user IDs with database admin privileges to selectively drop 5-10% of the registered Democrats from the voter registry of a swing district in a swing state so that registered Democratic voters who showed up to vote would have been turned away. With Democratic voters under-represented, in a competitive race Trump would be at a huge advantage.


----------



## bostjan

So...now what?

I mean, if Russia didn't merely stick their nose in the election, but their fingers, too, we obviously ought to be talking about how to close up that gap, but I assume there would have to be some sort of action against Russia. I don't particular like where that goes. Do we go to the UN with this? I don't think it matters; the UN is ineffective at everything this high up the ladder. And what about Trump?!

All of our talk earlier in this thread about the importance of the purity of the democratic process, and now we are in a situation where a third party was outed as trying to meddle with the process, and as that hits the air, we see the government frantically trying to hush it up and punish the person responsible for blowing the whistle....


----------



## Drew

I mean, I don't think we have any choice but to follow due process of law, and if that ends in Trump's impeachment, great, but if it doesn't, well, vote him out democratically. If this was intended to be an attack on our democratic institution, then ourselves overturning those institutions is doubling down on a wrong. 

In some ways, a lot of the damage is already done - the US's role as a world leader on rule of law, human rights, environmental issues, and favoring democracy over totalitarianism is already badly tainted, our relationship with NATO and the EU is severely damaged, we've pulled out of a number of free trade agreements and damaged the trend towards market liberalism, and faith in the US media on the right and in the democratic institutions on BOTH sides of the political divide is badly shaken. Russia has already gotten most of what they wanted, in terms of delegitimizing the role of the United States as a counterbalance against them in the world. 

Marcon in France has been a more effective check against Putin than anyone in the States has, and Michael Bloomberg is now the one trying to finance America's place in the Paris accord. Any time we're being one-upped by the French we have problems, and I know how you feel about the financial industry.


----------



## bostjan

I agree that a lot of damage has been done.

I guess where I'm at a loss is how to go about fixing it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I agree that a lot of damage has been done.
> 
> I guess where I'm at a loss is how to go about fixing it.



We're still feeling the shockwaves from the first Bush presidency.

It's going to take decades of going in the right direction to get to where we were only a few months ago, both foreign and domestic.

I think that's the most depressing part. We had made so much progress which is now moot.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I'm glad to see SOMETHING of actual evidence at this point. I have my popcorn for tomorrow.

But I think you are projecting too far here.

1) Do you honestly believe that Trump had any influence on whether or not the Ruskies decided to attempt to hack US polling?
2) related to #1, hopefully you are aware that Hillary's State Department interfered with Russia's last elections, and Putin wanted pay back. How is this Trump's doing?
3) Do you think that Russia attempted to hack this election more or less than other elections? Why does it make THIS election invalid?


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm glad to see SOMETHING of actual evidence at this point.


Evidence of what? Russia influencing the Trump campaign? Russia hacks of election machines and software? Trump associates hiding their contacts with Russia? Trump admitting to firing Comey because Comey wouldn't back off of the Russia investigation? 

If you have been unaware, I'm suggesting it's willful. 


CapnForsaggio said:


> 1)related to #1, hopefully you are aware that Hillary's State Department interfered with Russia's last elections, and Putin wanted pay back.


Strangely, you're repeating a false Russian talking point. International observers saw the blatant fraud. Here's some background.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/w...-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html
Why are you repeating a proven-false Russian talking point, when there are numerous objective independent witnesses to the contrary? It's like those reports of Ruusian social media agents trying to spread false stories, but presumably from an American. Why do that, and undermine your credibility?


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> We're still feeling the shockwaves from the first Bush presidency.
> 
> It's going to take decades of going in the right direction to get to where we were only a few months ago, both foreign and domestic.
> 
> I think that's the most depressing part. We had made so much progress which is now moot.



Well, I mean, yeah, but we can't make any steps forward until things are back under some sort of control again.

To me, the most depressing part is that we are stuck with years of backsliding now. It's not so much about the progress we lost in the past six months, it's about the progress we are about to lose in the upcoming three and a half years, and it seems like there is nothing that can be done about it - in fact, it seems like nothing ever could have been done about it.



CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm glad to see SOMETHING of actual evidence at this point. I have my popcorn for tomorrow.
> 
> But I think you are projecting too far here.
> 
> 1) Do you honestly believe that Trump had any influence on whether or not the Ruskies decided to attempt to hack US polling?
> 2) related to #1, hopefully you are aware that Hillary's State Department interfered with Russia's last elections, and Putin wanted pay back. How is this Trump's doing?
> 3) Do you think that Russia attempted to hack this election more or less than other elections? Why does it make THIS election invalid?



1. Not directly, no.
2. I don't blame Trump for this mess. I blame Russia. If HRC had something to do with it, which I doubt, but can't write anything off these days, then she would carry some of the blame, too.
3. I don't think Russia tried to hack any of the last 4 or 5 elections. Why would they have? If they had, I wouldn't even be able to tell you who they would have tried to get in office - maybe the communist candidate that wasn't even on the ballots?

I also really don't think we've seen evidence to make this election invalid. It's just evidence of something really upsetting. I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to influence some local elections past their tipping point, if they set their minds to it.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm glad to see SOMETHING of actual evidence at this point. I have my popcorn for tomorrow.
> 
> But I think you are projecting too far here.
> 
> 1) Do you honestly believe that Trump had any influence on whether or not the Ruskies decided to attempt to hack US polling?
> 2) related to #1, hopefully you are aware that Hillary's State Department interfered with Russia's last elections, and Putin wanted pay back. How is this Trump's doing?
> 3) Do you think that Russia attempted to hack this election more or less than other elections? Why does it make THIS election invalid?



1) At this point it's not _impossible_, but there's no evidence that Trump nor his campaign did, at least that's publicly leaked.
2) Related to 1, until we're given evidence to the contrary, I'm not claiming it's Trump's fault, simply that Russia had a strong preference for getting Trump elected over Clinton. We can go all high and mighty or all realpolitik on this, but I don't think anyone's denying that Russia had a preference in this election, just as we had a preference in the last Russian one. I'm not aware of any US attempt to attack the Russian voting infrastructure; you may know different, of course.
3) I'm also not aware of any serious attempts on the part of Russia to interfere in previous election cycles; in fact, one of the quick takes I remember reading when news that the DNC had been hacked, from Russia intelligence specialists, was that this marked a sharp departure in approach from them, and it seems like they were finally starting to "get" the party system and how American democracy works, in ways they previously hadn't. The scope and effectiveness of this effort was unprecedented.

I'll add another point - right now, we have no evidence that Trump tried to collude with Russia, at least knowingly (I increasingly wonder if Flynn, Kushner, Monafort, Sessions, et al were played unknowingly by Russia, but that's a different story). However, I think the bigger issue and bigger risk to Trump, as this investigation goes on, is that increasingly it's starting to look a lot like Trump tried to shut down the investigation - whether from guilt and fear (which thus far we don't have evidence of actual collusion with Trump, though there is plenty of evidence that his associates had contacts or relationships they lied about), to protect former colleagues, or simply because he thought it was an embarrassment and a distraction, and was tired about getting beat up in the news about it and wanted to focus on his agenda. So, while Trump may not be guilty of _treason_, it's entirely possible he may be guilty of _obstruction of justice_, which would also be an impeachable offense.

I only bring this up because I think it's important that we understand where the focus is here - you're focusing on whether or not Trump colluded with Russia when they hacked the DNC and at least attempted to hack field offices of the election effort. I think the rest of us, while we want answers there too, are focused on whether or not Trump abused his power by trying to shut down the investigation, and the answer is increasingly looking like yes, he did.

EDIT - in fact, let me put that even more simply, because I think this is important. The investigation, at present, encompasses two questions: 

1) Did Trump or his associates do anything illegal during the election, involving their relationship with Russia? 
2) Did Trump or his associates do anything illegal involving the investigation into their actions in the election?

The answer to the former is complicated, but as of now Trump hasn't himself been implicated. The second question, however, Trump has done some things that very well could be plausible grounds for impeachment. Whether the House and Senate acts on those however is a different story.


----------



## bostjan

Comey is currently testifying. Not surprising that his testimony is totally contradicting Trump's public statements. The biggest news is that Trump told him that he wanted Comey to drop the Russia investigation. Comey confirmed that Russian meddling in the election was not new, but very much more involved than in previous elections and that he believes strongly that they will be back to meddle even more the next time around. He has also said damning things about HRC, but this testimony looks really bad for Trump. Either Comey or Trump will end up in deep trouble over this once things start to settle out of the wreckage.


----------



## Drew

I said this in the other thread, but I think it's also notable that: 

1) Comey has straight-up said on a number of occasions that Trump made inaccurate and dishonest statements about their meetings, and the GOP is accepting Comey's version of events - they're treating him as more credible. 
2) The GOP is also making no attempt to counter Comey's assertion that he was fired over the Russian election investigation; they seem to be accepting that as fact, as well. 

Neither bodes well for Trump. Also, McCain is questioning Comey right now, and I really hate to say this, but he sounds like a rambling, senile old man.  I'd always had a modicum of respect for him, but he really sounds like he has no idea what's going on.


----------



## synrgy

Drew said:


> Also, McCain is questioning Comey right now, and I really hate to say this, but he sounds like a rambling, senile old man.



"But, blargh, President Comey, I mean Director Trump, or, uh.. What I'm saying is, this apple is supposed to be the same as this orange. I just don't.. I mean.. How can you even reconcile that fact?"

"I.. Uhm.. Don't?"


----------



## bostjan

John McCain said:


> What I was trying to get at was whether Mr. Comey believes that any of his interactions with the President rise to the level of obstruction of justice. In the case of Secretary Clinton’s emails, Mr. Comey was willing to step beyond his role as an investigator and state his belief about what ‘no reasonable prosecutor’ would conclude about the evidence. I wanted Mr. Comey to apply the same approach to the key question surrounding his interactions with President Trump — whether or not the President’s conduct constitutes obstruction of justice. While I missed an opportunity in today’s hearing, I still believe this question is important, and I intend to submit it in writing to Mr. Comey for the record.



Umm, so, I guess that was the question Sen. McCain intended to ask. I still fail to see the logical connection between the conclusion drawn about the HRC emails after the investigation completed and trying to draw a conclusion about an ongoing investigation into Russian meddling with US democracy...

If he's trying to make the connection that Trump is obstructing an ongoing investigation at the international level, then I think that Comey already said whatever he was going to say about that. It's something that much of the American public is seeing as sketchy as hell, yet Trump himself sees as being absolved of any wrongdoing. The disconnection between Trump's mindset and reality is far more frightening than Russians trying to hack into US election booths. Why? One is a potential threat of ending up with the wrong person in office, and the other is the fact that the wrong person is indeed in office.


----------



## synrgy

Yeah, even post-clarification, he's still using a false equivalence as the basis for an otherwise reasonable question. If the question is "Did POTUS obstruct justice?", why not just ask that question? Comey's handling/bungling of the HRC email situation remains entirely irrelevant to that question.

This is where I've always fallen off with McCain: He's fine-and-mavericky whenever it doesn't count for anything, but as soon as it's time to cast an actual vote or otherwise confront a splintering issue, he reliably falls back into the party-line. Instead of just asking the question, here, he apparently felt he needed to try and score some political points along the way. It's not unlike Ted Nugent name-dropping Obama at every opportunity, lack of relevance be-damned.

Or, if one prefers a more musical analogy: It's kinda like a well-seasoned band 'having to' play their first hit song during every performance, 20+ years later.


----------



## Drew

Well, because he was already asked that, and Comey said "It's not for me to say if he obstructed justice, the investigation will determine that." His phrasing made it pretty clear he had some private thoughts on the matter, though.


----------



## Drew

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ampaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top-stories

It gets worse - 39 states, nearly 4 out of 5, show evidence of at least SOME hacking by the russians into their local election infrastructure. In the case of Illinois, where they have done the deepest dive so far, there's evidence that the russians tried to modify voter registration databases.


----------



## Drew

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...e02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

Not that we didn't all know this was coming, but it's been confirmed the Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...e02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html
> 
> Not that we didn't all know this was coming, but it's been confirmed the Mueller is investigating Trump for obstruction of justice.



In addition to that, as Sessions has recused himself, Rosenstein has stated the following regarding Trump's inability to fire Mueller.

'After President Donald Trump's friend, Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy, said Monday night that Trump is considering firing Mueller, Rosenstein said Mueller can "only be fired for good cause," and it would be his (Rosenstein's) job to put that good cause into writing.'

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/13/politics/rod-rosenstein-house-hearing/index.html

So now, to get rid of Mueller, Trump and Sessions would have to fire Rosenstein first, and then find an appointee for the position who would go along with firing Mueller.

Even someone as dishonest as Trump should realize that there'd be no way to not get caught making that big a tsunami.

I said "should," but I have no doubt that Trump is stupid enough to shoot himself in the foot yet again. The problem for Trump is that he's now in a place where his lifelong practice of constant lying is being noted and reacted to, with consequences for Trump that he can't bully, threaten and bluster his way out of.

With luck, the Special Investigator will take almost two years, right up until the midterm elections. That will hobble Pence regarding legislation should Trump then either step down voluntarily, or be tossed out.

I thought Trump said people would get tired of his winning. Was that another lie?


----------



## Drew

Listen, he didn't say WHO was going to get tired of winning. Everyone just assumed it would be him, and not the Democrats. 

Honestly, I think he IS gearing up to fire Mueller. He floated the trial balloon earlier this week through a friend, surrogates (assistant spokeswoman Sanders, Gingrich, etc) have begun to question his objectivity, and stories are emerging that privately Trump is furious and wants to do it, but his staff has thus far been able to talk him down. That's BEFORE news that Trump himself was under investigation for obstruction of justice, which my subjective opinion is that ups the liklihood of Mueller getting fired. 

All that Rosenstein's statement does is ensure that it'll trigger another Constitutional crisis if Trump does fire him, by triggering a standoff between the AG's office and the Presidency. Trump technically does have the authority to dismiss Mueller despite Rosenstein's statement, it's just it's insanely clear that firing the guy investigating you for obstruction of justice is itself an obstruction of justice. At that point, if the GOP has any backbone at all, he should be impeached. Even if they don't, however, Trump's agenda would be dead in the water. 

So, naturally, knowing that the worst possible mistake he could make right now is to fire Mueller in a fit of pique, I'd say it's pretty likely that he doesn't make it past July.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

Just read that Trump has proposed an anti cyber hacking alliance...with Putin.


----------



## bostjan

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> Just read that Trump has proposed an anti cyber hacking alliance...with Putin.











Donald J Trump said:


> Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded..







Donal J Trump said:


> The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't-but a ceasefire can,& did!





This guy is such a caricature. How can you even make satire of stuff like this?


----------



## tedtan

Apparently Trump didn't make the best showing at the G20 (gee, who'd a thunk ). I can't get the video to post, but here's a link to the page.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tralian-journalist-demolishes-trump-after-g20


----------



## Drew

Arguably the bigger story of the last couple days:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/09/...ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

tl;dr - Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner met with a Russian lawyer connected to the Kremlin. After the Times ran the initial story, they explained they set up the meeting because the lawyer claimed she had incriminating information on Clinton that would be useful to them. Trump Jr. claims she seemed to not know what she was talking about and merely used that as a ruse to get a meeting to discuss adoption.

Whether or not Trump Jr. is telling the truth about the actual content of the meeting, his explanation kind of misses the point - whether or not the Trump campaign actually colluded with Russia during the campaign to attack Clinton, we now know they certainly _tried_.


----------



## mongey

tedtan said:


> Apparently Trump didn't make the best showing at the G20 (gee, who'd a thunk ). I can't get the video to post, but here's a link to the page.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tralian-journalist-demolishes-trump-after-g20


I watched that the other day 

have to say I think its a very well written piece on how the rest of the world views the Trump "thing "


----------



## Drew

> The documents “would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
> 
> If the future president’s elder son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of an ongoing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
> 
> He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Ok, so whether or not the Trump campaign actually SUCCEEDED in colluding with Russia to damage Clinton, we now know for a fact, by Trump Jr's own admission, that they tried - that they scheduled a meeting with top-ranked campaign officials with a lawyer they believed to be a Kremlin representative who claimed to have damaging information on Clinton that was provided as part of Russia's attempt to help Trump.


----------



## Drew

The only other thing I'll add is there's a detail of Don Trump Jr's story that makes literally no sense - he claimed that Russia contacted them, which his email shows he was aware that it was part of an attempt on the part of Russia to help the Trump campaign, and that in the meeting the lawyer claimed that she had evidence of Russia funding the Clinton campaign, but that he thought she didn't know what she was talking about. It seems highly unlikely that Russia would have been helping BOTH campaigns, and furthermore Trump Sr's impulse control is notoriously absent, so I have an awfully hard time picturing him NOT accusing Clinton of colluding with the Russians if that idea had been planted in his head at any point in the campaign. 

Considering this all happened a month and a half before the release of the DNC email hack via Wikileaks, the timing and the nonsensical cover story are kind of suspicious.


----------



## tedtan

mongey said:


> I watched that the other day
> 
> have to say I think its a very well written piece on how the rest of the world views the Trump "thing "



Many of us here in the US view him the same way. Unfortunately, not enough of us turned out to vote in the swing states to have kept him out of office.




Drew said:


> Ok, so whether or not the Trump campaign actually SUCCEEDED in colluding with Russia to damage Clinton, we now know for a fact, by Trump Jr's own admission, that they tried



He doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed, does he?


----------



## Drew

The timing is actually way more awkward than I thought, since I forgot how long the lead-up to the DNC hack was. This literally started within days of the Trump camp being contacted on behalf of this Russian agent: 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/look-at-the-timeline

*"May 26th, 2016*: Donald J. Trump officially secure majority of GOP delegates, officially clinching the nomination of the Republican party.

*June 3rd, 2016*: First email contact between Rob Goldstone and Donald Trump Jr. about meeting with “Russian government lawyer” with damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

*June 7th, 2016*: Donald J Trump gives speech in which he promises a major speech about Hillary Clinton’s crimes on June 13th. “I am going to give a major speech on … probably Monday [June 13th] of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”

*June 8th, 2016*: First tweet posted to “DCLeaks” Twitter account.

*June 9th, 2016*: Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort meet with Natalia Veselnitskaya. Trump agreed to take the meeting after being told by Trump associate Rob Goldstone that Veselnitskaya had damaging information about Hillary Clinton which came from a Russian government operation to help his father Donald J. Trump.

*June 12th, 2016*: Julian Assange first announces that Wikileaks has Clinton emails which are soon to be released. “Wikileaks has a very big year ahead … We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”

*June 14, 2016*: _Washington Post_ publishes first account of hacking of the DNC computer networks, allegedly by hackers working on behalf of the Russian government.

*June 15th, 2016*: “Guccifer 2.0”, later identified by US government officials and other private sector analysts as a fictive persona created by Russian intelligence operatives, contacts The Smoking Gun to take credit for hacking the DNC.

*June 27th, 2016*: First hacked DNC emails posted to “DCLeaks” website.

*July 11th-12th, 2016*: Trump campaign officials intervene to remove language calling for providing Ukraine with lethal aid against Russian intervention is Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It is, reportedly, the only significant Trump campaign intervention in the platform in which the Trump campaign has allowed activists a free hand."


----------



## bostjan

That's all circumstantial.

That said, though, there is an awful lot of circumstantial stuff.

There's a thin line between a huge pile of circumstantial evidence that strongly supports collusion and hard evidence that clearly supports collusion.

Here's the part no one dares to mention: the Russian government has a long history of collusion ploys, and they've been caught before. Trump also clearly has a long history of very pliable ethics and shadiness. I would never trust someone like that in the Oval Office. But what can you do? Honestly? He made it; he's in there, and there is no easy way to get him out until 2021.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> That's all circumstantial.
> 
> That said, though, there is an awful lot of circumstantial stuff.
> 
> There's a thin line between a huge pile of circumstantial evidence that strongly supports collusion and hard evidence that clearly supports collusion.
> 
> Here's the part no one dares to mention: the Russian government has a long history of collusion ploys, and they've been caught before. Trump also clearly has a long history of very pliable ethics and shadiness. I would never trust someone like that in the Oval Office. But what can you do? Honestly? He made it; he's in there, and there is no easy way to get him out until 2021.


Oh, absolutely - it doesn't prove anything. It IS suspicious as hell, however, especially taken in conjunction with Trump Jr's explanation of the content of the meeting "We're helping you, so we're going to offer evidence that we're helping your rival."

So, in the last 24 hours, we've learned that not only did senior campaign officials meet with a Russian agent, but that the reason for the meeting was that they claimed to have compromising information on Clinton, and the timing of the initial contact and the meeting was awfully suspicious in light of Trump's campaign comments and Assange's announcement that he had hacked DNC emails. That's not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but if warning bells aren't going off, they really should be.

Either way, evidence that Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer to discuss what became the WikiLeaks email dump of DNC emails is circumstantial; evidence that the Trump campaign was eager to accept the offer of help from an enemy nation is NOT. There's already a decent case to be made that Trump obstructed justice; if it can be proved that Trump knew about this meeting and the meeting's purpose and approved it, that's yet another potentially impeachable charge.


----------



## tedtan

Now it looks like Pence is trying to distance himself from Trump. Gee, I wonder why...


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Now it looks like Pence is trying to distance himself from Trump. Gee, I wonder why...


Honestly, given that the Republican response to this - say, compared to the Morning Joe tweet backlash from a week ago - has been awfully quiet (arguably too quiet - the fact that they're not saying anything suggests they realize this is kind of a big deal), the clearest evidence that this is problematic is Pence's statement, which made no attempt to defend Trump Jr or Kushner and rather pointedly made it clear that this meeting happened before he was on the ticket. Pence has done a good job staying out of the Russia scandal so far - off the top of my head, his only involvement is that he was the rationale for firing Flynn, when he was allegedly told Flynn had lied about Russian contacts, which while hard to believe in the light of subsequent acknowledgements that Trump was briefed well in advance - and this seems to be an awfully explicit attempt to try to distance himself further.

Talking about this both with colleges, and just a few minutes ago with a strategist from a broker we work with (under the guise of trying to figure out the market impact if this blows up), this isn't a "smoking gun..." But, I'd say it's a _gun_, just not one currently smoking. We know that the Trump campaign at least TRIED to collude with Russia, thanks to Trump Jr's emails, even if we have no evidence they succeeded. We know they lied about it, too, repeatedly. The timing is awfully suspicious given what was going on with the DNC email leak at the same time, and finding out what exactly happened at that meeting is going to be critical, but to run with the smoking gun metaphor, it may not be a smoking gun, but it's a gun, all right, and a gun owned by a guy who's spent the last year denying he owned one.

Whether this matters, bigger picture, its too early to tell - an impeachable offense is what a 2/3 majority of the House considers impeachable, the story is a bit wonky and tough to follow if you're not into politics, and Fox News is still defending the Trumps carte blanche and unless that changes Trump's core support should hold. Short of concrete evidence that Trump coordinated with Russia on the release of the DNC emails in exchange for policy concessions on Ukraine - which, to be fair, this time last week I would have considered extremely unlikely, but after the last 48 hours it no longer seems like such a reach - those numbers should hold up pretty well unless Fox turns on him, and even then, it's entirely possible that with concrete evidence of collusion in return for policy confessions, if Fox STILL continued to defend him (say - "so what? It exposed wrongdoing and we shouldn't be in Ukraine anyway" which is a plausible-enough justification for the Trump base to accept), he might be able to ride this out.


----------



## bostjan

If this had been HRC, and she had gotten freaky with an intern, she'd be on trial in front of Congress right now. 

All joking aside, though, I really do think that Congress is just waiting for the most opportune moment to make their move. Keep an eye on the cabinet and see when they start really trying to butter up to Pence, and that'll be the tell that the trap is snapping shut.

If they manage to pull off an impeachment, it'll be a historic moment. The next phase though, will be Pence at the helm - if the timing works out just right, he might be counted as a term in office before the next election cycle.


----------



## tedtan

This isn't the death knell sounding for Trump, but it certainly gives special prosecutor Mueller quite a bit to dig into in his investigation regarding Russia's involvement in the election (including allegations of Trump's collusion with Russia). And Watergate assistant special prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks made the statement "and that's what this looks like, it looks like clear proof of collusion".

So while this isn't the death knell in and of itself, it certainly leaves a chink in the Trump administration's armor.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If this had been HRC, and she had gotten freaky with an intern, she'd be on trial in front of Congress right now.
> 
> All joking aside, though, I really do think that Congress is just waiting for the most opportune moment to make their move. Keep an eye on the cabinet and see when they start really trying to butter up to Pence, and that'll be the tell that the trap is snapping shut.
> 
> If they manage to pull off an impeachment, it'll be a historic moment. The next phase though, will be Pence at the helm - if the timing works out just right, he might be counted as a term in office before the next election cycle.


Well, I think the other real test is going to be when Fox News starts changing their tune. As long as they're defending him, their viewers and his core supporters are going to continue to see this as not a big deal, and any impeachment will look like a, to use their phrase, "witch hunt." Once they start saying, "hey, this is a real problem, folks," his support is going to erode in a big way, and the political costs to the GOP of impeaching Trump will plummet.


----------



## bostjan

It makes me wonder, though, how many people supported Trump versus how many people supported whomever Fox News and the GOP said to support? I think we've seen how far the GOP will go before dropping the hot potato, but how far will Fox News go?

The promises that Trump would make everybody wealthier and busier working in cool jobs and kicking out all of the riff-raff that took our jobs (paraphrasing) have now proven to be empty. Job gains under Trump have been worse than they were under Obama the same months of last year, the GDP is showing the slowest growth in years, and big companies are still making a killing in profits by hiring paperwork-free migrant workers. The only changes have been changes for the worse in all of his big platform promises. You could say that it's not his fault, because the president has only so much power, but that's the same excuse the same people scoffed at when it was used by Obama's supporters, so...


----------



## tedtan

I think what we're seeing with Pence meeting with various members of the republican party/campaign donors/etc., Pence distancing himself from Trump, the republicans' general lack of a public showing of support for Trump over the past couple of days, etc. is the republican party preparing for an impeachment proceeding. They aren't necessarily planning to call for one themselves at this point, but they are definitely covering their asses in case it comes about.

And whether it is happening now, or later at the time of an impeachment preceding (if there is an impeachment proceeding), the republicans will turn on Trump. When they do, Fox News will hitch their wagon to the republican party rather than Trump because the party has longevity whereas Trump is just short of a sinking ship. When Fox follows the republicans, they'll turn on Trump, too, at which point their viewers will do likewise.

All in all, these are interesting times.


----------



## Randy

So far, it's all lining up with what I figured. They're (Congressmen) expecting Trump's approval ratings to be in the toilet by November 2018. They're feigning confidence or holding their tongue enough to keep him signing whatever bills they send him, but you're starting to and will continue to see his support from them erode until eventually they'll disavow him just to save their own ass in races back home. So far the trajectory has been backing this up.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I'm not tired of winning at all.

Obama and Lynch's Russian operative, let in (by special exemption) to entangle anyone in Trump's team, is a simple-minded diversion that only reinforces my choice last winter.... 

I do have to put up with an incessent stream of "progressive activity" in my state (OR), but I reassure myself easily:

'Gorsuch, and another, and ANOTHER. Then we get down to business!'


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm not tired of winning at all.
> 
> Obama and Lynch's Russian operative, let in (by special exemption) to entangle anyone in Trump's team, is a simple-minded diversion that only reinforces my choice last winter....



Well that's certainly an interesting spin...




CapnForsaggio said:


> I do have to put up with an incessent stream of "progressive activity" in my state (OR)



Why not just move to Montana (It's close)? Or any of the other traditioanlly red states (the southern states, Texas, parts of the mid west). Then you wouldn't have to put up with anything; you'd fit right in.


----------



## bostjan

I mean, can you argue with that kind of logic?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Some things are worth fighting for.

Syrians and leftists run from their problems.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

tedtan said:


> Well that's certainly an interesting spin...



http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

Link to story. More to come in following days. It boils down to Obama/Lynch/Clinton being at the center of the "Russian connection" again.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump
> 
> Link to story. More to come in following days. It boils down to Obama/Lynch/Clinton being at the center of the "Russian connection" again.



My take-away from that is that this woman was also a powerful lobbyist attempting to pander to several powerful GOP congressmen, but decided she could get her task done faster by colluding with Trump, instead. I'm not sure how that proves anyone's point about anything, except what we were all afraid of.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> My take-away from that is that this woman was also a powerful lobbyist attempting to pander to several powerful GOP congressmen, but decided she could get her task done faster by colluding with Trump, instead. I'm not sure how that proves anyone's point about anything, except what we were all afraid of.



We would have to see why Lynch allowed her special entry....

Any bets on these documents having been "moved to the Obama Library and locked up for 5 years?"

If any of you think that maneuver is going to hold up, you're crazy.

We are going to get all the co-conspirators.


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...sian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump
> 
> Link to story. More to come in following days. It boils down to Obama/Lynch/Clinton being at the center of the "Russian connection" again.



When I read that article I understand it to say tha Veselnitskaya was allowed into the US in order to represent a client in a court case. From there, she proceeded to both 1) work outside the scope of work she was authorized to perform, and 2) stay in the US much longer than she was authorized to do.

How do you manage to twist that into "Obama and Lynch's Russian operative, let in (by special exemption) to entangle anyone in Trump's team, is a simple-minded diversion that only reinforces my choice last winter".

That's simply not supported by the article you referenced.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> Obama and Lynch's Russian operative, let in (by special exemption) to entangle anyone in Trump's team, is a simple-minded diversion...


Ah, entrapment, right? They knew that Junior's buddy would relay an offer of collusion with a foreign government, and that Trump family was prone to criminal conspiracy. 


CapnForsaggio said:


> We are going to get all the co-conspirators.


I think that will be a good idea. 

Of course, by your conspiracist thinking, Clinton waited to reveal this plot until long after the election because... well, okay, your thinking is even less than a quarter baked on this. It's not even the Clintons or Obama who revealed this stuff, or who leaked Junior's emails to the New York Times. 

The funniest part of watching crazy conspiracists do their thing is the need to keep expanding the claimed conspiracy in order to co-opt evryone into it. That unsustainable thinking is obvious to all but the deluded people who embrace those conspiracy theories.


----------



## Explorer

And now, it turns out there was also a former Soviet counterintelligence officer at the meeting with Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort.

Well, at least this all explains why the Kremlin told the press that Donald Trump Jr. had already addressed this stuff. It's interesting to reread old news in that context. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...57ad17b4385_story.html?utm_term=.bcf40ef94516

And, of course, Trump Jr. had already said to the media, after his meeting in pursuit of collusion with the Russian government, that reports of Trump team members meeting with the Russians were just lies, and that such lies showed what little character someone had.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Explorer said:


> Of course, by your conspiracist thinking, Clinton waited to reveal this plot until long after the election because... well, okay, your thinking is even less than a quarter baked on this. It's not even the Clintons or Obama who revealed this stuff, or who leaked Junior's emails to the New York Times.
> 
> The funniest part of watching crazy conspiracists do their thing is the need to keep expanding the claimed conspiracy in order to co-opt evryone into it. That unsustainable thinking is obvious to all but the deluded people who embrace those conspiracy theories.




You guys see "Russian Operatives" everywhere. But I am the conspiracy theorist. 

Sure. 

You guys would never be hoodwinked. You are too smart for that.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...consumed-cnn-new-day-spends-93-airtime-russia


----------



## narad

Ah, newsbusters. Sounds like a really fun site.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I think that liberal "source elitism" is my least favorite aspect of the modern world. 

It used to be that one had to actually make an argument against an alternative, before getting all bigotted and superior about it....


----------



## narad

Pfft, I'm afraid that was _never_ the case. I like the double standard of dropping a source in here without any context or attempt to tie it into the larger discourse, and then criticizing comments that would dismiss it just as quickly. Wow, a political news program spending most of its time covering the news issue its viewers care the most about -- that's some crazy new liberal propaganda machine!


----------



## StevenC

CapnForsaggio said:


> I think that liberal "source elitism" is my least favorite aspect of the modern world.
> 
> It used to be that one had to actually make an argument against an alternative, before getting all bigotted and superior about it....



You posted a link criticising a news source.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> You guys see "Russian Operatives" everywhere. But I am the conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Sure.


Er... is it possible you're so challenged that you've forgotten Trump Jr. admitted to scheduling a meeting with a Russian operative?

If, instead, you're claiming Trump Jr. lied when so admitting, you're arguing against reality. That won't be a surprise, as many conservatives do so while trying to claim that they base their thinking on reason and evidence. 

C'mon. At least pretend to be an adult when posting in the P&CE section. These drive-by comments with no support have no consistency with each other, and that's just laziness.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> We would have to see why Lynch allowed her special entry....
> 
> Any bets on these documents having been "moved to the Obama Library and locked up for 5 years?"
> 
> If any of you think that maneuver is going to hold up, you're crazy.
> 
> We are going to get all the co-conspirators.


Wait a second, are you arguing that this was an Obama-created plant, to see if the Trump campaign would fall for it? That Obama let her into the country specifically to pose as a Russian agent and contact Trump Jr about having incriminating info on Clinton? That the whole thing was a trap, basically, created by Obama, and she wasn't really a Russian agent? 

I mean, one, that's pretty damned tenuous.  Two, though, that doesn't make sense. 

1) She was allowed to remain in the country on immigration parole from Oct 2015 until Jan 2016, because she was currently representing a Russian citizen testifying in a case in the United States. She then appears to have overstayed her visa. Either way, she had a legitimate reason to be there through at least January; here I'm citing the The Hill article you yourself shared. 
2) Say this whole thing was a trap. Two things follow from that: 
2.a) Why even bother using a Russian? Why not a Russian-American citizen with a Russian sounding name and accent? Why go through the trouble of making a special approval for a Russian agent to come into the country, if you were trying to be secretive, considering that would leave a paper trail?
2.b.) None of this changes the story that, if it somehow _was_ a trap, Donald Trump Jr. took the bait hook, line, and sinker. When presented with what he believed was a Russian operative possessing intelligence gathered by the Russian prosecutors as part of their attempt to influence the election, he excitedly set up a meeting. 

Seriously - at this point, the shadowy "Russian Operatives" you say we're imagining are a proven fact; Trump Jr's own email he himself shared shows that he believed he was scheduling a meeting with a "russian attorney" passing along information provided by the "Crown prosecutor of Russia" as part of "Russia's support for Mr. Trump." Trump Jr. straight-up admitted he scheduled a meeting with agents he believed were passing along information directly from the Russian government. That's incontrovertible.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> C'mon. At least pretend to be an adult when posting in the P&CE section. These drive-by comments with no support have no consistency with each other, and that's just laziness.


Again, he's just trolling. He can't REALLY believe that this whole thing was an elaborate Obama-spun trap for the Trump campaign, and if somehow he did believe that, there's no denying that if somehow this was a trap, Don totally fell for it.


----------



## Drew

By the way, in just about exactly two months, we've gone from "there's no evidence of collusion," here:



CapnForsaggio said:


> I guess I'll have to wait longer before somoeone can explain to me the "collusion" that took place....
> 
> I'm not surprised really. As most nervous leftists have begun to realize, 6 months or more without any evidence of "collusion" (whatever that means) is too long.
> 
> I look forward to Muellers findings


...to "the meeting where the Trump Campaign tried to collude with Russia was a fake trap put together by the Obama administration," here:


CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm not tired of winning at all.
> 
> Obama and Lynch's Russian operative, let in (by special exemption) to entangle anyone in Trump's team, is a simple-minded diversion that only reinforces my choice last winter....



Let's just stop and acknowledged the amount of backpedaling Capn has already had to do to continue to make this argument that no collusion between Russia and the Trump camp - that he's no longer denying meetings between Russian agents representing the Russian government and Trump's senior campaign staff occurred, but it's now an Obama conspiracy, rather than a Trump one. _As of yet_ we don't have hard evidence of anything more than the _attempt_ to collude, but at the rate things are going one of the Trump kids ought to tweet that out any day now.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

^ Susan Rice intelligence committee tomorrow. Then I will tell you if I think Obama colluded with the DNC to undermine the free elections of our federal government.

If Susan was using her position for politics at the direction of the president, I would hope to see treason charges for both.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

"Which theory is harder to believe?"

That Trump, who had never run for office before and who was panned as a clown by the Democrats and the media right up until Election Night last November, orchestrated a grand coup d’état with the assistance of the Russians to “hack” an American election, and that it was so well hidden that the Don Junior meeting is the only real evidence unearthed so far of the whole thing…


…Or that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party used their immense power to attempt to ensnare the Trumps in a damaging narrative that would either discredit him and the Republican Party as traitors in the event of a Clinton victory or cripple his administration in “scandal” should he pull an upset?


----------



## tedtan

CapnForsaggio said:


> "…Or that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party used their immense power to attempt to ensnare the Trumps in a damaging narrative that would either discredit him and the Republican Party as traitors in the event of a Clinton victory or cripple his administration in “scandal” should he pull an upset?



Even if that were the case, it only proves that the Trump campaign (and later administration) were not only dumb enough to fall for it, they were also dumb enough to admit to it in public even though they'd previously denied it for months.


----------



## jaxadam

CapnForsaggio said:


> "Which theory is harder to believe?"
> 
> That Trump, who had never run for office before and who was panned as a clown by the Democrats and the media right up until Election Night last November, orchestrated a grand coup d’état with the assistance of the Russians to “hack” an American election, and that it was so well hidden that the Don Junior meeting is the only real evidence unearthed so far of the whole thing…
> 
> 
> …Or that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party used their immense power to attempt to ensnare the Trumps in a damaging narrative that would either discredit him and the Republican Party as traitors in the event of a Clinton victory or cripple his administration in “scandal” should he pull an upset?



You know... you have a really good point.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> "Which theory is harder to believe?"
> 
> That Trump, who had never run for office before and who was panned as a clown by the Democrats and the media right up until Election Night last November, orchestrated a grand coup d’état with the assistance of the Russians to “hack” an American election, and that it was so well hidden that the Don Junior meeting is the only real evidence unearthed so far of the whole thing…
> 
> 
> …Or that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party used their immense power to attempt to ensnare the Trumps in a damaging narrative that would either discredit him and the Republican Party as traitors in the event of a Clinton victory or cripple his administration in “scandal” should he pull an upset?


Two things. First, your first scenario isn't what's being alleged. Rather, it's alleged that there was a concerted effort on the part of Russia to influence the course of the US election, through selectively hacking and leaking incriminating information on only one of the two candidates, and that the Trump administration actively courted this help - i.e - the Trump camp colluded with the Russians for political advantage. For a while I was starting to think it was more likely that the Trump team was unknowingly being influenced by the Russians, but post Trump Jr's emails, the argument that Trump was unknowingly taken advantage of by a Russian influence campaign is a LOT harder to make.

Second, at this point, considering we now have concrete proof that Trump Jr was contacted by someone representing a Russian agent claiming to have incriminating evidence gathered by Russia as part of their effort to support Trump's candidacy, and that Trump Jr eagerly accepted their request to set up a meeting to discuss, then yeah, I'd say the former is suddenly a whole _heck_ of a lot more likely than the latter. 

I think you're also forgetting just how much has come out - Flynn lost his job because he lied about meetings with Russian state agents, and discussed relaxing US sanctions with them, Sessions recused himself from the investigation of Russian influence during the election because he too had denied meeting with Russian agents during the campaign, until evidence to the contrary emerged, Kushner tried to set up a back-channel communications network with Russia, Manafort was working as a foreign agent on behalf of Ukraine, lobbying on behalf of pro-Kremlin interests, and had to file retroactive disclosures to this effect, and now Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer and Russian counterintelligence agent who claimed to have incrimidating intel on the Clintons provided by the Russian government. Let's not downplay how fast this story is evolving and how much has come to light in the past 6 months.


----------



## Drew

You know, two other things worth mentioning, as well. 

First, the Trump attempting to collude with Russia scenario is arguably all the more believable because it appears that the Trumps are _spectacularly bad_ at it. I mean, look at what happened - not only did Don Jr. set up a meeting with someone represented as a Russian agent bearing sensitive classified information from the Russian government _in writing_, leaving a paper trail, he then went and tweeted screencaps of the whole email chain out to the public when the Times contacted him for comment shortly before releasing a story about the existence of those emails, rather than trying to deny them or imply they were somehow faked. That displays a mind-boggling degree of stupidity or cockiness. that he put it in writing in the first place, and that he himself became the leak. 

Second, it's also worth noting that what we know know is only what's been uncovered by the _press_ in the past 6-8 months, and furthermore what they've uncovered and consider reliably enough sourced to print without falling afoul of libel laws. There's a high probability that the Mueller investigation has already gone a fair amount deeper, and it's just not in the public record yet.


----------



## Drew

ACA repeal/replace died last night, when two additional Republicans came out in opposition.

Thursday marks the 6 month point in Trump's first term. A couple thoughts, as we close in on that milestone:

I think we just effectively killed off this "we need a businessman to run the country like a company" argument. 
The Russia investigation is already far more fruitful than I think the Democrats might have hoped in November, is consuming most of the bandwidth in Washington, and very well may bring down Trump. Whether or not you consider Don Jr's admission that he tried to collude with the Russians a "smoking gun," it's a pretty shocking development. Pushing on this story has proven an effective strategy for Democrats, since it keeps yielding fruit.
As a sub-point, Trump hasn't managed to wrestle control back of the narrative, and many of his attempts - firing Comey, say - have been counterproductive.
"The Trump Agenda" is at this point pretty fully off the rails. The one victory Trump can claim is getting Gorsuch confirmed, though that's more McConnell than it is Trump. Other than that, the ACA repeal/replace is dead, it's highly unlikely they'll get a repeal-only bill across the line, and after claiming they wanted a quick vote so they could move onto tax reform, the fact they _aren't_ pivoting onto tax reform is a bad sign (and why the market is trading off this morning). Meanwhile, the debt ceiling is a seriously underrated risk at the moment, as evidently Mnuchin is struggling to get a consensus within even the White House, much less Congress.
As a sub-point to _this_, the GOP is living up to their reputation as "the Party of No" from the last seven years - they can oppose Obama's policies, but they have nothing of their own to offer up. The party is showing clear faultlines into moderate and tea party wings.
Trump's "core" support doesn't care about any of the above, and questions the factual accuracy of any of it. See: reception to Trump's easily disprovable claim that he's signed more legislation than any president before him. He's probably got a floor of around 30% under his approval ratings, so long as the right-wing media continues to support him.
While the Democrats don't have any headline victories in special elections to their name, they've taken districts that should be solidly red and managed to fight to single-point margins. Generic polling shows Congressional Democrats nearly 10 points more popular than Congressional Republicans. This isn't a bad position to be in coming into 2018.
As a Democrat, my biggest concern would be repeating the mistakes of the Republicans. We have moderate and progressive wings to the party as well and the 2016 campaign certainly exposed those; as we approach 2018, "we're not Trump, and we're going to stop him and protect the gains of the last 8 years" may very well be a winning message, but I'd like to see the DNC take it a step beyond that and have a clear legislative agenda they plan on attempting to execute if they are able to retake the house and the senate. The odds of them getting a veto-proof majority are low, but I think a road map of what to expect if they get the opportunity to govern would further differentiate them.
In some ways, Trump was far worse than I and a lot of people expected him to be, but in others, he's proven oddly ineffective.

EDIT - three republican senators have come out in opposition of repeal-only, so _that's_ dead, too. McConnell is having a rather bad day - wouldn't be surprised if Trump decides he's the guy to blame for this and calls for a leadership change.


----------



## Drew

Also, throwing it out there, considering Trump has actively made things _worse_ for Senate Republicans during the negotiations (referring to the house plan as "so unfair," committing McConnell to try to pass something when initially he indicated he'd get a vote done within a week so pass or fail they could move on to taxes), I'd say that as one of the two major legislative goals of Congress this year now appears dead in the water, the odds of the GOP turning on Trump over the Russia investigation's continual worsening story just increased somewhat.


----------



## bostjan

1. I don't think so. Using Trump as an example of a business manager is like using Tommy Wiseau as an example of an actor. I think what it proves is that a reality TV star may likely make a terrible president, which should be no surprise to anyone with a shred of rational thought.
2. Honestly, where is the Russia thing going to go? Worst case, Trump utilized an enemy foreign government to dig up dirt on his rival. Is that bad? Of course, but is that an impeachable set of charges? Hmm, maybe. Trump seems to have a lot of friends, but I think his friends might not be in the right positions to protect him if it does come to that. It'll be up to the GOP, at the end of the day, to either stick hard to their principles or stick to their personal loyalties to their leader. Who knows how that'll work out.
3. I was musing today about how Howard Dean lost credibility by acting nutty for a single moment. 12 years later, Trump won the election by acting consistently nutty during the entire campaign. Maybe people just want predictability. 
4. Oh...I think you're right, but he might get one or two more things to go through. My biggest issue with his direction for the country is not that his agenda has some goals that are off-center, politically, it's that his goals and plans are never any better than half-baked.
5. Of course they are. See my point about predictability in #3. The DNC wants to move the nation forward and to the left. The GOP wants to move backward and to the right. The closer to the right we get, though, the less correction these guys want to make, so they simply dig in their heels.
6. I don't friggin get it. Honestly. I work with a bunch of these guys. They fervently supported Trump in the general election, even if they hated him vehemently in the primaries. These are the same guys who despise the business management at their employer. Trump is exactly everything that they hate about corporate America, yet, somehow, in some totally logic-defying mind-warping twisty, turvy way, they see him as the embodiment of what they love about America. Now, as Trump is floundering around Washington, trying to push his agenda of being the greatest president ever by simply convincing everyone that's what he is, and his 5%-baked policies are falling apart, these guys are still blaming democrats.
7. The democrats need to regroup. This is not the time to be confident. 2016 was a complete disaster for the DNC. 2018 is a long time from now, and a lot can happen. If, IF, the democrats can manage to tell a narrative to the American people that either A) the GOP is trying to ruin us, or B) they could have done way better, then, I think, they'll win in 2018, otherwise, the USA will continue to be run by the GOP.
8. Having two wings is effective if the wings work together toward a common goal. In 21st century America, you never get both sides to agree. Even if one side agrees to the other side's terms, the other side will just change their terms. It's completely idiotic. And it's not just the DNC. The GOP's different factions are just as opposed to each other, and it's setting us back as a nation.

What we have here is a government that is on the verge of breaking. Trump should have never been handed the reins, knowing that he had no experience in governance and his business leadership endeavors had all ended badly.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

bostjan said:


> What we have here is a government that is on the verge of breaking. Trump should have never been handed the reins, knowing that he had no experience in governance and his business leadership endeavors had all ended badly.



Why do you think we handed him the reigns? 

We had 8 years of bogus "policy" and decided to just tear it down.

You will never convince people like me that the Feds accomplish anything productive. I would rather burn my taxed income in a barrel in my back yard.

After we put another couple justices in there, we are going to take it all apart. All of it.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Why do you think we handed him the reigns?
> 
> We had 8 years of bogus "policy" and decided to just tear it down.
> 
> You will never convince people like me that the Feds accomplish anything productive. I would rather burn my taxed income in a barrel in my back yard.
> 
> After we put another couple justices in there, we are going to take it all apart. All of it.



We've had WAY more than 8 years of bogus policy, and we'll have a lot more to come, assuming our government doesn't self-destruct.

You have to ask yourself, though, "What do I want?" and then think of how you are going to get there. If the only goal is to burn the world and then sit back and have a beer whilst the apocalypse washes away humanity, then it really doesn't matter how you get there. If the answer, on the other hand, is "freedom,' you are not going to get there by placing a megalomaniac in office, whether it is Trump, Clinton, or whomever. Which interests do you expect Trump to protect for you? He doesn't give a damn about the Bill of Rights, the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, nor anything else that doesn't help him make money for his own fat wallet. And before you stick HRC up as a defense, forget about people and think about policies for a minute and what you really hold in your best interests.

Now think about every dipwad career politician in Washington DC and tell me if you think any of them really think that "all men were created equally," unless they get to say that they are somehow more equal than everyone else.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I don't believe any politician has my freedom or best interests in mind.

The weakening of the fed is in my best interests. They only act against me (us).


----------



## Drew

See, Capn, here's the thing I don't get about your argument.

"after we put a couple justices in there, we are going to take it all apart. All of it."

You're clearly anti-government of some color, be it anarchist, libertarian, small government conservative, whatever. The exact brand isn't really the critical part, just that you want, if not no government, then one small enough to drown in your bathtub, as Norquest famously joked.

What makes you think a few more conservative justices are going to give you that? Gorsuch is a strict constitutional originalist, which I imagine you're happy for, but he's also a stauchly-if-quietly religious right voice on the court. It's easy to celebrate that if you're a small government/anti-government advocate when it comes to things like the Hobby Lobby decision, but when he starts voting in favor of things like South Carolina's bathroom bill or weakening abortion access or lawsuits attempting to overturn marriage equality or religious education issues or other "religious conservative" issues that actually _expand_ the role of government, I'd see a pretty real possibility that the "let's shrink the government by stacking the court with conservatives" backfires when, say, the court upholds the constitutionality of a federal law banning abortion, or your taxes increase because religious schools are now eligible for taxpayer funding (which was an actual decision Gorsuch weighed in on this term, which Roberts was careful to only limit to the subject of playground resurfacing but Gorsuch and Thomas partly dissented, arguing there should have been no restriction at all on the use of taxpayer funding in private religious schools).

tl;dr - I think you're playing with fire if that's really the road you're trying to go down. Given that the Supreme Court was the unifying issue that helped the religious right get behind Trump, any Supreme Court nominations are going to be made with them in mind, and I don't think smaller government is going to be the result. The government won't get any weaker. It'll be just as strong, it'll just allow different things.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I agree, the chances of weakening the fed are small.

That won't keep me and others from trying. And the supreme court thing is huge, as you know. 
It is probably the end of the progressive left in our country for 20 years or more. 

If we can keep the vacuum from filling with warmongers, we might have a chance in the long run.


----------



## Drew

As The Who once sang, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." If you want to return government to "the people," putting a self-interested billionaire who hands power to his family, friends, and biggest donors is the LAST thing you want to do.


----------



## Drew

In other breaking news, Trump had a second, secret and previously undisclosed, meeting with Putin at the G20 summit, consisting of the two leaders and a Russian translator but no US translator, in violation of, in addition to what I would certainly describe common sense for a man suspected of having secret dealings with Russia during his election, long-standing US State Department protocol.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...utin-held-second-informal-meeting-during-g-20


----------



## CapnForsaggio

You might be onto something with Russiagate:

'I heard that someone in the state department gave up control of uranium reserves and lobbied against Russian sanctions to the tune of $500K.'

Oh wait....


----------



## Drew

Oh right, because if Trump did it, let's accuse Clinton of doing it too.  I have yet to see a credible source for that conspiracy theory, but, you know, fake news I'm sure.

Actually, fuck it. Seriously, man, your boy Trump gets backed into a corner on something like collusion with Russia, and that's the BEST defense you have? "Yes well some people say Clinton did something similar"? And, at the same time, you're lamenting politics as usual and wanting to tear down the federal government, and you'd rather burn $20s in your back yard then send them off to Washington as tax dollars? And you claim you're not pro-Trump so much as anti-Clinton, and when push comes to shove, you defend Trump by saying "hey, Clinton did it too so it must be alright"?

How the fuck does THAT make any sense? 

Again, meet the old boss, same as the new boss. Even if you subscribe to all the crazy shit you're saying, you're getting hoodwinked. I actually feel a little bad for you, to be perfectly honest. You just got sold a bill of goods, and you don't even realize it.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I don't need you to feel sorry for me. It's not my political agenda that is at risk of total destruction. 

You can't argue with the fact that there is a money trail a mile long to the CF. And that there really isn't a comparison on Trump's side. This is at the crux of why she was beaten so badly. A perceived double standard. Here's a gem of an example:







I'm feeling quite optimistic.


----------



## Drew

No, right on. Buy the ticket, take the ride. 


EDIT - by the way, having never heard of BleachBit, I did a quick google search. You're telling me a corrupt government official decided to use amateur freeware to cover her ass. Right.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> No, right on. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
> 
> 
> EDIT - by the way, having never heard of BleachBit, I did a quick google search. You're telling me a corrupt government official decided to use amateur freeware to cover her ass. Right.


 Sadly, the source never matters anymore, it's the validation.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> Sadly, the source never matters anymore, it's the validation.


Actually, I think we gotta chalk this one up to truth being stranger than fiction - it seems like Trump really DID think Clinton used some sort of acid or chemical on her email server:



The Donald said:


> And now you see what’s happening with Hillary. You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails -- 33,000 emails -- acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them. Really, and these emails pertain to her wedding or her yoga classes? What’s gone on here is very serious, and I’ll be honest, I think that the FBI is having a very, very hard time. I don’t think they’ve ever been through a period where so many people are so disappointed in them.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tran...avid-muir-interviews-donald/story?id=41901825



The Donald said:


> Thirty three thousand emails that she deleted. They’re gone. And not only deleted folks, she bleached—which somebody said they had never even heard of—in a very expensive fashion, used chemical so nobody will ever be able to see ‘em. Who does this?


http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...illary_clinton_literally_acid_washed_her.html

At a bare minimum, it's pretty clear he wasn't concerned she'd used a freeware program. I'm having a hard time understanding this as anything but a literal belief that she applied chemicals to her email server. Our President, folks.


----------



## bostjan

To hell with all of these crooks.


----------



## tedtan

This is becoming comical.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drew said:


> No, right on. Buy the ticket, take the ride.
> 
> 
> EDIT - by the way, having never heard of BleachBit, I did a quick google search. You're telling me a corrupt government official decided to use amateur freeware to cover her ass. Right.



It is factual that her team did use Bleachbit. I don't understand your objection.

My point was that they fact checked him on semantics. And they didn't even bother to check that his terminology is used in normal IT nomenclature....

This amounts to 'Everything Trump says is bullshit.' - Even when it is demonstrably true. 

Mix that with "Modern McCarthy-ism," and you get something that reasonable Americans revolt against.

Speaking of McCarthyism - Isn't it funny that 50 years ago, it was liberals who were suffering from unfounded "Russian" accusations. Today, the liberals are using the exact same playbook. Only now it is the conservatives that are "Russian Spies"...

I think it amounts to choosing a white boogeyman. That way, people can be labelled and bigotted against without a racial component.


----------



## will_shred

tedtan said:


> This is becoming comical.



I haven't posted in this thread since the election I think, and it seems like the federal government, at least the presidency, congress, and surpreme courts, have lost all legitimacy. It makes for great TV, but maybe not so great for global stability.


----------



## vilk

CapnForsaggio said:


> Speaking of McCarthyism - Isn't it funny that 50 years ago, it was liberals who were suffering from unfounded "Russian" accusations. Today, the liberals are using the exact same playbook. Only now it is the conservatives that are "Russian Spies"...



I thought it was just Trump and his cronies. Are we accusing any non-Trump-related run of the mill conservatives of colluding with Russia?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I am referred to regularly as a "Russian operative" because I don't buy the MSM narrative and foundless accusations.

Be honest, how many people have you accused of being a Russia conspirator?


----------



## vilk

Me personally? Zero people. But also, that I'm aware of in the media, it's not an attack on "conservatives" in general. It's purely an attack on Trump and his goons. Many conservatives probably believe he's dirty.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Poll show they don't.

In fact, his support in a recent poll matched election day, but Hillary was even more disliked. 

http://time.com/4864023/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-less-popular-poll/


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> Poll show they don't.
> 
> In fact, his support in a recent poll matched election day, but Hillary was even more disliked.
> 
> http://time.com/4864023/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-less-popular-poll/



So what you're saying is, now that the numbers of a poll about a candidate's popularity are in favor for your candidate, they're legitimate?



> I am referred to regularly as a "Russian operative" because I don't buy the MSM narrative and foundless accusations.
> Be honest, how many people have you accused of being a Russia conspirator?



One instance of an average Joe being targeted as a Russian operative because he doesn't buy into mainstream media =/= national trend of calling all right-wing leaning people "Russian Operatives"


----------



## vilk

I still cannot even fathom the sort of logic going down in the mind of a person who sees unpopularity of an unrelated 3rd party as a sort of vindication of accusations made directly at Donald Trump and his bozos.

I'm pretty sure it's actually considered a logical fallacy. Anyone good at those who can remind me which one it is?

It's like if Michael Vic was on trial and his defense lawyer walked up and was like "OJ Simpson, now that's a bad guy. Killing your wife is way worse than killing dogs. Therefore, the defense must be innocent"


----------



## bostjan

I am totally not on board with the "there can only be one bad person" argument.
For the sake of "what ifs," though, let's assume that somebody finds a smoking gun that, beyond any level of reasonable doubt, proves objectively that Trump actively sought out a pact with the Russians to dig up dirt on HRC in order to indirectly influence the election, and then kept such a secret by lying to everyone about it. I'm not saying that it'd be impossible to remove him from office, but none of that is explicitly forbidden by clear statutes. You can't exactly try the president for espionage, even if he wasn't president when the crime was committed, can you? But, if that becomes the case, I would imagine that there would be a great many people wanting very badly for him to be removed from office as a direct consequence. It'll be a sticky situation.

More realistically, the lies he's told will continue to come unraveled, and we'll see piles of circumstantial evidence accumulating over time as fallout of those lies, and perhaps, once in a while, from independent events in the news. That's just going to make things less sticky in his favour.

Now, if the above hypothetical situation had existed for a president like Nixon, he would have resigned, surely. But...this is Trump - who, in his own mind, can do no wrong. This is the guy who says stuff during an address, then publicly states that he never said what he said, just days later. He's completely unreasonable, so I have no reason to suspect he'd resign from office under any circumstances. Removing a president from office by force of congress is something that has never happened in the history of the USA. Not only would such a pursuit damage US credibility (as if having Trump as president does not), but it would really stir up Trump supporters, who could watch the man eat a live baby and still think he's watching out for their best interests and that he's a good man.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

The poll was in relation to Trumps continued support, not an indictment of Clinton. Although that is an interesting tidbit.

And with regards to Bostjan's comment: Trump doesn't eat live babies to my knowledge, but I do celebrate some of his victories.

Namely, the 70% reduction in illegal immigration and the 80% increase in local jail holdings of ICE related arrests. This feat alone is unparalleled in modern political accomplishments. We have wanted it for YEARS. Trump is the first and only to deliver.

Secondly, the supreme court. Love his justice(s).

Thirdly, Nafta/TPP, trade negotiation in general. Great positions, great actions so far.


----------



## mongey

CapnForsaggio said:


> The poll was in relation to Trumps continued support, not an indictment of Clinton. Although that is an interesting tidbit.
> 
> And with regards to Bostjan's comment: Trump doesn't eat live babies to my knowledge, but I do celebrate some of his victories.
> 
> Namely, the 70% reduction in illegal immigration and the 80% increase in local jail holdings of ICE related arrests. This feat alone is unparalleled in modern political accomplishments. We have wanted it for YEARS. Trump is the first and only to deliver.
> 
> Secondly, the supreme court. Love his justice(s).
> 
> Thirdly, Nafta/TPP, trade negotiation in general. Great positions, great actions so far.



exactly how do you measure a 70% reduction in people that you don't even know are in the country ?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

By counting the number of border arrests previously, and comparing it to what you are experiencing now.

They do track this. It is available on federal websites.

Similarly, ICE retainers are tracked.


----------



## mongey

I feel that figure could be interpreted in lost of ways. Maybe the border guards are 70% lazier. Maybe the IE's got 70% smarter. 

Maybe just maybe 70% of cases are not being reported to cook the books 

But each their own.


----------



## narad

Or maybe immigrants are 70% less interested in coming to the US. Personally I prefer to move to countries that aren't going to shit.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> By counting the number of border arrests previously, and comparing it to what you are experiencing now.
> 
> They do track this. It is available on federal websites.
> 
> Similarly, ICE retainers are tracked.



https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

Nope.

That "70% DOWN" claim is completely baseless. But they do track these statistics, as shown in the link above, and arrests at the border are more than half of what they were for the entire year last year. If you only measure half the year, you might be able to claim "35% DOWN," but that's comparing half a year to a full year. Correcting for that, though, border arrests are 15% UP.

But it's a silly argument, for the reasons other users posted already. Maybe border agents are more active, or maybe there are more agents or more patrols, or maybe illegal immigrants are moving slower or in larger groups, or who knows. There is no way to track crime statistics without making massive assumptions about law enforcement in the process.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Drop in illegal crossings:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/5...t-border-crossings-6-year-low/article/2627990

Interview with the head of the Border Patrol union:
"Moral is the best its ever been. Agents can do their jobs again."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/...president-trump-wall-high-energy-among-agents

I will never understand the liberal viewpoint on illegal immigration. 10 years ago, it matched with the conservatives. Hillary is on tape talking about the illegal immigration problem, back then.

Allowing Illegal immigration is only "the right thing to do" when most real working Americans don't support the liberal agenda anymore. I wonder why that is? A new voter base maybe?!


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Oh wait, I found another liberal reason for illegal immigration:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/i...ions_will_hurt_us_lett.html#incart_river_home

'We need slaves to harvest our food cheaply.'

Unbelievable hypocrisy from the party of the ACLU.


----------



## MFB

CapnForsaggio said:


> Oh wait, I found another liberal reason for illegal immigration:
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/i...ions_will_hurt_us_lett.html#incart_river_home
> 
> 'We need slaves to harvest our food cheaply.'
> 
> Unbelievable hypocrisy from the party of the ACLU.



A. It's an OP piece, not a front page headline
B. I don't think you understand the concept of 'slavery' and how that's not what this is
C. What part of any of that dealt with the ACLU?


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> It is factual that her team did use Bleachbit. I don't understand your objection.
> 
> My point was that they fact checked him on semantics. And they didn't even bother to check that his terminology is used in normal IT nomenclature....
> 
> This amounts to 'Everything Trump says is bullshit.' - Even when it is demonstrably true.
> 
> Mix that with "Modern McCarthy-ism," and you get something that reasonable Americans revolt against.
> 
> Speaking of McCarthyism - Isn't it funny that 50 years ago, it was liberals who were suffering from unfounded "Russian" accusations. Today, the liberals are using the exact same playbook. Only now it is the conservatives that are "Russian Spies"...
> 
> I think it amounts to choosing a white boogeyman. That way, people can be labelled and bigotted against without a racial component.


You know, it looks like they're fact checking him on semantics at a glance, but it really sounds like Trump _literally_ thinks Clinton applied chemicals to her server. You seem to have missed my second post where I grabbed a couple quotes about that, but here's another from today's NY Times interview:



> TRUMP: I mean, I was talking about, she deleted and bleached, which nobody does because of the cost. How she got away with that one, I have no idea. 33,000 emails.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html

Nobody uses a freeware program, because of the _cost_?  The problem with fact-checking Trump is some of the shit he seems to sincerely believe is so asinine that it's tough to refute with a straight face.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, in that same interview, Trump is mulling over firing Mueller if he starts looking into his personal finances. 


Today, Mueller expanded his probe to include Trump's business transactions.
Trump has described this as a "red line" that would lead him to consider firing Mueller, in the interview that ran today.
Congressional Republicans conspicuously were silent when asked to defend Trump after Don Jr tweeted his emails about the Russian lawyer meeting last week.
On top of that evidence of strain, Trump then lambasted the Senate for failing to repeal and replace or even repeal the ACA, and is forcing them to try again and suggesting they don't leave Washington on recess until they succeed, when they'd rather move onto taxes. 
Arguably, Trump actually HURT the path forward on the ACA - Rose Garden ceremony for the House bill, then being caught describing it as "mean" privately and being overly optimistic but otherwise fairly absent while the Senate was crafting a bill and trying to rally support.
While itself not massive, the undisclosed meeting with Putin that came to light in the last few days is an additional level of awkwardness. 
In this environment, if Trump actually goes ahead and fires Mueller, I'd say the odds are decent Congressional Republicans turn on him. I think he's on thinner ice there than he realizes. There's room for interpretation here, but I'm of the mindset that there's a transactional relationship between Trump and Congress - they don't like him, many of them publicly distanced themselves and called for the party to abandon Trump in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape, but they're making do because Trump will sign their legislative goals, namely the ACA repeal/replace and tax cuts. I think if we hit a point where 1) it becomes clear that with Trump in the White House they can't actually get an ACA bill done, and he won't let them pivot to taxes and/or makes it harder to get even a modest tax bill passed, and 2) Trump does something high-profile (such as firing Mueller) to try to block the ongoing investigation into his dealings with Russia, given clear evidence that his campaign had at least _tried_ to collude, I think we get to a point where the GOP realizes Trump is worth more to them dead than alive. It's tricky in that his approval numbers are still decent in red states, but they're definitely declining, and Congressional Republicans know that after 8 years of being labeled the "Party of No," they need SOME sort of significant legislation when they've been handed both chambers of Congress and the White House.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Poll show they don't.
> 
> In fact, his support in a recent poll matched election day, but Hillary was even more disliked.
> 
> http://time.com/4864023/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-less-popular-poll/


Citation check, while Clinton actually does rank as less popular than Trump in that poll (which, as the commentators note, is interesting in that she's largely stayed out of the limelight), the article points out that Trump's approval numbers haven't "matched election day," but in fact have "continued to reach record lows." You can pick your poison here, but I've always tracked Gallup's approval numbers, which show a slide from 45% at the time of his inauguration down to 37% today (during which time his disapproval numbers have increased from 45% to 57%). 

I think it's interesting Clinton's approval is currently lower than Trump's, I'm surprised by that, but that one poll at least supports you. Arguing Trump's numbers haven't declined at _all_, though, is something you can't conclude from those polls.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Drop in illegal crossings:
> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/5...t-border-crossings-6-year-low/article/2627990
> 
> Interview with the head of the Border Patrol union:
> "Moral is the best its ever been. Agents can do their jobs again."
> http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/...president-trump-wall-high-energy-among-agents
> 
> I will never understand the liberal viewpoint on illegal immigration. 10 years ago, it matched with the conservatives. Hillary is on tape talking about the illegal immigration problem, back then.
> 
> Allowing Illegal immigration is only "the right thing to do" when most real working Americans don't support the liberal agenda anymore. I wonder why that is? A new voter base maybe?!



Your source is fuzzy with their mathematics. Using a pocket calculator, the drop is 19% YTD. Also, note that these statistics are not for the entire border. The citation I posted has the statistics for such, which, as I said, and as you can see for yourself, are telling an opposing story.

Which data is less cherry-picked? The entire border or whichever portion of it shows the greatest improvement.

I'd leave that to discerning minds to decide for themselves.

Also, posting Fox News might as well be posting CNN.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Your source is fuzzy with their mathematics. Using a pocket calculator, the drop is 19% YTD. Also, note that these statistics are not for the entire border. The citation I posted has the statistics for such, which, as I said, and as you can see for yourself, are telling an opposing story.
> 
> Which data is less cherry-picked? The entire border or whichever portion of it shows the greatest improvement.
> 
> I'd leave that to discerning minds to decide for themselves.
> 
> Also, posting Fox News might as well be posting CNN.


I don't think our good Captain really gives a shit about statistical accuracy, alas. You know, considering facts have a well-known liberal bias.

Also, to your earlier question re: Trump getting impeached, the old saying is an impeachable offense is something half the House and a 2/3 majority of the Senate agree is an impeachable offense. Past impeachments have generally involved obstruction of justice, however, and I think with the Comey firing and Trump's public statements about his rationale for it, there's already grounds. That's before we even consider Mueller.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> I will never understand the liberal viewpoint on illegal immigration. 10 years ago, it matched with the conservatives. Hillary is on tape talking about the illegal immigration problem, back then.
> 
> Allowing Illegal immigration is only "the right thing to do" when most real working Americans don't support the liberal agenda anymore. I wonder why that is? A new voter base maybe?!



When you have a million other major problems, people crossing the border to do manual labor that Americans don't want to just doesn't rank so high.


----------



## bostjan

I get a bit angry every time I hear people saying stuff like "look at how better the economy is doing," or "look at how much more secure the boarder is," without any form of proof that things are getting better, especially when there is evidence that it's gradually getting worse. It's independent of what the president does in any case, but these arguments are just baseless and out-of-touch. Anyone looking for a job right now knows how horrible the job market is, and anyone with bonds knows how poorly those are performing, so I'm not sure how the argument relates to real life, either.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> and anyone with bonds knows how poorly those are performing



You are right about one thing... bonds aren't worth a shit right now.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

narad said:


> When you have a million other major problems, people crossing the border to do manual labor that Americans don't want to just doesn't rank so high.



Problems like?:

1) Drug trafficking
2) Identity theft
3) wages being too low for American workers

Yeah, we should address these problems before illegal immigration. /S


----------



## bostjan

Well, hmph, it isn't like you get to choose one law to enforce at a time.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> Problems like?:
> 
> 1) Drug trafficking
> 2) Identity theft
> 3) wages being too low for American workers
> 
> Yeah, we should address these problems before illegal immigration. /S



Yea, that's all nice and smug but misguided. For someone that talks a lot about "the narrative", you've really bought in to the "foreigners are the cause of all our problems!" one. And I mean, that's the tale as old as time. At least the whole Hillary pizza shop sex slave ring was creative.


----------



## bostjan

Foreigners have always been the problem in the USA. Things were much better before those pesky puritans cam over and ate all of the bounty of food that was here and had dozens of kids that spread out over nearly the entire continent.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I get a bit angry every time I hear people saying stuff like "look at how better the economy is doing," or "look at how much more secure the boarder is," without any form of proof that things are getting better, especially when there is evidence that it's gradually getting worse. It's independent of what the president does in any case, but these arguments are just baseless and out-of-touch. Anyone looking for a job right now knows how horrible the job market is, and anyone with bonds knows how poorly those are performing, so I'm not sure how the argument relates to real life, either.


I know stock market =/= economy, but if you look at a graph of either the S&P500 or a close proxy like the SPY ETF, the so-called "Trump Rally" arguably predates the election by at least 6 months - in fact, what you see is a dip in the market beginning in September and correcting after the election when it returns to prior trendline levels, which I'd argue has a lot more to do with taking the uncertainty of a close, contested election off the table. Remember that Trump was publicly claiming he wouldn't necessarily respect the outcome of a close election and Clinton was still the favorite coming into election day, by a close margin; if the market hates anything, it's uncertainty, and meanwhile the underlying uninspiring-but-still-reasonably-positive GDP growth and corporate earnings growth has been persisting for some time. Wage growth hasn't really picked up in a meaningful way yet so the historical Phillips curve inverse relationship between unemployment rate and wage growth is out of whack for some reason that economists are still trying to figure out, but the economy itself has been chugging along, if not with a bang, then certainly not a wimper for a while now. In fact, the stock market's ability to tune out noise from Washington is kind of remarkable, all things considered. 

The bigger problem isn't with economic growth, it's with the fact that it's very regionalized. We as a country are doing reasonably well, on average; if you're not in one of the greater urban areas though, you may not be seeing much of that.


----------



## bostjan

The town where I live has only been closing businesses for the past 5 years or so, and it has rampped up this past year. I'm in no way blaming Trump for that, but the claims that it's easier to find a job now than a year ago is very untrue in this area.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

But remember, 'they didn't build that' business anyway. So it doesn't matter.

Haha, if St. Jonsbury is where you are at, I am beginning to understand your stance on illegal immigration. It's easy to support something detrimental to the rest of the country, when you don't have to deal with the outcomes.

95% white, middle class.


----------



## narad

Or maybe he just reads all of the analysis that suggests that it's not to blame for things like drug trafficking, identity theft, or lower wages?


----------



## Explorer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.6caf484de10e

"Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves."

Another source says Trump was just trying to figure out his limits, instead of considering pardoning himself. Of course, the question remains... if Trump truly believes no laws were broken, why so much interest in pardoning people like his family members?


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/...r-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary.html Sean Spicer just quit, in protest of Trump's new communication director.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The town where I live has only been closing businesses for the past 5 years or so, and it has rampped up this past year. I'm in no way blaming Trump for that, but the claims that it's easier to find a job now than a year ago is very untrue in this area.


Yeah, if there's any way that the "urban elites" are out of touch with the country it's that there's a relative lack of awareness to the fact that urban areas are doing pretty good, and that the majority of this country's population falls within urban areas so on a per capita basis, we look like we're recovering at a moderate rate. It's pretty eye opening, though, if you get off the beaten path and see the way parts of this country have just been forgotten by time.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> But remember, 'they didn't build that' business anyway. So it doesn't matter.
> 
> Haha, if St. Jonsbury is where you are at, I am beginning to understand your stance on illegal immigration. It's easy to support something detrimental to the rest of the country, when you don't have to deal with the outcomes.
> 
> 95% white, middle class.


Friendly reminder, since your style of trolling seems to be when caught in the wrong or in a lie to just change the subject:

Is Trump really gonna get there ?

Do you still believe that Trump _didn't_ legitimately mean that he believes Clinton deleted emails and then applied chemicals to her hard drive?


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I can't speak to what he meant, only what I heard him say.

I heard him say something that was accurate, if not worded perfectly. And then I hear everyone go on about his word choice instead of the content of his speech.

'She destroyed a server, after a federal court order said not to, and no punishment was dealt.'

This is entirely true, any way you look at it. It doesn't matter that she asked for the server to be deleted before the court order... it wasn't.

Picking on his nomenclature is just a diversionary tactic used by MSM and leftists to distract from the truth bombs he drops.

Edit: "Like with a cloth?" -Hillary C. A bold faced lie. Why the doublestandard?


----------



## Explorer

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...704692-6e44-11e7-9c15-177740635e83_story.html

And now it appears intelligence intercepts show Sessions did speak about campaign matters with the Rssian ambassador, in spite of his denying it.

This causes unexpected issues for Trump. Sure, Trump wants Sessions gone for having recused himself from Russian matters, which prevents Sessions from interfering with the investigation. This would be a great excuse to replace him with someone Trump can order to obstruct investigators.

However, if Trump gets rid of Sessions while saying it's because of Sessions having dealt with the Russians, he'd have to chit-can Kushner and Junior too.


----------



## Explorer

I've been giving this a little thought.

If Trump pardons everyone in his little collusion operation, it means they can no longer plead the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying, as they cannot incriminate themselves in a crime at that point.

Additionally, if they lie on the stand and get caught, they can then be prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice.


----------



## auxioluck

will_shred said:


> I haven't posted in this thread since the election I think, and it seems like the federal government, at least the presidency, congress, and surpreme courts, have lost all legitimacy. It makes for great TV, but maybe not so great for global stability.



Yeah, I don't really buy in to either side's sensationalism. I'm too focused on our international reputation, and how embarrassing it is that we now look like we don't have an ounce of our shit together anymore.

Well, that, and the fear that this is just going to cause a wave of celebrity personalities to run for office. The gradual decline of the respect of the position of Commander In-Chief. 

No one needs a James Woods vs. Ron Perlman election scenario.


----------



## bostjan

The USA's international reputation has been swirling around the toilet bowl, refusing to flush down for more than ten years now. All of the nation-building and interference with Central American and South American elections, puppet state formation and secret alliances in the Middle East, Gitmo and abuse of prisoners abroad, etc. etc., make us no better than the Soviets during the Cold War. The fact that we do these things and then continue to pride ourselves on how righteous and fair we are is disgusting.

Meanwhile, our diplomat-in-chief has gone from a peanut farmer, to an actor, to a CIA executive, to a guy with shady business dealings and tons of alleged sexual digressions, to a guy who makes up his own words and can never seem to find the doorknob, to the most measured and well-spoken guy who gets no respect back home for his domestic policies and cannot make headway on his promises, to a reality television star with an ego the size of the virgo galactic supercluster...

At this point, I'm more concerned for our basic survival as a nation than our outward appearance.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> I can't speak to what he meant, only what I heard him say.
> 
> I heard him say something that was accurate, if not worded perfectly. And then I hear everyone go on about his word choice instead of the content of his speech.
> 
> 'She destroyed a server, after a federal court order said not to, and no punishment was dealt.'
> 
> This is entirely true, any way you look at it. It doesn't matter that she asked for the server to be deleted before the court order... it wasn't.
> 
> Picking on his nomenclature is just a diversionary tactic used by MSM and leftists to distract from the truth bombs he drops.
> 
> Edit: "Like with a cloth?" -Hillary C. A bold faced lie. Why the doublestandard?


It's a "diversion tactic" that NBC, as part of a broader fact-check, pointed out that when Trump claimed Clinton applied chemicals to her email server, that wasn't true? And the fact you honed in on that one item as part of their debate fact check, and not all of the other factual inaccuracies and/or lies they fact-checked, as evidence of a "mainstream media bias" against Trump? 

Hey, all I'm saying is you yourself chose that one particular tweet from NBC as proof of a bias. Even I thought it was a little bit silly as a fact check claim, at first, until for kicks I googled what Trump had been saying on the subject, and sure enough he has repeatedly claimed Clinton _literally_ "acid washed" and "bleached" her email servers. This is an example _you_ chose, not me, and the best defense you've got is "I can't speak for what he meant, only what I heard him say?" Well, I've provided three or four quotations from Trump himself saying that she used chemicals, at considerable cost, to destroy emails off a hard drive, when the reality is that someone in her camp used a freeware file management program. That's a pretty big difference.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

This all does seem very odd. Are we really supposed to believe that Donald Trump, of all people, doesn't understand the process involved in destroying incriminating evidence?

Then again, i have no problem imagining the Donald, laughing maniacally, as he tips bleach all over an iPhone containing video of him partying with Putin, an eight ball and a bunch of hookers.


----------



## oc616

Oh god. He hit the red button topic...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...t-accept-or-allow-transgender-people-to-serve


----------



## vilk

I saw that he said that, and it's some dumb crap, so don't freak out on me here because I'm about to play devil's advocate:

Though right-wingers will constantly throw Straw Men at you when it comes to the topic of trans people, the real _crux of the issue_ is that trans people are killing themselves way too much. They commit suicide at such a higher rate than non-trans people that developed nations around the world are making a collective social effort to be accommodating of gender dysphoria in order to reduce these suicide statistics.

The suicide rate is also very high for military veterans, at least twice as high as for civilians. So we're taking a group that is already a super high suicide risk and then potentially _raising_ that risk even higher (doubling it?), as well as giving them access to firearms.

I would never suggest that trans people don't deserve the right to serve on the principle that they are "different than normal". However, it could perhaps be argued that it's unsafe for the aforementioned reasons. Obviously I don't think that's why Trump is doing this; he's just pandering to bigots.

Still, the answer isn't to just ban an entire group. They should just have psych evals for people trying to join the military. I'm not even sure whether or not they already do that, but obviously they should be.


----------



## Drew

This "no transgender thing in the military" thing may be one of the few times I actually buy the 11th dimensional chess arguments that Trump is doing something with one hand so you don't see what the other hand (your pick, his ramped-up effort to get Sessions out as AG, or the frantic 20-hour clock on the ACA repeal/replace bill) is doing. It was evidently a policy Mattis did NOT approve, however, and was evidently released while he was on vacation, so it may be as simple as he was just trying to circumvent the so-called "Axis of Adults" responsible for foreign policy. Most likely, it was a bit of both.

This is the bigger news story, I think - Collins is hardly the most conservative member of the Senate, and Reed is a Democrat, but an unfiltered conversation, across party lines, from two Senators who are voicing concerns that Trump literally has no idea what he's doing, doesn't understannd the compexities of the legislative process, and is setting us up for a shut-down when we hit the debt ceiling: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-is-crazy-im-worried/?utm_term=.f599c02f8423


----------



## Drew

So, nothing on last night's ACA repeal/replace meltdown?

You can't discount the importance of Collins or Murkowski in last night's vote, especially given the concerted push to flip Murkowski once the GOP realized McCain wasn't a sure thing - they deserve a lot of credit for last night's outcome, and for the fact that "skinny repeal," which even those voting for it didn't want to see pass, will not become law. But McCain stole the show, and for once lived up to his reputation as a maverick. The Washington Post did a great piece on his vote - he evidently made his mind up much earlier in the evening, perhaps 10pm MSNBC is now reporting, but simply didn't bother to tell Republican leadership that Ryan's half-hearted pledge to not take up the bill and instead send it to committee wasn't enough reassurance for him. He made a private call to Schumer, but aside from that, no one else knew he was a no when he walked into the chamber at midnight, and it wasn't for another half hour that the GOP began to figure out his vote wasn't a sure thing. Even then, I don't think McConnell really believed he was a no until the moment he actually voted, based on the look on his face.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...no-name:homepage/story&utm_term=.cfef42a3515a

One argument that a commentator made here that I think is both 100% accurate, and underappreciated - if the Senate Republicans just wanted to get this to committee, all they had to do was pass ANYTHING that would save enough money or raise enough revenue to meet the rules for reconciliation. A simple tax expected to generate $143 billion in revenue, passed with a vaguely health care-y name, would have done the trick. Whatever McConnell or Ryan might have been saying publicly, the fact they insisted on trying to pass some sort of health care legislation means the "skinny repeal" was always on the table as an actual policy piece the Republican Party was prepared to pass, if they couldn't do anything else.


----------



## Explorer

Regarding the repeal effort... isn't it interesting that the republicans have finally reaped what they have sown in attacking support for women's health?

If you look at photos of legislative initiatives which republicans have touted, the complete lack of women is notable.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Regarding the repeal effort... isn't it interesting that the republicans have finally reaped what they have sown in attacking support for women's health?
> 
> If you look at photos of legislative initiatives which republicans have touted, the complete lack of women is notable.


Going after Murkowski also ended up being an extremely stupid maneuver. It probably didn't help that they used the Secretary of the Interior to threaten her with cuts to energy spending... And Murkowski sits on the Senate Energy committee.  But, whatever the reasons, they gave her very few reasons to want to help Trump land a victory.


----------



## Drew

So, anyone else think Trump may have badly miscalculated over Scaramucci? Like, not for the obvious reasons of him being a total loose cannon?  

Mooch probably plays well with Trump's base - a friend of mine described him as "probably what someone from rural America imagines a successful New York hedge fund guy is like," and I think she's probably right. The problem though is that there are some pretty big costs associated with his hire. 

Right off the bat, he cost Trump Sean Spicer. For all of the chaos of the last six months, Spicer was actually rather well liked in DC by _both_ parties at the time of his appointment, and was a pretty establishment-friendly pick. I also think - so far - he's better at this job than Huckabee was, but that matters less, I think, than the fact that this was the first major fracture between Trump and establishment Republicans. 

Then there was his somewhat colorful rant, on the record, to The Atlantic. My first thought reading that was either Scaramucci has to go, or Priebus and Bannon do. You can't have three guys who are all direct reports to Trump and one of them going off on the other two like that, it's not a sustainable team environment. And sure enough, Priebus is now gone. 

So, here's where things start to look tricky for Trump. There's no way in hell Bannon is going to accept Scaramucci staying on after Scaramucci described him as trying to suck his own dick while riding Trump's coattails. He's going to have to reconcile the two (extremely unlikely), or let one of them go. And, if he's going to let Scaramucci go, why bring him on and lose Spicer and Priebus in the first place, causing a break between Trump and the establishment GOP (made worse by the fact he STILL won't drop ACA repeal/replace, with no plan of his own to offer, after a second extremely embarrassing defeat). 

Yet, at the same time, I don't think Trump can fire Bannon. Bannon has way too much sway with Brietbart, which in turn shapes a lot of the Fox News agenda. If you fire Bannon, an irate Bannon goes rogue, turns Breitbart against Trump, Fox follows, and Trump's base revolts. 

So, Trump seems to have put himself in something of a dillema. By bringing Scaramucci on, he's caused a schism with the establishment GOP, which is already none too happy with him thanks to the clusterfuck he's made of the already-difficult ACA process, and the fact he won't drop it and continues to make wildly optimistic promises on tax reform (like a 15% corporate rate... Congress will be lucky to get 28% over the line). Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the debt ceiling, and he seems totally unaware. He just generated some serious bad blood with the establishment GOP. However, if he keeps Scaramucci and fires Bannon, then Bannon turns on him and he loses his populist base. He either turns on the establishment, and gives them a reason to WANT to remove him in favor of Pence, or he turns on his populist base, his approval numbers tank, and he removes the electoral cost of impeaching him. 

Like, the only way this makes any sense at all to me was if hiring Scaramucci was a way to make Spicer and Priebus quit, and he only planned to bring him in temporarily for a week or two, before firing him for someone else. And that's basically cutting off his nose to spite his face. It actually looks like a pretty major unforced error, from where I sit.


----------



## Drew

...and Mooch is gone. Gen. Kelly fired him, news broke a couple minutes ago. 

So, Trump just pissed off the GOP establishment, and got precisely nothing in return (unless you consider pushing Spicer and Priebus out a win - maybe you could argue the later, but I don't think Spicer's departure helped Trump).


----------



## Explorer

I was surprised at today's news. 

I do like that both Spicer and Scaramucci credited their "resignations" to a desire to create "a blank slate." It's like the head comedy writer at the White House forgot he had just used those ideas.

Personally, I think Trump had seen online speculation that an actor who had played a gay wedding planner might take the role of Scaramucci, and tossed Scaramucci before more SNL-generated ridicule ensued.


----------



## Explorer

So, that initial response from Junior, stating the meeting had been centered on adoptions?

Big Daddy Drumpf dictated that response.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.86c098e2e5b3

For an administration claiming to not be covering things up, they certainly are covering things up.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> I was surprised at today's news.
> 
> I do like that both Spicer and Scaramucci credited their "resignations" to a desire to create "a blank slate." It's like the head comedy writer at the White House forgot he had just used those ideas.
> 
> Personally, I think Trump had seen online speculation that an actor who had played a gay wedding planner might take the role of Scaramucci, and tossed Scaramucci before more SNL-generated ridicule ensued.


Gen. Kelly fired him, plain and simple. He thought he was a loose cannon, and didn't want anyone on the White House Staff that didn't think he had to listen to Kelly. They spun it _after the fact_ as wanting Kelly to have a clean slate (just as they did for Spicer, who quit in protest over Scaramucci's hiring), but keep in mind Scaramucci's wife left him over this - the story goes she texted him saying she was going into labor, and he wrote back "that's wonderful, I'll see you and the baby on Friday!" and that was the last straw for her. This isn't a guy who would have just stepped away to give Kelly a "clean slate." 

And yeah, that Don Jr. story is just a wee bit awkward, and for a guy already under investigation for alleged obstruction of justice, isn't doing him any favors.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/us/politics/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-grand-jury.html

We now have a grand jury on the Russia investigation.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

^ And they are investigating 6 years worth of financial dealings prior to the election. Including interviewing people who rented from him in the tower.

If they are digging that deep, it could mean 2 things:

1) The collusion with Russia began by renting apartments to them 6 years before the campaign (when even Vlad would have been impossible to convince that Trump was a political player)

2) They haven't found anything of substance, and they are getting down to the last scraps.

I would say that #2 is more likely, especially considering the "leaks" that have come out so far.....

Our reputation as a country rides on Mueller's probe. If even the special counsel is seen as partisan in the end, we are totally done.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> If they are digging that deep, it could mean 2 things:
> 
> 1) The collusion with Russia began by renting apartments to them 6 years before the campaign (when even Vlad would have been impossible to convince that Trump was a political player)
> 
> 2) They haven't found anything of substance, and they are getting down to the last scraps.


It *could* mean those two things, but it's not a strict dichotomy. It could also mean: 

Because Trump's offspring have admitted to meeting with Russians in a willing effort to collude with them to influence the election (fact), and have been documented bragging about not needing banks thanks to Russian support (fact), the complete financial records are relevant to the question of Trump entanglement with Russians who might then later seek a quid pro quo. 

I'm surprised that you seek to look so unaware of the facts. Could it be possible you actually *are* so ignorant of the facts, making you incapable of informed adult conversation on the matter, instead of deliberately lying? 

C'mon... put on your big boy pants and be a man. Denying documented facts makes you look stupid, and ruins what's might still remain of your credibility.


CapnForsaggio said:


> Our reputation as a country rides on Mueller's probe. If even the special counsel is seen as partisan in the end, we are totally done.


Keep in mind, even republican members of Congress are seeking to protect the special counsel from Trump's interference. The only group impugning the independent counsel and attempting to deny the aforementioned facts of admissions regarding financial entanglements *and* willing attempts at collusion is Trump and those who want to keep him in a position of power. 

Really, you're making yourself look stupid. At least have the adult common sense Trump lacks to be embarrassed about lying, especially when the truth is a matter of public record.


----------



## zappatton2

While the traditional political Left (by which, the US Democrats hardly qualify) often seems to define itself by a skepticism of authority and the use of power, it seems to me the political right has chosen to define itself by a skepticism of expertise and the use of knowledge. As such, I feel that discussing facts with those who would simply write them off as lies and conspiracy is almost completely fruitless.


----------



## bostjan

This...


zappatton2 said:


> While the traditional political Left (by which, the US Democrats hardly qualify) often seems to define itself by a skepticism of authority and the use of power, it seems to me the political right has chosen to define itself by a skepticism of expertise and the use of knowledge. As such, I feel that discussing facts with those who would simply write them off as lies and conspiracy is almost completely fruitless.


...is so frustrating to me.

Like, how do you make your decisions if not be either a) researching facts yourself or b) listening to an expert?

The entire appeal toward Trump is logically inconsistent from the start. I really want to think that people are smarter than that, but the world keeps proving otherwise again and again.

About ten years ago, I was teaching a college class, and a student of mine stayed after class and asked me "Is it true that there really are not 60 seconds in one minute?" I asked him to look up the definition of a minute and decide for himself, but he really wanted to argue the point, but not in a way that I could even begin to understand what he was trying to prove. I think this is just the world these days- so many people want to think that they are right about something that they have hardly put any thought into. That's what I see when I look at Trump and his supporters. So many false things stated as a matter of fact and there is no accountability for being flat out wrong about anything.

For anyone who is an old-school skeptic, this is an absolute nightmare. It's a world where facts mean nothing more than opinions and experts are valued nothing more than human waste. Success is measured by how successful people want to think you will be.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

Explorer said:


> I'm surprised that you seek to look so unaware of the facts. Could it be possible you actually *are* so ignorant of the facts, making you incapable of informed adult conversation on the matter, instead of deliberately lying?
> 
> C'mon... put on your big boy pants and be a man. Denying documented facts makes you look stupid, and ruins what's might still remain of your credibility.
> 
> Really, you're making yourself look stupid. At least have the adult common sense Trump lacks to be embarrassed about lying, especially when the truth is a matter of public record.



Help me by showing me these "facts" that you think I am avoiding? That might be a start.

I think you might not know what that words means....

In a world where no one has any facts, who is crazier? 
1) The guy claiming that Russian spies are everywhere in the White House?
2) The guy claiming that Russian spies might not be in the white house, and that the whole scenario smells funny?

I find it strange that a few on this board are so insecure that they need to attack so directly.... 
If you feel uncomfortable with your beliefs, don't take it out on me. 
If you feel uncomfortable with MY beliefs, go fuck yourselves.


----------



## narad

CapnForsaggio said:


> In a world where no one has any facts, who is crazier?
> 1) The guy claiming that Russian spies are everywhere in the White House?
> 2) The guy claiming that Russian spies might not be in the white house, and that the whole scenario smells funny?



The guy who would use the phrase "Russian spies" to exaggerate the actual nature of collusion in order to make his position seem sensible.


----------



## bostjan

CapnForsaggio said:


> Help me by showing me these "facts" that you think I am avoiding? That might be a start.
> 
> I think you might not know what that words means....
> 
> In a world where no one has any facts, who is crazier?
> 1) The guy claiming that Russian spies are everywhere in the White House?
> 2) The guy claiming that Russian spies might not be in the white house, and that the whole scenario smells funny?
> 
> I find it strange that a few on this board are so insecure that they need to attack so directly....
> If you feel uncomfortable with your beliefs, don't take it out on me.
> If you feel uncomfortable with MY beliefs, go fuck yourselves.



June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner met with Paul Manafort, a Russian government attorney, to discuss Russian intelligence to torpedo Trump Sr.'s rival, Hilary Clinton. The setup and meeting were initially denied to have ever existed, then, once the New York Times published some of the emails, Trump Jr. changed his story. Those are all well-documented facts.

I'm all for playing devil's advocate or routing for the underdog, but, if your argument is that there is no evidence of Russian collusion, then your argument is already sunk. I think any further discussion needs to be addressing the finer details, or else it is just going to sound totally crazy at this point.


----------



## Drew

CapnForsaggio said:


> Help me by showing me these "facts" that you think I am avoiding? That might be a start.



Is that much of this even in denial at this point?

1) Donald Trump Jr. was offered what he was told was incrimidating information on Hillary Clinton that he had been told was obtained by the Russian government as part of their attempt to help Trump. We know this because Trump Jr. _tweeted screenshots of the entire email chain _hours before the NY Times broke the story.
2) Michael Flynn resigned after the Washington Post, I believe, broke the story that while monitoring a known FBI agent, they had heard Flynn call him to discuss Russian sanctions the day Obama announced them, and the day before Putin made the surprise decision to not respond in kind. This is after Flynn denied having any contact with any representatives of the Russian government during the campaign or transition.
3) Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation after it became known that he had several conversations with Russian agents, including ones where sanctions and foriegn policy were discussed, that he had failed to disclose on his disclosure paperwork presented to the Senate. I forget if it was the Times or the Post that broke this one.
4). Trump fired Comey, and then contradicted his official statement that it was due to mishandling the Clinton investigation by saying during a televised interview that he fired him because of the Russia investigation.
5) Both Flynn and Manafort belatedly registered as foreign agents after the inauguration, as evidence came out that they had received money to lobby on behalf of foreign nations during the time they were on Trump's campaign staff. This is a crime, and it's unclear if an after-the-fact registration will offer them any legal protection.

I mean, this is all stuff that's all clearly in the public record. This investigation has uncovered clear evidence of inappropriate contact between Russian and pro-Russian groups and several key Trump campaign team members, and in the case of Donald Jr, at least an _attempt_ to collude. Meanwhile, by his own admission, by firing Comey to try to stop the Russia investigation, Trump has likely attempted to obstruct justice. Whether this extends to full-fledged collusion with Russia or not is a matter for Mueller to uncover, but at this point, considering how much has been uncovered a mere six months into Trump's term (and remember, on August 8th, the date Nixon gave a speech indicating he would resign the presidency, that Nixon did so on the _second_ year of his presidency - the "Saturday Night Massacre" didn't even happen until late October, and it took a full ten months for impeachment to become so likely that Nixon stepped down), any attempt to argue that this is a mere witch-hunt and much ado about nothing is fucking _lunacy. 
_
Capn right now:







Then again, you're also the guy who says that when Trump talks about Clinton acid-washing her hard drives and applying chemicals to them which "literally no one does because it's too expensive" what he's actually referring to is a freeware data management program, so your grasp on reality is maybe a little tenuous to begin with.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, if I were Trump, and not totally delusional, this would worry me: 

http://firehousestrategies.com/new-firehouse0ptimus-survey-trumps-shrinking-base/#prettyPhoto

I can't speak for the pollster or their methods (they're new to me) but this got mentioned in a financial daily summary piece I read, and is consistent with a series of analyses FiveThirtyEight has done over the Trump presidency; while Trump's approval numbers have only weakened modestly over the summer (after the initial drop from 45% or so to high 30s), if you subdivide approval and disapproval into somewhat/strong favorable/unfavorable brackets, a bigger shift is visible. Most people who have an unfavorable view towards Trump are strongly unfavorable, and the number of voters with these views has increased over the summer. Meanwhile, while his approval in this poll has only dropped about 2.6 points, 44.5 to 41.9, there's a _much_ bigger decline in "strong approval" of 6.7 points. About 3.5% of those are explained by an increase of "somewhat approve" voters, but some of them have become "somewhat unfavorable" or "strongly unfavorable" as well. 

Trump's core support is weakening - both in overall numbers, and in the conviction of that core. As his support drops, the political ramifications of Republicans turning against him drop, as well, and if it gets low enough, then the "cost" of impeaching Trump for Pence gets pretty low.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

This shit is getting more and more comical by the hour.


----------



## Drew

BBC was reporting earlier today that Manafort's home was raided by the FBI before dawn on July 26th, the day after his testimony.

EDIT for source. Manafort's spokesman has confirmed the FBI executed a warrant. So let's add that to the factually known things coming out of this investigation, that Trump's former campaign manager had his home raided by the FBI as part of this investigation.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879798


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Manafort's spokesman has confirmed the FBI executed a warrant. So let's add that to the factually known things coming out of this investigation, that Trump's former campaign manager had his home raided by the FBI as part of this investigation.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40879798


It's worth noting that the FBI warrant means the FBI went to a judge and spelled out the reasons they think a crime has been committed, and what evidence of said crime they expected to find in the raid. The judge agreed to sign the warrant. 

That is a stark contrast to the lie many conservatives attempt to spread, that there is no reason for the investigations. The warrant wasn't issued in an absence of legal justification.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> It's worth noting that the FBI warrant means the FBI went to a judge and spelled out the reasons they think a crime has been committed, and what evidence of said crime they expected to find in the raid. The judge agreed to sign the warrant.
> 
> That is a stark contrast to the lie many conservatives attempt to spread, that there is no reason for the investigations. The warrant wasn't issued in an absence of legal justification.


You are right. Warrants and subpoenas are issued based on a level of suspicion of a crime that law enforcement and a judge both consider that a crime was probably committed. I will go a step the other direction, though and say that this is the evidence gathering phase of an investigation. Investigators have to first garner suspicion enough to start the investigation, they have to form one or more scenarios in which a crime was committed, then they plan out how to find evidence of one of those scenarios. If and when those investigators find sufficient evidence, they move to another phase, which they have not yet reached.

All of the above disclaimer seems silly to say, though, considering we are having a debate as to whether this investigation is legitimate or not, after Trump's camp themselves released publicly information that significantly raises the level of suspicion, then offers no reasonable explanation to dispel any shred of that suspicion.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> All of the above disclaimer seems silly to say, though, considering we are having a debate as to whether this investigation is legitimate or not, after Trump's camp themselves released publicly information that significantly raises the level of suspicion, then offers no reasonable explanation to dispel any shred of that suspicion.


Yes, but good luck getting CapnFormaggio to admit that.


----------



## Explorer

At this point Capn Forsaggio has to either engage in deliberate dishonesty, or to betray an astonishing amount of actual ignorance of current events, to make the false claims he continually advances. I can't imagine how one could avoid that kind of thing leaking out in real life.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> At this point Capn Forsaggio has to either engage in deliberate dishonesty, or to betray an astonishing amount of actual ignorance of current events, to make the false claims he continually advances. I can't imagine how one could avoid that kind of thing leaking out in real life.


Oh, he's displayed a remarkable faculty for it thus far.


----------



## Explorer

Well... now we learn of the real cesspool, unfiltered, at the core of the president's character.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-news-conference-twitter/index.html

I now confidently state that Trump is a racist.


----------



## mongey

I really laughed at this quote from him ,from him.., the twitter president 


"before I make a statement, I like to know the facts."

he is seriously bat shit crazy if you ask me


----------



## Necris

Not 15 minutes ago one of the talking heads on Fox tried to rationalize Trump's doubling down on his "many sides" position as being an attempt to reject tribalism in the political landscape of the United States.


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> I really laughed at this quote from him ,from him.., the twitter president
> 
> 
> "before I make a statement, I like to know the facts."
> 
> he is seriously bat shit crazy if you ask me


Well, then he goes and undercuts the whole argument - first he says he needed to "know the facts" before making his second statement half-heartedly condemning white supremacists in Charlottesville, and then he goes back to his first statement, saying the problem wasn't just white supremacists, but that it was left-wing violence that instigated the killings. Like, if he needed to know "facts" like David Duke was there, then why was he now reverting to his original dissertation condemning hatred "on many sides"? 

Basically, he got caught with his hand in the white nationalist cookie jar, and had to publicly backpedal. And then, in the middle of a press conference on infrastructure, he decided to say fuck it and double down on being an apologist for neo Nazis.


----------



## bostjan

Blame the victims. See where that strategy gets you.

One thing I have to hand to Trump is that he doesn't give two shits about public opinion.


----------



## Drew

I'm starting to wonder if Trump actually did hit a breaking point, last night. 

CNBC is reporting that the President's Strategic & Policy Forum has disbanded - Trump is spinning it as his decision, but the council had all resigned, evidently each taking a turn to explain their decision, before they voted to disband. Sounds like it wasn't unanimous, but pretty close. Meanwhile, CNBC is having prominent business Trump supporters on to defend him, and absolutely lambasting them, for their refusal to condemn the President for being an apologist for American neo-Nazis. Seeing these rich white good ol' Southern boys just speechless, trying to come up with something to say, as the hosts repeatedly push them on why they can't condemn the president's remarks ("Listen, I get it - I grew up in a small town in VA, half the local streets were named after confederate generals, I understand how complicated this is. But, how can you sit there and say that when the President sees protesters carrying swastika flags, how can he _not_ condemn that?"), visibly outraged, faces twitching, but just with nothing substantial they can say... 

The white nationalist movement in this country sees this as a once in a lifetime situation to seize control of the narrative and legitimize themselves. I'm starting to think, though, that there's a very real chance they may have miscalculated.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> I'm starting to wonder if Trump actually did hit a breaking point, last night.



I wouldn't be surprised because that was REALLY bad. Like "thirteen year old throwing a tantrum" only in front of the media level bad.

I also won't be surprised if this is the point at which the republican party begins to turn on Trump. They are already distancing themselves from his racism, but I can see them turning on him to the point of wanting to use the Russia scandals as reason to impeach him and remove him from office over this.


----------



## bostjan

Well, Mitt Romney, George Bush, other George Bush, Mitch McConnell, and many other republicans have already more or less denounced Trump's sentiments. Meanwhile there are still legal actions against Trump and at least one major investigation into him. The only think that might turn this all around is if North Korea tries to attack the US or something like that, then everyone will unite under the war banners and forget about all of the anti-anti-KKK and anti-anti-Nazi comments from him.


----------



## bostjan

I pose a question:

If Trump had been president when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, what would Trump have said?


----------



## Drew

I'm going to go one step further - I think, barely more than 6 months into Trump's term, he's now a lame duck president. 


He lost the business community this afternoon. They voted to disband his strategic & policy forum, and were scheduled to vote to do the same on his manufacturing forum, later this afternoon, before he pre-emptively disbanded the latter, too. CNBC is describing this as a "vote of no confidence" from the business community.
His relationship with Congress was already badly strained, before his statement last night. The GOP may still get a modest cut to the corporate tax rate done, but with Trump calling for a cut to 15% while they'll be hard pressed to do better than 25-28%, he's already setting them up for failure. If he pushes for another attempt at repeal & replace, he'll be politely told to go pound sand. His legislative agenda is effectively dead. 
He's hit the limits of foreign power, too - he's already isolated himself in Europe, and after the last round of threats with North Korea, South Korea stepped forward and told him that no nation has the right to unilaterally attack North Korea, and if anything happens they'd better be involved. 
I don't really see where he goes from here. His legislative agenda is dead, his relationship with the business world is in tatters, he's isolated himself internationally... If he wants to get _anything_ done, he needs to learn to work within the system by the system's rules, which seems highly unlikely. More likely, he's going to remain completely isolated and marginalized, at home and abroad.


----------



## Explorer

I'm going to note that less than fifteen current Republican members of Congress have denounced Trump's claim of "good guys" among the Nazis. 

Less than fifteen current Republican congress members, 

Fifteen seems like such a low bar, but the Republicans haven't made it.


----------



## Kevcarnage

Trump is the man


----------



## Drew

Kevcarnage said:


> Trump is the man


That's a super articulate and nuanced argument you've contributed to this discusson!

I still think his legislative agenda is dead in the water, as he's run out of tools to be effective with, pretty much across the board. Your thinking he's the man doesn't exactly sway my thinking.


----------



## vilk

idk if you saw the other thread he was posting in but I don't think that kev really understands the caliber of discussion that goes on in the SSO PC&E section... well at least, he didn't used to. After getting shut down over and over and having everything he says punted back into his face he probably has a little better picture now


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> idk if you saw the other thread he was posting in but I don't think that kev really understands the caliber of discussion that goes on in the SSO PC&E section... well at least, he didn't used to. After getting shut down over and over and having everything he says punted back into his face he probably has a little better picture now


Honestly, I'd be happy to have a polite, deep, and nuanced conversation with an honest-to-god Trump supporter who _still_ supports the man, but all the ones I know have been turned off by his conduct in the Russia investigation and his recent statements on Charlottesville, and online all you ever find is the #MAGA trolls. 

I'd be really curious to try to understand after everything he's done, what could still make someone think he's the guy we need as our President. I just want to understand that thought process.


----------



## bostjan

To be fair, you never know when you might be dealing with a troll on the internet, but regardless of how insincere someone may be as a person, their arguments might still stand logical tests or not.

In the 1990's I was trolled a few times in political message boards, simply because the best trolls would have one or two decent arguments against whomever they were trolling.

The trouble with Trump's entire presidency, is that none of the arguments his supporters made for him to be elected ever spoke to me on any level. "He speaks his mind" - yeah, well, so do I - would I make a good PotUS?!  "He's not a politician, so he doesn't speak for the billionaire interests who pull the puppet strings of Washington" - No, he's not under billionaire control, because he is the billionaire usually pulling strings, so the argument doesn't make any sense to me. "He wants to bring US industrial strength back" - yeah, as opposed to any of his political opponents who will tell you that exact same line... It all adds up to, in my mind, that people were gullible enough to vote for this guy on the hope that he was going to change things and shake up the government. I can agree with the sentiment, but I think Trump was never the way to do that. He's cutting the middleman out of government corruption and going straight to the source. In the general election, there were enough people who distrusted HRC to make all of the difference in just the right places. Somehow Trump appeared to some groups as someone who would be a strong leader, which is what people have been wanting for a long time. I guess no one cared enough to try to figure out which direction he was going to lead us.


----------



## Kevcarnage

Everything spit back in my face? Jesus Christ you guys love making assumptions. I don't support trump. I find the way he speaks hilarious though and that's why I'm referring to him as the man. I find politics to bring out the worst in people. As I can clearly see in these threads. It's just all funny to me. And I support any president we have. Because it's always the people causing the problems anyway. I don't by any means think trump is intelligent enough to run this country however congress holds the real power anyway.


----------



## bostjan

Kevcarnage said:


> Everything spit back in my face? Jesus Christ you guys love making assumptions. I don't support trump. I find the way he speaks hilarious though and that's why I'm referring to him as the man. I find politics to bring out the worst in people. As I can clearly see in these threads. It's just all funny to me. And I support any president we have. Because it's always the people causing the problems anyway. I don't by any means think trump is intelligent enough to run this country however congress holds the real power anyway.


We all make assumptions from time to time, whether we try not to or whatever. I usually try not to, but I do it all of the time without realizing. For the record, I never assumed you were a Trump supporter, but I could certainly see how people might get that impression based on most of your comments in the PC&E forum. As I said, I like to just look at each argument and see where it goes. Just like I mentioned to you in another thread, though, if you make a lot of weird arguments that just don't make sense to people, either through misunderstanding or through miscommunication, people will stop taking your arguments seriously.


----------



## Kevcarnage

I was just having fun. I hope you are too. But I can see you guys are too serious about politics for me to stay involved so I'm back to the baritone section lol. Have a great day


----------



## bostjan

I see, so nothing serious then. Cheers!


----------



## Drew

Kevcarnage said:


> Everything spit back in my face? Jesus Christ you guys love making assumptions. I don't support trump. I find the way he speaks hilarious though and that's why I'm referring to him as the man. I find politics to bring out the worst in people. As I can clearly see in these threads. *It's just all funny to me. *And I support any president we have. Because it's always the people causing the problems anyway. I don't by any means think trump is intelligent enough to run this country however congress holds the real power anyway.


Whereas I absolutely assumed you were a Trump supporter.  

The only thing I'll say, is that it may all be funny to you, but it's a matter of life and death to a lot of minority group Americans.


----------



## bostjan

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/donald-trump-bob-corker-tim-scott-friends/index.html

Terrible terror attack? You know what Trump would do? Evidently, dip bullets in pig's blood and shoot some Muslims...

This guy is on a roll. It's like he thinks there is an award for "Us President who gave the least fucks, ever."


----------



## Drew

No matter that there's zero historical evidence that ever happened, and the battle that it allegedly happened in was two years before the US decided to withdraw from the war, so even if that old wives' tale HAD happened, it would clearly not have worked. 

It's funny, though, how much faster he got the "facts" about Barcelona than he did about Charlottesville.


----------



## synrgy

Bannon is out.


----------



## oc616

We're coming to the last orange domino, can Capn take his fingers out of his ears now?


----------



## Necris

http://www.businessinsider.com/drea...-department-warrant-trump-inauguration-2017-8
This one got buried by Charlottesville coverage.


----------



## synrgy

Yeah, I caught that, too. "Gestapo" is the word that came to mind.


----------



## bostjan

Trump just disbanded the Federal Advisory Committee on Climate Change. I guess it should be no surprise. Why have agencies that study and recommend action on things you don't believe in? If I were president and there was some committee on dragons and unicorns, I'd dissolve that pretty quickly.

...

The difference, though, is that climate change is real; we've seen it. But that's what we get for electing a president who doesn't believe in science.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> Trump just disbanded the Federal Advisory Committee on Climate Change. I guess it should be no surprise. Why have agencies that study and recommend action on things you don't believe in? If I were president and there was some committee on dragons and unicorns, I'd dissolve that pretty quickly.
> 
> ...
> 
> The difference, though, is that climate change is real; we've seen it. But that's what we get for electing a president who doesn't believe in science.


I think a pole shift seems more likely. But having a committee on climate change if you're not subscribing to that idea is sorta like getting a tuba when you're paralyzed.


----------



## bostjan

A pole shift seems more likely?

How does a pole shift explain average global temperature increase?

What would cause this pole shift?

Where are the new poles?


----------



## JSanta

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think a pole shift seems more likely. But having a committee on climate change if you're not subscribing to that idea is sorta like getting a tuba when you're paralyzed.



I'd very much like to see some peer-reviewed research to back up your "I think". 

Here's a quick blurb from NASA: Sediment cores taken from deep ocean floors can tell scientists about magnetic polarity shifts, providing a direct link between magnetic field activity and the fossil record. The Earth's magnetic field determines the magnetization of lava as it is laid down on the ocean floor on either side of the Mid-Atlantic Rift where the North American and European continental plates are spreading apart. As the lava solidifies, it creates a record of the orientation of past magnetic fields much like a tape recorder records sound. The last time that Earth's poles flipped in a major reversal was about 780,000 years ago, in what scientists call the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal. The fossil record shows no drastic changes in plant or animal life. Deep ocean sediment cores from this period also indicate no changes in glacial activity, based on the amount of oxygen isotopes in the cores. This is also proof that a polarity reversal would not affect the rotation axis of Earth, as the planet's rotation axis tilt has a significant effect on climate and glaciation and any change would be evident in the glacial record.

Opinions, especially in cases with science need to have some merit to them from actual research, not something someone read somewhere on the Internet.


----------



## bostjan

The axial pole is not the same as the magnetic pole. That said, though, I have heard this "pole shift" conjecture a couple times before, and I have seen literally zero evidence presented to support it, and it would be extremely easy to measure if it were to happen on a scale large enough to explain changes in weather patterns.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

It was merely an opinion. Hence use of the phrase "I think".


----------



## JSanta

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It was merely an opinion. Hence use of the phrase "I think".



And that's where I take exception - Science (to a great extent) are things that can be measured, there is efficacy to the results. "I think" the poles are going to shift is no different than me saying "I think" the sun is dragged by a Greek chariot. We have methods to prove the validity of the statements. So I stand by my comment, if someone is going to have an opinion about something that can be measured, the opinion needs to have fact around it.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> And that's where I take exception - Science (to a great extent) are things that can be measured, there is efficacy to the results. "I think" the poles are going to shift is no different than me saying "I think" the sun is dragged by a Greek chariot. We have methods to prove the validity of the statements. So I stand by my comment, if someone is going to have an opinion about something that can be measured, the opinion needs to have fact around it.


Aye, but I bet you can't prove the sun is NOT being pulled by an (invisible, massless) Greek chariot!!!





...backs slowly out of the thread.


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> And that's where I take exception - Science (to a great extent) are things that can be measured, there is efficacy to the results. "I think" the poles are going to shift is no different than me saying "I think" the sun is dragged by a Greek chariot. We have methods to prove the validity of the statements. So I stand by my comment, if someone is going to have an opinion about something that can be measured, the opinion needs to have fact around it.


Or is the Sun just a hologram?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/841400/solar-eclipse-flat-earth-conspiracy-theory-reddit

<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><

What do you guys (and gals) think about extending and surging the already $5 trillion dollar war in Afghanistan?

I think you probably already know I'm not at all fond of the plan.


----------



## Drew

You don't say.  

Deeply conflicted, of course. I think it's problematic that for all Trump's talk of a "bold departure from the failed approaches of the Obama administration" and whatnot, he's being awfully light on details, and doesn't actually seem to be doing anything different. Troop surge, try to shame Pakistan into getting more involved, etc.

I imagine you're not much on nation-building, but if we pull out and leave a vacuum, we create a breeding ground for IS. I agree with Trump there. I think however, that what we need to be doing is building up the Afghani state to the point where they can offer a viable alternative to potential militants that IS would want to radicalize, and I don't know if just sending in some more troops and talking tough to Pakistan is going to get us there.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah. In my opinion, which isn't perfect, I imagine that Afghan is a breeding ground for IS either way. We either:
A) Pull out and leave a vacuum for the Taliban/Muhajadeen to seize control of government and all that.
or
B) Stay there and have our brightest and best Americans serve as target practice for the same.

The key to not radicalizing a region is to not radicalize the region in the first place. Once radicalized, how do you un-radicalize them? Surround them with the same foreign soldiers that catalyzed their radicalization in the first place? I think probably not.

The key problem with the current USA is that we think everything is possible. Some things simply do not yield a positive result, just a worse negative result.

But if my skepticism is proven wrong, I would be happy to accept that. So far, though, the past 16 years have only proven me right again and again on this point.


----------



## vilk

While it's true that pulling out creates a power vacuum that generally always proves to get taken over by people who are worse than the group we felt it necessary to remove in the first place...

It can't be perpetual. If an evil government abuses its people for too long they will eventually fight back against it... at least, this is what we are taught by history. There are many precedents. 

So as someone with an isolationist military stance despite being a humanist, I excuse my opinion by saying that you've got to look at the _big picture_.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The key to not radicalizing a region is to not radicalize the region in the first place. Once radicalized, how do you un-radicalize them? Surround them with the same foreign soldiers that catalyzed their radicalization in the first place? I think probably not.


Provide them with a better alternative. Show them American soldiers building roads, schools, water pipelines. Give them a voice in a democratic institution and let them have a hand in shaping their own face. Show them change and power both are possible without an AK-47. Give them a framework and a stable, lawful society where they can build a better life for their families, and give them a chance for a life where going to war against the west is no longer their most viable option.

Yeah, it's idealistic, but think it can be done. The answer isn't just more troops, though.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Provide them with a better alternative. Show them American soldiers building roads, schools, water pipelines. Give them a voice in a democratic institution and let them have a hand in shaping their own face. Show them change and power both are possible without an AK-47. Give them a framework and a stable, lawful society where they can build a better life for their families, and give them a chance for a life where going to war against the west is no longer their most viable option.
> 
> Yeah, it's idealistic, but think it can be done. The answer isn't just more troops, though.



Soldier, historically, don't build roads, construction crews do. How would the USA have felt if Russia sent, say 30 000 Russian Soldiers with tanks and MIGs and AK47s to help us rebuild after Katrina?! I don't see how this is a suggestion of a viable idea.

You want those people to be free? We can either a) leave them be or B) free the ever-loving f*** out of them with our freedom jets and freedom bombs and freedom fists upside their freedom faces... you get where this is going?

Realistically, if we send a bunch of troops there, the purpose is to fight with the "bad guys." Like I said, you don't send warriors to do anything but war. If we want to send humanitarian aid to a foreign country, there is a totally different process to do that.


----------



## Drew

Well, US Corps of Engineers, or something. Put Americans to work building infrastructure, let the people see it, and build them a better world than they have, and send enough troops to keep the country safe while we provide humanitarian aid.

It's not a GOOD option, but it's one of the least-bad I see.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Killing citizens isn't the way to get rid of radicalization. Educating them and provide a platform out of poverty is. 
+1 for building infrastructure


----------



## bostjan

So, you suggest sending the army as personal bodyguards for humanitarian aid and construction workers?

And then what? Leave the army there to protect the infrastructure that was built? Because, if you don't the terrorists will (and have) be happy to simply blow everything up as soon as we leave.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of places within the USA that need serious rebuilding. Maybe the Army Corps of Engineers can rebuild Detroit, first, and then go and replace all of the dangerously outdated bridges across the US, then they can fix all of the leaky basements...

Also, why Afghanistan? Is the thought "if you train terrorists to attack the USA, the USA will come over and build new sewers for you" something we want to advertise?

Maybe it's been a long day, or maybe I'm too tired and not making any sense myself, but at the moment, I don't see a single damn reason why we should continue our involvement in foreign wars like this. I was arguing against invading Afghanistan 16 years ago, I argued against Iraq, and I feel that I was pretty close to 100% on target with everything I said back then about none of it making any sense and how we would simply be stuck there for 10+ years...well...


----------



## Drew

Well, then build up a domestic army. It's going to take time, maybe a generation, but none of the options we have are easy here, and I think a certain element of "you break it you buy it" is in play here. If we just up and leave, we leave a vacuum, IS takes hold, and a whole generation of Afganis grow up blaming the United States for everything wrong in their world. That's a risk to national security, since if 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we're not as invulnerable within our borders as we think. 

I mean, end of the day, "fuck it, we don't care anymore, your problem now" isn't a solution, and I think since we went there in the first place, we have a moral obligation to _try. _I don't think continuing to do the same things we're doing is going to work, but just peacing out and letting happen what may isn't a morally acceptable answer, either. 

Detroit is actually rebuilding itself rather nicely at the moment. An ex of mine does urban planning out there these days, and I'm impressed by what she's been up to. There's a vibrancy there that didn't exist ten years ago.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, then build up a domestic army. It's going to take time, maybe a generation, but none of the options we have are easy here, and I think a certain element of "you break it you buy it" is in play here. If we just up and leave, we leave a vacuum, IS takes hold, and a whole generation of Afganis grow up blaming the United States for everything wrong in their world. That's a risk to national security, since if 9/11 taught us anything, it's that we're not as invulnerable within our borders as we think.
> 
> I mean, end of the day, "fuck it, we don't care anymore, your problem now" isn't a solution, and I think since we went there in the first place, we have a moral obligation to _try. _I don't think continuing to do the same things we're doing is going to work, but just peacing out and letting happen what may isn't a morally acceptable answer, either.



So, what's the alternative? Stay there and keep breaking it? We were already supposed to have built up a domestic army there almost 15 years ago, right, so WTF happened?

Let's be clear, none of the 9/11 hijackers were radicalized in Afghanistan. They trained there, but also trained in other places that we didn't invade. So how does Afghanistan play into the narrative here?

All of this stuff is political. There isn't a shred of it about making the USA more safe against foreign terrorists. Since 9/11, radical Islamic terrorism has gotten a thousand times worse, worldwide, and attacks against the USA got more frequent. There is difficult-to-deny proof that our actions in the middle east post-9/11 made things worse. So, more of the same is going to eventually make things better?! That's difficult logic to follow. I am maybe going out on a limb here, but I say that the public's reception to these ME wars was all based on emotional appeal and not a bit based upon logic. The most logical outcomes played out exactly as I predicted, and so here we are with a different asshole as a president, making the same appeal as before, and some people are still buying it.

I don't want to say that I am 100% certain that I am right or anyone else is wrong, but I will state very strongly that, based on simple logic and our history with such strategies, that this is a dangerous idea, and is not likely to lead our nation anywhere that benefits us, or anyplace that harms us less than a null action.



Drew said:


> Detroit is actually rebuilding itself rather nicely at the moment. An ex of mine does urban planning out there these days, and I'm impressed by what she's been up to. There's a vibrancy there that didn't exist ten years ago.


First I heard of the Army rebuilding Detroit. Weird, since I was just there.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, what's the alternative? Stay there and keep breaking it? We were already supposed to have built up a domestic army there almost 15 years ago, right, so WTF happened?
> 
> Let's be clear, none of the 9/11 hijackers were radicalized in Afghanistan. They trained there, but also trained in other places that we didn't invade. So how does Afghanistan play into the narrative here?
> 
> All of this stuff is political. There isn't a shred of it about making the USA more safe against foreign terrorists. Since 9/11, radical Islamic terrorism has gotten a thousand times worse, worldwide, and attacks against the USA got more frequent. There is difficult-to-deny proof that our actions in the middle east post-9/11 made things worse. So, more of the same is going to eventually make things better?! That's difficult logic to follow. I am maybe going out on a limb here, but I say that the public's reception to these ME wars was all based on emotional appeal and not a bit based upon logic. The most logical outcomes played out exactly as I predicted, and so here we are with a different asshole as a president, making the same appeal as before, and some people are still buying it.
> 
> I don't want to say that I am 100% certain that I am right or anyone else is wrong, but I will state very strongly that, based on simple logic and our history with such strategies, that this is a dangerous idea, and is not likely to lead our nation anywhere that benefits us, or anyplace that harms us less than a null action.
> 
> 
> First I heard of the Army rebuilding Detroit. Weird, since I was just there.



Well, the original impetus for the attack was that's where Al Qaeda _was_ and we were looking to take out their leadership. We may have been too slow on the draw, but I think it matters less how we got there at this point than the fact we ARE there, and we can't undo that. 

And I told you what I thought the alternative was - a shift to nation-building and humanitarian aid, with a peacekeeping force. I could ask the same of you - if humanitarian aid and nation-building isn't the answer, then what IS, that gives the nation a better chance of not falling into anarchy and becoming a base for IS than just pulling out and not worrying about the consequences?

And who said anything about the Army? I said Detroit was rebuilding _itself_ nicely, not being rebuilt by the army.


----------



## vilk

I want to ask @Drew : how many decades is enough, in your opinion?

I'm not trying to be rhetorical, but genuinely curious. Right now we're at one and a half. Almost certainly we'll go over 2 decades. What if it's still not fixed then? 3 decades? 4? a century? Should we stay there indefinitely until it's fixed or is there a point once past that you'd feel it's OK to say _You know what, we give up. Good luck with your nation. Sorry that we couldn't help._


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, the original impetus for the attack was that's where Al Qaeda _was_ and we were looking to take out their leadership. We may have been too slow on the draw, but I think it matters less how we got there at this point than the fact we ARE there, and we can't undo that.
> 
> And I told you what I thought the alternative was - a shift to nation-building and humanitarian aid, with a peacekeeping force. I could ask the same of you - if humanitarian aid and nation-building isn't the answer, then what IS, that gives the nation a better chance of not falling into anarchy and becoming a base for IS than just pulling out and not worrying about the consequences?
> 
> And who said anything about the Army? I said Detroit was rebuilding _itself_ nicely, not being rebuilt by the army.


I mentioned the army.
And this plays perfectly to my point. Don't rebuild Afghanistan. If you do, as soon as you leave, the bad guys there will destroy everything you did. Let Afghanistan rebuild Afghanistan.
And my earlier point - you brought it up in a perfect way to reference. The USA cannot do everything for everyone. It's simply a fact that our nation is not omnipotent. So, as I said, you have to prepare for the fact that "you break it, you fix it" doesn't work if you can't fix it. Look, #1, it was already broken before we got there, #2 the last decade we've been trying to fix it, we've only made it worse, and #3 the last umpteen nations we tried to fix, we actually ended up not succeeding in fixing.

So, here's an analogy, since I love analogies so much. You know this guy who is kind of a dick, and you got in a fight. You end up breaking this guys nose in your fight, and you feel really bad about it. So you visit him in the hospital, and offer to pay his hospital bill. He reluctantly shrugs and you get sent the surgeon's estimate, and you flat out can't afford it. ...and the money is due up front because he has no insurance. So you get drunk one night and run into this dude and, in your drunken haze, you end up getting the bright idea to grab his nose and set it back where it belongs yourself, but you just end up breaking it again and now this guy really really hates your guts. Once you think about it sober, you realize just how stupid you looked in front of everybody both fighting this guy and then, especially, trying to fix his nose and just making everything so much more embarrassingly worse. What do you do?

See, that guy is Afghanistan, and you are the USA. The broken nose is the broken infrastructure of the nation. Doing another surge there is just another punch in the face. Doing the nation-building thing is like wrenching the guy's nose. None of this shit is going to work. It sounds great on paper until you actually stop and give it a fair thought. The people in Afghanistan want us gone. We have caused them nothing but severe heartache over the past decade and a half. What are you going to do then? Offer to pay the guy's bills again, and then not do it? Punch him in the face until he either dies from blood loss or concussion or you miraculously break his nose back into the place where it belongs? Come on...in practice we know it doesn't work and there are underlying reasons why it cannot work.

So, leave the poor guy alone. He hates you, yeah, but you are not going to make it better. Leave Afghanistan alone. They might hate us just as much, but it's the least wrong thing to do at this point.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, but imagine the guy has a gun in his back pocket, man, or a switchblade. So do you, of course, but you never know when he's going to sneak up behind you and pull the trigger or slide the thing between a couple of ribs. Maybe you shouldn't get drunk and try to knock his nose back the other way, but when push comes to shove, yeah, you can probably afford that repair bill if you suck it up, because it's cheaper than what having him hate you is going to cost you.

I mean, I'm happy to talk hypothetically about "should we have gone into Afghanistan in the first place," and the irony is if we got drone-happy second-term Obama, who'd clearly learned a thing or two from the Bush years, calling the shots, we'd have just taken out the al Qaeda base with a couple Reapers and sent flowers and our regrets to the Afghan government.

But, at the end of the day, we had al Qaeda in Afghanistan because we armed them in the cold war to stop the Russians, which hey, it worked, right up until we DID just peace out, at which point a former resistance fighter named Osama bin Laden decided the right thing to do was to blow up a couple skyscrapers in New York City. Seeing as I don't really want a repeat performance of that, I think we have to face the reality that we're already _in_ Afghanistan, like it or not, so we have to find a way to extradite ourselves that, ideally, 1) won't involve a protracted US occupation for generations to come, on one hand, and 2) on the other, won't leave a vacuum for the Islamic State to fill, and to turn into a base of operations to train soldiers and launch attacks against Europe and the United States. Otherwise, we'll just be back in another 20-30 years anyway, maybe less.

You break it, you buy it. We broke it, so we gotta either fix it or pay for it.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, but imagine the guy has a gun in his back pocket, man, or a switchblade. So do you, of course, but you never know when he's going to sneak up behind you and pull the trigger or slide the thing between a couple of ribs. Maybe you shouldn't get drunk and try to knock his nose back the other way, but when push comes to shove, yeah, you can probably afford that repair bill if you suck it up, because it's cheaper than what having him hate you is going to cost you.
> 
> I mean, I'm happy to talk hypothetically about "should we have gone into Afghanistan in the first place," and the irony is if we got drone-happy second-term Obama, who'd clearly learned a thing or two from the Bush years, calling the shots, we'd have just taken out the al Qaeda base with a couple Reapers and sent flowers and our regrets to the Afghan government.
> 
> But, at the end of the day, we had al Qaeda in Afghanistan because we armed them in the cold war to stop the Russians, which hey, it worked, right up until we DID just peace out, at which point a former resistance fighter named Osama bin Laden decided the right thing to do was to blow up a couple skyscrapers in New York City. Seeing as I don't really want a repeat performance of that, I think we have to face the reality that we're already _in_ Afghanistan, like it or not, so we have to find a way to extradite ourselves that, ideally, 1) won't involve a protracted US occupation for generations to come, on one hand, and 2) on the other, won't leave a vacuum for the Islamic State to fill, and to turn into a base of operations to train soldiers and launch attacks against Europe and the United States. Otherwise, we'll just be back in another 20-30 years anyway, maybe less.
> 
> You break it, you buy it. We broke it, so we gotta either fix it or pay for it.



I'm sorry, Drew, but "you break it, you buy it" just doesn't work after you've killed someone.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'm sorry, Drew, but "you break it, you buy it" just doesn't work after you've killed someone.


You know what I mean, though. 

We brought troops, excuse me "advisors" in during the Cold War, armed rebels, fought off the Soviets, up and left, and a couple decades later one of the rebels blew up two skyscrapers in downtown NYC with a pair of 767s. Pulling out, full stop, doesn't work, it would seem. 

We sent troops in, fought al Qaeda, tried a troop surge, wound it down, and fifteen years later we're at a stalemate. Troop surges don't work, it would seem. 

So, let's try something new. International coalition, focus on humanitarian aid and nation-building, and troops as a peacekeeping force rather than a primarily military one. It's a conflict where we can't just abandon Afghanistan and we can't seem to win via conventional military means, if past experience tells us anything, so we need to explore non-military means. Because, if we just pull out and leave the country in chaos, and next time it's Boston, I'm gonna be fuckin' _pissed_, if I'm still alive to react.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> You know what I mean, though.
> 
> We brought troops, excuse me "advisors" in during the Cold War, armed rebels, fought off the Soviets, up and left, and a couple decades later one of the rebels blew up two skyscrapers in downtown NYC with a pair of 767s. Pulling out, full stop, doesn't work, it would seem.



I think I do know what you mean, but, in this case, I disagree with the sentiment, so it might be best to remain clear.

Sorry, can we back up a little? I don't follow your cause and effect. Are you saying that not staying in Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR directly resulted in 9/11?!



Drew said:


> We sent troops in, fought al Qaeda, tried a troop surge, wound it down, and fifteen years later we're at a stalemate. Troop surges don't work, it would seem.
> 
> So, let's try something new. International coalition, focus on humanitarian aid and nation-building, and troops as a peacekeeping force rather than a primarily military one. It's a conflict where we can't just abandon Afghanistan and we can't seem to win via conventional military means, if past experience tells us anything, so we need to explore non-military means. Because, if we just pull out and leave the country in chaos, and next time it's Boston, I'm gonna be fuckin' _pissed_, if I'm still alive to react.



I'm not at all on board with the idea that pulling out of Afghanistan resulted directly in 9/11 attacks.

With any conflict, we have to define a goal or a desired outcome. What is it?


----------



## vilk

Saudi Arabia did the attacks anyway, but of course we can't go to war with them because of some kind of reason maybe


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Saudi Arabia did the attacks anyway, but of course we can't go to war with them because of some kind of reason maybe


Absolutely. 

Have you seen Bin Laden's letter of declaration of war on the USA? It explains in some pretty clear terms why he and his followers were pissed off at the USA. While the logic in many instances might have been pretty leaky, he didn't make it difficult to follow his thought process. He was pissed off, mainly, over two things:

#1 US support of Israel
#2 Prolonged US occupation of nations in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia.

Now that he is dead and Al Qaeda is less relevant, maybe it's time to look into those demands, under the light of trying to avoid radicalization of more people in the region moving into the future.

US support of Israel. Why does the US support Israel? Honestly, I don't have a problem with the Jewish people in any way, so please don't take this the wrong way, but the Zionism idea was pretty half-baked back in the 1940's and it doesn't stand up to much more logic now. The Israelis could have easily been settled in a new European country, or in a community in the Western US, or in Canada, without half as much fuss as it required to get all of the Palestinians out of Palestine so that Israel could be geographically situated there. I know it's a holy land for the Jews, but come on, it's a holy land for the Muslims and for the Christians as well, and maybe Ba'hai or some other religion I don't know much about... So you take Israel and you force it into this geographical location surrounded by non-Jewish people (maybe it's neither here nor there, but these people also happen to be the descendants of the people who forced the ancestors of the Jews to leave Israel in the first place). The sticky part is that now that Israel exists, we can't make it not exist, but to be fair, the US has historically sided with Israel most of the time when the topic of expansion comes up.

Prolonged occupation of the ME. This one gets me. Why do we need to be there? Did we do any good in Somalia? Did we do any good in Iraq? No, those are rhetorical questions, because, every time the USA occupies a country in the middle east, the whole thing either never ends or ends in disaster. Yet Americans, or a majority of them, are vigorously in support of these military exercises, regardless of the human costs both to native middle eastern peoples and to our own soldiers.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Sorry, can we back up a little? I don't follow your cause and effect. Are you saying that not staying in Afghanistan during the conflict with the USSR directly resulted in 9/11?!


I mean, I assume you know this, but you _are _aware we trained and armed bin Laden during the Cold War, right? And when we left, we created the vacuum that a number og Afghani warlords, bin Laden included, filled? There's also the matter of the opium poppy trade and US appetite for heroin, which is another angle worth pursuing (if we engaged in a pro-legalization effort as well as expanded fracking to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and drugs, we'd have a lot less at stake in the Middle East). Considering our role in Afghanistan was his first exposure to "US intervention" in the Middle East, I think our dumping large amounts of money into the country for arms, but not a cent for humanitarian aid and the way we cut the spigot off after we got what we want is absolutely a major factor in his radicalization. 

As it happens, I broadly share your concerns with Israel, less for the fact we support them per se, and more so that I think our blind, condition-less support actually (and paradoxically) destabilizes the Israeli state by giving them no incentive to engage diplomatically. I don't know if I agree with you on occupation, however - I think we have a humanitarian role as part of an international force, for sure, but I do notice how you're careful to limit yourself to the Middle East, thereby excluding a number of more successful US interventions (say, WWI and WWII).


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, I assume you know this, but you _are _aware we trained and armed bin Laden during the Cold War, right? And when we left, we created the vacuum that a number og Afghani warlords, bin Laden included, filled? There's also the matter of the opium poppy trade and US appetite for heroin, which is another angle worth pursuing (if we engaged in a pro-legalization effort as well as expanded fracking to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and drugs, we'd have a lot less at stake in the Middle East). Considering our role in Afghanistan was his first exposure to "US intervention" in the Middle East, I think our dumping large amounts of money into the country for arms, but not a cent for humanitarian aid and the way we cut the spigot off after we got what we want is absolutely a major factor in his radicalization.
> 
> As it happens, I broadly share your concerns with Israel, less for the fact we support them per se, and more so that I think our blind, condition-less support actually (and paradoxically) destabilizes the Israeli state by giving them no incentive to engage diplomatically. I don't know if I agree with you on occupation, however - I think we have a humanitarian role as part of an international force, for sure, but I do notice how you're careful to limit yourself to the Middle East, thereby excluding a number of more successful US interventions (say, WWI and WWII).



Umm...okay, I have a few issues with what you said, maybe nit-picky, but it all adds up:

#1 The US provided no training to Bin Laden, only weapons and some other physical resources. He was trained by Pakistani special forces.
#2 Bin Laden never mentioned (from what I am aware) any butthurtedness over the lack of US humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. In fact, the fighters at the time were happy to use the weapons provided to them against the Soviets.
#3 Bin Laden clearly stated (as I mentioned above) his reasoning behind attacking the USA, and not once was Afghanistan mentioned in the letter.
#4 Referencing #3, he did mention several times that he condemned the USA for attempted and failed nation building in other places, like Somalia.
#5 I may have said "the middle east," but the same can be said for Afghanistan, which is really the topic here anyway. Afghanistan is much closer in timeline and in culture, to the middle east than it is to, for example, West Berlin. Maybe that disqualifies my point to you on some level, but I don't see how it is not a very fair point.

Again, I might be wrong. Since there is nothing I can do to stop it, I really hope I am wrong, but I cannot deny that the pattern here really sticks out to me. Maybe you don't see it because it's not really there, but to me, the amount of evidence is just crazy.

So, I argue that we would be better off to cut and run in Afghanistan and the rest of the ME than to troop surge there. You argue that humanitarian workers with the army as their bodyguards, or something to that effect, would be better than cutting and running. I think we agree on the bolder point that Trump's troop surge seems to be a half-baked idea, but maybe I'm wrong about that, as well.

Just one more thing: the USA does supply humanitarian aid to North Korea. Well, the UN or NATO or somebody does, but it's supported mostly by the USA. North Korea still hates the USA more than they hate anything else in the universe. North Korea is still hell on Earth. What are we doing wrong there that we could do right in Afghanistan?


----------



## bostjan

Now the White House Sceince advisor has resigned, and put a hidden message ("impeach") in his letter of resignation. Trump is feuding with congress over paying for the wall that Mexico is paying for. And investigators are finding more emails linking Trump's 2016 campaign with Russia.

At this point, I am beginning to wonder if there even is a point where someone moves to impeach him, or if he truly is invincible. With all of the proverbial shit that has his his fan, I don't think it'll get any worse.


----------



## Drew

I don't think you can even remotely compare North Korea to Afghanistan, considering the government of Afghanistan is relatively friendly to the US, and North Korea is not. 

I'm clearly not going to sway you that engaging in an anti-Soviet military operation in Afghanistan and then pulling out and leaving a vacuum when we achieved our short term objective contributed directly to the events of 9/11. I stand by my assertion, however, that we've TRIED the course of action you're proposing, and it didn't end well. 

Hopefully, though, what we can agree on is this - what Trump is proposing now is not likely to work either. A troop surge of unspecified size is not likely to promote long-term stability in the country, and without that we're going to have a hard time extraditing ourselves. I think what I would rather see from Trump (not holding my breath) is to come at it backwards; first identify some metrics for what long term success WOULD look like, and then present a series of steps to accomplish those metrics. 

For me, I think we're looking for 1) a self-governing Afghani state, with at least civil diplomatic relations with the US, 2) a strong enough Afghani military too fully control the territory of the state, and ensure no ungovernable pockets remain, and 3) strong enough civil institutions to ensure everydat Afghani citizens don't feel the need to turn to violence to form a better life for themselves and their loved ones. 

To me, that suggests a military solution, at least in isolation, is doomed to failure. A UN peacekeeping force, employing as many Afghanis as possible, would be better than a US-controlled one. Also, bringing the tribal regions fully into the government and giving them some voice in the more formal government, while tricky, seems necessary. 

Either way, though, I hope we can at least find common ground here - whatever the eventual solution is, simply throwing more troops at the situation without defining our strategic objectives is a bad idea.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Now the White House Sceince advisor has resigned, and put a hidden message ("impeach") in his letter of resignation. Trump is feuding with congress over paying for the wall that Mexico is paying for. And investigators are finding more emails linking Trump's 2016 campaign with Russia.
> 
> At this point, I am beginning to wonder if there even is a point where someone moves to impeach him, or if he truly is invincible. With all of the proverbial shit that has his his fan, I don't think it'll get any worse.


You know, I hate to talk about silver linings with something as awful as a white surpremacist rally in the streets of America leaving dead bodies in its wake, but I think we can at least say this - Trump's agenda died that day, too. The business community pulled out, and while they still hope for tax cuts and deregulation, they've cut the White House out of that process, and Trump will be a bit player in any future proceedings, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

So, keeping that in mind... Mueller's investigation is really no longer about politics (and I'm not saying I think it ever was - it wasn't, but tell that to Fox News) in any defensible interpretation of the phrase. With Trump a lame duck you can't call this a political witch hunt, because frankly Pence would be far more likely to be effective in the Oval Office than Trump will be from this point forward. Any desire to "block Trump's agenda" or "preserve Trump's agenda" is a non-factor, since he no longer has a functioning agenda to speak of.


----------



## Explorer

Robert Mueller asks IRS for help in Trump-Russia probe - Washington Examiner

So now Mueller has asked for investigative help from the arm of the IRS which specializes in forensic accounting and transaction investigation.

And Manafort's notes on Donald Jr.'s meeting, admittedly to attempt collusion with the Russians to influence the election by Jr.'s own statement, had references to political donations.

Manafort's notes from the Trump Tower Russia meeting reportedly mention 'donations' and the RNC - Business Insider

Manafort is now being investigated by both Mueller *and* the NY State Attorney General. 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57289/robert-mueller-trump-russia-schneiderman/

If Manafort is charged with a state crime, Trump will not have the power to pardon the offense.

And we're only eight months in!


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Manafort is now being investigated by both Mueller *and* the NY State Attorney General.
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57289/robert-mueller-trump-russia-schneiderman/
> 
> If Manafort is charged with a state crime, Trump will not have the power to pardon the offense.



This is going to end up being the most substantial development. These last few tidbits making it to the media all but guarantee Trump is going to fire Mueller but now that the NY AG has seen at least some of what Mueller's investigation has uncovered, and obviously NY houses some of the most valuable assets in this case, this will make things VERY interesting.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> Manafort is now being investigated by both Mueller *and* the NY State Attorney General.
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a57289/robert-mueller-trump-russia-schneiderman/
> 
> If Manafort is charged with a state crime, Trump will not have the power to pardon the offense.
> 
> And we're only eight months in!





Randy said:


> This is going to end up being the most substantial development. These last few tidbits making it to the media all but guarantee Trump is going to fire Mueller but now that the NY AG has seen at least some of what Mueller's investigation has uncovered, and obviously NY houses some of the most valuable assets in this case, this will make things VERY interesting.


I've seen numbers from 21 to 39 regarding the states which might pursue charges regarding interfering with the elections, meaning Trump will only shift those investigations from federal to state jurisdiction. 

Additionally, any IRS investigation which turns up prosecutable evidence of financial fraud will not disappear upon Mueller bring fired, meaning Trump will have to again use his theoretical pardoning power for himself and his confederates to get out from under it on the federal level. 

If Trump does so, it will force Congressional Repubiclans to either confront the issue, or cost them big in the midterm elections. Any sort of pardon party for contempt, due to Trump associates not complying with subpoenas, is bad news for the Republicans. 

This whole affair has damaged the traditional claim on the part of the GOP to be the party of law and order.


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and one more Mueller tidbit.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-trump-tried-hide-purpose-trump-tower-n796746

They're now trying to establish if Trump deliberately hid the purpose of Jr.'s meeting in crafting the public statement. That will be useful if they use it to establish such intentional dishonesty in proceedings.


----------



## Explorer

I thought I was done, but one more thing from the Wall Street Journal. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...uction-of-justice-probe-to-mueller-1504207495



> One memo submitted to Mr. Mueller by the president’s legal team in June laid out the case that Mr. Trump has the inherent authority under the constitution to hire and fire as he sees fit and therefore didn’t obstruct justice when he fired Mr. Comey as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in May, these people said. Another memo submitted the same month outlined why they believe Mr. Comey would make an unsuitable witness, calling him prone to exaggeration, unreliable in congressional testimony and the source of leaks to the news media, these people said.



Trump's lawyers mistakenly believe hiring/firing power includes when wanting to obstruct justice.

The part about Comey being unreliable and prone to exaggeration is hilarious coming from Trump's lawyers, given the president's documented track record.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> This whole affair has damaged the traditional claim on the part of the GOP to be the party of law and order.


I would only disagree in that we now seem to be in some weird bizarro world where truth is malleable and a matter of political viewpoint, so Trump is actually _defending_ law and order in the eyes of people who have a vested interest in his administration's objectives. But, there's bound to be a point where the world comes to it's senses and we get a collective, "yeah... Our bad, guys," from the GOP. 

At least, I HOPE we snap out of this, lol.


----------



## bostjan

I have lost faith in humanity.

People, en masse, are so simple. This whole load of crap comes from the idea of re team vs. blue team. The masses want an enemy to hate. I think that people generally want to hate someone for some reason. For a lot of folks, it was Obama, then HRC, and now it's Kim Jong Un. That's why we will never have peace- Joe Blow only feels validated about his life if he gets to pick a team and be mortal enemies with whomever is on the opposing team.

Maybe the only thing that would turn humanity around would be a deadly space alien invasion.

But, in the mean time, Trump has appointed a lobbyist with no knowledge of science as the head of NASA, is poised to shut down the USA federal government if Mexico doesn't pay for his border wall, and is two small decisions away from aggravating the start of potential WW III.


----------



## synrgy

Meanwhile, Clinton is now busy stoking the DNC-splintering fires that started during the campaign, so we can probably expect more trouncing come 2018/2020. F***ing Hell..


----------



## bostjan

I'm sorry, but looking back over a year ago now, at the primaries, how on Earth were those candidates the best anyone could come up with?

It seems the nation has been going astray. I think I'm in a parallel universe where everything is messed up. Please take me back to the normal universe where there were consequences for breaking the rules and getting caught.


----------



## synrgy

^Maybe because - generally speaking - having an insatiable ego not only makes one a crappy human being, but also happens to be a prerequisite to starting (and surviving) a career as a politician?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But, in the mean time, Trump has appointed a lobbyist with no knowledge of science as the head of NASA, is poised to shut down the USA federal government if Mexico doesn't pay for his border wall, and is two small decisions away from aggravating the start of potential WW III.


...nitpicking since I'm sure this was a typo, but he's poised to shut down the federal government if _Congress_ doesn't fund his big, beautiful wall.


----------



## Science_Penguin

I still need to know what the hell Trump has actually accomplished during his term.

Mostly because I'm trying to wrap my head around him already starting to campaign for reelection... particularly in my home state during the aftermath of the worst hurricane we've had in years...


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...nitpicking since I'm sure this was a typo, but he's poised to shut down the federal government if _Congress_ doesn't fund his big, beautiful wall.


Let's call it a freudian slip. 


Science_Penguin said:


> I still need to know what the hell Trump has actually accomplished during his term.
> 
> Mostly because I'm trying to wrap my head around him already starting to campaign for reelection... particularly in my home state during the aftermath of the worst hurricane we've had in years...


He drained the swamp, penned in the power of the EPA, removed some illegal immigrants and maybe more than a few legal ones, scared away would-be immigrants, and shook his fist at North Korea a few times.


----------



## vilk

he banned trannsexuals from fighting for their nation


----------



## Science_Penguin

Also he glanced up at the solar eclipse for a bit, which I've heard hailed as "The bravest thing I've ever seen a president do."

No, but seriously, has anything been accomplished? Has he delivered on anything he promised his voters yet? I'll admit I'm not always knowledgeable about what's going on in politics, but thus far, I can see the wall's never gonna happen, his own party can't agree on healthcare, the most I can say as of now is, he might've made a few supremacists happy with the booting out of some immigrants and the transgender ban. 

Is that enough to already have the audacity to say "Hey, vote for me again! Things are going great so far!" Or am I missing something important?


----------



## tedtan

Science_Penguin said:


> Is that enough to already have the audacity to say "Hey, vote for me again! Things are going great so far!" Or am I missing something important?



To those who voted for him, it's probably enough.

To the rest of us, it should be motivation to get off our asses and vote so he can't win a second term.


----------



## bostjan

This is far from exhaustive...



the Donald said:


> Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced -- we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.



Some of this happened, the rest might be coming.



the Donald said:


> Immediately add an additional federal investment of $20 billion towards school choice



Didn't happen (yet).



the Donald said:


> We're going to put our miners back to work.



Some regulations were lifted, but so far, it's been very little.



the Donald said:


> I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I’ll have Mexico pay for that wall.



Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall.



the Donald said:


> I will create a private White House hotline – that is answered by a real person 24 hours a day – to make sure that no valid complaint about the VA ever falls through the cracks. I will instruct my staff that if a valid complaint is not acted upon, then the issue be brought directly to me, and I will pick up the phone and fix it myself, if need be.



Nothing yet.



the Donald said:


> I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off.



False.



the Donald said:


> We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people. Workers. We’re going to take care of our workers.



A bill is "in the works."



the Donald said:


> Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing the disaster known as Obamacare.



False.



the Donald said:


> If I'm elected president, I'm accepting no salary.



Q1 salary went to the National Park Service. Q2 went to education.



the Donald said:


> And if people don't like it, we've got to have a country folks. Got to have a country. Countries in which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya. And we are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria.



Well, he tried.



the Donald said:


> We're cutting Common Core. We're getting rid of Common Core. We're bringing education locally.



Nothing yet.



the Donald said:


> They should build a safe zone. Take a big piece of land in Syria and they have plenty of land, believe me. Build a safe zone for all these people, because I have a heart, I mean these people, it’s horrible to watch, But, they shouldn’t come over here. We should build a safe zone.



Not sure if he was promising to make a "safe zone" or just thinking out loud, but whatever, it isn't going to fucking happen. ISIS isn't ever going to respect a "safe zone" ever, ...ever.



the Donald said:


> I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.



Thankfully, no.



the Donald said:


> If I'm elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.



Looks like this will not happen.



the Donald said:


> One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, that anybody killing a police man, a police woman, a police officer, anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty is going to happen.



False.



the Donald said:


> I will ask, to appoint a special prosecutor. We have to investigate Hillary Clinton, and we have to investigate the investigation.



Nothing yet.



the Donald said:


> I'm going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government and I'm going to ask Congress to pass a campaign finance reform that prevents registered foreign lobbyists from raising money in American elections and politics.



Done.



the Donald said:


> A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.



Might be a bit of an issue now with what's come to light with Russia...



the Donald said:


> I would defund it (Planned Parenthood) because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3 percent. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life.



Nothing yet.



the Donald said:


> Under my presidency, we will accomplish a complete American energy independence. Complete. Complete.



Nothing yet.



the Donald said:


> I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of Justice Scalia. I'm looking for judges — and I've actually picked 20 of them so that people would see



Done.



the Donald said:


> We need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country.



Nothing yet.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Well, as Meatloaf once said... 5 outta 22 ain't bad.


----------



## bostjan

Science_Penguin said:


> Well, as Meatloaf once said... 5 outta 22 ain't bad.



Well, it's more like 3 + 2 halfish + 1 maybe ~10% done, but actually, that's not much worse than usual for a first year of presidency. 

But...I mean, are any of these things stuff that we really want? My issue is that he's in there giving up on the few good ideas with which I agreed and fighting tooth and nail for the dumbest ideas. I think the border wall is probably the least effective and most expensive thing we could pursue to solve a problem that's maybe not even going to be a problem anymore once our economy sinks from borrowing everything we are worth to build a big ugly wall.

Enforce our existing laws, yeah, sure, that's why they are there, sure. Make it easier to get a job that will likely cause health problems later in life and possibly premature death, ughn, err, pass? Appoint another conservative Supreme Court Justice - no thanks. Repeal Obamacare and go back to the dark ages of health care at a time when health care costs in this country are the worst they have ever been - are you serious?


----------



## Explorer

How weird is this?

Trump's official Friday schedule.

https://factba.se/topic/calendar

Russia's ambassador bragging about his warm private meeting with Trump. 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-to-improve-relations-with-us/article/2633836

https://www.rt.com/news/402514-russian-ambassador-antonov-trump/

The most recent officially scheduled meeting about Russia on Trump's calendar is from July on that schedule, before Antonov was appointed.

Isn't it nice that the Russians have such close and undocumented access to President Trump?


----------



## Drew

I'll be interested in seeing what comes out of Trump's don't-call-it-a-pivot in striking a deal with the Democrats to tie Harvey relief to the debt cap bill. He ate up the positive media coverage after that, but it's tough to see the endgame - it positions the Democrats a bit better to tie some sort of DACA extension bill to the budget and cap extension, it allows Trump to claim to have done a "deal" and the public opportunity cost (tying a popular bill to a pretty wonky measure that your rank and file American probably doesn't really care about), but while a week later McConnell is now arguing it's not such a clear-cut slam dunk for the Democrats as it seems, the GOP was pretty clearly flabbergasted by his move. Not for nothing Trump's first "deal" he negotiated was one pushed by the opposition party.

The optimistic scenario is he realizes "hey, people like me when I don't do things that most people hate," and focuses on other popular measures with the possibility for Democratic support, most notably an infrastructure bill to rebuild our roads, bridges, airports, and train tracks, and put huge amount of blue collar Americans back to work in quality jobs that'll be around for at least several years. The risk to this scenario is Trump becomes more popular, and leverages that political capital to start going after priorities that are NOT broadly popular, including his wall and a Muslim ban (which have pockets of support but are clearly partisan, whereas helping Harvey victims was not).

The less optimistic scenario is he's just winging everything as he goes, and this isn't evidence of "deal-making," it's just chaos being a ladder and all of that, and that he's just continuing to blow up his relationship with Congressional Republicans. 

It's really hard to tell what he's doing here, though.


----------



## bostjan

It'd be just our nation's luck if Trump had an epiphany, decided to do his best to really truly become the greatest president ever, just to have his past transgressions catch up with him and get him removed from office and replaced with Pence.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It'd be just our nation's luck if Trump had an epiphany, decided to do his best to really truly become the greatest president ever, just to have his past transgressions catch up with him and get him removed from office and replaced with Pence.


I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## bostjan

Or, maybe, since Trump is "not [Putin's] bride," he will meet with unfortunate accident, and become replaced by comrade Mikhail Eduardovich Pensky, much better party representative who opposes LGBT civil rights, immigration, health care reform, and is in favour of war, the patriot act, and wrote this paper about climate change:



Mike Pence said:


> Global warming is a myth. The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said it.
> Just like the "new ice age" scare of the 1970's, the environmental movement has found a new chant for their latest 'chicken little' attempt to raise taxes and grow centralized governmental power. The chant is 'the sky is warming! the sky is warming!'. The only problem is that many Americans, including Vice President Al Gore, didn't learn of their deceit the last time around and are buying this new bit hook, line and sinker.
> 
> Here's the deal. Environmentalists claim that certain 'greenhouse gases' like carbon dioxide are mucking up the atmosphere and causing the earth to gradually warm. Despite the fact that CO2 is a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature, the greenpeace folks want to blame it all on coal (another natural mineral) and certain (evil) coal burning power plants. The theory is; get rid of the (evil) coal burning plants and we save the planet from imminent doom.
> 
> Several problems arise when one considers the issue of global warming.
> 
> First, the earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago. In fact, most climatologists agree that, at best, global warming is a theory about future climactic conditions and cannot be proven based upon the historic record.
> 
> Second, the greenhouse gases alluded to are real but are mostly the result of volcanoes, hurricanes and underwater geologic displacements. Regrettably, none of these causes can be corralled by environmentalists hungry for regulation and taxes and, therefore, must be ignored.
> 
> 
> Third, even if there was global warming (there isn't), the Global Climate Treaty brokered by Vice President Al Gore in Kyoto, Japan last year is hardly the answer. The treaty calls for industrialized nations (us and Europe) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to pre-1990 levels while asking developing nations to do nothing. China and Indonesia (population 2.2 Billion) have said the would never enter into the restrictions in the treaty but think it's a really good idea if we do. The stupidity and blatant unfairness of this treaty requires no additional comment.
> Finally, the global warming treaty will cost between 12,000 and 100,000 jobs in Indiana alone! You see, we mine alot of coal south of Highway 40 and you can kiss those jobs goodbye. Beyond that, expect your utility rate to go up about 50% causing layoffs and hardship for working families. Maybe that's why the United Mine Workers and the Indiana Manufacturers Association have banded together (for once) to fight this absurd government grab.
> 
> I know Monica Lewinsky seems like the most important issue in America but, call me crazy, I think the quiet expansion of the liberal environmentalist agenda by Al Gore and Clinton White House that will cost thousands of jobs could be more important. Say no to the global warming treaty.



The above quote was from 2001, but, in fairness, his attitude toward climate change has not budged since then. Also, the claim that, in 2001, "the eart is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago" is...well, to misquote Nickelback: "Look at this ... graph"







Pretty easy to visually compare 2000 versus 1950.

As for "China ... would never enter into the restrictions in the treaty..." They did, in 2016, just months before Trump and Pence backed out of it.

The fact that someone can be proven flat-out wrong on so many points and yet still stick to his guns is somehow seen by his supporters as commendable, but we need to disengage from the en vogue practice of believing that if we keep lying to ourselves, we will somehow shape reality.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> The *likely* scenario is he's just winging everything as he goes, and this isn't evidence of "deal-making," it's just chaos being a ladder and all of that, and that he's just continuing to blow up his relationship with Congressional Republicans.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The fact that someone can be proven flat-out wrong on so many points and yet still stick to his guns is somehow seen by his supporters as commendable, but we need to disengage from the en vogue practice of believing that if we keep lying to ourselves, we will somehow shape reality.


Listen, man, that just proves how honest he is. He speaks from his heart, and from his convictions. He tells it as he sees it, he doesn't focus group test his beliefs. And if he gets them wrong once or twice, whatever, at least when he speaks you know he's saying what he believes, and he's not gonna say one thing and then do the other. Anyone telling you otherwise is just pitching you fake news, man.


----------



## bostjan

Is there any truth to the reports I'm seeing this morning that Trump threatened to destroy North Korea to the United Nations? If so, WTF? If he's really going to destroy NK, then why not just do it instead of getting them all fired up and give them the excuse to fire off all of their warheads first. And if not, then the same applies twofold.


----------



## Konfyouzd

"The true purpose of the president is not to wield power but to divert attention from those who do..."

And who can do that better? 

But seriously I think I can survive 4 years of this guy worst case. I survived almost a decade of Dubya


----------



## Konfyouzd

bostjan said:


> Is there any truth to the reports I'm seeing this morning that Trump threatened to destroy North Korea to the United Nations? If so, WTF? If he's really going to destroy NK, then why not just do it instead of getting them all fired up and give them the excuse to fire off all of their warheads first. And if not, then the same applies twofold.



Does he strike you've an intelligent man?


----------



## bostjan

Konfyouzd said:


> "The true purpose of the president is not to wield power but to divert attention from those who do..."
> 
> And who can do that better?
> 
> But seriously I think I can survive 4 years of this guy worst case. I survived almost a decade of Dubya





Konfyouzd said:


> Does he strike you've an intelligent man?


I keep telling myself that this president is better than GWB, at least in a couple of ways.
I really don't think either are that great at logic, though.

The guy in the cubicle next to me is now listening to Trump's speech about the Marshall plan and the USA's commitment to the UN. So far, it actually sounds measured and well-spoken. One of his key phrases actually kind of echoes your quote. He hasn't gotten to the part about destroying other nations, though.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Is there any truth to the reports I'm seeing this morning that Trump threatened to destroy North Korea to the United Nations? If so, WTF? If he's really going to destroy NK, then why not just do it instead of getting them all fired up and give them the excuse to fire off all of their warheads first. And if not, then the same applies twofold.


Yeah, there is. To his, ahem, small credit, he did say it in the context to the US defending themselves in response to a North Korean act of war, so he didn't add anything new to the picture - we've pretty much known that if it comes to war with North Korea, we were going to obliterate them in one way or another. However, it certainly isn't going to help de-escalate the situation.

He also repeated his claims that the Iran nuclear deal was "one of the worst, most one-sided deals in American history," and that "the problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that it has been faithfully implemented," which he paused for several seconds afterwards, and was met with stony silence. 

The speech was written by Stephen Miller, which was probably a poor choice.


----------



## bostjan

Interestingly enough, my office neighbour's video edited out all of the statements that were reported, or else it just happened to be obviously edited and Trump didn't say that stuff, but I have no reason to believe that is true.

It did seem like he paused a few times, expecting applause and getting none. Maybe I misinterpreted that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Interestingly enough, my office neighbour's video edited out all of the statements that were reported, or else it just happened to be obviously edited and Trump didn't say that stuff, but I have no reason to believe that is true.
> 
> It did seem like he paused a few times, expecting applause and getting none. Maybe I misinterpreted that.


Coincidentally enough as I was replying to this CNBC re-ran some of the "highlights" from his speech, so the last two were transcribed word-for-word (I'd actually missed part of his remarks on Iran the first time around, but was at my desk for the Venezuela comment).


----------



## jaxadam

Good thing we have a president who isn't afraid to use weapons of mass distraction!


----------



## Drew

In other news, Clinton has refused to rule out contesting the outcome of the 2016 election if clear evidence of Russian interference to an extent greater than now believed emerges, in the investigation:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-trump/index.html

As a liberal who supports rule of law, I'll merely say this - the bar for whether or not such a challenge makes sense to proceed is, to me, very, very, VERY high. I think you'd need clear and incontrovertible evidence that Russia had successfully changed the tabulation of counted votes in such a way as to change the outcome, and even then we'd be in totally unprecedented legal territory. 

I really hope we don't get to that point.


----------



## bostjan

Just my personal beliefs, since there is a bald spot in the laws covering election on interference of this magnitude, but I would strongly support the idea of involving the Supreme Court and Congress if the level of interference was deemed too high. I would think that the case would be more along the lines of _The United States of America v. Donald J Trump_ and if it spun into something like _Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Donald J Trump_, I would imagine that the case would immediately lose half its momentum to political entropy.

But I agree that the bar would be tremendously high on what would be considered actionable. Unfortunately, the evidence is piling up at a rate where it seems that the pile may overtake a bar of arbitrary height unless investigators stop uncovering new damning facts at the end of every lead they follow.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Just my personal beliefs, since there is a bald spot in the laws covering election on interference of this magnitude, but I would strongly support the idea of involving the Supreme Court and Congress if the level of interference was deemed too high. I would think that the case would be more along the lines of _The United States of America v. Donald J Trump_ and if it spun into something like _Hillary Rodham Clinton v. Donald J Trump_, I would imagine that the case would immediately lose half its momentum to political entropy.
> 
> But I agree that the bar would be tremendously high on what would be considered actionable. Unfortunately, the evidence is piling up at a rate where it seems that the pile may overtake a bar of arbitrary height unless investigators stop uncovering new damning facts at the end of every lead they follow.


I agree in principle. In practice, for it to be The United States of America vs. Donald J. Trump, the Justice Department would have to sue to reverse the outcome of the election, which I think is a bit of a stretch. I think we might be more inclined to see a consortium of blue states Clinton won suing, as well as possibly a number of the rust belt states where any manipulation of results would likely have been concentrated, but only the ones currently with democratic executive branches, because let's be honest, the Republican party is going to push for impeachment, not a reversal of the results. 

Again... I get VERY leery of any talk of unwinding the Trump administration and retroactively naming Clinton the victor, even with fairly good evidence that the vote was manipulated. Trump won the Electoral College, and electors are not actually obligated to vote based on how their state voted even if traditionally they do, so to have the Supreme Court toss the results of the election would involve some pretty strong evidence that what happened was _so_ beyond the pale that we need to break away from the literal instructions in the Constitution on the election of a President. It's not impossible, but it's not something I would advocate for lightly and I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where I'd get behind such a movement. 

I think for this to fly, it would probably have to be an act of Congress. I've read that technically the Speaker of the House doesn't _have_ to be a elected member of the house - if evidence so incontrovertible came out that some sort of action was needed, Ryan temporarily stepping down, the House voting Clinton in as speaker, and then promptly impeaching Trump and Pence seems to be the least rule-bending approach. I want to stress again though that I'm not advocating this at present, and that as it would involve the GOP willingly voting to make Clinton president, it would have to be a pretty shocking revelation on the depth of the involvement of the Russians before that would become a plausible scenario.


----------



## bostjan

Well said.

I don't have any idea how it would turn out, but highly likely, there would be a stage where democrats and republicans were fighting over who took office, in the case where the legitimacy of the election was undermined by some sort of serious tampering. No way republicans would simply hand the executive branch over to the democrats.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Well said.
> 
> I don't have any idea how it would turn out, but highly likely, there would be a stage where democrats and republicans were fighting over who took office, in the case where the legitimacy of the election was undermined by some sort of serious tampering. No way republicans would simply hand the executive branch over to the democrats.


Agreed. Ryan has presidential ambitions of his own; only likely way I could see Clinton being back-doored into the White House in the spirit of righting a wrong is if evidence emerges in early 2019 with a Democratic-controlled House, and he's impeached by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans when both Trump AND Pence have been clearly implicated of collusion in a manner where the outcome of the race was directly changed by Russian intervention, and Pelosi steps aside to allow Clinton to be appointed Speaker of the House. Only way I could see the GOP doing it is if they thought their constituents also thought there had been a massive miscarriage in the electoral process, and if something DOES come out the Breitbart/Fox crowd is going to just call it "fake news" anyway.


----------



## Drew

As much as I hate it that it's this and not something like backing out of the Paris Climate Accord or refusing to uncategorically condemn white supremacy, does anyone else think Trump might have _badly _miscalculated when he lashed out at the NFL over players kneeling during the anthem?

I mean, even the Patriots are speaking out against Trump now, which their cozy relationship is something that's always made me uncomfortable as a good Bostonian.


----------



## bostjan

Just goes to show that he's willing to go after anyone and everyone. 

As we get closer to the brink of nuclear war with North Korea and possibly maybe even double nuclear war with North Korea and Iran, no one should really truly feel safe, I guess... :/


----------



## tedtan

He's certainly gotten some backlash over that decision, but I think he's just doing his standard procedure of diverting attention away from the Russia investigation and other issues he'd rather not deal with so he can fight a straw man of his choosing and look good for his supporters. His base actually likes that kind of shit.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> He's certainly gotten some backlash over that decision, but I think he's just doing his standard procedure of diverting attention away from the Russia investigation and other issues he'd rather not deal with so he can fight a straw man of his choosing and look good for his supporters. His base actually likes that kind of shit.



The /The_Donald and similar cesspool pockets of support on the internet claimed the NFL attacks were smokescreen for the fact he secretly carried out attacks destroying NK's weapons sites. That should give you an idea of how far his base will go to make excuses for him.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> The /The_Donald and similar cesspool pockets of support on the internet claimed the NFL attacks were smokescreen for the fact he secretly carried out attacks destroying NK's weapons sites. That should give you an idea of how far his base will go to make excuses for him.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The /The_Donald and similar cesspool pockets of support on the internet claimed the NFL attacks were smokescreen for the fact he secretly carried out attacks destroying NK's weapons sites. That should give you an idea of how far his base will go to make excuses for him.



:tinfoil:

EDIT - didn't we have a tinfoil emoji? WTF?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

There's an aspect to the whole election interference that I'm curious if others find strange. If it's true, then we could have an illegitimately elected President. Of course I can't say how much it affected actually numbers but one way or the other Trump continues to be President while we figure it out. It's bonkers to me that any government figure isn't suspended while these types of things are figured out.


----------



## bostjan

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> There's an aspect to the whole election interference that I'm curious if others find strange. If it's true, then we could have an illegitimately elected President. Of course I can't say how much it affected actually numbers but one way or the other Trump continues to be President while we figure it out. It's bonkers to me that any government figure isn't suspended while these types of things are figured out.


Well, that might be a slippery slope issue. Just because allegations were made that there was election shenanigans doesn't mean that they are valid allegations - in my mind, not worth the effect of completely uprooting the executive branch. Keep in mind that every election, there are allegations from the losing side that the winning side did something shady.
In this case, though, I think that there is some stuff coming up in the investigation. It's a different sort of problem where we need to get the investigation to a stopping point one way or the other as quickly as possible without missing anything...which is really tough in any context, but when you are investigating where the buck stops, is especially touchy.


----------



## Randy

Is there an official mechanism outside of impeachment for addressing a concept like a president colluding with a foreign government to steal an election? Or even if the candidate carried out the attack themselves? I mean, I'm not one of those people who's comfortable with the idea of judicially installing Hillary Clinton as president but I'm just asking for the sake of getting the information straight.

It would seem like an odd blind spot for the founding fathers to do everything they can to protect the US from Kings and despots with things like the separation of powers and all that, but then not have something on the books incase a tyrant stole an election. I'd imagine impeachment is an ill fitted solution considering 1.) they were aware of the two party system at the time, so they knew the same party as the winning candidate might be inclined not to pursue impeachment 2.) the vice president was elected under the same illegitimate election, so you can't trust him as a replacement 3.) if the president is a literal tyrant, waiting for the opposition party to potentially take over 2 years later (assuming it's the will of the people to take action and they vote that way) seems like a very slow response


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Is there an official mechanism outside of impeachment for addressing a concept like a president colluding with a foreign government to steal an election? Or even if the candidate carried out the attack themselves? I mean, I'm not one of those people who's comfortable with the idea of judicially installing Hillary Clinton as president but I'm just asking for the sake of getting the information straight.



I don't know. This would probably constitute treason, especially if it occurred prior to taking the office of POTUS, but I'm not aware of any constitutional means of addressing this situation.




Randy said:


> It would seem like an odd blind spot for the founding fathers to do everything they can to protect the US from Kings and despots with things like the separation of powers and all that, but then not have something on the books incase a tyrant stole an election. I'd imagine impeachment is an ill fitted solution considering 1.) they were aware of the two party system at the time, so they knew the same party as the winning candidate might be inclined not to pursue impeachment 2.) the vice president was elected under the same illegitimate election, so you can't trust him as a replacement 3.) if the president is a literal tyrant, waiting for the opposition party to potentially take over 2 years later (assuming it's the will of the people to take action and they vote that way) seems like a very slow response



Until 1804, the electoral college members voted for two individuals (out of five candidates, IIRC) to be president and the individual with the most votes became president and the individual coming in second place became the vice president. But back then, the electoral college didn't vote based on who won the popular vote in their state, either, so the current situation isn't something the founding fathers foresaw when initially drafting the Constitution in the 1770's.

I think this is uncharted territory for the US.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Is there an official mechanism outside of impeachment for addressing a concept like a president colluding with a foreign government to steal an election? Or even if the candidate carried out the attack themselves? I mean, I'm not one of those people who's comfortable with the idea of judicially installing Hillary Clinton as president but I'm just asking for the sake of getting the information straight.
> 
> It would seem like an odd blind spot for the founding fathers to do everything they can to protect the US from Kings and despots with things like the separation of powers and all that, but then not have something on the books incase a tyrant stole an election. I'd imagine impeachment is an ill fitted solution considering 1.) they were aware of the two party system at the time, so they knew the same party as the winning candidate might be inclined not to pursue impeachment 2.) the vice president was elected under the same illegitimate election, so you can't trust him as a replacement 3.) if the president is a literal tyrant, waiting for the opposition party to potentially take over 2 years later (assuming it's the will of the people to take action and they vote that way) seems like a very slow response



I may be mistaken, but I believe that there is no mechanism for removing a president sworn into office after a fraudulent election result other than impeachment. Like Drew pointed out earlier, the only votes that are legally binding are the electoral college delegates. So......it's legally very much like pine bark- gray, rough, and sticky.

I think it'd be safe to say that if Trump gets removed from office over election fraud, then there will be a Constitutional Amendment to follow shortly after.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Like Drew pointed out earlier, the only votes that are legally binding are the electoral college delegates.



So fine, take that scenario into consideration. If a candidate was fraudulently picked by the electoral college (bribery or holding them at gun point), is THAT in any way actionable?

I understand the concept that the electoral votes are the only binding ones, so it's harder to prove collusion or something nefarious DIRECTLY effected the final tally of electoral votes. I get that and it's a fair point but minutiae. Even if you can prove the electoral college cast their votes at gunpoint, it still doesn't fast track any of the current solutions (impeachment and giving the presidency to a VP who was elected from the same illegal action). The ultimate point remains the same.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> So fine, take that scenario into consideration. If a candidate was fraudulently picked by the electoral college (bribery or holding them at gun point), is THAT in any way actionable?
> 
> I understand the concept that the electoral votes are the only binding ones, so it's harder to prove collusion or something nefarious DIRECTLY effected the final tally of electoral votes. I get that and it's a fair point but minutiae. Even if you can prove the electoral college cast their votes at gunpoint, it still doesn't fast track any of the current solutions (impeachment and giving the presidency to a VP who was elected from the same illegal action). The ultimate point remains the same.



Oh, I agree. I've long argued that we ought to elect the president by popular vote and do away with the electoral college. It's one of those things that made sense a long time ago, but now it just seems like it's a liability to the legitimacy of the election more than anything else.

But the GOP would never ever get rid of the concept in a world where it'd essentially ruin their chances of ever having another Republican president.

Anyway, no matter what the crime, it'd have to start with an allegation, then an investigation, and then impeachment and then removal from office. I do not believe that the law allows another way. There's no way to reverse the election this long after it happened, that I've ever heard of. And if there was, you could be certain the the GOP would do everything they can think of doing to stop HRC from being appointed president. If the Supreme Court had the authority to name an interim president during the investigation, then that'd make logical sense, but from a legal standpoint, they don't have the power to do that. Once Trump was sworn in as president, he became president, legally, so the only way to un-president him is to impeach him, unless he dies or resigns. In pretty much every case, you would have Pence, seeing as how he was sworn in as well. If Pence claims and backs up his claim of ignorance of any fraud, then we are off into a very weird place, legally, where you would end up with a VP acting as president after being elected VP due to a fraudulent act of the former president.

But that takes us back to reality. Trump is planning ahead for this. He's going to claim ignorance himself. If the investigation turns out that Russia held a proverbial gun to the heads of electoral college delegates, Trump will say "wasn't me, you can't punish me for that, it wasn't me, I didn't do anything, it was Russia, not me." When the investigation turns up that Trump knew about it, he'll deflect, and say, "well, whether I knew about it or not, it wasn't me." And when the investigation, hypothetically, turns up that Trump undoubtedly had a hand in all of it, he'll try to pardon himself, claiming the presidential power to pardon anyone at his own discretion. If it does come to that, I would imagine it'd have to backfire, somehow, simply on the grounds that...well...logic is still a thing, I hope. But all of this is a long way off and will probably never happen. If it does, the US executive branch is going to turn into a lot worse of a cluster before it gets any better.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, I'll make the devil's advocacy argument here, that I'm not sure there IS a mechanism for removing an illegally elected president. High level, the president is elected by the Electoral College, the electoral college is elected by popular vote within each state, giving a fair amount of leeway to the states for how this is done, but also setting a specified day for the election, and doens't contain provisions for special elections, that I'm aware of. There's a lag between the popular vote, the Electoral vote, and the certification of electoral vote, but no procedures written into the constitution to reverse any of these steps. I think that any attempt to invalidate Trump's election would likely have to be done by the Supreme Court alleging such impropriety in one of the earlier steps by actions of an enemy nation that not doing so would be a threat to national sovereignty, but even then there are problems - Gorsuch would likely have to recuse himself, leaving us with an even number of justices and an unacceptably high possibility of a split vote and no decision. The Supreme Court would obviously know this and be prepared for this, which I'd assume would mean they wouldn't be likely to even hear a case unless they were already pretty much unified in how they were going to vote, and while they might settle for a 6-2 or 7-1 decision, given the magnitude and precedent setting nature of such a decision, I think a useful metric for ballparking how likely something like this would be to occur would be estimating the likelihood of the Supreme Court deciding 8-0 that the election needed to be overturned, and a special election needed to be held. 

That's a pretty high bar.


----------



## Drew

Trump's pitchjing his tax plan in a speech being broadcast from Washington by CNBC right now. I think he's a bit off message here. Most of his focus has been directed to the _corporate_ tax rate, arguing that the fact ours is higher than average makes us uncompetitive. I think thats a mistake. He was elected on a populist backlash against Washington insiders prioritizing the interests of big companies over everyday Americans; this isn't a message that's likely to resonate with that base. It may be a case of targeting his message to the audience (National Association of Manufacturers), but 1) it's telling that this is the audience he chose for a televised policy speech, and 2) this is also consistent with his messaging elsewhere and what I've heard Congress saying. 

There's also the little fact that the NY Times estimates that repealing AMT and the estate tax will save Trump and his heirs more than a billion dollars in federal taxes between now and Trump's eventual death/dissolution of his estate to his heirs. This could be a tough sell; for much of the year there was a broad expectation we'd get a tax bill that would be retroactively applied to 2017, and while there are pockets of Republican commentators who still believe this, I don't see it happening. We burned too much time on ACA repeal/replace, and many of the same GOP internal divides are going to cause problems there, as well.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew: But does the message of his tax policy need to resonate with his base, though? Does anything he says need to follow any guidelines whatsoever?


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> @Drew: But does the message of his tax policy need to resonate with his base, though? Does anything he says need to follow any guidelines whatsoever?



This. I'm not aware of any politicians that stick to their campaign trail message.


----------



## Drew

I think at a hgih level, yeah, it matters. Trump won because he promised to stick up for the "little guy" in Washington, and to "drain the swamp." If he shows up and then immediately starts hooking up his business cronies at the expense of the little guy, then he's looking at crumbling approval ratings (and an increased probability of impeachment), and a VERY ugly 2018. 

There isn't much the public can do about it today, but if they start to feel like they've been sold a bill of goods, then there will likely be repercussions for Trump and for the GOP.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I think at a hgih level, yeah, it matters. Trump won because he promised to stick up for the "little guy" in Washington, and to "drain the swamp." If he shows up and then immediately starts hooking up his business cronies at the expense of the little guy, then he's looking at crumbling approval ratings (and an increased probability of impeachment), and a VERY ugly 2018.
> 
> There isn't much the public can do about it today, but if they start to feel like they've been sold a bill of goods, then there will likely be repercussions for Trump and for the GOP.



I know this is wayyy off into opinionated-territory, but, as I think you know, I think Trump won because he ran against one of the least liked democratic candidates for president. It helped that he used the right catch phrases, too. His campaign promises didn't even make any logical sense, so I really don't think those, nor anything weakly bonded to those in spirit really matter when it comes to the election. His approval rating right after inauguration were already starting out lower than his disapproval rating...which, really...I mean, what does that tell you?

If I had been given the financial headstart Trump had, and I was clever enough to "come up with" (read: _rip off from Ronald Reagan_) a catch phrase that resonated with people, I honestly think I might have had a shot at beating HRC in the election. Maybe, you could have painted a slogan on a pet rock and it could have won, as a republican, between the gerrymandering (which has come up in the news again recently) of voting districts, the vehement hatred of the right toward HRC, the disillusionment of the middle with HRC, etc., I really think it was a huge factor.

Obviously, there's no way to go back and elect HRC instead to see what her approval ratings would be, but I don't think they'd be spectacular, either, so a lot of people, I think, were holding their noses in the voting booths. And, apparently a lot of those people pulled the red lever instead of the blue one.

So, in 2018, Trump's not directly up for re-election, but the people who are most likely to vote republican, I believe, are not going to equate their local candidates with anything Trump is saying, and I don't think there will be a vast sea of people changing their minds. What there will be, which I think really does matter, is a possibility that democrats will actually go out and vote, because they are pissed. And, I really don't think that Trump's good behaviour from this point on (hypothetically) would stop them from coming out to vote.

In 2020, it will all come down to who runs against Trump. If the DNC doesn't shake out another rock-star (read: candidate who isn't a total hate-target), then Trump may well win in 2020 as well, assuming he can last that long.

Even with all of this Russia stuff - if Russia dug up garbage on HRC to hurt her public image, then she did nothing to attempt to reverse that. If Russia swept some garbage on Trump under the rug- what was it, because, honestly, it seemed like there was more than enough information out there to know he was not an honest guy. What does that leave?

Trump will go down in the history books, most likely, as one of the ten worst Presidents ever. He'll be bottom three if I write the book right now, and he's got plenty of time to make it worse. What I think of him, or even what the majority of human beings think of him - it doesn't matter at all to him, ostensibly.

So Trump is going to do what he does. We all knew this was inevitable. Pointing out that Trump is trying to hook his buds up with a tax break might as well be observing that the sky is blue or water is wet.

TL;DR - Trump got elected on nonsense and a very high disapproval rating; I don't really expect anything you nor I see as nonsense to be an issue with his base at this point.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> His campaign promises didn't even make any logical sense, so I really don't think those, nor anything weakly bonded to those in spirit really matter when it comes to the election.



But the vast majority of people who voted for Trump didn't vote based on logic, they voted based on feelings. You get to that here when you said:



bostjan said:


> the vehement hatred of the right toward HRC, the disillusionment of the middle with HRC



Add to that the people wanting the manufacturing jobs to come back, the people who were against abortion and voted for Trump without bothering to look up his past simply because he ran on the GOP ticket, the people who thought he would actually do something for the little guy despite his past history of business dealings, the people who voted without actually bothering to look into his past at all, etc.

The vote for Trump was an emotional reaction, not a logic based decision.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I know this is wayyy off into opinionated-territory, but, as I think you know, I think Trump won because he ran against one of the least liked democratic candidates for president. It helped that he used the right catch phrases, too. His campaign promises didn't even make any logical sense, so I really don't think those, nor anything weakly bonded to those in spirit really matter when it comes to the election. His approval rating right after inauguration were already starting out lower than his disapproval rating...which, really...I mean, what does that tell you?
> 
> *looooots of supporting stuff*



The problem with this argument, though, is that it doesn't explain how Trump got out of the primary. You can point to _other_ explanations, like name recognition, but I don't think that's the full picture - not for nothing, Trump wasn't the only populist in the running, and Sanders almost did succeed in upsetting Clinton. 

I think where you come closest is "it helped that he used the right catch phrases too." That's basically his populist appeal, in a nutshell. He told people he was going to bring jobs back, stop immigrants from taking their jobs, bring manufacturing back to this country, bring coal back, make Washington work for them and not the other way around, etc etc etc. He ran a populist campaign, at a time where anti-internationalist populism is on an insurgence both at home AND abroad (this movement also brought us Brexit and made things way closer than they should have been in Germany and France, as well) and disrupting the traditional political divides. 

So, yeah, the fact Clinton's personal likeability was poor didn't help... But, Trump's was actually worse than hers (he came into January at 45% approve/45% disapprove after an inauguration bump, but fell apart from there) during the general. And he was the last man standing after a huge primary field where the two last candidates remainingly openly suggested to their supporters they collude to block him. A lot of his supporters even knew some of his claims were impossible - there were a number of articles with supporter interviews saying they knew the days of coal and manufacturing were behind us, they just wanted to vote for someone who c_ared about people like them. _

And THAT is what Trump is at risk of violating, if he tries to sell this as a corporate tax cut, not a personal tax cut.


----------



## zappatton2

One game I've been playing is waiting for the next appalling thing he says or does, and then going online to see how his followers will find creative excuses to justify it. Like, I don't know, making a natural disaster in Puerto Rico entirely about his own bruised ego. I just have to believe there's a point where he can take the Presidency so low that even his devotees would take a moment's pause. Remember when people were capable of feeling shame?


----------



## bostjan

Trump won the primary for the same reason - there was not a likable candidate up against him. For a moment, Ted Cruz might have been able to pull away, but people generally don't like Ted Cruz. You want to talk about someone with a populist up-coming, Ted Cruz is that guy. While Cruz was trying to appeal to Republicans with the message "Hey, I'll work for you, not the jerks in Washington DC," Trump was working with his rich cronies to fund him getting into office by promising to disrupt everything and piss people off in Washington, with no regard for what the majority of people actually wanted. Trump's success in the primaries was a huge bird flipped right in the face of the actual GOP by the GOP voters.

And, at least in Trump's mind, the primary is ancient history. Nothing that happened back then seems to be of any concern to him. To be fair, the same could be said about any president, because they all promise the moon.

Really, for what little it's worth, I don't think Trump's intentions are as bad as most people make them out to be. I think he's more a combination of ignorance, bad logic, and apathy toward important causes than malevolent. I think many Americans are exactly that way as well, and that's the resonance that took over the nation. People who think that Mexican migrants are stealing their jobs from them and that building a gigantic wall will stop that from happening- people who think that the president is the one who decides how many manufacturing jobs there are and how well those pay - people who think that other cultures are solely out to destroy us - they all resonated when Trump stood at the podium and said "MAGA/Border Wall/Torture the Arabs/Deport everybody/Nuke [insert region here]." It means that we, as a nation, may approach the crossroads soon.

But, in terms of Trump's logic for how this new budget will pan out for him, I don't really think he's even thinking about the blue collar guy who owns the corner garage who voted for him, nor the small family farm whose patriarch voted for him, nor the dude who spends half his salary from his job at the tool & die shop on beer and cigarettes - who voted for him. There's his buddy who donated millions who wants a tax break, and his other buddy who donated millions who wants the same tax break...etc. I'm sure he's thinking about them.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Trump won the primary for the same reason - there was not a likable candidate up against him. For a moment, Ted Cruz might have been able to pull away, but people generally don't like Ted Cruz. You want to talk about someone with a populist up-coming, Ted Cruz is that guy. While Cruz was trying to appeal to Republicans with the message "Hey, I'll work for you, not the jerks in Washington DC," Trump was working with his rich cronies to fund him getting into office by promising to disrupt everything and piss people off in Washington, with no regard for what the majority of people actually wanted. Trump's success in the primaries was a huge bird flipped right in the face of the actual GOP by the GOP voters.


Disagree. It took some digging to find a source, but Kasich's net favorability numbers were excellent, better even than Sanders, at +12. Based on that alone you'd think Sanders and Kasich should have been the nominee. In Sanders' case, I think his three major hurdles were 1) only nominally a member of the party he wanted to represent, 2) a lot of his policies weren't fleshed out enough, including critical details on how they'd be paid for, and 3) there was a widespread feeling that he was less likely to win than Clinton, which may have been circular thinking but was there nonetheless. In Trump's case, though, I think it's even simpler. Kasich was a moderate and a guy not afraid to buck his party, but Trump ran as a populist wanting to take down the whole Washington establishment, and I think that won him votes. Name recognition definitely helped, too, but he ran as an anti-establishment populist, and that one. 

I feel more confident in that read after Tom Price was fired over the weekend. The fact he couldn't get repeal/replace done was definitely a factor, but the last straw was running up $1mm in private airplane charges in the last ten months. Price turned out to be the same sort of self-interested insider that Trump ran against, and he got fired for that. It'll be interesting to see what happens to a few other guys who expensed private air travel, but no one else is (so far) even in the same ballpark as Price, so it's tough to say how Trump will act. 

I've been saying all along (or, at least, since March or so, when they still hadn't even touched the subject) that tax reform is going to be an uphill battle, and while I think parts of the market are still in denial (there's a bunch of "tax cuts and deregulation magic fairy dust" commentators - Larry Kudrow is maybe the worst - who still expect quick passage and retroactive 2017 treatment because they can't imagine why BOTH parties wouldn't want to cut taxes), there's a rapidly growing awareness that this is going to be nearly as hard (if not harder) than the ACA bill to pass. The current sticking point is the state and local tax (SALT) exemption's being eliminated; on one hand this is critical to generating enough added revenue to pay for tax cuts elsewhere, and it's a politically attractive tool since states with higher state taxes by and large tend to be Democratic, so it's an easy way to sock it to the other party. On the other, though, "by and large" is an awfully big generalization, and in 1986 (the last time a tax bill tried to incorporate this) it was pressure from Republican legislators in blue-ish states with relatively high state taxes like Illinois that caused this to fail. The tax bill already looks like it'll be roughly double the $1.5 trillion allocated in the budget heading for reconciliation for this; if the GOP loses any revenue generation clauses (and the border-adjustment-tax is already gone, and was supposed to pay for a lot of this), then it's hard to see anything meaningful coming from this.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...I think his three major hurdles were 1) only nominally a member of the party he wanted to represent, 2) a lot of his policies weren't fleshed out enough, including critical details on how they'd be paid for, and 3) there was a widespread feeling that he was less likely to win than Clinton, which may have been circular thinking but was there nonetheless. In Trump's case, though, I think it's even simpler.


The above statements apply 100% to Trump, as well.
I know we disagree on some of the finer details, but, the way I see it, the GOP screwed the pooch over a long drawn-out process that led to Trump leading the primary for them. The DNC responded by screwing up as well, not so much as that the nominated HRC, but that they did so with as little dignity as possible, and the result ended up being what we have now. George Washington, the first leader of our nation, who set so many precedents and left wise words as to why he did what he did, warned that this is what would happen if we got too partisan. 
Regarding how Trump won the primary, I guess there are different interpretations as to what happened and especially why, but Ted Cruz was a politician whose career was founded on anti-establishment. I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. The thing is, he got painted as the establishment. Personally, I don't care for him any more than Trump. The appeal for Trump during the primary was all about dropping a big "fuck you" on DC. All the pro-Trump folks with whom I interacted over the time period made that abundantly clear. They wanted someone who didn't work for the "power that be" or "the man" or whatever conceptualization they had of some illuminati secret leader. Once he hit the milestone of becoming the nominee, it was all about not letting Hillary win. The religious right liked Cruz better, but the blue collar folks didn't like him. But, honestly, when does the religious right ever get their guy nominated? Pat Buchanan? Nope. It ultimately comes down to the blue collar guys who generally hate all of the choices, but pick the one whom they hate least.
IMO, taking the power out of the hands of the people who answer to the lobbyists and placing it in the hands of the guy who hired the lobbyists is like throwing all of the chickens to the wolves so that they won't try to dig under the fence around the coop anymore.
But whatever, I can try to analyze this all day long and it accomplishes nothing.

I guess we'll see what Trump does or does not do when he does it or lets it go. Ultimately, I don't see him as one to back down just because people want him to. There'd have to be some undeniable objective reason to change his mind - a reason that affects him in a way of which he's completely aware.


----------



## Drew

Ted Cruz was a Harvard-educated lawyer who looked like Eddie Munster and was too smooth by half. He may have been elected in the Tea Party wave, but he was the most "establishment" anti-establishment candidate I've ever seen. Trump was a billionare real estate manager from some prestigious school or other so you'd think you could make the same accusation, except I think the "too smooth by half" part of it is the critical part - Cruz seemed like the sort of slimy, sleazeball lawyer who'd say whatever it took to get his way. Trump managed to turn his lack of filter to his advantage - if you remember some of the polling back in the election about Hillary's perceived honestly with Democrats and Trump's perceived honesty with Republicans and vice versa, they both scored well within their parties, abysmally outside, but the important part was _why_ people thought they were honest, within their party: Democrats found Clinton honest because they thought she was factually accurate when she made statements, while Republicans thought Trump was honest because they thought he was saying what he really thought, with no regard to whether or not it was "politically correct," or how it might be perceived, _even in situations where he was factually wrong_. Clinton was accurate; Trump was sincere. Cruz was neither.

So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a _lot_ less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.

Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Ted Cruz was a Harvard-educated lawyer who looked like Eddie Munster and was too smooth by half. He may have been elected in the Tea Party wave, but he was the most "establishment" anti-establishment candidate I've ever seen. Trump was a billionare real estate manager from some prestigious school or other so you'd think you could make the same accusation, except I think the "too smooth by half" part of it is the critical part - Cruz seemed like the sort of slimy, sleazeball lawyer who'd say whatever it took to get his way. Trump managed to turn his lack of filter to his advantage - if you remember some of the polling back in the election about Hillary's perceived honestly with Democrats and Trump's perceived honesty with Republicans and vice versa, they both scored well within their parties, abysmally outside, but the important part was _why_ people thought they were honest, within their party: Democrats found Clinton honest because they thought she was factually accurate when she made statements, while Republicans thought Trump was honest because they thought he was saying what he really thought, with no regard to whether or not it was "politically correct," or how it might be perceived, _even in situations where he was factually wrong_. Clinton was accurate; Trump was sincere. Cruz was neither.
> 
> So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a _lot_ less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.
> 
> Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.



I mean, I think we agree, except for that one tiny detail of how much Trump's supporters will make the association of Trump's tax plan with Trump. No politicians ever really seem to ever take much blame from their own support bases once they reach the level Trump has reached.


----------



## Drew

Well, time will tell.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Ted Cruz was a Harvard-educated lawyer who looked like Eddie Munster and was too smooth by half.



Or Count Chocula.










Drew said:


> Trump was a billionare real estate manager from some prestigious school or other



Supposedly Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business (not that it really matters).




Drew said:


> So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a _lot_ less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.
> 
> Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.



I could see this happening, but I could also see his base sticking with him come Hell or high water (they often don't appear to make the most rational choice). I suppose we will have to wait this one out.


----------



## bostjan

Hopefully we'll never get to the point when it'll be important anyway.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Hopefully we'll never get to the point when it'll be important anyway.


I mean, considering he's pitching his tax plan as a way to make large corporations competitive internationally rather than as a way to help families, I think we ARE there, and it's a matter of watching what happens next.


----------



## oc616

"Sorry Puerto Rico, but you're throwing our budget out of whack. I mean we had Katrina, where many many thousands of people died and you had what, 16 so far?"

This man has negative tact, less than zero. Tact deficit.


----------



## Drew

oc616 said:


> "Sorry Puerto Rico, but you're throwing our budget out of whack. I mean we had Katrina, where many many thousands of people died and you had what, 16 so far?"
> 
> This man has negative tact, less than zero. Tact deficit.


The most charitable interpretation I can come up with was this was an amazingly ham-fisted attempt to distance himself from criticism that Maria was becoming his Katrina. 

There's this mindset that Trump is an evil genius 11th dimensional chess grandmaster distracting you with one hand while asking you to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. I'm increasingly believing that that's bullshit, and he's just an idiot, and a callous asshole.


----------



## tedtan

I do think some of the things he does are intended to distract. But he is also a callous, idiotic asshole who is so far removed from the real world that he has no clue as to how to go about interacting with it. And probably doesn't care.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I do think some of the things he does are intended to distract. But he is also a callous, idiotic asshole who is so far removed from the real world that he has no clue as to how to go about interacting with it. And probably doesn't care.


I don't. Where you see a calculated attempt to distract, I see an almost total lack of impulse control when it comes to handling criticism, especially from women and minorities.


----------



## tedtan

I don't disagree with you about his lack of impulse control, and I agree that a lot of what he posts is simply that.

But some things, like the Obamacare repeal failing while Trump is posting shit about NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem, are questionable. His base is busy supporting him about the national anthem and have forgotten all about the Obamacare repeal (which they probably don't actually want to happen, anyway, when they realize that means they won't have insurance).

Maybe that was just anger at the players and lack of impulse control, but the timing is suspicious.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I don't disagree with you about his lack of impulse control, and I agree that a lot of what he posts is simply that.
> 
> But some things, like the Obamacare repeal failing while Trump is posting shit about NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem, are questionable. His base is busy supporting him about the national anthem and have forgotten all about the Obamacare repeal (which they probably don't actually want to happen, anyway, when they realize that means they won't have insurance).
> 
> Maybe that was just anger at the players and lack of impulse control, but the timing is suspicious.


The two are sort of self-contradictory, though, no? 

Like, either he's doing this all very intentionally, as part of a calculated plan... Or, it's entirely unintentional, not calculated at all, and he can't help himself. It may have the _effect_ of distracting his base from something else, but it's hard to ascribe intentionality to it.


----------



## bostjan

It's a tautology, in ways, though. Evil genius or callous asshole, the end result for us peons is exactly the same.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It's a tautology, in ways, though. Evil genius or callous asshole, the end result for us peons is exactly the same.


Well, it changes how you....

1) Predict his future actions, and 
2) act towards him. 

I mean, if he's really a man with no impulse control when a minority woman insults him, that makes him awfully easy to manipulate, no? That's a risk, for the GOP and for America.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> The two are sort of self-contradictory, though, no?
> 
> Like, either he's doing this all very intentionally, as part of a calculated plan... Or, it's entirely unintentional, not calculated at all, and he can't help himself. It may have the _effect_ of distracting his base from something else, but it's hard to ascribe intentionality to it.



I wouldn't say that a lack of self control necessarily precludes the ability to misdirect and/or distract when it is convenient to do so, but rather that it indicates that not all (or even a majority) of his comments are planned out ahead of time; many are off the cuff comments that a "normal" person would keep to himself should such a thought even pop into his head, whereas Trump's lack of an internal filter and lack self control causes him to put these thoughts out there for god and country to read.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I wouldn't say that a lack of self control necessarily precludes the ability to misdirect and/or distract when it is convenient to do so, but rather that it indicates that not all (or even a majority) of his comments are planned out ahead of time; many are off the cuff comments that a "normal" person would keep to himself should such a thought even pop into his head, whereas Trump's lack of an internal filter and lack self control causes him to put these thoughts out there for god and country to read.


I would - I think it's pretty simple, if it's something he has no control over, then clearly it's not something he's doing on purpose to misdirect.

We - both us and the media - are giving Trump too much credit when we accuse him of intentionally misdirecting with his outbursts. Trump is NOT an intelligent, savvy man. Have you actually read his full comments in Puerto Rico, shortly before the paper towel throwing incident? He claims that most people have never heard of a Category 5 hurricane, goes off on a tangent bragging about the F-35, how you "literally can't see it," and brags about how he negotiated down the price. Tillerson was right; he's a fucking moron.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, it changes how you....
> 
> 1) Predict his future actions, and
> 2) act towards him.
> 
> I mean, if he's really a man with no impulse control when a minority woman insults him, that makes him awfully easy to manipulate, no? That's a risk, for the GOP and for America.



 I mean, if anyone thought he had one iota of impulse control, even during the election, then ... IDK, you're looking at a guy who, during televised speeches, made fun of people with handicaps and encouraged his supporters to use physical violence against others by paying their resultant legal expenses. If you think that the bar is still set pretty high after a major presidential candidate does things such as that, then I think you're way too optimistic.

Trump _*is*_ easily manipulated. He's the PotUSA, but he's also still a spray-tanned reality-TV-show-starring shady-business-owning born-a-millionaire bratty spoiled sleazy loud-mouthed demagogue. It's been nearly a year since he won the election, and I honestly still have no idea how to even begin parsing the fact that he is the leader of the free world. I know folks will compare Obama's blunder of not knowing how many damned states there are in the USA, but there is no comparison between an exhausted usually-well-spoken even-keeled dude mis-speaking, and Trump, dealing with a terrible disaster in Puerto Rico, knowing well in advance that's the topic, and not knowing that Puerto Rico is part of the USA.

If I worked for Pepsi-co, would I approach Trump to try to ban Mexican Coke from the US market? No - I'd be too afraid of simply being on his radar, I think. I can't really think of any example where knowing how hot-headed and willfully fact-ignorant he is could be played to my advantage. This is, after all, the one of, what? -two guys with the power to call in a nuclear missile strike on my house. I don't get warm fuzzy feelings about Putin, but if I had to trust one of those two with my life, I certainly wouldn't put Trump at the top of that short list.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> I would - I think it's pretty simple, if it's something he has no control over, then clearly it's not something he's doing on purpose to misdirect.
> 
> We - both us and the media - are giving Trump too much credit when we accuse him of intentionally misdirecting with his outbursts. Trump is NOT an intelligent, savvy man. Have you actually read his full comments in Puerto Rico, shortly before the paper towel throwing incident? He claims that most people have never heard of a Category 5 hurricane, goes off on a tangent bragging about the F-35, how you "literally can't see it," and brags about how he negotiated down the price. Tillerson was right; he's a fucking moron.



I'm not talking long term here; Trump isn't mentally or emotionally capable of playing a long game.

What I'm talking about is a situation like Trump realizing that something negative is happening (the Russia investigation, his mishandling of the several recent natural disasters, the GOP failing to pass legislature he campaigned on, etc.) and then thinking "shit, this doesn't make me look good and claiming 'fake news' probably won't cut it this time" before proceeding to post tweets about something that will stir the pot (NFL players not standing for the national anthem, insulting some public figure he has a beef with, etc.). 

That behavior is both intended to shift the focus away from the negative event (and and any repercussions that would affect Trump) and impulsive. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I'm not talking long term here; Trump isn't mentally or emotionally capable of playing a long game.
> 
> What I'm talking about is a situation like Trump realizing that something negative is happening (the Russia investigation, his mishandling of the several recent natural disasters, the GOP failing to pass legislature he campaigned on, etc.) and then thinking "shit, this doesn't make me look good and claiming 'fake news' probably won't cut it this time" before proceeding to post tweets about something that will stir the pot (NFL players not standing for the national anthem, insulting some public figure he has a beef with, etc.).
> 
> That behavior is both intended to shift the focus away from the negative event (and and any repercussions that would affect Trump) and impulsive. The two aren't mutually exclusive.


I don't even necessarily buy that, though, is the thing. There are times where he may have the _effect_ of doing that, and if you want to make the argument that its some sort of short term calculation the NFL kneeling thing works well because it's a divisive issue that plays well with not just his base but the broader GOP, but if you look at _how_ it came about, initially it was just a couple off-the-cuff comments in a speech in a rally for Strange in the closing days of the Alabama runoff, and when the crowd went wild, he then doubled down on twitter the next day (which his base loved), and in the process uninvited the Golden State Warriors from the White House, which was met with much more muted of a reaction. It seems like this was more of a response to a stimulus than a calculated plan ("hey! they like this! let's do more of it!") and even then, picking a fight with Steven Curry and LeBron James was hardly a winning strategy. 

And then there are twitter fights he's picked where it's really tough to see _how_ it advantages him - whereas there was at least some upside with the NFL, picking a fight with the mayor of San Juan only really succeeded in calling attention to how abysmally bad the USA's response has been the the devastation caused by Maria in Puerto Rico. At present, the public's approval of Trump's response to Maria is actually significantly _worse _than Bush's was to Katrina in New Orleans. Doubling down on this one and criticizing her was a pure self-inflicted wound. 

tl;dr - they ARE mutually exclusive, because if you think he's trying to shift focus away from a negative event, 1) that implies it's calculated, not impulsive, and 2) he historically hasn't done such a good job of "choosing" subjects to pick fights with, and even the times when he has (the NFL), doing things like then impulsively uninviting the Warriors was something that even his base thought was dumb.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> tl;dr - they ARE mutually exclusive, because if you think he's trying to shift focus away from a negative event, 1) that implies it's calculated, not impulsive, and 2) he historically hasn't done such a good job of "choosing" subjects to pick fights with, and even the times when he has (the NFL), doing things like then impulsively uninviting the Warriors was something that even his base thought was dumb.



I suppose that would be the case if you look at it as a single action, but I see it as separate actions. The calculated part is not impulsive, but the implementation could very well be.

Regardless, I certainly allow that this phenomena could be mere coincidence wherein Trump's impulsiveness occasionally works in his favor, at least within a limited framework.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/politics/trump-corker.html



Sen Bob Corker (R) said:


> I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain [Trump]





Sen Bob Corker (R) said:


> It’s a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning.



I don't know where this is going, but it seems that this particular congressman has had enough. If more follow him, this could be a mess for the White House. If not, it'll just be a mess for Corker.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> If more follow him, this could be a mess for the White House. If not, it'll just be a mess for Corker.



 That's one way to look at it!


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/politics/trump-corker.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where this is going, but it seems that this particular congressman has had enough. If more follow him, this could be a mess for the White House. If not, it'll just be a mess for Corker.


The private reaction has evidently been a lot of Republican congressmen agree with him; few are willing to stick their necks out publicly to say so. That could change. If it does, I've already indicated I think any tax reform bill is a lognshot, but I'd say the odds of it going through will fall further. 

Seriously, broken record here, but while a lot of things went more or less as I expected after Trump was elected (i.e. - he really did try to do everything he said he would, that a lot of his moderate republican supporters thought was just empty talk), the one thing that was truly a surprise for me is how unbelievably _ineffectual_ the Trump administration has been. It's been just a staggering comedy of errors - the man can't stop shooting himself in the foot.


----------



## bostjan

He's allegedly challenged his own Secretary of State to an IQ test contest. There seems to be a lot of controversy over what his IQ is. Evidently he uses a vocabulary of 77 words and the grammar equivalent to an average third grader, according to people who have studied his public speeches, yet others contend that he talks that way in order to connect with the American people, whom he sees as third graders with 77 word vocabularies. Either way, I see a problem. 

@Drew, I am curious as to how you see him as more ineffectual that a typical executive leader. I think we've been over his accomplishments before, which are mostly _in progress_ or not happening, but to be fair, the same went for Obama and Bush, at least by this point in their presidencies. A lot could change in the next three years, if he continues at the pace he's averaged so far.

Now that he's actively being called out for being a moron by multiple high level sources, I really do think he's about to be put in check, if not checkmate, by his rivals colluding with his supposed allies. Even when Bush got stuck in a room because he couldn't figure out whether to push or pull the door during a televised event, I don't recall a single Republican making fun of him, and when Obama forgot how many states were in the USA during a campaign rally, I don't recall any Democrats calling him names. This seems to me like a new low for the presidency in so many ways, and I don't think that the office will be able to maintain it's level of influence and power as long as Trump is sitting in it.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Explorer

Wasn't there a Howard Stern appearance wherein both Ivanka and Eric, while touting their own intelligence, couldn't figure out what 17 times 6 equalled?

And then the Moron in Chief kept declaring it was 112?

Trump is a moron. Corker got it right.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Drew, I am curious as to how you see him as more ineffectual that a typical executive leader. I think we've been over his accomplishments before, which are mostly _in progress_ or not happening, but to be fair, the same went for Obama and Bush, at least by this point in their presidencies. A lot could change in the next three years, if he continues at the pace he's averaged so far.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Barack_Obama's_presidency
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/president-bush-100-days-in-the-shadows/

W. had a fairly unimpressive first 100 days, but Obama had already passed a number of major pieces of legislation within the first 100 days of his term. Trump? Trump has yet to get a major piece of legislation through, amd he has majorities in both chambers of Congress. 

Yeah, it doesn't help that after 8 years of talk about "repeal and replace," congressional Republicans didn't actally have a bill ready to go... But, it's _mind-blowing_ to me that not only did that fail, but of the major initiatives I can think of that Trump campaigned on, the only two I can think of that he has a credible claim to have accomplished is to nominate and seat a conservative justice, and to enact a Muslim ban (albeit on the 3rd attempt, and this one will probably get challenged in court too). No infastructure plan, only cursory details of his tax plan and that's been within the past two weeks, no wall with Mexico and no chance of Mexico paying for it, no "something better than the ACA," no end to the war with ISIS, he still has only made a fraction of the appointments a president is required to, much less had them approved by Congress... Am I forgetting anything? 

The only things he's been able to do are things he can do unilaterally - executive orders (the muslim ban, for one), backing out of the TPP, initiating the renegotiation of NAFTA, ending the DREAM act... but even then he hasn't been very effective; the DREAM act he basically kicked to Congress to fix, which looks like what he's about to do with the Iran nuclear deal, NAFTA negotiations I believe still haven;t begun, and his first two Muslim bans were tossed out by the courts. 

There's also the little matter of the spectacular infighting, the insanely high turnover (Flynn, Bannon, Price, Spicer, Priebus, the Mooch, few otgers I'm forgetting, I'm sure), the fact he's constantly contradicting White House officials' public statements in his tweets... It's a management clusterfuck. Corker's comments about the White House basically being adult daycare these days were entirely on point.


----------



## synrgy

bostjan said:


> Even when Bush got stuck in a room because he couldn't figure out whether to push or pull the door during a televised event, I don't recall a single Republican making fun of him



You know, for his many faults, I never questioned if "his heart was in the right place"; it was more Cheney/Rumsfeld and co. that drew my ire. W seems - in hindsight - more worthy of pity than vilification. It's pretty clear he was mostly a puppet; that public speaking was simultaneously his only purpose, and his Achilles' Heel.

Which is to say, I don't for a moment believe Drumpf's "heart is in the right place".

Anyway, I hope Mueller hurries up. Setting aside the laundry list of terrifying legislation coming down the pike*, Drumpf is definitely giving me the willies with all this 'calm before the storm' business..

*HR 861 - Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
HR 610 - Vouchers for Public Education
HR 899 - Terminate the Department of Education
HJR 69 - Repeal Rule Protecting Wildlife
HR 370 - Another attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act
HR 354 - Defund Planned Parenthood
HR 785 - National Right to Work
HR 83 - Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Bill
HR 147 - Criminalizing Abortion
HR 808 - Sanctions against Iran (not super scary at face value, but it sneaks in expansion of Presidential powers)


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> Wasn't there a Howard Stern appearance wherein both Ivanka and Eric, while touting their own intelligence, couldn't figure out what 17 times 6 equalled?
> 
> And then the Moron in Chief kept declaring it was 112?
> 
> Trump is a moron. Corker got it right.



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...lly-sucks-at-math_us_576a4dffe4b065534f484015

Ok, this is what gets me, because I think we all work with people like this.

First, I don't really care that Trump can't solve a simple multiplication problem. I mean, it'd be reassuring if he could, but I honestly wouldn't care if he couldn't, as long as the gripes below were mitigated. To be frank, though 17 x 6 is not a difficult problem to solve.

Second, if you go around bragging how smart you are, you need something, anything, to back that up. If I went around here showing off the score I got on my IQ test, then I should provide a photo of the test results or similar. Trump doesn't have anything to back up his claims that he's the most clever man alive- Nothing. He's the type of dude who would show that shit off to everybody if he had it, so I know he doesn't.

Third, and most of all, he cannot admit that he is wrong. Not only that, but one step further, he cannot stop himself from insisting that he's correct, even when he's blatantly wrong. For about one minute, one of the other producers keeps explaining how the answer is 102, but Trump insists that it's 112 until someone does it on a calculator, then he simply stops talking and sits there smugly and awkwardly smiling, like he's so sure that it's 112 and that the calculator and the producers are wrong.



Drew said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Barack_Obama's_presidency
> https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/president-bush-100-days-in-the-shadows/
> 
> W. had a fairly unimpressive first 100 days, but Obama had already passed a number of major pieces of legislation within the first 100 days of his term. Trump? Trump has yet to get a major piece of legislation through, amd he has majorities in both chambers of Congress.
> 
> Yeah, it doesn't help that after 8 years of talk about "repeal and replace," congressional Republicans didn't actally have a bill ready to go... But, it's _mind-blowing_ to me that not only did that fail, but of the major initiatives I can think of that Trump campaigned on, the only two I can think of that he has a credible claim to have accomplished is to nominate and seat a conservative justice, and to enact a Muslim ban (albeit on the 3rd attempt, and this one will probably get challenged in court too). No infastructure plan, only cursory details of his tax plan and that's been within the past two weeks, no wall with Mexico and no chance of Mexico paying for it, no "something better than the ACA," no end to the war with ISIS, he still has only made a fraction of the appointments a president is required to, much less had them approved by Congress... Am I forgetting anything?
> 
> The only things he's been able to do are things he can do unilaterally - executive orders (the muslim ban, for one), backing out of the TPP, initiating the renegotiation of NAFTA, ending the DREAM act... but even then he hasn't been very effective; the DREAM act he basically kicked to Congress to fix, which looks like what he's about to do with the Iran nuclear deal, NAFTA negotiations I believe still haven;t begun, and his first two Muslim bans were tossed out by the courts.
> 
> There's also the little matter of the spectacular infighting, the insanely high turnover (Flynn, Bannon, Price, Spicer, Priebus, the Mooch, few otgers I'm forgetting, I'm sure), the fact he's constantly contradicting White House officials' public statements in his tweets... It's a management clusterfuck. Corker's comments about the White House basically being adult daycare these days were entirely on point.



Obama had some problems with some of his goals as well. But where Obama took the approach of trying to convince congress to approve legislation to accomplish his goals, Trump just tried doing everything by executive action, which reached its limitations almost immediately.

Trump might be horribly misguided, he might be brash and reckless, but one thing I will not say is that he's lazy, because he has been getting a lot of things moving, even if they are not going anywhere but in circles. Lots of instantaneous movement even if the push-pull averages out back where it started. I had a post a few pages back with a sort of survey of his attempted accomplishments, and it was honestly just the tip of the iceberg.



synrgy said:


> You know, for his many faults, I never questioned if "his heart was in the right place"; it was more Cheney/Rumsfeld and co. that drew my ire. W seems - in hindsight - more worthy of pity than vilification. It's pretty clear he was mostly a puppet; that public speaking was simultaneously his only purpose, and his Achilles' Heel.
> 
> Which is to say, I don't for a moment believe Drumpf's "heart is in the right place".
> 
> Anyway, I hope Mueller hurries up. Setting aside the laundry list of terrifying legislation coming down the pike*, Drumpf is definitely giving me the willies with all this 'calm before the storm' business..
> 
> *HR 861 - Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
> HR 610 - Vouchers for Public Education
> HR 899 - Terminate the Department of Education
> HJR 69 - Repeal Rule Protecting Wildlife
> HR 370 - Another attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act
> HR 354 - Defund Planned Parenthood
> HR 785 - National Right to Work
> HR 83 - Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Bill
> HR 147 - Criminalizing Abortion
> HR 808 - Sanctions against Iran (not super scary at face value, but it sneaks in expansion of Presidential powers)



I did. I cannot forgive the guy who deliberately and knowingly started two wars under false pretenses, understanding that those wars had no justification and no end in sight. Trump might do worse, but Bush is ultimately responsible for 9/11 (the Clinton administration tried to warn him that the danger was teeming on the horizon, and he made the conscious decision to take focus off of it), Iraq (which he led us into solely because of a personal family feud with Hussein - I know that he knew that the WMD justification was BS, because his explanation of it, on its own, didn't even make sense), Afghanistan (which may have had an iota of legitimacy, but ended up a quagmire), the Iran deal (because the USA no longer had the moral high ground after Iraq to step in), bringing back medieval torture, the tyrannical Patriot Act, and at least part of the 2008 bubble (he relaxed a lot of regulations that, although they did not directly allow what happened, ushered in the culture where the behaviours that led to the recession gestated). Fuck that guy.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> Wasn't there a Howard Stern appearance wherein both Ivanka and Eric, while touting their own intelligence, couldn't figure out what 17 times 6 equalled?
> 
> And then the Moron in Chief kept declaring it was 112?
> 
> Trump is a moron. Corker got it right.



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...lly-sucks-at-math_us_576a4dffe4b065534f484015

Ok, this is what gets me, because I think we all work with people like this.

First, I don't really care that Trump can't solve a simple multiplication problem. I mean, it'd be reassuring if he could, but I honestly wouldn't care if he couldn't, as long as the gripes below were mitigated. To be frank, though 17 x 6 is not a difficult problem to solve.

Second, if you go around bragging how smart you are, you need something, anything, to back that up. If I went around here showing off the score I got on my IQ test, then I should provide a photo of the test results or similar. Trump doesn't have anything to back up his claims that he's the most clever man alive- Nothing. He's the type of dude who would show that shit off to everybody if he had it, so I know he doesn't.

Third, and most of all, he cannot admit that he is wrong. Not only that, but one step further, he cannot stop himself from insisting that he's correct, even when he's blatantly wrong. For about one minute, one of the other producers keeps explaining how the answer is 102, but Trump insists that it's 112 until someone does it on a calculator, then he simply stops talking and sits there smugly and awkwardly smiling, like he's so sure that it's 112 and that the calculator and the producers are wrong.



Drew said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100_days_of_Barack_Obama's_presidency
> https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/president-bush-100-days-in-the-shadows/
> 
> W. had a fairly unimpressive first 100 days, but Obama had already passed a number of major pieces of legislation within the first 100 days of his term. Trump? Trump has yet to get a major piece of legislation through, amd he has majorities in both chambers of Congress.
> 
> Yeah, it doesn't help that after 8 years of talk about "repeal and replace," congressional Republicans didn't actally have a bill ready to go... But, it's _mind-blowing_ to me that not only did that fail, but of the major initiatives I can think of that Trump campaigned on, the only two I can think of that he has a credible claim to have accomplished is to nominate and seat a conservative justice, and to enact a Muslim ban (albeit on the 3rd attempt, and this one will probably get challenged in court too). No infastructure plan, only cursory details of his tax plan and that's been within the past two weeks, no wall with Mexico and no chance of Mexico paying for it, no "something better than the ACA," no end to the war with ISIS, he still has only made a fraction of the appointments a president is required to, much less had them approved by Congress... Am I forgetting anything?
> 
> The only things he's been able to do are things he can do unilaterally - executive orders (the muslim ban, for one), backing out of the TPP, initiating the renegotiation of NAFTA, ending the DREAM act... but even then he hasn't been very effective; the DREAM act he basically kicked to Congress to fix, which looks like what he's about to do with the Iran nuclear deal, NAFTA negotiations I believe still haven;t begun, and his first two Muslim bans were tossed out by the courts.
> 
> There's also the little matter of the spectacular infighting, the insanely high turnover (Flynn, Bannon, Price, Spicer, Priebus, the Mooch, few otgers I'm forgetting, I'm sure), the fact he's constantly contradicting White House officials' public statements in his tweets... It's a management clusterfuck. Corker's comments about the White House basically being adult daycare these days were entirely on point.



Obama had some problems with some of his goals as well. But where Obama took the approach of trying to convince congress to approve legislation to accomplish his goals, Trump just tried doing everything by executive action, which reached its limitations almost immediately.

Trump might be horribly misguided, he might be brash and reckless, but one thing I will not say is that he's lazy, because he has been getting a lot of things moving, even if they are not going anywhere but in circles. Lots of instantaneous movement even if the push-pull averages out back where it started. I had a post a few pages back with a sort of survey of his attempted accomplishments, and it was honestly just the tip of the iceberg.



synrgy said:


> You know, for his many faults, I never questioned if "his heart was in the right place"; it was more Cheney/Rumsfeld and co. that drew my ire. W seems - in hindsight - more worthy of pity than vilification. It's pretty clear he was mostly a puppet; that public speaking was simultaneously his only purpose, and his Achilles' Heel.
> 
> Which is to say, I don't for a moment believe Drumpf's "heart is in the right place".
> 
> Anyway, I hope Mueller hurries up. Setting aside the laundry list of terrifying legislation coming down the pike*, Drumpf is definitely giving me the willies with all this 'calm before the storm' business..
> 
> *HR 861 - Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency
> HR 610 - Vouchers for Public Education
> HR 899 - Terminate the Department of Education
> HJR 69 - Repeal Rule Protecting Wildlife
> HR 370 - Another attempt to Repeal Affordable Care Act
> HR 354 - Defund Planned Parenthood
> HR 785 - National Right to Work
> HR 83 - Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Bill
> HR 147 - Criminalizing Abortion
> HR 808 - Sanctions against Iran (not super scary at face value, but it sneaks in expansion of Presidential powers)



I did. I cannot forgive the guy who deliberately and knowingly started two wars under false pretenses, understanding that those wars had no justification and no end in sight. Trump might do worse, but Bush is ultimately responsible for 9/11 (the Clinton administration tried to warn him that the danger was teeming on the horizon, and he made the conscious decision to take focus off of it), Iraq (which he led us into solely because of a personal family feud with Hussein - I know that he knew that the WMD justification was BS, because his explanation of it, on its own, didn't even make sense), Afghanistan (which may have had an iota of legitimacy, but ended up a quagmire), the Iran deal (because the USA no longer had the moral high ground after Iraq to step in), bringing back medieval torture, the tyrannical Patriot Act, and at least part of the 2008 bubble (he relaxed a lot of regulations that, although they did not directly allow what happened, ushered in the culture where the behaviours that led to the recession gestated). Fuck that guy.


----------



## synrgy

I can't disagree with any of that, except to say that I don't think most of that was W's decision-making, but that of his puppet-masters. Granted, this does not excuse him, but I _genuinely_ think he was too dimwitted to have even conceived of most of what he did.

I could easily be wrong, of course. Maybe he's tenfold smarter than I give him credit for, and maybe the whole 'puppet show' look was a calculated move. Seems like a stretch, and pretty much qualifies him for all of the Oscars ever, but yeah, not impossible.

*edit* And, to be clear, none of this makes me a retroactive fan of the man. If one dug into my post history from when he was still POTUS, I think my general opposition to his Admin would be obvious.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Obama had some problems with some of his goals as well. But where Obama took the approach of trying to convince congress to approve legislation to accomplish his goals, Trump just tried doing everything by executive action, which reached its limitations almost immediately.
> 
> Trump might be horribly misguided, he might be brash and reckless, but one thing I will not say is that he's lazy, because he has been getting a lot of things moving, even if they are not going anywhere but in circles. Lots of instantaneous movement even if the push-pull averages out back where it started. I had a post a few pages back with a sort of survey of his attempted accomplishments, and it was honestly just the tip of the iceberg.


Yes, but Obama got them across the goal line. Trump hasn't. He doesn't have a single legislative victory of note I can think of, at a time when his (nominal) party controls both houses of Congress, with the _possible_ exception of his deal to get a Harvey relief bill packaged with a short term spending plan and a debt ceiling increase, and that was done with the _democrats_. 

I mean, picture basically any republican other than Trump in the white house, and ask yourself if we'd only be turning to the -skeletal - beginnings of a tax reform plan now, 250 days into his term, with zero accomplishments on any of his other objectives. And what's Trump doing, this last week? Fighting with the NFL about players kneeling during the National Anthem, blasting the Mayor of San Juan over twitter, and challenging his Secretary of State to an IQ contest. 

His administration is a _trainwreck._


----------



## Drew

synrgy said:


> I can't disagree with any of that, except to say that I don't think most of that was W's decision-making, but that of his puppet-masters. Granted, this does not excuse him, but I _genuinely_ think he was too dimwitted to have even conceived of most of what he did.
> 
> I could easily be wrong, of course. Maybe he's tenfold smarter than I give him credit for, and maybe the whole 'puppet show' look was a calculated move. Seems like a stretch, and pretty much qualifies him for all of the Oscars ever, but yeah, not impossible.
> 
> *edit* And, to be clear, none of this makes me a retroactive fan of the man. If one dug into my post history from when he was still POTUS, I think my general opposition to his Admin would be obvious.


No, I'm with you, too. The Bush Administration did a lot of things I disagreed with, sometimes quite strongly. One or two I think he's been vindicated - the Arab Spring made his attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East a lot less hair-brained in retrospect, even if his means were a little questionable. But even some of the ones I disagree with, I at least can find things in them I respect him for. For example, the Bush tax cuts... He ran on them at a time of budgetary surplus, and then we had the dot-com crash and that surplus went away. His advisors immediately started drawing up a plan B, but Bush's attitide was "I said I was going to do it, so now I'm going to do it." I think that was a _mistake_, but there's at least an integrity there, even if IMO a course of action with just as much integrity would have been to publicly say "Listen, I wanted to do this when we had a budget surplus thanks to capital gains. We don't anymore. The economy has changed so this isn't the right course of action, after all." 

Decent guy, he just stood for a lot of ideas I didn't. Trump, meanwhile, stands for himself, _uber alles_.


----------



## synrgy

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Without mincing words, I pretty much _hated_ W, but at the same time I believed he was trying to follow his own moral compass and genuinely trying to do what _he_ believed was good; even if I disagreed with most or all of it. Seeing how he's all but disappeared since, except to take up painting veterans for charity, it's clear that he was humbled by his experience.

In contrast, Drumpf is clearly a sociopath. I don't believe morality has ever been on his radar, or that he has _any_ particular beliefs/convictions outside himself being the center of the Universe. Humility is an entirely foreign concept to the man.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yes, but Obama got them across the goal line. Trump hasn't. He doesn't have a single legislative victory of note I can think of, at a time when his (nominal) party controls both houses of Congress, with the _possible_ exception of his deal to get a Harvey relief bill packaged with a short term spending plan and a debt ceiling increase, and that was done with the _democrats_.
> 
> I mean, picture basically any republican other than Trump in the white house, and ask yourself if we'd only be turning to the -skeletal - beginnings of a tax reform plan now, 250 days into his term, with zero accomplishments on any of his other objectives. And what's Trump doing, this last week? Fighting with the NFL about players kneeling during the National Anthem, blasting the Mayor of San Juan over twitter, and challenging his Secretary of State to an IQ contest.
> 
> His administration is a _trainwreck._



Well, we agree on the last bit.

Right now, Trump isn't going to get a damn thing done, either, and I think we agree there. He's too busy trying to shut down NBC for actually reporting news, going after the NFL players, sparring with his own cabinet members, trying to figure out how to get congressmen fired, trying to figure out how not to get impeached (ha! who am I kidding, he's not even thinking about that, clearly), and also trying to figure out which parts of the world a part of the USA but not states. He can't possibly get any administrative work done whilst he's running all of these battles from all different sides.

Obama didn't accomplish everything he set out to do. Period. You can equivocate and say that no president ever has, which is fine, but it's not correct to imply that he was 100% successful, either. IMO, he was a hell of a lot more effective than people credit him. Trump's going to have a lot more hangups than Obama, for sure, but he did manage to essentially ban Muslims, he managed to take the EPA down a few notches, he managed to put more money into the pockets of his favourite businesses, he appointed a conservative SCotUS justice, he repealed immigration amnesty programs, he banned lobbyists, and...well...he lifted a few regulations on mining operations. I really don't think he's going to accomplish much else unless something major changes now. Anyway, he's not batting zero, but he's not batting well enough for the big leagues, either.



Drew said:


> No, I'm with you, too. The Bush Administration did a lot of things I disagreed with, sometimes quite strongly. One or two I think he's been vindicated - the Arab Spring made his attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East a lot less hair-brained in retrospect, even if his means were a little questionable. But even some of the ones I disagree with, I at least can find things in them I respect him for. For example, the Bush tax cuts... He ran on them at a time of budgetary surplus, and then we had the dot-com crash and that surplus went away. His advisors immediately started drawing up a plan B, but Bush's attitide was "I said I was going to do it, so now I'm going to do it." I think that was a _mistake_, but there's at least an integrity there, even if IMO a course of action with just as much integrity would have been to publicly say "Listen, I wanted to do this when we had a budget surplus thanks to capital gains. We don't anymore. The economy has changed so this isn't the right course of action, after all."
> 
> Decent guy, he just stood for a lot of ideas I didn't. Trump, meanwhile, stands for himself, _uber alles_.



The Arab Spring is what led to these problems with ISIS, though. And it totally backfired in Iran. Maybe Libya is doing better, but Egypt is (arguably) worse. Some wins for the ME, but about half or more ended as losses. I think counting the Arab Spring in general as an accomplishment is a really hard sell.

Making a shitty plan and then sticking to it because you said it was the plan, when circumstances prove you wrong, is not a good attitude, either, in fact, it's the same bull-headedness that makes Trump so much of a danger. He's going to keep trying to ban Islam and build the Great Wall of Mexico, no matter how much evidence piles up to prove both of those are bad ideas. Bush willfully lied to the public, and it cost thousands of young American lives in Iraq. I don't see how that speaks _anything_ positive about his character.


----------



## Drew

Though, to be fair, he's done most of this by executive order. It can be _undone_ by executive order in short order once he's gone. Something like a permanent change to the US tax code or The Great Wall of Mexico would be a little harder to undo after his term is over. 

The bigger risk, IMO, is that he continues to find ways to undercut the ACA outside of legislative change - decimating the advertising budget for the signup period, his rumored executive order due out in coming days to allow federal agencies to introduce their own ACA-exempt health care plans (it may be federal agency unions, I only caught a few od the details), continuing to threaten to withhold subsidies, etc. 

Other than that, though - I mean, even Gorsuch was more McConnell's accomplishment than Trump's, after stonewalling Obama for a year and then changing the procedural rules to avoid filibuster. Trump didn't really do anything to get him approved, he just named the guy.


----------



## bostjan

Agreed on all points.

I did try to clarify that a few posts ago, though:


bostjan said:


> Trump just tried doing everything by executive action



The thing is, even if he does all sorts of crap by executive order, it stands as policy until either someone else goes through the effort to stop it. It doesn't even have to be the next president. Executive order could be challenged by the Supreme Court or even by Congress. But, any one of those three options takes considerable time and a fair amount of political capital.

The Wall is probably not happening. I really don't see how he'd be able to pull that off, and I've said it all along. It's too much of a big deal. If a majority of people in a majority of congressional districts oppose the Wall's construction, then the Wall won't get a budget, and without a budget, it won't happen. But, the tax code...well, I'd give that better odds, maybe even 30% chance of happening. I don't think it's more likely than not, but I think it is likely enough to not write it off. We'll see.

This is one of those rare instances in which I have more faith in Congress than in the president. :/


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> This is one of those rare instances in which I have more faith in Congress than in the president. :/


They've been spineless so far, but revolt is becoming quite a bit more open. 

All along I've argued that the GOP has been willing to tolerate Trump as a means to the end of ACA repeal/replace and tax cuts. They failed on the first, and if it starts to become clear that they're going to fail on the second... Trump is toast.


----------



## bostjan

Serious question:

If The USA pulls out of the Iran deal, and the rest of the signatories stay in, does anything happen next?


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

Just read this : http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/7e7cc43f51016e7cc48edd0d9302c8bb

I'm with Rex Tillerson, Trump is a moron.


----------



## r33per

HeavyMetal4Ever said:


> Just read this : http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...s/news-story/7e7cc43f51016e7cc48edd0d9302c8bb
> 
> I'm with Rex Tillerson, Trump is a moron.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

I have not yet read it all, but this is interesting, to say the least. In some ways, the author of the article trying to make Pence sound weird and creepy backfires, but the overall strong points hold up pretty well. : /


----------



## CapnForsaggio

After all that squabbling, it turns out Bill Clinton met Putin in his private home during the Uranium One sale fiasco.

And they have the gall to call Trump the traitor. And most of you ate it up!

I'll come back and visit after the chips fall. I have alot of reading to do to get caught up on your comments.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Just cause the pot's calling the kettle black, doesn't mean that kettle ain't still black.


----------



## Explorer

CapnForsaggio said:


> After all that squabbling, it turns out Bill Clinton met Putin in his private home during the Uranium One sale fiasco.
> 
> And they have the gall to call Trump the traitor. And most of you ate it up!


It would be more impressive if you were consistent enough, or intelligent enough to recognize your inconsistencies and correct them, when claiming your faux outrage. 

Whether email "scandals," Trump and family inviting Russians to his domiciles, etc., it works better to not go on the attack when the facts make your hypocrisy so obvious, Cap'n.


----------



## vilk

_


Science_Penguin said:



Just cause the pot's calling the kettle black, doesn't mean that kettle ain't still black.

Click to expand...

_
Exactly. This kind of logical fallacy is known as _Tu Quoque, _Latin for "you, too!"


----------



## bostjan

Yes, equating the two misdeeds means that equal outrage should be directed toward both, otherwise a double standard.

For me, it's a mess, the Clinton Foundation is a mess, etc., but none of this was really kept secret, and it's only getting brought up now because reactionary Trump supporters want to say "SEE?!" But, also from my personal perspective, bad as this looks (I think you'd agree that this wouldn't be the worst thing Bill ever did), it's small potatoes compared to the allegations against Trump's presidential campaign team.


----------



## Drew

You know, in the interest of fair play I'm trying to find out how much truth there is to this story. And, outside of stuff like The National Review, there isn't much. Here's the most credible seeming I've found.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...tates-permission-to-meet-with-russian-nuclear

tl;dr - when in Russia, Bill sought State department approval to meet with a number of russians. That approval process took at least two weeks. It's unclear if approval was or was not given, but Clinton ultimately ended up _not_ holding those meetings. He did, however, meet privately with Putin.

Whether or not this is a big deal, I think, would depending on some combination of 1) whether he did so with the State Department's knowledge and blessing, and 2) what was discussed during that meeting.

I know we're all focused on hating Hillary, but it's worth keeping in mind that for eight years, her husband WAS President of the United States, and that a courtesy call between a current and former head of state, especially during that whole misguided "reset" - is hardly unusual.

So, definitely a story worth watching, but unless Bill did it behind the State Department's back and they discussed this uranium deal, it's hardly damning. 

I mean, let's be honest. Bill is no Trump Jr, it's not like Putin emailed him and said, "oh hai wanna talk about secret nuclear deal plz??" and Bill then lied about it.


----------



## bostjan

http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-roll-back-obama-arbitration-rule-2017-10

Senate passed HJ Res 111 repealing 82 FR 33210 in a vote 50-50 (Pence breaking the tie).

What does it mean?

82 FR 33210 forbids financial institutions from claiming a right over their customers to impose contracts forbidding them from filing lawsuits.
HJ Res 111 forbids the Consumer Protection Agency from enforcing that. So, in simplest terms, it allows financial institutions, like Equifax, to claim immunity from class action suits, and from the involvement of arbitrators poking into their records.

This is a huge setback for consumers nationwide.

Remember how Equifax got a huge data breach? This is _quite specifically_ their way out of any accountability.

If any of you were still holding onto the thought that the GOP was looking out for the little guy, well, there you go. Little guys everywhere just got robbed.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

So, this story has been quiet for a while now (Mueller seems to be running a tight ship), but for all her denials, and for all the fact that there doesn't actually appear to be anything _to_ the story, it appears that the lawyer requesting a meeting with Trump Jr actually DID get information from the Russian prosecutor general, as the memo she brought to Trump Tower closely resembled, verbatim in places, one provided by the prosecutor to an American in Moscow two months earlier.

At this point, then, we know that not only did the Trump campaign, when given an opportunity, _try_ to collude with Russia, but we also are reasonably certain that Russia _tried _to collude with Trump. The only thing we don't know is if they actually succeeded, and what else may have been passed along from Russia to the Trump camp.


----------



## bostjan

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being overly jaded here, but please correct my "cliff's notes" version of what we best know these events to be:

1. Someone evaded paying fees on investments in Russian companies.
2. That someone then donated to the DNC for the election.
3. Trump and the Russian government had some sort of talks about exposing that information to US voters to try to make whomever the DNC's nominee was look bad.
4. The information was not released anyway.
5. Around this time or a little later, someone from the GOP hired a spy from the UK to catch Trump colluding with Russia.
6. After Trump was nominated, the DNC, and eventually, someone at HRC's campaign paid for the dossier.
7. That information was also not made public at the time.

...

So now people supporting the DNC think Trump committed some crime, and people supporting Trump think HRC committed some crime somehow in the above mess.

...

Ok, well, IDK, honestly. I think it's messed up, but really, was anything ever actually acted out? Am I missing something here? First, if the damning information, whatever it was, was true, then it should have been turned over to the authorities. If it never made it public, I'm sure (true or false) Trump will just claim that was his intent, but that the damning information didn't turn out to be worth it...then you're in kind of a moral gray area, and , I believe an area where no actual laws were actually broken.

I am not a fan of Trump.

But really, is _this_ worth the hullabaloo?

Maybe I totally missed the part where the smoking gun was found. Or maybe the gun wasn't smoking- it was in the gun cabinet and had never been fired.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'm sorry, maybe I'm being overly jaded here, but please correct my "cliff's notes" version of what we best know these events to be:



I think you're over-complicating it. 

1) Someone purporting to be an intermediary representing the Russian government contacted Trump Jr claiming he had incriminating information that could be used against the Clinton camp - basically, if we take them at their word, Russia offered to influence the US election by helping Trump. If we take them at their word, this is an offer to collude.
2) Don Jr. accepted the offer. "If what you say is true, I love it." Since he's been since pretty clear that his response was sincere and not some 4th dimensional chess game, he accepted the offer to collude. 
3) Don Jr subsequently claims the memo presented to him was pretty worthless. And, near as I can tell, it is, unless something else as-of-yet-undisclosed also happened at the meeting (timing would certainly be right for the Wikileaks dump, but that's speculation and in no way proven). The Russian lawyer has since claimed there was no information from Russia provided, and it was mainly an excuse to get a meeting to talk about immigration and adoption. 
4) Except... Turns out, in a memo written by the Russian prosecutor general, the purported source of the lawyer's memo, and provided to a pro-Russua US Congressman two months earlier, the same content, in parts written verbatim, can be found. So, it looks an awful lot like the lawyer is lying and she WAS representing the Russian state, as the intermediary who set up the meeting originally claimed. 

tl;dr - Trump Jr. definitely tried to accept an offer to collude from the Russians, based on what he believed to be true at the time. A lot of the defense to this point has been based on the fact that the lawyer he met with wasn't actually what the intermediary who set up the information claimed she was, and didn't actually have information from the prosecutor general. Except, now it looks rather like she DID have that information - whether she obtained it wrongly or it was provided to her is still an open question, but it makes her claim of not being a russian agent significantly more doubtful.

Or, even more tl;dr - we know Trump Jr tried to collude, and now it looks an awful lot like the Russian lawyer diid pass along information from the Russian government. We don't know if their attempts were effective, but we know intent was there on certainly one, probably both, sides. The fact the information seems to have been garbage is irrelevant - to use your metaphor, if there's only no smoking gun because when you pulled the trigger it failed to fire, that's not likely to save you from an attempted murder charge.


----------



## bostjan

Again, though, was anything ever acted out?

Conspiracy to commit murder is a serious felony. Conspiracy to commit conspiracy, though?! I don't _like _that the DJT and HRC camps both seem to have attempted to pull some shady stuff, but a) I'm not the least bit surprised, and b) how far are we willing to stretch to try to put this guy away? If DJT Jr. is guilty of conspiring to conspire with Russia, does that mean the next step is to see if DJT himself conspired? What if he planned to conspire with his son, but never actually gave the command, does that make him guilty of conspiring to conspire with someone who conspired to conspire with a foreign agency conspiracy? Jeebuz, that's pretty far removed from anything actually actionable.

But the investigators have to finish their investigations unimpeded. If that's all it is, then I think they'd rationally close the case. If my thinking is correct that while digging around in that hole, they might hit some pretty interesting dirt that leads them another direction, then that's why DJT is trying to stop the investigation. As in, DJT has done a lot of sketchy things in the past - who knows what the investigation will uncover?

I'm sure you disagree on the conspiracy thing, but I think we agree that, either way, the investigation needs to be allowed to conclude naturally.


----------



## synrgy

I saw the term 'Happy Arrestivus' making the rounds last night, which gave me a good chuckle.

"The indictment against [Manafort and Gates] contains 12 counts: _conspiracy against the United States_, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.
_The charges do not cover any activities related to the campaign, though it's possible Mueller could add additional charges_." [Sauce]

I've also read elsewhere that Mueller's team is scrambling to get ahead of any pre-pardoning Trump may attempt.

My curiosity at this point is whether these two will be the primary 'fall guys', or if they are merely the first of many dominoes. I will also note that if my feeds are any indication, stuff's gonna get _really_ ugly if Trump attempts to fire Mueller, and - given his history and all the known circumstances - it seems increasingly possible that he'll try.


----------



## synrgy

Aaaaand Papadopolous pleads guilty to lying to FBI; reveals Russian ties..


----------



## Explorer

Well, Trump's claim that nothing is connected to his campaign was just disproven forcefully.

Trump campaign foreign affairs advisor George Papadopoulos was arrested back in July 2017, and has pled guilty to lying to the FBI to hide contacts wth Russian operatives, while facilitating attempts by the Russians to contact Trump.

Here's the agreement, just unsealed now, between Papadopoulos and the FBI.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4163402/Papadopoulos-Statement-Offense.pdf

It's unfortunate that Trump started so early today with crowing that Mueller had nothing linking the Trump campaign to Russia.

Of course, this also shuts down any attempt at factual accuracy as Repubiclans attempt to argue that the Mueller investigation has a problem with leaks, as I witnessed this morning on the news. The Papadopoulos arrest and guilty plea were only now revealed, which should be even more terrifying to the Trump camp in that they now know Mueller doesn't tip his hand until he's ready to make a move.

It's also interesting that Manafort and Gates have probably violated NY state law, meaning Mueller has targeted two individuals who can't be pardoned out of all jeopardy. Trump can only pardon at the federal level, at which point the NY authorities can prosecute for violations of NY election law. Trump can't offer Manafort and Gates any blandishments to offset possible prison time if they don't cooperate with Mueller.

Additionally, just as with Trump personally involving himself with interviewing US attorney candidates in locations which affect Trump personally, Trump pardoning Gates and Manafort, or even Papadopoulos, will just add to the case for Trump abusing his power to obstruct justice.

Meanwhile, while the real news is reporting these stories, Fox News is currently running a story about Halloween candy. *laugh*


----------



## Explorer

Sorry, I'm trying to limit myself on the matter until things develop more fully, but this next part of the Manafort/Gates charging documents seem to spell trouble for Kushner and Trump Junior.

Count 11, on page 27 of the documents, charges false and misleading registration. Mueller is affirmatively alleging he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements are false.

That gets back to Trump Junior and Kushner regarding their now-proven-false statements about their foreign contacts.

And the issue also affects Jeff Sessions.

I don't think Trump is smart enough to see this point unless it is spoon-fed to him, but this certainly seems like a solid approach for Mueller to take.

Edit: In the wake of the charges and the revelation of Papadopoulos pleading guilty, Trump has scheduled lunch with Sessions and Pence. Will Pence start insinuating himself into a risky situation from which he was previously largely insulated? Let's hope so!


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> Aaaaand Papadopolous pleads guilty to lying to FBI; reveals Russian ties..


This happenen October 4th but the media reports are just now coming in? Weird...

So...what's next?

DJT Jr. looks like a likely candidate for the next domino. Are they all going to be tried for charges connected to lying, though, or is there a fatter hen that they're after in all of this? 
Either way, saying this looks bad for Trump is a huge understatement. I'm sure he'll just call it "fake news," and try to move on, though.


----------



## Drew

synrgy said:


> Aaaaand Papadopolous pleads guilty to lying to FBI; reveals Russian ties..


IMO, this is the far bigger story. Manafort is getting nailed for a lot of bad shit that Trump should have uncovered as part of a background check before hiring him as campaign manager, but what are the odds Trump was doing any sort of due diligence. It's extremely embarrassing for Trump, it sort of puts to rest any notion of this being a witch hunt, and Trump and his campaign team should be nervous about what happens next... But, it isn't really proof of collusion.

Papadopolous pleading guilty to lying to federal investigators about a meeting in 4/16 with a russian agent claiming to have "dirt" on Clinton in the form of thousands of incrimidating emails... The Manafort stuff puts Trump in an awkward position and explains his Twitter meltdown, but this actually has the potential to directly implicate Trump, if he knew about the meeting. Part of the plea-bargain is that he cooperate fully with the investigation - that's bad news for the Trump camp.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Again, though, was anything ever acted out?
> 
> Conspiracy to commit murder is a serious felony. Conspiracy to commit conspiracy, though?!



I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make here. 

Conspiracy to commit conspiracy to collude? Are you saying you interpret these events as Trump Jr and the Russian agent were plotting to plot to work together on the alleged russian collusion? I don't buy that second level of removal - Trump Jr was contacted with someone purporting to have incriminating information from the Kremlin on Clinton, and happily accepted a face-to-face meeting. That he wanted to have the meeting to discuss a political rival with an enemy nation, IMO, is enough to argue conspiracy to collude - that the meeting actually happened is just icing on the cake. 

Whether or not anything _came out of that meeting_ is as of yet still unknown, but I don't think that's relevant for the "conspiracy" side of the charge, only the "collusion" - we know both sides tried, and furthermore now that the intel the Russian lawyer brought with her does seem to have either come from or been provided to and subsequently used by the Kremlin, weakening Jr's claim that she wasn't what she claimed to be. To use your "smoking gun," metaphor, while there isn't a smoking gun, the gun was unquestionably drawn and pointed at someone and the trigger was pulled, it's just unclear if it misfired or not. Trump Jr. _tried_ to collude with who he believed to be Russian agents, and the intel they offered to pass along appears to be legit. He may not have succeeded in collusion, but he clearly meets the standard for conspiracy to collude. 

Unless there's another distinction you're making that I'm missing...? You don't have to be successful at the collusion to be guilty of conspiring to do it. If you get together with a couple buddies and have a serious conversation about robbing a bank, and the feds bust in while you're going over the vault's blueprints, you're still going to get charged with conspiracy to rob a bank, even if you never got around to committing the actual crime.


----------



## bostjan

Collusion is, of course, a form of conspiracy.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> IMO, this is the far bigger story. Manafort is getting nailed for a lot of bad shit that Trump should have uncovered as part of a background check before hiring him as campaign manager, but what are the odds Trump was doing any sort of due diligence. It's extremely embarrassing for Trump, it sort of puts to rest any notion of this being a witch hunt, and Trump and his campaign team should be nervous about what happens next... But, it isn't really proof of collusion.



We'll see. There's been a low rumbling going on about the Republican platform shifting toward pro-Russian positions, while Manafort was in charge. There's a lot of things that start to look very different through the lens of KNOWING the guy was compromised.

Also, I hear a lot of "yeah, but this is several years old money laundering charges. Who cares?" Well, it matters because it shows the extent to which Mueller's investigation has expanded and that he's not afraid to file charges. If Mueller's been combing over Manafort's finances over the last 15 years with a fine tooth comb, I would be inclined to assume he's been looking at *other people's* as well.

I think the mistake a lot of Democrats are making is assuming any one indictment is going to be a silver bullet that takes down everybody at once. From the very beginning, I never expected a clear shot at Trump or that they were going to squeeze one guy that would give everyone up in detail. I'm not sure if there's a segment of Dems that just want the collusion story to play out as some kind of validation or they expect us to get a "redo" and install HRC instead, I have no idea. I don't think any of that ever was or ever will be on the table, but I absolutely think there are SEVERAL dimensions to this that make way for Trump and Co. to catch their ass.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Collusion is, of course, a form of conspiracy.


So's money laundering, when you get right down to it, conspiring to hide the source of money. And you saw how that played out. 

To me, this is pretty simple. Did Trump Jr. _try_ to collude with people he believed to be Russian agents? If he tried, then in the legal sense, that's conspiracy.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see. There's been a low rumbling going on about the Republican platform shifting toward pro-Russian positions, while Manafort was in charge. There's a lot of things that start to look very different through the lens of KNOWING the guy was compromised.


Oh, no arguments - right around the Republican convention, there were some very worrying changes, specifically with regard to Ukraine, which is the area where Manafort was the most directly compromised. The best defense for Trump here still remains that he was _unaware_ of Manafort's ties and his reasons for some of these pivots, which makes him stupid or incompetent, but does not quite amount to treason. 

I just think it's sort of odd that Manafort is getting all of the attention, and Papadopoulos isn't.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I just think it's sort of odd that Manafort is getting all of the attention, and Papadopoulos isn't.



That's just because his indictment was teased all weekend long and we even got the dramatic shot of him pulling up to the court house, but Papadopoulos was quietly charged months ago and they only just released it today. I agree that THAT part of the storyline is going to pickup steam and could potentially be more incendiary in the collusion storyline, overall.



Drew said:


> The best defense for Trump here still remains that he was _unaware_ of Manafort's ties and his reasons for some of these pivots, which makes him stupid or incompetent, but does not quite amount to treason.



That could be true, but I wouldn't discount how far reaching it could be admitting that you have no idea why you agreed to relax sanctions on a hostile foreign country. Like I said, there's a lot of ways that this can hit him and neutering him completely becomes almost his best potential outcome, especially if he takes the "I had no idea what I was agreeing to" road.


----------



## Explorer

bostjan said:


> Conspiracy to commit conspiracy, though?! ...(H)ow far are we willing to stretch to try to put this guy away?


@bostjan - The first charge of the indictment is a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 371, a general conspiracy statute. If two or more people agree to commit a federal law violation and take concrete steps towards doing so, with such a step being called an "overt act," they've violated 371. Manafort and Gates are charged with agreeing to defeat the lawful functions of the United Stated. *They are charged with "Conspiracy Against the United States," not "conspiracy to commit conspiracy."*

I'm a little surprised you couldn't find this tidbit. There are quite a few sources providing the actual charges for when someone is interested in the facts. Here's one, with the actual charges starting on page 23.

https://www.scribd.com/document/363002970/Manafort-gates-Indictment-Filed-and-Redacted#from_embed


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Oh, no arguments - right around the Republican convention, there were some very worrying changes, specifically with regard to Ukraine, which is the area where Manafort was the most directly compromised. The best defense for Trump here still remains that he was _unaware_ of Manafort's ties and his reasons for some of these pivots, which makes him stupid or incompetent, but does not quite amount to treason.


I posted back on October 11th about the strangeness of Trump's campaign forcing the removal of consequences for Russian annexation of Crimea, and also about Trump himself quoting a story which had only appeared briefly, solely in the Russian language, and which was withdrawn almost immediately due to being revealed as a planted false story originating from Putin's circle.

http://sevenstring.org/posts/4655804/

So, someone in Trump's campaign seems to have been fed that story before it was withdrawn, and that person in turn fed that false story to Trump.

I'm going to note that Jeff Sessions, who also lied about his Russian contacts while serving Trump, was George Papadopoulos's supervisor on the campaign.


----------



## Drew

@Explorer - he's referring to the Trump Jr. emails about the meeting with Russian agents. But, even then, the law is pretty clear - foreign nationals are not allowed to contribution of money or "anything of value" to assist in a federal election campaign. This lawyer offered something to Trump Jr. that could reasonably be expected to be of value - by agreeing to meet to discuss it, Trump Jr. very likely violated campaign finance law, and by having that discussion in the first place very likely committed conspiracy to collude. 

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

In some ways, the fact the info presented appears to have actually come from the Kremlin is irrelevant since by setting up the meeting Jr. was already in violation of the law... But in others, it's kind of the icing on the cake, that the russian agent very well may have been who she claimed to be.


----------



## Drew

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal

More I think about it, if he was quietly arrested in July and pleaded guilty on 10/5, the timing of Mueller making this public shortly after indicting Manafort and Gates seems like no coincidence, as is the fact the "campaign supervisor" has their name withheld (Trump Jr?). This is a warning, Mueller wants someone to know they're next.


----------



## bostjan

Where I think it gets muddled, though, is where the "thing of value" appears to have not changed hands, in that whatever did change hands was not of any value. I suppose it depends on the reason why it worked out this way. I think it's a grey area at best and a grey area at worst until more facts come to light.

Again, I think that Trump has a number of secrets. I think he's super nervous about the FBI poking around in his closet, because whilst they're looking for the collusion skeleton, they'll find something far worse. That's a nebulous statement, I know, but just look at how he's reacted to all of this. He's not acting like someone who has nothing to hide, and, IMO, he's not acting like someone who is trying to hide from a conspiracy charge, either, since I would expect him to have a way to have a more weaselly way out of that.

As for DJT Jr being the next name on the list and the whole thing being a warning, I think that's a smart move. Jr. doesn't seem to be good at keeping secrets under pressure, so this might get him to spill something one way or another.

Trump might just try to pardon his son, but I really think that'd be the signal for congress to impeach him. The cat and mouse game that unfolds between now and then is going to be quite frightening.


----------



## Explorer

Geez.

I'm wading through the Papadopoulos Statement of Offense and Affidavit...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/politics/george-papadopoulos-offense-affidavit-complaint/index.html

...and this thing acknowledges that Papadopoulos had numerous communications with the Trump campaign supervisory official, and with the Foreign Affairs advisory team members, including written emails, regarding the campaign facilitating contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. 

This is likely why Trump decided lunch with Sessions, Papadopoulos' supervisor on the Trump campaign's Foreign Affairs advisory team, and with Pence, was a priority today in the wake of the announcements.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Where I think it gets muddled, though, is where the "thing of value" appears to have not changed hands, in that whatever did change hands was not of any value. I suppose it depends on the reason why it worked out this way. I think it's a grey area at best and a grey area at worst until more facts come to light.



But that's kind of what I'm getting at - whether or not the information provided _itself_ was valuable is, technically speaking, irrelevant, when evaluating the accusation based on a "conspiracy" threshold. Trump Jr. didn't know whether or not the information would prove valuable, but he was told 1) it was valuable information, and 2) it was provided by the Kremlin, and knowing that he enthusiastically agreed to set up a meeting. That's conspiring to take something of value from a foreign national to assist in a federal election campaign.

That should be enough to charge him right there, for conspiracy to collude with a foreign nation in violation of federal election finance law. The fact he tried to downplay it, after he got caught lying about it in public statements, by saying the information turned out to be useless and the whole thing was a waste of time, is both harder to take at face value now that we know there WAS a Kremlin link, and completely besides the point, because definitionally he couldn't have known anything about the information before receiving it at the meeting, so he clearly was trying to receive something of value from a foreign nation when he set the meeting up.

If you're talking conspiracy to collude, it honestly doesn't matter if the information was valuable or if it was garbage, Trump Jr. still very likely conspired to break the law. It DOES matter when it comes time to prove actual collusion, but at this point I don't see how there's any doubt that Jr. _conspired_ to break the law by meeting with a Russian agent claiming to have valuable intelligence that might help his father, provided by the Kremlin, considering that receiving that information would break the law.


----------



## bostjan

Well, in the past, these charges have been sentenced based upon the value of what the USA was defrauded. In this case, what is that value? Do you go for the maximum sentence based on the value of the secrets that, evidently, weren't so secret after all...I think we're in unprecedented legal territory. These laws have been used in the past to go after Enron, Spammers, and so forth, who got rich by manipulating the US government. Lying to the FBI is a crime, and conspiracy against the USA is a crime, and 11 CFR 110.20g is a law, so breaking it a crime...but I think the FBI might have to make sure they can get something to stick before they go after DJT Jr. or Sr.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Well, in the past, these charges have been sentenced based upon the value of what the USA was defrauded. In this case, what is that value? Do you go for the maximum sentence based on the value of the secrets that, evidently, weren't so secret after all...I think we're in unprecedented legal territory. These laws have been used in the past to go after Enron, Spammers, and so forth, who got rich by manipulating the US government. Lying to the FBI is a crime, and conspiracy against the USA is a crime, and 11 CFR 110.20g is a law, so breaking it a crime...but I think the FBI might have to make sure they can get something to stick before they go after DJT Jr. or Sr.


Well, I think we _both_ agree that it's probably not a great sign for Trump Jr. that even a public admission that he conspired to collude with a Russian agent has not _yet_ led to an indictment - to me, it looks like they think there's an even stronger case they can make.


----------



## bostjan

Yup.

I'm no expert in human behaviour characteristics, but I really do think Trump is hiding something bigger than this. The signs seem pretty obvious, even if they don't point to any physical evidence.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yup.
> 
> I'm no expert in human behaviour characteristics, but I really do think Trump is hiding something bigger than this. The signs seem pretty obvious, even if they don't point to any physical evidence.


That's the interesting thing.

Taking the Russian meeting SHOULD be enough to indict Donald Trump Jr.
Firing Comey and admitting in interviews afterwards that it was over the Russia investigation SHOULD be enough to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. 
Really, lying about his meetings with Russians under oath SHOULD be enough to indict Sessions. 

Kinda makes you wonder what the next shoe to drop will be. 

In other news, Bloomberg is reporting that Facebook is preparing to inform Congress that they believe 126 million Americans, 40% of the country, saw Russian proxy posts or ads in the run up to the election. Considering Facebook makes it comparably easy to target demographic groups, I wouldn't be at all shocked to learn that a majority of voters saw Russian propaganda before the election.


----------



## mongey

surely if his son or anyone involved with his campaign is dragged into all this there is no way the american people would let trump pardon them is there ? 

even Frank Underwood wouldn't pull that move


----------



## Explorer

mongey said:


> surely if his son or anyone involved with his campaign is dragged into all this there is no way the american people would let trump pardon them is there ?


There is mechanism by which Trump can be prevented from pardoning his family or his campaign workers for federal offenses.

Trump has even explored whethere he can pardon himself.

The problem then becomes, are such pardons an abuse of power, and therefore impeachable? The answer seems to be yes.

Which then moves the problem to, do Congressional Republicans care enough about America to impeach Trump in such a circumstance if they think they can still wring some advantage out of Trump as president? 

On the plus side, Manafort and Grant are likely guilty of NY crimes, even if they've only been charged federally. Trump can only pardon federal crimes, which means if state prosecutors charge the Trump campaign workers *and* Junior, Kushner for violations of state election laws and financial laws, Trump can't do a thing about it.


----------



## synrgy

I think Mueller's made it clear that he A) knows how to play, and B) is playing to _win_. This was an impressive one-two punch, and I have to wonder now if there's more to the combination: It almost feels like it's intentionally telegraphing the next punch, with the intent of goading the Admin into making more mistakes while they're being actively monitored.

I'm super curious to see if my daughter and her peers will - 15-ish years from now - be looking back on this week as analog to The Saturday Night Massacre. That's probably too hopeful, but removing myself from the immediacy of how bad this situation is _presently_, it is rather interesting.

*edit* There were several posts I didn't realize I'd missed when I posted this. Sorry if any of it is a retread.


----------



## bostjan

The charges: https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download against Manafort and Gates look pretty serious. Money laundering, tax evasion, lying to federal agents, and fraud...

Meanwhile, Trump is saying on Twitter that George Popadopolis was just a gopher in the campaign.

Sorry, but whether he was or not, how is that at all relevant. This is classic Trump making an argument that, if you actually think about it, makes him look much worse. Claiming that this guy was a gopher implies that he was acting on someone else's orders, since gophers in campaigns do not pull off schemes like this on their own impulse...

But hey, whatever. The charges against these guys keep getting worse and worse. Whatever ace is the FBI holding onto still to play against Trump or Trump Jr.?


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Which then moves the problem to, do Congressional Republicans care enough about America to impeach Trump in such a circumstance if they think they can still wring some advantage out of Trump as president?



They're certainly doing everything they can it ignore the issue and hopefully "run out the clock".

You've gotta look at it from their perspective. They're looking at this two fold, 1.) being Republicans, they're clearly in conservative districts, which have an interest in them pursuing a conservative agenda 2.) relevant to point one, they're looking to save their own skin. The tightrope congressional republicans are CURRENTLY walking is, does embracing Trump help or hurt their chances at re-election? The more Trump does to hurt his own public perception, the more he pushes Republicans to rebuke him. 

The X-factor is Bannon declaring open season on anybody naysaying Trump, Trump HIMSELF singling out anybody who naysays him or any of the assorted 'far right' sympathetic PACs with an interest in primarying in a more extreme candidates. It's an x-factor because there's a concerted effort to basically build the entire GOP field in Trump's image, there's just no clear answer whether or not those positions are going to resonate with voters, with a potential 'Trump-fatigue' creeping in.

So yeah, current Congressional GOP are between a rock and a hard place. To hedge their bets, the BEST they can hope for is to not be forced into a position on Trump at all, so their tactic so far is to ignore and diminish this as much as possible. As such, you may see SOME distancing from Trump as the volume gets louder on this and they get closer to election time, but impeachement or a rebuke are not likely in the cards. And there's a good chance that being overly cautious on one end, and being cannibalized from the right on the other end costs them their jobs.

Which brings me to that, 2018. Everything I've seen indicates that we might not be seeing a verdict on Manafort before the primaries are over with. A lot can happen in the next year (seeing as what's happened in the LAST year) but assuming the trend continues, you're going to potentially have a Democratic controlled Congress (one or both houses) who are put into a place as a referendum ON Trump, so there'd be a heavy interest in impeachment or at least neutering him. 

Where this potential (and to some degree, likely) scenario puts Trump in a tough spot is, he can either 1.) pre-emptively pardon Manafort and Co. and fire Mueller, both of which will turn up the heat on obstruction of justice chances, and likely fast track Democratic control of Congress, ergo, fast tracking impeachment likelihood 2.) keep quiet and let the process play out, which is IMO smarter but still a gamble, because BEST scenario for him, they nab a handful of underlings that were let-go from the campaign anyway or WORST scenario, the breadcrumbs eventually lead right to his office and you're back at populist push to impeach.

Either way, the expectation or even the incentives for Republicans to act on this is very, very low. Patience will be an asset in this.


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> surely if his son or anyone involved with his campaign is dragged into all this there is no way the american people would let trump pardon them is there ?


Well, there's a legal side and a political side to this question. 

The legal side is, yes, doing so after Mueller has indicted them as part of an ongoing investigation into election meddling, is very likely obstruction of justice. So was firing Comey, and that's what brought us Mueller in the first place. Would it be enforced, though? 

That kind of brings us to the political side of this - would Congress let Trump get away with it? That's a much tougher question. His ~30% core supporters would consider the move an entirely justified way to take the teeth out of a stupid, pointless, and distracting witch-hunt. Likewise, the left would consider it an absolute abomination and a miscarraige of justice. So, right off the bat, I'd expect to see the constitutionality of the move challenged (which goes back to the legal side of it - it may be enforcible illegal). However, I think how it plays out politically is really going to depend on how moderate Republicans respond. There's been talk from the establishment left about trying to get prominent Republican congresspeople on record stating that they would consider either a pre-emptive pardon of someone indicted in the investigation or an outright removal of Mueller across a white line and grounds for potential impeachment proceedings for obstruction of justice. If nothing else, because knowing the GOP wouldn't accept it makes the outcome less likely. 

I do think, however, that independents (who are already largely united against Trump) and the center-right establishment type Republicans would have a major issue with Trump firing Mueller or pardoning associates who had been indicted. 

My read on yesterday's events - despite Fox's "Mueller Gets His Man" headline, neither Mueller nor Gates are the target here. Mueller thinks he can get someone above them for crimes related to the investigation. I don't think it was a coincidence he waited until after the arrests and Trump's "NO COLLUSION" tweet to announce Papadopoulos had been arrested in _July_ and had accepted a plea bargain three weeks before. He also acted quickly and with little notice - word of the sealed indictments broke on Friday, but Manafort had been heard telling people over the weekend that because he hadn't been contacted and hadn't received any warning, he was comfortable it was someone else. He's signalling he's aiming high - Manafort is old enough that it's hard to see a plea bargain _not_ effectively being a life sentence - but Gates is somewhat younger, and by announcing the (much younger) Papadopoulos' plea-bargain shortly thereafter he's swinging both the carrot and the stick here. 

I think while having Papadopoulos flip is the most _immediately_ concerning development for Trump, since it _does_ relate directly to the campaign and to Russian influence, Manafort could become incredibly problematic in the long run, since he was clearly compromised during the campaign, and since he very likely has direct knowledge of anything illicit that may have gone down. Mueller appears to have enough on him to make the rest of his life very unpleasant, so what happens next depends largely on what kind of terms Manafort is able to negotiate for his cooperation.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Sorry, but whether he was or not, how is that at all relevant. This is classic Trump making an argument that, if you actually think about it, makes him look much worse. Claiming that this guy was a gopher implies that he was acting on someone else's orders, since gophers in campaigns do not pull off schemes like this on their own impulse...


The other factor here, is that unpaid advisors are not at ALL unusual in presidential campaigns, so it's sort of an empty point, that Popadopoulos wasn't on payroll.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Where this potential (and to some degree, likely) scenario puts Trump in a tough spot is, he can either 1.) pre-emptively pardon Manafort and Co. and fire Mueller, both of which will turn up the heat on obstruction of justice chances, and likely fast track Democratic control of Congress, ergo, fast tracking impeachment likelihood 2.) *keep quiet and let the process play out, which is IMO smarter but still a gamble*, because BEST scenario for him, they nab a handful of underlings that were let-go from the campaign anyway or WORST scenario, the breadcrumbs eventually lead right to his office and you're back at populist push to impeach.


Yes, but do you think Trump is capable of this?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Yes, but do you think Trump is capable of this?



The simple answer is "no"  

The longer answer, SO FAR, he hasn't been taking direct shots at Mueller (since the indictments) or making attempts to defend any of those charged, which would've been the two MOST costly mistakes. He can still say "well, I don't really know those bums but while you're at it, you SHOULD be looking at HRC" without implicating himself in anything besides trying to be a distraction. I'm sure his lawyers are applauding his demeanor so far.

We'll see if he can keep that up, though. History seems to say otherwise. Also, with the potential the indictments start to fall closer to home (DT Jr., Kushner, or even Flynn), the temptation to wade in might become too much.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see if he can keep that up, though. History seems to say otherwise. Also, with the potential the indictments start to fall closer to home (DT Jr., Kushner, or even Flynn), the temptation to wade in might become too much.


I had a long conversation with a friend last night on how he'd respond to a DT Jr. indictment. Would he throw him under the bus? Would he go down with him? It's incredibly complicated to try to suss out. Flynn, as long as Flynn can't implicate Trump in any clear way, gets thrown under the bus, IMO (and if he spends any significant effort defending him, that speaks volumes). Kushner may be his son in law, but I imagine he gets cut loose too. Trump Jr, though... Remember, this is the guy who almost didn't name his son after him because "what if he's a loser?" I think Trump may, as silly as this seems, be too invested in his name to let him go down without a fight.

Either way, if/when Trump Jr. gets indicted (and, I've made it clear that I think there's probably _already_ enough evidence to charge him with conspiracy to commit a crime), it'll be _fascinating_ political drama to watch how his dad handles it. And politics, after all, is a blood sport.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> I think while having Papadopoulos flip is the most _immediately_ concerning development for Trump, since it _does_ relate directly to the campaign and to Russian influence, *Manafort could become incredibly problematic in the long run, since he was clearly compromised during the campaign, and since he very likely has direct knowledge of anything illicit that may have gone down. *Mueller appears to have enough on him to make the rest of his life very unpleasant, so what happens next depends largely on what kind of terms Manafort is able to negotiate for his cooperation.


It's worth noting that the Papadopoulos email exchanges in the court papers definitively show him communicating regarding the Russians with Manafort, Lewandowski, and with Sam Clovis, Trump's current appointment as Under Secretary of Agriculture. 

Oh, and Wilbur Ross, former officer at the Bank of Cyprus where Manafort hid his cash? Now Trump's Commerce Secretary.

I'm sure there's a lot of actual evidence of written *and* recorded communications (remember, Papdopoulos probably wore a wire, which is a reason Mueller would have asked the judge to seal the conviction, to protect the ability to do so) which have yet to surface. 

The biggest thing to be revealed in the short term, I believe, will be that Sessions responded to the Papadopoulos Russia emails, and knew of the illegal attempts at collusion by the campaign.

There's also still the matter of how Trump was confident enough to brag that there were hacked emails. It didn't happen through magic, and that same path might prove Trump's knowledge of collusion with the Russians. 

I was reading the Manafort daughters' texts, wherein they were bragging of their father's involvement with Trump. They claimed that Manafort interviewed Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon at Trump Tower and hired the pair.


----------



## Drew

Somewhere, Bloomberg, maybe, was reporting that in the emails that the press has seen, Papadopoulos told his Russian contact that the Trump Campaign had _approved_ a meeting with the Russians, which if true would be a pretty major revelation. The article was careful to hedge, though, that he may have simply been talking a big game or making too much of something other than a definite commitment, as the fact it was not mentioned in the otherwise fairly detailed complaint could mean that Mueller was not able to substantiate his claim.



Explorer said:


> There's also still the matter of how Trump was confident enough to brag that there were hacked emails. It didn't happen through magic, and that same path might prove Trump's knowledge of collusion with the Russians.


To be fair, Trump has bragged about plenty of OTHER things that turned out to be false, like the largest inauguration crowd ever.


----------



## bostjan

Trump is calling for the "DEATH PENALTY" (sorry about all caps, thought it was appropriate to quote Trump's capitalization here, though) for the NYC truck driving terrorist. Usually* the President of the United States of America never get's involved in the legal side of a case and trial, so this is highly unusual and, even though I agree that the court could seek the death penalty, I also think that the president tweeting about it could give ammunition to the defense lawyers to call for an unfair trial, regardless of how fair the trial ends up being now...

(*Obama did once, and later apologized for the problems it went on to create for the courts).

In the mean time, I know how much we love to talk about HRC, but now Brazile has a book out with some serious allegations against HRC. Hmm.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^This might not be relevant enough to chime in with, but has there ever been a shittier case for a US defense lawyer? I'd request a hood and a vocal disguise.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Trump is calling for the "DEATH PENALTY" (sorry about all caps, thought it was appropriate to quote Trump's capitalization here, though) for the NYC truck driving terrorist. Usually* the President of the United States of America never get's involved in the legal side of a case and trial, so this is highly unusual and, even though I agree that the court could seek the death penalty, I also think that the president tweeting about it could give ammunition to the defense lawyers to call for an unfair trial, regardless of how fair the trial ends up being now...



Not to be 'that guy' but I don't remember Trump having the same level of vitriol when a guy in Las Vegas killed over 50 people. I have a hard time believing that the only reason he's expressed some much more anger this time is because the NYC attacker is still alive and the Las Vegas shooter was not, so why the difference?


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> but now Brazile has a book out with some serious allegations against HRC. Hmm.



Is it in Portuguese?


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Not to be 'that guy' but I don't remember Trump having the same level of vitriol when a guy in Las Vegas killed over 50 people. I have a hard time believing that the only reason he's expressed some much more anger this time is because the NYC attacker is still alive and the Las Vegas shooter was not, so why the difference?


Does Trump have ties to Las Vegas? I'm sure his ties are strong to NYC.
On the opposite pole, maybe Trump feels the fact that a real gun was used in Vegas and a fake one in New York means that he can condemn this without backlash from the NRA or from his support base.

But, most likely, I'll just say it, because we all know it, it's because this incident in NYC was a Muslim dude from a country that ends in "-stan." It's no secret that Trump wants to keep people like this from entering our borders. I don't even think Trump's supporters would deny it, and why should they, this time? They just got another example of what their premise in the spotlight.



jaxadam said:


> Is it in Portuguese?



It doesn't appear that any translations are scheduled for release. Maybe a semaphore translation will be made available once the two-party system's ship starts sinking after the next major election.


----------



## jaxadam

The irony... doesn’t sound like Mrs. Clinton was playing very fairly.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...-dont-mention-brazile-clinton-dnc-revelations


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> The irony... doesn’t sound like Mrs. Clinton was playing very fairly.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...-dont-mention-brazile-clinton-dnc-revelations


Her story doesn't add up, though, is the thing. 

Not the details of the Clinton campaign helping to finance the DNC - I have no doubt that happened. 

Rather, somehow Braizile, as a co-chair of the DNC, being totally unaware of these allegations, considering Sanders wrote a letter to the DNC about it in April of 2016 and in May the Washington Post wrote a headline story about the allegations Sanders was making in that letter. The fact she claims she had _no clue_ about it until she became the acting chair makes just as much sense, in fact, as the woman who was fired by CNN for leaking a primary debate question to Clinton, suddenly becoming a champion of primary justice and unearthing shocking revelations of foul play giving Clinton an advantage over Sanders. 

Or, basically, this is Brazile doing damage control and using some pretty heavy handed revisionist history to throw Clinton under the bus in order to polish up her tarnished reputation. She's either a painfully naive co-chair and political commentator who was living under a rock in 2016, or she's lying through her teeth. Either way, I'll say the same thing I did when CNN fired her - the DNC needs to cut ties with her as well.


----------



## jaxadam

Well, I still can't see why people put this lady up on a pedestal when it is becoming increasingly clear that more dirt is coming out on Crooked Hillary. It's pretty sad that it basically gets swept under the rug that this lady defrauded Bernie and the Democratic voting American public a fair shot at a Democratic nominee, all the while supporting and continuing to be married to a man who got a blowjob from an intern. I bring that up because in a recent interview when confronted about it, she wrote it off as not counting because that was in the past and it had been litigated. I find it a strange way to rationalize that behavior. How would the media react if Trump rigged the Republican nomination, or got a blowjob from an intern?


----------



## MFB

> How would the media react if Trump rigged the Republican nomination



Probably the same way they've been reacting to the current news about him possibly colluding to rig an election?


----------



## jaxadam

MFB said:


> Probably the same way they've been reacting to the current news about him possibly colluding to rig an election?



You have a good point... They definitely don't mind jumping all over him over hearsay and rumors, at the same time dismissing and ignoring concrete proof that Hillary is a crook.


----------



## Explorer

jaxadam said:


> You have a good point... They definitely don't mind jumping all over him over *hearsay and rumors*, at the same time dismissing and ignoring concrete proof that Hillary is a crook.


Are you pretending to be ignorant of confessed collusion and attempts at collusion by Trump campaign staff, and even Junior, Kushner and Manafort at the Trump Tower meeting? 

Or are you genuinely uninformed of current events, and therefore not really upholding the higher standards imposed on discussions on the P&CE forum here on SS.org?

----

Humorously, there is a group of investigators which is dragging its feet regarding finally clearing the air about the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Junior, Kushner, Manafort and that Russian lawyer. 

She's stated taht she is completely willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee... but only if her testimony will be made public. So far, they haven't agreed to that. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...russia-law-may-be-reviewed-moscow-lawyer-says

She's also willing to be questioned by Mueller. 

It's interesting that the Senate doesn't want to immediately prove the innocence of Junior, Kushner and Manafort, and to remove the cloud from Trump, by just getting this done. 

What I'm looking forward to are the inconsistent statement from Republicans about how they won't be able to trust the intensions of the Russian lawyer... but then simultaneously defending the Trump team for attempting to collude (remember, Junior admitted this, not hearsay and rumor!!) with said untrustworthy Russian lawyer. 

It appears Putin is ready to dump Trump, doesn't it? Putin doesn't care about exposing this whole thing, yet also knows that Republicans are so corrupt that they will avoid exposing the truth and will work to protect Russian interests harder than the Russians themselves.


----------



## Explorer

jaxadam said:


> You have a good point... They definitely don't mind jumping all over him over hearsay and rumors, at the same time dismissing and ignoring *concrete proof that Hillary is a crook*.



Oh... and since you're making a strong factual claim, please post evidence for that factual claim instead of rumor and hearsay. Since you were so against that, show us what you got?

Or are you just clutching your pearls for dramatic effect?


----------



## jaxadam

I'll just take the advice of the second line in your sig.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Well, I still can't see why people put this lady up on a pedestal when it is becoming increasingly clear that more dirt is coming out on Crooked Hillary. It's pretty sad that it basically gets swept under the rug that this lady defrauded Bernie and the Democratic voting American public a fair shot at a Democratic nominee, all the while supporting and continuing to be married to a man who got a blowjob from an intern. I bring that up because in a recent interview when confronted about it, she wrote it off as not counting because that was in the past and it had been litigated. I find it a strange way to rationalize that behavior. How would the media react if Trump rigged the Republican nomination, or got a blowjob from an intern?


Just curious, you know that Sanders _also_ signed a joint fundraising agreement just like hers, two months later, right? And that Brazile, as a member of the committee, was party to that agreement, making her claim to the contrary awfully suspect?


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, over the weekend it was reported the Mueller has enough evidence to charge Flynn and his son, and just now I'm seeing a Politico report that DeVos is preparing to resign, less (for once) because of revelations of her ties to Russia, than because even she's finally realizing how unprepared for her job she is.  

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...nce-bring-charges-flynn-investigation-n817666


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Just curious, you know that Sanders _also_ signed a joint fundraising agreement just like hers, two months later, right? And that Brazile, as a member of the committee, was party to that agreement, making her claim to the contrary awfully suspect?



http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/56197...-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015



> In addition to that joint fundraising agreement the DNC reached with both campaigns, the party and the Clinton campaign struck that *separate memorandum of understanding *giving the campaign staffing and policy oversight.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/56197...-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015


Even then, honestly, I think Perez has the right of it - this was more a matter of a perception of impropriety than anything where Clinton would have actually been able to sway the outcome. The Clinton camp maintained a fair amount of influence in the selection of the Communications Director and other vacant research, communications, and tech rolls, by having HFA provide candidates for the DNC to choose between, as well as effectively setting up a joint partnership in setting party strategy. All the financial control stuff is limited to the Victory Account, which again is the exact same terms Bernie had.

Does that_ look_ inappropriate? Yeah, maybe a little... But, at that point in August, it was pretty clear Biden was _not_ going to run, Sanders was a longshot candidate polling in the teens, and the DNC was a trainwreck and $2mm in the hole. Clinton was the presumptive nominee, and while things could still have gone wrong, the other potential reason for her to sign an agreement like this one with the DNC (which included specific language allowing the DNC to make other agreements with other candidates as they see fit, and specifically calling the party to remain neutral) was simply that if she was going to spend the resources to bail them out, she wanted to make sure that the party wouldn't go and shoot themselves in the foot after she paid down their debt and started fundraising for them. Really, it speaks to Schultz' incompetence more than it does anything else. You figure if Schultz had led the party to be $2mm in the hole about 14 months from the general election, the Clinton camp had reason to be concerned about her leadership and decision making.


----------



## Explorer

This piece has a direct statement provided by Schiff to Politicus USA, so no other source is provided.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/11...mits-meeting-high-level-officials-russia.html

"Perhaps most important, Page — after being presented with an email he sent to his campaign supervisors, and which he did not disclose to the Committee prior to the interview and despite a subpoena from the Committee — detailed his meetings with Russian government officials and others...."

Well.

Apparently Carter Page informed Trump campaign officials about his efforts and his meetings, which would knock out that attempted talking point about one "coffee boy."


----------



## Explorer

Also, in looking for facts supporting jaxadam's pearl-clutching, I found this:

Brazile: I found no evidence Democratic primary was rigged - CNN

The big fact-based headline seems to undermine the inaccurate statement from jaxadam. Me personally, I'd find it embarrassing to be wrong yet keep flailing, but we all have different personal standards on shame and accuracy....


----------



## Viginez

well

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.1ca9e915a033

not sure how anyone would defend this and spin it
ok, cnn is capable of something like that considering they gave the debate questions to clinton
with them, anything is possible


----------



## jaxadam

Viginez said:


> well
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.1ca9e915a033
> 
> not sure how anyone would defend this and spin it
> ok, cnn is capable of something like that considering they gave the debate questions to clinton
> with them, anything is possible



:fist bump:


----------



## Randy

Am I alone in thinking the DNC selling out to cover $2 million in debt sounds a little cheap, considering all the money that gets thrown around in an election year?


----------



## Drew

Viginez said:


> well
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-with-bernie-sanders/?utm_term=.1ca9e915a033
> 
> not sure how anyone would defend this and spin it
> ok, cnn is capable of something like that considering they gave the debate questions to clinton
> with them, anything is possible


It's worth keeping in mind though that while Warren has had no problem calling the election "rigged" against Sanders, Braizile has been vocal about calling people out, Trump included, who claim she called it "rigged." She's been adamant that while she thinks Clinton may have had an inappropriate amount of _influence_, she doesn't think it was rigged.



Randy said:


> Am I alone in thinking the DNC selling out to cover $2 million in debt sounds a little cheap, considering all the money that gets thrown around in an election year?


That's a totally fair point, and IMO, another reason to take these allegations with a grain of salt. So too is why Clinton would even _bother_ trying to "rig" the election, considering at that point in the cycle her only competitor was a long-shot Socialist from Vermont, that people were mostly glad was running just so there'd be SOME sort of debate.  If she wasn't legitimately concerned about getting the DNC back on secure footing, why not just go it alone, and not direct ANY money into a joint account (...you know, kinda like what Sanders did? )


----------



## jaxadam

I know it’s hard for some in here to accept other viewpoints, but let’s post a few anyway.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/11/...onna-brazile-claims-about-hillary-clinton-dnc

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/27/newt-gingrich-witnessing-real-corruption.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...he-corruption-of-the-clintons/article/2638644

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ry-clintons-corrupt-uranium-deal-with-russia/


----------



## Drew

You're right, I generally tune out anything from Fox or Breitbart, for the simple fact that both outlets (_especially_ Breitbart, home of Bannon) are partisan hatchet jobs.


----------



## Explorer

jaxadam said:


> I know it’s hard for some in here to accept other viewpoints, but let’s post a few anyway.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ry-clintons-corrupt-uranium-deal-with-russia/


Here's an amusing shredding of the sloppy conservative talking points behind the Uranium One story, no innuendo needed, just facts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...debunk_lies_around_uranium_clinton_story.html

Facts are not a viewpoint.

Remember, Jen Kerns was forced to walk back her vague claims in the face of actual facts.


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and Carter Page's testimony verified still more of the Steele Dossier. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/carter-page-congressional-testimony-transcript-steele-dossier-2017-11

Why do Republicans keep verifying parts of a document they keep claiming is false?


----------



## Drew

So, um, last night's election...  

Counter-factual arguments are always tough, and on one hand, I know it doesn't sound important when you talk about a slew of special elections after Trump's election where the Democrats significantly outperformed expectations based on demographic factors... yet still consistently came up short and didn't win a single seat. Last night, however, provides some factual evidence to accompany that counter-factual. New Jersey shouldn't have been close, and ended up a blowout. Virginia saw the Democrats at a modest advantage, and ended with Northam winning by nearly double digits. And the VA House of Delegates was considered so out of play that the only time I heard it mentioned in pre-election coverage was how basically no one considered it remotely possible to flip to Democratic control, and yet if current results hold after a recount, the Democrats flipped it from 34-66 to 50-50, and may actually have an outright majority after the recount (the closest race favored the Republican by 12 votes). 

There's still a year to go until 2018 and a lot could happen between now and then, but there was a quietly growing body of evidence that the Democratic party was poised for a mid-term wave, and last night's voting, especially in Virginia, just brought that evidence out into the open. Encouragingly, the GOP seems to be taking the wrong lesson, that despite running a pro-Confederate anti-immigrant campaign, his problem was that he didn't embrace Trump _enough_. The senate is going to be tough, but I think it's hard not to argue that, at least as of today, the Democrats are favored to take back the House in midterms.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> There's still a year to go until 2018 and a lot could happen between now and then, but there was a quietly growing body of evidence that the Democratic party was poised for a mid-term wave, and last night's voting, especially in Virginia, just brought that evidence out into the open. Encouragingly, the GOP seems to be taking the wrong lesson, that despite running a pro-Confederate anti-immigrant campaign, his problem was that he didn't embrace Trump _enough_. The senate is going to be tough, but I think it's hard not to argue that, at least as of today, the Democrats are favored to take back the House in midterms.



Fox News and the like have been spinning it as being because he didn't embrace Trump enough, to save some face but I think most Congress Critters who are up for election in 2018 are paying closer attention and can see through that. GOP candidates in even remotely competitive districts need to be considering whether they continue aligning themselves with Trump or stand up to him like Collins, McCain, etc. There's a very real possibility that something egregious can come out of the Mueller investigation that makes impeachment a possibility. If this election had gone the other way, they might be more inclined to close ranks and block it. Now, I'd wager that if it comes down to it, quite a few would turn on him.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> Fox News and the like have been spinning it as being because he didn't embrace Trump enough, to save some face but I think most Congress Critters who are up for election in 2018 are paying closer attention and can see through that. GOP candidates in even remotely competitive districts need to be considering whether they continue aligning themselves with Trump or stand up to him like Collins, McCain, etc. There's a very real possibility that something egregious can come out of the Mueller investigation that makes impeachment a possibility. If this election had gone the other way, they might be more inclined to close ranks and block it. Now, I'd wager that if it comes down to it, quite a few would turn on him.


I HOPE Fox and Breitbart convince the GOP that where they went wrong wasn't going too far towards Trump, but rather they didn't go far ENOUGH. It'll make a 2018 electoral wave that much more likely.  

It's funny, the Mueller investigation... When it started, even up to the point where Trump fired Comey, I didn't have terribly high expectations that something truly damning would come up. And then, Trump Jr. tweeted out screenshots of his emails about the meeting with the Russian lawyer, and sure as shit, he freely admitted the campaign _tried_ to collude with Russia.  With Manafort and Gates being charged and from the sound of it both Flynn and his son next, and with Popadoupalos providing evidence that he DID pitch to a campaign meeting involving both Sessions and Trump that he had Russian contacts who wanted to meet with them (contradicting both of their statements), I'd sat from a purely Bayesian standpoint the probability is quite a bit _higher_ that there are skeletons in Trump's closet here.


----------



## Explorer

Mueller's questioning of Stephen Miller regarding the initial draft of the Comey firing letter shows that obstruction of justice is a clear target of the Mueller investigation. The first draft, and Trump's own statements in interviews, show that Trump fired Comey due to the Russia investigation, in order to stop it.


----------



## Drew

At this point I think the Steele Dossier is a bigger deal to the right than it is to the left, and they seem to care more about it being false than we do about it being true (probably because there's enough other evidence of wrongdoing to sate our bloodlust at this point). So, with that in mind, I post this mostly to prod our Trumpster bretheren than anything else... 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d-715pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.7c841311688b

While we still don't have evidence that Trump _actually_ cavorted with Russian prostitutes while in Moscow in 2013, Trump's chief of private security testified under oath that at the end of a meeting on that trip, a man approached them offering to have five women sent up to his room. Schiller himself rejected the offer, but Trump was aware of it and it's not impossible it was made privately again later.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> While we still don't have evidence that Trump _actually_ cavorted with Russian prostitutes while in Moscow in 2013, Trump's chief of private security testified under oath that at the end of a meeting on that trip, a man approached them offering to have five women sent up to his room. Schiller himself rejected the offer, but Trump was aware of it and it's not impossible it was made privately again later.


The fact that Trump's bodyguard verified that Trump was approached in 2013, verifying at least the date of the alleged Steele Dossier hotel encounter, is hilarious.

Again, why do Republicans keep verifying details of a document they keep claiming is false?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Do people really care that much.............. like truly, whole heartedly, actually, without a shadow of a doubt care if Trump had 5 prostitutes or not years ago? Lol


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Unleash The Fury

Thats actually very funny. Im using this joke at work as we speak


----------



## Explorer

Unleash The Fury said:


> Do people really care that much.............. like truly, whole heartedly, actually, without a shadow of a doubt care if Trump had 5 prostitutes or not years ago? Lol


Do citizens of a participatory democracy actually care if the president is beholden to a foreign country through blackmail? Yes.

It's a bit shocking you didn't have the awareness to think that through.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> Do people really care that much.............. like truly, whole heartedly, actually, without a shadow of a doubt care if Trump had 5 prostitutes or not years ago? Lol


It's more in line with what Explorer is saying, IMO. 

What may or may not have happened between Donald Trump and five consenting Russian women, in exchange for money, in 2013, is between the Donald, Melania, and the women, so long as no laws were broken. If he gets off on that, whatever. 

Where it starts to become concerning is: 

1) when it's alleged that Russian agents may have secretly filmed him with the women, with the intent on using it as blackmail material, and if true then they may have leverage over the President of the United States, which is a huge national security risk. 
2) when Trump vehemently denies the contents of the dossier, which despite all the attention these particular allegations may have gathered, some of the less racy stuff DOES point to direct collusion with an enemy nation during the campaign, and when evidence comes out that at least parts of what he's denying was likely true (we don't know if the women ever made it to him, but we now know for a fact that an offer was made to send women to Trump at around the time that the act was alleged to have happened), then you start to wonder if maybe some of the other allegations are true. 

So, bigger picture, it doesn't matter hugely that Trump paid a Russian prostitute to piss all over him in a hotel bed he believed the Obamas had once slept in. What DOES matter, though, is that if true it's clearly something he'd be embarrassed to have the video of to leak, so if the Russians DO have video evidence of this, which the Steele dossier states they claimed they did, then he'd potentially agree to do quite a lot to stop that from surfacing. That's a risk. What's also a risk is if THIS particular allegation is true, and he's been denying it, then his denials of some of the OTHER allegations in the document, namely that Russian agents provided his campaign with extremely valuable intelligence, are far more likely to be true _as well_. 

Unfortunately it's the racier stuff that's captured the national imagination, but hey - while we don't know if Trump actually had an orgy in Russia, we now know that someone tried to set one up for him, and Trump isn't a man over-burdened by impulse control, exactly, so that's a little concerning.


----------



## Explorer

Well...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/

...apparently Trump junior was in direct correspondence with Wikileaks.

Additionally, when Junior got certain info from Wikileaks, Trump would tweet about it within minutes. 

That's going to make it hard to deny Trump's knowledge.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Well...
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...between-donald-trump-jr-and-wikileaks/545738/
> 
> ...apparently Trump junior was in direct correspondence with Wikileaks.
> 
> Additionally, when Junior got certain info from Wikileaks, Trump would tweet about it within minutes.
> 
> That's going to make it hard to deny Trump's knowledge.


Honestly, it's less the content of the communications, than the fact that it happened at _all_. 

Meanwhile, Sessions "forgot" about the Popadoupalos meeting, yet clearly remembers vetoing the meeting between Trump and Putin.


----------



## Drew

Holy shit what a crazy news day. 

1) Flynn took a plea deal, and agreed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of making false statements and in return charges against his son were dropped and he will testify that Trump directed his contact with Russia. This is such a game changing development that I don't really know what to say, save that all three or four board conservatives calling the Russia investigation "fake news" are going to have to eat some crow - this is an existentially damning development for Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/...ackage-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

2) The Senate is trying to ram through a tax bill today despite being $1 trillion over the budget cap they left, in violation of the Byrd rule. I have NO clue what to expect here - yesterday it was being taken for granted that the Senate was going to pass this (which I didn't buy) right up until the CBO released it's report that economic growth would only generate $400b in new revenue and not the $1.5t they expected to offset the cost of other provisions. Now, they're closer to a deal, but there are so many moving parts right now (Collins is on in return for a return of the SALT exemption, capped at $10k, which adds to the cost, but Corker's "trigger" to raise taxes if revenue targets weren't meat got killed by the Senate parliamentarian and there's no fix in the current version, so I have no idea what's going on there - I assume he's a no vote, but Flake is being reported as a yes which surprises me a little. It's moving too fast to really keep track of, though.


----------



## bostjan

#1 I'm not surprised by the Flynn news. I think that it's small potatoes compared to what we'll most likely see in 2018.

#2 The tax bill is possibly the worst mistake since the Patriot Act. I have a feeling it will get hammered through somehow. I think most Americans are against it, but it seems that has little to do with how lawmakers do their jobs anymore. The CBO could say that this bill will cause cancer, and the GOP legislature would still pass it. It's like the atmosphere of it is more an "oh yeah, well, we're in the majority, so ... there" kind of a flair.

The GOP still needs one vote in the senate to pass it. It'll happen, though, because there are three GOP senators who have not indicated whether they support it or not, and they will. It'll pass by one or maybe two votes. Even if something crazy happens and it ties, Pence will pass it. Many GOP senators have come right out and said that the only reason they want to vote for this bill is because they think they won't be re-elected if they vote against it, which means, to me, that the GOP itself is putting a lot of pressure on lawmakers.


----------



## Drew

I'm still not sure how to handicap the odds of it passing, because _so_ much has changed in the day, and I'm not sure if this is the last we've heard from the parliamentarian, either. I'm calling it a tossup, for lack of anything better to go on. Of course, the House either has to vote on the Senate version, or the two bills have to go to committee and a single bill coming out has to pass both branches, so this is by no means a done deal even if it passes. 

Flynn, the bigger news is less the guilty plea, than the fact he's agreed to testify against Trump. Kushner is allegedly the senior campaign official who directed Flynn to contact the Russians, incidentally.


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> Many GOP senators have come right out and said that the only reason they want to vote for this bill is because they think they won't be re-elected if they vote against it, which means, to me, that the GOP itself is putting a lot of pressure on lawmakers.



But that's kind of backwards isn't it? 

They'd now be NOT acting in the interests of their constituents by signing the bill which will raise their taxes, just like those who were worried about losing their re-election by taking away the voters healthcare, so therefore they SHOULDN'T be in favor of it.


----------



## Explorer

To be clear... it appears Kushner is the "senior official" who directed Flynn to establish back channel communications, unmonitored by normal security and scrutiny, with Russia.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ussians-last-year-nbc-news-idUSKBN1DV5WR?il=0

Edit: Drew already added the clarification. I had only looked for a source, and missed the comment as it had no source link.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> But that's kind of backwards isn't it?
> 
> They'd now be NOT acting in the interests of their constituents by signing the bill which will raise their taxes, just like those who were worried about losing their re-election by taking away the voters healthcare, so therefore they SHOULDN'T be in favor of it.



I can see why you'd think that. But let's get real for a second. The lawmakers saying stuff like that are from Red States, like Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, etc. If you want to be a senator in one of those states, you have to be a republican, which means that the republican party must endorse you. If the GOP gets pissed that you didn't hold party line on an issue, then they endorse someone else in the primary, and you run as independent, and your constituents vote for whomever the GOP endorsed, and you lose your job. It's really fucked up, but that's just the way these things work out. So instead, yeah, they are considering pissing off most of their constituents in order to please the party.

The above is exactly what I've been warning everybody about for years now. The two-party system is better than the one-party system, but it still has the same dangers. Because the political party, the thing that shouldn't have any power, according to our laws, ends up with all of the power, according to the loopholes in our laws, and so all conventional logic works in reverse below the surface-level. Right now the GOP knows that it *is in the minority*, but it can hold on to the majority only by gerrymandering and by holding it's representatives very tightly in its grasp.


----------



## Explorer

A small timeline which includes Obama's sanctions against Russia, Flynn being directed by the senior presidential transition team official (Kushner) to contact Russia, Flynn's contact with Kislyak, and Trump tweeting praise for Putin the next day for delaying a response to the sanctions in response to Flynn's direct request.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/us/politics/flynn-russia-sanctions.html

It's looking likely that Mueller has enough to indict Trump for being part of the conspiracy against the USA, and of collusion. I can't wait to see how long it takes Fox News commentators to rack up two hours of coverage on the matter.


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> I can see why you'd think that. But let's get real for a second. The lawmakers saying stuff like that are from Red States, like Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, etc. If you want to be a senator in one of those states, you have to be a republican, which means that *the republican party must endorse you*. If the GOP gets pissed that you didn't hold party line on an issue, then they endorse someone else in the primary, and you run as independent, and your constituents vote for whomever the GOP endorsed, and you lose your job. It's really fucked up, but that's just the way these things work out. So instead, yeah, they are considering pissing off most of their constituents in order to please the party.



Ah, yes, that's the part of the races I was forgetting. Without that portion, it'd be fairly black and white as to how it should go down, but then that tends to move that needle egregiously far for one person's favor.


----------



## thraxil

MFB said:


> Ah, yes, that's the part of the races I was forgetting. Without that portion, it'd be fairly black and white as to how it should go down, but then that tends to move that needle egregiously far for one person's favor.



It's also the big money backers (Koch brothers, Mercer, etc.) who really want the tax cuts and can be relied upon to pull their funding and back a primary opponent if they don't vote how they want.

I do wonder about the motivations of eg, McCain, who is most likely not worrying about reelection. What does he get out of supporting unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy? Does he really buy into the trickle down crap?


----------



## synrgy

thraxil said:


> What does he get out of supporting unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy?



https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/republican/john-mccain-net-worth/


----------



## thraxil

synrgy said:


> https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/republican/john-mccain-net-worth/



Yeah, I get that on one level. But on a more visceral level, I don't get it. We know that McCain must *hate* Trump on a deep level. We also know that he probably won't be around much longer. So one of the last major acts in his career and life, will be handing a man that he hates his first real legislative victory. He's really OK with that being a notable part of his legacy just so his kids can inherit a little more money, when they're already going to be inheriting more money than a reasonable person can spend in their lifetime?

To bring things back to Trump, I wonder if passing this tax cut clears the path for republicans to start distancing themselves from him and consider impeaching. Clearly, they had to get that passed to appease their donors, and fighting the President would be counterproductive on that front. But now what do they need him for? As the controversies get larger and closer, they need to be thinking about whether it's time to take him out so they can claim the moral high ground in 2018 instead of getting dragged down with him.


----------



## synrgy

I mean, I'm busy praying that having passed the bill, without even reading the damn thing, will ensure that they're all defeated in 2018 no matter what happens during the interim.

But hope/prayer is all I've got, and I'm not a True Believer. At this point, I know it to be fact that GOP reps could literally pull off their human masks to reveal lizard heads underneath, and declare war upon the human race, and they _still_ wouldn't lose any support from their base. The tribalism is _that_ deep.


----------



## zappatton2

synrgy said:


> At this point, I know it to be fact that GOP reps could literally pull off their human masks to reveal lizard heads underneath, and declare war upon the human race, and they _still_ wouldn't lose any support from their base. The tribalism is _that_ deep.


Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


----------



## wankerness

synrgy said:


> I mean, I'm busy praying that having passed the bill, without even reading the damn thing, will ensure that they're all defeated in 2018 no matter what happens during the interim.
> 
> But hope/prayer is all I've got, and I'm not a True Believer. At this point, I know it to be fact that GOP reps could literally pull off their human masks to reveal lizard heads underneath, and declare war upon the human race, and they _still_ wouldn't lose any support from their base. The tribalism is _that_ deep.



Yep, exactly. A video could come out tomorrow of Trump sticking a baby in the microwave and hitting start, and there's not any chance that he'd be impeached until (unless) there's 60 democrats in the senate. There's not a shred of integrity in there.


----------



## MFB

zappatton2 said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.



Ugh, you would!

Everyone knows Kang cares about his voters, unlike Kodos and his group


----------



## bostjan

This weekend, Trump started calling the FBI names again, doubled down on claims that no one in his campaign did anything wrong, and also endorsed child molester, racist, and gay-hater Roy Moore for congress. He said that we need people like Moore in congress to fight the democrats.

It's despicable. Moore is a horrible human being. His platform is horrible. His politics are horrible. The accusations against him are horrible. Okay. So Trump, in his extreme double-standard calls for Moore to be elected, yet is calling for others accused of sexual misconduct (of lesser extent than child molestation) to be fired, if they are democrat. Basically, if you are on the same side of the fence as Trump, and you were accused of something, you are innocent. If you disagree with Trump, and you were accused of something, you are guilty. No regard for any investigation to see if the person is guilty or not, no, why would we need that? Agree and you are pardoned; get in Trump's way, and you are fired. What a disgusting pile of bullshit. 

For police, they are doing a great job as long as they are busy shooting innocent Australian soccer moms and planting guns on black folks they murdered, but if they are investigating Trump (that is to say "doing their jobs"), then those same cops are the scum of the earth, according to the president's public tweets.

I sure hope justice is swift and especially ironic for Trump.


----------



## Drew

So, I'm still trying to parse the last minute changes to the tax bill, and I guess I have a couple initial thoughts. 

1) It's POSSIBLE the final bill coming out of conference won't be awful. The major surprise last-minute change to the bill was the re-inclusion of a modified personal and corporate AMT, this time indexed to inflation (IMO, as it should have been from the start). That means the Senate bill, which incorporates a modified AMT and doubles the limit but does not eliminate the estate tax, is a fair amount less regressive than the House bill. On the other hand, it does incorporate an ACA mandate repeal, which (IMO) is the single most disasterous part of the Senate legislation (though, the way it treats tuition reimbursement/scolarship from a taxation standpoint is a close runner up - aren't we supposed to be encouraging higher ed, not actively discouraging it?). It's possible to picture a final bill that preserves the Senate estate tax and AMT provisions, does away with the ACA mandate repeal to bring it in line with the house, and takes Trump's tossed off offer to up the corporate rate a little, say to 22%, to pay for this as well as restore some tax breaks designed to help the working poor and middle class. I'm not saying it's LIKELY, just that it's possible. 
2) Looking at how everything went down, the one thing that gives me a bit of hope that this isn't going to go anywhere is it's hard to look at the bill and the debate and see it as anything other than an attempt to get _something_ to committee. The GOP presumably learned their lesson on the ACA here. It wasn't published until the 21st in the Senate, the final draft was only released a couple hours before the vote, there are some clear errors in the way it's written (the Senate bill accidentally ended the deductibility of R&D expenses, which the Brookings Institute is pretty sure was by mistake), you have things like McCain and Collins voting for the tax bill with an ACA mandate repeal after being instrtumental in voting down the very similar "skinny repeal" several months ago, AMT is back in which was a long-running GOP target for elimination, at literally the 11th hour of debate... I have to think the Senate Republicans only passed this so they'd have a chance to hammer it out a bit further in committee with the House, and when it comes back for a second vote, there's going to be a much higher level of scrutiny. In fact, looked at in that way, some of the unexpected backtracks - R&D expensing, AMT - may actually be "features" in that it makes it extremely unlikely the House will be able to take up and successfully pass the Senate bill, meaning there's going to be an almost-guaranteed third round of voting. 

More to come as this thing evolves.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-say-thats-fanciful/?utm_term=.c34032bc72d9



John Dowd said:


> The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case.



That's cute.


----------



## Explorer

I was talking to a non-American friend about what seems to be resolved so far, and what information is still forthcoming, in the investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Since there hasn't been anything posted in this topic for a while, I'm going to post a bit of it here.

First off, Mueller has been very intelligent regarding not charging people more than a minimum amount to gain their cooperation. This allows for state attorneys general to bring state charges which would not be pardonable using Trump's federal pardoning power, neutralizing Trump's ability to obstruct justice by removing consequences. 

Manafort, Gates and Papadopolous are seemingly settled questions, as is Flynn. Even though Mueller hasn't charged them deeply, they are on the hook, with plenty to choose from for state convictions.

Weirdly enough, one of the FBI source incidents buttressing the FBI investigation of Trump-Russia collusion was being informed by Australian diplomats in Europe that Papadopolous, while drunk/tipsy, had bragged about Russia having hacked Clinton campaign emails. Since it wasn't anything which had been reported in the news, the Australians were concerned that a Trump staffer would have knowledge of Russian hacking, and reported the incident to the FBI.

With information derived from those people, Mueller then held back on releasing it while questioning Jared Kushner. Kushner likely lied when questioned, which means Kushner is caught. 

By his own admission, Don Jr. admitted to meeting with Russian representatives with the aim of colluding with Russia to gain illegally gained information regarding Clinton. Even if someone commits a crime unsuccessfully, like collusion or bank robbery, the attempt is still illegal. 

Interestingly enough, there might be evidence that Don Jr. took the Russians around to meet Daddy, and that Ivanka also met them. Ivanka didn't list such a meeting on her contacts form, so that may be a problem for her. 

There is a lot of evidence that Trump businesses gained their working capital from illegal Russian money laundering. Even the Trump camp kept bragging about Russians being the main source of their funds. Now it turns out that Mueller has been issuing subpoenas for banking records, and it's likely that he also has Trump's tax returns. 

The Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytics, and worked with the RNC to place online ads. It is now being investigated by Mueller whether the Trump campaign was working with Russia in the ad campaigns, and if the Trump campaign was illegally sharing voter information with Russia to allow Russian ads to be targeted to certain American demographics. 

There is now contemporaneous proof, in written memos by those Comey told, that Trump pressured Comey to drop the investigation. Even though Trump's assertions that he never did so already faced the burden of Trump's history of proven dishonesty, a contemporaneous memo from a trained FBI agent removes this aspect from the realm of a "he said, he said" situation. 

As Pence was likely around for discussion of how to deal with the public revelation of the trmp Tower meeting with the Russians, and how to conceal it, Pence is not off the hook. As he is a lawyer, he's actually held to a higher standard, so it will be interesting to see where that goes.

Most recently, Trump has threatened a lawsuit over the recent book. Oddly enough, Gorka confirmed that he had been instructed to cooperate with author Wolff, and had met Wolff in Priebus' West Wing office while Wolff was waiting for Steve Bannon. Gorka had only intended to talk about how untrustworthy Wolff is, but only served to prove Trump a liar yet again, this time regarding Trump's claims that Wolff hadn't had access to the White House. 

On a strange related note, Trump sexual assault accuser Summer Zervos got an unintended boost from Trump's threat of a lawsuit over the book because Trump had previously argued that he didn't have time for a lawsuit as president. Zervos is also helped by a victorious legal argument made by Kellyanne Conway's husband, that a sitting president (Clinton at the time) could be sued for sexual behavior while in office. 

Also recently, Republican leaders in Congress turned out to be lying in their characterization of testimony from Fusion GPS, which was legally released to the public by Feinstein after the fusion GPS founders begged for the truth to be released to disprove Republican lies. It's unfortunate that Republicans are playing dishonest politics purely for the goal of derailing a legitimate investigation of a foreign government's interference in a US election, as this removes actual patriotism as a factual talking point. 

Anyway, it turns out that dossier author Steele was so concerned about what he thought was a likely "crime in progress" that he contacted the FBI with the information he was gathering... only to learn that they already had a source within the campaign for that. I have to assemble a timeline, but I think it's unlikely to have been Papadopolous at that point, which means there is likely another undiscovered source for the information.

And now, Trump's lawyers are reportedly attempting to come to an agreement with Mueller regarding Trump testifying. 

----

At this point, I do believe the one consistent end point pursued by the Russians during the campaign was an end to economic sanctions. As such sanctions were hurting Russian gangsters, including Putin cronies, this makes sense, and having the sanctions strengthened by Congress and taken out of the Trump White House's hands was probably a great blow against Trump and Putin.

I don't know how long things will take from here, but I don't think they will end well for Donald Trump's presidency.

I'm now looking forward to sniping remarks from those simple-minded enough to assume the grownups here are as easily distracted as the simple. Bonus points for brevity, inability to address the mass of proven facts supporting collusion and obstruction, and both-siderism with no actual proof of both sides.... *laugh*

Have at it!


----------



## vilk

Thanks dude! Would you mind if I steal that and paste it on a website where it will rustle some massive jimmies?


----------



## Explorer

You do not have my permission. State it in your own words instead.

Remember to add Trump's payout through his attorney Cohen to the pornstar, to avoid disclosure of his affair and infidelity to Melania the year after their marriage, to your litany, to irk the evangelicals who keep talking about Trump being the will of their god....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...yment-for-adult-film-stars-silence-1515787678


----------



## thraxil

Also worth mentioning that Mueller's team has hired (back in November but it was only recently made public) a prosecutor with experience handling cyber crime cases: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.9ba2f51c259f

So that's a good indicator that they are looking deeply into either or both the DNC email hacks or fishiness with Cambridge Analytics.

On the pornstar thing, I think it's important to keep in mind that while there's no indication that it was nonconsensual, and Trump's evangelical supporters really don't seem to care how terrible and hypocritical he is, it is still extremely important that he paid hush money to keep it secret. That is the sort of thing that makes him vulnerable to blackmail and puts the security of the country at risk. If he were applying for any level of security clearance and that was discovered, he would be denied.


----------



## iamaom

I think the biggest thing to take away from this presidency is not any single person like Trump, but that the ENTIRE republican party banded together and supported a traitor for the sole purpose of getting an agenda that screws over the poor in favor of the rich passed. Not a single GOP senator or representative has the balls to actually stand up against any this. Sure, you have a few grumblers that talk about deficit here and there just loud enough for some voters to hear, but in the end they vote yes on the bills anyways. They don't like the average American being able to have healthcare, they don't care that half the country is a paycheck away from ruin and up to their eyes in debt, they don't care that some parts of the country are on the level of 3rd world nations, they want to rape the environment and leave it for dead in the pursuit of profit, they want to take away rights of anyone who's not a white rich christian conservative, and the fact that 1/3 of the country will still vote for them for the sole purpose of spiting their fellow countrymen is insane.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, it's useful to periodically stop and take stock of a developing story like this, because it's kind of amazing how much of the progress you can lose siught of as it slowly evoolves. Rereading this, very few of the things you list as "known" rather than allegations or suspicious (for example, the possibility of Trump and Ivanka meeting the diplomats in the Trump Tower meeting) are things that I can really poke holes at - I've seen lots of suspicion but no evidence that Russian money may have been behind Trump for a while, but, for example, things like Gorka being directed to meet with Wolff or Popadoupalous being the original source of FBI concern after the Australians alerted them to his comments, Trump pressuring Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, or Don Jr. admitting to wanting to have a meeting he believed to be with Russian agents offering incrimidating info against Clinton, are all pretty well settled fact at this point. A few of them are already grounds for criminal charges. 

Interesting point on Kushner's testimony - it could be a horserace between Trump Jr and Kushner, as to who's the next guy to drop.


----------



## bostjan

Someone on VPR/NPR at lunch time (just a moment ago) was talking about how people tend to only keep one or two scandals in their minds at a time, and that Trump has far surpassed that limit. Maybe that's why reporting about him calling Haiti a "shithole" or whatever other inconsequential-in-the-grand-scheme stories might be actually giving him a boost in popularity. I think maybe that commentator was onto something. There are not a lot of Trump supporters in Vermont, but there must be more in my area than the rest of Vermont, and people here are quite visibly and audibly rolling their eyes and sighing at the story. Meanwhile, this is also the same guy who has all but abolished the EPA, colluded with Russia, and is making some of the objectively worst long term economic decisions in our nation's history, not to mention his haphazard dealings with North Korea and the Middle East. While I would much prefer a president who doesn't refer to other nations as "shitholes," I really don't care about that story under the circumstances.

As it is looking at the moment, there may be some criminal plots at play in the 2016 election from both major candidates' campaigns. I think that once the dust settles from the investigation, which will likely be months from now, we need to sit down as a nation and have an intelligent discussion about what the hell happened and how to possibly remove the pathways that allowed that to happen at this level.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> Thanks dude! Would you mind if I steal that and paste it on a website where it will rustle some massive jimmies?





Explorer said:


> You do not have my permission. State it in your own words instead.



Post -> Google translate English-to-German -> Google translate German-to-English -> post.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Post -> Google translate English-to-German -> Google translate German-to-English -> post.



Or, better yet,

After -> Google Translate English - German -> Google Translate German - English -> After.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Explorer

Just to note... Bannon refused to answer when questioned under a congressional subpoena, and has also been subpoenaed by Mueller's grand jury.


----------



## bostjan

So the National Park Service is looking like it might be totally marginalized:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...k-service-advisory-board-quit-in-protest.html

Thoughts?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So the National Park Service is looking like it might be totally marginalized:
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...k-service-advisory-board-quit-in-protest.html
> 
> Thoughts?


I smell a trap. 

The Park Service has emerged as the vanguard of the resistance to the Trump administration, and have been vocal and unabashed in their criticism. Not only does it seem unlikely to me that they would suddenly just wave a wight flag and resign, I think it's also a little odd that it wasn't unanimous, but three remained. If I were a betting man, I would wager that the Trump administration is unable to do something without a majority vote of the advisory board, and furthermore the fact three members continue to serve on the board is enough to stop Trump from formally dissolving it or stacking it with anti-park members. 

This is literally just a hunch, but I would be shocked if there wasn't some end game to this move that Trump won't like.


----------



## Drew

One year of Trump, and we commemorate it with the first-ever shut down when a single party controls both chambers of Congress as well as the Executive branch. 

The Senate passed a 3-week extension in return for McConnell committing to take up DACA during that time (which enjoys broad bipartisan support in the Senate), but IMO this may just be a recipe for a second shutdown in three weeks - the House still has to vote, of course, but it remains to be seen if the House's more hardline factions will pass DACA, or if Trump, with Stephen Miller whispering in his ear all Wormtongue-esq, will even sign it. If DACA can't pass in three weeks, then this is likely going to result in another shutdown.


----------



## bostjan

Didn't Trump say (about Obama) something along the lines of _it's the President's fault_ _if the government shuts down, not congress_?

Let me look that up...

EDIT: https://www.snopes.com/trump-criticize-obama-shutdown/



Donald Trump in 2013 said:


> A shutdown falls on the President’s lack of leadership. He can’t even control his party and get people together in a room. A shutdown means the President is weak.


----------



## Drew

There's a fairly strong case to be made that it really is his fault, too - even the GOP doesn't really know what sort of compromise Trump wants them to negotiate, and his "shithole/shithouse countries" comment certainly upped the stakes pretty significantly on the politics of getting some sort of immigration protection into the bill.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-is-a-big-reason-why/?utm_term=.438ef2a98528


----------



## bostjan

I don't have a paid Washington Post subscription, but here's an article about the overall topic of Trump and the shutdown: http://time.com/5111513/shutdown-day-two-congress/

I think this is the way it's going to be, generally, Dems will blame Repubs and Repubs will blame Dems, but this is interesting, to me, because we have a president who campaigned on the promise that he would not let this happen and that he was a super-negotiator, so it would never happen while he was in charge. Now, whether it's a matter of fact or fiction regarding whether he even can or cannot, it doesn't matter, because he promised. He also attacked Obama over the problems with congress five years ago, as quoted in the other post above...

So, whose fault is the shutdown - well, that's one question, but either way this reinforces Trump's general jackassery either now or during his campaign or both.

But Trump's supporters will, of course, defend him in this. Come on people, no one is perfect. Let's all agree that this reflects poorly on Trump's leadership skills and move on. If Trump himself would acknowledge this shortcoming and make some attempt to do something about it, then he'd win a couple points in my book, but even if Trump gave two shits about how many points he had in my book, I doubt he'd make the effort, because what's two or three bonus points when you're already sitting at negative twenty-eight. 

Whether Trump called a nation a "shithole" behind closed doors or feigned a mock Indian accent when speaking privately to a White House employee, I dunno, it's childish and stupid, but is of little concern to me in comparison with his public tweets and official policies that have much more serious consequences. It's not that one should not care about the way the president carries himself, but it's just that when a president publicly defends neonazis, nearly dismantles the EPA, and publicly accuses Mexicans as rapists, there's little that ought to be surprising about what he does privately.


----------



## Drew

Here's the article, then, but the formatting is messy: 



> The government is shutting down for the first time in more than four years, and President Trump has spent days trying to lay the blame on the Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> 
> ✔@realDonaldTrump
> 
> Democrats are holding our Military hostage over their desire to have unchecked illegal immigration. Can’t let that happen!
> 
> 9:27 AM - Jan 20, 2018
> 
> 
> But there is a strong case to be made that it's the president's actions (and lack thereof) that caused, or at least greatly exacerbated, the shutdown. In other words, Trump shares a sizable chunk of the blame.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> *1. All of this is happening on his watch:* This is the first shutdown with one party controlling all of Washington. (The first that leads to federal government employee furloughs.) To put that another way: Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, so how could Trump _not_ get some of the blame for a shutdown? He's (ostensibly) in control of his party.
> 
> A politically potent symbol to drive home that point: The government shut down on the first anniversary of his presidency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> 
> ✔@realDonaldTrump
> 
> This is the One Year Anniversary of my Presidency and the Democrats wanted to give me a nice present. #DemocratShutdown
> 
> 6:33 AM - Jan 20, 2018
> 
> 
> When you layer on what Trump has said about shutdowns, it is fair to wonder if Trump actually wanted one, or at least is okay with one if it happens. My colleagues reported in November he told confidants a shutdown could be good for him politically; a chance to flex his hard-line muscles on immigration. He's also tweeted stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> 
> ✔@realDonaldTrump
> 
> either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!
> 
> 8:07 AM - May 2, 2017
> 
> 
> The president's aides said Friday that Trump was instrumental in bringing conservative House Republicans on board with the spending bill, and that he was “actively working ” to prevent a shutdown. He invited Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to the White House on Friday to talk about a deal.
> 
> But the way Schumer tells it, Trump didn't really have any intention of making one. Schumer said Saturday he "even put a border wall on the table," suggesting Trump could get money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall in exchange for keeping the government open. But Schumer said Saturday that Trump rejected that deal, the second bipartisan immigration deal in a week he's rejected.
> 
> *2. No one in Washington seems to know what he wants:* So, wait, if the president said in private he would be okay with a shutdown, but in public decried one, what did he actually want?
> 
> That is a mystery to even his allies in Congress. This week, Trump cast doubt on whether he would sign a short-term spending bill to keep the government's lights on for another month, hours after his spokeswoman said he would. Hours before a precarious vote in the House of Representatives to avoid such a scenario, Trump pulled the rug out from under GOP leaders by seeming to take away their only leverage to get Democrats on board: funding the Children's Health Insurance Program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> 
> ✔@realDonaldTrump
> 
> CHIP should be part of a long term solution, not a 30 Day, or short term, extension!
> 
> 8:37 AM - Jan 18, 2018
> 
> Trump also pushed back on his chief of staff's statements by suggesting he had not backed off the notion of a border wall covering most of the 2,000 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald J. Trump
> 
> ✔@realDonaldTrump
> 
> The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it. Parts will be, of necessity, see through and it was never intended to be built in areas where there is natural protection such as mountains, wastelands or tough rivers or water.....
> 
> 6:15 AM - Jan 18, 2018
> 
> *3. He torpedoed a deal on immigration right when it mattered most*: Trump has also been extraordinarily inconsistent on what he wants on an issue that is impossible to separate from this shutdown: preventing the deportation of immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children, known as “dreamers.”
> 
> 
> He ended the Obama-era dreamer protections in September, tossing it to Congress to fix. Then he switched his position several times on whether he wanted Congress to find a permanent solution and/or what he wanted in exchange for it. (A border wall? Would a fence be okay? Ending the visa lottery program?)
> 
> Senators came up with a bipartisan deal they thought he could support. It included some money for a barrier on the border. In phone calls earlier in the day, these senators thought he was on board. When they went to the White House to present the deal, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) told the New York Times he found Trump almost automatically opposed to any deal.
> 
> Then the president reportedly asked why the deal had to let in people from “shithole countries” like Haiti, El Salvador and African nations, and then you-know-what really hit the fan.
> 
> 
> *4. “Shithole countries”:* With two words, Trump caused an international stir and made it much more difficult for Democrats to negotiate with the president on even the shortest of spending deals. Their base was already frustrated Democrats did not extract dreamer protections in a December spending deal.
> 
> Suddenly, a vote even on a short-term spending bill without protections for young undocumented immigrants could be interpreted by liberals as a capitulation to Trump.
> 
> My Capitol Hill colleagues report that Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has been trying to secure a deal on a vote for dreamers and a vote to keep the government open through February, but he's doing all of it by working _around_ Trump rather than with him.
> 
> "At this point, we agree we can’t wait for the White House anymore," Flake said.
> 
> This isn't to say Trump is the only one who will get blamed for this shutdown. Republicans have spent the past few days casting Democrats as the villains. They are willing to vote against a spending bill over an unrelated issue, immigration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leader McConnell
> 
> ✔@SenateMajLdr
> 
> The choice to fund the government by Friday is simple.
> 1) pass a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill to keep the government open
> OR
> 2) Democrats manufacture a crisis & force a government shutdown over an unrelated issue that we have until at least March to resolve
> 
> 1:13 PM - Jan 18, 2018
> 
> Josh Holmes, a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), points to recent history to make the case that Democrats are the ones to blame: In 2013, conservative Republicans refused to vote for a spending bill that did not defund Obamacare. The government shut down for 16 days, and polls showed a majority of Americans blamed Republicans.
> 
> “You take the party label off and watch how that's played out,” Holmes said. “It's never been good for the party that's blocking the funding for reasons irrelevant to the funding.”
> 
> For right now, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the opposite. On the eve of this shutdown, Americans say they'll blame Republicans and Trump over Democrats. The reasons Trump is to blame are pretty clear.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, if you were to call up the White House public hotline, you would get a voicemail informing you that it's the Democrats' fault no one is there to pick up the phone: 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42766159


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Whether Trump called a nation a "shithole" behind closed doors or feigned a mock Indian accent when speaking privately to a White House employee, I dunno, it's childish and stupid, but is of little concern to me in comparison with his public tweets and official policies that have much more serious consequences. It's not that one should not care about the way the president carries himself, but it's just that when a president publicly defends neonazis, nearly dismantles the EPA, and publicly accuses Mexicans as rapists, there's little that ought to be surprising about what he does privately.



Well, I mean, this is probably fairly obvious, but it severely increases the likelihood that his immigration policy is first and foremost motivated by racism, rather than any serious concern for border security or anti-terrorism. Throw it out there that explicitly, and as a Democratic policymaker any compromise to sacrifice party concerns on immigration looks an awful lot like getting into bed with an avowed racist.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, I mean, this is probably fairly obvious, but it severely increases the likelihood that his immigration policy is first and foremost motivated by racism, rather than any serious concern for border security or anti-terrorism. Throw it out there that explicitly, and as a Democratic policymaker any compromise to sacrifice party concerns on immigration looks an awful lot like getting into bed with an avowed racist.


My only point was that the comment would not make it so, the comment simply would add to the mount of evidence that it already was so.
I think it might be a debate I would avoid with Trump supporters, though. I don't think Trump ever said "shithole" on the record, as far as I could tell, so it might be a way to open an argument up to all sorts of sidetracking.

I do think it's a solid point that Trump condemned Obama for the government shutdown in 2013. I think it's a solid point to quote him pinning the blame on the president without equivocation, since he has not held himself to the same standard in any way. There's simply no counterargument out of that which would make Trump look good.

The _WP_ also has a good point in explaining that, as Republican President of the United States of America, he leads the Republican Party, which controls all three branches of government, and still couldn't avoid this. As the leader of the party, he needs to *lead the party*. There's no reason why, as party leader, chief executive officer of the nation, and self-touted master deal-maker, he should be helpless in all of this.

The article's second point is also strong, but I think there is another caveat to it that they didn't stress near enough - Trump keeps telling lawmakers one thing and then tweeting another thing. It's so inconsistent and confusing that there is no way to get any idea of what the hell he is trying to get from either side in all of this.

IMO, those, being the three strongest points, don't really need any more to be brought up. Let Trump and his supporters respond to that, or, more likely, avoid the points and say "What about pizzagate?! Benghazi, Whitewater! Benghazi! What about emails!? Benghazi?!?!" or whatever. 

I don't like to talk politics at work, but I work with at least four avid Trump supporters, who all know I am probably Trump's biggest non-democrat non-fan, so I get accosted a lot. Today's topic was the government shutdown. When I was asked if I blamed the GOP or the DNC, and gave the answer that this is simply a symptom of both parties playing apolitical game, and that Trump is _supposed_ to be negotiating with both parties to get a compromise going, like he promised during his campaigns, this guy talking to me got offended that I'd even bring Trump into it. "The president doesn't have any power in this case!" To which I responded with the three points above. He seemed to discredit the quote that Trump ever condemned Obama, and did not regard Trump as the leader of the GOP, and also said that Trump's tweets should not mean anything. I showed him the quote and all he said was "fake news" and walked away.

So, there you have it. I don't know for sure, but I think he speaks for a lot of Trump's supporters, with the whole "fake news" for anything that proves me wrong about something. Maybe it's fair to say that Trump can never be 100% in control of the GOP, but, we can get reasonable people to agree that Trump promised to not let this happen, and it happened.

I mean, if I promised to give everyone in the USA a 12 kg gold ingot if I were elected, then got elected and changed my stance, saying (truthfully) that I never had enough gold to make that the least bit possible, would I still be a damned liar?!

Anyway, my coworker was adamant that this shutdown reflects 100% positive on Trump, even for democrats, and that the democrats might consider giving up their democrat cards after this. It just tells me what I already knew - Trump's supporters are so far out of touch with reality that there is no reasoning on the discussion table anymore. Everything they like is true and good and everything else is fake news and that's that. So, I think the question, for me, is, "How do I deal with people like this?" I've tried ignoring them. I've tried rationalizing with them. I've tried smiling and nodding. I think the sad truth is that my only course of action is to just keep my head down and wait until this is all over (or until I die, whichever comes first).


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> My only point was that the comment would not make it so, the comment simply would add to the mount of evidence that it already was so.
> I think it might be a debate I would avoid with Trump supporters, though. I don't think Trump ever said "shithole" on the record, as far as I could tell, so it might be a way to open an argument up to all sorts of sidetracking.


While I can nitpick the details - the Republicans present who went on record denying it later clarified privately that they had heard "shithouse," not "shithole," which is a pretty half-assed denial - I think your broader critique, that your average Trump supporter doesn't give a shit that Trump thinks Haiti and the Dominican Republic are shitholes, and wants more Norwegian immigrants, is well taken. 

I think the single biggest critique that article levees against Trump, though, is the fact that on at least two separate occasions, potential deals that lad largely come together were torpedoed by his tweets, after he reversed course on _policies he had previously supported as part of a deal_, and GOP leadership really had no clue from day to day what sort of an agreement he was prepared to support. 

Interesting observation from a buddy of mine just a few minutes ago - he thinks the 6-year extension of CHIP that wasn't present (at least to that length) in the original was probably negotiated by the Democrats, and if so may have been a sound strategic move - and I quote, "the GOP took care of the white kids, now they can't claim it's about them anymore." He may be right - the White House line through all of this was that the Democrats were hurting American soldiers and children without healthcare, because of an "unrelated immigration bill." The GOP will still make much of soldiers not getting paid on time if we shut down again on Feb 8th, and their core base won't care that defenseless kids are no longer one of the victims, but especially if McConnell half-asses (or doesn't try at all) on DACA or if Ryan refuses to pick it up (or, worse, does, passes it, and Trump vetoes it), then from whatever's left of the middle, the White House line is going to ring a little hollow.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Anyway, my coworker was adamant that this shutdown reflects 100% positive on Trump, even for democrats, and that the democrats might consider giving up their democrat cards after this. It just tells me what I already knew - Trump's supporters are so far out of touch with reality that there is no reasoning on the discussion table anymore. Everything they like is true and good and everything else is fake news and that's that. So, I think the question, for me, is, "How do I deal with people like this?" I've tried ignoring them. I've tried rationalizing with them. I've tried smiling and nodding. I think the sad truth is that my only course of action is to just keep my head down and wait until this is all over (or until I die, whichever comes first).



Unfortunately, this is a belief system for his supporters rather than a logical position based on facts (much like religion, racism, etc.), so I doubt that there is any rational discussion to be had with the majority of them.


----------



## Vyn

tedtan said:


> Unfortunately, this is a belief system for his supporters rather than a logical position based on facts (much like religion, racism, etc.), so I doubt that there is any rational discussion to be had with the majority of them.



Speaking as an American outsider (not American born, do follow your politics closely though) who cares neither for Republicans or Democrats (in political terms they are both right-wing parties, one is just more right-leaning than the other), this looks ridiculously bad for Trump and just cements the world view of him as a terrible political negotiator. You can't run a government like a business and strong-arm your opponents, it's just going to make you look like an arse every time.


----------



## vilk

It's too bad that_ looking like an arse_ is considered a point of merit to his support base cult.


----------



## Drew

You know, one other thing I'd probably been glossing over since the firm I work for is domestic market only, and accordingly I spend a lot less time thinking about FX rates than maybe I should... 

The stock market was up, what, 22% or so, in 2017, Trump's first year in office, and he loves talking about all-time highs in the markets as an affirmation of his policies. Yet, during that same time, the dollar _weakened _something like 17%, meaning one dollar in 1/20/2018 would buy you 17% less in foreign currencies than it would in 1/20/2017. On the net, then, globally the stock, market is only up modestly, maybe 5% when measured against a trade-weighted basket of currencies, and most of the market gains have been offset by currency losses. 

What's a little odd is that we've seen a damned-near-20% depreciation in the dollar with very little inflation, which on top of a workforce nearing full employment, on top of a massive quantitative easing program, on top of a nearly $1 trillion fiscal stimulus from tax cuts being paid for with deficit spending, is one of those things that has me, and pretty much the entire rest of the market, scratching our heads.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

I'll stop in tomorrow everybody 

Thank you for your patience!

MAGA


----------



## vilk

I bet that it will be the most lies and falsehoods ever spoken in all the history of the State of the Union

Number crunchers the next day will give the ratio by which Trump surpasses the number of lies told by any former President who gave the SOTU. It will be met by right-wing whataboutism, invariably.


----------



## Randy

Trump's honestly got a lot to brag about, IMO. Just because I don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not going to have a lot of material. Stock market numbers, unemployment numbers, a [short term] tax cut for middle class, his travel ban typically being upheld by highest courts, the "end of ISIS occupation of Iraq", etc.

Now of course, I think all those accomplishments are a smokescreen to a lot of long-term problems but we're still a year or two off before those chickens come home to roost. I'd say it'd be good for a chuckle if he ad-libs but most likely he'll stick to his script (like he did in his joint address to Congress) and his approval rating will go up (for now).


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Trump's honestly got a lot to brag about, IMO. Just because I don't like the guy doesn't mean he's not going to have a lot of material. Stock market numbers, unemployment numbers, a [short term] tax cut for middle class, his travel ban typically being upheld by highest courts, the "end of ISIS occupation of Iraq", etc.
> 
> Now of course, I think all those accomplishments are a smokescreen to a lot of long-term problems but we're still a year or two off before those chickens come home to roost. I'd say it'd be good for a chuckle if he ad-libs but most likely he'll stick to his script (like he did in his joint address to Congress) and his approval rating will go up (for now).


On the economy, we've definitely done better than I'd feared - no trade war, for one, and business confidence and consumer confidence are both high, which this early into his term (and without having yet passed his first budget), that's about the biggest impact he's had on our economy. 

On the other, a lot of the stock market surge can be explained by overseas earnings being worth a lot more with a dollar that's dropped by about a seventh since Trump came into office, his tax cuts are being fueled by deficit spending and are in turn a shot fiscal stimulus into an economy that's already growing at a brisk rate, increasing the possibility of a spike in inflation, and most of the impact to workers from his tax cuts have been in the form of one-time "bonuses" rather than base salary increases, which suggest that the companies either don't expect any long-term increase in profitability from the tax cuts, or are just providing a one-off political appeasement to Trump before the firms get serious about shareholder capital returns. 

I think you can plausibly argue it either way, though I'm sensitive to the argument that if things were going badly in the economy, Trump would be taking the blame, so it's also not fair to discount the fact it's doing well completely. I do think the impact on business sentiment is mostly attributable to Trump.


----------



## Explorer

I think Kennedy's response to the SotU address is spot on.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018...f-the-union-rebuttal-speech-transcript-379368

Trump and the Republicans have been pushing false choices, and the need to sacrifice some Americans for the good of others. Kennedy spoke for choosing to support *all* Americans.


----------



## vilk

Explorer said:


> I think Kennedy's response to the SotU address is spot on.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2018...f-the-union-rebuttal-speech-transcript-379368
> 
> Trump and the Republicans have been pushing false choices, and the need to sacrifice some Americans for the good of others. Kennedy spoke for choosing to support *all* Americans.



I really liked what he has to say...

It's only just that it's not always true that We, The People overcome the elite as Kennedy asserts....
I know you're really aware of P&CE so you probably remember that study where they found that if elites want legislation passed that's highly unpopular with the public, it's usually always passed, but when the public wants legislation passed that's unpopular with elites, it almost never passes?

I think this is the study here https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour.../62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader


I often wish things I don't believe were true. Like Karma. If Karma were real, I think that'd be really awesome. But it's not real.


----------



## Explorer

vilk said:


> I really liked what he has to say...
> 
> It's only just that it's not always true that We, The People overcome the elite as Kennedy asserts....
> I know you're really aware of P&CE so you probably remember that study where they found that if elites want legislation passed that's highly unpopular with the public, it's usually always passed, but when the public wants legislation passed that's unpopular with elites, it almost never passes?
> 
> I often wish things I don't believe were true. Like Karma. If Karma were real, I think that'd be really awesome. But it's not real.


The current Republican White House and Congress do show that elites can be hard to overcome, as demonstrated by the tax cuts for the rich financed by everyone else.

However, it is a demonstrable fact that liberals, including the liberal elites, work for wider demographics than the conservatives. Yes, some things won't get accomplished with just small groups, but cooperation gets things done in spite of certain elites attempting to keep power concentrated in their hands, as in the recent gerrymandering court cases.


----------



## Drew

Haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but early reports are that the Nunes memo was over-sold, and under-delivered. I think everyone already knew that Steele was doing oppo research for the Clinton camp at the time that dossier made its way to the FBI - that doesn't really change anything, since 1) the Clinton camp didn't tell them to contact the FBI, he was so concerned with what he was seeing that he reached out on his own, and 2) he only started working for the Clinton camp after the Republican who originally hired him, Cruz I think but don't quote me on that, to dig into Trump had dropped out of the race. Steele didn't think Trump should be president? You don't say, haha, given what he had dug up. Anyway, the standard for a warrant is just "probable cause" which is pretty low. 

It's funny, there was a NY Times peice I saw a little earlier arguing that there was a distinct possibility this could blow up on Nunes if there wasn't actually anything new and damning in his memo, after making such a hullabaloo about it, and that kind of seems to be what's happening.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, it was a lot of nothing. For most readers, it sounds like a lot of stuff people already knew, and 'something something something' about Yates, McCabe and Rosenstein. The problem being, this isn't about an illegal wiretapping operation, because this involved FISA requests that were submitted to a judge and approved each time. You'd have a hard time arguing they did anything wrong if the judge saw the information and agreed to approve and extend the warrant each time. 

Basically the whole memo is about Steele and he spends some portion of it trying to imply the information is known fraudulent, except that there's a line in there were Nunes recognizes some of the information WAS independently verified (which he not so coincidentally glosses over). As the Dems have been saying, this memo was EXTREMELY cherrypicked and without all the underlying information, it doesn't say anything the Republicans and Trump haven't already been saying and the blowback from the partisanship on Nunes' part might be worse than anything he tried to implicate here.

Sidenote, I can see why the DOJ and the FBI weren't happy about this. The MAIN implication here is that the FISA court was rubber stamping requests and renewals without the supposed requirement of "new evidence" for each renewal request. I get the impression that's a frequent occurrence, likely most often out of necessity but this memo will really complicate how they do things going forward.


----------



## Explorer

Yeah, the fact that Nunes, Ryan and Trump released this document shows they didn't think things through.

Carter Page was under investigation since 2013, long before the 2016 election, as the result of the conviction of a failed Russian spy ring. The first FISA warrant, in order to be extended, had to show proof of his working with Russia. That warrant was extended multiple times based on continued proof produced by the previous warrants.

So now, Trump, Nunes and Ryan want to imply that Page's illegal activity, and the investigation of him starting in 2013, was prompted by the Steele dossier, because... time travelers? Fortune tellers?

Regarding the document's release, Mark Twain anticipated this moment. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Who was it this week who said, when a guest on a news show, that the only explanation for Trump's continued support of Russia is that Russia is blackmailing Trump? It surprised me that it was stated so bluntly, and makes me think the discussion has escaped all possibility of spinning it completely away from acknowledging how sketchy Trump and the Republicans have been in their defense of Russia over the US Constitution.

Incidentally, it's hilarious that the Cap'n wanted us to anticipate his words of wisdom in the wake of this week's events. I look forward to a fact-free attempt to avoid talking about all this stuff.


----------



## VC4Ever

Sooo you people think it’s all ok eh?

You think it’s ok to make up some BS story about Russian hookers peeing on Trump, paid for by the Clinton camp, to then use that to get a FISA warrant to spy on him and his whole campaign team and use it as an insurance policy in case he does actually become President.

Then when he becomes President you use it to create a BS Russia collusion investigation, which by the way they have Zero evidence of after over a year of investigation. 

All the perjury that has taken place by ohh Lordy James Comey and the rest of them saying there was no “wire tapping” of Trump.

And if it isn’t such a big deal, why were they panicking up until the release of the memo.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned...


----------



## VC4Ever

Ohhh and you all fail to see the irony about it all. It was the Clinton campaign who worked with the Russians to create the fake dossier which was used then to get a FISA warrant which was used to spy on Trumps campaign which was ultimately used in the whole Russia collusion fiasco when Trump won.

They accuse people of the very things they are doing.


----------



## narad

^ Found the Russian bot account.


----------



## Randy

Before the regulars pile-on, I just figured I'd thank you for actually engaging in the conversation, even if I might disagree with you.

Too many points to cover from my phone (typically I'd itemize a post like this) but to your second point, Sessions and Rosenstein (who were both Trump's picks and are lifelong Republicans) have had multiple opportunities to carry on their own investigation into the legalities of the Clinton involvement with the Russians, Uranium One, emails, creation of the dossier, etc. and they've laid an egg.

I don't see constantly defaulting back to how egregious the Clinton activities were versus "the Russian case" when meanwhile, Trumps own picks haven't done anything in the Clinton case but the Mueller investigation secured two plea deals (tantamount to convictions) and secured two indictments via grand jury. That also pokes a lot of holes in the "nothing has been proven" argument.

I also scratch my head over the whole "this was a concerted effort to help the Dems" by lifelong Republicans (Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein and now Wray), most of which were brought into the justice department by Republicans.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

It's also telling that republicans in favor of trump are in such upheaval over Rosenstein's (and the other members on the tribunal) "vetting" of warrants, yet they have shown no effort to change that process.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Sooo you people think it’s all ok eh?
> 
> You think it’s ok to make up some BS story about Russian hookers peeing on Trump, paid for by the Clinton camp, to then use that to get a FISA warrant to spy on him and his whole campaign team and use it as an insurance policy in case he does actually become President.
> 
> Then when he becomes President you use it to create a BS Russia collusion investigation, which by the way they have Zero evidence of after over a year of investigation.
> 
> All the perjury that has taken place by ohh Lordy James Comey and the rest of them saying there was no “wire tapping” of Trump.
> 
> And if it isn’t such a big deal, why were they panicking up until the release of the memo.
> 
> This is just the tip of the iceberg. Stay tuned...


 

Two things I think. 

1) The Nunes memo was presented by Nunes, Trump, and - even to a certain extent, and if this was intentional it was a brilliant tactical move - the Democrats trying to stop its release as some sort of horrible damning proof of foul play on the part of the FBI. What we got, instead, was a series of allegations that the right _had already been making_. There's zero new information presented in the media, it's just a bunch of Fox and Friends talking points. You have to wonder what exactly the big deal was - is it somehow more authoritative if Nunes , a early and vocal Trump supporter, wrote it up in a letter? 

2) It, and your description, is also heavily cherrypicked, and we know that because, again, everything in the memo was already publicly known. Were Fusion GPS and Steele hired by the DNC to do opposition research? Yes... but it was the continuation of work they were originally hired for by the Washington Free Beacon, a _conservative_ group. Over and above that, of course, is the fact that the DNC didn't provide the information to the FBI, Steele did that of his own volition because he was becoming increasingly concerned about what he was finding. The allegation that he was "terminated" by the FBI is extremely questionable, because he never had a formal relationship with the FBI, and was not employed by or on the payroll of the FBI at any point during his research. And, as others have pointed out, Paige was under FBI surveillance since at least 2013, making the argument that his wire tap was based _solely_ on the Steele dossier also pretty suspect. So, the crux of the argument seems to be that the FBI approved a wire tap under the strong influence of the Democrats without proper justification, but that doesn't really hold water for a whole number of reasons, considering Steele's work was originally done for conservative groups, Page was already under investigation for ties to Russia before the FBI received Steele's dossier, and a lot of what that argument is based on is a very incomplete picture. 

Over and above that... "BS Russia collusion investigation, which by the way they have zero evidence after over a year of investigation"? Let's see... Flynn stepped down after it came out that he had lied about contact with Russian agents before and during the transition, and has now been indicted in federal court for his actions along with Carter Page, the subject of the wire-tap request the memo was written about, Sessions had to recuse himself from the investigation after it came out that he too had lied about Russian meetings he took that he claimed to have forgotten, Papadoupalous was arrested back in June for _his_ role in working with who he believed to be Russian agents and trying to set up meetings with them with campaign higher-ups during the campaign and in fact this whole investigation kicked off when while out drinking with someone in either Canadian or Austrailian intelligence he started drunkenly talking about Russia having the hacked DNC emails, which shocked foreign intelligence enough that someone in the Trump Campaign was aware of that that they alerted the FBI, who started looking it then, _well_ before they knew of the Steele dossier, and then there's Donald Trump Jr. releasing an email chain about the Trump tower meeting, after initially lying and saying it was a meeting about immigration issues, where in response to someone claiming to represent Russian intelligence and having incriminating information about Clinton, replied "if this is what you say it is, I love it," and then took the meeting. Considering there are a number of Trump campaign officials now in jail and/or cooperating with the investigation, a number of Trump Administration officials have had to step down over their ties to Russia, and Trump Jr. himself admitted to _trying_ to collude with Russian agents, I really don't know how you can say there's "no evidence" of any foul play with Russia during the campaign. Flynne, Paige, and Popadoupalous would all tel you a very different story, at least, as they're now sitting behind bars for their involvement.


----------



## VC4Ever

How can I take someone seriously, who actually believes that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning the election. 

You haven’t answered one of my points in a matter that I haven’t heard from someone talking on CNN.

I get you are anti-Trump but you are blinded by the facts and what is actually going on here.

More will come out. They will all be exposed. And you can either start to understand what is really going on or you will parrot the same corporate media talking points.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

VC4Ever said:


> How can I take someone seriously, who actually believes that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning the election.
> 
> You haven’t answered one of my points in a matter that I haven’t heard from someone talking on CNN.
> 
> I get you are anti-Trump but you are blinded by the facts and what is actually going on here.
> 
> More will come out. They will all be exposed. And you can either start to understand what is really going on or you will parrot the same corporate media talking points.




^ I like how you accuse Drew of drinking the msm kool-aid and claim that he's blinded by facts (  ), yet you end your comment alluding to some kind deep state that's targeting Trump.......for reasons.

Look, it's fine if you support the guy I doubt anyone here cares, but to hand wave away the proven connections between the trump admin and Russia with what basically amounts to "You rebutted my comments with facts I don't like, wah" is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## VC4Ever

Sit back and enjoy the show


----------



## jaxadam

VC4Ever said:


> hookers peeing on Trump


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> How can I take someone seriously, who actually believes that the Russians had anything to do with Trump winning the election.
> 
> You haven’t answered one of my points in a matter that I haven’t heard from someone talking on CNN.
> 
> I get you are anti-Trump but you are blinded by the facts and what is actually going on here.
> 
> More will come out. They will all be exposed. And you can either start to understand what is really going on or you will parrot the same corporate media talking points.


Blinded by the facts?  

But, what the hell, in the spirit of friendly debate... What exactly was presented in the Nunes memo that hasn't already been said by Fox News for the last several months to the past year? What is actually _new_ in that memo?

And are you saying Sessions did NOT recuse himself due to undisclosed meetings with Russia, Flynne did NOT step down for previously undisclosed meetings with Russia, and that Don Trump Jr's emails about setting up a meeting with Russian agents to discuss potentially damaging intel from Russian intelligence don't actually exist?


----------



## VC4Ever

Ok ass-uming your said Russian instances did occur, why is it that after over a year of “investigation” haven’t they found anything that actually shows anything whatsoever that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump.



What exactly did the Russians do in these supposed secret meeting? You seem to know sooo much. Please explain it because so far no one can.

Over a year of investigation and secret surveillance (which they flat out denied was going on) and still nothing.

And why do you still ignore the fact the the Clinton camp worked with and paid the Russians to create a fake Pee dossier. Is this not collusion? Is there a double standard here?

You keep touting your corporate media talking points and ass-ume I only get mine from “Fox and Friends”


----------



## Explorer

VC4Ever said:


> What exactly did the Russians do in these supposed secret meeting? You seem to know sooo much. Please explain it because so far no one can.
> 
> Over a year of investigation and secret surveillance (which they flat out denied was going on) and still nothing.


Sooo.... you're entirely ignorant of Manafort, Gates and Flynn? Or are you just in denial of reality?

That's the problem with engaging in falsehood when making one's case. One just winds up losing all credibility.

I'll be impressed if, instead of having to lie, you address those foundations for the further charges to come in the investigation.

You also skipped the fact that Trump Jr. himself confessed to meeting with the Russians to get hold of materials to influence the election. What is your explanation for Trump Jr.'s confessing to that?


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> Sooo.... you're entirely ignorant of Manafort, Gates, Papadapolous and Page? Or are you just in denial of reality?
> 
> That's the problem with engaging in falsehood when making one's case. One just winds up losing all credibility.
> 
> I'll be impressed if, instead of having to lie, you address those foundations for the further charges to come in the investigation.
> 
> You also skipped the fact that Trump Jr. himself confessed to meeting with the Russians to get hold of materials to influence the election. What is your explanation for Trump Jr.'s confessing to that?



Way to dodge the fact again that THE Clinton camp was the one paying the Russians to create a fake dossier that resulted in the illegal surveillance of a political opponent to influence an election. And all the time flat out denying that they were surveillancing at all.

Until you frothing at the mouth anti-Trumper’s acknowledge that fact then we talk about your fairy tail Russian collusion with Trump. No hard facts, or results, only speculations that have gone on for the better part of a year.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

VC4Ever said:


> Way to dodge the fact again that THE Clinton camp was the one paying the Russians to create a fake dossier that resulted in the illegal surveillance of a political opponent to influence an election. And all the time flat out denying that they were surveillancing at all.


Source?


----------



## VC4Ever

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf

As a reference to the daily lies, Here’s CNN the most trusted name in news with NYT editor Matthew Rosenberg flat out denying any surveillance was happening.


----------



## Randy

Sounds like rewriting of history to me. All the "no we weren't illegally wiretapping" statements by the former admin/DOJ were regarding Trump's claim that Obama ordered a warrantless wiretap of Trump Tower, which was ultimately debunked. Did you forget that?

Where's the claim nobody from the Trump campaign was ever wiretapped for any reason at all?

And again, Trump's chosen the heads of all relevant departments at this point... if there's some incredible illegal spycraft that was going on, how come they haven't conducted their own special investigation and how come there haven't been any indictments of Clinton/Obama associates for it?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

So, your proof of HC colluding with Russia (thus triggering the mueller investigation with the dossier) is the Nunes memo!? A document that shows the Russia investigation was sparked because of Pap rambbling on about his meetings with Russian officals to an Australian diplomat?

With investigative prowess like that Mueller and the boys better watch out with a tip top mind like you out on the loose


----------



## Explorer

VC4Ever said:


> Way to dodge the fact again that THE Clinton camp was the one paying the Russians to create a fake dossier that resulted in the illegal surveillance of a political opponent to influence an election. And all the time flat out denying that they were surveillancing at all.
> 
> Until you frothing at the mouth anti-Trumper’s acknowledge that fact then we talk about your fairy tail Russian collusion with Trump. No hard facts, or results, only speculations that have gone on for the better part of a year.


Just out of curiosity, who initially funded the Steele dossier, long before Clinton? Please acknowledge the facts that undermine your fairy "tail."

And, once that's acknowledged, why did that group align with Democrats?

In case you didn't know, that funding is hard fact, as are the facts which you skipped in my previous post. It's obvious to everyone when you skip actually addressing those facts, as well as you needing to indulge in insults instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.


----------



## VC4Ever

Lol you still don’t get it...I’ll keep saying it. Maybe it will set in and shake up the deep brainwash you all got.

They relied on a fake piss-gate dossier paid for by the DNC to the Russians to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Without the dossier they would not of obtained said warrant.

You don’t believe the memo, yet you believe CNN, MSNBC, Colbert, SNL.

Don’t worry. More is coming. 

/Frothing at the mouth Anti-Trump thead.

What a waste of time. All you all do is parrot the MSM with smug arrogance.

Peace out.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Ok ass-uming your said Russian instances did occur, why is it that after over a year of “investigation” haven’t they found anything that actually shows anything whatsoever that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did the Russians do in these supposed secret meeting? You seem to know sooo much. Please explain it because so far no one can.
> 
> Over a year of investigation and secret surveillance (which they flat out denied was going on) and still nothing.
> 
> And why do you still ignore the fact the the Clinton camp worked with and paid the Russians to create a fake Pee dossier. Is this not collusion? Is there a double standard here?
> 
> You keep touting your corporate media talking points and ass-ume I only get mine from “Fox and Friends”


Ok, a couple of observations here.

_"...why is it that after over a year of “investigation” haven’t they found anything that actually shows anything whatsoever that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump." _Well, because that's not what the investigation is trying to determine. Trump's doing his damndest to paint it otherwise, but the investigation isn't trying to determine how Trump won, or whether or not Russia changed the outcome. What they're trying to determine is if the Trump campaign knowingly accepted help from the Russians. Even if Trump had lost the election, that would have been illegal. Whether or not it changed the outcome is irrelevant.

_"What exactly did the Russians do in these supposed secret meeting?" _The point of the investigation is to determine if meetings DID occur (and at a minimum we know the Trump camp tried to set them up, first with Popadoupalos and next with Trump Jr), and if so what happened. However, at a bare minimum, the timing of the Trump Tower meeting emails and on-site meeting is about right to have been about negotiating the Russian release of the hacked DNC emails to Wikilinks - Trump started mentioning a revelation about Clinton after Trump Jr. received the email and agreed to meet, and it wasn't long after that meeting that the email dump went live on the Wikileaks site. At present we have no proof that that actually happened, of course, it's totally circumstantial, but the timing is about right.

_"Over a year of investigation and secret surveillance (which they flat out denied was going on) and still nothing." _Close. The FBI denied they had wiretapped _Trump_, after he accused them of doing so. They never denied they had wiretapped any of his associates, including Paige.

_"And why do you still ignore the fact the the Clinton camp worked with and paid the Russians to create a fake Pee dossier." _Well, because they didn't. They hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research on Trump (partly because conservative groups had already done so in the primary, so they had a head start), who in turn hired Steele. Steele, in turn, who was a British citizen and a former British intelligence agent, reached out to his network or anything they new about Trump, and what came back became his dossier. The way you talk about it makes it sound like it was a knowingly-constructed work of fiction drafted by Russia - rather, Steele's report was about what Russian intelligence were saying about Trump. Opposition research is pretty typical in political campaigns - unfortunately for Trump, a longshot look at his foreign business dealings turned out a heck of a lot of suspicious connections.

_"You keep touting your corporate media talking points and ass-ume I only get mine from “Fox and Friends”" _Two things here - first, since when is Fox not a corporation? And second. I never said YOU got your "talking points" from Fox and Friends, I merely pointed out that nothing in the memo hadn't already been claimed by Fox and Friends, as a convenient example of right-wing media, before its release.

...except, a Boston.com story acxtually made an observation I had missed. The one truly NEW thing to come out of this memo, was that this is the first time a Trump supporter or Trump-friendly media outlet has gone on record admitting that the Russia investigation actually predates the Steele dossier, and was based on Papadoupolos in July 2016, and that in turn the investigation had been going on for about three months before the initial Page wiretap was requested, allegedly based on the Steele Dossier, which didn't make its way to the FBI until _after_ the investigation was opened. That is an observation that badly undercuts both the point the memo is arguing for, and that you yourself are trying to argue, namely that the Russia investigation is based on the Steele dossier, which you believe to be fabricated. It's not - the investigation is based on Papadoupalos.


----------



## Drew

Also, the Times, the Post, and notable liberal hatchet site the Wall Street Journal are now reporting that the FBI _did_ tell the FISA court that Steele had been paid by a political entity, and the court still considered the case warranted a wire tap. which sort of neuters the memo's whole argument.


----------



## VC4Ever

Yup. I totally believe everything you have to say.

It’s only illegal if Trump got help from the Russians. 

Don’t worry about the DNC doing it. Nothing to see here folks...


----------



## Explorer

VC4Ever said:


> Lol you still don’t get it...I’ll keep saying it. Maybe it will set in and shake up the deep brainwash you all got.
> 
> They relied on a fake piss-gate dossier paid for by the DNC to the Russians to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil the Trump campaign. Without the dossier they would not of obtained said warrant.


In other words, you won't or can't say who funded the dossier initially. It's not a secret, but that fact does undermine your false narrative.

Also, you having to pile on the insults while being unable to talk about established facts makes it seem you don't have any substance to back up the attitude.


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> In other words, you won't or can't say who funded the dossier initially. It's not a secret, but that fact does undermine your false narrative.
> 
> Also, you having to pile on the insults while being unable to talk about established facts makes it seem you don't have any substance to back up the attitude.



Lol “established facts” . Based on anti-Trump media outlets. I get it.

That’s too funny.

Also what insults did I use? Frothing at the mouth? A little sensitive aren’t we? 

Here are 16 things the media do not want you to know about the Nunes memo:


The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Using what it knew was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, in October of 2016, the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to install a wiretap to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent — the Trump campaign, specifically Carter Page. This spying would last for a year.
It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to wiretap a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious. As you will see below, a normal court probably would have denied the wiretap.
Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The fact that nothingfrom that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing.
According to the Nunes memo, an “essential” part of the FISA wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which again is a partisan political document created for the Clinton campaign.
So essential was this partisan dossier, Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former-Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.
Not only did the FBI knowingly use a document from a partisan campaign to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the competing campaign, the FBI knew the dossier was mostly “salacious and unverified.” We know this because disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey told us so in June of 2017.
According to the Nunes memo, “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'”
Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wifeworked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign.
Despite a) knowing the dossier was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign b) knowing the dossier was “salacious and unverified” c) knowing Steele was desperate to destroy Trump d) the breathtaking conflict of interest in having an investigator’s own wife working on the dossier, the FBI still went to the FISA court to obtain permission to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent.
In order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all of the conflicts of interest above were withheld from the FISA court — an indefensible (and possibly illegal) lie of omission.
Even worse, in order to legitimize a warrant request based on a piece of partisan opposition research they knew was “salacious and unverified,” the FBI and DOJ used a media report to bolster the findings in the phony dossier. The FBI and DOJ told the court that the media report was independent verification of the dossier. But this was not true, and, according to the Nunes memo, the FBI and DOJ knew this was not true. The truth is that the phony dossier was the source of this media report.
Also hidden from the FISA court was the fact that the FBI obtained Steele as a source but had to fire him in October of 2016 when, in a bid to use his phony dossier to derail the Trump campaign, he leaked his information to the far-left Mother Jones.
Although the FBI and DOJ were willing participants in pushing a “salacious and unverified” narrative against a presidential candidate (primarily through media leaks), this was all hidden from congressional investigators. To begin with, for months, while under oath, Comey said he did not know where the dossier came from — meaning from the Clinton campaign. The Wall Street Journal explains:
We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.

15. All of this dishonesty occurred under Comey, the man our media now hold up as a living saint, a man so desperate to destroy Trump, he not only oversaw those committing the above abuses, he leaked classified information to the news media in order to see a Special Prosecutor appointed against Trump, which his pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, immediately did.
And finally…

16. Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election.


----------



## Explorer

VC4Ever said:


> The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, *created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.*


No. It was later funded by such, but was initially created and funded by another entity. It's hilarious to see you unable to state that fact.

Wanna try to be factual this time? Or is more dishonesty to be expected from you here in P&CE?


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> No. It was later funded by such, but was initially created and funded by another entity. It's hilarious to see you unable to state that fact.
> 
> Wanna try to be factual this time? Or is more dishonesty to be expected from you here in P&CE?



Lol is that all you got? Funded in the beginning or jumped on it later. Who gives a rats ass. They helped fund it. Lol.

news flash: 

Yes Democrats and also republicans didn’t want Trump to be President. Ever heard the word “uniparty”


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

This is like watching a dog chase it's own tail


----------



## VC4Ever

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> This is like watching a dog chase it's own tail



This is like talking to Don Lemon.


----------



## Science_Penguin

VC4Ever said:


> Yup. I totally believe everything you have to say.
> 
> It’s only illegal if Trump got help from the Russians.
> 
> Don’t worry about the DNC doing it. Nothing to see here folks...



Aaaaaaaand there's the sidestep.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Lol “established facts” . Based on anti-Trump media outlets. I get it.
> 
> That’s too funny.
> 
> Also what insults did I use? Frothing at the mouth? A little sensitive aren’t we?
> 
> Here are 16 things the media do not want you to know about the Nunes memo:
> 
> 
> The so-called Russian Dossier, the creation of Fusion GPS and former British spy Christopher Steele, is a political document — namely, opposition research, created for the Democrat National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
> Using what it knew was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign, in October of 2016, the FBI and DOJ obtained a FISA warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to install a wiretap to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent — the Trump campaign, specifically Carter Page. This spying would last for a year.
> It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to wiretap a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious. As you will see below, a normal court probably would have denied the wiretap.
> Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The fact that nothingfrom that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing.
> According to the Nunes memo, an “essential” part of the FISA wiretap application was the Steele dossier, which again is a partisan political document created for the Clinton campaign.
> So essential was this partisan dossier, Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former-Deputy Director of the FBI, admitted in December that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” without the dossier.
> Not only did the FBI knowingly use a document from a partisan campaign to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the competing campaign, the FBI knew the dossier was mostly “salacious and unverified.” We know this because disgraced former-FBI Director James Comey told us so in June of 2017.
> According to the Nunes memo, “Steele told [former FBI official Bruce] Ohr, he ‘was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.'”
> Ohr, who was part of the FBI’s anti-Trump Russian investigation, was not only friendly with Steele, Ohr’s own wifeworked with Steele at Fusion GPS doing opposition research (the dossier) against Trump for the Clinton campaign.
> Despite a) knowing the dossier was opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign b) knowing the dossier was “salacious and unverified” c) knowing Steele was desperate to destroy Trump d) the breathtaking conflict of interest in having an investigator’s own wife working on the dossier, the FBI still went to the FISA court to obtain permission to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent.
> In order to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, all of the conflicts of interest above were withheld from the FISA court — an indefensible (and possibly illegal) lie of omission.
> Even worse, in order to legitimize a warrant request based on a piece of partisan opposition research they knew was “salacious and unverified,” the FBI and DOJ used a media report to bolster the findings in the phony dossier. The FBI and DOJ told the court that the media report was independent verification of the dossier. But this was not true, and, according to the Nunes memo, the FBI and DOJ knew this was not true. The truth is that the phony dossier was the source of this media report.
> Also hidden from the FISA court was the fact that the FBI obtained Steele as a source but had to fire him in October of 2016 when, in a bid to use his phony dossier to derail the Trump campaign, he leaked his information to the far-left Mother Jones.
> Although the FBI and DOJ were willing participants in pushing a “salacious and unverified” narrative against a presidential candidate (primarily through media leaks), this was all hidden from congressional investigators. To begin with, for months, while under oath, Comey said he did not know where the dossier came from — meaning from the Clinton campaign. The Wall Street Journal explains:
> We also know the FBI wasn’t straight with Congress, as it hid most of these facts from investigators in a briefing on the dossier in January 2017. The FBI did not tell Congress about Mr. Steele’s connection to the Clinton campaign, and the House had to issue subpoenas for Fusion bank records to discover the truth. Nor did the FBI tell investigators that it continued receiving information from Mr. Steele and Fusion even after it had terminated him. The memo says the bureau’s intermediary was Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, incredibly, worked for Fusion.
> 
> 15. All of this dishonesty occurred under Comey, the man our media now hold up as a living saint, a man so desperate to destroy Trump, he not only oversaw those committing the above abuses, he leaked classified information to the news media in order to see a Special Prosecutor appointed against Trump, which his pal, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, immediately did.
> And finally…
> 
> 16. Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election.



Oh, hey, look, you read Breitbart!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/03/16-nunes-memo-bombshells-media-not-want-know/

At least I'm capable of writing my own posts, rather than copying and pasting from the media arm of the Trump campaign. But hey, who's counting.  

Meanwhile, after your little dodge Science Penguin already called you out on, you still haven't really addressed any of my replies to you - that we've actually found quite a LOT of evidence of interaction with Russia in the Trump campaign and a number of former members have either resigned, recused themselves, been indicted, or taken plea bargain deals because of the investigation, for one. 

I mean, even Breitbart reported that Manafort and Flynn got indicted, and Papadoupalous took a plea-bargain deal, right? You know that that happened, right?


----------



## Randy

On Fox News website, from Gowdy who co-authored the memo. Does that meet VC4's standards? 



> There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy said. "So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’ meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there’s going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier.”



http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...s-not-any-way-discredit-mueller-investigation


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> Oh, hey, look, you read Breitbart!
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/03/16-nunes-memo-bombshells-media-not-want-know/
> 
> At least I'm capable of writing my own posts, rather than copying and pasting from the media arm of the Trump campaign. But hey, who's counting.
> 
> Meanwhile, after your little dodge Science Penguin already called you out on, you still haven't really addressed any of my replies to you - that we've actually found quite a LOT of evidence of interaction with Russia in the Trump campaign and a number of former members have either resigned, recused themselves, been indicted, or taken plea bargain deals because of the investigation, for one.
> 
> I mean, even Breitbart reported that Manafort and Flynn got indicted, and Papadoupalous took a plea-bargain deal, right? You know that that happened, right?



I have a feeling all you do is .

Anywoo, as far me dodging or sidestepping as mr science penguin would say, that post I did was suppose to be sarcastic. I’m not surprised you didn’t get it as you actually think “the Russians did it”.

You claim getting help from Russians is illegal right? Well we have just confirmed that the DNC actually exchanged money to the Russians to create part of the dossier. Shouldn’t they be in jail according to your logic?

As far as trumps campaign and Russian involvement , there’s nothing there. If there was it would have been found by now. They have nothing there is nothing. 
This investigation will go on forever and you will be there on your computer scanning to find the next CNN hit piece.

But don’t you worry mr , the real truth will come out and I’m afraid it won’t be in your favour.

Have fun  with this little circle jerk you guys have here.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> On Fox News website, from Gowdy who co-authored the memo. Does that meet VC4's standards?
> 
> 
> 
> http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...s-not-any-way-discredit-mueller-investigation



Yes he also said he has found no evidence of Russian collusion with trump or his campaign.  Or did you miss that?


----------



## VC4Ever

Even CNN agrees with me.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> I have a feeling all you do is .
> 
> Anywoo, as far me dodging or sidestepping as mr science penguin would say, that post I did was suppose to be sarcastic. I’m not surprised you didn’t get it as you actually think “the Russians did it”.
> 
> You claim getting help from Russians is illegal right? Well we have just confirmed that *the DNC actually exchanged money to the Russians to create part of the dossier. *Shouldn’t they be in jail according to your logic?
> 
> As far as trumps campaign and Russian involvement , there’s nothing there. *If there was it would have been found by now. *They have nothing there is nothing.
> This investigation will go on forever and you will be there on your computer scanning to find the next CNN hit piece.
> 
> But don’t you worry mr , the real truth will come out and I’m afraid it won’t be in your favour.
> 
> Have fun  with this little circle jerk you guys have here.




Two parts bolded for emphasis.

Could you explain what you mean by the first, that the "DNC exchanged money to the Russians to create part of the dossier." First, your phrasing is credibly odd, either by design or by accident. More to the point, though, that's an _extremely_ generous interpretation of what happened - the DNC hired Fusion GPS to look into Trump's overseas business dealings, Fusion GPS hired Steele, who was a known expert on Russia and was well connected there, and he collected information about contact between Russia and the Trump camp. If you want to call that having the Russians "create" part of the dossier, well, that's a pretty giant stretch of the term - it's not like this was a creative writing assignment.

Second part, that nothing was found? From a sources you'll actually trust:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ck-gates-to-surrender-to-special-counsel.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lty-in-connection-to-russia-probe-who-is.html
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-lawyer-emails/index.html
Three arrests, and Trump Jr. himself tweeted out an email confirming someone claiming to be a Russian agent contacted him claiming to have damaging intel on Clinton, and he eagerly accepted.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> Two parts bolded for emphasis.
> 
> Could you explain what you mean by the first, that the "DNC exchanged money to the Russians to create part of the dossier." First, your phrasing is credibly odd, either by design or by accident. More to the point, though, that's an _extremely_ generous interpretation of what happened - the DNC hired Fusion GPS to look into Trump's overseas business dealings, Fusion GPS hired Steele, who was a known expert on Russia and was well connected there, and he collected information about contact between Russia and the Trump camp. If you want to call that having the Russians "create" part of the dossier, well, that's a pretty giant stretch of the term - it's not like this was a creative writing assignment.
> 
> Second part, that nothing was found? From a sources you'll actually trust:
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ck-gates-to-surrender-to-special-counsel.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lty-in-connection-to-russia-probe-who-is.html
> https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789839522140166/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/11/politics/trump-jr-russia-lawyer-emails/index.html
> Three arrests, and Trump Jr. himself tweeted out an email confirming someone claiming to be a Russian agent contacted him claiming to have damaging intel on Clinton, and he eagerly accepted.



Dude nothing is coming out of these arrests. It’s the biggest hoax.

And the Trump jr meeting was a setup. She was a Russian lawyer that was anti-Trump, and was caught with pictures of herself at the women’s march.

Were you sad when Keith Olberman retired from politics?

Here’s his last episode. I’m sure it was a sad day for you.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

It's amazing that he cites CNN as a credible source when a pundit says something he agrees with. But when they don't, they're fake news.


----------



## VC4Ever

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> It's amazing that he cites CNN as a credible source when a pundit says something he agrees with, but when they don't, they're fake news.



Wat? Dude are you ok?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

VC4Ever said:


> Wat? Dude are you ok?


I feel like you should be asking yourself this.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Dude nothing is coming out of these arrests. It’s the biggest hoax.
> 
> And the Trump jr meeting was a setup. She was a Russian lawyer that was anti-Trump, and was caught with pictures of herself at the women’s march.
> 
> Were you sad when Keith Olberman retired from politics?
> 
> Here’s his last episode. I’m sure it was a sad day for you.




Ahh, right, giant fake news conspiracy. Meanwhile, Flynn and Manafort are still under arrest, which last I checked means they've been charged with criminal activity.  

Also, Olberman is an idiot. He's basically just a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, but on the left rather than the right. 

Meanwhile, you still haven't answered these questions: 


Drew said:


> But, what the hell, in the spirit of friendly debate... What exactly was presented in the Nunes memo that hasn't already been said by Fox News for the last several months to the past year? What is actually _new_ in that memo?
> 
> And are you saying Sessions did NOT recuse himself due to undisclosed meetings with Russia, Flynne did NOT step down for previously undisclosed meetings with Russia, and that Don Trump Jr's emails about setting up a meeting with Russian agents to discuss potentially damaging intel from Russian intelligence don't actually exist?


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> Yup. I totally believe everything you have to say.
> 
> It’s only illegal if Trump got help from the Russians.
> 
> Don’t worry about the DNC doing it. Nothing to see here folks...


If the DNC did anything illegal, they should also pay for it.

If Trump colluded with the Russian government to try to win an advantage in the election, then he should face up to it. If he thinks nothing was illegal in doing so, then I don't know - but why would he lie about it happening, which he has, period?

If the DNC did something illegal in hiring a foreign investigator to go after this information, then so did the GOP when they started it, and so did Trump when he got the Russians to investigate HRC. There's no logical way for Trump not to come out of this unscathed, unless there is nothing wrong with any of this.

Personally, I think that, as long as no state secrets were compromised in the process, then this is really not as big a deal as everyone is making it into. I think Trump has done worse and may continue to do worse.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Personally, I think that, as long as no state secrets were compromised in the process, then this is really not as big a deal as everyone is making it into. I think Trump has done worse and may continue to do worse.



I (shocker, haha) disagree, pretty strongly.

If Trump _did_ accept help from Russia to defeat Clinton in the 2016 election, then our electoral system was compromised by an enemy nation, plain and simple. As it is, we know they launched a social media influence campaign to try to sow discord, weaken faith in the democratic system, and support Trump, who they saw as a non-democratic candidate and a risk to the US world order, which is concerning enough.

What Trump has done domestically is worse than breaking campaign finance law and accepting something of value from foreign nationals - heck, he actively solicited donations from members of UK Parliament, so we know he was trying to do that anyway.  As far as crimes go that's pretty, well, petty. It's illegal, if he did it he should face appropriate legal consequences, but at the end of the day I too am more concerned about things like his dog-whistling to white nationalist groups.

However, I think the idea that an enemy nation may have potentially tipped the scales in a presidential election is something that we as a country should find _terrifying_.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I (shocker, haha) disagree, pretty strongly.
> 
> If Trump _did_ accept help from Russia to defeat Clinton in the 2016 election, then our electoral system was compromised by an enemy nation, plain and simple. As it is, we know they launched a social media influence campaign to try to sow discord, weaken faith in the democratic system, and support Trump, who they saw as a non-democratic candidate and a risk to the US world order, which is concerning enough.
> 
> What Trump has done domestically is worse than breaking campaign finance law and accepting something of value from foreign nationals - heck, he actively solicited donations from members of UK Parliament, so we know he was trying to do that anyway.  As far as crimes go that's pretty, well, petty. It's illegal, if he did it he should face appropriate legal consequences, but at the end of the day I too am more concerned about things like his dog-whistling to white nationalist groups.
> 
> However, I think the idea that an enemy nation may have potentially tipped the scales in a presidential election is something that we as a country should find _terrifying_.



I know. I agree, except the plain and simple part. I don't think it's at all plain nor at all simple, especially if both parties were both colluding with foreigners to dig up dirt on each other, but that's a personal opinion, I guess. 

And obviously, everyone caught breaking the law in these cases should be punished as necessary to protect the American people.


----------



## VC4Ever

It’s a total hoax. They just hate Trump and couldn’t believe it when he won. They honestly thought Hillary had 90% chance of winning according to the NYT.

They have come up with every excuse in the book to try and derail an election.

They got their asses handed to them and now they were sore losers so they made up the whole Russian fiasco.

Paul Manafort is indicted for something he did years ago and had nothing to do with the Trump campaign

Mike Flynn did his job and they made it out as though talking to A Russian diplomat is evil.

How involved is Hillary with Russia and Uranium One, making millions of dollars as well as Podesta.







The public has been duped and you got people like Drew who is making it his life mission as a trump hater. You are just their little minion son. Time to give it up.


----------



## VC4Ever

Why would the “Russians” be so earger to build a border wall?

Why would the “Russians” find it so important to cut taxes?

Why would the “Russians” care about people getting jobs?

Honestly what are you people smoking here?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I'm smoking the whole Trump refusing to enforce Russian sanctions despite overwhelming majority votes to enforce them. I'm smoking proven and admitted (by his sons) financial ties to Russia.


----------



## VC4Ever

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I'm smoking the whole Trump refusing to enforce Russian sanctions despite overwhelming majority votes to enforce them. I'm smoking proven and admitted (by his sons) financial ties to Russia.



You don’t say?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

This guy's going to keep going in circles no matter what the facts say.


----------



## VC4Ever

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> This guy's going to keep going in circles no matter what the facts say.


Lol your facts are coming from corporate media who admit it’s all BS behind the scenes!

Haha the facts.


----------



## Explorer

I have pointed out before that a conspiracy theory becomes untenable once it has to co-opt everyone into the conspiracy.

At this point, VC4Ever has argued that Republicans originally put together a fake dossier, and that Flynn lied about his acknowledgments of the crminality of his actions as part of the Trump administration, and then engages in both-side-rism to cover trump family acknowledgments of being funded by Russians.

Additionally, when faced with facts like Carter Page's surveillance actually being triggered not by yhe Steele dossier, but by Papadopolous' bragging about Russian contacts to Australian diplomats, or the established fact in the Nunes memo (yes, from Republicans) that Page's surveillance was extended multiple times because each previous warrant successfully yielded evidence, VC4Ever has to flail around to blame those actions by Trump staff and the Repubiclans on Democrats, because the conspiracy and the mainstream media.

Fortunately, it's pretty obvious when he flails and attempts to distract, but does anyone else wonder if VC4Ever thinks he succeeding? It's like that scene in Kung Pow.



As funny as that movie is, it's even funnier to see Wimp Lo in action in real life.


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> I have pointed out before that a conspiracy theory becomes untenable once it has to co-opt everyone into the conspiracy.
> 
> At this point, VC4Ever has argued that Republicans originally put together a fake dossier, and that Flynn lied about his acknowledgments of the crminality of his actions as part of the Trump administration, and then engages in both-side-rism to cover trump family acknowledgments of being funded by Russians.
> 
> Additionally, when faced with facts like Carter Page's surveillance actually being triggered not by yhe Steele dossier, but by Papadopolous' bragging about Russian contacts to Australian diplomats, or the established fact in the Nunes memo (yes, from Republicans) that Page's surveillance was extended multiple times because each previous warrant successfully yielded evidence, VC4Ever has to flail around to blame those actions by Trump staff and the Repubiclans on Democrats, because the conspiracy and the mainstream media.
> 
> Fortunately, it's pretty obvious when he flails and attempts to distract, but does anyone else wonder if VC4Ever thinks he succeeding? It's like that scene in Kung Pow.




Lol. I’m done here. You people are obviously hopeless.


----------



## VC4Ever




----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> You don’t say?


::gasp:: Politicians! Doing diplomacy? I never!


----------



## VC4Ever

Sooo how much money did the Clinton campaign get from Saudi Arabia?

Anyone, anyone? Bueller?


----------



## Explorer

Rather than engage in substance, Wimp Lo posts picture to advance his all-encompassing conspiracy theory.

Unwilling... or just incapable?


----------



## Science_Penguin

VC4Ever said:


> Sooo how much money did the Clinton campaign get from Saudi Arabia?
> 
> Anyone, anyone? Bueller?



And might I add, Benghazi Emails Clinton hoax fake news Mainstream Media Benghazi alternative facts fake news fake news "Lock her up!" Emails Benghazi hoax.

I mean, after all that, I'm surprised everyone in this thread isn't getting it through their heads that this Trump collusion thing is a complete hoax.


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> Rather than engage in substance, Wimp Lo posts picture to advance his all-encompassing conspiracy theory.
> 
> Unwilling... or just incapable?



Dude I posted a video showing that behind the scenes people at CNN admit the Russia investigation is a hoax.

What more do you want?


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> Rather than engage in substance, Wimp Lo posts picture to advance his all-encompassing conspiracy theory.
> 
> Unwilling... or just incapable?



Dude I posted a video showing that behind the scenes people at CNN admit the Russia investigation is a hoax.

What more do you want?


----------



## VC4Ever

Science_Penguin said:


> And might I add, Benghazi Emails Clinton hoax fake news Mainstream Media Benghazi alternative facts fake news fake news "Lock her up!" Emails Benghazi hoax.
> 
> I mean, after all that, I'm surprised everyone in this thread isn't getting it through their heads that this Trump collusion thing is a complete hoax.



Way to put words in my mouth...

To bad I never said any of that. 

You can’t even admit she received a substantial amount of money from a foreign country. 

This is you——>


----------



## Explorer

Actually, I'm mildly curious about something.

@VC4Ever - what would convince you that George Papadopolous was the initial reason for Carter Page winding up the target of a FISA warrant?

You've rejected the Australian acknowledgment of their concern over Papadopolous' brags, and their contacting the FBI to inform them of such, as being true. (The reson for your rejection is still unknown, so an explanation would be interesting.)

You've been arguing that the multiple FISA warrant extensions on Page haven't borne evidentiary fruit, even though even the Nunes memo recognizes that reality. (And again, it would be interesting to know why you think the memo is false in that admission, as you embraced it pretty willingly earlier, and made it the support for your viewpoints.)

So... what evidence would convince you that Papadopolous triggered the FISA warrants of Carter Page?

Or... is there *no* reasonable evidence which would convince you?


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> Actually, I'm mildly curious about something.
> 
> @VC4Ever - what would convince you that George Papadopolous was the initial reason for Carter Page winding up the target of a FISA warrant?
> 
> You've rejected the Australian acknowledgment of their concern over Papadopolous' brags, and their contacting the FBI to inform them of such, as being true. (The reson for your rejection is still unknown, so an explanation would be interesting.)
> 
> You've been arguing that the multiple FISA warrant extensions on Page haven't borne evidentiary fruit, even though even the Nunes memo recognizes that reality. (And again, it would be interesting to know why you think the memo is false in that admission, as you embraced it pretty willingly earlier, and made it the support for your viewpoints.)
> 
> So... what evidence would convince you that Papadopolous triggered the FISA warrants of Carter Page?
> 
> Or... is there *no* reasonable evidence which would convince you?



I don’t care! Where is it leading? If it meant so much why isn’t anything happening?

You won’t acknowledge the fact that CNN admits the Russian story is BS and for ratings, being exposed behind the scenes. Yet you still believe everything they pedal to you. 

Why the hell would I believe anything they have to say?

They could say Trump kills bunny rabbits and you would believe it.


----------



## Science_Penguin

VC4Ever said:


> Way to put words in my mouth...
> 
> To bad I never said any of that.
> 
> You can’t even admit she received a substantial amount of money from a foreign country.
> 
> This is you——>



I know you didn't say any of that.

I said it.


----------



## VC4Ever

Science_Penguin said:


> I know you didn't say any of that.
> 
> I said it.



Aaaaaaa there’s the sidestep.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> Rather than engage in substance, Wimp Lo posts picture to advance his all-encompassing conspiracy theory.
> 
> Unwilling... or just incapable?





VC4Ever said:


> Dude I posted a video showing that behind the scenes people at CNN admit the Russia investigation is a hoax.
> 
> What more do you want?


Are you referring to the videos from O'Keefe? He's been caught too many times at deliberately altering footage to be reliable. 


VC4Ever said:


> Even CNN agrees with me.



You really ought to look up O'Keefe stories on the times he's been caught falsifying the story. Were you genuinely unaware of those established facts?


VC4Ever said:


> I don’t care! Where is it leading? If it meant so much why isn’t anything happening?


Since you've missed it, here's where it's led so far:

Two indictments.

Two plea deals.

All the previous were accomplished while holding back charges which can be prosecuted at the state level, nullifying Trump's ability to grant a pardon (only applicable to federal crimes).

It's led to Trump Jr. releasing incriminating evidence on himself *and* on Kushner and Manafort, now part of the public record.

There are also things in progress which the special counsel has not made public yet, in the same way Mueller allowed various Trump administration members to make various claims and give testimony before revealing that he already had evidence which would prove perjury from those same members. 

I did a sumarry a few pages back of what had happened so far. I'll post a link, since you're curious.


VC4Ever said:


> You won’t acknowledge the fact that CNN admits the Russian story is BS and for ratings, being exposed behind the scenes. Yet you still believe everything they pedal to you.
> 
> Why the hell would I believe anything they have to say?
> 
> They could say Trump kills bunny rabbits and you would believe it.


Again I'll point out that my questions relied upon evidence supplied by Republicans and administration members. You're enlarging your conspiracy again to incorporate those Republicans, making your position seem a bit silly.

But, since you raised the issue... why would you believe videos from someone who has been caught falsifying them repeatedly?


----------



## jaxadam

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/05/college-students-oppose-obama-remarks-when-told-theyre-trump


----------



## Explorer

Ah! From January 11th, here's a little summary I wrote of what had been established so far, repeated now for VC4Ever and others who claim to be unaware of them. Enjoy!

****

I was talking to a non-American friend about what seems to be resolved so far, and what information is still forthcoming, in the investigation of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Since there hasn't been anything posted in this topic for a while, I'm going to post a bit of it here.

First off, Mueller has been very intelligent regarding not charging people more than a minimum amount to gain their cooperation. This allows for state attorneys general to bring state charges which would not be pardonable using Trump's federal pardoning power, neutralizing Trump's ability to obstruct justice by removing consequences.

Manafort, Gates and Papadopolous are seemingly settled questions, as is Flynn. Even though Mueller hasn't charged them deeply, they are on the hook, with plenty to choose from for state convictions.

Weirdly enough, one of the FBI source incidents buttressing the FBI investigation of Trump-Russia collusion was being informed by Australian diplomats in Europe that Papadopolous, while drunk/tipsy, had bragged about Russia having hacked Clinton campaign emails. Since it wasn't anything which had been reported in the news, the Australians were concerned that a Trump staffer would have knowledge of Russian hacking, and reported the incident to the FBI.

With information derived from those people, Mueller then held back on releasing it while questioning Jared Kushner. Kushner likely lied when questioned, which means Kushner is caught.

By his own admission, Don Jr. admitted to meeting with Russian representatives with the aim of colluding with Russia to gain illegally gained information regarding Clinton. Even if someone commits a crime unsuccessfully, like collusion or bank robbery, the attempt is still illegal.

Interestingly enough, there might be evidence that Don Jr. took the Russians around to meet Daddy, and that Ivanka also met them. Ivanka didn't list such a meeting on her contacts form, so that may be a problem for her.

There is a lot of evidence that Trump businesses gained their working capital from illegal Russian money laundering. Even the Trump camp kept bragging about Russians being the main source of their funds. Now it turns out that Mueller has been issuing subpoenas for banking records, and it's likely that he also has Trump's tax returns.

The Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytics, and worked with the RNC to place online ads. It is now being investigated by Mueller whether the Trump campaign was working with Russia in the ad campaigns, and if the Trump campaign was illegally sharing voter information with Russia to allow Russian ads to be targeted to certain American demographics.

There is now contemporaneous proof, in written memos by those Comey told, that Trump pressured Comey to drop the investigation. Even though Trump's assertions that he never did so already faced the burden of Trump's history of proven dishonesty, a contemporaneous memo from a trained FBI agent removes this aspect from the realm of a "he said, he said" situation.

As Pence was likely around for discussion of how to deal with the public revelation of the trmp Tower meeting with the Russians, and how to conceal it, Pence is not off the hook. As he is a lawyer, he's actually held to a higher standard, so it will be interesting to see where that goes.

Most recently, Trump has threatened a lawsuit over the recent book. Oddly enough, Gorka confirmed that he had been instructed to cooperate with author Wolff, and had met Wolff in Priebus' West Wing office while Wolff was waiting for Steve Bannon. Gorka had only intended to talk about how untrustworthy Wolff is, but only served to prove Trump a liar yet again, this time regarding Trump's claims that Wolff hadn't had access to the White House.

On a strange related note, Trump sexual assault accuser Summer Zervos got an unintended boost from Trump's threat of a lawsuit over the book because Trump had previously argued that he didn't have time for a lawsuit as president. Zervos is also helped by a victorious legal argument made by Kellyanne Conway's husband, that a sitting president (Clinton at the time) could be sued for sexual behavior while in office.

Also recently, Republican leaders in Congress turned out to be lying in their characterization of testimony from Fusion GPS, which was legally released to the public by Feinstein after the fusion GPS founders begged for the truth to be released to disprove Republican lies. It's unfortunate that Republicans are playing dishonest politics purely for the goal of derailing a legitimate investigation of a foreign government's interference in a US election, as this removes actual patriotism as a factual talking point.

Anyway, it turns out that dossier author Steele was so concerned about what he thought was a likely "crime in progress" that he contacted the FBI with the information he was gathering... only to learn that they already had a source within the campaign for that. I have to assemble a timeline, but I think it's unlikely to have been Papadopolous at that point, which means there is likely another undiscovered source for the information.

And now, Trump's lawyers are reportedly attempting to come to an agreement with Mueller regarding Trump testifying.

----

At this point, I do believe the one consistent end point pursued by the Russians during the campaign was an end to economic sanctions. As such sanctions were hurting Russian gangsters, including Putin cronies, this makes sense, and having the sanctions strengthened by Congress and taken out of the Trump White House's hands was probably a great blow against Trump and Putin.

I don't know how long things will take from here, but I don't think they will end well for Donald Trump's presidency.

I'm now looking forward to sniping remarks from those simple-minded enough to assume the grownups here are as easily distracted as the simple. Bonus points for brevity, inability to address the mass of proven facts supporting collusion and obstruction, and both-siderism with no actual proof of both sides.... *laugh*

Have at it!

****

I especially like that I nailed the prediction of much of the contents of VC4Ever's posts. FTW!


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/05/college-students-oppose-obama-remarks-when-told-theyre-trump



And people liked and shared those memes with Hitler quotes attributed to Taylor Swift.

That article is so poorly written anyways and leaves out so much information. Did they have a control group that knew those lines were from Obama and agreed with them? Who's to say these same folks they questioned wouldn't still have disliked specific lines if they knew they were from Obama? I preferred Obama to Trump so far, but there were many things on which I disagreed with him.


----------



## VC4Ever

Dear Explorer,

It’s absolutely hilarious how hard you try to sound like are right.

You believe 2 faced liars as though they were your god.


Did you watch the full video of project veritas?

That must be some serious editing then. He’s a genius! 

So what you are saying is that the video is completely taken out of context? Were they talking about something other than Russia? Maybe they were talking about camels? Yes that’s it, it was really all just about camels.

You discredit everything without hesitation if it doesn’t fit your narrow Russian narrative. You sir are completely brainwashed.

There is literally no point arguing here. You are in a trance and you can’t break out

Back to listening to this guy


----------



## VC4Ever

spudmunkey said:


> And people liked and shared those memes with Hitler quotes attributed to Taylor Swift.
> 
> That article is so poorly written anyways and leaves out so much information. Did they have a control group that knew those lines were from Obama and agreed with them? Who's to say these same folks they questioned wouldn't still have disliked specific lines if they knew they were from Obama? I preferred Obama to Trump so far, but there were many things on which I disagreed with him.




More leftist skepticism. These guys will take anything and find something. No twisted angle left unimagined.


----------



## spudmunkey

VC4Ever said:


> More leftist skepticism. These guys will take anything and find something. No twisted angle left unimagined.



Is there anything about me that would indicate anything other than the propensity to question poor reporting from both sides (considering I don't really post here, you have nothing to go on)? No? OK, so who's "twisting angles"? And to answer your next question, No, I don't believe Obama deserved his 2nd term and voted accordingly.


----------



## VC4Ever

So basically this forum is all about how the Russian narrative is 100% right and that everything you get from the MSM is also 100% right.

Anything other than that, you might as well shoot your foot. 

Nice talking to you guys. Enjoy parroting the 2 faced liar news.


----------



## spudmunkey

You're making the mistake of associating anyone with a shared disagreement about one thing into a collective that must clearly oppose you at every turn, on every issue. The extremes are vocal, but not the majority. Just as the folks on Yahoo! News comments who chant "TRUMP WINS AGAIN, LIBTARD!!! MAGGGA!!!" on every article, even if it's about plus-sized bikini models or a new Infiniti crossover, are not the majority of the right leaning opinions.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/05/college-students-oppose-obama-remarks-when-told-theyre-trump


9:16


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> 9:16




Ha, wait...so at least one of their quotes came from a White House correspondence dinner, which is basically a comedy routine and is often sarcastic and purposefully-extreme? So not something people should take seriously as legitimate quotes about policy, as they were presented?


----------



## VC4Ever

spudmunkey said:


> Ha, wait...so at least one of their quotes came from a White House correspondence dinner, which is basically a comedy routine and is often sarcastic and purposefully-extreme? So not something people should take seriously as legitimate quotes about policy, as they were presented?



I think you are missing the fundemental point here. That if you ask people on the streets of somewhere like New York, a democratic city, do you agree with what Trump said on any subject/matter at all, they will respond with the predictable opposing comments.

It’s pretty simple but I can see how it has to be analyzed to the 9th degree.


----------



## spudmunkey

"This quote from Obama, meant as a joke and not real life, was disagreed with by people who thought another person said it".

I'll say that I didn't research the rest of the quotes and sources, but just the one is a chink in the armor of the "research", as blatant as it is.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> I think you are missing the fundemental point here. That if you ask people on the streets of somewhere like New York, a democratic city, do you agree with what Trump said on any subject/matter at all, they will respond with the predictable opposing comments.
> 
> It’s pretty simple but I can see how it has to be analyzed to the 9th degree.


My point was that if you ask someone what they think of someone they disagree with's policies, they will say they disagree with them, whether they are that person's policies or not.

The point here being that right wing America didn't like Obamacare, but supported Mitt Romney who passed a more extreme version. Or there's the video where people are asked if they prefer Obamacare or the ACA, and they prefer the ACA because it's affordable and Obamacare isn't.


----------



## VC4Ever

spudmunkey said:


> "This quote from Obama, meant as a joke and not real life, was disagreed with by people who thought another person said it".
> 
> I'll say that I didn't research the rest of the quotes and sources, but just the one is a chink in the armor of the "research", as blatant as it is.



Trump could literally say that “there is finally a cure for cancer and I am going to release it”, and the democrats would be like “who does this guy think he is trying to save people’s lives”

It’s written on everyone of the democrats faces at the SOTU. They couldn’t agree on anything.


----------



## VC4Ever

VC4Ever said:


> Trump could literally say that “there is finally a cure for cancer and I am going to release it”, and the democrats would be like “who does this guy think he is trying to save people’s lives”





StevenC said:


> My point was that if you ask someone what they think of someone they disagree with's policies, they will say they disagree with them, whether they are that person's policies or not.
> 
> The point here being that right wing America didn't like Obamacare, but supported Mitt Romney who passed a more extreme version. Or there's the video where people are asked if they prefer Obamacare or the ACA, and they prefer the ACA because it's affordable and Obamacare isn't.



Hey man I agree with you. The republicans were all for Obamacare. It really is a uniparty.

Trump isn’t even a republican, that’s why they all hate him. It’s almost impossible to get anything done. You think McCain or Lindsay Graham are with Trump. Hell no. 

The 2 party system is a joke. Trump is truely the outsider.


----------



## thraxil

VC4Ever said:


> Trump could literally say that “there is finally a cure for cancer and I am going to release it”, and the democrats would be like “who does this guy think he is trying to save people’s lives”



I don't know about "democrats", but I do know that myself and a lot of progressives who disagree with Trump on nearly anything were right with Trump on pulling out of the TPP. That was a silver lining of his getting elected. (of course, now that Trump has rich donors to placate, he's talking about bringing it back).

This whole "my team vs their team" approach to politics is what is destroying the country. Policies matter, not parties.


----------



## bostjan

thraxil said:


> This whole "my team vs their team" approach to politics is what is destroying the country. Policies matter, not parties.



I'm so glad I'm not the only one who feels that way.



VC4Ever said:


> Trump isn’t even a republican



By definition, he is, though, but I think I see where you are going...



VC4Ever said:


> , that’s why they all hate him. It’s almost impossible to get anything done. You think McCain or Lindsay Graham are with Trump. Hell no.



He's getting a lot of resistance from within congress, for sure. But, to be fair, a very large part of that is because he tells congress one thing and then tweets something contrary to that. How can someone follow a leader when that leader is all over the place? Another part of that is that the very platform that got Trump elected had a lot to do with reforming congress - abolition of lobbyists, establishment of term limits, etc., for any career politician to adhere to that is a sort of political suicide. It's what this country needs, but it's also never going to happen because the people who have to vote on making it happen are the same people who have the most invested in making sure it does not happen.



VC4Ever said:


> The 2 party system is a joke. Trump is truely the outsider.



The two party system is not a joke, it's a fatal flaw in US government. It's "get with the program or be replaced" for career politicians. The root of the problem is the fact that "politician" is a career option. It's supposed to be a form of public service, not public support. Everything has gone backwards in Washington since that change took place over a century ago.

Trump is an outsider, of sorts, yes. But there are two things going on here: one is Trump's personal agenda and the other is what the common people see in Trump as a leader. I cannot get those two ideas to jive in my own mind. Why do people think that one of the richest men in the world will be their voice against the upper-class elite in politics?! The core of the concept already makes zero sense.

Here's what happened, the way I see it:

1. Trump wanted to make a statement about how shitty the government has become, so he threw his hat into the primary election.
2. The other primary candidates were, as usual, mostly moronic. They also felt Trump's presence was a joke, so they attacked him in moronic ways.
3. Trump called them out for their idiocy, as his natural knee-jerk reaction to moronic attacks against him. As a side effect of this, spectators were like "Hell yeah, you show them!" also a natural reaction. The GOP responded by backing their status quo and going to foreign espionage agencies to dig up dirt on Trump.
4. Most of the most moronic candidate hopefuls were eliminated, leaving Trump and just a few others.
5. Ben Carson was too soft-spoken and took his weird ideas too far into the public eye, so he was eliminated.
6. Cruz and Rubio split the GOP's traditional base, but, because of all of the hullabaloo over Trump, the amount of people who were pissed off at the system and coming out of the woodwork was enough to tip the three-way election to Trump's favour.
7. I don't think Trump expected to actually become the nominee until it was plainly obvious that he might actually become the nominee. At that point, the GOP scrambled to decide to back Trump and switch their shady cloak and dagger bullshit investigations over to Clinton.
8. When Trump became the nominee, all of the people who had felt like their voices were finally heard were energized.
9. Something almost mirror-image to that happened in the DNC, which led to HRC becoming the least exciting candidate in decades, which put Trump into a position where no one knew what was going to happen.
10. The DNC, as typical, overestimated their power, and did nothing for damage control over Clinton's shady past nor for her controversies. Instead, they took to shady espionage-type dealings with foreigners to get dirt on Trump - which they initiated by picking up where the GOP, their opponents, left off. This, in turn, eventually led them to the realization that the GOP had pulled the shady stuff they pulled with regard to investigating Clinton. I think that they only came across this because they were essentially following the GOP's footsteps.
11. The combination of massive problems within the DNC, gerrrymandering by the GOP, the energy backing Trump and the overwhelming "meh" backing Clinton, etc., led to Trump being elected, which I think might have even surprised Trump himself.
12. Trump's base, somewhere along the line, forgot who the fuck Trump actually was and instead associated what they needed in a candidate to be him, which was mostly false, but partly true.
13. Trump is still Trump. Clinton would have probably been just as bad, maybe not, but whatever, we're stuck with Trump, and he's objectively a bad president. The DNC and their base see the shady foreign spy-type stuff as their best shot at taking him down. The GOP sees the hypocrisy in this and wants to call it out, but nobody seems to be able to put two and two together to see how bad this makes everybody look, thinking that using buzz words enough will absolve their side of any wrongdoing or whatever.
14. For people like me, reality set in long ago, that no matter the outcome of the election, the next four years were going to be a dark time. The election polarized so many people. People like me saw facebook turn into a mess, and saw family members stop talking to each other over election bullshit. Meanwhile, local politics still matters more on a day-to-day basis, and still, no one really gives a shit about those policies. Police brutality, environmental stewardship, how we treat visitors to our country, and sexual assault have all come to the forefront of public awareness, and instead of taking the opportunity to deal with these real issues, every single one has turned into a political red-team-vs-blue-team screaming match. Meanwhile, the nation is declining at both the high and low levels.



...but

This is not the end. There's still time for us to wake up from this distraction and go back to work getting shit done. I'm still holding out on hope that when the going gets tough, people will come together and set aside their differences, or better yet, realize just how little those things mattered in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> It’s a total hoax. They just hate Trump and couldn’t believe it when he won. They honestly thought Hillary had 90% chance of winning according to the NYT.




Still waiting for an answer to my questions, by the way.  

Project Veritas has a well-known history of faking things and hacking things out of context - they lost a wrongful termination lawsuit over their ACORN video, for one, and their recent hit piece where they had a woman pretend to be someone Roy Moore had assaulted in Alabama to get the Washington Post to take up the story, the Post did some routine background checking, and filmned themselves busting the woman and then confronting James O'Keefe. So, right off the bat, you're using a source proven to be, as Trump likes to say, "fake news." 

But ignoring that for a second. Let's say that story was actually 100% factual, and CNN really was saying "we have no proof, only suspicion." It was published on June 26th, 2017. On July 11th, 2017, a little more than two weeks later, Trump Jr. tweeted out a series of screenshots of emails he'd sent, where a Russian agent contacted him claiming to have dirt on Clinton, and he eagerly set up the meeting. 

Being perfectly, honest, right up to that point, while I thought the investigation needed to be allowed to run its course, I had doubts it would come up with anything material. There was a lot of smoke and a lot of shady contacts, but the liklihood of actually being able to prove anything seemed pretty low. When Trump Jr tweeted that out, though... Suddenly, _by his own admission_, we had concrete evidence that he had been approached by Russian agents (or, at a minimum, people he _believed_ were Russian agents), and had eagerly accepted their offer of help. 

So, if that's your "evidence" that the Russia investigation is a hoax... Well, your data is a little out of date.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, two notable updates here: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

1) The House committee has voted to authorize the release of the Democrat's rebuttal memo. Trump could, and probably will, seek to block its release... But, a full vote of the House could still release it anyway and there are a growing number of Republicans calling for its release now, as well. 

2) By far the bigger update - Nunes admitted, when pressed on of all places Fox and Friends, that the main assertation of his memo, that the wiretap application failed to disclose that Steele was a researcher working for the DNC, wasn't actually true - it _was_ disclosed, but it was disclosed in a footnote, so when he writes "a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials." what he really means was he doesn't think the font they used was big enough.


----------



## VC4Ever

Lol so desperate to prove the Russian fairy tail narrative.

You discredit project veritas that catches them in their true form unsuspected and you say it’s fake or out of context. The power of brainwashing is strong with this one.

You say it is out of date, lol. The point is they have been pushing this story from the day Trump won the election.

Having seen this you still choose to pedal your “facts” from the very same media outlets that behind the scenes are calling it BS and for ratings.

And then you come on here and spew these same talking points to act as those you are somehow intelligent and know all the facts.

You claim having foriegn countries influencing the election process is illegal, yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that Saudi Arabia and China donate millions of dollars to the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Yet here you are going on about Russia this and Russia that.

Get a life!


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> Get a life!



Yeah Drew, get a life! 

Trump supporters: Sorest winners ever.


----------



## bostjan

"But whaddabout Clinton?"

I thought the thread was about Trump, but Trump's supporters here can't go two consecutive posts without mentioning Clinton.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> Yeah Drew, get a life!
> 
> Trump supporters: Sorest winners ever.


 I mean that in the nicest possible way.


----------



## VC4Ever

bostjan said:


> "But whaddabout Clinton?"
> 
> I thought the thread was about Trump, but Trump's supporters here can't go two consecutive posts without mentioning Clinton.


Aaaaaaand there’s the sidestep.


----------



## VC4Ever

Lol no one here will admit that Saudi Arabia and China are donating millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign.

Just reply with distracting posts like haha he said get a life...


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeah Drew, get a life!
> 
> Trump supporters: Sorest winners ever.


No shit, right?  

All I can say is that if things continue to go the way they have been, this VC4ever guy is going to have one hell of a rude awakening. As it stands there's probably enough evidence to impeach Trump for obstruction of justice purely for firing Comey, but he's been hiring cyber crime staff lately, and the talk of the summer was he was hiring guys with money laundering expertise over the summer, and sure enough that's what brought down Flynn and Manafort. My guess is he thinks there's evidence that the Trump camp WAS aware of the DNC hack and communicated with Russia about it before they released it to Wikileaks, but for the time being that's just a guess. 

Either way, the PredictIt odds of a Trump impeachment have been sitting pretty steady at just shy of 40% for a while now, but that's not something our new Breitbart shrill is willing to consider. 

I mean, seriously, VC4Ever, you're using a video claiming no evidence of collusion released two weeks _before_ Trump Jr. admitted he had met with Russians offering to help his campaign, and a couple months _before _Manafort, Page, and Papadoupalos were all arrested or took plea-bargains? Where the fuck have you been the last eight months?


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Lol no one here will admit that Saudi Arabia and China are donating millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign.
> 
> Just reply with distracting posts like haha he said get a life...


Sure, let's see the evidence.


----------



## Drew

By the way, this was James O'Keefe destroying whatever few shreds of journalistic integrity he may have had: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...page/breaking-news-bar&utm_term=.4de3e811f40f


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> Sure, let's see the evidence.



Since you like NYT here you go.

Watch the documentary “Clinton Cash”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/...-charity.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/

Also don’t you ask yourself, why is Hillary Clinton worth hundreds of millions of dollars as a politician?


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> By the way, this was James O'Keefe destroying whatever few shreds of journalistic integrity he may have had:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-nameage/breaking-news-bar&utm_term=.4de3e811f40f


 Lol Washington post, which is owned by Jeff Bezo who is the richest man in the world and hates Trump.

Lol keep trying there buddy.

It’s called undercover journalism. Exposing the lies, which you love so much.


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> Aaaaaaand there’s the sidestep.



Just here to point out that you are saying I sidestepped [something] by pointing out that whatever Clinton did does not determine guilt nor innocence for Trump.


----------



## VC4Ever

Here you go again:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...esidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims

I’m sure you will come up with some hilarious rebuttal about how it’s a crazy right wing conspiracy.


----------



## VC4Ever

bostjan said:


> Just here to point out that you are saying I sidestepped [something] by pointing out that whatever Clinton did does not determine guilt nor innocence for Trump.




And why the hell not? We got comic book guy Drew, claiming Trump is a Russian agent and I’m simply pointing out the fact that Hillary Clinton is up to her eyeballs with foriegn contributions and with 100’s of millions of dollars as a politician.


----------



## VC4Ever

bostjan said:


> Just here to point out that you are saying I sidestepped [something] by pointing out that whatever Clinton did does not determine guilt nor innocence for Trump.




And why the hell not? We got comic book guy Drew, claiming Trump is a Russian agent and I’m simply pointing out the fact that Hillary Clinton is up to her eyeballs with foriegn contributions and with 100’s of millions of dollars as a politician.


----------



## VC4Ever

Hey Drew here’s a picture you should blow up and make a poster for your bedroom.







Best friends.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wait, do you just have a folder on your computer of people looking at each other happily?


----------



## VC4Ever

MaxOfMetal said:


> Wait, do you just have a folder on your computer of people looking at each other happily?


Doesn’t everyone?

Lots of choices for Drew and you too.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Do you have an angry face folder too? I have so many questions.


----------



## VC4Ever

Ohhh Lordy do I.
















I could go on but I have to go watch CNN for my daily briefing on he Russia investigation. Serious business.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Yep. Totally normal.

Carry on.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Lol Washington post, which is owned by Jeff Bezo who is the richest man in the world and hates Trump.
> 
> Lol keep trying there buddy.
> 
> It’s called undercover journalism. Exposing the lies, which you love so much.


...by telling your own, and hoping that a newspaper falls for them? Give me a break.  O'Keefe tried straight-up making shit up, hoped the Post would bite... and they didn't. And he got caught with his pants down. That's not undercover journalism, that's straight up lying. 



VC4Ever said:


> Here you go again:
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016...esidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims
> 
> I’m sure you will come up with some hilarious rebuttal about how it’s a crazy right wing conspiracy.


Don't even half to try - zero hedge is more of a hack site than Breitbart. Do you have any *actual* evidence that the Saudis were funding the Clinton election? Because getting a $40mm donation in without attracting the attention of regulators would have been just the tiniest bit tricky.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> ...by telling your own, and hoping that a newspaper falls for them? Give me a break.  O'Keefe tried straight-up making shit up, hoped the Post would bite... and they didn't. And he got caught with his pants down. That's not undercover journalism, that's straight up lying.
> 
> 
> Don't even half to try - zero hedge is more of a hack site than Breitbart. Do you have any *actual* evidence that the Saudis were funding the Clinton election? Because getting a $40mm donation in without attracting the attention of regulators would have been just the tiniest bit tricky.



Lol so predictable.


----------



## VC4Ever

I’m sure Drew prefers news anchors and journalists with integrity. This anti-Trumper shows his true colors.



I mean why wouldn’t you trust a guy like this pedaling the Russian fairytale.


----------



## vilk

VC4Ever said:


> And why the hell not? We got comic book guy Drew, claiming Trump is a Russian agent and I’m simply pointing out the fact that Hillary Clinton is up to her eyeballs with foriegn contributions and with 100’s of millions of dollars as a politician.



Which if used as a defense of Trump is called a _tu quoque_ logical fallacy. This is related to _whataboutism_, which is the mainstay of Republican political talking points.

The reality is that Trump's words, actions, policies are all but all but indefensible from an ethical, moral, economic, scientific, or humanist standpoint. The closest thing you've got to a defense is an appeal to hypocrisy, which from a Logic standpoint is fallacious reasoning with regards to being an actual defense. Hey man, if you don't care about being an illogical person who objectively loses arguments, that's your prerogative! Or if you want to just be totally off topic and disparage people unrelated to the conversation at hand, you can go ahead and do that. I'm just letting you know "why the hell not". And I'm letting you know why most intelligent people wont accept any laundry list of Hillary Clinton's sins (or anyone else's for that matter) as a defense of Donald Trump.


----------



## VC4Ever

vilk said:


> Which if used as a defense of Trump is called a _tu quoque_ logical fallacy. This is related to _whataboutism_, which is the mainstay of Republican political talking points.
> 
> The reality is that Trump's words, actions, policies are all but all but indefensible from an ethical, moral, economic, scientific, or humanist standpoint. The closest thing you've got to a defense is an appeal to hypocrisy, which from a Logic standpoint is fallacious reasoning with regards to being an actual defense. Hey man, if you don't care about being an illogical person who objectively loses arguments, that's your prerogative! Or if you want to just be totally off topic and disparage people unrelated to the conversation at hand, you can go ahead and do that. I'm just letting you know "why the hell not". And I'm letting you know why most intelligent people wont accept any laundry list of Hillary Clinton's sins (or anyone else's for that matter) as a defense of Donald Trump.



Ohh so it’s ok she has made 100’s of millions of dollars as a politician. No big deal, nothing to see here. Trump is evil. I have no brain.


Yup more dodging the actual facts. Keep on keeping.


----------



## mongey

VC4Ever said:


> Ohh so it’s ok she has made 100’s of millions of dollars as a politician. No big deal, nothing to see here. Trump is evil. I have no brain.
> 
> 
> Yup more dodging the actual facts. Keep on keeping.


it doesn't matter it Hilary has taken a trillion dollars .if she did it doesn't make anything Trump did excusable .it is just a deflection

"but she did it too" is what my 3 year old says when caught doing the wrong thing


----------



## VC4Ever

mongey said:


> it doesn't matter it Hilary has taken a trillion dollars .if she did it doesn't make anything Trump did excusable .it is just a deflection
> 
> "but she did it too" is what my 3 year old says when caught doing the wrong thing



Yes Trump is evil. I have no facts. I just say everything he does is evil.

There,do I fit in to this cult now?


----------



## narad

Quick question -- why are you here? You don't seem to have ever posted anything about gear. Like, there are other places on the internet that are dedicated to arguing that Trump is a super great guy, if you're looking for a little more group-think.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Since you like NYT here you go.
> 
> Watch the documentary “Clinton Cash”
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/...-charity.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/
> 
> Also don’t you ask yourself, why is Hillary Clinton worth hundreds of millions of dollars as a politician?


Do you have a citation on that "hundreds of millions"? Best I can find is Forbes giving $45M for Hillary and $80M for Bill. Between book deals and speaking engagements over 20 to 30 years, I don't think this is unbelievable.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> Do you have a citation on that "hundreds of millions"? Best I can find is Forbes giving $45M for Hillary and $80M for Bill. Between book deals and speaking engagements over 20 to 30 years, I don't think this is unbelievable.



Just watch the documentary “Clinton Cash”

They were broke after Bill Clinton’s presidency.

Look up the Clinton Foundation and how they go around to foriegn countries, and make deals with dictators, lobbying for their rich billionaire friends in industries like mining.

All the while stuffing their pockets with money.

Look up the Uranium One deal and how they sold 25% of the United States Uranium to Russia. 

I’m sure you’ll find some bs about how it’s all fake a blah blah blah. 

The internet is becoming completely censored by google and Facebook and YouTube.


----------



## mongey

VC4Ever said:


> Yes Trump is evil. I have no facts. I just say everything he does is evil.
> 
> There,do I fit in to this cult now?


FWIW I don't think he's evil . I just think he's a moron .

There is plenty of evidence for that


----------



## spudmunkey

mongey said:


> FWIW I don't think he's evil . I just think he's a moron .
> 
> There is plenty of evidence for that



Trump is a walking Hanlon's Razor.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Just watch the documentary “Clinton Cash”
> 
> They were broke after Bill Clinton’s presidency.
> 
> Look up the Clinton Foundation and how they go around to foriegn countries, and make deals with dictators, lobbying for their rich billionaire friends in industries like mining.
> 
> All the while stuffing their pockets with money.
> 
> Look up the Uranium One deal and how they sold 25% of the United States Uranium to Russia.
> 
> I’m sure you’ll find some bs about how it’s all fake a blah blah blah.
> 
> The internet is becoming completely censored by google and Facebook and YouTube.


So that's a no to a citation?

Also, I'd need a citation on any uranium actually going to Russia, and I'd like to know why you think uranium is a big deal, either. Russia having more uranium isn't any scarier than them having any uranium. Also also, Russia is one of the few countries that wants to expand their nuclear power generation, which is actually a good thing.

Beyond that, this is a Trump thread so I don't see why we shouldn't be discussing Trump related news, like treason which had been rumoured long before his election.


----------



## VC4Ever

narad said:


> Quick question -- why are you here? You don't seem to have ever posted anything about gear. Like, there are other places on the internet that are dedicated to arguing that Trump is a super great guy, if you're looking for a little more group-think.





StevenC said:


> So that's a no to a citation?
> 
> Also, I'd need a citation on any uranium actually going to Russia, and I'd like to know why you think uranium is a big deal, either. Russia having more uranium isn't any scarier than them having any uranium. Also also, Russia is one of the few countries that wants to expand their nuclear power generation, which is actually a good thing.
> 
> Beyond that, this is a Trump thread so I don't see why we shouldn't be discussing Trump related news, like treason which had been rumoured long before his election.


 
Oh so clever...

I told you to go watch a documentary. It’s up to you to find out more. What do you want me to hold your hand along the way? 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/...-company.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/


Watch the documentary like I said earlier if you are interested.


----------



## VC4Ever

Ohhhh and by the way mr Drew, looks like Michael Flynn to file motion for dismissal of all charges against him.

_FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, “first we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.“_

Look out for that one.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Oh so clever...
> 
> I told you to go watch a documentary. It’s up to you to find out more. What do you want me to hold your hand along the way?
> 
> https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/...-company.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/
> 
> 
> Watch the documentary like I said earlier if you are interested.


No need to be rude, but some actual citations would be great.

Also going to second that question of why you've been on a guitar forum for 4 years and only posted in this thread.


----------



## spudmunkey

VC4Ever said:


> _FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, “first we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.“_
> 
> Look out for that one.



If it's true, it's shitty. That said, it's been written about for almost a year. There's articles online mentioning that phrase/event going back to at least March of 2017...and the only sources are websites that have articles with titles like "Deep State Puppets Schiff & Schumer Cook Up Desperate Last-Minute Scheme to Block Trump's Release of FISA Memo" (an actual example).

Flynn also plead guilty. I feel like it's hard to call for a dismissal of charges when you've plead guilty. I'm genuinely serious that i don't know if you can do that.


----------



## VC4Ever

spudmunkey said:


> If it's true, it's shitty. That said, it's been written about for almost a year. There's articles online mentioning that phrase/event going back to at least March of 2017...and the only sources are websites that have articles with titles like "Deep State Puppets Schiff & Schumer Cook Up Desperate Last-Minute Scheme to Block Trump's Release of FISA Memo" (an actual example).
> 
> Flynn also plead guilty. I feel like it's hard to call for a dismissal of charges when you've plead guilty. I'm genuinely serious that i don't know if you can do that.



Let’s see how it plays out.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> No need to be rude, but some actual citations would be great.
> 
> Also going to second that question of why you've been on a guitar forum for 4 years and only posted in this thread.



Only forum that still allows discussion of politics.


----------



## VC4Ever

spudmunkey said:


> If it's true, it's shitty. That said, it's been written about for almost a year. There's articles online mentioning that phrase/event going back to at least March of 2017...and the only sources are websites that have articles with titles like "Deep State Puppets Schiff & Schumer Cook Up Desperate Last-Minute Scheme to Block Trump's Release of FISA Memo" (an actual example).
> 
> Flynn also plead guilty. I feel like it's hard to call for a dismissal of charges when you've plead guilty. I'm genuinely serious that i don't know if you can do that.


----------



## Explorer

I'm guessing... Eric Christian, using a name he started but never got back to. 

Remember, he did the same thing a few times, starting a new name before the old one got banned. 

Interesting... I thought he had listed a location before, which mods could check against real ISP. Maybe he did, which mods could check from his history....


----------



## VC4Ever

Explorer said:


> I'm guessing... Eric Christian, using a name he started but never got back to.
> 
> Remember, he did the same thing a few times, starting a new name before the old one got banned.
> 
> Interesting... I thought he had listed a location before, which mods could check against real ISP. Maybe he did, which mods could check from his history....



Lol wat?

Yea I’m some guy that got banned so I started another account 4 years ago just in case I ever got banned so I could use this account. No wonder you think the Russians did it...

Also the Russians helped me create the account...


----------



## Randy

I hate Hillary Clinton's guts within 1/100th of how much I hate Trump's, so you're barking up the wrong tree. It's a hilarious miscalculation to assume that one or the other but not both can be guilty of illegal and/or immoral practices.


----------



## Explorer

I like how someone is trying to make the case that everyone is reliable only when defending Trump, and when they suddenly admit that someone in the Trump administration has done something wrong, they're in on it. 

So this made me laugh, and reminded me of the flailing going on....


----------



## Xaios

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/pentagon-says-trump-ordered-washington-military-parade-1.3792848

Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> I'm guessing... Eric Christian, using a name he started but never got back to.
> 
> Remember, he did the same thing a few times, starting a new name before the old one got banned.
> 
> Interesting... I thought he had listed a location before, which mods could check against real ISP. Maybe he did, which mods could check from his history....



There is something familiar sounding. This whole ask for a citation, don't get one, and instead something like, "I can't hold your hand", etc. Then again, I've maybe spent a minute or too longer than I should have in the Facebook comments section on political articles, so maybe that's what I'm recalling.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Nah, Eric was more dead pan and would have mentioned faith and family already.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/world/pentagon-says-trump-ordered-washington-military-parade-1.3792848
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?



It might never happen, but...

Whether he's threatening to have Congress members hung for treason when they don't clap for him, bragging about the size of his doomsday button, or nebulously planning a military parade for no occasion other than "we can kick your ass," even if it's being cheeky, it's obviously not satire, and that is exactly why this guy is so frightening for our country, and really, for the world.

Joking about stupid crap like this is really only one step away from trying to do it, and very few people even think he's joking.

As for online sources and documentaries, etc., honestly, we got into this mess in the first place because so many people follow the scrutiny model of "if it sounds like something I might like to believe, it must be true." Anyone can buy a domain for a couple bucks and post anything they want on the internet.

@VC4Ever : I used to think like you (well, sort of), but then Trump Jr. clumbsily dropped a bombshell on everybody and confirmed that he met with the Russians to get dirt on HRC, which he had previously denied vehemently. Ever since then, defending position that the campaign did not meet with Russians has been just impossible, unless you abandon all logic entirely.

I can say that *had* HRC won the election, we *would be* having the same conversation about her instead, but it's all moot, because *Trump won *and *Clinton lost*.



narad said:


> This whole ask for a citation, don't get one, and instead something like, "I can't hold your hand", etc.



That's a valid rhetorical technique. I saw it in a documentary.


----------



## VC4Ever

LOL

It’s all unravelling.


----------



## Randy

Yes, you've solved the cipher. Obama holding the hat of a law enforcement agency which the executive branch oversees. Hot take.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> Yes, you've solved the cipher. Obama holding the hat of a law enforcement agency which the executive branch oversees. Hot take.



Lol. It is when you spy on your political opponent and deny it at the same time.
It’s all going to come out.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> I’m sure you’ll find some bs about how it’s all fake a blah blah blah.



I mean, I should think this is self-obvious... But, someone arguing something is _fake_ is not conclusive proof that it's actually _true_.


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> Lol. It is when you spy on your political opponent and deny it at the same time.
> It’s all going to come out.



Let's zero in on one thing - what is the claim?

A. Obama ordered the FBI to wiretap Trump Tower without a warrant?
B. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower without a warrant?
C. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower with a secret warrant?
D. Someone at the FBI spied on some associate of Trump with some kind of a warrant?
E. Other



John Adams said:


> _There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution._


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Ohhhh and by the way mr Drew, looks like Michael Flynn to file motion for dismissal of all charges against him.
> 
> _FBI Director Andrew McCabe told a teleconference of law enforcement officials, “first we f*ck Flynn, then we f*ck Trump.“_
> 
> Look out for that one.


Of course he did. It's pretty standard when you're tried with breaking the law, to try to get the charges dismissed. As you put it, "Let's see how this plays out."


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Let's zero in on one thing - what is the claim?
> 
> A. Obama ordered the FBI to wiretap Trump Tower without a warrant?
> B. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower without a warrant?
> C. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower with a secret warrant?
> D. Someone at the FBI spied on some associate of Trump with some kind of a warrant?
> E. Other


My money says he won't answer. It's way easier to troll if you don't get pinned down to specifics.


----------



## VC4Ever

VC4Ever said:


> Lol. It is when you spy on your political opponent and deny it at the same time.





bostjan said:


> Let's zero in on one thing - what is the claim?
> 
> A. Obama ordered the FBI to wiretap Trump Tower without a warrant?
> B. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower without a warrant?
> C. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower with a secret warrant?
> D. Someone at the FBI spied on some associate of Trump with some kind of a warrant?
> E. Other



All of the above.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> My money says he won't answer. It's way easier to troll if you don't get pinned down to specifics.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Drew said:
> 
> 
> 
> My money says he won't answer. It's way easier to troll if you don't get pinned down to specifics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll let you keep your welfare check.
Click to expand...


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> All of the above.


 Ok. That wasn't supposed to be a trick question.

The way this comes off to me is that you are upset about something, but you don't know exactly what it is that has you so upset, other than "liberals," and that's not really a good place from whence to start an argument. Something tells me that you don't care, though, and just want to pop in here and spout off, but that could easily be interpreted as trolling for a reaction, especially with the not caring aspect becoming seemingly apparent.

I mean, I won't put words into your mouth, but you could respond to the question with "I don't know, but it's looking like D or maybe C, at the very least" etc.

Saying "all of the above" is basically saying option A is correct and that there is also much more to it than that. I think the case for option "A" however, is virtually nonexistent at this point in time. I don't think Obama really has a motive to make that call. Lack of a clear motive is no absolution, though. But the meat and potatoes of the argument against it is that there is simply no evidence. Read what the Nunes Memo actually says - it doesn't say anything about "A" - no one tapped Trump, Obama wasn't involved, a warrant was granted, etc. Also, the memo itself has a few inconsistencies that might be poor language usage, but whatever the reason, make some details unclear.


----------



## StevenC

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-better-prepared-new-russian-election-n845396

High profile Trump opponent says US not prepared for Russian midterm meddling


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-better-prepared-new-russian-election-n845396
> 
> High profile Trump opponent says US not prepared for Russian midterm meddling



Wait, Russia is meddling in the election, but I thought Russia didn't meddle in our elections. Damn, this whole side of the story coming from Trump's people is difficult to follow. It's so much like OJ Simpson, who didn't do it, but kept telling us how he would have done it if he had...


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> I’ll let you keep your welfare check.



Last warning about the personal attacks. I get that you have no respect for the _politics_ of your opposition and you honestly don't need to, but you still need to treat the _other members_ here with some respect. 

I've gone over it before in this thread but I'll retread. The way the admin/mod panel works now, I no longer have the ability to issue a slap on the wrist. Everything goes straight to the admin and he looks at the reports (and you've been reported several times now) and decides what to do. The last three guys that were in the same situation and didn't heed the warning were all banned for good.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Wait, Russia is meddling in the election, but I thought Russia didn't meddle in our elections. Damn, this whole side of the story coming from Trump's people is difficult to follow. It's so much like OJ Simpson, who didn't do it, but kept telling us how he would have done it if he had...



Senate votes 98-2 to impose sanctions on Russia for meddling in the election
Trump doesn't impose new sanctions
People think there's something going on between Russia and Trump
At least try to act innocent.


----------



## pwsusi

bostjan said:


> Let's zero in on one thing - what is the claim?
> 
> A. Obama ordered the FBI to wiretap Trump Tower without a warrant?
> B. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower without a warrant?
> C. Someone at the FBI wiretapped Trump Tower with a secret warrant?
> D. Someone at the FBI spied on some associate of Trump with some kind of a warrant?
> E. Other



Comey told a Congressional committee last year that the fake dossier was “salacious, unverified.” But he used it anyway, over and over and over again. His fired number-two corrupt G-man, Andrew McCabe, whose wife took $700,000 from Clinton cut-outs in 2015, said under oath that the fake dossier was the only “evidence” the feds had to get court approval to surveil Trump’s campaign. Without the fake dossier, there is no Russian collusion, or investigation. And now we know that the dossier is a figment of the imagination of Christopher Steele. It was Steele who told a corrupt deputy attorney general (whose wife was also secretly pocketing Hillary cash) that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” As the House memo says, “An independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.”

That's the claim.

I find it interesting the Dems and the FBI urged Trump to not authorize the release of the memo, and then later when they realized he was going to urged for redactions. Now that it has been released all of a sudden it's a "nothing burger"...if there's nothing incriminating in it then why all the resistance. They were also crying about it's release as compromising national security, and now are eagerly promoting release of their own memo. Seems they're no longer concerned about national security? I also find it comical that we're months into a Mueller's investigation and the narrative from the left is how he's guilty and it's only a matter of time before he's exposed and that the investigation needs to continue. On the other hand the memo is released and almost immediately there's the spin of how it's not credible and of course not worthy of investigation --- nothing to see here, move along. 

I'm not trying to defend Trump nor am I his biggest supporter by any stretch, and this isn't directed at anyone specifically, but reading through this board and others it's a shame many people are quick to defend "their side" at all cost in just about every situation instead of a genuine interest in finding out the truth and maybe the harsh reality that both sides are likely corrupt and willing to break the law and do whatever is necessary to stay in power. You don't have to look to deep to see this one doesn't smell right.


----------



## VC4Ever

pwsusi said:


> Comey told a Congressional committee last year that the fake dossier was “salacious, unverified.” But he used it anyway, over and over and over again. His fired number-two corrupt G-man, Andrew McCabe, whose wife took $700,000 from Clinton cut-outs in 2015, said under oath that the fake dossier was the only “evidence” the feds had to get court approval to surveil Trump’s campaign. Without the fake dossier, there is no Russian collusion, or investigation. And now we know that the dossier is a figment of the imagination of Christopher Steele. It was Steele who told a corrupt deputy attorney general (whose wife was also secretly pocketing Hillary cash) that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” As the House memo says, “An independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.”
> 
> That's the claim.
> 
> I find it interesting the Dems and the FBI urged Trump to not authorize the release the memo, and then later when they realized he was going to urged for redactions. Now that it has been released all of a sudden it's a "nothing burger"...if there's nothing incriminating in it then why all the resistance. They were also crying about it's release as compromising national security, and now are eagerly promoting release of their own memo. Seems they're no longer concerned about national security?
> 
> I also find it comical that we're months into a Mueller's investigation and the narrative from the left is how he's guilty and it's only a matter of time before he's exposed and that the investigation needs to continue. On the other hand the memo is released and almost immediately there's the spin of how it's not credible and of course not worthy of investigation --- nothing to see here, move along.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend Trump nor am I his biggest supporter by any stretch, and this isn't directed at anyone specifically, but reading through this board and others it's a shame many people are quick to defend "their side" (left and right) at all cost in just about every situation instead of a genuine interest in finding out the truth and maybe the harsh reality that both sides are likely corrupt.



Finally someone with actual common sense and critical thinking skills.

Refreshing to say the least.


----------



## Randy

pwsusi said:


> I find it interesting the Dems and the FBI urged Trump to not authorize the release the memo, and then later when they realized he was going to urged for redactions. Now that it has been released all of a sudden it's a "nothing burger"...if there's nothing incriminating in it then why all the resistance. They were also crying about it's release as compromising national security, and now are eagerly promoting release of their own memo. Seems they're no longer concerned about national security?



Not that I'm the authority on these things or that you read ever post on here but I think I addressed this earlier. The specifics of the Nunes memo are that they gave a ''behind the scenes" of the FISA process and also called into question the validity of that process by claiming FISA warrants were issued on shaky ground.

If that's a injustice that needs to be visited fine, so be it but fwiw, the same distrust that's sown in the Nunes memo over FISA of Carter Page could call into question any warrants issued by FISA or requested by the FBI. Fine if you think they're chasing "nothing burger" Russian ghosts but what about terror suspects, gangs, neo-nazis or mobsters that'll be looking to have their convictions thrown out over distrust of the FISA process?

If there's innocent people are being targeted and convicted on illegally obtained evidence, fine, let that see the light of day. But if there's any chance a dangerous and guilty person goes free because the process becomes blanket invalidated, I can see a reason the DOJ (who are Trumps appointees, and Republican led) opposed the release of that memo. You can't paint the Democratic response the same way without knowing what's in it or at least getting feedback from the relevant agencies.

I also find it a little funny Nunes and Trump are all for transparency in the process as it applies to taking the focus off of them but they are fine with keeping tons of other things private (Trump's taxes, the visitor logs for the white house, etc)


----------



## pwsusi

Randy said:


> Not that I'm the authority on these things or that you read ever post on here but I think I addressed this earlier. The specifics of the Nunes memo are that they gave a ''behind the scenes" of the FISA process and also called into question the validity of that process by claiming FISA warrants were issued on shaky ground.
> 
> If that's a injustice that needs to be visited fine, so be it but fwiw, the same distrust that's sown in the Nunes memo over FISA of Carter Page could call into any warrants issued by FISA or requested by the FBI. Fine if you think they're chasing "nothing burger" Russian ghosts but what about terror suspects, gangs, neo-nazis or mobsters that'll be looking to have their convictions thrown out over distrust of the FISA process?


We seem to be in agreement that if there was injustice that it should be investigated and people should be held accountable if there were crimes. The problem is the arrogance of many that they're above the law, many in the press and other hyper partisan people that are quick to look away because of politics. As for distrust of the FISA process as it applies to terror suspects, gangs, etc....all the more reason they should be straight shooters and following the letter of the law, because if they don't it could have unfortunate consequences. It's like a crooked cop who plants evidence at a crime scene....guilty or not the case gets thrown out of court.



Randy said:


> If there's innocent people are being targeted and convicted on illegally obtained evidence, fine, let that see the light of day. But if there's any chance a dangerous and guilty person goes free because the process becomes blanket invalidated, I can see a reason the DOJ (who are Trumps appointees, and Republican led) opposed the release of that memo.


I disagree. You can't have it both ways. You can't say let it see the light of day if the suspect is innocent but if they're not then don't because a guilty person may get off. It doesn't matter if the person being targeted is innocent or guilty, harmless or harmful. If the process hasn't been followed and there has been injustice the person walks and those individuals should be held accountable (i.e. jail if serious enough). It's like the recent news about the police in Baltimore I believe who were illegally breaking into homes, planting evidence, etc, all in the name of getting drugs off the street. Was it a good cause, sure. Assuming the people were guilty were the cops justified, no. Even if the suspects they were targeting were guilty it doesn't give them the right to do whatever they want to get their conviction...and it shouldn't be swept under the rug just because it would otherwise let guilty people go free.



Randy said:


> You can't paint the Democratic response the same way without knowing what's in it or at least getting feedback from the relevant agencies.


My point about the Democratic response wasn't on the content (don't know what's in it yet), nor was it about suppressing an opposing point of view. I'm in favor of it being released...in fact i'm all for a full investigation a la Mueller style to get to the truth. Let's hear both sides, get to the truth and hold people accountable for once. My point on the Democratic response was simply that they had grave concerns about release of the first memo because of national security but they seem eager for more information to be released. Just a statement that this seems to indicate it's more about protecting people and politics rather than a genuine interest in getting to the truth. As for some republicans not supporting the original memo release including Trump appointees, etc. It doesn't surprise me. Trump really isn't liked by either side, and I think many in positions of power like this would rather see certain things swept under the rug if the negative consequences out-weigh doing the right thing. Status quo can be easier and more comfortable than stirring up a S- storm.


----------



## bostjan

pwsusi said:


> Without the fake dossier, there is no Russian collusion, or investigation.


As everybody knows, Trump Jr's clumbsy admissions blow that statement out of the water.


----------



## pwsusi

bostjan said:


> As everybody knows, Trump Jr's clumbsy admissions blow that statement out of the water.


Statements by Trump Jr. were not used to obtain a warrant for surveillance, so the statement that without the fake dossier there would be no investigation in the first place stands. Since the investigation continues and neither him nor anyone else has been convicted of anything then you also can't say is statements prove collusion either.


----------



## StevenC

pwsusi said:


> Statements by Trump Jr. were not used to obtain a warrant for surveillance, so the statement that without the fake dossier there would be no investigation in the first place stands. Since the investigation continues and neither him nor anyone else has been convicted of anything then you also can't say is statements prove collusion either.


Maybe I'm confused by the pace this discussion is moving at, but are we still talking about the surveillance of Carter Page who was under investigation since 2013?


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> Maybe I'm confused by the pace this discussion is moving at, but are we still talking about the surveillance of Carter Page who was under investigation since 2013?


Hey didn’t you get the update? Cater Page worked as an informant for the FBI.


----------



## VC4Ever

bostjan said:


> As everybody knows, Trump Jr's clumbsy admissions blow that statement out of the water.



So based on this treasonous meeting that resulted in what actually? You claim this is the solid proof that something did occur.

Has this meeting resulted in any evidence at all for Mueller and the Russian investigation....

Oh yea there’s nothing.


----------



## VC4Ever

Meanwhile you all fail to recognize the fact that James Comey said it himself, that the pee dossier was “salacious and unverified”. Yet they used it to spy on an American with a FISA warrant.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Hey didn’t you get the update? Cater Page worked as an informant for the FBI.











VC4Ever said:


> So based on this treasonous meeting that resulted in what actually? You claim this is the solid proof that something did occur.
> 
> Has this meeting resulted in any evidence at all for Mueller and the Russian investigation....
> 
> Oh yea there’s nothing.



If I were running an investigation I wouldn't be shouting all my evidence from the rooftops until I had all my ducks in a row. Imagine you're playing chess and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it checkers and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it snakes and ladders and you tell your opponent that you've got a better die than they have.



VC4Ever said:


> Meanwhile you all fail to recognize the fact that James Comey said it himself, that the pee dossier was unverified. Yet they used it to spy on an America with a FISA warrant.



Something that hasn't been verified yet is by definition unverified.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> If I were running an investigation I wouldn't be shouting all my evidence from the rooftops until I had all my ducks in a row. Imagine you're playing chess and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it checkers and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it snakes and ladders and you tell your opponent that you've got a better die than they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Something that hasn't been verified yet is by definition unverified.



Great cartoons...

So getting a FISA warrant based on unverified evidence is fine?

Great double speak. 2 +2 = 5.

Understoodz.

Funny how I show you actual video of Comey saying it yet you ignore that fact and instead ask me for citations.

“This is CNN”

“Reliable Sources”


----------



## pwsusi

StevenC said:


> Maybe I'm confused by the pace this discussion is moving at, but are we still talking about the surveillance of Carter Page who was under investigation since 2013?


Carter Page might have been surveilled in 2013, but the FISA was a 90 day order that was renewed three times starting again in October 2016. The FBI has to go back to a federal judge and show that there’s still probable cause for the warrant....which goes back to the points earlier about the unverified information and process that was used to get the warrants starting in Oct 2016.


----------



## VC4Ever

Citations? What you don’t know how to use a search engine?

If I give you a web link, you will discredit it if it isn’t anti-trump corporate news.

So please tell me what the point is.?


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> If I were running an investigation I wouldn't be shouting all my evidence from the rooftops until I had all my ducks in a row. Imagine you're playing chess and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it checkers and you tell your opponent exactly what you're going to do and how to counter it snakes and ladders and you tell your opponent that you've got a better die than they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Something that hasn't been verified yet is by definition unverified.


Once again all I can do is LOL.

How long ago was this Trump JR meeting discovered?

And how long exactly does it take to find evidence? Months, years, decades?

If this was such a big deal don’t you think it would be a cut n dry case.?

I mean what are they looking for here? Seems to me like crumbs. Russian bread crumbs.

Keep dreaming about finding that boogie man. I’m sure one day he will become reality, just waiting for the ducks to align.


----------



## Randy

pwsusi said:


> Carter Page might have been surveilled in 2013, but the FISA was a 90 day order that was renewed three times starting again in October 2016. The FBI has to go back to a federal judge and show that there’s still probable cause for the warrant....which goes back to the points earlier about the unverified information and process that was used to get the warrants starting in Oct 2016.



I thanked your post because I agree with the underlying point about holding law enforcement to a high standard for both the rights of the innocent and also in the interest of the cases holding up on real bad guys. Even if I don't like Trump or Carter Page, your overall point still stands.

That said, all we currently know about that FISA warrant is what Nunes put into that memo. If what he said there is 100% accurate and the full scope of the FISA application, yeah, you're right. But Nunes says things like 



> “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding [British agent Christopher] Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,”



Except that the political origins of dossier WERE noted in the footnotes of the application, which Nunes now admits were present despite a VERY full throated argument to the contrary in his original document.

If you're so insistent on "crossing t's and dotting i's" legally, that's kind of a big detail for Nunes to leave out of the original memo, no? Does that not bring into question how accurate his description of the scope of the original application was? 

As has been stated several times now, the court DID grant those warrants and the excuse from the right was "well yeah because the FBI hid the politics behind it" except now we have Nunes saying they DID divulge that Clinton paid for it, which means the judge still saw something worth granting the warrant.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Great cartoons...
> 
> So getting a FISA warrant based on unverified evidence is fine?
> 
> Great double speak. 2 +2 = 5.
> 
> Understoodz.
> 
> Funny how I show you actual video of Comey saying it yet you ignore that fact and instead ask me for citations.
> 
> “This is CNN”
> 
> “Reliable Sources”


You have very poor reading and listening comprehension skills. If you listen to the link you linked, Comey says "unverified and salacious parts" in a context implying the parts that are unverified are the salacious ones. This in turn implies that there is other content within the dossier that they have verified. That's even the title of the video.

Tangentially, I am not American and I do not get my news from American sources. In the UK we have a very high standard for television news, strict regulation when it comes to factual reporting and strong discouragement towards political bias.


VC4Ever said:


> Once again all I can do is LOL.
> 
> How long ago was this Trump JR meeting discovered?
> 
> And how long exactly does it take to find evidence? Months, years, decades?
> 
> If this was such a big deal don’t you think it would be a cut n dry case.?
> 
> I mean what are they looking for here? Seems to me like crumbs. Russian bread crumbs.
> 
> Keep dreaming about finding that boogie man. I’m sure one day he will become reality, just waiting for the ducks to align.



There are more factors at play here than evidence gathering. Like building cases at the state level so that Trump can't pardon people and they actually pay for their crimes, or the legality of indicting the president before he's been impeached.

And that's some terrible logic, also. If this is a big deal, it may be cut and dry, but there also may be a lot of charges. And again, charges at the federal and state level. If 100 crimes were committed, that's 100 cases to build, possibly twice.

Imagine you're building a jigsaw. Just because you know where both pieces go doesn't mean it's finished.


----------



## VC4Ever

Also if Carter Page was being looked at in 2013 why the hell havent they found anything yet?

If this guy is sooo bad as of 2013, how is it that he was able to be part of the Trump campaign years later and only after Trump wins the election they have something on him.

Makes perfect sense now that I think about it....


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> You have very poor reading and listening comprehension skills. If you listen to the link you linked, Comey says "unverified and salacious parts" in a context implying the parts that are unverified are the salacious ones. This in turn implies that there is other content within the dossier that they have verified. That's even the title of the video.
> 
> Tangentially, I am not American and I do not get my news from American sources. In the UK we have a very high standard for television news, strict regulation when it comes to factual reporting and strong discouragement towards political bias.
> 
> 
> There are more factors at play here than evidence gathering. Like building cases at the state level so that Trump can't pardon people and they actually pay for their crimes, or the legality of indicting the president before he's been impeached.
> 
> And that's some terrible logic, also. If this is a big deal, it may be cut and dry, but there also may be a lot of charges. And again, charges at the federal and state level. If 100 crimes were committed, that's 100 cases to build, possibly twice.
> 
> Imagine you're building a jigsaw. Just because you know where both pieces go doesn't mean it's finished.


 

How can one get a FISA warrant based on UNVERIFIED informantion? It’s not allowed!

Lol. 

And no Britain does not have the highest standards of news information. They are the biggest propagandists known to man!


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> You have very poor reading and listening comprehension skills. If you listen to the link you linked, Comey says "unverified and salacious parts" in a context implying the parts that are unverified are the salacious ones. This in turn implies that there is other content within the dossier that they have verified. That's even the title of the video.
> 
> Tangentially, I am not American and I do not get my news from American sources. In the UK we have a very high standard for television news, strict regulation when it comes to factual reporting and strong discouragement towards political bias.
> 
> 
> There are more factors at play here than evidence gathering. Like building cases at the state level so that Trump can't pardon people and they actually pay for their crimes, or the legality of indicting the president before he's been impeached.
> 
> And that's some terrible logic, also. If this is a big deal, it may be cut and dry, but there also may be a lot of charges. And again, charges at the federal and state level. If 100 crimes were committed, that's 100 cases to build, possibly twice.
> 
> Imagine you're building a jigsaw. Just because you know where both pieces go doesn't mean it's finished.



Wow. all I can say is wow.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> I thanked your post because I agree with the underlying point about holding law enforcement to a high standard for both the rights of the innocent and also in the interest of the cases holding up on real bad guys. Even if I don't like Trump or Carter Page, your overall point still stands.
> 
> That said, all we currently know about that FISA warrant is what Nunes put into that memo. If what he said there is 100% accurate and the full scope of the FISA application, yeah, you're right. But Nunes says things like
> 
> 
> 
> Except that the political origins of dossier WERE noted in the footnotes of the application, which Nunes now admits were present despite a VERY full throated argument to the contrary in his original document.
> 
> If you're so insistent on "crossing t's and dotting i's" legally, that's kind of a big detail for Nunes to leave out of the original memo, no? Does that not bring into question how accurate his description of the scope of the original application was?
> 
> As has been stated several times now, the court DID grant those warrants and the excuse from the right was "well yeah because the FBI hid the politics behind it" except now we have Nunes saying they DID divulge that Clinton paid for it, which means the judge still saw something worth granting the warrant.


And how should that even be allowed. How should Clinton be allowed to finance a dossier against her political opponent and get away with it?


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Also if Carter Page was being looked at in 2013 why the hell havent they found anything yet?
> 
> If this guy is sooo bad as of 2013, how is it that he was able to be part of the Trump campaign years later and only after Trump wins the election they have something on him.
> 
> Makes perfect sense now that I think about it....


We all know that intelligence agencies surveil suspicious people before they actually commit crimes. It's how the majority of counter terrorism works. If they have a reason to believe someone might be planning to take part in some treason, they could well be watching them. But thought crimes aren't illegal yet, so they either act to stop the crime or use any evidence compiled before the crime in the resulting investigation. This is quite simple.


VC4Ever said:


> How can one get a FISA warrant based on UNVERIFIED informantion? It’s not allowed!
> 
> Lol.
> 
> And no Britain does not have the highest standards of news information. They are the biggest propagandists known to man!


Reading comprehension x2, and citation needed. Our newspapers are garbage, granted, but our television news is stellar.


VC4Ever said:


> Wow. all I can say is wow.


There's been reports of Trump being unable to make it through 10 pages of reading, and your needing multiple replies to a single post helps me understand how you can support him.


----------



## VC4Ever

Let’s all enjoy a cup of tea shall we. We have a sophisticated fellow in our presence.






The Brtis are oh so clever.

Apparently it takes years of investigating someone to get the one final nail in the coffin scenario.

Yes Trump will run for president years later into the future. Then he will somehow team up with Carter Page and they will work with the Russians to win the US presidency.

At that point they will finally have all the evidence necessary to go after Carter Page. He just won Trump the election!

Oh man this could be a movie.


----------



## StevenC

Well. You got me there.


----------



## narad

Cheers.

btw, seems a South Carolina woman was unfortunate enough to wander into this thread:

https://www.wthr.com/article/woman-gouges-out-own-eyeballs-outside-s-carolina-church


----------



## thraxil

VC4Ever said:


> How can one get a FISA warrant based on UNVERIFIED informantion? It’s not allowed!



The FISA courts require them to demonstrate probable cause, not rock solid evidence. Like it or not, probable cause is a very low bar in the US (eg, a police officer can search your vehicle because they "smell marijuana"). We don't know exactly what was submitted to the courts other than what Nunes (who admitted to never reading the documents either) told us. If there were purposeful lies told to the FISA courts, Page could use that to get his case thrown out (or at least evidence gathered from that surveillance) if he's charged. Meanwhile, we know from the Fusion GPS testimony that was released that the FBI took the Steele dossier seriously because there were parts of it that lined up with information that they already had from other sources. So even if the source of the dossier was suspect, I'm not surprised that a court would consider it good enough to warrant further investigation.

We don't know that the Page surveillance led anywhere or that Mueller is using it for anything. So even if it turns out to have been illegal, that doesn't necessarily mean the investigation needs to be shut down.

I also don't really understand the feigned surprise coming from the right about the fact that the FBI was investigating Page. That's kind of their job. I imagine that they have thousands and thousands of similar investigations going for people with similar connections to foreign governments. Most of them probably won't result in arresting spies, but that's not how it works.


----------



## VC4Ever

thraxil said:


> The FISA courts require them to demonstrate probable cause, not rock solid evidence. Like it or not, probable cause is a very low bar in the US (eg, a police officer can search your vehicle because they "smell marijuana"). We don't know exactly what was submitted to the courts other than what Nunes (who admitted to never reading the documents either) told us. If there were purposeful lies told to the FISA courts, Page could use that to get his case thrown out (or at least evidence gathered from that surveillance) if he's charged. Meanwhile, we know from the Fusion GPS testimony that was released that the FBI took the Steele dossier seriously because there were parts of it that lined up with information that they already had from other sources. So even if the source of the dossier was suspect, I'm not surprised that a court would consider it good enough to warrant further investigation.
> 
> We don't know that the Page surveillance led anywhere or that Mueller is using it for anything. So even if it turns out to have been illegal, that doesn't necessarily mean the investigation needs to be shut down.
> 
> I also don't really understand the feigned surprise coming from the right about the fact that the FBI was investigating Page. That's kind of their job. I imagine that they have thousands and thousands of similar investigations going for people with similar connections to foreign governments. Most of them probably won't result in arresting spies, but that's not how it works.



Actually you do need solid evidence to get a FISA warrant. You think they just hand them out like candy or something?

The fact that it is 100% known that Clinton ( A POLITICAL OPPONENT) paid for the dossier. Which DID lead to the FISA warrant!

This warrant allowed for surveillance of Page and anyone he has contact with, so the Trump campaign.

The Mueller investigation has nothing to do with the FISA warrants as this happened way before the election.

The Mueller investigation was started after James Comey was fired and leaked to the media his defence which helped start a special council which be led by his best friend Mueller.

Did you know Mueller helped Comey write his testimony which led to the special council?

But the main point is that Clinton financed a dossier against her political opponent. And guess what? She did it colluding with the Russians.

They are the ones up to their eyeballs in Russian collusion!

You go about it like it’s no big deal to get a FISA warrant. Just standard procedure.
But what did that lead to? Spying on not just page but the whole Trump Camapign.

If they have been investigating Page since 2013 and still have nothing in 2018, please explain to me how much longer this is going to go on? Looks like they have invested too much and have dug themselves in such a deep hole there is no getting out. They have to find something, be it the smallest thing in the world. That will prove they were right!


----------



## thraxil

VC4Ever said:


> Actually you do need solid evidence to get a FISA warrant. You think they just hand them out like candy or something?



In 33 years, the FISA courts only denied something like 11 requests out of about 33,000. So, yeah, they do kind of just hand them out like candy. Whether that is a good thing or not is a separate issue, but in practice it is a very low bar.



VC4Ever said:


> If they have been investigating Page since 2013 and still have nothing in 2018, please explain to me how much longer this is going to go on?



Who knows? Maybe the rest of his life. He is an associate of known Russian agents who also has connections high up in the US government. He's exactly the kind of person that the FBI would want to keep their eye on. 

I met William Hinton once while he was alive. Hinton was a US citizen who moved to China in the 40's and was part of the communist revolution there. He returned to the US in the 50's. He was under FBI surveillance pretty much continuously for the rest of his life (up through the early 2000's when I met him at least). They intercepted his mail, tapped his phones, and agents frequently checked in on him in person. He had the FOIA files to prove that he wasn't just paranoid. I assume that the FBI probably has a file on me just because I met him once.

Again, I'm not saying that it's *right* that the government watches people like that, just that it doesn't seem at all unusual to me that Page was being investigated for years. The sudden outrage from the right about surveillance seems to have only started when it affected their people.


----------



## VC4Ever

They spied on their opposition for presidency! Yea totally normal. No big deal.


----------



## bostjan

Fox News: Russian Hackers Infiltrated the 2016 US Election



Jeanette Manfra said:


> We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated



Oh, phew I was worried there until you said that only a small number of states' election results were successfully hacked.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> They spied on their opposition for presidency! Yea totally normal. No big deal.


By they you mean the FBI, an agency with a historical Republican leaning, headed by Republicans who were also investigating Clinton.


----------



## VC4Ever

I’m sorry but how do you hack paper ballots?

And as far as I remember in the news the electronic voting machines were changing Trump votes to Clinton votes.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> I’m sorry but how do you hack paper ballots?
> 
> And as far as I remember in the news the electronic voting machines were changing Trump votes to Clinton votes.


Welcome to the current day, where information is stored digitally.


----------



## bostjan

They don't. It's subtler than that. They know that they can hack registration and keep certain individuals from voting or else help fake people vote, or similar.

This news article is, well, news, so the information is still coming out.

But, hypothetically, here's how it works:

You have, for simplicity's sake, three voters, A, B, and C. You've successfully hacked into A and B's social media accounts, and know A will vote for candidate #1 and B will vote for candidate #2. You hack registration and remove voter B, and register instead voter A', who is voter A under an alias.

Voter A votes twice for candidate #1, voter B votes zero times for candidate #2, and voter C successfully votes once for candidate #2.

When the results are tallied, instead of one vote for #1 and two votes for #2, it goes the other way around.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


>



You know, I wasn't a big fan of the switch over to Xenforo originally but that version of the 'eek' emoji is fucking great.


----------



## VC4Ever

lol so it took them over a year to find that the voter machines were hacked by Russians....

Yup that’s believable.


----------



## VC4Ever

Meanwhile...

*FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy"*

*https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...d-millions-clinton-foundation-russian-uranium*


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> lol so it took them over a year to find that the voter machines were hacked by Russians....
> 
> Yup that’s believable.


Well, one of the first things Trump did was close the agency that deals with voter fraud.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> Well, one of the first things Trump did was close the agency that deals with voter fraud.



LOL. Citation? Proof?

Funny how you talk about voter fraud when you didn’t even need an ID to vote.

How many millions of illegal votes went to the dems.


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> How many millions of illegal votes went to the dems.


 Less than 2.5, I'd bet.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> LOL. Citation? Proof?
> 
> Funny how you talk about voter fraud when you didn’t even need an ID to vote.
> 
> How many millions of illegal votes went to the dems.


Apologies, I misspoke. It was the EAC which is tasked with stopping voting machines from being hacked. 
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...tance-commission-republicans-congress/516462/

Though he did end a voter fraud commission earlier this year:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html

Voter ID isn't a good way to encourage democracy because it only embiggens the barrier for entry into the democratic process. Also, voter fraud isn't an issue in a way that voter IDs would mitigate, though that's more because voter IDs are a method of voter suppression more than anything.


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> lol so it took them over a year to find that the voter machines were hacked by Russians....
> 
> Yup that’s believable.



I think there is a very poignant contrast here between Trump's repeated statements in January of 2017 that Russia did not interfere and the head of the committee Trump formed to look into this contradicting him. It's not like the rest of the intelligence community said nothing before now. 

For review's sake, here's the narrative:
Nov 2016 CIA reports Russia interfered with the election
Dec 2016 Trump says the CIA is wrong. The NSA doubles down on what the CIA said. Trump plays it off by whatabouting the Iraqi WMD from well over a decade before.
Jan 2017 Trump: Russia interfered in no way with the election. To prove it, I'm going to establish a cybersecurity task force over in DHS.
2017 more and more evidence mounts up pointing toward Russian interference with the election. Sources include the FBI and even DJT Jr.
Jan 2018 Evidence is uncovered suggesting that the NRA paid Russia to directly interfere with the election (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ian-banker-gave-money-to-nra-to-support-trump)
Feb 2018 The cybersecurity task force in DHS that Trump apportioned concludes that Russia did indeed interfere in the election.

I mean...Trump set this up to investigate. Either he thought they would play along with his little game or he honestly doesn't know that Russia did interfere or else he's just plain stupid. That middle option is what the FBI is looking into now. None of those options are exclusive to one another, either. 



VC4Ever said:


> Meanwhile...zerohedge



So, you get your news from a site where every article is written by "Tyler Durden" from _Fight Club_ and has predicted several stock market crashes since after the crisis in 2008? I'll pass.


----------



## Drew

pwsusi said:


> Comey told a Congressional committee last year that the fake dossier was “salacious, unverified.” But he used it anyway, over and over and over again. His fired number-two corrupt G-man, Andrew McCabe, whose wife took $700,000 from Clinton cut-outs in 2015, said under oath that the fake dossier was the only “evidence” the feds had to get court approval to surveil Trump’s campaign. Without the fake dossier, there is no Russian collusion, or investigation. And now we know that the dossier is a figment of the imagination of Christopher Steele. It was Steele who told a corrupt deputy attorney general (whose wife was also secretly pocketing Hillary cash) that he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president.” As the House memo says, “An independent unit within FBI assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated.”


So, first off, you're actually engaging, answering questions, and trying to make coherent arguments. Thank you for that. 

First, we know that at least parts of the document HAVE been verified. As an easy example, the claim that Carter Page had traveled to Russia and met with Russian operatives during the campaign was first raised in the Steele dossier, and while Page initially lied about doing so, it eventually came out that he HAD traveled to Russia and done so, and had informed his campaign supervisors about the trip. Some of the more sensational parts are uncorroborated, but I don't think it's any coincidence that the Trump supporters have chosen to focus on some alleged watersports action, rather than the less sensational but still deeply troubling allegations elsewhere - such as, for example, the fact that Page had an unreported trip to Russia where he met Russian agents, while working as a foreign policy representative for the Trump campaign. Speaking personally, I don't give a shit if Trump hired Russian prostitutes to piss on him. I do give a shit if during the election he had opened secret channels to pass information back and forth with the government of an enemy nation. 

I can't speak for McCabe's statement, but at a minimum the idea that a life-long Republican who had been appointed by a Republican was secretly a Clinton lap-dog because his wife was a Democrat fails the sniff test. Further, Adam Schiff claims the "salacious" parts of the memo were NOT part of the FISA wiretap authorization, and certainly it stands to reason that the parts pertaining to Page, some of which we now know are true, would be the crux of the argument. 

While you're not making this argument - unless I missed it - the allegation that the FISA application failed to mention that Steele was working for a firm hired by the DNC is something the GOP is also backpedaling from; Nunes now admits that it was in there, but because it was only a footnote it wasn't obvious. A lawyer buddy of mine with some knowledge of these processes quipped, to that, "that's ridiculous, the footnotes are the first things we look at to see what the authors are trying to downplay." 

Worth mentioning, as well, is that Steele is ex-MI6, and was a well-respected authority on covert Russian commerce - he was a critical player in the investigation into Russian bribery at FIFA, for one. 



pwsusi said:


> Statements by Trump Jr. were not used to obtain a warrant for surveillance, so the statement that without the fake dossier there would be no investigation in the first place stands. Since the investigation continues and neither him nor anyone else has been convicted of anything then you also can't say is statements prove collusion either.


This is incorrect. The Steele dossier may have been a/the key peice of evidence needed to authorize the FISA wiretap that eventually led to his arrest, but the memo itself admits that the investigation was already ongoing at the time the FBI was made aware of the Steele dossier, thanks to Australian intelligence tipping off the US after Popadoupalos drunkenly confided in one of their agents information about Russia hacking the DNC.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, you get your news from a site where every article is written by "Tyler Durden" from _Fight Club_ and has predicted several stock market crashes since after the crisis in 2008? I'll pass.


There's this long running joke about various financial indicators in the stock market that I think applies perfectly to Zero Hedge, that goes it "...predicted 13 of the last 2 recessions correctly."


----------



## bostjan

Gates's lawyer quit. That can't be too good a sign for someone.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> Apologies, I misspoke. It was the EAC which is tasked with stopping voting machines from being hacked.
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...tance-commission-republicans-congress/516462/
> 
> Though he did end a voter fraud commission earlier this year:
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
> 
> Voter ID isn't a good way to encourage democracy because it only embiggens the barrier for entry into the democratic process. Also, voter fraud isn't an issue in a way that voter IDs would mitigate, though that's more because voter IDs are a method of voter suppression more than anything.



You have got to be kidding me. Voter ID solves voter fraud. Period.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> There's this long running joke about various financial indicators in the stock market that I think applies perfectly to Zero Hedge, that goes it "...predicted 13 of the last 2 recessions correctly."





bostjan said:


> I think there is a very poignant contrast here between Trump's repeated statements in January of 2017 that Russia did not interfere and the head of the committee Trump formed to look into this contradicting him. It's not like the rest of the intelligence community said nothing before now.
> 
> For review's sake, here's the narrative:
> Nov 2016 CIA reports Russia interfered with the election
> Dec 2016 Trump says the CIA is wrong. The NSA doubles down on what the CIA said. Trump plays it off by whatabouting the Iraqi WMD from well over a decade before.
> Jan 2017 Trump: Russia interfered in no way with the election. To prove it, I'm going to establish a cybersecurity task force over in DHS.
> 2017 more and more evidence mounts up pointing toward Russian interference with the election. Sources include the FBI and even DJT Jr.
> Jan 2018 Evidence is uncovered suggesting that the NRA paid Russia to directly interfere with the election (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ian-banker-gave-money-to-nra-to-support-trump)
> Feb 2018 The cybersecurity task force in DHS that Trump apportioned concludes that Russia did indeed interfere in the election.
> 
> I mean...Trump set this up to investigate. Either he thought they would play along with his little game or he honestly doesn't know that Russia did interfere or else he's just plain stupid. That middle option is what the FBI is looking into now. None of those options are exclusive to one another, either.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you get your news from a site where every article is written by "Tyler Durden" from _Fight Club_ and has predicted several stock market crashes since after the crisis in 2008? I'll pass.



As opposed to getting news from these guys?

















Sorry, I’ll pass!


----------



## MFB

VC4Ever said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Voter ID solves voter fraud. Period.



Not quite sure why I'm bothering at this point, since these are all going to be dubbed "FAKE NEWS", but what the heck

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.e06d13729aa3
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli.../alabama-voter-suppression-senate-moore-jones


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> You have got to be kidding me. Voter ID solves voter fraud. Period.


I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation.


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


> As opposed to getting news from these guys?
> Sorry, I’ll pass!



I don't even know who some of those people are and don't particularly care, since it has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.

Let's go back to where you didn't believe the conclusion of the task force that Trump apportioned from DHS to probe the Russian interference, because they took too long to do it, and think about the possibility that maybe they took this long to publicly announce their findings, partially because their findings were in direct contradiction with what the guy who hired them wanted to hear. Let's also think about how the CIA and NSA concluded the same think almost immediately after the investigation started, and since credibility is inversely proportional to the time it takes to investigate something, they must be spot on.



StevenC said:


> I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation.



I'm sure it's been in some documentary someone made at some point in time, therefore true, or else he'll just post an emoticon or meme.


----------



## bostjan

VC4Ever said:


>


...and the winner is

B) Emoticon

Tell 'em what he's won, Bob!


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> As opposed to getting news from these guys?
> 
> Sorry, I’ll pass!



Right, so you'd prefer your news from someone who's essentially anonymous? On what planet does that make anything more reputable?


----------



## VC4Ever

I noticed some of you were unhinged when Trump announced a military parade.

Well let’s look back at what this hypocrite Chucky Shumer has to say back on 2014.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> Right, so you'd prefer your news from someone who's essentially anonymous? On what planet does that make anything more reputable?



Well the story is being reported on other news platforms.

Listen you can get your news from known fraudsters and flat out biased liars or you can find the truth.

The choice is obviously yours.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


>


I know you're an advocate of doing one's own research, but if you Google "voter ID study" you get results along the lines of "decreases turnout among minorities". So when a particular party which doesn't poll well with minorities advocates for it, I'm going to be suspicious of it being any more than voter suppression.


----------



## VC4Ever

bostjan said:


> ...and the winner is
> 
> B) Emoticon
> 
> Tell 'em what he's won, Bob!



Yea because a study is needed to find out if having an ID to vote will prevent voter fraud...

Common sense is becoming extinct.


The reason Democrats love illegal immigrants is because that’s where they get their votes from.

They also bus them all over the country voting multiple times in different states and counties.

So yes voter ID is nessesary.



And I just laugh at people like Drew who thinks actual video footage is “taken out of context”


Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> The reason Democrats love illegal immigrants is because that’s where they get their votes from.



Because if those same people were legal immigrants, they would stop voting for Democrats?


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> So, you get your news from a site where every article is written by "Tyler Durden" from _Fight Club_ and has predicted several stock market crashes since after the crisis in 2008? I'll pass.



This is where my dad gets his news. We had a fun talk about chemtrails on the drive home for Thanksgiving.


----------



## StevenC

Deleted


----------



## narad

VC4Ever said:


> Yea because a study is needed to find out if having an ID to vote will prevent voter fraud...



You didn't quite read that correctly. He said:

"I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation."

i.e., if having an ID decreases voter turnout of otherwise eligible voters by 5 million, while decreasing vote fraud by 5 hundred, which policy is more true to the intent of the democratic process.

But ya dude, just throw some emojis on there and take whatever meaning you want to out of someone else's comments -- that works too!


----------



## VC4Ever

narad said:


> You didn't quite read that correctly. He said:
> 
> "I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation."
> 
> i.e., if having an ID decreases voter turnout of otherwise eligible voters by 5 million, while decreasing vote fraud by 5 hundred, which policy is more true to the intent of the democratic process.
> 
> But ya dude, just throw some emojis on there and take whatever meaning you want to out of someone else's comments -- that works too!





Randy said:


> Because if those same people were legal immigrants, they would stop voting for Democrats?





narad said:


> You didn't quite read that correctly. He said:
> 
> "I'll need to see a study or something that proves it decreases vote fraud more than it decreases voter participation."
> 
> i.e., if having an ID decreases voter turnout of otherwise eligible voters by 5 million, while decreasing vote fraud by 5 hundred, which policy is more true to the intent of the democratic process.
> 
> But ya dude, just throw some emojis on there and take whatever meaning you want to out of someone else's comments -- that works too!



Ohhh so clever. Well after my emijicon I replied with my answer.

2+2 =5

How does voter ID reduce voter turnout? You either have a legit ID or you don’t. You need an ID to drive?

You need an ID to travel?

You need an ID to buy booze?


----------



## VC4Ever

VC4Ever said:


> Ohhh so clever. Well after my emijicon I replied with my answer.
> 
> 2+2 =5



And by the way in Canada you need an ID to vote.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> Because if those same people were legal immigrants, they would stop voting for Democrats?


That’s a question no one can really answer. But the motives of democrats wanting large illegal immigration speaks volumes.


----------



## StevenC

I'm wrong.


----------



## VC4Ever

StevenC said:


> You need an ID to vote in most places. It's the notion of a voter ID that's ridiculous. No one's arguing against proving your identity to vote.



I’m failing to see the difference here. It is literally illegal to ask for ID in democratic run states like New York.


----------



## narad

VC4Ever said:


> I’m failing to see the difference here. It is literally illegal to ask for ID in democratic run states like New York.



http://mattbarreto.com/papers/PS_VoterID.pdf






This in a nutshell is the entire reason Voter ID is a topic. Voter fraud is just trick to talk openly about policies regarding it.


----------



## VC4Ever

narad said:


> http://mattbarreto.com/papers/PS_VoterID.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This in a nutshell is the entire reason Voter ID is a topic. Voter fraud is just trick to talk openly about policies regarding it.



This has to do with a bigger reason and that is the societal problem of incarcerating black people resulting in losing the right to vote.

That is a separate issue and one that should be addressed. But that is out of my scope.


----------



## narad

VC4Ever said:


> This has to do with a bigger reason and that is the societal problem of incarcerating black people resulting in losing the right to vote.
> 
> That is a separate issue and one that should be addressed. But that is out of my scope.



"Eligible Adults" -- this has _nothing_ to do with incarceration.


----------



## VC4Ever

narad said:


> "Eligible Adults" -- this has _nothing_ to do with incarceration.



Can you find me numbers on Black voter turnout? 

How many are actually going out to vote?

According to you voter ID reduces voter turnout. But you don’t have voter ID.

So please tell me the voter turnout for the black population. I am honestly curious.

And no I am not a racist.


----------



## narad

VC4Ever said:


> Can you find me numbers on Black voter turnout?
> 
> How many are actually going out to vote?



So we should just assume that eligible black voters without IDs don't want to vote? 

How many votes are actually fraudulent? Yet that is the issue worth focusing on?



VC4Ever said:


> According to you voter ID reduces voter turnout. But you don’t have voter ID.



??



VC4Ever said:


> So please tell me the voter turnout for the black population. I am honestly curious.



I don't know -- go Google it or ask Siri or get a secretary.



VC4Ever said:


> And no I am not a racist.



Whether it's overtly racist or not, I think insinuating that the portion of eligible black voters who don't have access to IDs is entirely contained in the set of eligible black voters who don't turnout for voting is an extremely harmful, racist belief. The kind of belief that guides right-way policies towards further actual discrimination of blacks. Driving representation to cater less to black needs. So - functionally pretty racist as it turns out!


----------



## VC4Ever

Ummm ok...

What?

Didn’t you just tell me that voter ID will reduce voter turnout?

Then you tell me that if they were to use voter ID like a drivers licence, then the black population would be at a disadvantage. According to your numbers it’s 55% would only be eligible to vote.

But voter ID is not required in the USA and especially in democratic run states. It’s against the law to ask.

So yeah now here are the numbers of black voter turnout.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/

According to this organization black voter turnout was down in 2016 at 59%.

So we have only 55% of “eligible black voters with a drivers license”

There is no requirement for an ID to vote and you have 59% of the black population voting for a grand total difference between the two numbers at 4%.

Yup your theory of voter ID resulting in lower voter turnout is devastating...


Oh yeah here we go with the typical race baiting. The numbers speak for themselves. Way to point fingers. 

One question, do you work for George Soros?


----------



## narad

VC4Ever said:


> So we have only 55% of “eligible black voters with a drivers license”
> 
> There is no requirement for an ID to vote and you have 59% of the black population voting for a grand total difference between the two numbers at 4%.



Well I see mathematical reasoning isn't your strong suit.


----------



## VC4Ever

narad said:


> Well I see mathematical reasoning isn't your strong suit.



Great explaination...lol

I’ll let you use your robot brain to compute the numbers.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Great explaination...lol
> 
> I’ll let you use your robot brain to compute the numbers.


If you have a group of 100 people where 55 have a driver's license and 59 people voted, that means at least 4 people voted without a driver's license, and at least 14 people voted with a driver's license. The group of 59 who voted can be made up of any combination of individuals from both groups. I don't think this is the place for combinatorics. This does not mean that all 55 people with driver's licenses voted and the difference is made up of 4 people without a driver's license.

I debated writing this comment about maths for 8 year olds, but I have a maths degree and dammit I'll use it.


----------



## VC4Ever

VC4Ever said:


> Great explaination...lol





StevenC said:


> If you have a group of 100 people where 55 have a driver's license and 59 people voted, that means at least 4 people voted without a driver's license, and at least 14 people voted with a driver's license. The group of 59 who voted can be made up of any combination of individuals from both groups. I don't think this is the place for combinatorics. This does not mean that all 55 people with driver's licenses voted and the difference is made up of 4 people without a driver's license.
> 
> I debated writing this comment about maths for 8 year olds, but I have a maths degree and dammit I'll use it.



Ok let’s use the Laplace transform to integrate the numbers...lol 

In all seriousness my point is that voter ID is not going to reduce voter turnout. That excuse is so lame.


----------



## StevenC

VC4Ever said:


> Ok let’s use the Laplace transform to integrate the numbers...lol
> 
> In all seriousness my point is that voter ID is not going to reduce voter turnout. That excuse is so lame.


That's not how maths works.

Also, sources were provided about voter ID laws actually reducing the number of people who can vote and you ignored them.


----------



## VC4Ever




----------



## narad




----------



## Explorer

I just wantd to clarify a point, using a document which @VC4Ever claims says the opposite.

The Nunes memo itself says this in its last paragraph: “The Papadopoulos information (that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton - Explorer) triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok."

That's quite the refutation of VC4Ever's talking point.

Me? I'd be embarassed to make such a big deal about a memo which said one of my main claims is a lie. 

It's just strange, and sadly funny, to see someone completely defending fake news against their own primary source....


----------



## Explorer

Incidentally, here's some funny videos!


----------



## VC4Ever

Lol. Well why not post the whole paragraph and show what it actually says instead of using it to further your fairy tail story.

It also says there was no eviedence of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopolous.

So once again great job.

Also great job on the corporate propaganda comedy clips. Highly entertaining..


----------



## VC4Ever

Lol. Also care to elaborate on Peter Strzok? Seems like he’s caught up in his own little scandal with other FBI member Lisa Page.

The text messages are pretty revealing and all the while they were on muellers special council, investigating trump. Which they have since been removed from for their straight anti-trump bias. 

Let’s see what happens with all that. Because it’s not looking good son.


----------



## bostjan

@VC4Ever Man, what universe do you live in where making 54% of a population elligible for something 59% of the population does and not exclude anyone?!



VC4Ever said:


> Lol. Well why not post the whole paragraph and show what it actually says instead of using it to further your fairy tail story.



I mean, you could always take the opportunity to lead by example, if you really wanted to make a point.



VC4Ever said:


> Lol. Also care to elaborate on Peter Strzok? Seems like he’s caught up in his own little scandal with other FBI member Lisa Page.
> 
> The text messages are pretty revealing and all the while they were on muellers special council, investigating trump. Which they have since been removed from for their straight anti-trump bias.
> 
> Let’s see what happens with all that. Because it’s not looking good son.



You mean the guy who worked on the investigation for two months and was removed from it after the text messages were discovered? The text messages that were critical of not only Trump but pretty much every political personality? I don't see how that can absolve Trump's campaign of what they did in any way.


----------



## Randy

FWIW, there's impending administrative action in this thread. If you're dealing with someone being particularly corrosive or troublesome, I suggest you report the offending post and consider 'ignoring' them (it's a button on their profile page) to try and keep the thread on topic while we wait for things to be handled.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> You mean the guy who worked on the investigation for two months and was removed from it after the text messages were discovered? The text messages that were critical of not only Trump but pretty much every political personality? I don't see how that can absolve Trump's campaign of what they did in any way.



Also the guy who drafted the letter sent to Congress days before the election about the Clinton emails discovered during the Anthony Weiner investigation, basically tanking the Clinton campaign at the 11th hour and was apparently pushing to reopen the Clinton investigation. An interesting move for someone so rabidly anti-Trump.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Gates's lawyer quit. That can't be too good a sign for someone.


Further, all three of his original lawyers quit, and his one remaining lawyer joined the team a week ago, and is considered to be an expert at negotiating plea-bargains. Court filing cites "irreconcilable differences" that they can't elaborate on without breaking client-attorney privilege, and the judge hasn't ruled on adding the new guy or letting them quit as of yet, so take that with a grain of salt for the time being, at least.


----------



## Randy

I'm not expecting there to be much to the Gates thing, anyway. Yes, Manafort WAS part of the Trump campaign and this goes to the overall theme of Trump's campaign being run by people who have been working as foreign agents for the last several years, but everything we know about the actual charges on Manafort are entirely related to his personal dealings. And Gates being an extension of Manafort, I'm not expecting him to have anything particularly incendiary directly related to Trump or the campaign.

HOWEVER, for people like myself that are uncomfortable with these guys that work as lobbyists and strategists for whatever country is bidding highest at the time (that includes the Podestas, BTW), any added scrutiny of that culture is much welcomed.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm not expecting there to be much to the Gates thing, anyway. Yes, Manafort WAS part of the Trump campaign and this goes to the overall theme of Trump's campaign being run by people who have been working as foreign agents for the last several years, but everything we know about the actual charges on Manafort are entirely related to his personal dealings. And Gates being an extension of Manafort, I'm not expecting him to have anything particularly incendiary directly related to Trump or the campaign.
> 
> HOWEVER, for people like myself that are uncomfortable with these guys that work as lobbyists and strategists for whatever country is bidding highest at the time (that includes the Podestas, BTW), any added scrutiny of that culture is much welcomed.


Two thoughts, and both of these are observations that I believe are pretty typical of federal investigations like this, inasmuch as anything about an investigation of electoral wrongdoing by an enemy nation can be considered typical.  

1) Manafort and Page (and Popadoupalos, and Flynn) are almost certainly not the end target of the investigations. They were charged with very few things, for one - serious, yes, but Manafort was charged with money laundering and threatened with asset seizure, rather than, say, perjury, which there's ample evidence to hit him with. The charges are serious and credible enough to stick, but only tangentially related to the Russian election investigation (which Mueller is authorized to do, investigate the alleged Russian collusion and any other wrongdoing he may uncover in the process), and the threat of asset forfieture is a pretty strong stick to accompany the carrot of not being charged with anything else, pending cooperation. Mueller isn't trying to throw the book at Manafoort and Page, it appears. He's trying to flip them. He already HAS flipped, Popadoupalos (and had several months before the idictment of Manafort and Page, something the Mueller team didn't publicize until then), and after Flynn broke off contact with Trump's lawyers a few months ago, it appears Flynn is cooperating now, as well. Page appears to be preparing to strike a plea bargain, too. 
2) The fact the charges are not directly related to the investigation makes sense - Mueller wants to show as little of his hand as possible to other suspects, to see what they'll deny in interviews before being confronted with evidence to the contrary. 
3) Maybe stating the obvious... but if Manafort was the end target of the investigation and the Russia campaign extended no further, then the investigation would be over. It isn't. 
3)a) - as a correllary, Mueller is both himself a Republican, which shouldn't matter but unfortunately does, and knows this is a highly charged partisan environment. He's not going to go through the process of charging a few members of the Trump campaign for wrongdoing in the couple years before the election simply because he can, because he's not an idiot and knows that it's better to close this down without conclusive findings, then to prosecute half the senior members of the Trump campaign with unrelated charges and risk making the optics of the investigation give creedence to Trump's "withchunt" claims. If he's charging people, and it's not directly for treason, it means he's got evidence implicating someone above them and needs them to cooperate as witnesses. ...which is probably why Trump and his lawyers are responding to this by doing their damndest to cast doubt on Manafort and Page's credibility. 

If I had to guess, Don Jr. or Jared Kushner, or both, are likely to be indicted over the next six months. And, depending on what Mueller has uncovered, it's entirely possible that even _they_ will be targeted for flipping, so if Kuschner gets hit for tax fraud or something like that, then Trump had better start sweating.


----------



## VC4Ever

So he is going to charge Kushner with tax fraud? And how does that have anything to do with Russian collusion ?

Am I missing something here?

I think I understand it now. They have nothing so let’s charge them eith anything we can find unrelated to the actual investigation.

Just like what they did with Manafort.


----------



## spudmunkey

VC4Ever said:


> Am I missing something here?



Yes. One set of charges doesn't mean it's the last. Or, reduced charges might have come from a plea agreement for cooperation. Or, just as any local police department will withhold details or a crime until an investigation is complete, I imagine the FBI does the same.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> So he is going to charge Kushner with tax fraud? And how does that have anything to do with Russian collusion ?


That was a hypothetical situation - the point was it was an example of something that does NOT have to do with the Russian investigation.  

My broader point was that, so far, Mueller's investigation is exactly fitting the pattern of charging players in a position to know about the inner workings of an investigation with isolated acts not related directly to the alleged wrong-doing, to force them to take a plea-bargain and cooperate with the investigation. If Kushner WERE to be indicted for tax fraud (or money laundering... or unpaid parking tickets or something like that), then it would sort of stand to reason that Mueller was going after someone higher than Kushner, as well. 

Mueller knows it would be suicidal to just make a few tangentally-related indictments and close his investigation, precicely because people like _you_ will then accuse him of being politically motivated. You should be worried by this pattern.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Yes. One set of charges doesn't mean it's the last. Or, reduced charges might have come from a plea agreement for cooperation. Or, just as any local police department will withhold details or a crime until an investigation is complete, I imagine the FBI does the same.


Hey, um, just to be perfectly clear - Kushner HASN'T been charged with money laundering. That was just an example of something that wasn't treason, or accepting something of value from a foreign national in an election campaign.


----------



## Randy

@Drew: Not to oversimplify the subject after all the thought/effort you put into it, but I think there a couple schools of thought on this one. I agree one trajectory is that you charge on smaller items as negotiating points for the larger issue. I can't say that is or isn't the direction things are going without actually seeing what Mueller's seeing.

I haven't seen enough specifics on what the illegalities of collusion are, since the specific of what the Russians did that was illegal are so specific. That's to say, even if you proved Trump knew the Russians were trying to help him, I haven't seen a statute that indicates HE directly did anything illegal unless he was paying for known illegally obtained materials; and everything I've seen so far says they kept a deliberate sphere of 'plausible deniability' surrounding him. The furthest up the chain you might go is Kushner or Don Jr. or Hope Hicks, with regard to people who 'knew' things they were getting were illegal, but they could've just told him what they found out without telling him or him asking where they got it. One of the knocks on Trump since he's been president is that he doesn't ask for a lot of details.

The other trajectory, IMO, is that the whole "Trump and Russia Collusion" thing wasn't so much the disease as much as the symptom. Russia came into the equation because there's essentially a whole network of strategists and lobbyists who weren't finding much work in the US under a Democratic administration, so they were doing tons of business in Russia and Eastern Europe. That's no 100% entirely illegal or even suspicious on it's face, but the Russian government is so dirty and the BULK of what Russian officials and oligarchs were looking for help in doing was skirting the sanctions that were against them. You had a network of people from the US (Manafort, Page and to a lesser extent, Flynn) who were instructing them or essentially laundering money for them over the last several years. That's a pretty significant criminal network all on it's own, even if you don't get into the election stuff and, IMO, fits with Mueller's past history.

Where that dovetails with the Trump campaign, I think it was tough getting career GOP people to help Trump with strategy with the insane field he faced in the primary. I think Trump was essentially left with the cast-offs, many of whom were doing all that work for Russia in the off season. Trump's extended partners are probably familiar with these people from some legal (albeit, morally questionable) business deals for Trump's businesses (the Russian oligarchs buying space in his Soho and Florida properties for example), and eventually you get a few of these Russian sympathizers under the same tent and saying, basically, "Hey, I know an easy way we can get you some really damning stuff...". But again, to prove illegality, you'd have to know HOW MUCH Trump or his people knew about the sources of the stuff they were hearing. I have seen enough to lead me to believe Trump Jr. and Kushner knowingly intercepted illegally obtained intel, and I'd suspect Hope Hicks as well, based on the Corallo story about her intent to "make sure Trump Jr.'s emails never see the light of day". 

But at the end of the day, I still think there's not enough that leads directly to Trump's door and Mueller's reputation sounds like he'd be more interest in the network that fed this scenario rather than how it actually played out in the election


----------



## VC4Ever

VC4Ever said:


> So he is going to charge Kushner with tax fraud? And how does that have anything to do with Russian collusion ?
> 
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> I think I understand it now. They have nothing so let’s charge them for anything we can find unrelated to the actual investigation.
> 
> Just like what they did with Manafort.





Drew said:


> That was a hypothetical situation - the point was it was an example of something that does NOT have to do with the Russian investigation.
> 
> My broader point was that, so far, Mueller's investigation is exactly fitting the pattern of charging players in a position to know about the inner workings of an investigation with isolated acts not related directly to the alleged wrong-doing, to force them to take a plea-bargain and cooperate with the investigation. If Kushner WERE to be indicted for tax fraud (or money laundering... or unpaid parking tickets or something like that), then it would sort of stand to reason that Mueller was going after someone higher than Kushner, as well.
> 
> Mueller knows it would be suicidal to just make a few tangentally-related indictments and close his investigation, precicely because people like _you_ will then accuse him of being politically motivated. You should be worried by this pattern.



I think this is pretty scary when Mueller is put in a position to investigate one thing, Russian collusion and uses that power to find any crimes unrelated.

To me that smells of authoritarianism.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

VC4Ever said:


> I think this is pretty scary when Mueller is put in a position to investigate one thing, Russian collusion and uses that power to find any crimes unrelated.
> 
> To me that smells of authoritarianism.



If the police find a dead body in the back seat of a car stopped for speeding, should they look the other way?

Flipped the other way, if the police are investigating a murder and discover tax evasion, should they ignore that? 

It all seems routine. The financial situation of those under investigation is often looked into as motives for crimes are often financial.


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> I think this is pretty scary when Mueller is put in a position to investigate one thing, Russian collusion and uses that power to find any crimes unrelated.
> 
> To me that smells of authoritarianism.



You're entitled to feel that way but as far as the legalities of it, Rosenstein DID authorize Muller to do exactly that.



> By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
> (a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
> (b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
> (i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and *individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump*; and
> (ii) *any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation*; and
> (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).​(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
> (d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.



Bolded for emphasis. They gave him very broad instructions.


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> You're entitled to feel that way but as far as the legalities of it, Rosenstein DID authorize Muller to do exactly that.
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded for emphasis. They gave him very broad instructions.



Well I think there should definitely be a second special council to keep things in check because this could get way out of hand here.

This should not be a one sided criminal investigation. Both parties should be investigated.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> I think this is pretty scary when Mueller is put in a position to investigate one thing, Russian collusion and uses that power to find any crimes unrelated.
> 
> To me that smells of authoritarianism.


Yeah, it would really suck if someone was investigated for one thing, and then impeached for another. Like, for example, a suspicious real estate deal, but in the process you lied about getting a blowjob from an intern, and the next thing you know you've been cleared on the real estate charges but you've also been impeached and are being tried in the Senate for lying about that blowjob? Yeah, that would be the WORST.


----------



## Randy

VC4Ever said:


> Well I think there should definitely be a second special council to keep things in check because this could get way out of hand here.
> 
> This should not be a one sided criminal investigation. Both parties should be investigated.



Which they've had their opportunity to do and haven't. Of your long list of people responsible for "the Trump witch hunt" or letting Clinton go, I haven't heard you mention Jeff Session, yet here he is giving a pretty full throated "nothing there". You can fast forward to the last 30 seconds if you want.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-factual-basis-for-second-special-counsel-for


----------



## VC4Ever

Randy said:


> Which they've had their opportunity to do and haven't. Of your long list of people responsible for "the Trump witch hunt" or letting Clinton go, I haven't heard you mention Jeff Session, yet here he is giving a pretty full throated "nothing there". You can fast forward to the last 30 seconds if you want.
> 
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-factual-basis-for-second-special-counsel-for



Honestly Jeff Sessions is asleep at the wheel That’s all I can say about him.

I did read about this and nothing ever happened.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> Yeah, it would really suck if someone was investigated for one thing, and then impeached for another. Like, for example, a suspicious real estate deal, but in the process you lied about getting a blowjob from an intern, and the next thing you know you've been cleared on the real estate charges but you've also been impeached and are being tried in the Senate for lying about that blowjob? Yeah, that would be the WORST.



That is pretty funny but I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here.

But what exactly is a suspicious real estate deal? Serious question.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I haven't seen enough specifics on what the illegalities of collusion are, since the specific of what the Russians did that was illegal are so specific. That's to say, even if you proved Trump knew the Russians were trying to help him, I haven't seen a statute that indicates HE directly did anything illegal unless he was paying for known illegally obtained materials; and everything I've seen so far says they kept a deliberate sphere of 'plausible deniability' surrounding him. The furthest up the chain you might go is Kushner or Don Jr. or Hope Hicks, with regard to people who 'knew' things they were getting were illegal, but they could've just told him what they found out without telling him or him asking where they got it. One of the knocks on Trump since he's been president is that he doesn't ask for a lot of details.


It's definitely entirely possible that this is going to end with Trump himself being cleared of any wrongdoing with regards to Russia, though honestly at this point the only way he escapes obstruction of justice charges, IMO, is if Mueller decides it's not worth the political backlash from the 36% or so of the country who still strongly support him, even if it is an impeachable offense. 

As far as criminality, though, as I understand collusion _itself_ isn't necessarily illegal, which is part of the reason Trump keeps harping on that specific term, but rather it's the individual acts that would go along with it that could be problematic. For example, if Russia contacted Trump and offered to release the DNC emails to Wikileaks to help his campaign and he said sure, that's likely something that could be successfully tried under campaign finance law (a violation of "accepting something of value from a foreign nation"). If they offered to hack the DNC and Trump encouraged them to do so, we're looking at conspiracy to commit a crime. If they, with his knowledge, contributed money to his campaign via shell entities, you're looking at money laundering and campaign finance fraud. And, if the crux of the deal was that Russia agreed to release the DNC emails to Wikileaks if Trump committed to remove language from the RNC platform on Russia's invastion of Ukraine and for a promise to end sanctions against Russia once elected, if Trump himself made that decision, then you probably have grounds to try him for treason. Basically, "collusion" isn't a legal charge so much as a casual term, but in practice collusion would be highly likely to involve _something_ illegal, given that this was Russia and that we were in the middle of an election. 

And, yes, it may eventually come out that it wasn't Trump himself calling the shots, but someone on his campaign, and Trump's guilty of nothing more than being a shitty judge of character and taking really bad advice. At this point, from what's publicly known, all we can really say is that Mueller evidently thinks he has a case against someone he hasn't yet indicted, and is targeting people whose testimony can help build that case.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> That is pretty funny but I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here.
> 
> But what exactly is a suspicious real estate deal? Serious question.


How old are you? Serious question.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> How old are you? Serious question.



....ok don’t answer me then. If you were implying suspicious real estate deals have anything to do with Russia Collusion in a presidential election I’m not quite sure what to think.


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> It's definitely entirely possible that this is going to end with Trump himself being cleared of any wrongdoing with regards to Russia, though honestly at this point the only way he escapes obstruction of justice charges, IMO, is if Mueller decides it's not worth the political backlash from the 36% or so of the country who still strongly support him, even if it is an impeachable offense.
> 
> As far as criminality, though, as I understand collusion _itself_ isn't necessarily illegal, which is part of the reason Trump keeps harping on that specific term, but rather it's the individual acts that would go along with it that could be problematic. For example, if Russia contacted Trump and offered to release the DNC emails to Wikileaks to help his campaign and he said sure, that's likely something that could be successfully tried under campaign finance law (a violation of "accepting something of value from a foreign nation"). If they offered to hack the DNC and Trump encouraged them to do so, we're looking at conspiracy to commit a crime. If they, with his knowledge, contributed money to his campaign via shell entities, you're looking at money laundering and campaign finance fraud. And, if the crux of the deal was that Russia agreed to release the DNC emails to Wikileaks if Trump committed to remove language from the RNC platform on Russia's invastion of Ukraine and for a promise to end sanctions against Russia once elected, if Trump himself made that decision, then you probably have grounds to try him for treason. Basically, "collusion" isn't a legal charge so much as a casual term, but in practice collusion would be highly likely to involve _something_ illegal, given that this was Russia and that we were in the middle of an election.
> 
> And, yes, it may eventually come out that it wasn't Trump himself calling the shots, but someone on his campaign, and Trump's guilty of nothing more than being a shitty judge of character and taking really bad advice. At this point, from what's publicly known, all we can really say is that Mueller evidently thinks he has a case against someone he hasn't yet indicted, and is targeting people whose testimony can help build that case.



Where are you getting the 36% approval number?

Last I checked, today it was 50% and who actually believes these polls anyways.

I mean they said Hillary Clinton had. 90% chance of winning on Election Day.

Edit: never mind I see it’s 35% strongly approve. Sorry.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> ....ok don’t answer me then. If you were implying suspicious real estate deals have anything to do with Russia Collusion in a presidential election I’m not quite sure what to think.


I'm asking because that comment seems to have gone completely over your head, which makes me think you're not old enough to remember the Clinton administration.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr


----------



## VC4Ever

Drew said:


> I'm asking because that comment seems to have gone completely over your head, which makes me think you're not old enough to remember the Clinton administration.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Starr



Ahh. I did not catch that. Sorry not familiar with that other than blowjobs are apparently not sexual relations.


----------



## Drew

VC4Ever said:


> Ahh. I did not catch that. Sorry not familiar with that other than blowjobs are apparently not sexual relations.


You'd really never heard of Kenneth Starr before just now?

I mean, I hope you see the parallels here. 

EDIT - what you should be more worried about here is that while it was never formally tested (as the GOP voted to impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice in the Whitewater investigation, for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinski, a White House intern who had no connection to Whitewater), Starr released a memo during his investigation building the legal argument that a special prosecutor had the legal authority to indict a sittiing president. If Mueller comes back with hard evidence that Trump knowingly broke the law in his campaign in a material manner, and if the GOP fails to move to impeach him purely for partisan reasons, it would be ironic if Trump was indicted and convicted on the basis of Ken Starr's arguments.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> And, if the crux of the deal was that Russia agreed to release the DNC emails to Wikileaks if Trump committed to remove language from the RNC platform on Russia's invastion of Ukraine and for a promise to end sanctions against Russia once elected, if Trump himself made that decision, then you probably have grounds to try him for treason.



Or, hypothetically, if he removes, ignores, or lessens sanctions (even if the House votes 419 to 3 and the Senate votes 98 to 2 to impose them) in return for help during the election or to avoid having compromising documents/videos released.


----------



## Explorer

Randy said:


> @DrewI haven't seen enough specifics on what the illegalities of collusion are, since the specific of what the Russians did that was illegal are so specific. That's to say, even if you proved Trump knew the Russians were trying to help him, I haven't seen a statute that indicates HE directly did anything illegal unless he was paying for known illegally obtained materials; and everything I've seen so far says they kept a deliberate sphere of 'plausible deniability' surrounding him. The furthest up the chain you might go is Kushner or Don Jr. or Hope Hicks, with regard to people who 'knew' things they were getting were illegal, but they could've just told him what they found out without telling him or him asking where they got it. One of the knocks on Trump since he's been president is that he doesn't ask for a lot of details.
> 
> I have seen enough to lead me to believe Trump Jr. and Kushner knowingly intercepted illegally obtained intel, and I'd suspect Hope Hicks as well, based on the Corallo story about her intent to "make sure Trump Jr.'s emails never see the light of day".
> 
> But at the end of the day, I still think there's not enough that leads directly to Trump's door and Mueller's reputation sounds like he'd be more interest in the network that fed this scenario rather than how it actually played out in the election


Sorry if I accidentally edited out a context, but do you think there is evidence that Trump directly helped write an excuse for Junior's Russia meeting at Trump Tower? I thought if was established fairly well that Trump and Hicks were in on that.

If so, given that the excuse was concocted by Trump and others to mislead investigators away from discovering that now-self-confessed attempt at collusion on Junior's part, would *you* consider falsification of that sort on the part of Trump, to thwart investigation, to fit the definition of obstruction of justice? If not, why not?


Drew said:


> What you should be more worried about here is that while it was never formally tested (as the GOP voted to impeach Clinton for obstruction of justice in the Whitewater investigation, for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinski, a White House intern who had no connection to Whitewater), Starr released a memo during his investigation building the legal argument that a special prosecutor had the legal authority to indict a sittiing president. If Mueller comes back with hard evidence that Trump knowingly broke the law in his campaign in a material manner, and if the GOP fails to move to impeach him purely for partisan reasons, it would be ironic if Trump was indicted and convicted on the basis of Ken Starr's arguments.


At minimum, Kellyanne Conway's husband fought successfully in court to establish that a sitting president (Clinton at the time) could be subpeonaed and questioned under oath. 

Additionally, Trump has established that he is willing to go to court while president. That will be a consideration against any future arguments he makes that he doesn't have time to do so. It will be like other court cases where the judges have taken all of Trump's statements into consideration, not just Trump's "truth of the moment."


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Sorry if I accidentally edited out a context, but do you think there is evidence that Trump directly helped write an excuse for Junior's Russia meeting at Trump Tower? I thought if was established fairly well that Trump and Hicks were in on that.
> 
> If so, given that the excuse was concocted by Trump and others to mislead investigators away from discovering that now-self-confessed attempt at collusion on Junior's part, would *you* consider falsification of that sort on the part of Trump, to thwart investigation, to fit the definition of obstruction of justice? If not, why not?



Separate item. I'm referring specifically to the original trajectory of the Mueller investigation with regard to a Russian collusion plot. It's just very weedy with regard to what Trump knew and when.

What you're talking about is different. I think the firing of James Comey, the repeated insistence on "letting the Flynn thing go", hell, even the pressure on McCabe and Rosenstein over the phone and Twitter, and now refusing to release the Democratic memo are all bordering on, if not outright obstruction of justice. That's a separate item because this is referring to crimes committed AFTER the investigation was already on. I can't tell you if Trump will do something illegal tomorrow or the next day, I was just referring to if there was 'a there, there' to initial Trump-Russia investigation; and with regard to his direct involvement, I hadn't seen it.

The obstruction thing is a legitimate issue though. I don't personally think he obstructed because he knew there was truth to the Russian collusion narrative. I think he did it because hes an egomaniac and he doesnt like people questioning him at all for any reason, he knew the longer and deeper this went on the more it'd tie his hands in passing signature legislation, and a good to very good chance he was worried they would uncover similar to Manafort financial indiscretions. I think that's hands down the most rock solid case against him or anyone else in this whole mess, but it's the result of pressure brought on FROM the investigation, not the other way around.

Even though it's the biggest, most overt charge of them all I think it's the least likely to be invoked by Mueller directly. I think there's a better than even chance Mueller knows there's a crisis of constitutionality if he indicts a sitting president who's still capable of firing him, and he's anticipating Trump's trial will be in the Senate and that won't be until the midterms, so he's biding his time.


----------



## Explorer

Randy said:


> Separate item. I'm referring specifically to the original trajectory of the Mueller investigation with regard to a Russian collusion plot. It's just very weedy with regard to what Trump knew and when.
> 
> What you're talking about is different. I think the firing of James Comey, the repeated insistence on "letting the Flynn thing go", hell, even the pressure on McCabe and Rosenstein over the phone and Twitter, and now refusing to release the Democratic memo are all bordering on, if not outright obstruction of justice. That's a separate item because this is referring to crimes committed AFTER the investigation was already on. I can't tell you if Trump will do something illegal tomorrow or the next day, I was just referring to if there was 'a there, there' to initial Trump-Russia investigation; and with regard to his direct involvement, I hadn't seen it.


Ah, I see!

I've been wondering for a few years now about Trump's direct knowledge of the Russian intelligence and propaganda material Trump himself has been sharing. As I posted back on 10/11/2016...


Explorer said:


> I've thought it strange that many Trump tweets have had material from white supremacist sources, as I've never accidentally done so over the years.
> 
> Most recently though, there's the weird case of Trump quoting a Russian news story which attributed an altered/falsified quote to Sidney Blumenthal, when the original source of the unaltered quote was Kurt Eichenwald.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635
> 
> How did Trump get access to a falsified Russian propaganda piece, originating from Putin's circle, which Sputnik had pulled after some further investigation?
> 
> I personally find it troubling to combine this current example with not just Trump's pro-Putin stance over the course of his campaign, but even his campaign's successful work to tweak the GOP's party platform at the convention regarding Ukraine in favor of Putin.
> 
> I personally don't think Trump is intelligent enough to be purposefully manipulating things in favor of Russia and Putin, but it definitely looks like Russia has influence over parts of Trump's campaign, and has had for some time.


However, it's clear Trump himself had knowledge of Junior's communications with the Russians, as Trump himself tweeted that negative information on Clinton was forthcoming, at the point Junior had set up the meeting at Trump Tower. Additionally, Trump himself tweeted about the Clinton emails being hacked before that actually went public.

This was the same kind of behavior engaged in by Papadopolous, bragging publicly to others (in the case of Papadopolous, to the Australian diplomats) about forthcoming information from Russian hacking, which led to surveillance upon US intelligence being informed of such.

So, in light of Trump himself bragging of such secret information in the same way as Papadopolous, before the information became public... Do you think it's at all possible that forensic computer investigation will reveal Trump as aware of such attempts at complicity by his campaign and by Junior and Kushner at the time the attempts were happening? If so, is such concealment a crime?

Well, 18 USC Sec. 371 makes it a crime to engage in a conspiracy to violate a US law, including 18 USC 1030 against computer fraud and related. If Trump was aware of the crime, he might be on the hook. The same goes for 52 USC 10131, against foreign contributions, which (given that the material the. Trump campaign attempted to garner from the Russians had value) was violated by the Trump Tower meeting. If Trump was aware of the meeting featuring his family members and campaign staff, he's part of the conspiracy.

I'm not saying it's necessarily likely that a stand-alone charge on any of those bases would be successful, but do you think it's possible that any of those charges would fit the available evidence, and that Trump was part of a conspiracy (due to his knowledge, as revealed by his prognosticating tweets) even before the coverup?


----------



## VC4Ever

Adam Shifty eyes Schiff has been embarassed by the recent prank call of 2 known Russian pranksters.

Lol he actually wanted to get naked pictures of Trump.

Yup you can only imagine what was in the Democratic version of the memo.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Even though it's the biggest, most overt charge of them all I think it's the least likely to be invoked by Mueller directly. I think there's a better than even chance Mueller knows there's a crisis of constitutionality if he indicts a sitting president who's still capable of firing him, and he's anticipating Trump's trial will be in the Senate and that won't be until the midterms, so he's biding his time.


I tend to agree with you here. I think there's already a strong enough case to impeach him for obstruction of justice, between his pressuring Comey to "let the Flynn thing go," between his initial draft of the letter firing Comey explicitly referencing ending the Russian investigation, and between his subsequent televised interviews after the final letter (attributing Comey's dismissal to not convicting Clinton, which is a whole other can of constitutional worms) stating that no, it was actually about the Russia investigation, and not Clinton. I think you're exactly right that if he WERE to move to indict a sitting president, he thinks it needs to be as part of a rock-solid case that Trump knowingly colluded with the Russian government in the election, in ways that could potentially have changed its outcome, and in ways that clearly violated federal and state law. Anything short of that, and I think he knows he'd be crazy to open that pandora's box. He needs a case strong enough to make Congress move to impeach, and for what it's worth by the summer of 2017 I think it's increasingly looking like he may get one. 

The real question now is will the House vote to override Trump and release the Democratic rebuttal memo anyway - partisanship is running hot, but there's enough prominent Republicans calling for its release that they just might.


----------



## Explorer

VC4Ever said:


> Adam Schiff has been embarassed by the recent prank call of 2 known Russian pranksters.
> 
> Lol he actually wanted to get naked pictures of Trump.



https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/

"A spokesman for Schiff said, 'Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.'"

Oh, it's so *edgy* that he wasn't taken in, and that they committee informed law enforcement of the call before taking it, and already thougt it was likely fake!

----

Also in the news, as Trump was lamenting that people might have their lives ruined by allegations of sexual harassment without due process, Senator Gillibrand offered to hold congressional hearings on the women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.

http://www.newsweek.com/kirsten-gil...rump-sexual-misconduct-claims-congress-802719

Due process... who can object to that... other than Donald Trump, of course, who has been adamantly and suspiciously opposed to any investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election?


----------



## Explorer

Oh! And a piece about how Trump argued against allowing due process for the Central Park Five, doubling down on his allegations in spite of a confession by the actual rapist and exoneration of the five by DNA evidence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html

Disgusting... but interesting to see how selective some are, especially because of what seems to be clear racist tendencies on their part.


----------



## thraxil

I do feel that it's fair to point out that that article says "In 1989, after these black and Latino teenagers from Harlem were accused of assaulting and raping a white woman in Central Park, Mr. Trump spent $85,000 placing full-page ads in the four daily papers in New York City, calling for the return of the death penalty." without bothering to mention that the NYT was one of those newspapers that took his ad money and ran his disgusting ad. IMO it's a bit weasely to criticize him for the ad without acknowledging their own complicity.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I do feel that it's fair to point out that that article says "In 1989, after these black and Latino teenagers from Harlem were accused of assaulting and raping a white woman in Central Park, Mr. Trump spent $85,000 placing full-page ads in the four daily papers in New York City, calling for the return of the death penalty." without bothering to mention that the NYT was one of those newspapers that took his ad money and ran his disgusting ad. IMO it's a bit weasely to criticize him for the ad without acknowledging their own complicity.


Serious question - did the Times have an editorial question on advertising back then? Did they have published standards on things they would not accept in ads? Either in the absence of such standards or in the presence of such standards where the ad in question did not violate them, you'd get into dicey first amendment issues, and knowing Trump likely a lawsuit, if they refused to run his ad because he was advocating the death penalty after a rape.

Over and above that, I think if you're trying to answer the question, "Is Trump a racist?" his actions in the 80s DO seem pertinent. You know for a fact if the role was reversed and he'd spent $85k advocating that due process be followed, even given a sensational and headline-grabbing crime, his supporters would be pointing out that this was evidence he wasn't racist.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> Serious question - did the Times have an editorial question on advertising back then? Did they have published standards on things they would not accept in ads? Either in the absence of such standards or in the presence of such standards where the ad in question did not violate them, you'd get into dicey first amendment issues, and knowing Trump likely a lawsuit, if they refused to run his ad because he was advocating the death penalty after a rape.



At the time? I have no idea. I imagine they must've had *some* kind of policy (they wouldn't have run something pornographic, illegal, etc). It wouldn't have gotten into first amendment issues though: the NYT is a private company and, while they have a certain ethical responsibility as press, they are under no constitutional obligation to offer a platform to any particular viewpoint. I'm not really even saying they shouldn't have run it, just that it's a bit disingenuous to call him out for it without mentioning their own role. It gives ammunition to the "OMG! Fake News!" crowd.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> At the time? I have no idea. I imagine they must've had *some* kind of policy (they wouldn't have run something pornographic, illegal, etc). It wouldn't have gotten into first amendment issues though: the NYT is a private company and, while they have a certain ethical responsibility as press, they are under no constitutional obligation to offer a platform to any particular viewpoint. I'm not really even saying they shouldn't have run it, just that it's a bit disingenuous to call him out for it without mentioning their own role. It gives ammunition to the "OMG! Fake News!" crowd.


Eh, iduno. Had they turned the ad down, how likely do you think it would be for Trump to _not_ sue?


----------



## Explorer

Given that members of the Central Park Five themselves have pointed out that Trump is all for due process only when it's his circle, I greatly admire that some are making it about the NYT instead of about the wrongfully accused truthfully pointing out Trump's hypocrisy.


----------



## bostjan

But, really, is that the best example of racism you can come up with for Trump?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But, really, is that the best example of racism you can come up with for Trump?


Off the top of my head, it's the _earliest_ clear example.


----------



## vilk

This may seem weird to say, but I feel like determining _whether or not Trump is racist_ is kind of a moot point.
1) It's not illegal to be racist
2) It's not even illegal to push blatantly racist legislation
3) ...in my opinion, I think that if we surveyed all septuagenarians, the ones that would pass through as "non-racist" would be an extreme minority. Irrespective of their political opinions. I guess that's 'ageist' of me, but I feel it has to do with the way people were brought up and the way society functioned back then. I don't even necessarily judge them for it, the way I might someone my own age.


Too much airtime is being spent on _is he racist?_ as though it were even a question that needed to be asked, and as though the 'answer' would mean anything at all. Guess what: even if there were some magical way that he were definitively proved not racist, his policies are still shit, he's still measurably the most dishonest president we've ever elected, most disliked president we've ever elected, still probably tied up in some illegal, impeachable shit.

Honestly though, I rarely ever read anyone try to make the case that he _isn't_ racist. The closest anyone ever gets is "muslim aint no race!"...


----------



## spudmunkey

vilk said:


> I rarely ever read anyone try to make the case that he _isn't_ racist.



This one's pretty good: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...k-pics-with-rappers-so-he-cant-be-racist.html


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> This one's pretty good: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...k-pics-with-rappers-so-he-cant-be-racist.html


Lovely logic there:
Trump in a photo with Al Sharpton implies Trump is not racist.
Yet
Al Sharpton in a photo with Trump, and claims Trump is racist*.
What does that make Al Sharpton? (Hint: in this case, the answer is "not completely oblivious."

*Paraphrased - Sharpton says Trump is promoting racism, which I, personally, equate to being racist. Maybe some would disagree with the equivalency, but that could be another discussion.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> 2) It's not even illegal to push blatantly racist legislation


Actually, it is, it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act. 

...which is why so much attention is being paid to whether or not Trump is _actually_ racist, or is just pursuing policies that look a lot like they're racist. I.e - is his border wall and restrictive immigration policies a legitimate and well-meaning attempt to improve border security, or are they acts specifically targeting Muslims and Latinos?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Actually, it is, it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> ...which is why so much attention is being paid to whether or not Trump is _actually_ racist, or is just pursuing policies that look a lot like they're racist. I.e - is his border wall and restrictive immigration policies a legitimate and well-meaning attempt to improve border security, or are they acts specifically targeting Muslims and Latinos?


Erm, not that this is really a debate I want to have, but, I don't think that pushing illegal policies for another branch of government to discuss is, itself, illegal. Unethical, yes, but illegal, probably not. Maybe it's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Erm, not that this is really a debate I want to have, but, I don't think that pushing illegal policies for another branch of government to discuss is, itself, illegal. Unethical, yes, but illegal, probably not. Maybe it's splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.


That's actually a fair point. Advocating them isn't illegal, even if enacting them is. Splitting hairs, maybe, but that's kinda what we do, so whatever.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Actually, it is, it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> ...which is why so much attention is being paid to whether or not Trump is _actually_ racist, or is just pursuing policies that look a lot like they're racist. I.e - is his border wall and restrictive immigration policies a legitimate and well-meaning attempt to improve border security, or are they acts specifically targeting Muslims and Latinos?




This kind of highlights my point: irrespective of whether or not Trump himself is deemed to be _racist _or _not_, his policies_ are _targeting Muslims and Latinos.

Likewise, I imagine that there are many a mildly or secretly racist democratic congressman that does not advocate or vote for racist legislature, to which I say: Then who cares if on the inside he's racist, if on the outside he isn't?

That's a rhetorical question. I mean I understand the sort of principle reasons for which someone might object to a racist in charge of legislating. But what I'm trying to say is that maybe sometimes the better measure of racism is action and not intention.


----------



## Drew

...except, I think pretty clearly it matters _why _someone's doing something. Basically, if the discrimination against a group is a bug, or if it's a feature.

Though, let's be honest. Right now, there's really no plausible way to argue that Trump's not deeply racist. There were "many fine people" who marched with white nationalists in Charlottesville, we need a wall to protect ourselves from Mexican murderers and rapists and drug dealers, the Muslim ban is necessary to protect America from terrorists until we think of a long term way to handle "this Muslim thing," we need fewer immigrants from "shithole countries" like the Dominican Republic and more from "nice" countries like Norway, etc etc etc. 

The only reason it matters that Trump was advertising in the NY Times back in '89 to reinstate the death penalty because five young black men were falsely accused of a rape, is that it suggests he might have been quietly racist for at least the past 30 years, before he became publicly racist during the Obama administration.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> a bug, or if it's a feature.


I'm saying sometimes it's the same difference. What's a bug to some might even be a feature to others. In fact I was pretty sure that a lot of legislation is purposely made with "bugs" so that they can pass it while it looks like they're passing something else.

I'm not saying intention doesn't matter at all. But as an example, if someone voted through some legislation for totally racist reasons, but the effect is benevolent to everyone irrespective of race (and for the same of argument affects all races totally equally), does it still _clearly _matter why he voted to pass it?


----------



## bostjan

Is anyone arguing that it's a bug?!

Maybe the people in my circle are skewed politically, but I know plenty of folks Trump's age who are appalled at some of the racist things he's said.

Also, different subject matter, but this: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...restricting-choices-for-food-stamp-recipients

I read this and got my hopes up that it was something halfway logical, like something to encourage healthier habits somehow, but no, this is pretty much the polar opposite of what I had hoped to see, and I was unsurprised that my hopes were dashed.

I think we are nearing the most dangerous part of the Trump presidency. This is the new normal, and he's pushing into deeper territory. As more and more bullshit policies are proposed and debated by the media, our bar will drop, I suspect. Next thing you know, bullshit we would have perceived as extreme a year ago will be perceived as mild bullshit next year, and so more bullshit overall makes it through legislation. It's a phenomenon called "creeping normality," and I think the time to fight against it is now.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I'm saying sometimes it's the same difference. What's a bug to some might even be a feature to others. In fact I was pretty sure that a lot of legislation is purposely made with "bugs" so that they can pass it while it looks like they're passing something else.
> 
> I'm not saying intention doesn't matter at all. But as an example, if someone voted through some legislation for totally racist reasons, but the effect is benevolent to everyone irrespective of race (and for the same of argument affects all races totally equally), does it still _clearly _matter why he voted to pass it?



With all due respect, you're talking yourself in circles. I'm sure you could come up with a scenario where being a pedophile helps you find the cure for cancer, but that's just a heavily manufactured scenario that doesn't fit the overarching point. I mean, I get where you're coming from but your arguments sound more like marrying yourself to your original statements for the sake of not being wrong, rather than evolving or accepting alternatives based on the realities of it. 

The fact is being a racist makes you pre-disposed to making negatively racially biased decisions. I'm obsessed with the concept of objective and subjective decision making. Objective decision making happens in scenarios where on is divorced from their biases, which in and of itself is reflective of a LACK of bias, as it means choosing solutions that are best for the most involved, despite whether or not that's directly reflective of your personal views on the subject. 

When you make decisions on items that CAN be heavily effected by bias and you're someone that harbors that bias, you're prone to making decision that aren't objectively sound, but quell your emotional attachments to the subject. I agree with the point that "doing > thinking" regarding biases, but the two are inextricably connected. 

When you're talking about a job like the President of the United States, you're talking about the leader of a representative democracy. If you harbor biases and you're tasked with writing policy and managing/administering programs to those same people which you harbor a bias toward, of course it's going to effect outcomes.


----------



## vilk

I definitely agree with what you're saying, and I tried to express before that of course I understand the principle reasons why someone would object to a racist making important decisions--I meant to imply that I understand there is pre-disposition and biases that will in some way affect the decision making. 


that "doing > thinking" basically was my only point. I can't really marry myself to my opinion in avoidance of being wrong because ultimately it's a subjective matter. To someone, having racist thoughts might be considered worse than doing racist things absent racist thoughts. But not to most people... I think?


While being a pedophile will most likely not lead to a cure for cancer, I do genuinely think there are plenty of racist politicians who have the decency to avoid passing racist legislation, if only out of fear of losing votes. To which I say, "I'll take it."


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I do genuinely think there are plenty of racist politicians who have the decency to avoid passing racist legislation, if only out of fear of losing votes. To which I say, "I'll take it."


In the context of Trump's presidency, though, I really don't know if he would stop himself from doing/saying racist things in order to improve his approval rating, FWIW. In fact, it doesn't seem like he really cares at all about public opinion, which, ironically, seems to galvanize a small portion of his support base in supporting him. Generally speaking, since we get one president to represent the entire US population, I would ideally like to see a president who can stick to his principles on long term strategies, but overall has the public interest as his #1 priority overall. Trump might just tick that first box, but I'm not even convinced of that, seeing as how he actually has flip-flopped on a few issues, but he really has made widely known that he does not care about his approval ratings and so forth, dismissing any statistics he doesn't like as "fake news," or whatever.

If we somehow get stuck with this border wall, it's going to be a total disaster. I don't think people really want the border wall. According to polls, people want DACA (about 8 to 1) and do not want a border wall (almost 2 to 1), yet this looks like what we'll get regardless.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If we somehow get stuck with this border wall, it's going to be a total disaster. I don't think people really want the border wall. According to polls, people want DACA (about 8 to 1) and do not want a border wall (almost 2 to 1), yet this looks like what we'll get regardless.



I disagree... I think if Trump draws a line in the sand and refuses to sign anything other than his "four pillars" approach to immigration (citizenship for Dreamers, border wall, elimination of the visa lottery and reduction in number of immigrants allowed in a year, and elimitation of most family-based "chain immigration"), then the far more likely outcome isn't we get a wall, it's we don't get an immigration bill. 

DACA is popular with most Democrats and a majority of Republicans, so there's an outside chance whatever comes out of the Senate makes it out of the House and to Trump's desk and he actually signs it... But, I don't see the Democrats (or the moderate Republicans) accepting radical reductions in legal immigration just to provide a legal status for the Dreamers. Yes, it sucks what Trump is about to do to them, but there are about three quarters of a million Dreamers in this country, and as part of his plan Trump is looking to restrict legal immigration by about _a half million a year_ in return for a path to citizenship for Dreamers. Honestly, by signing that, you would hurt far more people than you would help. It's not really a viable compromise, and I'm pretty sure Trump knows that.


----------



## bostjan

With which part did you disagree?


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...restricting-choices-for-food-stamp-recipients
> 
> I read this and got my hopes up that it was something halfway logical, like something to encourage healthier habits somehow, but no, this is pretty much the polar opposite of what I had hoped to see, and I was unsurprised that my hopes were dashed.



While I agree that canned fruits and vegetables is often less desirable than fresh fruits and vegetables, it does have a much longer shelf life and reduces waste. I'm sure the nutrition of canned fruits and veggies might be partially lost in the preparation process, but surely the nutritional value isn't totally eliminated.

TBH, when considering data on dietary habits of the poor, the total failure of public education in poor neighborhoods coupled with the dismal standards we as a country have for nutritional education (and just nutrition and wellness in general)... I actually do kinda see this system theoretically improving the diets of SNAP recipients.

Like, I understand how it's shitty to try and tell people what to eat according to what could be perceived as a disciplinary action for having been born poor... but like then again, I feel saddened when I see kids eating takis and mountain dew for lunch (I live next to a corner store)... or like, some of the people I work with who I know came from poor families... I can't imagine how their pallets were ever trained to eat like this. Microwave pizza rolls, every day? What? A can of tuna and peach slices in water may seem like a lousy lunch to many of us... but really it is better for you than what many people are eating instead.

I guess diet and wellness in America is kind of a larger issue. But what I wanted to ask is: Why Bostjan did you say that this plan is the opposite of encouraging healthier habits? I didn't pick that up when I was reading through the article.


----------



## bostjan

I'm thinking that canned foods, peanut butter, sugary cereals, and pasta would be less healthy than what people on SNAP would typically eat. Perhaps I was wrong, though. I live in an area where roughly one in five residents is on SNAP, and I'm often accosted by people hoping I will exchange money, booze, or drugs (I guess because I have long hair?) for EBT cards.

I'd rather see some healthier meals than this in those SNAP packages, but after some reflection, maybe this is not as bad as it seems on the surface. Chef Boyardee Beefaroni and Lucky Charms is probably ten times better than a diet of Bud Light and Marlboros.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I have zero faith in this administration providing healthy, good tasting, nourishing food in these packages. Zero. 

It's going to be cheap, processed bullshit made to the lowest standards by one of his administration's shithead friends at an outsized profit.


----------



## vilk

You're right that does seem just like the Trump way


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I have zero faith in this administration providing healthy, good tasting, nourishing food in these packages. Zero.
> 
> It's going to be cheap, processed bullshit made to the lowest standards by one of his administration's shithead friends at an outsized profit.


I agree, that's idiotic. 

Locally, my city raises money to honor SNAP benefits 2:1 at our local farmer's market, so right off the bat this will be hurting SNAP recipients in my community.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I have zero faith in this administration providing healthy, good tasting, nourishing food in these packages. Zero.
> 
> It's going to be cheap, processed bullshit made to the lowest standards by one of his administration's shithead friends at an outsized profit.



If Donald Trump menswear is any indication. My dad bought a Donald Trump dress shirt around the time of the election as a novelty and the holes for the cufflinks were on the top of the sleeves 

Also, I know everybody has their horror stories about seeing people abuse the SNAP/EBT program but it's exactly that, an abuse. They got really big on cracking down on food stamp/medicaid abuse locally (both users and suppliers) and they did a huge raid in a small local town where it as prevalent. One place where they busted the owner was because they sold the person two prepared hot dogs, a small bag of dog food and cough drops. The guy went to jail for that. 

Likewise, people complain about people on social services as being lazy and unmotivated and that there's no programs to get people to "life themselves out of poverty". Bullshit. I know a woman that works for DSS, and they specifically make people on certain welfare programs take programs to try and get their life back on track. She teaches a class about mindfulness and having a work ethic and managing the problems in your life, and it's mandatory. People come in with all their stories about who they owe child support to, not having a car to be able to go to work, etc. and she works with them to make a roadmap on how to manage it and get their life together, and eventually get a job. I know of several similar programs.

All that the Trump proposed programs do is further marginalize people who are buried underneath piles of difficult to traverse life problems; yes, some of them of their own doing but people make mistakes and often times even ONE of those items would cripple any of us that consider ourselves "functional". I don't believe in victimhood, I believe in "giving people a hand up, instead of a hand out" but NONE of what Trump's proposed for social safety net programs accomplish that; they're punishments, nothing more, nothing less.

Also, worth mentioning... if you're going incentivise "lazy people" to contribute more to society, sending them their food in the mail as opposed to them having to go to the story to get it isn't the first approach I'd take. My friend and I frequently describe political beliefs as a circle as opposed to a simple 'left and right'; essentially when you go so far to one side, you begin to pop up on the end of the scale. It's funny to me that Trump and his supporters are free market capitalists, yet their solution is to go from giving people the "money" to go out into the marketplace, choose their vendor and choose the product to instead handing them the product directly with no choice, no contribution to the local economy. For someone so staunchly capitalistic, that sure sounds a lot like a "bread line".


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> With which part did you disagree?


Missed this - that we're likely to get a wall. I think it's far more likely either DACA expires without an immigration biill, or possibly that the legal challenge that, last I heard, was still working its way through the courts, that Trump's argument that he was letting DACA lapse because Obama didn't have the constitutional authority to enact it wasn't actually correct succeeds, but that just means he'll have to re-end the program so that's probably only a temporary stay.


----------



## bostjan

Well, it's probably a mix of good and bad ideas. The expectation here, which I would not bet against at any odds, is that the changes are going to be poorly executed, which is just going to make a huge mess that someone will have to try to clean up.

Sending people their food or delivering it through some government agency might actually not be a bad idea overall. People with little to no money don't need to be hauling groceries around, riding the bus or tram or operating a car. I think that's not a bad idea. Making sure that people who need food assistance are actually getting (healthy*) food instead of abusing the system to get bottles of booze and baggies of weed is also a step in the right direction, in theory.

I've personally never (so far) needed food assistance, but I have, on maybe two occasions, been very glad it would be there if I needed it. I feel like I've not really made any bad life decisions. I was born well below the poverty line in one of the poorest cities in the USA, but I worked hard in school and I did a lot of volunteering so I could get a job as soon as I could, worked my way through seven years at University, and managed to take an advanced degree without crippling student loans. But then I broke my arm while Bush was president and I lost my job as a result and I was left up a creek in a canoe full of tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt. But, miraculously, I recovered from that and here I am now, not doing too bad with a roof over my head and a good job.

I feel that I've done much better for myself than most people, yet I really don't think it takes making bad life decisions to land you in financial danger. In fact, I feel pretty strongly about that, having been on the cusp myself for what I felt was no fault of my own.

Anyway...

If they are going to send people food for SNAP benefit fullfillment, it might as well be healthy foods or at least something with the facade of healthy food and not what the article described. "Let them eat beefaroni," Trump says to the masses starving outside the White House in deep urban Washington DC, while he sprays himself with fake tan and sips his covfefe or whatever. It truly sounds like a farce of pre-revolutionary Paris.


----------



## narad

Removing the personal freedom of at least being able to choose your own food with foodstamps reminds me a bit of the Seinfeld "Top of the Muffin, to You!" episode and their strategy of pawning the muffin bottoms off to the homeless.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> If they are going to send people food for SNAP benefit fullfillment, it might as well be healthy foods or at least something with the facade of healthy food





> According to Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager who wrote the book "Let Trump Be Trump," the president would usually go 14 to 16 hours without eating, then have a full McDonald's dinner of two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, and a small chocolate shake - a total of 2,430 calories.



This is the guy that should determine what's a healthy diet for people 

I love that that people who have been advocating for cutting every program that benefits poor people to near or literally zero are the right people to decide what's the healthiest ways to help them going forward.

I said it in another thread (actually may have been earlier in this same thread) but to paraphrase, I can understand being disenfranchised by status quo and wanting to try something different. But "anything that's different, for the sake of being different" is dangerous territory. "I'm tired of having chicken for dinner so I'm going to have pork, because it's different" is a different rationale than "I'm tired of chicken so I'm going to eat a car battery because it's also different".

There's welfare abuse, there's an over reliance on social programs for the long term from some individuals, but I find those to be issues handled in adjustments in inches, not in miles. Also, call it classist of me but I trust the top administrator of social programs being a person with a background in community organization over a full overhaul from a wealthy real estate magnate. YMMV


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Let's be real here. They don't give a shit about people on SNAP.

This is all just a ruse to appease his base of jackasses that get mad while in line at Walmart because the family in front of them has the gal to buy real meat with food stamps while they have to settle for Bubba burgers because them illegals took thier job at the coal mine.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Let's be real here. They don't give a shit about people on SNAP.
> 
> This is all just a ruse to appease his base of jackasses that get mad while in line at Walmart because the family in front of them has the gal to buy real meat with food stamps while they have to settle for Bubba burgers because them illegals took thier job at the coal mine.



And I'm all for objectivity (see previous post) but here you have people left of Trump giving him the benefit of the doubt because "just because he does and says incredibly racist things doesn't mean he's racist or governs as a racist" and "just because he's made it a policy to villanize poor people doesn't mean he'll overhaul entitlements in a way that is corrosive to poor people" but here we are.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

This administration deserves no benefit of the doubt. Maybe this time last year, but certainly not now.


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> This kind of highlights my point: irrespective of whether or not Trump himself is deemed to be _racist _or _not_, his policies_ are _targeting Muslims and Latinos.
> 
> ...but what I'm trying to say is that maybe sometimes the better measure of racism is action and not intention.



I skimmed the last couple of pages pretty heavily so forgive me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying, but are you saying (1) stricter border and immigration policies that adversely affect Muslim and Latino populations are racist because of how they affect Muslim and Latino populations, or are you saying (2) the purposed policies are racist because of the _intent_ of the person pushing the policies?

The first is quite the stretch in my eyes. How are tougher laws on illegal immigration and border security racist (note: I'm not talking about Trump's specific proposals/wants)? Same with restricting immigration/raising the standards for immigrating from countries that may have issues with more radical or dangerous ideologies. The second is clearly racist in my eyes, at least if the individual thinks less of those specific groups and wants to enact those policies solely because of that.

As for the Trump's Apron program I struggle to see how the logistics costs won't eat up any potential savings for buying food material (  ) in bulk. I was initially bothered by the removal of choice from SNAP recipients, but as long as the food material received is actually nutritious I don't see the issue. These programs should exist to ensure people don't starve (IE: are healthy), and have the ability to potentially improve their standings in life. Whether or not they enjoy the food is kind of irrelevant.


----------



## Randy

wannabguitarist said:


> These programs should exist to ensure people don't starve (IE: are healthy), and have the ability to potentially improve their standings in life. Whether or not they enjoy the food is kind of irrelevant.



If this were a new program started from scratch and the alternative is nothing at all, sure. But there's an existing program that does provide choices, so why eliminate it if replacement isn't appreciably less expensive or guarantees a healthier diet? Just to be cruel?


----------



## wannabguitarist

Randy said:


> If this were a new program started from scratch and the alternative is nothing at all, sure. But there's an existing program that does provide choices, so why eliminate it if replacement isn't appreciably less expensive or guarantees a healthier diet? Just to be cruel?



Like I said, I doubt the new program will actually provide savings so I don't support it. If there was a way to guarantee a certain standard of higher nutrition at a lower cost then I would absolutely support it. This wouldn't be a 100% replacement for SNAP, but even if it was why is choice that important _if _the individuals on the program were getting everything they needed for a healthy diet at no cost to them? I don't see how that's cruel. The current program exists so people who struggle to afford to feed themselves have to ability stay healthy instead of stressing about where their next meal will come from. This opens up more time to potentially find ways to bring themselves out of poverty. If there's a way to continue to do that _while _saving the state money and keeping meals healthy I'm 100% for it.

Like I said though, the logistics of something like this are staggering. I struggle to see how this will be cheaper.


----------



## Randy

Making people who can't afford to buy food for themselves eat food they don't like is cruel. Outside of that sticking point, I agree that saving money and promoting healthy diets would be a net positive.

Like I said earlier, I think the current system gets a bad rap just because of abuses that go unchecked. There are some bright spots.

Food and health education helps. Also, I work in a number of poor areas and like clockwork, you're less likely to a fresh market or legitimate grocery store as you are to find a Dollar General or a bodega. That's not exactly conducive to positive food choices. Some "food deserts" have combatted this by getting assistance taking down blighted properties and replacing them with community gardens. Some local municipalities offer incentives such as credit matching for purchase of fresh and local produce and farm shares; essentially you double your SNAP benefits by eating healthy.

This is the kind of flexibility the current system affords if administered responsibly. It's funny because this seems to happen in left leaning metropolitan type settings, whereas conservative leaning rural areas are like "ho hum, durr gubbernment makes us do this", looking the other way while families live off boxed Mac n Cheese and Combos for generations or yeah, let them just sell off their benefits for booze and drugs.

I think you find a direct correlation between increased quality of life and likelihood of graduating out of the food benefit programs in areas that stay engaged in their service versus those that basically get dragged along kicking and screaming. The Trump food program falls on the absolute wrong side of this paradigm.


----------



## Explorer

wannabguitarist said:


> I skimmed the last couple of pages pretty heavily so forgive me if I've misinterpreted what you're saying, but are you saying (1) stricter border and immigration policies that adversely affect Muslim and Latino populations are racist because of how they affect Muslim and Latino populations, or are you saying (2) the purposed policies are racist because of the _intent_ of the person pushing the policies?


To be purely factual, the courts have been finding that Trump's stated intent was to be discriminatory with animus when crafting the policies. 


wannabguitarist said:


> The first is quite the stretch in my eyes. How are tougher laws on illegal immigration and border security racist (note: I'm not talking about Trump's specific proposals/wants)? Same with restricting immigration/raising the standards for immigrating from countries that may have issues with more radical or dangerous ideologies. The second is clearly racist in my eyes, at least if the individual thinks less of those specific groups and wants to enact those policies solely because of that.


To give an example of Trump deliberately changing a policy which previously kept Americans safer, he removed resources which monitor and neutralize home-grown white supremacist terrorists.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Randy said:


> Making people who can't afford to buy food for themselves eat food they don't like is cruel. Outside of that sticking point, I agree that saving money and promoting healthy diets would be a net positive.



I don't think we'll see eye to on eye on the first part. I view this as providing people who can't afford to feed themselves with food. Whether or not they actually like the food is irrelevant if it's nutritious and they don't have to pay for it.



Randy said:


> Like I said earlier, I think the current system gets a bad rap just because of abuses that go unchecked. There are some bright spots.



This I agree with, and from my understanding, those abuses are far less common than the traditional conservative narrative would like you to believe. That being said one of the reasons why I think this Trump program is interesting is the fact that it would place further limits on what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Per this article about 10% of SNAP purchases were used on soft drinks or high sugar drinks of some kind; that's about $3.2B in 2011 (full details of the study from the USDA here). I know this goes back to taking choices away from poorer individuals, but we have enough food-related health problems in the US as it is. Of course, SNAP could always be improved by no longer allowing those items.



Randy said:


> Food and health education helps. Also, I work in a number of poor areas and like clockwork, you're less likely to a fresh market or legitimate grocery store as you are to find a Dollar General or a bodega. That's not exactly conducive to positive food choices. Some "food deserts" have combatted this by getting assistance taking down blighted properties and replacing them with community gardens. Some local municipalities offer incentives such as credit matching for purchase of fresh and local produce and farm shares; essentially you double your SNAP benefits by eating healthy.
> 
> This is the kind of flexibility the current system affords if administered responsibly. It's funny because this seems to happen in left leaning metropolitan type settings, whereas conservative leaning rural areas are like "ho hum, durr gubbernment makes us do this", looking the other way while families live off boxed Mac n Cheese and Combos for generations or yeah, let them just sell off their benefits for booze and drugs.
> 
> *I think you find a direct correlation between increased quality of life and likelihood of graduating out of the food benefit programs in areas that stay engaged in their service versus those that basically get dragged along kicking and screaming.* The Trump food program falls on the absolute wrong side of this paradigm.



I don't really disagree with any this, bolded part especially. SNAP itself definitely has issues and I do find the Trump program worth looking into. While typing this out I did think 2 more potential issues:
1. Government subsidizing waste. People just throwing away what they don't eat.
2. Intent of the program. If it's just to maximize calories then there may be potential health issues that will get offloaded onto the various state and federal healthcare programs for lower income individuals (though this is kind of an issue with SNAP and unhealthy foods already).


----------



## wannabguitarist

Explorer said:


> To be purely factual, the courts have been finding that Trump's stated intent was to be discriminatory with animus when crafting the policies.



I have little doubt about Trump being racist. The questions I asked were more general, and more for the sake of discussion. This does lead to another one though: what about a policy that was written with a racist intent that actually turns out to be good policy?

Personally, I am all for a more restrictive immigration policy and more aggressive deportations of individuals that came here illegally. Of course, this would have to put in place with laws that also heavily punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants as well. As our system currently sits we do absolutely nothing about the demand side of the illegal immigration market.

As for immigration in general, I also see no issue with being more selective and restrictive. What I was getting at with the post you quoted is that this is not actually a racist viewpoint.



Explorer said:


> To give an example of Trump deliberately changing a policy which previously kept Americans safer, he removed resources which monitor and neutralize home-grown white supremacist terrorists.



Right. I remember that happening and thinking "why?" but it's really not hard to see why


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wannabguitarist said:


> I don't think we'll see eye to on eye on the first part. I view this as providing people who can't afford to feed themselves with food. Whether or not they actually like the food is irrelevant if it's nutritious and they don't have to pay for it.
> 
> 
> 
> This I agree with, and from my understanding, those abuses are far less common than the traditional conservative narrative would like you to believe. That being said one of the reasons why I think this Trump program is interesting is the fact that it would place further limits on what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Per this article about 10% of SNAP purchases were used on soft drinks or high sugar drinks of some kind; that's about $3.2B in 2011 (full details of the study from the USDA here). I know this goes back to taking choices away from poorer individuals, but we have enough food-related health problems in the US as it is. Of course, SNAP could always be improved by no longer allowing those items.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really disagree with any this, bolded part especially. SNAP itself definitely has issues and I do find the Trump program worth looking into. While typing this out I did think 2 more potential issues:
> 1. Government subsidizing waste. People just throwing away what they don't eat.
> 2. Intent of the program. If it's just to maximize calories then there may be potential health issues that will get offloaded onto the various state and federal healthcare programs for lower income individuals (though this is kind of an issue with SNAP and unhealthy foods already).



From your own article:



NYT said:


> The category of ‘sweetened beverages,’ which includes soft drinks, *fruit juices*, energy drinks and *sweetened teas*, accounted for almost 10 percent of the dollars they spent on food.



So they count fruit juice in on that? I know most fruit juice is just a sweetened cocktail, but even the "good" expensive stuff most places is sweetened. I can see how someone grabbing a bottle that says "100% juice" might think they're making a healthier choice. 

Sweetened tea is another one. Even the relatively bland, thought to be healthier, green tea at the store isn't all that pure. But again, to many it's a better option. 

Though, the real culprit here is pricing. A two liter bottle of store brand soda by me is as little as $.25. It's not the healthy choice, it's the short term economical one.


----------



## bostjan

Vermont has a tax on beverages sweetened with additional sugar. I think it's potentially ineffective if it raises the price of a 2 L bottle from $0.25 to $0.28, though, when the alternative is a $2.00, 1 L bottle of filtered water.

If they are going to try to make some sort of "care package" style of food assistance, though, why not model it on existing infrastructure, like MREs? (You could even get the emotional appeal behind this saying "if our best soldiers are expected to eat this, why would it not be good enough for meal assistance?") Or, worst case, just ship vitamin supplements with protein powder and bottled water? Changing over to canned pasta and cheap breakfast cereals seems contrary to the stated goals of this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Vermont has a tax on beverages sweetened with additional sugar. I think it's potentially ineffective if it raises the price of a 2 L bottle from $0.25 to $0.28, though, when the alternative is a $2.00, 1 L bottle of filtered water.
> 
> If they are going to try to make some sort of "care package" style of food assistance, though, why not model it on existing infrastructure, like MREs? (You could even get the emotional appeal behind this saying "if our best soldiers are expected to eat this, why would it not be good enough for meal assistance?") Or, worst case, just ship vitamin supplements with protein powder and bottled water? Changing over to canned pasta and cheap breakfast cereals seems contrary to the stated goals of this.



I've had MREs and they're garbage. But, if I was at war I'd understand why I need food which is especially robust to survive to be eaten vs. tasting good.

If you think folks are scamming the system now, you just wait until we try to jam that garbage down thier throats.

Same with vitamins and powder. Go look up reviews for Soylent. The human body isn't meant to "eat" like that.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've had MREs and they're garbage. But, if I was at war I'd understand why I need food which is especially robust to survive to be eaten vs. tasting good.
> 
> If you think folks are scamming the system now, you just wait until we try to jam that garbage down thier throats.
> 
> Same with vitamins and powder. Go look up reviews for Soylent. The human body isn't meant to "eat" like that.



Ha ha, well, you're right, but my point wasn't to suggest that's what we do, it was simply to point out how the supposed reasoning behind the proposed change Trump is trying to push through doesn't make any sense.

Some MREs are objectively better tasting than the unseasoned parboiled rice and canned black beans I lived off of for months at a time while I was at the University, in order to pay my tuition, though. I've even lived off of vitamins and powder for weeks before. It sucks, but you can survive short term that way, probably longer than eating knock-off lucky charms, imitation beef raviolis, and fake milk, like it seems the White House is proposing.

But I'd be fine with food assistance along the lines of what it is now with a little tweaking. I agree with @Drew that this whole reinvention of the wheel by an administration that has yet to prove they can successfully pull off any policy changes without a total disaster resulting is flat out stupid.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Same with vitamins and powder. Go look up reviews for Soylent. The human body isn't meant to "eat" like that.



I don't know... I know quite a few people now that are content to just eat Soylent. I'd dare to even say they're happy to, but I don't know how much of it is derived from the taste and how much is from the increased smugness.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I don't know... I know quite a few people now that are content to just eat Soylent. I'd dare to even say they're happy to, but I don't know how much of it is derived from the taste and how much is from the increased smugness.



Folks are apparently running into gastrointestinal issues. Some might be related to allergies to certain ingredients, but that still makes it a bad choice.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Folks are apparently running into gastrointestinal issues. Some might be related to allergies to certain ingredients, but that still makes it a bad choice.



Yea, I wouldn't recommend it in the context of like a prescribed diet to poor people, but just saying that my first/second-hand experiences have generally been positive -- that a lot of people's bodies handle it just fine / nothing inherently wrong with consuming calories in a drastically different way.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Just to state this first- I have not been a Trump supporter for the last year and I tend to think more liberally minded than anything else (though, I am starting to see some conservative ideas pop up in me).

That said, I grew up in the welfare system, saw it abused by the majority of the city I lived in (Lewiston, Maine) and still see it abused regularly to the point it angers me. My mother made a career out of finding new ways to scam the state for more money/food stamps. As I got older and recognized it more, I became more embarrassed to be one of the downtown kids. 

My experience has shown me that the abuses are bad enough that the system needs a major evaluation and overhaul. In the city I grew up in, welfare was something you got on so you didn't have to go to work. It was your job to go get hooked up with AFDC and food stamps when you turned 18. When I graduated HS and was trying to find a job (college wasn't an option) my stepdad would pound on my door at 5am and yell at me to go to the welfare office and get foodstamps because I was too poor to feed myself and he already did all he had to do. I remember getting stuck giving some shithead a ride one night, we picked him up at his mom's house, when we got in, she was having a fucking party to celebrate her fuck-up kid getting on AFDC, now he could "take his $400 a month and start living good, he's all set for life".

Even now, I work with several single mothers who have their kids hooked up on whatever assistance they can get and I regularly hear them discussing their bar tabs and Uber costs to and from the bars. $100 here, $200 there. 

In my 35 years alive, I've seen the system abused a HELL OF A LOT MORE than I've seen it used to aid in getting out of a situation. 

I don't believe any and all food should be allowed to be purchased with EBT cards/food stamps. It should be select, healthy food items and shit like Little Debbie's or Hostess cakes shouldn't be part of that. I also think there needs to be an auditing system in place for recipients to see exactly where their money is going. It'd be wise to include thumbprint security with those EBT cards because I've seen them change hands numerous times in exchange for cash, booze or drugs. "Take my card and give me a gram, just bring it back before tomorrow."

I'm not opposed to MRE's being given to recipients. They SHOULD be looking at their lives as if they were at war and busting their asses to get where they need to be so they aren't relying on assistance for food. TV Dinners, Chef Boyardi, Mac N Cheese, Hamburger Helper, my sister and I loved that crap growing up and we lived off it, my sister still loves all that garbage, if the plan is to give them that stuff anyway, not much is really changing. 

Oh, it costs $0.79 here for a gallon of spring water at Publix. $0.20 cheaper than store-brand soda, but you never see gallons of water next to the piles of Mac N Cheese or Chef Boyardi in the carts of people using EBT cards, it's always Coke, Pepsi, Kool-Aid and junk. I'm not surprised by that. 

If you got yourself in a situation that requires everyone else to chip in so you can survive, you should have to play by a strict set of rules. If you don't like it, bust your ass to get out of it. I've barely made over $30K a year in the last 15 years, I've had to bust my ass, save, go without and live by a strict budget to ensure that I DON'T require the assistance of anyone else to keep me afloat and I still managed to buy a house and get some education while doing that, on my own dime.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've had MREs and they're garbage.



Clearly you haven't had the Chicken Pesto Pasta, that shit puts the Olive Garden to shame.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Clearly you haven't had the Chicken Pesto Pasta, that shit puts the Olive Garden to shame.



The OG isn't too high of a bar.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> The OG isn't too high of a bar.



Well I was gonna say Carrabba's...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Idea: let's just buy the poor Unlimited Pasta Passes. 

My work here is done.


----------



## Randy

RevDrucifer said:


> Stuff



FYI, the poor dietary choices you're describing aren't confined to just people on food stamps, which was a little bit more my point. Why don't we talk about how poor people, whether they're on assistance or not, tendency to eat and drink garbage? Fine if you want to narrow what food stamps paid for because you don't think "we" should be paying for people to eat garbage but why do people want to eat garbage?


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## jaxadam




----------



## MaxOfMetal

I mean, there's no refuting that. Since Jesse Jackson is the king of all minorities and thus his words and actions represent all non-whites.

What's with Trump folks and memes? Is it an age thing?


----------



## Randy

Jax just likes to troll but FWIW



> When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments.
> 
> The two would-be renters on that July 1972 day were actually undercover “testers” for a government-sanctioned investigation to determine whether Trump Management Inc. discriminated against minorities seeking housing at properties across Brooklyn and Queens.
> 
> Federal investigators also gathered evidence. Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court. The employees allegedly directed blacks and Puerto Ricans away from buildings with mostly white tenants, and steered them toward properties that had many minorities, the government filings alleged.
> 
> In October 1973, the Justice Department filed a civil rights case that accused the Trump firm, whose complexes contained 14,000 apartments, of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2a36b394160_story.html?utm_term=.f65e5d9a26eb


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> I mean, there's no refuting that. Since Jesse Jackson is the king of all minorities and thus his words and actions represent all non-whites.
> 
> What's with Trump folks and memes? Is it an age thing?



Yes.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Jax just likes to troll



Yes


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


>


https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/jesse-jackson-praise-denounce-donald-trump/2018/01/16/id/837354/


----------



## wannabguitarist

MaxOfMetal said:


> So they count fruit juice in on that? I know most fruit juice is just a sweetened cocktail, but even the "good" expensive stuff most places is sweetened. I can see how someone grabbing a bottle that says "100% juice" might think they're making a healthier choice.
> 
> Sweetened tea is another one. Even the relatively bland, thought to be healthier, green tea at the store isn't all that pure. But again, to many it's a better option.
> 
> Though, the real culprit here is pricing. A two liter bottle of store brand soda by me is as little as $.25. It's not the healthy choice, it's the short term economical one.



The second link which has the actual study gets into more detail, but yes fruit juices are included in that group. They stratify the data even more in the study with the #1 category of spending being soft drinks (not including juices). #2 is fluid milk products (this does include chocolate and strawberry milk sadly), #3 is beef grinds (assuming ground beef?), and #4 is bagged snacks (this is also super broad, but what bagged snacks are healthy?).

Some of @RevDrucifer 's last 3-4 paragraphs really hit on what I'm saying. Some sort of food assistance program is absolutely necessary in society since we don't want people to starve, however any assistance at all _is_ charity. Why should tax dollars be wasted on unhealthy choices?

Though like I've said before, I have little faith the Trump admin can pull this off in way that cuts costs while actually meeting the nutritional needs of individuals.



jaxadam said:


> Clearly you haven't had the Chicken Pesto Pasta, that shit puts the Olive Garden to shame.



Is there really a chicken pesto MRE? I can't imagine the shits you would suffer through with that


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## jaxadam

wannabguitarist said:


> The second link which has the actual study gets into more detail, but yes fruit juices are included in that group. They stratify the data even more in the study with the #1 category of spending being soft drinks (not including juices). #2 is fluid milk products (this does include chocolate and strawberry milk sadly), #3 is beef grinds (assuming ground beef?), and #4 is bagged snacks (this is also super broad, but what bagged snacks are healthy?).
> 
> Some of @RevDrucifer 's last 3-4 paragraphs really hit on what I'm saying. Some sort of food assistance program is absolutely necessary in society since we don't want people to starve, however any assistance at all _is_ charity. Why should tax dollars be wasted on unhealthy choices?
> 
> Though like I've said before, I have little faith the Trump admin can pull this off in way that cuts costs while actually meeting the nutritional needs of individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there really a chicken pesto MRE? I can't imagine the shits you would suffer through with that



Honestly, the best part about MRE’s is eating them by the pool. If you drink enough beer and there are enough hot chicks they all taste pretty good.


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> This I agree with, and from my understanding, those abuses are far less common than the traditional conservative narrative would like you to believe. That being said one of the reasons why I think this Trump program is interesting is the fact that it would place further limits on what our tax dollars are subsidizing. Per this article about 10% of SNAP purchases were used on soft drinks or high sugar drinks of some kind; that's about $3.2B in 2011 (full details of the study from the USDA here). I know this goes back to taking choices away from poorer individuals, but we have enough food-related health problems in the US as it is. Of course, SNAP could always be improved by no longer allowing those items.



I'm all for healthy eating, but look at this from another perspective - a 2L bottle of Pepsi costs $1.79 on the Target website, full price. It contains 6 servings, each with about 150 calories, for 900 calories in the entire bottle. That's about 503 calories a dollar. Honestly, that's not bad, especially because we're talking a name brand, and store brand soda is probably half that, pushing you near a thousand calories per dollar. The fact that for maybe $2-2.50 you could theoretically get your entire daily caloric intake is something that, if you're really struggling to make ends meet, high-sugar drinks start to make sense.


----------



## vilk

The United States is a post-sufficiency society. We throw away more food than we eat (or at least a similar amount), and no one starves to death. Or at least, you can't really find statistics for starvation, only "hunger". I don't believe that any significant amount of people are actually dependant on sugary drinks for survival.

And unless the ground water is undrinkable, I don't really understand why a poor person would buy bottled water.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> The United States is a post-sufficiency society. We throw away more food than we eat (or at least a similar amount), and no one starves to death. Or at least, you can't really find statistics for starvation, only "hunger". I don't believe that any significant amount of people are actually dependant on sugary drinks for survival.
> 
> And unless the ground water is undrinkable, I don't really understand why a poor person would buy bottled water.


I think my broader point is that, if money is tight/almost nonexistant, your first concern is maximizing calories per dollar. Telling people they can't use SNAP benefits on high calorie per dollar foods is sort of counterproductive, and the idea that we should restrict SNAP purchases only to "healthy" foods is sort of an example of a white upper middle class entitled worldview. 

I think even beyond that, of course, is that in one of the richest countries in the world, we even HAVE people who need government assistance to feed themselves, is the real issue here. No one starves in the US precisely _because_ of programs like SNAP. If Trump wants to limit SNAP benefits to only "healthy" foods, that's fine... But, the cost of the program is going to likely increase sharply, especially since the food will have to be largely pre-prepared, because the other thing the American working poor don't have, other than money, is time.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Randy said:


> FYI, the poor dietary choices you're describing aren't confined to just people on food stamps, which was a little bit more my point. Why don't we talk about how poor people, whether they're on assistance or not, tendency to eat and drink garbage? Fine if you want to narrow what food stamps paid for because you don't think "we" should be paying for people to eat garbage but why do people want to eat garbage?



The general population has no clue what they're eating or where it came from. My favorite, most recent example of this was someone asking me at work, "What animal is pork chops from?". Working with the general public in the restaurant business for over 20 years has taught me a LOT about the eating habits of strangers. People tend to eat whatever is easiest for them to make or order. Whatever that consists of doesn't matter, as long as it has a few keywords that match stuff they know they enjoy (IE- Cheese and bacon are the most popular of these).

It's not that people WANT to eat garbage, it's just that they don't care if it's garbage or not. We've got the food pyramid that we're shown (or were shown, it's been a while since I've been in school) that has the basic food groups and there are people who REALLY DO THINK that pizza hits the four basic food groups, so they're good to go. 

Ultimately, people are not educated on a proper diet. I don't even know what they're teaching in schools anymore, but I wonder how much is taught about GMO's, dyes, growth hormones, anti-biotics and all the junk thrown into food these days? Does that go along with the food pyramid?
How much does one have to know to know if they're eating healthy?


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> And unless the ground water is undrinkable, I don't really understand why a poor person would buy bottled water.



Here, and in many rural areas, there is no such thing as municipal water, or it is quite rare. Farms have wells, but a lot of homes in small towns where the poorest people live, the running water is full of coliform or worse, and will make you sick if you drink it. I got an ear infection once just from taking a shower and had to go to the ER. Even though a lot of people are poor in urban areas, I think that the proportion of much poorer people are living in small towns in Appalachia. I think I said this before, but about 20% of the population in the county where I live is on SNAP, and about the same amount is below the poverty line, yet the cost of living here is something like third highest in the lower 48 states. Most people who live here are either rich transplants from Ct and MA or else too poor to go anywhere else.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> The general population has no clue what they're eating or where it came from. My favorite, most recent example of this was someone asking me at work, "What animal is pork chops from?".


With all due respect, you live in Florida, home of every single bizarre "Area Man..." headline I've ever seen. I don't think this is indicative of the prevailing level of knowledge about where our food comes from, so much as "Area Man, High On Bath Salts, Unaware Pork Comes From Pigs." 

I don't get it either, dude - it's gotta be something in the water down there.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> I think my broader point is that, if money is tight/almost nonexistant, your first concern is maximizing calories per dollar. Telling people they can't use SNAP benefits on high calorie per dollar foods is sort of counterproductive, and the idea that we should restrict SNAP purchases only to "healthy" foods is sort of an example of a white upper middle class entitled worldview.
> 
> *I think even beyond that, of course, is that in one of the richest countries in the world, we even HAVE people who need government assistance to feed themselves, is the real issue here.* No one starves in the US precisely _because_ of programs like SNAP. If Trump wants to limit SNAP benefits to only "healthy" foods, that's fine... But, the cost of the program is going to likely increase sharply, especially since the food will have to be largely pre-prepared, because the other thing the American working poor don't have, other than money, is time.




I agree with the bolded 110%.

As for the rest, I'm not sure I can agree. My fiance and I have saved a considerable amount of money after I changed my diet and started paying attention to what I was eating. Most of our meals are well under $20 for the two of us and we always have leftovers. Granted, we've got a pretty strict diet which limits our spending to non-animal products, but I've also seen that used as an argument of why more people don't go vegan, because it supposedly costs more. 

Healthy food doesn't take more time to make than non-healthy food, unless you're talking about throwing a can of ravioli in the microwave and calling it a night. Most of the food we make in the house takes 20-30 minutes until it hits the plate, I think that's average for most meals and if you're spending more time than that, then I'd assume you've got an interest in cooking and take some pleasure in it. 



Drew said:


> With all due respect, you live in Florida, home of every single bizarre "Area Man..." headline I've ever seen. I don't think this is indicative of the prevailing level of knowledge about where our food comes from, so much as "Area Man, High On Bath Salts, Unaware Pork Comes From Pigs."
> 
> I don't get it either, dude - it's gotta be something in the water down there.



Hahahaha, don't forget that I lived in New England for 25 years and have only been in Florida for 10. I have more experience with the public up there than I do down here. Also, it's debatable, but the majority of the "Florida man...." stories aren't from this area, those all come from Central/Northern parts of Florida. The area I'm in has a lot of health-focused restaurants/eateries, which shows that there is some growth in awareness, but at the same time....mawfuckas don't know pork chops come from pigs.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> *Healthy food doesn't take more time to make than non-healthy food, unless you're talking about throwing a can of ravioli in the microwave and calling it a night. *Most of the food we make in the house takes 20-30 minutes until it hits the plate, I think that's average for most meals and if you're spending more time than that, then I'd assume you've got an interest in cooking and take some pleasure in it.
> 
> Hahahaha, don't forget that I lived in New England for 25 years and have only been in Florida for 10. I have more experience with the public up there than I do down here. Also, it's debatable, but the majority of the "Florida man...." stories aren't from this area, those all come from Central/Northern parts of Florida. The area I'm in has a lot of health-focused restaurants/eateries, *which shows that there is some growth in awareness, but at the same time....mawfuckas don't know pork chops come from pigs.*



Two comments on the bolded bits -

1) That's exactly what I'm talking about. Or a TV dinner pork chop vs breading and pan frying it yourself and boiling and mashing your own potatoes. Or a fast food burger vs cooking one yourself. The time to cook _anything_, healthy or otherwise, from scratch is a middle- and upper-class luxury that the working poor only have on rare occasions. Time is money, and if you don't have money, then your time is probably being spent on your second and third job than on cooking a nutritious, home-cooked dinner. 

2) I don't know what to tell you, then, man, save that I've never met _anyone_ over the age of 14 who doesn't know pork comes from pigs.


----------



## Randy

RevDrucifer said:


> mawfuckas don't know pork chops come from pigs.


----------



## bostjan

Sorry to report this, but ignorant stuff like this is pretty standard these days. People who want their small pizza cut into four slices instead of six because they can't eat six slices, people who order a steak and ask for it to be made vegetarian, or people who order a steak and ask for it to be extra well done because their doctor told them not to eat red meat, etc. I worked in restaurants before, so I saw half of the stupidity that's out there and there is a lot of it about food.


----------



## Randy

RevDrucifer said:


> As for the rest, I'm not sure I can agree. My fiance and I have saved a considerable amount of money after I changed my diet and started paying attention to what I was eating. Most of our meals are well under $20 for the two of us and we always have leftovers. Granted, we've got a pretty strict diet which limits our spending to non-animal products, but I've also seen that used as an argument of why more people don't go vegan, because it supposedly costs more.
> 
> Healthy food doesn't take more time to make than non-healthy food, unless you're talking about throwing a can of ravioli in the microwave and calling it a night. Most of the food we make in the house takes 20-30 minutes until it hits the plate, I think that's average for most meals and if you're spending more time than that, then I'd assume you've got an interest in cooking and take some pleasure in it.



I absolutely hear where you're coming from here and am in full agreement. But, to add context, we're referring to people that lack he life skills necessary to afford to feed themselves on their own, you know? I think our culture understandings of people prone to damaging life choices is severely limited; just like we would've put 'retarded' people away in insane asylums 50 years ago, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what MAKES the type of people who insist on living miserable lives with no money (btw, I don't consider it 'insisting' in the sense that it's a conscious, informed choice) and we're going to continue to have these problems until society evolves into understanding that a different way. 

That said, if we're discussing long term fixes to safety net programs (which encompass ALL parts of 'well being', food, healthcare, housing) and "major fixes", simply restricting what people are allowed to eat by force is INCREDIBLY short-sighted. To my point, if the goal is promoting healthier lives and lifestyles, to ultimately get people OFF of these programs and being healthy, contributing members of society, I think you make much more progress in education than through anything I've seen Trump et all propose. I also don't think villanizing people who partake in social welfare programs and lead shitty lives is at all proactive.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I also don't think villanizing people who partake in social welfare programs and lead shitty lives is at all proactive.



But that's thier goal isn't it? For the not quite poor to feel victimized by the poor? 

"I would be a millionaire if all my taxes weren't going to the poors."

It's not the corporate welfare, out of control defense spending, or the rich rigging our government, it's those damn poors.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> But that's thier goal isn't it? For the not quite poor to feel victimized by the poor?
> 
> "I would be a millionaire if all my taxes weren't going to the poors."
> 
> It's not the corporate welfare, out of control defense spending, or the rich rigging our government, it's those damn poors.



Not that I'm the biggest fan of the guy but reminded me of


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> Two comments on the bolded bits -
> 
> 1) That's exactly what I'm talking about. Or a TV dinner pork chop vs breading and pan frying it yourself and boiling and mashing your own potatoes. Or a fast food burger vs cooking one yourself. The time to cook _anything_, healthy or otherwise, from scratch is a middle- and upper-class luxury that the working poor only have on rare occasions. Time is money, and if you don't have money, then your time is probably being spent on your second and third job than on cooking a nutritious, home-cooked dinner.
> 
> 2) I don't know what to tell you, then, man, save that I've never met _anyone_ over the age of 14 who doesn't know pork comes from pigs.



1) I completely agree with that, but that only pertains to the people in the system who are using it legitimately. Unfortunately, I spent 18 years witnessing the total opposite of that. I lived with and was surrounded by the bottom feeders who find ways to milk the system for everything they can get. This is not limited experience with a few, this was 18 years with what I _have _to believe is the majority. I still see it today with a ridiculous amount of my co-workers. 

My mother and stepfather got legally divorced because they were going to cut the amount of my mother's SSI checks. They were living comfortably enough, enough to pay to play Farmville on FB. Enough for a car less than 5 years old every 3-4 years. Enough to buy beer and cigarettes. Enough to get a credit card with a $5K limit. But she threw a fit when the state told her she was getting a paycut. So they got divorced and it was back to making it look like my stepdad wasn't living with her when the state would do their visits. 

Keep in mind, she's never even paid into the social security system. 

But they are far from the exception and quite closer to the rule. At least in Lewiston, ME. We used to hide our friend's stuff in our house when they'd get the yearly inspections or they were having maintenance stuff. As long as the state can't prove you have a source of income, you'll keep getting your checks. So when my parent's friends would get their yearly housing inspection, they'd bring all the boyfriend/husband's stuff to our house and vice versa to make it seem as if there were no man of the house. Thus, you get your bar, beer, cigarette, weed, whatever money. 

2) I think everyone should take one year of their life, right after high school, to work with the general public. You'd be amazed what you can learn about people, society and how much of it you wish you never knew. 



Randy said:


> I absolutely hear where you're coming from here and am in full agreement. But, to add context, we're referring to people that lack he life skills necessary to afford to feed themselves on their own, you know? I think our culture understandings of people prone to damaging life choices is severely limited; just like we would've put 'retarded' people away in insane asylums 50 years ago, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what MAKES the type of people who insist on living miserable lives with no money (btw, I don't consider it 'insisting' in the sense that it's a conscious, informed choice) and we're going to continue to have these problems until society evolves into understanding that a different way.
> 
> That said, if we're discussing long term fixes to safety net programs (which encompass ALL parts of 'well being', food, healthcare, housing) and "major fixes", simply restricting what people are allowed to eat by force is INCREDIBLY short-sighted. To my point, if the goal is promoting healthier lives and lifestyles, to ultimately get people OFF of these programs and being healthy, contributing members of society, I think you make much more progress in education than through anything I've seen Trump et all propose. I also don't think villanizing people who partake in social welfare programs and lead shitty lives is at all proactive.



I couldn't agree more. Education is key and I think it needs to be started early on. Growing up, the welfare system was never taught to us in school. It's amazing how much of our government systems are not taught on an education level in schools. I think a large reason why it was never discussed in my schools was because so may of the kids in the schools were in the system and they didn't want to shame us as a whole. 

I can't fathom the insistence on staying in the system. Growing up a welfare kid sucked and it made me never want to rely on anything to keep me afloat. My sister has always held down 1 or 2 jobs at a time to ensure she wouldn't as well. The majority of the kids I knew who grew up in the system are still up there and repeating the process. I'm really drawing a blank when I think of a single person I speak to today who was in the system and got out when they grew up. 

I think a part of it is that we're told not to be ashamed when we're younger by our parents. It's not that it was a sense of pride, but there was definitely a "We're poor and we don't give a shit, so fuck you!" feeling. There's a lot of victimizing going on in that culture and that plays a big part in the kids who pick up on that behavior and then use it later. 

While I don't think everyone on the system should be villianized, I DO think they should be tougher on the ones caught abusing the system. The city put some low-income housing right in the middle-class suburbs of my hometown, so the school I ended up in for the last 3 years of elementary school was filled with mostly middle-class kids. That's when I found out I was poor and it wasn't that much fun. Each week the teacher would take lunch call, I'd have to tell them, "Free; hot all week." which meant I got free lunch and I wasn't bring a bagged lunch from home, but you'd have to yell it across the class, so everyone knew, and was reminded, that you were poor. That actually continued until high school. Talk about giving kids a bunch of ammo every Monday morning to bust your balls over!


----------



## Explorer

wannabguitarist said:


> I have little doubt about Trump being racist. The questions I asked were more general, and more for the sake of discussion. This does lead to another one though: what about a policy that was written with a racist intent that actually turns out to be good policy?


I've heard various people over the years try to make points like, well, Hitler wasn't all bad because he was vegetarian.

Really, I'll take advice on policy from those who remain free of racist intentions. I don't even want to start looking for a few potential grains of good in a sea of feces.

Do you think it's better to start with a better source of broad public policy without racism, than to sift for some potential (not guaranteed) ideas from a racist? Why would the latter be the possibility you're attempting to defend with your unproven hypothetical?


----------



## fps

RevDrucifer said:


> 1) I completely agree with that, but that only pertains to the people in the system who are using it legitimately. Unfortunately, I spent 18 years witnessing the total opposite of that. I lived with and was surrounded by the bottom feeders who find ways to milk the system for everything they can get. This is not limited experience with a few, this was 18 years with what I _have _to believe is the majority. I still see it today with a ridiculous amount of my co-workers.
> 
> My mother and stepfather got legally divorced because they were going to cut the amount of my mother's SSI checks. They were living comfortably enough, enough to pay to play Farmville on FB. Enough for a car less than 5 years old every 3-4 years. Enough to buy beer and cigarettes. Enough to get a credit card with a $5K limit. But she threw a fit when the state told her she was getting a paycut. So they got divorced and it was back to making it look like my stepdad wasn't living with her when the state would do their visits.
> 
> Keep in mind, she's never even paid into the social security system.
> 
> But they are far from the exception and quite closer to the rule. At least in Lewiston, ME. We used to hide our friend's stuff in our house when they'd get the yearly inspections or they were having maintenance stuff. As long as the state can't prove you have a source of income, you'll keep getting your checks. So when my parent's friends would get their yearly housing inspection, they'd bring all the boyfriend/husband's stuff to our house and vice versa to make it seem as if there were no man of the house. Thus, you get your bar, beer, cigarette, weed, whatever money.
> 
> 2) I think everyone should take one year of their life, right after high school, to work with the general public. You'd be amazed what you can learn about people, society and how much of it you wish you never knew.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. Education is key and I think it needs to be started early on. Growing up, the welfare system was never taught to us in school. It's amazing how much of our government systems are not taught on an education level in schools. I think a large reason why it was never discussed in my schools was because so may of the kids in the schools were in the system and they didn't want to shame us as a whole.
> 
> I can't fathom the insistence on staying in the system. Growing up a welfare kid sucked and it made me never want to rely on anything to keep me afloat. My sister has always held down 1 or 2 jobs at a time to ensure she wouldn't as well. The majority of the kids I knew who grew up in the system are still up there and repeating the process. I'm really drawing a blank when I think of a single person I speak to today who was in the system and got out when they grew up.
> 
> I think a part of it is that we're told not to be ashamed when we're younger by our parents. It's not that it was a sense of pride, but there was definitely a "We're poor and we don't give a shit, so fuck you!" feeling. There's a lot of victimizing going on in that culture and that plays a big part in the kids who pick up on that behavior and then use it later.
> 
> While I don't think everyone on the system should be villianized, I DO think they should be tougher on the ones caught abusing the system. The city put some low-income housing right in the middle-class suburbs of my hometown, so the school I ended up in for the last 3 years of elementary school was filled with mostly middle-class kids. That's when I found out I was poor and it wasn't that much fun. Each week the teacher would take lunch call, I'd have to tell them, "Free; hot all week." which meant I got free lunch and I wasn't bring a bagged lunch from home, but you'd have to yell it across the class, so everyone knew, and was reminded, that you were poor. That actually continued until high school. Talk about giving kids a bunch of ammo every Monday morning to bust your balls over!



What you describe, welfare abuse, is a drop in the ocean of corporate abuse and tax avoidance by the rich. A drop in the ocean. It's simply irrelevant financially, but is kept in the public eye as a distraction. It's the same here in England.

I agree that education, a great curriculum, accountable schools and staff, are the answer to pretty much every major problem. Unfortunately that's also very difficult to manage, especially as public education simply isn't given the tools or backing needed.


----------



## bostjan

fps said:


> What you describe, welfare abuse, is a drop in the ocean of corporate abuse and tax avoidance by the rich. A drop in the ocean. It's simply irrelevant financially, but is kept in the public eye as a distraction. It's the same here in England.
> 
> I agree that education, a great curriculum, accountable schools and staff, are the answer to pretty much every major problem. Unfortunately that's also very difficult to manage, especially as public education simply isn't given the tools or backing needed.


I've seen tax cuts where one specific cut on one specific company could cover over 25% of the entire SNAP budget for the state.
But this goes hand in hand with @vilk 's point. Keep the poor people bickering and groveling for their scraps while the rich are burning money, but just make sure the attention is on the poor, and the rich can get away with pretty much anything. Right now, this country is seriously testing the boundaries of that. Trump is tweeting so much inflammatory stuff and we see what crazy pills people will swallow.


----------



## vilk

Explorer said:


> I've heard various people over the years try to make points like, well, Hitler wasn't all bad because he was vegetarian.


I'm sorry for nitpicking but those two things aren't really the same so as that they might be logically compared.

[person] -- [negative personality trait] -- [positive reality]
^Trump -- racist -- good legislation

[person] -- [positive personality trait] -- [negative reality]
^Hitler -- vegetarian -- holocaust

I'm not really sure which logic fallacy it is though. Or if it technically is related to logic. But do you see what I'm saying? It's related to what Randy and I were saying about *action>intention*, which I think that most people agree with. I don't really have anything to add I just wanted to point it out... sorry


----------



## Explorer

vilk said:


> I'm sorry for nitpicking but those two things aren't really the same so as that they might be logically compared.
> [person] -- [negative personality trait] -- [positive reality]
> ^Trump -- racist -- good legislation
> [person] -- [positive personality trait] -- [negative reality]
> ^Hitler -- vegetarian -- holocaust


You mean the following statement is logically inconsistent with itself?

[person] -- [overt personality trait] -- [opposite reality]

Because it's equally applicable to both situations, and is just one statement, it's hard for me to picture it as unequal to itself. It is a mere inversion of the "reality" part to be opposite of personality.



vilk said:


> I'm not really sure which logic fallacy it is though. Or if it technically is related to logic. But do you see what I'm saying? It's related to what Randy and I were saying about *action>intention*, which I think that most people agree with. I don't really have anything to add I just wanted to point it out... sorry


A similar restatement of what you view as self-contradictory, in more English-like language, would be

[person] has [particular intentions] yet creates [opposite outcome]

No need to be sorry for wanting clarification. In fact, if you manage to figure out how either of my two formulations are automatically self-contradictory, I'll be interested in hearing about it, as I actually had quite a few years dealing with formal statements, truth tables and Boolean logic. I'm always happy to learn something new.


----------



## vilk

But the holocaust isn't an opposite of vegetarianism and Hitler did it intentionally? lol I feel so dumb


----------



## Explorer

Well, if [person] is willing to [create suffering] but instead [avoids creating suffering], then in that aspect the Holocaust is the opposite of vegetarianism. Why? Do you think of them as being the same in that aspect?


----------



## vilk

I don't even necessarily consider vegetarianism to be innately "good"... meat consumption doesn't definitely have to involve suffering. Even though I'm sure it usually does for most Western meat production facilities.


----------



## bostjan

Hitler being a vegetarian, yet being responsible for the holocaust is not the converse of Trump being racist yet being responsible for legislation that curbs racism, because we do not generally equate a dietary restriction with genocide, yet racism is equivalent to racism.

Also, as an aside, the anecdote that Hitler was vegetarian is actually very interesting, if you look into it. Hitler claimed to be a strict vegetarian, yet we have accounts from several of his chefs that he enjoyed sausages, sliced ham, stuffed squab, etc., none of which a strict vegetarian would eat. So, I think it looks like it'd be more accurate to describe Hitler as the kind of person who would go to a restaurant and order a veggie burger with bacon on it. 

And back on topic, Trump is not a legislator anyway, he's the chief executive, so if he's racist, it won't show in our laws, it'll show in how our laws are enforced, and that should be a more frightening proposition. Yes, the president has veto powers over legislation, but you can't really veto racism into a bill, you'd need racist and anti-racist bills to selective veto and not veto in order to impose racism on legislation during your term as president.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> 1) I completely agree with that, but that only pertains to the people in the system who are using it legitimately. Unfortunately, I spent 18 years witnessing the total opposite of that. I lived with and was surrounded by the bottom feeders who find ways to milk the system for everything they can get. This is not limited experience with a few, this was 18 years with what I _have _to believe is the majority. I still see it today with a ridiculous amount of my co-workers.
> 
> My mother and stepfather got legally divorced because they were going to cut the amount of my mother's SSI checks. They were living comfortably enough, enough to pay to play Farmville on FB. Enough for a car less than 5 years old every 3-4 years. Enough to buy beer and cigarettes. Enough to get a credit card with a $5K limit. But she threw a fit when the state told her she was getting a paycut. So they got divorced and it was back to making it look like my stepdad wasn't living with her when the state would do their visits.
> 
> Keep in mind, she's never even paid into the social security system.
> 
> But they are far from the exception and quite closer to the rule. At least in Lewiston, ME. We used to hide our friend's stuff in our house when they'd get the yearly inspections or they were having maintenance stuff. As long as the state can't prove you have a source of income, you'll keep getting your checks. So when my parent's friends would get their yearly housing inspection, they'd bring all the boyfriend/husband's stuff to our house and vice versa to make it seem as if there were no man of the house. Thus, you get your bar, beer, cigarette, weed, whatever money.
> 
> 2) I think everyone should take one year of their life, right after high school, to work with the general public. You'd be amazed what you can learn about people, society and how much of it you wish you never knew.



1) But that's not what I was talking about _at all_.  I was saying that cooking from scratch takes longer than feeding yourself with prepared food, so I have no idea what that has to do with welfare system abuse.  

2) I worked retail in college and for maybe 6 months afterwards before moving into finance. I've seen plenty of entitlement and some stupidity, and I've still never met anyone who isn't just a kid who legitimately doesn't know where pork comes from.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I've still never met anyone who isn't just a kid who legitimately doesn't know where pork comes from.


https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080915201704AA74JjR
I used to wonder if people on Yahoo Answers were just trolling, but after shit like this becoming commonplace, you have to admit some of these people are serious.

Anyway, ... Trump ...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/travel-ban-ruling/index.html

Three strikes yet?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/travel-ban-ruling/index.html
> 
> Three strikes yet?



Last go around, I believe SCOTUS said they'll hear the case if it makes it back to them again. Even with a conservative leaning court, I'm not necessarily expecting they'll uphold the travel ban but I believe there's a desire to see this resolved in legislation rather than an executive action. I'm not entirely sure how you'd write up that decision but yeah, ultimately I'm not expecting them to give Trump 100% of what he wants or to reverse the ban completely either.


----------



## Explorer

Within days of my pointing out that Trump stopped monitoring of white supremacist terrorist groups, it turns out the latest school shooter...






...whom Trump called mentally ill, had trained with such a white supremacist militia, and had posted anti-muslim content.

Is it surprising that those affected in Florida think Trump's statement was just empty words?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explorer said:


> Is it surprising that those affected in Florida think Trump's statement was just empty words?


No, not in the slightest. He also gutted an Obama era bill that would ban those receiving social security for mental illness from buying guns.
I think the thing that pisses me off the most though is that everytime this happens the right screams, "don't politicize this!". But as soon as an immigrant or Muslim does anything it's, "kick them out of the country! They're all bad!"
It also irks me that Columbine was a national tragedy that stopped the country for a day, but shit like this happens now and we're desensitized.
It also terrifies me that people are spreading Infowar's posts that wrongly identify being the shooter as a way to further their violent leftist rhetoric.
We are all so completely fucked.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> 1) But that's not what I was talking about _at all_.  I was saying that cooking from scratch takes longer than feeding yourself with prepared food, so I have no idea what that has to do with welfare system abuse.
> 
> 2) I worked retail in college and for maybe 6 months afterwards before moving into finance. I've seen plenty of entitlement and some stupidity, and I've still never met anyone who isn't just a kid who legitimately doesn't know where pork comes from.



You're right. I was wiped after work but couldn't sleep, I started writing one thing, deleted it and completely lost track of my original intent with that one!


----------



## Explorer

I was talking with someone today when I mentioned the sudden lack of outrage on the part of the DoJ regarding possible mishandling of classified data.

A month ago:

https://nypost.com/2018/01/04/doj-prepares-new-probe-of-clintons-email-server/

Now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/us/politics/white-house-security-clearances-jared-kushner.html

Given the huge problems of data segregation and responsible handling of classified information around unauthorized individuals, and even individuals who likely had a permanent security clearance denied due to having lied multiple times on foreign contact and financial disclosure forms (*cough*KUSHNER!*cough*), the Republicans have no issues with the idea regarding the current administration.

At this point, Gowdy finally requested a list of all those White House staff members who are still operating with interim clearances, *and* all those who have been denied a full permanent clearance. Public shaming of Gowdy worked *after* he had a chance to get this right for quite a while.

Incidentally, do you know which people all have permanent security clearances?

Mueller's team.


----------



## Xaios

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I think the thing that pisses me off the most though is that everytime this happens the right screams, "don't politicize this!". But as soon as an immigrant or Muslim does anything it's, "kick them out of the country! They're all bad!"


It wouldn't surprise me if people in the two bubbles on the Venn diagram captioned "Don't politicize the Florida shooting!" and "Sandy Hook was a false flag operation!" had a significant amount of crossover.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> You're right. I was wiped after work but couldn't sleep, I started writing one thing, deleted it and completely lost track of my original intent with that one!


I hear you on that!


----------



## StevenC

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russians-charged-with-interfering-in-u-s-election-1518804495

Juicy


----------



## Explorer

Now that Russian interference in US elections has been confirmed yet again, will Trump continue to break his sworn oath to protect the US Constitution?

If not, will all remaining members of Congress, previously breaking their oath, now join those who have followed it to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic... and even in the White House?

Some people don't think oaths matter, especially if the persons working to advance the interests of foreign enemies belong to their political party. That's shameful.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Explorer said:


> Now that Russian interference in US elections has been confirmed yet again, will Trump continue to break his sworn oath to protect the US Constitution?
> 
> If not, will all remaining members of Congress, previously breaking their oath, now join those who have followed it to defend the Constitution against enemies, both foreign and domestic... and even in the White House?
> 
> Some people don't think oaths matter, especially if the persons working to advance the interests of foreign enemies belong to their political party. That's shameful.


Fascist's tend to not care about Constitutions or (previously enforced) lawful repercussions.


----------



## WestOfSeven

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> Fascist's tend to not care about Constitutions or (previously enforced) lawful repercussions.



You don't know what a fascist is do you? 

This whole Russian Collusion investigation thing is a total joke. The us has effectively turned into a banana republic at this point.

The Mueller investigation has clearly surpassed it's mandate. This is setting a dangerous precedent.


----------



## Explorer

WestOfSeven said:


> You don't know what a fascist is do you?


To give one example of how Trump fits the bill, he has publicly expressed frustration with his inability to order the Department of Justice to charge his political rivals. 


WestOfSeven said:


> This whole Russian Collusion investigation thing is a total joke. The us has effectively turned into a banana republic at this point.


This is foolish, because a foreign power attempting to disrupt the US election is a valid concern for investigation. In fact, arguing against protecting the rule of law is definitely a fascist viewpoint. 

Could you explain how your argument against the rule of law is counter to fascism? 


WestOfSeven said:


> The Mueller investigation has clearly surpassed it's mandate. This is setting a dangerous precedent.


The investigation has been finding a lot of law breaking. It certainly seems like you are very upset by that law breaking being caught.


----------



## WestOfSeven

You've got a lot of cognitive bias going on. I understand you've fallen for the whole false right/left wing dichotomy thing but you should really learn how to seperate propoganda from reality and look at things from a more rational and logical perspective. 



Explorer said:


> To give one example of how Trump fits the bill, he has publicly expressed frustration with his inability to order the Department of Justice to charge his political rivals.
> 
> His political rivals broke the law and abused their power on a ridiculous scale. There currently is no rule of law in the US for the protected political class and it's a disgrace.
> 
> Why do you think the rule of law should only be applied to those who have different views than those you've been conditioned to have?
> 
> This is foolish, because a foreign power attempting to disrupt the US election is a valid concern for investigation. In fact, arguing against protecting the rule of law is definitely a fascist viewpoint.
> 
> Of course it's a valid concern. What are your thoughts on Israel and Saudi Arabias influence on US politics?
> 
> Arguing against protecting the rule of law is not a fascist view point. This is objectively wrong.
> 
> Could you explain how your argument against the rule of law is counter to fascism?
> 
> Are you being purposefully disingenuous or are you just that delusional? Not once did I make a argument against the rule of law. Again your understanding of what fascism is isnt correct. Don't use buzzwords if you don't understand them.
> 
> The investigation has been finding a lot of law breaking. It certainly seems like you are very upset by that law breaking being caught.



Yes evidence has apparently been found of crimes not related to the election and beyond the scope of the mandate for the investigation.

Yes it upsets me that the rule of law no longer exists due to corruption and the politicization and bias of what are supposed to be impartial government agencies. 

This is all setting a extremely dangerous precedent and if things are not done to curb all of this corruption the US will continue to decline into failed state status.

I predict things will get much worse and end in armed conflict and balkanization.


----------



## Explorer

WestOfSeven said:


> You've got a lot of cognitive bias going on. I understand you've fallen for the whole false right/left wing dichotomy thing but you should really learn how to seperate propoganda from reality and look at things from a more rational and logical perspective.


I like how you avoided addressing Trump attempting to politicize the Department of Justice in order to punish his political enemies. 


WestOfSeven said:


> Yes evidence has apparently been found of crimes not related to the election and beyond the scope of the mandate for the investigation.


Your failure to admit that the investigation has now laid out exactly how Russia interfered in the US election is either the result of true ignorance of current events, or of dishonesty. If of ignorance, then you're really not demonstrating a knowledge of what you're talking about, and undermine your credibility.

And if you're being deliberately dishonest, then you again undermine your credibility. 


WestOfSeven said:


> Yes it upsets me that the rule of law no longer exists due to corruption and the politicization and bias of what are supposed to be impartial government agencies. This is all setting a extremely dangerous precedent and if things are not done to curb all of this corruption the US will continue to decline into failed state status.


In fact, the investigation is indeed rooting out corruption. 


WestOfSeven said:


> I predict things will get much worse and end in armed conflict and balkanization.


Nope. US democracy is stronger than the efforts of Russian trolls to undermine it, to spread false narratives. The wheels of justice might grind slowly, but they do keep grinding. 

I do find much amusement whenever someone insists that the investigation hasn't borne fruit so far, and then more indictments and pleas are revealed. Just because some insist that things must move to their particular timetable doesn't mean things aren't moving,


----------



## WestOfSeven

"To give one example of how Trump fits the bill, he has publicly expressed frustration with his inability to order the Department of Justice to charge his political rivals."

His political rivals broke the law and abused their power on a ridiculous scale. There currently is no rule of law in the US for the protected political class and it's a disgrace.

"Why do you think the rule of law should only be applied to those who have different views than those you've been conditioned to have?"

"This is foolish, because a foreign power attempting to disrupt the US election is a valid concern for investigation. In fact, arguing against protecting the rule of law is definitely a fascist viewpoint."

Of course it's a valid concern. What are your thoughts on Israel and Saudi Arabias influence on US politics? 

Arguing against protecting the rule of law is not a fascist view point. This is objectively wrong.

"Could you explain how your argument against the rule of law is counter to fascism?"

Are you being purposefully disingenuous or are you just that delusional? Not once did I make a argument against the rule of law. Again your understanding of what fascism is isnt correct. Don't use buzzwords if you don't understand them.

"The investigation has been finding a lot of law breaking. It certainly seems like you are very upset by that law breaking being caught."

Yes evidence has apparently been found of crimes not related to the election and beyond the scope of the mandate for the investigation.


"Nope. US democracy is stronger than the efforts of Russian trolls to undermine it, to spread false narratives. The wheels of justice might grind slowly, but they do keep grinding."

It will end in balkanization and conflict due to how the country is split in half idealogically while racial intentions increase and people revert to tribalism and identity politics. Its definitely going to get worse not better.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

WestOfSeven said:


> It will end in balkanization and conflict due to how the country is split in half idealogically while racial intentions increase and people revert to tribalism and identity politics. Its definitely going to get worse not better.



The country isn't "split in half", there's an incredibly vocal minority that leans super right, just like there's a loud left leaning minority. Most are sitting quietly in the middle. 

Our voter turnout is atrocious, for many reasons. Less than half actually voted and less than half of that actually voted for Trump. Even the most rosey of approval polls put him at closer 50% support _even amongst his supporters_. 

The US' system makes it pretty easy for it to swing very far in one direction at any given time. Which can be good and bad. 

I know that from the outside it can look like half this country is ready for a military uprising, but it's not reality.


----------



## wannabguitarist

WestOfSeven said:


> You don't know what a fascist is do you?
> 
> This whole Russian Collusion investigation thing is a total joke. The us has effectively turned into a banana republic at this point.
> 
> The Mueller investigation has clearly surpassed it's mandate. This is setting a dangerous precedent.



The Mueller investigation surpassed its mandate? How? You do know the investigation is looking into Russian interference in general? Not just whether or not there was collusion with Trump. The recent findings are totally in scope of the investigation 

Do you know what a banana republic is? Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic


----------



## Mr Violence

wannabguitarist said:


> The Mueller investigation surpassed its mandate? How? You do know the investigation is looking into Russian interference in general? Not just whether or not there was collusion with Trump. The recent findings are totally in scope of the investigation
> 
> Do you know what a banana republic is? Here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic



Was going to pop in to say exactly this. When indictments are still rolling in, if anything it has proven it absolutely was necessary.

When people say it's a waste of time because it hasn't touched Trump thus far, their ulterior motives, priorities and biases become wildly apparent.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, if you're going to accuse ANYONE here of acting like the dictator of a banana republic, I think the guy to charge is the guy who fired the head of the FBI who was investigating potential ties between his campaign and Russia, who tried to force his Attorney General to resign because he reclused himself from that investigation and was no longer able to "protect" him, who continually voices frustration that the FBI isn't investigating his political rivals, and who is trying to undercut the independent counsel appointed to carry on the investigation, as well as question the credibility of the FBI simply because they ARE investigating him, and the media because they don't cover him as positively as he wants them to. It's practically an authoritarian's playbook.  

And it fucking sucks, that this is my country this is happening in.


----------



## spudmunkey

Don't forget that his own party is encouraging him to start handing out pardons for Manifort, FLynn, Papadopoulos, etc, to put speedbumps in the investigation. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardon-flynn-gates-himself-811695


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Don't forget that his own party is encouraging him to start handing out pardons for Manifort, FLynn, Papadopoulos, etc, to put speedbumps in the investigation. http://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardon-flynn-gates-himself-811695



Seems pretty pointless. A pardon doesn't wash away the evidence, or the verdict for that matter. It's just a way to get around _federal_ jail time. Pardons aren't the "get out of jail free cards" that people think they are.


----------



## spudmunkey

They also would need to plead guilty...something Sherriff Arpaio didn't actually know.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> They also would need to plead guilty...something Sherriff Arpaio didn't actually know.



It also open you up to civil litigation, which will hopefully hit Arpaio like a freight train. 

I lived in Arizona, Maricopa County, and saw first hand how terrible he made living there for America citizens.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Seems pretty pointless. A pardon doesn't wash away the evidence, or the verdict for that matter. It's just a way to get around _federal_ jail time. Pardons aren't the "get out of jail free cards" that people think they are.


Mueller has also been very careful to ensure that the people he's indicting, even if subsequently pardoned by Trump, are not being charged for something that they could subsequently be charged for in a _state_ court of law. Trump can give federal pardons, but he does _not_ have the authority to pardon people for committing crimes under state law.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Mueller has also been very careful to ensure that the people he's indicting, even if subsequently pardoned by Trump, are not being charged for something that they could subsequently be charged for in a _state_ court of law. Trump can give federal pardons, but he does _not_ have the authority to pardon people for committing crimes under state law.





Hence the italicized "federal".


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

WestOfSeven said:


> You don't know what a fascist is do you?
> 
> This whole Russian Collusion investigation thing is a total joke. The us has effectively turned into a banana republic at this point.
> 
> The Mueller investigation has clearly surpassed it's mandate. This is setting a dangerous precedent.


I do actually in fact know what a fascist is. Part of being a fascist is to discredit sources that highlight the fascists wrong doing and to instill a sense that they are the only people that you can trust for information. Repeatedly stating that there is no crime committed, discrediting the validity of the investigation, and actively seeking to fire those investigating you are fascist tactics.

Here are a few of the 14 tenants of fascism directly relevant to this page of conversation alone.
"9.) *Corporate Power is Protected*
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

13.)

*Rampant Cronyism and Corruption*
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 
14.)
*Fraudulent Elections*
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."

Many more from this list can be identified in American politics at the moment. 


https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html


----------



## Explorer

WestOfSeven said:


> "To give one example of how Trump fits the bill, he has publicly expressed frustration with his inability to order the Department of Justice to charge his political rivals."
> 
> His political rivals broke the law and abused their power on a ridiculous scale. There currently is no rule of law in the US for the protected political class and it's a disgrace.


So... the Department of Justice under Trump's appointment Jeff Sessions is deliberately burying that evidence and not moving forward. *Why do you think Sessions and Trump are protecting them? *

And, why do you think Trump is refusing to move forward in enacting sanctions against Russia, enacted by Congress, as is his duty under the rule of law?

Others have already pointed out how your other points are poorly supported or just plain false.


----------



## Explorer

Just to reflect recent developments...

Manafort and Gates are now charged with a boatload of financial crimes, in a period up to and including their involvement in the Trump campaign.

The timeline seems to be:

Receiving a lot of money from Ukrainian crony of Putin, but getting cut off.

Desperately applying for more and more loans, illegally falsifying documents along the way for the applications.

Offering to work for Trump campaign for free because Manafort doesn't need the money.

Suddenly, more money comes in from illegal deals, promised political connections, etc.

If Manafort and Gates got Russian money because of new campaign connection, this will be a solid connection between the campaign and Russia.

----

There are still more things to be investigated, including but not limited to Trump funding from Russian sources (as acknowledged repeatedly by Trump's offspring), Trump Jr. and others' admitted or documented (emails!) attempts to illegally conspire with Russians during the campaign (an attempt to conspire in that way is just as illegal as succeeding), and the NRA apparently hiding foreign contributions in order to finance ads for Trump on behalf of Russia (illegal to accept foreign funds for US elections).


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Suddenly, more money comes in from illegal deals, promised political connections, etc.
> 
> If Manafort and Gates got Russian money because of new campaign connection, this will be a solid connection between the campaign and Russia.


Trump and his supporters would be quick to point out that this doesn't prove TRUMP's knowledge or involvement, and doesn't prove HE colluded with Russia... But, yeah, if it comes out that Manafort and Gates did in fact start receiving a lot more money from Russian agents after they joined the Trump campaign, and given that they were in a decision-making capacity within that campain, at that point you have pretty clear evidence that the Trump _campaign_ had been infiltrated by and was in collusion with Russia, even if Trump himself was clueless. 

My read is that Manafort and Gates have been holding out, and this is Mueller ratcheting up the pressure on Manafort. I understand Gates has now agreed to plead guilty, after these charges came out, so it looks like there at least it's working.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> ...(I)f it comes out that Manafort and Gates did in fact start receiving a lot more money from Russian agents after they joined the Trump campaign, and given that they were in a decision-making capacity within that campain, at that point you have pretty clear evidence that the Trump _campaign_ had been infiltrated by and was in collusion with Russia, even if Trump himself was clueless.


This will, of course, explain why the Trump campaign pushed to have the Ukraine removed from the RNC's platform at the convention. I noted that action long ago in this topic as evidence that someone in the Trump campaign was aiding Russia.


Drew said:


> My read is that Manafort and Gates have been holding out, and this is Mueller ratcheting up the pressure on Manafort. I understand Gates has now agreed to plead guilty, after these charges came out, so it looks like there at least it's working.


More to the point, it not only puts pressure on these two, but shows that Mueller is looking at financial crimes closely. That should have any such person engaged in financial crimes to take notice and be worried.

I'm pretty certain Mueller has Trump's tax returns, and is looking at Trump's financial ties with Russia.


----------



## thraxil

Explorer said:


> Desperately applying for more and more loans, illegally falsifying documents along the way for the applications.



Can we just have a brief aside to savor the fact that apparently Manafort didn't know how to edit PDFs so he sent them to Gates, who converted them to Word documents, sent them back to Manafort, who edited them, then sent them back to Gates to have him convert them back to PDF.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

Mueller's team might be good at what they do, but this part of the investigation, following the paper trail left by these buffoons, sounds like it was falling off a log easy.


----------



## Explorer

thraxil said:


> Mueller's team might be good at what they do, but this part of the investigation, following the paper trail left by these buffoons, sounds like it was falling off a log easy.


In occasional topics wherein members argue for a conspiracy theory, such theories always become untenable when they posit that everyone in a conspiracy is preternaturally competent, and that anyone who might discover the conspiracy and reveal it will instead be part of the conspiracy. 

This incompetence on the part of Gates and Manafort is a powerful counterargument. 

I'm looking forward to more revelations of the evidence held by Mueller, when charges are brought at either a federal level, or by state prosecutors when Dolt 45 tries to pre-emptively pardon someone like his beloved daughter's husband.


----------



## Explorer

And now Gates has pled guilty to conspiracy, and is cooperating.

Meanwhile, Manafort has been newly indicted for having secretly paid former senior European politicians to lobby for the pro-Russia government of Ukraine, wiring more than 2 million euros to the unnamed former European politicians, and creating the “Hapsburg group” for the former politicians to appear to provide independent assessment of Ukrainian government actions. 

Mueller is slowly building the case for an intersection of needs: Manafort and others needed/wanted money, Russia needed/wanted access to the Trump Campaign, and Trump needed/wanted damaging information on Clinton and money for his campaign.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, a slightly redacted version of the Schiff memo was released. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/2/24/17048764/schiff-memo-nunes-read-full-text-pdf

Big take-aways: 

1) the Steele dossier's use in the applications were limited to the passages related to Page's alleged meetings with Russian nationals during a trip to Russia in 2016, and _not_ the "salacious" details elsewhere in the memo. In subsequent applications, evidence substantiating these allegations were presented - we know that THIS part of the dossier, at least, is accurate.
2) while the Nunes memo alludes to this at the very end, the Russia investigation predates the Steele dossier, and was launched after Popadoupalous's comments became known to the FBI. 
3) Page was already considered a risk at the time the Steele memo arrived, dating back to at least 2013
4) Steele's political motivations were disclosed - while other conservative commentators have criticized it for being too oblique, the disclosures were about as clear as can be, given that Steele couldn't be named, nor could the party he was working for - instead, it was disclosed that the source (Steele) was looking for information that could discredit Trump's campaign. Considering that's the gist of the Nunes allegation, that Steele's bias wasn't disclosed, I'd say that disclosure covers the operative part; not specifically that he was working for the DNC, but that he was doing research to dig up incrimidating dirt, which is functionally why Nunes claimed to be concerned (which considering even he later admitted this was in the application, is pretty disengenuous). 
5) The Yahoo news story Nunes referenced was not included as a supporting source of the allegations against Page, as Nunes alleged, but rather as evidence of Page's public denial. 

Again, most of this was pretty easy to guess looking at the Nunes memo, and one or two things - notably, the fact Nunes himself admits the investigation was already underway when the Steele dossier arrived - are even things Nunes himself admitted to but glossed over. Still, it's good to have this out in the public record.


----------



## Randy

I read up to about page 5 and unfortunately the redactions gutted all of the best stuff. The way it reads. Now, it's basically informationally, the Nunes memo+the added backstory stuff we heard in the ensuing weeks (like the footer about the Hillary campaign contributing to the dossier). I was hoping for more revelations but the redactions really declawed it.


----------



## Explorer

Randy said:


> I was hoping for more revelations but the redactions really declawed it.


If nothing else, the inconsistency between rejection of FBI concerns when releasing the full Nunes memo, and embrace of the same concerns when insisting on redaction of the Schiff memo, is just one more data point in support of Mueller's possible case for Trump obstructing justice.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> If nothing else, the inconsistency between rejection of FBI concerns when releasing the full Nunes memo, and embrace of the same concerns when insisting on redaction of the Schiff memo, is just one more data point in support of Mueller's possible case for Trump obstructing justice.


Actually, I was wondering that - who made the determination on what exactly got redacted? Was it the White House or the House Intelligence committee, or was it the FBI? If it was someone with a political axe to grind, then yeah, the differing treatment of the two memos is certainly a little awkward.


----------



## Explorer

Randy said:


> I was hoping for more revelations but the redactions really declawed it.





Explorer said:


> If nothing else, the inconsistency between rejection of FBI concerns when releasing the full Nunes memo, and embrace of the same concerns when insisting on redaction of the Schiff memo, is just one more data point in support of Mueller's possible case for Trump obstructing justice.





Drew said:


> Actually, I was wondering that - who made the determination on what exactly got redacted? Was it the White House or the House Intelligence committee, or was it the FBI? If it was someone with a political axe to grind, then yeah, the differing treatment of the two memos is certainly a little awkward.


It was Trump who signed off on releasing the Nunes memo without redactions, over the objections of the FBI, and it was Trump who refused to sign off on releasing the Schiff memo without redactions.

"The House Intelligence Committee made the Democratic memo public after the White House signed off following negotiations between the FBI and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff, over what should be redacted."

Trump himself was the only one with the power to release either memo, and the only one who could require redactions to either before release.

And it is Trump who continues to establish a pattern of attempting to thwart examination of Russian interference in the election.

As to what reason(s) an American president would have for not wanting an investigation into an foreign nation interfering in a US election beyond the obvious, I have very much been waiting for the Trump defenders in this topic to suggest a reason, or even to address that disturbing abdication of duty by the president. I'm doubtful it will ever happen, but if it did, I'm even more doubtful it would make logical sense.


----------



## Explorer

In mildly lighter news, the guy who claims that he'd have run into the recent school shooting and stopped the shooter while unarmed also said he can't stand the sight of blood.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ust-while-a-man-bled-to-death-in-front-of-him

----

“I’m not good for medical. In other words, if you cut your finger and there’s blood pouring out, I’m gone,” he told (Howard) Stern.

The former reality-TV host then shares a story with Stern about the time he thought a man died in front of him during a charity event at his Palm Beach club Mar-a-Lago and, rather than helping the injured man, Trump turned away in disgust at the sight of his blood.

“I was at Mar-a-Lago and we had this incredible ball, the Red Cross Ball, in Palm Beach, Florida. And we had the Marines. And the Marines were there, and it was terrible because all these rich people, they’re there to support the Marines, but they’re really there to get their picture in the Palm Beach Post… so you have all these really rich people, and a man, about 80 years old—very wealthy man, a lot of people didn’t like him—he fell off the stage,” said Trump.

“So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died. And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” said Trump. “I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. And you have this poor guy, 80 years old, laying on the floor unconscious, and all the rich people are turning away. ‘Oh my God! This is terrible! This is disgusting!’ and you know, they’re turning away. Nobody wants to help the guy. His wife is screaming—she’s sitting right next to him, and she’s screaming.”

“I was saying, ‘Get that blood cleaned up! It’s disgusting!’ The next day, I forgot to call [the man] to say he’s OK,” said Trump, adding of the blood, “It’s just not my thing.”

----

It's not that any rational person really thinks Trump tells the truth, or that Trump actually has courage, but did Cadet Bone Spurs really think anyone would believe his recent claim? 

The only recent development which this interview actually reinforces is that Trump needed a written card to remind him to make an effort to at least *appear* empathetic... even if he didn't manage to even look interested.


----------



## Explorer

Just one more thought about the Schiff memo.

It's now known definitively from the Papadopolous plea that the Russians had told the Trump campaign, in very early April 2016, that the Russians were in possession of stolen emails from the Clinton campaign.

We also now know definitively that the Department of Justice presented, to the FISA court, information that the Russians had stated what they would do with it in terms of actually disseminating it.

Immediately after those events were documented (as revealed in the Schiff memo), we also know, as a matter of public record, that Donald Trump started openly calling on the Russians to hack the Clinton campaign's emails, and that the Russians would be richly rewarded if they released those emails to the press. Again, Trump's public calls, and promises of reward, were immediately after his campaign was informed that Russia had the emails. 

Coordinating with a foreign government is illegal.

Getting aid and assistance from that government is also illegal.


----------



## Explorer

Regarding Manafort, here's a guy whose loan fraud scheme had dried up. He volunteered to do work for Trump for free, and then began coordinating with foreign parties from Russia and got new loans.

Regarding Kushner, here's a guy who had huge debt problems already due to his real estate purchases, and those problems haven't disappeared, but just keep growing.. Over the past year, Kushner asked his various banks to bump his three different lines of credit from $5 million each to $25 million each, for a total of $75 million. Donald Trump, just in the past few days, announced that Kushner works for Trump for free. Ivanka shares Jared's debt, and Donald Trump also stated that Ivanka works for free. 

Hmm... Manafort became vulnerable to the Russians because of his huge growing debt, and volunteered to work for Trump for free in order to cash in.

Hmm... Jared and Ivanka have huge growing debt, and volunteered to work for Trump for free because they are great people.


----------



## Explorer

Now Kushner's security clearance has been downgraded to merely "Secret," just as news breaks that four non-Russia countries targeted him for attempts to influence him.

Given that Ivanka shares the debt, and appears to have been given concessions on intellectual property rights by China (one of the countries), it's time to roll back her access as well.

Thank goodness that the clearance has been at least reduced as Kushner's and Ivanka's spigot to money in the face of their $1.22 billion in debt is in danger of being shut off.

----

Hey! What happened to the members who used to routinely try to deflect from all this stuff in this topic? No one recently has really gone for the "both sides" argument on this stuff since the Mueller indictments of the Russians, including the new indictment of the American who illegally sold consumers' information to Russia, and the guilty pleas of both the lawyer who helped falsify Manafort's and Gates' loan fraud, and also of Gates himself.

Is it that they changed their minds, or do they lack a talking point to propose which is even slightly more credible than silence?


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, Mueller's team just recommended charges be dropped against Gates. Not the judge, not the defense, but _Muelller's _team. I'm sure Breitbart is taking this as proof of vindication, but to me that suggests a _really_ good plea-bargain agreement, where Gates convinced them he had some pretty damning stuff, to be worth a free pass.


----------



## thraxil

It's also coming out that Mueller's team has been talking to people about Trump's Russian business deals prior to his campaign.


----------



## bostjan

thraxil said:


> It's also coming out that Mueller's team has been talking to people about Trump's Russian business deals prior to his campaign.



There's so much news about what questions Mueller is asking to whom and why that I'm starting to wonder what the heck is going on - is this an investigation or a circus? And please don't take that as a pro-Trump sentiment, it's just an observation that is relevant to the best interest of how justice can be served.


----------



## synrgy

^Seems entirely within the scope of the investigation, to me? How are Trump's Russian business deals not (potentially) relevant to the investigation?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Yeah, this is a big complex case, a lot of I's to dot and T's to cross. Did anyone really think that his past deals with Russia _weren't_ going to be scrutinized?


----------



## Explorer

It's interesting that Hope Hicks is now resigning, in the wake of questioning about her lying for the president. I thought she was a darling of Trump.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> There's so much news about what questions Mueller is asking to whom and why that I'm starting to wonder what the heck is going on - is this an investigation or a circus? And please don't take that as a pro-Trump sentiment, it's just an observation that is relevant to the best interest of how justice can be served.



I just get the impression that Mueller is investigating every lead. Whether Trump was actively colluding or not, we know that the Russians started attempting to influence the election quite a while ago and we also know that there are a lot of connections between Trump's businesses and people with Russian intelligence connections.


----------



## bostjan

thraxil said:


> I just get the impression that Mueller is investigating every lead. Whether Trump was actively colluding or not, we know that the Russians started attempting to influence the election quite a while ago and we also know that there are a lot of connections between Trump's businesses and people with Russian intelligence connections.


The question for me is not why is Mueller asking these questions, it is why is the media reporting about every question he is asking, to whom he is asking, and why.
In my eyes, it is in no way appropriate for his actions to be uploaded to the associated press in real time.
Imagine if the news reported the smell of each of Ken Star's farts back in the Clinton days. It undermines the credibility of the investigation in several ways. I don't know who's responsible for this, but it's right in your face so it's hard not to notice how silly it's gotten. And by it I don't mean the leads being followed, but I mean the fact that the public is following along with every move.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> The question for me is not why is Mueller asking these questions, it is why is the media reporting about every question he is asking, to whom he is asking, and why.
> In my eyes, it is in no way appropriate for his actions to be uploaded to the associated press in real time.
> Imagine if the news reported the smell of each of Ken Star's farts back in the Clinton days. It undermines the credibility of the investigation in several ways. I don't know who's responsible for this, but it's right in your face so it's hard not to notice how silly it's gotten. And by it I don't mean the leads being followed, but I mean the fact that the public is following along with every move.



An investigation this big, this vital, and this popular was bound to draw attention. 

Leaks are bound to occur, and the investigation isn't completely invisible.

I don't really think Mueller and his team are purposefully drawing attention. We only seem to find out little tidbits when either they're discovered by journalists, or actual charges are brought, which would be discovered anyway.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> An investigation this big, this vital, and this popular was bound to draw attention.
> 
> Leaks are bound to occur, and the investigation isn't completely invisible.
> 
> I don't really think Mueller and his team are purposefully drawing attention. We only seem to find out little tidbits when either they're discovered by journalists, or actual charges are brought, which would be discovered anyway.



Oh, I have no problem with journalists reporting that charges were brought. I'm talking about stuff like this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...siness-dealings-before-2016-report-2018-02-27 , which is deafeningly ubiquitous in my morning news feed every day.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Oh, I have no problem with journalists reporting that charges were brought. I'm talking about stuff like this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...siness-dealings-before-2016-report-2018-02-27 , which is deafeningly ubiquitous in my morning news feed every day.



Can you elaborate as to what you have an issue with?


----------



## bostjan

There is no way it can be good for the investigation for everyone to know what the lead investigator is planning to do next.

Hypothetical scenario:
Say some guy (A) is a key witness to something someone else (B) did years ago.
Now the news media is reporting bombastically that police are going to look into interviewing A about the incident.
Here's what I think is likely to happen next:
a) B kills A, no more witness
b) B intimidates A and A reconsiders his testimony
c) A gets nervous and flees the country
And here's what I think is more likely if the news report didn't come out:
d) A cooperates with the investigation, leading to charges against B


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> There is no way it can be good for the investigation for everyone to know what the lead investigator is planning to do next.
> 
> Hypothetical scenario:
> Say some guy (A) is a key witness to something someone else (B) did years ago.
> Now the news media is reporting bombastically that police are going to look into interviewing A about the incident.
> Here's what I think is likely to happen next:
> a) B kills A, no more witness
> b) B intimidates A and A reconsiders his testimony
> c) A gets nervous and flees the country
> And here's what I think is more likely if the news report didn't come out:
> d) A cooperates with the investigation, leading to charges against B



They [Mueller] can't silence everyone. 

A) That won't be suspicious at all.
B) Another crime that can leave a trail.
C) Another suspicious activity that will bring more investigation.
D) Isn't that the goal?


----------



## bostjan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7825130fb047655a06a23/?utm_term=.37f26e166c8b

Is Trump at odds with the GOP now, or is the Washington Post editorializing a bit?


----------



## thraxil

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” he said.​I just don't even know how to feel about that. After eight years of Obama being president, listening to right wingers work themselves into a frenzy about how he's coming to take their guns away and lock them up in FEMA camps or something, now there's a Republican in the White House who's saying things like that. Somehow, I doubt that the people who were so worked up about Obama are going to be as outraged about this.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Is Trump at odds with the GOP now, or is the Washington Post editorializing a bit?



Not so much 'editorializing' as much as being naive to the fact he seldom sticks to his positions on anything, especially if it's left of center.

To the overall point, I agree with them. I might've either mentioned it in this thread or one of the gun threads, but I always thought Trump didn't really feel passionate about the issue one way or the other and that he's always had a 'they elected me because I'm the decision maker, so I'm going to do what I feel like doing and the laws can be written to follow suit' attitude.

In that sense, I actually predicted that we'd have an egregious mass shooting he couldn't blame on an illegal immigrant or Muslim, and he'd have a bunch of sulking parents at his feet, and while I don't think he's especially empathetic, it seemed within his character to basically say "okay, how do I make these people go away?". Also, if you've read any of Trump's business books, he has some respect for 'hard nosed' negotiators from a distance, up until they try the same tactic on him. Eventually he's going to come back to Earth (especially because he's going to be stumping for midterms) but in the here and now, I bet he's probably a little sick of the threats from the NRA.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Imagine if the news reported the smell of each of Ken Star's farts back in the Clinton days.


I mean, isn't this basically what happened? 

It's not surprising - it's a pretty big story, and the press wants to stay ahead of it. We also know for a fact that not every move Mueller is making is being reported by the press - Popadoupalous is a perfect example, as he took a plea-bargain in June and the story didn't break until, what, August, when Manafort and Page were indicted and Mueller unsealed news of that plea-bargain as well?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> In that sense, I actually predicted that we'd have an egregious mass shooting he couldn't blame on an illegal immigrant or Muslim, and he'd have a bunch of sulking parents at his feet, and while I don't think he's especially empathetic, it seemed within his character to basically say "okay, how do I make these people go away?". Also, if you've read any of Trump's business books, he has some respect for 'hard nosed' negotiators from a distance, up until they try the same tactic on him. Eventually he's going to come back to Earth (especially because he's going to be stumping for midterms) but in the here and now, I bet he's probably a little sick of the threats from the NRA.


I also think, given what we know about Trump, he took one look at the grieving parents and outraged students, and another at public opinion polls showing as much as 90%+ of the country was in favor of universal background checks and policies temporarily removing guns from the homes of people believed to be a risk to themselves and others, and thought, "Ah-HA! An easy win!" 

Mind you, I'm totally ok with that - if Trump wants to chalk up "wins" by forcing Congress to take up sensible gun control measures and use the power of the bully pulpit to try to ram them through, I'm as shocked as the next guy, but I'll take it. I still think he's a deranged psychopath in the true clinical sense, but broken clocks can still occasionally be right...


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, isn't this basically what happened?
> 
> It's not surprising - it's a pretty big story, and the press wants to stay ahead of it. We also know for a fact that not every move Mueller is making is being reported by the press - Popadoupalous is a perfect example, as he took a plea-bargain in June and the story didn't break until, what, August, when Manafort and Page were indicted and Mueller unsealed news of that plea-bargain as well?



Someone being indicted or someone pleading guilty or such is one thing. For me, at least, having the news reporting on who Mueller is going to be interviewing next or what questions he's prepared to ask them is something at an entirely different level.



Randy said:


> Not so much 'editorializing' as much as being naive to the fact he seldom sticks to his positions on anything, especially if it's left of center.
> 
> To the overall point, I agree with them. I might've either mentioned it in this thread or one of the gun threads, but I always thought Trump didn't really feel passionate about the issue one way or the other and that he's always had a 'they elected me because I'm the decision maker, so I'm going to do what I feel like doing and the laws can be written to follow suit' attitude.
> 
> In that sense, I actually predicted that we'd have an egregious mass shooting he couldn't blame on an illegal immigrant or Muslim, and he'd have a bunch of sulking parents at his feet, and while I don't think he's especially empathetic, it seemed within his character to basically say "okay, how do I make these people go away?". Also, if you've read any of Trump's business books, he has some respect for 'hard nosed' negotiators from a distance, up until they try the same tactic on him. Eventually he's going to come back to Earth (especially because he's going to be stumping for midterms) but in the here and now, I bet he's probably a little sick of the threats from the NRA.



I think you're spot on.

I feel like I'm an extra in a Mel Brooks movie. The president (played by Mel Brooks in a silly-looking blonde wig) stands in front of his people, who are upset about the school shooting, and the president announces: "Give guns to the teachers!" The people collectively groan and the president's aide (played by Harvey Korman) pulls his sleeve and whispers "Are you sure that's a good idea? These people will try to get you impeached if you say things like that." The president then says, "Mike, if you're so smart, then why don't you do something?!" Harvey Korman then steps up to the podium and blathers something about California taking people's guns away and something about due process, and Mel Brooks interrupts, "Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court. Because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida. Oy! To go to court would have taken a long time."

I swear I can even hear their voices when I read those quotes.


----------



## vilk

I could literally hear Mel Brooks voice hahahahaha


----------



## thraxil

Randy said:


> Not so much 'editorializing' as much as being naive to the fact he seldom sticks to his positions on anything, especially if it's left of center.



I think, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they're not being naive. Everyone knows that he spouts off randomly and doesn't really have solid, thought out policies and completely contradicts himself without hesitation. But what do you do about that? If you point out that trend explicitly like that, you come off as having an anti-Trump bias and it's just more ammunition for the "fake news" accusers. Rolling over and never calling him out isn't very responsible either. Instead, every single time, when he says something that we can reasonably expect him to switch position on, report it as fact, acting in good faith that he means exactly what he says. If/when he later walks it back and pretends he never said it, didn't mean it, or was joking, report that and hope that everyone not completely asleep sees the trend for themselves.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Someone being indicted or someone pleading guilty or such is one thing. For me, at least, having the news reporting on who Mueller is going to be interviewing next or what questions he's prepared to ask them is something at an entirely different level.


Oh, no, I think you're getting what I meant backwards, or maybe I'm saying it wrong - I think Popadoupalous is an important example not because it _was_ a newsworthy event, but because it was an example of something that, while newsworthy, didn't _make_ the news, for months after it happened. 

By extension, while there's a lot the media is covering in Mueller's investigation, it seems pretty likely that there's a lot happening that they're _not_ covering, because they don't know about it.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Oh, no, I think you're getting what I meant backwards, or maybe I'm saying it wrong - I think Popadoupalous is an important example not because it _was_ a newsworthy event, but because it was an example of something that, while newsworthy, didn't _make_ the news, for months after it happened.
> 
> By extension, while there's a lot the media is covering in Mueller's investigation, it seems pretty likely that there's a lot happening that they're _not_ covering, because they don't know about it.



Yeah, I got it. I guess I have a tendency to repeat myself unnecessarily.

It could be that the frequency of news updates about Mueller's current location, and whom he is questioning now and whom he will be questioning next is a sort of backlash to that fat that you brought up. Maybe reporters said "Oh shit, how did we miss that?! We'd better start reporting every time he farts!"


----------



## thraxil

I think some of that's just the internet and social media. If we had all that back when Ken Starr was investigating Clinton, we probably would've had more of a circus (and I do remember it getting quite a bit of coverage on the evening news at the time).


----------



## Explorer

thraxil said:


> Everyone knows that (Trump) spouts off randomly and doesn't really have solid, thought out policies and completely contradicts himself without hesitation. But what do you do about that? If you point out that trend explicitly like that, you come off as having an anti-Trump bias....


I have been engaging in Socratic questioning with my more conservative friends over the past few years, asking them about things which Trump states which are objectively and provably untrue, and then asking them if they would trust such a person with their lives.

To their credit, most of them have actually gained an awareness of how Trump violates their professed (loudly and often) religious faith, and know that they must either temper their religious proselytizing when mixing it with politics, or have me make a point of bringing up the sexual assaulter and serial adulterer whom they used to constantly defend.

And some of them have actually turned their back on Trump because of their faith, while repudiating the religious right as well.

----

There's nothing wrong with news services pulling together video montages of Trump contradicting himself, incidentally, and such montages make the point without needing anyone else beyond Trump to point out the contradictions.


----------



## Explorer

And now, as I pointed out was likely, Ivanka's finances is being investigated, with a focus on properties opened since Trump hecoming president, and on foreign financing.


----------



## jaxadam

Explorer said:


> There's nothing wrong with news services pulling together video montages of Trump contradicting himself



Here is one of my favorite montages. If you're not familiar with this woman, she's married to a guy others in this thread were referring to in the Ken Starr investigation for lying about getting his dick sucked by an intern.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Here is one of my favorite montages. If you're not familiar with this woman, she's married to a guy others in this thread were referring to in the Ken Starr investigation for lying about getting his dick sucked by an intern.




Yeah, Clinton was and is a hot mess. The Democrats made a huge miscalculation supporting her, and I believe it was a mistake. But she lost almost all of her relevance over a year ago, so while I don't mind you posting the video, I think it's kind of weird to post it in response to what @Explorer said. Frankly, the whole "support Trump, because Clinton" thing is just illogical. Clinton is no longer Trump's opponent. Also, if you don't like the Big Mac, it doesn't mean that you have to like the Whopper. It makes me wonder if this is what it's going to be two years from now when the Democrats try to win the presidency back; are Republicans still going to be going on and on about Clinton, or are they going to change the subject to whomever is running? Either way, I bet they *won't* be saying too much about how impressive Trump has been as a leader. :/


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Yeah, Clinton was and is a hot mess. The Democrats made a huge miscalculation supporting her, and I believe it was a mistake. But she lost almost all of her relevance over a year ago, so while I don't mind you posting the video, I think it's kind of weird to post it in response to what @Explorer said. Frankly, the whole "support Trump, because Clinton" thing is just illogical. Clinton is no longer Trump's opponent. Also, if you don't like the Big Mac, it doesn't mean that you have to like the Whopper. It makes me wonder if this is what it's going to be two years from now when the Democrats try to win the presidency back; are Republicans still going to be going on and on about Clinton, or are they going to change the subject to whomever is running? Either way, I bet they *won't* be saying too much about how impressive Trump has been as a leader. :/


----------



## bostjan




----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> And now, as I pointed out was likely, Ivanka's finances is being investigated, with a focus on properties opened since Trump hecoming president, and on foreign financing.


Saw a report this morning citing five sources close to the white house that Kelly is preparing to force Kushner and Ivanka out, and Trump is on board even though he's privately telling them they can stay, after the recent news about Kushner getting business loans from people he'd met with previously in official White House business. You hear a lot of these stories, so I don't know how credible it is. 

I also saw a story that the White House is preparing for McMaster's departure, possibly within the month - I don't see this as highly credible either, but you never know. Personally, I'd bet on Kelly going before either of those three.


----------



## vilk

Tariff question!

Does it apply only to raw material for manufacturing like steel work-pieces or does it apply to all steel imports, finished products or otherwise?


----------



## StevenC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43239331

Putin shows off new nukes and image of Florida being bombarded. Trump tweets about Alec Baldwin.


----------



## synrgy

Technically, he tweeted about "Alex Baldwin", but then he deleted it.


----------



## vilk

synrgy said:


> Technically, he tweeted about "Alex Baldwin", but then he deleted it.


Dude, what kind of person can't even spell "dying"? And that's like not even a plausible autocorrect


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Tariff question!
> 
> Does it apply only to raw material for manufacturing like steel work-pieces or does it apply to all steel imports, finished products or otherwise?


Well, he hasn't signed anything into law yet, just held a press conference with industry leaders to indicate he would do so in the next ten days. So, there isn't much detail. 

But, the coverage I've seen seems to assume that it's just a tariff on raw materials, rather than finished goods containing steel and aluminum. I would have to assume that, given how negative the reaction was to a raw materials tariff, if he tried to extend it to finished goods, it would be a market bloodbath. 

Also, the largest exporter of steel and aluminum to the US is Canada, who is NOT happy about this latest development. They haven't responded yet, but they've indicated that retaliatory tariffs are likely in the pipeline.


----------



## bostjan

I'd be dieiding from laughter if this wasn't our president, Donothy Trump. Bring back Obama, he was less of a knobhead.

I'd be dying from laughter if this wasn't our president Donald Trump. Bring back Obama, he was less of a knobhead.


----------



## Drew

CNBC is talking about the steel tariffs now - evidently the Chinese steel producers association is a little perplexed, and when asked for a comment said that since less than 3% of Chinese steel goes to the US, these new tariffs barely impact them at all. Really, all Trump is doing is screwing Canada. Ironically they now have a guy from the Union of Steel Workers up talking now, who seems unaware of this and is saying that Trump should be targeting firms that "cheat" like China, and should exempt ones that don't, like Canada.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Saw a report this morning citing five sources close to the white house that Kelly is preparing to force Kushner and Ivanka out, and Trump is on board even though he's privately telling them they can stay, after the recent news about Kushner getting business loans from people he'd met with previously in official White House business. You hear a lot of these stories, so I don't know how credible it is.


The one overwhelmingly credible thing about this is that Trump, in spite of his claims that he is strong enough to confront "bad hombres," is a complete coward when those people aren't afraid of him and when he has no power over them.

His fears about being in a room with unarmed students, and his fear of facing the press in the White House press room, just ooze from this story of lying to Jared and Ivanka to avoid confrontation.


----------



## Explorer

Incidentally, did anyone else see reports that Trump crony Carl Icahn just happened to sell $31 million in steel shares just before Trump announced the tariffs? Complete coincidence, I'm sure, but I do hope that gets verified.


----------



## oc616

"China bad!"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-xi-jinping-power-grab-give-that-a-shot-china

"China now good!" 

The contradiction continues.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

'“And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot some day,”'
Yeah this is legit how dictatorships start. We should be marching in the streets daily until our congress acts to impeach Trump. We're far too complacent despite red flag after red flag staring into our faces.


----------



## jwade

So is it going to be everybody else vs China, Russia and the U.S?


----------



## Drew

I'm honestly surprised this isn't getting more media attention than it did - the Economist did a long piece on it last week, basically arguing that this officially ended the West's belief that China would move towards classically-liberal market democracy. This is really a formal move back to authoritarianism. 



jwade said:


> So is it going to be everybody else vs China, Russia and the U.S?


My money says the EU against China, Russia, and possibly the US, if Trump doesn't get his shit together and remember that his ultimate loyalties as the President lie with the country, and not his own bottom line.


----------



## Explorer

I'm much amused by reporting in today's Wall Street Journal (sorry, behind a paywall) that Trump's lawyer Cohen, who paid Stormy Daniels himself in order to have the payment be legal (instead of a crime), then complained to friend that Cohen was angry that Trump hadn't then paid Cohen back for the $130,000 payment.

Given that Trump illegally used campaign funds and donations to his foundation for other purposes, Trump was likely to have done the same on this payment.

In other words, Cohen seemed to have been saved from being an accomplice to a crime by the fact that his client Trump stiffed him. *laugh*


----------



## hairychris

Quick thoughts about this Sam Nunberg shambles:

If he's a) on antidepressants and b) drinking on them... from unpleasant personal experience it can make you do all sorts of crazy.

Now, this doesn't mean lying, more of a case of it completely screws up your filtering and you can end up saying all sorts of stuff that you'll usually keep to yourself, plus possibly aggravate any self-destructive tendencies that might be pushing against. This gets worse under pressure.

So if Nunberg is on psychoactive meds and drinking, then getting dumped on by Mueller (and Trump's team) may well fire up his I DON'T GIVE A FRANK gland and his urge to justify himself publicly.

The fact that he's a scion of Roger Stone, so therefore almost certainly a total scumbag himself, makes this amusing but I am a bit uncomfortable with it.

In my case it was escitalopram. Drinking on that lost me a number of friends, plus I ended up in some weird situations (at least one of which directly life-threatening).


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> I'm much amused by reporting in today's Wall Street Journal (sorry, behind a paywall) that Trump's lawyer Cohen, who paid Stormy Daniels himself in order to have the payment be legal (instead of a crime), then complained to friend that Cohen was angry that Trump hadn't then paid Cohen back for the $130,000 payment.
> 
> Given that Trump illegally used campaign funds and donations to his foundation for other purposes, Trump was likely to have done the same on this payment.
> 
> In other words, Cohen seemed to have been saved from being an accomplice to a crime by the fact that his client Trump stiffed him. *laugh*


I think it's a savvy move. 

I can't speak to the strength of the case and whether or not there's any merit to it, so there's a chance the whole thing will get tossed. But if it doesn't... Well, for one, _A_ nondisclosure agreement is now part of the public record as Exhibit 1 of this lawsuit. Trump can make it go away easily enough if he just signs the NDA... But, if he does so, he's implicitly admitting that the NDA signed under pseudonyms was, in fact, him, and that her story is valid. If he doesn't sign it, he can continue to claim that she's lying and no NDA exists, and I expect that's what he'll do... But, if the suit has enough merit to move forward, then he'll have to testify under oath, and he already made time for the Trump University lawsuit settlement so he'll have a hard time arguing he's too busy as the President to face this suit. 

I understand there's also a period during which she can continue to add allegations to the suit, so this could very well be a first move as part of a longer plan.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I think it's a savvy move.
> 
> I can't speak to the strength of the case and whether or not there's any merit to it, so there's a chance the whole thing will get tossed. But if it doesn't... Well, for one, _A_ nondisclosure agreement is now part of the public record as Exhibit 1 of this lawsuit. Trump can make it go away easily enough if he just signs the NDA... But, if he does so, he's implicitly admitting that the NDA signed under pseudonyms was, in fact, him, and that her story is valid. If he doesn't sign it, he can continue to claim that she's lying and no NDA exists, and I expect that's what he'll do... But, if the suit has enough merit to move forward, then he'll have to testify under oath, and he already made time for the Trump University lawsuit settlement so he'll have a hard time arguing he's too busy as the President to face this suit.
> 
> I understand there's also a period during which she can continue to add allegations to the suit, so this could very well be a first move as part of a longer plan.



She's going to make a fortune telling the story, writing a book. This is to preempt any injunction that could stop that.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> She's going to make a fortune telling the story, writing a book. This is to preempt any injunction that could stop that.


Actually, as it happens, it's in response to a restraining order forbidding her from doing so. I like this move even more.


----------



## Drew

Tillerson was fired this morning over Twitter, in favor of Mike Pompeo.

This was the last interview he gave as Secretary of State before waking up to the news today:

Poisoning of Russian Ex-Spy Is ‘Almost Beyond Comprehension,’ Tillerson Says


----------



## bostjan

@Drew, didn't you hear, though, the House Committee decided that Trump's campaign was innocent of any collusion. End of story, close the book, and move on. No further questions. Do not question their authoritah!

Trump said Tillerson was fired over differences in opinion over Iran, so obviously, it was over Iran, and not anything that came up more recently (last I saw any mention of Iran by the Trump administration before today was in October or so).


----------



## Drew

Technically, the _Republicans_ on the House Intelligence Committee decided he was innocent of collusion, but we all know the Democrats were just on a witch hunt anyway.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Technically, the _Republicans_ on the House Intelligence Committee decided he was innocent of collusion, but we all know the Democrats were just on a witch hunt anyway.


Yeah, because the Republicans also determined that to be the case.

They also determined the value of pi to be 3.2 and the square root of two to be 10/7 while they were at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[/sarcasm]

This could genuinely mark the beginning of the end of the GOP if the rug gets pulled out from under all of this, which I wouldn't think would be too difficult. Once you start trying to legislate facts in and out of existence, there is no way not to raise the collective eyebrows of the people. The investigation into this is _ongoing_...the conclusion at this point, one way or the other, is just plain stupid. Even if the House Republicans know something no one else knows, including the FBI, they ought to wait until they can back up the statement. I really don't see how this will help any of the Republicans during the mid term elections.


----------



## oc616

About the UK-Russia thing, we just found another "former resident" of Putin's strangled. Seems like they're cleaning house, this should be taken more seriously than the RT followers are allowing it to be.


----------



## Drew

oc616 said:


> About the UK-Russia thing, we just found another "former resident" of Putin's strangled. Seems like they're cleaning house, this should be taken more seriously than the RT followers are allowing it to be.


You don't say. 

/dry sarcasm.


----------



## Drew

Larry Kudlow is an idiot, a textbook supply-sider, and a Trump apologist. The one silver lining of this is he annoys the piss out of me, and he'll probably spend less time on CNBC so I'll have to listen to him a little less now that he's in the Trump Administration, instead of bolstering them from the outside.  

He also, back in the 90s, had a $100,000-a-month coke habit, so there's that.


----------



## Unslaved

It looks like I've stumbled upon the dark corner of the web in this forum. 

Judging by the title of this thread, and by the very fact its still ongoing, that some of you folks are still in disbelief and/or denial that Trump did in fact really did "get there".


----------



## bostjan

Unslaved said:


> It looks like I've stumbled upon the dark corner of the web in this forum.
> 
> Judging by the title of this thread, and by the very fact its still ongoing, that some of you folks are still in disbelief and/or denial that Trump did in fact really did "get there".


Absolutely. 191 pages, and unless it gets locked, it'll likely go 100 more pages.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> Absolutely. 191 pages, and unless it gets locked, it'll likely go 100 more pages.



Important to note that the "there" in the title has effectively shifted post-election from meaning "the presidency" to "impeachment and/or prison".


----------



## Drew

Unslaved said:


> It looks like I've stumbled upon the dark corner of the web in this forum.
> 
> Judging by the title of this thread, and by the very fact its still ongoing, that some of you folks are still in disbelief and/or denial that Trump did in fact really did "get there".


Nah, it's morphed into a thread where we, pop corn in hand, enjoy the front row seats to the dumpster fire that the Trump Administration proved to be.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Drew said:


> He also, back in the 90s, had a $100,000-a-month coke habit, so there's that.



What?! How? Was coke more expensive in the 90s? Jesus Christ that's absurd


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> What?! How? Was coke more expensive in the 90s? Jesus Christ that's absurd


He also, as the highest economic advisor in the country, has no economics degree (bachelor, masters, or doctorate), and his last notable private-sector job before becoming a network talking head was the chief economist at Bear Stearns, and you know how THAT one ended. 

Trump's starting to go after Mueller by name. I think we know where this one's heading...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## Drew

https://www.axios.com/cambridge-ana...tal-fa46cf30-5be6-4851-8978-e60b15681d2b.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/expos...of-donald-trump-data-firm-cambridge-analytica

So, I'm applying the same standard to this as I did the Project Veritas stuff - I would want to see the full uncut version of these tapes to ensure they weren't being edited to create a context that wasn't really there. The multiple camera angles, right off the bat, don't seem to be helping. But, if there's any basis to this, it's fairly concerning.


----------



## bostjan

In other news, Trump is proposing the death penalty for drug offenses.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-opioid-plan_us_5ab00ec2e4b0e862383a70bd

...and Oklahoma has been trying to change their execution method from lethal injection to straight-up suffocation.


----------



## vilk

I've heard so much terrible shit about lethal injection that I'm not sure that hanging isn't more humane?


----------



## wannabguitarist

Drew said:


> https://www.axios.com/cambridge-ana...tal-fa46cf30-5be6-4851-8978-e60b15681d2b.html
> https://www.channel4.com/news/expos...of-donald-trump-data-firm-cambridge-analytica
> 
> So, I'm applying the same standard to this as I did the Project Veritas stuff - I would want to see the full uncut version of these tapes to ensure they weren't being edited to create a context that wasn't really there. The multiple camera angles, right off the bat, don't seem to be helping. But, if there's any basis to this, it's fairly concerning.



I haven't read the Channel 4 article yet (Axios seems to be a summary of it), just this Guardian article on Wylie and I'm struggling to see what illegal action was taken here? It sounds like the data was gather legally, though company violated Facebook's TOS with how the data was used. The claims about violating campaign finance law are all hearsay currently correct?

What's troubling to me is I really doubt CA is/was the only company doing this sort of work.


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> I haven't read the Channel 4 article yet (Axios seems to be a summary of it), just this Guardian article on Wylie and I'm struggling to see what illegal action was taken here? It sounds like the data was gather legally, though company violated Facebook's TOS with how the data was used. The claims about violating campaign finance law are all hearsay currently correct?
> 
> What's troubling to me is I really doubt CA is/was the only company doing this sort of work.


Well, two things were done illegally, one of which we know, and one of which CA has claimed, but has not been substantiated.

1) CA was legally allowed to scrape user data from Facebook until 2015, when their terms of service changed. After that point, the data should have been deleted, but was not. It's been alleged but not proven that Facebook was aware of this, but took no action until last week.
2) CA claims that they were responsible for all of Trump's digital campaigning (itself not technically illegal, within certain guidelines), and furthermore worked very closely with the Trump campaign in crafting their messaging. If so, because they were working on behalf of/as part of a Super PAC, direct coordination with the Trump camp (Nix claimed he had met with Trump "many, many times" during the campaign) would in fact be a violation of US campaign finance laws, because the disclosure rules for a Super PAC are far looser (basically nonexistant) than for a campaign, but in return a Super PAC cannot work hand in hand with a campaign. Worth noting - this is exactly what Project Veritas accused the Clinton campaign of doing, in their _heavily_ edited video. It would be ironic if what they tried to accuse Clinton of doing, Trump actually did - the Veritas video relies on video cuts to superimpose statements to imply knowing collaboration, whereas Nix straight-up says he was working closely with Trump in the Channel 4 video.

So, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook are clearly in hot water for the use of private customer data... But, Cambridge Analytica and the Trump 2016 campaign may _also_ have committed campaign finance violations by the campaign coordinating directly with a Super PAC on messaging. The latter will depend on 1) whether or not there was also creative editing done by Channel 4, and 2) whether or not Nix was telling the truth, or lying to impress a prospective client.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> In other news, Trump is proposing the death penalty for drug offenses.
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-opioid-plan_us_5ab00ec2e4b0e862383a70bd
> 
> ...and Oklahoma has been trying to change their execution method from lethal injection to straight-up suffocation.



Well, the specific _method_ of suffocation is supposed to be much more humane. They aren't just choking the person, they are inducing nitrogen hypoxia. This specific method, while possibly technically classified as suffocation, doesn't cause the same reaction as elevated carbon dioxide levels do. From Wiki: "In scuba diving rebreather accidents, there is often little sensation but euphoria [...][7] By contrast, suddenly breathing pure inert gas causes oxygen levels in the blood to fall precipitously, and may lead to unconsciousness in only a few breaths, with no symptoms at all.[3]"

I can't remember where I read it, but I remember reading about a factory where the basement slowly filled with a heavier-than-air, odorless inert gas. As the gas leaked, it settled on the floor and found it's way to the basement. By the time it was discovered, there were like 11 people who had passed out, and if I remember right, only a couple died, and the survivors just remembered getting pleasantly sleepy...and then that's it.

And the reason they are looking into this option is because thy botched their last lethal injection with improperly-tested new chemicals, and basically caused a 20-minute heart attack within a 43-minute ordeal of him writhing and even trying to get up and speak after being declared unconscious.

With all that said, the whole thing is a bit fucked up...but is life in prison more humane, either? Ugh...perhaps a conversation for another thread.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Drew said:


> Well, two things were done illegally, one of which we know, and one of which CA has claimed, but has not been substantiated.
> 
> 1) CA was legally allowed to scrape user data from Facebook until 2015, when their terms of service changed. After that point, the data should have been deleted, but was not. It's been alleged but not proven that Facebook was aware of this, but took no action until last week.
> 2) CA claims that they were responsible for all of Trump's digital campaigning (itself not technically illegal, within certain guidelines), and furthermore worked very closely with the Trump campaign in crafting their messaging. If so, because they were working on behalf of/as part of a Super PAC, direct coordination with the Trump camp (Nix claimed he had met with Trump "many, many times" during the campaign) would in fact be a violation of US campaign finance laws, because the disclosure rules for a Super PAC are far looser (basically nonexistant) than for a campaign, but in return a Super PAC cannot work hand in hand with a campaign. Worth noting - this is exactly what Project Veritas accused the Clinton campaign of doing, in their _heavily_ edited video. It would be ironic if what they tried to accuse Clinton of doing, Trump actually did - the Veritas video relies on video cuts to superimpose statements to imply knowing collaboration, whereas Nix straight-up says he was working closely with Trump in the Channel 4 video.
> 
> So, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook are clearly in hot water for the use of private customer data... But, Cambridge Analytica and the Trump 2016 campaign may _also_ have committed campaign finance violations by the campaign coordinating directly with a Super PAC on messaging. The latter will depend on 1) whether or not there was also creative editing done by Channel 4, and 2) whether or not Nix was telling the truth, or lying to impress a prospective client.



1) Nothing about that sounds illegal to me. My understanding is that an app/quiz was set up which people voluntarily took (some may have actually been paid to take it); this was done under the guise of research (maybe?). This app happened to also scrape data (likes, etc) from the friends of people that took the quiz which Facebook allowed up until 2015 (maybe into 2016? I think there was a small grace period for apps that existed before FB changed the TOS). Facebook didn't really seem to go through much effort to make CA delete the data. I don't see what was illegally done here; the information was voluntarily put on FB. If gathering the data was illegal then every app that worked similarly would be in violation of the law right? What law?

I'm basing most of this off what I've heard from NPR's 1A and NYT's the Daily. If I can find a thorough summary of the podcasts I'll post them up.

2) That all looks really bad, but a company can potentially work with both a campaign and a PAC if everything is documented with the FEC and the proper controls are in place to prevent intermingling within group, correct? Obviously this needs to be investigated, but I've always been under the impression that this was one of those sort of gray areas. You can get in a lot of trouble if you cross the line, but that line happens to be somewhat blurry.

Fuck I gotta do some more reading


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> 1) Nothing about that sounds illegal to me. My understanding is that an app/quiz was set up which people voluntarily took (some may have actually been paid to take it); this was done under the guise of research (maybe?). This app happened to also scrape data (likes, etc) from the friends of people that took the quiz which Facebook allowed up until 2015 (maybe into 2016? I think there was a small grace period for apps that existed before FB changed the TOS). Facebook didn't really seem to go through much effort to make CA delete the data. I don't see what was illegally done here; the information was voluntarily put on FB. If gathering the data was illegal then every app that worked similarly would be in violation of the law right? What law?
> 
> I'm basing most of this off what I've heard from NPR's 1A and NYT's the Daily. If I can find a thorough summary of the podcasts I'll post them up.
> 
> 2) That all looks really bad, but a company can potentially work with both a campaign and a PAC if everything is documented with the FEC and the proper controls are in place to prevent intermingling within group, correct? Obviously this needs to be investigated, but I've always been under the impression that this was one of those sort of gray areas. You can get in a lot of trouble if you cross the line, but that line happens to be somewhat blurry.
> 
> Fuck I gotta do some more reading


1) Well, I think there's a couple things at stake here. First, Facebook would have violated their own terms of service by allowing personal information (not all of which was public, and definitely not all of which was provided in answers to quizzes) about likes and interests of members to be sold and used by 3rd parties, post 2015. Basically, the issue is they said they wouldn't do something in a terms of service agreement, and then did it anyway. Additionally, CA agreed to delete FB user data after 2015 as part of THEIR agreement with FB... and didn't. Same issue. Finally, I seem to recall somewhere that they bought additional data from a 3rd party, who wasn't authorized to sell FB data. FB comes across looking sloppy at best with privacy and criminally or willfully negligent at worse, and CA definitely broke the law as well.

2) Yes, and that's precisely the issue - it looks like those controls to prevent the campaign from coordinating directly with the Super PAC, and vice versa, were either NOT in place, or were totally ignored. If true, that's a pretty big deal.


----------



## thraxil

OK, so we have learned now from the van der Zwaan filing [1] that Gates was in contact in October and September of 2016 with a Russian intelligence agent (by Gates' own admission). That should end the argument that Mueller's investigation into the campaign hasn't turned up any evidence of collusion.

Also, a judge is allowing the emoluments lawsuit in DC/Maryland to proceed, though it's being limited to properties in that jurisdiction (Trump International Hotel in DC) and won't be able to include payments in other locations like Mar a Lago.

https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/193647/04516494589.pdf


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/28/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

So, this is potentially big, for two reasons.

1) Rick Gates was knowingly in touch with someone with close ties to Russian intelligence in the months leading up to the election, while he was part of the Trump team. He lied about it in his initial disposition.
2) The individual was ex-GRU and maintained close ties to the agency, and while the article somehow fails to mention this, GRU was one of the two branches of Russian intelligence US intelligence concluded had hacked the DNC email server. If there _was_ coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia over the DNC email leaks, there would virtually have to be some sort of communication between GRU and the Trump team. And it looks like there was, indeed.

EDIT - sniped.  There's some added incremental info here, though, namely that the agent in question was a former member of, and maintained very close ties with, the intelligence agency we believe was behind the DNC hack and subsequent email leak (Guccifer 2.0 is believed to be a GRU persona).


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Federal agents raided Michael Cohen's office earlier today. This is reportedly a referral from Mueller to the US Attorney's office rather than directly related to his investigation, and documents seized allegedly relate to (among other topics) payments made to Stormy Daniels. 

For now, imagine the sort of evidence needed to get a (Trump-appointed, I believe) judge to sign off on a search warrant for a top secret raid on the offices of the personal lawyer of a sitting President.


----------



## Explorer

In addition to the Cohen warrant, revolving around Cohen's possible bank fraud, wire fraud and campaign finance violations, there were also requests, directed to Cohen and Hope Hicks, for all emails between the two which discuss Trump creating a misleading cover story for the Trump Tower meeting between Junior, Kushner, Manafort and the Russians.

As Hicks has never been a client of Cohen, such communications can never be subject to attorney-client privilege.

Also, Cohen now has an unwaivable conflict of interest with Trump, due to the executed warrants today, and can no longer be Trump's lawyer. *That* was unexpected.


----------



## hairychris

What's absolutely hilarious is how soon this happened after Trump publicly denied knowing the Cohen acted on his behalf wrt Stormy Daniels.

I'd like to think that the application for search went something like this:

Feds: We want to search the home & offices of a lawyer.
Judge: You're going to need a lot of evidence for that...
Feds: BTW it's the president's personal lawyer.
Judge: Wait, what, you think that I'm putting my name on that warrant??
Feds: <play 20 mins "best of" Cohen's public statements>
Judge: Who should I make this out to again?

The whole thing is terminally hilarious.

Oh, just to add on, Cohen's law firm also represent(ed) Cambridge Analytica.


----------



## thraxil

hairychris said:


> What's absolutely hilarious is how soon this happened after Trump publicly denied knowing the Cohen acted on his behalf wrt Stormy Daniels.



Hilarious, yes, but I don't think it has anything to do with that. Getting a search warrant for a lawyer's office and hotel room requires the agents to demonstrate to the judge both a substantial amount of credible evidence of a crime but also evidence that the information they are after is at that particular location. In other words, it's likely that they were surveilling Cohen for a while so they could establish that, eg, he takes his laptop to the hotel room every night after work. That would've taken time to get going so I'm thinking that whatever info Mueller gave them that started this off was before Trump's recent comments.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Also, Cohen now has an unwaivable conflict of interest with Trump, due to the executed warrants today, and can no longer be Trump's lawyer. *That* was unexpected.


Huh. That's actually a pretty big problem for Trump, because wasn't his law team down to JUST Cohen?

Not too much info is out, but so far we know the following:


This raid was not authorized by Mueller. Rather, he referred a case to the Southern District of New York, and they sought authorization to raid.
Given that it was a law office, and given that client-attorney communications were within scope, we know two further things - one, that to raid a law office with an emergency search warrant, the head of the office (one of the most prestigious in the country) would have to personally sign off on the search warrant. The head of this office is a Trump appointee. Second, they needed to be reasonably sure less invasive methods wouldn't work - requested documents would be omitted or destroyed, basically, if they DIDN'T do an unannounced search.
Communication about payments to Stormy Daniels and information about the source of the funds was within the scope of the search.
The Feds were looking for information related to payments made to other women, as well.

So, while it's possible something may be uncovered that the SDNY shares with the Mueller investigation, this raid WASN'T related to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. It's certainly at least partially related to the ongoing Stormy Daniels case, and the fact that hairychris pointed out that this happened shortly AFTER Trump denied notice of the nondisclosure agreement is interesting too - his denial of knowledge actually strengthens Daniels' case, considering that the agreement granted certain rights and responsibilities to Trump personally, and if they were done without his knowledge, then Cohen's representation that Trump would honor those responsibilities would have been fraudulent.

So, long story short, this is likely to be very embarrassing to Trump, and considering that there's a chance that he may have to testify under oath (and given it's at the root of the NDA, questions like "did you have an affair with Stormy Daniels" are entirely within scope), he's likely to have to at best share a lot of personal information that will strain his marraige and at worst there's a very real chance that his temper and fondness for hyperbole will take over and he'll commit perjury. If I were The Donald I'd be EXTREMELY uncomfortable with this development, even if I'd done nothing worse than sleeping with a porn star behind my wife's back.

However, given who signed off on this, given what was seized, and given public statements by Daniels, Cohen, and Trump... If _anyone_ should be scared about this development, it's Michael Cohen. He looks to be the one directly implicated here, and the one suspected of criminal activity and targeted in this raid.


----------



## bostjan

Is history repeating itself?! Is Daniels the new Lewinski? I have no faith that Trump could take the stand without telling a fib, since this is a guy who vehemently believes that "alternative facts" are a real thing.

Both parties always want to come out of everything looking like they are the morally superior ones, but, by now, I think we all know that politicians on both sides of the political aisle are just as shitty. Trump wanted to "drain the swamp" and get rid of all the corruption in Washington. Yet his administration has been full of nepotism and sleaziness since day one, heck, way before day one.

I certainly don't understand all of the nuances of this Russia-meddling-in-the-election-all-spy-vs-spy-like, but it's painfully obvious, at this point, that Trump and his team have something, if not multiple things, that they are desperately trying to hide. It'd be a shame if the Stormy Daniels garbage ends up getting in the way of whatever really serious* crime was committed.

(* serious as in putting many lives at risk )


----------



## Explorer

It's worth noting that although Trump and Cohen have been claiming publicly that Cohen acted alone in the Stormy Daniel's payoff, which is likely to be found to be an illegal campaign payment to influence the election, the taint team reviewing Cohen's communications regarding the matter may well find direct communications between Cohen and Trump indicating that Tru,p authorized such an illegal bribe.

Additionally, Cohen's seized communications and records may reveal communications not covered by attorney-client privilege about possible crimes (like emails between Cohen and Hope Hicks discussing furthering a coverup of illegal meetings between the Trump campaign and Russians, as Hicks is not Cohen's client). They may also reveal Cohen and client Trump discussing firthering a crime about which investigators are completely unaware, which fit the Crime Fraud Exception to attorney-client privilege. The taint team cannot be reasonable expected to ignore evidence of such crimes, so that evidence would be referred to the appropriate investigating party. 

If Trump did use Cohen's services in furtherance of a crime, then Trump would probably be freaking out right now.


----------



## Drew

So, it's now being reported that the head of the SDNY office, Geoffrey Berman, recused himself from the investigation of Cohen, and the raid was signed off on by Rod Rosenstein himself, the 2nd ranking Justice Department official, and another Trump appointee. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-us-attorney-recused-himself-from-cohen-probe




bostjan said:


> I certainly don't understand all of the nuances of this Russia-meddling-in-the-election-all-spy-vs-spy-like, but it's painfully obvious, at this point, that Trump and his team have something, if not multiple things, that they are desperately trying to hide. It'd be a shame if the Stormy Daniels garbage ends up getting in the way of whatever really serious* crime was committed.
> 
> (* serious as in putting many lives at risk )


This is my thought too. Not to make light of perjury, lying under oath is a serious offence and Bill Clinton was impeached for it... But, if Trump were hypothetically to be removed from office for lying under oath about the details of his affair with a porn star, we'd likely have a revolution on our hands - any impeachment or indictment directed at Trump, IMO, would need to pass the test of being likely to pursuade mainstream republicans that he should be removed from office. Not the core Trump supporters, they're hopeless and will dismiss the whole thing as a deep state conspiracy or fake news or something, but something that will persuade the _other_ 80-85% of the country.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> It's worth noting that although Trump and Cohen have been claiming publicly that Cohen acted alone in the Stormy Daniel's payoff, which is likely to be found to be an illegal campaign payment to influence the election, the taint team reviewing Cohen's communications regarding the matter may well find direct communications between Cohen and Trump indicating that Tru,p authorized such an illegal bribe.


I'm not sure a NDA between Trump and Daniels, and the accompanying payment, WOULD be an illegal bribe. Trump's position that he didn't know about it is dumbfounding precisely because an agreement between Trump and Daniels with Trump, and not the LLC, as the counterparty would be invalid if Trump literally had no knowledge of it, and the whole thing falls apart.

I'm not saying it's definitely NOT, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a nondisclosure agreement that includes a cash payment as part of its terms, I think.


----------



## Explorer

bostjan said:


> Both parties always want to come out of everything looking like they are the morally superior ones, but, by now, I think we all know that politicians on both sides of the political aisle are just as shitty. Trump wanted to "drain the swamp" and get rid of all the corruption in Washington. Yet his administration has been full of nepotism and sleaziness since day one, heck, way before day one.



Both-sider-ism! Drink! 

But unfortunately, i don't think you can compare the investigation/uncovered-crime ratio between the continuous investigations by Republicans into the Clintons, and the investigations into the Trump campaign and administration, and make a case for both sides being as guilty. You'd have to come up with examples which parallel Nunes interfering with the investigation, with the Republicans in Congress refusing to gather evidence, etc. 

I'll be interested in hearing you out if you want to try, though. 



bostjan said:


> I certainly don't understand all of the nuances of this Russia-meddling-in-the-election-all-spy-vs-spy-like, but it's painfully obvious, at this point, that Trump and his team have something, if not multiple things, that they are desperately trying to hide. It'd be a shame if the Stormy Daniels garbage ends up getting in the way of whatever really serious* crime was committed.



The possible Stormy Daniels illegal bribe was referred away from the Special Counsel's office. It's a different team investigating different potential crimes than the Special Counsel's focus on Russia, and any crimes which are related. 

And if Mueller uncovers evidence of, say, Kushner and Ivanka committing real estate fraud in NY, then then that likely will be referred to another authority just as the Cohen wire and bank fraud was.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> I'm not sure a NDA between Trump and Daniels, and the accompanying payment, WOULD be an illegal bribe. Trump's position that he didn't know about it is dumbfounding precisely because an agreement between Trump and Daniels with Trump, and not the LLC, as the counterparty would be invalid if Trump literally had no knowledge of it, and the whole thing falls apart.
> 
> I'm not saying it's definitely NOT, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a nondisclosure agreement that includes a cash payment as part of its terms, I think.



There is nothing inherently wrong with an NDA in general, but specifically regarding *this* NDA, the timing of the payment is what would allow a prosecutor to reasonably argue hat it was an attempt to illegally influence the election.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> There is nothing inherently wrong with an NDA in general, but specifically regarding *this* NDA, the timing of the payment is what would allow a prosecutor to reasonably argue hat it was an attempt to illegally influence the election.


....which would be a campaign finance violation (an undisclosed in-kind contribution), not an illegal bribe.

Unrelated - Trump obviously has reason to want to change the news cycle, and just postponed a Latin America trip this morning to "monitor the response to the situation in Syria." Typically military strikes are conducted in the evening, which we're fast approaching in Syria right now. I'd say the probability of some sort of missile strike occurring in the next three hours is pretty high.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Trump obviously has reason to want to change the news cycle, and just postponed a Latin America trip this morning to "monitor the response to the situation in Syria." Typically military strikes are conducted in the evening, which we're fast approaching in Syria right now. I'd say the probability of some sort of missile strike occurring in the next three hours is pretty high.



I picture Trump sulking in bed, his fingers, still glistening from the grease of his KFC bucjet of breakfast chicken, alternately being run against his chest hair or attempting to smooth down that runaway flap of skin on the back of his head....

I do find it mildly humorous that on Thursday Trump told people to get the story from Cohen, and so three days later they absolutely did.

----

Oh, andin response to Trump tweeting that "Attorney-client privilege is dead!," George Conway, Kellyanne Conway's husband, tweeted a helpful link to a section of the U.S. Justice Department website entitled “Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys,” so the president could at least learn some facts, if that might be possible, of why Cohen wasn’t protected from the FBI raid by attorney-client privilege: 

"For purposes of this policy only, ‘subject’ includes an attorney who is a ‘suspect, subject or target,’ or an attorney who is related by blood or marriage to a suspect, or who is believed to be in possession of contraband or the fruits or instrumentalities of a crime... There are occasions when effective law enforcement may require the issuance of a search warrant for the premises of an attorney who is a subject of an investigation, and who also is or may be engaged in the practice of law on behalf of clients."

George Conway is also the one who legally established that a sitting president can be placed under oath, when he argued for that to happen to Clinton.


----------



## Drew

Strange move on Conway's part. That's the so-called "crime-fraud" exception, where communication related to committing a crime or fraud is NOT protected, right?


----------



## Explorer

Yup. It strikes me that George is attempting to protect his future prospects from his wife's willing falsehoods in support of Trump.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Yup. It strikes me that George is attempting to protect his future prospects from his wife's willing falsehoods in support of Trump.


....and a logical extension of _that_, given Trump's demand for loyalty, is Conway's days are numbered.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> Both-sider-ism! Drink!
> 
> But unfortunately, i don't think you can compare the investigation/uncovered-crime ratio between the continuous investigations by Republicans into the Clintons, and the investigations into the Trump campaign and administration, and make a case for both sides being as guilty. You'd have to come up with examples which parallel Nunes interfering with the investigation, with the Republicans in Congress refusing to gather evidence, etc.



Sorry, I must have missed where I mentioned the Clintons.

I think the issue is that I didn't fully make clear how I was formulating my thoughts. Trump was elected by a base to whom he promised that he would remove the corruption and cronyism from both parties in Washington. It was the disgust of the general American voting public that put him into power, and now he's done nothing but prove how he's even worse than the people he was supposed to drive out of Washington. Does that follow?

While I'm far from being a fan of either party, in general, that really wasn't my intent...plus, I'm much less of a fan of Trump than of...well, pretty much anything.

anyway...



Explorer said:


> The possible Stormy Daniels illegal bribe was referred away from the Special Counsel's office. It's a different team investigating different potential crimes than the Special Counsel's focus on Russia, and any crimes which are related.
> 
> And if Mueller uncovers evidence of, say, Kushner and Ivanka committing real estate fraud in NY, then then that likely will be referred to another authority just as the Cohen wire and bank fraud was.



Yes, yes, you are correct. The thing might be subtler than that. As in, if Trump gets put on trial, even if only by the media, for this Stormy Daniels shenanigans, and then somehow walks away from it unscathed, he'll somehow be empowered, I'm sure, by the whole ordeal, and who knows what could happen as a result of that. On the flip side, if he gets nailed for the Stormy Daniels shenanigans, it'll just likely enrage everyone out on the far right edge of US politics to the point where we end up with more BS like we saw in Charlottesville. I think if he's committed something akin of treason, then it'd be much better to nail him for that. I just don't know how close Mueller is to wrapping things up.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> Sorry, I must have missed where I mentioned the Clintons.





bostjan said:


> Is Daniels the new Lewinski?



You're right though, you didn't technically mention the Clintons


You can say that both sides of the aisle are dirty, and you wouldn't be wrong. But ostensibly it seems to most that the dirtiest of all dirty men to be dirty anywhere is staunchly positioned on only one side of the aisle.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> Huh. That's actually a pretty big problem for Trump, because wasn't his law team down to JUST Cohen?



He's still got Jay Sekulow, who's specialty is first amendment cases involving religious groups and Ty Cobb, who I guess has a little bit of relevant experience (he defended a campaign finance charge once).

But yeah, not quite a dream team.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> You're right though, you didn't technically mention the Clintons
> 
> 
> You can say that both sides of the aisle are dirty, and you wouldn't be wrong. But ostensible it seems to most that the dirtiest of all dirty men to be dirty anywhere is staunchly positioned on only one side of the aisle.



Well, I think there are different levels of it. As for being bad at promoting your own constituents, I really don't think either one is better than the other, in general. There are some good ones on both sides and some bad ones on both sides. In terms of moral issues, the right always looks so much worse because they are far more hypocritical. Gay senators voting for laws that restrict the rights of gay people, for example. You don't see that sort of thing as much on the left, because they tend to be more accepting of rational social policies, whereas the right tends to be a little more together on fiscal responsibility. Both sides are absolutely mental when it comes to foreign policy, though, as we've seen over and over since 2001.

I think that the left sometimes gets a little bit of a holier-than-thou attitude, too.

Parties are probably just going to always result in such problems, though. You want more political power, so you ally yourself with a bunch of terrible people. The ends justify the means. Maybe a lot of younger, less corrupted politicians end up just getting jaded and falling into the same rut, though. Trump wanted to impose term limits on congress. I think, technically, he promised he would make it happen. I knew all along that it wouldn't be something that the president could even do, but it was still a decent idea.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> On the flip side, if he gets nailed for the Stormy Daniels shenanigans, it'll just likely enrage everyone out on the far right edge of US politics to the point where we end up with more BS like we saw in Charlottesville. I think if he's committed something akin of treason, then it'd be much better to nail him for that. I just don't know how close Mueller is to wrapping things up.


Though, you know, from what I've seen from the populist far right... The more I think about this, the more I'm no longer sure it matters.

Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the Mueller investigation ends with, oh, let's go extreme - let's say a secret video recording of a conversation between Trump, Pence, Manaford, and a known Putin associate emerges, where they discuss Russian intelligence releasing the Clinton emails through Wikileaks and Russia funneling hundreds of millions of dolalrs into the election via the NRA to run pro-Trump ads, in return for Trump's administration backing off Russia, removing language critical of the annexation of Ukraine, and promising to allow Russia to pursue its own agenda in former Soviet bloc countries. Something totally implausibly concrete.

How would you expect the far right to react? "Fake news, deep state conspiracy, #lyingCNN filmed it all on the same set they used to fake the moon landing, this is just a witch-hunt, Russia didn't actually give money to Trump, they gave it to the NRA, and the NRA couldn't have know, The US SHOULD stay out of Ukraine and let Russia do what it wants in its own backyard, we need to stop worrying about Europe and start worrying about Making America Great Again, and anyway Clinton broke the law, look at all the wrongdoing in the leaked emails, and voters had a right to know." In short, deny, justify, and what-about their way into a position where Trump was probably doing America a _favor_ by working with the Russians, whatever the law happened to say.

Trump joked he could shoot a man in cold blood on 5th Ave and his supporters wouldn't care. He's probably right. And, if he can commit murder without shaking his core support, then treason shouldn't be an issue either. He COULD have sold out the country for Russian aid in the election, get impeached and removed from office for it, and the ~15% of the country that are blind Trump supporters would still call that a coup and a disgrace to justice and to rule of law.


----------



## bostjan

Sadly, I have to agree with @Drew . There is really no objectivity is polar partisan politics at all anymore. Or, more accurately, there never has been any objectivity in this, but the practice is becoming so much more acceptable. The supporters of the far right are coming out of the woodwork in droves. Where having a Republican president in the past seemed to maybe balance some of those folks out, this Trump presidency seems to be only doing the opposite. The staunch Trump supporters are getting more and more outspoken, and the more closeted ones are actually becoming vocal in the first place. I honestly don't know how anybody could take a look at the guy and think "YEAH - That's what I'm all about! We need more people like him in charge of the nation!" And the more he becomes a caricature of his former self, the more galvanized his support grows. It's exactly why some pundits are drawing parallels to pre-WWII Germany and Italy (or Spain).

The checks and balances in place are our only hope if he goes all the way into nutty territory, but those balances are congress and the supreme court. Might as well be in an arena with a hungry lion with only an angry bull to save you. Maybe the bull and the lion will fight each other just long enough for you to slink away unnoticed. :/


----------



## zappatton2

bostjan said:


> Sadly, I have to agree with @Drew . There is really no objectivity is polar partisan politics at all anymore. Or, more accurately, there never has been any objectivity in this, but the practice is becoming so much more acceptable. The supporters of the far right are coming out of the woodwork in droves. Where having a Republican president in the past seemed to maybe balance some of those folks out, this Trump presidency seems to be only doing the opposite. The staunch Trump supporters are getting more and more outspoken, and the more closeted ones are actually becoming vocal in the first place. I honestly don't know how anybody could take a look at the guy and think "YEAH - That's what I'm all about! We need more people like him in charge of the nation!" And the more he becomes a caricature of his former self, the more galvanized his support grows. It's exactly why some pundits are drawing parallels to pre-WWII Germany and Italy (or Spain).
> 
> The checks and balances in place are our only hope if he goes all the way into nutty territory, but those balances are congress and the supreme court. Might as well be in an arena with a hungry lion with only an angry bull to save you. Maybe the bull and the lion will fight each other just long enough for you to slink away unnoticed. :/


Very well put!


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> Trump joked he could shoot a man in cold blood on 5th Ave and his supporters wouldn't care. He's probably right. And, if he can commit murder without shaking his core support, then treason shouldn't be an issue either. He COULD have sold out the country for Russian aid in the election, get impeached and removed from office for it, and the ~15% of the country that are blind Trump supporters would still call that a coup and a disgrace to justice and to rule of law.



to be honest, from my external perception , I think if he shot someone then his supporters would like him more


----------



## Drew

mongey said:


> to be honest, from my external perception , I think if he shot someone then his supporters would like him more


I'd say it depends who the person is... Except, I keep seeing Trump supporters share memes about firing Jeff fuckin' _Sessions_.  The sad reality is Trump could shoot _Pence_ and they'd find a way to rationalize it.


----------



## hairychris

thraxil said:


> Hilarious, yes, but I don't think it has anything to do with that. Getting a search warrant for a lawyer's office and hotel room requires the agents to demonstrate to the judge both a substantial amount of credible evidence of a crime but also evidence that the information they are after is at that particular location. In other words, it's likely that they were surveilling Cohen for a while so they could establish that, eg, he takes his laptop to the hotel room every night after work. That would've taken time to get going so I'm thinking that whatever info Mueller gave them that started this off was before Trump's recent comments.



I agree... however Trump's denial of the SD agreement, taken at face value, put Cohen undeniably in the crap *there and then* for malpractice eg creating a contract binding on client without client's knowledge. As that client's the country's leader this is a serious issue.

It's glorious.

Obviously there's lots more, but this is the cherry on the top for me. Cohen either screwed over his client, or Trump publicly lied - no other options are available. Adds another layer of waterproofing to the raids.



Explorer said:


> If Trump did use Cohen's services in furtherance of a crime, then Trump would probably be freaking out right now.



Yep. Client-attorney privilege doesn't cover shady stuff where communication is related to committing a crime together.

A regular lawyer shouldn't worry. A lawyer who acts as a client's bag-man should. And it seems that raids like this are extremely uncommon even in "normal" investigations!



Drew said:


> I'm not sure a NDA between Trump and Daniels, and the accompanying payment, WOULD be an illegal bribe. Trump's position that he didn't know about it is dumbfounding precisely because an agreement between Trump and Daniels with Trump, and not the LLC, as the counterparty would be invalid if Trump literally had no knowledge of it, and the whole thing falls apart.
> 
> I'm not saying it's definitely NOT, but there's nothing inherently wrong with a nondisclosure agreement that includes a cash payment as part of its terms, I think.



Payment for an NDA isn't illegal under normal circumstances AFAIK. Unsure what the status of this is if it covers up criminal behaviour, although this isn't relevant. The problems here are 1) as you say, Trump's knowledge or lack thereof and 2) if the financial side breaks other laws, like money laundering or campaign finance.

IANAL, obviously, just a highly amused member of the peanut gallery.


----------



## thraxil

Yesterday a Federal Judge finalized the $25 million Trump University settlement. Nice timing.


----------



## Drew

hairychris said:


> Payment for an NDA isn't illegal under normal circumstances AFAIK. Unsure what the status of this is if it covers up criminal behaviour, although this isn't relevant. The problems here are 1) as you say, Trump's knowledge or lack thereof and 2) if the financial side breaks other laws, like money laundering or campaign finance.


In perfect agreement here. If Cohen acted alone without Trump's knowledge, then 1) there's no way Trump could have honored his responsibilities under the NDA, and 2) there's a VERY strong case to be made that this was an illegal in-kind campaign contribution for the sake of bolstering Trump's campaign by stopping Daniels from going forward with a negative story.


----------



## hairychris

Drew said:


> In perfect agreement here. If Cohen acted alone without Trump's knowledge, then 1) there's no way Trump could have honored his responsibilities under the NDA, and 2) there's a VERY strong case to be made that this was an illegal in-kind campaign contribution for the sake of bolstering Trump's campaign by stopping Daniels from going forward with a negative story.



I was deliberately taking Trump at his word. 

Although the illegal contribution is also an issue if Trump *did* know. There's possible evidence that Cohen was repaid by Trump's campaign kinda under-the-counter which I think is where laundering comes in.

Fascinating. These guys really are very rubbish mobsters. It's brilliant. Everything they do is lowest possible rent, and with zero forethought.

EDIT: I'm a long-term Popehat reader, and follow Ken on Twitter. I swear that he's descending into madness....



> Trying to write something about how this might impact the Stormy Daniels v. Trump litigation in Los Angeles but it's hard to type when you're cackling


----------



## oc616

So missiles are coming, "nice and new and smart".

Should I be taking glorious leader at his word? Get ready because "they WILL be coming".


----------



## Randy

oc616 said:


> So missiles are coming, "nice and new and smart".
> 
> Should I be taking glorious leader at his word? Get ready because "they WILL be coming".


----------



## mongey

Randy said:


>


that suit nails the skin tone


----------



## synrgy

But it's a good thing we didn't elect "The Warhawk" amirite?


----------



## hairychris

oc616 said:


> So missiles are coming, "nice and new and smart".
> 
> Should I be taking glorious leader at his word? Get ready because "they WILL be coming".



More like "shart missiles" AMIRITE???


----------



## Randy

synrgy said:


> But it's a good thing we didn't elect "The Warhawk" amirite?



I mean this in the most objective way possible but even during the campaign, when I considered Trump an Isolationist, I also considered him to be reactionary and a shit-for-brains. It's very easy to campaign on "America First" and controlling what happens inside your own borders as priority but that goes right out the window when there's an international incident and your phone is ringing off the hook; especially if you have his personality type. My two predictions were that we'd have a mass shooting and he'd end up pushing some type of gun related policy, definitely more extreme than anything Obama ever floated but of questionable substance (which appears to have come true) and that he'd be baited into a pre-emptive 'nation building' and/or regime change military conflict by one career hawk or another.


----------



## bostjan

I miss the days when people at least wanted to be rational. 

What exactly would we be trying to accomplish by bombing Syria again?


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> I miss the days when people at least wanted to be rational.
> 
> What exactly would we be trying to accomplish by bombing Syria again?


We would be accomplishing the "justification" of our military budget. After all, how can we plausibly spend more than half of all that we have every year if there aren't any new good wars to fight?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


>


Where'd you get an advance look at 45's presidential portrait?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> What exactly would we be trying to accomplish by bombing Syria again?


So, you and I obviously disagree strongly on this, myself as a liberal internationalist, you as a libertarian... But, if you'll hear out the argument, at least. 

We have, near as I can tell, no immediate, concrete, direct self-interest in Syria, so based on a purely self-interested primary objective soort of read, there's no military value in Syria as a target. 

Where we DO have a self-interest, however, is in some of the secondary effects: 

First, we have a strong self-interest in upholding the international order, in preserving treaties and agreements we worked hard to implement, and in maintaining a rules-based international order. One of those rules we want to see maintained is the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Assad did that earlier in 2017, and we launched a missile strike in retaliation to show that breaking international laws that govern what is and is not permissible military conduct will not be accepted, and that there will be repercussions for breaking international law. 

Second, we have a strong self-interest in ensuring that we're seen as a nation who keeps his word. Under Obama, and again under Trump, we have stated that the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians, is a "white line" we will not accept. Absent that statement this is a little more of a grey area (and ideally I'd rather see a UN-authorized strike, but Russia has made it clear it'll block anything related to Assad on the UN security council), but given that we've said we'll do it, if Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people for a second time, then our failure to act will weaken international trust in future US commitments. The best we can hope for, if Trump _doesn't_ act, is that in 10 years' time the Trump presidency will be seen as an aberration and a low point in America's willingness to honor international commitments, but it still sets a bad precedent - we don't want dictators to hear a promise of retaliation from the United States, and feel like there's a shot we might not mean what we say. 

So, that's why I would favor _limited_ targeted strikes in return for chemical warfare. A barrage of missiles, preferably at a number of different Syrian military targets this time, from afar, with no boots on the ground, no aircraft (or very few, if we decide to bomb instead of use cruise missiles or drones) to preempt American casualties. A series of fast surgical strikes rather than a declaration of war. Syria doesn't have the capability to respond in kind, and we currently have the best remote capabilities of any nation in the world. We should be using them to show that Assad can't break international accords with impunity. 

If Trump were to decide that the right response here, however, was full military intervention (which, given Assad's close ties to Putin, I doubt), I would be strongly opposed to that. Again, we have no self-interested objectives in occupying Syria or engaging in nation-building there, but we DO have a self-interest in maintaining international accords and a reputation as a nation that, to quote a certain predecessor of Trump's, "speaks softly, but carries a big stick."

Of course, Trump isn't known for speaking softly, and his blustering about this on twitter for the last several days has seriously upped the likelihood of large numbers of Syrian civilians just happening to be on Syrian military bases these days, complicating our ability to respond...


----------



## Drew

In_ totally_ unrelated news, CNBC is reporting Trump is about to announce that he's deputized Larry Kudlow and someone else whose name I didn't catch to re-enter the Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations.


----------



## wannabguitarist

vilk said:


> We would be accomplishing the *"justification" of our military budget*. After all, how can we plausibly spend more than half of all that we have every year if there aren't any new good wars to fight?



I used to feel the same way until I started working for a large defense contractor. I have no qualms saying our large defense budget is justified by the R&D done by a lot of contractors and the significant number of Americans getting paid above average wages working for said companies. No harm in continuing to build, research, and design military equipment if it funds comfortable middle and upper middle class living for thousands of Americans. Even better if said equipment keeps on the bleeding edge of tech and helps maintain our reach of power (because something has to eventually back up soft power)  

This leads us to what Drew said



Drew said:


> A barrage of missiles, preferably at a number of different Syrian military targets this time, from afar, with no boots on the ground, no aircraft (or very few, if we decide to bomb instead of use cruise missiles or drones) to preempt American casualties. A series of fast surgical strikes rather than a declaration of war. Syria doesn't have the capability to respond in kind, and *we currently have the best remote capabilities of any nation in the world. We should be using them to show that Assad can't break international accords with impunity.*



We can do this, and have no reason not to. Care should be taken to make sure we are not hitting any Russian troops in the area which could lead to an awful level of escalation, but otherwise Assad should see that there are consequences for their actions. Boots on the group are not necessary.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> So, you and I obviously disagree strongly on this, myself as a liberal internationalist, you as a libertarian... But, if you'll hear out the argument, at least.
> 
> We have, near as I can tell, no immediate, concrete, direct self-interest in Syria, so based on a purely self-interested primary objective soort of read, there's no military value in Syria as a target.
> 
> Where we DO have a self-interest, however, is in some of the secondary effects:
> 
> First, we have a strong self-interest in upholding the international order, in preserving treaties and agreements we worked hard to implement, and in maintaining a rules-based international order. One of those rules we want to see maintained is the use of chemical weapons is a war crime. Assad did that earlier in 2017, and we launched a missile strike in retaliation to show that breaking international laws that govern what is and is not permissible military conduct will not be accepted, and that there will be repercussions for breaking international law.
> 
> Second, we have a strong self-interest in ensuring that we're seen as a nation who keeps his word. Under Obama, and again under Trump, we have stated that the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians, is a "white line" we will not accept. Absent that statement this is a little more of a grey area (and ideally I'd rather see a UN-authorized strike, but Russia has made it clear it'll block anything related to Assad on the UN security council), but given that we've said we'll do it, if Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people for a second time, then our failure to act will weaken international trust in future US commitments. The best we can hope for, if Trump _doesn't_ act, is that in 10 years' time the Trump presidency will be seen as an aberration and a low point in America's willingness to honor international commitments, but it still sets a bad precedent - we don't want dictators to hear a promise of retaliation from the United States, and feel like there's a shot we might not mean what we say.
> 
> So, that's why I would favor _limited_ targeted strikes in return for chemical warfare. A barrage of missiles, preferably at a number of different Syrian military targets this time, from afar, with no boots on the ground, no aircraft (or very few, if we decide to bomb instead of use cruise missiles or drones) to preempt American casualties. A series of fast surgical strikes rather than a declaration of war. Syria doesn't have the capability to respond in kind, and we currently have the best remote capabilities of any nation in the world. We should be using them to show that Assad can't break international accords with impunity.
> 
> If Trump were to decide that the right response here, however, was full military intervention (which, given Assad's close ties to Putin, I doubt), I would be strongly opposed to that. Again, we have no self-interested objectives in occupying Syria or engaging in nation-building there, but we DO have a self-interest in maintaining international accords and a reputation as a nation that, to quote a certain predecessor of Trump's, "speaks softly, but carries a big stick."
> 
> Of course, Trump isn't known for speaking softly, and his blustering about this on twitter for the last several days has seriously upped the likelihood of large numbers of Syrian civilians just happening to be on Syrian military bases these days, complicating our ability to respond...



Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! 

Your opening argument "we have strong self-interest in upholding the international order," really strikes a tone with me. It assumes that the USA has its shit together well enough to dictate right and wrong to other nations. I think there are a dozen or so reasons why one could argue that this premise is taking things too far, objectively:

1. It's the task of the United Nations to do this, also the UN has a wider voting base, so it's in a better position to argue on behalf of the international community.
2. The USA has a shitty record of intervening in foreign affairs. Our justification for invading Iraq was bullshit and has been exposed as being bullshit. Other interventions led by the USA have been controversial among the opinions of the international community.
3. We elected Trump.
4. Our reputation in the middle east, in particular, is shit as can be.
5. When we established a prison at Gitmo, and tortured prisoners there as well as prisoners in other prisons, like Abu Graib, we, again, lost the moral high ground in the eyes of international justice.

The second half of your first point - do we know Assad is the one responsible for this most recent release of chemical weapons? If not, then it's a totally moot point, IMO. Even if so, it's still not the job of the USA to be judge, jury, and executioner of international law. It's the UN's job.

I think your second point falls under the same scrutiny as the first, really.

But let's zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Who do we want to win the war in Syria? The tyrannical Assad regime, with ties to Russia, or the rebels, with ties to ISIS?! It's literally a lose-lose situation for us. If we strike the Assad regime down, and it turns out that we didn't know for a fact that they were the ones using the chemical weapons that provoked our action, we are then the bad guys, once again. Do we want to be the international bad guys who piss off Russia with violent acts that don't even have moral backing?! Do we want to be the bad guys who are responsible for expanding the territory held by ISIS?! Do we want to hand Trump another big shiny red button that could well put a great deal more strain between the USA and the East - leading to another cold war, or worse?!

Honestly, please think about that. I get that you are angry that innocent people were harmed by chemical weapons. I'm pissed at that as well, but I'm not about to get behind a maniacal despot in order to jump to a conclusion prematurely as to who did it, just so I can feel like justice was served, only for a moment.

And I already sound like a broken record, but why Syria and why not North Korea? NK has already crossed our proverbial line in the sand, yet we do nothing. "Because China..." some would say - well don't fuck with Syria, then, "because Russia," I say.

Not to mention that both NK and Russia both have been bragging about the capabilities of their long range weapons reaching targets in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want to get nuked. I also don't want to see anybody else get nuked. The more we generally poke at the middle east, the closer we come to another disaster - either from nukes from the East, terrorism from the middle East, or even just general apathy growing for our own actions and our own sense of righteousness domestically.


----------



## vilk

wannabguitarist said:


> I used to feel the same way until I started working for a large defense contractor. I have no qualms saying our large defense budget is justified by the R&D done by a lot of contractors and the significant number of Americans getting paid above average wages working for said companies. No harm in continuing to build, research, and design military equipment if it funds comfortable middle and upper middle class living for thousands of Americans. Even better if said equipment keeps on the bleeding edge of tech and helps maintain our reach of power (because something has to eventually back up soft power)



I'm in the manufacturing industry, so obviously military contracts are great for my company and we sell to them all the time, but when you look at these kind of pie charts






(^Keeping in mind that in 2017, our slice of the pie should be _even larger_)

I feel bothered on principle level. I understand the benefits of having a military and that USA has a tradition of being World Police... but... *puts on rose-colored glasses* what if we used that money on something _productive_ instead of _destructive_. What if we spent it on having badass roads connecting every town and city. What if we spent it on R&D for medicine instead of R&D for bombs.

Even if we just reduced that slice of American pie by 1/3, it would unlock _billions and billions and billions _of dollars to be used on _building our nation _and we'd still have more money left than any other country on earth to spend on _destroying shit*_.

*_or researching how to destroy shit_


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out!
> 
> Lots 'o stuff


And likewise!  I don't think we're going to convince each other, and I'm super busy at work, but... 

1) I agree. And yet... Russia has a seat on the security council, can veto anything with it, and I believe has already done so in the case of Syria's use of chemical weapons. 
2) No doubt. Iraq was a pretty egregious example... But, just because we've been wrong in the past with a reasonably regular frequency, doesn't mean we've ALWAYS been wrong. In this particular case, while Syria denys it, the intelligence community consensus in the US (consensus, not cherry-picked data suggesting it was _possible_ Iraq had WMDs) is that it was a chemical attack, and the French claim they have concrete proof as well. 
3) That's a reflection on the voting public, not career bureaucrats. 
4) The middle East is hardly homogynous, though, and Assad has only weak support in the region, largely due to the humanitarian crisis he's creating. Again, we're not worried about the Middle East's response to a US missile strike, we're worried about _Russia's_ response. 
5) Gitmo was a huge mistake, yes, and one we still need to atone for. However, that's no excuse to turn our back on the world. 

For me, this isn't about being angry about civilians dying, or wanting to pick sides in a war. I think this is a pretty dispassionate analysis I presented, that our motivation here is 1) preserving the international rule of law (even noting your point that we've selectively violated it in the past) and 2) ensuring that the word of the United States retains its power as effective deterrent against tyrants wanting to violate international agreements. If anything, I think the fact I'm still advocating a surgical strike, even knowing if Assad isn't an idiot he's responding to Trump's threats by ensuring any such strikes will result in civilian, and quite possibly Russian, casualties, should show that this isn't about being angry about civilian deaths. Warn the Russians - as we did the last time this happened - that anyone on a Syrian base will be considered a valid target, and then take out three or four airbases. 

In the case of North Korea, I'm not aware of them engaging in chemical warfare, but if they did, I think the bigger deterrent is that they are, in fact, a nuclear power, and accordingly we have to approach them under the premise of mutually-assured destruction; if we can't eliminate their ability to respond in kind, then we have to assume any action on our part will be met in kind. I don't think that's the case with Syria. 

It's a matter of enforcing the global rule of law we worked to create, tempered by pragmatism.


----------



## bostjan

Not to mention, about 0.5-1.0% of that budget is totally avoidable waste. Only* 12% is RDT&E. Most of the rest of it is just the cost of moving people and their stuff around the globe constantly. So, if we eliminated the waste in the budget from doing stupid unnecessary shit, we could cut that budget by almost half and not even have to downsize a single job.

*Only is kind of a funny word here, since the USA's RDT&E military budget is still bigger than the entire UK military budget.

The problem is that blowing people up and taking their shit for our own will always be more lucrative than curing sick people, especially thinking about how cured people don't pay for treatments anymore. :/


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> Not to mention, about 0.5-1.0% of that budget is totally avoidable waste. Only* 12% is RDT&E. Most of the rest of it is just the cost of moving people and their stuff around the globe constantly. So, if we eliminated the waste in the budget from doing stupid unnecessary shit, we could cut that budget by almost half and not even have to downsize a single job.
> 
> *Only is kind of a funny word here, since the USA's RDT&E military budget is still bigger than the entire UK military budget.
> 
> The problem is that blowing people up and taking their shit for our own will always be more lucrative than curing sick people, especially thinking about how cured people don't pay for treatments anymore. :/



Is the implication that we profit from war (not a rhetorical question)? You know, I used to hear that that is true, but then there was the whole deal with Bush saying the Iraq war would pay for itself, but I remember that being debunked? Like, if spending on military is so much more profitable than for example spending on infrastructure/transportation, then why after being at war for over a decade are we in the most debt that we've ever seen?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> And likewise!  I don't think we're going to convince each other, and I'm super busy at work, but...
> 
> 1) I agree. And yet... Russia has a seat on the security council, can veto anything with it, and I believe has already done so in the case of Syria's use of chemical weapons.



Thanks Drew.

Is Russia in the wrong in supporting Assad, though? And let me ask you this loaded question as well, since I think you know it's coming:

Who is less wrong, Russia supporting the established government, supported by the tyrant Assad, or the US supporting the rebels, supported by the murderous ISIS as well as the maniacal Iranian government? Because choosing to get involved means choosing one or the other.



Drew said:


> 2) No doubt. Iraq was a pretty egregious example... But, just because we've been wrong in the past with a reasonably regular frequency, doesn't mean we've ALWAYS been wrong. In this particular case, while Syria denys it, the intelligence community consensus in the US (consensus, not cherry-picked data suggesting it was _possible_ Iraq had WMDs) is that it was a chemical attack, and the French claim they have concrete proof as well.



Assad hasn't _always_ been wrong, either. Neither has Russia. I'm not sure where the logic of who is_ not always wrong _takes us.

I did not, at the time, nor ever will, accept that there was any chance that the US truly believed that Iraq had WMD. No way, no how. Our actions during the invasion employed tactics that would have been suicide if Iraq indeed had WMD and knew how to effectively use them. I have to either assume that our military leadership at that time was astonishingly stupid or else the top brass all knew with very reasonable confidence that Iraq had no WMD when they first went in. I said it back during the invasion and my position hasn't changed.

Also, there *was no WMD*. Period. Also, the inspectors have very public stated that there were no indications that Iraq had WMD at the time of the invasion. Time has already settled this issue. There were no WMD in Iraq at the time of the invasion.



Drew said:


> 3) That's a reflection on the voting public, not career bureaucrats.



Hmm. I'm afraid I have to disagree. If the voting public had been presented with a better list of choices, we would not have ended up with Trump. I know you supported HRC, but honestly, man, she was not a good candidate in the eyes of the voting public.



Drew said:


> 4) The middle East is hardly homogynous, though, and Assad has only weak support in the region, largely due to the humanitarian crisis he's creating. Again, we're not worried about the Middle East's response to a US missile strike, we're worried about _Russia's_ response.



We should be worried about both.

Assad's Syria is about as close as you get to a secular government in the ME/Levant. Disrupting that is, in many ways, equivalent to what we did when we disrupted the Bathist Iraq. Assad might be a violent dude, but he is still better than ISIS taking over, both for the region and for the USA. If we go in there and blast him into a grease stain, ISIS will almost certainly gain a significant swing in momentum in the region.

Being worried about Russia only reinforces that. Russia hates ISIS, too. We should be on the same side as Russia when it comes to anything involving ISIS, really. Is the upside to pissing off Russia worth the downside of enabling ISIS?!



Drew said:


> 5) Gitmo was a huge mistake, yes, and one we still need to atone for. However, that's no excuse to turn our back on the world.



"Turn your back on the world," again, assumes that the USA is 100% in the moral right here. If the international law says "don't use chemical weapons, or else the UN will get you," and the UN votes to go after Assad, but Russia vetoes it, it doesn't mean the USA automatically steps in and blasts the shit out of Syria. In my mind, that is a non sequitor. It's like if I think that my neighbour is torturing his cat, and I call the cops, and they say, "yeah, torturing a cat is against the law, but Chief Wiggum plays poker with this guy, so we can't stop him." Does that mean I walk next door and kick my neighbour's ass? No. For one, I have no evidence that my neighbour is the one torturing the cat. For two, it's not my place. And, for three, I still have options through the proper legal channels to appeal to higher authority, complain to the police, or take up a petition. Similarly, if there is enough international support against the wishes of Russia, the UN can still act to override the veto. It isn't going to be easy, but those routes have not yet been exhausted.



Drew said:


> For me, this isn't about being angry about civilians dying, or wanting to pick sides in a war. I think this is a pretty dispassionate analysis I presented, that our motivation here is 1) preserving the international rule of law (even noting your point that we've selectively violated it in the past) and 2) ensuring that the word of the United States retains its power as effective deterrent against tyrants wanting to violate international agreements. If anything, I think the fact I'm still advocating a surgical strike, even knowing if Assad isn't an idiot he's responding to Trump's threats by ensuring any such strikes will result in civilian, and quite possibly Russian, casualties, should show that this isn't about being angry about civilian deaths. Warn the Russians - as we did the last time this happened - that anyone on a Syrian base will be considered a valid target, and then take out three or four airbases.
> 
> In the case of North Korea, I'm not aware of them engaging in chemical warfare, but if they did, I think the bigger deterrent is that they are, in fact, a nuclear power, and accordingly we have to approach them under the premise of mutually-assured destruction; if we can't eliminate their ability to respond in kind, then we have to assume any action on our part will be met in kind. I don't think that's the case with Syria.
> 
> It's a matter of enforcing the global rule of law we worked to create, tempered by pragmatism.



NK reneged on the International Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Nukes > Chemical weapons, and either way, it's in violation of international law.

If we get involved in an ongoing war, we pick sides. I challenge you to name one country that actively entered an ongoing war without picking sides.

Surgical strikes are bullshit. We keep bombing the Chinese embassy or the children's hospital with our supposed smart bombs, which is just another reason why bostjan is disgusted with the way the USA handles warfare as the "international moral authority." It's all so we can feel important and good about ourselves, yet these things never go perfectly. All the more reason to abandon the policy of pushing our way into every conflict worldwide with our arms swinging wildly.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> Is the implication that we profit from war (not a rhetorical question)? You know, I used to hear that that is true, but then there was the whole deal with Bush saying the Iraq war would pay for itself, but I remember that being debunked? Like, if spending on military is so much more profitable than for example spending on infrastructure/transportation, then why after being at war for over a decade are we in the most debt that we've ever seen?



Bush and his buddies who all ran the defense contract companies all made a profit off of the Iraq war. If Trump levels Syria and builds some of his own real estate there, he'll likely lose money on the idiotic business venture, but I honestly don't think he's smart enough not to think otherwise.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> turn our back



Can we turn our back on someone who doesn't want our help in the first place (rhetorical)?
Is either side of this fight asking the USA to step up (not rhetorical)?


----------



## Drew

No time for a longer post, but two quick hits:



bostjan said:


> Because choosing to get involved means choosing one or the other.


I disagree. A strike in response for a chemical weapons related war crime is simply enforcing international accords. A correlary is we would expect to do the same if the rebels were to launch a chemical attack. 



vilk said:


> Can we turn our back on someone who doesn't want our help in the first place (rhetorical)?
> Is either side of this fight asking the USA to step up (not rhetorical)?


Again, this isn't about the conflict in Syria _itself_, but rather a commitment to international principles and opposition to war crimes _in general_. I'm not saying we should go to war against Assad backing the rebels he's fighting, and if Trump decides that's the right answer, I'd strongly oppose that. I'm saying, every time the launch a chemical attack on a village, let's blow up an air base or two from the comfort of an Air Force command center in Delaware or something, until they stop.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I disagree. A strike in response for a chemical weapons related war crime is simply enforcing international accords. A correlary is we would expect to do the same if the rebels were to launch a chemical attack.



A) We are not in the position to enforce international law ourselves, as pointed out before.
b) Without an investigation, how can we *know* who is responsible for the chemical attack? Without jurisdiction there, how can we conduct such an investigation.
c) Attacking one side, _de facto_, places us with the opposing side. Your logic of attacking without choosing a side is exactly how WWI developed out of the Balkan Wars.


----------



## Drew

1) Why not? It makes us a little hypocritical, sure, but we're certainly _able_ to do it.
2) this gets a little dicier, but intelligence work is basically an ongoing investigation into all foreign nations. We can form intelligence conclusions without jurisdiction or a legal investigation. Here, the international consensus - essentially, everyone but Syria and Russia - is pretty strong, so it's not like we're coming to this conclusion on our own. International action would still be my preferred answer, and WOULD be possible, if it wasn't for Russian opposition. 
3) I disagree. The reason and form of attack matters too. WWI was a series of mutual defense treaties that called for one nation to go to war in defense of another; I'm not arguing for a military invasion of Syria, but rather bombing a few airfields. Again, _we already did this_, and are not currently at war against Assad, or you wouldn't be using your concern that it would lead to war as a reason _not_ to lob a few missiles at a couple military targets there.


----------



## Drew

Maybe a better question to ask, @bostjan, would be under what conditions WOULD you support a military strike against Syria in response for an international war crime violation?


----------



## vilk

Can I answer? When the UN votes to do it.


----------



## bostjan

1) Because international law needs to be overseen by an international organization to be considered legitimate.
2) The international consensus is that chemical agents were released, except that the only people there at the time were Syrians and Russians, both with a vested interest in saying that it didn't happen, but, honestly, with no one else there to witness what happened, and no one allowed in to take samples for laboratory testing (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084), we can never know for sure. With no hard evidence and no witnesses saying otherwise, we have no way to piece together what happened there.
3) When we did it before, it deteriorated US/Russia diplomacy, and for what? It accomplishes nothing.

@Drew, you are a reasonable guy. Let's stand to reason. Bombing Syria accomplishes what, exactly? It kills Syrians. Why are we wanting to do it? Because Syria killed some Syrians. Killing more Syrians in retaliation for the killing of Syrians is beyond stupid. If Assad committed war crimes, let him be tried for war crimes. Why take this out on the innocent people, the infrastructure, or even the military that is following the orders of a tyrant?! IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE IN ANY WAY! And, like I said last time, say, for instance, we bomb the shit out of one of Syria's alleged chemical weapons depots - all it will do is release more chemical weapons!

Please please please think about this. I simply cannot see how bombing Syria is a logical next step in this case. Innocent people there are getting slaughtered in the crossfire already between the Assad regime and ISIS, neither of whom give two shits about innocent life. Meanwhile, the USA, a country whose leader has spouted tons of anti-arab rhetoric and denied the entry of refugees from that nation, is considering more bombing strikes that will only result in making life more difficult for Syrians, *at best, *or killing hundreds more innocent Syrians, at worst. This doesn't help Syria.

Assume for a moment that the Syrian government did release chemical weapons. They were already punished for doing so before, so we know for a fact then that it won't stop them. ... Now, take that assumption for what it is - we don't know. So, based off of what we think happened, without any hard evidence, and without the authority to do so, we want to punish Assad's alleged act of killing civilians by bombing Syria. Seriously - what the hell kind of logic is that?!



Drew said:


> Maybe a better question to ask, @bostjan, would be under what conditions WOULD you support a military strike against Syria in response for an international war crime violation?



You see, we DO have an international law enforcement agency within the UN - the security council. It might be ineffective in your eyes, but if justice is not thorough then it cannot be just.

If you want me to get behind the USA bombing Syria, either:

a) Syria declares war on the USA.
b) The USA bombs Syria under a UN Security Council directive.
or
c) ISIS signs a treaty with the USA promising that if we bomb Syria, they will make a fatwa or whatever to lay off of us.

And I admit that the third one in no way would realistically happen.

The US federal government is the organization holding executive power over the States and territories belonging to the USA, and that's the extent of it. We have no authority over any other sovereign nation. I really wish people would understand that. If governments start claiming authority over each other, then all hell would break lose internationally. The USA only got away with it (sort of, but not really) in the past, because we are big and powerful. Why would 19 people hate the USA so much that they would spend years formulating and executing a plan to willingly blow themselves up just to kill us? It's 100% because of US interventionism. These sorts of things have a cost, and that cost is always in innocent lives.

I'm not at all a pacifist, but I am 100% for peace instead of war. And when there already is a war, I'm almost always for staying out of it. The UN was set up in order to have some sort of international authority to prevent the atrocities committed during WWI and WWII, quite specifically. That fully takes responsibility off of the USA in trying to police the planet Earth.

If you are pro-bombing of Syria, and you state that it is in the USA's best interest to drive missile strikes toward the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons depots, and you simply don't care about the agents being released if we are correct and you simply don't care about the moral and ethical implications if we are incorrect, then I guess there is nothing else to say, except that I beg you to weigh out the facts and play "what if" with your assumptions.


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever

http://www.newsweek.com/how-us-made-use-radioactive-bombs-routine-443732.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/here-7-times-usa-used-10211423

Would either of these examples justify, say, China performing surgical strikes on mainland U.S.A in the interest of preserving the international rule of law? What about what went on at Gitmo? The self admitted false invasion of Iraq? The list goes on. Please, if anyone can, explain to me how this current situation in Syria is so very different, and why the US should get a free pass while other nations must be held accountable?


----------



## bostjan

So, word in the media is the Trump flip-flopped on the TPP. I remember some people here had thought the best thing about his platform was getting out of the trade deal. @Science_Penguin , @flint757 , @thraxil , @tacotiklah


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> So, word in the media is the Trump flip-flopped on the TPP. I remember some people here had thought the best thing about his platform was getting out of the trade deal. @Science_Penguin , @flint757 , @thraxil , @tacotiklah



Yeah. I mean, we kind of all saw that coming. I think Trump only opposed the TPP because Obama was approving it. But the corporate powers that are actually driving things clearly wanted it and it was only a matter of time before they had their way with Trump. As long as he could kill "Obama's" TPP and do something else (even if it's identical) with his own name on it and pretend that it's the greatest deal ever, we knew he'd go for it.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, word in the media is the Trump flip-flopped on the TPP. I remember some people here had thought the best thing about his platform was getting out of the trade deal. @Science_Penguin , @flint757 , @thraxil , @tacotiklah


Yeah, I posted that a little earlier, but no one seemed to give a fuck because we were talking about Syria.  Someone seems to have reminded Trump that one of the main purposes of the TPP was to serve as a counterbalance and check against Chinese ambition in the area, and suddenly it isn't such a bad deal after all. 

Bostjan - honestly, most of the arguments you're making still are coming down to "I don't want to see the US engaged in overseas military activity." I don't think that's a realistic attitude, I think that cat is long out of the bag. And I don't think you _really_ expect the UN to do anything - we both know Russia will see to that. This comes down to your being a proponent of isolationism, and me being a proponent of international engagement. We're not going to persuade each other.

What DOES have me reconsidering my position is it's reported Mattis is lobbying hard behind the scenes to _stop_ Trump from striking, for fear of Russian reprisal, and evidently Russia has been pretty clear that they plan on escalating the situation if we were to attack. That changes things a bit, and frankly his nickname notwithstanding Mattis's judgement on when military force is and is not appropriate has seemed pretty good to me thus far.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Bostjan - honestly, most of the arguments you're making still are coming down to "I don't want to see the US engaged in overseas military activity." I don't think that's a realistic attitude, I think that cat is long out of the bag. And I don't think you _really_ expect the UN to do anything - we both know Russia will see to that. This comes down to your being a proponent of isolationism, and me being a proponent of international engagement. We're not going to persuade each other.



If that's what you got out of my arguments, then either you didn't read them well enough or I didn't state them clearly enough. 
And, no, I don't _want_ to see the US engaged in war. No rational person should, generally speaking. But if the situation presents itself where we have an _actual_ reason to go to war, then so be it. Or... to extend that, if we have an _actual_ reason to mobilize some sort of military maneuvers, then so be it. I simply do not accept the reasoning of "well, it looks _mostly _like Assad used banned weapons, so we should blast a bunch of bases in Syria."
Let's be clear. The burden of making an argument to do something rather than not do it is on the person advocating it being done. Your argument that Syria allegedly (at least at this moment) breaking the Geneva protocol by deploying chemical weapons means the USA should bomb them leads to a logical dilemma when you think about the times the USA broke that same protocol in Gitmo and Iraq.


Drew said:


> What DOES have me reconsidering my position is it's reported Mattis is lobbying hard behind the scenes to _stop_ Trump from striking, for fear of Russian reprisal, and evidently Russia has been pretty clear that they plan on escalating the situation if we were to attack. That changes things a bit, and frankly his nickname notwithstanding Mattis's judgement on when military force is and is not appropriate has seemed pretty good to me thus far.



Dawg, that's what I've been saying all along...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Dawg, that's what I've been saying all along...


No, it hasn't.  

Where we're disagreeing I think is you're equating ANY use of military force with "going to war." I don't think that's the case. Syria, to me, is a situation with a pretty clear power imbalance where we can strike them from afar without making ourselves vulnerable to do that, and they can't really hit back. In a situation like that, we CAN use a targeted strike as a deterrent, both to future chemical attacks in Syria, but also to future chemical attacks by OTHER despots around the world who are watching to see how we respond to the situation. 

Russia going on record, however, saying that THEY will retaliate if we strike changes the equation, and means political rather than military force is probably the better answer. That's problematic, though, for the US, because we've gone on record saying that 1) use of chemical weapons will be met with force, and 2) we ARE going to respond to this attack. I think, absent pledges by the current and prior administrations that we would strike if chemical weapons were used, I'd be more inclined to lean towards political or diplomatic opptions, too... But, once we've gone on record, our hands our a little tied. 

tl;dr - Trump is probably going to learn a lesson about the necessity of only making threats you're prepared to keep, in diplomacy. Or, he's an idiot, so he won't learn a goddamn thing, but his State Department is probably shaking their heads in disgust right now.


----------



## Drew

Also, MSNBC is evidently reporting that Trump did, in fact, pardon Scooter Libby today.

You know, because we gotta get to the bottom of these leaks, and no one is tougher on leakers than Donald J. Trump.

EDIT: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ba0ed2371cc_story.html?utm_term=.4d70ed975b29


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> well don't fuck with Syria, then, "because Russia," I say.


Fair enough to point out that an act of military aggression such as bombing a military base is not equivalent to war. It's not like the USA ever declared war on another nation because they bombed one of our military installments.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Fair enough to point out that an act of military aggression such as bombing a military base is not equivalent to war. It's not like the USA ever declared war on another nation because they bombed one of our military installments.


Again, though, it's a matter of relative ability to hit back. We have a fair amount of leeway, between our insane edge in military capacity, and the fact that while Russia can successfully block UN action, the international consensus is with us. In such a situation, with Russia sidelined or not willing to risk direct action themselves, we _can_ strike military targets without Syria responding. With Russia pledging to retaliate, however, it becomes a bit more of a calculation - you need to assess whether or not Russia is bluffing. Meanwhile, in the case of someone attacking a US target, we CAN retaliate to a strike from anywhere in the world. 

Either way, I stand by my original point, which is that saying we _would_ respond to chemical attacks on civilians with military power, and then when such an attack occurs, doing nothing, is a mistake. I think that was Obama's biggest foreign policy blunder in his 8 years in office, and I think it's one Trump is likely to make himself, considering it's been more than 48 hours since he said he was going to attack, and is currently backpedaling with "well, maybe I will maybe I won't, wait and see." It's kind of what they say about guns - _never_ pull one on someone unless you're 100% prepared to pull the trigger. From the standpoint of the shall-we-say-more-nefarious members of the international community, we just got caught bluffing, which means future threats will have less deterrent ability.

Meanwhile, breaking news that Russia is claiming evidence of a chemical attack on Syrian civilians was forged by the UK. That seems somewhat implausible, but I think from that I'd read Russia is more concerned about the prospect of the UK attacking Syrian targets in response than they are about the US doing so, and that they consider us effectively sidelined, else we'd be the bogeyman here.


----------



## Drew

Normally I don't give the rumor mill much credence... But I'm seeing fairly well-cited reports that Trump is planning on firing Rosenstein later tonight.


----------



## Explorer

Interesting. The McClatchy DC bureau is reporting that Mueller's team has managed to confirm, counter to Cohen's claims, that Cohen was in Prague in August 2016.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article208870264.html

If true, this will confirm yet another claim of the Steele Dossier. 

Remember, if the raid on Cohen's records uncovers evidence of illegal acts, then that evidence will be acted upon. That's why I find the timing of this report so interesting.

Hey, where's @CapnForsaggio when you need him to pitifully and weakly argue against the Steele Dossier?


----------



## Science_Penguin

bostjan said:


> So, word in the media is the Trump flip-flopped on the TPP. I remember some people here had thought the best thing about his platform was getting out of the trade deal. @Science_Penguin , @flint757 , @thraxil , @tacotiklah



I remember...

I don't even know if I have it in me to be disappointed...


----------



## oc616

Well, it begins.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-uk-and-france-launch-attack-on-assad-regime


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

oc616 said:


> Well, it begins.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-uk-and-france-launch-attack-on-assad-regime


Hold onto yer butt's.


----------



## bostjan

Many recent reports are saying the three targets we hit were abandoned anyway. So, maybe all this risk was for nothing.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Many recent reports are saying the three targets we hit were abandoned anyway. So, maybe all this risk was for nothing.



Were they actually abandoned like...for a while, or just recently abandoned due to being evacuated based on recommendations from Russia?


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Were they actually abandoned like...for a while, or just recently abandoned due to being evacuated based on recommendations from Russia?



Or from Trump, you know, tweeting it three days earlier?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Or from Trump, you know, tweeting it three days earlier?


----------



## hairychris

vilk said:


> Can I answer? When the UN votes to do it.



Which won't happen as Russia will veto it.

Anyway...

IMO there are arguments for and against bombing Syria. Almost certain that Assad has been using chem weapons on his own civvies*. However the big problem has always been what overall strategy any bombing should be a part of - Iraq went to crap because there was no plan post military action, and there doesn't seem to be any plan wrt Syria. Plus, as above, Russia is also there.

It's a mess for sure.

* Nope, I don't believe the denials. Assad has form, and the Russian govt couldn't care less about justice for a bunch of dead Syrians. I mean, this is the Russia where the journalist who uncovered a lot of govt-related mercenary activity "fell from a balcony" in not-at-all-suspicious circumstances.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/max...ussian-journalist-covered-wagner-group-2018-4


----------



## bostjan

I think that is certainly a problem. Letting them know a couple hours in advance might be a good idea to minimize the cost on human life, but too much advanced notice, and folks are going to have enough time to move out all of the equipment they (allegedly) use to make gas.



hairychris said:


> Which won't happen as Russia will veto it.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> IMO there are arguments for and against bombing Syria. Almost certain that Assad has been using chem weapons on his own civvies*. However the big problem has always been what overall strategy any bombing should be a part of - Iraq went to crap because there was no plan post military action, and there doesn't seem to be any plan wrt Syria. Plus, as above, Russia is also there.
> 
> It's a mess for sure.
> 
> * Nope, I don't believe the denials. Assad has form, and the Russian govt couldn't care less about justice for a bunch of dead Syrians. I mean, this is the Russia where the journalist who uncovered a lot of govt-related mercenary activity "fell from a balcony" in not-at-all-suspicious circumstances.
> 
> https://amp.businessinsider.com/max...ussian-journalist-covered-wagner-group-2018-4



I mean, the veto argument is an endless wheel. Still, the UN is *the* organization with the authority to move or not move in this case. Russia will use veto, but then that leads to the reasoning that diplomacy should work to figure out a way to get Russia on board to the point where they don't veto. There are also ways around the veto if there is enough international support, but, granted, it is a lengthy process.

Really, though, since the UN is the international authority here, and Russia does have the power to veto, and other powerful member nations are accusing Russia of inappropriate use of their veto power, the UN should restructure and move toward removing Russia from it's position on the security council as a permanent member. Or else forget about the UN and disband it. You cannot submit to an international authority and then, when it doesn't work out for you, go against that authority, and then just go back to submission to the authority as if nothing happened. There's a legal issue there that goes beyond the common-sense aspect of things.

And the point in holding this sort of attack back was not disbelief in the French finding, it was about due process. It's a universal idea that any person or entity is innocent of a crime until proven guilty, and you never punish based off of allegations. You move from allegation to suspicion, then conduct some investigation to try to establish guilt. If guilt is established, then you take corrective action. That wasn't the case with Syria, where we went straight from suspicion to punishment. While the suspicion might end up being correct more than half the time, it is not _enough_ to make a judgement.

Also, I stand by my initial confusion of what the hell this was even supposed to accomplish. If the Syrians really had abandoned all three sites, including personnel and equipment, then all we did was make a loud boom out of our million-dollar firecrackers and demoed some old buildings so that they can put in a new car park.

To address the allegations - if sarin gas was used in any capacity, then there should be an investigation. From what the media reported, though, it sounds like there was most likely chlorine gas used, and perhaps nothing else. Let me start by saying that chlorine is a chemical used in municipal water treatment, so its existence means nothing. If it was released as a weapon, then we would need to retrieve the munitions first and establish how it got on the battlefield. Chlorine is extremely easy to manufacture out of readily-available supplies, so it might have been used by any party in the battle, or even by multiple parties.

And again, if Bashar al-Assad gave the order to use *any *chemical weapons, he should be put on trial for doing so. Bombing a few empty buildings in response is stupid. The punishment should make some logical sense for the crime committed. If you steal from me, you should give back and pay some additional recompense. If you hurt someone, you should be put into time out. If you use chemical weapons on your own subjects, you should stand in front of a war crimes tribunal.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Also, I stand by my initial confusion of what the hell this was even supposed to accomplish.



It's just sending a message to avoid losing credibility (not that we have much left with Trump in office, but...).


----------



## Drew

So, no talk about Hannity being Cohen's secret third client here? How's that for awkward.


----------



## tedtan

I hadn't heard that one yet. I'll have to look into it.


----------



## tedtan

I just did a bit of reading on this and it's interesting the backflips Hannity is doing to distance himself from Cohen's professional services.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Two things are interesting about this. 

1) The main connection between Cohen's other two clients, aside from their being prominent Republican politicians, is that a large part of the work we knew Cohen did was negotiating nondisclosure agreements with women the men had affairs with. And Fox's reputation for handling sexual harassment allegations for their on-air personalities isn't exactly sterling. 

2) Hannity's claims that he was never a Cohen client make it a LOT harder for Cohen to claim client-attorney privilege for any correspondence between himself and Hannity, so it's actually kind of self-defeating for Hannity to go on record saying he was never a client, if there IS any sensitive information he doesn't want to see made public.


----------



## Explorer

It's interesting to see the sketch of tge person who threatened Stormy Daniels and her daughter, especially as it resembles Trump Director of Surveillance (per LinkedIn) Matthew Calamari Jr.







Apparently when his dad previously held that job, Calamari Senior shoved a 12-year-old boy while holding the boy and his mother against their wills in order to threaten the father/husband.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismcdan...-the-company?utm_term=.pqagYG5aXO#.fo7p3AKYab

'This time, it was September 1995 and Daut Bajrushi, a superintendent at one of Trump’s buildings, claimed he could prove “financial improprieties” and other misconduct by the Trump Organization. Bajrushi, then 46 years old, worked at Trump Palace, a skyscraper on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. After four years on the job, Bajrushi believed he had evidence the Trump company had ripped off homeowners of about $300,000.

'Days before he was to reveal this information to board members at Trump Palace, Bajrushi fell ill and sent his wife and 12-year-old son to retrieve items from his office. They were gathering paperwork, according to a suit Bajrushi later filed, when someone used a screwdriver to bust the lock. The door burst open and a team of Trump security officials poured in.

'According to the lawsuit, four men prevented Hatixbe Bajrushi and her son from leaving. Matthew Calamari, the hulking head of security, shoved the boy. Trump’s brother-in-law, James Grau, barked questions, demanding to know why they were there. Michael Nicoll, another guard, pushed them back when they tried to leave. Grau snatched her purse and passed it to Calamari, Nicoll, and Domenic Pezzo to rifle through.

'The boy started to cry and his mother fainted, they claim. Daut Bajrushi, informed by his wife in a phone call of what was happening, had a friend call the police.

'Calamari threatened to harm the family if they spoke to police about what happened, according to the lawsuit. After 90 minutes, the police arrived and the Bajrushis were freed.'

It certainly seems like there is a culture of threats against women and children in the Trump security "forces."

I'm waiting for this to hit the mainstream news....


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> It's interesting to see the sketch of tge person who threatened Stormy Daniels and her daughter, especially as it resembles Trump Director of Surveillance (per LinkedIn) Matthew Calamari Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently when his dad previously held that job, Calamari Senior shoved a 12-year-old boy while holding the boy and his mother against their wills in order to threaten the father/husband.
> 
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrismcdan...-the-company?utm_term=.pqagYG5aXO#.fo7p3AKYab
> 
> 'This time, it was September 1995 and Daut Bajrushi, a superintendent at one of Trump’s buildings, claimed he could prove “financial improprieties” and other misconduct by the Trump Organization. Bajrushi, then 46 years old, worked at Trump Palace, a skyscraper on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. After four years on the job, Bajrushi believed he had evidence the Trump company had ripped off homeowners of about $300,000.
> 
> 'Days before he was to reveal this information to board members at Trump Palace, Bajrushi fell ill and sent his wife and 12-year-old son to retrieve items from his office. They were gathering paperwork, according to a suit Bajrushi later filed, when someone used a screwdriver to bust the lock. The door burst open and a team of Trump security officials poured in.
> 
> 'According to the lawsuit, four men prevented Hatixbe Bajrushi and her son from leaving. Matthew Calamari, the hulking head of security, shoved the boy. Trump’s brother-in-law, James Grau, barked questions, demanding to know why they were there. Michael Nicoll, another guard, pushed them back when they tried to leave. Grau snatched her purse and passed it to Calamari, Nicoll, and Domenic Pezzo to rifle through.
> 
> 'The boy started to cry and his mother fainted, they claim. Daut Bajrushi, informed by his wife in a phone call of what was happening, had a friend call the police.
> 
> 'Calamari threatened to harm the family if they spoke to police about what happened, according to the lawsuit. After 90 minutes, the police arrived and the Bajrushis were freed.'
> 
> It certainly seems like there is a culture of threats against women and children in the Trump security "forces."
> 
> I'm waiting for this to hit the mainstream news....



And, as expected, the Trump Org. responded by denying every last detail except the guy's address, pretty much, then accused Bajrushi of embezzlement and fraud. To my eyes, the Trump Org. looks really suspicious in that, to say the least, but I don't know if the media will pick up on this, seeing as how it was ages ago and nothing was really proven. I'd love to know the police take on it, though, since they were there for the tail end of the confrontation. I'm guessing that the police report of the incident is long gone or maybe never made it off of the Sargent's desk.


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> Calamari


----------



## Drew

The media is too busy reporting that Trump thinks it looks like her ex-husband, and everyone else thinks it looks like America's Quarterback, GOAT, Tom Brady, who we all know is just too damned _nice_ to threaten anyone who isn't on the defensive line, and anyway he'd probably just drop it if he did.


----------



## Explorer

Another tiny data point of interest...

https://www.rferl.org/a/nikulin-extradition-russia-outraged-czech-zeman-pelikan/29139957.html

Nikulin is a Russian hacker who just coincidentally happened to be in Prague (August 2016) when Cohen was supposedly there. In fact, that'a when nikulin was arrested there.

And now Nikulin is being extradited to the US.

It would be interesting if Nikulin was in Prague for that alleged meeting between Russia, Cohen and the hackers.


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and just wondering... if Sean Hannity himself denied being a client of Michael Cohen, then it certainly seems likely that Cohen desperately wants to block some seized piece of evidence from being released to prosecutors. Was it an email between himself and Hannity? A recorded telephone call? What was communicated, that either Cohen or Hannity are deliberately lying about Hannity being a client?


----------



## bostjan

If Hannity claims he's not a client of Cohen, then nothing between Hannity and Cohen is subject to attorney-client privilege. 

Really, though, I think the Hannity thing could easily just become a distraction. The much bigger and more impactful thing here is the potential unraveling of the person who happens to be sitting as President of the USA right now.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If Hannity claims he's not a client of Cohen, then nothing between Hannity and Cohen is subject to attorney-client privilege.


Well, with Hannity denying being a client and Cohen claiming him as one, then the first step is to figure out which it is. Any record of either a payment made, or a bill submitted for payment for services, between the two men would be enough to confirm Hannity as a client. In which case, that's a bit embarrassing for Hannity, but in return for being called out for lying through his teeth on his show, client-attorney privilege would still be in place for anything not involved in fraud or committing a crime. 

It's sort of an interesting situation, isn't it?  But, I agree, it's sort of a wonderfully comic side-story to the bigger issue of Cohen's allegedly illegal work with Trump, and potentially as well to the investigation into Trump's ties to Russia, depending on what was uncovered in the raid.


----------



## Drew

Been re-reading this thread today, from around the election until May '17. It's kind of surprising to see just how far this investigation has come - from the immediate post-election debate here over whether or not it even mattered that Russia hacked the DNC emails and fed them to Wikileaks (including the right-wing denial that Russia had anything to do with it), to today, where a number of Trump officials have resigned/recused themselves based on previously-undisclosed ties to Russia, that several campaign officials have been indicted and arrested for their ties to Russia and illegal activities related to them, to Trump Jr. actively and excitedly agreeing to a meeting with people purporting to be Russian representatives offering damaging intel on Clinton, to Trump himself continually walking back attempts to sanction Russia, to Trump firing Comey and getting us a special prosecutor, to Trump's lawyer getting entangled in a separate investigation... We still don't have a clear smoking gun, but there's a LOT more evidence of connections out there than there were two weeks after the election. 

Also, this ended up being pretty oddly prescient - the only thing I missed was how close the GOP came to NOT passing tax cuts. 


Drew said:


> They do if they hope to hold onto those majorities. The Senate will be tough given only 8 of the 33 seats up for election in 2018 are Republican held, but the Democrats picked up seats in both the House and Senate this term, and despite having control of all three chambers, we're looking at a deeply divided Republican party. Two years out if we have a GOP mired in internal squabbles that's passed tax cuts but not much else from Trump's agenda, a backlash is totally possible.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Also, this ended up being pretty oddly prescient - the only thing I missed was how close the GOP came to NOT passing tax cuts.



Heck, if we're going to be patting ourselves on the back, then I'm going to remind everyone that I questioned why Trump's people successfully fought to change a plank in the Republican charter from being pro-Ukraine to pro-Russia regarding the Crimea. 

I'm also still waiting, having mentioned it long ago, for the explanation for Trump quoting a false story which was only published in Russupian-language media, and almost immediatel retracted.


----------



## Explorer

And now, just after it being ruled that Nikulin, who might be a witness to Cohen being at a meeting in Prague with Russians and hackers, is being extradited to the US and might testify, Cohen is withdrawing his libel lawsuit against Buzzfeed and Fusion GPS for the Steele Dossier, which claims Cohen was at such a meeting.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/michael-cohen-drops-buzzfeed-fusion-lawsuit-537327

I know it would be problematic to sue over libel and then to have the supposedly libeling statements proven true, but I didn't expect such quick action on Cohen's part.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Heck, if we're going to be patting ourselves on the back, then I'm going to remind everyone that I questioned why Trump's people successfully fought to change a plank in the Republican charter from being pro-Ukraine to pro-Russia regarding the Crimea.



Yeah, if you weren't THE first person to call attention to that to me, you were on the short list. 

Re: Cohen, he also has plenty of reasons enough to withdraw that suit (or delay it, was what I heard) simply because he's now under criminal investigation himself, so this COULD be a coincidence... 

While we're at it, there was a lot of back and forth early on (notably, between bostjan and myself) about whether or not if Russia had hacked the DNC and released their emails through Wikileaks that could *really* be construed as trying to influence the election even if they were selectively targeting Democrats over Republicans. We now know it went a lot further than that, and Russian groups were both running ads through Facebook and creating/managing Facebook groups and using them to share stories, impacting an estimated 30-50 million Americans, trying to fan flames between Clinton and Trump supporters and between Clinton and Sanders supporters, and that they attempted to hack into at least a dozen states' election administrations and in one cast managed to gain access to voter rolls, even though at this time we don't believe they made any changes. 

I just think its important to periodically pause and take stock of just how far things have advanced. Back in December I figured there was going to be a lot of smoke and suspicion out of the Russia investigation, but nothing concrete would ever come of it save for some vague assurances that we'd be more on guard the next time. Today, a number of Trump capaign officials and staffers have been arrested, Trump's personal lawyer is under investigation for alleged money laundering, Comey was fired in what based on Trumps explanation is very likely obstruction of justice, we know Trump Jr TRIED to collude with Russians, we know they managed to get propaganda in front of something like a fifth of registered voters, we know they were also hacking not just the parties but also the election infrastructure, we have the NRA trying to block an investigation into their Russian donors, and while all of this is going on Trump is refusing to implement Russian sanctions stemming from Syria, and has invited Putin to the White House. And Rosenstein is still hanging on to his job, evidently, becauser he was able to assure Trump that he wasn't _personally_ under investigation, according to a story that broke today, which from the sound of it was likely on a technicality, because Rosenstein sad nothing about whether he had been ruled out as a suspect or if he might be investigated at some point in the future, and despite what Trump keeps insisting, this investigation is clearly still picking up steam. 

Did I forget anything? It's tough to keep up.


----------



## TacticalRepublicanDildo

I think both liberals and conservatives alike can agree that Trump is AT THE VERY LEAST somewhat wreckless with his position of power.

I’m a HARD right leaner, and as funny as it is to watch SJW’s cry about Trump being president, I have to agree that he isn’t someone I’m extremely proud to call my president. That being said, I would’ve felt much worse if Clinton had won, but that’s subjective and I understand completely why others may disagree.

To be fair though, I pretty much hate all politicians. Right, Left, and whatever the fuck the Green Party is..


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, if you weren't THE first person to call attention to that to me, you were on the short list.
> 
> Re: Cohen, he also has plenty of reasons enough to withdraw that suit (or delay it, was what I heard) simply because he's now under criminal investigation himself, so this COULD be a coincidence...
> 
> While we're at it, there was a lot of back and forth early on (notably, between bostjan and myself) about whether or not if Russia had hacked the DNC and released their emails through Wikileaks that could *really* be construed as trying to influence the election even if they were selectively targeting Democrats over Republicans. We now know it went a lot further than that, and Russian groups were both running ads through Facebook and creating/managing Facebook groups and using them to share stories, impacting an estimated 30-50 million Americans, trying to fan flames between Clinton and Trump supporters and between Clinton and Sanders supporters, and that they attempted to hack into at least a dozen states' election administrations and in one cast managed to gain access to voter rolls, even though at this time we don't believe they made any changes.
> 
> I just think its important to periodically pause and take stock of just how far things have advanced. Back in December I figured there was going to be a lot of smoke and suspicion out of the Russia investigation, but nothing concrete would ever come of it save for some vague assurances that we'd be more on guard the next time. Today, a number of Trump capaign officials and staffers have been arrested, Trump's personal lawyer is under investigation for alleged money laundering, Comey was fired in what based on Trumps explanation is very likely obstruction of justice, we know Trump Jr TRIED to collude with Russians, we know they managed to get propaganda in front of something like a fifth of registered voters, we know they were also hacking not just the parties but also the election infrastructure, we have the NRA trying to block an investigation into their Russian donors, and while all of this is going on Trump is refusing to implement Russian sanctions stemming from Syria, and has invited Putin to the White House. And Rosenstein is still hanging on to his job, evidently, becauser he was able to assure Trump that he wasn't _personally_ under investigation, according to a story that broke today, which from the sound of it was likely on a technicality, because Rosenstein sad nothing about whether he had been ruled out as a suspect or if he might be investigated at some point in the future, and despite what Trump keeps insisting, this investigation is clearly still picking up steam.
> 
> Did I forget anything? It's tough to keep up.



Yeah, I was way off on that one. I was way off on my prediction that HRC would win. I predicted Trump would be a bad president, but, shockingly, I was way off on predicting just how awful he'd be. I feel like I should just hedge out all the way now and predict that Trump will make it another two years without getting impeached.



TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> I think both liberals and conservatives alike can agree that Trump is AT THE VERY LEAST somewhat wreckless with his position of power.
> 
> I’m a HARD right leaner, and as funny as it is to watch SJW’s cry about Trump being president, I have to agree that he isn’t someone I’m extremely proud to call my president. That being said, I would’ve felt much worse if Clinton had won, but that’s subjective and I understand completely why others may disagree.
> 
> To be fair though, I pretty much hate all politicians. Right, Left, and whatever the fuck the Green Party is..



IMO, Trump is doing more damage to the right than any left wing politician in the USA ever has. In the old days, being conservative meant fiscal responsibility, measured responses, careful planning, and Bob Dole. Now, the face of the Republican Party is a loud-talking, womanizing, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants spoiled rich kid who wants to join the TPP, go to war, and run an ever-revolving door in his own office.


----------



## Drew

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> I think both liberals and conservatives alike can agree that Trump is AT THE VERY LEAST somewhat wreckless with his position of power.
> 
> I’m a HARD right leaner, and as funny as it is to watch SJW’s cry about Trump being president, I have to agree that he isn’t someone I’m extremely proud to call my president. That being said, I would’ve felt much worse if Clinton had won, but that’s subjective and I understand completely why others may disagree.
> 
> To be fair though, I pretty much hate all politicians. Right, Left, and whatever the fuck the Green Party is..


You'd be surprised how many hard right conservatives would disagree, and call what you call "recklessness" "not being afraid to say what he means, and do what needs to be done."  


bostjan said:


> Yeah, I was way off on that one. I was way off on my prediction that HRC would win. I predicted Trump would be a bad president, but, shockingly, I was way off on predicting just how awful he'd be. I feel like I should just hedge out all the way now and predict that Trump will make it another two years without getting impeached.


I mean, I can only take so much credit here - that discussion was mostly about whether it mattered that Russia was trying to change political opinion in the US, and given what we knew at the time I don't think you were arguing they didn't try, exactly, so much as that the ways they tried didn't strike you as especially nefarious. At the time I had a pretty big problem with the "well, if the DNC didn't want people to know about it, they shouldn't have done it" attitude, partly because I didn't think anything really THAT bad came out in the DNC leaks so much as it was just a lot of negative publicity that gave the right the ability to spin it in was that reinforced pre-existing narratives about the Clintons, and partly because that didn't really address the selective nature of the attacks and the intent behind them. I think, if you don't mind my speculating on your thought process, why you might feel differently today is we now know that the DNC hack was only a small part of the overall effort, and it went a LOT deeper than that, including a massive Facebook advertising and influence campaign. So, I don't know if you were "wrong," exactly, so much as we disagreed about what that one data point meant, and that a whole heck of a lot more data has come out subsequently. 

All that said - yes, by all means, predict another _six_ years of the Trump presidency!


----------



## vilk

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> I think both liberals and conservatives alike can agree that Trump is AT THE VERY LEAST somewhat wreckless with his position of power.
> 
> I’m a HARD right leaner, and as funny as it is to watch SJW’s cry about Trump being president, I have to agree that he isn’t someone I’m extremely proud to call my president. That being said, I would’ve felt much worse if Clinton had won, but that’s subjective and I understand completely why others may disagree.
> 
> To be fair though, I pretty much hate all politicians. Right, Left, and whatever the fuck the Green Party is..



I wouldn't call him wreckless. He's certainly helping to wreck our future economy. The white house seems like a comparative wreck as well. He's wrecking America's image around the globe.

--------------------

What does it even _mean_ to be a HARD right leaner in 2018? It obviously has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. Or at least, none of the elected republicans ever suggest fiscally conservative policy. Well, short of cutting education. They certainly do always remember to cut education. Until OK can only have school 4 days a week. That's not what a 1st world country is supposed to look like, unable to even keep fucking schools open.

Based on what I hear Republican congressman and our Republican president say on TV, 2018 Republicanism is all about:
-Keeping out / kicking out (non-white) immigrants
-Ignoring our crumbling infrastructure while maintaining a preposterous and debatably unconstitutional drug war
-Military spending, spending, spending all day long
-Attempting to legally codify preferential treatment for Christians
-Preserving the noble arts of gerrymanding and voter suppression
-Making sure poor don't eat unless their backs sweat


OK I can admit that my list is pretty biased. But as Bostjan pointed out, in 2018, to be a Republican or Conservative has veritably nothing in common with being a Republican during a time when you would have voted for Bob Dole. So how would someone less biased than myself define Republicanism/American Conservatism in 2018?


----------



## TacticalRepublicanDildo

vilk said:


> I wouldn't call him wreckless. He's certainly helping to wreck our future economy. The white house seems like a comparative wreck as well. He's wrecking America's image around the globe.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> What does it even _mean_ to be a HARD right leaner in 2018? It obviously has nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. Or at least, none of the elected republicans ever suggest fiscally conservative policy. Well, short of cutting education. They certainly do always remember to cut education. Until OK can only have school 4 days a week. That's not what a 1st world country is supposed to look like, unable to even keep fucking schools open.
> 
> Based on what I hear Republican congressman and our Republican president say on TV, 2018 Republicanism is all about:
> -Keeping out (non-white) immigrants
> -Ignoring our crumbling infrastructure while maintaining a preposterous and debatably unconstitutional drug war
> -Military spending, spending, spending all day long
> -Attempting to legally codify preferential treatment for Christians
> -Preserving the noble arts of gerrymanding and voter suppression
> 
> 
> OK I can admit that my list is pretty biased. But as Bostjan pointed out, in 2018, to be a Republican or Conservative has veritably nothing in common with being a Republican during a time when you would have voted for Bob Dole. So how would someone less biased than myself define Republicanism/American Conservatism in 2018?



Yeah, I’m not looking for a debate on my political beliefs. I shared my position to make a point about being conservative and disagreeing with Trump. I’m not looking to get into some kind of pissing match over right wing/left wing politics.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Drew

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> Yeah, I’m not looking for a debate on my political beliefs. I shared my position to make a point about being conservative and disagreeing with Trump. I’m not looking to get into some kind of pissing match over right wing/left wing politics.


To be fair, just because Trump has pulled _elected_ conservatives hard towards a populist/nationalist direction, doesn't mean there aren't still, say, Reagan conservatives out there who are small government, free trade, pro business in their political views, who are happy to have seen the GOP pass a package of tax cuts, but wonder why the fuck we're trashing trade deals, building physical and legislative barriers to keep immigrant labor - both unskilled and skilled - out of this country, are deeply concerned about the explosion in our budget deficit, and can't comprehend why the President is using his bully pulpit to attack successful American businesses over twitter. 

I don't _personally_ share those views... But, Trump is not a traditional conservative, and the real question I have for the next couple years is whether or not Trump will permanently pull the GOP towards populism, or if he's an aberration.


----------



## Explorer

I have to laugh whenever people try to build liferafts for Republicans through compartmentalization.

It was the Republicans who have used the Southern Strategy to remain in power.

It was Republicans who embraced the Tea Party.

It was Republicans who gave corporations and millionaires permanent tax breaks this past year.

If moderates in the Republican Party were unable to outvote the bigots brought in by the Southern Strategy, or the Tea Party, or "No Millionaire Left Behind," then such moderates are in the minority and do not represent the actual Repubican Party which has gone this route. 

To flip this into a question...

If moderates really represented the Republican Party, how did those claimed to be outliers manage to elect Trump and to throw fiscal conservatism out the window?


----------



## Explorer

Incidentally, do you think GOP members demanding the release of the Comey memos really thought through how revealing that Priebus, and thus Trump, knew that Flynn had lied, would only confirm that Trump knew about Flynn and kept him on anyway? 

It's like these folks actually believe the Faux News line, and then reality bites them on the butt. 

----

Also amusing to me: all the talk among Trump's allies in the press keep talking about Cohen in terms of his loyalty to Trump, in that the loyalty will protect Trump from Cohen flipping on Trump. 

None of them are arguing that Trump has nothing to worry about because Cohen has nothing incriminating to offer. 

It's the weirdest elephant in the room when I watch the Trump advocates and surrogates arguing that loyalty will prevent bad things about Trump from coming to the fore. 

Hilarious....


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> I have to laugh whenever people try to build liferafts for Republicans through compartmentalization.
> 
> It was the Republicans who have used the Southern Strategy to remain in power.
> 
> It was Republicans who embraced the Tea Party.
> 
> It was Republicans who gave corporations and millionaires permanent tax breaks this past year.
> 
> If moderates in the Republican Party were unable to outvote the bigots brought in by the Southern Strategy, or the Tea Party, or "No Millionaire Left Behind," then such moderates are in the minority and do not represent the actual Repubican Party which has gone this route.
> 
> To flip this into a question...
> 
> If moderates really represented the Republican Party, how did those claimed to be outliers manage to elect Trump and to throw fiscal conservatism out the window?


Look at the difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and the establishment and the progressive wing of the Democratic party, and then try to tell me that all Republicans are homogenous and have exactly the same views and stand for exactly the same things.  

The establishment wing of the GOP has had a very uneasy relationship with the Tea Party since day one, and the rift between establishment Republicans (Boehner, Ryan, McConnell, et al) and the Freedom Caucus and how the whole coalition is damned near ungovernable has been one of the main themes of the 2017-18 Congress, and is the principal reason why we still have the ACA, and why the GOP managed to (barely) pass tax cuts, but was unable to do away with long-standing Republican bogeymen like the estate tax and AMT. 

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of problems with the establishment wing of the GOP too, but we can't pretend they're one and the same with the Trump wing, at least not while being intellectually honest with ourselves.


----------



## Explorer

@Drew - my point is, the GOP has happily embraced those modifications over time in pursuit of power over principle. 

To give a recent development in a different group, recently the Baptist Convention denounced bigotry as part of their charter. Those groups/churches which didn't like it left. 

In contrast, the GOP wouldn't have maintained power without inviting in the bigots. The uneasy apologetics on the part of GOP politicians whenever they are confronted by blatant racism by someone they embrace shows how unwilling they are to alienate the bigots in the party. 

And then, when the majority of those in the party don't condemn such bigotry strongly, then the individuals who do oppoae bigotry have to decide if they will stay or go, like those bigoted Baotist chirches who had to decide if the inverse, renouncing racism, was too much for them. 

I'd be more swayed by your argument about the core Republican party being against Trumpism if they actively denounced Trump, including the majority not supporting him. 

In fact, what has been visible is the large number of people leaving the GOP completely because of their inability to steer the core membership away from so many problematic things. 

If the majority represents those things, or is willing to endure them for some advantage, the minority is the outlier and not representative of the group as a whole.


----------



## TacticalRepublicanDildo

Explorer said:


> @Drew - my point is, the GOP has happily embraced those modifications over time in pursuit of power over principle.
> 
> To give a recent development in a different group, recently the Baptist Convention denounced bigotry as part of their charter. Those groups/churches which didn't like it left.
> 
> In contrast, the GOP wouldn't have maintained power without inviting in the bigots. The uneasy apologetics on the part of GOP politicians whenever they are confronted by blatant racism by someone they embrace shows how unwilling they are to alienate the bigots in the party.
> 
> And then, when the majority of those in the party don't condemn such bigotry strongly, then the individuals who do oppoae bigotry have to decide if they will stay or go, like those bigoted Baotist chirches who had to decide if the inverse, renouncing racism, was too much for them.
> 
> I'd be more swayed by your argument about the core Republican party being against Trumpism if they actively denounced Trump, including the majority not supporting him.
> 
> In fact, what has been visible is the large number of people leaving the GOP completely because of their inability to steer the core membership away from so many problematic things.
> 
> If the majority represents those things, or is willing to endure them for some advantage, the minority is the outlier and not representative of the group as a whole.


You keep throwing out “bigotry” and “racism..” but you’re not giving us any specific examples of such things.
No offense, but it kind of makes you sound like a social justice warrior.


----------



## Explorer

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> You keep throwing out “bigotry” and “racism..” but you’re not giving us any specific examples of such things.
> No offense, but it kind of makes you sound like a social justice warrior.


I am okay with you wanting to label me in a way you think might be insulting. 

Just as one recent example of where Republican voters demonstrate my points, you could look up Arthur Jones of Illinois.

Refute away! 

Oh... and welcome to SS.org!


----------



## dreamchaser

A damn shame he didn't act on his promises to jail Hillary Clinton, "drain the swamp", or build that wall (yet?). I would've been so happy.


----------



## TacticalRepublicanDildo

Explorer said:


> I am okay with you wanting to label me in a way you think might be insulting.
> 
> Just as one recent example of where Republican voters demonstrate my points, you could look up Arthur Jones of Illinois.
> 
> Refute away!
> 
> Oh... and welcome to SS.org!


Okay, I may have come off like a dick there, I’ll admit that, and I apologize.
I have to eat my words on this one, because you actually did pull out legit evidence for your claim.. respect bro.

That is appalling that a Holocaust denier could be elected to office.
The stupidity alone.. what’s next? Are we gonna make a flat earther head of the EPA?


----------



## bostjan

Trump is racist:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/does-apos-breeding-concept-apos-080134604.html

Trump has no moral fiber:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-tape-whereabouts_us_5ade5610e4b036e7aeb59162

Conservatives even note that the conservative personalities as of late are reprehensible:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ves-one-more-step-toward-the-moral-low-ground

I think these sorts of statements shouldn't really be up for debate, since there is so much data and that data is so out in the open now. The thing is, that the "clickbait conservative" movement has gained enough ground to take the #1 position now. (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-the-different-types-of-conservatives-3303480)


----------



## vilk

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> That is appalling that a Holocaust denier could be elected to office.


He's not elected to office, he just won the primary, on account of that he ran unopposed.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> @Drew - my point is, the GOP has happily embraced those modifications over time in pursuit of power over principle.
> 
> To give a recent development in a different group, recently the Baptist Convention denounced bigotry as part of their charter. Those groups/churches which didn't like it left.
> 
> In contrast, the GOP wouldn't have maintained power without inviting in the bigots. The uneasy apologetics on the part of GOP politicians whenever they are confronted by blatant racism by someone they embrace shows how unwilling they are to alienate the bigots in the party.
> 
> And then, when the majority of those in the party don't condemn such bigotry strongly, then the individuals who do oppoae bigotry have to decide if they will stay or go, like those bigoted Baotist chirches who had to decide if the inverse, renouncing racism, was too much for them.
> 
> I'd be more swayed by your argument about the core Republican party being against Trumpism if they actively denounced Trump, including the majority not supporting him.
> 
> In fact, what has been visible is the large number of people leaving the GOP completely because of their inability to steer the core membership away from so many problematic things.
> 
> If the majority represents those things, or is willing to endure them for some advantage, the minority is the outlier and not representative of the group as a whole.


I think you have a point when it comes to the evangelical vote, specifically - they have done a 180 on their views of personal morality being necessary for a political leader, and Trump - a known adulterer, multi-divorcee, who has campaigned in support of alleged pedophiles and has been caught bragging about sexual assault on camera - now has his highest approval numbers amongst evangelical voters. 

However, the GOP as a whole... I don't see it. There's ample room for them to be MORE critical about Trump than they have, but there's a world of difference between stony silence and outright support, and in a lot of Trump's more egregious wrongs - the "lots of good people on both sides" Charlottesville comments, for one - Republican party leaders were openly critical. 

Again, you say they've embraced "power over principle..." That's tough to reconcile with the fact that the GOP has accomplished _surprisingly_ little. A big reason for that is there's been a pretty big divide between Trump and the party establishment (things have been quiet recently since the passage of the tax bill, but remember back to the open feud between Trump and McConnell in the summer and fall over the failed ACA repeal), and the fact that tensions between Trump and Ryan are one of the causes attributed to Ryan's decision to step down. Also, think about how for all Trump's bluster, the actual legislative action in 2017 was pretty much straight out of the establishment Republican playbook - another failed attempt to repeal the ACA, a tax cut bill, and increased military spending. The only "Trumpian" parts of the past year's agenda are things Trump could do unilaterally - pulling out of TPP, renegotiating NAFTA, severely restricting immigration, etc. 

I'm no fan of "establishment" Republican views, but you can't look at the country and at this Congress and at the probably unprecedented amount of criticism Trump has been receiving from leaders of his own party, and NOT conclude that the GOP is deeply divided. It's actually going to be interesting to watch in 2018 and 2020 - for all the talk of a divided Democratic party after the 2016 election, being the opposition party is forcing us to work through those differences and find common ground. The GOP, as the party in power... not so much. There's a very real chance that this could end with the party imploding.


----------



## Explorer

TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> You keep throwing out “bigotry” and “racism..” but you’re not giving us any specific examples of such things. No offense, but it kind of makes you sound like a social justice warrior.





Explorer said:


> I am okay with you wanting to label me in a way you think might be insulting. Just as one recent example of where Republican voters demonstrate my points, you could look up Arthur Jones of Illinois. Refute away!





TacticalRepublicanDildo said:


> Okay, I may have come off like a dick there, I’ll admit that, and I apologize. I have to eat my words on this one, because you actually did pull out legit evidence for your claim.. respect bro.



Given how quickly you went for the insult, *and* your skepticism regarding my ability to easily pull out an example, the reasonable questions which immediately spring to mind are... why are you unaware of the numerous examples of racism in the Republican party? Is it a deliberate choice to avoid such information? Or, is it possible you have enclosed yourself in a bubble which deliberately ignores such stories to skew the news? 

And, the logical follow-ups: Do you intend to get better informed in general, instead of taking the easy path of ignoring inconvenient information which refutes your worldview? If not, why not?


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Given how quickly you went for the insult, *and* your skepticism regarding my ability to easily pull out an example, the reasonable questions which immediately spring to mind are... why are you unaware of the numerous examples of racism in the Republican party? Is it a deliberate choice to avoid such information? Or, is it possible you have enclosed yourself in a bubble which deliberately ignores such stories to skew the news?
> 
> And, the logical follow-ups: Do you intend to get better informed in general, instead of taking the easy path of ignoring inconvenient information which refutes your worldview? If not, why not?


Hey, he's a conservative who seems to be making an honest attempt to be civil. The one time he came close to not being civil, he was quick to apologize. Go easy on the guy.


----------



## Explorer

@Drew - I'm assuming he's an adult, and so I'm genuinely curious as to how difficult he thought it would be to support my claim.

There have been other individuals, like the Capn, who have been committed to denying easily verifiable facts. TRD was quick to acknowledge the evidence, to his credit, but that made me interested in why the evidence was apparently a surprise to him.

I have many friends (yes, actual good friends IRL) who are very conservative, some of whom are whom are even fundamentalist evangelicals, and occasionally one of em makes an argument or claim which seems difficult to reconcile with the available information. That's when I usually start a dialogue with them similar to my points toward TRD.

If you think asking questions about how something substantial and easily supported could be missed is being hard on someone, I instead view it as respecting someone as an adult. TRD has stated strong opinions about going down on women, and about those who do so (”eating out girls is gayer than sucking dick, because when you eat a girl you’re licking every guys dick she ever had in her"), so I think he's mature enough to consider and explain either his denial, or genuine unawareness, of certain news stories. 

Going further, I'm actually happily encouraged that TRD was willing to accept my example. There have been so many people in this topic who have argued against easily verified facts, in contrast to TRD. That's why I think asking those further questions will lead to illuminating answers. 

----

Again at @Drew - I want to write something more substantial about how representative Trump is of what the Republican party as a whole is willing to accept and condone in order to get what the majority wants, but haven't had time to get materials together to support my point. I just don't want you to think I'm ignoring your points....


----------



## Drew

I think there's a fine line between legitimately asking questions to get at the answers, and asking questions to attack and demean a particular viewpoint. I may have misread your tone, and if so I apologize, but then again if you go back and reread what you wrote you left an awful lot of room to misread your tone. This board (likely as a product of age more than anything else) does run a bit to the left, and I think because of that it's rate that we get a conservative member who's looking to have civil conversations about their views; instead, we get the trolls looking to start shit with "libtard snowflakes" and the like. Last thing I want to see happen is for us to run off a conservative who's all for civil debate, you know. 

And I really don't see where you can successfully argue that the modern GOP is so homogeneous that Trump is a perfect representation of them - I definitely agree that Trump is the logical extension of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, but I think, as liberals, we may be too willing to gloss over how much of a threat the Tea Party was seen as _to the right_. They were a populist insurgent group with only nominal ties to the traditional GOP, and while the GOP certainly welcomed the electoral enthusiasm they brought, there was always a risk that the Tea Party could (and did, as it happen) displace moderates. Again, if you see that as power over principle, that's all well and good in a vacuum, but when it suddenly becomes _your_ power because you're getting primaried for not being "conservative enough" by a Tea Partier, you stop giving a shit about things like "for the good of the party." 

I'm sure, if they had the power to do so, Ryan and McConnell would throw out the Freedom Caucus in favor of moderate Republicans in a _heartbeat_. The modern GOP is a deeply divided party, and Trump is, I would argue, more a symptom than a cause of that, with the Tea Party insurgency being the root cause.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> I definitely agree that Trump is the logical extension of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, but I think, as liberals, we may be too willing to gloss over how much of a threat the Tea Party was seen as _to the right_. They were a populist insurgent group with only nominal ties to the traditional GOP, and while the GOP certainly welcomed the electoral enthusiasm they brought, there was always a risk that the Tea Party could (and did, as it happen) displace moderates.



This is exactly my point. Over time, the upper eschelons of the Republican Party embraced the Southern Strategy *and* the Tea Party *and* Trumpism because those philosophies brought with them a body of voters. It didn't matter how much they personally disliked the views represented, as long as it brought those voters in.

To use the first example, the Southern Strategy was to invite in those whites who were angry at blacks getting civil rights and job opportunities. Many of them had just left the Democratic Party for advocating for blacks. The fiscal conservatives were okay with admitting the bigots because it meant more votes. There weren't many principled stances against that racism.

It then became easier to start appealing to others who were angry about losing societal privileges. Angry about women attempting to have equal access to jobs? Join the Republican Party! We won't condemn those who want to keep women from positions of power, be it for religious reasons or otherwise! And, if Republican representatives work against women and make claims based on their private religion that women should be marginalized in the public sphere, then we'll defend that marginalization in order to retain those votes!

Our members of Congress regularly address racist groups? Well, what's the problem? (This particular thing has mostly stopped happening, but it took a long time before such revelations actually led to public criticism from internal sources.)

You want your religious views imposed on the marriages of others? Come on in!

Each of those choices, for the sake of getting votes, has now led to what the Republican Party now represents. Individual members might feel that what the party currently doesn't reflect their particular views, but the representatives in the federal and state legislative bodies are able to vote in favor of such legislation because they were elected by voters who want such legislation.

----

And that's what it gets back to. If Congressional Republicans are struggling to overcome the Tea Party elements, it takes absolutely no effort at all (thanks, internet!) to see how each of them was embracing the Tea Party until fairly recently... for votes. If they themselves felt those votes were necessary for their election, then they have tacitly acknowledged that they were embracing what you seem to be arguing they rejected as an outside element.

And now we're on the cusp of an election wherein those voters who decided the Republican Party is no longer the fiscally conservative party, who don't believe that Trump "Christians" actually represent the Jesus from Scripture, and who have otherwise left the GOP, will be voting on the things which the Republican Party has embraced in pursuit of votes. I have numerous family members and friends who have left the GOP for these reasons and others, so I'll be interested in seeing how those elections turn out.


----------



## Explorer

Oh... and are you sure Paul Ryan has been opposed to the Tea Party over the years? McConnell, sure, but McConnell has been an obstructionist on curbing and investigating Russian interference in US elections, so he's still putting votes ahead of US democracy.


----------



## vilk

Actions speak louder than unspoken words (assumed by a third party on arbitrary basis)


----------



## TacticalRepublicanDildo

Drew said:


> Hey, he's a conservative who seems to be making an honest attempt to be civil. The one time he came close to not being civil, he was quick to apologize. Go easy on the guy.


Thanks for the support man.


----------



## bostjan

@Explorer - If we're going to villainize the GOP for old platform issues, I'm down, but only if we can do the same for the DNC. Did you know that the DNC blocked a resolution in 1924 to denounce the KKK? More recently, Howard Dean was lambasted for his "fifty state strategy" of trying to represent all 50 states, rather than trying to boost blue states in favour of red states. HRC, most recently, was pro death penalty, against legislation to protect consumers from sketchy bank practices, and, even in 2016, was a supporter of the Patriot Act. What policy is more racist than the death penalty, when African Americans are three times more likely to be sentenced to death than Caucasians?


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> And that's what it gets back to. If Congressional Republicans are struggling to overcome the Tea Party elements, it takes absolutely no effort at all (thanks, internet!) to see how each of them was embracing the Tea Party until fairly recently... for votes. If they themselves felt those votes were necessary for their election, then they have tacitly acknowledged that they were embracing what you seem to be arguing they rejected as an outside element.
> 
> And now we're on the cusp of an election wherein those voters who decided the Republican Party is no longer the fiscally conservative party, who don't believe that Trump "Christians" actually represent the Jesus from Scripture, and who have otherwise left the GOP, will be voting on the things which the Republican Party has embraced in pursuit of votes. I have numerous family members and friends who have left the GOP for these reasons and others, so I'll be interested in seeing how those elections turn out.


There's a couple places where this argument falls apart, though. 

1) I'm _sure_ you can find public comments from prominent establishment Republicans praising the Tea Party for their engagement and enthusiasm, back when the movement first gathered steam. That's hardly the same as establishment Republicans making a full-throated endorsement of their platform - quite the reverse, the actual legislative impact of the Tea Party was, and still is, pretty limited, and as an easy correllary, you saw many prominent establishment _Democrats_ saying pretty much the exact same things about the Sanders movement in 2016 and thereafter, and as a progressive liberal yourself you know damned well that when they say that, they're not supporting Bernie. 

2) Over and above that, if there are Republicans who disagree with the Tea Party wing of the party and with Trump (who we at least agree are closely intertwined) but are willing to damn them with faint praise for votes... then, pretty clearly implicit in that is that the GOP is _not_ a unified, homogeneous party where the views of one wing are the views of them all. Otherwise there would be no need to weigh weather or not "those votes were necessary for the election," as you put it. I too would love to see the GOP being a little more vocal about putting down the occasional rabid dog within their midst, don't get me wrong... But just because they're trying to preserve some semblance of party unity doesn't mean the party itself IS unified - quite the reverse, again, because otherwise there would be no need to even worry about things like party unity. 

Those divisions are there, they're ripe to be exploited, and there's a very real chance that electoral setbacks in 2018 and 2020 could shatter the modern GOP as we know it, thanks to the cancer that is the Tea Party... But, pretending there ARE no divisions within the party is not the way to do that. Neither is attacking a new member here because he can't _possibly_ be a moderate Republican, since you don't believe there are moderate republicans.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Explorer - If we're going to villainize the GOP for old platform issues, I'm down, but only if we can do the same for the DNC. Did you know that the DNC blocked a resolution in 1924 to denounce the KKK?


Slight nit-picking, but this ignores the massive shift in party alignment that occurred after the Civil Rights Act. Pre-Kennedy, the Democratic party was a coalition of urban Northerners and white Southerners who resented the Republican party for Lincoln. After the Civil Rights act, the white landed southern aristocracy fled the Democratic party in droves - there's Johnson's famous (and alleged) quip about losing the South for a generation, after signing the Civil Rights Act. 

And actually, while we're on it, Dean may have been lambasted for the "50 state strategy" in, what, 2004, with Kerry...? But, in 2008, with Obama, the Democrats won on a 50-state-strategy. And again in 2012. If anything, Clinton got it harder in 2016 for focusing on _too few_ states in her campaign than Dean got for thinking too big in 2000 and 2004. I don't think you can really argue that's evidence of intentional discrimination on the part of the Democrats, since they did an about face within a single presidential election and then crucified the candidate in 2016 who they felt focused her resources too narrowly.


----------



## bostjan

Back in 2016, Marco Rubio represented the establishment wing of the GOP; Ted Cruz represented the Tea Party wing of the GOP, which was angry at the establishment wing; and Donald Trump was the nuclear/"Fuck It" option for people disenfranchised with the Tea Party not being edgy enough against the establishment GOP. Have you ever seen the Monty Python "Election Night Sketch?" - the one with the "sensible party," the "silly party," the "only slightly silly party," and the "very silly party?" If Trump was running in a Python sketch, he wouldn't have been Alan Jones [sensible], nor Kevin Philips Bong [slightly silly], nor even Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim bus stop F'tang F'tang Ole Biscuitbarrel [silly], he would have been Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Blackpool Rock Stoat-gobbler John Raw Vegetable Brrroooo Norman Michael *bicycle bell* *whistle* Edward *car horn* *train whistle* *buzzer* Thomas Moo "We'll keep a welcome in the-" *gunfire* William *silly noise* "Raindrops keep falling on my-" *weird noise* "Don't sleep in the subway-" *cuckoo* Naaoo Smith [very silly].


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Slight nit-picking, but this ignores the massive shift in party alignment that occurred after the Civil Rights Act. Pre-Kennedy, the Democratic party was a coalition of urban Northerners and white Southerners who resented the Republican party for Lincoln. After the Civil Rights act, the white landed southern aristocracy fled the Democratic party in droves - there's Johnson's famous (and alleged) quip about losing the South for a generation, after signing the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> And actually, while we're on it, Dean may have been lambasted for the "50 state strategy" in, what, 2004, with Kerry...? But, in 2008, with Obama, the Democrats won on a 50-state-strategy. And again in 2012. If anything, Clinton got it harder in 2016 for focusing on _too few_ states in her campaign than Dean got for thinking too big in 2000 and 2004. I don't think you can really argue that's evidence of intentional discrimination on the part of the Democrats, since they did an about face within a single presidential election and then crucified the candidate in 2016 who they felt focused her resources too narrowly.



That's exactly my point though, things change.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> That's exactly my point though, things change.


Ahh, my bad. I thought this was just another "I hate both parties" post.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, it is. I'd keep that on the DL.  

I don't think there's such a thing as an independent politician. It's just a matter of WHICH group of people own you, if it's an established major party or someone else. Politics takes money, and even if you're self-financing, well, we see how well that worked out with Trump, who's easily the most "special interests" president of my lifetime.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, it is. I'd keep that on the DL.
> 
> I don't think there's such a thing as an independent politician. It's just a matter of WHICH group of people own you, if it's an established major party or someone else. Politics takes money, and even if you're self-financing, well, we see how well that worked out with Trump, who's easily the most "special interests" president of my lifetime.


That's a really jaded way of looking at it...
The founding fathers were printers, tinkers, tailors, and farmers. They were elected because they looked out for the best interests of their constituents. Modern-day politicians make a career out of politics, which is problem #1. Here in VT, our state senate pays nothing and the senators all hold regular jobs, so the senate meets only part-time. Obviously, VT is a very small state, so it's easy to argue that's why we can get away with it, but honestly, there are all different levels of government. The federal government should only be meeting to discuss things within their scope - foreign policy and issues that affect multiple states. Having the federal government try to cover the state and local level politics as well is stupid and all it does is increase the redundancy of government. If things were run a certain way and lawmakers approached their jobs as part-time temporary positions, instead of lifelong full-time lucrative careers, a lot of the BS the USA is treading right now would have never been an issue.
Trump promised term limits on congress. For once, I'd like to know why he hasn't pushed on this. If he's so independent, then he should get this done. His supporters got behind him because of promises like that, not so that he could keep flip-flopping about wanting to be in the TPP and then not, and then wanting it and then not...
Anyway, if a politician is in someone's pocket, and they are "Independent," (with a capital "I"), then, at least they are necessarily in a different pocket than everyone else, and while that may not be a good thing, at least it means there is an opposing voice. In this world of Ds and Rs and no other viable choices, I've seen what happens when the two sides agree on something and that "something" doesn't make sense for the American public, like the Patriot Act and the Iraq war.


----------



## bostjan

Trump has now admitted Cohen was working for him on the Stormy Daniels case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...90efaf1f1ee_story.html?utm_term=.3774a56628b3


Trump said:


> He represented me on this crazy Stormy Daniels deal.


It's a change from his previous stance of not knowing anything about the nondisclosure deal.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> That's a really jaded way of looking at it...
> The founding fathers were printers, tinkers, tailors, and farmers.


...which is another way of saying, by the standards of the day, landed aristocracy and wealthy businessmen, you know?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...which is another way of saying, by the standards of the day, landed aristocracy and wealthy businessmen, you know?





Caroline Robbins said:


> There were indeed disparities of wealth, earned or inherited: some Signers were rich, others had about enough to enable them to attend Congress....The majority of revolutionaries were from moderately well-to-do or average income brackets. Twice as many Loyalists belonged to the wealthiest echelon. But some Signers were rich; few, indigent.... The Signers were elected not for wealth or rank so much as because of the evidence they had already evinced of willingness for public service. A few of them were wealthy or had financial resources that ranged from good to excellent, but there are other founders who were less than wealthy. On the whole they were less wealthy than the Loyalists.


Emerging middle class =/= aristocracy
source: Decision in '76: Reflections on the 56 Signers, Caroline Robbins, Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, Vol. 89 (1977), pg. 83


----------



## Drew

Thomas Jefferson's estate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello
George Washington's estate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vernon
Alexander Hamilton's estate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Grange_National_Memorial
None of Benjamin Franklin's houses are still standing save for the one he lived in while in London just outside Trafalgar Square, so I'll just submit his wikipedia page where he was a successful inventor, newspaper editor, and founded the University of Pennsylvania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

I'm literally just googling founding fathers names at random. There's a lot of national bias in wanting to portray out founding fathers as a bunch of rugged individualist Everymen who gave birth to American Democracy (mother of all mixed metaphors), but it's hard NOT to look back with a clear-eyed modern understanding and see that our Founding Fathers were squarely in the "have" camp, rather than "have nots" motivated by pure altruism.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> None of Benjamin Franklin's houses are still standing save for the one he lived in while in London just outside Trafalgar Square, so I'll just submit his wikipedia page where he was a successful inventor, newspaper editor, and founded the University of Pennsylvania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin



Is your point that Ben Franklin was so clever and that he must've been upper class?! He was too poor to attend school as a child, so his brother taught him to write. He wasn't born a pauper, but again, as the source I posted already said, most of the founding fathers were only moderately wealthy, and, on average, poorer than their loyalist counterparts.

Generally speaking, people who accomplish a lot of cool stuff during their lifetimes end up being moderately wealthy by the time they die.

Anyway, my initial point, which I thought was clear enough, was that the founders were not career politicians, but men with other careers often unrelated to politics, versus today's politicians who, once elected as lawmakers, are just full-time politicians. Do you dispute that?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Is your point that Ben Franklin was so clever and that he must've been upper class?! He was too poor to attend school as a child, so his brother taught him to write. He wasn't born a pauper, but again, as the source I posted already said, most of the founding fathers were only moderately wealthy, and, on average, poorer than their loyalist counterparts.
> 
> Generally speaking, people who accomplish a lot of cool stuff during their lifetimes end up being moderately wealthy by the time they die.
> 
> Anyway, my initial point, which I thought was clear enough, was that the founders were not career politicians, but men with other careers often unrelated to politics, versus today's politicians who, once elected as lawmakers, are just full-time politicians. Do you dispute that?


My point is, however he might have been born, by the time Franklin took a role in the birth of our nation, he was hardly a citizen of "average" wealth and importance.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> My point is, however he might have been born, by the time Franklin took a role in the birth of our nation, he was hardly a citizen of "average" wealth and importance.



Okay. So what?

You said they were part of the aristocracy, which is defined as the high upper class, born into the wealthiest families. That's simply not historically accurate for the majority of the founding fathers. I never said they were average. I said they were mostly middle class people with careers outside of politics, which, according to the source I posted, is historically accurate. Prior to the industrial revolution, average meant poor, because very few people had anything beyond basic necessities, in terms of possessions.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Okay. So what?
> 
> You said they were part of the aristocracy, which is defined as the high upper class, born into the wealthiest families. That's simply not historically accurate for the majority of the founding fathers. I never said they were average. I said they were mostly middle class people with careers outside of politics, which, according to the source I posted, is historically accurate. Prior to the industrial revolution, average meant poor, because very few people had anything beyond basic necessities, in terms of possessions.


To be specific, I had said "landed aristocracy and wealthy businessmen," which is a description I'm still standing by.

If nothing else, at a time when much of the country was engaged in subsistence farming or hard manual labor to support themselves, they were all well enough off that they were able to spend several months traveling to a different city to debate something as esoteric as what sort of laws should this newly founded country have. That's a pretty self-selecting group.


----------



## Drew

Shit, here's a handy source from someone other than me, which was the first hit when I was trying to find a dead link on a Quora discussion that was the first hit for searching for "Ben Franklin's net worth" (which, incidently, the article estimated at about $43 million in today's terms at the time of his death, and the link below describes him as "probably the first American ever to retire, at 43" and references that he then lived into his 80s on his savings. 

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/

These guys were't average Joes. They were the leading businesspeople and aristocracy of their communities. Yes, many of them were self-made... But they were hardly "average" Americans.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Shit, here's a handy source from someone other than me, which was the first hit when I was trying to find a dead link on a Quora discussion that was the first hit for searching for "Ben Franklin's net worth" (which, incidently, the article estimated at about $43 million in today's terms at the time of his death, and the link below describes him as "probably the first American ever to retire, at 43" and references that he then lived into his 80s on his savings.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/
> 
> These guys were't average Joes. They were the leading businesspeople and aristocracy of their communities. Yes, many of them were self-made... But they were hardly "average" Americans.



@Drew : To clarify, once again: no one in this thread, nor in any related discussion, at any point since this tangent started, nor as far back as I recall, said that the founding fathers were "average." 

I've reiterated my point three times now, so please stop, at least until someone else posts something.

To address the part of your post that "They were the leading businesspeople and aristocracy of their communities," you are an economics guy, so I feel that you should know what classifies as "aristocracy," and how these men were not it, which still is unrelated to my initial point that they were not lifelong career politicians, as many congressmen are today.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/politics/trump-administration-scandals-and-embarrassments/index.html

That's hardly even the tip of the scandal iceberg, IMO. Thoughts?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> To address the part of your post that "They were the leading businesspeople and aristocracy of their communities," you are an economics guy, so I feel that you should know what classifies as "aristocracy," and how these men were not it, which still is unrelated to my initial point that they were not lifelong career politicians, as many congressmen are today.


And yet, you continue to tell me they were _not_ the leading businesspeople and landed arisotocracy of their day. We're talking wealthy business owners and members of the country's landed elite. I'm legitimately confused where and how we're disagreeing on this.  Aaaaaanyway...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The House absolved Trump of collusion with Russia today, releasing their report. Both the Senate panel and Mueller investigation are of course still ongoing. Every single Democrat on the panel dissented, saying clear leads and concerning evidence were ignored. 

When the Republican majority all votes one way and the Democratic minority all votes the other, it's clear there's partisianship at play, and that's no surprise - it's been widely reported that the House committed dropped any pretext of bipartisan thoroughness and turned into a partisan foodfight a long time ago. Whether it's a Republican cover-up or a Democratic witch hunt will remain to be seen, but my personal thoughts are Nunes and the House Republicans are going to live to regret this one as the other two, far more earnest, investigations continue.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> When the Republican majority all votes one way and the Democratic minority all votes the other, it's clear there's partisianship at play, and that's no surprise - it's been widely reported that the House committed dropped any pretext of bipartisan thoroughness and turned into a partisan foodfight a long time ago. Whether it's a Republican cover-up or a Democratic witch hunt will remain to be seen, but my personal thoughts are Nunes and the House Republicans are going to live to regret this one as the other two, far more earnest, investigations continue.



If Mueller finds something damning on Trump, I would like to see the GOP go through something similar to the corporate restructuring required by investors when a company fubars its finances, or else maybe the GOP could go away and leave room for a new era without all of the bullshit.

....


PFFT, AS IF. I can still dream, though.

This is what, the second or third time that the Republicans have proclaimed Trump's innocence in direct, and dare I say, belligerent opposition to the ongoing investigation? That alone, to me, is unforgivable. "Let's not investigate this crime anymore and just say he's innocent." What a joke! No, how about let's finish the investigation, and if there's nothing else to hide, then there's nothing else to worry about, right? Right.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If Mueller finds something damning on Trump, I would like to see the GOP go through something similar to the corporate restructuring required by investors when a company fubars its finances, or else maybe the GOP could go away and leave room for a new era without all of the bullshit.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> PFFT, AS IF. I can still dream, though.
> 
> This is what, the second or third time that the Republicans have proclaimed Trump's innocence in direct, and dare I say, belligerent opposition to the ongoing investigation? That alone, to me, is unforgivable. "Let's not investigate this crime anymore and just say he's innocent." What a joke! No, how about let's finish the investigation, and if there's nothing else to hide, then there's nothing else to worry about, right? Right.


I mean, one of two things HAS to happen here.

One, the Senate probe and Mueller's investigation end with no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, Trump claims further vindicaton, and while the Democratic party, the FBI and the Justice Department, and the American press are all somewhat discredited (especially in the eyes of the Trump supporters), I'd say more likely than not Trump still loses in 2020, and hopefully the next president is less divisive. What happens next is less important, though, than that Trump and the GOP suffer no lasting harm, and may even get a mild boost out of it because the GOP doubled down on Trump being innocent.

Two, either the Senate probe, Mueller, the press, or Trump himself release something damning enough that collusion and wrongdoing become impossible to deny. At this point, if the Senate committee is the one to, with clear bipartisan support and preferably with an unanimous vote of the entire committee, release a damning report, maybe the GOP can save themselves and Nunes and co are the ones hung out to dry, but barring that, then yeah, the Republican party as we know it is toast.

Shit, man, you should be welcoming these scenarios. One way or another today's two-party system is in for a shakeup.  I think after a period we'll be back to a two party equiliberum, but there will be a cycle or so before we get there.


----------



## bostjan

Or maybe, three, the Senate prematurely ends Mueller's probe, Trump claims further vindication, the FBI looks bad, the American press is "discredited," Trump himself publicly slips up and inadvertently releases something damning enough that the collusion and wrongdoing become impossible to deny, the Senate and the GOP lose credibility, and the American people are left confused and not knowing what the hell just happened. Any way you slice it, I don't see how Trump could possibly win in 2020. But, ...to be fair, I didn't see how he could have won in 2016, save for some interesting Gerrymandering.

As for there being "no evidence" of any wrongdoing, I mean, come on, we already have some guilty pleas. If a guilty plea is not evidence of wrongdoing, then we might as well just open up all of the prisons in the USA and let everyone out right now.


----------



## Drew

I guess no evidence personally implicating Trump, or implicating his campaign in direct collusion with Russia. Like, we know Manafort and Page had undisclosed financial ties to Russia at the time of the campaign, we know Flynn had a lot of conversations with Russia during the campaign and transition, we know Trump Jr was approached by people claiming to be Russian agents offering incriminating info and happily accepted (that lawyer is back in the news, by the way - apparently her ties to the Russian administration are even closer than was previously suspected), we know Papadoupalous knew about the DNC hacks way earlier than even our own intelligence... and a lot of that _looks_ really, _really_ bad for Trump, but doesn't actually _prove_ illegal activity (it just makes it way more probable from a Bayesian standpoint). If nothing _else_ comes out, and Mueller or Congress ins't comfortable moving forward on just obstruction of justice charges, Trump could survive this. 

But you're right, there are other outcomes, I guess. This whole thing _could _be a partisan witch-hunt, with the Dems just being sore losers, and Trump could just be the most naturally guilty-acting motherfucker I've ever seen. We could get a whole heck of a lot more smoke but not quite enough to be a fire, Mueller concludes his probe with enough info to convict a number of Trump associates but not enough to pin anything on Trump himself beyond a reasonable doubt, but the House and Senate could flip and impeach Trump for obstruction of justice, and we have a revolution on our hands. Or, the exact same scenario could play out, except Trump then pardons all parties involved before they go to trial, and even the Congressional Republicans get on board with an obstruction of justice impeachment for such a flagrant abuse of executive power to cover his ass. Or the press could get to the bottom of this before the Senate and Mueller - one of the interesting things about the news today on the Russian lawyer is that it was based on emails published by a Russian opposition leader currently in exile, so we probably need to weigh action by Russian opposition going after Putin for their own reasons in our scenarios. Or Trump could just have a heart attack before any of this comes out, at which point if he's dead and the White House is safely in Republican hands anyway, there's really no reason NOT to let the investigation run its course, as long as any involvement (if any) of Pence can be downplayed. 

I just think that a _lot_ of potential scenarios have been ruled out by the House Republicans deciding to double down on Trump's side of the story here. It increases the odds of a favorable outcome for Trump somewhat... but, also _significantly_ increases the cost of a negative outcome.


----------



## bostjan

I think the key take-away from the House's report is that, if Trump is impeached, he'll likely not be removed from office, unless people vote out the republican congressmen.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## StevenC

Why is your president threatening other countries over the World Cup? And why does he want to build a wall between himself and the people he's hosting the World Cup with?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/989650212380692480


----------



## Tortellini

StevenC said:


> Why is your president threatening other countries over the World Cup? And why does he want to build a wall between himself and the people he's hosting the World Cup with?
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/989650212380692480


Idk, he just doesn’t like illegal immigration. A wall is a bit impractical imo, but plenty of people have been saying we should have a wall for years. It’s not really news to us that some people want one there.


----------



## Tortellini

I don’t like everything about him, but I like that he values out safety over those of refugees that have caused an epidemic of rape and murder in Europe. He may be a dumbass a good portion of the time, but he’s willing to stand up to the P.C. Culture that is infecting politics today.


----------



## Explorer

Tortellini said:


> I don’t like everything about him, but I like that he values out safety over those of refugees that have caused an epidemic of rape and murder in Europe. He may be a dumbass a good portion of the time, but he’s willing to stand up to the P.C. Culture that is infecting politics today.


Nope. Trump removed the department which worked against domestic terrorists, and refuses to jention violence and killings by such. He also defends them clearly and vocally. That shows he lacks the courage to stand up and call a spade a spade without worrying about offending someone.

Don't beclown yourself.


----------



## Tortellini

Explorer said:


> Nope. Trump removed the department which worked against domestic terrorists, and refuses to jention violence and killings by such. He also defends them clearly and vocally. That shows he lacks the courage to stand up and call a spade a spade without worrying about offending someone.
> 
> Don't beclown yourself.


What Department was that?


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think the key take-away from the House's report is that, if Trump is impeached, he'll likely not be removed from office, unless people vote out the republican congressmen.


...with the only caveat to that I'd make being that (considering how explicitly partisan the commission became, and Nunez's early ties to Trump) if it becomes clear that the Republican congress IS about to get voted out in a blue tsunami thanks to Trump, at that point it starts to become more possible. But yeah, the standard to successfully impeach right now is pretty high.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...with the only caveat to that I'd make being that (considering how explicitly partisan the commission became, and Nunez's early ties to Trump) if it becomes clear that the Republican congress IS about to get voted out in a blue tsunami thanks to Trump, at that point it starts to become more possible. But yeah, the standard to successfully impeach right now is pretty high.


Yeah, if they could pull that off. The way I see it, though, they would be running a gambit between pickup up moderate votes and losing the much smaller but more vocal Trump base.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeah, if they could pull that off. The way I see it, though, they would be running a gambit between pickup up moderate votes and losing the much smaller but more vocal Trump base.


Yeah. It's a no win situation - the motivations I could see for doing so would range from a way-less-volatile Pence being less likely to hurt them in the second two years and give them a better shot of holding the White House in 2020, to "let's just light off a massive dumpster fire to ensure the Democrats can't actually accomplish anything in the next two years, because of the sheer amount of civil turmoil removing Trump from office will cause."


----------



## bostjan

So, Mueller's questions for Trump leaked yesterday, and now Trump is saying that it's deplorable that the FBI would allow the leak. The twist is that the NYT said it was one of Trump's people who leaked the questions.

How dare you let my employee do what they did under my watch!

Man, this guy is just flat crazy.


----------



## vilk

I read that there are so many grammatical errors that everyone's pretty sure the leak was Trump himself


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I read that there are so many grammatical errors that everyone's pretty sure the leak was Trump himself



It reads like someone was quickly jotting down what one or more other people were saying, which makes sense as I doubt Mueller's team has a "master list" of questions to ask.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It reads like someone was quickly jotting down what one or more other people were saying, which makes sense as I doubt Mueller's team has a "master list" of questions to ask.


The irony, of course, is that the odds of someone on _Mueller's_ team taking notes about the questions Mueller wanted to ask is, of course, pretty low, so this is likely a leak from the White House... And yet Trump is outraged.  I think the original story even did specify that they were notes taken by Trump's legal team, and by now the stories covering this are pretty unanimous on this point, that the original source was Trump's team and not Mueller, even if we don't know for certain who leaked them.

Actually, that's only the first part of the irony. The second is that Trump doubles down on "no collusion!" because there isn't a question that specifically uses the word "collusion," I guess... Yet, there are questions pretty clearly ABOUT collusion, including asking Trump what he knew about Manaford and his campaign's outreach to Russia (which, if based on any evidence or testimony, is pretty damning), and what he knew about the Trump Tower meeting. He also tweeted that there can be no obstruction of justice without a climb, which isn't actually true. It sounds like someone on his legal team, whoever's left, needs to sit him down and explain some of this stuff to him.


----------



## vilk

obstruction of justice _is a crime_


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> obstruction of justice _is a crime_


Well, over and above that, his point - "you can't obstruct justice when no crime was committed" - isn't actually true.  Granted, it would be UNUSUAL to obstruct an investigation where you knew you would be fully cleared in, and it would certainly be a very short-sighted action unless there was something else - say, not illegal but very embarrassing - that you didn't want to come out... But, obstruction of justice makes no reference to the nature or severity of the underlying crime being investigated, but rather relates to trying to derail the investigation. So, if you're being investigated for something you didn't do, but after becoming aware of the investigation shred paperwork related to it... You've obstructed justice. 

Trump seems to be either totally unaware of this, or hoping his followers are unaware.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/03/us/politics/giuliani-stormy-trump-statements.html

The web of lies is getting too sticky now.

After Rudy said that they were not "suckers" and that Donald wasn't going to perjure himself because of Mueller's questioning, Donald once again reshuffled his deck of alternative facts, claiming that he did know that Cohen paid that woman off to be quiet, but insists that the allegations she was paid to shut up about are totally untrue. So, if Trump is telling the truth here, it only proves that he is horrible at brokering a deal. I mean, who pays a porn star hundreds of thousands of dollars to not do anything with them?

We've gone from Trump stating that he didn't know anything about this and denying all of it (Cohen, the payoff, the affair, etc.) to Trump admitting Cohen was representing him in the case that he supposedly knew nothing about and Cohen himself paid her off without Trump's consent (contradiction #1) to, now, Trump admitting that he paid her off himself (contradiction #2 - contradicting both the original statement and the revised statement). 

So, now there's the mess over the election and the Russian collusion. Giuliani says there is no evidence, so the case needs to be dropped immediately. It's what every Republican keeps saying, but it's just not true. The evidence is there, much of it out in the public view, and some of it coming from Trump Jr. himself. 

These guys have no respect whatsoever for the facts.


----------



## Drew

Listen, I can't keep up with this anymore. 

Giuliani broke the story that Trump reimbursed Cohen for paying off Stormy, but claims Trump didn't know about it at the time, in a surprise bombshell he dropped in an interview last night. Trump then confirmed Giuliani was correct this morning, in contradiction to Cohen's previous statements that it was done without Trump's knowledge. Meanwhile, Ty Cobb is out as the White House Counsel and the guy who represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment is in, and Trump is now ramping up a twitter war against _his own Justice Department. _He's also claiming the leaked Mueller questions are a "disgrace," even though their notes taken by HIS legal team that were leaked and he or a confidant are likely the source with the leak intended to be an excuse to attack Mueller, and despite his insistence the questions show "no collusion," there are actually a whole BUNCH of questions about contact with Russia during the campaign and the only part that actually seems to represent incremental news is a question asking Trump if and to what extent he was aware of Manafort's outreach to Russia on behalf of the campaign.

Like, what sort of weird alternate reality are we now living in?  Not that this isn't pretty abundantly clear anyway, but Trump's only MO that makes sense here is counting on his core supporters not to bother to fact check his statements, so when he says "no collusion!" they believe it, rather than actually reading the questions themselves. And, while that's a strategy that's served him well so far, there HAS to come a point where as the evidence continues to mount it becomes harder and harder to keep the facade alive.


----------



## bostjan

Unfortunately for the rest of us, only Trump gets to live in an alternate reality.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Unfortunately for the rest of us, only Trump gets to live in an alternate reality.


It's Trump's world; we just live here. 

Honestly, with Ty Cobb gone (and I'm REALLY going to miss Trump having a guy named Ty Cobb on his legal team ) and Trump racheting up his attacks on the Justice Department, I think the risk of Rosenstein and/or Mueller being fired has increased a fair amount this week. The silver lining of that is I think, after firing Comey and then getting a special counsel, if Trump then fires Rosenstein and/or Mueller to try to shut down the Russia inquiry, this is going to blow up on him fast. McConnell's position thus far hhas been to bury his head in the sand, "there's no need for legislation to protect Mueller, because Trump won't fire Mueller," but he obviously can't continue to hold that line if Trump actually goes and does it, and I think that's just a little too close to the Saturday Night Massacre for the GOP to swallow. Things either come to a head then and the House Democrats and moderate Republicans move to impeach, or the Democrats make this part of their election platform and he gets impeached in January of 2019, and probably removed by the Senate. 

I know it's tough to argue that Trump can only assail rule of law so far, when he's already gone as far as he has... But I think there are a few red lines out there, and too many Republicans have gone on record saying firing the special council or the assistant AG overseeing the investigation is one of those to really expect Trump to get away with it.


----------



## thraxil

thraxil said:


> Hilarious, yes, but I don't think it has anything to do with that. Getting a search warrant for a lawyer's office and hotel room requires the agents to demonstrate to the judge both a substantial amount of credible evidence of a crime but also evidence that the information they are after is at that particular location. In other words, it's likely that they were surveilling Cohen for a while so they could establish that, eg, he takes his laptop to the hotel room every night after work. That would've taken time to get going so I'm thinking that whatever info Mueller gave them that started this off was before Trump's recent comments.



...And now it appears likely that the FBI had wiretapped Cohen's office for weeks before the raid. Guiliani's denying it but, like I said back when the raid happened, it's unlikely that they could've gotten the warrant for the raid without some previous surveillance.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> ...And now it appears likely that the FBI had wiretapped Cohen's office for weeks before the raid. Guiliani's denying it but, like I said back when the raid happened, it's unlikely that they could've gotten the warrant for the raid without some previous surveillance.


I heard that breaking today but haven't read the stories myself, though I do remember reading that they'd been monitoring his email for some time before the raid, and one of the reasons they got approved to go ahead with it was he wasn't actually really practicing any law.


----------



## bostjan

NBC broke the wiretap story, then retracted it shortly after.

Meanwhile, Giuliani and Trump don't seem to be able to coordinate their statements, and Trump is "too busy" with the North Korea deal to give a deposition. We're likely going to be looking at a president on the brink of impeachment, receiving a Nobel Peace Prize later this year.


----------



## synrgy

Wait.. Why would HE get the peace price? Unless I missed something, despite his usual self-aggrandizing claims to the contrary, he's had precisely _fuck all_ to do with what's going on in Korea right now?


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> Wait.. Why would HE get the peace price? Unless I missed something, despite his usual self-aggrandizing claims to the contrary, he's had precisely _fuck all_ to do with what's going on in Korea right now?


I'm with you, but still, this might happen: https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-formally-nominated-nobel-103805609.html


----------



## synrgy

FFS.

"I would totally destroy him with fire and fury"

Nobel. Peace. Prize.

I hate everything.


----------



## bostjan

I mean, Mahatma Gandhi was denied a Nobel Peace Prize some number of times, yet Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, and Yassir Arafat each have one...


----------



## synrgy

And yet, there's apparently still plenty of room to keep lowering the bar.


----------



## bostjan

I guess time will tell whether Trump wins the nomination, or if the Nobel Peace Prize is instead awarded to SS.O member @narad , for *not* threatening to devastate any nations. 

The Nobel committee has also set a precedent of not awarding the prize if none of the nominees are deemed acceptable enough.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I mean, Mahatma Gandhi was denied a Nobel Peace Prize some number of times, yet Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho, and Yassir Arafat each have one...



Well, the tl;dr on that whole award is that it's equally susceptible to the politics of their time, just like everything else.


----------



## spudmunkey

synrgy said:


> And yet, there's apparently still plenty of room to keep lowering the bar.



That's the nice thing about a oblate spheroid earth...if you dig down low enough, you eventually start digging up.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, the tl;dr on that whole award is that it's equally susceptible to the politics of their time, just like everything else.


Or, put another way... Peace sells... but who's buying?


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Or, put another way... Peace sells... but who's buying?



Great...now I want to watch a Kurt Loder-hosted Mtv News segment.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> I guess time will tell whether Trump wins the nomination, or if the Nobel Peace Prize is instead awarded to SS.O member @narad , for *not* threatening to devastate any nations.



Yea, I mean, think about it this way: they gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for what he might accomplish, for the amount of US-fronted devastation he might reduce. On the scale of countries, I already have a devastation-neutral footprint. 

Though I didn't know there was precedence in not awarding it. It seems weird to think that in the billions of people on the planet, of the tens of thousands of leaders (of political groups, of aid groups, of policy groups) that they would decide that no one was up to snuff in a given year, and then also deem Obama as worthy of the award at the very start of his presidential career.



Randy said:


> Well, the tl;dr on that whole award is that it's equally susceptible to the politics of their time, just like everything else.



I don't know, I'm beginning to think it's just satire. I mean, it's the Swedes... who gets their humor?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Though I didn't know there was precedence in not awarding it. It seems weird to think that in the billions of people on the planet, of the tens of thousands of leaders (of political groups, of aid groups, of policy groups) that they would decide that no one was up to snuff in a given year, and then also deem Obama as worthy of the award at the very start of his presidential career.



I think it's more like out of the half dozen or so nominees, none of them managed to behave and stay both alive and out of prison the entire year. For example, Trump was nominated, but if he gets impeached before the end of the year, that could put a damper on his chances of winning, even if no one else gets nominated. If Trump is removed from office before the end of the year, I'd say that his odds of winning would drop to nil, even if he does a decent job playing the victim in the process.



narad said:


> I don't know, I'm beginning to think it's just satire. I mean, it's the Swedes... who gets their humor?



+1


----------



## Drew

From the looks of it, he was also nominated by prominent members of the GOP Congressional caucus, so its unclear how serious this is. 

I was an Obama supporter, and even *I* thought a Nobel was a bit, ahem, premature. With Trump, it's flat out ludicrous.


----------



## vilk

The USA is a _war machine_. It doesn't stand to reason that any leader of our military specifically should ever get a Nobel _Peace_ Prize. Go ahead and give us the award for most kickass military or whatever, sure. But Peace?


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> The USA is a _war machine_. It doesn't stand to reason that any leader of our military specifically should ever get a Nobel _Peace_ Prize. Go ahead and give us the award for most kickass military or whatever, sure. But Peace?


Dude. War is Peace. How many more times do I have to cite lines from pop culture before you guys understand? 

Don't even get me started on the cake.


----------



## spudmunkey

War? Huh, good god y'all. What is it good for?

Absolutely nothin'.


----------



## vilk




----------



## Xaios




----------



## narad

Trump's chat to the NRA was something else... London hospitals have blood everywhere from all the ::hush-voice:: knives, knives, knives?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44017054

It's really great to use Europe as a talking point to the NRA. As far as real-life experiences there, and the ability of the audience to question the validity of these statements (as if they'd want to), might as well be talking about Narnia.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

War. War never changes. How's that for a pop-culture reference?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Trump's chat to the NRA was something else... London hospitals have blood everywhere from all the ::hush-voice:: knives, knives, knives?
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44017054
> 
> It's really great to use Europe as a talking point to the NRA. As far as real-life experiences there, and the ability of the audience to question the validity of these statements (as if they'd want to), might as well be talking about Narnia.



Interesting aside to that: there are probably almost as many knife vendors at these shows as actual firearms manufacturers.


----------



## Explorer

So now, what am I to make about a company ultimately owned by Russian billionaire oligarch Viktor Vekselberg paying money into the same disguised account used by Michael Cohen's shell corporation to pay off Stormy Daniels?


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> So now, what am I to make about a company ultimately owned by Russian billionaire oligarch Viktor Vekselberg paying money into the same disguised account used by Michael Cohen's shell corporation to pay off Stormy Daniels?


Nothing, patriot!


----------



## bostjan

Donald Trump said:


> The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?



Look at the weird way he phrases his thoughts. Seriously, I'm not saying this just to make fun of him or whatever. His word choices and word order are just weird; I don't know anyone who talks like that other than Trump.

I mean, look at this, from 1987: 

Same voice, same cadence and emphasis, same accent, but totally different vocabulary and usage, even as he gets all fired up.

Could it be that Trump has suffered a silent stroke or some form of brain damage affecting his lexical cortex?

Ugh, anyway, evidently negative about Trump = "Fake" and 91% doesn't at all sound like a made-up number.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Nothing, comrade!



FTFY


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Look at the weird way he phrases his thoughts. Seriously, I'm not saying this just to make fun of him or whatever. His word choices and word order are just weird; I don't know anyone who talks like that other than Trump.
> 
> I mean, look at this, from 1987:
> 
> Same voice, same cadence and emphasis, same accent, but totally different vocabulary and usage, even as he gets all fired up.
> 
> Could it be that Trump has suffered a silent stroke or some form of brain damage affecting his lexical cortex?
> 
> Ugh, anyway, evidently negative about Trump = "Fake" and 91% doesn't at all sound like a made-up number.




I've had to deal with elderly family members with dementia and the similarities are uncanny. 

The reduced vocabulary, the repetition, the odd sentence structure, the flip flopping of opinion, the sluring of words, the anger in the morning, paranoia, I could go on and on. 

Somewhere there is a tape of my great uncle going on a rant, towards the end of his life with dementia, that is eerily "Trumpian". I keep trying to find it to see if it's as similar as I remember.


----------



## narad

In the later stages of my grandmother's dementia she was hitting on my uncle at a family gathering. This is also very Trumpian behavior, though Trump is more public-facing with his comments about Ivana.


----------



## bostjan

One of the evaluations on the MMSE test for dementia is the ability to consistently form sentences with verbs in them. I've heard at least a couple of Trump speeches where he's dropped a verb out of a sentence where the sentence no longer makes any sense out of context. When I worked at the pawn shop in Detroit, the owner was diagnosed with dementia, but before that, he often would make meandering sentences just like "Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative." Where, the opening clause of the sentence and the conclusion of the sentence are two thoughts that are not coherent with each other. It's like he starts out saying one thing and then forgot what he was going to say before he finishes his sentence, so he says something that seems to go with the very last few words to try to get to a stopping point.

Could all of this have something to do with Trump's doctor's office being raided? Maybe other people have picked up on this and are trying to get medical evidence.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Could all of this have something to do with Trump's doctor's office being raided? Maybe other people have picked up on this and are trying to get medical evidence.


Nothing's impossible, but I doubt that.


----------



## tedtan

That's an interesting observation, and may well explain some of Trump's "eccentricities".


----------



## bostjan

Looking into this a bit, I'm definitely not the first person to worry about this.

Donald Trump is the oldest person elected PotUSA at 70 years old. Alzheimer's Disease is hereditary, and Fred Trump (DJT's dad) had the disease. Fred Sr., DJT's paternal grandfather, died at a young age.

Some other gauges for Alzheimer's disease are the frequent use of nondescript language - words like "thing," "guy," "stuff"...

He says "thing" or "things" five times in rapid succession toward the end of the video, as his coherence starts to fall apart.


> You know what Uranium is, right? It's a thing called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of things are done with Uranium, including some bad things.



Also, this, from an interview from _Fortune_ magazine:



> MUIR: I want to ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them, telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 million to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that?
> 
> TRUMP: So, let me tell you, first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren’t supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you — but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
> 
> MUIR: But you have tweeted about the millions of illegal…
> 
> TRUMP: Let me — sure. And I do — and I’m very — and I mean it. But just so you know, it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a — number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it — somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the — it wasn’t. It was hardly even discussed.



It's like he's having trouble continuing a train of thought or something there at the end. I wish I could track down an audio recording.


----------



## bostjan

And watching videos of Trump with Oprah or Larry King or whomever in the 80's and early 90's - he used an immediately noticeably more varied vocabulary then than he does now. He had a lot of similar sorts of ideas, maybe, but the way he expressed himself was shockingly different. I'm catching him use the words "very" and "lots" only sparingly in those older clips, yet he uses those nondescript words in nearly every other nonscripted sentence he utters in more recent clips, often saying "very very," which is a telltale sign of not being able to find a more appropriate lexical choice for emphasis.
When I first noticed his weird vocabulary ticks, I thought it was his way of trying to reach out to a wider common base of voters, but now, I've abandoned that idea, and I'm quite suspicious that he's dealing with some early stages of some sort of mild cognitive impairment.

I guess he wouldn't be the first president to be in office during the onset of dementia, though, since it's somewhat recently been discussed that Ronald Reagan started to decline significantly during his second term.


----------



## Drew

There are a couple reasons I don't buy it, though. 

One, as a liberal, it's a REALLY appealing prospect - that Trump is medically mentally unfit to be in office and will need to be removed. It's something I want to believe, so because of that I think I need to be more critical of my reasons for believing so, to look for and counteract any confirmaiton bias. 

Two, there's the Occam's razor counterargument. Either we have, on one hand, Trump suffering from dementia, hiding it, and somehow not a single person in his administration either being aware, or not leaking it in an environment where damned near every other secret seems to be coming out. Or, on the other, Trump saw Sarah Palin pitch a down-home, folksy persona to the voting public, and the hard right GOP ate it up with a spoon, so he's intentionally cultivated a speaking style using simple sentences and short words, and is aware that it doesn't even matter what he says so much as long as it _sounds_ right and contains the right key words, and they'll still cheer. I'll mention in passing that critics of his who have worked closely with him and have every reason to attack his mental fitness - Comey, for one - are quick to point out he seems surprisingly sharper in private. 

Three, reading this: 



> TRUMP: So, let me tell you, first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren’t supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you — but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting.
> 
> MUIR: But you have tweeted about the millions of illegal…
> 
> TRUMP: Let me — sure. And I do — and I’m very — and I mean it. But just so you know, it was supposed to be a confidential meeting. They turned it into not a — number two, the conversation lasted for about a minute. They made it — somebody said it was, like, 25 percent of the — it wasn’t. It was hardly even discussed.



...that reads less like a man who can't string sentences together, so much as a man who keeps changing his mind on what he wants to say mid-sentence and just re-starting. That last sentence - it looks like he starts with one statement, "Let me start by saying" or "let me tell you" or something, changes his mind and starts by saying "Sure," as in yes, he has tweeted about illegal aliens, and then starts to reaffirm his views "And I do believe this..." or something before he then changes tact and starts on a different angle "And I'm very concerned about.." or something, and then ends by merely affirming he meant what he tweeted. Then he starts accusing the media of breaking confidence, and halfway through the second sentence drops _that_ angle and starts downplaying the importance of the meeting and painting it as a minor part of the conversation and then accuses the media of building it into something it wasn't.

Idunno, that sounds less like a man who can't hold a coherent thought, and more like one who's thinking faster than he's talking and keeps shifting on to a new direction. That doesn't sound like dementia.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> There are a couple reasons I don't buy it, though.
> 
> One, as a liberal, it's a REALLY appealing prospect - that Trump is medically mentally unfit to be in office and will need to be removed. It's something I want to believe, so because of that I think I need to be more critical of my reasons for believing so, to look for and counteract any confirmaiton bias.
> 
> Two, there's the Occam's razor counterargument. Either we have, on one hand, Trump suffering from dementia, hiding it, and somehow not a single person in his administration either being aware, or not leaking it in an environment where damned near every other secret seems to be coming out. Or, on the other, Trump saw Sarah Palin pitch a down-home, folksy persona to the voting public, and the hard right GOP ate it up with a spoon, so he's intentionally cultivated a speaking style using simple sentences and short words, and is aware that it doesn't even matter what he says so much as long as it _sounds_ right and contains the right key words, and they'll still cheer. I'll mention in passing that critics of his who have worked closely with him and have every reason to attack his mental fitness - Comey, for one - are quick to point out he seems surprisingly sharper in private.
> 
> Three, reading this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that reads less like a man who can't string sentences together, so much as a man who keeps changing his mind on what he wants to say mid-sentence and just re-starting. That last sentence - it looks like he starts with one statement, "Let me start by saying" or "let me tell you" or something, changes his mind and starts by saying "Sure," as in yes, he has tweeted about illegal aliens, and then starts to reaffirm his views "And I do believe this..." or something before he then changes tact and starts on a different angle "And I'm very concerned about.." or something, and then ends by merely affirming he meant what he tweeted. Then he starts accusing the media of breaking confidence, and halfway through the second sentence drops _that_ angle and starts downplaying the importance of the meeting and painting it as a minor part of the conversation and then accuses the media of building it into something it wasn't.
> 
> Idunno, that sounds less like a man who can't hold a coherent thought, and more like one who's thinking faster than he's talking and keeps shifting on to a new direction. That doesn't sound like dementia.



Point one conceded. Although I don't consider myself "liberal" per se, I do align myself more with liberal ideas than Trump, therefore I am biased.

Point two, I will address with this: this is the exact scenario that occurred with Reagan and also, analogously with the physical health of FDR, so there is an ongoing precedent that if the president is having a medical issue that calls into question his ability to lead the nation, it will *not *be addressed publicly. Anyway, the Occam's Razor argument would work more against the fact that Trump is some brilliant mastermind in private and yet talks like a demented old man in public as a ruse than as a counterargument against the idea that Trump sounds like a demented old man because he happens to be a demented old man and people just happen to be slow to realize it publicly.

Point three is my entire argument, though. Trump talks like that habitually, and yet, a younger version of Trump seems to have not spoken so incoherently. It's not his mental status, so much as the _change_ in his mental status, which, with Trump being a celebrity of sorts for decades, is well documented in media. In his appearances as young Donald Trump, he spoke off-the-cuff and did not use a script. He had wild theories and ideas, but he was able to express them in an intelligent enough way that they could be clearly understood. That is simply not the case anymore.

I'm not trying to draw a conclusion here that Trump is definitely cognitively impaired, but I do think there is certainly evidence enough for further discussion about the possibility.


----------



## Drew

Hey, I concede it's a possibility worth exploring, but one I don't think is likely. 

FDR and Reagan are actually interesting comparisons. Reagan I'm really too young to clearly remember the end of his last term, but his mind was pretty sharp for much of his presidency and as I understand it was only in the last year or so there was much evidence of mental degradation. Even then, it manifest itself mostly as his being a bit forgetful, as I understand. It was a secret kept closely by family and close senior advisers, and not much else, and the Reagan administration was well liked, particularly at the time. FDR meanwhile was in a totally different era in American politics, where the media all knew he was a polio survivor in a wheelchair, but actively worked with the administration to keep that a secret, to continue to portray the President as a "strong world leader." Even our allies were in on it, during WWII, and all pictures of Roosevelt meeting with Allied powers carefully hid the fact he needed a wheelchair. 

Trump, meanwhile, exists in an era with an extremely partisan media (during the Reagan era the Fairness Doctrine was still in play, and in the last two decades it's become increasingly common to see media companies as unbiased but rather choose the one that best fits your own bias - even Fox dropped "fair and balanced" and isn't even faking it anymore), is a deeply divisive and unpopular president, and has an administration that keeps secrets about as well as a sieve holds water. If there WAS a conspiracy in his administration to hide the fact he had Alzheimer's, how plausible is it that some anonymous aid wouldn't have leaked the story, or that the media would have actively agreed to bury the story, considering how proactive they've been in breaking other developments with Russia, Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Manafort, Flynn, or any of the other scandals du jour? 

It just seems totally implausible to me that an administration where Trump Jr leaks his own emails with a Russian agent, or Trump's legal team's notes on a conversation with Mueller about the questions he wants to ask leaks out of the team, and then leaks to the press, and hungerly gets picked up, that broad concern among the staff that Trump was losing his mind would somehow get buried, and either never leave the White House or get killed by the press. It's the same Occam's razor argument with 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the sheer number of people who would have been in on a US plot to fake a hijacking and engage in a planned demolition of the World Trade Center make it totally implausible that not a single one of them would have let it slip that it was staged. It makes no sense.

Don't get me wrong. I WANT to believe Trump's brain is deteriorating so quickly that we have to invoke the 25th, but I can't convince myself that it's actually true.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> There are a couple reasons I don't buy it, though.
> 
> One, as a liberal, it's a REALLY appealing prospect - that Trump is medically mentally unfit to be in office and will need to be removed. It's something I want to believe, so because of that I think I need to be more critical of my reasons for believing so, to look for and counteract any confirmaiton bias.
> 
> Two, there's the Occam's razor counterargument. Either we have, on one hand, Trump suffering from dementia, hiding it, and somehow not a single person in his administration either being aware, or not leaking it in an environment where damned near every other secret seems to be coming out. Or, on the other, Trump saw Sarah Palin pitch a down-home, folksy persona to the voting public, and the hard right GOP ate it up with a spoon, so he's intentionally cultivated a speaking style using simple sentences and short words, and is aware that it doesn't even matter what he says so much as long as it _sounds_ right and contains the right key words, and they'll still cheer. I'll mention in passing that critics of his who have worked closely with him and have every reason to attack his mental fitness - Comey, for one - are quick to point out he seems surprisingly sharper in private.
> 
> Three, reading this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...that reads less like a man who can't string sentences together, so much as a man who keeps changing his mind on what he wants to say mid-sentence and just re-starting. That last sentence - it looks like he starts with one statement, "Let me start by saying" or "let me tell you" or something, changes his mind and starts by saying "Sure," as in yes, he has tweeted about illegal aliens, and then starts to reaffirm his views "And I do believe this..." or something before he then changes tact and starts on a different angle "And I'm very concerned about.." or something, and then ends by merely affirming he meant what he tweeted. Then he starts accusing the media of breaking confidence, and halfway through the second sentence drops _that_ angle and starts downplaying the importance of the meeting and painting it as a minor part of the conversation and then accuses the media of building it into something it wasn't.
> 
> Idunno, that sounds less like a man who can't hold a coherent thought, and more like one who's thinking faster than he's talking and keeps shifting on to a new direction. That doesn't sound like dementia.



I think the notion that Trump is playing some kind of "three dimensional chess" has long soured.

Another trait of those with dementia is being more comfortable in quieter, more intimate settings. Less distractions means less confusion and less breakthroughs of old memories.

As loose and leaky as this administration is, they've proven they can hide some stuff as long as it's viewed as really damn important. Folks have been after his medical records and tax returns for years now with nothing to show.

It's also important to note that dementia can progress extremely slowly and even seemingly plateau for years. He's obviously not at the stage where he's drooling and non-verbal (hey, we can wish right?), but he's certainly experiencing some of the more notable early symptoms, like many people his age.

For the record, I don't think he's going to be declared unfit over this.


----------



## Drew

I never bought Trump being a grandmaster of three dimensional chess. But, I don't think it takes much skill to dumb it down while speaking in public, and he's had _plenty_ of experience.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I never bought Trump being a grandmaster of three dimensional chess. But, I don't think it takes much skill to dumb it down while speaking in public, and he's had _plenty_ of experience.



Counterpoint: he's that dumb/out of it, but a significant chunk of Americans are actually dumber and less with it. 

Seriously though, some people will vote for whatever ghoul or monster the right throws at it. They don't care if he's smart or dumb, healthy or unfit. They just don't want a "libtard" or someone not a white male.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Look at the weird way he phrases his thoughts. Seriously, I'm not saying this just to make fun of him or whatever. His word choices and word order are just weird; I don't know anyone who talks like that other than Trump.
> 
> I mean, look at this, from 1987:
> 
> Same voice, same cadence and emphasis, same accent, but totally different vocabulary and usage, even as he gets all fired up.
> 
> Could it be that Trump has suffered a silent stroke or some form of brain damage affecting his lexical cortex?
> 
> Ugh, anyway, evidently negative about Trump = "Fake" and 91% doesn't at all sound like a made-up number.




You’re comparing a 70 year old’s diction and verbal articulation to a video from 31 years prior? That’s a stretch... what we should really be comparing is his current BMI to when he was 18 years old.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> You’re comparing a 70 year old’s diction and verbal articulation to a video from 31 years prior? That’s a stretch... what we should really be comparing is his current BMI to when he was 18 years old.


That's right. The medical science is not contrary to that approach, as I explained earlier. A healthy 70 year old should not have vastly different speech patterns from the same person at 40 years old. It's not like we're comparing a 40 year old to a ten year old.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Counterpoint: he's that dumb/out of it, but a significant chunk of Americans are actually dumber and less with it.
> 
> Seriously though, some people will vote for whatever ghoul or monster the right throws at it. They don't care if he's smart or dumb, healthy or unfit. They just don't want a "libtard" or someone not a white male.


 Fair point.


----------



## fps

This Trump dementia stuff sounds like a similar kind of witch hunt to what the other side would do with Obama. Funny how similar some kinds of people are, even if their politics are apparently different.

(There are many more things to worry about with him than those which are speculation)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fps said:


> This Trump dementia stuff sounds like a similar kind of witch hunt to what the other side would do with Obama. Funny how similar some kinds of people are, even if their politics are apparently different.
> 
> (There are many more things to worry about with him than those which are speculation)



We're not questioning whether he is actually an American or if he's a Muslim extremist/terrorist or if he's married to a transsexual. Until then you can fuck right off with any attempt at comparison. 

Trump and his people have worked very, very hard to bury his medical records, all the while touting just how fit he is.

As others have mentioned, it wouldn't be the first time the POTUS has hidden thier ailments.


----------



## narad

_"I know words, I know the best words" -- Jimmy, Age 9

"I know words, I know the best words" -- George, Age 89, onset dementia and mild aphasia.

"I know words, I know the best words" -- President of the United States_

I mean, which feels more at home to you?


----------



## Flappydoodle

synrgy said:


> FFS.
> 
> "I would totally destroy him with fire and fury"
> 
> Nobel. Peace. Prize.
> 
> I hate everything.



Well, if he actually does oversee the beginning of de-nuclearisation, then that accomplishment would be FAR more important than whatever words. You can talk all about sunshine and puppies and rainbows, but the prize should (presumably) be given for people who actually contribute towards peace. Maybe you need strong words and threats to get a dictator to the table. 

Their regime has been playing the West for decades, doing their tests, then offering some sort of olive branch. They did it with Bill Clinton back in the 1990's, and Bush was too busy in the Middle East, and Obama kicked the can down the road for the next guy because he didn't want to deal with it. So now it's landed at Trump's feet and like it or not, he is the only person who can deal with it. If he has to mention the big red button, so be it.

Because everything in international relations is painfully slow, NK have been able to keep on developing their nuclear weapons and missile technology, sprinkling in some threats and some peaceful remarks occasionally to keep us busy. Do a test to remind us of their power, but if we start thinking about taking him out, they offer some sort of talks. Rinse and repeat. If Trump is just bluntly saying "stop it, or we fuck you up", that might be the only thing that can work at this stage. NK knew that the last three presidents wouldn't actually attack them... with Trump I suppose they aren't too sure.

Personally, I don't think NK will ever disarm. We probably just need to accept the reality that they are now a nuclear power, and respect them as such. It's either that or really just go to war and absolutely annihilate them, and accept the collateral damage on SK and Japan as a consequence for failing to deal with NK decades ago. The worry is that if NK get away with it, other countries will feel emboldened to violate non-proliferation agreements too.

Finally, I'd remind you that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 when he had done literally nothing deserving of winning it. They cited a "new climate" of relations, whatever that means, and his desire for denuclearisation... a year before he announced a huge US nuclear upgrade program.

The prize apparently lost all meaning years ago, so you probably shouldn't be too upset about whoever wins one.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Well, if he actually does oversee the beginning of de-nuclearisation, then that accomplishment would be FAR more important than whatever words. You can talk all about sunshine and puppies and rainbows, but the prize should (presumably) be given for people who actually contribute towards peace. Maybe you need strong words and threats to get a dictator to the table.
> 
> Their regime has been playing the West for decades, doing their tests, then offering some sort of olive branch. They did it with Bill Clinton back in the 1990's, and Bush was too busy in the Middle East, and Obama kicked the can down the road for the next guy because he didn't want to deal with it. So now it's landed at Trump's feet and like it or not, he is the only person who can deal with it. If he has to mention the big red button, so be it.
> 
> Because everything in international relations is painfully slow, NK have been able to keep on developing their nuclear weapons and missile technology, sprinkling in some threats and some peaceful remarks occasionally to keep us busy. Do a test to remind us of their power, but if we start thinking about taking him out, they offer some sort of talks. Rinse and repeat. If Trump is just bluntly saying "stop it, or we fuck you up", that might be the only thing that can work at this stage. NK knew that the last three presidents wouldn't actually attack them... with Trump I suppose they aren't too sure.
> 
> Personally, I don't think NK will ever disarm. We probably just need to accept the reality that they are now a nuclear power, and respect them as such. It's either that or really just go to war and absolutely annihilate them, and accept the collateral damage on SK and Japan as a consequence for failing to deal with NK decades ago. The worry is that if NK get away with it, other countries will feel emboldened to violate non-proliferation agreements too.
> 
> Finally, I'd remind you that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 when he had done literally nothing deserving of winning it. They cited a "new climate" of relations, whatever that means, and his desire for denuclearisation... a year before he announced a huge US nuclear upgrade program.
> 
> The prize apparently lost all meaning years ago, so you probably shouldn't be too upset about whoever wins one.


Your post is about 12 hours too late. 

I thought Obama's Nobel was... wildly optimistic, I'll say. Trump's would be plain delusional. 

EDIT - should probably provide some contest - overnight, Kim has said that if denuclearization is a requirement, he's out, seizing on joint US and SK military exercises as an excuse and, likely, noting the difference in Pompeo's and Bolton's negotiating positions and seeing opportunity. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## bostjan

Nothing is settled yet, but North and South Korea both signed the Panmunjom Treaty, and the USA did not. To me, that means that there is a massive loophole in that the USA and China can simply supply the south and north, respectively, with whatever weapons, and tensions will simply persist.

A little history most of you likely already know: North Korea signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1985, due to pressure from the USSR. As soon as the USSR collapsed (1991 and early 1992), NK began the process of producing nuclear weapons. International inspectors were immediately aware that enriched fuel that was the precursor to weapons-grade material was being taken off the record books, and it was implied and not denied by NK that this material was being used to develop nuclear weapons. When the UN called them out on it, they simply withdrew officially from the NPT.

One of North Korea's few natural resources that it has in spades it Uranium ore. What they did not have was the technology to enrich the ore (which they received from Pakistan and Libya) nor the technology to weaponize it (which is a bit of a puzzle). What is interesting is that NK's closest allies, China and Russia/USSR both consistently refused to help NK develop a nuclear weapons program, despite many appeals from Pyongyang.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> Your post is about 12 hours too late.
> 
> I thought Obama's Nobel was... wildly optimistic, I'll say. Trump's would be plain delusional.
> 
> EDIT - should probably provide some contest - overnight, Kim has said that if denuclearization is a requirement, he's out, seizing on joint US and SK military exercises as an excuse and, likely, noting the difference in Pompeo's and Bolton's negotiating positions and seeing opportunity.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news



Kim's word is hardly trustworthy though. Both sides are jostling right now. Neither wants to look weak, as if *they* were the ones forced to the table. It's pretty standard - you see the same sorts of statements from the UK vs EU leaders. Neither side wants to lose face.

Kim hasn't actually cancelled the summit. It was alluded to - but again, standard negotiating tactic to try and get the advantage before the meeting.

The US agreed to scale back military exercises in exchange for the talks, which seems fair. The US and Korea don't really need to do those exercises right now, and obviously they are designed to be deliberately provocative. That seems like a worthwhile compromise to me. If the talks fail and Kim is lying or simply delaying (as usual), then I presume we will see a big scale up of those exercises, more sanctions (if it's even possible to add more at this point), and perhaps a full-on blockade of NK by sea and air.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> Nothing is settled yet, but North and South Korea both signed the Panmunjom Treaty, and the USA did not. To me, that means that there is a massive loophole in that the USA and China can simply supply the south and north, respectively, with whatever weapons, and tensions will simply persist.
> 
> A little history most of you likely already know: North Korea signed the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in 1985, due to pressure from the USSR. As soon as the USSR collapsed (1991 and early 1992), NK began the process of producing nuclear weapons. International inspectors were immediately aware that enriched fuel that was the precursor to weapons-grade material was being taken off the record books, and it was implied and not denied by NK that this material was being used to develop nuclear weapons. When the UN called them out on it, they simply withdrew officially from the NPT.
> 
> One of North Korea's few natural resources that it has in spades it Uranium ore. What they did not have was the technology to enrich the ore (which they received from Pakistan and Libya) nor the technology to weaponize it (which is a bit of a puzzle). What is interesting is that NK's closest allies, China and Russia/USSR both consistently refused to help NK develop a nuclear weapons program, despite many appeals from Pyongyang.



Last I heard, it was potentially Iran who have been helping them with the missile technology.

China finds NK somewhat useful, but they also don't really want some crazy guy threatening everybody with nukes on their border. Especially when he enjoys killing all opposition and will do anything to stay in power. To be honest, the conventional weapons aimed at Seoul is enough of a deterrent to stop most people from attacking NK.

As I said earlier, IMO, we have two choices:

1. Bomb the shit out of them. Accept collateral damage as NK retaliates on Seoul and maybe Japan. 

2. Accept their nuclear power, the eternal rule of the Kim family, and get over it. It gives "peace" (kinda), but also sets a very bad precedent that NPTs can be violated with no real consequences, and that nuclear weapons absolutely guarantee your security. Iran, Saudi and others will be watching closely.

In all honesty, choice number 1 is probably the better one, assuming it isn't too late and he can actually nuke people. I suppose only a few intel agencies really know the answer to that one.

Really, Bill Clinton should have solved this back in the 1990's. It's a total failure of international governance that it has ever been allowed to get this far. Everybody just kept kicking the can down the road, not wanting to deal with it.


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> Last I heard, it was potentially Iran who have been helping them with the missile technology.
> 
> China finds NK somewhat useful, but they also don't really want some crazy guy threatening everybody with nukes on their border. Especially when he enjoys killing all opposition and will do anything to stay in power. To be honest, the conventional weapons aimed at Seoul is enough of a deterrent to stop most people from attacking NK.
> 
> As I said earlier, IMO, we have two choices:
> 
> 1. Bomb the shit out of them. Accept collateral damage as NK retaliates on Seoul and maybe Japan.
> 
> 2. Accept their nuclear power, the eternal rule of the Kim family, and get over it. It gives "peace" (kinda), but also sets a very bad precedent that NPTs can be violated with no real consequences, and that nuclear weapons absolutely guarantee your security. Iran, Saudi and others will be watching closely.
> 
> In all honesty, choice number 1 is probably the better one, assuming it isn't too late and he can actually nuke people. I suppose only a few intel agencies really know the answer to that one.
> 
> Really, Bill Clinton should have solved this back in the 1990's. It's a total failure of international governance that it has ever been allowed to get this far. Everybody just kept kicking the can down the road, not wanting to deal with it.



Not that I don't care about SK and/or Japan, but, really, none of this should have ever been our problem. The entire situation exists because of a proxy war between the USA and the USSR back in the late 1940's up until 1991. You are correct in assessing that Bill Clinton had an opportunity to do something about NK and didn't, but so did both George Bushes. Now Trump seems to be actually getting some diplomacy to occur, which I love, but before we get too excited about it, we can't forget that NK has a long history of saying one thing for the sake of diplomacy and then doing the opposite thing without even making much of a secret out of it.

The crux of this problem is the same with every international problem - the UN is essentially useless, especially when they are really needed.

Here I go sounding alarmist again, but this is a real threat. The proliferation of nuclear weapons means that one of those weapons will inevitably be used some day. Honestly, I don't think that there is anything that can be done to stop it from happening, but there are lots of measures that the international community can take to impede the process of nukes falling into the wrong hands. The fact that Iran, North Korea, etc., are blatantly seeking nuclear weapons and both have taken the public attitude that they will not hesitate to use them, and yet the international "authorities" are doing jack shit about it means that maybe the nations in power don't deserve their power. Maybe humanity is too stupid to continue existing, if it can't even focus on one task long enough to get anything through bureaucracy.

Typically, my approach toward international conflict is to simply stay out of it, but as soon as you bring nuclear weaponry into the equation, the game changes.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Kim's word is hardly trustworthy though. Both sides are jostling right now. Neither wants to look weak, as if *they* were the ones forced to the table. It's pretty standard - you see the same sorts of statements from the UK vs EU leaders. Neither side wants to lose face.
> 
> Kim hasn't actually cancelled the summit. It was alluded to - but again, standard negotiating tactic to try and get the advantage before the meeting.
> 
> The US agreed to scale back military exercises in exchange for the talks, which seems fair. The US and Korea don't really need to do those exercises right now, and obviously they are designed to be deliberately provocative. That seems like a worthwhile compromise to me. If the talks fail and Kim is lying or simply delaying (as usual), then I presume we will see a big scale up of those exercises, more sanctions (if it's even possible to add more at this point), and perhaps a full-on blockade of NK by sea and air.


Yeah, but, I mean, neither is Trump's.  

I'm just saying, maybe we should hit the brakes on Trump's victory lap until we actually see tangible results.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, this is worth a read: 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...=affiliate_impactpmx_12f6tote_desktop_VigLink

In the Cohen financials that linked a week or two back for his shell company that showed, amongst other things, payments from AT&T and Novartis for consulting contracts, the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) made reference to two _other_ SARs that Essential Consultants' bank had filed. Those two reports, detailing $3mm worth of payments, are nowhere to be found in FINCEN, the federal database law enforcement agencies use to monitor suspected money laundering activity. 

For those of you not in the financial industry who are not familiar with SAR reporting, this is EXTREMELY unusual. I don't know how to describe just how unusual this is, but failing to file a SAR is the kind of thing that, if it turned out that a client was using your services to launder money, you had enough information to detect suspicious activity, but you failed to submit a SAR, would probably end in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and cost everyone involved their jobs, as well as likely a lifetime ban from the industry. This stuff is pretty serious. 

The two most plausible explanations are regulators have removed them from the database due to the extremely sensitive nature of their content and their relevance to an ongoing investigation, which is within their power but virtually unprecidented, or some sort of a "bad actor" has somehow obtained access to the FINCEN database and deleted the two of them. Of the two I think the former is more likely than the latter because deleting two but leaving a third that references the first two is, well, virtually guaranteed to set off alarm bells, but that's just a guess, and considering how much else sheer stupidity we've seen from Cohen, Trump, and their other associates, I guess anything's possible. If they were filed within the past five years, however, paper backup is probably archived somewhere.


----------



## auxioluck

As someone who works in the financial industry, I can doubly confirm that it is extremely unusual for a SAR to not be retrievable from FINCEN. If someone sees suspicious activity and doesn't report it, it's bad. 

It's very bad. Drew is 100% correct.


----------



## Flappydoodle

I have no idea about this SAR thing, or how the process works in the US. But is it possible that the two reports mentioned were never filed in the first place?

A couple other thoughts:

This isn't a defence of Trump or Cohen for their dodgy behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that these politicians, their lawyers, their friends and family, and basically the DC, London, Hollywood etc elite are all like this. This last 3 years have just been a massive eye opener. Turns out that our Western countries are not really much better than Russia, or even South East Asian countries in terms of our democracies. It's just a bit less blatant here, and everybody keeps up the pretence of civilised competition. In reality, we've had campaigns paying for private spies to dig dirt. Very uncomfortable cross-overs of the intelligence services and political candidates, and citizens. The involvement of multiple foreign intel agencies (both "friendly" and hostile). The crossover between intel services and private companies. The extreme lobbying. The extreme narratives cast by both sides of the press to the point where people have no idea what to believe. The insane amounts of money being poured into elections, including from foreign sources. I believe this sort of thing has always been going, but this election has put everybody into an overdriven frenzy and blown it all into the public eye. And really, it's appalling. No wonder countries like China are laughing at us all, and steering away from the idea of Western-style democracy - whereas in the past they always saw it as a long-term goal.

You start putting these "fixers" like Cohen under a magnifying glass and you will start to see the dirt. Common sense tells me it's virtually impossible that Trump builds skyscrapers in NYC and Chicago without some dodgy payments, bribes, etc. Same goes for anybody who has made billions. You're not going to do that without some rule-breaking, not to mention the massive temptation to avoid taxes.

Problem is, I see no solution. The US has two parties, and you need billions of dollars to be elected. And those armies of lawyers, consultants, lobbying firms, intel firms aren't going to go anywhere.


----------



## bostjan

The idea, at least, is that western culture is open to correction, whereas, in places like Russia and China, no one dares to challenge the authority.

To Trump's credit, he hasn't really done any unilateral power moves. He's tried to influence people and tried to use leverage, of course - and I think every president ever elected has done such things.

In order to get yourself installed into a position where making a run for president even mean anything, means that you have to have done a lot of asshole things to a lot of people. In other words, you don't get to the top without stepping on some people.



Flappydoodle said:


> No wonder countries like China are laughing at us all



I mean, what China has is working for China, domestically, but they are in no position to take the moral high ground and ridicule any other nations.

My biggest issue with the whole Trump movement, is that all of the reasons people cited for supporting him were thinly veiled bullshit.

Are we worse off with him in the Oval Office than we would have been with Hilary Clinton? Who knows, and who cares? Clinton lost, so it doesn't matter what she would have done to the country. I, personally, didn't have high expectations for any of the candidates, but that's ancient history now, because Trump is here, and he's been making some changes. I think we're at the point now where he's starting to undo some of the good he did early on, and then there is the list of things he's done with which I strongly disagree. It's easy to sit back and say "I guess we'll see how this shakes out," but that attitude is what leads to things like Hitler's rise to power.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> I mean, what China has is working for China, domestically, but they are in no position to take the moral high ground and ridicule any other nations.



To be honest, that's all they really need to do. At the current rate, they will overtake the west by default. It's why they don't really get involved in anything very often in terms of international affairs.

I also don't believe there is such a thing as moral high ground in this world. Nor do you need it when ridiculing others. We are still just animals, and might still = right for geopolitical matters. Nobody gives a shit what Australia or Sweden says about anything. When China becomes the largest economy in the world, with the leading scientific research, leading tech companies, leading AI etc then maybe they will start to influence the world around them to suit their needs better.

What I find interesting is that for China, they previously used to believe that their current system was a means to an end, and not necessarily the ideal. They genuinely envisaged a time when they would open up a bit and become more western. Taiwan did similar where they transitioned from dictatorship to full-blown democracy. But seeing the terrible state of the west in the last 15 years, China have now changed their minds. In fact, they are now offering their governance model to other nations including African and SE Asian countries as a direct alternative to western-style leadership.

And yeah, I'm pessimistic too. What does our "freedom" really mean? Choosing from a handful of pre-approved people who all lie anyway? Getting to vote every 4-5 years plus occasional referendums? It means frequent paralysis, everything is slow, things undergo a U turn every 8 years. I really can't see any way for us to rescue ourselves now, which is pretty shit.

Also, I think Clinton references are still relevant given that there was a choice of two. Not like you can compare Trump vs an ideal president. It was Trump or Clinton, and that's it.


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> To be honest, that's all they really need to do. At the current rate, they will overtake the west by default. It's why they don't really get involved in anything very often in terms of international affairs.
> 
> I also don't believe there is such a thing as moral high ground in this world. Nor do you need it when ridiculing others. We are still just animals, and might still = right for geopolitical matters. Nobody gives a shit what Australia or Sweden says about anything. When China becomes the largest economy in the world, with the leading scientific research, leading tech companies, leading AI etc then maybe they will start to influence the world around them to suit their needs better.
> 
> What I find interesting is that for China, they previously used to believe that their current system was a means to an end, and not necessarily the ideal. They genuinely envisaged a time when they would open up a bit and become more western. Taiwan did similar where they transitioned from dictatorship to full-blown democracy. But seeing the terrible state of the west in the last 15 years, China have now changed their minds. In fact, they are now offering their governance model to other nations including African and SE Asian countries as a direct alternative to western-style leadership.
> 
> And yeah, I'm pessimistic too. What does our "freedom" really mean? Choosing from a handful of pre-approved people who all lie anyway? Getting to vote every 4-5 years plus occasional referendums? It means frequent paralysis, everything is slow, things undergo a U turn every 8 years. I really can't see any way for us to rescue ourselves now, which is pretty shit.
> 
> Also, I think Clinton references are still relevant given that there was a choice of two. Not like you can compare Trump vs an ideal president. It was Trump or Clinton, and that's it.



I agree with about half of what you said, and I'll sum up my disagreement vaguely by saying "The grass is always greener on the other side of the street."


----------



## Explorer

Flappydoodle said:


> I have no idea about this SAR thing, or how the process works in the US. But *is it possible that the two reports mentioned were never filed in the first place?*



No. The bank did file them. 



Flappydoodle said:


> This isn't a defence of Trump or Cohen for their dodgy behaviour, but I think it's safe to say that these politicians, their lawyers, their friends and family, and basically the DC, London, Hollywood etc elite are all like this.
> 
> The extreme narratives cast by both sides of the press to the point where people have no idea what to believe.
> 
> The US has two parties, and you need billions of dollars to be elected.



I just wanted to call out the both-side-rism in your arguments, which is false. Typically the right embraces those who engage in bad behavior (bribery, sexual harassment, etc.) while protecting them as long as they think the perpetrators are helping their party acheive their goals. 

The only news organization which has really run with crazy false speculation is Fox. 

Nice try, though.


----------



## Flappydoodle

I literally said "this isn't a defence of Trump" and also directly criticised him multiple times, in that very post. Seems like your own beliefs are preventing your from seeing anything objectively.

Also, let me be clear. I'm not American, actually don't really care that much about what happens inside your country. I couldn't care less what Trump does with guns or transgender bathrooms or any of the other silly issues that send people into a frenzy. I only follow this stuff because it's kinda amusing, and the foreign policy might affect us. That gives me a much more impartial view from the outside.

If you think "the left", Hillary, or the Democratic Party are any better, that's just hilarious, sorry.


----------



## Explorer

In that case, support your words. Show examples of the mainstream media engaging in the kind of biased and even false reporting engaged in by Fox. Show examples of how Hollywood has continued to support harassers. 

Giving examples on the left which equal the landslide of examples on the right would prove me wrong. Otherwise you've got nothing.

I look forward to learning, even if it's not the lesson you thought you were giving.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> I have no idea about this SAR thing, or how the process works in the US. But is it possible that the two reports mentioned were never filed in the first place?



Extremely, extremely unlikely - considering failing to file a SAR when suspicious activity was observed is a SERIOUS breach of protocol, comes with huge penalties, and the bank in question is one I'm familiar with and wouldn't see doing something like this. I also CERTAINLY wouldn't see them failing to file two SARs, and then mentioning that in a third.


----------



## Explorer

Hmm.

@Flappydoodle has apparently been able to offer lots of opinions since his last post in this topic, but never offered evidence to support his assertion that "Hollywood" and "the Left" have been as dishonest as the Right is currently demonstrating.

I also find it hilarious that Flappydoodle normally references prices in USD ($), and translates other currencies (like ¥/yen) into dollars. If his currency is actually something other than dollars, you'd think he'd either list his home currency along with dollars, like he did with the yen, or skip foreign currencies altogether and stick only with dollars. To go with yen while skipping his claimed home currency is just sketchy. 

Carry on, though!


----------



## Flappydoodle

Explorer said:


> Hmm.
> 
> @Flappydoodle has apparently been able to offer lots of opinions since his last post in this topic, but never offered evidence to support his assertion that "Hollywood" and "the Left" have been as dishonest as the Right is currently demonstrating.



Hi. Thanks for the personal callout! And for stalking my post history. Clearly I touched a nerve. That often happens when cognitive dissonance is triggered, don't worry.

I didn't check back in this thread, and since you didn't quote me earlier, I didn't get any sort of notification.

As I said, I don't really care about US politics very much, nor do I particularly like Trump (or Hillary). But anybody with a semblance of impartiality can see that US media is laughable and hyper-partisan. Just turn on CNN, or SNL, Morning Joe, or Maddow etc if you want to see left wing openly losing their minds. As for Hollywood, consider the enormous number of celebrities who have come out against him, urged resistance (or "martial law", "blowing up the White House", "punching him in the face") etc. They literally can not stop talking about him or making up unfounded conspiracy theories about everything he says and does. It's like some sort of obsession. The TV news has talked endlessly about piss tapes, Putin, his mental health, impeachment, president Bannon, president Kuchner, how Trump is a dictator, how he's a puppet, and how every single day his presidency is apparently hanging on a thread. Even in this very thread, people were making up yet more conspiracies about his mental health.

If you really think that all of that is normal, acceptable and justifiable, and you also believe that Trump and the right are the only ones full of shit, then you've gone way past the point where anybody could convince you otherwise.



> I also find it hilarious that Flappydoodle normally references prices in USD ($), and translates other currencies (like ¥/yen) into dollars. If his currency is actually something other than dollars, you'd think he'd either list his home currency along with dollars, like he did with the yen, or skip foreign currencies altogether and stick only with dollars. To go with yen while skipping his claimed home currency is just sketchy.



I'm not sure what's hilarious? I am British (as you may have guessed by my spelling) but I often travel to different countries, and I write things in whatever currency is relevant to the topic at hand. Most people here are American, so I often post $USD prices as an international reference point. When I talked about myself buying a guitar in Japan, I put that price in Yen. And I have also talked about £GBP plenty of times - recently in the context of prices in the UK, and when discussing UK luthiers such as Daemoness, Carillion etc.

Not sure what's "sketchy" about that, but I suppose it's another example of how you can take something trivial and generate conspiracy theories when something clashes with your world view. The only thing sketchy is you going through my post history to find thing... weird.



> Carry on, though!



I will carry on laughing at people being silly.


----------



## Randy

Flappydoodle said:


> As I said, I don't really care about US politics very much, nor do I particularly like Trump (or Hillary). But anybody with a semblance of impartiality can see that US media is laughable and hyper-partisan. Just turn on CNN, or SNL, Morning Joe, or Maddow etc if you want to see left wing openly losing their minds.



I like how you confine your impartiality to the odd one or two lines of lip services, then proceed to castigate only one side of the political spectrum at length.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Randy said:


> I like how you confine your impartiality to the odd one or two lines of lip services, then proceed to castigate only one side of the political spectrum at length.



Erm... maybe that's because he specifically asked me to talk about left wing media?

Perhaps you should go and follow the whole interaction before selecting out one sentence to make a snide comment. Here are some quotes from him asking me to address this:



> Show examples of the mainstream media engaging in the kind of biased and even false reporting engaged in by Fox.



.



> Giving examples on the left which equal the landslide of examples on the right would prove me wrong. Otherwise you've got nothing.



.



> The only news organization which has really run with crazy false speculation is Fox.



.



> @Flappydoodle has apparently been able to offer lots of opinions since his last post in this topic, but never offered evidence to support his assertion that "Hollywood" and "the Left" have been as dishonest as the Right is currently demonstrating.



I hope that's clear now why I specifically addressed left wing bias in my short paragraph. Hell, we've already been Kindly assured that there is a landslide of examples from the right, so I don't need to contribute any.


----------



## vilk

Lol nvm


----------



## Randy

Flappydoodle said:


> snide comment.



Pot, kettle, etc.

I was referring to your posts here in totality.


----------



## jaxadam

Careful flappydoodle, these guys and gals in here aren’t used to conversing with one who possesses your talents. You’ll end up really throwing them off, and as Explorer’s username implies, it may resort to exploring your post history. So far the conspiracy theory is you can teleport based on currency activity.

Now for my typical contribution:


----------



## Flappydoodle

Randy said:


> Pot, kettle, etc.
> 
> I was referring to your posts here in totality.



Oh ok. Well, as I said, it seems like attacks on the right win had already been taken care of others.

I simply want to point out that BOTH sides are absolutely insane recently. Switching TV stations is like switching between two alternate versions of the universe - and neither is based in reality.

Let me be crystal clear then - Hannity/Maddow and Fox/CNN are just as bad as each other. And while, IMO, Trump has some valid points of view, he usually ruins it by communicating them terribly, and he has so far totally failed to run a competent government which can achieve his goals. Everybody around him, including himself, just seems to say and do whatever the fuck they feel like on any particular day without any consideration for long-term goals.


----------



## Explorer

@Flappydoodle - It's not an attack to note that you haven't been capable of providing evidence of your claims. @jaxadam might think that spouting unsupported claims is some sort of talent, and for some that may be true. Hey, why actually use facts to build one's worldview when ignorance is spontaneous?

Who knows, though? You might come through with examples supporting your claim that Maddow and CNN have promoted the same quantities of falsehoods as Hannity and Fox. I'll be interested in hearing such evidence, if your talent extends to actually supporting your claims with evidence.

If you decide to step up, I'm happy to learn and consider. Such evidence should be easy to provide if true. If no evidence is given, that's good to know too.


----------



## Flappydoodle

You're being silly, and your bias is clearly clouding your judgement. Off the top of my head, I can provide a few examples of times CNN reported falsehoods (Russia hacking the US power grid, Comey's expected testimony contradicting Trump, Trump Jr. getting advance info from Wikileaks, Scaramucci being in contact with Russians...). But I suppose you'll have excuses for those, or you'll just keep assuring me that Fox is worse (though funnily enough, you didn't provide evidence either despite asserting it five times now).

I will say that it's fair for outlets make mistakes sometimes. But, isn't it funny that all of their mistakes are negative stories about Trump which feed into their larger narratives. You'd think that half of the time they'd falsely report something good about him, right?

Those were just times when CNN was completely wrong. My larger point is that you can tune in any time and see them melting down over an incoming constitutional crisis (any day now!), indulging in mental health conspiracies, getting celebrity doctors to talk about how many diet cokes he drinks, analysing his tweet typos for secret messages, getting body language experts to analyse his handshakes etc etc. You can't possibly see any of that and think it's unbiased, objective or fair. Then you have the even more subtle narrative crafting - like finding the dumbest, racist supporters of his to interview, or putting a story about Putin immediately after a story about Trump, even the careful word choices - "tantrum" and "outburst", designed to depict a childlike mentality. When you take a step back and look at it, it's really obvious and really really funny - hence my interest. (And yes, for the record, Fox is the same in the other direction).

As a side note from Trump, consider that ALL TV media is about keeping viewers fixated for long enough to show them ads. That's why every commercial channel is full of speculation, pointless discussion, opinion, and anything else to keep you outraged/addicted and keep your eyeballs on the screen. That's why they need narratives and pundits and lots of lively discussions - because attempts at unbiased fact presentation would be boring and nobody would watch it. Keep that in mind when choosing what to believe. It's more likely you just enjoy hearing things which agree with your world view. All human beings do.

Lastly, I always find it amusing when people sanctimoniously claim to base everything on facts. Even an entry level knowledge of psychology reveals that the human brain is incapable of thinking that way for very long. Instead, we simplify things, choose a narrative which makes sense to us, then reverse engineer things to fit our prior beliefs while ignoring evidence to the contrary. Every single person does it, regardless of how rational they claim to be. Only in a few fields can be this be over-ruled by group consensus.

Even statistics like unemployment, education standards or economic figures can be spun in whatever way suits your narrative. When it comes to anything more complex, it's basically impossible to know what is true. If you really want to question yourself, check out the book "Thinking Fast and Slow" which is a nice introduction to the topic. Once you learn how easily manipulated your own brain is, it becomes much harder to be sure about anything.


----------



## eggy in a bready

Flappydoodle said:


> Hannity/Maddow and Fox/CNN are just as bad as each other.


HAHAHAHA. in your fucking dreams


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> Russia hacking the US power grid


What are you talking about?


----------



## synrgy

According to Google, this:


----------



## synrgy

But I note that the source being quoted is DHS; it's not like CNN divined the info out of thin air:

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A


----------



## bostjan

synrgy said:


> But I note that the source being quoted is DHS; it's not like CNN divined the info out of thin air:
> 
> https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A



Yes, and in those cases, I do believe DHS did actually publish a report that said what CNN said.

I was thinking more along the lines of a local story that was reported here in Vermont, that Russians had successfully hacked a power grid computer here, and that story turned out to be partially bogus, but that was not reported by CNN; it was the _Washington Post_, and they printed a retraction/edited version soon after. But, in that case, there was some malicious software on one of the power company's computers, and it was placed there by hackers from Russia, it just wasn't a grid computer.

I get the feeling that the claim that CNN falsely reported that Russian hackers were trying to get into the US power grid is somehow missing a detail or introducing a false detail.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

It depends on who we’re considering a respectable and/or left wing outlet, but I’ve been seeing an incredible amount of dishonesty in regard to Jordan Peterson coming from sources like New York Times, Vox, Salon, Slate, etc.. They’ve cast him as a right-wing thought leader, which is either blatantly wrong, or they define right-wing as anything to the right of pro-Communism and the nihilistic rejection of all tradition.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, Flappydoodle, I don't think that anyone's questioning that CNN and Fox have diametrically different _viewpoints_. That's pretty clear to I think all observers right now. Fox, however, has a long track record of just reporting stuff with little regard to whether it can be verified, provided it fits their partisan agenda. See for example the alleged "murder" of a DNC staffer as an alternate theory for how the Clinton emails leaked, where finally the kid's family started publicly calling for Hannity to let the story drop so they could grieve in peace. Meanwhile, when outlets like the Times and the Post _DO_ occasionally get something wrong - and they do heavy due diligence to prevent this from happening, see the Roy Moore accuser who turned out to be a Project Veritas employee trying to feed them a false story - they're quick to acknowledged their mistake and retract the story. Fox, not so much. 

But, the issue here isn't if "both sides are just as bad as each other," because of the occasional misstep. That's just the cover story. The real aim here is by painting the left wing media as not just partisan but dishonest, the hope is you can then start to cast doubt on stories where there IS evidence that something is amiss. 

Easy example - Trump continues to claim the Mueller investigation is a "witch-hunt" and there's zero evidence pointing towards collusion. Most Fox viewers (and commentators) agree. That doesn't square with the fact that we know when someone purporting to be a Russian agent reached out to Trump Jr. to offer them dirt, he enthusiastically agreed. We know for a fact as well that Papadoupalous knew about the Wikileaks emails and Russia's involvement before they became public knowledge, and that Sam Clovis encouraged him to meet with the Russian parties involved. We don't know the terms of an agreement, if any, that may have predicated the release of the emails... But that's not the same as saying there's no _evidence_ pointing to collusion. 

tl;dr - both Trump and the right-wing media are working hard to discredit the left wing media as being just as debased as they are, so that when incriminating information about Trump becomes public, their (conservative) viewers will be primed to believe that the stories are false. That's a problem.


----------



## Drew

Adam Of Angels said:


> It depends on who we’re considering a respectable and/or left wing outlet, but I’ve been seeing an incredible amount of dishonesty in regard to Jordan Peterson coming from sources like New York Times, Vox, Salon, Slate, etc.. They’ve cast him as a right-wing thought leader, which is either blatantly wrong, or they define right-wing as anything to the right of pro-Communism and the nihilistic rejection of all tradition.


Isn't he that incel dude? I haven't been following the story closely, but my impression has always been that there are fairly strong ties between men's rights movements and white nationalist ones.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^ You’re either being sarcastic, or you’ve proven my point entirely. No, he isn’t the incel dude or a men’s rights activist, though the headlines and aforementioned outlets have done an ok job of putting that out there.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> It depends on who we’re considering a respectable and/or left wing outlet, but I’ve been seeing an incredible amount of dishonesty in regard to Jordan Peterson coming from sources like New York Times, Vox, Salon, Slate, etc.. They’ve cast him as a right-wing thought leader, which is either blatantly wrong, or they define right-wing as anything to the right of pro-Communism and the nihilistic rejection of all tradition.


I know who he is. I first heard of him as a person of interest in the gender/pronoun debate. A few people got really boiling mad over some statements he made. I could see how he might be construed as a divisive figure because of that, although, personally, I have not observed him making statements that I thought were proportionate to the amount of hate he's received.
What dishonest thing did the _New York Times_ say about him?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> Isn't he that incel dude? I haven't been following the story closely, but my impression has always been that there are fairly strong ties between men's rights movements and white nationalist ones.


He's the lobster social hierarchy/"the ancients made art about the double helix" guy


----------



## Drew

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ You’re either being sarcastic, or you’ve proven my point entirely. No, he isn’t the incel dude or a men’s rights activist, though the headlines and aforementioned outlets have done an ok job of putting that out there.


Hey, I may be confusing him with someone else, the name sounds vaguely familiar, but that's about it. 

Either way, though, if you're right, he's only tangentially related to this thread.


----------



## zappatton2

He's basically another troll who figured out that if you can paint complex issues with a simple brush, you can really make a mint preaching to the converted. Right now, his cause is equating the use of alternate gender pronouns with tyranny. He's purposely divisive, not so much to get to some unvarnished truth, but because it sells books and packs auditoriums. A great rundown of the man (sure, it's the Toronto Star, often painted as a Canadian Pravda, but Bernard Schiff was a colleague and friend of his, and is best suited to shed light on the man and why he's so embraced up here); https://www.thestar.com/opinion/201...gest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Best suited to shed light because he knew him? You’ve never had drama with people you were close with or found difficulty in previously amicable relationships? Peterson’s primary cause has nothing to do with gender pronouns, and even when that was the matter shining a light on him, his point of contention was compelled speech (which absolutely everybody should take issue with, no exception) and not an expansion of rights.

His entire philosophy is built on the idea that the responsible individual, free from group identity, is the single greatest idea to emerge in society, and is always VERY carefully and painstakingly defending his positions. Every one of the hit pieces about him (that I’ve read) have demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to understand what he’s actually saying, which isn’t much of a surprise, as a lot of what he says can be difficult to parse out. The NYT article accused him of attempting to undermine the left’s fight for equality (despite him constantly advocating equality of opportunity and the disolving of ideas about group identity) and endorsing of male dominance (again, he’s explicitly against group identity), and just mischaracterizes him entirely. I haven’t talked to anybody who’s listened to Peterson with an open mind for an hour or more that has said anything less favorable than “I’m not hearing anything unreasonable here.”

I’ve been a fan of his work for the last year and half or so, and I definitely lean left, so when I hear this sort of criticism of him, I have to assume that people aren’t willing to pay attention or there is something more sinister going on. Is it possible that this NYT journalist has just done a poor job with a handful of misconceptions? Sure, but will I be skeptical of their publications in the future? Absolutely. This nonsense is warping society.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

To be sure, I’m only bringing this up because it calls some corner of the media into question. We need more thinkers and fewer idealogues and character assassinations.


----------



## Flappydoodle

eggy in a bready said:


> HAHAHAHA. in your fucking dreams



Your laughter sure showed me!



bostjan said:


> What are you talking about?



See below



synrgy said:


> But I note that the source being quoted is DHS; it's not like CNN divined the info out of thin air:
> 
> https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-074A



See below



bostjan said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of a local story that was reported here in Vermont, that Russians had successfully hacked a power grid computer here, and that story turned out to be partially bogus, but that was not reported by CNN; it was the _Washington Post_, and they printed a retraction/edited version soon after. But, in that case, there was some malicious software on one of the power company's computers, and it was placed there by hackers from Russia, it just wasn't a grid computer.
> 
> I get the feeling that the claim that CNN falsely reported that Russian hackers were trying to get into the US power grid is somehow missing a detail or introducing a false detail.



You are right - it was WaPo, not CNN. Sorry about that. Like I said, I was recalling off the top of my head.

There's a nice summary of what *actually* happened in this link. It was INSANELY overblown:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31...-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid/

(and FWIW, Glen Greenwald is an open left winger, absolutely not a defender of Trump etc)

And yes, as I said, I think it's fine that outlets make mistakes. But those mistakes always seem to align with the general narrative. Fox never accidentally reported something false but positive about Obama either. The problem is, when WaPo writes about it, it circulates through the other major outlets who write "Russia hacked the power grid, according to a report by Washington Post", and then that circulates down through twitter blah blah blah. 

Another here:

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28...ry-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

Even at CNN, I seem to recall that Zucker seriously restricted reporting about the Russia investigation because their reporters were basically writing too much unverified shit. 

And again, Fox does exactly the same - gladly repeating unverified things that agree with their narrative.



Drew said:


> Yeah, Flappydoodle, I don't think that anyone's questioning that CNN and Fox have diametrically different _viewpoints_. That's pretty clear to I think all observers right now. Fox, however, has a long track record of just reporting stuff with little regard to whether it can be verified, provided it fits their partisan agenda. See for example the alleged "murder" of a DNC staffer as an alternate theory for how the Clinton emails leaked, where finally the kid's family started publicly calling for Hannity to let the story drop so they could grieve in peace. Meanwhile, when outlets like the Times and the Post _DO_ occasionally get something wrong - and they do heavy due diligence to prevent this from happening, see the Roy Moore accuser who turned out to be a Project Veritas employee trying to feed them a false story - they're quick to acknowledged their mistake and retract the story. Fox, not so much.



All media panders and caters to their target audience though. Maddow and that British guy don't spend much time objectively reporting the good things which Trump has accomplished - nor would/should we expect them to do so.

(Sidenote: The DNC staffer WAS murdered. It's just not known who actually did it, or why. I also remember reading a long post of "evidence" from a group of ex-intel services/NSA guys who doubted the official version of a remote hack. Not sure if that ever panned out as true or not, since I don't understand the technical parts of it. Finally - that was the DNC emails, not the "Hillary" emails (by which, I presume you mean John Podesta's emails, which were due to him falling victim to a simple phishing scam. The only Hillary emails we have seen are the ones which have been officially released by the FBI.)

Fox, I believe, gives a very large amount of independence to their commentators (which are also separate from "news"). That guy, Breir (?) pretty much hates Trump. O'Reilly hated him too. Hannity is obviously totally nuts... but so is Rachel Maddow 



> But, the issue here isn't if "both sides are just as bad as each other," because of the occasional misstep. That's just the cover story. The real aim here is by painting the left wing media as not just partisan but dishonest, the hope is you can then start to cast doubt on stories where there IS evidence that something is amiss.



Of course that's his aim! But it's exactly what, for example, Hillary and others said when right wing media was going nuts about her being investigated for her own problems. It was brushed off as a "vast right wing conspiracy". It's politics 101 to try and discredit your opponents, their allies, and their message. The Podesta emails showed tons of journalists happily working together with her campaign to help promote her viewpoints, give her early polling information etc. There's your left wing conspiracy too. If she had won, those cozy relationships would have continued and the supportive media would have been pumping out all good news while Fox endlessly criticised and made up conspiracy theories about her going to jail for murder. 



> Easy example - Trump continues to claim the Mueller investigation is a "witch-hunt" and there's zero evidence pointing towards collusion. Most Fox viewers (and commentators) agree. That doesn't square with the fact that we know when someone purporting to be a Russian agent reached out to Trump Jr. to offer them dirt, he enthusiastically agreed. We know for a fact as well that Papadoupalous knew about the Wikileaks emails and Russia's involvement before they became public knowledge, and that Sam Clovis encouraged him to meet with the Russian parties involved. We don't know the terms of an agreement, if any, that may have predicated the release of the emails... But that's not the same as saying there's no _evidence_ pointing to collusion.



Well... that kinda depends on your definition of "evidence". Until Mueller officially accuses him of something, he can/will keep saying that.

Again, I'd really just say that this is politics 101 - deny deny deny, pour doubt onto criticisms. It's what everybody does when they're being investigated. Weinstein is saying there is no evidence he raped anybody. Morgan Freeman is denying everything. Sorry to bring her up yet again, but Hillary "did not recall" things when questioned, told many obvious lies, and also brushed away all evidence of her "matter" during the time that the FBI was investigating her. And the congressional investigations which are still going on right now, she has called them partisan and politically motivated. That's the stage we are still at with the Trump investigation right now until Mueller either accuses him or clears him.

In summary, all politicians are full of shit. Personally, I'd hoped Trump might be a breath of fresh air. He is in some ways, but he's much worse in other ways too.



> tl;dr - both Trump and the right-wing media are working hard to discredit the left wing media as being just as debased as they are, so that when incriminating information about Trump becomes public, their (conservative) viewers will be primed to believe that the stories are false. That's a problem.



It's a problem, but it's nothing particularly unusual in politics, or in most walks of life. I think Trump just does it in a more offensive, more obvious way which is what upsets people. It is especially upsetting the more traditional "journalist" types who have left wing type degrees from left wing atmosphere universities and work in left wing DC or NYC, absolutely surrounded by likeminded people. Then Trump won and now they have this fat, loud, swearing man as president being openly hostile towards them, and they have absolutely no idea how to react.

The problem, IMO, is the overall culture of the media. They've been driven to this by the competition for ratings, for exclusives and to be first, and the need to fill 24 hours with something. That's why CNN seriously sat and discussed the number of diet cokes, reported what people are tweeting about Melania conspiracy theories etc. It's happening everywhere - with guitar reviews on youtube where they're desperately trying to fill 10 minutes.

Then you add in social media, all the paid content promotion, the organised shilling by political parties, the party propaganda dressed up as "news" (Media Matters on the left, Gateway Pundit on the right), the opinion dressed up as "news", the interference from intel agencies (foreign and domestic)... it makes a perfect storm of bullshit that totally transcends party boundaries.

Final note- I've actually been much happier since taking a step back from all of this. I'm not American. 95% of this doesn't affect me. Hell, most probably doesn't even affect most Americans either. Life goes on. Not really worth being all upset about things.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, the Washington Post article was a big part of the hysteria going around at that time.



Flappydoodle said:


> The problem, IMO, is the overall culture of the media. They've been driven to this by the competition for ratings, for exclusives and to be first, and the need to fill 24 hours with something. That's why CNN seriously sat and discussed the number of diet cokes, reported what people are tweeting about Melania conspiracy theories etc. It's happening everywhere - with guitar reviews on youtube where they're desperately trying to fill 10 minutes.



Yeah, it was better when the news was a half hour long. Even then, though, you'd hear an article about how shopping carts are killing people by spreading so many germs, then they'd break for commercial and the first commercial they'd show would be for Clorox disinfecting wipes. In reality, a logical person would deduce that even if the germs from the shopping cart killed someone, no one would have known where the germs came from, so the report was all bullshit anyway, just carefully orchestrated to get sponsors to pay more money to the network.

But we are digressing...



Flappydoodle said:


> I'd hoped Trump might be a breath of fresh air. He is in some ways, but he's much worse in other ways too.



I had hoped so, too, but I had no expectations of such. I actually don't see why people thought it'd be a good idea to have him in charge of the government. It's a terrible idea. But here we are.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Lots o' stuff



First, you're correct, I misspoke and I meant the DNC emails. That doesn't really change my argument. You're sort of skirting around the issue here, which is primarily when the "left wing" media reports something that turns out to be wrong, 1) they're relying on credibly-sourced information and at worst get the details wrong - for example, that VT russian hacking story bostjan mentioned - and 2) when presented with evidence to the contrary they issue a correction. The right wing media, though, while you still see that from fairly credible right-of-center sources like the Wall Street Journal, you've also got outlets like Fox and Infowars that have zero problems just straight-up making shit up.



Flappydoodle said:


> Well... that kinda depends on your definition of "evidence". Until Mueller officially accuses him of something, he can/will keep saying that.



I'm a Merriam Webster man, personally:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

Contrast that with proof:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

We have _evidence _of collusion. We do not yet have _proof _of collusion, proof being "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact," at least that's been publicly released, and whether or not we have a formal accusation from Mueller actually has nothing to do with whether or not the evidence and potentially proof actually exists - for example, I'd say we're at a point where it's fairly probable that the evidence that Trump tried to obstruct justice by firing Comey meets the standard of proof, but as of yet Mueller has not charged Trump with obstruction of justice, and, IMO, if that's what this investigation ultimately comes down to I suspect Trump is more likely to be an un-named co-conspirator than a defendant simply because trying to indict a sitting president is likely to trigger a constitutional crisis, and I don't think the GOP would allow Trump to be impeached even given clear proof of obstruction of justice, unless there was ALSO clear proof of treason.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

205 pages of


----------



## bostjan

Unleash The Fury said:


> 205 pages of
> View attachment 61923


I guess the left doesn't really see it that way at all.

Here's a step back to look at the bigger picture.

The allegation is that Trump colluded with Russian officials to beat HRC in the election. Many many pages ago, I was in disbelief of that, and also questioned why it'd really matter anyway. If Trump played a part in the leaks of emails that proved HRC had done some shady shit, wouldn't that make him a sort of whistle-blower?

Well, I think the problem for a lot of people is intent. If Trump wanted to expose HRC as corrupt or catch her in a lie and he had nothing to gain, I think he could have been a hero, but his behaviour since doing it and the attempts to cover it up and make the investigation go away by firing the people in charge of investigating him, he's only contributed even sketchier shit than even what he was exposing HRC for in the first place.

So, from an ethical perspective, Trumps actions surrounding this stuff is pretty reprehensible, but what about legality? Well, lying to federal agents is illegal, and obstructing a federal investigation is illegal. Is it illegal to the point where removal from office would be an option? I guess we might or might not find out.

I'm not a fan of Trump by any stretch. But I am a fan of justice. If Trump had taken a more righteous course of action since the election, I would have been willing to get behind him, but this whole thing is just a mess now, with every party involved either exaggerating the facts, lying about the facts, or just moving painfully slow gathering evidence. Mueller and his team needs to wrap this up.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## zappatton2

So as far as I've known, despite some small differences in opinion and policy over the years, Canada has been pretty much the United States' staunchest ally. What reason could that man possibly have to target us? He talks about trade like it's sports, everything is winning and losing, what is wrong with this man? There's no such thing as collective benefit that genuinely enriches all parties? Forget the soap opera stuff, celebrity nonsense and such, this man is a genuine menace to the world at large. For those that support him, why? I mean, seriously. Why? How is this going to benefit anybody?


----------



## Unleash The Fury




----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> View attachment 61939



"MOTEL 6 FOR TERRORIST." -- sounds like even the memes are coming from Russia now.


----------



## thraxil

zappatton2 said:


> Why? How is this going to benefit anybody?



Well, infighting and trade wars between the US, Canada, and the rest of western Europe benefits Russia...


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> Well, infighting and trade wars between the US, Canada, and the rest of western Europe benefits Russia...


As does the fact that Trump, a man under investigation for colluding with Russia and potentially being compromised by Russian intelligence, opened a G7 meeting by proposing Russia be readmitted and that the G7 become the G8 again. It was, of course, voted down. 

Other than that, basically what bostjan said. I think Unleash the Fury is, unwittingly or otherwise, downplaying just how much the narrative has shifted since Trump's win. 

In the early days of the investigation, I too didn't really expect it to go anywhere. I figured the liklihood of actual evidence emerging was too low, and while I certainly _wanted_ to believe that there was Russian interference in the election that tipped the needle, I didn't have any illusions about the fact that what I wanted to believe had very little to do with what was actually likely. I figured this would go down like the House investigation, minus all the blatant partisanship that shut it down. 

Since then, we've learned... 


Russian linked groups invested heavily in online advertising, and managed to get Russian propaganda in front of something like a third to a half of the electorate.
When individuals purporting to be Russian agents approached Trump Jr offering damaging intel on Clinton, just before Trump started talking about the DNC emails, they enthusiastically accepted a meeting. 
We have strong evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, have found no evidence they attempted to hack the RNC, and we have strong evidence they attempted to, and in some cases penetrated, US election infastructure, though thankfully none that they were able to manipulate the outcome directly. 
Senior Trump campaign staff had illegal business dealings with politically connected Russian nationals, and were likely themselves compromised at the time of the campaign. 
The first the CIA heard of the DNC email hack was when a relatively high ranking Trump staffer drunkenly mentioned them to an Australian intelligence officer, who immediately escalated it to the US because there was no plausible above-the-law reason for him to be aware of that. Over and above that, we have email evidence that senior staff encoraged Popadoupalous to pursue the contact being offered. 
Senior campaign and transition staff have been indicted for lying about previous contacts with Russia, and one of which, Flynn, had to resign, while another, Sessions, had to recuse himself from the investigation. A third, Manafort, has now been indicted for tampering with witnesses, in addition to his prior money laundering indictments. 
Trump himself has taken clear, concrete steps to shut down the investigation - he ordered Sessions to reverse his recusal and nearly fired him for it, he DID fire Comey and later admitted he did so because of the "Russia thing," he's threatened to fire Mueller, and has actually ordered it done on at least one occasion (and only backed down when his lawyer threatened to quit if he went ahead with it), a close supporter succeeded in shutting down the House investigation, and he has begun arguing (on tenuous legal grounds, but that's largely beside the point) that he's constitutionally entitled to shut down the investigation if he wants to, as well as pardon himself, which is hardly evidence of wrongdoing, but doesn't exactly scream innocence. 

Am I missing anything? What seemed like a longshot in November of 2016 has evolved into a situation where we have clear evidence that Russia had infiltrated the Trump campaign, we have clear evidence that the campaign at least TRIED to collude with Russia, we have fairly clear evidence of obstruction of justice, we have clear evidence of significant financial involvement of Russia in the election (including very likely funneling significant amounts of money through the NRA and quite possibly the RNC as well). This is only what we know publicly, Mueller has kept his cards pretty close to his chest so god knows what else we have, and likely will be maintaining that at LEAST through the midterms, if there's any way he can. 

I mean, given a neutral Congress, impeachment would certainly be part of the conversation right now, simply on what we already know (and, likely, the mess Trump is making of the Western alliance). If you're a Trump supporter and you're NOT worried about how this investigation has begun to gain steam, then you haven't been paying attention.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> "MOTEL 6 FOR TERRORIST." -- sounds like even the memes are coming from Russia now.


Good catch - no way is that the work of someone whose native language is English.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../?utm_term=.6ee3aaa8086e#annotations:14771091

So........ The NK deal is that they will say that they're going to de-nuclear-ize. Keep in mind that this is the nation that sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and then raised a huge figurative middle finger to everyone by totally persuing nuclear weapons afterward.

There's no language there to push anything into effect. Oh well, I guess we all should have seen this coming. Ho hum.

Trump, for not being a politician, sure likes these politician-like moves. Avoiding the question asked in interviews and press conferences by talking about how great he is instead of addressing anything, meeting with foreign powers and not actually signing anything of merit, pushing the blame for failures onto other people... In some ways Trump hasn't been that bad, but in other ways, he's been worse than the people he's criticized for the reasons which he criticized them...


----------



## Unleash The Fury

These are all weapons of mass distraction.


----------



## spudmunkey

Iran deal: Has specific, measureable and enforceable rules and punishments for breaking said deal = "one of the worst deals I've ever seen"

NK "deal": We'll say we'll do again what we did 3 times before. Smile for the camera! "Great success for america!"


----------



## mongey

so a moron egomaniac and a murderous dictator sit down for a chat and the world thinks its a good thing. . we are all seriously fucked


----------



## zappatton2

mongey said:


> so a moron egomaniac and a murderous dictator sit down for a chat and the world thinks its a good thing. . we are all seriously fucked


It really is only the checks and balances of the American system that keep those descriptions from being completely interchangeable.

It's no curiosity to me that it's the very civic restrains that check and prevent unlimited power that seem to be targets of this White House and it's ardent supporters.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> These are all weapons of mass distraction.


That's the closest you've ever come to agreeing with us.  

The _good_ part of the summit was Trump succeeded in 1) not making things worse, and 2) ratcheting down the rhetoric and overall tension to only somewhat above where it was when he started his twitter storm. 

The _bad _part of the summit is we gave Kim something he wanted - a peer-to-peer meeting with the US - in return for the same vague pledge to denuclearize he's been making since 1992, and for that we agreed to stop war exercises with South Korea, much to the surprise of South Korea and evidently much of the Pentagon, neither of whom was consulted. 

This is absolutely a distraction - Trump wants something to sell as a political "win," to distract from all the other things he's botching. It's not impossible some real progress eventually comes from this... But the onus is on Trump to show that, because as of now we've made some fairly big concessions for... nothing new?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Drew said:


> That's the closest you've ever come to agreeing with us.
> 
> The _good_ part of the summit was Trump succeeded in 1) not making things worse, and 2) ratcheting down the rhetoric and overall tension to only somewhat above where it was when he started his twitter storm.
> 
> The _bad _part of the summit is we gave Kim something he wanted - a peer-to-peer meeting with the US - in return for the same vague pledge to denuclearize he's been making since 1992, and for that we agreed to stop war exercises with South Korea, much to the surprise of South Korea and evidently much of the Pentagon, neither of whom was consulted.
> 
> This is absolutely a distraction - Trump wants something to sell as a political "win," to distract from all the other things he's botching. It's not impossible some real progress eventually comes from this... But the onus is on Trump to show that, because as of now we've made some fairly big concessions for... nothing new?


What I meant was you probably shouldn't be dwelling on these tabloid type stories (insert comeback about how Trump is a tabloid like president here). But seriously, this whole russian thing is the biggest distraction.

Thus, the grabbing at straws meme. There may be something, or there may be not. Either way, its a distraction


----------



## mongey

Unleash The Fury said:


> What I meant was you probably shouldn't be dwelling on these tabloid type stories (insert comeback about how Trump is a tabloid like president here). But seriously, this whole russian thing is the biggest distraction.
> 
> Thus, the grabbing at straws meme. There may be something, or there may be not. Either way, its a distraction



but if there is something its a crime not a distraction. and they have charged 20 people of which 5 have plead guilty ! isn't that worth investigating. how can that be labelled a distraction ?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

mongey said:


> but if there is something its a crime not a distraction. and they have charged 20 people of which 5 have plead guilty ! isn't that worth investigating. how can that be labelled a distraction ?


Because in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger things to concentrate on, I believe. And thats IF they can prove it guilty. Until then, your grabbing at straws and throwing spaghetti at walls. To me its not even worth investigating. I cannot believe people still are taking about this so called collusion


----------



## narad

mongey said:


> but if there is something its a crime not a distraction. and they have charged 20 people of which 5 have plead guilty ! isn't that worth investigating. how can that be labelled a distraction ?



It's "a distraction" if it's potentially harmful to your guy. It's "due diligence" if it's potentially harmful to the other guy.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

^ Randy, Drew, and 2 others like this


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> ^ Randy, Drew, and 2 others like this



You can like it too in 3 years when conservatives are asking for some investigation into whatever dem candidate is up next -- it's not a partisan sentiment. Try to do better than the birther thing next time around though.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

narad said:


> You can like it too in 3 years when conservatives are asking for some investigation into whatever dem candidate is up next -- it's not a partisan sentiment. Try to do better than the birther thing next time around though.


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> Because in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger things to concentrate on, I believe. And thats IF they can prove it guilty. Until then, your grabbing at straws and throwing spaghetti at walls. To me its not even worth investigating. I cannot believe people still are taking about this so called collusion


People have plead guilty to charges relating to collusion to rig the election. Is this not your whole deal?


----------



## thraxil

Unleash The Fury said:


> Because in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger things to concentrate on, I believe. And thats IF they can prove it guilty. Until then, your grabbing at straws and throwing spaghetti at walls. To me its not even worth investigating. I cannot believe people still are taking about this so called collusion



In a recent court filing, Mueller's team claims that foreign individuals and organisations are continuing to "engage in interference operations like those charged in the present indictment." Ie, they attempted to interfere in the 2016 election (without speaking to how successful that interference was) and are continuing to do the same thing for the 2018 elections. 

Honestly, I don't believe that there are "much bigger things to concentrate on" than trying to secure the integrity of the American democratic process.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> Thus, the grabbing at straws meme. There may be something, or there may be not. Either way, its a distraction


There is already far more evidence than even Trump's fiercest critics could have realistically hoped for in November of 2016. At this point, there IS something, it's just we don't yet know how big it is. Just routine white-collar corruption, money laundering, and below the line business dealings? Or open, knowing collaboration with a foreign power to work against the interests of the United States and fail to uphold the Constitution? In short, treason. That's what Mueller is trying to determine.



Unleash The Fury said:


> Because in the grand scheme of things there are much bigger things to concentrate on, I believe. And thats IF they can prove it guilty. Until then, your grabbing at straws and throwing spaghetti at walls. To me its not even worth investigating. I cannot believe people still are taking about this so called collusion


I don't know if I agree with it. If this WAS a Russian plot to try to influence the outcome of the US election to elect the candidate they believed would be the most disruptive to the Western alliance and the rules-based international order that's broadly been in place since WWII - which it increasingly seems Trump is doing a bang-up job of doing, causing feuds with traditional close allies and cozying up to dictators while he appears be be starting a trade war - then no, I don't think there ARE bigger things to concentrate upon. This is an attack on the values this country has stood for since the close of WWI. If it was an attack whose responsibility lies at the feet of the Russian state, then yeah, that's a big fucking deal.

In other news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.0fa3c9396a50

NY AG files suit against the Trump Foundation, alleging undisclosed self-dealing, tax law violations, and illegal campaign contributions after Trump declared his candidacy. That's not a good look for a sitting President.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

The U.S. interferes singlehandedly with elections and governments all over the world since


thraxil said:


> In a recent court filing, Mueller's team claims that foreign individuals and organisations are continuing to "engage in interference operations like those charged in the present indictment." Ie, they attempted to interfere in the 2016 election (without speaking to how successful that interference was) and are continuing to do the same thing for the 2018 elections.
> 
> Honestly, I don't believe that there are "much bigger things to concentrate on" than trying to secure the integrity of the American democratic process.



Sure. But id say as far as the left goes its about 5% give a shit about American Democratic process, and 95% pure boiling hatred for Trump.

Its kind of like this meme


Im not giving him 100%, or alot of credit for "bringing world peace", but if it were actually true, the left would still be nasty like this. Like they always are.


----------



## vilk

Unleash The Fury said:


> The U.S. interferes singlehandedly with elections and governments all over the world since



So therefore it's OK, in your opinion? Or was that just some basic whataboutism...


Also, chumming it up with evil dictators doesn't somehow undo or justify the _illegal shit you do_. Bill Clinton got _impeached_ for _lying about a blowjob._


----------



## Unleash The Fury

vilk said:


> So therefore it's OK, in your opinion? Or was that just some basic whataboutism...
> 
> 
> Also, chumming it up with evil dictators doesn't somehow undo or justify the _illegal shit you do_. Bill Clinton got _impeached_ for _lying about a blowjob._


No its not ok at all. But people dont blink an eye when it happens to some other nation, only us.


----------



## vilk

Unleash The Fury said:


> No its not ok at all. But people dont blink an eye when it happens to some other nation, only us.



Just so that you know it, (though I suspect that you should but are intentionally forgetting?) an appeal to hypocrisy is not considered to be a logic-based defense. While we all certainly understand that being hypocritical ought to be shameful, that is besides the point when it comes to making an intelligent defense or argument.

Furthermore, when America meddles with the sovereignty of foreign nations, that's usually always done without public consent, and often times it's not even really announced to the public until a reporter sniffs it out. I'd have to imagine that the majority of that stuff has never even made it on the news, and the public probably doesn't even know the full extent to which the United States Gov't fucks with other nation's elections/leadership. But as you've already agreed, in no way whatsoever is that an excuse or justification of it, and in no way whatsoever does it excuse or justify what Trump and his crew have done.


----------



## jaxadam

Well it wouldn't be the first time the election process was tampered with. I mean I don't know a single person who voted for Obama last go round and look what happened.



Unleash The Fury said:


> ^ Randy, Drew, and 2 others like this



:highfive:


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> Well it wouldn't be the first time the election process was tampered with. I mean I don't know a single person who voted for Obama last go round and look what happened.



Yeah, how dare those other voters not in your social circle "tamper" with the election...


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> Yeah, how dare those other voters not in your social circle "tamper" with the election...



Most people I know said Obama wasn't even running in 2012, and he ended up winning anyway... So tell me, how does someone who isn't even running get elected? Sounds a little fishy, doesn't it?.


----------



## spudmunkey

Tell me this: how does someone who's not running win an election that never even happened?


----------



## jaxadam

Now you’re on to something...


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Most people I know said Obama wasn't even running in 2012, and he ended up winning anyway... So tell me, how does someone who isn't even running get elected? Sounds a little fishy, doesn't it?.



Joking? I realize that it's a sad state of affairs when I'm already like 50/50 split on this.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

This thread is over two years old. It seems some people are still in denial, hmm?

Time for a new thread already since this one is no longer relevant. He's gone. Hang up your hats already.

Hes got enough sperm on his face he doesnt need any of yours'!


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> This thread is over two years old. It seems some people are still in denial, hmm?
> 
> Time for a new thread already since this one is no longer relevant. He's gone. Hang up your hats already.



We already made this joke like 100 pages ago. For all intents and purposes it's just the "WTF is Trump doing now" thread. That this thread chronicled the whole run from the start of his political run just kind of brings to bear the ridiculousness of the situation every time you click it.


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> Hes got enough sperm on his face he doesnt need any of yours'!
> View attachment 62036



"This Mueller investigation is a waste of time!"

::returns to examining paintings of past presidents for sperm-shape veins::


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> "This Mueller investigation is a waste of time!"
> 
> ::returns to examining paintings of past presidents for sperm-shape veins::



What the Mueller investigation IS showing was the FBI’s strong bias toward preventing Trump from becoming President. The KGB stepped in to level the playing field and disrupt an Obama era monopoly on a widespread liberal agenda. All of the pieces of the puzzle will be coming together soon, comrade.


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> What the Mueller investigation IS showing was the FBI’s strong bias toward preventing Trump from becoming President. The KGB stepped in to level the playing field and disrupt an Obama era monopoly on a widespread liberal agenda. All of the pieces of the puzzle will be coming together soon, comrade.


"Liberal agenda"

FBI director and Special Counsel are both Republicans


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Most people I know said Obama wasn't even running in 2012, and he ended up winning anyway... So tell me, how does someone who isn't even running get elected? Sounds a little fishy, doesn't it?.


Up to that post, I wasn't entirely convinced you were trolling. 

---------------------

Anyone else savvy to the news that the DOJ published a report that lambasted Comey for his handling of the Clinton email fiasco? I wonder if there's some next step in that saga, or if it was just the DOJ pissing in the wind. Maybe he should be fired...oh wait.

And I'm still not sure how the endgame of this collusion thing could even play out in different scenarios:

A) Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. Ok, then what? Impeach Trump for something illegal he did before taking office - I'm alright with that, but on exactly what charges?
B) Trump was unaware/cannot be proven to have been aware of the collusion that occurred. Nail his cronies, but then he might simply pardon them, then go after him for obstruction or what? I think that'd be not only an unprecedented move against the most prestigious federal office, but it'd open up a can of worms in terms of how checks and balances work within government.
C) I think any options C or D or whatever are all but off the table at this point, if we know what we think we know.


----------



## bostjan

jaxadam said:


> Most people I know said Obama wasn't even running in 2012, and he ended up winning anyway... So tell me, how does someone who isn't even running get elected? Sounds a little fishy, doesn't it?.


Up to that post, I wasn't entirely convinced you were trolling. 

---------------------

Anyone else savvy to the news that the DOJ published a report that lambasted Comey for his handling of the Clinton email fiasco? I wonder if there's some next step in that saga, or if it was just the DOJ pissing in the wind. Maybe he should be fired...oh wait.

And I'm still not sure how the endgame of this collusion thing could even play out in different scenarios:

A) Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. Ok, then what? Impeach Trump for something illegal he did before taking office - I'm alright with that, but on exactly what charges?
B) Trump was unaware/cannot be proven to have been aware of the collusion that occurred. Nail his cronies, but then he might simply pardon them, then go after him for obstruction or what? I think that'd be not only an unprecedented move against the most prestigious federal office, but it'd open up a can of worms in terms of how checks and balances work within government.
C) I think any options C or D or whatever are all but off the table at this point, if we know what we think we know.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> The U.S. interferes singlehandedly with elections and governments all over the world since


Hey, no one's saying we're angels. But that doesn't mean we have to passively sit there and accept it when someone tries to do it to us. If you want to go pure Kissinger on this, the reason we can get away with it is because we have economic, military, and soft power far in excess of the countries where we have inserted ourselves. Are you saying Russia is that much more powerful than us that we have to accept their attempts to interfere with the election?



Unleash The Fury said:


> Sure. But id say as far as the left goes its about 5% give a shit about American Democratic process, and 95% pure boiling hatred for Trump.


Who says it's a continuum, an either-or? For me, it's 100% giving a shit about the American democratic process, and also 100% pure hatred of Trump and his policies. I mean, belief in the democratic process and rule of law is a pretty good reason to hate someone who subverts the former and argues the latter doesn't apply to him, no? Trump is fundamentally damaging this country, not in terms of short term political objectives, but in terms of damaging the international order we built and trying to systematically weaken the rule of law and the federal balance of power.

Put it this way - during the W. years, I never called for impeachment. I thought W. represented a missed opportunity for our country and made some bad decisions, but I never once felt like he wasn't trying to do what was best for the country. Cheney, maybe a different story, but I disagreed with him, more than I thought he was fundamentally tearing up the fabric of this nation. Trump is something wholly different. Shit, even now I'm not calling for impeachment, so much as calling for the Mueller investigation to be allowed to run its course, and increasingly feeling it's a likely outcome of the Mueller investigation, based on what we now already know.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> A) Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. Ok, then what? Impeach Trump for something illegal he did before taking office - I'm alright with that, but on exactly what charges?
> B) Trump was unaware/cannot be proven to have been aware of the collusion that occurred. Nail his cronies, but then he might simply pardon them, then go after him for obstruction or what? I think that'd be not only an unprecedented move against the most prestigious federal office, but it'd open up a can of worms in terms of how checks and balances work within government.


I mean, disadvantaging the United States by working with America's enemies for personal gain is a crime described as "treason" in our laws, and is a capital offense. If Trump knowingly worked with Russia in return for future foreign policy concessions if elected, that's a pretty strong case for impeachment.

I think B is more likely how this will be tried, since it's unclear if it's possible to indict a sitting president - the Nixon model, where Trump is an unnamed co-conspirator, would be my guess on how this goes down. Of course, that works with a president that still fundamentally respects the rule of law, and I think your guess that Trump would just quickly pardon any of the named co-conspirators is a good one. At that point, it becomes a political calculation. How clear and how damning is the evidence, and how much does it hurt Trump's an the GOP's approval ratings? If he holds up well, it's tough to ballpark, but if his approval follows a Nixon-like trajectory, it's a pretty safe bet the GOP impeaches him for obstruction of justice.

I also don't know what other options there are - I think we have pretty clear evidence of at least attempted wrongdoing on the part of Trump's campaign.

Also, this was a nice thing to see on my lunch break: Manafort's going to jail:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/...eakingNews&contentID=67146134&pgtype=Homepage

I know, I know. Fake news. No collusion. The new indictment on tampering with witness never happened. Lies!


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, disadvantaging the United States by working with America's enemies for personal gain is a crime described as "treason" in our laws, and is a capital offense. If Trump knowingly worked with Russia in return for future foreign policy concessions if elected, that's a pretty strong case for impeachment.
> 
> I think B is more likely how this will be tried, since it's unclear if it's possible to indict a sitting president - the Nixon model, where Trump is an unnamed co-conspirator, would be my guess on how this goes down. Of course, that works with a president that still fundamentally respects the rule of law, and I think your guess that Trump would just quickly pardon any of the named co-conspirators is a good one. At that point, it becomes a political calculation. How clear and how damning is the evidence, and how much does it hurt Trump's an the GOP's approval ratings? If he holds up well, it's tough to ballpark, but if his approval follows a Nixon-like trajectory, it's a pretty safe bet the GOP impeaches him for obstruction of justice.
> 
> I also don't know what other options there are - I think we have pretty clear evidence of at least attempted wrongdoing on the part of Trump's campaign.
> 
> Also, this was a nice thing to see on my lunch break: Manafort's going to jail:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/15/...eakingNews&contentID=67146134&pgtype=Homepage
> 
> I know, I know. Fake news. No collusion. The new indictment on tampering with witness never happened. Lies!



US Federal Law Title 18 subsection 2381: 



> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.



That's the legal definition of "treason," and I don't see that sticking, even if the Dems win the midterms.

First, you'd have to establish that Russia is an "enemy" in this context, which I don't think would fly, and then you'd have to prove that what Trump did aided them somehow, which, I know, you'll say that him being president means that they get special treatment, but you'd still have to prove something actually transpired that aided them in the context of whatever was done to aid them was the treason itself, otherwise, it's loosely connected at most.

And I'm not saying any of this is "okay" or "not a big deal," I'm simply saying that the legal battle is going to be very sticky and unpredictable if it goes down that road. I see just as likely an outcome where Trump walks away declaring victory over his opponents, and then proceeds to take that as an excuse to do even more damage to freedom and to the integrity of the nation.

In case B, I think Trump really only cares about himself. I could see him pardoning his pals and not giving two shits about the GOP's approval ratings, but I could also see him not giving a shit about his pals and not wanting to make himself look fishy. Again, Trump is so unpredictable that it makes any "what if" scenarios virtually useless. 

I think the only way to get there to be any real tangible setbacks for Trump out of all of this is if he is removed from office, and, for me, the "high road" way of doing that is to connect the dots to make a picture that says that Trump was definitely elected as some result of some shady deal with Russia, and then to somehow nullify the results of the election, then redo everything and take the fact that internal and international respect for the democratic process in the USA is obliterated as our motivation to make sure this sort of thing can never happen again.

The treason or conspiracy or whatever, at this point, I think, is going to be like pulling a rabbit out of a hat for whomever prosecutes the case. I don't think it can't be done, but I do think that it can't be done without some sort of surprise tactics.

Ultimately, I'd rather see Trump cleared of any wrongdoing and continue to be president than for us to have to deal with such a serious blow to our country's integrity. He hasn't been as bad of a president as I expected him to be, but that's a damn low bar for him to get over.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> First, you'd have to establish that Russia is an "enemy" in this context, which I don't think would fly, and then you'd have to prove that what Trump did aided them somehow, which, I know, you'll say that him being president means that they get special treatment, but you'd still have to prove something actually transpired that aided them in the context of whatever was done to aid them was the treason itself, otherwise, it's loosely connected at most.


1) I don't think it would be hard to argue that Russia is an enemy right now, especially conditional on being able to prove aid. 

2) We know the Trump campaign removed language condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine as part of the Republican platform in 2016. We also _just_ saw Trump try to get Russia reinstated into the G8 in Ontario after they were removed for the invasion of Ukraine, which was unanimously rejected by the rest of the G7. He and his teams have made some pretty clear moves to aid Russia. If we could prove some sort of tit-for-tat agreement - "We'll leak the Clinton emails, but only on these terms" - then the second part of that is pretty neatly buttoned up. And, if the second part is pretty neatly buttoned up, if we had clear proof that Trump helped Russia in a number of ways that ran counter to America's then-prevailing interests, then it makes it a lot easier to conclude that their actions are those of an enemy state. 

3) Do I think it's _likely_ that Trump will be executed for treason? No. But I think if there's a strong argument that what he's done could reasonably be tried in a court of law for treason, then yeah, I think it's pretty likely the GOP will agree to impeach him and remove him from office, as a lesser penalty than what he _could_ be tried for. 

I guess the two other points I'd make... I don't think TRUMP will care about the GOP's approval rating, and I don't think he will avoid actions that would cause their approval rating to decline. I DO, however, think that the _GOP_ cares very greatly about their approval ratings, and if they begin to decline to the point where a blue tide looks inevitable and if Trump's actions are clearly responsible for the decline... Then the political calculus begins to shift a little where there may be an electoral advantage in impeaching him and being seen as taking steps against rampant abuse of power.

Also, for the first, oh, 480 days of the Trump presidency, I'd have agreed that the only reason Trump hasn't been as bad as I expected was that he was surprisingly ineffective as a leader. I think in the last couple weeks, though, we've seen a shift in strategy - he's gone from trying (and to a surprising extent failing) to enact a political agenda, to attacking the rule of law and America's traditional place in the world. Attacking and condemning traditional allies, cozying up and praising brutal regimes, and weakening the long-standing Western alliance and upsetting international groups like the G7 we've long worked in close accord with abroad, while at home going after rule of law by having his lawyers argue he's above the law and therefore can't possibly obstruct justice. In the last call it one month, he's begun attacking the international relationships that this country has spent nearly a century building, as well as trying to weaken the checks on his power at home. That is _deeply_ concerning, in ways that, say, a deficit-fueled predominately corporate tax cut during the peak of an economic expansion where deficits normally should be shrinking and not expanding never were. The latter seems like an unsound decision, the former seems like a consolidation of power.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> US Federal Law Title 18 subsection 2381:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the legal definition of "treason," and I don't see that sticking, even if the Dems win the midterms.
> 
> First, you'd have to establish that Russia is an "enemy" in this context, which I don't think would fly, and then you'd have to prove that what Trump did aided them somehow, which, I know, you'll say that him being president means that they get special treatment, but you'd still have to prove something actually transpired that aided them in the context of whatever was done to aid them was the treason itself, otherwise, it's loosely connected at most.



That is one possibility, but what constitutes treason goes beyond that. Here's another take on it from the legal dictionary at Law.com:

treason

n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly those involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition," which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.​



bostjan said:


> I think the only way to get there to be any real tangible setbacks for Trump out of all of this is if he is removed from office, and, for me, the "high road" way of doing that is to connect the dots to make a picture that says that Trump was definitely elected as some result of some shady deal with Russia, and then to somehow nullify the results of the election, then redo everything and take the fact that internal and international respect for the democratic process in the USA is obliterated as our motivation to make sure this sort of thing can never happen again.



This I don't see happening. Even if this could be proven, I doubt that any action taken would be so drastic as to nullify the election this far down the line.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Up to that post, I wasn't entirely convinced you were trolling.



Swing by my crib man and we can shoot the shit about politics and what not. It's not hard to miss I'm right on the corner.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> 1) I don't think it would be hard to argue that Russia is an enemy right now, especially conditional on being able to prove aid.



Ok, let's give it a try. Seeing as how it is a nation that has never been at war with the USA, what makes Russia an enemy of the USA?



Drew said:


> 2) We know the Trump campaign removed language condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine as part of the Republican platform in 2016. We also _just_ saw Trump try to get Russia reinstated into the G8 in Ontario after they were removed for the invasion of Ukraine, which was unanimously rejected by the rest of the G7. He and his teams have made some pretty clear moves to aid Russia. If we could prove some sort of tit-for-tat agreement - "We'll leak the Clinton emails, but only on these terms" - then the second part of that is pretty neatly buttoned up. And, if the second part is pretty neatly buttoned up, if we had clear proof that Trump helped Russia in a number of ways that ran counter to America's then-prevailing interests, then it makes it a lot easier to conclude that their actions are those of an enemy state.



Trump will just say that he's attempting to enact diplomacy that benefits all Americans. Sure, if you find that smoking gun that we've been waiting to see for ~2 years now, then he'd be nailed, but, in case it never materializes, I just don't see things coming together in a legal case against him.



Drew said:


> 3) Do I think it's _likely_ that Trump will be executed for treason? No. But I think if there's a strong argument that what he's done could reasonably be tried in a court of law for treason, then yeah, I think it's pretty likely the GOP will agree to impeach him and remove him from office, as a lesser penalty than what he _could_ be tried for.



Methinks you underestimate how stubborn the GOP can be. 



Drew said:


> I guess the two other points I'd make... I don't think TRUMP will care about the GOP's approval rating, and I don't think he will avoid actions that would cause their approval rating to decline. I DO, however, think that the _GOP_ cares very greatly about their approval ratings, and if they begin to decline to the point where a blue tide looks inevitable and if Trump's actions are clearly responsible for the decline... Then the political calculus begins to shift a little where there may be an electoral advantage in impeaching him and being seen as taking steps against rampant abuse of power.



That's a good point, and might end up being the key to how things play out. I really don't think they would impeach one of their own even if he's not cut from the same cloth as they are.



Drew said:


> Also, for the first, oh, 480 days of the Trump presidency, I'd have agreed that the only reason Trump hasn't been as bad as I expected was that he was surprisingly ineffective as a leader. I think in the last couple weeks, though, we've seen a shift in strategy - he's gone from trying (and to a surprising extent failing) to enact a political agenda, to attacking the rule of law and America's traditional place in the world. Attacking and condemning traditional allies, cozying up and praising brutal regimes, and weakening the long-standing Western alliance and upsetting international groups like the G7 we've long worked in close accord with abroad, while at home going after rule of law by having his lawyers argue he's above the law and therefore can't possibly obstruct justice. In the last call it one month, he's begun attacking the international relationships that this country has spent nearly a century building, as well as trying to weaken the checks on his power at home. That is _deeply_ concerning, in ways that, say, a deficit-fueled predominately corporate tax cut during the peak of an economic expansion where deficits normally should be shrinking and not expanding never were. The latter seems like an unsound decision, the former seems like a consolidation of power.



I guess I missed the change in his strategy. To me, it simply seems like a few things he had been working on for ages all finally started paying off, and we are sure to see it more and more as time goes on. These aren't mastermind-level things, just stuff like wearing down Kim Jong Un through the back-and-forth they've been having for several months now, and the report from the DOJ that he solicited before he was even elected. The guy is the PotUSA, so when he tells someone at the DOJ to do something for him, they have only so much time before they need to respond or else lose their job. Also, as diplomat-in-chief of the nation, if North Korea wants to meet with someone, and he wants to be the one with whom they meet, there's no one to stop him. 



tedtan said:


> That is one possibility, but what constitutes treason goes beyond that. Here's another take on it from the legal dictionary at Law.com:
> 
> treason
> 
> n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly those involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition," which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.​



Honestly, I don't like Trump, but none of that definition really fits what he's been accused of doing.

US Federal Code 18 section 2384:



> If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.



Maybe loosely that? It's actually pretty gray in that he is President now, so if he "tried" to overthrow the government, he sort of succeeded, and that'd place him in power...not that it couldn't possibly be prosecuted that way, but I just don't see it working out. I guess time will tell.



tedtan said:


> This I don't see happening. Even if this could be proven, I doubt that any action taken would be so drastic as to nullify the election this far down the line.



It's not a great idea, but it's possibly the only way that it could happen. What alternative would not cause worse problems, legally?



jaxadam said:


> Swing by my crib man and we can shoot the shit about politics and what not. It's not hard to miss I'm right on the corner.



Shit, were you the one who stole those signs from Vermont?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

narad said:


> "This Mueller investigation is a waste of time!"
> 
> ::returns to examining paintings of past presidents for sperm-shape veins::






Hmm.... The head of the sperm seems to be missing on Obamas actual face.....I guess the artist made a booboo.


Oh no wait, this artist includes sperm somewhere in all of his paintings. Strange he would choose that artist to paint his portrait, knowing that...


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> Oh no wait, this artist includes sperm somewhere in all of his paintings. Strange he would choose that artist to paint his portrait, knowing that...



Childish bullshit. As much as Trump isn't taken seriously as a leader, this kind of stuff is why Trump supporters are viewed as dumb and immature.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Remind me where I said I support Trump? All i did was recognized that he gets bashed for the most insignificant things... I mean theres 207 pages of it


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> Remind me where I said I support Trump? All i did was recognized that he gets bashed for the most insignificant things... I mean theres 207 pages of it



Well you have definitely raised the bar in terms of bashing someone for the most insignificant things. Obama's so bad -- just look at these shapes an artist put in a painting that was commissioned of him. Why isn't the mainstream media covering this??


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> Remind me where I said I support Trump? All i did was recognized that he gets bashed for the most insignificant things... I mean theres 207 pages of it


Bashed for things like treason. Or the other day when he saluted a North Korean General.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

StevenC said:


> Bashed for things like treason. Or the other day when he saluted a North Korean General.


 he did what?!


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> Shit, were you the one who stole those signs from Vermont?



No, my 1984 Ford Bronco with a confederate flag and shotgun rack with a Skoal dip can on top of my shifter wouldn't make it that far with me having to pull over every 50 miles to add water to the radiator while my pregnant wife smokes Parliaments while breast feeding our 6th kid with the windows down going 49 mph in the fast lane up 95 blasting Kid Rock.


----------



## zappatton2

Unleash The Fury said:


> he did what?!
> View attachment 62052


And the hell Obama caught for a bow in Japan, an ally where that is a custom formality? He was called treasonous! Your president claims admiration for the exact same hero worship dictatorships engage in. Can that not be disconcerting, I mean, at the very _least??_


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Ok, let's give it a try. Seeing as how it is a nation that has never been at war with the USA, what makes Russia an enemy of the USA?


Barring the Cold War? See below.



bostjan said:


> Trump will just say that he's attempting to enact diplomacy that benefits all Americans. Sure, if you find that smoking gun that we've been waiting to see for ~2 years now, then he'd be nailed, but, in case it never materializes, I just don't see things coming together in a legal case against him.


...except, as a private citizen, which as a presidential candidate he still is, with respect to foreign policy, he literally _can't_ enact diplomacy and negotiate on behalf of a country that he doesn't yet represent. So, even if as president he's in the right to argue that he believes it's in our best interest to return the G7 to the G8, if he agreed to do that in return for electoral help in the primary or general election, then as someone not authorized to negotiate on the behalf of the United States, any attempt to unilaterally "enact diplomacy" that runs counter to the State Department is treason. And, anything he did _before_ the election, such as weakening GOP platform language on Ukraine, he can't even plead "enacting diplomacy" since he wasn't yet a diplomat.

And, to go full circle, any nation trying to work counter to the interests of the United States by covertly intervening in our electoral process in order to elect someone they have made secret deals with probably constitutes an enemy of the state, no?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Drew said:


> Barring the Cold War? See below.
> 
> 
> ...except, as a private citizen, which as a presidential candidate he still is, with respect to foreign policy, he literally _can't_ enact diplomacy and negotiate on behalf of a country that he doesn't yet represent. So, even if as president he's in the right to argue that he believes it's in our best interest to return the G7 to the G8, if he agreed to do that in return for electoral help in the primary or general election, then as someone not authorized to negotiate on the behalf of the United States, any attempt to unilaterally "enact diplomacy" that runs counter to the State Department is treason. And, anything he did _before_ the election, such as weakening GOP platform language on Ukraine, he can't even plead "enacting diplomacy" since he wasn't yet a diplomat.
> 
> And, to go full circle, any nation trying to work counter to the interests of the United States by covertly intervening in our electoral process in order to elect someone they have made secret deals with probably constitutes an enemy of the state, no?


For all intents and purposes, any nation trying to make deals with another nation, would be more considered an ally, not an enemy. It fits the description better. Even if not by a treaty. Id rather make secret deals with Russia then have a nuclear war with them. 

Heck, I dont care If Trump whispered to NK's Kim's ear and said, "look, you have some prime beach front real estate that I can put the biggest and best hotels here, just let me do that, AND I'll come visit you once a month and give you oral pleasure. (Haha), all you have to do is stop developing nuclear weapons...." I would think thats a good thing!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unleash The Fury said:


> For all intents and purposes, any nation trying to make deals with another nation, would be more considered an ally, not an enemy. It fits the description better. Even if not by a treaty. Id rather make secret deals with Russia then have a nuclear war with them.
> 
> Heck, I dont care If Trump whispered to NK's Kim's ear and said, "look, you have some prime beach front real estate that I can put the biggest and best hotels here, just let me do that, AND I'll come visit you once a month and give you oral pleasure. (Haha), all you have to do is stop developing nuclear weapons...." I would think thats a good thing!



If I try to work out a deal with someone holding a gun to my head, I wouldn't quite consider them an "ally". Context is everything. 

Guys like Putin and Kim aren't in this for simple, immediate financial gain. They want power and power at the expense of the rest of the world. 

They're also a heck of a lot smarter than Trump. They know that. The world knows that. That's one of the reasons that this is such a problem.

If Trump was a genius and the hero for the working class that he said he would be we'd be having a much different conversation.


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> Heck, I dont care If Trump whispered to NK's Kim's ear and said, "look, you have some prime beach front real estate that I can put the biggest and best hotels here, just let me do that, AND I'll come visit you once a month and give you oral pleasure. (Haha), all you have to do is stop developing nuclear weapons...." I would think thats a good thing!


Have you read the US Constitution?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

MaxOfMetal said:


> If I try to work out a deal with someone holding a gun to my head, I wouldn't quite consider them an "ally". Context is everything.
> 
> Guys like Putin and Kim aren't in this for simple, immediate financial gain. They want power and power at the expense of the rest of the world.
> 
> They're also a heck of a lot smarter than Trump. They know that. The world knows that. That's one of the reasons that this is such a problem.
> 
> If Trump was a genius and the hero for the working class that he said he would be we'd be having a much different conversation.


I agree theyre not in in for financial gain however all this has nothing to do with Trump saying hes a hero for the working class. This doesnt prove otherwise


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> I agree theyre not in in for financial gain however all this has nothing to do with Trump saying hes a hero for the working class. This doesnt prove otherwise


No, but adding trillions to the deficit to give millionaires a tax cut does.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unleash The Fury said:


> I agree theyre not in in for financial gain however all this has nothing to do with Trump saying hes a hero for the working class. This doesnt prove otherwise



How does Trump's dishonesty _not_ play into this? 

They, as in foreign powers, watch our media and follow our elections very closely.


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> No, but adding trillions to the deficit to give millionaires a tax cut does.



Ahh, yes...the "Kansas Windfall", not to be confused with the "Cincinnati Raincoat".


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> They, as in foreign powers, watch our media and follow our elections very closely.



Because lying about one thing doesn't mean they are lying about the other.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

MaxOfMetal said:


> They, as in foreign powers, watch our media and follow our elections very closely.



Oh then they should be as ill-informed and misled as the rest the U.S. Let me add this... especially if they watch CNN


----------



## auxioluck

Drew said:


> Put it this way - during the W. years, I never called for impeachment. I thought W. represented a missed opportunity for our country and made some bad decisions, but I never once felt like he wasn't trying to do what was best for the country. Cheney, maybe a different story, but I disagreed with him, more than I thought he was fundamentally tearing up the fabric of this nation. Trump is something wholly different. Shit, even now I'm not calling for impeachment, so much as calling for the Mueller investigation to be allowed to run its course...



I'm not going to get in the middle of the political debates anymore here; mainly because I'm sick of the tribal state our society is in right now. But I wanted to just say that you just helped me sum up my feelings on politics in general. I have voted Republican my entire life, with this election being the exception. Even though Bush Jr. wasn't great, and even though I disagreed with a lot of Obama's actions, I never got the feeling that they didn't care about the nation's well-being. I could at least look at them, read them, and decide for myself that regardless of whatever policies I didn't agree with, they would always do what they felt was best for the country based on their own beliefs. That's really all I ask from politicians (asking any more of them is foolish and generally fruitless).

I have never gotten the feeling from Trump that he cares about much beyond what he feels is best for himself. And I'm not talking about what news is saying, or whatever bullshit the independent (see: unverifiable and unaccountable) media outlets are spewing from either side. I'm talking about pretending how I would feel if I met him on the street, and what my opinion would be. And I _feel_ that if I met him without knowing who he was, I would think he was just another racist, delusional, xenophobic baby boomer. At the very least, I would assume he was somewhat uneducated _or_ very unintelligent, which would mean we wouldn't find much common ground. 

Simply put, he seems to be almost a cookie cutter of my father after he gradually started avoiding the family and living in his RV, listening to Rush Limbaugh, reading the Bible, and watching nothing but Fox News. He lives in Florida now with his female cousin (whom he has long had a very strange relationship with), has dyed his hair red (presumably to look more Trump-like), and won't even talk to my mother outside of text (for reference, they were married almost 30 years before he went off the rails). I'm not saying this to complain about my life; that chapter is behind me. But I'm saying this to indicate that I have experience with the same type of person that Trump at least _portrays_ himself as. 

As far as current events go, I give Trump a pass for saluting the NK General. I've been in enough social anxiety settings that when I fuck up a handshake, my brain panics. Watching that whole thing, that's what I saw happen. Failed handshake, panic, salute in reply. No big deal to me. I hope that SK/NK can actually have peace without it coming back to bite us in the ass. Time will tell.

Long post; point is - thanks Drew for wording my philosophy better than I have been able to.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Barring the Cold War? See below.
> 
> 
> ...except, as a private citizen, which as a presidential candidate he still is, with respect to foreign policy, he literally _can't_ enact diplomacy and negotiate on behalf of a country that he doesn't yet represent. So, even if as president he's in the right to argue that he believes it's in our best interest to return the G7 to the G8, if he agreed to do that in return for electoral help in the primary or general election, then as someone not authorized to negotiate on the behalf of the United States, any attempt to unilaterally "enact diplomacy" that runs counter to the State Department is treason. And, anything he did _before_ the election, such as weakening GOP platform language on Ukraine, he can't even plead "enacting diplomacy" since he wasn't yet a diplomat.
> 
> And, to go full circle, any nation trying to work counter to the interests of the United States by covertly intervening in our electoral process in order to elect someone they have made secret deals with probably constitutes an enemy of the state, no?



The cold war was between the USA and the USSR; the latter no longer exists. Before you do a "potato potahto" argument, keep in mind that Russia is a completely different nation with a different government and different borders.

But, there again, trying to negotiate a what-if-deal with a foreign nation, even if it could be linked up believably in court, would be difficult to make stick as treason. In fact, you know, to me, trying to say Trump committed "treason" by working with Russians to try to gain an upper hand in the election is part of this culture we've fallen into as Americans, where we eliminate the middle ground in everything. Is that wrong? Yes! Is that treason? No! Treason is a terrible act of betraying one's fellows in the context of war. The consequences of classical treason are measured out in the lives of young men (and women) trying to defend their countrymen. It's punishable by death for that reason. Meddling in an election is a huge deal; I'm not trying to downplay that, but if justice is to be served, the punishment has to fit the actual crime. In this case, I don't think the founders of the nation ever sat down to discuss this sort of scenario where a foreign nation indirectly interfered with our election.

Here's what I think we ought to do _*if*_ Mueller manages to link all this stuff up to paint a picture where Trump himself colluded with Russians to have them infiltrate facebook and fake news sites to influence people's voting habits:

1. Trump should be tried, along with whomever else was involved, for "Seditious Conspiracy" against the USA, on the grounds that he took part in the process of taking power of the executive branch facilitated by a foreign interest. I would think that he would be encouraged to plea down to acting as an "agent of foreign principle," and I would assume that such would likely please the court. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-80/pdf/STATUTE-80-Pg244.pdf)
2. The Russian government should be investigated for their role in the act, and if found to have been involved in any official capacity, US diplomacy toward them should be altered to reflect that. Otherwise, they should be approached respectfully in order to assist in tracking down those responsible for the conspiracy on the Russian side.
3. Trump would obviously need to be removed from office if he took office under any sort of false pretense or illegal/fraudulent conspiracy. I think where we are at now, even without the conclusion of the investigation, it sure looks like Trump took office as at least a partial result of some sort of fraudulent conspiracy. I guess how much of his being in office is due to said conspiracy is where things might be a bit sticky, but really, there's no way to feel good about any of this.

And, if, what I see is a more likely outcome, Mueller and his team are unable to trace anything concrete back to Trump himself, but we suspect that he was savvy to the whole thing, then we're in a big political gambit of trying to prosecute Trump's pals knowing that Trump holds the hand of cards necessary to pardon them all and fire Mueller. The thing is, that in a "normal" world, Trump playing that hand would guarantee his fall from grace, in terms of public opinion, but I think he's already shown that his support level has been weak all along and those people are willing to forgive literally anything he does, as long as he's not a democrat.  So, it's a big strategic game with the highest of stakes, and I'm obviously in no position to play myself.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> For all intents and purposes, any nation trying to make deals with another nation, would be more considered an ally, not an enemy. It fits the description better. Even if not by a treaty. Id rather make secret deals with Russia then have a nuclear war with them.


Any NATION, maybe. Considering that during the runup to the election Trump and his campaign were not the sitting government and therefore were not authorized to engage in international diplomacy, well...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953



> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 744; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)



You personally may think it's a good thing that a private citizen may unilaterally decide to try to negotiate with Russia. The law, however, is somewhat more clear. It's worth remembering that this is what got Flynn fired.

@bostjan - well, if you don't like the term "treason," that's fine. If you called it something else, such as the "Sedicious Conspiracy" you mention, I don't think that really changes the validity of anything I've said in the past few posts. Trump couldn't engage in diplomacy during the election, because he was not a diplomatic representative of the United States authorized to do so. A defence where Trump had contact with Russia during the election and came to agreement with them to do certain things in return for electoral help based on "hey, I was just engaging in diplomacy" doesn't hold water, because 1) he wasn't a diplomat at the time, and as if that alone wasn't enough, 2) he was pretty clearly acting in his own best interest, and not that of the United States.



auxioluck said:


> Long post; point is - thanks Drew for wording my philosophy better than I have been able to.


I mean, I'm sorry to hear you feel this way too... It's a shitty feeling. And I'm sorry for the way your father has gone off the deep end. That's hard to live with.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, today's breaking Russia news: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?utm_term=.635db20b06d4&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

Roger Stone and Michael Caputo repeatedly denied having any contact at all with Russians during the election. Turns out, that was a straight-up lie, and they'd met with a Russian in May 2016 offering to sell them dirt on Hillary Clinton for $2mm. They seem to have turned the offer down, and are now claiming to be the targets of an FBI sting... but, if they thought it was a sting, why lie about it in the first place?


----------



## bostjan

I just think it's best to draw the line and stick with it. Regardless of what I might have said over a year ago now, I don't think any of what Trump's being accused of doing is not a big deal. I do, however, think we should be careful in measuring out judgement consistently with the facts. Bringing Trump up on treason charges for conspiring with a foreign agent to help with propaganda for an election? If that happens, how would I know that I won't be charged for murder the next time I get caught going 3 mph over the speed limit, you know? Not all crimes are equal.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I just think it's best to draw the line and stick with it. Regardless of what I might have said over a year ago now, I don't think any of what Trump's being accused of doing is not a big deal. I do, however, think we should be careful in measuring out judgement consistently with the facts. Bringing Trump up on treason charges for conspiring with a foreign agent to help with propaganda for an election? If that happens, how would I know that I won't be charged for murder the next time I get caught going 3 mph over the speed limit, you know? Not all crimes are equal.


Well, the severity of the crime would depend on what he gave, and what he got in return. Treason is not an impossible outcome, but that's a pretty high bar. I'd say on the lower end, a violation of that section 953 prohibition on private citizens negotiating with foreign powers, a violation of the emoluments clause, and/or campaign finance law violations by accepting something of value from a foreign national, plus obstruction of justice, are pretty plausible. Conspiring with a foreign power is probaly somewhere in between.

Though, the flip side, is if Trump is ultimately charged with obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations, specifically accepting something of value from a foreign national, I think Fox is going to have a relatively easy time painting this as proof there was "no merit" to the investigation and there was "no collusion," even if collusion and then covering it up is basically what we're talking about here. There's a legal side to this and a political side to this, and I think the political side is if Mueller were to try to indict Trump or recommend impeachment, he's well aware that the crimes in question would need to be obviously pretty damned serious, to be clearly beyond the fray of partisan bickering. 

Put another way - obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations are easier to prove and to try, but treason or seditious conspiracy are probably going to be a lot easier for the American public, and especially the center-right of the American public, to _accept_ as the outcome of this investigation, if that makes any sense at all.


----------



## bostjan

Well, you may be right, but I don't think the public being more willing to accept a charge due to the scope of the investigation is really an approach with any rational merit.

Take treason off the table, unless there's something much worse than suspected, and keep looking into everything else you brought up, and I'm happy with the fact that Mueller's looking into these things. If it turns out as I expect, though, Trump himself will have too many layers of padding for any of this to lead directly to anything that can be tied to his direct actions.

I'm sure his proponents will brush off any charges relating to campaign laws, but, to me, it's really what we're talking about here. If the accusations are accurate, then Trump violated the law with how he ran his campaign, and, as a big part of his platform was how he was so much better than the "politicians" who mismanaged their campaign finances, it'd be a huge blemish on his reputation (if he had any positive reputation to start)...

But, most of all, if that's what it is, then that's what it is.  Just because he's someone we don't like as president, or maybe even if you'd go so far as to say he's a sleazy dirtbag, you can't go and charge him with something so much worse than what he's actually allegedly done without a lot of blowback, and if you know he didn't technically do the thing you are saying he did, I think such blowback would be deserved.


----------



## bostjan

Double post...again


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Honestly, I don't like Trump, but none of that definition really fits what he's been accused of doing.
> 
> US Federal Code 18 section 2384:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe loosely that? It's actually pretty gray in that he is President now, so if he "tried" to overthrow the government, he sort of succeeded, and that'd place him in power...not that it couldn't possibly be prosecuted that way, but I just don't see it working out. I guess time will tell.



I just meant that since US law is created by legislators and then, ultimately, interpreted by a judge, (1) the broader definition I posted shows that the current definition is broader than the one initially set out in the constitution, and (2) a different judge could interpret it to be even broader. 




bostjan said:


> It's not a great idea, but it's possibly the only way that it could happen. What alternative would not cause worse problems, legally?



I tend to share Drew's views on this, and I think the only way we'll see him removed from office is it it can be proven that he committed treason. Otherwise, we'll have to wait out his term.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Well, you may be right, but I don't think the public being more willing to accept a charge due to the scope of the investigation is really an approach with any rational merit.
> 
> Take treason off the table, unless there's something much worse than suspected, and keep looking into everything else you brought up, and I'm happy with the fact that Mueller's looking into these things. If it turns out as I expect, though, Trump himself will have too many layers of padding for any of this to lead directly to anything that can be tied to his direct actions.
> 
> I'm sure his proponents will brush off any charges relating to campaign laws, but, to me, it's really what we're talking about here. If the accusations are accurate, then Trump violated the law with how he ran his campaign, and, as a big part of his platform was how he was so much better than the "politicians" who mismanaged their campaign finances, it'd be a huge blemish on his reputation (if he had any positive reputation to start)...
> 
> But, most of all, if that's what it is, then that's what it is.  Just because he's someone we don't like as president, or maybe even if you'd go so far as to say he's a sleazy dirtbag, you can't go and charge him with something so much worse than what he's actually allegedly done without a lot of blowback, and if you know he didn't technically do the thing you are saying he did, I think such blowback would be deserved.



So, there are two parallel things going on here, though, is my point.

1) what is the actual legal case against Trump, based on what we've learned and will continue to learn from the Mueller investigation?

2) What is the likelihood that the legal case against Trump is going to be interpreted as proof of a deep state conspiracy to take down Trump, after the Mueller investigation failed to turn up proof of collusion?

Considering that impeachment is a political and not legal process, I think the second question matters a lot less than you think it does. Right now, I think we have pretty clear evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of Trump. If the letter of the law was all that mattered, he'd already be impeached, you know? The fact he hasn't been is largely because the Republican voters are taking the stance that obstruction of justice isn't the crime Trump was being investigated for, and they're not prepared to accept the equivalent of going after the Mob for tax evasion.

I really think for Trump to get impeached, we have an awfully high bar of severity for the crime, purely because of how strong today's partisan divide is.


----------



## bostjan

Huh, impeachment is "not a legal process?!"


----------



## bostjan

Double double post post post


----------



## bostjan

Ok, I'll probably take some flack for this, but I think I can handle it...

What if all of this stuff is all part of some master plan. The allegations that Russia played people using social media, relying on bandwagon mentality and culture wars here in the USA to destabilize us after Obama. Trump's immigration policy right now is making very major waves, and his own GOP doesn't like it one bit. Trump's negotiations with NK, Trump's legal issues...what if all of that was part of the same game plan, too? The fact that people are too afraid to try to approach this mess from the high ground and set things right without compromising our values...

Russians are known for their aptitude at long-term strategies. Putin is one of the best among them at it. This could be a "fork" strategy, where he's setting us up on one particular gambit, and our only way out of it is to play into another trap. _If_ Trump is in Russia's pocket, our knee-jerk reflex will be to oust him, but if his ouster leaves a power vacuum and if Trump leaves the Oval Office with the nation in a mess, and the torch gets passed by default to Pence, and Pence is set up as divisive, then we are going to be worse off in terms of being manipulated. So, _if Putin is behind Trump's ascent to power, we must at least entertain the thought that he is likely prepared for Trump's downfall as well._ 

So, what's the end-game in this "what if?" If Putin is making Trump the leader of the USA, and setting up divisiveness as the fallout of getting him out, he'll be trying to split Americans as much as possible into as many factions as possible who all hate each other as much as possible. And it'd make perfect sense, strategically, since the two major parties right now are at an all time record spitefulness level. Once we all get beyond Trump, whether it's through failing at reelection or removal from office, we still have to deal with our greatest enemy, which is being a nation divided.

I think our best defense against that is to come up with the best possible candidate to oppose Trump in 2019, but not someone who simply opposes his hairbrained policies (to be fair, most of his policies make perfect sense from his supporter's perspective), but someone who can unite people. In today's political climate, I don't think there is such a person.  On the other hand, if Trump is ousted in 2019 (2018 is half over already, and the investigation seems to be unable to link him in, currently), which is an election year, we will likely end up with another mess of an election, with haphazard candidates trying to score points against each other out of the muck. So... another year of two sides hating each other before they even got to equilibrium after the last election. If that continues long enough, a fearless leader, like someone cast from the same mould as Putin, comes along and sweeps up all of the broken factions of American politics and is elected leader. Yeah, it's far fetched, but it's not against the current trends.

I'm personally not convinced that there is some great Russian conspiracy to take over the USA, but every step of this investigation, it becomes slightly more plausible. And I don't think anyone's really trying to think two moves ahead with the whole scenario.


----------



## Randy

@bostjan 

I may have posted earlier in this thread but the tl;dr is that the Russian game is/was to destabilize the US and use any means necessary to take their place on the world stage, which is similar to what you're alluding to here. 

I don't think Russia is out to be super evil, Hitler-esque world domination in their goals necessarily but they want to be taken seriously as a world power, which would include increased trade and industry in the model of what the US has benefited from for the last 100 years. If Trump looks like an idiot, and he keeps up his "America First" puffing up his chest with threats of tariffs and ripping up all international trade agreements, yeah, Russia would love that and I'm sure they anticipated all that. 

There's a special I believe Discovery or History ran about Russia and the quote was "after 9/11 when the US turned their attention to terrorism, we turned our attention to you". I absolutely think there's a 'prime mover' behind the way things have played out over the last 2 years.


----------



## bostjan

In the international stage, Russia is constantly under attack from the USA for being untrustworthy. This applies to the UN and the G7/G8, etc. If Russia makes us look like we are bad at carrying out our own democracy by electing an idiot through the naivety of a significant portion of the population coupled with the loopholes in our electoral system, then they already won the pot, they just have to wait for the rest of the hands to show. I think we opened ourselves up to this in 2000 with the Bush election, and by not addressing the issue for the following ~20 years, we really just "allowed" it to happen. If we go down the road of removing Trump from office by some weaksauce argument rather than any of the legitimate reasons, because of lawyers or whatever, then this plays right into Russia's hands.


----------



## Randy

At this point, everything plays into Russia's plans. You can probably find this storyline somewhere in the first two or three seasons of Archer.

Destabilizing simply needs to do anything to cast doubt on effectiveness. If Trump gets to stay in office and implement batshit crazy policies while going unchecked, Russia wins. If Trump is ousted and the Democratic process of the US is called into question, Russia wins.

The perfect case study in their technique comes from the fact they were making fake accounts and running Facebook campaigns for various groups that were diametrically opposed to eachother; they were actually running 'white lives matter' and 'black lives matter' pages simultaneously. They didn't favor one side, they favored both sides bludgeoning one another.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

bostjan said:


> Ok, I'll probably take some flack for this, but I think I can handle it...
> 
> What if all of this stuff is all part of some master plan. The allegations that Russia played people using social media, relying on bandwagon mentality and culture wars here in the USA to destabilize us after Obama. Trump's immigration policy right now is making very major waves, and his own GOP doesn't like it one bit. Trump's negotiations with NK, Trump's legal issues...what if all of that was part of the same game plan, too? The fact that people are too afraid to try to approach this mess from the high ground and set things right without compromising our values...
> 
> Russians are known for their aptitude at long-term strategies. Putin is one of the best among them at it. This could be a "fork" strategy, where he's setting us up on one particular gambit, and our only way out of it is to play into another trap. _If_ Trump is in Russia's pocket, our knee-jerk reflex will be to oust him, but if his ouster leaves a power vacuum and if Trump leaves the Oval Office with the nation in a mess, and the torch gets passed by default to Pence, and Pence is set up as divisive, then we are going to be worse off in terms of being manipulated. So, _if Putin is behind Trump's ascent to power, we must at least entertain the thought that he is likely prepared for Trump's downfall as well._
> 
> So, what's the end-game in this "what if?" If Putin is making Trump the leader of the USA, and setting up divisiveness as the fallout of getting him out, he'll be trying to split Americans as much as possible into as many factions as possible who all hate each other as much as possible. And it'd make perfect sense, strategically, since the two major parties right now are at an all time record spitefulness level. Once we all get beyond Trump, whether it's through failing at reelection or removal from office, we still have to deal with our greatest enemy, which is being a nation divided.
> 
> I think our best defense against that is to come up with the best possible candidate to oppose Trump in 2019, but not someone who simply opposes his hairbrained policies (to be fair, most of his policies make perfect sense from his supporter's perspective), but someone who can unite people. In today's political climate, I don't think there is such a person.  On the other hand, if Trump is ousted in 2019 (2018 is half over already, and the investigation seems to be unable to link him in, currently), which is an election year, we will likely end up with another mess of an election, with haphazard candidates trying to score points against each other out of the muck. So... another year of two sides hating each other before they even got to equilibrium after the last election. If that continues long enough, a fearless leader, like someone cast from the same mould as Putin, comes along and sweeps up all of the broken factions of American politics and is elected leader. Yeah, it's far fetched, but it's not against the current trends.
> 
> I'm personally not convinced that there is some great Russian conspiracy to take over the USA, but every step of this investigation, it becomes slightly more plausible. And I don't think anyone's really trying to think two moves ahead with the whole scenario.


Come on even the average Joe knows that the culture wars, were started under Obama. Cultural marxism already existed but he gave it a boost. He's the one who made the huge push for everything to be LGBT, and rammed their community down everyones throat. Hes the one who shined a rainbow light on the whitehouse, which emboldened the gays tenfold, which made the conservatives get more furious, so that right there is starting a civil conflict in itself; when he could have just focused on more important, non-social issues. BLM started under him. All these stupid hashtag groups started under him. Obama deported 2.5 million through immigration orders.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

And before someone steps in and cries"whataboutism", just realize that this thread is 209 pages of what about Trump.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unleash The Fury said:


> Come on even the average Joe knows that the culture wars were started under Obama. He's the one who made the huge push for everything to be LGBT, and rammed their community down everyones throat. Hes the one who shined a rainbow light on the whitehouse, which emboldened the gays tenfold, which made the conservatives get more furious, so that right there is starting a civil conflict in itself; when he could have just focused on more important, non-social issues. BLM started under him. All these stupid hashtag groups started under him. Obama deported 2.5 million through immigration orders.
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
> 
> And before someone steps in and cries"whataboutism", just realize that this thread is 209 pages of what about Trump.



Always blaming them blacks and gays. How old school.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

MaxOfMetal said:


> Always blaming them blacks and gays. How old school.


You don't read too carefully I see..


----------



## bostjan

Unleash The Fury said:


> Come on even the average Joe knows that the culture wars were started under Obama. He's the one who made the huge push for everything to be LGBT, and rammed their community down everyones throat. Hes the one who shined a rainbow light on the whitehouse, which emboldened the gays tenfold, which made the conservatives get more furious, so that right there is starting a civil conflict in itself; when he could have just focused on more important, non-social issues. BLM started under him. All these stupid hashtag groups started under him. Obama deported 2.5 million through immigration orders.
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661
> 
> And before someone steps in and cries"whataboutism", just realize that this thread is 209 pages of what about Trump.


Not true. Culture wars were started under the GHW Bush administration. The term was coined in 1991 and popularized by Pat Buchanan. Buchanan campaigned against George HW Bush, despite being conservative republican, because he thought GHWB was not conservative enough. Buchanan lost the nomination, but still did damage to GWHB that ultimately contributed to Clinton's election in 1992.

As for Obama being LGBT-friendly, how dare he not persecute a group of people doing nothing illegal under federal law! As for BLM, how dare a group of people not want to be murdered by the police!

Not sure how you can blame Obama for people being black or being gay, but whatever, unrelated quasi-fascist rant is unrelated.


----------



## spudmunkey

"All these stupid hashtag groups started under him"

Yeah...how dare the widespread practice of using hashtags on social media and the growth of Twitter occur during his presidency.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not true. Culture wars were started under the GHW Bush administration. The term was coined in 1991 and popularized by Pat Buchanan. Buchanan campaigned against George HW Bush, despite being conservative republican, because he thought GHWB was not conservative enough. Buchanan lost the nomination, but still did damage to GWHB that ultimately contributed to Clinton's election in 1992.


I thought it dated back as far as Nixon and the "Silent Majority," though it didn't get dubbed "culture wars" until well after that...?


bostjan said:


> Huh, impeachment is "not a legal process?!"


Absolutely. Impeachment is handled by the Congressional and not Judiciary branch of government. It's not a legal process, it's not a criminal trial, and it's not a process that determines guilt or criminal wrongdoing. It's a process that removes the President from office.

An impeachable offense isn't a legally-defined term. As the saying goes, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decides it is.


----------



## synrgy

I'll just leave this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war

TL;DR = Only reference to Obama is a quote ('Obama vs Palin') from a Canadian pollster, used in the context of wanting to divide the Alberta electorate. As per, well, always, UTF is verifiably wrong.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

No, its everybodys rabid hatred for Trump. You guys are foaming at the mouth mad and want to see him impeached.

If this whole BS Russian thing turned out to be that Trump is 100% innocent, then you would surely pull out the magnifying glass to see what else you can inpeach him for.

Trump isn't the root of all evil, its your hatred for him that is.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I thought it dated back as far as Nixon and the "Silent Majority," though it didn't get dubbed "culture wars" until well after that...?
> 
> Absolutely. Impeachment is handled by the Congressional and not Judiciary branch of government. It's not a legal process, it's not a criminal trial, and it's not a process that determines guilt or criminal wrongdoing. It's a process that removes the President from office.
> 
> An impeachable offense isn't a legally-defined term. As the saying goes, an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate decides it is.



I'm pretty sure these conflicts between the blue group and the red group are all interconnected, but as far as this current ongoing "culture war," I don't recall anything widespread at all like that under Reagan. You've had your LGBT people and hippies and atheists and pot smokers and etc. for decades or longer, but this whole "us vs them" picked up considerable momentum when evangelicals in the early 1990's decided that they ought to start elbowing their way into politics because Red Leader One wasn't red enough. At the same time, the Libertarian movement picked up some steam as the alternative conservative philosophy of focusing on domestic economic issues and letting people smoke pot or have butt sex if that was their thing. Also, prior to that, democrats weren't nearly as galvanized in standing up for social freedoms. But maybe I don't remember it as clearly, since it's been a number of years since that shift occurred.

I think you are oversimplifying impeachment. Impeachment of the President is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:



US Constitution: Article One said:


> The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.



There would still have to be some criminal charges read, then the Senate acts as the council and jury in the case. It's not like a vote of no confidence - it is a legal trial in every sense, it's just conducted in a very different way. If the president is not found guilty of the charges read during the impeachment itself (analogous to an indictment in regular court), he or she cannot be punished.

TL;DR - If they can't charge Trump with a crime, he cannot be impeached.



Unleash The Fury said:


> No, its everybodys rabid hatred for Trump. You guys are foaming at the mouth mad and want to see him impeached.
> 
> If this whole BS Russian thing turned out to be that Trump is 100% innocent, then you would surely pull out the magnifying glass to see what else you can inpeach him for.
> 
> Trump isn't the root of all evil, its your hatred for him that is.



I don't want to see him impeached, I was even warning in the post to which you responded that even _if_ he was guilty of the allegations, impeaching him would just further the hypothetical Russian agenda. 

And dude, before that, I was arguing that he shouldn't be impeached unless evidence comes out that he committed a serious crime. I've been saying all along that this Russia thing, as it relates to Trump, doesn't seem like it's going to hold any water once it gets down to legal proceedings. That doesn't mean that I don't dislike him, though - I still think he's a horrible president, but that's a separate issue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unleash The Fury said:


> No, its everybodys rabid hatred for Trump. You guys are foaming at the mouth mad and want to see him impeached.
> 
> If this whole BS Russian thing turned out to be that Trump is 100% innocent, then you would surely pull out the magnifying glass to see what else you can inpeach him for.
> 
> Trump isn't the root of all evil, its your hatred for him that is.



"Racism and homophobia aren't bad, your hatred of racists and homophobes is."

-Unleash The Fury, probably



This has got to be satire.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think you are oversimplifying impeachment. Impeachment of the President is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
> 
> There would still have to be some criminal charges read, then the Senate acts as the council and jury in the case. It's not like a vote of no confidence - it is a legal trial in every sense, it's just conducted in a very different way. If the president is not found guilty of the charges read during the impeachment itself (analogous to an indictment in regular court), he or she cannot be punished.
> 
> TL;DR - If they can't charge Trump with a crime, he cannot be impeached.


Yes, but my point is, it's not like the Chief Justice has to sign off on the charges, and determine if they're "criminal" enough. The CJ simply oversees the proceedings, once the House has voted to impeach. In order to do so, they have to decide that the President has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is not a technically defined legal term and accordingly is subject to some debate what that can actually entail (as you'll recall from the Clinton proceedings, where whether perjury counted was a critical question). In practice, again, "high crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever half the House and 2/3rds the Senate decide they are.

http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html



> The impeachment process is _political_ in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.


It's not like I'm making this up, man. It's pretty widely understood that impeachment is the political act of removing a president from office, rather than a criminal trial resulting in criminal proceedings.

EDIT - actually, this provides some good color, too:


> The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. *The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.*
> 
> After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the _Federalist Papers_, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. *They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”*


Emphasis (bolded) mine. It's not about "did this person break the law, it's about did this person abuse power to the detriment of society, regardless of whether it was within their legal ability to do so.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Unleash The Fury said:


> No, its everybodys rabid hatred for Trump. You guys are foaming at the mouth mad and want to see him impeached.



I believe most people actually want Trump to do well (this is very different from wanting Trump to successfully implement his policies). The economy growing and the political climate becoming more stable benefits everyone in the US 

Honestly, impeachment kind of terrifies me given how divided this country already is. I think Trump is horrible, I think the direction the GOP has moved is horrible (I used to work for them out of college so this is not coming from a card-carry bleeding heart), but I do not want to see what will happen after a he is removed from office. 

Maybe I'm just overly paranoid but there are groups of people that have been emboldened by his election (whether or not that's his fault is up for debate) and some of those groups will be _very _unhappy to see him removed, especially if the evidence that leads to his removal is not solid. It's so easy to spread misinformation nowadays and surprisingly tough to get to the basic facts of any story. This will be an absolute mess.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew, you are quoting from a political website, and not the US Constitution or a legal organization, you know, right?

"Treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors," is very vague, in that it gives two specific things, then two groups of things, but all of those things have one common thread - that they are all crimes. 

Again, bostjan sounding like a broken record, but if they can't charge Trump with a crime, he cannot be impeached. If that crime happens to be treason, they will still have to make a case for treason. It's not like an impeachment proceeding has no rules to it, as you seem to be alluding. The Senate can't just say "we don't fucking like this guy, because he's an idiot," and then remove him from office. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is there in exactly the same propensity as a judge in a criminal jury trial. If something doesn't pass legal muster, he has it sustained.

I think a lot of the confusion here comes from the (maybe) thin line of distinction between "criminal" and "legal," perhaps. Impeachment is not a criminal trial, but it is a legal process. Legal is defined as "based on or concerned with the law." To say that an impeachment trial is not a legal process is kind of a daffy claim, honestly. It's governed by the law of the Constitution and by legal precedents, as determined by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (the highest official interpreting law) and executed by the Senate of the United States, (the highest official body making the law).


----------



## Unleash The Fury

bostjan said:


> I'm pretty sure these conflicts between the blue group and the red group are all interconnected, but as far as this current ongoing "culture war," I don't recall anything widespread at all like that under Reagan. You've had your LGBT people and hippies and atheists and pot smokers and etc. for decades or longer, but this whole "us vs them" picked up considerable momentum when evangelicals in the early 1990's decided that they ought to start elbowing their way into politics because Red Leader One wasn't red enough. At the same time, the Libertarian movement picked up some steam as the alternative conservative philosophy of focusing on domestic economic issues and letting people smoke pot or have butt sex if that was their thing. Also, prior to that, democrats weren't nearly as galvanized in standing up for social freedoms. But maybe I don't remember it as clearly, since it's been a number of years since that shift occurred.
> 
> I think you are oversimplifying impeachment. Impeachment of the President is overseen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
> 
> 
> 
> There would still have to be some criminal charges read, then the Senate acts as the council and jury in the case. It's not like a vote of no confidence - it is a legal trial in every sense, it's just conducted in a very different way. If the president is not found guilty of the charges read during the impeachment itself (analogous to an indictment in regular court), he or she cannot be punished.
> 
> TL;DR - If they can't charge Trump with a crime, he cannot be impeached.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to see him impeached, I was even warning in the post to which you responded that even _if_ he was guilty of the allegations, impeaching him would just further the hypothetical Russian agenda.
> 
> And dude, before that, I was arguing that he shouldn't be impeached unless evidence comes out that he committed a serious crime. I've been saying all along that this Russia thing, as it relates to Trump, doesn't seem like it's going to hold any water once it gets down to legal proceedings. That doesn't mean that I don't dislike him, though - I still think he's a horrible president, but that's a separate issue.


Sorry, that wasnt directed toward you, but everyone else.


----------



## zappatton2

As a Canadian, I would like to formally apologies for all those American shoes I've been smuggling in order to scuff them up and make them look old.

And as a substantive aside, internment camps for children? Really? I'm curious to witness the mental gymnastics required by his supporters to justify a formerly civil offence being purposely changed to a criminal one specifically to introduce precisely these sorts of unspeakable horrors upon already vulnerable and desperate people. Children scarred for life on purpose. By the government. WTliteralF?


----------



## groverj3

zappatton2 said:


> And as a substantive aside, internment camps for children? Really? I'm curious to witness the mental gymnastics required by his supporters to justify a formerly civil offence being purposely changed to a criminal one specifically to introduce precisely these sorts of unspeakable horrors upon already vulnerable and desperate people. Children scarred for life on purpose. By the government. WTliteralF?


It's despicable. The apologists for the disgusting behavior by this administration are the same kind of people who would've turned a blind eye in Nazi Germany because "Oh, well, that's just the law."

Let's not kid ourselves though, this place has always been like this. Interment of Japanese-Americans, having to fight a war against itself over whether you can own other human beings, jailing people for their political affiliations (or assumed affiliations) during the red scare, genocide of Native Americans, supporting authoritarian human rights abusing regimes, deciding that corporate profits are more important than public services. Etc...

This is business as usual.


----------



## groverj3

Also, the US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council. That's certainly a good look right now. Especially with the other goings on.

Circling the drain. Who knows what may be left by the time we have another election, and who knows whether enough voters can be swayed vs the number in Dark Lord Cheeto's cult of personality. Combined with the potential continuation of Russian/other destabilizing influences, we're all in for quite a show over the next few years.


----------



## bostjan

This child separation tactic is actually an executive interpretation of an old court decision: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/..._final_plus_extension_of_settlement011797.pdf

The decision states that INS shall have



> separate accommodations for minors whenever the District Director or Chief Patrol Agent determines



There is a list of stuff that should be a guideline, but there are enough vague statements about determining if the child is at risk or has acted disruptively or has possibly committed a crime. It sounds like they are using a very broad interpretation of that, though.

Trump has said multiple times that this policy isn't his doing, but he's also said it's something to do with democratic lawmakers. There doesn't seem to be any legislation on the books referring to the policy, so that statement seems inaccurate. Everyone is quick to point the finger at Trump, because he's the head of the executive branch, which is responsible for what is happening with the policy. However, no one is really coming forward with the wording of the policy itself. Either way, if Trump was a good leader, he would very simply tell INS to "stop separating families" and I am certain they would oblige, seeing as how he's the one signing the paychecks of the people who sign their paychecks.


----------



## Drew

I don't think that matters, though - you seem pretty dumbfounded that I could even _think_ impeachment is a political and not legal process, and pretty clearly I'm not alone in that. 

I mean, at the end of the day, the fact if you impeach Trump, you merely remove him from office rather than convict him of any crime whereby he's facing punishment (over and above getting fired) sort of speaks volumes, no?

I mean, shit, when I say an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate think it is, I'm quoting Gerald fuckin' Ford.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I don't think that matters, though - you seem pretty dumbfounded that I could even _think_ impeachment is a political and not legal process, and pretty clearly I'm not alone in that.
> 
> I mean, at the end of the day, the fact if you impeach Trump, you merely remove him from office rather than convict him of any crime whereby he's facing punishment (over and above getting fired) sort of speaks volumes, no?
> 
> I mean, shit, when I say an impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House and two-thirds of the Senate think it is, I'm quoting Gerald fuckin' Ford.


Frankly, I don't care how many people don't think it's a legal process, I only care what the laws and definitions say, since the world isn't run by majority opinion. Saying it's "a political and not a legal process" is like saying that milk is a dairy product and not a beverage. Also, it's a tangent. Your point being that Trump could be impeached for treason or basically whatever reason and it didn't have to fit any legal definitions of what "treason" is or whatever, so long as the senators don't like Trump. I had said it before, but I'll say it again - that's a gross oversimplification to the point where it's flat out inaccurate.

Again, an impeachment is a _trial_ overseen by a _judge_, and it's not "anything goes." If Trump is to be impeached for treason and subsequently removed from office, then he has to actually be guilty of treason.  I mean, I sort of can't believe we are even having an argument about this.

If you set a precedent that all it takes to remove a sitting president from office is a senate 2/3rds full of non-fans of the president, then, the next time a democrat is in office and we get a republican senate, we'll have to impeach that president, too.

And if you fall back on the "but Trump colluded with Russia" aspect of it, yeah, that's what we are talking about. But it needs to be proven in the impeachment proceedings if it's going to actually work.

We don't want to imprison an innocent person under any circumstances, but we don't want a guilty person holding high level public office. However, a person convicted during impeachment can be acquitted during the subsequent punitive trial and it does actually reverse the impeachment conviction (see _Hastings vs US_). Impeachment is a fully legal trial. Full stop. The fact that it is political doesn't somehow supersede that.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> If Trump is to be impeached for treason and subsequently removed from office, then he has to actually be guilty of treason.  I mean, I sort of can't believe we are even having an argument about this.



Well, the prosecutor only need convince the jury that the defendant is guilty in order to obtain a guilty verdict; the defendant need not actually be guilty. So even in this context, it comes own to what the jury believes.

It's no different in an impeachment proceeding, except that the biases of the "jury" are not vetted by both the prosecution and defense via the voir dire process.


----------



## bostjan

Correct. My point is that the Senators can't simply vote "we don't like this guy" in lieu of actually thinking he committed a crime, as Drew was alluding.


----------



## bostjan

Double

----

That was weird, too, the double post appeared a couple seconds after the original post. I wasn't doing anything but watching it post itself twice.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Again, an impeachment is a _trial_ overseen by a _judge_, and it's not "anything goes." If Trump is to be impeached for treason and subsequently removed from office, then he has to actually be guilty of treason.  I mean, I sort of can't believe we are even having an argument about this.



Legal dictionary guy says:

_Finally, the most significant effect of Clinton's impeachment and acquittal may be to define "high Crimes and Misdemeanors"to mean whatever the public wants. Scholars and politicians argued that the term purposefully is vague and undefined to allow Congress to handle each instance in the best interests of the nation. According to constitutional scholar Laurence H.Tribe, unless the rights of individuals or minority groups are threatened, our governing institutions are structured to make the sustained will of a significant majority all but impossible to topple—as the failure of the effort to remove President Clinton will dramatically illustrate." Even Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who voted to convict Clinton, said,"It's not just law. It's politics …. And you have to combine those two and say—and this ought to be the prevailing question—what is in the best interest of our country, of our nation, of our people."_

I think would imply that the charge brought against a president for impeachment could be much more vague and broadly defined than treason, as viewed in the context of war-time betrayal.

There's so many differing opinions of informed legal experts and professors though that I don't believe anyone has the ability to say for certain what interpretation might be pushed forward in a potential impeachment.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Correct. My point is that the Senators can't simply vote "we don't like this guy" in lieu of actually thinking he committed a crime, as Drew was alluding.


That's less clear-cut than you might think, actually. There's no standard of evidence for impeachment proceedings, nor is there any standard of what exactly constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors." Technically, yes, the House could vote to impeach a president for virtually any reason, and while it's possible the Senate will decide to vote not to impeach if they consider the accusations not serious enough (this was a part of the Clinton proceedings), there's no requirement that evidence of alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors," whatever those are, have to pass a "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even a "more likely than not" litmus test.

So, the way the constitution is written, yes, technically, the Senate could vote to impeach simply because they didn't like the guy. What an impeachable crime _is_ is not defined by the Constitution, nor is any standard of evidence specified.

This provides some color:
https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/98-806.pdf



> The focus of the impeachment inquiry is to determine whether the person involved has engaged in treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. *If the House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the individual in question and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, will be reported to the full House. *
> At the conclusion of debate, the House may consider the resolution as a whole, or may vote on each article separately. In addition, “as is the usual practice, the committee’s recommendations as reported in the resolution are in no way binding on the House.” *The House may vote to impeach even if the House Judiciary Committee does not recommend impeachment. A vote to impeach by the House requires a simple majority of those present and voting, upon satisfaction of quorum requirements.*





> *The Senate has not adopted standard rules of evidence to be used during an impeachment trial.* The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary questions. However, the Presiding Officer may choose to put any such issue to a vote before the Senate. Furthermore, any Senator may request that a formal vote be taken on a particular question.33 Final arguments in the trial will be presented by each side, with the managers for the House of Representatives opening and closing.



I promise you, I'm not just making this interpretation up. It's pretty standard. 

All of this is besides the point, since the gist of my whole argument here is there are two components to an impeachment against Trump - the facts of the case against Trump in the Russia case, and the political environment in which it'll be playing out and the degree to which Trump will credibly be able to spin, say, campaign finance violations and an obstruction of justice charge for firing Comey as a "witch hunt" and drummed up charges because "there was no collusion, so they had to find something else to charge me with." So, in essence, I'm arguing the reverse - not that they could impeach Trump just because they didn't like the guy, but they could have pretty solid, incontrovertible evidence that he had broken laws, but if it was likely there would be political consequences for impeaching him, then the GOP (and possibly even the Democrats) probably won't do so.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew: read the paragraph you quoted.



Drew said:


> The Presiding Officer possesses authority to rule on all evidentiary questions.


Evidentiary questions are ruled on by Pence, in the event of a Trump impeachment.



Drew's link said:


> When pleadings have concluded, the Senate will set a date for trial.29 Upon establishing this date, the Senate will order the House managers or their counsel to supply the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate with information regarding witnesses who are to be subpoenaed, and will further indicate that additional witnesses may be subpoenaed by application to the Presiding Officer.30 Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice presides over the Senate impeachment trial if the President is being impeached.



Same as a regular trial, really.

Furthermore, never before has the President been convicted in an impeachment proceeding, ever.

And, lastly:



Drew's link said:


> Impeachment proceedings in the Senate are governed by the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials.



Sure as hell doesn't sound like "anything goes" to me.


----------



## bostjan

Double

I was having some trouble with my computer mouse doing some work earlier...I think I need a new mouse. Apologies.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Drew: read the paragraph you quoted.
> 
> 
> Evidentiary questions are ruled on by Pence, in the event of a Trump impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> Same as a regular trial, really.
> 
> Furthermore, never before has the President been convicted in an impeachment proceeding, ever.
> 
> And, lastly:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure as hell doesn't sound like "anything goes" to me.


...actually, that would be John Roberts, not Pence, as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And, full quote, from the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials: 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf 



> And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, *which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote 179 RULES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS ø108¿ be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate*; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.


...basically Roberts would get to rule on whether something was admissible as evidence, unless the Senate decides to overrule him, which if a single member proposes the Senate takes the question up, they vote to see if they should. That's a pretty weak ability to rule, for one, and more to the point it's limited to what evidence is admissible or not, rather than what _level _of evidence is necessary to impeach. 

"Same as a regular trial" superficially maybe, but there's no formal codified definition of what laws that may result in impeachment if broken are, whereas in a normal trial we do have clearly written laws that can't be violated, and again, an impeachment is _not a criminal proceeding_ as it merely determines if a sitting President (or other government official) should be removed from office. Any criminal proceeding would have to come after that. And I'm not sure what the fact no president has ever successfully been impeached has to do with anything? Nixon was about to be before he resigned, and Clinton and Johnson, there weren't enough votes. 

I'm just going to kick this back to you, then, since I'm clearly not making my point understood. If this is a legal and not political process, where's the codified laws that result in impeachment if broken? Where's the evidentiary standard - "beyond a reasonable doubt" or otherwise that a senator must imply before he can vote to impeach? Because without some standard of what exactly is impeachable and what is not, and without some standard by which Senators need to measure the likelihood of a defendant's guilt... Then yeah, they clearly have a LOT of discretion about how they're going to proceed in an impeachment, and the main determinant of guilt isn't whether a definitionally-impeachable crime was committed and that this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (as in a criminal proceeding), but rather that the House has enough votes to get a motion to impeach passed by simple majority, and enough Senators are willing to vote to impeach to give a 2/3 majority. 

If you disagree, I want to see something a little more concrete than "oh, but that sounds a lot like a trial."


----------



## Drew

Hell, maybe you'll take it from the Times: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/how-the-impeachment-process-works-trump-clinton.html



> *What are the rules?*
> There are no standard rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first laying out trial procedures.
> ...
> The rules adopted by the Senate in the Clinton trial — including limiting the number of witnesses and the length of depositions — made it harder to prove a case compared with trials in federal court, said former Representative Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican who served as a House manager during the trial and is also a former United States attorney.
> 
> “Impeachment is a creature unto itself,” Mr. Barr said. “The jury in a criminal case doesn’t set the rules for a case and can’t decide what evidence they want to see and what they won’t.”





> *What are the standards?*
> The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.
> 
> In the case of Mr. Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury but that removing him from office was a bad idea.
> 
> “To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,” he said. “Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.”



This is _not_ a trial in any standard legal or criminal sense. I think Byrd's vote - he was sure Clinton had committed perjury, but voted to acquit anyway - should make that amply clear.


----------



## sawtoothscream

zappatton2 said:


> As a Canadian, I would like to formally apologies for all those American shoes I've been smuggling in order to scuff them up and make them look old.
> 
> And as a substantive aside, internment camps for children? Really? I'm curious to witness the mental gymnastics required by his supporters to justify a formerly civil offence being purposely changed to a criminal one specifically to introduce precisely these sorts of unspeakable horrors upon already vulnerable and desperate people. Children scarred for life on purpose. By the government. WTliteralF?



His supporters, You mean Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama? This law IS NOT NEW. Trump halted it so you can be happy now. Now bring the families together, give them the info on how to legally apply and send them back home.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sawtoothscream said:


> His supporters, You mean Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama? This law IS NOT NEW. Trump halted it so you can be happy now. Now bring the families together, give them the info on how to legally apply and send them back home.



Boy howdy, where to begin?

Let's start with what the executive order actually says/does: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...ive-order-immigration-trump-families-together

As far as the legality of them coming here, look into what asylum is:
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> There are no standard rules.


Also


Drew said:


> from the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> As far as the legality of them coming here, look into what asylum is:
> https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states



That's probably the most insidious part of the whole thing. Trump and his surrogates have spent the last two to three years making it sound like if you show up at the border unannounced for any reason, you're here illegally and need the book thrown at you.

Then you actually follow the issue and it turns out it's entirely about whether or not you cross at a point of entry. If you do, you get a lawyer and potentially somewhere to stay for days/weeks/months while your asylum case is heard, if you don't, you're thrown into detention indefinitely and maybe ultimately jail. That's a lot of red tape and nuance to assume someone knows when they're crossing a border on foot through the middle of the desert, frequently hundreds or thousands of miles from their home and entering somewhere that they likely don't speak the native tongue.

Which is funny because the "simplify the tax code so that you can submit your return on a post card" Republican Party seem to hate red tape if/when it applies to them but they see fit to throw people in jail for rules they don't even know whether or not they're breaking. Its like the Chris Farley Japanese Game Show from SNL.


----------



## synrgy

"I understood that reference."

https://www.hulu.com/watch/18882

CLASSIC.


----------



## bostjan

People who can't read English need to read and understand our laws better, especially the ones that are purposefully obfuscated and made difficult to find publicly. [/sarcasm]

Here's what the ACLU has to say about this: https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...and-detention/fact-checking-family-separation.

What's the strategy here? Do something to distract people from the Russia thing? Gain tons of praise from the masses who want to see small children torn away from their parents?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> What's the strategy here? Do something to distract people from the Russia thing? Gain tons of praise from the masses who want to see small children torn away from their parents?



Well, kinda that but that's a simplification. He promised his voters strong borders, zero tolerance 'law and order' policies and a wall. I think Trump, Kelly and Nielson were earnest when they alluded to (or outrightly said) that family separations were supposed to be used as a deterrent. They'd have to circumvent a LOT of laws to stop the flow of legal immigrants and asylum seekers to the extent his followers were expecting to see based on his promises during the campaign, so they decided the alternative was to make the asylum process SO difficult and so scary that even would-be legal immigrants wouldn't want to take their chances.

That's really the end goal. Remember the 'Shithole Countries' thing? Also the administration quietly reducing the number of LEGAL visas? So you have that, coupled with the push to end 'chain immigration', switch to 'merit based' (to an extent that the bulk of people who WANT to come to the US can't legally), the wall and of course, these deterrents to asylum seekers, etc. Not to draw it on exclusively racial lines, but he essentially told people who voted for him that he'd stop the flow of brown people into this country and you're just seeing him throwing as much at the wall as possible to see what sticks.

Where that relates to what you're talking about, I wouldn't say it's a "distraction" per-say but they've got a tough mid-term election coming up and the rest of the Republican Party have learned that the Trump wing is now the ONLY wing, and if they've got any chance of winning, it'll be by being able to deliver on Trump's promises. That's the reason why you had a Republican Party that was so willing to come to the table on 'path to citizenship' for not just Dreamers but illegal immigrants at large ~5 years ago that now sat mostly quiet when they were instead snatching kids at the border and detaining them and their parents indefinitely. They've been led to believe the only way to save their job is keeping the Trump agenda afloat.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/s...nt-asylum-seekers-fled-anti-semitic-violence/

------

I'm a fan of border security and rule of law and all that, but this policy of taking away little children was absolutely deplorable.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also


 ...which includes a discussion of the fact that one of the first steps in Impeachment in the senate is the Senate votes on what rules they want to govern the impeachment.  Did you actually read the document, or just the title?

***

Listen, I'll say this as simply as I possibly can - the _last_ time a president was impeached, political concerns played a _major_ part of the impeachment. If Trump were to be impeached by the House, I would expect them to _continue _to play a major issue.

Simple evidence that Trump committed perjury testifying under oath, or even that he obstructed justice by firing Comey to try to close down the Russia investigation, will only end in an impeachment (even if 100% of Congress is confident Trump is guilty) if Congress also believes that the American people believe he should be impeached. If they don't, then he's likely to survive an impeachment attempt. I don't think anyone would seriously argue Clinton didn't commit perjury, and yet he survived an impeachment proceeding accusing him of perjury. In the criminal justice system, he would have been found guilty.

That's why I'm arguing in order to impeach, we need clear evidence of something pretty major - not to convince the House and the Senate, but to convince enough of Trump's supporters that they turn on him. It's pure political calculus.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, kinda that but that's a simplification. He promised his voters strong borders, zero tolerance 'law and order' policies and a wall. I think Trump, Kelly and Nielson were earnest when they alluded to (or outrightly said) that family separations were supposed to be used as a deterrent. They'd have to circumvent a LOT of laws to stop the flow of legal immigrants and asylum seekers to the extent his followers were expecting to see based on his promises during the campaign, so they decided the alternative was to make the asylum process SO difficult and so scary that even would-be legal immigrants wouldn't want to take their chances.



I mean, I think there were other supporting factors in play - I believe Trump when he said this was also supposed to get the Democrats to the table to vote for his wall - but yes, I think a LOT of the Trump administration's actions on immigration thus far look like an earnest attempt to reduce illegal AND legal immigration and slow or stop the growth of non-white America.

As such, I'd interpret this as an attempt to deliver on a political promise that was popular with Trump's core supporters (cutting down on immigration, full stop), though one where they _severely_ miscalculated.

I also don't see how his executive order buys him any more of a "win" than a couple days' respite. It does nothing to reunite divided families currently at the border (and in a number of instances the kids have been held while their parents were returned to their home countries, making reuniting them _extremely_ difficult), and under the Flores Settlement children can only be detained for a maximum of 20 days, so after that period Trump needs to either ensure an immigration status decision has already been made (and he won't hire the number of judges needed to clear these backlogs), release the entire family (which he won't do, without abandoning zero tolerance, which he also won't do), or separate the children from their parents again, as he has already been doing. It just delays the inevitable, while undercutting his prior claims that he was powerless to do anything by executive action

He took a gamble that he could get away with this, faced a withering public backlash, and backed down... But, in such a way that actually doesn't really accomplish anything and sets him up for a second round of heat, and considering he lost the first I don't exactly see how he's going to do any better the second time around.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...which includes a discussion of the fact that one of the first steps in Impeachment in the senate is the Senate votes on what rules they want to govern the impeachment.  Did you actually read the document, or just the title?
> 
> ***
> 
> Listen, I'll say this as simply as I possibly can - the _last_ time a president was impeached, political concerns played a _major_ part of the impeachment. If Trump were to be impeached by the House, I would expect them to _continue _to play a major issue.
> 
> Simple evidence that Trump committed perjury testifying under oath, or even that he obstructed justice by firing Comey to try to close down the Russia investigation, will only end in an impeachment (even if 100% of Congress is confident Trump is guilty) if Congress also believes that the American people believe he should be impeached. If they don't, then he's likely to survive an impeachment attempt. I don't think anyone would seriously argue Clinton didn't commit perjury, and yet he survived an impeachment proceeding accusing him of perjury. In the criminal justice system, he would have been found guilty.
> 
> That's why I'm arguing in order to impeach, we need clear evidence of something pretty major - not to convince the House and the Senate, but to convince enough of Trump's supporters that they turn on him. It's pure political calculus.



I think you lost track of what I had been saying long ago when this started, and either misunderstood or ignored what I said subsequently, which is why I posted those two direct quotes from you that were blatantly contradictory.

When it comes down to voting on punishment in the impeachment trial, of course it will come down to how each Senator feels it will look and also their personal feelings. How is being tried by a jury of twelve random people differ from that, though, aside from the instruction from the defense lawyer that is intended to remind those jurors to only convict if there is no reasonable doubt? You kept saying that an impeachment trial was not a legal trial. I never said it was not political, you were the one who kept making the false dichotomy that something political cannot be legal, for some reason, which I think we both know is not accurate.

I guess I don't know what you think I was saying here, since you keep deflecting off of the main thing you said that caused me heartburn in reading.

Whether we need some sort of "smoking gun" evidence to convince the population of the USA, or we need it in order to convince the Senate to convict, or we need it in order to convince the Senate to convict based on how it will reflect on their popularity with their constituents, I don't think it fits with your statement that the legal case against Trump "matters a lot less than [ I ] think it does_."
_
If you want to approach this from a semantic aspect:



dictionary said:


> legal: adj, of, based on, or *concerned* *with the law*.
> impeach: verb (tr), If a court or a group in authority impeaches a president or other senior official, it charges them with *committing a crime* that makes them unfit for office.
> crime: noun, an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is *punishable by law*.



This idea perpetuated here and restated, that the Senate can legally impeach the president without him being charged with a crime, because of the phrase from the Constitution that defines an impeachable offense as "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors" is not accurate. The president has to be charged with a crime by the House and then tried in the Senate for that very same crime. If the House says that the president is being charged with treason and then treason is not proven in the Senate proceeding, the Senate cannot legally just say "well, he's innocent, but he's still an asshole, so let's remove him from office," and have it mean anything. As I posted before, there is a legal precedent already set in place that an impeachment can be overturned by a criminal federal court.

And yes, there are a lot of unknowns, but that doesn't mean that there are no rules.

Hypothetically, there is nothing stopping the Senate from voting to remove the president just because he's a shit president. Also, hypothetically, they could just kidnap the president and light him on fire. The fact that they could do these things in some weird dystopian anarchy doesn't mean that they will or that they are at all likely to do these things.

I'll reiterate, in case you missed it:

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say. I disagree with the bolded part of your statement that:



Drew said:


> *impeachment is *a political and* not legal process*



And also with



Drew said:


> There are no standard rules.



There are rules, which you even linked to, and the trial is certainly concerned with the law, as I have clearly explained.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> You kept saying that an impeachment trial was not a legal trial. I never said it was not political, you were the one who kept making the false dichotomy that something political cannot be legal, for some reason, which I think we both know is not accurate.
> 
> I guess I don't know what you think I was saying here, since you keep deflecting off of the main thing you said that caused me heartburn in reading.


Ok, we are going WAY down the rabbit hole of splitting hairs...

...but, what I mean by that, is it's not a "legal trial" in the same way a trial if you or I were to be arrested and tried for obstruction of justice would be, where we broke a specified law, we face a specified criminal charge, and our peers vote to determine if there is a reasonable doubt that we did what we were accused of.

Rather, Trump can face impeachment for virtually anything provided a majority of the House votes to impeach, will face no criminal charges as part of the impeachment (though he very well may be indicted after if found guilty), and the Senate does not need to determine he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach (or, perversely, does not need to impeach even if they determine he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).

If you're saying it's a "legal" proceeding because there's language in the constitution telling congress broadly how to proceed, then, sure... I guess. But, my point, is that impeachment is a process _entirely _removed from the US Code of Law. It's absolutely not a criminal proceeding, so the strength of a criminal case against Trump isn't really of primary importance here, or rather is primarily important in the manner in which the facts of the case impact the public's willingness to see Trump removed from office.

A court of law has to convict if they're convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An impeachment can remove the President at a lighter standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and doesn't _have_ to remove him even if there is no reasonable doubt of his guilt. That's the distinction I'm making.

EDIT - maybe this will help: 


bostjan said:


> The president has to be charged with a crime by the House and then tried in the Senate for that very same crime. If the House says that the president is being charged with treason *and then treason is not proven *in the Senate proceeding, the Senate cannot legally just say "well, he's innocent, but he's still an asshole, so let's remove him from office," and have it mean anything.



This is where we're disagreeing, in a nutshell. What does it mean to "prove" his guilt? If you can find a reference in the Senate guidelines for impeachment that he "must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," then half my argument goes up in smoke right there. 

There's a possibility that if the Senate just voted to remove the President from office on trumped-up grounds, then the Supreme Court could intervene - they've reserved the right to weight in on that question in past decision where they were careful not to take it off the table, but that has yet to be tested. However, in the Clinton impeachment, we DID see the reverse, where there was ample evidence of Clinton's guilt - he under oath said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," when he did - yet, the Senate voted not to impeach. The Senate basically said, "Well, he's guilty, but removing him from office for lying about getting a blowjob would make a proper mess out of the country, so let's leave him in office." 

Again, if you can find the pertinent passage here defining the standard of evidence of guilt that must be met and stipulating that the Senate has to convict if guilty and cannot convict if innocent, then half of my argument goes up in smoke and I'll concede that part. But, for now, I'd say the main reason we _haven't _seen the situation you describe is that it would be a violation of the political norms of this country, and with Trump tearing up political norms left and right, well, may god have mercy on us all.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

The only reason the seperation of children from their parents at the border is an issue is because Russia didnt work, Stormy didn't work, gun control didnt work and the democrats need something to craze about.

The reason these kids are being seperated is so they dont sleep in the same pen as possible rapists and molesters. People think its so inhumane that these people are given thermal survival blankets and cots, when just yesterday they were sleeping on rocks. Over-emotional left.

Democrats make a law, democrats enforce that law, a Trump gets elected and suddenly the law is immoral, outrageous and Trump gets blamed for it.

Planned Parenthood has been seperating kids from their families since 1916


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> View attachment 62138
> 
> The only reason the seperation of children from their parents at the border is an issue is because Russia didnt work, Stormy didn't work, gun control didnt work and the democrats need something to craze about.


Ok, sure, let's play ball. Why did Sessions impliment this policy on 4/6, then, if it was the Democrats looking for something new to rage about? 

https://apnews.com/b4e1e0d48489462cafdcf7eeb35d3f38

His memo:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download

Also, while we're at it, why is there so much _Republican_ rage about this, as well?


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Ok, sure, let's play ball.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


>


Oh, I have no problem tilting at windmills - note the fact I'm still debating impeachment with bostjan.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Ok, we are going WAY down the rabbit hole of splitting hares...



FTFY 



Drew said:


> ...but, what I mean by that, is it's not a "legal trial" in the same way a trial if you or I were to be arrested and tried for obstruction of justice would be, where we broke a specified law, we face a specified criminal charge, and our peers vote to determine if there is a reasonable doubt that we did what we were accused of.



You are equating "legal" with "criminal." A civil trial is still a legal trial. Please note that in a civil trial, which is still a legal trial, there is no such standard as "beyond reasonable doubt, but the defendant and the plaintiff still have to prove their case.  



Drew said:


> Rather, Trump can face impeachment for virtually anything provided a majority of the House votes to impeach, will face no criminal charges as part of the impeachment (though he very well may be indicted after if found guilty), and the Senate does not need to determine he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to impeach (or, perversely, does not need to impeach even if they determine he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt).



He still has to have committed a crime, though. That's where you're totally ignoring what the Constitution is saying. Just because it is vague about what sort of crime doesn't mean that the president can be impeached for something that is not a crime. The wording is "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." A misdemeanor, as I'm sure you know, is a kind of crime. 

If the Constitution said something was "Midnight blue, crimson red, some shade of yellow, or a hue of green," you can easily say that it's talking about a colour of some sort, even if it's vague as hell. Treason is a crime, bribery is a crime, crime is a crime, and misdemeanors are crimes, so, either damn way, the standard set in the language of the Constitution is that, for it to be an impeachable offense, it has to be a crime. It doesn't say the exact succinct words that exact succinct way, but there's no interpretation outside of that standard that makes any sense.

And not liking someone or someone being an idiot is not a crime. 



Drew said:


> If you're saying it's a "legal" proceeding because there's language in the constitution telling congress broadly how to proceed, then, sure... I guess. But, my point, is that impeachment is a process _entirely _removed from the US Code of Law. It's absolutely not a criminal proceeding, so the strength of a criminal case against Trump isn't really of primary importance here, or rather is primarily important in the manner in which the facts of the case impact the public's willingness to see Trump removed from office.



There you go again trying to shove the word "criminal" in as a synonym of the word "legal." Even so, impeachment is governed by the vague laws about it written in the Constitution. If you want to hone in on the Senate part of it, it's still governed by the Senate rules, it's not a free-for-all. The fact that the Senate rules only apply to the Senate doesn't matter, since we are specifically talking about a process that happens within the Senate. It's not "entirely removed from the US Code of Law" for those exact reasons. There is wiggle room where the rules and laws are not specific, but we can talk about those specifically, if you'd like.

I'm not going to say that the public's willingness to see Trump removed from office isn't indirectly related in some way, but that's not directly related here when we're talking about the laws and rules of impeachment.



Drew said:


> A court of law has to convict if they're convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An impeachment can remove the President at a lighter standard of evidence than "beyond a reasonable doubt," and doesn't _have_ to remove him even if there is no reasonable doubt of his guilt. That's the distinction I'm making.



A "criminal" court, outside the scope of impeachment, yes. Court in general, no. The universal standard is "preponderance of evidence." This works in civil trials, impeachment, traffic tickets, etc. Yes, I am aware that it's not as stringent as "beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing," but that's getting way more specific than anything I've been saying.

Furthermore, to argue that nothing has to be proven at all, would completely undermine the entire process of having a case to prove something. Just because the Senate does not have an adjective clause to tell us exactly what level of proof is required doesn't mean that _no_ proof is required.  If I order a sandwich at a restaurant and they bring me a bowl of soup, arguing that I didn't say what kind of sandwich is just a completely silly argument.



Drew said:


> EDIT - maybe this will help:
> 
> 
> This is where we're disagreeing, in a nutshell. What does it mean to "prove" his guilt? If you can find a reference in the Senate guidelines for impeachment that he "must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," then half my argument goes up in smoke right there.
> 
> There's a possibility that if the Senate just voted to remove the President from office on trumped-up grounds, then the Supreme Court could intervene - they've reserved the right to weight in on that question in past decision where they were careful not to take it off the table, but that has yet to be tested. However, in the Clinton impeachment, we DID see the reverse, where there was ample evidence of Clinton's guilt - he under oath said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman," when he did - yet, the Senate voted not to impeach. The Senate basically said, "Well, he's guilty, but removing him from office for lying about getting a blowjob would make a proper mess out of the country, so let's leave him in office."
> 
> Again, if you can find the pertinent passage here defining the standard of evidence of guilt that must be met and stipulating that the Senate has to convict if guilty and cannot convict if innocent, then half of my argument goes up in smoke and I'll concede that part. But, for now, I'd say the main reason we _haven't _seen the situation you describe is that it would be a violation of the political norms of this country, and with Trump tearing up political norms left and right, well, may god have mercy on us all.



Again, I don't have to show you a specific phrase in the rules that matches your specific notion of something that was never my point, in order to prove my point.

Look into the 1936 impeachment case of federal judge Halstead Ritter, if you'd like. There was a debate about what was impeachable and what was not, particularly over the final charge against him. It was ruled that the final charge was a misdemeanor, and he was dismissed because of that. If you read the actual charge, there are tens of thousands of 1930's US dollars in bribes listed there. Accepting a bribe to influence the result of a federal case, as a federal judge, is, indeed, a crime.

The "reasonable doubt" language, which you keep going to and I have not and am not putting forward as the standard of proof, has been debated many times, with Hastings, with Clinton, and at least one other time, I'm sure. Every time, it's been shot down, but that *does not mean that there is no standard of proof*, it just means that that is not the specific standard of proof. Again, the standard of "preponderance of evidence" used in trials in general, is still a standard of proof.

On page 59 of this pdf: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00280908d;view=1up;seq=77



> The Senate could choose from among of three established standards: beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing, and preponderance of evidence.



Yeah, choice of one of those three standards of proof, according to the Senate Rules. I think that pretty much buttons up the discussion of which is right, according to the rules, "anything goes" versus "proven to have committed a crime of some sort." So you can move on to your other pending argument now.


----------



## Drew

This is a titanic waste of time.  

Whether or not Trump gets impeached has a _massive_ political component, and unless his popularity really tanks and his core support erodes, we're going to need something more serious than perjury, obstruction of justice, or campaign finance violations to impeach him, _even if we can concretely prove he did any of them,_ because the political blowback from the far right would be immense. And if you don't agree with me, I honestly don't care because you're wrong.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I honestly don't care because you're wrong.



I mean, that's not cool at all, but whatever. If you don't have the time to read through my post, I can understand, but you could just not respond or say you're done, rather than choose to argue with whatever you think I might have said that you didn't even bother to look at. I guess I should have seen that coming from a mile away, since you had already been misquoting me for the last two pages.


----------



## jaxadam

Unleash The Fury said:


> Planned Parenthood has been seperating kids from their families since 1916



 You are slowly but surely becoming my hero.


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> View attachment 62138
> 
> The only reason the seperation of children from their parents at the border is an issue is because Russia didnt work, Stormy didn't work, gun control didnt work and the democrats need something to craze about.
> 
> The reason these kids are being seperated is so they dont sleep in the same pen as possible rapists and molesters. People think its so inhumane that these people are given thermal survival blankets and cots, when just yesterday they were sleeping on rocks. Over-emotional left.
> 
> Democrats make a law, democrats enforce that law, a Trump gets elected and suddenly the law is immoral, outrageous and Trump gets blamed for it.
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been seperating kids from their families since 1916


What do you, as a libertarian not a republican, think about immigration?


----------



## zappatton2

Unleash The Fury said:


> Planned Parenthood has been seperating kids from their families since 1916


I as recall it, Planned Parenthood exists to put women in control of their own reproductive self-determination, about as laudable a goal as any institution could have. Not sure their busy taking kids and locking them away from their parents, but I suppose that's a separate conversation for another thread.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Drew said:


> Ok, sure, let's play ball. Why did Sessions impliment this policy on 4/6, then, if it was the Democrats looking for something new to rage about?
> 
> https://apnews.com/b4e1e0d48489462cafdcf7eeb35d3f38
> 
> His memo:
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1049751/download
> 
> Also, while we're at it, why is there so much _Republican_ rage about this, as well?


I don't know.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

StevenC said:


> What do you, as a libertarian not a republican, think about immigration?


I dont remember saying specifically that im a libertarian. I do remember saying that I believe in some libertarian ideologies though. Either way, you have a pretty good memory.

How do I feel about immigration? In general or.........illegal immigration or.....? Thats a very vague, open ended question. Can you be more specific?


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> I dont remember saying specifically that im a libertarian. I do remember saying that I believe in some libertarian ideologies though. Either way, you have a pretty good memory.
> 
> How do I feel about immigration? In general or.........illegal immigration or.....? Thats a very vague, open ended question. Can you be more specific?


Well, either, but let's go with illegal immigration.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

StevenC said:


> Well, either, but let's go with illegal immigration.


I think its illegal. Lol. 

Im trying to figure out where your coming from because that will tell me where your going with this. If you're going to say "well the indians were here first and l, etc.." Then that will open up a whole can of worms.

A "true" libertarian believes in open borders all over the world. I certainly dont. We have a certain way of life here in the west, in the USA, that doesnt gel or compliment necessarily with people from the east/middle east. We need to preserve this way of life with strong borders.

As far as illegal immigration, i think people who try to come in illegally should at the very least be turned around and pointed in the opposite direction.....the same way I wouldnt let a foreigner in my house just for any reason. (illegals get treated much worse by other countries when they get caught).

My personal opinion about immigration in a more general sense, is that I believe we should actually not accept any more immigrants from anywhere, at least for a while. We"re full and have alot on our plate for now. We can barely sustain the current population with what we have. Or I should reword that as, the current population can barely sustain themselves, as the drug and homeless epidemic grows. Section 8 and welfare is growing (I think so anyway). So yeah IMO we should stop letting people in all together. White, black, brown, or whatever.

::ducks for cover::


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> My personal opinion about immigration in a more general sense, is that I believe we should actually not accept any more immigrants from anywhere, at least for a while. We"re full and have alot on our plate for now. We can barely sustain the current population with what we have. Or I should reword that as, the current population can barely sustain themselves, as the drug and homeless epidemic grows. Section 8 and welfare is growing (I think so anyway). So yeah IMO we should stop letting people in all together.



A lot of the people who try to get in but are turned away would otherwise be supporting all the born-Americans that are lazy, too good for low-paying jobs, homeless, or drug-users. All that western way-of-life we really need preserve :-/


----------



## Unleash The Fury

narad said:


> A lot of the people who try to get in but are turned away would otherwise be supporting all the born-Americans that are lazy, too good for low-paying jobs, homeless, or drug-users. All that western way-of-life we really need preserve :-/


 Let me understand this....you want other people to support other people, even if we have them here illegally to do that?


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> Let me understand this....you want other people to support other people, even if we have them here illegally to do that?



I'm saying the notion that with more people come more problems is wrong, and that we have a lot of the wrong kind of people inside the country and a lot of the right people outside of it. When you think historically off all the monumental things that first-generation immigrants have done, or the relative over-representation of second-gen immigrants at the top of their classes and in university admissions, and still want to say let's close the borders and sort out our problems? We should _open_ our borders and sort out our problems. The only thing a super closed border saves/prolongs is a white/anglo-values America, at the cost of innovation and GDP.

And no, I don't think having people illegally to do that -- we define someone's role as illegal, and if we didn't have absolutely absurd requirements to legally immigrate, then we'd have a lot of great legal immigrants.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

narad said:


> I'm saying the notion that with more people come more problems is wrong, and that we have a lot of the wrong kind of people inside the country and a lot of the right people outside of it. When you think historically off all the monumental things that first-generation immigrants have done, or the relative over-representation of second-gen immigrants at the top of their classes and in university admissions, and still want to say let's close the borders and sort out our problems? We should _open_ our borders and sort out our problems. The only thing a super closed border saves/prolongs is a white/anglo-values America, at the cost of innovation and GDP.
> 
> And no, I don't think having people illegally to do that -- we define someone's role as illegal, and if we didn't have absolutely absurd requirements to legally immigrate, then we'd have a lot of great legal immigrants.


I see what your trying to say, but its all subjective and anecdotal at best. I strongly disagree with you. Im still waiting for StevenC's reply


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> I see what your trying to say, but its all subjective and anecdotal at best. I strongly disagree with you. Im still waiting for StevenC's reply



As far as seeing a big picture in pure data, yea, it's subjective. But I've seen plenty of people who earned the right to come to the US and study, only to be denied entry after obtaining a masters or PhD. That's just dumb.


----------



## StevenC

Unleash The Fury said:


> I think its illegal. Lol.
> 
> Im trying to figure out where your coming from because that will tell me where your going with this. If you're going to say "well the indians were here first and l, etc.." Then that will open up a whole can of worms.
> 
> A "true" libertarian believes in open borders all over the world. I certainly dont. We have a certain way of life here in the west, in the USA, that doesnt gel or compliment necessarily with people from the east/middle east. We need to preserve this way of life with strong borders.
> 
> As far as illegal immigration, i think people who try to come in illegally should at the very least be turned around and pointed in the opposite direction.....the same way I wouldnt let a foreigner in my house just for any reason. (illegals get treated much worse by other countries when they get caught).
> 
> My personal opinion about immigration in a more general sense, is that I believe we should actually not accept any more immigrants from anywhere, at least for a while. We"re full and have alot on our plate for now. We can barely sustain the current population with what we have. Or I should reword that as, the current population can barely sustain themselves, as the drug and homeless epidemic grows. Section 8 and welfare is growing (I think so anyway). So yeah IMO we should stop letting people in all together. White, black, brown, or whatever.
> 
> ::ducks for cover::


How does "certain way of life in the USA" conflate with all your NWO/Deep State conspiracy nonsense?


----------



## Unleash The Fury

StevenC said:


> How does "certain way of life in the USA" conflate with all your NWO/Deep State conspiracy nonsense?


Thats an easy one. Our way of life is slowly being eroded due to that "nonsense" by way of cultural marxism.. Any other questions oddly, directly for me?


Lol


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> We have a certain way of life here in the west, in the USA, that doesnt gel or compliment necessarily with people from the east/middle east. We need to preserve this way of life with strong borders.
> 
> As far as illegal immigration, i think people who try to come in illegally should at the very least be turned around and pointed in the opposite direction.....the same way I wouldnt let a foreigner in my house just for any reason. (illegals get treated much worse by other countries when they get caught).


What the fuck are you going on about? The scores of perfectly wonderful people from middle eastern and arabic countries I know tells me they gel just fine. 

And when you consider that a lot of the families being separated are coming here to apply for asylum rather than trying to sneak over the borders, and we're _still_ separating families, detaining them, and then telling them the fastest way to get their kids back is plead guilty to a fraudulent claim of asylum? 



Unleash The Fury said:


> Thats an easy one. Our way of life is slowly being eroded due to that "nonsense" by way of cultural marxism.. Any other questions oddly, directly for me?


Just one. What the fuck is "cultural Marxism"?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, that's not cool at all, but whatever. If you don't have the time to read through my post, I can understand, but you could just not respond or say you're done, rather than choose to argue with whatever you think I might have said that you didn't even bother to look at. I guess I should have seen that coming from a mile away, since you had already been misquoting me for the last two pages.


Oh, I read it, but I'm just sick of explaining something that I thought was pretty broadly understood to you, and I'm not sure why you're continuing to argue this. If you prefer, then pretend I said impeachment is a political and not _criminal_ process, if that makes you feel any better. 

And if it doesn't, hey, after three days of this, that's on you. No one seriously doubted Clinton was guilty of perjury. The Senate still voted not to impeach him after the House advanced articles of impeachment including an accusation of perjury. The Supreme Court was cool with that. If that isn't a political decision in your eyes, I don't know what to tell you. THAT is why I'm telling you the strength of the case against Trump matters less than you probably think.


----------



## bostjan

Unleash The Fury said:


> cultural marxism



Ooo. 

That phrase, nine times or more out of ten, refers to the idea that society is chocked full of closet communists who want nothing more than to conspire with television and media and academia to destroy their liberty to grab ass and act tough or whatever. It's potentially meaningless, but use of that term, as well as use of the term "sheeple" really sets a tone that throws me off.

---------------

I've filed for a work visa to enter Canada before. It was a rather simple process, and if I needed to renew, I basically had to file a form and drive to the US border. If I lived in Canada and wanted to do the same in the USA, I would have 1000x more difficulty.

The idea of sealing the USA off from the rest of the world might sound nice to some people, but I truly don't think those people are looking far below the surface. First off, as long as the USA is a great place to live (which maybe it's not really anymore, our life expectancy is low, our happiness index is low, but our salaries are still generally high) people will find a way in. As long as trafficking in illegal stuff is lucrative, criminals will find a way in. You could build a wall a mile high and a mile deep, and people will swim around it in the ocean or burrow through it or go over it in balloons or whatever.

So, legal immigration and illegal immigration are two completely separate things.

How to deal with illegal immigration: You have to secure your borders. The USA is extremely fortunate to have borders with only two other countries. A great deal of the Canadian border is completely open, as in no security whatsoever. If somebody really wanted to sneak into Canada from the USA, it'd honestly only take 5-10 minutes to come up with a plan. I'm assuming that would work the same for people in Canada sneaking into the USA. So what should be done with people caught sneaking across the border? Turn them back the way they came, sure. But, to take their kids away from them, and put them into separate internment camps?! Come on! Are we _trying_ to emulate the 1940's here or what?!



Drew said:


> Just one. What the fuck is "cultural Marxism"?



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism



Drew said:


> If you prefer, then pretend I said impeachment is a political and not _criminal_ process, if that makes you feel any better.



Indeed, that makes me feel >50% better. 



Drew said:


> The Senate still voted not to impeach him after the House advanced articles of impeachment including an accusation of perjury. The Supreme Court was cool with that. If that isn't a political decision in your eyes, I don't know what to tell you. THAT is why I'm telling you the strength of the case against Trump matters less than you probably think.



This fits your argument and my argument the same, so it's a bit of a null point. I've been saying all along that no president has been successfully impeached before, because it's just really difficult to get a president impeached. You are saying that it's because of the political blowback. Both are likely correct answers, since there are 100 senators, and I'm fairly certain they don't all follow the same thought process.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> This fits your argument and my argument the same, so it's a bit of a null point. I've been saying all along that no president has been successfully impeached before, because it's just really difficult to get a president impeached. You are saying that it's because of the political blowback. Both are likely correct answers, since there are 100 senators, and I'm fairly certain they don't all follow the same thought process.


...though, giant fucking asterisk, the reason no president has been successfully impeached is largely because Nixon quit as soon as it became apparent he was going to be the first, after first the public and then the Republican party turned against him. Had he hung it out (and I'm trying to picture what Trump would do in this situation, and it's a tossup between going the Nixon route and trying to spin it somehow, and not really believing he was going to get removed until it was too late and then trying to desperately hold onto power somehow), he would have been the first. 

The GOP didn't crack on Nixon until his approval ratings plummeted into the 20s, after Saturday Night Massacre started to turn public opinion against him in a big way (and even then it took something like 8 months). That's why I don't think a bulletproof case that Trump fired Comey to try to shut down the Russian investigation is going to cut it, and that with low-40s approval we're going to need something more akin to treason or criminal conspiracy with an enemy nation, and even then because at that point I think there's a chance that Trump's approval numbers will start tanking. 

I guess as a general truism, I'd say that Trump is safe from being successfully impeached unless at least a material percentage of Republicans want to see him gone.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

bostjan said:


> Ooo.
> 
> That phrase, nine times or more out of ten, refers to the idea that society is chocked full of closet communists who want nothing more than to conspire with television and media and academia to destroy their liberty to grab ass and act tough or whatever. It's potentially meaningless, but use of that term, as well as use of the term "sheeple" really sets a tone that throws me off.
> 
> ---------------
> 
> I've filed for a work visa to enter Canada before. It was a rather simple process, and if I needed to renew, I basically had to file a form and drive to the US border. If I lived in Canada and wanted to do the same in the USA, I would have 1000x more difficulty.
> 
> The idea of sealing the USA off from the rest of the world might sound nice to some people, but I truly don't think those people are looking far below the surface. First off, as long as the USA is a great place to live (which maybe it's not really anymore, our life expectancy is low, our happiness index is low, but our salaries are still generally high) people will find a way in. As long as trafficking in illegal stuff is lucrative, criminals will find a way in. You could build a wall a mile high and a mile deep, and people will swim around it in the ocean or burrow through it or go over it in balloons or whatever.
> 
> So, legal immigration and illegal immigration are two completely separate things.
> 
> How to deal with
> 
> 
> 
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, that makes me feel >50% better.
> 
> 
> 
> This fits your argument and my argument the same, so it's a bit of a null point. I've been saying all along that no president has been successfully impeached before, because it's just really difficult to get a president impeached. You are saying that it's because of the political blowback. Both are likely correct answers, since there are 100 senators, and I'm fairly certain they don't all follow the same thought process.


Lol. "Hey Drew, you want to know what cultural marxism is? Instead of sending you an unbiased link, so you can therefore draw your own opinion on what YOU think it means, here is the MOST biased and slanted article on it in existence that I could find, just to make sure you'll think its as ridiculous as I do without thinking about. (which im sure you will agree with me anyway.) But here."


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> because Nixon quit



Yet Nixon was never accused of treason.



Unleash The Fury said:


> here is the MOST biased and slanted article on it in existence that I could find



That's almost fair. I concede that that source is liberally biased. The caveat is that the phrase, as I said, is extremely polarizing. I'd challenge you to find a less biased site that defines it. I'm sure you could dig it up on KnowYourMeme or maybe Prager U. Maybe you prefer the Urban Dictionary?

I mean, in this case, you can't say too much about the Rationalwiki being inaccurate.



Drew said:


> What the fuck is "cultural Marxism"?





Any sane person hearing the term for the first time said:


> "Cultural Marxism?" What the holy hell are you talking about?


Almost spot on. 



The Rationalwiki said:


> *Cultural Marxism* generally refers to one of two things:
> 
> 
> First — _extremely_ rarely — "Cultural Marxism" refers to an obscure critique of popular culture by the Frankfurt School, framing culture as being imposed by a capitalist culture industry and consumed passively by the masses.
> Second — in common usage in the wild — "Cultural Marxism" is an increasingly common snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.


The second definition matches my perception of the word's popular usage 99%. From the context of your usage, I can't discount the basic message there, either.

But I'd love to see a non-biased definition.


----------



## Drew

Unleash The Fury said:


> Lol. "Hey Drew, you want to know what cultural marxism is? Instead of sending you an unbiased link, so you can therefore draw your own opinion on what YOU think it means, here is the MOST biased and slanted article on it in existence that I could find, just to make sure you'll think its as ridiculous as I do without thinking about. (which im sure you will agree with me anyway.) But here."


Honestly, his link is arguably more tolerant, while still remaining in broad agreement with, the Wikipedia article on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

But, hey, you seem too have no issues at all making popular white nationalist arguments, so what the fuck do you care?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yet Nixon was never accused of treason.


If I didn't make this clear enough, I apologize, but the crux of what I'm saying is, _at current approval levels, where Trump continues to maintain the support of something like 85-90% of the GOP,_ obstruction of justice isn't going to be enough to get an impeachment through the Senate, because his supporters are going to see it as a drummed up charge after a failed witch hunt. Clear proof of treason, however, or direct evidence of collusion with Russia, may be enough... in large part because it'll also start to erode that 85-90% support in the GOP. If that support were to drop to a Nixon-like 20% nationally, which would be loosely akin to sub-50% GOP support... then obstruction of justice for firing Comey is alone probably enough. Basically, I'm saying I think there's a strong link between the severity of a crime that will lead to a successful impeachment, and the willingness of the voting public to see the president removed from office. 

This kind of makes intuitive sense, you know?



bostjan said:


> Almost spot on.


And yeah, my question was more "what the fuck sort of shit are you smoking" more than any actual desire to see him try to define what he was saying.


----------



## Unleash The Fury

Drew said:


> And yeah, my question was more "what the fuck sort of shit are you smoking" more than any actual desire to see him try to define what he was saying.



So there it is then. I'll just keep waiting for StevenC


----------



## narad

Unleash The Fury said:


> Thats an easy one. Our way of life is slowly being eroded due to that "nonsense" by way of cultural marxism.. Any other questions oddly, directly for me?
> View attachment 62156
> 
> Lol



Just text is okay -- it's not a picture book.

Just curious what this "way of life we need to preserve" is in concrete terms. Like what part of your day, what dynamic in your community is being challenged by immigrants / supposedly by the conspiracy cultural marxism bs? 

The fact that trucknutz is a thing ensures me that the American way of life is still alive and well.


----------



## bostjan

Unleash The Fury said:


> So there it is then. I'll just keep waiting for StevenC


I'm all for debate, and I'm not easily offended. I will say, though, that there are certain buzz words that some folks use to purposely upset other folks, and, if you use those buzzwords, knowingly or not, you will tend to either upset those other people which those buzzwords are typically intended to upset, or you will simply alienate yourself from the conversation. As I noted above, your use of the phrase "cultural marxism" in the context you used, unironically, really sent up a red flag for me.

Like, I honestly don't think I've ever had a conversation that went to cultural marxism that wasn't with a guy who was an unapologetic white nationalist, until maybe now, assuming you are professing to not be a white nationalist.


----------



## bostjan




----------



## jaxadam

Now where will he go?

We have a lot of bright people on here. We have a lot of people on here who have a lot of different beliefs and stances on politics, religion, social programs, the environment, the economy, etc. In the United States we currently have a very polarizing political climate that could potentially change the course of many of the things I just mentioned above. 

I'd like to see this thread do a few things:

Talk about topics relating to the current administration
Allow all members to discuss their points of view and the current topics they see/hear/read about
Let it be polarizing, let it get passionate, but keep the volume at a reasonable level
But most importantly, memes
So there you go. I'm sure this thing will turn into a shit fest here or there if it even stays open so I'd like to start off by asking: What is the most important issue you face in the current political environment? I will start off by saying for me there is an economic aspect, and while I feel the economy is strongly rolling along, I am not sure it will be able to remain this stable. I do like to see things like this, though, because it could be a vital key to preserving potential startup capital and growth to entrepreneurs who lack any other options.

https://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401008


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Uh, is this trolling?


----------



## NateFalcon

Shit show guaranteed, lol...Americans are too involved in what other people are doing around them, people used to just vote and keep politics and religion away from the chow wagon and didn’t generally hate their neighbors...now everybody seems to feel the need to publicly advertise their social and political beliefs and identify everyone around them categorically in order to classify (and separate imo) people. Every political change over comes with some pitfalls and NONE of these politicians are anyone I want to have over for a BBQ. I think people need to work harder on being successful in order to find purpose and happiness instead of bitching and whining about how “bad” everything is in a country where even the homeless now have air jordans and iPhones.


----------



## DudeManBrother

The only time I’ll post in here.


----------



## ElRay

On this specifically:


jaxadam said:


> ... https://smallbusiness.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=401008


If you really read it, it's laughable. He's already given all the large-cap businesses freebies that only their stockholders will see any benefit from, and then throw token LOANS at small businesses? The true irony here is that the overwhelming new job growth has been at the small-business level as long as I've tracked business stats (a mere 2+ decades), yet the GOP throws the freebies at large businesses.

At least Trump hasn't pissed-on and reversed all of the improvements over the past eight years simply because they have Obama's name on them. Bush JR's terms were horrendous for small business


----------



## BlackSG91

After Donald imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel products it seems like Canada is retaliating with tariffs on American goods. I just don't get it. Is Trump trying to make enemies out of his allies (G-7) while he cozies up to dictators like the North Korean leader? Canada is the U.S.'s biggest trading partner and now things are getting ugly. What's your perspective on the situation at hand?




;>)/


----------



## Xaios

Only fair that, given how we fought alongside the US against North Korea way back when, now North Korea gets the chance to fight alongside the US against us.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Oh no, not America's top hat. 

EDIT: Oh, and as Comedy Central's only reason for existing (ie, South Park) taught me, I'm blaming Canada.


----------



## groverj3

BlackSG91 said:


> After Donald imposed tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel products it seems like Canada is retaliating with tariffs on American goods. I just don't get it. Is Trump trying to make enemies out of his allies (G-7) while he cozies up to dictators like the North Korean leader? Canada is the U.S.'s biggest trading partner and now things are getting ugly. What's your perspective on the situation at hand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/



He's a fucking moron and so are the people who elected him.

There's no plan here. He's pure id. He's essentially what would happen if you let an ill tempered five year old become president.

The people that surround him in the administration are power hungry and don't really care what kind of damage he does because it gives them an important-sounding job. They rubber stamp his idiocy because it's what the morons who voted for him want, and will help them continue to keep their important-sounding jobs if he gets re-elected.


----------



## zappatton2

groverj3 said:


> He's a fucking moron and so are the people who elected him.
> 
> There's no plan here. He's pure id. He's essentially what would happen if you let an ill tempered five year old become president.
> 
> The people that surround him in the administration are power hungry and don't really care what kind of damage he does because it gives them an important-sounding job. They rubber stamp his idiocy because it's what the morons who voted for him want, and will help them continue to keep their important-sounding jobs if he gets re-elected.


So true it hurts! I know plenty of thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate people on the right of the political spectrum. But he doesn't represent classical conservatism. What he represents, and the support he still has, is something I find moderately "faith-in-humanity" shaking.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

historically speaking, trade/tariff wars never work out for anyone involved. I really hope some other people in the senate/congress prevent his cockamamie protectionist ideas from becoming a reality. American manufacturing jobs are never going to be like they were in the 70s, where you could be maybe high school educated and still live a comfortable middle class life. Steel mills are dead in this country, paper mills are close to dead too.


----------



## ElRay

More fake news. We all know the the war with Canada was started by a yuge SJW Jewish Female Mother from pot smoking, liberal Colorado. That was while Sadam Husain was already dead and in Hell before Barack Husain Obama let him out.


----------



## NateFalcon

...sounds fun, eh? (Strangebrew reference)


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

This thread.


----------



## possumkiller

Oh I thought it was going to be like a real invasion and shooting war. Dammit.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

possumkiller said:


> Oh I thought it was going to be like a real invasion and shooting war. Dammit.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

all i can think of when I think of america and canada going to war is the movie canadian bacon


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

KnightBrolaire said:


> all i can think of when I think of america and canada going to war is the movie canadian bacon


Maybe Kevin Bacon can pull a Dennis Rodman and chill things out.


----------



## auxioluck

That feeling when your SS.org threads have titles as misleading as 99% of news headlines.


----------



## narad

auxioluck said:


> That feeling when your SS.org threads have titles as misleading as 99% of news headlines.



How misleading is this one?

"Trump Falsely Claims to Be First Republican to Win Wisconsin Since Eisenhower"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/...ican-election-.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Is this the 1%? All the articles that "come across my desk" just seem to be the accurate ones?


----------



## auxioluck

Ease up, I was just busting the OP's balls a little bit - just a joke.


----------



## BlackSG91

I don't know what Trump is thinking by starting a trade war with Canada and other ally countries. I think he is developing early stages of dementia. His recent rallies have been bizarre and he is still talking about his election wins from 20 months ago and "Crooked Hilary". The guy is a narcissist and he even admits it. It's like he is above the law or something. Does he still plan to build that very expensive wall all along the Canadian/U.S. border? He says that they already started but I think the guy is full of shit as usual. And a Space Force??? These are all distractions that he has concocted to avoid impeachment and he's doing a good job of it so far but his luck can run only so long.




;>)/


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

He who controls the syrup controls the universe


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## budda

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> He who controls the syrup controls the universe



If someone can put this in block letters over a guy holding a jar of syrup, riding a Canadian Goose, that would be incredible .


----------



## narad

auxioluck said:


> Ease up, I was just busting the OP's balls a little bit - just a joke.



Apologies -- your joke is some people's ideology.


----------



## auxioluck

narad said:


> Apologies -- your joke is some people's ideology.



Yeah I hear you. Unfortunately just further proof that satire is dead. No hard feelings.


----------



## budda

auxioluck said:


> Yeah I hear you. Unfortunately just further proof that satire is dead. No hard feelings.



I hope someone told the onion and the beaverton, they need to know!


----------



## auxioluck

Edit - nevermind.


----------



## bostjan

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> He who controls the syrup controls the universe


If Canada stops the flow of maple syrup to the USA, Vermont would get a lot richer.  Actually, it probably won't be long before there's a wall around Vermont... 



BlackSG91 said:


> I don't know what Trump is thinking by starting a trade war with Canada and other ally countries. I think he is developing early stages of dementia. His recent rallies have been bizarre and he is still talking about his election wins from 20 months ago and "Crooked Hilary". The guy is a narcissist and he even admits it. It's like he is above the law or something. Does he still plan to build that very expensive wall all along the Canadian/U.S. border? He says that they already started but I think the guy is full of shit as usual. And a Space Force??? These are all distractions that he has concocted to avoid impeachment and he's doing a good job of it so far but his luck can run only so long.



I brought this up in another thread in a serious way. Looking at Trump's speech patterns over the years, I suspect something is going on there. His vocabulary is getting more and more constricted, he repeats himself a lot (much more than when he was younger), and he uses vague language to express specific things in a way that people most often do when they cannot recall the proper words from memory.

Meanwhile, he's actually getting a lot of things done, in terms of changing the government. Maybe one in five upheavals have been in the right direction. While he's doing all of this, some Americans are celebrating, but, I think, most of us are just scratching our heads wondering how to get out of this mess.


----------



## vilk

I'm just curious if there's any historical instance of tariff wars being beneficial to any nation ever?

Like, I'm surprised how easy it was for him to sell it, and how easily everyone accepted it.
_"I have here a plan to do something that in all of human history has never worked to benefit a nation; a plan to recreate a system that helped precipitate the Great Depression. It always, always makes things worse for everyone involved, at least every time anyone has ever tried it. But this time it will Make America Great Again!!!"

_
I admit, I don't really know if it's all that simple... but like I'm pretty sure in my high school U.S. History text there was a whole section about how tariffs are bad and caused all these problems.


----------



## Mathemagician

Protectionism and tariffs are 100% of the time a total net negative. 

HOWEVER, occasionally it is possible at least academically that there may be short-run benefits. Mostly due to blind faith that “tariffs will work”. So companies hire and the WORKERS for a few months (12-24 months) feel great and think “everything’s back!”

It only works however if the EMPLOYERS are dumb as hell and spend money today based on the belief that they will be more profitable in the future and need the extra employees to handle the growth. 

That’s why I said academically. 

Because Harley Davidson laughed at the premise and fired thousands of employees and is working on a plan for the economic reality of “tariffs hurt our business, so we have to make cuts and changes”. 

Yeah, productivity gaps are not positives for countries. They’re short term vote-seeking policies.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I'm just curious if there's any historical instance of tariff wars being beneficial to any nation ever?


As it's impossible to prove a negative, I won't say for sure that there is no such instance, but, I will say that the most (in)famous trade wars were:

4. The "Banana War," in which many banana producing nations in the 1970's banded together to impose tariffs on exports to the USA. As a result of this, some central American nations verged on destabilization as exports became unpredictable, and several corrupt individuals were exposed as using the entire thing as a set up to exploit workers who were already barely making ends meet.
3. Anglo-Irish Trade war of the 1930's, which led to mass emigration from Ireland and the ouster of the Irish government leaders later on.
2. Franco-Italian trade war at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, which damaged both nations and is partially responsible for France's weakened defenses in WWI, as well as Italian anti-Allies sentiment in WWI and WWII.
1. Smoot-Hawley Tarrifs that shoehorned in the Great Depression.


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Shit show guaranteed, lol...Americans are too involved in what other people are doing around them, people used to just vote and keep politics and religion away from the chow wagon and didn’t generally hate their neighbors...now everybody seems to feel the need to publicly advertise their social and political beliefs and identify everyone around them categorically in order to classify (and separate imo) people. Every political change over comes with some pitfalls and NONE of these politicians are anyone I want to have over for a BBQ. I think people need to work harder on being successful in order to find purpose and happiness instead of bitching and whining about how “bad” everything is in a country where even the homeless now have air jordans and iPhones.


I don't know where you are, but homeless people in Boston aren't wearing Air Jordans and carrying iPhones.  

I think there are two major factors for that - the cultural shift that has occurred in recent decades where there's an increasingly large divide between the urban areas being predominately liberal and the rural ones becoming increasingly conservative, augmented by a bit of self-sorting with people choosing to live near people with similar world-views, coupled with increasingly dividing political questions increasingly becoming ones that are pretty core to people's identities and very livelihood - the Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter thing splits pretty squarely on partisan lines, and at least from the perspective of the left, is a debate on whether or not its a problem that a disproportionate number of young black men are being shot or killed by police in response to alleged petty crimes or no crimes at all, which if you're a black man, that sort of stops being "politics" and becomes a pretty major existential threat. Or, on marraige equality, the fact that one party wants to do everything they can to nullify and roll back the marraiges of a subset of Americans, who primarily identify with the other party - if you're a gay woman, whether or not you can continue to be married to your lawfully wedded wife is kind of a big deal, especially if you're raising a family together. 

So, I think it's a combination of the natural echo chamber that arises when you don't often run into people with differing points of view, coupled with the fact that I DON'T think a lot of the issues we're discussing are "just politics."


----------



## Drew

KnightBrolaire said:


> historically speaking, trade/tariff wars never work out for anyone involved. I really hope some other people in the senate/congress prevent his cockamamie protectionist ideas from becoming a reality. American manufacturing jobs are never going to be like they were in the 70s, where you could be maybe high school educated and still live a comfortable middle class life. Steel mills are dead in this country, paper mills are close to dead too.


Quoting, because it's a rare thread where we're in perfect agreement.  

I'd add coal jobs to that as well, while we're at it, what with Trump's war on "fake news climate change" or whatever he calls it these days.


----------



## NateFalcon

Well, we in Portland tried to give homeless people a facility to live in (Wapato) and the homeless’ biggest reason for rejecting the gift was they didn’t have outlets to charge their cell phones... Bums live it up here!...and I find it annoying that people can’t enjoy going out in public without being drug into a “where do you stand on THIS social issue?” type of personal prying at almost every conversation under the guise that if it’s not a line-drawing issue to you that you’re somehow complacent and to blame...call me ignorant but I don’t hang on every dooming social issue, political or not. I’m often too busy working and helping my friends and family to hear the outrage of the same people I’m often times paying tax dollars to support lol


----------



## bostjan

You're comparing West Coast homeless people to regular homeless people. In the Southwest, Midwest, East Coast, South, etc., you don't see a homeless guy working at a high tech company, making six figures, but still unable to afford housing. That's very specifically a West Coast thing.

https://gizmodo.com/homelessness-is-booming-on-the-west-coast-and-ill-give-1821055765

It's a weird problem for me. I don't understand why cities like Stockton, California have so many empty houses yet real estate prices are still crazy high there. It's like there was a real estate bubble, but no one there is willing to accept that the prices from 2003 were hyper-inflated, and that their $8M bungalow is actually really only worth a couple hundred thousand. So you get these people who move there and get a job that pays really good money, except that housing costs there are astronomically high, and you end up with tent cities of people working at Intel and Yahoo and so forth, with a brand new iPhone and really nice clothes, but who has to shit in a shallow hole in the ground, because there is no place to live that has running water within a two hour drive of where they work that they can afford on their salary.

Maybe it's a little bit of hyperbole, but as someone who travels to California a lot, and also travels sporadically all over North America and Europe, I've never seen anything like what's going on around the West Coast anywhere else.


----------



## NateFalcon

The handout programs are plentiful here...you’re also not supposed to “question” anything they do. These people have no need to work, everything including their methadone and pipes (yes, a crack pipe program lol) is covered. Flying a sign at the intersection is just free cash for more drugs. The Media, Police, City council etc REFUSE to mention a word about addiction unless it’s to feel sorry for them and give them more stuff. I think Portland residents actually pretend to like the garbage and syringes to seem more progressive. For all the “equality” they claim to represent in Washington and Oregon they sure treat certain people differently...


----------



## Drew

Portland? No wonder. You have a very unusual homeless population, and VERY different from any other part of the country than I've been. Oddly aggressive, too. It's probably a combination of fairly temperate year-round weather plus some major opiate addition issues. I think it can definitely be handled better than you have, sure, but at the same time I don't really agree with a lot of your specific critiques - methadone may look like a handout to homeless people, but controlled administration of a drug that doesn't really get you high, in practice, gives you a whole lot less dead people. And pointing towards cell phones as proof that homeless people are being pampered makes less sense today than it would have 10 years ago, when increasingly _all _americans are foregoing land lines for cell phones, and job hunting with no access to a phone number or email is impossible - Obama got a lot of flack for a government-funded smartphone program for homeless Americans - "Obama phones," as Fox put it - but, frankly, I suspect helping homeless people stay accessable even after the loss of a house or apartment probably DID help a good number of recipients get back on their feet, and I'd love to see some data on the program, how many recipients managed to find a job within a year vs those who had not received phones, etc. 

Idunno. Homelessness is a tough nut to crack, for a whole number of reasons. Homeless people complaining that a shelter built for them doesn't actually have outlets, IMO, is actually a pretty fair complaint (how would you handle not having outlets?) and kind of a glaring omission on the part of whoever designed the building - did they just assume that homeless people don't ever need anything powered by electricity?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

How sad. Homeless people can't charge their cellphones.


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Portland? No wonder. You have a very unusual homeless population, and VERY different from any other part of the country than I've been. Oddly aggressive, too. It's probably a combination of fairly temperate year-round weather plus some major opiate addition issues. I think it can definitely be handled better than you have, sure, but at the same time I don't really agree with a lot of your specific critiques - methadone may look like a handout to homeless people, but controlled administration of a drug that doesn't really get you high, in practice, gives you a whole lot less dead people. And pointing towards cell phones as proof that homeless people are being pampered makes less sense today than it would have 10 years ago, when increasingly _all _americans are foregoing land lines for cell phones, and job hunting with no access to a phone number or email is impossible - Obama got a lot of flack for a government-funded smartphone program for homeless Americans - "Obama phones," as Fox put it - but, frankly, I suspect helping homeless people stay accessable even after the loss of a house or apartment probably DID help a good number of recipients get back on their feet, and I'd love to see some data on the program, how many recipients managed to find a job within a year vs those who had not received phones, etc.
> 
> Idunno. Homelessness is a tough nut to crack, for a whole number of reasons. Homeless people complaining that a shelter built for them doesn't actually have outlets, IMO, is actually a pretty fair complaint (how would you handle not having outlets?) and kind of a glaring omission on the part of whoever designed the building - did they just assume that homeless people don't ever need anything powered by electricity?


It was going to be a low security jail for traffic offenders etc, that got revamped into housing -cost millions and it was a “street roots” group who advocated for a shelter, then shot down the idea...they also wanted transportation (free passes for buses and light rail weren’t good enough) Free methadone is used WITH heroin as a supplement, not tossing numbers but they are not mutually exclusive. I also have no problem with them having cell phones but often times the programs simply require them to be at state offices at a given time...if they don’t show up, you can’t help them lol. Not dogging every homeless person and yeah, Portland and Seattle are definitely one-off...it just seems like here they don’t want the help unless it’s straight up drugs or cash...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

NateFalcon said:


> It was going to be a low security jail for traffic offenders etc, that got revamped into housing -cost millions and it was a “street roots” group who advocated for a shelter, then shot down the idea...they also wanted transportation (free passes for buses and light rail weren’t good enough) Free methadone is used WITH heroin as a supplement, not tossing numbers but they are not mutually exclusive. I also have no problem with them having cell phones but often times the programs simply require them to be at state offices at a given time...if they don’t show up, you can’t help them lol. Not dogging every homeless person and yeah, Portland and Seattle are definitely one-off...it just seems like here they don’t want the help unless it’s straight up drugs or cash...


Seattle doesn't have a homeless problem. They just ship em off to Yakima. Sure, Seattle might have homeless people, but they don't have a problem. The City Council of Seattle is doing their job to make sure that NIMBY is in full effect. And for those who don't know, NIMBY = Not in My Back Yard.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Climate change is real -- so tell your government to stop spraying shit in the air to make it so.


----------



## NateFalcon

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Seattle doesn't have a homeless problem. They just ship em off to Yakima. Sure, Seattle might have homeless people, but they don't have a problem. The City Council of Seattle is doing their job to make sure that NIMBY is in full effect. And for those who don't know, NIMBY = Not in My Back Yard.


True, the issue never gets resolved if you don’t see it as a “problem”. Portland would like people to think that addiction hurts no one but the user, it’s all the doctors’ fault, crime is a “necessity” for them and that they’re all working class people who fell on “hard times”...we give them phones and they refuse to show up for help -but they make sure to be right on time for their morning “meds”. There’s going to have to be some hard solutions with dealing with these people. “Custom” treatments aren’t working


----------



## NateFalcon

Spaced Out Ace said:


> How sad. Homeless people can't charge their cellphones.


Do you think they’re looking for a job or calling their drug dealer?...how much would you like to wager on a bet? Lol


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

NateFalcon said:


> Do you think they’re looking for a job or calling their drug dealer?...how much would you like to wager on a bet? Lol


I'm joking. I wonder if a tent in the winter has outlets to charge your phone.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Hollowway

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is going to go anywhere fast. We can debate big government vs small, states vs federal law, free market vs regulations, etc., but those are GOPish vs Democratish philosophies. Trump ran on a platform that said, largely, he will "drain the swamp" and that he's an outsider. He got into office, and just really doesn't care to put the effort into learning the issues, so he shoots from the hip, or let's people talk him into things. So, we are here with no comprehensive plan or direction. Half of the GOP is headed in a different direction than trump. His supporters don't know what to make of it, because he keeps changing what he's saying and doing. I think the best we can hope for, in terms of a discussion, is something along the lines of a mom and dad trying to figure out what to do next when they realize Junior shit the bed.


----------



## NateFalcon

I ignore politics on TV as much as pharma-brand commercial pumping. Both sides have figured out how to tap into peoples’ fear sensibilities and it’s ALL aimed at making the consumer feel powerless...as long as they keep the consumer mindlessly spending. Everything is almost bullshit if you stop and think about it, we talk about recycling and eco-friendly as the American consumer buys more worthless junk than ever...ON CREDIT CARDS!! Americans will charge $12 to their credit card for something they don’t even need and then bitch about having to pay it off -it’s comical. People on welfare screaming about social injustice as taxpayers financially support their whole family. Prius drivers chide their self-conscious decision...as long as they dump the used batteries in China, or somewhere else. I realize not everyone falls into these lines of thinking but I find it funny that society collectively seems to know who to blame as IQ’s are dropping and the STEM programs are drying on the vine as dropout rates are thriving. Average liberals, while progressive, are just as uneducated it seems and just as reliant on taxpayer programs as the redneck conservatives. Not being pompous but I’m tired of being told how to think by people with high school degrees (if that, even). Trust me when I say there are far bigger things on my plate right now than Trumps’s policies


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> Prius drivers chide their self-conscious decision...as long as they dump the used batteries in China, or somewhere else.



But they're recyclable...


----------



## thraxil

NateFalcon said:


> People on welfare screaming about social injustice as taxpayers financially support their whole family.



Does being on welfare somehow magically make one's opinion worthless? 

My family went on and off welfare a few times when I was a kid. I don't remember it having any effect on the validity of any of our opinions. I eventually got an engineering degree from an Ivy League school and have a comfortable six figure salary, paying plenty of taxes and I don't feel like my opinion on social justice issues currently has any more weight than that of someone on welfare. If anything, I'm more likely to listen carefully to what someone on welfare has to say because they're probably closer to the situation and experience it more directly on a day to day basis (eg, police brutality, access to public health care, draconian drug enforcement, etc. all disproportionately affect people with lower income).



NateFalcon said:


> Average liberals, while progressive, are just as uneducated it seems and just as reliant on taxpayer programs as the redneck conservatives.



The biggest beneficiaries by far of taxpayer funded programs are the wealthy, large corporations, and the military industrial complex. You complain about people being "reliant on taxpayer programs" but only seem to call out homeless people and people on welfare, which is such a tiny sliver of government spending compared to all the handouts to the people at the top.

When Trump was elected I had some hope that he would stick to his promise of "draining the swamp" and clean up some of that corruption at the top (even if I disagreed with him on so many, many other things). But he's clearly going in the opposite direction and shoveling even more taxpayer money to his rich friends (how many cabinet members came from Morgan Stanley?)


----------



## StevenC

NateFalcon said:


> I ignore politics on TV as much as pharma-brand commercial pumping. Both sides have figured out how to tap into peoples’ fear sensibilities and it’s ALL aimed at making the consumer feel powerless...as long as they keep the consumer mindlessly spending. Everything is almost bullshit if you stop and think about it, we talk about recycling and eco-friendly as the American consumer buys more worthless junk than ever...ON CREDIT CARDS!! Americans will charge $12 to their credit card for something they don’t even need and then bitch about having to pay it off -it’s comical. People on welfare screaming about social injustice as taxpayers financially support their whole family. Prius drivers chide their self-conscious decision...as long as they dump the used batteries in China, or somewhere else. I realize not everyone falls into these lines of thinking but I find it funny that society collectively seems to know who to blame as IQ’s are dropping and the STEM programs are drying on the vine as dropout rates are thriving. Average liberals, while progressive, are just as uneducated it seems and just as reliant on taxpayer programs as the redneck conservatives. Not being pompous but I’m tired of being told how to think by people with high school degrees (if that, even). Trust me when I say there are far bigger things on my plate right now than Trumps’s policies


I have a STEM degree from a university, can I tell you how to think?


----------



## jaxadam

NateFalcon said:


> ON CREDIT CARDS!!



But dem points, brah!


----------



## eaeolian

Admittedly, I live in the DC area, but STEM programs are hardly "dying on the vine" here. In fact, there's a waiting list for all of the STEM programs in high school in my county.

I do understand what you're saying at a certain level. I have a house on the VA/NC border, and the schools there are horrific - but even their STEM programs are full. People get it, there just aren't enough resources to go around - and the current administration's approach to education at the Federal level isn't going to help.


----------



## iamaom

NateFalcon said:


> People on welfare screaming about social injustice as taxpayers financially support their whole family.


You realize that the vast majority of welfare recipients are 1. Tax payers themselves and 2. Have jobs. Many corporations do not pay enough for the average person to live off of; companies like walmart even have special programs to help people apply for welfare because their wages are so low, and then turn around lobby against raising the minimum wage or paying for healthcare. Even skilled work pays very little, I've worked lab jobs (blood processing) that require a degree + phlebotomy certification that only pay $12 an hour.



NateFalcon said:


> Trust me when I say there are far bigger things on my plate right now than Trumps’s policies


But his policies (which are very inline with mainstream GOP rhetoric) are the exact things that are causing everything you've mentioned. The US is not losing it's world status due to problems in a vacuum, conservatives in this country have done nothing but try to reduce public institutions that made this country great in the first place.


----------



## ElRay

NateFalcon said:


> ... iPhones.


I hate to tell you, but you're speaking from one or more of: ignorance/Trumpian-KoolAid/racist-bigotry.

The "homeless" people with cell phones are actually the inner-city (often darker-skinned) folks that are benefitting from the EXACT same program program rural (often light-skinned) folks benefit from. Back when the FCC had people that actually were knowledgable about their job, and thought things through, they realized that it was more cost effective, in urban areas, to satisfy the telecommunication REQUIREMENTS of the "rural electrification program" by providing low-cost cellular phones to the personnel that they would otherwise have to subsidize their phone service, installation of phone lines, etc.

Of course, the "we can't help anybody"/"I got where I got without any help/luck/lack-of-misfortune (that I'm aware-of/care to admit to) so let 'THEM' do it themselves" crowd like to distort that into their "THEY have the same (expensive) cellphone I have on my nickel, therefore I'm being persecuted" mantra.


----------



## bostjan

iamaom said:


> You realize that the vast majority of welfare recipients are 1. Tax payers themselves and 2. Have jobs. Many corporations do not pay enough for the average person to live off of; companies like walmart even have special programs to help people apply for welfare because their wages are so low, and then turn around lobby against raising the minimum wage or paying for healthcare. Even skilled work pays very little, I've worked lab jobs (blood processing) that require a degree + phlebotomy certification that only pay $12 an hour.
> 
> 
> But his policies (which are very inline with mainstream GOP rhetoric) are the exact things that are causing everything you've mentioned. The US is not losing it's world status due to problems in a vacuum, conservatives in this country have done nothing but try to reduce public institutions that made this country great in the first place.


My first real job paid $8/hour ($12.85/hours in today's money) and it was glorious. The federal minimum wage at the time was $4.25/hour, so to make almost twice that meant that I could pay for gasoline, car insurance, snacks, and even guitars. But before long, I was making much more in wages than that. My last job in Detroit before the recession paid $32/hour ($39.76 in today's money), and that was with a four year degree. As I finished grad school, and my scheduled hours at my good hourly pay job dropped to single digits per week as the company was slowly shutting down, I had to take a job making $8/hour ($10 today), which required a degree. There just weren't jobs paying as much as there were before the economy started slipping down the tubes. I don't think I'll ever have a job making what I used to make.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> But dem points, brah!





jaxadam said:


> dem points





jaxadam said:


> dem



#triggered


----------



## ElRay

iamaom said:


> You realize that the vast majority of welfare recipients are 1. Tax payers themselves and 2. Have jobs. ...


You're also forgetting: 

*3. NOT URBAN NON-CAUCASINS*

The majority are rural and semi-rural caucasians. Ditto with the free lunch programs.


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> ...it’s all the doctors’ fault...


I mean, maybe this is worth splitting out into a seperate thread (actually, don't we have one?), but there's actually something to this - opiods have been _widely_ overprescribed for about two decades now thanks to their manufacturer taking a study that said there was no statistically significant risk of addiction when used for pain management for periods of a week or less in a hospital, and cited the study to health care providers that there was no statistically significant risk of addicition, _period_. About 20 years later, we're facing an opiod crisis and heroin is becoming a huge middle class white problem, because patients are getting addicted to percocet, staying on it as long as they can, and either switching to cheaper alternatives like heroin when their doctor won't renew their prescription, or starting to sell the pills and buying heroin, which can be bought for a fraction of the cost. Last I heard, a number of states were banding together to launch a class action lawsuit against opiod manufacturers over this one.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Protectionism and tariffs are 100% of the time a total net negative.


Missed this earlier - I'm extremely leery of absolutes when it comes to economics - or anything, really - but the fact I can't think of a single example of a beneficial tariff is sort of telling. At a _minimum_, tariffs will, as a form of tax, definitially create economic deadweight losses, so whether or not there are non-economic benefits that can be said to offset for an overall increase in utility... Eeeh....


----------



## TedEH

I find it odd that people complain about homeless people having cell phones. I mean, everyone has cell phones. Almost literally. My < 10 year old nephews have cell phones. And homeless people don't just appear out of thin air, they were also born and brought up in a culture of everyone being connected. If I were to become homeless, I'm 100% certain I'd be keeping my cell phone with me. For the odd homeless person that I've known, their cell phones were an invaluable lifeline - they'd have been 1000x more screwed without it. I can understand why I'd be upset if that lifeline was threatened.


----------



## jaxadam

eaeolian said:


> I have a house on the VA/NC border, and the schools there are horrific



What you need to do is get a house on the NC/SOUTH Carolina border. They be droppin' some knowledge there.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I find it odd that people complain about homeless people having cell phones. I mean, everyone has cell phones. Almost literally. My < 10 year old nephews have cell phones. And homeless people don't just appear out of thin air, they were also born and brought up in a culture of everyone being connected. If I were to become homeless, I'm 100% certain I'd be keeping my cell phone with me. For the odd homeless person that I've known, their cell phones were an invaluable lifeline - they'd have been 1000x more screwed without it. I can understand why I'd be upset if that lifeline was threatened.


No shit, right? My cell phone would be one of the very last things I'd give up, if I was at risk of becoming homeless.


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> No shit, right? My cell phone would be one of the very last things I'd give up, if I was at risk of becoming homeless.



Hell, you need the internet to look for a job at a fast-food place anymore.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> No shit, right? My cell phone would be one of the very last things I'd give up, if I was at risk of becoming homeless.



Weird... I'm looking forward to giving it up when I go off grid.


----------



## vilk

nevermind


----------



## NateFalcon




----------



## NateFalcon

Anyone who advocates for being homeless outside of giving to programs should be required by law to take them to their house and take care of them...feed them, house them, no rules, no curfews...after they’ve completely destroyed their house and are hosting needle parties in their living room THEN I’d like to hear their thoughts on homelessness...


----------



## eaeolian

So, this is going to become a troll-fest, right?


----------



## thraxil

NateFalcon said:


> Anyone who advocates for being homeless outside of giving to programs ...



Who, exactly, is advocating for being homeless?


----------



## NateFalcon

Broad defense, er excuses...is that better terminology?

Here’s the typical Portland scene...


----------



## NateFalcon

...take them home, maybe you can help them (?)


----------



## Randy

If you're gonna use the image, how about some context?


----------



## NateFalcon

This was the point of my earlier posts...people only want to hear mirroring and repeated opinions that reflect what they want to hear. Anything outside that is met with the usual collective response- people want to clarify all points but stay on topic as well...good luck with that lol


----------



## NateFalcon

Drugs, weed and alcohol are pretty mild on the sign wording here


----------



## NateFalcon

Randy said:


> If you're gonna use the image, how about some context?



Able bodied guy sitting on his dead ass while his girlfriend snoozes in his lap...nice socks. You sure showed me up...


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> This was the point of my earlier posts...people only want to hear mirroring and repeated opinions that reflect what they want to hear.



You included.


----------



## NateFalcon

Randy said:


> You included.


Not really...no one is mirroring my opinion lol


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> Not really...no one is mirroring my opinion lol



I think Jax and Spaced would take exception to you referring to them as 'no one'.

And just because you're not successfully getting a lot of support doesn't mean you don't "want to hear mirrored and repeated opinions" like you're accusing others of fishing for. I can't think of any other reason why you'd continue to reassert the same point over and over again.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> I think Jax and Spaced would take exception to you referring to them as 'no one'.



Don’t include me in that... I don’t have any idea of what’s going on!


----------



## Mathemagician

That deadweight loss is exacerbated when you realize that the companies that invested in perceived long term growth have to go through the deceleration process of letting staff go and cutting expenses and budgets TWICE.

The first time they threw a tantrum and lobbied for protectionism, and the second time when the reality settles in that the protectionism did nothing.

It doesn’t work that way. Change is change is change. But it’s easier to believe when someone tells you what you want to hear versus what you need to hear. And politicians are too happy to prey on that.


----------



## NateFalcon

I don’t need anyone to agree with me to feel validated. I called out this thread as a dog and pony show from the start. Any “Trump” themed platform is going to have the same boring collective opinions that I’ve heard every day so I don’t mind being the odd one out on a guitar forum.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> I think Jax and Spaced would take exception to you referring to them as 'no one'.
> 
> And just because you're not successfully getting a lot of support doesn't mean you don't "want to hear mirrored and repeated opinions" like you're accusing others of fishing for. I can't think of any other reason why you'd continue to reassert the same point over and over again.


I take offense to you assuming what I think or take exception to.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mathemagician said:


> That deadweight loss is exacerbated when you realize that the companies that invested in perceived long term growth have to go through the deceleration process of letting staff go and cutting expenses and budgets TWICE.
> 
> The first time they threw a tantrum and lobbied for protectionism, and the second time when the reality settles in that the protectionism did nothing.
> 
> It doesn’t work that way. Change is change is change. But it’s easier to believe when someone tells you what you want to hear versus what you need to hear. And politicians are too happy to prey on that.


The left is great at "tell people what they want to hear versus what they need to hear."


----------



## NateFalcon

Letting others speak for themselves isn’t en vogue these days...hilarious, I mentioned this in my first post


----------



## Randy

You realize his post was 'tongue in cheek' right?


----------



## Mathemagician

Mr. Ace, I purposefully didn’t choose a party to use as an example because in general most politicians are professional “say whatever the fuck will get you elected” people. 

But pretending like this is an issue endemic to “the left” or “the right” just highlights how much of an indenty-politics bias you actually have. 

It’s bad economic policy stemming from a willful ignorance of some of the most basic of economic rules. “The right” hasn’t been the party of “good economics” in a good long while. 

Both sides favor significant government overreach and poor fiscal responsibility, they just have different pet sectors.

Given the fact that the US has no term limits, and that gerrymandering is legal and insider trading was legal for politicians until just 2012, I really don’t want to hear about how “virtuous” someone’s preferred “team” is. 

Most politicians across the board are liars, global warming is real, evolution is a fact, Roe V. Wade established that the government could NOT dictate what a woman can do with her body, ergo leading to LESS government overreach than were it to be over turned. 

Conservative fiscal policy beliefs do not have to correlate to demonizing people who differ on various policies with you. 

I’ve seen your posts and commentary on this site and you seem like a good dude with great taste in guitars. So obviously we have more in common than not. Even though from your comment I would assume we likely disagree on various political topics. 

Let’s just not pretend that the entire country’s worth of people slide nicely into one of two monolithic ideologies.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Still speaking for me?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mathemagician said:


> Mr. Ace, I purposefully didn’t choose a party to use as an example because in general most politicians are professional “say whatever the fuck will get you elected” people.
> 
> But pretending like this is an issue endemic to “the left” or “the right” just highlights how much of an indenty-politics bias you actually have.
> 
> It’s bad economic policy stemming from a willful ignorance of some of the most basic of economic rules. “The right” hasn’t been the party of “good economics” in a good long while.
> 
> Both sides favor significant government overreach and poor fiscal responsibility, they just have different pet sectors.
> 
> Given the fact that the US has no term limits, and that gerrymandering is legal and insider trading was legal for politicians until just 2012, I really don’t want to hear about how “virtuous” someone’s preferred “team” is.
> 
> Most politicians across the board are liars, global warming is real, evolution is a fact, Roe V. Wade established that the government could NOT dictate what a woman can do with her body, ergo leading to LESS government overreach than were it to be over turned.
> 
> Conservative fiscal policy beliefs do not have to correlate to demonizing people who differ on various policies with you.
> 
> I’ve seen your posts and commentary on this site and you seem like a good dude with great taste in guitars. So obviously we have more in common than not. Even though from your comment I would assume we likely disagree on various political topics.
> 
> Let’s just not pretend that the entire country’s worth of people slide nicely into one of two monolithic ideologies.


As far as the right goes, I think most of them are con men, so I don't really care for either side. They go along to get along so they can keep pocketing cash. Neither side has solutions that work.


----------



## Randy

Hush!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Yes, Mother.


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> Able bodied guy sitting on his dead ass while his girlfriend snoozes in his lap...nice socks. You sure showed me up...



You tried to pass off a photo of some youtuber as being a real homeless freeloader guy, and when you get called out you don't even mention it. Is it that hard to own up to it?


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> As far as the right goes, I think most of them are con men, so I don't really care for either side. They go along to get along so they can keep pocketing cash. Neither side has solutions that work.


Policies of the left and right in America:

The left want an affordable healthcare system in line with the rest of the modern world; the right want not that.

The right want to start trade wars; the left want not that.

The left want cheaper third level education in line with the rest of the modern world; the right want not that.

The left want a working primary and secondary level education system in line with the rest of the modern world; the right want not that.

The left want regulations to stop financial crises such as that in 2008; the right want not that.

The left wants to regulate firearms to bring deaths in line with the rest of the modern world; the right wants not that.

The right wants to imprison children; the left wants not that.

The lesser of two evils is less evil than the greater of two evils.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

StevenC said:


> The left want an affordable healthcare system in line with the rest of the modern world; the right want not that.


Frankly, I stopped here. "Affordable" for who? And furthermore, forcing people to pay for this shit or pay a fine? What a farce.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Frankly, I stopped here. "Affordable" for who? And furthermore, forcing people to pay for this shit or pay a fine? What a farce.


The US government spends more tax money on healthcare per person than any other country in the world, and in return the US public doesn't get free healthcare. The USA spends a larger percentage of GDP on healthcare than any country. The average price of a given procedure is higher in the USA than other modern healthcare systems.

So to answer your question, everyone. Private healthcare is inefficient and expensive. The USA can afford universal healthcare today.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

StevenC said:


> The US government spends more tax money on healthcare per person than any other country in the world, and in return the US public doesn't get free healthcare. The USA spends a larger percentage of GDP on healthcare than any country. The average price of a given procedure is higher in the USA than other modern healthcare systems.
> 
> So to answer your question, everyone. Private healthcare is inefficient and expensive. The USA can afford universal healthcare today.


Eh, no. No, we can't. We can't afford a damn thing. We're broke ($21.48 trillion in debt), and yet we continue to overspend every time a budget gets passed.


----------



## Mathemagician

The US already has socialized income and healthcare, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, Food Stamps, WIC, medical disability, etc.

All of these programs are expensive to run and require completely separate bureaucracies and manpower to staff. 

The overhead would be significantly reduced by getting rid of all these programs that effectively do the same thing and providing single payer health insurance to everyone. 

My employer has 3 providers and 3 tiers, they all offer the exact same plans. They do not “compete”. They offer the same fucking plans. For the same prices. 

The “veil” of competition is that they cost about $3-5 more or less than each other per month. You’re not “saving” $3X12 per year, because if everyone had to pay into the same pool instead of three different pools the average amount needed would be lower. 

And frankly the question really should be “do hard working tax paying Americans deserve to go to the doctor when they get sick?”

And I believe the answer is yes. If my assistant loses her job I don’t want her to wonder how her kid is going to get medicine. It’s not the kids fault the economy took a dump and Mom lost her job. 

Hard working blue collar people get fucked the hardest in recessions, and pay a much higher proportion of their income towards medical care than wealthy people. 

I don’t care if I’m taxed a bit more, if it means Joe Republican immigrant hater’s kids can go to the dentist without breaking the bank. Joe is still a taxpayer, and in my opinion, he deserves medical coverage. 

Old people who no longer contribute to society receive socialized income and healthcare, so why not just give it to every citizen? 

Because people honestly believe they “have a choice” and that they can “save money” by not doing it. Then they’re fucked when they need a root canal at the same time thier car breaks down or thier kid breaks their arm. 

It’s health CARE. Everyone at some point will need it. Just rip the bandaid off already. 

The reality is that we’d likely save more in the long run by removing all those unnecessary entities that run all these separate programs. 

I read a report that said it’d be cheaper to cut everyone on welfare a check than to run the actual welfare office. But people’s fear of “paying for a leecher” would the the primary political hurdle. 

People do not see others as equal to themselves. When they need something they are “worthy” when others need something they are “lazy”. 

Short sightedness is expensive.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Eh, no. No, we can't. We can't afford a damn thing. We're broke ($21.48 trillion in debt), and yet we continue to overspend every time a budget gets passed.


Here's a graph:







Your healthcare is expensive and you spend more taxes on it than we do. You are overspending on healthcare and can reduce the amount you spend very easily. You spend more per pill, per doctor's visit, per operation than we do. Total UK health spending is less than just your government spending. You have a systemic issue.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mathemagician said:


> My employer has 3 providers and 3 tiers, they all offer the exact same plans. They do not “compete”. They offer the same fucking plans. For the same prices.


Here is the solution: Make them compete. How to compete? Lower prices, better service.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Here is the solution: Make them compete. How to compete? Lower prices, better service.


Who lowers the price? Because the insurance providers aren't. Who do you think has been stopping insurance prices coming down? Do you know what a cartel is? Why did insurance companies discriminate against preexisting conditions until it became illegal?


----------



## Mathemagician

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Here is the solution: Make them compete. How to compete? Lower prices, better service.



Dude I’d freakin’ love that bro.

But excluding some sort of regulation, HOW would you make this happen? They don’t compete because they don’t have to. And they don’t have to because they just don’t have to. We are a “captive audience”.

Healthcare companies don’t HAVE to compete. They offer the exact same services and the exact same prices. It’s effectively price fixing.

That’s the problem. Even with an employer like mine that has “many options” I really don’t.

There’s the shitty high deductible cheap option, the inexplicably expensive “moderate” option, and the “holy fuck that’s expensive” supposedly good option. And there’s three identical plans for each supposed tier. That’s them “competing”.

I’m not saying competition is bad. The opposite. But I’m saying this industry has built in supply. Everyone “needs” insurance. Because there is no healthcare. And since everyone needs to have it, they don’t have to offer anything attractive - better coverage nor pricing. The insurance industry is built on actuarial calculations.

Age, sex, mortality, etc. the inputs are the same so the formula outputs are the same.

Everyone uses the same thing, so you’re not going to get better pricing from another firm.

Try “shopping” for insurance or an annuity. If the input terms are identical, the cost to you is the same regardless of provider.

Unfortunately healthcare is not a proper free market. It fucking sucks, but this is a realization I’ve come to after years of research and consideration of alternatives. Single payer is on balance the lowest cost to taxpayers and provides the highest level of consistent quality and service.

If a private provider wants to provide premier service they can do so and those who want to buy it have the OPTION to do so.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mathemagician said:


> Dude I’d freakin’ love that bro.
> 
> But excluding some sort of regulation, HOW would you make this happen? They don’t compete because they don’t have to. And they don’t have to because they just don’t have to. We are a “captive audience”.
> 
> Healthcare companies don’t HAVE to compete. They offer the exact same services and the exact same prices. It’s effectively price fixing.
> 
> That’s the problem. Even with an employer like mine that has “many options” I really don’t.
> 
> There’s the shitty high deductible cheap option, the inexplicably expensive “moderate” option, and the “holy fuck that’s expensive” supposedly good option. And there’s three identical plans for each supposed tier. That’s them “competing”.
> 
> I’m not saying competition is bad. The opposite. But I’m saying this industry has built in supply. Everyone “needs” insurance. Because there is no healthcare. And since everyone needs to have it, they don’t have to offer anything attractive - better coverage nor pricing. The insurance industry is built on actuarial calculations.
> 
> Age, sex, mortality, etc. the inputs are the same so the formula outputs are the same.
> 
> Everyone uses the same thing, so you’re not going to get better pricing from another firm.
> 
> Try “shopping” for insurance or an annuity. If the input terms are identical, the cost to you is the same regardless of provider.
> 
> Unfortunately healthcare is not a proper free market. It fucking sucks, but this is a realization I’ve come to after years of research and consideration of alternatives. Single payer is on balance the lowest cost to taxpayers and provides the highest level of consistent quality and service.
> 
> If a private provider wants to provide premier service they can do so and those who want to buy it have the OPTION to do so.


Well, if it's anything like the cable industry, and how few options I have for cable, it'd be allowing more options to come in to an area rather than the 3 options which have all apparently agreed on a price in the name of choice. And that choice is merely a mirage.


----------



## Mathemagician

No matter the number of providers the prices won’t change. 8 providers would all charge the same. It’s just a pool of people paying in and estimates on required outflows.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well, if it's anything like the cable industry, and how few options I have for cable, it'd be allowing more options to come in to an area rather than the 3 options which have all apparently agreed on a price in the name of choice. And that choice is merely a mirage.


Cable is a great analogy because it's very hard to become a cable company. You need lots of money already. Your nor I can just start a cable company. In the same way we can't just start a health insurance company.

Another reason cable is a great analogy is because the infrastructure is usually publicly funded, or heavily subsidised. Similarly, huge amounts of healthcare are publicly funded because of uninsured people.

For the third point I'm going to slightly pivot from cable providers to ISPs, who are often the same company.

The cheapest way to provide both healthcare and internet is to realise that neither should be run for profit. Healthcare is something we should be entitled to. Internet is almost a requirement for participation in modern society. The best way to provide both as non profit services is to have them publicly funded, because this provides the largest economy of scale. See many cities all over the US rolling out municipal internet access plans at higher speeds and lower prices than traditional ISPs. Analogously see every other country in the world providing cheaper healthcare than the US because they're publicly funded.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Guys, either work “Canada” into your pontificating in the form of a noun or verb, or take the discussion to its appropriate thread on https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

Your insistence upon bumping uglies have obstructed and derailed a very serious discussion of maple syrup, as well as our ability to solve such pertinent world issues in fewer than three pages.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

StevenC said:


> Cable is a great analogy because it's very hard to become a cable company. You need lots of money already. Your nor I can just start a cable company. In the same way we can't just start a health insurance company.
> 
> Another reason cable is a great analogy is because the infrastructure is usually publicly funded, or heavily subsidised. Similarly, huge amounts of healthcare are publicly funded because of uninsured people.
> 
> For the third point I'm going to slightly pivot from cable providers to ISPs, who are often the same company.
> 
> The cheapest way to provide both healthcare and internet is to realise that neither should be run for profit. Healthcare is something we should be entitled to. Internet is almost a requirement for participation in modern society. The best way to provide both as non profit services is to have them publicly funded, because this provides the largest economy of scale. See many cities all over the US rolling out municipal internet access plans at higher speeds and lower prices than traditional ISPs. Analogously see every other country in the world providing cheaper healthcare than the US because they're publicly funded.


I disagree with some points, but liked your post anyways. I think public funding these things would make it more expensive for those that pay for it. ie, sorta like college.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I disagree with some points, but liked your post anyways. I think public funding these things would make it more expensive for those that pay for it. ie, sorta like college.


Interesting you mention college, because Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are partially publicly funded and cost about $25k a year to teach a student. Students pay half of it. Harvard cost $47k and it's not that much better.

The point being that the best way to get the best deal is to get everyone together and let companies underbid each other. The classic example being the NHS saying to companies that one company is going to get to supply all the replacement hips in the UK. This leads to a replacement hip costing less, and a hip replacement costing less in the UK than America.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Interesting you mention college, because Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are partially publicly funded and cost about $25k a year to teach a student. Students pay half of it. Harvard cost $47k and it's not that much better.
> 
> The point being that the best way to get the best deal is to get everyone together and let companies underbid each other. The classic example being the NHS saying to companies that one company is going to get to supply all the replacement hips in the UK. This leads to a replacement hip costing less, and a hip replacement costing less in the UK than America.



Harvard will actually fully fund students on a needs-based system. They assess what you are able to reasonably afford and take care of the rest, and will never turn away an accepted student who can't otherwise pay. But they have an enormous endowment (hehe) so they're one of the few places able to do this. The sad thing is you'll pay about the same to go to any of the hundreds of American schools that are similarly priced but aren't anywhere near as good as Harvard.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Harvard will actually fully fund students on a needs-based system. They assess what you are able to reasonably afford and take care of the rest, and will never turn away an accepted student who can't otherwise pay. But they have an enormous endowment (hehe) so they're one of the few places able to do this. The sad thing is you'll pay about the same to go to any of the hundreds of American schools that are similarly priced but aren't anywhere near as good as Harvard.


And if you're from Wales or Scotland you get free third level education wherever you go.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> And if you're from Wales or Scotland you get free third level education wherever you go.



As an American UEdinburgh alum, I fucking know.


----------



## NateFalcon

narad said:


> You tried to pass off a photo of some youtuber as being a real homeless freeloader guy, and when you get called out you don't even mention it. Is it that hard to own up to it?


Learn to read...I said “this is your typical Portland scene”, and used the photo as a visual reference of what I see daily -no backstory needed. And I also noted that I actually see worse signs than the one I was making fun of. You think you “got me” but you really don’t


----------



## NateFalcon

Here’s some less funny actual pictures of what it looks like to drive around Portland...everywhere

You guys were right, my reference wasn’t good enough


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> Learn to read...I said “this is your typical Portland scene”, and used the photo as a visual reference of what I see daily -no backstory needed. And I also noted that I actually see worse signs than the one I was making fun of. You think you “got me” but you really don’t



I know you're not stupid enough to not to know that everyone who sees that picture without context is going to think that is an actual homeless person. Carefully chosen moment to get him facial expression nonchalantly beaming from the handout. 

My criticism is not that you weren't aware -- it's that you and any reasonable person who knows the backstory on that pic is going to know that it deserves to be mentioned in its true context as a youtube social experiment, and you went posted it without one anyway.


----------



## NateFalcon

narad said:


> I know you're not stupid enough to not to know that everyone who sees that picture without context is going to think that is an actual homeless person. Carefully chosen moment to get him facial expression nonchalantly beaming from the handout.
> 
> My criticism is not that you weren't aware -- it's that you and any reasonable person who knows the backstory on that pic is going to know that it deserves to be mentioned in its true context as a youtube social experiment, and you went posted it without one anyway.


I thought the “edited” picture about summed up what it looks like to drive around my city and was using the picture as humor...actual pictures of downtown are less humorous...here’s some examples


----------



## NateFalcon

I’ll stop derailing this thread now lol...


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> I thought the “edited” picture about summed up what it looks like to drive around my city and was using the picture as humor...actual pictures of downtown are less humorous...here’s some examples



Yea, probably because homelessness isn't funny. What a surprise.


----------



## NateFalcon

narad said:


> Yea, probably because homelessness isn't funny. What a surprise.


What they’re asking for sometimes is...that’s not a surprise (at least not to me). And you’re right again, needles and biohazard levels of garbage and feces isn’t funny


----------



## Mathemagician

Seriously considering a German MBA. Then stay and work a few years minimum so Germany gets some juicy income tax as a return on investing in my education.


----------



## NateFalcon

Happy 4th of July you argumentative bastards lol


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

NateFalcon said:


> View attachment 62472
> Happy 4th of July you argumentative bastards lol


Shop Smart... Shop S-Mart.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Shop Smart... Shop S-Mart.



Now I swear... Any of you primates even TOUCHES me...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

PunkBillCarson said:


> Now I swear... Any of you primates even TOUCHES me...


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Spaced Out Ace said:


>




One of my all time favorite movies!


----------



## bostjan

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well, if it's anything like the cable industry, and how few options I have for cable, it'd be allowing more options to come in to an area rather than the 3 options which have all apparently agreed on a price in the name of choice. And that choice is merely a mirage.


If I don't want a company's cable, and there are no alternatives, I might be bored. If I don't want a company's health care, and there are no alternatives, I die. Seems like the stakes are a little higher with one than the other.

I mean, if I die, at least I won't have to pay my cable bill anymore.


----------



## Rawkmann

I don't have any health insurance, and at this point I can't even imagine what it would take to get me to seek out any professional healthcare. I think I'd just accept my fate if something were to happen...


----------



## Drew

Since we're going down the health care rabbit hole anyway...

...one of the most mind-blowing things, for me, in the health care debate is the continual delusion that health care in America functions in anything close to a "market environment." Like, when's the last time you comparison shopped for a medical procedure? Or tried to negotiate the price down?  Insurance companies tell customers what they'll cover and reimburse, on one side, and what they'll pay doctors for a procedure, on the other, and that's about as far as it goes. Any of the traditional market price-setting mechanisms are entirely absent. That's a large part of the reason we spend so much more per capita on health care than any other OECD nation.

And then there's the GOP's insistence that they're trying to give Americans "choice" in health coverage, by letting them take out plans with less benefits at a lower price. That's not giving choice, that's taking choice _away_ - health care is something that all Americans, at some point in their life, will require, and when that time comes, if you don't have insurance that will cover a procedure you need, or it'll only partially cover it but you'll be looking at a huge co-pay you can't afford... Congratulations. You no longer have choice.

EDIT - perfectly timed post: 


Rawkmann said:


> I don't have any health insurance, and at this point I can't even imagine what it would take to get me to seek out any professional healthcare. I think I'd just accept my fate if something were to happen...


This is the "choice" the GOP wants to give to more Americans - the choice to just "accept their fate."


----------



## Drew

To go _briefly _back on topic, the steel and aluminim tariffs that everyone was sure were "just a negotiating tactic" have been in place for some time now, and today Trump took a swipe at Harley Davidson for moving jobs overseas to avoid EU retaliatory tariffs by saying their move was "very unpopular with people," and pointing to a 7% decline in sales in 2017 as "proof" people didn't like their announcement to move jobs to Europe a week or two ago. Let that sink in for a bit. 

Meanwhile, $34B of the $50B in tariffs on Chinese imports go into effect at 12:01AM tomorrow morning, which said tariffs were _also_ painted as a "negotiating tactic," and we're running out of time for Trump to pull them back. China is planning to respond immediately when they go into effect with proportionate tariffs on American imports. 

Also, the EU tarrifs in response to the steel and aluminum ones are already impacting the bourbon industry: 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...illers-fear-losing-out-on-global-whiskey-boom

I mean, in the bigger scheme of things, this is all pretty small potatoes compared to things like tearing families apart at the border and blocking asylum seekers from entering the country to escape atrocities in their own - it's just money. But, these are such cataclysmicly stupid decisions that could be so easily avoided if Trump had the faintest idea how international trade worked.


----------



## Rawkmann

Drew said:


> This is the "choice" the GOP wants to give to more Americans - the choice to just "accept their fate."



I tried to sign up for a healthcare plan when 'Obamacare' was being implemented, but unfortunately for people living in Texas, our state government decided NOT to expand Medicaid coverage and I fall into a 'wage gap' where I would receive no breaks or incentives on my insurance costs. My cousin's wife moved here from Australia a couple years ago and she literally doesn't grasp how our healthcare system over here works. Like, the thought of people going bankrupt due to healthcare costs is inconceivable to her.


----------



## Drew

Rawkmann said:


> I tried to sign up for a healthcare plan when 'Obamacare' was being implemented, but unfortunately for people living in Texas, our state government decided NOT to expand Medicaid coverage and I fall into a 'wage gap' where I would receive no breaks or incentives on my insurance costs. My cousin's wife moved here from Australia a couple years ago and she literally doesn't grasp how our healthcare system over here works. Like, the thought of people going bankrupt due to healthcare costs was inconceivable to her.


Yeah, that was part of a lot of red states' attempt to undercut the ACA, and unfortunately a poorly worded phrase in the law let them get away with it - as I recall, it said basically that the states _can_ expand Medicare coverage, when the intent was that they WERE to do so, so when states refused and it was taken to the courts, the court eventually sided with the states in that whatever the intent was, the ACA didn't actually provide them an _obligation_ to do so, as written. 

In theory it should be a pretty easy fix, but the GOP is more interested in trying to make the ACA collapse than they are in expanding coverage for their constituents, so they'd rather leave you in a donut hole where you can't afford insurance than close that gap.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Like, when's the last time you comparison shopped for a medical procedure?



I know this for a fact, you can shop breast implants down here. That's a very popular thing to do.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> To go _briefly _back on topic


Boooo!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> If I don't want a company's cable, and there are no alternatives, I might be bored. If I don't want a company's health care, and there are no alternatives, I die. Seems like the stakes are a little higher with one than the other.
> 
> I mean, if I die, at least I won't have to pay my cable bill anymore.


That has zero to do with allowing more companies into a state to compete, but whatever. Glad you won't have to pay your cable bill anymore.


----------



## bostjan

Spaced Out Ace said:


> That has zero to do with allowing more companies into a state to compete, but whatever. Glad you won't have to pay your cable bill anymore.


It has everything to do with how ineffective shopping around for healthcare really is.
Someone shopping around for breast implants has nothing to do with this, since everyday people don't need breast implants. If you fall off your motorbike and break your arm, are you going to shop around for an ER that gives you the care you need at a reasonable price?! Even if something is more chronic, people simply don't shop around for health care. And, with insurance networks the way that they currently are, there's really no point in shopping around. If I needed to see an oncologist, I can pretty much guarantee that my insurance company would only cover maybe two options within a reasonable driving distance of my home, and then at that point, one of them is probably going to be extra-unreasonable anyway, so the other less-unreasonable option knows that they can charge whatever they want to charge. From a free-market perspective, there's nothing the consumer can do, and that boils down to insurance policy and nothing else.


----------



## NateFalcon




----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> since everyday people don't need breast implants.



90% of Ponte Vedra Beach disagrees with you.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I don't like the way he said _briefly_... Some kind of passive aggressive implication in there... Don't think I'm fond of it.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> I don't like the way he said _briefly_... Some kind of passive aggressive implication in there... Don't think I'm fond of it.



The prophecy has come to pass.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, in the least-surprising breaking news alert I've gotten in a long time, Scott Pruitt has resigned as the head of the EPA. Ordering his staffers to work as his wife's executive search service is evidently one step too far.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## NateFalcon

Candied jalapeños


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, in the least-surprising breaking news alert I've gotten in a long time, Scott Pruitt has resigned as the head of the EPA.



It's because he wants Jeff Sessions's job.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> It has everything to do with how ineffective shopping around for healthcare really is.
> Someone shopping around for breast implants has nothing to do with this, since everyday people don't need breast implants. If you fall off your motorbike and break your arm, are you going to shop around for an ER that gives you the care you need at a reasonable price?! Even if something is more chronic, people simply don't shop around for health care. And, with insurance networks the way that they currently are, there's really no point in shopping around. If I needed to see an oncologist, I can pretty much guarantee that my insurance company would only cover maybe two options within a reasonable driving distance of my home, and then at that point, one of them is probably going to be extra-unreasonable anyway, so the other less-unreasonable option knows that they can charge whatever they want to charge. From a free-market perspective, there's nothing the consumer can do, and that boils down to insurance policy and nothing else.


Yeah, shopping around for car insurance is definitely ineffective as well.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, shopping around for car insurance is definitely ineffective as well.


You're missing the point and bostjan isn't presenting it. 

The issue isn't that there aren't enough insurers. More insurers wouldn't reduce the price because there are already plenty of insurers and none of them will reduce their price.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

StevenC said:


> You're missing the point and bostjan isn't presenting it.
> 
> The issue isn't that there aren't enough insurers. More insurers wouldn't reduce the price because there are already plenty of insurers and none of them will reduce their price.


That's insane. 3 insurers in a particular state vs 12 insurers in a particular state will have no effect on the price? If one of those 12 insurers want to get more of the prospective customers looking for health insurance, they will do so by offering better service for lower prices. Not that difficult to understand. I think it is you that is missing the point.


----------



## Mathemagician

Ace, I don’t know how else to explain it. Insurance is not a free market. The companies do not compete. They just do not.

They get firms to sign contracts assuring them that they will offer cheaper rates in order to provide a “bulk” plan. - but the insurance is expensive at all tiers.

Multiple providers? All charge the same.

You keep presenting “capitalism/competition” as the solution.

It’s not a new thought. It’s not novel. There are plenty of insurers. And insurance is still crazy expensive.

When the US tried to implement single payer you know who lobbied the HARDEST against it? Private insurers. Because a baseline level of insurance would hurt thier bottom lines.

They do not compete on price. It’s the same thing in telecom. All the providers charge the same.

But as others have noted, one doesn’t die if they choose to forego a cell phone or cable.

More providers in insurance doesn’t lower the cost - because they don’t have to. And it’s not easy to “just start an insurance company” to create more.

It’s an “industry” that shouldn’t exist. Because there is no freedom of choice.

Everyone gets sick sometime. It’s cheaper for everyone to just pay a small tax that’s the same or lower than the monthly insurance cost and not have to worry about tiers/coverage/pre existing conditions/etc.

How is this worse than the current system? The only loser is the insurance industry and it’s artificially inflated profit margins. 

It’s brutal sitting on an analyst call an listening to companies talk about how great it is for thier bottom line that they don’t have “downward pricing pressures” from a competing single payer system and that “the new merger will be accretive to earnings due to the larger base paying premiums”.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Speaking of breast implants: My 16 year old cousin had hers made-over after someone told her they resembled melted packets of butter.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> They do not compete on price. It’s the same thing in telecom. All the providers charge the same.


This isn't really true, but it's not far off the mark in practice - most Americans don't shop for their insurance, and in fact the ACA exchanges are at least a small step in that direction, to encourage price competition amongst insurers to customers.

If that was how the market worked, that might not be so bad. The problem, though, is the vast majority of people get insurance through their employer, not on their own. One, the employer subsidizes a large part of the cost as a "benefit" (which is tax deductible for them) so most consumers don't really feel the full cost of their plan. Two, the company negotiates with insurerers to select which plans they're going to offer to their employees, and while they usually offer a few options, they don't really have any incentive to offer multiple alternatives that are broadly similar - for example, you may see a high deductible and a low deductible plan, but most companies don't offer multiple low deductible plans for their employees to choose from, because that cuts down on economies of scale and their negotiating position, and creates additional bureaucratic costs. So, consumers generally have choice between _type_ of plan, but not provider of plan, when they take out insurance. Three, there's the fact most insurers these days are fairly heavily vertically integrated - in network vs out of network coverage, fixed reimbursement schedules, negotiated "costs" on bills that have essentially no basis in reality since they then don't charge you for the "covered" portion they've "negotiated" with providers, and then only expect you to pay up to your deductible for the rest...

I remember when I had ACL surgery, I think the official "bill" was in the neighborhood of $70k, all in. Except, the actual out-of-pocket cost to me was probably a grand or so for whatever my deductible was, plus of course my monthly premium payment, of which most of it was probably picke dup by my employer anyway. Who knows. I'll say this - it's hands down the most expensive "purchase" I've ever made without 1) getting a few quotes, 2) comparison shopping alternatives, 3) trying to negotiate the prices, or 4) having any idea at all what the cost was going to be before going ahead and "buying" it. Probably 5) had much choice about whether i was making the purchase or not, too, while we're at it, and 6) had any real sense of what my out of pocket cost actually _was_. 

Nothing about health care is actually a "market." There are zero market pricing forces in play.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Fuck it, whatever.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> That's insane. 3 insurers in a particular state vs 12 insurers in a particular state will have no effect on the price? If one of those 12 insurers want to get more of the prospective customers looking for health insurance, they will do so by offering better service for lower prices. Not that difficult to understand. I think it is you that is missing the point.


This isn't how it works in practice.

In practice if I charge say $500 for insurance and have 1000 customers I'm making $500,000. If I want to reduce my insurance rate to $400, I need to find 250 new customers just to break even. However, when I crunch the numbers I realise that to get 250 new customers I need to drop my insurance rate to $300. So I decide that instead of losing money I'm happy with my 1000 customers at $500 a pop.

Now suppose there are a few insurers in town all charging $500 and all having 1000 customers each. If I drop my price to $400, then I'll probably steal some customers from the other outfits, but then they'll do the same and we're all back where we started. We all come to the realisation that we'd rather shuffle around the same 3000 customers at $500 each and make our money.

That's the free market.


----------



## NateFalcon

Breast implants transcend all political barriers...both liberals and conservatives find them both empowering and offensive...


Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Speaking of breast implants: My 16 year old cousin had hers made-over after someone told her they resembled melted packets of butter.


The age of medical consent in Oregon is 14...avoid the insults


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

If only it was 12, Oregon could have spared her the “Mrs. Dirt Devil” stigma of her first abortion, as well (7th traders can be cruel).


----------



## NateFalcon

There’s still stigmas about that stuff?


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> There’s still stigmas about that stuff?


The Bible says its wrong. Welcome to Trump's America. Thanks, Jeff Sessions! 

But her emails...


----------



## synrgy

The plot thickens.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...st-10-fishing-vessels-in-canadian-waters.html

I'm American. My wife is Canadian. Our toddler daughter is dual-citizen. I'm posting from Canada right now, where we're visiting with family. To say this stuff is 'hitting too close to home' is a massive understatement.


----------



## Drew

> GRAND MANAN, N.B.—A little-known cross-border dispute that has simmered between Canada and the United States since the late 1700s is now approaching the boiling point.
> 
> In the past two weeks, at least 10 Canadian fishing boats from New Brunswick have been intercepted by U.S. Border Patrol agents while fishing in the disputed waters around Machias Seal Island, a spokesperson for the fishermen says.



I honestly had no idea we had disputed waters with Canada.


----------



## NateFalcon

Maybe the religious should quit whining about abortions...it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost society pays to maintain the kids whose parents can’t financially support them...

How come nobody talks about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome anymore either? I see a lot of it going on. My nieces kid has FAS and they’re calling it Aspergers...I’m impressed


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Maybe the religious should quit whining about abortions...it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost society pays to maintain the kids whose parents can’t financially support them...


Because the Bible says give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but thou shalt not kill. C'mon, man. It's right there.


----------



## vilk

NateFalcon said:


> Maybe the religious should quit whining about abortions...it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the cost society pays to maintain the kids whose parents can’t financially support them...
> 
> How come nobody talks about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome anymore either? I see a lot of it going on. My nieces kid has FAS and they’re calling it Aspergers...I’m impressed


Whether you like it or not, when you vote Republican/Conservative, you're voting for someone who caters to the religious majority and will likely attempt to pass real legislation based on archaic superstitions. It's too bad that there really is no option for a non-religious person who wants to abandon public services and dump even more more money into the military industrial complex.


----------



## NateFalcon

I don’t think Roe v. Wade is getting overturned, most republicans have changed their tune at least on the legal battle issues. There’s going to be a few handfuls of radicals but I don’t think ‘pubs are going to gain any real traction with this issue...more ‘cause for fear’ sentiment


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

We jus tryin to salmon fish, eh?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I honestly had no idea we had disputed waters with Canada.


Yeah. I looked up photos of the island in question, and I only see Canadian flags there, no US flags. I would think that a reasonable government would be willing to be, well, ...reasonable about this. I _highly_ doubt that Canada is smuggling terrorists into the US via a remote island in the Atlantic Ocean populated only by seabirds. This is obviously an act of machismo on our part.


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> I don’t think Roe v. Wade is getting overturned, most republicans have changed their tune at least on the legal battle issues. There’s going to be a few handfuls of radicals but I don’t think ‘pubs are going to gain any real traction with this issue...more ‘cause for fear’ sentiment


You kidding me? Why do red states consistently pass abortion laws that they KNOW will be challenged in courts as unconstitutional (like the Iowa bill that just went into effect, banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which usually happens within six weeks. Considering a woman may not even realize she's pregnant for four weeks, possibly longer, that's damned close to a total ban.)? They keep hoping that one will make it to the Supreme Court, and Court will overturn part or all of Roe vs. Wade. Not for nothing, Trump has made it very clear that opposition to Roe vs. Wade is a priority for him for a judicial appointment. 

It's not about gaining traction or fear or anything like that - it's the reality that the GOP is a somewhat uneasy compromise between pro-business interests and social conservatives, and to social conservatives, banning abortion and marriage equality are HUGE priorities.


----------



## NateFalcon

It’s totally fear mongering, the left will try to use this every time a republican is up for a Supreme Court nomination. It’s no different than the ”slippery slope” fear rhetoric the right side uses. I suggest paying attention to the laws in your state and deciding whether they coincide with your beliefs if you plan on winging it or making serious life decisions but again, I’m not worried about a Supreme Court reversal


----------



## NateFalcon

It reminds me of the fit Sen. Jeff Merkely threw after Niel Gorsch’s Supreme Court nomination saying “The dark deed has been done” in a overly theatrical and dramatic fashion after even other Democrats incuding Niel Katyal and Norm Eisen supported the nomination. It’s becoming too easy to vilify anything that touches conservative values as “fascist” or “evil”. People act as if Supreme Court judges get to follow their political leanings when ruling on laws when it’s dissenting circuit judges who usually get their politically motivated laws overturned at federal level.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## coupe89

Read on CBC facebook that some people think Trudeau's gropergate was put into the newspaper by Trump. The newspaper was printed 18 years ago.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

coupe89 said:


> Read on CBC facebook that some people think Trudeau's gropergate was put into the newspaper by Trump. The newspaper was printed 18 years ago.


Trump is truly the 5th Dimensional Chess master for having that kind of foresight.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Trump is truly the 5th Dimensional Chess master for having that kind of foresight.



It's not like it takes any talent. Future Trump just told young Trump to do it, probably the same time as when he handed him the sports almanac that had all the scores of all the games up to 2000.


----------



## JSanta

NateFalcon said:


> It reminds me of the fit Sen. Jeff Merkely threw after Niel Gorsch’s Supreme Court nomination saying “The dark deed has been done” in a overly theatrical and dramatic fashion after even other Democrats incuding Niel Katyal and Norm Eisen supported the nomination. It’s becoming too easy to vilify anything that touches conservative values as “fascist” or “evil”. People act as if Supreme Court judges get to follow their political leanings when ruling on laws when it’s dissenting circuit judges who usually get their politically motivated laws overturned at federal level.



If you don't think that SC Justices adhere to their own intrinsic beliefs (left or right), I don't think you understand how judges make decisions.

And this isn't just me pulling out some BS response. There is peer reviewed literature that have been published detailing decision making bias in legal settings.


----------



## StevenC

NateFalcon said:


> It reminds me of the fit Sen. Jeff Merkely threw after Niel Gorsch’s Supreme Court nomination saying “The dark deed has been done” in a overly theatrical and dramatic fashion after even other Democrats incuding Niel Katyal and Norm Eisen supported the nomination. It’s becoming too easy to vilify anything that touches conservative values as “fascist” or “evil”. People act as if Supreme Court judges get to follow their political leanings when ruling on laws when it’s dissenting circuit judges who usually get their politically motivated laws overturned at federal level.


You'd think if SC Judges didn't follow their political leanings then an outgoing president wouldn't have been stopped from nominating one for 8 months.


----------



## NateFalcon

My wife’s an attorney so I think I understand a little lol...it’s funny listening to people outside the legal community who think they have a handle on how the law works by watching TV. Unless you’ve been through law school and passed the bar you probably have a very loose handle on the court system (myself included at times) Dissenting SC judges have been on both sides and RARELY does the Supreme Court come to a unanimous decision. Justice Kennedy, Ginsberg, Thomas have all had dissenting votes. Justice Scalia was really the last Supreme Court justice known for compelling arguments on the conservative tip. Lawrence v. Texas case (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2016) and he actually wanted those cases bounced back to Congress and believed the Supreme Court was overstepping their bounds. The Supreme Court doesn’t create new laws...they vote on how to interpret and implement the laws as they’re written...judicial branch doesn’t “create” laws lol...it’s all about how that judge interprets the constitution, but they can’t diectly inject political beliefs (religious sometimes) but dissent doesn’t hold merit on its own -that’s why there’s 9 of them. It’s fear tactics...getting people to worry about something they’re usually clueless on


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> My wife’s an attorney so I think I understand a little lol...it’s funny listening to people outside the legal community who think they have a handle on how the law works by watching TV.



Or by marrying someone who knows how the law works...


----------



## NateFalcon

This wasn’t my point but it helps...do you think most of our mutual friends and people around us aren’t also attorneys? My wife works 12-15 hours a day as a Constitutional Law attorney so yeah, I’d say I’m pretty surrounded by the legal community...and I have to listen to people constantly drum on about what’s “unconstitutional” when they are incorrect about how our legislative and judicial branches work...


----------



## NateFalcon

Anyone who thinks Roe v. Wade is getting overturned is a dipshit. Period...it’s been “challenged” constantly and honestly our founding fathers never envisioned abortion. I don’t think most people understand the process of what it would take to overturn a Supreme Court ruling and frankly, I’d be impressed if any of you could outline the process...give it a shot

Look up Judicial Activism...


----------



## jaxadam

NateFalcon said:


> This wasn’t my point but it helps...do you think most of our mutual friends and people around us aren’t also attorneys? My wife works 12-15 hours a day as a Constitutional Law attorney so yeah, I’d say I’m pretty surrounded by the legal community...and I have to listen to people constantly drum on about what’s “unconstitutional” when they are incorrect about how our legislative and judicial branches work...



My neighbor is an attorney so that automatically makes me an expert by osmosis or association or some shit like that.


----------



## NateFalcon

If that’s all people got to fire back on, whatever...judging by the clueless remarks it’s apparent some people need to go sharpen their pencil


----------



## jaxadam

Hey, I'm not one either. But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night...


----------



## NateFalcon

Knee slapper...


----------



## NateFalcon

A child watching Schoolhouse Rock could teach some of these dullards about our governmental branches and how they operate...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

NateFalcon said:


> If that’s all people got to fire back on, whatever...judging by the clueless remarks it’s apparent some people need to go sharpen their pencil


With their eyeball.

And they've been sticking that pencil somewhere other than their eyeball.


----------



## narad

NateFalcon said:


> If that’s all people got to fire back on, whatever...judging by the clueless remarks it’s apparent some people need to go sharpen their pencil



Well I don't need to go sharpen my pencil -- my wife's a pencil sharpener.


----------



## StevenC

NateFalcon said:


> This wasn’t my point but it helps...do you think most of our mutual friends and people around us aren’t also attorneys? My wife works 12-15 hours a day as a Constitutional Law attorney so yeah, I’d say I’m pretty surrounded by the legal community...and I have to listen to people constantly drum on about what’s “unconstitutional” when they are incorrect about how our legislative and judicial branches work...


Aren't you the guy who works on cars but doesn't know what car you're working on? Why would I believe you know more about your wife's job than your own?


----------



## bostjan

Why don't you guys just bet each other a dollar on whether or not _Roe v. Wade_ will be overturned? I should know that doing so would settle the argument, because my wife settled a real doozy of an argument one time.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> My neighbor is an attorney so that automatically makes me an expert by osmosis or association or some shit like that.


I've slept with more attorneys than Nate Falcon, and therefore as an expert I can promise you that if you don't think an explicit aim of the GOP right now is to instill a conservative, Republican-leaning majority to roll back Roe vs. Wade and marriage equality, then you clearly haven't been paying attention to politics, for, oh, your entire life.  

I mean, one of the reasons that moderate and religious conservatives held their nose and voted for Trump was they didn't want Clinton to be able to fill a Supreme Court seat. You almost have to wonder how different the outcome of the election might have been, had Garland been seated. I hope there's a special fiery place in hell waiting for McConnell for that stunt.


----------



## Drew

I so wish that was a real tweet.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## NateFalcon

...I’m still waiting on a response from one of you explaining the process to overturn R v. W...even a response on it...you guys are so factually incorrect on the Supreme Court it’s not even funny.

If you could explain it to me you’d understand you wrong you are (maybe lol)


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> ...I’m still waiting on a response from one of you explaining the process to overturn R v. W...even a response on it...you guys are so factually incorrect on the Supreme Court it’s not even funny.
> 
> If you could explain it to me you’d understand you wrong you are (maybe lol)


Basically, the Supreme Court just has to hear a case on abortion law, and issue a sweeping opinion stating that Roe vs. Wade was a decision made in mistake, that they are now overturning. This doesn't happen frequently, but it happens - the most famous example is Plessy vs. Ferguson being reversed by Brown vs. the Board of Education, where they determined "separate but equal" was a mistake, and could no longer be considered constitutional.

Again, this is why states keep passing laws that they know are in violation of Roe vs. Wade, because they're hoping a favorable court will either uphold the law, thereby narrowing the scope of Roe vs. Wade, or overturn Roe vs. Wade altogether. Why else would they waste their time passing laws that they know are, in light of Roe vs. Wade, unconstitutional?


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


>


Futbal... Is that that sport where dirty commies kneel during the Pledge of Allegiance?


----------



## NateFalcon

Again for the stupid, the Supreme Court has had very few cases influenced by dissent...only one SCJ in history has ever been impeached (says a lot about political bias, or lack of in the Supreme Court)...and again, dissent in the form of political bias almost always historically has been voted down. The constitution is not a politically favoring document...Justices work within a scope and seldomly attempts to use personal bias in a case (hint: they hear CASES)...if they do, they usually get voted down...it’s idiots who label different SCJ’s as “liberal” or “conservative” when that usually has little to do with the actual voting outcome. This supposed republican “control” of the Supreme Court sounds ridiculous to an attorney who deals with constitutional law whether they’re republican or democrat...it gets brought up frequently how people are not getting it when it comes to that 

Cardozo is an example of an “eccentric” judge who expanded laws on the auto industry...


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Futbal... Is that that sport where dirty commies kneel during the Pledge of Allegiance?



:highfive:


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Again for the stupid, the Supreme Court has had very few cases influenced by dissent...only one SCJ in history has ever been impeached (says a lot about political bias, or lack of in the Supreme Court)...and again, dissent in the form of political bias almost always historically has been voted down. The constitution is not a politically favoring document...Justices work within a scope and seldomly attempts to use personal bias in a case (hint: they hear CASES)...if they do, they usually get voted down...it’s idiots who label different SCJ’s as “liberal” or “conservative” when that usually has little to do with the actual voting outcome. This supposed republican “control” of the Supreme Court sounds ridiculous to an attorney who deals with constitutional law whether they’re republican or democrat...it gets brought up frequently how people are not getting it when it comes to that
> 
> Cardozo is an example of an “eccentric” judge who expanded laws on the auto industry...


Hey, serious question. What planet do you live on, and do you have room for one more? I like this idea of an entirely apolitical Supreme Court, it sounds really nice!


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Basically, the Supreme Court just has to hear a case on abortion law, and issue a sweeping opinion stating that Roe vs. Wade was a decision made in mistake, that they are now overturning. This doesn't happen frequently, but it happens - the most famous example is Plessy vs. Ferguson being reversed by Brown vs. the Board of Education, where they determined "separate but equal" was a mistake, and could no longer be considered constitutional.
> 
> Again, this is why states keep passing laws that they know are in violation of Roe vs. Wade, because they're hoping a favorable court will either uphold the law, thereby narrowing the scope of Roe vs. Wade, or overturn Roe vs. Wade altogether. Why else would they waste their time passing laws that they know are, in light of Roe vs. Wade, unconstitutional?


I just wanted a response...cool. Pretty spot on, it would take a SIMILAR case as R v. W, but I just don’t think they would get a majority vote. Remember, they’re voting on the wording of the law only...not the case in itself. R v. W has been challenged many times and the general consensus has remained. A SCJ can’t use political beliefs or it’s cause for potential impeachment, or at least a straight vote down. One ,two or even three dissenting votes (which never happens) won’t overturn anything. They’re Constitution interpreters, not belief or political interpreters and I think people over estimate their ability to manipulate the constitution. That’s why it’s as important to vote on local representatives as national...if any dissent, it’s usually involved judges siding with overwhelming public sentiment and I doubt highly the majority of the country is going to start pushing for a do-over on a long standing ruling. It would take a serious push from local representatives, senators and governors calling for a change before the Supreme Court would consider ratifying the constitution.


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Hey, serious question. What planet do you live on, and do you have room for one more? I like this idea of an entirely apolitical Supreme Court, it sounds really nice!


Actually, planet reality sucks sometimes...rules effect both sides


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Hey, serious question. What planet do you live on, and do you have room for one more? I like this idea of an entirely apolitical Supreme Court, it sounds really nice!


I redact the “stupid” comment, I wasn’t referring to you. It’s hard to get past “Holliday Inn” and smack talking race cars I work on comments (? Lol)


----------



## bostjan

Supreme court decisions get overturned, and it's not really that rare.

For example, just recently, _Quill Corp v North Dakota _was completely and unequivocally overturned by _South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc._ These cases both dealt with exactly the same issue. In _Quill_, it was determined that a state cannot charge sales tax for an out-of-state purchase barring Federal legislation, due to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In _Wayfair_, that decision was reversed, despite the fact that the Commerce Clause was not ammended and no legislation from the US Congress had taken affect to address the issue whatsoever.


----------



## NateFalcon

bostjan said:


> Supreme court decisions get overturned, and it's not really that rare.
> 
> For example, just recently, _Quill Corp v North Dakota _was completely and unequivocally overturned by _South Dakota v Wayfair, Inc._ These cases both dealt with exactly the same issue. In _Quill_, it was determined that a state cannot charge sales tax for an out-of-state purchase barring Federal legislation, due to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In _Wayfair_, that decision was reversed, despite the fact that the Commerce Clause was not ammended and no legislation from the US Congress had taken affect to address the issue whatsoever.


True, good examples...I just don’t think on an issue this heavy that there would be an overwhelming push to re-see the parameters of the ruling any different


----------



## StevenC

NateFalcon said:


> Actually, planet reality sucks sometimes...rules effect both sides


Reality does suck sometimes. Like times when a system of checks and balances breaks down because the participants aren't acting in good faith.


----------



## NateFalcon

StevenC said:


> Reality does suck sometimes. Like times when a system of checks and balances breaks down because the participants aren't acting in good faith.


Give examples of when a SCJ acted in “bad faith” and had it overwhelm an outcome


----------



## NateFalcon

I understand the political storm has people on edge but most SC judges on both sides act in good faith...governors?, senators?...not so much- but that’s where the problems really lie IMO


----------



## NateFalcon

It’s like if you over-use the court system and the same judges see you just trying to “win” frivolous lawsuits every month...every time you want to keep trying similar cases with the same outcome, eventually judges get tired of revisiting the same cases...thus losing traction. SCJ aren’t there to weigh in on why a particular political group wants to “win”...it would take overwhelming public outcry. Look at the public outcry on gun control...then look at the public outcry on abortions, almost none other than a few radicals that progressives (and everyone) obviously outnumber. I wouldn’t worry


----------



## NateFalcon

Lol...it’s usually conservatives who use the “slippery slope” mantra (just a joke, no offense to anyone)


----------



## bostjan

NateFalcon said:


> True, good examples...I just don’t think on an issue this heavy that there would be an overwhelming push to re-see the parameters of the ruling any different


You might be right. That's why I'm going to stay out of this one. On abortion, the courts have been pretty predictable in their decisions, and they have not shown any inclination to overturn _Roe v Wade_; of course, anything is possible looking far enough out into the future.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> You might be right. That's why I'm going to stay out of this one. On abortion, the courts have been pretty predictable in their decisions, and they have not shown any inclination to overturn _Roe v Wade_; of course, anything is possible looking far enough out into the future.


Though, they haven't done so unanimously, and the ways they've been predictable are that the conservative bloc has consistently voted against abortion, while the liberal bloc and Kennedy have consistently voted for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt

Overturned by a 5-3 vote in 2016, before Gorsuch was seated, with Kennedy as the swing vote. With an anti-abortion judge replacing him, that's likely to be 5-4 in the other direction. At a minimum, an anti-abortion judge will likely reduce the _scope_ of Roe vs. Wade in coming years, and it is entirely conceivable that the court, by majority opinion, could in a 5-4 decision determine that Roe vs. Wade_ itself _was unconstitutional and should be rolled back.

This is a _very_ real risk, as is a repeal of marriage equality, and it is not one that should be downplayed or not taken seriously.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## NateFalcon

StevenC said:


> Aren't you the guy who works on cars but doesn't know what car you're working on? Why would I believe you know more about your wife's job than your own?


I’m a mechanical administrator who does fab work on the side, ie: welding cages, tig welding parts. I’m not a tuner, engine builder or tranny guy so who cares if I was off on the details of one car? What’s your point? I might work on a dozen cars a week sometimes...i just wanted to show off some of the cooler cars I’ve been working on and you keep drumming on about it, bringing it up in other threads now lol...by the way, you were right! The Mugen is black and yellow and covered on the rack. I’ve told you before and I’ll still PM you specs and pics next time I do some work there...sorry for being such a liar


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I hope Trump announces Bugs Bunny as a SCJ, just to fuck with people.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I hope Trump announces Bugs Bunny as a SCJ, just to fuck with people.


I hope he announces someone so clearly far right that eventually either Collins or Murkowski balk, and we run enough time off the clock that it becomes politically untenable for Trump to get a nominee in before the midterms. That's about the only shot the Democrats have here, I think.


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Though, they haven't done so unanimously, and the ways they've been predictable are that the conservative bloc has consistently voted against abortion, while the liberal bloc and Kennedy have consistently voted for it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt
> 
> Overturned by a 5-3 vote in 2016, before Gorsuch was seated, with Kennedy as the swing vote. With an anti-abortion judge replacing him, that's likely to be 5-4 in the other direction. At a minimum, an anti-abortion judge will likely reduce the _scope_ of Roe vs. Wade in coming years, and it is entirely conceivable that the court, by majority opinion, could in a 5-4 decision determine that Roe vs. Wade_ itself _was unconstitutional and should be rolled back.
> 
> This is a _very_ real risk, as is a repeal of marriage equality, and it is not one that should be downplayed or not taken seriously.


I just want to point out that there’s no such thing as an “anti-abortion Supreme Court justice” that declares that in his vote without it becoming a dissent...and keeping “republican” nominees out of the Supreme Court and lining the court the other way is not “better” voting wise...votes are supposed to be private (people forget that) and although SCJ’s can personally vote however they’d like -they’re NOT allowed to directly inject their political views into constitutional cases unless they interpret specific wording differently...not the cases political “leanings”


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> I hope he announces someone so clearly far right that eventually either Collins or Murkowski balk, and we run enough time off the clock that it becomes politically untenable for Trump to get a nominee in before the midterms. That's about the only shot the Democrats have here, I think.


ie, dig in their heels and throw a temper tantrum.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> ie, dig in their heels and throw a temper tantrum.



But...but....that's what happened last time. We're talking about democrats hypothetically throwing a tantrum, the republicans already did!


----------



## NateFalcon

So people would rather go without our country being supported by the Supreme Court just to “run out the clock” just so that no one that’s touched Trump (or is Republican) gets appointed??...that totally fucking irresponsible


----------



## vilk

NateFalcon said:


> So people would rather go without our country being supported by the Supreme Court just to “run out the clock” just so that no one that’s touched Trump gets appointed??...that totally fucking irresponsible


Were you not paying attention when the republicans literally just did that to Obama? I mean to say that the answer to you question is "yes".


----------



## NateFalcon

“Let’s boycott the pinnacle of our country’s laws just to keep Republicans out”...that might be the most dangerous line of thinking I’ve heard in a while...


----------



## NateFalcon

vilk said:


> Were you not paying attention when the republicans literally just did that to Obama? I mean to say that the answer to you question is "yes".


I don’t care if “someone else did it” -that’s a lame excuse and you know it


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

NateFalcon said:


> I don’t care if “someone else did it” -that’s a lame excuse and you know it


Childish. Like I said: "ie, dig in their heels and throw a temper tantrum. "


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> So people would rather go without our country being supported by the Supreme Court just to “run out the clock” just so that no one that’s touched Trump (or is Republican) gets appointed??...that totally fucking irresponsible


You were here back in 2016 when McConnell did that with Merrick Garland, right? I mean, that was only 18 months ago when McConnell refused to even recognize his nomination because, 250-odd days before the end of Obama's term, "we should let the people weigh in." So, hey, if the GOP is going to fight dirty, the Democrats would be fucking stupid _not_ to give it right back.



NateFalcon said:


> I just want to point out that there’s no such thing as an “anti-abortion Supreme Court justice” that declares that in his vote without it becoming a dissent...and keeping “republican” nominees out of the Supreme Court and lining the court the other way is not “better” voting wise...votes are supposed to be private (people forget that) and although SCJ’s can personally vote however they’d like -they’re NOT allowed to directly inject their political views into constitutional cases unless they interpret specific wording differently...not the cases political “leanings”


Again, _in theory_, you are absolutely correct. In practice, there are _definitely_ "conservative" and "liberal" justices. And, a justice's decision on a matter before the court is hardly anonymous - it's a matter of public record. I was only half joking when I asked which Supreme Court you were talking about, because it's a _very_ different one than the one we have in the United States.


----------



## NateFalcon

At least we’re getting somewhere...


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> At least we’re getting somewhere...


Where? You realizing that the Supreme Court Justices are not some esoteric, clinical law-tabulating automons, but are actually human beings with their own political views and political beliefs? Like, this can't possibly be news to you, that Clarence Thomas is the most staunchly conservative justice on the court, while Sotomayer or Ginsberg are in stiff competition to be the most staunchly liberal?


----------



## vilk

NateFalcon said:


> I don’t care if “someone else did it” -that’s a lame excuse and you know it


Sorry, it wasn't my intention to offer an excuse; rather I was just providing you with some precedent, so as to answer your question. Sorry if you meant for it to be rhetorical...


----------



## NateFalcon

Again, I think people exaggerate “liberal” and “conservative” when it comes to how the SCJ’s vote on cases. You have to separate the personal political affiliation and the scope of their job...the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I hear you guys, but I don’t think Republicans are planning a “dissenting vote takeover” that’s going to repeal the standing ruling...and I still think it’s fear generating


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Again, I think people exaggerate “liberal” and “conservative” when it comes to how the SCJ’s vote on cases. You have to separate the personal political affiliation and the scope of their job...the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I hear you guys, but I don’t think Republicans are planning a “dissenting vote takeover” that’s going to repeal the standing ruling...and I still think it’s fear generating


Ok, serious question v2 - is it really news to you that, broken record here, certain judges consistently take the conservative side in Supreme Court decisions, while certain other judges consistently take the liberal side?

Like, it's not a graphic so I can't link the image directly, but tables like the one maybe ~5 paragraphs in here... This kind of analysis is _really_ new to you, and it's surprising to you that it's actually happening?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

Or are you just acting intentionally naive?


----------



## NateFalcon

I think people get the idea that I’m a Republican or something lol, I’m just throwing facts out there from the middle, as a US history major myself I hear a lot of incorrect statements online and in public pertaining to the constitution, Congress, Supreme Court etc...sorry if I came off as combative


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Ok, serious question v2 - is it really news to you that, broken record here, certain judges consistently take the conservative side in Supreme Court decisions, while certain other judges consistently take the liberal side?
> 
> Like, it's not a graphic so I can't link the image directly, but tables like the one maybe ~5 paragraphs in here... This kind of analysis is _really_ new to you, and it's surprising to you that it's actually happening?
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/
> 
> Or are you just acting intentionally naive?


They don’t take a side...they just attempt to interpret the terminology of the law as far as they can...until it becomes “dissenting”...they don’t stray as far off as people think they do and still have their dissent be persuasive


----------



## NateFalcon

Drew said:


> Ok, serious question v2 - is it really news to you that, broken record here, certain judges consistently take the conservative side in Supreme Court decisions, while certain other judges consistently take the liberal side?
> 
> Like, it's not a graphic so I can't link the image directly, but tables like the one maybe ~5 paragraphs in here... This kind of analysis is _really_ new to you, and it's surprising to you that it's actually happening?
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/
> 
> Or are you just acting intentionally naive?


FiveThirtyEight.com?...yeah, call me “intentionally naive” but I’m not going to read that...


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> FiveThirtyEight.com?...yeah, call me “intentionally naive” but I’m not going to read that...


You're not familiar with FiveThirtyEight? It's an excellent data analysis news site.

And I don't know what to tell you, you're either trolling or unbelievably naive. In 5-4 rulings, Clarence Thomas has voted for the conservative outcome 80.1% of the time in a sample size of 427 decisions, while RBG has voted for the liberal outcome 14.7% of the time, in a sample size of 395 decisions. How big a sample does it take you to decide that this isn't coincidence?



NateFalcon said:


> sorry if I came off as combative


You don't come off as combative. You come out as straight-up out of your mind.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> So, hey, if the GOP is going to fight dirty, the Democrats would be fucking stupid _not_ to give it right back.


"He started it!" How childish.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "He started it!" How childish.


I'd agree if the stakes weren't so high. As it stands, there's one conservative justice sitting on the court who has no right to be there, had McConnell done his fucking job in 2016. 

Meanwhile, I'm dumbfounded we seem to have found the one human being who doesn't believe Supreme Court Justices have political views that impact their decisions.


----------



## NateFalcon

Says the guy who thinks we should run out the clock on our Supreme Court to keep a conservative from getting appointed...I’m out of my mind?


----------



## NateFalcon

Our founding fathers would’ve hung you lol...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> I'd agree if the stakes weren't so high. As it stands, there's one conservative justice sitting on the court who has no right to be there, had McConnell done his fucking job in 2016.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm dumbfounded we seem to have found the one human being who doesn't believe Supreme Court Justices have political views that impact their decisions.


You'd agree if the scenario was reversed. If it was a conservative saying that the conservatives should do the same cuz blahblahblah, you'd be the one calling it childish. Frankly, I can't even believe you typed such silliness in the first place.


----------



## MFB

Not before going right back into their graves after looking at the current climate of the US, both culturally and politically



> Our founding fathers would’ve hung you lol...


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Says the guy who thinks we should run out the clock on our Supreme Court to keep a conservative from getting appointed...I’m out of my mind?


So, you DO agree that there are conservative and liberal judges. That's all I'm trying to get you to see/admit. 


NateFalcon said:


> Our founding fathers would’ve hung you lol...


Watch it.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> You'd agree if the scenario was reversed. If it was a conservative saying that the conservatives should do the same cuz blahblahblah, you'd be the one calling it childish. Frankly, I can't even believe you typed such silliness in the first place.


I highly doubt it would have happened in the first place had the scenario been reversed. That degree of dirty politics has never really been the Democrats' style - if anything, they've taken heat for NOT being willing to go that far. Meanwhile, the GOP refused to take up Garland's nomination in the first place - an unprecedented move - and then did away with 200 years of convention by quickly moving to do away with the fillibuster on Supreme Court nominations, something they had previously refused to do under GWB, to get Gorsuch appointed, since it was clear he wasn't going to get confirmed otherwise. The GOP created this circus; they can live in it, too.


----------



## NateFalcon

Like I’ve said before, you’re better off voting at state level on representatives identifying with your views...living in a Republican state probably shouldn’t be the place to live if you’re not pro-life...get out and vote en masse...if the ‘conservative right’ is so outnumbered by the liberal movement then it shouldn’t be a problem. You can’t just ignore the fact that people vote differently than you and in some states liberals are outnumbered...?


----------



## NateFalcon

MFB said:


> Not before going right back into their graves after looking at the current climate of the US, both culturally and politically


...true


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> Like I’ve said before, you’re better off voting at state level on representatives identifying with your views...living in a Republican state probably shouldn’t be the place to live if you’re not pro-life...get out and vote en masse...if the ‘conservative right’ is so outnumbered by the liberal movement then it shouldn’t be a problem. You can’t just ignore the fact that people vote differently than you and in some states liberals are outnumbered...?


I have a passing familiarity with how elections work. I also live in an off-the-charts liberal state. 

However, we still live in a _nation_ with a liberal majority, just one concentrated in a minority of states, and we're in a situation now where the minority of Americans living in a majority of states very well may be able to roll back civil rights for the entire _country_, and not just their states, by overturning Roe vs. Wade and upending marriage equality. As an American, I think that's a problem, and especially when the fact we're even at risk of having an outright conservative majority in the Supreme Court is because the GOP straight-up refused to even take up a liberal justice's nomination for consideration, for the better part of a year, then yeah - I'm all for the Democratic party fighting this nomination by whatever means they can in the hope that January 2019 finds us with a Democratic majority in the Senate, an impeached Trump, or both.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

More foot stamping and childish notions.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> More foot stamping and childish notions.


Well, in this political climate, nothing should surprise you any more. The sad reality is, the Democrats get to stonewall this all they want, and _still_ look like the adults in the room, thanks to Trump.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

It doesn't surprise me; I find it comical. It surprises me that you're in favor of such inane tactics. Meanwhile, Maxine and Nancy will never look like adults even though Nancy looks like her plastic surgery is melting off of her face. I'd request a refund if I was her.


----------



## vilk

NateFalcon said:


> Our founding fathers would’ve hung you lol...


hanged**


----------



## Randy

Not sure why the left leaning posters in this thread are getting so worked up.

Nate and Space both have openly expressed their only interest in participating in this subforum is to point and laugh at left leaning politics, since it's an especially big target when the Dem party isn't in a position to make policy. It's easy to look whiny when your only option as a party is to whine. Enjoy it while it lasts. 

Were it not for the fact I need to be able to see all posts for Mod reason, I'd have just set the both of them to 'ignore' by now since they make zero effort at making intellectually appealing, relevant arguments. "Lol, you're a loser, I'm not tired of winning yet" doesn't make a political position.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Not sure why the left leaning posters in this thread are getting so worked up.
> 
> Nate and Space both have openly expressed their only interest in participating in this subforum is to point and laugh at left leaning politics, since it's an especially big target when the Dem party isn't in a position to make policy. It's easy to look whiny when your only option as a party is to whine. Enjoy it while it lasts.
> 
> Were it not for the fact I need to be able to see all posts for Mod reason, I'd have just set the both of them to 'ignore' by now since they make zero effort at making intellectually appealing, relevant arguments. "Lol, you're a loser, I'm not tired of winning yet" doesn't make a political position.


Like this thread and the other Trump thread (Trump Got There or whatever it is) are meant for actual discussion.


----------



## Randy

Okay, so define what you'd consider an actual discussion since apparently nobody's met your especially refined tastes.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Okay, so define what you'd consider an actual discussion since apparently nobody's met your especially refined tastes.



More pictures.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Okay, so define what you'd consider an actual discussion since apparently nobody's met your especially refined tastes.


Something whose premise isn't based around maple syrup or an obvious ploy to troll people into arguing like the other thread.


----------



## Randy

You have the floor.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I'm real touched that someone who wishes to speak on my behalf would go to the trouble to change the thread title. 

So what does everyone think about the Moon Landings? Real, or faked to bankrupt the Soviet Union?


----------



## Drew

So, since the other thread has gone to shit, lol...

...Kavanaugh may actually be the best shot the Democrats have at blocking a nominee. Not only is he farther right than anyone other than Clarence Thomas currently sitting on the court, this is also the guy who argued that a sitting president should have immunity to civil suits or criminal proceedings, which makes him a highly suspect pick right about now. Evidently McConnell was pushing for Hardiman precisely because he was worried Kananaugh was too extreme for either Collins or Murkowski. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm happy with this pick... But there's a very good chance this one could blow up in Trump's face.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## NateFalcon

Randy said:


> Not sure why the left leaning posters in this thread are getting so worked up.
> 
> Nate and Space both have openly expressed their only interest in participating in this subforum is to point and laugh at left leaning politics, since it's an especially big target when the Dem party isn't in a position to make policy. It's easy to look whiny when your only option as a party is to whine. Enjoy it while it lasts.
> 
> Were it not for the fact I need to be able to see all posts for Mod reason, I'd have just set the both of them to 'ignore' by now since they make zero effort at making intellectually appealing, relevant arguments. "Lol, you're a loser, I'm not tired of winning yet" doesn't make a political position.


I’m pointing and laughing at left-leaning politics? You guys are the worst at speaking for other people and putting words in peoples’ mouths -I haven’t done anything of the sort. I think I’ve been pretty informative...because people blindly disagree with my information because they foolishly think I’m supporting a Republican angle and dismiss anything other than a unanimous lemming agreement...? has this become a new tactic to thwart “wrongthink”? outrageously misquote someone then just keep running with it?

Enjoy it while it lasts? Lol...bro, SC seats are a lifetime tenure...


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> I’m pointing and laughing at left-leaning politics? You guys are the worst at speaking for other people and putting words in peoples’ mouths -I haven’t done anything of the sort. I think I’ve been pretty informative...because people blindly disagree with my information because they foolishly think I’m supporting a Republican angle and dismiss anything other than a unanimous lemming agreement...? has this become a new tactic to thwart “wrongthink”? outrageously misquote someone then just keep running with it?
> 
> Enjoy it while it lasts? Lol...bro, SC seats are a lifetime tenure...



Lol, still utterly lacking of substance and literally exactly the quality of posting I was talking about. Always playing counterpoint, never making any points of your own. All i know about your political identity is that you like trolling the left leaning members of this forum. 

You and Spaced are both especially good at cherry picking who you want to engage and what points you want to engage them on then accusing people of putting words in your mouth. Newsflash, choosing who you want to argue with, what you want to argue about and who/what you're going to like speaks volumes; its called context and you've provided tons of it. If you dont want any words put in your mouth, speak with substance and not just counterpoint.

Also "while it lasts" means Republican control of all three branches, not one numb-nuts tenure on the SC. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though, chief.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> So what does everyone think about the Moon Landings? Real, or faked to bankrupt the Soviet Union?



I met a really smart person a long time ago who didn’t believe we’d been to the moon. Turns out this guy was a PhD and professor in theoretical physics. I thought the guy was a complete dumbass for believing that at the time. Now I’m not so sure.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> I met a really smart person a long time ago who didn’t believe we’d been to the moon. Turns out this guy was a PhD and professor in theoretical physics. I thought the guy was a complete dumbass for believing that at the time. Now I’m not so sure.


Did he have any reasoning for believing such? Or did the conversation get to that point?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I think the heats getting to Randy, because he's getting incredibly cranky lately. I "choose" people like Drew to discuss things with because I respect his ability to do so most of the time.


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> Our founding fathers would’ve hung you lol...





Spaced Out Ace said:


> More foot stamping and childish notions.



My AC is working fine, thanks for putting words into my household appliances.

Those two posts smack of trolling and incivility. I gave you the choice before, explain how what you said wasn't a troll or you get banned. That's the rule. This time I just asked for some indication you're actually trying to have a civil discussion, without the threat of a ban because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt but that still doesn't mean you didn't need to be brought back down to earth.

Also, for someone you claim to "respect", you've got a funny way of showing it.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> I met a really smart person a long time ago who didn’t believe we’d been to the moon. Turns out this guy was a PhD and professor in theoretical physics. I thought the guy was a complete dumbass for believing that at the time. Now I’m not so sure.



And that guy's name? Albert Einstein.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Oh, another "choose your words wisely" routine. 

I was saying that what Drew was suggesting were childish notions. If you thought I was calling him childish, I wasn't.


----------



## NateFalcon

Randy said:


> My AC is working fine, thanks for putting words into my household appliances.
> 
> Those two posts smack of trolling and incivility. I gave you the choice before, explain how what you said wasn't a troll or you get banned. That's the rule. This time I just asked for some indication you're actually trying to have a civil discussion, without the threat of a ban because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt but that still doesn't mean you didn't need to be brought back down to earth.
> 
> Also, for someone you claim to "respect", you've got a funny way of showing it.


...I’ve made lots of good points that have prompted dialogue. Drew’s made good points, Bostjans made good points, I’ve “liked” posts with opposing outlooks. If it makes you feel better to ban me, cool...5-4 ruling (or 8-1) Nate’s out!!!...lol, I honestly have never been called a troll before -that’s a source of pride for me


----------



## Randy

I said I was giving you guys the benefit of the doubt. Nobody's getting banned, chill.

When people say things that are uncivil, posts get reported. When posts get reported, somebody handles it. Either I post in here to make sure everyone's cool or I leave them unresolved and someone else just drops the banhammer without reading the thread or asking questions. I'm not looking for gratuity, but just telling you how it goes.

Trust me, it's better I check in than someone else.

Anyway, @NateFalcon , credit where it's due. You did what you said. I mostly read through the last couple pages that were of a different tone but that doesn't tell the whole story, and you deserve more credit than that.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Did he have any reasoning for believing such? Or did the conversation get to that point?



Honestly? At the time sadly I wrote him off as a complete moron for holding such a ridiculous belief that I didn’t give him a chance and didn’t even listen to his reasoning. Boy what a mistake. The conversation shifted to artificial intelligence and his belief in search engines (especially google) being the potential groundwork. This was 20 years ago and believe me I’d like to go back in time and give him another chance.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Honestly? At the time sadly I wrote him off as a complete moron for holding such a ridiculous belief that I didn’t give him a chance and didn’t even listen to his reasoning. Boy what a mistake. The conversation shifted to artificial intelligence and his belief in search engines (especially google) being the potential groundwork. This was 20 years ago and believe me I’d like to go back in time and give him another chance.



What were his feelings on them turning the frogs gay?


----------



## NateFalcon

Randy said:


> I said I was giving you guys the benefit of the doubt. Nobody's getting banned, chill.
> 
> When people say things that are uncivil, posts get reported. When posts get reported, somebody handles it. Either I post in here to make sure everyone's cool or I leave them unresolved and someone else just drops the banhammer without reading the thread or asking questions. I'm not looking for gratuity, but just telling you how it goes.
> 
> Trust me, it's better I check in than someone else.
> 
> Anyway, @NateFalcon , credit where it's due. You did what you said. I mostly read through the last couple pages that were of a different tone but that doesn't tell the whole story, and you deserve more credit than that.


Thanks man, I’ve mentioned before that I’m not intending to offend people...my tone gets misread sometimes so I’ll keep it clean...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> What were his feelings on them turning the frogs gay?


I DON'T LIKE THEM PUTTING CHEMICALS IN THE WATER THAT TURN THE FREAKING FROGS GAY! I'M SICK OF THIS CRAP! -fucks up some papers.- IT'S NOT FUNNY!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> Honestly? At the time sadly I wrote him off as a complete moron for holding such a ridiculous belief that I didn’t give him a chance and didn’t even listen to his reasoning. Boy what a mistake. The conversation shifted to artificial intelligence and his belief in search engines (especially google) being the potential groundwork. This was 20 years ago and believe me I’d like to go back in time and give him another chance.


He's not wrong. AI will most likely be developed in part due to things like search engines (ie, how they guess what you're searching for), possibly Facebook, and other technologies. I'm not sure what that'd have to do with the moon landings and whether or not they were faked, but who knows. Maybe it had more of a connection than I realize.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> He's not wrong. AI will most likely be developed in part due to things like search engines (ie, how they guess what you're searching for), possibly Facebook, and other technologies. I'm not sure what that'd have to do with the moon landings and whether or not they were faked, but who knows. Maybe it had more of a connection than I realize.



Nooo. That's the gimmick of Ex Machina (film).


----------



## Randy

User generated AI doesn't have a great track record so far 

https://gizmodo.com/here-are-the-microsoft-twitter-bot-s-craziest-racist-ra-1766820160


----------



## NateFalcon

Brett Kavanaugh is in...no worry of a R v. W overturn vote from him -you’re cool on that one guys!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> User generated AI doesn't have a great track record so far
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/here-are-the-microsoft-twitter-bot-s-craziest-racist-ra-1766820160


I remember that.


----------



## Randy

Well, that depends who you ask. His former clerk seems to emphatically say the opposite.



> In his opinion, Judge Kavanaugh emphasized the government’s “permissible interests” in “_favoring fetal life_” and “_refraining from facilitating abortion_.”
> ...
> In short, Judge Kavanaugh’s record on issues of concern to social conservatives is rock solid, and it far exceeds that of any other contender.



https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...ccable-record-of-constitutional-conservatism/

We'll see. Social conservatives have been licking their chops to roll that back for years and they've gotten small victories of the agenda with decisions like Hobby Lobby. I don't think it's impossible, and especially with this particular guy, but that'll be a 'repeal the 2nd amendment' level of boat-rocking that to try and take on. And the politics of that kinda thing is always considered with regard to potential backlash.

Regardless of the guys political leanings, his resume seems a little swamp-y. Also, an odd choice specifically for Trump considering his close relationship with George W Bush and proximity to the Starr Investigation, which included Whitewater, which was investigated by James Comey. What he does, we'll see, but Trump has a knack for picking people expecting one thing and getting something else. You can get that with anyone yeah, but the guy has an especially varied resume.


----------



## Hollowway

groverj3 said:


> He's a fucking moron and so are the people who elected him.
> 
> There's no plan here. He's pure id. He's essentially what would happen if you let an ill tempered five year old become president.
> 
> The people that surround him in the administration are power hungry and don't really care what kind of damage he does because it gives them an important-sounding job. They rubber stamp his idiocy because it's what the morons who voted for him want, and will help them continue to keep their important-sounding jobs if he gets re-elected.



I already clicked the like button, but I’m going to quote this as well, because it’s 100% true. Trump is not playing “3 dimensional chess.” He’s randomly throwing tantrums because he thinks that’s how things get done, and his apologists act like he’s Sun Tzu.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Does he not have the “divide and conquer” part down?


----------



## narad

Hollowway said:


> I already clicked the like button, but I’m going to quote this as well, because it’s 100% true. Trump is not playing “3 dimensional chess.” He’s randomly throwing tantrums because he thinks that’s how things get done, and his apologists act like he’s Sun Tzu.



Though I'm sure if Trump ever played chess he'd call it 3 dimensional chess, because the pieces stand on the board.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Do you think a 4th dimension could be applied, over time?


----------



## jaxadam

Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Do you think a 4th dimension could be applied, over time?



This is an ingenious statement.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

I think it’s a rhetorical interrogative? For example.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> This is an ingenious statement.



This is a comment that has at least five dimensions to it.



Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> I think it’s a rhetorical interrogative? For example.



... now six.


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> ...I’ve made lots of good points that have prompted dialogue. Drew’s made good points, Bostjans made good points, I’ve “liked” posts with opposing outlooks. If it makes you feel better to ban me, cool...5-4 ruling (or 8-1) Nate’s out!!!...lol, I honestly have never been called a troll before -that’s a source of pride for me


And yet, when you asked for someone to explain to you how the Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs. Wade and I explained it to you, and you even _admitted I was right _("pretty spot on"), you continued to insist it was impossible because "Supreme Court Justices don't have political opinions," yet in the same breath told me it was childish to "run the clock out" to block a conservative appointment - and I quote: 


NateFalcon said:


> Says the guy who thinks we should run out the clock on our Supreme Court to keep a conservative from getting appointed...I’m out of my mind?



If you're NOT trolling, then I really don't understand what you DO think you're up to. You're aware that it's possible for the Supreme Court to reverse prior decisions, and while you pretend otherwise you admit that there ARE such a thing as conservative justices, and over and above that, Trump is trying to seat one. And yet you don't think the GOP is going to try to get the Supreme Course to weigh in on a case that will give them the opportunity to reverse Roe vs. Wade? Trump himself has said that being sure a justice will do just that is his chief priority. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I was saying that what Drew was suggesting were childish notions. If you thought I was calling him childish, I wasn't.


Ignoring the fact that, yes, it does read like that, let's be pragmatic here. There are no participation awards in politics. If one party is going to fight dirty and sees zero electoral consequences for failing to do their job, then in what universe do you think it makes sense for the other party to hold themselves to some higher standard and not meet them head on? That's not childish to suggest the Dems' best bet is to hope Trump nominates someone so unpalatable that the nomination fails and there's a shot they'll have a Senate majority when the next nominee comes through, that's horribly naive to expect them _not_ to do exactly that. 

And, over and above that, one of the Senate's duties is to "advise and consent" on Judicial nominations, which by 200-years of tradition has meant that they give the nominee an up-or-down vote, and have the right to reject them. If 49 Democrats and one or more Republicans eventually vote no on this nomination, that's entirely within their Constitutional obligations. In sharp contrast to, you know, McConnell failing to do just that for Garland. 

And on that note, Kavanaugh actually IS far enough right that there's a decent shot his nomination will flounder - McConnell had been quietly pushing for Hardiman for the last week or so, presumably because he was worried he didn't have the votes. And unlike Gorsuch, whose prior nomination was almost unanimous, Kavanaugh's last court appointment stretched on for nearly three years because it was such a contentious pick.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> Though I'm sure if Trump ever played chess he'd call it 3 dimensional chess, because the pieces stand on the board.




Thing is though, if Trump plays chess and you beat him, what does he have to say then? "Fake moves?"


----------



## bostjan

I'm pretty sure I could smoke Trump at chess. I'd love to find out. I'm not even that good at chess. I played in a pro tournament once, and I blew it pretty hard. I'd even play him at naughts and crosses, and I feel confident that there's a chance I could beat him at that game, too, despite the fact that any rational person over the age of 8 years knows how not to lose.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I'm pretty sure I could smoke Trump at chess..



Not so fast!


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Not so fast!


I'm detecting sarcasm, but for everyone else stumbling into this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/

TL;DR - The assertion that Trump's IQ is 156 is both inaccurate and based on mistruths. His actual IQ score is unknown, and he seems comfortable keeping it that way.


Also - Trump's basic mathematics skills are questionable in this one instance:


We're also talking about the man who claimed to have counted to the biggest number ever.


----------



## Randy

I don't know who that JO Adams guy is but he's the real culprit in this whole thing.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not so fast!


FAKE NEWS! Barack Obama is not in last place, so it can't possibly be accurate!


----------



## Drew

In other news, PredictIt markets have Kavanaugh currently at a 20% chance of getting 49 or fewer votes. While that's obviously lower than I'd hoped, the contract opened 19 hours ago at 11%, and has risen steadily in the afternoon's news cycle. Worth keeping an eye on.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I don't know who that JO Adams guy is but he's the real culprit in this whole thing.




You know and I know, but again, a lot of folks might not understand the feigned subtlety here that there was not even such a thing as an IQ score when John Quincy Adams was alive.

It was the same garbage when people were going around saying that Ke$ha had an IQ of 140, which followed from a reporter asking Ke$ha if it was true that she got a high score on her SAT, her replying something very similar to "Yeah, like, I was, like a good student and stuff," to people pulling 1500 SAT score out of that somehow, to other people translating 1500 SAT to be roughly IQ 140. Each step there is stacked on shakier and shakier foundation. Not saying she's dumb or anything, but, that's a lot of really stretch reaches to connect those dots. Frankly, I highly doubt she ever took an IQ test, and, if she did take one, who knows what she'd get, maybe above 140, but the fact is that the claim is bullshit.

Very few people ever even take a proper IQ test, and even then, the likelihood of a score akin to 140 or 156 is extremely small. Also, take the IQ score with a grain of salt, as it's really a measure of problem-solving skills measured in a rather certain way...

Anyway, no one really cares, so I'm rambling again.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> In other news, PredictIt markets have Kavanaugh currently at a 20% chance of getting 49 or fewer votes. While that's obviously lower than I'd hoped, the contract opened 19 hours ago at 11%, and has risen steadily in the afternoon's news cycle. Worth keeping an eye on.


But will these predictions end up being as laughable as the 98% chance of Hillary winning or whatever it was? We shall see.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> But will these predictions end up being as laughable as the 98% chance of Hillary winning or whatever it was? We shall see.


Eh, again, I tracked FiveThirtyEight, which gave Trump a much more plausible 33% chance. Though, ironic that you mention it, since PredictIt gave Trump a 21% chance on the 7th, almost exactly in line with Kavanaugh's odds of getting voted down. A coincidence I wouldn't make much of, but an odd one, nonetheless. 

https://www.predictit.org/Market/1296/Which-party-will-win-the-2016-US-Presidential-election

Kavanaugh is an odd choice, in that for any of the other 25 judges on the Federalist Society approved slate, abortion and marriage rights were going to be clear lines of attacks... but Kavanaugh also brings a public record of seeing little legal check against executive power into the fray, which is an obvious concern in the era of a president who believes he's above the law.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> But will these predictions end up being as laughable as the 98% chance of Hillary winning or whatever it was? We shall see.


You know a 98% chance of one thing gives a 2% chance of something else, right? And that a pre event calculation isn't necessarily untrue if it doesn't match the post event result. Like if you put 98 blue balls in a bag and 2 red ones, pulling a red ball out of the bag doesn't mean the chance of it happening wasn't 2%.

And you know the difference between a prediction and a statistic, right?


----------



## StevenC

Also, there's a difference in childishness between voting against a Supreme Court nomination and not setting a date to vote on a Supreme Court nomination.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Kavanaugh also brings a public record of seeing little legal check against executive power into the fray, which is an obvious concern in the era of a president who believes he's above the law.



Which, to me, was Trump's greatest motivator for picking him over the rest. 

As I said earlier, I don't underestimate Trump's ability to pick based on one complimentary event (ie: endorsement of James Comey after his statement about Hillary's emails, and Trumps subsequent victory), to ultimately have it blow up in his face when he either asks his hire to do too much (ie: asking Comey to go easy on Flynn) or they choose to assert their independence (ie: Comey refuting Trump's accusation Obama wiretapped Trump Tower). You see this again with Sessions, with Tillerson and now Wray.

Is Kavanaugh reliably conservative? Yeah, probably. But we've long learned party affiliation isn't enough to pass the Trump lithmus test, and the fact Kavanaugh has such a close association with the Bush family leads me to believe he's a Republican, sure, but not necessarily a Trump Republican. With the rush to get this pick in before the mid terms and especially the rush to select a nominee, I'm not entirely convinced on how well vetted this guy is specifically when it comes to how he'll serve Trump himself.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> His actual IQ score is unknown, and he seems comfortable keeping it that way.



His actual IQ score is under audit right now, so he can't release it.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> You know a 98% chance of one thing gives a 2% chance of something else, right? And that a pre event calculation isn't necessarily untrue if it doesn't match the post event result. Like if you put 98 blue balls in a bag and 2 red ones, pulling a red ball out of the bag doesn't mean the chance of it happening wasn't 2%.
> 
> And you know the difference between a prediction and a statistic, right?



"I pulled out a blue ball! Checkmate, libtards!"


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

bostjan said:


> Also, take the IQ score with a grain of salt, as it's really a measure of problem-solving skills measured in a rather certain way...



They’re a reliable measure of how you do on IQ tests.


----------



## bostjan

Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> They’re a reliable measure of how you do on IQ tests.


In this particular case, no, it's a reliable measure of which university your family name can get you transferred into.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> ...to other people translating 1500 SAT to be roughly IQ 140.


Huh. How reliable is that conversion generally held to be? I just did a google search and while I don't know my IQ (I think I had a test done as a young child, but I don't know the results), well, I did _very_ well on the SATs...



Randy said:


> Is Kavanaugh reliably conservative? Yeah, probably. But we've long learned party affiliation isn't enough to pass the Trump lithmus test, and the fact Kavanaugh has such a close association with the Bush family leads me to believe he's a Republican, sure, but not necessarily a Trump Republican. With the rush to get this pick in before the mid terms and especially the rush to select a nominee, I'm not entirely convinced on how well vetted this guy is specifically when it comes to how he'll serve Trump himself.


I absolutely agree. I mean, "conservative enough to get on the Heritage Foundation short list" was clearly the first pre-req, but from that point forward, assuming he can be seated, a guy with Kavanaugh's beliefs on executive privilege has clear advantages for Trump. I'm a little surprised that the Democrats are shaping up to draw their battle lines on abortion and the ACA, and not the fact that this says all sorts of worrying things about Trump wanting to stack the Court in his favor in case he ever DOES get indicted or supoenaed, where the latter is a fairly high probability and the former is still entirely possible, as well. 

Of course, Kavanaugh being a late addition and the Trump Administration not denying rumors that his appointment may have been as the result of negotiations with Kennedy is interesting, as well - if that were the case, then Trump was able to get two things he wanted out of Kennedy, an open seat and an appointee willing to give the executive branch wide leeway.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Pretty good infographic from the NY Times on the trade war, how we've gotten where we are today, in stages.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Huh. How reliable is that conversion generally held to be? I just did a google search and while I don't know my IQ (I think I had a test done as a young child, but I don't know the results), well, I did _very_ well on the SATs...



It's not at all, really. But, this is also considering that no one even knows Trump's SAT score. The 1500 was quoted because it's Wharton's criteria. In Trump's case, though, they didn't even check his SAT score before admitting him, so the assumption is out there quite a bit already. Might as well make it totally ridiculous by adding more ridiculous assumptions.


----------



## bostjan

The world looks to the left; Trump looks to the right. Take the symbolism any way you like, or not, if you prefer.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It's not at all, really. But, this is also considering that no one even knows Trump's SAT score. The 1500 was quoted because it's Wharton's criteria. In Trump's case, though, they didn't even check his SAT score before admitting him, so the assumption is out there quite a bit already. Might as well make it totally ridiculous by adding more ridiculous assumptions.


Yeah, I'd expect _some_ predictive power, but hardly perfect. And yeah, rules don't really apply to legacies.


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> The world looks to the left; Trump looks to the right. Take the symbolism any way you like, or not, if you prefer.



What about the guy behind the guy behind him? Or the guy behind the guy behind the lady on the right? Or all of the others not in the immediate photograph?


----------



## StevenC

jaxadam said:


> What about the guy behind the guy behind him? Or the guy behind the guy behind the lady on the right? Or all of the others not in the immediate photograph?


The lady on the right is a fair way to describe Theresa May, but doesnt inspire confidence in your level of political engagement.


----------



## jaxadam

Don't worry, the plan to overthrow Trump via out of context photographs is almost complete!


----------



## bostjan

LOL the clock and the phone cord are obviously photoshopped. Nice try, though. If you want to whataboutobama my photo, why not bring up the gaffe where Obama said he already visited 57 states and still had one left to go? That's at least true and it's also, at least IMO, more demonstrative of lack of knowledge than a silly photoshopped photo of an upside-down telephone.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Nonads

bostjan said:


> The world looks to the left; Trump looks to the right. Take the symbolism any way you like, or not, if you prefer.



I take it he’s not a sheep.


----------



## Drew

Nonads said:


> I take it he’s not a sheep.


 

Touche.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> That's at least true and it's also, at least IMO, more demonstrative of lack of knowledge than a silly photoshopped photo of an upside-down telephone.



True, but at the same time, it "demonstrates lack of knowledge" in the same way as Trump saying "United Shtaytch" that one time as proof he doesn't know the name of the country.


----------



## bostjan

Nonads said:


> I take it he’s not a sheep.


Like I said, take the symbolism however you like. There's nothing wrong with being different, especially if everyone else is wrong and you're right. Either way, the photo is more an artistic statement than evidence of anything non-allegorical. I just liked the overtones the photo makes.

I think you all know I'm not a fan of Trump; however, the thought of having an outsider in the White House is appealing to me (although a corrupt businessman isn't any improvement over a corrupt politician, IMO), the idea that we are going to "drain the swamp" seemed like a plan (although I hadn't anticipated it would be literal, since Trump made that executive order within the first couple of weeks to undo protections on Florida wetlands), and I do really respect him for donating his salary to charity, particularly with the donations he's made so far:

Dept. of Transportation to repair US infrastructure
Dept. of Health & Human Services to raise awareness of the opioid addiction epidemic
Dept. of Education for summer camps
Dept. of National Parks to restore battlefields and monuments
Veterans Affairs to support programs for mental health and peer support for US veterans.

So kudos for that, but then we get to the muslim ban, the border wall, the trade wars, etc., ... and I just can't get on board with these ideas. To call these ideas regressive or half-baked is an insult to the past or the culinary arts, they are flat out idiotic ideas. The fact that the Supreme Court is condoning this sort of behaviour is an embarrassment to the rule of law in our nation. I don't care if you are conservative or liberal, they are dumb ideas from either viewpoint: the constitution guarantees religious freedom, the border wall is a huge waste of money, and the trade wars are just going to tank our economy. Maybe there's some grand scheme that fits these pieces together in some sort of grandmaster illuminati-level Divinci Code strategy, but do you think the president who spends more time tweeting about covfefe and constantly making up stupid crap about CNN is really some kind of evil genius?!


----------



## bostjan

Double


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> since Trump made that executive order within the first couple of weeks to undo protections on Florida wetlands


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> I do really respect him for donating his salary to charity, particularly with the donations he's made so far:
> 
> Dept. of Transportation to repair US infrastructure
> Dept. of Health & Human Services to raise awareness of the opioid addiction epidemic
> Dept. of Education for summer camps
> Dept. of National Parks to restore battlefields and monuments
> Veterans Affairs to support programs for mental health and peer support for US veterans.
> 
> So kudos for that,



That's all fine and good, but some of those were targeted donations for specific projects, after (or during, or before) cutting the budgets of those very departments by magnatudes more.

"Yes, little brother...I did burn down your entire He-Man Castle Greyskull playset, but ignore that because here's shiny new Lego tire for that one police car Lego set you like. You're welcome."

From Time Magazine:


> A similar situation occurred in April when Trump donated his first-quarter salary to the Department of Interior, which stands to lose 12%, of about $1.6 billion ($192,000,000), of its funding under Trump’s proposed budget. His $78,333.32 gift back then is helping fund the National Park Service’s battlefield preservation efforts, which is currently $229 million behind in deferred maintenance costs.


----------



## auxioluck

I love that this thread is still getting serious reactions.


----------



## auxioluck

I think I ruined it.


----------



## BlackSG91

auxioluck said:


> I think I ruined it.



You also ruined his concentration!







;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

Here's good 'ol Donald at it again with his comments about Germany being controlled by Russia...what an ironic statement coming from a man that colluded with Russia before his election win.




;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

Here's some more Trump controversy especially Donald appearing with Vladimir Putin.




;>)/


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

The public is far too easy to troll these days.


----------



## groverj3

I'm no fan of US imperialism across the globe, but I had hoped our "empire" might fall in such a way as to be caused by increased attention paid to the welfare of people, and less on influencing other countries through shady dealings. Nope, instead it will fall because a man-child became president because a segment of society thought the "other side" was being too nice and we weren't fucking over enough of our own people.


----------



## Nonads

Looks like some people would rather go to war with Russia or North Korea than work things out. 

Yup drum to the beat of war. Listen to corporate media tell you what to think.


----------



## Nonads

Why no discussion about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? Doesn’t fit the narrative for you guys I guess. 

That’s just another Fox News conspiracy.


----------



## wankerness

Messages: 4

Def not either a troll or someone scared to post under their real name


----------



## Nonads

Just trying to engage in a conversation here. Funny how you just point fingers and call me a troll. Seems standard these days.

Would it be ok if I just posted corporate media news clips and trashed Trump instead. I’m sure you wouldn’t be calling me a troll then, would you.


----------



## narad

^^ This dude may literally die if you don't engage in his conspiracy-centered view of the world. Just chases people around guitar forums all day trying to turn every thread into a shitshow, gets banned, makes new accounts. Never gets the hint.


----------



## Nonads

Who are you and why do you know me?

I didn't know Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were a conspiracy? Can you please elaborate this for me.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

People who criticize horror always go, "Ew, why do you like that stuff? It's gross and it isn't scary." Folks, if I was interested in being scared, I'd watch cable news.


----------



## Randy

Don't bother humoring them. This is probably the most substantial news day of the last 15 years and it shouldn't be wasted trying to reason with trolls tilting at windmills.


----------



## Nonads

Can you elaborate on this most substantial news in 15 years. Wow I must have missed something. Two countries getting together to discuss better relations between each other. That’s never happened before.


Please enlighten me as I don’t listen much to anti-trump news sources. I promise to keep an open mind.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> Don't bother humoring them. This is probably the most substantial news day of the last 15 years and it shouldn't be wasted trying to reason with trolls tilting at windmills.


I feel like we're just dealing with Hanlon's razor at this point


----------



## Nonads

So they indicted 12 Russians (with no evidence) on the eve of the Trump, Putin meeting. Coincidence? I think not.

Last I checked, they could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to.

So this begs the question, why do it right before the meeting. How is Trump suppose to react to that. Is he suppose to declare war with Russia? Punch Putin in the face?

Putin has agreed to work with the US in finding out if in fact these 12 Russians did anything. The Mueller team has declined that olive branch.


----------



## jaxadam

I just realized your username backwards is Sdanon. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## narad

Nonads said:


> Last I checked, they could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to.



Hey, now you go bringing up impeachment? We're not there, yet.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> I just realized your username backwards is Sdanon. Coincidence? I think not.


Better call Alex Jones so he can break this conspiracy wide open.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

narad said:


> Hey, now you go bringing up impeachment? We're not there, yet.


Twitter is.


----------



## Nonads

Double postage in wrong order.


----------



## Nonads

jaxadam said:


> I just realized your username backwards is Sdanon. Coincidence? I think not.



Ah yes. Sdanon is Russian for Trump.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

Randy said:


> Don't bother humoring them. This is probably the most substantial news day of the last 15 years and it shouldn't be wasted trying to reason with trolls tilting at windmills.



Please don’t compare a man of Don Quixote’s stature to this drama queen.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

This thread is great and all, but can we discuss how funny it is that weightlifter turned guitar player George Lynch had trouble breaking through a gimmicked wall in Dream Warriors because he was so high?

And why was he so high? Because he was doing coke with Freddy Krueger, and off of the blades of Freddy's glove no less. Can you even imagine that?


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

I have a description to work with.


----------



## narad

Andrew Lloyd Webber said:


> Please don’t compare a man of Don Quixote’s stature to this drama queen.



Yea, it's more of a "Three Billy Goats Gruff" thing he's got going on.


----------



## Nonads

Oh I see how it is. Speaking in semantics is the name of the game.

“Tilting of windmills” an English idiom that means attacking imaginary enemies. 

From the novel Don Quixote. 

So you are inferring Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are “imaginary enemies”. That’s really cute.


----------



## iamaom

Nonads said:


> So they indicted 12 Russians (with no evidence)


Well here's 29 pages of their evidence, feel free to disagree with any of it: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf


----------



## Drew

So, since this seems to be the slightly more serious of the two threads, IMO, the biggest news of the weekend wasn't that embarrassment of a press conference nor was it the indictment by the Justice Department of 12 Russians for their role in hacking and trying to influence the election, it was this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/...atest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=sectionfront

A Russian woman, Mariia Butina, was indicted in a sealed indictment on Saturday that was then unsealed Sunday night, and arrested, for her role attempting to set up back channels for communication between Putin and US politicians using the NRA as a channel, and that the head of the NRA appears to have been working with her to explicitly and knowingly advance a Russian agenda.


----------



## Mr Violence

iamaom said:


> Well here's 29 pages of their evidence, feel free to disagree with any of it: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf



Just here to preempt the inevitable criticism that your link is from CNN.

Here it is from the DOJ website: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download


----------



## Drew

iamaom said:


> Well here's 29 pages of their evidence, feel free to disagree with any of it: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/07/13/gru.indictment.pdf


Yeah, I feel like the post you quoted shows something of a lack of understanding about the indictment process.

To secure an indictment, a prosecutor has to go in front of a grand jury and demonstrate that there is enough court-admissible evidence to conclude there is probable cause that the accused has broken the law. These 12 Russians getting indicted by the Justice Department isn't the same as saying they're guilty, which requires convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt... But, it literally means there's enough evidence that a criminal proceeding to determine if they ARE guilty is in order, and that there's too much evidence to simply dismiss the case. 

Ditto with Manafort and Flynn, and ditto with Butina - there's enough evidence that is admissible in a court of law that a jury believes they can be charged and asked to defend themselves in a criminal proceeding. What actually happens in that courtroom is TBD, but this "indicted (with no evidence)" argument is contradictory; they were indicted, because there IS evidence that they may have broken the law.


----------



## Drew

Trump is currently on CNBC, giving a press conference in the White House walking back his claim that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 election, and instead saying that our relationship had never been worse than it was a few days ago, but that they had a really good meeting and made it a lot better. 

EDIT - Trump claims he was misunderstood, and when he said, and I quote, "They said they think it’s Russia; I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be," what that last phrase meant was "why it would be _true_" that Putin said it wasn't then, and the people claiming that what he meant was "I don't see any reason why it would be Putin" had simply misunderstood him. 

The immediate problems with that, IMO, are that one the "wrong" interpretation agrees with what he's been saying all along, that he believes Putin, two his approach here - a measured explanation of how he believes he was misunderstood, rather than simply attacking his critics - sounds absolutely nothing like him, and that three it absolutely doesn't jive with the congenial, easygoing press conference where both men seemed happy - Putin certainly didn't act like a man being called a liar to his face by the man next to him. 

Basically, it looks to me like Trump actually realized he fucked up - even Fox and Friends called him out over this - and let his team spin this as best they could, so he'd at least have a soundbyte for plausible deniability. I won't be surprised to hear him arguing again at some point that he doesn't believe Russia tried to interfere with our election.


----------



## Randy

Waiting to see the 180 degree pivot from Trump apologists saying "Of course Trump wouldn't call Putin a liar to his face during a negotiation! Besides, who says you can trust Mueller and the intelligence community anyway" for the last two days.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I wonder if this is what heels in wrestling felt like when fans would get so pissed off that they'd practically riot.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wonder if this is what heels in wrestling felt like when fans would get so pissed off that they'd practically riot.


Oh, we're talking amongst ourselves at this point, we're not really paying any mind to whatever just-for-fun stirring of the pot you may have originally set out to do.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Oh, we're talking amongst ourselves at this point, we're not really paying any mind to whatever just-for-fun stirring of the pot you may have originally set out to do.


I'm not stirring the pot. I just think it's funny how easily worked over the left is to the point it reminds me of 70s wrestling fans who were easy to stir up into a frenzy.


----------



## zappatton2

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm not stirring the pot. I just think it's funny how easily worked over the left is to the point it reminds me of 70s wrestling fans who were easy to stir up into a frenzy.


This isn't some general left vs. right thing though, not for most people. I might consider myself slightly left-of-centre, relative to the political climate I live in (Ottawa, ON). But that said, had history played out different, I would not exactly cheer on a Soviet invasion, I am under no illusions about the horrors of a political culture that values ideological purity to the point of tyranny.

There is no give in administrations like these. Trump represents a move by the most powerful nation in the world towards what would historically resemble political extremism. An inability to handle dissent, a politicising of public services at the expense of their stated mandate, an ideological rigidity, coupled with a cult of personality, tripled by the elevation of authority over established legal norms (often with public consent through the undermining of public institutions that serve the public interest).

There are many on the right that in no way support what this administration is doing. And I am certain many here, though highly critical of Trump, would share my own criticism of centrists like Obama who threw up several roadblocks to the press' access to public information. I would be just as worried about a President who threw the US into a leftist form of top-down extremism (which, despite your politics, has never come close to being a threat in America).


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm not stirring the pot. I just think it's funny how easily worked over the left is to the point it reminds me of 70s wrestling fans who were easy to stir up into a frenzy.


We have a president who, in a press conference with the president of a foreign nation who ordered his intelligence agency to try to meddle in the outcome of our last election, to the degree that we got a grand jury to indict 12 intelligence agents a couple days before this meeting, who simply said, "nah bro, he said he didn't do it, my intelligence agency is full of shit," and that, to you, seems akin to 70s wrestling fans being easy to get stirred up by a heel? 

If there was any doubt you were trolling before, you just put that to bed.  Even fuckin' _Fox and Friends_ was calling Trump out and telling him he needed to walk back his comments for the good of the nation today.  If even those guys thought he was way over the line, I don't think you can attribute this to liberals being easy to stir up in a frenzy, man.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

If I was trolling, I would've posted a picture from a Portland art house with a caption along the lines of, "This is the left." That would be trolling. 

Saying the left is easy to stir into a frenzy, when they've been proven to be quit easy to stir up, is pretty much facts at this point.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> If there was any doubt you were trolling before, you just put that to bed.  Even fuckin' _Fox and Friends_ was calling Trump out and telling him he needed to walk back his comments for the good of the nation today.  If even those guys thought he was way over the line, I don't think you can attribute this to liberals being easy to stir up in a frenzy, man.



It's pretty nuts -- I'm not sure I've seen so much anti-Trump stuff on _conservative_ outlets. And gotta love death-bed "I don't give a damn" McCain:



McCain said:


> "Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory. The damage inflicted by President Trump’s naiveté, egotism, false equivalence, and sympathy for autocrats is difficult to calculate. But it is clear that the summit in Helsinki was a tragic mistake.
> 
> “President Trump proved not only unable, but unwilling to stand up to Putin. He and Putin seemed to be speaking from the same script as the president made a conscious choice to defend a tyrant against the fair questions of a free press, and to grant Putin an uncontested platform to spew propaganda and lies to the world.
> 
> “It is tempting to describe the press conference as a pathetic rout – as an illustration of the perils of under-preparation and inexperience. But these were not the errant tweets of a novice politician. These were the deliberate choices of a president who seems determined to realize his delusions of a warm relationship with Putin’s regime without any regard for the true nature of his rule, his violent disregard for the sovereignty of his neighbors, his complicity in the slaughter of the Syrian people, his violation of international treaties, and his assault on democratic institutions throughout the world.
> 
> “Coming close on the heels of President Trump’s bombastic and erratic conduct towards our closest friends and allies in Brussels and Britain, today’s press conference marks a recent low point in the history of the American Presidency. That the president was attended in Helsinki by a team of competent and patriotic advisors makes his blunders and capitulations all the more painful and inexplicable.
> 
> “No prior president has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant. Not only did President Trump fail to speak the truth about an adversary; but speaking for America to the world, our president failed to defend all that makes us who we are—a republic of free people dedicated to the cause of liberty at home and abroad. American presidents must be the champions of that cause if it is to succeed. Americans are waiting and hoping for President Trump to embrace that sacred responsibility. One can only hope they are not waiting totally in vain."



So McCain's spitting out rational, well-written paragraphs, while Trump is saying things like:



Trump said:


> "One little thing I might add to that is the helping of people. Helping of people. Because you have such horrible -- if you see -- and I've seen reports, I've seen pictures, I've seen just about everything.
> 
> And if we can do something to help the people of Syria get back into some form of shelter, and — on a humanitarian basis — and that’s what the word was, really, a humanitarian basis — I think that both of us would be very interested in doing that. And we are. We will do that. OK?
> 
> Thank you very much."



Whaaaaaaaat. My niece speaks better English and she's only been practicing for a year and a half.


----------



## JSanta

For anyone that isn't both appalled and angry with how Trump conducted himself yesterday (or really any day to be honest), I don't think I can rationalize your ability to think critically about what's going on both internationally and domestically.


----------



## Drew

Even Trey Gowdy, Mr. Benghazi himself, had some fairly harsh things to say.  Trump fucked up royally by publicly cozying up to the president of a nation who, and I quote Gowdy here, attacked this country in 2016, rather than condemning him. 

But yes, please tell me it's just whipping the left into a frenzy.


----------



## Randy

Yeah if this is being easily stirred up, I'd hate to see what qualifies as justifiable outrage.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Yeah if this is being easily stirred up, I'd hate to see what qualifies as justifiable outrage.



A homeless person with a cell phone that they bought with YOUR HARD-EARNED MONEY!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Even suggesting the left is easily riled up easily riles them up.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

You know what riles the right up? Kneeling on a football field. Look man, when you've got BOTH parties condemning this guy, this should tell you something. It doesn't even feel like two parties anymore. It feels like Conservatives, Liberals, Middle, and Trump cronies.


----------



## possumkiller

PunkBillCarson said:


> You know what riles the right up? Kneeling on a football field. Look man, when you've got BOTH parties condemning this guy, this should tell you something. It doesn't even feel like two parties anymore. It feels like Conservatives, Liberals, Middle, and Trump cronies.


I hope it leads to more parties. Choosing between Trump and Hillary was like choosing your branch of the bush for dad to beat you with.


----------



## Randy

PunkBillCarson said:


> You know what riles the right up? Kneeling on a football field. Look man, when you've got BOTH parties condemning this guy, this should tell you something. It doesn't even feel like two parties anymore. It feels like Conservatives, Liberals, Middle, and Trump cronies.



Would be nice to have a viable alternative to the Democratic Party that was in favor of lower taxes and more privacy rights, that wasn't also tethered to White Supremacists and friendly to hostile foreign powers literally trying to invade this country from the inside out.

It's like Icarus flying too close to the sun and subsequently dropping like a rock. The trolling and 'victory lapping' has gone so far in stretching to see what they can get away with that they're going to ensure a total bloodletting of Republican seats. And despite my dislike for the amount of latitude Republicans have given Trump, I don't think one party rule benefits the population of this country no matter which party it is, but that's exactly what Trump and the Grand Ol' Stockholm Syndrome Party just gifted the Dems.

They could've quietly had their individual tax cut, corporate tax cuts and rejiggering the ACA to eliminate the mandates, maybe even take an attempt at entitlement reform and immigration reform. All could've been done within reason and they'd probably all be sitting at 50%+ approval ratings, a safe 2018 and relatively safe 2020. 

But they had to go the route of Pussy Grabber, "good people on both sides", witch hunt, "I can shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue" arrogant bluster and bullshit, and you just saw the climax of that in Trump taking the stage to publicly say he believes a guy who poisons people for disagreeing with him from the other side of the world over the intelligence agencies run by people he hired and that he oversees. Oh and that's not arrogant enough, without the addition of coming back the next day and essentially telling the entire world THEY misunderstood what he meant, it's their fault not his. Yo, fuck this guy straight up.


----------



## Edika

Out of all the negativity that has arisen by the Trump administration what I find as a positive outcome is the fact that a lot more younger people are getting involved and register to vote. A lot more independent candidates are getting traction that are trying to distance themselves from corporate backing. Democracy is not having an elected oligarchy calling the shots that just changes every four years and the voters just hope they won't be worse than the last guy. This interchange of the two main political parties that in their core run the same business model just with different flavors on top has been shaken quite significantly with the Trump administration. It's not a hypothesis anymore of what a democratic process can lead to if the citizens are uninformed and stuck to political biased views or just giving up and thinking things can never change.

In a sense I'm hopeful that the outcome of the Trump presidency will inject some new blood in the US political scene. If this will have a positive or a negative aftermath it remains to be seen. But Democracy as well as life is about trying new things, see what works, re-evaluating and adapting accordingly. Sure there's still a long way to go but at least the discussions have started. Now if this is considered whining from specific individuals they should re-read the definition of Democracy.


----------



## MFB

> Out of all the negativity that has arisen by the Trump administration what I find as a positive outcome is the fact that a lot more younger people are getting involved and register to vote.



Registered to vote =/= actually voting in an election, which is when it actually matters


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> But they had to go the route of Pussy Grabber, "good people on both sides", witch hunt, "I can shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue" arrogant bluster and bullshit, and you just saw the climax of that in Trump taking the stage to publicly say he believes a guy who poisons people for disagreeing with him from the other side of the world over the intelligence agencies run by people he hired and that he oversees. Oh and that's not arrogant enough, without the addition of coming back the next day and essentially telling the entire world THEY misunderstood what he meant, it's their fault not his. Yo, fuck this guy straight up.


As a buddy of mine on another board quipped, the problem with a race to the bottom is someone always wins. 



possumkiller said:


> I hope it leads to more parties. Choosing between Trump and Hillary was like choosing your branch of the bush for dad to beat you with.


It won't without constitutional reform. The US constitution gives pretty broad powers to enact legislation to a group of like-minded people with more than 50% of the vote (or, in the case of 2016, 46%), so the long-term stable equiliberum is two well-balanced parties trying to move the needle at the margins, rather than 3+ parties. Third parties are all very well and good, but the reality is we would need some sort of parlimentarian system to really have them develop, and instead we have two because that's what our consitution rewards. 

The sad reality is it's going to get worse before it gets better; with the increasing rural Republican/urban Democrat split and a constitution that allocates Electoral College votes and Senate votes in manners that give higher representation to voters in rural areas than in urban ones, the Republican advantage in the Presidency and, especially, Senate is only going to increase over time if nothing disrupts that rural/urban divide.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Even suggesting the left is easily riled up easily riles them up.


Those poor riled-up liberals on Fox and Friends. 



> “On foreign soil at least, you might consider praising our enemies less,” Cavuto said.
> 
> “What worries me about you, Mr. President, is you seem to say only good things about your enemies, our enemies, and to hell with your friends, our friends,” Cavuto added, in reference to Trump calling the European Union a U.S. “foe” and his criticisms of the NATO alliance.
> 
> The Russian aggression in Ukraine, the threats to Russian journalists, and other nefarious actions that have been attributed to Putin's government should give Trump pause in how he views a relationship with the Russian leader, Cavuto said.
> 
> The summit “set us back a lot,” Cavuto added.





> On Monday, Trump had said on Twitter that “our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”
> 
> It incensed “Fox & Friends” host Brian Kilmeade.
> 
> “That’s by far the most ridiculous tweet of late, and that is insulting to past administrations. He can’t be saying that going into the Russian summit,” Kilmeade said.
> 
> On Tuesday, after Trump fired back at what he called a “Fake News” response to the summit, the “Fox & Friends” hosts agreed that the president seems unable to separate allegations of campaign collusion with Russia from the Kremlin's mission to disrupt the 2016 election.
> 
> “Russia’s goal was to upend our electoral process. They hate democracy,” the hosts said, ticking off names of prominent and staunch Republicans who have said there is evidence of Russian election interference, including Newt Gingrich. “Pretty much everyone and their brother, except Vladimir Putin, knows that there was meddling,” cohost Steve Doocy said.


----------



## Edika

MFB said:


> Registered to vote =/= actually voting in an election, which is when it actually matters



That is true but more young people are more motivated to register AND vote than in the past. At least they seem to be.


----------



## mongey

question for all you guys 

for the most part the political talk in Trump here was pretty civil for a long time . the last month or so its def taken a turn towards the more emotional on both sides . is that's whats happening in the US generally in political discussions around the water cooler or wherever ? is the topic getting hotter as this thing progresses ?


----------



## narad

mongey said:


> question for all you guys
> 
> for the most part the political talk in Trump here was pretty civil for a long time . the last month or so its def taken a turn towards the more emotional on both sides . is that's whats happening in the US generally in political discussions around the water cooler or wherever ? is the topic getting hotter as this thing progresses ?



I don't think what goes on in here at all is a reflection of behavior in general. In real life people can't follow you around trying to troll, like it happens here. You know - you just go to lunch with your friends without inviting that guy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I don't think what goes on in here at all is a reflection of behavior in general. In real life people can't follow you around trying to troll, like it happens here. You know - you just go to lunch with your friends without inviting that guy.





I think it's easy for folks not living in the US to see what's been going on in the news and think we're on the brink of civil war, but really it's only a super small fringe that gets into it IRL similar to the discourse you see online.

It's worth mentioning that several of the last "conservative" posters were actually one or _possibly_ two people who had made multiple accounts, primarily to troll.

All that said, as things progress and both new terrible policies come forward and campaign promises don't deliver, you're seeing Republicans, specifically ride or die Trump supporters, get more and more virulent.


----------



## jaxadam

mongey said:


> question for all you guys
> 
> for the most part the political talk in Trump here was pretty civil for a long time . the last month or so its def taken a turn towards the more emotional on both sides . is that's whats happening in the US generally in political discussions around the water cooler or wherever ? is the topic getting hotter as this thing progresses ?



No, I don't think that's the case. From where I am, everyday life seems to go on fine, everyone is happy and doing well, and no one really seems to complain much about it. BUT I try to surround myself with problem solvers. I think there are two types of people; problem givers and problem solvers. Problem givers usually cling to or exploit issues that can disrupt circumstances, and it's ironic that they have an angle to justify a certain agenda. Problem solvers typically work with a set of givens, and try to create a path to the best possible outcome. I think it's obvious that Trump isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I'd like to think that instead of everyone trying to changes everyone else's mind, try to change Trump's mind by voting accordingly or working on ways to create solutions to problems. I think we have much bigger problems to work on, and it's sad to see a lot of talent and energy wasted on menial tasks. I think the media blows these menial issues out of proportion, and they are raking in the dough hand over fist with sensationalist journalism.


----------



## bostjan

I'm in a weird place in America: Vermont is one of the most liberal states. Our state government is split into three major parties- of which the democratic party is the closest to the average resident's politics. But I'm in the most conservative area of the state. I think that, because of that, people here may be even more vocally polarized than elsewhere in the country.

In my circle, people are indeed much more willing to discuss politics publicly, than a year ago. I don't think anyone's done an about-face with their opinion of Trump, but I'm seeing a shift from "Meh, he's no Bernie, but maybe this won't be so bad" to "Worst. President. Ever." and from "Hey, he's a better alternative than crooked Hillary" to "Best. President. Ever. Times a million!"

I think it's analogous to football fans' attitudes in the beginning of the match versus the fourth quarter.

Trump is certainly a different kind of president than we've ever had before, but this country has been through worse.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I'm in a weird place in America: Vermont is one of the most liberal states. Our state government is split into three major parties- of which the democratic party is the closest to the average resident's politics. But I'm in the most conservative area of the state. I think that, because of that, people here may be even more vocally polarized than elsewhere in the country.



I understand what you're saying. 

I live and work in Milwaukee, which is incredibly segregated.

At work it's pretty divided. The older guys I work with are pretty staunch Republicans, while the younger are significantly more liberal. The racial and gender divides stand where you'd expect, which mixes it up a little. 

But, it gives me hope how well we all get along, relatively speaking. It would be very easy for someone to be a dick because of politics, but you just don't see it.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> BUT I try to surround myself with problem solvers. I think there are two types of people; problem givers and problem solvers. Problem givers usually cling to or exploit issues that can disrupt circumstances, and it's ironic that they have an angle to justify a certain agenda. Problem solvers typically work with a set of givens, and try to create a path to the best possible outcome.


"Lots of rubble piled up makes a skyscraper. Lots of skyscrapers piled up makes rubble." - Italo Calvino. 

That said, I don't fully agree with you, simply because nothing about the Trump administration is normal. He's at open war with his own Justice Department, his legal team is arguing he can't obstruct justice because he's above the wall, he's taking shot after shot at our traditional trading partners and alliances and cozying up with tyrants, he's engaging in truly _brutal_ immigration policies - drastically cutting quotias, ripping families apart seeking asylum at the border, calling for the elimination of due process for _suspected _illegal aliens, on his third attempt managing to get the courts to uphold a ban on certain religious groups - and he's got his eye on replacing Kennedy - who he _talked into _retiring - with someone likely to overturn marriage equality and Roe vs. Wade, and who incidentally is also likely to support Trump's interpretation that he can't be sued or indicted while in office. We have a president going after rule of law and after the civil rights of a large number of minority groups in this country, and while you and I can wait it out, for a large number of my family and friends, this isn't something where they can just wait till 2020 to get the chance to vote him out of office. 

So, in general, yes, I think focusing on solutions rather than problems is the way to go - that Calvino quote is one of my favorites - I also think there does come a time where problems are so immediate that they have to be addressed. Sometimes, the givens can't be worked with, and you have to change the givens to move forward.


----------



## bostjan

I'll play devil's advocate here, since I don't like Trump's agenda:

I think we can agree that Trump's election platform was based on solving "problems." A problem is simply when the desired state of effects is not the current state. The trick with politics is that everyone usually wants something different than the opposing parties. It's all about how you define your problem. Trump defined the problem as joblessness and lack of national security. I mean, I think anyone without a job, who wants to have a job, would agree with joblessness being a problem. People who were afraid of losing their jobs also seemed to have seen joblessness as a problem. National security was another issue, but I think everyone within the nation, who wishes to continue living in this nation, sees national security as a concern. I think that the story told by the data and the story told by media outlets were quite different in terms of how much of a "problem" national security was...but whatever, Trump defined it as a problem with his platform.

Trump's problems of joblessness and national security were identified by Trump's campaign as having the same root problem: foreigners. I think this is where I most vehemently disagree with Trump. My ancestors were foreigners in this country, and most of their ancestors were foreigners in the countries where they lived. I believe that Trump's ancestors were foreigners as well, maybe going a few more generations back, but whatever, my point is that most of the people who live in the USA have roots here shorter than ten generations (actually, very very roughly, about 1/3 of Americans can trace back ancestors who lived in America five generations back, meaning the rest can't, meaning those people's families have likely been here less than five generations). This is a nation made of a melting pot of different cultures and different genetics. How many foreigners here are taking away the jobs from the people who were born here? How many foreigners here are a danger to the people who were born here? versus How many foreigners here are helping out our GDP and doing jobs that improve our quality of life? Hmm

But, say we assume that we live in a hypothetical or real world, where joblessness and national security are serious problems and where foreigners are the cause of those problems. How do you stop foreigners from being here? And that's where, I guess we can say, that Trump is a problem solver. He's taking objective action to enforce and enact changes that address what he sees is the root cause of what he sees is the problem. When anybody stands up and says "Hey waiddaminute...," he shoots them down and pushes his agenda through. It doesn't matter if the courts or the states or even the Constitution gets inconveniently in his way, he just powers through with his agenda. And, from my viewpoint, that's much the opposite of what Obama did with his pesky compromises and logical reasons and stupid "oh, yeah, that kind of makes sense" approach. Obama promised that he's right away close Gitmo, but then once he was elected, he was all like "shit, what do we do with all of the dangerous, potentially dangerous, and didn't-used-to-be-dangerous-but-now-they've-been-endocterinated-by-fellow-inmates people there?"

So yeah, Trump's a "GSD" kind of leader, shooting first, then worrying about the legality of it all later. While some of his agenda doesn't even make sense as to how it's going to be effective in addressing the "problem" he wants to solve (i.e. that stupid border wall), he's making good on a lot of his campaign promises. I mean, if more US manufacturers move over the border to get away from Trump's policies, there won't be any American jobs for the foreigners to take, and with the oppressive tactics and impoverished economic state that results, they won't have any reason to want to live here anymore anyway, so, problem solved.


----------



## iamaom

bostjan said:


> Trump's problems of joblessness and national security were identified by Trump's campaign as having the same root problem: foreigners. I think this is where I most vehemently disagree with Trump. My ancestors were foreigners in this country, and most of their ancestors were foreigners in the countries where they lived. I believe that Trump's ancestors were foreigners as well, maybe going a few more generations back, but whatever, my point is that most of the people who live in the USA have roots here shorter than ten generations (actually, very very roughly, about 1/3 of Americans can trace back ancestors who lived in America five generations back, meaning the rest can't, meaning those people's families have likely been here less than five generations).


As a someone who identifies as far left yet anti-immigration:
I don't really care how far back my ancestors go, it's a moot point. That goes from a hispanic who was just plopped out 2 feet over the border to native americans. You are not your ancestors, and their history doesn't matter a single bit. Just like how most people wouldn't say Hitler's children shouldn be punished, I don't accept the sins or accomplishments of people down my family line. I was born here and I live here, therefore I want the conditions in this country to benefit me over someone from somewhere else. Being against immigration even though *someone* in my family immigrated here at some point is grasping at straws, might as well argue for abolishing all country borders as the entirety of humanity are immigrants from Africa.


----------



## narad

iamaom said:


> As a someone who identifies as far left yet anti-immigration:
> I don't really care how far back my ancestors go, it's a moot point. That goes from a hispanic who was just plopped out 2 feet over the border to native americans. You are not your ancestors, and their history doesn't matter a single bit. Just like how most people wouldn't say Hitler's children shouldn be punished, I don't accept the sins or accomplishments of people down my family line. I was born here and I live here, therefore I want the conditions in this country to benefit me over someone from somewhere else. Being against immigration even though *someone* in my family immigrated here at some point is grasping at straws, might as well argue for abolishing all country borders as the entirety of humanity are immigrants from Africa.



It just seems contrary to some of the American values that are so often cited, the ol' “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", etc. Should we just redo the Statue of Liberty memorial to read "GTFO"?

But the diversity of America's citizens used to be considered a strength, and one that I always think about when you see the US teams in the Olympics, but somehow that idea got corrupted. You shouldn't be anti-immigration because you were "born here and [] live here" and therefore "want the conditions in this country to benefit me over someone from somewhere else". You should be pro-immigration for that same self-serving mentality -- because immigration brings a lot of talent and amazing and hard-working people to the country, the kind of people you need if you want good conditions in the country.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We have the land, we have the money, we have the schools, we have the jobs.

Immigrants aren’t “taking” anything from existing citizens. That’s a right wing talking point, the idea that there’s some extreme scarcity of any of those things in this country and that immigrants are just going to take whatever’s left.

The only thing driving that into reality are policies that benefit the wealthy, donor class exclusively.


----------



## Randy

Credit to @Mr Violence for sending me this


----------



## PunkBillCarson

You know what really gets me? As you can see, I live in a rather right wing leaning area, and I'm always hearing about how immigrants are coming to take our jobs, which is funny, because most of the immigrants I personally know and have known are/were going to school to become something greater than a grunt on a factory floor. Tell me again how someone with a medical license is causing a threat to the manufacturing portion of the jobs here in the US.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> You know what really gets me? As you can see, I live in a rather right wing leaning area, and I'm always hearing about how immigrants are coming to take our jobs, which is funny, because most of the immigrants I personally know and have known are/were going to school to become something greater than a grunt on a factory floor. Tell me again how someone with a medical license is causing a threat to the manufacturing portion of the jobs here in the US.





Even without a medical license, lets not pretend that immigrants new to this country with limited schooling and/or grasp of english are competing for the same jobs. They take all the ones that people are _too good for_ these days. They work our farms, prepare our food, build our homes, slaughter livestock and keep us from being buried in our own filth. And they work hard as fuck at these jobs with the hope that thier children will have a chance for a better life.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

MaxOfMetal said:


> Even without a medical license, lets not pretend that immigrants new to this country with limited schooling and/or grasp of english are competing for the same jobs. They take all the ones that people are _too good for_ these days. They work our farms, prepare our food, build our homes, slaughter livestock and keep us from being buried in our own filth. And they work hard as fuck at these jobs with the hope that thier children will have a chance for a better life.




Yep and most of the time do a better job than some people here doing the same jobs. They have something on the line. Their whole future lineage is on the line. Not long ago, our factory had about 40 people from Micronesia (specifically Chuuk) come to get a job where I work at. Most of them were in their early 20's. Let me tell you, I've never seen motherfuckers work so hard in my life. It made me glad that they were there to work but also quite a bit sad knowing what kind of conditions they came from. I've got a good friend in a few of them and one of them said that their home is beautiful but beautiful doesn't feed your family. I felt bad for them, still do, now that I'm talking about it. If we had that kind of drive in more of our own citizens, who knows? Maybe this country would be better off and wouldn't be so fucked up.

Also, figure in the fact that they took the time to learn enough English to get by comfortably. Learning a new language isn't easy, at least for me, but they did it because they had to. That kind of drive and work ethic is something that I can respect in just about anyone and moreso when people are trying to better themselves and their lives.


----------



## Randy

That's the old school immigrant complaint. 

Trump clamped down on H1B visas, which in the specific circumstances he used it, cut down on the number of skilled workers coming here for high tech jobs from places like India. Also absent from discussion is that his 'travel ban' also targets some counties that export high tech and medical trained peoples; in Albany, the first rollout of the ban kept a lead engineer at G&E from coming back into the country after she went home to visit her parents.

I'm not accusing Trump himself of being a racist but it's impossible to deny he takes directions FROM racists (such as Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon). They massage "America First" policies that just so happen to exclusively target immigration from non-white countries, but they have a different excuse from each scenario to the next but non-white immigrants are the only common thread.

Its a cliche but the Nielmoller "First they came for the socialist..." quote applies. The whole election was about building a wall to keep out criminals and restrictions on travel from war zones the US were involved in. Then ICE was directed that illegal immigration itself is a crime, therefore those people needed to be targeted and expelled with maximum prejudice and the travel ban was expanded to include non-warring countries but still Muslim majority countries. So on and so on down the proverbial slippery slope.

I'm the child of an immigrant. When my mother came here almost 50 years ago, it was an entirely different time and it was considered common place to live here on a permanent green card, especially if you are married and if you have family back home, forego citizenship if you have responsibilities that may come up in your country of origin (in her case, the rest of her family lived there and she's needed to have legal status for multiple things regarding that over the years). When Trump got in, she was planning a trip to visit her family but decided to check with DHS to make sure there was no issues and the quote from them was "if you're a non-citizen, I can't guarantee you'll be allowed back". So as a safety procedure, she went through with her citizenship.

Good thing, because stories started emerging of green card holding residents in the US being picked up by ICE for minor offenses dating back decades at a time (https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06...-detain-father-a-legal-resident-outside-home/). Then this past week, one of Trumps advisors wrote an editorial saying children of immigrants should no longer be granted citizenship (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.43bfeaf1784d). That would mean people like me, who was born here, knows nothing but this country, has never broken the law and has contributed to society in several ways.

That's a pretty fucking slippery slope and exactly the kind of thing that quote refers to. I'll stop short of saying Trump himself wants all non-white people out of this country but do I think he's got people dressing policies to do just that up as other things to get them through and satify a vocally racist base? Absolutely.


----------



## iamaom

narad said:


> It just seems contrary to some of the American values that are so often cited, the ol' “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", etc. Should we just redo the Statue of Liberty memorial to read "GTFO"?


Immigration: how to turn a liberal into a conservative in one easy step!
Times change and cultures change, I'd also like to remind you part of the reason why the US was so immigrant friendly is because it wanted:
1. In the early 1800's because they wanted more white people to fufil maniffest destiny and whiten up the country while driving out the natives
2. Poor minorities to work as a permanent underclass and do all the dirty work (african slaves, the irish factory workers, the chinese rail road workers, modern south americans)



narad said:


> But the diversity of America's citizens used to be considered a strength, and one that I always think about when you see the US teams in the Olympics, but somehow that idea got corrupted.


America can be plenty diverse without having to import more people, it's one of the biggest countries on the planet. Are China and India not diverse? I know we reached our current diversity through immigration, but like above I don't accept "well that's the way it's always been" as a valid reason in politics. I know that a lot of anti-immigration people in this country are absolutely racist fuckwits, so I'm going to nip this undertone in the bud: my immigration opinions have nothing to do with race.



narad said:


> You should be pro-immigration for that same self-serving mentality -- because immigration brings a lot of talent and amazing and hard-working people to the country, the kind of people you need if you want good conditions in the country.


We can't take care of the people we already have. If the US can get things like Flint under control and lower our population some then I'd be fine letting more in. I don't want to import talent, I want to grow it. Part of the reason why the US's schools are lagging so far behind is this idea that companies can just bribe people from other countries to come here so we can get their labor and ideas. The idea that if americans won't pick strawberries in california or program databases for low wages that we'll just import some more poor people who will do it for such a low price is ridiculous. They're international scabs, they are lowering the value of labor. We don't need south americans to pick our crops, we need a labor movement and unions that can bargain for fair pay for the work. Somehow the corporate class has tricked big-hearted liberals into lowering the standards of living and work and feeling good about it for alleviating a sense of misplaced white guilt. It is also harming these people's native countries, for the same reasons. Instead of revolting against their governments or corporations they just come to the US, it's no different than Democrats or Republicans threatening to move to Canada if politics doesn't go their way. It's robbing the country of the people who most need to be there, the ones who can actually make a difference.

I don't hold any malice towards immigrants (illegal or not) doing what they do. I understand that everyone is going to put their own lives first, so don't also take my opinions personally as if I have a vendetta against them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

iamaom said:


> We can't take care of the people we already have. If the US can get things like Flint under control and lower our population some then I'd be fine letting more in. I don't want to import talent, I want to grow it. Part of the reason why the US's schools are lagging so far behind is this idea that companies can just bribe people from other countries to come here so we can get their labor and ideas. The idea that if americans won't pick strawberries in california or program databases for low wages that we'll just import some more poor people who will do it for such a low price is ridiculous. They're international scabs, they are lowering the value of labor. We don't need south americans to pick our crops, we need a labor movement and unions that can bargain for fair pay for the work. Somehow the corporate class has tricked big-hearted liberals into lowering the standards of living and work and feeling good about it for alleviating a sense of misplaced white guilt. It is also harming these people's native countries, for the same reasons. Instead of revolting against their governments or corporations they just come to the US, it's no different than Democrats or Republicans threatening to move to Canada if politics doesn't go their way. It's robbing the country of the people who most need to be there, the ones who can actually make a difference.
> 
> I don't hold any malice towards immigrants (illegal or not) doing what they do. I understand that everyone is going to put their own lives first, so don't also take my opinions personally as if I have a vendetta against them.



We can't take care of people already here because we don't want to. It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people.

The reality is, we'll never be able to stop illegal immigration. Our borders are simply too big. Not to mention, those who come here basically have the option of a horrific death or come here. They're determined. 

So we have the choice: enforce draconian policies that will do little to curb immigration, cost us tons of money, and really not fix anything or we can try to face the reality of the situation and work towards making things safer and easier and cheaper for everyone. 

To your labor point, why do you think the wages for immigrants is so low? Because they're afraid to ask for more. Why? Because at any moment they could face deportation. 

Listen, I'm a union worker. I'm all for labor rights, but in the current political climate, nothing is going to get better only much, much worse for the labor movement. 

It's easy to say "just make your home country better", but that's on us. The United States keeps intervening in Central and South America and it's creating these situations where people need to flee.


----------



## Randy

iamaom said:


> I understand that everyone is going to put their own lives first, so don't also take my opinions personally as if I have a vendetta against them.



If that's your thinking on this, thats the first problem. It's not like we're shipwrecked on an abandoned island and deciding who gets the last of the rations. 

Current statistics say there are more jobs than unemployed people rlght now (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html). And even if these specific economic conditions are new, this has always been the case. Theres not a finite amount of jobs and you're adding more people to cage match against eachother for them. In fact, common fucking sense for a second, as the number of people go up, the number of goods and services necessary to accommodate them (and profit off of them) go up as well.

So if it's not for survival, then this piggish 'me first' mentality is over nothing but mere convenience or prejudice, and I can't relate to that mindset at all.


----------



## Edika

Let me tell you dude, no one is going to come to the US to program databases, do scientific work or work in medicine for lower wages than the rest are making. In fact since the company bringing the employee in has to sponsor him (pay visa, pay for relocation) that means that from the certain number of people they've interviewed, local or international, this would be the most qualified and stronger candidate available.

Corporations need to have an advantage over their competitors and that is why they've no sentiment over the country of origin of the person that will provide them the best output. In any case in the US is a lot easier to let go of someone if they feel he/she is not contributing as they expected.


----------



## Randy

Right on cue

Trump ramps up scrutiny of legal immigrants


----------



## Drew

iamaom said:


> America can be plenty diverse without having to import more people, it's one of the biggest countries on the planet. Are China and India not diverse?



Actually, yeah, they're not. I spent about two months working in India. It was the least diverse place I've ever been (and I live in Boston ). I used to get stared at wherever I went, because even in a city with a German commune, I averaged seeing maybe a half dozen non-Indian people a day. Diversity in India is a matter of whether you were from Goa or Uttar Pradesh, which is kinda like saying the US is diverse because we have white people from New Jersey AND Arkansas.



iamaom said:


> We can't take care of the people we already have. If the US can get things like Flint under control and lower our population some then I'd be fine letting more in. I don't want to import talent, I want to grow it. Part of the reason why the US's schools are lagging so far behind is this idea that companies can just bribe people from other countries to come here so we can get their labor and ideas. The idea that if americans won't pick strawberries in california or program databases for low wages that we'll just import some more poor people who will do it for such a low price is ridiculous. They're international scabs, they are lowering the value of labor. We don't need south americans to pick our crops, we need a labor movement and unions that can bargain for fair pay for the work. Somehow the corporate class has tricked big-hearted liberals into lowering the standards of living and work and feeling good about it for alleviating a sense of misplaced white guilt. It is also harming these people's native countries, for the same reasons. Instead of revolting against their governments or corporations they just come to the US, it's no different than Democrats or Republicans threatening to move to Canada if politics doesn't go their way. It's robbing the country of the people who most need to be there, the ones who can actually make a difference.


...except, you're assuming that immigrants are all _unskilled_ labor. To a certain extent that may be true more often than it's not for illegal immigrants, but for legal immigrants that's rarely the case - you even allude to this, that we're importing talent from overseas (to which I'd argue a better response isn't closing our borders, it's investing in our schools. 

Speaking very loosely, I think one thing anti-immigrant advocates - even ostentatiously-not-racist, well-meaning ones - often gloss over is that at a high level, a nation's _potential_ GDP is a product of workforce growth and productivity growth. All else equal, a growing workforce results in higher potential GDP, especially if it's a growing _skilled _workforce, which should also boost labor productivity. And considering immigrants in the workforce pay taxes exactly the same as if they were born here, it's hard to look at skilled immigration as a "cost" to be borne by society, that could be better directed to replacing pipes in Flint. I'm sure if you asked the mayor of Flint if he wouldn't mind having an influx of highly skilled immigrant workers, he'd jump for joy for what that would do to the tax base of his city. And, nationally, a growing GDP increases tax revenue available to the government, so pro-growth immigration policies are actually likely to be a net _benefit_ to national finances, since you're getting workforce expansion and productivity increase generated growth with no associated federal outlay. 

I mean, I want to hear you out here... But none of what you're saying really holds water. 



narad said:


> It just seems contrary to some of the American values that are so often cited, the ol' “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", etc. Should we just redo the Statue of Liberty memorial to read "GTFO"?


Shh! The NSA may be listening, and suggest that to Trump!


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Shh! The NSA may be listening, and suggest that to Trump!



It's not his own original idea, so he probably wouldn't even listen to it


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> It's not his own original idea, so he probably wouldn't even listen to it


Just tell him Stephen Miller suggested it.


----------



## bostjan

How many immigrants are math or science professors, how many are medical doctors, how many are power grid engineers? Kids these days don't want to put in the effort to get through schooling in these sorts of fields. It used to amaze me at how inaccurate some of the cultural stereotypes were around Detroit in the 1980's - the "party store" owner (local colloquial term in southeastern Michigan for the corner neighbourhood stores that sell cigarettes, alcohol, potato chips, candy bars, and sodas) was always depicted as a muslim guy wearing a turban. First off, no devout muslim I know would make his career selling alcohol, and out of thousands of people practicing Islam I've met, I've only known one to wear a turban unironically. Sihks often wear turbans, but I didn't know any Sihks who owned this sort of business, either. Nine out of ten "party stores" in Detroit were Mediterranean (Italian, Greek, Albanian, Chaldean, etc.) Roman Catholic or Greek Christian. I think people saw olive complected skin and assumed "muslim."

When it comes to excluding muslims from foreign countries from entering the USA, there's an entire discussion we could have about that.

But back to being diverse vs. importing more people - it's a fact that the power industry, for one, is suffering from brain drain. Out of ten power grid engineers, 2 are white and over the age of sixty years old, and the other eight are young and from overseas. If you sent all of the immigrants back home, you'd be left with a workforce in that industry who is going to be retired in the next five years, and then we'd be left with no one who can figure out the electrical grid, save for a very small number of anomalies.

And the nuclear weapons attached to Trump's beloved and theoretical big red button - those are all made by nuclear physicists and engineers who are about 80-90% immigrant. Not talking about folks whose parents were immigrants, either.


----------



## tedtan

^ Needs a hat:


----------



## bostjan

I'm sure you guys probably heard, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is being impeached for:

1. Illegal surveillance during the Russia probe (because the FISA documents were redacted when they were issued to congress)
2. Refusing to honour a subpoena requesting documents regarding the Russia probe
3. Redacting a document (?!) 
4. Redacting a memo (?!)
5. Conflict of interests

IMO:

Articles 3 and 4 are, well, to put it bluntly, "Stupid." It's not against the law to redact a document nor a memo. If Congress wants the unredacted version, they need to issue a subpoena for that, so, at most, it falls under article 2.

Article 1 is pretty thin, and again, really just lumps in with 3 and 4. It's not illegal to redact a document, nor is it illegal to give congress a redacted document upon request, so, really, no law is being broken by anything pointed out in those articles.

This happens a lot, though, where articles of impeachment are written up, and then several articles are simply political bullshit and get written out upon revision.

Articles 5 and especially 2 are certainly very serious.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> I'm sure you guys probably heard, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is being impeached for:
> 
> 1. Illegal surveillance during the Russia probe (because the FISA documents were redacted when they were issued to congress)
> 2. Refusing to honour a subpoena requesting documents regarding the Russia probe
> 3. Redacting a document (?!)
> 4. Redacting a memo (?!)
> 5. Conflict of interests
> 
> IMO:
> 
> Articles 3 and 4 are, well, to put it bluntly, "Stupid." It's not against the law to redact a document nor a memo. If Congress wants the unredacted version, they need to issue a subpoena for that, so, at most, it falls under article 2.
> 
> Article 1 is pretty thin, and again, really just lumps in with 3 and 4. It's not illegal to redact a document, nor is it illegal to give congress a redacted document upon request, so, really, no law is being broken by anything pointed out in those articles.
> 
> This happens a lot, though, where articles of impeachment are written up, and then several articles are simply political bullshit and get written out upon revision.
> 
> Articles 5 and especially 2 are certainly very serious.


He's not being impeached. Impeachment articles have been filed.


----------



## Randy

Not going anywhere and the Congress persons who filed it know that. This midterm is a referendum on Trump and you're seeing what direction Republicans are going on this based on how popular the president is in their districts, plain and simple.

It's still objectively abhorrent behavior. It's mildly entertaining seeing people working so hard to be remembered on the wrong side of history.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> I'm sure you guys probably heard, but Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is being impeached for:
> 
> 1. Illegal surveillance during the Russia probe (because the FISA documents were redacted when they were issued to congress)
> 2. Refusing to honour a subpoena requesting documents regarding the Russia probe
> 3. Redacting a document (?!)
> 4. Redacting a memo (?!)
> 5. Conflict of interests
> 
> IMO:
> 
> Articles 3 and 4 are, well, to put it bluntly, "Stupid." It's not against the law to redact a document nor a memo. If Congress wants the unredacted version, they need to issue a subpoena for that, so, at most, it falls under article 2.
> 
> Article 1 is pretty thin, and again, really just lumps in with 3 and 4. It's not illegal to redact a document, nor is it illegal to give congress a redacted document upon request, so, really, no law is being broken by anything pointed out in those articles.
> 
> This happens a lot, though, where articles of impeachment are written up, and then several articles are simply political bullshit and get written out upon revision.
> 
> Articles 5 and especially 2 are certainly very serious.



In my opinion, this is really represents a small group of staunch Trump supporters trying to save the president, rather than do the right thing and save the integrity of the executive branch. It's also a thinly veiled jab at Sessions for having recused himself from the investigation. If the election in the fall goes to the Democrats, I think these types of motions are meant to somewhat slow down or interrupt the inevitable impeachment process. I would even say that if damning evidence from the Mueller investigation is presented, an impeachment would happen regardless of whom is in control of the legislature.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> In my opinion, this is really represents a small group of staunch Trump supporters trying to save the president, rather than do the right thing and save the integrity of the executive branch. It's also a thinly veiled jab at Sessions for having recused himself from the investigation. If the election in the fall goes to the Democrats, I think these types of motions are meant to somewhat slow down or interrupt the inevitable impeachment process. I would even say that if damning evidence from the Mueller investigation is presented, an impeachment would happen regardless of whom is in control of the legislature.


It's not even an attempt to "save the president" so much as to discredit Mueller, since from their standpoint the president has done nothing wrong. But yeah, that's not going anywhere.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> It's not even an attempt to "save the president" so much as to discredit Mueller, since from their standpoint the president has done nothing wrong. But yeah, that's not going anywhere.



Drew - I think you're more correct with respects to what they're trying to do. It might be semantics, but that's the apparent angle for them.


----------



## Drew

I mean, I'm nitpicking, but yeah.  I think we're in close agreement.


----------



## bostjan

If the DoJ received a subpoena that said "give us these documents, unredacted," and the DoJ didn't file an objection, then the GOP might get that one article to stick.

There's no doubt that this is a political move.

What I think is most interesting, is that if the GOP does indict Rosenstein for what equates to obstruction of justice, then it sets a precedent of obstruction of justice being an impeachable offense, which answers a much larger legal question about Trump's activities and the relation of those with the law.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If the DoJ received a subpoena that said "give us these documents, unredacted," and the DoJ didn't file an objection, then the GOP might get that one article to stick.
> 
> There's no doubt that this is a political move.
> 
> What I think is most interesting, is that if the GOP does indict Rosenstein for what equates to obstruction of justice, then it sets a precedent of obstruction of justice being an impeachable offense, which answers a much larger legal question about Trump's activities and the relation of those with the law.


They're not impeaching him, for one - this is dying in the House, Ryan isn't letting it move forward. And the Trump team's argument is because the President directs the DOJ and has the ability to open and close investigations as he sees fit (questionable interpretation), then the President cannot obstruct justice. The Deputy AG would be a different story, but the whole argument is kind of bogus anyway.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> It's not even an attempt to "save the president" so much as to discredit Mueller, .



Is it even that? One of the two main guys behind it threw his hat in the ring to replace Paul Ryan immediately after it was withdrawn. I can't help but get a selfish vibe.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Is it even that? One of the two main guys behind it threw his hat in the ring to replace Paul Ryan immediately after it was withdrawn. I can't help but get a selfish vibe.


Honestly, at this point I no longer feel qualified to weigh in on GOP motivations, because god only knows what they think they're doing anymore.  

Meanwhile, Giuliani in the news today moving the goalposts even FURTHER on the Russian investigation, moving from "there was no collusion" to "even if we did collude "collusion" is not a crime" and "without Trump paying Russia, there was no collusion," which the former is really a stretch ("collusion" as a crime may not be defined, but any example of what collusion actually means in practice is highly likely to be a violation of federal law) while the latter is straight-up nonsense (for an easy example, if Russia approached the Trump camp and offered to release the hacked Clinton and DNC emails in return for non-monetary consideration such as backing off on Ukraine, that's pretty clearly still colluding with an enemy nation, and since at the time the Trump camp was not authorized to negotiate US foreign policy, was also a violation of federal law).


----------



## Randy

I'm not claiming 3D chess but is Giuliani just stupid or do they march him out there with the purpose of saying such distractingly stupid shit that it clogs up the news cycle for the next couple days, but has no legal bearing? I could go either way on that one.

BTW, I've long been of the opinion "collusion" is too big a blanket term that doesn't have a definition pointing directly to illegality and a specific statute. People who dislike Trump seem to "ah ha" over anything that indicates him knowingly associated with Russia, with "collusion" as their end goal, but little substance as to how that turns into a criminal or impeachment case. 

Unless there's a black and white "money changes hands for knowingly illegally obtained information", I don't see the path to anything of consequence on the collusion front. I think it maybe damages him or his party electorally, but someone last week said "Trump supporters would rather vote for Russians than Democrats" and I think that's both rhetorically and literally true.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm not claiming 3D chess but is Giuliani just stupid or do they march him out there with the purpose of saying such distractingly stupid shit that it clogs up the news cycle for the next couple days, but has no legal bearing? I could go either way on that one.
> 
> BTW, I've long been of the opinion "collusion" is too big a blanket term that doesn't have a definition pointing directly to illegality and a specific statute. People who dislike Trump seem to "ah ha" over anything that indicates him knowingly associated with Russia, with "collusion" as their end goal, but little substance as to how that turns into a criminal or impeachment case.
> 
> Unless there's a black and white "money changes hands for knowingly illegally obtained information", I don't see the path to anything of consequence on the collusion front. I think it maybe damages him or his party electorally, but someone last week said "Trump supporters would rather vote for Russians than Democrats" and I think that's both rhetorically and literally true.


Well, two separate points, so two separate comments. 

I think, for me, the simplest possible explanation that still fully explains everything is that Trump and Giuliani are well aware that they can say pretty much anything they want, and Fox News will repeat it and their supporters will take it as gospel, and politically that makes it more or less self-fulfilling when it comes to Trump's support within the party. So, for example, Giuliani claims Trump says "no cash," the tape says otherwise, but his supporters take it on faith. Trump says there's no evidence of collusion, and the recently declassified DOF memo "totally proves his innocence" because the wiretap on Page was "totally based off the dossier paid for by the Clintons," while we know for a fact that Trump Jr, at a minimum, took a meeting with russians offering assistance and everyone other than Fox News has been reporting that the recently declassified memo actually strengthens the case against Page, and yet, well, see this thread. Giuliani says "collusion isn't a crime" and "without a payment there was no collusion," which ignoring the inconsistency there for the moment, I'm sure in two weeks we'll have trolls posting exactly that. The net effect is the bar set for the nature of evidence it would take a Fox viewer to accept that the President has broken the wall keeps getting highter and higher, and as long as they build that up incrementally, then they so far have been able to get away with it.

I don't think it's going to require money changing hands to prove wrongdoing, but some kind of a tit-for-tat agreement, pretty much from day one, is going to be what it'll likely take to launch an impeachment. Of course, on Day One, I considered that an _extremely_ improbable outcome. Today, I'm way less sure, purely on the number of unforced errors (Trump Jr. releasing his own emails on that meeting), developments from the Mueller probe and related investigations (the Russian chick just indicted and arrested, Cohen being arrested and seemingly having been flipped), and the insanely guilty way Trump, Giuliani, et al have been carrying on making it look like they REALLY have something to hide.


----------



## Drew

Stumbled across this in a footnote to a 538 article - this is a pretty good summation of what we know about the Russia investigation, as well as seven potential theories that could explain what we know. 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-t...out-laffaire-russe-and-what-could-it-all-mean


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


>


----------



## Explorer

It's worth noting that although the Trump camp keep making statements about "collusion," the actual federal crime would be conspiracy, with conspiracy to defraud the United States via election meddling as an example. It's a federal crime to conspire to commit any other federal crime. It's also often a federal crime to conspire to attempt to violate such laws, even if the attempt is unsuccessful.

A conspiracy is simply an agreement to break the law. It doesn't have to be secret, or smart, or clever, or even successful.

So, if Trump or his campaign members agreed among themselves to meet with foreigners in hopes of obtaining something of value, including damaging information about an opponent, that would be a conspiracy.

If Trump approved such a meeting, he would be a part of the conspiracy.

It's pretty simple.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> It's worth noting that although the Trump camp keep making statements about "collusion," the actual federal crime would be conspiracy, with conspiracy to defraud the United States via election meddling as an example. It's a federal crime to conspire to commit any other federal crime. It's also often a federal crime to conspire to attempt to violate such laws, even if the attempt is unsuccessful.
> 
> A conspiracy is simply an agreement to break the law. It doesn't have to be secret, or smart, or clever, or even successful.
> 
> So, if Trump or his campaign members agreed among themselves to meet with foreigners in hopes of obtaining something of value, including damaging information about an opponent, that would be a conspiracy.
> 
> If Trump approved such a meeting, he would be a part of the conspiracy.
> 
> It's pretty simple.


...which is why Trump and his surrogates are trying like mad to move the goalposts, so that even conspiracy to commit a number of fairly serious crimes is going to sound like an attempt by the Mueller investigation to just slap something minor on Trump to save face because "...they couldn't prove he'd been paid in cash to reverse course on condemning Russia for invading Ukraine, and that it's not like the President can obstruct justice anyway," etc.

Honestly, January 19th, I would have never imagined the investigation would have uncovered even a fraction of what it has. I really thought there'd be a lot of smoke and some very supicious things here and there, but no fire. And it's looking increasingly like fire.


----------



## Explorer

@Drew - like you, I find it interesting that even Trump is making statements that "collusion is not a crime." Justifying that you colluded with a foreign country to rig an election is so un-American that only a complete idiot would try to, or would accept it.

With not a bit of hyperbole intended, I find it frightening to discover how many Americans are completely okay with adopting fascism in place of our democracy.


----------



## NateFalcon

I like the word ‘dossier’ too...makes people think it’s serious


----------



## NateFalcon

I went to an fundraising party with my wife recently trying to get a congresswoman to help lobby Congress and help fund a hospice ...it was pretty fucking wild- people going at it in the bathroom, lots of cocaine, weed and booze and stuff thrown in the pool. I wasn’t even mad -shit it was impressive, even by frats standards. It was a real glimpse into our state politics...


----------



## Explorer

Conspiring to meet with foreign agents, in an effort (successful or not) to defraud the United States via election meddling, actually is serious. Only a idiot would miss that, or would try to paper it over.

I like the assumption that all adults have short attention spans, and can be distracted by the equivalent of, "Hey! Look over there!" Is such a strategy really intended to work on intelligent adults?


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> I like the word ‘dossier’ too...makes people think it’s serious


Oh, it's you again.  Think you can have an actual, meaningful, serious, non-trolling conversation this time?

The thing is, it very well may be. Christopher Steele is a very well-reputed Russian intelligence expert, and most recently was one of the key agents behind uncovering and bringing down the FIFA bribery scandal. And, while you Trump supporters like to focus on the more superficially sensational stuff ("the pee tape"), there have been less eye-grabbing but still sensational claims first collected in that dossier that HAVE been confirmed.

Steele cited sources claiming Russia was behind the Wikileaks release of the DNC hack, which the US intelligence community has now confirmed.
Steele reported Michael Cohen had met with Russian agents in Prague, something Cohen denies. Mueller reportedly now has evidence these meetings did, in fact, occur.
Steele reported Carter Page had met with Russian government agents while in Russia in 2016, something he denied at the time. He later admitted during an interview with the House Intelligence Committee, under oath, that the meeting had, in fact, happened.
Steele identified Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was involved in the election meddling operation and an undercover spy. Russia pulled him out of the country on short notice and the US intelligence agencies have subsequently confirmed he was, in fact, a spy.
I mean, is there a "pee tape?" Fucked if I know. But clearly at least parts of the Steele dossier turned out to be accurate, and what we know for a fact should be concerning enough for any patriotic, red-blooded American. From a purely Bayesian probability standpoint, I think we have to take the rest of the dossier a little more seriously now that we know at least parts of it are true, and while I'm sure there are going to be some things that turn out to just be rumors included within it, we also know for a fact that this isn't a pure work of fiction.


----------



## jaxadam

NateFalcon said:


> I went to an fundraising party with my wife recently trying to get a congresswoman to help lobby Congress and help fund a hospice ...it was pretty fucking wild- people going at it in the bathroom, lots of cocaine, weed and booze and stuff thrown in the pool. I wasn’t even mad -shit it was impressive, even by frats standards. It was a real glimpse into our state politics...



Did I see you there?


----------



## Vyn

Probably have missed the boat on this one but to those of you who are anti-immigration - stop your country from bombing the shit out of other countries so they don't have to flee in the first place. There's no point complaining about the migrants themselves because it's not the source of the problem. Why are they migrating in the first place? Why are the numbers increasing? The immigration rates from poor countries, or countries with poor human rights records, dictatorship etc to other countries (Australia, Europe, UK, America etc) usually sky rocket because a first world country (usually almost always America) has decided to give the country in question a good dose of "FREEDOM" and smash it to oblivion.


----------



## Edika

I wonder if the evidence coming forth will at some point before Trump's presidency comes to an end are condeming enough for an impeachment, that happens and Ttump is found guilty, how big of percentage of the population will believe it is a fabricated case to take him down?
With the amount of misinformation spread will there be a conspiracy theory type situation created?
I guess in that case the Republican party will cut ties with him and condemn as well as Fox but are they in too deep with allowing and supporting him thay they'll fight it to the bitter end?

This situation reminds me more and more of the "World War Last" novel by Normand Spinrad.


----------



## narad

Vyn said:


> There's no point complaining about the migrants themselves because it's not the source of the problem. Why are they migrating in the first place? Why are the numbers increasing? The immigration rates from poor countries, or countries with poor human rights records, dictatorship etc to other countries (Australia, Europe, UK, America etc) usually sky rocket because a first world country (usually almost always America) has decided to give the country in question a good dose of "FREEDOM" and smash it to oblivion.



You'd think but it's actually more to do with stealing the jobs. Jobs in countries like Mexico or Australia are bad. They're things like cleaning the sewer or sex slave. Jobs in America are great, like ice cream tester or sex slave tester. Having an unsecured border is like leaving your food on the edge of the counter -- you know the dog is just going to pop up there and grab it, because otherwise he's just eating dog food all day. But as long as America is the best country, which at the current rate is probably forever, then I'm afraid it's going to continue to be a problem.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> You'd think but it's actually more to do with stealing the jobs. Jobs in countries like Mexico or Australia are bad. They're things like cleaning the sewer or sex slave. Jobs in America are great, like ice cream tester or sex slave tester. Having an unsecured border is like leaving your food on the edge of the counter -- you know the dog is just going to pop up there and grab it, because otherwise he's just eating dog food all day. But as long as America is the best country, which at the current rate is probably forever, then I'm afraid it's going to continue to be a problem.



It's a pretty sad state of affairs when I took this comment at face value before seeing who posted it. 

You got me!


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's a pretty sad state of affairs when I took this comment at face value before seeing who posted it.
> 
> You got me!



I'm kind of reminded of the South Park scientologist episode where, as they were describing the scientologist creation story and it's just all so outlandish, there needed to be a flashing bar on the bottom saying, "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE". Not that what I wrote is wholly accurate but...seems like kind of the gist of the argument.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I'm kind of reminded of the South Park scientologist episode where, as they were describing the scientologist creation story and it's just all so outlandish, there needed to be a flashing bar on the bottom saying, "THIS IS WHAT SCIENTOLOGISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE". Not that what I wrote is wholly accurate but...seems like kind of the gist of the argument.



So it's more like "THIS IS WHAT THE SUPER ADVENTURE CLUB ACTUALLY BELIEVES"?


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> So it's more like "THIS IS WHAT THE SUPER ADVENTURE CLUB ACTUALLY BELIEVES"?



Ahhh! Right you are.


----------



## Vyn

narad said:


> You'd think but it's actually more to do with stealing the jobs. Jobs in countries like Mexico or Australia are bad. They're things like cleaning the sewer or sex slave. Jobs in America are great, like ice cream tester or sex slave tester. Having an unsecured border is like leaving your food on the edge of the counter -- you know the dog is just going to pop up there and grab it, because otherwise he's just eating dog food all day. But as long as America is the best country, which at the current rate is probably forever, then I'm afraid it's going to continue to be a problem.



Fuck. So good xD


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> You'd think but it's actually more to do with stealing the jobs. Jobs in countries like Mexico or Australia are bad. They're things like cleaning the sewer or sex slave. Jobs in America are great, like ice cream tester or sex slave tester. Having an unsecured border is like leaving your food on the edge of the counter -- you know the dog is just going to pop up there and grab it, because otherwise he's just eating dog food all day. But as long as America is the best country, which at the current rate is probably forever, then I'm afraid it's going to continue to be a problem.


I know an older guy from Vietnam who left his job in Vietnam as a drug dealer before the war to move to the good old USA to become a donut tester. The first time he told me the story, I didn't even believe him. I mean, what kind of horrible nation pays their drug dealers less than what our donut testers make? 

So, here's an alternate solution to the immigration "problem:" we all start eating dog food.


----------



## Drew

Edika said:


> I wonder if the evidence coming forth will at some point before Trump's presidency comes to an end are condeming enough for an impeachment, that happens and Ttump is found guilty, how big of percentage of the population will believe it is a fabricated case to take him down?
> With the amount of misinformation spread will there be a conspiracy theory type situation created?
> I guess in that case the Republican party will cut ties with him and condemn as well as Fox but are they in too deep with allowing and supporting him thay they'll fight it to the bitter end?
> 
> This situation reminds me more and more of the "World War Last" novel by Normand Spinrad.


Honestly, unless evidence of wrongdoing is SO clear an unequivocal and blatantly anti-American that even, say, Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars turn against Trump, then a Trump impeachment seems fairly likely to end in bloodshed and possibly an attempted open rebellion. We have a material segment of the American public - call it maybe 20% - that sincerely believes the "mainstream media" is part of a deep-state conspiracy to discredit and overthrow Trump on, ahem, trumped-up grounds, and unfortunately the overlap between that group and the "I own guns to protect myself from the government" types is pretty damned high. 

It's kind of an interesting question, which would be worse for American democracy - a despot waging open war on the system of checks and balances and the international order, or removing said despot and having the military put down an attempted revolution because a subset of this country will refuse to believe said despot was actually guilty. Or, it WOULD be an interesting question, if it wasn't so fucking depressing that we may have to make that choice.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Probably have missed the boat on this one but to those of you who are anti-immigration - stop your country from bombing the shit out of other countries so they don't have to flee in the first place. There's no point complaining about the migrants themselves because it's not the source of the problem. Why are they migrating in the first place? Why are the numbers increasing? The immigration rates from poor countries, or countries with poor human rights records, dictatorship etc to other countries (Australia, Europe, UK, America etc) usually sky rocket because a first world country (usually almost always America) has decided to give the country in question a good dose of "FREEDOM" and smash it to oblivion.


That's maybe less true than it used to be - Syria became a humanitarian crisis largely because we did NOT get involved, at a point early enough to have stopped it.

Though, points for the "missed the boat" metaphor in a discussion about immigration, I guess, lol.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Honestly, unless evidence of wrongdoing is SO clear an unequivocal and blatantly anti-American that even, say, Fox, Breitbart, and InfoWars turn against Trump, then a Trump impeachment seems fairly likely to end in bloodshed and possibly an attempted open rebellion. We have a material segment of the American public - call it maybe 20% - that sincerely believes the "mainstream media" is part of a deep-state conspiracy to discredit and overthrow Trump on, ahem, trumped-up grounds, and unfortunately the overlap between that group and the "I own guns to protect myself from the government" types is pretty damned high.
> 
> It's kind of an interesting question, which would be worse for American democracy - a despot waging open war on the system of checks and balances and the international order, or removing said despot and having the military put down an attempted revolution because a subset of this country will refuse to believe said despot was actually guilty. Or, it WOULD be an interesting question, if it wasn't so fucking depressing that we may have to make that choice.



There’s not going to be a civil war. 

You forget that of that 20% (which is an awfully dubious number really), maybe something like 1% of that would be willing to actually do anything, and maybe 1% of that even would actually go through with it.

These are folks so afraid of their own shadow they need to carry firearms to go grocery shopping in their own neighborhoods. The second that shit might get real they’re more likely to turn their weapons on themselves, or just shoot themselves on accident.

I’ve been around guns and people who own guns forever, and just like every Tom, Dick or Jane who buys a guitar isn’t a virtuoso or can barely maintain it physically, most gun owners don’t even fire them or clean them regularly to be more than a danger to their own feet and hands. 

They seem brazen now because they control literally everything. But it’s the scumbags in government that are the real problem. Thier need to remain in power is what drives this.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> There’s not going to be a civil war.
> 
> You forget that of that 20% (which is an awfully dubious number really), maybe something like 1% of that would be willing to actually do anything, and maybe 1% of that even would actually go through with it.


I think a full scale civil war is unlikely. I think a wave of mass shootings or assassination attempts, and blood in the streets, on the other hand, is not something I'd bet against. And I think isolated Bundy-family-type incidents requiring military or national guard intervention could definitely happen. 

Delusion and guns can get dangerous in a hurry.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I think a full scale civil war is unlikely. I think a wave of mass shootings or assassination attempts, and blood in the streets, on the other hand, is not something I'd bet against. And I think isolated Bundy-family-type incidents requiring military or national guard intervention could definitely happen.
> 
> Delusion and guns can get dangerous in a hurry.



This is America. There’s a gun death every 15 minutes. Would we even notice?


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is America. There’s a gun death every 15 minutes. Would we even notice?


Yeah; we haven't entirely become sensitized to assassinations or mass shootings. Yet.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Yeah; we haven't entirely become sensitized to assassinations or mass shootings. Yet.



Eh, we made it through the Obama administration (twice) without incident, and while things seem so much worse now, I honestly don’t think it’s going to be a “bloodbath”, but that’s also because I don’t think anything is actually going to happen to Trump, whether we’re talking impeachment or prison or whatever.


----------



## Randy

If the bulk of Trump's swampy enablers (Manaforts, Flynn, Stone, etc.) end up in jail, even without an impeachment, the specter of that hangs over the rest of the presidency in a big way; even bigger if both or even one of the Houses flip this year. If Trump doesn't get his appointments rubber stamped or he has at least one House standing in the way of passing his bills or his budgets, that can really lame-duckify a guy in that office pretty quick.

If we have to stomach two more years of Trump but he's castrated, I can live with that. I think the guy is scum and he's a criminal and he deserves a lot worse than just being made irrelevant, but I'll be very happy crossing that bridge when he's out of office and 1.) unable to further obstruct the proceedings 2.) no longer in a power position to cause his followers to threaten violence as a result.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Eh, we made it through the Obama administration (twice) without incident, and while things seem so much worse now, I honestly don’t think it’s going to be a “bloodbath”, but that’s also because I don’t think anything is actually going to happen to Trump, whether we’re talking impeachment or prison or whatever.


Odds aren't the same as certainty, but PredictIt gives Trump an implied 66% chance of being president at the end of 2019. I can't say where it was this time last year since they only show 90 days max, but it's down from low 70s a month ago, at least.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> I think a full scale civil war is unlikely. I think a wave of mass shootings or assassination attempts, and blood in the streets, on the other hand, is not something I'd bet against. And I think isolated Bundy-family-type incidents requiring military or national guard intervention could definitely happen.
> 
> Delusion and guns can get dangerous in a hurry.


Yeah, I remember when the election was happening, US citizens were being quoted saying things like "if Hillary wins, there will be open war" and stock piling supplies and shit. Hell, I don't know if you guys have been watching "Who is America", but watching those rednecks (when Sacha was proposing building a Mosque in their town) go on about how lucky he was lucky they were told to leave their guns at home got me thinking "oh, so _these_ are the "good guys" with guns, eh?"

Of course, these are just anecdotal snippets of some clearly unbalanced people, but hate crimes targeting Muslims in my country have been on the rise, and I do think there are a contingent group of terrified and aggressive folks who will act out in even greater numbers if they feel their man has been railroaded. And they do _generally_ tend to be the people with the guns.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Odds aren't the same as certainty, but PredictIt gives Trump an implied 66% chance of being president at the end of 2019. I can't say where it was this time last year since they only show 90 days max, but it's down from low 70s a month ago, at least.



I bet there’s a 100% chance he’ll be president in 2021!


----------



## NateFalcon

If Trump gets impeached you’d be looking at a Mike Pence step-in...out of the frying pan and into the flame itself. I don’t think the impeachment crowd would achieve their desired result, they’d honestly be better off rolling the dice in 2021 -it’s their chess move, I just don’t think they’d be happy with the results of an impeachment. If you think Trump is bad on immigration, gay marriage and abortion, a Pence America would be a stiff slap...less autistic but far more of a threat to the left


----------



## bostjan

Pence is a Trump "yes-man." Many of his statements prior to being named as Trump's running mate are directly contradictory to Trump's positions, and, unsurprisingly, Pence changed his positions on those points drastically after being nominated.

I think Pence would at least be more aware of public opinion. I totally don't expect him to advocate anything for LGBT or go for anything that contradicts the GOP. None of this really matters, though, since I don't think he has much of a backbone. So, if the narrative that Russia is pulling Trump's strings is correct, then Pence could be just as much their puppet.

Personally, I feel that we should always do the right thing. If there is evidence that Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor or committed treason, he should be impeached accordingly, and he should explain under oath why such evidence exists, and, if the evidence in light of his explanation is clear and convincing that he committed such a transgression, he should be removed from office. If Pence wants to take that as his opportunity to do something against American's values, then increase the scrutiny on him accordingly and stonewall his policies if they offend. Chances are that if he's the VP appointed president after the former president was removed from office, he'll mostly be a lame duck president anyway.


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> If Trump gets impeached you’d be looking at a Mike Pence step-in...out of the frying pan and into the flame itself. I don’t think the impeachment crowd would achieve their desired result, they’d honestly be better off rolling the dice in 2021 -it’s their chess move, I just don’t think they’d be happy with the results of an impeachment. If you think Trump is bad on immigration, gay marriage and abortion, a Pence America would be a stiff slap...less autistic but far more of a threat to the left


I have some MAJOR problems with Pence, too, specifically on the question of separation of church and state...

...but there's no doubt Pence would be a "traditional" Republican president, would drop Trump's open war against the press and the judiciary, would stop cozying up with Russia and North Korea and Turkey and other authoritarian regimes and repair relations with Mexico, Canada, and the EU, and would shut the fuck up on Twitter. And, if he wasn't sworn in after the end of 2018, then he'd be capped at a maximum of 6 years. 

I also suspect that, if collusion with Russia during and after the campaign did, in fact, occur, the likelihood of Trump's transition manager NOT being involved is very, very slim, and it's possible both of them could go down. I'm not holding my breath, but the worst case is we get a guy just as problematic on policy, but less likely to intentionally damage our democratic institutions.


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> I bet there’s a 100% chance he’ll be president in 2021!



Looks like you're pretty confident in that outcome. Are you giving odds?


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Looks like you're pretty confident in that outcome. Are you giving odds?


Nah, he's kidding around. 

Adam, I'm always up for a friendly wager, though.


----------



## NateFalcon

We’re definitely playing with two different dynamics...When discussing the Supreme Court previously, it was pointed out how dangerous per se conservative “control” of the SC can potentially be when it comes to executive orders- going back to that, I think Pence would be a greater threat to the major sensibilities that liberals are concerned about, ie: abortion, gay rights etc. With trade and foreign policies he may be a step forward...? I’m not saying bar an impeachment based on a weighed outcome, I just don’t think collusion is going to warrant an impeachment unless we run into a Rob Ford or Marion Berry situation (on tape, with audio)...I honestly believe any other presidential cabinet would have also been caught “colluding” with foreign officials. My earlier sarcastic quips were meaning that these can be debaucherous people on both sides and I don’t know when people actually started trusting politicians to be honestly transparent


----------



## NateFalcon

Another thought: with the high influx of immigrants from many countries, would it be a surprise to find out that a portion of the money used to lobby for political causes comes from foreign sources? Think about it...people are hopping mad to protect the sovereignty of our elections (presidential only, apparently lol), yet advocate for open borders...???. Not a stand against immigration, just pointing out the ironic/hypocritical that some are missing. Outside interests funnel lots of money into our elections system...

Just a question, not inflammatory but how many ‘intelligent’ people were honestly swayed to vote for Trump by negative internet ads? I personally didn’t vote for either but don’t understand how people are supposedly smart enough to understand how Americans were misled but NOT smart enough to not be swayed by internet ads. I think it speaks volumes about how people are quick to base not only their opinions, but their voting on others’ collective thoughts. If you were swayed by negative advertising one way or the other, then you’re putting far too much faith in internet information...


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> people are hopping mad to protect the sovereignty of our elections (presidential only, apparently lol), yet advocate for open borders...???.



Kind of an ignorant juxtaposition. Maybe it's different from state to state but to register to vote, I need to have proof of residency and the primary means of registering to vote is when you get a license or state ID. Then assuming you do that, you arrive at your polling place, give them your name and address and they check that against the record, then you sign your name and they check you off.

So to get into the US via "open borders" (implying these are illegal immigrants we're referring to), your first hurdle would be getting a semi-perminent residence and proof of it, then getting some kind of identification. Or if you're going to come here and bypass that, you're going to have to go to your polling place and pretend to be someone else who's address you somehow know, then hope they havent already been there or hope they don't come in after that because you're going to jail.

That seems like an awful lot of work to make up the kinda numbers that effect elections.


----------



## Randy

NateFalcon said:


> I don’t know when people actually started trusting politicians to be honestly transparent



They don't, that's why the FBI were investigating them. The irony of that being it buried in a conservative sympathetic post, when meanwhile it's the Republicans that are trying to make the oversight go away.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Kind of an ignorant juxtaposition. Maybe it's different from state to state but to register to vote, I need to have proof of residency and the primary means of registering to vote is when you get a license or state ID. Then assuming you do that, you arrive at your polling place, give them your name and address and they check that against the record, then you sign your name and they check you off.
> 
> So to get into the US via "open borders" (implying these are illegal immigrants we're referring to), your first hurdle would be getting a semi-perminent residence and proof of it, then getting some kind of identification. Or if you're going to come here and bypass that, you're going to have to go to your polling place and pretend to be someone else who's address you somehow know, then hope they havent already been there or hope they don't come in after that because you're going to jail.
> 
> That seems like an awful lot of work to make up the kinda numbers that effect elections.



This weird voter fraud logic is sort of like imagining the entire plot of Ocean's Eleven was happening just to steal your pocket change. People changing their life plans for years, settling in areas purely for voter impact, risking years in prison and huge fines, to cast one vote that ~50% of Americans are too disinterested to spend an hour to do.


----------



## StevenC

NateFalcon said:


> I honestly believe any other presidential cabinet would have also been caught “colluding” with foreign officials. My earlier sarcastic quips were meaning that these can be debaucherous people on both sides and I don’t know when people actually started trusting politicians to be honestly transparent



I mean, when an elected government works with another country it's called diplomacy, because that's the job they're elected to do. When anyone else negotiates foreign policy with another country in return for help winning an election it's just plain illegal.

And if you meant presidential candidate, then I really hope anyone colluding to get elected gets caught and goes to prison. Just nobody else has had shady connections to Russians and then failed to enact sanctions that were voted for overwhelmingly by the House and Senate.



NateFalcon said:


> Think about it...people are hopping mad to protect the sovereignty of our elections (presidential only, apparently lol), yet advocate for open borders...???



Who's advocating open borders? Most people are protesting building a wall and locking up children in cages. Even the so called libertarians in these threads haven't advocated open borders. The options aren't open borders or concentration camps along the border.


----------



## Explorer

It's worth reminding the members with short or non-existent memories that Pence was present during at least one meeting wherein Trump planned to falsify why he fired Comey. As an attorney, Pence should have known better, and is impeachable for being part of the cover-up of obstruction of justice.

It sucks when others have better memories and bring up inconvenient facts. Amirite?


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> It's worth reminding the members with short or non-existent memories that Pence was present during at least one meeting wherein Trump planned to falsify why he fired Comey. As an attorney, Pence should have known better, and is impeachable for being part of the cover-up of obstruction of justice.
> 
> It sucks when others have better memories and bring up inconvenient facts. Amirite?



Well like a couple weeks ago we watched Trump publicly give Putin the diplomatic equivalent of a 45-min handy to the entire world, and now that seems like yesteryear. Memories fade fast for this whitehouse.


----------



## Explorer

And now Trump has stated publicly that Junior met with Russians at Trump Tower in 2016 in order to gain something of value, information about Hillary Clinton, from foreigners. 

He also said that since the criminal conspiracy yielded no such information, the actual crime of conspiracy is no big deal. 

To repeat my point from earlier, a conspiracy to break the law is still a crime, even if the attempt to break the law is unsuccessful. 

----

In further news, the Republican attempt to impeach Rosenstein, even though it was doomed to failure, just lowered the bar for impeaching Trump.

Previously, the standard for an impeachment trial was the likelihood of success. Now Republicans have eliminated that barrier, leaving the way clear for years of proceedings. 

----

Why are Trump and the Repubiclans so stupid on these points? Do they really lack all strategic thought? I'd love it if one of our conservative members made a cogent argument for how these actions help in the long run.


----------



## bostjan

Explorer said:


> And now Trump has stated publicly that Junior met with Russians at Trump Tower in 2016 in order to gain something of value, information about Hillary Clinton, from foreigners.
> 
> He also said that since the criminal conspiracy yielded no such information, the actual crime of conspiracy is no big deal.
> 
> To repeat my point from earlier, a conspiracy to break the law is still a crime, even if the attempt to break the law is unsuccessful.
> 
> ----
> 
> In further news, the Republican attempt to impeach Rosenstein, even though it was doomed to failure, just lowered the bar for impeaching Trump.
> 
> Previously, the standard for an impeachment trial was the likelihood of success. Now Republicans have eliminated that barrier, leaving the way clear for years of proceedings.
> 
> ----
> 
> Why are Trump and the Repubiclans so stupid on these points? Do they really lack all strategic thought? I'd love it if one of our conservative members made a cogent argument for how these actions help in the long run.



Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make earlier. Impeaching Rosenstein also sets a precedent answering the question that we were all anticipating - yes, obstruction of justice is an impeachable offence. Now almost all of the ducks are in a row. Trump wants to meet with Mueller, I say let him do it. Mueller won't press charges against Trump, but as the cases for all of Trump's goons end in verdicts and plea deals, a testimony from Trump in which Trump will likely commit perjury will all but guarantee an impeachment. Even without the perjury, Trump's looking more an more like he did knowingly and willfully conspire to commit treason by the means of trying to rig the election via an outside government. At the very least, he committed obstruction - the case for that is very solid. He'll undoubtedly argue that the head of the executive branch cannot obstruct the duties of the departments that report to him, but I can't see that line of argument even working on the GOP. I think the only leg he has to stand on now is that the GOP won't see obstruction as a strong enough reason to remove one of their own, even with the blatant fact that they are willing to try to remove one of their own if it suits their short term strategy (Rosenstein is a republican).


----------



## Drew

NateFalcon said:


> We’re definitely playing with two different dynamics...When discussing the Supreme Court previously, it was pointed out how dangerous per se conservative “control” of the SC can potentially be when it comes to executive orders- going back to that, I think Pence would be a greater threat to the major sensibilities that liberals are concerned about, ie: abortion, gay rights etc. With trade and foreign policies he may be a step forward...? I’m not saying bar an impeachment based on a weighed outcome, I just don’t think collusion is going to warrant an impeachment unless we run into a Rob Ford or Marion Berry situation (on tape, with audio)...I honestly believe any other presidential cabinet would have also been caught “colluding” with foreign officials. My earlier sarcastic quips were meaning that these can be debaucherous people on both sides and I don’t know when people actually started trusting politicians to be honestly transparent


Actually, no, executive orders were a very small part of that conversation, it was mostly about how conservative states continued to pass abortion bills they know would be challenged in the courts as unconstitutional, in the hope that eventually one would make it to the Supreme Court and a more conservative court would uphold it, potentially fully overturning Roe vs. Wade in their decision. 

I think the distinction we're making, though, is Trump is a president almost singularly uninterested in respecting the norms of his office, including a whole bunch that generally check executive power, whereas Pence is likely to be more conventional in that respect. I have big _policy_ issues with Pence, but I don't see him, for example, ordering families to be torn apart at the border, ordering the Treasury Department to consider revisiting its definition of "cost" to include inflation indexing to give out another multi-billion dollar handout to the wealthy, or arguing that he can't obstruct justice because as the President he oversees the Department of Justice. 



NateFalcon said:


> Another thought: with the high influx of immigrants from many countries, would it be a surprise to find out that a portion of the money used to lobby for political causes comes from foreign sources? Think about it...people are hopping mad to protect the sovereignty of our elections (presidential only, apparently lol), yet advocate for open borders...???. Not a stand against immigration, just pointing out the ironic/hypocritical that some are missing. Outside interests funnel lots of money into our elections system...
> 
> Just a question, not inflammatory but how many ‘intelligent’ people were honestly swayed to vote for Trump by negative internet ads? I personally didn’t vote for either but don’t understand how people are supposedly smart enough to understand how Americans were misled but NOT smart enough to not be swayed by internet ads. I think it speaks volumes about how people are quick to base not only their opinions, but their voting on others’ collective thoughts. If you were swayed by negative advertising one way or the other, then you’re putting far too much faith in internet information...


Randy's right - you're conflating two different things here. 

Politicians and lobbying groups need to disclose the source of their funds, which means they must keep very accurate records of who donates to them, to avoid serious tax consequences. These donor logs are filed with the IRS annually, and donors above a certain threshold are I believe publicly disclosed, as well. Yes, it's theoretically possible that a foreign national could donate to a politician or PAC... but to do so, either he or she would need to lie about their identity while donating, or the politician/PAC would have to fabricate or obscure the source of funds, both of which are themselves illegal (you probably know them as "money laundering."). More to the point, there is zero advantage in doing this inside the country vs doing it outside, so I'm not sure what it has to do with open borders. 

As far as advertising, I don't think you really understand what the Russians were doing. We're not talking explicit ads - we're talking things like actual fake news stories (the best example I can think of is the story going around shortly before the election that the Pope had endorsed Donald Trump) that people seeing them and not questioning their accuracy would potentially be swayed to vote for a candidate they had been reluctant to support. Or we're talking attempts to sow discord, not just between Democrats and Republicans, but within the Democratic party - perhaps where they were the most effective at blocking Clinton's election was running a number of pro-Sanders facebook groups, where they shared story after story alleging the DNC had stolen the nomination from Sanders to try to ensure Sanders supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton, which seems to have been fairly effective. 

The thing you don't understand is that in social media, what you're calling "ads" didn't LOOK like ads. It's not like Russia was buying TV spots telling people to vote for Trump. Rather, they were running fake personal profiles and fake groups and sharing memes and fake stories, and as far as anyone else knew, they were just a like-minded American. 

This is pretty telling - this is a (extremely heated) interview with a guy from CNN interviewing a woman who had run a pro-Trump group in Broward County and had done some coordinating and event planning with another pro-Trump group, which was later exposed as a Russian shell. And, she STILL doesn't believe they were Russians, or the Russians had anything to do with trying to change people's mind about the election: 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...-trump_group_was_infiltrated_by_russians.html


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make earlier. Impeaching Rosenstein also sets a precedent answering the question that we were all anticipating - yes, obstruction of justice is an impeachable offence. Now almost all of the ducks are in a row. Trump wants to meet with Mueller, I say let him do it. Mueller won't press charges against Trump, but as the cases for all of Trump's goons end in verdicts and plea deals, a testimony from Trump in which Trump will likely commit perjury will all but guarantee an impeachment. Even without the perjury, Trump's looking more an more like he did knowingly and willfully conspire to commit treason by the means of trying to rig the election via an outside government. At the very least, he committed obstruction - the case for that is very solid. He'll undoubtedly argue that the head of the executive branch cannot obstruct the duties of the departments that report to him, but I can't see that line of argument even working on the GOP. I think the only leg he has to stand on now is that the GOP won't see obstruction as a strong enough reason to remove one of their own, even with the blatant fact that they are willing to try to remove one of their own if it suits their short term strategy (Rosenstein is a republican).


You remember how maybe 15 months ago, before the Trump Jr. emails broke, you used to tell me that this whole Russia thing was a pipe dream and there was no way it could ever end in impeachment? I'm not asking as a "I told you so" sort of thing because even back then I thought it was unlikely, if not impossible, that any concrete evidence would ever come out, because Trump couldn't possibly be that stupid. I think we just underestimated his ginormous ego and sense of entitlement.  At present, I'd call impeachment (or resignation) about a coinflip, and it's trending against Trump, IMO.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> You remember how maybe 15 months ago, before the Trump Jr. emails broke, you used to tell me that this whole Russia thing was a pipe dream and there was no way it could ever end in impeachment? I'm not asking as a "I told you so" sort of thing because even back then I thought it was unlikely, if not impossible, that any concrete evidence would ever come out, because Trump couldn't possibly be that stupid. I think we just underestimated his ginormous ego and sense of entitlement.  At present, I'd call impeachment (or resignation) about a coinflip, and it's trending against Trump, IMO.


Yeah, I thought I addressed how wrong I was before already.
My mindset back then was along the lines of "well, if HRC did something secretly shitty and Trump exposed it, so what?" But now that he's the one in power, and he is so adamant about not admitting to anything until the facts catch up with him, and he's clearly up to something highly fishy with Putin, and he's claiming victory in North Korea whilst the North Koreans are chuckling behind his back whipping up bigger weapons and not even being inconspicuous about it...f*** this guy. He's not about the truth, he's about shear stupidity and putting all of his effort into convincing people he knows what he's doing instead of actually doing something that makes sense in the first place.
I was never a fan of his, and I thought it was idiotic of him to get elected in the first place, but now that we're in the thick of this, the sooner we get to the ending of this nonsense, the better.

Really, and quite frankly, if Trump had just kept from running his mouth about the collusion thing, I don't think anyone would be able to prove anything to the point where an impeachment was feasible. Obviously, he's either a) incredibly intelligent and has some sort of ace-in-the-hole, such that he can do whatever he wants or b) incredibly stupid and unable to keep from incriminating himself. Time will give us clearer hints at which it is, but we may never be able to 100% prove one or the other. But you can always assume that if it quacks like a duck...


----------



## Drew

Well, again, it's not an "I told you so," so much as just pausing to note just how far things have progressed since the election. Even back then, when the investigation really got going, I wasn't willing to say anything stronger than it wasn't _impossible_ that Trump would get impeached. 


Then, Flynn had to step down for lying about communications with Russia, Sessions had to recuse himself for lying about his own contacts, 
out of the blue Trump fired Comey, allegedly for the Clinton investigation but within 24 hours was saying it was about the Russia investigation, 
Trump Jr. tweeted out an email chain, by his own volition, proving that he'd been approached by Russian agents claiming to have dirt on Clinton, and he happily accepted, and 
the whole Russia investigation got started in the first place after a Trump staffer drunkenly mentioned to an Australian intelligence agent, in London, that he knew Russia had hacked the DNC and had thousands of their emails. 

It's ludicrous just how much has happened since November of 2016.



bostjan said:


> Really, and quite frankly, if Trump had just kept from running his mouth about the collusion thing, I don't think anyone would be able to prove anything to the point where an impeachment was feasible. Obviously, he's either a) incredibly intelligent and has some sort of ace-in-the-hole, such that he can do whatever he wants or b) incredibly stupid and unable to keep from incriminating himself. Time will give us clearer hints at which it is, but we may never be able to 100% prove one or the other. But you can always assume that if it quacks like a duck...



I don't know if it would have _fully_ gone away had he just shut up - I mean, the Flynn and Sessions things would have come out, Papadoupalos had already gotten the ball rolling, etc - but there were a whole lot of unforced errors we've already seen Trump et al make, most notably firing Comey and tweeting out proof that the Trump Tower meeting did, in fact, occur. Sure, you could be charitable and say they were trying to front-run the story in the New York Times... But, once the emails are out there, there's zero way they could try to deny it or say they had been misconstrued etc, and IMO that's the closest thing we have to a smoking gun so far, that Trump Jr. was approached by people claiming to be Russian agents offering dirt on Clinton, and he enthusiastically accepted. That's at least _conspiracy_ to commit a crime, and I suspect it's a matter of time before he gets charged (which when his dad pardons him, is veering awfully close to constitutional crisis territory, unless they charge him with violating a NY State crime and therefore not under the purview of a federal pardon).


----------



## narad

I just like that Trump hasn't seemed to pick up on very basic sort of "tells" that every normal person learns at like age 5, i.e., if you're lying about something, or at the very least don't want to sound like you're lying about something, and you deny saying, "I didn't do X.", you don't follow up with, "But if I had done X there wouldn't have been anything illegal about it! NOT AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE."

Or yes, maybe he's incredibly intelligent and wants the media to latch on to these things because it's a constant distractor from his policy and any failing in that regard can be blamed on all the obstruction caused by an on-going investigation.


----------



## jaxadam

*MSNBC: TRUMP IMPEACHED - Articles served Monday August 6th, 2018 in wake of widening criminal investigation*


----------



## narad

^^ When Trump-ish people were complaining about getting banned and saying, "But it was so one-sided! Mods are biased! Waaah!", I just basically think about how they were only posting things like this (and of course, other useful contributions like how they found a vein in a painting of Obama looked like a sperm).


----------



## StevenC

Rick Gates testifies he committed crimes with Manafort, and Trump admits his son met a Russian spy.


----------



## Explorer

@narad - Of course he's trolling. He hasn't got anything to balance out the treason of Trump and company. It feels like an admission that he can't come up with any intelligent refutation, given that the Cheeto in Charge himself admitted to it. *laugh*


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> *MSNBC: TRUMP IMPEACHED - Articles served Monday August 6th, 2018 in wake of widening criminal investigation*


If this ISN'T a link to "Never Gonna Give You Up," we're no longer friends.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> @narad - Of course he's trolling. He hasn't got anything to balance out the treason of Trump and company. It feels like an admission that he can't come up with any intelligent refutation, given that the Cheeto in Charge himself admitted to it. *laugh*


Adam's views are actually a little more complex than blindly pro-Trump trolling. I'd hate to put words into his mouth but the impression I've been left with is while he's probabnly more sympathetic to Trump than I am (admittedly, not much of a bar to surpass), it's more a general dislike of political division than it is picking sides, for him. I'd counter that that's kind of the antithesis of what Trump stands for, of course, and in a thread where trolling is pretty explicitly forbidden, then maybe trying to Rick Roll liberals isn't the best idea, but I don't think he's going to be foaming at the mouth espousing building the wall, locking Clinton up (at least, inasmuch as I suspect he wouldn't like to see a whole bunch of politicians on both sides of the aisle locked up, lol), firing Mueller, and cozying up with Putin, either.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew, you complete me.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'd hate to put words into his mouth



Why not?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Why not?


Ok, that was a lie. I'm just trying to look like the adult in the room here. Is it working?


----------



## bostjan

Now the arguments have even spread into fire departments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ping-water-into-ocean/?utm_term=.6d6e12b25c8a


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Now the arguments have even spread into fire departments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ping-water-into-ocean/?utm_term=.6d6e12b25c8a


Yet, that'll play well with his base as an example of liberal stupidity, and will give him cover to not declare a national emergency in response to the, I believe, largest ever wildfires California has ever seen (and we're really only just getting into the start of the wildfire season).


----------



## Randy

The ironic (actually, not ironic at all) thing being that the "one thing" that "both sides" can agree on is how toxic the divisiveness in this country is, and the left get blamed for their attitude toward Trump when the guy literally picks fights with people who haven't done anything to him. We already know that Trump himself does very little of his tweeting, so we have Trump and/or his people manufacturing a tweet to blame the leadership in the state for a natural disaster AND HE'S ACTUALLY GETTING TRACTION FROM IT. It's literally "Punch bug, can't punch me back hahah" childish fuckery that begins from one end almost entirely exclusively.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Now the arguments have even spread into fire departments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ping-water-into-ocean/?utm_term=.6d6e12b25c8a



This is the stupidest thing I think I've read all year. I just...

I assume all of those firefighters that just arrived from New Zealand and Australia are bringing water with them, then, if a water shortage is the cause of these fires burning in areas surrounded by lakes...


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


>




Well if that black guy on Trump's transition team calls him the most pro-black president in our lifetime, I guess that settles it. Now assuming that (as the most pro-black president in our lifetime) Trump is going to get > Obama polling numbers now from the black community once this gets out, then Trump is going to dominate both the black vote AND the white supremacist vote. He's going to kill it in 2020.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The ironic (actually, not ironic at all) thing being that the "one thing" that "both sides" can agree on is how toxic the divisiveness in this country is, and the left get blamed for their attitude toward Trump when the guy literally picks fights with people who haven't done anything to him. We already know that Trump himself does very little of his tweeting, so we have Trump and/or his people manufacturing a tweet to blame the leadership in the state for a natural disaster AND HE'S ACTUALLY GETTING TRACTION FROM IT. It's literally "Punch bug, can't punch me back hahah" childish fuckery that begins from one end almost entirely exclusively.


I thought it was pretty well established, by looking at the OS, language and typo patterns, time of day, etc, that there were multiple people using his account post-election, and that he was one of them, and that the other was generally the more "presidential" content..? 

But hey. Lots of bad people on both sides, Randy. On both sides!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


>



I'd question the objectivity of anything an early backer of Trump has to say about Trump.

To be fair, black support of Trump has doubled in the most recent polling... From 15% to 29%. Not sure those are numbers I'd take to the bank, though, as about 2 in 3 blacks seem to disagree with this dude.


----------



## Drew

Nunes recorded speaking at a private donor event, recording released by Rachel Maddow last night. 



Devin Nunes said:


> So therein lies, so it's like your classic Catch-22 situation where we are at a - this puts us in a tough spot. If Sessions won’t unrecuse and Mueller won’t clear the president, we’re the only ones. Which is really the danger. That's why I keep, and thank you for saying it, by the way, I mean, we have to keep all these seats. We have to keep the majority. If we do not keep the majority, all of this goes away.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mp-were-the-only-ones/?utm_term=.e364f2ca0df7

To be fair, nothing he probably wouldn't have said publicly, knowing this guy.  But the two concerning things, IMO, are that 1) he's now an additional source of pressure on Sessions to take the reins back from Rosenstein (he later went on to talk about wanting to move ahead impeaching Rosenstein, but not until seating Kavanaugh because they didn't want to delay that and potentially lose a majority), and 2) considering Nunes is privvy to more classified information than the general public, the fact that he seems pretty sure Trump WOULD be impeached successfully if the GOP loses their majority ought to be pretty concerning.

If nothing else, this is a US Representative, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, putting the interests of the current President over his sworn duties. Again, this guy's such a slimeball that this should come as a surprise to no one, but there you have it. 

This is also a softball for Nunes' Democratic challenger.


----------



## Randy

I'm really surprised at how heavily favored Nunes appears to be consistently in his district. I mean, nothing to do with his political party vs the makeup of his district, but I've learned that LOCAL politics seem to play the biggest roll in favorability from their electorate and if I'm in Nunes district, I'm asking "WTF does all of this cloak and dagger, "Trump at all costs" stuff have to do with us? That's not what we put you in there for".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I'm really surprised at how heavily favored Nunes appears to be consistently in his district. I mean, nothing to do with his political party vs the makeup of his district, but I've learned that LOCAL politics seem to play the biggest roll in favorability from their electorate and if I'm in Nunes district, I'm asking "WTF does all of this cloak and dagger, "Trump at all costs" stuff have to do with us? That's not what we put you in there for".



That district has been deeply red since at least the mid 90's. I don't see that changing now.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I'm really surprised at how heavily favored Nunes appears to be consistently in his district. I mean, nothing to do with his political party vs the makeup of his district, but I've learned that LOCAL politics seem to play the biggest roll in favorability from their electorate and if I'm in Nunes district, I'm asking "WTF does all of this cloak and dagger, "Trump at all costs" stuff have to do with us? That's not what we put you in there for".


We're talking about a district where Trump beat Clinton by almost 10 points. (according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_22nd_congressional_district), but, isn't Fresno heavily democratic?!

I dunno, maybe there's gerrymandering going on or something.

Edit: 'd ... But seriously, why don't we just split states into districts, then split those districts into counties, and split counties into cities and towns and whatnot? I don't understand any real reason why one county should be split into several voting districts when the districts also contain multiple counties.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> We're talking about a district where Trump beat Clinton by almost 10 points. (according to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_22nd_congressional_district), but, isn't Fresno heavily democratic?!
> 
> I dunno, maybe there's gerrymandering going on or something.



Fresno leans democrat, but Clovis, Tulare and Visalia are all majority republican. You're probably right.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm really surprised at how heavily favored Nunes appears to be consistently in his district. I mean, nothing to do with his political party vs the makeup of his district, but I've learned that LOCAL politics seem to play the biggest roll in favorability from their electorate and if I'm in Nunes district, I'm asking "WTF does all of this cloak and dagger, "Trump at all costs" stuff have to do with us? That's not what we put you in there for".


I've read a lot of commentary arguing "all politics are local" is giving way to "all politics are national" due to a number of factors, but probably most notably the gradual consolidation of news media in the last 30 years and the fact local news has accordingly become more national. The heightened partisan environment and the increasing partisan divide with news media probably isn't helping, nor is the fact that increasingly Americans seem to be realizing that national politics DO matter locally.

I think Nunes is more at risk than maybe conventional wisdom would hold, but he's a long-time incumbant in a solidly Republican district, with a powerful committee chair to his name. You don't throw guys like that out lightly in favor of a newcomer simply because it diminishes your district's clout. Googling some polling data, and Nunes outperformed Trump handily in 2016, 35 points to Trump's 10 point margin. I'd expect 2018 to be closer for a large number of reasons - special election voting implies the Democrats are outperforming demographic fundamentals by maybe 12-16 points, Nunes is way more closely associated with Trump than he was in 2016 thanks to some of the shit he pulled before he had to recuse himself from the House investigation, Nunes probably benefitted from the fact Clinton was expected to win, and Janz seems like a pretty decent candidate. The last poll in the race had Janz down by 8 points, 49-41 with 10% undecided, at the end of June, which seems about right given the factors above; a lot of the forecasters are calling it a safe Republican seat, my subjective impression is Nunes is the favorite, but a bad news cycle or a blue wave could easily flip his seat.

Either way, I'd say with a high degree of confidence that it would take a mid-sized miracle to have Nunes win with a 35 point margin this time around.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> but a bad news cycle or a blue wave could easily flip his seat


This is why politics is predictable 95% of the time, and then the other 5% of the time, just goes bonkers.

Wouldn't it be ironic though, if:
1. Nunes placed his political chips on the presidential candidate least likely to win.
2. That unlikely candidate vehemently attacked his opponent's shady business.
3. That opponent didn't really address any of this, feeling comfortable that a win was a pretty safe bet.
4. The unlikely candidate wins.
5. Nunes doubles down and takes a political lead as a result.
6. Nunes says some things in confidence that are taken oddly.
7. Nunes's opponent brings light to that.
8. Nunes doesn't address that, because he's so favoured to win.
9.* (hypothetical) Nunes loses his seat to his opponent, much in the same way Clinton's political career was torpedoed by Trump.

I mean, we have seen stuff like this happen before in the past, somewhat rarely, but almost as a sort of rare but regular occurrence.

But, who knows?


----------



## Drew

Considering we've gotten as far as #6 as recently as last night, that's not exactly an impossible scenario.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> That district has been deeply red since at least the mid 90's. I don't see that changing now.



Right, I was thinking more in the way of even getting primaried out. I think Drew's got a point, local politics have taken on a more national focus, so I don't necessarily see the local party doing anything to disturb their relationship with the POTUS but traditionally, it wouldn't be uncommon for someone to run a "what are you doing about our roads and our taxes?" primary campaign against a guy spending so much time on stuff beyond his district.


----------



## Drew

California's new primary structure made is pretty unlikely he'd get primaried - no party primaries, all candidates compete, the top two vote-getters move on to the general election, regardless of what party they're from. Anyone THAT unpopular that they were facing a serious competitor from their own party, would likely be unpopular enough that the other party would be polling well too, and I'd - pure speculation - say a more likely outcome would be two Democrats on the board, than another Republican and a Democrat each getting more votes than Nunes. 

Though, worth noting - Nunes had 49% of the vote as of the last poll at the end of June. That's WAY down from the 58% he had in the primary in early-mid June. I think that makes it really hard to argue that this is a "safe" seat for Republicans - be it the macro environment, the candidates, or both, Nunes is losing ground fast.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew - anyone stepping forward as leader of anything attached to the GOP is going to have to do a lot of political farting and dancing, or else end up in a sacrificial position. I think that's just how the party is operating at the moment. There is too much internal friction and the only thing to lube the political machine whilst Trump is president is through the blood of their own careers. Even if Nunes rides this storm out, he'll have two more years of this storm through which to struggle. If not, whoever is tagged "it" next is going to be pretty much in the same boat. It might just play out that no one from the GOP is going to want to challenge him at this moment, since it would be a gambit. Who knows?

Also, this Manafort trial is turning into quite a mess, isn't it. I heard that the prosecutor had special written permission to have a witness in the courtroom during another witness's testimony, then the judge reneg'd and told the jury to disregard that witness's testimony. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, regardless.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also, this Manafort trial is turning into quite a mess, isn't it. I heard that the prosecutor had special written permission to have a witness in the courtroom during another witness's testimony, then the judge reneg'd and told the jury to disregard that witness's testimony. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out, regardless.


He backtracked today, after the transcript showed he HAD, in fact, given approval. The guy sounds like a bit of a loose cannon, constantly hassling the prosecution to hurry up, etc. 

That notwithstanding, the trial doesn't seem to be going all that well for Manafort.


----------



## Drew

No good source for this since it just came across the Bloomberg feed and it'll take a little longer to trickle into the more formal media channels, but in Omarosa's rapidly-escalating public feud with Trump, she just claimed in an interview that Trump was aware of the DNC hacked emails _before_ they were released by Wikileaks, and that she'd spoken about the matter with Mueller. 

I can't say she's someone I've been overly impressed with during or after her tenure with Trump in general, but what she HAS impressed me with so far is that she's been pretty thorough about documenting most of the claims she's made, right up to and including secretly recording Kelly threatening her while he was firing her, and having a secretly recorded conversation of a number of colleagues discussing the alleged tape of Trump using a racial slur she released after those same colleagues denied having heard of that tape. So, this could get interesting.


----------



## Drew

Getting buried by the news that Huckabee Sanders "can't guarantee" Trump didn't use a racial slur on tape during the filming of the Apprentice, but: 



> Manigault Newman also disclosed that she has been interviewed by the office of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is probing Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination with the Trump campaign.
> 
> “There’s a lot of corruption that went on both in the campaign and in the White House and I’m going to blow the whistle on all of it,” Manigault Newman said.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.66f82cc2c4c3


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.66f82cc2c4c3


Need a sub to WP to read that particular article by the looks of it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Xaios said:


> Need a sub to WP to read that particular article by the looks of it.



Should work if you open it incognito/private depending on your browser.


----------



## Drew

I mean, I quoted the pertinent part, but the part behind the headline:



> White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Tuesday that she couldn’t guarantee that the American people will never hear President Trump uttering the n-word on an audio recording, as a former senior White House adviser continued a publicity tour to promote her new book depicting the president as a racist.
> 
> The briefing by Sanders came after Trump referred to the former adviser, Omarosa Manigault Newman, as “that dog” in a morning tweet.
> 
> “I can’t guarantee anything, but I can tell you that the president addressed this question directly,” Sanders said. “I can tell you that I’ve never heard it.”



Unless Sanders misspoke, to me that reads like 1) either she, or someone in her presence, asked him about the rumors of him being recorded using a racial slur on tape, and 2) he at a minimum didn't _deny_ it when he addressed the question. Or, yeah, the tape probably exists, or existed at some point.


----------



## bostjan

I really wonder what the context was of the word. I think we all know, at this point in time, that he said it. That alone, I'm sure, would be cause for some of his supporters to turn away. If he used it in a particularly hateful way, I imagine that he could lose support from everyone except the white nationalists and closet white nationalists.

The other side of this is the simple fact that Trump has had no problem flat-out lying to the news agencies in the past. Either his staff is starting to throw him under the bus, or else he thinks that this is no big deal. And, I hate to be this cynical, but maybe he's not entirely wrong. Growing up in racially integrated Detroit city and experiencing the closeted bigotry there first hand several times, and then moving into more segregated Indianapolis, and experiencing the not-so-closeted bigotry there, and then moving all around and seeing fairly uniform attitudes everywhere, I'm not convinced that your average white anglo-saxon protestant american would care. 

...and we will probably never know. Trump's already in a lot of trouble with everything else he has going on, which is all imploding in on him at the same time. If he manages to get re-elected in 2020, then he's going to be completely and totally bulletproof for the next four years after that. But, I mean, we are talking about a guy who made fun of a reporter for having congenital joint problems, then went on to win election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> That alone, I'm sure, would be cause for some of his supporters to turn away.



My sweet summer child...



Seriously though, I think you're pretty much on point.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> ... I'm not convinced that your average white anglo-saxon protestant american would care. .


I'm honestly unsure if an audio or video recording of Trump using a racial slur surfacing would weaken or solidify his support among the GOP these days. Not saying the latter in that, "hey, he's a racist like us!" or anything like that, but more that these days I could see the GOP somehow being capable of the sort of mental gymnastics it would require to turn the use of a racial slur into something admirable.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> I'm honestly unsure if an audio or video recording of Trump using a racial slur surfacing would weaken or solidify his support among the GOP these days. Not saying the latter in that, "hey, he's a racist like us!" or anything like that, but more that these days I could see the GOP somehow being capable of the sort of mental gymnastics it would require to turn the use of a racial slur into something admirable.


Are you joking? It's hardly any new kind of mental gymnastics. You've already seen it a billion times.

_He's candid! He's not worried about political correctness! The Liberal Deep State Jew Globalists are trying to censure free speech and turn America into 1984!_


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Are you joking? It's hardly any new kind of mental gymnastics. You've already seen it a billion times.
> 
> _He's candid! He's not worried about political correctness! The Liberal Deep State Jew Globalists are trying to censure free speech and turn America into 1984!_


I DO think, though, that this would be a _substantial_ escalation of the ability to justify Trump's faults as signs of character. America has unfortunately had a sordid enough history with open racism that tolerance for it today is pretty low - systematic racism, dog whistles about inner city crime, sure, we're cool with that, but straight up dropping racial slurs against a group we used to consider property is beyond the pale.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> I DO think, though, that this would be a _substantial_ escalation of the ability to justify Trump's faults as signs of character. America has unfortunately had a sordid enough history with open racism that tolerance for it today is pretty low - systematic racism, dog whistles about inner city crime, sure, we're cool with that, but straight up dropping racial slurs against a group we used to consider property is beyond the pale.



I get what you're saying, and I do hope you're right, but I had also thought that with regards to bragging about sexually assaulting women...


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I get what you're saying, and I do hope you're right, but I had also thought that with regards to bragging about sexually assaulting women...


...which ALMOST ended his candidacy, and probably would have if the Comey letter hadn't allowed him to shift the focus a week before the election.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> ...which ALMOST ended his candidacy, and probably would have if the Comey letter hadn't allowed him to shift the focus a week before the election.


Trump can say anything, and his followers will continue following him:



Trump said:


> If Hillary can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?





Trump said:


> I've said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.





Trump said:


> All of the women on _The Apprentice_ flirted with me – consciously or unconsciously. That's to be expected.





Trump said:


> 26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military – only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men and women together?





Trump said:


> When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.



Our president, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, but what I've been saying is I think there's a difference, right or wrong, between any of that and using a racial slur, in the eyes of most of America.

I mean, the nice thing is the tape is almost CERTAIN to leak now, since Sanders basically confirmed it exists, so we'll get to find out.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Trump can say anything, and his followers will continue following him:
> 
> Our president, ladies and gentlemen.



I read all these in Zapp Branigan's voice.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I read all these in Zapp Branigan's voice.


There's good people on both sides, except the neutrals. I hate these filthy Neutrals, Ivanka. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

StevenC said:


> There's good people on both sides, except the neutrals. I hate these filthy Neutrals, Ivanka. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.


----------



## Drew

Cohen took a plea deal:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html

Meanwhile, the Manafort jury is reportedly struggling to reach a consensus on a single count, and Ellis has indicated he'll be willing to accept a hung jury on just that single count. Considering Manafort didn't really present a defense...


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Cohen took a plea deal:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html
> 
> Meanwhile, the Manafort jury is reportedly struggling to reach a consensus on a single count, and Ellis has indicated he'll be willing to accept a hung jury on just that single count. Considering Manafort didn't really present a defense...



But without language that would indicate cooperation with the investigation team. I'm not well versed enough in law to know if that's necessarily a good or bad thing.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Cohen took a plea deal:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/michael-cohen-plea-deal-trump.html



I was going to reply to this on MG but decided to do it here, since it's glorious and has a higher likelihood of upsetting people over here 

To people with some level of objectivity, that's obviously a huge deal. The biggest one being the campaign finance charge because his argument (and the bulk of the ancillary Trump arguments) has been that Trump has very loving and loyal friends who were always watching out for him and cleaning up their messes of their own volition and from their own pockets. The campaign finance charge means the campaign, in an official capacity, made this decision and paid this money which opens up a LOT of other ways this can go.

Not that a plea or even pending (potentially) guilty verdict (potentially) will sway Trump's supporters. I've already heard several times over again plea deals are all about people saving their own asses and guilty verdicts are a miscarriage of justice from a rigged system. I don't mean this in an insulting way, I mean it in an entirely objective way, but I don't think there's ANYTHING, literally ANYTHING they can see that would effect either their beliefs about what did/didn't happen within the Trump campaign or whether or not any of that matters. Their faith is in the man individually and 'good' or 'bad' is entirely subjective based on if it was he that did it.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I don't mean this in an insulting way, I mean it in an entirely objective way, but I don't think there's ANYTHING, literally ANYTHING they can see that would effect either their beliefs about what did/didn't happen within the Trump campaign or whether or not any of that matters. Their faith is in the man individually and 'good' or 'bad' is entirely subjective based on if it was he that did it.


I don't disagree - I think we would need concrete evidence of Trump making some sort of tit-for-tat agreement to agree to do something concrete that ran against US foreign policy (for example, offer to lift Russian sanctions in retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine) in return for releasing the hacked DNC emails, either email confirmation, an audio or video recording, etc. And even _then_ it would at least initially not sway Trump's staunchest defenders, who would likely just say what's the big deal, Trump was just exposinfg the Truth about Clinton, etc. Over time I'd expect Fox et al would turn on him over that and his base would erode, but that would take time

And, bingo, Manafort was found guilty on 8 of the 18 counts, the remaining 10 were a mistrial due to a hung juryt. Reporters were literally RUNNING out of the courtroom a moment ago.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

Story on Manafort: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...43eefab5daf_story.html?utm_term=.7c41e6cc3f4b


----------



## StevenC

JSanta said:


> But without language that would indicate cooperation with the investigation team. I'm not well versed enough in law to know if that's necessarily a good or bad thing.


Cohen isn't a very credible witness because of some previous perjury, and the FBI raided his office so probably have all they need anyway.


----------



## narad

I'm honestly not bothering to stay too up-to-date on the progression here but this is certainly a provocative front page:






And I enjoyed this comment on it:

_What a time to be alive. Sorry, I meant Canadian. What a time to be Canadian!_


----------



## JSanta

StevenC said:


> Cohen isn't a very credible witness because of some previous perjury, and the FBI raided his office so probably have all they need anyway.



I think that makes rational sense - the data exists and therefore the individual is really not necessary from a determining guilt or innocence prospective.


----------



## bostjan

If you boil down each side's argument, what would it be?

Here's my best guess:

Trump's detractors - Trump was elected by some sort of shenanigans, and he's lying about it all to cover it up. It's disgraceful for the nation in general and something needs to be done.

Trump's supporters - Trump was elected fair and square. It's disgraceful for so many people to be accusing him of a crime when no crime was committed.

I think.

It's my opinion that Trump's winning of the election does actually boil down to some sort of shenanigans, but that Trump's personal involvement in it is once removed and also more subtle, and it'll be difficult to convince people who see in black and white that Trump himself did something wrong in that; however, the lying and cover-up stuff is pretty clear. I think that you never actually accuse someone of a crime until you have some sort of proof, but I think you can still suspect someone of something without accusing them, and you can look into things to try to figure it out one way or the other.


----------



## thraxil

JSanta said:


> I think that makes rational sense - the data exists and therefore the individual is really not necessary from a determining guilt or innocence prospective.



Cohen might not be the most credible witness ever and they probably want to avoid relying on him testifying in court, but it's still useful for them to have him cooperating. There are bound to be things that aren't documented or that aren't clear in whatever evidence they've collected and Cohen can help them connect the dots. Eg, he might know who was on the other side of various wire transfers that are otherwise hard to trace. He'd be considered reliable enough to get a subpoena for financial records that they otherwise wouldn't have known to go after.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Trump's winning of the election does actually boil down to some sort of shenanigans, but that Trump's personal involvement in it is once removed and also more subtle



I'll do you one further: I don't think Donald Trump thought he was doing something absolutely illegal. 

The guy has existed in legal gray area almost his entire adult life. He's the master of not-illegal-but-probably-should-be business. 

He probably knew he was doing something _wrong_, just not _illegal_. 

But, being stupid isn't an excuse.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'll do you one further: I don't think Donald Trump thought he was doing something absolutely illegal.
> 
> The guy has existed in legal gray area almost his entire adult life. He's the master of not-illegal-but-probably-should-be business.
> 
> He probably knew he was doing something _wrong_, just not _illegal_.
> 
> But, being stupid isn't an excuse.



I think you're exactly right - but ignorance of the law is more than likely not a valid excuse in front of a judge. His argument about not obtaining anything on Clinton at the Russia meeting completely validates your opinion IMO - he doesn't understand that failure to obtain the data doesn't exclude the action from being a conspiratorial action.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> I think you're exactly right - but ignorance of the law is more than likely not a valid excuse in front of a judge. His argument about not obtaining anything on Clinton at the Russia meeting completely validates your opinion IMO - he doesn't understand that failure to obtain the data excludes the action from being a conspiratorial action.



It's probably why him and his team are so nervous about sitting down and talking to Mueller on record.

He's just doesn't understand the complex laws and the nuance of them to _not_ say something incriminating. 

That's made even more obvious by the fact that he doesn't really understand what "perjury" actually means.


----------



## JSanta

It will be very telling what he says and does over the coming days. Even more telling will be what the congressional majority will say or do.

Max - I updated my post a bit because I had the wording on my part of bit confused.


----------



## bostjan

So, something I didn't hear in the news last night nor this morning:

Manafort was also already awaiting another trial already, evidently, which, IMO, is more interesting to this general narrative that is unfolding. Those charges are expected to include money laundering, providing false information to federal investigators, and lobbying for a foreign government. That, on top of the fact that he was acquitted of exactly zero of the original 18 charges (10 were mistrial by hung jury, so he has to face those again, most likely), means that this is really just the beginning of the end. Already facing up to 80 years, things are certainly not looking good for him ever being a free man. I guess he could potentially get a pardon from Trump or a light sentence. But, even if he gets hit with the minimum fines and no prison time, he's still got two more trials coming up, from the look of it.

All of the tax fraud/bank fraud stuff looks bad for Trump, but probably not enough to really change anyone's mind. Mueller reportedly has much more evidence and more witnesses to nail Manafort over the money laundering, lying to the FBI, and foreign lobbying trial. I think the news will have pretty close eyes on that as it develops.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> It will be very telling what he says and does over the coming days. Even more telling will be what the congressional majority will say or do.
> 
> Max - I updated my post a bit because I had the wording on my part of bit confused.



The republican controlled congress isn't going to do anything. Ever. 

Losing the majority, and by a big enough margin to cancel out Trump friendly democrats, is the only way there's going to be a chance we'll see action on any of this.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> The republican controlled congress isn't going to do anything. Ever.
> 
> Losing the majority, and by a big enough margin to cancel out Trump friendly democrats, is the only way there's going to be a chance we'll see action on any of this.



And (wishful thinking on my part), I'm hoping voters see that inaction as a protection of a person instead of the office - which should scare the hell out of them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> So, something I didn't hear in the news last night nor this morning:
> 
> Manafort was also already awaiting another trial already, evidently, which, IMO, is more interesting to this general narrative that is unfolding. Those charges are expected to include money laundering, providing false information to federal investigators, and lobbying for a foreign government. That, on top of the fact that he was acquitted of exactly zero of the original 18 charges (10 were mistrial by hung jury, so he has to face those again, most likely), means that this is really just the beginning of the end. Already facing up to 80 years, things are certainly not looking good for him ever being a free man. I guess he could potentially get a pardon from Trump or a light sentence. But, even if he gets hit with the minimum fines and no prison time, he's still got two more trials coming up, from the look of it.
> 
> All of the tax fraud/bank fraud stuff looks bad for Trump, but probably not enough to really change anyone's mind.



I thought I read that Mueller's team had already setup charges in NY, which Trump can't pardon. 

The GOP and thier supporters tend to have a blindspot regarding white collar crime.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I thought I read that Mueller's team had already setup charges in NY, which Trump can't pardon.
> 
> The GOP and thier supporters tend to have a blindspot regarding white collar crime.



News to me. I know there was some back-and-forth over search warrants, but I don't see how any of the charges Manafort is facing, nor the convictions, could be anything other than federal jurisdiction, which are all pardonable by the President.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ul-manafort-trial-guilty-verdict-trump-pardon


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> News to me. I know there was some back-and-forth over search warrants, but I don't see how any of the charges Manafort is facing, nor the convictions, could be anything other than federal jurisdiction, which are all pardonable by the President.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ul-manafort-trial-guilty-verdict-trump-pardon



Apparently the SDNY has been actively investigating Manafort since at least the end of last year.

I was mistaken with the Mueller connection, he gave a bunch of evidence to the SDNY in relation to lobbyists, but Manafort wasn't specifically named.

Another interesting Vox article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...784/manafort-charges-trial-trump-pardon-power


----------



## Randy

I had a long post written up last night but it was meandering. 

The short version though, I've held that Republican attitudes toward Trump were going to correlate with his favorability in their districts and how close to the election you're asking; the glaring omission being it would NOT be effected by their personal positions or anything resembling what's objectively ''right" or "wrong".

The only thing that's gummed the up was during the special elections when he and his surrogates made it known that if they weren't fully supportive (and vocal in their support) of Trump, they were going to be aggressively primaried out of their seats. That threat, and how effective Trumpism was in those primary races, definitely moved the 'safe date' for Republicans to start distancing themselves from him back by a year, if at all.

That all said, you've got most Republicans already through their primary races and the absolutely most damning evidence against the standard bearer of their party to date. How the party handles this now will be VERY interesting but, IMO, still not reflective of their personal feelings on the president.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Here's my best guess:
> 
> Trump's detractors - Trump was elected by some sort of shenanigans, and he's lying about it all to cover it up. It's disgraceful for the nation in general and something needs to be done.


The only element of nuance I'd add is that I think, as a detractor, it's not necessary that said shenanegans were actually responsible for changing the _outcome_ of the election, just that they were clearly in violation of the law and intended to _try_ to sway the outcome of the election. 


bostjan said:


> So, something I didn't hear in the news last night nor this morning:
> 
> Manafort was also already awaiting another trial already, evidently, which, IMO, is more interesting to this general narrative that is unfolding. Those charges are expected to include money laundering, providing false information to federal investigators, and lobbying for a foreign government. That, on top of the fact that he was acquitted of exactly zero of the original 18 charges (10 were mistrial by hung jury, so he has to face those again, most likely), means that this is really just the beginning of the end. Already facing up to 80 years, things are certainly not looking good for him ever being a free man. I guess he could potentially get a pardon from Trump or a light sentence. But, even if he gets hit with the minimum fines and no prison time, he's still got two more trials coming up, from the look of it.
> 
> All of the tax fraud/bank fraud stuff looks bad for Trump, but probably not enough to really change anyone's mind. Mueller reportedly has much more evidence and more witnesses to nail Manafort over the money laundering, lying to the FBI, and foreign lobbying trial. I think the news will have pretty close eyes on that as it develops.


Yeah, the Manafort conviction matters to the Mueller investigation because 1) it doesn't provide grounds for Trump to call it a witch-hunt with an acquittal, 2) pro-Kremlin groups in the Ukraine were the source of the money that Manafort was convicted of hiding from the IRS (which sets up nicely a money-laundering charge in the state courts), and 3) it begs the question, if Manafort was in such dire financial straits that he was commiting bank fraud, why was he offering to manage Trump's campaign as an unpaid volenteer? These are all awkward questions, as is the fact Trump's campaign manager is now a convicted felon, but in and of themselves they're not particularly damning. The state trial cuts a little closer to the heart of the Mueller investigation. Cohen, of course, is a different animal, and straight-up accused Trump of being a co-conspirator. 



Randy said:


> The short version though, I've held that Republican attitudes toward Trump were going to correlate with his favorability in their districts and how close to the election you're asking; the glaring omission being it would NOT be effected by their personal positions or anything resembling what's objectively ''right" or "wrong".


I've been arguing this for a LONG time - with Trump's approval at 41%, he's not getting impeached, no matter what evidence of criminal activity we have. With Trump's approval at 18%, even the GOP will likely impeach him. Taking it a step further, I think as long as organizations like Fox News continue to defend him, either directly or by selective reporting (their breaking news push notification from the Manafort verdict was "Mistrial declared in 10 counts in Manafort trial" with no reference to the fact there were 8 other counts, and he was guilty in all of them), then his numbers will hold up relatively well with Republicans and he's safe, but if Fox turns on him, he's toast. And I think you have to draw a line between Fox commentators and Fox viewers, in that the former, whatever their political views, are still part of the coastal Washington elite, and are going to be a little more receptive than, say, a farmer in Iowa, to evidence of collusion with an enemy state and realizing that yes, offering to weaken and reverse sactions on Russia over Ukraine if elected in return for the Kremlin releasing hacked DNC emails really IS a big deal. And if they turn on him, then their listeners will follow.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And if they turn on him, then their listeners will follow.



I'm going to have to see evidence of that. The handful of Trump people I'm at all "close" with were on Trump's side when he refused to participate in he Fox News debate and talked up how they're another "fake news" "lamestream media" organization, despite swearing by them the other 51 weeks out of the year. And they miraculously snapped back to only trusting the channel when he started talking them up again. There's also the handful of newscasters on that channel who offer anything even resembling unbiased commentary (Shep Smith and occasionally Wallace), and even in occurrences like that, I'll get "Ugh, why do they let that liberal on this channel anyway?"

To date, I haven't seen a time Fox or one of it's commentators broke with Trump on an issue and that changed the viewership's mind or made them think differently of him in a negative way. Universally, 100% of the time, they side with Trump. And if I may be a little controversial, I'd argue the psychology of the type of person that watches a channel like Fox News is such that the idea of putting their faith in an individual far outweighs their faith in a news network. By design.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm going to have to see evidence of that. The handful of Trump people I'm at all "close" with were on Trump's side when he refused to participate in he Fox News debate and talked up how they're another "fake news" "lamestream media" organization, despite swearing by them the other 51 weeks out of the year. And they miraculously snapped back to only trusting the channel when he started talking them up again. There's also the handful of newscasters on that channel who offer anything even resembling unbiased commentary (Shep Smith and occasionally Wallace), and even in occurrences like that, I'll get "Ugh, why do they let that liberal on this channel anyway?"
> 
> To date, I haven't seen a time Fox or one of it's commentators broke with Trump on an issue and that changed the viewership's mind or made them think differently of him in a negative way. Universally, 100% of the time, they side with Trump. And if I may be a little controversial, I'd argue the psychology of the type of person that watches a channel like Fox News is such that the idea of putting their faith in an individual far outweighs their faith in a news network. By design.


You know, that's a fair point - I'm kind of operating under the assumption that the echo chamber networks like Fox have created by curating only positive news or spinning bad news in a positive light or at least downplaying it is a large part of the resiliance of Trump's approval amongst republicans, that they're simply not being exposed to a lot of the really ugly stuff that's coming out. I think that's a _reasonable_ assumption... but that's not necessarily the same as it being correct. I hope we do get to find out, and I really hope I'm not wrong, because I'm not sure what the next step is if even Fox is saying, "Hey you guys, Trump committed treason!" and their viewers are all sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches to go after Clinton for even turning Fox to the lamestream media's evil ways.

EDIT - this is WAY too early to draw any conclusions from, but so far two polls inclusive of 8/21 survey dates have hit 538's Trump approval tracker, and his net approval margin has worsened by about a point. If that's a leading indicator and not noise in the data, the news on Cohen and Manafort may have rattled a few supporters or undecideds. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I had a long post written up last night but it was meandering.
> 
> The short version though, I've held that Republican attitudes toward Trump were going to correlate with his favorability in their districts and how close to the election you're asking; the glaring omission being it would NOT be effected by their personal positions or anything resembling what's objectively ''right" or "wrong".
> 
> The only thing that's gummed the up was during the special elections when he and his surrogates made it known that if they weren't fully supportive (and vocal in their support) of Trump, they were going to be aggressively primaried out of their seats. That threat, and how effective Trumpism was in those primary races, definitely moved the 'safe date' for Republicans to start distancing themselves from him back by a year, if at all.
> 
> That all said, you've got most Republicans already through their primary races and the absolutely most damning evidence against the standard bearer of their party to date. How the party handles this now will be VERY interesting but, IMO, still not reflective of their personal feelings on the president.



Everything you say is correct, but I'm not sure why I should expect anything other than masked denial from the GOP in general.



Drew said:


> The only element of nuance I'd add is that I think, as a detractor, it's not necessary that said shenanegans were actually responsible for changing the _outcome_ of the election, just that they were clearly in violation of the law and intended to _try_ to sway the outcome of the election.
> 
> Yeah, the Manafort conviction matters to the Mueller investigation because 1) it doesn't provide grounds for Trump to call it a witch-hunt with an acquittal, 2) pro-Kremlin groups in the Ukraine were the source of the money that Manafort was convicted of hiding from the IRS (which sets up nicely a money-laundering charge in the state courts), and 3) it begs the question, if Manafort was in such dire financial straits that he was commiting bank fraud, why was he offering to manage Trump's campaign as an unpaid volenteer? These are all awkward questions, as is the fact Trump's campaign manager is now a convicted felon, but in and of themselves they're not particularly damning. The state trial cuts a little closer to the heart of the Mueller investigation. Cohen, of course, is a different animal, and straight-up accused Trump of being a co-conspirator.



Well, it's simple, but we can make it complicated. I think that the GOP used typical shenanigans, which should be evident any time one candidate is elected but not by popular vote, IMO. So, there was shenanigans, and whether Trump was elected by the exact shenanigans he was trying to employ to get elected, or by someone else's shenanigans, I think it's worth looking into and figuring out how to stop it from happening again. But, yeah, you're right.



Drew said:


> I've been arguing this for a LONG time - with Trump's approval at 41%, he's not getting impeached, no matter what evidence of criminal activity we have. With Trump's approval at 18%, even the GOP will likely impeach him. Taking it a step further, I think as long as organizations like Fox News continue to defend him, either directly or by selective reporting (their breaking news push notification from the Manafort verdict was "Mistrial declared in 10 counts in Manafort trial" with no reference to the fact there were 8 other counts, and he was guilty in all of them), then his numbers will hold up relatively well with Republicans and he's safe, but if Fox turns on him, he's toast. And I think you have to draw a line between Fox commentators and Fox viewers, in that the former, whatever their political views, are still part of the coastal Washington elite, and are going to be a little more receptive than, say, a farmer in Iowa, to evidence of collusion with an enemy state and realizing that yes, offering to weaken and reverse sactions on Russia over Ukraine if elected in return for the Kremlin releasing hacked DNC emails really IS a big deal. And if they turn on him, then their listeners will follow.



Approval ratings are weird. The general public, or at least the ones who participate in approval polls, are clueless. George HW Bush held one of the highest approval rating peaks ever at almost 90% in the third year of his presidency, but by the next year, he had slipped to just over 30% and then lost his re-election bid.

Trump is so weird for a politician, that it's very difficult to predict anything to do with the guy. I would have thought that both democrats and republicans in DC would have hated him, since he's so far from the "establishment," and there's a lot to hate about him. He's a sleazy businessman turned reality TV villain turned politician. I don't know how in the hell you can spin that in any way that glorifies that. And what is he doing to get his approval scores up? That farce with North Korea? Maybe I can see how that could work on some folks, but the whole deal is still pending and remains on thin ice, and I don't really hear people ever bring it up. Trump was supposed to fix the manufacturing sector of the US economy, and all I see there is a manufacturing sector that has been trying to repair itself being impeded by revenge tariffs that were a direct result of Trump's cockiness.

Is Trump the worst president? IDK, I wouldn't rule it out yet. GWB was pretty horrible, IMO; people glorified him after 911, even though he did nothing to stop it, and his reaction to the tragedy was 100% hair-brained and made no logical sense. Terrorism today is just as scary, if not scarier, than before the War on Terror. Trump, so far, hasn't had his War on Terror, but, aside from that, he's a lot like Bush. He's embarrassing to have out in public, he misspeaks a lot, and his buddies are all white-collar criminals.


----------



## bostjan

Slow-mo double post.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I would have thought that both democrats and republicans in DC would have hated him, since he's so far from the "establishment," and there's a lot to hate about him.



They fucking love him! All of them. On both sides.

All the shitty, racist old GOP ghouls get to be just as terrible as they always wanted to be, while the less insane, and more self serving get to act like mavericks or "adults in the room" (see objectively terrible politicians Jeff Flake and John McCain). And all the others that can't be lumped into either are just happy to have a Republican in the seat to get all thier agendas passed.

The left loves having a corrupt, moron to fight against. But, just like in the Bush II days, they're not nearly as effective as they could be. Oh well. 



> He's a sleazy businessman turned reality TV villain turned politician.



Cut out the middle part and you have the majority of the politicians in DC.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Well, it's simple, but we can make it complicated.
> 
> Approval ratings are weird. The general public, or at least the ones who participate in approval polls, are clueless. George HW Bush held one of the highest approval rating peaks ever at almost 90% in the third year of his presidency, but by the next year, he had slipped to just over 30% and then lost his re-election bid.


With shenanagans, it's more that I think it's a lower bar than "changed the outcome of the election" that the Trump opposition is arguing for. 

With approval numbers, GHWB benefitted strongly from the Iraqi war and a "rally around the flag" effect. He was right around breakeven prior to the war, spiked into the high-80s when war broke out and we secured a fast victory, and then fell off pretty rapidly after that. As to what brought him down from the 50s before the war into the high 20s, his low point corresponds almost perfectly with Hurricane Andrew and the government's perceived botched response, and while his approval numbers improved after that, it was too late for the election. So, it's maybe not a super nuanced understanding, but it's also not coming out of nowhere.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cut out the middle part and you have the majority of the politicians in DC.



Yeup. Also Trump fast tracked through all of the less glamourous political jobs.



Drew said:


> With shenanagans, it's more that I think it's a lower bar than "changed the outcome of the election" that the Trump opposition is arguing for.
> 
> With approval numbers, GHWB benefitted strongly from the Iraqi war and a "rally around the flag" effect. He was right around breakeven prior to the war, spiked into the high-80s when war broke out and we secured a fast victory, and then fell off pretty rapidly after that. As to what brought him down from the 50s before the war into the high 20s, his low point corresponds almost perfectly with Hurricane Andrew and the government's perceived botched response, and while his approval numbers improved after that, it was too late for the election. So, it's maybe not a super nuanced understanding, but it's also not coming out of nowhere.



I was still a kid when that happened, but from within my sphere of observation, the war was highly unpopular. I'm sure what you are saying explains exactly what happened nationwide. But it's just interesting to me how one city (Detroit) can be so different, politically, than the rest of the nation.

Coming full circle back to Trump, I can't see how he can be re-elected, short of running against a literal dumpster fire. But then again, he won the electoral vote by 14 points in 2016.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/22/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-indictment/index.html



Michael Cohen said:


> The president directed me to break the law



Oof.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeup. Also Trump fast tracked through all of the less glamourous political jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> I was still a kid when that happened, but from within my sphere of observation, the war was highly unpopular. I'm sure what you are saying explains exactly what happened nationwide. But it's just interesting to me how one city (Detroit) can be so different, politically, than the rest of the nation.
> 
> Coming full circle back to Trump, I can't see how he can be re-elected, short of running against a literal dumpster fire. But then again, he won the electoral vote by 14 points in 2016.


Whereas where I was, admittedly I was pretty young, but there was definitely a patriotic "our president, right or wrong," thing, and we kinda steamrolled Iraq, which didn't hurt either - the war was nominally over in like a week and a half. 

The same sort of thing happened after 9/11 - I certainly had issues with Bush's response, and on a college campus in the middle of Vermont there was clearly a sense that the Administration was getting something horribly, horribly wrong... But, his approval spiked up right after 9/11 to almost 90%, slowly trailed down into the mid-50s, and when we DID invade Iraq in March of 2003, jumped back into the low 70s. It's silly, it's not terribly nuanced... But it happens. 

I worry that if the Democrats run Warren or Sanders, Trump WILL get that second term. If he's still in office come 2020, which subjectively I'd say is less likely today than it was yesterday morning.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> If he's still in office come 2020



He will be. Better get on the train!


----------



## Drew

You know, I'm almost sorry we've run off the right-wing trolls, since I'd love to see what sort of contortions they're twisting themselves into to justify yesterday as a good thing.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Whereas where I was, admittedly I was pretty young, but there was definitely a patriotic "our president, right or wrong," thing, and we kinda steamrolled Iraq, which didn't hurt either - the war was nominally over in like a week and a half.
> 
> The same sort of thing happened after 9/11 - I certainly had issues with Bush's response, and on a college campus in the middle of Vermont there was clearly a sense that the Administration was getting something horribly, horribly wrong... But, his approval spiked up right after 9/11 to almost 90%, slowly trailed down into the mid-50s, and when we DID invade Iraq in March of 2003, jumped back into the low 70s. It's silly, it's not terribly nuanced... But it happens.
> 
> I worry that if the Democrats run Warren or Sanders, Trump WILL get that second term. If he's still in office come 2020, which subjectively I'd say is less likely today than it was yesterday morning.



Maybe I sound like a broken record, but, there have been famous experiments, where people guess 2/3rds of the average of guesses, within the limits of integers 0 to 100. If people all guessed randomly, the average would be 50, so you would want to guess 33. If you assume people will think of that and guess 33, you should guess 2/3rds of that, or 22. If you assume people will think of that, you'd want to guess 2/3 of that, and you can go on and on recursively, until you get to 0. So, the smartest answer that assumes people all "get it" is zero, but this has been done IRL, and the winning number was 21, meaning that, on average, people only think of the first order of the strategy. In other words, for every person who thinks of a higher order strategy, someone else doesn't even get to first base, so to speak.

My point is that, on average, people are really not that clever when they make choices. If a monetary prize is on the line, they put exactly one modicum of thought into their choice, on average. I assume that voters are not going to put any more thought into their votes, on average, so there we go.

But, on the other hand, Warren and Sanders have a lot of appeal with some specific people. I think a significant number of the people who didn't love Trump in 2016 were too disillusioned by HRC, and so we got Trump. I think that Sanders in 2016 might have done maybe just as well, but there are some things that cancel each other out, I'm assuming. I could be wrong.

Trump, on the other hand, I just don't get. I've noticed people around here backing off their support of him a little now. I don't know how much that would carry over into the voting booth, but I'd say it's safe to assume that number is greater than zero, potentially. I think he's going to have a hell of a tough time getting re-elected. But I guess: a) can't write anything off and b) a lot can happen in the next two years.


----------



## bostjan

double postsskiy, komrade


----------



## Explorer

bostjan said:


> I think that you never actually accuse someone of a crime until you have some sort of proof, but I think you can still suspect someone of something without accusing them, and you can look into things to try to figure it out one way or the other.


Just as a reminder regarding proof, Giuliani admitted back on May 2nd that Trump had repaid Cohen for the illegal campaign contribution. That's a party admission, and admissable as non-hearsay evidence in court.


----------



## thraxil

I've been busy and while I've followed the news, I haven't really been following what people are writing about the news. But I'm still a little surprised that since Cohen plead guilty, I haven't seen anything talking about his mention in the Steele dossier. Remember that? It was alleged that Cohen visited Prague during the campaign to meet with Russian agents. The Trump camp has been denying it ever since. I wonder if we'll hear anything more about that now that he's likely cooperating with Mueller.


----------



## StevenC

I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of Michael Cohen before, but when I read his name I picture Barry Zuckerkorn.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of Michael Cohen before, but when I read his name I picture Barry Zuckerkorn.


I always picture someone who looks like Bob Odenkirk:


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of Michael Cohen before, but when I read his name I picture Barry Zuckerkorn.



Who do you think they're going to get to play him in the movie they're going to make out of this?


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I've been busy and while I've followed the news, I haven't really been following what people are writing about the news. But I'm still a little surprised that since Cohen plead guilty, I haven't seen anything talking about his mention in the Steele dossier. Remember that? It was alleged that Cohen visited Prague during the campaign to meet with Russian agents. The Trump camp has been denying it ever since. I wonder if we'll hear anything more about that now that he's likely cooperating with Mueller.


That has been tentatively confirmed, back in April. Or, at least, reportedly has been confirmed, though Mueller is keeping his cards close to his chest. But certainly if Cohen were to testify and confirm he'd in fact met with Russian agents and took over for Manafort as the Trump/Russia point person after Manafort was let go, then yeah, that's pretty huge.


----------



## bostjan

They just said on the radio (NPR) that Trump is telling the press that he's looking into abolishing plea deals, across the board. I'm not sure how much of that report is hyperbole, but at this point, there's not much that would surprise me coming out of him.

Also, I just saw my first Trump 2020 bumper sticker.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> They just said on the radio (NPR) that Trump is telling the press that he's looking into abolishing plea deals, across the board. I'm not sure how much of that report is hyperbole, but at this point, there's not much that would surprise me coming out of him.
> 
> Also, I just saw my first Trump 2020 bumper sticker.


I've actually seen a couple.  If he gets impeached that'll get awkward.  

The quote I heard was something to the effect of "they should almost be illegal," which isn't quite the same as "they should be abolished," but I could see him warming up to that.


----------



## Randy

I'm sure law enforcement is going to love not having that tool in their arsenal, considering plea deals are a standard feature in pretty much any case that involves more than one person.

Of all the narcissistic overreaching and rule twisting he's done to try and benefit himself individually, this is without a doubt the worst.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm sure law enforcement is going to love not having that tool in their arsenal, considering plea deals are a standard feature in pretty much any case that involves more than one person.
> 
> Of all the narcissistic overreaching and rule twisting he's done to try and benefit himself individually, this is without a doubt the worst.


Yet, his supporters, who are also pro-law-and-order, will probably eat it up.


----------



## bostjan

Without plea deals, no defendant would have any incentive at all to avoid a trial, so expect the state to spend a shit-ton more money on trials.

The entire idea of doing away with plea deals is absolutely ridiculous in any sort of state which presumes innocence until proven otherwise. I suppose Trump's statement was just idle talk, but if anything policy-wise comes of this, say goodbye either to all of the public's tax money (as the cost of the average conviction goes sky high) to basic freedom (as people are coerced into pleading guilty since there is no longer any incentive to do so).


----------



## bostjan

Has anyone had time to read the charges against the Russian hackers? ( https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download )

There are a few things that I find interesting:

1. The charges are extremely descriptive and include a lot of information that does not seem necessary. This information seems particularly targeted at the Trump campaign, IMO.
2. The charges for hacking the DNC email server are listed as Identity Theft and Cyberterrorism.
3. They are also charged with conspiring to hack the voting system.

It's an old document, but this is the first chance I had to read it.

I still have some trepidation over the whole DNC hacking thing. The DNC is a political party, not a government agency. It seems that everyone seems to be blurring those together. Hacking the DNC emails in order to get damaging information on HRC that probably should have been publicly investigated by law enforcement anyway does seem to me to have a bit of a Robin Hood aspect to it. Sometimes Robin Hood gets caught by the sheriff and suffers the consequences, but that doesn't make him a villain. But, when some of Robin Hood's merry men also try to hack into the voting system, their credibility goes right into the toilet, and the fact that they were paid in untraceable currency for their efforts really erodes the sincerity and makes clear that the motivation of this was monetary gain, not necessarily justice.

And that's the most interesting thing in all of this - who is on the US side of this? Mueller put those quotes of conversations between the hackers and the "known or unknown" person paying them right there in the charges. This is speculation, but could that be done in order to pique public interest? Whoever paid these guys from the US side is certainly closely attached to these charges, but that person or persons is/are not named. The totally unnecessary information in the charges about how bitcoin can be tracked by investigators and how the identities of the parties involved in payment are pieced together seem really verbose and overly unnecessary in this sort of document, but to me, it seems like a very thinly veiled memo to whomever that person is, saying rather clearly that the investigators know...

Intriguing? Or am I going too far out on a limb?


----------



## Drew

So, I don't spend a lot of time reading charges, so I don't really don't know what the typical level of detail is in documents like this. Is this really atypical? Or is this fairly normal, especially when referencing things like Bitcoin, where it may not be safe to assume that a district judge has a working familioarity with Bitcoin?

I think the DNC and the RNC _are_ in a grey area. They are not government agencies, absolutely... but, as major political party organizations, they're also pretty clearly major parts of the process by which we determine who gets to be a part of the government, and they're a clear point of vulnerability for anyone seeking to influence the voting process or the government. I know you don't _like_ this and are opposed to the power of political parties and "the two party system," and think that this _shouldn't _be the case... But I also think that, from a purely pragmatic, functional standpoint, it's hard to argue that it ISN'T the case. I think a descriptor like "quasi-government organization" is probably not far off the mark, since they clearly have a large amount of power to shape the process through which we _select_ candidates. It's like Thomas Pynchon's third or fourth Proverb for Paranoids; "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't even have to worry about the answers." If you can manipulate the process that determines who gets to run, then who cares who wins?

What I've seen of Mueller has me thinking it's probably _not_ a coded messagge to whoever paid these guys. I'm not sure what it costs to pay someone to hack into a quasi-governmental organization, but of course it bears mentioning that part of the Trump Organization's payment to Cohen was for a $50,000 reimbursement for technology services provided by a 3rd party... That seems too small, and would tie the whole thing up in a bow too neatly, but it it was part of a larger reimbursement, well, the Trump organization and Manafort didn't exactly come across as terribly sophisticated in the court decisions in the past week. And with the CFO being granted immunity, if there was any involvement from the Trump Organization, we'll probably hear about it.

I mean, let's not underestimate the importance of that last bit, the CFO of the Trump Organization getting an immunity deal. Trump's _fucked._ Even my Republican colleague who I was discussing impeachment probabilities earlier this week and who was sure nothing incriminating was going to come out of the Mueller investigation and Trump would finish his term greeted that news when it broke on CNBC with "say hello to President Pence." There's just too much smoke.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> Has anyone had time to read the charges against the Russian hackers? ( https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download )
> 
> There are a few things that I find interesting:
> 
> 1. The charges are extremely descriptive and include a lot of information that does not seem necessary. This information seems particularly targeted at the Trump campaign, IMO.
> 2. The charges for hacking the DNC email server are listed as Identity Theft and Cyberterrorism.
> 3. They are also charged with conspiring to hack the voting system.
> 
> It's an old document, but this is the first chance I had to read it.
> 
> I still have some trepidation over the whole DNC hacking thing. The DNC is a political party, not a government agency. It seems that everyone seems to be blurring those together. Hacking the DNC emails in order to get damaging information on HRC that probably should have been publicly investigated by law enforcement anyway does seem to me to have a bit of a Robin Hood aspect to it. Sometimes Robin Hood gets caught by the sheriff and suffers the consequences, but that doesn't make him a villain. But, when some of Robin Hood's merry men also try to hack into the voting system, their credibility goes right into the toilet, and the fact that they were paid in untraceable currency for their efforts really erodes the sincerity and makes clear that the motivation of this was monetary gain, not necessarily justice.
> 
> And that's the most interesting thing in all of this - who is on the US side of this? Mueller put those quotes of conversations between the hackers and the "known or unknown" person paying them right there in the charges. This is speculation, but could that be done in order to pique public interest? Whoever paid these guys from the US side is certainly closely attached to these charges, but that person or persons is/are not named. The totally unnecessary information in the charges about how bitcoin can be tracked by investigators and how the identities of the parties involved in payment are pieced together seem really verbose and overly unnecessary in this sort of document, but to me, it seems like a very thinly veiled memo to whomever that person is, saying rather clearly that the investigators know...
> 
> Intriguing? Or am I going too far out on a limb?



I just came across this article that I think in a way answers why Mueller may be using the tactic(s) he's using: http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-speaking-indictments-offer-clues-to-strategy


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I just came across this article that I think in a way answers why Mueller may be using the tactic(s) he's using: http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-speaking-indictments-offer-clues-to-strategy


Huh. I stand corrected, maybe he IS sending messages.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> So, I don't spend a lot of time reading charges, so I don't really don't know what the typical level of detail is in documents like this. Is this really atypical? Or is this fairly normal, especially when referencing things like Bitcoin, where it may not be safe to assume that a district judge has a working familioarity with Bitcoin?



Charges are typically concise. This reads at the level of detail more like a set of articles for a political impeachment than a list of criminal charges.



Drew said:


> I think the DNC and the RNC _are_ in a grey area. They are not government agencies, absolutely... but, as major political party organizations, they're also pretty clearly major parts of the process by which we determine who gets to be a part of the government, and they're a clear point of vulnerability for anyone seeking to influence the voting process or the government. I know you don't _like_ this and are opposed to the power of political parties and "the two party system," and think that this _shouldn't _be the case... But I also think that, from a purely pragmatic, functional standpoint, it's hard to argue that it ISN'T the case. I think a descriptor like "quasi-government organization" is probably not far off the mark, since they clearly have a large amount of power to shape the process through which we _select_ candidates. It's like Thomas Pynchon's third or fourth Proverb for Paranoids; "If you can get them asking the wrong questions, you don't even have to worry about the answers." If you can manipulate the process that determines who gets to run, then who cares who wins?



Well, yeah. I guess the point I was trying to make in my post is that, either way, I think we are beyond that now. If I hacked into the DNC email server because I wanted to provide the American public with the truth and go down as a social justice martyr, then I wouldn't be accepting bitcoin payments from some sketchy guy in a trenchcoat in order to do it, and I certainly would not be hacking into the voting database to try to fuck up the election results, either.



Drew said:


> What I've seen of Mueller has me thinking it's probably _not_ a coded messagge to whoever paid these guys. I'm not sure what it costs to pay someone to hack into a quasi-governmental organization, but of course it bears mentioning that part of the Trump Organization's payment to Cohen was for a $50,000 reimbursement for technology services provided by a 3rd party... That seems too small, and would tie the whole thing up in a bow too neatly, but it it was part of a larger reimbursement, well, the Trump organization and Manafort didn't exactly come across as terribly sophisticated in the court decisions in the past week. And with the CFO being granted immunity, if there was any involvement from the Trump Organization, we'll probably hear about it.



I dunno, I've been on those website where you hire people before. You can get an album mastered for $17, you can get a bushel of fake facebook likes for a handful of pennies, so I wouldn't be _too_ surprised if you could hire someone to hack the DNC email server for $50k. 

Starting with paragraph 59, there is a lot of detail over how they chased the bitcoin through blockchain, through fake accounts, through a company in Romania, through more fake accounts, and finally to the defendants. That's the sort of thing that would bore a jury to tears during the presentations of evidence during a trial, not the sort of thing you see in an indictment. I am probably wrong, but it really seems to me like a very wordy way to beat around the bush and say "whoever paid these guys, we traced this back to you, so we know, and we got you." I guess a big part of that, though, is also the fact that the public hasn't been told.



Drew said:


> I mean, let's not underestimate the importance of that last bit, the CFO of the Trump Organization getting an immunity deal. Trump's _fucked._ Even my Republican colleague who I was discussing impeachment probabilities earlier this week and who was sure nothing incriminating was going to come out of the Mueller investigation and Trump would finish his term greeted that news when it broke on CNBC with "say hello to President Pence." There's just too much smoke.



How crazy, though, would it be, if Trump _did_ manage to get plea deals completely taken off the table, then ended up leaving office and having himself or his cronies brought up on serious charges without a chance to plea deal or pardon them (or himself)?



JSanta said:


> I just came across this article that I think in a way answers why Mueller may be using the tactic(s) he's using: http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-speaking-indictments-offer-clues-to-strategy



Hmm, gee, maybe I was right about something for once. I guess even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.


----------



## JSanta

For what it's worth, I found that article to be very eye opening with respects to how an investigation like this works. I was a bit too young to really remember what happened during the Clinton administrations, and the article I thought was particularly intriguing.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/ex-trump-lawyer-told-mueller-trump-is-too-dumb-to-testify

This is pretty scathing: 



> "Dowd then explained to Mueller and Quarles why he was trying to keep the president from testifying: “I’m not going to sit there and let him look like an idiot. And you publish that transcript, because everything leaks in Washington, and the guys overseas are going to say, ‘I told you he was an idiot. I told you he was a goddamn dumbbell. What are we dealing with this idiot for?’"



tl;dr - Trump's lawyer painted Trump testifying in the Mueller probe as a national security risk, because foreign nations might read the transcript and realize he's a fucking idiot. This from Bob Woodward, who made a name for himself in a little investigation of minor import known as "Watergate."


----------



## tedtan

Yeah, the last couple of weeks look to have been pretty damning for Trump. But we'll still have to wait and see, if any, action comes of it.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> Yeah, the last couple of weeks look to have been pretty damning for Trump. But we'll still have to wait and see, if any, action comes of it.



Still standing by my position that I don't think an impeachable offense that happened BEFORE he came into office will come to the surface. There's a narrow path for obstruction and related violations but I still don't see that ending his term early.

The part about all of this that is not just possible/theoretical, but real, is how much this effects his chances of re-election and how big a shadow this casts over the mid-terms. I'm not guaranteeing anything (Dems gonna Dem) but the Republicans used to have a little room to wiggle away from Trump depending on his reputation leading into he mid-terms but now they're chained to him inseparably, and every negative piece of press that hits him becomes a reflection of them.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Still standing by my position that I don't think an impeachable offense that happened BEFORE he came into office will come to the surface. There's a narrow path for obstruction and related violations but I still don't see that ending his term early.
> 
> The part about all of this that is not just possible/theoretical, but real, is how much this effects his chances of re-election and how big a shadow this casts over the mid-terms. I'm not guaranteeing anything (Dems gonna Dem) but the Republicans used to have a little room to wiggle away from Trump depending on his reputation leading into he mid-terms but now they're chained to him inseparably, and every negative piece of press that hits him becomes a reflection of them.



To your first point... I'd say from a simple Bayesian standpoint, the probability of something impeachable from before he came into office is certainly _higher_, given that Flynn has had to step down for undisclosed conversations with Russia that he previously denied, Sessions has had to recuse himself due to undisclosed meetings with Russia that he previously denied, after Trump Jr. had a meeting with Russians offering dirt during the election which he first didn't disclose and then tried to dismiss as about adoption matters, before pre-empting the Times story by releasing the email chain, etc... Like, if you assigned a probability on the morning after the election that Trump had done something impeachable with Russia, I think updating your priors with all the above _has_ to lead to that probability having increased, you know? From there, it's just a matter of what your initial probability was and how much you've had to adjust it, but considering some of those were pretty low-probability events (Trump Jr. enthusiastically responding to an email from people purporting to be Russian agents offering dirt on Clinton?), I think that the upwards adjustment from low-probability events having occurred has got to be reasonably material.

As far as the political fallout, Trump has certainly had a bad couple weeks, first with Cohen and Manafort, then with the NAFTA deal imploding after the Toronto Star leaked off-the-record remarks of his that he had no intention to offer concessions to Canada and was only not publicly saying that to not "insult" them, and then the revelations in the Woodward book. Looking at the 538 approval tracker, he's now at his lowest levels since February, if still a few percentage points above his all-time lows.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## Randy

The more the accusations in the Woodward book are substantiated and the more the NYT op-ed sinks in, we're absolutely going to reach new low approval numbers, book it.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> The more the accusations in the Woodward book are substantiated and the more the NYT op-ed sinks in, we're absolutely going to reach new low approval numbers, book it.



How does stuff like the Woodward stories get substantiated? Of course I loved reading such scathing stuff, but given it comes out in book form, there's so much incentive to embellish the truth. Will people just go around and ask others mentioned in the story to verify?


----------



## Randy

Basically. The Dowd story is the one that got the most attention, not just from how outlandish it is but also how it names names and very specific events. Wolf's book was damning but only went so far because nobody was willing to attach their name to the more absurd stories in there but Woodward's work seems more thoroughly vetted, his history makes him more trusted and we're also reaching a tipping point (as seen in the NYT op-ed, along with the Dowd story, along with the Magahn story, along with Cohen's cooperation) where it's more likely you'll see the rats jumping off the ship and not afraid to offer their stories and their names in plea for leniency.


----------



## Explorer

It's notable that four books and the NYT op-ed all agree on Trump's behavior. 

It's also notable that Trump addressed the act of submitting that op-ed with the word "treason," which is punishable by death. 

Trump et al already got spanked when they started claiming Omarosa was lying, leading to Omarosa actually playing tapes which proved Trump et al were lying. Woodward has even more credibility than Omarosa.


----------



## Randy

Explorer said:


> It's notable that four books and the NYT op-ed all agree on Trump's behavior.



That's another thing that stood out about the Woodward book and the NYT op-ed. 

One of the charges in the Wolf book was about his cabinet regularly having conversations about removing him via the 25th Amendment, to the point they started referencing it in shorthand like "oh, he's acting a little 25th today" but Wolf had no credibility and there was no evidence of dissent from within besides a small handful of leaks that seemingly got plugged.

The three together paint a picture of a cabinet that's completely aware of Trump's behavior and actively working to curtail it. It's worth noting that these are people voicing a fundamental distrust of the guy, and these are people hand picked by him, paid by him (well, tax payers but he's their boss), that work with him everyday and know a lot more than we do about what the guy say, does and thinks. If that's the reaction they have to him, I can only imagine the things they see.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> How does stuff like the Woodward stories get substantiated? Of course I loved reading such scathing stuff, but given it comes out in book form, there's so much incentive to embellish the truth. Will people just go around and ask others mentioned in the story to verify?


Woodford is also known to be very thorough about documenting claims and interviews with taped conversations. It's conceivable that he could choose to release a few recordings that substantiate specific points that Trump is denying. 

Meanwhile, I'd be curious if someone with a law background could weigh in on whether this moves the needle any on Kavanaugh: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage 

At a minimum, it seems like this significantly bolsters the argument that many emails were held back for political, and not security, reasons.


----------



## Drew

This guy's a fucking idiot. 



> The implementation of tariffs on $200 billion of products from China “will take place very soon depending on what happens,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Friday. “I hate to do this, but behind that there is another $267 billion ready to go on short notice if I want.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google 

Markets gapped down sharply on the news. This is after the entire US business community spent the last couple weeks lobbying him _not_ to move ahead with the first $200B, and when asked about it (the public comment period ended yesterday), he decided to drop _that_ bombshell.


----------



## Randy

Gary Cohn tho


----------



## Vyn

Drew said:


> This guy's a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...?utm_source=google&utm_medium=bd&cmpId=google
> 
> Markets gapped down sharply on the news. This is after the entire US business community spent the last couple weeks lobbying him _not_ to move ahead with the first $200B, and when asked about it (the public comment period ended yesterday), he decided to drop _that_ bombshell.



Any chance you guys can get him impeached or voted out next election? Australia has always been Pro US and it's biting us in the arse this time. Our dollar is getting bent over because of Trump's bullshit with China.


----------



## narad

Vyn said:


> Any chance you guys can get him impeached or voted out next election? Australia has always been Pro US and it's biting us in the arse this time. Our dollar is getting bent over because of Trump's bullshit with China.



Oh maaan. Time to buy another Oni.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Any chance you guys can get him impeached or voted out next election? Australia has always been Pro US and it's biting us in the arse this time. Our dollar is getting bent over because of Trump's bullshit with China.


For now we're focused on the midterms, in just under two months. The Dems have a pretty good chance to retake the house, though the Senate is going to be tough. After that, hopefully the House will be able to contain the damage. Nothing's for certain, though, and the fact Trump is entirely unperturbed by the prospect of further Russian electoral meddling (including a higher probability of actual system penetration this time around, considering we know they successfully breached one system, although made no changes, in 2016) is certainly not encouraging.


----------



## spudmunkey

"I'm the president of the united states, and just woke up on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks...one of the most poignant moments in American history. How shall I start the day, as my first communiqué to the American people? Hmm...what to do, what to do...

"Oh! I know! I'll tweet an unattributed quote about how nobody's found any Russian collusion, and then tag my friends over at Fox news. Yes. This is exactly what I should be doing.

"Oh, OK...I should probably say something about 9/11...but then two more tweets about how I'm being wronged.

"Hmm...how can I tie my administration to something pelple generally had a positive feeling about surrounding 9/11...hmm...I've got it!"



@realDonaldTrump said:


> Rudy Giuliani did a GREAT job as Mayor of NYC during the period of September 11th. His leadership, bravery and skill must never be forgotten. Rudy is a TRUE WARRIOR!



"Hmm...maybe I've been tweeting too little about 9/11. I bet people have forgotten all about it. I know, I should remind them"



@realDonaldTrump said:


> 17 years since September 11th!



"You're welcome for the history lesson, America."


----------



## narad

_Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
_

i.e., damn dude, you nailed it.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

spudmunkey said:


> pelple



_Someone_ was typing one-handed.


----------



## Drew

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ower-meeting-suspicious-transactions-agalarov

So, this is kind of interesting... Russian nationals connected to both Trump AND Putin made some very large, round-number transactions, shortly after the Trump Tower meeting, and again shortly after the election, moving money through a series of shell companies from offshore into the US.


----------



## Drew

So, how has no one mentioned that Manafort took a plea-deal?


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> So, how has no one mentioned that Manafort took a plea-deal?



I think at this point, between Manafort and Cohen, I'm waiting to see what happens. It's great there was a plea, but until something happens, I'm just refraining from speculation (or hope).


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I think at this point, between Manafort and Cohen, I'm waiting to see what happens. It's great there was a plea, but until something happens, I'm just refraining from speculation (or hope).


Cohen should be interesting, but primarily in terms of potential crime committed _outside_ any alleged Russian collusion - he was Trump's long-time fixer, and we already know of at least two women alleging they were paid off to silence them during the campaign.

Manafort, though... Manafort is the first witness Mueller now has who was inside the room for the Trump Tower meeting. The timing there is _extremely_ suspect - Trump started tweeting about news involving Clinton's wrongdoings shortly after Trump Jr. was contacted about the meeting, and it was only a few weeks after the meeting that the Wikileaks infodump occured. There were also some suspicious financial transactions that occurred around that time. If the DNC hack was actually discussed in this meeting, rather than Trump Jr.'s claim that it was about allegations that Russian nationals had donated to Clinton, and Manafort testifies to that effect or can provide evidence that this is what actually occured...

That's not even a smoking gun, that's a bullet.

EDIT - rereading your post... I don't think we'll hear anything further before the election, but I think the odds of something happening have risen substantially, wiith both Cohen and Manafort cooperating, and Popadoupalous getting a slap on the wrist (implying he also came to terms).


----------



## Drew

So, this is awkward: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

NY Times article, citing anonymous sources, alleges that Rosenstein was so concerned after comey's firing that he considered wearing a wire to secretly record his interactions with Trump, and that he, Sessions, and Kelly had discussions about invoking the 25th and removing Trump from office for being unfit. Rosenstein is denying the allegations, of course, and refusing to comment further. 

This could get tricky quickly, as Trump has made no secret of wanting to fire Rosenstein for not shutting down the Russia investigation, and would love to replace him with someone more "loyal." This could become his excuse.


----------



## tedtan

That would be a fast track to loosing any remaining GOP support he has and would almost certainly lead to impeachment.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> That would be a fast track to loosing any remaining GOP support he has and would almost certainly lead to impeachment.


I'm not convinced. If it was unprompted, absolutely. If, however, Trump had a plausible-enough cover story in the eyes of the GOP/Fox, such as Rosenstein very nearly invoking the 25th... They might look the other way.


----------



## Bentaycanada

tedtan said:


> That would be a fast track to loosing any remaining GOP support he has and would almost certainly lead to impeachment.



Highly unlikely, the GOP are nearly all on the Trump train at this point. Impeachment is being spread around a lot by the Dems, but you'd need significant support from the GOP, which won't happen. Then even if the Dems take the House in Nov and introduce articles of impeachment (like they did against Reagan in '87). The Senate, which will likely remain in GOP power, can vote it down.


----------



## thraxil

Bentaycanada said:


> Highly unlikely, the GOP are nearly all on the Trump train at this point. Impeachment is being spread around a lot by the Dems, but you'd need significant support from the GOP, which won't happen. Then even if the Dems take the House in Nov and introduce articles of impeachment (like they did against Reagan in '87). The Senate, which will likely remain in GOP power, can vote it down.



I think it depends on both what Mueller comes up with and how badly the elections go for the GOP. If they keep control of the Senate, it's mostly because the majority of seats that are up for re-election are held by Democrats. If it's really close and Mueller turns up some really compelling evidence, the Republican senators who are up in 2020 are going to have to make a hard decision on whether they want to stay associated with Trump or not. It will only take a few of them to show some spine and stand up for their country over the president.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> stand up for their country over the president party.



This is why it won't happen. They love their own power over country.


----------



## ExileMetal

This is a really long thread, 60 tweets, but mind-blowing. Corruption all the way down.

TLDR: Chuck Grassley's communications adviser coordinated a public relations firm that made a libelous hit piece on someone innocent to try to clear Kavanaugh's name.

https://twitter.com/warfarenavel/status/1043257382015524864


----------



## Bentaycanada

thraxil said:


> I think it depends on both what Mueller comes up with and how badly the elections go for the GOP. If they keep control of the Senate, it's mostly because the majority of seats that are up for re-election are held by Democrats. If it's really close and Mueller turns up some really compelling evidence, the Republican senators who are up in 2020 are going to have to make a hard decision on whether they want to stay associated with Trump or not. It will only take a few of them to show some spine and stand up for their country over the president.



I think you’re underestimating how much the GOP will put up with to hang on to power. They’ve stuck with Trump until now, I think they’re over the hill on anything he potentially does. 
I don’t think the Muller investigation will lead to anything regardless of how it looks. 
Every party in power loses in the mid terms, so that won’t be coming as a surprise to anyone. 

If you look at all the GOP candidates right now and Rep news stations (ie Faux), they’re all working towards next years Campaign trail for Trump. They’ve got together and got on message as one, which they’re very good at. The line is simple; “They (Dems) want socialism, open borders, to take your guns, and high taxes”. 

The Dems are busy pissing around with the Supreme Court nominee, the mid terms, the Muller investigation, and most of all “the impeachment” complete waste of time. 
If they want a chance in 2020 they need to get on point, get united and they won’t. Which is why I think Trump will win again in 2020, and the GOP Trump support is right behind him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bentaycanada said:


> I think you’re underestimating how much the GOP will put up with to hang on to power. They’ve stuck with Trump until now, I think they’re over the hill on anything he potentially does.
> I don’t think the Muller investigation will lead to anything regardless of how it looks.
> Every party in power loses in the mid terms, so that won’t be coming as a surprise to anyone.
> 
> If you look at all the GOP candidates right now and Rep news stations (ie Faux), they’re all working towards next years Campaign trail for Trump. They’ve got together and got on message as one, which they’re very good at. The line is simple; “They (Dems) want socialism, open borders, to take your guns, and high taxes”.
> 
> The Dems are busy pissing around with the Supreme Court nominee, the mid terms, the Muller investigation, and most of all “the impeachment” complete waste of time.
> If they want a chance in 2020 they need to get on point, get united and they won’t. Which is why I think Trump will win again in 2020, and the GOP Trump support is right behind him.





Who would have thought that the republicans were right about a civil war? They just got the analogy wrong (of course ).

I'm talking about the democratic party. Old, establishment dems vs. new, young progressives.

I'm all for more honest and progressive democrats, but it's going to be at the expense of not having focus.


----------



## Bentaycanada

MaxOfMetal said:


> Who would have thought that the republicans were right about a civil war? They just got the analogy wrong (of course ).
> 
> I'm talking about the democratic party. Old, establishment dems vs. new, young progressives.
> 
> I'm all for more honest and progressive democrats, but it's going to be at the expense of not having focus.



The problem is the Rep line they’re all repeating is largely complete bs. It’s just the usual proven method of fear being looped. 

For the Dems divide in new vs old, it just goes to prove how much they f*cked up undermining Sanders in 2016. But it’s not like all the new younger candidates are moving in the right direction. Some are very far left, which is no better then far right. 

The thing the Dems need to figure out is how to be united in their stance, left wing sure, but not ridiculous left. Above all, they need to be more hardline with it. On message, and immovable on that message. Basically, out-right the right in their tactic.


----------



## Explorer

I remember when Republicans loudly proclaimed themselves to be the party of law and order, and of family values. At this point, all my conservative family members have changed their party affiliation away from the GOP.

Here's a simple quiz:

One party claims a story is true, and wants an impartial investigation by law enforcement to establish the facts.

A second party claims that the story is false, but wants to prevent an impartial investigation by law enforcement to establish the facts.

Which party is probably telling the truth?


----------



## tedtan

*[Edit: Looks like Rosenstein is expecting to be fired today.]*



Drew said:


> I'm not convinced. If it was unprompted, absolutely. If, however, Trump had a plausible-enough cover story in the eyes of the GOP/Fox, such as Rosenstein very nearly invoking the 25th... They might look the other way.



I can see that approach potentially working, but it is still not a certainty.




Bentaycanada said:


> Highly unlikely, the GOP are nearly all on the Trump train at this point. Impeachment is being spread around a lot by the Dems, but you'd need significant support from the GOP, which won't happen. Then even if the Dems take the House in Nov and introduce articles of impeachment (like they did against Reagan in '87). The Senate, which will likely remain in GOP power, can vote it down.



I agree that the overall probability of Trump being impeached is pretty low IMO, but it increases significantly if Trump fires Rosenstein or Mueller.




Bentaycanada said:


> Which is why I think Trump will win again in 2020, and the GOP Trump support is right behind him.



I doubt this, but I was wrong about Trump being elected in the first place.

I see a shift to democrats in power starting with the dems taking the House in the mid terms (and an outside possibility of taking the Senate) and continuing through the next election where I think they'll hold onto the House and take the presidency (and possibly the senate).


----------



## Drew

Bentaycanada said:


> If you look at all the GOP candidates right now and Rep news stations (ie Faux), they’re all working towards next years Campaign trail for Trump. They’ve got together and got on message as one, which they’re very good at. The line is simple; “They (Dems) want socialism, open borders, to take your guns, and high taxes”.


...except, they're not. Almost point by point (barring socialism, which wasn't terribly effective against Obama when he was pushing for universal health care, and I don't see it doing much now, when it's going to be preserving universal health care), there are issues there.

Open borders, Trump's policies are actually fairly problematic for a lot of conservatives ON the border - McCain is dead and Flake is stepping down, but both were strongly against Trump's border policies because by and large their constituents are. DACA had broad bipartisan appeal as well, and Trump's crackdown on _legal_ immigration is drawing protest from the business wing of the party. This is actually a potential wedge issue for the left, even beyond the optics of "separating parents from children," which is not pretty.

Guns, eh, the most substantive gun control legislation we've seen this term has come from two Republican governors, Phil Scott in Vermont, and Rick Scott in Florida. There are also plenty of clips of Trump voicing support for more gun control immediately after Parkland, even though he eventually did flip flop to a plan to arm teachers. If the GOP were to choose a hill to die on, this wouldn't be my first choice.

High taxes? The Tax Cuts and Jobs act is so wildly unpopular with blue state Republicans that the "Tax Cuts 2.0" bill proposed in the house is being left to die there, because it seeks to make permanent the state and local income tax (SALT) deduction cap of $10k, which squarely hits high income earners in blue states. And, the bill that DID pass was primarily a corporate tax cut, and set the individual income taxes to phase out over time to meet reconciliation rules. As such, it hasn't really resulted in much additional take-home income for most Americans, and hasn't polled all that well with the general public, who see it as a handout to large corporations, who have predominately - as basically every serious economist or market commentator who wasn't part of the Trump administration predicted - used the cash for share buybacks. Meanwhile, thanks to the tax cuts, we're running a deficit that's expected to fall just shy of a trillion dollars in the current fiscal year. Personally, I think the less the GOP can talk about taxes this cycle, the better they'll be. They may have successfully turned the subject into a third rail in the eyes of the american public.

The GOP seems to be trying to settle on the message that "We need to protect our house and Senate majorities to protect Trump from impeachment," and indeed is talking FAR more about impeachment than the Democrats are... Which is problematic, since GOP internal polling suggests that Trump supporters are far more optimistic about the GOP's likelihood of holding onto the House in the midterms than independents and Democrats are (the fact Trump has been saying this all along and predicting a "red wave" certainly doesn't help), so the RNC is becoming worried about a very real risk of complacency keeping Republicans away from the polls. 



Bentaycanada said:


> For the Dems divide in new vs old, it just goes to prove how much they f*cked up undermining Sanders in 2016. But it’s not like all the new younger candidates are moving in the right direction. Some are very far left, which is no better then far right.


I'm in no hurry to rehash an old conversation here, but I think you're overestimating both how much "undermining" the DNC did in 2016, as well as how credible a candidate Sanders was in the first place. Also, if a 77-year-old independent is somehow the "new" side of the Democratic party, well... I'm not seeing it.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> *[Edit: Looks like Rosenstein is expecting to be fired today.]*


Story is they're now to meet on Thursday. What a circus - the only safe conclusion I think you can draw from this is whatever else is going on, the White House does NOT have control of the narrative here, since it's been more than three hours since the story first broke - a story that would be a potentially MAJOR development for the White House - and we're only just getting a white house statement on it now.


----------



## Drew

Bentaycanada said:


> Highly unlikely, the GOP are nearly all on the Trump train at this point. Impeachment is being spread around a lot by the Dems, but you'd need significant support from the GOP, which won't happen. Then even if the Dems take the House in Nov and introduce articles of impeachment (like they did against Reagan in '87). The Senate, which will likely remain in GOP power, can vote it down.


This is a more complicated question than I think you're giving it credit for. 

First, as I'd noted in a post a moment ago, the Democrats are actually by and large NOT talking about impeachment - most of the impeachment talk is coming from the right, as a reason to motivate people to vote to try to protect their congressional majorities. 

Second, I'd go so far as to say it's at least an even-money bet that most _congressional_ Republicans are not on the "Trump train," but because most Republican _voters_ are, they're extremely hesitant to distance themselves publicly from Trump. However, the potential gap is there, given either a shift in public support or a significant-enough development in the Russian investigation. 

Third, let's get this out of the way - the odds of the Democratic party picking up a 67-seat majority in the 2018 midterms is zero. Trump doesn't get impeached without Republican votes, and honestly for the good of the country Trump _shouldn't _get impeached without bipartisan support for doing so. 

Rather, I think one of two things is reasonably likely to happen: 

1) The Democratic Party takes control of the House in a sweeping blue wave election, and either fails to take control of the Senate, or does so by a single vote. In either case the outcome is similar; the Democrats now have "power of committee" to attack trump with, opening investigation after investigation into his personal business dealings, his probable violations of the emoluments clause, conflicts of interests of prominent members of his team, reopening the House Russia investigation, etc. Trump, at best, is hamstrung and rendered powerless, and at worst dies a death of a thousand cuts as his popular support deteriorates after greater and greater evidence of illegal business dealings in the Trump Organization as well as potential Russian collusion comes to light. This may end in impeachment if his public approval numbers collapse, but if not, it very likely renders him a powerless lame duck for the second half of his term, unable to do much more than rant over Twitter. 

2) Trump actually goes ahead and fires Rosenstein. Mueller, as a lifelong career intelligence agent, has very likely put his investigation on ice coming into the midterms. If Rosenstein goes and is replaced by a Trump loyalist, Mueller has a clock ticking over his head and he knows it. Expect a wave of indictments, including very likely Trump Jr, expect Trump to fire Mueller, and we go full constitutional crisis in what's basically a play-by-play rehash of the Sunday Night Massacre. If that were to happen, it might take until after the midterms, but I'd be comfortable betting that even with a 50-50 split in the Senate you'd get over 67 votes to impeach. 

......

Honestly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room for me is that there definitely comes a point where, with a boring, generic, religious conservative Republican like Pence waiting in the wings, Trump is worth more to the GOP dead than alive. You've already gotten a tax bill done, you can drop the trade protectionism and anti-immigration sentiment, you'll still get your conservative Supreme Court justices, and you don't have to deal with the juvenile Twitter rants, the personal drama of shady business dealings and paid-off-pornstars, and you lose the potential that there IS concrete evidence of collusion with a foreign power. And, that point is probably after the midterms are over and the next Congress is sworn in, at which point Pence is potentially elligible to serve out the rest of Trump's terms but still run as an incumbent for two of his own.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Story is they're now to meet on Thursday. What a circus - the only safe conclusion I think you can draw from this is whatever else is going on, the White House does NOT have control of the narrative here, since it's been more than three hours since the story first broke - a story that would be a potentially MAJOR development for the White House - and we're only just getting a white house statement on it now.



Yeah, it will be interesting to see how the White House tries to spin this. And how it plays out.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Honestly, the 800 pound gorilla in the room for me is that there definitely comes a point where, with a boring, generic, religious conservative Republican like Pence waiting in the wings, Trump is worth more to the GOP dead than alive. You... lose the potential that there IS concrete evidence of collusion with a foreign power. And, that point is probably after the midterms are over and the next Congress is sworn in, at which point Pence is potentially elligible to serve out the rest of Trump's terms but still run as an incumbent for two of his own.


It's worth remembering that Pence was in the room when Trump revealed his real reasons for firing Comey (to stop the Russia investigation), and then denied those reasons publicly. Pence supported the hiding of the obstruction of justice. As an attorney, Pence is held to a higher standard. 

I'm fairly certain the Democrats will be looking into this if they win at least one house of Congress.


----------



## thraxil

Explorer said:


> It's worth remembering that Pence was in the room when Trump revealed his real reasons for firing Comey (to stop the Russia investigation), and then denied those reasons publicly. Pence supported the hiding of the obstruction of justice. As an attorney, Pence is held to a higher standard.
> 
> I'm fairly certain the Democrats will be looking into this if they win at least one house of Congress.



Also, Pence was hand picked by Manafort. Apparently Manafort even lied to Trump about mechanical problems on his plane to force Trump to stay in Indiana long enough to meet him. If the investigation turns up enough dirt on Trump to force an impeachment, I don't think Pence will come out of it unscathed.


----------



## Drew

I'm counting on that too, but 1) I don't think lying in a public appearance, alone, will constitute obstruction of justice, unless it was an official statement of some sort, and 2) the fact Manafort wanted him doesn't automatically prove he's implicated.


----------



## Randy

I'm actually surprised at how little effort anybody's made to draw lines between Pence and any of this. Well, I say surprised because you'd think SOMEBODY would have been following that trail out of however many hundreds of journalists have been following this story for the last 2 years, but also not surprising considering the amount of tunnel vision that's been happening at the same time. I don't think I ever heard a single theory about "what happens if Rod Rosenstein RESIGNS instead of being fired?" until it was yesterday and we were being told it was happening.


----------



## Drew

That's a very good point.

I hate to say it, but maybe there IS something to be said for the "theory" that there's just SO much chaos coming out of the White House, that the media (not to mention the general public) is struggling to stay focused on any one thread or narrative.

Would it maybe be a better approach, re: media coverage, to rather than trying to keep pace with the White House, instead assign one repporter to work through the various permutations of Rosenstein and then stay on top of them, another to focus on Kelly and then stay on top of THOSE stories, etc, so rather than playing whack-a-mole there's someone actively thinking about "what could this have to do with Rosenstein" even when he's NOT in the news.

Then again, I think part of the reason we weren't speculating about Rosenstein resigning prior to yesterday, was that he's been pretty clear he WASN'T resigning, when asked, prior to yesterday.

Myself, mostly for professional reasons, with the China trade war blowing up the way it is, what I'd pay good money for is an update on where negotiations with Canada are oon a potential NAFTA replacement. China was supposed to fall to the wayside while we tried to wrap up NAFTA negotiations, after all, and that clearly hasn't happened.


----------



## synrgy

^Legitimate news reporting has been getting _hammered_ for the last couple of decades. Most newsrooms are still producing the same amount of content today that they were 20-30 years ago, with only a sixteenth of the staff size they had 20-30 years ago. Most papers' "White House Team" is one person, who's also the "World News Team" and the "Local News Team", etc. It's a mess. Nobody wants to pay for news, so they increasingly rely on advertising, so people are less inclined to read them due to the increased ad space... Vicious cycle.

TL;DR = In the old days, your idea is probably how it would have played out, but these days, they have neither the budget nor staff to do it that way.


----------



## Drew

synrgy said:


> ^Legitimate news reporting has been getting _hammered_ for the last couple of decades. Most newsrooms are still producing the same amount of content today that they were 20-30 years ago, with only a sixteenth of the staff size they had 20-30 years ago. Most papers' "White House Team" is one person, who's also the "World News Team" and the "Local News Team", etc. It's a mess. Nobody wants to pay for news, so they increasingly rely on advertising, so people are less inclined to read them due to the increased ad space... Vicious cycle.
> 
> TL;DR = In the old days, your idea is probably how it would have played out, but these days, they have neither the budget nor staff to do it that way.


The silver lining is, if anything, the Trump Administration has inadvertenty changed that. I'd been a NY Times subscriber for years, but I added a digital WaPo subscription early on in the Trump administration, after they broke the story on Flynn. I figure they're doing important work, they could probably use the money.


----------



## tedtan

Yesterday Trump addressed the UN General Assembly and began patting himself on the back (as is his typical MO). Of the things he said, one comment drew laughter from the other heads of state: “In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country”.



Presumably, this laughter was due to the fact that the other world leaders disagreed with Trump on this matter. However, the comment itself is not necessarily inaccurate, Trump just left off the qualifier(s) that would make it true, such as:

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of souring our relationships with our allies]*”, or

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of prostrating ourselves before our enemies]*”, or

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of convincing the uneducated rural masses that I am actually working on their behalf]*”, or

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of returning the country to our historical roots of racism and nationalism]*”, or

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of churning through presidential advisors and appointees]*”, or

“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country *[in the area of making utter fools of ourselves]*”.​
I could go on, but you get the point. It's not just a few of us libtards in this thread that think Trump is a fool, it's the entire world (aside from his supporters).


----------



## Drew

Trump isn't used to speaking in front of anything other than adoring audiences, plain and simple. A smarter man would have known better than to make such an outrageous hyped-up claim in front of the UN.

In other words, the woman that Avenatti represents came forward publicly today, and claims that she frequently saw Kavanaugh, Judge, and others lined up outside the bedroom at house parties to take turns with a passed-out or extremely drunk girl, and she herself was drugged and raped one night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.5346bd4bad6e

An allegation doesn't make it true... But that's pretty ugly, and way more concrete than what I was afraid Avenatti was going to come out with when he first made his claims yesterday.

PredictIt market bets now imply about a 2-in-3 probability that Kavanaugh will fail to be confirmed by the end of October, up from about even today and from a 9-in-10 chance he WOULD be confirmed a few short weeks ago.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> In other words, the woman that Avenatti represents came forward publicly today, and claims that she frequently saw Kavanaugh, Judge, and others lined up outside the bedroom at house parties to take turns with a passed-out or extremely drunk girl, and she herself was drugged and raped one night.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b1e46bb3bc7_story.html?utm_term=.5346bd4bad6e
> 
> An allegation doesn't make it true... But that's pretty ugly, and way more concrete than what I was afraid Avenatti was going to come out with when he first made his claims yesterday.



I had more faith in the accusers before...this sounds a bit odd. Everyone was aware there was a queue for abusing passed out girls, at multiple parties, and yet no one came forward about it / no bystander / no decent citizen to intervene?


----------



## thraxil

narad said:


> I had more faith in the accusers before...this sounds a bit odd. Everyone was aware there was a queue for abusing passed out girls, at multiple parties, and yet no one came forward about it / no bystander / no decent citizen to intervene?



I don't know. It sounds like the kind of thing that there were always vague rumors about happening with frats and football/rugby teams when I was in school. I was really distant from that kind of scene (the weird long-haired metalhead physics major did not get invited to many parties) so I don't know how much was exaggeration vs real criminal conduct. But other experiences made it clear that 1) frats/sports teams could get away with murder and the school would shield them from any kind of outside investigation and 2) girls that were sexually victimized in any way were extremely reluctant to come forward because they knew that it was unlikely that anything would be done and mostly they would be blamed for being drunk, being sluts, etc. and would become pariahs on campus. That was the late 90's and I suspect it was even worse in the early 80's.


----------



## narad

thraxil said:


> I don't know. It sounds like the kind of thing that there were always vague rumors about happening with frats and football/rugby teams when I was in school. I was really distant from that kind of scene (the weird long-haired metalhead physics major did not get invited to many parties) so I don't know how much was exaggeration vs real criminal conduct. But other experiences made it clear that 1) frats/sports teams could get away with murder and the school would shield them from any kind of outside investigation and 2) girls that were sexually victimized in any way were extremely reluctant to come forward because they knew that it was unlikely that anything would be done and mostly they would be blamed for being drunk, being sluts, etc. and would become pariahs on campus. That was the late 90's and I suspect it was even worse in the early 80's.



Yea, it's a bit tough to get into that 80s/90s mindset -- I keep forgetting it was so long ago. But still, I feel like there could certainly have been campus rumors that such organized things were happening, but it's weird that she corroborates it by saying she saw the queue on multiple nights (if I got that correct). I mean I remember there was a frat at my undergrad that was "known" to roofie girls and one night I also got suspiciously 10x more messed up there than I thought was appropriate for the amount I had. So I'm sort of believable of the rumor mill, and even of people being guilty of such rumors, but actually observing it seems a bit sketchy. 

I mean, I'm not going to go to bat for either side, I'd just like someone to come forward with something a bit more undeniable, and less that pushes it into the realm of conspiracy without any sort of substantiation.


----------



## Explorer

I grew up in that area in the '80s. I'm not surprised.

Just for an old story that shows how entrenched a lot of behavior was, I'll point out how the U of Maryland athletics program grappled with a privileged culture in the wake of Len Bias. The school enabled a lot of drug use, and gave athletes a lot of perks. That's in Prince George's County. 

Montgomery County has a *lot* of really rich people. The cities of Potomac, Chevy Chase and Bethesda are in MC. 

It took until just a moment ago for me to remember a female friend of mine telling me back in high school that she had been raped by two male classmates, MV. and SH, who were athletes. She didn't make a report because the victim was often blamed at that point. 

*sigh*


----------



## Explorer

narad said:


> I mean, I'm not going to go to bat for either side, I'd just like someone to come forward with something a bit more undeniable, and less that pushes it into the realm of conspiracy without any sort of substantiation.



So, using the standard that this is research for a possible job offer, not a criminal investigation...

One party wants an impartial FBI investigation, and took a polygraph. There is also substantiation of her naming Kavanaugh in talking about the alleged rape for years before the current situation, so only a time traveling conspiracy could plant those.

One side doesn't want an impartial FBI investigation. That same party also has refused to address the discrepancy between his current claimed behavior at the time, and his own contemporaneous accounts as documented in his yearbook, which substantiates the existence of the culture. The contemporaneous yearbook references also substantiate the misogyny.

Also, Kavanaugh buddy Judge, and other women, have testified or written about the culture.

It's a job interview, not a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

What do you think, when using that lesser standard?


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> So, using the standard that this is research for a possible job offer, not a criminal investigation...
> 
> One party wants an impartial FBI investigation, and took a polygraph. There is also substantiation of her naming Kavanaugh in talking about the alleged rape for years before the current situation, so only a time traveling conspiracy could plant those.
> 
> One side doesn't want an impartial FBI investigation. That same party also has refused to address the discrepancy between his current claimed behavior at the time, and his own contemporaneous accounts as documented in his yearbook, which substantiates the existence of the culture. The contemporaneous yearbook references also substantiate the misogyny.
> 
> Also, Kavanaugh buddy Judge, and other women, have testified or written about the culture.
> 
> It's a job interview, not a criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> What do you think, when using that lesser standard?



I don't think the job interview viewpoint really changes my conclusions -- basically I was viewing it from that perspective. I completely believe he's capable of doing it, and may even lean towards believing he did it, but there needs to be something more substantiated here. The type of substantiation one might find through further investigation, which I feel is warranted.


----------



## Vostre Roy

Don't really want to comment the political situation as a whole in your country, but it makes me laugh a bit to hear Trump being super stoked to meet North Korea's leader and then says that he declined meetin Canada's PM because he don't like how the NAFTA negociation, which he forced uppon Mexico and us, don't go as he planned.

Guess my next car will be japanese


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I don't think the job interview viewpoint really changes my conclusions -- basically I was viewing it from that perspective. I completely believe he's capable of doing it, and may even lean towards believing he did it, but there needs to be something more substantiated here. The type of substantiation one might find through further investigation, which I feel is warranted.



Couple quick things to unpack, but addressing that first. An investigation would be ideal but the body determining the process here were the ones that decided interviewing the two individuals and moving forward with an 'up or down' vote was their choice. I think the issue Explorer (and I as well) are having trouble with in your argument is that it implies an 'innocent until proven guilty' burden of proof, which is fine, except the procedure was deliberately rushed to prevent that oversight, and phrasing the lack of an investigation as unfair to the accused is completely missing the context of the fact he allowed and even insisted on it playing out this way. If anyones forced to make a decision on incomplete evidence, that's on him and on them.

That out of the way, I think the guy is a creep even if you don't get it to the (alleged) rapist stuff and the abortion rights stuff. Even if we were talking about a supreme Court appointment from a Democratic president, I'd be offended by the ideological fetish this guy has for the unchecked rights and powers of the president based on is anecdotal experience in that branch. The guy's penchent for extremist ideological arguments that exist only in a vacuum should be enough to creep people out about the guy.

Also, will he get an up and down vote? Probably. Will he be confirmed in that vote? Barring the unforseen, almost certainly. But the process to FORCE a vote before the midterm is so dripping with politics in a way that unilaterally makes the majority party look bad, they're almost certainly signing their ticket out of town.

Not brought up especially often is the fact that, though a supreme Court appointment is for life, they can be impeached and even the threat of impeachment is enough to get someone to step down. With the potential for Democrats to win at least one and maybe both houses and the very real chance that, if Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct is as pervasive as it's being billed, there are more victims and more evidence that will see the light of day and pressure for him to give up his seat anyway.


----------



## Xaios

Vostre Roy said:


> ...and then says that he declined meetin Canada's PM because he don't like how the NAFTA negociation, which he forced uppon Mexico and us, don't go as he planned.


Indeed, "declined" a meeting which the Canadian government has confirmed that they never requested in the first place.


----------



## Vostre Roy

Xaios said:


> Indeed, "declined" a meeting which the Canadian government has confirmed that they never requested in the first place.



Oh yeah, someone's lying for sure, but who could that be... lol


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I had more faith in the accusers before...this sounds a bit odd. Everyone was aware there was a queue for abusing passed out girls, at multiple parties, and yet no one came forward about it / no bystander / no decent citizen to intervene?


I mean, it seems pretty crazy...

...but I had a long conversation with a friend who went to a private girl's school maybe 10-15 years ago, and accordingly met a lot of guys from private boys' schools. I won't get into details of the conversation, but the tl;dr version is she would be more surprised if stuff like this HADN'T been happening at parties with guys from wealthy private boys' schools, based on her experience. I won't get into the details of said experience, but the whole conversation left me vaguely nauseated. 

Now, this was all 20 years after Kavanaugh. If she says that Kavanaugh and his prep school bros were drugging women and gang raping them at parties in the 80s... Then yeah, I'd call that credible and worth further research.


----------



## Drew

Vostre Roy said:


> Don't really want to comment the political situation as a whole in your country, but it makes me laugh a bit to hear Trump being super stoked to meet North Korea's leader and then says that he declined meetin Canada's PM because he don't like how the NAFTA negociation, which he forced uppon Mexico and us, don't go as he planned.
> 
> Guess my next car will be japanese


Yeah, sorry man. We think he's a lunatic, too.

In other news, my subjective sense, bolstered by reports Trump is currently ranting that if he'd known Ford would "seem so credible, he never would have let the hearing go forward" and reports that even Fox is now voicing reservations about Kavanaugh... I think Kavanaugh is toast. It's hard to see anything he could say in his testimony that would undo the damage Ford just did.


----------



## Randy

How this ends has yet to be seen but this played out in pretty much the worst possible way for Republicans. Still waiting for Kavanaugh's testimony, but the news this morning said the person working with him on his prep said he was very "angry". I'm sure the guy has more restraint than to express that in a hearing of this magnitude but considering how compelling Dr. Ford's testimony was, coming out of this unscathed will be like trying to thread a needle with your eyes closed.


----------



## tedtan

There have been several cases in the past 5 years or so where college members of various football teams, frats, etc. have been convicted in criminal courts (requiring a higher standard of evidence) of this type of "gang rape the drunk/roofied girl" here in the US, so this is absolutely a thing that actually happens.




Drew said:


> In other news, my subjective sense, bolstered by reports Trump is currently ranting that if he'd known Ford would "seem so credible, he never would have let the hearing go forward" and reports that even Fox is now voicing reservations about Kavanaugh... I think Kavanaugh is toast. It's hard to see anything he could say in his testimony that would undo the damage Ford just did.



CNN is reporting that "Fox News Sunday moderator Chris Wallace said 'this is a disaster for the Republicans'" and that Trump has been unusually quiet in the White House.

And from what I've read, it looks like Flake and some other more moderate republicans will probably flip and not support Kavanaugh. So this might have actually worked.


----------



## Drew

Kavanaugh, in his confirmation hearing, painted himself as an impartial, dispassionate caller of balls and strikes iin the court of Constitutional law. 

Kavanaugh, today, is furious to the point of barely remaining articulate, is frequently in tears, is lashing out at the Committee Democrats, accusing them of character assassination, calling these proceedings a national disgrace... In short, taking a hyper-partisan, extremely emotional approach to his testimony. 

Regardless of whether or not this is an effective way to convince viewers that the Ford (et al) allegations are untrue... I really don't see how this is an effective strategy to convince potential swing votes like Flake, Collins, and Murkowski that Kavanaugh should be seated on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Xaios

What I heard on the news this morning is that Flake plans to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.


----------



## vilk

What I can't figure out is why anyone assumed Republicans would even care whether the guy raped anyone. Did we forget who they elected president, the guy who openly brags about sexually assaulting women? They'd make Cosby a judge if he were white.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> What I can't figure out is why anyone assumed Republicans would even care whether the guy raped anyone. Did we forget who they elected president, the guy who openly brags about sexually assaulting women? They'd make Cosby a judge if he were white.


I think for the sake of ballparking his odds of confirmation, this is a moot point. 

I think what we SHOULD be focused on is whether Collins and Murkowski, and to a far lesser extent maybe Manchin, care. I'd add Flake to this list, but...


----------



## spudmunkey

Xaios said:


> What I heard on the news this morning is that Flake plans to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.



According to www.whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com :
*Sen. Jeff Flake voted "yes" on Kavanaugh's committee approval, but asked that the full Senate "delay the floor vote […] in order to let the FBI continue to do an investigation."*


----------



## tedtan

Yeah, it appears that Flake's yes vote to pass Kavanaugh from committee to the floor was conditioned upon an FBI investigation (no more than a week long) into the sexual assault allegations of at least Blasey Ford. Without the investigation, he will be a no vote on the floor.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Yeah, it appears that Flake's yes vote to pass Kavanaugh from committee to the floor was conditioned upon an FBI investigation (no more than a week long) into the sexual assault allegations of at least Blasey Ford. Without the investigation, he will be a no vote on the floor.


Over and above that, Collins and Murkowski are reportedly taking the position that they will only consider supporting the nomination after a full FBI investigation, and if an investigation doesn't occur then they're no votes.

I think that's a savvy move on their part - it gives them cover from the left and the right. If they vote no, it's not because they're opposed to Kavanaugh _per se_ but because they want to see due process followed after serious allegations. It's probably their least-bad option right now. And, I'm of the mindset that if an investigation occurs, it's awfully hard to see something that undercuts Kavanaugh's testimony NOT coming out, especially when Judge begins being interviewed by the FBI under oath. If nothing else, based on his prior public statements, Kavanaugh was clearly lying about his drinking, and while I don't think they'll go after him for perjering himself on the subject of having ever gotten blackout drunk, the fact he was willing to lie under oath about that weakens the rest of his testimony.

Betting markets are showing the liklihood of him getting confirmed dropping from 80% to 60% on the news - I've already got (a small amount of) money riding on this one, but if I didn't I'd say that's an attractive proposition. I'd say the odds are now quite a bit lower than that.


----------



## Explorer

Jeff Flake claimed that if Kavanaugh lied while under oath, Flake will vote no.

After claiming under oath that the first Kavanaugh knew of the Ramirez accusations was the New Yorker story, it turns out Kavanaugh was contacting friends prior to the story's release to get support denying it. NBC has the text messages, and apparently the GOP senators had refused to accept the proof that Kavanaugh had perjured himself last Thursday.

Also, Kavanaugh's name surfaced in a police report from 1985 about a bar fight, according to the NYT. Kavanaugh started the fight, and one of Kavanaugh's friends at the time told Bloomberg that going out with Kavanaugh inevitably led to Kavanaugh being drunk and belligerent.

I look forward to Flake walking back his promise, and the GOP ignoring the perjury *and* the witness tampering.


----------



## tedtan

Explorer said:


> I look forward to Flake walking back his promise, and the GOP ignoring the perjury *and* the witness tampering.



I don't know that he will. Flake is retiring from the senate, so he doesn't have to appease the voters or the GOP. That's what gave him the freedom to insist on the investigation last Friday, and it gives him the freedom to vote against Kavanaugh for perjury (or any other reason). He clearly has a conscience, unlike some of his GOP colleagues (I'm looking at you, Lindsey Graham); let's hope that he also has the balls to vote for the good of his country rather than the benefit of his party when the time comes.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, Flake has been a vocal critic of Trump for some time now, but he belatedly seems to be realizing he actually has a fair amount of leverage here, and it's not like the opportunity costs of nominating basically anyone who hasn't been credibly accused of attempted rape to replace Kavanaugh are all that high. I mean, the odds of the GOP _not_ seating a 5th conservative judge are extremely low - I'm just no longer all that convinced it'll be Kavanaugh.


----------



## Drew

Also, betting market probabilities look a little... odd. PredictIt has about an implied 60% chance that Kavanaugh is seated before the end of October. However, they also have about a 75% probability that Flake supports his nomination, and about a 66% probability that Collins and Murkowski each individually support him. I didn't bother to look at the implied probabilities of any Democratic votes, because I think the probability of, say, Manchin being the 50th vote to seal his nomination is precicely zero, and the only way he gets Democratic votes here is if he has a majority anyway.

So, obviously these aren't independent probabilities, and if Collins or Murkowski were to vote yes, then the conditional probability that the other is ALSO a yes vote is higher... but if you pretend they are independent, then the probability of all three of them voting in any particular manner (which would be necessary with a 51 vote majority) is about 33%, which should be a floor here, and that's only a couple points below the market's 37% probability that Kavanough gets voted down.

Again, to actually truly assess this, you'd need to have some understanding of the conditional probabilities here and what the knowledge of, say, Flake being a no does to the liklihood of Collins being a no... But, this doesn't "feel" internally consistent to me. For one, a 63% probability of Kavanough being seated, given how fast this story is moving, seems too high. For another, considering Flake is being pretty honest about how if evidence comes out that Kavanough lied under oath that would be enough for his voting against his confirmation, Flake's numbers in particular look a little out of whack.

Idunno... The math here is a little complicated and involves some unobservable inputs... But, based on what IS observable, this doesn't seem to jive to me.

EDIT - and sure enough while I was writing that, the implied probability of Flake supporting him dropped from 75% to 62%. Maybe a large contract moved the odds temporarily out of whack or something, but having Flake, Collins, and Murkowski all at a little better than a 60% chance of supporting the nomination moves that floor down considerably to low 20s, and if so then the 37% probability has enough of a premium that it doesn't look so out of whack. Looks like I missed a clear arbitrage opportunity, since I was just about to go back and take the other side of that trade.


----------



## Explorer

Hmm.

Apparently, a staffer for the Repubiclan senators interviewed Kavanaugh on Sept 26, and asked about six more rape allegations which haven't yet become public. This is why the GOP senators were pushing to have a confirmation vote before these further allegations became public.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.26.18 BMK Interview Transcript (Redacted).pdf


----------



## Explorer

In other news, Trump is rich because he helped his parents commit tax fraud. The NYT investigative story has triggered a NY investigation.

That is all.


----------



## thraxil

Explorer said:


> In other news, Trump is rich because he helped his parents commit tax fraud. The NYT investigative story has triggered a NY investigation.
> 
> That is all.



Yep. Inherited at least $413 million dollars from daddy. Then went bankrupt 6 times. Great businessman.


----------



## Drew

May as well link the whole story:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

While it's unclear what if any criminal liability may come of this due to statue of limitations issues, NY tax authorities are investigating. _Civil_ penalties, however, have no statue of limitations, so there's probably a lot more to come here. Job well done to the Times, this is extremely thorough.


----------



## tedtan

I have followed Trump since the 90's as an interesting case study in "how the fuck is this guy a billionaire" and, while I haven't made it all the way through the NY Times piece yet, I am not surprised by what I am reading. He's been given (or borrowed) most (perhaps all?) of what he claims to have built from the ground up, takes credit for others' work, brags about himself nonstop, and bullshits his way into having the respect of many people (who I suspect are not skilled in the area of critical thinking).

I'm interested in how this investigation into his finances turns out. The Wizard of Oz may end up being revealed as the fraud that he is.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> He's been given (or borrowed) most (perhaps all?) of what he claims to have built from the ground up, takes credit for others' work



Some of this by his own admission. Might've even been during a debate but I remember during the primary when something came up about all the Trump brand bankruptcies and failing businesses, and Trump was quick to mention that some of those ventures were essentially spearheaded by another group entirely and they were just paying him licensing to put the name on the building. True or not, it does enter into question how much of his 'wealth' is legitimately based things he owns in full and how much of it is guesstimating all the stuff his name has touched.


----------



## BlackSG91

It seems like Donald proclaims he's a self-made billionaire but apparently he received large amounts of money from his father since he was a kid. He apparently got $413 million from his father through tax dodges, fraud, tax schemes, etc. I think this is another incredible revelation in the book of Trump. What are your thoughts?




;>)/


----------



## vilk

^the thing about that is, basically everyone had already assumed that about him before they voted to make him their leader.

Remember when he promised to release his taxes? And then never did it? And no one (who voted Republican) cared in the least?

Trump-o's say he's smart to pay as little taxes as possible. Filing bankruptcy over and over and over again shows that he's_ financially adept_. It's all just parroting of whatever they heard on Fox News anyhow. 

You could write an article about George Soros doing the exact same stuff and they'd throw a fit. They'd fill the comments section with misspelled, randomly capitalized exclamations calling for his imprisonment or execution. Change the name back to Donald Trump and he's a business genius.


----------



## jaxadam

vilk said:


> Remember when he promised to release his taxes? And then never did it? And no one (who voted Republican) cared in the least?



That's because he's under audit bro.

But at least he still has some of that money left over. I inherited 412 million from one of my second great cousins, but I already spent it all on Facebook likes!


----------



## vilk

jaxadam said:


> That's because he's under audit bro.



I know that you only make jokes in this thread, but just in case someone mistakenly believed you:

Trump’s tax attorneys said in March that his returns since 2009 were being audited. The IRS said nothing, including an audit, “prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.”
His tax attorneys said returns from 2002 to 2008 are no longer being audited. Neither are the returns from 1977 to 2002. Trump said he will still not release any of those returns because “they’re all linked.”
Multiple former IRS commissioners say audits are a bad excuse.
President Richard Nixon released his tax returns while under audit.
All major presidential nominees of the past 40 years have released their tax returns.
Trump can delay the completion of his audits.
As president, Trump will be automatically audited every year, an IRS practice in place for presidents and vice presidents since the 1970s.
Every elected president, dating back to Richard Nixon, has voluntarily released his tax returns each year.

----------


and just for fun:

*What Trump has said about his tax returns*


2011: Said he would release tax returns after President Obama released his long-form birth certificate
2014: Said he would “absolutely” release returns “if I decide to run for office.”
2015: “I would release tax returns. … Nobody knows the tax return world better than me.”
2015: Said he would release tax returns when “we find out the true story on Hillary’s emails.”
January 2016: Said he was ready to disclose his “very big … very beautiful” returns.
February 2016: Said he would release returns “probably over the next few months.”
February 2016: “I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three [years’ worth] now so I can’t.”
February 2016: Responding to claims he has a “bombshell” in his taxes,” Trump said: “We’ll make a determination over the next couple of months. It’s very complicated.”
May 2016: Said he fights “very hard to pay as little tax as possible.”
May 2016: Will “release my tax returns when audit is complete, not after election!”
July: Manafort: “Mr. Trump has said that his taxes are under audit and he will not be releasing them.”
July: “I haven’t had much pressure (to release tax returns). I’ll be honest, most people don’t care.”
September: “When the audit is complete I will release my returns. I have no problem with it. It doesn’t matter.”
September debate: “I will release my tax returns, against my lawyer’s wishes, when [Clinton] releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted.”
January, first press event as president: “I’m not releasing the tax returns because as you know they’re under audit.”
May: “I might release them after I’m out of office.”


----------



## jaxadam

You were right, that was a lot of fun! But I'm a little worried about someone who has nothing better to do than keep copypasta like that around. Do you have a dedicated Trump folder on your hard drive as well?


----------



## vilk

jaxadam said:


> You were right, that was a lot of fun! But I'm a little worried about someone who has nothing better to do than keep copypasta like that around. Do you have a dedicated Trump folder on your hard drive as well?


Took like half a minute. You'd have to be totally incompetent to fail to come up with the information I've provided with more than a truly menial amount of effort.

Also, your reply is trolling, and off topic. It's in violation of the rules of this thread and subforum. I recommend deleting it.

BTW, copypasta =/= copy-pasting


----------



## jaxadam

vilk said:


> Took like half a minute. You'd have to be mentally disabled or totally incompetent to fail to come up with the information I've provided with more than a truly menial amount of effort.
> 
> Also, your reply is trolling, and off topic. It's in violation of the rules of this thread and subforum. I recommend deleting it and apologizing to me.



I'm just legitimately curious as to whether a lot of anti-trumpers digitally hoard stuff like this, and if it creates even more partisan views. I feel a lot of those links come from strongly left-leaning sources. But I commend you, that was beautifully done.


----------



## vilk

jaxadam said:


> I'm just legitimately curious as to whether a lot of anti-trumpers digitally hoard stuff like this, and if it creates even more partisan views. I feel a lot of those links come from strongly left-leaning sources. But I commend you, that was beautifully done.


Then let me legitimately answer you: No.


----------



## Drew

I think the bigger issue with the allegations raised by the Times aren't that Trump inherited a lot of money from Daddy or that he sheltered 95% of it from taxes through creative means, so much as that some of those means (setting up a shell "purchasing company" owned by Fred's kids, and flowing purchases already made by Trump properties through that and then selling them back at inflated prices to transfer cash from the father to the children, and then using those inflated transaction costs to justify rent increases, for example) are very likely fraud.


----------



## jaxadam

vilk said:


> Then let me legitimately answer you: No.



Then you were trolling me, which is against the rules. I recommend deleting it and apologizing to me (although I see you deleted that from your original post, I figured I'd add it for completeness).

But here's an article that can take your mind off of it. It did actually take me a minute to find, and I'm not good with all that fancy hyperlinking so just bear with me.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._are_winning_in_the_trump_economy_138219.html


----------



## vilk

jaxadam said:


> Then you were trolling me, which is against the rules. I recommend deleting it and apologizing to me (although I see you deleted that from your original post, I figured I'd add it for completeness).


not what trolling means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> copypasta





jaxadam said:


> trolling



Hey grandpa, behave or we'll have the nurse give you dry sponge baths again.


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> I feel a lot of those links come from strongly left-leaning sources. But I commend you, that was beautifully done.



There was ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX, CNN, Wall Street Journal. Basically every big player in the news industry, including Fox, has some meat in the communal stew.

Besides...none of that information was opinion, interpretation or analysis. It's historical facts, and direct quotes.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Hey grandpa, behave or we'll have the nurse give you dry sponge baths again.



My insurance plan has been upgraded (THANKS OBAMA!). I think I'm eligible for two nurses at the same time now.


----------



## jaxadam

Apology accepted.


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> Then you were trolling me, which is against the rules. I recommend deleting it and apologizing to me (although I see you deleted that from your original post, I figured I'd add it for completeness).
> 
> But here's an article that can take your mind off of it. It did actually take me a minute to find, and I'm not good with all that fancy hyperlinking so just bear with me.
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._are_winning_in_the_trump_economy_138219.html



Realclearpolitics.com, news you can trust.


----------



## jaxadam

narad said:


> Realclearpolitics.com, news you can trust.



You aren't kidding... It's tough today to know what you're reading, but it's good to know there are center biased, highly factual reporting outlets in addition to the strongly left, mixed factual ones.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> You aren't kidding... It's tough today to know what you're reading, but it's good to know there are center biased, highly factual reporting outlets in addition to the strongly left, mixed factual ones.
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/



*note, CNN would be considered highly factual if being judged by its news content and not guest content. I see liberal bias in choice of article or phrasing of headlines, but rarely do the major established outlets -- like the Washington Post, NYT, that often come under attack by conservatives here -- run BS stories.

For instance, that "women winning in trump economy" article. It can be factual, while implying a view of the world that is false. "Women winning in narad-free America" as equally as factual. I can even propose some reasons why that might be that sound sort of reasonable. But, that's not really the reason some female unemployment numbers are up, nor is that number a great indication of women winning.

The article also comes from a "The Job Creators Network" writer, the same group that seems pretty in bed with Breitbart, always running their stories and giving pats on the back to their efforts.


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber

narad said:


> "Women winning in narad-free America" as equally as factual. I can even propose some reasons why that might be that sound sort of reasonable.



More pencils to sharpen?


----------



## BlackSG91

jaxadam said:


> Then you were trolling me, which is against the rules. I recommend deleting it and apologizing to me (although I see you deleted that from your original post, I figured I'd add it for completeness).
> 
> But here's an article that can take your mind off of it. It did actually take me a minute to find, and I'm not good with all that fancy hyperlinking so just bear with me.
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._are_winning_in_the_trump_economy_138219.html



Isn't realclearpolitics a right-leaning news outlet?


;>)/


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

So the vote has been made, Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Thoughts?


----------



## Hollowway

You forgot to write, “In a vote that will surprise no one...” at the start of that sentence.

For me, I know damn well he’s lying. And he’s lying about stuff that he didn’t need to lie about (like being a virgin for several years after high school, and not drinking more than a couple beers at a time, and not knowing who “Bart” referred to). I AM a little baffled that the GOP didn’t scrap him and move on, given how much ill will this has generated. But, rich people gonna get what rich people want, so....

On a related topic, I’m still bewildered how middle and lower class US citizens think Trump is trying to help them. There’s zero evidence to support that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's not at all surprising that Kavanaugh was confirmed. McConnell made it very clear that they were going to push him through come hell or high water. Flake kept to his usual theatrics, and again, can't depend on Collins for anything.

But, as much as this was a power play by the GOP, it was the democrats who let us down on this one. They own it just as much as the ghouls who selected Kavanaugh. Feinstein withholding the letter from Ford, Perez letting dems know that it's okay if they vote "yes" and then you have Manchin attempting to save his own political bacon by going against the party line. This is why the dems are the "lesser of two evils" (not by much) and not a completely viable option. 

As for Kavanaugh, I'm a white male who isn't too poor, so there's little that he can do to me. My genitals aren't legislated. He'll probably find a way to fuck up my healthcare and retirement further, and I'm sure he'll make my job less safe down the line, but I have the privilege of not worrying too much personally for the short term. If he's really the shit-golem he probably is, he can be removed and/or more seats added to nullify his position if/when the dems have a majority again. 

November is right around the corner, that's the real concern I have.


----------



## BlackSG91

The FBI investigation on Kavanaugh was such a farce. They didn't even interview other witnesses that called into the FBI but were ignored. With Kavanaugh now being appointed there is going to be an uproar in the country and it's only going to get ugly. It's a matter of time before the Trump administration implodes on itself.


;>)/


----------



## Hollowway

Yeah, Kavanaugh won’t affect me too much, for the same reason. But, the right wing politics will likely cause a lot of problems for the country as a whole, eventually. There’s a correlation between degree of empathy and political views, so this business of fucking over other people isn’t likely to move our country forward as a whole. The kleptocrats are doing what they can to stay in power, and the Trump base isn’t really able to step outside themselves and evaluate issues without the politics involved, or to embrace news sources other than those that they already agree with.


----------



## Randy

GOP victory lapping the last two days. Keep hearing about how the Kavanaugh confirmation boosts Republican chances in the mid term but I'm having trouble quantifying the logic on that one.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> GOP victory lapping the last two days. Keep hearing about how the Kavanaugh confirmation boosts Republican chances in the mid term but I'm having trouble quantifying the logic on that one.





I can only see it helping to keep their base happy, but I feel those are votes they already had. 

Are there really swing voters or left leaners who would consider this a reason to vote red? I don't think so. 

If anything, I think this further boosts dem's position overall. 

But fuck Joe Manchin. I hope he loses. I rather lose a seat to a known quantity GOP dipshit than have a dem who goes along with the GOP most of the time. He's approved nearly every shitty nomination so far. The party needs to hold the line, not fragmented right now.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> GOP victory lapping the last two days. Keep hearing about how the Kavanaugh confirmation boosts Republican chances in the mid term but I'm having trouble quantifying the logic on that one.



I'd say the appointment of Kavanaugh actually makes the republican voters more complacent come November 6, and motivates the democrats to go out and vote. I'm not sure why the republicans are trying to spin this as a good thing for their chances in November, as even implying that there will be a good republican turnout would likely demotivate their voters.

The only way this would make sense is if they 1) are just parroting Trump's "winning" bullshit, or 2) they are secretly trying to put the democrats in power in order to rid themselves of Trump.


----------



## spudmunkey

Alphas like kicking while their opponents are down, so a win means wanting to rub it in.


----------



## Drew

DistinguishedPapyrus said:


> So the vote has been made, Kavanaugh has been confirmed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Thoughts?


Best hot take I've read was that the GOP got him through by turning this into a referendum on the #MeToo movement, and there's a lot of truth to that. I think it was a short term win for them, though I wonder about the long term costs. 

Though, right now, that's less important since we now have a conservative Supreme Court for the foreseeable future. I hope to god Ginsburg stays healthy, but I wouldn't be surprised, if the GOP holds the Senate (which is fairly likely) if the Trump administration tries (and maybe succeeds) to get Thomas to retire, to replace him with someone ten years younger. And whiter, of course. 

But, her emails.


----------



## BlackSG91

Here's the swearing of judge Kavanaugh the drunkard. Like they say it's who you know, not what you know.




;>)/


----------



## Randy

Disappointed this wasn't a half-hour of fart noises.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Disappointed this wasn't a half-hour of boof noises.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## BlackSG91

I'm sure the GOP had a heavy hand in the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh. The person heading the investigation probably was threatened & he/she would lose their job if they didn't clear Kavanaugh. This is a real erosion of democracy and a scary one at that. Obstruction of justice is running rampant as a wildfire. I hope the mid-terms go the Dems way so that these old white men in the Republican party can be held accountable for their actions no matter how long ago it was.


;>)/


----------



## vilk

BlackSG91 said:


> I'm sure the GOP had a heavy hand in the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh. The person heading the investigation probably was threatened & he/she would lose their job if they didn't clear Kavanaugh. This is a real erosion of democracy and a scary one at that. Obstruction of justice is running rampant as a wildfire. I hope the mid-terms go the Dems way so that these old white men in the Republican party can be held accountable for their actions no matter how long ago it was.
> 
> 
> ;>)/


FBI Director Wray just came out and confirmed that White House limited the probe.


----------



## Drew

BlackSG91 said:


> I'm sure the GOP had a heavy hand in the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh. The person heading the investigation probably was threatened & he/she would lose their job if they didn't clear Kavanaugh. This is a real erosion of democracy and a scary one at that. Obstruction of justice is running rampant as a wildfire. I hope the mid-terms go the Dems way so that these old white men in the Republican party can be held accountable for their actions no matter how long ago it was.
> 
> 
> ;>)/


I don't think it even got as far as that - the point of the investigation wasn't to "clear" or "convict" Kavanaugh, but was a fact finding operation. What we KNOW the White House did was severely limit the scope of the investigation and restrict who the FBI was allowed to talk to (including Kavanaugh and Ford themselves, and for all Grassley's bitching and moaning about "they already testified," there was enough Kavanaugh said that either conflicted with his prior statements or was demonstrably false that a second under-oath interview would have been highly problematic for him). And, even then, even if the investigation had been allowed to come to a conclusion rather than just collect limited-and-therefore-unlikely-to-be-damning information, it wouldn't have mattered because the reports were not released to the public, only one copy was prepared, and it was made available to the Democrats and Republicans in alternating one-hour-intervals starting maybe 24 hours before the final vote.


----------



## Randy

What we've learned in the last week is that it was less investigation as it was 'background check'. Not sure if that's a narrative Democrats have been following but the Republicans I know were primarily hearing it being billed that way, and this is a guy who's passed a half dozen of those already.

The other thing that's been scantly reported on but looks to have been the principal focus of the 'investigation' was this story about one of Dr. Ford's friends that initially issued a statement saying they never attended a party like the one described, then revised that statement later on, then it was discovered the revised statement came after pressure from more people in Dr. Ford's camp. If you take into account that Dr. Ford had large gaps in her memory surrounding the event, the FBI not interviewing her OR Kavanaugh, most of the other accusers being left out of the investigation and the ominously 'narrowed' scope of the investigation, the likelihood becomes that the main focus was on impeaching Dr. Ford's credibility, and that's one of those things that leans on the side of doubt heavier the shorter the investigation runs.


----------



## BlackSG91

Here's an interesting video interview with people who voted for Trump and how disappointed they are for their decision.




;>)/


----------



## narad

Sounds good but I have to imagine a vast, vast majority of people who voted for Trump are pretty happy with Trump policy. And that like... The Big Gulp is back at 7-Eleven.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Most of the Trump supporters I know have no problem with his policies or anything, they just hate the bad press and the near daily scandals. 

They'd never admit it, but I think they're a little embarrassed. 

Yeah yeah, anecdotes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Reeally sick of "umbrellagate", already. It's as much of a "nothingburger" as "bigly".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Reeally sick of "umbrellagate", already. It's as much of a "nothingburger" as "bigly".





We know he's a dipshit. Being more of a dipshit to his trophy wife isn't going to make anyone like him any less.


----------



## Randy

That goes to show the difference between those of us that participate in social media and those of us who don't, because this is my first time hearing this.


----------



## spudmunkey

No, but the whole thing is made out to sound like he didn't attempt to keep her dry at all. They were walking together, he stopped to talk to the reporters to compliment her, and motioned for her to follow him. She stepped closer towards him but didn't huddle under the umbrella, and seemed fine to stay in the "downpour" (barely a drizzle) for those brief moments. Then they came back together under the umbrella, but she walked on his other side this time, on the side that wasn't holding the umbrella. He then switched the umbrella to his other hand so they could both walk under it, now that she was walking on his other side. Skip to 1:09


----------



## Drew

Didn't know this was a scandal, but: 

1) It's definitely poor optics - it wasn't even really raining, so he could have just put the whole thing down, rather than holding it over his head while his wife stood off to the side. 
2) but... It fits in with a pre-existing narrative of Trump not giving a shit about his wife and not knowing how to act like a gentleman - I DO remember the inauguration getting a lot of attention, where he got out of the limo and immediately went up to greet the Obamas on the steps, rather than waiting for his wife and offering her an arm as she got out of the car, and then walking up as a couple. 

It doesn't matter, sure... But it was stupid and it was entirely self-emposed and avoidable. We had that up live on the trading desk, and the entire desk (including staunch conservatives) were commenting on how bad it made him lookl, so yeah, I can't say I'm shocked it got some legs.


----------



## narad

I mean, he's already importing models to the US to marry, so I don't expect his awareness of interpersonal relationships to be well-calibrated. Definitely not the kind of thing we need to waste news cycles on though.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> I mean, he's already importing models to the US to marry, so I don't expect his awareness of interpersonal relationships to be well-calibrated. Definitely not the kind of thing we need to waste news cycles on though.



I suppose that's the billionaires' version of the mail order bride.


----------



## spudmunkey

It wouldn't even bother me so much if it was something "real", like "covfefe" and not like "bigly", which I have no doubt he didn't say, but someone mis-heard it, and then everyone ran with it. To me, this is exactly as idiotic as beige suit-gate and dijon mustard-gate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> It wouldn't even bother me so much if it was something "real", like "covfefe" and not like "bigly", which I have no doubt he didn't say, but someone mis-heard it, and then everyone ran with it. To me, this is exactly as idiotic as beige suit-gate and dijon mustard-gate.



The really sad thing is, to a large portion of his base, looking like a bafoon is more embarrassing than genocide.

Think about that.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> It wouldn't even bother me so much if it was something "real", like "covfefe" and not like "bigly", which I have no doubt he didn't say, but someone mis-heard it, and then everyone ran with it. To me, this is exactly as idiotic as beige suit-gate and dijon mustard-gate.


Oh, "bigly" is a fairly well-documented part of his vocabulary. To be fair, it's possible he's saying, or trying to say, "big-league" and it's just sort of gotten truncated over the years, but this wasn't exactly a one-off.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Are we really discussing "bigly" right now? How timely and consequential.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> It wouldn't even bother me so much if it was something "real", like "covfefe" and not like "bigly", which I have no doubt he didn't say, but someone mis-heard it, and then everyone ran with it. To me, this is exactly as idiotic as beige suit-gate and dijon mustard-gate.



Ehh...

He's a bit slow and unthoughtful with keeping his wife out of the rain, and that isn't a deal in itself -- and it's just in keeping with his general selfishness and the way he's always puts himself first.

He's said some questionable words, and that isn't a big deal in itself -- but it's ironic coming from a guy who continually speaks gibberish and then praises his own speaking ability. It's not like he's Cicero 24/7 and then suddenly drops "bigly" and it throws into question everything we know about him. It's more like, ah yes, here's the guy who "knows the best words" being an idiot again.

These things aren't terrible one-offs, but they're just reminders of his shitty characteristics in general. Do I expect a guy who says "grab them by the pussy" to put himself before his wife and to barely be able to construct sentences at a high school level? Yes. Yes, I do. They don't create the narrative, they continue the narrative we've had to endure to some extent since The Apprentice.

And beige suit-gate? This is comparing what people wear with how people act. A pretty big distinction there.


----------



## Drew

Excellent post, @narad . The "scandals" we're talking about aren't in and of themselves big deals, but point to matters of character and intellect, and are consistent with what we've seen elsewhere from Trump. 

Donald J. Trump is a chauvinistic jackass with little consideration for women, even ones he's married to, and despite his high opinion of his own intellect, isn't all that intelligent. Do we need "umbrella-gate" or his use of "bigly" to know that? No... But they're one more piece of evidence in the mosaic.


----------



## BlackSG91

It looks like things are getting stormy again in the White House.




;>)/


----------



## Bentaycanada

So American neighbours, what are your predications for the upcoming Mid-terms? 

I’ve heard some hilarious clips recently, like Bannon repeating “this is a vote on Trump presidency”.....like, aren’t the Mid-terms always that? A vote on the in-office president?..........hmmm

So, do you guys (and gals) think we’ll see the “blue wave”? Or will red states hold on? 

Does Beto O’Rouke really have a chance? Or is he even ready for Texas? 
Does anyone actually like Ted Cruz? 

Will we see voters electing candidates with more far-left and far-right stances? Or will the more centrist voices stand out?.....


----------



## vilk

I have literally no faith in either Americans or the monsters that govern us. What's the worst scenario you can think of? That's the one I think will happen.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bentaycanada said:


> So American neighbours, what are your predications for the upcoming Mid-terms?
> 
> I’ve heard some hilarious clips recently, like Bannon repeating “this is a vote on Trump presidency”.....like, aren’t the Mid-terms always that? A vote on the in-office president?..........hmmm
> 
> So, do you guys (and gals) think we’ll see the “blue wave”? Or will red states hold on?
> 
> Does Beto O’Rouke really have a chance? Or is he even ready for Texas?
> Does anyone actually like Ted Cruz?
> 
> Will we see voters electing candidates with more far-left and far-right stances? Or will the more centrist voices stand out?.....



My predictions:

-Dems will grab a very slim majority in the House, but not enough to really matter as there are enough "swing" Dems to who will quietly go along with the Repub agenda, like they already have been. 

-We'll pick up one of the Governorships, I'm thinking Gillum in Florida. We think the cards are too far stacked against Abrams and have less than zero faith in Wisconsin to vote out Walker. 

-Beto will lose, because we can't have nice things. 

Unless there is a total Blue Fucking Tsunami the media will hail the outcome as a win for the GOP which will embolden them to finally and fatally gut Social Security and Medicare. They'll totally get away with it too, and they'll parade it up and down the streets as a mighty accomplishment for America and ride the victory into Trump's second term. 

I hope I'm wrong, but nothing in this last year and a half has given me any reason to be positive.


----------



## thraxil

I'm not optimistic either. I'd be very surprised if the Democrats take back the Senate. Trump is polling in the 45% range, which would be terrible for any other president, but is fairly high for him. Most of the remotely close Senate races are in generally red areas, so I'd expect his approval rating to be even higher there. Combine that with the absolutely shameless voter disenfranchisement campaigns that are going on (I have a friend back in Brooklyn who, despite having voted in every single election in the last decade and has been a poll worker, discovered that he was purged from the voter roll for "inactivity" days after the deadline to register), the even more shameless lies coming from Trump and Fox News, and the fact that they've spent the last two years stacking every court they can with unqualified but loyal Trumpist judges. I expect that there will be a lot of really shady stuff happening around election day, "coincidentally" in the close counties, lawsuits will result, but they will largely get thrown out by Trump appointed judges.


----------



## Drew

The conventional wisdom, at least with people paying close attention to this, is that the Dems are going to have a surge, and possibly a fairly strong one, but that'll be enough to give them a solid House majority, though they'll likely lose a seat/remain unchanged in the Senate. The governorship race is actually looking unexpectedly favorable to them, which could put the Dems in good position for 2020 and district redesign. I don't think the GOP is adequately thinking through this, as that's a pretty huge long-term cost Trump is creating.


----------



## tedtan

Bentaycanada said:


> I’ve heard some hilarious clips recently, like Bannon repeating “this is a vote on Trump presidency”.....like, aren’t the Mid-terms always that? A vote on the in-office president?..........hmmm



They are trying to mobilize their base to get out and vote because they are scared of the blue wave they know is coming. They may be successful to some extent, but I think that the democratic party will come out ahead, especially in the House and in local elections.

From what I've seen over the last couple of days, the polls have been packed with early voters here in Houston, people are out voting.




Bentaycanada said:


> Does Beto O’Rouke really have a chance? Or is he even ready for Texas?



I'll vote for him, but Cruz appears to be about 5 points ahead in polls right now. Of course, the polls (and the Las Vegas odds setters) had Clinton winning the 2016 election, so they are not perfect. It's a long shot, but still possible.




Bentaycanada said:


> Does anyone actually like Ted Cruz?



No, even fellow republicans in the Senate trash talk Cruz. Republican senator John Boehner said something to the effect of "Cruz is the most miserable son of a bitch that I've ever had to work with", and republican senator Lindsey Graham said "if you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you".

And his moving further right on immigration is a problem for him and the republican party as Texas and the other border states take in more Latino immigrants, many of whom will become citizens and/or have children that are citizens resulting in old reliable republicans strongholds like Texas and Arizona turning blue.




MaxOfMetal said:


> they'll parade it up and down the streets as a mighty accomplishment for America and ride the victory into Trump's second term.



I was wrong about his 2016 election, so I'm certainly not infallible, but I don't see Trump winning a second term.




MaxOfMetal said:


> I hope I'm wrong, but nothing in this last year and a half has given me any reason to be positive.



The past couple of years have been very odd indeed.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I was wrong about his 2016 election, so I'm certainly not infallible, but I don't see Trump winning a second term.


I'd put money on this as well.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> I'd put money on this as well.



Friendly bet?


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Friendly bet?


Sure thing. Decent bottle of scotch? 

The hardest part of the bet, honestly, will be remembering we made it in the first place in November of 2020.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Sure thing. Decent bottle of scotch?
> 
> The hardest part of the bet, honestly, will be remembering we made it in the first place in November of 2020.



I have kids now, so I was thinking either a box of pull-ups or a contribution to a prepaid college fund.


----------



## Drew

That's way less fun. I'd think with kids, you'd NEED the scotch!


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-election-ptsd-students-stressful-experience-


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-election-ptsd-students-stressful-experience-


Sounds like they need it too!


----------



## Krauthammer

Trump and his desires of policy and rhetoric, are some of the worst words thrown out to society at large. Does he think to continue to attack the other side, his own side, or our own constitution will bring a better world? the man is so full of himself. The lack of empathy is a clear indication of a sociopath. Nothing he has said would bring me to that thinking. He is an incredible asshole. An embarrassment to what the country used to stand for. 

Dan Quayle misspelled potato as potatoe in 1992, and was ridiculed and disqualified from running for president in the media at the time. Because we could not have someone that could misspell words to handle our nuclear weapons. Imagine if Dan grabbed some pussy at the same time...


----------



## will_shred

Ford Motors to lay of 24,000 workers, citing Trump tariffs. 


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford...JXUfSbIPIW_3BrK4Sq6lScYzmqQwwWqTvSVVw8u5mrTC4


----------



## MaxOfMetal

will_shred said:


> Ford Motors to lay of 24,000 workers, citing Trump tariffs.
> 
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford...JXUfSbIPIW_3BrK4Sq6lScYzmqQwwWqTvSVVw8u5mrTC4



I'm no fan of Trump or his policies, and definitely not a fan of this stupid trade war, but there's a lot going on with Ford and it's disingenuous to blame it squarely on tariffs.

It's a really good cover for some pretty big shifts that Ford itself initiated, like pulling out of the car market in the United States, and some flops that fall at their feet, like that huge F150 recall.

Ford has tens of billions in cash, and billions more in unused credit. They were one of the automakers to come through the recession relatively unscathed. They're not GM.

They're simply using the tariffs as an excuse to reorganize and cut their labor force, which is typically a very unpopular move, hence the need to shed blame.

Let's not forget the tax windfall large corporations like Ford just received.

The "C Suite" at Ford likely makes nearly as much as the bulk of the 24k that might (layoffs aren't even slated until mid-first quarter next year) lose their jobs globally.

This is corporate culture at work.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ford has tens of billions in cash, and billions more in unused credit. They were one of the automakers to come through the recession relatively unscathed. They're not GM.


Ford is also rated BBB/Negative at S&P and Baa3/Negative at Moody's, and a one notch downgrade would leave them at the lowest level of investment grade at S&P, and junk at Moody's. Spending down their cash - currently about a third of debt outstanding - on an unprofitable business enterprise or tapping their lines of credit - which are intended for short term working capital needs, not long term investment - would be a pretty good way to _get_ that downgrade, and might cost them an IG rating at S&P, as well.

The tarrifs are certainly not their only issue - softening US demand is a problem, too - but with an estimated impact of about $1B on a firm whose trailing 12 month net income was about $6.2B, well, knocking about 15% off earnings due to higher material costs is pretty damned significant to their ability to turn an operating profit. I don't think you can write this off as "just corporate culture," so much as you can't expect a company to continue to invest in an area where operating margins are getting hammered.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Ford is also rated BBB/Negative at S&P and Baa3/Negative at Moody's, and a one notch downgrade would leave them at the lowest level of investment grade at S&P, and junk at Moody's. Spending down their cash - currently about a third of debt outstanding - on an unprofitable business enterprise or tapping their lines of credit - which are intended for short term working capital needs, not long term investment - would be a pretty good way to _get_ that downgrade, and might cost them an IG rating at S&P, as well.
> 
> The tarrifs are certainly not their only issue - softening US demand is a problem, too - but with an estimated impact of about $1B on a firm whose trailing 12 month net income was about $6.2B, well, knocking about 15% off earnings due to higher material costs is pretty damned significant to their ability to turn an operating profit. I don't think you can write this off as "just corporate culture," so much as you can't expect a company to continue to invest in an area where operating margins are getting hammered.



I'm sure the tarrifs are a factor, but there's a lot going on at Ford and the auto industry in general in the United States at the moment.

The big American car companies have shown poor foresight for decades now, so I'm not throwing this one purely at Trump.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm sure the tarrifs are a factor, but there's a lot going on at Ford and the auto industry in general in the United States at the moment.
> 
> The big American car companies have shown poor foresight for decades now, so I'm not throwing this one purely at Trump.


Yes, but in an environment like that, changes at the margins can make very, very big differences. 

If the industry was kicking ass and demand and profitability had never been better, then absorbing an additional billion dollars in costs should be a cakewalk, no? What Trump has done is take an industry that's already facing headwinds, and added one more.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Yes, but in an environment like that, changes at the margins can make very, very big differences.
> 
> If the industry was kicking ass and demand and profitability had never been better, then absorbing an additional billion dollars in costs should be a cakewalk, no? What Trump has done is take an industry that's already facing headwinds, and added one more.



I agree, but whose fault is it that American cars are junk? This isn't some unforeseen downturn, the industry knew years ago that putting all their eggs in expensive, resource heavy, fashionable vehicles with so-so gas mileage wasn't sustainable. But here we are. Again. 

Are these tariffs making things more difficult? Of course. But if they were making a product that people wanted and could afford, and they could build more efficiently, would it have made such an impact? 

Again, I never said that the tariffs had no impact. We just also think Ford has made some significant missteps as well and wish to put as much of the blame as possible on an already unpopular President.


----------



## Drew

It's more consumer demand in the US has been soft, _period_. It's not like Ford is suffering but Toyota is selling cars hand over teakettle, but rather between demographic trends and disruptive technology (millennials buying fewer cars, relying more on car-sharing) and lingering scars from the financial downturn, as well as probably improvements in reliability, people are buying fewer cars, and driving the ones they have longer and longer. This is pretty broad based, and not really the result of a consumer attitude that American cars are just junk.


----------



## mongey

Even if it changes nothing much , I hope the USA citizens step in and send a strong message to the world about how you really feel about this idiot in the mid terms


----------



## spudmunkey

mongey said:


> Even if it changes nothing much , I hope the USA citizens step in and send a strong message to the world about how you really feel about this idiot in the mid terms



Me, too. Depending on the outcome, and after my employer's health insurance benefits explanation presentation today, Canada keeps looking better and better. Besides...I'm a former Wisconsinite, so I'd be right at home in the winters. My SO, however...grew up in Florida and So Cal has other ideas about that. ha!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Me, too. Depending on the outcome, and after my employer's health insurance benefits explanation presentation today, Canada keeps looking better and better. Besides...I'm a former Wisconsinite, so I'd be right at home in the winters. My SO, however...grew up in Florida and So Cal has other ideas about that. ha!



For real. I've been looking at moving abroad too. Staying in the same industry is relatively easy, and I have a pretty good resume, but I'm just not sure I'm willing to start all over.


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> Me, too. Depending on the outcome, and after my employer's health insurance benefits explanation presentation today, Canada keeps looking better and better. Besides...I'm a former Wisconsinite, so I'd be right at home in the winters. My SO, however...grew up in Florida and So Cal has other ideas about that. ha!


Southern BC is where you wanna go then, specifically the Kelowna area.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> For real. I've been looking at moving abroad too. Staying in the same industry is relatively easy, and I have a pretty good resume, but I'm just not sure I'm willing to start all over.



Same. I hate being "the new guy" almost more than anything. Many of my vendors make their products in eastern Canada anyway, so I wouldn't even necessarily have to even change all that much other than location. I could still work with all of the same products. Although...Netflix sucks there...


----------



## zappatton2

Xaios said:


> Southern BC is where you wanna go then, specifically the Kelowna area.


I've only been to BC once (Vancouver Island), but it's one of the nicest places I've ever been in my life. Sorry for the off-topic... it just is.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's election day!

I don't care who you vote for or what side of the political landscape you tend to fall on. Please go and vote. 

Polls should be open til 20:00 local time, and as long as you're in line by then, you get to vote.

Go here if you need any more info: www.vote.org


----------



## vilk

I voted. I was pretty surprised, because the place was empty. I got to work way too early lol. 

I feel uneasy voting for all these judges that I don't know anything about, so I didn't do it. I also didn't vote for anyone running unopposed if I didn't know who they are. Is there any reason to vote for someone running unopposed?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I voted. I was pretty surprised, because the place was empty. I got to work way too early lol.
> 
> I feel uneasy voting for all these judges that I don't know anything about, so I didn't do it. I also didn't vote for anyone running unopposed if I didn't know who they are. Is there any reason to vote for someone running unopposed?



In theory if there is a strong "write-in" campaign, they could win if the person running unopposed doesn't have as many votes. But, I don't see that happening too often, at least I've never really heard of it. I could be wrong.


----------



## cwhitey2

I will be voting after work! Luckily the polling place is 2 blocks from my house


----------



## Xaios

zappatton2 said:


> I've only been to BC once (Vancouver Island), but it's one of the nicest places I've ever been in my life. Sorry for the off-topic... it just is.


Victoria is quite nice, although it's a little "pacific northwest university garden city" for my taste. The climate is fairly similar to Seattle, so a little less humid than Vancouver, but otherwise still fairly wet. Kelowna is about as close to California as you'll find in Canada.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's election day!
> 
> I don't care who you vote for or what side of the political landscape you tend to fall on. Please go and vote.



....IF you've bothered to learn anything about anything.

Voting for voting's sake, I feel, is completely worthless and borderline detrimental to the process.


----------



## vilk

spudmunkey said:


> ....IF you've bothered to learn anything about anything.
> 
> Voting for voting's sake, I feel, is completely worthless and borderline detrimental to the process.


I guess I've never learned anything about anything, so could you please teach me the reasons why voting for voting's sake is completely worthless and borderline detrimental to the process?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> ....IF you've bothered to learn anything about anything.
> 
> Voting for voting's sake, I feel, is completely worthless and borderline detrimental to the process.



No. It's your right to vote. Use it before the powers at be take it away. 

The more we vote the more value the process has, which is why I don't give a shit who anyone else votes for so long as they show those in power that they'll at least do the bare minimum. 

A non-insignificant part of the electorate would rather we didn't vote, that alone should be a reason to.


----------



## cwhitey2

Last election, only 17% of the eligible population in my area voted...but 100% of the people complain. I bring this fact up and people tend to immediately shut up.

Local voting DOES matter...there is no electoral college for local politics.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> No. It's your right to vote. Use it before the powers at be take it away.
> 
> The more we vote the more value the process has, which is why I don't give a shit who anyone else votes for so long as they show those in power that they'll at least do the bare minimum.
> 
> A non-insignificant part of the electorate would rather we didn't vote, that alone should be a reason to.


Hopefully you take the right seriously enough to inform yourself on the candidates and issues that you're voting for... But, if you have _any_ awareness at all about what even the parties the candidates represent stand there, then yeah, you should be voting. And if you're just going in there and randomly filling in circles, yeah, that's your right as an American... But just remember that thousands of Americans have died to get the right to do what you're doing, and maybe you SHOULD take it a little more seriously.

Here in MA, most of the elections I could weigh in on are a done deal - Baker is the heavy favorite for Governor, Warren for Senate, and after upsetting Capuano Ayanna Pressley is now running uncontested for my US House seat - but there were some interesting local issues, Question 1 mandating mandatory nursing staffing ratios at hospitals (I voted against, I'm not opposed to the idea but the implimentation was awful), Question 2 to form a committee to advocate for overturning Citizen's United (advisory bills are not allowed in MA, so it had to _do_ something - I was for, of course), and Question 3 to preserve an existing state law that provides transgender protections (for, of course). 

Voted on the way to work this morning. Honestly, at 7:10, the lines were at LEAST as long as they were in 2016, and I've heard anecdotal evidence from a few other parts of the country saying the same. Too early to say, but we may be on track to a record-breaking turnout for a midterm.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Hopefully you take the right seriously enough to inform yourself on the candidates and issues that you're voting for... But, if you have _any_ awareness at all about what even the parties the candidates represent stand there, then yeah, you should be voting. And if you're just going in there and randomly filling in circles, yeah, that's your right as an American... But just remember that thousands of Americans have died to get the right to do what you're doing, and maybe you SHOULD take it a little more seriously.
> 
> Voted on the way to work this morning. Honestly, at 7:10, the lines were at LEAST as long as they were in 2016, and I've heard anecdotal evidence from a few other parts of the country saying the same. Too early to say, but we may be on track to a record-breaking turnout for a midterm.



I'm sure you're going to whip out a well sourced, well written article that proves me wrong, but what are the odds that folks who take the time to go vote don't at least have something of an idea of which party they feel more connected to, if not actually. 

Here in Wisconsin folks are pretty sure they know that Scott Walker is either a shithead or a brave Trump-soldier, and will vote along party lines accordingly. 

The best part of working third shift is I never have to worry about lines. No wonder retirees do fucking everything. It's like having a Speed Pass at Disney World.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> For real. I've been looking at moving abroad too. Staying in the same industry is relatively easy, and I have a pretty good resume, but I'm just not sure I'm willing to start all over.


Honestly, if Trump is re-elected in 2020, I wouldn't rule out moving overseas, either. It's not even the typical "if so-and-so wins, I'm moving to Canada!" you hear every election which is mostly just empty talk, so much as in the past two years, so much damage has ALREADY been done to American democracy, that I'm really not sure if our country can withstand another 6 years of attacks on the press, the courts, and the system of checks and balances that our democratic institutions depend on, to say nothing on the post-war international order that we basically built.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> And if you're just going in there and randomly filling in circles, yeah, that's your right as an American... But just remember that thousands of Americans have died to get the right to do what you're doing, and maybe you SHOULD take it a little more seriously.



Did they really go into battle for my right to vote? The great war of the vote?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Honestly, if Trump is re-elected in 2020, I wouldn't rule out moving overseas, either. It's not even the typical "if so-and-so wins, I'm moving to Canada!" you hear every election which is mostly just empty talk, so much as in the past two years, so much damage has ALREADY been done to American democracy, that I'm really not sure if our country can withstand another 6 years of attacks on the press, the courts, and the system of checks and balances that our democratic institutions depend on, to say nothing on the post-war international order that we basically built.



The parent company to mine has some openings in Europe that sound very interesting, but I'm too chickenshit.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Did they really go into battle for my right to vote? The great war of the vote?


Don't be flip. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Don't be flip.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement



Not relevant to my right to vote. Random circles it is.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Did they really go into battle for my right to vote? The great war of the vote?



I thought he was alluding to domestic issues and not foreign wars. Women and black folks had to fight tooth and nail for this right.

EDIT:


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Not relevant to my right to vote. Random circles it is.


I'm pretty sure you're trolling and don't mean this, which is the main reason I'm not teeing off on you.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The parent company to mine has some openings in Europe that sound very interesting, but I'm too chickenshit.


I work for a boutique fixed income investment shop that mostly does municipal bonds. My overseas employment prospects are, ahem, slim.  I'd mostly be banking on a CFA charter being in enough demand, no matter my _direct_ experience in an asset class.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I work for a boutique fixed income investment shop that mostly does municipal bonds. My overseas employment prospects are, ahem, slim.  I'd mostly be banking on a CFA charter being in enough demand, no matter my _direct_ experience in an asset class.



See, I'm not even smart enough to know what that means. I barely made it in America, I'm way under educated for the civilized world.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Honestly, if Trump is re-elected in 2020, I wouldn't rule out moving overseas, either. It's not even the typical "if so-and-so wins, I'm moving to Canada!" you hear every election which is mostly just empty talk



I follow through.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I follow through.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> See, I'm not even smart enough to know what that means. I barely made it in America, I'm way under educated for the civilized world.


I hear Thailand is nice this time of year...

(the main appeal of munis is they're exempt from US federal, and in some cases state, income taxes. If you're not _subject_ to US income taxes...)


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I'm pretty sure you're trolling and don't mean this, which is the main reason I'm not teeing off on you.



I am not serious about the random circles bit, but I really don't buy the "vote because people fought/died for your right to do so" line. I'm not advocating apathy but if you're in some district where there aren't any interesting choices, there aren't any interesting choices. And in that case I don't think one should harken back to some old timey event where some blood was shed for reasons not-all-that-directly-related to you getting up in 2018 and selecting between a few not so distinct people. YMMV, but I've never been in a hot area and so I'm sort of generally cynical of elections because I could never vote and genuinely believe it was contributing.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Hopefully you take the right seriously enough to inform yourself on the candidates and issues that you're voting for... But, if you have _any_ awareness at all about what even the parties the candidates represent stand there, then yeah, you should be voting. And if you're just going in there and randomly filling in circles, yeah, that's your right as an American... But just remember that thousands of Americans have died to get the right to do what you're doing, and maybe you SHOULD take it a little more seriously.
> 
> Here in MA, most of the elections I could weigh in on are a done deal - Baker is the heavy favorite for Governor, Warren for Senate, and after upsetting Capuano Ayanna Pressley is now running uncontested for my US House seat - but there were some interesting local issues, Question 1 mandating mandatory nursing staffing ratios at hospitals (I voted against, I'm not opposed to the idea but the implimentation was awful), Question 2 to form a committee to advocate for overturning Citizen's United (advisory bills are not allowed in MA, so it had to _do_ something - I was for, of course), and Question 3 to preserve an existing state law that provides transgender protections (for, of course).
> 
> Voted on the way to work this morning. Honestly, at 7:10, the lines were at LEAST as long as they were in 2016, and I've heard anecdotal evidence from a few other parts of the country saying the same. Too early to say, but we may be on track to a record-breaking turnout for a midterm.



Have you seen anything on why Q3 was worded so piss poorly? My guy instinct was to say "No," on the basis that it would keep things the same, but it would've in fact done harm. I don't think I've ever seen a question phrased as, "Yes, don't repeal that thing/No, we should repeal it" vs. "No, keep things the way they are/Yes, we should change this"


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I am not serious about the random circles bit, but I really don't buy the "vote because people fought/died for your right to do so" line. I'm not advocating apathy but if you're in some district where there aren't any interesting choices, there aren't any interesting choices. And in that case I don't think one should harken back to some old timey event where some blood was shed for reasons not-all-that-directly-related to you getting up in 2018 and selecting between a few not so distinct people. YMMV, but I've never been in a hot area and so I'm sort of generally cynical of elections because I could never vote and genuinely believe it was contributing.


I mean, that's cool you don't buy it. You're wrong, of course, people HAVE died fighting for their right to vote, but hey, if you don't want to "buy" that, you're your own person, I guess... It just has no bearing or impact on reality.


----------



## MFB

narad said:


> I follow through.



See also: Brexit.


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> Have you seen anything on why Q3 was worded so piss poorly? My guy instinct was to say "No," on the basis that it would keep things the same, but it would've in fact done harm. I don't think I've ever seen a question phrased as, "Yes, don't repeal that thing/No, we should repeal it" vs. "No, keep things the way they are/Yes, we should change this"


I had to re-read it twice just to make sure I was voting the way I wanted to - I hear that.  

I suspect it was an intentional choice: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_3_(2018,_Massachusetts)

The bill was put forward by a group seeking to overturn the 2016 bill, and given that they _must_ have realized that the question was a long-shot in Mass, I suspect it was a strategic choice to phrase it the way they did, in the hopes they'd get a number of accidental "no" votes.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> I hear Thailand is nice this time of year...
> 
> (the main appeal of munis is they're exempt from US federal, and in some cases state, income taxes. If you're not _subject_ to US income taxes...)



I actually hold a significant portion of munis and against my accountants wishes to put them in pure stocks, they’re staying put.


----------



## jaxadam

I like how they bundles off-shore oil drilling and banning e-cigs in public in the same amendment for us.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> I actually hold a significant portion of munis and against my accountants wishes to put them in pure stocks, they’re staying put.


You're a US taxpayer. Makes sense.  

(I disagree with your accountant - equity valuations are way less stretched than they were on 9/30, but they're still hardly cheap, there's evidence that corporate earnings and potentially GDP growth is slowing, and Trump's ratcheting up a trade war. In the near term maybe it's ok, but a majority of the economists I follow are calling for a strong risk of recession in 2019, and at that point you'd want to be underweight equities, if they're right. Myself, I'd just say stick to a long term allocation and don't try to time the markets, which would dictate a probably 30%-ish chunk of fixed income, more likely than not).


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I mean, that's cool you don't buy it. You're wrong, of course, people HAVE died fighting for their right to vote, but hey, if you don't want to "buy" that, you're your own person, I guess... It just has no bearing or impact on reality.



I maybe misread your intention, of "died to get the right to do what you're doing" as more of a "died for you to get the right to do what you're doing".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> I like how they bundles off-shore oil drilling and banning e-cigs in public in the same amendment for us.



Fucking Florida. 

We just had a yes/no on legal weed.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> You're a US taxpayer. Makes sense.
> 
> (I disagree with your accountant - equity valuations are way less stretched than they were on 9/30, but they're still hardly cheap, there's evidence that corporate earnings and potentially GDP growth is slowing, and Trump's ratcheting up a trade war. In the near term maybe it's ok, but a majority of the economists I follow are calling for a strong risk of recession in 2019, and at that point you'd want to be underweight equities, if they're right. Myself, I'd just say stick to a long term allocation and don't try to time the markets, which would dictate a probably 30%-ish chunk of fixed income, more likely than not).



That’s always been my position and that’s why I’ve left them there for 10+ years. He just thinks we’re young enough and also want to hit a certain target number, and stocks are the better gamble long term, and I actually do agree with him on that but I don’t mind coming in a little low and safer.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I maybe misread your intention, of "died to get the right to do what you're doing" as more of a "died for you to get the right to do what you're doing".


I don't know much about your race, sex, orientation, etc, save that statistically if you're on a guitar message board you're _probably_ a dude... 

....But, while not since the revolutionary war have we had white men dying for the right to vote, it wasn't much more than 50 years ago when we had black Americans dying for the same right to the ballot box that their white countrymen enjoyed. They may not have died for YOUR right to vote, but they believed something you place so little value on was so important that they were prepared to stake their life on getting it. That's certainly worth thinking about.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fucking Florida.
> 
> We just had a yes/no on legal weed.



We had that one a few years ago, and the majority overwhelmingly voted yes (fucking potheads) but it wasn’t ‘enough’ of a majority to hit recreational.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, I think you have the right mindset. I'm definitely _underweight_ bonds based on the "conventional wisdom" approach (a common rule of thumb is you should be in 100-minus-your-age stocks and your age bonds, but IMO that's too crude and too conservative) but at present my "default" long term allocation is more like 20% bonds. It's more for the volatility reduction than anything else, just to take the edge off market swings, though while above I was just saying how you shouldn't try to time the markets, it's also nice to look at it as "dry powder" to buy in on a sharp market correction. I actually did just up my exposure a little bit (from slightly underweight stocks to closer to my long term target) after the last dip.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> I had to re-read it twice just to make sure I was voting the way I wanted to - I hear that.
> 
> I suspect it was an intentional choice:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_3_(2018,_Massachusetts)
> 
> The bill was put forward by a group seeking to overturn the 2016 bill, and given that they _must_ have realized that the question was a long-shot in Mass, I suspect it was a strategic choice to phrase it the way they did, in the hopes they'd get a number of accidental "no" votes.



Look at that, it's exactly what I unfortunately thought  I had a feeling it was intentionally misleading, but I wasn't sure who it was put forth by that they had to rely on it being misleading for the handful of 'gotcha' votes


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> We had that one a few years ago, and the majority overwhelmingly voted yes (fucking potheads) but it wasn’t ‘enough’ of a majority to hit recreational.



Ours is pretty straight forward this year. Yes: recreational, medical and legal industry. No: status quo.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I don't know much about your race, sex, orientation, etc, save that statistically if you're on a guitar message board you're _probably_ a dude...
> 
> ....But, while not since the revolutionary war have we had white men dying for the right to vote, it wasn't much more than 50 years ago when we had black Americans dying for the same right to the ballot box that their white countrymen enjoyed. They may not have died for YOUR right to vote, but they believed something you place so little value on was so important that they were prepared to stake their life on getting it. That's certainly worth thinking about.



See, now there's something I can properly disagree with. When you get specific with it, black Americans weren't dying for the right to choose between a ex-HS-teacher and a legal consultant for a local judge position -- it's to have a say against policies that were in place in their districts/states where they constituted a significant demographic but had no representation to challenge it. In other words, they were fighting for change and for symbolic equality. 

But if I vote for ex-HS-teacher for local judge, it is simply not registering any degree of importance to my life, friends' lives, etc., and so I'm not going to feel any shame in abstaining from participating in that decision. Just because there was an important thing that people felt was worth dying for, and there is a current thing that people don't feel like pausing Netflix for, and they happen to both be "voting", does not mean that the underlying importance of these actions have any similarity at all.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't care who you vote for or what side of the political landscape you tend to fall on. Please go and vote.



Agree to disagree.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I don't know much about your race, sex, orientation, etc, save that statistically if you're on a guitar message board you're _probably_ a dude...



I resemble that remark.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> See, now there's something I can properly disagree with. When you get specific with it, black Americans weren't dying for the right to choose between a ex-HS-teacher and a legal consultant for a local judge position -- it's to have a say against policies that were in place in their districts/states where they constituted a significant demographic but had no representation to challenge it. In other words, they were fighting for change and for symbolic equality.
> 
> But if I vote for ex-HS-teacher for local judge, it is simply not registering any degree of importance to my life, friends' lives, etc., and so I'm not going to feel any shame in abstaining from participating in that decision. Just because there was an important thing that people felt was worth dying for, and there is a current thing that people don't feel like pausing Netflix for, and they happen to both be "voting", does not mean that the underlying importance of these actions have any similarity at all.


No, they were dying for the right to HAVE a say, period. They were dying for a seat at the table. Sometimes that seat brings with it mundane choices... But they, better than you, realized how disenfranchising and dangerous it could be to _not have a say at all_, no matter how mundane the subject. 



Randy said:


> I resemble that remark.


Don't lie. We know you're really Elizabeth Shue.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> No, they were dying for the right to HAVE a say, period. They were dying for a seat at the table. Sometimes that seat brings with it mundane choices... But they, better than you, realized how disenfranchising and dangerous it could be to _not have a say at all_, no matter how mundane the subject.



Sounds like you just said what I said back to me. But snootier.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Sounds like you just said what I said back to me. But snootier.


Not unless I'm misreading you. You don't think your vote is important because you don't think you have anything worthy of voting on. I'm saying people gave their lives to even have the _option_ of casting that vote.


----------



## cwhitey2

I gone done and voted


----------



## Demiurge

It was easy- 15 minutes door-to-door. Definitely helped to go later in the day but before most folks got out of work.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

narad said:


> Sounds like you just said what I said back to me. But snootier.



Yeah Drew. The snoot is moot. Mute the snoot. 
I have no idea why I found this comment so funny


----------



## Randy

I liked voting so much, I did it twice.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> I liked voting so much, I did it twice.



Just to make sure to cancel out all the voter fraud on the left, right?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> I liked voting so much, I did it twice.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

jaxadam said:


>



The Goof is a national treasure


----------



## narad

Phew, Dem won in my district by < 1k votes out of ~100k. Riskiest slacking off ever.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> Honestly, if Trump is re-elected in 2020, I wouldn't rule out moving overseas, either. It's not even the typical "if so-and-so wins, I'm moving to Canada!" you hear every election which is mostly just empty talk, so much as in the past two years, so much damage has ALREADY been done to American democracy, that I'm really not sure if our country can withstand another 6 years of attacks on the press, the courts, and the system of checks and balances that our democratic institutions depend on, to say nothing on the post-war international order that we basically built.



I didn't exactly leave after Trump was elected, but as an American living abroad, it was actually a major factor in stopping me from returning. For a variety of reasons, my partner and I aren't too thrilled with London and right around the 2016 election, we had an opportunity to return to the US. But she has some long term health issues and it was obvious that one of Trump's main agenda items was going to be dismantling the ACA (which turned out to be true) and the idea of moving back somewhere that we could be bankrupted by medical bills was terrifying.


----------



## Edika

MaxOfMetal said:


> The parent company to mine has some openings in Europe that sound very interesting, but I'm too chickenshit.



Come to our free healthcare socialist nightmare bouahahahaha! 

All kidding aside, it is a big step leaving your set way of life and moving abroad (I don't know your family situation but single people are easier to move around). However I've done this twice and after the first time it gets easier. If you decide to come to Europe though you'll have to learn the native language and it's a good inveinvest to do so. If yoi go to one of the Northern European countries you won't need to do it right away as 99% of the population speaks English. I won't recommend the UK until the whole Brexit debacle clears up.


----------



## zappatton2

Even for those itching to escape the madness of this particular administration, I think Trump's brand of autocratic populism seems to be extending well beyond America's borders. I'm hearing a lot of the uglier elements of Trumpism up here is supposedly "nice" Canada, Europe is seeing a rise in right-wing extremism, and Brazil is definitely crossed off my "places to visit" list.

That said, I don't know a whole bunch about the American system, but I assume the Dems capturing the house might at least take the edge off?


----------



## vilk

So my ballot didn't ask if we wanted cannabis stores, but it did ask if we wanted to elect a governor whose official position is that he wants to open cannabis stores, and there _was_ a question asking of tax revenue from cannabis sales, if legalized, should be used for public education. And then that governor won.

So that means it's like a done deal, right? How quick are they generally able to get this thing rolling? Ironically it finally happens at time when I have a convenient hook up who has the cannabis card so they can go to the store anyway... but does anyone from a legal state remember about how long it took to happen from when you got your pot governor?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> So my ballot didn't ask if we wanted cannabis stores, but it did ask if we wanted to elect a governor whose official position is that he wants to open cannabis stores, and there _was_ a question asking of tax revenue from cannabis sales, if legalized, should be used for public education. And then that governor won.
> 
> So that means it's like a done deal, right? How quick are they generally able to get this thing rolling? Ironically it finally happens at time when I have a convenient hook up who has the cannabis card so they can go to the store anyway... but does anyone from a legal state remember about how long it took to happen from when you got your pot governor?



It's a process, which can be slow depending on the intricacies and efficiencies of your state government.

A governor is kind of like the President of the State, they can guide policy (and veto) but can't make sweeping, multi-faceted laws without the state legislature.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

vilk said:


> So my ballot didn't ask if we wanted cannabis stores, but it did ask if we wanted to elect a governor whose official position is that he wants to open cannabis stores, and there _was_ a question asking of tax revenue from cannabis sales, if legalized, should be used for public education. And then that governor won.
> 
> So that means it's like a done deal, right? How quick are they generally able to get this thing rolling? Ironically it finally happens at time when I have a convenient hook up who has the cannabis card so they can go to the store anyway... but does anyone from a legal state remember about how long it took to happen from when you got your pot governor?


In Washington it took about a year and then some. iirc.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> How quick are they generally able to get this thing rolling?



huehuehue


----------



## Xaios

It's not exactly a quick process. The Liberal Party was elected in Canada in 2015 in no small part due to their promise of marijuana legalization. The official legalization date was 2 days shy of 3 years after the election, still less than a month ago on October 17th.

There was memes that day. So many memes.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I liked voting so much, I did it twice.


Vote early, vote often!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MaxOfMetal said:


> My predictions:
> 
> -Dems will grab a very slim majority in the House, but not enough to really matter as there are enough "swing" Dems to who will quietly go along with the Repub agenda, like they already have been.
> 
> -We'll pick up one of the Governorships, I'm thinking Gillum in Florida. We think the cards are too far stacked against Abrams and have less than zero faith in Wisconsin to vote out Walker.
> 
> -Beto will lose, because we can't have nice things.
> 
> Unless there is a total Blue Fucking Tsunami the media will hail the outcome as a win for the GOP which will embolden them to finally and fatally gut Social Security and Medicare. They'll totally get away with it too, and they'll parade it up and down the streets as a mighty accomplishment for America and ride the victory into Trump's second term.
> 
> I hope I'm wrong, but nothing in this last year and a half has given me any reason to be positive.



Man, not to toot my own horn, but I think I'm a wizard.

Sub Walker for Gillum and it's pretty close.*

*Surprising on account of Walker taking a walk, but not that surprising that Florida is Florida.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Man, not to toot my own horn, but I think I'm a wizard.
> 
> Sub Walker for Gillum and it's pretty close.*
> 
> *Surprising on account of Walker taking a walk, but not that surprising that Florida is Florida.


I'd question two parts of that: 

*I think the House majority is going to be robust enough to hold up. The Dems underperformed expectations, but only modestly - the median 538 forecast was a pickup of 39 seats, and they're trending towards 34-35. The House is about to be a major thorn in Trump's side, and his legislative agenda is essentially toast. 
*_Trump_ has been trying to spin this as a win for the GOP. Everyone else is somewhere between "split decision" and "full on repudiation of Trump's agenda," pointing to the fact that while the GOP picked up seats in the senate, it was a historically bad map for the GOP and more Senate votes were cast for Democrats, by a wide margin, than republicans. 

Otherwise, it went down basically exactly as expected; the Dems arguably underperformed expectations slightly, but made significant gains in the House and in state governorships, and staunched the worst of the bleeding in the Senate (AZ is looking increasinly likely to be a Dem pickup).


----------



## Ralyks

Democrat won my district, and basically New York as a whole. Boy, do I have friends that are pissed about Cuomo.


----------



## spudmunkey

"Democrats took back one, Republicans gained seats in the other. There's plenty of butt-hurt to go around."


----------



## Ralyks

So Jeff Sessions just resigned.

EDIT: Or rather, forced to resign.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> So Jeff Sessions just resigned.
> 
> EDIT: Or rather, forced to resign.



Via NPR - the "resignation" letter is at the bottom of the article.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/5391...al-after-steady-drumbeat-of-criticism-from-tr


----------



## spudmunkey

The whole letter would have been a heartfelt goodbye, appropriate for any one in that position...

...except for the "At your request" at the beginning.

Although, perhaps we're looking too deep into it. Perhaps he did it in person, and he was requested to submit a letter.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> The whole letter would have been a heartfelt goodbye, appropriate for any one in that position...
> 
> ...except for the "At your request" at the beginning.
> 
> Although, perhaps we're looking too deep into it. Perhaps he did it in person, and he was requested to submit a letter.


Highly doubt that. Trump is skirting a legal requirement here - if he _fired_ Sessions, control of the DoJ would pass to Rosenstein on an interim basis. If, however, Sessions _resigned_, then Trump would be able to name an interim AG pending Senate confirmation of a formal replacement. Don't expect Trump to nominate anyone any time soon.


----------



## BlackSG91

It looks like Donald is a little on the defensive and perturbed by the election results. It looks like his time is coming soon...no more being above the law the way he thinks he is.




;>)/


----------



## spudmunkey

BlackSG91 said:


> It looks like Donald is a little on the defensive and perturbed by the election results.



Buy why? Didn't he _just_ say yesterday that it was a big win for Republicans? Oh...wait...that's right. That was _yesterday._ Silly me.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Buy why? Didn't he _just_ say yesterday that it was a big win for Republicans? Oh...wait...that's right. That was _yesterday._ Silly me.



He's tired of winning, so he's getting crankier.


----------



## vilk

Public Service Announcement: If someone tries to rip something out of your hand, but you don't let go, that means you assaulted them.


----------



## spudmunkey

No, no...but if someone makes a doctored video where they speed up a section of it to make it LOOK like you karate-chopped their arm, when at normal speed it's clear you didn't, and it's shared by the Press Secretary as evidence/justification, *then* that means you assaulted them.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Didn't vote sadly.
They were letting all of the elderly cut the line before everyone (many who were on lunch breaks).
My friend actually filed a complaint.

I understand being courteous but I draw the line when it affects the entire demographic of who gets to vote in the election.
The voice of the retired was heard but the working class, not as much.


----------



## Drew

LeviathanKiller said:


> Didn't vote sadly.
> They were letting all of the elderly cut the line before everyone (many who were on lunch breaks).
> My friend actually filed a complaint.
> 
> I understand being courteous but I draw the line when it affects the entire demographic of who gets to vote in the election.
> The voice of the retired was heard but the working class, not as much.


That's actually probably illegal - were there election monitors there? And what state was this in?


----------



## jaxadam

Yeah, that’s weird. I let one of my servants go vote for me and they’re now saying SERVANTS have to be legally registered to vote, too! I mean, this fucker is from Guatemala or some shit and isn’t even legal so we dodged a bullet there, but I made a few phone calls and they were like “all right that’s fine Mr. Trump but just make sure he brings your ID next time.”


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Drew said:


> That's actually probably illegal - were there election monitors there? And what state was this in?


We figured it was illegal. I don't know if there were monitors there or not. My friend went before me and let me know the issue going on so I didn't waste my time going there since I couldn't leave work for long.

Alabama


----------



## spudmunkey

Another reason why election "day" is idiotic in 2018. Especially since it's not a national holiday, but that still may not be enough for those who work in the service industry.

I voted from my couch while watching Bob's Burgers, and then dropped it off on my way into work. I could have mailed it, but we have issues with the postal service in our area and wanted to make sure I did everything I could to make sure it counted, leaving little to chance.


----------



## Drew

LeviathanKiller said:


> Alabama


Alabama, engaging in voter suppression methods? _Weird_.

I really would love to see Voting Day as a national holiday.


----------



## spudmunkey

Even still, when I worked retail, I still had to work many holidays. At minimum, Voting Day should be something like Thursday, Friday and Saturday, or Sunday Monday and Tuesday. Or even more minimal than that, more complete rollouts of voting by mail. Beyond that, polling places open for a week for "early voting", etc. My little po-dunk rural Wisconsin hometown had something like 30% voter participation in before election day just from early voters the week before the election.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Alabama, engaging in voter suppression methods? _Weird_.
> 
> I really would love to see Voting Day as a national holiday.


Even just the notion of a Republican congressman voting to pass a law that increases voter participation is totally preposterous.


Also, the White House _literally_ released an altered video so as to discredit a member of the press. I think that at the next press conference, every single reporter in the room needs to rail him on this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Even just the notion of a Republican congressman voting to pass a law that increases voter participation is totally preposterous.
> 
> 
> Also, the White House _literally_ released an altered video so as to discredit a member of the press. I think that at the next press conference, every single reporter in the room needs to rail him on this.



The press has been so limp dicked about this administration, I don't see anything changing. It's been two years and they still won't use the word "lie" when anyone from this shit box White House actually, totally lies.

That's partly why they've been getting away with murder.

Now that the election has passed I've merged the threads.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The press has been so limp dicked about this administration, I don't see anything changing. It's been two years and they still won't use the word "lie" when anyone from this shit box White House actually, totally lies.
> 
> That's partly why they've been getting away with murder.
> 
> Now that the election has passed I've merged the threads.


Eh, that's changing - The New York Times and Washington Post at least are, at a _minimum_, pointing out that many of Trump's claims have no evidence in their headlines (I.e - "Trump Claims, With No Evidence, Widespread FL Voter Fraud), or that his claims are wrong. I've seen "that was a lie" in articles, too. Is that maybe not as far as would be ideal? Sure... But they're at least trying to walk the line of remaining neutral on _interpretation_ in their non-editorial coverage, but also aggressively calling out _factual_ inaccuracies when they happen (which is often enough).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Eh, that's changing - The New York Times at least is, at a _minimum_, pointing out that many of Trump's claims have no evidence in their headlines (I.e - "Trump Claims, With No Evidence, Widespread FL Voter Fraud), or that his claims are wrong. I've seen "that was a lie" in articles, too. Is that maybe not as far as would be ideal? Sure... But they're at least trying to walk the line of remaining neutral on _interpretation_ in their non-editorial coverage, but also aggressively calling out _factual_ inaccuracies when they happen (which is often enough).



That's all good and dandy for folks like you or I who understand the nuance of what they're saying, but some just read it and shrug "well, that's just their _interpretation_, it's not like he lied or anything". I think we're past the point where we can consider anything this administration says in good faith and that they're not just blatantly lying.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's all good and dandy for folks like you or I who understand the nuance of what they're saying, but some just read it and shrug "well, that's just their _interpretation_, it's not like he lied or anything". I think we're past the point where we can consider anything this administration says in good faith and that they're not just blatantly lying.


Better than the Fox coverage, where they DO blatantly lie, and join him for campaign events, I guess... :/


----------



## Drew

Also, I stand corrected - it was actually NPR that's gotten really aggressive about calling out factually incorrect claims in their headlines, the Times has gotten better but still isn't as aggressive as I'd like to see.


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> Even still, when I worked retail, I still had to work many holidays.



This should be not just a national holiday, but a mandatory holiday for all US citizens.


----------



## spudmunkey

tedtan said:


> This should be not just a national holiday, but a mandatory holiday for all US citizens.



"But I needs my shoppin'!!"
- 'mericans.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> "But I needs my shoppin'!!"
> - 'mericans.


Shit, you expect me to brew my OWN coffee in the morning?!?


----------



## spudmunkey

After working retail, when I think of it, I do thank the employee for working the holiday when I realize I'm taking advantage of the stupid extended hours, or shopping on a holiday...even though they may be doing it voluntarily for time-and-a-half, or something...because that's exactly what I used to do. One of my favorite moments was when I in line at a grocery store on Thanksgiving morning. Sure, if they weren't open, I wouldn't have gone, and the the world wouldn't have ended...but they were open, so I went to buy some sugar because I had run out that morning. The person behind me was complaining that she had to rush because they were closing early...on thanksgiving. The women (old enough to give zero fucks) behind her said, "Well there's a good chance that these good people would prefer to be at enjoying a lovely meal at home with their families on this day to give thanks, rather than serving your ungrateful ass."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Our corporate overlords would never let their bought-and-paid-for politicians let us get a paid holiday to vote, and politicians sure as hell don't want us voting either. Win-win.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Our corporate overlords would never let their bought-and-paid-for politicians let us get a paid holiday to vote, and politicians sure as hell don't want us voting either. Win-win.



Especially when you can just truck 'em in a few days later!


----------



## Drew

Good article on the controversy in Broward County in Florida right now, that will likely drive a recount and could potentially shift the race - tl;dr, an improbable number of ballots were cast without a vote for Senate, but with a vote for Governor: 







https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...hat-we-know-about-a-possible-florida-recount/

Eyeballing it, that's probably an 8+ standard deviation outlier.


----------



## BlackSG91

So since the Democrats won the House & not the Senate what powers do they now have? Does this mean Trump could face a possible impeachment if found guilty on the Russia probe or the Stormy Daniels pay-off, etc.? I know that they have the power to see Trump's tax returns and such. Do you think Trump is very worried now at this point?


;>)/


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Judging by his recent actions, I speculate that he is worried more so now than ever. It isn't just a matter of one single event that would weigh on him, but the multitude of terrible things he has done that have the potential to get him in trouble.


----------



## spudmunkey

The immediate result is that things that have to pass both houses of congress will now have a harder time gliding through.


----------



## thraxil

BlackSG91 said:


> So since the Democrats won the House & not the Senate what powers do they now have? Does this mean Trump could face a possible impeachment if found guilty on the Russia probe or the Stormy Daniels pay-off, etc.? I know that they have the power to see Trump's tax returns and such. Do you think Trump is very worried now at this point?



Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution grants to the House of Representatives "the sole power of impeachment", and Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 grants to the Senate "the sole Power to try all Impeachments".

So the House can impeach, but it's toothless unless the Senate also goes along.

The more immediate consequence of the House going Democrat is that they now get to run the various committees which have legal subpoena power and can influence other departments like the DOJ by controlling their funding. So they can, eg, subpoena Trump's tax returns (Maxine Waters will be the chair of the House Finance Committee), compel various people (including the President) to testify under threat of perjury about Stormy Daniels payoffs, etc. If the new AG fires Mueller, the House can essentially reform his team under their protection and allow it to continue. If the AG takes an alternate tactic and doesn't fire Mueller but cuts his budget to nothing, the House can step in and fund them.


----------



## StevenC

Imagine not turning up to 100th anniversary Armistice day ceremonies because of bad weather and then threatening to pull out of NATO again.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Imagine not turning up to 100th anniversary Armistice day ceremonies because of bad weather and then threatening to pull out of NATO again.



Weirdly, the "stand for the anthem or else you're spitting in the face of our troops" folks are dead fucking silent. 

Then again perhaps they can't speak from all the blood rushing to their war boners over leaving NATO.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Weirdly, the "stand for the anthem or else you're spitting in the face of our troops" folks are dead fucking silent.
> 
> Then again perhaps they can't speak from all the blood rushing to their war boners over leaving NATO.



Because it doesn't suite their narrative. I haven't looked to hard to hear whether or not the people complaining about kneeling have publicly said anything about Trump skipping the visit. And speaking only for myself (and no other Vets), Trumps presidency spits in my face far more than someone kneeling in protest.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> Because it doesn't suite their narrative. I haven't looked to hard to hear whether or not the people complaining about kneeling have publicly said anything about Trump skipping the visit. And speaking only for myself (and no other Vets), Trumps presidency spits in my face far more than someone kneeling in protest.



I work with a few of the "stand" crowd, none of them vets, and not a peep. No right-wing usual suspect (Breitbart, Daily Caller, etc.) has given it airtime. To no one's surprise.

Thank you for your service.


----------



## Drew

BlackSG91 said:


> So since the Democrats won the House & not the Senate what powers do they now have? Does this mean Trump could face a possible impeachment if found guilty on the Russia probe or the Stormy Daniels pay-off, etc.? I know that they have the power to see Trump's tax returns and such. Do you think Trump is very worried now at this point?
> 
> 
> ;>)/


To @thraxil's excellent post, I'll add that spending bills have to originate in the House, although the Senate can propose amendments, though they then have to be approved in the house.

So, the Democrats now have the ability to:

1) initiate investigations, and in particular reopen the toothless, partisan House Russia investigation. Expect to see them look at abuses of executive power for personal gain - they've indicated that going after Amazon's postage to punish Bezos for the Washington Post, or blocking the Time Warner/AT&T merger to punish them for CNN, as well as investigating Trump's decision to send troops to the Mexican border, at considerable taxpayer expense, months before the "caravan" was expected to arrive, but just before the election. I also expect to see Trump investigated for the emoluments clause violations, and his tax returns to be part of this.
2) initiate impeachment. I wouldn't expect them to do so, however, unless it became 1) too politically costly with the Democratic base NOT to try to impeach, or 2) for clear enough evidence of wrongdoing to emerge that it became likely even the Senate Republicans would support impeachment.
3) initiate all spending bills. In practive this will end in a lot of statemate and possibly a government shutdown, but it means the GOP can't just legislate amongst themselves, and will HAVE to, at a minimum, engage with the Democrats.

Additionally I'll note that despite a pretty ho-hum outlook after the election, wiith late-breaking races increasingly breaking towards Democrats as votes continued to be counted, the election has gone from being a mild dissapointment to right around what was projected - the Democrats seem likely to lose one additional senate seat, giving up two rather than the projected one (Florida is still possible, but not likely to stay under Democratic control, though it's AWFULLY tight and god knows what happened in Broward County), and gain only one less House seat than forecast, 38 rather than 39. That's a pretty solid outcome and while I was a bit bummed on Wednesday morning, things look a lot better now, a week later.


----------



## BlackSG91

StevenC said:


> Imagine not turning up to 100th anniversary Armistice day ceremonies *because of bad weather* and then threatening to pull out of NATO again.



That's because he's worried about his toupee blowing off his head again.


;>)/


----------



## thraxil

Pulling up my predictions from before the election:



thraxil said:


> I'm not optimistic either. I'd be very surprised if the Democrats take back the Senate. Trump is polling in the 45% range, which would be terrible for any other president, but is fairly high for him. Most of the remotely close Senate races are in generally red areas, so I'd expect his approval rating to be even higher there. Combine that with the absolutely shameless voter disenfranchisement campaigns that are going on (I have a friend back in Brooklyn who, despite having voted in every single election in the last decade and has been a poll worker, discovered that he was purged from the voter roll for "inactivity" days after the deadline to register), the even more shameless lies coming from Trump and Fox News, and the fact that they've spent the last two years stacking every court they can with unqualified but loyal Trumpist judges. I expect that there will be a lot of really shady stuff happening around election day, "coincidentally" in the close counties, lawsuits will result, but they will largely get thrown out by Trump appointed judges.



I'm happy to admit that there was less shadiness than I was expecting. Obviously, there's stuff going on in Georgia and Florida, but I feel like Broward County doesn't count (of *course* it's going to be messed up. No one gets points for predicting problems there). I'm frankly amazed that Georgia is still kind of in play. I was expecting straight out theft of the election there. Kemp will probably still win, but I feel like that would be a close race even without any cheating.

This clearly wasn't the Blue Tsunami that some were hoping for, but I'm honestly more optimistic now than I was before the election. As I saw it, this midterm election was a critical junction for Trump and his lackies to solidify power through whatever means they had available. Everyone knew that the House going back to the Democrats would set us up for the next two years being investigation after investigation into everything shady he has ever done and is doing and I think he'll have a hard time winning reelection in the midst of that (a lot of people that came out and voted for him voted because they wanted *anything* different than the status quo, but now he *is* the status quo and in 2020 the people who are energized to vote are the people who want anything but Trump).

I was really afraid that they would go all the way to prevent it and there would be some national emergency that interrupted the elections or some really flagrant, obvious tampering followed up by dismissed lawsuits and talk of "fake news". So all in all, I'm a little more hopeful about the resilience of the US democratic system.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I was really afraid that they would go all the way to prevent it and there would be some national emergency that interrupted the elections or some really flagrant, obvious tampering followed up by dismissed lawsuits and talk of "fake news". So all in all, I'm a little more hopeful about the resilience of the US democratic system.


I think that's far more likely in 2020 than it was in 2018, to be fair. There's a LOT more at stake, and if it's clear Trump is on track to lose...

To be fair, that was only a couple weeks before the election. I'd be curious what we were both saying this time last year... though, not so curious to actually spend the time going back to reread this thread.


----------



## Randy

Don't think I recorded it here but my predictions on the elections were Dems take house (correct), Dems lose Senate (correct), Gilum loses (correct-ish), Beto wins (incorrect).

On more subjective items, I thought the blue states turn bluer, purple states turn blue and red states turn redder. That is sorta the way it panned out, IMO. I was expecting a surge of anti-Trump sentiment in 'Democratic safe states' where turnout was lower between disenfranchisement and assumption the state was going to the Dem anyway and that Trump's last week or two 'hard right' bent was going to drive up those numbers but also drive up numbers in Republican strongholds. That seems to mostly have checked out.

The one surprise I had on that front is that I was 50/50 there'd be an X-factor of moderate Republicans in some of those red states that MIGHT have been incensed enough to go blue in some districts but I underestimated how effective Trump was at bringing them under his tent. I know the map didn't favor Dems in the Senate but I didn't expect them to lose any seats or at least 'net loss' any seats like they did.

The other prediction was about Trump himself. I was expecting him to be quiet after the mid-term and accept SOME defeat, strike a reconcilatory tone and blame Republicans for not embracing him. Then, within a couple days, his buddies at Newsmax and InfoWars would start to filter in with stories about immigrants being bussed in and then he'd start crying conspiracy. This one was a mixed correct/incorrect... most of this happened but I was surprised that he still forcefully claimed "near complete" victory and he also cried conspiracy a little sooner than I expected.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I was expecting a surge of anti-Trump sentiment in 'Democratic safe states' where turnout was lower between disenfranchisement and assumption the state was going to the Dem anyway and that Trump's last week or two 'hard right' bent was going to drive up those numbers but also drive up numbers in Republican strongholds. That seems to mostly have checked out.


I'm still trying to draw conclusions from the race, and I'm not sure there's one single one - we had staunch progressives run in red states and come within a hair's breath of winning, which should bolster the progressive wing of the party... But, they lost, whereas a lot of the pickups we did get were moderate, centrist Democrats. I think maybe both wings of the party can plausibly point to success, which I hope doesn't become problematic in 2020. 

But, highlighting this part - I'm going to be curious to see final turnout numbers, because this is looking a lot like a record year for a midterm.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm still trying to draw conclusions from the race, and I'm not sure there's one single one - we had staunch progressives run in red states and come within a hair's breath of winning, which should bolster the progressive wing of the party... But, they lost, whereas a lot of the pickups we did get were moderate, centrist Democrats. I think maybe both wings of the party can plausibly point to success, which I hope doesn't become problematic in 2020.



Meh. I don't think policy prescriptions dictate the wing of the party today as much as they did in 2016. In my state, Andrew Cuomo is considered a moderate but that didn't stop them from banning hydrofracking, passing debt free college and being on track to pass single payer healthcare. The marriage of Perez and Ellison lasting as long as it has shows that you can have progressive policies and still offer a 'big tent' that includes moderates and big business.

Revisiting 2016, I think the wedge in the party had less to do with policy and more to do with personality. Anecdotal but a close friend of mine that I greatly relate to when it comes to politics votes and agitates for Democratic candidates in all races but he still unashamedly has his 'Hillary for Prison 2016' sticker on the back of his car. Right or wrong, sexist, racist or not, Hillary Clinton was a polarizing entity in the party by the time 2016 rolled around and I believe strongly a lot of the split came from opposition to her individually and a lot of the harping on her policy was just adopting the talking points of their alternative choice (Sanders) than it was demonizing her BECAUSE of her policy differences; made especially clear by the fact she was receptive to 95% of Bernie's policies into the general election and a lot of his followers still turned their nose up at her.

That's a relevant distinction because I think the wedge right now is the same. It's not socialists vs. blue dogs. The current battle are people who say Pelosi's gotta go and those who say she's pragmatic and there's no better alternative. Again, you can draw a sexist line there if you so choose (I don't) but the theme that's repeating here are those that want change 'top to bottom' vs those that want stability and a known commodity.

I also think that's a disingenuous argument to make about "moderates winning and progressives losing by the skin of their teeth" when blue dogs like Claire McCaskill and Heidi Heitkamp lost. My biggest take away from this election is that being 'Republican-light' in red states doesn't work as a strategy in the Trump era (which I think is living on borrowed time, but that's another subject). I think you have to see and breed cultural change in districts and not just 'trick Republicans/Independents' into voting for a Democrat but instead convince them what they want _is_ the Democratic agenda, from top to bottom.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Don't think I recorded it here but my predictions on the elections... Beto wins (incorrect).



This was a pretty tight race. And I definitely saw more Beto signs and bumper stickers than Cruz's; 3 to 1, probably, so I wasn't too surprised when he was up by half a point or a point early on on election night.

But Texas has had the option to cast a straight party vote (meaning that you can go in and check a single box and vote for everyone running on the republican or democratic party) for many years. And this works in the republicans' favor because Tom, Dick and Harry from the trailer park don't get involved with candidates' political agendas, they just want to keep the transgenders out of the womens' restrooms and end abortion, so they can easily go check the straight republican box and head back home to their meth habit. (I realize I'm taking a bit of poetic license for effect here ).

But, 2016 was the last Texas election to allow the straight party vote. From 2020 on, we will be required to vote for each of the individuals we wish to cast a vote for. And there is even some talk, most likely idle, of removing the candidates' party affiliations from the ballots.

Hopefully that helps transition the state from red to purple/blue.




Drew said:


> But, highlighting this part - I'm going to be curious to see final turnout numbers, because this is looking a lot like a record year for a midterm.



I haven't seen any final numbers, but Texas had a higher turnout during the early voting than the total turnout for the 2014 mid terms, so I wouldn't be surprised if 2018 set state and national records for mid term turnout.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> This was a pretty tight race. And I definitely saw more Beto signs and bumper stickers than Cruz's; 3 to 1, probably, so I wasn't too surprised when he was up by half a point or a point early on on election night.



Which is a really tremendous win, in it's own right. Yeah, the guy that gets the job is what matters most, but Beto had to seriously swim upstream to get to even where he did. The Texas race gave me a lot of optimism because the vibe I got was a lot less "fuck Trump, fuck Ted Cruz" than it felt like legitimate enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate near the end. Those are encouraging things to hear because that's some of the cultural shifts I was talking about that help to turn districts blue and keep them blue. A lot to be happy about.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Meh. I don't think policy prescriptions dictate the wing of the party today as much as they did in 2016. In my state, Andrew Cuomo is considered a moderate but that didn't stop them from banning hydrofracking, passing debt free college and being on track to pass single payer healthcare. The marriage of Perez and Ellison lasting as long as it has shows that you can have progressive policies and still offer a 'big tent' that includes moderates and big business.


I lean towards agreeing with you here... But, I'm still nervous. 

Re: Heitkamp and McCaskill, I think if anything that just shows how hard it is to draw conclusions from this race, since we DID see such a range of outcomes. I just did a poor job making that point.


----------



## BlackSG91

Mitch McConnell is implying the Democrats will be using bi-partisan politics after they won the House. Coming from a hypocrite like him that's pretty rich if you ask me.

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-spectacularly-tone-deaf-060014950.html


;>)/


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is why things are broken.
> 
> Only half of this country bothers to vote for the POTUS, and even fewer, almost a third, vote midterms.
> 
> It's pathetic.
> 
> Say what you will about the _a_ssholes and the crazies, at least they bother to show up to vote.
> 
> Poor turnout is how terrible politicians stay in power and justifies the existence of antiquated systems like the electoral college.



I'd agree with you on principle in a normal democracy where one man=one vote. this is not, unfortunately, the case in the US, where in practice only the swing states votes matter. The winner takes all rule in effect in some states in an indirect election is the big culprit here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Andromalia said:


> I'd agree with you on principle in a normal democracy where one man=one vote. this is not, unfortunately, the case in the US, where in practice only the swing states votes matter. The winner takes all rule in effect in some states in an indirect election is the big culprit here.



That rings true for POTUS, but not the midterms or really any other race in the United States. Every vote counts which is why we're hearing that so many races are down to .5% or .25% margins. 

I'd argue that Congress is equally, if not more, important than POTUS. The current and last administration were perfect examples of that.


----------



## Explorer

I just wanted to post this amazingly revealing image of Trump beaming at Putin recently.







I suspect that the Democratic investigations will find more than a bit of evidence of conspiracy against the US by Trump and his people. 

Mueller has been slowly building the foundational cases which will support indicting Junior and the rest. The fact that he also has evidence which will allow state prosecutors to go after Trump's people probably upsets Trump more than anything, since he can't pardon them from state crimes. The Trump Foundation fraud case (not Mueller's stuff) is also moving forward.

Additionally, even though it might have to wait until he leaves office, if Trump actively continued the alleged concealed criminal tax fraud until he became President, then the statute of limitations doesn't start to limit prosecution until the end of the conspiracy to defraud. That means that NY prosecutors have two years after Trump leaves in 2020 *if* any such financial conspiracy ended just as he took office. If it continued after he took office, and is still ongoing, Trump can still face criminal charges for six years *after* it was discontinued. If it's still running at the point Trump leaves office, then NY prosecutors have a free hand until the conspiracy ends, and *then* the six-year clock starts running.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> The fact that he also has evidence which will allow state prosecutors to go after Trump's people probably upsets Trump more than anything, since he can't pardon them from state crimes.


...though, as it happens, there's a Supreme Court case being heard this term that questions that, and by some weird coincidence Trump nominated a staunchly conservative justice who has written in favor of relatively unchecked executive power in the past. Strange, no?


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Soooo does Ivanka get a "lock her up" chant for her emails, or is this just going to get swept under the rug until at minimum, the Dems enter the house?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Soooo does Ivanka get a "lock her up" chant for her emails, or is this just going to get swept under the rug until at minimum, the Dems enter the house?


Oh no. You see, "rules" only apply to Demonrats. Ivanka was just doing everything in her power to Make America Great Again.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## Explorer

This recent development just shows how the Trump clan believes itself to be above the law. It will be interesting to see what skitters around once the rocks start getting turned over starting in January. 

Subpoena power is going to get people under oath. Ouch!


----------



## Randy

Trying to be glass half full here, but the pardoning of Scooter Libby should tell us what we need to know about Trump's plans for Democratic subpoenas.


----------



## Jacksonluvr636

Explorer said:


> This recent development just shows how the Trump clan believes itself to be above the law. It will be interesting to see what skitters around once the rocks start getting turned over starting in January.
> 
> Subpoena power is going to get people under oath. Ouch!


They *ARE* above the law. So has been every other Presidential family since before any of us were born.

You guys are acting like Hillary Clinton was convicted for Treason while Ivanka gets away with murder. Besides there are some pretty big differences between each of their emails.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jacksonluvr636 said:


> You guys are acting like Hillary Clinton was convicted for Treason



So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen? 

To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams.



Jacksonluvr636 said:


> Besides there are some pretty big differences between each of their emails.



And you know that how?

As of right now, we have no idea what was on that server. None.

What's getting everyone worked up is that this is unfolding very similarly to how the Clinton email debacle came to light, only no one on the right seems to care. I wonder why.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen?
> 
> To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that how?
> 
> As of right now, we have no idea what was on that server. None.
> 
> What's getting everyone worked up is that this is unfolding very similarly to how the Clinton email debacle came to light, only no one on the right seems to care. I wonder why.


Oh, no, it's simple, really. You start with the fact that Clinton is clearly unamerican and guilty, and Ivanka is clearly an innocent true patriot. From there, it follows _obviously_ that Ivanka's email usage is _totally_ different than Clinton's.


----------



## Jacksonluvr636

Drew said:


> Oh, no, it's simple, really. You start with the fact that Clinton is clearly unamerican and guilty, and Ivanka is clearly an innocent true patriot. From there, it follows _obviously_ that Ivanka's email usage is _totally_ different than Clinton's.


Patriotism is for sheep.

Ivanka's unknown advisory role of being the President's daughter and Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State are completely different. Are you guys serious right now?

How could they possibly be even close to the same type of content?

Please let me know if Ivanka Trump is handling our foreign policies.






MaxOfMetal said:


> So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen?
> 
> To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that how?
> 
> As of right now, we have no idea what was on that server. None.
> 
> What's getting everyone worked up is that this is unfolding very similarly to how the Clinton email debacle came to light, only no one on the right seems to care. I wonder why.



Honestly every single thing you have said can be said on all sides.

So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen? - So we're pretending that chants of "lock him up" during anti Trump protests didn't happen?

To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams. - I will give you this one. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to imply here. I personally feel Clinton was guilty however our Government is corrupt no matter which side of the triangle you are on so nothing happened to her.


And you know that how? - Because Ivanka Trump is not the Secretary of State.


----------



## JSanta

Jacksonluvr636 said:


> Patriotism is for sheep.
> 
> Ivanka's unknown advisory role of being the President's daughter and Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State are completely different. Are you guys serious right now?
> 
> How could they possibly be even close to the same type of content?
> 
> Please let me know if Ivanka Trump is handling our foreign policies.
> 
> Honestly every single thing you have said can be said on all sides.
> 
> So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen? - So we're pretending that chants of "lock him up" during anti Trump protests didn't happen?
> 
> To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams. - I will give you this one. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to imply here. I personally feel Clinton was guilty however our Government is corrupt no matter which side of the triangle you are on so nothing happened to her.
> 
> And you know that how? - Because Ivanka Trump is not the Secretary of State.



Legally, your distinction between the positions held by Trump and Clinton are moot. Illegal is illegal/unethical is unethical. And none of us have any real idea what kind of information was in Trump's emails. I also think it's a fallacy on your part to think that Ivanka Trump hasn't had a role in foreign policy, regardless of her position title. She has engaged in international diplomacy as indicated by her recent trip to Africa; she also had traveled to S. Korea for discussions with the S. Korean President. Do those two examples not demonstrate/constitute foreign policy in action? 

Feelings of guilt and actual legal guilt are two different things as well. This is part of the problem that I have with much of the news. Opinion has become more important than facts, and people with opinions (rooted in fact or otherwise) are allowed and encouraged to become a source in which people make up their minds.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jacksonluvr636 said:


> Patriotism is for sheep.
> 
> Ivanka's unknown advisory role of being the President's daughter and Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State are completely different. Are you guys serious right now?
> 
> How could they possibly be even close to the same type of content?
> 
> Please let me know if Ivanka Trump is handling our foreign policies.



The fact is, we have no idea what her emails look like. In an ideal world they wouldn't be the same, but we don't know what the POTUS has shared with his daughter and closest confidante.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.msnb...ka-trump-engaging-international-diplomacy/amp

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/ivanka-trumps-influence-reaches-unprecedented-heights

https://www.thecut.com/2017/05/ivanka-trump-foreign-nations-relationships-policy.html



> Honestly every single thing you have said can be said on all sides.
> 
> So we're pretending that chants of "lock her up" during actual Trump rallies didn't happen? - So we're pretending that chants of "lock him up" during anti Trump protests didn't happen?
> 
> To a particular subset of the American people, she's already been tried, found guilty and scheduled for execution...in their fever dreams. - I will give you this one. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to imply here. I personally feel Clinton was guilty however our Government is corrupt no matter which side of the triangle you are on so nothing happened to her.
> 
> 
> And you know that how? - Because Ivanka Trump is not the Secretary of State.



We're talking about emails and the very different reaction to them now. 

We're not talking about Donald Trump, you're just deflecting. 

Clinton's guilt is moot, since we're not actually talking about the emails themselves, _because_ _we_ _don't_ _know_ _what_ _they_ _look_ _like_, but the way this administration and the GOP handled a very similar issue previously.

So to recap:
- We don't know the content of Ivanka's emails. You can assume either way, but feelings and political association don't make fact from thin air.
- The republican controlled House and Senate don't seem to care, even though they cared a lot when one of their boogiemen did something eerily similar. 

Nothing you deflect towards nullifies those two points, which is the basis for this discussion.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

Jacksonluvr636 said:


> Patriotism is for sheep.
> 
> Ivanka's unknown advisory role of being the President's daughter and Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State are completely different. Are you guys serious right now?
> 
> How could they possibly be even close to the same type of content?


As has been pointed out, legally, they're equivalent - Ivanka Trump was an unofficial advisor for several months, but after the nebulous nature of her role and the way it could potentially allow her to try to skirt ethics rules became a flashpoint, became a formal (if unpaid) advisor reporting directly to the President and subject to all federal employee regulations in early '17. Meanwhile, Clinton, as secretary of State, was also a formal White House employee reporting directly to the President. Both are subject to the same rules and requirements, including record-keeping policies. 

Now, the distinction you're _trying_ to make, is that Clinton could fairly be expected to see classified materials as the Secretary of State. Violating electronic record keeping requirements is definitely a problem, and that was part of the reason Clinton's email server needed to be analyzed (and why Trump's should be now). However, the other part of it was to determine what, if any, classified material was stored or transmitted on that server, and if Clinton had mishandled it. After an exhaustive search, the answer was "some, but extremely little," and that while Clinton was negligent in her actions, it fell short of criminally negligent. 

Now, did Ivanka have access to, and mishandle, any classified information on her own server? Well... We don't know. She has full Top Secret security clearance, and even now with her advisory role a little more formal than it used to be, her actual responsibilities are fairly nebulous, so it's hard to say just _what _would meet a "need to know" clearance for her. Certainly her father plays pretty fast and loose with this stuff, so it's extremely likely she's been receiving at least _some_ top secret, extremely sensitive information. Was that information sent over her private server? 

We honestly don't know. Which is why, just like Hillary Clinton, Ivanka needs to go through a full FBI investigation, partly to determine and preserve any correspondence that should have been backed up on White House servers as part of official record keeping requirements, and partly to ensure that any top-secret information was _not_ transmitted over that server, and if it was, that Ivanka was not criminally negligible in her activities. 

I mean, we have two senior white house officials reporting directly to the President with Top Security clearances and fairly wide "need to know" guidelines. Why should they NOT be treated identically?


----------



## Demiurge

jaxadam said:


>



Lettuce somewhat has a cap on enjoyability, so I'd settle for Make Lettuce Poop-Free Again.


----------



## Explorer

So, the latest development in the ongoing investigations against the Trump swamp: Mueller says Manafort lied, voiding the plea agreement, and has filed to have Manafort sent directly to jail, without passing Go.

As Manafort has already stated he is guilty, he cannot appeal his case. The plea agreement can be voided, but Manafort's guilty plea still stands.

I imagine that Mueller asked Manafort about at least one matter about which Mueller already had the facts and evidence supporting them, and Manafort lied in a spectacularly provable way.

The interesting thing about is is that Mueller will be asking a judge to make "findings of fact" regarding the matters surrounding Manafort. Those facts will be decided by the judge under a "clear and convincing" standard, instead of a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Most importantly, this proceeding cannot be contained or withheld using a claim of executive privilege on the part of Trump.

It's going to be a bench trial regarding the facts of the conspiracy with Russia.

Lastly, those findings of fact will be binding against those in privity with Manafort... including Donald J. Trump. As Manafort was Trump's campaign manager, the pair are contractually in privity.


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and regarding the lettuce... Trump is the one who rolled back the testing of water for crops, allowing the current E. Coli situation.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> The interesting thing about is is that Mueller will be asking a judge to make "findings of fact" regarding the matters surrounding Manafort. Those facts will be decided by the judge under a "clear and convincing" standard, instead of a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Most importantly, this proceeding cannot be contained or withheld using a claim of executive privilege on the part of Trump.


Beyond that, Mueller has indicated he'll be filing a "detailed sentencing submission" indicating in depth exactly where Manafort lied and how we know he lied. More likely than not, when filed, the filing will be sealed... But, it makes the exact lies and evidence therein a matter of the official court record than can be unsealed if need be, meaning even if Mueller's investigation were to get shut down, he's ensured at least elements of it can become public. 

I'm still not sure this is a great development for the investigation, vs a fully cooperative Manafort... But, Mueller is certainly making the most of this development.


----------



## Ralyks

Some speculation from a friend (emphasis on speculation), I'm just going to copy/paste what he said:
"Manafort and Trump have a joint defense agreement. If Manafort told Trump what he said to Mueller AND Mueller knows Manafort testimony is BS, Trump may have just committed perjury and obstructed justice with his written answers."


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Can't believe I'm going to actually post in this thread. I've tried so hard not to.

But I really, really hope you guys freaking out about Ivanka were _*just *_as pissed when Hillary got off scot-free.
I haven't heard anything about this yet and am operating solely based on the content of the last page or two of this thread, but even if she sent the fucking launch codes to some literal who's gmail account, I hope you're still pissed about Hillary. 

And if she did violate white house security regulations? Sure, lock her up. Couldn't give a shit. Investigate her, please. These people need to realize it's part of their damn job.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Can't believe I'm going to actually post in this thread. I've tried so hard not to.
> 
> But I really, really hope you guys freaking out about Ivanka were _*just *_as pissed when Hillary got off scot-free.
> I haven't heard anything about this yet and am operating solely based on the content of the last page or two of this thread, but even if she sent the fucking launch codes to some literal who's gmail account, I hope you're still pissed about Hillary.
> 
> And if she did violate white house security regulations? Sure, lock her up. Couldn't give a shit. Investigate her, please. These people need to realize it's part of their damn job.





Read what we're saying, dude. No one is absolving Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing, we're just asking for a little consistency from the GOP.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Read what we're saying, dude. No one is absolving Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing, we're just asking for a little consistency from the GOP.



Never said you were.

Just saying I hope you're still upset about it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Never said you were.
> 
> Just saying I hope you're still upset about it.



Why?

She's been a private citizen for almost 6 years. She was found not criminally negligent roughly 2 years ago. 

She was careless and broke established protocol. I'm glad things were investigated. 

I'm not sure what folks want.


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Never said you were.
> 
> Just saying I hope you're still upset about it.



I mean, I never cared for Hillary to begin with. This past election was a lesser of two evils deal for me personally.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I mean, I never cared for Hillary to begin with. This past election was a lesser of two evils deal for me personally.



I think what a lot of conservatives hear when folks say they voted for Hillary is "she was my ideal candidate" opposed to "she wasn't Trump", which is, from what I've gathered, how it was for most people. 

I have little love for political dynasties like the Clintons, but I probably would vote for a moldy ham sandwich over most of the candidates that the GOP lines up.


----------



## InHiding

I bet it’s the Russians and Bernie Bros in collusion.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Why?
> 
> She's been a private citizen for almost 6 years. She was found not criminally negligent roughly 2 years ago.
> 
> She was careless and broke established protocol. I'm glad things were investigated.
> 
> *I'm not sure what folks want*.



Charges pressed. That whole "No reasonable prosecutor" line was total BS. I'd be irritated still if she wasn't convicted, but that I could work with. The fact that there wasn't even a trial? That's an absolute disgrace.

And nowhere in my already-too-many posts in this thread have I (intentionally, at least. I can't control what you guys think) implied that anyone here _supports_ Hillary. I think what @Ralyks said was true for an incredible amount of people. What I _*am *_getting at though, is exactly what you said here.


> we're just asking for a little consistency from the GOP.



Except I want it from everyone. If you complain about Hillary but not about Ivanka (who again, I know nothing about this story. I'm assuming the worst), you're a hypocrite. And if you complain about Ivanka but not about Hillary, you're a hypocrite. I bet the majority of the _*country*_ falls into one of those two categories, and I bet it disgusts you as much as it disgusts me. 

So. Why I hope you're still upset about that scandal, is because I don't want to put you (or anyone, really) in that box. 
Or hey- you just never gave a shit about either case. That's fine too. It's a gross assumption on my part to assume you want to see consequences for this, so I apologize if I project views onto you that aren't your own.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Charges pressed. That whole "No reasonable prosecutor" line was total BS. I'd be irritated still if she wasn't convicted, but that I could work with. The fact that there wasn't even a trial? That's an absolute disgrace.
> 
> And nowhere in my already-too-many posts in this thread have I (intentionally, at least. I can't control what you guys think) implied that anyone here _supports_ Hillary. I think what @Ralyks said was true for an incredible amount of people. What I _*am *_getting at though, is exactly what you said here.
> 
> 
> Except I want it from everyone. If you complain about Hillary but not about Ivanka (who again, I know nothing about this story. I'm assuming the worst), you're a hypocrite. And if you complain about Ivanka but not about Hillary, you're a hypocrite. I bet the majority of the _*country*_ falls into one of those two categories, and I bet it disgusts you as much as it disgusts me.
> 
> So. Why I hope you're still upset about that scandal, is because I don't want to put you (or anyone, really) in that box.
> Or hey- you just never gave a shit about either case. That's fine too. It's a gross assumption on my part to assume you want to see consequences for this, so I apologize if I project views onto you that aren't your own.


What charges do you want pressed for "not criminally negligent"? Unless you believe the FBI investigation was insufficient.

The point here is Trump practically ran on a platform of "lock her up" but hasn't said a word now that his daughter has done the same or similar.


----------



## Randy

InHiding said:


> I bet it’s the Russians and Bernie Bros in collusion.



Troll-ish, and I was a Bernie Sander supporter, BUT progressives in the model of Bernie Sanders (I'm looking at you Thom Hartmann) were more than willing to accept spots on RT (Russia Today) even after it was clear they were being used as a pro-Russia propaganda outfit. You've also got Jill Stein sitting at the table with Flynn in his infamous appearance at the RT awards banquet with Putin.

Not that I think they're any more guilty of warming up to the Russian than anyone in Trump's campaign, but for the sake of accuracy, it's worth making not of the fact Russia have been trying to make inroads with anyone that would give them a voice in the West.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Can't believe I'm going to actually post in this thread. I've tried so hard not to.
> 
> But I really, really hope you guys freaking out about Ivanka were _*just *_as pissed when Hillary got off scot-free.
> I haven't heard anything about this yet and am operating solely based on the content of the last page or two of this thread, but even if she sent the fucking launch codes to some literal who's gmail account, I hope you're still pissed about Hillary.
> 
> And if she did violate white house security regulations? Sure, lock her up. Couldn't give a shit. Investigate her, please. These people need to realize it's part of their damn job.


I thought Clinton should be investigated, for sure. She was, and she was found not criminally negligent. As such, she shouldn't be charged. That's fine.

Trump, meanwhile, is saying she SHOULDN'T be investigated. That's where I have a problem. I don't think she should automatically be charged, but I don't think we can determine she should NOT be charged without doing an investigation. If at the conclusion of an investigation she's found not crimininally negligent, then I think she _also _should not get charged, just like Clinton.

I literally said as much here: 


Drew said:


> Which is why, just like Hillary Clinton, Ivanka needs to go through a full FBI investigation, partly to determine and preserve any correspondence that should have been backed up on White House servers as part of official record keeping requirements, and partly to ensure that any top-secret information was _not_ transmitted over that server, and if it was, that Ivanka was not criminally negligible in her activities.



Where's the inconsistency?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Troll-ish, and I was a Bernie Sander supporter, BUT progressives in the model of Bernie Sanders (I'm looking at you Thom Hartmann) were more than willing to accept spots on RT (Russia Today) even after it was clear they were being used as a pro-Russia propaganda outfit. You've also got Jill Stein sitting at the table with Flynn in his infamous appearance at the RT awards banquet with Putin.
> 
> Not that I think they're any more guilty of warming up to the Russian than anyone in Trump's campaign, but for the sake of accuracy, it's worth making not of the fact Russia have been trying to make inroads with anyone that would give them a voice in the West.


Also, not to pour salt into old wounds, but it was a pretty open aim of the Russian intelligence effort to stir up tensions between Sanders supporters and Clinton supporters, to try to get Sanders supporters to either not vote, vote third party, or vote Trump. Trump was doing much the same, for that matter. That's hardly collusion... It's not like the Sanders camp was actively courting Russian support for this "Bernie got robbed" narrative... But the "Bernie got robbed" narrative WAS actively sold by Russia.


----------



## InHiding

This emails, Russian stories etc. are just propaganda and a (successful) attempt to direct the discussion away from actual problems in the US. Do you even discuss anything else than emails and Russian tweets anymore?


----------



## JSanta

InHiding said:


> This emails, Russian stories etc. are just propaganda and a (successful) attempt to direct the discussion away from actual problems in the US. Do you even discuss anything else than emails and Russian tweets anymore?



I think it's incredibly short sighted of you to make this comment in a thread having to do with politics, and specifically politics as they relate to the current administration. 

Regarding your comment about propaganda: are you insinuating that the admissions of guilt, and actual federal charges against several individuals with ties to the current administration actual meet the definition of propaganda, specifically to deter individuals from realizing all of the other problems in this country and around the rest of the world? There are other threads dedicated to things going on not related to the Trump administration that have to do with other world events. 

I can't tell if you're trying to troll with that comment, or if you don't know what the word propaganda actually means.


----------



## InHiding

There is absolutely nothing to those stories. It's not illegal to talk to a Russian you know. I bet Obama did the same all the time and it sure wasn't newsworthy then. It's all a game that reaches to the animal instincts of people in order to make them enslave themselves mentally. It's a theater in order to make you a slave and it's works. I think it's impossible for you to understand any of this so I don't see a reason to continue this any further. Good luck. Leaving the forums for a year again. See you around 2020.


----------



## Drew

InHiding said:


> There is absolutely nothing to those stories. It's not illegal to talk to a Russian you know. I bet Obama did the same all the time and it sure wasn't newsworthy then. It's all a game that reaches to the animal instincts of people in order to make them enslave themselves mentally. It's a theater in order to make you a slave and it's works. I think it's impossible for you to understand any of this so I don't see a reason to continue this any further. Good luck. Leaving the forums for a year again. See you around 2020.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

StevenC said:


> What charges do you want pressed for "not criminally negligent"? Unless you believe the FBI investigation was insufficient.
> 
> The point here is Trump practically ran on a platform of "lock her up" but hasn't said a word now that his daughter has done the same or similar.



I disagree with the "not criminally negligent" statement. Strongly. I believe the FBI investigation uncovered all that it needed to, but the people that needed to pull the trigger to get an investigation started didn't purely for political reasons.
--
Quick edit I forgot to put in- but yeah, I concur that Trump shouldn't shield his daughter from the consequences of her actions. I understand why he would want to, both for political reasons and more importantly as a father, but I agree with you completely on that. I thought that was very clear in my post.


Drew said:


> I thought Clinton should be investigated, for sure. She was, and she was found not criminally negligent. As such, she shouldn't be charged. That's fine.
> 
> Trump, meanwhile, is saying she SHOULDN'T be investigated. That's where I have a problem. I don't think she should automatically be charged, but I don't think we can determine she should NOT be charged without doing an investigation. If at the conclusion of an investigation she's found not crimininally negligent, then I think she _also _should not get charged, just like Clinton.
> 
> I literally said as much here:
> 
> 
> Where's the inconsistency?



Awesome. I knew I always liked you, Drew.



InHiding said:


> There is absolutely nothing to those stories. It's not illegal to talk to a Russian you know. I bet Obama did the same all the time and it sure wasn't newsworthy then. It's all a game that reaches to the animal instincts of people in order to make them enslave themselves mentally. It's a theater in order to make you a slave and it's works. I think it's impossible for you to understand any of this so I don't see a reason to continue this any further. Good luck. *Leaving the forums for a year again*. See you around 2020.



Hah. You're 'in hiding.' I get it.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I disagree with the "not criminally negligent" statement. Strongly. I believe the FBI investigation uncovered all that it needed to, but the people that needed to pull the trigger to get an investigation started didn't purely for political reasons.
> --
> Quick edit I forgot to put in- but yeah, I concur that Trump shouldn't shield his daughter from the consequences of her actions. I understand why he would want to, both for political reasons and more importantly as a father, but I agree with you completely on that. I thought that was very clear in my post.
> 
> 
> Awesome. I knew I always liked you, Drew.
> 
> 
> 
> Hah. You're 'in hiding.' I get it.


And your legal background is? Are you trying to tell us the Republican headed FBI was pro Democrat?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> And your legal background is? Are you trying to tell us the Republican headed FBI was pro Democrat?



Don't forget that for much of that time, Republicans also controlled both the House and Senate.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

So you mean to tell me you can look at that *MASSIVE* pile of evidence, and go "yeah, there's no case there, because this guy said so and they're all red anyway."


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So you mean to tell me you can look at that *MASSIVE* pile of evidence, and go "yeah, there's no case there, because this guy said so and they're all red anyway."


да


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Awesome. I knew I always liked you, Drew.


I'm an arrogant asshole and share a name with a serial killer. That would be a mistake. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> So you mean to tell me you can look at that *MASSIVE* pile of evidence, and go "yeah, there's no case there, because this guy said so and they're all red anyway."


There actually wasn't all that much evidence of activity that could plausibly be called criminally negligent. Out of the tens of thousands of emails reviewed, only 20 or so contained top secret information, and they weren't identified as such by the senders, so Clinton's claim that she was unaware of any top secret information on her email server is actually rather plausible. Negligent, sure, and the fact that the server even existed was poor judgement. Criminally negligent? That's a much tougher conclusion to come to.

Again, though, I 100% agree that the FBI should have investigated her email use and her email server so that they could come to an informed conclusion. They should now do the same with Ivanka.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I'm an arrogant asshole



What a coincidence, so am I!

--
Look, I'm not trying to change anyone's stance on Clinton. At this point, it's just a difference in opinion.
All I ask is that if there must be outrage, that it's consistent outrage. Same as you guys. If you've been consistent, great; I'm not calling you out.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> What a coincidence, so am I!
> 
> --
> Look, I'm not trying to change anyone's stance on Clinton. At this point, it's just a difference in opinion.
> All I ask is that if there must be outrage, that it's consistent outrage. Same as you guys. If you've been consistent, great; I'm not calling you out.


Gimme a few, let me think of something suitably arrogant to say.


----------



## JSanta

InHiding said:


> There is absolutely nothing to those stories. It's not illegal to talk to a Russian you know. I bet Obama did the same all the time and it sure wasn't newsworthy then. It's all a game that reaches to the animal instincts of people in order to make them enslave themselves mentally. It's a theater in order to make you a slave and it's works. I think it's impossible for you to understand any of this so I don't see a reason to continue this any further. Good luck. Leaving the forums for a year again. See you around 2020.



There are both legal and illegal ways of communicating with foreign nationals and governments. I suspect it's impossible for you to understand any of this, so I don't see a reason to continue this any further. Good luck. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

Some context:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-didnt/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2529b7fbef85


----------



## Explorer

Ralyks said:


> Some speculation from a friend (emphasis on speculation), I'm just going to copy/paste what he said:
> "Manafort and Trump have a joint defense agreement. If Manafort told Trump what he said to Mueller AND Mueller knows Manafort testimony is BS, Trump may have just committed perjury and obstructed justice with his written answers."


Well, it might be that Trump committed perjury when he said, in the written answers, that he didn't know about Junior's Trump Tower meeting with the Russians, even though there is testimony that Junior had to speak with somene above him to get approval, and that Trump sisn't know about the Corsi and Stone contacts with WikiLeaks/Assange, even though I believe there are records of Stone visiting the White House just after, and of Trump asking for Russia's help publicly just after that.

More interesting, when Manafort pleaded guilty, that may have spelled the actual end of the joint defense between Manafort and Trump, as there was no longer any defense on the part of Manafort. That would render all subsequent discussion between the two parties and their lawyers as unprotected by attorney-client privilege. Ostensibly, they could ask Trump's attorneys if the Manafort people had asked for a pardon, and also ask the Manafort attorneys if Trump and his lawyers had offered a pardon.


----------



## Ralyks

Now Cohen officially pled guilty to lying to Congress in relation to the investigation. Apparently plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow is in there, which continued well into his presidency.


----------



## Drew

Planning, and Trump's personal involvement, continued at least as far as June 2016, well after Trump was the GOP nominee and well after Trump began denying he had any business connections with Russia, and at least as far as the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

Meanwhile, this could be a coincidence... But, the office of Chicago Alderman Ed Burke were raided this morning by federal agents for unspecified reasons, and the windows were papered over. Burke also ran a very small law firm, and did Trump's taxes for 12 years. Could definitely be a coincidence... But the timing and lack of information is suspicious as hell.


----------



## Drew

Pretty good synopsis of the latest developments from the Post: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...?utm_term=.c6496f86e4ec&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

The big ones: 

1) Re: collusion, we now have Jerome Carsi taking a plea deal that he knew about the Wikileaks release of hacked emails in advance of the leak, and passed information along to Roger Stone so that he could pass it along to Trump. That doesn't prove collusion... but, knowing that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge that the release of hacked DNC emails was coming leaves the door WIDE open for a tit-for-tat agreement. That's pretty huge. 

2) Manafort getting caught lying to Mueller and passing informaiton about the investigation and what sort of questions they were asking to Trump with an exchange of information between a witness and the probable target of the investigatrion itself is probably illegal, not protected by client attorney privelage, and if Trump was floating a potential pardon in exchange for Manafort continuing to play ball by lying to investigation and potential backchannel communication - and, again, he's publicly said as much - that strengthens the obstruction of justice case significantly.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> and if Trump was floating a potential pardon in exchange for Manafort continuing to play ball by lying to investigation and potential backchannel communication - and, again, he's publicly said as much - that strengthens the obstruction of justice case significantly.



It's also the dictionary definition of bribery.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> 1) Re: collusion, we now have Jerome Carsi taking a plea deal that he knew about the Wikileaks release of hacked emails in advance of the leak, and passed information along to Roger Stone so that he could pass it along to Trump. That doesn't prove collusion... but, knowing that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge that the release of hacked DNC emails was coming leaves the door WIDE open for a tit-for-tat agreement. That's pretty huge.


He is not taking the plea deal.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> He is not taking the plea deal.



Yeah everyone seems to be reversing themselves on the plea agreement. Guess would be they have reason to believe loyalty yields a higher likelihood of no jail time. I'd be inclined to agree, expect they're only got potentially a two year window for that to happen. Taking the charges to trial can draw things out for a looooong time. Still in interesting development.


----------



## Explorer

Regarding contacts from Corsi and Manafort with Assange: Assange was already under surveillance by the UK government at the point when Manafort approached him for help to aid Russian oligarchs. Same goes for when Corsi approached Assange.

So... possible ironclad evidence of what communications passed between the Trump campaign and Assange/Wikileaks.

----

Also, in case I didn't mention it: Mueller wanted a delay with the judge before addressing Manafort's plea deal. In that time of delay, Manafort and his attorneys were speaking with Trump and his attorneys, and Trump sent in his written and sworn answers.

It's pretty clear that Mueller wanted to lull Trump into thinking that Manafort was getting away with it, and Mueller might also have fed Manafort false information knowing that *Trump* would then feed it back under oath... and perjure himself.

And, of course, as it's possible the joint defense agreement between Manafort and Trump might be found to be nul after Manafort pled guilty, the attorney-client privilege between the Trup and Manafort groups might not exist, which means the attorneys can be questioned under oath about the now-unprivileged information, including whether Tru,p dangled a pardon... which is not just obstruction, but witness tampering.


----------



## Ralyks

.... I seriously don’t remember this much drama on a regular basis, much less multiple times in a DAY, with either Obama or Dubya...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Yeah everyone seems to be reversing themselves on the plea agreement. Guess would be they have reason to believe loyalty yields a higher likelihood of no jail time. I'd be inclined to agree, expect they're only got potentially a two year window for that to happen. Taking the charges to trial can draw things out for a looooong time. Still in interesting development.


Corsi said that he basically doesn't care if he spends the rest of his time in prison, he's not lying because it goes against his principles.


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> .... I seriously don’t remember this much drama on a regular basis, much less multiple times in a DAY, with either Obama or Dubya...



I mean, there was that one time the vice president shot a dude in the face, but other than that, yeah...


----------



## Ralyks

thraxil said:


> I mean, there was that one time the vice president shot a dude in the face, but other than that, yeah...



I mean, on such a regular basis. Of course there was drama in every administration I’ve been alive for (I was born mid-Reagan administration). But just about EVERYDAY?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> I mean, on such a regular basis. Of course there was drama in every administration I’ve been alive for (I was born mid-Reagan administration). But just about EVERYDAY?


But this Trump administration is something we've not seen the likes of before.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Corsi said that he basically doesn't care if he spends the rest of his time in prison, he's not lying because it goes against his principles.


He's preaching to an audience of one on that one. 

Still, we now know Mueller is aware of a series of contacts between Assange and, at a minimum, Stone, who had frequent late-night calls with Trump during this time, about the existence of the DNC hacked emails before it was publicly known. That's hardly good news for Trump. 

Meanwhile, Whitaker just got pinned down for lying to the FTC about his role in their investigation of World Patent Marketing, the firm he was on the advisory board that's being investigated for fraud. He claimed he had no contact with clients and his role was limited to consulting; a letter just surfaced Whitaker wrote to a disgruntled customer threatening to sue him if he reported them to the Better Business Bureau. Considering he's highly likely to face criminal charges both for his actions and for lying about them in a federal investigation, his tenure as Acting AG is likely to be short. 

The best people, folks!


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> The best people, folks!



Well, he also claimed to have the best words, then proceeded to give us gems like:

- Unpresidented (if only )
- Peach on Earth
- Our nation will heel
- Wire tapp, and
- covfefe

So we can't really take him seriously.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> So we can't really take him seriously.


Oh, I take him deadly seriously. He's still a fucking moron, though.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> Well, he also claimed to have the best words, then proceeded to give us gems like:
> 
> - Unpresidented (if only )
> - Peach on Earth
> - Our nation will heel
> - Wire tapp, and
> - covfefe
> 
> So we can't really take him seriously.



People say, people say that other presidents made typos, but believe me, we have -the biggest- and -the best- typos, people. The best typos. Nobody makes typos like ours.

China.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Jyna.



FTFY


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Well H.W. just kicked the bucket.


----------



## Drew

First president I can really remember (I was YOUNG when Reagan's last term ended, I remember things like the fall of the Berlin Wall but I don't really remember anything about him).

Bush Sr. and I clearly didn't see eye to eye on a number of policy matters, but the eulogizing from both sides of the political spectrum today says as much about how far the GOP has debased themselves under Gingrich and now Trump than it does anything else.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Explorer

It's pretty hilarious that Mueller held off on having Cohen plea until he had Trump's sworn answers in hand. It's a pretty sure thing Mueller asked Trump about his involvement in, and the dates of, the Trump Tower Moscow project. It's also a pretty sure thing that Mueller has corroborating evidence for Cohen's claims of the project, in the form of emails and maybe even recordings of Trump himself.

So, Mueller allowed Trump to answer those questions, and Trump likely lied. 

Further, Mueller also has many people named Trump by the same method, and their involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project. 

Mueller now has motive, financial gain, and likely can prove Trump is compromised by a foreign government. 

Pretty hilarious that Trump probably thought he was going to get away with his answers.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> First president I can really remember (I was YOUNG when Reagan's last term ended, I remember things like the fall of the Berlin Wall but I don't really remember anything about him).
> 
> Bush Sr. and I clearly didn't see eye to eye on a number of policy matters, but the eulogizing from both sides of the political spectrum today says as much about how far the GOP has debased themselves under Gingrich and now Trump than it does anything else.


Eh. I'm right leaning, but I don't think too highly of H. W.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> So, Mueller allowed Trump to answer those questions, and Trump likely lied.
> 
> Further, Mueller also has many people named Trump by the same method, and their involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project.
> 
> Mueller now has motive, financial gain, and likely can prove Trump is compromised by a foreign government.
> 
> Pretty hilarious that Trump probably thought he was going to get away with his answers.


I only have this on heresay, but allegedly Trump's written answers broadly align with Cohen's version of the story, and flat-out contradict his public claims.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Eh. I'm right leaning, but I don't think too highly of H. W.



Anything in particular? He's been a frequent commodity in Bay of Pigs/JFK conspiracies but outside of that, I always thought he was considered Reagan-lite.


----------



## Drew

Stock market got brutalized today - I thought the surge at the open of trading yesterday was a little irrational since if you were paying close attention this "trade truce" between Trump and Xi was basically an agreement just to keep talking for another 90 days. Trump didn't help by announcing a car tariff deal that his advisors had to backtrack as "not actually in place yet" either.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Anything in particular? He's been a frequent commodity in Bay of Pigs/JFK conspiracies but outside of that, I always thought he was considered Reagan-lite.


I'm aware of those, and it's interesting to ponder, but mainly because he hasn't really done much to make me go, "he's a good president." I think of him as being more Carter-esque, but maybe I am looking back on it in a limited fashion as opposed to someone who has lived through both administrations. 

I tend to fall into this same notion as a lot of people by saying "Obama is a 2kWhatever version of Carter." However, despite not liking his policies, Obama at least seemed to know what he was doing, whereas Carter seemed like a well-meaning guy who was lost at sea with soup spoons for paddles. Even if what Obama was doing wasn't best for America, at least in my opinion, he still knew how to play the game.

I know a lot of conservatives tend to think of H. W. and W. as pretty high on the list of conservative presidents, but I do not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's a damn shame all these Republican fucking goblins are dying at a time where we're seeing their legacies through rosy red glasses. They don't deserve the pleasure. 

If they had died a decade ago things would be much, much different.

Everyone is just going to remember him as a frail old man who wasn't nearly as dumb and shitty as Trump. Not for his treatment of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, poor management of assets in Saudi Arabia that was a precursor to 9/11, Panama, the list goes on. 

He was a mediocre at best POTUS (the bar is painfully low), a shitty VP, an even worse CIA Director and an all around shitty person. 

But, all anyone alive today will remember him for is being the dad to Michelle Obama's doofy war criminal buddy (W, not Barry), and not as bad as Trump. Fuck me. 

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/6732...ts-challenge-george-h-w-bush-s-record-on-aids

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama


----------



## Drew

Market's shitting the bed again, after the CFO of Huawei was arrested in Canada at the US's behest, further fanning trade tension flames. The 10yr treasury bounced back a little from the morning's lows, but at 2.87%, is WAY off the 3.20% we were bouncing off at the end of the quarter. Major risk-off trade going on today.


----------



## Jeff

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's a damn shame all these Republican fucking goblins are dying at a time where we're seeing their legacies through rosy red glasses. They don't deserve the pleasure.
> 
> If they had died a decade ago things would be much, much different.
> 
> Everyone is just going to remember him as a frail old man who wasn't nearly as dumb and shitty as Trump. Not for his treatment of the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, poor management of assets in Saudi Arabia that was a precursor to 9/11, Panama, the list goes on.
> 
> He was a mediocre at best POTUS (the bar is painfully low), a shitty VP, an even worse CIA Director and an all around shitty person.
> 
> But, all anyone alive today will remember him for is being the dad to Michelle Obama's doofy war criminal buddy (W, not Barry), and not as bad as Trump. Fuck me.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/12/04/6732...ts-challenge-george-h-w-bush-s-record-on-aids
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama



It's not that people forget that stuff, it's that it's usually more polite to let the ink dry on the death certificate, before shitting on the dead.


----------



## Bentaycanada

Drew said:


> First president I can really remember (I was YOUNG when Reagan's last term ended, I remember things like the fall of the Berlin Wall but I don't really remember anything about him).
> 
> Bush Sr. and I clearly didn't see eye to eye on a number of policy matters, but the eulogizing from both sides of the political spectrum today says as much about how far the GOP has debased themselves under Gingrich and now Trump than it does anything else.



The Gingrich part in that is interesting. From what I’ve read he’s had a large hand in the divisionary politics we see today.

After HW’s passing, I went back and reviewed the 1992 presidential election he lost. A British filmmaker once claimed that the 1992 RNC was the moment the religious right took control of the party, which in part led to Clinton winning by scaring off a lot of the moderates.

While watching this, I came across Pat Buchanan’s speech and decided to look into his ‘92 campaign against Bush. That was VERY interesting. His platforms in ‘92, ‘96 and 2000 were basically the forerunner for Trump. It was mind blowing just how alike they were.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> It's not that people forget that stuff, it's that it's usually more polite to let the ink dry on the death certificate, before shitting on the dead.



He's fucking dead.

People just don't want to have uncomfortable conversations about this stuff.

Avoiding this shit is what gives us assholes who name high schools after the founder of the KKK.






In order to move forward we can't excuse this stuff over some fake semblance of "politeness".

Again, the guy is dead. Who are you going to upset? His war criminal son?


----------



## Drew

Bentaycanada said:


> The Gingrich part in that is interesting. From what I’ve read he’s had a large hand in the divisionary politics we see today.
> 
> After HW’s passing, I went back and reviewed the 1992 presidential election he lost. A British filmmaker once claimed that the 1992 RNC was the moment the religious right took control of the party, which in part led to Clinton winning by scaring off a lot of the moderates.
> 
> While watching this, I came across Pat Buchanan’s speech and decided to look into his ‘92 campaign against Bush. That was VERY interesting. His platforms in ‘92, ‘96 and 2000 were basically the forerunner for Trump. It was mind blowing just how alike they were.


Yeah - if you want to talk about the death of bipartisanship in America, I don't know if it's where the story starts, exactly, but one of the first major chapters has to be Gingrich and his Contract with America.


----------



## Rosal76

MaxOfMetal said:


> Avoiding this shit is what gives us assholes who name high schools after the founder of the KKK.



That's my old high school. Class of 1995. Yeah, there was a lot of protesting when the name changing happened. Members of the Klan were out there with signs.


----------



## jaxadam

My favorite George HW Bush cameo:


----------



## jaxadam

Rosal76 said:


> That's my old high school. Class of 1995. Yeah, there was a lot of protesting when the name changing happened. Members of the Klan were out there with signs.



Go Wolverines!


----------



## Rosal76

jaxadam said:


> Go Wolverines!



I had no idea that they also changed the mascot. I still thought they were, "The Rebels" but fittingly if they changed the school name, the mascot also changed.


----------



## jaxadam

Rosal76 said:


> I had no idea that they also changed the mascot. I still thought they were, "The Rebels" but fittingly if they changed the school name, the mascot also changed.



Well, at least you didn’t go to Bolles.


----------



## Jeff

MaxOfMetal said:


> He's fucking dead.
> 
> People just don't want to have uncomfortable conversations about this stuff.
> 
> Avoiding this shit is what gives us assholes who name high schools after the founder of the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to move forward we can't excuse this stuff over some fake semblance of "politeness".
> 
> Again, the guy is dead. Who are you going to upset? His war criminal son?



No one is excusing it. It's just that jumping into this shit THE WEEK HE DIED is poor form, IMO. But hey, it's the Internet. Carry on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> No one is excusing it. It's just that jumping into this shit THE WEEK HE DIED is poor form, IMO. But hey, it's the Internet. Carry on.



The public at large's memory is frightfully short. If this isn't said now, it never will be. That's how it goes. 

It's like how we can't talk about sensible gun control after a mass shooting. 

What is the acceptable passage of time in which we can confront uncomfortable truths so we don't repeat history? Two weeks? A month? Year? Decade?


----------



## Randy

And those glasses made him look like a dork too!


----------



## Jeff

Forget it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> You may hate GB with the heat of a thousand points of light, but he was never convicted of a crime.



He came fairly close, but was able to pardon his way out. Sounds kind of familiar eh?

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html?_r=1


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Max seems totally unhinged at this point. Not sure what H. W. did to ya bro, but yes...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Max seems totally unhinged at this point. Not sure what H. W. did to ya bro, but yes...



Ain't even mad. 

I basically said what you did, that I'm not a fan, but supported it with a couple links.

I didn't really feel being talked down to about it. I guess I should take Chuck Schumer's example and be more civil.


----------



## Jeff

MaxOfMetal said:


> He came fairly close, but was able to pardon his way out. Sounds kind of familiar eh?
> 
> https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pardon.html?_r=1



Must be quite a burden, having such hatred for a dead man.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> Must be quite a burden, having such hatred for a dead man.



I'm just some dude on the internet. Like you said, it doesn't matter.

It's not like I was front row at the funeral being disrespectful.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.a...-trump-disses-at-bush-s-funera-1830909777/amp

Kinda weird how folks get bent out of shape for sharing some inconvenient truths about a dead guy, but have no problem getting personal with an actual alive person. It's cool though.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ain't even mad.
> 
> I basically said what you did, that I'm not a fan, but supported it with a couple links.
> 
> I didn't really feel being talked down to about it. I guess I should take Chuck Schumer's example and be more civil.


Your screed against "republican goblins" and follow up posts suggested otherwise. 

My apologies, dude.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm just some dude on the internet. Like you said, it doesn't matter.
> 
> It's not like I was front row at the funeral being disrespectful.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.a...-trump-disses-at-bush-s-funera-1830909777/amp
> 
> Kinda weird how folks get bent out of shape for sharing some inconvenient truths about a dead guy, but have no problem getting personal with an actual alive person. It's cool though.


I wasn't trying to be personal or rude with you if you're referring to me; I am legitimately concerned. I imagined some of your lines being recited like a hyped up 80s WWF promo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Your screed against "republican goblins" and follow up posts suggested otherwise.
> 
> My apologies, dude.



Harsh, and obviously represents my opinions, but I think there's some truth to it.

That political discourse has gotten to the point where once old "villians" are now seen with a much more forgiving eye.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wasn't trying to be personal or rude with you if you're referring to me; I am legitimately concerned. I imagined some of your lines being recited like a hyped up 80s WWF promo.



Nah, been hanging out with some old timers at work, so cursing more. They're a bad influence.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Harsh, and obviously represents my opinions, but I think there's some truth to it.
> 
> That political discourse has gotten to the point where once old "villians" are now seen with a much for forgiving eye.


Fair enough. I'm sure there are specific things that would make me want to run over Bush's corpse as well (ie, throwing him under the bus), but the thing is that it would require more effort than I feel it is worth. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Nah, been hanging out with some old timers at work, so cursing more. They're a bad influence.


Fuckin' whippersnappers, the lot of em!


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> That political discourse has gotten to the point where once old "villians" are now seen with a much more forgiving eye.



This much is definitely true.
I found myself missing dubya the other day. Dubya. That's where we're at as a nation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This much is definitely true.
> I found myself missing dubya the other day. Dubya. That's where we're at as a nation.



Fucking scary right?

Ummm...I mean...SHOW SOME RESPECT! His dad just died.

Alright, that's just me being shitty.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I found myself missing dubya the other day. Dubya. That's where we're at as a nation.


There is no way in hell I'll ever miss him as President.


----------



## Jeff

Spaced Out Ace said:


> There is no way in hell I'll ever miss him as President.



I do, but only in comparison to what we have now.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Jeff said:


> I do, but only in comparison to what we have now.


I think Bush was worse as it seemed obvious he wasn't actually running shit, and Cheney and probably his father were.


----------



## Jeff

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think Bush was worse as it seemed obvious he wasn't actually running shit, and Cheney and probably his father were.



Perhaps. Though we won’t see the true damage of what the Angry Cheeto has done until years later.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This much is definitely true.
> I found myself missing dubya the other day. Dubya. That's where we're at as a nation.


Right? His eulogy for his father was spectacular, though. Considering he was a president not exactly known for his oratory skills, that sort of speaks to how far we've fallen.  (To be fair, it's a lot easier to give a good speech from the heart about your father than to give a policy address, I guess).



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think Bush was worse as it seemed obvious he wasn't actually running shit, and Cheney and probably his father were.


I think Trump's worse than they are, though. And even then, I feel like on rare occasions W would buck Cheney and Rumsfeld if he believed what he was doing was right. Trump, well, I have zero confidence that he's not just doing what's best for himself and trying to notch up as many W's and as few L's as possible, rather than doing what he believes is best for the country. 

I mean, this is pretty damning: 



> The friction came to a head in early 2017 when senior officials offered Trump charts and graphics laying out the numbers and showing a “hockey stick” spike in the national debt in the not-too-distant future. In response, Trump noted that the data suggested the debt would reach a critical mass only after his possible second term in office.
> 
> “Yeah, but I won’t be here,” the president bluntly said, according to a source who was in the room when Trump made this comment during discussions on the debt.



https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-coming-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here-when-it-blows-up

He literally doesn't give a shit about the harm his economic problems will cause, not because he doesn't believe they'll cause harm, but because he won't be in office when that harm occurs.


----------



## Jeff

Drew said:


> Right? His eulogy for his father was spectacular, though. Considering he was a president not exactly known for his oratory skills, that sort of speaks to how far we've fallen.  (To be fair, it's a lot easier to give a good speech from the heart about your father than to give a policy address, I guess).
> 
> 
> I think Trump's worse than they are, though. And even then, I feel like on rare occasions W would buck Cheney and Rumsfeld if he believed what he was doing was right. Trump, well, I have zero confidence that he's not just doing what's best for himself and trying to notch up as many W's and as few L's as possible, rather than doing what he believes is best for the country.
> 
> I mean, this is pretty damning:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-on-coming-debt-crisis-i-wont-be-here-when-it-blows-up
> 
> He literally doesn't give a shit about the harm his economic problems will cause, not because he doesn't believe they'll cause harm, but because he won't be in office when that harm occurs.



What a piece of shit.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## vilk

jaxadam said:


>


Close, but there's no conceivable way that Trump would make a sentence with that many words in a row.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Right? His eulogy for his father was spectacular, though. Considering he was a president not exactly known for his oratory skills, that sort of speaks to how far we've fallen.  (To be fair, it's a lot easier to give a good speech from the heart about your father than to give a policy address, I guess).



His speech for McCain was really, really good too- the best of the bunch, in my opinion.
I made fun of him along with everyone else at the time, but I think he'd probably be a lot more welcome these days. I don't know if my tolerance for ridiculousness has gotten alarmingly high, but what I've seen/heard from dubya in the past couple years has really made me see him in a new light. Maybe he just wasn't ready? 
Or maybe being "out of the game" has brought him back down to reality and away from all the crazy shit he did in office, but who knows.


----------



## bostjan

GHWB was responsible for Saddam Hussein's rise to power, along with tons of other sketchy stuff, as head of the CIA. As a presidential candidate, he made promises he knew he could never keep ("Read my lips...") just to get elected, and voters called him out on that during the next election.

Just because his idiot son managed to be possibly the worst president ever, doesn't mean he deserves respect.

...

On the other topic...Trump is now blatantly verbally excusing the Saudis murdering a reporter and got caught using back channels to pass messages to people testifying against him. How can anyone continue to support him?!

...

Maybe we should just do away with the office of PotUS. It's too much power for one person. Maybe divide that power amongst an executive cabinet with power checks among them and between that branch and the rest of government. Maybe nothing gets done, but perhaps that situation is still better than this.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Maybe we should just do away with the office of PotUS. It's too much power for one person. Maybe divide that power amongst an executive cabinet with power checks among them and between that branch and the rest of government. Maybe nothing gets done, but perhaps that situation is still better than this.



Separation of powers still handles this, the only wrinkle as of current is that both parties have worked overtime to subvert oversight of executives/officers for the last 40+ years, and now the threshold for impeachment or any kind of oversight is so high that they're all essentially above the law (at least the laws as the rest of us adhere to them). 

We're also living through the reality of what George Washington threatened about when he railed against political parties. Keeping the parties and the interests of their financiers satisfied has now surpassed the concerns of the voters or respecting the law or the Constitution. As long as Trump will sign whatever right leaning legislation passes his desk or as long as he'll aggressively race bait from the pulpit to get his people re-elected, he is essentially invincible.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> On the other topic...Trump is now blatantly verbally excusing the Saudis murdering a reporter and got caught using back channels to pass messages to people testifying against him. How can anyone continue to support him?!


Yeah, W. may have had a lock on "worst president in modern times" until about two years ago.  For now, I'll say he's a much better ex-president than he ever was a president.


----------



## bostjan

Without parties, I don't see how Trump would have ever won. From my perspective, Trump doesn't stand for any Republican ideas unless they apply in such a way as to exclusively benefit him.

Trump has been showing his cards too much the past months. Any subtlety he could have played to obfuscate his corruption is floating in the toilet now; it's just refusing to wash down. This blatant defense of the Saudi government when the evidence is undeniable that they were complicit (or worse) in the murder of a reporter- it's as unamerican as it gets, in terms of Republican values, at least as I see them. Paying hush money to his mistresses out of campaign funds and then saying he didn't, until he gets caught, then still saying there was nothing wrong with it, because Obama also made a (totally not comparable) mistake with campaign funds once?! Lock up HRC for email nonsense, but his own family and staff can do the same email crap? How do you hold any set of consistent values and defend that type of shenanigans? No proof of any wrongdoing at all, other than that pesky proof of wrongdoing that keeps convicting everyone within a ten mile radius of Trump.

Has any president had this much trouble staffing the White House?

I really was opposed to Trump until after the election, when I naively tried to convince myself that maybe he wouldn't be so bad, but the benefit of the doubt really doesn't ever go beyond the extent to which disbelief can extend.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> As long as Trump will sign whatever right leaning legislation passes his desk or as long as he'll aggressively race bait from the pulpit to get his people re-elected, he is essentially invincible.



Right on cue



> Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Monday dismissed federal charges implicating President Trump in crimes committed by his former lawyer, saying that he doesn't care about the argument made in a court filing by the Southern District of New York because Trump is a good president.
> 
> "I don't care, all I can say is he's doing a good job as president," Hatch said in an interview with CNN, before adding that he's not bothered by the filing because he doesn't think Trump was involved in crimes.
> 
> "The Democrats will do anything to hurt this president," he told CNN. "What happened before he was elected president is one thing, but since he’s been elected the economy’s done well, our country is moving ahead. We’re in better shape than when we were before he became president. And I think we ought to judge him on that basis."


https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...f-prosecutors-are-arguing-trump-broke-the-law


----------



## USMarine75

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think Bush was worse as it seemed obvious he wasn't actually running shit, and Cheney and probably his father were.



Some boring history to follow... feel free to check out now lol...

During his first term, Bush deferred to Cheney precisely because Cheney had been in politics since 1969. Cheney started out as Rumsfeld's assistant and protege and became Rumsfeld's DCOS all under Nixon. When Rumsfeld was promoted from WH COS to SecDef under Ford, Cheney became the WH COS. He had a lifetime of executive experience and W deferred to him as the expert. W wasn't a hand's on president, exactly in the mold of Reagan before him - to those he trusted, he delegated. Grant was famous for this "mistake" as well.

Go look at photos of the Oval Office from the first and second term. During the first term chairs and faces are turned towards Cheney, as if he is leading the meetings. In the second term, Cheney is in a corner doing crossword puzzles.

When Bush/Cheney won, Cheney reached out to his former mentor, now in retirement. Cheney was insistent they bring Rumsfeld back into government once again as SecDef. Like it or not, but again he had a wealth of experience and credibility in that field. When W ultimately decided Rumsfeld was to blame for the failing police state (i.e. insurgencies, etc) in Iraq post-Saddam, W asked Cheney to fire his former mentor. W publicly praised Rumsfeld and publicly said he didn't want him to resign, but that was not the case behind the scenes, hence W wanted the pressure to come from Cheney. This soured the relationship between W and Cheney and they were barely on speaking terms during the second term.

Great article about 41's thoughts on Cheney and Rumsfeld:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...eney-donald-rumsfeld-iraq-jon-meacham/414343/


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Without parties, I don't see how Trump would have ever won. From my perspective, Trump doesn't stand for any Republican ideas unless they apply in such a way as to exclusively benefit him.


Without oxygen, he wouldn't have won, either, but considering the stable equiliberum state of the government system set up by the US Constitution is two closely balanced parties, you may as well wish for a hydrogen atmosphere as a world without parties. 

Also, I'm not convinced that's true. Trump won the republican nomination by being the loudest voice in the room. Without the nomination process, you have Hillary and Bernie splitting the vote on the left, denying either an outright majority, and Trump running away with the low information voter vote on the right, and I'm really not sure Hillary would have done slightly better with Democrats than Trump would have done with Republicans, given how divisive the campain was. If Trump became the GOP nominee through sheer name recognition and sucking up the media attention, it's not inconceivable that in an open election with the same number of interested parties, the same thing would have happened. In fact, if I was forced at gunpoint to pick an outcome to bet on, I'm going to have to say that I'd probably bet on _Trump_, in an election with Trump, 15 other Republicans, Hillary, and Bernie.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Some boring history to follow... feel free to check out now lol...
> 
> During his first term, Bush deferred to Cheney precisely because Cheney had been in politics since 1969. Cheney started out as Rumsfeld's assistant and protege and became Rumsfeld's DCOS all under Nixon. When Rumsfeld was promoted from WH COS to SecDef under Ford, Cheney became the WH COS. He had a lifetime of executive experience and W deferred to him as the expert. W wasn't a hand's on president, exactly in the mold of Reagan before him - to those he trusted, he delegated. Grant was famous for this "mistake" as well.
> 
> Go look at photos of the Oval Office from the first and second term. During the first term chairs and faces are turned towards Cheney, as if he is leading the meetings. In the second term, Cheney is in a corner doing crossword puzzles.
> 
> When Bush/Cheney won, Cheney reached out to his former mentor, now in retirement. Cheney was insistent they bring Rumsfeld back into government once again as SecDef. Like it or not, but again he had a wealth of experience and credibility in that field. When W ultimately decided Rumsfeld was to blame for the failing police state (i.e. insurgencies, etc) in Iraq post-Saddam, W asked Cheney to fire his former mentor. W publicly praised Rumsfeld and publicly said he didn't want him to resign, but that was not the case behind the scenes, hence W wanted the pressure to come from Cheney. This soured the relationship between W and Cheney and they were barely on speaking terms during the second term.
> 
> Great article about 41's thoughts on Cheney and Rumsfeld:
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...eney-donald-rumsfeld-iraq-jon-meacham/414343/


Huh. Interesting take. I'll definitely be reading that article later.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Without oxygen, he wouldn't have won



Case in point: Khashoggi. He didn't have oxygen, he didn't win.

Trump loves oxygen and Trump loves winning.


----------



## spudmunkey

I prefer people who don't succumb to a lack of oxygen.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Huh. Interesting take. I'll definitely be reading that article later.



Check out Family of Secrets as well... 10/10 IMO. The author set out to write a book about how unlikely it was that W could have been elected president, and figured out he couldn't tell the story of W, without telling the story of Poppy (41) and Prescott (41's dad). Amazing book. Made me jealous I wasn't born into a dynastic family. Also makes you wonder why 41 might have been in Dallas, along with Nixon and (of course) LBJ. That, along with Ford being a part of the Warren Commission, meant 4 future presidents had ties to Dallas that day. This isn't a conspiracy book however per se, but there is a wealth of FOIA'd info that is cogently presented for you to think about.




https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fa...6OzumYCa3wIVwVqGCh3Waw4AEAQYASABEgLQdvD_BwE#/


----------



## Ralyks

Cohen just got 36 months.

And boy, that meeting between Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer sure was... Something...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

USMarine75 said:


> Check out Family of Secrets as well... 10/10 IMO. The author set out to write a book about how unlikely it was that W could have been elected president, and figured out he couldn't tell the story of W, without telling the story of Poppy (41) and Prescott (41's dad). Amazing book. Made me jealous I wasn't born into a dynastic family. Also makes you wonder why 41 might have been in Dallas, along with Nixon and (of course) LBJ. That, along with Ford being a part of the Warren Commission, meant 4 future presidents had ties to Dallas that day. This isn't a conspiracy book however per se, but there is a wealth of FOIA'd info that is cogently presented for you to think about.
> 
> View attachment 65664
> 
> 
> https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fa...6OzumYCa3wIVwVqGCh3Waw4AEAQYASABEgLQdvD_BwE#/


I, uh... I don't remember where I was on that day. -shifty eye movements-


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Cohen just got 36 months.
> 
> And boy, that meeting between Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer sure was... Something...


It sure was, wasn't it? 



USMarine75 said:


> Check out Family of Secrets as well... 10/10 IMO. The author set out to write a book about how unlikely it was that W could have been elected president, and figured out he couldn't tell the story of W, without telling the story of Poppy (41) and Prescott (41's dad). Amazing book. Made me jealous I wasn't born into a dynastic family. Also makes you wonder why 41 might have been in Dallas, along with Nixon and (of course) LBJ. That, along with Ford being a part of the Warren Commission, meant 4 future presidents had ties to Dallas that day. This isn't a conspiracy book however per se, but there is a wealth of FOIA'd info that is cogently presented for you to think about.


Hey, I worked for BBH for a time. The fact that H.W. basically had a lock on a partnership there, had he wanted it... for the rest of us, that would have taken virtually an entire career to earn.


----------



## Drew

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...in-non-prosecution-agreement-with-prosecutors

This is a big deal. American Media, the National Enquirer parent, struck a nonprosecution deal with the New York prosecutors investigating Cohen, and have admitted to investigators that Trump campaign staff beyond Cohen were present in early meetings about buying McDougal's story, and that the express purpose of their doing so was to prevent negative publicity from coming out during the campaign. That makes the $150,000 payment an undisclosed campaign contribution and a violation of campaign finance law, and thanks to Cohen's testimony and recordings there is evidence that Trump himself directed the payment to McDougal and Daniels, making Trump himself a party to campaign finance fraud. 

Prior to this development, Trump could at least try to argue that these payments were, as he put it, "a private matter," unrelated to the campaign. Now that the publisher is prepared to cooperate with investigators and testify under oath that the explicit purpose of these payments, at the time they made them at the direction of Trump's personal lawyer and members of the Trump campaign, were to busy a story they didn't want to come out during the election, that becomes a LOT less likely to hold up in a court of law.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> It sure was, wasn't it?
> 
> 
> Hey, I worked for BBH for a time. The fact that H.W. basically had a lock on a partnership there, had he wanted it... for the rest of us, that would have taken virtually an entire career to earn.



You will love this book then... there is a lot about BBH, Thatcher Brown, and George Herbert Walker.


----------



## USMarine75

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I, uh... I don't remember where I was on that day. -shifty eye movements-



This was taken on 11/22/63. make of it what you will...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

USMarine75 said:


> This was taken on 11/22/63. make of it what you will...


Seems suspicious.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> You will love this book then... there is a lot about BBH, Thatcher Brown, and George Herbert Walker.


 I was, ahem, not fond of that place, by the time I gave notice. I left without anything else lined up, if that tells you anything.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

This is another potentially big development - there's been a lot of quiet speculation that Russia funneled a LOT of money into political races in the United States through the NRA. Butina's testimony here could be important to finding out what exactly was going on there.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> This is a big deal. American Media, the National Enquirer parent, struck a nonprosecution deal with the New York prosecutors investigating Cohen, and have admitted to investigators that Trump campaign staff beyond Cohen were present in early meetings about buying McDougal's story, and that the express purpose of their doing so was to prevent negative publicity from coming out during the campaign.



And now it turns out the "Trump campaign staff" which was in the room in 2015 plotting to pay to hide information damaging to the campaign was... Trump himself. Trump directed and planned these felonies to be committed.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/butina-guilty.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
> 
> This is another potentially big development - there's been a lot of quiet speculation that Russia funneled a LOT of money into political races in the United States through the NRA. Butina's testimony here could be important to finding out what exactly was going on there.



I'm skeptical that if she was really working for Putin at that level that she'd cooperate in a meaningful way. If my choice was between a few years in a US prison and publicly betraying Putin, I'd probably take the easy out with prison. I suspect that Manafort has continued trying to pull dirty tricks the whole time for a similar reason. If you have family that you care about, there are worse things that can happen to you/them than prison.


----------



## Ralyks

thraxil said:


> I'm skeptical that if she was really working for Putin at that level that she'd cooperate in a meaningful way. If my choice was between a few years in a US prison and publicly betraying Putin, I'd probably take the easy out with prison.



It's basically be US prison vs being mauled by Putins tiger. With Putin having a shirt ON.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> And now it turns out the "Trump campaign staff" which was in the room in 2015 plotting to pay to hide information damaging to the campaign was... Trump himself. Trump directed and planned these felonies to be committed.


Doubtful, though we know he was in the loop. 



thraxil said:


> I'm skeptical that if she was really working for Putin at that level that she'd cooperate in a meaningful way. If my choice was between a few years in a US prison and publicly betraying Putin, I'd probably take the easy out with prison. I suspect that Manafort has continued trying to pull dirty tricks the whole time for a similar reason. If you have family that you care about, there are worse things that can happen to you/them than prison.


I doubt she was working directly for Putin, but she was probably working for people who were. As Pynchon quipped, "the depravity of the masters is directly in proportion to the innocence of their creatures." She was a pawn. But, a pawn should know where she was getting directions, and what those directions where, and that's valuable.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/trump-government-shutdown.html

Because Trump is a fucking moronic _child_, he's doing his best to torpedo the bipartisan compromise coming out of the Senate to avert a government shutdown over the Christmas weekend. And seeing as it's very unclear if the Republicans have the votes in the house to pass an amendment to the Senate bill, he may actually have to either back down - which he seems incapable of - or veto the compromise spending bill.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/us/politics/trump-government-shutdown.html
> 
> Because Trump is a fucking moronic _child_, he's doing his best to torpedo the bipartisan compromise coming out of the Senate to avert a government shutdown over the Christmas weekend. And seeing as it's very unclear if the Republicans have the votes in the house to pass an amendment to the Senate bill, he may actually have to either back down - which he seems incapable of - or veto the compromise spending bill.



He'll likely cave. I think very little of what he does is rooted in some close held ideology and more-so that he knows what his base likes and he wants to keep them happy. He's also learned that they'll bend to whatever excuses he makes. So something like 'border wall funding' is less about delivering and more about looking like you _tried_ to and having a scapegoat when you don't.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> He'll likely cave. I think very little of what he does is rooted in some close held ideology and more-so that he knows what his base likes and he wants to keep them happy. He's also learned that they'll bend to whatever excuses he makes. So something like 'border wall funding' is less about delivering and more about looking like you _tried_ to and having a scapegoat when you don't.


I'm hoping he caves, because it doesn't look like the House has the votes to actually get him a bill with a $5B commitment. It's just, I think by now we know you can never count on Trump to do the logical thing, you know?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Not political, well not entirely, but Harvey Weinstein got told to fly a metal kite in a thunderstorm when he motioned to have his case thrown out. 

Fuck throwing the book at him, judge. At this point, just beat him to fucking death with it.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Not political, well not entirely, but Harvey Weinstein got told to fly a metal kite in a thunderstorm when he motioned to have his case thrown out.
> 
> Fuck throwing the book at him, judge. At this point, just beat him to fucking death with it.


How is that at all surprising?  I rather wish they DID make him fly a metal kite in a thunderstorm.


----------



## Ralyks

Man, 5 billion sounds like it could be good for, yknow, infrastructure or something logical like that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> How is that at all surprising?  I rather wish they DID make him fly a metal kite in a thunderstorm.


With razor blade barbed wire for kite string.


----------



## Drew

I like it.  

Re: the border wall, there's also the fact that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and Trump's original request at the start of the year was for $25B. He's basically hoping to start construction, and then try to get Congress to throw good money after bad.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Re: the border wall, there's also the fact that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and Trump's original request at the start of the year was for $25B. He's basically hoping to start construction, and then try to get Congress to throw good money after bad.



Yeah, it's ultimately a shitty hill to die on. I'm all for legal immigration, vetting people you get through the border and not just letting random people expect to come through wherever (for both our safety and their own) but the logistics of a giant wall are just comically dumb. He's right that there are areas of the border that are woefully inadequate but the solution was never to just build 'The Great Wall' from coast to coast and call it a day. 

That same budget would be better spent repairing border areas that need it, better training and supplying enforcement and better facilities for processing people legally. The fact we're actually see SPIKES in the number of people trying to (and often succeeding) versus previous administrations says that simply trying to scare people away isn't effective, so if your main concern is anonymous people making it into the US, his approach has been having the opposite effect.


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> Man, 5 billion sounds like it could be good for, yknow, infrastructure or something logical like that.



I just don't understand why Congress is being asked to allocate the $5 billion. I seem to recall during the election that a major part of Trump's platform was that Mexico would pay for it.


----------



## JSanta

Surprised not to see this mentioned, but Mattis (SecDef) resigned yesterday effective in February. He was probably the last person in the administration that has the ability to think rationally. Huge loss to our country to lose his voice, even though it's obvious Trump never listened to him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I hate all the aggrandizing these people get.

Mattis was a borderline war criminal who did what he could to cover for actual war criminals. 

https://www.revealnews.org/article/...minee-james-mattis-commit-war-crimes-in-iraq/

All this "rein in Trump" and "adult in the room" stuff is bullshit. 

Thankfully, Mattis isn't dead so we can still talk about this.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I hate all the aggrandizing these people get.
> 
> Mattis was a borderline war criminal who did what he could to cover for actual war criminals.
> 
> https://www.revealnews.org/article/...minee-james-mattis-commit-war-crimes-in-iraq/
> 
> All this "rein in Trump" and "adult in the room" stuff is bullshit.
> 
> Thankfully, Mattis isn't dead so we can still talk about this.


I feel bad, but whenever old people trend on Twitter, the COB song "Are You Dead Yet?" comes to mind. Every single time. Happened today, in fact.


----------



## spudmunkey

"be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet"

"a good soldier follows orders, but a true warrior wears his enemy's skin like a poncho."

- James Mattis


----------



## bostjan

I'm sure there is some nefarious readon Trump wants the wall so much. It's seriously the stupidest idea since New Coke.


----------



## Ralyks

thraxil said:


> I just don't understand why Congress is being asked to allocate the $5 billion. I seem to recall during the election that a major part of Trump's platform was that Mexico would pay for it.



You have to had known that Mexico would NEVER pay for that. There was a whole convulted way that we’d get money from Mexico and claim THAT’S how “Mexico is building the way”, but not a chance in goddamn hell Mexico was going to go “Hey, we got this.”

And I’m not saying that to be condescending. It's that the wall was one of the stupidest platforms to run a campaign on... That somehow won (although let's not get into the whole popular vote deal...)


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> You have to had known that Mexico would NEVER pay for that. There was a whole convulted way that we’d get money from Mexico and claim THAT’S how “Mexico is building the way”, but not a chance in goddamn hell Mexico was going to go “Hey, we got this.”



There's what I know and what Trump supporters did/do. The ones I spoke to during/after the campaign legitimately believed that because Trump was such a big alpha male who "makes great deals", he would actually make Mexico pay for the wall and it wouldn't cost the US anything.

My larger point is that Trump needs to be held to his promises, stupid and unrealistic or not.

Like now where he's calling it the "Democrat shutdown" after last week saying 
"I am proud to shut down the government for border security. … I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down.”


----------



## Jeff

thraxil said:


> There's what I know and what Trump supporters did/do. The ones I spoke to during/after the campaign legitimately believed that because Trump was such a big alpha male who "makes great deals", he would actually make Mexico pay for the wall and it wouldn't cost the US anything.
> 
> My larger point is that Trump needs to be held to his promises, stupid and unrealistic or not.
> 
> Like now where he's calling it the "Democrat shutdown" after last week saying
> "I am proud to shut down the government for border security. … I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down.”



I guess I’m just used to the whiplash from Trump’s flip flopping.


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> Re: the border wall, there's also the fact that this is just the tip of the iceberg, and Trump's original request at the start of the year was for $25B. He's basically hoping to start construction, and then try to get Congress to throw good money after bad.



Short history lesson: IIRC, Trump could have had $25B for his wall if he had protected the DACA kids. 

What a differeence two years makes.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

bostjan said:


> I'm sure there is some nefarious readon Trump wants the wall so much. It's seriously the stupidest idea since New Coke.



I'd honestly be surprised if it was anything more than "Oh shit, I actually have to do this now or else I'm going to catch an endless amount of flak." You can't spend that much time talking big game and then not follow though; especially since that was his largest criticism of the current political zeitgeist. He probably knows he'll never get it done, but he knows he has to make it look like he's trying. If he can blame others for it failing, he's fine- and that's probably what he's trying for.


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'd honestly be surprised if it was anything more than "Oh shit, I actually have to do this now or else I'm going to catch an endless amount of flak." You can't spend that much time talking big game and then not follow though; especially since that was his largest criticism of the current political zeitgeist. He probably knows he'll never get it done, but he knows he has to make it look like he's trying. If he can blame others for it failing, he's fine- and that's probably what he's trying for.



That’s likely exactly what’s going on. Hence saying he’d own the shutdown, then turned around and blamed the Democrats.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'd honestly be surprised if it was anything more than "Oh shit, I actually have to do this now or else I'm going to catch an endless amount of flak." You can't spend that much time talking big game and then not follow though; especially since that was his largest criticism of the current political zeitgeist. He probably knows he'll never get it done, but he knows he has to make it look like he's trying. If he can blame others for it failing, he's fine- and that's probably what he's trying for.


this, coupled with a good-sized dose of "getting off on seeing physical things he built."


----------



## spudmunkey

A few days old, but still amusing...







In reality, if I remember right, they are about a quarter of the way to raising the funds that would pay the GoFindMe transaction fee if they were to ever get to $1B.

And that $1b "to build the wall" is 1/5th of the funds Trump's requesting for just this year to _start _paying for an overall cost of at least 5 times that.

So they are 25% of the 2.9% of the $1B. which is 20% of (at most) 20% of the wall.

Rough estimate then, at just over $17m, they are at just under .0007% of the cost of the wall (assuming $25B), right?


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> "be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet"
> 
> "a good soldier follows orders, but a true warrior wears his enemy's skin like a poncho."
> 
> - James Mattis


"If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition."

-James Mattis, testifying to Congress about Trump's proposed State department cuts and Defense spending increases. This is the reason he was seen as an adult in the room.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> this, coupled with a good-sized dose of "getting off on seeing physical things he built."



Nothing says 'opulence' quite like 3,000 miles of spikes.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Nothing says 'opulence' quite like 3,000 miles of spikes.


Preach it, brother!


----------



## Drew

So, in Trump's surprise visit to Iraq last night, he posted a picture of Navy Seal Team 5, inadvertently revealing their location and identities (in the few publicly available pictures, their faces have been blurred out). While technically as president he can declassify anything he wants, it's hard to argue that that wasn't titanically _stupid._


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> So, in Trump's surprise visit to Iraq last night, he posted a picture of Navy Seal Team 5, inadvertently revealing their location and identities (in the few publicly available pictures, their faces have been blurred out). While technically as president he can declassify anything he wants, it's hard to argue that that wasn't titanically _stupid._



It’s no big deal... they are currently civilians while the government is shut down.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> It’s no big deal... they are currently civilians while the government is shut down.



Freedom never "shuts down"


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> So, in Trump's surprise visit to Iraq last night, he posted a picture of Navy Seal Team 5, inadvertently revealing their location and identities (in the few publicly available pictures, their faces have been blurred out). While technically as president he can declassify anything he wants, it's hard to argue that that wasn't titanically _stupid._



Apparently it may be more than that. Iraqi lawmakers apparently didn't even know they were there (covert operation), and they think it's an affront to their sovereignty, and demand withdrawl. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-trump-visit-iraqi-lawmakers-demand-u-s-withdrawal/


----------



## Ralyks

... Ok, this past week with Trump had been especially face palm inducing, and that's really saying something. This Iraq bit just put it over the top.


----------



## spudmunkey

He couldn't even handle a conversation with a 7-year-old about Santa Claus like a normal human being.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I still say that the "covfefe" typo of coffee is his worst, and biggest, mistake as president thus far.


----------



## zappatton2

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I still say that the "covfefe" typo of coffee is his worst, and biggest, mistake as president thus far.


So the whole throwing children of refugees in cages didn't trigger anything? Nothing at all?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I still say that the "covfefe" typo of coffee is his worst, and biggest, mistake as president thus far.



I don't know, the whole toilet paper stuck to the shoe thing was pretty good[bad].


----------



## PunkBillCarson

zappatton2 said:


> So the whole throwing children of refugees in cages didn't trigger anything? Nothing at all?




Oh come on, you're acting like they were going to be deported or something.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

zappatton2 said:


> So the whole throwing children of refugees in cages didn't trigger anything? Nothing at all?


You do realize that I was being absurd on purpose? As in, jokingly?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know, the whole toilet paper stuck to the shoe thing was pretty good[bad].


Well, at least it kept the press machines running that day.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> Oh come on, you're acting like they were going to be deported or something.



Deported? Not really. 

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/27/18157515/immigrant-families-detention-border-children-deaths-ice

Plenty of rape though. 

https://www.propublica.org/article/boystown-immigrant-childrens-shelter-sexual-assault


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Well turns out good ol' Christian Americans and Islamic Extremists have something in common. Why are they blowing each other up again?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> Well turns out good ol' Christian Americans and Islamic Extremists have something in common. Why are they blowing each other up again?



Because "borders" apparently. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AliABCNe...ame?id=twitter-1078044818289381376&autosize=1

[Apologies for the crazy link. Hope it works.]


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Is there really anything that can be said about that fucker that hasn't already? That's not a rhetorical question either. Fuck, is there anything that can be said about America that hasn't already? I was talking to one of my friends from Norway and the way he described it made it sound like a goddamn utopia. From health insurance to education and everything else. I've heard it said many times that if you don't like America the way it is, then to leave, but wouldn't a true patriot want their country to be doing really good like the others, or am I just missing something here?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> Is there really anything that can be said about that fucker that hasn't already? That's not a rhetorical question either. Fuck, is there anything that can be said about America that hasn't already? I was talking to one of my friends from Norway and the way he described it made it sound like a goddamn utopia. From health insurance to education and everything else. I've heard it said many times that if you don't like America the way it is, then to leave, but wouldn't a true patriot want their country to be doing really good like the others, or am I just missing something here?



People are really bad about facing their problems, and even worse when they don't have the absolute basics in which to live. 

Our current system is designed to keep the most amount of people working as much as possible for as little as possible so they don't have the ability to participate in democracy.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> People are really bad about facing their problems, and even worse when they don't have the absolute basics in which to live.
> 
> Our current system is designed to keep the most amount of people working as much as possible for as little as possible so they don't have the ability to participate in democracy.



You left out “for as long as possible.”


----------



## zappatton2

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You do realize that I was being absurd on purpose? As in, jokingly?


My apologies, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, but I admit I misunderstood your statement.


----------



## spudmunkey

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I still say that the "covfefe" typo of coffee is his worst, and biggest, mistake as president thus far.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

zappatton2 said:


> My apologies, I was trying to be tongue-in-cheek, but I admit I misunderstood your statement.


Maybe next time do it more like Gene Simmons and put your tongue firmly in cheek... in her cheek that is. (Whomever she is...)

Another joke, by the way.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> People are really bad about facing their problems, and even worse when they don't have the absolute basics in which to live.
> 
> Our current system is designed to keep the most amount of people working as much as possible for as little as possible so they don't have the ability to participate in democracy.



Another issue is how deeply entrenched the issues are.
Seriously, if we want to overhaul any part of what's fucking up our nation, we're going to have to go *deep*, and that's going to be _*extremely*_ difficult, because a lot of the issues are at the governmental level, and getting them to stop all patting each other on the back and lining each other's pockets....well....I'd say it's a pipe dream, but if I face that reality it's gunna get depressing.

Apathy in the public is pretty widespread.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Another issue is how deeply entrenched the issues are.
> Seriously, if we want to overhaul any part of what's fucking up our nation, we're going to have to go *deep*, and that's going to be _*extremely*_ difficult, because a lot of the issues are at the governmental level, and getting them to stop all patting each other on the back and lining each other's pockets....well....I'd say it's a pipe dream, but if I face that reality it's gunna get depressing.
> 
> Apathy in the public is pretty widespread.



It's really not all that hard. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. 

The easiest thing to do is simply show up. No one votes, partly because it can be so freaking hard in some places, especially for the poor and minority communities, but that apathy you speak of. 

There's nothing wrong with incremental change, but we're not even going to get there until we start voting in those who will make the best changes for the greater good.

Just look at how much someone like an attorney general or state legislator can change things, make real local impact. 

But, while you're 100% right about apathy, there's also a big hurdle of plain old selfishness that needs to be overcome. There's too much "fuck you, I got mine" and tribalism. Though, I honestly think once things get better it'll be easier to overcome.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> He couldn't even handle a conversation with a 7-year-old about Santa Claus like a normal human being.


...which is shocking, really, considering how rarely he gets to talk to an intellectual equal.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The easiest thing to do is simply show up. No one votes, partly because it can be so freaking hard in some places, especially for the poor and minority communities, but that apathy you speak of.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with incremental change, but we're not even going to get there until we start voting in those who will make the best changes for the greater good.
> 
> Just look at how much someone like an attorney general or state legislator can change things, make real local impact.


...which is bitterly ironic, considering how many people don't bother voting because "Democrat or Republican, they're all the same." The sheer number of people who didn't bother to vote in 2016, because they thought Clinton was "just as bad as Trump," well... I hope to got they learned something. :/


----------



## spudmunkey

It was actually


Spaced Out Ace said:


> I still say that the "covfefe" typo of coffee is his worst, and biggest, mistake as president thus far.



To me, this went much deeper than a simple typo.

First, it wasn't actually a misspelling of "coffee". Not that it really matters, but it was the last word of a cut off sentence:
"Despite the constant negative press covfefe"

Now, clearly, it was simply an accident. I'm sure he meant something like, "Despite the constant negative press coverage, the Trump administration is accomplishing great things! #MAGA". He started a tweet, something happened that caused the typo and he didn't maybe even realize he submitted it, and then deleted it when he got up the next morning.

But what twisted my undies was not that the typo was made, that it was posted, or left up.

It was when Sean "Spicy" Spicer, his press seceratary, was asked about this tweet, he thought so little about the american people that we only deserved an answer like a made-up lie...a brush off.
"The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."

Like...WTF, dude? How "nothing" of a thing is the typo, and yet, they still had to lie about it. I can't explain why it rubs me in such a wrong way. How hard would it have been to just say, "It was a simple typo, and was removed once he realized his mistake." Or, even if he had no idea what he was being asked about, just use the, "I'll have to get back to you on that" like they did for 80% of the questions, anyway. But no...he just made up a lie about the intent of the President's words, and thought that was OK.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> It was when Sean "Spicy" Spicer, his press seceratary, was asked about this tweet, he thought so little about the american people that we only deserved an answer like a made-up lie...a brush off.
> "The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant."


I mean, that was kind of inspired, no?


----------



## jaxadam

You know Drew, it really rubbed me the wrong way, too. Instead of covfefe, I thought he was going to write Nitro Cold Brew. I was really hoping for something like "Despite the constant negative press coverage, Nitro Cold Brew will soon be offered in all Starbucks locations. #MNCBOIASL.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> You know Drew, it really rubbed me the wrong way, too. Instead of covfefe, I thought he was going to write Nitro Cold Brew. I was really hoping for something like "Despite the constant negative press coverage, Nitro Cold Brew will soon be offered in all Starbucks locations. #MNCBOIASL.


Shit, Making Caffeine Great Again. I could get behind that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Good lord. Imagine taking a typo and a joke that seriously.


----------



## Xaios

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-president-announcement.html


----------



## Randy

Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Xaios said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-2020-president-announcement.html


Alice Cooper: "Next president will be worse than Trump."

If she's elected, he will most certainly be right.


----------



## Ralyks

Ehhh.... Can't Biden just run already?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I wish Andrew Gillum would have a chance. I'm on board with about 95% of his platform. Doesn't have nearly as much baggage either. 

I know he lost (barely) Florida, but that place is a real shithole outside of the big cities. I think he'd do better nationally.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Yeah, I lean right but I definitely wouldn't have an issue with going blue on the next cycle; provided they show up with a good candidate this time. 
Please don't send Elizabeth Warren.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Thanks but no thanks.



:highfive:


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know he lost (barely) Florida, but that place is a real shithole in all of the big cities.



FTFY


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> FTFY



Relatively speaking of course.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ralyks said:


> Ehhh.... Can't Biden just run already?


You mean Creepy Uncle Joe McGropesalot? I think we can pass on that horrible idea.


----------



## Ralyks

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You mean Creepy Uncle Joe McGropesalot? I think we can pass on that horrible idea.



I mean, you could apply that to Trump, and here we are...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ralyks said:


> I mean, you could apply that to Trump, and here we are...


Except we have video and photographic evidence of Joe groping minors. All we've gotten from Trump, so far as I know, is a statement that could be argued is a reworking of the notion of "grab life by the horns."


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> All we've gotten from Trump, so far as I know, is a statement that could be argued is a reworking of the notion of "grab life by the horns."



For real? Hate to hear Trump's version of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or "don't put the cart before the horse."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Trump, so far as I know





https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

Come on, you knew about that. It's just inconvenient to your argument. 

I'm not really a big Biden fan myself. He's just another establishment Democrat that wants to keep the status quo.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not really a big Biden fan myself. He's just another establishment Democrat that wants to keep the status quo.



He's also a fossil that finished BEHIND Hillary in a primary race. That doesn't sound like a winning strategy.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You mean Creepy Uncle Joe McGropesalot? I think we can pass on that horrible idea.



Horrible because groping accusations will kill his campaign or horrible because being a lech somehow effects his ability to govern?


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not really a big Biden fan myself. He's just another establishment Democrat that wants to keep the status quo.



Have to agree. I'll vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump, but I feel like a lot of the support he has going is based on some online memes that he's "cool" even though I find him pretty milquetoast and uninteresting (Obama picked him as VP largely to placate the folks that were scared of a "radical" black man).

I'm also curious why there's so much anti Warren sentiment right now. I don't know that much about her but she seems to have a pretty good background supporting consumer protection and sounds pretty intelligent and reasonable when she's speaking. Has the stupid "pocahontas" smear tactic really done that much damage to her?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> Have to agree. I'll vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump, but I feel like a lot of the support he has going is based on some online memes that he's "cool" even though I find him pretty milquetoast and uninteresting (Obama picked him as VP largely to placate the folks that were scared of a "radical" black man).
> 
> I'm also curious why there's so much anti Warren sentiment right now. I don't know that much about her but she seems to have a pretty good background supporting consumer protection and sounds pretty intelligent and reasonable when she's speaking. Has the stupid "pocahontas" smear tactic really done that much damage to her?



I don't think it was the smear itself but her response to it. Honestly, I don't really care about any of that. I'd vote for her. 

I just don't know how she'd do in an actual election.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12
> 
> Come on, you knew about that. It's just inconvenient to your argument.
> 
> I'm not really a big Biden fan myself. He's just another establishment Democrat that wants to keep the status quo.


Accused vs oh, I dunno, video evidence.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Horrible because groping accusations will kill his campaign or horrible because being a lech somehow effects his ability to govern?


It was bad enough having a Vice President groping girls, regardless of age. Do we need him as president as well?


----------



## Randy

thraxil said:


> Have to agree. I'll vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump, but I feel like a lot of the support he has going is based on some online memes that he's "cool" even though I find him pretty milquetoast and uninteresting (Obama picked him as VP largely to placate the folks that were scared of a "radical" black man).
> 
> I'm also curious why there's so much anti Warren sentiment right now. I don't know that much about her but she seems to have a pretty good background supporting consumer protection and sounds pretty intelligent and reasonable when she's speaking. Has the stupid "pocahontas" smear tactic really done that much damage to her?



Similar thoughts on Biden, but he also has a lot of skeletons in his closet. 

The famous Hillary Clinton "super predator" speech was in response to the "crackdown" that Bill initiated on petty crime as an attempt at "broken windows" policing to clean-up the streets. While it's true crime was out of control at the time, the laws themselves ended up disproportionately effecting the black community, basically ruining an entire generation (also taking away their voting rights) and playing a serious role in the modern perception of the 'poor black household without a father figure'; and that perception has driven the calls for prison reform. Anyway, Joe Biden's finger prints were all over that bill. And there's several more like that if you dig.

My issues with Warren are summed up in three things, 1.) the fact she left Bernie 'out to dry' by not giving him an endorsement leading up to the Massachusetts primary, despite the fact their platforms were identical 2.) her VERY poor handling of the Pocahontas thing, to the point that she looks naive 3.) none of the Democrats I know that are FROM Mass ever have anything good to say about her.

I like that she's progressive left, but I think the Elizabeth Warren of 2010 is different than the Elizabeth Warren of 2018. She's got a lot of perception issues to contend with that will effect her elect-ability, or her ability to sustain the kind of blows Trump and Co. will throw at her. I will say, I liked that she kicked off the first day of her campaign by livestreaming herself drinking a beer on Instagram.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It was bad enough having a Vice President groping girls, regardless of age. Do we need him as president as well?



Okay, so you're making a moral issue out of it. I didn't know you were so pious.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Accused vs oh, I dunno, video evidence.



Moving them goal posts.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Accused vs oh, I dunno, video evidence.



What video evidence?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic but I think we underestimate how much shit people are willing to put up with.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Spaced Out Ace said:


> All we've gotten from Trump, so far as I know, is a statement that could be argued is a reworking of the notion of "grab life by the horns."



I haven't heard this one before.
I laughed audibly in my office and had to explain why to my coworkers.

Thank you for that


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> so far as I know, is a statement that could be argued is a reworking of the notion of "grab life by the horns."





> Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush: Whatever you want.
> 
> Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
> 
> Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
> 
> Trump: Oh, it looks good.



I love how he jumps from talking literally about touching women and about the female anatomy to a very vague analogy, and then back to the female anatomy again.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I'm also curious why there's so much anti Warren sentiment right now. I don't know that much about her but she seems to have a pretty good background supporting consumer protection and sounds pretty intelligent and reasonable when she's speaking. Has the stupid "pocahontas" smear tactic really done that much damage to her?


There's a lot I like about Warren - she does have a strong consumer protection background, she was responsible for overseeing TARP and did an excellent job of it (taxpayers turned a profit on it) she's well spoken, she's intelligent, and she's a strong progressive voice in the Senate. 

There's also a lot I DON'T like about her. She knows enough about finance to know half of what she says is bullshit, but panders to angry left wing populists anyway. Similar to Sanders, I don't think she necessarily has credible plans to actually delivery on some of her policy goals so much like the GOP and "repeal the ACA," I think she'd set the Democrats up for disappointment and a blowback. I think she did a poor job managing the Native American thing, which itself isn't a big deal (beyond the fact the GOP now smells blood) but has me worried about her political instincts for handling another attack. And, she really isn't all THAT popular in her home state, which is usually a bad sign coming into a general election. Our (Republican) governor, Charlie Baker, is more popular than she is, which in a state this blue is a little telling. 

If she's our nominee, I'll vote for her, but I won't be thrilled about it. I just think there are better candidates we could run. 

@Spaced Out Ace - are you really trying to argue that, with women coming forward saying Trump assaulted them, with Trump on video bragging about assaulting women, and with Trump now admitting to paying off women he slept with to keep them from telling their stories but just saying it's no big deal, after first denying it ever happened until evidence of the payments came out, that Trump is somehow being wrongly accused? Hey, it's not actually impossible... It just reeeeaaaally stretches credibility.


----------



## Ralyks

I may have said Biden more as a "well, who is there really?" from the Dems. Warren is questionable, Bernie will never get enough supporters, the gripes with Biden have been documented here, I hear Cuomos name come up but everyone seems to hate him outside of NYC and WNY...


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> I love how he jumps from talking literally about touching women and about the female anatomy to a very vague analogy, and then back to the female anatomy again.


Touchy Feely Uncle Joe appreciates your defense and whataboutism very much.


----------



## Xaios

I appreciate the primer on Warren. As someone who isn't American, most of what I've heard of her has been glowingly positive, and I have been impressed when I've seen her speak. Good to know the other side of the coin, at least.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Touchy Feely Uncle Joe appreciates your defense and whataboutism very much.



Meh, I already said I don't like him and I didn't defend him being a groper either.

You're the one that said being gropey disqualifies someone from being president and when it was mentioned that would apply to the current POTUS, you reimagined a scenario where it doesn't. 

Selective enforcement undermines your argument. I'm reusing a line from another thread but deciding who you like and don't like, then reinventing what facts matter to reinforce your beliefs is sloppy.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Touchy Feely Uncle Joe appreciates your defense and whataboutism very much.


Can we get a citation on this? Not really finding anything on Google.


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> Can we get a citation on this? Not really finding anything on Google.



Just google "joe biden touchy feely". To me, most just seem like the average behavior of a "hugger". Some are definitely awkward (at best), though.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Touchy Feely Uncle Joe appreciates your defense and whataboutism very much.


Gotta say, using whataboutism to accuse someone _else_ of whataboutism is pretty rich.  



Ralyks said:


> I may have said Biden more as a "well, who is there really?" from the Dems. Warren is questionable, Bernie will never get enough supporters, the gripes with Biden have been documented here, I hear Cuomos name come up but everyone seems to hate him outside of NYC and WNY...


I think Biden would be a decent candidate, and I'd like to see him run, but an old white man in today's political climate is a little out of touch, and - for better or for worse - he's certainly a volatile, off the cuff, unpredictable campaigner not afraid to run his mouth, which could make for an unpredictable match-up againist Trump. It could make for great television, and Trump may very well emerge the worse for the wear, but it's a gamble. 

Other names I'm watching are Beto, Gillibrand, and Harris. Bernie's almost certain to run but I think he missed his window. I was hoping Warren would sit out 2020 but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Seth Moulton and Deval Patrick are local names who I wouldn't right off just yet, but the former may have hurt his chances by leading the resistance against Pelosi, while Patrick's subsequent employment with Bain, I think it was, probably won't do him any favors. 

the fact that Michael Bloomberg just re-registered as a Democrat is interesting, but I can't see the party today rallying behind a candidate who made billions selling a financial data/software platform, given how dirty a word "Wall Street" is in much of the country. 

Then again, in 2008, no one was talking about Obama before suddenly everyone was talking about Obama, so a dark horse contender would hardly be a shock.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> I hear Cuomos name come up but everyone seems to hate him outside of NYC and WNY...



We're assholes like that in NY, pay no mind. All you need to do is watch how fast the crowd turns on their own players at a Yankees game.

There's three gripes on Cuomo, and I don't find any of them especially substantive. 

1.) The bulk of money spent (AND GENERATED) is concentrated in major metro areas (so, NYC and Buffalo)
2.) He's a 'corporate friendly' candidate, which irks progressives in the state but he DID pass debt free college, $15/hr minimum wage, a full on ban on hydrofracking and they've got one of the most robust healthcare safety nets. We're just hard to please (see: opening paragraph)
3.) He passed the 'SAFE Act' which is one of the strictest firearms laws in the country, and the whole middle of NYS is rural, so that pisses off conservatives as well as VT style Democrats.

The only real issue that sticks is the corruption stuff, but nobody's found a connection that leads right to his door and the likely won't.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> We're assholes like that in NY, pay no mind. All you need to do is watch how fast the crowd turns on their own players at a Yankees game.



I'm in NY too, about an hour and a half to two hours north of NYC. I don't have an issue with Cuomo, but I seem to know more people local to me that despise him than don't. And I live in an area with people who are rich enough to live in my area but commute to NYC five days a week for work.

And yes, that Yankees bit is correct


----------



## Randy

Oh yeah, duh, we've discussed being from New York before. Someone fetch me my spectacles.

I mean, FWIW, Trump doesn't exactly have a lot of fans in his hometown either


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I think Biden would be a decent candidate, and I'd like to see him run, but an old white man in today's political climate is a little out of touch


I think it's a crying shame that this is where we're at politically right now where this is part of the conversation. C'est la vie.



> Other names I'm watching are Beto, Gillibrand, and Harris. Bernie's almost certain to run but I think he missed his window. I was hoping Warren would sit out 2020 but that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Seth Moulton and Deval Patrick are local names who I wouldn't right off just yet, but the former may have hurt his chances by leading the resistance against Pelosi, while Patrick's subsequent employment with Bain, I think it was, probably won't do him any favors.



I don't know, I think Bernie might be able to make something happen. I wouldn't be thrilled with his nomination, but it seems to me like he still has a _*massive*_ following- and I can only imagine him getting taken for a ride in 2016 did nothing but help him. I wouldn't be surprised if, should he get the nomination and it came down to him vs Trump, he could potentially make something happen. I think populace-wise he could still be in it, but in terms of big name backers...maybe not. Who knows.

I was really hoping Warren didn't put in either, because I know she's going to get a ton of momentum _because _she panders to angry left-wing populists, and that seems to be a great way to get establishment support. I would almost certainly vote red if she's on the ticket unless she really comes out with some ironclad ideas.

I hear a lot of flak about Cuomo too but from what I've seen, he doesn't seem to be too bad. It feels like a lot of what he gets is kind of along the lines of the rebellious "I hate whoever's in charge" angst. I'm admittedly not well versed in his background, but he wouldn't need to do much to pry my vote away from Trump. Especially with the SCOTUS slot filled.


----------



## vilk

People who nominated Clinton over Bernie didn't _have a problem _with Bernie Sanders as a candidate; they just wanted to elect a woman president. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have stolen votes from Trump. With Clinton winning the nomination, Trump stole Bernie votes from Clinton. 

The reason people were so averse to Hillary Clinton, to me, seemed to be more to do with perceived corruption, dishonesty, opaqueness than simply just her policies. No one did or does think Sanders is corrupt, and even if he were no one doubts him to the degree that they doubt most other career politicians.

What we learned from Trump is that it isn't simply enough to just elect someone who is not a career politician. It is also necessary to elect someone who isn't the lowest common denominator of human filth.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> People who nominated Clinton over Bernie didn't _have a problem _with Bernie Sanders as a candidate; they just wanted to elect a woman president. If Sanders had won the nomination he would have stolen votes from Trump. With Clinton winning the nomination, Trump stole Bernie votes from Clinton.


I challenge every part of this.

For me it didn't go as far as I would have refused to vote for him, but I thought Sanders' platform was a bunch of worthwhile objectives, with no credible plan to accomplish any of them. I preferred Clinton because I thought she DID have a more pragmatic platform, and while she didn't go as far as Sanders, I thought her platform was more credible. I've seen no evidence that Sanders would have stolen votes from Trump had he won, over and above general claims like "Sanders won states in the Democratic primary that Trump won in the general," which is a pretty empty argument. There's no evidence of disgruntled Sanders voting for Trump in rates above historical norms; if anything, it looks like the bigger issue was Sanders voters were more likely to stay home, depressing turnout.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think it's a crying shame that this is where we're at politically right now where this is part of the conversation. C'est la vie.


Eh, I don't. For what it's worth if right now someone stuck a gun to my head and told me I had to choose a Democratic candidate, I'd probably roll the dice with Biden simply because I think where he falls in terms of policy could translate well in a general election, and the flip side of that argument is female candidates DO face an uphill battle in politics, and god knows Trump will use every tool at his disposal to tear one apart. But, we are in the middle of a national conversation on power imbalances between men and women and the way men, particularly white men, have abused that historically, and while the partisan split isn't perfect, generally speaking we've seen the left come down in favor of giving women an equal voice while the right has painted this more as a victimization of men. It would certainly be a little hypocritical for the Democrats to take this stance, but then run an old, white, male candidate anyway. I'm clearly not of the mindset that this is a reason to _eliminate_ someone from consideration, but from a pure "energizing the base" standpoint, if you had the choice between two equal candidates that differed only by sex, there's an argument to be made to err on the side of running the woman, all the more so when it's against a candidate who brags about his history of sexual assault.

I mean, this stuff is obviously a very complex, nuanced picture that doesn't lend itself to an easy gloss or a simple answer.... But I think it's a good thing that it's part of the _conversation_, at least, whatever the conclusion turns out to be.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> I challenge every part of this.
> 
> For me it didn't go as far as I would have refused to vote for him, but I thought Sanders' platform was a bunch of worthwhile objectives, with no credible plan to accomplish any of them. I preferred Clinton because I thought she DID have a more pragmatic platform, and while she didn't go as far as Sanders, I thought her platform was more credible. I've seen no evidence that Sanders would have stolen votes from Trump had he won, over and above general claims like "Sanders won states in the Democratic primary that Trump won in the general," which is a pretty empty argument. There's no evidence of disgruntled Sanders voting for Trump in rates above historical norms; if anything, it looks like the bigger issue was Sanders voters were more likely to stay home, depressing turnout.



Being 26 in the year of the election, the only two people in my own age group (friends) that I personally know voted for Donald Trump were going to vote for Bernie Sanders and even went out to pick in in the primary before Hillary Clinton got nominated. Yeah, I know my life anecdotes aren't a poll of thousands of people, but it isn't _not_ data.


"if anything, it looks like the bigger issue was Sanders voters were more likely to stay home, depressing turnout."

I would bet that a signification section of these Sanders supporters who did not vote in the election decided to stay home after Clinton was nominated. If Sanders was on the ticket, they probably would have gone to the polls. But instead, nominating Clinton turned the election in to a _lesser of two evils _situation for a lot of people, myself included. Now, it was pretty obvious to me which of those evils was a great degree lesser, so I did vote, but at the time I walked into the building thinking "I don't trust either of these people and I don't think either of them deserve to be president". But that's now how I would have felt if it had been Sanders I was voting for. It wouldn't have been a "lesser of two evils" election if it were Sanders Vs Trump.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Gotta say, using whataboutism to accuse someone _else_ of whataboutism is pretty rich.


Nope, I'm still on about Joe Biden. Someone brought up Joe Biden, I commented how Joe Biden would be a horrible idea.


----------



## vilk

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Nope, I'm still on about Joe Biden. Someone brought up Joe Biden, I commented how Joe Biden would be a horrible idea.


I understand why Drew made the mistake though, since Trumpos constantly whatabout Biden whenever anyone someone brings up Trump's pussygrabbing.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Eh, I don't. For what it's worth if right now someone stuck a gun to my head and told me I had to choose a Democratic candidate, I'd probably roll the dice with Biden simply because I think where he falls in terms of policy could translate well in a general election, and the flip side of that argument is female candidates DO face an uphill battle in politics, and god knows Trump will use every tool at his disposal to tear one apart. But, we are in the middle of a national conversation on power imbalances between men and women and the way men, particularly white men, have abused that historically, and while the partisan split isn't perfect, generally speaking we've seen the left come down in favor of giving women an equal voice while the right has painted this more as a victimization of men. It would certainly be a little hypocritical for the Democrats to take this stance, but then run an old, white, male candidate anyway. I'm clearly not of the mindset that this is a reason to _eliminate_ someone from consideration, but from a pure "energizing the base" standpoint, if you had the choice between two equal candidates that differed only by sex, there's an argument to be made to err on the side of running the woman, all the more so when it's against a candidate who brags about his history of sexual assault.
> 
> I mean, this stuff is obviously a very complex, nuanced picture that doesn't lend itself to an easy gloss or a simple answer.... But I think it's a good thing that it's part of the _conversation_, at least, whatever the conclusion turns out to be.



I see where you're going with this, but I still stand by my opinion. It just doesn't sit very well with me, it feels discriminatory.
Here are two statements from this post, one that I absolutely can get behind, and another that just feels a little dirty to me.



> It would certainly be a little hypocritical for the Democrats to take this stance, but then run an old, white, male candidate anyway.





> I'm clearly not of the mindset that this is a reason to _eliminate_ someone from consideration



See, I totally agree that it'd be great for the party's public reception to run a woman. They want to- their base would love it. However, the notion that doing otherwise would be 'hypocritical' or 'out of touch' is just something I instinctively dislike. It's difficult to articulate.

I guess I would prefer it to just strictly be a positive. I don't want to have to wonder if the candidate was selected _because_ she was a woman; I'd rather just know that she was selected because she was the best candidate for policy, professional, and objective reasons. Which brings me to the second half of one of those statements:



> ...but from a pure "energizing the base" standpoint, if you had the choice between two equal candidates that differed only by sex, there's an argument to be made to err on the side of running the woman



Totally correct. Not going to argue with you at all on this because this is an objectively true statement. But it exists in a vacuum; the only time you will ever have two equal candidates that differ only by sex is in a simulation. People will always differ from each other. And it's this type of thinking that would give a woman an edge over a man simple by virtue of being a woman, even if it's an unconscious one. Right from the start, that's a hurdle that a man has to overcome. To circle back to Warren, she is now the prime opponent of any man that decides to run, because she is starting out ahead. Right now, she is already 'winning' the primaries. There *will* be a not-insignificant number of people that will vote for a woman purely because they want to elect the first female president, and the democrats want those votes. 

Really, super difficult to express all of this properly. I hope it all made sense. 
Like you said, there's a whole rabbit hole here; but I just think something as minor as what sex you are should have no impact whatsoever, and the fact that it does at all saddens me.

*tl;dr- wouldn't it be great if we just didn't mention it? Didn't even think about or consider it? If this wasn't a part of the process in any way?*


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

vilk said:


> I understand why Drew made the mistake though, since Trumpos constantly whatabout Biden whenever anyone someone brings up Trump's pussygrabbing.


Gooch grabbing is a bit of an odd technique.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A7OIZkXvnQDmiXYU2k16Mrg

I just found this amusing and maybe a (partial) explanation for the Twitter habits.


----------



## vilk

You'd think that snorting addy would make him able to write longer than 2 word sentences.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Gotta say comrade Trump got her good here:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1080858959404240896/photo/1


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I see where you're going with this, but I still stand by my opinion. It just doesn't sit very well with me, it feels discriminatory.
> 
> ...
> 
> Totally correct. Not going to argue with you at all on this because this is an objectively true statement. But it exists in a vacuum; the only time you will ever have two equal candidates that differ only by sex is in a simulation. People will always differ from each other. And it's this type of thinking that would give a woman an edge over a man simple by virtue of being a woman, even if it's an unconscious one. Right from the start, that's a hurdle that a man has to overcome. To circle back to Warren, she is now the prime opponent of any man that decides to run, because she is starting out ahead. Right now, she is already 'winning' the primaries. There *will* be a not-insignificant number of people that will vote for a woman purely because they want to elect the first female president, and the democrats want those votes.
> 
> Really, super difficult to express all of this properly. I hope it all made sense.
> Like you said, there's a whole rabbit hole here; but I just think something as minor as what sex you are should have no impact whatsoever, and the fact that it does at all saddens me.



I don't think we disagree by all that much, actually.

I don't agree that it's "discriminatory," per se, and that's kind of a slippery slope, with "men's rights" advocates often claiming discrimination when faced with sexual equality (and I am NOT lumping you in here, at all). I just think that as two (presuimably) white, straight men, who have for centuries benefitted from _actual_ discrimination against sexes, we need to accept that the bar is a bit high for us to claim discrimination when the conversation moves to "wouldn't it be nice to run a woman in 2020." Deciding to simply ignore sex at all is kind of one final manifestation of male privilege, arguing that if it's not going our way, then let's just not talk about it at all. That's kind of like going home and taking our ball with us. 

Your second paragraph though, yeah... It'll be a liability in some circles, being a woman (and, certainly, a credit in others)... But, there's a growing movement with the Democrats to try to make their representation look more like their electorate, which means more women and more minorities. That can be a healthy thing, but at the same time we don't want to find ourselves passing on an objectively superior candidate because they happen to be a white man - again, I don't think it's a disqualifying factor, maybe more of a "nice to have" or a tiebreaker.



vilk said:


> Being 26 in the year of the election, the only two people in my own age group (friends) that I personally know voted for Donald Trump were going to vote for Bernie Sanders and even went out to pick in in the primary before Hillary Clinton got nominated. Yeah, I know my life anecdotes aren't a poll of thousands of people, but it isn't _not_ data.
> 
> 
> "if anything, it looks like the bigger issue was Sanders voters were more likely to stay home, depressing turnout."
> 
> I would bet that a signification section of these Sanders supporters who did not vote in the election decided to stay home after Clinton was nominated. If Sanders was on the ticket, they probably would have gone to the polls. But instead, nominating Clinton turned the election in to a _lesser of two evils _situation for a lot of people, myself included. Now, it was pretty obvious to me which of those evils was a great degree lesser, so I did vote, but at the time I walked into the building thinking "I don't trust either of these people and I don't think either of them deserve to be president". But that's now how I would have felt if it had been Sanders I was voting for. It wouldn't have been a "lesser of two evils" election if it were Sanders Vs Trump.



Yes, but out of a population size of maybe 150 million registered voters, I don't think you need a formal background in statistics to know that you can't draw statistically valid inferences from a population size of two. 

I also _still_ don't think you can say that Sanders would have won if he was nominated, even pointing to a likely drop in turnout among Sanders supporters. For one, some kind of a dropoff is normal after a primary - Obama certainly lost some Clinton voters in 2008, and had Sanders won the nomination then you also would have seen Clinton voters staying home rather than voting for Sanders - not huge numbers, but a not-insignificant amount. I haven't seen good data on if and to what extent this effect was more pronounced in 2016 than in prior years, but it would need to be a pretty sizable outlier before you could start attributing Trump's win to this, and even then before you could do that you'd have to make a reasonable argument that a similar magnitude effect wouldn't have occurred had Clinton lost, as well, and that what we're seeing isn't just the aftermath of a protracted and bitter campaign.

The main reason I think it's awfully hard to project a Sanders win based on what we DO know, though, is the one thing that DIDN'T happen - Sanders never came under any protracted attack from the right. Both media groups like Fox News and the Trump campaign themselves continued to speak favorably about Sanders and paint him as being somehow victimized by the Clinton camp all through the primary, precisely because it was in their best strategic interest to do so; to cause the Democrats to do as much self-harm as they possibly could, try to divide the Democratic party along progressive and moderate lines, and make it as hard as possible to unify the party after Clinton eventually did win (something that was never in any serious doubt, making this a pretty riskless strategy for the GOP). Had Sanders somehow emerged as the winner, the full fury of Trump and Fox News would have been turned to bear on him, and his polularity would have taken the same kind of hit that Clinton's did when she went from being a former Secretary of State to a Presidential candidate (where her approval numbers went from mid-60s down to low 40s). After spending much of the last two decades trying to paint centrist Democrats as "socialists," you can only imagine the glee the GOP party apparatus would have had at running ads targeting an actual honest to god card-carrying member. It would have gotten ugly.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Deciding to simply ignore sex at all is kind of one final manifestation of male privilege, arguing that if it's not going our way, then let's just not talk about it at all. That's kind of like going home and taking our ball with us.



I didn't read it that way.

My interpretation was more along the lines of "ideally we wouldn't consider gender at all because it is not a relevant criteria upon which to make a choice", with which I agree. But we, as a whole, are not at that point yet.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I didn't read it that way.
> 
> My interpretation was more along the lines of "ideally we wouldn't consider gender at all because it is not a relevant criteria upon which to make a choice", with which I agree. But we, as a whole, are not at that point yet.


I don't think it was _intended_ that way... but from a purely analytical look at the breakdown of power here, I think it's kind of tough to not come to that conclusion. It's kind of the same as white people "not seeing race" and on the spectrum of things that aren't racism, that isn't all that far along because it completely ignores how the history of "seeing race" has been harmful to previously disenfranchised groups. As you said, we're not there yet.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I don't think we disagree by all that much, actually.



Same! I'm just splitting hairs over language here, because that's just what I do I guess.
And at the end of the day everyone usually has good intentions anyway; which I sometimes have to remind myself of in this age of sensationalism 



> I don't agree that it's "discriminatory," per se, and that's kind of a slippery slope, with "men's rights" advocates often claiming discrimination when faced with sexual equality (and I am NOT lumping you in here, at all). I just think that as two (presuimably) white, straight men, who have for centuries benefitted from _actual_ discrimination against sexes, we need to accept that the bar is a bit high for us to claim discrimination when the conversation moves to "wouldn't it be nice to run a woman in 2020." *Deciding to simply ignore sex at all is kind of one final manifestation of male privilege, arguing that if it's not going our way, then let's just not talk about it at all. That's kind of like going home and taking our ball with us.*
> 
> Your second paragraph though, yeah... It'll be a liability in some circles, being a woman (and, certainly, a credit in others)... But, there's a growing movement with the Democrats to try to make their representation look more like their electorate, which means more women and more minorities. That can be a healthy thing, but at the same time we don't want to find ourselves passing on an objectively superior candidate because they happen to be a white man - again, I don't think it's a disqualifying factor, maybe more of a "nice to have" or a tiebreaker.



Discrimination is a heavy word, and what I'm describing is definitely a lighter effect, but the definition itself still applies, I think.
To address the bolded part, think about it as a line segment with one end being total female dominance and the other total male dominance, with a neutral point in the middle. Historically, we've skewed toward the male end of this line, but recently, there's been a pull back towards the middle. What I'm saying is that once we get to the middle, we shut the whole thing down. Not removing the point while it's still in the male quadrant, or even sending the point into the female quadrant for a while to "make up for things". It isn't even a topic anymore; we made it. Because to continue to move the point would require literally picking a side.

We can argue on if the point is actually in the middle yet or not, but I think we can all agree that that neutral point is the goal.

So to me, a statement indicating that it would be 'bad' in any capacity to select a candidate of one gender / ethnicity over another is mentally equivalent to pushing the point just a little bit over into one side, and I am very, very protective of that point. Everything in this realm is a slippery slope and I tend to just be very, very conservative whenever anything that could potentially enable a bias comes up. Huge fan of anonymous resumes, for example.

Your second paragraph here actually does a very good job of supporting that idea. Of course they want their ranks to be a representation of their base, but something like that needs to happen *organically*. And organic *takes time*, and I think a lot of people today aren't considering that OR don't realize _just how new_ this notion of 'equal rights' is. If you try to rush to that end goal, you're going to overlook people you shouldn't. If you're thinking about how your staff is only 30% female instead of 50 when you're thumbing through resumes, that's going to be an issue for John Smith with his 25 years of accounting experience; no matter how unbiased you think you are. As long as it's a conscious thought, it is literally impossible for you to make an objective call. If you go with Jane Doe, maybe it's because you want more women on staff. If you go with John Smith, maybe you only picked him because you were trying to account for a bias and unconsciously over-corrected. *The more people talk about it, the longer it's going to remain an issue*.

I know I'm looking at this at an incredibly low level, but I just can't help but feel that the amount of time that gets spent focusing on this stuff in recent years is only making it worse.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I know I'm looking at this at an incredibly low level, but I just can't help but feel that the amount of time that gets spent focusing on this stuff in recent years is only making it worse.


Eh, at the end of the day I don't fully agree with you, but I'm cool with that - I respect the fact that we're at least having a pretty thoughtful and mature conversation about this while disagreeing (on this one fairly small point), which is a rarity in this thread.


----------



## Ralyks

I'm seeing Democrats and Republicans coming together to an agreement.... That it's time to burn some shit down if we don't get our tax refunds. It's almost beautiful in a really weird way...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I'm seeing Democrats and Republicans coming together to an agreement.... That it's time to burn some shit down if we don't get our tax refunds. It's almost beautiful in a really weird way...



That's probably going to be what ends the shutdown. 

Not sure which way it will go, but there's no way the country is going without those. Too many people factor that into their yearly budget without having a "plan B".


----------



## Flappydoodle

As a non-American who views your politics for sheer entertainment:

Biden: Way too old, and also far too mainstream. Trump has changed the boundaries of "normal" now. The most qualified mainstream candidate lost to him, and that's WITH the advantage of being a woman and capturing a disproportionate amount of that demographic. He could have won in 2016, but it's too late for him now.

Bernie: Way too old, and also unelectable. He made some noise in the primaries, but he's not a serious presidential candidate. He doesn't look like a president or a leader. And he has never actually been under attack.

Beto and Booker: Nah. Too preachy, seem fake. I don't think people will go for another "Obama" character right now with the grand aspirational speeches etc. Also, Beto looks like a college student. Not presidential enough.

Warren: She can certainly win, if she can run her campaign better than Hillary did. She's qualified. Has enough popularity with the left-wing Bernie types, but she's also moderate enough not to alienate everybody. Also, I'm surprised that she would be 71 in 2020. She looks younger, which is a plus. Biden and Bernie have too much white hair, so their age works against them. Warren's two problems will be whether she has enough strength of character to take Trump's attacks and dish it back, and whether she can appeal to "ordinary" people. Drinking beer on Instagram feels fake, and has been widely mocked. You're a 69 year old college professor and lawyer. Stop trying to pretend you're down with the kids.

Kamala Harris is too unknown and she is trying WAY too hard. It looks desperate.

Maxine Waters seems batshit crazy. She would lose terribly.

Porn lawyer guy would be absolutely hilarious. From an entertainment point of view, I'd want him to run. 

Hillary, funnily enough, could actually win if she ran in 2020. If she ran a better campaign (actually visiting swing states), showed a little non-scripted humanity (which apparently she does have, and is quite charming and personable in real life), and didn't seem so out of touch, she could definitely win. The "crooked Hillary" angle will fail, now that it's apparent Trump is just as dirty, or more dirty, than her. However, I think everybody is fed up of her.

Oprah, if she ran, would EASILY win. Female and black, which means she gets >60% of the woman vote, 95% of the black vote. Plus, she is a genuinely self-made billionaire and highly successful, a great speaker, incredibly capable in talking to normal people (years of hosting chat shows). She would effortlessly dominate debates. She is media savvy too, owning her own production company, so she knows all about messaging, branding, and how to keep herself in the news. Her recent speeches have been pretty blatant tests for a run, and the reception has been incredibly positive. Also, it's very hard to launch any sort of attack on her. She isn't corrupt. She doesn't have some dodgy unknown past. She could run as an "outsider" candidate like Trump, who doesn't need lobbyist money, on a centre-left platform with a few key progressive policies. Easy win.

Michelle Obama, I think it would be a close call. She has no valid claim apart from being his wife, and he is deeply unpopular among Republicans. She would rally the left due to being a black woman, but she would also rally the right who hate the Obamas.

The Rock could definitely win. He's an impressive guy. Very smart, dedicated, charismatic etc. People like a leader to look like a leader, so being a giant like him would definitely be in his favour. He would make Trump look small, weak and pathetic. 

Zuckerberg stands zero chance. He's creepy and robotic, and the public and political tide is against facebook now. He's a gross, horrible little man-child who doesn't look like a leader, and everybody would be suspicious that he is buying the election, manipulating news etc. Conspiracies would go wild. 

Bloomberg might finally have his chance to win. Again, he's a highly accomplished, highly successful businessman, and he has political experience that other celebrities don't. His speech at the DNC was the most effective anti-Trump speech I've seen. Being a New Yorker, from the same place as Trump, but with a net worth of 10x Trump, his attacks were far more persuasive than an endless stream of people calling Trump racist, sexist etc. Making the argument of "I made myself rich, and I can do the same for the country" is very persuasive. However, being an old, rich white male jew might hurt his chances in the Democratic Party.

Somebody else who might do well would be a military candidate. Some retired general, admiral etc. If they can be female, even better chance to win. That would take away Trump's "patriotism" angle. It would give the Democratic Party the "pro America" image which it is lacking (perceived as more interested in helping foreigners than helping the US middle class etc). And Trump would have to be careful about how he attacks, because every time he attacks someone in the military, he gets crucified for it. Also, he is still popular among the military, so having a respected general or somebody run would chip away at that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> As a non-American who views your politics for sheer entertainment:
> 
> Biden: Way too old, and also far too mainstream. Trump has changed the boundaries of "normal" now. The most qualified mainstream candidate lost to him, and that's WITH the advantage of being a woman and capturing a disproportionate amount of that demographic. He could have won in 2016, but it's too late for him now.
> 
> Bernie: Way too old, and also unelectable. He made some noise in the primaries, but he's not a serious presidential candidate. He doesn't look like a president or a leader. And he has never actually been under attack.
> 
> Beto and Booker: Nah. Too preachy, seem fake. I don't think people will go for another "Obama" character right now with the grand aspirational speeches etc. Also, Beto looks like a college student. Not presidential enough.
> 
> Warren: She can certainly win, if she can run her campaign better than Hillary did. She's qualified. Has enough popularity with the left-wing Bernie types, but she's also moderate enough not to alienate everybody. Also, I'm surprised that she would be 71 in 2020. She looks younger, which is a plus. Biden and Bernie have too much white hair, so their age works against them. Warren's two problems will be whether she has enough strength of character to take Trump's attacks and dish it back, and whether she can appeal to "ordinary" people. Drinking beer on Instagram feels fake, and has been widely mocked. You're a 69 year old college professor and lawyer. Stop trying to pretend you're down with the kids.
> 
> Kamala Harris is too unknown and she is trying WAY too hard. It looks desperate.
> 
> Maxine Waters seems batshit crazy. She would lose terribly.
> 
> Porn lawyer guy would be absolutely hilarious. From an entertainment point of view, I'd want him to run.
> 
> Hillary, funnily enough, could actually win if she ran in 2020. If she ran a better campaign (actually visiting swing states), showed a little non-scripted humanity (which apparently she does have, and is quite charming and personable in real life), and didn't seem so out of touch, she could definitely win. The "crooked Hillary" angle will fail, now that it's apparent Trump is just as dirty, or more dirty, than her. However, I think everybody is fed up of her.
> 
> Oprah, if she ran, would EASILY win. Female and black, which means she gets >60% of the woman vote, 95% of the black vote. Plus, she is a genuinely self-made billionaire and highly successful, a great speaker, incredibly capable in talking to normal people (years of hosting chat shows). She would effortlessly dominate debates. She is media savvy too, owning her own production company, so she knows all about messaging, branding, and how to keep herself in the news. Her recent speeches have been pretty blatant tests for a run, and the reception has been incredibly positive. Also, it's very hard to launch any sort of attack on her. She isn't corrupt. She doesn't have some dodgy unknown past. She could run as an "outsider" candidate like Trump, who doesn't need lobbyist money, on a centre-left platform with a few key progressive policies. Easy win.
> 
> Michelle Obama, I think it would be a close call. She has no valid claim apart from being his wife, and he is deeply unpopular among Republicans. She would rally the left due to being a black woman, but she would also rally the right who hate the Obamas.
> 
> The Rock could definitely win. He's an impressive guy. Very smart, dedicated, charismatic etc. People like a leader to look like a leader, so being a giant like him would definitely be in his favour. He would make Trump look small, weak and pathetic.
> 
> Zuckerberg stands zero chance. He's creepy and robotic, and the public and political tide is against facebook now. He's a gross, horrible little man-child who doesn't look like a leader, and everybody would be suspicious that he is buying the election, manipulating news etc. Conspiracies would go wild.
> 
> Bloomberg might finally have his chance to win. Again, he's a highly accomplished, highly successful businessman, and he has political experience that other celebrities don't. His speech at the DNC was the most effective anti-Trump speech I've seen. Being a New Yorker, from the same place as Trump, but with a net worth of 10x Trump, his attacks were far more persuasive than an endless stream of people calling Trump racist, sexist etc. Making the argument of "I made myself rich, and I can do the same for the country" is very persuasive. However, being an old, rich white male jew might hurt his chances in the Democratic Party.
> 
> Somebody else who might do well would be a military candidate. Some retired general, admiral etc. If they can be female, even better chance to win. That would take away Trump's "patriotism" angle. It would give the Democratic Party the "pro America" image which it is lacking (perceived as more interested in helping foreigners than helping the US middle class etc). And Trump would have to be careful about how he attacks, because every time he attacks someone in the military, he gets crucified for it. Also, he is still popular among the military, so having a respected general or somebody run would chip away at that.



Honestly, the candidate doesn't really matter all that much. Just about everyone knows who they are going to vote for and anyone who says they don't on election day are lying.

Our system is so screwy that the person with the most votes can still lose, which is what happened in 2016.

The biggest factor is going to be making voting accessible for as many eligible voters as possible. That's why the local government wins by the Democrats were such a big deal. Our voting system is basically the Wild West, very little is standardized across the country, but state and local governments can more easily make access to the polls easier.

Gerrymandering and subsequent voter suppression is what gets Republicans elected (and wars), so if the newly minted Democratic governors, attorney generals and state legislators do their job, we'll likely wind up with a Democratic victory.

EDIT: If anything, I'd say the third candidate (or fourth...) is more important.


----------



## Demiurge

I feel bad for my wife. She's flying 3X (so, 6 flights) for work this month, and the news is reporting that TSA agents are calling-out en masse because they're not being paid. Unless the staff at every airport Chili's can be deputized to perform the necessary TSA activities (full cavity searches and standing-around talking to each other), she'll be living at the airport.


----------



## Ralyks

No. No celebrities. With all do respect to The Oprah and The Rock, please, sometime with actually political experience in 2020.

Michelle Obama would be neat, but I'm pretty sure she already said no. Avenatti I'm pretty sure is done being relevant at this point. Also, hell no.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Demiurge said:


> I feel bad for my wife. She's flying 3X (so, 6 flights) for work this month, and the news is reporting that TSA agents are calling-out en masse because they're not being paid. Unless the staff at every airport Chili's can be deputized to perform the necessary TSA activities (full cavity searches and standing-around talking to each other), she'll be living at the airport.



Ouch. That's rough.

I hate flying when there's the typical amount of TSA.



Ralyks said:


> No. No celebrities. With all do respect to The Oprah and The Rock, please, sometime with actually political experience in 2020.
> 
> Michelle Obama would be neat, but I'm pretty sure she already said no. Avenatti I'm pretty sure is done being relevant at this point. Also, hell no.



The first three have said they're not running, and I doubt Avenatti will given recent events.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> As a non-American who views your politics for sheer entertainment:
> 
> Biden: Way too old, and also far too mainstream. Trump has changed the boundaries of "normal" now. The most qualified mainstream candidate lost to him, and that's WITH the advantage of being a woman and capturing a disproportionate amount of that demographic. He could have won in 2016, but it's too late for him now.



He's only four years older than Trump, but I get what you're saying.

I wouldn't say being a women is an "advantage" in America. Sure, those who were already poised to vote for a female candidate would be that much happier, but those on the other side either don't care or actually see it as a "weakness".



> Bernie: Way too old, and also unelectable. He made some noise in the primaries, but he's not a serious presidential candidate. He doesn't look like a president or a leader. And he has never actually been under attack.



He is very old. No question about that. He would be damn near 80 before taking office.

He does have a following though, and a not insignificant amount of voters feel he was "robbed" in the last primary.



> Beto and Booker: Nah. Too preachy, seem fake. I don't think people will go for another "Obama" character right now with the grand aspirational speeches etc. Also, Beto looks like a college student. Not presidential enough.



Beto has a huge following, and he was damn close to moving a mountain in Texas. That's not insignificant. I think he'll make it pretty far in the primary, but I don't think he'll get the nod.

Booker is Beto light. Similar following.

A lot of folks called Obama "not presidential", and he won two terms. I wouldn't call Trump presidential either, and he won. I think "looking presidential" isn't high on the voters' list of priorities, unless that's code for "stuffy, old (but not too old) white guy".



> Warren: She can certainly win, if she can run her campaign better than Hillary did. She's qualified. Has enough popularity with the left-wing Bernie types, but she's also moderate enough not to alienate everybody. Also, I'm surprised that she would be 71 in 2020. She looks younger, which is a plus. Biden and Bernie have too much white hair, so their age works against them. Warren's two problems will be whether she has enough strength of character to take Trump's attacks and dish it back, and whether she can appeal to "ordinary" people. Drinking beer on Instagram feels fake, and has been widely mocked. You're a 69 year old college professor and lawyer. Stop trying to pretend you're down with the kids.



I definitely think she has a better shot than most, but she's been a conservative boogeyman for awhile, so there's baggage.



> Kamala Harris is too unknown and she is trying WAY too hard. It looks desperate.



Maybe she's not getting enough coverage where you're looking? Her name has been household for at least the last year nationally and she's well known in California. While that might not seem like much, more than one in ten Americans is a Californian. It's our most populous state where she's been a popular politician since 2004.



> Maxine Waters seems batshit crazy. She would lose terribly.



This country is way too racist to even possibly give her a shot. 



> Porn lawyer guy would be absolutely hilarious. From an entertainment point of view, I'd want him to run.



Not this round, but unfortunately I think he's going to be around for awhile.



> Hillary, funnily enough, could actually win if she ran in 2020. If she ran a better campaign (actually visiting swing states), showed a little non-scripted humanity (which apparently she does have, and is quite charming and personable in real life), and didn't seem so out of touch, she could definitely win. The "crooked Hillary" angle will fail, now that it's apparent Trump is just as dirty, or more dirty, than her. However, I think everybody is fed up of her.



As fun as running with a campaign slogan of "I Told You So", I think the Clinton dynasty needs to lay low until Chelsea runs for office.



> Oprah, if she ran, would EASILY win. Female and black, which means she gets >60% of the woman vote, 95% of the black vote. Plus, she is a genuinely self-made billionaire and highly successful, a great speaker, incredibly capable in talking to normal people (years of hosting chat shows). She would effortlessly dominate debates. She is media savvy too, owning her own production company, so she knows all about messaging, branding, and how to keep herself in the news. Her recent speeches have been pretty blatant tests for a run, and the reception has been incredibly positive. Also, it's very hard to launch any sort of attack on her. She isn't corrupt. She doesn't have some dodgy unknown past. She could run as an "outsider" candidate like Trump, who doesn't need lobbyist money, on a centre-left platform with a few key progressive policies. Easy win.



See: Maxine Waters. This country doesn't really like black people or women and especially when they're rich and smart.



> Michelle Obama, I think it would be a close call. She has no valid claim apart from being his wife, and he is deeply unpopular among Republicans. She would rally the left due to being a black woman, but she would also rally the right who hate the Obamas.



Everything she's said has indicated she doesn't want to run.



> The Rock could definitely win. He's an impressive guy. Very smart, dedicated, charismatic etc. People like a leader to look like a leader, so being a giant like him would definitely be in his favour. He would make Trump look small, weak and pathetic.



So a black woman with a JD from Harvard who was actually in the white house for almost a decade is unqualified, but a guy with no political bona fides could "definitely win"?



> Zuckerberg stands zero chance. He's creepy and robotic, and the public and political tide is against facebook now. He's a gross, horrible little man-child who doesn't look like a leader, and everybody would be suspicious that he is buying the election, manipulating news etc. Conspiracies would go wild.



Another who isn't going to run, but I agree with most of your characterization of him.



> Bloomberg might finally have his chance to win. Again, he's a highly accomplished, highly successful businessman, and he has political experience that other celebrities don't. His speech at the DNC was the most effective anti-Trump speech I've seen. Being a New Yorker, from the same place as Trump, but with a net worth of 10x Trump, his attacks were far more persuasive than an endless stream of people calling Trump racist, sexist etc. Making the argument of "I made myself rich, and I can do the same for the country" is very persuasive. However, being an old, rich white male jew might hurt his chances in the Democratic Party.



He's got an interesting reputation nationally. Mostly seems favorable, but I don't see him going all the way. I think he would do well against Trump, but everything I've read puts him more as a centrist, which is going to be a tough sell against more progressive candidates.



> Somebody else who might do well would be a military candidate. Some retired general, admiral etc. If they can be female, even better chance to win. That would take away Trump's "patriotism" angle. It would give the Democratic Party the "pro America" image which it is lacking (perceived as more interested in helping foreigners than helping the US middle class etc). And Trump would have to be careful about how he attacks, because every time he attacks someone in the military, he gets crucified for it. Also, he is still popular among the military, so having a respected general or somebody run would chip away at that.



America is weird. We love the troops...except when we don't. If there's one thing the last couple of Republican administrations have shown is that you can trash veterans, active duty, generals, and military families as much as you want as long as you're not a minority.

That said, I'd love to see Tammy Duckworth campaign.

It's interesting reading opinions from folks in different countries. Puts a lot of perspective on things. Where are you getting your news? I would stick to Reuters and AP. NPR isn't bad, same with PBS. Stay away from CNN and Fox.

I'm way more interested to see who the third party candidates are. That's probably going to have more of an impact.


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> He's only four years older than Trump, but I get what you're saying.
> 
> I wouldn't say being a women is an "advantage" in America. Sure, those who were already poised to vote for a female candidate would be that much happier, but those on the other side either don't care or actually see it as a "weakness".



Well, Hillary would have won if she'd actually campaigned well. I don't think being a woman held her back in 2016. She simply ran a laughably bad, tone deaf campaign, and even then it was pretty close - less than 200,000 votes across a few swing states. In 2020, the attitude will have changed even more.



> He is very old. No question about that. He would be damn near 80 before taking office.
> 
> He does have a following though, and a not insignificant amount of voters feel he was "robbed" in the last primary.



Agreed. But I think Bernie's support will die off. I've barely seen Bernie since he dropped out of the race. And I think many of his supporters would easily cross over to Warren.



> Beto has a huge following, and he was damn close to moving a mountain in Texas. That's not insignificant. I think he'll make it pretty far in the primary, but I don't think he'll get the nod.



He did come close, but I kinda feel that was more about delivering a progressive "fuck you" to Cruz, rather than Beto actually being any good. The media were pushing him 100%. CNN was leg-humping him. And everybody seems to hate Cruz, including a good portion of Republicans. In a primary with other candidates, I don't see it. And vs Trump, maybe - but again, the image thing holds him back IMO.



> Booker is Beto light. Similar following.
> 
> A lot of folks called Obama "not presidential", and he won two terms. I wouldn't call Trump presidential either, and he won. I think "looking presidential" isn't high on the voters' list of priorities, unless that's code for "stuffy, old (but not too old) white guy".



In my own definition, "presidential" basically means looking like a leader. Strong. Preferably tall. Preferably good looking. Or at least having other significant accomplishments as your image - being a billionaire. Beto looks like a college kid. He doesn't seriously look like a president. Bernie has the same problem - he looks like an eccentric college professor with his wild, blustery white hair. He doesn't look like someone who could sit down with Putin and Xi. Trump is a bit of an anomaly, but he is tall, was pretty good looking, and has/had his whole brand of success and previous fame and name recognition to help him.



> I definitely think she has a better shot than most, but she's been a conservative boogeyman for awhile, so there's baggage.



True.




> Maybe she's not getting enough coverage where you're looking? Her name has been household for at least the last year nationally and she's well known in California. While that might not seem like much, more than one in ten Americans is a Californian. It's our most populous state where she's been a popular politician since 2004.



She just seems like a try-hard, if that makes sense. Someone too desperate to make a name for herself.





> This country is way too racist to even possibly give her a shot.



Well, I'm not sure about that. I think it's more to do with her being perceived as bonkers, rather than her being black. I think a black candidate could easily win in 2020. Obama won twice. The same swing state voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008. I just don't think there are enough anti-black racists to change the election. In fact, we both know that a black candidate would automatically get a FAR higher proportion of the non-white vote, which is arguably a more influential racially-driven vote.





> Not this round, but unfortunately I think he's going to be around for awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> As fun as running with a campaign slogan of "I Told You So", I think the Clinton dynasty needs to lay low until Chelsea runs for office.



Urgh, Chelsea is just awful. I forgot about her too, lol. She was definitely gearing up for something after the election.





> See: Maxine Waters. This country doesn't really like black people or women and especially when they're rich and smart.



You're saying people don't like Oprah? She's enormously popular. Anybody on her show is instant celebrity. Any book on her list is instant number one. She has a HUGE captive audience. Did you see her speech at whatever Hollywood award ceremony? TV news was glorifying it for days. People were begging her to run. As I said, she'd get the majority of the woman vote, almost 100% of the black and minority vote. How would anybody attack her? Her background and where she came from, what she overcame, is incredible. Her accomplishments are undeniable. Her skillset is broad. None of it can be realistically criticised. The biggest attack would simply be her lack of experience, but that clearly isn't a limitation. A handful of racists won't make any difference against the absolute landslide she would win by. 




> Everything she's said has indicated she doesn't want to run.



Well, they all say that, until they do.  





> So a black woman with a JD from Harvard who was actually in the white house for almost a decade is unqualified, but a guy with no political bona fides could "definitely win"?



I didn't say she's "unqualified" exactly. Nobody doubts that she's smart. I said she has no "claim" apart from being First Lady. Michelle would rally the left and the right. Someone with less baggage, such as Oprah, would rally the left without rallying the right, even though she's also a black woman. Thus, she has a better chance to win.

The Rock has the image, power, charisma etc to easily win. He looks tough. He IS tough. He talks well. He's quick and snappy and good looking. Nobody cares about lack of experience, which I expand on later.



> Another who isn't going to run, but I agree with most of your characterization of him.



Make no mistake, Zuckerberg definitely was planning to run. And he will almost certainly run for something at some point. Nobody tours the country, visits swing states, visits factories and police stations and farmers and "gets to know the country better" unless they're planning a run. He probably won't run in 2020 due to all of the negative publicity around Facebook.



> He's got an interesting reputation nationally. Mostly seems favorable, but I don't see him going all the way. I think he would do well against Trump, but everything I've read puts him more as a centrist, which is going to be a tough sell against more progressive candidates.



Bloomberg could win because people might actually WANT a centrist candidate. In fact, I predict that people on both sides will be fed up. Trump is too much drama. The Democrats are also driving themselves absolutely insane. None of them look great. I don't think there will be a progressive wave. I think people will be fed up, and looking for a middle ground. They're already talking about starting primaries later this year. 



> America is weird. We love the troops...except when we don't. If there's one thing the last couple of Republican administrations have shown is that you can trash veterans, active duty, generals, and military families as much as you want as long as you're not a minority.
> 
> That said, I'd love to see Tammy Duckworth campaign.



Well, I don't think being a minority or not matters. Trump is certainly taking heat for every time he criticises someone related to the military - even when some of his attacks were perfectly justified. But as long as Republicans support increased defence spending, the military will support them. 



> It's interesting reading opinions from folks in different countries. Puts a lot of perspective on things. Where are you getting your news? I would stick to Reuters and AP. NPR isn't bad, same with PBS. Stay away from CNN and Fox.
> 
> I'm way more interested to see who the third party candidates are. That's probably going to have more of an impact.



A bit of everywhere. FT, WSJ, check Drudge occasionally, reddit. 

Good point about 3rd party candidates. I suspect that there will either be none, or lots.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> Well, Hillary would have won if she'd actually campaigned well. I don't think being a woman held her back in 2016. She simply ran a laughably bad, tone deaf campaign, and even then it was pretty close - less than 200,000 votes across a few swing states. In 2020, the attitude will have changed even more.



She did run a bad campaign, but if wasn't for a third party candidate that swooped up progressive voters she would have won those states.

Again though, she did win the popular vote. She received millions more votes, but our system can easily be gamed, which is what happened.

I don't think her visiting the Midwest would have done anything. I've lived out here for almost a decade. Folks in the boonies vote red no matter what.



> Agreed. But I think Bernie's support will die off. I've barely seen Bernie since he dropped out of the race. And I think many of his supporters would easily cross over to Warren.



It's been years and his support seems to be ever growing. He doesn't have a sweet pundit gig on a major cable network, but him and his team are incredibly active on social media. I hate to say it, but social media matters these days.



> He did come close, but I kinda feel that was more about delivering a progressive "fuck you" to Cruz, rather than Beto actually being any good. The media were pushing him 100%. CNN was leg-humping him. And everybody seems to hate Cruz, including a good portion of Republicans. In a primary with other candidates, I don't see it. And vs Trump, maybe - but again, the image thing holds him back IMO.



I never perceived that he wasn't liked by Republicans. He's been beholden to modern conservative orthodoxy his whole political career. He's a reliable Republican, which is why he's stayed in office so long.



> In my own definition, "presidential" basically means looking like a leader. Strong. Preferably tall. Preferably good looking. Or at least having other significant accomplishments as your image - being a billionaire. Beto looks like a college kid. He doesn't seriously look like a president. Bernie has the same problem - he looks like an eccentric college professor with his wild, blustery white hair. He doesn't look like someone who could sit down with Putin and Xi. Trump is a bit of an anomaly, but he is tall, was pretty good looking, and has/had his whole brand of success and previous fame and name recognition to help him.



There's a lot to unpack here. Maybe another time. 

For the record, Beto is 46 years old and 6' 4". He's also a self made multi-millionaire. 

Bernie is 6' tall, making him taller than both Xi and Vlad. He's also a multi-millionaire. 



> True.



We'll have a much better idea after the first few debates.



> She just seems like a try-hard, if that makes sense. Someone too desperate to make a name for herself.



Do you have any examples?

Nothing she's done recently is different than how she's governed her whole political career. It's not like she's changed her positions on key issues very recently, at least from what I've followed. Though, certain media outlets have been giving her a heck of a lot of coverage the last year.



> Well, I'm not sure about that. I think it's more to do with her being perceived as bonkers, rather than her being black. I think a black candidate could easily win in 2020. Obama won twice. The same swing state voters who went for Trump in 2016 voted for Obama in 2012 and 2008. I just don't think there are enough anti-black racists to change the election. In fact, we both know that a black candidate would automatically get a FAR higher proportion of the non-white vote, which is arguably a more influential racially-driven vote.



I don't think voters are as liquid as you're implying. The left already has the minority vote, at least those who aren't stopped from voting.

If she's "bonkers" what does that make Trump? Her policy positions are sound, and obviously Trump and the larger right are threatened enough to single her out with name calling.



> Urgh, Chelsea is just awful. I forgot about her too, lol. She was definitely gearing up for something after the election.



I can't say I've ever had as strong of an opinion on her. Any reason she's especially awful?



> You're saying people don't like Oprah? She's enormously popular. Anybody on her show is instant celebrity. Any book on her list is instant number one. She has a HUGE captive audience. Did you see her speech at whatever Hollywood award ceremony? TV news was glorifying it for days. People were begging her to run. As I said, she'd get the majority of the woman vote, almost 100% of the black and minority vote. How would anybody attack her? Her background and where she came from, what she overcame, is incredible. Her accomplishments are undeniable. Her skillset is broad. None of it can be realistically criticised. The biggest attack would simply be her lack of experience, but that clearly isn't a limitation. A handful of racists won't make any difference against the absolute landslide she would win by.



She wouldn't get any more votes that any other left leaning, progressive candidate would get. I highly doubt she'd covert any Republicans.

She's not necessarily perfect either. She's had her controversies over the years, especially how she's run her businesses.



> Well, they all say that, until they do.



True point. 



> I didn't say she's "unqualified" exactly. Nobody doubts that she's smart. I said she has no "claim" apart from being First Lady. Michelle would rally the left and the right. Someone with less baggage, such as Oprah, would rally the left without rallying the right, even though she's also a black woman. Thus, she has a better chance to win.



What does "claim" mean?



> The Rock has the image, power, charisma etc to easily win. He looks tough. He IS tough. He talks well. He's quick and snappy and good looking. Nobody cares about lack of experience, which I expand on later.



You have a type. We get it. 



> Make no mistake, Zuckerberg definitely was planning to run. And he will almost certainly run for something at some point. Nobody tours the country, visits swing states, visits factories and police stations and farmers and "gets to know the country better" unless they're planning a run. He probably won't run in 2020 due to all of the negative publicity around Facebook.



I can see him trying to run, but not yet. 



> Bloomberg could win because people might actually WANT a centrist candidate. In fact, I predict that people on both sides will be fed up. Trump is too much drama. The Democrats are also driving themselves absolutely insane. None of them look great. I don't think there will be a progressive wave. I think people will be fed up, and looking for a middle ground. They're already talking about starting primaries later this year.



If the mid terms proved anything is that centrists are not in demand.



> Well, I don't think being a minority or not matters. Trump is certainly taking heat for every time he criticises someone related to the military - even when some of his attacks were perfectly justified. But as long as Republicans support increased defence spending, the military will support them.



The demographics of the armed forces are changing rapidly, as is their political association.



> A bit of everywhere. FT, WSJ, check Drudge occasionally, reddit.



That certainly explains a lot. FT isn't bad, but WSJ definitely skews right, but usually is fact-based. Drudge is garbage though, it's the right's answer to rags like Daily Kos. 



> Good point about 3rd party candidates. I suspect that there will either be none, or lots.



We'll see if the left learned their lesson.


----------



## Flappydoodle

"Experience" certainly doesn't matter when it comes to winning elections. Firstly, the public don't understand experience. They can't weigh it or compare it. How do we compare a former senator, city mayor, governor, military leader, attorney general, CEO, etc? Who the hell knows. Only Vice President we know would be relevant and have true insight to the job. Secondly, in 2020 Trump will be the most experienced candidate possible, so that argument about experience doesn't work in Democrats' favour.

I saw an article in The Hill today saying that Warren is trying to bulk up her foreign policy credibility. She has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee since last year. Again, nobody cares. Nobody knows what that Committee is, or whether that "experience" is worth anything. She'd be better off repeatedly emphasising that she's from a military family and that all 3 of her brothers served etc. That's what people understand and can relate to. She gave her first speech at Iowa, going on about healthcare for all etc. You know what the first audience question was? About her DNA test. Trump is a fucking master of this sort of stuff. Something so stupid and unimportant is causing problems for her. And she's done everything possible to combat it - taking every fact-based approach she can, including all her university transcripts, comments from the people who interviewed her for the job, and even releasing DNA test results. And none of it matters. Anybody wanting to defeat Trump needs to know how to play this game. You can't defeat opinions with facts. It simply doesn't work.

Winning the primary is mostly about making a name for yourself, standing out and capturing the mood at the time. A celebrity candidate could easily do that. Winning the election is about looking like a winner and running a successful campaign - in other words, visiting the right places and having some sort of brand which people can identify with which suits the moment. Bush had his "regular guy to have a beer with" image. Obama had his grand aspirational speeches of hope and change. Trump had his tough-guy successful businessman image.

Also, nobody gives two shits about policies and campaigns are not a suitable format for educating people about them. Hillary had all sorts of detailed plans. Nobody actually could tell you any of them. Nobody listens. Nobody cares. You need one or two simple, one-line statements which let people interpret them positively. Besides, we all know that the policies rarely come into fruition anyway, so whatever promises they make are irrelevant.



MaxOfMetal said:


> She did run a bad campaign, but if wasn't for a third party candidate that swooped up progressive voters she would have won those states.



You can always give lots of "what ifs". Hillary was just as unpopular as Trump, so no guarantee that Dr. Stein voters would have voted for Hillary. They might have just stayed at home. Turnout is king - not vote-flipping.



> Again though, she did win the popular vote. She received millions more votes, but our system can easily be gamed, which is what happened.
> 
> I don't think her visiting the Midwest would have done anything. I've lived out here for almost a decade. Folks in the boonies vote red no matter what.



I totally disagree. Winning the popular vote is irrelevant under the system which has always been used for US elections. Since that isn't a winning metric, even considering it is pointless. The system wasn't gamed, because both candidates and their teams know in advance what they have to do to win - i.e. capture swing states. They should plan their strategy accordingly. She assumed she would win by default and was going for a "kill" with a huge victory. I believe she didn't visit Wisconsin a single time in 2016. Huge tactical errors on her part.

And if people in those states voted red no matter what, they wouldn't be swing states. The fact that Obama won those states twice kinda disproves that. 




> It's been years and his support seems to be ever growing. He doesn't have a sweet pundit gig on a major cable network, but him and his team are incredibly active on social media. I hate to say it, but social media matters these days.



True. I do totally ignore social media. We'll see how it carries over into real life support. It clearly worked a few times during the mid-terms.




> I never perceived that he wasn't liked by Republicans. He's been beholden to modern conservative orthodoxy his whole political career. He's a reliable Republican, which is why he's stayed in office so long.



https://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/26/politics/lindsey-graham-ted-cruz-dinner/index.html




> There's a lot to unpack here. Maybe another time.
> 
> For the record, Beto is 46 years old and 6' 4". He's also a self made multi-millionaire.
> 
> Bernie is 6' tall, making him taller than both Xi and Vlad. He's also a multi-millionaire.



Forbes says Bernie declared his own net worth at $700K in 2016. If that's his net worth at his age after decades in a good job, I wouldn't call that successful by a long shot.

As for Beto, he's apparently worth about $8M, but his father sold a multi-billion dollar company and his wife is also from incredibly rich parents, so it's hard to believe that his money isn't from there. I've no problem with that, but it isn't exactly a selling point unless he's going to get up there and brag about how successful he is.

I'll admit, I did go check and my mental image of Beto was out of date. He looks much better now with the grey hair and grown up hair style. His wiki page has a kinda dorky, floppy college student look, lol.




> I don't think voters are as liquid as you're implying. The left already has the minority vote, at least those who aren't stopped from voting.



Sure, but look at the difference in black turnout between Obama and Hillary. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m-black/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4cc6afd7141d

Again, not about flipping voters. It's about driving turnout.



> If she's "bonkers" what does that make Trump? Her policy positions are sound, and obviously Trump and the larger right are threatened enough to single her out with name calling.



Trump is far more bonkers. But Republicans can be nuts and still win. Democrats (probably) can't.



> I can't say I've ever had as strong of an opinion on her. Any reason she's especially awful?



Looks like a horse, lol. Also, from all the leaked emails she sounds like a total cuntbag. Whiny, petulant, spoiled, demanding. Also, even though I'm British, the idea of political dynasties is kinda gross. The Clintons need to go away IMO.



> She wouldn't get any more votes that any other left leaning, progressive candidate would get. I highly doubt she'd covert any Republicans.
> 
> She's not necessarily perfect either. She's had her controversies over the years, especially how she's run her businesses.



Nah. Again, it's not about converting anybody. It's about turnout. See the link above. Only maybe 10-12% of people flip their vote.



> That certainly explains a lot. FT isn't bad, but WSJ definitely skews right, but usually is fact-based. Drudge is garbage though, it's the right's answer to rags like Daily Kos.



Drudge just links to other news - 90% being regular NBC, CNN, WaPo, Fox etc. He writes dramatic headlines, but it's still a pretty good instant snapshot of the day. He also quite often use local sources, like Demoines Register for covering Warren in Iowa. 

Also, reddit certainly provides enough left-wing garbage to counter it - Shareblue, MoveOn etc all at the top.



> We'll see if the left learned their lesson.



Well, again you're assuming that Dr. Stein voters would have preferred Hillary.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Hillary, funnily enough, could actually win if she ran in 2020. If she ran a better campaign (actually visiting swing states), showed a little non-scripted humanity (which apparently she does have, and is quite charming and personable in real life), and didn't seem so out of touch, she could definitely win. The "crooked Hillary" angle will fail, now that it's apparent Trump is just as dirty, or more dirty, than her. However, I think everybody is fed up of her.



With the huge caveat that I think Clinton running would be a mistake... 

...this is kind of an interesting argument, and I'm not convinced you're wrong. I'm not sure I agree Clinton ran a bad campaign in 2016 - a lot of armchair quarterbacks are saying she should have campaigned more in the Rust Belt, but that overlooks the fact most of those races only got competitive in the final week of the campaign. Beyond that... I think the single biggest flaw in her campaign was never successfully managing to turn it into an issue-based campaign (her platform was pretty solid, and as much as the progressives complain, there really wasn't much daylight between herself and Sanders on the issues), and instead allowing Trump to continue to dominate the news cycle and keep it a personality-based campaign, which despite Trump's myriad personality issues, probably played in his favor, given her low personal approval numbers. Hell, you could almost make "But, her emails..." the campaign slogan.  I think, deep down inside, though, she knows that door is closed to her. 

I think you're overestimating how much it "helps" to be a woman in American politics, too - it'll likely help Warren with the progressive base, but will be the basis of a lot of attacks about her being too "emotional" and not "controlled" or "experienced" enough to steer the nation, because we need a calm, controlled, stable (read: male) leader, which will hurt her with independents and center-right voters who might otherwise want to see an alternative to Trump. 

I'd love to see Bloomberg run, but I don't think he can win - he's a man who made his fortune selling a data analysis platform to Wall Street, the progressive left won't accept him. 

Best case scenario, IMO, is Trump gets primaried by a moderate like Kucinich, and it matters a lot less who the left runs.


----------



## Ralyks

Bloomberg reporting that tax refunds will indeed get paid during the shutdown. The downside being that it will put less pressure on the government being reopened...


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Bloomberg reporting that tax refunds will indeed get paid during the shutdown. The downside being that it will put less pressure on the government being reopened...



Even still. Trump already backpeddled on it being a "wall", backpeddled on it being included in this legislation by saying he'll do it by "emergency funding" military funding. For a guy that thinks he's going to get what he wants and he's supposed to be some "expert negotiator", he's sure spent the last week downplaying expectations.

Huge miscalculation on his part. Shutdown blame almost universally falls in the lap of the president at the time and the majority party in Congress when it was initiated. Republicans had all three branches when this started, lots of news about it for weeks and increasingly negative coverage of the people put out of work in the meantime, and ultimately it's going to end during Democratic control of HoR with a high likelihood it will NOT include wall funding. Those optics are pretty much inescapable at this point.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Bloomberg reporting that tax refunds will indeed get paid during the shutdown. The downside being that it will put less pressure on the government being reopened...


Technically, Bloomberg reported the _White House_ stated that tax refunds will get paid during the shutdown. Considering the IRS is currently shut down, and there are still open questions the IRS has to resolve on the implications of certain sections of the TCJA, I'm not entirely sure how they plan on doing that.


----------



## bostjan

Re: tax refunds - Sadly, we've seen more than a few examples of information like that coming out of the White House that are simply not steeped in any factual background whatsoever; so it has come to the point where I simply disbelieve it. 

Re: candidates - The DNC isn't likely to back a male candidate in 2020 for the simple fact that, if anyone, female or male, comes forward with any sort of accusation of personal misconduct, it would embarassingly torpedo the campaign. We're at the point now that if you are a man and you ever patted someone on the shoulder, you are at risk of being career-blacklisted a la Garrison Keillor.


----------



## MFB

This might be the first year I file my taxes as early as possible in the hopes a human is there to actually get to them


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Re: tax refunds - Sadly, we've seen more than a few examples of information like that coming out of the White House that are simply not steeped in any factual background whatsoever; so it has come to the point where I simply disbelieve it.
> 
> Re: candidates - The DNC isn't likely to back a male candidate in 2020 for the simple fact that, if anyone, female or male, comes forward with any sort of accusation of personal misconduct, it would embarassingly torpedo the campaign. We're at the point now that if you are a man and you ever patted someone on the shoulder, you are at risk of being career-blacklisted a la Garrison Keillor.


I agree with you on the White House, clearly.  

Re: a male candidate in 2020... I'm not so sure I agree, for the simple reason that I don't think that's territory Trump really wants to find himself in. His allegations of sexual assault, and the Access Hollywood tape, by rights _should_ have torpedoed his campaign, had it not been for an 11th hour Hail Mary in the form of the Comey Letter. If Trump's the nominee, and his handlers do at ALL a good job keeping him on script (yeah, yeah... ) then I don't know if that works in Trump's favor, because if you're going after a male Democrat for an inappropriate pat on the shoulder or something, it's way too easy to question the integrity of this attack coming from a man who has bragged about, and been accused of by a number of women, sexual assault, and who is under federal investigation for paying off porn stars to bury their stories about affairs he had with them while married to his current wife. 

I do think that against Clinton, it may not have been a bad strategy to make the campaign about personal likability rather than policy... But against any Democrat facing accusations at or below the level of say Al Franken, I think that's too likely to backfire.


----------



## Randy

All Al Franken ever did was air honk'a titty!


----------



## BlackSG91

It looks like Trump will have to build an even bigger wall along the Canada-U.S. border if he wants to protect the country from terrorists and how many billions will that cost since that border is far much longer than the U.S.-Mexico border. I think Trump is painting himself into a corner with all the lies he spews since he won the election. How long will this freak show last?




;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

So that conference last night accomished absolutely nothing but more fact checking.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> All Al Franken ever did was air honk'a titty!



I so want him to come back into the fray, swinging like I know he can, with little held back.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So that conference last night accomplished absolutely nothing but more fact checking.


Yeah, I can't see how last night helped Trump, at all. He didn't bring anything new to the table, didn't really build a case why a border wall is the solution to his alleged crisis, made no new offer to the Democrats to reopen the government or new executive action to sidestep the issue, and repeated a bunch of already-disproved claims. Meanwhile, the Democrats continued to reiterate that they for border security but didn't think this was an effective (much less cost-effective) way to do it, and that they have an offer in place to get the government open while they continue to negotiate. They may have not brought anything new to the table either.... but they also did't decide to schedule a prime-time address and they're the ones who put the most recent offer on the table. Trump basically wasted ten minutes of prime time. Anyone looking for incremental change last night didn't get it. 



BlackSG91 said:


> It looks like Trump will have to build an even bigger wall along the Canada-U.S. border if he wants to protect the country from terrorists and how many billions will that cost since that border is far much longer than the U.S.-Mexico border. I think Trump is painting himself into a corner with all the lies he spews since he won the election. How long will this freak show last?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/



One, you're obviously not an American.  

Two, if there is ANY doubt this is about racism, the fact Trump is only concerned about building a wall on the border with Mexico, and not the one with Canada, should be telling.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I so want him to come back into the fray, swinging like I know he can, with little held back.



I make the statement jokingly, of course... I've got some... complex feelings about the way the whole thing played out but it's the reality we're living in now, so we've just gotta deal with it.

On the upside, if you look at a guy like Jon Stewart and the effect he was able to have from the outside, Franken definitely has an opportunity to play a role in the political landscape without necessarily seeking elected office again. 

I listened to his radio shows religiously and read all his books back, and I thought he really undermined his brand when he said "I'm running for Senate, so I'm not allowed to have a show and I'm not allowed to be funny anymore". I mean, he was effective as a Senator but drawing a line in the sand where the funny man ended and the public servant began was a choice and it certainly didn't do much to prevent his 'past' from coming back to haunt him. But now that that's in the past, I've been kinda looking forward to 'what's next'.


----------



## Ralyks

While I'm not going to say I condone his actions in the past, I do miss Franken.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> While I'm not going to say I condone his actions in the past, I do miss Franken.


Same. 

Franken was in the wrong, no question. But, it was in the realm of "that was pretty stupid and disrespectful," and not "this is something that should have been federally prosecuted and sent him to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison." There's a lot that could be debated about male privilege and power imbalances and whether or not he may have - knowingly or otherwise - taken advantage of those, and I firmly believe that his decision to step down was the right one... but he's no Roy Moore, and yeah, I miss him too.


----------



## icipher

As someone who lives in Minneapolis and didn't vote for him, I think the whole Franken debacle was a joke. It was disappointing but not surprising to see how many people were upset by that. the Dude was a comedian for God's sake and the photo was what, a decade old?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AZS3YnR3ZSBaDVi6CUvxrrw

This is exactly what should happen. Let the people decide if we need the wall. And there are people who want the wall so bad, let THEM pay for it.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AZS3YnR3ZSBaDVi6CUvxrrw
> 
> This is exactly what should happen. Let the people decide if we need the wall. And there are people who want the wall so bad, let THEM pay for it.



It's sad that this was an obvious thing over the last 200 years and in today's climate, the idea didn't come up once (in any mainstream way) until now.


----------



## Drew

Pretty good first pass at the Democratic field for 2020 courtesy of 538. I've liked Harris as a potential candidate for a while now, and she measures up well on this. It also supports my subjective impression that Warren kind of makes Sanders irrelevant in this election - there's an economics term I'm blanking on that refers to the process of narrowing a large number of options by immediately discarding any option where there's another option better than it in every criteria you care about, but that's kind of what I see the relationship with Warren and Sanders being - they both appeal to the same basic base, but Warren does so better than Sanders (IMO) for the vast majority of potential supporters, the only exceptions I can think of being the far-left progressives who think Sanders doesn't go far enough, and the (small number of) chauvinistic elements of his base.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Pretty good first pass at the Democratic field for 2020 courtesy of 538. I've liked Harris as a potential candidate for a while now, and she measures up well on this. It also supports my subjective impression that Warren kind of makes Sanders irrelevant in this election - there's an economics term I'm blanking on that refers to the process of narrowing a large number of options by immediately discarding any option where there's another option better than it in every criteria you care about, but that's kind of what I see the relationship with Warren and Sanders being - they both appeal to the same basic base, but Warren does so better than Sanders (IMO) for the vast majority of potential supporters, the only exceptions I can think of being the far-left progressives who think Sanders doesn't go far enough, and the (small number of) chauvinistic elements of his base.



I feel like the right thing to do would be for Sanders to start supporting Warren early. The faster that's done, the better.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AZS3YnR3ZSBaDVi6CUvxrrw
> 
> This is exactly what should happen. Let the people decide if we need the wall. And there are people who want the wall so bad, let THEM pay for it.


Doubly so, because it'll appeal to two groups - people who just want that wall, period, and profit minded individuals who think the return is objectively good enough to warrant investing. 

I think the wall is stupid, idiotic, and offensive... But if it truly IS going to happen one way or another (which FWIW I don't believe to be the case, I think the Dems are winning the shutdown fight and the national emergency approach will die in the courts) I'd feel better about it happening if I could at least buy risk-free bonds paying a way-higher rate of return than they technically should because the project they're supporting is so politically divisive that 2/3 of the country won't touch it. Buy them, kick a good chunk of my gain to the SPLC to offset some of the harm Trump is doing elsewhere, and then feel slightly better about the whole mess by at least being able to profit off it.  

(this is why millenials hate capitalism, lol)


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like the right thing to do would be for Sanders to start supporting Warren early. The faster that's done, the better.


Won't happen - Sanders is the current front-runner, and IMO the single most prescient observation Silver makes here is that, much like Trump in 2016, Sanders benefits more than probably any other candidate by keeping the field divided as long as possible.

Only way I could see him dropping out and endorsing her is if either a scandal or a debate performance or something like that pushed him so far down in the polls that he was clearly no longer a credible contender - i.e. at a point where it no longer mattered what he did.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Won't happen - Sanders is the current front-runner, and IMO the single most prescient observation Silver makes here is that, much like Trump in 2016, Sanders benefits more than probably any other candidate by keeping the field divided as long as possible.



I know. 

Just some wishful thinking.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know.
> 
> Just some wishful thinking.


Much like me dreaming about Trump getting primaried by someone like Kasich or Bloomberg (which is doubly unlikely now that he's back to being a registered Democrat, lol)?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Much like me dreaming about Trump getting primaried by someone like Kasich or Bloomberg (which is doubly unlikely now that he's back to being a registered Democrat, lol)?



If there's one thing that the right has shown us, it's that they're far more pragmatic when it comes to stuff like this. 

They're not dumb enough to get greedy (for once ) and try and run another candidate. They'll make a show of it until the last few months where the front runner bows out and throws full support behind Trump. If they even bother. 

Also, can we just say: fuck Gabbard.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> If there's one thing that the right has shown us, it's that they're far more pragmatic when it comes to stuff like this.
> 
> They're not dumb enough to get greedy (for once ) and try and run another candidate. They'll make a show of it until the last few months where the front runner bows out and throws full support behind Trump. If they even bother.
> 
> Also, can we just say: fuck Gabbard.


Not sure I fully agree. I think there's an element of conditional probability here - Trump isn't likely to face a serious primary challenge... _unless_ he's doing so badly that a decent primary challenger is likely to defeat him and have a better shot in the general election, in which place I think it becomes _highly _likely that he faces a realistic challenger. 

To be fair, I don't think we're there yet, but this shutdown has been hammering his favorability numbers, and the Russia probe is continuously releasing worse and worse news for Trump. It's not an inconceivable scenario.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Not sure I fully agree. I think there's an element of conditional probability here - Trump isn't likely to face a serious primary challenge... _unless_ he's doing so badly that a decent primary challenger is likely to defeat him and have a better shot in the general election, in which place I think it becomes _highly _likely that he faces a realistic challenger.
> 
> To be fair, I don't think we're there yet, but this shutdown has been hammering his favorability numbers, and the Russia probe is continuously releasing worse and worse news for Trump. It's not an inconceivable scenario.



I know it's two years out and he's polling really shitty with little positive outlook, but it just don't think he's going to be perceived as that toxic by the GOP. I mean, what could he possibly do at this point to be worse?


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know it's two years out and he's polling really shitty with little positive outlook, but it just don't think he's going to be perceived as that toxic by the GOP. I mean, what could he possibly do at this point to be worse?


Actually get pinned down with concrete evidence of collusion?  

I mean, I get your point, and how his GOP support has been strangely resilient... But, I think there are two things I'd think about here. 

First, there's some evidence that while Trump's in-party approval numbers have held up surprisingly well, the share of voters who identify as Republican or Republican-leaning has dropped since Trump's election, meaning that it's less his approval numbers have been stable, so much as everyone who doesn't approve is switching party identification to independent. 

Second, I think one of the main reasons that his approval numbers have held up pretty well is the polarization of the news media and the fact that Fox and other right-wing outlets have covered him pretty favorably. If something _so_ beyond the pale were to emerge that even Fox news hosts (and Breitbart behind them) were to suddenly start criticizing Trump openly for corruption/possible working on behalf of Russia, at that point I would expect his numbers to deteriorate in a hurry. I have to imagine relatively favorable news coverage from their preferred news sources has been a factor in Trump's ongoing popularity with Republican voters. 

I suspect it's the second more than the former, and if his Fox firewall ever breaks he's toast. Which makes it not at ALL surprising that he's been cozying up to his preferred hosts, having them join him at campaign events, etc.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

Don't worry, @jaxadam, Trump told us today that he "never worked for Russia," and if he said it it must be true!

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/14/tru...-following-explosive-report-of-fbi-probe.html

I really wish I had a screencap of that from CNBC, him speaking with the banner below reading "Trump: 'I Never Worked for Russia.'" How far we've fallen. I mean, shit, you guys kept calling Obama a socialist, yet even he never had to deny reports he was a Russian secret agent!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

If we keep thinking it hard enough, maybe it will come true.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Explorer

Why is it Hillary in those memes, instead of the vast majority of our intelligence agencies' employees whom Trump has continually denigrated? They're the ones who have drawn and supported the conclusions, which Trump has denied for no stated reason... but clearly for his own hidden motives.

It's pretty funny that some are flailing to distract from the fact that there have been at least 101 points of contact between Trump's people and Russia, and that Trump and his people have actively lied to conceal thos points of contact. Prosecutors call such active concealment "consciousness of guilt," because if Trump and his people didn't think they were guilty of something, they wouldn't be trying such concealment.

Is treason still punishable by death? Or do we just lock him up?

Anyway, back to the desperate flailing with no reasoned arguments supporting it. *laugh*


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> Is treason still punishable by death? Or do we just lock him up?



Deactivate his Twitter AND delete all his previous tweets. Death to the soul.


----------



## jaxadam

McDonald Trump


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

jaxadam said:


> McDonald Trump


This is all funny, confusing, and strange at the same time.

It's like it's performance art, the cardboard boxes sheltering the burgs from the oppressive gleam of the candelabras, it's all seated on a table worth probably 3-4 the cost of the entire spread. I swear this would be considered some groundbreaking shit if it was done by somebody else.


----------



## jaxadam

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> This is all funny, confusing, and strange at the same time.
> 
> It's like it's performance art, the cardboard boxes sheltering the burgs from the oppressive gleam of the candelabras, it's all seated on a table worth probably 3-4 the cost of the entire spread. I swear this would be considered some groundbreaking shit if it was done by somebody else.



Sone of the finest food from some of the finest American institutions. And paid for by the man himself! What we’re looking at here folks is a three term president.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> Sone of the finest food from some of the finest American institutions. And paid for by the man himself! What we’re looking at here folks is a three term president.



"You've heard of the GOP, now get ready for the GO-_Three"_


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

jaxadam said:


> McDonald Trump



Arguably the most american thing I've ever seen. Just needs a gun on the table. 



MFB said:


> "You've heard of the GOP, now get ready for the GO-_Three"_



Underrated post


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If we keep thinking it hard enough, maybe it will come true.


If the Mueller investigation keeps unfulding the way it has, it may _already_ be true. At a bare minimum, we know that despite blanket denials that the Trump campaign had "no contact" with Russian agents, we're up to 101 documented instances of communication between Trump staff/campaign agents and Russian agents, and additionally we know despite Trump's assurances that he had "no business interests" in Russia, he was actively pursuing a hotel deal in Moscow at least as late as June of 2016. And that's before the recent revelation that Trump actively sought to hide details of his G20 meeting with Putin, going as far as taking the translator's notes and ordering him not to discuss it with other officials.

I mean, not singling you out here personally, but this attitude on the part of the right that this whole thing is a "witch hunt" with zero evidence of wrongdoing is becoming increasingly hard to understand. We know there was fairly frequent contact between the Trump camp and Russia, Trump himself admitted that he fired Comey and asked Sessions to step down because of the Russia investigation, we know Trump was lying about pursuing business deals in Russia, and the pace of indictments in the Mueller investigation is unprecedented, far ahead of Watergate. 

I mean, we don't know for sure yet that there's a fire, but there's a fucking _LOT_ of smoke in the air...


----------



## MFB

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Underrated post



It's one of my better ones as of late, someone has to fill in with ALW's absence


----------



## PunkBillCarson

MFB said:


> It's one of my better ones as of late, someone has to fill in with ALW's absence




Speaking of which, whatever happened to him? He finally strike the wrong nerve or?


----------



## Randy

PunkBillCarson said:


> Speaking of which, whatever happened to him? He finally strike the wrong nerve or?



It was theorized that he was a duplicate account of a guy that was banned for making some WILDLY disparaging posts about someone with 'special needs'. Duplicate accounts are a 'no-no' all their own but nobody ever proved they were the same guy, then at some point, he made an almost identical disparaging post to the one the last guy made which 1.) confirmed they're the same person (so that's a reason for a ban) 2.) the content itself also warranted a ban.

It's a shame. I'm beyond complaining but when the mods had the ability to ban directly, we could police things and give slaps on the wrist. After we lost that, any complaints get forwarded right to Alex and he's too busy to do the 'hand holding' we do, so it's usually straight to permanent.


----------



## MFB

PunkBillCarson said:


> Speaking of which, whatever happened to him? He finally strike the wrong nerve or?



He did something right cause I can't even find him on the members list; which is bullshit in it's Notable Members rankings, I'm still 5K from even cracking in the board? I been running this shit since '08 suckas!


----------



## BlackSG91

This is all like watching a chess game. Good 'ol Donald has painted himself into a corner. I don't know how he does it especially when his office is oval.


;>)/


----------



## Randy

MFB said:


> He did something right cause I can't even find him on the members list; which is bullshit in it's Notable Members rankings, I'm still 5K from even cracking in the board? I been running this shit since '08 suckas!



That page should just be pondman 25 times anyway.


----------



## Xaios

BlackSG91 said:


> This is all like watching a chess game. Good 'ol Donald has painted himself into a corner. I don't know how he does it especially when his office is oval.
> 
> ;>)/


Seems to me like what's happening is a good ole' pawn sacrifice. Putin is the king, and Agent Orange is the pawn.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> McDonald Trump



Not going to condescend over fast food but considering how far the nearest McDonald's must be and having to make that arrangement, I can only imagine how cold all of that is. Cold Wendys and McDonalds?


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> Not going to condescend over fast food but considering how far the nearest McDonald's must be and having to make that arrangement, I can only imagine how cold all of that is. Cold Wendys and McDonalds?


Not an issue for Trump. First, he preserves the food by sucking all the oxygen out of the room, then re-heats it was an explosive outgasing of hot air.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> Not going to condescend over fast food but considering how far the nearest McDonald's must be and having to make that arrangement, I can only imagine how cold all of that is. Cold Wendys and McDonalds?



Preheat room to 375 degrees


----------



## Xaios

jaxadam said:


> Preheat room to 375 degrees


Just get a few Fox personalities in a room and have them yell "BUT, HILLARY!!" repeatedly. It'll only take 5 minutes, tops.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Not going to condescend over fast food but considering how far the nearest McDonald's must be and having to make that arrangement, I can only imagine how cold all of that is. Cold Wendys and McDonalds?



Because this is America, there's no fewer than three McDonald's franchises within a few blocks of the White House. 

I like to think they had an aid drive to all three scrambling to get enough food, and I REALLY like to think it was a senior cabinet official. I just picture Bolton demanding extra sauce packets as they surprise a random McDonalds with a hilarious order of 100 burgers without any type of notice. I bet it took at least three or four attempts at the drive through window before they were taken seriously.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because this is America, there's no fewer than three McDonald's franchises within a few blocks of the White House.
> 
> I like to think they had an aid drive to all three scrambling to get enough food, and I REALLY like to think it was a senior cabinet official. I just picture Bolton demanding extra sauce packets as they surprise a random McDonalds with a hilarious order of 100 burgers without any type of notice. I bet it took at least three or four attempts at the drive through window before they were taken seriously.



In my head, I just picture Cadillac One stuck trying to make the corner of the drive through lane without mounting the curb, while the fast food employee continually shouts "SIR, PLEASE DRIVE UP TO THE WINDOW!" through the order box


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

The fact that serving fast food at a white house dinner is somehow a big issue is rather fucking nauseating to say the least.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> The fact that serving fast food at a white house dinner is somehow a big issue is rather fucking nauseating to say the least.



I don't think it's a big issue, it's just hilarious. 

It perfectly encapsulates this administration.

No one would have even known without Trump bragging and lying about it, in a hilariously poorly written/spelled tweet at that. This is an Onion article come to life.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think it's a big issue, it's just hilarious.
> 
> It perfectly encapsulates this administration.
> 
> No one would have even known without Trump bragging and lying about it, in a hilariously poorly written/spelled tweet at that. This is an Onion article come to life.


It perfectly encapsulates the media and outrage culture, sure. Fact checking figures of speech is pretty strange.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It perfectly encapsulates the media and outrage culture, sure. Fact checking figures of speech is pretty strange.



Outrage? As in outrageous laughter? 

Just to be clear, him bragging about buying fast food and spelling hamburger wrong is a figure of speech?


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> The fact that serving fast food at a white house dinner is somehow a big issue is rather fucking nauseating to say the least.



As is a filet o fish served at 63 degrees


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> As is a filet o fish served at 63 degrees



THE FDA INSPECTORS AREN'T WORKING EAT ALL THE DANGEROUS MEAT


----------



## Spaced Out Ace




----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> As is a filet o fish served at 63 degrees



I know I'd remember that come 2020 if someone tried serving me a room temperature filet o fish.
You ain't gettin' away with that shit.


----------



## Explorer

Just as an observation, I don't think the Micky D's9 on 17th, or the one at 13th and NY, have drive-throughs. I didn't know of a third location, as I thought the one at 14th and K was closed.


----------



## jaxadam

Explorer said:


> Just as an observation, I don't think the Micky D's9 on 17th, or the one at 13th and NY, have drive-throughs. I didn't know of a third location, as I thought the one at 14th and K was closed.



Jokes on you. White House now has a food court with McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, and Pei Wei, movie theater, and arcade.


----------



## spudmunkey

I feel like this is something someone would walk into the 'restaurant' and order as take-out, not something you'd shout through an order box.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It perfectly encapsulates the media and outrage culture, sure. Fact checking figures of speech is pretty strange.


Hardly. Speaking for the left, I think the whole thing is hilarious and I can't think of a better metaphor for the Trump administration than a whole bunch of 2-for-$5-menu items piled up on a silver platter.  

What we ARE outraged by is the amount of evidence suggesting collusion between senior Trump campaign members and Russian agents, but you don't want to talk about that, do you.


----------



## jaxadam

BREAKING: President gets blowjob from intern and wife sells uranium to Russia

Whoops, wrong president!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> BREAKING: President gets blowjob from intern and wife sells uranium to Russia
> 
> Whoops, wrong president!


 

Splitting hairs, but Clinton actually wasn't part of that decision (it was approved by a panel of representatives from the State Department, the Treasury, Defense Department, Commerce department, Energy Department, Homeland Security, and a few others, and Clinton was not representing the State Department, and her delegate claims she had no role in the decision), and the person who made the vast majority donations to the Clinton Foundation after the sale had sold the entirety of his stake in the company that bought the uranium several years before the deal, so he wouldn't have made a cent on the transaction. The whole thing doesn't hold together under any scrutiny.  

The blowjob totally happened though.


----------



## spudmunkey

> The blowjob totally happened though.



And it also wasn't illegal.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

The left really have no place to laugh about anything considering that apparently hacking is as easy as selecting a random word on a screen and you get four attempts to do so. That was your favorite news source's favorite way to explain Russian hacking, a fucking video game.

I myself cannot wait until they run a news story about deforestation and show a bunch of people in Minecraft punching trees.


----------



## Ralyks

Wait, so hacking is like Fallout 4?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Ralyks said:


> Wait, so hacking is like Fallout 4?



https://www.cnet.com/news/cnn-uses-fallout-4-screenshot-in-report-on-russian-hacking/


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Wait, so hacking is like Fallout 4?



Pwnt noob!


----------



## PunkBillCarson

That's why I think it's funny when liberals laugh at the other party and vice versa. They're both full of shit. The moderate ones have good ideas, but then you've got some real idiots on both and it's funny watching them squabble over who's more mentally defunct. On one hand, you've got people who are triggered by a guy kneeling to a flag and on the other, you have a side who uses video games to explain hacking and people on BOTH sides spend time trying to tell others why their affiliation is the best and that's just comedic gold.


----------



## Ralyks

Wow. I wasn't even serious about that Fallout bit. Part of me is  and part of me wishes there was a facepalm emoji.


----------



## StevenC

PunkBillCarson said:


> The left really have no place to laugh about anything considering that apparently hacking is as easy as selecting a random word on a screen and you get four attempts to do so. That was your favorite news source's favorite way to explain Russian hacking, a fucking video game.
> 
> I myself cannot wait until they run a news story about deforestation and show a bunch of people in Minecraft punching trees.





PunkBillCarson said:


> https://www.cnet.com/news/cnn-uses-fallout-4-screenshot-in-report-on-russian-hacking/





PunkBillCarson said:


> That's why I think it's funny when liberals laugh at the other party and vice versa. They're both full of shit. The moderate ones have good ideas, but then you've got some real idiots on both and it's funny watching them squabble over who's more mentally defunct. On one hand, you've got people who are triggered by a guy kneeling to a flag and on the other, you have a side who uses video games to explain hacking and people on BOTH sides spend time trying to tell others why their affiliation is the best and that's just comedic gold.



This might be the dumbest response to using the international visualization of hacking (green text on black background) ever.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

^Cool.


----------



## Randy

I'm most unsettled by the fact anyone recognized such a close up, distorted picture of a generic 'green text on black background' as specifically being from Fallout.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Randy said:


> I'm most unsettled by the fact anyone recognized such a close up, distorted picture of a generic 'green text on black background' as specifically being from Fallout.




Yeah seriously, what the fuck is wrong with gamers?


----------



## Randy

I just don't know what singles that out that specific arrangement as being uniquely from Fallout as opposed to any random stock photo of an 80s word processor/BIOs screen. If you recognize that algorithm, that's next level.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Randy said:


> I just don't know what singles that out that specific arrangement as being uniquely from Fallout as opposed to any random stock photo of an 80s word processor/BIOs screen. If you recognize that algorithm, that's next level.




Not hard to recognize if you played the everliving shit out of Fallout 4, I can promise you that. 

But you know what they say, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence... *murmurs* unless it's statistics gathered OUTSIDE this website, then it's all fair game.


----------



## spudmunkey

PunkBillCarson said:


> https://www.cnet.com/news/cnn-uses-fallout-4-screenshot-in-report-on-russian-hacking/



I think they just used that screenshot because it's as close as they'll ever get to be able to put the "n-word" on screen.

They should have just used this:
http://hackertyper.com/


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> Not hard to recognize if you played the everliving shit out of Fallout 4, I can promise you that.
> 
> But you know what they say, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence... *murmurs* unless it's statistics gathered OUTSIDE this website, then it's all fair game.


Yeah, I'm not seeing the big deal here either. CNN used a two-second still of a stock picture which turned out to have been from Fallout, as a background for the splash screen for a story on the Russian hacking. I don't think you can fairly jump from "let's get an image of some vaguely DOS-looking text on a screen showing nothing in particular for the lead in for a story on computer hacking" to "ZOMG, CNN thinks hacking is _exactly_ like it is in Fallout!!!"

Like, that's a pretty big jump to make. 

EDIT - or, to quote you verbatim, to _this:_


PunkBillCarson said:


> The left really have no place to laugh about anything considering that apparently hacking is as easy as selecting a random word on a screen and you get four attempts to do so. That was your favorite news source's favorite way to explain Russian hacking, a fucking video game.


 

No, I don't think that's what CNN was trying to argue with two seconds of an image as the backdrop for a headline.


----------



## vilk

PunkBillCarson said:


> They're both full of shit.



Which side has more science deniers?
Which side insists that trickle-down economics will help the middle and lower classes?
Which side has more white nationalists?
Which side wants to defund education?
Which side fights tooth and nail to defend the practice of gerrymandering?
Which side wants to dictate morality through legislature based on 5000 year old religious superstitions?

Yeah, politicians are dirty and power corrupts, and there are bad people on either side... but to say that somehow means either political party is equally "bad" is faulty logic.

Let's use gerrymandering for an example. Whenever it's pointed out that Republicans frequently and consistently use gerrymandering to disrupt democratic elections, they quickly turn around with a tu quoque logical fallacy: _Democrats do it, too_.

It's true. Democrats have done it, too. But let's count how many extra Democratic seats there are in states that the popular vote went Republican vs the other way around.
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/seats-vs-votes

Look, I recognize there are some, many even, conservative principles that aren't inherently _wrong_. But the Republican party has clearly and thoroughly abandoned those as the frame for their political ideology. Republican rhetoric has literally nothing pragmatic about it-- it's literally 100% virtue signaling. I literally can't think of a single Republican talking point that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. Trickle-down is debunked. Christianity is debunked. Necessity and functionality of proposed wall (that is now maybe just a little bit of fence) has been debunked. Who Trump insisted will pay for that little bit of fence has been debunked. Fighting gun violence with more guns has been debunked. That Republicans are more fiscally conservative than democrats has been debunked.

For young people growing up in the 21st century, they're going to forever associate Republicanism and Conservatism with easily debunked lies and propaganda.

Finally: Trying to financially and personally attack someone for the peaceful protest of a legitimate social problem is in no way logically comparable to using stock footage on a news program.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> The left really have no place to laugh about anything considering that apparently hacking is as easy as selecting a random word on a screen and you get four attempts to do so. That was your favorite news source's favorite way to explain Russian hacking, a fucking video game.
> 
> I myself cannot wait until they run a news story about deforestation and show a bunch of people in Minecraft punching trees.



Pathetic. What is your recommendation for an acceptable image depicting hacking? A grandmother clicking on an email in her inbox which reads, "YOU ARE INFECTED: Free Antivirus Cleanse - Download now!"?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Yeah nothing that any of you has said is going to change my mind. The only one who posted ANYTHING of merit was Vilk who brought up several reasons as to why extreme Conservatives are all around mindless dipshits. The parties are BOTH still full of shit and that doesn't change especially when I get two snarky replies who couldn't form a cohesive argument. Thank you for proving my point, you're making your party look real good. Any stain on the Liberal name no matter how big or small, and it's dismissed and the person ridiculed. Again, thank you for proving my point.

By the way, in case none of you know how to collect wood, this is how it's done:


----------



## PunkBillCarson

vilk said:


> Which side has more science deniers?
> Which side insists that trickle-down economics will help the middle and lower classes?
> Which side has more white nationalists?
> Which side wants to defund education?
> Which side fights tooth and nail to defend the practice of gerrymandering?
> Which side wants to dictate morality through legislature based on 5000 year old religious superstitions?
> 
> Yeah, politicians are dirty and power corrupts, and there are bad people on either side... but to say that somehow means either political party is equally "bad" is faulty logic.
> 
> Let's use gerrymandering for an example. Whenever it's pointed out that Republicans frequently and consistently use gerrymandering to disrupt democratic elections, they quickly turn around with a tu quoque logical fallacy: _Democrats do it, too_.
> 
> It's true. Democrats have done it, too. But let's count how many extra Democratic seats there are in states that the popular vote went Republican vs the other way around.
> https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/seats-vs-votes
> 
> Look, I recognize there are some, many even, conservative principles that aren't inherently _wrong_. But the Republican party has clearly and thoroughly abandoned those as the frame for their political ideology. Republican rhetoric has literally nothing pragmatic about it-- it's literally 100% virtue signaling. I literally can't think of a single Republican talking point that hasn't been thoroughly debunked. Trickle-down is debunked. Christianity is debunked. Necessity and functionality of proposed wall (that is now maybe just a little bit of fence) has been debunked. Who Trump insisted will pay for that little bit of fence has been debunked. Fighting gun violence with more guns has been debunked. That Republicans are more fiscally conservative than democrats has been debunked.
> 
> For young people growing up in the 21st century, they're going to forever associate Republicanism and Conservatism with easily debunked lies and propaganda.
> 
> Finally: Trying to financially and personally attack someone for the peaceful protest of a legitimate social problem is in no way logically comparable to using stock footage on a news program.



Look, you actually brought up a lot of what I can't stand about Conservatives, so I mean... It's hard to disagree with you completely, but you can't just sit there and act like Democrats don't have any stains in their collective underwear. That's my point. I'm not saying they're EQUALLY full of shit, I'm saying they're both full of shit, period. Far too much shit to want to associate myself with either party. The Democrats thankfully want good healthcare that doesn't fuck people over, better education, technological furtherment, equality for all (that's a big one for me), and some measure of gun control. The Republicans, well, they're pretty much the opposite which keeps me from wanting anything to do with them. But personality wise? They're no better. They bitch and cry and moan about political correctness and apparently EVERYONE these days has a mental disorder. I just can't get onboard with that mindset. Not saying all Democrats are like that, but when talking about the shittiest examples of both, both Repubs and Dems suck, period. To not admit that is blindness. Both have their track records of pulling shady shit when something doesn't go their way, and that's what you call a child.


----------



## narad

I just think it's funny when someone that presumably doesn't know anything about hacking himself has a deep stake in the supposed ignorance of this background image. 

I mean, (a) you realize there's nothing that would prohibit this from being an accurate depiction of hacking? Just because it's _not_ and it's actually from a video game doesn't make it a stupid choice. It's not like a stock photo of some guy with a mischievous grin inserting a floppy disk labeled "hacks" into big beige drive. In other words, there's nothing misleading about that photo apart from that most of the "hacking" being discussed is based on phishing attacks. 

And (b) if I had to wager a guess, the political affiliations of people that can legit hack are probably overwhelmingly liberal/libertarian. Or Russian or Chinese.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> I just think it's funny when someone that presumably doesn't know anything about hacking himself has a deep stake in the supposed ignorance of this background image.
> 
> I mean, (a) you realize there's nothing that would prohibit this from being an accurate depiction of hacking? Just because it's _not_ and it's actually from a video game doesn't make it a stupid choice. It's not like a stock photo of some guy with a mischievous grin inserting a floppy disk labeled "hacks" into big beige drive. In other words, there's nothing misleading about that photo apart from that most of the "hacking" being discussed is based on phishing attacks.
> 
> And (b) if I had to wager a guess, the political affiliations of people that can legit hack are probably overwhelmingly liberal/libertarian. Or Russian or Chinese.




I know enough about hacking to know that's not how it's done. I know enough about hacking to know that hacking isn't when someone leaves their Facebook profile open on a PC and their dumbass kid or spouse says "HURR DURR, HACKED!" I know enough about hacking to disprove that very first sentence you typed. When you assume info, you're not worth having a discussion with, especially when SOURCES are always required here, which I provided earlier with a link. So where's YOUR source that I know nothing about hacking? You don't have one, so playing by your own rules, you yourself don't have an argument for this particular topic. Good day.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> I know enough about hacking to know that's not how it's done. I know enough about hacking to know that hacking isn't when someone leaves their Facebook profile open on a PC and their dumbass kid or spouse says "HURR DURR, HACKED!" I know enough about hacking to disprove that very first sentence you typed. When you assume info, you're not worth having a discussion with, especially when SOURCES are always required here, which I provided earlier with a link. So where's YOUR source that I know nothing about hacking? You don't have one, so playing by your own rules, you yourself don't have an argument for this particular topic. Good day.



You know enough about hacking to know that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with manually inspecting and editing address registers, like the Fallout screenshot appears to be illustrating? Pfft. PunkBillCarson? More like PunkJonSnow.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> You know enough about hacking to know that it couldn't possibly have anything to do with manually inspecting and editing address registers, like the Fallout screenshot appears to be illustrating? Pfft. PunkBillCarson? More like PunkJonSnow.



Least you're seemingly a fan of Game of Thrones, I'll give you that. Other than that, GOOD DAY.


----------



## Explorer

Well, now Giuliani is admitting that there was intentional interaction and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, and ripping out those goalposts and trying to run with them before planting them a mile down the road. 

----

I like how PBC was called out by Vilk on his failed attempt at both-siderism, and then refused to actually admit that it's just the one Republican side doing that stuff by a huge margin.

In other words, using the imagery he embraced, it's the difference between a stain in one's drawers, and actually having big turds rattling around in said drawers while claiming the turds are a feature. 

I also like how Jaxadam tried to toss out a thoroughly debunked argument about HRC in order to avoid talking about Trump corruption, and then refused to step up on the one side after others took on his challenge for the other. 

It certainly looks like attempts on one side to avoid actually discussing the facts. If it were me, i'd be embarrassed to be so obviously unable to support my arguments with facts. 

Carry on!


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Man, the condescending tone in this thread really is something else.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> Yeah nothing that any of you has said is going to change my mind. The only one who posted ANYTHING of merit was Vilk who brought up several reasons as to why extreme Conservatives are all around mindless dipshits. The parties are BOTH still full of shit and that doesn't change especially when I get two snarky replies who couldn't form a cohesive argument. Thank you for proving my point, you're making your party look real good. Any stain on the Liberal name no matter how big or small, and it's dismissed and the person ridiculed. Again, thank you for proving my point.



You're really telling me that because CNN used 2 seconds of out of focus footage of green text on a screen that turned out to be from Fallout as a backdrop while a narrator was talking about Russian hackers being thrown out of the States, that it's safe to conclude CNN thinks hacking in Fallout is real life? Like, you're 100% serious here, in this thread? I just want to make sure I've got this right.









Explorer said:


> Well, now Giuliani is admitting that there was intentional interaction and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, and ripping out those goalposts and trying to run with them before planting them a mile down the road.



Yeah, that's absolutely idiotic. "I never said that the Trump _campaign_ didn't collude with Russia, just that Trump _himself_ didn't do so!"


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Explorer said:


> Well, now Giuliani is admitting that there was intentional interaction and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election, and ripping out those goalposts and trying to run with them before planting them a mile down the road.
> 
> ----
> 
> I like how PBC was called out by Vilk on his failed attempt at both-siderism, and then refused to actually admit that it's just the one Republican side doing that stuff by a huge margin.
> 
> In other words, using the imagery he embraced, it's the difference between a stain in one's drawers, and actually having big turds rattling around in said drawers while claiming the turds are a feature.
> 
> I also like how Jaxadam tried to toss out a thoroughly debunked argument about HRC in order to avoid talking about Trump corruption, and then refused to step up on the one side after others took on his challenge for the other.
> 
> It certainly looks like attempts on one side to avoid actually discussing the facts. If it were me, i'd be embarrassed to be so obviously unable to support my arguments with facts.
> 
> Carry on!




I like how you jump in the middle every single time whenever other posters are already at it. It's sort of like a pile-up in football where everyone's tackled one guy and you're the only guy who hasn't so you sort of buttdrop on top. Cute.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Man, the condescending tone in this thread really is something else.



Hush yourself!


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Man, the condescending tone in this thread really is something else.



Eh, should be used to it by now. It's always the same people putting off that vibe. Nothing really new here.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Drew said:


> You're really telling me that because CNN used 2 seconds of out of focus footage of green text on a screen that turned out to be from Fallout as a backdrop while a narrator was talking about Russian hackers being thrown out of the States, that it's safe to conclude CNN thinks hacking in Fallout is real life? Like, you're 100% serious here, in this thread? I just want to make sure I've got this right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's absolutely idiotic. "I never said that the Trump _campaign_ didn't collude with Russia, just that Trump _himself_ didn't do so!"



At this rate, it wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> At this rate, it wouldn't surprise me.


But, "it wouldn't surprise me" is a VERY different claim than "they DID claim hacking was exactly like Fallout!"

So, you're saying the left is just as bad as the right, and as evidence, you're pointing to something that you are now admitting isn't actually true, only that "it wouldn't surprise you if it was true?"

Come on, man. At least jaxadam I know is just screwing around for fun and isn't being serious.  You, however, seem like you're trying to be pretty earnest.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I mean, if you'd read my other post, you'd know that that wasn't JUST what I cited as an example as the left being full of shit just like the right. Also, in my response to Vilk, I even admitted that the left had far more ideas that I liked more than right wing... You didn't read that did you? My experience with comment sections during the time of the laughable happening has no place here, so that obviously has no merit... You know anecdotal evidence being what it isn't and all.


Also, I'm the wrong person to be asking how hacking works. Ask the people who used the photo, they seem to have a very good idea.  Ask him if backing away from the computer after three tries resets the amount of attempts.


----------



## Randy

FWIW, I'm so left I can't even jack off with my right hand and even I think CNN is trash. So pointing out their poor stock photo collecting skills and connecting it to the political alignments isn't an argument I'm especially receptive to.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> I mean, if you'd read my other post, you'd know that that wasn't JUST what I cited as an example as the left being full of shit just like the right. Also, in my response to Vilk, I even admitted that the left had far more ideas that I liked more than right wing... You didn't read that did you? My experience with comment sections during the time of the laughable happening has no place here, so that obviously has no merit... You know anecdotal evidence being what it isn't and all.
> 
> 
> Also, I'm the wrong person to be asking how hacking works. Ask the people who used the photo, they seem to have a very good idea.  Ask him if backing away from the computer after three tries resets the amount of attempts.


Oh, comments on left-leaning and right-leaning, and let's be honest here ANY source covering damned near anything, news sites are awful. Humanity is a cesspit, is what I've learned from the internet.

But, to be fair, I went back and read your post just in case I'd missed something, and:


PunkBillCarson said:


> The left really have no place to laugh about anything considering that apparently hacking is as easy as selecting a random word on a screen and you get four attempts to do so. That was your favorite news source's favorite way to explain Russian hacking, a fucking video game.
> 
> I myself cannot wait until they run a news story about deforestation and show a bunch of people in Minecraft punching trees.


...that's pretty unequivocal. If you later backtrack a bit in your response to vilk, well, I'd fuckin' HOPE you backtracked after that, because if this is your example of why you think the left is full of shit, you're trying to claim CNN said something absolutely fundamentally different than what they did, and considering to Randy's point CNN can be a bit out there anyway, if the left is really that full of shit you shouldn't HAVE to make up examples.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> if this is your example of why you think the left is full of shit, you're trying to claim CNN said something absolutely fundamentally different than what they did



You leave his mother out of this! I'll have you know, she's a very generous lover!


----------



## Explorer

The reason I sometimes seem to wait to respond to someone putting their foot in their mouth, like PBC's failed attempt at both-siderism, is because I don't frequent the forum every day. 

I's be more inspired to do so if, as an example, when members make claims which are easily debunked (like PBC on his failed both-siderism or JXD with the attempt at pushing the debunked HRC thing) get the BS pointed out, they would actually admit it. 

I don't expect actual intellectual rigor from such members at this point, even here in the P&CE forum, but I do get amused at their inability to say, "Hey, i got it wrong!" I've acknowledged when I gotten things wrong more than once here, so I know it doesn't kill one to cop to it. 

----

Incidentally, if the Trump Organization did pay for poll falsification and mislabled the payments on their tax filings, that's yet another felony.

Also, Trump issuing threatening statememts to Cohen about testifying publicly is witness tampering, another felony. 

It's that backdrop of constant criminality which leads me to find such amusememt in things like Jaxadam's attempt to shift attention away.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Drew said:


> Oh, comments on left-leaning and right-leaning, and let's be honest here ANY source covering damned near anything, news sites are awful. Humanity is a cesspit, is what I've learned from the internet.
> 
> But, to be fair, I went back and read your post just in case I'd missed something, and:
> 
> ...that's pretty unequivocal. If you later backtrack a bit in your response to vilk, well, I'd fuckin' HOPE you backtracked after that, because if this is your example of why you think the left is full of shit, you're trying to claim CNN said something absolutely fundamentally different than what they did, and considering to Randy's point CNN can be a bit out there anyway, if the left is really that full of shit you shouldn't HAVE to make up examples.




Pretty sure I've already said that there are more reasons why I think the left is full of shit, but you just keep on ignoring it, so there's no point.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Explorer said:


> The reason I sometimes seem to wait to respond to someone putting their foot in their mouth, like PBC's failed attempt at both-siderism, is because I don't frequent the forum every day.
> 
> I's be more inspired to do so if, as an example, when members make claims which are easily debunked (like PBC on his failed both-siderism or JXD with the attempt at pushing the debunked HRC thing) get the BS pointed out, they would actually admit it.
> 
> I don't expect actual intellectual rigor from such members at this point, even here in the P&CE forum, but I do get amused at their inability to say, "Hey, i got it wrong!" I've acknowledged when I gotten things wrong more than once here, so I know it doesn't kill one to cop to it.
> 
> ----
> 
> Incidentally, if the Trump Organization did pay for poll falsification and mislabled the payments on their tax filings, that's yet another felony.
> 
> Also, Trump issuing threatening statememts to Cohen about testifying publicly is witness tampering, another felony.
> 
> It's that backdrop of constant criminality which leads me to find such amusememt in things like Jaxadam's attempt to shift attention away.




Just so we're clear, you're not the person that Andrew Lloyd Webber made disparaging remarks about, are you?

Also, why the fuck would I admit to being wrong when I don't feel I'm wrong?  

As far as intellectual rigor as you put it, you haven't put forth much yourself, talking about "failing" and all of this and all of that, so really, we're in the same boat here. I actually don't think I remember a single debate on here when you didn't latch on after everyone else already had which tells me all I need to know about you and why no one should take you seriously.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

spudmunkey said:


> You leave his mother out of this! I'll have you know, she's a very generous lover!




You're better than an early 2000's joke, surely. You could have at least called me a son of a bitch and had me tell you to leave my sister out of this.


----------



## Explorer

PBC, if you really feel Vilk was wrong in his observations regarding your failed attempts at both-siderism, then refuting his observations would show rigor. Until then, I'll safely assume you've got nothing.

I'm happy to be surprised though.

----

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...cow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash

Apparently, Cohen was confronted with copies of electronic communications with Trump, and has admitted that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress regarding the Trump Tower Moscow timing.

Suborning perjury is a matter AG nominee Barr stated was definitely an obstruction of justice, and it's one of the high crimes and misdemeanors which earned an article of impeachment for Nixon.

Remember, it's not Cohen's word which established this, if reports are accurate. It's the existing electronic records, with which Cohen was confronted, which established it.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Here's the thing: I agreed with a lot of what Vilk said. Did you miss that? My point isn't that one side is more full of shit than the other, my point is is that both sides exhibit tendencies that I'd rather not identify with. Here's what I want in my country, which is the US of A: Equal rights for everyone, healthcare on par with other countries, the ultimate demise of racism, sexism, and pretty much any other kind of ism you can come up with. I want gun control to make it harder for these fucking maniacs to shoot up people who are just going about their lives. I want help to be available for those going through a rough time and I want better education. What I DON'T want is either side telling me how to live my life based on their assumptions of what a good life should be. That means no throwing a centuries old book at me, telling me what I can and can't say within reason, using my taxes for a wall that I don't want or care about, and I damn sure don't want to be judged just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve like a bunch of other bleeding hearts who feel the need to outcry against everything that ever so slightly rubs them the wrong way. If there's a problem with any of that, I'm sorry, but I still don't feel I'm wrong and whether or not whoever used the photo believes that's how hacking is done, to me, that's not the kind of message you should want your viewers to associate with. I will admit that I jumped the gun on some things, but I'm not going to pretend that news sites, especially those that are most accessible shouldn't be held to a higher standard. Posting a photo from a video game to discuss Russian collusion doesn't sit right with me and it feels lazy. If that pisses you off or irritates you, that's on you. If that's led you to believe that I'm just a bag of meat with a brain that's half-dead, that's on you. I don't care, I've said my piece.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> Pretty sure I've already said that there are more reasons why I think the left is full of shit, but you just keep on ignoring it, so there's no point.


This is your idea of "more reasons," after about a page of being called out over your hacking post? 


PunkBillCarson said:


> But personality wise? They're no better. They bitch and cry and moan about political correctness and apparently EVERYONE these days has a mental disorder. I just can't get onboard with that mindset. Not saying all Democrats are like that, but when talking about the shittiest examples of both, both Repubs and Dems suck, period. To not admit that is blindness. Both have their track records of pulling shady shit when something doesn't go their way, and that's what you call a child.


Sorry man, that's not gonna cut it. And you're still not backing down: 


PunkBillCarson said:


> ...I'm sorry, but I still don't feel I'm wrong and whether or not whoever used the photo believes that's how hacking is done, to me, that's not the kind of message you should want your viewers to associate with. I will admit that I jumped the gun on some things, but I'm not going to pretend that news sites, especially those that are most accessible shouldn't be held to a higher standard. Posting a photo from a video game to discuss Russian collusion doesn't sit right with me and it feels lazy. If that pisses you off or irritates you, that's on you. If that's led you to believe that I'm just a bag of meat with a brain that's half-dead, that's on you. I don't care, I've said my piece.


...to me, this suggests you don't really understand the story you're sharing as an example of what's wrong with the left. Like, you're aware that nothing about the CNN story was an expose about how hacking was done or how the Russians hacked the DNC or what hacking IS, but was a story about Russians being kicked out of the country in retaliation for the hacking, right? I'm sure the extent of the conversation was "ok, we need a splash scene for a couple seconds while we introduce the story, find me something that looks Matrix-y." 

If you don't want to like the left, hey, that's on you. I'm just going to suggest that, if you want to participate in the discussion in the Politics and Current Events forum here, in a thread where we've had repeated warnings and a number of bannings for trolling, that you have actual _reasons_ for your beliefs, and not just make shit up or parrot already-refuted conspiracies to try to make the left look bad. This reads like you're starting from "both sides are bad!" and looking for ANY evidence, however cobbled together, to support your views. There's no place for that here.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

^Whatever.

Funnily enough, it's always the ones who don't agree with the majority on here (which happens to be left wing) who get the warnings and banning for "trolling" and yet you never see people like Narad or Stevenxc who troll as much as anyone by delivering snarky replies constantly receiving any sort of repercussion. Wonder why that is? Think about it.


----------



## jaxadam

PunkBillCarson said:


> ^Whatever.
> 
> Funnily enough, it's always the ones who don't agree with the majority on here (which happens to be left wing) who get the warnings and banning for "trolling" and yet you never see people like Narad or Stevenxc who troll as much as anyone by delivering snarky replies constantly receiving any sort of repercussion. Wonder why that is? Think about it.



The Left: The Group that Despises Hate


----------



## PunkBillCarson

jaxadam said:


> The Left: The Group that Despises Hate




The Right: The Group That Loves Freedom. 

Edited for: Content

Fuck it, it's not worth it.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> ^Whatever.
> 
> Funnily enough, it's always the ones who don't agree with the majority on here (which happens to be left wing) who get the warnings and banning for "trolling" and yet you never see people like Narad or Stevenxc who troll as much as anyone by delivering snarky replies constantly receiving any sort of repercussion. Wonder why that is? Think about it.


ZOMG CENSURESHIP! 

Eh, I was warned once for my tone, and frankly I was probably over the line a little. But, for the most part, I'd say that that's attributable to two things - one, this board _does_ lean center-left, and trolling (which is what most bans have been given for) is not a tactic you fall back on if you're in the majority. And two, I think there really does seem to be a correlation between people with a tendency to flame out in a discussion forum, and people with far right wing politics. Probably has a lot to do with the "I got mine, screw you guys" hard conservative attitude and with the growing xenophobia in the far right, that started to go more mainstream with the Tea Party. 

But, again - I am 100% happy to have a political conversation with a conservative. If you're going to sit here and troll and post total bullshit and merely claim, "yeah, well I could totally believe it if it _was_ true," then you really don't belong in this forum. 

That said, if you have a problem with the moderation here, you're more than welcome to take it up with the moderators, I'm sure.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

PunkBillCarson said:


> Funnily enough, it's always the ones who don't agree with the majority on here (which happens to be left wing) who get the warnings and banning for "trolling" and yet you never see people like Narad or Stevenxc who troll as much as anyone by delivering snarky replies constantly receiving any sort of repercussion. Wonder why that is? Think about it.



Eh, not trying to get involved in drama here at all but I wouldn't go that far.
There's a difference between snark and trolling- and I think Narad especially does a great job of delivering the quality snark that I crave while avoiding the kind of frustrating trolling I expect in other corners of the internet.

As someone who leans right, the constant condescension gets old, sure, but that's the price you pay for being in a predominantly left-wing space; you kind of have to expect that. It's the same (in reverse) in conservative spaces also. But I haven't seen much actual trolling here tbh.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

^Well hey @Drew , if you want to meet in the middle, I've already said that the left has more good ideas than the right. As a matter of fact, the left is where I draw most of my own personal politics from. Again though, there are just things they do that rub me the wrong way that keep me wanting to associate myself as one. I'm pretty sure if I said what those things are, it would probably lead to disciplinary action more so than the one I'm probably already facing, so you'll excuse me if I'm a bit more limited than if I were talking shit about Conservatives.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Eh, not trying to get involved in drama here at all but I wouldn't go that far.
> There's a difference between snark and trolling- and I think Narad especially does a great job of delivering the quality snark that I crave while avoiding the kind of frustrating trolling I expect in other corners of the internet.
> 
> As someone who leans right, the constant condescension gets old, sure, but that's the price you pay for being in a predominantly left-wing space; you kind of have to expect that. It's the same (in reverse) in conservative spaces also. But I haven't seen much actual trolling here tbh.




I guess what constitutes snark to you is what trolling would be to me. Perspective I guess. Maybe I'm out of touch, who knows? I come from an era on a different website which anything outside of a pleasant conversation was considered trolling, so maybe things have changed a bit or maybe they've always been different here and I'm just an old man screaming at a cloud.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Eh, not trying to get involved in drama here at all but I wouldn't go that far.
> There's a difference between snark and trolling- and I think Narad especially does a great job of delivering the quality snark that I crave while avoiding the kind of frustrating trolling I expect in other corners of the internet.
> 
> As someone who leans right, the constant condescension gets old, sure, but that's the price you pay for being in a predominantly left-wing space; you kind of have to expect that. It's the same (in reverse) in conservative spaces also. But I haven't seen much actual trolling here tbh.


I think you're a pretty good example of someone who I don't agree with, sometimes quite strongly, but we can have pretty adult conversations about those differences, and that's fine. 



PunkBillCarson said:


> I guess what constitutes snark to you is what trolling would be to me. Perspective I guess. Maybe I'm out of touch, who knows? I come from an era on a different website which anything outside of a pleasant conversation was considered trolling, so maybe things have changed a bit or maybe they've always been different here and I'm just an old man screaming at a cloud.


I think there's a clear line between cutting sarcasm while having a discussion, and trolling. In the case of the former, you still believe the things you're saying, and care whether or not they're true or false. In the latter, you don't really care if what you're saying is correct, and in some cases you KNOW it isn't, you're just trying to stir the pot and rustle feathers. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make in the last day or two here - if you think liberals are ridiculous, that's your right... and god knows I think some of the things you see on the extreme left fringe are pretty asinine too... But don't tell me liberals are dumb because CNN thinks hacking is exactly like Fallout, and then when pressed admit that they don't, "....but it _could_ be true!" 

You really do describe your beliefs as center-left, which would technically make you a liberal. It's ok to be a liberal, and still think the extreme left is ridiculous, just as it's ok to be a conservative, and still disavow the extreme right's racism. Having a healthy dialogue _within_ a party is important too.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Drew said:


> I think you're a pretty good example of someone who I don't agree with, sometimes quite strongly, but we can have pretty adult conversations about those differences, and that's fine.
> 
> 
> I think there's a clear line between cutting sarcasm while having a discussion, and trolling. In the case of the former, you still believe the things you're saying, and care whether or not they're true or false. In the latter, you don't really care if what you're saying is correct, and in some cases you KNOW it isn't, you're just trying to stir the pot and rustle feathers. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make in the last day or two here - if you think liberals are ridiculous, that's your right... and god knows I think some of the things you see on the extreme left fringe are pretty asinine too... But don't tell me liberals are dumb because CNN thinks hacking is exactly like Fallout, and then when pressed admit that they don't, "....but it _could_ be true!"
> 
> You really do describe your beliefs as center-left, which would technically make you a liberal. It's ok to be a liberal, and still think the extreme left is ridiculous, just as it's ok to be a conservative, and still disavow the extreme right's racism. Having a healthy dialogue _within_ a party is important too.




You know what? Actually the way you put it... That does make sense. If that's what I am, then I guess that's what I am and I have no issue with that. Apologies for the generalizations, earlier.


----------



## tedtan

PunkBillCarson said:


> Here's what I want in my country, which is the US of A: Equal rights for everyone, healthcare on par with other countries, the ultimate demise of racism, sexism, and pretty much any other kind of ism you can come up with. I want gun control to make it harder for these fucking maniacs to shoot up people who are just going about their lives. I want help to be available for those going through a rough time and I want better education. What I DON'T want is either side telling me how to live my life based on their assumptions of what a good life should be. That means no throwing a centuries old book at me, telling me what I can and can't say within reason, using my taxes for a wall that I don't want or care about



That's all leftist; I don't see anything right wing in there.




PunkBillCarson said:


> and I damn sure don't want to be judged just because I don't wear my heart on my sleeve like a bunch of other bleeding hearts who feel the need to outcry against everything that ever so slightly rubs them the wrong way.



There is a small group of people on the far left that behave that way, but they are entitled young kids and pretentious douches with no real life experience. They're not to be taken any more seriously, ideologically, than the far right neo-nazis*. 




PunkBillCarson said:


> If there's a problem with any of that, I'm sorry, but I still don't feel I'm wrong



You're entitled to your feelings, but you haven't backed up your claims that the left is equivalent to the right, which is what people are commenting on.




PunkBillCarson said:


> and whether or not whoever used the photo believes that's how hacking is done, to me, that's not the kind of message you should want your viewers to associate with. I will admit that I jumped the gun on some things, but I'm not going to pretend that news sites, especially those that are most accessible shouldn't be held to a higher standard. Posting a photo from a video game to discuss Russian collusion doesn't sit right with me and it feels lazy.



I'm sure no one believes that. When these guys need to find a background image, they use stock photos and/or pre-existing footage due to the tight deadlines and copyright issues. I get that you don't like this, but it is the norm within the industry.



* Ideologically. Obviously, if their actions get out of hand and cause problems, that's a different situation.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

tedtan said:


> That's all leftist; I don't see anything right wing in there.



I don't know, man, there's plenty of people on both sides willing to tell you what you should and shouldn't be saying. That's what I'm getting at. The way I tend to think is that if I'm catching shit from both sides, I automatically push myself from being associated with them. Maybe that's a flawed way of thinking, but I will concede that the right carries with it a fuckton more bullshit, not just personality-wise, but policy wise. I will say that I do have an issue of often depicting the worst of a group to judge them and yes, that's entirely on me, and something I need to work on. You know what they say though about assholes always being the loudest.

Of course it should be noted that when I'm referring to either party, I don't have the best people in mind from either side, I'm typically referring to the absolute dumbasses of which there are many.


----------



## tedtan

I think it's helpful to separate the ideas from the people espousing them, especially when it comes to politics, because there are a ton of slimy ass hats in this field.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> You know what? Actually the way you put it... That does make sense. If that's what I am, then I guess that's what I am and I have no issue with that. Apologies for the generalizations, earlier.


No, it's cool - that's one of the reasons we discuss things here.


----------



## jaxadam

Explorer said:


> PBC, if you really feel Vilk was wrong in his observations regarding your failed attempts at both-siderism, then refuting his observations would show rigor. Until then, I'll safely assume you've got nothing.
> 
> I'm happy to be surprised though.
> 
> ----
> 
> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...cow-tower-mueller-investigation?ref=bfnsplash
> 
> Apparently, Cohen was confronted with copies of electronic communications with Trump, and has admitted that Trump instructed Cohen to lie to Congress regarding the Trump Tower Moscow timing.
> 
> Suborning perjury is a matter AG nominee Barr stated was definitely an obstruction of justice, and it's one of the high crimes and misdemeanors which earned an article of impeachment for Nixon.
> 
> Remember, it's not Cohen's word which established this, if reports are accurate. It's the existing electronic records, with which Cohen was confronted, which established it.



In order to keep EXPLRR from posting a bunch of fake news, I think we'd all appreciate some big facts from everyone's favorite, most reliable, and unbiased source:



> "BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are *not accurate*," said Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller's office, in a statement.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html

I'm not sure he'll have the rigor to contend with big facts.


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> ^Whatever.
> 
> Funnily enough, it's always the ones who don't agree with the majority on here (which happens to be left wing) who get the warnings and banning for "trolling" and yet you never see people like Narad or Stevenxc who troll as much as anyone by delivering snarky replies constantly receiving any sort of repercussion. Wonder why that is? Think about it.



Dude, I used to get warnings and bans all the time when OT was an especially big shitshow. Just learn to calibrate yourself and don't waste people's time. And maybe there's a snarky reply, but I hardly remember anytime when I'm being snarky but devoid of content.

You say the background image chosen doesn't depict hacking. I'm telling you it easily could -- that there are plenty of situations where a screen like that could depict something most people would describe as hacking. Say, you log into a computer and do some stuff with sensitive information in a file, delete it, and log out. When things are deleted they aren't usually actually deleted, but marked for deletion, and maybe you marked it for deletion, did a couple of other things, and those addresses are now partially over-written by new data, its existence as a file is lost. But, if you were to log in and peruse through the addresses you could make out some of that information. And unfortunately lots of passwords still wind up getting stored in plaintext. So yea...to me that screen looks like someone viewing address content that they don't have access to, i.e., "hacking" to many people.

But if I point that out to you, you seem to be unable to step back from this position? It's like, there's lots of examples of dumb stuff on the left. I don't think trying to enumerate dumb things is a useful discussion or one that would ultimately prove your point, but there are dumb things that almost everyone would agree are dumb. A news program using a totally relevant (well, apart from it actually being more phishing scrams) backdrop photo that happens to be from a video game is not one of them. You further extrapolating that people at CNN _believe_ this is how hacking is done, that they are portraying mis-information to liberals who eat it up, is where you've gone bonkers and no one can take you seriously. Who is this CNN person? You think they had an hour long meeting to discuss this? Called in an expert to go over what hacking is/isn't? And you care more about pictures than about the content of the reporting?

*IT IS A BACKGROUND IMAGE ON THE SCREEN FOR SECONDS*

I could tolerate infinite snark over anyone trying to pass this off as a coherent argument.


----------



## Ralyks

..... Soooooo how about that Buzzfeed story possibly being false?


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> ..... Soooooo how about that Buzzfeed story possibly being false?



See my post above.

——

@Explorer I know that if it were me, I’d be embarrassed to continuously espouse the virtues of my fact-based acumen, but clutching at straws from left-biased mouthpieces contradicts the integrity of your obsessive political hobby. Oh the irony.


----------



## BenjaminW

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Man, the condescending tone in this thread really is something else.


That's why I've avoided this thread for so long is because I've always found it to be a circle jerk at times. I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## Explorer

jaxadam said:


> In order to keep EXPLRR from posting a bunch of fake news, I think we'd all appreciate some big facts from everyone's favorite, most reliable, and unbiased source:
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html
> 
> I'm not sure he'll have the rigor to contend with big facts.





jaxadam said:


> See my post above.
> 
> ——
> 
> @Explorer I know that if it were me, I’d be embarrassed to continuously espouse the virtues of my fact-based acumen, but clutching at straws from left-biased mouthpieces contradicts the integrity of your obsessive political hobby. Oh the irony.


Just to note... even if Trump didn't order Cohen to lie, and yet allowed Cohen to lie to Congress, that is a violation of Trump's oath to faithfully execute the law. That's still an impeachable offense. 

Trump knew the perjury was unlawful, as Trump and his attorneys have made party admissions to that effect.

That oath isn't from a left-based mouthpiece. Now, what is your fact-based argument against that violation of Trump's oath?

Incidentally, I appreciate that you seem ready to actually discuss something which is uncomfortable and inconvenient, even if you hadn't realized the further implications of Cohen's admissions and of Trump's statements regarding it. I'm glad to have had the chance to show how rigor works in this regard, while being ready to see how you apply it in this case.

Cheers!


----------



## Randy

BenjaminW said:


> That's why I've avoided this thread for so long is because I've always found it to be a circle jerk at times. I'll just leave it at that.



Agreed on circle jerk but that's got nothing to do with the moderating. If you see a disproportionate amount of warnings given out to conservative viewpoints, it's because kamikazaing threads when you know you're in the minority is their preferred tactic.

The whole point of moderation is to maintain decorum and the absolute antihesis of that is going into a room and saying "you're all stupid". Members who actually engage individuals and ideas get by just fine. People who come in and carpet bomb entire threads do not. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> In order to keep EXPLRR from posting a bunch of fake news, I think we'd all appreciate some big facts from everyone's favorite, most reliable, and unbiased source:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html
> 
> I'm not sure he'll have the rigor to contend with big facts.





Ralyks said:


> ..... Soooooo how about that Buzzfeed story possibly being false?



Was stupid for MSM and the opposition party to jump on this story the way they did. I knew it was a "too good to be true" thing but we've had a long time since the last totally debunked story, so it was ripe to be overplayed. Hilarious that anyone would jump on a BuzzFeed story without any level of skepticsm though.

That said, there's been some developments since then regardless. Cohen lawyer not confirming or denying the content as well as BuzzFeed editors being adamant the story is 100% accurate, further bolstered by Giuliani doing the circuit to say "well even if he coached Cohen before his testimony, it wasn't illegal". 

With all the extra noise going on, Buzzfeed getting the story wrong is similarly believable as, say, Mueller's office putting out that statement because they want more substance before they commit to it or they just want to leave the most incendiary stuff for the final report and not show their hand.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Was stupid for MSM and the opposition party to jump on this story the way they did. I knew it was a "too good to be true" thing but we've had a long time since the last totally debunked story, so it was ripe to be overplayed. Hilarious that anyone would jump on a BuzzFeed story without any level of skepticsm though.
> 
> That said, there's been some developments since then regardless. Cohen lawyer not confirming or denying the content as well as BuzzFeed editors being adamant the story is 100% accurate, further bolstered by Giuliani doing the circuit to say "well even if he coached Cohen before his testimony, it wasn't illegal".
> 
> With all the extra noise going on, Buzzfeed getting the story wrong is similarly believable as, say, Mueller's office putting out that statement because they want more substance before they commit to it or they just want to leave the most incendiary stuff for the final report and not show their hand.



While Buzzfeed has had a few journalistic problems in the past, they have also had some stellar investigative reports. With their previous blunders, I would hope they would have done their homework before releasing something of this magnitude. I think the Mueller office statement is telling simply because it's non-specific. And of course you've got Giuliani running his mouth. 

It will be very interesting to see what transpires over the next few weeks.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Mueller's office putting out that statement because they want more substance before they commit to it or they just want to leave the most incendiary stuff for the final report and not show their hand.



I can see that, given how close to the vest Mueller has played it so far.


----------



## StevenC

The most confusing aspect about the Buzzfeed story is that the reports have won awards for investigative journalism.


----------



## vilk

If you believe Nick Sandmann, I'd be interested to know if you're in the market for a bridge I've got for sale.


----------



## jaxadam

Here’s another award winning journalist:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...iegel-journalist-resigns-over-fake-interviews


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> If you believe Nick Sandmann, I'd be interested to know if you're in the market for a bridge I've got for sale.



He and the other parents that blamed 'black muslims' are total shit for brains. Not because of their political alignments but because they made themselves sound WORSE with their statements, when meanwhile the footage of the full event did NOT match their narrative but still altered the scenario into their favor.

First of all, the group that targeted the MAGA kids were HEBREW ISRAELITES. A little ignorant to call them Muslims. Second, Sandmann should drop the fucking Boy Scout routine; I get the situation because I was an asshole kid too but acting like he was either confused or doing something noble is knowingly bullshit.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Kinda surprised that whole incident has lasted this long in the news cycle


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Kinda surprised that whole incident has lasted this long in the news cycle



It's mostly on account of that exceptionally punchable face.

Also, that Native American guy didn't help matters either. Neither he nor Sandmann, nor the adults interviewed sufficiently explained what happened and it took three day before we even heard what 'actually' happened. That guy in particularly stoked the fires of accusation against the teens as if it were 1-on-1, including the people in his camp that said they were chanting "build the wall" and "Trump 2020", neither of which were true.


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> In order to keep EXPLRR from posting a bunch of fake news, I think we'd all appreciate some big facts from everyone's favorite, most reliable, and unbiased source:
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-buzzfeed/index.html
> 
> I'm not sure he'll have the rigor to contend with big facts.





Ralyks said:


> ..... Soooooo how about that Buzzfeed story possibly being false?



So, Randy's post was excellent, so there isn't much to add. But, 

1) The Mueller team's response was NOT a blanket denial, even though Trump and members of his team have tried to pitch it as such. Rather, they dispute the accuracy of "specific statements and testimony," but not _all_ statements and testimony, or the conclusions. They've been playing their cards very close to their chest, so there's clearly something amiss if they're willing to publicly weigh in... But they gave a _very_ limited denial, and I think that matters.

1) a) Semi-relatedly, Trump was quick to mention the Steele dossier as an example of something else Buzzfeed had been wrong on, like they had a history of running inacurate stories about him. This is false, in two ways. One, the story was about Steele putting the dossier together and submitting it to the FBI and not that they were vouching for the accuracy of the contents, and yes, the Steele dossier clearly existed... and two, while some of the more sensational rumors enclosed have not been proven or disproven (I have a friend still planning to host a viewing party if the pee tape ever surfaces), a rather lot of the dossier HAS been either proven, been admitted to, or had fairly strong supporting evidence come to light (for example, the claim Cohen was in Ukraine for a meeting wiht Russian agents, which at the time he denied saying he'd never been to Ukraine, is much more believable now that we know his cell phone connected to a cell tower in the city in Ukraine where the meeting was alleged to have occured, at right around the time it would have had to happen). So, their credibility is fine. 

2) I can't see Mueller releasing a press conference stating that certain statements were inaccurate, and lying, to give them more time to work. He's a lifetime intelligence agent, he believes in due process, he's said almost nothing to the press, he's investigating a man actively waging a disinformation campaign, and he knows exactly how Trump would spin that press release. Something in that statement must be inaccurate. I just don't think it's all the statements, and I don't think it's the conclusion. 

There's also Giuliani walking back his comments about Trump continuing to work on the Moscow tower deal _through_ the election...


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> It's mostly on account of that exceptionally punchable face.
> 
> Also, that Native American guy didn't help matters either. Neither he nor Sandmann, nor the adults interviewed sufficiently explained what happened and it took three day before we even heard what 'actually' happened. That guy in particularly stoked the fires of accusation against the teens as if it were 1-on-1, including the people in his camp that said they were chanting "build the wall" and "Trump 2020", neither of which were true.


It's also one of those situations where something happens apart from the main reason why most people were there in the first place. The Women's march got completely overshadowed by this sh*tshow, it's par for the course here though.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

vilk said:


> If you believe Nick Sandmann, I'd be interested to know if you're in the market for a bridge I've got for sale.




Is it a hip-shot, Evertune, TOM? You're going to have to be more specific.


----------



## spudmunkey

PunkBillCarson said:


> Is it a hip-shot, Evertune, TOM? You're going to have to be more specific.



An Evertune multiscale 11-string trem.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

spudmunkey said:


> An Evertune multiscale 11-string trem.




The very mention of that might make it a possibility in the not too distant future.


----------



## spudmunkey

PunkBillCarson said:


> The very mention of that might make it a possibility in the not too distant future.



Next Sunday, A.D.?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I hope Kurt Russell does one last "Escape From..." before kicking the bucket. I hope it's called, "Escape From Earth," so I can join him.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I hope Kurt Russell does one last "Escape From..." before kicking the bucket. I hope it's called, "Escape From Earth," so I can join him.



Shotgun!


----------



## Explorer

Why, @jaxadam ! I'm still interested in your intelligent, fact-based comments and rigorous thinking regarding Donald Trump violating his oath to uphold the law vis a vis Cohen lying to Congress. 

Any chance this will happen soon? I would have expected it already, given that you seemed to imply that I wouldn't have any fact-based ideas, and that any ideas I had would be weak and easily rebutted. If that idea and my thinking are so weak, it is disappointing that you have been unable to think of a response given that low bar you claimed.

I'll be sad if you're not up to the challenge, so I'm pullin' for ya, buddy!

Cheers!


----------



## Explorer

Oh, and for those who prefer to get their news from Fox, here's an interesting little news story: even when asked three times in a softball segment, White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley refused to deny that there is any evidence supporting that recent Buzzfeed story.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8185...son-trump-told-cohen-lie-congress-refuses-say

There's video at the posted link of the Fox segment. 

Here's the thing: if someone accused me of doing heroin, it would be an ridiculous accusation, but I can easily deny it. 

Maybe you can too. 

If that's the case, then why be cagey about something equally ridiculous? Why not just deny it, like any innocent-yet-accused person would do?


----------



## Miek

sometimes the seriousness we are required to treat both sides of a political debate drains my life force because one side is the hamburglar and the other varies from neoliberalism to friggin maoist third world-ism


----------



## thraxil

Roger Stone was just arrested by the FBI and indicted on charges of obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering.


----------



## Ralyks

My friend texted me at around 6:30 this morning to tell me about the Roger Stone arrest. I look it up and realize "Oh shit, this is happening RIGHT NOW."

I can see this arrest causing some issues for Trump.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

thraxil said:


> Roger Stone was just arrested by the FBI and indicted on charges of obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering.



Christ, fukken gottem. 
Curious to see how damning the evidence is. I'd imagine they must have something pretty substantial.


----------



## Explorer

Regarding this recent arrest, if US domestic intelligence agencies had a tap on Stone's phone due to Stone's involvement with contacts from foreign governments which were attempting to sway our elections, then said domestic intelligence agencies will also be able to determine to whom any blocked domestic numbers belong which were contact with Stone immediately after Stone learned that Russia had the hacked emails.

I'll be especially interested in a reasoned argument from folks like Jaxadam in why such numbers will *not* turn out to be Donald Trump, and how a reasonable person will assume it's a total coincidence that Trump then immediately asked for Russia to release any such hacked emails.

Really, it's a disappointment that someone who was claiming I was a poseur doesn't have the resources to refute simple points and observations. Is a fact-based approach really so inimical to his narrative?


----------



## Randy

Stone let out on $250,000 bail despite being potentially the biggest flight risk to date and one of the charges against him being witness tampering. Gets out and within an hour, he's calling into Alex Jones' show. They should pull his bail immediately.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Christ, fukken gottem.
> Curious to see how damning the evidence is. I'd imagine they must have something pretty substantial.



The lying under oath stuff has yet to be seen but witness tampering likely came from the texts they had with him and Credico where Stone says he's going to kill his family and his pet dog or something to that effect. Then Stone tried to explain it away by saying that's just sense of humor and a joke between friends. What a friend!

What's more interesting than what they have already is whatever they're going to find after they raided his office in NY simultaneously.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> What's more interesting than what they have already is whatever they're going to find after they raided his office in NY simultaneously.



This is the stuff I want to see. 
I actually don't mind him being out on bail as a flight risk, because if he splits, that gives them all of the evidence they need imo. Could you imagine the fallout of that?


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Christ, fukken gottem.
> Curious to see how damning the evidence is. I'd imagine they must have something pretty substantial.


Two thoughts. 

1) They probably have evidence for more than what they charged Stone with. Remember that Manafort and Gates both started off with relatively moderate charges, then when they didn't cooperate they threw the book at them. I'd bet heavily that Mueller is doing the same here. 

2) Relatedly... _most_ of what they're charging him with isn't core to the investigation - lying under oath, witness tampering - it's all very predictable, pretty easy to prove, and doesn't involve Mueller showing his hand to any great degree. The important part is the allegations of being directed by a senior member of the Trump team to work with Corporation 1 (Wikileaks) around their release of sensitive information. From what I've read, that's believed to have been Bannon, so I'd watch for his being indicted over the next 3-6 months. But, from this we know that Mueller now has actionable-enough evidence to link Stone to coordinating between Wikileaks and the Trump camp to get an indictment signed off. For anyone _still_ arguing this investigation is a witch hunt, that's an awful lot harder to argue now that we know the Trump campaign was working through Stone as a conduit with Wikileaks around the DNC hacks. What we don't know is the full extent of that cooperation, if Stone was just a one-way conduit, passing advance notice of what Wikileaks was about to do to the Trump team, or if that was a two-way street.


----------



## Drew

EDIT - double post


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is the stuff I want to see.
> I actually don't mind him being out on bail as a flight risk, because if he splits, that gives them all of the evidence they need imo. Could you imagine the fallout of that?


He's way more useful as a witness than as evidence of nefarious activity when he flees. I think at this point it takes pretty extreme cognitive dissonance to believe that something WASN'T going on here that wasn't on the up and up, and if anyone still believes that the Trump team wasn't doing anything at all wrong, then they're not going to take Stone's fleeing bail as evidence of criminal conduct, but as evidence that a wrongly accused man made a run for it so he didn't have to face jail time on trumped-up charges.

EDIT - though, the more I think about this, the more I'm less sure. He's going to be tough to convince to play ball, possibly more so than Manafort, and his credibility is going to be called into question if he does. I'm not sure his fleeing would be _more_ evidence of wrongdoing than his flipping though. I suppose the clearest evidence that he had been a back-channel between the two camps would be if he turns up dead and evidence strongly suggests Russian agents, but honestly I'd rather have him safely in jail.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> He's way more useful as a witness than as evidence of nefarious activity when he flees. I think at this point it takes pretty extreme cognitive dissonance to believe that something WASN'T going on here that wasn't on the up and up, and if anyone still believes that the Trump team wasn't doing anything at all wrong, then they're not going to take Stone's fleeing bail as evidence of criminal conduct, *but as evidence that a wrongly accused man made a run for it so he didn't have to face jail time on trumped-up charges*.



I was going to say that that's such a ridiculous notion that no sensible person would go there, but...these days, you never know 
Mueller is absolutely terrifying. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that man's ire, that's for sure. I've gotta be honest, I'm one of the guys that chalked this whole thing up as a witch hunt at first, but after Manafort got rocked it seemed plausible, and now it's definitely not looking good for the TA. I'm really looking forward to seeing how far this whole thing goes.


----------



## Ralyks

Government reopened for 3 weeks to allow for negotiations.

Boy, did Trump cave.


----------



## Randy

The great negotiator


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> He's way more useful as a witness than as evidence of nefarious activity when he flees. I think at this point it takes pretty extreme cognitive dissonance to believe that something WASN'T going on here that wasn't on the up and up, and if anyone still believes that the Trump team wasn't doing anything at all wrong, then they're not going to take Stone's fleeing bail as evidence of criminal conduct, but as evidence that a wrongly accused man made a run for it so he didn't have to face jail time on trumped-up charges.
> 
> EDIT - though, the more I think about this, the more I'm less sure. He's going to be tough to convince to play ball, possibly more so than Manafort, and his credibility is going to be called into question if he does. I'm not sure his fleeing would be _more_ evidence of wrongdoing than his flipping though. I suppose the clearest evidence that he had been a back-channel between the two camps would be if he turns up dead and evidence strongly suggests Russian agents, but honestly I'd rather have him safely in jail.



Stone will rot in jail with his mouth sewn shut by his own accord before he testifies against his buddy. For anything to happen, there needs to be damning evidence that does not require Stone to say a word to anyone. Based on the arrest, I would think that Mueller has something that's significant.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I was going to say that that's such a ridiculous notion that no sensible person would go there, but...these days, you never know
> Mueller is absolutely terrifying. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that man's ire, that's for sure. I've gotta be honest, I'm one of the guys that chalked this whole thing up as a witch hunt at first, but after Manafort got rocked it seemed plausible, and now it's definitely not looking good for the TA. I'm really looking forward to seeing how far this whole thing goes.


Dude, have you _heard_ that whole Q conspiracy?  

Truth be told... in December 2016, I certainly had some suspicions and especiually given some of Trump's _public_ remarks thought the whole thing was plausible. But, if you asked me back them (or if you dig back far enough into this thread) I'd have said that the probe was very likely to be inconclusive, some suspicious stuff would come up but nothing definitive. Ansd then we have the Trump Tower meeting, and "If what you say is true, we love it, especially later in the summer." The Trump camp downplays the meeting, said it was on false pretext and that the Russians didn't offer anything of substance when they sat down... But the fact remains, by Don Jr.s _own admission_, when someone purporting to be a Russian agent contacted them offering dirt on the Clinton camp, they jumped at the chance. 

For me, that was the moment where I started to seriously consider there might be enough evidence of wrongdoing out there to actually impeach Trump. 



Ralyks said:


> Government reopened for 3 weeks to allow for negotiations.
> 
> Boy, did Trump cave.


Good lord he did. He agreed to the Dem's temporary extension plan to reopen the government while they negotiated over the wall in return for $5.7B in non-wall border security funding... And it was all for things like upgrading ports of entry and hiring more immigration judges, all of which were _Democratic_ border security priorities. Pelosi didn't even bother to use lube, and the fact Trump spent that whole Rose Garden press conference talking about human trafficking and drug smuggling and violent crime and said next to nothing about the deal strongly suggests he knows it.


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> Government reopened for 3 weeks to allow for negotiations.
> 
> Boy, did Trump cave.



He painted himself into a corner. Moderate republicans who think border security is important but realize the wall is pointless couldn't support him on the shutdown. But his base who just mindlessly repeat the "build the wall" chant now feel like he's failed them. He went out of his way to make it a central promise of his administration. The deal that was eventually agreed to was basically where it all started before Ann Coulter called him out. It was completely unnecessary. He got nothing from the shutdown and no democratic candidate in 2020 is going to stop telling the world that all of the pain of the shutdown was because of his stupid ego, stubbornness, and impotence.

The *smart* move for him will be to quietly sign a budget in February without wall funding and hope that there are enough other news stories going on that his base forgets that he didn't keep his promise. If there's another shutdown, everyone will point their fingers at him again and Pelosi will be in an even stronger position. And, I mean, now that Democrats in the House have subpoena powers there may be some larger, distracting stories in the news...


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> He painted himself into a corner. Moderate republicans who think border security is important but realize the wall is pointless couldn't support him on the shutdown. But his base who just mindlessly repeat the "build the wall" chant now feel like he's failed them. He went out of his way to make it a central promise of his administration. The deal that was eventually agreed to was basically where it all started before Ann Coulter called him out. It was completely unnecessary. He got nothing from the shutdown and no democratic candidate in 2020 is going to stop telling the world that all of the pain of the shutdown was because of his stupid ego, stubbornness, and impotence.
> 
> The *smart* move for him will be to quietly sign a budget in February without wall funding and hope that there are enough other news stories going on that his base forgets that he didn't keep his promise. If there's another shutdown, everyone will point their fingers at him again and Pelosi will be in an even stronger position. And, I mean, now that Democrats in the House have subpoena powers there may be some larger, distracting stories in the news...


It was amazingly stupid for him to put himself in this situation, and hold out for more than a month, refusing until really the last 24 hours to even consider negotiating.

Two things just happened - one, after underestimating just how unified the Democrats are in opposition to him, he showed that they CAN make him back down, if they refuse to let him bully them into going along with them. And two, he fractured his own base, with the hardline anti-immigrant far right now being furious he caved, and got essentially nothing in return. In their eyes, he betrayed them.

Honestly, as an unabashed liberal, this was a pretty good Friday, and Trump's spectacular meltdown on the shutdown is if anything a better gift than Stone's arrest.


----------



## spudmunkey

thraxil said:


> The *smart* move for him will be to quietly sign a budget in February without wall funding and hope that there are enough other news stories going on that his base forgets that he didn't keep his promise.



I think that he should be worried if there's something in the news that's taking up mindshare over it, because it would probably be news about him and/or the special council investigation.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Dude, have you _heard_ that whole Q conspiracy?



The Q nutters are really something special. I am genuinely glad they exist.


----------



## Xaios

Cavefefe.


----------



## spudmunkey

Xaios said:


> Cavefefe.



*covfefe


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> *covfefe



*overyourheadfefe


----------



## spudmunkey

apparently


----------



## Spaced Out Ace




----------



## PunkBillCarson

jaxadam said:


> *overyourheadfefe




Dude, I'm in fucking tears! LMFAO


----------



## Explorer

It's interesting that Trump has finally met a woman of whom he is genuinely afraid. No nicknames or direct insults, which he previously couldn't manage even with coaching, so it certainly appears to be real fear.

Since Trump just called Schumer "Crying Chuck Schumer," the contrast in treatment just makes the further shrinking in terror of Trump's already misshapen gonads all the more palpable to all observers....


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Maybe Trump can try this... Nagging Nancy Plastic Surgery Mishap Pelosi. See, that wasn't so difficult.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Maybe Trump can try this... Nagging Nancy Plastic Surgery Mishap Pelosi. See, that wasn't so difficult.



I like Neutering Nancy. Has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Explorer

Yeah... I'm pretty sure that Trump lacks the balls to confront Pelosi now that he doesn't have a gang of people in sufficient numbers to back him up completely. Trump's self-claimed ability to face "bad hombres" has turned out to be limited to admiring them and being a lick-spittle who protects them, and not actually standing up to them but instead happily dropping to his knees to please them.

How happy? Just look at that smile!






So of course Trump is going to avoid directly antagonizing the person whom Trump can't fire for investigating him before he can finish wiping off his chin from pleasuring Putin.


----------



## Explorer

In the same way that I noted in this very topic that there was something deeply sketchy in the Republican Party's decision to remove criticism and condemnation of Russia's invasion of Crimea from their political platform, I'm waiting to see what eventually comes out about about Rand Paul's visit to Russia and Paul's defense of Trump's kowtowing to Putin. What's the backstory there?

The infiltration of the Republicans by Russia, as demonstrated by the the successful co-opting of the NRA as a conduit by Russians, is like watching SHIELD get co-opted by Hydra in slow motion....


----------



## Drew

So, one of my common themes for this entire thread has been that as long as Fox News (and Breitbart, and Infowars, et al) continue to support him and continue to run favorable stories and play down negative ones, Trump has a "floor" in public approval ratings from the significant number of Republican voters whose only real news source is Fox, and accordingly he'll remain impeachment-remote.

With that in mind, Ann Coulter publicly lambasting Trump for having no balls after his total collapse and retreat on the shutdown, and Trump attacking Fox news for their coverage of the "wall negotiations" is a trend worth watching VERY closely. I'd always kind of pictured it as Fox cracking after Trump was revealed to have done something SO incontrovertibly wrong that even they couldn't deny it, but if this begins to get some momentum, Trump may have not just folded to the Democrats, he may have also shattered his bass and the floor of around 35-40% of the electorate that he could depend on to support him no matter what. If he begins to breach that in a material way, well, Mueller almost won't matter, because Trump may start to be worth more dead than alive (politically speaking) to the Republican establishment, with Pence becoming an increasingly attractive alternative.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...eagues-after-criticism-from-trump-this-is-not


----------



## Explorer

But Pence was in the room when Trump and company came up with the false explanation for Comey's firing. Pence is an attorney, so he's held to a higher standard because he knows the law. Pence knowingly allowing a false explanation to be concocted and disseminated is a violation of Pence's oath to uphold the law, allowing impeachment.

Additionally, we still don't know what other material Mueller has regarding Pence.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> But Pence was in the room when Trump and company came up with the false explanation for Comey's firing. Pence is an attorney, so he's held to a higher standard because he knows the law. Pence knowingly allowing a false explanation to be concocted and disseminated is a violation of Pence's oath to uphold the law, allowing impeachment.
> 
> Additionally, we still don't know what other material Mueller has regarding Pence.


We've had this conversation in the past, but I really don't think whether or not Pence _could_ be impeached is completely material to whether or not Trump _will_ be, in a scenario where Trump's approval numbers drop into the low 20s.

The fact that Pence could subsequently be impeached, if Trump implodes and the GOP starts seriously considering weighing impeachment as a way to mitigate electoral damage in 2020, is something that the GOP will need to consider as a risk. And, I think if Trump's slide in the polls were also to correspond with a sharp decline in Pence's approval numbers among Republicans, then the liklihood of the GOP gritting their teeth and not risking both men being impeached and sending Pelosi to the White House grows. But, in a situation where Pence continues to remain relatively politically sheltered from Trump's issues (and he's done a remarkable job so far), then I think there's a very real chance that GOP senators might support impeachment.

I get what you're saying, that both Trump AND Pence are very likely parties to obstruction of justice... But I think with Trump's approval numbers in the high 30s to low 40s, he's not going to get impeached for obstruction of justice. I think, if that were to drop to say 20-25%, or akin to only about one out of two registered Republicans supporting Trump, while Pence continues to remain insulated... At that point, yeah, it's way more conceivable that Trump will get impeached, the GOP will find some way to differentiate Trump's obstruction from Pence's (say that Trump was the one to actively make the decision to fire Comey, while Pence "was merely an observer" or something), and the GOP will trust that Pence can get a VP with no connection to the Trump camp sworn in before any serious question about his culpability here can come up, putting one more person between Pelosi and the Presidency.

I mean, in a completely dispassionate criminal justice environment, then yeah, I might say you have a point. But in that environment I wouldn't even be talking about approval numbers. The fact remains that the people who would have to decide whether or not to convict Trump if he was impeached in the House are themselves politicians with legislative agendas and their own re-elections to be concerned about, and whether or not their own party will fault them for a vote to convict becomes VERY material to ballparking how the votes will fall.

*EDIT* - This isn't the point you're making at all, but you sort of inadvertently pose a question - it becomes a VERY interesting scenario where clear, concrete, and incontrovertible treason-level evidence of criminal wrongdoing comes out of the Mueller probe implicating both Trump AND Pence, with respect to how the Senate will behave. Again I do think public approval would be a factor here, and if polling information suggesting a majority of voters in _both_ parties supported what would essentially be overturning the results of the 2016 election, then it's certainly possible that both men could be simultaneously impeached. More likely (IMO), though would be some form of compromise where Trump is impeached first, Pence and the GOP are allowed to swear in a moderate establishment Republican (Kasich, perhaps?) as Pence's VP, and then Pence himself is impeached, leaving the Executive branch in Republican hands. But, I mean, this would clearly be a constitutional-crisis-level political dilemma, and it's awfully tough to see how it would play out. It's entirely possible the GOP would, at that point, just decide to run down the clock, and tell Trump they're not going to impeach him but he'd better not do a goddamned _thing_ with executive power between now and January 2021.


----------



## Explorer

It's a pretty interesting question to consider, whether even incontrovertible evidence of Trump willingly and knowingly breaking the law would lead to Republican senators voting for impeachment. 

At this point, Republicans have been happy to engage in obvious public hypocrisy regarding how they will investigate possible law-breaking, depending on the party of whom they are investigating. That's one of the things which drove the blue wave last election. Will Republicans go even further on the same path in the run-up to 2020?

----

The next big foundation stone I'm expecting from Trump is the presidential precedent, allowing a democratic president to declare a national state of emergency regarding many arguably more real situations. Rubio recognizes the danger which such a precedent poses for Republican priorities and has argued against it, but Trump needs something to distract from the fact that the Stone indictment further builds a great case for criminal conspiracy without actually saying the word. To save himself, the man who doesn't care about the deficit he leaves to future taxpayers will similarly not care about future Republicans.

So, what will be the first such emergency which generates actual victims? Climate change? Gun violence? Toxic white masculinity and its resulting domestic violence and other violence? Voter suppression?


----------



## vilk

Explorer said:


> Toxic white masculinity



I know this little bit is mostly besides the point of your post, which I feel is otherwise totally on point. Except for this part. Is toxic masculinity somehow more of an issue for whites than non-whites? I don't have any data, but I kinda feel like whites actually have way less toxic masculinity pushed on them as compared with either blacks (hip hop culture) or Latinos (machismo culture), even Jews or Muslims (religious laws). Not that toxic masculinity isn't a problem. I just never really thought it was a problem that is particular to 'white culture' more than others. Really I'm having difficulty coming up with any specific non-white culture that has less presence of toxic masculinity than urban liberal whites.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I know this little bit is mostly besides the point of your post, which I feel is otherwise totally on point. Except for this part. Is toxic masculinity somehow more of an issue for whites than non-whites? I don't have any data, but I kinda feel like whites actually have way less toxic masculinity pushed on them as compared with either blacks (hip hop culture) or Latinos (machismo culture), even Jews or Muslims (religious laws). Not that toxic masculinity isn't a problem. I just never really thought it was a problem that is particular to 'white culture' more than others. Really I'm having difficulty coming up with any specific non-white culture that has less presence of toxic masculinity than urban liberal whites.



White men in this century are contending with the fact they're the dominant demographic when it comes to wealth and power, and that makes them a big target. It's not that women can't be toxic or other ethnicities can't be either 'toxic' or overtly 'masculine', it's that the perception is that white men are given an outsized ability to put those things into practice and impose them on all else.

I don't necessarily believe in labeling or addressing the topic that way but when people specifically address "toxic white masculinity", that's the dynamic they're referencing.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> the dominant demographic when it comes to wealth and power



As far as I knew that is not what "toxic masculinity" is used to refer to. I was under the impression that toxic masculinity is stuff like... that for a man to show emotion is weakness, idealizes physical aggression/fighting to show dominance, encouragement to view women as sex objects, should value work over household/parenthood, etc.

But I digress. It's off topic. But I think that you guys might be slightly mistaken on contemporary use of the term 'toxic masculinity'.


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> As far as I knew that is not what "toxic masculinity" is used to refer to. I was under the impression that toxic masculinity is stuff like... that for a man to show emotion is weakness, idealizes physical aggression/fighting to show dominance, encouragement to view women as sex objects, should value work over household/parenthood, etc.
> 
> But I digress. It's off topic. But I think that you guys might be slightly mistaken on contemporary use of the term 'toxic masculinity'.


Toxic masculinity and toxic white masculinity are different things. One is talking about masculinity as an issue, and the other is white men as an issue.


----------



## vilk

StevenC said:


> Toxic masculinity and toxic white masculinity are different things. One is talking about masculinity as an issue, and the other is white men as an issue.


I think there's some conflation going on here between white privilege and toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity permeates the whole world, even places where there are no white people at all. Yes, both white privilege and toxic masculinity are real things, and certainly they overlap at some point (especially in places with less than homogeneous populations), but "toxic white masculinity" isn't some third, separate issue. And really, if this is even a real term that people are throwing around these days (which it isn't as far as I know), it's certainly a misnomer, because it seems to imply that toxic masculinity is somehow tied to white privilege.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> As far as I knew that is not what "toxic masculinity" is used to refer to. I was under the impression that toxic masculinity is stuff like... that for a man to show emotion is weakness, idealizes physical aggression/fighting to show dominance, encouragement to view women as sex objects, should value work over household/parenthood, etc.
> 
> But I digress. It's off topic. But I think that you guys might be slightly mistaken on contemporary use of the term 'toxic masculinity'.





vilk said:


> But white men being an issue on account of their wealth and power isn't even necessarily related to masculinity. I think there's some conflation going on here between white privilege and toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity permeates the whole world, even places where there are no white people at all.



Short sighted. Our behaviors are generally dictated by what society dictates as acceptable and unacceptable. 'Toxic Masculinity' or 'Toxic White Masculinity' fit 100% into the evaluation of white men as the ruling class because they dictate what's considered normal/acceptable and what isn't.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> Short sighted. Our behaviors are generally dictated by what society dictates as acceptable and unacceptable. 'Toxic Masculinity' or 'Toxic White Masculinity' fit 100% into the evaluation of white men as the ruling class because they dictate what's considered normal/acceptable and what isn't.



So we're in agreement that it's just a term to refer to the two separate ideas of white privilege and toxic masculinity but simultaneously.

Seems needless to me. Like asking for "red french fry ketchup" at a drive-thru. And I think it is a disservice to toxic masculinity issues that exist among non-whites, which as I've suggested earlier has even deeper roots--probably because of white privilege.

White privilege, in theory, will fight against toxic masculinity (for white people), by showing them better opportunity to get a proper education and more non-toxicly-masculine role models.

Growing up in a community with a relatively high Hispanic population, it always seemed like the toxic masculinity pushed on those kids was way worse than what was pushed on me. I've seen Latino kids scolded by their fathers for crying, even hit. While my white dad just gave me a hug and said it's OK to cry. IDK...


----------



## spudmunkey

vilk said:


> .
> 
> Seems needless to me. Like asking for "red french fry ketchup" at a drive-thru.


----------



## SenorDingDong

vilk said:


> So we're in agreement that it's just a term to refer to the two separate ideas of white privilege and toxic masculinity but simultaneously.
> 
> Seems needless to me. Like asking for "red french fry ketchup" at a drive-thru. And I think it is a disservice to toxic masculinity issues that exist among non-whites, which as I've suggested earlier has even deeper roots--probably because of white privilege.
> 
> White privilege, in theory, will fight against toxic masculinity (for white people), by showing them better opportunity to get a proper education and more non-toxicly-masculine role models.
> 
> Growing up in a community with a relatively high Hispanic population, it always seemed like the toxic masculinity pushed on those kids was way worse than what was pushed on me. I've seen Latino kids scolded by their fathers for crying, even hit. While my white dad just gave me a hug and said it's OK to cry. IDK...




I live about 30 minutes from Detroit. I see far more toxic masculinity perpetuated by the overwhelmingly low income black community that comes from Detroit than any other community/collective/culture I have ever seen, having lived many places from NYC, Montreal, CT, GA, etc. We aren't talking the generic, white guy who pushes his kid to play football, calls him a pussy if he wants to quit and berates and belittles him and emasculates him--we're talking, a culture built around men needing to prove themselves and their manhood in every interaction, from appearance (fighting over sneaker dirtying is something I've seen more times than I can count, physical altercations over perceived insults to style, etc), money (fighting over single digit amounts, shootings, etc), and so many more examples.

In fact, in my industry, we have a lot of ground-level positions filled with lower income men from Detroit and we have to get training specifically to learn how to deal with their culture/behaviour/aggressiveness. We don't need those classes about women from Detroit, they genuinely focus ONLY on men. Security has to escort management to their vehicles for a 2-week period following terminations of certain employees, as there have been too many assaults following firings. Our entire training is based around the high level of toxicity and dangerous nature of the male culture in Detroit, and the potential danger of even giving off the perception of a slight to male employees from said city.

Again, with the women, we have little to no issue, save for attendance.

The thing is, while their may be a modicum of truth in the idea behind toxic white masculinity, as all races have a sliding scale of toxicity in the way their men are raised, the most dangerous cities in our country are an overwhelming product of non-white toxic male culture. I watch grown men in their 30s try to prove themselves daily by getting in heated verbal and often physical altercations over their manhood and their need for 'respect.' Less than 10% of those cases (I work in HR) are from white men. Overwhelmingly, they are black men from inner-city Detroit working on the lines. There is also an over-whelming pack mentality in which those who do not fit into the 'typical' or 'appropriately deemed' 'black guy from Detroit' mentality are mercilessly bullied and belittled and racially insulted by their black peers.

The amount of assaults perpetrated by said class is astonishingly disproportionate when compared to their non-African-American peers. 

Is there male toxicity? Yes. Do I believe that the most overwhelming case in our country is white men? I'll drop you off on W Chicago St and let you find out for yourself. Then, whatever is left of you I'll drop off in some snobby, shit-nosed suburb with 'white male toxicity' prevelancy, such as Livonia. You can tell me which was most in need of being addressed and spotlighted.


----------



## Explorer

My reference to "toxic white masculinity" came from my readings on how the new APA guidelines came about, and what was noted in the original reasons for studying masculinity in the first place: males were treated as the default baseline from which all others are a deviation.

The researchers didn't say anything about toxic white masculinity, but I made the leap due to the hilariously obvious racism from groups like the now-failed Oathbreakers (did i get that right?) who had people leave them after one member asked the national organization to support an open-carry march for citizens of one city. The national organization didn't want support this one city though... because the citizens in question were black.

That treatment of non-whites as "other" positions *white* males as the baseline. It's a standard made obvious even when riots by whites are considered as playful, while minorities are portrayed as thugs. It's also obvious when one considers the right-wing hate groups like the Klan and the neo-Nazis who have a long history here in the US with no equivalent in terms of amount of accomplished violence on the left or among minorities. Even with the Trump administration doing what it can to prevent resources for dealing with homegrown extremism, the fact is that more people were killed in mass killings by predominately white homegrown sources than by foreign terrorists.

Still, consider my comment as withdrawn. Instead, which other national priority do *you* think will make Republicans gnash their teeth when a Democratic president declares said situation a national emergency?


----------



## Explorer

Oh, my. Apparently Trump engaged in a longer discussion with Putin than he claimed at the G20 meeting, had no translator or note-taker with him (only Melania), and used Putin's translator.

https://www.ft.com/content/61842ec4-23a0-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632

Why does Trump keep lying about Russia matters? Is there any explanation beyond there being a Trump-Russia conspiracy to explain why *all* the ongoing issues being investigated have Trump and his campaign, administration and family members lying, and all the lies being centered on concealing contact with Russians?


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> It's a pretty interesting question to consider, whether even incontrovertible evidence of Trump willingly and knowingly breaking the law would lead to Republican senators voting for impeachment.
> 
> At this point, Republicans have been happy to engage in obvious public hypocrisy regarding how they will investigate possible law-breaking, depending on the party of whom they are investigating. That's one of the things which drove the blue wave last election. Will Republicans go even further on the same path in the run-up to 2020?



I think it's pretty straightforward. Given that the Congressional GOP delegation are at the end of the day self-interested rational decision makers, Republican senators will be likely to vote for impeachment when it's in their best interest to vote for impeachment, and they won't when they think it isn't. 

We saw a pretty pronounced blue wave in 2018, and the Senate held up relatively well. But, it's important to remember that a lot of the seats up for election were in republican friendly districts that had been won in an _earlier_ blue wave in 2012, and that the picture is a lot murkier when you start considering special election results, where Doug Jones took Session's old seat in AL and Kyrsten Sinema took Flake's old seat in AZ. Meanwhile, the house, last elected in a neutral/slightly Republican environment, the Republicans got _blown out_, and if anything Trump's approval numbers have gotten worse since then, possibly on a sustained basis since it seems fairly likely that Trump will continue to pick stupid fights with the Congressional Democrats (and possibly his own party). 

I really do think it's as easy as estimating the electoral probability cost of impeaching a sitting president, vs the electoral cost of _not_ impeaching an unpopular president for cause (while noting the culpability of Pence and the possibility of flipping the Executive branch adds some wrinkles here). If there's plausible cause and enough Senators think they're more likely to get elected by impeaching Trump than by having him remain an unpopular and divisive president come November 2020, then he'll get impeached. It's not rocket surgery.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

"Blue wave"? That was a purple puddle at best.


----------



## Explorer

I guess you're right, if you ignore the huge amount of gerrymandering, voter suppression and even outright vote fraud engaged in by the Repubiclans. That's why the Democrats didn't gain more Senate seats, in spite of having over 12 million votes more than the Repubiclans. 

It's also hilariously telling that Republicans have to rely on such tactics to retain seats, instead of just having better ideas.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## thraxil

Explorer said:


> I guess you're right, if you ignore the huge amount of gerrymandering, voter suppression and even outright vote fraud engaged in by the Repubiclans. That's why the Democrats didn't gain more Senate seats, in spite of having over 12 million votes more than the Repubiclans.
> 
> It's also hilariously telling that Republicans have to rely on such tactics to retain seats, instead of just having better ideas.



Tellingly, the Democrats in the House just introduced HR 1 which would make election day a national holiday, prevent voter roll purges, require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, and PACs to disclose large dollar donors. McConnell called it a "power grab".


----------



## spudmunkey

Until I see compelling arguments against any of those, I think I'm for them all, as they all seem reasonable and "about time" on the surface.


----------



## tedtan

thraxil said:


> make election day a national holiday, prevent voter roll purges, require presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns, and PACs to disclose large dollar donors



All long overdue and just the first step in the thousand mile journey into right direction.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "Blue wave"? That was a purple puddle at best.


I'd be curious how you make this argument, considering that in the House the Dems picked up 41 seats, and in the Senate, despite having the worst map in at_ least_ the last 25 years with 26 seats to defend vs only 9 the GOP had to defend, they managed to hold losses to two, winning 24 seats to the GOP's 11. 

I guess their showing in the Governors' races was only moderately good, though...? picking up a net gain of 7, out of the 39 states holding Gubernatorial elections...? A good showing no matter how you dice it, though they should have been able to flip a few more given the partisan environment so it was still a bit of a disappointment...


----------



## PunkBillCarson

So if it's a National Holiday, does that mean a day off work?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> So if it's a National Holiday, does that mean a day off work?



Depends on where you work, like most all holidays.


----------



## spudmunkey

The next step is to make it Sunday,Monday & Tuesday (or similar), and have more vote-by-mail options.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Without reading through the whole bill, was there anything mentioning the removal or reduction of the lame duck session?

Signed,
Someone in Wisconsin


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "Blue wave"? That was a purple puddle at best.


Still waiting, btw.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Still waiting, btw.


Did both get flipped, or just the one?


----------



## jaxadam

Boy this is inconvenient for Dems in Virginia.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/herring-northam-fairfax-virginia-democrats/index.html

https://nypost.com/2019/02/06/yearbook-staffer-questions-northams-blackface-photo-claim/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...tted-doing-same-thing/?utm_term=.f3e3b3041ff0


----------



## Explorer

@MaxOfMetal - I don't really view it as inconvenient. The party moves on, as those with no such baggage move up. 

It's been interesting, with the Northam situation, to hear people I know wrestling with the question of, "What if someone does something like this, and then runs for higher office? Isn't that person entitled to be forgiven and not have it held against them?"

And that's the question, isn't it? Is such a person *entitled* to an office? Or in a contest with another person, someone who didn't ever think of mocking the grim history of murder by lynching, can the citizenry go with the person without such a taint? 

I get that someone might change their viewpoint over time. Does that make such a person preferable to another who never dabbled with a negative viewpoint?

----

I was telling my partner this past weekend that there was absolutely *zero* chance of a picture surfacing of me in either blackface or a Klan robe. I did remember, when I was in elementary school, laughing with my friend Stevie about a Bugs Bunny cartoon with Yosemite Sam as a Confederate soldier, with Bugs trying to sneak into the south disguised as a slave. Yup, the whole "Don't beat me, massa! Don't beat this tired old body!" didn't strike us as odd, because we were *much* younger than Northam was as an adult in medical school, and our experience was set more than a decade before Northam's photo with blackface and klansman. 

So, the other thing specifically about Northam which struck me as odd was that he thought initially that he was in the photo. I *know* I've never dressed that way. That's why Northam walking it back seems like deliberate dishonesty.

----

Honestly, the thing which seems most inconvenient about the whole situation is that Republicans keep seizing upon it to justify their own racists, while ignoring all those Democrats who are *not* justifying it. "We're alike!" "No, because you Republicans are arguing that you want to keep your racists."


----------



## Explorer

Hey, I just noticed that was Jaxadam! Any chance you'll be responding in a fact-based manner to my points? Or is this just another fly-by?


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

Do you think he'll actually go for another shutdown in 9 days? Or that Republicans would allow him to without resistance?

Pelosi and Schumer don't seem to be budging, and with debt as high as it is I seriously feel bad for the the employees affected by it who are living paycheck-to-paycheck. 

Not sure about the exact US stats but in comparison a Gov't shutdown in Canada may be catastrophic right now since the average household carries $23,000 in debt (excluding mortgages). Not that it's likely taking into account our parliamentary system where a vote of confidence against the PM would move things along in favour of the general populace.

Anyway I know that the U.S. carries it's own debt too per household and I heard it's not exactly pennies we're talking about either. I think a recent stat I came across stated that something like 40% of Americans have mortgages, so add an average household debt ontop of that and things start to look grim if Trump shuts down again...

I mean if the joint intelligence community don't see the southern border (or a wall for that matter) as a pressing issue, why is he so obsessed with it? Do you think he just wants something to point to where he can slap his name on it? That's the only thing that makes sense to me since he's so used to doing that in other ventures, successful or otherwise (trump uni, trump steaks, trump tower, etc.)

What do you think gents?


----------



## jaxadam

Explorer said:


> Hey, I just noticed that was Jaxadam! Any chance you'll be responding in a fact-based manner to my points? Or is this just another fly-by?



Hey buddy! I noticed you withdrew a comment on a couple of posts back, and it really warmed my heart to see you developing a more humble attitude. I'm proud of you! But other than that you're really just background noise. I do have a spot open for permanent residence on my Ignore list, though. I hear it's really nice there this time of year!


----------



## spudmunkey

GatherTheArsenal said:


> Do you think he'll actually go for another shutdown in 9 days?



8 days, 4 hours, 10 mins, 15 seconds...


----------



## Explorer

GatherTheArsenal said:


> Do you think he'll actually go for another shutdown in 9 days? Or that Republicans would allow him to without resistance?
> 
> What do you think gents?



There was already a news report wherein rank-and-file Senate members at a lunch were yelling at McConnell about how Trump's shutdown was negatively affecting their constituents, with McConnell angrily snapping back at them that he too found it difficult. (Not as hard as for those federal workers and contractors without pay, of course, but I suspect that his actual sympathies were used up in getting that tax cut for the wealthy.)

I suspect that congressional Republicans, having gotten a taste from constituents of the next election's likely outcome during the last Trump shutdown, will revolt. It won't matter to Trump, of course.

My big hope is that Trump goes the national emergency route, allowing future Democratic presidents to react in the same way, to numerous school shootings, other mass shootings, and the effects of climate change. Go Trump! Go McConnell!


----------



## Explorer

Well, this is inconvenient for Republicans.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/house...arted-and-supercharged-the-trump-russia-probe

With the transcripts from all that testimony from the Republican-led hearings now in Mueller's hands, anyone who committed perjury is now likely to be prosecuted. 

And, of course, the investigation into the Trump inauguration and its funds is in full swing now, with lots of subpoenas being issued. Unfortunately for Trump and his cronies and family, the same things the feds could pursue are also state crimes in NY, so no federal Presidential pardons can be used to obstruct justice. 

It's a good day to be someone in favor of law and order!


----------



## Explorer

Oh! one more bright spot!

Apparently Americans are relieved that Trump uses 60% of his time *not* using his presidential powers. 

At least there's a silver lining to such a low-energy and low-focus president.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> Oh! one more bright spot!
> 
> Apparently Americans are relieved that Trump uses 60% of his time *not* using his presidential powers.
> 
> At least there's a silver lining to such a low-energy and low-focus president.


I want him to use his presidential powers to fire Mueller and build the fucking wall. How about that?


----------



## Explorer

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I want him to use his presidential powers to fire Mueller and build the fucking wall. How about that?



Ah! You want him to go for obvious obstruction of justice! An excellent path to impeachment and then prison. Good choice, especially since Ivanka (foundation and inauguration fraud), Jared (perjury and conspiracy) and Junior (perjury and conspiracy) will already be waiting in prison for him!

Lock him up!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> Ah! You want him to go for obvious obstruction of justice! An excellent path to impeachment and then prison. Good choice, especially since Ivanka (foundation and inauguration fraud), Jared (perjury and conspiracy) and Junior (perjury and conspiracy) will already be waiting in prison for him!
> 
> Lock him up!


Stop by Hillary's abode; we can take them both in one trip.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Stop by Hillary's abode; we can take them both in one trip.



Wasn't Trump supposed to lock her up?


----------



## vilk

In 5th grade (of Indiana public school; circa 2000) our class "Halloween" project was a "Historical Wax Museum", where we were split into groups and assigned different historical scenes to pose as for the "museum".

My group was slaves getting whipped by an overseer slave!

So myself and 3 girls painted our skin brown with makeup and put on wigs and "slave clothes" and I posed with my hand up in the air holding a rope like I was gonna hit them with it.

Photographs were taken. In case you're wondering why I'm not running for office.


----------



## TedEH

I think it's safe to say that if we're judging people on the basis of things you did as a kid taken out of context, then literally nobody qualifies to run for office.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

Explorer said:


> There was already a news report wherein rank-and-file Senate members at a lunch were yelling at McConnell about how Trump's shutdown was negatively affecting their constituents, with McConnell angrily snapping back at them that he too found it difficult. (Not as hard as for those federal workers and contractors without pay, of course, but I suspect that his actual sympathies were used up in getting that tax cut for the wealthy.)
> 
> I suspect that congressional Republicans, having gotten a taste from constituents of the next election's likely outcome during the last Trump shutdown, will revolt. It won't matter to Trump, of course.
> 
> My big hope is that Trump goes the national emergency route, allowing future Democratic presidents to react in the same way, to numerous school shootings, other mass shootings, and the effects of climate change. Go Trump! Go McConnell!



Yeah McConnell comes off as a bit of a muppet saying shit like that taking into account his decisions on other matters which didn't seem hard for him. But to be fair, it's not exactly news that trump is block-headed either, i mean his reaction to Dan Coats and the heads of the FBI and CIA's testimonies was the equivalent of cat paws on a piano 

Washington (and the White House in general) sounds like a hectic place to be right now, so many leakers and employees who've peaced out in just 2 years ... and many of them don't want to come back. Even Sean Spicer after the SOTU speech was like "nope you're not getting me back" lol. So I can actually see McConnell not being the person to lead that charge, kinda comes off spineless in a sense, especially in front of a moronic A-type personality like trump.

Regarding the next impending shutdown, both Congress and Senate Republicans may revolt. Trump's just playing with ppl's lives at this point and it's becoming harder for GOP reps to turn a blind eye without their own base taking them to task for it. Considering he had no exit plan for the first one I don't think trying it again would be as easy for him, and it'll be catastrophic to his polls and he knows it now.

I think he's bluffing.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

There will be another shutdown. It'll be a long one again. At most, some GOP Senators will go on news channels and complain, some will tweet about it, Mitt Romney might pretend to care again to bolster his likely presidential run at some point, but besides a small handful of folks in purple states up for reelection in 2020, the McConnell controlled Senate will not, as a unit, defect. Ever. 

We need to stop believing any of these Senators, especially McConnell, actually give a shit about this country or its people. It's all a means to an end for them. They're old and rich. They don't care about what we put on thier tombstones.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

Yeah you may have point there. But I'm seeing a possibility that considering trump's own trains of thought atm seem to be:

*trump voice*

a) I want what I want no matter what, also I was defied by pelosi and my base is mad, so I need to recover my ego by pushing hard for the wall.

b) but if I push hard again my polls will take a battering and I don't want that.

I'm not saying he may not do another shutdown out of the goodness of his (or the GOP's) heart, I'm saying that history has shown that he acts out of his own interest regardless of who else is in harms way, so if there's a chance he'll lose again I don't think he'll tempt it. It's not in his best interest now or in 2020.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GatherTheArsenal said:


> Yeah you may have point there. But I'm seeing a possibility that considering trump's own trains of thought atm seem to be:
> 
> *trump voice*
> 
> a) I want what I want no matter what, also I was defied by pelosi and my base is mad, so I need to recover my ego by pushing hard for the wall.
> 
> b) but if I push hard again my polls will take a battering and I don't want that.
> 
> I'm not saying he may not do another shutdown out of the goodness of his (or the GOP's) heart, I'm saying that history has shown that he acts out of his own interest regardless of who else is in harms way, so if there's a chance he'll lose again I don't think he'll tempt it. It's not in his best interest now or in 2020.



If he cared about polls we wouldn't be where we are now.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

Lol man... trying to make sense of him is exhausting. He's an enigma.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Wasn't Trump supposed to lock her up?


Yes, he was.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yes, he was.



What happened there?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> What happened there?


Hell if I know.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Did both get flipped, or just the one?


Yeah, so that IS how sophisticated your argument is?  

No, this is cool, though. If the GOP continues to misread the political environment this badly and thinks picking up to seats in the Senate given the most advantageous electoral map in like 30 years is some sort of a "win," then they're going to be in for a RUDE awakening in 2020. You can try to be entitled to your own facts all you want, but eventually the real world always intervenes.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Yeah, so that IS how sophisticated your argument is?
> 
> No, this is cool, though. If the GOP continues to misread the political environment this badly and thinks picking up to seats in the Senate given the most advantageous electoral map in like 30 years is some sort of a "win," then they're going to be in for a RUDE awakening in 2020. You can try to be entitled to your own facts all you want, but eventually the real world always intervenes.


>Expected flipping both the house and senate
>Only gets one
>Still a "blue wave"

Sure thing, Drew.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> >Expected Clinton to win by a landslide
> >Lost pathetically and wasn’t even humble enough to give concession speech
> >Blame Pootin
> 
> Sure thing, Dems.



FTFY


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> >*Expected flipping both the house and senate*
> >Only gets one
> >Still a "blue wave"
> 
> Sure thing, Drew.


The bolded part - that's where you're wrong. The House was _highly_ likely to flip, 538 estimated a 7-in-8 probability, median pickup of 39 seats for the Democrats. The Senate was a total longshot, though, 538 had it as a 1-in-5 probability the Dems flipped it, with the median outcome the GOP picking up another seat. The expectation coming into the election was a split chamber, the Dems taking the House comfortably but very unlikely to win the two seats they would need to take the Senate. This proved to be about right - the GOP managed to pick up two in the Senate, one more than forecast, but the Democrats ended up outperforming in the house, at current count at 40 seats, with a possibility of 41 as a Republican who won in NC has not yet been seated, as credible allegations of absentee ballot voter fraud (coupled with the state dissolving the electoral commission) have made things pretty messy.

I think part of this "it wasn't a blue wave" argument is from the simplistic "the Dems didn't win the Senate" argument you're making, but part of it too is as of the morning after the election, it looked like the Democrats had underperformed in the house, too - that morning, they had been declared winners in something like 30 races, well under projections and barely more than the 23 they needed to flip the house. Over the next week, the long list of "too close to call" races kept breaking in favor of the Democrats. I was a little dissapointed the morning of the 7th, too, but when the dust settled the Dems had actually done modestly _better_ than projected in the House. 

And, keep in mind, the projections above assumed a partisan environment about 8 percentage points more favorable than average to the Democrats, based on generic polling. That's pretty blue.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

GatherTheArsenal said:


> I seriously feel bad for the the employees affected by it who are living paycheck-to-paycheck.



I think that I highly doubt any employees of the federal government at the level where they're affected by the shutdown are living paycheck-to-paycheck. 
HIGHLY doubt. 

Shut the whole thing down, try for an extra month this time. Please. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Wasn't Trump supposed to lock her up?



He was _supposed _to. Kinda upset he that _didn't_. But you guys all know that already


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> FTFY


Now you're just trying to ruffle Drew's feathers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think that I highly doubt any employees of the federal government at the level where they're affected by the shutdown are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
> HIGHLY doubt.



Really?

Even TSA agents, Coast Guardsman and Park Rangers?

The TSA only make $25k to $44k.

Also many members of the USCG are stationed in expensive cities and depend on payments that offset that on top of thier salaries.

As for Rangers, most start at $15/hr, especially if they're not at the busier parks.

Not to mention contractors who mostly won't be getting back pay.

It's one thing to argue if the shutdown was worth it, another to deny that it caused undo harm to thousands of civil servants.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> The bolded part - that's where you're wrong. The House was _highly_ likely to flip, 538 estimated a 7-in-8 probability, median pickup of 39 seats for the Democrats. The Senate was a total longshot, though, 538 had it as a 1-in-5 probability the Dems flipped it, with the median outcome the GOP picking up another seat. The expectation coming into the election was a split chamber, the Dems ta... (shortened for ease of replying)


Only a Dem could spin a purple outcome as a victory and delivering on their promise of a blue wave.

In other news, how about that blackface/KKK senator's year book photo?


----------



## spudmunkey

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think that I highly doubt any employees of the federal government at the level where they're affected by the shutdown are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
> HIGHLY doubt.



I mean...I'm not sure what you mean. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.30b6c0fd05dc


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> In other news, how about that blackface/KKK senator's year book photo?



You mean the guy who voted for Bush2 Electric Boogaloo twice and was involved in a scandle where he was going to switch to Republican mid-term, but only backed out when word got out early?

Yeah, he's an asshole. 

Y'all acting like he's Bernie Sanders, the dude was a DINO/centrist politician from Virginia. I'm not all too surprised at any of this really.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> You mean the guy who voted for Bush2 Electric Boogaloo twice and was involved in a scandle where he was going to switch to Republican mid-term, but only backed out when word got out early?
> 
> Yeah, he's an asshole.
> 
> Y'all acting like he's Bernie Sanders, the dude was a DINO/centrist politician from Virginia. I'm not all too surprised at any of this really.


Senator, Maximillion. I made no reference to his political leanings. He needs kicked to the curb with Al Franken either way. I'm not acting like he's Bernie Sanders.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Senator, Maximillion. I made no reference to his political leanings. He needs kicked to the curb with Al Franken either way. I'm not acting like he's Bernie Sanders.



You mean _State_ Senator?

It's hard to keep track of all the scandals. It's almost like all old, rich politicians are racist.


----------



## thraxil

Spaced Out Ace said:


> He needs kicked to the curb with Al Franken either way.



Yes, he does.

Would you agree that any other politician, regardless of party, with any kind of racism or sexual assault in their history also should be kicked to the curb?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

thraxil said:


> Yes, he does.
> 
> Would you agree that any other politician, regardless of party, with any kind of racism or sexual assault in their history also should be kicked to the curb?


You can just say Trump if that's your angle, since it sure seems to be.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> You mean _State_ Senator?
> 
> It's hard to keep track of all the scandals. It's almost like all old, rich politicians are racist.


Like Byrd, for instance.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You can just say Trump if that's your angle, since it sure seems to be.



That doesn't answer the question.


----------



## thraxil

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You can just say Trump if that's your angle, since it sure seems to be.



I thought it was a pretty straightforward question.

FWIW, here is my post from 2017 when the Al Franken thing came up: Al Franken

I stand by that one and I feel the same about Northam.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Really?



Really. Comin' at you with that spicy anecdotal evidence: I was able to budget out 3 months of living expenses when I was making $11/hr.
I feel like a dick for being cold about it because for those people that are negatively impacted [which I never denied, all I said was that I'm skeptical they were in a paycheck to paycheck situation], I *do* feel bad, but you took a job where this was a predictable event and if you have poor financial planning skills on top of that, that's no one's fault but your own.

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the coast guard, but if they function anywhere near how every other per-diem provider does, that per-diem is WELL above the true cost of that location.
Park rangers start at $15? When my brother interviewed they were talking about $23 and that's just the number _they gave him_.
And if these $15/hr federal jobs are so rough, why not work somewhere else? The job market is incredible right now. If it's a bad job you shouldn't have an issue finding an equally bad or better job somewhere else where a complete and total shutdown is not a possibility.

And hey, maybe I'm out of touch, and maybe I'm flat out wrong about this and it's financially easier to live in California (??). I acknowledge this post is backed with
anecdotal evidence and I know that some people in some areas don't get to be choosy about where they work (although, I would assume these people likely wouldn't be working for the government, but I digress...), but I would aggressively challenge the notion that our government, the one that's *notorious *for overcompensating itself, has employees that are literally living paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

thraxil said:


> I thought it was a pretty straightforward question.
> 
> FWIW, here is my post from 2017 when the Al Franken thing came up: Al Franken
> 
> I stand by that one and I feel the same about Northam.


If it was straightforward you would've just named who you were referring to.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Really. Comin' at you with that spicy anecdotal evidence: I was able to budget out 3 months of living expenses when I was making $11/hr.
> I feel like a dick for being cold about it because for those people that are negatively impacted [which I never denied, all I said was that I'm skeptical they were in a paycheck to paycheck situation], I *do* feel bad, but you took a job where this was a predictable event and if you have poor financial planning skills on top of that, that's no one's fault but your own.
> 
> I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the coast guard, but if they function anywhere near how every other per-diem provider does, that per-diem is WELL above the true cost of that location.
> Park rangers start at $15? When my brother interviewed they were talking about $23 and that's just the number _they gave him_.
> And if these $15/hr federal jobs are so rough, why not work somewhere else? The job market is incredible right now. If it's a bad job you shouldn't have an issue finding an equally bad or better job somewhere else where a complete and total shutdown is not a possibility.
> 
> And hey, maybe I'm out of touch, and maybe I'm flat out wrong about this and it's financially easier to live in California (??). I acknowledge this post is backed with
> anecdotal evidence and I know that some people in some areas don't get to be choosy about where they work (although, I would assume these people likely wouldn't be working for the government, but I digress...), but I would aggressively challenge the notion that our government, the one that's *notorious *for overcompensating itself, has employees that are literally living paycheck to paycheck.



Over 550k government employees make under $24k a year. Is it so impossible to believe that due to life circumstances that anyone might be in a paycheck to paycheck situation?

I'm sure basic living expenses can be budgeted for, but if you have a major financial blow (car shits the bed, you break a leg, etc.) there's very, very little wiggle room to recover. 

This is a decent summary, but I recommend reading the sources: https://work.chron.com/average-salary-government-employees-7863.html


----------



## thraxil

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If it was straightforward you would've just named who you were referring to.



I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. I wanted to know if you agreed that *any* politician with a similar history deserves similar consequences and treatment? I would still like to know. Is this a consistent belief you hold (that Northam and Franken should be kicked to the curb for their past actions), or is it a belief you only hold when the offender is a Democrat?


----------



## Explorer

So, does the blackmail attempt on Bezos by AMI violate AMI's immunity agreement, wherein AMI agreed to not engage in any crimes subsequent to the agreement? If so, bad news for Trump crony David Pecker.


----------



## thraxil

Explorer said:


> So, does the blackmail attempt on Bezos by AMI violate AMI's immunity agreement, wherein AMI agreed to not engage in any crimes subsequent to the agreement? If so, bad news for Trump crony David Pecker.



I'm no fan of Bezos, but it looks like he's in a position now to destroy AMI. I'm thinking Hulk Hogan vs Gawker but with criminal charges added. In addition to the problems that they have with ongoing investigations and cooperation agreements, Bezos has the financial resources to make for a very painful civil suit. If they end up bankrupt, I wonder what happens to all the stories that they have bought up over the years for "catch and kill". Are those considered assets that they will have to sell off to pay their creditors?


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I would aggressively challenge the notion that our government, the one that's *notorious *for overcompensating itself, has employees that are literally living paycheck to paycheck.



I'd disagree. Keep in mind that those who are "notorious for overcompensating themselves" are those that are generally the "higher ups", not the every day workers.

Plus, are a lot of people don't have any savings to speak of. According to this CNBC article, 29% of Americans have no savings at all and this Motley Fool article states that 40% of Americans don't have the funds to cover a $400 emergency. If they can't cover a $400 emergency room visit/car repair/etc., they won't get very far during a government shutdown without risking eviction, foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc. (I understand that this is poor financial planning on their part, but many people are poor financial planners).

Furthermore, building the wall is not part of the current government budget as the wall has not been approved at this point, therefore there is no reason that the government should be shut down over the wall. The wall should be an entirely different discussion and budgetary process from the standard operating budget under current discussion. I understand that Trump is using this approach in order to attempt to force the wall into existence, but he had his shot last year when the democrats offered him funding for the wall in exchange for DACA protection and he and Kelley misplayed his hand; I don't think he'll get a legitimate second chance.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Over 550k government employees make under $24k a year. Is it so impossible to believe that due to life circumstances that anyone might be in a paycheck to paycheck situation?
> 
> I'm sure basic living expenses can be budgeted for, but if you have a major financial blow (car shits the bed, you break a leg, etc.) there's very, very little wiggle room to recover.
> 
> This is a decent summary, but I recommend reading the sources: https://work.chron.com/average-salary-government-employees-7863.html



Lets start with the fact that that 550k number included employees of *all* branches of government, not just Federal (which was on average the highest paid).


That Article said:


> The federal government, which included the U.S. Postal Service, showed the highest average compensation at $70,100, annually or $33.70 per hour, for its 2,710,740 workers



I understand that this figure is an average and that there must be numbers substantially below this figure, but the *average* is still $33.70. That is quite comfortable. More than I make, and I'm doing pretty alright for myself.
It's also worth noting that these figures seem to include part time positions as well, which would actually skew these numbers _lower_. I'm not sure about the federal level, but I know that an incredible amount of state and local positions tend to be part time and would assume that extends to fed.

Going deeper and sorting the Federal table, we can see the lowest entries, which are for Agricultural Graders and Sorters and Retail Workers, are at an average of $13.66 & $14.11. I don't know about you guys, but that certainly sounds noticeably higher than what the average wages for those positions usually are.

To clarify, I'm not arguing that nobody is hard up because of this. I'm sure there are some folks out there that are really hurting right now and that's unfortunate. But what I _am_ saying is that I strongly doubt this is as big of an issue as people are making it out to be, and that if you *are *one of those that got sucker-punched....maybe this is a wake-up call.



tedtan said:


> I'd disagree. *Keep in mind that those who are "notorious for overcompensating themselves" are those that are generally the "higher ups", not the every day workers.*
> 
> Plus, are a lot of people don't have any savings to speak of. According to this CNBC article, 29% of Americans have no savings at all and this Motley Fool article states that 40% of Americans don't have the funds to cover a $400 emergency. If they can't cover a $400 emergency room visit/car repair/etc., they won't get very far during a government shutdown without risking eviction, foreclosure, bankruptcy, etc. (I understand that this is poor financial planning on their part, but many people are poor financial planners).
> 
> Furthermore, building the wall is not part of the current government budget as the wall has not been approved at this point, therefore there is no reason that the government should be shut down over the wall. The wall should be an entirely different discussion and budgetary process from the standard operating budget under current discussion. I understand that Trump is using this approach in order to attempt to force the wall into existence, but he had his shot last year when the democrats offered him funding for the wall in exchange for DACA protection and he and Kelley misplayed his hand; I don't think he'll get a legitimate second chance.



I would disagree with the bolded assertion. Government benefits and average compensation are wildly above what you would normally find for similar work in the private sector on average UP UNTIL you get to the higher-ups. A secretary for my local DWR office can make almost $30 an hour with a FULL benefit package and an early retirement. My father worked with a guy in the BAR that had 4 *years *of vacation time banked up. That is a *heavy *6 figure check whenever he decides to cash out. The government looks after their own.

Your second paragraph I will concede though; but I've seen those numbers before. You said it yourself, many people are poor financial planners and if you're in a tough situation due to poor financial management, especially for something as foreseeable as a government shutdown, my sympathy can only go so far before the devil on my shoulder starts saying "Well, maybe you should have just worked at Target." This partly extends to my reply to Max and his comment on how it's difficult to account for major hits because "life happens," because it does (and it is). But on the same token, there are certain things that you can kind of see coming. A government shutdown is one of those things. I understand that nobody can predict how long it'll take, but you can at least foresee that _at least it's coming_. And as such, if you're living off of the skin of your teeth, struggling to keep up and just cannot find the money to put away for an event like that....maybe you should switch to a job where that isn't a possibility. Because the positions that pay low enough to where this isn't possible are also going to be the positions that are easily changed out.

I didn't bring up the wall. I'm not terribly invested in it, but I do know that the budget that Trump is requesting is an overall drop in the bucket. I disagree with the idea of pushing the shutdown in a faux-tantrum to try and get what you want, but on the other hand, nobody wants to play ball with him. I agree that he misplayed last year and I think he's panicking. None of this is affecting my opinion on the shutdown, however.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We've gone from "highly doubting" to being "sure". 

I'll take it. 

Re:Wall
It's hard to play ball with someone who isn't negotiating in good faith. As of yet the Trump administration hasn't offered anything worth both $5.7B or the political fallout from capitulating. We've just gotten more threats, being dismissive at meetings and short term fixes for issues caused by the White House.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> We've gone from "highly doubting" to being "sure".
> 
> I'll take it.
> 
> Re:Wall
> It's hard to play ball with someone who isn't negotiating in good faith. As of yet the Trump administration hasn't offered anything worth both $5.7B or the political fallout from capitulating. We've just gotten more threats, being dismissive at meetings and short term fixes for issues caused by the White House.



Yeah, hyperbole and such. Come on Max; you know I wouldn't be that confident that NO ONE AT ALL was getting roped here. 

On the wall, yeah; all totally fair points. The argument is there for long-term cost reduction given how much illegal immigration costs the american taxpayer year on year, but I don't see it being levied in the way that I would expect it to. The whole thing is just not being handled gracefully at all...by anybody...lol. I want to support Trump and I like his enthusiasm, but the complete lack of finesse makes it really difficult to look at how he handles himself and think "Yeah, that's productive."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, words and such. Come on Max; you know I wouldn't be that confident that NO ONE AT ALL was getting roped here.
> 
> On the wall, yeah; all totally fair points. The argument is there for long-term cost reduction given how much illegal immigration costs the american taxpayer year on year, but I don't see it being levied in the way that I would expect it to. The whole thing is just not being handled gracefully at all...by anybody...lol. I want to support Trump and I like his enthusiasm, but the complete lack of finesse makes it really difficult to look at how he handles himself and think "Yeah, that's productive."



I just don't see the wall as being effective, even if I agreed that illegal immigrants themselves, and not our terrible system, costs us money. 

If the goal was to reduce illegal immigration, shouldn't we roll back intervention south of the border and create better paths to citizenship, not to mention prosecute employers of illegal immigrant labor.


----------



## bostjan

If you are conservative, you likely don't trust the federal government to be able to do much of anything right, so why do you think that they'd be able to build an effective wall?!

And then...

Who wants to spend many billions of tax dollars on the Trump wall? Trump says the people wanted it, but he didn't win by popular vote, and those who did vote for him were explicitly promised that the wall would cost them nothing... so... hmm.

I think something like 2/3 of US people don't even want the wall. This isn't populist agenda, but it's being framed that way.


----------



## sezna

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't see the wall as being effective, even if I agreed that illegal immigrants themselves, and not our terrible system, costs us money.
> 
> If the goal was to reduce illegal immigration, shouldn't we roll back intervention south of the border and create better paths to citizenship, not to mention prosecute employers of illegal immigrant labor.


I don’t think those approaches are flashy or immediately tangible enough to get the relatively uneducated (on this topic) public on their side. They lack the instant gratification that we so crave. ‘Tis a sad reality.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> If you are conservative, you likely don't trust the federal government to be able to do much of anything right, so why do you think that they'd be able to build an effective wall?!
> 
> And then...
> 
> Who wants to spend many billions of tax dollars on the Trump wall? Trump says the people wanted it, but he didn't win by popular vote, and those who did vote for him were explicitly promised that the wall would cost them nothing... so... hmm.
> 
> I think something like 2/3 of US people don't even want the wall. This isn't populist agenda, but it's being framed that way.



Which brings up a very important point: it's not that Democrats in the House are blocking the wall to be dicks, they're representing the wishes of thier constituents.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't see the wall as being effective, even if I agreed that illegal immigrants themselves, and not our terrible system, costs us money.
> 
> If the goal was to reduce illegal immigration, shouldn't we roll back intervention south of the border and create better paths to citizenship, not to mention prosecute employers of illegal immigrant labor.



There's a valid argument that there are other, potentially more (cost) effective methods, for sure. I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth it, either. 



bostjan said:


> If you are conservative, you likely don't trust the federal government to be able to do much of anything right, so why do you think that they'd be able to build an effective wall?!



True on all fronts 



> Who wants to spend many billions of tax dollars on the Trump wall? Trump says the people wanted it, but he didn't win by popular vote, and those who did vote for him were explicitly promised that the wall would cost them nothing... so... hmm.
> 
> I think something like 2/3 of US people don't even want the wall. This isn't populist agenda, but it's being framed that way.



I don't know about the majority of the american public, but I know Border Patrol is strongly in favor of a physical wall at least; as well as a large number of residents at border towns. 
Not an argument one way or another. Just something to think on.


----------



## jaxadam

Just keeps getting worse and worse...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/dems-justin-fairfax-resign/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/us/politics/tyson-fairfax-sexual-assault.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-lt-gov-justin-fairfax-accused-of-second-sexual-assault


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Just keeps getting worse and worse...
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/08/politics/dems-justin-fairfax-resign/index.html
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/us/politics/tyson-fairfax-sexual-assault.html
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/virginia-lt-gov-justin-fairfax-accused-of-second-sexual-assault



Jeez. At this point we're going to be down to the janitor on this one. I wonder who's 2847th in line. Does the Dog Catcher come before the head Meter Maid or is it the guy who orders office supplies?


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> Jeez. At this point we're going to be down to the janitor on this one. I wonder who's 2847th in line. Does the Dog Catcher come before the head Meter Maid or is it the guy who orders office supplies?



I don't know... maybe his campaign manager, or lawyer ("fixer"), or maybe even just an adviser. Shit, nevermind, I'm thinking of someone else!


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I would disagree with the bolded assertion. Government benefits and average compensation are wildly above what you would normally find for similar work in the private sector on average UP UNTIL you get to the higher-ups. A secretary for my local DWR office can make almost $30 an hour with a FULL benefit package and an early retirement. My father worked with a guy in the BAR that had 4 *years *of vacation time banked up. That is a *heavy *6 figure check whenever he decides to cash out. The government looks after their own.



I have a hard time believing that the people you mentioned are representative of all US federal government employees, but then I haven't done much research into it, so maybe I'm overlooking something.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> Your second paragraph I will concede though; but I've seen those numbers before. You said it yourself, many people are poor financial planners and if you're in a tough situation due to poor financial management, especially for something as foreseeable as a government shutdown, my sympathy can only go so far before the devil on my shoulder starts saying "Well, maybe you should have just worked at Target." This partly extends to my reply to Max and his comment on how it's difficult to account for major hits because "life happens," because it does (and it is). But on the same token, there are certain things that you can kind of see coming. A government shutdown is one of those things. I understand that nobody can predict how long it'll take, but you can at least foresee that _at least it's coming_. And as such, if you're living off of the skin of your teeth, struggling to keep up and just cannot find the money to put away for an event like that....maybe you should switch to a job where that isn't a possibility. Because the positions that pay low enough to where this isn't possible are also going to be the positions that are easily changed out.



First, is there a legitimate reason that the government functions should shut down like this? Allowing this to happen at all is childish on the part of our elected officials. In fact, if there is no approved budget by the deadline, the budget should immediately default to what it was in the prior period IMO. This would help force a realistic compromise rather than allowing this childish shutdown BS.

Second, as a civilized society we have a responsibility to protect people from themselves to some extent. For example, a mentally ill person intent on harming himself should be held for treatment rather than allowed to harm himself. Should this extend to those who are poor financial planners, too? (I'm not saying that it should, necessarily, but it is worth considering).




Ordacleaphobia said:


> I didn't bring up the wall. I'm not terribly invested in it, but I do know that the budget that Trump is requesting is an overall drop in the bucket. I disagree with the idea of pushing the shutdown in a faux-tantrum to try and get what you want, but on the other hand, nobody wants to play ball with him. I agree that he misplayed last year and I think he's panicking. None of this is affecting my opinion on the shutdown, however.



I didn't mean to imply that you brought it up, I commented as it was relevant to the shutdown.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Only a Dem could spin a purple outcome as a victory and delivering on their promise of a blue wave.
> 
> In other news, how about that blackface/KKK senator's year book photo?


And only a conservative could conveniently forget the outcome went almost exactly as was predicted, and was consistent with the belief that the Dems had about a 7-8 point advantage over a "neutral" partisan environment. 

Northam? I'll be willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but my prior here is he should go, of course. And he's probably in good company, among both Democrats AND Republicans in Virginia. It'll be an ugly reckoning, but let's rip off the bandaid. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think that I highly doubt any employees of the federal government at the level where they're affected by the shutdown are living paycheck-to-paycheck.
> HIGHLY doubt.


What makes you think the only people impacted by the shutdown were ultra-high-level highly paid federal employees? Hell, the people really getting fucked here are contractors - the rank and file employees who either stayed home without pay or were made to work without pay at least got back pay when this was all said and done - it was the contractors, some of whom continued to have to work during the shutdown, who were not guaranteed back pay when the government reopened. The Dems tried to pass a bill fixing that, but the GOP blocked it.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Drew said:


> And only a conservative could conveniently forget the outcome went almost exactly as was predicted, and was consistent with the belief that the Dems had about a 7-8 point advantage over a "neutral" partisan environment.
> 
> Northam? I'll be willing to hear arguments to the contrary, but my prior here is he should go, of course. And he's probably in good company, among both Democrats AND Republicans in Virginia. It'll be an ugly reckoning, but let's rip off the bandaid.
> 
> 
> What makes you think the only people impacted by the shutdown were ultra-high-level highly paid federal employees? Hell, the people really getting fucked here are contractors - the rank and file employees who either stayed home without pay or were made to work without pay at least got back pay when this was all said and done - it was the contractors, some of whom continued to have to work during the shutdown, who were not guaranteed back pay when the government reopened. The Dems tried to pass a bill fixing that, but the GOP blocked it.


I have a friend, whose husband is in this very boat. Needless to say, a pretty shitty thing to do. It's disgusting what is going on, they might have to take out loans to cover it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> I have a hard time believing that the people you mentioned are representative of all US federal government employees, but then I haven't done much research into it, so maybe I'm overlooking something.



Totally, I'm not pretending they were. Just a couple of offhand examples.
But coupled with what I've seen from their hiring process and public record, I firmly believe federal employees are -in general- well compensated.


> First, is there a legitimate reason that the government functions should shut down like this? Allowing this to happen at all is childish on the part of our elected officials. In fact, if there is no approved budget by the deadline, the budget should immediately default to what it was in the prior period IMO. This would help force a realistic compromise rather than allowing this childish shutdown BS.
> 
> Second, as a civilized society we have a responsibility to protect people from themselves to some extent. For example, a mentally ill person intent on harming himself should be held for treatment rather than allowed to harm himself. Should this extend to those who are poor financial planners, too? (I'm not saying that it should, necessarily, but it is worth considering).
> 
> I didn't mean to imply that you brought it up, I commented as it was relevant to the shutdown.



Fair enough, but I don't believe the 'validity' of the shutdown plays any role in whether or not it's a foreseeable event. They seem to happen pretty regularly; to the point where if I worked for the fed, yes, I absolutely would account for it.

As for protecting people from themselves in this context, I'm conflicted. On one hand, nobody wants anyone to live in poverty and I am no exception. However, finances make things sticky. Especially for stuff like this, the only way to really 'help' that type of person is to give them the tools to help themselves and hope that they have the willpower to do so. With that in mind, I think our system is already set up this way more or less, no? Yes, I understand most of our big social programs are designed around _already_ being broke, but you can't expect to be able to protect someone from simply being irresponsible. To quote Ron White, "you can't fix stupid." If you're the type to throw your rent money away on night out, I don't think anyone can save you but yourself.



Drew said:


> What makes you think the only people impacted by the shutdown were ultra-high-level highly paid federal employees? Hell, the people really getting fucked here are contractors - the rank and file employees who either stayed home without pay or were made to work without pay at least got back pay when this was all said and done - it was the contractors, some of whom continued to have to work during the shutdown, who were not guaranteed back pay when the government reopened. The Dems tried to pass a bill fixing that, but the GOP blocked it.



I will acknowledge that I don't know _exactly_ how this plays out with contractors. Most of the government contractors I've worked with are functioning at the state level, so I'm admittedly pretty clueless on federal jobs and I'll wholly concede that it's entirely possible they're just flat out getting fucked.

Although, with that in mind, those guys typically make $50+ per hour from what I've seen at the state level so I doubt things are SUPER DIRE; but again, I'm not familiar with federal contracting so I'm totally open to getting BTFO on that one.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I will acknowledge that I don't know _exactly_ how this plays out with contractors. Most of the government contractors I've worked with are functioning at the state level, so I'm admittedly pretty clueless on federal jobs and I'll wholly concede that it's entirely possible they're just flat out getting fucked.
> 
> Although, with that in mind, those guys typically make $50+ per hour from what I've seen at the state level so I doubt things are SUPER DIRE; but again, I'm not familiar with federal contracting so I'm totally open to getting BTFO on that one.



Well, there are two rough buckets of people here - 

1) contractors who work directly for the government on an hourly basis. Many of them I believe were just told not to come to work during the shutdown. they received no pay and no back pay. 

2) Contractors who worked for the federal government on a salaried/project basis. I have a buddy in this boat and thankfully the worst was averted - because his project was funded through January at the start of the shutdown, he continued to work... But, had the shutdown extended into February, he would have had to keep going to work, but would not have been paid and would not have received back pay for this work. Which would have been financially tough, since he was the primary earner in his household and in short order his hot water heater and HVAC system had gone out, the former flooding his basement and requiring significant repairs.

Also, that second scenario kind of points to the issue with your second paragraph - I won't get into specifics with my salary, but ballparking it let's say I make about 6x what I did when I first started working in Boston, and 4x what I did when I first moved to my current city. Does that mean I could work without pay for several weeks to a month or two without ill effect? Today, yeah, I probably could, but I've been super diligent about saving. Even as recently as two years ago, though, I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck, exactly, but yeah, it'd have been pretty dire. The reason? Your fixed expenses tend to scale with your income. 10 years ago I was living in a house with three other roommates, splinting utilities four ways. Today I own a condo I pay a mortgage on that even with refinancing my way out of PMI at a really favorable rate I'm paying more than 3x as much to live in as I did my old apartment. While a lot of expenses I could scale back pretty quickly - stop drinking, eating mostly $0.10 ramen packages for meals, cancel my internet service, etc, things like the amount of housing you consume on a monthly basis are things you really can't adjust on the fly. At the present I could comfortably go a couple months without working, two years ago I could have gone a couple weeks without major effect... And six years ago, the year after I bought my place, I honestly don't know what I would have done without income. And that's with still driving the Toyota Camry I bought new maybe....14 years ago? 

Idunno. A high nominal salary alone doesn't necessarily mean anything because most people, as soon as they can, stop making the sacrificies around housing they make when they're younger, and, well, housing in the DC area isn't exactly cheap.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Well, there are two rough buckets of people here -
> 
> 1) contractors who work directly for the government on an hourly basis. Many of them I believe were just told not to come to work during the shutdown. they received no pay and no back pay.
> 
> 2) Contractors who worked for the federal government on a salaried/project basis. I have a buddy in this boat and thankfully the worst was averted - because his project was funded through January at the start of the shutdown, he continued to work... But, had the shutdown extended into February, he would have had to keep going to work, but would not have been paid and would not have received back pay for this work. Which would have been financially tough, since he was the primary earner in his household and in short order his hot water heater and HVAC system had gone out, the former flooding his basement and requiring significant repairs.
> 
> Also, that second scenario kind of points to the issue with your second paragraph - I won't get into specifics with my salary, but ballparking it let's say I make about 6x what I did when I first started working in Boston, and 4x what I did when I first moved to my current city. Does that mean I could work without pay for several weeks to a month or two without ill effect? Today, yeah, I probably could, but I've been super diligent about saving. Even as recently as two years ago, though, I wasn't living paycheck to paycheck, exactly, but yeah, it'd have been pretty dire. The reason? Your fixed expenses tend to scale with your income. 10 years ago I was living in a house with three other roommates, splinting utilities four ways. Today I own a condo I pay a mortgage on that even with refinancing my way out of PMI at a really favorable rate I'm paying more than 3x as much to live in as I did my old apartment. While a lot of expenses I could scale back pretty quickly - stop drinking, eating mostly $0.10 ramen packages for meals, cancel my internet service, etc, things like the amount of housing you consume on a monthly basis are things you really can't adjust on the fly. At the present I could comfortably go a couple months without working, two years ago I could have gone a couple weeks without major effect... And six years ago, the year after I bought my place, I honestly don't know what I would have done without income. And that's with still driving the Toyota Camry I bought new maybe....14 years ago?
> 
> Idunno. A high nominal salary alone doesn't necessarily mean anything because most people, as soon as they can, stop making the sacrificies around housing they make when they're younger, and, well, housing in the DC area isn't exactly cheap.



Yeah I'm sure DC is pretty gnarly; not something I have much experience with either since I've never been.
I'm aware that a salary is a fixed figure who's true value will fluctuate depending on area; my assumption with that last statement was that since the pay is comparatively high here in this area, I would assume that similar projects would dictate a similar rate of pay elsewhere as well, since the whole point of prevailing wage is to guarantee a fair, market-value wage. Totally an assumption and not intended to be interpreted as anything other than a lightly educated guess.

I also totally get your point on how people tend to stop making compromises on certain areas when they start to scale their income up, but my point is that maybe they shouldn't. 
For example, when I bought my house, I could have afforded to get a place that would have costed me an extra couple hundred a month. It would have been easy to push myself in that direction, and honestly, I wouldn't have even come close to missing a payment to date if I had done so. But I didn't, because that extra couple hundred a month would have tightened things up a bit to where if I were to suddenly lose my job or my car to any crazy circumstance out there, it would be really difficult to stop the hemorrhaging in a reasonable manner. I'm sure you made a similar decision on your condo. In this situation, I don't think we "compromised" in choosing where we live; both dwellings were more than adequate and I'm quite happy with my house. We just didn't overextend. I'm not talking about scaling down spending, I'm talking about budgeting costs (and probably a little bit of scaling down spending too, who am I kidding). 

If you place yourself in a position where your budget is too tight to save (or you just don't save) and your expenses are high enough to where it would be tough to meet your budget should you be in a situation where you're forced to take a pay cut / different job / etc; you made a bad call somewhere imo.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Fair enough, but I don't believe the 'validity' of the shutdown plays any role in whether or not it's a foreseeable event. They seem to happen pretty regularly; to the point where if I worked for the fed, yes, I absolutely would account for it.



I agree that this is something that people working for the government should take into account.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> As for protecting people from themselves in this context, I'm conflicted. On one hand, nobody wants anyone to live in poverty and I am no exception. However, finances make things sticky. Especially for stuff like this, the only way to really 'help' that type of person is to give them the tools to help themselves and hope that they have the willpower to do so. With that in mind, I think our system is already set up this way more or less, no? Yes, I understand most of our big social programs are designed around _already_ being broke, but you can't expect to be able to protect someone from simply being irresponsible. To quote Ron White, "you can't fix stupid." If you're the type to throw your rent money away on night out, I don't think anyone can save you but yourself.



Yeah, it ultimately comes down to the individual to help themselves (or at least stop hurting themselves), but I do make a distinction between a government agency and a private employer in this regard.

Whereas a private employer is subject to the profit motives of its owners and general market forces, the government agency rightly has no profit motives and is not subject to competition or other market forces. It is funded by taxpayers and ultimately exists to serve those same taxpayers. Setting aside the fact that shutting down the government fails to serve the taxpayers on the whole, I suggest that the government has a greater responsibility to look after its employees, including in cases that affect their income for extended periods of time, than does a private company because it exists for different purposes than the private company.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> Yeah, it ultimately comes down to the individual to help themselves (or at least stop hurting themselves), but I do make a distinction between a government agency and a private employer in this regard.
> 
> Whereas a private employer is subject to the profit motives of its owners and general market forces, the government agency rightly has no profit motives and is not subject to competition or other market forces. It is funded by taxpayers and ultimately exists to serve those same taxpayers. Setting aside the fact that shutting down the government fails to serve the taxpayers on the whole, I suggest that the government has a greater responsibility to look after its employees, including in cases that affect their income for extended periods of time, than does a private company because it exists for different purposes than the private company.



I see. Sounds like we're circling back to the "should a shutdown even be an option" point, which I had deliberately not responded to because I don't have an answer 
I don't know, man. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to put it into practice.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I don't know, man. I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure how to put it into practice.



Yeah, the concepts are easy. It's the implementation of the concept in such a way that it works in the real world that's a bitch.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I also totally get your point on how people tend to stop making compromises on certain areas when they start to scale their income up, but my point is that maybe they shouldn't.
> For example, when I bought my house, I could have afforded to get a place that would have costed me an extra couple hundred a month. It would have been easy to push myself in that direction, and honestly, I wouldn't have even come close to missing a payment to date if I had done so.



Ok, I'll give you some hard numbers, then, since I suspect the markets are VERY different where I am than where you are. When I bought my place, I was spending $800 a month to rent one bedroom in a four bed apartment. I forgot exactly what my mortgage was when I first closed, back when it still included PMI, but I think it was more than triple that. And while that wasn't QUITE at the bottom of where condos in that area started, it wasn't far off - given how tight the market was, I'm not sure I COULD have found something "a couple hundred cheaper." I knew I was running a risk and if I lost my job or got fired I'd likely be screwed, but at the same time it was cheaper for me to buy this place than it would have been to rent a comparable 1BR or 2BR (mine's technically 2, though it would be a tight fit) so it was a matter of either renting a place with at least one othjer roommate, which at 31 or 32 I was reluctant to do, or rolling the dice and buying a place, during a period of generationaly low interest rates. Today my place is worth more than 50% more than it was when I bought it, so I cleaned up and my net worth is significantly higher than it would have been had I not bought the place I did. 

But, overarching point, is that there really isn't a middle ground between "ok place with roommate(s)" and "literally any condo at all you can afford" in the area I live, and that's a pretty massive escalation of your monthly spend on housing. And, while I question the logic, home ownership is something we as a society push very hard as an "investment," and certainly it's one that paid off royally for me, both in quality of life and in economic terms. Considering the huge donut hole between renting and even a cheap condo, telling someone not to do it because they should be more "cautious" is sort of short-sighted, I'd say. 

So, my experience (which is hardly unique) has been that as your income increases, even if we assume a prudent individual who spends responsibly (which for the vast majority of the time I am, and if we're going to be ultra-critical here the big outlay we're talking about is one that most Americans would call "the best investment you could ever make," by conventional wisdom), your expenses tend to increase as well, not linearly, but in distinct breakpoints, as you do things like going from renting to owning, or deciding you're well enough off to afford having a child, etc. So, when you point to a nominal salary of $50/hr as "that person is well enough off that they can afford to not get paid for a few weeks, as long as they're responsible with money," then the reality is that's not necessarily the case, and it depends on a lot of local factors, where they are in their lives (home owners? Children?), and pure dumb luck (like my buddy who was at risk of missing paychecks at a time when he was looking at 5-6 figure home repair bills due to flooding and a blown heater). 

Idunno man. This is a very roundabout and tangential discussion, sure, but the gist is there are PLENTY of good, valid, and responsible reasons why even a prudent adult making what seems like a lot of money could struggle if they missed a couple paychecks.


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Ok, I'll give you some hard numbers, then, since I suspect the markets are VERY different where I am than where you are. When I bought my place, I was spending $800 a month to rent one bedroom in a four bed apartment. I forgot exactly what my mortgage was when I first closed, back when it still included PMI, but I think it was more than triple that. And while that wasn't QUITE at the bottom of where condos in that area started, it wasn't far off - given how tight the market was, I'm not sure I COULD have found something "a couple hundred cheaper." I knew I was running a risk and if I lost my job or got fired I'd likely be screwed, but at the same time it was cheaper for me to buy this place than it would have been to rent a comparable 1BR or 2BR (mine's technically 2, though it would be a tight fit) so it was a matter of either renting a place with at least one othjer roommate, which at 31 or 32 I was reluctant to do, or rolling the dice and buying a place, during a period of generationaly low interest rates. Today my place is worth more than 50% more than it was when I bought it, so I cleaned up and my net worth is significantly higher than it would have been had I not bought the place I did.
> 
> But, overarching point, is that there really isn't a middle ground between "ok place with roommate(s)" and "literally any condo at all you can afford" in the area I live, and that's a pretty massive escalation of your monthly spend on housing. And, while I question the logic, home ownership is something we as a society push very hard as an "investment," and certainly it's one that paid off royally for me, both in quality of life and in economic terms. Considering the huge donut hole between renting and even a cheap condo, telling someone not to do it because they should be more "cautious" is sort of short-sighted, I'd say.
> 
> So, my experience (which is hardly unique) has been that as your income increases, even if we assume a prudent individual who spends responsibly (which for the vast majority of the time I am, and if we're going to be ultra-critical here the big outlay we're talking about is one that most Americans would call "the best investment you could ever make," by conventional wisdom), your expenses tend to increase as well, not linearly, but in distinct breakpoints, as you do things like going from renting to owning, or deciding you're well enough off to afford having a child, etc. So, when you point to a nominal salary of $50/hr as "that person is well enough off that they can afford to not get paid for a few weeks, as long as they're responsible with money," then the reality is that's not necessarily the case, and it depends on a lot of local factors, where they are in their lives (home owners? Children?), and pure dumb luck (like my buddy who was at risk of missing paychecks at a time when he was looking at 5-6 figure home repair bills due to flooding and a blown heater).
> 
> Idunno man. This is a very roundabout and tangential discussion, sure, but the gist is there are PLENTY of good, valid, and responsible reasons why even a prudent adult making what seems like a lot of money could struggle if they missed a couple paychecks.



And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!


Oh, here, that's "shoveling." I'd love to say it was something more than that, but nope. Just snow removal.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> And then throw in lawn service, car detailing, house cleaning, and pool service and that’s an extra $800 a month!



Only if you're hiring people who are legal and pay taxes.


----------



## jaxadam

tedtan said:


> Only if you're hiring people who are legal and pay taxes.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ANtWYcPuXS-6vQUr-DK0rBw
Welp, Manafort is fucked.


----------



## Drew

yup.


----------



## Ralyks

Oh, and the National Emergency is happening. I'm expecting lawsuits right about..... 10 minutes ago.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Oh, and the National Emergency is happening. I'm expecting lawsuits right about..... 10 minutes ago.



This is probably the best net outcome. 

Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare. 

It also completely relieves the Dems of responsibility. They stood strong, they compromised a little in good faith, and POTUS went and had a tantrum. They come out looking pretty good in all this, all things considered.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/ANtWYcPuXS-6vQUr-DK0rBw
> Welp, Manafort is fucked.


Manafukt*


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is probably the best net outcome.
> 
> Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare.
> 
> It also completely relieves the Dems of responsibility. They stood strong, they compromised a little in good faith, and POTUS went and had a tantrum. They come out looking pretty good in all this, all things considered.


Lame. I wanted to see more Govt Shutdown induced chaos. You know, shit melting down, the country coming to an end, etc. I know it's schadenfreude, but I'm an entropy fan, and I love watching things go to shit. Why you might ask? Because society and civilization are forced ideas (as in something that took a lot of effort for nothing, rather than something that happened naturally) and everyone's fake bullshit will go away quite quickly when Rome burns to the ground. Or in this case, western civilization. Both sides want to watch it go to shit; they just want to control and have say over how and why it does.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Lame. I wanted to see more Govt Shutdown induced chaos. You know, shit melting down, the country coming to an end, etc. I know it's schadenfreude, but I'm an entropy fan, and I love watching things go to shit. Why you might ask? Because society and civilization are forced ideas (as in something that took a lot of effort for nothing, rather than something that happened naturally) and everyone's fake bullshit will go away quite quickly when Rome burns to the ground. Or in this case, western civilization. Both sides want to watch it go to shit; they just want to control and have say over how and why it does.



What is your position in life where this is an option? 

I know you've mentioned being in school. I known college wasn't all keggers and panty raids when I went, but it gets better dude. Promise. 

Millennials are such a bummer.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> What is your position in life where this is an option?
> 
> I know you've mentioned being in school. I known college wasn't all keggers and panty raids when I went, but it gets better dude. Promise.
> 
> Millennials are such a bummer.


Millennials? I realized my love of watching shit devolve into whatever the fuck each succeeding year being worse and worse from an old hippie comedian who is dead. And I'm rather content and happy; I just enjoy seeing everyone's idiotic "problems" made to look foolish by real life issues spinning out of control and crashing into shit like a 500 ft Tasmanian Devil.

I know we like to pretend we've "advanced so far" and we've "got it so much better," but we truly do not.


----------



## Explorer

I've been a little busy in real life, but something I've noticed recently in right-wing commentary is a marked hoatility towards actual workers. @Ordacleaphobia is merely continuing a trend which we've seen from the Republicans from the top on down, including the hostility towards companies hurt by Trump's tariffs like Harley Davidson.

I've asked my more conservative, blue-collar friends about this hostility, and further discussion has led to a surprising number of them renouncing the current Republican party.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Explorer said:


> I've been a little busy in real life, but something I've noticed recently in right-wing commentary is a marked hoatility towards actual workers. @Ordacleaphobia is merely continuing a trend which we've seen from the Republicans from the top on down, including the hostility towards companies hurt by Trump's tariffs like Harley Davidson.
> 
> I've asked my more conservative, blue-collar friends about this hostility, and further discussion has led to a surprising number of them renouncing the current Republican party.



It's just a continuation of the old "bootstraps" drum they've been beating for decades. 

"Anyone not as successful as me is obviously doing something wrong." 

Similar to the old "When I use the system, it's being cunning, when you use the system, it's thievery."

The overarching message is the same: "fuck you, I got mine".


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is probably the best net outcome.
> 
> Even if the wall gets built, it sets a precedent for the POTUS to declare actual things "emergencies" like gun violence and healthcare



I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.

Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.
> 
> Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.



It was probably his best option, aside from relying on the Dems to crumble, which I'm personally shocked they didn't.

Now he can say he tried, except those stupid courts, and he did still get over a billion of our dollars.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I brought up this exact thought on a friend's FB post about it, and that the Republicans we know should HATE that Trump went the route he did.
> 
> Also, this thing will get so tied up in legal limbo, I doubt it even gets built, or at least how Trump wants it.


TBH, that's not a bad outcome for Trump. 

This gets hung up in the courts and even if the Supreme Court takes this up on an expedited basis it's unlikely to get settled before 2020, the whole while Trump gets to claim to his supporters that he did everything he could to get it built, but "Democrats, RINOs, and liberal activist judges" are blocking him at every step, and that's why he's the only one who can solve our problems, etc etc etc. 

Honestly, it's probably the best for all parties involved in the GOP if this DOES get overturned by the courts, because that stops a useless boondoggle costing tens of billions of dollars, preserves cheap below-minimum-wage seasonal labor for agriculture and services, and robs Democrats of the precedent to immediately declare a national emergency the next time there's a school shooting. Or, rather, robs them of the precedent to do it the next time there's a Democrat in the White House, I think thanks to Trump that precedent is absolutely in play _immediately_ after something like another Vegas Harvest Festival or Pulse shooting, since he's definitely moved the goalposts on what constitutes an "emergency" vs "not letting a good crisis go to waste," and if I were a betting man this will get overturned on the grounds that nothing fundamental changed between his taking office in 2016, having Republican majorities for two years, losing that majority, and weathering a protracted government shutdown because the Democrats wouldn't approve border wall funding in a spending goal, so the nature of this "emergency" is entirely political and based on Trump's inability to otherwise deliver on a core campaign promise, and not some new and grave threat suddenly facing the nation. I'd expect a limited turnover, not placing much restriction on executive power, but pointing to the clear evidence that this is politically driven.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's just a continuation of the old "bootstraps" drum they've been beating for decades.
> 
> "Anyone not as successful as me is obviously doing something wrong."
> 
> Similar to the old "When I use the system, it's being cunning, when you use the system, it's thievery."
> 
> The overarching message is the same: "fuck you, I got mine".



lol, most of these people are more successful than I am. Try again.


----------



## vilk

What?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> lol, most of these people are more successful than I am. Try again.



I never said anything about you, just commenting on the overall mantra of the Republican party and base over the last three decades.

Also, at the $30/hr you said you make you are above the national average of just over $23/hr as well as above the median of ~$28/hr.

Relating specifically to federal employees you make more than about 70% of federal government employees. The mode of federal employees (29%) make just above $24/hr.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It was probably his best option, aside from relying on the Dems to crumble, which I'm personally shocked they didn't.


I think Trump fully expected them to. And I think anyone who was paying attention knew this was going to be a mistake - the Dems grew a backbone in a BIG way after 2016. There wasn't much they could execute on while a minority, but from the very start it was pretty notable that they almost successfully blocked a number of cabinet nominees (including DeVos, who was confirmed with Pence as the tiebreaking vote, which is a first), and during the ACA debate they managed to maintain party unity, which while McCain, Murkowski, and Collins were critical in voting it down, none of that would have mattered had the usual couple Dems broke ranks. And then a lot of the Washington community was shocked when the Dems DID shut down the government over DACA, which is a level of extremism that's generally been the domain of the anti-government GOP, even if it was a pretty short one. 

So, when the government shut down right before the new Congress came in, and right after Trump said he'd be "proud" to own the shut down... And with Pelosi confirmed over some internal contention and needing to prove she was a leader in tune with where the party is today... And with Trump's well known history in the private sector of using bully tactics to negotiate, and with the Dems NEEDING to set the precedent that they couldn't be counted on to roll over or break ranks whenever Trump picked a fight... 

...I mean, if you look at it, it's pretty clear that the shutdown was a make-or-break moment for the Democratic Party, and that if Pelosi couldn't make the Dems a legitimate resistance party capable of standing up to Trump, she was toast. Even before we start factoring in some of Trump's self-inflicted injuries, the Dems were in a position where they weren't likely to make many major concessions without getting some major concessions in return.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I never said anything about you, just commenting on the overall mantra of the Republican party and base over the last three decades.
> 
> Also, at the $30/hr you said you make you are above the national average of just over $23/hr as well as above the median of ~$28/hr.
> 
> Relating specifically to federal employees you make more than about 70% of federal government employees. The mode of federal employees (29%) make just above $24/hr.



Never said I make $30/hr.
My monthly salary is less than the rough numbers Drew provided for his early mortgage figures.

I had assumed you were including me in your response because you were replying to Explorer who referenced me specifically, in a comment that was also off base. I primarily work with blue collar workers who are overwhelmingly great people. Ironically, the most irritating people I deal with are other office workers. 

And yes, on average, they make more than I do. I do their payroll. I know. They deserve it too because they're doing backbreaking work that's going to be an absolute bitch by the time they're pushing their 50s if my Dad's complaints are anything to go off of


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Never said I make $30/hr.
> My monthly salary is less than the rough numbers Drew provided for his early mortgage figures.
> 
> I had assumed you were including me in your response because you were replying to Explorer who referenced me specifically, in a comment that was also off base. I primarily work with blue collar workers who are overwhelmingly great people. Ironically, the most irritating people I deal with are other office workers.
> 
> And yes, on average, they make more than I do. I do their payroll. I know. They deserve it too because they're doing backbreaking work that's going to be an absolute bitch by the time they're pushing their 50s if my Dad's complaints are anything to go off of



My mistake. Looking back it was Drew who said it when quoting you. I apologize. 

I still don't understand why federal workers draw so much derision from some who lean politically right, but I suppose I never will. While some might make a bit more than those doing similar jobs in the private sector, it's not like they're rolling in the dough, at least those who aren't in degree heavy STEM fields, which tend to match closer to the private sector compensation wise anyway. 

I remember working shit jobs, breaking my back for terrible money, and being in constant fear of getting underwater with bills. I don't wish that on anyone, for any reason, especially something as silly as political grandstanding. 

I'm heavily involved in the labor movement, so a lot of this kind of hits home.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> My mistake. Looking back it was Drew who said it when quoting you. I apologize.
> 
> I still don't understand why federal workers draw so much derision from some who lean politically right, but I suppose I never will. While some might make a bit more than those doing similar jobs in the private sector, it's not like they're rolling in the dough, at least those who aren't in degree heavy STEM fields, which tend to match closer to the private sector compensation wise anyway.
> 
> I remember working shit jobs, breaking my back for terrible money, and being in constant fear of getting underwater with bills. I don't wish that on anyone, for any reason, especially something as silly as political grandstanding.
> 
> I'm heavily involved in the labor movement, so a lot of this kind of hits home.



I think it's probably mostly people that tend to make less, since it seems that the floor for government work is noticeably higher than the floor in private sector work.
I don't want to say envy, but it's definitely easy to look at those entry level positions that pay more than you're used to making for similar work, that include benefits that you've never seen, etc. and feel like it must all be easy street. I know I was definitely in that headspace when I was on the job hunt and all of the government positions that I was qualified for paid literally double than equivalent private sector jobs, with all the extra fun stuff as well.

I'm probably not expressing myself very clearly here since it's an absolutely crazy week here at work (which is where I do all my shitposting from and I probably shouldn't be posting at all right now) and my mind is in a dozen places right now, but I'll try and make a follow up post later if this doesn't make sense.

There's definitely an argument for "maybe the private sector just sucks right now," and that's one I'd probably at least mostly agree with


----------



## Ralyks

"Included in that will be $2.5 billion that Mr. Trump will divert from the Department of Defense’s counterdrug efforts.."

So he's taking money from the department that is suppose to counteract drugs coming in, to build a wall he claims will keep drugs from coming in.

Everybody got that?


----------



## Jason B

I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?


----------



## jaxadam

Jason B said:


> I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?



All of the above


----------



## narad

Jason B said:


> I haven’t read any of the posts, but how many of you would say you suffer from trump derangement syndrome?



Disapproving of someone's personal values and policy decisions is a mental disorder now?


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.

Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GatherTheArsenal said:


> I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.
> 
> Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?



I don't think I can remember when government funding decisions were based on "research and objective reasoning". 

He was given $1.37B so we wouldn't have another $6B+ shutdown and make the GOP look even worse. 

Remember, these are the same folks who think that the War on Drugs and Trickle Down Economics are good ideas and Single Payer Healthcare and Gun Control are bad ideas despite nearly every piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.


----------



## pwsusi

GatherTheArsenal said:


> I just think it's amazing that he still got over a billion dollars approved for the border when he hasn't presented a single stat to prove his case. I might be missing something, it just doesn't make sense in a world where decisions like these (not to mention that much money) usually requires research and objective reasoning.
> 
> Seriously - to the more informed - am I missing something? Or did he get over a billion dollars without presenting anything other than his opinion/rhetoric on the matter?



The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer. 

In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.

So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.
> 
> The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer.
> 
> In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.
> 
> So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.



I think this is a good primer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/100941330

To sum it up, the areas that would nominally benefit from a physical barrier have already been blocked off with said barrier.

Additionally in the two plus decades since fencing was erected the complexity of border crossings and available technology to intercept those crossings has changed considerably.

I don't think "because other presidents got some walls decades ago" is a great argument, and I also don't think anyone is naive enough to think this whole thing is apolitical. Obviously it's in the Dem's best interest to block a very unpopular thing like the wall, regardless of it's utility. Is anyone denying that?

The burden is on the POTUS and his administration to sell the wall to us and congress. I don't believe he's done either, or even attempted to so far.


----------



## Ralyks

It's just more that a giant slab of concrete is antiquated, whereas personnel and technology where we already have borders built is much more practical and cost effective, to put it in short.

I remember recently there was a large drug bust at the border, and Kellyanne Conway said something to the effect of "we were able to do this with the great technology and personnel we have at the borders". Ok, if we were able to stop a large drug shipment from crossing the border with what we have, then why have the wall? Conway basically debunked the need for a wall inadvertently and basically proved all we need to do is invest in personnel and technology.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think I can remember when government funding decisions were based on "research and objective reasoning".
> 
> He was given $1.37B so we wouldn't have another $6B+ shutdown and make the GOP look even worse.
> 
> Remember, these are the same folks who think that the War on Drugs and Trickle Down Economics are good ideas and Single Payer Healthcare and Gun Control are bad ideas despite nearly every piece of evidence pointing in the opposite direction.



Yeah the gun control thing is getting old... I mean schools, movie theatres, concerts in vegas, night clubs, etc. So many lives gone year after year in a variety of public places (take your pick) that it does kind give me pause to consider whether a hard line approach like Autralia's is the way to go. Even in Canada our gun violence in Ontario has been spiking over the last 2 years, it sucks.

I'm not wishing death on anyone, but I think if some of these anti-gun control voters had their families shot up like so many already have, then they may start taking a different stance on things.



pwsusi said:


> The first major federal move towards constructing a border fence began in 1993, when Bill Clinton signed off on Operations Safeguard and Hold the Line, which authorized the construction of fencing along the border in Arizona and Texas respectively. A third installment, Operation Gatekeeper, was authorized in 1994 for the construction of fencing along the border in California. These three operations were enacted with the intent to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Latin America.
> 
> The Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush, authorized and partially funded construction of 700 miles of physical barriers along the Mexican border. It was supported by 26 Senate Democrats and 64 House Democrats at the time including Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barbara Boxer.
> 
> In 2013, all 54 Senate Democrats voted again to commit funding to secure 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border in the Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which was authored and introduced by Schumer.
> 
> So I think the more relevant question is if walls aren't needed and don't work, why did we build the existing structures? Why were those supported by the very same people that oppose the expansion that Trump is proposing? Why is his proposals racist and immoral but previous efforts didn't receive the same outrage or criticism? If they are immoral, why hasn't there been any significant push to stop construction or tear down the walls that have already been put in place? Where was all the outrage about walls here, in the news, etc before Trump was elected/proposals during his campaign? Whether you like Trump or not, agree with adding new fencing or not, looking at it objectively the evidence seems to suggest this is more about preventing Trump from delivering on campaign promise for obvious reasons than anything else.



Thx first off for answering me in a legible way rather than calling anyone who questions Trump a libtard. Not saying that about you, but I've been seeing too much of that thrown around.

You raise a good point and that's exactly what I was talking about, I had a feeling im missing some info here from across the aisle. 

If history has shown that there is a demand for this then great, but 1993 and 2006 is decades ago and I'm curious if illegal immigration hasn't since:

a) shrunk to a point where the cost-benefit balance is skewed too far to make it worth the taxpayer investment in 2019.

b) become more sophisticated that a wall (and the billions of dollars required for it) is going to cut it. I've routinely come across claims mentioning stats that suggest illegal drugs majorly come across crossings not over or under barriers, or that illegal immigrants enter the U.S. through legal borders rather than jumping a fence.

I think that's what anti-wall voters maybe would appreciate if Trump tried to tackle objectively. His approach has been anything but.

I mean in the same speech in the rose garden where he declared a national emergency, when asked for stats (proof) Trump rather than tackling that question said, and I quote "i use many stats, let me tell you, you have stats that are far worse than the ones that I use, I use many stats." Ok, where are they? He answers a question without really answering it sufficiently.

His approach to these issues is just obtuse, he comes across as clueless to how the average person expects someone to work with people. That kind of methodology time after time throws many (including me) off of the guy whenever he opens his mouth. So to answer all the "why" questions you asked, I think Trump put himself in this situation where he gets a lot of pushback because he routinely opts for friction and opposition rather than winning people over with sound arguments. People want those in power to talk with them not at them, Trump doesn't see that.

Not to mention the shutdown came across like cats paws on a piano, billionaire president shuts down government removing money out of the pockets of thousands of Americand without a clear exit strategy. It's becoming clearer with time that he doesn't care about the common man, so why should the common man give him the time of day?

And while the issue of the border wall may come across bipartisan today more than ever, that's not always the case with where the opposition to Trump comes from. The combined efforts of the U.S. intelligence community (dems and reps) didn't find the wall to be a pressing issue to national security as much the president, and Trump still shat on it. He continues to make these choices, nobody does it for him so of course in time he's going to be digging his own grave choosing friction as the number 1 route to take.

So it just doesn't suprise me that he finds himself constantly doubted and mocked. How about trying it the other way for a change, less boasting more substance.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I think this is a good primer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/100941330
> 
> To sum it up, the areas that would nominally benefit from a physical barrier have already been blocked off with said barrier.
> 
> Additionally in the two plus decades since fencing was erected the complexity of border crossings and available technology to intercept those crossings has changed considerably.
> 
> I don't think "because other presidents got some walls decades ago" is a great argument, and I also don't think anyone is naive enough to think this whole thing is apolitical. Obviously it's in the Dem's best interest to block a very unpopular thing like the wall, regardless of it's utility. Is anyone denying that?
> 
> The burden is on the POTUS and his administration to sell the wall to us and congress. I don't believe he's done either, or even attempted to so far.



No I don't anyone's denying that, and Congressional and Senate Dems (including those hoping to run in 2020) may just in fact be loving all of this chaos coming from the Republican aisle. Pelosi and Schumer may as well be keeping a diary of all the illogical decisions Trump is taking on the behalf of the GOP. 

If anything it makes the dems communication strategy in 2020 just that much clearer. "We are not Trump."


----------



## narad

Just realistically, are you telling me in the world of satellite surveillance, in a country that spends trillions on defense-related tech, that a big fence is the best strategy to securing a border?

Honestly I think such walls could have gotten more traction previously because (a) no viable other options, (b) no spread of information to convey how bad a solution it is to the general population, or even that there were votes on it, who then become very vocally opposed, (c) just a general lack of respect for Mexicans/South Americans. When a huge part of America operates on a stereotype of lazy people from south of the border, it's maybe easier to think, "oh yea, big wall will stop'em". In 2019, it's easy to research all the super sophisticated ways people have been skirting all the attempts at securing the border.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> Just realistically, are you telling me in the world of satellite surveillance, in a country that spends trillions on defense-related tech, that a big fence is the best strategy to securing a border?



Well applying Occam's Razor might lead one to the conclusion that yes, it probobly is, regardless of politics.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Well applying Occam's Razor might lead one to the conclusion that yes, it probobly is, regardless of politics.



That's not really how Occam's razor works. The simplest explanation is often the most likely one, but the simplest solution is not necessarily the best one, or in this case, even a viable one.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> That's not really how Occam's razor works. The simplest explanation is often the most likely one, but the simplest solution is not necessarily the best one, or in this case, even a viable one.



Best not by itself, but securing something without barriers isn't really viable. The fact that being simple it is less prone to failure, corruption ect.. when compared to the more complex options, which it is currently being used in unison with.

However as to why I mentioned the razor, you must look at the core of the problem (with out thinking on the political football items) which is: 
The end goal is to control illegal immigration or entry, the most likely and simplest answer is a physical barrier. 

As opposed to overlappinng integrated sensor systems which are prone to failures mechanical, electrical and human. 

The less complex the item the lower the probability of failure.

Nevermind the fact that sign telling someone they are trespassing and under surveillance doesn't stop them from paying coyotes to smuggle them through the desert or putting one foot in front of the other unless ICE respsonds. A fence atleast has a chance to stop or funnel them to a smaller, easier to police gaps.


----------



## Randy

I think the issue is that there ARE barriers that seemingly SHOULD BE funneling people toward rhe existing gaps, and yet we still have a flow of people crossing the border seemingly unabated in several areas.

The issue with the physical barrier as opposed to high tech alternatives or increased patrols is that the wall is 'dumb' in that it doesn't call attention to itself if a person climbs over, crawls under, cuts through or crosses a few feet to the left or right of it the way a border patrol agent or drone would be able to supervise the same space. And the answer would be well, do both but 'both' is the kind of budget we haven't even seen considered so you're at an 'either/or' situation, where I think a wall is a less substanative proposition.

And to the overall argument, ignoring the 'Trump derangement' and politicking, it's a few hundred years old and so treating it like it's an emergency that sprung up overnight or is an emergency AT ALL is beyond questionable. 

Also, divorced from the politics involved, I think any logical person would say a knowingly 'open' border with no vetting is a danger but the issue being framed like it's about terrorists or gangs or drugs, like they're the disproportionate volume of people crossing, is an argument tuned in a very political way that both feeds one group red meat, turns the other side off immediately and also doesn't accurately frame the reality of the situation. 

The immigration through Ellis Island was 10x the numbers we see at the Mexican border, and those people didn't come here 1.) knowing the language 2.) with high skills 3.) with all red tape handled for them before they left their country 4.) with any guarantees about their character/criminality (see: Irish and Italian mob). Yet we still handled then like human beings. If the current immigration situation were handled with the same demeanor, we'd be looking at ACTUAL solutions but instead it's all about a vanity project founded on a narrowly legitimate criteria, so that we can all fight with eachother while our pockets get picked.


----------



## thraxil

wedge_destroyer said:


> The less complex the item the lower the probability of failure.



If we really wanted the simplest, cheapest, most effective way to reduce illegal immigration, we wouldn't spend billions and billions of dollars on pointless walls or technology. We would aggressively investigate and criminally prosecute the companies that employ the illegal immigrants. Send a few CEOs to prison and suddenly there would be no jobs for illegal immigrants and no reason for them to cross the border.

The problem with that, of course, is that large parts of the economy would grind to a halt. The corporations that make the large dollar donations to both parties are the ones that rely on those cheap workers and wouldn't like it. So instead, we focus on less effective solutions that funnel large amounts of money to military-industrial contractors (aka donors) and demonize the people who cross the border trying to find a job to feed their family.


----------



## Randy

thraxil said:


> If we really wanted the simplest, cheapest, most effective way to reduce illegal immigration, we wouldn't spend billions and billions of dollars on pointless walls or technology. We would aggressively investigate and criminally prosecute the companies that employ the illegal immigrants. Send a few CEOs to prison and suddenly there would be no jobs for illegal immigrants and no reason for them to cross the border.
> 
> The problem with that, of course, is that large parts of the economy would grind to a halt. The corporations that make the large dollar donations to both parties are the ones that rely on those cheap workers and wouldn't like it. So instead, we focus on less effective solutions that funnel large amounts of money to military-industrial contractors (aka donors) and demonize the people who cross the border trying to find a job to feed their family.



Yeah I think Occam's Razor applied in this case would be preventing people from trying to illegally cross your border in the first place (ie, convenient legal alternatives or having no reason TO want to enter your country [decent jobs and safety where they came from]) rather than addressing the problem after it's about trying to monitor a few thousand miles of space 24 hours a day


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeah I think Occam's Razor applied in this case would be preventing people from trying to illegally cross your border in the first place (ie, convenient legal alternatives or having no reason TO want to enter your country [decent jobs and safety where they came from]) rather than addressing the problem after it's about trying to monitor a few thousand miles of space 24 hours a day


I mean, the simplest explanation would be if maybe we stopped buying drugs FROM mexico, and selling black market guns TO mexico, drug warfare wouldn't be so bad that we have a refugee crisis on our hands. 

But considering the war on drugs has mostly just fueled black marked demand and most black market guns start off in the white market and if you say "gun control" three times in front of a mirror the Ghost of Ronald Reagan will say three Our Fathers and then fire off an AK-47, that's not gonna happen.


----------



## StevenC

wedge_destroyer said:


> Best not by itself, but securing something without barriers isn't really viable. The fact that being simple it is less prone to failure, corruption ect.. when compared to the more complex options, which it is currently being used in unison with.
> 
> However as to why I mentioned the razor, you must look at the core of the problem (with out thinking on the political football items) which is:
> The end goal is to control illegal immigration or entry, the most likely and simplest answer is a physical barrier.
> 
> As opposed to overlappinng integrated sensor systems which are prone to failures mechanical, electrical and human.
> 
> The less complex the item the lower the probability of failure.
> 
> Nevermind the fact that sign telling someone they are trespassing and under surveillance doesn't stop them from paying coyotes to smuggle them through the desert or putting one foot in front of the other unless ICE respsonds. A fence atleast has a chance to stop or funnel them to a smaller, easier to police gaps.


You're confusing simple an effective. Simple solutions aren't necessarily effective ones.

For example, if a border wall were to stop all illegal immigration that involved walking across the border, it doesn't address the fact that more illegal immigration happens via visa overstays of people legally entering the USA.

Also, that's Occam's razor is used for weighing explanations, not solutions.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

StevenC said:


> You're confusing simple an effective. Simple solutions aren't necessarily effective ones.
> 
> For example, if a border wall were to stop all illegal immigration that involved walking across the border, it doesn't address the fact that more illegal immigration happens via visa overstays of people legally entering the USA.
> 
> Also, that's Occam's razor is used for weighing explanations, not solutions.



Are you certain??

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


> *Occam's razor* (also *Ockham's razor* or *Ocham's razor* (Latin: _novacula Occami_); further known as the *law of parsimony* (Latin: _lex parsimoniae_) is the problem-solving principle that essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Just to be clear, how is a simple solution such as a wall supposed to stop the 66% of undocumented immigrants from over staying thier visas and/or prevent the 90% of contraband that moves through ports? 

Stopping 34% of undocumented immigrants and 10% of contraband doesn't seem like a great ROI on $25B, IMHO. 

I'm all for simple solutions, but prefer ones that work.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

It's a simple method to slow and vastly decrease all kinds of cross border crime, look at San Diego.

As pointed out this is a very old issue that should never have been turned into a political football. One could argue it goes back to the Mexican-American war or Pancho Villa.

The issue at core when stripped of its politics is should we further secure southern the border, more heavily utilizing barriers.

The idea of a full blown ocean to ocean wall is foolhardy at best. Even if it is OK'd tomorrow, it would function much the same way military defensive works funnel people into smaller areas. Where they can be easily detected and detained with the other assets. Who would in theory have smaller patrol areas, need fewer agents, some of whom could be retasked to deal with overstays.

Not doing something that has been effective and is a tends to be low maintenance to stop that 10% and 34%, (I assume you mean per year) makes no sense IMHO.

And beside in the grand scheme of government what's $25B? How many Trillions does the Pentagon not have account of? How far over budget are they on F-35?


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> And beside in the grand scheme of government what's $25B? How many Trillions does the Pentagon not have account of? How far over budget are they on F-35?



This is some GAS style view of accounting. My credit card's already got $6k on it, what's another Butterslax?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> This is some GAS style view of accounting. My credit card's already got $6k on it, what's another Butterslax?



Not at all it's pointing out that in the scheme of what the government does $25B is not that large. Gain some fiscal accountability from certain areas of the government and you might find 4 times that amount hidden under a rock or a torpedo development contract somewhere.


----------



## StevenC

wedge_destroyer said:


> Are you certain??
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


I think you're misunderstanding the two different usages of the word solution, and ignoring the importance of the word hypothesis. And then you're conflating "fewest assumptions" with simplest. The correct application is for explaining known phenomena, not predicting foreign policy.

Like if it were the late 1800s and I was evaluating the structure of atoms, I might consider it to be some indivisible unitary particle, or like a plum pudding with negatively charged plums, or like a tiny dense divisible core surrounded by huge probabilistic clouds based on equations that haven't been developed yet and involving particles that haven't been imagined yet. The correct application of Occam's razor would select the first model. I'd be wrong, but I haven't made any assumptions.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

You neglect that I began with response to a question that formed my hypothesis that: Yes even in a country that spends trillions on military and surveillance hardware, a large fence is a large part of any viable strategy, to secure our southern borders.
That hypothesis leads to either
A. It is.
B. It is not.

A. I don't have to assume fences/barriers/walls are good at stopping, slowing or controlling movements of people to the areas you want them.

B. I have to assume that the sensors and drones are functioning, placed correctly, that someone who hasn't been bribed, is in charge, in range to respond and then to do so successfully over larger areas.

Option A requires no assumptions as to the usefulness of what the hypothesis proposes.
Option B requires several.

This is a known phenomenon. The movement of people across places they are restricted from. Which would perhaps be anthropology, migration angle or criminology, crime/drug war angle. Since utilization of more fences and barriers meet the critera of answering the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions. So how would it not apply?


----------



## narad

B. It is not.

It's 2019. Adopt 2019 thinking, not 1029 thinking.

(Also, again, the Occam's razor thing isn't working.)


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> B. It is not.
> 
> It's 2019. Adopt 2019 thinking, not 1029 thinking.
> 
> (Also, again, the Occam's razor thing isn't working.)



I am using 2019 thinking, don't embassies, military bases, and many other government facilities all still use barriers or fences? Would you call those sometimes motorized sensor laden vehicle stopping barrier obsolete? I wouldn't.

If I was thinking 1029 I would be saying dig the Rio Grande into a moat and throw up rock walls complete with porticullis.


----------



## narad

I vaguely recall embassies, military bases, and many other government facilities not having thousand-mile-long perimeters.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Perimeter fences they do have and it tends to keep people from wondering about. Some of the test ranges do have many miles of fencing as they themselves are many square miles. 

And again as I stated above a true full perimeter fence is foolhardy at best. It would still have to have gaps if for geographic and ecological reasons alone. To believe that any executed fence is going to be executed with out gaps, sensors, drones and manual patrols is willfully ignoring both physical facts and the core nature of our government surveillance and interdiction programs.


----------



## narad

My point was one of scale: it's relatively cheap to put a wall up around an embassy. It's not practical in any way to put up a fortified wall along 1,300 miles of border.

If gaps are in the equation, you need to be talking specifics. I've never heard the Trump plan acknowledge any significant gaps in the wall as proposed. Walls along cities and tech for vast desert stretches sounds more practical, but this isn't mentioned in any Trump talk I've ever heard.

And then you put the wall there and what do you have? Most illegals entered the country legally, most contraband enters through standard ports of entry. The world marches on. Criminals still accomplish their goals, innocent migrants are kept away, and the US goes significantly further into an enormous debt.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I guess what grinds my gears most about the cost of the wall is that every time something like universal health care or green energy or infrastructure investment comes up its "oh, we don't have the money for that".

So $25B for what?

A wall to stop a little bit of drugs (which wouldn't be a problem if we abandoned the failed War on Drugs) and some, like not even half, people who are actually less likely to be violent criminals and wouldn't even bother coming here if we didn't interfere with the political stability of the region for profit? 

The truth of the matter is that if they really wanted to curb any of this they could pass legislation that would fix much of the issues and have the side effect of actually helping people, maybe even Americans.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

@narad The fact that China did it centuries ago says that yes it could be done but the fact that people take ecological impacts of things into effect now days means that something of that solid manner is only probable when under immediate threat of invasion which is not likely. 

You can't take rhetoric like that at face value. It's like the old joke: How does one tell a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving. 

Well we never know how much contraband or the exact number of people, till something is done to tighten the border. I can see most of it siezed at port of entry but that does little to tell us how much gets through. Also the dealers are in this as business if most is seized as ports then why wouldn't they branch out? Do the cartels publish their books? Do undocumented immigrants say fill out census forms on where and how they entered?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess what grinds my gears most about the cost of the wall is that every time something like universal health care or green energy or infrastructure investment comes up its "oh, we don't have the money for that".
> 
> So $25B for what?
> 
> A wall to stop a little bit of drugs (which wouldn't be a problem if we abandoned the failed War on Drugs) and some, like not even half, people who are actually less likely to be violent criminals and wouldn't even bother coming here if we didn't interfere with the political stability of the region for profit?
> 
> The truth of the matter is that if they really wanted to curb any of this they could pass legislation that would fix much of the issues and have the side effect of actually helping people, maybe even Americans.



Well there are things I agree with in here, as yes there are things that do need worked on, infrastructure and alternative energies are needed, but the problem is that the drug war props up the DEA, keeps the Coast Guard burning circles in the ocean, fills the prisons and keeps big pharma in monopoly.

Now the assumption that they have done nothing and are innocent is fine until they step across anywhere but a legal port of entry. They left innocence by entering illegally, not saying they are horrible murderers but they have committed a crime.

That there are plenty of funds that were lost at that the pentagon would provide for this project and more.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Also the dealers are in this as business if most is seized as ports then why wouldn't they branch out?



Following that logic, wouldn't we have to fortify the entire country?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Following that logic, wouldn't we have to fortify the entire country?



First I should have specified cartels rather than dealers I was unclear. But to answer you.

No, as the issue is securing the areas where it enters, aircraft interdiction is fairly simple, and the same radar and patrol aircraft allow for fairly easy boat interdiction as well. That leaves land borders and ports of entry.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> @narad The fact that China did it centuries ago says that yes it could be done



I don't question that it's possible to build a wall that long. I question whether it the cost of building such a wall would be justified or in any way offset by the increased border security. 

Let's say I undercut all known estimates of the wall by an order of magnitude or more, and say it will cost $1B. Does that wall improve life in America by $1B? Does that wall even make things better at all? Seems like an awfully costly fuck you to the small and ever-decreasing number of Mexicans/South Americans who want to cross into America.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> First I should have specified cartels rather than dealers I was unclear. But to answer you.
> 
> No, as the issue is securing the areas where it enters, aircraft interdiction is fairly simple, and the same radar and patrol aircraft allow for fairly easy boat interdiction as well. That leaves land borders and ports of entry.



Piggybacking off of a point you made previously: how do we know we're capturing all air or seaborn contraband? 

Wouldn't you expect there to be a significant uptick there? Assuming that a huge, undocumented amount of drugs is making it past the southern border.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Well the cost could be offset by any increased siezures, or less monies for detainment or needing to provide medical to undocumented migrants months or years in. And those amounts would add up yearly.

Realistically it's a fuck you who those who don't wish to follow one of the basic items of living in a country that follows rule of law. Not breaking rule of law, by entering illegally. It sends the same clear message as the fence and marines at embassies, that we don't accept unauthorized incursions.

How do you think you or I would be treated after being discovered to being or having entered illegally with or without a passport in most other countries? You get arrested and are either jailed there on their charges or held till sent back or release is arranged with your homeland.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Well the cost could be offset by any increased siezures, or less monies for detainment or needing to provide medical to undocumented migrants months or years in. And those amounts would add up yearly.
> 
> Realistically it's a fuck you who those who don't wish to follow one of the basic items of living in a country that follows rule of law. Not breaking rule of law, by entering illegally. It sends the same clear message as the fence and marines at embassies, that we don't accept unauthorized incursions.
> 
> How do you think you or I would be treated after being discovered to being or having entered illegally with or without a passport in most other countries? You get arrested and are either jailed there on their charges or held till sent back or release is arranged with your homeland.



I'd take that sentiment a lot more seriously if there was a better path to citizenship and we [USA] weren't a primary cause of the hardship that brings people here illegally. 

The focus should be treating the sickness and not the symptoms. 

Again, it would likely be cheaper in the long run and have net benefits for existing citizens. 

I honestly don't care what other countries do.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Well the cost could be offset by any increased siezures, or less monies for detainment or needing to provide medical to undocumented migrants months or years in. And those amounts would add up yearly.



A.) I don't think we make money by seizing contraband. ~"Hey, we just seized $30M in heroin! Time to sell it!"

B.) We'd still have to detain the people caught at these more localized gaps between the wall. Similarly, it would be hard to offset billions of dollars by not having to detain people for a couple of weeks. They're not exactly getting filet mignon at the Hilton.

C.) Medical to undocumented migrants? Like if we had free healthcare or something?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Piggybacking off of a point you made previously: how do we know we're capturing all air or seaborn contraband?
> 
> Wouldn't you expect there to be a significant uptick there? Assuming that a huge, undocumented amount of drugs is making it past the southern border.



Well that's the thing if we are seizing any percentage, shows that there is traffic. From the fact that cartels have so much money there has to be a hole or holes in our system somewhere, and they wouldn't have been fighting over border towns and areas for no reason after all if there is no profit be it in drug or human traffic they would not fight tooth and nail with each other over it.

Once smaller areas are needed to be patrolled on land, then it would be to focus more of the air and drone assets seaward.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd take that sentiment a lot more seriously if there was a better path to citizenship and we [USA] weren't a primary cause of the hardship that brings people here illegally.
> 
> The focus should be treating the sickness and not the symptoms.
> 
> Again, it would likely be cheaper in the long run and have net benefits for existing citizens.
> 
> I honestly don't care what other countries do.



Well the cause you point to imperialism, and its policies no other word for it else we wouldn't mettle in ALL the far off lands to some degree or another.

Our path to citizenship is shitty and flawed but so is our whole system where to start?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Well that's the thing if we are seizing any percentage, shows that there is traffic. From the fact that cartels have so much money there has to be a hole or holes in our system somewhere, and they wouldn't have been fighting over border towns and areas for no reason after all if there is no profit be it in drug or human traffic they would not fight tooth and nail with each other over it.
> 
> Once smaller areas are needed to be patrolled on land, then it would be to focus more of the air and drone assets seaward.



My understanding is that the cost to make these drugs is incredibly small, and thus they don't need to get much of the product in to make significant profit. So product loss is meaningless as long as they get something into the country.

I don't know how comfortable I am with an overall escalation of the fortification of our borders.



wedge_destroyer said:


> Well the cause you point to imperialism, and its policies no other word for it else we wouldn't mettle in ALL the far off lands to some degree or another.
> 
> Our path to citizenship is shitty and flawed but so is our whole system where to start?



I think there's a fine line between diplomacy and "mettling" in the way we have been. 

Why can't we focus on fixing the system, even if slowly, instead of throwing money and human suffering at the supposed problems? 

I get where you're coming from "everything is fucked up and our government burns through money to do terrible things", it's true, but I think we should focus on making things better, not diving deeper into it.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> A.) I don't think we make money by seizing contraband. ~"Hey, we just seized $30M in heroin! Time to sell it!"
> 
> B.) We'd still have to detain the people caught at these more localized gaps between the wall. Similarly, it would be hard to offset billions of dollars by not having to detain people for a couple of weeks. They're not exactly getting filet mignon at the Hilton.
> 
> C.) Medical to undocumented migrants? Like if we had free healthcare or something?



A. Pure cocaine does have a legitimate medical use and value.

B. Never said it was great but better than some one might find elsewhere and the costs still add up.

C. We do fix bone breaks and stitch people up after car wreck and what not. How do you track down someone who being illegal probably lied on the forms to get them to pay. The cost are just eaten and the buck gets passed to whom?


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> A. Pure cocaine does have a legitimate medical use and value.



Your conjecture is that we're going to seize cocaine at the borders, and sell it for profit to our own hospitals, to offset a significant cost of a $25B+ border wall? So much for Occam's Razor!


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> My understanding is that the cost to make these drugs is incredibly small, and thus they don't need to get much of the product in to make significant profit. So product loss is meaningless as long as they get something into the country.
> 
> I don't know how comfortable I am with an overall escalation of the fortification of our borders.



Depends on what they are moving but initial costs on many drugs are low but bribes and transport through other countries might not be so cheap. It is also a probably a different story with human trafficking but apparently that's more cash upfront. But lost product is still lost product, be it coke, pot guns or heroin.

I understand that sentiment as I generally don't like government doing much of anything, but I would try to close the door rather than just leave it off it's hinges.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I think there's a fine line between diplomacy and "mettling" in the way we have been.
> 
> Why can't we focus on fixing the system, even if slowly, instead of throwing money and human suffering at the supposed problems?
> 
> I get where you're coming from "everything is fucked up and our government burns through money to do terrible things", it's true, but I think we should focus on making things better, not diving deeper into it.



I would honestly say it's more giant chisel tip Sharpie rather than anything resembling fine. But that's neither here nor there.

To a point if they know they will get stopped by fence or ICE would they even try to walk through the desert? If we amended our overseas policies perhaps, perhaps not. They are going to throw the money at something most likley not what we want anyways atleast it's not instruments of destruction this time.

Well the only problem is that to attempt to fight the system from within you immediately are faced with the issue that power corrupts, and that DC has formed a system which is like all systems strives to be self perpetuating.

Honestly if I had my choice the only thing we as a populace would be diving deep into is the multitude of ways this system is fucked and how to correct them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> I would try to close the door rather than just leave it off it's hinges.



Right now we have a fancy screen door, and I'm all for adding a great security system. 

I don't want a bank vault door, especially if a friendly neighbor needs help.



> To a point if they know they will get stopped by fence or ICE would they even try to walk through the desert? If we amended our overseas policies perhaps, perhaps not. They are going to throw the money at something most likley not what we want anyways atleast it's not instruments of destruction this time.



Given what some of these folks face in thier home countries, and how arduous the journey already is, I don't think either of those things will stop desperate immigrants. 

If this wall causes or prolongs human suffering, it might as well be bombs.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> Your conjecture is that we're going to seize cocaine at the borders, and sell it for profit to our own hospitals, to offset a significant cost of a $25B+ border wall? So much for Occam's Razor!



Not quite you posited that we can make no money on it I was simply pointing out that we can. 

My reasons for apply Occams Razor as I stated earlier is that with the fewest assumptions that a fence or barrier system is viable due to the physics of humans and their natural interactions with 90 degree angles. As opposed to a system which does not utilize them as one must assume out the gate the smart systems will function properly.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Not quite you posited that we can make no money on it I was simply pointing out that we can.



But obviously we wouldn't do that, so I don't see how it refutes the point. A lot easier to believe we'd seize guns and sell them to our own, but then you'd be fighting gun lobbies.



wedge_destroyer said:


> My reasons for apply Occams Razor as I stated earlier is that with the fewest assumptions that a fence or barrier system is viable due to the physics of humans and their natural interactions with 90 degree angles. As opposed to a system which does not utilize them as one must assume out the gate the smart systems will function properly.



Dude, Occam's Razor is about abductive/causal reasoning. You observe something. You wonder, "hmm, how can that possibly be". I wake up on Christmas morning and the cookies I left are gone: did a magical man fly from the north pole to my house on a sleigh holding presents for all the children of the world, or did my parents eat those cookies? Let's go with the simpler option. 

It is totally irrelevant to border wall stuff. You can just state that you'd prefer the simpler solution, or that the simplest solution is the most likely (in your opinion) to work. It does not explain anything. It's not Occam's Razor.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Right now we have a fancy screen door, and I'm all for adding a great security system.
> 
> I don't want a bank vault door, especially if a friendly neighbor needs help.



It is a fancy screen door and a security system but what's wrong with a sturdy oak or steel cored door? Never have I advocated a vault door.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Given what some of these folks face in thier home countries, and how arduous the journey already is, I don't think either of those things will stop desperate immigrants.
> 
> If this wall causes or prolongs human suffering, it might as well be bombs.



That's the thing we won't know till it happens. Yet if it serves as an effective deterrent, then by not doing it sooner we have been prolonging people suffering a long walk or death from sickness and dehydration in the desert. Some may call that torture which if they are right is worse than bombs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> It is a fancy screen door and a security system but what's wrong with a sturdy oak or steel cored door? Never have I advocated a vault door.



A tasteful oak door would be lovely, but just you have little faith in the government passing good legislation, I don't trust this government to not bungle this up. 



> That's the thing we won't know till it happens. Yet if it serves as an effective deterrent, then by not doing it sooner we have been prolonging people suffering a long walk or death from sickness and dehydration in the desert. Some may call that torture which if they are right is worse than bombs.



Think about it: they'll risk dying a slow, agonizing death in the desert just to have a chance at being the lowest rung in society.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> It is totally irrelevant to border wall stuff. You can just state that you'd prefer the simpler solution, or that the simplest solution is the most likely (in your opinion) to work. It does not explain anything. It's not Occam's Razor.



I was looking at a question that raised a pair of hypotheses. I then thought on the nature of what must occur for either hypothesis to be correct.

One I had to assume that electrical items will not fail and that people would not be corrupt or out of range in large patrol areas.
The other I had only to assume that physics would stay the same.



> When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.



Hence Occams Razor.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> A tasteful oak door would be lovely, but just you have little faith in the government passing good legislation, I don't trust this government to not bungle this up.


 I don't have faith in them passing good legislation, actually. I don't trust ANY government to not destroy whatever it touches.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Think about it: they'll risk dying a slow, agonizing death in the desert just to have a chance at being the lowest rung in society.



I have thought of that, many times, and it leads me to the question of why were some unable to build a life there? Or atleast enough to get a country that is easier to build a life in prior to here. Granted we're held up as the land of opportunity, but to be honest we can't tend to much of our own unwashed masses, perhaps we should look to that before being concerned with those from elsewhere. 

Callous I know but I have a bit more concern for the well being of my countrymen, even if I vehemently disagree with them, than those who are not.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> I was looking at a question that raised a pair of hypotheses. I then thought on the nature of what must occur for either hypothesis to be correct.
> 
> One I had to assume that electrical items will not fail and that people would not be corrupt or out of range in large patrol areas.
> The other I had only to assume that physics would stay the same.
> 
> "When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions."
> 
> Hence Occams Razor.



This is the last I'll post of it, but the simple.wikipedia is quite clear on this distinction:

_A problem with Occam's razor is that the sentence is not really about things (entia = entities), but about explanations or hypotheses. Other thinkers have come up with other versions:
_

_"We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible". Ptolemy.[2] Not only is Ptolemy earlier than Occam,[3] but Occam's supposed wording cannot be found in any of his existing works.[4]
_
_"We are to admit no more causes of natural things other than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes". Isaac Newton.[5]
_
_"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities". Bertrand Russell.[6]_

In short, Occam's razor attempts to steer people towards likely answers of "why". You are not asking a "why" question.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## ExileMetal

We shouldn't get bogged down in the efficacy of walls discussion. The country has already decided the wall is unsupported and unfunded. Besides, defending our border is useless if we have nothing left to defend. We should be talking about the discount fascist breaking all of our laws, and shouldn't let the conversation be changed until its solved.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> I don't have faith in them passing good legislation, actually. I don't trust ANY government to not destroy whatever it touches.



I completely understand that sentiment. 



> I have thought of that, many times, and it leads me to the question of why were some unable to build a life there? Or atleast enough to get a country that is easier to build a life in prior to here. Granted we're held up as the land of opportunity, but to be honest we can't tend to much of our own unwashed masses, perhaps we should look to that before being concerned with those from elsewhere.
> 
> Callous I know but I have a bit more concern for the well being of my countrymen, even if I vehemently disagree with them, than those who are not.



Some do go elsewhere, and the United States is definitely becoming less of a goal. I think a lot of the world is waking up to the fact that we're no longer the green pastures we're made out to be. How true that is is debatable. 

I'm not really that tribal anymore. I've traveled and worked in just about every state in this nation, and lived in six of them long-term. I've also worked with many immigrants, being in manufacturing, and the only thing that's different between "them" and "us" are made up concepts like language and traditions. We're far more alike than we are different. We work hard and love our families. 

But I'm sure you've heard this all before. Much like I've heard much of what you've said. I genuinely appreciate this conversation we've been having. It's definitely kept me occupied from a very slow day at work.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> Are you certain??
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor


I mean, @narad has already covered this, but Occam's razor is an observation on attempts to explain _why_ something is the case, rather than a problem solving method. The explanation that requires the fewest angels dancing on the head of a pin, as the joke goes, is the most likely to be the correct explanation. Since a border wall isn't something we're trying to explain, it really doesn't apply here.

You're welcome to talk about something like the KISS method - "Keep It Simple, Stupid" - but the point there is not to overthink things, rather than arguing simple solutions are always the most _effective_. And considering this whole debate coincidentally was raging during El Chapo's trial where we learned most of his drug smuggling was accomplished via tunnels _under_ the border, then clearly any solution intended to block surface crossings is a situation where you're likely trying to solve the wrong _problem - _border security is already good enough that drug czars think its worth their time to dig tunnels to cross _underground_ because crossing above ground is too risky.

tl;dr - just because Occam's razor is a valuable philosophical tool for _explaining _phenomena doesn't mean it has any applicability to a situation where you have to choose between a number of options to solve a problem, all the more so when there's very good reason to believe that you've completely misidentified the problem in the first place.

Or, put a little more plainly, because hey, you like simple, the very reason Trump is pushing this argument that surface crossings are a huge problem, in spite of evidence that most drugs coming into the country are coming through existing ports of entry or underground tunnels, that over the past decade we've seen net _emigration _across the southern border as the population of illegal immigrants has dropped, and that most illegal immigrants enter legally and overstay visas, etc, is because _Trump really wants to build a wall._ That's the only reason we're even having this discussion, that he's making up a crisis of surface border crossings on our southern border that aren't really happening, so he can justify a campaign promise that three years ago was a joke.


----------



## wannabguitarist

wedge_destroyer said:


> It's a simple method to slow and vastly decrease all kinds of cross border crime, look at San Diego.



So what's happening in San Diego? Border was safe yesterday. Got some excellent tacos  Tijuana just had one of the most violent years in recent memory (I could be wrong there), but there isn't spill over on the US side. Drugs do pass through that entry, but a wall wouldn't fix that. Capacity to better search every vehicle at the entry would, but crossing the border already takes long enough. Same issue with human trafficking.



> And beside in the grand scheme of government what's $25B? *How many Trillions does the Pentagon not have account of?* How far over budget are they on F-35?



Just a note here, there's a difference being not knowing how much money was spent vs not supporting adjusting entries. The former is really bad, it's also not what the audits of the Pentagon's financial statements show. The latter is significantly less bad, but speaks volumes about how terrible the DOD's accounting systems are. Not really relevant to the wall discussion, but the whole "Pentagon has trillions of unaccounted spending!" thing needs to die.

It's the same dumb argument AOC made for funding Medicare for all, except Medicare for all would actually be useful


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> the very reason Trump is pushing this argument that surface crossings are a huge problem, in spite of evidence that most drugs coming into the country are coming through existing ports of entry or underground tunnels, that over the past decade we've seen net _emigration _across the southern border as the population of illegal immigrants has dropped, and that most illegal immigrants enter legally and overstay visas, etc, is because _Trump really wants to build a wall._



Well, we've had Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, Trump University and the Trump Taj Mahol among others, why not the Trump Wall, too? 

On a serious note, Politico recently published an article on the common denominator of Trump supporters: The One Trait That Predicts Trump Fever.

The TLDR is that they believe the American Dream is dead due to alienation from living in areas without much in the way of social or community ties.

"Why do so many people believe the American dream is dead? I think the answer is this: Because strong communities have crumbled and much of America has been abandoned without the web of human connections and institutions that make the good life possible. More of America is a wasteland of alienation."​


----------



## sezna

tedtan said:


> Well, we've had Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, Trump University and the Trump Taj Mahol among others, why not the Trump Wall, too?
> 
> On a serious note, Politico recently published an article on the common denominator of Trump supporters: The One Trait That Predicts Trump Fever.
> 
> The TLDR is that they believe the American Dream is dead due to alienation from living in areas without much in the way of social or community ties.
> 
> "Why do so many people believe the American dream is dead? I think the answer is this: Because strong communities have crumbled and much of America has been abandoned without the web of human connections and institutions that make the good life possible. More of America is a wasteland of alienation."​


After living around the world in a few places, American society is absolutely isolationist, especially in the west/midwest.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Well, we've had Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, Trump University and the Trump Taj Mahol among others, why not the Trump Wall, too?
> 
> On a serious note, Politico recently published an article on the common denominator of Trump supporters: The One Trait That Predicts Trump Fever.
> 
> The TLDR is that they believe the American Dream is dead due to alienation from living in areas without much in the way of social or community ties.
> 
> "Why do so many people believe the American dream is dead? I think the answer is this: Because strong communities have crumbled and much of America has been abandoned without the web of human connections and institutions that make the good life possible. More of America is a wasteland of alienation."​


I'm going to unironically appeal to Occam's Razor here, and say that the common demoninator is they're unhappy and Trump offered them a whole range of options for someone else to blame - Mexicans, China, Washington elites, Muslims, globalists, probably one or two more dog-whistle bogeymen I'm forgetting. Both he and Sanders basically ran on a campaign of "everything's wrong, and it's _not your fault_."

Alienation, by comparison, feels kinda vague and nebulous.

EDIT - the other thing that doesn't really explain is Trump's surprising level of support among evangelicals, for whom religion and religious identity IS a primary source of community, and the growing secularization of American society is one of the principle drivers of that feeling of alienation and lack of community, as nothing's really springing forward to fill the void left by religious community in many americans' lives. (And this should be clear to any of the regulars around here familiar with my posting, but I'm not saying that like I think this country needs to turn back to religion or anything like that, just noting that there ARE growing pains)


----------



## vilk

Donald Trump said:


> Dear Saudi Arabia
> 
> Thank you for 9/11 and Wahhabism. Please have some nuclear secrets.
> 
> Love,
> DonDon


----------



## possumkiller

I may be in the minority here but I think the wall is a great idea. I really hope the next presidents will carry the torch. Trump can get a wall on the southern border. The next president can start a wall on the northern border. I don't think Mexico should have to pay for it alone. I think the whole world would chip in and help wall off America from everyone else. The other countries could take in the sensible American refugees and leave the states to the idiots that appear to be the majority these days. Maybe we could even start a globally funded project to build a huge dome over the US. We could cut off all contact. After a few years when they have all killed each other off in wars or choking to death on diesel fumes, we can crack it back open, clean it up and repopulate it.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> Maybe we could even start a globally funded project to build a huge dome over the US. We could cut off all contact. After a few years when they have all killed each other off in wars or choking to death on diesel fumes, we can crack it back open, clean it up and repopulate it.



Simpsons did it.


----------



## Xaios

"We're gonna build a dome and we're gonna make America pay for it."

A dome may be completely implausible, but it's no less so than making Mexico pay for a wall.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal

Aw shit I can only imagine the conman sales pitch 

"A big beautiful dome, from shining sea to sparkling sky. The strongest dome in US history. It'll be big...and round... and powerful... I've seen a lot of domes, I've built a lot of dome ok, so nobody knows domes better than I do and believe me folks, this one will be...the domiest one we have ever seen. I spoke with Nancy and Chuck the other day... actually they came to me... and we had a great meeting, we agree that domes would be one of the ways... i think the best way... and I have rank and file Democrats telling me this too... that we need to stop the growing epidemic of bird poo on the thousands and thousands of American windshields."

FML.


----------



## Ralyks

As a US citizen, I ain't even mad at the dome idea  I've felt for a while we need to remove some warning labels and begin thinning the heard. If I have to be a casualty of that, oh well, it was fun while it lasted.


----------



## Drew

GatherTheArsenal said:


> Aw shit I can only imagine the conman sales pitch
> 
> "A big beautiful dome, from shining sea to sparkling sky. The strongest dome in US history. It'll be big...and round... and powerful... I've seen a lot of domes, I've built a lot of dome ok, so nobody knows domes better than I do and believe me folks, this one will be...the domiest one we have ever seen. I spoke with Nancy and Chuck the other day... actually they came to me... and we had a great meeting, we agree that domes would be one of the ways... i think the best way... and I have rank and file Democrats telling me this too... that we need to stop the growing epidemic of bird poo on the thousands and thousands of American windshields."
> 
> FML.


Fastest way to make this happen is to have a bird shit on Trump, you know.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> I'm going to unironically appeal to Occam's Razor here, and say that the common demoninator is they're unhappy and Trump offered them a whole range of options for someone else to blame - Mexicans, China, Washington elites, Muslims, globalists, probably one or two more dog-whistle bogeymen I'm forgetting. Both he and Sanders basically ran on a campaign of "everything's wrong, and it's _not your fault_."
> 
> Alienation, by comparison, feels kinda vague and nebulous.
> 
> EDIT - the other thing that doesn't really explain is Trump's surprising level of support among evangelicals, for whom religion and religious identity IS a primary source of community, and the growing secularization of American society is one of the principle drivers of that feeling of alienation and lack of community, as nothing's really springing forward to fill the void left by religious community in many americans' lives. (And this should be clear to any of the regulars around here familiar with my posting, but I'm not saying that like I think this country needs to turn back to religion or anything like that, just noting that there ARE growing pains)



No, it doesn't address several issues. I'm expounding on the article, but it essentially paints the picture of Trump's base (not republicans in general, only Trump's fervent supporters) as being the rural white equivalent of an inner city black ghetto in many key areas. Lack of education and access to education, lack of social institutions and interaction ranging from country clubs to moose lodges to tightly knit church groups to block parties to good jobs [and increasing drug usage and crime]. These issues are tied to these people's lack of socio-economic mobility and lead to their disenfranchisement with the current system. They want change; real change that benefits them, not more of the same from a different clique of the ruling elite.

Democrats typically advocate for the urban people in such situations, so how has the democratic party overlooked this group? What can they do to win them over rather than pushing them to support goofballs like Trump?


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Democrats typically advocate for the urban people in such situations, so how has the democratic party overlooked this group? What can they do to win them over rather than pushing them to support goofballs like Trump?


 Well, there's a massive and well-identified split between urban liberals and rural conservatives - closeness to a metropolitan center is probably the single strongest predictor of political views, possibly even over race once you first adjust for location. 

The right likes to paint this as the left catering to the urban poor by offering them handouts... But that's not really the case, because you see the same geographic divide between wealthy urban Americans and wealthy rural Americans, where the former is way more likely to be liberal while the latter conservative, and because there are actually a rather LOT of federal programs aimed at providing social benefits to the rural poor as well, not the least of which subsidized water and farm aid. 

I don't have a ready answer here, I'm just outlining the problem... But the growing cultural divide between urban and rural Americans is something clearly worth spending some time meditating on, and I think it's more than "community," since you see a similar relationship with religion in the cities and country, which is the main community institution for most rural Americans.


----------



## vilk

tedtan said:


> No, it doesn't address several issues. I'm expounding on the article, but it essentially paints the picture of Trump's base (not republicans in general, only Trump's fervent supporters) as being the rural white equivalent of an inner city black ghetto in many key areas. Lack of education and access to education, lack of social institutions and interaction ranging from country clubs to moose lodges to tightly knit church groups to block parties to good jobs [and increasing drug usage and crime]. These issues are tied to these people's lack of socio-economic mobility and lead to their disenfranchisement with the current system. They want change; real change that benefits them, not more of the same from a different clique of the ruling elite.
> 
> Democrats typically advocate for the urban people in such situations, so how has the democratic party overlooked this group? What can they do to win them over rather than pushing them to support goofballs like Trump?


Many Democratic elected officials are unable to transform themselves into white men, so they would be unable to garner support from the Trump base irrespective of their proposed policies.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Many Democratic elected officials are unable to transform themselves into white men, so they would be unable to garner support from the Trump base irrespective of their proposed policies.


Hey, if Michael Jackson could do it...


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Well, there's a massive and well-identified split between urban liberals and rural conservatives - closeness to a metropolitan center is probably the single strongest predictor of political views, possibly even over race once you first adjust for location.



Definitely. You can even see this in a heavily red state like Texas. For example, in the Beto v. Cruz senate race in 2018, the counties with the major cities are blue in sea of red:











Drew said:


> I don't have a ready answer here, I'm just outlining the problem... But the growing cultural divide between urban and rural Americans is something clearly worth spending some time meditating on, and I think it's more than "community," since you see a similar relationship with religion in the cities and country, which is the main community institution for most rural Americans.



My take on the article's reference to community was in relation to a sense of building and supporting a community v. the "I got mine" type of thinking that republicans are often accused of. But even then, it is only a small part of the overall divide.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> Many Democratic elected officials are unable to transform themselves into white men, so they would be unable to garner support from the Trump base irrespective of their proposed policies.



I think there's inherent racism/sexism tethered to conservative politics, absolutely, BUT that's whitewashing (no pun intended) the deeper story of 2016. Don't forget that this country twice elected a black (er, mulatto) guy with a very 'weird' sounding name, and a middle name he shared with a dictator who's nation we overran just a few years prior. To say that 100% of Trump's support (both direct and indirect) come from pervasive racism is inaccurate.

I know enough baby boomer and similar middle-America, white voters, who thought that the Democratic Party had abandoned blue collar workers and abandoned straight, white Americans. Anecdotal but I've known liberal Democratic voters who've said "hey, I'm okay with gay people and trans-people, but why do I need to feel like a bigot because I'm 'so-so' on guy in a dress following my grand-daughter into the women's room, and why does the government need to make it a law how I'm supposed to feel about that?" or "I'm accepting of neighbors of all ethnicities and and countries of origin, but how come I'm considered a racist because I want to vet people being flown here from countries in the middle of a war against terrorists?", etc etc etc.

And, personally, I can understand a lot of those positions but I think being legitimately informed, open-minded and accepting means they don't keep you up at night and allow you to evolve. So yes, I think there's a certain amount of introspection necessary in those cases but the way you do NOT convince those people to shed their biases is by shouting them down and name calling them. I absolutely know enough Democrats that were disenfranchised by the party going into 2016 and being told they were racist, bigoted, homophobic, whatever just for having an preclusion from socially liberal Democratic policies was enough for them to sit it out or vote as a (over)reaction.

The hope is that we learned those lessons, both as voters and as a party. If you asked me a year ago if we did I'd say yes but that answer gets less and less clear as the days go on.


----------



## vilk

I meant people who walk around in public wearing MAGA hats, not just Republicans or conservatives generally.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I know enough baby boomer and similar middle-America, white voters, who thought that the Democratic Party had abandoned blue collar workers and abandoned straight, white Americans. Anecdotal but I've known liberal Democratic voters who've said "hey, I'm okay with gay people and trans-people, but why do I need to feel like a bigot because I'm 'so-so' on guy in a dress following my grand-daughter into the women's room, and why does the government need to make it a law how I'm supposed to feel about that?" or "I'm accepting of neighbors of all ethnicities and and countries of origin, but how come I'm considered a racist because I want to vet people being flown here from countries in the middle of a war against terrorists?", etc etc etc.



For what it's worth I'm optimistic here - while there absolutely is a solid block of overtly racist support for Trump, the people you're referring to are outside of that block, and looking approval numbers these days it's pretty clear that Trump has the support of core Republican voters... and pretty much no one else. He's wildly unpopular with Democrats, of course, but he's not much more popular with independents. And even second-order metrics, like approval of the Mueller investigation, Trump does well with Republicans, but rather badly with independents. 

I think a lot of (white, straight, majority religion) independents looked at Clinton and saw the worst/most elitist/most corporate aspects of the Democratic party, felt like the party hadn't really been focused on them for the last decade, and thought, "what the hell, what's the worst that could happen," and broke for Trump at a rate of about 2-of-3 in the final week of the election. And I think two years later, there's more of a "ooooooooooooooh... so _that's_ the worst that could have happened, and that's way worse than I thought" reaction amongst the potentially persuadable voters. 

Anyone who's been paying attention has to be aware that the 2018 midterms were a blowout election for the Democratic party. As long as they don't fuck things up in the next two years, Trump is at a disadvantage coming into 2020.


----------



## Randy

@Drew I'd fully agree with that assessment. I know a LOT of people who had exactly that reaction to Trump before and then after they saw how much our democracy depends on the intent of it's leaders. I definitely think that's enough to turn the vast majority of protest or experimental votes firmly back to the Democrats.

The one place I worry are Independents, centrists, 'outsider' and 'first time voters'. I agree with you about how much Trump's support has eroded to a core of JUST people who love him unconditionally or hate Democrats unconditionally, but those are groups are at least SOME kind of an x-factor. I agree with the 2018 midterm results but buried in the lead-up and follow-up were a surprising number of people (mostly young) who didn't vote based on things you hear all the time, distrust of the system as a whole, difficulty voting, apathy, so-on. 

I'm still optimistic overall but even as early as it is in the primary season, I'm already hearing a stirring of systemic distrust that has the danger to keep too many people on the sidelines. And I'd say those numbers might not be enough to overcome the volume of dislike for Trump, but I'm also expecting Round 2 of election/campaign shenanigans (we saw some preview of that in the Carolinas and Georgia during the mid-term), plus 2016 taught me to never take anything for granted.


----------



## Drew

Good news, Republicans! FINALLY, there's credible evidence of voter fraud, validating all of Trump's claims about massive voter fraud potentially changing the outcome of the race in...

...oh. A race a Republican won:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Good news, Republicans! FINALLY, there's credible evidence of voter fraud, validating all of Trump's claims about massive voter fraud potentially changing the outcome of the race in...
> 
> ...oh. A race a Republican won:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/mark-harris-nc-voter-fraud.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage



Election Fraud =/= Voter Fraud

I hate being this pedantic, but the difference matters.

Voter fraud just doesn't exist, but election fraud most certainly does.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Election Fraud =/= Voter Fraud
> 
> I hate being this pedantic, but the difference matters.
> 
> Voter fraud just doesn't exist, but election fraud most certainly does.


Let's go full on semantic here, then, because I either don't get or don't see the distinction you're making and if I'm missing something then I'd like to learn. 

Technically, when this guy collected incomplete and unsealed incomplete absentee ballots, filled them out himself, signed off as the witness, and submitted them himself, he was voting for someone that wasn't himself, no? He wasn't changing the total of votes cast or destroying or altering completed ballots, he was voting using the identity of someone else. I think that IS voter fraud, and one of a handful of confirmed instances I can point to in recent memory (the only other one that comes to mind is ironically also a Republican, a woman who submitted multiple absentee ballots, claiming she wanted to "offset" the vote of "illegal aliens" committing voter fraud).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Let's go full on semantic here, then, because I either don't get or don't see the distinction you're making and if I'm missing something then I'd like to learn.
> 
> Technically, when this guy collected incomplete and unsealed incomplete absentee ballots, filled them out himself, signed off as the witness, and submitted them himself, he was voting for someone that wasn't himself, no? He wasn't changing the total of votes cast or destroying or altering completed ballots, he was voting using the identity of someone else. I think that IS voter fraud, and one of a handful of confirmed instances I can point to in recent memory (the only other one that comes to mind is ironically also a Republican, a woman who submitted multiple absentee ballots, claiming she wanted to "offset" the vote of "illegal aliens" committing voter fraud).



I guess there's a bit more debate about this, now that the issue in North Carolina has matured, but when I originally was reading up on this I saw many making the distinction:

Voter Fraud: When a voter knowingly attempts to defraud the electoral process. For instance attempting to vote multiple times or attempting to vote in a race they don't have legal stake in. 

Election Fraud: When a candidate or agent of one of the candidates defrauds the system by either destroying, manipulation, or forging ballots or the associated machinery.

Electoral Fraud: When the state/government illegally processes, or fails to process, ballots properly resulting in an improper count/outcome. 

Though, in recent weeks much of those distinctions have been further blurred to the point that there's no longer as solid of a divide as I initially thought. 

I'll have to look for it, but there was a WaPo article from a week or so back that discussed this, but I don't have a subscription.


----------



## Drew

Hmm. This seems to blur the line between the first two, then, by my read. The guy was using hs position in a campaign, but wasn't destroying or manipulating or forging ballots, but wwas convincing voters to hand over signed incomplete absentee ballots that he then filled out himself and signed as a witness. I guess you could go either way on that last bit, but if you consider trying to vote using someone else's identity voter fraud rather than electoral fraud (which I think it is), then there's a case to be made... 

Either way, this is a weird one, for sure. Even the GOP candidate himself backed down at the very end, but only after it became clear that when he testified (under oath) that he was unaware of this, he was probably lying since his son testified he'd told him of suspicious this agent was doing this. 

It won't change the outcome any since the House is comfortably Democratic, but I'd say after the Dems lost a close race by what, 908 votes, and then it became clear there was widespread voter/election/whatever fraud benefiting the Republican, well, that doesn't exactly hurt them in the new election. Doubly so if the post-Trump Democratic enthusiasm gap continues to play out in their favor.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> Many Democratic elected officials are unable to transform themselves into white men, so they would be unable to garner support from the Trump base irrespective of their proposed policies.



I am probably going to regret this, but _*why*_ are you _*so certain*_ that these people are all so racist? 
Do you realize how you sound? 



Randy said:


> I think there's inherent racism/sexism tethered to conservative politics, absolutely, BUT that's whitewashing (no pun intended) the deeper story of 2016. Don't forget that this country twice elected a black (er, mulatto) guy with a very 'weird' sounding name, and a middle name he shared with a dictator who's nation we overran just a few years prior. To say that 100% of Trump's support (both direct and indirect) come from pervasive racism is inaccurate.
> 
> I know enough baby boomer and similar middle-America, white voters, who thought that the Democratic Party had abandoned blue collar workers and abandoned straight, white Americans. Anecdotal but I've known liberal Democratic voters who've said "hey, I'm okay with gay people and trans-people, but why do I need to feel like a bigot because I'm 'so-so' on guy in a dress following my grand-daughter into the women's room, and why does the government need to make it a law how I'm supposed to feel about that?" or "I'm accepting of neighbors of all ethnicities and and countries of origin, but how come I'm considered a racist because I want to vet people being flown here from countries in the middle of a war against terrorists?", etc etc etc.
> 
> And, personally, I can understand a lot of those positions but I think being legitimately informed, open-minded and accepting means they don't keep you up at night and allow you to evolve. So yes, I think there's a certain amount of introspection necessary in those cases but the way you do NOT convince those people to shed their biases is by shouting them down and name calling them. I absolutely know enough Democrats that were disenfranchised by the party going into 2016 and being told they were racist, bigoted, homophobic, whatever just for having an preclusion from socially liberal Democratic policies was enough for them to sit it out or vote as a (over)reaction.
> 
> The hope is that we learned those lessons, both as voters and as a party. If you asked me a year ago if we did I'd say yes but that answer gets less and less clear as the days go on.



If more people had this attitude I'd probably still vote democrat. There is so much truth in this post. The only reason I even started paying attention to politics in the first place was because I got tired of being tirelessly insulted and talked down to by hardcore leftists. Stuff like that shouldn't be people's first exposure.

Man, I know the right has it's share of "lul owned those libtard" types, but it sure feels relentless from the left. I know a vast, incredible majority of the democratic base are not like this, but _*god*_ the ones that are are loud. It's starting to look like the right is starting to get worse about this too now, and it feels like civil discourse is _rapidly_ going the way of the dodo because we just have two tribal groups hurling insults at each other.


----------



## narad

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I am probably going to regret this, but _*why*_ are you _*so certain*_ that these people are all so racist?
> Do you realize how you sound?



"All" these people don't have to be racist, or even overtly so, for @vilk 's point. But I do think conservatives tend to be notably more comfortable and consistent voting white -- in the same way liberals would probably prefer to vote non-white. But that makes it a lot damning for diversity on the right, because the tendency is to stay the course. Does anyone think Ben Carson could have been a real contender, even if his personality and background was that of Trump, and not a total blubbering snoozefest?

It's like religion. I'm not certain that all conservatives OR all liberals are christian, yet getting major elected officials who can publicly announce they're a non-christian faith is near impossible. We can probably get a female president any time now, but an atheist president... I'm skeptical.


----------



## vilk

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I am probably going to regret this, but _*why*_ are you _*so certain*_ that these people are all so racist?
> Do you realize how you sound?


C'mon, I'm not calling them child rapists or something totally crazy. Perhaps the alt-right doesn't appreciate being called racist misogynists, but in many ways they don't deny that they are. I know you seem super duper eager to defend these people, but I'll let you know that if you were to ask most of them outright they'd openly explain to you their racist and misogynist beliefs, and then proceed to cite crime statistics and the Bible so as to qualify themselves. 

inb4 implying for the ump-teenth time that I'm generalizing about all conservatives or Republicans, as I've already explained several times over that I'm not.

Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, and Republicans alike should all be totally disgusted by Donald Trump and his alt-right base.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Need more quotation marks, dude.


----------



## vilk

""""""""great insight"""""""


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> Why do I call the alt-right racist misogynists? Hm... I wonder... such a mystery why someone would think that...
> 
> I know my location says Chicagoland, but I grew up in Indiana. I know there's all sorts of racists that are """""""good people"""""". They're indoctrinated into their beliefs for life, hence they also think Noah literally put 2x every single animal onto a boat. So it's not """""their fault""""", so why do I wanna grind my ax on them? Right?
> 
> Yeah, I guess they can't help that they're gullible, and it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their opinions. But it also doesn't mean that they aren't racists and misogynists.
> 
> C'mon, I'm not calling them child rapists or something totally crazy. Perhaps the alt-right doesn't appreciate being called racist misogynists, but in many ways they don't deny that they are. I know you seem super duper eager to defend these people, but I'll let you know that if you were to ask most of them outright they'd openly explain to you their racist and misogynist beliefs, and then continue to cite crime statistics and the Bible so as to qualify themselves.
> 
> inb4 implying for the ump-teenth time that I'm generalizing about all conservatives or Republicans, as I've already explained several times over that I'm not.



But we aren't talking about the alt-right. We're talking about Trump supporters. People who put their weight behind the current president of the united states.
I know you qualified that you were talking about "the guys that walk around with MAGA hats," and not the right in general, but that is still a *huge *umbrella of people. My brother is one of those people- are you telling me, without ever meeting him, that my brother is a low-IQ racist and a misogynist? That'd be hilarious. He's an even nicer person than I am. 

Do all Trump supporters follow him because the media tells them he's racist, and they are too, so they decide "he's alright"?
Do all Trump supporters follow him because he's done some sleazy shit and they also view women as 'lesser,' so they pile on with him because he "gets it"? 
Or do you think some of them may like him because he's a big middle finger to the establishment political elite? 
Or could some of them enjoy him just because of how absolutely insane he seems to make people? 
What if some of them support him because they see all of these problems in america that others ignore but he promised to fix, and they (naively) wanted to believe in him? 

Do you realize what you're doing? You're stereotyping. In a deliberately venomous manner. You are deliberately misrepresenting a huge swathe of the american public to be vile people because you disagree with their politics. It'd be so easy for me to sit here, climb up on my soapbox, and generalize all of Bernie's supporters as lazy deadbeat socialists that just want a handout because they don't like to work. Or all of Hillary's supporters as whiny, entitled SJW-types that screech about how it's "her turn." But that'd be pretty dumb, wouldn't it? It'd be a real stupid thing to do, to generalize an entire group of people based on one shared trait, right? 

And for the record- I'm not arguing that you're wrong in the way that no such people exist. I'd be a fool to deny that there are people that fit this exact description. But you would be just so much of a fool to insist that they're anywhere near as common as you present them to be. I get the intent behind it, and I get that it was a sarcastic, offhand comment- but a little finesse goes a long way. The constant holier-than-thou browbeating that is coming from the left these days is absolutely not productive.


----------



## vilk

Ordacleaphobia said:


> But we aren't talking about the alt-right. We're talking about Trump supporters. People who put their weight behind the current president of the united states.


There's a difference between espousing the political views of Donald Trump and just being some ancient fogey who was brainwashed from birth to believe he's gotta support the president or else he's a traitor or some ridiculous McCarthyism crap etc.

Trump's base is the alt-right. Trump supporters are alt-righters. Conservatives and Republicans are just conservatives and Republicans. From a poli-sci standpoint, I think either a conservative or Republican should highly object to Donald Trump's administration.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> I know you qualified that you were talking about "the guys that walk around with MAGA hats," and not the right in general, but that is still a *huge *umbrella of people. My brother is one of those people- are you telling me, without ever meeting him, that my brother is a low-IQ racist and a misogynist? That'd be hilarious. He's an even nicer person than I am.



I'm not a gambling man, but if someone put a gun to your head and said "place your bet", don't you think you'd bet the same way that I would?

I have a personal/family friend that has a MAGA hat. He's definitely not low-IQ, though it's apparent to everyone he meets that there's some sort of social retardation thing there. He likes Trump because Trump is a "troll" and makes people upset. He also is from a millionaire family and will himself become a multi-millionaire when his mother passes someday. Even still, despite his personal and financially logical reasons to support Donald Trump, even this guy whom most would consider very socially uncouth would never wear the thing in public. Just an anecdote detailing that I do understand that not 100% of the people who support Trump are necessarily stupid with regards to IQ.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Do all Trump supporters follow him because the media tells them he's racist, and they are too, so they decide "he's alright"?
> Do all Trump supporters follow him because he's done some sleazy shit and they also view women as 'lesser,' so they pile on with him because he "gets it"?
> Or do you think some of them may like him because he's a big middle finger to the establishment political elite?
> Or could some of them enjoy him just because of how absolutely insane he seems to make people?
> What if some of them support him because they see all of these problems in america that others ignore but he promised to fix, and they (naively) wanted to believe in him?


Zero-sum fallacy. They can support Trump for other reasons and not also not disapprove of his racism or misogyny.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> to insist that they're anywhere near as common as you present them to be.



Sorry, did that happen? I must have missed it. Or, in my defense, I don't actually believe very many people are walking around wearing MAGA hats. Sorry to hear about your brother though.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I am probably going to regret this, but _*why*_ are you _*so certain*_ that these people are all so racist?
> Do you realize how you sound?


I wouldn't go as far as certain... But, considering that among Trump's supporters a border wall on our southern border is fairly popular to keep people out, yet there is zero talk of a border wall on the _northern_ border and no one seems to be asking or looking for one, and the people at the southern border are brown and the people at the northern border are white, is kind of an uncomfortable situation to find yourself in.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> There's a difference between espousing the political views of Donald Trump and just being some ancient fogey who was brainwashed from birth to believe he's gotta support the president or else he's a traitor or some ridiculous McCarthyism crap etc.
> 
> Trump's base is the alt-right. Trump supporters are alt-righters. Conservatives and Republicans are just conservatives and Republicans. From a poli-sci standpoint, I think either a conservative or Republican should highly object to Donald Trump's administration.



This is blatantly untrue. Not to mention that you can agree with certain aspects of what the man says but disagree with others.



> I'm not a gambling man, but if someone put a gun to your head and said "place your bet", don't you think you'd bet the same way that I would?



No, I don't. I don't have this ridiculous worldview where I assume that most people are still parroting this archaic social hierarchy nonsense, and I try to assume that people are mostly decent until they've given me a reason to believe otherwise. You do you, though.



> I have a personal/family friend that has a MAGA hat. He's definitely not low-IQ, though it's apparent to everyone he meets that there's some sort of social retardation thing there. He likes Trump because Trump is a "troll" and makes people upset. He also is from a millionaire family and will himself become a multi-millionaire when his mother passes someday. Even still, despite his personal and financially logical reasons to support Donald Trump, even this guy whom most would consider very socially uncouth would never wear the thing in public. Just an anecdote detailing that I do understand that not 100% of the people who support Trump are necessarily stupid with regards to IQ.



But they _*are*_ all racists and misogynists, though, right? I think you see what you want to see.



> Zero-sum fallacy. They can support Trump for other reasons and not also not disapprove of his racism or misogyny.



Absolutely. Works both ways, though. I can think Trump has good economic ideas but not be down with his "racism." Which is how I would assume an indescribably large percentage of people look at it.



> Sorry, did that happen? I must have missed it. Or, in my defense, I don't actually believe very many people are walking around wearing MAGA hats. Sorry to hear about your brother though.



Yeah man no worries, here, let me cite my source:


vilk said:


> Many Democratic elected officials are unable to transform themselves into white men, so they would be unable to garner support from the Trump base irrespective of their proposed policies.





Drew said:


> I wouldn't go as far as certain... But, considering that among Trump's supporters a border wall on our southern border is fairly popular to keep people out, yet there is zero talk of a border wall on the _northern_ border and no one seems to be asking or looking for one, and the people at the southern border are brown and the people at the northern border are white, is kind of an uncomfortable situation to find yourself in.



Only because you're inserting your own bias into the way you're looking at it. Like I said above, you see what you want to see. And in this case, you want to see Trump supporters being racist because that gives you political ammunition and confirms your assumptions.
(See: Covington Catholic case)

A border wall separating us from Canada would be even more unrealistic. So while Mexico is really pushing it, Canada is functionally impossible. Not to mention that securing funding for that project would be substantially more difficult. And feel free to call me uneducated, but I _believe_ that most of the illegal immigration and trafficking that is taking place by straight up illegal border crossing is coming from the south and not the north. Maybe that's just because I'm in California or because the Canadian front just isn't reported on, I don't know; I honestly haven't looked into it because I'm not aware of a problem. I would imagine that most reasonable people would come to a similar conclusion. Race is not a part of the issue until someone makes it part of the issue. I have a much easier time believing that race was not an original concern.


----------



## possumkiller

I think Trump is working. I supported Trump to get elected. Well I wasn't supporting Trump himself. I don't really like him or his idiotic ideas. I supported the chaos he would cause. Trump is like a natural disaster. The government is going to have to clean up and protect itself from future such disasters. Thanks to Trump, other politicians are going to be really getting their shit together for 2020 and maybe finally start to take their voters seriously. Now if we can just make it to 2020 before Trump gets us all killed...


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Only because you're inserting your own bias into the way you're looking at it. Like I said above, you see what you want to see. And in this case, you want to see Trump supporters being racist because that gives you political ammunition and confirms your assumptions.
> (See: Covington Catholic case)
> 
> A border wall separating us from Canada would be even more unrealistic. So while Mexico is really pushing it, Canada is functionally impossible. Not to mention that securing funding for that project would be substantially more difficult. And feel free to call me uneducated, but I _believe_ that most of the illegal immigration and trafficking that is taking place by straight up illegal border crossing is coming from the south and not the north. Maybe that's just because I'm in California or because the Canadian front just isn't reported on, I don't know; I honestly haven't looked into it because I'm not aware of a problem. I would imagine that most reasonable people would come to a similar conclusion. Race is not a part of the issue until someone makes it part of the issue. I have a much easier time believing that race was not an original concern.


I don't agree with you, in your first point, and in the second point you're wrong. 

First point - is a border wall between the US and Canada _more_ functionally impossible than one with Mexico? Maybe... But we're splitting hairs; if a border wall with Mexico is less functionally impossible and prohibitively expensive than one with Canada, that doesn't make Canada impossible but Mexico pretty achievable - really, both are functionally impossible and prohibitively expensive, which is one of the main reasons the majority of Americans are opposed to building it in the first place. Just because it's way harder for me to throw a baseball to Venus than to the Moon doesn't mean that my trying to hit the Moon with a baseball wouldn't be a complete waste of time, you know? 

Second point - the vast majority of people in the country illegally didn't illegally cross an unprotected stretch of border. They entered the country legally through ports of entry and overstayed visas. The vast majority of drugs in this country are either smuggled in through ports of entry as well, or, as in the case of the El Chapo trial, smugged in through underground tunnels below the border and below existing walled sections. Moving drugs openly above ground without going through border checkpoints is simply too hard and to slow to be effective - we're not talking about a half dozen guys with backpacks trudging through the sand, we're talking about 1.7 tons of meth being smuggled across the border through the LA checkpoint hidden in dummy speakers. A wall won't do a thing to stop either of these, and part of the absurdity of the Trump push to get this boondoggle built is that he's been straight-up lying about this kind of stuff, talking about our borders like people and drugs ARE flowing through the unwalled sections, instead of flowing through the existing checkpoints. 

So, most of the illegal immigration in America are in the form of people coming in legally and overstaying, while most of the drugs smuggled into this country are already coming through existing ports of entry. A wall does nothing to solve either of these problems. Why then the focus on building a wall which won't do anything on the border shared with a country of brown people, but not on the border shared with white people? Especially considering Trump ran a campaign claiming that the people crossing the Mexican border were mostly rapists, drug dealers, and criminals, while also promising to pass a Muslim ban to stop everyone of a particularly (and, weirdly, prediminately brown) religion from entering the country.... past a point, you certainly have to consider racism as a motivating point. And that's before we start talking about Trump's defense of neo-Nazi groups in things like the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally... Like, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck if you roast it up medium rare and serve it in a shallot au jus reduction... The easiest explanation here is Trump voters are more concerned with brown immigrants than white immigrants, no?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I don't agree with you, in your first point, and in the second point you're wrong.
> 
> First point - is a border wall between the US and Canada _more_ functionally impossible than one with Mexico? Maybe... But we're splitting hairs; if a border wall with Mexico is less functionally impossible and prohibitively expensive than one with Canada, that doesn't make Canada impossible but Mexico pretty achievable - really, both are functionally impossible and prohibitively expensive, which is one of the main reasons the majority of Americans are opposed to building it in the first place. Just because it's way harder for me to throw a baseball to Venus than to the Moon doesn't mean that my trying to hit the Moon with a baseball wouldn't be a complete waste of time, you know?



Sure, but I'd still stick to my point here. The Canadian wall would have to cover much more ground, which would be much more expensive, and less realistic. And if there isn't as big of a problem (or if people aren't aware of it), of course nobody is going to talk about it. The point wasn't that that's a good reason for the Mexican wall, it's just a contributing factor to why people talk about one and not the other.



> Second point - the vast majority of people in the country illegally didn't illegally cross an unprotected stretch of border. They entered the country legally through ports of entry and overstayed visas. The vast majority of drugs in this country are either smuggled in through ports of entry as well, or, as in the case of the El Chapo trial, smugged in through underground tunnels below the border and below existing walled sections. Moving drugs openly above ground without going through border checkpoints is simply too hard and to slow to be effective - we're not talking about a half dozen guys with backpacks trudging through the sand, we're talking about 1.7 tons of meth being smuggled across the border through the LA checkpoint hidden in dummy speakers. A wall won't do a thing to stop either of these, and part of the absurdity of the Trump push to get this boondoggle built is that he's been straight-up lying about this kind of stuff, talking about our borders like people and drugs ARE flowing through the unwalled sections, instead of flowing through the existing checkpoints.
> 
> So, most of the illegal immigration in America are in the form of people coming in legally and overstaying, while most of the drugs smuggled into this country are already coming through existing ports of entry. A wall does nothing to solve either of these problems. Why then the focus on building a wall which won't do anything on the border shared with a country of brown people, but not on the border shared with white people? Especially considering Trump ran a campaign claiming that the people crossing the Mexican border were mostly rapists, drug dealers, and criminals, while also promising to pass a Muslim ban to stop everyone of a particularly (and, weirdly, prediminately brown) religion from entering the country.... past a point, you certainly have to consider racism as a motivating point. And that's before we start talking about Trump's defense of neo-Nazi groups in things like the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally... Like, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck if you roast it up medium rare and serve it in a shallot au jus reduction... The easiest explanation here is Trump voters are more concerned with brown immigrants than white immigrants, no?



Drew...that's why I took extra care to specify "_immigration and trafficking that is taking place by *straight up illegal border crossing*_" in my post. I'm well aware of the visa issue. I'm also not arguing about the efficacy of a wall or whether or not it's a good idea.

The easiest explanation is that Trump voters are tired of subsidizing illegal immigrants with their hard earned tax dollars and bought in to someone telling them that they were going to fix it. The overwhelming majority of the US doesn't give enough of a shit about politics to do all of the research behind every facet of the discussion- they see a guy telling them that illegal immigration is on his agenda and he wants to take care of it. 

If those damn canucks are stealing all of my tax dollars, get it on the news because I want to hear about it. They don't even have the "my government is ludicrously corrupt" excuse.


----------



## spudmunkey

My issue with the wall as proposed:

It's not that walls don't work. And it's not like wanting locks on your home's doors is hypocritical if you're against an expansion of the wall.

Walls, locks, etc, keep out the honest(ish).

And the only real difference between the two sides is where the line is, for diminishing returns, where it's no longer practical to do more of the same.

Adding a locking doorknob will keep out the majority of people who would even think about trying to come in. It stops those who are only willing to put in a tiny bit of effort, and try your knob. Adding a deadbolt is the next level, as it's harder to breach by force, and harder to pick. Then there's door jam reinforcements. Cameras. Alarm systems...but where do you go from there? If someone really wanted to get in, they could break a window. Ahh...more alarms and reinforced windows? Bars? Ok, then take a sledge hammer, and bust through the stucco and drywall on the wall right next to the door and window.

So from that perspective, a wall of some sort makes sense. Adding *some* sort of barrier is important, as even just a simple barrier across the areas where it's easy to cross does make sense and has the lion's share of the impact. Once people start having to risk their life, or pay smugglers...that filters out a whole bunch of folks, right?

It's important to realize that our disagreement isn't about the concept of walls. It's whether or not we think it's a priority to build walls where the terrain is so challenging that we haven't already built there, or that the handfull of people that do survive the trip through these areas are worth the cost ...because the people who are going through these routes may not be stopped by a beefed up or longer wall, anyway. 

Especially considering that the expansion of the border wall isn't chump change. It's not 1.8 billion. It's not 5, or 8 billion. It's *at least* 25 million, and that's the lowest of the low estimates. And it's not a one-time cost.

The reason *most* people object (and most people aren't the ones at rally's with megaphones, and smoldering Trump effigies), isn't because we don't think illegal immigration and drugs isn't a problem...or even a national emergency. It's that we question that this money for this wall doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of that much money, especially now that it turns out, it's money being taken away from other money already budgeted (some of it even from the DOD's own fight against drugs, anyway).


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Sure, but I'd still stick to my point here. The Canadian wall would have to cover much more ground, which would be much more expensive, and less realistic. And if there isn't as big of a problem (or if people aren't aware of it), of course nobody is going to talk about it. The point wasn't that that's a good reason for the Mexican wall, it's just a contributing factor to why people talk about one and not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Drew...that's why I took extra care to specify "_immigration and trafficking that is taking place by *straight up illegal border crossing*_" in my post. I'm well aware of the visa issue. I'm also not arguing about the efficacy of a wall or whether or not it's a good idea.
> 
> The easiest explanation is that Trump voters are tired of subsidizing illegal immigrants with their hard earned tax dollars and bought in to someone telling them that they were going to fix it. The overwhelming majority of the US doesn't give enough of a shit about politics to do all of the research behind every facet of the discussion- they see a guy telling them that illegal immigration is on his agenda and he wants to take care of it.
> 
> If those damn canucks are stealing all of my tax dollars, get it on the news because I want to hear about it. They don't even have the "my government is ludicrously corrupt" excuse.


To the first point - but still, if the US Mexico border is around 2,000 miles long and the US Canada is around 5,500 miles long, then the northern border should only be harder to wall off than the southern border by a factor of slightly less than 3. If we REALLY think we can do the latter, the former seems pretty doable too, no? Why the focus on the southern border? 

To the second point - that's exactly what I'm getting at, though. A border wall will actually have an extremely modest effect on illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Very little of either is occurring at the un-fenced portions of the southern border. So why the fixation on stopping a problem that doesn't exist? (I'll tangentially note here that it's also not accurate to say that illegal immigrants are being subsidized with american tax dollars - if anything, the reverse is true, since if you're an illegal immigrant and manage to get an above-the-table paycheck, then you're paying into social security and having withholding taxes taken out of your paycheck, neither of which you'll ever hope to get). Again, I think the simplest explanation is that while anyone from anywhere can fly into New York City and overstay a visa, but only people from Mexico can walk across a border in the desert. The border wall is an extremely expensive, impractical, and low-tech boondoggle of a solution that doesn't really target the root of the illegal immigration question. Instead, it pretty explicitly is a barrier for brown people. 

The border wall is obviously not a practical solution - it does nothing to address the manner in which the _vast_ number of illegal immigrants and drugs enter the country. It's purely symbolic. And because it's a physical barrier between the US and a "brown" country, it's a symbolic way of blocking brown people from coming into the country. It's a symbolic way of addressing illegal immigration, sure... But it's a symbolic way of addressing illegal immigration of _only_ people with brown skin. 

I'm not asking to you agree with me, necessarily, just walk through that chain of thought and try to understand why an extremely large number of your countrymen think the solution to a problem that doesn't exist that's specifically focused on non-white immigrants is racist.


----------



## vilk

nvm whats the point anyway


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> To the first point - but still, if the US Mexico border is around 2,000 miles long and the US Canada is around 5,500 miles long, then the northern border should only be harder to wall off than the southern border by a factor of slightly less than 3. If we REALLY think we can do the latter, the former seems pretty doable too, no? Why the focus on the southern border?



Just one factor- but if 2,000 is questionable, why is 5,500 "pretty doable"? If I've got a $2,000 bonus on the table as a "maybe," the last thing I'm going to do is push for $5,500.
I would guess the main bit though is that people are aware that there's an immigration problem with Mexico. Not so much regarding Canada; if there is one, I haven't heard about it.



> *To the second point - that's exactly what I'm getting at, though. A border wall will actually have an extremely modest effect on illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Very little of either is occurring at the un-fenced portions of the southern border. So why the fixation on stopping a problem that doesn't exist? *(I'll tangentially note here that it's also not accurate to say that illegal immigrants are being subsidized with american tax dollars - if anything, the reverse is true, since if you're an illegal immigrant and manage to get an above-the-table paycheck, then you're paying into social security and having withholding taxes taken out of your paycheck, neither of which you'll ever hope to get). *Again, I think the simplest explanation is that while anyone from anywhere can fly into New York City and overstay a visa, but only people from Mexico can walk across a border in the desert. The border wall is an extremely expensive, impractical, and low-tech boondoggle of a solution that doesn't really target the root of the illegal immigration question. *Instead, it pretty explicitly is a barrier for brown people.
> 
> *The border wall is obviously not a practical solution - it does nothing to address the manner in which the vast number of illegal immigrants and drugs enter the country. It's purely symbolic*. And because it's a physical barrier between the US and a "brown" country, it's a symbolic way of blocking brown people from coming into the country. It's a symbolic way of addressing illegal immigration, sure... But it's a symbolic way of addressing illegal immigration of _only_ people with brown skin.
> 
> I'm not asking to you agree with me, necessarily, just walk through that chain of thought and try to understand why an extremely large number of your countrymen think the solution to a problem that doesn't exist that's specifically focused on non-white immigrants is racist.



I at least mostly agree with everything in bold. Still though- the only way that I can envision arriving at the conclusion that a border wall is explicitly racist is if I were already the type of person that was always hyper-focused on race. Of which there are a depressingly high amount in this country. So yeah; I get that part.

--
Just a quick edit for an afterthought, why do people pick the wall as their hill to die on? If we're going to fling insults around, why not go with this administration's approach of minimizing _*legal*_ immigration? That seems like a much more viable basis for that argument.



vilk said:


> nvm whats the point anyway



Yeah; same. This clearly isn't going anywhere.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Just a quick edit for an afterthought, why do people pick the wall as their hill to die on? If we're going to fling insults around, why not go with this administration's approach of minimizing _*legal*_ immigration? That seems like a much more viable basis for that argument.


Plenty of people here have complained about that. But plenty of other people still think a border wall has redeeming qualities.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

StevenC said:


> Plenty of people here have complained about that. But plenty of other people still think a border wall has redeeming qualities.



Yeah, discussion here was actually how I found out that was happening. 
I mean in general, though- I see it in the media all the time, and it's always about the wall.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, discussion here was actually how I found out that was happening.
> I mean in general, though- I see it in the media all the time, and it's always about the wall.


Because $25B of your money


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Just one factor- but if 2,000 is questionable, why is 5,500 "pretty doable"? If I've got a $2,000 bonus on the table as a "maybe," the last thing I'm going to do is push for $5,500.
> I would guess the main bit though is that people are aware that there's an immigration problem with Mexico. Not so much regarding Canada; if there is one, I haven't heard about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I at least mostly agree with everything in bold. Still though- the only way that I can envision arriving at the conclusion that a border wall is explicitly racist is if I were already the type of person that was always hyper-focused on race. Of which there are a depressingly high amount in this country. So yeah; I get that part.
> 
> --
> Just a quick edit for an afterthought, why do people pick the wall as their hill to die on? If we're going to fling insults around, why not go with this administration's approach of minimizing _*legal*_ immigration? That seems like a much more viable basis for that argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah; same. This clearly isn't going anywhere.


first point - I DON'T think 5,500 is "pretty doable." I also don't think 2,000 is doable. But, if hypothetically you were to believe that 2,000 miles of wall is no big deal, then 5,500 isn't THAT much more. It's not logically consistent to think one is impossible but the other is totally reasonable. 

Second point - I think what may seem like "hyper focused on race" for a white man is kind of the day to day life for a minority in this country. I also don't think it's at ALL a stretch to look at a policy, especially a stupidly expensive one like this, that is directed at a very specific ethnic group, and to at least question whether specifically targeting that ethnic group was a feature, and not a bug. 

Third point - yeah, Trump's massive constraining of legal immigration into this country is a huge deal and deserves more attention than it's getting, especially because there are racially charged elements there, as well. But, again, that doesn't really do you any favors when you're arguing that Trump's supporters are NOT motivated by racism when it comes to immigration policies.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> first point - I DON'T think 5,500 is "pretty doable." I also don't think 2,000 is doable. But, if hypothetically you were to believe that 2,000 miles of wall is no big deal, then 5,500 isn't THAT much more. It's not logically consistent to think one is impossible but the other is totally reasonable.
> 
> Second point - I think what may seem like "hyper focused on race" for a white man is kind of the day to day life for a minority in this country. I also don't think it's at ALL a stretch to look at a policy, especially a stupidly expensive one like this, that is directed at a very specific ethnic group, and to at least question whether specifically targeting that ethnic group was a feature, and not a bug.
> 
> Third point - yeah, Trump's massive constraining of legal immigration into this country is a huge deal and deserves more attention than it's getting, especially because there are racially charged elements there, as well. But, again, that doesn't really do you any favors when you're arguing that Trump's supporters are NOT motivated by racism when it comes to immigration policies.



1. 5500 is more than double, it _is_ that much more. I'm not gunna let that one go man 
2. You're only going to come to the conclusion that it's "targeting a very specific ethnic group" if you're already looking at it as a race thing. 
3. No, it sure doesn't  Which is why I would expect people lobbing the racist claim to clutch at that example over the wall. The wall has a justification to it, whether you deem it a thinly veiled facade or not, valid or not, at least there's a reason. I can't think of a justification for cutting legal immigration at the same time. Doesn't make sense to me, and I should really read the documentation behind it because yeah...that sounds like something worth getting upset over. 

I can't help but feel like we've done this dance before and we'll do it again.


----------



## possumkiller

Ordacleaphobia said:


> 2. You're only going to come to the conclusion that it's "targeting a very specific ethnic group" if you're already looking at it as a race thing.


This. 

The wall is a pretty stupid idea. I seriously doubt it will have any effect other than making Trump supporters feel like he actually kept his word. However, Drew seems to be missing something regarding the want of southern border control being racist. Is Trump racist? I don't know. From what I have read of the things he tweets and says, probably he is. Are a lot of Trump supporters and Republicans racist? More than likely. Are there Trump supporters and Republicans that are decent and sensible people? Probably. 

The idea of restricting only the southern border is not a racist idea. When people go to another country, they are generally trying to improve their life. How many Canadians are trying to get into America? There is the same mentality all over the world. Here in Poland there are tons of immigrants from Ukraine and other poor Eastern European countries. They are the "Mexicans" of Poland. When I lived in England, people were always complaining about Poles flooding in the country and taking British jobs. The exact same kind of speech I heard in America. The Poles are the UK's "Mexicans". 

For the vast majority of immigration control supporters, it is not about skin color at all. There just seems to be a universal attitude of dislike toward people coming from "shithole" countries to "take our jobs".



This is also something that drives me away from the left side of politics. People on the left keep claiming people on the right are racist, sexist, homophobic, and whatever other sort of thing makes one a terrible person. Yet, they are exactly the same. They are constantly spewing bile and hate toward the other side. Just like there are racist and sexist people on the right, there are racist and sexist people on the left pointing in the opposite direction. It really turns me off. Even though I have become quite liberal over the years, I do not want to identify as such because I don't want to be lumped into that category of the same bullshit in the opposite wrapper. That is what Hillary represented to a lot of people in 2016. No longer the left side but the anti-right side. Republicans and Democrats are just the same sides of a different coin.


----------



## thraxil

possumkiller said:


> This.
> 
> The idea of restricting only the southern border is not a racist idea. When people go to another country, they are generally trying to improve their life. How many Canadians are trying to get into America?



According to the DHS Overstay report (https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1009_S1_Entry-Exit-Overstay_Report.pdf) more Canadians illegally immigrated to the US in 2017 than Mexicans by almost double (101,281 Candadians vs 52,859 Mexicans). That's only counting those who came in on a visa and overstayed (which is estimated to be the majority of illegal immigration). It's not all of it though and if we assume that there are more people crossing the southern border not at legal points of entry than the northern border, it *might* be possible that there are more Mexican illegal immigrants than Canadian, but the numbers don't really support that.

In other words, there are probably *more* Canadians trying to get into America than Mexicans. At the very least, it's far, far closer than most people seem to be aware.


----------



## narad

MOAR WALLS! STATE OF EMERGENCY CONFIRMED!


----------



## possumkiller

Really? What the hell would they want to come here for?


----------



## Xaios

thraxil said:


> more Canadians illegally immigrated to the US in 2017 than Mexicans by almost double (101,281 Candadians vs 52,859 Mexicans). That's only counting those who came in on a visa and overstayed (which is estimated to be the majority of illegal immigration).





possumkiller said:


> Really? What the hell would they want to come here for?


We come for the cheap gas and to shop at Target, and just never leave.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

narad said:


> MOAR WALLS! STATE OF EMERGENCY CONFIRMED!



We're gunna build a wall around Canada, let me tell you, it'll be the biggest, most effective, and frankly, ok- frankly? Just the best. And Mexico is gunna pay for it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Canadians are so nice they'd just pay for it.


----------



## vilk

They probably have the cash handy since legalizing pot


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> The idea of restricting only the southern border is not a racist idea. When people go to another country, they are generally trying to improve their life. How many Canadians are trying to get into America?


Honestly, the idea that Mexicans "need to improve their quality of life" but Canadians don't is ITSELF part of the systematic and institutionalized racism that I'm describing here.

We've actually seen net _emigration_ of illegal Mexican residents over the past 10 years, though that's slowed a little recently. And as @thraxil points out, we DO have a large number of Canadians coming into the country illegally, in greater numbers than from Mexico.

But, this actually speaks kind of neatly to the point I'm making - there's this public perception on illegal immigration that Trump has been trying very hard to sell. Immigrants and drugs are pouring over our borders. Most our coming from our southern borders. They're coming either because they're violent criminals or rapists, or because they're trying to sel;l drugs. They're trying to leave their "shithole countries" and mooch off US taxpayers here in the States. And none of that perception matches the reality. Most illegal immigration is in the form of people entering the country legally and then overstaying their visas. More Canadians have illegally entered the states than Mexicans. Illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than legal residents, and are net generators and not consumers of tax revenue. Drugs generally are smuggled in through ports of entry than across the border.

The institutionalized racism is present in the very fact that people are way more willing to believe that about brown people than about other white people, and Trump is absolutely trying to use that for political purposes.



possumkiller said:


> Really? What the hell would they want to come here for?


US Per Capita GDP is 33% more than Canadian, 60k vs 45k. That's a much smaller gap than between the US and Mexico, but it's certainly a lot EASIER to get into the US from Canada, and no one really expects "illegal immigrants" to be white, so you're less likely to attract attention once you're here.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> and are net generators and not consumers of tax revenue.



Do you have sources for this?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Do you have sources for this?



https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-2/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pb...s-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes
https://immigrationforum.org/articl...migrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> But, this actually speaks kind of neatly to the point I'm making - there's this public perception on illegal immigration that Trump has been trying very hard to sell. Immigrants and drugs are pouring over our borders. Most our coming from our southern borders. They're coming either because they're violent criminals or rapists, or because they're trying to sel;l drugs.



One more small point: I'm sure it's no longer the case since Maine has more or less legalized pot, but back when I was in high school up there in the 90's the *good* weed was all from Canada. It was also well known among the locals that lobster fisherman on the coast often made most of their yearly income outside lobster season by using their fishing boats to import various substances (the Maine coast is really twisted and hard for the Coast Guard to patrol properly).


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Do you have sources for this?


Of course. CBO as the source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econo...igrants_in_the_United_States#Budgetary_impact

Again, the high level point I'm trying to make here - the rationale often provided for why we need a border wall to stop illegal immigration, and because there are good reasons it's pragmatic and not racist... the very things presented as evidence are _examples_ of the institutionalized racism, since none of them are true and all of Trump's supporters take them for granted.


----------



## possumkiller

So what you are saying is if Ukrainians and Poles suddenly turned brown, the UK's dislike of Poles coming to the UK and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainian immigrants would become racist? So if Mexicans were white and Canadians were brown, would wanting stricter control of the southern border stop being racist?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> So what you are saying is if Ukrainians and Poles suddenly turned brown, the UK's dislike of Poles coming to the UK and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainian immigrants would become racist? So if Mexicans were white and Canadians were brown, would wanting stricter control of the southern border stop being racist?



Why do folks want a southern border wall and not a northern one?


----------



## thraxil

possumkiller said:


> So what you are saying is if Ukrainians and Poles suddenly turned brown, the UK's dislike of Poles coming to the UK and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainian immigrants would become racist? So if Mexicans were white and Canadians were brown, would wanting stricter control of the southern border stop being racist?



I will say that while there is certainly widespread resentment and negativity towards Poles, Romanians, Ukrainians, etc. in the UK, it is very different than how refugees from the middle east and northern Africa are viewed or even how Asians are viewed/treated here. The media around the refugee crisis has been nasty and racist in ways that you just don't see with European immigrants. It certainly wasn't the *only* factor, but I do think part of why Brexit passed was a reaction to seeing *scary* brown people coming into Europe and wanting to keep them out of the UK.


----------



## xzacx

possumkiller said:


> This is also something that drives me away from the left side of politics. People on the left keep claiming people on the right are racist, sexist, homophobic, and whatever other sort of thing makes one a terrible person. Yet, they are exactly the same. They are constantly spewing bile and hate toward the other side. Just like there are racist and sexist people on the right, there are racist and sexist people on the left pointing in the opposite direction. It really turns me off. Even though I have become quite liberal over the years, I do not want to identify as such because I don't want to be lumped into that category of the same bullshit in the opposite wrapper. *That is what Hillary represented to a lot of people in 2016. *No longer the left side but the anti-right side. Republicans and Democrats are just the same sides of a different coin.



Whether or not you're right about all this (I don't think you are, but that's beside the point), the irony is that crowd that believes the things they do about Hillary will have a lot more in common with her relatively centrist politics than whoever the eventual democratic candidate ends up being.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWiqf9VSTTzWSB_O2dSVIaw

Shits getting real.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> So what you are saying is if Ukrainians and Poles suddenly turned brown, the UK's dislike of Poles coming to the UK and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainian immigrants would become racist? So if Mexicans were white and Canadians were brown, would wanting stricter control of the southern border stop being racist?


Who says racism is always about the color of someone's skin? The UK's dislike of Poles and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainians is already racist, I'd say. Europeans have always tended to discriminate against ethnic groups further east of them. 

That's an interesting hypothetical about flipping the racial groups at the various borders... But, in that scenario, I'd say we'd suddenly become a WHOLE lot more concerned about our northern border than our southern one.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AWiqf9VSTTzWSB_O2dSVIaw
> 
> Shits getting real.


The details that are already out are amazing, lol.


----------



## Ralyks

This testimony session is borderline theater.


----------



## possumkiller

Drew said:


> Who says racism is always about the color of someone's skin? The UK's dislike of Poles and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainians is already racist, I'd say. Europeans have always tended to discriminate against ethnic groups further east of them.
> 
> That's an interesting hypothetical about flipping the racial groups at the various borders... But, in that scenario, I'd say we'd suddenly become a WHOLE lot more concerned about our northern border than our southern one.


Is racism not about skin color? I would think white people hating other white people would fall under some other ism?

I just think back to my days as an ignorant conservative and thoughts about illegal immigrants. It wasn't ever about race for me. Mexico was a poorer country with a government more corrupt than ours. Canada was a better place to be than America. "Logic" dictated that more people were worse off in Mexico and wanted to come to America than in Canada. Canadians were better off in Canada and probably didn't give a shit about trading it for America. This caused more concern over security of the southern border than the northern border.

I'm not doubting a lot of people are racially motivated. I'm just saying it is possible to not be racially motivated in the matter.


----------



## Xaios

possumkiller said:


> I would think white people hating other white people would fall under some other ism?


White people actually have a long history and proud history of racism against other people that most anyone would consider "white" by modern standards. "White" only really started being used as a blanket term when it became to the ruling class's advantage to do so, so as to create a more distinct and plainly visible delimiter between slaves and non-slaves.

https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-voting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8ab49fbae1b6

It's not like this kind of attitude isn't still prevalent in certain instances either. Just look at how much anti-Semitic sentiment still exists in the world. While obviously a significant portion of that group is not "white" by modern interpretations of the term, I'd say a lot of them have skin that's the same color as mine. An average joe would look at me and, say, Leonard Nimoy (honestly, it was just the first name that came to mind) and describe both our races as "white." An alt-righter or klansman, conversely, would say that I'm white while Leonard Nimoy is a Jew.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

possumkiller said:


> Is racism not about skin color?



Eh, I wouldn't say so.
Asians for example still have white skin (I don't know where 'yellow' came from), yet they still experience racism. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of Americans that are racist against Russians now- they're white. It's just easier to understand and explain to others with skin color because it's a blatant physical difference.

If we're kicking back, you crack open a beer and say "We hired this Canadian dude at the plant today- guy can't operate a fidgeridoo to save his damn life" and I say something like "well yeah what'd you expect? Those leafs can't operate anything that requires attention to detail, they just slap it together and say it's good to go," I'm being pretty racist, no two ways around it, really.

I think it just doesn't provoke as visceral of a reaction because for whatever reason it seems acting racist toward white or Asian people is "not as big of a deal," people are more willing to chalk things up as harmless, joekz, banter, etc if it's aimed at a white person.


----------



## narad

Ordacleaphobia said:


> E
> If we're kicking back, you crack open a beer and say "We hired this Canadian dude at the plant today- guy can't operate a fidgeridoo to save his damn life" and I say something like "well yeah what'd you expect? Those leafs can't operate anything that requires attention to detail, they just slap it together and say it's good to go," I'm being pretty racist, no two ways around it, really.



Canadian isn't a race, so, I guess that's the one way around it


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> Canadian isn't a race, so, I guess that's the one way around it


Yikes! How racist was that, eh?


----------



## Xaios

possumkiller said:


> Yikes! How racist was that...


Well, I don't think it's possible to be racist against a race that doesn't exist, so not at a...



possumkiller said:


> ...eh?


Hey now, ya hoser. That is _our word_.

Sorry.


----------



## thraxil

Meanwhile Trump walked away from talks with North Korea. I thought they were supposed to be best buds and he'd single-handedly saved the world from the North Korean nuclear threat?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> Meanwhile Trump walked away from talks with North Korea. I thought they were supposed to be best buds and he'd single-handedly saved the world from the North Korean nuclear threat?



Trump still thinks the Kim regime cares about economic growth, money, and optics.


----------



## jaxadam

Virginia First Lady Handed Out Cotton to Black Children

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...apologizes-after-handing-cotton-black-n977546


----------



## Ralyks

I'm pretty sure the last 24 hours were pretty brutal for Trump overall.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> I'm pretty sure the last 24 hours were pretty brutal for Trump overall.


Cohen's testimony is making him look pretty bad. Though it shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone whose researched ol Trumplestilzkin.


----------



## Ralyks

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Cohen's testimony is making him look pretty bad. Though it shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone whose researched ol Trumplestilzkin.



Not even just that. Add the N Korea situation to the mix, and it's like failure on multiple levels. And the Republicans during Cohens testimony attacked Cohen, but didn't defend Trump.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> Is racism not about skin color? I would think white people hating other white people would fall under some other ism?


"Wait, you really believe that Slavik scum is as good as a pureblood Anglo-Saxon like myself?! Those pigs? Blood and soil, jackass! Next you're gonna be telling me the goddamn _Jews_ are white."

See what I mean? "White" isn't even a _race_, it's just a generic catch-all, and just as racially specific as the "brown" I've been using tongue-in-cheek in this conversation which is also clearly not a race, just a difference in appearance.

And for those of you whose irony detectors are broken, I'm not Anglo-Saxon and I obviously don't mean any of that first sentence.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> If we're kicking back, you crack open a beer and say "We hired this Canadian dude at the plant today- guy can't operate a fidgeridoo to save his damn life" and I say something like "well yeah what'd you expect? Those leafs can't operate anything that requires attention to detail, they just slap it together and say it's good to go," I'm being pretty racist, no two ways around it, really.


A friend of mine and a college buddy of his spent a LONG time looking for the appropriate slur for a Canadian, before one of them saw someone tell a Canadian to "....and stop being such a little bitch, you syrupy little bitch!" in a news article comment, internet news articles of course being the cesspit of humanity. "Syrupy little bitch" is perfect, and yes, absolutely racist as fuck if used unironically.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

@Drew, I've got to say, if there is one thing that internet comment sections are good for, it's expanding your repertoire of insults.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> @Drew, I've got to say, if there is one thing that internet comment sections are good for, it's expanding your repertoire of insults.


No shit, huh?


----------



## Randy

If they don't get Ben Stiller to play Cohen on SNL this week...


----------



## Ralyks

Considering Alec Baldwin is an unofficial cast member at this point, I'd put money on Stiller reprising his role this weekend.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> Not even just that. Add the N Korea situation to the mix, and it's like failure on multiple levels. And the Republicans during Cohens testimony attacked Cohen, but didn't defend Trump.


You got Trump and Korea both saying different things about why no deal was reached. Both are full of shit.


----------



## Drew

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> You got Trump and Korea both saying different things about why no deal was reached. Both are full of shit.


Colleague of mine, who full disclosure IS a Republican, thinks that this might have been a tactical choice on Trump's part, to bail on NK to show China he wasn't afraid to walk away without a deal. 

That seems way more calculated than I'd normally attribute Trump's decision making to, but it's worth at least mentioning in passing even if I don't personally see it.


----------



## Flappydoodle

jaxadam said:


> Virginia First Lady Handed Out Cotton to Black Children
> 
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...apologizes-after-handing-cotton-black-n977546



It's hilarious, given the controversy around her husband, but it was part of a standard tour, about the history of the state. And having children imagine what their ancestors through isn't exactly racist. I dressed as a Victorian chimney sweep one time for a school trip. I don't think my teachers were advocating for child slave labour.

Presumably she was doing this before the blackface controversy, and only now has somebody made a fuss to the media.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> Who says racism is always about the color of someone's skin? The UK's dislike of Poles and the Poles' dislike of Ukrainians is already racist, I'd say. Europeans have always tended to discriminate against ethnic groups further east of them.
> 
> That's an interesting hypothetical about flipping the racial groups at the various borders... But, in that scenario, I'd say we'd suddenly become a WHOLE lot more concerned about our northern border than our southern one.



As a Brit, I remember the fuss over Polish immigrants very well.

It really wasn't about race. It was about them being willing to work crazy hours, in poor conditions, for much less pay. Employers loved it, but it pissed off a lot of working class. Labour (Tony Blair's party) were supposed to be the working class party, but they were the ones who "opened the doors" to mass immigration from much poorer countries.

Some element of it was about a large influx of foreigners changing certain towns - street signs and shops popping up written in foreign languages. That isn't really racism. Xenophobia if anything. But really it was simply human resistance to change - not a hatred of a particular group.

Culturally, Britain and Poland have quite a lot in common, and 10-15 years after the peak immigration from Easter Europe, I don't think anybody gives a shit any more. Polish people were accepted as hard workers, they mutually enjoy beer and football, they speak perfect English etc, so no problem befriending Brits. If anything, they're a model of successful immigration, even though it all happened a bit too quickly.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Eh, I wouldn't say so.
> Asians for example still have white skin (I don't know where 'yellow' came from), yet they still experience racism. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of Americans that are racist against Russians now- they're white. It's just easier to understand and explain to others with skin color because it's a blatant physical difference.
> 
> If we're kicking back, you crack open a beer and say "We hired this Canadian dude at the plant today- guy can't operate a fidgeridoo to save his damn life" and I say something like "well yeah what'd you expect? Those leafs can't operate anything that requires attention to detail, they just slap it together and say it's good to go," I'm being pretty racist, no two ways around it, really.
> 
> I think it just doesn't provoke as visceral of a reaction because for whatever reason it seems acting racist toward white or Asian people is "not as big of a deal," people are more willing to chalk things up as harmless, joekz, banter, etc if it's aimed at a white person.



What you're talking about is called stereotyping. It isn't racism.

Stereotypes about a country isn't racism. Disliking Russia due to their support of Putin isn't racist. Disliking people from other countries already has a term - "xenophobia".

Disliking Islam, Scientology, Mormonism, Flat-Earth Society (all ideologies) isn't racism either. 

Racism is where you discriminate or hate somebody based on their race. Like, if you think white people are inferior to black people, that's racist. If you think Pashtun people are inferior to Punjabis, that's racist. If you refuse to hire a black person because you think he is lazy, that's not racist. If you refuse to hire any black people because you believe they're all lazy, that's racist.


----------



## vilk

_^_Maybe so, but you might wanna be careful that you don't get mixed up with these characters:
_
I ain't racist cuz Muslim aint no race. now someone oughtta round up them terrists an rip off their garbage bags and make them eat bacon. aint racist to say that, no way no how, that just their eivl terrist religin they can quit any time they want

It dont make me no racissis to say we should jus kill all them illegal mexicans. mexico is a country, not a race, so i aint racist. 
_
------------

I agree with you that people are frequently accused of "racism" for doing something that is not racist or even discriminatory or prejudiced by nature. Handing out cotton to school children learning about state history, for example. Making jokes about food culture. There's literally nothing offensive about saying black people eat fried chicken. Everyone eats fried chicken. Fried chicken is _good_. And even if hypothetically _only_ black people liked to eat fried chicken, it still wouldn't be inherently denigratory to reference it.

However, I don't have any issue with people using racism to describe actual cases of discrimination, prejudice, bias on the basis of the circumstances of someones birth: their skin color, their nationality, their culture, etc.

"Race" has in some ways been "debunked". It's an archaic terminology in the first place. I don't think it's worth pointing out that someone isn't """"racist"""" for saying some offensive shit about Muslims/Canadians/Poles/etc since "that's not a race"....
I think the same effort would be better placed in calling out people who cry "racist" about something that is not even objectively discriminatory/prejudiced/etc, like handing out cotton to all the children on a class trip.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> _^_Maybe so, but you might wanna be careful that you don't get mixed up with these characters:
> _
> I ain't racist cuz Muslim aint no race. now someone oughtta round up them terrists an rip off their garbage bags and make them eat bacon. aint racist to say that, no way no how, that just their eivl terrist religin they can quit any time they want
> 
> It dont make me no racissis to say we should jus kill all them illegal mexicans. mexico is a country, not a race, so i aint racist._



I agree. I look at the whole thing kind of like the famous pornography description: "it's tough to classify but you know it when you see it."

It may well be a different 'ism' but you'll know it when you see it.


----------



## possumkiller

Is anyone else in love with AOC?


----------



## thraxil

possumkiller said:


> Is anyone else in love with AOC?



I mean, I think she's pretty cool for a freshman representative and I hope she inspires more young progressive people to run, to avoid taking corporate donations, etc. I'm really worried though that there seems to be so much focus on her and expectations that she's like the "savior of the left". Eventually she's going to make some compromise that upsets people or says something stupid. I just really hate the cult of personality approach that seems to be so common these days. The left seems to desperately want to hang our entire future on one or a small number of shining personalities, whether it's AOC, Mueller, Bernie, or Beto. That just seems like a risky strategy to me and is setting us up for disappointment.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Some element of it was about a large influx of foreigners changing certain towns - street signs and shops popping up written in foreign languages. That isn't really racism. Xenophobia if anything. But really it was simply human resistance to change - not a hatred of a particular group.


You know, that's an important distinction I think you just drew, and I'll confess it wasn't one I was really making previously. 

There is definitely a distinction, if subtle, between racism, the hatred of a race or ethnic group or groups, and xenophobia, the hatred of pretty much anyone who isn't the same as you. In the former you're making relative judgements of the merits of different races; in the latter, it's less about retlative judgement so much as you just want to be with your _own_ culture. 

I don't think xenophobia is any better than racism, exactly... But I think it's not at all controversial to argue that Trump's supporters are xenophobic. It's just evidently somewhat controversial to argue that race is what drives that xenophobia. I think in at least a very significant number of cases racism _is_ the driving force behind that xenophobia, and Trump's talk about why we have to take immigrants from shithole countries like the Dominican Republic and why can't we take more Norwegian immigrants doesn't do him any favors... but it's probably a lower bar to argue xenophobia than racism.


----------



## possumkiller

thraxil said:


> I mean, I think she's pretty cool for a freshman representative and I hope she inspires more young progressive people to run, to avoid taking corporate donations, etc. I'm really worried though that there seems to be so much focus on her and expectations that she's like the "savior of the left". Eventually she's going to make some compromise that upsets people or says something stupid. I just really hate the cult of personality approach that seems to be so common these days. The left seems to desperately want to hang our entire future on one or a small number of shining personalities, whether it's AOC, Mueller, Bernie, or Beto. That just seems like a risky strategy to me and is setting us up for disappointment.


No I just meant she is hot.







All misogynistic toxic masculine joking aside, I like her ideas and how she handles herself in a much more adult and professional manner than most politicians. I do agree about treating them as celebrity personalities. However, change has to start some way. I really hope she sticks with it and doesn't cave in to pressure or assassination.


----------



## vilk

I think it's pretty telling that overwhelmingly the conservative and Republican reaction to the Green New Deal is to simply spread lies and misinformation about what it is.

My boss, the first day it was all in the news, is walking around telling the office that the Green New Deal is going to make air travel and cow ownership illegal. It's like dude, how dumb do you think we are? And do you realize how dumb it makes _you_ seem to say something like that?


----------



## possumkiller

vilk said:


> I think it's pretty telling that overwhelmingly the conservative and Republican reaction to the Green New Deal is to simply spread lies and misinformation about what it is.
> 
> My boss, the first day it was all in the news, is walking around telling the office that the Green New Deal is going to make air travel and cow ownership illegal. It's like dude, how dumb do you think we are? And do you realize how dumb it makes _you_ seem to say something like that?


Reminds me of all the fear mongering over communism during the Cold War. And religious people talking about anything that isn't religious.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

possumkiller said:


> Is anyone else in love with AOC?



Yes, and no at the same time.
Yes, because I love how anti-establishment she is. She isn't afraid to butt heads with other democrats, and while I don't think that will do her any favors professionally, I think her sticking to her ideals and the extent to which she's willing to fight for them is quite commendable and something our country needs more of. We need more people that are more concerned about improving the country than with getting re-elected in 2 years minus one day. 

And...no...because she does do and say some pretty dumb things. Her Green New Deal is completely half cocked, and with the way she handles her public relations, she's pretty much just left-wing Trump. Needs a little improvement, but overall, I'm okay with her so far. Once she gets a bit more time in office I think she could actually turn into quite a powerhouse.



vilk said:


> I think it's pretty telling that overwhelmingly the conservative and Republican reaction to the Green New Deal is to simply spread lies and misinformation about what it is.
> 
> My boss, the first day it was all in the news, is walking around telling the office that the Green New Deal is going to make air travel and cow ownership illegal. It's like dude, how dumb do you think we are? And do you realize how dumb it makes _you_ seem to say something like that?



Yeah, the dumb overreactions and walking clickbait video titles are obnoxious, but I do think it definitely needed to get run over the coals in the state that it was in. That line about supporting those "unwilling to work" was a complete joke; not to mention the absolutely ridiculous amount of money the thing would cost. I'd definitely be open to a more refined, reigned-in, realistically amended version later on down the line because that _*is*_ definitely the direction the country needs to take.


----------



## vilk

Ordacleaphobia said:


> absolutely ridiculous amount of money


Cut military
Tax Rich
Legalize pot

There ya go.


----------



## possumkiller

I think that was kinda the point. No it isn't fleshed out but at least it's being talked about. People keep talking about the ridiculous amounts of money the green deal or whatever the hell they call it would cost but they don't really mind the ridiculous amounts of money we spend on wars and military equipment.


----------



## possumkiller

How far over budget is the F35 boondoggle?

They phase out older models like the F14 citing the expensive operation and maintenance cost then go on to spend trillions on a replacement.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> Cut military
> Tax Rich
> Legalize pot



Agree
Rich are being taxed very highly already, going even higher would be a push and still not get us anywhere close. Closing offshore loopholes and the like would help, though.
Agree, and already happening. Not as well as you would expect, though. The numbers here in California have been falling short of projections (because they're taxing the shit out of it).

I can't recall the estimated cost of the GND but it was someone in the double digit *trillions*. There was just too much unneeded stuff in there that if you gutted the fluff and kept the important pieces, I think it'd be a really viable idea. As it stands though, I don't think we could even realistically get _close_.


----------



## Drew

The most charitable defense of the Green New Deal I've seen is that while it's not a moderate, pragmatic, and "sensible" incremental approach, on the other hand moderate, pragmatic, and sensibly incremental approaches to deal with climate change have so far failed, so maybe it DOES make sense to swing for the fences and push a wholesale reimagining of the US and world economies.

I mean, that's not a crazy argument, and we are rapidly running out of time to address climate change before we hit a point of no return.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Rich are being taxed very highly already, going even higher would be a push and still not get us anywhere close. Closing offshore loopholes and the like would help, though.


I don't think "tax the rich" is a viable strategy. I think we need to broaden the tax base. Yeah, we need to have higher top marginal rates, but we don't need just one at incomes over $10mm or whatever, taxes need to come up across the board for ALL americans. What we DO need to do is drop this mindset that we want these things provided by our government, and we want other people to pay for it. Rather, we need to understand government differently, as a service provider, that we make payments to ("taxes"), and get services provided in return. There's a lot more accountability, for us and for the government, if we more directly link the concepts of taxation and government services.


----------



## possumkiller

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Agree
> Rich are being taxed very highly already


Nowhere near as much as they used to be.


----------



## vilk

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Rich are being taxed very highly already


Compared to?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

thraxil said:


> I mean, I think she's pretty cool for a freshman representative and I hope she inspires more young progressive people to run, to avoid taking corporate donations, etc. I'm really worried though that there seems to be so much focus on her and expectations that she's like the "savior of the left". Eventually she's going to make some compromise that upsets people or says something stupid. I just really hate the cult of personality approach that seems to be so common these days. The left seems to desperately want to hang our entire future on one or a small number of shining personalities, whether it's AOC, Mueller, Bernie, or Beto. That just seems like a risky strategy to me and is setting us up for disappointment.


"Eventually... says something stupid."


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> taxes need to come up across the board for ALL americans.


Yeah, because taxes aren't fucking the little guy hard enough yet, are they?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, because taxes aren't fucking the little guy hard enough yet, are they?



It sucks right now because the ROI isn't all that great. For anyone. 

If we actually got healthcare, better infrastructure, and a decent safety net/social security system I'd be happy to pay more.

Right now, a significant amount of my paycheck goes to most those things already. 

Almost $200 of every one of my (weekly) paychecks goes to medical coverage that seems to get shittier every couple of years, and a 401k/IRA because who knows if I'll even be able to collect social security when I retire. 

My tax bill each week is about $700, so they'd have to raise taxes by nearly 30% before I'd be at a net loss, and even then if there's healthcare included I'd be well ahead in general.


----------



## jaxadam

MaxOfMetal said:


> It sucks right now because the ROI isn't all that great. For anyone.
> 
> If we actually got healthcare, better infrastructure, and a decent safety net/social security system I'd be happy to pay more.
> 
> Right now, a significant amount of my paycheck goes to most those things already.
> 
> Almost $200 of every one of my (weekly) paychecks goes to medical coverage that seems to get shittier every couple of years, and a 401k/IRA because who knows if I'll even be able to collect social security when I retire.
> 
> My tax bill each week is about $700, so they'd have to raise taxes by nearly 30% before I'd be at a net loss, and even then if there's healthcare included I'd be well ahead in general.



Sounds like you need a new job!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

jaxadam said:


> Sounds like you need a new job!



I have it better than most, I'll stay. 

But that doesn't mean things wouldn't be better if this country got its act together.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> It sucks right now because the ROI isn't all that great. For anyone.
> 
> If we actually got healthcare, better infrastructure, and a decent safety net/social security system I'd be happy to pay more.
> 
> Right now, a significant amount of my paycheck goes to most those things already.
> 
> Almost $200 of every one of my (weekly) paychecks goes to medical coverage that seems to get shittier every couple of years, and a 401k/IRA because who knows if I'll even be able to collect social security when I retire.
> 
> My tax bill each week is about $700, so they'd have to raise taxes by nearly 30% before I'd be at a net loss, and even then if there's healthcare included I'd be well ahead in general.


SS was never intended to do more than suck your paycheck and go bankrupt. The ACA (more like AHA) was terrible. So yeah, not really interested in giving either of those attempts from the government more money.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> SS was never intended to do more than suck your paycheck and go bankrupt. The ACA (more like AHA) was terrible. So yeah, not really interested in giving either of those attempts from the government more money.



I completely agree. 

We need single payer healthcare and guaranteed minimum income. None of this bush league bullshit.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Lol wat. Just... seriously, wat? 

Let's break this down, shall we?

>Government uses a forced and/or fake financial crisis due to 20 years of failure from the "Federal" Reserve
>Government's answer? Pass "The New Deal" involving (but not limited to) taxes to fund SS
>Surely they handle money better than we do, despite the fact we allow an entity to print money for us at a cost to us, and eventually remove the item backing up the strength of said currency
>And yet, despite this, we do not think they mismanage money...
>It's only logical outcome is to eventually go bust (you know, because they're great at managing money)
>Quite obviously, the only conclusion is that despite the government going trillions in debt (because we are stupid enough to print money at a cost and not back it with fucking anything), devaluing the dollar beyond repair, and mismanaging money is to...

GIVE THEM MORE MONEY AND MORE PROGRAMS WITH WHICH TO MISMANAGE MONEY...!?

What's that definition of insanity again? Doing the same shit and expecting different outcomes?

Talk about bush league-in' it. That's definitely minor league type stuff, Max. If it were a small business, they'd be filing for bankruptcy and trying to protect their own asses while someone else holds the bag.

As for "guaranteed minimum incomes," (ie, $15/hr for serving people awful fast food) hmmm... Let's see:

Higher taxes (more out of pocket)
Higher prices (buy less for more money)
Less hours (if you aren't fired outright)
And drum roll, please...
I'd be almost willing to bet your housing costs go up, as well.
What would that accomplish? I mean besides ballooning the homeless population that is already out of control.

You need to -- and this is very important -- start thinking of these jack off politicians as drug addicts, but instead of snorting blow, they are blowing your cash on stupid stuff and/or flat out pocketing it. No higher taxes, and no bs government programs either, because they've made it quite clear over the past several decades they cannot handle or manage money. Do you think if I gave a drug addict an 8ball of meth, that baggy would last more than 4 hours?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Lol wat. Just... seriously, wat?
> 
> Let's break this down, shall we?
> 
> >Government uses a forced and/or fake financial crisis due to 20 years of failure from the "Federal" Reserve
> >Government's answer? Pass "The New Deal" involving (but not limited to) taxes to fund SS
> >Surely they handle money better than we do, despite the fact we allow an entity to print money for us at a cost to us, and eventually remove the item backing up the strength of said currency
> >And yet, despite this, we do not think they mismanage money...
> >It's only logical outcome is to eventually go bust (you know, because they're great at managing money)
> >Quite obviously, the only conclusion is that despite the government going trillions in debt (because we are stupid enough to print money at a cost and not back it with fucking anything), devaluing the dollar beyond repair, and mismanaging money is to...
> 
> GIVE THEM MORE MONEY AND MORE PROGRAMS WITH WHICH TO MISMANAGE MONEY...!?
> 
> What's that definition of insanity again? Doing the same shit and expecting different outcomes?
> 
> Talk about bush league-in' it. That's definitely minor league type stuff, Max. If it were a small business, they'd be filing for bankruptcy and trying to protect their own asses while someone else holds the bag.
> 
> As for "guaranteed minimum incomes," (ie, $15/hr for serving people awful fast food) hmmm... Let's see:
> 
> Higher taxes (more out of pocket)
> Higher prices (buy less for more money)
> Less hours (if you aren't fired outright)
> And drum roll, please...
> I'd be almost willing to bet your housing costs go up, as well.
> What would that accomplish? I mean besides ballooning the homeless population that is already out of control.
> 
> You need to -- and this is very important -- start thinking of these jack off politicians as drug addicts, but instead of snorting blow, they are blowing your cash on stupid stuff and/or flat out pocketing it. No higher taxes, and no bs government programs either, because they've made it quite clear over the past several decades they cannot handle or manage money. Do you think if I gave a drug addict an 8ball of meth, that baggy would last more than 4 hours?



We're the only first world nation without a national healthcare system to take care of its citizens. 

It's not some pie in the sky utopian dream. It's the reality of numerous countries and has been for decades. 

We can do better. The only reason we haven't is because career politicians get rich convincing the uneducated and uniformed that it just won't work because "reasons" that aren't concurrent with reality. 

Also, GMI or UBI aren't a higher minimum wage. Those are different, at odds concepts. Perhaps look into that before responding.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

"How can we fuck up our financial system even worse than we already have?"
"Uh, raising minimum wage for low skilled jobs and giving people who can't manage money more of it to mismanage for a new program when the previous program falls out of favor and is a giant failure?"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "How can we fuck up our financial system even worse than we already have?"
> "Uh, raising minimum wage for low skilled jobs and giving people who can't manage money more of it to mismanage for a new program when the previous program falls out of favor and is a giant failure?"



The heck are you talking about? 

Right now we pay the most for the least, healthcare wise. We couldn't screw up the system more than if we actually tried to. Again, it's not like we have to invent some new system or concept from square one. There are literally dozens of systems in place that we can borrow from and make work over here. 

Again, I'm not talking about minimum wage. 

In a way we already have a GMI system, it's just poorly utilized and overly fragmented. What do you think welfare benefits to the employed are?


----------



## Xaios

MaxOfMetal said:


> Right now we pay the most for the least, healthcare wise. We couldn't screw up the system more than if we actually tried to. Again, it's not like we have to invent some new system or concept from square one. There are literally dozens of systems in place that we can borrow from and make work over here.


Saying this as a non-American, I hope you're right, but honestly watching how things have played out for the US the past few years, it seems like the American government could institute a healthcare system that has proven to work as perfectly as humanly possible somewhere else despite more significant socioeconomic challenges, but still find a way to cock it up to the point of people rotting in the streets with leprosy.

Of course, a far more likely outcome is that a decent healthcare policy would be proposed, then it would be gutted by people with a vested interest in seeing it fail, people who would then go on to blame said failure on the system's originator despite the system in place bearing little-to-no resemblance to what was originally proposed.

...

Man, I just had the weirdest deja vu...


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> You know, that's an important distinction I think you just drew, and I'll confess it wasn't one I was really making previously.
> 
> There is definitely a distinction, if subtle, between racism, the hatred of a race or ethnic group or groups, and xenophobia, the hatred of pretty much anyone who isn't the same as you. In the former you're making relative judgements of the merits of different races; in the latter, it's less about retlative judgement so much as you just want to be with your _own_ culture.
> 
> I don't think xenophobia is any better than racism, exactly... But I think it's not at all controversial to argue that Trump's supporters are xenophobic. It's just evidently somewhat controversial to argue that race is what drives that xenophobia. I think in at least a very significant number of cases racism _is_ the driving force behind that xenophobia, and Trump's talk about why we have to take immigrants from shithole countries like the Dominican Republic and why can't we take more Norwegian immigrants doesn't do him any favors... but it's probably a lower bar to argue xenophobia than racism.



I think people favouring their own culture is a normal human behaviour which isn't necessarily bad. I totally understand why immigrants group together. When I've lived abroad, it's so nice finding other Europeans or Americans because we can talk in English, enjoy a pint together, talk about things that the native population might not enjoy. Go to any major university and you see all the Chinese students grouped together, all the African students grouped together - because they share common interests, values and culture.

For immigration, a merit-based system seems like total common sense. On average, a Norwegian probably *is* going to be better educated, more adjusted to Western society etc than somebody from a shithole country. 



vilk said:


> Cut military
> Tax Rich
> Legalize pot
> 
> There ya go.



Not even close to solving the issues. Especially legalising pot. That's going to bring in fractions of 1%. The rich are already taxed quite highly in most ways, though I'm not an expert in the US tax system. 

And "cut military" does have knock on effects. They don't just take the money and burn it up and get nothing in return. Most of it funds salaries, scientific research and development etc. Yes, weapons companies make profits, but they are employing a LOT of highly educated people and paying them well (engineers, physicists, computer programmers etc). Tons of technology with commercial value also comes from military investment. Plus, it's hard to place a value on the security of the country and the geopolitical clout that it gives. 

In fact, I'd say that the US military is one of the most socialist things about America - it is run by the government, has set pay grades, generous pensions, subsidises industries etc.



Drew said:


> I don't think "tax the rich" is a viable strategy. I think we need to broaden the tax base. Yeah, we need to have higher top marginal rates, but we don't need just one at incomes over $10mm or whatever, taxes need to come up across the board for ALL americans. What we DO need to do is drop this mindset that we want these things provided by our government, and we want other people to pay for it. Rather, we need to understand government differently, as a service provider, that we make payments to ("taxes"), and get services provided in return. There's a lot more accountability, for us and for the government, if we more directly link the concepts of taxation and government services.



The numbers don't add up for me. Everything in America seems to cost shitloads.
Spend more on education than any other country, but mediocre results
Spend more on healthcare than any other country (by miles), but horrible results

On that basis, I can't see that increasing taxes and putting in MORE money is going to fix anything. The capacity for ineffective spending is basically unlimited. So whatever extra funding goes in, it's just going to get wasted.

To be honest, if you look at most western countries, you have a small number of wealthy people and large companies carrying the whole economy. In the UK, you are a net drain on the system unless you earn around £38,000 per year. But the median income in the UK is only around £27,000 per year. So even average people (teacher, policeman, nurse etc) are net drains on the system financially. 

In the UK, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 30% of all tax. Yes, they earn a lot more and that's fair, but it's also risky to have the entire system dependent on a few people. Your point about broadening the tax base is fair, but it's hard to make an argument that average earners should be paying more - especially when the vast majority are living month-to-month and have no savings. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance...he-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

To me, the obvious viewpoint is that spending as a whole is absolutely out of control - both government and personal. It feels like an unsustainable, ticking time bomb. Baby boomers only have median savings of $24k... that's like 6 months of living costs, and they are all close to retirement now.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/how-much-money-americans-have-saved-at-every-age.html


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Raise taxes ONLY if it actually benefits us. I'm paying 250 in taxes a week, not counting my shitty healthcare. Until then, don't raise them any fucking more, especially since I'm only bringing home $530 a week with a disabled wife who cannot work.


----------



## possumkiller

This is why I like newcomers such as AOC. She doesn't come from money so she isn't out of touch with how normal Americans live. Politicians had better start giving a damn about all of us peasants that prop them up.


----------



## bostjan

I used to have great health insurance when I joined the workforce. Then I broke my arm. My employer fired me for having a broken arm (no, really), and then I found out that they cancelled my insurance policy when they fired me, worried that their premiums would go up, so I had to pay for my own surgery. I thought I could ask the hospital what it would cost, and get an honest answer. $1200-$1500, they said. Pfft I can swing that... then, $78,000 (yeah, that's not a typo), I was financially ruined, even though I went full time at my (much better paying) second job. But the insurance there was garbage, so I got a new second job and worked full time at two jobs to slowly crawl out of my medical debt and have insurance. About five years ago, my good insurance there was downgraded to okay insurance, and I paid the same for it somehow.

This year, they downgraded my insurance again. I now have a $5000 deductible and even then some medications and treatments aren't covered. And guess what the premium is. It's exactly the same!

If I were to relive my arm breaking, I'd be $5k out of pocket, plus pain meds that aren't covered (anesthesia seems to be a gray area, good luck explaining that to the guy who knocks you out and you never see again). So, maybe it doesn't sound so bad, compared to the price of a three bedroom house in New England, but this sort of thing would have made zero sense in the 1990's or even 2000's.

Meanwhile, you break an arm in Mexico, as a foreigner with no healthcare...under $1000. What?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I used to have great health insurance when I joined the workforce. Then I broke my arm. My employer fired me for having a broken arm (no, really), and then I found out that they cancelled my insurance policy when they fired me, worried that their premiums would go up, so I had to pay for my own surgery. I thought I could ask the hospital what it would cost, and get an honest answer. $1200-$1500, they said. Pfft I can swing that... then, $78,000 (yeah, that's not a typo), I was financially ruined, even though I went full time at my (much better paying) second job. But the insurance there was garbage, so I got a new second job and worked full time at two jobs to slowly crawl out of my medical debt and have insurance. About five years ago, my good insurance there was downgraded to okay insurance, and I paid the same for it somehow.
> 
> This year, they downgraded my insurance again. I now have a $5000 deductible and even then some medications and treatments aren't covered. And guess what the premium is. It's exactly the same!
> 
> If I were to relive my arm breaking, I'd be $5k out of pocket, plus pain meds that aren't covered (anesthesia seems to be a gray area, good luck explaining that to the guy who knocks you out and you never see again). So, maybe it doesn't sound so bad, compared to the price of a three bedroom house in New England, but this sort of thing would have made zero sense in the 1990's or even 2000's.
> 
> Meanwhile, you break an arm in Mexico, as a foreigner with no healthcare...under $1000. What?



This is why we need change.

I know the popular retort to public healthcare is "well, the government is just going to do a shitty job", but can anyone honestly say it can get much worse than this?


----------



## jaxadam

bostjan said:


> I used to have great health insurance when I joined the workforce. Then I broke my arm. My employer fired me for having a broken arm (no, really), and then I found out that they cancelled my insurance policy when they fired me, worried that their premiums would go up, so I had to pay for my own surgery. I thought I could ask the hospital what it would cost, and get an honest answer. $1200-$1500, they said. Pfft I can swing that... then, $78,000 (yeah, that's not a typo), I was financially ruined, even though I went full time at my (much better paying) second job. But the insurance there was garbage, so I got a new second job and worked full time at two jobs to slowly crawl out of my medical debt and have insurance. About five years ago, my good insurance there was downgraded to okay insurance, and I paid the same for it somehow.
> 
> This year, they downgraded my insurance again. I now have a $5000 deductible and even then some medications and treatments aren't covered. And guess what the premium is. It's exactly the same!
> 
> If I were to relive my arm breaking, I'd be $5k out of pocket, plus pain meds that aren't covered (anesthesia seems to be a gray area, good luck explaining that to the guy who knocks you out and you never see again). So, maybe it doesn't sound so bad, compared to the price of a three bedroom house in New England, but this sort of thing would have made zero sense in the 1990's or even 2000's.
> 
> Meanwhile, you break an arm in Mexico, as a foreigner with no healthcare...under $1000. What?



When did you break your arm?


----------



## Xaios

PunkBillCarson said:


> Raise taxes ONLY if it actually benefits us. I'm paying 250 in taxes a week, not counting my shitty healthcare. Until then, don't raise them any fucking more, especially since I'm only bringing home $530 a week with a disabled wife who cannot work.


Well, here's why it _should_ benefit you: because I can honestly say that, up here in the icy socialist gulag of Canada, I pay less in taxes than you do. Obviously that's not the only factor, goods tend to be more expensive here and our currency is not the strongest, but whatever those differences might be, I can tell you from personal experience that a month-long hospital stay wouldn't be much more than an inconvenience regarding my finances.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, because taxes aren't fucking the little guy hard enough yet, are they?


No. What's fucking the little guy are things like health care expenses and college tuition loans that most other first world nations cover, but we don't because we don't want to pay taxes.

We need progressive taxation, absolutely, and higher earners should pay higher rates because they have more to gain from citizenship. But, we can't JUST expect the rich to pay taxes, either, in a society where everyone, ultra rich to middle class to poor, benefits from the services they provide. If one large swath of society wants a small minority to pay for all of their benefits, that's a recipe for that minority to grow ever larger, and replacing one form of class warfare with another is a bad idea.



Flappydoodle said:


> In the UK, the top 1% of taxpayers pay 30% of all tax. Yes, they earn a lot more and that's fair, but it's also risky to have the entire system dependent on a few people.


I'm leery of stats like this, by the way. In America that's similar, Google is telling me the top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes, and the right is fond of tossing that number around as proof taxes are too high. But, that's not the full picture - they also made more than 22% of income, nationally, so the tax code isn't nearly as top-heavy as it looks, at a glance, and instead the heavy skew in the data is due to a heavy earnings skew rather than radically progressive taxation. In reality, the top 1% are only paying about twice the taxes of the rest of the country, normalized by income, which is _quite_ a bit less than a look at tax rates alone would suggest, with a lowest bracket of 10% and a highest of 37%.

Idunno. Really, the issue here is there's this attitude that taxes are _taking_ something from you, but then in return things like passable roads, good public schools, national defense, first responders, social security income, all the things weve gotten from public funding of scientific research, etc etc etc are things that you're _entitled_ to receive from the governent, and that these two views are disconnected. The reality is that yes, you _are_ entitled to them, but only because you've "bought" them with your tax dollars. And in the long run, as a bleeding heart liberal, it's not sustainable to just expect people at some arbitrary threshold richer than you to pay for all the things you expect from your government, so you don't have to. We're _all_ in this together, and while I'm a proponent of progressive taxation for how it helps address income inequality, I'm also a proponent of a broad tax base since we all benefit from government services.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Xaios said:


> Well, here's why it _should_ benefit you: because I can honestly say that, up here in the icy socialist gulag of Canada, I pay less in taxes than you do. Obviously that's not the only factor, goods tend to be more expensive here and our currency is not the strongest, but whatever those differences might be, I can tell you from personal experience that a month-long hospital stay wouldn't be much more than an inconvenience regarding my finances.



Right and if our healthcare was that good, I'd be fine with paying that little extra as long as better education also came with it. If I'm going to have 300 dollars withheld every single week, it had best be going towards something good other than a greedy CEO's pocket. Hell, I wouldn't even mind paying that much more just so everyone else could get a better education for it, even if that means I'm not going to use that.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is why we need change.
> 
> I know the popular retort to public healthcare is "well, the government is just going to do a shitty job", but can anyone honestly say it can get much worse than this?



Actually, Medicare isn't bad at all; it's one of the few US government programs that that function pretty much as intended. And while it doesn't cover everything, adding supplemental coverage is cheap because Medicare covers the expensive things. It is currently only available to those 65 years old and older and those disabled for twenty four months or more, limiting it's efficiency, but expanding to cover everyone would increase it's economies of scale and it's negotiating power with health care providers, hospitals, drug companies, etc. and greatly reduce the costs of treatment for a given procedure over what they currently are.


----------



## spudmunkey

...and even with a medicare expansion, there's still room for for-profit insurance companies and private hospitals to offer coverage with higher levels of service, for an additional cost.


----------



## Randy

PunkBillCarson said:


> Right and if our healthcare was that good, I'd be fine with paying that little extra as long as better education also came with it. If I'm going to have 300 dollars withheld every single week, it had best be going towards something good other than a greedy CEO's pocket. Hell, I wouldn't even mind paying that much more just so everyone else could get a better education for it, even if that means I'm not going to use that.



Alright, now we're starting to speak the same language.

I feel like a fucking space alien debating politics half the time because of the cariactures of a dichotomy we have are either arguing "we need to pay NO taxes! Defund to zero! Privatize!", where we either lose services all together or it becomes corporate welfare where the money pays exorbidant salaries and minimal actual services, or the other party, and it's "We need a ton more taxes collected because the only problem with our current, flaccid programs are that they don't have enough money!", where all the money is pissed away on the classic "waste, fraud and abuse" chain.

And it's like... I think we're pretty good on the taxes we pay now across the board but we massively overspend on shit that doesn't help the bulk of people who 1.) need it 2.) are paying high volumes of our income to pay for it.


----------



## Mathemagician

I would straight up pay 10% more in taxes immediately if it meant everyone could go to the doctor regardless of how much they make. 

My assistant loses her job and her kid gets sick and she can just walk in and not worry about how she’s going to pay for the medicine? I’m down. 

I don’t have/want kids either but I think the child tax credit should be higher. Them shits expensive. 

Support the people whose work supports you. 

I’m a capitalist but when single payer healthcare would be cheaper faster and more efficient I cannot see the downside aside from middle-man industries losing their cut.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> I’m a capitalist but when single payer healthcare would be cheaper faster and more efficient I cannot see the downside aside from middle-man industries losing their cut.



Yeah, that's my deal right there. While I try to live my life with empathy and morality as a cornerstone, I don't necessarily think you can legislate or build your programs based on those things alone (because those terms are relative, and you also can't expect people to 'take care of others' from a moral perspective when they're having trouble taking care of themselves), so you really need to have a practical reason, and I absolutely think bypassing the outrageous markups in the US healthcare system qualify.


----------



## spudmunkey

Mathemagician said:


> I would straight up pay 10% more in taxes immediately if it meant everyone could go to the doctor regardless of how much they make.
> 
> ...
> 
> Support the people whose work supports you.



This is effectively the same thought behind property taxes funding public schools. I don't have kids, and never plan to have kids...but have no problem paying taxes for publicly-funded education.


----------



## Thaeon

So, I see the general socioeconomic outcomes of Communism and Capitalism as ultimately the same. Communism funnels money and power to the wealthy and powerful quickly. Capitalism accomplishes this same goal slowly. Neither are best for the freedoms of the individual. Neither seeks to maximize the freedoms of the individual (unless wealthy, then all of the freedom). If you want to see the actual horrors of how capitalism functions, take an economics class and pay close attention to how people use the market to decide the optimum amount of some specific commodity every household should have. What a capitalist government does, is balance these numbers with people as a resource/tool. School is to the end of proper training and preparation of working life. Not to the end of individual enrichment. The government and business should be in service to the population. Doing what they can to make the lives of individuals better, rather that the individual being in service to society/job/government. Maximize quality of life over maximizing profit. Profit equates to wealth. Masses of wealth create inequality of quality of life. Inequality of life creates social instability.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> I'm leery of stats like this, by the way. In America that's similar, Google is telling me the top 1% pay 39% of all income taxes, and the right is fond of tossing that number around as proof taxes are too high. But, that's not the full picture - they also made more than 22% of income, nationally, so the tax code isn't nearly as top-heavy as it looks, at a glance, and instead the heavy skew in the data is due to a heavy earnings skew rather than radically progressive taxation. In reality, the top 1% are only paying about twice the taxes of the rest of the country, normalized by income, which is _quite_ a bit less than a look at tax rates alone would suggest, with a lowest bracket of 10% and a highest of 37%.



To be totally clear, I'm not making any argument that rich people are overtaxed.

I'm making an argument that a system relying on a small number of people and companies is inherently risky. Maybe unsustainable. It seems silly that even people with better than average, middle-class jobs are still not net contributors to the system. You're saying you want a "broader tax base", so I think we are actually in agreement on that. 



> Idunno. Really, the issue here is there's this attitude that taxes are _taking_ something from you, but then in return things like passable roads, good public schools, national defense, first responders, social security income, all the things weve gotten from public funding of scientific research, etc etc etc are things that you're _entitled_ to receive from the governent, and that these two views are disconnected. The reality is that yes, you _are_ entitled to them, but only because you've "bought" them with your tax dollars. And in the long run, as a bleeding heart liberal, it's not sustainable to just expect people at some arbitrary threshold richer than you to pay for all the things you expect from your government, so you don't have to. We're _all_ in this together, and while I'm a proponent of progressive taxation for how it helps address income inequality, I'm also a proponent of a broad tax base since we all benefit from government services.



The attitude is a problem when it comes to electing people to do this stuff. And I agree that everybody should pay a fair share. Even low-income people should pay *something* so that they are contributing to the system in some way (even though on a net basis, they are a drain).

My issue is that even if you DO convince voters to elect politicians who will tax them more, the money still goes into a pit of spending. Hence why I don't think the problems can be solved by tax. They have to be solved by cutting spending - either just cutting it, along with expectations of services, or finding efficiency improvements, or by adopting more cost-effective systems.

For example, the US spends around $10,000 taxpayer dollars, per person, per year, on healthcare which only some people can access (Medicare/Medicaid). The UK spends around half of that, and covers everybody for almost everything. If the US taxed everybody more, increased spending to $15,000 per person per year, do you really think it would make any meaningful difference? I don't.


----------



## Flappydoodle

spudmunkey said:


> ...and even with a medicare expansion, there's still room for for-profit insurance companies and private hospitals to offer coverage with higher levels of service, for an additional cost.



Correct. The UK has the NHS, but also has a competitive private healthcare system. People can opt to buy it privately, and sometimes private insurance plans come as a perk of employment with a particular company - just like in the US. However, there's always the NHS to fall back on.



Mathemagician said:


> I would straight up pay 10% more in taxes immediately if it meant everyone could go to the doctor regardless of how much they make.
> 
> My assistant loses her job and her kid gets sick and she can just walk in and not worry about how she’s going to pay for the medicine? I’m down.
> 
> I don’t have/want kids either but I think the child tax credit should be higher. Them shits expensive.
> 
> Support the people whose work supports you.
> 
> I’m a capitalist but when single payer healthcare would be cheaper faster and more efficient I cannot see the downside aside from middle-man industries losing their cut.



Point is, you shouldn't have to pay 10% more. The US already spends more taxpayer money on health care per capita than any other country in the world. A UK/Japan/France/German/Taiwan-style system is totally possible for the amount of money you already pay. This is a uniquely American problem. Any system can work if it's done properly. The problem is that the US seems to just fuck up everything and then throw more money at it. I don't think throwing an extra 10% of tax into the broken system would effectively change anything. 

I think if you're rich then America is pretty much the best place to be. But for an average person, I'm REALLY glad I'm not American, seriously.


----------



## Mathemagician

The problem is getting people to realize that discussing standard of living is the better way to compare across countries. Country A taxes at 25%, B at 38%, and C at 10%. 

On tax basis C sounds best, but odds are that B has the most Arts, culture, educated population, food, jobs, etc and is why the country can have such a high tax rate. The standard of living is probably best in country B, even AFTER taxes.


----------



## Thaeon

Exactly. One can argue that on average in the US the standard of live is pretty high. However, we have people in EVERY large city with nowhere to go, living under overpasses and in alleys. A disproportionate number of these people are veterans, have manageable mental illnesses with treatment and medication, and are LGBTQ. For a nation like the US that wants to be a world leader, this is an unacceptable standard. We can't keep stopping the conversation and shutting things down every time someone says one thing we don't like. We have to stop being tribal about politics. Its the only way we can focus on issues rather than teams.


----------



## Mathemagician

Exactly. Example: one of my coworkers I would at a glance thinks is the polar opposite of me politically. And often times they are but we actually agree that there are the same problems when we chat (briefly). We just have different ideas about how to resolve them. But 50% of the work is acknowledging you have a problem.

One of the single biggest issues in America is policitians not representing their base because their base won’t vote them out. Team blue or Red will (often) ALWAYS vote blue or red enough so that the elected official does not have to worry about their seat and losing a vote and they can just pass law after law catering to their mega-donors.

Companies need to pay taxes, they should NOT be able to legally bribe officials via lobbying or immediately hire politicians once they leave office (regulatory capture).

But citizens don’t vote out politicians who behave unethically because “at least it’s my team”.

So team No-tax will refuse a guy with a minor tax hike even if it helps them because “wrong team bucko”.

And team “tax everyone” will refuse someone with a moderate and careful plan because “wrong team”.

And instead of having a less than inspiring “modest” tax bump (etc) we get a whopping nothing done.

Then the guys who did nothing get voted in again because THIS TIME will be different.

People have short memories and fucking LOVE feeling like they are part of a club.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Mathemagician said:


> Exactly. Example: one of my coworkers I would at a glance thinks is the polar opposite of me politically. And often times they are but we actually agree that there are the same problems when we chat (briefly). We just have different ideas about how to resolve them. But 50% of the work is acknowledging you have a problem.
> 
> One of the single biggest issues in America is policitians not representing their base because their base won’t vote them out. Team blue or Red will (often) ALWAYS vote blue or red enough so that the elected official does not have to worry about their seat and losing a vote and they can just pass law after law catering to their mega-donors.
> 
> Companies need to pay taxes, they should NOT be able to legally bribe officials via lobbying or immediately hire politicians once they leave office (regulatory capture).
> 
> But citizens don’t vote out politicians who behave unethically because “at least it’s my team”.
> 
> So team No-tax will refuse a guy with a minor tax hike even if it helps them because “wrong team bucko”.
> 
> And team “tax everyone” will refuse someone with a moderate and careful plan because “wrong team”.
> 
> And instead of having a less than inspiring “modest” tax bump (etc) we get a whopping nothing done.
> 
> Then the guys who did nothing get voted in again because THIS TIME will be different.
> 
> People have short memories and fucking LOVE feeling like they are part of a club.



I think the root of this also comes down to just how much people distrust the nation's political actors. For most people I've seen, it doesn't even matter what you campaign on- nobody believes a damn word. It seems to come down to the (D) or (R) next to your name, because tribalism. People seem to have this idea of "Oh I can't trust a politician to do what they say, but I can trust my party to do X Y and Z." 

It's all busted. There needs to be more accountability. I want term limits. I want less lobbying.
Lord knows that DC isn't going to become a bastion of integrity overnight, but man, I feel like if there was less disdain between the working and political class, things would be in a much better place. Wish I had some insight on how to get there.


----------



## Thaeon

The quickest way to fix everything we're talking about is changing how politicians are allowed to get funds. Lobby groups, PACs, or any other organization shouldn't be allowed to donate to individuals running. This makes it very clear, that in order to get reelected, you have to pander to your campaign donors. Who are wealthy or are large businesses or special interest groups. I saw a statistic recently that basically, no matter how in line your wants as an individual are with the rest of the nation, the likelihood that congress will listen to you is about 30% across the board. Looking at the reverse, the likelihood that a PAC or special interest group having and idea for policy getting considered is roughly the remaining percentage. So, the people aren't being represented in congress. The people buying our elected officials are. However, we can change a lot of this, because cities and states are who controls how the election process works. Convert enough states to a reformed process and federal policy will follow suit. I guarantee we're about to see this happen with medical marijuana and eventually recreational. Focus on local politics.


----------



## vilk




----------



## Explorer

I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall

Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds. 

My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so? 

If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> So, I see the general socioeconomic outcomes of Communism and Capitalism as ultimately the same. Communism funnels money and power to the wealthy and powerful quickly. Capitalism accomplishes this same goal slowly. Neither are best for the freedoms of the individual. Neither seeks to maximize the freedoms of the individual (unless wealthy, then all of the freedom). If you want to see the actual horrors of how capitalism functions, take an economics class and pay close attention to how people use the market to decide the optimum amount of some specific commodity every household should have. What a capitalist government does, is balance these numbers with people as a resource/tool. School is to the end of proper training and preparation of working life. Not to the end of individual enrichment. The government and business should be in service to the population. Doing what they can to make the lives of individuals better, rather that the individual being in service to society/job/government. Maximize quality of life over maximizing profit. Profit equates to wealth. Masses of wealth create inequality of quality of life. Inequality of life creates social instability.



I mean, not to be overly reductionist or negative here, or anything... 

...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem, that if you guarantee people what they need with respect to guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, etc then you leave them with very little to no incentive to actually work for a living, production plummets, and you can't produce enough food, shelter, and clothing to feed, shelter, and clothe the masses. 

And, the problem with capitalism is it tends to accrue most of its rewards to those who already HAVE wealth, to commoditize labor, and reward capital while minimizing the rewards that accrue to labor, leaving the vast majority of people with huge incentives to work, but for what ends up being a very shitty living, to the great reward of the elite. 

These are the two basic arguments used to attack communism and attack capitalism, and both have their merits. However, could we maybe take a giant step back an pause to acknowledge the real root of the problem here, which isn't that communism is bad or capitalism is bad, but rather that people are just inherently selfish?


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I mean, not to be overly reductionist or negative here, or anything...
> 
> ...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem, that if you guarantee people what they need with respect to guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, etc then you leave them with very little to no incentive to actually work for a living, production plummets, and you can't produce enough food, shelter, and clothing to feed, shelter, and clothe the masses.
> 
> And, the problem with capitalism is it tends to accrue most of its rewards to those who already HAVE wealth, to commoditize labor, and reward capital while minimizing the rewards that accrue to labor, leaving the vast majority of people with huge incentives to work, but for what ends up being a very shitty living, to the great reward of the elite.
> 
> These are the two basic arguments used to attack communism and attack capitalism, and both have their merits. However, could we maybe take a giant step back an pause to acknowledge the real root of the problem here, which isn't that communism is bad or capitalism is bad, but rather that people are just inherently selfish?



I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.


----------



## spudmunkey

Explorer said:


> My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?
> 
> If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.



Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.


This may be me as an increasingly openly avowed misanthrope, but as someone who from a purely theoretical standpoint is a fairly traditional capitalist provided it's acompanied by just enough regulation to keep maximum utility more or less aligned with public good, I honestly don't think it matters or there IS an ideal system. 

People are selfish, self-interested, and generally shit. We're going to find some way to corrupt ANY system for allocating scarce resources and we may as well own up to that.


----------



## possumkiller

That is why terminators should run the world instead of people.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't disagree. There is no perfect political/socio-economic system. But there is an ideal one, featuring components of all the systems.


All the systems? Eh, feudalism can fuck right off.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> This may be me as an increasingly openly avowed misanthrope, but as someone who from a purely theoretical standpoint is a fairly traditional capitalist provided it's acompanied by just enough regulation to keep maximum utility more or less aligned with public good, I honestly don't think it matters or there IS an ideal system.
> 
> People are selfish, self-interested, and generally shit. We're going to find some way to corrupt ANY system for allocating scarce resources and we may as well own up to that.



What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient. I'm not suggesting I agree with this path. Just asking the obvious questions.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> All the systems? Eh, feudalism can fuck right off.



Technically the corporate world still is feudalism...


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient.



It would still have to have specific goals, and something tells me that those who write those requirements/goals will still benefit the most in the end.


----------



## Thaeon

Not exactly how code or algorithms work. The tech industry tends towards individual equity and freedom. It would be a surprise to me if the challenge of seeing if it can be successfully written to be fair would be superseded by a desire for profit. You would have to intentionally code bias in at the outset. The idea with A.I. Is that it self corrects and writes its own updates based on predetermined parameters and input/output data. The best part, is that it can be run in a sandbox based on real world current events. We could thoroughly test it before releasing it into the wild so to speak. Unlike current policy.


----------



## iamaom

Drew said:


> ...but the problem with communism is the freeloader problem


Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Jesus Christ. Run on sentences, much?


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.
> 
> https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall
> 
> Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds.





spudmunkey said:


> Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.



It's a given that Trump and many of his supporters ignore actual facts. Hilariously, even here a few Trump supporters complained about my pointing out their lack of rigorous fact-based thinking, and then refused to actually address facts again.

However, my question wasn't about Trump's views, but instead asking wall supporters here about the claimed facts. 



Explorer said:


> My question *to all those here who have been justifying the wall*: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?
> 
> If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.



I'm not really expecting them to answer, but just wanting to point out how the actions of the DHS show that claimed hard data supporting the wall doesn't exist. If wall supporters come around because they have to acknowledge the mental gymnastics they engage in to deny reality, that's actually great, but I am also content knowing that they often choose silence because they at least unconsciously recognize that they can't rely on facts for support.


----------



## Thaeon

Explorer said:


> It's a given that Trump and many of his supporters ignore actual facts. Hilariously, even here a few Trump supporters complained about my pointing out their lack of rigorous fact-based thinking, and then refused to actually address facts again.
> 
> However, my question wasn't about Trump's views, but instead asking wall supporters here about the claimed facts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really expecting them to answer, but just wanting to point out how the actions of the DHS show that claimed hard data supporting the wall doesn't exist. If wall supporters come around because they have to acknowledge the mental gymnastics they engage in to deny reality, that's actually great, but I am also content knowing that they often choose silence because they at least unconsciously recognize that they can't rely on facts for support.



I would actually like to see a solid response to this. Nearly all the numbers I see are that around 80% of drugs come through monitored ports of entry. If we're talking illegal aliens, the vast majority are people who overstay their visa. I would like to understand how a wall from the pacific ocean to the gulf of mexico is going to fix this. Please cite your source.


----------



## Drew

iamaom said:


> Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
> 
> I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.


You guys! We found the communist!


----------



## vilk

iamaom said:


> Except that communism is about workers owning the means of production and not the government giving away free shit.
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
> 
> I'd also like to argue against the idea that we "need" workers like we used to historically, after all machines to quite a bit of the work and could do even more (mcdonalds self order kiosks, etc.) if it wasn't for this bizarre idea that people HAVE to work, it's a crabs in a bucket mentality. The entire world throws out thousands of tons of food everyday because god forbid someone doesn't pay for them. Something is really messed up when the poor are blamed for being freeloaders for not doing manual labor while billionaires who inherited enough excess wealth get to play the stock markets and make money from nothing. We have entire entities like banks who make money off interest rates, sucking up wealth like a sponge, we have farmers producing corn unsuitable for consumption but for ethanol they lobbied to be put into gas, but yeah, some people not having an unnecessary minimum wage job are the ones who'd ruin it for society.



You (and everyone in this thread) should check out this podcast, very related to what you're talking about

http://www.cracked.com/podcast/what-america-cant-admit-about-millennial-generation/

Took me 20 goddamn minutes to find that because I was expecting the title to have to do with "automation" or "post-sufficiency society" or something, because that's what it's about more than it is about the "millennial generation"... well, as far as I can remember, back when I heard it in 2013


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Spaced Out Ace




----------



## BlackSG91

Tim Apple.


;>)/


----------



## spudmunkey

Tim Apple's Hamberder Covfefe. Best lasting peaches in the United Schtates.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Thaeon said:


> The quickest way to fix everything we're talking about is changing how politicians are allowed to get funds. Lobby groups, PACs, or any other organization shouldn't be allowed to donate to individuals running. This makes it very clear, that in order to get reelected, you have to pander to your campaign donors. Who are wealthy or are large businesses or special interest groups. I saw a statistic recently that basically, no matter how in line your wants as an individual are with the rest of the nation, the likelihood that congress will listen to you is about 30% across the board. Looking at the reverse, the likelihood that a PAC or special interest group having and idea for policy getting considered is roughly the remaining percentage. So, the people aren't being represented in congress. The people buying our elected officials are. However, we can change a lot of this, because cities and states are who controls how the election process works. Convert enough states to a reformed process and federal policy will follow suit. I guarantee we're about to see this happen with medical marijuana and eventually recreational. Focus on local politics.



I'm not convinced this works either. For example, the UK has incredibly strict rules about political donations. Lobbying is completely different to the US. Every single penny of political donation has to be accounted for. Every MP must publish online full details of their finances, every expense they claim etc. But we still hate our politicians, think they are out of touch, and they don't listen to us.



Explorer said:


> I've been waiting for the DHS to provide the DOD with the list of locations where a wall would improve the effectiveness of the military troops there, along with the underlying data used to justify such evaluation.
> 
> https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...o-justify-moving-funds-for-trumps-border-wall
> 
> Such justification is legally required before reallocating military funds.
> 
> My question to all those here who have been justifying the wall: If justifying wall construction is actually fact-based, why can't the DHS actually do so?
> 
> If such hard data isn't available, then that really deflates the pro-wall arguments being presented here as fact.



I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required? 

As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?

Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)



spudmunkey said:


> Considering Trump's publicly expressed that he either doesn't trust the CIA, the FBI, NASA, his top generals, most of his non-family-member advisors, or scientific consensus (or at least he believes he knows more than them), I wouldn't expect anything that comes from DOD or DHS to change his mind, anyway.



In all fairness, the majority of those are not worth trusting. CIA, FBI, NSA pretty much openly hate him. And it's not like they have a history of being devious lying bastards...



Thaeon said:


> What I'm hearing is that people can't be trusted to self govern. Do you think that A.I. or some other form of automation of legislation could do a better job? It would absolutely be impartial since it would not be directly deriving power from the policy. It could absolutely do the job and would be much more financially efficient. I'm not suggesting I agree with this path. Just asking the obvious questions.



It would be impartial, but it would need to be programmed with some sort of "humanity". Otherwise you'd have the "trolley problem" every time. You'd always be faced with making some group of people suffer in order to help another group.

For example, it would be more efficient to just execute people who will be a net negative effect on society (crime, creating lots of innocent victims, spending time in judicial system and jail). One criminal can cause $millions worth of cost to the system, as well as reducing quality of life for others. 

It would be more logical to stop supporting people once they retire and no longer contribute to the economy. A system running purely on efficiency, we would cut every single benefit to old people and re-invest it all into kids.

Following pure logic, economics, and being impartial would immediately lead us to some incredibly uncomfortable decisions I think.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?
> 
> As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?
> 
> Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)



It's part of the checks and balances afforded to Congress. When they allocate the budget they specify where the funds are supposed to go.

For instance, there could be "x amount" earmarked for "bombing brown people" but not "y amount" for "fancy new Raytheon toy" and the President can't just swap "x" and "y" whenever.

If the President wants to allocate those funds to something different they need to justify that.

Which is why there's so much discussion over the White House's proposed budget. They want to allocate wall funding from the get go.


----------



## Thaeon

Flappydoodle said:


> I'm not convinced this works either. For example, the UK has incredibly strict rules about political donations. Lobbying is completely different to the US. Every single penny of political donation has to be accounted for. Every MP must publish online full details of their finances, every expense they claim etc. But we still hate our politicians, think they are out of touch, and they don't listen to us.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?
> 
> As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?
> 
> Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, the majority of those are not worth trusting. CIA, FBI, NSA pretty much openly hate him. And it's not like they have a history of being devious lying bastards...
> 
> 
> 
> It would be impartial, but it would need to be programmed with some sort of "humanity". Otherwise you'd have the "trolley problem" every time. You'd always be faced with making some group of people suffer in order to help another group.
> 
> For example, it would be more efficient to just execute people who will be a net negative effect on society (crime, creating lots of innocent victims, spending time in judicial system and jail). One criminal can cause $millions worth of cost to the system, as well as reducing quality of life for others.
> 
> It would be more logical to stop supporting people once they retire and no longer contribute to the economy. A system running purely on efficiency, we would cut every single benefit to old people and re-invest it all into kids.
> 
> Following pure logic, economics, and being impartial would immediately lead us to some incredibly uncomfortable decisions I think.



I absolutely agree. You would have to build in some counters to the efficiency process. Beneficial efficiency vs absolute efficiency. 

On the topic of campaign funds, disclosure is a needed first step. But I think that there shouldn't be the ability for business to donate. I think every individual should get a tax break for donating a percentage of their income to some form of political candidate up to a certain dollar value not percentage of income. Or if we can't get business involved, then the businesses decide what they want to contribute, and divide that money equivalently to each employees and each employee decides where they want that money to go. I think that speeches/debates and things should only be on public channels. Or make it so that whatever network broadcasting it can't make ad revenue off of it. The way money is allocated in politics has to change so that votes actually matter again. Also, the DNC and RNC have to give up their totalitarian control over the process, and they need to have complete transparency about what they are doing and why.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> I'm not America, but how/why is this legally required?
> 
> As Commander in Chief, why can Trump not simply order the military to do so?
> 
> Does every president need to provide fact-based justifications for all military spending? Before spending $50M on a missile barrage to kill some dude 6,000 miles away, do they need to draw up documentation justifying it? (Genuine question)


To specify a little further, this is the case because the president _doesn't_ specify the amount or nature of military spending; congress does. The president always sends a budget to Congress by convention, but it's a mere political convention - the presidential budget is just a suggestion and Congress actually determines what and where the government spends money. Specifically, spending bills need to originate in the House of Representatives, which is a political feature of our government that's causing Trump a LOT of headaches. 

What Trump is trying to do here is, since Congress refused to fund his border wall, declare a national emergency and use Presidential emergency powers to override Congress. He can't spend money that isn't in the budget, but he CAN re-allocate funding from other sources - in this case, disaster aid to Puerto Rico and California and money allocated for repairs and maintenance and construction on military bases - to build a border wall due to the national emergency. Which, whether or not he's able to call a national emergency because Congress wouldn't fund a political promise of his, doubly so because in his speech declaring the emergency he claimed he didn't need to, but was going to do it anyway because it was faster, is a question that will likely be settled in the Supreme Court. Already it's very likely that he'll have to make his first presidential veto to a bill that passed the House and is extremely likely to pass the Senate overturning his declaration of emergency, one of the checks and balances on presidential power also included in the constitution. It looks like the Senate has enough votes to pass, but not at present enough votes to override a veto.

Make any more sense? tl;dr - the President doesn't have "power of the purse," as it's known in American political parlance.



Thaeon said:


> Technically the corporate world still is feudalism...


Missed this early - trust me, it really, really isn't.  Employment at will works both ways.


----------



## Ralyks

And just to emphasize, he wants to take money that was meant to help everyone that suffered from the natural disasters in Puerto Rico and California to build his political promise.

Just felt that needed some emphasis.

While we're at it, wonder if he asked how Flint MI is doing


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> And just to emphasize, he wants to take money that was meant to help everyone that suffered from the natural disasters in Puerto Rico and California to build his political promise.
> 
> Just felt that needed some emphasis.
> 
> While we're at it, wonder if he asked how Flint MI is doing


But not from Alabama, where a fraction of the people were killed or left homeless, but where they're reliable red votes.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Missed this early - trust me, it really, really isn't.  Employment at will works both ways.



Sure, if you think that employment at will is descriptive of employment is required for survival unless independently wealthy. Sounds strangely like feudalism. Only the corporations are the feudal lords making their wealth on the backs of the peasants who do the real work.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Sure, if you think that employment at will is descriptive of employment is required for survival unless independently wealthy. Sounds strangely like feudalism. Only the corporations are the feudal lords making their wealth on the backs of the peasants who do the real work.


In that case I'd argue you don't understand feudalism.  Serfs who decided they didn't want to work weren't left to starve, they were thrown in dungeons or executed.  

Arguably, the same critique is true of communism - a side-effect of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" at least in Soviet practice was that if you're _not_ pulling your weight according to your ability, then there are going to be repercussions there, as well.

Really, being "independently wealthy" is the exception and not the norm throughout human history, and again is a matter of having the resources to be a selfish asshole. I firmly believe that the problem with every single system of allocating scarce resources, or at a minimum _a_ problem, is the fact that people are just inherently selfish if they are allowed to be.


----------



## Thaeon

I do understand Feudalism. In the "civilized" world people wouldn't allow humans to be executed or incarcerated for not working. However, they have no problems generally if people are left to starve aside from talking about how terrible it is. Most don't have the fortitude to actually do things about it, or are selfish, or don't have the resources. Either way. Modern social pressures and morality don't allow the dire consequences you mentioned. But there are still consequences. I'm not arguing that our entire system is feudal. I'm making the argument that our brand of capitalism in the US has lead to defacto corporate feudalism and imperialism. We are not in disagreement about people being inherently selfish. Because they are inherently selfish, it is my personal opinion, that people and businesses should be made to contribute back into the system. It is better for the future of people. Especially because of the myth of continuous economic growth in the face of finite resources. This also brings up the issue that masses of wealth being stagnant in capitalism creates. If money isn't moving around, it isn't serving its purpose. It can't create growth with its purchasing power reinvigorating the economy, and it can't be taxed forcing local governments to find other ways of funding themselves, and starving necessary programs like education.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Thaeon said:


> I absolutely agree. You would have to build in some counters to the efficiency process. Beneficial efficiency vs absolute efficiency.



Then you've created a politician!

Who is valued more? A pensioner or a school kid?

How much $ is one life worth? Should we spend $1M keeping someone in jail for life? What about $10M? We clearly can't say life is worth an infinite amount, but it also can't be zero. So there must be a monetary amount somewhere which is appropriate.

As soon as you insert "values", you've created a politician lol





> On the topic of campaign funds, disclosure is a needed first step. But I think that there shouldn't be the ability for business to donate. I think every individual should get a tax break for donating a percentage of their income to some form of political candidate up to a certain dollar value not percentage of income. Or if we can't get business involved, then the businesses decide what they want to contribute, and divide that money equivalently to each employees and each employee decides where they want that money to go. I think that speeches/debates and things should only be on public channels. Or make it so that whatever network broadcasting it can't make ad revenue off of it. The way money is allocated in politics has to change so that votes actually matter again. Also, the DNC and RNC have to give up their totalitarian control over the process, and they need to have complete transparency about what they are doing and why.



I'm not American, but campaign finance laws do exist. And when the news says "Hillary got $20M donations from Goldman Sachs" it really means from employees, who are all bound by the upper maximum donation limit. 

The thing that really broken, IMO, is the lobbying and the jobs people get immediately after their political career. How many people have cashed in with books about Trump, or spots on CNN. I mean, the fucking ex-head of the CIA is on daily TV now, as is the former director of national intelligence. And the previous head of the FBI also wrote a book to cash in. That's so wrong, lol. They're all basking in celebrity status, with their little troops of dedicated fans soaking up their every opinion.

I hate to bring them up again, but look at Bill and Hillary. They're worth more than $100M now, from a career in politics. Obama, worth $135M. That's from the book deals, speaking gigs, consulting gigs etc. Kinda ridiculous.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Looks like Christmas may have come early for you guys.

Not a big fan of The Daily Beast, but news is news. This definitely looks really, really bad for the cheetopope.

Man, can you imagine how stressful it's gotta be to be Cohen right now? 
Especially after Manafort just got slammed. Yikes.


----------



## Explorer

So, several things happened of major interest.

The most important, in terms of the major consequences for the other matters, is the announcement that Manafort was charged by New York State immediately after he was sentenced in Federal court. It's not that a grand jury conveniently indicted him just this morning. Instead, a sealed indictment was unsealed.

This indictment was made possible by Mueller's team sharing evidence with other authorities, because he's a smart prosecutor.

IIRC, the icing on the cake is that accepting a Trump pardon on the federal charges is an admission of guilt... meaning Manafort could no longer plead not guilty on the NY charges. That's gotta hurt anyone in a similar position. 

That leads to Roger Stone. Stone has a New York residence, and that residence was raided alongside that of his girlfriend also in New York at the same time Stone's Florida residence was served and searched. Florida would likely refuse to charge Stone because Republicans often refuse to charge crimes by Trump family and associates, so Stone didn't have the worry of state charges affecting a Trump pardon, until we all learned that NY has hidden sealed indictments. Now Stone has discovered that his courting a corrupt Trump pardon won't necessarily save him, so he has to be considering flipping.

Next, we also know that Ivanka and Junior were almost charged in New York in 2012, but the charges were dropped by Vance, who was then being investigated for accepting a bribe by Cohen and Trump. Now it turns out Vance was part of the unsealed indictment against Manafort... which means he could also be part of sealed indictments against Ivanka and Junior.

Financial records gotten by Mueller will also indicate if Trump and his kin/associates/family have continually broken the law up until the election, or even longer as a continuing enterprise. That brings us to the college admission charges today... which I believe were brought under the RICO statutes. Additionally, if lawbreaking is ongoing, like continuing to commit tax fraud, the statute of limitations only starts running once the behavior ends. Further, the building NY case regarding Donald Trump criminally inflating (for loan purposes) and deflating (for loan purposes) asset values has led to very soecific subpoenas, and NY has already taken control of the Trump Foundation in order to dissolve it. 

Again, accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt, removing the option of pleading not guilty to related state charges. Mueller is a smart man. 

----

Hmm. What else has happened?

Nadler stated that Whitaker revealed he indeed had conversations with Trump regarding the Mueller investigation, as well as about firing US attorneys to obstruct justice, as well as the scope of the Trumo-Cohen SDNY case. 

It turns out that 52 of the 81 document requests are about... Ivanka. She's a target. 

It certainly seems that there is a lot of obstruction-of-justice evidence surfacing, and more flipping by the guilty is likely. 

Lastly, Pelosi was clever in stating Trump wasn't worth impraching yet. This goaded Trump into starting to talk about impeachment, and thereby himself normalizing talking about his being impeached. Further, Trump made the case in his tweet that, should he have commited "high crimes and misdemeanors," he should be impeached, allowing Pelosi to use Trump's own words against him when she agrees with him.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Man, could they have picked a better guy than Mueller? The dude is an absolute savage.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Looks like Christmas may have come early for you guys.
> 
> Not a big fan of The Daily Beast, but news is news. This definitely looks really, really bad for the cheetopope.
> 
> Man, can you imagine how stressful it's gotta be to be Cohen right now?
> Especially after Manafort just got slammed. Yikes.


That's a little awkward. Question, though - is offering to pardon Cohen actually illegal? Conceivably you could argue that it's a form of obscruction of justice, offering a presidential pardon so he doesn't testify against Trump... but that would seem somewhat hard to prove. Would Cohen's testimony be enough? 



Explorer said:


> Now Stone has discovered that his courting a corrupt Trump pardon won't necessarily save him, so he has to be considering flipping.


Wildcard here though is the Supreme Court is due to hear a case arguing that the President's power of pardon should also extend to state crimes because to be able to try at the state and federal level would be a form of double jeopardy. I think all things considered Roberts, who is right of center but also very concerned with the court's reputation for impartiality and who would no doubt see this as a transfer of power from the courts to the president, is likely to vote against that argument, but the rest of the conservative ring is likely to be in favor so it's a close decision.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> That's a little awkward. Question, though - is offering to pardon Cohen actually illegal? Conceivably you could argue that it's a form of obscruction of justice, offering a presidential pardon so he doesn't testify against Trump... but that would seem somewhat hard to prove. Would Cohen's testimony be enough?
> 
> Wildcard here though is the Supreme Court is due to hear a case arguing that the President's power of pardon should also extend to state crimes because to be able to try at the state and federal level would be a form of double jeopardy. I think all things considered Roberts, who is right of center but also very concerned with the court's reputation for impartiality and who would no doubt see this as a transfer of power from the courts to the president, is likely to vote against that argument, but the rest of the conservative ring is likely to be in favor so it's a close decision.



That's a really, really good question, and something I've been thinking about since I read it. It's bad optics for sure, but beyond that, I can't pretend I have the legal background to make an informed assumption. I would _*hope*_ that offering a pardon in exchange for not testifying would count as obstruction, but like you said, that'd be difficult to prove. And especially with someone that's been as crucified by the public as Trump, I think the burden of proof would be quite high. 

I didn't know there was a case heading to the supreme court for pardon extension. That'll be interesting for sure- the whole time I was reading Explorer's post I was thinking "that kind of sounds like double jeopardy..." so I'm definitely curious to see what the court finds.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## jaxadam

Don’t forget to preorder your copy!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510750169/?tag=sevenstringorg-20


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

That's a rather expensive brand of toilet paper.


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> Don’t forget to preorder your copy!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510750169/?tag=sevenstringorg-20



I'm shocked there no reviews yet.


----------



## sezna

jaxadam said:


> Don’t forget to preorder your copy!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/1510750169/?tag=sevenstringorg-20


What's up with that url? Tag=sevenstringorg? are you _monitoring _us?


----------



## narad

sezna said:


> What's up with that url? Tag=sevenstringorg? are you _monitoring _us?



The board auto-adds that to the link formatting in order to grab some amazon revenue.


----------



## Ralyks

Wait.... That's a REAL Amazon posting?

.... I'm out.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

This should be interesting: 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...poena-fight-gets-supreme-court-look-this-week

tl;dr - there's been a subpoena working its way through the courts system for some time now, under the utmost of secrecy. We know it's been served to a foreign-owned company, though one with substantial US business. We know it's related to the Mueller investigation, though that hadn't been officially confirmed until pretty recently. If they're arguing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protects them from being subpoenaed in a US court, then they're very likely a state-owned entity. Security is air-tight - an entire floor of a district court was cleared and closed to the public for the courts to hear arguments, and again it's only been within the past month that the Mueller investigation has been formally linked to this subpoena. At present, the subpoena has been in place since June of 2018, is accruing $50,000 a day for every day of noncompliance, and penalties stand at over $2mm at present. 

This kind of undercuts the rumors swirling that Mueller's investigation is finished and his report should be out shortly. There isn't much to go on, but if I had to take a wild stab I'd guess Rosneft, the Russian state owned oil company - they showed up early on in some of the rumors about the investigation way back in the day before we had anything concrete to go on, after they sold 19.5% of their shares to unknown buyers in December of 2016, and then the very next day Trump agent Carter Page met with senior management in the company in Moscow. They're in the right place, at the right time, and fit the description...


----------



## spudmunkey

Jesus Christ, the onion....

https://politics.theonion.com/trump...ite&utm_source=theonion_copy&utm_campaign=top



> *Trump: ‘Any Shooting Actually Inspired By Me Would Have Left Thousands Dead’*


----------



## Randy

@Drew I'm expecting full blue balls on this one.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> @Drew I'm expecting full blue balls on this one.


Well, given the level of secrecy, we may never know who was subpoenaed. I'll be curious to see what the SC does here, they seem a little hesitant to touch it even if (especially because?) the legal issues seem pretty clear-cut.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> Jesus Christ, the onion....
> 
> https://politics.theonion.com/trump...ite&utm_source=theonion_copy&utm_campaign=top



Man, I love The Onion


----------



## Drew

So, one of the things I didn't see coming in the 2020 Democratic primary (does that need its own thread)...

Based on admittedly a fair amount of anecdotal evidence, the fact that prominent Sanders supporters are explicitly going after his record for not being liberal "enough," and to a lesser extent the fact he's now out front in fundraising, Beto O'Rourke seems to be drawing a _surprising_ amount of support from people I know who were Sanders supporters in 2016. I'll be really interested to see if this holds, especially because as whole O'Rourke has some fairly progressive items in his platform, his record really has been as a centrist, moderate Democrat so this may be just a quick infatuation with an "energy" candidate... But if it does, that bodes well for Beto's chances, poorly for Sanders, and probably benefits other potential "frontrunner" candidates by having Sanders suck up less of the oxygen in the room, including notably Harris, and, as I'm fairly sure he'll run, Biden. 

Definitely wouldn't have seen that coming, six months ago.


----------



## Ralyks

I feel like Beto would be a better VP right now.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I feel like Beto would be a better VP right now.


I mean, a lot will depend on the next year obviously and how he handles the campaign... But I'd say he's gotta be short list for a lot of candidates, for sure, particularly the women (I think a lot of the male candidates are going to prioritize a female VP this time around, which frankly I'd love to see just to see Pence having to stand alone on stage next to a woman he isn't married to)


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> ...frankly I'd love to see just to see Pence having to stand alone on stage next to a woman he isn't married to.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah.

Beto BTW has a voting record that is VERY supportive of big business over private citizens. May not be worth trusting the hype.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Beto BTW has a voting record that is VERY supportive of big business over private citizens. May not be worth trusting the hype.


Eh, Beto's from Texas and was representing Texans. That isn't all that surprising to me, I think what matters more is what his platform is on what he pans to do going _forward_. Which, to be fair, he hasn't provided a ton of clarity on yet, but he's definitely going to have to.


----------



## Randy

Democratic Party 2009-2016 was very cozy with big business. Votes during that span of time should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## devastone

Saw this when I was leaving the dentist office a few days ago and saw one of these bumper stickers:


----------



## Ralyks

Mueller filled the report.

Shits about to get real.


----------



## CapnForsaggio

haha, i was looking for that old "is trump gonna make it? thread...." i just came by to taste salty tears. you all ripped me a new one for having the audacity to propose that maybe trump wasnt a master russian spy, and that obama laid a trap. you feelin me yet?


----------



## Ralyks

... I mean, short answer ”No”, long answer ”Wha?”


----------



## jaxadam

CapnForsaggio said:


> haha, i was looking for that old "is trump gonna make it? thread...." i just came by to taste salty tears. you all ripped me a new one for having the audacity to propose that maybe trump wasnt a master russian spy, and that obama laid a trap. you feelin me yet?



I'm feelin' you brotato! Trump 2020!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

If this is another Maddow Nothing Burger, I'm going to laugh. Hell, I'm going to laugh regardless of the outcome.


----------



## spudmunkey

CapnForsaggio said:


> ... for having the audacity to propose that maybe trump wasnt a master russian spy



For what it's worth, nobody anywhere thinks Trump is a master anything. Those of us who genuinely thought/think he did illegal things imagine he did so either because he's greedy and/or an egomaniac, or that he did so accidentally. Like...if you found out Mr. Magoo was responsible for those huge California fires. You probably wouldn't assume "clever arsonist".


----------



## Ralyks

Basically that. Manipulative, yes. Mastermind? Naaaaah.


----------



## Randy

No pee-pee tape no care.


----------



## mlp187




----------



## spudmunkey

No no...Dic_tator._ Not "dick taper".


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

"Pee pee tape."


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If this is another Maddow Nothing Burger, I'm going to laugh. Hell, I'm going to laugh regardless of the outcome.



Shits about to get real!

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-report-filed-with-no-new-indictments-planned


----------



## Ralyks

Mueller isn't indicting anyone else. There's still a possibility a bunch of other organizations can do indictments based on information in the report.


----------



## jaxadam

Bummer man. I thought shit was about to get real.

I mean I thought this weekend was gonna be the one. We’d be saying President Pence Monday as they haul away Trump for selling America’s soul to the Russians. I guess I’ll just be grilling a bunch of nothing burgers for lunch tomorrow.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Aaa_y0KyiSEC2VyfdWKNGiA

Still all of that to get through.


----------



## jaxadam

Bummer man. I still though shit was about to get real. I guess we’ll just have to keep throwing stuff at the wall and see what sticks. Something somewhere down the list that keeps getting exhausted will turn up. Maybe it will be a parking ticket from 1970 that puts the nail in the coffin.


----------



## Demiurge

Well fuck, I guess we'll never be able to confirm whether an American politician might have an ulterior motive towards their own enrichment or have the support of elements that do not have the best interests of the American people in mind.


----------



## Ralyks

I get it dude. I get offended when someone offends my country too. It's like "Make America great again? Fuck you, it's already great, what are you talking about?"


----------



## thraxil

I look forward to reading the full report, which I'm sure Trump will release immediately if it exonerates him.


----------



## jaxadam

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/23/politics/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-robert-mueller/index.html



> In the eyes of the President and his aides, many of whom traveled to South Florida for the weekend, it was a moment to celebrate: *the conclusion of an investigation that did not find enough evidence to indict the President or his confidants for conspiring with Russia to win the 2016 election.*



What a time to be alive!


----------



## Ralyks

No collusion, but stops short of exonerating Trump from obstruction of Justice.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mueller is worse than Gene Simmons -- he'll throw anything at a wall and hope something sticks.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, basically Barrs letter said there was nothing beyond reasonable doubt.

Welp, it was fun while lasted. Now the two sides can go back to hating each other for other reasons. C'mon kids, let's go home...


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mueller is worse than Gene Simmons -- he'll throw anything at a wall and hope something sticks.



I got no impression of that based on Barr's summary. His conclusions seem very measured.

As far as overall outcomes, not enough mention of the fact Barr and Rosenstein concluded "no obstruction" because there was no Russian collusion. Mueller seemed to conclude Trump tried to dictate the direction of the investigation in a way that was inappropriate, but without any indication he committed a crime regarding the underlying Investigation's findings, there was no justice to obstruct. Without a crime committed, you can't draw a line to criminal intent. HOWEVER, Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein seemed to agree he tried to throw his weight around in a suspicious/inappropriate way.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, Randy summed it up pretty well. There will probably still be other investigations and such based on info in the report, but otherwise, later Russia.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Well, I'd hate for Mueller to be out of a job. Better to be flipping nothing burgers on the government dime than flipping undersized burgers for McDonald's at minimum wage.


----------



## jaxadam

Randy said:


> HOWEVER, Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein seemed to agree he tried to throw his weight around in a suspicious/inappropriate way.



Source?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy, change his name to Jax Action like the WASP tune.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

As long as the MSM has to eat crow I'm happy. It should have been obvious to most people that this whole Russia narrative was pretty ridiculous, and to press it as intensely as they did was a major miscalculation.
All of the folks that have been smugly gloating about 'muh russia' the last two years finally get to sit down and shut up.



jaxadam said:


> Source?



This ~4 minute bloc covers the obstruction question, starting around 6 minutes in.

I think Randy is talking about more of a 'reading between the lines' approach, because I didn't hear anything directly indicative of that. Which I can kind of go with, I suppose. At the end of the day though, there is *nothing*.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ordacleaphobia said:


> As long as the MSM has to eat crow I'm happy. It should have been obvious to most people that this whole Russia narrative was pretty ridiculous, and to press it as intensely as they did was a major miscalculation.
> All of the folks that have been smugly gloating about 'muh russia' the last two years finally get to sit down and shut up.
> 
> 
> 
> This ~4 minute bloc covers the obstruction question, starting around 6 minutes in.
> 
> I think Randy is talking about more of a 'reading between the lines' approach, because I didn't hear anything directly indicative of that. Which I can kind of go with, I suppose. At the end of the day though, there is *nothing*.



Uhh... they aren't going to shut up. Not even close.


----------



## narad

BuellersDayzOff said:


> I honestly can’t wait to see what Drew or Explorer has to say.
> 
> I mean they seemed to be experts on the whole matter.



Man, what did Drew do to give you such an angry hard-on for him, to the point you have to make a new fake account at the end of every news cycle? It’s like clockwork. I don't recall Drew ever saying something to imply that it was clear a major collusion charge would follow immediately from the release of the report.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace




----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Randy

jaxadam said:


> Source?



Wait for the report but even in the summary, Mueller says it can go either way and Barr claims he and Rosenstein came to their interpretation based on the lack of criminality on the underlying issue as opposed to exonerating him like they did the collusion charge. If he did nothing questionable, they'd have just said that categorically.

Anyway, no sour grapes here. I'm relieved it's over and glad the POTUS didn't conspire with an evil empire to rig an election. That's a good thing for everyone in this country whether you like him or not.


----------



## Flappydoodle

thraxil said:


> I look forward to reading the full report, which I'm sure Trump will release immediately if it exonerates him.



Honestly, he shouldn't have to. If the conclusion is no collusion, releasing a $20M piece of opposition research is a huge mistake for Trump now. If he isn't being charged with anything, it seems wrong to have every detail made public.

I'm sure there is some malfeasance in there. Hard to believe Trump never dodged taxes or did anything dodgy in the past, and those things may be in the report. Or there will be unanswered questions. Then CNN will latch onto that, and keep this whole charade going.

In short, using federal powers to dig into every aspect of somebody's life, looking for any crime... that's the definition of "modern day witch hunt". 

I totally agree with Randy. People on every side should be happy that your president didn't collude with a foreign power. It's like most of the media wanted him to have colluded - any excuse to get rid of him I suppose.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Uhh... they aren't going to shut up. Not even close.



Sadly, you seem right.

They're calling the investigation insufficient (500 interviews, 2000+ subpoenas)

They're saying Barr interfered

They're moving goalposts and saying Mueller didn't look at X, Y or Z

They're insisting that somehow they know he's guilty, but the investigation didn't find it.

Essentially, they're endorsing a witch hunt


----------



## Randy

Flappydoodle said:


> It's like most of the media wanted him to have colluded - any excuse to get rid of him I suppose.



Well, you're half right. Media has no interest in outcomes, only in driving clicks.

CNN get a wrap as being a liberal rag because they run so many anti-Trump stories but I've got a running joke with a buddy of mine where I'll screenshot contradictory headlines from them almost daily. I had one last week showed a headline where Bernie Sanders was rising in their own polls and 12 hours later they ran a frontpage story saying his approval ratings were 'plummeting'.

They massage the narrative to keep things as uncertain as possible because they profit off of cliffhangers. There's maybe one or two interesting alternative reads to the Barr summary and what will come afterward, CNN invents 100 of them and they somehow (sarcasm) end up with none with any legitimacy and of course the ones that keep the cycle growing. Cable news is a pox.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Wait for the report but even in the summary, Mueller says it can go either way and Barr claims he and Rosenstein came to their interpretation based on the lack of criminality on the underlying issue as opposed to exonerating him like they did the collusion charge. If he did nothing questionable, they'd have just said that categorically.
> 
> Anyway, no sour grapes here. I'm relieved it's over and glad the POTUS didn't conspire with an evil empire to rig an election. That's a good thing for everyone in this country whether you like him or not.


No they would not have just said that categorically. They need to keep this money blackhole time waste going.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Flappydoodle said:


> Honestly, he shouldn't have to. If the conclusion is no collusion, releasing a $20M piece of opposition research is a huge mistake for Trump now. If he isn't being charged with anything, it seems wrong to have every detail made public.
> 
> I'm sure there is some malfeasance in there. Hard to believe Trump never dodged taxes or did anything dodgy in the past, and those things may be in the report. Or there will be unanswered questions. Then CNN will latch onto that, and keep this whole charade going.
> 
> In short, using federal powers to dig into every aspect of somebody's life, looking for any crime... that's the definition of "modern day witch hunt".
> 
> I totally agree with Randy. People on every side should be happy that your president didn't collude with a foreign power. It's like most of the media wanted him to have colluded - any excuse to get rid of him I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you seem right.
> 
> They're calling the investigation insufficient (500 interviews, 2000+ subpoenas)
> 
> They're saying Barr interfered
> 
> They're moving goalposts and saying Mueller didn't look at X, Y or Z
> 
> They're insisting that somehow they know he's guilty, but the investigation didn't find it.
> 
> Essentially, they're endorsing a witch hunt


They're keeping this whole charade going on the question of, "was there any obstruction of justice?" Nevermind the fact that this was all a waste of money. It's funny, because I remember when that old alligator purse faced windbag Hillary was being investigated for Benghazi, people were all over social media saying how stupid it was and how much of a waste of money it was. Those same people are the ones who supported this waste of time.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Randy said:


> Well, you're half right. Media has no interest in outcomes, only in driving clicks.
> 
> CNN get a wrap as being a liberal rag because they run so many anti-Trump stories but I've got a running joke with a buddy of mine where I'll screenshot contradictory headlines from them almost daily. I had one last week showed a headline where Bernie Sanders was rising in their own polls and 12 hours later they ran a frontpage story saying his approval ratings were 'plummeting'.
> 
> They massage the narrative to keep things as uncertain as possible because they profit off of cliffhangers. There's maybe one or two interesting alternative reads to the Barr summary and what will come afterward, CNN invents 100 of them and they somehow (sarcasm) end up with none with any legitimacy and of course the ones that keep the cycle growing. Cable news is a pox.



I used to think like this. But I kinda think most of them *do* care about the outcome. They literally hate Trump. Look at the Twitter feed of almost any MSM reporter - they all hate him on a very personal level. Look at the discussions they're having on TV with their stupid panels and opinion segments - they despise him, his politics, his family, and everything about him. NBC yesterday was literally saying "we have to get his kids" and calling it a cover-up. I'm not saying Trump is likeable, but the MSM preferred outcome is very visible IMO. This has gone far beyond stoking conflict for ratings. It's a mission for the MSM to bring down Trump now.

For example, the number of FOI requests under Trump has skyrocketed. That is the media actively hunting for stories and controversies, with a level of scrutiny which was never applied to the previous administration. The NYT made 13 FOI requests during Obama's 2nd term, but more than 100 since Trump took office. WaPo made 1 during Obama and 43 during Trump so far. 

What will really be telling is whether things go back to "normal" when an establishment Democrat wins in 2020 or 2024.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No they would not have just said that categorically. They need to keep this money blackhole time waste going.



We'll see. If Barr's summary is any indication, DOJ are doing their best to end it in earnest. I'm not seeing any loose ends implying there will be a follow-up investigation.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Spaced Out Ace said:


> They're keeping this whole charade going on the question of, "was there any obstruction of justice?" Nevermind the fact that this was all a waste of money. It's funny, because I remember when that old alligator purse faced windbag Hillary was being investigated for Benghazi, people were all over social media saying how stupid it was and how much of a waste of money it was. Those same people are the ones who supported this waste of time.



The money is one thing, but $20M isn't much in the scale of governmental expenses.

The main damage has simply been political - preventing Trump from doing his job. This has been a massive distraction. He can't have any meeting with Putin without people going insane. It's perfectly normal for world leaders to discuss things. He can't fire or re-organise his own staff without people screaming about obstruction or interference. And the MSM has been spreading this narrative of him being a puppet, guilty of collusion and everything else since before he took office. It's brainwashed millions of people and it's making his job much harder.

Honestly, I hope Trump hits back now. A lot of people deserve it. That dossier, who funded it, where the money went - all of that needs to be thoroughly investigated now. They literally hired a British former intelligence guy to go to Russia and pay informants, many of whom are government agents who likely fed him a bunch of bullshit. That was then spread around the US intel community and used as justification for a warrant - and it has all turned out to be baseless. There 100% needs to be an investigation into all of that.


----------



## Randy

Flappydoodle said:


> I used to think like this. But I kinda think most of them *do* care about the outcome. They literally hate Trump. Look at the Twitter feed of almost any MSM reporter - they all hate him on a very personal level. Look at the discussions they're having on TV with their stupid panels and opinion segments - they despise him, his politics, his family, and everything about him. NBC yesterday was literally saying "we have to get his kids" and calling it a cover-up. I'm not saying Trump is likeable, but the MSM preferred outcome is very visible IMO. This has gone far beyond stoking conflict for ratings. It's a mission for the MSM to bring down Trump now.
> 
> For example, the number of FOI requests under Trump has skyrocketed. That is the media actively hunting for stories and controversies, with a level of scrutiny which was never applied to the previous administration. The NYT made 13 FOI requests during Obama's 2nd term, but more than 100 since Trump took office. WaPo made 1 during Obama and 43 during Trump so far.
> 
> What will really be telling is whether things go back to "normal" when an establishment Democrat wins in 2020 or 2024.



And I used to think like you 

I'm a Dem and I can tell you that CNN does everything they can to make the party look like a clown car. Watch closely how much they shift to covering Trump as a legitimate candidate the closer they get to election time. Let's not forget the unprecedented amount of free press they gave him in the 2016 primaries.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Flappydoodle said:


> The money is one thing, but $20M isn't much in the scale of governmental expenses.
> 
> The main damage has simply been political - preventing Trump from doing his job. This has been a massive distraction. He can't have any meeting with Putin without people going insane. It's perfectly normal for world leaders to discuss things. He can't fire or re-organise his own staff without people screaming about obstruction or interference. And the MSM has been spreading this narrative of him being a puppet, guilty of collusion and everything else since before he took office. It's brainwashed millions of people and it's making his job much harder.
> 
> Honestly, I hope Trump hits back now. A lot of people deserve it. That dossier, who funded it, where the money went - all of that needs to be thoroughly investigated now. They literally hired a British former intelligence guy to go to Russia and pay informants, many of whom are government agents who likely fed him a bunch of bullshit. That was then spread around the US intel community and used as justification for a warrant - and it has all turned out to be baseless. There 100% needs to be an investigation into all of that.


Wasteful spending is a problem, especially when we're, what, 20 trillion in debt?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> And I used to think like you
> 
> I'm a Dem and I can tell you that CNN does everything they can to make the party look like a clown car. Watch closely how much they shift to covering Trump as a legitimate candidate the closer they get to election time. Let's not forget the unprecedented amount of free press they gave him in the 2016 primaries.


He's one of the best masters of the soundbite there is.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Flappydoodle

Randy said:


> And I used to think like you
> 
> I'm a Dem and I can tell you that CNN does everything they can to make the party look like a clown car. Watch closely how much they shift to covering Trump as a legitimate candidate the closer they get to election time. Let's not forget the unprecedented amount of free press they gave him in the 2016 primaries.



But they treated Trump like a total joke early on. 

Of course they treated him as a legitimate candidate - he WAS. He won the Republican nomination. He had a very good chance of winning (even though they kept telling the public that he didn't). They had no choice but to treat him as legitimate.

And I don't think you can call it "free press". He made himself available. Said "yes" to any and every interview. He would announce big things for the first time during interviews - that makes him a desirable person to have on your show. And I don't think they should attempt to shut him out because they dislike him.

I'm not denying that a lot of it comes down to ratings. But it's also massively agenda-driven. Hell, their reporters are literally yelling at him and lecturing him during press conferences. Again, I can't think of a previous presidency where they did that. If it was purely about ratings, they'd be vehemently disagreeing with everything to stoke up conflict.

Final point I want to make is how dangerous all of this is. These false narratives have brainwashed a LOT of people. I already see people moving goal posts, calling conspiracy, coverup etc. Talk about sowing division among people - the MSM really is the enemy of the people in that regard.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Wasteful spending is a problem, especially when we're, what, 20 trillion in debt?



I agree, but a two year investigation for $20M isn't bad. I bet the White House spends more on catering, or toilet paper, or paperclips. And it's not "wasteful" in the end, since it has essentially vindicated Trump, blown away the "Russia" narrative etc. Of course, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, but that's a different topic!


----------



## Ralyks

Flappydoodle said:


> I agree, but a two year investigation for $20M isn't bad. I bet the White House spends more on catering, or toilet paper, or paperclips.



Or his golf trips...


----------



## ExileMetal

You guys do know that Bill Barr spent the last two years as a private citizen speaking out on the Mueller investigation right? He made his stances on things like Obstruction and Comey far before he was appointed AG. This is why recusal exists.

This summary is him doing his job, it's not just for the United States. You should want to see what the report and sealed indictments say, not this partisan hack job's "summary" with more spin on it than a top.


----------



## JSanta

Regardless of what the report found or didn't find, I can't get behind the economic policies, trade, international and domestic policies of this administration. Further more, I think the tax law was both poorly implemented and poorly thought out. I don't like Trump and his administration for more reasons than just the Russia thing. My dislike of this administration has far more to do with policies and demeanor than it does the Mueller investigation. Even if he were absolved of all wrong-doing, it makes little difference to me.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> Regardless of what the report found or didn't find, I can't get behind the economic policies, trade, international and domestic policies of this administration. Further more, I think the tax law was both poorly implemented and poorly thought out. I don't like Trump and his administration for more reasons than just the Russia thing. My dislike of this administration has far more to do with policies and demeanor than it does the Mueller investigation. Even if he were absolved of all wrong-doing, it makes little difference to me.



All of this, plus even as 5 year old in he movie theater seeing Home Alone 2, I thought he was a douche (even from just a cameo), and nothing in the following 24 years leading to his presidency changed my mind.

Yeah, I'm happy the president isn't a Russian spy or colluded with Putin or anything. Still doesn't change my feelings on him or the job he's done so far.

And for the record, I never liked Hilary either and even Bernie I knew never had a shot, so the whole last election was a loss to me no matter what.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Wait for the report but even in the summary, Mueller says it can go either way and Barr claims he and Rosenstein came to their interpretation based on the lack of criminality on the underlying issue as opposed to exonerating him like they did the collusion charge. If he did nothing questionable, they'd have just said that categorically.
> 
> Anyway, no sour grapes here. I'm relieved it's over and glad the POTUS didn't conspire with an evil empire to rig an election. That's a good thing for everyone in this country whether you like him or not.



Same. I was honestly expecting them to pin something on him regardless; the fact that they didn't really makes me feel better in general. I get the vibe that if Mueller isn't throwing anything at him, there isn't really much to throw- and as far as I'm concerned, that's the best possible outcome for everyone.



Flappydoodle said:


> I used to think like this. But I kinda think most of them *do* care about the outcome. They literally hate Trump. Look at the Twitter feed of almost any MSM reporter - they all hate him on a very personal level. Look at the discussions they're having on TV with their stupid panels and opinion segments - they despise him, his politics, his family, and everything about him. NBC yesterday was literally saying "we have to get his kids" and calling it a cover-up. I'm not saying Trump is likeable, but the MSM preferred outcome is very visible IMO. This has gone far beyond stoking conflict for ratings. It's a mission for the MSM to bring down Trump now.
> 
> For example, the number of FOI requests under Trump has skyrocketed. That is the media actively hunting for stories and controversies, with a level of scrutiny which was never applied to the previous administration. The NYT made 13 FOI requests during Obama's 2nd term, but more than 100 since Trump took office. WaPo made 1 during Obama and 43 during Trump so far.
> 
> What will really be telling is whether things go back to "normal" when an establishment Democrat wins in 2020 or 2024.



Unfortunately yeah, I think this is the way this is gunna go. The Trump Bump has been too sweet for the media to just let it go- they'll find something else to harp about.
The venom really is something else. I remember them blasting his son after he got elected _for the way he looked_; the kid was like what, 12? Unreal.



ExileMetal said:


> You guys do know that Bill Barr spent the last two years as a private citizen speaking out on the Mueller investigation right? He made his stances on things like Obstruction and Comey far before he was appointed AG. This is why recusal exists.
> 
> This summary is him doing his job, it's not just for the United States. You should want to see what the report and sealed indictments say, not this partisan hack job's "summary" with more spin on it than a top.



I'm not sure how you can spin "no indictments" though? How can the major overarching point of the letter be spin? The whole thing would have to be a flat out lie.
Now granted, I'm not aware of Barr's private opinions over the last couple years, and if this is true I can definitely see the point for recusal- but I really don't know how this can be read as spin. The fact is that they didn't get him on anything. If that's untrue then your attorney general just told the entire american public a bold-faced lie and I doubt that's happened.



JSanta said:


> Regardless of what the report found or didn't find, I can't get behind the economic policies, trade, international and domestic policies of this administration. Further more, I think the tax law was both poorly implemented and poorly thought out. I don't like Trump and his administration for more reasons than just the Russia thing. My dislike of this administration has far more to do with policies and demeanor than it does the Mueller investigation. Even if he were absolved of all wrong-doing, it makes little difference to me.



 And that's totally cool. Policy and personal disagreements I can totally understand and respect- it's just the insane media witch hunt that's ridiculous and obnoxious, and I for one am glad that it's [hopefully] over. Lets get back to policy.


----------



## Xaios

Flappydoodle said:


> Final point I want to make is how dangerous all of this is. These false narratives have brainwashed a LOT of people. I already see people moving goal posts, calling conspiracy, coverup etc.


Interesting, because that's exactly what Trump & Co have been doing basically since he took office (and even long before that), accusing the left of some sort of coverup, mass conspiracy, etc. You can't really have it both ways. If the MSM is guilty of this, then Trump is doubly so, because the executive power he holds makes any abuses on his part far more likely to cause permanent damage.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Uhh... they aren't going to shut up. Not even close.



...


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> How can the major overarching point of the letter be spin?



Absolutely can still be spin.

My expectation was something similar to Comey's press conference at the conclusion of the Hillary investigation, where he said that it didn't meet the threshold for prosecution (in large part because they couldn't prove intent) but it was still very irresponsible. That at least gave you some reference and scope regarding the underlying material.

The Barr write-up is VERY opaque. I'm not arguing cover-up at all, but don't forget one of the things that kicked this off were phone calls from Gen. Flynn to Russia telling them to wait out the sanctions because Trump was going to roll them back. Then you had Sally Yates going to WH and telling them to be careful of Flynn because there's a chance he was compromised. Then you have pressure from Trump on Comey and others to go easy on Flynn.

You also have the current case against Roger Stone, where he was going back and forth between Guccifer and Wikileaks, at a minimum, to get a timeframe from them as to when they'd be releasing whatever information they'd acquired from their hacks of the DNC server.

Then you have the Trump Tower meeting, which was between Don Jr. and others with Russian nationals offering them "dirt" on the Hillary campaign. Don Jr. wrote it up as a waste because he said they just wanted to talk about "adoptions" except that "adoptions" actually meant rolling back the Magnitsky Act, which were another phase of sanctions against Russia. Oh, and that piece of legislation was proposed by none other than Trump's moral enemy, John McCain.

These are all *facts*.

So anyway, look... I don't have access to all the evidence Mueller viewed but I trust his conclusions. My assumption is that he saw all of these things (among countless other items) and, mostly likely, saw some concerted effort by Russians to effect the race (which is even mentioned in Barr's summary) but didn't see the Trump campaign soliciting or purchasing any of this knowingly illegally obtained material, nor did he see any evidence of them hacking or stealing themselves. If that's what Mueller saw then he reached the right conclusion.

But for no bit of that to make into the Barr summary (especially because we have no guarantees if we'll ever see more of the Mueller report, ever), that absolutely could be interpreted as spin. The Comey decision on the Hillary case was near identical but they at least offered both narratives along with their conclusion. Barr only offered one side. There's only what, three or four direct quotes from Mueller in the whole write-up?

Also, Barr mentioning that Mueller argued "both sides" on obstruction in his report but Barr only highlights the arguments in the negative, along with rendering a final decision on the matter less than 48 hours after receiving a few thousand pages... that checks quite a few boxes on the "spin" list.

Again, and I'll bold it so it's hard to skip over, *I have no reason to disagree with the overall findings of the Mueller report, nor do I have any reason to disagree with Barr's conclusions and choice not to pursue further charges. *But do I think it's entirely possible and even likely that the summary was written to deaden the blow of any negative information or "grey areas" detailed in the Mueller report? Based on what we know as fact and what we saw included in what may be the only explanation we'll get, absolutely.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Smashing devices = cannot prove intent. 

By the way, I'm laughing at James "The Jabroni" Comey, not you.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> These are all *facts*.


Are they really, though?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Mueller main event eh? I wouldn't mind seeing Trumpamania run wild at WrestleMania 35 in the main event, and defeat Mueller in a squash match, BROTHER!


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Are they really, though?



To the extent anything can ever believed that doesn't occur infront of your own eyes, yes. There's a ceiling to the level of skepticism I'm willing to engage in, otherwise I'd just assume you're a bot or that I'm in a padded room or that I'm an alien in a simulation.

Those are items that are all corroborated by multiple parties or confirmed by the individuals themselves. That meets my threshold.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> To the extent anything can ever believed that doesn't occur infront of your own eyes, yes. There's a ceiling to the level of skepticism I'm willing to engage in, otherwise I'd just assume you're a bot or that I'm in a padded room or that I'm an alien in a simulation.
> 
> Those are items that are all corroborated by multiple parties or confirmed by the individuals themselves. That meets my threshold.


From a media and deep state colluding against someone because, "Orange man v bad!" I will file these "facts" in the trash compactor. Sorry.

I R TRUMP-BOT 3000, JAN BRADY DEMOCRATZ BEWAER!

What's the simulation like? I hope there is some Ripley in panties options for uh, simulation purposes.

Corroborated by multiple parties... sounds like collusion and/or conspiracy to me. Confirmed by the individuals themselves, though? Pretty sure Mr. Stone has denied talking to Guccifer, but I'd have to go watch Roger Stone interviews to refresh the ol windows 98 computer in my skull, and I don't care to bother.

TL;DR version: "Orynge man stil v bad!1`1"


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Absolutely can still be spin.
> 
> My expectation was something similar to Comey's press conference at the conclusion of the Hillary investigation, where he said that it didn't meet the threshold for prosecution (in large part because they couldn't prove intent) but it was still very irresponsible. That at least gave you some reference and scope regarding the underlying material.



Understandable- this was the vibe I got myself from the summary letter. But I suppose I can see how others wouldn't interpret it that way.



> The Barr write-up is VERY opaque. I'm not arguing cover-up at all, but don't forget one of the things that kicked this off were phone calls from Gen. Flynn to Russia telling them to wait out the sanctions because Trump was going to roll them back. Then you had Sally Yates going to WH and telling them to be careful of Flynn because there's a chance he was compromised. Then you have pressure from Trump on Comey and others to go easy on Flynn.
> 
> You also have the current case against Roger Stone, where he was going back and forth between Guccifer and Wikileaks, at a minimum, to get a timeframe from them as to when they'd be releasing whatever information they'd acquired from their hacks of the DNC server.
> 
> Then you have the Trump Tower meeting, which was between Don Jr. and others with Russian nationals offering them "dirt" on the Hillary campaign. Don Jr. wrote it up as a waste because he said they just wanted to talk about "adoptions" except that "adoptions" actually meant rolling back the Magnitsky Act, which were another phase of sanctions against Russia. Oh, and that piece of legislation was proposed by none other than Trump's moral enemy, John McCain.
> 
> These are all *facts*.



I'm not sure what is being argued here outside of the notion that some shady things happened inside of a political campaign, which I don't think most reasonable people are disputing. If you're implying that this stuff should have more emphasis in the report [of the report], then I suppose I can agree. I myself spent a lot of time thinking about the indictments we've seen so far when I first heard it.



> So anyway, look... I don't have access to all the evidence Mueller viewed but I trust his conclusions. My assumption is that he saw all of these things (among countless other items) and, mostly likely, saw some concerted effort by Russians to effect the race (which is even mentioned in Barr's summary) but didn't see the Trump campaign soliciting or purchasing any of this knowingly illegally obtained material, nor did he see any evidence of them hacking or stealing themselves. If that's what Mueller saw then he reached the right conclusion.
> 
> But for no bit of that to make into the Barr summary (especially because we have no guarantees if we'll ever see more of the Mueller report, ever), that absolutely could be interpreted as spin. The Comey decision on the Hillary case was near identical but they at least offered both narratives along with their conclusion. Barr only offered one side. There's only what, three or four direct quotes from Mueller in the whole write-up?
> 
> Also, Barr mentioning that Mueller argued "both sides" on obstruction in his report but Barr only highlights the arguments in the negative, along with rendering a final decision on the matter less than 48 hours after receiving a few thousand pages... that checks quite a few boxes on the "spin" list.
> 
> Again, and I'll bold it so it's hard to skip over, *I have no reason to disagree with the overall findings of the Mueller report, nor do I have any reason to disagree with Barr's conclusions and choice not to pursue further charges. *But do I think it's entirely possible and even likely that the summary was written to deaden the blow of any negative information or "grey areas" detailed in the Mueller report? Based on what we know as fact and what we saw included in what may be the only explanation we'll get, absolutely.



I'm not sure we have the same criteria. My interpretation was that Barr wanted to answer the burning question that was front and center in the mind of any american that had been even tangentially following this administration. That question was whether or not the TA was going to see legal action following the Mueller report, and he answered it. I feel like if he was trying to spin it, there would have been more loaded language in there; instead the whole thing felt rather neutral and sounded like something someone with a job title like "attorney general" would pen.

Furthermore, what would he be trying to accomplish? What could be in there that would simultaneously be bad enough that Barr, who from my knowledge is not involved in anything anywhere here, would feel a need to get ahead of, but not bad enough to result in anyone going to court? He's got to know that republicans are going to trumpet the exoneration and that democrats are going to cling to anything remotely negative that's revealed, regardless of anything that he says at all. To me it seems like if there's any spin present in the letter, it's likely the passive result of an intrinsic bias Barr may have, rather than a conscious effort to influence public opinion. All just my two cents, of course.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Smashing devices = cannot prove intent.
> 
> By the way, I'm laughing at James "The Jabroni" Comey, not you.



I've got no love for Hillary Clinton but the standard for "intent" in that case was that they didn't see any examples of her information being stolen by foreign entities and used against the US, nor did they establish a storyline that involved Hillary deliberately using unsecured email servers to make sure foreign entities had access to her messages deliberately.

The irony of your statement is that "smashing devices" hindering an investigation but now making it impossible to prove underlying criminality, thus no justice has been obstructed is exactly the precedent Barr used in his findings in this case.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> I've got no love for Hillary Clinton but the standard for "intent" in that case was that they didn't see any examples of her information being stolen by foreign entities and used against the US, nor did they establish a storyline that involved Hillary deliberately using unsecured email servers to make sure foreign entities had access to her messages deliberately.
> 
> The irony of your statement is that "smashing devices" hindering an investigation but now making it impossible to prove underlying criminality, thus no justice has been obstructed is exactly the precedent Barr used in his findings in this case.


What? So we can do criminal activities, so long as a foreign power doesn't steal the information? If there was nothing to hide, then why did she hide it?

You know I love some 80s Velveeta, so here ya go.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm not sure what is being argued here outside of the notion that some shady things happened inside of a political campaign, which I don't think most reasonable people are disputing.



To quote a famous legal scholar "the difference between a hooker and a ho ain't nothin' but a fee". 

It's not just shady stuff, it was dealing in stolen information that was acquired by foreign entities in an effort to effect the outcomes an election. Russians, actually. Which was the point of the investigation. It just seemingly didn't cross the line into illegality by the Trump campaign because they seemed to either reject, not know of or not pay for the information they were given. 

I outlined what I did because, like I said, I agree with the outcomes but those tidbits make for a muddier explanation than the one we got.

Since none of ya'll seem to be doing it yourselves, I'll mention that there's a long standing DOJ policy about not releasing negative information on the subject of an investigation unless it's accompanied by charges. So if you're looking for an excuse why Barr didn't include some of these details in his summary, but not because he's covering up for anybody, you are free to point to that.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What? So we can do criminal activities, so long as a foreign power doesn't steal the information? I



If you work in the highest offices of this country, yeah, that's how it works. Not the same for people like you or me.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> If you work in the highest offices of this country, yeah, that's how it works. Not the same for people like you or me.


Makes me wonder exactly what Hillary was planning to get away with should she ascend, as is her benighted right, to the throne of Presidency. Glad we dodged that shit show.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> To quote a famous legal scholar "the difference between a hooker and a ho ain't nothin' but a fee".
> 
> It's not just shady stuff, it was dealing in stolen information that was acquired by foreign entities in an effort to effect the outcomes an election. Russians, actually. Which was the point of the investigation. It just seemingly didn't cross the line into illegality by the Trump campaign because they seemed to either reject, not know of or not pay for the information they were given.



But if we already know this, we already know this though- right?
The missing piece was the indictment, which was the piece that Barr addressed. 

Don't take any of this the wrong way btw, I agree that the *really *relevant information is inside of that report and like you I'm [mostly] holding my breath until it's available, and I also agree that there was clearly more to it than what was said in the letter. I'm just not sure I'm ready to accuse Barr of anything. Not yet, at least. Who knows once the report is out.


----------



## Ralyks

You keep wanting to see Trump and Mueller fight. I mean, I'm sure you're joking, but it's like, Mueller was a marine witha bronze start with valor, purple heart, Navy Commendation Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, and served in 'Nam, while Trump has, well, bone spurs, and going on your video earlier, can't even take a stone cold stunner well.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ralyks said:


> You keep wanting to see Trump and Mueller fight. I mean, I'm sure you're joking, but it's like, Mueller was a marine witha bronze start with valor, purple heart, Navy Commendation Medal, Combat Action Ribbon, and served in 'Nam, while Trump has, well, bone spurs, and going on your video earlier, can't even take a stone cold stunner well.


I figured it was pretty obvious that I was not being serious, especially by calling Comey a jabroni. Also, as for how well he can take a stunner, lots of guys in the business have also taken stunners rather poorly.


----------



## Ralyks

Spaced Out Ace said:


> lots of guys in the business have also taken stunners rather poorly.



Ain't that the fucking truth


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I got no impression of that based on Barr's summary. His conclusions seem very measured.
> 
> As far as overall outcomes, not enough mention of the fact Barr and Rosenstein concluded "no obstruction" because there was no Russian collusion. Mueller seemed to conclude Trump tried to dictate the direction of the investigation in a way that was inappropriate, but without any indication he committed a crime regarding the underlying Investigation's findings, there was no justice to obstruct. Without a crime committed, you can't draw a line to criminal intent. HOWEVER, Mueller, Barr and Rosenstein seemed to agree he tried to throw his weight around in a suspicious/inappropriate way.


Yeah, there are two points I think that are getting lost in the media reaction, that Spaced Out Ace is going to accuse me of splitting hairs over no doubt, but I think are pretty important. 

1) The Mueller report didn't conclude that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia. I repeat, Mueller didn't conclude there was NO collusion. In one of the few direct excerpts from the memo, Barr cites the Mueller report as stating, "(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Barr puts it a little more firmly in his own words, that the investigation "did not find that Trump conspired or coordinated with Russia," which in casual language reads like "no collusion" but in one of the few quotations from the actual report, Mueller merely stated that there wasn't enough evidence to prove the Trump campaign had worked with Russia, which is a far weaker statement. So, the conclusion of the report, despite Trump's claim that it's a "total exoneration," is merely that the investigation was inconclusive. We don't know how much evidence of collusion there was, but considering Barr doesn't state there was no evidence and as a Trump supporter if that was the case he has a strong incentive to do so, it's a pretty safe bet that there was SOME evidence that the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia, just not enough to meet legal standards of proof. 

1) a) Worth noting in passing, may be significant may not be, that Barr was very careful to only refer to the Russian government in his memo, and not Russian nationals. Considering we have hard evidence that the Trump campaign was very receptive to russian nationals offering to collude - see: Trump Tower meeting - that's a little odd. Likewise, for whatever reason the original impetus of the investigation, that there was concern Trump may have been induced to lift sanctions in return for some form of personal consideration, potentially electoral assistance or economic, was totally omitted from Barr's memo. In other words, it's very likely we're not getting the full story. 

2) Randy's point is exactly right. First, despite Trump's claims, the Mueller report did NOT exonerate Trump from accusations of obstruction of justice. Rather, Mueller took the highly unusual step of deferring to Barr, who had previously filed amicus briefs stating that the President could NOT obstruct justice or be indicted while in office shortly before being appointed, and allowed Barr to determine if obstruction was something Trump could be charged with. Barr quotes Mueller here, stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Barr then argues that Trump couldn't have obstructed justice because he wasn't determined to be guilty of collusion, which is a ludicrous argument and factually incorrect - you absolutely can obstruct justice in an investigation into an alleged crime you were not found guilty of committing if you take steps to interfere with that investigation. At a minimum, it would mean obstruction would be a crime you could only be found guilty of if you were already guilty of something else, which is patently absurd. 

So, tl;dr - there wasn't enough evidence to conclude Trump or his agents had knowingly worked with Russia though there almost certainly was some evidence that they had, and there is a significant amount of evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct justice, although his hand-picked AG has let him off the hook on dubious grounds. Barr clearly did some spinning to make a plausible enough memo that Trump came out of this in a not-awful light, and Trump meanwhile is out there spinning his ass off claiming this is a total victory, that Democrats are "treasonous" for investigating him, and that "something needs to be done so no other President has to go through with this." I wish those weren't actual quotes. 

Next steps here will be legal wrangling to get the full report, or at least a partially redacted one, released first to Congress and then to the general public, and if and when this happens I'd say there's a comfortable probability that some of Barr's conclusions are going to look a little suspect. Meanwhile the ongoing House investigations, and criminal investigations, into the Trump organization and election will continue. 

Basically, things are just getting started. But hey, look at the bright side, our President is not _provably_ a Russian puppet, which means worst case if he's working with the Russians he's at least not stupid enough to leave an obvious paper trail. What a day to be an American.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Man, what did Drew do to give you such an angry hard-on for him, to the point you have to make a new fake account at the end of every news cycle? It’s like clockwork. I don't recall Drew ever saying something to imply that it was clear a major collusion charge would follow immediately from the release of the report.


God, this guy again?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Oh jeez.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Again, and I'll bold it so it's hard to skip over, *I have no reason to disagree with the overall findings of the Mueller report, nor do I have any reason to disagree with Barr's conclusions and choice not to pursue further charges. *But do I think it's entirely possible and even likely that the summary was written to deaden the blow of any negative information or "grey areas" detailed in the Mueller report? Based on what we know as fact and what we saw included in what may be the only explanation we'll get, absolutely.


I'll take it a step further - for the reasons I outlined above, Barr is taking Muller's conclusion that "the investigation failed to prove the Trump campaign colluded with Russia," and is rephrasing that in a way that, to a layperson, reads like "there is no evidence of collusion." Going through and comparing what Mueller is cited as having written to what Barr writes, and knowing Barr is a Trump loyalist, I think it's fairly probable that there's evidence of collusion, and Barr is doing his damnedest to make this read like a clean slate for Trump. Then Trump, of course, is full out stating that it IS a "full exoneration," which is in direct contradiction to one of the other few excerpts of the report.


----------



## jaxadam

tl;dr - no russia


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> As long as the MSM has to eat crow I'm happy. It should have been obvious to most people that this whole Russia narrative was pretty ridiculous, and to press it as intensely as they did was a major miscalculation.
> All of the folks that have been smugly gloating about 'muh russia' the last two years finally get to sit down and shut up.





Spaced Out Ace said:


> Nevermind the fact that this was all a waste of money.





jaxadam said:


> tl;dr - no russia



I've been interested in the investigation's findings, whether or not they lead to charges against Trump, simply for the sake of getting to the bottom of the Russian meddling claims. So from the perspective of a witch hunt against Trump, sure - I can see where you guys are coming from. But let's not forget the indictments against 26 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States, money laundering, etc. that came from the investigation.

So far, all we've learned is that we don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump colluded with any of them. And, like Randy said, if he didn't collude with them that's actually a good thing. A low bar to be sure, but a good thing nonetheless.


----------



## jaxadam

tedtan said:


> I've been interested in the investigation's findings, whether or not they lead to charges against Trump, simply for the sake of getting to the bottom of the Russian meddling claims. So from the perspective of a witch hunt against Trump, sure - I can see where you guys are coming from. But let's not forget the indictments against 26 Russian nationals and three Russian organizations on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to commit a crime against the United States, money laundering, etc. that came from the investigation.
> 
> So far, all we've learned is that we don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump colluded with any of them. And, like Randy said, if he didn't collude with them that's actually a good thing. A low bar to be sure, but a good thing nonetheless.



No, I get it. It can be very painful to cling to hope for two years over some completely moronic idea that Trump is a puppet, and then have all of that come crashing down, shattering two years of make-believe pretend fantasy logic that Pelosi would be sworn in this week. I mean hell, I felt the same way about it with Obama's birth certificate, him being a Muslim, and his wife being a man!


----------



## Randy

@Drew 

I don't disagree with some of your perceptions, it just requires reading more subtext than I'm prepared to do. 

My criteria is mostly based on the facts we know as of now and what Barr states in his own words in the summary. I have inklings one way or the other but part of me is avoiding ascribing serious motive (similar to @Ordacleaphobia 's reading) to this until told otherwise. Can't cross the bridge into cover-up or 'collusion but not enough to prove it' unless something major saying otherwise, and those two things would require accusations of misconduct I'm not even remotely close to touching.

FWIW, call it confirmation bias, but this lined up with the opinion I already had about Barr going back to his nomination.

Barr and Trump have no history together. Barr is a career guy, and just like Comey's connections to Mueller, so are Barr's connections to Mueller. If Trump is arguing bias in the investigation, hiring Barr comes as a strange move considering his proximity to everyone involved and the two having no history together. You can point to Barr's writing against obstruction by a sitting president but from everything I've heard, that's not an especially rare interpretation at the DOJ.

For my , much like the Bolton appointment (another career guy Trump previously had no use for), this looks like a pick made by his handlers within the party (Graham? Grassley? McConnell?). I think Trump had early information about what way the report was going to go (hence the amount of cooperation, and the pleas of "transparency") and they knew there was enough in the report to be personally damaging and potentially effect 2020 or Trump's ability to govern over the next year+, so there was pressure from the party and a willingness from Trump to "mop things up". 

That doesn't mean Barr was hired to lie or cover-up, just to sew up enough loose ends and end things as unceramoniously as possible. The narrative of a spun summary has emerged in the last day but in the first day or two, all MSM and Dem reactions signaled all the air got let out of their balloon. I could absolutely see the Republican establishment having that outcome in mind.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> tl;dr - no russia



'Bout time somebody killed that god damn bear in the woods!


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> @Drew
> 
> I don't disagree with some of your perceptions, it just requires reading more subtext than I'm prepared to do.
> 
> ...
> 
> That doesn't mean Barr was hired to lie or cover-up, just to sew up enough loose ends and end things as unceramoniously as possible. The narrative of a spun summary has emerged in the last day but in the first day or two, all MSM and Dem reactions signaled all the air got let out of their balloon. I could absolutely see the Republican establishment having that outcome in mind.


I don't think it requires that much subtext reading, is the thing.

1) His argument for determining Trump did not commit obstruction of justice is preposterous. He didn't obstruct justice because there was no crime? Not for nothing, the only other time we've seen that argument is from Trump himself. "I can't have obstructed justice because I didn't break the law in the first place."

2) The part where I'm reading subtext a bit is the extrapolation from what Mueller actually concluded - "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities" - and Trump's "NO COLLUSION FULL EXONERATION!" I'm trying to find a way to express exactly what'd different in Barr's version vs Trump's... Just that the phrasing is weird, I guess. Mueller's is very typical passive legalese; "the investigation did not establish." Barr's memo, meanwhile, is like that same sentence stuffed into plain english: "As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts...." Hell, maybe it's his use of "find" is a whole hell of a lot more concrete than "establish," with the latter more clearly suggests gathering and relying on a range of evidence, while the former is pretty black and while - you find quarters in the street, you don't find a body of evidence for and against something that on the measure makes you reasonably sure there is in fact a quarter in the street.

Either way, Trump is dead wrong that the Mueller report proves he didn't collude with russia or obstruct justice - it concluded he very likely obsctructed justice but referred to the Justice Department what to do about that, and failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that collusion with Russia occurred, which absense of proof is not the same as proof of absence. Of course that's an awfully wonky counter-point that doesn't lend itself to 140 characters of caps lock as well as NO COLLUSION NO OBSTRUCTION LOCK SCHIFF UP!

EDIT - I'll also say that I can't speak much to the media reaction to the report in the initial aftermath through say 8am this morning, since I was up in VT for the day for a dirt road and snow road bike event which was absolute madness but awesome, and then the girlfriend was over for dinner so I basically came come, showered, went grocery shopping, and then started cooking. The first time I really got to sit down and read the full memo and think about what was in there was this morning, and prior to that it was just Bloomberg news alerts.


----------



## spudmunkey

Genuine question: is "I couldn't have obstructed justice because I didn't break the law in the first place," any different, legally, from "I wasn't resisting arrest because I was found innocent of the crime I was accused of (or 'of which I was accused', maybe?)"


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> Genuine question: is "I couldn't have obstructed justice because I didn't break the law in the first place," any different, legally, from "I wasn't resisting arrest because I was found innocent of the crime I was accused of (or 'of which I was accused', maybe?)"


Yes. Without even knowing if being acquitted of a crime would also result in an acquittal for resisting arrest, one thing that is definitely true is that the only person who can resist arrest is the person being arrested. By definition, a person can't be arrested for resisting arrest if no one is trying to arrest them. That isn't to say you couldn't get arrested for trying to interfere with the lawful arrest of someone else, but, while I don't know what that charge would be (actually, who knows, that might count as obstruction of justice), it wouldn't be resisting arrest. A person can, conversely, obstruct a criminal investigation for which they are otherwise uninvolved.

It's also perfectly possible to obstruct justice even if you're innocent of a crime you're being accused of. If a prosecution subpoenas documents from me as part of an investigation against me or an associate, and I then have those documents destroyed, then it doesn't matter if myself or my associate is innocent of the crime, I'm still guilty of obstruction because I have impeded the investigation.


----------



## Ralyks

McConnell blocked releasing the report publicly a second time. I thought there was nothing to hide and it totally exonerates Trump? No? Ok then.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> It's also perfectly possible to obstruct justice even if you're innocent of a crime you're being accused of. If a prosecution subpoenas documents from me as part of an investigation against me or an associate, and I then have those documents destroyed, then it doesn't matter if myself or my associate is innocent of the crime, I'm still guilty of obstruction because I have impeded the investigation.



True although I believe Barr's reasoning was less like what the cops or even a jury would consider and more like what the prosecution would consider during plea negotiations or judge during sentencing.

That's to say, it's less about whether or not it fits a statute and more about whether or not it fits a 'slam dunk' combination of motive, means, opportunity, intent and corroborating history.

If you look at the lax sentencing against Manafort by Ellis, you see him saying 'yeah but he's been an otherwise clean guy' much like when a cop let's a person go on a speeding ticket because they have an otherwise clean record.

That's actually my main issue with the Barr summary, because his criteria is subjective and based on a narrow reading of Trump's character vs the evidence vs the intent vs the outcomes vs his perceived (or proposed) likelihood of success in prosecuting it. He conflates the two (what the law says vs what would definitely pu thim in jail for a full term) in such an 'absolute' way as to imply there's only one reading of it, when there's more.

At best, it's Barr saying he doesn't think it would have a likelihood of success and would be VERY messy and bad for this country (my mop up theory) and at worst, it's an intentional mishandling (where I'm not willing to go yet).


----------



## Flappydoodle

JSanta said:


> Regardless of what the report found or didn't find, I can't get behind the economic policies, trade, international and domestic policies of this administration. Further more, I think the tax law was both poorly implemented and poorly thought out. I don't like Trump and his administration for more reasons than just the Russia thing. My dislike of this administration has far more to do with policies and demeanor than it does the Mueller investigation. Even if he were absolved of all wrong-doing, it makes little difference to me.



And that's totally fair. Nobody is asking you to love Trump.

But there were two entire YEARS of narrative of Trump being a Russian puppet. Literally thousands and thousands of hours of TV coverage, hundreds of thousands of articles and social media posts. It was a constant barrage for years. And now it's turned out to be untrue. I don't think his opponents should get to just sweep it under the rug and pretend they didn't peddle bullshit for years. People like Schiff should face consequences IMO. And the media personalities deserve to take huge hits to their credibility.



Xaios said:


> Interesting, because that's exactly what Trump & Co have been doing basically since he took office (and even long before that), accusing the left of some sort of coverup, mass conspiracy, etc. You can't really have it both ways. If the MSM is guilty of this, then Trump is doubly so, because the executive power he holds makes any abuses on his part far more likely to cause permanent damage.



I think people keep mistaking me as a Trump supporter. As I've said, I'm not even American - just an outside observer.

Both sides making lots of accusations, I totally agree. But one major one just collapsed. 



Randy said:


> Since none of ya'll seem to be doing it yourselves, I'll mention that there's a long standing DOJ policy about not releasing negative information on the subject of an investigation unless it's accompanied by charges. So if you're looking for an excuse why Barr didn't include some of these details in his summary, but not because he's covering up for anybody, you are free to point to that.



This makes sense to me. And I think it's reasonable. I actually don't see why Trump should have to release $25M worth of opposition research as an enormous gift to his opponents. Going on fishing expeditions and looking for crime is unethical.



Ralyks said:


> McConnell blocked releasing the report publicly a second time. I thought there was nothing to hide and it totally exonerates Trump? No? Ok then.



See above. I'm not a supporter of Trump, but I can't see why he should have to release it. Since he is not being charged with anything, there is no good reason to see everything spelled out. Of course his opponents are hoping to find something to latch onto, and then launch more investigations - but that's exactly a modern day witch hunt. Keep endlessly investigating, using all federal resources and powers, until you find something - and they're doing it simply because they don't like him.


----------



## Ralyks

Transparency


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Ralyks

I think what you’re trying to get at is we’re getting “more information, less education”.


----------



## Ralyks

Oh also, while the investigation cost 25 million, Paul Manafort has to turn over his assets, which are between 42 and 46 million. So technically, the Mueller investigation turned a profit.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> But there were two entire YEARS of narrative of Trump being a Russian puppet. Literally thousands and thousands of hours of TV coverage, hundreds of thousands of articles and social media posts. It was a constant barrage for years. And now it's turned out to be untrue. I don't think his opponents should get to just sweep it under the rug and pretend they didn't peddle bullshit for years. People like Schiff should face consequences IMO. And the media personalities deserve to take huge hits to their credibility.


Slight nitpick, perhaps, but this is actually wrong.

We had two years of a narrative of Trump potentially being a willing or unwilling puppet. And now, it's turned out to _not be possible to prove_ that he's actively colluded with Russia. That leaves two additional possibilities where that narrative would still be correct:

1) Trump was knowingly a Russian agent, but Mueller wasn't able to uncover enough evidence to make an airtight case demonstrating this, or
2) Trump, and his campaign staff, were _unknowingly_ infiltrated and influenced by Russian interests, but in such a way that fell short of "coordination or conspiracy" since they were not aware they were advancing Russian interests, or at a minimum, there was insufficient evidence suggesting they were aware.

Both of those scenarios are 100% consistent with the Barr memo summarizing the Mueller report, which merely states that Mueller "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." As far as Trump's assertions that the Mueller report "totally exonerates" him, that's clearly inconsistent with the Barr memo on obstruction of justice, and is potentially inconsistent with the suspicion of collusion, as well.

If you haven't yet read Barr's memo, it's worth doing so - go through it both being attentive to the fact that this is in formal legal English, and with an open mind. It's pretty clear that the investigation into Russian collusion ended inconclusively, which is enough not to prosecute Trump (if it's possible to prosecute a sitting president) but not enough to prove collusion _didn't_ occur. As far as obstruction of justice, it's clear there's certainly significant evidence that it _did_ happen, as well as potential mitigating evidence, and that Barr's stated justification for not recommending an indictment (that Trump was not found guilty of conspiring with Russia) is legally tenuous.

I think if you want to see people who have been critical of Trump, lik Schiff and media personalities, "face consequences" for their actions, then you have to first demonstrate that collusion DID NOT occur, which is a standard the Mueller report evidently did not reach, and then hold them to a similar standard - prove that they were _aware_ collusion did not occuir, but were investigating Trump for it anyway. And I'm pretty confident you can't do the former considering some of the things we KNOW happened (the Trump Tower meeting, Flynn's undisclosed conversations around sanctions, the removal of sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine from the GOP platform at the Trump campaign's behest, Roger Stone's undisclosed communications with Wikileaks that he subsequently lied about until the transcripts were released, Trump's Moscow tower deal continuing well into the general election while Trump was publicly denying having any business ventures in Russua, etc), while the second, I mean the first kind of pre-empts the question, but sure, if we knew Schiff was making the whole thing up the whole time, I don't think too many people here would be defending him.

But, the two points I want to get across here are one, the Barr memo doesn't prove Trump did NOT collude with Russia, just demonstrate that there isn't enough evidence to prove he knowingly did, and conclude he very well may have obstructed justice. And two, until you can demonstrate concretely that people calling for Trump's ties to Russia to be investigated were just straight up making it up - which, again, there's enough evidence to demonstrate you can't - then saying they should "face consequences" is dead wrong.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Oh also, while the investigation cost 25 million, Paul Manafort has to turn over his assets, which are between 42 and 46 million. So technically, the Mueller investigation turned a profit.


It's also about a fifth of what we've spent on Trump's golf game, and in doing so employed Mueller plus "...19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff" for 22 months. I'd say that's pretty good bang for your buck!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> We had two years of a narrative of Trump potentially being a willing or unwilling puppet. And now, it's turned out to _not be possible to prove_ that he's actively colluded with Russia. That leaves two additional possibilities where that narrative would still be correct:


Oh, now it's potentially? Most of the media and the left were CONVINCED that it was true, and not just a potential thing.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Flappydoodle said:


> Sadly, you seem right.
> 
> They're calling the investigation insufficient (500 interviews, 2000+ subpoenas)
> 
> They're saying Barr interfered
> 
> They're moving goalposts and saying Mueller didn't look at X, Y or Z
> 
> They're insisting that somehow they know he's guilty, but the investigation didn't find it.
> 
> Essentially, they're endorsing a witch hunt


Couple pages later, and it appears that I am 100% correct that people would keep this going, convinced that something happened.

Like the left tells the right about Hillary and all of her scandals (of which there is *AHEM* proof of), give it a rest already.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Couple pages later, and it appears that I am 100% correct that people would keep this going, convinced that something happened.
> 
> Like the left tells the right about Hillary and all of her scandals (of which there is *AHEM* proof of), give it a rest already.



It honestly sounds exactly like when the far right swore Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who’s wife was a man. I mean, think of the ridiculousness of stating that Trump is a Russian Agent even after the report is released.

Literally from the Barr memo:



> The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> It honestly sounds exactly like when the far right swore Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who’s wife was a man. I mean, think of the ridiculousness of stating that Trump is a Russian Agent even after the report is released.
> 
> Literally from the Barr memo:


Obama isn't a Kenyan, but his real father is Frank Marshall Davis, which is why the birth certificate crap was concocted to cover it up. Whether or not Michelle is really a Michael, I have no clue, though apparently there is some "rather convincing video" of her dong jostling about. Haven't seen it, nor do I want to, so I can't determine one way or the other there.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Oh, now it's potentially? Most of the media and the left were CONVINCED that it was true, and not just a potential thing.


Most of the media coverage I've personally seen spoke of allegations and not known-for-a-fact conclusions. I don't know what you've been following, however, so I can't speak to what you've seen.

Since you're not addressing the rest, though, can I safely assume you agree with me, that the Barr memo leaves a LOT of not-very-flattering-for-Trump possibilities on the table?



jaxadam said:


> Literally from the Barr memo:


Adam - what Trump's glossing over though, is that absence of proof is not proof of absence. We now know Mueller wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump was knowingly working with Russia. We don't know how close to making that case Mueller was able to get, though, or if Trump was potentially _unknowingly_ working with Russia. We also know there was a very strong case to be made that Trump DID knowingly obstruct justice. That's why Trump's "no collusion no obstruction" tweet storm is, at best, mistaken, and at worst, a bold-faced lie.


----------



## Drew

Pretty good Atlantic article, BTW, raising a lot of the same points, particularly the fact that Barr glosses over the entire counterintelligence assessment: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585703/


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> Pretty good Atlantic article, BTW, raising a lot of the same points, particularly the fact that Barr glosses over the entire counterintelligence assessment:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585703/



I don't want to screw my browser algorithm up by clicking on that liberal trash!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Most of the media coverage I've personally seen spoke of allegations and not known-for-a-fact conclusions. I don't know what you've been following, however, so I can't speak to what you've seen.
> 
> Since you're not addressing the rest, though, can I safely assume you agree with me, that the Barr memo leaves a LOT of not-very-flattering-for-Trump possibilities on the table?


I've seen almost near 100% "It's a fact!" coverage.

Also, do not assume; I selected that part because that's where I dropped off and took issue with your post. Ever do coding? Typically, if you screw up while coding (typo, cause an error, etc.), the script will break off and return an error. So when I took issue with that portion of your post, I selected it, and did not address/read the rest.



Drew said:


> Adam - what Trump's glossing over though, is that absence of proof is not proof of absence. We now know Mueller wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump was knowingly working with Russia. We don't know how close to making that case Mueller was able to get, though, or if Trump was potentially _unknowingly_ working with Russia. We also know there was a very strong case to be made that Trump DID knowingly obstruct justice. That's why Trump's "no collusion no obstruction" tweet storm is, at best, mistaken, and at worst, a bold-faced lie.


You just keep holding out hope, Drew. The only obstruction is from the left digging their feet in and refusing to come to some sort of agreement. I'm sure you'll reply with "but the right...," though I'll let you have at it anyways.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Pretty good Atlantic article, BTW, raising a lot of the same points, particularly the fact that Barr glosses over the entire counterintelligence assessment:
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585703/


Is it a great article because it validates your stance?



jaxadam said:


> I don't want to screw my browser algorithm up by clicking on that liberal trash!


Lining my bird cage with that would piss my bird off.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Ever do coding? Typically, if you screw up while coding (typo, cause an error, etc.), the script will break off and return an error.



I programmed Blackjack on my TI-81 back in 10th grade. I thought I was gonna be the next Bill Gates, but look at me now. I just sit around all day watching Cops, filling out online surveys and sending out Farmville requests.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> I programmed Blackjack on my TI-81 back in 10th grade. I thought I was gonna be the next Bill Gates, but look at me now. I just sit around all day watching Cops, filling out online surveys and sending out Farmville requests.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I've seen almost near 100% "It's a fact!" coverage.
> 
> Also, do not assume; I selected that part because that's where I dropped off and took issue with your post. Ever do coding? Typically, if you screw up while coding (typo, cause an error, etc.), the script will break off and return an error. So when I took issue with that portion of your post, I selected it, and did not address/read the rest.
> 
> 
> You just keep holding out hope, Drew. The only obstruction is from the left digging their feet in and refusing to come to some sort of agreement. I'm sure you'll reply with "but the right...," though I'll let you have at it anyways.


At a minimum, then, you're aware of the contractiction between Trump calling the Mueller report a "total exoneration"...



Trump said:


> “This was an illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody’s going is to be looking at the other side,” the president added. “So it’s complete exoneration. No collusion, no obstruction.”


https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...mueller-report-complete-and-total-exoneration

...and Mueller stating "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, _*it also does not exonerate him*_?
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/18279926/mueller-report-letter-full-text-plain-barr-trump-congress

Both of those statements can't be true. I mean, if you want to explore the possibility Barr was lying when he cited Mueller as saying the report does not exonerate him on the charge of obstruction of justice, that's on you. No need for whataboutism here, what you, and Trump, are stating is demonstrably wrong.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I bet Mueller doesn't think it "exonerates" him, because he's gotta keep that paycheck rolling in. He also wants to keep doubt going until the election. But I'm sure you were already aware of that, yes?


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I bet Mueller doesn't think it "exonerates" him, because he's gotta keep that paycheck rolling in. He also wants to keep doubt going until the election. But I'm sure you were already aware of that, yes?


That doens't make sense either. Mueller, in the report concluding his investigation, only says he can't exonerate Trump because he wants to keep the investigation _he just ended _going? If he wanted to keep it going, why not, you know, _keep it going_ instead of end it? And Mueller, a registered Republican, is trying to hurt a Republican's chance of winning an election? Do you want to rethink that, maybe with fewer angels dancing on the heads of pins this time?



Spaced Out Ace said:


> Is it a great article because it validates your stance?


It's a great article because, yes, it echoes what I've been saying for the last 24 hours - that Barr's memo is _extremely _narrow in scope, and a lot of what he DOESN'T address is potentially very important.


----------



## Xaios

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I bet Mueller doesn't think it "exonerates" him, because he's gotta keep that paycheck rolling in. He also wants to keep doubt going until the election. But I'm sure you were already aware of that, yes?


It's a good thing that there's an easy way to know for sure: release the report.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> It's a good thing that there's an easy way to know for sure: release the report.


No need. You can just read Barr's memo, where he specifically says he does not exonerate Trump on he charge of obstruction of justice. Trump is lying through his teeth when he says Mueller exonerates him on the charge of obstruction, not that his supporters will bother to fact-check and go back to the source.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> That doens't make sense either. Mueller, in the report concluding his investigation, only says he can't exonerate Trump because he wants to keep the investigation _he just ended _going? If he wanted to keep it going, why not, you know, _keep it going_ instead of end it? And Mueller, a registered Republican, is trying to hurt a Republican's chance of winning an election? Do you want to rethink that, maybe with fewer angels dancing on the heads of pins this time?
> 
> 
> It's a great article because, yes, it echoes what I've been saying for the last 24 hours - that Barr's memo is _extremely _narrow in scope, and a lot of what he DOESN'T address is potentially very important.


No, I don't want to rethink that, because I have a memory. The RNC was split regarding support for Trump. 

Also, surprise surprise!


----------



## tedtan

jaxadam said:


> No, I get it. It can be very painful to cling to hope for two years over some completely moronic idea that Trump is a puppet, and then have all of that come crashing down, shattering two years of make-believe pretend fantasy logic that Pelosi would be sworn in this week. I mean hell, I felt the same way about it with Obama's birth certificate, him being a Muslim, and his wife being a man!



No, I'm not holding out hope. I didn't think Trump would win the nomination in the primary, and when he did, I didn't think he would win the general election. But once he won, I've always thought that he would serve out his four years and be voted out in Nov 2020. On the one hand, his being elected is likely to motivate the democratic voters in 2020, and on the other, having appointed the supreme court justices and passed some tax reforms, his "pain in the ass factor" exceeds his usefulness to the GOP (granted, the GOP is usually more likely to stick with a sitting president than to turn on him, but this time is close enough that I wouldn't be surprised if someone else were nominated in the primary).

As for Pelosi being sworn in, 1) I'm not sure I'd want that, and 2) even if Trump were to be removed from office, a) that process would take much longer, and b) his replacement would be Pense, not Pelosi.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> No, I don't want to rethink that, because I have a memory. The RNC was split regarding support for Trump.
> 
> Also, surprise surprise!


So, sure, let's say that maybe Mueller has it in for Trump personally somehow - that's a massive stretch where I'm not seeing evidence (I mean, if that was the case, he could very well have just concluded Trump HAD knowingly colluded with Russia based on the evidence we do have, even if he wasn't sure it would stand up to court scruitiny, but that's neither here nor there). You say he wanted to "not exonerate" Trump on charges of obstruction of Justice, not because he thought Trump HAD obstructed justice, but "to keep the investigation and his paycheck going." Since Mueller was the only one who could end the investigation, why not just not end the investigation?

I mean, you HAVE to be trolling at this point. You can't possibly believe what you're writing, and you keep dodging my questions. Mueller explicitly did NOT exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction of justice, yet Trump claims he did and you're following Trump's lead in saying the only "obstruction" is on the left. You're perfectly aware you're lying, and let me remind you this thread has a zero trolling policy, which you've been warned about pushing before now.

If you want to have a serious conversation about what we know about the Mueller report, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If you're going to sit here and troll, then you don't belong in this thread.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Adam - what Trump's glossing over though, is that absence of proof is not proof of absence. We now know Mueller wasn't able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump was knowingly working with Russia. We don't know how close to making that case Mueller was able to get, though, or if Trump was potentially _unknowingly_ working with Russia. We also know there was a very strong case to be made that Trump DID knowingly obstruct justice. That's why Trump's "no collusion no obstruction" tweet storm is, at best, mistaken, and at worst, a bold-faced lie.



This line of thinking is literally against the entire vision of the US Judicial system.
You keep mentioning how "they didn't prove that he didn't," as if that matters. It doesn't. If you sue me for stealing your guitar, you need to *PROVE *that I stole your guitar, I don't need to prove that I _didn't _take it. The entire point of the system is precisely so that you can't fling out accusations against people you don't like until something sticks because they can't disprove it. It is an _order of magnitude_ more difficult to prove a negative.

Terrifyingly, that's the way the court of public opinion works, and it's bad enough that public figures have to deal with that. The legal system absolutely does not need to follow that line of thinking at all whatsoever in any way at any point in time *EVER*.

And if Mueller didn't find enough to make a case, I am 100% certain that nobody will find enough to make a case. Does that mean he didn't do it? Not necessarily, but it means that this conversation is done. He is not guilty.



Drew said:


> No need. You can just read Barr's memo, where he specifically says he does not exonerate Trump on he charge of obstruction of justice. Trump is lying through his teeth when he says Mueller exonerates him on the charge of obstruction, not that his supporters will bother to fact-check and go back to the source.



Or he could just be a dolt that doesn't know how to speak like a politician?
I'd bet you that in his mind, all he's thinking is "clear on russia, clear on obstruction, Mueller's done, I'm the best, full exoneration." I hardly think he cares if it was Mueller specifically that cleared him of obstruction, all he cares about is that he isn't going to court for it.

Furthermore, I haven't seen any conservative media stating that it was Mueller that cleared him of obstruction, and I've been following the coverage on this almost incessantly over the past couple days. I would assume it's exceedingly likely that his supporters would get their news from Fox, who simply read the letter in full on the air. You're grasping at straws here and attempting to make a caricature of the conservative base as ill-informed, when they're likely the people that are paying the most attention to this news cycle.

As usual though, you've got some very fair points overall. But at the end of the day, I still think we need to wait for the report before reading too deeply into any of the implications from Barr's letter.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This line of thinking is literally against the entire vision of the US Judicial system... this conversation is done. He is not guilty.



The distinction that Drew is making is that "not guilty" ≠ "innocent", which is what Trump is claiming.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

tedtan said:


> The distinction that Drew is making is that "not guilty" ≠ "innocent", which is what Trump is claiming.



Technically, sure- the definitions of the two phrases are not the same.
But carrying forward the guitar example, if I walk out of that courtroom with a 'not guilty' verdict, am I not uncontested when I tell people that I was innocent the whole time?


----------



## Xaios

tedtan said:


> (granted, the GOP is usually more likely to stick with a sitting president than to turn on him, but this time is close enough that I wouldn't be surprised if someone else were nominated in the primary)


If we're being completely fair, it's not like the DNC wouldn't also fight tooth and nail to keep a sitting democratic president from being removed. While I don't personally think they'd resort to the same level of chicanery as the GOP, that is ultimately speculation on my part.


tedtan said:


> b) his replacement would be Pense, not Pelosi.


Indeed. Trump vs Pence is basically chaotic evil vs lawful evil. Part of what makes Trump scary is that no sane person could possibly predict what he'll do next. With Pence, you'd know _exactly_ what he'd do, and it's just as terrifying.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Hey, I haven't seen evidence for 2 years from the Jan Brady democrats and their Russia collusion delusion, but that hasn't stopped the near endless coverage.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This line of thinking is literally against the entire vision of the US Judicial system.
> You keep mentioning how "they didn't prove that he didn't," as if that matters. It doesn't. If you sue me for stealing your guitar, you need to *PROVE *that I stole your guitar, I don't need to prove that I _didn't _take it. The entire point of the system is precisely so that you can't fling out accusations against people you don't like until something sticks because they can't disprove it. It is an _order of magnitude_ more difficult to prove a negative.
> 
> Terrifyingly, that's the way the court of public opinion works, and it's bad enough that public figures have to deal with that. The legal system absolutely does not need to follow that line of thinking at all whatsoever in any way at any point in time *EVER*.
> 
> And if Mueller didn't find enough to make a case, I am 100% certain that nobody will find enough to make a case. Does that mean he didn't do it? Not necessarily, but it means that this conversation is done. He is not guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> Or he could just be a dolt that doesn't know how to speak like a politician?
> I'd bet you that in his mind, all he's thinking is "clear on russia, clear on obstruction, Mueller's done, I'm the best, full exoneration." I hardly think he cares if it was Mueller specifically that cleared him of obstruction, all he cares about is that he isn't going to court for it.
> 
> Furthermore, I haven't seen any conservative media stating that it was Mueller that cleared him of obstruction, and I've been following the coverage on this almost incessantly over the past couple days. I would assume it's exceedingly likely that his supporters would get their news from Fox, who simply read the letter in full on the air. You're grasping at straws here and attempting to make a caricature of the conservative base as ill-informed, when they're likely the people that are paying the most attention to this news cycle.
> 
> As usual though, you've got some very fair points overall. But at the end of the day, I still think we need to wait for the report before reading too deeply into any of the implications from Barr's letter.


First, thanks for not being a simple troll, it's nice to have someone I disagree with but can talk with around here.  

I fully agree, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, if Trump can't be proven guilty, then he's legally innocent. HOWEVER, if he then wants to go after his critics, saying they're "treasonous" and there should be "consequences" for the investigation, then it's not a question of his guilt or innocence, it's a question of whether there was a reasonable basis for the investigation. And if the Mueller report'c conclusion was that it "could not be established" Trump knowingly colluded with Russia, then that's well short of saying it can be established that he did NOT, at which point if his critics were aware of this there would be a legal basis to punish them for their statements. I.e - because the Mueller investigation was never intended to prove that Trump had NOT colluded, rather than see if it could be proved he had, and if such proof couldn't be found accept the null hypothesis, Trump's pivot to claiming the Mueller report "proves" there was no collusion, and thus he was entitled to go after critics and take steps to ensure a president could not be investigated in the future, is extremely dangerous and extremely non-democratic. 

Does that make a little more sense? It'd be one thing if Trump had merely said, "great, that's done, let's get back to the business of running a country," and moved on, but because he's trying to weaponize a "we don't have enough evidence to prove collusion" report as a means to attack critics, then it becomes VERY pertinent to point out that just because there wasn't enough evidence that could be uncovered, doesn't mean the critics were wrong to want someone to look into the evidence and see if there WAS enough. To your point - the criminal justice system is based on the principle of innocent until proven guilty... But it's also based on the principle of due process, and due process was followed here. If Trump wants to argue that it wasn't followed in good faith, then nothing we've seen in the Mueller report yet makes that case, yet he's publicly claiming it does and that it proves this was a witch hunt and someone needs to be punished. 

Does that explain where I'm coming from a little more clearly? Especially if there _was_ a moderate body of evidence pointing towards collusion, but not enough to prove guilt, then Trump's reaction here is extremely dangerous. 

I can't speak to the Fox News coverage of the report, as I've seen none of it. All the television coverage I've seen are Trump's statements on the matter, which I've reproduced in part above, but where he calls the investigation illegal, calls for his political rivals to be investigated, and calls for something to be done so the president is never investigated like this again. For that to be an appropriate response, Mueller would have needed to conclude the whole thing was fabricated by Democrats and Never Trump Republicans, which clearly isn't the case. 

Idunno. Let me know if you kind of get where I'm coming from here. Trump is innocent until proven guilty... But by claiming the whole process of concluding he wasn't guilty was itself a crime, he needs to prove a lot more than the mere fact there isn't enough evidence to convict him of collusion with Russia, and that the AG decided not to pursue obstruction of justice charges even given credible evidence. Trump is right to not charged with collusion given the lack of clear enough evidence... but he's wrong to call for the punishment of people who called for an investigation, himself.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I'm a troll because Drew doesn't like how I reply. Then he goes on calling me a liar. Great job, Drew. He's ending the 2 year waste of money Russia Collusion investigation so he can keep the doubt as a result of the obstruction of justice investigation. Hence why it "doesn't exonerate" Trump.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> The distinction that Drew is making is that "not guilty" ≠ "innocent", which is what Trump is claiming.


Yeah, this, basically, though with a little more nuance.

The Mueller report, if it's summarized fairly here, is enough to demonstrate that Trump should _not _be indicted for collusion with Russia (the obstruction of justice charges are a lot murkier, but let's look past that for now).

The Mueller report is NOT enough to demonstrate that, for example, Schiff and Maddow need to be kicked off their committee and off the air, respectively, and tried for treason.

Trump is acting like, because of the former, the latter is also true. The burden of evidence needed for the latter, though, is WAY beyond what was in scope to the Mueller report.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm a troll because Drew doesn't like how I reply. Then he goes on calling me a liar. Great job, Drew. He's ending the 2 year waste of money Russia Collusion investigation so he can keep the doubt as a result of the obstruction of justice investigation. Hence why it "doesn't exonerate" Trump.


That literally makes no sense. If he wanted to keep doubt around Trump, why not keep investigating? No one told him he had to stop. And, if he wanted to hurt Trump, why not settle the matter himself and refer Trump for indictment to Barr, rather than defer the question to Barr? 

The Mueller report literally and explicitly does not exonerate Trump for charges of obstruction of justice. Why then is Trump tweeting and saying to the media that it's a total exoneration? He either is lying, or doesn't understand what he's talking about. 

And every time I raise this point you dodge the question and talk about something else or nitpick something else in my comment, and then continue to argue 
Trump is right to claim he was fully exonerated of obstruction of justice. If that's NOT trolling, then I'm at a loss as to where you're coming to this conclusion. "...it also does not exonerate him" is pretty black and white.


----------



## vilk

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I'm a troll


Yeah, it's pretty obvious. And if you think that everyone else reading this thread aside from Drew _doesn't_ think you're a troll... well, I hate to break it to ya...


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Technically, sure- the definitions of the two phrases are not the same.
> But carrying forward the guitar example, if I walk out of that courtroom with a 'not guilty' verdict, am I not uncontested when I tell people that I was innocent the whole time?



Legally, "not guilty" is a ruling that the prosecution did not prove that you committed the crime they believe that you committed beyond a reasonable doubt. They have have provided a significant amount of proof, but not enough to rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

"Innocent", on the other hand, means "without guilt". Another way of looking at that is that there is either 1) no proof that you committed the crime, or 2) proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else committed the crime.

So continue the stolen guitar analogy, if the ruling were "not guilty", then there may very well still be suspicion that you stole the guitar based on the proof provided in the trial, but you were found "not guilty" because there was not enough proof to result in a criminal conviction. If no evidence were provide, you would be innocent.

In either case, I doubt he average person would consider you guilty (unless they had been provided access to the evidence presented in the trial and believe you are guilty based on that (think a Judge Judy TV trial type of situation)). But in the case of Trump who, surrounded by lawyers, should know the difference, but still states that he has been exonerated (e.g., found innocent), it's a case of spinning the findings for political gain.


----------



## tedtan

Xaios said:


> If we're being completely fair, it's not like the DNC wouldn't also fight tooth and nail to keep a sitting democratic president from being removed. While I don't personally think they'd resort to the same level of chicanery as the GOP, that is ultimately speculation on my part.



True. The only reason a party would turn against a sitting president would be a situation like we have with Trump where his approvals are low, he favors policies that diverge from those his party favors, etc., which is a pretty uncommon situation.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> True. The only reason a party would turn against a sitting president would be a situation like we have with Trump where his approvals are low, he favors policies that diverge from those his party favors, etc., which is a pretty uncommon situation.


This is why I've been saying for a LONG time that impeachment is a political process and Trump won't be impeached until enough of his base turns on him so that Republican senators start worrying about their own re-election odds.


----------



## jaxadam

tedtan said:


> (think a Judge Judy TV trial type of situation).



Dude! That show is my jam!


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> That literally makes no sense. If he wanted to keep doubt around Trump, why not keep investigating? No one told him he had to stop. And, if he wanted to hurt Trump, why not settle the matter himself and refer Trump for indictment to Barr, rather than defer the question to Barr?
> 
> The Mueller report literally and explicitly does not exonerate Trump for charges of obstruction of justice. Why then is Trump tweeting and saying to the media that it's a total exoneration? He either is lying, or doesn't understand what he's talking about.
> 
> And every time I raise this point you dodge the question and talk about something else or nitpick something else in my comment, and then continue to argue
> Trump is right to claim he was fully exonerated of obstruction of justice. If that's NOT trolling, then I'm at a loss as to where you're coming to this conclusion. "...it also does not exonerate him" is pretty black and white.


Because now the report is turned in, but not released. People are asking for it to be released, but since it's not released, doubt persists. And it is being continued, with the obstruction charge, which Mueller likely feels more confident he can get him tried and charged with. 

I am not Trump, so why are you asking me why he is doing anything? Go tweet at him.


----------



## Randy

FWIW, none of this exchange qualifies as trolling sans the the personal sniping. Cut that out and the rest of the conversation can continue.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Because now the report is turned in, but not released. People are asking for it to be released, but since it's not released, doubt persists. And it is being continued, with the obstruction charge, which Mueller likely feels more confident he can get him tried and charged with.
> 
> I am not Trump, so why are you asking me why he is doing anything? Go tweet at him.



Two things. 

One, the investigation is NOT being continued. It ended when Mueller filed his report. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. The Mueller investigation is over. 

Two, what you're saying now is a far cry from this: 


Spaced Out Ace said:


> You just keep holding out hope, Drew. The only obstruction is from the left digging their feet in and refusing to come to some sort of agreement. I'm sure you'll reply with "but the right...," though I'll let you have at it anyways.



...where you seem to think there was no obstruction of justice. Mueller's report indicated there was a sizable body of evidence that there WAS obstruction of justice, but deferred to Barr as to whether or not Trump should be indicted. Barr, who has previously indicated he doesn't believe a sitting president CAN be indicted - this is widely believed to be why Trump nominated him - opted not to indict, arguing (wrongly) that Trump couldn't have obstructed justice if he hadn't conspired with Russia.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Two things.
> 
> One, the investigation is NOT being continued. It ended when Mueller filed his report. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. The Mueller investigation is over.
> 
> Two, what you're saying now is a far cry from this:
> 
> 
> ...where you seem to think there was no obstruction of justice. Mueller's report indicated there was a sizable body of evidence that there WAS obstruction of justice, but deferred to Barr as to whether or not Trump should be indicted. Barr, who has previously indicated he doesn't believe a sitting president CAN be indicted - this is widely believed to be why Trump nominated him - opted not to indict, arguing (wrongly) that Trump couldn't have obstructed justice if he hadn't conspired with Russia.


You are so right, Drew. Will that placate you? Christ.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You are so right, Drew. Will that placate you? Christ.


Serious question - were you really unaware that the Mueller investigation was over?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> but deferred to Barr



Well, we don't know for sure Mueller specifically deferred to Barr, actually. The reading of the Constitutional precedent seems to indicate it's not Barr's decision one way or the other. I'm also not sure, even if the law allowed for it, that Mueller would've been glowing about >48 hour decision on the matter after he spens 2 years and a few thousand pages on it.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You are so right, Drew. Will that placate you? Christ.



That's the trolling thing I was talking about. Stop engaging Drew like the only thing that matters to you is that you're mad the two of you disagree. Post substance or post nothing.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> Serious question - were you really unaware that the Mueller investigation was over?


I am saying that Mueller will parley the great job he did here to start an obstruction of justice investigation.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, we don't know for sure Mueller specifically deferred to Barr, actually. The reading of the Constitutional precedent seems to indicate it's not Barr's decision one way or the other. I'm also not sure, even if the law allowed for it, that Mueller would've been glowing about >48 hour decision on the matter after he spens 2 years and a few thousand pages on it.


Yeah, I'd seen someone else raise that point. Trump is definitely trying to pre-empt the news cycle, but I understand (but haven't personally explored in detail) that there's a plausible argument to make that Barr's decision to insert his own conclusion is unconstitutional. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I am saying that Mueller will parley the great job he did here to start an obstruction of justice investigation.


Mueller, on his own, can't. He would have to be appointed by Barr as a special prosecutor in a fresh investigation, which I think we both agree is not going to happen. 

Again, this is only pertinent because you seem to think Mueller was motivated by job security to find that there was a good case to be made that obstruction of justice had occurred, and therefore his belief that there was a good cause can't be taken seriously. That's not true - Mueller's investigation ended when he handed Barr his report. Whatever happens next does not directly involve him, and he has no financial incentives here. Arguing that he concluded obstruction of justice was something that Trump very well MIGHT have done because he wanted to keep getting paid makes no sense.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Does that explain where I'm coming from a little more clearly? Especially if there _was_ a moderate body of evidence pointing towards collusion, but not enough to prove guilt, then Trump's reaction here is extremely dangerous.



Yes, actually- the impression that I got from what you were saying was along the lines of a "They didn't say he DIDN'T do it, so we aren't done yet, lets see if we can push something else through after they release the report" kind of thing. What you're describing here in the first part of this post is entirely different and I agree 100%. 



> Idunno. Let me know if you kind of get where I'm coming from here. Trump is innocent until proven guilty... But by claiming the whole process of concluding he wasn't guilty was itself a crime, he needs to prove a lot more than the mere fact there isn't enough evidence to convict him of collusion with Russia, and that the AG decided not to pursue obstruction of justice charges even given credible evidence. Trump is right to not charged with collusion given the lack of clear enough evidence... but he's wrong to call for the punishment of people who called for an investigation, himself.



I'll admit I've consciously spent more time looking into what anyone who _*isn't*_ Donald Trump had to say on the matter, so I'm not sure the extent to which he's publicly voiced his grievances with his accusers, but I'll say I tentatively agree with you here as well.

We all know that stuff like this is why defamation suits and the like are so famously difficult to win- it's exceedingly difficult to prove intent, and even if the people that accused him did so baselessly and maliciously, they would have had to have been very, very sloppy for there to be a realistic case against them. So I agree that if he's calling for 'consequences' or a form of punishment, he's way off base; I don't even know who he could think to go after (what's he going to do, sue "the media"?). I'm all on board with him calling out the people that dragged his name through the mud and went after him like starving bloodhounds, but calling for punishment is for sure an overreach if that's what he's doing.

What gives me pause is that I know the basis for the investigation was...kind of shady. The dossier, the wiretapping, etc. If there's anything the right can reasonably go after, I think would be an investigation into that initial push to start flinging dirt. Still though, I'm not sure to what extent that would prove fruitful, if it'd be realistic, worth doing, etc. So...tentative agreement. I'm with you in principle, how about that? 



tedtan said:


> So continue the stolen guitar analogy, if the ruling were "not guilty", then there may very well still be suspicion that you stole the guitar based on the proof provided in the trial, but you were found "not guilty" because there was not enough proof to result in a criminal conviction. If no evidence were provide, you would be innocent.
> 
> In either case, I doubt he average person would consider you guilty (unless they had been provided access to the evidence presented in the trial and believe you are guilty based on that (think a Judge Judy TV trial type of situation)). *But in the case of Trump who, surrounded by lawyers, should know the difference, but still states that he has been exonerated (e.g., found innocent), it's a case of spinning the findings for political gain*.



I see where you're going with this, but I don't know if I'm on board. It seems to me that if you define "innocent" as "without guilt," if I'm "not guilty," then I have no guilt.
Putting aside the probability that Trump very likely is not thinking this deeply about his word choice, I'm sure that in his mind, -even if he did do it-, he thinks he did nothing wrong and is totally innocent. Piling on the indictment-less conclusion of the report, I don't find it surprising in the least that he's throwing around words like "innocent."

As for the bolded bit, I agree he should know better (and probably have people write his public statements for him, honestly), but again, broken record- I'm not going to assume a spinjob until I get to see the report. I'm just operating under the assumption that he's a brash man that doesn't typically think about his words before he says them, who is currently just very, very excited.


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm just operating under the assumption that he's a brash man that doesn't typically think about his words before he says them



I mean, you’re right to operate that way...

As far as an argument against this being a waste: Yeah, maybe there wasn’t anything/enough of anything for Trump specifically, but all of those arrests, indictments guilty pleas that came out of it? Sure as hell isn’t nothing.

Plus, as I mentioned, Manafort alone pretty much paid for the investigation and then some, for a fraction of THE GODDAMN GOLFING, as pointed out a few posts back.

And on top of that, you know Mueller farmed out different parts to organizations to investigate and, if there are any Indictments, they’d be on a level where they can’t be pardoned (such as, say, the Southern District of New York). Also, while there’s no new indictments from this investigation, there is still the possibility of some unsealed ones still existing.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

I never said the investigation was a waste. I'm personally glad they went through with it, if for no other reason than to finally be able to get something other than Russia garbage in the news. The resulting indictments were just a bonus. 

I'm skeptical that Manaforts assets will be functional in the way you're assuming they will be, but that certainly didn't hurt either.


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I never said the investigation was a waste. I'm personally glad they went through with it, if for no other reason than to finally be able to get something other than Russia garbage in the news. The resulting indictments were just a bonus.
> 
> I'm skeptical that Manaforts assets will be functional in the way you're assuming they will be, but that certainly didn't hurt either.



That wasn’t aimed at you. As said, your arguement is to the right and you’re actually being reasonable about it.

Edit: I meant the part about the investigation being a waste wasn’t directed at you, but I can see why you may have thought that since I was quoting you. My bad.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

No worries- cheers dude


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

https://local.theonion.com/liberal-...EGAjvpRFoCOSekx3oNrpaEYmbB8vXujPCrmEr6TMw-qKY


----------



## Flappydoodle

jaxadam said:


> It honestly sounds exactly like when the far right swore Obama was a Kenyan Muslim who’s wife was a man. I mean, think of the ridiculousness of stating that Trump is a Russian Agent even after the report is released.
> 
> Literally from the Barr memo:



I don't think the Kenyan Muslim theory got too much mainstream traction though. Maybe an occasional opinion piece on Fox. 1-2 politicians I can think of demanding to see the birth certificate.

But "Trump, Russia, collusion" was blasted in the most mainstream media, by celebrities, journalists, late-night hosts, and politicians for two years non-stop. The most mainstream conspiracy theory I can think of.



Drew said:


> If he wanted to keep it going, why not, you know, _keep it going_ instead of end it? And Mueller, a registered Republican, is trying to hurt a Republican's chance of winning an election?



I think Mueller most likely conducted a fair investigation, but I *really* don't think party affiliation means much. Some of the strongest anti-Trump voices are also Republican. A lot of Republicans absolutely hate Trump, and would rather have an establishment Democrat in his place. Mueller being a Bush-era guy, I think it's a safe guess that his personal feelings towards Trump are not positive - especially when Trump has been blasting him on twitter for the last 2 years, lol


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> This is why I've been saying for a LONG time that impeachment is a political process and Trump won't be impeached until enough of his base turns on him so that Republican senators start worrying about their own re-election odds.



Agreed.




Flappydoodle said:


> A lot of Republicans absolutely hate Trump, and would rather have an establishment Democrat in his place.



That's because Trump isn't a republican. I mean, he technically is because he ran on the republican ticket, but he was a registered democrat most of his life and doesn't adhere to many typical republican policies. But he's not a "real" republican or conservative like most of the rest of the party.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> I see where you're going with this, but I don't know if I'm on board. It seems to me that if you define "innocent" as "without guilt," if I'm "not guilty," then I have no guilt.



Yeah, that's how an average person would define it. But the distinction I'm making is a legal one. Not guilty mean that you may or may not be guilty, but that there is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocent means that there is enough evidence to prove that either 1) you did not commit the crime (a much, much higher bar), or 2) to prove that someone else committed the crime.

In that sense, you will very rarely come across an innocent ruling in a trial; where you would typically see it is in an appeal. Take, for example, the case of someone convicted of murder and sentenced to prison then, years later, a DNA test result proves that it was actually someone else who committed the murder. In this situation, a judge might make a ruling of innocent, exonerating the wrongly convicted individual.

Where the issue lies in Trump's claims is that, like Drew mentioned, the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute him for collusion (this is kind of like not guilty, but occurring before any trial takes place rather than coming as a result of the ruling in a trial), but there was apparently enough evidence to try Trump for obstruction of justice and Barr has chosen to not prosecute despite that evidence. So Trump was not fully exonerated or proven innocent as he claims.




Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm just operating under the assumption that he's a brash man that doesn't typically think about his words before he says them, who is currently just very, very excited.



This is certainly true of Trump, but keep in mind that he is also almost pathologically incapable of telling the truth. Everything that comes out of his mouth is designed to build his image.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> What gives me pause is that I know the basis for the investigation was...kind of shady. The dossier, the wiretapping, etc. If there's anything the right can reasonably go after, I think would be an investigation into that initial push to start flinging dirt. Still though, I'm not sure to what extent that would prove fruitful, if it'd be realistic, worth doing, etc. So...tentative agreement. I'm with you in principle, how about that?


Yeah, we don't disagree about that much, when push comes to shove - there were a lot of balls in the air here, and it probably could have been made clearer what I was saying in relation to what. I do think it matters politically that while Mueller determined there was no case that Trump had knowingly and intentionally colluded with Russia, there may have been a moderate amount of evidence suggesting but not proving this conclusion (which, IMO, would be an outcome that contradicts a belief that the investigation "totally exonerates" Trump, akin to OJ Simpson claiming he was "totally exonerated" in killing Nicole Simpson, maybe), and I think it matters tremendously from a national security standpoint that Mueller may have concluded Trump or his campaign may have _unknowingly_ been influenced by Russian agents to do certain things to Russia's benefit, but that doesn't mean I think Trump is guily until proven innocent, and I apologize for making that unclear. 

Re: the basis of the investigation... The major impetuses for the investigation starting were Popadoupalous's drunkenly telling a UK intelligence agent that Russia had dirt on Clinton while the primaries were still going on, and then subsequently once it was opened Flynn and Trump's improbable decision to reverse course on sanctions Obama had applied to Russia, and then Trump's decision to fire the head of the FBI investigating whether Russia had impacted the election, providing one set of reasons in the memo firing him, but then immediately saying in public appearances he was thinking of the Russian investigation when he decided to fire him. The Steele dossier didn't become a factor in the investigation until well after it started, though Trump has tried to push as much attention as possible to it and some of its more sensational claims, trying to discredit the investigation. And, while parts of it are pretty sensational, Steele is a well-respected intelligence agent and Russia expert, was responsible for a lot of the research in the FIFA corruption probe the year prior, and the more sensational points were put forward not as claims Steele necessarily believed were accurate but low-probability things that nonetheless if true could have major implications. And while Trump focuses on stuff like the pee tape, a number of other claims in the Steele dossier ended up being true, so it's not as much of a pipedream as he would like his supporters too believe.

So, on one hand, the investigation predated the Steele dossier by something like six months... but there ended up being a lot of accurate intelligence in the dossier, as well.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> That's because Trump isn't a republican. I mean, he technically is because he ran on the republican ticket, but he was a registered democrat most of his life and doesn't adhere to many typical republican policies. But he's not a "real" republican or conservative like most of the rest of the party.



Didn’t Trump flat out say on TV yeeeaarss ago that if he ran for President, he’d run republican “because they’ll vote for anybody”?


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> Didn’t Trump flat out say on TV yeeeaarss ago that if he ran for President, he’d run republican “because they’ll vote for anybody”?



I don't think I could possibly dislike Trump more, but there is no verified account of him ever having stated that.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I don't think I could possibly dislike Trump more, but there is no verified account of him ever having stated that.


I'll admit I never bothered to fact-check that either because, shocker, it corresponds to my own preconceptions.... but Snopes agrees with you. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1998-trump-people-quote/

Good to know.  They point out that the reference to Fox should be a dead giveaway, because it was neither prominent nor all that conservative in 1998, and only gained prominence and went hard right after the election of W.


----------



## Ralyks

See, that says People magazine, and a bunch of people claim they saw it on Oprah.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.re...nald_trump_republicans_are_dumb_why_did_this/

Granted, it’s a reddit, so it could be a bunch of conspiracy theorists and I’ll be willing to admit I’m wrong. But he was indeed a democrat originally.

On a different note, going off the “farming off parts of the investigation”, the grand jury is still active with a bunch of the info:
https://apple.news/AkCPNe-XLTsyN_KLtTGM2Yw


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> See, that says People magazine, and a bunch of people claim they saw it on Oprah.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.re...nald_trump_republicans_are_dumb_why_did_this/
> 
> Granted, it’s a reddit, so it could be a bunch of conspiracy theorists and I’ll be willing to admit I’m wrong. But he was indeed a democrat originally.
> 
> On a different note, going off the “farming off parts of the investigation”, the grand jury is still active with a bunch of the info:
> https://apple.news/AkCPNe-XLTsyN_KLtTGM2Yw


So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say at least one part of that is a hoax. 

That reddit thread includes a link to an op-ed run in 2011 by Sam Blumenthal titled "Donald Trump is Right, Republicans are Stupid!" The article is about the GOP's 2012 electoral prospects, and seems to be evidence that this claim, even if fake, dates back to well before Trump actually ran. 

That looks like pretty solid evidence at a glance... but, the article has 13 comments, and the oldest I can find is February 20th, 2017. That seems _highly_ improbable that an article with a sensational title published in 2011 didn't have a single comment posted on it for six years. 

Dumping it into wayback machine, there's no archived version before 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/2016101...m/10822-trump-is-right-republicans-are-stupid

I'd put money on the fact the article was posted well after 2011.


----------



## Drew

Another Mueller report update - the NY Times is reporting the final report was more than 300 pages long, while evidently a Fox commentator raised eyebrows by twice mentioning it was more than 700 pages. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/mueller-report-length.html

Barr took the report and less than 48 hours later released a four page summary, of which the first and last page and all in about one paragraph of the middle page were taken up with the formal header, an overview of the investigation, and an overview of next steps. Less than two full pages were actually spent summarizing the conclusions of a report that we now know was at least 300 pages long, possibly double that. 

I stand by my belief that there's a lot more in the Mueller report than Barr is letting on, and Mueller's conclusions are a lot more nuanced than "he didn't do it."


----------



## jaxadam

Cliffs Notes


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> Cliffs Notes


Those are some REAL shitty Cliff Notes, then.  


Moby Dick: The whale gets Ahab. Everyone drowns, except for one dude.
Titanic: The ship sinks.
Mueller Report: He says he didn't do it, and I believe him.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Sorry, but Joe Bob Briggs -- a TV host for trash cinema and low brow horror, satirist, and writer whose real name is John Bloom -- makes a better argument than two years of Mueller, uproar and vitriol from the left, and conspiracy theories spewed out at a far greater rate than InfoWars could muster.

https://www.takimag.com/article/forget-the-mueller-report-i-want-the-ames-report/


----------



## vilk




----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Sorry, but Joe Bob Briggs -- a TV host for trash cinema and low brow horror, satirist, and writer whose real name is John Bloom -- makes a better argument than two years of Mueller, uproar and vitriol from the left, and conspiracy theories spewed out at a far greater rate than InfoWars could muster.
> 
> https://www.takimag.com/article/forget-the-mueller-report-i-want-the-ames-report/


While I'll note, again, that with Trump claiming total and utter vindication and trying to weaponize the Mueller report based on Barr's evident whitewash to go after political enemies and expand executive power to swuarely put the president above the law, that releasing the report to demonstrate Mueller's conclusions were a LOT more nuanced than Barr is letting on is tremendously important as a check on executive power... 

...that was a WAY better read than I was expecting.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Doing so is likely a national security issue.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Doing so is likely a national security issue.


I'd argue that Trump's continued presidency is, as well, lol. 

But, honestly, that's only half a joke - establishing the precedent of using executive power to punish political rivals is absolutely a threat to American democracy. You'd argue, I'm sure, that that's what the whole Mueller investigation IS, but that's precicely why as much of it as possible needs to be released, to demonstrate that despite Trump's claims that this was a witch hunt, there was a reasonable basis for the investigation. 

Which, frankly, I would have thought was _already_ incontrovertible fact, with Flynn getting fired and then arrested for having calls with Russian officials before the inauguration to ensure them that Obama's sanctions would be reversed, with the Trump tower meeting brokered by a Russian claiming the attendees had information from the Kremlin on Clinton that would be valuable to Trump, with Papadoupalous bragging to UK intelligence in May of'16 that Wikileaks had hacked Clinton's email servers, with Sessions, Gates, and Manafort all lying under oath about contact with Russian agents, with Stone's contact with Wikileaks, with Trump's Moscow business deal continuing well past the primaries... Yet, somehow Trump is now trying to argue that none of this happened, and that Mueller found no evidence of obstruction of justice either, so therefore Schiff should get thrown out of Congress... When none of that's true. 

That's why as much of the report as possible should be released. It's kind of a matter of American democratic stability right now. If Trump actually goes ahead and tries to take steps to limit the ability of the FBI and DOJ to investigate him for alleged criminal activity, well, at this point I have zero faith in the GOP to preserve the democratic institutions of this country, so if nothing else Trump needs to not feel empowered to do so any more than he already is.


----------



## jaxadam

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Doing so is likely a national security issue.



I told that to a girl at a bar that asked for my number. Then I told her friend no hablo ingles.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> I'd argue that Trump's continued presidency is, as well, lol.
> 
> But, honestly, that's only half a joke - establishing the precedent of using executive power to punish political rivals is absolutely a threat to American democracy. You'd argue, I'm sure, that that's what the whole Mueller investigation IS, but that's precicely why as much of it as possible needs to be released, to demonstrate that despite Trump's claims that this was a witch hunt, there was a reasonable basis for the investigation.


You mean the fake dossier? Yeah, spectacular basis for an investigation. If the FISA warrants were illegal, perhaps those should be looked into by folks a little more reputable than those who were talking in private texts about how Trump has zero chance of being elected. Wonder what they knew, anyways...



Drew said:


> Which, frankly, I would have thought was _already_ incontrovertible fact, with Flynn getting fired and then arrested for having calls with Russian officials before the inauguration to ensure them that Obama's sanctions would be reversed, with the Trump tower meeting brokered by a Russian claiming the attendees had information from the Kremlin on Clinton that would be valuable to Trump, with Papadoupalous bragging to UK intelligence in May of'16 that Wikileaks had hacked Clinton's email servers, with Sessions, Gates, and Manafort all lying under oath about contact with Russian agents, with Stone's contact with Wikileaks, with Trump's Moscow business deal continuing well past the primaries... Yet, somehow Trump is now trying to argue that none of this happened, and that Mueller found no evidence of obstruction of justice either, so therefore Schiff should get thrown out of Congress... When none of that's true.


What basis do we have for these claims? The same fake news reports that have been peddling a conspiracy theory for two years? Forced admittance of guilt to reach a plea deal? Or is there something more concrete than other of those...? Judging how biased all of this has been, I don't really trust media claims and nameless "sources."



Drew said:


> That's why as much of the report as possible should be released. It's kind of a matter of American democratic stability right now. If Trump actually goes ahead and tries to take steps to limit the ability of the FBI and DOJ to investigate him for alleged criminal activity, well, at this point I have zero faith in the GOP to preserve the democratic institutions of this country, so if nothing else Trump needs to not feel empowered to do so any more than he already is.


At what point will investigations be "enough" to drop this nonsense? It seems to be just another nothing burger with a big, thick slice of cheddar on top.

Or should be keep investigating, while libeling and slandering Donald Trump, years after his presidency, and even years after his passing?
_______________________

As a side note: I wanted to make a sarcastic reference to wasting more money on investigations, but it only being another drop in the bucket so I had a reason to post a tune from David Lee Roth's third solo album, _A Little Ain't Enough_. Instead, I'll just make note of it here.



jaxadam said:


> I told that to a girl at a bar that asked for my number. Then I told her friend no hablo ingles.


I think that's now considered sexual harassment post #MeToo. I will have to report you to the authorities; I hope you understand.


----------



## Ralyks

On one hand, that Mueller report is over 300 pages. A 4 page summary? Naaaah.

On an admirable note, Trump basically told DeVos to fuck herself cutting funding to the Special Olympics. So hey, well played Trump, I can admit when I agree with something you did.

I must note, even my friends that are Trump diehards HATE DeVos. Hating her is something both sides seem to agree on.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> On one hand, that Mueller report is over 300 pages. A 4 page summary? Naaaah.
> 
> On an admirable note, Trump basically told DeVos to fuck herself cutting funding to the Special Olympics. So hey, well played Trump, I can admit when I agree with something you did.
> 
> I must note, even my friends that are Trump diehards HATE DeVos. Hating her is something both sides seem to agree on.



Agreed, but honestly when these things happen it just reads to me like throwing DeVos under the bus to improve his own appearance. A short bus in this case. I mean, it's *his* administration, so I'm not sure how things get this far along that he would "discover" something of this sort late in the game and have to step in. It's also not the first time this sort of scenario played out -- I remember because last time I thought, "Ah, that's actually a pretty reasonable thing to do. Waitttaminute..."


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You mean the fake dossier? Yeah, spectacular basis for an investigation. If the FISA warrants were illegal, perhaps those should be looked into by folks a little more reputable than those who were talking in private texts about how Trump has zero chance of being elected. Wonder what they knew, anyways...
> 
> 
> What basis do we have for these claims? The same fake news reports that have been peddling a conspiracy theory for two years? Forced admittance of guilt to reach a plea deal? Or is there something more concrete than other of those...? Judging how biased all of this has been, I don't really trust media claims and nameless "sources."
> 
> 
> At what point will investigations be "enough" to drop this nonsense? It seems to be just another nothing burger with a big, thick slice of cheddar on top.
> 
> Or should be keep investigating, while libeling and slandering Donald Trump, years after his presidency, and even years after his passing?
> _______________________
> 
> As a side note: I wanted to make a sarcastic reference to wasting more money on investigations, but it only being another drop in the bucket so I had a reason to post a tune from David Lee Roth's third solo album, _A Little Ain't Enough_. Instead, I'll just make note of it here.
> 
> 
> I think that's now considered sexual harassment post #MeToo. I will have to report you to the authorities; I hope you understand.


Wait a second, what are you talking about? You can't just stick "fake" in front of any inconvenient fact that you don't like, and pretend it didn't happen. 

On the dossier, pretty good summary from Lawfare from mid-December:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/steele-dossier-retrospective

A number of claims first made in the document, notably the involvement of GRU in hacking the DNC and Stone's communication with Guccider 2.0 and Wikileaks, were first reported by Steele and have subsequently been confirmed to be accurate. Meanwhile, noting the difficulty in proving nulls and that therefore this should be taken with a grain of salt, nothing in the dossier has actually been proven to be false.

And, again, the dossier wasn't even the base of the investigation - that was a tiip from UK intelligence after Popadoupalous drunkenly bragged to a UK intelligence agient that Wikileaks had dirt on Clinton, back in May of 2016. The investigation was already underway before Steele went to the FBI.

And "forced admittance of guilt to reach a plea deal"? the only person who has recanted what they said while pleading guilty is Popadoupalos, whose argument is not that he didn't lie to Mueller, but that he didn't MEAN to lie, and his lawyers are lobbying hard for a pardon. Other than that, Flynn still admits lying about conversations with Russia about sanctions, Sessions still admits he lied about contact with Russia, Gates still admits to lying about his involvement, Trump Jr. released the email chain about the Trump Tower meeting so there's no denying he eagerly greeted an offer for potential dirt on Clinton from Russia, Stone brags about what he's accused of. I mean, shit, even Donald J Trump himself doesn't deny this stuff - he fired Flynn after the fact he lied about the conversations broke, he never denied the Trump Tower meeting happened, he went to great lenghts to minimize Popadoupalous's role in the campain...

Like, what sort of world are you living in when you refuse to believe things happened that _even the people involved admit these things happened?_ If your idea of defending Trump is "the Trump Tower meeting was a liberal lie," then I have some bad news for you:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/884789418455953413


----------



## Thaeon

Can someone pass the popcorn?


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Can someone pass the popcorn?


Got your back.


----------



## Thaeon

In all seriousness though, that article referenced above is 100% correct on whether or not Russia trusted Trump with anything political. You don't trust a bull in a china shop to polish the china. You say, "Hey, why don't you go wait for me in there. I'll be right in." And then you wait for everything to get smashed. Mission accomplished.


----------



## Thaeon

That said, I don't think that Trump and his associates are entirely innocent of attempting to manipulate the situation to their advantage. Trump doesn't really care about laws. He'll tell you as much, and you really only have to watch him for so long before he does something that proves it. He's also an idiot. If you don't see that, then well... Some ignorance is a choice. What is important to me, is that Trump get exposed for what he is so that people stop trusting him and start realizing handing him the presidency was delivering the nation to the swamp. We may have taken the swamp out of the offices, but we put the offices into the swamp to do it. Trump is a liar and a cheater. He takes what he wants and leaves the bill with someone else. He was the perfect fall guy for Russia to assist. They don't care about getting economic hooks into the US, they'd rather see our economy collapse and be there to step in. Doing what they could to deliver the US into the hands of someone who could accomplish that didn't require that Trump knew what they were doing or that he was even on board. He's greedy and likes power. Two things that are easy to manipulate.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Wait a second, what are you talking about? You can't just stick "fake" in front of any inconvenient fact that you don't like, and pretend it didn't happen.



Didn't Trump himself say, on air, "fake news" is just news he doesn't like?


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Didn't Trump himself say, on air, "fake news" is just news he doesn't like?



Kinda, yeah. He mentioned negative news, and then equated it to "fake", parenthetically.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/994179864436596736?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^994179864436596736&ref_url=http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/05/trump-admits-he-calls-all-negative-news-fake.html




> *Donald J. Trump*‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
> The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is *negative (Fake).* Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?
> 
> 4:38 AM - 9 May 2018


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AK4XKdz8yTtiaGXJQTFTVDQ

Geez, when MCCONNELL goes "Nah, I'm out on this", that's not a good sign.

https://apple.news/ATeL_ENKySrqCjY8qUhmQXw

Guess the reports heading to Congress sooner than later.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> In all seriousness though, that article referenced above is 100% correct on whether or not Russia trusted Trump with anything political. You don't trust a bull in a china shop to polish the china. You say, "Hey, why don't you go wait for me in there. I'll be right in." And then you wait for everything to get smashed. Mission accomplished.


I know - it's actually a fairly reasonable argument.  It doesn't preclude either the Trump team being unknowingly manipulated rather than knowingly colluding, and especially considering Trump has a reputation for dropping the bombast and clamming up under sworn testimony it doesn't preclude Russia having blackmail leverage over Trump either, I'd say, and Trump merely not being stupid enough to not keep the knowledge close to his chest. But, a wide Russia conspiracy, with the whole campaign team knowingly working with Russia... I mean, from Day 1 I'd say that isn't a very likely outcome anyway, but that's a pretty good gut-level argument on why it's not likely, that Russia wouldn't be stupid enough to bring so many idiots in on the action.  

I think to your second point... Even if we assume the Barr memo is a 100% actuate summary of the Mueller report, which I highly doubt, but for the sake of discussion... We're already seeing Trump use that to do a couple things. 

1) Claim that in addition to no collusion, he was also exonerated on questions of obstruction of justice, which Mueller explicitly refused to do. 
2) Blur the line between collusion with Russia and Russia's influence campaign - which both Barr and Mueller describe explicitly as factual - to try to discredit _both_, that not only was there no collusion, but Russia trying to influence the election was an excuse made up by Democrats to explain away an embarrassing loss.
3) Use the conclusion of the report as the basis to expand executive power - "we need to take steps to ensure no president ever has to go through this again" - and move the presidency above the law, and attack critics who have the constitutional right to investigate him. So far he's just hinted that he wants to do this, but I think he means business. 

So yeah. Trump, power-hungry, willing to bend the truth and opportunistically seize every opportunity to attack rivals and reduce or eliminate the checks on his own power? Sounds about right to me.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AK4XKdz8yTtiaGXJQTFTVDQ
> 
> Geez, when MCCONNELL goes "Nah, I'm out on this", that's not a good sign.


Yeah, McConnell saw how that fight went last time, and is a savvy enough politician to not put his ass on the line in a long-shot fight for a guy who has no qualms about turning on him if he needs a scapegoat. This is actually something worth thinking about when trying to suss out how the balance of power is going to come in, for the remainder of the 19-20 term; Trump has governed in such a way that he's not going to give the Congressional Republicans much incentive to go out on a limb for him to get unpopular legislation passed. The ACA fight is probably DOA, and a Tax Cuts 2.0 bill that Larry Kudlow keeps talking about is going to depend largely on whether or not the individual proposals poll well, I think, though even then it's likely dead anyway since I don't see a Trump-friendly tax bill getting out of the House anytime soon.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I know - it's actually a fairly reasonable argument.  It doesn't preclude either the Trump team being unknowingly manipulated rather than knowingly colluding, and especially considering Trump has a reputation for dropping the bombast and clamming up under sworn testimony it doesn't preclude Russia having blackmail leverage over Trump either, I'd say, and Trump merely not being stupid enough to not keep the knowledge close to his chest. But, a wide Russia conspiracy, with the whole campaign team knowingly working with Russia... I mean, from Day 1 I'd say that isn't a very likely outcome anyway, but that's a pretty good gut-level argument on why it's not likely, that Russia wouldn't be stupid enough to bring so many idiots in on the action.
> 
> I think to your second point... Even if we assume the Barr memo is a 100% actuate summary of the Mueller report, which I highly doubt, but for the sake of discussion... We're already seeing Trump use that to do a couple things.
> 
> 1) Claim that in addition to no collusion, he was also exonerated on questions of obstruction of justice, which Mueller explicitly refused to do.
> 2) Blur the line between collusion with Russia and Russia's influence campaign - which both Barr and Mueller describe explicitly as factual - to try to discredit _both_, that not only was there no collusion, but Russia trying to influence the election was an excuse made up by Democrats to explain away an embarrassing loss.
> 3) Use the conclusion of the report as the basis to expand executive power - "we need to take steps to ensure no president ever has to go through this again" - and move the presidency above the law, and attack critics who have the constitutional right to investigate him. So far he's just hinted that he wants to do this, but I think he means business.
> 
> So yeah. Trump, power-hungry, willing to bend the truth and opportunistically seize every opportunity to attack rivals and reduce or eliminate the checks on his own power? Sounds about right to me.



I think you are 100% not wrong.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## spudmunkey

That would be funny if it wasn't confirmed by pretty much everyone but Russia that they have, and are, infact purposefully influencing our elections.


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> That would be funny if it wasn't confirmed by pretty much everyone but Russia that they have, and are, infact purposefully influencing our elections.



Do you think they'll influence the next one for Uncle Joe Biden?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

jaxadam said:


> Do you think they'll influence the next one for Uncle Joe Biden?


Creepy uncle touch n feely Joe. He oughta be great on the campaign trail.


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> Do you think they'll influence the next one for Uncle Joe Biden?



Honestly, I don't know enough about international politics to know who they think would end up being better for them, or worse for us (which is just as valid of an outcome for Russia).


----------



## jaxadam

spudmunkey said:


> Honestly, I don't know enough about international politics to know who they think would end up being better for them, or worse for us (which is just as valid of an outcome for Russia).



Do you think North Korea or China could really be behind it? 

It’s weird... I never really knew my vote was taken hostage until I look back on the day I went into the voting both. There were a lot of military style vehicles outside driven by bears wearing funny hats. Once I got inside all of the poll workers were wearing and obcene amount of Adidas and then the next thing I know I was walking out in a haze thinking I had been violated somehow but couldn’t put a finger on it. I just went home and had a nice cup or borscht and played a bunch of GTA while listening to Hammerforce.


----------



## spudmunkey

jaxadam said:


> Do you think North Korea or China could really be behind it?
> 
> It’s weird... I never really knew my vote was taken hostage until I look back on the day I went into the voting both. There were a lot of military style vehicles outside driven by bears wearing funny hats. Once I got inside all of the poll workers were wearing and obcene amount of Adidas and then the next thing I know I was walking out in a haze thinking I had been violated somehow but couldn’t put a finger on it. I just went home and had a nice cup or borscht and played a bunch of GTA while listening to Hammerforce.



I think you were just imagining it. I see no references to vodka.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

spudmunkey said:


> I think you were just imagining it. I see no references to vodka.



There is no need to mention vodka, I mean what else would a bear driving a truck drink.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

"Vodka"? You weirdos sure are strange. In Soviet Russia, water get you drunk!


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I think you are 100% not wrong.


Snopes finds claims that this post is not fake news as "Likely True."


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Honestly, I don't know enough about international politics to know who they think would end up being better for them, or worse for us (which is just as valid of an outcome for Russia).



I never believed in Manchurian Trump or a totally innocent Hillary Clinton either. If you want to know the kind of game Russia plays, just look at the picture of Putin sitting at a table with Flynn on one end of the table and Jill Stein on the other. 

That's to say... Russia's two goals were 1.) hedging their bets regardless of who wins 2.) destabilize US confidence abroad to position themselves as the new top superpower (as leverage to reopen trade and roll back sanctions).

Russia was definitely working overtime to gain favor with the Democrats/Liberal/Progressives/Clintons. I say none of this for my dislike of Trump but what ultimately worked in their favor (likely better than expected) is that Trump is less concerned with optics, and in someways, prone to doing things deliberately exactly the OPPOSITE of good optics (like saying he believed Un didn't know about Warmbier's condition), such that he turned out to be a convenient heel. I have no trust of Hillary or her associates, but I DO think she'd have been more receptive to pouring cold water on Russia if she had the intel we've learned in the last 2 years, not because I expect her to do the right thing but because it becomes an untenable position.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> That would be funny if it wasn't confirmed by pretty much everyone but Russia that they have, and are, infact purposefully influencing our elections.


Only caveat here is that so far no one has been willing to make the claim that Russia _changed the outcome_ of the election. I think that's an argument that would be incredibly hard to prove, and as an unabashed liberal, even I don't think that's something I want to see someone come out and actually say, because frankly that would probably tear our democracy apart and I think dealing with another two years of Trump is the lesser of two evils compared to questioning the legitimacy of the election, short of pretty damned irrefutable evidence. Even that I don't like to think about the meltdown the Fox/Breitbart/Infowars folks would throw about a deep state coup. Fuck, as it is I saw a handful of _Lyndon LaRouche_ supporters protesting some sort of Deep State British Coup, blaming Mueller and Obama and saying we needed to protect Trump. I thought those idiots hated _everyone_.  Long story short, the level of crazy out there is such that even as a Democrat it'd take some convincing before I'd say it's not better to just _bury_ any evidence that the outcome was changed by Russia. 

But, at the same time... Trump is absolutely trying to spin "not enough evidence to prove collusion" as "Russia didn't try to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election," which is an outcome that basically everyone aside from Trump and his supporters think is incontrovertible at this point. Well, them and the more militant Bernie Bros, just because it paints Clinton in a worse light to call it a made up ecuse.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> ...not because I expect her to do the right thing but because it becomes an untenable position.


Man, the fact that we're yearning for the days of realpolitik should make us all sad. I'm right there with you.


----------



## vilk

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Creepy uncle touch n feely Joe. He oughta be great on the campaign trail.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


>


Yeah, I'm really not sure what to make about this Biden story. 

Two women have come forward, but both have explicitly said they don't think what he did was at all sexual, and that they don't think he sexually assaulted them. It's a weird story that I'm really not sure what to make of yet - depending on Biden's responses, I could actually see a nuanced, thoughtful, understanding, and reasonable reply actually _helping_ his candidacy, especially because of the way it throws him into STARK relief with Trump. Trump can't very well attack Biden for kissing a woman on the top of her head in a gesture even _she_ thought was friendly, when there's video evidence of him bragging about grabbing women by the pussy.


----------



## Thaeon

Yeah, I'm interested in hearing how this story pans out.


----------



## 777timesgod

This whole Trump and Russia issue is very funny. All politicians have allies abroad in friendly or hostile nations to their own. Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia and several politicians (prime ministers of England and Greece come to mind) openly rooted for her during the election process. Isn't this meddling in the election of another country? Of course it is and Russia is happy to be in the epicentre of such a ruckus. The view that Russian hackers caused Republican and Democrat Americans to argue between them in a heated manner is a joke as they do that anyway and will continue to call each other names on FB and twitter in the future.

As far as impeaching Trump, the notion lost all value when it was brought up 3 seconds after he got elected by impatient democrats who were bitter of losing to a reality TV star. It is a complicated process and the Democrats are not pushing as hard for it, as they say to their supporters that they are. Such actions may cause a payback in the future and they do not want that, behind closed doors there is a much greater understanding between them and the Republicans. They attack each other on camera and hug during meetings.

The U.S.A. will definitely not humiliate themselves by admitting that other countries are involved in their election process (actually all countries are concerned with your election as it affects them and do their part to promote a candidate which suits them and it is not unreasonable) and getting rid of their elected leader a year before the next election may or may not eject him from office. Furthermore, the U.S.A. meddle in the election of most countries they are interested in, by sending funds to local parties or applying pressure to people of influence, so it is not big news in the grand scheme of politics.


----------



## Thaeon

You’re 100% right. I’ve been saying this since the beginning of the investigation. The point isn’t to normalize the behavior. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an example of it when it comes to light. All of the politicians pointing fingers about it falls on my completely deaf ears. It’s more important that the public is aware of what is happening and is willing to take politicians to task.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> You’re 100% right. I’ve been saying this since the beginning of the investigation. The point isn’t to normalize the behavior. Just because everyone is doing it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an example of it when it comes to light. All of the politicians pointing fingers about it falls on my completely deaf ears. It’s more important that the public is aware of what is happening and is willing to take politicians to task.



Yeah, I mean, his point is well taken but it's 'cynicism as ideology' to a degree I just won't go. That's the same kind of mindset that goes into seeing someone getting robbed or beaten in plain sight but not doing anything because "well, there's a dozen people seeing this too and not doing anything, so it must be with good reason. On my way", which is a very real societal dynamic but I think it's gutless. 

It's healthy to maintain a level of skepticism about everything really, and also not deifying people (because people are imperfect) but you have to have some kind of standards or you just allow bad behavior to prevail.


----------



## Thaeon

I just tend to remind myself that people really have no idea what is going on or what they are doing. We're all just stumbling around in the dark trying to figure shit out. That tendency towards leaning on the feelings of isolation we all have from each other is what causes a lot of this mess in the first place. We're all the same. We should be helping the people we bump into, or who are around us as much as possible rather than thinking, I'm gonna get mine.


----------



## Drew

777timesgod said:


> This whole Trump and Russia issue is very funny. All politicians have allies abroad in friendly or hostile nations to their own. Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia and several politicians (prime ministers of England and Greece come to mind) openly rooted for her during the election process. Isn't this meddling in the election of another country? Of course it is and Russia is happy to be in the epicentre of such a ruckus. The view that Russian hackers caused Republican and Democrat Americans to argue between them in a heated manner is a joke as they do that anyway and will continue to call each other names on FB and twitter in the future.



Well, there are a couple problems with this.

It's ok for countries to have _preferences_ for how our elections go, and in Clinton vs Trump I don't think it's at all surprising that most of the world preferred Trump - Clinton was an advocate for more open international trade, for bolstering international institutions like the UN, NATO, the World Bank and IMF, etc. Meanwhile, Trump was an "America First!" isolationist, who suggested disbanding NATO, hinted he wasn't too fond of the UN either, wanted to blow up multilateral trade deals like NATO and multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords, advocated banning Muslims and building a southern border wall to keep Mexicans out of the country, and even in his campaign had some pretty clear authoritarian and racist instincts. To the rest of the world, Clinton was one of them, whereas Trump was a drunken frat boy with a molotov cocktail. Of course they had preferences for Clinton.

What ISN'T ok, however, is for those preferences to extend into monetary or in-kind contributions to a campaign, not because that's a violation of some international code of conduct, but because that's a violation of US campaign law. You said "Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia." No, she didn't - the Clinton Foundation, a registered nonprofit, received funds from Saudi Arabia to help fund some of their charitable initiatives, and Hillary herself did not receive campaign contributions from the Saudis or the Clinton Foundation. As a registered charity the Foundation publishes their financials so you can verify that yourself that Hillary herself or her campaign were not the end beneficiaries of these payments. A whole lot of other people have donated to the Clinton Foundation - as a wealthy New Yorker, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump himself had made donations in the past.

US campaign law is clear that no candidate can solicit or receive either money or "anything of value" from a foreign nation. If Russia had been secretly providing intel to the Trump camp, that would have fallen afoul of federal election law. If they had been doing so in return for specific governmental consideration - say, for Trump removing a condemnation of Russia for the annexation of Ukraine from the GOP platform, or for a promise to reverse Obama-era sanctions once they entered office, that escalates from campaign finance violations to probable treason, selling out US foreign policy for personal gain.

So, the issue here wasn't whether foreign countries were rooting for Clinton or Trump, but rather whether that ever got to the point where it broke federal campaign finance law. And in the case of Trump, we know in a number of other situations he _did_ do so - the Daniels and McDougal stories were bought and killed for poltical reasons so they represent in-kind campaign donations that were not disclosed. Likewise, Trump used Trump Foundation funds at campaign events on numerous occasions, which was a breach of both campaign finance law (since, again, they were not disclosed), as well as self-dealing which is illegal under NY charitable law, which is a large part of the reason the Trump Foundation is now being wound down under court supervision. There's also the matter of Trump, addressing British Parliament as a candidate, suggested to all the MPs that they go to his website and donate to his campaign, which is a stark violation of campaign law too.

So, to your first point, it's ok to root, it's NOT ok to make contributions and violate US finance law, and if that were to occur that's the candidate breaking the law and not the foreign nation.

Second, about Democrats and Republicans fighting... Sure, that's always going to happen. But they didn't indict 13 Russian agents because they started a fight, they indicted them for doing everything they could to inflame those fights. Look at it this way - if you light a wood fire in your fireplace, yeah, it's gonna burn.... But, if someone throws twenty gallons of gasoline in the fireplace and it explodes and burns your house down, then I think there's clearly a lot more culpability on the dude with the gasoline than on you lighting the fire in the first place, you know?



Idunno. Tl;dr - We already know Trump has made repeated campaign finance law violations. It wouldn't have been out of character at all if it came out that his interactions with Russia had also fallen afoul of campaign finance law. However, Mueller failed to prove that he had beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew, were you a Poli-Sci major or something? You seem to have the most concise answers to everything on this topic and seem to see both sides.


----------



## jaxadam

Ralyks said:


> Drew, were you a Poli-Sci major or something? You seem to have the most concise answers to everything on this topic and seem to see both sides.



WHAT? See both sides? He's still convinced Trump is a Russian agent!

But there are still people that believe Obama is a Kenyan muslim who's wife is a man.


----------



## thraxil

jaxadam said:


> WHAT? See both sides? He's still convinced Trump is a Russian agent!



Where does he say that he believes that Trump is a Russian agent?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Drew, were you a Poli-Sci major or something? You seem to have the most concise answers to everything on this topic and seem to see both sides.


Literature, actually, and I now work as a financial analyst. I just follow politics very closely (it's both a blood sport, and something that can have a huge impact on what I do for a living), and I guess the narrative aspects of what I did in college and what I do today sort of encourage seeking a nuanced understanding of the drivers of what's going on. I joke in client meetings when politics come up that I don't get paid to be be a liberal or conservative, I get paid to be _right_.

Though, _that_? Concise?


----------



## jaxadam

Drew said:


> I joke in client meetings when politics come up that I don't get paid to be be a liberal or conservative, I get paid to be _right_.



Holy motherfuckin’ macaroni, what a line... I bet that’s a panty dropper. I’m stealing it.


----------



## MFB

jaxadam said:


> Holy motherfuckin’ macaroni, what a line... I bet that’s a panty dropper. I’m stealing it.



He's more ladykiller than panty dropper, but you might be able to get it to work


----------



## jaxadam

MFB said:


> He's more ladykiller than panty dropper, but you might be able to get it to work



I see what you did there...


----------



## Drew

jaxadam said:


> I see what you did there...


Did you hear, I'm ...._untouchable_?


----------



## vilk




----------



## 777timesgod

Randy said:


> Yeah, I mean, his point is well taken but it's 'cynicism as ideology' to a degree I just won't go. That's the same kind of mindset that goes into seeing someone getting robbed or beaten in plain sight but not doing anything because "well, there's a dozen people seeing this too and not doing anything, so it must be with good reason. On my way", which is a very real societal dynamic but I think it's gutless.
> 
> It's healthy to maintain a level of skepticism about everything really, and also not deifying people (because people are imperfect) but you have to have some kind of standards or you just allow bad behavior to prevail.



Nowhere in my post do I suggest that Trump is not colluding with foreign powers and that if he does it is ethical. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of his political opponents in making it a big deal, when they are guilty as well of the same crime. All citizens should demand that their leaders are free from foreign influence, its not gonna happen but we should not stop fighting for it.



Drew said:


> Well, there are a couple problems with this.
> 
> It's ok for countries to have _preferences_ for how our elections go, and in Clinton vs Trump I don't think it's at all surprising that most of the world preferred Trump - Clinton was an advocate for more open international trade, for bolstering international institutions like the UN, NATO, the World Bank and IMF, etc. Meanwhile, Trump was an "America First!" isolationist, who suggested disbanding NATO, hinted he wasn't too fond of the UN either, wanted to blow up multilateral trade deals like NATO and multilateral agreements like the Paris Climate Accords, advocated banning Muslims and building a southern border wall to keep Mexicans out of the country, and even in his campaign had some pretty clear authoritarian and racist instincts. To the rest of the world, Clinton was one of them, whereas Trump was a drunken frat boy with a molotov cocktail. Of course they had preferences for Clinton.
> 
> What ISN'T ok, however, is for those preferences to extend into monetary or in-kind contributions to a campaign, not because that's a violation of some international code of conduct, but because that's a violation of US campaign law. You said "Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia." No, she didn't - the Clinton Foundation, a registered nonprofit, received funds from Saudi Arabia to help fund some of their charitable initiatives, and Hillary herself did not receive campaign contributions from the Saudis or the Clinton Foundation. As a registered charity the Foundation publishes their financials so you can verify that yourself that Hillary herself or her campaign were not the end beneficiaries of these payments. A whole lot of other people have donated to the Clinton Foundation - as a wealthy New Yorker, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump himself had made donations in the past.
> 
> US campaign law is clear that no candidate can solicit or receive either money or "anything of value" from a foreign nation. If Russia had been secretly providing intel to the Trump camp, that would have fallen afoul of federal election law. If they had been doing so in return for specific governmental consideration - say, for Trump removing a condemnation of Russia for the annexation of Ukraine from the GOP platform, or for a promise to reverse Obama-era sanctions once they entered office, that escalates from campaign finance violations to probable treason, selling out US foreign policy for personal gain.
> 
> So, the issue here wasn't whether foreign countries were rooting for Clinton or Trump, but rather whether that ever got to the point where it broke federal campaign finance law. And in the case of Trump, we know in a number of other situations he _did_ do so - the Daniels and McDougal stories were bought and killed for poltical reasons so they represent in-kind campaign donations that were not disclosed. Likewise, Trump used Trump Foundation funds at campaign events on numerous occasions, which was a breach of both campaign finance law (since, again, they were not disclosed), as well as self-dealing which is illegal under NY charitable law, which is a large part of the reason the Trump Foundation is now being wound down under court supervision. There's also the matter of Trump, addressing British Parliament as a candidate, suggested to all the MPs that they go to his website and donate to his campaign, which is a stark violation of campaign law too.
> 
> So, to your first point, it's ok to root, it's NOT ok to make contributions and violate US finance law, and if that were to occur that's the candidate breaking the law and not the foreign nation.
> 
> Second, about Democrats and Republicans fighting... Sure, that's always going to happen. But they didn't indict 13 Russian agents because they started a fight, they indicted them for doing everything they could to inflame those fights. Look at it this way - if you light a wood fire in your fireplace, yeah, it's gonna burn.... But, if someone throws twenty gallons of gasoline in the fireplace and it explodes and burns your house down, then I think there's clearly a lot more culpability on the dude with the gasoline than on you lighting the fire in the first place, you know?
> 
> Idunno. Tl;dr - We already know Trump has made repeated campaign finance law violations. It wouldn't have been out of character at all if it came out that his interactions with Russia had also fallen afoul of campaign finance law. However, Mueller failed to prove that he had beyond a reasonable doubt.



Seriously, the Clinton foundation does not have anything to do with Hillary? Money going into it are spend without her consent or knowledge? She was even in the board for a long time. She personally knows all the people who run it and they have her best interests in mind which is not unreasonable of course.

I did not imply that she rounds up funds and spends it on her campaigns but the charity done by that organization is on her name and reflects on her positively. Being a politician, this means more votes, you are trying to downplay it to reinforce your candidate of choice here. However, the policies of Saudi Arabia come in contract with the entire liberal rhetoric and claiming that this funding is innocent, is pretentious to say the least. No wonder your side lost, like I said, to a reality TV star who refuses to denounce racism in Charlotte (and other places) and says obscene things on a daily basis while changing his mind on international decisions on a whim.
Yes, its a charity but you would be surprised how many NGOs and charities are business like entities involved in politics, power play and much nefarious work. A local example in my country is USAID, who are neck deep in political party influence. Giving money to people goes a long way to having them on your side.

On the matter of Trump receiving intel from the Russians, I am 100% with you that if the proper evidence comes out, an impeachment must happen even on the eve of the next election as dictated by law.But it is not going to happen and I kept telling people this from day 1 of his presidency. It is difficult to push for someone's impeachment on a matter that your side is guilty off in the past in will be in the future again. The republicans will remember the humiliation and retaliate when they find the chance, the democrats do not want this. Lastly on this, a foreign politician who has a position of power "rooting" for you may be legal but it is unethical and does provide influence to the local voter. Many Americans who may have considered Trump, being disillusioned with Hillary were frightened by the international backlash (caused as you said correctly by Trump himself) and did not go to vote. A country's election is its own business and this must be respected but I am just stating that it will never be.

Hillary checked foreign dignitaries for dirt as do all candidates in elections, but Trump not being in politics did not provide with enough material there and she stuck to his past statements on women/race and tax evading accusations, which was logical. This backfired though, as his voters though that his sexist remarks made him more average-bloke like and fun, rather than Hillary's by the numbers way of talking. Regarding his tax evading, it reflected again badly on the government who were Democrats at the time, it brought the question of what are you doing to stop this from happening.

To conclude, I am sure that Russians did throw gasoline in the fire of Democrat Vs. Republican but I would hardly put them on the top of the list of causes of division in the USA. Most can be traced in policies-local events-party fanaticism. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## bostjan

Take a minute and a half and google how the Clinton Foundation spends its money.

It's kind of a problem, rhetorically, to call out a specific organization, because a person associated with it by name is corrupt, especially if the greater point you are trying to make is that the person is corrupt because she is associated with that particular organization.

I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, just the evidence presented to support it.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## Drew

777timesgod said:


> Seriously, the Clinton foundation does not have anything to do with Hillary? Money going into it are spend without her consent or knowledge? She was even in the board for a long time. She personally knows all the people who run it and they have her best interests in mind which is not unreasonable of course.



As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation cannot spend money for the direct benefit of Hillary, Bill, their children, their business interests, any other board member, etc etc etc, and any indirect benefits have to be disclosed in a section about any potential conflicts of interest, to eliminate the possibility of secret self-dealing. So, yeah, the Saudis donating to the Clinton Foundation did not help Clinton's presidential campaign, because to do so would have broken nonprofit law. 

In other news, Bloomberg is reporting that Mueller's team prepared their _own_ summary of the Mueller report for public release, and are not happy that Barr chose to write his own, downplaying the strength of the evidence against Trump, and adding in a conclusion that he had not obstructed justice. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-for-handling-mueller-report?srnd=markets-vp

That's not a good look for Barr, or for Trump.


----------



## Thaeon

bostjan said:


> Take a minute and a half and google how the Clinton Foundation spends its money.
> 
> It's kind of a problem, rhetorically, to call out a specific organization, because a person associated with it by name is corrupt, especially if the greater point you are trying to make is that the person is corrupt because she is associated with that particular organization.
> 
> I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, just the evidence presented to support it.



Completely agree. If you're looking for corruption in the Clinton camp or even the Democratic Party, you don't have to look far. There's evidence everywhere. But the Clinton Foundation is one of the least efficient ways of backing up the argument that Hilary was corrupt, and really lacks evidence other than association with individuals that work in the foundation. They do publish how they spend their money publicly. I get the argument being made, that foreign powers giving money to the organization can be seen as political influence. HOWEVER, it is not against the law, and Clinton doesn't see any political power come directly from that organization. I see the foundation as more of a bargaining chip. Something the Clintons can use to influence things outside the US as much as it allows influence in.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I get the argument being made, that foreign powers giving money to the organization can be seen as political influence.


It's also the reason that Clinton was suggesting she'd likely wind down the Clinton Foundation if she won, shortly before the election, to eliminate that conflict of interest (whether or not she would have followed through on that is of course an unknown). It's also the reason why Trump is being sued for potentially violating the emoluments clause, as foreign national spending at the Trump Hotel and at Mir a Lago has soared since he's been in office, as it's widely believed foreign nations are directing spending to Trump's properties (where he is still a beneficial owner) to curry favor.


----------



## Thaeon

Yeah, I have a WAY bigger problem with foreign leaders being able to meet with Trump in a place privately owned by Trump. Especially, when those meetings are financially beneficial to him. I can't imagine why people aren't more up in arms about this.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, I have a WAY bigger problem with foreign leaders being able to meet with Trump in a place privately owned by Trump. Especially, when those meetings are financially beneficial to him. I can't imagine why people aren't more up in arms about this.


On one hand, it's so flagrant - Trump doubled club membership fees after he won, and hiked hotel rates at the Trump DC location pretty significantly after the inauguration.

On the other, there are so many OTHER scandals that it's tough to keep up, and this sort of plays into something his base likes about him - it may be rampant profiteering, but it just shows "he's a good businessman," even if it's flagrantly unconstitutional.

I fully admit the Trump Organization would have been tough to wind down, but just require Trump to IPO the whole thing and have he and his family members beneficial interest fund the shares sold, in return for the cash raised in the IPO. It's not like this is a unique problem, you know?


----------



## Drew

Also, I really don't want this to get lost under talk of the Trump Hotel, because this, IMO, is pretty huge:


Bloomberg said:


> The Justice Department defended its handling of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report after media reports that *Mueller’s team wrote summaries that they intended to be made public.*
> 
> Every page of Mueller’s confidential report was marked with a notice saying it may contain grand jury material that by law has to be kept secret, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.
> 
> "The department continues to work with the special counsel on appropriate redactions to the report so that it can be released to Congress and the public," Kupec said.
> 
> The Washington Post reported on Thursday that members of Mueller’s team prepared summaries for different sections of the report with a view that they could be made public, citing one U.S. official briefed on the matter.
> 
> *Members of Mueller’s team have complained to associates the evidence related to possible obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump "was alarming and significant," *according to the Post story, which cited people familiar with the matter.
> 
> *Some members of Mueller’s team also told associates that Attorney General William Barr failed to adequately portray their investigative findings,* the New York Times reported on Wednesday. *Some of the findings were more damaging for Trump than Barr has indicated, according to the report.*
> 
> Trump on Thursday attacked Democrats for continuing to investigate him.
> 
> “According to polling, few people seem to care about the Russian Collusion Hoax, but some Democrats are fighting hard to keep the Witch Hunt alive,” Trump tweeted. “They should focus on legislation or, even better, an investigation of how the ridiculous Collusion Delusion got started - so illegal!”



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-for-handling-mueller-report?srnd=markets-vp

That's potentially pretty damning - that as part of their report, the Mueller team had prepared summaries of key sections for public release, and presented pretty significant evidence of obstruction of justice. Barr then opted to write his _own_ summary downplaying the evidence, and further concluded on his own that Trump had not obstructed justice.

Kind of what I've been saying all along.


----------



## jaxadam




----------



## spudmunkey

Oh ,but make no mistake...people reading into barr's report that it was meant to be a summary are wrong. That's not what it was meant to be, and reporters calling it that are misunderstanding his intent. 

Which was...umm...I have no idea, actually.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Oh ,but make no mistake...people reading into barr's report that it was meant to be a summary are wrong. That's not what it was meant to be, and reporters calling it that are misunderstanding his intent.
> 
> Which was...umm...I have no idea, actually.


He had to release a second memo on Friday explicitly stating that he hadn't set out to summarize the entire report, but only pass along the reports principal conclusions (plus add in that he had determined Trump didn't obstruct justice). If even Barr felt the need to write a second note on the subject, then even he agrees his first memo was very unclear on that fact, no? 

I mean, at a minimum, _Trump_ seems to think the Barr memo is a full summary of everything worth knowing about the Mueller report.


----------



## spudmunkey

"It's not a summary...it's my view of the conclusions."


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> "It's not a summary...it's my view of the conclusions."



Barr: "Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation." 

Also Barr: "The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. . . . I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.”


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Barr: "Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation."
> 
> Also Barr: "The Special Counsel’s report is nearly 400 pages long (exclusive of tables and appendices) and sets forth the Special Counsel’s findings, his analysis, and the reasons for his conclusions. . . . I do not believe it would be in the public’s interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.”



What's unclear about this? 
>I want to tell the people the end result
>But for me to attempt to squish this entire 400 page report down to something publicly digestible would be doing everyone a disservice

Makes perfect sense to me. If you handed me a calculus problem and told me that this 9 year old needs the answer, I'm just going to tell them the answer. I'm not going to explain integrals and derivatives to them, it isn't relevant to what they need- they only need the end result, and to go deeper than that would be to waste everyone's time.


----------



## vilk

He said there was no obstruction even though the report says there was obstruction.

So following your analogy: He intentionally told the 9yo the wrong answer.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Gunna need a citation.
I read the source Drew linked and didn't see anything indicative of that anywhere.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> What's unclear about this?
> >I want to tell the people the end result
> >But for me to attempt to squish this entire 400 page report down to something publicly digestible would be doing everyone a disservice
> 
> Makes perfect sense to me. If you handed me a calculus problem and told me that this 9 year old needs the answer, I'm just going to tell them the answer. I'm not going to explain integrals and derivatives to them, it isn't relevant to what they need- they only need the end result, and to go deeper than that would be to waste everyone's time.


To be fair, I think given the second, it's possible to see the distinction Barr is trying to draw with the first - the first says he wants to "summarize the conclusions" while the second says he "doesn't want to try to summarize the full thing."

But, given the first in a vacuum, I also think it's pretty fair to say that most of us would look at that, and call his letter a "summary" of the report.

I also think that considering 1) Mueller's team provided its own summary of the report and each section of the report, in considerable more depth than Barr, which they indicated they believed could quickly be approved for release, and 2) Barr took the additional step of not just "summarizing the principle conclusions" of the report, but also adding a conclusion of his own that Mueller hadn't made (on obstruction of justice), Barr's motivations for ignoring the Mueller team's summary and instead writing his own are clearly open to questioning.

EDIT - to me, I think the most striking parts of this are the Mueller team, knowing how sensitive this topic was, provided not just the full classified report, but a summary they believed could be released without redaction to get as much information to the public as they could, as fast as they could - they thought ahead and planned for the controversy the release of the report would cause, and tried to address that. And, Barr STILL took it upon himself to release his own "not a summary, but summary of the principle conclusions." 

Also, WaPo raised a pretty good point in their coverage of this - the Mueller team was notoriously tight-lipped; they would refuse to comment on routine matters like where they had ordered lunch that day, there were no leaks during the investigation, and the only time they ever responded to anything was a short statement relating to a claim made about Cohen's testimony they wanted to refute. After running an incredibly tight ship for 22 months, the fact they're leaking anything to the media now likely speaks volumes about what they think about Barr's not-summary - they can't possibly be happy.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Gunna need a citation.
> I read the source Drew linked and didn't see anything indicative of that anywhere.


Vilk took it a little stronger than the letter stated, perhaps, but the Mueller report did not make a conclusion on obstruction ("After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards regarding prosecution and conviction but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction."). Instead, Barr came to the conclusion himself, and I'm not up to speed on the reasoning yet but evidently it's not at all clear he has the constitutional authority to do so, and likely overstepped his authority when he did.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> To be fair, I think given the second, it's possible to see the distinction Barr is trying to draw with the first - the first says he wants to "summarize the conclusions" while the second says he "doesn't want to try to summarize the full thing."
> 
> But, given the first in a vacuum, I also think it's pretty fair to say that most of us would look at that, and call his letter a "summary" of the report.



Absolutely. Totally uncontested.
It just seems odd that now that _we have_ the second, people seem confused?


> I also think that considering 1) Mueller's team provided its own summary of the report and each section of the report, in considerable more depth than Barr, *which they indicated they believed could quickly be approved for release*, and 2) Barr took the additional step of not just "summarizing the principle conclusions" of the report, but also adding a conclusion of his own that Mueller hadn't made (on obstruction of justice), Barr's motivations for ignoring the Mueller team's summary and instead writing his own are clearly open to questioning.



Citation??
This is from the article that you linked, the very, very first paragraph:


Bloomberg said:


> Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team produced summaries of core investigative findings but *didn’t* submit the documents to the Justice Department’s leadership in a way that could allow for their quick release to Congress and the public, according to people familiar with the matter.


--


Drew said:


> Instead, Barr came to the conclusion himself, and I'm not up to speed on the reasoning yet but evidently it's not at all clear he has the constitutional authority to do so, and likely overstepped his authority when he did.



Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what happened with Clinton? Didn't Comey defer to the DoJ on whether or not to press charges, because he didn't feel strongly enough to recommend them himself? If it was the same kind of thing- and it was fine then, why is it not fine now?
--

Anyway yeah, Barr's conclusion on obstruction is definitely open to questioning, I don't think there's many things that _aren't_ open to questioning. But this is all sounding familiar to me- more of the same, and it almost sounds like desperation at this point. I see your point about Mueller's team choosing now to speak, and I think that's probably the best case they have so far, but even that's still just hearsay and guesswork based off of an implication of an implication from an unnamed source.

Personally, I'm just going to............wait for the report.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what happened with Clinton? Didn't Comey defer to the DoJ on whether or not to press charges, because he didn't feel strongly enough to recommend them himself? If it was the same kind of thing- and it was fine then, why is it not fine now?



Not speaking for Drew but FWIW, DOJ and Barr individually claim there are a different set of rules for the top executive (can't have a single appointment that can subvert the will of the people by effecting an elected official), which was the root of his original objection to the concept that the President cannot obstruct justice and cannot be prosecuted while he's in that position. 

It's a double edged sword because the whole point is that it defers effecting a political position be done by the political branches (meaning Congress via impeachment), which means it's not the right of an appointed officer to do decide up or down.

That did not apply to Clinton as SOS and not president.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Absolutely. Totally uncontested.
> It just seems odd that now that _we have_ the second, people seem confused?
> 
> 
> Citation??
> This is from the article that you linked, the very, very first paragraph:
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this exactly what happened with Clinton? Didn't Comey defer to the DoJ on whether or not to press charges, because he didn't feel strongly enough to recommend them himself? If it was the same kind of thing- and it was fine then, why is it not fine now?
> --
> 
> Anyway yeah, Barr's conclusion on obstruction is definitely open to questioning, I don't think there's many things that _aren't_ open to questioning. But this is all sounding familiar to me- more of the same, and it almost sounds like desperation at this point. I see your point about Mueller's team choosing now to speak, and I think that's probably the best case they have so far, but even that's still just hearsay and guesswork based off of an implication of an implication from an unnamed source.
> 
> Personally, I'm just going to............wait for the report.



Looks like it's an evolving story because when I saw it earlier this morning there wasn't muchh detail. Reading the bloomberg story now,_ "News reports have raised questions about whether Barr could have easily released the summaries, rather than issue his own short, four-page description of Mueller’s principal conclusions on March 24.Two people familiar with the matter said the summaries in Mueller’s report had markings indicating that some parts had to be reviewed and withheld, potentially including information related to grand jury proceedings." _So, sections needed to be reviewed before release, but it's unclear to what extent.

Fair point, but still, I'd argue Barr had the choice between getting these reviewed and released, or writing his own not-summary of the "principal conclusions" without context, and I'd argue before we talk about the fact he concluded on his own obstruction of justice had not occurred (three months after, before being appointed AG, he wrote a memo saying the President COULDN'T obstruct justice), the less-controversial answer here would have been to get the Mueller summaries out in as complete form as possible.

I don't think, knowing summaries were prepared by the team separate and apart from the report (I'll concede that I was wrong that they were entirely ready for release, evolving stories, etc, but reporting still suggests the Mueller team is surprised these summaries were omitted when Barr released his findings), that Barr's memo stating the conclusions was justified... But, if he HAD do do so, then a memo noting first that there were summaries of the report that could be released once reviewed, and second merely reporting the lack of a recommendation one way or another on obstruction of justice would have been the better course of action.

Comey, if you recall, got into a lot of heat for bring critical of Clinton's actions, but then _not_ recommending she be charged.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Personally, I'm just going to............wait for the report.


In an ideal world, this is what we'd ALL be doing. However it's also abundantly clear that getting the full report, or anything close to it, released is going to be a battle. The Democrats have already had to supoena it to get it released to the intelligence committee (and they all have the requisite security clearances to receive it on a need to know basis), and Barr has indicated (ironically, citing Clinton as an example) he believes it appropriate to redact all evidence about individuals not indicted or accused in the report, which now includes Trump. If we want to wait to see the report, that's great... But it's going to be a political fight to get enough of the report to form any judgement about the degree to which Trump is being truthful when he tweets "full exoneration!"


----------



## Drew

By the way, I finally went back and read an argument I'd been meaning to for a while now on how Barr may have over-stepped his authority by clearing Trump of obstruction of justice, and it's actually extremely simple:

https://twitter.com/5280_Attorney/status/1110269861219827713

Basically, if Barr argues that Trump cannot be indicted because doing so would allow a prosecutor and jury to supplant the Constitutionally-protected power of Congress, to determine if a President should be impeached and removed from office, then by the same argument the Attorney general, as the nation's top prosecutor, cannot determine that the President should NOT be indicted, for the same reasons - doing so usurps a power that is Constitutionally provided to Congress. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's Barr's own memo they're citing here.

Furthermore, it's very likely that Mueller, who had indicated he would respect the DOJ interpretation that the president could not be indicted, _knew_ that, and by listening out the evidence for and against he had intended Congress, and not Barr, to take up this question. In other words, the reason Mueller didn't make a recommendation on obstruction of justice wasn't that he didn't believe the evidence warranted it (as Barr argued), but because the evidence probably _did_, but Mueller didn't believe the DOJ was constitutionally allowed to say Trump should be tried for a crime because only Congress, specifically the House, was allowed to do so.

That took me two paragraphs to lay out what's a pretty simple evidence, but the tl;dr version is if the DOJ can't _indict_ a president for crimes, they also by the same token can't say he's innocent, either.


----------



## Thaeon

Since the house generally takes this stuff on, aren't they then entitled to see the documents if requested? If Barr's argument is that he can't usurp the power of congress by indicting, isn't he usurping their power by not delivering or redacting the documents and evidence to congress so that they can proceed with their constitutionally appointed powers?


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Since the house generally takes this stuff on, aren't they then entitled to see the documents if requested? If Barr's argument is that he can't usurp the power of congress by indicting, isn't he usurping their power by not delivering or redacting the documents and evidence to congress so that they can proceed with their constitutionally appointed powers?


I mean, yes.

If you TRULY believe that the President can't be indicted by a prosecutor because the Constitution gives the power to prosecute and remove the President to Congress and therefore it would be unconstitutional to allow a prosecutor to usurp powers given to Congress... then it follows that if a special prosecutor is appointed to look into allegations that the President broke the law, then Congress needs to be provided with the result of that investigation to weigh whether impeachment is warranted.

By a strict interpretation of DOJ policy, as I understand it, Barr overstepped his constitutional authority by deciding no obstruction of justice had occured, and would do so again if he didn't make the full evidence for and against a charge of obstruction available to Congress to allow them to exercise their Constitutional obligation to determine if obstruction of justice had occured and if so whether to remove the President from office.

Note that I don't think it likely Trump will be removed for obstruction of justice... but if you _truly _believe the President can't be indicted by a special prosecutor, whether or not Trump obstructed justice needs to be determined by Congress, not Barr.

And, not for nothing, Mueller indicated he would abide by DOJ precedent in interpreting the law as saying the President couldn't be indicted.


----------



## Thaeon

Then to me, this sounds like a stall. Barr knows what he is doing and is doing what he can to drag out the congressional part of all of this. Probably to keep a finding by congress from happening until after the next election, probably in a bid to see if the changing of the guard falls the way of the GOP in the House, and to keep the findings of congress from contaminating public opinion during an election cycle.


----------



## Drew

It's certainly possible. It's also possible Barr is simply trying to reframe the question on whether or not Trump obstructed justice as "Trump didn't, and now the Democrats are trying to keep this witch hunt alive" rather than "there is evidence for and against Trump having obstructed justice that now needs to be referred to Congress," which the former is a much better optic for Trump than the latter. Finally, it's entirely possible - though this would worry me about just how good Barr's legal chops are - that it simply never occurred to him that he may not have the legal authority to determine Trump did not obstruct justice. The fact Rosenstein was evidently involved in this decision, as well, makes me wonder, too.

I'll say this - while having Barr immediately decide Trump's actions didn't constitute obstruction of justice removes Trump from an awkward political situation, it also kind of removes the Dems from a lesser one, as well. Assuming that the full report is fairly conclusive on the subject of collusion, a report that finds too little evidence of collusion to justify impeachment, but solid evidence of obstruction of justice, would force the Democrats to have to decide if they wanted to pursue impeachment for obstruction of justice alone. Every single impeachment case in our nation's history has listed obstruction of justice as one of the charges, so there's clear precedent for calling it a high crime and misdemeanor, but in the ~2 years we've been discussing this, I've consistently said I believe that obstruction alone would be a tough case to make stick, since it sounds like getting Trump on a technicality. If his approval numbers were in the low 20s, then sure, you could probably do it, but at 42%, the political blowback from the House impeaching Trump would likely be significant.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> [...]the less-controversial answer here would have been to get the Mueller summaries out in as complete form as possible.
> 
> I don't think, knowing summaries were prepared by the team separate and apart from the report, that Barr's memo stating the conclusions was justified... But, if he HAD do do so, then a memo noting first that there were summaries of the report that could be released once reviewed, and second merely reporting the lack of a recommendation one way or another on obstruction of justice would have been the better course of action.
> 
> Comey, if you recall, got into a lot of heat for bring critical of Clinton's actions, but then _not_ recommending she be charged.



I'm inclined to agree, but I can also easily imagine that the bureaucracy involved in something like that being unfavorable given how quickly the findings were expected to be published. I think Barr's _*memo *_is absolutely justified, since that seemed to be the fastest way to inform the American people of what the investigation's findings were. The jury is still out on whether or not his conclusion itself was, but until I can see the evidence and make a decision one way or the other, I like to think I can trust the AG. Totally with you on the 'heads up there's other stuff' memo though; that would have been cool.

I absolutely do recall Comey getting tossed into the frying pan; I was one of the ones that did so. I'll do the same for Mueller, don't worry. If the report comes out and there's some gristly stuff in there you bet your ass I'm going to be upset he didn't have the balls to push for charges.



> In an ideal world, this is what we'd ALL be doing. However it's also abundantly clear that getting the full report, or anything close to it, released is going to be a battle. The Democrats have already had to supoena it to get it released to the intelligence committee (and they all have the requisite security clearances to receive it on a need to know basis), and Barr has indicated (ironically, citing Clinton as an example) he believes it appropriate to redact all evidence about individuals not indicted or accused in the report, which now includes Trump. If we want to wait to see the report, that's great... But it's going to be a political fight to get enough of the report to form any judgement about the degree to which Trump is being truthful when he tweets "full exoneration!"



I'm not so sure about this, from what I've read, it wasn't so much that they "had to," they just wanted it and they wanted it right now. 
Not going to pretend I know the legalities around what should/shouldn't be redacted or whether or not he's supposed to do that before sending it over, but that whole display actually rubbed me the wrong way. He said "I'll have it out soon, before the 15th" and the response was a subpoena saying "No, give it to me right now"? Why was that necessary?

I also doubt that the report will be as heavily redacted as you're expecting, if they go that far, there really isn't much reason to release it at all. If they pull all of the teeth they have to know that they're going to have a very pissed off populace, and I can't imagine that most of the evidence is classified. Either way, time will tell. 



> Basically, *if Barr argues that Trump cannot be indicted* because doing so would allow a prosecutor and jury to supplant the Constitutionally-protected power of Congress, to determine if a President should be impeached and removed from office, then by the same argument the Attorney general, as the nation's top prosecutor, cannot determine that the President should NOT be indicted, for the same reasons - doing so usurps a power that is Constitutionally provided to Congress. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that's Barr's own memo they're citing here.
> 
> Furthermore, it's very likely that Mueller, who had indicated he would respect the DOJ interpretation that the president could not be indicted, _knew_ that, and by listening out the evidence for and against he had intended Congress, and not Barr, to take up this question. In other words, the reason Mueller didn't make a recommendation on obstruction of justice wasn't that he didn't believe the evidence warranted it (as Barr argued), but because the evidence probably _did_, but Mueller didn't believe the DOJ was constitutionally allowed to say Trump should be tried for a crime because only Congress, specifically the House, was allowed to do so.
> 
> That took me two paragraphs to lay out what's a pretty simple evidence, but the tl;dr version is if the DOJ can't _indict_ a president for crimes, they also by the same token can't say he's innocent, either.



Why are people talking like this was all Barr's idea? This has been DoJ policy since 1973. 
You'd have to start with impeachment proceedings to get to Trump, which an obstruction charge would qualify for. It does seem odd to me that this all fell on The DoJ, when it's really only Congress that can hold Trump accountable. Perhaps he was stating that there wasn't enough content to make a case for obstruction? Not a ruling as much as a heads up? It's definitely strange. I'll concede that this whole bit really doesn't make much sense in general. 



Thaeon said:


> Since the house generally takes this stuff on, aren't they then entitled to see the documents if requested? If Barr's argument is that he can't usurp the power of congress by indicting, isn't he usurping their power by not delivering or redacting the documents and evidence to congress so that they can proceed with their constitutionally appointed powers?



I mentioned it above, but he is delivering the report. It's just not quite as fast as they'd like. 
If they're entitled to view the whole report with no redactions (which I'm not entirely sure of, but I'm sure someone else here knows for certain), then yes- he is likely violating Congress' right to view the information and take appropriate action.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I'll say this - while having Barr immediately decide Trump's actions didn't constitute obstruction of justice removes Trump from an awkward political situation, it also kind of removes the Dems from a lesser one, as well. Assuming that the full report is fairly conclusive on the subject of collusion, a report that finds too little evidence of collusion to justify impeachment, but solid evidence of obstruction of justice, would force the Democrats to have to decide if they wanted to pursue impeachment for obstruction of justice alone. Every single impeachment case in our nation's history has listed obstruction of justice as one of the charges, so there's clear precedent for calling it a high crime and misdemeanor, but in the ~2 years we've been discussing this, I've consistently said I believe that obstruction alone would be a tough case to make stick, since it sounds like getting Trump on a technicality. If his approval numbers were in the low 20s, then sure, you could probably do it, but at 42%, the political blowback from the House impeaching Trump would likely be significant.



Hah, I took so long to type the first post up that there's already new stuff 
I agree, impeachment is looking like it's going to be pretty unlikely. I've been thinking this whole time that the point of the investigation was more to bust everyone that _wasn't _Trump, since unless they come up with something pretty bulletproof it's going to tough to get a supermajority together and push an impeachment through. 

I think they'd be able to get it done on obstruction alone if they had something really egregious, but I'm pretty confident that they don't. If they did, it was *mighty *bold of Barr to say that there was no case there.


----------



## MFB

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think they'd be able to get it done on obstruction alone if they had something really egregious, but I'm pretty confident that they don't. If they did, it was *mighty *bold of Barr to say that there was no case there.



I don't know, I mean, they got Clinton on something as simple as lying under oath about having sex in the oval office; something tells me in the current climate, it's every man for himself if it to a vote.


----------



## jaxadam

https://politics.theonion.com/white-house-says-mueller-report-must-be-kept-private-be-1833813865


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Drew said:


> As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation cannot spend money for the direct benefit of Hillary, Bill, their children, their business interests, any other board member, etc etc etc, and any indirect benefits have to be disclosed in a section about any potential conflicts of interest, to eliminate the possibility of secret self-dealing. So, yeah, the Saudis donating to the Clinton Foundation did not help Clinton's presidential campaign, because to do so would have broken nonprofit law.
> 
> In other news, Bloomberg is reporting that Mueller's team prepared their _own_ summary of the Mueller report for public release, and are not happy that Barr chose to write his own, downplaying the strength of the evidence against Trump, and adding in a conclusion that he had not obstructed justice.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-for-handling-mueller-report?srnd=markets-vp
> 
> That's not a good look for Barr, or for Trump.


In other words, Mueller is trying to keep this going. Lol


----------



## Explorer

Drew said:


> (T)his, IMO, is pretty huge:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-for-handling-mueller-report?srnd=markets-vp
> 
> That's potentially pretty damning - that as part of their report, the Mueller team had prepared summaries of key sections for public release, and presented pretty significant evidence of obstruction of justice. Barr then opted to write his _own_ summary downplaying the evidence, and further concluded on his own that Trump had not obstructed justice.



So, just hours after the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the Mueller report, members of Mueller’s team started leaking to multiple major news outlets that the report was far worse for Trump than Attorney General William Barr has claimed. The New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News are now all independently reporting that Mueller’s team is privately accusing William Barr of substantially misrepresenting what’s really in the Mueller report. Nadler is using this leverage to take things to a whole new level. 

He’s no longer interested in merely subpoenaing the Mueller report; *he’s demanding that all communications be turned over between Mueller and Barr*. 

While Nadler has addressed his letter to Barr, it's a sure bet that Mueller and his team have their own copies of these communications as well. If Barr refuses to turn over the communications, or tries to drag out a subpoena battle, Nadler can quickly work around this by simply subpoenaing Mueller’s copies of the communications. Since members of Mueller’s team were moved to leak about Barr’s claimed duplicity, they’re surely willing to quickly cooperate with Nadler by supporting that claim. 

Barr already started walking back his claims when the oversight committees started questioning Barr's claims of fact. A reasonable person might assume that Barr started thinking about whether his own actions might be an obstruction of justice....


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Yes, please don't subpoena our report! Just let us leak our version of the findings, and we'll hope that will be good enough. My question is why does Mueller want to form the narrative of what's in there in the hopes they give up trying to get the report.


----------



## Explorer

Only an idiot would try to prevent the release of evidence which clears him. Even Trump is proving through his actions that he knows the report is bad for him. Don't like that simple fact? Take it up with Trump.

----

And, in new news, Cohen has uncovered and is handing over a hard drive with all emails, voice recordings, images and attachments from all Cohen's computers and phones, over 14 million files.

cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/04/04.04.19.cover.letter._redacted%5B1%5D.pdf

Cohen already provided enough evidence (not just testimony, but corroborating documents) to trigger what are likely to be successful requests for Trump's financial documents. The new stuff will likely be just as bad for Trump.

And now, back to the denial and trolling, to attempt to derail the adults from engaging in actual discussion....


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I mentioned it above, but he is delivering the report. It's just not quite as fast as they'd like.
> If they're entitled to view the whole report with no redactions (which I'm not entirely sure of, but I'm sure someone else here knows for certain), then yes- he is likely violating Congress' right to view the information and take appropriate action.



What I guess I'm attempting to imply here is that redacting the report, classified information or not, reduces the ruling body's ability to do their job. They are elected officials who make the laws of our country. I find it to be an issue that there are things that other bodies may keep secret from congress. These other bodies have to abide by the rules set forth for their organizations by congress. Why is congress not entitled to full disclosure? I think the lack of transparency in our government is a serious issue. Not just with the public. But between parts of the government as well. How does congress effectively write law in regards to how the executive and judicial branches of government operate if they don't know all the details? ESPECIALLY in cases where Congress is supposed to exert its power constitutionally appointed it to check the power of another branch? Limiting access to the resources available to it is the definition of pulling its teeth. I don't think it's Barr or the DoJ's place to decide what is relevant to the case. They don't rule on it, so they don't get to decide what information is relevant. Doing so just makes them look like they're running political defense for the party being investigated in the first place. Whether they are or not. Especially in a case where the investigation is of the Chief executive who is in charge of the executive agency doing the investigation. Which in and of itself is the police policing the police. If this is a policy, its a bad one. If its a grey area, they need to legislate on it.


----------



## Thaeon

Spaced Out Ace said:


> In other words, Mueller is trying to keep this going. Lol



No. The investigation team wrote summaries of each part that did not include any classified information with the intent that those summaries be disclosed publicly. These summaries are IN the Mueller Document given to Barr in the first place. Barr's summary is his own conclusion, not the findings of the investigative team. Barr drew it out. I don't know if it was intentional or not. But I'm leaning towards it being intentional.



Explorer said:


> So, just hours after the House Judiciary Committee voted to subpoena the Mueller report, members of Mueller’s team started leaking to multiple major news outlets that the report was far worse for Trump than Attorney General William Barr has claimed. The New York Times, Washington Post, and NBC News are now all independently reporting that Mueller’s team is privately accusing William Barr of substantially misrepresenting what’s really in the Mueller report. Nadler is using this leverage to take things to a whole new level.
> 
> He’s no longer interested in merely subpoenaing the Mueller report; *he’s demanding that all communications be turned over between Mueller and Barr*.
> 
> While Nadler has addressed his letter to Barr, it's a sure bet that Mueller and his team have their own copies of these communications as well. If Barr refuses to turn over the communications, or tries to drag out a subpoena battle, Nadler can quickly work around this by simply subpoenaing Mueller’s copies of the communications. Since members of Mueller’s team were moved to leak about Barr’s claimed duplicity, they’re surely willing to quickly cooperate with Nadler by supporting that claim.
> 
> Barr already started walking back his claims when the oversight committees started questioning Barr's claims of fact. A reasonable person might assume that Barr started thinking about whether his own actions might be an obstruction of justice....



That's an interesting thought. Considering Trump hasn't been handing out any pardons, I think that Barr may be starting to hedge his bets a little. 



jaxadam said:


>



From the beginning, I didn't expect there to be any collusion charges. What I did expect was Mueller to root out and shine light on corruption. Which he did really well. If you think that Trump surrounded himself with a bunch of corrupt people not knowing the kind of people or the kind of corruption they were involved in, you're crazy. Which makes him of questionable ability to lead the country. Everyone around him is looking out for number one and number two. One of those is Trump and the other is the individual in question. You know which one was number one based on the testimony they gave and their pleas if they were charged. And there were plenty of charges to go around. Rationally, there are two ways to look at this. Trump is a completely selfish narcissistic imbecile, or he's a completely selfish, narcissistic mastermind. Either way, the only thing he cares about in all of this is how this situation can be spun to make his life better.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Explorer said:


> Only an idiot would try to prevent the release of evidence which clears him. Even Trump is proving through his actions that he knows the report is bad for him. Don't like that simple fact? Take it up with Trump.



Of course the report is bad for him.
Do you think we can have a team of incredibly competent and focused agents investigate every aspect of your life for 2 years and come up with a positive report that you'd want everyone in the country to read? Hell no lol. I want to see the report but I don't really blame him for not being excited at the prospect of the entire country rooting through his dirty laundry.

I mean sure, you should see that coming when you get into politics, but still. I don't think it's an entirely unrealistic position.



Thaeon said:


> What I guess I'm attempting to imply here is that redacting the report, classified information or not, reduces the ruling body's ability to do their job. They are elected officials who make the laws of our country. I find it to be an issue that there are things that other bodies may keep secret from congress. These other bodies have to abide by the rules set forth for their organizations by congress. Why is congress not entitled to full disclosure? I think the lack of transparency in our government is a serious issue. Not just with the public. But between parts of the government as well. How does congress effectively write law in regards to how the executive and judicial branches of government operate if they don't know all the details? *ESPECIALLY in cases where Congress is supposed to exert its power constitutionally appointed it to check the power of another branch? Limiting access to the resources available to it is the definition of pulling its teeth*. I don't think it's Barr or the DoJ's place to decide what is relevant to the case. *They don't rule on it, so they don't get to decide what information is relevant.* Doing so just makes them look like they're running political defense for the party being investigated in the first place. Whether they are or not. Especially in a case where the investigation is of the Chief executive who is in charge of the executive agency doing the investigation. Which in and of itself is the police policing the police. If this is a policy, its a bad one. If its a grey area, they need to legislate on it.



Yeah, I agree- and I'm pretty confused on it as well. I've been reading conflicting accounts on what Congress is(n't) allowed to see, and the idea that they aren't entitled the full un-redacted report seems strange to me. At the same time, it's dirt on a sitting president, so I'm not really sure if that complicates things or not...this really feels like a fringe situation. 
I recall during the Clinton shitstorm the house oversight committee was hellbent on getting their hands on a full, un-redacted report, and they had an absolute hell of a time. I remember at the time thinking "why in the world would they not be entitled to a clean report? They're the _house oversight committee_." This situation feels similar, and almost more dire- since Clinton was just a citizen, and only Congress can "indict" a sitting president, which is what we're dealing with here...
You're definitely making sense.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Of course the report is bad for him.
> Do you think we can have a team of incredibly competent and focused agents investigate every aspect of your life for 2 years and come up with a positive report that you'd want everyone in the country to read? Hell no lol. I want to see the report but I don't really blame him for not being excited at the prospect of the entire country rooting through his dirty laundry.
> 
> I mean sure, you should see that coming when you get into politics, but still. I don't think it's an entirely unrealistic position.



It's not like he was some unknown. He's been, by his own doing, in the public eye his entire adult life. 

He's been a regular in tabloid, gossip, and just generally trashy news for decades, like most C-list celebrities. His infidelity, draft dodging, business failures, and so forth are public knowledge. 

What could he possibly have to hide that's more embarrassing than what we've known about him for decades?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not like he was some unknown. He's been, by his own doing, in the public eye his entire adult life.
> 
> He's been a regular in tabloid, gossip, and just generally trashy news for decades, like most C-list celebrities. His infidelity, draft dodging, business failures, and so forth are public knowledge.
> 
> What could he possibly have to hide that's more embarrassing than what we've known about him for decades?



Mistakes, fuckups, and stuff he shouldn't have done that isn't _*that*_ big of a deal but definitely stuff that could potentially land folks in hot water. 
Trump's ego, as we all know, is both the size of the sun, and incredibly vulnerable. If there's stuff in there that makes him look objectively bad or stupid, he's not going to want people to read it. Has _he _even had the chance to read it yet?

I think the point of why the other stuff wouldn't have been as big of deal is because for one there was never anywhere near as much potential for consequences as he faces now, and also that those publications were....tabloids, gossip, and generally trashy news. Most people didn't care. But now just about *everybody *does, and while he is many things, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him that level of stupid.

All I'm saying is I get it. I think you guys do too, whether you want to admit it or not. I definitely wouldn't want a full report of all of the questionable things I've done released for the entire world to read, and I haven't even run for office


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Mistakes, fuckups, and stuff he shouldn't have done that isn't _*that*_ big of a deal but definitely stuff that could potentially land folks in hot water.
> Trump's ego, as we all know, is both the size of the sun, and incredibly vulnerable. If there's stuff in there that makes him look objectively bad or stupid, he's not going to want people to read it. Has _he _even had the chance to read it yet?
> 
> I think the point of why the other stuff wouldn't have been as big of deal is because for one there was never anywhere near as much potential for consequences as he faces now, and also that those publications were....tabloids, gossip, and generally trashy news. Most people didn't care. But now just about *everybody *does, and while he is many things, I don't know if I'd go so far as to call him that level of stupid.
> 
> All I'm saying is I get it. I think you guys do too, whether you want to admit it or not. I definitely wouldn't want a full report of all of the questionable things I've done released for the entire world to read, and I haven't even run for office



I never said I don't understand. 

I'm just saying, he's already put a lot of very questionable, shitty, and stupid things out there, typically by choice. 

It's just hard to imagine how bad it has to be for him to want to bury it that wouldn't either be: a) heinous enough for even his most ardent supporters to be put off or b) something genuinely illegal enough to be a problem. 

Do you really think it's completely benign, normal people stuff? I highly doubt it's just copies of his PornHub search history.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you really think it's completely benign, normal people stuff? I highly doubt it's just copies of his PornHub search history.



Noooo no no, of course not. That wasn't what I was implying at all.
Just that I think it's a fantastical notion for anyone to put forward that there was ever a possibility of the report actually being _positive_. My point was that the report was always going to be negative, because if you ran a similar report for just about any person on the planet, it'd likely come out negative. Not that it'd comparable to whatever you'd see from Joe Blow. Nobody escapes that level of scrutiny 

Imagine the field day people would have if his search history got leaked and he was into watersports though.
That'd be a fun news cycle.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Imagine the field day people would have if his search history got leaked and he was into watersports though.
> That'd be a fun news cycle.



I'm having trouble deciding which would make for better The Onion stories... "golden shower" porn, or incest porn.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Noooo no no, of course not. That wasn't what I was implying at all.
> Just that I think it's a fantastical notion for anyone to put forward that there was ever a possibility of the report actually being _positive_. My point was that the report was always going to be negative, because if you ran a similar report for just about any person on the planet, it'd likely come out negative. Not that it'd comparable to whatever you'd see from Joe Blow. Nobody escapes that level of scrutiny
> 
> Imagine the field day people would have if his search history got leaked and he was into watersports though.
> That'd be a fun news cycle.



If it exonerates him of any legal wrong doings, I'd chalk that up as a net positive, porn preferences not withstanding. 

It's only negative if it puts him in a worse spot than he currently is.



spudmunkey said:


> I'm having trouble deciding which would make for better The Onion stories... "golden shower" porn, or incest porn.



Both?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> If it exonerates him of any legal wrong doings, I'd chalk that up as a net positive, porn preferences not withstanding.
> 
> It's only negative if it puts him in a worse spot than he currently is.



To a reasonable person, yes.
I'm not sure he sees it that way though. He strikes me as a 'have my cake and eat it too' kind of guy. He probably wants people to just accept Barr's ruling and call it a day.
And the ego thing. I really think he doesn't want to give the press one more iota of ammunition.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think Barr's _*memo *_is absolutely justified, since that seemed to be the fastest way to inform the American people of what the investigation's findings were. The jury is still out on whether or not his conclusion itself was, but until I can see the evidence and make a decision one way or the other, I like to think I can trust the AG.


You know, I think that's actually a reasonable distinction you're making here - if there was going to be a long process to approve the report for release, then maybe SOME sort of summary was justified. I think it's pretty likely, based on what we already knew before the release of the report, that Barr downplayed some of the murkiness on collusion, however, and I think including his own decision to absolve Trump of obstruction of justice was NOT appropriate, though, since that was not part of Mueller's findings and doing so has created the illusion (certainly in Trump's eyes) that it was. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm not so sure about this, from what I've read, it wasn't so much that they "had to," they just wanted it and they wanted it right now.


First, a slight clarification, they've voted to approve a subpoena, but they haven't actually issued one. But, they're after the _unredacted_ report, for release to the House committee, while Barr is saying in another two weeks or so he'll be able to share a _redacted_ one with Congress. That's the distinction in why they're threatening to subpoena it. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Why are people talking like this was all Barr's idea? This has been DoJ policy since 1973.


Slight mistake on my part here as well. The president being above indictment has been DOJ protocol - untested, but respected by convention - for a long time now. Barr's addition was that the President also definitionally could not obstruct justice, which is NOT a traditional DOJ interpretation of the Constitution. 

But, yeah, the weird - and important - part here is if Barr believes the President cannot be indicted by a DOJ official because that responsibility is constitutionally given to Congress, then he very likely overstepped his authority when he cleared Trump of obstruction. The degree to which Rosenstein and Mueller were involved in that decision is my biggest question right now, and if it was largely Barr acting alone, that's a problem.


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> In other words, Mueller is trying to keep this going. Lol


Are you actually paying attention here, or are you just trolling? 

Mueller's job is done. He's not trying to "keep this going" for personal gain. He presented his conclusions, and it looks a lot like he expected Congress, and not Barr, to decide whether or not they were actionable. Either way, the investigation has concluded, he's done, and unless some new information comes out that leads the DOJ to reopen the investigation (see: Comey letter), Mueller has handed this off.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Imagine the field day people would have if his search history got leaked and he was into watersports though.
> That'd be a fun news cycle.



Dude is generally Milquetoast. Aside from the rumours of the stuff from the Steele Dossier. He eats well done Steak with ketchup. I can guarantee my pornhub searches are more ‘interesting’ than his are. Most likely very different, and definitely more interesting.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I highly doubt a guy who is germaphobic like Donald is purported to be wants any bodily fluids anywhere near him. I think germaphobia might be a Gemini thing. I am a germaphobic Gemini as well.


----------



## Ralyks

Thaeon said:


> He eats well done Steak with ketchup.



Which is a crime right there...


----------



## spudmunkey

Spaced Out Ace said:


> . I think germaphobia might be a Gemini thing. I am a germaphobic Gemini as well.



That's an odd conclusion to jump to. Do you have more than one data point? Howie Mandell and Mark Summers are two famously germaphobic people, and they are Sagittarius and Scorpio, respectively.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

spudmunkey said:


> That's an odd conclusion to jump to. Do you have more than one data point? Howie Mandell and Mark Summers are two famously germaphobic people, and they are Sagittarius and Scorpio, respectively.


I wonder what "think" and "might" mean, too. As for being a germaphobe, he's mentioned it quite a few times.


----------



## spudmunkey

"Think" and "might", to me, meant that it was something you gave serious consideration to. To be fair, I come from the perspective that astrological signs have no impact on how anyone or anything was, is, or will be.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## Flappydoodle

spudmunkey said:


> Honestly, I don't know enough about international politics to know who they think would end up being better for them, or worse for us (which is just as valid of an outcome for Russia).



I don't think Russia really cares who wins out of any generic republican or democrat.

What they actually want is to sow division, and they've been very effective.

They were taking out inflammatory ads on both sides - BLM and anti-gun stuff in Texas and anti-Trump stuff in NYC. They tried to organise events where opposing groups would be on opposite sides of streets etc. What Russia wants is for the US to be paralysed by political debate, distrust and in-fighting. 

If Trump could actually accomplish his agenda, much of it would be shit for Russia. If all NATO members spent 2% of GDP, NATO would be better funded by 40%. Putin wouldn't like that. If the US seriously upped oil and gas production, they would undercut Russia and wreck their economy even more. Putin wouldn't like that either. At the same time, Trump's disinterest in Syria is something Putin does like. And any Democrat is going to also going to have policies which are liked or disliked.

Point is, the current situation, with the MSM blasting Trump 24/7, votes all going straight along party lines (even in courts), and the president essentially paralysed by investigations, sabotage from his own party - THAT helps Putin more than just about anything. And the rise of more radical right and left ideologies also helps, by moving people away from common sense middle ground and ensuring that cooperation (and thus action) is even more difficult.

People on the ground in DC even say that the politicians actually hate each other now. They used to debate and then go out for drinks now. That's changed. And hell, people in MAGA hats are verbally and physically attacked, banned from some places. That's the level the US has sunk to now. Putin will be very happy with that.




777timesgod said:


> As far as impeaching Trump, the notion lost all value when it was brought up 3 seconds after he got elected by impatient democrats who were bitter of losing to a reality TV star. It is a complicated process and the Democrats are not pushing as hard for it, as they say to their supporters that they are. Such actions may cause a payback in the future and they do not want that, behind closed doors there is a much greater understanding between them and the Republicans. They attack each other on camera and hug during meetings.



I don't think there is any back room agreement. I think they genuinely hate each other at this point.



> The U.S.A. will definitely not humiliate themselves by admitting that other countries are involved in their election process (actually all countries are concerned with your election as it affects them and do their part to promote a candidate which suits them and it is not unreasonable) and getting rid of their elected leader a year before the next election may or may not eject him from office. Furthermore, the U.S.A. meddle in the election of most countries they are interested in, by sending funds to local parties or applying pressure to people of influence, so it is not big news in the grand scheme of politics.



Agree. The Russian interference seems to come down to:
-taking out facebook ads (which were still fairly small scale. Less than 7 figures, which is an ad budget for a small company, not a state-level cyber program)
-handing over emails to Wikileaks. Every country is hacking everything they can, so that's nothing unusual. But usually they keep it private. Russia released Podesta's emails to embarrass him and cause more drama during the election.

I just don't think election interference is a "winning issue" for either side here. As you say, admitting it would be a weakness. And it's virtually impossible to stop other people from taking out targeted ads.


----------



## StevenC

Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?


----------



## Ralyks

StevenC said:


> Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?


Same reason Vince McMahon still wants to hold WWE shows there despite everything going on: some people are just greedy fucks.


----------



## Explorer

Ah yes, the guy who had unprotectd sex with multiple sex workers while his wife was home with a newborn is opposed to contact with8 bodily fluids, except in cases where he sees a sexual element to the incident. 

Yeah, that doesn't rule it out.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Which is a crime right there...



I’m vegetarian... So.

I wasn’t always, and that’s not how you eat steak.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> Which is a crime right there...



There's at least one thing we can agree on- that's *definitely *grounds for impeachment. 
For real dude lock him up. 



StevenC said:


> Why are you guys selling nuclear tech to Saudi Arabia?



Fantastic question. 
YOLO I guess? What if we tell them how to build the bombs so that we can get the money to build the bombs so that we can build the bombs, bomb them, and take their oil? Then in order to further justify our presence there, we'll supply weapons to a local insurgency group so that we can say "no look, see? We need to stay here so we can fight them" but _you and me_ will know the whole time that we're just there for the oil. 

Can I run for office yet?


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> If Trump could actually accomplish his agenda, much of it would be shit for Russia. If all NATO members spent 2% of GDP, NATO would be better funded by 40%. Putin wouldn't like that. If the US seriously upped oil and gas production, they would undercut Russia and wreck their economy even more. Putin wouldn't like that either. At the same time, Trump's disinterest in Syria is something Putin does like. And any Democrat is going to also going to have policies which are liked or disliked.


The problem with that line of thought, though, is it ignores the other half of Trump's international policy. Does Trump want NATO members to spend more? He's said so repeatedly. But, he's said so repeatedly while threatening to pull out of NATO because he thinks its an outdated relic of the Cold War that the US spends far too much supporting. He's similarly critical of the UN and DID pull us out of the Human Rights Council, he's opposed to international free trade agreements, he's questioned the authority of the International Court of Justice, he's weakened US commitments to the IMF, and he's ceeded leadership on climate change to the EU and the Chinese. It'd be one thing if Trump seemed like he was legitimately trying to make the post-war international system stronger, but he's not - he's trying to weaken it, and weaken the US's commitment to the rest of the world as the acting global policeman. Whether or not that's something you personally like or dislike, a weaker international order with a power vacuum is absolutely something that works in the favor of an ex global superpower with its eye on becoming resurgent. 

So, yeah, the primary goal was to spread political discord in the United States and weaken the democratic institutions of this country... But there's a reason Putin actively sought to promote Trump, and not Clinton, in the election - an United States with Trump as president would create a LOT more opportunity for Russia than one with Clinton. 



Flappydoodle said:


> I don't think there is any back room agreement. I think they genuinely hate each other at this point.



It's not as far gone as that - there's SOME bipartisanship in Washington, but it's definitely at the lowest level in my lifetime. That's a process that began with Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, though, and if Putin sped that up, it wasn't by much. Russia's focus wasn't elected officials, though - they were fanning partisanship at the voter level.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Ah yes, the guy who had unprotectd sex with multiple sex workers while his wife was home with a newborn is opposed to contact with8 bodily fluids, except in cases where he sees a sexual element to the incident.
> 
> Yeah, that doesn't rule it out.


This is also the guy who wanted a porn star to spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of, before fucking her without a condom. If he's a germophobe, he's a VERY selective one.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> This is also the guy who wanted a porn star to spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of, before fucking her without a condom. If he's a germophobe, he's a VERY selective one.



In his defense, he used Toad from Mario Kart to do the deed.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> spank him with a magazine he was on the cover of



That's the worst part. I'd sooner unclog a toilet with my bare hands than touch that thing.


----------



## Drew

Depends. Does throwing it in a fire count?


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## Xaios

Thaeon said:


> He eats well done Steak with ketchup.


...

...




...

Yeah, time to nuke humanity out of existence and let the world start fresh. We as a species no longer deserve to be here.


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> He eats well done Steak



Hey hey hey...so does The Guy From Harlem, who's superpower is being the _hell_ from Harlem. He's not actually _in_ Harlem in the movie, but he is _from_ there. _Very_ "from" there.

(skip to 18:08 for relevant clip)
(Note: Film is rated "R", so parts are NSFW)


----------



## Drew

Kind of an interesting read for anyone following the shakeup at DHS:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/federal...er-trump-department-homeland-security-edition

tl;dr - Kirstjen Nielsen was fired by Trump over twitter on 4/7, naming Kevin McAleenan, current head of Customs and Border Protection, as the acting secretary. She tweeted her own resignation an hour later. Then, three and a half hours after that, she tweeted that she had agreed to stay on through the 10th to ensure a smooth transiton - after being "fired" by Trump, remember. Then on Monday the 8th, Trump also fired the Undersecretary of Management of Homeland Security, providing no reason. 

The reason, evidently, is that Trump didn't realize that under the law he _couldn't_ appoint an acting head, so long as anyone in the chain of succession met eligibility criteria and had been confirmed by the Senate, and Undersecretary of Management Claire Grady was Senate-confirmed and met the necessary eligibility criteria, so with Nielsen gone Grady would have automatically become the acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, since unlike the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Justice, Homeland Security actually had a clear chain of succession in its charter, something Trump was evidently unaware of when he decided to fire Nielsen and appoint McAleenan in her place. 

This is notable for two reasons - one, Trump essentially just decapitated DHS to install a loyalist at his head, during what's allegedly a "crisis" on our southern border, allegedly because Nielsen refused to break the law and continue the Administration's child separation policies and to close the border to asylum seekers presenting themselves at border checkpoints to claim asylum. If were indeed is a crisis, tossing senior leadership and bringing in outsiders unfamiliar with the department is kind of stupid. Second, it speaks pretty bluntly to how far Trump is prepared to go to circumvent the usual Congressional oversight roles, at a time when the Senate is actually fairly friendly to Trump nominees. That's a pretty concerning and flagrant attempt to get around the rule of law.


----------



## 777timesgod

bostjan said:


> Take a minute and a half and google how the Clinton Foundation spends its money.
> 
> It's kind of a problem, rhetorically, to call out a specific organization, because a person associated with it by name is corrupt, especially if the greater point you are trying to make is that the person is corrupt because she is associated with that particular organization.
> I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, just the evidence presented to support it.



I never claimed that what the Clinton foundation does is illegal, if you re-read my posts. I simply underline the ethical gap of presenting yourself as a defender of the gay community (for example) and taking money from people who implement laws against it in their own country. Kind of like a Jewish person having business dealings with a Nazi CEO of a company.

Many NGOs/Corporations/Political parties help people and communities, they may provide food-shelter-protection or use their influence to bring awareness for a cause. However, I am noting that their end game may not be philanthropical but political and ugly in its nature. Helping others to gain their trust before turning against them.
For example, the Taliban warlords in Pakistan, took advantage of the 2010 floods to offer food and assistance to the victims. Their purpose was to nurture an image of being the protectors of the common folks, taking advantage of the incompetence of the government due to the overwhelming disaster.

https://www.dw.com/en/pakistani-taliban-try-to-benefit-from-floods/a-5891119



Drew said:


> As a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation cannot spend money for the direct benefit of Hillary, Bill, their children, their business interests, any other board member, etc etc etc, and any indirect benefits have to be disclosed in a section about any potential conflicts of interest, to eliminate the possibility of secret self-dealing. So, yeah, the Saudis donating to the Clinton Foundation did not help Clinton's presidential campaign, because to do so would have broken nonprofit law.



Copy/paste my above answer. Once more, I never claimed that Hillary is so stupid, as to use the money of a foundation which has so much spotlight on it for her campaign. Such a gaffe would be more in line with Trump's clumsy way of handling things. 
If I wanted to underline her lack of intelligence, I could comment on how she used her e-mail account.



Thaeon said:


> Completely agree. If you're looking for corruption in the Clinton camp or even the Democratic Party, you don't have to look far. There's evidence everywhere. But the Clinton Foundation is one of the least efficient ways of backing up the argument that Hilary was corrupt, and really lacks evidence other than association with individuals that work in the foundation. They do publish how they spend their money publicly. I get the argument being made, that foreign powers giving money to the organization can be seen as political influence. HOWEVER, it is not against the law, and Clinton doesn't see any political power come directly from that organization. I see the foundation as more of a bargaining chip. Something the Clintons can use to influence things outside the US as much as it allows influence in.



Copy/Paste my first answer. BTW, you contradict yourself in just one post by saying that she "doesn't see any political power" and admitting that it is a "bargaining chip for political influence". 

Sorry to be mean to some people here (this includes the Trump supporters, not just the left) but most of you seem to be desperately trying to defend some of the most corrupt people on the face of the planet. I understand hating one candidate more than the other and feeling that your country would be better off with someone else, but they do not need your help to survive, nor were you appointed their lawyer, they have the money and the influence to carry on with their careers just fine.  

BTW, thank you to the poster who called me a Cynic, I am too tired to scroll back and find him/her, it is one of the best compliments I receive. I am a follower of the Cynic Philosophical school, not of the militant ones like Diogenes who was half crazy but more to the side of Zenon of Kition who lived in my country in ancient times.




There is a huge difference between seeing the ugliness of the world as it is and fighting against it for virtue (the Cynic's approach) and being passive because of helplessness because you deem that corruption is overwhelming. There is nothing wrong with being realistic and formulating a plan to deal with the wrongs of the planet. It is certainly better than wearing pink-tinted glasses and making excuses for some of the most corrupt people around, because they are the "lesser of two evils"...



MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you really think it's completely benign, normal people stuff? I highly doubt it's just copies of his PornHub search history.



Threesome with Stormy Daniels and Ivanka Trump? The skin crawls!


----------



## narad

777timesgod said:


> There is a huge difference between seeing the ugliness of the world as it is and fighting against it for virtue (the Cynic's approach) and being passive because of helplessness because you deem that corruption is overwhelming.



Ah, the dualism of traditional philosophy.


----------



## Thaeon

777timesgod said:


> Copy/Paste my first answer. BTW, you contradict yourself in just one post by saying that she "doesn't see any political power" and admitting that it is a "bargaining chip for political influence".
> 
> Sorry to be mean to some people here (this includes the Trump supporters, not just the left) but most of you seem to be desperately trying to defend some of the most corrupt people on the face of the planet. I understand hating one candidate more than the other and feeling that your country would be better off with someone else, but they do not need your help to survive, nor were you appointed their lawyer, they have the money and the influence to carry on with their careers just fine.
> !



I chose to participate in a political discussion. To the promptly get offended at someone's opinion when I'm passing mine around like candy isn't rational. I don't expect us all to think the same shit. I'm here FOR the different opinions. That said, my response was meant to speak in terms of possibility. Not a belief. I didn't support Clinton in the last election, up until who I did support was no longer an option. I voted from the perspective of, "she's not that guy." When you have two candidates that you detest, that's generally what it comes down to. I absolutely think Hilary is corrupt. I just don't believe she did anything illegal. I also don't think that the Clintons need money for favors. I think that their political careers have afforded them a level of power beyond that. I think it would make a lot more sense for them to just trade social influence at this point. One talk at a university covered by the press is all it would take for them to alter public perception enough to start change happening on a lot of things. But unless I'm mistaken, that is exactly the process of politics. Influencing opinion and asking others to join their voices with your's. For people like that, literally everything they do has a political impact because we as Americans are so obsessed with the Us vs Them political war we have going on. Also, people can, and often do hold contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. Think about it in the terms of the Card Paradox. No logic exists where any possibility can be fully explained, you are left in a situation where there are no certainties and only possibilities. I'd argue that this is the state most of us make most of our decisions about perception and worldview. TL ; DR, I don't mind contradictions and don't find them to necessarily be irrational. Difficult to become comfortable with sometimes, but ultimately unavoidable.


----------



## Drew

777timesgod said:


> I never claimed that what the Clinton foundation does is illegal, if you re-read my posts. I simply underline the ethical gap of presenting yourself as a defender of the gay community (for example) and taking money from people who implement laws against it in their own country. Kind of like a Jewish person having business dealings with a Nazi CEO of a company.
> ...
> Copy/paste my above answer. Once more, I never claimed that Hillary is so stupid, as to use the money of a foundation which has so much spotlight on it for her campaign. Such a gaffe would be more in line with Trump's clumsy way of handling things.


I'm sorry, but I gotta call foul here. You may have quickly backtracked to matters of policy, but you started here:


777timesgod said:


> This whole Trump and Russia issue is very funny. All politicians have allies abroad in friendly or hostile nations to their own. Hillary received funds from Saudi Arabia and several politicians (prime ministers of England and Greece come to mind) openly rooted for her during the election process. Isn't this meddling in the election of another country? Of course it is and Russia is happy to be in the epicentre of such a ruckus.


Claiming that Hillary getting money from Saudi Arabia was equivalent to Trump getting help from Russia. As we've been explaining ever since, that's not actually the case, since the Clinton Foundation, which cannot donate to Clinton or help her campain, received donatiopns from Saudi Arabia to help the Foundation's charitable work.

If you want to argue that it's hypocritical to take donations from the Saudis while pushing policy goals that are at odds to some of the Saudi government's own policies, that's fine, and frankly that's a worthwile subject to discuss. But it clearly has fuck-all to do with claiming that pointing to the Russian government's attempts to bolster Trump's chances and sow political discord is hypocritical, because the Saudis donated to the Clinton Foundation. You don't even need to put that in context, you verbatim said that this is proof they were "openly rooting for her during the election process," and "is the same as meddling in the election of another country." And that's not the same.

So, yeah. You kinda DID claim that Clinton had done the same thing Trump was accused of, pretty explicitly. If somehow that wasn't the case, then potential hypocricy on the part of the Saud family has zero to do with this conversation, so why even mention it?


----------



## StevenC

Edit: wrong thread


----------



## 777timesgod

narad said:


> Ah, the dualism of traditional philosophy.



Different people interpret the same philosophy differently. As a result one philosophy may have many branches/schools/students which may be at odds with one another.
Nothing traditional about that, we even see it in this forum when people of the same side argue over the implementation of a policy or their way of doing things musically or in other aspects.



Thaeon said:


> I chose to participate in a political discussion. To the promptly get offended at someone's opinion when I'm passing mine around like candy isn't rational. I don't expect us all to think the same shit. I'm here FOR the different opinions. That said, my response was meant to speak in terms of possibility. Not a belief. I didn't support Clinton in the last election, up until who I did support was no longer an option. I voted from the perspective of, "she's not that guy." When you have two candidates that you detest, that's generally what it comes down to. I absolutely think Hilary is corrupt. I just don't believe she did anything illegal. I also don't think that the Clintons need money for favors. I think that their political careers have afforded them a level of power beyond that. I think it would make a lot more sense for them to just trade social influence at this point. One talk at a university covered by the press is all it would take for them to alter public perception enough to start change happening on a lot of things. But unless I'm mistaken, that is exactly the process of politics. Influencing opinion and asking others to join their voices with your's. For people like that, literally everything they do has a political impact because we as Americans are so obsessed with the Us vs Them political war we have going on. Also, people can, and often do hold contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time. Think about it in the terms of the Card Paradox. No logic exists where any possibility can be fully explained, you are left in a situation where there are no certainties and only possibilities. I'd argue that this is the state most of us make most of our decisions about perception and worldview. TL ; DR, I don't mind contradictions and don't find them to necessarily be irrational. Difficult to become comfortable with sometimes, but ultimately unavoidable.



So you think that Hillary is corrupt but you do not think that she did anything illegal? How can you be corrupt while being a state official for so long and not do anything illegal? Maybe I am not understanding your post.

The notion of voting for the candidate that you hate the least is very dangerous. It is what has lead our societies, which are 100 more informed on the unethicality of politicians/governments, than our grandparents, and more vocal on this online to still be partisan (at least the people who bother to go to vote, the European elections of this May will see more than half the people in my country not showing up to vote as protest for the EU). 
What I am trying to say with my posts is that we can do better, we can find someone else than Trump or Hillary and if we keep playing the game of left Vs. right we are still trapped in their little glass cup.



Drew said:


> I'm sorry, but I gotta call foul here. You may have quickly backtracked to matters of policy, but you started here:
> 
> Claiming that Hillary getting money from Saudi Arabia was equivalent to Trump getting help from Russia. As we've been explaining ever since, that's not actually the case, since the Clinton Foundation, which cannot donate to Clinton or help her campain, received donatiopns from Saudi Arabia to help the Foundation's charitable work.
> 
> If you want to argue that it's hypocritical to take donations from the Saudis while pushing policy goals that are at odds to some of the Saudi government's own policies, that's fine, and frankly that's a worthwile subject to discuss. But it clearly has fuck-all to do with claiming that pointing to the Russian government's attempts to bolster Trump's chances and sow political discord is hypocritical, because the Saudis donated to the Clinton Foundation. You don't even need to put that in context, you verbatim said that this is proof they were "openly rooting for her during the election process," and "is the same as meddling in the election of another country." And that's not the same.
> 
> So, yeah. You kinda DID claim that Clinton had done the same thing Trump was accused of, pretty explicitly. If somehow that wasn't the case, then potential hypocricy on the part of the Saud family has zero to do with this conversation, so why even mention it?



I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there. I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common. This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course.

Do you think that the Saudi government has any love for the U.S.A.? They serve their agenda in the crudest way possible and have no ethical advantage over the Russians/Americans/*insert superpower country's name* when it comes to ruining peoples lives, as the recent abhorring massacre at Yemen reflects. 

Everything is connected and every country pushes their interests in the USA election game, we need to make a stand against all of these people and not just the ones we despise the most. I am afraid thought that 2020 will be the same story over again but maybe its none of my business and I should let the American members here tear each other apart.


----------



## BlackSG91

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/23/why-is-trump-fixated-on-women-who-remind-him-of-his-daughter/








;>)/


----------



## Thaeon

777timesgod said:


> So you think that Hillary is corrupt but you do not think that she did anything illegal? How can you be corrupt while being a state official for so long and not do anything illegal? Maybe I am not understanding your post.
> 
> The notion of voting for the candidate that you hate the least is very dangerous. It is what has lead our societies, which are 100 more informed on the unethicality of politicians/governments, than our grandparents, and more vocal on this online to still be partisan (at least the people who bother to go to vote, the European elections of this May will see more than half the people in my country not showing up to vote as protest for the EU).
> What I am trying to say with my posts is that we can do better, we can find someone else than Trump or Hillary and if we keep playing the game of left Vs. right we are still trapped in their little glass cup.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there. I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common. This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course..



I am not aware of her doing anything illegal. Stupid yes. Against policy. Yes. But not necessarily illegal. I tend to separate ethical concerns from legal ones. They don't always line up. Right now the question about Trump is whether or not he broke the law. That needs to be addressed first as there are consequences to that. Then we can address the ethical implications of the situation, which are quite different. This is going to be overlap. But the law doesn't always precisely address ethics. Especially since ethics can vary from person to person. For instance, some believe that involuntary taxation is unethical, however it is very legal and in fact mandatory in most nations. Some find that grey hat hackers are unethical even though most are focused on improving the security of our technology, and/or, whistleblowing. Is it ethical to do something in a legal grey area in order to expose unethical or even illegal practices that are very black and white? I'm not suggesting that Clinton is doing this. I'm just making a point. Corruption just means of questionable ethics. We have to decide if the ends justified the means as a culture. In Clinton's case the majority of people don't think its a big enough deal to look at. In Trump's case, with Russia being involved with Trump's business interests, as well as putting direct social pressure on American culture in Trump's support, there is a difference. Clinton doesn't make a financial profit from her foundation. Trump is getting richer because of his presidency. He's openly leveraging his presidency to make profit in his businesses. Which we have actual laws against. Its a conflict of interests. He literally won't make/approve policy that is going to hinder the profits of his businesses, unless it profits his businesses in another way. His refusal to divest in said companies and keeping his children in charge who also hold office is a huge problem. You know that when you get a security clearance, it isn't as much about what you've done, it's about whether or not someone can find something in your past or present situations that they can use to leverage information from you with. Do you have crazy debt that's out of control? Did you do something you could have been prosecuted for? Or something they could use to split up your family? How controllable are you based on said thing? Well, apply that logic to Trump and ask yourself how easily you could manipulate him? Russian business interests is a HUGE no no. Profiteering on visiting foreign dignitaries is also a huge no no. Based on how he has spoken in the past, and how he speaks currently, Trump appears to only have loyalty to himself and to whoever is going to make him the most profit. So yes, I may dislike Clinton, but I actually FEAR Trump's affect on the country.


----------



## Drew

777timesgod said:


> I do not imply that the unethicality of Clinton's relations with foreign dictators is the exact same thing (from a legal perspective - individuals may fell differently about it) as asking the Russians for dirt on your opposing candidate but I make it very clear that Hillary would have loved to do the same to Trump but him not being a seasoned politican left her with no opening there.* I am stating the irony of the left accusing the right of a practise they share in common.* This is commonplace worldwide and not the U.S.A. of course.


You are literally doing it again in this post.


----------



## BlackSG91

;>)/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://www.advocate.com/transgende...ally-moves-bar-over-13700-transgender-members

Almost 14,000 service members are affected. 

Tell me again how much the GOP supports our troops.


----------



## Demiurge

The willingness to lay down one's life for their country should never be taken for granted. It must take a lot of character to have that willingness even though the government seeks to discriminate against you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Demiurge said:


> The willingness to lay down one's life for their country should never be taken for granted. It must take a lot of character to have that willingness even though the government seeks to discriminate against you.



It's worse than being taken for granted, the GOP and their enablers are actively destroying the lives and careers of active duty military personnel. 

And for what? To save the cost of a couple [outdated and unneeded] tanks? To help politicians get elected? 

But sure, some dude taking a knee is disrespectful. 

The GOP should be reminded of this at every turn.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's worse than being taken for granted, the GOP and their enablers are actively destroying the lives and careers of active duty military personnel.
> 
> And for what? To save the cost of a couple [outdated and unneeded] tanks? To help politicians get elected?
> 
> But sure, some dude taking a knee is disrespectful.
> 
> The GOP should be reminded of this at every turn.



As someone that served, the actions of the administration disgust me. If you're both willing and able, there must be room for you in the ranks. I was an infantryman, and right as I was getting out, women were starting to be allowed to join combat arms. If you can meet the standards, there should be no question whether or not you're allowed to do it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The stories of folks who have served for years, career service members, who are looking at the prospect of being removed or dead-ended are absolutely heartbreaking. 

Grab a bottle of bourbon and read some if you feel like being really sad and then really angry for the evening.


----------



## MetalHex

An average of 40% +/- teen males who are "non-binary" have attempted suicide. Thats just males.
https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933817318357
https://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

On average, between 10-30% of war veterans suffer from PTSD
http://veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nearly-30-of-vets-treated-by-va-have-ptsd
https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html

Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans serving between 2001-2007
317,000 deployed = 21% death by suicide
960,000 non deployed = 20% death by suicide
this number was calculated through and up to 2009 post-war service
https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/suicide-risk-death-risk-recent-veterans.asp
Its hard to find a concrete number of suicide rate among veterans since the number grows every year. So lets just say a generous 20%

So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!

I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.

But here are 5 more legitimate reasons
https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07...odations-arent-compatible-military-realities/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

"legitimate"



It's pretty sad that "because we're so awful to LGBT people, and all soldiers regardless of such" is being used as an excuse here. Shame.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has *effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!*
> 
> I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.



Not how math works, dude.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> An average of 40% +/- teen males who are "non-binary" have attempted suicide. Thats just males.
> https://www.hrc.org/blog/new-study-reveals-shocking-rates-of-attempted-suicide-among-trans-adolescen
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933817318357
> https://www.livescience.com/11208-high-suicide-risk-prejudice-plague-transgender-people.html
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/
> 
> On average, between 10-30% of war veterans suffer from PTSD
> http://veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/nearly-30-of-vets-treated-by-va-have-ptsd
> https://medlineplus.gov/magazine/issues/winter09/articles/winter09pg10-14.html
> 
> Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans serving between 2001-2007
> 317,000 deployed = 21% death by suicide
> 960,000 non deployed = 20% death by suicide
> this number was calculated through and up to 2009 post-war service
> https://www.publichealth.va.gov/epidemiology/studies/suicide-risk-death-risk-recent-veterans.asp
> Its hard to find a concrete number of suicide rate among veterans since the number grows every year. So lets just say a generous 20%
> 
> So a biological male, who became transgender/non-binary person, who joins the military and comes out alive as a veteran, who developes PTSD later in their life has effectively (40+20+20=80) an 80 percent chance of commiting suicide with all aforementioned reasons combined!
> 
> I would say that alone is a good reason on its own to not let them join the military.
> 
> But here are 5 more legitimate reasons
> https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07...odations-arent-compatible-military-realities/


This makes your president sound intelligent


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> Not how math works, dude.



No, see, but those $100 shoes on the 50% off rack should be free with my "additional 50% off" coupon. What do you mean they are $25?


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> This makes your president sound intelligent


Please define "your".

I'm assuming "your president" = Metalhex's president. And by "president" you're referring to Donald Trump. Well technically, you could view it that way since the United States is a company and he is the President of said company. Although I dont work directly for the United States's Federal Government, I do work within the United States district, and my tax dollars do go to said Federal Government...

But how could you know that? That he is my President? (If that is what you mean..)

And since he is (using your logic) my president, then does that mean that he is not your (StevenC's) President? And if not, who is your (Steven C's) President?

On the other hand, you could mean that he is "my" president in the sense that he represents everything that I stand for. You would be wrong to assume that. You would also be wrong to assume that I voted for him.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> This makes your president sound intelligent



I don't even want to point out that the rates quoted aren't "% that the person will kill themselves", they are % suicide out of all other causes of death (i.e., out of people dead today). If you served in Afghanistan or Iraq you are still pretty young and most likely alive today, making that number terribly misleading. With this many errors in reading and setting up probabilities, at this point you might as well just make up the numbers completely. 

I mean, I really wish we could somehow test these things before allowing people to vote. Why give weight to one's opinion if they cannot understand the information presented to them?


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> I don't even want to point out that the rates quoted aren't "% that the person will kill themselves", they are % suicide out of all other causes of death (i.e., out of people dead today). If you served in Afghanistan or Iraq you are still pretty young and most likely alive today, making that number terribly misleading. With this many errors in reading and setting up probabilities, at this point you might as well just make up the numbers completely.
> 
> I mean, I really wish we could somehow test these things before allowing people to vote. Why give weight to one's opinion if they cannot understand the information presented to them?


Ah, so you missed the part that explained what percentage of those deaths were suicides in the past years. That explains your misunderstanding. And although it doesnt give a direct percentage for future suicide projections, the numbers do show that the suicide percentage will in fact rise, as has been rising every year. So it makes sense that with PTSD added with mental disorders like gender confusion, (since there is a higher suicide rate for those people) will only add to the increase in overall suicide rates, due directly to metal disorders, which is a good reason to not let those people join the military, but you must have glazed over the last link entirely, as those 5 reasons are the "official" reasons, which is seperate from my assumption.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Ah, so you missed the part that explained what percentage of those deaths were suicides in the past years. That explains your misunderstanding. And although it doesnt give a direct percentage for future suicide projections, the numbers do show that the suicide percentage will in fact rise, as has been rising every year. So it makes sense that with PTSD added with mental disorders like gender confusion, (since there is a higher suicide rate for those people) will only add to the increase in overall suicide rates, due directly to metal disorders, which is a good reason to not let those people join the military, but you must have glazed over the last link entirely, as those 5 reasons are the "official" reasons, which is seperate from my assumption.


So do transgender people kill themselves because of their "mental disorder" or because of discrimination?


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Ah, so you missed the part that explained what percentage of those deaths were suicides in the past years. That explains your misunderstanding.



Well I understood about 80% of the two things, so by your logic I have in total a 160% understanding of these issues. Now, for my next magic trick...


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> So do transgender people kill themselves because of their "mental disorder" or because of discrimination?


Black people get discriminated against alot (according to democrats anyway) and their suicide rate is lower (much lower I believe). Discrimination is a poor excuse.


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> Well I understood about 80% of the two things, so by your logic I have in total a 160% understanding of these issues. Now, for my next magic trick...


Ok i see where my logic was wrong now. That doesnt change the fact that their suicide rates are higher, with or without the military


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Ok i see where my logic was wrong now. That doesnt change the fact that their suicide rates are higher, with or without the military



That's true, but why do you bring it up? Do you think people with high(er) rates of suicide shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military? By that reasoning...



MetalHex said:


> Black people get discriminated against alot (according to democrats anyway) and their suicide rate is lower (much lower I believe).



It's true. Blacks have a much lower risk of suicide compared to transgender (not that these are mutually exclusive). But white men have a much higher rate of suicide than blacks, also. Should we prohibit white men from serving in the military? If risk of suicide is your yardstick, it just makes sense to exclude these people.

Or maybe we could look at things on a per-person basis and not group tens of millions of people as "a thing".


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> That's true, but why do you bring it up? Do you think people with high(er) rates of suicide shouldn't be allowed to serve in the military? By that reasoning...
> 
> 
> 
> It's true. Blacks have a much lower risk of suicide compared to transgender (not that these are mutually exclusive). But white men have a much higher rate of suicide than blacks, also. Should we prohibit white men from serving in the military? If risk of suicide is your yardstick, it just makes sense to exclude these people.
> 
> Or maybe we could look at things on a per-person basis and not group tens of millions of people as "a thing".



But white males in the military have a high suicide rate because of something that develops into a mental disorder. Transgender people are already coming in with a known mental disorder. Slightly different.

Ok I'll meet you halfway if we should hypothetically take it by a person by person case. For everyone that tells the doctor "yes I am depressed", we should treat that the same as someone who tells the doctor "yes I am transgender"; and raise a red flag..


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> But white males in the military have a high suicide rate because of something that develops into a mental disorder. Transgender people are already coming in with a known mental disorder. Slightly different.
> 
> Ok I'll meet you halfway if we should hypothetically take it by a person by person case. For everyone that tells the doctor "yes I am depressed", we should treat that the same as someone who tells the doctor "yes I am transgender"; and raise a red flag..



No, white males in general have a much higher suicide rate than black males.







I feel that we should not allow a group as mentally unstable as white men to serve in the military.


----------



## possumkiller

I spent three years in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. I committed suicide in 2010 and I'll do it again if I have to.


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> which is a good reason to not let _those people _join the military,




Were you under the assumption the military has actual psychological pre-screening?
The military hasn't exactly had a long history of inclusion...
"The USMC opened its doors to blacks in June 1942, with the acceptance of African Americans as recruits in segregated all-black units. Other races were accepted somewhat more easily, joining white Marine units. For the next few decades, the incorporation of black troops was not widely accepted within the Corps, nor was desegregation smoothly or quickly achieved. [T]he integration of non-white USMC personnel proceeded in stages from segregated battalions in 1942, to unified training in 1949, and finally full integration in 1960."



possumkiller said:


> I spent three years in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. I committed suicide in 2010 and I'll do it again if I have to.



"A 2009 U.S. Army report indicates military veterans have double the suicide rate of non-veterans, and more active-duty soldiers have died from suicide than in combat in the Iraq War (2003–2011) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present)."

I have a dark sense of humour myself, and I want to find your joke funny, but man you went awfully dark with that one...


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> The problem with that line of thought, though, is it ignores the other half of Trump's international policy. Does Trump want NATO members to spend more? He's said so repeatedly. But, he's said so repeatedly while threatening to pull out of NATO because he thinks its an outdated relic of the Cold War that the US spends far too much supporting. He's similarly critical of the UN and DID pull us out of the Human Rights Council, he's opposed to international free trade agreements, he's questioned the authority of the International Court of Justice, he's weakened US commitments to the IMF, and he's ceeded leadership on climate change to the EU and the Chinese. It'd be one thing if Trump seemed like he was legitimately trying to make the post-war international system stronger, but he's not - he's trying to weaken it, and weaken the US's commitment to the rest of the world as the acting global policeman. Whether or not that's something you personally like or dislike, a weaker international order with a power vacuum is absolutely something that works in the favor of an ex global superpower with its eye on becoming resurgent.
> 
> So, yeah, the primary goal was to spread political discord in the United States and weaken the democratic institutions of this country... But there's a reason Putin actively sought to promote Trump, and not Clinton, in the election - an United States with Trump as president would create a LOT more opportunity for Russia than one with Clinton.



With Trump, I think we should have all learned by now that what Trump SAYS and DOES are different.

He has definitely criticised NATO, but he has also said "I love NATO" and "I think NATO is great" multiple times. He says a bunch of stuff depending on where he is, so I don't think it's very clear what his real opinion is - or whether it matters. Because when it comes to action, he hasn't really done anything of substance, especially in relation to NATO. He postponed exercises with S Korea (but they aren't in NATO). The Human Rights Council is a joke, and the US still sits on the permanent Security Council, which is the only part of the UN which actually matters.

At the end of the day, who cares whether he's trying to do this or that - if other countries actually spent 2% GDP on defence, NATO would be MASSIVELY better funded, far more powerful, a stronger deterrent against Russia, and that would be the single most significant change in world power balance that could feasibly happen.





> It's not as far gone as that - there's SOME bipartisanship in Washington, but it's definitely at the lowest level in my lifetime. That's a process that began with Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, though, and if Putin sped that up, it wasn't by much. Russia's focus wasn't elected officials, though - they were fanning partisanship at the voter level.



Agree. But so many decisions now are simply split along party lines - whether in congress, the senate, and even court decisions. Not just bills, but cabinet appointments, judicial appointments etc. Maybe some of it is personal, but another part of it is that no Democrat wants to "support" Trump in any way by approving his cabinet/judge picks. Hardcore activist voters will crucify them for any single action which isn't "resist". So there's very little incentive for bipartisanship until middle ground people start to become vocal.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/na...r-comments-says-he-has-no-moral-authority.amp

I am awful sick of these personal attacks on Omar. I've lost track of how many times a quote of hers was altered and misrepresented. The president attacks her publicly for her religion. I guess we can forget about freedom of religion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/na...r-comments-says-he-has-no-moral-authority.amp
> 
> I am awful sick of these personal attacks on Omar. I've lost track of how many times a quote of hers was altered and misrepresented. The president attacks her publicly for her religion. I guess we can forget about freedom of religion.



This is probably the least surprising thing in the Hellscape that is modern political theater. 

Remember, it's freedom of religion _so long as it's the same as mine_. 

Meet the next generation of GOP hypocritical shitfucks: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...0190411-qs7sbccinbd4zhirps2d7g6wpm-story.html


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> Were you under the assumption the military has actual psychological pre-screening?
> The military hasn't exactly had a long history of inclusion...
> "The USMC opened its doors to blacks in June 1942, with the acceptance of African Americans as recruits in segregated all-black units. Other races were accepted somewhat more easily, joining white Marine units. For the next few decades, the incorporation of black troops was not widely accepted within the Corps, nor was desegregation smoothly or quickly achieved. [T]he integration of non-white USMC personnel proceeded in stages from segregated battalions in 1942, to unified training in 1949, and finally full integration in 1960."
> 
> 
> 
> "A 2009 U.S. Army report indicates military veterans have double the suicide rate of non-veterans, and more active-duty soldiers have died from suicide than in combat in the Iraq War (2003–2011) and War in Afghanistan (2001–present)."
> 
> I have a dark sense of humour myself, and I want to find your joke funny, but man you went awfully dark with that one...


I'm actually the last one left of my "generation" my class and a few years above and below mine. There were a few of us that joined the army and wound up in the war. They've all been shooting themselves over the years. Idk it's almost like they put something in the malaria pills we were force-fed or the unapproved anthrax shots we were forced to take or any of the other shit we were used as guinea pigs for...
There is a surprising number of people from my unit shooting themselves too. I think it has a lot to do with reintegration. Being over there outside the American bubble for a long time makes people realize how fucked up it is when they come back and try to deal with society.


----------



## Ralyks

This has devolved into Steiner Math...


----------



## MetalHex

possumkiller said:


> I'm actually the last one left of my "generation" my class and a few years above and below mine. There were a few of us that joined the army and wound up in the war. They've all been shooting themselves over the years. Idk it's almost like they put something in the malaria pills we were force-fed or the unapproved anthrax shots we were forced to take or any of the other shit we were used as guinea pigs for...
> There is a surprising number of people from my unit shooting themselves too. I think it has a lot to do with reintegration. Being over there outside the American bubble for a long time makes people realize how fucked up it is when they come back and try to deal with society.


War is indeed a racket


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> I'm actually the last one left of my "generation" my class and a few years above and below mine. There were a few of us that joined the army and wound up in the war. They've all been shooting themselves over the years. Idk it's almost like they put something in the malaria pills we were force-fed or the unapproved anthrax shots we were forced to take or any of the other shit we were used as guinea pigs for...
> There is a surprising number of people from my unit shooting themselves too. I think it has a lot to do with reintegration. Being over there outside the American bubble for a long time makes people realize how fucked up it is when they come back and try to deal with society.



For years the military, and its civilian oversight, have been aware they do an incredible job of reprogramming post-teen young adults from boys into killers, with instant obedience to orders, selflessness, and going from 0-10 instantly. They've only now started to implement programs on how to reverse that, so that we can reintegrate ourselves back into society. I remember going through the transition assistance program (TAP or DTAP) when I got out forever ago, and it was just 3-5 days of how to apply for jobs and write a resume. Nothing about how _not _to grab the holiday CD on the counter at Starbucks and thrust it between C3 and C4 of the barista's neck for messing up your order.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's pretty sad that "because we're so awful to LGBT people, and all soldiers regardless of such" is being used as an excuse here. Shame.



I thought the LGBT in the military thing was because Gender Dysphoria is technically classified as a mental illness? 
Not saying I agree with the policy, but technically, I suppose that checks out as far as what's on the books. That's what I heard, anyway.

Still seems backwards to me though that there wouldn't be an exemption made for that. I don't really think there's any room to tell people that they aren't fit for service unless they're literally mentally incompetent enough to get someone killed.

But we're living in clown world these days, so who the hell knows. 



StevenC said:


> So do transgender people kill themselves because of their "mental disorder" or because of discrimination?



I don't know, I'm not a transgender individual with persistent suicidal thoughts. Are you?
Is it that much of a stretch to think that perhaps some of these people realize that they've made a decision that can't really be undone, and for some of them, that's overwhelming? 
Is it entirely unrealistic to think that perhaps someone eventually wanted children, only to realize that they can't due to a decision that they made? 
What if *[HOT TAKE INCOMING]* there's a person that probably shouldn't have transitioned? What if someone "it's not a phase mom"-ed their way into irreversibly changing their entire life? Could you imagine the regret? 

Holy hell what must that feel like.
Take a second to imagine that you made the decision to transition, and now 5 years later you regret your decision.
Just _*imagine *_the existential dread.

This notion that negative results are always directly someone else's fault need to stop. This isn't a game. People need to understand that the decision to transition is a serious, _serious _decision not to be taken lightly by *ANY *stretch of the imagination- and is one that can have severe consequences if handled improperly.


----------



## spudmunkey

Two genuine questions:

1. in all of the conversation here surrounding "trans"...does it actually only refer to "post-op", and doesn't also include someone living their life as one gender, but hasn't had sex re-assignment/confirmation surgery?

2. The categorizing of gender dyphoria as a mental illness is a whole 'nother conversation...but as long as it is the case, is there still no non-combat roles that could be effectively performed by someone with this "condition" (as it were)? Are there no millitary-employed mess-hall staff? Mailroom employees? Translators? Data analysts? I kinda fall into a similar line of thinking with "gay marriage", where there should be no legal limitations for _legal _marriage between two people, but then individual churches can still also have their own ceremonies according to their own beliefs. But at the same time, I do realize that it's a slippery slope to "separate but equal" *shivers*.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> The categorizing of gender dyphoria as a mental illness is a whole 'nother conversation...but as long as it is the case, is there still no non-combat roles that could be effectively performed by someone with this "condition" (as it were)? Are there no millitary-employed mess-hall staff? Mailroom employees? Translators? Data analysts? I kinda fall into a similar line of thinking with "gay marriage", where there should be no legal limitations for _legal _marriage between two people, but then individual churches can still also have their own ceremonies according to their own beliefs. But at the same time, I do realize that it's a slippery slope to "separate but equal" *shivers*.



It's tricky man, because the classification of 'mental illness' technically puts in the same bucket as something like schizophrenia. 
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue the two are comparable, but technically, they're both a 'mental illness' on the books. If someone's got something that makes them mentally unstable and you stick them in the mess hall, who has to handle it when they pull a knife from the chopping block and start waving it around? 

It's the rule or the classification, and I'm pretty in favor of playing it safe with the rule. That leaves the classification, and...while I can see the medical intent in classifying it as a mental illness, in practice, I don't think that's productive. I would opt for an exemption for that specific condition, were it up to me. 

But, you know...clown world.


----------



## Xaios

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue the two are comparable


It would be great if this were true, but in a world where some parents don't want gay people looking after their children in daycare because for some reason they equate all homosexuals as also being mincing pedophiles (because OBVIOUSLY being attracted to the same gender also means that person is a child rapist in waiting, right?  ), people who would think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness comparable to schizophrenia are all too common.


----------



## MetalHex

Xaios said:


> It would be great if this were true, but in a world where some parents don't want gay people looking after their children in daycare because for some reason they equate all homosexuals as also being mincing pedophiles (because OBVIOUSLY being attracted to the same gender also means that person is a child rapist in waiting, right?  ), people who would think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness comparable to schizophrenia are all too common.


Thats because schizophrenia is probably not the condition to compare gender dysphoria to. Sociaopathy would more likely be fitting.

Take Bruce Jenner in early 2015. He gets behind the wheel drunk and hits and kills a woman. (How he is not behind bars we'll never know, but we can guess)

As a result it would be evident that something went amis in his brain and thought that making the change to live like a woman from then on, was in the best interest of himself (and women possibly?)

With all of that comes with self-image, worrying about what everyone will think of them, how to get approval from other women. It is my own personal belief that its possible that he will regret this life-changing decision later on which would add more detriment to his mental health and those around him.

So was he a sociopath his whole life, or did it strike him after he hit that woman? Would you agree or disagree with the sociopath comparison? 

This is all just my observation


----------



## spudmunkey

MetalHex said:


> Take Bruce Jenner in early 2015. He gets behind the wheel drunk and hits and kills a woman. (How he is not behind bars we'll never know, but we can guess)



Not to open a can of worms, but wasn't there field sobriety test that Jenner passed, and both a criminal and civil lawsuit couldn't determine fault? Is there something you know that everyone involved doesn't?


----------



## MetalHex

spudmunkey said:


> Not to open a can of worms, but wasn't there field sobriety test that Jenner passed, and both a criminal and civil lawsuit couldn't determine fault? Is there something you know that everyone involved doesn't?


Im sure he "passed" alot of things along with a get out of jail free card


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Xaios said:


> It would be great if this were true, but in a world where some parents don't want gay people looking after their children in daycare because for some reason they equate all homosexuals as also being mincing pedophiles (because OBVIOUSLY being attracted to the same gender also means that person is a child rapist in waiting, right?  ), people who would think that gender dysphoria is a mental illness comparable to schizophrenia are all too common.



Too common =/= Common, though. Very, very important distinction.
[Also, for this example, I would expect the concern to stem from a worry that the children would be indoctrinated rather than abused. Still judgey, but not as much]

Maybe my perception on this is skewed since I'm from CA and we're so blue it's almost black over here, but I've only ever met a few people that are genuinely this opposed to gay people. I can literally count them on one hand and I don't even need to use all of my fingers.

I'm not saying it's not a concern, I'm just saying that keeping things in proportion and on scale is important for public discourse.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I've only ever met a few people that are genuinely this opposed to gay people. I can literally count them on one hand and I don't even need to use all of my fingers.



I'm from a pretty rural part of Wisconsin. I've lived in California for 18 years this fall. When i went home for my parent's 40th last year, I still had a relative ask, "Did they turn you fag yet?". When I first moved here, a different relative asked, "So, do the gays just run around wild like that all over?" You can imagine the ribbing I got when they found out that I was moving our here to live with a friend of mine in a *gasp* one bedroom apartment (I slept in the living room). One of my high school friends was forbidden from hanging out with another kid who had "dick sucking lips". But then again, they are also the same ones who share the "By 2025, experts say there will be enough muslims in america to elect a president. Everyone needs to know, but I bet only 10% of my friends love their country enough to share. This must be stopped", and when they came out to visit, saw someone with a turban and beard leaving the grocery store, and said, "I don't like seeing people that look like terrorists everywhere."


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> I'm from a pretty rural part of Wisconsin. I've lived in California for 18 years this fall. When i went home for my parent's 40th last year, I still had a relative ask, "Did they turn you fag yet?". When I first moved here, a different relative asked, "So, do the gays just run around wild like that all over?" You can imagine the ribbing I got when they found out that I was moving our here to live with a friend of mine in a *gasp* one bedroom apartment (I slept in the living room). One of my high school friends was forbidden from hanging out with another kid who had "dick sucking lips". But then again, they are also the same ones who share the "By 2025, experts say there will be enough muslims in america to elect a president. Everyone needs to know, but I bet only 10% of my friends love their country enough to share. This must be stopped", and when they came out to visit, saw someone with a turban and beard leaving the grocery store, and said, "I don't like seeing people that look like terrorists everywhere."



Jesus christ.
Well. Looks like this state does at least one thing right I guess.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Thats because schizophrenia is probably not the condition to compare gender dysphoria to. Sociaopathy would more likely be fitting.
> 
> Take Bruce Jenner in early 2015. He gets behind the wheel drunk and hits and kills a woman. (How he is not behind bars we'll never know, but we can guess)
> 
> As a result it would be evident that something went amis in his brain and thought that making the change to live like a woman from then on, was in the best interest of himself (and women possibly?)



If this is how you troll, 5 demerits.
If this is how you seriously construct arguments, 100 demerits.


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> If this is how you troll, 5 demerits.
> If this is how you seriously construct arguments, 100 demerits.


Was that supposed to be your rebuttal, or your contribution to the discussion?

You could have just not said anything instead of being a wise ass


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Was that supposed to be your rebuttal, or your contribution to the discussion?
> 
> You could have just not said anything instead of being a wise ass



I wasn't aware that one guy imagining what it's like to be Caitlyn Jenner was really deserving of a rebuttal? Basing an argument on imagination-power isn't exactly my style.

I mean, just consider for a moment, how mis-guided it is to use one person's car accident as justification for classifying 1.4 million Americans as mentally ill. Godwin's law aside, look at Hitler. How could he do that? Clearly Austrians must be mentally ill. Sociopathic, really.


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> I wasn't aware that one guy imagining what it's like to be Caitlyn Jenner was really deserving of a rebuttal? Basing an argument on imagination-power isn't exactly my style.
> 
> I mean, just consider for a moment, how mis-guided it is to use one person's car accident as justification for classifying 1.4 million Americans as mentally ill. Godwin's law aside, look at Hitler. How could he do that? Clearly Austrians must be mentally ill. Sociopathic, really.



Edit: so you dont think that all trans people are sociopathic. Fine. Moving on


----------



## USMarine75

A lot of psychological terms being incorrectly thrown out here. As someone with $300k in debt from degrees in psych in med please allow me to clear some stuff up...

I keep seeing *gender dysphoria*. I do not think that means what you think it means. Gender dysphoria is _not_ gender nonconformity (AKA variance). Gender dysphoria is in the DSM5 and is a personality disorder, due to the distress one feels from their birth gender not matching their gender identity. Again, the disorder is _not_ due to the mismatch, it is due to the distress. Gender nonconformity is the behavior expressed by those that don't feel their outward gender matches their gender identity. Gender nonconformity is _not_ a personality disorder. 

There is also intersex, which is often lumped in, but it is a medical condition that _may_ lead to gender nonconformity and often dysphoria.

Thus, the use of the term sociopathy (or psychopathy) is completely incorrect here.

OK... not picking sides... continue your argument.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Edit: so you dont think that all trans people are sociopathic. Fine. Moving on


Imagine being the other side of this argument.


----------



## tedtan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Jesus christ.
> Well. Looks like this state does at least one thing right I guess.



You think that's bad, I remember cases here in Houston of gay teens being beaten to death within the past 10-15 years. And that's Houston, where we have a large gay community and had an openly lesbian mayor - aside from Austin, the rest of the state is significantly further right than Houston.


----------



## Drew

Bill Weld declared, as Trump's first primary challenger, over the weekend: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.2f073a78693e

Tough to say how this will play out - he's definitely a long shot, but it depends how much of Trump's high approval with Republicans is "team loyalty" and supporting whoever happens to be the Republican president, vs Trump really being in tune with the interests of modern-day Republican voters. If the latter, then this is a blowout, if the former, then Weld could, with a bit of luck, actually peel off a good number of Trump voters. 

I don't think he's a real risk to Trump, but that Trump is even getting primary opponents isn't really a great sign for him.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> but it depends how much of Trump's high approval with Republicans is "team loyalty" and supporting whoever happens to be the Republican president, vs Trump really being in tune with the interests of modern-day Republican voters.



This is definitely the most interesting tidbit with any Republicans that choose to run against Trump, and I really want to see how it plays out.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Bill Weld declared, as Trump's first primary challenger, over the weekend:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...6a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.2f073a78693e
> 
> Tough to say how this will play out - he's definitely a long shot, but it depends how much of Trump's high approval with Republicans is "team loyalty" and supporting whoever happens to be the Republican president, vs Trump really being in tune with the interests of modern-day Republican voters. If the latter, then this is a blowout, if the former, then Weld could, with a bit of luck, actually peel off a good number of Trump voters.
> 
> I don't think he's a real risk to Trump, but that Trump is even getting primary opponents isn't really a great sign for him.



I think his link to Gary “What is an Aleppo” Johnson will sabotage him before he even starts. No way enough Republicans will respect him for him to even make a dent IMO.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Tough to say how this will play out - he's definitely a long shot, but it depends how much of Trump's high approval with Republicans is "team loyalty" and supporting whoever happens to be the Republican president, vs Trump really being in tune with the interests of modern-day Republican voters. If the latter, then this is a blowout, if the former, then Weld could, with a bit of luck, actually peel off a good number of Trump voters.



This is something I'm really curious about.
I honestly have no idea what to expect from the primaries this time around. I don't think he'll be as successful as last time if he uses the same tactics, either- he mostly just bullied his way through the primaries during the last election. I don't think he'd be able to get away with that again as the establishment, sitting candidate.


----------



## StevenC

One has to imagine there's room for the classic "you haven't done anything for the last 4 years" opponent within the GOP.


----------



## wannabguitarist

MetalHex said:


> Edit: so you dont think that all trans people are sociopathic. Fine. Moving on



Wait, you do? Please elaborate.


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> One has to imagine there's room for the classic "you haven't done anything for the last 4 years" opponent within the GOP.


----------



## Thaeon

tedtan said:


> You think that's bad, I remember cases here in Houston of gay teens being beaten to death within the past 10-15 years. And that's Houston, where we have a large gay community and had an openly lesbian mayor - aside from Austin, the rest of the state is significantly further right than Houston.



Having grown up in Oklahoma City and currently living in San Antonio, you are correct. The big cities in Texas tend to go left. The rest of the state is RED. Oklahoma doesn't even have that going for it. I've heard far to many of the horror stories about violence towards people who are different. In Oklahoma you'd have kids picking fights with Special Ed. kids.



StevenC said:


> One has to imagine there's room for the classic "you haven't done anything for the last 4 years" opponent within the GOP.



In this case, they would largely be telling the truth.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> One has to imagine there's room for the classic "you haven't done anything for the last 4 years" opponent within the GOP.


Nah, just blame the Democrats. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is something I'm really curious about.
> I honestly have no idea what to expect from the primaries this time around. I don't think he'll be as successful as last time if he uses the same tactics, either- he mostly just bullied his way through the primaries during the last election. I don't think he'd be able to get away with that again as the establishment, sitting candidate.


I agree. Trump won in the 2016 primaries by sucking up all the air in the room, and using name recognition to consistently win 30% of the votes in a state which, with 16 other names on the ballot, was a nearly insurmountable lead. After that, a lot of Republicans just held their nose because he wasn't Clinton, but a lot of them also never thought he'd actually win. 

Since then the GOP has definitely become the Party of Trump. It's tough to say why, if it's because a lot of Never-Trump Republicans just no longer identify as Republicans (which is consistent with the drop in party ID we've seen) or if it's because the mainstream Republican voters are embracing Trump's policy positions because he's the Republican presdent and because the Democrats are against it. 

In both cases but especially in the latter case, suddenly having an option about what the GOP _should_ look like, rather than just accepting it for what it is, could lead to some really interesting dynamics. Basically, I don't think Weld's running is important because he's an especially interesting candidate, I think he's a longshot. Rather, I think it's important because for the first time since the spring of 2016, the GOP voting public has a choice about what sort of party they want to be, rather than a take-it-or-leave-it platform. I think a lot of the hard left continues to exaggerate how realistic Sanders' chances were in 2016 - by historical standards this was never a particularly close primary, with Clinton leading polls roughly 60-40 by the very end - but his polling was in the low-teens at the very beginning, and I think the appeal of simply_ being_ an alternative can't be understated.


----------



## Randy

I said it back when Trump was a longshot in the first primary and it's true now more than ever.

Donald Trump IS the embodiment of the Republican Party for the last 40 years. Everything. A legacy rich baby booming draft dodger, thinks about nobody but himself, exploits every loophole to get out of paying taxes, racist hypocrite, anti-intellectual, the list goes on. Republicans have been for rolling back corporate taxes, corporate regulations, estate taxes, and social safety-nets, lack of compassion for immigrants, "that bill is no good because it's too many pages", "let 'em die", birther movement, anti-'political correctness' etc etc. It's a perfect 1:1

He might have had times he was a little more polite about some of those things, because you have to be modestly progressive or empathetic to be accepted in most wealthy social circles or do business in most corners of this country but the LIFESTYLE that he's lived his entire time on this Earth has been the Republican Ubermensch. THIS is the guy they want to be or the guy they want you to be. Every policy over the last 40 years has been another strike of the chisel to creating this person.

Which I bring up because, well, that's why he outdid the entire rest of the party and why he'll outdo them again. There's nobody that can get behind a podium and argue a point without either 1.) meekly parroting what Trump has already said or LIVED bluntly 2.) arguing to the left of Trump, which gains you no points if you're running in that party.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Donald Trump IS the embodiment of the Republican Party for the last 40 years. Everything. A legacy rich baby booming draft dodger, thinks about nobody but himself, exploits every loophole to get out of paying taxes, racist hypocrite, anti-intellectual, the list goes on. Republicans have been for rolling back corporate taxes, corporate regulations, estate taxes, and social safety-nets, lack of compassion for immigrants, "that bill is no good because it's too many pages", "let 'em die", birther movement, anti-'political correctness' etc etc. It's a perfect 1:1


I think there are definitely elements of the GOP that Trump perfectly represents, but I'd argue he's more truly the embodiment of the Tea Party than he is of the GOP, and I don't think we're yet at the point where the Tea Party and the GOP are a 1:1 overlap. As it is there are a lot of points where Trump breaks from traditional Republican orthodoxy, most notably on the subject of free trade and opposition to tariffs. 

I think, either way, we're going to learn a lot about how the GOP sees itself, in the next year or two. I don't think it's as simple as you're saying... But I could also very well be wrong.


----------



## efiltsohg

"here's how bernie can still win"


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I think there are definitely elements of the GOP that Trump perfectly represents, but I'd argue he's more truly the embodiment of the Tea Party than he is of the GOP, and I don't think we're yet at the point where the Tea Party and the GOP are a 1:1 overlap. As it is there are a lot of points where Trump breaks from traditional Republican orthodoxy, most notably on the subject of free trade and opposition to tariffs.
> 
> I think, either way, we're going to learn a lot about how the GOP sees itself, in the next year or two. I don't think it's as simple as you're saying... But I could also very well be wrong.



It's still a "do as I say, not as I do" kinda thing. Donald Trump had no problems with Chinese manufacturing or steel, or employing illegals immigrants when he was in the position to benefit from them.


----------



## Randy

Before this thread gets completely inundated with the Mueller Report stuff, I think it's worth addressing the Barr presser.

To me, it reinforces my thoughts (which I believe I posted in here before?) that Barr's role was less about favoritism toward Trump and more like an establishment mop up job, with some political undertones but primarily to reinforce the notion that the US democratic process is above allowing foreign interference to directly influence our elections. Kind of like the old stories about the WH making sure no pictures of FDR in a wheel-chair got out during WWII. I'm not saying Barr or Mueller fundamentally rewrote history, I think they were just a little more generous about American cooperation throughout the process to the benefit of the US perception abroad moreso than a blind loyalty to Trump.

Anyway, that leads me to the most egregious part of Barr's presser/reading of the report and redaction choices. Barr made clear in his reading of the report that the most valuable part of what the investigation concluded was that the Russian government WAS actively trying to effect the outcome of the 2016 election using illegal hacking.

There are problems with Barr arguing this point and framing it as he did. Firstly, he made clear that a big part of the redactions are going to be about ongoing criminal cases (he mentions Stone and the IRA in particular). The IRA/GRU were the entities that successfully hacked the DNC servers (among others) and weaponized a disinformation campaign, and the only action we get from the DOJ was this warning, indictments in absentia of Russian nationals who will never see the inside of a court room, and then they send the report to Congress with all the stuff pertaining to that case pruned out. So the one thing Barr says is of value in the report is the one thing you can't see, despite the fact they have zero of those people in custody and never will.

Also, a sidenote of the fact his voicing of "no collusion from anyone associated with Trump campaign or anybody in the US" multiple times undermines the credibility of the case against Roger Stone instantly. And probably others.

But getting back to the election hacking thing, keep in mind that the intelligence community has been raising the alarm on Russian hacking (including the Obama admin raising the concern) and Trump has constantly pushed back on that, including saying he took Putin's word that he didn't. 

So whether Barr saves Trump from being implicated based on loyalty to him or the nation, he DOES raise the dangers of Russian involvement in our electoral system, only to be constantly undermined by the same person he seeks to protect.

Blah.


----------



## Drew

Well, to start the Mueller report data dump, it's almost exactly as bad for Trump as I've been arguing all along that it would be.

First, Mueller explicitly kicked the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to _Congress_, not to his supervisors, because he believed he was Constitutionally required to do so. When Barr decided to clear him on his own, he overstepped his Constitutional authority as determined by the DoJ, and considering Barr himself was appointed during the investigation after Trump fired Sessions, this itself may constitute grounds for obstruction:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...HRRg6x1C6321FIL5IUed9BHB18VBOGbfxBDZFMGI9iPZ0

Expect to hear a lot more on this as the case unfolds.

Second, as I suspected, Mueller concluded he could not prove coordination (rather than collusion - this was the formal scope of the inquirty) between Trump and Russia, but that's a FAR cry from saying there was no evidence of coordination, as Trump (and, to an extent, Barr) have argued. Rather, there was rather a lot, and both parties took a number of actions that were clearly in the other's best interest, and took steps to cover up those actions. But, it never got to the point of a smoking gun, where there was evidence of an _agreement_ for a quid pro quo. So, we can't prove the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but there's still plenty of evidence to imply that Trump may not have been working in the country's best interests.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/live-mueller-report-analysis.html

Barr memo notwithstanding, Trump isn't even close to out of the woods here. I think it's unlikely Trump would get impeached for obstruction alone... But, with ten separate clear instances, and with his appointing Barr to head the DoJ just in time to clear him of obstruction in what appears to have been an unconstitutional act, I'd say it's merely unlikely, not impossible.

I mean, Mueller concluded that Trump did in fact fire Comey not for his stated reasons, but because he refused to clear Trump's name. That's pretty major.


----------



## thraxil

Haven't had a chance to see much of it yet. It sounds like at the absolute least, even Barr seems to back up the idea that we know pretty reliably that the IRA was trying very hard to interfere with our election. So I'm curious if Trump will come out and condemn them of if he'll stick to "I believe Putin."


----------



## Thaeon

It certainly doesn't look good for anyone involved.


----------



## iamaom

Words of an innocent man.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> So, we can't prove the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but there's still plenty of evidence to imply that Trump may not have been working in the country's best interests.





Sorry i had to!


----------



## Ralyks

1. I want to know what he said "Im fucked." I mean, I know why, but if everything was copasetic, why would he said that?

2. Why did he let Jr walk? Whatever, Trump gets off, but Jr? That douchebag?


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> View attachment 68679
> 
> Sorry i had to!


Why? Now's when the fun begins. Mueller expected Congress to weigh in on this, remember?



Ralyks said:


> 2. Why did he let Jr walk? Whatever, Trump gets off, but Jr? That douchebag?


The report indicates tat Trump Jr likely factually violated campaign finance laws by soliciting help from Russia in the famous Trump Tower meeting, but Mueller opted not to prosecute because it wasn't clear that he had intent to do so, or was aware his actions were illegal. I thought ignorance of the law was no defense?

The second best part of the report after the "I'm fucked!" quote was Mueller's conclusion that Trump's efforts to obstruct justice was not more successful than it was because most of his staff refused to follow instructions he gave them.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> The second best part of the report after the "I'm fucked!" quote was Mueller's conclusion that Trump's efforts to obstruct justice was not more successful than it was because most of his staff refused to follow instructions he gave them.



Isn't that obstruction right there?


----------



## efiltsohg

iamaom said:


> Words of an innocent man.
> 
> View attachment 68678



imagine believing that was a true story


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> imagine believing that was a true story



So, arrest Jeff Sessions for lying to investigators then?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

If we're going to arrest people in Washington DC for every little lie told, the entire city is going to be in a super max prison due to limited size in jails. Then again, I'm sure pest control in the area will be seeing quite a boom in business.


----------



## Ralyks

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If we're going to arrest people in Washington DC for every little lie told, the entire city is going to be in a super max prison due to limited size in jails.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## MetalHex

^ "The iron hand crushed the tyrants head, and became a tyrant in his stead".


----------



## ExileMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> If we're going to arrest people in Washington DC for every little lie told, the entire city is going to be in a super max prison due to limited size in jails. Then again, I'm sure pest control in the area will be seeing quite a boom in business.



Logged in to see if the right wing goal posts had shifted and was not disappointed.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> 1. I want to know what he said "Im fucked." I mean, I know why, but if everything was copasetic, why would he said that?



Bad optics. The inevitable inquisition from the press. Knowledge that nobody is going to shut up about it for the next few years. Knowledge that the legacy of his presidency will always be stained by this controversy now. Increased pushback from his constituents. Even if he was totally innocent (which I don't think he is), it's not an entirely unreasonable reaction. 



Drew said:


> I thought ignorance of the law was no defense?



Drew, did you even read your law textbook? 
Clear as day there's a big fat asterisk next to that statement leading to a footnote that reads "Unless you're rich, famous, or a politician."


----------



## Randy

Worst two days in Trump admin so far but CNN gonna CNN.




Keep that money train rolling.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Looks to me like CNN is finally reporting the truth.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

CNN reporting the truth? Haha. That'll be the day.


----------



## MetalHex

There was a time when the news didn't just project their biased opinion 24/7 and actually reported...............news.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MetalHex said:


> There was a time when the news didn't just project their biased opinion 24/7 and actually reported...............news.


When was this? In the 40s before Operation Mockingbird took affect?


----------



## MetalHex

Spaced Out Ace said:


> When was this? In the 40s before Operation Mockingbird took affect?


Apparently before I was born, so my parents have told me


----------



## MetalHex

You know I have to post this here as super creepy uncle Joe plans on announcing his hopefully campaign next week. I meam, he's just a touchy feely kinda guy right? He sure is!



I'm still trying to figure out why democrats and especially democratic women, are not up in arms about this? 

Whataboutism response in 3....2....1....


----------



## Ralyks

They're just upset he didn't grab them by etc etc.

And yeah, I think Trumps in some shit, but impeaching him really doesn't seem worth it. Plus he's fucked as it is by SDNY the moment he leaves office.


----------



## MetalHex

Ralyks said:


> They're just upset he didn't grab them by etc etc.
> 
> And yeah, I think Trumps in some shit, but impeaching him really doesn't seem worth it. Plus he's fucked as it is by SDNY the moment he leaves office.


You couldnt resist.

Shit, if those women allowed you to, you would too.

The funny thing is that everyone conveniently forgets the part where he said "*THEY LET you do anything.......grab them by the pussy". *Emphasis on "they let".

I could understand if he said "yeah i walked up and grabbed her by the pussy". But he didn't say that.


----------



## Ralyks

Serious question. Do you actually like Trump, or is it the fact that he's the Republican President? Because I lean left, and I didn't hate W Bush as much as a lot of people did. I despised Trump long before he actually put a bid in for office. I don't care that a Republican is in office. It's just, THIS Guy was the best you could come up with? THIS is the guy the right choose for their hill to die on? Seriously, NO ONE better?

Also, I didn't like Hilary either, so the last election was a lost cause for me either way. I make no delusions that there's serious problems on the left too.


----------



## MetalHex

Ralyks said:


> Serious question. Do you actually like Trump, or is it the fact that he's the Republican President? Because I lean left, and I didn't hate W Bush as much as a lot of people did. I despised Trump long before he actually put a bid in for office. I don't care that a Republican is in office. It's just, THIS Guy was the best you could come up with? THIS is the guy the right choose for their hill to die on? Seriously, NO ONE better?
> 
> Also, I didn't like Hilary either, so the last election was a lost cause for me either way. I make no delusions that there's serious problems on the left too.


But that's besides the point. If you can take just that one quote there out of context, and see it how you want to see it (actually how the media wants you to see it), instead of how it actually is, then how many other things can you take out of context?......and ......as each one is taken out of context, or flipped a certain way, when piled on top of each other, it culmulates into a giant pool of fuel for bias.

Do I like Trump? I like some things. I like how he triggered the fuck out of the left by threatening to make them put their money where their mouth is, and take in these illegal invaders into their city, since they are so tolerant and loving and have a "we should take care of everyone" attitude. (Naturally, they seem to have their tail between their legs now)

In reality, I hope he doesn't do that because, they shouldn't be here in the first place. So that would be the downside of him being too bold.


----------



## Ralyks

Besides the point? I said my piece, you did you're who "You had to go there" retort, and now I moved on to a serious question. That said, the fact you enjoy seeing people triggered says enough.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Do I like Trump? I like some things. I like how he triggered the fuck out of the left by threatening to make them put their money where their mouth is, and take in these illegal invaders into their city, since they are so tolerant and loving and have a "we should take care of everyone" attitude. (Naturally, they seem to have their tail between their legs now)



Naturally. He really called our bluff on wanting to help immigrants.


----------



## Randy

NYS hemorraging people by the day, we'll take all the immigrants we can.


----------



## Xaios

MetalHex said:


> and take in these illegal invaders into their city, since they are so tolerant and loving and have a "we should take care of everyone" attitude.


It amazes me that you think people deserve to be punished for trying to help other people just because they crossed an arbitrary line in the sand. What a sad outlook that is. I couldn't imagine being so spiteful that I would find charity towards people who came to my country, even illegally, to escape a desperate situation where they're from as something to be abhorred, and those who practice it to be deserving of punishment. Why don't you tell us how you really feel and just call them virtue-signalling cucks while you're at it?

Also, if I say "we, as a country, have a duty to take care of immigrants," the clear and obvious connotation is that the burden of taking care of said immigrants will be shared among all people of said country. Under such a paradigm, it's a burden that is entirely possible to shoulder, as evidenced by the fact that Canada takes in more than double the immigrants per capita as the US, and whatever negative effects have resulted have been utterly negligible. However, if the entirety of the immigrant population was dumped on, say, Calgary, they would obviously not have the resources to deal with it. Forcing a small portion of the population to shoulder such a load is clearly nothing more than a punishment to hurt those who deign to advocate for helping those people! It would be like telling an advocate for clean water in Flint, Michigan, "You want clean water? Fine! We're going to force feed you Britta filters and run the entire city's supply through your intestines. After all, this is what you wanted, right? That's what you get for trying to help others!" It's petty, vindictive, and _incredibly_ childish. Of course, Trump is all of those things, so naturally it makes perfect sense that he and all those who follow him would be fans of such an approach.


----------



## MetalHex

Xaios said:


> It amazes me that you think people deserve to be punished for trying to help other people just because they crossed an arbitrary line in the sand. What a sad outlook that is. I couldn't imagine being so spiteful that I would find charity towards people who came to my country, even illegally, to escape a desperate situation where they're from as something to be abhorred, and those who practice it to be deserving of punishment. Why don't you tell us how you really feel and just call them virtue-signalling cucks while you're at it?
> 
> Also, if I say "we, as a country, have a duty to take care of immigrants," the clear and obvious connotation is that the burden of taking care of said immigrants will be shared among all people of said country. Under such a paradigm, it's a burden that is entirely possible to shoulder, as evidenced by the fact that Canada takes in more than double the immigrants per capita as the US, and whatever negative effects have resulted have been utterly negligible. However, if the entirety of the immigrant population was dumped on, say, Calgary, they would obviously not have the resources to deal with it. Forcing a small portion of the population to shoulder such a load is clearly nothing more than a punishment to hurt those who deign to advocate for helping those people! It would be like telling an advocate for clean water in Flint, Michigan, "You want clean water? Fine! We're going to force feed you Britta filters and run the entire city's supply through your intestines. After all, this is what you wanted, right? That's what you get for trying to help others!" It's petty, vindictive, and _incredibly_ childish. Of course, Trump is all of those things, so naturally it makes perfect sense that he and all those who follow him would be fans of such an approach.


The thing is is your saying this from your arm-chair. I would never tell you what to do, but maybe you need to go to your local home-depot, or go to the southern border, or wherever and smuggle some of these people into your car, take them to your home, and set up a few sleeping bags and maybe setup a little tv stand and xbox while your at it.....o holy one.

Trump wasnt going to dump all of the illegals into one small area btw, it was 3 large cities. So putting illegal invaders in sanctuary cities, precisely where the only people that want them, would want them to be, would be punishing the people that want them there? 

Why do leftists think that just because people are against illegal immigration that they dont want immigrants there at all? It's wrong to think that way and also, that's not very fair to the people south of the border, including mexicans, and inlcuding all other immigrant-hopefuls around the world, who are patiently waiting their turn in line, and going about it through the legal process, who are being cut off and undermined by people entering illegally. It's not fair to those people. (you could argue that the process is not efficient enough, it takes forever, etc. thats a different story)

What I am against is my tax dollars helping illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here. (go ahead and argue what other million things my tax dollars are going to, and how I have no say in that, or how i'm not complaing, blah blah etc....thats besides the point)

"Also, if I say "we, as a country, have a duty to take care of immigrants," the clear and obvious connotation is that the burden of taking care of said immigrants will be shared among all people of said country." Ah, so you think it's moral to force everyone collectively to take care of people whom we have no responsibility for. I am all for independence, and personal responsibility. How dare you say what "we all should do". Dont force me into your hive-mind collective politics. You shouldn't want or wish the burden to be on other people other than yourself. Take some responsibility for yourself, and if you want to help others thats fine with me, but leave everyone else out of it. I like to help people to, but only because I want to, not because I think its for the "greater good".....because the most helpful thing you can do for other people, is to stay out of their way, let them make their own choices in life, and give them independence. (obviously everything short of harming other people, and within the confines and legality and lawfullness of course). So you can go ahead and shoulder that burden yourself. Helping by force is not help out of gratitude its out of force and to me that kind of help is immoral IMO. (thats like eating at a restuarant with a group of 5 and the gratuity tip is already including in your final price. Taking tip money for yourself without my say is not me showing gratitude; its you stealing! I gladly tip well when the service is good, but its not out of gratitude if its by force.)

"Forcing a small portion of the population to shoulder such a load is clearly nothing more than a punishment to hurt those who deign to advocate for helping those people!"
Oh, but forcing a large percentage of population to do the same would be ok? The people who are advocating for helping other people, should just keep quiet, and kindly help other people on their own term and will. Shouting and screaming and trying to change legislation so that everyone has to help (by force), is fucking wrong and absolutely immoral. Leave me out of your collectivist mindset and mind your own business.

I bet you drive by homesless and hungry people on the streets from time to time; how much do you help them? do you empty yourpockets right there on the street and say take everything? Do you bring them to get food? Or do you just roll your window up and act like they aren't there? Whatever your answer is....good for you. Leave me out of it.

You NEVER hear anyone from the left use these words......independence, freedom, liberty. And that is what this country needs more of. Not this facade of collective socialism/crowd consensus/everyone patting each other on the back. Do you think you are the fixer of society? Once you start thinking that you are the fixer of society, you are suffering from a psychological inflation complex


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> ...independence, freedom, liberty. And that is what this country needs more of.



I could have sworn we needed healthcare, better education, clean air and water, and functioning infrastructure. You know, tangible things that would improve the lives of everyone. 

We already have independence from accessible healthcare, the freedom to drink lead-water, and have long been liberated from the chains of bridges and roads that don't fall apart.


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> independence, freedom, liberty



And we're lacking these things how, and your ideal is what? Those are very subjective terms.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> "Forcing a small portion of the population to shoulder such a load is clearly nothing more than a punishment to hurt those who deign to advocate for helping those people!"
> Oh, but forcing a large percentage of population to do the same would be ok? The people who are advocating for helping other people, should just keep quiet, and kindly help other people on their own term and will. Shouting and screaming and trying to change legislation so that everyone has to help (by force), is fucking wrong and absolutely immoral. Leave me out of your collectivist mindset and mind your own business.



How is it wrong? It is literally how government in a representative democracy works. "collectivist" lol, - sometimes referred to as "a majority". You're in the US, you play buy US rules. Welcome to government 101.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> How is it wrong? It is literally how government in a representative democracy works. "collectivist" lol, - sometimes referred to as "a majority". You're in the US, you play buy US rules. Welcome to government 101.



Yea so the theory goes. On the other hand, they aren't playing by US rules, there's this little thing known as the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments particularly.

You know U.S. Govt 101:
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So per those boundary which have never been struck down, yes the bounds have been overstepped by the Govt. which makes discontent in the people understandable.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea so the theory goes. On the other hand, they aren't playing by US rules, there's this little thing known as the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments particularly.
> 
> You know U.S. Govt 101:
> Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



I'm not sure I follow?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> I'm not sure I follow?



I edited to add a more clear statement of the point.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> I edited to add a more clear statement of the point.



So you're making this a matter of states rights? I don't see much of a connection tbh. Frankly the idea of immigrants being a burden is misguided and not supported my data, so let NY/CA/WA, with the big economies take the immigrants (as they'd probably support it locally).


----------



## USMarine75

The funny thing is illegal immigration isn't probably even in the top 100 actual / important issues in the US. It is a made up line in the sand for one party to rally behind. 

Not an actual issue:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/econom...s-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
^ tl;dr "Undocumented immigrants pay an estimated $11.6 billion a year in taxes."

Actual issues:
https://www.businessinsider.com/asce-gives-us-infrastructure-a-d-2017-3

https://unfccc.int/news/climate-change-is-biggest-threat-to-global-economy

Modern politics has turned into advertising 101 - DeBeers convinces consumers in the 1930's that "if you like it then you should put a ring on it", and now we buy our spouses non-rare gems from a monopoly that constrains their sales in order to arbitrarily assess their own value, whereas their item holds no actual intrinsic value. Illegal immigration is _an _issue... one amongst many that all governments have a logistical requirement to deal with. But it is not a "national emergency".


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Climate Change is the world's largest example of "moving goalposts" ever.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Climate Change is the world's largest example of "moving goalposts" ever.



You mean because the goalposts are increasingly submerged in tidal waters?


----------



## USMarine75

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Climate Change is the world's largest example of "moving goalposts" ever.



How so? 



narad said:


> You mean because the goalposts are increasingly submerged in tidal waters?


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Xaios

MetalHex said:


> The thing is is your saying this from your arm-chair. I would never tell you what to do, but maybe you need to go to your local home-depot, or go to the southern border, or wherever and smuggle some of these people into your car, take them to your home, and set up a few sleeping bags and maybe setup a little tv stand and xbox while your at it.....o holy one.


The only illegal immigrants who could possibly ever end up here, aside from those that came here legally and overstayed their visa, are Alaskans. I live in the city that Sarah Palin herself bragged that her family used to drive across the border in order to get free healthcare. Despite the fact that this statement was made in a "stupid caring Canadians" way, I don't begrudge them trying to access the services here that they couldn't access at home. Hell, it's common practice among the right to go to Mexico to get healthcare that they couldn't afford at home. They actually take pride in the fact that they voted to price themselves out of being able to receive proper treatment at home, and then have to travel abroad to get it.


MetalHex said:


> Trump wasnt going to dump all of the illegals into one small area btw, it was 3 large cities. So putting illegal invaders in sanctuary cities, precisely where the only people that want them, would want them to be, would be punishing the people that want them there?


"3 large cities" is still small potatoes compared to the population, not to mention geographic area, of the entire US, so that argument simply doesn't hold water, and it also doesn't change the fact that Trump is doing so purely out of spite. It is literally trying to sabotage those who disagree. Say what you want about "the left," but at least the left doesn't believe that the right should be left to their own devices when they fall on hard times, that they should lose access to health care, education and the social safety net simply because they didn't vote for it.


MetalHex said:


> Why do leftists think that just because people are against illegal immigration that they dont want immigrants there at all?


Here's the thing: leftists don't think that. They just recognize that the Venn diagram of "people who are against illegal immigration" and "people who are actively and intentionally racist in their normal conduct" is two concentric circles, the latter contained entirely within the former. There are also plenty of people on the left who are against illegal immigration. The difference is they're not against illegal _immigrants_, because they recognize the distinction, that despite not agreeing with how these people got there, they're still people who need help.


MetalHex said:


> It's wrong to think that way and also, that's not very fair to the people south of the border, including mexicans, and inlcuding all other immigrant-hopefuls around the world, who are patiently waiting their turn in line, and going about it through the legal process, who are being cut off and undermined by people entering illegally. It's not fair to those people. (you could argue that the process is not efficient enough, it takes forever, etc. thats a different story)


Whether or not those people make it through the legal immigration process won't be affected one iota. And if you want to talk "fair," how is trekking hundreds if not thousands of miles to escape enslavement by a drug cartel, starvation or civil war, only to be told to fuck off at the border "fair?" The application of "fair" in these circumstances is only ever used as an excuse by those who have the means to help others when they refuse to. It's outdated social Darwinism that people who preach it when it's convenient for them would abandon in a heartbeat if they suddenly found themselves unable to fend for themselves or their children, so long as they're not blinded by misplaced pride.


MetalHex said:


> What I am against is my tax dollars helping illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here. (go ahead and argue what other million things my tax dollars are going to, and how I have no say in that, or how i'm not complaing, blah blah etc....thats besides the point)


Sounds like you already recognize parts of the issue, but deflecting by saying "that's besides the point" doesn't make it so. Regardless, care to explain exactly what you are for your tax dollars being used for? Because it sounds like you're a proponent of the Randian notion of voluntary taxation.


MetalHex said:


> Ah, so you think it's moral to force everyone collectively to take care of people whom we have no responsibility for. I am all for independence, and personal responsibility. How dare you say what "we all should do". Dont force me into your hive-mind collective politics. You shouldn't want or wish the burden to be on other people other than yourself. Take some responsibility for yourself, and if you want to help others thats fine with me, but leave everyone else out of it. I like to help people to, but only because I want to, not because I think its for the "greater good".....because the most helpful thing you can do for other people, is to stay out of their way, let them make their own choices in life, and give them independence.


What is moral is finding the most effective way to help people, and while voluntary charity is wonderful and most certainly has a place, it is not by itself the most effective means of ensuring that everyone has their needs met. Doing so through legislative means _is_ the most effective means, so that's the approach I'm gonna push for.

Also, I have no problem with letting people make their own choices, but where you and me seem to diverge is that I don't believe they should be left in the ditch for making mistakes if there's no one around who's willing to offer voluntary aid, especially since the complexity of the modern world often makes such circumstances unforseeable. The notion of "if you want to help people, the best thing you can do is stay out of their way" is predicated on the idea that people only fall on hard times or suffer misfortune because of the choices they make, which is incredibly untrue. Even the Republican government understands that, which they've demonstrated by propping up the coal industry beyond feasibility. Where they messed up is not giving access for those affected to retraining programs into jobs with long-term viability. Their approach was utterly myopic, but I'll at least give them points for trying to help people.

Guess what though, that money that they're using to prop up the coal industry? Those are your tax dollars at work. If you want to be "left out of it," even the Republican government isn't giving you that choice. The only ones they are giving that choice to are huge corporations that are receiving massive tax breaks, all on your behalf, and at your expense.


MetalHex said:


> So you can go ahead and shoulder that burden yourself. Helping by force is not help out of gratitude its out of force and to me that kind of help is immoral IMO.


You have a strange idea about why people should be helped. Helping out of gratitude is only something that happens when you've already received something (i.e. what you're gracious about), a scenario that's basically just a quid pro quo. Would you actually help someone if you knew that you'd get nothing in return?


MetalHex said:


> (thats like eating at a restuarant with a group of 5 and the gratuity tip is already including in your final price. Taking tip money for yourself without my say is not me showing gratitude; its you stealing! I gladly tip well when the service is good, but its not out of gratitude if its by force.)


I live in a place where restaurant workers can actually earn a wage they can live on, even if only meagerly so, without tips, and despite this, I have absolutely no issue with the gratuity being applied up front. That's just part of the cost of eating out, one that I've accepted as part of the cost of the transaction before I've walked through the door, because I know that it's made someone's life that much easier. Parts of the US have made it absolutely impossible to make a living wage as a server by allowing restaurants to bypass minimum wage laws. Another example of your "fair" I suppose?

Also, only tipping because of the expectation of receiving gratitude for such a small act would be incredibly puerile.


MetalHex said:


> Oh, but forcing a large percentage of population to do the same would be ok?


Uh, yeah, because if the cost is spread across the entire population, it's negligible on a per-person basis. It's saving lives and doing it in a way that's sustainable.


MetalHex said:


> The people who are advocating for helping other people, should just keep quiet


Wow. Just wow. I'm reading this statement while trying to imagine that you're not completely morally bankrupt, but I won't lie, it's a losing battle. I


MetalHex said:


> , and kindly help other people on their own term and will. Shouting and screaming and trying to change legislation so that everyone has to help (by force), is fucking wrong and absolutely immoral. Leave me out of your collectivist mindset and


"I'm glad I could help, but I wouldn't want to burden someone with helping you if it was inconvenient for them."
- Oskar Schindler, probably.


MetalHex said:


> mind your own business.


I don't really trust you to provide a particularly meaningful metric of what my business should be, so I'll keep my own counsel on that one (yay freedom!).


----------



## Xaios

MetalHex said:


> You NEVER hear anyone from the left use these words......independence, freedom, liberty.



Ah yes, the right are such big fans of freedom and liberty. Some prime examples include the freedom and liberty to have an abortion, the freedom and liberty to define one's own gender and sexuality, the freedom and liberty to not get shot dead for being black, the freedom and liberty to move within a city without impediment while not being white, the freedom and liberty to protest police brutality by kneeling at a football game, and the freedom and liberty to not be detained illegally.

Oh, wait, that's not true at all. It's almost like they're massive hypocrites. Huh, whoda thunk?


MetalHex said:


> you are suffering from a psychological inflation complex


Do... do you have some sort of _condition_ that makes you think that anyone who has a different worldview than you must suffer some sort of personality disorder? You sure do make a lot of attempts to use psychobabble as a crutch. Actually, that sounds like the kind of thing that there's a name for.

Also, referencing to the specific example above, 5 seconds of googling confirmed that either you're making shit up, or, if you're intentionally trying to reference Jung, you don't actually know what you're talking about.


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> Sounds like you already recognize parts of the issue, but deflecting by saying "that's besides the point" doesn't make it so.



I've actually never seen this "strategy" of arguing on the internet before. I kind of have to tip my hat to it, like, oh, that's really cute, you mention all the points on both sides so it's like they've already been refuted purely by mentioning them. Like, let me try one...

Abortion is immoral murder (and don't even mention that it's something that happens inside a woman's body and therefore her decision, or that children raised in unwanted homes often have terrible lives, or that many women would die or be seriously injured via secret backdoor abortionists or attempts to do it themselves, or that fetuses have less higher cognitive function than most animals we slaughter for food, or if women are raped and don't want to carry their rapists child to term, because that's besides the point).

It's kinda like, yea dude, that was the whole debate lol


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


>


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> View attachment 68743



I mean, I know you're not going to, but like 15 minutes reading something as simple as the Wikipedia article on History of Climate Science pretty much explains how the phenomenon has evolved in the last hundred or so years.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> Like, let me try one...


My God, abortion is so evil! The only way to avoid it completely is to kill all women! IT MUST BE DONE!

*spoink*

What... what happened?


Spaced Out Ace said:


> View attachment 68743


In fairness, anything-gate is just dumb.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> View attachment 68743



The sad thing about physical systems in the world is that they don't care what you call them.



Xaios said:


> In fairness, anything-gate is just dumb.



True. It was coined by climate change deniers. Not really sure why it was included in that list, which was presumably made by...climate change deniers.


----------



## USMarine75

So your big issue with climate change is the naming convention? Fair enough.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

narad said:


> How is it wrong? It is literally how government in a representative democracy works. "collectivist" lol, - sometimes referred to as "a majority". You're in the US, you play buy US rules. Welcome to government 101.



Actually that’s not how the US government works. The US is NOT a democracy. It’s a Republic. There are laws and the majority doesn’t rule.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Slippery_Pete said:


> Actually that’s not how the US government works. The US is NOT a democracy. It’s a Republic. There are laws and the majority doesn’t rule.



Sort of. 

The United States is a Federal Republic and Constitutional Representative Democracy. 

It's not as easy as A or B. 

It's not that the majority "doesn't rule", it certainly can under certain situations, it's just the minority are protected to some degree. 

Depending on how the branches of the government are stacked it can sway one way or the other.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sort of.
> 
> The United States is a Federal Republic and Constitutional Representative Democracy.
> 
> It's not as easy as A or B.
> 
> It's not that the majority "doesn't rule", it certainly can under certain situations, it's just the minority are protected to some degree.
> 
> Depending on how the branches of the government are stacked it can sway one way or the other.




Yes my bad. He said representative democracy. I thought he meant straight up democracy.

Also thanks for the clear up.


----------



## narad

Slippery_Pete said:


> Actually that’s not how the US government works. The US is NOT a democracy. It’s a Republic. There are laws and the majority doesn’t rule.



Please see quote, "representative democracy". The majority of the population does not rule, but representative majorities are still the mechanism of change.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

narad said:


> Please see quote, "representative democracy". The majority of the population does not rule, but representative majorities are still the mechanism of change.



Yep sorry Narad, you were right.


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea so the theory goes. On the other hand, they aren't playing by US rules, there's this little thing known as the Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments particularly.
> 
> You know U.S. Govt 101:
> Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
> 
> Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
> 
> So per those boundary which have never been struck down, yes the bounds have been overstepped by the Govt. which makes discontent in the people understandable.



I take it you're a sovereign citizen then? 

The people of this country are discontent with vague guidelines, not adhered to based on one very narrow reading of them, for over 200 years? Yeah man, I'm seething!


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> I've actually never seen this "strategy" of arguing on the internet before. I kind of have to tip my hat to it, like, oh, that's really cute, you mention all the points on both sides so it's like they've already been refuted purely by mentioning them. Like, let me try one...
> 
> Abortion is immoral murder (and don't even mention that it's something that happens inside a woman's body and therefore her decision, or that children raised in unwanted homes often have terrible lives, or that many women would die or be seriously injured via secret backdoor abortionists or attempts to do it themselves, or that fetuses have less higher cognitive function than most animals we slaughter for food, or if women are raped and don't want to carry their rapists child to term, because that's besides the point).
> 
> It's kinda like, yea dude, that was the whole debate lol


No. I am just calling out the talking points that i know the left will use, before they use them. I am simply inserting your rebuttal to speed up the debate so i can move on to my next point. According to all of your excuses for murder in and fresh out of the womb ( which I would have predicted you would have said anyway), I was right.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> No. I am just calling out the talking points that i know the left will use, before they use them. I am simply inserting your rebuttal to speed up the debate so i can move on to my next point. According to all of your excuses for murder in and fresh out of the womb ( which I would have predicted you would have said anyway), I was right.
> View attachment 68745



Yea, that's the idea. You're not a genius for understanding that a vegan makes that choice because of the poor treatment of the animals -- that's the whole idea! Literally my 5 year old niece understands that this is the vegan rebuttal. Just like you similarly fit into the cookie-cutter right arguments against immigration. It doesn't give you a leg up in the argument, it just *is* the argument.


----------



## ExileMetal

I like how I can identify someone's political party by the surface level of their post. Lengthy post with lots of thought and nuance vs shitty memes and personal attacks; holds true on every forum basically, though I will say QAnon nutcases can write some REALLY long ones.

Don't worry guys, we're punishing the illegal immigrants enough by forcing them to work at Trump properties. Get owned libs!!!


----------



## thraxil

MetalHex said:


> Why do leftists think that just because people are against illegal immigration that they dont want immigrants there at all?



First, I think it's problematic to make sweeping generalizations about "leftists" or "the right" or similarly large and not very well defined groups, especially if you're trying to make an argument about them being inconsistent. It's way too easy to find individuals within any large group like that that will disagree on individual issues. Eg, many on "the right" will talk about the importance of "independence, freedom, liberty" while others on "the right" will argue that NFL players who take a knee or people that burn a flag in protest should not be allowed to do those things. Obviously a single individual holding both of those positions would be inconsistent, but "the right" as a group is heterogeneous so it's not a valid complaint in that sense.

So let's look at a much smaller group that's a little better defined. Specifically the Trump administration. This has to include Trump himself, Stephen Miller (who appears to be the one driving their concrete immigration policies), and those who are working with them to define, implement, and support those policies. Trump repeatedly says basically what you have, that he is not against immigration, that he's actually a big supporter of immigration, but he just sees illegal immigration as the problem.

Yet, one of the first things he did as president, particularly within the area of immigration policy, was the "muslim ban" attempting to block immigrants (and even just visitors) from specific countries from entering the US. People entering legally, with lawfully obtained visas, subject to all the rules and regulations. Nothing about that policy was targeting illegal immigrants, but it is totally consistent with wanting to limit all immigration (especially for immigrants with the wrong skin color or religion).

In August 2017, he supported the RAISE Act, which sought to reduce the number of green cards issued by 50% and capping refugee admissions. Again, not having anything to do with illegal immigration but totally consistent with wanting to reduce overall immigration.

After he initially supported it, he threatened to block any immigration deal that included "chain migration" ("CHAIN MIGRATION cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration!" -- @realDonaldTrump September 15, 2017). "Chain migration", again, is *legal* immigration. Eliminating the long-standing policies around helping family members immigrate does nothing to stop illegal immigration but is consistent with wanting to decrease all immigration.

Then there's the massive focus on "the wall". An incredibly expensive endeavor that he would be forcing you, me, and all the other tax payers to pay for. That despite the DHS' own reports and data showing that the vast majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling is through legal ports of entry not people hoofing it through the desert in the middle of the night. It also ignores the fact that most illegal immigration in the US is via the Canadian border (and mostly Canadians).

So if you feel like you are being attacked as "anti-immigration" when you feel you are really only against illegal immigration, I'm sorry about that. That's probably unfair. But hopefully you can understand why some of us look at the policies and statements of the current administration and conclude that they aren't really against illegal immigration as much as they are straight out anti-immigrant and *probably* have a whiff of racism mixed in.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> I take it you're a sovereign citizen then?
> 
> The people of this country are discontent with vague guidelines, not adhered to based on one very narrow reading of them, for over 200 years? Yeah man, I'm seething!



Nope not a sovereign citizen although it is an interesting concept.

That's not a narrow reading, when you're talking a pair of very short statments, it's a simple item that there are guidelines that were to be followed. Just as I'm expected to follow guidelines (laws), the government should have to follow the ones laid out to them. 

I do appreciate the levity but if I had meant seething, pissed, ect. I would have said so. I chose discontented for a reason, as the others are too severe for the situatuon. Neither side seems too happy with what the government is DOING for reasons that vary from person to person. Much of what the government have done or are doing involves overstepping their mandated boundaries.


----------



## MetalHex

thraxil said:


> First, I think it's problematic to make sweeping generalizations about "leftists" or "the right"


Maybe I should have clarified and said YOU leftists; meaning the people on this sub-forum. Take a poll from the main frequenters of this sub-forum and see what the demographic is of left vs. right, it would seem that the majority of people here are in fact leftists, so therefore it would not be a stretch to make a "sweeping generalization" in that regard. You have said of course, "leftists or the right" so to make sure to call out both sides (though you responded to only me though and no one else).



thraxil said:


> but it is totally consistent with wanting to limit all immigration



I actually don't think this would be a bad idea. I would be in favor of this as a temporary plug until we can come up with an even better process of screening each and every person that wants to live here. I dont care if they are from Nigeria, Hong Kong, Peru, or Sweden. Also I would presume that I could not just walk into anywhere I please and become a permanent resident for no other reason than "well I am here now, and I got a woman pregnant and made an anchor baby, so for fuck sakes you cant send me back!" This does happen.....alot....everyday. But I think we should at least be trying to slow it down if we can't stop it. 



thraxil said:


> not having anything to do with illegal immigration but totally consistent with wanting to reduce overall immigration


Again, I am for this. This country is bankrupt. How can we afford to just keep taking on more and more, at the expense of middle-class workers' tax dollars? Who is going to pay for new poor people with a shrinking middle-class? Other generational non-working poor people? Or just take more from the greedy rich, like doctors and lawyers. 

The wall. (It's funny how "Tax and Spend" Democrats now think $5 million is too much for something, when the ACA according to this site https://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/ is going to cost 1.2 trillion dollars by 2025, and to our detriment. How could that be? For one, fewer doctors https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/458074/2016_workforce_projections_04052016.html ". Declining care provided, more pill-pushing. Quick 5 minute exams, close-the-book, "NEXT"! Anecdotal, but not really. Ever been to the doctors office lately? I have. My doctor has an ipad and a computer set up, where he asks me several questions, checking off all the boxes down the list, and at the end, the algorithm determines the calculated solution to the "problem". So really, I see doctors taking orders from computers, and from Big Pharma. That's cronyism at its core).

I would be for one in the north as well, but, if we cant even get passed into law a wall at the south, so how the hell can we get one in the north? 



thraxil said:


> the vast majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling is through legal ports of entry not people hoofing it through the desert


 And how do we know that the majority drug smuggling is through the legal port? Maybe it's just a small percentage. It must be the most retarded ones that are trying to smuggle drugs through the main legal port, then get caught. Obviously if they are smuggling drugs in through the desert and crossing illegally somewhere else other than the legal entry port, we would have no clue as to what they are smuggling in or not, because they wont be caught.



thraxil said:


> It also ignores the fact that most illegal immigration in the US is via the Canadian border (and mostly Canadians)


 Why would Canadians want to come here though when they have their perfect dream world utopia up north? Especially (and as people in this very sub-forum have said in so many words), that our healthcare system sucks....our education system sucks...and our bridges and roads suck. (I agree with that). So why would anyone want to come here from a perfect socialist utopia? (Could it be that they are sick and tired of waiting 6 months to see a healthcare specialist? Their castle will eventually crumble under its own weight) But thats besides the point, they shouldn't be coming here illegally either. But for now I think a southern border wall is much more feaseable to accomplish than a northern one.

Racism? I don't see it with Trump. I don't see him say or do anything that makes me think that he thinks that he is more superior than people of different races, and sexes. He may have a very bold way of going about doing things, but I really do think he prioritizes the American citizen over all others. While morally, it is not true, no one is more important that anyone else....legally and lawfully, he must prioritize American citizens. We do have a way of life here in the western hemisphere that must be protected. Not everyone in the world hold the same beliefs and ideologies as we do. Some seek to destroy them. (there's already plenty of people like that here at home). Therefore each person should be inspected thoroughly. I dont have all the solutions, but I see helpful ones attempted to be put into place,


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Racism? I don't see it with Trump. I don't see him say or do anything that makes me think that he thinks that he is more superior than people of different races, and sexes. He may have a very bold way of going about doing things, but I really do think he prioritizes the American citizen over all others. While morally, it is not true, no one is more important that anyone else....legally and lawfully, he must prioritize American citizens. We do have a way of life here in the western hemisphere that must be protected. Not everyone in the world hold the same beliefs and ideologies as we do. Some seek to destroy them. (there's already plenty of people like that here at home). Therefore each person should be inspected thoroughly. I dont have all the solutions, but I see helpful ones attempted to be put into place,


You mean the guy who still believes the Central Park Five should be executed?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> You mean the guy who still believes the Central Park Five should be executed?



Or the guy who was sued by the government in the 70's for not renting to non-whites. 

The fucking 70's.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Or the guy who was sued by the government in the 70's for not renting to non-whites.
> 
> The fucking 70's.



Or the guy who allegedly said:

“Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries ... We should have more people from Norway."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Or the guy who allegedly said:
> 
> “Why do we want all these people from Africa here? They’re shithole countries ... We should have more people from Norway."



Or the guy who once said:

_"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarnmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that's guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."
_
That's from 91' by the way, and when questioned in 97' Trump himself said that it was "probably true".

I'd say he's about as racist as you can expect having a father who was arrested at KKK rallies.


----------



## MetalHex

^ @MaxOfMetal I can barely give you that last one, but I'll give you that one. Theres a fine line between being racial and being a full blown kkk/black panther racist. We dont know the context of which that was said. He could have been laughing and joking. Does that make it right? It might be fucked up to say something like that, but that technically doesn't define it as racist.

It's certainly no less fucked than "black-facing" yourself next to someone in a kkk uniform in your high school yearbook

However, the other examples by narad and stevenC are not racist.....allegedly


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> ^ @MaxOfMetal I can barely give you that last one, but I'll give you that one. Theres a fine line between being racial and being a full blown kkk/black panther racist. We dont know the context of which that was said. He could have been laughing and joking. Does that make it right? It might be fucked up to say something like that, but that technically doesn't define it as racist.
> 
> It's certainly no less fucked than "black-facing" yourself next to someone in a kkk uniform in your high school yearbook
> 
> However, the other examples by narad and stevenC are not racist.....allegedly



Still not a good look, even if it's just racial insensitivity. 

Then again, it's easy to say that as a middle/upper-middle class white dude. 

I don't have any skin in the game, so to say. 

Given the racial history in this country, you'd think it would a no-brainer for the person in the highest elected office in the land to, perhaps, do better. But here we are, lowering the bar almost daily.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Or the guy who once said:
> 
> _"I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarnmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I tell you something else. I think that's guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."
> _
> That's from 91' by the way, and when questioned in 97' Trump himself said that it was "probably true".
> 
> I'd say he's about as racist as you can expect having a father who was arrested at KKK rallies.



Holy shit. Whenever I think I understand the limits of that guy, there's always a counter-example that proves I'm not even close.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Holy shit. Whenever I think I understand the limits of that guy, there's always a counter-example that proves I'm not even close.



It's just so cartoonish and on the nose. It's incredible really. 

A million years from now, when aliens examine the dried husk of a planet Earth has become, they'll see this shit and think it was a stupid movie.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Or when Hillary called black people “super predators”.

Or when Hillary kissed David Duke grand wizard of the KKK.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Slippery_Pete said:


> Or when Hillary called black people “super predators”.
> 
> Or when Hillary kissed David Duke.



Sup, whataboutism. How you been? 

Also, David Duke and Robert Byrd are two different people. Wait a minute...New RWNJ Conspiracy: THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON. Has anyone seen them in the same room? Checkmate!


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Sorry it’s not whataboutism, it’s facts. Trump has done more good for black people than when both Clinton’s were in power.

The ones claiming racism are being led by people like Al Sharpton.

Also Go ahead and look up what Bill Clinton did to further increase the black prison population under his administration.


----------



## narad

Slippery_Pete said:


> Or when Hillary called black people “super predators”.



"But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy. 

God damn. Why are arguments from the right always so factually inaccurate. It's 2019. There's an internet! We're going to find out what she actually said within 5 minutes.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

narad said:


> "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs. Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.
> 
> God damn. Why are arguments from the right always so factually inaccurate. It's 2019. There's an internet! We're going to find out what she actually said within 5 minutes.



So she wasn’t talking about the black population there? Oh my mistake. You are right again!

The Clintons were an absolute gem for the black population. What was I thinking. Carry on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Slippery_Pete said:


> Sorry it’s not whataboutism, it’s facts.



Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Responding to Trump's alleged (and I use that loosely within the confines of this argument) racism with "what about Hillary Clinton's alleged racism" is textbook whataboutism by any measure.

It's also not facts, but why let that get in the way of your love affair with the Clintons.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...llary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/



> Trump has done more good for black people than when both Clinton’s were in power.



I'm gonna need a citation there.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ecord-jobs-for-black-americans-belied-by-data



> The ones claiming racism are being led by people like Al Sharpton.



Going to need another citation there, as a quick checks shows far more than fans of Sharpton discussing Trump's racially charged rhetoric. Who does he "lead" by the way?


----------



## narad

Slippery_Pete said:


> So she wasn’t talking about the black population there? Oh my mistake. You are right again!
> 
> The Clintons were an absolute gem for the black population. What was I thinking. Carry on.



Gangs. Gangs might be mostly black, but believe it or not, calling a gang of criminals "super predators" doesn't equate to calling black people super predators.

I'll give a counter-example, following your weird bizzaro logic. I say, "Programmers are stinky", and you say, "Narad just called all men stinky!!" You do two things wrong when you do: (a) you misquote me, and (b) you show your own biases. If when someone says "gangs" you think the term is synonymous and interchangeable with "black people", that's on you, pal.


----------



## thraxil

Slippery_Pete said:


> The ones claiming racism are being led by people like Al Sharpton.



I thought George Soros was paying our salaries? Who am I supposed to be taking my orders from?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Slippery_Pete said:


> Hillary
> Hillary





Slippery_Pete said:


> both Clinton’s
> Bill Clinton





Slippery_Pete said:


> The Clintons



I don't know who told you that the Clinton's were the Democrat's version of the Baldwins, but you're not hurting anyone's feelings.

Bill hasn't been in office in almost 20 years. Four and a half terms with three administrations. Hillary hasn't held office for over six years. Over half a decade.

It should be fairly telling that Trump was so terrible to most people that they were more than happy to vote for Hillary instead.


----------



## JSanta

Interesting news about Trump suing to block the release of his tax records. I'm of two minds about this situation.

I agree that it could set a dangerous precedent for the access of private tax records of ordinary citizens. I'm certainly concerned about the ability of the government to effectively weaponize tax records. On the other hand, if the man has nothing to hide, what is the concern? Given his behavior, I don't think he's doing this to protect the rights of other Americans, as I see very little in his past/current actions to support that he really cares about anyone but himself, which leads me to think there's unflattering information in the filings (legal or otherwise). Since he cares so much about his image, it's not a far leap to make.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> ^ @MaxOfMetal I can barely give you that last one, but I'll give you that one. Theres a fine line between being racial and being a full blown kkk/black panther racist. We dont know the context of which that was said. He could have been laughing and joking. Does that make it right? It might be fucked up to say something like that, but that technically doesn't define it as racist.
> 
> It's certainly no less fucked than "black-facing" yourself next to someone in a kkk uniform in your high school yearbook
> 
> However, the other examples by narad and stevenC are not racist.....allegedly


This is the guy who still thinks Obama was born in Kenya. The only "alleged" thing here is the shithole countries line. Everything else is 100% confirmed and reaffirmed by the man himself.


----------



## Drew

Good lord. I thought there was no better proof that the Mueller Report was really, really, really damaging to Trump than the fact that Trump was back on twitter calling it a "hoax" and blaming "12 Angry Democrats." Then I read this thread. 

You know how you can tell the Mueller report was really, really, really damaging to Trump? Because every single one of our token republicans, including a brand new account who I'll wage money on is the same dude who keeps creating new accounts to troll in this thread and get banned, is busy throwing everything they've got about it trying to change the subject to immigration, climate change denial, racism, socialism, abortion, Trump's sexual assault allegations, and hating the Clintons. 

The Mueller report is clearly a Big Fucking Deal because after all of the crowing after the publication of Barr's not-summary, suddenly our token Republicans want to talk about anything BUT the Mueller report.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

I will be glad to talk about the Mueller report with you, given the chance to.


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> This is the guy who still thinks Obama was born in Kenya. The only "alleged" thing here is the shithole countries line. Everything else is 100% confirmed and reaffirmed by the man himself.


Can you cite the source of where you are getting this from that "I am the guy who still thinks" that?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Sup, whataboutism. How you been?
> 
> Also, David Duke and Robert Byrd are two different people. Wait a minute...New RWNJ Conspiracy: THEY'RE THE SAME PERSON. Has anyone seen them in the same room? Checkmate!


Max, it is, "Checkmate, libtards!" Try to get the vernacular right. Get it...? Right? 

I'll be here all week.

-smacks the late drummer as I walk out who missed his cue to "ba dum tsshhh" after my lame pun-


----------



## Slippery_Pete

narad said:


> Gangs. Gangs might be mostly black, but believe it or not, calling a gang of criminals "super predators" doesn't equate to calling black people super predators.
> 
> I'll give a counter-example, following your weird bizzaro logic. I say, "Programmers are stinky", and you say, "Narad just called all men stinky!!" You do two things wrong when you do: (a) you misquote me, and (b) you show your own biases. If when someone says "gangs" you think the term is synonymous and interchangeable with "black people", that's on you, pal.



So I’m guessing these “gang” members she was referring to had nothing to do with the largest increase in prison population under her husband Bill Clinton. And you if were to guess that the majority of the people in these prisons were black you would win a shiny new car.


----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> I will be glad to talk about the Mueller report with you, given the chance to.


Well have I got some great news for you! There's a ton of discussion about just that subject here in this thread, and I've already put my thoughts down at length, and if there's anything in particular I've argued that you disagree with, let me know and I'd be happy to take it up with you!


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Can you cite the source of where you are getting this from that "I am the guy who still thinks" that?


Apologies, I guess he gave that one up after only 6 years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/16/trump-president-obama-was-born-in-the-united-states-period.html


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Drew said:


> Well have I got some great news for you! There's a ton of discussion about just that subject here in this thread, and I've already put my thoughts down at length, and if there's anything in particular I've argued that you disagree with, let me know and I'd be happy to take it up with you!



Well I’ll have to go through them but I truely believe what ever it is will be weak at best. There is no evidence. Nothing. Mueller has nothing to say. If he does let him testify, I will be happy to hear it. If it was that serious he would want to be heard. He left it open ended just to confuse everyone. There is no solid conclusion with evidence.


----------



## Drew

Though, to back up a bit, over and above the attempts to talk about anything BUT the report in this thread, Trump's change of tone is pretty remarkable. 

March 24th, after Barr's memo was released: "COMPLETE EXONERATION!" 
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1109918388133023744

April 19th, after the redacted full report is released: "Crazy Mueller Report," "total bullshit," "18 Angry Trump Hating Democrats," air-quotes around the word report, "treason." 
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119207303700471809
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119211274712375297
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1119341792460247040

His tone changed REAL fast, lol.


----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> Well I’ll have to go through them but I truely believe what ever it is will be weak at best. There is no evidence. Nothing. Mueller has nothing to say. If he does let him testify, I will be happy to hear it. If it was that serious he would want to be heard. He left it open ended just to confuse everyone. There is no solid conclusion with evidence.


Get reading then. There's strong enough evidence of obstruction of justice that Mueller had to open that section by reiterating the Department of Justice standing interpretation of the constitutional law issues involved that a sitting president could not be indicted, so instead he was merely presenting the facts and referring the matter to Congress. He all but said "If I could indict the president, I would."

On the subject with coordination with Russia, he documented a large number of suspicious contacts and actions both Trump and the Russians took that would benefit the other, but had no "smoking gun" evidence of an agreement between the two parties, meaning at the end of the day there was plenty of _evidence_, but not enough to substantiate charging the President with a crime because he wasn't able to prove criminal intent.

The irony is, nothing in the report was actually really all that new, since most of it had already been reported on by the so called "fake news liberal media." Had Barr not set the bar so low with his memo which strongly implied there was no evidence at all of coordination with Russia, and unclear evidence of obstruction of justice, the release of even the redacted report wouldn't have been the bombshell Barr turned it into.

As it is, because Trump fired Sessions several months before the end of the investigation and put Barr in his place, his removing Sessions is arguably an 11th count of obstruction of justice. And, given the jarring disconnects between Mueller's conclusions and Barr's not-summary of those conclusions, Barr is in legal jeopardy himself.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Drew said:


> Well, to start the Mueller report data dump, it's almost exactly as bad for Trump as I've been arguing all along that it would be.
> 
> First, Mueller explicitly kicked the question of whether Trump obstructed justice to _Congress_, not to his supervisors, because he believed he was Constitutionally required to do so. When Barr decided to clear him on his own, he overstepped his Constitutional authority as determined by the DoJ, and considering Barr himself was appointed during the investigation after Trump fired Sessions, this itself may constitute grounds for obstruction:
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...HRRg6x1C6321FIL5IUed9BHB18VBOGbfxBDZFMGI9iPZ0
> 
> Expect to hear a lot more on this as the case unfolds.
> 
> Second, as I suspected, Mueller concluded he could not prove coordination (rather than collusion - this was the formal scope of the inquirty) between Trump and Russia, but that's a FAR cry from saying there was no evidence of coordination, as Trump (and, to an extent, Barr) have argued. Rather, there was rather a lot, and both parties took a number of actions that were clearly in the other's best interest, and took steps to cover up those actions. But, it never got to the point of a smoking gun, where there was evidence of an _agreement_ for a quid pro quo. So, we can't prove the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia, but there's still plenty of evidence to imply that Trump may not have been working in the country's best interests.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/live-mueller-report-analysis.html
> 
> Barr memo notwithstanding, Trump isn't even close to out of the woods here. I think it's unlikely Trump would get impeached for obstruction alone... But, with ten separate clear instances, and with his appointing Barr to head the DoJ just in time to clear him of obstruction in what appears to have been an unconstitutional act, I'd say it's merely unlikely, not impossible.
> 
> I mean, Mueller concluded that Trump did in fact fire Comey not for his stated reasons, but because he refused to clear Trump's name. That's pretty major.


Ok I will attempt to respond to your points.

To your first point on obstruction of justice. I see no case to this. Comey was fired under the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein who then appointed Robert Mueller to head the special council. Weird?

Also Trump had every right to fire Mueller if he believed he was to have conflicts of interest. Which he most certainly does. But guess what he didn’t fire him, he let the investigation go on for over 2 years until it ended didn’t he?

To your second argument about there being no solid evidence that Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia but that there is evidence to imply he wasn’t doing things in the best interest for America. I mean isn’t this subjective? I could point out a lot of things Clinton would do which wasn’t in the best interest for the country.

So basically the only thing going is the obstruction case which honestly won’t amount to anything. But only time will tell.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Drew. To your argument on obstruction of justice with the firing of Jeff Sessions. I mean really? The guy was completely useless. He should have never recused himself from the so called Russia investigation.


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> Apologies, I guess he gave that one up after only 6 years.
> https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/16/trump-president-obama-was-born-in-the-united-states-period.html


Oh gotcha I thought you were talking about me.....and I was confused because I never said that


----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> Ok I will attempt to respond to your points.
> 
> To your first point on obstruction of justice. I see no case to this. Comey was fired under the recommendation of Rod Rosenstein who then appointed Robert Mueller to head the special council. Weird?
> 
> Also Trump had every right to fire Mueller if he believed he was to have conflicts of interest. Which he most certainly does. But guess what he didn’t fire him, he let the investigation go on for over 2 years until it ended didn’t he?
> 
> To your second argument about there being no solid evidence that Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia but that there is evidence to imply he wasn’t doing things in the best interest for America. I mean isn’t this subjective? I could point out a lot of things Clinton would do which wasn’t in the best interest for the country.
> 
> So basically the only thing going is the obstruction case which honestly won’t amount to anything. But only time will tell.




So, you're saying you h_aven't read the Mueller report_, then, but you're sure there's nothing in it. Because Mueller concludes the opposite of what you're saying here.

1) Mueller concluded that the principle reason for firing Comey was his refusal to clear Trump in the Russia investigation. Full stop.

2) Two parts to unpack here.
a)First, Mueller's report argued that it's possible to do things you have the legal authority to do - fire Comey or Mueller, for instance - but if the reasons for doing so are to shut down an investigation into your conduct, then using legally-given powers for unscrupulous means can constitute obstruction of justice. It was Barr, not Mueller, who made that argument, in an amicus brief filed before he was nominated for AG.
b) Trump DID try to fire Mueller. Twice. McGahn refused to do it.

3) Of course it can be subjective - that's why we appointed a special prosecutor. And, his conclusion was that Russia was taking actions that would directly help Trump, while Trump was taking actions that would directly help Russia, after investigating whether or not Trump and Russia were working together. What he wasn't able to conclude with certainty, though, is if this was by agreement (i.e. - was there criminal intent), or if the two parties just happened to be doing things that were helping the other. It was suspicious as hell... But not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was guilty of anything other than the extremely bad judgement to be contacted by people purporting to be the agents of an enemy country, and not _immediately _notify US intelligence.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Drew. Right after Comey was fired McCabe testified saying Trump's firing of Comey has not measurably slowed down the bureau's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.

McCabe was asked by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., whether Comey's dismissal has hurt the FBI's investigation in any way.

"As you know, senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions," McCabe said. "So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution."

My point is Trump firing Comey or Mueller wouldn’t matter. Someone else would replace them and the investigation would have continued no matter what.


----------



## StevenC

Slippery_Pete said:


> Drew. Right after Comey was fired McCabe testified saying Trump's firing of Comey has not measurably slowed down the bureau's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections.
> 
> McCabe was asked by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., whether Comey's dismissal has hurt the FBI's investigation in any way.
> 
> "As you know, senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions," McCabe said. "So there has been no effort to impede our investigation to date. Simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution."
> 
> My point is Trump firing Comey or Mueller wouldn’t matter. Someone else would replace them and the investigation would have continued no matter what.


You understand how murder and attempted murder are both crimes, right? Effectiveness doesn't come into the legality of it.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

StevenC said:


> You understand how murder and attempted murder are both crimes, right? Effectiveness doesn't come into the legality of it.




I’m sorry but I don’t quite follow you on how this has anything to do with what I posted. We are discussing the firing of Comey and if it was obstruction of justice. Where did the murder part come into play here?


----------



## StevenC

Slippery_Pete said:


> I’m sorry but I don’t quite follow you on how this has anything to do with what I posted. We are discussing the firing of Comey and if it was obstruction of justice.


If you try to obstruct justice that is illegal regardless of whether it is effective. The word for it is "conspiracy".


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Slippery_Pete said:


> I’m sorry but I don’t quite follow you on how this has anything to do with what I posted. We are discussing the firing of Comey and if it was obstruction of justice.





StevenC said:


> If you try to obstruct justice that is illegal regardless of whether it is effective. The word for it is "conspiracy".


I don’t even think you read what I posted. The acting director of the FBI said Trump firing Comey did not impede the Russia investigation. So....

And also let’s be clear. Comey said Trump was not the target of the investigation before he was fired.

In firing Comey, Trump wrote in a letter Tuesday: "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."

Also: https://www.businessinsider.com/comey-told-trump-he-wasnt-under-investigation-2017-6

Or this:


----------



## bostjan

Slippery_Pete said:


> I don’t even think you read what I posted. The acting director of the FBI said Trump firing Comey did not impede the Russia investigation. So....
> 
> And also let’s be clear. Comey said Trump was not the target of the investigation before he was fired.
> 
> In firing Comey, Trump wrote in a letter Tuesday: "I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation."
> 
> Also: https://www.businessinsider.com/comey-told-trump-he-wasnt-under-investigation-2017-6
> 
> Or this:





Mueller Report said:


> According to notes taken by a senior DOJ official of Rosenstein’s description of his meeting with the President, the President said, “Put the Russia stuff in the memo.” Rosenstein responded that the Russia investigation was not the basis of his recommendation, so he did not think Russia should be mentioned. The President told Rosenstein he would appreciate it if Rosenstein put it in his letter anyway. When Rosenstein left the meeting, he knew that Comey would be terminated , and he told DOJ colleagues that his own reasons for replacing Comey were “not [the President’s] reasons.”


So, according to Mueller, Trump fired Comey, because of the Russia investigation.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Here is Rod Rosenstein’s letter of recommendation for firing Comey.

Notice the subject title:

*SUBJECT:* Restoring public confidence in the FBI

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39866767

Let’s be clear again. Trump was not the subject of the Russia investigation prior to Comey’s dismissal.

Then this same Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as leader of the Special Council. Here’s the letter:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726381/Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.pdf

I don’t think anyone can argue Rod Rosenstein was a lacky for Trump. He let Mueller and the special council do anything they wanted investigating the Trump campaign.

And it was finally Barr and Rosenstein who concluded the Mueller report.


----------



## StevenC

Because Comey couldn't be fired for investigating Trump, because that is illegal and called obstruction of justice.

Why even bother...


----------



## Slippery_Pete

StevenC said:


> Because Comey couldn't be fired for investigating Trump, because that is illegal and called obstruction of justice.
> 
> Why even bother...



Wow. I provide you with a wealth of information on the firing of Comey and that’s your response? I’m guessing you didn’t ready anything I wrote. How about just reading Rosenstein’s letter for reasons of firing Comey. Read all the other people who recommended he be fired in that said letter. This is why he was fired. Not to obstruct justice on the Russia investigation. Which I again will tell you continued under McCabe without impediment. Comey failed the justice department, that’s why he was fired.

Did you ever see that Colbert episode after Comey was fired? He’s like well Trump just fired Comey, and the audience was applauding with joy. Then Colbert is like oh no that’s a bad thing don’t applaud. That just shows you who’s controlling the narrative.


----------



## StevenC

Slippery_Pete said:


> Wow. I provide you with a wealth of information on the firing of Comey and that’s your response? I’m guessing you didn’t ready anything I wrote. How about just reading Rosenstein’s letter for reasons of firing Comey. Read all the other people who reccomened he be fired in that said letter. This is why he was fired. Not to obstruct justice on the Russia investigation. Which I again will tell you continued under McCabe without impediment. Comey failed the justice department, that’s why he was fired


Trump fired Comey and, if you read the Mueller report or listen to what Trump said on the matter, it wasn't based on Rosentsein's recommendations.


----------



## Slippery_Pete

StevenC said:


> Trump fired Comey and, if you read the Mueller report or listen to what Trump said on the matter, it wasn't based on Rosentsein's recommendations.



Well the Mueller report is wrong. How do they even know this so called hidden intent? There is no proof other than that’s what someone said he said. The reasons were written by Rosenstein and the recomendation to fire Comey was Rosenstein, that’s not even debatable.

Also remember how the special council came to be. It all started from Comey all of a sudden having “memos” with the president which he has never done before but decided to do it with Trump. It’s his word against Trumps with no actual proof. He said she said garbage.

And this is all they have after 2 plus years of an investigation? 

Oh and this just in. Pelosi says no immediate plans for impeachment after Mueller memo.


----------



## narad

Slippery_Pete said:


> So I’m guessing these “gang” members she was referring to had nothing to do with the largest increase in prison population under her husband Bill Clinton. And you if were to guess that the majority of the people in these prisons were black you would win a shiny new car.



That's speculation. Did Hilary call black people super predators, yes or no?


----------



## bostjan

Slippery_Pete said:


> Well the Mueller report is wrong. How do they even know this so called hidden intent? There is no proof other than that’s what someone said he said. The reasons were written by Rosenstein and the recomendation to fire Comey was Rosenstein, that’s not even debatable.
> 
> Also remember how the special council came to be. It all started from Comey all of a sudden having “memos” with the president which he has never done before but decided to do it with Trump. It’s his word against Trumps with no actual proof. He said she said garbage.
> 
> And this is all they have after 2 plus years of an investigation?
> 
> Oh and this just in. Pelosi says no immediate plans for impeachment after Mueller memo.



If Trump fired him, which he did, and Trump's own words, which were the basis of the section of the Mueller report that I quoted for you, say that it has nothing to do with Rosenstein's rewording, and Rosenstein agrees in a seperate statement, then how in the hell is the Mueller report wrong about this?

Let me put this out there: if Trump is not removed from office for obstruction, it proves that Trump didn't obstruct the investigation just as much as Bill Clinton not being removed from office proves he didn't lie under oath (hint: he did). Obstruction is a pretty serious crime, but so is lying under oath. I don't know that either of those would be enough to remove a sitting President. The President is also desperately trying to hide his tax returns from congress. It's like he's begging for more investigations, but, then again, why would the President, who won't even take his own salary, choose that battle? He's going to go down in history as the President who never got away from scandall, from day one. And for what? Personal privacy?

If anyone wants to write the manual for how to look the most guilty, it should be Trump. If it was some poor schmoe who tried this hard to hide evidence and say "I'm fucked," when the detective comes to investigate, I really don't think he'd get a fair trail, because everyone would be crying for them to lock him up before the trial even started. But Trump does this crap and his fanbase is so galvanized that they probably don't give a rat's ass what he's done, they just want to see liberals suffer.

It's not like this is the guy who stood up for privacy rights when they rolled out the Patriot Act, or the guy who said that the President's privacy is his own, when nutbags were convinced that Obama didn't have a birth certificate. So, all of this noise coming from him now is pure hypocracy.

The Mueller Report has nothing earthshattering in it. It lays a convincing foundation that says that Trump tried to hide something, and the Special Council didn't find out anything linking Trump directly to Russian collusion in the election. That's good news! I mean, everyone already knew he was hiding something. We may never know what that is. Whatever, it's 2019, and I haven't been nuked, so that's something. I wasn't so sure we'd live this long with either of the 2016 candidates.


----------



## ExileMetal

There are a thousand reasons to remove this shit president that have nothing to do with Russia or the Mueller report, but as we've learned in the past few pages, anti-immigration, anti-gay, anti transgender, racism, failing economy, failing mental health, proven lying administrative employees, communicating via tweets (if you can call that word salad communication), destroying our world standing, pissing off our allies, giving our middle class to billionaire CEOs, denying science, removing environmental protections, funneling our tax dollars into Mar A Lago, and triggering the libs are actual values to stand behind for the right.

Potential obstruction or collusion? Well, we aren't sure, but that's a small price to pay to make sure Hillary goes to jail, cuz I care way more about those people who have literally no impact on the USA in 2019. I'll gladly donate some more journalists (enemy of the people) to Saudi Arabia to make sure Trump stays in office. Evidence you say? -sticks fingers in ears - lalalalala I can't hear you! It's not true because I say it's not! It's like the time I tried to rob a bank and went to jail; I wasn't actually trying to rob it, I just wanted to show the teller my gun and take all of the money in the safe. We just call that "fighting back" , the Angry Democrats keep getting those things mixed up.

I don't know how much of this is a joke anymore.


----------



## efiltsohg

^ cringe


----------



## vilk




----------



## MetalHex




----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> Wow. I provide you with a wealth of information on the firing of Comey and that’s your response? I’m guessing you didn’t ready anything I wrote. How about just reading Rosenstein’s letter for reasons of firing Comey. Read all the other people who recommended he be fired in that said letter. This is why he was fired. Not to obstruct justice on the Russia investigation. Which I again will tell you continued under McCabe without impediment. Comey failed the justice department, that’s why he was fired.


Ok, a couple things here. 

1) As StevenC pointed out, you don't have to _succeed_ in obstructing justice to be convicted of _trying_ to obstruct it. Firing Comey may have not stopped the investigation, but Trump was trying to do so when he fired him. 

2) Trump, Mueller concluded, had decided to fire Comey before he_ asked_ Rosenstein to write a memo justifying firing him for his handling of the Clinton investigation. Part of the obstruction case was built on the fact that while afterwards Trump admitted in public appearances the Russia investigation was on his mind when he fired Comey, Mueller concluded that he was lying when he wrote his letter to Comey informing him of why he had been fired. Rosenstein was reportedly very unhappy when Trump used him as the reason to fire Comey. Again, you're going on and on about how there's "nothing in the Mueller report," but then ignoring principle conclusions like Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him, and then lying about why he did it. Maybe think about it from this angle - why would Trump fire Comey for the way he handled his investigation into Clinton? Trump was well behind her in the polls until the Comey letter one week before the election, and only after Comey brought her email server back into the news cycle did Trump come within the margin of error in most polls. Comey is very likely the reason Trump _won_, and Trump had initially agreed to keep him on until the Russia investigation started to gather speed. I mean, hell, Trump tried to fire _Mueller_ too, who had no other role than investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and only failed because McGahn refused and saidf he'd quit if Trump did so. Why is it even remotely hard to believe that Trump hired Comey over the investigation, when we know he tried to fire Mueller himself?

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this - you're saying "there's nothing in the Mueller report," but when we're telling you that Mueller referred the question of obstruction to Congress because there was a strong enough case to be made that the Justice Department had no choice but to refer it to the government body who had the authority to judge the President's actions, and that part of the case was Trump's firing of Comey, you're now saying "oh, Mueller was wrong, I can't believe they couldn't find anything more in two years." 

No, that's not "nothing in the report," that's not "Mueller was wrong," that's not "finding nothing in two years," that's _YOU_ not liking the conclusions Mueller came to because you support Trump and don't want to believe he attempted to obstruct justice. Mueller failed to find a "smoking gun" tying evidence of both sides helping the other to criminal cooperation, but he absolutely found an actionable obstruction of justice case, and at this point I don't yet think it's terribly likely, but there's a real and growing chance that Trump gets impeached by the house over this based on how unequivocal the case is that Trump tried to obstruct the Mueller investigation. 

Face it. You not _liking_ the conclusions of the Mueller report isn't the same as there being nothing in it that's damaging to Trump. It's plenty damning, which is why Trump is having a twitter meltdown about it.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> View attachment 68785


You know, regardless of veracity, this is a pretty spot on critique of the "American Dream".


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> You know, regardless of veracity, this is a pretty spot on critique of the "American Dream".


Yeah. Trump isn't the president the majority of Americans wanted... But he's the one we deserve.


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> View attachment 68785



*Barry Soetoro


----------



## MetalHex

Well then its fair to say as usual, that about 50% of the population wanted neither of these guys as president 

True or not the meme is funny come on now!


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Well then its fair to say as usual, that about 50% of the population wanted neither of these guys as president
> 
> True or not the meme is funny come on now!


That hardly does Trump any favors, you know.


----------



## Randy

I'm mildly pragmatic, hence why I vote for one of the major parties. My ideal order would be Vermin Supreme > Zoltan Istvan > The Dem > The R


----------



## Slippery_Pete

Drew you said this:

“Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him”

I am sorry but this is false. I have already proven it previously and posted video of Comeys testimony. From the horses mouth Comey said Trump was not under investigation before he was terminated. 

The firing of Comey DID however start the real fiasco known as the special council which then started to go with a fine tooth comb over every detail of the Trump campaign.

Once again, have you read Rosenstein’s reasons for firing Comey? It’s pretty detailed and includes many other people agreeing with him for firing Comey. Just go ahead and read the list of people. Are you telling me Trump came up with these reasons or was it Rosenstein? Because it was in FACT Rosenstein who recommended Trump fire Comey and not he other way around.

This is what Rosenstein writes in Conclusion about Comey’s firing.

“Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”


----------



## bostjan

Comey is what, like 6 foot 8 inches tall?! Normally, I'd believe Trump, at a respectable 6' 2.5", but since Comey has at least five inches on him, how can you not trust him?!


----------



## thraxil

Slippery_Pete said:


> Drew you said this:
> 
> “Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him”
> 
> I am sorry but this is false. I have already proven it previously and posted video of Comeys testimony. From the horses mouth Comey said Trump was not under investigation before he was terminated.



That's just not what Mueller concluded. Volume II, page 75 of the report: “Substantial evidence indicates that the catalyst for the president’s decision to fire Comey was Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the president was not personally under investigation.”

Somewhat in Trump's defense, Mueller also does basically clear him of obstruction on that particular point (it's not one of the 10 that he lays out elsewhere) in that it appears Trump didn't fire Comey with corrupt intent to impede the Russia investigation but more out of a sense of jealousy that Comey had publicly cleared Clinton and wouldn't do the same for him. So, it was petty and poorly covered up (by instructing Rosenstein to write the memo and “put the Russia stuff” in it, which Rosenstein refused to do), but not necessarily illegal.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> You know, regardless of veracity, this is a pretty spot on critique of the "American Dream".



""(Americans have) a continuing normative commitment to the ideals of individual freedom and mobility, values that extend far beyond the issue of race in the American mind. The depth of this commitment may be summarily dismissed as the unfounded optimism of the average American—I may not be Donald Trump now, but just you wait; if I don't make it, my children will." -- Barrack Obama, actual

Spot on


----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> Drew you said this:
> 
> “Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him”
> 
> I am sorry but this is false. I have already proven it previously and posted video of Comeys testimony. From the horses mouth Comey said Trump was not under investigation before he was terminated.
> 
> The firing of Comey DID however start the real fiasco known as the special council which then started to go with a fine tooth comb over every detail of the Trump campaign.
> 
> Once again, have you read Rosenstein’s reasons for firing Comey? It’s pretty detailed and includes many other people agreeing with him for firing Comey. Just go ahead and read the list of people. Are you telling me Trump came up with these reasons or was it Rosenstein? Because it was in FACT Rosenstein who recommended Trump fire Comey and not he other way around.
> 
> This is what Rosenstein writes in Conclusion about Comey’s firing.
> 
> “Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”


You're not listening. 

You're holding on to two pieces of evidence as proof that Trump didn't fire Comey because of the investigation - Rosenstein's memo, and Trump's letter informing Comey of the decision. They stand in contradiction to a LARGE body of evidence to the contrary, that Trump DID fire Comey because of the Russia investigation. What you're pointing to is the cover story, which Mueller was able to conclude with high confidence was a lie.

Good read here, citing specific portions of the report:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-comey-firing-mueller-report.html


Trump decided he wanted to fire Comey after his May 2nd testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where, when asked, Comey was careful to avoid confirming or denying whether Trump himself was under investigation in the Russia investigation.
Trump asked Steven Miller to draft a letter to Comey firing him before the decision to fire Comey had been made at the DoJ. Rosenstein agreed there was a case to fire Comey, but after Trump kept pressing him to include references to the Russia investigation in his letter became convinced that his reasons and Trump's reasons for wanting Comey gone were not the same, and that his memo building the case for removing him was not the actual reason Trump was doing so, between the desire to repeatedly mention Russia and the fact Trump had already made his mind up to fire him before approaching Rosenstein.
Trump wanted Rosenstein to do a press conference on the 9th after the official white house statement was released. Rosenstein refused for two reasons - one, because he was upset his memo was being portrayed as the reason Comey was fired by the White House (something that was reported at the time), and two, because he told Trump if he did give a press conference he would have to tell the press that the decision to fire Comey had been made before Trump had approached him.
The White House continued arguing that the decision to fire Comey had been made at Rosenstein's reccomendartion for another two days, until Trump admitted in an interview on NBC that he was going to fire him one way or another because of the Russia investigation.
So, interviews with participants in the relevant conversations (including McGahn, Rosenstein, Sessions, and Bannon), contemporaneous notes, and Trump's own public remarks undercut the two things you're holding onto, and depict them as the cover story Trump used to fire Comey for the Russia investigation, while making it look like it _wasn't_ about the Russia investigation.

So, yes, I'm telling you Trump decided to fire Comey, went to Rosenstein and asked him to draft a memo giving him a rationale for firing him, which he then publicly admitted (as Rosenstein believes as well) that it was only an excuse and that he was going to fire him "regardless of recommendation." Mueller went into this in depth, and this was his conclusion.


----------



## Drew

Slippery_Pete said:


> “Trump fired Comey for refusing to clear him”
> 
> I am sorry but this is false. I have already proven it previously and posted video of Comeys testimony. *From the horses mouth Comey said Trump was not under investigation before he was terminated.*


In fact, I'm going to edit my original and address this as a seperate, shorter post, because otherwise I'm afraid you'll miss or gloss over it/

The video you posted - Collins' final question was "a_*t the time of your dismissal, on May 9th*_, was the President under investigation." That means this was from his _*second*_ Senate hearing, on June 8th, _after_ he had been fired. That means it's not some sort of proof that Comey had been willing to publicly clear Trump from investigation before he was fired. To the contrary, Comey's public statement during the hearing immediately _before_ he was fired was: "The Department of Justice has authorized me to confirm the existence of a broader investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. We’re not going to say another word about it until we’re done." Souce: WaPo.


----------



## Ralyks

So I woke up to Biden officially launching his campaign, and Deutsche Bank handing over Trumps financial documents.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> So I woke up to Biden officially launching his campaign, and Deutsche Bank handing over Trumps financial documents.



So what you're saying is we have to take the good with the bad?


----------



## Ralyks

Preeeetty much


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> So what you're saying is we have to take the good with the bad?


He's not my preferred candidate, but I'm fine with him being in the running and I think he's got an excellent shot at beating Trump if he wins.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> He's not my preferred candidate, but I'm fine with him being in the running and I think he's got an excellent shot at beating Trump if he wins.



I'm about 70/30 the thing that saved his candidacy was the "I'm not sorry for any of my intentions" line, despite how much he was villainized for it. Indignation seems to be the only defense that sticks these days.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm about 70/30 the thing that saved his candidacy was the "I'm not sorry for any of my intentions" line, despite how much he was villainized for it. Indignation seems to be the only defense that sticks these days.


I don't know if I would go as far as "saved" - I don't think he was ever under _that_ much pressure to not run - but I think it helped. I'd say his handling of this scandal was quite a bit better than Warren's whole fiasco with her Native American heritage and the DNA test, for example. 

Meanwhile, I'm a little bummed our token conservative has given up on trying to defend Trump from the Mueller report, lol.


----------



## bostjan

I'm convinced that no amount of documentation would convince any Trump supporter about anything regarding Trump that they don't wish to believe. We had a person here repeating the same line over and over, despite several quotes from the Mueller report. A lot of folks refuse to read the (any significant portion of) report, yet are convinced that they know what it says. I'm still working through it myself, but I'm not going around summarizing what it said to other people. It seems to me, so far, to be brilliantly carefully worded to clarify the bounds that the team put on itself in the investigation and, from what I've read so far, it seems to stay within those bounds.

Maybe your average joe just can't grasp those sorts of legal concepts, which is why so few will ever read enough of it to digest, and why you have Fox News adamantly going after the report trying to discredit it or say it went too far.


----------



## Explorer

Trump is pretty dumb.

He tweeted that he never told McGahn to fire Mueller. 

You can't talk publicly about a private exchange, and then claim the other party must treat the exchange as private. Trump just ruined even his possible retroactive attempt to claim executive privilege to block McGahn from teatifying before the House. 

----

It was interesting to read, a few pages back, the touching concern over the narrow request for the records of a sitting President who has claimed publicly that he has been under audit for over six years. "Oh, this means that *any* private citizen can have their records given to Congress when the given justification pertains to the president!" 

Also, it's possible that Mueller has some or all of Trump's tax records. That will strengthen the possibility that Congress can get the same records using the same justification. 

I'm probably not the only one who is waiting to see the New York state case go forward. I'm pretty sure that Trump is in Putin's pocket, and that Trump has been laundering money for the Russians. 

Also, I'm amused that Trump recently declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization, and that he also used them for financing a while back. Oh, that lack of principles!


----------



## JSanta

Explorer said:


> Trump is pretty dumb.
> 
> He tweeted that he never told McGahn to fire Mueller.
> 
> You can't talk publicly about a private exchange, and then claim the other party must treat the exchange as private. Trump just ruined even his possible retroactive attempt to claim executive privilege to block McGahn from teatifying before the House.
> 
> ----
> 
> It was interesting to read, a few pages back, the touching concern over the narrow request for the records of a sitting President who has claimed publicly that he has been under audit for over six years. "Oh, this means that *any* private citizen can have their records given to Congress when the given justification pertains to the president!"
> 
> Also, it's possible that Mueller has some or all of Trump's tax records. That will strengthen the possibility that Congress can get the same records using the same justification.
> 
> I'm probably not the only one who is waiting to see the New York state case go forward. I'm pretty sure that Trump is in Putin's pocket, and that Trump has been laundering money for the Russians.
> 
> Also, I'm amused that Trump recently declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization, and that he also used them for financing a while back. Oh, that lack of principles!



You're referencing my post from a few pages ago. I indicated that it "could" set a bad precedent for allowing Congress to obtain private financial documents that they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Again, as I stated, Trump has never been the kind of person (at least from what I can tell publicly) to care about anyone but himself, so his refusal to turn over anything has nothing to do with protecting the rights of people like me.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> Again, as I stated, Trump has never been the kind of person (at least from what I can tell publicly) to care about anyone but himself, so his refusal to turn over anything has nothing to do with protecting the rights of people like me.



This. So much this.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Trump is pretty dumb.
> 
> He tweeted that he never told McGahn to fire Mueller.
> 
> You can't talk publicly about a private exchange, and then claim the other party must treat the exchange as private. Trump just ruined even his possible retroactive attempt to claim executive privilege to block McGahn from teatifying before the House.


----------



## Thaeon

At this point, I'm pretty tired of the talking heads going on about it. I've read enough of it to have my own opinion about what should be done. That has absolutely no baring at all on what the people in charge of the situation will do though. So, I'm sort of just ready to see how the House deals with it, and I'd like to move on. I don't have any confidence that the american people will be swayed by any of this. The republican party in washington seems so completely out of touch with their ideals. And their constituents seem to be making irrational inferences about it all and blindly adhering to perceived principles whether the people they elect stick with them or not. At least they're telling the right lies.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> At this point, I'm pretty tired of the talking heads going on about it. I've read enough of it to have my own opinion about what should be done. That has absolutely no baring at all on what the people in charge of the situation will do though. So, I'm sort of just ready to see how the House deals with it, and I'd like to move on. I don't have any confidence that the american people will be swayed by any of this. The republican party in washington seems so completely out of touch with their ideals. And their constituents seem to be making irrational inferences about it all and blindly adhering to perceived principles whether the people they elect stick with them or not. At least they're telling the right lies.


No, they won't. Trump's supporters think the whole thing is a made up witch-hunt led by 12 Angry Democrats that totally exonerated him, and independents and liberals range from thinking that it doesn't paint Trump in very good light at all, to thinking he needs to be impeached ASAP for the good of the country.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> At this point, I'm pretty tired of the talking heads going on about it. I've read enough of it to have my own opinion about what should be done. That has absolutely no baring at all on what the people in charge of the situation will do though. So, I'm sort of just ready to see how the House deals with it, and I'd like to move on. I don't have any confidence that the american people will be swayed by any of this. The republican party in washington seems so completely out of touch with their ideals. And their constituents seem to be making irrational inferences about it all and blindly adhering to perceived principles whether the people they elect stick with them or not. At least they're telling the right lies.



I've mentioned it probably sometime in the last year or two, but you can draw a direct line between the end of the Fairness Doctrine, up through the creation of Fox News and straight to where we land today.

To be clear, the Fairness Doctrine was imperfect, Fox News isn't the only media that is explicitly biased and people should be able to distinguish truth from fact on their own, yadda yadda yadda.

That preface out of the way, the existence of the Fairness Doctrine at least serves as a reminder that 1.) facts are facts, opinion is opinion 2.) subjective/vague information is open for interpretation. I understand the First Amendment and freedom of thought but it's short sighted a narcissistic to assume that brainwashing through disinformation or selective sharing of information has been proven infinitely to be real things but "I know better than that, and should be allowed to decide for myself". In practice, all the Fairness Doctrine did was remind new organizations either share the information objectively and honestly, or explicitly separate editorializing from news and expect you'll have to make equal time for opposing views, and THEN allow people to make their decisions.

All the major news outlets are in the business of opinion programming first, news coverage second and then the two started to meld together to where you don't know where one stops or the other begins, and NOW there is not separation between the two because WHAT the news covers and how they choose to cover it are dictated by the editorial page. Fox News started the trend and they ran circles around the other news organizations until they eventually decided to follow suit. 

You've now got the dumbest, most 'reality TV drama' driven version of what news ever was.

And Russian collusion be damned, you had a US media salivating over the prospects of candidate Trump and then President Trump to drive viewers. So then they have this perverted coverage things going on politically, Trump calls it out as "fake news" and eventually people decide the only news they can trust is that which they get without the corporate filtering AKA through social media, and the Russian trolls (and, in fairness, a good number of American trolls) were lying in wait to spring the trap.

At this point, people have such disbelief of facts as objective things or who/where they can get them from, yeah, you're absolutely living i a country where half the people or more are brainwashed. I can't trust the news, I can't trust a new site or channel, I can only trust individuals. Well, except those individuals tell me to trust certain sources and then I guess I trust those too. That's the definition of brainwashed.

With all of that in mind, I think you're entirely right. There's no facts and no spin on this story that's going to change the mind of anybody one way or another and I'd venture to guess you probably didn't see much movement between when the investigation was going on and after the results came out, despite how incendiary one side saw the finding to be or how exonerated the other believes to be based on the results.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> At this point, people have such disbelief of facts as objective things or who/where they can get them from, yeah, you're absolutely living i a country where half the people or more are brainwashed. I can't trust the news, I can't trust a new site or channel, I can only trust individuals. Well, except those individuals tell me to trust certain sources and then I guess I trust those too. That's the definition of brainwashed.


Amen, Randy.

I think one of the single biggest ironies of where we are today is every single distopian novel I've ever read (even _including _Brave New World, which arguably was on point in every other way) taught us to distrust a state media reporting only the stories the State wanted us to know, only providing the information and conclusions they wanted us to have, and that the lack of freedom in news would be the death of us. It taught us to fear an attack on the First Amendment. And today, we're finding that it's _private_ media, not state media, that's the problem, the fact that we can _choose_ which set of information and conclusions we want to be given, and that's it's the First Amendment itself, and not the government doing away with it, that's fracturing our democracy. 

I'm not saying censorship or doing away with the First Amendment is the answer, at _all_. It's just bitterly ironic, that because we have been given the freedom to choose how our news is filtered to us, free of any constraints on objectivity, that we now have a country where people are literally living parallel lives unable to agree on fundamental observable _truths_.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I've mentioned it probably sometime in the last year or two, but you can draw a direct line between the end of the Fairness Doctrine, up through the creation of Fox News and straight to where we land today.
> 
> To be clear, the Fairness Doctrine was imperfect, Fox News isn't the only media that is explicitly biased and people should be able to distinguish truth from fact on their own, yadda yadda yadda.
> 
> That preface out of the way, the existence of the Fairness Doctrine at least serves as a reminder that 1.) facts are facts, opinion is opinion 2.) subjective/vague information is open for interpretation. I understand the First Amendment and freedom of thought but it's short sighted a narcissistic to assume that brainwashing through disinformation or selective sharing of information has been proven infinitely to be real things but "I know better than that, and should be allowed to decide for myself". In practice, all the Fairness Doctrine did was remind new organizations either share the information objectively and honestly, or explicitly separate editorializing from news and expect you'll have to make equal time for opposing views, and THEN allow people to make their decisions.
> 
> All the major news outlets are in the business of opinion programming first, news coverage second and then the two started to meld together to where you don't know where one stops or the other begins, and NOW there is not separation between the two because WHAT the news covers and how they choose to cover it are dictated by the editorial page. Fox News started the trend and they ran circles around the other news organizations until they eventually decided to follow suit.
> 
> You've now got the dumbest, most 'reality TV drama' driven version of what news ever was.
> 
> And Russian collusion be damned, you had a US media salivating over the prospects of candidate Trump and then President Trump to drive viewers. So then they have this perverted coverage things going on politically, Trump calls it out as "fake news" and eventually people decide the only news they can trust is that which they get without the corporate filtering AKA through social media, and the Russian trolls (and, in fairness, a good number of American trolls) were lying in wait to spring the trap.
> 
> At this point, people have such disbelief of facts as objective things or who/where they can get them from, yeah, you're absolutely living i a country where half the people or more are brainwashed. I can't trust the news, I can't trust a new site or channel, I can only trust individuals. Well, except those individuals tell me to trust certain sources and then I guess I trust those too. That's the definition of brainwashed.
> 
> With all of that in mind, I think you're entirely right. There's no facts and no spin on this story that's going to change the mind of anybody one way or another and I'd venture to guess you probably didn't see much movement between when the investigation was going on and after the results came out, despite how incendiary one side saw the finding to be or how exonerated the other believes to be based on the results.



I think the thing that pisses me off the most about the whole thing is the willingness for either side to admit to the fact that their party has been deceptive. But unwilling to see where the deception ventures into campaign promises, policy changes, and pandering. That's what I meant by telling the right lies. They're willing to go along with whoever will tell them what they want to hear, even when they know its bullshit. Just so that they don't vote for someone that might have a different view on that thing (real or imagined) that might be a more authentic fit for them politically. And don't get me started on the right lies regarding party lines...


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Amen, Randy.
> 
> I think one of the single biggest ironies of where we are today is every single distopian novel I've ever read (even _including _Brave New World, which arguably was on point in every other way) taught us to distrust a state media reporting only the stories the State wanted us to know, only providing the information and conclusions they wanted us to have, and that the lack of freedom in news would be the death of us. It taught us to fear an attack on the First Amendment. And today, we're finding that it's _private_ media, not state media, that's the problem, the fact that we can _choose_ which set of information and conclusions we want to be given, and that's it's the First Amendment itself, and not the government doing away with it, that's fracturing our democracy.
> 
> I'm not saying censorship or doing away with the First Amendment is the answer, at _all_. It's just bitterly ironic, that because we have been given the freedom to choose how our news is filtered to us, free of any constraints on objectivity, that we now have a country where people are literally living parallel lives unable to agree on fundamental observable _truths_.



I think that a lot of this has to do with the lack of foresight into how something like the internet would change communication and the skills one would need in order to be able to parse fact from not fact in that situation. Our education system has been really bad at turning out people who question authority or are even good at asking the right questions. I had a teacher in high school who challenged us to do that. She only lasted a few years because she was too 'radical'. Parents took serious issue with the fact that their kids took that lesson and applied it everywhere (as they should have). Parents and the school district feared her and thought she was bad for the kids, even though she would have taken a bullet for any single one of the kids she taught.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, I'm a little bummed our token conservative has given up on trying to defend Trump from the Mueller report, lol.



You probably aren't, but in case you're referring to me, I haven't had the chance to read the full report yet.
Once I do, I'll be back here kicking over anthills, don't worry 



Randy said:


> All the major news outlets are in the business of opinion programming first, news coverage second and then the two started to meld together to where you don't know where one stops or the other begins, and NOW there is not separation between the two because WHAT the news covers and how they choose to cover it are dictated by the editorial page. Fox News started the trend and they ran circles around the other news organizations until they eventually decided to follow suit.
> 
> You've now got the dumbest, most 'reality TV drama' driven version of what news ever was.
> 
> And Russian collusion be damned, you had a US media salivating over the prospects of candidate Trump and then President Trump to drive viewers. So then they have this perverted coverage things going on politically, Trump calls it out as "fake news" and eventually people decide the only news they can trust is that which they get without the corporate filtering AKA through social media, and the Russian trolls (and, in fairness, a good number of American trolls) were lying in wait to spring the trap.
> 
> At this point, people have such disbelief of facts as objective things or who/where they can get them from, yeah, you're absolutely living i a country where half the people or more are brainwashed. I can't trust the news, I can't trust a new site or channel, I can only trust individuals. Well, except those individuals tell me to trust certain sources and then I guess I trust those too. That's the definition of brainwashed.
> 
> With all of that in mind, I think you're entirely right. There's no facts and no spin on this story that's going to change the mind of anybody one way or another and I'd venture to guess you probably didn't see much movement between when the investigation was going on and after the results came out, despite how incendiary one side saw the finding to be or how exonerated the other believes to be based on the results.



10,000% agree. All things considered, the current state of the media is the thing I have the biggest overarching problem with.
I lean right (so I've been told- my compass test puts me dead center though) but I tend to understand the left-wing perspective on most issues. And even when I disagree, I can tell that their stance is coming from a good place with a good goal, we only differ on methodology usually. But the stuff I see in the media these days...it's hard sometimes to think that they aren't just straight up evil. Like they're _toying _with the american public. It's disgusting and I have no idea what to do about it because like Drew said, it's the first amendment. You _*can't*_ mess with that. But at the same time, something has to be done. It's a sad state of affairs. 

Totally agree with @Thaeon as well. I was floored during my time in university. Nobody challenges anything _anywhere_ anymore. It's a transition I can look back and see in real time as well; I recall going through K-12, but _especially _from the later end of grade school through early high school, there was an *intense* emphasis on critical thinking, reading between the lines, figuring out how to articulate yourself and get to the truth of the issue- as well as an open admission that few things are set in stone and _anything _can be challenged provided you had the reasoning to back you up. Toward the end of high school and especially in college that notion was gone entirely. There was no 'exchange of ideas,' or even the pretense of one. Just a 'river of knowledge' that flows one way. Not sure if I just had exceptional primary school teachers or what, but lord knows I'm thankful for them.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You probably aren't, but in case you're referring to me, I haven't had the chance to read the full report yet.
> Once I do, I'll be back here kicking over anthills, don't worry


Nope, it was that Slippery Pete dude. You, at least, I don't think would have the audacity to argue that it "totally exonerates" Trump because there's "nothing in it."


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You probably aren't, but in case you're referring to me, I haven't had the chance to read the full report yet.
> Once I do, I'll be back here kicking over anthills, don't worry
> 
> 
> 
> 10,000% agree. All things considered, the current state of the media is the thing I have the biggest overarching problem with.
> I lean right (so I've been told- my compass test puts me dead center though) but I tend to understand the left-wing perspective on most issues. And even when I disagree, I can tell that their stance is coming from a good place with a good goal, we only differ on methodology usually. But the stuff I see in the media these days...it's hard sometimes to think that they aren't just straight up evil. Like they're _toying _with the american public. It's disgusting and I have no idea what to do about it because like Drew said, it's the first amendment. You _*can't*_ mess with that. But at the same time, something has to be done. It's a sad state of affairs.
> 
> Totally agree with @Thaeon as well. I was floored during my time in university. Nobody challenges anything _anywhere_ anymore. It's a transition I can look back and see in real time as well; I recall going through K-12, but _especially _from the later end of grade school through early high school, there was an *intense* emphasis on critical thinking, reading between the lines, figuring out how to articulate yourself and get to the truth of the issue- as well as an open admission that few things are set in stone and _anything _can be challenged provided you had the reasoning to back you up. Toward the end of high school and especially in college that notion was gone entirely. There was no 'exchange of ideas,' or even the pretense of one. Just a 'river of knowledge' that flows one way. Not sure if I just had exceptional primary school teachers or what, but lord knows I'm thankful for them.



There seems to be a certain confluence of ideas in the far right that create disturbing cocktail of conformity. The onomatopoeia was completely coincidental. That one wasn't.

Point being, I think that predilection for religious conservatism and political conservatism is a problem. One tends to exacerbate the other in ways that keep people from entertaining better ways of doing things.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And today, we're finding that it's _private_ media, not state media, that's the problem, the fact that we can _choose_ which set of information and conclusions we want to be given, and that's it's the First Amendment itself, and not the government doing away with it, that's fracturing our democracy.





Ordacleaphobia said:


> like Drew said, it's the first amendment. You _*can't*_ mess with that



You're thinking of it WAY too black and white. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for 40-60 years depending on what part of it you look at. The government saw it necessary to make sure that broadcast media, even privately owned media, was not being used as a propaganda and disinformation mechanism. The Fairness Doctrine was managed by the FCC because the government owns the airwaves and simply leases them out. It's not just white wash "private media".

Also, most FCC rules became muddied by the existence of cable television but once again, the FCC asserted the role of government with the federal mandate for Public Access Television. Cable television was (and still is) allowed to operate as a quasi-monopoly, along with the fact the poles that carry their wires are placed on municipally owned property. The government required the cable companies to make available television channels, as well as funding for the local municipality, all or some of which was required to be put into community programming.
EDIT: And more recently, you have state AND federal requirements on telecom to increase access to internet to poor and rural areas across the country.

Circling back to broadcast television and radio, the FCC has long regulated those industries. Broadcast television stations have, by and large, been required to provide a percentage of either local broadcasting or material "of local interest" to maintain their license. Likewise, there was a requirement for stations (both TV and radio) to maintain a studio within their broadcast footprint and make available a public record of all their programming, and specifically what they've offered of local interest, easily accessible by the public. In turn, the public are given the opportunity to file a complaint if that requirement isn't satisfied and in an extreme case, their license could be taken away.

To go one further, up until recently, there were very heavy restrictions on WHO could own a broadcast television or radio station. The last remaining exception barred newspapers from owning either.

Now, in JUST the last few years, a lot of those regulations have been chipped away. Last blow to the Fairness Doctrine came in 2011, just in the last couple years they relaxed the rules on station ownership, as well as relaxing the rules on having a local studio (records still need to be available but they can be posted online instead). Some of this happened under the Obama administration (thanks to the telecom and related lobbies) but big chunks of this were taken out by Ajit Pai. A lot of the local TV/radio guys were happy to see the rules relaxed to help cut down on overhead, but it kicked the door open for mega-companies like iHeart and Sinclair to buy up stations and broadcast whatever they want with no avenues for feedback from the public or oversight. These are VERY VERY recent developments.

Anyway, long way around but the point is, the FCC and the federal government have a LONG history of oversight on what's being put ou on the airwaves. I'm familiar with these specifically because I work in broadcast but I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar regulations on the newspaper industry as well.

It's kinda half baked to assume that just because Fox News or anyone else is a private corporation, it means that it's authoritarian/fascist to consider oversight in what they put out. Fifty to a hundred years of precedent would say otherwise and as I stated earlier, it stands to reason the quality of our fact sharing being as low is as low at is, in direct correlation with more and more cutting of oversight. I have a hard time believing we were an infinitely less free society when those things were in place that we need to be afraid to have this discussion.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

I think the bolded italicized "can't" probably made it seem I was taking more of a stance than I am. 
I'm totally agreeing with you. I just don't know exactly _how_ to go about all of that, what solution to propose. The press is a sticky widget, you have to nudge carefully or there will be outcry. 

This bit in particular, I am exceptionally concerned with:


Randy said:


> A lot of the local TV/radio guys were happy to see the rules relaxed to help cut down on overhead, but it kicked the door open for mega-companies like iHeart and Sinclair to buy up stations and broadcast whatever they want with no avenues for feedback from the public or oversight. These are VERY VERY recent developments.


This is what happened with....I guess the internet. You have the tech oligopoly that controls everything and while technically, you _can_ come in and create your own service; you'll never even scratch the stranglehold on the market that they have. 

Thanks for the information though, that was an interesting read. Explained a lot. 
Curious- are you familiar at all with why they didn't want newspapers owning a station? That one's a headscratcher to me.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think the bolded italicized "can't" probably made it seem I was taking more of a stance than I am.
> I'm totally agreeing with you. I just don't know exactly _how_ to go about all of that, what solution to propose. The press is a sticky widget, you have to nudge carefully or there will be outcry.
> 
> This bit in particular, I am exceptionally concerned with:
> 
> This is what happened with....I guess the internet. You have the tech oligopoly that controls everything and while technically, you _can_ come in and create your own service; you'll never even scratch the stranglehold on the market that they have.
> 
> Thanks for the information though, that was an interesting read. Explained a lot.
> Curious- are you familiar at all with why they didn't want newspapers owning a station? That one's a headscratcher to me.



FWIW, support for deregulation is almost universal. I know a lot of little guys in the radio and TV business that cheered the end of the Fairness Doctrine (less red tape for them to file) and cheered the end of the 'home' rule for studios, because it allowed them to shift their footprint (for example, to cover more populous areas for more $$$) and not have to maintain a full-time studio (less $$$ to have to pay employees). 

On the flip-side, like I said, this deregulation has been exploited by mega-corporations to the point that it looks less like a side effect and more like a feature.

That kinda gets to the 'why' of newspapers not being allowed to own TV/radio stations, which is that the FCC put a cap of 35% max ownership of media in an area that a single individual/corporation is allowed to have. The FCC specifically cites the need for diverse voices available to communities.

The newspaper ownership rule was kind of a blanket 'fix' because it was written at a time when newspapers had bigger readership/distribution and broadcast had less. So in a lot of scenarios, a newspaper would've already been the majority media source, and buying the local radio station would easily put them at controlling the majority of media in an area. 

The rule was likely tossed because newspapers are far less relevant (also the cap in ownership was raised to 45%) but my original point still stands. The FCC (representing the federal government) have long asserted their role in WHO can own media and directly/indirectly, WHAT they say. So that kinda eliminates the argument that it's authoritarian/fascist or something new for the government to play a role. 

The bigger issue, as of current, is that the government has walked back a lot of their regulatory rights over media under the assertion that the makeup has shifted and the need to modernize, but then they never plugged the hole by offering oversight on the new mediums that replaced the old.

But to your point, yeah, newspapers/reporters/networks are predisposed to crying wolf over any oversight and for a variety of reasons. Some legitimate but considering what a cash cow the current arrangement has been for them, I'm not sure how much we should care. The last five years of disinformation and deception should leave us all a little unsettled and we deserve solutions.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> You're thinking of it WAY too black and white. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land for 40-60 years depending on what part of it you look at. The government saw it necessary to make sure that broadcast media, even privately owned media, was not being used as a propaganda and disinformation mechanism. The Fairness Doctrine was managed by the FCC because the government owns the airwaves and simply leases them out. It's not just white wash "private media".
> 
> Also, most FCC rules became muddied by the existence of cable television but once again, the FCC asserted the role of government with the federal mandate for Public Access Television. Cable television was (and still is) allowed to operate as a quasi-monopoly, along with the fact the poles that carry their wires are placed on municipally owned property. The government required the cable companies to make available television channels, as well as funding for the local municipality, all or some of which was required to be put into community programming.
> EDIT: And more recently, you have state AND federal requirements on telecom to increase access to internet to poor and rural areas across the country.
> 
> Circling back to broadcast television and radio, the FCC has long regulated those industries. Broadcast television stations have, by and large, been required to provide a percentage of either local broadcasting or material "of local interest" to maintain their license. Likewise, there was a requirement for stations (both TV and radio) to maintain a studio within their broadcast footprint and make available a public record of all their programming, and specifically what they've offered of local interest, easily accessible by the public. In turn, the public are given the opportunity to file a complaint if that requirement isn't satisfied and in an extreme case, their license could be taken away.
> 
> To go one further, up until recently, there were very heavy restrictions on WHO could own a broadcast television or radio station. The last remaining exception barred newspapers from owning either.
> 
> Now, in JUST the last few years, a lot of those regulations have been chipped away. Last blow to the Fairness Doctrine came in 2011, just in the last couple years they relaxed the rules on station ownership, as well as relaxing the rules on having a local studio (records still need to be available but they can be posted online instead). Some of this happened under the Obama administration (thanks to the telecom and related lobbies) but big chunks of this were taken out by Ajit Pai. A lot of the local TV/radio guys were happy to see the rules relaxed to help cut down on overhead, but it kicked the door open for mega-companies like iHeart and Sinclair to buy up stations and broadcast whatever they want with no avenues for feedback from the public or oversight. These are VERY VERY recent developments.
> 
> Anyway, long way around but the point is, the FCC and the federal government have a LONG history of oversight on what's being put ou on the airwaves. I'm familiar with these specifically because I work in broadcast but I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar regulations on the newspaper industry as well.
> 
> It's kinda half baked to assume that just because Fox News or anyone else is a private corporation, it means that it's authoritarian/fascist to consider oversight in what they put out. Fifty to a hundred years of precedent would say otherwise and as I stated earlier, it stands to reason the quality of our fact sharing being as low is as low at is, in direct correlation with more and more cutting of oversight. I have a hard time believing we were an infinitely less free society when those things were in place that we need to be afraid to have this discussion.


I've always found it interesting that in the USA, and I think I've said this before here, TV news is so poorly regulated and newspapers are relatively much better. At least when it comes to actually conveying "the news". You have some newspapers over there that are worth paying for and reading, because they contain actual information.

Conversely in the UK, all our propaganda comes out through newspapers and I can't think of a single newspaper where you can get perspective. Whereas our main news networks in BBC, C4, ITV and Sky all broadcast roughly the same content because Ofcam is a really good regulator. In a news broadcast they'll all show the same things and give the same information. Sky News will push hard with their non-news shows to muddy the waters of truth, but they can't even come close to what Fox does, despite having the same goals and the same ownership.

Along with Sky, Rupert Murdoch owns The Times and The Sun, where bias and misinformation can be pushed far harder than on TV. I've never seen anyone get outraged about something they saw on Sky or BBC like the would something they read in the Sun, which is exactly the opposite to the USA with Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AAwiPmH_2REGlNOYW2nhB9w

Somebody defend this shit. Please. Go ahead and defend it. Who the FUCK says they're killing babies right after they're born?! WHO?!


----------



## vilk

Lying is just Trump's _style_.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AAwiPmH_2REGlNOYW2nhB9w
> 
> Somebody defend this shit. Please. Go ahead and defend it. Who the FUCK says they're killing babies right after they're born?! WHO?!



Like, 4 years of this guy and I'm hearing people complain about him for the first time as a direct result of this. The victory lapping and peacocking coming of the Mueller Report has this guy completely unchained and equally untethered from reality.

He thinks no laws, no rules, the truth, etc absolutely no longer apply to him and sadly, he's mostly right.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.
Wasn't that part of some legislature that was _proposed_, referring to it as 'post-birth abortion' or something equally ridiculous? The thing got absolutely slammed, it was never going to pass, and definitely isn't active currently. Looks like he probably saw the headline somewhere, didn't read into it, and decided to speak on it anyway for some reason. 

Oh Donald. Please stop.


----------



## spudmunkey

Partial-birth abortions have been illegal (on a federal level) for a decade and a half, if I understand correctly.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Wasn't that part of some legislature that was _proposed_, referring to it as 'post-birth abortion' or something equally ridiculous?



It sounds like something members of the right in the legislative branch would put forth into some farm bill because they didn't want funding for some water conservation initiative.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Came from the democrats, actually. 
Things we don't like don't always come from the party we don't like.


----------



## Randy

I'd still be very skeptical about the motives of whoever proposed it.


----------



## spudmunkey

Yeah, i totally forgot about that. It was in Virginia, and when the governor was confronted, he said, "no, that's not what I mean" but then never clarified. Still at work so haven't had a chance to five in *too* deeply, but I hope he's on his way out.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> Yeah, i totally forgot about that. It was in Virginia, and when the governor was confronted, he said, "no, that's not what I mean" but then never clarified. Still at work so haven't had a chance to five in *too* deeply, but I hope he's on his way out.



Oh yeah that was ya boi Ralph Northam, I know how much everyone just _loves_ him. After the whole yearbook thing I think it's safe to say his career is over and the people of Virginia aren't going to have to deal with him anymore. 

The bill he was commenting on was proposed by Kathy Tran, and iirc when she was pressed on it she said it would permit for a procedure all the way up until the end of the third trimester, up to and including physical birth. I don't think she went as far in detail as Ralph did though. The *main *point of the bill I think was to make it easier to obtain a late-term abortion by cutting down the number of physicians that had to sign off on it from 3 to 1, this was just the piece that caught the most attention [rightfully so].


----------



## Explorer

Barr testified to Congress on 4/10 that he didn't know what Mueller thought about the summary letter Barr released.

Well... now it turns out that is provably untrue, and perjury. Mueller sent a letter to the DoJ on 3/27 objecting to Barr's summary, and demanded that Barr release the full report and the summaries. mueller followed that up with a phone call to Barr the next day. 

Barr committed perjury, which is an easy-to-prove offense, and did so in an effort to obstruct justice. 

If Barr actually shows up before either the Senate or the House as scheduled tomorrow and Thursday, he's going to get hit with this. If he doesn't, he'll have contempt on top of the perjury. Either way, Mueller will be a happy and cooperative witness when called, and both Mueller and McGahn will be extremely compelling and credible when the average American tunes in to watch.

As it is, Congressional Republicans were found to be less credible in polling than even Michael Cohen, who committed perjury, during Cohen's Congressional testimony. That's those Republicans being viewed as less credible than a perjuror. Against Mueller and McGahn? Yeah, that's gonna hurt. 

One last observation: I like how some on the right have been talking about the unfairness of bringing in outside counsel to question Barr... after having had no issue about Congressional Republicans doing exactly that during the Kavanaugh hearings. *laugh*


----------



## Explorer

Incidentally, and in terms of precedent, Richard Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, was convicted and went to prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

It has been suggested that Democrats already have the Mueller letter, and will produce it during the hearings. It will be interesting to see if Trump gets hit with a further drop in approval ratings after the hearings. All it takes is Congressional (and specifically Senate) Republicans making a purely unprincipled stand purely based on their hopes for re-election for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment.....


----------



## Thaeon

Explorer said:


> Incidentally, and in terms of precedent, Richard Nixon’s attorney general, John Mitchell, was convicted and went to prison for perjury, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
> 
> It has been suggested that Democrats already have the Mueller letter, and will produce it during the hearings. It will be interesting to see if Trump gets hit with a further drop in approval ratings after the hearings. All it takes is Congressional (and specifically Senate) Republicans making a purely unprincipled stand purely based on their hopes for re-election for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment.....



Just further underscores my thoughts that they want to kick the can further down the road to stave of any potential charges that could be brought and get the re-election. Deal with the consequences during the next four years. But that seems to be the MO of the GOP since I've been paying attention to politics. Do what we can now to satisfy our interests and worry about the mess it makes later. Maybe if we're lucky we won't have to pick it up. As SOON as Trump can no longer be a viable figurehead for their cause, they'll turn on him as quickly as Trump would a plate of raw veggies.


----------



## MetalHex

Moar regulations! Moar raw veggies! Moar pink pussy hats!

Not to nit pick but your last sentence threw off your whole post. Are you implying that raw veggies are healthy? Your body cant even digest and absorb the nutrients from most, if not all of them. They just help you shit and thats it.


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> Moar regulations! Moar raw veggies! Moar pink pussy hats!
> 
> Not to nit pick but your last sentence threw off your whole post. Are you implying that raw veggies are healthy? Your body cant even digest and absorb the nutrients from most, if not all of them. They just help you shit and thats it.



Sauce? Anyway, the joke is that he turns stuff away like a little kid does because that's his level of cognition.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Barr testified to Congress on 4/10 that he didn't know what Mueller thought about the summary letter Barr released.
> 
> Well... now it turns out that is provably untrue, and perjury. Mueller sent a letter to the DoJ on 3/27 objecting to Barr's summary, and demanded that Barr release the full report and the summaries. mueller followed that up with a phone call to Barr the next day.
> 
> Barr committed perjury, which is an easy-to-prove offense, and did so in an effort to obstruct justice.
> 
> If Barr actually shows up before either the Senate or the House as scheduled tomorrow and Thursday, he's going to get hit with this. If he doesn't, he'll have contempt on top of the perjury. Either way, Mueller will be a happy and cooperative witness when called, and both Mueller and McGahn will be extremely compelling and credible when the average American tunes in to watch.


I haven't seen it all yet but there were highlights on CNBC earlier, and in particular Barr saying that if he didn't think he had the ability to charge, then Mueller shouldn't have investigated in the first place. Which is ironic, because the standing DOJ interpretation, which Mueller explicitly noted in his report, is that a president _can't_ be charged by a prosecutor.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I haven't seen it all yet but there were highlights on CNBC earlier, and in particular Barr saying that if he didn't think he had the ability to charge, then Mueller shouldn't have investigated in the first place. Which is ironic, because the standing DOJ interpretation, which Mueller explicitly noted in his report, is that a president _can't_ be charged by a prosecutor.



That's some serious posturing from an attorney... I wasn't under the impression that investigations were about what outcome we would want, or is possible. I thought it was about getting to the truth and knowing what happened. Charging people along the way if there were any suspected crimes. If we hadn't done the investigation, we'd have let a bunch of people guilty of actual criminal activity walk. Barr's premise is literally that if its not possible to try someone for something, why know whether or not there was a crime in the first place? That's irrational.


----------



## Ralyks

Boy did that get ugly. And will probably get uglier when Mueller takes the stand.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> That's some serious posturing from an attorney... I wasn't under the impression that investigations were about what outcome we would want, or is possible. I thought it was about getting to the truth and knowing what happened. Charging people along the way if there were any suspected crimes. If we hadn't done the investigation, we'd have let a bunch of people guilty of actual criminal activity walk. Barr's premise is literally that if its not possible to try someone for something, why know whether or not there was a crime in the first place? That's irrational.


You don't say...  

Hot take - if Barr refuses to comply with a House subpoena, the Dems will impeach Barr, and there doesn't seem much appetite for the GOP to protect him, considering there's proof he lied under oath and even a bunch of Republican senators are unhappy with how _overtly_ a political operative he's made himself here. I still think Trump is safe from, if not impeachment then at least from being removed from office, but Barr just stuck his neck WAY out there.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> You don't say...
> 
> Hot take - if Barr refuses to comply with a House subpoena, the Dems will impeach Barr, and there doesn't seem much appetite for the GOP to protect him, considering there's proof he lied under oath and even a bunch of Republican senators are unhappy with how _overtly_ a political operative he's made himself here. I still think Trump is safe from, if not impeachment then at least from being removed from office, but Barr just stuck his neck WAY out there.



You're not lying. He's been at least standing next to the chopping block since he took office if not hanging his head over it just a little. Since the report was filed, he's literally acted like he's there SPECIFICALLY to run D for the Trump administration. Which in this case IS obstruction. Its not a good look for an attorney to have. Especially when none of the ends logically meet. I know its about twisting shit around to weave a narrative that makes your client look good. But the evidence here is overwhelmingly against him. Would be better to just accept it and present the truth of it in the best light possible. This has been another dumpster fire care of Donald J. Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

It’s much as I don’t like him, I don’t think Trump should be impeached or removed, barring something truly devastating (well, “prove-ably” devastating) and let it all play out in 2020.

Barr though, holy shit. And if Mueller takes the stand? Games over, man.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> It’s much as I don’t like him, I don’t think Trump should be impeached or removed, barring something truly devastating (well, “prove-ably” devastating) and let it all play out in 2020.
> 
> Barr though, holy shit. And if Mueller takes the stand? Games over, man.



They're shoring up a date for him to take the stand. Looks like it's going to be on my birthday. I'll take it as an acceptable present.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> It’s much as I don’t like him, I don’t think Trump should be impeached or removed, barring something truly devastating (well, “prove-ably” devastating) and let it all play out in 2020.
> 
> Barr though, holy shit. And if Mueller takes the stand? Games over, man.


Based on the Mueller Report, it's extremely likely that Trump obstructed justice, and continued to do so by appointing Barr. The argument for and against, as I see it, is "Trump brok,e the law, and should be held accountable," vs "Trump broke the law, but actually impeaching him will burn a lot of political capital, likely won't result in removing him from office, and will bolster his argument that he's being persecuted and may hurt the Democrats in 2020." Which is another way of saying, "we can do the right thing, or we can look the other way because it helps us to do so." That's sort of not a good look.

Barr though... After I posted this, Pelosi openly accused him of commiting a crime by lying under oath. I think this is the first step towards a move to impeaching him, and frankly the GOP reportedly isn't too wild about what he's been doing, either.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/nancy-pelosi-accuses-william-barr-of-committing-a-crime.html

Going after Barr makes a lot of sense for the Democrats - there's clear evidence he lied under oath about the Mueller team's attidutes towards his memo, there's less partisan harderning around him than there is around the president, he's not well liked by the GOP at the moment for his actions, and it'd give the progressive wing of the Democratic party an outlet.


----------



## Ralyks

I think my concern comes from, while I want justice that’s deserved, I don’t want the democrats to lose focus on, Yonkers, fixing our damn infrastructure and putting ALL of their resources into trying to get Trump out of office, when it’s not likely happening. I mean, you could make the argument if Trump is actually doing is agenda, but I couldn’t tell from the obscene number of tweets he’ll put out in a 5 minute span instead of focusing on his damn job. It’d be a different story if this was all happening but he just focused on his job.

Also, I hate how Twitter has become the norm for POLITICIANS.


----------



## Explorer

Hahahahaha!

Trump just announced on Fox News that he will not allow McGahn to testify before The. House Judiciary Committee. 

McGahn is no longer a federal employee.

McGahn was never Trump's personal employee, but was the employee of the office of the presidency, to be sure the president didn't damage the office/position.

McGahn was never Trump's personal lawyer, but Trump never understood (and maybe still doesn't) that he doesn't have attorney-client privilege in his discussions with McGahn, nor in what McGahn witnessed. Intelligence has never been a strong suit for Trump, and this area is no exception.

Trump has no standing to stop McGahn from testifying.

What a low-energy dotard!

*laugh*


----------



## Explorer

Oh! And NBC News is reporting that Mueller is in direct negotiations with House Democrats to testify. 

The reportage specifies "House Democrats," meaning that Mueller is skipping the obstructionist Republicans in both the Senate, who tried their embarrassingly woeful best to provide cover for criminally perjurous Barr, and in the House. 

Additionally, it looks like Mueller is dealing with the House Democrats directly himself, and therefore is no longer deferring to any attempts by Barr, as head of the DoJ, to obstruct Mueller's public or private testimony. 

Ah, the joys of principled civil servants, and of daylight dispelling the deliberate shadows cast by lying, profiteering seditionists.


----------



## Explorer

Hmm. I'm trying to find a transcript, but it's possible that Barr himself not only unintentionally gave permission for Congress to talk directly with Mueller when being questioned by Klobuchar, but also gave permission for Mueller to give Congress copies of any Trump financial and tax documents which Mueller reviewed. 

Assuming that Trump is as pure as the new-fallen snow, we won't see Republicans and Team Trump arguing against this. Only those assuming Trump is guilty (including7 Trump) would fight tooth and nail against the disclosure of a nothing burger, right? I mean, Cohen is a liar and not to be trusted, amirite?

*laugh*


----------



## Explorer

It turns out I was right, and that Barr not only gave explicit permission to Congress to get in touch with Mueller directly, but in so doing als0 gave Mueller permission to answer Congress' questions. 

It also turns out that Barr, in trying to argue that he didn't criminally perjure himself, has now claimed that he believed the question (about whether Mueller disagreed with Barr's summary and statements) was actually about Mueller's *team*. Barr said he didn't know about discontent over such by Mueller's team.

And Barr also stated under oath that he believed the Mueller letter wasn't from Mueller himself, but was from a member of Mueller's team expressing discontent. 

Barr admitted to provable perjury in his *second* attempt at lying about it.

*laugh*


----------



## Drew

That rules.  

McGahn certainly could refuse to testify, and from what I've heard of him it wouldn't be a shock - buddy of mine in DC political circles said frankly he didn't think he had it in him, when McGahn was the one who threatened to resign if Trump fired Mueller. But, based on what we've seen of him _during_ this inquiry, including the fact he twice stopped Trump from firing Mueller and then refused to lie about it for Trump, and that he cooperated fully with Mueller, he seems to strongly value transparency. I think he'll do it. 

Mueller by all evidence we have is _very_ upset with how Barr has handled this, so I'm confident he'll appear before the house. 

I still think Barr is either going to have to resign, or will be impeached.


----------



## Drew

Pretty good read, and worth keeping in mind as Trump tweets out trying to undercut the validity of notes: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...?utm_term=.854ce88c3ef1&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

This is standard practice for a lawyer, much less one managing a large team of lawyers, and Donaldson herself likely never expected her notes to be used by anyone other than herself. As such they're a pretty clear record of McGahn's growing unease that Trump was trying to obstruct the investigation into alleged Russia cooperation.


----------



## Drew

The more I think about this...

...what the _fuck_ does Barr think he's doing, and what's his exit plan?


There are HUGE disconnects between how Barr not-summarized the Mueller report and the actual report. We know Mueller is extremely unhappy about this, and that he'll be testifying before Congress in the next two weeks.
Barr perjured himself in front of Congress, claiming he didn't know how Mueller or his team felt about his summary, about two weeks after getting the letter from Mueller objecting to how Barr characterized the report and shaped the media attention.
Barr very likely didn't have the Constitutional authority to clear Trump of obstruction. I'm actually surprised we don't have a court case over this yet.
The GOP is reportedly not happy about how blatantly Barr is acting as Trump's defense attorney, rather than the Attorney General of the US.
Pelosi openly accused him of committing a crime by lying to Congress and refusing to cooperate with a committee investigation. What exact powers Congress has to enforce subpoenas are unclear, meaning impeachment may be one of the most realistic threats on the table.
Like, he's made himself extremely vulnerable, and as a Trump appointee after he pushed Sessions out because he was unhappy he recused himself from the investigation, even the _appearance_ of trying to "protect" Trump is a gamble on his part. I'd say he's gone well past the appearance, and by ignoring congressional subpoenas and lying under oath about what he knew when, he's asking for trouble.


----------



## efiltsohg

my NY lolyer group of friends has a very different take on Barr/Mueller... I think you'll be surprised how it all ends up


----------



## Drew

Pretty good read:



Lawfare said:


> Not in my memory has a sitting attorney general more diminished the credibility of his department on any subject. It is a kind of trope of political opposition in every administration that the attorney general—whoever he or she is—is politicizing the Justice Department and acting as a defense lawyer for the president. In this case it is true.
> 
> Barr has consistently sought to spin his department’s work in a highly political fashion, and he has done so to cast the president’s conduct in the most favorable possible light. Trump serially complained that Jeff Sessions didn’t act to “protect” him. Matthew Whitaker never had the stature or internal clout to do so effectively. In Barr, Trump has found his man.


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...So6ro__k5g38pdDnPzUKyWdMID3FkgWqEZMU9FDUC1rNs

@efiltsohg - do tell.

EDIT - the New York Times side-by-side comparisons of Barr's quotations, and where in the Mueller report they were drawn from and how they read in their full context, is excellent, too, and REALLY worth a read:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/mueller-report-william-barr-excerpts.html


----------



## efiltsohg

Drew said:


> @efiltsohg - do tell.



short version:
-Barr only released the summary/letter because SC intended to release the report piecemeal & heavily redacted, if at all, and this forced them to actually send it. This after SC explicitly rejected Barr's instructions to mark it 6(e)
-Dems blocked Mueller from testifying and Barr attempted to bait them into letting him
-from their behavior DNC doesn't actually believe in any collusion or justification for impeachment, they just want election campaigning material 
-above probably won't work anyway because there's no way the 6 billion dem primary candidates and their respective cronies can keep from backstabbing each other
-per above 2 pts, there is no master plan that specifies exactly who plays what part, it's just all ad-hoc corruption while the press plays cover
-Ohr can probably get charged with treason or similar
-[1] original plan was supposed to be scaring enough establishment repubs that they insist on Trump's resignation before any investigation ever finished, since there was never ammo for impeachment
-Barr knew about or anticipated [1] at least as far back as june 2018, as implied by a memo he wrote to Rod Rosenstein
-Comey is more than just sour grapes, he's doubling down because [1] failing means he's now implicated in a falsely-predicated investigation and spying on an opposing party's Presidential campaign, which never would be come out if Trump just resigned like they wanted dammit
-Barr has a few decades of BigLaw under his belt already so he doesn't have to cower in fear of losing future job prospects like most pols would
-Rod Rosenstein hates Trump but Trump has his nuts in a vice, clearly some kind of dirt on him (not hard in DC)
-Mueller was never looking for real crimes in the first place because they would have all pointed back to DC pols
-Mueller Comey et al knew from day 1 that there was never anything involving Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption (at least nothing that wouldn't have implicated ranking dems)
-Still, Mueller is doing the only job he's ever known - he's been a fixer for decades
-The only point of all the obviously fake stuff like piss dossier is for the DNC to cover their asses for the real spying that was already occurring over the last four years
-the louder somebody is calling for Trump's impeachment, the more likely it's to save their own skin (corruption spying treason etc which is being investigated now)
-Trump has been involved in literally thousands of court battles and it's hilarious for some 30 year old dem true believers to think they know more about any of this than him. If anything, Trump is one of the least corrupt presidents in decades, because of the scrutiny big business gets. (if you disagree with this you don't know much about the crooks in DC)

there was more, that's all I remember


----------



## Explorer

That's hilarious, and requires ignoring many known and documented facts.

Your "lolyer" friends are hilariously uninformed. 

Also hilarious, Barr has been referred to the VA and DC bar associations regarding obstruction and possible perjury, possibly leading to disbarment. 

----

Unfortunately for the narrative of ghostlife/efiltsohg, Democrats have indeed taken advantage of Barr's snappish temper and impetuous answer, and are taking advantage of Barr's offer under oath to contact Mueller directly and to invite him to testify and to share the underlying documents and evidence, including Trump's taxes revealing his financial obligations to foreign governments. efiltsohg claims that Barr was "baiting" Democrats into letting a witness testify whom a majority of Americans believe to be more truthful and ethical than the president, and that Barr failed in that goal, even after the news broke of Mueller being invited directly before efiltsohg posted. efiltsohg's sources are, at minimum, not up on current events, as he posted a factually-incorrect narrative a day after Mueller had been directly invited. 

Facts... the scourge of made-up narratives.


----------



## narad

"Lol"yer is right.


----------



## efiltsohg

lots of people are going to jail, but none of them are the ones you think


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> short version:
> -Barr only released the summary/letter because SC intended to release the report piecemeal & heavily redacted, if at all, and this forced them to actually send it. This after SC explicitly rejected Barr's instructions to mark it 6(e)
> -Dems blocked Mueller from testifying and Barr attempted to bait them into letting him
> -from their behavior DNC doesn't actually believe in any collusion or justification for impeachment, they just want election campaigning material
> -above probably won't work anyway because there's no way the 6 billion dem primary candidates and their respective cronies can keep from backstabbing each other
> -per above 2 pts, there is no master plan that specifies exactly who plays what part, it's just all ad-hoc corruption while the press plays cover
> -Ohr can probably get charged with treason or similar
> -[1] original plan was supposed to be scaring enough establishment repubs that they insist on Trump's resignation before any investigation ever finished, since there was never ammo for impeachment
> -Barr knew about or anticipated [1] at least as far back as june 2018, as implied by a memo he wrote to Rod Rosenstein
> -Comey is more than just sour grapes, he's doubling down because [1] failing means he's now implicated in a falsely-predicated investigation and spying on an opposing party's Presidential campaign, which never would be come out if Trump just resigned like they wanted dammit
> -Barr has a few decades of BigLaw under his belt already so he doesn't have to cower in fear of losing future job prospects like most pols would
> -Rod Rosenstein hates Trump but Trump has his nuts in a vice, clearly some kind of dirt on him (not hard in DC)
> -Mueller was never looking for real crimes in the first place because they would have all pointed back to DC pols
> -Mueller Comey et al knew from day 1 that there was never anything involving Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption (at least nothing that wouldn't have implicated ranking dems)
> -Still, Mueller is doing the only job he's ever known - he's been a fixer for decades
> -The only point of all the obviously fake stuff like piss dossier is for the DNC to cover their asses for the real spying that was already occurring over the last four years
> -the louder somebody is calling for Trump's impeachment, the more likely it's to save their own skin (corruption spying treason etc which is being investigated now)
> -Trump has been involved in literally thousands of court battles and it's hilarious for some 30 year old dem true believers to think they know more about any of this than him. If anything, Trump is one of the least corrupt presidents in decades, because of the scrutiny big business gets. (if you disagree with this you don't know much about the crooks in DC)
> 
> there was more, that's all I remember



Fun thought experiment but a healthy dose of selective memory and willful ignorance.

I appreciate the amount of effort put I but it would take a lot of time to dissect the half-truths, non-truths, etc in there line by line. 

Probably the most glaring rewriting of history in there is the credit to Trump as a heavyweight in the court system. Apparently your memory is so short that you've forgotten the Trump University case that cost him $25 million just a few months before he took the job. It's kind of a hilarious use of misdirection to conclude the guy is a legal expert (and thus, particularly non-corrupt) just because he's "been in court a bunch of times" especially since almost half those cases he was a defendant or was involved in a bankruptcy filing. And even in cases where he was a plaintiff, Trump had a long reputation of being 'sue happy' and frequently having his cases laughed out of court.

Trump is a legal expert just like the guy cleaning bathrooms at Taco Bell is a gastroenterologist.


----------



## USMarine75

efiltsohg said:


> short version:
> -Barr only released the summary/letter because SC intended to release the report piecemeal & heavily redacted, if at all, and this forced them to actually send it. This after SC explicitly rejected Barr's instructions to mark it 6(e)
> -Dems blocked Mueller from testifying and Barr attempted to bait them into letting him
> -from their behavior DNC doesn't actually believe in any collusion or justification for impeachment, they just want election campaigning material
> -above probably won't work anyway because there's no way the 6 billion dem primary candidates and their respective cronies can keep from backstabbing each other
> -per above 2 pts, there is no master plan that specifies exactly who plays what part, it's just all ad-hoc corruption while the press plays cover
> -Ohr can probably get charged with treason or similar
> -[1] original plan was supposed to be scaring enough establishment repubs that they insist on Trump's resignation before any investigation ever finished, since there was never ammo for impeachment
> -Barr knew about or anticipated [1] at least as far back as june 2018, as implied by a memo he wrote to Rod Rosenstein
> -Comey is more than just sour grapes, he's doubling down because [1] failing means he's now implicated in a falsely-predicated investigation and spying on an opposing party's Presidential campaign, which never would be come out if Trump just resigned like they wanted dammit
> -Barr has a few decades of BigLaw under his belt already so he doesn't have to cower in fear of losing future job prospects like most pols would
> -Rod Rosenstein hates Trump but Trump has his nuts in a vice, clearly some kind of dirt on him (not hard in DC)
> -Mueller was never looking for real crimes in the first place because they would have all pointed back to DC pols
> -Mueller Comey et al knew from day 1 that there was never anything involving Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption (at least nothing that wouldn't have implicated ranking dems)
> -Still, Mueller is doing the only job he's ever known - he's been a fixer for decades
> -The only point of all the obviously fake stuff like piss dossier is for the DNC to cover their asses for the real spying that was already occurring over the last four years
> -the louder somebody is calling for Trump's impeachment, the more likely it's to save their own skin (corruption spying treason etc which is being investigated now)
> -Trump has been involved in literally thousands of court battles and it's hilarious for some 30 year old dem true believers to think they know more about any of this than him. If anything, Trump is one of the least corrupt presidents in decades, because of the scrutiny big business gets. (if you disagree with this you don't know much about the crooks in DC)
> 
> there was more, that's all I remember


----------



## Ralyks

You lost me at "lolyer"

Also, yeah, because I want our country represented by someone who's been in thousands of legal battles. That's a GREAT sign of competence to run one of the powerhouses of the world.


----------



## ExileMetal

efiltsohg said:


> short version:
> -Barr only released the summary/letter because SC intended to release the report piecemeal & heavily redacted, if at all, and this forced them to actually send it. This after SC explicitly rejected Barr's instructions to mark it 6(e)
> -Dems blocked Mueller from testifying and Barr attempted to bait them into letting him
> -from their behavior DNC doesn't actually believe in any collusion or justification for impeachment, they just want election campaigning material
> -above probably won't work anyway because there's no way the 6 billion dem primary candidates and their respective cronies can keep from backstabbing each other
> -per above 2 pts, there is no master plan that specifies exactly who plays what part, it's just all ad-hoc corruption while the press plays cover
> -Ohr can probably get charged with treason or similar
> -[1] original plan was supposed to be scaring enough establishment repubs that they insist on Trump's resignation before any investigation ever finished, since there was never ammo for impeachment
> -Barr knew about or anticipated [1] at least as far back as june 2018, as implied by a memo he wrote to Rod Rosenstein
> -Comey is more than just sour grapes, he's doubling down because [1] failing means he's now implicated in a falsely-predicated investigation and spying on an opposing party's Presidential campaign, which never would be come out if Trump just resigned like they wanted dammit
> -Barr has a few decades of BigLaw under his belt already so he doesn't have to cower in fear of losing future job prospects like most pols would
> -Rod Rosenstein hates Trump but Trump has his nuts in a vice, clearly some kind of dirt on him (not hard in DC)
> -Mueller was never looking for real crimes in the first place because they would have all pointed back to DC pols
> -Mueller Comey et al knew from day 1 that there was never anything involving Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption (at least nothing that wouldn't have implicated ranking dems)
> -Still, Mueller is doing the only job he's ever known - he's been a fixer for decades
> -The only point of all the obviously fake stuff like piss dossier is for the DNC to cover their asses for the real spying that was already occurring over the last four years
> -the louder somebody is calling for Trump's impeachment, the more likely it's to save their own skin (corruption spying treason etc which is being investigated now)
> -Trump has been involved in literally thousands of court battles and it's hilarious for some 30 year old dem true believers to think they know more about any of this than him. If anything, Trump is one of the least corrupt presidents in decades, because of the scrutiny big business gets. (if you disagree with this you don't know much about the crooks in DC)
> 
> there was more, that's all I remember



So in other words, “No puppet no puppet! You’re the puppet!”


----------



## efiltsohg

you guys haven't countered a single point I wrote, just posted reddit snark. Try actually reading the mueller report.



Explorer said:


> a day after Mueller had been directly invited.



fake news

https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1123706731350171648
unsurprisingly complete media backout on this, why do you still believe what you see on CNN?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-fe...shareToken=st5032b5932ed5483087fc925455bffe97


----------



## Ralyks

If you've read this thread, you'll see many people here did look at the Mueller Report.

Also hard to take someone seriously that still says "fake news" when Trump himself pretty much said the term is for news he didn't like.


----------



## MetalHex

efiltsohg said:


> you guys haven't countered a single point I wrote



You'll get used to that around here


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AeBdwnV3hSVSPo3AGPshsAg

But hey, guess we'll find out May 15th.


----------



## ExileMetal

efiltsohg said:


> you guys haven't countered a single point I wrote, just posted reddit snark. Try actually reading the mueller report.
> 
> 
> 
> fake news
> 
> https://twitter.com/RepMattGaetz/status/1123706731350171648
> unsurprisingly complete media backout on this, why do you still believe what you see on CNN?
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-fe...shareToken=st5032b5932ed5483087fc925455bffe97



It’s hard to argue with any of your “points” when they’re in completely bad faith. You only posted potentials of what maybe people were possibly thinking, and there’s no evidence of anything you said at all. And sorry, Trump being the least corrupt president is fucking laughable, that isn’t even close to true. Using Matt Gaetz to respond to “reddit snark” is also incredibly ironic, so I’m gonna say you’re just a troll.

Also, it’s pretty weird how many new accounts pop up in this thread that are also stunningly hardcore right wingers. Very interesting.


----------



## Ralyks

ExileMetal said:


> Also, it’s pretty weird how many new accounts pop up in this thread that are also stunningly hardcore right wingers. Very interesting.



Like how his tag says "Well Known Member" and his account was only made the end of February?


----------



## Ralyks

So now Trump is reversing his call and saying Mueller shouldn't testify. Why not? He has no issues as of yesterday. And I thought the report was a "total exoneration"? Huh. Sounds odd. /Sarcasm.


----------



## Randy

ExileMetal said:


> Also, it’s pretty weird how many new accounts pop up in this thread that are also stunningly hardcore right wingers. Very interesting.



Our resident Trump apologists might be disappointed to know 9 out of 10 of them are Canadians.


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> You'll get used to that around here



Nice troll. Drew picks you apart line-by-line to the tune of like 50 pages of back-and-forth but that your criticism?


----------



## MetalHex

Randy said:


> Nice troll. Drew picks you apart line-by-line to the tune of like 50 pages of back-and-forth but that your criticism?


Refresh my memory


----------



## Explorer

efiltsohg said:


> you guys haven't countered a single point I wrote, just posted reddit snark.


Er... is it willful blindness which made you skip my post about the Democrats inviting Mueller directly, with Barr's permission, and made before you posted the claim that the Democrats hadn't wanted to call up Mueller? 

You also missed where I told you that you had missed it.

How much spoon-feeding do you personally need for information to sink in? Because this kind of obtuseness casts aspersions upon your intelligence.


----------



## Explorer

Well, now it looks like even Dolt 45 is actively disproving the claims of ghostlife. Agent Orange just learned from Faux News that Mueller is going to testify before the House, and is now tweeting that Mueller shouldn't do so....


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> Refresh my memory



Rhetorical. In fairness, I guess Drew's last beef was with Sneaky Pete but the point still stands. Acting like the left leaning posters ignore debating facts flies in the face of what's gone on in here.


----------



## MetalHex

Randy said:


> Rhetorical. In fairness, I guess Drew's last beef was with Sneaky Pete but the point still stands. Acting like the left leaning posters ignore debating facts flies in the face of what's gone on in here.


I guess I lost track of every single post through all of the back and forth going on, its possible I missed one or two, But when I see posters claiming multiple times to "go back and read when I said....", or "you must have missed when i said..."You can see where I was coming from


----------



## Explorer

*laugh*


----------



## Thaeon

This is getting ridiculous. 


And so is the thing with Barr/Mueller.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AsTFLHSpdTQePe49A7zmgOQ

He has to know that's not how this works, right?


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AsTFLHSpdTQePe49A7zmgOQ
> 
> He has to know that's not how this works, right?



Ugh, I have no idea how his supporters can deal with the constant bitching and moaning from this fucking guy. Sorest winner of all time. Shut the fuck up and do your job.


----------



## thraxil

He had two years of Republican control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives and the special counsel investigation that "totally exonerated" him was launched by his own appointee. So, yeah, totally the fault of the Democrats.


----------



## Ralyks

And it's not like he's the only president thats been under investigation like this. This was the just most public in recent memory, and HE DIDNT HELP MAKE IT ANY LESS PUBLIC. And what did those past presidents do?



Randy said:


> Shut the fuck up and do your job.



Goddamn right.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Goddamn right.



My buddy and I were unapologetic Obama voters in 2008. Loved the message of transparency. By the third or fourth public address I was like "okay, okay we get it. We hired you to read this shit so we don't have to. Get on with it." and after that, I'd have been glad to not have to see his face for another four years.

Same thing with the Democratic leadership of the House/Senate at the time. They kept talking about how they couldn't pass anything because of the Republican filibuster, which was dubbed "the super minority" since you couldn't pass anything despite them having less votes. Again, I got tired of all the bellyaching and said "look, pass stuff and stop making excuses or pack up" and apparently I wasn't alone because the majority flipped to Tea Party Republicans two years later. Nobody likes excuses.

The guy is so fucking cringe constantly going on about how nobody treats him right. Multi-billionaire, leader of the wealthiest nation in the world, supermodel wife, two years of majority control of both Houses and two pivotal SCOTUS picks. Stop fucking with the martyr bullshit.


----------



## Drew

Sorry, wasn't online all weekend, looks like I missed a lot.  



efiltsohg said:


> short version:
> -Barr only released the summary/letter because SC intended to release the report piecemeal & heavily redacted, if at all, and this forced them to actually send it. This after SC explicitly rejected Barr's instructions to mark it 6(e)
> -Dems blocked Mueller from testifying and Barr attempted to bait them into letting him
> -from their behavior DNC doesn't actually believe in any collusion or justification for impeachment, they just want election campaigning material
> -above probably won't work anyway because there's no way the 6 billion dem primary candidates and their respective cronies can keep from backstabbing each other
> -per above 2 pts, there is no master plan that specifies exactly who plays what part, it's just all ad-hoc corruption while the press plays cover
> -Ohr can probably get charged with treason or similar
> -[1] original plan was supposed to be scaring enough establishment repubs that they insist on Trump's resignation before any investigation ever finished, since there was never ammo for impeachment
> -Barr knew about or anticipated [1] at least as far back as june 2018, as implied by a memo he wrote to Rod Rosenstein
> -Comey is more than just sour grapes, he's doubling down because [1] failing means he's now implicated in a falsely-predicated investigation and spying on an opposing party's Presidential campaign, which never would be come out if Trump just resigned like they wanted dammit
> -Barr has a few decades of BigLaw under his belt already so he doesn't have to cower in fear of losing future job prospects like most pols would
> -Rod Rosenstein hates Trump but Trump has his nuts in a vice, clearly some kind of dirt on him (not hard in DC)
> -Mueller was never looking for real crimes in the first place because they would have all pointed back to DC pols
> -Mueller Comey et al knew from day 1 that there was never anything involving Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption (at least nothing that wouldn't have implicated ranking dems)
> -Still, Mueller is doing the only job he's ever known - he's been a fixer for decades
> -The only point of all the obviously fake stuff like piss dossier is for the DNC to cover their asses for the real spying that was already occurring over the last four years
> -the louder somebody is calling for Trump's impeachment, the more likely it's to save their own skin (corruption spying treason etc which is being investigated now)
> -Trump has been involved in literally thousands of court battles and it's hilarious for some 30 year old dem true believers to think they know more about any of this than him. If anything, Trump is one of the least corrupt presidents in decades, because of the scrutiny big business gets. (if you disagree with this you don't know much about the crooks in DC)
> 
> there was more, that's all I remember


Ok, I don't even know where to _begin_ here. 

1) SC - Special Councel? Not sure what you're going at here, but from Barr's memo itself: "As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies." Two things to note - one, Barr is writing in the first person, meaning he believes it's _his_ prerogative to decide how much can be released, and two, considering this is part of his memo, it's pretty clear that he wasn't worried about it only being released piecemeal because he was indicating he WOULD be releasing it as soon as he could.

2) if the Dems blocked Mueller from testifying, why are the Dems having Mueller testify on the 15th?

3) the Dems are in a difficult position. They have probable cause to impeach Trump for obstruction of justice... but they don't have the votes in the Senate, as of right now, to convict. Be that as it is - I don't think you can conclude they don't believe obstruction of justice occured or there was coordination between Russia and the Trump can't - rather I think they're concerned they can't impeach Trump alone on the former and don't have enough of a smoking gun for the latter to get even the GOP on board. I think they're pretty sure obscruction occured, and strongly suspect coordination occured as well. If you've got evidence of them saying otherwise, of course, I'm all ears.

4) Who, other than Trump, really believes this is a "falsely predicated investigation"? Trump always points to the Steele dossier and some of its more sensational claims, but that ignores the fact the investigation had been started well before then, after Papadoupalos started drunkenly bragging to British intelligence that Russia had hacked the DNC emails, which seemed really fucking weird for a member of Trump's campaign's foreign policy team to know.

5) Actually, there's rather a lot about "Russia, flagrant campaign violations, or egregious business corruption" that we DO know - one of the things Trump aggressively played down is that the Mueller concluded there WAS a very active Russian campaign to influence the 2016 election, and that Mueller made a number of referrals to federal and state investigators, some of which have already resulted in campaign finance violations (Cohen) and business violations (the Trump Foundation, which is now being wound down under state receivership for significant nonprofit finance violations, including those done for the benefit of the Trump campaign)

I mean, again... I don't know where to start here, save that you seem to be arguing from a set of "alternative facts," and some of these are super easy to disprove. Barr wasn't worried about Mueller releasing the report "piecemeal and heavily redacted," because it was _his_ job, not Mueller's, to oversee the release. It's awfully hard to believe that the Dems blocked Mueller from testifying when they HAVE scheduled him to testify, and meanwhile Barr is the one refusing to appear in front of the House because the Dems wanted to reserve a half hour for committee lawyers to question him. Most of your argument past that point appears to be predicated on some belief that the Democrats have more to hide than the Republicans, which is basically an unsubstantiated statement of faith.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> You'll get used to that around here


Bullshit. I've probably spent way more time going through dubious arguments point-by-point than you trolls deserve, but there are no shortage of posts here where we dismantle idiotic arguments. As a refresher, here's the one Randy was referring to:

US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)

US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Bullshit. I've probably spent way more time going through dubious arguments point-by-point than you trolls deserve, but there are no shortage of posts here where we dismantle idiotic arguments. As a refresher, here's the one Randy was referring to:
> 
> US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)
> 
> US Political Discussion: Trump Administration Edition (Rules in OP)


Ah, the good ole, "if you dont agree with us, you must be a troll" speak.

I have no dog in this fight either way, but I notice the people apparently glazing over arguments from both sides. You dont need to prop yourself up by reposting your counter arguments toward another person, to me. "You must have missed the post" where Randy sorta but no really apologized (its ok though) to me for thinking I was the one who had gotten into it with you over 50 pages


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Ah, the good ole, "if you dont agree with us, you're a troll" speak.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight either way, but I notice the people apparently glazing over arguments from both sides. You dont need to prop yourself up by reposting your counter arguments toward another person, to me. "You must have missed the post" where Randy sorta but no really apologized (its ok though) to me for thinking I was the one who had gotten into it with you over 50 pages


No, the good ole "if you don't agree with us, and whenever someone provides a detailed explanation demonstrating what you claimed is demonstratedly wrong, and your only response to that is "you'll get used to people not countering a single point you've raised," when that's all we've been doing for months now in this thread.... you might be a troll."

Good try though.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> No, the good ole "if you don't agree with us, and whenever someone provides a detailed explanation demonstrating what you claimed is demonstratedly wrong, and your only response to that is "you'll get used to people not countering a single point you've raised," when that's all we've been doing for months now in this thread.... you might be a troll."
> 
> Good try though.


I know you always make counterpoints...I am not talking about you. Even though that guy was referring to you, I was more in general as I have seen some posts not being addressed/glazed over in previous pages ago.

I mean.....we all know you arent going to miss a single post. You make it clearly evident how much you are salivating over this whole Trump thing; well first it was Russia, now its obsctruction....whatever it is....we ALL know that you are chomping at the bit! So the troll thing is mis-applied


----------



## Ralyks

I'm like 99% positive Drew mentioned that what's going on in the political climate has a direct impact on his career. So kind of understandable he'd brush up on this.


----------



## vilk

will you accept _shitposter _?


----------



## MetalHex

^currently holds the "shitposting" title


----------



## spudmunkey

MetalHex said:


> I know you always make counterpoints...I am not talking about you. Even though that guy was referring to you, I was more in general as I have seen some posts not being addressed/glazed over in previous pages ago.
> 
> I mean.....we all know you arent going to miss a single post. You make it clearly evident how much you are salivating over this whole Trump thing; well first it was Russia, now its obsctruction....whatever it is....we ALL know that you are *chomping* at the bit! So the troll thing is mis-applied




*champing
They both mean to chew noisily, but in the specific context of the action being done on a bit (like what it put into a horse's mouth), the more-correct term is "champing at the bit".


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I know you always make counterpoints...I am not talking about you. Even though that guy was referring to you, I was more in general as I have seen some posts not being addressed/glazed over in previous pages ago.
> 
> I mean.....we all know you arent going to miss a single post. You make it clearly evident how much you are salivating over this whole Trump thing; well first it was Russia, now its obsctruction....whatever it is....we ALL know that you are chomping at the bit! So the troll thing is mis-applied


Ahh, gotcha. Now, the liberals aren't ignoring all your excellent points, we're _far too hung up on this whole Trump witch-hunt and salvating and chomping on the bit!!!
_
You can't have it both ways man.  And why are you trying to separate the Russia investigation from potential obstruction? Considering Trump's actions very likely have risen to the legal threshold for seeking to _obstruct the Russia investigation_ I'd say they're pretty deeply entwined.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Ahh, gotcha. Now, the liberals aren't ignoring all your excellent points, we're _far too hung up on this whole Trump witch-hunt and salvating and chomping on the bit!!!
> _
> You can't have it both ways man.  And why are you trying to separate the Russia investigation from potential obstruction? Considering Trump's actions very likely have risen to the legal threshold for seeking to _obstruct the Russia investigation_ I'd say they're pretty deeply entwined.


I am absolutely not doing that at all. I have no dog in this particular fight because while this whole investigation seems important on the surface, and whether whos guilty or innocent of doing whatever, there is enough proof/evidence for ME to believe that there are much bigger things to be worrying about. (Ironically some of the things actually involve Russia). Things that I will keep to myself, not only because it opens up a conspiracy based case which will be apparently frowned upon around here (which is mega-super-ultra-ironic because this whole Trump-collusion-obstruction case and discussion here, IS spot-on perfect textbook conspiracy talk), and because posting links of people who write articles and books are apparently not valid enough (for people that ask for links and sources; then when I do, they're not happy with them), but That's why I dont hold a magnifying glass over this specific case and get involved in this particular debate. I am not going to try and convince anyone of anything unless they are generally interested in knowing, in either case, this the wrong thread.

So thats why I am not taking the bait when you asked why I am trying to seperate the two, because I havent tried to do that, nor do i care.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> I am absolutely not doing that at all. I have no dog in this particular fight because while this whole investigation seems important on the surface, and whether whos guilty or innocent of doing whatever, there is enough proof/evidence for ME to believe that there are much bigger things to be worrying about. (Ironically some of the things actually involve Russia). Things that I will keep to myself, not only because it opens up a conspiracy based case which will be apparently frowned upon around here (which is mega-super-ultra-ironic because this whole Trump-collusion-obstruction case and discussion here, IS spot-on perfect textbook conspiracy talk), and because posting links of people who write articles and books are apparently not valid enough (for people that ask for links and sources; then when I do, they're not happy with them), but That's why I dont hold a magnifying glass over this specific case and get involved in this particular debate. I am not going to try and convince anyone of anything unless they are generally interested in knowing, in either case, this the wrong thread.
> 
> So thats why I am not taking the bait when you asked why I am trying to seperate the two, because I havent tried to do that, nor do i care.


So if you don't care about the whole Trump thing, you're just here to troll and shitpost?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AfWaZv1OcSkG773EEZBroIg

So over 450 former prosecutors, both Democrats AND Republicans, saying Trump would have been charged if he wasn't holding office. BOTH sides.


----------



## Explorer

And now, as idiots have their half-baked conspiracy theories disproven, and as the House moves to hold Barr in contempt, the House also filed an amicus brief in the current case involving whether Trump can pardon Arpaio from his contempt of the judiciary. At issue is whether the judiciary and the legislature are indeed co-equal branches of government with the executive, or if the executive must approve such findings of contempt.

This one, if it goes to the SCOTUS, is possibly a toss-up, as most Trump supporters, appointees and Republican lawmakers have dropped their pretense of caring about the Constitution and the rule of law.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Guys, sorry to interrupt, but where do we get the free torches and pitchforks from? I'm asking so I can join in on getting Barr, much like going after FrankenTrump's monster.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Guys, sorry to interrupt, but where do we get the free torches and pitchforks from? I'm asking so I can join in on getting Barr, much like going after FrankenTrump's monster.



There used to be a whole load of them down at Benghazi depot. In fact, I still see them there time to time.


----------



## MetalHex

Explorer said:


> And now, as idiots have their half-baked conspiracy theories disproven,



Who and what are you referring to? What half baked conspiracy theory was disproven?......(as you talk about Trump conspiring daily in this thread and don't even realize it...)


----------



## Explorer

MetalHex said:


> Who and what are you referring to? What half baked conspiracy theory was disproven?......(as you talk about Trump conspiring daily in this thread and don't even realize it...)



Taking just a moment before posting some new news...



MetalHex said:


> ...this whole Trump-collusion-obstruction case and discussion here, IS spot-on perfect textbook conspiracy talk...



...I'll note that even the redacted Mueller report gives evidence for the obstruction charges, and even the Trumps admitted to the Trump tower meeting. There are similar, widely reported events of which you appear to be willfully ignorant. Do some reading, at least if you want to have adult discussion.

Or, again say you don't really care and therefore are merely trolling the P&CE area.

----

So...

First, "a source familiar with the attorney general's thinking" says that Barr now wants Mueller to testify before the House. It's likely that the source is Barr himself, so he's possibly taking a stand against the guy whom folks like Metalhex think would welcome having the Mueller report's complete exoneration become public. 

Now, Barr is also asking the house if there is any way to avoid being held in Congressional contempt. He is being allowed to meet with House staffers on Tuesday, to see if he is willing and able to provide substantial material. Interestingly, the House didn't postpone the vote, but instead made Barr make his case the day before, so the vote can happen as scheduled on Wednesday absent that cooperation on Barr's part.


----------



## Explorer

Also tomorrow, Don McGahn has until 10am eastern time tomorrow to turn over a ton of documents to the House Judiciary Committee, which appear to go well beyond what Robert Mueller focused on in his probe. Trump already waived executive privilege, so he can't reinstate it, and McGahn already proved a willing witness. 

McGahn is providing the documents a few weeks ahead of his scheduled appearance before the House, so the House can sort through and read the documents prior to then. 

Contemporaneous notes are strong evidence. I'm looking forward to Dolt 45’s Twitter storm over this.


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> Things that I will keep to myself, not only because it opens up a conspiracy based case which will be apparently frowned upon around here (which is mega-super-ultra-ironic because this whole Trump-collusion-obstruction case and discussion here, IS spot-on perfect textbook conspiracy talk), and because posting links of people who write articles and books are apparently not valid enough (for people that ask for links and sources; then when I do, they're not happy with them), but That's why I dont hold a magnifying glass over this specific case and get involved in this particular debate.



I need this in my life... please elaborate.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> ...which is mega-super-ultra-ironic because this whole Trump-collusion-obstruction case and discussion here, IS spot-on perfect textbook conspiracy talk...
> 
> So thats why I am not taking the bait when you asked why I am trying to seperate the two, because I havent tried to do that, nor do i care.


Wait a second, in reverse order, you ARE trying to separate them, here:



MetalHex said:


> well first it was Russia, now its obsctruction....



How can it be first one, then the other, if you _don't_ think they're seperate? 

Second, how exactly is this a "conspiracy theory"? We have ample evidence of a LOT of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, contacts that Trump had denied ever having until evidence emerged that they had in fact occurred. We know the Trump campaign was doing things that were beneficial to Russia (including removing sanctions on Russia from their annexation of Ukraine, and privately telling the Russian government that they would remove Obama's sanctions imposed after election medding) and that Russia was doing things that would benefit Trump (media campaigns to fuel tension between Sanders supporters and Clinton, fake news media campaigns (ex - stories that the Pope had endorsed Trump), hacking the DNC and releasing internal emails through Wikileaks). The only thing we don't have, and the only thing that meant we didn't have a similar referral to Congress on these charges, was a "smoking gun" tit-for-tat agreement between the two parties. And on the subject of obstruction of justice, Mueller opened by saying the DoJ protocol was that a special counsel could not indict a president, so he was laying out the evidence for Congress to consider. I.e - if he could have indicted Trump, it's _extremely likely_ he would have.

Considering we have hard evidence of all of this stuff, in what universe is this "conspiracy talk"?


----------



## Randy

Pelosi doing herself no favors. I'm 50/50 on if she's genuine or positioning herself strategically but getting herself on record about wanting nothing to do with impeachment is not good.

To be clear, I think the path for impeachment and conviction is pretty much nonexistent. So I don't argue this as "Orange man, bad!" or whatever, like it's going to get rid of him (or should).

But it's like... *maybe* from a strategy point of view she wants to look like the person being reasonable, so the relevant offices will continue to request documents and testimonies, and the WH will stonewall and eventually she'll be sitting there with a stack of contempt charges and THEN she says "okay, now we have grounds for impeachment because he won't even let us do our jobs"? Maybe. The issue with that being, it IS a political process and we've already seen how things like the Barr memo can turn people's stomach enough to lesson the impact of any efforts you make. If there's a protracted legal fight over the subpeonas that reach SCOTUS or that the DOJ is on record over, and Congress loses, if they then try to proceed with impeachment and now request those same documents as part of their proceeding, they've got a bad precedent and having lost a case over those same documents to contend with. It's messy.

If the intent is that this ends at impeachment and the Executive Branch argues they won't comply because this is all political, the can of worms is already half open, tear the top off. At least then you can argue your right to the documents, which the President of COURSE doesn't want you to have, and you're at least arguing your position from constitutional grounds rather than playing cute about wanting tax returns for amending an obscure law.

And of course, the other alternative is that Nancy means it in earnest, that she doesn't want impeachment and nobody else should either. If she's arguing it based on the fact she thinks they have other legislative work to address, the Senate and the WH have already made clear they're inflexible and won't sign anything you send them anyway.

If she's arguing that the Democrats need to focus on 2020 to win the Presidency and both Houses, and impeachment "solidifies his base", I think she's off the mark. That's not leadership. As much as I'd like to think this country's collective IQ is higher than this, our leadership and the direction the polls go seem to indicate voters reward boldness, even in cases when they disagree with the overarching policy that comes with it. You don't decide against impeachment because the voters aren't in favor of it, you do it as a moral/legal/constitutional obligation and because you believe in it, and you let the process bring them on board.

Politics is very frequently like sports. People like an underdog but that's not who they place their bets on, and there's a LOT of people who vote simply based on who they think is winning. If we're looking at 18 months of Democrats requesting documents or sending legislation and getting a big "fuck you" back and just rolling their eyes, they're going to get absolutely slaughtered in the polls.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Wait a second, in reverse order, you ARE trying to separate them, here:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be first one, then the other, if you _don't_ think they're seperate?
> 
> Second, how exactly is this a "conspiracy theory"? We have ample evidence of a LOT of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian nationals, contacts that Trump had denied ever having until evidence emerged that they had in fact occurred. We know the Trump campaign was doing things that were beneficial to Russia (including removing sanctions on Russia from their annexation of Ukraine, and privately telling the Russian government that they would remove Obama's sanctions imposed after election medding) and that Russia was doing things that would benefit Trump (media campaigns to fuel tension between Sanders supporters and Clinton, fake news media campaigns (ex - stories that the Pope had endorsed Trump), hacking the DNC and releasing internal emails through Wikileaks). The only thing we don't have, and the only thing that meant we didn't have a similar referral to Congress on these charges, was a "smoking gun" tit-for-tat agreement between the two parties. And on the subject of obstruction of justice, Mueller opened by saying the DoJ protocol was that a special counsel could not indict a president, so he was laying out the evidence for Congress to consider. I.e - if he could have indicted Trump, it's _extremely likely_ he would have.
> 
> Considering we have hard evidence of all of this stuff, in what universe is this "conspiracy talk"?


Dude, a mountain of evidence doesnt mean it's not a conspiracy, why is that so hard to understand? The word conspiracy does not = that its false. You are misappropriating the word conspiracy. 

Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

You are claiming that Trump is conspiring against whomever, by colluding with Russia....and/or conspiring against whomever by obstructing justice. Trump colluding with Russia = unlawful. Trump obstructing justice = unlawful...........Unlawful + unlawful = conspiracy.

I am not seperating the issues, this thread has though. After the report came that came out a couple weeks ago the hot topic shifted from Russia collusion to obstruction of justice.

It seems since the report, everyone has laid off of the Russia collusion thing in here, except you are still clinging to it by a tooth. 

Whether you have a mountain of evidence or not, doesn't mean its not a conspiracy. If Trump came out tomorrow and plead 100% guilty to all of the above, he was conspiring, it's still a conspiracy.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A-qkjI36vQpiGDTtdKG4Nvg

Welp, even if Mnuchin is being a douche, looks like revealing Trumps state returns is going to pass the state Senate tomorrow, And you know Cuomo will absolutely sign off on it.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Dude, a mountain of evidence doesnt mean it's not a conspiracy, why is that so hard to understand? The word conspiracy does not = that its false. You are misappropriating the word conspiracy.
> 
> Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
> 
> You are claiming that Trump is conspiring against whomever, by colluding with Russia....and/or conspiring against whomever by obstructing justice. Trump colluding with Russia = unlawful. Trump obstructing justice = unlawful...........Unlawful + unlawful = conspiracy.
> 
> I am not seperating the issues, this thread has though. After the report came that came out a couple weeks ago the hot topic shifted from Russia collusion to obstruction of justice.
> 
> It seems since the report, everyone has laid off of the Russia collusion thing in here, except you are still clinging to it by a tooth.
> 
> Whether you have a mountain of evidence or not, doesn't mean its not a conspiracy. If Trump came out tomorrow and plead 100% guilty to all of the above, he was conspiring, it's still a conspiracy.


It might come as a shock to learn that words can have multiple meanings. 

As an example the word conspiracy. It's traditional meaning is the one you've outlined, however Drew was employing anothet common usage of the word. He said "conspiracy talk", as in talk relating to "conspiracy theories" which is a derogatory term used to describe hypotheses with little to no grounding in reality.

An example of a traditional conspiracy would be Trump Jr meeting with Russian agents to discuss details relating to the election. That would be conspiracy to defraud the United States. 

An example of a "conspiracy theory" would be something outlandish like the moon landings being faked or the Jesuits being the architects behind all wrong doing in the world.


----------



## narad

The most convincing piece of evidence for a Jesuit conspiracy I ever saw was Fullmetal Alchemist.


----------



## Explorer

Wow... someone is a chitty businessman.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

I like how lying has been a business strategy for Trump for so long. Well, that and daddy.

So the next big set of questions will obviously include... who or what moved him into the black? Were money laundering or foreign entities involved?

Nixon got his taxes investigated as well, and he turned out to be a major tax cheat. 

Imagine playing chess on seven boards, and you have to win on all of them to win, while everyone else involved only need to win on one of the boards to win. Trump needs to keep everything locked up, or else probable cause will surface to support numerous judges enforcing countless subpoenas.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Explorer

angrychair2 said:


> I have a question that no one seems to wonder about.
> 
> Why didn’t the DNC hand over their servers to be investigated by the FBI. How do we really know that “Russia” hacked their servers? Where is the so-called evidence on this?



Hmm... before getting to that, let me ask you a question about multiple incidents regarding "pretty odd" behavior.

Donald Trump has repeatedly denied that Russia interfered with our elections, in spite of all US intelligence services coming to that very conclusion. Trump has never provided any evidence to support this denial. 

Why is Trump siding with Russia over the US intelligence services over this?

Oh, and wow! Another new member in P&CE! What are the odds? Welcome!


----------



## ExileMetal

Explorer said:


> Wow... someone is a chitty businessman.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/07/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
> 
> I like how lying has been a business strategy for Trump for so long. Well, that and daddy.
> 
> So the next big set of questions will obviously include... who or what moved him into the black? Were money laundering or foreign entities involved?
> 
> Nixon got his taxes investigated as well, and he turned out to be a major tax cheat.
> 
> Imagine playing chess on seven boards, and you have to win on all of them to win, while everyone else involved only need to win on one of the boards to win. Trump needs to keep everything locked up, or else probable cause will surface to support numerous judges enforcing countless subpoenas.
> 
> Stay tuned.



You’re underselling this. He’s not just a shitty businessman. He’s literally one of the worst of all time, or committing completely insane amounts of fraud, or both.


----------



## Ralyks

And to think, he put out The Art Of The Deal when he was deeeeeeeep in the red.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ALAlyiL7USb-2lZWlz7Y2lQ

I was originally against impeachment. Now, this is getting out of hand.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/ALAlyiL7USb-2lZWlz7Y2lQ
> 
> I was originally against impeachment. Now, this is getting out of hand.



That was my point from yesterday. There's a level of oversight that is baked into the existence of the legislative branch, and he just said "nope, it's all politics and I'm not giving anybody anything else" to the point that now he's subverting their job AND his job, as it pertains to the constitution and 'checks and balances'. Even if the entire thing WERE a political witch hunt, it's your job to comply and if it's all for nothing, let the voters decide how they feel about it and vote them out.

My point from yesterday was that the Dems current tactic is slowly chipping away through procedure and Trump gets to say "They SAY they want this for a legitimate reason, but it's really because they're out to get me through impeachment or character assassination for 2020" and he punts it back. So if he's not going to comply by crying attempts at impeachment, just fuckin' do it because at least you gain the abilities to force some level of compliance. The passive aggressive thing ain't working.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Whether you have a mountain of evidence or not, doesn't mean its not a conspiracy. If Trump came out tomorrow and plead 100% guilty to all of the above, he was conspiring, it's still a conspiracy.


Ok, moving from "conspiracy theory" to "criminal conspiracy" is either backpedaling like mad, or I _really_ don't understand what you're trying to say here. Do you think Trump tried to obstruct justice, and tried to coordinate with the Russians during his campaign? Because if you mean "conspiracy" in the later and not former sense, that's what you're saying here. In that case, why are you even arguing with us?


----------



## synrgy

Because the Internet is basically for arguing semantics?


----------



## MetalHex

synrgy said:


> Because the Internet is basically for arguing semantics?


No shit dude. Especially since people can interpret the same language in different ways, with metaphors and different meanings and sarcasm etc...it gets ridiculous.

Person A: "I think that painting stinks!"

Person B: "does it really?" ::goes up and actually smells it::


----------



## Randy

We honestly have very few legitimate conservatives on this site, or at least ones that are willing to participate in debate. MOST of the guys in this thread have been Libertarian, completely non-party affiliated or even from other countries entirely. Which is a relevant distinction because the majority argument seems to be opposition to left wing politics or opposition to left wing complaints ABOUT right wing politics as opposed to actual support for right wing politics.

I kinda see that same theme across social media. Lots of guys that say "I don't like Trump, I just like that Trump pwns Libs". So I think it'd be safe to say a guy like Trump might have a staunch 25% support from a base that loves him but he also still enjoys a +/-25% of people who just like seeing Democrats losing.

That's part of the reason I don't even bother engaging most of these people. They're not arguing because they believe passionately about the guy or his policies, they literally just subsist on trying to make you mad.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> But it's like... *maybe* from a strategy point of view she wants to look like the person being reasonable, so the relevant offices will continue to request documents and testimonies, and the WH will stonewall and eventually she'll be sitting there with a stack of contempt charges and THEN she says "okay, now we have grounds for impeachment because he won't even let us do our jobs"? Maybe. The issue with that being, it IS a political process and we've already seen how things like the Barr memo can turn people's stomach enough to lesson the impact of any efforts you make. If there's a protracted legal fight over the subpeonas that reach SCOTUS or that the DOJ is on record over, and Congress loses, if they then try to proceed with impeachment and now request those same documents as part of their proceeding, they've got a bad precedent and having lost a case over those same documents to contend with. It's messy.


I think it's really tough to say for sure what would be a better strategy for Pelosi here, vs what she's currently doing.

She's experienced enough to have a pretty good lay of the land, notably that if they impeach Trump, 1) the Senate will, based on the evidence we have today, fail to convict, 2) it would take "smoking gun" level evidence to change that, and even that's not a guarantee, and 3) if they try and fail to impeach Trump the Democrats will probably pay for it in the polls in 2020, meaning 4) the most likely outcome of an impeachment is "four more years."

So, what do you do in her shoes? I'm personally of the mindset the best you can hope to do is continue pushing investigations into criminal wrongdoing while trying to tamp down her base and keep them from forcing the matter. That's obviously hard, though, when Trump is dead set on stopping any investigation, no matter how plausible. For now, though, there's probably value in portraying yourself as the "adult in the room," only to then have to confess your hands are tied because Trump is violating the law by blocking constitutional Congressional oversight by abusing his powers. 

As far as Trump citing executive privilege to block the release of the unredacted Mueller report to Congress, I don't think it does him any favors, save for stalling for time.

1) his base is a lost cause... but to independents and what few moderate Republicans are left, claiming the report is "total vindication," but then not letting Congress see it takes some pretty serious cognitive dissonance to accept.

2) This will end up in the courts, and the most relevant court decision is The United States vs. Nixon, which upheld "the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence," to quote Wikipedia. I can't see any sitting justice wanting to be responsible for the argument that the case that led to the release of the Watergate tapes was mis-argued.

3) There's also the practical matter that the DoJ states that they believe a president cannot be indicted because that power is reserved for Congress, so to block the release of a report on Trump's potential criminal wrongdoing to the only legal body empowered to charge him for any potential crimes essentially says that you're comfortable with the president being above the law. At a minimum, I don't see Roberts accepting that interpretation.

Trump may be able to block isolated, individual items within the report from being released based on things like private decision making deliberations generally being protected... But a carte blanche block of the whole thing is absurd, and will not hold up to legal scrutiny.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> No shit dude. Especially since people can interpret the same language in different ways, with metaphors and different meanings and sarcasm etc...it gets ridiculous.


So if you think all along Trump was engaging in criminal conspiracies, why are you even defending him here? Serious question.


----------



## Ralyks

Can they try to block Mueller from testifying, and if yes, couldn't he just leave the DoJ and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Can they try to block Mueller from testifying, and if yes, couldn't he just leave the DoJ and there wouldn't be a damn thing anyone could do about it?


If Mueller wanted to testify, I'm not sure they could stop him. Maybe Trump could try to cite executive privlidge there as well, but I don't think Barr can easily rescind his go-ahead to allow Mueller to testify. 

That said... Mueller is evidently planning to leave the Justice Department within the week, at which point he's a private citizen no longer reporting to Barr.

As far as what his testimony could include... He's very by the book, and his report appears to have been exhaustive. I don't think there's anything new about the content he can bring to the table, and any questions on that would likely be a waste of time. The _interpretation_ of the report, however, his thoughts on what various sections are saying, and any info about how the investigation was run, could prove damning. I don't see him stating, for example, that he believes Trump obstructed justice... But I could absolutely see his saying under oath that the reason no conclusion was made was explicitly that he believed he was unable to indict Trump, based on DoJ protocol, or probiding a bit more color on the Russia coordination section, specifically reiterating that there was ample evidence of each party taking actions that were beneficial to the other, for no clear benefit to themselves, even if their was no "smoking gun" agreement evidence. I could also see any testimony about Barr pressuring him to wrap up the investigation being troubling for Trump, and likewise that he believes the Barr memo created a false impression of the content of the report, by intention or by design, that led to an incorrect media narrative prior to the report's release. 

Basically, I don't think it's realistic to expect Mueller to testify that he believes Trump broke the law by obstructing justice, or that he thinks it was very likely that Trump colluded with Russia but he couldn't quite prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I DO think it's likely that Mueller's testimony will continue to weaken Trump's "total exoneration" claim, and that will provide additional evidence that Barr, at the most charitable interpretation possible, was unintentionally misleading in his memo, however.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> So if you think all along Trump was engaging in criminal conspiracies, why are you even defending him here? Serious question.



I'm not defending him I am speaking rhetorically/devils advocate. I've been saying in the past couple pages that this whole Trump scandal story is what I believe to be peanuts in the grand scheme of things, regardless if true or not.

I just hesitate to elaborate on that because it brings it into a larger conspiracy realm probably not deemed as welcome for this thread. I mean, I'm already in the tin foil/nutjob\voodoo camp because I DONT elaborate; I certainly dont care to see how much worse the backlash can get if I DID. Serious answer.


----------



## Randy

I'm all for conspiracy stuff. I think the governments and private/powerful individuals have done a lot of heinous shit that was covered up for tens and sometimes hundreds of years. I think most conspiracy theories fall apart if they get too specific about things where you need to disconnect from reality, common sense, or ignore things you see with your own eyes for large portions of it, otherwise it falls apart like a house of cards.

If you think Trump or the powers that be fit into some kind of broader narrative, I'm all ears.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> As far as what his testimony could include... He's very by the book, and his report appears to have been exhaustive. I don't think there's anything new about the content he can bring to the table, and any questions on that would likely be a waste of time. The _interpretation_ of the report, however, his thoughts on what various sections are saying, and any info about how the investigation was run, could prove damning. I don't see him stating, for example, that he believes Trump obstructed justice... But I could absolutely see his saying under oath that the reason no conclusion was made was explicitly that he believed he was unable to indict Trump, based on DoJ protocol, or probiding a bit more color on the Russia coordination section, specifically reiterating that there was ample evidence of each party taking actions that were beneficial to the other, for no clear benefit to themselves, even if their was no "smoking gun" agreement evidence. I could also see any testimony about Barr pressuring him to wrap up the investigation being troubling for Trump, and likewise that he believes the Barr memo created a false impression of the content of the report, by intention or by design, that led to an incorrect media narrative prior to the report's release.
> 
> Basically, I don't think it's realistic to expect Mueller to testify that he believes Trump broke the law by obstructing justice, or that he thinks it was very likely that Trump colluded with Russia but he couldn't quite prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I DO think it's likely that Mueller's testimony will continue to weaken Trump's "total exoneration" claim, and that will provide additional evidence that Barr, at the most charitable interpretation possible, was unintentionally misleading in his memo, however.


That's something I've been wondering as well. The guy seems so straight-laced that he might be unwilling to share his personal thoughts on the matter on engage in hypothetical scenarios unless the House can specifically compel him to answer such a line of questioning. It might end up being a situation of him saying, "These are the facts. However, department policy dictated that forming a conclusion based on my interpretation of said facts as to whether President Trump should be indicted on criminal charges was not part of my mandate as special counsel. As such, I cannot do so now because it would violate the integrity of report and the process, tainting it politically, and would also violate the chain of command, regardless of my current standing within department hierarchy."

Then again, I could be completely wrong about that. Someone who knows more about Congress's power to compel answers to questions than myself would have more salient insight than myself.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

MetalHex said:


> I'm not defending him I am speaking rhetorically/devils advocate. I've been saying in the past couple pages that this whole Trump scandal story is what I believe to be peanuts in the grand scheme of things, regardless if true or not.
> 
> I just hesitate to elaborate on that because it brings it into a larger conspiracy realm probably not deemed as welcome for this thread. I mean, I'm already in the tin foil/nutjob\voodoo camp because I DONT elaborate; I certainly dont care to see how much worse the backlash can get if I DID. Serious answer.




I'm just saying, if you have anything you think may be credible, you might as well post it WITH SOURCES because if you don't, that's just going to make it look like you're not even trying to discuss and are pulling arguments out of thin air.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I'm not defending him I am speaking rhetorically/devils advocate. I've been saying in the past couple pages that this whole Trump scandal story is what I believe to be peanuts in the grand scheme of things, regardless if true or not.
> 
> I just hesitate to elaborate on that because it brings it into a larger conspiracy realm probably not deemed as welcome for this thread. I mean, I'm already in the tin foil/nutjob\voodoo camp because I DONT elaborate; I certainly dont care to see how much worse the backlash can get if I DID. Serious answer.


 

I guess I'm with Randy. Fire away, if you think quite possibly accepting help in an election from an enemy nation in return for agreeing to weaken sanctions if elected, and then doing your damndest to shut down the investigation into your actions is small potatoes compared to something _else_ Trump or someone else may have pulled, then this I gotta hear.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> That's something I've been wondering as well. The guy seems so straight-laced that he might be unwilling to share his personal thoughts on the matter on engage in hypothetical scenarios unless the House can specifically compel him to answer such a line of questioning. It might end up being a situation of him saying, "These are the facts. However, department policy dictated that forming a conclusion based on my interpretation of said facts as to whether President Trump should be indicted on criminal charges was not part of my mandate as special counsel. As such, I cannot do so now because it would violate the integrity of report and the process, tainting it politically, and would also violate the chain of command, regardless of my current standing within department hierarchy."
> 
> Then again, I could be completely wrong about that. Someone who knows more about Congress's power to compel answers to questions than myself would have more salient insight than myself.


I mean, again, I think what he _could_ do if he's as by-the-book as his reputation, is to confirm that his not making a finding on obstruction is directly because he didn't believe he had the authority to indict (as the report strongly suggests but Barr denies), as well as speak to some of the differences between the _interpretation _of the report and of Barr's memo, vs what he believed the intent of the report was to actually convey. That itself would be pretty damning to both Barr and Trump, based on what we've already seen.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Drew said:


> I guess I'm with Randy. Fire away, if you think quite possibly accepting help in an election from an enemy nation in return for agreeing to weaken sanctions if elected, and then doing your damndest to shut down the investigation into your actions is small potatoes compared to something _else_ Trump or someone else may have pulled, then this I gotta hear.



Not saying that I necessarily agree with him or that he even has something that's worse than that, but when someone has the idea that you're inviting a response for the mere purpose of either: a.) teasing them or b.) dismissing it entirely, they're less likely to come forward with something like that.


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> Not saying that I necessarily agree with him or that he even has something that's worse than that, but when someone has the idea that you're inviting a response for the mere purpose of either: a.) teasing them or b.) dismissing it entirely, they're less likely to come forward with something like that.


That's a fair point. But, end of the day, just because someone broke the law _worse_ doesn't mean we should ignore lawbreaking. Trump obstructed justice (no sense hedging about it, the Mueller report was clear on this, that Mueller laid out a case rather than expressing an opinion because he didn't have the authority to indict a sitting president) and quite likely (but, importantly, not provably beyond a reasonable doubt) coordinated with Russia during the election. The first is a crime, the second is only short of criminal because we can't prove there was an agreement, only a pattern of activity that implied one. That's a major issue, regardless of what you think about Clinton's email server or Benghazi.


----------



## Randy

PunkBillCarson said:


> Not saying that I necessarily agree with him or that he even has something that's worse than that, but when someone has the idea that you're inviting a response for the mere purpose of either: a.) teasing them or b.) dismissing it entirely, they're less likely to come forward with something like that.



In fairness, the guy doesn't seem afraid to broadcast very unpopular opinions, even about shit he doesn't even believe. Even if it were something absurd, at least he can defend it genuinely. I already said early that most of the people carrying water from Trump don't give a shit about the guy and that's my biggest gripe, so it can't be any worse than that.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Drew said:


> That's a fair point. But, end of the day, just because someone broke the law _worse_ doesn't mean we should ignore lawbreaking. Trump obstructed justice (no sense hedging about it, the Mueller report was clear on this, that Mueller laid out a case rather than expressing an opinion because he didn't have the authority to indict a sitting president) and quite likely (but, importantly, not provably beyond a reasonable doubt) coordinated with Russia during the election. The first is a crime, the second is only short of criminal because we can't prove there was an agreement, only a pattern of activity that implied one. That's a major issue, regardless of what you think about Clinton's email server or Benghazi.




I mean if you want my personal opinion, I want all corruption to be gone. I'm not saying to ignore law breaking, I'm saying to not stop at Trump and his goons. I'm saying tackle the entire fucking thing instead of just what we can see because while I'm not longer convinced that a shadow Government is ruling the entire world, I AM convinced that there's definitely more shady shit in this country than just what we see.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Randy said:


> In fairness, the guy doesn't seem afraid to broadcast very unpopular opinions, even about shit he doesn't even believe. Even if it were something absurd, at least he can defend it genuinely. I already said early that most of the people carrying water from Trump don't give a shit about the guy and that's my biggest gripe, so it can't be any worse than that.




Agreed, which is why I told him that if he's going to be making posts like that, then the least he can do is give us something to work with, because by not doing it, it's essentially useless to make claims like that. Granted, you'd be hard pressed to find ACTUAL evidence without some security breaches, but still...


----------



## Drew

PunkBillCarson said:


> I mean if you want my personal opinion, I want all corruption to be gone. I'm not saying to ignore law breaking, I'm saying to not stop at Trump and his goons. I'm saying tackle the entire fucking thing instead of just what we can see because while I'm not longer convinced that a shadow Government is ruling the entire world, I AM convinced that there's definitely more shady shit in this country than just what we see.


That's fine too. But that's a reason to prosecute _everyone_ breaking the law, rather than ignore everyone because someone's worse. I'm not saying _you_ believe this, just that this is a common defense of people supporting Trump, that they need to be going after someone else instead.


----------



## Thaeon

PunkBillCarson said:


> I mean if you want my personal opinion, I want all corruption to be gone. I'm not saying to ignore law breaking, I'm saying to not stop at Trump and his goons. I'm saying tackle the entire fucking thing instead of just what we can see because while I'm not longer convinced that a shadow Government is ruling the entire world, I AM convinced that there's definitely more shady shit in this country than just what we see.



I don't actually think that a shadow government is possible. I don't think that the people who hold power, either in office or positions of power are actually intelligent enough to make something like that work. Intelligence generally comes with a healthy dose of individualism. The fact that there would be far too many individually differing perspectives with differing desired outcomes would make such a thing pretty difficult to accomplish. Especially when contending with elected officials. Whose average intelligence I'd estimate at lower than the average intelligence of people on this site (not intended as a backhanded compliment, I tend to think that the majority of the people active here are of at least above average intelligence), and unable to balance the interests of their corporate financiers, and the populace that votes for them well enough to disguise something like that.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Thaeon said:


> I don't actually think that a shadow government is possible. I don't think that the people who hold power, either in office or positions of power are actually intelligent enough to make something like that work. Intelligence generally comes with a healthy dose of individualism. The fact that there would be far too many individually differing perspectives with differing desired outcomes would make such a thing pretty difficult to accomplish. Especially when contending with elected officials. Whose average intelligence I'd estimate at lower than the average intelligence of people on this site (not intended as a backhanded compliment, I tend to think that the majority of the people active here are of at least above average intelligence), and unable to balance the interests of their corporate financiers, and the populace that votes for them well enough to disguise something like that.




Well if there's two things they all have in common, they all like money and they all love themselves, so whomever can't be bought could be killed and I definitely think that's been a thing. I think it's possible within the US to accomplish such a thing, on the whole world, I don't think so any longer. I look at other countries and see how much better they have their shit together and then I look at the US and that tells me all I need to know.


----------



## MetalHex

It seems no one here has the slightest idea of how labyrinthine this ruling class is. (not to be an insult)

I'm going to go over to the conspiracy thread and post it there, once I compile some things. I have to make it easy for myself so I don't feel like i'm writing a thesis for Drew to grade: otherwise I would be here all night wasting even more time. Im doing this, not to prove anyone wrong or try to convince anyone, I am just doing it to back my claims. So it makes sense just to do it over there.

Edit: actually I just looked at that thread and I would rather not post my links there as I dont want it to get muddied by the "mythical creatures/boogeyman", jargon. Now im not sure where to put it. I think the pope thread might be more appropriate....or should I start a new one?? you tell me Randy, I dont want to get banned for doing something I am not supposed to...


----------



## Drew

I mean the classic counterargument for government conspiracies are they require simultaneously believing that the government can't send a team of Navy Seals to the middle of the desert without most of the details leaking inside a year, but at the same time the hundreds to thousands of people involved in a conspiracy can somehow all keep their lips sealed and stay out of the public sight to the degree that no one even knows they exist, and just like that, they're gone.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> It seems no one here has the slightest idea of how labyrinthine this ruling class is. (not to be an insult)
> 
> I'm going to go over to the conspiracy thread and post it there, once I compile some things. I have to make it easy for myself so I don't feel like i'm writing a thesis for Drew to grade: otherwise I would be here all night wasting even more time. Im doing this, not to prove anyone wrong or try to convince anyone, I am just doing it to back my claims. So it makes sense just to do it over there.
> 
> Edit: actually I just looked at that thread and I would rather not post my links there as I dont want it to get muddied by the "mythical creatures/boogeyman", jargon. Now im not sure where to put it. I think the pope thread might be more appropriate....or should I start a new one?? you tell me Randy, I dont want to get banned for doing something I am not supposed to...


I'd do a new one. 

I guess, from my end, I'd think about: 

1) what are your priors? I.e. - what are you taking for granted as a starting point from which to build an argument? and
2) as you build off those priors, what are the reasons you're using to get to your conclusions, and are there other possible interpretations for those reasons?


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> I'd do a new one.
> 
> I guess, from my end, I'd think about:
> 
> 1) what are your priors? I.e. - what are you taking for granted as a starting point from which to build an argument? and
> 2) as you build off those priors, what are the reasons you're using to get to your conclusions, and are there other possible interpretations for those reasons?


Ok I think I will start a new thread in this [email protected] section because i believe it applies to this more than off topic


----------



## Ralyks

PunkBillCarson said:


> I mean if you want my personal opinion, I want all corruption to be gone.



I'm pretty sure we all want that. The thing is, Trump is the guy on top. So he has to face all the scrutiny that comes with it. And let's face it, he's done some wild shit, to put it mildly, and basically has spit in the face of checks and balances. As I said, every president has faced scrutiny. But pretty much all of them just did their job instead of making it even worse, like Trump has with his Twitter account alone (nevermind everything else). Hell, I'm pretty sure we all lived through the Dubya administration, and that faced some MAJOR scrutiny. But you know what Dubya did? His job. Not bitch on social media literally every few minutes. And I say this as someone that's center leaning left that actually LIKED Dubya.

Also, can we all agree that Twitter should NOT be the primary form of communication from our governing officials, ESPECIALLY the position of President of the United States? I liked Obama and didn't like him using Twitter either.


----------



## Ralyks

And in the past 20 minutes since I've posted that, Barr is officially being held in contempt, NY passed releasing Trumps state tax returns, and China is preparing counter measures for the tariffs being imposed Friday.

I'll say this, this administration sure hasn't been boring.


----------



## possumkiller

I lost all belief in shadow governments and the like after years of military service and working as and with government workers. There is absolutely no way that shit could be kept under wraps. There is also absolutely no way it could work in any efficient manner.

I was brought up as a right wing christian republican conspiracy nut job by my right wing christian republican conspiracy nut job father. I was taught about the big evil government conspiracies at Waco, Oklahoma City, and Ruby Ridge. When I was a kid and teen in the 90s I was failing school because I was concentrating on preparing for Armageddon and the second coming. I knew I would be left behind in the rapture because I broke some pentecostal christian rule when I was a kid so my only way to heaven was to be as a martyr so I learned everything I could about weapons and warfare preparing to die as a child soldier in the fight against evil.

Then I got into Metallica and guitars and suddenly developed friends and a social life. Then when I joined the army and went to war at 19 and came home questioning 9/11 and why we were in Iraq at all, my dad said I was full of shit and Bush was doing great things. 

Turns out the government was only a big evil conspiracy when democrats were president. When Obama took office, the government became a big evil conspiracy again with him trying to import his muslim terrorist buddies to infiltrate Murica and build concentration camps to put all of us white god fearin christian folk into.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, but the ATF totally did burn those Branch Davidians. It was broadcast live on CNN, and I saw it at the time. I don't think it was a conspiracy so much as a thing that the government denied, and only few people cared at the time, so it just went under the rug. The Oklahoma City bombing wasn't so much a conspiracy as it was just a rush to get two guys. The "wacky conspiracy theorists" who pointed out that witnesses saw another man with McVeigh when he set up the bomb were dismissed, because McVeigh claimed that he acted alone. Well, no shit he claimed that! He also claimed that Terry Nichols had nothing to do with it. But, since 2004, when someone at the FBI finally noticed that the Midwest Bank robbers used exactly the same materials as McVeigh, and that McVeigh's traffic stop record puts him in the same cities as some of the bank robberies on the days of those robberies... well, that's not a wacky conspiracy theory, it's just normal police work to take witness testimony and circumstantial evidence seriously.

Many of these "tin foil hat" theories can be explained away by public indifference and law enforcement incompetence.


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah the Waco thing seemed more like a very embarrassing cock up than a big conspiracy. My dad worked with a "former Navy SEAL" in a factory making leg braces for minimum wage. Apparently the guy told him there is no way a fertilizer bomb could take down so much of the Oklahoma City building. So my dad was swearing it was a controlled detonation and there were government workers installing bombs in the days before the explosion. The same thing he said was complete bullshit when people said it about 9/11 lol. Apparently it was just the Clintons and Democrats that were the evil conspirators behind all the incidents that happened during his presidency. Dad can also see evil in muslim's eyes apparently.


----------



## Thaeon

Having grown up in Oklahoma and having been a teen at the time of the OKC bombing, I'm familiar with all of this talk. I remember Waco too. There are nut jobs in every walk of life. Unfortunately, the seem attracted to certain ideologies more than others.


----------



## thraxil

Yeah, I remember watching Waco happen on TV and it looked like the ATF handled the situation really poorly and then everyone who was involved started trying to cover their asses and avoid any kind of blame, which is about par for the course. I'm pretty left-leaning, but it's no secret that the government can royally screw things up from time to time and there are some messed up individuals on power trips, especially in the law enforcement and military parts of the government. But I never quite understood why that event seemed to be such a turning point for my right wing gun nut friends. It really galvanized them and I started hearing way more about black helicopters and FEMA camps and how Hilary Clinton was the devil incarnate and it was just a matter of days or weeks until the government (really "Democrats") came to take away everyone's guns (two terms of Obama and that never seemed to happen...).


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> ...and it was just a matter of days or weeks until the government (really "Democrats") came to take away everyone's guns (two terms of Obama and that never seemed to happen...).


You'll never hear them talk about this publicly (and I'm not saying this is a conspiracy, just that it would be bad business to do so), but gun and ammo sales always _surge_ under a Democratic administration. Gun manufacturers and the NRA I have no doubt are worried about the risk of additional regulations and controls, but they're perfectly happy to sit there and monetize the fuck out of those risks to pad their bottom line, and I'm positive they know a Democrat in the White House is a short term business positive.


----------



## InHiding

This video is a few years old, but I find it very interesting concerning the US. The main messages sound quite believable to me since, in general, most political discussion seems to be totally unrelated to the real world or reality itself.



A few of the callers are quite hilarious.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A5juh8o-ATU-ZZnGJJ1QZnA

A judge is demanding the unredacted Mueller report in Roger Stones case. Will that even work?


----------



## Explorer

In addition to all the contempt hearings which will likely be voted on in one huge televised event, thus really nailing down for the TV-centric American public just how much contempt the Trump administration is showing for the checks and balances most Americans learned about in those civics classes, a new danger for Trump has surfaced.

Trump has been trying to stall forward motion on all the requests for his financial records. It already looks like Trump will witness NY State turning his NY tax filings over to Congress soon, but now a federal judge has decided to fast-track Trump's legal challenge to having Mazar's provide documents.

Even worse for Trump, it looks like the decision regarding whether Congress has a valid legislative interest in investigating financial and tax fraud on Trump's part, as confessed to by Cohen, will go against Trump. 

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/5995394-Order/

On the plus side, if this is a rare case of Trump telling the truth, in this case regarding not committing such fraud, Trump has nothing to worry about.


----------



## synrgy

That's probably the part that most easily continues setting off my radar: The genuinely innocent typically maintain an air of "come at me, Bruh", because they know they have nothing to hide. Those who maintain an air of "I will do everything within my power (and then some) to prevent you from coming at me, Bruh", are typically guilty as sin.


----------



## Explorer

synrgy said:


> That's probably the part that most easily continues setting off my radar: The genuinely innocent typically maintain an air of "come at me, Bruh", because they know they have nothing to hide. Those who maintain an air of "I will do everything within my power (and then some) to prevent you from coming at me, Bruh", are typically guilty as sin.



Yeah... that was the most hilariously telling part of the Kavanaugh hearings on the part of Kavanaugh and the Republicans, their insistence on not having the FBI investigate the new material. That will likely allow impeachment after the Congress flips in the upcoming elections.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Yeah the Waco thing seemed more like a very embarrassing cock up than a big conspiracy. My dad worked with a "former Navy SEAL" in a factory making leg braces for minimum wage. Apparently the guy told him there is no way a fertilizer bomb could take down so much of the Oklahoma City building. So my dad was swearing it was a controlled detonation and there were government workers installing bombs in the days before the explosion. The same thing he said was complete bullshit when people said it about 9/11 lol. Apparently it was just the Clintons and Democrats that were the evil conspirators behind all the incidents that happened during his presidency. Dad can also see evil in muslim's eyes apparently.



Is he aware that he doesn't actually differ in views from his "evil-eyed muslim" extremists on much of anything of substance?

And Allah IS the Judeo-Christian g-d anyway...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Is he aware that he doesn't actually differ in views from his "evil-eyed muslim" extremists on much of anything of substance?
> 
> And Allah IS the Judeo-Christian g-d anyway...



Real American Patriots don't let details like that get in the way.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Real American Patriots don't let details like that get in the way.



Yeah, but.... c'mon.

All you need to do is convince them that F150's make better technicals than Yotas, and you can have sooo many new dress-wearing bearded allies for bunkering down during The Rapture or annexing northwestern Arkansas from the Federal Antichrist or whatever it is y'all do for fun....


----------



## Xaios

Adieu said:


> ...or annexing northwestern Arkansas from the Federal Antichrist or whatever it is y'all do for fun....



Liberating. _Liberating _northwestern Arkansas.

Carry on.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Yeah... that was the most hilariously telling part of the Kavanaugh hearings on the part of Kavanaugh and the Republicans, their insistence on not having the FBI investigate the new material. That will likely allow impeachment after the Congress flips in the upcoming elections.


In the spirit of setting reasonable expectations... 

...the GOP will likely hold the Senate in 2020. The Democrats just don't have a very good map. They only have to defend 12 seats to the GOP's 21, but one of those is Doug Jones, which will be a very hard seat to hold in brick-red Alabama provided the GOP doesn't shoot themselves in the foot a second time. Assuming we do, though, we need to pick up at least 3 seats, 4 if Trump somehow holds on. Arizona and Colorado are definitely in play, but I'm not sure where the third would come from. Susan Collins in Maine? Thom Tillis in North Carolina? Both of those are Republican-leaning, but in a true wave election or with an exceptional candidate could be in play (Collins in particular could be vulnerable to both a primary challanger, AND a Democrat, after the ACA and Kavanaugh). But, neither are especially likely, and that only gets you to 50-50 with the Vice President as a tie-breaking vote, _assuming_ Jones manages to hold on to a very conservative seat. 

It's possible, sure. I just don't think it's especially likely, much less a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Gee whiz. I’m glad you recovered from such a bad upbringing.


possumkiller said:


> I lost all belief in shadow governments and the like after years of military service and working as and with government workers. There is absolutely no way that shit could be kept under wraps. There is also absolutely no way it could work in any efficient manner.
> 
> I was brought up as a right wing christian republican conspiracy nut job by my right wing christian republican conspiracy nut job father. I was taught about the big evil government conspiracies at Waco, Oklahoma City, and Ruby Ridge. When I was a kid and teen in the 90s I was failing school because I was concentrating on preparing for Armageddon and the second coming. I knew I would be left behind in the rapture because I broke some pentecostal christian rule when I was a kid so my only way to heaven was to be as a martyr so I learned everything I could about weapons and warfare preparing to die as a child soldier in the fight against evil.
> 
> Then I got into Metallica and guitars and suddenly developed friends and a social life. Then when I joined the army and went to war at 19 and came home questioning 9/11 and why we were in Iraq at all, my dad said I was full of shit and Bush was doing great things.
> 
> Turns out the government was only a big evil conspiracy when democrats were president. When Obama took office, the government became a big evil conspiracy again with him trying to import his muslim terrorist buddies to infiltrate Murica and build concentration camps to put all of us white god fearin christian folk into.


ee


----------



## InHiding

The two parties are both bought though and you will slowly travel down the shithole in America. Used to be that a salesman in a hardware store could support a family and get a house. Now he's on food stamps...


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah I remember my aunt worked a part time job in the seventies as a teenager and bought a brand new Camaro as her first car. Now everyone in the household has to be working just to survive. From 1959 to 2009 the prices of things went up x10 but wages nowhere near as much.


----------



## possumkiller

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Gee whiz. I’m glad you recovered from such a bad upbringing.
> 
> ee


All it took was leaving my redneck hole in the swamp and mingling with civilised people, becoming even slightly educated, traveling outside the US, and having consideration for people other than myself. I think most Americans in general have a pretty big superiority complex and think the universe revolves around the US.


----------



## Drew

So, about that "easy to win" trade war... :/ 

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...us-tariffs-growth-stock-markets-business-live


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, my investments have already taken a hit...


----------



## Drew

S&P500 down 2.5% at the moment, about 5% MTD. The markets, equity markets in particular, have pretty much been taking it for granted that a deal will get done for some crazy reason (optimism? The only thing we've learned for sure so far is that with Trump and his inner circle spending the last six months saying "negotiations are going well, so well in fact that we're going to indefinitely extend our deadline again so that we can hash out the last final details" that the Trump administration's public comments here absolutely cannot be trusted). This has them rattled.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, he HAD the economy going for him...


----------



## Randy

That's been my complaint about the Trump economy from the beginning. The 2008-2009 recession rocked whole industries and the recovery was going to take some wonking but a lot of legitimate investments.

Trump inherited the foundation from the Obama administration, seemingly campaigned on driving increased US investment and repatriating some of that money kept in tax havens, then got the job and kept the whole thing afloat by offering the wealthy and investor class decreased taxes without doubling down on the stateside investment part.

Reminds me a lot of a mayoral campaign I worked on a few years back. I was working for the opposition candidate (shocker!). The incumbent mayor was particularly unpopular with the residents in the neighborhoods, and that trickled down to a lot of the landlords and property owners as well. One of the best source of support for the insurgent candidate were the testimonials of crime, dangerous streets, crooked cops and from the landlords, overreach or underreach of code enforcement and high taxes. We were getting great poll numbers focusing on those areas. Then, one week, the head of the city landlords association (which oversees all the smaller landlords groups) announced the incumbent mayor was holding a town hall meeting, closed to he public and with the heads of all the neighborhood landlord groups. After that meeting, the endorsements/testimonials for the opposition candidate fell off to absolute zero and they ultimately ended up losing.

Not saying that was 100% the reason they lost but the moral to the story and the parallel here was the fact that the incumbent was able to compromise the opposition, not by convincing a large section of the voting block but by convincing (or maybe something more nefarious) a single person and that essentially disarmed everyone beneath them, silencing descent without having to actually address or fix their complaints.

So back to this Trump thing, this economy never felt like it was legitimately surging and that industry was growing here in the states. I was skeptical early on with how much I'd credit Trump for the state of things but I think when you cross the two year mark, whoever's got the job has a significant amount of their fingerprints on it. I just get the feeling that things like the tax cuts and steady deregulation have artificially kept those numbers high, making the CEOs, the traders, then on the second tier, the pensioners/401k retiree classes happy, further backed up by a handful of industries paying their workers living wages (way after they should've and after they were FORCED to do so in blue districts), which were tantamount to strategic bribery.

In actuality, we've always seemed like we were one temper tantrum and subsequent 'bluff calling' away from the whole thing falling into the shitter. I'm not saying we're there now but it's seemed inevitable.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> this economy never felt like it was legitimately surging and that industry was growing here in the states.



So much this. I didn’t notice a single difference under Trump with the economy, and I knew even what was going right, it was Obama’s administration towards the end that was making it turn around to a positive, and Trump was basically just taking advantage of that.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So back to this Trump thing, this economy never felt like it was legitimately surging and that industry was growing here in the states. I was skeptical early on with how much I'd credit Trump for the state of things but I think when you cross the two year mark, whoever's got the job has a significant amount of their fingerprints on it. I just get the feeling that things like the tax cuts and steady deregulation have artificially kept those numbers high, making the CEOs, the traders, then on the second tier, the pensioners/401k retiree classes happy, further backed up by a handful of industries paying their workers living wages (way after they should've and after they were FORCED to do so in blue districts), which were tantamount to strategic bribery.
> 
> In actuality, we've always seemed like we were one temper tantrum and subsequent 'bluff calling' away from the whole thing falling into the shitter. I'm not saying we're there now but it's seemed inevitable.



That's my read, too. The biggest success of the "Trump Economy" so far, I think, that the administration can claim is that, somehow, they haven't actually fucked things up. The economy isn't extremely strong, but it's growing, employment is growing, wages are starting to recover.... And, thus far, Trump's tax cuts seem to have had a modest effect and didn't overheat the economy, while _so far_ the trade war hasn't weighed heavily because everyone's assumed it would just get resolved anyway, and no harm no foul. 

If you want a bull case for getting a trade deal done, it's that Trump has to know he can't afford to fuck up the economy and trigger a recession a few months out from a Presidential election, and that because of this at some point he'll have to drop the bluster and actually try to come to some sort of a deal. The bear case, I'm afraid, is a combination of Trump probably believing that tariffs _don't_ hurt America, and that they hurt China enough to force them to back down, and that his ego is too big to allow him to be seen as "losing." Personally I'd bet on the latter. :/


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like the trade war wiped more than $1 trillion from global markets. JUST TODAY.


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> Looks like the trade war wiped more than $1 trillion from global markets. JUST TODAY.



It took him a decade to lose a billion dollars as a private citizen. Now he can lose a trillion in a day as president.


----------



## Xaios

thraxil said:


> It took him a decade to lose a billion dollars as a private citizen. Now he can lose a trillion in a day as president.


AND THEY SAY THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD.


----------



## MetalHex

Xaios said:


> AND THEY SAY THAT THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD.


It isnt dead....it just changed scenes. Instead of making a living for yourself, now you can make a living from handouts on the backs of people you hate.


----------



## Aso

thraxil said:


> It took him a decade to lose a billion dollars as a private citizen. Now he can lose a trillion in a day as president.


At least he is keeping the same pattern of only losing other people's money........


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> It isnt dead....it just changed scenes. Instead of making a living for yourself, now you can make a living from handouts on the backs of people you hate.



Yeah, these farm subsidies are something else.


----------



## Explorer

Three interesting developments today...

In the Senate, Burr and the Democrats on the committee have a majority should they vote to hold Don Jr. in contempt. That would move the issue to a broadcasted vote of the full Senate, wherein a Republican Senate majority could vote in full view to allow someone to defy a Senate subpoena, especially when there is evidence that said person lied to the Senate under oath. That will definitely be a bad look for Senate Republicans.

The judge in the Mazar's injunction case had previously told House members and Trump's team that the hearing regarding Trump's requested preliminary injunction, *and* the full hearing on the merits of Trump's argument (Congress has no valid constitutional oversight of the Presidency) would be combined tomorrow. Trump's lawyers begged the judge to allow a factual record to devlop, and to not grant a speedy trial. The judge has now denied Trump's begging, and still doesn't think an evidentiary record will be needed to decide the arguments regarding claimed unconstitutionality based on the merits. That's going to hurt, as the decision is likely to go against Trump, and will also likely affect all the other cases Trump is bringing to keep his finances private. 

Lastly, Team Trump just proved willing to deal with an agent of a foreign government to get dirt on Biden, a political opponent. It turns out the profferred information was fictional, but Trump certainly didn't do himself any favors by engaging in the same thing he previously claimed he hadn't.


----------



## Explorer

MetalHex said:


> It isnt dead....it just changed scenes. Instead of making a living for yourself, now you can make a living from handouts on the backs of people you hate.



I'm trying to figure out when Trump actually made a living for himself. Do you mean when he was getting all his money from Daddy?


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, these farm subsidies are something else.


Especially the Monsanto ones


----------



## MetalHex

Explorer said:


> I'm trying to figure out when Trump actually made a living for himself. Do you mean when he was getting all his money from Daddy?


I think your life is dedidcated to figuring out everything about Trump, and nothing else


----------



## Explorer

MetalHex said:


> It isnt dead....it just changed scenes. Instead of making a living for yourself, now you can make a living from handouts on the backs of people you hate.





Explorer said:


> I'm trying to figure out when Trump actually made a living for himself. Do you mean when he was getting all his money from Daddy?





MetalHex said:


> I think your life is dedidcated to figuring out everything about Trump, and nothing else



Hardly. I just couldn't understand your post. I like how you would feel that just a moment's consideration on my part for each of my factual observations in this topic would represent some herculean effort, though. *laugh*

Tonight's real project... restringing a classical Yamaha Silent Guitar into full fifths tuning (C2 G2 D3 A3 E4 B4) using fishing line for the top B4 course. The nylon fishing line is less expensive and twitchy than the O4+ strings I use on wire-strung instruments. The experiment will later go to restringing and downtuning it to FCGDAE, which will require making a new nut.


----------



## possumkiller

Explorer said:


> Hardly. I just couldn't understand your post. I like how you would feel that just a moment's consideration on my part for each of my factual observations in this topic would represent some herculean effort, though. *laugh*
> 
> Tonight's real project... restringing a classical Yamaha Silent Guitar into full fifths tuning (C2 G2 D3 A3 E4 B4) using fishing line for the top B4 course. The nylon fishing line is less expensive and twitchy than the O4+ strings I use on wire-strung instruments. The experiment will later go to restringing and downtuning it to FCGDAE, which will require making a new nut.


His post wasn't about Trump. 

He was referring to the libtard posters in this thread (and lazy blacks) that despise republicans even though they don't mind sitting on their lazy asses all day collecting food stamps and welfare that is being paid for by hard working patriotic republicans.


----------



## narad

Explorer said:


> The experiment will later go to restringing and downtuning it to FCGDAE, which will require making a new nut.



If you want a new nut, all you have to do is ban the current one and the new one will show up here in a week or two (with a different username) to replace it ;-)


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

possumkiller said:


> His post wasn't about Trump.
> 
> He was referring to the libtard posters in this thread (and lazy blacks) that despise republicans even though they don't mind sitting on their lazy asses all day collecting food stamps and welfare that is being paid for by hard working patriotic republicans.


Wow. Am I missing some satire or something here? Are you projecting onto others? What?


----------



## possumkiller

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Wow. Am I missing some satire or something here? Are you projecting onto others? What?


Nah. As a person with a lot of very republican friends and family and formerly conservative myself, I hear it all the time and know exactly what he is referring to. 

Living the liberal dream of having everyone else pay for everything. Doing nothing and living off the backs of honest hard working folk.


----------



## MetalHex

possumkiller said:


> Nah. As a person with a lot of very republican friends and family and formerly conservative myself, I hear it all the time and know exactly what he is referring to.
> 
> Living the liberal dream of having everyone else pay for everything. Doing nothing and living off the backs of honest hard working folk.


I was actually referring to illegal invaders that waltz on into the U.S.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

possumkiller said:


> Nah. As a person with a lot of very republican friends and family and formerly conservative myself, I hear it all the time and know exactly what he is referring to.
> 
> Living the liberal dream of having everyone else pay for everything. Doing nothing and living off the backs of honest hard working folk.


Eh, sounds mighty close to projecting to me.


----------



## possumkiller

MetalHex said:


> I was actually referring to illegal invaders that waltz on into the U.S.


The thing I never could figure out is if they're here to freeload off of hard working republicans or to steal their jobs.

The legal invaders are much more sinister. My dad has a friend who's friend works at Eglin AFB. She said they got a truck load of those Muslim refugees. She said there weren't any women, children or old people among them. They were all military age males and she could see the evil in their eyes when they stared at her. Those are the terrorists that Obama imported to infiltrate America.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I was actually referring to illegal invaders that waltz on into the U.S.



I'd ask for a citation, but I know I won't get one and if I do it'll be "crayons outside the lines" quality.

Oh well. We had this discussion a couple months ago in here, so there's little reason to rehash. 

But, since we're here:
https://immigrationforum.org/articl...migrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes

https://itep.org/state-local-tax-contributions-of-young-undocumented-immigrants/

https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/

https://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd ask for a citation, but I know I won't get one and if I do it'll be "crayons outside the lines" quality.
> 
> Oh well. We had this discussion a couple months ago in here, so there's little reason to rehash.
> 
> But, since we're here:
> https://immigrationforum.org/articl...migrant-tax-contributions-and-spending-power/
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...13/17229018/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes
> 
> https://itep.org/state-local-tax-contributions-of-young-undocumented-immigrants/
> 
> https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-immigrants-and-public-benefits/
> 
> https://econofact.org/do-undocumented-immigrants-overuse-government-benefits


We're going to play the "biased confirmation links game"? Since there is no winning this anyways, its important to underline that the links you provided are not an addressing my comment since it didn't claim anything specific.....you just assumed = taxes. Taxes are just one thing (and links could show either way) It doesn't include free drivers licenses, free welfare, free tuition, soon to be ability to vote, free housing, paid for by current citizens' taxpayers. (While some of these free things may not be official yet, it's damn near close.) I forgot ambulance rides for a runny nose. But while we're at it,


httphttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.watchdog.org/national/analysis-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-billion-annually/article_b51222e8-8b7b-11e8-8546-37063af1f318.amp.html

https://medium.com/@senko/fiscal-bu...ration-estimates-and-fact-checks-c7a13ea5815a.

And these are the ones accounted for. I just dont see how anyone could think that people come here and dont get free shit at the citizens' expense.

Btw, ImmagrationForum.org............really?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> We're going to play the "biased confirmation links game"?



Facts aren't biased, they just can help to confirm one opinion vs. another. Not a hard concept.

You're welcome to point out any bias you think you see.

Did you even read any of them? Check the citations?



> you just assumed = taxes. *Taxes* are just one thing (and links could show either way) It doesn't include free drivers licenses, free welfare, free tuition, soon to be ability to vote, free housing, paid for by current citizens' *taxpayers*.



Logic is hard. Unless you think that undocumented or documented immigrants are literally taking the money from you, it's via taxation, and when offset by sales tax and taxes assessed from payroll, it's shown to be anywhere from a wash to a net gain, considering undocumented immigrants can't and don't benefit from programs they pay into, like social security.



> (While some of these free things may not be official yet, it's damn near close.)



Citation needed.

Also, aliens can come down from the sky tomorrow and zap dirt into gold. But it hasn't happened yet.



> I forgot ambulance rides for a runny nose. But while we're at it,



I too abhor the terrible state of getting sick in this country.



> httphttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.watchdog.org/national/analysis-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-billion-annually/article_b51222e8-8b7b-11e8-8546-37063af1f318.amp.html



The methodology of FAIR's report, the basis for that link, is questionable at best.

https://www.cato.org/blog/fairs-fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-study-fatally-flawed



> https://medium.com/@senko/fiscal-bu...ration-estimates-and-fact-checks-c7a13ea5815a.



That's basically a meandering defense of your first link that just can't believe that immigrants might make something of themselves.

It's an opinion piece (no analysis was done outside the author's opinion) made in bad faith.



> And these are the ones accounted for. I just dont see how anyone could think that people come here and dont get free shit at the citizens' expense.



Another logic fail. The United States, as a nation, has plenty of resources for ever citizen and non-citizen within it, we'd just rather spend money bombing brown people and keeping minorities "in their place".

Again, studies not done by anti immigration lobby groups and PACs puts the economic impact of immigrants, legal and otherwise, as either a wash (no guaranteed loss or gain) or a net positive in many communities.

But sure, those free IDs are really keeping you down. 



MetalHex said:


> Btw, ImmagrationForum.org............really?



Two things: 

- What would be the ideal name for a website devoted to factual analysis of immigration?

"Why they're not talking about foxes at all!" 

- _Immigration
_
Again, you're welcome to point out anything that seems inaccurate or is improperly sourced or cited. 

I didn't post those links for you to find opposing ones, I did it so you could read the information, _fact check it yourself_, and decide whether it has merit. That's how this is supposed to work.


----------



## MetalHex

Yes I did read them. $2 billion for emergency Medicaid, damn thats alot of money! To use the leftists excuse when complaining about Trumps wall, "cant we use that $2 billion for more important things like infrastructure?" 

I dont care if its seemingly "small" burden, it doesn't make it right and doesnt mean that invaders shouldnt be turned about-face back to the direction from whence they came.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/news/economy/undocumented-immigrants-health-care/index.html
"When uninsured people end up in the hospital, that pushes up rates for those who have insurance. Or public programs like Emergency Medicaid pick up the tab. This contributes to a game of shifting costs, Wallace said." "It'll place a strain on the entire health care system," Wallace said.



MaxOfMetal said:


> , we'd just rather spend money bombing brown people and keeping minorities "in their place"[/QUOTE
> 
> You used "brown people", no one else.....in this entire argument, or even thread. You do see how that is prejudice, don't you? I know you are being sarcastic and assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you, and anyone who thinks we need a more careful and stricter vetting process for immigration must not like "brown people", but it's grossly prejudice at the very least. Are _you_ racist?



Sorry i misplaced the quotes but you can put two and two together


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Yes I did read them.



Doubtful.



> $2 billion for emergency Medicaid, damn thats alot of money!



Not really.

That's less than .06% of the federal budget for 2018, and less than .001% of our GDP.

More relevant, it's less than .7% of Medicaid's budget, and less than .1% of the amount Medicaid reimbursed providers ers for as recently as 2015.

It's also twice what Trump lost in 10 years. That we know of. 



> To use the leftists excuse when complaining about Trumps wall, "cant we use that $2 billion for more important things like infrastructure?"



Yeah, it's bullshit we have to spend this money so poorly. We should instead overhaul our broken healthcare system to drop the number significantly due to poor efficiency.

Changing policy regarding immigration would also have benefits here.



> I dont care if its seemingly "small" burden, it doesn't make it right and doesnt mean that invaders shouldnt be turned about-face back to the direction from whence they came.



At what cost?

We spend $50 billion already. How much more of a burden do you want?

If you're coming from the fiscal angle, you're going to have to be intellectually honest enough to admit the cost of "turning away the invaders" is going to be astronomical.



> https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/news/economy/undocumented-immigrants-health-care/index.html
> "When uninsured people end up in the hospital, that pushes up rates for those who have insurance. Or public programs like Emergency Medicaid pick up the tab. This contributes to a game of shifting costs, Wallace said." This is not cool. And Im sure you trust that site.
> 
> "It'll place a strain on the entire health care system," Wallace said.



See above. This doesn't just go for immigrants. It's a symptom of our failure to provide healthcare in this country. Full stop.



> You used "brown people", no one else.....in this entire argument, or even thread. You do see how that is prejudice, don't you? I know you are being sarcastic and assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you, and anyone who thinks we need a more careful and stricter vetting process for immigration must not like "brown people", but it's grossly prejudice at the very least. Are _you_ racist?



I was referring to our outsized military spending and rampant intervention in the Middle East vs. the amount spent domestically on programs involving healthcare and immigration.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I think your life is dedidcated to figuring out everything about Trump, and nothing else


Listen, I stepped down as a mod here years ago, so maybe it's no longer my place.... but, there's no possible way to take this post as anything other than straight-up trolling, and kind of juvenile trolling at that. Speaking as a member and not as an administrator, if you want to continue to participate in this thread, at least TRY to engage, ask sincere questions, give sincere answers, and try to have a substantive debate. If instead you just want to keep sparring, dodging, avoiding questions, and trying to score cheap points by insulting members rather than engaging with them, then maybe you should consider GTFO of this thread.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Yes I did read them. $2 billion for emergency Medicaid, damn thats alot of money! To use the leftists excuse when complaining about Trumps wall, "cant we use that $2 billion for more important things like infrastructure?"
> 
> I dont care if its seemingly "small" burden, it doesn't make it right and doesnt mean that invaders shouldnt be turned about-face back to the direction from whence they came.
> 
> https://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/news/economy/undocumented-immigrants-health-care/index.html
> "When uninsured people end up in the hospital, that pushes up rates for those who have insurance. Or public programs like Emergency Medicaid pick up the tab. This contributes to a game of shifting costs, Wallace said." "It'll place a strain on the entire health care system," Wallace said.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry i misplaced the quotes but you can put two and two together


Yeah, there's a couple problems with this. 

First, Trump's wall was _not_ a $2 billion outlay. It's been estimated as at least 10x that, and the Democrats HAVE approved more than the $2B you mention for border security. In fact the very fact that he keeps requesting more and more for a boondoggle that simply doesn't work is a very strong reason NOT to keep approving progressively larger amounts. 

Second, you can't simultaneously talk about the impact of immigrants without insurance on the health care costs of American citizens, while also being opposed to Democratic universal healthcare plans that argue the necessity of expanding coverage for _precisely those same reasons_. Doubly so when the Democrats are also arguing for easing and expanding the route to citizenship for immigrants looking to come into the country, and when illegal immigrants are in aggregate net tax_payers_ into the system, since they're inelligible for most state and federal benefits and can't file tax returns.


----------



## Ralyks

Speaking of the wall, remember that guy who tried to crowdfund it? Well...

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/11/the-wall-scam-a-bigot-and-their-money-are-soon-parted/

Hey, that’s what they get.


----------



## Thaeon

possumkiller said:


> His post wasn't about Trump.
> 
> He was referring to the libtard posters in this thread (and lazy blacks) that despise republicans even though they don't mind sitting on their lazy asses all day collecting food stamps and welfare that is being paid for by hard working patriotic republicans.



It doesn't matter how I look at this statement. Literal? Sarcasm?

Savagery noted.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Listen, I stepped down as a mod here years ago, so maybe it's no longer my place.... but, there's no possible way to take this post as anything other than straight-up trolling, and kind of juvenile trolling at that. Speaking as a member and not as an administrator, if you want to continue to participate in this thread, at least TRY to engage, ask sincere questions, give sincere answers, and try to have a substantive debate. If instead you just want to keep sparring, dodging, avoiding questions, and trying to score cheap points by insulting members rather than engaging with them, then maybe you should consider GTFO of this thread.


Im sorry but calling out an observation is not trolling, even if its snarky. Did you miss the snarkiness in his comment toward me?

How about all the trolling in my global agenda page, including your comments in there? Thats clearly mocking me and trolling, both of which you are guilty


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Yeah, there's a couple problems with this.
> 
> First, Trump's wall was _not_ a $2 billion outlay. It's been estimated as at least 10x that, and the Democrats HAVE approved more than the $2B you mention for border security. In fact the very fact that he keeps requesting more and more for a boondoggle that simply doesn't work is a very strong reason NOT to keep approving progressively larger amounts.
> 
> Second, you can't simultaneously talk about the impact of immigrants without insurance on the health care costs of American citizens, while also being opposed to Democratic universal healthcare plans that argue the necessity of expanding coverage for _precisely those same reasons_. Doubly so when the Democrats are also arguing for easing and expanding the route to citizenship for immigrants looking to come into the country, and when illegal immigrants are in aggregate net tax_payers_ into the system, since they're inelligible for most state and federal benefits and can't file tax returns.


I never said Trumps wall was going to cost only 2 billion. I dont care if its only a drop in the bucket comapred to entire budget. All i was saying was 2 billion is alot of money! You guys read too much into that


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I never said Trumps wall was going to cost only 2 billion. I dont care if its only a drop in the bucket comapred to entire budget. All i was saying was 2 billion is alot of money! You guys read too much into that



It's not a lot of money in the context it's being spent in.

If you're using it to setup the premise that it's use is preventing the spending of $2 billion elsewhere, it's not. There is plenty of money. The issue is allocation.

We're operating at a loss to prop up policies and wars we can't afford. We're grossly inefficient at it as well.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Im sorry but calling out an observation is not trolling, even if its snarky. Did you miss the snarkiness in his comment toward me?
> 
> How about all the trolling in my global agenda page, including your comments in there? Thats clearly mocking me and trolling, both of which you are guilty


You're not even attempting to engage though - you're antagonizing him and pulling a bait and switch, and then now trying to justify it by tone. Hey, maybe his tone _was_ snarky... but at least he had something to _say_. You chose to respond by not replying to the content of his message, but instead by ignoring it and saying "I think your life is dedidcated to figuring out everything about Trump, and nothing else" implying there was something wrong with him for having something to say. That's kind of a problem - you're not engaging, you're not trying to discuss, you're pivoting away from all attempts at having a discussion and taunting the people trying to have a discussion. 

Here, you're replying to my critique with whataboutism, and frankly, while I've stayed mostly out of your other thread, my posts were one light-hearted joke about being a pisces and therefore untrustworthy, followed by a lot of frankly pretty heavy and serious debate about religious symbolism and the evolution of religious beliefs. If you think bringing serious new content to the conversation is trolling, I don't know what to tell you. 

Idunno. End of the day... If you want to be taken seriously in this thread you need to pull it together and actually start _acting_ like a mature and serious participant.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> You guys read too much into that


But this is your response to everything!


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> We're operating at a loss to prop up policies and wars we can't afford. We're grossly inefficient at it as well



I agree with this 100%


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> I agree with this 100%


----------



## Explorer

Well, well, well...

Now we know what Flynn gave Mueller in exchange for a light sentence. 

Numerous people from the Trump White House, and also several unnamed members of Congress, put pressure on Flynn to not help Mueller. That's obstruction of justice *and* witness tampering.

Further, one of the people, one of Trump's attorneys, even left a helpful voicemail for Flynn to that effect, which Flynn turned over to Mueller. That's corroborating evidence, like the way Cohen was able to bring receipts for his claims. 

Now a federal judge, who is not under Trump's or Barr's authority, has ordered Barr to release, completely unredacted, the sections of the Mueller report which deal with Flynn. Judicial contempt of court is more immediate than Congressional contempt, so Barr will face immediate consequences if he commita more obstruction. If Trump pardons Barr for contempt, that's still more obstruction, obvious to all who have even a modicum of common sense. 

----

Also in the news, Mitch McConnell's fight to lift certain Russian sanctions, and the subsequent investment in his state from Russian sources, have now been referred to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for investigation. That bit of quid pro quo has been pretty obvious for a while, as have other Republican congress members who have visited Russia in the past few years and subsequently gotten financial contributions from Russian sources. It's like watching Hydra take over Shield in real life. 

----

Oh, and the parts of the Mueller report to be released unredacted? They include transcripts of all the calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. That's right... Mueller has recordings of all those calls, and more besides. We already have Trump interfering with Comey to prevent action being taken against Flynn for having been in the negotiations. Now we have proof the talks really took place. That's the coffin nail for Trump's constant attempts to claim there is no proof of attempted conspiracy. 

When it comes down to actual recordings, and only being able to deny the evidence anyone can plainly see with weak denials, this will just make defenders of Trump look obviously foolish.


----------



## Thaeon

Explorer said:


> Well, well, well...
> 
> Now we know what Flynn gave Mueller in exchange for a light sentence.
> 
> Numerous people from the Trump White House, and also several unnamed members of Congress, put pressure on Flynn to not help Mueller. That's obstruction of justice *and* witness tampering.
> 
> Further, one of the people, one of Trump's attorneys, even left a helpful voicemail for Flynn to that effect, which Flynn turned over to Mueller. That's corroborating evidence, like the way Cohen was able to bring receipts for his claims.
> 
> Now a federal judge, who is not under Trump's or Barr's authority, has ordered Barr to release, completely unredacted, the sections of the Mueller report which deal with Flynn. Judicial contempt of court is more immediate than Congressional contempt, so Barr will face immediate consequences if he commita more obstruction. If Trump pardons Barr for contempt, that's still more obstruction, obvious to all who have even a modicum of common sense.
> 
> ----
> 
> Also in the news, Mitch McConnell's fight to lift certain Russian sanctions, and the subsequent investment in his state from Russian sources, have now been referred to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for investigation. That bit of quid pro quo has been pretty obvious for a while, as have other Republican congress members who have visited Russia in the past few years and subsequently gotten financial contributions from Russian sources. It's like watching Hydra take over Shield in real life.
> 
> ----
> 
> Oh, and the parts of the Mueller report to be released unredacted? They include transcripts of all the calls between Flynn and the Russian ambassador. That's right... Mueller has recordings of all those calls, and more besides. We already have Trump interfering with Comey to prevent action being taken against Flynn for having been in the negotiations. Now we have proof the talks really took place. That's the coffin nail for Trump's constant attempts to claim there is no proof of attempted conspiracy.
> 
> When it comes down to actual recordings, and only being able to deny the evidence anyone can plainly see with weak denials, this will just make defenders of Trump look obviously foolish.



The more I learn about what's in the report, the more I think that the current shit storm was Mueller's intent. I believe he didn't think he had a way of charging Trump. I think that being the master player in this game that Mueller is, he's accounted for this sort of potential in his plan and in how he released the report. He knew there would be resistance at some level. He just had to be prepared to deal with it at each level. With the unredacted reports getting seen by people not supporting the Trump regime, there isn't much chance that this is going to look good for Trump in any outcome. More like, how bad is it going to look? We may be looking at the GOP thinking more about damage control than gaining the upper hand.


----------



## Ralyks

Didn't Mueller kind of do it how he did because he outsourced slot of his findings to other agencies? Such as Southern District of New York?


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Didn't Mueller kind of do it how he did because he outsourced slot of his findings to other agencies? Such as Southern District of New York?



That's also part of it. He farmed the charges out to the places where the crimes were committed. That way he could stay focused on his specific goals. Now, the FBI doesn't tear down organizations like a common criminal trial. They use things that they find in their investigations to leverage against people for more information/evidence. That's why Mueller's scope looked broad, but his final report was pretty narrow. The issues that he ran into as a result were that he couldn't charge the president, because he didn't see that as something that can actually be done through the DOJ. That specifically lies with the powers of Congress in his mind. The Mueller report seems to be worded as such that he couldn't prove that Trump was guilty of any conspiracies. One can interpret that as he didn't have the evidence, or that he didn't have the ability. Two completely different things. One would have to read his entire report and summaries to get to what is meant by that. For Barr to block Mueller's redacted summaries, and largely how Mueller meant the report to be interpreted seems bad and could be construed as obstruction of justice. Especially considering how his actions would block the checks and balances in place granting congress the power to bring impeachment charges to the table. There are other things that appear that way as well. Its fascinating to watch all of this develop.


----------



## InHiding

Here's some real life american tear-jerking. He is definitely the stupidest person I've seen in some time.


----------



## Explorer

Now it's been revealed that Deutsch Bank delibertely held back information regarding suspicious transfers between the Russians and Kushner, and the Russians and Trump, during 2016-2017.

We also now know that there are several independent sources for the stories regarding the connections/contacts between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank.

We know that Flynn gave Mueller emails wherein members of the Trump transition team approved going forward with contacting Wikileaks/the GRU regarding getting information stolen from Clinton, and the head of the team discussing conspiring with foreign parties was... Mike Pence.

Lastly, those who have read the available sections of the Mueller report know that immediately after Trump met with Putin at the G20 meeting, Trump ordered Lewandowski to tell Sessions to allow investigation of how to protect the 2018 and 2020 elections from hacking... but was to not allow investigation of the 2016 election. Lewndowski was surprised that Trump wanted him to actually write the message down, and decided not to pass the message on. 

----

And, as a palate cleanser: Trump criticized Fox News on Twitter for allowing Buttigieg on, and another Fox host pointed out that Buttigieg showed courage in allowing Chris Wallace to interview him... while Trump had not done the same. Ouch! The honeymoon is over!

*laugh*


----------



## Ralyks

Isn't Deutsche Bank kinda where shaddy clients go to anyway? Makes sense.


----------



## tedtan

^

Yeah, they're currently under investigation for laundering 20 billion USD worth of suspicious Russian money, some of which apparently points back to Trump's 2016 campaign.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> ^
> 
> Yeah, they're currently under investigation for laundering 20 billion USD worth of suspicious Russian money, some of which apparently points back to Trump's 2016 campaign.



I've never gotten the part of the Trump apologist sentiment that claims that any intelligence gathering about his campaign was all deep state meddling when they had fucky deals like this left and right.

And I have no love for the FBI/CIA/DOJ but I saw an article about James Baker (their lawyer) saying "look, we were investigating Russian meddling (which we know happened) and all of the sudden we start getting calls to crooked elements in Russia from Popadoplous and Carter Page. So we followed it where it went but even when it ended up in the Trump campaign it was still about the Russians" and everything I've seen before and since then seems to corroborate that. This Barr investigation stuff, by all means pursue it but that's likely going to be the same conclusion. They'll actually be lucky if more Trump allies don't end up in jail after that's done, TBH


----------



## Ralyks

So how about that Justin Amash? That was... Something...


----------



## Explorer

Randy said:


> "...(E)ven when it ended up in the Trump campaign it was still about the Russians" and everything I've seen before and since then seems to corroborate that. This Barr investigation stuff, by all means pursue it but that's likely going to be the same conclusion. They'll actually be lucky if more Trump allies don't end up in jail after that's done, TBH



It's funny how the Russians keep turning up, isn't it? Mitch McConnell, after voting to lift sanctions on Oleg Deripaska, has gotten $200m in investments for Kentucky from Deripaska. Deripaska is a client of law firm Jones Day, which also represents Viktor Vekselberg (the US-sanctioned buddy of Michael Cohen), Alexander Maskevich (a Russian mining oligarch), and the aforementioned Alfa Bank, which maintained clandestine communications with the Trump Organization's computer servers. 

And, for those who might not have known, one attorney at Jones Day is Don McGahn. What a coincidence! 

Also still unknown, but I suspect related to the Russians: how did Kavanaugh suddenly pay off his $150k credit card debt before his ascendance to the SCOTUS?

I notes with interest that Trump recently mortgaged a property in Florida for $11m at a poor interest rate, a sign of being financially strapped. He doesn't have any liquidity, and we know that he's not a billionaire when you offset his assets against his huge debt, so it's going to be interesting when his sketchy or even illegal financing schemes come to light.

As predicted, of course, the judge rules today that Mazars can give the information to the House committee investigating Trump's finances.

Oh! And you know how some people claim that if you out anyone under rigorous examination, you'll find all kinds of illegality? The Republicans tried for years, and yet never managed to find such dirt on Obama.


----------



## MetalHex

Explorer said:


> The Republicans tried for years, and yet never managed to find such dirt on Obama



When being buddy buddy with a rabbid extreme left communist-terrorist like Bill Ayers, just isn't enough.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> Oh! And you know how some people claim that if you out anyone under rigorous examination, you'll find all kinds of illegality? The Republicans tried for years, and yet never managed to find such dirt on Obama.





MetalHex said:


> When being buddy buddy with a rabbid extreme left communist-terrorist like Bill Ayers, just isn't enough.



That's correct. There has been massive illegality given regarding Trump, and even when trying your hardest you list something which isn't even illegal, a friendship. I do like the pearl clutching, though.

*You also have now opened the door to asking you a question, though, and an obvious one after just a moment's reflection: Is Trump's friendship with Putin, and Trump's siding with Russian interests instead of with US intelligence services, an indication that Trump is more beholden to Putin than to the US?* 

Given the alacrity with which you pulled out your last response, I'm hopeful you can clear the low bar of being consistent in your logic... but I admit it's more realistic to expect you dodging this.

So, which will it be? A realistic assessment of Trump being beholden to Putin, an excusing or dodging of what might just be concern trolling, or silence?


----------



## MetalHex

Explorer said:


> That's correct. There has been massive illegality given regarding Trump, and even when trying your hardest you list something which isn't even illegal, a friendship. I do like the pearl clutching, though.
> 
> *You also have now opened the door to asking you a question, though, and an obvious one after just a moment's reflection: Is Trump's friendship with Putin, and Trump's siding with Russian interests instead of with US intelligence services, an indication that Trump is more beholden to Putin than to the US?*
> 
> Given the alacrity with which you pulled out your last response, I'm hopeful you can clear the low bar of being consistent in your logic... but I admit it's more realistic to expect you dodging this.
> 
> So, which will it be? A realistic assessment of Trump being beholden to Putin, an excusing or dodging of what might just be concern trolling, or silence?


The problem lies in that you think that I am defending Trump by pointing out that Obama is a soft communist


----------



## Explorer

MetalHex said:


> The problem lies in that you think that I am defending Trump by pointing out that Obama is a soft communist



No. I pointed out that you were defending Trump by attempting to make a false equivalence between one legal friendship on Obama's part and multiple financial and obstruction crimes on Trump's part.

Going further, after you clutched at your pearls regarding Bill Ayers, you also refused to address how Trump's friendship with, or being compromised by, Putin might be problematic. In refusing to address an actual equivalence in problematic friendships, and absent any facts whereby you could defend Trump choosing Putin over US interests, you chose silence over criticizing Trump. Your silence spoke volumes, and I suspect it will continue to do so.

Er... you do know that you refusing to even address the point is extremely obvious, don't you?


----------



## MetalHex

Explorer said:


> I pointed out that you were defending Trump



I'm pointing out your worship of and the imperfections of your fallen messiah that was Obama. That does not = defending Trump.

I dont care to get caught up in the manufactured hype like you do, because I know at the end of the day it's just a weapon of mass distraction. Anything that the media pumps out 24/7 is for their benefit. Not ours. People keep voting in tyrants and tyrants are on both sides, or else they wouldnt be selected and put in front of us for us to "elect". And it's silly to see people spitting venom at each other from either side because tyranny is never going to end when people keep playing their political games.

I'm kicking myself right now for taking your bait and replying to your argument over street level politics. I'll just go back to letting my silence speak more volumes.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> I'm pointing out your worship of and the imperfections of your fallen messiah that was Obama. That does not = defending Trump.


Man, if you were here a few years ago you'd know how stupid this sounds.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Man, if you were here a few years ago you'd know how stupid this sounds.



Honestly, I don't recall a single, genuinely positive post about Obama that wasn't a retort to someone who said we love him so much.


----------



## Ralyks

Mehta sided with the House Oversight and Reform committee in regards to Mazars handing over Trumps financials. So that's finally coming... Right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Mehta sided with the House Oversight and Reform committee in regards to Mazars handing over Trumps financials. So that's finally coming... Right?



They'll appeal.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> They'll appeal.



100%. The main thing was that Mehta didn't grant put a hold on the order PENDING appeal, so the appeals court is going to have to move quickly if they're going to block this.


----------



## zappatton2

Not to derail, just a side-thought; I can't help but wonder if all the sleaziness around Trump is so easily ignored by the religious extremists within his base simply because they are finally gaining ground in controlling women's bodily autonomy. Perhaps worth another thread, as I see this going in a pretty dark direction for the States, and I worry about the implications in other western nations, that so far have had pretty strong legal, constitutional safeguards against theological and populist overreach.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

zappatton2 said:


> Not to derail, just a side-thought; I can't help but wonder if all the sleaziness around Trump is so easily ignored by the religious extremists within his base simply because they are finally gaining ground in controlling women's bodily autonomy. Perhaps worth another thread, as I see this going in a pretty dark direction for the States, and I worry about the implications in other western nations, that so far have had pretty strong legal, constitutional safeguards against theological and populist overreach.



It's extremists on all ends, not just the religious. 

He's the GOP's perfect President. He's who they've always wanted to be in that seat, but were just too afraid to run till now.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> 100%. The main thing was that Mehta didn't grant put a hold on the order PENDING appeal, so the appeals court is going to have to move quickly if they're going to block this.



What's the likelihood of success in appealing?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> What's the likelihood of success in appealing?


I mean, this is going to the Supreme Court, even if the order is followed before it can be appealed that far. There? Eh... I'd hazard Roberts won't love being the swing vote on a decision that essentially sets the precedent the Presidency is free from the supervisory powers of the House and Senate, and when push comes to shove the current ruling will stand, even if by a 5-4 vote. I'd say that with a moderate but not extreme level of confidence. I wouldn't go so far as to call this a hail mary on the part of the Trump administration, but it's unquestionably stalling for time and hoping they can delay anything embarrassing or incriminating coming out long enough to continue to call this a witch hunt coming into the 2020 election.

The rationale is pretty bulletproof, though - how can Congress possibly have Constitutional authority to investigate wronging in the executive branch, without also having the authority to gather information for those investigations?


----------



## MetalHex

https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article...2inIhxNdfyNslJHrlwjLziwx2E53_DcgPOAN0EbgquhnM

@MaxOfMetal we were just talking about this the other day. California represents everything I believe to be wrong, and I'm so glad I dont live there. Every day they are turning up some new form of lunacy.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I don't recall a single, genuinely positive post about Obama that wasn't a retort to someone who said we love him so much.


Remember when US politics threads were mostly complaints about policy and not just treason?


----------



## spudmunkey

MetalHex said:


> https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article...2inIhxNdfyNslJHrlwjLziwx2E53_DcgPOAN0EbgquhnM
> 
> @MaxOfMetal we were just talking about this the other day. California represents everything I believe to be wrong, and I'm so glad I dont live there. Every day they are turning up some new form of lunacy.



While I don't agree with the concept, if it saves money vs paying for emergency services and births anyway (which CA does anyway)...then there's at least a perspective (as short-sighted as it is) that has at least some baseline thinking behind it.


----------



## MetalHex

spudmunkey said:


> While I don't agree with the concept, if it saves money vs paying for emergency services and births anyway (which CA does anyway)...then there's at least a perspective (as short-sighted as it is) that has at least some baseline thinking behind it.


I suppose if you wanted to look at it that way then yeah it makes sense, but its still just a cart before the horse/bandaid on the problem


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I don't recall a single, genuinely positive post about Obama that wasn't a retort to someone who said we love him so much.



I remember some, but only running up to the 2008 election and maybe extending though his first year in office. His general ineffectiveness soured people pretty quickly after that.


----------



## wannabguitarist

MetalHex said:


> https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article...2inIhxNdfyNslJHrlwjLziwx2E53_DcgPOAN0EbgquhnM
> 
> @MaxOfMetal we were just talking about this the other day. California represents everything I believe to be wrong, and I'm so glad I dont live there. Every day they are turning up some new form of lunacy.



Great! One step closer to open borders and universal health care!


----------



## MetalHex

wannabguitarist said:


> Great! One step closer to open borders and universal health care!


Yay for globalism, one step closer and we'll be there!

Heres a good article on some points against universal healthcare that coincidentally popped up on my feed 
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...yohlo72zOxP3DNHdqBbUg-K8tYj7JMSxUCTUeMJLYymTg


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I remember some, but only running up to the 2008 election and maybe extending though his first year in office. His general ineffectiveness soured people pretty quickly after that.


I think even Obama's staunchest supporters were quick to point out issues they had with him - I was broadly positive on the guy, but found his hands-off approach to the drafting of the ACA (rather than taking an active role working within the party to shape a compromise) followed by his aggressive use of executive power once Congress flipped a little concerning.

Re: California, if extending access to health coverage to undocumented immigrants results in a lesser economic burden to California taxpayers than waiting to absorb cost of care at (primarily public) hospitals as well as the cost from lower productivity from lost time out of work to illness or injury - remember that hospitals are not able to turn away people who require care regardless of if they have coverage or any means to pay - then the right thing for congressional representatives to do with respect to citizens of the Republic of California is to extend coverage. That's true regardless of what your personal beliefs are with respect to immigration - if it saves taxpayers money, not doing it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.



MetalHex said:


> Yay for globalism!


You legitimately may not know this, but "globalists" is a pretty naked dog-whistle for "Jews" among the white nationalism movement.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> I think even Obama's staunchest supporters were quick to point out issues they had with him - I was broadly positive on the guy, but found his hands-off approach to the drafting of the ACA (rather than taking an active role working within the party to shape a compromise) followed by his aggressive use of executive power once Congress flipped a little concerning.
> 
> Re: California, if extending access to health coverage to undocumented immigrants results in a lesser economic burden to California taxpayers than waiting to absorb cost of care at (primarily public) hospitals as well as the cost from lower productivity from lost time out of work to illness or injury - remember that hospitals are not able to turn away people who require care regardless of if they have coverage or any means to pay - then the right thing for congressional representatives to do with respect to citizens of the Republic of California is to extend coverage. That's true regardless of what your personal beliefs are with respect to immigration - if it saves taxpayers money, not doing it is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
> 
> 
> You legitimately may not know this, but "globalists" is a pretty naked dog-whistle for "Jews" among the white nationalism movement.



I think what you are trying to assume is that anyone who is aginst globalism is a "white, nationalist", and anyone who is a "white, nationalist", thinks that jews run the world. Is that correct?

Im not sure where you are getting that from or what you're basing that on but there's idiots on all sides regardless if your non-point makes any sense or not. Btw, I'm not calling you an idiot


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Yay for globalism, one step closer and we'll be there!
> 
> Heres a good article on some points against universal healthcare that coincidentally popped up on my feed
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...yohlo72zOxP3DNHdqBbUg-K8tYj7JMSxUCTUeMJLYymTg



Again, single payer healthcare isn't some abstract concept outside of reality. 

It's something offered in almost three dozen countries already. That includes just about all the developed world. 

We don't need to speculate. We've seen, in the real world, that it works.

We actually have fewer doctors per capita than countries with single payer: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ople-comparably-wealthy-countries/#item-start


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, single payer healthcare isn't some abstract concept outside of reality.
> 
> It's something offered in almost three dozen countries already. That includes just about all the developed world.
> 
> We don't need to speculate. We've seen, in the real world, that it works.
> 
> We actually have fewer doctors per capita than countries with single payer: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ople-comparably-wealthy-countries/#item-start


Who has seen it that it works? Also, its not 2012 anymore. If it works thats great, I dont want that system though. I want the current system we have, it just needs to somehow be made more affordable, not at the expense of everyone else


----------



## Ralyks

MetalHex said:


> Who has seen it that it works? Also, its not 2012 anymore. If it works thats great, I dont want that system though. I want the current system we have, it just needs to somehow be made more affordable, not at the expense of everyone else



Given what I've seen with my immediate family all being in healthcare, good luck with that. My father runs his own practice and he's lucky if he even gets paid on time. The current health Care system is in shambles.


----------



## MetalHex

Ralyks said:


> Given what I've seen with my immediate family all being in healthcare, good luck with that. My father runs his own practice and he's lucky if he even gets paid on time. The current health Care system is in shambles.


I agree it is. Still I dont want universal healthcare. To each their own....ironically, it wont be "to each their own" with socialized healthcare. It'll be "to each to the whole community", like it or not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Who has seen it that it works?



https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.9.2.185

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...-system-ranks-lowest-in-international-survey/

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...olding-of-health-insurance-by-all-citizens-17



> Also, its not 2012 anymore.



Read. Don't just skim.

The data for Japan only is from 2012. The rest is from 2017.

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/socia.../oecd-health-data-health-status_data-00540-en



> If it works thats great, I dont want that system though. I want the current system we have, it just needs to somehow be made more affordable, not at the expense of everyone else



Our system is horribly inefficient and wasteful, which is why it's so expensive.

We need to remove for-profit insurance and hospitals from the system.

Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Yay for globalism, one step closer and we'll be there!
> 
> Heres a good article on some points against universal healthcare that coincidentally popped up on my feed
> http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com...yohlo72zOxP3DNHdqBbUg-K8tYj7JMSxUCTUeMJLYymTg





MetalHex said:


> Who has seen it that it works? Also, its not 2012 anymore



8 weeks ago I got an operation that would cost $150,000 on average in the USA. There was a complication that meant I had to spend an extra 2 weeks in hospital and go through the the same operation again. Plus 2 MRIs and maybe 10 x-rays, plus all the medication I've been taking still, I'd say that'd easily be a $350,000+ bill anywhere in the USA. I've had physiotherapy every week and probably 10 GP appointments.

I paid nothing.

The answer is collective bargaining and non profit healthcare.

Literally everything the NHS buys costs less than it does in the USA, because the NHS wants the best price and in the USA cost effectiveness isn't important to either insurers or hospital administrators. The hospital isn't paying for it and if the insurer thinks it's too expensive they'll make you pay for it.

For profit healthcare is such a ridiculous concept for anyone who believes in a person's right to life.



MetalHex said:


> I agree it is. Still I dont want universal healthcare. To each their own....ironically, it wont be "to each their own" with socialized healthcare. It'll be "to each to the whole community", like it or not.



You know universal healthcare doesn't make private healthcare illegal, right? It just makes it cheaper.


----------



## Adieu

MetalHex said:


> The problem lies in that you think that I am defending Trump by pointing out that Obama is a soft communist




So?

Maybe he's *actually* a Muslim and a Communist... how's that a problem? That's still all perfectly legal last I checked????


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Our system is horribly inefficient and wasteful, which is why it's so expensive.
> 
> We need to remove for-profit insurance and hospitals from the system.
> 
> Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies.



...and also not the government. I agree with this last part of your post 100%


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> ...and also not the government. I agree with this last part of your post 100%


Source on governments making decisions regarding treatment in socialised health systems. Unless you're saying you're against regulators for healthcare.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> ...and also not the government.



The government allocates funds in order to make healthcare affordable for everyone. Additionally they negotiate prices with providers to reduce the cost that we pay via taxation. 

I hate to break it to you, but in our current system your medical decisions are being made by bean counters who are promoted and encouraged to deny both care and coverage...unless you're very wealthy and pay cash for all medical expenses. Then our system is great.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A1xTwNZ3dRSSF_0b63utK5w

Oh?


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> The government allocates funds in order to make healthcare affordable for everyone


Obviously it's not working. They shouldn't make laws that require people to have health insurance, and then fine the people who don't. I thought Trump was supposed to get rid of that. I hope he does if not already.

"Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies."
Doctors that are backed by and pushing pills for big pharma? You have to be more specific on the context of "doctors" because I get the impression that the large majority of them are bought and paid for by big pharma. (Unless you go full holistic)




MaxOfMetal said:


> hate to break it to you, but in our current system your medical decisions are being made by bean counters who are promoted and encouraged to deny both care and coverage..


 You're not breaking anything to me as I know this. My last doctor typed in all my symptons into an Ipad that had an algorithm that put all those answers together and told him what he should prescribe to me....at least it sure seemed that thats exactly how it went down. I no longer see that doctor.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Obviously it's not working.



I'm talking about the socialized healthcare you're afraid of.

While not perfect it's significantly better than what we have here.



> They shouldn't make laws that require people to have health insurance, and then fine the people who don't.



Agreed. It's terribly inefficient and props up for-profit insurers. 

We need to social this, just like the military, police, firefighters, etc. 

We already pay a "fine" via providers passing on the costs of those who don't pay into everyone else.

We de-facto socialize the risk without socializing the reward. 



> I thought Trump was supposed to get rid of that. I hope he does if not already.







> "Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies."
> Doctors that are backed by and pushing pills for big pharma? You have to be more specific on the context of "doctors" because I get the impression that the large majority of them are bought and paid for by big pharma. (Unless you go full holistic)



Socializing medicine removes that risk. 

The for-profit and privatization of healthcare is what has allowed rampant incentivized prescribing.

See how the opioid epidemic is uniquely American. 



> You're not breaking anything to me as we are on the same page with this one.



Eh. From the sounds of it, you don't really know what socialized medicine entails, the mechanics of how it works and the effects it will (again, not speculation, this is how it works in every developed country) have on what you don't like about the current system. 

Perhaps read articles outside of fear mongering hit pieces from anarchy espousing libertarian blogs.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> "Doctors should be making decisions regarding treatment, not insurance companies."
> Doctors that are backed by and pushing pills for big pharma? You have to be more specific on the context of "doctors" because I get the impression that the large majority of them are bought and paid for by big pharma. (Unless you go full holistic)


The NHS doesn't have this issue because it's really hard for "big pharma" to price gouge those with the power to call that a crime.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> You legitimately may not know this, but "globalists" is a pretty naked dog-whistle for "Jews" among the white nationalism movement.


I've seen this a lot, and I've always wondered: If I am genuinely opposed to 'globalization' in general, how should I express that without unknowingly proclaiming that I'm apparently not a fan of the Jews?

I hate this whole 'dog whistle' thing that's been going on the last couple years. Words have definitions, can we please just use them? If you really think that someone is dirty and using politically correct language to hide it, there's going to be another, provable connection somewhere. 



StevenC said:


> 8 weeks ago I got an operation that would cost $150,000 on average in the USA. There was a complication that meant I had to spend an extra 2 weeks in hospital and go through the the same operation again. Plus 2 MRIs and maybe 10 x-rays, plus all the medication I've been taking still, I'd say that'd easily be a $350,000+ bill anywhere in the USA. I've had physiotherapy every week and probably 10 GP appointments.



Damn dude I hope you're doing alright. That sounds like an awful time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I've seen this a lot, and I've always wondered: If I am genuinely opposed to 'globalization' in general, how should I express that without unknowingly proclaiming that I'm apparently not a fan of the Jews?
> 
> I hate this whole 'dog whistle' thing that's been going on the last couple years. Words have definitions, can we please just use them? If you really think that someone is dirty and using politically correct language to hide it, there's going to be another, provable connection somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Damn dude I hope you're doing alright. That sounds like an awful time.



Early use of the term "globalist" can be traced back to groups like the KKK and Nazi/neo-Nazi groups just before and after WWII. Henry Ford, a thoroughly documented anti-semite, used the term frequently when referring to folks he viewed negatively, especially Jews.

It's use in political sciences came later.

There's a difference between "I am for/against globalization" and "globalists run the world". 

Context is key.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Early use of the term "globalist" can be traced back to groups like the KKK and Nazi/neo-Nazi groups just before and after WWII. Henry Ford, a thoroughly documented anti-semite, used the term frequently when referring to folks he viewed negatively, especially Jews.
> 
> It's use in political sciences came later.



I really don't think that matters though.
If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.

I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
But the whole "well this word _really_ means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'

--
An edit in response to an edit 
Is the phrase "Globalists rule the world" inherently antisemitic though? I would argue that that statement is true; globalists _*do*_ the world, as evidenced by the trend toward globalization across seemingly all first-world countries. If world leaders weren't globalists, why would they guide their people toward it? 

And even if the word is being used with disdain, I don't see how it's different from when the words 'democrat' or 'republican' are used disdainfully. If I dislike and look down on republicans as a whole, and I mutter about "those damn republicans," because I dislike right-wing politics, how is that strictly different from when I mutter "those damn globalists," because I dislike globalism? Unless there's some kind of explicit implication at play (which, yeah; context), I don't see how it's any different.


----------



## Explorer

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A1xTwNZ3dRSSF_0b63utK5w
> 
> Oh?



First on CNN: Justice Department willing to hand over counterintelligence if Schiff backs off 'enforcement action'

Remember when Attorney General Barr refused to honor a legal subpoena to appear before the House Judiciary Committee? Basically, the DoJ is claiming they're processing the first batch of documents subpoenaed by the Judiciary Committee, but will stop doing so and will illegally defy the documents subpoena unless the Judiciary Committee stops enforcing the contempt action against Barr. 

These guys are idiots, including Barr for ordering the illegal refusal of the documents subpoena. Barr can't expect the Democrats to forget that Barr is the head of the DoJ and that he is the one who ordered the denial of documents. It's clear that Democrats have the superpower of memory, which has become apparent even in this topic when conservatives try to overcome or bury easily remembered facts and occurrences. 

Oh... and tomorrow marks the meeting wherein House Democrats will set their internal timetable for pursuit of building the impeachment case against Donald Trump. That will increase the scope of their investigative powers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I really don't think that matters though.
> If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.
> 
> I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
> But the whole "well this word _really_ means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'



I'm not passing judgment either way. 

Just giving you some context of the specific word we're talking about. 

It wasn't a perfectly harmless term that was later co-opted, it actually started out as a slur.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not passing judgment either way.
> 
> Just giving you some context of the specific word we're talking about.
> 
> It wasn't a perfectly harmless term that was later co-opted, it actually started out as a slur.



I know; I appreciate it. 
I'm more referring to what I'm seeing in the current political climate in general. Use of the phrase "it's a dog-whistle," to re-characterize language just seems to be growing increasingly common and I dislike it. This specific case makes a good example I think because the definition of the word can be clearly inferred by the word itself. Any other meaning assigned to the phrase kind of has to be endowed by the person hearing/reading it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I know; I appreciate it.
> I'm more referring to what I'm seeing in the current political climate in general. Use of the phrase "it's a dog-whistle," to re-characterize language just seems to be growing increasingly common and I dislike it. This specific case makes a good example I think because the definition of the word can be clearly inferred by the word itself. Any other meaning assigned to the phrase kind of has to be endowed by the person hearing/reading it.



It's nothing new. I just think it's being called out more and folks aren't used to it. 

Language and word choice is important. While I'm sure most see no malevolence in using certain words there are those out there who do and will use that to justify their often toxic world views.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Damn dude I hope you're doing alright. That sounds like an awful time.


Thanks, everything is coming along and I'm long over the worst of it. Not being allowed out of bed for 2 weeks isn't fun. Pro tip: have a healthy spine.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> I really don't think that matters though.
> If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.
> 
> I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
> But the whole "well this word _really_ means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'



I think the point is that the words "globalisation", "globalism" and "globalist" don't have the same meaning. Globalisation is the trend of interconnections forming and processes diversifying geographically. Globalism is a feature of a modern technological society, where you and I are able to communicate easily, along with the notion that being born in a different place doesn't make us inherently better or worse/different. A globalist isn't the word for someone who is pro-globalisation or subscribes to globalism. For example, you might imagine someone who believes in a free and open market to be for globalisation, but then you have current Republicans espousing the virtues of that open market while also blaming things on "the globalists".

Because "globalist" isn't something anyone identifies as.

Now, honestly Drew probably jumped the gun with his comment. MetalHex said globalism, seemingly innocently disagreeing with the notion of open borders and helping one's fellow man. Calling it a globalist plot would have been a different issue.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm talking about the socialized healthcare you're afraid of.
> 
> While not perfect it's significantly better than what we have here.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. It's terribly inefficient and props up for-profit insurers.
> 
> We need to social this, just like the military, police, firefighters, etc.
> 
> We already pay a "fine" via providers passing on the costs of those who don't pay into everyone else.
> 
> We de-facto socialize the risk without socializing the reward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socializing medicine removes that risk.
> 
> The for-profit and privatization of healthcare is what has allowed rampant incentivized prescribing.
> 
> See how the opioid epidemic is uniquely American.
> 
> 
> 
> Eh. From the sounds of it, you don't really know what socialized medicine entails, the mechanics of how it works and the effects it will (again, not speculation, this is how it works in every developed country) have on what you don't like about the current system.
> 
> Perhaps read articles outside of fear mongering hit pieces from anarchy espousing libertarian blogs.


Your comparing the U.S. to countries that have on average the same population as Connecticut and fewer population than Texas, alone. I dont know how it would work to apply this method to our entire country...

As far as quality of life and life expectancy, that is entirely subjective. A kid could sit in front of the tv and play video games and subsequently live until hes 100 and say he has had the happiest life he could have ever imagined, so let's not go down that road. I just buried my grandfather last week who passed at 97 years old. My grandmother, 96, is still alive and well. Theres too many factors when talking about these two things that cannot accurately be measured.

The opioid epidemic is uniquely American? Ever been to Vancouver? Aside, not for nothing, but it seems that the states with the worst opioid related problems are blue states, with the unusually, strange exception being California.https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state
That being said, with drug smuggling in this country at unknown amounts, its just one more reason for tighter border security and vetting processes and not have open borders as some person said a page ago..

Police, fireman, are all funded with state tax.

I dont know if Canadas healthcare system is better. I hear people have to wait months just to see a specialist, and i wonder how many Canadians say fuck I'm going to America to see a doctor.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Your comparing the U.S. to countries that have on average the same population as Connecticut and fewer population than Texas, alone. I dont know how it would work to apply this method to our entire country...



Then let's pretend our country is 50 independent countries, each with free healthcare. BAM. Problem solved.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AUi2kn-9tT22hAfbNMwxg_g

So the IRS wrote a confidential internal memory saying that the IRS says tax returns must be given to Congress, unless the president invokes executive privilege. Basically contradicting Mnuchin and the Trump Adminstration in their reasoning as to why they shouldn't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Your comparing the U.S. to countries that have on average the same population as Connecticut and fewer population than Texas, alone. I dont know how it would work to apply this method to our entire country...



Just as our population is larger so is our GDP. We're the wealthiest country in the world.

There is plenty of money available.

The UK spends $160 billion for 66 million people. Assuming out costs are similar, that would translate to about $800 billion to take care of our 327 million people.

Our GDP is about 20 trillion.

We already spend more than that on insurance:

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-industry-overview

So $800 billion for universal health care or $867 billion for the shit show we have now?



> As far as quality of life and life expectancy, that is entirely subjective. A kid could sit in front of the tv and play video games and subsequently live until hes 100 and say he has had the happiest life he could have ever imagined, so let's not go down that road. I just buried my grandfather last week who passed at 97 years old. My grandmother, 96, is still alive and well. Theres too many factors when talking about these two things that cannot accurately be measured.



Build up enough independent data and you can infer things beyond small anecdotes.



> The opioid epidemic is uniquely American? Ever been to Vancouver? Aside, not for nothing, but it seems that the states with the worst opioid related problems are blue states, with the unusually, strange exception being California.https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-summaries-by-state










We're number 1! 



> That being said, with drug smuggling in this country at unknown amounts, its just one more reason for tighter border security and vetting processes and not have open borders as some person said a page ago..



Most opioid addictions start at the doctor's office. Which socialized medicine can significantly curb.



> Police, fireman, are all funded with state tax.



Still socialized, just not at the federal level.

Though some agencies do get support via Federal Grants.



> I dont know if Canadas healthcare system is better. I hear people have to wait months just to see a specialist, and i wonder how many Canadians say fuck I'm going to America to see a doctor.



Some do, but the number is incredibly small, even going by the highest estimates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ates-for-medical-care/?utm_term=.8f82ee4b6463

Though, far more Americans go abroad for healthcare:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/08/17/14-Million-Americans-Will-Go-Abroad-Medical-Care-Year-Should-You?amp


----------



## MetalHex

Remind me, whats the national debt up to now?

"We're number 1!"

Again, your comparing without accounting for population....with our country have over twice that of the second largest on that list.


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> Then let's pretend our country is 50 independent countries, each with free healthcare. BAM. Problem solved.


Either you are colorblind or you just choose to see everything in black and white


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Remind me, whats the national debt up to now?



Oh, so we're fiscal conservative now? 

Remember, our system actually costs us more than universal healthcare. The money just goes to different places.

If you had read my prior post you'd see that we spend $867 billion just on shitty health insurance. That's not even care, just insurance. We actually spend over $3.5 trillion on healthcare because we can't negotiate like countries with single payer.

So if you're concerned about our deficit and debt, you'd be for universal healthcare.

https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Oh, so we're fiscal conservative now?
> 
> Remember, our system actually costs us more than universal healthcare. The money just goes to different places.
> 
> If you had read my prior post you'd see that we spend $867 billion just on shitty health insurance. That's not even care, just insurance. We actually spend over $3.5 trillion on healthcare because we can't negotiate like countries with single payer.
> 
> So if you're concerned about our deficit and debt, you'd be for universal healthcare.


I agree thats a ridiculous amount wasted on a healthcare system that currently sucks ass, we're just in disagreement with how to solve it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I agree thats a ridiculous amount wasted on a healthcare system that currently sucks ass, we're just in disagreement with how to solve it.



How do you propose we solve it?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Remind me, whats the national debt up to now?
> 
> "We're number 1!"
> 
> Again, your comparing without accounting for population....with our country have over twice that of the second largest on that list.



Those numbers are adjusted for percentage of adult population. You understand what that means, yes?


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> How do you propose we solve it?


Since I am a proponent of individual liberty, I say start by cutting all the red tape that is impeding on what should a true free marketplace. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...nt-blame-capitalism-for-high-health-costs?amp

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2018/11/single-payer-health-care-socialism/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Since I am a proponent of individual liberty, I say start by cutting all the red tape that is impeding on what should a true free marketplace.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/400901-dont-blame-capitalism-for-high-health-costs?amp
> 
> https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2018/11/single-payer-health-care-socialism/



Do you have anything with more substance? Those are both opinion pieces.



> Running your own practice is simply too complicated for many of today's doctors, who are overwhelmed by the administrative burdens associated with billing, electronic medical records, legal compliance and liability insurance.



So the takeaway is that we need more, smaller, hospitals that actively compete against each other by reducing costs associated with billing, record keeping, legal compliance, and malpractice insurance.

I don't see how that's going to make care better _and_ cheaper. Maybe cheaper, but at what cost?

Looking at late stage capitalism, what about more hospitals is going to stop consolidation and foster competition? 

I also wouldn't put much faith in an article based around The Manhattan Institute as they're nearly 50% funded by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Since I am a proponent of individual liberty, I say start by cutting all the red tape that is impeding on what should a true free marketplace.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/400901-dont-blame-capitalism-for-high-health-costs?amp
> 
> https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2018/11/single-payer-health-care-socialism/


Why are Americans the only people in the world to describe healthcare as a marketplace?

Commodifying health is like the dumbest, least humane thing I can think of. The same people must think that murder should have a fine instead of jail time.

Also, there's 130 people in Japan and 70 million people in the UK. Socialised healthcare works and if you think adding more people will do anything but reduce the cost per person, then I think you just don't know how medicine works in working systems.

Everyone in the UK just wishes the government would spend more on the NHS, whereas implementing an NHS type system in the USA would save you billions of dollars a year. The US government already spends enough on healthcare to fund a single payer system, not even considering what you all waste on insurance.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Why are Americans the only people in the world to describe healthcare as a marketplace?
> 
> Commodifying health is like the dumbest, least humane thing I can think of. The same people must think that murder should have a fine instead of jail time.



But we need the FREEDOM to die a penniless burden on our loved ones, the LIBERTY to get tricked by charlatans because we're desperate to not die, and of course our sacred RIGHT to withhold life saving treatment for children.

That's the thing. It's not about what's "humane" or "right" or even what's "best". It's about preserving meaningless platitudes and a sense of rugged individualism.

And money. Don't forget the money. Because even though they can't take it with them, they'll sure as hell try.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just as our population is larger so is our GDP. We're the wealthiest country in the world.
> 
> There is plenty of money available.
> 
> The UK spends $160 billion for 66 million people. Assuming out costs are similar, that would translate to about $800 billion to take care of our 327 million people.
> 
> Our GDP is about 20 trillion.
> 
> We already spend more than that on insurance:
> 
> https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-industry-overview
> 
> So $800 billion for universal health care or $867 billion for the shit show we have now?
> 
> 
> 
> Build up enough independent data and you can infer things beyond small anecdotes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're number 1!
> 
> 
> 
> Most opioid addictions start at the doctor's office. Which socialized medicine can significantly curb.
> 
> 
> 
> Still socialized, just not at the federal level.
> 
> Though some agencies do get support via Federal Grants.
> 
> 
> 
> Some do, but the number is incredibly small, even going by the highest estimates.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ates-for-medical-care/?utm_term=.8f82ee4b6463
> 
> Though, far more Americans go abroad for healthcare:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/08/17/14-Million-Americans-Will-Go-Abroad-Medical-Care-Year-Should-You?amp



Dude, I have to wait THREE MONTHS to get into a new PCP. I live in San Antonio. ANY claim that Canada's system doesn't work based on claims like that is false on the merit that there are plenty places in the US that have the same problem.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you have anything with more substance? Those are both opinion pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> So the takeaway is that we need more, smaller, hospitals that actively compete against each other by reducing costs associated with billing, record keeping, legal compliance, and malpractice insurance.
> 
> I don't see how that's going to make care better _and_ cheaper. Maybe cheaper, but at what cost?
> 
> Looking at late stage capitalism, what about more hospitals is going to stop consolidation and foster competition?
> 
> I also wouldn't put much faith in an article based around The Manhattan Institute as they're nearly 50% funded by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.



Might make care cheaper. But it does absolutely nothing about big pharma, and the equipment and technology required to run a hospital or Dr's office. This is a huge maybe, a gamble at best. We also have to acknowledge that cheaper isn't always the singular goal overall. We have to improve the level of care we provide in this country to match that of other countries around the world. Some of our statistics are worse than developing countries. That's not acceptable either.

@MetalHex What about a free market guarantees individual liberty? And what kind of liberty are we talking about here? Liberty of choice? Liberty of deed? Liberty from tyranny? Everyone here is for individual liberty. To make that point, we all have to understand what is meant by that and more specifically in this case, what you mean by that specifically.


----------



## synrgy

MetalHex said:


> I dont know if Canadas healthcare system is better. I hear people have to wait months just to see a specialist, and i wonder how many Canadians say fuck I'm going to America to see a doctor.



That's a _myth, _full-stop. The wait times for specialists up there are roughly equivalent to here; based entirely upon how many patients a given specialist is serving in their area. This Friday, my 2.5 year-old daughter has an appointment with an (American) specialist that we've had to wait _seven God damn months_ for. Every time I've moved and had to set up an appointment with a new (American) dentist, I've had to wait approximately 6 months.

I've heard this myth espoused enough that it's become a trigger; I'm legitimately pissed off right now, because Americans regurgitate this _lie_ all the time despite having to _completely ignore their own personal medical histories_ to do so.

Further, in the last few years, what we've actually been seeing is a rush of Americans going to Canada for care, because - even _without insurance - _it's drastically cheaper, there.

*Sources = My direct experience, and that of my in-laws, as I'm married to a Canadian.


----------



## StevenC

synrgy said:


> Further, in the last few years, what we've actually been seeing is a rush of Americans going to Canada for care, because - even _without insurance - _it's drastically cheaper, there.


It's almost like a robust system which ensures things get paid for allows them to charge the actual amount. Instead of overcharging some patients to cover those that can't afford it.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> But we need the FREEDOM to die a penniless burden on our loved ones, the LIBERTY to get tricked by charlatans because we're desperate to not die, and of course our sacred RIGHT to withhold life saving treatment for children.
> 
> That's the thing. It's not about what's "humane" or "right" or even what's "best". It's about preserving meaningless platitudes and a sense of rugged individualism.
> 
> And money. Don't forget the money. Because even though they can't take it with them, they'll sure as hell try.


I used to think since I was able to find my way out of being an ignorant conservative extremist tinfoil hat wearing moron that there was hope for my friends and family and the majority of Americans. I was wrong. The only reason I found my way out was because I have a very strong drive for fairness and equality. I kept an open mind when people were proving my beliefs to be wrong. I was willing to think differently and learn new things. 
Most people are brainwashed from birth and will do anything to stay in their comfort zone. They will complain all day long about doctors and medical companies ripping people off but they will never accept the idea of universal health care because it's a card carrying red commie concept and if ever implemented will instantly transform good god fearin muricans into atheist abortion loving satan worshipping muslim communists. They don't know how it works or how it will help them and they don't want to know. All they know is someone they think is important said it was evil and that's all they need. 

I don't mean to pick on metalhex here but he demonstrates the typical attitude and thoughts of the ignorant far right Trump supporting moron population. The way they dance around facts and logic reminds me of a clip from Religulous. Where Kirk Cameron was talking about how christians should talk to non-believers and must bypass people's intellect.


----------



## synrgy

Sources show slight variance on the exact numbers, but generally, Canadians coming to The States for medical care number in tens-of-thousands per year, whereas Americans going to other countries for care number in the upper hundreds-of-thousands to low _millions_ per year. According to this (US Gov.) source, California _alone_ tracks nearly a million people per year traveling to _Mexico_ for medical care.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ANMdPmxSwRZCWtExwW9hRzw

On a different note, yes, Trumps lawyers appealed Mehtas decision. Who's going to be seeing that?

Merrick Garland.

Obama's gotta be loving that, and McConnells gotta be shitting himself.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/ANMdPmxSwRZCWtExwW9hRzw
> 
> On a different note, yes, Trumps lawyers appealed Mehtas decision. Who's going to be seeing that?
> 
> Merrick Garland.
> 
> Obama's gotta be loving that, and McConnells gotta be shitting himself.



The greatest irony of this being the urgency for appeals court to either decide this or issue a hold on Mehta's 7 day order (now down to 5 days). Perhaps Garland is inclined to return the favor of teaching them a lesson about patience and following the process.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you have anything with more substance? Those are both opinion pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> So the takeaway is that we need more, smaller, hospitals that actively compete against each other by reducing costs associated with billing, record keeping, legal compliance, and malpractice insurance.
> 
> I don't see how that's going to make care better _and_ cheaper. Maybe cheaper, but at what cost?
> 
> Looking at late stage capitalism, what about more hospitals is going to stop consolidation and foster competition?
> 
> I also wouldn't put much faith in an article based around The Manhattan Institute as they're nearly 50% funded by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.


Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.



That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall. 

We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year. 

Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it. 

Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.


----------



## Thaeon

MetalHex said:


> Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.



I don't honestly see a problem with us as a culture making the choice to take responsibility for our collective health. That actually seems a quite reasonable decision. Especially since with made the choice to be collectively responsible for educating our children, and (until recently) incarcerating our criminals. We collectively benefit from a more healthy, more educated populace. There is evidence for this all over the world.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall.
> 
> We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year.
> 
> Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it.
> 
> Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.



Not to mention, lower prices on the things required to render said services, and pharmaceuticals.


----------



## MetalHex

Adieu said:


> So?
> 
> Maybe he's *actually* a Muslim and a Communist... how's that a problem? That's still all perfectly legal last I checked????


Ok, I have to call you out on the one-sidedism. Where were you in the last 100+ pages of people calling Trump a white nationalist? Thats perfectly legal last time I checked?


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the thing, if we adopted single payer we wouldn't have to pay anymore than we already do, in fact we'd have to pay less overall.
> 
> We already pay about $440 a month on average for shitty insurance. That's $1.3 trillion a year.
> 
> Sure, someone who is uninsured or massively under insured will have to pay more, but that's the cost of getting into the system, and in the long run, even for an overall healthy individual, it's still less costly than needing medical care and not having the ability to pay for it.
> 
> Modern medicine is expensive, especially when done to a high standard. If the options for providers are a) negotiate a lower price, or b) we all walk, they'll lower the price. That's how it works everywhere else but here. That's the biggest selling point of single payer, lower prices for the actual services rendered.


GTFOH with your sensible ideas! Next you'll be talking about employees banding together and forcing employers to pay workers a decent living wage or some other communist propaganda!


----------



## Randy

Nothing to quote directly and I'm sure it's been discussed but the two biggest issues with the Republican/Libertarian approach to healthcare being resolved in the free market is

1.) private = profit motive, which means the goal is charging the most the market will bear rather than what's the cheapest for customer or best outcomes for patients. That means you're always going to have cushions between cost and what's charges, which goes up exponentially when you add corporate salaries and bonuses to the mix.

2.) private = competition, except unless it's pure anarchy, medical industry will always have to be heavily regulated because "if a restaurant sucks, bad reviews will stop people from going there" doesn't work when you're talking about pills that will kill thousands/millions of people before you realize they're bad.

3.) Other problem with private = competition is that there will always be classes of people who cannot afford insurance or paying to go to the doctor out of pocket, so Medicare and Medicaid is impossible to avoid and if the government is involved in the marketplace, they're always going to have regulation on themselves and tools available to them beyond what private insurance can offer. Only solution would be NO option for the poor/elderly and you're back to anarchy.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.


Taxes wouldn't have to be raised because the government can already afford it. Plus what Max said about already having a separate payment in the form of insurance.

Also, with regards your last sentence, you do understand how insurance works, right? A group of people get together to pay in, so in the event of an emergency they can take the money out of the pot instead of their own pocket. It's literally your issue of being responsible for others, because unless you get sicker than everyone else you're going to lose.

The difference between giving this money to an insurance company and giving it to a government is the insurance company has to profit. Then you're also going to a for profit hospital.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I think what you are trying to assume is that anyone who is aginst globalism is a "white, nationalist", and anyone who is a "white, nationalist", thinks that jews run the world. Is that correct?
> 
> Im not sure where you are getting that from or what you're basing that on but there's idiots on all sides regardless if your non-point makes any sense or not. Btw, I'm not calling you an idiot


No - like I said, you're probably unaware of the connotations. Rather, I'm pointing out that railing against "globalists" has been a very overt white nationalist dog-whistle for blaming Jews for all the world's ills. I'm just suggesting given the _rest_ of your anti-immigration political views, this is one y


Ordacleaphobia said:


> I really don't think that matters though.
> If I say "I don't think globalization of the widget industry is a net benefit, and will serve as a fast-track to lower quality standards and an exploited workforce with negligible benefits," I think a normal person would understand what I'm saying without conflating me with a guy harping about "the jews!!" all day.
> 
> I'll give you context; for sure. Can't say I've seen a context that points directly to antisemitism, but I'm sure it's out there and I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, and yeah, that's fair.
> But the whole "well this word _really_ means X" exercise is just a waste of everyone's time and energy, imo. Like if someone is a white nationalist, I think you're going to know they're a white nationalist without them saying the word 'globalists.'
> 
> --
> An edit in response to an edit
> Is the phrase "Globalists rule the world" inherently antisemitic though? I would argue that that statement is true; globalists _*do*_ the world, as evidenced by the trend toward globalization across seemingly all first-world countries. If world leaders weren't globalists, why would they guide their people toward it?
> 
> And even if the word is being used with disdain, I don't see how it's different from when the words 'democrat' or 'republican' are used disdainfully. If I dislike and look down on republicans as a whole, and I mutter about "those damn republicans," because I dislike right-wing politics, how is that strictly different from when I mutter "those damn globalists," because I dislike globalism? Unless there's some kind of explicit implication at play (which, yeah; context), I don't see how it's any different.


I think it's just a case of being aware of the potentially negative connotations and being careful how you proceed. There's nothing inherently evil with being opposed to globalism and in favor of economic isolationism. I personally think that's the wrong approach, and that global trade has been broadly beneficial to the world as a whole in terms of the quality, quantity, and variety of goods being produced and consumed. But, you've demonstrated yourself to be a pretty rational, thoughtful guy, haven't really said anything I can think of that would make me being concerned for your racial views, and if you make an allusion to globalism I'm going to be more inclined to interpret it as referring to global trade and exchange, based on what _else_ I know about your thinking. 

It's when we have guys like MetalHex using it in the context of slamming immigrants potentially getting government-provided health insurance in California, and when in his reply he starts to refer to "white, nationalism" rather than "white nationalism" which only makes sense if you're trying to disassociate the term from its ethno-state origins, that it seems like maybe it would be a good idea to point out that the term actually DOES have a long history by being used by white nationalist groups as a way of alluding to Jews without actually _saying_ "Jew."


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Nothing to quote directly and I'm sure it's been discussed but the two biggest issues with the Republican/Libertarian approach to healthcare being resolved in the free market is
> 
> 1.) private = profit motive, which means the goal is charging the most the market will bear rather than what's the cheapest for customer or best outcomes for patients. That means you're always going to have cushions between cost and what's charges, which goes up exponentially when you add corporate salaries and bonuses to the mix.
> 
> 2.) private = competition, except unless it's pure anarchy, medical industry will always have to be heavily regulated because "if a restaurant sucks, bad reviews will stop people from going there" doesn't work when you're talking about pills that will kill thousands/millions of people before you realize they're bad.
> 
> 3.) Other problem with private = competition is that there will always be classes of people who cannot afford insurance or paying to go to the doctor out of pocket, so Medicare and Medicaid is impossible to avoid and if the government is involved in the marketplace, they're always going to have regulation on themselves and tools available to them beyond what private insurance can offer. Only solution would be NO option for the poor/elderly and you're back to anarchy.


Excellent post, man. There are two points you're forgetting, though:

4.) "Health care" isn't a consumable good in the same way, oh, Pepsi is, where you can choose to not drink Pepsi, and that's the end of it. Rather, Health care is what we provide to people who get hurt, get sick, or are dying. We all get hurt, we all get sick, and we all die. At some point in our lives, every single one of us is guaranteed to be a consumer of health care. This is compounded by...

5.) The US healthcare system, like virtually/probably every healthcare system in the world, is bound by the Hippocratic Oath:



> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> 
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
> 
> I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
> 
> I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
> 
> I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
> 
> I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
> 
> I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
> 
> I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
> 
> I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
> 
> If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.



...which essentially requires doctors to, if they CAN treat the sick, then they MUST do so. US legal precedent has entrenched this further, so if you show up at a hospital, sick, injured, or dying, and have no coverage and are unable to pay, the hospital is still unable to turn you away and must treat you to the best of their abilities, if you either want to be treated or are unable to express through direct communication or prior medical proxy that you do not want to be treated.

So, to wrap those two points up together, buying health insurance is like buying Pepsi, except you HAVE to drink Pepsi, you may not be able to plan when and where you drink Pepsi, and when you need to drink Pepsi and if you show up at the store with no money and no Free Pepsi IOU, the store just has to _give_ you Pepsi and find some way to offset the cost - say, by raising the cost of Pepsi for people who do plan on the fact they have to drink Pepsi one day, and prepare for it. In that world, is it any wonder that Pepsi is so expensive?



MetalHex said:


> Well then I dont have a fix all answer as to how to fix it. All I know is that everything shouldnt be so damn expensive. So I dont think we should say, since everything is virtually unaffordable, we need to make it affordable by upping taxes, forcing people to pay fines for not having insurance, as it is just a work around and not fixing the high prices, whatever the cause of that may be. Theres is no competition with insurance companies, maybe thats part of the problem. I really dont have the answers. All I do know is that there HAS to be a way to make it more affordable without forcing everyone to be responsible for everyone else.



Reading this I honestly don't think you understand how the insurance markets work. There are a lot of reasons that health care costs have increased as much as they have for the last several decades, and some of them can be addressed from within the system - in fact, the ACA is helping move medicine from charging based on procedures to charging based on outcomes, which removes a _whole_ bunch of perverse incentives that were causing costs to rise. It also did a lot to foster competition within states, notably by setting up ACA exchanges where consumers could choose from a large number of competing plans to help let competition drive costs down, and where health insurance inflation is the worst has largely been in the red states that fought this requirement and refused to set up exchanges to foster competition.

But, the single biggest issue with insurance markets, is in a world with good access to health care, insurers unable to bar patients for pre-existing conditions, and hospitals bound by the Hippocratic oath, the opportunity cost for low-risk patients to forego health insurance is pretty low. Since they're low risk, they're not likely to need insurance for routine issues, so their two major risks are 1) unexpected accident, or 2) unexpected development of a high risk medical condition. If the former happens they will still _receive_ emergency care, and if it's more than they can afford it'll likely be forgiven during the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings. If the latter happens, they just have to hold on to the next open enrollment period, and they'll be eligible to sign up for health insurance with no additional penalty for now being high risk and expecting to need very expensive treatment for potentially a very long period of time. If you want to throw out the mandate, that's fine... But to not absolutely torpedo the markets by pulling out all the low risk patients and raising the average risk profile of the pool, thereby increasing the cost of insurance, you have to either allow insurers to reject patients they know they can never hope to recover the cost of covering (since they ARE a for-profit business, after all) and let hospitals start turning away patients who can't pay for the services they're about to receive, or accept that insurance is just going to continue to get more and more expensive, and the only people who will be able to take it out are the very rich, or those who already had coverage when they got sick and know they'll be spending a lot more on care without it than with it.

I mean, if this isn't really your area of expertise, I get it... risk pools and markets can get reasonably wonky quickly... But if you don't really understand how this stuff works, opinions like "I think it should be cheaper, and I shouldn't have to have it if I don't want it" are just vague pipe dreams.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> 8 weeks ago I got an operation that would cost $150,000 on average in the USA. There was a complication that meant I had to spend an extra 2 weeks in hospital and go through the the same operation again. Plus 2 MRIs and maybe 10 x-rays, plus all the medication I've been taking still, I'd say that'd easily be a $350,000+ bill anywhere in the USA. I've had physiotherapy every week and probably 10 GP appointments.


Glad to hear you're ok, man. That's quite the scare.


----------



## Xaios

possumkiller said:


> Where Kirk Cameron was talking about how christians should talk to non-believers and must bypass people's intellect.


Humorous aside. A little over 4 years ago, when I was spending my first night of what turned out to be a month long stay in the hospital (which, by the way, cost me nothing but time and the end of my right middle finger because bloodclots are bastards), I was pretty delusional. I spent the first few days in and out of lucidity, and had paranoid delusions for the first 3 nights. The first night, I was terrified that they were going to kick me out because I didn't have my health care card on my person when I was admitted.

The second night? Well, that night I was absolutely convinced that Kirk Cameron was going to kidnap me from the hospital during the night and radicalize me.

Bear in mind, I am a christian, so the fact that even I think he's scary enough to have paranoid delusions about just goes to show how fucking nuts he is.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I think it's just a case of being aware of the potentially negative connotations and being careful how you proceed. There's nothing inherently evil with being opposed to globalism and in favor of economic isolationism. I personally think that's the wrong approach, and that global trade has been broadly beneficial to the world as a whole in terms of the quality, quantity, and variety of goods being produced and consumed. But, you've demonstrated yourself to be a pretty rational, thoughtful guy, haven't really said anything I can think of that would make me being concerned for your racial views, and if you make an allusion to globalism I'm going to be more inclined to interpret it as referring to global trade and exchange, based on what _else_ I know about your thinking.
> 
> It's when we have guys like MetalHex using it in the context of slamming immigrants potentially getting government-provided health insurance in California, and when in his reply he starts to refer to "white, nationalism" rather than "white nationalism" which only makes sense if you're trying to disassociate the term from its ethno-state origins, that it seems like maybe it would be a good idea to point out that the term actually DOES have a long history by being used by white nationalist groups as a way of alluding to Jews without actually _saying_ "Jew."



It's funny because I tend to agree; can't get my shiny new Ibanez if we don't do much business with Japan, can I? I'm just a language stickler.

The reason why I get hung up on stuff like this is for the _public_, if you're speaking with someone where you _don't_ know much else about their method of thinking or the nuance behind their political views, I think it's important to, by default, give people the benefit of the doubt. Taking a step back, I know that you personally are the type of person to do this; but my concern over the spread of the "well, this is just coded language" mentality stems over that seeping into the _public_. To me, it sounds _*super*_ dangerous to think that we're trending toward a state where people make their mind up about you over your use of a word or phrase that has been communicated to them as coded language when it really isn't. I think this attitude is playing a key role in how the public discourse is getting increasingly polarized. I know personally it's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you guys too.
Not to mention this whole kerfluffle over the 'ok' hand sign, christ on the cross, what a joke. Just end me, dude.

Not to be hyperbolic- this stuff is clearly a small piece of a much bigger issue, and again; as with most of the stuff I bitch about, I know you guys are all very likely not like this. I just call it as I see it. We have a big problem with people assuming others' intentions right now. Hell, for a recent example just look at Shapiro making an absolute fool of himself on the BBC a week or two ago. He conducts the interview assuming he knows everything about Neil, because Neil dropped one phrase that was pretty incendiary, accuses him of being a leftist partisan, and winds up looking like a complete idiot because Andrew Neil is actually heavily right-wing. I love Ben but man that hurt to watch.

I just think we'd be better off not propagating that line of thinking. Everyone these days think they know better than everyone else, and it's resulting in civil discourse being the exception over the norm. Dude it's tough to even have conversations like this in person, because most of the people I know fall under this umbrella. I agree with my father politically on a lot of things, but if I mention that I think Tulsi Gabbard has some really valid points and that I may actually vote for her; it's "the dems are all the same, you know she's going to do X and Y the second she gets into office." Skepticism is healthy but if you assume people's intentions nothing ever gets accomplished.

Like I said. Language stickler. I take small things very seriously. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> It's funny because I tend to agree; can't get my shiny new Ibanez if we don't do much business with Japan, can I? I'm just a language stickler.
> 
> The reason why I get hung up on stuff like this is for the _public_, if you're speaking with someone where you _don't_ know much else about their method of thinking or the nuance behind their political views, I think it's important to, by default, give people the benefit of the doubt. Taking a step back, I know that you personally are the type of person to do this; but my concern over the spread of the "well, this is just coded language" mentality stems over that seeping into the _public_. To me, it sounds _*super*_ dangerous to think that we're trending toward a state where people make their mind up about you over your use of a word or phrase that has been communicated to them as coded language when it really isn't. I think this attitude is playing a key role in how the public discourse is getting increasingly polarized. I know personally it's happened to me. I'm sure it's happened to you guys too.
> Not to mention this whole kerfluffle over the 'ok' hand sign, christ on the cross, what a joke. Just end me, dude.
> 
> Not to be hyperbolic- this stuff is clearly a small piece of a much bigger issue, and again; as with most of the stuff I bitch about, I know you guys are all very likely not like this. I just call it as I see it. We have a big problem with people assuming others' intentions right now. Hell, for a recent example just look at Shapiro making an absolute fool of himself on the BBC a week or two ago. He conducts the interview assuming he knows everything about Neil, because Neil dropped one phrase that was pretty incendiary, accuses him of being a leftist partisan, and winds up looking like a complete idiot because Andrew Neil is actually heavily right-wing. I love Ben but man that hurt to watch.
> 
> I just think we'd be better off not propagating that line of thinking. Everyone these days think they know better than everyone else, and it's resulting in civil discourse being the exception over the norm. Dude it's tough to even have conversations like this in person, because most of the people I know fall under this umbrella. I agree with my father politically on a lot of things, but if I mention that I think Tulsi Gabbard has some really valid points and that I may actually vote for her; it's "the dems are all the same, you know she's going to do X and Y the second she gets into office." Skepticism is healthy but if you assume people's intentions nothing ever gets accomplished.
> 
> Like I said. Language stickler. I take small things very seriously. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Language stickler here too. No wonder we enjoy debating.  

I mean, I don't entirely disagree here, and I think there's an argument against taking things too far. Again, a lot of the reason I made that particular observation wasn't a _general_ belief the phrase "globalism" is forever tainted, but had a lot to do with conversation-specific context. 

But, I think there's also a point past which things are just too tainted to touch. Goodwin's Law, here, of course, but technically speaking, a swastika is an old Judeo-Christian symbol just in reverse. That doesn't mean you're not SERIOUSLY asking for trouble by wearing a piece of jewelry with that insignia on it. Similarly, lots of people had thin, narrow mustaches before Hitler, but those are pretty clearly off limits as well these days. We're talking what are obviously extreme examples, but in the interest of defining boundaries, I think there definitely _are_ things that are just forever off limits in public discourse because of the strength of their connotations. 

As far as defining where the other goalposts are... "Globalism" is probably a phrase that's _generally_ safe to use absent other strong conversational cues, though I'm less sure that's still true with "globalist." Someone talking about a "globalist agenda" is probably, intentionally or otherwise, communicating something other than an agenda of reducing barriers to trade and exchange ideas - it's a term that beyond its very specific coded references to Jews in the history of KKK-affiliated public groups probably been generalized to someone who opposes ethnic nationalism. Barring some movement to take back the term vis a vis "queer" and the gay rights movement that's one I'd be very leery of using simply because I DO think it's too far gone on the spectrum of "legitimate use" vs "strongly coded language." 

End of the day, I guess part of communicating well, from an active standpoint, is being thoughtful and careful about your choice of language, and from a receptive standpoint, is being attentive to authorial intent when it comes to the use of language that could potentially convey meaning above and beyond the pure literal meaning, both in terms of not hearing things that weren't intended to be there, as well as being aware of things that _were_ intended to be there. 

tl;dr - words matter. And using the wrong words while lambasting immigration can make you look like WAY more of an asshole than you really are, if you're not careful.


----------



## Explorer

I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied. 

This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.


----------



## Ralyks

That sounds like a smoking gun to me...


----------



## Explorer

The New York bill which will allow turning over an individual's state tax returns to the heads of various Congressional House committees have now passed both chambers, and only await the governor's signature. Fortunately for those deeply concerned, this bill only deals with the taxes of any person who seeks the most visible public office in the US, and not those of any private citizen. 

In response to Adam Schiff putting the contempt process for Barr on hold for the moment, the DoJ is handing over the first set of documents. Should the DoJ start holding back, the contempt train starts rolling again. 

It also turns out that in response to unpublicized subpoenas from the US House, Wells Fargo and TD Bank have already turned over all of their copies of Trymp's records and documents. 

Also unpublicized this week: Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State, testified to the House Foreign Affairs Committee about Trump and Russia. 

It looks like the self-claimed genius of Trump didn't even know that some of the chessboards, of whch he needs to win them all, were even in play.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied.
> 
> This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.


Got a source?


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> I'm trying to find a way to embed it, but Trump just accidentally admitted to having been called by Junior in the time period before the Trump Tower meeting, the call which has been previously denied.
> 
> This is why all his attorneys have avoided letting him speak under oath.





Ralyks said:


> That sounds like a smoking gun to me...





Drew said:


> Got a source?



Absolutely!

Trump Admits That Don Jr. Called Him Before the Trump Tower Meeting - Hill Reporter

Worth remembering: Trump denied that he was one of the calls in his written answers under oath to Mueller, so... perjury.

Clinton got impeached on one count of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, so folks like McConnell and Graham will definitely appear even more hypocritical if they defend Trump's perjury and numerous obstructions.


----------



## synrgy

So this will be a major sidebar, but, I was too young to care at the time, and have never understood why Slick Willy got to finish out his term post-impeachment?


----------



## spudmunkey

synrgy said:


> So this will be a major sidebar, but, I was too young to care at the time, and have never understood why Slick Willy got to finish out his term post-impeachment?


Impeachment is not removal from office. It's basically the equivilant of being charged with a crime, and sort of the court trial. Not necessarily the verdict. Or something like that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

synrgy said:


> So this will be a major sidebar, but, I was too young to care at the time, and have never understood why Slick Willy got to finish out his term post-impeachment?



Impeachment is the process of being charged by the House. The trial then takes place in the Senate.

So while Clinton was Impeached (charged) by the House, he was acquitted in the Senate.

Most folks think of Impeachment as the entire process, when really, it's just the beginning and is not synonymous with removal from office. 

A 2/3rds vote is required to find the President guilty and be removed. That's incredibly difficult to get. In Clinton's case, even with a majority Republican Senate, he was not found guilty. Only 45 voted to remove.


----------



## synrgy

Thanks muchly. I know I could have Googled that at any point, but prefer getting the info conversationally. I just remembered the impeachment being part of the zeitgeist at the time. I digested a lot of stand-up comedy back then, and I feel like 'he got impeached but stayed in office' was the subject of a ton of that material. It ended up being one of those things where I passively gleaned partial understanding, and never got around to actively looping back to get the full picture.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

synrgy said:


> Thanks muchly. I know I could have Googled that at any point, but prefer getting the info conversationally. I just remembered the impeachment being part of the zeitgeist at the time. I digested a lot of stand-up comedy back then, and I feel like 'he got impeached but stayed in office' was the subject of a ton of that material. It ended up being one of those things where I passively gleaned partial understanding, and never got around to actively looping back to get the full picture.



Don't sweat it. There's a not so insignificant chance that the POTUS has no idea what impeachment means or how it works either.


----------



## efiltsohg

https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1131953183641751552


----------



## StevenC

efiltsohg said:


> https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1131953183641751552


Citation needed


----------



## BlackSG91

If the president gets impeached will he find the oranges of the investigation?








;>)/


----------



## MaxOfMetal

_achomlishments_


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> Trump Admits That Don Jr. Called Him Before the Trump Tower Meeting - Hill Reporter
> 
> Worth remembering: Trump denied that he was one of the calls in his written answers under oath to Mueller, so... perjury.
> 
> Clinton got impeached on one count of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, so folks like McConnell and Graham will definitely appear even more hypocritical if they defend Trump's perjury and numerous obstructions.


Honestly, this is awkward, but without him testifying under oath that Don Jr called him, or telephone records proving he did, this won't stick. 

This would, of course, be grounds to subpoena the relevant telephone records, if somehow that hadn't already happened.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Honestly, this is awkward, but without him testifying under oath that Don Jr called him, or telephone records proving he did, this won't stick.
> 
> This would, of course, be grounds to subpoena the relevant telephone records, if somehow that hadn't already happened.



For how comprehensive Mueller's investigation supposedly was, why do little bits like this keep coming to the surface? This all would've seemingly been useful you know, like, before the investigation was closed down and it's not an insignificant details.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> For how comprehensive Mueller's investigation supposedly was, why do little bits like this keep coming to the surface? This all would've seemingly been useful you know, like, before the investigation was closed down and it's not an insignificant details.



Couple possible explanations, but the most likely that come to mind, in order of likelihood, are

1) They did, and Mueller confirmed those calls were NOT to Trump,
2) They did, and Mueller was not able to determine (i.e - there was no way to trace the call to whatever unlisted number, on the network's end)
3) Mueller tried, and was unable to obtain Trump or Trump Jr's phone records.

I'd also want to see this corroborated by a different source, having never heard of the Hill Reporter or Washington Insider, and the latter's source being a tweet with an extremely short video where the context isn't entirely clear.

EDIT - yeah, this probably isn't what it seems: 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/...s-son-told-him-about-the-trump-tower-meeting/

Again, not a source I really know,b ut they're saying that Trump was describing the allegations, not his own actions. That seems supported by this: 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4799186/trump-admits-don-jr-called

...which despite the title, the text of the transcript makes it pretty clear he wasn't saying Jr. called him, but that he was alleged to have called him. Or at least, as clear as you can ever get with Trump speaking.


----------



## Ralyks

Apparently Mueller is in the middle of making a statement on the investigation and Trump as we speak.

Edit: And it basically amounted to nothing.


----------



## Randy

Couple not so subtle winks to impeachment.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Apparently Mueller is in the middle of making a statement on the investigation and Trump as we speak.
> 
> Edit: And it basically amounted to nothing.


I mean, nothing new, if you've been paying attention.

Fox News meanwhile will have to contend with the fact Mueller felt the need to give a press conference to say "we can't indict the president so I can't say he committed a crime. If he DIDN'T commit a crime, I'd have no problems saying so. I'm not saying he didn't commit a crime," which is as close to "Trump obstructed justice" as he can say.

Full transcript:
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/29/18644237/robert-mueller-remarks-transcript


----------



## Ralyks

I read the transcript. Fox will find a way to twist it just like they found a way to put a positive spin on all of the money he lost in the 80s/90s.


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> I read the transcript. Fox will find a way to twist it just like they found a way to put a positive spin on all of the money he lost in the 80s/90s.



It contains the words "did not commit a crime". That's good enough for them


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, they really don't know the phrase "context is King". CNN can be guilty of this too.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Fox will find a way to twist it



If you're looking for anything beyond that, it's an impractical goal. Most of my liberal friends have fallen into the trap of their only standard of success is irrefutably, immutably harpooning conservatives with an argument they can't dodge and getting them to concede defeat. You can't win that battle against people who argue from pride above facts, period.


----------



## Drew

Only semi tangental/off-topic - I'm getting the distinct feeling that Pelosi is starting to lose the fight to tamp down impeachment expectations. I think the odds of the Dems going ahead and doing it are going up, and Mueller today basically indicated as much that the only body with the authority to determine if Trump had obstructed justice is Congress.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Only semi tangental/off-topic - I'm getting the distinct feeling that Pelosi is starting to lose the fight to tamp down impeachment expectations. I think the odds of the Dems going ahead and doing it are going up, and Mueller today basically indicated as much that the only body with the authority to determine if Trump had obstructed justice is Congress.



The more I read about Democrats pressuring Pelosi and rereading Muellers statement, the more I think this is indeed the direction we're heading in.

The only thing that will save him is that his supporters are "ride or die" with him despite his utter incompetence and disregard for, well, everything.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> The more I read about Democrats pressuring Pelosi and rereading Muellers statement, the more I think this is indeed the direction we're heading in.
> 
> The only thing that will save him is that his supporters are "ride or die" with him despite his utter incompetence and disregard for, well, everything.



The thing is though, if they try, they _*need*_ to succeed. Because if they fail to remove him from office, that's going to haunt them in election season. 
Whereas if they simply don't move to impeach, the public will view it as less of a failure and more as the Trump administration being corrupt, their hands being tied, yada yada fight the power. Much more likely to incite voters than a failure. 

From everything I've read, I can see where the sentiment is coming from, but I'm still not convinced they have a bulletproof case; and I don't think they're going to impeach until they do.


----------



## MetalHex

The soundbyte of the day is Mueller saying "Trump is not not a criminal"



Ordacleaphobia said:


> but I'm still not convinced they have a bulletproof case



C'mon that's as bulletproof as it gets! Clear, cut and dry; close the books!


----------



## Ralyks

I'm still not sold on impeachment and still think he can just hurt himself. But most of the left seems to think so. Do I think there's a case for impeachment? Hell yes. Do I think they have a bulletproof case? Hell no. Do I think they should try to impeachment? Hell no also. That would be the biggest gamble the Democrats can take. My biggest worry is if Trump gets another term, then whoever the Republicans bring out next will probably want to be another Trump. My issue isn't with the Republican party. My issue is that the Republican party became the Trump Party, and there is a big difference.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

My opinion mirrors some I’ve already seen others post. Trying to impeach Trump at this point is going to backfire unless, of course they succeed. But my gut tells me they will not be able to, which riles more of his followers leading to a greater showing at the polls. Costing the democraps the next election to Trump.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't see the risk of impeachment. 

If anything it poses a greater risk for Senate Republicans than it does the Dems as a whole, who only control the House. 

Again, impeachment isn't removal. It's an indictment. 

This would force the Senate to hold the trial part of the process. Which, even if reluctant, would likely not be a good look. 

The fact is, they'll never have the 67 votes to convict and remove, but I don't think they need the big win. They just need to show accountability.

Not to mention the implications in the various other investigations ongoing.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't see the risk of impeachment.
> 
> If anything it poses a greater risk for Senate Republicans than it does the Dems as a whole, who only control the House.
> 
> Again, impeachment isn't removal. It's an indictment.
> 
> This would force the Senate to hold the trial part of the process. Which, even if reluctant, would likely not be a good look.
> 
> The fact is, they'll never have the 67 votes to convict and remove, but I don't think they need the big win. They just need to show accountability.
> 
> Not to mention the implications in the various other investigations ongoing.



I think you make a valid point. Impeachment is about accountability. But with the Republicans having become the party of Trump, my concern is that they won't take the gravity of the situation seriously enough in the Senate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> I think you make a valid point. Impeachment is about accountability. But with the Republicans having become the party of Trump, my concern is that they won't take the gravity of the situation seriously enough in the Senate.



It would be worth it just to have Trump under oath in real time. 

What are the odds he _won't_ have his own "I did not have sexual relations..." moment?

It's one thing to let him get away with violations of decorum or ethics statutes no one has heard of, another to ignore outright perjury. 

The timing would be interesting as well. 

I just don't think Dems have anything to lose, at least as much as folks are acting. I await the concise breakdown from @Drew of how wrong I am.


----------



## Adieu

Accountability has long gone out the window

In the end, this entire farce is the Democrat's fault as much as Trump and Co's. The reason he's around to pervert the system in the first place isn't because he's particularly liked or has any true support base, but rather because the Democrats have somehow managed to utterly alienate and disgust the electorate.

There was an opening for riling up the protest vote....and Trump stepped in and did what Trump usually does best --- spin and rouse the rabble.

*He can't be impeached because he doesn't have actual support, he's just the platform for a united Americans-Who-Revile-Democrats vote. And there's far too many of those voters at the moment.*

And most of them will continue to forgive him ANYTHING, so long as the Democratic Party remains an unattractive assortment of oddball minority interests with no appealing leadership figures and no uniting ideals.

And letting themselves get baited into playing reactionary to the ultimate opportunistic reactionary is....just sad and counterproductive.

What the Dems really need is to quickly jettison their "politically correct" but widely unpopular fringe and centralize, FAST. Distance themselves from socialists, feminists, gender vague persons, non-Christians (alas - this coming from an atheist), environmental types, universal insurers, race warriors, etc. And then get somebody charismatic to appeal to softcore uncommited Republicans who can be swayed.

To get rid of Trump.... you need to demonstrate kicking everything America hates about Democrats to the curb.

Alas, that means....a Democratic Trump Lite. A strutting unapologetic peacock like Bill Clinton at the very least, minus Hillary and Al though. No space for those in the current climate.


PS well, either that, or convince the Republican support base that he conned them. *Gently*. Because the nature of denial is that they'll stick up for him, and desperately, if you come at him too strong, because admitting that he took advantage of them and betrayed their ideals and values would be personally humiliating to many.


----------



## synrgy

Adieu said:


> What the Dems really need is to quickly jettison their "politically correct" but widely unpopular fringe and centralize, FAST.



Hi! 2016 here, reminding you that that's _exactly_ what got us into this mess in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Accountability has long gone out the window
> 
> In the end, this entire farce is the Democrat's fault as much as Trump and Co's. The reason he's around to pervert the system in the first place isn't because he's particularly liked or has any true support base, but rather because the Democrats have somehow managed to utterly alienate and disgust the electorate.
> 
> There was an opening for riling up the protest vote....and Trump stepped in and did what Trump usually does best --- spin and rouse the rabble.
> 
> *He can't be impeached because he doesn't have actual support, he's just the platform for a united Americans-Who-Revile-Democrats vote. And there's far too many of those voters at the moment.*
> 
> And most of them will continue to forgive him ANYTHING, so long as the Democratic Party remains an unattractive assortment of oddball minority interests with no appealing leadership figures and no uniting ideals.
> 
> And letting themselves get baited into playing reactionary to the ultimate opportunistic reactionary is....just sad and counterproductive.
> 
> What the Dems really need is to quickly jettison their "politically correct" but widely unpopular fringe and centralize, FAST. Distance themselves from socialists, feminists, gender vague persons, non-Christians (alas - this coming from an atheist), environmental types, universal insurers, race warriors, etc. And then get somebody charismatic to appeal to softcore uncommited Republicans who can be swayed.
> 
> To get rid of Trump.... you need to demonstrate kicking everything America hates about Democrats to the curb.
> 
> Alas, that means....a Democratic Trump Lite. A strutting unapologetic peacock like Bill Clinton at the very least, minus Hillary and Al though. No space for those in the current climate.
> 
> 
> PS well, either that, or convince the Republican support base that he conned them. *Gently*. Because the nature of denial is that they'll stick up for him, and desperately, if you come at him too strong, because admitting that he took advantage of them and betrayed their ideals and values would be personally humiliating to many.



That sounds like a really good way to alienate the existing Democratic voter base, which still outnumbers the Republican voter base...when there is a candidate they feel is less like the GOP. 

If the mid-terms went more in the Centrist Dems' favor I might think differently, but that's not so.


----------



## ExileMetal

Adieu said:


> Accountability has long gone out the window
> 
> In the end, this entire farce is the Democrat's fault as much as Trump and Co's. The reason he's around to pervert the system in the first place isn't because he's particularly liked or has any true support base, but rather because the Democrats have somehow managed to utterly alienate and disgust the electorate.
> 
> There was an opening for riling up the protest vote....and Trump stepped in and did what Trump usually does best --- spin and rouse the rabble.
> 
> *He can't be impeached because he doesn't have actual support, he's just the platform for a united Americans-Who-Revile-Democrats vote. And there's far too many of those voters at the moment.*
> 
> And most of them will continue to forgive him ANYTHING, so long as the Democratic Party remains an unattractive assortment of oddball minority interests with no appealing leadership figures and no uniting ideals.
> 
> And letting themselves get baited into playing reactionary to the ultimate opportunistic reactionary is....just sad and counterproductive.
> 
> What the Dems really need is to quickly jettison their "politically correct" but widely unpopular fringe and centralize, FAST. Distance themselves from socialists, feminists, gender vague persons, non-Christians (alas - this coming from an atheist), environmental types, universal insurers, race warriors, etc. And then get somebody charismatic to appeal to softcore uncommited Republicans who can be swayed.
> 
> To get rid of Trump.... you need to demonstrate kicking everything America hates about Democrats to the curb.
> 
> Alas, that means....a Democratic Trump Lite. A strutting unapologetic peacock like Bill Clinton at the very least, minus Hillary and Al though. No space for those in the current climate.
> 
> 
> PS well, either that, or convince the Republican support base that he conned them. *Gently*. Because the nature of denial is that they'll stick up for him, and desperately, if you come at him too strong, because admitting that he took advantage of them and betrayed their ideals and values would be personally humiliating to many.



I don’t agree at all. Trump is extremely popular amongst a certain subset of “Republican” voters, far more than either Bush. It’s far more terrifying and cultish. I won’t deny that the “I hate dems” style Republican who thinks Trump is a dumbass exists, but red hats are literally a modern day swastika for a good reason. Associating Trump supporters with Republicans of the past 20 years is insulting to true conservatives in many ways; the Trump party is more regressive and fascist, and this was part of Robert Mueller’s delivery. On Twitter, our president considered it more important to explain why Russia helped him win, rather than condemn the 100% confirmed, FACTUAL infiltration of our country. That is a clear line in the sand, and why Mueller was so emphatic about it at the end. ALL AMERICANS, which I guess doesn’t include this treasonous fuck of a “president.”


----------



## Ralyks

ExileMetal said:


> Associating Trump supporters with Republicans of the past 20 years is insulting to true conservatives in many ways



This was pretty much what I was saying when. I said "My issue isn't with the Republican party. It's that they became the Trump party, and there is a big difference." I probably wouldn't have much of an issue if it was almost any other Republican in office. I believe I was a few months shy of voting when Dubya was running for his second term, and even then I knew I would have voted for Dubya over John Kerry. Even Obama, I voted for him, but I probably wouldn't have been all too upset if McCain won.

Trump party does not = Republican party.


----------



## StevenC

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1134066371510378501

That sure is something


----------



## Ralyks

He's like a stereotyped millennial, spending more time on his phone with Twitter than doing actual work. Maybe this is why Bill Clinton still got shit done while being impeached, he didn't have Twitter as a distraction.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> He's like a stereotyped millennial, spending more time on his phone with Twitter than doing actual work. Maybe this is why Bill Clinton still got shit done while being impeached, he didn't have Twitter as a distraction.


What the hell is a millennial? I see this word constantly thrown about when talking about hating certain loathsome people.


----------



## Ralyks

Dictionary.com lists a millennial as "a person reaching young adulthood in the early 21st century." Ubran dictionary says "Name an old person gives a young person they don't like." And then there's a whole split between Gen Y (1981- 1991) and Gen Z (1991 - present) and if that all sounded convoluted, it is.


----------



## StevenC

possumkiller said:


> What the hell is a millennial? I see this word constantly thrown about when talking about hating certain loathsome people.


Actual definition: people born in the 80s and 90s. Gen Y.

What people mean when they use it most of the time: dumb, lazy young people they don't understand.


----------



## Ralyks

What StevenC said, almost exactly. Hence why I said "stereotyped" in my original statement.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> The soundbyte of the day is Mueller saying "Trump is not not a criminal"


Not sure why I'm wasting my time on you, but I have no idea what you're talking about, because that's literally the _opposite_ of what Mueller said -_ "...if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional." 
_


MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't see the risk of impeachment.
> 
> If anything it poses a greater risk for Senate Republicans than it does the Dems as a whole, who only control the House.
> 
> Again, impeachment isn't removal. It's an indictment.
> 
> This would force the Senate to hold the trial part of the process. Which, even if reluctant, would likely not be a good look.
> 
> The fact is, they'll never have the 67 votes to convict and remove, but I don't think they need the big win. They just need to show accountability.
> 
> Not to mention the implications in the various other investigations ongoing.


This is kind of where I'm eventually coming around to. The pros and cons on impeachment go roughly like this:

*Pro: *Trump very likely obstructed justice and used his presidential powers to block an investigation into his alleged wrongdoing while he was a candidate. Additionally, he has refused to comply with Congressional inquiries in violation of constitutional law. He should be held accountable for this. Mueller alluded as much in his report, that the appropriate response here is not criminal charges but impeachment.
*Con:* There may be a backlash if the Democrats impeach Trump in the House but the Senate refuses to convict him, which seams probable. And even if the impeachment were to remove him, Trump may be more valuable as a candidate to run against in 2020 than a successful impeachment and replacement with less-overtly-controversial Pence.

Basically, it comes down to rule of law vs political expediency. In the long run, arguing "its ok for Trump to break the law as long as it helps us win in 2020" isn't a tenable position for the DNC.

I also think your other two main points are well taken - that there are risks for the Republican party here, too, at least as large as to the Democrats, and Trump testifying under oath is a prospect that should have the entire GOP scared.

On the backburner, I'd say now that the trade war has fully erupted and now the base case is it does _not_ end in a largely symbolic deal changing nothing but allowing both sides to back away from the ledge and that symbolic deal is now probably our best case scenario and not especially likely, I'd say the risk of the economy tipping into recession before 2020 is reasonably high. As it stands, the Q1 GDP report, growth of 3.1%, certainly _looks_ robust... But most of that was driven by a buildup in inventory and an unusual, and large, net export balance, both driven by an attempt to get ahead of the tariff increase in mid-March. Real Private Domestic Sales was an anemic 1.3%, and that measure usually slightly exceeds GDP due to a prevailing net trade deficit. With inventories high, retail spending weak in the first month, at a minimum, of Q2, and that trade front-running slated to unwind in Q2, my base case is a slowdown from Q1's 3.1% to maybe 1-1.5%, and absent unexpected positive developments I'd expect that range to be breached to the downside, if it does get breached.

Long story short, if we see a sharp deceleration in GDP/actual contraction due to a trade war that's almost entirely Trump's own making and that the historically free-trade GOP doesn't support him on, I'd say the odds of an impeachment going forward and potentially removing Trump increase materially.

EDIT - I'll also throw out the possibility that a meta-narratrive on impeachment could potentially carry weight here - "We know that for the sake of 2020 the best thing for us to do as the Democratic Party here is to look the other way, but Trump's actions are _so_ beyond the pale and such a risk to the very democratic fabric of this nation and our sense of checks and balances, that we have no choice but to act, regardless of what the personal consequences may be for Democrats, because the stakes are far too high for selfish considerations to matter."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Not sure why I'm wasting my time on you, but I have no idea what you're talking about, because that's literally the _opposite_ of what Mueller said -_ "...if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional."_



I had the initial reaction you did, but read the (hopefully) intended double-negative. 



> This is kind of where I'm eventually coming around to. The pros and cons on impeachment go roughly like this:
> 
> *Pro: *Trump very likely obstructed justice and used his presidential powers to block an investigation into his alleged wrongdoing while he was a candidate. Additionally, he has refused to comply with Congressional inquiries in violation of constitutional law. He should be held accountable for this. Mueller alluded as much in his report, that the appropriate response here is not criminal charges but impeachment.
> *Con:* There may be a backlash if the Democrats impeach Trump in the House but the Senate refuses to convict him, which seams probable. And even if the impeachment were to remove him, Trump may be more valuable as a candidate to run against in 2020 than a successful impeachment and replacement with less-overtly-controversial Pence.
> 
> Basically, it comes down to rule of law vs political expediency. In the long run, arguing "its ok for Trump to break the law as long as it helps us win in 2020" isn't a tenable position for the DNC.
> 
> I also think your other two main points are well taken - that there are risks for the Republican party here, too, at least as large as to the Democrats, and Trump testifying under oath is a prospect that should have the entire GOP scared.
> 
> On the backburner, I'd say now that the trade war has fully erupted and now the base case is it does _not_ end in a largely symbolic deal changing nothing but allowing both sides to back away from the ledge and that symbolic deal is now probably our best case scenario and not especially likely, I'd say the risk of the economy tipping into recession before 2020 is reasonably high. As it stands, the Q1 GDP report, growth of 3.1%, certainly _looks_ robust... But most of that was driven by a buildup in inventory and an unusual, and large, net export balance, both driven by an attempt to get ahead of the tariff increase in mid-March. Real Private Domestic Sales was an anemic 1.3%, and that measure usually slightly exceeds GDP due to a prevailing net trade deficit. With inventories high, retail spending weak in the first month, at a minimum, of Q2, and that trade front-running slated to unwind in Q2, my base case is a slowdown from Q1's 3.1% to maybe 1-1.5%, and absent unexpected positive developments I'd expect that range to be breached to the downside, if it does get breached.
> 
> Long story short, if we see a sharp deceleration in GDP/actual contraction due to a trade war that's almost entirely Trump's own making and that the historically free-trade GOP doesn't support him on, I'd say the odds of an impeachment going forward and potentially removing Trump increase materially.
> 
> EDIT - I'll also throw out the possibility that a meta-narratrive on impeachment could potentially carry weight here - "We know that for the sake of 2020 the best thing for us to do as the Democratic Party here is to look the other way, but Trump's actions are _so_ beyond the pale and such a risk to the very democratic fabric of this nation and our sense of checks and balances, that we have no choice but to act, regardless of what the personal consequences may be for Democrats, because the stakes are far too high for selfish considerations to matter."



We're definitely on the same page here. 

Interesting take on the reasons not to move forward with impeachment. I didn't think of that.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

synrgy said:


> Hi! 2016 here, reminding you that that's _exactly_ what got us into this mess in the first place.



Um...what do you mean? The fringe train was already well off the rails in 2016.



MaxOfMetal said:


> That sounds like a really good way to alienate the existing Democratic voter base, which still outnumbers the Republican voter base...when there is a candidate they feel is less like the GOP.
> 
> If the mid-terms went more in the Centrist Dems' favor I might think differently, but that's not so.



It does at face level, but I don't know. I feel like it would hurt the right more than it would upset the left. You wouldn't need to totally overhaul the face of the party on all of these issues, just dial it back a little bit. The fundamental ideal behind the position would still be pursued, which would placate most of their base I would imagine. I've been saying it for years now, the fringes on either side have _*way*_ too much pull right now and it's poisoning the country. It's going to take one party reigning that in first to start bringing that under control, and I think the democrats are in a fantastic position to do that right now.

Maybe it's just because I seem to lean right, but some of the stuff I hear from the democrats sounds ridiculous, and blatantly like pandering to their hard-left supporters. Perhaps these things aren't as 'out there' as I think, and maybe these people _actually_ believe in those things rather than just fishing for votes; but I'd be surprised. People can tell when you're telling them what they want to hear.

Anecdotally, that strategy is working on me personally so far. If they run her, barring any crazy developments, I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard. A reasonable, well-spoken candidate that isn't shy about backing off from the fringe. I consider myself more of a centrist than a republican, but I pushed for Trump in 2016 because Clinton was such a terrible candidate. I'm the exact person the DNC should be targeting.

I can't speak against hard results though, and I'm no political scientist.



ExileMetal said:


> red hats are literally a modern day swastika



Oh god dude, give me a fucking break 



Ralyks said:


> Ubran dictionary says "Name an old person gives a young person they don't like."



The single most factually correct post in the entire 335 pages of this thread 
I don't think I've ever seen a word as abused as 'millennial' is.


----------



## spudmunkey

Then there's brands like "Brandless" who's ad titles online were literally "Millenials are going crazy for Brandless!" or something along those lines. 

Millennials are up to mid 30s, and some have teenage kids. It's strange to always see that term used to describe what seems to be teenagers, or people still in college (at the oldest).


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a word as abused as 'millennial' is.



Snowflake comes close.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Oh god dude, give me a fucking break



Explain what makes this statement so outlandish to you. It's a polarizing symbol supporters wear as an endorsement of Trump's brand, which includes demonizing others based on their politics but also things like their race and sexual orientation. 

Trump isn't Hitler or has done what Hitler did but the red hat absolutely has become a badge of honor for a culture of exclusion.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm the exact person the DNC should be targeting.



I wouldn't spend $1 marketing toward your demographic because your lack of consistency comes across as flakiness. I could lose 1000 votes trying to get yours and in the 11th hour, you decide not to vote for me because you don't like the color of my tie.


----------



## Drew

I actually missed that.  Still, this guy has been vehemently pro-Trump his entire involvement in this thread, so I'd be more inclined to thing the double negative was either 1) accidental, or 2) he really doesn't get the implications.  

Second point... I mean, the reasons not to move forward I outlined are the standard argument for not impeaching that are getting kicked around, that doing so will energize Trump's base, give Trump further ammo to claim he's being prosecuted for Making America Great Again™, and that Pence is less likely to make an ass of himself in a general election than Trump. They're all valid, such as they are... But, I don't think at the end of the day they're very compelling. Yes, beating Trump is incredibly important for the sake of the country and our system of checks and balances that he is flagrantly violating, in 2020. But, is that worth sacrificing the very same system of checks and balances to do so? That's an awfully hard argument to make. 

I'd LOVE concrete evidence of at least one other crime before going ahead with impeachment - obstruction of justice has been part of every impeachment proceedings in the past, but never as the sole charge. And there are other potential grounds, notably the emoluments clause, which he appears to be violating and if that case makes it to the Supreme Court who finds against him and he chooses not to comply, well, that makes it quite a bit more palatable. But, honestly, the case that Trump obstructed justice is SO flagrant, it might be enough to warrant acting on it alone.


----------



## MetalHex

Randy said:


> Explain what makes this statement so outlandish to you. It's a polarizing symbol supporters wear as an endorsement of Trump's brand, which includes demonizing others based on their politics but also things like their race and sexual orientation.
> 
> Trump isn't Hitler or has done what Hitler did but the red hat absolutely has become a badge of honor for a culture of exclusion.


You are entitled to your perception but that's just what it is. Because if that were the case then every red hat wearer would agree with you and proudly stand behind what you think they stand for. I perceive things differently in that I dont see every red hat wearer as racist/sexist/homophobic/islamophobic (insert leftist-talismanic buzzword here)......the same way I dont think every card carrying Obama worshipper is a Prius driving fart sniffing hippie


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> You are entitled to your perception but that's just what it is.



You're right, but it's not so outlandish an impression that it should be laughed at condescendingly. I'm not trying to convince anyone otherwise but mocking the guy he did for saying it like is so obviously wrong is misguided.


----------



## MetalHex

Randy said:


> it's not so outlandish an impression



I dunno, apparently he thinks it is that much of an outlandish impression. I wont speak for him though..


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

ExileMetal said:


> but red hats are literally a modern day swastika for a good reason.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Anecdotally, that strategy is working on me personally so far. If they run her, barring any crazy developments, I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard.



Any particular policies/positions you're drawn too, or is it just the fact that certain right leaning sites haven't vilified her?

Look at her stances on:

Minimum Wage: She's for raising it to at least $15/hr.

Education: Free college tuition, both community college and "all" four year universities. Primarily by raising taxes.

Environment: She is against fossil fuels, for renewables and even was an early endorser of the "Green New Deal".

Foreign Policy: She supported the "Iran Deal". The removal of economic sanctions in return for regular audits of nuclear facilities.

Healthcare: She supports socialized/universal healthcare.

Guns: She's for expanding background checks and banning certain firearms.

I don't know, minus the whole not liking LGBT people, how is she much different than other progressive Dems?


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know, minus the whole not liking LGBT people, how is she much different than other progressive Dems?



Because she stuck her thumb in the eye of at least one SJW segment of the population, which is good enough for +/-90% of modern conservatives


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Because she stuck her thumb in the eye of at least one SJW segment of the population, which is good enough for +/-90% of modern conservatives



Which is pretty much the only thing that connects her to the modern GOP. 

Heck, she's even for reproductive rights and against Israeli occupation of the West Bank.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Explain what makes this statement so outlandish to you. It's a polarizing symbol supporters wear as an endorsement of Trump's brand, which includes demonizing others based on their politics but also things like their race and sexual orientation.
> 
> Trump isn't Hitler or has done what Hitler did but the red hat absolutely has become a badge of honor for a culture of exclusion.



Their race and sexual orientation? Where is that coming from? 
It's one thing to equate the hat to a political symbol, or a badge of support. It's another to equate it to the swastika. What, do you think he chose the swastika randomly? Do you think there was no implication intended from that choice? You can mock it sure, yeah; it does basically act as a flashing neon "I hate the dems" sign, but that's pretty much where that ends.



Randy said:


> I wouldn't spend $1 marketing toward your demographic because your lack of consistency comes across as flakiness. I could lose 1000 votes trying to get yours and in the 11th hour, you decide not to vote for me because you don't like the color of my tie.



And your rigidity comes off as tribal partisanship. Have good policies and I'll vote for you. 
Is your argument that people should only campaign for people that already support them? 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Any particular policies/positions you're drawn to?
> Look at her stances on:
> 
> Minimum Wage: She's for raising it to at least $15/hr.
> 
> Education: Free college tuition, both community college and "all" four year universities. Primarily by raising taxes.
> 
> Environment: She is against fossil fuels, for renewables and even was an early endorser of the "Green New Deal".
> 
> Foreign Policy: She supported the "Iran Deal". The removal of economic sanctions in return for regular audits of nuclear facilities.
> 
> Healthcare: She supports socialized/universal healthcare.
> 
> Guns: She's for expanding background checks and banning certain firearms.
> 
> I don't know, minus the whole not liking LGBT people, how is she much different than other progressive Dems?



Primarily, the fact that she supports going after Silicon Valley, and that she's denounced identity politics. 
This are two issues that are hugely important to me and I'm willing to take the good with the bad.

Minimum wage I think is kind of a dumb idea, but I don't think it would cause massive amounts of harm and I doubt it would go through anyway.
Free college tuition will never pass but is an easy campaigning tool.
I'm not sure why you think I would be against any of the environmental policies? I've even stated earlier in this thread that the ideas behind the Green New Deal were good, they just needed to be realistic.
I don't have much of an opinion on the Iran Deal. I understand both sides and it's difficult to pick a side I feel strongly enough over the other.
The nation is going to have to move toward universal healthcare eventually, fighting that seems pointless. And like most democratic policies, is a great humanitarian idea; the implementation just needs to be carefully considered.
I have no beef with expanding background checks. Don't remember anything about bans though. I'd have to look into that one to give a full answer.

She's different because she doesn't act like she knows everything. She's open to new ideas and accepts that she doesn't have all of the answers. 
As someone that's used to only being talked down to by democrats, that's refreshing. She's personable. That goes a long way for a candidate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Their race and sexual orientation? Where is that coming from?
> It's one thing to equate the hat to a political symbol, or a badge of support. It's another to equate it to the swastika. What, do you think he chose the swastika randomly? Do you think there was no implication intended from that choice? You can mock it sure, yeah; it does basically act as a flashing neon "I hate the dems" sign, but that's pretty much where that ends.
> 
> 
> 
> And your rigidity comes off as tribal partisanship. Have good policies and I'll vote for you.
> Is your argument that people should only campaign for people that already support them?
> 
> 
> 
> Primarily, the fact that she supports going after Silicon Valley, and that she's denounced identity politics.
> This are two issues that are hugely important to me and I'm willing to take the good with the bad.
> 
> Minimum wage I think is kind of a dumb idea, but I don't think it would cause massive amounts of harm and I doubt it would go through anyway.
> Free college tuition will never pass but is an easy campaigning tool.
> I'm not sure why you think I would be against any of the environmental policies? I've even stated earlier in this thread that the ideas behind the Green New Deal were good, they just needed to be realistic.
> I don't have much of an opinion on the Iran Deal. I understand both sides and it's difficult to pick a side I feel strongly enough over the other.
> The nation is going to have to move toward universal healthcare eventually, fighting that seems pointless. And like most democratic policies, is a great humanitarian idea; the implementation just needs to be carefully considered.
> I have no beef with expanding background checks. Don't remember anything about bans though. I'd have to look into that one to give a full answer.
> 
> She's different because she doesn't act like she knows everything. She's open to new ideas and accepts that she doesn't have all of the answers.
> As someone that's used to only being talked down to by democrats, that's refreshing. She's personable. That goes a long way for a candidate.



I guess it just seems so weird to care more about things like _supposed_ personality vs. actual policy positions.

It reminds me a lot of the Bush 2 days. Folks voted for him because he seemed like "a guy you'd have a beer with". 

It's tempting to give in a little bit and say: "well, I guess if we get universal healthcare, gun control, and climate policy, maybe the LGBT community can take another decade or two of being marginalized", but I just can't do that in good conscience. Especially when there is a candidate with 99% the same policy positions, but without the hateful baggage.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take her over just about any recent GOP candidate, but that's not a high bar to reach.

But this again speaks more to this notion of pandering to certain demographics over actual policy.


----------



## Drew

I mean, I'd say equating red MAGA hats as literally akin to swastikas is hyperbole...

...but it's also not _entirely_ crazy or off base, either.

Remember that the swastika wasn't a symbol adopted to show the desire to gas millions of Jews, but it was initially taken as a pseudo-christian symbol of the Nazi party, which especially in its early days was first and foremost a political party, that rose to power on the message that the degradation of the Weimar Republic after WWI wasn't Germany's fault, but was the result of outside global infuences and an unfair and punitive treaty signed at Versailles. The swastika was just a party insignia worn as a show of party support. As a _symbol_, it's exactly as much a symbol of support to Hitler and his party as the MAGA hats are to Trump and his - to that point, the analogy holds. 

Even a little beyond that, it's not a crazy comparison. Trump's major policies and themes from the campaign trail were 1) America's best days are behind it, and it's not America's fault, 2) Mexicans are a threat and we need to build a wall on the southern border to protect our country, and 3) Muslims are a threat and we need to ban them from coming into this country. It was a naked appeal to anti-white resentment. Trump isn't rounding up Muslims and Mexicans in concentration camps, entirely, though the detention camps at the southern border are making it increasingly awkward to say this, nor is he executing people en masse. But a MAGA hat is a powerful sign of support for a candidate who, from his speech declaring his candidacy onwards, has made no bones about the fact he wants to represent _white_ Americans, and doesn't really give a shit about any other ones.

Then there's the fact that Trump's popularity with moderates has TANKED since the election and for all his "drain the swamp" messaging he's stacked his government with insiders. Anyone wearing a pro-Trump hat today pretty much has to be a strong supporter, because basically everyone else has been stripped away. Voting for Trump because you hated Clinton more is one thing, but being proud of that vote today means you have to like what he's done or tried to do.

Put simply, yeah, if I see someone in a MAGA hat, two years into his term... Yeah, I'm going to think the wearer is probably a racist, because that's the agenda Trump has advanced since he's been in office. It doesn't make me think the wearer has a history of hate crimes in the same way that a swastika arm band would... But it also makes them someone I'm probably not going to want to have a beer with, either.


----------



## ExileMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


>



Let me know when you post something with substance. I also like the fake account that likes your post that was made in the last week.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Their race and sexual orientation? Where is that coming from?
> It's one thing to equate the hat to a political symbol, or a badge of support. It's another to equate it to the swastika. What, do you think he chose the swastika randomly? Do you think there was no implication intended from that choice? You can mock it sure, yeah; it does basically act as a flashing neon "I hate the dems" sign, but that's pretty much where that ends.



I lived in rural Indiana for 25 years, and now I live in the Seattle area. I travel between both. How often do you travel between places that have massive chasms in terms of their political demographics? Doesn’t seem like often, because red hat is definitely a thing, and it isn’t just me. Make sure you fully understand the term implicit, as it’s key to realizing why a MAGA hat is problematic. If you think it doesn’t have massive racial undertones, I don’t know how to help you.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> That sounds like a really good way to alienate the existing Democratic voter base, which still outnumbers the Republican voter base...when there is a candidate they feel is less like the GOP.
> 
> If the mid-terms went more in the Centrist Dems' favor I might think differently, but that's not so.



There is no base, that's the whole problem

In trying to form a coalition-type party with chances of electoral success against Republicans, the Dems got baited into picking up poison pill positions

Every win for the oddball fringes brings the party a step closer to the precipice.

Well, actually, forget that, it's already more like climbing the damn fence on the observation platform...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> There is no base, that's the whole problem
> 
> In trying to form a coalition-type party with chances of electoral success against Republicans, the Dems got baited into picking up poison pill positions
> 
> Every win for the oddball fringes brings the party a step closer to the precipice.
> 
> Well, actually, forget that, it's already more like climbing the damn fence on the observation platform...



They have the House, 47% of the Senate, and, even though the candidate lost, managed almost 3 million more votes the last Presidential Election. The electorate is there, and given gains in local and state government, as well as congress, it doesn't look like the Democratic Party is as toxic to voters as you're making it seem.

Is the party fractured? I do believe so. It's analogous to similar positional shifts that the GOP undertook a decade ago with the rise of the Tea Party. 

But tossing out the baby with the bathwater isn't going to gain them mass appeal.


----------



## Adieu

ExileMetal said:


> I don’t agree at all. Trump is extremely popular amongst a certain subset of “Republican” voters, far more than either Bush. It’s far more terrifying and cultish. I won’t deny that the “I hate dems” style Republican who thinks Trump is a dumbass exists, but red hats are literally a modern day swastika for a good reason. Associating Trump supporters with Republicans of the past 20 years is insulting to true conservatives in many ways; the Trump party is more regressive and fascist, and this was part of Robert Mueller’s delivery. On Twitter, our president considered it more important to explain why Russia helped him win, rather than condemn the 100% confirmed, FACTUAL infiltration of our country. That is a clear line in the sand, and why Mueller was so emphatic about it at the end. ALL AMERICANS, which I guess doesn’t include this treasonous fuck of a “president.”



Shifting priorities.

Gender-bending restroom policies or being bullied into buying commercial medical insurance feels a lot more existential a threat to their idea of America than Mr. Putin.

18 years of demonizing the Muslim bogeyman for political posturing (terrorists? big whoop) have left the public innoculated and numb to the very IDEA of foreign threats, while domestic changes terrify them.


----------



## StevenC

ExileMetal said:


> I also like the fake account that likes your post that was made in the last week.


@narad's best friend is back!!


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's tempting to give in a little bit and say: "well, I guess if we get universal healthcare, gun control, and climate policy, maybe the *LGBT community can take another decade or two of being marginalized"*



That's just it.

That's what poison pill coalition politics are made of.

LGBT, marginalized? All of em? LGB would be on a lot firmer ground without the touchy bathroom politics of T, L&B are more palatable than LGB, and if they could somehow magically and publically divorce the lot of em, L could celebrate victory tomorrow.


----------



## MetalHex

ExileMetal said:


> I also like the fake account that likes your post that was made in the last week.



What is a fake account? How can an account be fake? Why exactly is my account fake? What post of his are you referring to?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> LGBT, marginalized?
> All of em?



Yes.

https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt



> LGB would be on a lot firmer ground without the touchy bathroom politics of T, L&B are more palatable than LGB, and if they could somehow magically and publically divorce the lot of em, L could celebrate victory tomorrow.



Palatable to whom?

Why should society kowtow to the minority religious right?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yes.
> 
> https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/lgbt
> 
> 
> 
> Palatable to whom?
> 
> Why should society kowtow to the minority religious right?



Because once hitched to each other's agendas, it's damn hard to split at an opportune time

Come on, face it, hardly anyone is bothered by lesbian marriage or lesbians raising kids, and I'm fairly sure a decent lawyer could convince the catholic pope that two women are physically unable to have sexual Intercourse and thus 100% sin-free


----------



## Explorer

Here's what I got out of all that: 

If only the Democrats didn't have actual principles, and embraced only the more popular minorities, they would strip away more of the narrower bigots from the GOP and get more votes. Oh, those silly principles! 

*laugh*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Because once hitched to each other's agendas, it's damn hard to split at an opportune time
> 
> Come on, face it, hardly anyone is bothered by lesbian marriage or lesbians raising kids, and I'm fairly sure a decent lawyer could convince the catholic pope that two women are physically unable to have sexual Intercourse and thus 100% sin-free



Truthfully, hardly anyone really cares about any denomination of LGBT. It's a small, loud, entrenched, powerful, mostly "religious" minority. 

LGBT acceptance is on the rise year over year, pandering to the bigots is a terrible idea in the long run, and a fairly awful one short term.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Truthfully, hardly anyone really cares about any denomination of LGBT. It's a small, loud, entrenched, powerful, mostly "religious" minority.
> 
> LGBT acceptance is on the rise year over year, pandering to the bigots is a terrible idea in the long run, and a fairly awful one short term.



Nah, the trans thing was a mistake. Totally suicidal.

Championing the right of dudes who either truly believe themselves to be women, just claim to for some fantasy, and either still have their hairy balls firmly attached or paid good money to get em lopped off (...jury's still out on which is more off) to use the little girl's room is TOO FAR against the grain of common sense for way too many people.

And any populist worth his salt can use support for such an agenda by an opponent to burn and bury them. At any time.

*Sadly getting his get out of jail free cards for pushing nazi crap or commiting high treason in the process

Because plenty of folk will consider being in the pocket of a corrupt but socially conservative Russian dictator to be a far lesser evil than challenging the sanctity of their daughters' toilet.

Worst comes to worst, he can always just tweet "NEVER MIND THE RUSSIANS, THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and come out 100% intact*


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> I mean, I'd say equating red MAGA hats as literally akin to swastikas is hyperbole...
> 
> ...but it's also not _entirely_ crazy or off base, either.
> 
> Remember that the swastika wasn't a symbol adopted to show the desire to gas millions of Jews, but it was initially taken as a pseudo-christian symbol of the Nazi party, which especially in its early days was first and foremost a political party, that rose to power on the message that the degradation of the Weimar Republic after WWI wasn't Germany's fault, but was the result of outside global infuences and an unfair and punitive treaty signed at Versailles. The swastika was just a party insignia worn as a show of party support. As a _symbol_, it's exactly as much a symbol of support to Hitler and his party as the MAGA hats are to Trump and his - to that point, the analogy holds.
> 
> Even a little beyond that, it's not a crazy comparison. Trump's major policies and themes from the campaign trail were 1) America's best days are behind it, and it's not America's fault, 2) Mexicans are a threat and we need to build a wall on the southern border to protect our country, and 3) Muslims are a threat and we need to ban them from coming into this country. It was a naked appeal to anti-white resentment. Trump isn't rounding up Muslims and Mexicans in concentration camps, entirely, though the detention camps at the southern border are making it increasingly awkward to say this, nor is he executing people en masse. But a MAGA hat is a powerful sign of support for a candidate who, from his speech declaring his candidacy onwards, has made no bones about the fact he wants to represent _white_ Americans, and doesn't really give a shit about any other ones.
> 
> Then there's the fact that Trump's popularity with moderates has TANKED since the election and for all his "drain the swamp" messaging he's stacked his government with insiders. Anyone wearing a pro-Trump hat today pretty much has to be a strong supporter, because basically everyone else has been stripped away. Voting for Trump because you hated Clinton more is one thing, but being proud of that vote today means you have to like what he's done or tried to do.
> 
> Put simply, yeah, if I see someone in a MAGA hat, two years into his term... Yeah, I'm going to think the wearer is probably a racist, because that's the agenda Trump has advanced since he's been in office. It doesn't make me think the wearer has a history of hate crimes in the same way that a swastika arm band would... But it also makes them someone I'm probably not going to want to have a beer with, either.


So if you see someone with a MAGA hat, you wont assume that this person is in the frame of mind of being anti-TPP, pro tax-cuts, pro 2nd amendment, pro bringing-jobs-back....but instead, assume that theyre racist?

Someone sure nailed it on the head several pages back when they said that you shouldn't just assume the worst of people that you don't know.


----------



## spudmunkey

It's one thing to cast your vote a certain way. In my experiences, it's a different thing to "don" (pun absolutely intended) the hat.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> So if you see someone with a MAGA hat, you wont assume that this person is in the frame of mind of being anti-TPP, pro tax-cuts, pro 2nd amendment, pro bringing-jobs-back....but instead, assume that theyre racist?


Honestly, yeah. Because anyone wearing that hat and thinks Trump delivered a tax cut better be very wealthy. Anyone wearing that hat and thinking Trump is promoting job growth and business hasn't been paying attention. Anyone wearing that hat who thinks Trump has done anything to protect against IP theft from China is an idiot, along with anyone who truly believes in the second amendment.

So yeah, I think anyone wearing that hat is either a really dumb person or really believes in keeping the Mexicans and Muslims out. Or both.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Nah, the trans thing was a mistake. Totally suicidal.



*citation needed*

Again, you're confusing local and state level politics with national. 

The "Bathroom Bill" wasn't federal.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> *citation needed*
> 
> Again, you're confusing local and state level politics with national.
> 
> The "Bathroom Bill" wasn't federal.



Details don't matter as much as perceptions anymore.

Just watch.

It's one of the big guns in reserve. They'll bring it out front and center for an impeachment or an election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Details don't matter as much as perceptions anymore.
> 
> Just watch.
> 
> It's one of the big guns in reserve. They'll bring it out front and center for an impeachment or an election.



That still doesn't mean it'll have much of an affect. 

Again, fewer and fewer voters put LGBT rights as the primary issue they vote on, at least those who don't specifically fall under that umbrella. 

If it was such an issue, we'd likely see it brought up more and it certainly would have had a larger impact in the most recent round of elections.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> That still doesn't mean it'll have much of an affect.
> 
> Again, fewer and fewer voters put LGBT rights as the primary issue they vote on, at least those who don't specifically fall under that umbrella.
> 
> If it was such an issue, we'd likely see it brought up more and it certainly would have had a larger impact in the most recent round of elections.



It's this tactical thinking and short-termism that's gotten the Dems so far up sh!t creek and us in this lovely here and now in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> It's this tactical thinking and short-termism that's gotten the Dems so far up sh!t creek and us in this lovely here and now in the first place.



There's nothing short term about following a decades long, continuing trend. 

A lot of factors lead to where we are now, the Dems dragging themselves further to the right in response to the Tea Party and HFC causing significant rifts in the party is definitely a factor.


----------



## ExileMetal

MetalHex said:


> What is a fake account? How can an account be fake? Why exactly is my account fake? What post of his are you referring to?



I wasn’t referring to you at all, but rather this:


----------



## MetalHex

ExileMetal said:


> I wasn’t referring to you at all, but rather this:
> 
> View attachment 69860


Oh i thought you were because coincidentally I liked someone's post right before ypu said that. My bad


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> Honestly, yeah. Because anyone wearing that hat and thinks Trump delivered a tax cut better be very wealthy. Anyone wearing that hat and thinking Trump is promoting job growth and business hasn't been paying attention. Anyone wearing that hat who thinks Trump has done anything to protect against IP theft from China is an idiot, along with anyone who truly believes in the second amendment.
> 
> So yeah, I think anyone wearing that hat is either a really dumb person or really believes in keeping the Mexicans and Muslims out. Or both.


Well Drew used the word racist. Nice switcheroo you tried there. Even then, neither are considered a race. If blonde haired, blue eyed swedes were flying to Mexico to sneak through the border, thats not welcome one bit by any means either.

Inb4 talk of a lack of want for a northern border......one step at a time my friend. But, did you just speak for Drew?


----------



## Adieu

Explorer said:


> Here's what I got out of all that:
> 
> If only the Democrats didn't have actual principles, and embraced only the more popular minorities, they would strip away more of the narrower bigots from the GOP and get more votes. Oh, those silly principles!
> 
> *laugh*



Precisely

Real world politics is full of compromises. Ideals without common sense or long term planning are downright dangerous.


PS and btw, if everyone else has an inalienable right to be the way they want to be, THEN SO DO BIGOTS.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> PS and btw, if everyone else has an inalienable right to be the way they want to be, THEN SO DO BIGOTS.



Not exactly.

Two consenting adults of the same gender being a couple causes zero harm.

If someone is actively trying to curtail the rights and protections under the law of a whole group of people, then they are causing harm.

You're welcome to hate who you want to hate, but the second you act on that hate you transcend simple poor character.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Why appeal to the most people during an election when principles -- among fucking crooks, mind you -- are at stake?


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not exactly.
> 
> Two consenting adults of the same gender being a couple causes zero harm.
> 
> If someone is actively trying to curtail the rights and protections under the law of a whole group of people, then they are causing harm.
> 
> You're welcome to hate who you want to hate, but the second you act on that hate you transcend simple poor character.



Once it gets into the territory of wrecking women's sports by giving intact dudes medals and scholarships for WOMEN'S competitions (and presumably letting them use locker rooms?), advocating feeding confused juveniles hormone treatments, for lopping off people's junk when they MAY be mentally ill by some definitions


....it gets a bit VAGUE.

To strive for idealistic tolerance to the point of denying that these things are legitimately contentious issues and try to shame and bully those who disagree with the PC line is precisely what opened the door for reactionary anti-PC types like Trump.

So if the vain addlebrained old fart gets butthurt and starts a nuclear war with somebody, THAT'S ON YOU LOT. He'd never have made it to the oval office if the Dems hadn't done their damndest to alienate centrists and regular joes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Why appeal to the most people during an election when principles -- among fucking crooks, mind you -- are at stake?



Appealing to the majority would upset corporate donors, and limits personal financial gain, and we all know we can't have that. Not in an election year.


----------



## Adieu

Also of note: plenty of people are disinclined to believe that most Democratic politicians' ideals actually....well, EXIST AT ALL

Sucking up to all manner of minorities and interests can also be simple cold ARITHMETIC: +1% here, +2% there... that kind of "ideal".


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Appealing to the majority would upset corporate donors, and limits personal financial gain, and we all know we can't have that. Not in an election year.


I wonder how upset Hillary's donors were when she lost and went on her Blame Game tour...? I'm not being a smart ass; I'm legitimately curious what the fallout of that was.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> So if the vain addlebrained old fart gets butthurt and starts a nuclear war with somebody, THAT'S ON YOU LOT.





Yeah, if we were all a lot less tolerant we could really start having a peaceful nation. Because it's not systematic hate and inequality that's lead to some of the most heinous crimes against humanity, it's _tolerance_.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wonder how upset Hillary's donors were when she lost and went on her Blame Game tour...? I'm not being a smart ass; I'm legitimately curious what the fallout of that was.



Poor ROI. But I doubt anyone lost sleep. Pocket change.

In all seriousness, they probably made it back in spades from Trump's tax plan.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, if we were all a lot less tolerant we could really start having a peaceful nation. Because it's not systematic hate and inequality that's lead to some of the most heinous crimes against humanity, it's _tolerance_.



...you do know that this is the ONLY country to deploy nuclear weapons (against civilian targets no less), and the only country to deploy chemical weapons for scorched earth warfare post-WWI????

And, btw, what do America, the Nazis, the old archenemy the commies, and the current weak sauce Big Bad Jihadis ALL have in common? IDEALS. They all deem themselves morally superior idealists striving for a better world

....Idealists are freaking dangerous.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Poor ROI. But I doubt anyone lost sleep. Pocket change.
> 
> In all seriousness, they probably made it back in spades from Trump's tax plan.


Well sure, it might be pocket change to a bunch of cash vacuums who spend their days thinking of better ways to bend over the populace and rape their wallets without lube. I dunno if foreign donors made money from Trump's tax plan, but that would be something worth indicting over.


----------



## Adieu

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Well sure, it might be pocket change to a bunch of cash vacuums who spend their days thinking of better ways to bend over the populace and rape their wallets without lube. I dunno if foreign donors made money from Trump's tax plan, but that would be something worth indicting over.



Nah

Getting rid of Trump would be nice and reassuring and a boon to the physical and economic safety of the world, but you can't just suddenly start locking up everyone whose agendas benefitted their donors

If you do that earnestly and non-selectively, all left standing in the political field would be wingnuts and lunatics.

Too radical a cleanup too fast can have ramifications, too


----------



## Miek

now I realize this might be an extremely position but I think sending racists and bigots to the gulag would be a good start in developing a superior society

and unless you have a problem with dismissing racists or bigots I can't see how you would disagree with this position.


----------



## Adieu

Miek said:


> now I realize this might be an extremely position but I think sending racists and bigots to the gulag would be a good start in developing a superior society



That always ends the same way --- with your very own racist, bigoted cellmates


----------



## Miek

Adieu said:


> That always ends the same way --- with your very own racist, bigoted cellmates


with all due respect, nah


----------



## Adieu

Miek said:


> with all due respect, nah



Revolutionary purgers have a time-honored tradition of soon accompanying their purgees

That's just how it goes. Law of nature.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> ...you do know that this is the ONLY country to deploy nuclear weapons (against civilian targets no less), and the only country to deploy chemical weapons for scorched earth warfare post-WWI????
> 
> And, btw, what do America, the Nazis, the old archenemy the commies, and the current weak sauce Big Bad Jihadis ALL have in common? IDEALS. They all deem themselves morally superior idealists striving for a better world
> 
> ....Idealists are freaking dangerous.



Hey, if you're looking to beat up on America, you've come to the right place. I've spent way too much time espousing my disdain for American Exceptionalism. 

But, I don't think America dropped the bombs because of overwhelming tolerance (while we were putting our own citizens in camps back home), we did it to show Japan, and Russian, our new toy. 

You're wrong about, or more likely intentionally distorting, the difference in ideals. There is a difference between fostering an exclusive ideal society (everyone has to be like us) vs. an inclusive ideal society (everyone can be themselves).


----------



## Miek

I mean that's true but I think it's definitely acceptable to say that fascists, which have a concrete definition, are undeserving of mercy, based on that definition. there's a lot of approaches to a just and equitable society but fascists, by definition, aren't interested


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Hey, if you're looking to beat up on America, you've come to the right place. I've spent way too much time espousing my disdain for American Exceptionalism.
> 
> But, I don't think America dropped the bombs because of overwhelming tolerance (while we were putting our own citizens in camps back home), we did it to show Japan, and Russian, our new toy.
> 
> You're wrong about, or more likely intentionally distorting, the difference in ideals. There is a difference between fostering an exclusive ideal society (everyone has to be like us) vs. an inclusive ideal society (everyone can be themselves).



Enforced tolerance is also an "exclusive ideal"



Miek said:


> I mean that's true but I think it's definitely acceptable to say that fascists, which have a concrete definition, are undeserving of mercy, based on that definition. there's a lot of approaches to a just and equitable society but fascists, by definition, aren't interested



By somebody else's definition, you and your views might also be judged unrepentantly incorrigible in some aspect

THAT is why extreme measures against anyone are such a slippery slope


----------



## Miek

MaxOfMetal said:


> Hey, if you're looking to beat up on America, you've come to the right place. I've spent way too much time espousing my disdain for American Exceptionalism.
> 
> But, I don't think America dropped the bombs because of overwhelming tolerance (while we were putting our own citizens in camps back home), we did it to show Japan, and Russian, our new toy.
> 
> You're wrong about, or more likely intentionally distorting, the difference in ideals. There is a difference between fostering an exclusive ideal society (everyone has to be like us) vs. an inclusive ideal society (everyone can be themselves).


we were more than happy to use our weapons of absolute horror, regardless of the fact we used "former" Nazi scientists to design them. the US has done an incredible job of rehabilitating it's reputation to the general public.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Enforced tolerance is also an "exclusive ideal"



No one is forcing you to be LGBT, or even like them, we're just asking you not to actively try to destroy their lives. Is that so hard?


----------



## Miek

Adieu said:


> Enforced tolerance is also an "exclusive ideal"


enforced tolerance... as opposed to gratis intolerance? a wonderful buzzword, tolerance is, but in my experience the only people that make an issue of the concept are using it to distrwact from what they're actually getting at



MaxOfMetal said:


> No one is forcing you to be LGBT, or even like them, we're just asking you not to actively try to destroy their lives. Is that so hard?


you're such much more diplomatic than I am.

and to be clear, as I know this site gets a lot of non-americans, I am an American who is very anti- whatever America is doing in anyone's country or presenting as in anyone's country


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> No one is forcing you to be LGBT, or even like them, we're just asking you not to actively try to destroy their lives. Is that so hard?



I'm actually pretty chill and friendly with LGB, it's the recent +T and agenda change that's over the line for me.

Imho, the least-harm and most-inclusive path for the law is to treat all T's as legally male.

Else it just turns into one huge farce and disaster waiting to happen


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> I'm actually pretty chill and friendly with LGB, it's the recent +T and agenda change that's over the line for me.
> 
> Imho, the least-harm and most-inclusive path for the law is to treat all T's as male.
> 
> Else it just turns into one huge farce and disaster waiting to happen



Let's start treating them like human beings first.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I do want to touch on something brought up in the last few pages that I don't think was addressed and that's a trans-woman who previously competed in men's divisions shattering records previously set by women. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating them like human beings but NOT pretending that that is a level playing field. There was also the issue of Fallon Fox who again, was a man but transitioned into a woman and went on a tear in MMA, suffering only one loss by TKO to Ashlee Evans Smith, but achieving all of her wins by finish.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/4657...four-womens-powerlifting-amanda-prestigiacomo

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ender_weightlifter_breaks_womens_records.html

https://bjj-world.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-skull-of-her-female-opponent/

Now this might seem frivolous to some of you, but on a personal level, these women trained for years, perhaps sometimes even from childhood only to have someone come along who transitioned to break their records, or worse actually physically injure them severely. As a longtime MMA fan, that is indeed a RARE injury. You might get a broken orbital, a jaw, nose, something like that, but a fucking skull? The ONLY other example I can think of right off the top of my head is Michael Page and Evangelista Santos and that was a jumping knee right to the forehead with some momentum from Santos already trying to attempt a takedown.

Now you can argue all you want about men and women, but the fact of the matter is, there are physical differences between the two that have to be taken into account and I think that those differences have been waived for the sake of not pissing a group of people off. Transitioning to a woman and vice versa isn't immediate and saying you are a woman doesn't give you all the physical attributes of a woman. Now granted, you could say that Tamikka Brents didn't have to sign the dotted line to fight Fox, but then that looks just as bad because then she would be flooded with accusations of bigotry, so it was that or get her skull broken. How is that fair?

https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/transgender-mma-fighter-destroys-female-opponent/


_"This is not the first time Fox’s gender controversy has been criticized._

_In 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, Fox’s fifth straight first-round victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about her sex-change operation, which took place in 2006."

_
I wonder why...


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Let's start treating them like human beings first.


Well maybe if they start acting like them first.....Some might not even consider themselves to be human beings. One day their a free spirit, the next, identify as a dolphin. Or a slave dog bound in leather. Or a baby..... sky is the limit. Calling these beautiful souls human beings is an insult to whatever it is they want to identify as on any given day.

Lighthearted, yet semi-serious. The whole identity thing is getting so unnecessarily blurred and cloudy and it's gotta end. But then again, thats what places like San Fran and P-town are for. They could do whatever they want in small places like those..


----------



## Explorer

I'm so happy to see all the folks arguing for fairness!

Here's an interesting story, about the recently deceased architect of the Republican plan to add a citizenship question to the census, in order to create an advantage for "Republicans and non-hispanic whites."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html

The files he left behind certainly prove "discriminatory intent," so it will be interesting to see how the lawsuits go, especially given the perjury from DoJ employees which came to light from the files.

I'm looking forward to hearing the same impassioned concern and calls for fairness now turned towards this matter.... instead of such instead being hallmarks of concern trolling. *laugh*

Particularly interesting will be to see if certain individuals who clutched at their pearls while defending the red hats will now admit that the administration did some pretty discriminatory stuff in this instance. *laugh*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

PunkBillCarson said:


> I do want to touch on something brought up in the last few pages that I don't think was addressed and that's a trans-woman who previously competed in men's divisions shattering records previously set by women. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating them like human beings but NOT pretending that that is a level playing field. There was also the issue of Fallon Fox who again, was a man but transitioned into a woman and went on a tear in MMA, suffering only one loss by TKO to Ashlee Evans Smith, but achieving all of her wins by finish.
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/4657...four-womens-powerlifting-amanda-prestigiacomo
> 
> https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...ender_weightlifter_breaks_womens_records.html
> 
> https://bjj-world.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-skull-of-her-female-opponent/
> 
> Now this might seem frivolous to some of you, but on a personal level, these women trained for years, perhaps sometimes even from childhood only to have someone come along who transitioned to break their records, or worse actually physically injure them severely. As a longtime MMA fan, that is indeed a RARE injury. You might get a broken orbital, a jaw, nose, something like that, but a fucking skull? The ONLY other example I can think of right off the top of my head is Michael Page and Evangelista Santos and that was a jumping knee right to the forehead with some momentum from Santos already trying to attempt a takedown.
> 
> Now you can argue all you want about men and women, but the fact of the matter is, there are physical differences between the two that have to be taken into account and I think that those differences have been waived for the sake of not pissing a group of people off. Transitioning to a woman and vice versa isn't immediate and saying you are a woman doesn't give you all the physical attributes of a woman. Now granted, you could say that Tamikka Brents didn't have to sign the dotted line to fight Fox, but then that looks just as bad because then she would be flooded with accusations of bigotry, so it was that or get her skull broken. How is that fair?
> 
> https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/transgender-mma-fighter-destroys-female-opponent/
> 
> 
> _"This is not the first time Fox’s gender controversy has been criticized._
> 
> _In 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, Fox’s fifth straight first-round victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about her sex-change operation, which took place in 2006."
> 
> _
> I wonder why...



That's such a small cross section of the Trans community though. 

Most Trans folks are just normal people who just want to live their lives in peace with the same protections as you and I. 



MetalHex said:


> Some might not even consider themselves to be human beings. One day their a free spirit, the next, identify as a dolphin. Or a slave dog bound in leather. Or a baby..... sky is the limit. Calling these beautiful souls human beings is an insult to whatever it is they want to identify as on any given day.
> 
> Lighthearted, yet semi-serious. The whole identity thing is getting so unnecessarily blurred and cloudy and it's gotta end. But then again, thats what places like San Fran and P-town are for. They could do whatever they want in small places like those. But it absolutely has an effect on the rest of the world (if normalized, recognized and legalized) who dont have such mental illnesses, which is why it shouldnt be normalized on a federal nationwide level.



As someone who waxes on about "freedom" and "liberty" it's rather hypocritical of you to not extend that to someone else. 

The greater majority, damn near all really, of Trans people just want to go about their day to day lives. In fact, it's possible you know someone who is Trans or homosexual, you just don't know it.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's such a small cross section of the Trans community though.
> 
> Most Trans folks are just normal people who just want to live their lives in peace with the same protections as you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who waxes on about "freedom" and "liberty" it's rather hypocritical of you to not extend that to someone else.
> 
> The greater majority, damn near all really, of Trans people just want to go about their day to day lives. In fact, it's possible you know someone who is Trans or homosexual, you just don't know it.


Yeah, everyone has some mental illness or another, but everyone needs help, not just normalize these illnesses and let them happen.

Pedophiles just want to go about their daily lives too and not be bothered and want the same rights ans freedoms as you or I. And if the child loves that pedophile back, whos to get in their way? (For the sake of argument)


----------



## PunkBillCarson

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's such a small cross section of the Trans community though.
> 
> Most Trans folks are just normal people who just want to live their lives in peace with the same protections as you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who waxes on about "freedom" and "liberty" it's rather hypocritical of you to not extend that to someone else.
> 
> The greater majority, damn near all really, of Trans people just want to go about their day to day lives. In fact, it's possible you know someone who is Trans or homosexual, you just don't know it.



I'm not using that as an example to say that they are, I'm saying that in both of those situations, the trans-woman was being defended by people when they shouldn't be. My problem isn't with people who go about their daily lives. I'll even take a minute to disagree with Metalhex and as long as they're doing like normal people and just living and let live which absolute most of them are, I don't have a problem, but I have a problem with the people out there pretending like what happened in both of those cases is perfectly okay. It just seems like sometimes, people are literally letting their feelings dictate what reality is.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Yeah, everyone has some mental illness or another, but everyone needs help, not just normalize these illnesses and let them happen



Unless you know something that the World Health Organization, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association don't, you can drop the mental illness concern trolling.



MetalHex said:


> Pedophiles just want to go about their daily lives too and not be bothered and want the same rights ans freedoms as you or I. And if the child loves that pedophile back, whos to get in their way? (For the sake of argument)



Children aren't developed enough to make informed decisions necessary for sexual contact.


----------



## Adieu

PunkBillCarson said:


> I do want to touch on something brought up in the last few pages that I don't think was addressed and that's a trans-woman who previously competed in men's divisions shattering records previously set by women. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating them like human beings but NOT pretending that that is a level playing field. There was also the issue of Fallon Fox who again, was a man but transitioned into a woman and went on a tear in MMA, suffering only one loss by TKO to Ashlee Evans Smith, but achieving all of her wins by finish.
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/4657...four-womens-powerlifting-amanda-prestigiacomo
> 
> https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/05/.html
> 
> https://bjj-world.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-skull-of-her-female-opponent/
> 
> Now this might seem frivolous to some of you, but on a personal level, these women trained for years, perhaps sometimes even from childhood only to have someone come along who transitioned to break their records, or worse actually physically injure them severely. As a longtime MMA fan, that is indeed a RARE injury. You might get a broken orbital, a jaw, nose, something like that, but a fucking skull? The ONLY other example I can think of right off the top of my head is Michael Page and Evangelista Santos and that was a jumping knee right to the forehead with some momentum from Santos already trying to attempt a takedown.
> 
> Now you can argue all you want about men and women, but the fact of the matter is, there are physical differences between the two that have to be taken into account and I think that those differences have been waived for the sake of not pissing a group of people off. Transitioning to a woman and vice versa isn't immediate and saying you are a woman doesn't give you all the physical attributes of a woman. Now granted, you could say that Tamikka Brents didn't have to sign the dotted line to fight Fox, but then that looks just as bad because then she would be flooded with accusations of bigotry, so it was that or get her skull broken. How is that fair?
> 
> https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/transgender-mma-fighter-destroys-female-opponent/
> 
> 
> _"This is not the first time Fox’s gender controversy has been criticized._
> 
> _In 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, Fox’s fifth straight first-round victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about her sex-change operation, which took place in 2006."
> 
> _
> I wonder why...



Lol

That "women's record" is a damn farce, most gyms have at least one dude who can do that.

For your perusal, ACTUAL records, note that "her" number, at a competing weight of >130 kg (!), roughly matches the male record for a 56 kg guy.







Yup, a guy LITERALLY LESS THAN HALF THIS PERSON'S WEIGHT and a woman ~1.8x lighter have slightly higher numbers (Mr. Wu absolutely crushing this "record" @ 2.48x his body weight lifted... vs. Hubbard's 0.93x... and real athletes who are women managing twice that @ 1.8x in the case of Ms. Zabolotnaya)

Record.... shiiiiiit.

Cheating plain and simple. I'm sorry but lifting your own damn body weight is NOT a sporting achievement for somebody who went through male puberty. Neither is breaking some chick's face, btw.


----------



## Adieu

Full disclosure: i mostly just want to still see women's sports with women in em. I'm partial to women's volleyball and don't want attention whore dudes wrecking the fun

I got no problem with anyone who wants to compete in MEN'S sports, regardless of their biology or inclinations.

And I could care less what they do on their own time and who with...


----------



## Adieu

MetalHex said:


> Yeah, everyone has some mental illness or another, but everyone needs help, not just normalize these illnesses and let them happen.
> 
> Pedophiles just want to go about their daily lives too and not be bothered and want the same rights ans freedoms as you or I. And if the child loves that pedophile back, whos to get in their way? (For the sake of argument)



Actually, paedophilia is perfectly legal. Just like merely wanting to do anything else frowned on by society.

Child molesting or statutory rape, illegal... entering the little girls room, until recently illegal...

Because that's how society USUALLY deals with fetishes. Your urges are your own business, until you act on them in a way that affectsothers.

You wanna wear a skirt? Go for it.
You wanna wear a skirt to the little girls' room? Time to get arrested and hauled before a judge
Aww, you were born that way? How does that affect anything, exactly? ...it doesn't.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Children aren't developed enough to make informed decisions necessary for sexual contact.


Neither are a lot of adult women these days apparently.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> *And I could care less what they do on their own time and who with...*





Adieu said:


> Actually, paedophilia is perfectly legal. Just like merely wanting to do anything else frowned on by society.
> 
> Child molesting or statutory rape, illegal... entering the little girls room, until recently illegal...
> 
> Because that's how society USUALLY deals with fetishes. Your urges are your own business, until you act on them in a way that affectsothers.
> 
> You wanna wear a skirt? Go for it.
> You wanna wear a skirt to the little girls' room? Time to get arrested and hauled before a judge
> Aww, you were born that way? How does that affect anything, exactly? ...it doesn't.



Could have fooled me. 



possumkiller said:


> Neither are a lot of adults



FTFY


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Well Drew used the word racist. Nice switcheroo you tried there. Even then, neither are considered a race. If blonde haired, blue eyed swedes were flying to Mexico to sneak through the border, thats not welcome one bit by any means either.
> 
> Inb4 talk of a lack of want for a northern border......one step at a time my friend. But, did you just speak for Drew?


Fine...

Honestly, yeah. Because anyone wearing that hat and thinks Trump delivered a tax cut better be very wealthy. Anyone wearing that hat and thinking Trump is promoting job growth and business hasn't been paying attention. Anyone wearing that hat who thinks Trump has done anything to protect against IP theft from China is an idiot, along with anyone who truly believes in the second amendment.

So yeah, I think anyone wearing that hat is either a really dumb person or really believes in keeping the Mexicans and Muslims out racism. Or both.


----------



## Randy

Credit to @Adieu for staking out an unpopular opinion that's very grey area but gets treated as black and white (by both sides). I think you've made your point but through the arguing, sharped too fine an end onto it.

My biggest issue with the transgender bathroom bills that were such a hot commodity at the time was that it seemed like too much too fast. And I don't mean that people being treated like people or being dignified is something that should wait, I mean that our understanding of gender on a scientific level and on a societal level are in the very, very early stages of evolution.

I'm not THAT old but any broad understanding of trans people as anything besides 'cross dressers' are concepts I hadn't even heard until the last maybe 5 to 10 years? And I'm all for equality and treating eachother right, and respecting one another, day one. But it's an entirely different kettle of fish to take that and put it into a rigid piece of legislation, especially when the people writing it barely understand the concept (or not at all) muchless the business owners and patrons.

It reminds me of a piece of legislation making the rounds in NY right now. Basically making you have to take a safety course to own a boat in NYS. Tons of stories of people being killed in or by a boat operated by somebody who doesn't know basic boating safety. Great idea. Except it passed both houses without addressing the fact that it doesn't mention boat RENTALS at all! Who are users you'd imagine are equally (and likely, much greater) chances of not knowing what the fuck they're doing out there than someone who owns and registered a craft.

But they passed it the way it passed. And then a few more people die at the hand of someone that RENTED a boat, and then there's outrage and 10 years from now they add the other 2 sentences necessary to address it. 

The understanding and really the nature of gender identification is SO loaded and such a slippery, half scientific and half subjective thing.

I heard a great segment on NPR a few months ago talking about this and specifically how it applies to sports. They had professional female athletes that brought up things like trans-male-to-female athletes competing in their class and pointing out things like how there are records for powerlifting by women that you see boys in high school beating their first time at the bar. So of course there's a concern of unfairness there.

The flipside, though, is that organizations like the GAISF haven't been able to keep pace with how to qualify gender in sports. It used to be based on chromosomes, except advanced analysis showed times when what appeared to be "normal" females showed male chromosomes and "normal" males showed female chromosomes, or either showed algorithms of neither.

Chromsomal testing for international sports has been a controversial thing for decades, so then they considered using testing for naturally occuring testosterone. Steroids shows consistent, measurable increases in testosterone correlate with consistent increases in performance, so the concept seemed legit. Except that naturally occuring testosterone does not correlate as reliably and when they tried testing that concept, they saw women with high levels of testosterone (like, higher than what's considered "high" in men) could be in the middle or last in performance or men with low levels of testosterone performing at the top of their class. Not consistent enough.

So then lastly you could say, alright then just yank down their pants and have a look at what's there, except that hermaphroditism and ambiguous genitalia is absolutely a thing that happens more common than you'd think. So if someone's genitals show being neither or both you put them in what class? And you can't necessarily go by what the birth certificate says because usually when a child is born with either occurrence, they basically ask the parents "okay what's it look like to you?" and even if it's more female than male at the time of birth, it's entirely possible the child develops more male-like traits once they start getting older.

So, I mean, that's the gender stuff just as it applies to science and physiology, not even getting into the mental constructs. Seems like the more ignorant members of this board seem to want to paint gender outside of obvious appearance as just "making it up" which is, at best, calloused and horribly misinformed.

HOWEVER, we get back to transgender bathroom bills. With such a medically and culturally loaded issue that's absolutely not a black/white yes/no thing to resolve fairly across all considerations, I just thought it was a subject worth staying out of. You can be supportive of transpeople and trans-rights without writing kneejerk legislation, and the same goes for the other side.

If the international sports community can't resolve the issue with an unlimited budget for DNA testing, how do you expect a guy with a pizza restaurant to decide it when someone walks into their bathroom?


----------



## narad

PunkBillCarson said:


> I do want to touch on something brought up in the last few pages that I don't think was addressed and that's a trans-woman who previously competed in men's divisions shattering records previously set by women. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for treating them like human beings but NOT pretending that that is a level playing field.



Is anyone actually in favor of this now? I honestly don't know of any person, in my whole largely left-leaning LGBT friendly social clique, that thinks it's okay for people to transition to female and compete in female events.

Honestly though it's just a slippery slope. What about people born female, but with undeveloped/underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics? Chromosomal disorders? Or just elevated testosterone? Where do you draw the line? 

Probably the whole idea of female world records needs to be discarded because there's so much genetic grey area between the sexes, even before we get into the topic of trans. And probably the whole idea of world records is on shakey ground. A guy with a genetic disorder affecting bone density becomes arm-wrestling world champ. Maybe a girl with some testosterone-boosting or extra-muscle disorder becomes a weight-lifting champ. What exactly are we trying to measure?


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> Is anyone actually in favor of this now? I honestly don't know of any person, in my whole largely left-leaning LGBT friendly social clique, that thinks it's okay for people to transition to female and compete in female events.
> 
> Honestly though it's just a slippery slope. What about people born female, but with undeveloped/underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics? Chromosomal disorders? Or just elevated testosterone? Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Probably the whole idea of female world records needs to be discarded because there's so much genetic grey area between the sexes, even before we get into the topic of trans. And probably the whole idea of world records is on shakey ground. A guy with a genetic disorder affecting bone density becomes arm-wrestling world champ. Maybe a girl with some testosterone-boosting or extra-muscle disorder becomes a weight-lifting champ. What exactly are we trying to measure?


All of that sports and competition stuff is just a bunch of dick measuring anyway...


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> So if you see someone with a MAGA hat, you wont assume that this person is in the frame of mind of being anti-TPP, pro tax-cuts, pro 2nd amendment, pro bringing-jobs-back....but instead, assume that theyre racist?
> 
> Someone sure nailed it on the head several pages back when they said that you shouldn't just assume the worst of people that you don't know.


Nah, I think in your case I'm pretty well justified in assuming the worst, by now. 

Had you bothered to read my post, you'd be aware that as Trump's major campaign pledges were building a wall between us and Mexico and making Mexico pay for it, and banning Muslims, and thhat over the past two years he's strupped away all of his more moderate, anti-Clinton support, then yeah, a MAGA hat is a sign of support for a candidate who ran on a platform of racial resentment and intolerance. 

You of course have yet to demonstrate either the inclination or ability to read and comprehend, preferring instead to just troll, so I'm not overly concerned what you have to say here one way or another.


----------



## vilk

I think it's weird that people are so concerned about single sex rooms at all. I mean, surely you gotta realize it's a social construct. There was not plumbing, not toilets separated by sex for most of human history. Even baths in Rome were all ages and sexes. Actually I believe that's even the case in some modern day European nations? I know that they've got them in Japan.

People don't need to poop and pee only in proximity to someone "the same" as them. People don't need to hide their naked bodies only from someone "the opposite" from them. 

If we made all bathrooms genderless starting tomorrow, I do not believe there would be some sudden rapid increase in rapes. It's not a little drawing of a skirt on a door that stops predators from attacking women. It's about socially indoctrinated comfort, and I absolutely guarantee that plenty of white folks were uncomfortable when they first had to start peeing next to black people, but a few generations later none of us even think about that.


----------



## efiltsohg

Sports are a joke anyway and I'm fully in favor of transgendered cheaters dismantling all their records (whether it's male bodies in women's sports, or female bodies jacked up on steroids in men's)


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Christ this thread moves fast.


Drew said:


> Had you bothered to read my post, you'd be aware that as Trump's major campaign pledges were building a wall between us and Mexico and making Mexico pay for it, and banning Muslims, and thhat over the past two years he's strupped away all of his more moderate, anti-Clinton support, then yeah, a MAGA hat is a sign of support for a candidate who ran on a platform of racial resentment and intolerance.



Something that I think a lot of people are forgetting is that a huge swathe of Trump's "base" are not political people.
They supported the man because he was a big "Fuck you" to the establishment. Most of them probably don't know what any of his policies are aside from "build the wall" and "drain the swamp." I'd say I disagree with the notion that the wall is inherently racist but we've already butted heads before on that.

Food for thought though for the folks in the "red hat = racist" camp...a rule for me, and another for thee; discrimination is ok when _*I*_ do it....



vilk said:


> *I think it's weird that people are so concerned about single sex rooms at all*. I mean, surely you gotta realize it's a social construct. There was not plumbing, not toilets separated by sex for most of human history. Even baths in Rome were all ages and sexes. Actually I believe that's even the case in some modern day European nations? I know that they've got them in Japan.



Yeah, I kind of agree. A ton of places have unisex bathrooms already and have for decades, I'm not sure why that's an issue.
The part that I kind of hang up on is for instances like schools, public parks, etc; places likely to have a lot of children.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess it just seems so weird to care more about things like _supposed_ personality vs. actual policy positions.
> 
> It's tempting to give in a little bit and say: *"well, I guess if we get universal healthcare, gun control, and climate policy, maybe the LGBT community can take another decade or two of being marginalized"*, but I just can't do that in good conscience. Especially when there is a candidate with 99% the same policy positions, but without the hateful baggage.



Yeah, that _is_ weird. Who's doing that? If we we're just talking about personality I'm Yang gang all the way. 
I said it was a _facet_. The same way it is for every candidate. Whereas Clinton's personality hurt her, I think Tulsi's is a benefit. That's all. 

And who thinks like this, anyway? Who has that kind of cold, calculated thought process? But since we're on the subject:
>She's apologized for her old anti-LGBT comments (which were made well over 10 years ago)
>During the time frame that she _was_ opposed to gay marriage and the like; so was most of the democratic party.
>Her father raised her to be very socially conservative. Similar to @possumkiller. He came around, right? Why can't others?
>She has a 100% voting record for pro-LGBT legislation, and has co-sponsored multiple pro-LGBT bills.
>She's been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign.
>She's a member of the house LGBT equality caucus.

What about you? Were you never a dick at any point in your life? Should people hold that against you indefinitely?
Who's this other candidate, by the way? If you've got a name I'll check them out.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Christ this thread moves fast.
> 
> 
> Something that I think a lot of people are forgetting is that a huge swathe of Trump's "base" are not political people.
> They supported the man because he was a big "Fuck you" to the establishment. Most of them probably don't know what any of his policies are aside from "build the wall" and "drain the swamp." I'd say I disagree with the notion that the wall is inherently racist but we've already butted heads before on that.
> 
> Food for thought though for the folks in the "red hat = racist" camp...a rule for me, and another for thee; discrimination is ok when _*I*_ do it....


In reverse order, that's just another version of the tolerance paradox, and I don't buy that at all. Suggesting that being opposed to intolerance is itself a form of intolerance itself is, with all respect, bullshit, and that argument is a logical fallacy that I'm just going to tell you to look up deconstructions of that argument yourself, because one I have faith you actually will, and two, because typing with a broken collarbone fucking hurts. 

I'll concede "drain the swamp," but I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that "build the wall" isn't a racist policy. Build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, yet not a word about the Canadian border? That's also ignoring his Muslim ban, which was his other major campaign promise, as well as his subsequent actions - NOT draining the swamp, passing a corporate tax cut that resulted in most Americans getting a lower refund (which the size of their refund is the most immediate aspect of tax policy that most Americans see), "lots of good people on both sides" of Charlottesville, and a trade war that's done some serious damage to farmers in the American heartland. There hasn't been much in Trump's record that's actually been helpful to average Americans and his support has plummeted since inauguration. His base has essentially been stripped to its core.

There's also the fact that at this point, it's hardly a fringe interpretation that a red MAGA hat is going to be interpreted as a sign of support for anti-immigrant, white nationalist politics, so anyone still choosing to wear one is fully aware of how they're likely to be perceived. Speaking personally, if I was aware that by doing something I was likely to be perceived as sypathetic to white nationalism, you can be damned sure that I wouldn't be doing it.


----------



## efiltsohg




----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> In reverse order, that's just another version of the tolerance paradox, and I don't buy that at all. Suggesting that being opposed to intolerance is itself a form of intolerance itself is bullshit, and that argument is a logical fallicy that I'm just going to tell you to look up deconstructions of that argument yourself, because one I have faith you actually will, and two, because typing with a broken collarbone fucking hurts.
> 
> I'll concede "drain the swamp," but I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that "build the wall" isn't a racist policy. Build a wall on the Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, yet not a word about the Canadian border? That's also ignoring his Muslim ban, which was his other major campaign promise, as well as his subsequent actions - NOT draining the swamp, passing a corporate tax cut that resulted in most Americans getting a lower refund (which the size of their refund is the most immediate aspect of tax policy that most Americans see), "lots of good people on both sides" of Charlottesville, and a trade war that's done some serious damage to farmers in the American heartland. There hasn't been much in Trump's record that's actually been helpful to average Americans and his support has plummeted since inauguration.
> 
> There's also the fact that at this point, it's hardly a fringe interpretation that a red MAGA hat is going to be interpreted as a sign of support for anti-immigrant, white nationalist politics, so anyone still choosing to wear one is fully aware of how they're likely to be perceived. Speaking personally, if I was aware that by doing something I was likely to be perceived as sypathetic to white nationalism, you can be damned sure that I wouldn't be doing it.



Ouch; sorry to hear that. Hope you're doing alright.

Like I said, we've clashed over all of that stuff before; and I don't know about you, but I don't really have anything new to bring to that discussion.

I _will_ say though that _*to those types of folks I described*_, it absolutely isn't. Slogan people. All of that stuff is "fake news." 
You're very, very steeped in national politics. You can't help but see political shit everywhere you go. I don't know about you, but I know that I frequently have to remind myself that a lot of the people I talk to simply just don't care about a lot of the things that I do, and that if I want to have a conversation with them about Y, I have to explain X to them first. 
Bubba is not. Bubba doesn't care. He knows the slogans though. Doesn't watch the news. And I'd bet you all of the persecution over the hat just makes him double down on them. 

I also don't think that statement is a version of the tolerance paradox. 
The tolerance paradox is predicated on there being objective intolerance, and that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about a goddamn hat.
If I put a hat on, it doesn't instantly make me an intolerant person. If I passed you on the street, you wouldn't know jack about my politics or ethics. Instead, you're going to judge me and assume what I do and do not tolerate based on what I looked like. If I see a guy with a MAGA hat on and go "Oh hey, you must be a racist!" how is that different from me pointing to a black man and saying "Hey! I bet you abandoned your child and are on your way to get some fried chicken!" 

In neither instance do I know anything about the individual aside from surface level visible features.
It's stereotyping. Stereotyping is wrong. 

You wouldn't be wrong to infer "supports the president." Going deeper than that requires making assumptions and the moment you do that congratulations, you're judging people. 
If you're the type that equates "supports the president" with "is a racist" then ok; more power to you, but you aren't any better than the guy that equates "is black" with "receives welfare." You both have a superiority complex, deem your own opinions to be worth more than those of dissenters, and are fundamentally opposed to obvious objective truth. I don't think most of you are that guy, so I'm somewhat surprised at the vigor with which you're making this assertion.

To come full circle, I'd be a fool to state that nobody that dons the hat is a racist. In fact, I would agree with the notion that the percentage of racists among hat-wearers is likely noticeably above the national average. But that does _*not*_ mean that all of them are and it does _*not*_ mean that it's right to lump them all in with them.


----------



## vilk

You're not implying that some people are born with MAGA hats, right? Because FYI black people can't take it off. They also didn't put it on.


----------



## possumkiller

vilk said:


> You're not implying that some people are born with MAGA hats, right? Because FYI black people can't take it off. They also didn't put it on.


Trans people do put it on and take it off. Are we lumping them in with hat wearers?

His point isn't that hat wearers are or aren't racist. His point is making blanket statements like "All red hats are racist" is no better than the racist red hats.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Fucking typical.  When it's a valid point, it doesn't matter 'cuz sports suck anyways.

Well you know, maybe to you, but not to the person who uses sports to clear their minds, have fun, escape from IRL bullshit. So fuck THOSE people, right? Soooooo tolerant...


----------



## possumkiller

PunkBillCarson said:


> Fucking typical.  When it's a valid point, it doesn't matter 'cuz sports suck anyways.
> 
> Well you know, maybe to you, but not to the person who uses sports to clear their minds, have fun, escape from IRL bullshit. So fuck THOSE people, right? Soooooo tolerant...


I tend to agree that until we advance further in the science of gender that it's basically a bucket of worms and we've all got to take a bite. 
However, it could have been useful for me to be female when I was in the army so I could ace the fuck out of the PT test.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

possumkiller said:


> I tend to agree that until we advance further in the science of gender that it's basically a bucket of worms and we've all got to take a bite.
> However, it could have been useful for me to be female when I was in the army so I could ace the fuck out of the PT test.




Even the girl who got her skull broken by someone who until 2006 lived their lives as a man or else risk being called a bigot? Need I remind you that that is a rare injury in MMA even amongst the men's divisions. This kind of shit didn't even happen when people were testing 16:1 testosterone ratios.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> You're not implying that some people are born with MAGA hats, right? Because FYI black people can't take it off. They also didn't put it on.



Yeah, choice doesn't play a part in it and I don't know where you got that from.
The point is that making a judgement about someone's character based off of something visual is wrong, full stop. 

I get where you're going with this, with the implication that the wearer of the hat may be 'inviting it' by putting it on, whereas the black man in our example didn't get the chance to make that decision; but the onus is still on you not to stereotype them. If skin pigmentation was a controllable feature, would those statements be ok then? Of course not.


----------



## possumkiller

PunkBillCarson said:


> Even the girl who got her skull broken by someone who until 2006 lived their lives as a man or else risk being called a bigot? Need I remind you that that is a rare injury in MMA even amongst the men's divisions.


Yeah it sucks but what can you do? She can't legally complain about it or else she's an intolerant hateful fucking nazi. Nobody wants to be a hateful intolerant fucking nazi. People that don't want trans guys beating the fuck out of women in sports want ISIS to win. Everybody knows that.

Anyway, seriously wtf can we do about it right now? Obviously there is going to have to be some new rules made but I think most people are just scratching their head.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

narad said:


> Is anyone actually in favor of this now? I honestly don't know of any person, in my whole largely left-leaning LGBT friendly social clique, that thinks it's okay for people to transition to female and compete in female events.
> 
> Honestly though it's just a slippery slope. What about people born female, but with undeveloped/underdeveloped secondary sex characteristics? Chromosomal disorders? Or just elevated testosterone? Where do you draw the line?
> 
> Probably the whole idea of female world records needs to be discarded because there's so much genetic grey area between the sexes, even before we get into the topic of trans. And probably the whole idea of world records is on shakey ground. A guy with a genetic disorder affecting bone density becomes arm-wrestling world champ. Maybe a girl with some testosterone-boosting or extra-muscle disorder becomes a weight-lifting champ. What exactly are we trying to measure?




https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3b7j3j/fallon-fox-is-a-woman-get-over-it-925


----------



## PunkBillCarson

possumkiller said:


> Yeah it sucks but what can you do? She can't legally complain about it or else she's an intolerant hateful fucking nazi. Nobody wants to be a hateful intolerant fucking nazi. People that don't want trans guys beating the fuck out of women in sports want ISIS to win. Everybody knows that.
> 
> Anyway, seriously wtf can we do about it right now? Obviously there is going to have to be some new rules made but I think most people are just scratching their head.




That's the problem though. Recognizing those differences and not wanting to have someone have an advantage like that over you isn't bigoted and people refuse to see that and that is a problem.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, that _is_ weird. Who's doing that? If we we're just talking about personality I'm Yang gang all the way.
> I said it was a _facet_. The same way it is for every candidate. Whereas Clinton's personality hurt her, I think Tulsi's is a benefit. That's all.



Fair enough, it was just the primary point, other than policy, that you brought up. 



> And who thinks like this, anyway? Who has that kind of cold, calculated thought process? But since we're on the subject:



I guess I do. 

Politicians are to provide a service, and the quality of said service comes before all else.

I don't choose doctors or plumbers because I like them as people. I choose them because they are the most qualified and capable to do the job I need them to do. 



> >She's apologized for her old anti-LGBT comments (which were made well over 10 years ago)



Cool. Doesn't get rid of the baggage. 



> >During the time frame that she _was_ opposed to gay marriage and the like; so was most of the democratic party.



So? Doesn't make it fine



> >Her father raised her to be very socially conservative. Similar to @possumkiller. He came around, right? Why can't others?



The jury is still out on ol' Possum. 

But seriously, being raised in what can often be described as a hateful cult can do things to you. 

I'm glad that she _seems_ to have come around.



> >She has a 100% voting record for pro-LGBT legislation, and has co-sponsored multiple pro-LGBT bills.



She's only served in Congress since 2013. That's just like three bills. 

She also doesn't have "100%", given her opposition to HHB 1024. 



> >She's been endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign.
> >She's a member of the house LGBT equality caucus.



Listen, I think she's a fine candidate. I'd take her over all of the GOP any day of the week, but measured against other primary candidates, she'd maybe be my fourth or fifth pick between those that might have a shot. 



> What about you?



I'm not perfect, but I'm not running for public office. 

We should try to elect the best. 



> Were you never a dick at any point in your life?



I never supported curtailing people's rights to be who they are or supported medical torture. 



> Should people hold that against you indefinitely?



Had I done that, it would probably worth mentioning if I decided to run for high public office. 



> Who's this other candidate, by the way? If you've got a name I'll check them out.



Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

If you look at both their histories they were doing the progressive thing, just like Gabbard, before it was cool. In fact Gabbard even supported Sanders on his last primary race. 

Are they perfect? Not really. There's no such thing as an absolutely perfect candidate, but I feel their experience and voting history, along with a few other things that I won't go into for brevity's sake, put them ahead of Gabbard as far as what candidate I think is best.

For the record, I'll take Tulsi over Uncle Joe any day of the week.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> If I put a hat on, it doesn't instantly make me an intolerant person. If I passed you on the street, you wouldn't know jack about my politics or ethics. Instead, you're going to judge me and assume what I do and do not tolerate based on what I looked like. If I see a guy with a MAGA hat on and go "Oh hey, you must be a racist!" how is that different from me pointing to a black man and saying "Hey! I bet you abandoned your child and are on your way to get some fried chicken!"


...but, my point is, if someone puts on a MAGA hat, they're a supporter of President Trump, and President Trump has pushed xenophobic policies since he's come to the White House, as well as made a number of statements that are either extremely suggestive of racism, or supportive of white nationalism, so there's strong evidence that Trump himself is a racist in his personal actions and legislative actions. So, if someone is choosing to signify support for an unpopular, extremely divisive probable racist, is it at least a reasonable conclusion to guess that there's a high liklihood that the wearer, as a supporter of a racist, is likely themselves a racist? 

I mean, sure, it falls short of definitive proof... But, yeah, it has a fairly high probability of being a correct assumption, and I'm not overly interested in wasting time splitting hairs, especially since anyone concerned with whether or not they might be mistaken for a racist could just take the damned hat off. 

Shoulder is... eh, it'll be ok. I had a driver cut me off last wednesday while I was out on my road bike, leaving town for a training ride. Guy saw a gap and took a left hand turn across traffic without checking the bike lane, and pulled right in front of me while I was coming up at around 25mph. I had just enough time to swear and grab the brakes before I caught the back of his car over the passanger side rear wheel well with my shoulder at nearly full speed. It fucking hurt.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

^Shit dude! Well I'm glad you're okay at least, but seriously fuck that guy!


----------



## Drew

He was super apologetic, so I believe he legitimately wasn't aware I was there and it wasn't malicious or anything. At the same time, he was negligent as fuck, stuck around to give me a name and number but left while I was calling 911 (I had a picture of his car and plates by then) and wasn't there for the police report (which honestly doesn't do him any favors unless he'd been drinking or something), and considering I was a vehicle moving straight in a marked bike lane and he was turning across traffic, he was pretty clearly at fault in the accident. And I was on a VERY expensive road bike, lol.

A week later I'm basically alternating between not being in much pain at all, with occasional waves of so much pain I just have to sit there and grit my teeth for a minute or two until it passes, but for the most part it's nothing I cant tune out, and it should heal cleanly based on where it broke. And it could have gone a LOT worse - had he turned a second later and caught me head on I'd probably be drooling on myself in a hospital bed somewhere.


----------



## MetalHex

possumkiller said:


> fucking nazi.


How do you define nazi if its not a pro-socialist? Because it seems that you have made up your own definition.



possumkiller said:


> fucking nazi.


You realize this buzzword is the equivalent of "libtard snowflake" don't you?



possumkiller said:


> People that don't want trans guys beating the fuck out of women in sports want ISIS to win.


HUUUUUUH????


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> He was super apologetic, so I believe he legitimately wasn't aware I was there and it wasn't malicious or anything. At the same time, he was negligent as fuck, stuck around to give me a name and number but left while I was calling 911 (I had a picture of his car and plates by then) and wasn't there for the police report (which honestly doesn't do him any favors unless he'd been drinking or something), and considering I was a vehicle moving straight in a marked bike lane and he was turning across traffic, he was pretty clearly at fault in the accident. And I was on a VERY expensive road bike, lol.
> 
> A week later I'm basically alternating between not being in much pain at all, with occasional waves of so much pain I just have to sit there and grit my teeth for a minute or two until it passes, but for the most part it's nothing I cant tune out, and it should heal cleanly based on where it broke. And it could have gone a LOT worse - had he turned a second later and caught me head on I'd probably be drooling on myself in a hospital bed somewhere.


People would hit you before so much as look at you! Do you think he was looking at his phone?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

MetalHex said:


> People would hit you before so much as look at you! Do you think he was looking at his phone?




Entirely possible, especially these days. Fact is what people don't understand is that when it's a car colliding into another car, yeah, it's dangerous, but for a biker or someone riding a bicycle, it's that much more fatal which is why extra special care needs to be given. These days, people just don't give a fuck, though.


----------



## MetalHex

PunkBillCarson said:


> Entirely possible, especially these days. Fact is what people don't understand is that when it's a car colliding into another car, yeah, it's dangerous, but for a biker or someone riding a bicycle, it's that much more fatal which is why extra special care needs to be given. These days, people just don't give a fuck, though.


Its why I would never ride my bike on any road other than a small residential sidestreet


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess I do.
> Politicians are to provide a service, and the quality of said service comes before all else.
> I don't choose doctors or plumbers because I like them as people. I choose them because they are the most qualified and capable to do the job I need them to do.



I was referring more to the strange wording of the bolded "quote." Kind of a joke 



> So? Doesn't make it fine. I'm not perfect, but I'm not running for public office.
> We should try to elect the best. I never supported curtailing people's rights to be who they are or supported medical torture. Had I done that, it would probably worth mentioning if I decided to run for high public office.



Maybe, but I'm not sure it should hold the weight you're implying it should. People change. 10+ years is a long time.
You guys recoiled at mention of her name as if she's some cringe top-hat avatar-using YouTuber on a quest to own the SJWs. She said some dumb shit in her early 20s, got some real life experience, and realized that surprise; people in their early 20s actually _*don't *_have the world all figured out. I don't see why that should follow her for the rest of her career.

This is my whole beef with 'cancel culture' in general. Who was it, was it Kevin Hart? That lost their gig for hosting the Oscars or something like over some dumb shit they said off hand like 10 years ago that wasn't even all that bad? I feel like people are slowly forgetting how to let go and move on.



> Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.



Yeah, not gunna do it for me. Both have caved to the pressure to play identity politics. That shit is toxic and needs to disappear ASAP.

I will say I appreciate that both have silicon valley in their sights; but they aren't concerned about the full picture, to my knowledge. Their primary concern is a breakup.
And for the record, like you, I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong," just that I have my opinions for a reason and I think they're justifiable; not simply because "she stuck her thumb in the eye of at least one SJW segment of the population."



Drew said:


> ...but, my point is, if someone puts on a MAGA hat, they're a supporter of President Trump, and President Trump has pushed xenophobic policies since he's come to the White House, as well as made a number of statements that are either extremely suggestive of racism, or supportive of white nationalism, so there's strong evidence that Trump himself is a racist in his personal actions and legislative actions. So, if someone is choosing to signify support for an unpopular, extremely divisive probable racist, is it at least a reasonable conclusion to guess that there's a high liklihood that the wearer, as a supporter of a racist, is likely themselves a racist?
> 
> I mean, sure, it falls short of definitive proof... But, yeah, it has a fairly high probability of being a correct assumption, and I'm not overly interested in wasting time splitting hairs, especially since anyone concerned with whether or not they might be mistaken for a racist could just take the damned hat off.
> 
> Shoulder is... eh, it'll be ok. I had a driver cut me off last wednesday while I was out on my road bike, leaving town for a training ride. Guy saw a gap and took a left hand turn across traffic without checking the bike lane, and pulled right in front of me while I was coming up at around 25mph. I had just enough time to swear and grab the brakes before I caught the back of his car over the passanger side rear wheel well with my shoulder at nearly full speed. It fucking hurt.



Well that's a hell of a wednesday afternoon. Sounds like it could have been much worse though, so...you know, small victories I guess. That's rough man.

Personally, in a vacuum I'm inclined to agree with your summary. If you don't want to risk it, take the damn hat off.
Buuuuuuuuttttt.....isn't that kind of like the political version of "oh honey, you shouldn't go out dressed like that"?
Is it right if I say "statistically, white people commit a disproportionately high amount of mass shootings, therefore I think there's a higher likelihood that this guy's a murderer"? 

So someone puts the MAGA hat on. They support the president. We agree on this.
The president is a xenophobe. Well, agree to disagree, but even if you assume that's true, now what? If I support the man, does that I mean I support everything he does? 
I mean, look at the parallel conversation I'm having with Max right now. Tulsi has a few policies I very, very strongly agree with, and some others that I think are dumb. Am I not permitted to wear a 'Vote Tulsi' shirt until I agree with _*all*_ of her policies?

How many candidates have you _*fully*_ supported in your lifetime? 
Or, more relevant to this board...how many guys have you seen in a band shirt for a band they've never listened to / gone to a show? 

That also folds back into "How many of them _*are even aware*_ of everything that he's done / said / supported / attempted?" 
I don't think you're gunna win me over on this one, Drew. I just can't see a situation where making those kind of assumptions about people is productive.



MetalHex said:


> HUUUUUUH????



He's being facetious.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

^Well the biggest question there is you know with Progressivism, the idea is to progress and move on from mistakes in the past and learn from them. It seems to me that in today's world there's only enough room for people to learn from other people's mistakes rather than a person moving on from their own mistakes. If you learn from someone else's racially charged bullshit, it's considered that you're breaking the cycle but a person for some reason can't do that for themselves and to me, that's bullshit.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Maybe, but I'm not sure it should hold the weight you're implying it should



Again, not saying she needs to burned at the stake for it, but it's something to consider. 



> People change. 10+ years is a long time.



Six years. That was the gap between calling gay folks who wanted to get married "homosexual extremists" and apologizing when it started threatening her future political career.

Color me hopeful, yet unimpressed. 



> You guys recoiled at mention of her name as if she's some cringe top-hat avatar-using YouTuber on a quest to own the SJWs.



I just said she's not my favorite and didn't like the baggage, which is obviously going to come up more than once on the campaign trail.



> She said some dumb shit in her early 20s, got some real life experience, and realized that surprise; people in their early 20s actually _*don't *_have the world all figured out. I don't see why that should follow her for the rest of her career.



Again, that's fine. 



> This is my whole beef with 'cancel culture' in general. Who was it, was it Kevin Hart? That lost their gig for hosting the Oscars or something like over some dumb shit they said off hand like 10 years ago that wasn't even all that bad? I feel like people are slowly forgetting how to let go and move on.



What have I said that implies that I've "canceled" her? 

It's easy to gloss over past wrongs when they have no effect on you. 

I have no ill will towards Gabbard, but when campaigning for something as significant as high office, I don't think all past acts should disappear. They should be evaluated and considered. 



> Yeah, not gunna do it for me. Both have caved to the pressure to play identity politics. That shit is toxic and needs to disappear ASAP.
> 
> I will say I appreciate that both have silicon valley in their sights; but they aren't concerned about the full picture, to my knowledge. Their primary concern is a breakup.
> And for the record, like you, I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong," just that I have my opinions for a reason and I think they're justifiable; not simply because "she stuck her thumb in the eye of at least one SJW segment of the population."



We all have different causes we hold dear. Just as you're willing to look past Gabbards past homophobia, I'm willing to give Sanders and Warren wiggle room on certain issues. 

In the end, I'd hope that when the time comes we'll both vote for the candidate who we feel will do best for the country and it's people, and not get held up on smaller issues. But if not, it's a free country. Vote how you will. 

Honestly, the fact that someone who tends to lean towards the right/libertarian side like yourself is willing to endorse a far left progressive is great.


----------



## StevenC

Damn @Drew, get well soon!


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> The jury is still out on ol' Possum.


Nope. The public defender kept talking about 20 years (5 years each for four counts consecutive) over that bullshit if I went to trial and lost so I said fuck it and plead no contest in exchange for a reduction to one count, withholding adjudication, and three years probation. 

Nine years later and I still can't get a decent job...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Nine years later and I still can't get a decent job...



Even in Poland? That's rough dude.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Even in Poland? That's rough dude.


Well I haven't really tried in Poland. My wife has a good job. I get paid studying online by the GI Bill and for taking care of our autistic little boy. One of us has to work and the other stays home. It just turns out I make more staying at home right now. I drove trucks for a couple of years before we moved here. I wouldn't recommend it. I was losing money driving for Crete.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Six years. That was the gap between calling gay folks who wanted to get married "homosexual extremists" and apologizing when it started threatening her future political career.



And two tours of duty in the Middle East. Tends to put a lot of things into perspective. I get what you're saying though.



> What have I said that implies that I've "canceled" her?



Nothing of the sort! Sorry, that piece wasn't directed at you. More of a general rant. It's the same type of attitude, though; the difference is that not everyone is reasonable about it. A moderate dose of skepticism is healthy, but 'cancel culture' overall tends to be ham-fisted. It's like the 'fool me once' saying, but instead jumping straight to 'fool me once, never work again.' Totally didn't mean to lump you in with that though and I apologize that it came off that way.

In other news, researchers have finally confirmed that it's easy to misinterpret tone on the internet


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

efiltsohg said:


>


Uncle Joe Creepy gropin' like it's 1986.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

PunkBillCarson said:


> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3b7j3j/fallon-fox-is-a-woman-get-over-it-925


This whole thing was just... it just seemed unnecessary. Plus a lot of people were doing backflips and other gymnastics trying to explain away someone who was born male in a women's league beating up another woman to the point of injury.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> And two tours of duty in the Middle East. Tends to put a lot of things into perspective. I get what you're saying though.



Those two tours give her a lot of cred, especially in circles that are typically more conservative. 

It's probably what lead to her current foreign policy stances, which I generally understand if not outright agree with. I could do without the anti-Muslim coding and cozying up with Assad, but it's still better than most on the other side of the aisle who have no qualms with Saudi Arabia, which is arguably more problematic.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/7285...ews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

So this is the unlikeliest of duos....


----------



## vilk

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, choice doesn't play a part in it and I don't know where you got that from.



You made a false equivalency between being black and choosing to purchase and then wear in public a hat representative of support for a racist man with racist political policies.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> If skin pigmentation was a controllable feature


 lol wow man... That is quite the hypothetical. No racial slavery. No Civil War. No racial lynchings. No MLK day.

Just to be clear, judging people by how they choose to appear, and especially their apparel, is not equivalent to racial discrimination or stereotyping. If I see a black guy and assume he listens to hip hop, that is different than seeing a black guy in a Tupac shirt and assuming he listens to hip hop.

You're right that it might not be 100% accurate. I see these Hollywood celebs wearing metal shirts for fashion. So what percent of metal shirt wearers do you think they account for? 0.00005% maybe?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/7285...ews&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social
> 
> So this is the unlikeliest of duos....



...surprisingly wholesome. I love it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> *lol wow man... That is quite the hypothetical*. No racial slavery. No Civil War. No racial lynchings. No MLK day.
> 
> Just to be clear, judging people by how they choose to appear, and especially their apparel, is not equivalent to racial discrimination or stereotyping. If I see a black guy and assume he listens to hip hop, that is different than seeing a black guy in a Tupac shirt and assuming he listens to hip hop.
> 
> You're right that it might not be 100% accurate. I see these Hollywood celebs wearing metal shirts for fashion. So what percent of metal shirt wearers do you think they account for? 0.00005% maybe?



Yeahhhhhhhh boi it is. We're goin deep.
But no, no it isn't different. At least, not in the literal sense. You're doing the same thing in both instances, it's just that one has a much higher chance of you being correct than the other.



> ster·e·o·type
> /ˈsterēəˌtīp/
> _noun_
> noun: *stereotype*; plural noun: *stereotypes*
> 
> 1.
> a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.



This is exactly what "red hat = racist" is. Statistically, you may well be right. It may well be the case that if you poll 100 random americans and 100 MAGAbois, that there's triple the number of racists in that group. I wouldn't blame you for having _suspicions_ that they may not exactly buy into the 'cultural melting pot' idea. But you can't know for sure, and as long as there is _*one single guy*_ in that group that is _*not*_ a racist, you're in the wrong making that assumption.

--
Edit- I should also add that I recognize in your two examples there is an additional difference as well, and that is the _reason_ behind the assumption. The first example comes from some sort of racial stereotype, and would serve as a good indicator of bad faith. The second comes from a visual cue in the form of the shirt, and you made a logical 1 to 1 conversion from Tupac shirt -> Tupac listener. Not an indicator of bad faith. That's just like the Red hat -> Trump supporter connection. Logical conversion, no issue.
But if you applied the same chain of logic being used here for the red hats, (which goes something like Red hat -> Trump supporter -> Trump has some nasty immigration policies -> Probably hates immigrants -> is a racist) and went from Tupac shirt -> Tupac listener -> fan of hip-hop -> some hip-hop artists are involved in gangs -> supporter of gang violence; this is clearly being done in bad faith, and if you do this, you aren't treating this person fairly.

Hope that explains my thought process a bit more clearly.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1012646

'Now Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens


----------



## vilk

Oh I gotcha. We're pretending that Trump supporters don't understand that Trump is a racist and that his policies are racial. "Muslim ain't a race!" Etc. Strong point. I gotta admit, Muslim ain't a race. And Mexican ain't no race neither!

Edit: unless we're just saying that they're too _stupid_ to understand... I could possibly buy into that.


----------



## Explorer

Let's instead say that wearers of MAGA hats have no problem overlooking the racist policies and actions of Donald Trump, and others who view such actions and policies as racist also view those who are happily complicit in promoting such (by wearing the red hats) are at least racist enough to not be bothered by the racism of what they are willfully overlooking. 

Now, one might argue that it's not racist to overlook a policy to take brown children from their parents and put in cages at the southern border, while no such thing has happened at the northern border. One might also argue that it's not racist to embrace someone who finds fine people among Nazis. 

I personally find that if someone is okay with embracing a person that racist, that friendly with Nazis, and is okay with ignoring that kind of racism, there's no practical benefit to giving such a person the benefit of the doubt. They already went over the line, just as I'd not hang with people who were okay with being friends with a rapist. "Oh, he's never raped anyone we know, so what's the problem?" No, I'm good judging people by the company they keep and the people and policies they embrace.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.



You're splitting hairs unnecessarily. 

I used to have a Bernie Sanders sticker on my car. I used to listen to 'Brunch with Bernie' when he was an obscure congressman from an sleepy neighboring state, and I was amazed after following him for 10+ years that he was running for president and had a shot. For me, the sticker was half an endorsement of him for the job and worn out of pride for how far he'd come.

So the primary played out, there were a lot of blows traded and it was an ugly battle that left a lot of bruises on both of them and neither looked especially clean at the tail end of it. I also fully bought into the narrative that Bernie created during the primary about Hillary being bought/sold by Wall Street and all that. To that extent I fully drank the Kool Aid.

Then we get out of the primary and Bernie went on the road to endorse Hillary and it was full capitulation. And I was really bitter a few ways, one, that he was pushing so hard for someone he convinced us was so crooked and two, that it was disingenuous to try to get people to vote for him by lobbing headshots at the woman that were either untrue or will fully ignoring them to jockey for a position with her.

At that point, I decided it was time to peel the sticker off. Not because I thought Bernie was watching it happen through a pair of binoculars and it was going to effect him some way but because I thought the BRAND had been tained enough that I didn't want anyone to see my sticker and assume it was an endorsement of what his name had come to represent. I didn't want to park my car somewhere, get out of car and have someone confront me on what I personally didn't find defensible.

That's my parallel to the MAGA hat. You don't wear the hat out in public and not know the impression people get from it. Maybe if you're living under a rock but this has been the most publicly broadcast administration in history by far and the guy even posts his positions free for the public to see with no filter, no buffer. And the guys positions have been so abhorrent and so blatant, it's near impossible to interpret the guys brand any other way.

So, if you wear the MAGA in public, you have to at least consider someone will want to have a conversation about it. If you feel comfortable defending the brand, you're going to have to do a healthy amount of convincing me you're not knowingly defending a racist with racist policies, so if that's the hill you choose to die on, it's some crazy mental gymnastics to put that much effort into it and NOT have them reflect your own beliefs. Or you're just an asshole and you like chaos for the sake of chaos, so you wear things just to provoke a reaction out of people. 

Anyway yes, I'll relieve you of the burden that you've spent two full days on. Yes a person can wear a MAGA hat and not be a racist. Maybe they can't read. Maybe they just like the color red. Maybe it was a gift someone and theres sentimental value. Maybe they have a dick growing out of the top of their head and it was the nearest object they could grab to hide their shame. You're absolutely right, hair officially split, thank you for holding up a mirror to our narrow-mindedness.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> Now, one might argue that it's not racist to overlook a policy to take brown children from their parents and put in cages at the southern border, while no such thing has happened at the northern border. One might also argue that it's not racist to embrace someone who finds fine people among Nazis.


Uh, wasn't it started _before _Trump, and done to make sure the children weren't being trafficked or some shit?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Uh, wasn't it started _before _Trump, and done to make sure the children weren't being trafficked or some shit?



Not mandatory indefinite familial separation.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> Let's instead say that wearers of MAGA hats have no problem overlooking the racist policies and actions of Donald Trump, and others who view such actions and policies as racist also view those who are happily complicit in promoting such (by wearing the red hats) are at least racist enough to not be bothered by the racism of what they are willfully overlooking.
> 
> I personally find that if someone is okay with embracing a person that racist, that friendly with Nazis, and is okay with ignoring that kind of racism, there's no practical benefit to giving such a person the benefit of the doubt. They already went over the line, just as I'd not hang with people who were okay with being friends with a rapist. "Oh, he's never raped anyone we know, so what's the problem?" No, I'm good judging people by the company they keep and the people and policies they embrace.





Ordacleaphobia said:


> Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.





Randy said:


> You're splitting hairs unnecessarily.
> 
> ...If you feel comfortable defending the brand, you're going to have to do a healthy amount of convincing me you're not knowingly defending a racist with racist policies, so if that's the hill you choose to die on, it's some crazy mental gymnastics to put that much effort into it and NOT have them reflect your own beliefs.


I'm familiar with people who have expressed the same frustration as Orda's. Most of them went through all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain why their religious bigotry wasn't really bigotry, wanting me to agree that if they came to a bigotry in a godly way, it wasn't bigotry. 

I'm pretty sure if Orda went to the effort, he'd squirm while trying to say that his overlooking the racism doesn't mean he's okay with it, but he's going to roll with it. That kind of "Good German" argument doesn't fly, but maybe he'd surprise us with something completely novel!

I'm not really expecting that in any way, shape or form, but it's a very small but distinctly non-zero infinitesimal possibility....


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> Now, one might argue that it's not racist to overlook a policy to take brown children from their parents and put in cages at the southern border, while no such thing has happened at the northern border. One might also argue that it's not racist to embrace someone who finds fine people among Nazis.
> 
> I'm good judging people by the company they keep and the people and policies they embrace.





Spaced Out Ace said:


> Uh, wasn't it started _before _Trump, and done to make sure the children weren't being trafficked or some shit?





MaxOfMetal said:


> Not mandatory indefinite familial separation.


Yeah, that one part you responded to, your attempt to push this on a different policy, wasn't the same as Trump's deliberately punitive policy, crafted to create irreparable trauma in children. "That'll teach 'em!" Trump also has wanted his currently delusional wall to have physical feature which don't just deter, but injure. 

I'm pretty sure you deliberately skipped this part, but since you quoted it, I can assure you that no president before Trump has found fine people among the genocidal Nazis. 

Out of curiosity, do you have any rationale you can express about why your embrace of a racist doesn't tacitly support his racist views, actions and policies?


----------



## Adieu

Anybody else getting a throbbing migraine from the politics of the day???

The Dems are a coalition of crazies with a hard-on for disruption without a second thought to consequences plus sell-outs who'll pick up any agenda for a few votes... and the Republican leadership is corrupt, of extremely dubious moral character, volatile, and blatant scofflaws at that.

What a mess


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Anybody else getting a throbbing migraine from the politics of the day???
> 
> The Dems are a coalition of crazies with a hard-on for disruption without a second thought to consequences plus sell-outs who'll pick up any agenda for a few votes... and the Republican leadership is corrupt, of extremely dubious moral character, volatile, and blatant scofflaws at that.
> 
> What a mess



It gets frustrating for sure. 

But you do what you can. Try to stay relatively informed and try to keep it to as legitimate of sources as you can, and then when the opportunity arises vote as best you can. 

As long as I've been alive politics has been like this for the most part, and I don't see it changing dramatically anytime soon. 

I do think the next few elections are very important though. Not that any aren't, but it just seems more so right now. 

Oh well. Sit back, have a beer, and enjoy the weekend.


----------



## possumkiller

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Sometimes I really don't know why I bother.


I know. It's not about the hat at all.

I thought it was a pretty simple concept that judging and assuming things about people based on appearance and making blanket statements about groups of people was in bad form. I thought it would be obvious since there are racially diverse and LGBTQ people hanging out here. It goes both ways and that's what a lot of this crowd still have to learn.
Sometimes people here don't really come across as liberal or left-wing as much as they just come across as angry militant anti-right. They will make angry rants all day long about right-leaning people being hateful bigots while making the exact same types of assumptions and blanket statements they are accusing them of.

Nobody seems to get the idea that it's not at all about the hat. They think making assumptions and blanket statements about people is fine as long as it's about the right kind of people. Talk about the pot calling the kettle African-American...

For me it's not splitting hairs at all. It's just fairness. I'm not right-wing anymore and don't care to defend them but I will definitely defend being fair to people. Except MetalHex. That guy is a freaking loon.

Tldr. Making assumptions and blanket statements about anyone isn't right. Being fair means you have to be fair to people you don't like as well as the ones you do like.


----------



## possumkiller

Poopie


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> I know. It's not about the hat at all.
> 
> I thought it was a pretty simple concept that judging and assuming things about people based on appearance and making blanket statements about groups of people was in bad form. I thought it would be obvious since there are racially diverse and LGBTQ people hanging out here. It goes both ways and that's what a lot of this crowd still have to learn.
> Sometimes people here don't really come across as liberal or left-wing as much as they just come across as angry militant anti-right. They will make angry rants all day long about right-leaning people being hateful bigots while making the exact same types of assumptions and blanket statements they are accusing them of.
> 
> Nobody seems to get the idea that it's not at all about the hat. They think making assumptions and blanket statements about people is fine as long as it's about the right kind of people. Talk about the pot calling the kettle African-American...
> 
> For me it's not splitting hairs at all. It's just fairness. I'm not right-wing anymore and don't care to defend them but I will definitely defend being fair to people. Except MetalHex. That guy is a freaking loon.
> 
> Tldr. Making assumptions and blanket statements about anyone isn't right. Being fair means you have to be fair to people you don't like as well as the ones you do like.



This conversation started because someone paralleled the red hat with the swastika. So we're to assume that it's also unfair to make assumptions of a person wearing a swastika?


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> This conversation started because someone paralleled the red hat with the swastika. So we're to assume that it's also unfair to make assumptions of a person wearing a swastika?


Before the end of WW2, sure. Being in nazi German territory and not wearing a swastika was pretty dangerous. After the Holocaust was made public knowledge and the world taught for generations what Germany's swastika stood for? Idk, I would need to talk to someone from Finland about it. It was their national symbol before and after nazi Germany. 
The chances are much more slim that someone these days would be wearing a swastika and be ignorant of its connotations. However, teenagers love to do shit just to piss people off. I knew guys in school that drew swastikas everywhere just because it made people mad. 
Wasn't there some big K-POP chick apologizing for wearing a nazi swastika shirt recently? So even these days could I say with 100% certainty whether someone wearing a swastika is white supremacist or just a harmless idiot?

There are instances where the chances are so high that it is "safe to assume". Even so, that is still assuming which is the entire point. 
I would assume someone wearing a swastika to be a neo-nazi.
I would assume someone wearing a red maga hat to be racist.
I would assume a white guy with a confederate flag in a black neighborhood is asking for trouble.
I would assume a black guy with his pants around his knees wearing a bunch of blue bandanas is in a gang.
I would assume the chick in full mating face paint and stripper heels with her dress pulled above her ass and below her tits is asking for trouble.
I would assume someone sitting at a red light with a blinker on is about to make a turn.

Some assumptions are "safer" to make than others but they are all assumptions irregardless.

I know a person that uses confederate flags as home decor and isn't racist. 

I totally get what you guys are on about and I definitely agree that someone wearing a red maga hat at this point in history is probably racist. But that is an assumption just like any other.


----------



## narad

I assume someone using the word "irregardless" in a debate thread post is asking for trouble.


----------



## Explorer

possumkiller said:


> I know. It's not about the hat at all. I thought it was a pretty simple concept that judging and assuming things about people based on appearance and making blanket statements about groups of people was in bad form. I thought it would be obvious since there are racially diverse and LGBTQ people hanging out here. It goes both ways and that's what a lot of this crowd still have to learn.





Randy said:


> This conversation started because someone paralleled the red hat with the swastika. So we're to assume that it's also unfair to make assumptions of a person wearing a swastika?


Possumkiller makes a leap from one group (people with inherent characteristics like skin color and sexual characteristics) to people chosing to self-identify with a group repeatedly implementing prejudiced policy at best, and embracing Nazis on their race to the bottom at worst. 


possumkiller said:


> Sometimes people here don't really come across as liberal or left-wing as much as they just come across as angry militant anti-right. They will make angry rants all day long about right-leaning people being hateful bigots while making the exact same types of assumptions and blanket statements they are accusing them of.


I made clear fact-based statements about the kind of policies with which the hat-wearers are choosing to self-identify. The choice to self identify isn't the assumption. The policies they are at least tacitly supporting are not assumptions. So... what are the assumptions? 

I've been asking people who have been defending the hat as not racist to comment directly and to defend directly why they should not be identified with what they have chosen to self-identify themselves. I'm hopeful you will be the first to step up to the challenge.


----------



## possumkiller

Explorer said:


> Possumkiller makes a leap from one group (people with inherent characteristics like skin color and sexual characteristics) to people chosing to self-identify with a group repeatedly implementing prejudiced policy at best, and embracing Nazis on their race to the bottom at worst.
> 
> I made clear fact-based statements about the kind of policies with which the hat-wearers are choosing to self-identify. The choice to self identify isn't the assumption. The policies they are at least tacitly supporting are not assumptions. So... what are the assumptions?
> 
> I've been asking people who have been defending the hat as not racist to comment directly and to defend directly why they should not be identified with what they have chosen to self-identify themselves. I'm hopeful you will be the first to step up to the challenge.


So you would say that every person that waved a nazi flag in Germany was all for extermination of Jews? You don't think there is a chance that some people think Trump/Hitler genuinely did something to improve their life in some way and support that without agreeing with any other policies? 

Forget about skin color. The choice to dress up like a thug is inviting assumptions.
Dressing up like a tart is inviting assumptions. 
Wearing a rainbow is inviting assumptions.
Chopping your dick off is inviting assumptions.
The point you are clearly avoiding is not defending racists. The point is me assuming a red hat is racist is the exact same thing as me assuming blue bandanas and saggy pants are gangster. It's an assumption no matter how many ways you want to slice it. The same sides of a different coin. 
While I would most likely be correct in assuming a red hat is racist, IT'S STILL AN ASSUMPTION.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> So you would say that every person that waved a nazi flag in Germany was all for extermination of Jews? You don't think there is a chance that some people think Trump/Hitler genuinely did something to improve their life in some way and support that without agreeing with any other policies?



Ignorance or apathy to one deed or deeds doesn't negate responsibility.

You can't compartmentalize like that in the real world.

I'm sure there's _someone_ out there that's a huge Hitler fan because they love Volkswagen. 



> IT'S STILL AN ASSUMPTION.



Much like cellular biology is just a theory.


----------



## Explorer

possumkiller said:


> So you would say that every person that waved a nazi flag in Germany was all for extermination of Jews? You don't think there is a chance that some people think Trump/Hitler genuinely did something to improve their life in some way and support that without agreeing with any other policies?


They were willing to implicitly support the Final Solution in order to achieve their other, possibly unrelated goals. They went along like good Germans. 

I get your logic, though. "If I don't argue against the racism, then I can get something from this power structure!" And yes, that's lending support to the racism, which is racist. 

Again, do you care to get specific about how throwing your support to someone implementing racist policies, in order to get unrelated policies, isn't supporting racism? 



possumkiller said:


> Forget about skin color. The choice to dress up like a thug is inviting assumptions. The point is me assuming a red hat is racist is the exact same thing as me assuming blue bandanas and saggy pants are gangster.


Baggy pants, not just a gangster thing. Wearing gang colors in a way to signal gang membership or affiliation though, yeah. 


possumkiller said:


> Dressing up like a tart is inviting assumptions.


I've learned from this very topic that a lot of people on the right don't understand consent to be part of sex. What assumption do you personally make in this case?


possumkiller said:


> Wearing a rainbow is inviting assumptions.
> Chopping your dick off is inviting assumptions.


The rainbow, obviously a member or supporter of LGBTQ. I do like how you skipped the sections of this topic, along with all current discussion from the fields of medicine and psychology relating to transgenderism, and went for the visceral. You not trying to go for facts is an observation based on that evidence, not an assumption.


possumkiller said:


> The point you are clearly avoiding is not defending racists. It's an assumption no matter how many ways you want to slice it. The same sides of a different coin.
> While I would most likely be correct in assuming a red hat is racist, IT'S STILL AN ASSUMPTION.


I've stated that tacitly supporting an exponent of racism, including by self-identifying with a racist group, is racist, in the same way I'd agree that self-identifying with gang colors and protocols shows one to be on-board with that gang. That tacit support and self-identification are the result of choices to do so.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ignorance or apathy to one deed or deeds doesn't negate responsibility.
> 
> You can't compartmentalize like that in the real world.
> 
> I'm sure there's _someone_ out there that's a huge Hitler fan because they love Volkswagen.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like cellular biology is just a theory.


So how is lumping all of Germany in with the Nazis any better than lumping middle eastern people in with terrorists? 
I'm not going to make any excuses for other people because I don't need to. There are any number of reasons why people do what they do. 
There were plenty of people wearing swastikas that didn't agree with nazi policies. There were plenty of people wearing soviet stars that didn't agree with communism. Myself and plenty of other people fought for years in the middle east and strongly disagreed with being there. 



Explorer said:


> They were willing to implicitly support the Final Solution in order to achieve their other, possibly unrelated goals. They went along like good Germans.
> 
> I get your logic, though. "If I don't argue against the racism, then I can get something from this power structure!" And yes, that's lending support to the racism, which is racist.
> 
> Again, do you care to get specific about how throwing your support to someone implementing racist policies, in order to get unrelated policies, isn't supporting racism?
> 
> 
> Baggy pants, not just a gangster thing. Wearing gang colors in a way to signal gang membership or affiliation though, yeah.
> 
> I've learned from this very topic that a lot of people on the right don't understand consent to be part of sex. What assumption do you personally make in this case?
> 
> The rainbow, obviously a member or supporter of LGBTQ. I do like how you skipped the sections of this topic, along with all current discussion from the fields of medicine and psychology relating to transgenderism, and went for the visceral. You not trying to go for facts is an observation based on that evidence, not an assumption.
> 
> I've stated that tacitly supporting an exponent of racism, including by self-identifying with a racist group, is racist, in the same way I'd agree that self-identifying with gang colors and protocols shows one to be on-board with that gang. That tacit support and self-identification are the result of choices to do so.


No I'm afraid you don't get my logic. 
Both of you are trying to get so deep into it that you are either missing or purposefully ignoring the point I've stated several times over. 

Are you wanting to try and paint me as some sort of racist red hat nazi lover? Because I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that a red hat is a racist?

I've never once defended what those things stand for or the people that choose to wear it. Yet somehow you keep ignoring that and try to act as if I am. I get the feeling that Explorer in particular has some sort of personal axe to grind. 

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You see words that you don't like or don't agree with and automatically assume that person is the bad guy. It's almost like you're on a quest to seek out evil and expose it. "I've got one! I've got one! This guy thinks we're not not being completely fair! He's a nazi-loving Trump supporter! I've exposed him guys now get him!", is the kind of vibe I get. Like some of those anti-muslim kids in the army that were just waiting for an excuse to pull the trigger. Maybe I'm wrong. That's just what I assume from the tone of your post.

All I ever said was making blanket statements and assumptions about people or groups of people is not fair in any case.
There is no way you or anyone else can know with 100% certainty whether or not someone is racist based on a hat. 

I didn't get away from hate and anger-filled right-wing extremism just to trade it for some hate and anger-filled left-wing extremism.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ignorance or apathy to one deed or deeds doesn't negate responsibility.
> 
> You can't compartmentalize like that in the real world.
> 
> I'm sure there's _someone_ out there that's a huge Hitler fan because they love Volkswagen.
> 
> 
> 
> Much like cellular biology is just a theory.


There's a Volkswagen in my town that has a sticker in the rear window saying "Volk-Swaggin since 1937".

Unsure if these people are stupid or nazis. Either way, certainly tasteless.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> So how is lumping all of Germany in with the Nazis any better than lumping middle eastern people in with terrorists?



Other than being born in the Middle East _not being a choice_ vs. _deciding_ that, one way or another, supporting the Nazi is in you or yours' best interest?



> I'm not going to make any excuses for other people because I don't need to. There are any number of reasons why people do what they do.
> There were plenty of people wearing swastikas that didn't agree with nazi policies. There were plenty of people wearing soviet stars that didn't agree with communism. Myself and plenty of other people fought for years in the middle east and strongly disagreed with being there.



At some point all those folks _decided it was better for them_ to go along with it. Was it actually better? Depends.

The choice was still made though. Do I blame them? Of course not. Those were some incredibly difficult times. Some of the worst in human history.

But someone living in America in 2019? Nah. They ain't no Oskar Schindler. 



StevenC said:


> There's a Volkswagen in my town that has a sticker in the rear window saying "Volk-Swaggin since 1937".
> 
> Unsure if these people are stupid or nazis. Either way, certainly tasteless.









Yikes. 

That was on the first page when Googling "volk swaggin".


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Other than being born in the Middle East _not being a choice_ vs. _deciding_ that, one way or another, supporting the Nazi is in you or yours' best interest?
> 
> 
> 
> At some point all those folks _decided it was better for them_ to go along with it. Was it actually better? Depends.
> 
> The choice was still made though. Do I blame them? Of course not. Those were some incredibly difficult times. Some of the worst in human history.
> 
> But someone living in America in 2019? Nah. They ain't no Oskar Schindler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> That was on the first page when Googling "volk swaggin".


That is actually reasonable and agreeable. Shit just isn't as cut and dry black and white as extremists on either side want to make it out to be.

I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt until they open their mouth and prove me wrong.


I've said before I was raised in a family with a lot of racism. I went to school saying the N word. Not because I was talking down to black people but because I literally thought that was a proper pronoun to address a black person with. I never sensed racism at home until I got older. I just saw them calling black people on TV the N word and thought that was proper. Why would my family lead me astray? 
Needless to say, calling black boys at school the N word resulted in a lot of ass beatings. So then I just thought black people were just naturally quick to violence and unpleasant to be around. Those ideas stuck with me and were reinforced all through school and into the army. 
When I was forced to depend on and live in intimate proximity with black people I naturally got to know them on deep levels. Suddenly the black people I knew didn't fit the ideas I developed in school and what my family culture taught me. 
No. People are just people. Most of us just want to live our lives in peace. If history and experience have taught me anything, it's that you can't just blanket whole groups of people based on some assholes. 

Even if every Trump supporter or republican is a racist everything-phobe, what do we do about it? Round them all up and put them in prisons? Make them register themselves and wear a mark? Eliminate them?


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> But someone living in America in 2019?


You don't think people in 1936 thought they were the peak of civilization?

I remember when, "Hey, it's the 90s." was a thing.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> There is no way you or anyone else can know with 100% certainty whether or not someone is racist based on a hat.


 
Which to me is splitting hairs, which is the second thing that got us where we are.

A lot of your arguments revolve around not knowing someone's intentions and masks personal decision (like wearing a red had or a swastika) by hiding it behind that wall. If you take the argument that wearing something dripping in racist subcontext is not a guarantee of racism, then you can apply the same concept onto the rest of the discussion. Maybe you use the N word because you you're just trying to be edgy. Maybe you burned down a synagogue because you've never met a Jewish person and all you know is what you read on 4chan and you'd otherwise be one yourself if you knew better.

Schrodinger's Racist, we can't assume anyone is racist until we've seen inside their brain clearly enough to determine if they're racist or just act racist or prefer racists. Sounds awfully hair splitty to me.

It's also funny how you and the other guy went on a crusade to remind us that making assumptions about people is some universally unfair thing and then you use terms like "personal axe to grind" or "angry militant anti-right" (presumptive) toward people that disagree with you.

The irony in all of this is that you're saying even if 100% of people who wear Trump hats or swastikas are racist, the physical item itself is not racist or it's existence doesn't guarantee racism. That's splitting hairs! The hair is, in reality, smaller but by scale relative to everything surrounding it, not appreciably so.

I never implied you walk up to a person wearing a red hat and punch them in the face before you exchange the first word. Actually, I don't think anybody did. I just said if you wear it, you know what you're doing.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> Even if every Trump supporter or republican is a racist everything-phobe, what do we do about it? Round them all up and put them in prisons? Make them register themselves and wear a mark? Eliminate them?



Nice reversal, A+

Trump branding has emboldened and validated racists. You think it's some kind of coincidence that they show up to Charlottesville all wearing the same uniform, use the same hand symbol, etc? Strength in numbers. Having something that they can display as a wink to one another (just like gang colors) has a unifying effect.

Nobody's talking about rounding them up and eliminating them. There's more of those assumptions you seem to hate so much. How about invalidating it as a position to be displayed in public as a strength or a rallying point? If you're a racist, you're free to think whatever you want but you can't parlay that into violence against others based on it or dictating policies counter to the majority of us that aren't or at least don't exact it's implications onto others.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Even if every Trump supporter or republican is a racist everything-phobe, what do we do about it? Round them all up and put them in prisons? Make them register themselves and wear a mark? Eliminate them?



Educate when you can. Shame when it needs to be shamed. Vote when you can.

You're not going to change everyone's mind, but we don't have to.

Every generation gets less and less racist and more and more progressive.

Non-violent attrition.



possumkiller said:


> You don't think people in 1936 thought they were the peak of civilization?
> 
> I remember when, "Hey, it's the 90s." was a thing.



I'm just not entirely on board with comparing current America to post-WWI Germany or Stalinist Russia, at least in this context.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Nice reversal, A+
> 
> Trump branding has emboldened and validated racists. You think it's some kind of coincidence that they show up to Charlottesville all wearing the same uniform, use the same hand symbol, etc? Strength in numbers. Having something that they can display as a wink to one another (just like gang colors) has a unifying effect.
> 
> Nobody's talking about rounding them up and eliminating them. There's more of those assumptions you seem to hate so much. How about invalidating it as a position to be displayed in public as a strength or a rallying point? If you're a racist, you're free to think whatever you want but you can't parlay that into violence against others based on it or dictating policies counter to the majority of us that aren't or at least don't exact it's implications onto others.


I'm obviously not a debate champion so I'm not sure what a reversal is.

Trump supporters show up at Charlottesville wearing the same uniforms and symbols and nod and a wink. Just like gangsters. Just like Freemasons. Just like LGBTQ groups. Just like religions or state and national flags or anything else groups of people use to identify with. Did the ANTIFA people just show up wearing whatever?

Where was the assumption? I thought it was a question.

I never said I hate assumptions. That's just something you assumed. We survive the world around us by constantly making assumptions. If I hadn't been assuming what stunts dick head drivers were going to pull around me when I drove a semi, I would've been at fault in a lot of accidents.

I said making assumptions about a person's character based on a hat is the same as making assumptions about people based on any other way they choose to dress or present themselves.

Is it not possible some old codger saw a hat in their favorite color that said make America great again and decided they like it?


MaxOfMetal said:


> Educate when you can. Shame when it needs to be shamed. Vote when you can.
> 
> You're not going to change everyone's mind, but we don't have to.
> 
> Every generation gets less and less racist and more and more progressive.
> 
> Non-violent attrition.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not entirely on board with comparing current America to post-WWI Germany or Stalinist Russia, at least in this context.


The first part was the answer I was hoping for.

The second part. Compare America to America. The point is that 80 years into the future people will be looking at 2019 the same as we look at 1936. People in 1936 were regular people like us at the peak of modern technology and civilization. When those mass genocides came to light, people were shocked that something so horrible could happen in these modern times. It kept happening on smaller scales all over the world all through these modern times and still goes on in some places. Anyway I'm rambling on and forgetting the point.

The point is if people on both sides would quit being dicks, they would see we all have a lot in common and can get shit done much easier by working together. 

The real enemy are the wealthy elites pitting us against one another to keep us distracted from the fact that they've taken all our money and bought the world to keep us down.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm just not entirely on board with comparing current America to post-WWI Germany or Stalinist Russia, at least in this context.



Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it

No, seriously... the rise of nasty populism and the erosion of the checks and balances of the law suggest that's EXACTLY where we should be looking for comparisons


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> The first part was the answer I was hoping for.
> 
> The second part. Compare America to America. The point is that 80 years into the future people will be looking at 2019 the same as we look at 1936. People in 1936 were regular people like us at the peak of modern technology and civilization. When those mass genocides came to light, people were shocked that something so horrible could happen in these modern times. It kept happening on smaller scales all over the world all through these modern times and still goes on in some places. Anyway I'm rambling on and forgetting the point.
> 
> The point is if people on both sides would quit being dicks, they would see we all have a lot in common and can get shit done much easier by working together.
> 
> The real enemy are the wealthy elites pitting us against one another to keep us distracted from the fact that they've taken all our money and bought the world to keep us down.





Adieu said:


> Those who fail history are doomed to repeat it
> 
> No, seriously... the rise of nasty populism and the erosion of the checks and balances of the law suggest that's EXACTLY where we should be looking for comparisons



Context folks. Context.

See bolded:



possumkiller said:


> So how is lumping all of Germany in with the Nazis any better than lumping middle eastern people in with terrorists?
> I'm not going to make any excuses for other people because I don't need to. There are any number of reasons why people do what they do.
> *There were plenty of people wearing swastikas that didn't agree with nazi policies. There were plenty of people wearing soviet stars that didn't agree with communism. Myself and plenty of other people fought for years in the middle east and strongly disagreed with being there. *



No one is being persecuted for _not_ wearing a MAGA hat the same way that those who didn't fall in line under the Nazi or Stalin regimes were.


----------



## MetalHex

The swastika symbol was adopted by group that identified itself as a socialist party movement, by definition, which is left wing ideology. Nothing right wing about it. Then, basically because of the whole holocaust thing, you end up with two things that are now associated with the swastika.....first being the socialist party movement, then the hatred of jews. That's two different perversions of the same symbol, now associated with the same party. It's amazing how the symbol and the word nazi is all of the sudden is now associated with right-wingers in modern times.

If you see any "right wingers" wear this symbol, I doubt they hold any true conservative and republican ideologies, theyre just asshats. Yeah im sure you can find some right wingers who hate non whites but you will find those types among all kinds of people. When you step back look at it from a new perspective, racism is just an "ism", which is just a branch of evil. 

I have to mention on a side note, all of the anti-white rhetoric among white liberal democrats and in the rampant media would otherwise have me convinced that if anyone is racist, its the self loathing democrats who feel guilty for what certain white people have done in the past, yet disregard all of the wonderful things white people have done and are ashamed of their own white european race. Democrats seem to be the champions of pointing out racism among white right wingers and fail to see it anywhere else in anyone else. That's why leftists love to throw the words racist and nazi at them. It's their preferred weapon of choice. They feel good saying it and think it takes the most damage points. Go up to a Korean guy and call him Chinese, he will have your head on a platter. I used to work with people like this. I would see the hatred and between this Vietnamese guy and this Laosian guy where everyday they would look down and talk down to each other saying things like, "your piece of shit country wouldnt be wearing clothes if it wasnt for us". He used to say that. They were so proud of their country that they hated everyone elses country. It was like the tribalism you see among die hard sports fans, but worse.

My point is that, if you are going to always point out racism, just remember that it is not just right wing southern whites, but everyone can be. I think liberal democrats are so apologetic and feel so guilty toward non whites, for something that their ancestors may or may not have done generations ago, and it comes off as some sort of phony sympathy. Because now they think we have to go around and fix all these supposed injustices, but dont any have any good solutions to fix them.

Also remember that all this racism, homophobism, islamophoism, all these isms, are really just different forms of evil. 

Which actually brings me to another point: the perversion of the word racism. People associate the word racism with "hatred of other races". When by definition, it means that you think your race is superior to others. Well, some races are superior to others in different ways. By and large, African people generally are taller, stronger, faster, and more athletic. They also dont get sun-burned. In that sense you can technically say that they are "genetically superior". Which I think to be true.....actually it is true. So I guess by definition that makes me a racist. But I certainly dont hate African people at all. So, in the understanding of the popular definition, I am not a racist. Which definition is it then? It's just one of those words that leftists love to throw around, and put a new meaning to it. The same way extreme leftists try to change the literal definition of the word "facist", to try to make it officially apply only to right wingers.

So we have the swastika, the word nazi, the word racist, and the word facist, all perverted by leftists. I wish it werent true. People who claim to be "progressives" are actually slowing things down with their bigotry.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

*sigh*

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302

tl;dr: 

The National Socialist German Workers' Party was about as socialist as the band members of Cannibal Corpse being dead people who feast on human flesh.



MetalHex said:


> They also dont get sun-burned.



I see you're as astute a dermatologist as you are a political scientist, historian, and mathematician. Bravo.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> The swastika symbol was adopted by group that identified itself as a socialist party movement, by definition, which is left wing ideology. Nothing right wing about it.


Citation needed. 

You'd have to be really idiotic to think there was anything left leaning about Hitler.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> *sigh*
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazism-socialism-and-the-falsification-of-history/10214302
> 
> tl;dr:
> 
> The National Socialist German Workers' Party was about as socialist as the band members of Cannibal Corpse being dead people who feast on human flesh.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're as astute a dermatologist as you are a political scientist, historian, and mathematician. Bravo.


*sigh*
https://mises.org/library/why-nazis...3pOhcYv6YNhBkznkTRoI9FztcOdQqakzPRjSA3eammYW8

Read the whole link too. Ive already read and heard all of the opposing talking points, that whole nazism isnt socialism is absolutely dead in the water. I see the misconception used as an argument all the time.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> *sigh*
> https://mises.org/library/why-nazis...3pOhcYv6YNhBkznkTRoI9FztcOdQqakzPRjSA3eammYW8
> 
> Read the whole link too. Ive already read and heard all of the opposing talking points, that whole nazism isnt socialism is absolutely dead in the water. I see the misconception used as an argument all the time.


Yeah, I don't think you understand what socialism is.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> *sigh*
> https://mises.org/library/why-nazis...3pOhcYv6YNhBkznkTRoI9FztcOdQqakzPRjSA3eammYW8
> 
> Read the whole link too. Ive already read and heard all of the opposing talking points, that whole nazism isnt socialism is absolutely dead in the water. I see the misconception used as an argument all the time.





> My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why *socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production*, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.



That's not what socialism is. If you change the definition to your liking, anything can be anything else.

Socialism, in it's most basic sense is public ownership of the means of production.

But it's a moot point as socialist democracies, which are what is being referred to today, are different than naked socialism. Think of it as a blend of socialism and capitalism, where private ownership is allowed, but regulated [not owned] for the public good, with capital moved to cost centers like healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. via taxation.

Communism, in certain stages, is where the government owns the means of production.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's not what socialism is. If you change the definition to your liking, anything can be anything else.
> 
> Socialism, in it's most basic sense is public ownership of the means of production.
> 
> But it's a moot point as socialist democracies, which are what is being referred to today, are different than naked socialism. Think of it as a blend of socialism and capitalism, where private ownership is allowed, but regulated [not owned] for the public good, with capital moved to cost centers like healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc. via taxation.
> 
> Communism, in certain stages, is where the government owns the means of production.


If you had read past the first sentence, you would read that,

"I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.

In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also _not socialist_. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.

The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.

The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.

As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.

I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature".

Not sure why you brought democratic socialism into it because thats not what the nazis stood for or implemented.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> If you had read past the first sentence, you would read that,
> 
> "I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.
> 
> In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also _not socialist_. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.
> 
> The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.
> 
> The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.
> 
> As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
> 
> I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature".



Again, mincing words to fit a preconceived theory. Cart before the horse. 

The Nazi Party was not socialist, as the public did not own the means of production. That's what socialism is, in definition. The author tries to use semantics, that enacting government control on economic tools, like currency, is the same as direct control and ownership, which it is not. It seems the author also forgot about how Nazi Germany was big into giving out war contracts to firms outside German control. Perhaps my mention of Oskar Schindler earlier was apt. 

It seems that you're confusing the public with government, at least Mises is, or perhaps more specifically the author of that blog post. 

But, if you're goal was to equate current notions of Democratic Socialism with the Nazis, you've done yourself a great disservice, as this piece specifically identifies them as different entities. I know words are hard, but Socialism and Democratic Socialism are vastly different.


----------



## thraxil

Don't forget, North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Just a bunch of Democrats over there.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> The Nazi Party was not socialist, as the public did not own the means of production. That's what socialism is, in definition. The author tries to use semantics, that enacting government control on economic tools, like currency, is the same as direct control and ownership, which it is not. It seems the author also forgot about how Nazi Germany was big into giving out war contracts to firms outside German control. Perhaps my mention of Oskar Schindler earlier was apt.
> 
> It seems that you're confusing the public with government, at least Mises is, or perhaps more specifically the author of that blog post.





MaxOfMetal said:


> But, if you're goal was to equate current notions of Democratic Socialism with the Nazis, you've done yourself a great disservice, as this piece specifically identifies them as different entities. I know words are hard, but Socialism and Democratic Socialism are vastly different.


No that isnt what I was trying to do. I do know the difference.

Why arent you addressing my point about falsely equating right wingers as racists since that what everyone here seems to do? Also I still believe nazi os the wrong term to equate them with.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> If you had read past the first sentence, you would read that,
> 
> "I need to anticipate a possible misunderstanding concerning my thesis that socialism is totalitarian by its nature. This concerns the allegedly socialist countries run by Social Democrats, such as Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, which are clearly not totalitarian dictatorships.
> 
> In such cases, it is necessary to realize that along with these countries not being totalitarian, they are also _not socialist_. Their governing parties may espouse socialism as their philosophy and their ultimate goal, but socialism is not what they have implemented as their economic system. Their actual economic system is that of a hampered market economy, as Mises termed it. While more hampered than our own in important respects, their economic system is essentially similar to our own, in that the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity is not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.
> 
> The reason that Social Democrats do not establish socialism when they come to power, is that they are unwilling to do what would be required. The establishment of socialism as an economic system requires a massive act of theft — the means of production must be seized from their owners and turned over to the state. Such seizure is virtually certain to provoke substantial resistance on the part of the owners, resistance which can be overcome only by use of massive force.
> 
> The Communists were and are willing to apply such force, as evidenced in Soviet Russia. Their character is that of armed robbers prepared to commit murder if that is what is necessary to carry out their robbery. The character of the Social Democrats in contrast is more like that of pickpockets, who may talk of pulling the big job someday, but who in fact are unwilling to do the killing that would be required, and so give up at the slightest sign of serious resistance.
> 
> As for the Nazis, they generally did not have to kill in order to seize the property of Germans other than Jews. This was because, as we have seen, they established socialism by stealth, through price controls, which served to maintain the outward guise and appearance of private ownership. The private owners were thus deprived of their property without knowing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force.
> 
> I think I have shown that socialism — actual socialism — is totalitarian by its very nature".
> 
> Not sure why you brought democratic socialism into it because thats not what the nazis stood for or implemented.


Ah, the No True Socialist fallacy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Why arent you addressing my point about falsely equating right wingers as racists and Nazi's though?



Because the terms "left" and "right" haven't always meant the same thing. They're terms that evolve continuously, changing with the societal norms of the time.

Heck, they go all the way back to the French Revolution, with the "left" standing for the creation of a republic and secularism while the "right" stood for upholding the monarchy and feudal system.

Folks on both sides of the political spectrum have the potential to be racist. Though, currently, it seems most racist organizations in this country lean right politically.

Your earlier "definition" of racist was inaccurate. In reality it's:

_"a person who shows or feels discrimination or *prejudice against people of other races*, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another"_

Additionally:

_"The United States Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism in the United States as "broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."_

Actual Nazis don't exist anymore, but white supremacist/nationalist groups who use Nazi imagery fall under the banner of "right wing extremism", notably for their anti-government and anti-civil rights stances. Colloquially, we just call them Nazis.

I think you're getting caught up in the language again. The "right" doesn't just mean "republican", just as "left" doesn't just mean "democrat". There are various ideologies that fall under those brackets. It's a spectrum.


----------



## ExileMetal

Again, with emphasis, as I mentioned it’s important to understand the term implicit. You can totally not be a racist and wear a MAGA hat, but it’s also completely irrelevant. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing, and admitting it is hard, especially when it forces you to compromise on something you might be passionate about.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> Then, basically because of the whole holocaust thing, you end up with two things that are now associated with the swastika.....first being the socialist party movement, then the hatred of jews.



Yup, when we think "Nazi" we all immediately must recall those two abhorrent atrocities: the holocaust and the single-payer healthcare system. I once visited the concentration camp at Auschwitz. It was hard to imagine that we arrived there traveling on roads that were once paid for by taxing the collective German people. Even today I believe those roads are not privately owned and operated, a testament to the continued legacy of the Nazi party.


----------



## MetalHex

MetalHex said:


> by definition, it means that you think your race is superior to others.





MaxOfMetal said:


> In reality it's:...._or who believes that a particular race is superior to another"_



^ Literally what I said almost word for word. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> "The United States Department of Homeland Security defines right-wing extremism in the United States as.....


So then how do they define left wing extremism? Let me google it real quickly. ::reading outloud while going down the list::, public opinion on right wing extremism, dont want that.....former extremists, no dont want that.....Organizational dynamics of far right hate groups, dont want that....The rise of far right extremism, no not that......terrorist attacks by religious and right wing extremism, nope......keep scrolling down.....the threat of white nationalism. Oh, I guess left wing extremism doesn't exist. Phew! For a second there I thought that the DHS was gonna mention at least Antifa. Nope.

It seems that the biased media's propaganda is in full swing, to the point where I google, "How does the United States Department of Homeland Security define left-wing extremism", and I dont just come up with absolutely nothing, but instead come up with a list of links talking about right-wing extremism.



MaxOfMetal said:


> white supremacist/nationalist groups who use Nazi imagery fall under the banner of "right wing extremism",


Was it always this way? I guess I still cant wrap my head around how a member of a socialist party (by definition. Whether they practiced socialism or not is beside their own name), can be a right winger.



MaxOfMetal said:


> think you're getting caught up in the language again. The "right" doesn't just mean "republican", just as "left" doesn't just mean "democrat".



Did you mean to say, "republican doesn't mean conservative as democrat doesn't necessarily mean liberal"? Because people tend to make that mistake. Anyways, replace all the times I said democrat, with liberal. My bad.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> ^ Literally what I said almost word for word.



Emphasis on _almost_. 

I gave you the full complete definition, including the part that you like glossing over/omitting for some reason. 

Here it is again:

_"a person who shows or feels discrimination or *prejudice against people of other races*, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another"_




> So then how do they define left wing extremism? Let me google it real quickly. ::reading outloud while going down the list::, public opinion on right wing extremism, dont want that.....former extremists, no dont want that.....Organizational dynamics of far right hate groups, dont want that....The rise of far right extremism, no not that......terrorist attacks by religious and right wing extremism, nope......keep scrolling down.....the threat of white nationalism. Oh, I guess left wing extremism doesn't exist. Phew! For a second there I thought that the DHS was gonna mention at least Antifa. Nope.
> 
> It seems that the biased media's propaganda is in full swing, to the point where I google, "How does the United States Department of Homeland Security define left-wing extremism", and I dont just come up with absolutely nothing, but instead come up with a list of links talking about right-wing extremism.



Again, you're misunderstanding what defines "left" and "right" within the context it's being used. 

When they say "right wing" they mean the part of historic right wing politics that represents the reduction of central government as well as the racial and class exclusionary aspects. 

They're not calling out "Republicans" or "Conservatives" in the sense of mainstream two party American politics.

Are you implying that the Republican established DHS, and the current Republican controlled DHS is somehow brainwashed by the media? 

For the record there are a number of DHS white papers available that mention left wing extremism, they're available publicly in PDF. 



> Was it always this way? I guess I still cant wrap my head around how a member of a socialist party (by definition. Whether they practiced socialism or not is beside their own name), can be a right winger.



Modern Neo-Nazi and adjacent groups are not socialist. Again, even if the original Third Reich was socialist (it wasn't) they are not who you see marching playing Nazi-dress up. They are different groups.



> Did you mean to say, "republican doesn't mean conservative as democrat doesn't necessarily mean liberal"? Because people tend to make that mistake. Anyways, replace all the times I said democrat, with liberal. My bad.



Republican. Democrat. Conservative. Liberal. Right. Left.

Those are all terms with various definitions and context around them. Believe it or not, there's a lot of overlap and nuance depending on specific issues and how different ideologies look to resolve them.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> a person who shows or feels discrimination or *prejudice against people of other races*, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another


Yeah that's the definition of racist.

*Definition of racism*

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

The english language is funny. If you call someone a racist, it can mean two different things. If you accuse someone of racism, it means just one thing, which dpes not include discrimination or prejudice.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Yeah that's the definition of racist.
> 
> *Definition of racism*
> 
> 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 
> The english language is funny. If you call someone a racist, it can mean two different things. If you accuse someone of racism, it means just one thing, which dpes not include discrimination or prejudice.



Cherry picking again.
_
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior"_

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism

It's even listed under the MW definition you're pulling from (see "3"):

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cherry picking again.
> _
> "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior"_
> 
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism
> 
> It's even listed under the MW definition you're pulling from (see "3"):
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism


You are right. Though I didn't intentionally cherry pick, I just didnt read past the first definition


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> You are right. Though I didn't intentionally cherry pick, I just didnt read past the first definition



Happens to the best of us.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Happens to the best of us.



And the worst!


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> When they say "right wing" they mean the part of historic right wing politics that represents the reduction of central government as well as the racial and class exclusionary aspects.





MaxOfMetal said:


> They're not calling out "Republicans" or "Conservatives" in the sense of mainstream two party American politics.



I guess I'm not understanding what you (they) mean then. To the first part of your first quote, dont republicans and conservatives both historically and present, believe in a smaller central government? How can they seperate the history and todays American politics then?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I guess I'm not understanding what you (they) mean then. To the first part of your first quote, dont republicans and conservatives both historically and present, believe in a smaller central government?



Current American Republicans do too many things that are antithetical to "smaller government". Things like farm and fossil fuel subsidies and limiting access to abortion services. Those both fall under more socialist and totalitarian policies.

They are also not fiscally conservative by any means either.



> How can they seperate the history and todays American politics then?



Again, words mean certain things.

The more you read up on what right and left has classically meant the more it'll make some sense.

I highly recommend reading up on this more, especially if politics is such an important part of your personality.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Personally, in a vacuum I'm inclined to agree with your summary. If you don't want to risk it, take the damn hat off.
> Buuuuuuuuttttt.....isn't that kind of like the political version of "oh honey, you shouldn't go out dressed like that"?.


First, thanks man. Fucking sucks, but at least I'm not drooling on myself in a hospital bed somewhere. It's just going to be a long couple weeks, and I'll say this - the level of pain associated with the broken bone and all the associated muscle damage/tightness is WAY beyond what the tylenol and ibuprofen is capable of handling.  It'll be a long couple weeks. 

To your analogy, I don't agree at all. By wearing a particular skirt or top or whatever, a woman is almost CERTAINLY not trying to broadcast a message, but the "you shouldn't have worn that" argument basically says that if a man received a message anyway, it's her fault he wasn't able to control herself, so it's her responsibility to proactively _not_ broadcast a certain message about her sexuality by whatever means necessary. A man (or woman) in a MAGA hat, on the other hand, is almost definitively TRYING to broadcast a message, barring the slight outside possibility that he just is totally unfamiliar with the slogan and grabbed the nearest hat to keep his head covered. It's an active choice, whereas "you shouldn't go out like that" is an exhortation to woman to _actively_ make sure they're not even open to the interpretation that they're broadcasting something; it's aggressively _passive. _A MAGA hat is broadcasting something with a megaphone, "don't go out dressed like that" is being paranoid you'll be misinterpreted as broadcasting something you weren't.

I mean, a MAGA hat is a symbol in the strictest philosophical sense. You clearly agree that there are symbols out there that convey meaning so clearly, and that meaning is so wrong, that there's something intrinsically wrong with displaying them. A swastika is the example we started with here, but a KKK robe would be another good one in this context too. Is it ever ok to wear a swastika? Is it ever ok to wear a KKK robe? Are there symbols in this world that it is not ever ok to display? I don't think it's at all controversial to answer that in the affirmative. 

I wouldn't exactly equate a MAGA hat with a swastika, I think - we haven't experienced a genocide in Trump's name - but I'd say these days I see a MAGA hat as pretty equivalent with a Confederate flag. Based on what Trump's shown himself to be, openly broadcasting your support for a politician who wants to block all immigration from Muslim or "brown" countries and has advisors like Steven Miller and (formerly) Steve Bannon, is a pretty clear indication that, at a _minimum_, you're at least willing to look past racism. And that's both conserning, and something that I think every single time I see someone wearing one. 

@MetalHex - if you're seriously trying to argue Nazis were liberals, I'm going to suggest you don't have the political or historical awareness to be participating in this thread. Any decent history textbook should be enough to bring you up to speed, and will probably even dedicate a sentence or two to the irony that the National Socialist party was neither national nor socialist.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You're splitting hairs unnecessarily.
> 
> I used to have a Bernie Sanders sticker on my car. I used to listen to 'Brunch with Bernie' when he was an obscure congressman from an sleepy neighboring state, and I was amazed after following him for 10+ years that he was running for president and had a shot. For me, the sticker was half an endorsement of him for the job and worn out of pride for how far he'd come.
> 
> So the primary played out, there were a lot of blows traded and it was an ugly battle that left a lot of bruises on both of them and neither looked especially clean at the tail end of it. I also fully bought into the narrative that Bernie created during the primary about Hillary being bought/sold by Wall Street and all that. To that extent I fully drank the Kool Aid.
> 
> Then we get out of the primary and Bernie went on the road to endorse Hillary and it was full capitulation. And I was really bitter a few ways, one, that he was pushing so hard for someone he convinced us was so crooked and two, that it was disingenuous to try to get people to vote for him by lobbing headshots at the woman that were either untrue or will fully ignoring them to jockey for a position with her.
> 
> At that point, I decided it was time to peel the sticker off. Not because I thought Bernie was watching it happen through a pair of binoculars and it was going to effect him some way but because I thought the BRAND had been tained enough that I didn't want anyone to see my sticker and assume it was an endorsement of what his name had come to represent. I didn't want to park my car somewhere, get out of car and have someone confront me on what I personally didn't find defensible.
> 
> That's my parallel to the MAGA hat. You don't wear the hat out in public and not know the impression people get from it. Maybe if you're living under a rock but this has been the most publicly broadcast administration in history by far and the guy even posts his positions free for the public to see with no filter, no buffer. And the guys positions have been so abhorrent and so blatant, it's near impossible to interpret the guys brand any other way.
> 
> So, if you wear the MAGA in public, you have to at least consider someone will want to have a conversation about it. If you feel comfortable defending the brand, you're going to have to do a healthy amount of convincing me you're not knowingly defending a racist with racist policies, so if that's the hill you choose to die on, it's some crazy mental gymnastics to put that much effort into it and NOT have them reflect your own beliefs. Or you're just an asshole and you like chaos for the sake of chaos, so you wear things just to provoke a reaction out of people.
> 
> Anyway yes, I'll relieve you of the burden that you've spent two full days on. Yes a person can wear a MAGA hat and not be a racist. Maybe they can't read. Maybe they just like the color red. Maybe it was a gift someone and theres sentimental value. Maybe they have a dick growing out of the top of their head and it was the nearest object they could grab to hide their shame. You're absolutely right, hair officially split, thank you for holding up a mirror to our narrow-mindedness.


Excellent, excellent, excellent post.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> I wouldn't exactly equate a MAGA hat with a swastika, I think - we haven't experienced a genocide in Trump's name - but I'd say these days I see a MAGA hat as pretty equivalent with a Confederate flag.



That's my take as well. Here's a personal anecdote: I grew up in rural Maine back before the internet was quite as ubiquitous. Maine is a very white state and my hometown was no exception. It's also very northern and none of us up there had a very nuanced understanding of southern history and politics and symbols. In high school I had a Pantera shirt that had a confederate flag on it. No one in my home town at the time would've batted an eye. Then I went to college. My second year, I had a roommate who was a black guy from Virginia. I think the Pantera shirt had not really been in my wardrobe for a while for whatever reason but at some point (probably when I went home on a break and did laundry) I pulled it out and started wearing it again. My roommate saw me wearing it and pulled me aside. He basically said "dude, I know you pretty well and I don't think you are racist or mean anything by it, but where I'm from, black people see a white guy wearing a confederate flag and to them it is a symbol of hate." So I packed it away and never wore it again. I only needed to be told once. Now, any time confederate flags come up online, you'll have a bunch of people jumping in going "no, it's not racist, it's just a southern pride thing!" and defending it in a thousand different ways like that. And to them, probably it doesn't mean anything racist. But to a lot of people, it *is* a reminder and symbol of racism and it hurts them to see it. If you know that a symbol you are using is hurtful to someone and you are told repeatedly and you continue to use it, at some point, you own that hurt.

I was in Japan a few years ago and the Harajuku kids at the time had a fascination with nazi uniforms and imagery. It was pretty surreal to see swastika armbands mixed in with babydoll dresses and crazy hair. People that I talked to explained that WWII (especially the European side of things) was not heavily covered in schools so most of those kids really just had no idea about the holocaust or how those symbols would be interpreted by westerners. To them it was purely an aesthetic element.

No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to wear MAGA hats or that a MAGA hat is as extreme a symbol as a swastika (or even a confederate flag). I think you just have to be aware that what you are intending to communicate might not be what is received by everyone. If you walk around Boston wearing a Yankees hat, and you get some shit, you can't pretend to be surprised and claim total innocence.


----------



## zappatton2

MetalHex said:


> So then how do they define left wing extremism? Let me google it real quickly. ::reading outloud while going down the list::, public opinion on right wing extremism, dont want that.....former extremists, no dont want that.....Organizational dynamics of far right hate groups, dont want that....The rise of far right extremism, no not that......terrorist attacks by religious and right wing extremism, nope......keep scrolling down.....the threat of white nationalism. Oh, I guess left wing extremism doesn't exist. Phew! For a second there I thought that the DHS was gonna mention at least Antifa. Nope.
> 
> It seems that the biased media's propaganda is in full swing, to the point where I google, "How does the United States Department of Homeland Security define left-wing extremism", and I dont just come up with absolutely nothing, but instead come up with a list of links talking about right-wing extremism


Is there an extremist left-wing group in the States though? I mean, Antifa gets a lot of grief from the right for being supposedly the equally bad other side of the coin, but Antifa is a small group of people who only organize to counter-protest right-wing extremism (antifa literally means anti-fascist). It doesn't hold a torch (no pun intended) to the rise of right-wing hate groups across North America and in Europe. The Canadian security agency CSIS has acknowledged the threat, there was a mass killing of Muslims here in Canada only two years ago, which was fueled by online right-wing extremism, and it is faaaar more responsible for ideology-driven killing sprees in North America than any other potential group. It's hardly propaganda to note a warranted threat.

The States has had a year-over-year substantial increase in hate crime incidents since the election of Trump. We've seen similar rises here. I'm 100% for free speech, but the deceptive bull shite Trump trafficks in provides fertile manure to feed this proliferation of extremists. They are fundamentally more destructive to public order and safety than Antifa could hope to be, egregious individual examples aside. 

The highest office in the country should be held to account, not for being conservative (not that they are, in the classical sense), but for passively enabling (some might say actively encouraging) what amounts to (_**what is**_) domestic terrorism.


----------



## MetalHex

thraxil said:


> That's my take as well. Here's a personal anecdote: I grew up in rural Maine back before the internet was quite as ubiquitous. Maine is a very white state and my hometown was no exception. It's also very northern and none of us up there had a very nuanced understanding of southern history and politics and symbols. In high school I had a Pantera shirt that had a confederate flag on it. No one in my home town at the time would've batted an eye. Then I went to college. My second year, I had a roommate who was a black guy from Virginia. I think the Pantera shirt had not really been in my wardrobe for a while for whatever reason but at some point (probably when I went home on a break and did laundry) I pulled it out and started wearing it again. My roommate saw me wearing it and pulled me aside. He basically said "dude, I know you pretty well and I don't think you are racist or mean anything by it, but where I'm from, black people see a white guy wearing a confederate flag and to them it is a symbol of hate." So I packed it away and never wore it again. I only needed to be told once. Now, any time confederate flags come up online, you'll have a bunch of people jumping in going "no, it's not racist, it's just a southern pride thing!" and defending it in a thousand different ways like that. And to them, probably it doesn't mean anything racist. But to a lot of people, it *is* a reminder and symbol of racism and it hurts them to see it. If you know that a symbol you are using is hurtful to someone and you are told repeatedly and you continue to use it, at some point, you own that hurt.
> 
> I was in Japan a few years ago and the Harajuku kids at the time had a fascination with nazi uniforms and imagery. It was pretty surreal to see swastika armbands mixed in with babydoll dresses and crazy hair. People that I talked to explained that WWII (especially the European side of things) was not heavily covered in schools so most of those kids really just had no idea about the holocaust or how those symbols would be interpreted by westerners. To them it was purely an aesthetic element.
> 
> No one is saying that people shouldn't be allowed to wear MAGA hats or that a MAGA hat is as extreme a symbol as a swastika (or even a confederate flag). I think you just have to be aware that what you are intending to communicate might not be what is received by everyone. If you walk around Boston wearing a Yankees hat, and you get some shit, you can't pretend to be surprised and claim total innocence.


Here's the difference though, a Yankees hat represents one thing: the NYY. Whereas a MAGA hat, could represent many things, many ideas, or just one idea. Or like someone said, absolutely nothing.

How about try being a better person and not making a pre-judgement based on someones hat, instead of making excuses for those judemental types of people who throw shit at people.

Like, it almost seems as if it's ok to pass judgement on someone wearing a maga hat, but its not ok to be prejudice on a middle-eastern looking dude with a garment wrapped around his head (which, neither is ok). But if yu pass judgment on that middle eastern guy you will be deemed as a racist,byliberal SJW types and possibly have your car flipped over with every window bashed in. For arguments sake, that dude outta realize hes gonna get some shit for walking around Ground Zero NY while wearing that on his head, because you know, people were and are cautious as fuck since 9/11, right? No. Thats the wrong attitude.



Randy said:


> I didn't want anyone to see my sticker and assume it was an endorsement of what his name had come to represent. I didn't want to park my car somewhere, get out of car and have someone confront me on what I personally didn't find defensible.


We all understand how some sports fans can become very rabid, and extreme. They have so much team pride, and have such a tribal attitude, about a team sport. I consider myself a die-hard, hardcore Yankees fan. And I hate the Boston Red Sox. I feel very strongly about the Yankees. But at the end of the day, I really dont care what Red Sox fans think about me. I know not everyone feels the way I do or agrees with everything. I am not one of those tribal types. If someone slapped a Red Sox bumper sticker on my car, I would be more mad at the fact that someone thought that they could touch or put something on my car, rather than the fact that its a sticker of the team I hate. Point being, I wouldnt feel ashamed if someone saw it and assumed I was a Red Sox fan.No matter how strongly I feel about Yankees baseball. That wouldnt bother me one bit. I wouldn't care any less. I mean, when you drive down the street and pull up next to a car, do you turn down your music because you are ashamed of what someone might think of you? My point, you worry too much what people think about you.

Yes I am comparing sports to politics because its the same tribalism/almost-seige mentallity underlying them both that crosses both platforms. Its ok to feel strongly about something, especially politics, but too passionate can be dangerous to everyone else and yourself.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> For arguments sake, that dude outta realize hes gonna get some shit for walking around Ground Zero NY while wearing that on his head, because you know, people were and are cautious as fuck since 9/11, right? No. Thats the wrong attitude.



You don't hang around NY much, do you?


----------



## zappatton2

MetalHex said:


> For arguments sake, that dude outta realize hes gonna get some shit for walking around Ground Zero NY while wearing that on his head, because you know, people were and are cautious as fuck since 9/11, right? No. Thats the wrong attitude.


You're right about exactly one thing. That is very much the wrong attitude.


----------



## bostjan

Any time a person sets out into a public area, they are communicating. You communicate by how you dress. If I see a guy wearing a turban, I might get the message that he's likely Sikh, since statistically, most turban donning people are Sikhs. Could be a Sufi Muslim Scholar, but that's actually less likely. Or it could just be any random dude who likes turbans. Almost all terrorists wear clothes to blend in, though. The stereotype of turban guy being a terrorist is pretty much entirely based on pure ignorance.

What does the MAGA hat communicate? It says different things to different people, obviously, but the first time I encountered one in the wild, it was a dude who was itching to start heated arguments with people, (and succeeded, not to imply that it doesn't take two to tango) so that's the generalization I might be tempted to make.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Oh Christ. Anyone see the kerfuffle that went dont with the MAGA hats and the dude spitting on some chick in aforementioned hats? Plus other ridiculous shit. Not sure anyone is a winner in that one.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

bostjan said:


> Any time a person sets out into a public area, they are communicating. You communicate by how you dress. If I see a guy wearing a turban, I might get the message that he's likely Sikh, since statistically, most turban donning people are Sikhs. Could be a Sufi Muslim Scholar, but that's actually less likely. Or it could just be any random dude who likes turbans. Almost all terrorists wear clothes to blend in, though. The stereotype of turban guy being a terrorist is pretty much entirely based on pure ignorance.
> 
> What does the MAGA hat communicate? It says different things to different people, obviously, but the first time I encountered one in the wild, it was a dude who was itching to start heated arguments with people, (and succeeded, not to imply that it doesn't take two to tango) so that's the generalization I might be tempted to make.


Anyone out looking to argue should be ignored. Then again, I'm more inclined to ignore people who act petulant, which is the similar manner with which I'd parent. "Go act up in your room. When you're done, we will discuss it."


----------



## SenorDingDong

bostjan said:


> Any time a person sets out into a public area, they are communicating. You communicate by how you dress. If I see a guy wearing a turban, I might get the message that he's likely Sikh, since statistically, most turban donning people are Sikhs. Could be a Sufi Muslim Scholar, but that's actually less likely. Or it could just be any random dude who likes turbans. Almost all terrorists wear clothes to blend in, though. The stereotype of turban guy being a terrorist is pretty much entirely based on pure ignorance.
> 
> What does the MAGA hat communicate? It says different things to different people, obviously, but the first time I encountered one in the wild, it was a dude who was itching to start heated arguments with people, (and succeeded, not to imply that it doesn't take two to tango) so that's the generalization I might be tempted to make.




I'm 50/50 on this, as all inferences are based on personal experience and bias. 


I see some kid with blue hair and piercings and I assume they'll be an annoying "Bernie will save the world" idealist with an angry streak that'll lead to an outburst if challenged on anything minor, will spout off rehearsed opinions without the ability to explain them in any detail other than repetition of words used in said opinion. 



When I see an old white dude wearing a MAGA cap, I usually assume he is at least "I have a black friend, though," level racist, and cares more about his own than the collective. He probably works decently hard in a labor intensive job but has the labor years of it far behind him and stopped fighting for the "little guy" about the time his pay raised from "back breaking and menial with few benefits" to "considered useless by most coworkers but untouchable due to seniority, and makes enough to own a home and send two kids to college."


Dead center politics is hard, mang.


----------



## tedtan

SenorDingDong said:


> I'm 50/50 on this, as all inferences are based on personal experience and bias.



The thing is that we all form initial impressions based on superficial* information such as how another person dresses, behaves, etc. Sometimes these are correct and sometimes they are incorrect, but we all make them; that's how the human brain works and is part of what has allowed us to survive as a species. All we can do is keep our minds open so that the second, third, fourth, etc. impressions add more information so we can update that initial impression into a more accurate representation of what that other person represents.


* I say superficial here because things like the clothing a person wears seems superficial on the surface, and many times they are (sometimes that blue bandana is just a blue bandana), but it often contains more meaning than we realize (sometimes the blue bandana signifies Crips affiliation, etc.).


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Here's the difference though, a Yankees hat represents one thing: the NYY. Whereas a MAGA hat, could represent many things, many ideas, or just one idea. Or like someone said, absolutely nothing.
> 
> How about try being a better person and not making a pre-judgement based on someones hat, instead of making excuses for those judemental types of people who throw shit at people.
> 
> Like, it almost seems as if it's ok to pass judgement on someone wearing a maga hat, but its not ok to be prejudice on a middle-eastern looking dude with a garment wrapped around his head (which, neither is ok). But if yu pass judgment on that middle eastern guy you will be deemed as a racist,byliberal SJW types and possibly have your car flipped over with every window bashed in. For arguments sake, that dude outta realize hes gonna get some shit for walking around Ground Zero NY while wearing that on his head, because you know, people were and are cautious as fuck since 9/11, right? No. Thats the wrong attitude.
> 
> 
> We all understand how some sports fans can become very rabid, and extreme. They have so much team pride, and have such a tribal attitude, about a team sport. I consider myself a die-hard, hardcore Yankees fan. And I hate the Boston Red Sox. I feel very strongly about the Yankees. But at the end of the day, I really dont care what Red Sox fans think about me. I know not everyone feels the way I do or agrees with everything. I am not one of those tribal types. If someone slapped a Red Sox bumper sticker on my car, I would be more mad at the fact that someone thought that they could touch or put something on my car, rather than the fact that its a sticker of the team I hate. Point being, I wouldnt feel ashamed if someone saw it and assumed I was a Red Sox fan.No matter how strongly I feel about Yankees baseball. That wouldnt bother me one bit. I wouldn't care any less. I mean, when you drive down the street and pull up next to a car, do you turn down your music because you are ashamed of what someone might think of you? My point, you worry too much what people think about you.
> 
> Yes I am comparing sports to politics because its the same tribalism/almost-seige mentallity underlying them both that crosses both platforms. Its ok to feel strongly about something, especially politics, but too passionate can be dangerous to everyone else and yourself.


Way to miss the _entire fucking point_. 

Three paragraphs about how a confederate flag is interpreted, one tossed off sentence about wearing a Yankees hat in Boston, and you choose to fixate on the Sox and the Yankees. THIS is why every time you post here I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because you always ignore the gist of a post and ignore it, and instead only cherry-pick something you'd rather talk about.

As @thraxil was arguing in the REST of the post you chose to ignore, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on how symbolism works. "Whereas a MAGA hat, could represent many things, many ideas, or just one idea. Or like someone said, absolutely nothing." Sure, it _could_ represent anything, or nothing, to the _wearer_. So could a confederate flag. So could a swastika. But, the wearer is just one person in society, and whatever it means to them _personally_, it also has a generally-accepted meaning in society as a whole. And to ignore those meanings and instead say that you and you alone get to define what something means and can ignore the socially-constructed, generally accepted meaning is either pure egoism, privilege, or stupidity. Take your pick.

Two and a half years into the Trump presidency, I don't think there's a single white man in a MAGA hat who isn't aware that much of this country considers that a sign of racism and white supremecy, loosely akin to flying a Confederate Flag. If they're STILL comfortable wearing it to "piss off libtards" or whatever, well, that's on _them_, not me.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Way to miss the _entire fucking point_.
> 
> Three paragraphs about how a confederate flag is interpreted, one tossed off sentence about wearing a Yankees hat in Boston, and you choose to fixate on the Sox and the Yankees. THIS is whey every time you post here I'm pretty sure you're trolling, because you always ignore the gist of a post and ignore it, and instead only cherry-pick something you'd rather talk about.
> 
> As @thraxil was arguing in the REST of the post you chose to ignore, you don't seem to have a firm grasp on how symbolism works. "Whereas a MAGA hat, could represent many things, many ideas, or just one idea. Or like someone said, absolutely nothing." Sure, it _could_ represent anything, or nothing, to the wearer. So could a confederate flag. So could a swastika. But, the wearer is just one person in society, and whatever it means to them _personally_, it also has a generally-accepted meaning in society as a whole. And to ignore those meanings and instead say that you and you alone get to define what something means is either pure egoism, privilege, or stupidity.
> 
> Two and a half years into the Trump presidency, I don't think there's a single white man in a MAGA hat who isn't aware that much of this country considers that a sign of racism and white supremecy, loosely akin to flying a Confederate Flag. If they're STILL comfortable wearing it to "piss off libtards" or whatever, well, that's on _them_, not me.


I was going to make the Yankees analogy but Thraxil beat me to it...however I was going to use it in a different way. I didn't read past your first sentence because you misunderstood my post. I was making a completely different point using a sinilar analogy. Way to miss MY fucking point.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I was going to make the Yankees analogy but Thraxil beat me to it...however I was going to use it in a different way. I didn't read past your first sentence because you misunderstood my post.


You _quoted_ Thraxil's longer post about how he became aware of the broader connotations of the confederate flag. Don't try to plead ignorance here. He spent 99% of his post talking about why the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol not because of how _he_ feels about it but because of how _society_ feels about it, and finished with one sentence about the Red Sox and Yankees, and that one sentence was all you decided to address, because it was easier to argue symbolism isn't actually a thing when you're not talking about loaded symbols.

Grow up. If you want to be treated like an adult here don't go changing the subject whenever it's inconvenient for you.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> You _quoted_ Thraxil's longer post about how he became aware of the broader connotations of the confederate flag. Don't try to plead ignorance here. He spent 99% of his post talking about why the Confederate Flag is a racist symbol not because of how _he_ feels about it but because of how _society_ feels about it, and finished with one sentence about the Red Sox and Yankees, and that one sentence was all you decided to address, because it was easier to argue symbolism isn't actually a thing when you're not talking about loaded symbols.
> 
> Grow up. If you want to be treated like an adult here don't go changing the subject whenever it's inconvenient for you.


Yeah I responded to Thraxil post about the yankees thing in one fucking sentence. THEN, if you READ carefully, I responded to Randy, using MY Yankees metaphor, in an entire fucking paragraph. Why do you constantly cherry pick to fit your bias dude? Seriously. Let the people I responded to, answer for themselves ffs


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Yeah I responded to Thraxil post about the yankees thing in one fucking sentence. THEN, if you READ carefully, I responded to Randy, using MY Yankees metaphor, in an entire fucking paragraph. Why do you constantly cherry pick to fit your bias dude? Seriously. Let the people I responded to, answer for themselves ffs


Classic troll move, "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm not even talking about your response to Randy here. Thraxil wrote out a long and fairly nuanced post on how symbolism works and how a personal interpretation of something doesn't really matter when it's something with a strong social interpretation (such as a confederate flag), and then ended with a single sentence reference to the Yankees. You went on for three short paragraphs about the Yankees, completely ignoring the argument he was _actually _making about how what something means (or doesn't mean) to you doesn't matter if it's something that has strong connotations to everyone _else_. 

Go back and re-read thraxil's (excellent) post. If you're choosing to display a symbol - as anyone in a MAGA hat is doing - you have a strong interest in knowing how that symbol is going to be interpreted by others. You're completely ignoring that, instead saying "it can mean whatever I want it to." It can't, no more than your Yankees fan can mean you're a staunch Red Sox supporter.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Classic troll move, "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> I'm not even talking about your response to Randy here. Thraxil wrote out a long and fairly nuanced post on how symbolism works and how a personal interpretation of something doesn't really matter when it's something with a strong social interpretation (such as a confederate flag), and then ended with a single sentence reference to the Yankees. You went on for three short paragraphs about the Yankees, completely ignoring the argument he was _actually _making about how what something means (or doesn't mean) to you doesn't matter if it's something that has strong connotations to everyone _else_.
> 
> Go back and re-read thraxil's (excellent) post. If you're choosing to display a symbol - as anyone in a MAGA hat is doing - you have a strong interest in knowing how that symbol is going to be interpreted by others. You're completely ignoring that, instead saying "it can mean whatever I want it to." It can't, no more than your Yankees fan can mean you're a staunch Red Sox supporter.


Ok. So then one bad apple ruins the tree, and when you represent the tree, dont be upset when the city wants to cut you down. That's what he is saying. Again thats just one way to look at it. My point is, ignore the tree.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Ok. So then one bad apple ruins the tree, and when you represent the tree, dont be upset when the city wants to cut you down. That's what he is saying. Again thats just one way to look at it. My point is, ignore the tree.


And MY point is, you _can't_ ignore the tree. Symbols have meaning, and if a confederate flag is broadly understood to be a symbol of hate and racial intolerance, you have to deal with that broadly understood meaning if you choose to display that particular symbol. Regardless of whether or not you _agree_ with that symbol, you have zero control over how others respond to it, and you as a single individual have no say in which symbols have meaning and which don't.

Any adult today wearing a MAGA hat, just as any adult today with a confederate flag emblazoned on the back of his truck, is well aware that for large swathes of the population that symbol is going to indicate the person displaying is a racist. If they don't want to be perceived as a racist, well, they have control over which symbols they choose to display, so there's a pretty easy way to address that.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> And MY point is, you _can't_ ignore the tree. Symbols have meaning, and if a confederate flag is broadly understood to be a symbol of hate and racial intolerance, you have to deal with that broadly understood meaning if you choose to display that particular symbol. Regardless of whether or not you _agree_ with that symbol, you have zero control over how others respond to it, and you as a single individual have no say in which symbols have meaning and which don't.
> 
> Any adult today wearing a MAGA hat, just as any adult today with a confederate flag emblazoned on the back of his truck, is well aware that for large swathes of the population that symbol is going to indicate the person displaying is a racist. If they don't want to be perceived as a racist, well, they have control over which symbols they choose to display, so there's a pretty easy way to address that.


Inversely, you could say the same about black people wearing the Black Panther emblem on their jacket then, even though that movement was not racist, as a whole, at least from it's inception; though there are certainly blacks that despise white people and white european weatern culture. Just like the swastika was perverted to be a symbol of racism. Obviously not everyone in that Black Panther movement thinks like that (or do they). But again who cares what other people may think. 

So then, an American who wants to see America do better by any means, and supports their President, regardless if they agree with every single policy or not, should not wear a maga hat so that theyre not percieved as a racist? How does one show support for their President in office, "leader of the country", then exactly?

As an example, I support our troops 100% Do I support the cause? 99.99% hell no I dont. But I still support our troops. Should I not go out and buy a bumper sticker that says "support our troops", juat for the fear that someone may perceive me as someone who wants to blow up the middle east? No need to answer that, just pointing out that no one needs to worry what other people think because of a simple misrepresentation/misunderstanding.


----------



## Adieu

MetalHex said:


> Inversely, you could say the same about black people wearing the Black Panther emblem on their jacket then, even though that movement was not racist, as a whole, at least from it's inception; though there are certainly blacks that despise white people and white european weatern culture. Just like the swastika was perverted to be a symbol of racism. Obviously not everyone in that Black Panther movement thinks like that (or do they). But again who cares what other people may think.
> 
> So then, an American who wants to see America do better by any means, and supports their President, regardless if they agree with every single policy or not, should not wear a maga hat so that theyre not percieved as a racist? How does one show support for their President in office, "leader of the country", then exactly?
> 
> As an example, I support our troops 100% Do I support the cause? 99.99% hell no I dont. But I still support our troops. Should I not go out and buy a bumper sticker that says "support our troops", juat for the fear that someone may perceive me as someone who wants to blow up the middle east? No need to answer that, just pointing out that no one needs to worry what other people think because of a simple misrepresentation/misunderstanding.



There are three categories of people with Support the Troops stickers:

1) aforementioned troops and their families, trying to milk it for advantage
2) chicks who think it'll get them out of a certain % of traffic tickets
3) jingoist fools who want war because the idea of their country stepping on someone, somewhere (preferably conveniently distant) makes them feel superior by association

....so yeah, it's basically either assholes or people looking to take advantage. Often both.


----------



## tedtan

MetalHex said:


> So then, an American who wants to see America do better by any means, and supports their President, regardless if they agree with every single policy or not, should not wear a maga hat so that theyre not percieved as a racist? How does one show support for their President in office, "leader of the country", then exactly?



First, “by any means” is not acceptable. Only those means that are legal and in the public’s best interests are acceptable.

Second, someone supporting a president who is doing things against their best interest is a fool.




MetalHex said:


> no one needs to worry what other people think because of a simple misrepresentation/misunderstanding.



If someone knowingly wears a hat widely regarded as representing racist values without concern for others’ interpretation of said hat, that person is, at best, a self absorbed asshole. Or a troll.


----------



## MetalHex

Welp, opinions do make the world go round! (though it is a bit wobbly)


----------



## spudmunkey

MetalHex said:


> Welp, opinions do make the world go round! (though it is a bit wobbly)



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

spudmunkey said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble


Personally, I prefer Jah over Chandler.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Inversely, you could say the same about black people wearing the Black Panther emblem on their jacket then, even though that movement was not racist, as a whole, at least from it's inception; though there are certainly blacks that despise white people and white european weatern culture. Just like the swastika was perverted to be a symbol of racism. Obviously not everyone in that Black Panther movement thinks like that (or do they). But again who cares what other people may think.
> 
> So then, an American who wants to see America do better by any means, and supports their President, regardless if they agree with every single policy or not, should not wear a maga hat so that theyre not percieved as a racist? How does one show support for their President in office, "leader of the country", then exactly?
> 
> As an example, I support our troops 100% Do I support the cause? 99.99% hell no I dont. But I still support our troops. Should I not go out and buy a bumper sticker that says "support our troops", juat for the fear that someone may perceive me as someone who wants to blow up the middle east? No need to answer that, just pointing out that no one needs to worry what other people think because of a simple misrepresentation/misunderstanding.


Again, you clearly do not understand how symbols work.

I don't know anyone still wearing Black Panther emblems today. I'm not intimately familar with them, but if their insignia is broadly interpreted as a sign of anti-white violence, and people are responding by _not wearing it_, I would suggest you pause and reflect upon that within the context of this discussion.

"Support Our Troops" is a slogan embraced by pro-war and anti-war groups alike (on the left, the bumper sticker usually reads "Support our Troops - Bring Them Home!") and is a reminder that military service isn't political, and the troops themselves don't get to pick the battles they fight. It's a reminder of the old American tradition Trump is currently trashing that politics stops at the border. Accordingly, it's pretty much the _inverse_ of a "blow up Muslims!" message, that regardless of what you think of the war, the troops risking their lives to fight it still deserve our respect. A better example would be one of those "Muslim Terrorist Hunting Permit" stickers, at which point, yeah, you're sending a pretty clear message.

What you evidently aren't getting here, is if you're displaying a symbol that's broadly understood to have racist connotations, and if you think it's not sending that message, then _you're_ the one making the misrepresentation or misunderstanding. If you're walking around with a confederate flag patch on your jacket because you think it's a cool geometric pattern, _you're_ the one misunderstanding it's meaning, not everyone around you who takes one look at you and concludes you're a fucking redneck white supremacist.


----------



## Thaeon

Cultural symbols work one way. What the consensus perceives them to be is what they are. That's how they acquire their power. Its part of a social contract. If you wear something that carries a cultural meaning it has the meaning congruous with the consensus. Not the meaning the minority wants to project. However truthful or disingenuous that meaning is. A pentagram is associated with certain things because of what MOST people see it as. They being christians. Pagans have had the genuine meaning of their symbols co-opted by the consensus. This would be a valid way of articulating what I think you're trying to articulate. If you wear one though, you WILL be seen by be consensus as absolutely counter to their worldview. However isolated from that perception your genuine paradigm is. You WILL be lumped into that group. Period. So if you make the choice to wear a symbol, you are quite literally making the statement that you accept the yolk of consensus perception that comes with it. Both sides of the coin. You are willing to accept being seen how you are seen. You can't make the argument that you don't know what both sides perceive if you are from the culture in question. If you wear a MAGA hat, you will be seen as an ignorant, fascist, isolationist, xenophobe by a large portion of the people of the US because you are wearing Trump's slogan and HE is those things. You can show support for the office of the president without supporting the man in the office by the way...


----------



## vilk

Thaeon said:


> Cultural symbols work one way. What the consensus perceives them to be is what they are. That's how they acquire their power. Its part of a social contract. If you wear something that carries a cultural meaning it has the meaning congruous with the consensus. Not the meaning the minority wants to project. However truthful or disingenuous that meaning is. A pentagram is associated with certain things because of what MOST people see it as. They being christians. Pagans have had the genuine meaning of their symbols co-opted by the consensus. This would be a valid way of articulating what I think you're trying to articulate. If you wear one though, you WILL be seen by be consensus as absolutely counter to their worldview. However isolated from that perception your genuine paradigm is. You WILL be lumped into that group. Period. So if you make the choice to wear a symbol, you are quite literally making the statement that you accept the yolk of consensus perception that comes with it. Both sides of the coin. You are willing to accept being seen how you are seen. You can't make the argument that you don't know what both sides perceive if you are from the culture in question. If you wear a MAGA hat, you will be seen as an ignorant, fascist, isolationist, xenophobe by a large portion of the people of the US because you are wearing Trump's slogan and HE is those things. You can show support for the office of the president without supporting the man in the office by the way...



If anything, demanding the impeachment of Donald Trump is the best way to support the Executive Branch and the US Constitution. Donald Trump is a disgrace to the Oval Office.

Donald Trump is a piece of shit human being (let alone president). How could anyone think otherwise?
Would you hang around someone who pays to fuck pornstars while his wife is home pregnant? He's fucking scum.


----------



## spudmunkey

How timely...







https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/na...Has-East-Bay-Neighbors-on-Edge-510849331.html

"'It [a swaztika in his landscaping] doesn’t represent anything,' Johnson said. 'That represents me not having to pull weeds over in that part of my yard; that’s what it represents to me.'

"Johnson at times expressed ignorance about the symbol associated with hatred and racism. 'What is a swastika?' he asked."

"Johnson also was asked about the swastika sticker on his motorcycle, at which point he ended the interview, telling reporters to get out of his yard."


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> How timely...





> "It doesn’t represent anything," Johnson said. "That represents me not having to pull weeds over in that part of my yard; that’s what it represents to me. What does it represent to you?"


Odd, why does that sound so familiar...?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> How timely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/na...Has-East-Bay-Neighbors-on-Edge-510849331.html
> 
> "'It [a swaztika in his landscaping] doesn’t represent anything,' Johnson said. 'That represents me not having to pull weeds over in that part of my yard; that’s what it represents to me.'
> 
> "Johnson at times expressed ignorance about the symbol associated with hatred and racism. 'What is a swastika?' he asked."
> 
> "Johnson also was asked about the swastika sticker on his motorcycle, at which point he ended the interview, telling reporters to get out of his yard."



I love when racist pieces of trash are this chickenshit.

Like dude, we know you're garbage. You know what that is. Just have the balls to actually own it.

But they don't because even though they're Mr. Tough Guy White Supremacist Who Puts Swastikas Everywhere Because It Ain't No Thing, deep down they're just scared little babies. Talk about projecting.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> How timely...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/na...Has-East-Bay-Neighbors-on-Edge-510849331.html
> 
> "'It [a swaztika in his landscaping] doesn’t represent anything,' Johnson said. 'That represents me not having to pull weeds over in that part of my yard; that’s what it represents to me.'
> 
> "Johnson at times expressed ignorance about the symbol associated with hatred and racism. 'What is a swastika?' he asked."
> 
> "Johnson also was asked about the swastika sticker on his motorcycle, at which point he ended the interview, telling reporters to get out of his yard."



Newsworthy indeed

It's almost like life was boring, America didn't have a corrupt man in a Russian dictator's pocket in the Oval Office, the State Department wasn't freelancing for unidentified business interests and in a crudely thuggish way at that (the Huawei boss's daughter arrest thing -- distateful hostage taking even by mafia standards), there wasn't a strange and misguided trade war looming with China, etc.

But oh damn some wacko landscaped a swastika on his property, what's this world coming to?


----------



## spudmunkey

I mean...that isn't the only story on the site, and it's the page of the local news affiliate, not a national publication. Since when does smaller stations reporting on local goings-on negate or down play anything reported on elsewhere?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> I mean...that isn't the only story on the site, and it's the page of the local news affiliate, not a national publication. Since when does smaller stations reporting on local goings-on negate or down play anything reported on elsewhere?



When some find it more convenient to give it the "nothing to see here folks, no big deal" treatment in order to sweep evidence of regular, good old fashioned white supremacy under the rug.

Because if racism is real and widespread, then maybe there's more at play than simple, pragmatic politics.

It makes it harder to just blame those at the top.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> When some find it more convenient to give it the "nothing to see here folks, no big deal" treatment in order to sweep evidence of regular, good old fashioned white supremacy under the rug.
> 
> Because if racism is real and widespread, then maybe there's more at play than simple, pragmatic politics.
> 
> It makes it harder to just blame those at the top.


...though the ones at the top are certainly enablers and giving everyday white supremacists cover. Hate crimes have ticked up since Trump's election, and more immediately counties where Trump has held rallies have seen significant subsequent increases in hate crimes: 

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/24/18279807/trump-hate-crimes-study-white-nationalism

Trump has also been downright glacial when asked to condemn white nationalism, which certainly isn't helping matters.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I love when racist pieces of trash are this chickenshit.
> 
> Like dude, we know you're garbage. You know what that is. Just have the balls to actually own it.
> 
> But they don't because even though they're Mr. Tough Guy White Supremacist Who Puts Swastikas Everywhere Because It Ain't No Thing, deep down they're just scared little babies. Talk about projecting.



Trumpies in nutshell, TBH.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> fucking redneck white supremacist


The fucking redneck part doesnt make yourself look any better than them though. If you had left fucking and redneck out, your messege would come off alot more digestible from people who may have different points of view. It's wasted energy. Your anger is equivalent to the hatred of KKK members getting riled up about how much they think black people are pieces of shit.



Thaeon said:


> If you wear a MAGA hat, you will be seen as an ignorant, fascist, isolationist, xenophobe by a large portion of the people of the US because you are wearing Trump's slogan and HE is those things


On the word "facist", Do you realize how silly it is to think that Trump is facist, and not the government as a whole since long before him? (At least in part) But again with the ignorance of symbolisn hidden in plain sight....


Do you have any idea what that thing is that the arrow is pointing to?

If you perceive that slogan, and that man, in that way, then that is you're own problem. And if you shout these people down in the streets, or throw shit and piss grenades at them like Antifa does, then you are no less a piece of shit.


----------



## vilk

^tolerance paradox _again _


----------



## Thaeon

MetalHex said:


> The fucking redneck part doesnt make yourself look any better than them though. If you had left fucking and redneck out, your messege would come off alot more digestible from people who may have different points of view. It's wasted energy. Your anger is equivalent to the hatred of KKK members getting riled up about how much they think black people are pieces of shit.
> 
> 
> On the word "facist", Do you realize how silly it is to think that Trump is facist, and not the government as a whole since long before him? (At least in part) But again with the ignorance of symbolisn hidden in plain sight....
> View attachment 69965
> 
> Do you have any idea what that thing is that the arrow is pointing to?
> 
> If you perceive that slogan, and that man, in that way, then that is you're own problem. And if you shout these people down in the streets, or throw shit and piss grenades at them like Antifa does, then you are no less a piece of shit.



I don't treat people with MAGA hats with any sort of violence if that's what you're insinuating. I have anti-fascist ideals (as in I think fascism is a problem), but I am not Antifa. Neither do any of the people in my circle of people. In all of our Tom Fuckery, we point a lot of fingers a logical and moral inconsistencies. There are lots. As to your previous point that the nation has been getting more fascist as time goes on, that is correct. I do not believe that Trump is the first Fascist by any stretch.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> The fucking redneck part doesnt make yourself look any better than them though. If you had left fucking and redneck out, your messege would come off alot more digestible from people who may have different points of view. It's wasted energy. Your anger is equivalent to the hatred of KKK members getting riled up about how much they think black people are pieces of shit.
> 
> 
> On the word "facist", Do you realize how silly it is to think that Trump is facist, and not the government as a whole since long before him? (At least in part) But again with the ignorance of symbolisn hidden in plain sight....
> View attachment 69965
> 
> Do you have any idea what that thing is that the arrow is pointing to?
> 
> If you perceive that slogan, and that man, in that way, then that is you're own problem. And if you shout these people down in the streets, or throw shit and piss grenades at them like Antifa does, then you are no less a piece of shit.


No, actually, it doesn't. Why should I tolerate racism? Further, why should I tolerate someone so racist, they want to _broadcast to the whole world that they're racist? _

Vilk is 100% correct. You're caught arguing something that's logically incorrect, so instead of admitting you're wrong you're just retreating to the tolerance paradox. It's OK to despise someone for being proud to be a racist. It's not ok to despise someone for the color of their skin, for their religious beliefs, for their sexual orientation, or their country of origin, and equating opposition to intolerance with intolerance itself is_ idiotic_.

Why are you even defending these people? Do you honestly think having a problem with proud and overt racism is exactly equivocal to being overtly racist?


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> No, actually, it doesn't. Why should I tolerate racism? Further, why should I tolerate someone so racist, they want to _broadcast to the whole world that they're racist? _
> 
> Vilk is 100% correct. You're caught arguing something that's logically incorrect, so instead of admitting you're wrong you're just retreating to the tolerance paradox. It's OK to despise someone for being proud to be a racist. It's not ok to despise someone for the color of their skin, for their religious beliefs, for their sexual orientation, or their country of origin, and equating opposition to intolerance with intolerance itself is_ idiotic_.
> 
> Why are you even defending these people? Do you honestly think having a problem with proud and overt racism is exactly equivocal to being overtly racist?



I was going to avoid this, but you make a good point. There's a difference in disliking someone for what they can't help but be vs disliking someone for acting on and spreading ideas that are damaging to other people and cultures.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> On the word "facist", Do you realize how silly it is to think that Trump is facist, and not the government as a whole since long before him? (At least in part) But again with the ignorance of symbolisn hidden in plain sight....
> View attachment 69965
> 
> Do you have any idea what that thing is that the arrow is pointing to?


Also, I was going to let this go, but... Again, you don't actually understand what you're talking about. 

The fasces was a symbol of government dating back to the Greek and Roman empires, as a metaphor for the collective nature of democratic government - our slogan, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one" is a take on the same general concept. 

Fascism dates to modern Italy, where the Italian Fascist party took the fasces as their symbol and used it as a symbol of authoritarianism. In contemporary usage, "fascist" doesn't refer to the belief in collective rule, but rather a form of government where citizens subject fully to the all-powerful, authoritarian state. In many ways it's the exact opposite of the democratic principles the fasces was originally intended to signify.

You're literally just throwing around logical fallacies and correspondences in this thread with no actual understanding of what you're doing or what these things represent. You have only the most superficial imaginable grasp of these concepts, and frankly you're kind of embarrassing yourself.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> No, actually, it doesn't. Why should I tolerate racism? Further, why should I tolerate someone so racist, they want to _broadcast to the whole world that they're racist? _
> 
> Vilk is 100% correct. You're caught arguing something that's logically incorrect, so instead of admitting you're wrong you're just retreating to the tolerance paradox. It's OK to despise someone for being proud to be a racist. It's not ok to despise someone for the color of their skin, for their religious beliefs, for their sexual orientation, or their country of origin, and equating opposition to intolerance with intolerance itself is_ idiotic_.
> 
> Why are you even defending these people? Do you honestly think having a problem with proud and overt racism is exactly equivocal to being overtly racist?



I never said you need to be tolerant of those types......IF you know for a fact that they are racist or (insert liberal buzzword ending with "ist" here) etc.. But again, for the 4th time now (?), you are judging someone because of the hat they are wearing, because of what you THINK that hat represents. Has nothing to do with intolerance paradox.

Maybe the MAGA hat just means pro-capitalism to somebody, and they want to make sure this country stays a capitalist one......the same way, if someone wears a hat with a picture of Mao Zedong on it, I would think that that person is pro-communist, and wants to see communism in this country. I wouldn't assume that that person wants to allow 45 million people to die.

If you cant understand this, I'm all done trying to make this point.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Maybe the MAGA hat just means pro-capitalism to somebody, and they want to make sure this country stays a capitalist one......the same way, if someone wears a hat with a picture of Mao Zedong on it, I would think that that person is pro-communist, and wants to see communism in this country. I wouldn't assume that that person wants to allow 45 million people to die.


This is where I think you're losing it. 

No one who supported communism as an ideal or philosophy would wear symbolism of Mao, because that is a symbol of authoritarianism not communism. Wearing Maoist imagery would imply support for murdering millions of people. In the same way no one wears Stalinist imagery, because again not communism but authoritarian imagery. 

A MAGA hat isn't a pro capitalism hat. If you think the only reason to support Trump is he's the only pro capitalist man in American politics then I have some incredibly obvious things to tell you. As I've said before Trump has failed at everything he's tried to do except incite hatred, so if you're wearing that hat you're either an imbecile or a racist imbecile.


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> no one wears Stalinist imagery, because again not communism but authoritarian imagery.



S...sorta? 

T-shirt titled "Communist Party"


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

I wonder if the same applies to people who wear Che Guevara bullshit.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I wonder if the same applies to people who wear Che Guevara bullshit.


This is actually a good example. I reckon most people who wear that are wearing it more as a symbol of rebellion (see: Irish nationalism) than as an endorsement of the man. And anyone using it in the latter sense would also fall into the imbecile category, in my opinion.

This is like the opposite of the swastika, where the original intent is harmless but the general understanding is offensive. Here the majority interpretation isn't nuclear weapons proliferation, and more "sticking it to the man".


----------



## MetalHex

But where hasnt communism oppressed the People in one form or another?


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> But where hasnt communism oppressed the People in one form or another?


Oppression is not a good pro capitalist argument. But also it's hard to find good examples of communism, but lots of examples of authoritarianism masquerading as such.

Also, you'll not find many people who are actually full on communists, so I don't see your point. People tend to want sensibly regulated capitalism with effective taxation to provide social programs such as education, healthcare and infrastructure.

Governments don't serve a lot of purpose if it isn't for social systems. Capitalism doesn't do any good if it doesn't add value to society. The two don't compete with each other.


----------



## MetalHex

StevenC said:


> Oppression is not a good pro capitalist argument. But also it's hard to find good examples of communism, but lots of examples of authoritarianism masquerading as such.
> 
> Also, you'll not find many people who are actually full on communists, so I don't see your point. People tend to want sensibly regulated capitalism with effective taxation to provide social programs such as education, healthcare and infrastructure.
> 
> Governments don't serve a lot of purpose if it isn't for social systems. Capitalism doesn't do any good if it doesn't add value to society. The two don't compete with each other.


I advocate for trying a true free market capitalist society before going full bown socialism (then communism). I'd argue that, the people want those kind of systems because society is used to it being this way, (being born into it) and can't imagine how it would work without these social systems. (lets not get into "but who will build the roads"?) Since our government is drunk on and addicted to cheap money, taxing and rampant spending, it creates a cycle that is dependent on reallocating tax dollars for expansion of more government power. More power = more rules and regulations = less freedoms for the people, inevitably. But that's what they want because it makes them feel safer at the end of the day that they will be taken care of, regardless if they work or not.....talk about entitlement. Free will and heroism has been long since eroded.

They don't realize that they are going to wake up one day and there's going to be a unelected bureaucrat from a totalitarian state agency that is going to make all the decisions for them with the full weight of the state behind them; and by that time it will be too late turn things around because of the misuse of technology....(like how China is implementing facial recognition in an all seeing surveillance state. It's going to get to the point where you will be recognized by AI as having an angry face, next thing you know you have FBI agents at your door to find out why you're upset).

*“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. ... By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men. - Adolf Hitler.*
Wasn't this guy supposed to be evil or something?
Also, werent the Nazi's not supposed to be socialist?




It is extreme, it is already happening. We will have zero freedoms left. But that's just my opinion (which looks like is slowly coming to fruition). Its Fabian style Socialism.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I advocate for trying a true free market capitalist society before going full bown socialism (then communism). I'd argue that, the people want those kind of systems because society is used to it being this way, (being born into it) and can't imagine how it would work without these social systems. (lets not get into "but who will build the roads"?) Since our government is drunk on and addicted to cheap money, taxing and rampant spending, it creates a cycle that is dependent on reallocating tax dollars for expansion of more government power. More power = more rules and regulations = less freedoms for the people, inevitably. But that's what they want because it makes them feel safer at the end of the day that they will be taken care of, regardless if they work or not.....talk about entitlement. Free will and heroism has been long since eroded.
> 
> They don't realize that they are going to wake up one day and there's going to be a unelected bureaucrat from a totalitarian state agency that is going to make all the decisions for them with the full weight of the state behind them; and by that time it will be too late turn things around because of the misuse of technology....(like how China is implementing facial recognition in an all seeing surveillance state. It's going to get to the point where you will be recognized by AI as having an angry face, next thing you know you have FBI agents at your door to find out why you're upset).
> 
> *“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own pride is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole; that pride and conceitedness, the feeling that the individual ... is superior, so far from being merely laughable, involve great dangers for the existence of the community that is a nation; that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and the will of an individual; and that the higher interests involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down the duties of interests of the individual. ... By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men. - Adolf Hitler.*
> 
> It is extreme, it is already happening. We will have zero freedoms left. But that's just my opinion (which looks like is slowly coming to fruition). Its Fabian style Socialism.



A few questions:

1) What rights/freedoms do you feel are going away, currently? Please be specific.

2) Of those rights, how do you feel like a complete capitalist society will correct and by what mechanism(s)?

3) What rights do you feel Democratic Socialism will take away from you?


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> A few questions:
> 
> 1) What rights/freedoms do you feel are going away, currently? Please be specific.
> 
> 2) Of those rights, how do you feel like a complete capitalist society will correct and by what mechanism(s)?
> 
> 3) What rights do you feel Democratic Socialism will take away from you?


Free speech. I see the term hate speech seeping it's way in, eventually leading to more censorship, for starters.

2. Has less to do capitalism but moreso limited government.

3. The right to keep more of my money than already being taken through taxes.

I probably shouldve waited to respond to this. One step at a time. I'm probably going to wake up with a sworm of angry hornets at my front door with all of the responses to my previous post. Just for sharing my opinion


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Free speech. I see the term hate speech seeping it's way in, eventually leading to more censorship, for starters.



Can you give some examples?



> 2. Has less to do capitalism but moreso limited government.



How do you feel that capitalism will reduce the size of government? 



> 3. The right to keep more of my money than already being taken through taxes.



If the goal is to retain more money, how do you think the typically higher prices of goods and services with a capitalist model will affect that? Again, an example would be helpful.


----------



## zappatton2

It seems strange to talk about "freedom" while embracing autocracy in America, but the term freedom itself is a touch easy to bend towards self-validating notions (paying taxes is theft from me, curbing hate speech and misinformation is attacking freedom of my speech, ect.). Freedom on a national scope, to me, is freedom of the press, separation of powers (a government agency does not exist to impose the government's political will, but to safeguard civil society and civil rights), equality of opportunity and access, etc.

No finer an authority on the matter is Freedom House (https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Feb2019_FH_FITW_2019_Report_ForWeb-compressed.pdf), I don't expect you'll read the whole thing, I myself have read a summation of it (https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/national-today-newsletter-civil-rights-bletchley-park-1.5162886) and gone through portions of it, but they basically makes the case that the world over, democracy is eroding, and the USA under Trump is doing its best to help that along. He is a wannabe strongman, and you should be eternally grateful that there are powers that keep him in check.

According to Freedom House's methodology, while Finland, Sweden and Norway all score a perfect 100 on measures of freedom, America has been on the decline since Bush Jr. (currently scoring an 86), and that decline has picked up since Trump came to power. Anyone speaking about "freedom" should be concerned about this individual who is as illiberal a President as America has perhaps ever had, relative to the times.


----------



## Randy

A guy in my office was playing Rush Limbaugh yesterday and I hear a caller come in on the phone "We need to take our country back!". Says the party controlling 2 1/2 out of 3 branches of our federal government! At best it's constant victimhood but it's also very likely a play for consolidating more power.

It's amazing to me that 21st century Republican leadership still gets a pass as being the party of freedom.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

_"When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."_


----------



## Explorer

vilk said:


> If anything, *demanding the impeachment of Donald Trump* is the best way to support the Executive Branch and the US Constitution. Donald Trump is a disgrace to the Oval Office.
> 
> Donald Trump is a piece of shit human being (let alone president). How could anyone think otherwise? Would you hang around someone who pays to fuck pornstars while his wife is home pregnant? He's fucking scum.


I think Pelosi, having been resistant to just impeachment when removal from office isn't guaranteed (with Senate Repubiclans using the same insistence as recent attempted arguments in this topic), dropped a truth bomb in stating recently that her goal for Trump is prison. Actually saying the word (according to sourcing I find credible) after dodging the "I" word is a strong indicator. 

Now, back to concern trolling in the pursuit of distraction!


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you give some examples?


No because it is not a "thing" yet, lawfully....I just see it becoming law in the future.



MaxOfMetal said:


> How do you feel that capitalism will reduce the size of government?


The genie is not getting back in the bottle.



MaxOfMetal said:


> the typically higher prices of goods and services with a capitalist model will affect that? Again, an example would be helpful.


Let me keep my money first, then we'll cross that bridge when we get there


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> No because it is not a "thing" yet, lawfully....I just see it becoming law in the future.







> The genie is not getting back in the bottle.



That's not answering the question as asked.



> Let me keep my money first, then we'll cross that bridge when we get there



If you're not going to engage seriously, don't even bother replying. 

We've all given you a lot of leeway. At this point, if all you're going to post is rhetoric, perhaps you shouldn't post in here.


----------



## tedtan

MetalHex said:


> No because it is not a "thing" yet, lawfully....I just see it becoming law in the future.



So your concern is based on irrational fear rather than facts. I can't blame you for feeling this way, as we've given up a lot of freedoms post 9/11 (mainly under Bush 2's presidency, but continued under Obama and Trump, as well).

But do keep in mind that capitalism is an economic system, e.g., how a country's economy produces and allocates money and other scarce resources. Capitalism vs. social socialism vs. communism don't affect freedoms; freedom is taken away by authoritarian rulers, not economic systems.




MetalHex said:


> The genie is not getting back in the bottle.



Glad to see that you realize that this is a moot point, but why did you bring it up if you know it is moot?




MetalHex said:


> Let me keep my money first, then we'll cross that bridge when we get there



We've tried it in the past and workers are abused (overworked in unsafe conditions, under paid, pricing to consumers is much higher, companies put their competitors out of the market in order to become monopolies raising prices to consumers even more, etc.). Do a little research into the industrial revolution in Europe and the US to see what a more laissez faire capitalist society looks like.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's not answering the question as asked.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not going to engage seriously, don't even bother replying.
> 
> We've all given you a lot of leeway. At this point, if all you're going to post is rhetoric, perhaps you shouldn't post in here.


I cant post my opinion? I made a lengthy post of which I am dead serious about what I say or else I wouldnt waste my time with a lengthy post. At the end of said post I have said that this was just my opinion. I see many, many posts in here, none of which I've interrogated anyone and asked to post their reference links to back up their opinion. Yet my posts are being scutinized under microscope. Like that other dude said a few pages back, I dont know why I bother. So I will stop


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> I never said you need to be tolerant of those types......IF you know for a fact that they are racist or (insert liberal buzzword ending with "ist" here) etc.. But again, for the 4th time now (?), you are judging someone because of the hat they are wearing, because of what you THINK that hat represents. Has nothing to do with intolerance paradox.
> 
> Maybe the MAGA hat just means pro-capitalism to somebody, and they want to make sure this country stays a capitalist one......the same way, if someone wears a hat with a picture of Mao Zedong on it, I would think that that person is pro-communist, and wants to see communism in this country. I wouldn't assume that that person wants to allow 45 million people to die.
> 
> If you cant understand this, I'm all done trying to make this point.


Don't waste your time, because you're obviously failing to comprehend something that's pretty clear to everyone else in this thread.

There are PLENTY of symbols of capitalism one could choose to display - walking around carrying a copy of Wealth of Nations, for example, or a t-shirt bearing the logo of a free market publication like The Economist (which you'd probably be surprised to hear I subscribe and read regularly). There are plenty of symbols someone could display to show they're Republicans, as well - a T-shirt with Reagan quotes, or a baseball hat with the GOP elephant on it.

A MAGA hat is a symbol showing support for a single Republican candidate, one of 16 in 2016, with a long history of racism prior to entering politics (for example, taking out newspaper adds calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five, and several lawsuits for refusing to rent properties to minorities) whose main policy differences from the GOP platform before him were 1) Banning Muslims from entering America, and 2) building a wall on the southern border to stop "drug dealers, rapists, and killers" from Mexico crossing the border. Since being elected, he has slashed _legal_ immigration into this country, repeatedly pointedly refuse to condemn white nationalism after white nationalist terror attacks, referred to non-white majority countries as "shithole countries" that he didn't want immigrants from, while mulling "why can't we have more immigrants from places like Norway?"

So, no, a MAGA hat is _not_ a symbol of capitalism, or even Republicanism. It's a symbol stating that you believe what Trump is doing is right... And Trump is pushing a racist, xenophobic agenda, while actively courting white nationalists.

And, anyone wearing a MAGA hat, a symbol that is pretty broadly interpreted as being racist, is both aware of the connotations of the symbol, and doesn't give enough of a shit about being seen as a racist to wear some _other_ symbol, like a Republican elephant, to show they're a republican. So, yeah, if someone is going to make the active choice to display a symbol of racial intolerance, then I'm going to take it at face value.



MetalHex said:


> I cant post my opinion? I made a lengthy post of which I am dead serious about what I say or else I wouldnt waste my time with a lengthy post. At the end of said post I have said that this was just my opinion. I see many, many posts in here, none of which I've interrogated anyone and asked to post their reference links to back up their opinion. Yet my posts are being scutinized under microscope. Like that other dude said a few pages back, I dont know why I bother. So I will stop



You're absolutely entitled to an opinion. You're NOT, however, entitled to your own facts. Good riddance.


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> So I will stop


I feel like I've heard this before.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> I feel like I've heard this before.


He's also trying to steer the conversation back to capitalism and "Nazis were liberal socialists" because he knows he's wrong here and he'd rather change the subject than admit that.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MetalHex said:


> I cant post my opinion? I made a lengthy post of which I am dead serious about what I say or else I wouldnt waste my time with a lengthy post. At the end of said post I have said that this was just my opinion. I see many, many posts in here, none of which I've interrogated anyone and asked to post their reference links to back up their opinion. Yet my posts are being scutinized under microscope. Like that other dude said a few pages back, I dont know why I bother. So I will stop


what do you expect?


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> He's also trying to steer the conversation back to capitalism and "Nazis were liberal socialists" because he knows he's wrong here and he'd rather change the subject than admit that.



Quoting what Hitler stated about his regime, and looking at the practices of it are two completely separate things. There was little liberal or socialist in the activities of the Nazi party. They were actively attempting to return Germany more 'conservative' values, and practicing extreme nationalism, and national exceptionalism. In addition to all the human rights atrocities.


----------



## Randy

Also convenient to ignore Nazis executing homosexuals and Communists, and classifying Muslims and blacks as subhuman. But no, Nazis are more like liberals because the word 'Socialism' appeared somewhere.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Also convenient to ignore Nazis executing homosexuals and Communists, and classifying Muslims and blacks as subhuman. But no, Nazis are more like liberals because the word 'Socialism' appeared somewhere.


...or the fact that we already had this conversation 5-7 pages back, thoroughly put it to bed back then, but he's returning to it now to change the subject now that he's also losing the "If you think a person in a MAGA hat is racist, you're just as bad as they are" conversation to try to save face.


----------



## Randy

The 'ignore' button is your friend. He's got good taste in gear and his avatar is Space Ghost, so he's in the top half of my favorite posters on this site regardless of what happens in this thread. 

That said, his participation in here is 100% shitposting.


----------



## spudmunkey

The Onion just re-shared an article on Facebook that I thought was new, but then saw that it was originally from 2011 and that amused me.

"The world is a complicated place, and in this day and age, you just can't expect a person to fall on the same political side of every issue he is confronted with. Things are more nuanced than that, and the average American might think one way about one topic, and a completely different way about another. For instance, when it comes to fiscal issues, I consider myself to be a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, right-wing lunatic. But on the social front, I'm a completely out-of-his-mind, wacked-out liberal loon."


----------



## Randy

"Loon " as a pejorative fell out of the accepted nomenclature when Bill O'Reilly got taken off the air.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> ...or the fact that we already had this conversation 5-7 pages back, thoroughly put it to bed back then, but he's returning to it now to change the subject now that he's also losing the "If you think a person in a MAGA hat is racist, you're just as bad as they are" conversation to try to save face.


You're assuming he's aware that he's lost face. The thing is, I think a lot of people these days don't think about politics beyond talking points. And this is a problem, because a good number of populists will keep coming back with the same arguments, not have any grasp of the points countering them, and walk away with the feeling that those dang liberals are just intolerant of their opinions.


----------



## Randy

FWIW, Slate running an article about what I was arguing a few weeks ago, regarding the government's place in regulating media

https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/youtube-facebook-hate-speech-regulation-how.html


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Here's an idea if you don't like what YouTube has on it's site. You ready?

WATCH SOMETHING ELSE. Imagine being that bent out of shape you Mrs. Lovejoy on the internet about requiring more internet regulations. The same is true of people who complain about various shows on Netflix because of whatever political leaning the show may or may not have. Thankfully, it hasn't required federal regulations for Onision's channel (actually, multiple channels) to tank and be about as popular as herpes. And speaking of multiple channels, isn't that against YouTube policy?


----------



## Explorer

It's pretty funny to see Trump supporters missing the irony of their decrying media censorship which Trump regularly calls for.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Explorer said:


> It's pretty funny to see Trump supporters missing the irony of their decrying media censorship which Trump regularly calls for.



They're simply reminding us of the motto of the modern GOP: do as I say, not as I do. 

Which is similar to their primary argument: I know what you are, but what am I? 

As a libtard, you just wouldn't understand.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> It's pretty funny to see Trump supporters missing the irony of their decrying media censorship which Trump regularly calls for.


CNN has every right to report whatever stupid news story (ie, ketchup on steak, two scoops of ice cream) they choose to.


----------



## Explorer

And yet you only criticize the idea of social media censorship by government, and not Trump's advocating censorship of news organizations. That's what's humorous, that you've ignored the proto-fascist moves of the president while clutching your pearls concern-trolling over instances of hate speech.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Explorer said:


> And yet you only criticize the idea of social media censorship by government, and not Trump's advocating censorship of news organizations. That's what's humorous, that you've ignored the proto-fascist moves of the president while clutching your pearls concern-trolling over instances of hate speech.


I've never advocated for CNN to be censored. Wanna try again?


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Here's an idea if you don't like what YouTube has on it's site. You ready?
> 
> WATCH SOMETHING ELSE. Imagine being that bent out of shape you Mrs. Lovejoy on the internet about requiring more internet regulations. The same is true of people who complain about various shows on Netflix because of whatever political leaning the show may or may not have. Thankfully, it hasn't required federal regulations for Onision's channel (actually, multiple channels) to tank and be about as popular as herpes. And speaking of multiple channels, isn't that against YouTube policy?



Tbh, it's just an ideological mismatch. I'm not arguing whether or not something should be done with you (I'm not engaging you at all actually), just pointing out that it COULD be done based on precedent.

Anyway, what's ironic is that I think a level of standardized regulation would actually be LESS intrusive than the policies social media companies are enforcing on themselves right now.

I find deplatforming, demonetizing and deprioritizing to be incredibly black box and done arbitrarily. The reasoning is super subjective and creators are given very little if any recourse or opportunity to plead their case. It's actually a bigger threat to free speech to say "you're not allowed to say those things anywhere on the internet" than it would be to, say, make sure editorializing or speculation and reporting facts are clearly defined things for the audience.


----------



## Explorer

Explorer said:


> And yet you only criticize the idea of social media censorship by government, and not Trump's advocating censorship of news organizations. That's what's humorous, that you've ignored the proto-fascist moves of the president while clutching your pearls concern-trolling over instances of hate speech.





Spaced Out Ace said:


> I've never advocated for CNN to be censored. Wanna try again?


Reading comprehension shouldn't be that hard. Highlight where I attributed advocating censorship to you, please. 

To whom did I actual attribute that? 

And, who didn't call out that advocacy on the part of that person? (Hint: it's *you*.) That's why I'm laughing at the concern trolling. 

Spoon feeding should only be necessary at the kids' table.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy said:


> Tbh, it's just an ideological mismatch. I'm not arguing whether or not something should be done with you (I'm not engaging you at all actually), just pointing out that it COULD be done based on precedent.
> 
> Anyway, what's ironic is that I think a level of standardized regulation would actually be LESS intrusive than the policies social media companies are enforcing on themselves right now.
> 
> I find deplatforming, demonetizing and deprioritizing to be incredibly black box and done arbitrarily. The reasoning is super subjective and creators are given very little if any recourse or opportunity to plead their case. It's actually a bigger threat to free speech to say "you're not allowed to say those things anywhere on the internet" than it would be to, say, make sure editorializing or speculation and reporting facts are clearly defined things for the audience.


I think deplatforming Alex Jones, to be more specific, was a bad idea. His stances were more easily tracked via putting them in public view. Now he's in the shadows, as a figure of speaking, by being on a smaller video platform. Demonetize him and keep him on YouTube. Instead, you now have to watch on his site (clicks = ad money, I believe) or watch on whatever site he found to host him (also likely giving him money). Not sure it accomplished much.


----------



## vilk

If it accomplishes fewer people listening to the things he says then the goal is achieved


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think deplatforming Alex Jones, to be more specific, was a bad idea. His stances were more easily tracked via putting them in public view. Now he's in the shadows, as a figure of speaking, by being on a smaller video platform. Demonetize him and keep him on YouTube. Instead, you now have to watch on his site (clicks = ad money, I believe) or watch on whatever site he found to host him (also likely giving him money). Not sure it accomplished much.



Why are the bigger more popular platforms used: ease of operation, reach, and compensation.

By knocking Jones off said larger platforms it's harder for him to distribute content, it reaches fewer people, and the compensation is significantly lower. I'd say that's accomplishing _something_. On top of drawing a line in the sand that his brand of odious content is _not okay_.

But don't forget the larger ramifications. Right now Jones is being sued into the ground. By all reports he is not doing well on that front. After he's tapped, the next logical target are the platforms who hosted his content for so long. He became more of a liability than a dependable source of traffic. That alone is enough reason for the most sardonic libertarian to make peace with the decision.


----------



## Ralyks

I was getting worried after the Joe Rogan podcast that Alex Jones would attempt to kill someone on air.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Why are the bigger more popular platforms used: ease of operation, reach, and compensation.
> 
> By knocking Jones off said larger platforms it's harder for him to distribute content, it reaches fewer people, and the compensation is significantly lower. I'd say that's accomplishing _something_. On top of drawing a line in the sand that his brand of odious content is _not okay_.
> 
> But don't forget the larger ramifications. Right now Jones is being sued into the ground. By all reports he is not doing well on that front. After he's tapped, the next logical target are the platforms who hosted his content for so long. He became more of a liability than a dependable source of traffic. That alone is enough reason for the most sardonic libertarian to make peace with the decision.


It also allows him to use other platforms which will give him money based on ad revenue because they don't really care what sort of content they host, such as BitChute. They just want to draw people away from YouTube. Cutting off ad revenue would go a lot longer way (via demonetizing him on YouTube) than allowing him to flourish in the sewers of the internet.



Ralyks said:


> I was getting worried after the Joe Rogan podcast that Alex Jones would attempt to kill someone on air.


That'd be must see YouTubing right there. "Watch the Joe Rogan podcast, where Alex Jones murders Joe Rogan himself."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It also allows him to use other platforms which will give him money based on ad revenue because they don't really care what sort of content they host, such as BitChute. They just want to draw people away from YouTube. Cutting off ad revenue would go a lot longer way (via demonetizing him on YouTube) than allowing him to flourish in the sewers of the internet.



But what would stop him from going to BitChute anyway? 

Also, "flourish" isn't exactly what he's doing since his views are now measured in hundreds, with the significantly smaller income that garners.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> But what would stop him from going to BitChute anyway?
> 
> Also, "flourish" isn't exactly what he's doing since his views are now measured in hundreds, with the significantly smaller income that garners.


Are we talking what he'd say would keep him from going to BitChute, or what would really keep him from going to BitChute? I ask because I think the answer would likely differ. 

I don't have ads (I block them), but I don't think he was being able to monetize his YouTube videos anyways, was he? Now there is likely more emphasis on paying to stream his InfoWars streams.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Are we talking what he'd say would keep him from going to BitChute, or what would really keep him from going to BitChute? I ask because I think the answer would likely differ.
> 
> I don't have ads (I block them), but I don't think he was being able to monetize his YouTube videos anyways, was he? Now there is likely more emphasis on paying to stream his InfoWars streams.



Apparently his streams and revenue from apps is in the shitter. 

The week after he was de-platformed both were soaring, but things dropped off by about 50% a week after the first couple weeks. And falling. 

The more platforms he's removed from, there is a slight bump in other traffic, but it seems to go away almost instantly.

Again, the goals were to cut his revenue, limit his reach, make it harder to proliferate. All three have been met.

The courts are going to finally silence him though. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/alex-jones-sandy-hook.amp.html


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Here's an idea if you don't like what YouTube has on it's site. You ready?
> 
> WATCH SOMETHING ELSE. Imagine being that bent out of shape you Mrs. Lovejoy on the internet about requiring more internet regulations. The same is true of people who complain about various shows on Netflix because of whatever political leaning the show may or may not have. Thankfully, it hasn't required federal regulations for Onision's channel (actually, multiple channels) to tank and be about as popular as herpes. And speaking of multiple channels, isn't that against YouTube policy?


I think that's all well and good with opinion/editorial content. 

I think where you get into trouble is when "news" personas start pushing factually inaccurate stories as if they are true. I'd love to say it's just Alex Jones and his "Sandy Hook was a hoax" stuff, but even Fox has fallen down pretty badly in this respect, going as far as being sued by Seth Rich's family for running their - disproven - story that he was murdered for leaking internal emails to Wikileaks and that it wasn't Russian hackers, and even after Fox redacted it, Hannity continued to stand behind the story. Shit like that crosses a line from editorial content and arguing interpretations, to trying to get the viewing public to believe falsehoods for political gain. The former is necessary for a healthy democracy, the latter is extremely destructive to it. 

I'm with Randy, some sort of return of the Fairness Doctrine would go a long way here, though it would take some work to figure out how to apply it to social media.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That said, his participation in here is 100% shitposting.


Nooooo shit.


----------



## vilk

You might believe this is one of jaxadams fakes... but...


----------



## Demiurge

There is that theory that the moon was the result of a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized object, but what are the chances that he references something like that on purpose?


----------



## zappatton2

Demiurge said:


> There is that theory that the moon was the result of a collision between Earth and a Mars-sized object, but what are the chances that he references something like that on purpose?


Precisely why politicians should never set the focus and priorities of public scientific agencies!!


----------



## Explorer

Funnily enough, I belive that Trump's tweet denigrating going to the moon was due to Fox broadcasting about Trump's previously announced Moon initiative, immediately before Trump tweeted.

That's right. Trump is so stupid and incompetent that he forgot that the nitiative was his, and so he criticized his own stated idea.

That's why people who think in a straightforward manner laugh at the knots Trump supporters tie themselves into trying to defend the self-inflicted errors. *laugh*

Carry on!


----------



## narad

I usually hate political memes but hue hue hue:


----------



## Ralyks

Don’t know if anyone saw, but John Dean is testifying before Congress today. Quite willingly, or as he put it, “No subpoena needed!”


----------



## Randy

Not sure what he's there for...? I guess to draw parallels between Nixon and what he saw about Trump in the Mueller Report?


----------



## spudmunkey

Yeah, it seems Congress is just looking for some advice/justification/rationalization for impeachment proceedings. He has no power, or anything.


----------



## Drew

While I for one am glad to see tariffs NOT being imposed on imports from Mexico, Trump's "deal" he negotiated is a load of BS - the centerpiece of the "deal" is something Kristjen Nielsen had already negotiated with them back in December, and Trump was either unaware, or just looking to save face. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/...=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

Also, Mexico has confirmed that Trump's twitter allusions to some still-secret aspect of the deal are also bullshit: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AVFiAFe8rTSSY7vX4fT56gA

DID THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION TEACH US NOTHING?!


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> DID THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION TEACH US NOTHING?!



Yeah, that there's no legal repercussions for doing that as long as you win. So the guy's right.

Would be kinda funny for this to blow up in his face when his opponent ends up getting their hands on his pee pee tapes.


----------



## Demiurge

^The release of the pee tape would be good for all sides, really. If the tape was a basis for blackmail, then that's over. We'd get to have our laugh. Half of the country would suddenly be more open to kink. Evangelicals would find some way to spin it as a type divine anointing. A watershed moment for our country.


----------



## MFB

Demiurge said:


> A watersport moment for our country.



FTFY


----------



## Xaios

Demiurge said:


> Evangelicals would find some way to spin it as a type divine anointing.


Just as the aurelian streets of heaven are so adorned, so too shall we be sanctified by the glory of his golden shower.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AUNjE_aq5RLueB1wRbOxYNQ

Guess they're keeping Tales from the Crypt on the air, despite the blatant, constant violating of the Hatch Act.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AUNjE_aq5RLueB1wRbOxYNQ
> 
> Guess they're keeping Tales from the Crypt on the air, despite the blatant, constant violating of the Hatch Act.


The OSC is in a weird place - they're able to identify ethics violations and make recommendations, but they're powerless to actually take action themselves, instead referring the matter to the White House. And, since this atmosphere of corruption starts right at the top, there's nothing they can actually do no matter how much Conway uses her office for campaign purposes, because Trump thinks federal officials SHOULD be able to use their power to campaign for him. 

The Trump administration has already exposed some holes in the system of checks and balances - for one, the fact that Congress has the power to subpoena, but it's unclear what power they have to enforce subpoenas. This is another prime example. Sometime after Trump we're going to need to sit down and figure out how to improve the process so the checks and balances can work as intended. That or we're going to have to wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in.


----------



## StevenC

Guys, he said Prince of Whales


----------



## vilk

StevenC said:


> Guys, he said Prince of Whales


Donald Trump consistently says the most absolutely retarded shit every single time he opens his mouth.


----------



## Ralyks

At least Huckasanders is gone. Good riddance.


----------



## spudmunkey

I am still shocked she lasted over 60 Mooches.


----------



## Drew

So, We Are at War With Iran. We Have Always Been At War With Iran. We Are Not At War With Iran. We Have Never Been At War With Iran. We Didn't Call Back A Strike On Iran. We Simply Decided Not To Do It Right Now. 

You sort of feel like Trump negotiates with all the finesse of a bull in a china shop, you know? The Art of the Deal was actually painted with a sledgehammer.


----------



## vilk

You know, I consider myself, for an American, to be particularly interested with world geography / culture, etc. In high school, because I had finished all the credits for graduation early, I took extra world history classes and language classes. In university, so as to earn my totally useless and unmarketable degree, I took many courses on language, world history, religion, etc.

Yet I was a grown ass 25+ year old man before I finally learned that Iranians are not Arabic and that they do not speak Arabic. The vast majority of Iranians are Persian, and the Persian language is called Farsi.

Less than 2% of Iranians are Arab. Though written Farsi is based off the Arabic writing system (like English and Finnish both use the Latin alphabet), it is otherwise not even of the same language family.

I don't really have anything to say about the current situation or anything, I just felt so totally stupid once I finally learned this about Iran, I wanted to share it with anyone here who might not have known.

Scratch that; I do have something to say about this situation: I will only vote for an anti-war candidate. Right now, the only person running that I know for certain has consistently, without fail, been against the United States' endless war machine is Bernie Sanders. The DNC can take Joe Biden and shove him right up their stupid asses.


----------



## spudmunkey

*whew* Just this morning, I was all, "No activity in this thread for 10 days? Has it been locked, or something".

The only reason I knew about Farsi was because I, also at around 25, worked with an Iranian woman, and learned about it by knowing/talking to her.


----------



## Ralyks

So while reading just now that the White House will bar Kelly Anne Crypt Keeper Conway from testifying before Congress, I need to know one, isn’t all of this “immunity” and “executive privilege” stuff just a bunch of bullshit and two, isn’t this all just obstruction playing out before our very eyes?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Bernard, lemme attend Burlington for free bro.


----------



## Aso

Ralyks said:


> So while reading just now that the White House will bar Kelly Anne Crypt Keeper Conway from testifying before Congress, I need to know one, isn’t all of this “immunity” and “executive privilege” stuff just a bunch of bullshit and two, isn’t this all just obstruction playing out before our very eyes?


Yes, it's obstruction out in plain sight. I don't think the system is setup to deal with the leadership wanting to act in bad faith.

I am surprised there isn't more discussion on Oregon and how they called off state congressional votes due to the GOP legislators going AWOL and the militia's have sworn to protect them. They even called off a Saturday session due to concerns of violence from the militias. I just can't understand why the state government would back cancel due to threats from a militia and not be going after them and arresting folks.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Aso said:


> Yes, it's obstruction out in plain sight. I don't think the system is setup to deal with the leadership wanting to act in bad faith.
> 
> I am surprised there isn't more discussion on Oregon and how they called off state congressional votes due to the GOP legislators going AWOL and the militia's have sworn to protect them. They even called off a Saturday session due to concerns of violence from the militias. I just can't understand why the state government would back cancel due to threats from a militia and not be going after them and arresting folks.



They've called for their arrest and have been fining them $500 a day. 

The issue is jurisdictional, as they have fled to other states, mostly Idaho, and are "in hiding".

One of the fleeing state senators basically said he'd shoot police who try to return him to do his job. Surely "Blue Lives Matter".


----------



## Ralyks

And where did this whole E. Jean Carroll thing come from?

Seriously, no post for 10 days and boy does some shit happen.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> And where did this whole E. Jean Carroll thing come from?
> 
> Seriously, no post for 10 days and boy does some shit happen.



Its almost like posting in this thread keeps the really dumb shit from happening in larger quantities... No. Really it doesn't. But one can dream that screaming into the vacuum that is the internet has real world effect.


----------



## narad

I wanted to give us all a pat on the back for having better things to do and not even bothering to post in here for like 10 days. I fear what it looks like over in other OT sections these days...


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> And where did this whole E. Jean Carroll thing come from?



Boy, what a weird woman though. Did you see the Anderson Cooper interview yesterday where she dances around her definition of rape and he throws to commercial in a hurry?

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1143318665099538432


----------



## Ralyks

While I’m a little unsure if the Carroll thing happened, I don’t think “She’s not even my type” is a good defense against rape accusations...


----------



## Randy

Oh yeah, the guy is a classless pig. I expected his first response to be "never met her before" even before he saw what she looked like, and the second was going to be to insult her looks 1.) regardless of what she looks like 2.) after looking at her NOW vs what she looked like when he (allegedly) did it. "Pft, come on my wife is a super model, why would I rape that prune?"

Also yes, in any other context, acknowledging a link between a woman being your "type" and raping her would be fatal to your reputation but here we are.


----------



## Adieu

Aso said:


> Yes, it's obstruction out in plain sight. I don't think the system is setup to deal with the leadership wanting to act in bad faith.
> 
> I am surprised there isn't more discussion on Oregon and how they called off state congressional votes due to the GOP legislators going AWOL and the militia's have sworn to protect them. They even called off a Saturday session due to concerns of violence from the militias. I just can't understand why the state government would back cancel due to threats from a militia and not be going after them and arresting folks.



It's a brave new world.

Or rather, it is... but only for USA.

It, like most other current political events, is straight from the playbook of any number of failed and/or perpetually turbulent Latin American states.

Welcome to our new shithole reality.


----------



## Ralyks

But why can't we have a good reality? Like Norway?

.... I'll see myself out.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I wanted to give us all a pat on the back for having better things to do and not even bothering to post in here for like 10 days. I fear what it looks like over in other OT sections these days...


It's probably my fault, I was in Mexico all last week.  Awesome time, really cool country, super nice people - Trump's out of his fucking mind.  



Aso said:


> Yes, it's obstruction out in plain sight. I don't think the system is setup to deal with the leadership wanting to act in bad faith.


It is, the Democrats know that, and in the case of Hope Hicks it was so blatant that the Dems think it was a gift for their coming court case forcing Trump staff to testimony, because the White House is using executive privilege in situations where it can't possibly apply: 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/21/hope-hicks-democrats-trump-1374706



> *Hicks wouldn’t answer questions as basic as where her desk was located in the White House or whether an Israel-Egypt war broke out while she worked in the government — something that clearly never happened. *She also declined to discuss interactions she had with figures outside the White House, including former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former Trump legal team spokesman Mark Corallo.
> 
> “It’s very useful to show the judge what this means in practical reality… what an incredible assertion of executive supremacy and of congressional irrelevance,” Nadler said.
> 
> “In effect what it’s saying is, you can’t really investigate fraud, waste, abuse of power in the White House because anyone in a position to talk about it, we’re blocking,” he added. “And the [Hicks interview] was very useful to give us the record that we can show the judge how extreme it really is.”


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> It's probably my fault, I was in Mexico all last week.  Awesome time, really cool country, super nice people - Trump's out of his fucking mind.



Seriously, I've been to Mexico a few times, and it's always been a pleasant experience.


----------



## InHiding

Tulsi


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Am5BxX5jZTR-seqlgx8ym9A

So does this mean anything after his press conference, other than he's now a private citizen?


----------



## Randy

My expectations are insanely low. 

Even Mueller's press conference was VERY light on substance, and most of what he said equated to "the report was over two years of work, so refer to that with any questions. If you want more, the materials we collected will be released in time but the report sums it up well enough. If I testified, I'd just say the same stuff that's in there."

I guess the tantalizing part is the fact he more or less said he would NOT be testifying, and now he is but I don't think that's any indication he intends on saying anything that moves the needle on the Trump-Russia thing. The optimist in me says, at best, MAYBE we get a better scope of what to watch out for from Russia this time around but the pessimist in me says we get literally nothing and the idea he's testifying now is a smokescreen.


----------



## thraxil

Yeah, I wouldn't hold out hope that Mueller will say anything substantially more than what was clear in his report or press conference.

It's going to be some interesting theatre though. Democrats are going to press him to say "Trump clearly obstructed justice but we didn't indict him because of current DOJ guidelines preventing us from indicting a sitting president" but he's going to stick to his roundabout "I'd tell you if I thought he was innocent and I'm not going to do that" line. Trump supporters will continue to interpret that as "no collusion, no obstruction". Then there will be a bunch of Republicans asking him variations on "isn't it true that your team is just a bunch of angry Democrats spying for Obama?" It'll be interesting to see how he responds to them, but it won't matter because they just want the soundbyte of them making the accusation so the Trump voters in their districts will see that they support the leader and toe the line. Any questions on details from the report he will probably answer by reading excerpts verbatim. That at least might make for some good clips that the media can play and *maybe* get in front of the eyeballs of the people who haven't bothered to read the report and act as a bit of a direct rebuttal to Trump's continuous assertions that it totally exonerated him.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Seriously, I've been to Mexico a few times, and it's always been a pleasant experience.


Yeah, the only person I met that I didn't like was the Italian sitting next to me on the flight home, and I'm part Italian myself so I'm predisposed to _like_ Italians.  



Randy said:


> I guess the tantalizing part is the fact he more or less said he would NOT be testifying, and now he is but I don't think that's any indication he intends on saying anything that moves the needle on the Trump-Russia thing. The optimist in me says, at best, MAYBE we get a better scope of what to watch out for from Russia this time around but the pessimist in me says we get literally nothing and the idea he's testifying now is a smokescreen.


He's testifying because he was subpoenaed by the House and Senate, and unlike the entire Trump Administration he responded to the subpoena. I don't think we'll see any new incremental material here - the biggest thing moving the needle, IMO, will be more soundbites with Mueller explicitly confirming he was not able to clear Trump of obstruction of justice, and Mueller diplomatically trying to find a way to say that when Trump tweets "NO OBSTRUCTION" he doesn't really agree with him. And that's mostly just keeping the story alive and adding a few more grains to the pile of evidence that Trump obstructed justice. 

I still think this is fairly likely to end in impeachment, especially if the White House continues to stonewall congressional investigations - Trump's use of executive privilege to protect ANY reference to a witness's time in the administration, in fact, could very well become a charge of obstruction, especially if this does make it to the courts and they rule that Trump's use of EP exceeds that afforded by the Constitution.


----------



## Ralyks

At least Mueller is cooperative. But yeah, I doubt any new information comes to light.

Looks like they subpoenaed Conway. Probably same shit there too.

Anyway, is all of this stonewalling going to be what gets Pelosi to give in to impeachment? As I've said, I'm not entirely into the idea of impeachment, but given that were witnessing obstruction in broad daylight on what feels like a daily basis, it may have to come to that no matter what. Especially if by some miracle the Dems take the Senate back (which I'll admit to not currently being entirely educated on the likelihood of that happening).


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Anyway, is all of this stonewalling going to be what gets Pelosi to give in to impeachment? As I've said, I'm not entirely into the idea of impeachment, but given that were witnessing obstruction in broad daylight on what feels like a daily basis, it may have to come to that no matter what. Especially if by some miracle the Dems take the Senate back (which I'll admit to not currently being entirely educated on the likelihood of that happening).


The 2020 Senate map isn't particularly favorable to the Dems. Not impossible, but not likely. 

I think the Dems have two possible objectives here. Subpoena everyone, knowing full well Trump will plead executive privilege and stonewall them, and then 1) challenge his right to do so in court, arguing he's stretching executive privilege beyond the constitutionally allowable limits, pointing to the sheer _scope_ of the stonewalling, win, and compel the witnesses they really care about to testify under oath, or 2) after going through a very public exercise of exhausting every other constitutional option open to them, and once they have, argue they have no remaining choices but to impeach.


----------



## Drew

So, r/TheDonald just got quarrantined over at Reddit for inbciting violence against police officers and public officials, over the Oregon congress's climate bill and the Republican representatives fleeing the state to stop the vote: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/26/us/politics/reddit-donald-trump-quarantined.html 

Users of course immediately said it wasn't about violating site terms and conditions and the subreddit failing to enforce them, but rather an attempt to silence them before 2020.


----------



## Ralyks

Man, good thing everyone that even has a shot is on tomorrow. I don't even know what to make of this...


----------



## Randy

De Blasio performed better than expected. Castro seemed like one of the most qualified but came across as pushy. That was actually my first time seeing O'Rourke speak at length, he seemed well rehearsed but outmatched.

Warren seemed like the most complete package with De Blasio honestly a surprisingly close second for me, then I guess Booker. Everyone there had bits and pieces they were more on point about here and there but huge issues with essentially everyone else up there. At least 8 of them I'd have taken over Hillary, so I guess this is progress.


----------



## spudmunkey

To their credit, apparently it took 16 minutes before Trump was first mentioned. I'm impressed.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> De Blasio performed better than expected. Castro seemed like one of the most qualified but came across as pushy. That was actually my first time seeing O'Rourke speak at length, he seemed well rehearsed but outmatched.
> 
> Warren seemed like the most complete package with De Blasio honestly a surprisingly close second for me, then I guess Booker. Everyone there had bits and pieces they were more on point about here and there but huge issues with essentially everyone else up there. At least 8 of them I'd have taken over Hillary, so I guess this is progress.


This is about what I'm seeing elsewhere (I actually didn't watch myself). 

I think DeBlasio benefitted mostly from sort of implausibly low expectations - he's the Mayor of NYC, has a number of marquee accomplishments he's actually implemented (universal pre-K, for one), has plenty of competitive campaign and debate experience, and on paper should be a decent candidate... And he's been polling at an average of around 0.3%?! It makes no sense. His big win last night was reminding the audience that he's actually a real, credible candidate. That's not enough to boost him into the "plausible path to victory" camp, I think, but he should get a good bounce in the polls after this. Castro too, simply because he did a great job getting air space and doesn't seem to have committed any major gaffes. 

Warren performed as expected - well, easily the strongest of this particular selection, though evidently she kind of faded out as the night went on. That may not matter in subsequent media coverage as long as her performance was memorable enough at the start. 

Beto, I understand, tanked. "Too rehearsed" is probably the best way to describe it. 

I don't see this changing anything in the state of the race - Warren is still the most credible candidate in this group, Beto's star was already fading as Mayor Pete's rose, and DeBlasio should see a rise in the polls and better coverage going forward, but not enough to matter. 



spudmunkey said:


> To their credit, apparently it took 16 minutes before Trump was first mentioned. I'm impressed.


He only came up a handful of times, I understand. I don't think the Democratic frontrunner, Biden, was mentioned at all, either.


----------



## efiltsohg

Castro thinks MTF transgender people can get abortions apparently

Beto awkwardly tries to dodge questions in 2 languages


----------



## spudmunkey

efiltsohg said:


> Castro thinks MTF transgender people can get abortions apparently



 I missed that. What part of the debate was that?

That reminds me of a local company that has gender-neutral "mothers' rooms". Ha! At least there's some logic to it (it could be disturbing for a woman to be in the shared area of the mother's room, which has curtained off private areas for pumping but aren't totally secure, and see someone in there who presents as male...so they have one private room for someone who, say, is a woman but presents/lives as male, and yet gets pregnant), but there's no logic to that Castro comment, if that's what he said. 

Without seeing it, I assume someone asked about something, and that when he spoke he switched topics but didn't make it clear that he stopped talking about the one specific thing...like if he was talking about transgender MTF people, and then pivoted to a woman's right to choose, without making it clear that he was shifting the conversation...but I would like to know for sure...


----------



## Ralyks

I have so my friends say they turned the debates off early yesterday and that the Dems are fucked. I kept asking why? Anyone that stands a chance is on tonight. If they blow it, THEN the Dems are fucked.

Also, Trump tweeting "Boring!". What, was the debate not his type?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ralyks said:


> I have so my friends say they turned the debates off early yesterday and that the Dems are fucked. I kept asking why? Anyone that stands a chance is on tonight. If they blow it, THEN the Dems are fucked.
> 
> Also, Trump tweeting "Boring!". What, was the debate not his type?




BORING! BORING! BORING!


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Also, Trump tweeting "Boring!". What, was the debate not his type?



He could have watched 15 minutes and not heard his name. I'm sure that bugged him.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## Randy

Biden seemingly riddled with senior moments the whole debate, I almost felt sorry for him. Also everyone else dealing headshots on him but clearly Harris landed the only real blow on him the whole night. Swalwell and Gillibrand struggling to be relevant, Gillibrands stock went up and Swallwells stayed flat or went down (seemed like he had trouble reading the room). Tail end of 2016 I got the impression Bernie never expected to actually win and he knows it, so he harps on the same two or three things to give it as much audience he can get but at this point it comes off as tone deaf. Probably a lot of people impressed with Mayor Pete, I think he was who hes always been but was wordy and picked fights with allies for no reason.

Feels like Harris won the night and maybe of even leapfrogged to front. Biden and Bernie are still going to poll up there a bit but if the primary keeps up like this, the two of them sink like a rock assuming they haven't already. Mayor Pete star rises a couple notches but there's no medal for 5th place. Everyone else was, well, everyone else.

So far I actually think Warren was the most well balanced. She tapped into the progressive energy but with more substance. You feel like she can so anything she says she will. Harris a close second but a very different candidate. She seems less like an ideologue and more like a consensus builder with strong convictions. Then maybe Biden for the fact his heart seems in the right place and he does have a record that shows willingness and ability to facilitate progress.


----------



## Adieu

Yup, this sounds really frikkin sad


----------



## efiltsohg

Who is Marianne Williamson? This woman is hilarious


----------



## efiltsohg

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/312209312162390016


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> Who is Marianne Williamson? This woman is hilarious



I don't know but all of my chakras are now aligned so thanks?


----------



## efiltsohg

https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1032593271875403776


----------



## vilk

To us, it seems like a really ridiculous, nonsensical thing to say. But you gotta remember that about half this country is _dumb as shit_.


------

Per the usual shady shit, they turned off Andrew Yang's mic so that he couldn't interject even if he wanted to.


----------



## Randy

Nothing Yang said when his mic was working lead me to believe we missed much


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Randy isn't on the Yang Train?


----------



## narad

I love this Marianne Williamson. She's like a 1910s debutante mystic that somehow time-wandered onto the 2019 debate stage.


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I'm digging Mayor Pete. I just don't know if he's ready YET. But whoever gets the bid should make him VP. I think he has tons of potential.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So far I actually think Warren was the most well balanced. She tapped into the progressive energy but with more substance. You feel like she can so anything she says she will. Harris a close second but a very different candidate. She seems less like an ideologue and more like a consensus builder with strong convictions. Then maybe Biden for the fact his heart seems in the right place and he does have a record that shows willingness and ability to facilitate progress.


So, you're well aware that I'm no fan of Warren's. But, she's grown on me so far in this election. She's dropping the worst of the impassioned populist appeal and is just hammering home on policy questions. I don't think she's a terribly likely winner, but I think she'll have an outsized role in shaping the DNC platform in 2020, and I'm pretty ok with that. 

Buttigieg is really impressing me too, and again I don't think he's likely to win, but if anyone is going to pull an Obama and be a dark horse upset, it's him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I like Buttigieg's platform, but after reading about his handling of police reforms/policy in South Bend, which has been more front and center after a recent officer involved shooting, I can't say I'm impressed. 

He talks a heck of a game though.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I like Buttigieg's platform, but after reading about his handling of police reforms/policy in South Bend, which has been more front and center after a recent officer involved shooting, I can't say I'm impressed.
> 
> He talks a heck of a game though.


But when's the last time you've seen a politician say, "yeah, I was wrong there, I failed my constituents"? Everyone makes mistakes. You don't grow if you can't own them.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> I love this Marianne Williamson. She's like a 1910s debutante mystic that somehow time-wandered onto the 2019 debate stage.



Seth Meyers, it think, said it best. Her little "If you're out there Mr. Trump..." speech totally sounded like some indie theater "one woman show" monologue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Everyone makes mistakes.



Let's see what happens in South Bend before writing it off as a moment of humility and growth. 

Again, I'll take him over half the field, but that's not exactly a high bar.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> I love this Marianne Williamson. She's like a 1910s debutante mystic that somehow time-wandered onto the 2019 debate stage.


I think we've found this election's Jill Stein.


----------



## efiltsohg

America is not ready to elect a manlet. A homosexual, African-American, or woman, sure, but Buttgieg was the shortest person on stage including 3 women


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Xaios said:


> I think we've found this election's Jill Stein.


----------



## MFB

efiltsohg said:


> America is not ready to elect a manlet. A homosexual, African-American, or woman, sure, but Buttgieg was the shortest person on stage including 3 women



Can you point me in the direction where I can find this mystical chart of height corresponding to political ability? I'd love to pick one up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MFB said:


> Can you point me in the direction where I can find this mystical chart of height corresponding to political ability? I'd love to pick one up.



We've elected plenty of <6' presidents. Ignore the projection.


----------



## Drew

We even elected one who couldn't stand, and he's generally considered to have been a rather good one.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I like Buttigieg's platform, but after reading about his handling of police reforms/policy in South Bend, which has been more front and center after a recent officer involved shooting, I can't say I'm impressed.
> 
> He talks a heck of a game though.


So do most slimy politicians. Doesn't make them a good leader. It makes them a good con artist, though.


----------



## Ralyks

Like the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal while losing a billion dollars?


----------



## vilk

Ralyks said:


> Like the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal while losing a billion dollars?


I wonder if Trump even wrote one sentence of that book


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Randy isn't on the Yang Train?



Yin Yang Twins > Andrew Yang


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> I think we've found this election's Jill Stein.



Laugh all you want. You haven't seen her plan for peace in the middle East using pink Himalayan salt crystals.


----------



## Flappydoodle

efiltsohg said:


> America is not ready to elect a manlet. A homosexual, African-American, or woman, sure, but Buttgieg was the shortest person on stage including 3 women





MFB said:


> Can you point me in the direction where I can find this mystical chart of height corresponding to political ability? I'd love to pick one up.





MaxOfMetal said:


> We've elected plenty of <6' presidents. Ignore the projection.



Interesting reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States

All president since Jimmy Carter has been at lest 6ft tall.

The most recent average height president was Truman at 5ft 9

The most recent "short" president was McKinley in 1897 (5ft 7)

And if you look at matchups, the tallest person has won 21 out of 29 presidential elections in the last 120 years

So I would definitely say Buttigeg's height is a factor. The most recent president his height was more than 100 years ago.

Trump is big and also 6'3, so Buttigieg would look like a manlet next to him.




Ralyks said:


> Like the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal while losing a billion dollars?



I know it's a joke, but he did write another book called "Art of the Comeback" about that loss and how he came back


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> I know it's a joke, but he did write another book called "Art of the Comeback" about that loss and how he came back



Chapter 1: not paying your workers
Chapter 2: having your dad pay your debts via clandestine casino chip investments 
Chapter 3: selling these books


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> Interesting reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States
> 
> All president since Jimmy Carter has been at lest 6ft tall.
> 
> The most recent average height president was Truman at 5ft 9
> 
> The most recent "short" president was McKinley in 1897 (5ft 7)
> 
> And if you look at matchups, the tallest person has won 21 out of 29 presidential elections in the last 120 years
> 
> So I would definitely say Buttigeg's height is a factor. The most recent president his height was more than 100 years ago.
> 
> Trump is big and also 6'3, so Buttigieg would look like a manlet next to him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's a joke, but he did write another book called "Art of the Comeback" about that loss and how he came back



Correlation vs. Causation 

While I understand perceived "fuckability" of a candidate is important to a [weird] subset of the voting pool, I doubt it is important enough to bypass policy positions in a meaningful way.


----------



## Adieu

efiltsohg said:


> America is not ready to elect a manlet. A homosexual, African-American, or woman, sure, but Buttgieg was the shortest person on stage including 3 women



And then there's that last name... 

Not doing him any favors, either


----------



## MaxOfMetal

There are genuine reasons not to support Buttigieg, but his height, sexuality, and last name aren't it. 

Again, the subset of voters influenced by that probably aren't taking part in the democratic primary process, and in the general will probably care more about party affiliation.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> There are genuine reasons not to support Buttigieg, but his height, sexuality, and last name aren't it.
> 
> Again, the subset of voters influenced by that probably aren't taking part in the democratic primary process, and in the general will probably care more about party affiliation.



The #1 mistake in Big Politics is thinking waaaaay too highly of the electorate

Democrats need a bland, inoffensive centrist... instead everyone's trying to push gimmick candidates, having taken all the wrong conclusions from Obama's wins and rather crudely writing him off as one

Btw, the one who took the RIGHT conclusions from Obama's streak, and immitated what worked? That'd be Trump (not that he'd ever admit it)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Democrats need a bland, inoffensive centrist...



To do what with?


----------



## Adieu

To retake control of the plot. TO WIN.



MaxOfMetal said:


> To do what with?



To appeal to more people (or, rather, turn off fewer people) and retake control of the situation with a candidate that no one is PARTICULARLY AGAINST

The polarizing stuff is how we ended up with Trump in the first place, he managed to convince the Regular Joes that the Dems are a party whose core value is "anyone-but-them"... now the Dems need to go suck up and make nice.

They need a straight white-ish guy with humble roots. No law degree, no elitism, no tenures, no old money, not too young, no wingnut opinions made public.... preferably has old photos driving a pickup truck.

Because hardcore Democratic voters will vote for ANYONE over Trump.... which means they need the most un-Obama, un-Hillary, unQueer, unSocialist dude they can find, so as to bag the biggest number of undecideds and shave some moderate or disgusted Republicans too


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> so as to bag the biggest number of undecideds and shave some moderate or disgusted Republicans too



That's been a pipe dream of Blue Dog democrats for years and no matter how big of a DINO they run results are always mixed and tend to hurt the party more in the long run as we wind up, historically, with politicians who push for socially conservative agendas that are at odds with the democratic base and that disenfranchisement is long lasting. 

Trump isn't going to last forever. Using the "anybody but Trump" ticket to elect a right leaning "Dem" is short sighted. What about the next election?

If the mid-terms have shown us anything it's that being progressive is not a political liability like establishment Democrats have been saying.


----------



## Ralyks

So looks like post-debate polls have Biden still leading but dropping 5 points, Bernie holding on to second, and now Warren and Harris tied for third, with Harris surging ahead of Buttigieg.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's been a pipe dream of Blue Dog democrats for years and no matter how big of a DINO they run results are always mixed and tend to hurt the party more in the long run as we wind up, historically, with politicians who push for socially conservative agendas that are at odds with the democratic base and that disenfranchisement is long lasting.
> 
> Trump isn't going to last forever. Using the "anybody but Trump" ticket to elect a right leaning "Dem" is short sighted. What about the next election?
> 
> If the mid-terms have shown us anything it's that being progressive is not a political liability like establishment Democrats have been saying.



It's like some kind of race to see who self-destructs faster

Trump's not actually GUARANTEED to sink the Republicans single-handedly if he stays in office, alas... in fact, if he gets a second term and then proceeds to conveniently tie up loose ends by stroking out and kicking the bucket on the job... then the Democrats are done. For good.

Unless they're absolutely sure they can crucify him on some especially humiliating criminal charge that actually sticks, they MUST annihilate him in the coming election if they hope to retain any future credibility. Not by a hair, but by double digit margins.

Because the next guy won't necessarily be a pompous, bumbling, corrupt, and probably treasonous joke of a man that's any political campaigner's wet dream of a walking target.... THIS GUY IS THE FUCKING TUTORIAL LEVEL, PEOPLE.


----------



## efiltsohg

It won't be Harris because she won't secure the ADOS vote and has nothing else to offer the dems


----------



## Viginez

InHiding said:


> Vote Tulsi, not Butt-i-breath, he sux!


they put her clever on the b-team (1st debate), poor woman hat to go on a fox show afterwards to explain herself.
you can see from a thousand miles away that kamala (from the a-team/2nd debate) is the choosen one. she has all the (race) cards in her hand...


----------



## Adieu

Another minority candidate (of any kind) would be a huge mistake.... unless it's somebody with smash hit popularity. Which this lot ain't. Maybe if they recruited some massively popular celeb candidate like Oprah Winfrey or maybe Michael Jordan or something, sure, but NOT THESE ONES.

Gotta win first before pressing the non-existant advantage to further an ideological advantage

Can't afford to lose any votes at all, which means appeasing everybody with even a hint of prejudicial doubts in their minds.


----------



## iamaom

MaxOfMetal said:


> To do what with?


Man I feel like this should be the question of the decade that no one seems to ask Democrats. It's like when Pelosi gave a town hall a few years ago about how Democrats should start easing up on being so pro-abortion to win over the "moderate republicans". What's the point of the Democrats having a majority in congress if a large percent of them will vote with Republicans on important issues that actually affect people? What the fuck does Pelosi (and the rest of the Dem old guard) want so bad that they're willing to sacrifice social progress of over 50 years for? I can't seem to guess because based on the recent Primary debates it's not healthcare, not climate change, not racism, not increasing the standard of living for the working class, or seemingly any issue 99% of voters [who aren't millionaires] care about.


----------



## Randy

McConnell and Pelosi's tenures seemingly illustrating everything wrong with the Majority Leader/Speaker's positions. Say what you want about the asshole who got the POTUS job, but he went from having no experience in elected office to President overnight and the guy before him went from freshman Senator straight to POTUS.

That's to say, the Executive branch works more like a direct Democracy where almost anybody can run for the job and policy can shift on a dime based on the will of the people but in the House and Senate, you typically don't get to the position of leadership without 10-20 years in the machine at least. I'm not usually the "they're all corrupt" type but they're two incredibly politicized positions that require so much backroom shit to get there, I'm almost afraid of the answer of "what [they] want so bad".

One minor thing I'll give credit to the Republicans on. I thought Boehner was a seemingly more reasonable guy than his replacement,but when the makeup of the party shifted in the direction of the Tea Party, they had no qualms with bouncing him out for a younger guy (Ryan) that was more reflective of where the party was going. Democrats seemingly prepared to give Nancy the speakership for life, without a clear plan for the rest of us as to where she's going with things, especially the high volume of counter intuitive, counter-to-popular opinion decisions.


----------



## Randy

BTW, Trump's tenure seemingly a stress test on the President's position as well.

I like the idea of nearly anybody being able to get the job (if they can get the votes) but putting aside the notion of him as a 'bad actor', a glaring issue would be the lack of experience in places it matters. The cabinet positions/departments seemingly there to take some shock out of it, but again, President gets to choose those. Senate confirmation process and background checks for security clearance should seemingly act as a firewall, but we've learned that if the Senate and the Executive branch share a common party, there's no checks there either. And on the flipside, you can have scenarios where the Executive branch offer qualified candidates but the Senate is controlled by an opposition party, and they won't confirm anyone as a result. It's a clusterfuck.


----------



## InHiding




----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So looks like post-debate polls have Biden still leading but dropping 5 points, Bernie holding on to second, and now Warren and Harris tied for third, with Harris surging ahead of Buttigieg.


Haven't seen good polling data yet, but this is roughly my expected outcome, so... 

Sanders isn't going anywhere in the polls unless he does something to help or hurt his standing. High floor, low ceiling. His best path to victory is an extended primary fought to the very end where 20% of the vote is a significant percentage of a large field. On top of that, his debate performance was a non-event; likely to appeal to existing supporters, but not likely to win new ones over.

Biden had a bad night. Harris was the major reason for that. Warren stole the show on the first debate. I expected both of them to rise. I'd expect Buttigieg to have gained a little more in the polls, though, simply for putting in a solid, articulate, and thoughtful performance, and for now having greater name recognition. 

Probably too early to say for sure, but my gut sense is we need to stop treating Biden as a front-runner after that debate.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> BTW, Trump's tenure seemingly a stress test on the President's position as well.
> 
> I like the idea of nearly anybody being able to get the job (if they can get the votes) but putting aside the notion of him as a 'bad actor', a glaring issue would be the lack of experience in places it matters. The cabinet positions/departments seemingly there to take some shock out of it, but again, President gets to choose those. Senate confirmation process and background checks for security clearance should seemingly act as a firewall, but we've learned that if the Senate and the Executive branch share a common party, there's no checks there either. And on the flipside, you can have scenarios where the Executive branch offer qualified candidates but the Senate is controlled by an opposition party, and they won't confirm anyone as a result. It's a clusterfuck.


No arguments. A lot of the Constitution, it seems, seems to implicitly rely on good intentions, or at least maturity, on the part of all actors involved, and a mutual respect for the democratic traditions of this country. We've seen some strain there anyway in the last decade or two, but Trump has made it abundantly clear how powerful the presidency can be if you legitimately don't give a fuck about the democratic norms.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

InHiding said:


>



To be fair, Marianne Williamson was the most searched after the second debate.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Can't afford to lose any votes at all, which means appeasing everybody with even a hint of prejudicial doubts in their minds.


I don't agree with this.

Trump's strategy for the first 2 1/2 years of his first term has been, when in doubt, to double down on his base. His base isn't big enough to win alone. Cross reference these two tables:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Second table, "Party Identifiers + Leaners"

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx
Second table, "Presidential Approval by Party Identification.

Generally, about 40-45% of the electorate is Republican or leans Republican, while 45-50% is Democratic or leans Democratic. 5-10% is truly independent. For the sake of making some estimations, let's use the midpoint - 42.5% Republican, 47.5% Democratic, 7.5% independent.

Trump's republican approval is high, as is typical for a sitting president; eyeballing the last couple months, let's call it 89%. Democratic approval is very low, unusually so - again, let's eyeball it as 7%. Independent approval is low as well, roughly 35%.

So, let's throw some math at this:

Republican support: 42.5% x 89% = 37.8% of electorate
Democratic support: 47.5% x 7% = 3.3% of electorate
Independent support: 7.5% x 35% = 2.6% of electorate
Sum = 43.7% of electorate

This cross-foots pretty well with his headline approval numbers, which in the most recent Gallup poll were 43%.

Trump won in 2016 with 46.1% of the vote, which is probably about his floor - he had a favorable Electoral College map, and maybe 100,000 votes in three states were the difference between him winning or losing. So, he needs to make up about 2.4% of the electorate if he wants a second term.

He doesn't have many paths to get there. At present there's about 4.7% of Republicans or leaning republicans who don't support them. Could they hold their nose and vote for him in the election? Sure, and that would do it... But, in that scenario where partisanship wins out over personal support, I'd look long and hard at the 3.3% of the vote coming from Democrats, where I'd expect some or all of that to drop away. There's a net 1.4 percentage point gap with more Republicans who don't support him than Democrats who do, which if partisanship does revert fully that still leaves him short.

IMO - one man's opinion, but take it for what it's worth - his best path to victory is with independents, where getting his support from 35 to 66% would net him an additional 2.4% of the vote. And, based on the estimations I've seen, that's roughly what he _did_ win with independent voters in 2016. However, he's completely turned off independents, dropping from 2-in-3 to 1-in-3 in the last 2 1/2 years.

Trump's strategy continues to be to double down on his base when pushed. To win, he either needs to change that, which would likely improve his standing with independents as well as with the "never Trump" GOP, or the Democrats need to do something to REALLY alienate the middle. And I don't think a minority candidate would be enough alienation to overcome the structural disadvantage Trump is currently at.

Either way, _right now, at this moment_, Trump is not positioned to win. A lot can and will change in the next 18 months, but Trump is starting at a disadvantage.


----------



## Adieu

This all hinges on a bland vanilla Democrat that doesn't burn bridges or turn off the electorate.

Trump seems to be betting that he'll get another dream opponent like last time.

Also, don't forget that just because they'll never vote for Trump doesn't mean a lot of people won't abstain from voting entirely.... hell, like last time.


----------



## Drew

Eh, turnout was actually higher than recent norms in 2016, higher than at any time other than Obama on a % of electorate basis. Whatever else Trump benefitted from, it wasn't depressed turnout. 

I think the numbers are pretty compelling, but if you don't... All I can say, is I can't think of a single presidential candidate in recent history who was "bland vanilla" and won. Certainly on the Democratic side - Obama and Clinton were exciting "generational candidates," while on the Republican side Trump was a bull in a china shop, W. was down-home, folks, and the kind of dude you wanted to have a beer with, and Reagan was a movie star. You'd have to go back to H. W on the Republican side or maybe Carter on the Democratic side to find someone who was fairly "vanilla" who won, and the former was a distinguished vet and former Vice President, the latter was a former Governor of a southern state, and both were 1-term presidents. 

Just looking at what we've seen in the last 35 years, I don't think "generic" and "unoffensive" is a good path to the White House.


----------



## Adieu

I just feel that ANYONE who wasn't Hillary (ok....or Bernie) would have absolutely STEAMROLLED the twittering buffoon last time around.

Literally any random governor or big city mayor or bland senator or something.

So just to be on the safe side, gotta avoid anyone controversial so we can be rid of the guy for good. Which, yes, imho means NOT testing the waters whether America is or isn't ready for socialists, women, or gay men in the oval office.

No major policy initiatives either, please. Just beat Trump and get back to business as usual.

Time and a place and all that


----------



## MFB

Adieu said:


> I just feel that ANYONE who wasn't Hillary (ok....or Bernie) would have absolutely STEAMROLLED the twittering buffoon last time around. Literally any random governor or big city mayor or bland senator or something.


----------



## vilk

I *love* the _Dean Scream
_
And none of you better use it as the intro for your EP because it's MINE.


----------



## Ralyks

Ooohhh Howard Dean  I liked him too.

So Harris Seems to be facing as much backlash as she is facing a surge in polls over the Biden attack.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/EF367168-9BF6-11E9-8438-C26546F10F2D

Meanwhile, the attack from Donnie Dumbass Jr. seems to be helping her at the same time.


----------



## Randy

MFB said:


>



More disconcerting than his pitch control is how baggy his shirt is. If he can't find a shirt that fits right, how do we know he's the right fit for the job?


----------



## Vyn

I just caught up on about 20 pages of this thread and I just want to thank @MaxOfMetal , @Drew , @vilk and @Randy for some quality fucking discussion and posting. Seriously one of my favourite threads on this forum, US politics is fascinating.


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> Correlation vs. Causation
> 
> While I understand perceived "fuckability" of a candidate is important to a [weird] subset of the voting pool, I doubt it is important enough to bypass policy positions in a meaningful way.



I don't believe that at all. It simply can't be coincidence that 21/28 elections were won by the taller guy. Or that there hasn't been a sub-6ft president since the 1960s and a below average height president since the 1800s. That's not just coincidence.

It's human psychology, and how somebody looks MASSIVELY impacts how you think of them. We don't *know* these candidates. We can only get impressions. And the exact same words from a little nerdy guy or a big tough guy are perceived differently by viewers. It's unavoidable.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, or anything like that. But the messenger is incredibly important.



MaxOfMetal said:


> There are genuine reasons not to support Buttigieg, but his height, sexuality, and last name aren't it.
> 
> Again, the subset of voters influenced by that probably aren't taking part in the democratic primary process, and in the general will probably care more about party affiliation.



I won't be "he's too short so I won't vote for him". It's more like "I just don't like him". It's a subconscious thing. Most people won't be actively discriminating on height, or even gender/race. But as you know, a tall white guy showing anger is perceived differently to a black woman showing anger.


----------



## Xaios

Of course it's a real phenomenon. That's how Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as governor of California over Danny Devito.


----------



## Adieu

Well, it WOULD explain Trump... who's allegedly taller than any of em.

The ineligible Schwarzenegger included.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> I don't believe that at all. It simply can't be coincidence that 21/28 elections were won by the taller guy. Or that there hasn't been a sub-6ft president since the 1960s and a below average height president since the 1800s. That's not just coincidence.
> 
> It's human psychology, and how somebody looks MASSIVELY impacts how you think of them. We don't *know* these candidates. We can only get impressions. And the exact same words from a little nerdy guy or a big tough guy are perceived differently by viewers. It's unavoidable.
> 
> I'm not saying this is a good thing, or anything like that. But the messenger is incredibly important.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't be "he's too short so I won't vote for him". It's more like "I just don't like him". It's a subconscious thing. Most people won't be actively discriminating on height, or even gender/race. But as you know, a tall white guy showing anger is perceived differently to a black woman showing anger.



The problem with looking at the general election is that it doesn't account for the typically extreme ideological differences of the candidate.

A more telling sample set would be the winners of the primary elections, which usually put much more similarly focused candidates against each other.

(Winner Bolded, no opposition party when incumbent.)

2016:
*Hillary Clinton* 5'5" - Bernie Sanders 6'
*Donald Trump* 6'3" - Jeb Bush 6'3"
2012:
*Mitt Romney* 6'2" - Rick Santorum 6'3"
2008:
*Barack Obama* 6'1" - Bill Richardson 6'2"
*John McCain* 5'9" - Mitt Romney 6'2"
2004:
*John Kerry* 6'4" - John Edward 6'0"
2000:
*Al Gore* 6'1" - Bill Bradley 6'5"
*George Bush* 6' - Alan Keyes 6'1"

When ideologies are more similar, it seems height doesn't matter, and if it does, it's better to be short.


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem with looking at the general election is that it doesn't account for the typically extreme ideological differences of the candidate.
> 
> A more telling sample set would be the winners of the primary elections, which usually put much more similarly focused candidates against each other.
> 
> (Winner Bolded, no opposition party when incumbent.)
> 
> 2016:
> *Hillary Clinton* 5'5" - Bernie Sanders 6'
> *Donald Trump* 6'3" - Jeb Bush 6'3"
> 2012:
> *Mitt Romney* 6'2" - Rick Santorum 6'3"
> 2008:
> *Barack Obama* 6'1" - Bill Richardson 6'2"
> *John McCain* 5'9" - Mitt Romney 6'2"
> 2004:
> *John Kerry* 6'4" - John Edward 6'0"
> 2000:
> *Al Gore* 6'1" - Bill Bradley 6'5"
> *George Bush* 6' - Alan Keyes 6'1"
> 
> When ideologies are more similar, it seems height doesn't matter, and if it does, it's better to be short.



But there's only one "short" guy on your list - McCain. Even then, he's very average height (50th percentile for his age)

Hillary doesn't count, since women aren't judged by height at all.

Trump, Jeb Bush, Romney, Santorum, Obama, Richardson... just look at your list. The vast majority of them are tall. They're all FAR taller than average.

For example, according to this: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf

6"1 puts you in the top 8%
6"2 puts you as top 6%
6"3 as top 3%

Every single candidate except McCain is in the top 10% of height for men

So you're saying "it's better to be short", but what you really mean is that the 6% guy beating the 3% guy. I think it's fair to say that at a certain point it doesn't matter.

The real question is whether the 18% guy (Buttigieg at 5"7) can beat the 3% guy (Trump).


----------



## efiltsohg

Also why list Jeb Bush at 0.16% delegates


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> Of course it's a real phenomenon. That's how Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as governor of California over Danny Devito.



Hold up. I thought they were twins?


----------



## Flappydoodle

InHiding said:


>



Good for Tulsi. I saw her on Joe Rogan, and she's a "common sense Democrat"

No SJW nonsense. Sensible-sounding. Not labelling people.

I'm not American, but she looks like a good candidate to me.



Drew said:


> Haven't seen good polling data yet, but this is roughly my expected outcome, so...
> 
> Sanders isn't going anywhere in the polls unless he does something to help or hurt his standing. High floor, low ceiling. His best path to victory is an extended primary fought to the very end where 20% of the vote is a significant percentage of a large field. On top of that, his debate performance was a non-event; likely to appeal to existing supporters, but not likely to win new ones over.
> 
> Biden had a bad night. Harris was the major reason for that. Warren stole the show on the first debate. I expected both of them to rise. I'd expect Buttigieg to have gained a little more in the polls, though, simply for putting in a solid, articulate, and thoughtful performance, and for now having greater name recognition.
> 
> Probably too early to say for sure, but my gut sense is we need to stop treating Biden as a front-runner after that debate.



My opinions:

Sanders won't win. His time has passed. Damaged good nows. And his "image" still sucks. "Old man yells at cloud" pretty much. And he isn't the left-wing guy any more. Lots of them are going full on left wing crazy - abolish ICE, decriminalise border crossings etc. So Bernie doesn't have any unique selling point anyway. Plus, there's already a strong old white guy candidate who has more experience. So Bernie = done.

Biden is trying to play safe. As long as he doesn't fuck up, he wins the nomination. It's his to lose. So no point really rocking the boat. Harris' attack was... meh. I probably wouldn't be a Democrat, but the way it was so obviously staged and rehearsed was kinda icky. I think it made them both look bad, but I suppose some people will enjoy it.

Don't think Buttigieg can win either, though he is an interesting candidate. I'm also curious how a little white gay guy would be perceived by blacks and hispanics, who are typically socially conservative and a lot less accepting of homosexuality.

IMO, it will probably be Biden vs Trump. Which is basically the Obama legacy vs Trump. Second most likely possibility is Harris vs Trump, since she ticks some demographic boxes which will help in terms of election. 




Adieu said:


> I just feel that ANYONE who wasn't Hillary (ok....or Bernie) would have absolutely STEAMROLLED the twittering buffoon last time around.
> 
> Literally any random governor or big city mayor or bland senator or something.
> 
> So just to be on the safe side, gotta avoid anyone controversial so we can be rid of the guy for good. Which, yes, imho means NOT testing the waters whether America is or isn't ready for socialists, women, or gay men in the oval office.
> 
> No major policy initiatives either, please. Just beat Trump and get back to business as usual.
> 
> Time and a place and all that



I think you shouldn't underestimate Trump. Hillary was pretty shit, but Trump had the advantage of coming off 2 terms of Democratic presidency. That always gives an advantage to the other guy. Having 3 presidencies from the same party is relatively rare.

And this time around, he's the incumbent, which is a HUGE advantage. 

The Russian collusion narrative fell apart. He hasn't started WW3. He hasn't crashed the economy. In fact, the country seems to be doing rather well overall.

I think the Dems need somebody compelling to beat him. And they need to actually offer something other than the fact he's an asshole. Everybody knows that already and they've normalised it.

Also I think your perspective is way off. A terrible Dem president could be a disaster also.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> But there's only one "short" guy on your list - McCain. Even then, he's very average height (50th percentile for his age)
> 
> Hillary doesn't count, since women aren't judged by height at all.
> 
> Trump, Jeb Bush, Romney, Santorum, Obama, Richardson... just look at your list. The vast majority of them are tall. They're all FAR taller than average.
> 
> For example, according to this: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s0205.pdf
> 
> 6"1 puts you in the top 8%
> 6"2 puts you as top 6%
> 6"3 as top 3%
> 
> Every single candidate except McCain is in the top 10% of height for men
> 
> So you're saying "it's better to be short", but what you really mean is that the 6% guy beating the 3% guy. I think it's fair to say that at a certain point it doesn't matter.
> 
> The real question is whether the 18% guy (Buttigieg at 5"7) can beat the 3% guy (Trump).



The argument wasn't "are tall people successful" it was "tall people win against shorter candidates". 

On TV or Stage there's very little in the way of perspective. A 6' person just looks slightly shorter than a 6'3" person, and they very well could be shorter. 

As you said "it doesn't really matter".


----------



## Flappydoodle

efiltsohg said:


> Also why list Jeb Bush at 0.16% delegates



Good point. Out of interest:

Ted Cruz - 5ft 11 (top 30%)
John Kasich - 6ft (top 20%)
Marco Rubio - 5ft 9 (and mocked as "little Rubio", noticeably the shortest on stage)
Rick Perry - 6ft 1 (top 9%)
Ben Carson - 6ft
Mike Huckabee - 6ft
Scott Walker - 5ft 11

I can't remember anybody else to google. But again it's pretty clear that candidates are FAR taller than average. 

At this point, I hope nobody is denying that height of male candidates is irrelevant. For every 6ft 2 guy, there would be a 5ft5 guy as the statistical equal. 

And for the 6ft3 guys (Trump, Kerry, Santorum - top 0.5%), there would have to be a 5ft1 guy if it was normally distributed


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> The argument wasn't "are tall people successful" it was "tall people win against shorter candidates".
> 
> On TV or Stage there's very little in the way of perspective. A 6' person just looks slightly shorter than a 6'3" person, and they very well could be shorter.
> 
> As you said "it doesn't really matter".



Don't selectively quote me. I said "AT A CERTAIN POINT it doesn't matter"

Obviously the degree of height difference is important. 6ft 3 vs 6ft 2 isn't a big deal. 

The original question was about Buttigieg. He's a pretty average height, but he's competing against a whole bunch of statistically tall freaks. It's a big disadvantage for him.


----------



## Randy

So is this an observation of American culture or human biases in general, or...? Because outside of the US, height of notable 'strong man' leaders are all average to below.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> "AT A CERTAIN POINT it doesn't matter"



I completely agree, but I'd say, once all factors are considered, height plays an inconsequential role in actual outcomes. 

You can have all the correlation in the world, and still not have causation. 

Not to mention, anyone who seriously refers to another adult as a "manlet" is probably not going to be coming at this in good faith.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> So is this an observation of American culture or human biases in general, or...? Because outside of the US, height of notable 'strong man' leaders are all average to below.



That's because the American election used to be the world's biggest popularity contest... while the rest of the world was mostly lie/cheat/plot/scheme/murder your way to the top

That's why Trump v. Clinton was such a bizarre wtf moment


----------



## efiltsohg

nah it's because height is correlated with other positive indicators as well

good genes are good genes


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Flappydoodle said:


> *No SJW nonsense*.
> 
> *Not labelling people.*


Pick one


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> I just feel that ANYONE who wasn't Hillary (ok....or Bernie) would have absolutely STEAMROLLED the twittering buffoon last time around.
> 
> Literally any random governor or big city mayor or bland senator or something.
> 
> So just to be on the safe side, gotta avoid anyone controversial so we can be rid of the guy for good. Which, yes, imho means NOT testing the waters whether America is or isn't ready for socialists, women, or gay men in the oval office.
> 
> No major policy initiatives either, please. Just beat Trump and get back to business as usual.
> 
> Time and a place and all that


I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse... But, you're wrong. End of story. And to that last point in particular, if the Democrats run a candidate whose sole platform item is "beat Trump," well, they're going to lose. Trump would have a field day with that. 



Flappydoodle said:


> My opinions:
> 
> Sanders won't win. His time has passed. Damaged good nows. And his "image" still sucks. "Old man yells at cloud" pretty much. And he isn't the left-wing guy any more. Lots of them are going full on left wing crazy - abolish ICE, decriminalise border crossings etc. So Bernie doesn't have any unique selling point anyway. Plus, there's already a strong old white guy candidate who has more experience. So Bernie = done.
> 
> Biden is trying to play safe. As long as he doesn't fuck up, he wins the nomination. It's his to lose. So no point really rocking the boat. Harris' attack was... meh. I probably wouldn't be a Democrat, but the way it was so obviously staged and rehearsed was kinda icky. I think it made them both look bad, but I suppose some people will enjoy it.
> 
> Don't think Buttigieg can win either, though he is an interesting candidate. I'm also curious how a little white gay guy would be perceived by blacks and hispanics, who are typically socially conservative and a lot less accepting of homosexuality.
> 
> IMO, it will probably be Biden vs Trump. Which is basically the Obama legacy vs Trump. Second most likely possibility is Harris vs Trump, since she ticks some demographic boxes which will help in terms of election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you shouldn't underestimate Trump. Hillary was pretty shit, but Trump had the advantage of coming off 2 terms of Democratic presidency. That always gives an advantage to the other guy. Having 3 presidencies from the same party is relatively rare.
> 
> And this time around, he's the incumbent, which is a HUGE advantage.
> 
> The Russian collusion narrative fell apart. He hasn't started WW3. He hasn't crashed the economy. In fact, the country seems to be doing rather well overall.
> 
> I think the Dems need somebody compelling to beat him. And they need to actually offer something other than the fact he's an asshole. Everybody knows that already and they've normalised it.
> 
> Also I think your perspective is way off. A terrible Dem president could be a disaster also.



Sanders very likely wins if halfway through the primary voting we still have 10-12 candidates and he's just the largest draw in the room - he probably won't win outright, but it'll send us to a divided convention, and in that scenario if the DNC votes for someone _other_ than the candidate with the most delegates, then Sanders' supporters have a meltdown, and the Democrats lose in the General. 

I think you're underestimating Harris' exchange with Biden - she drew blood. Biden still leads but his lead has fallen, and Harris is now in 2nd with Warren in 3rd. Harris still isn't terribly well known, so I think she's got some upside to come here, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was the eventual winner. 

I agree that "beat Trump" isn't enough to go on, as well - we need a concrete policy alternative. Warren has been killing it on that front, and probably will shape the core of the DNC platform this year. 

And I think Trump is at a disadvantage here, even as an incumbent, for the reasons I've outlined above - my biggest concern, frankly, is what happens if Trump loses - will he agree to cede power voluntarily?


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> I just caught up on about 20 pages of this thread and I just want to thank @MaxOfMetal , @Drew , @vilk and @Randy for some quality fucking discussion and posting. Seriously one of my favourite threads on this forum, US politics is fascinating.



No problem, man - I follow this stuff pretty closely for work, but mostly just to talk about the market implications. It's a good outlet to talk about it for purely political implications. 

May as well combine the two, though - the bond market is starting to price out the likelihood of a really ugly fight over the debt ceiling. Bloomberg ran an interesting note today, there was a Treasury Bill offering this morning for 10/3 maturity, right around the time the CBO expects the government to hit the debt ceiling, and the offering was bid about 8bps cheap to maturities a week or two before or after this date. The most likely implication is that buyers are demanding a bit of extra compensation for the risk that this maturity may be delayed if the debt ceiling isn't raised in time.


----------



## Randy

efiltsohg said:


> nah it's because height is correlated with other positive indicators as well
> 
> good genes are good genes



Citation needed


----------



## StevenC

"The height gene and policy making gene are strongly linked" 

Said no geneticist ever


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> my biggest concern, frankly, is what happens if Trump loses - will he agree to cede power voluntarily?



Trump? The guy who claims he should be given an extra 2 years because of the Mueller investigation, thinks the people would want him to have a third term, and thinks he can make a way to stay president forever?

    

Sorry Drew, not trying to be a dick. I've mentioned in the last I highly respected the input you've contributed to this thread. I'm just trying to emphasis that I truly don't he'll leave willingly under any circumstances.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> I don't want to continue to beat a dead horse... But, you're wrong. End of story. And to that last point in particular, if the Democrats run a candidate whose sole platform item is "beat Trump," well, they're going to lose. Trump would have a field day with that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sanders very likely wins if halfway through the primary voting we still have 10-12 candidates and he's just the largest draw in the room - he probably won't win outright, but it'll send us to a divided convention, and in that scenario if the DNC votes for someone _other_ than the candidate with the most delegates, then Sanders' supporters have a meltdown, and the Democrats lose in the General.
> 
> I think you're underestimating Harris' exchange with Biden - she drew blood. Biden still leads but his lead has fallen, and Harris is now in 2nd with Warren in 3rd. Harris still isn't terribly well known, so I think she's got some upside to come here, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was the eventual winner.
> 
> I agree that "beat Trump" isn't enough to go on, as well - we need a concrete policy alternative. Warren has been killing it on that front, and probably will shape the core of the DNC platform this year.
> 
> And I think Trump is at a disadvantage here, even as an incumbent, for the reasons I've outlined above - my biggest concern, frankly, is what happens if Trump loses - will he agree to cede power voluntarily?



Dear gawd, screw policy alternatives

Democrat Policy is what got Trump elected in the first place

DAMAGE CONTROL should be the one and ONLY policy of whoever goes up against Trump.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> Hold up. I thought they were twins?


They are, totally, but Danny Devito is the evil twin. You can tell because he's the short and fat one, which is why people didn't vote for him, because they _knew_ he was the evil one.

Also, the last words of his concession speech were "Someday I'll get that Batman." If that's not confirmation that he's Arnold Schwarzenegger's evil twin, I don't know what is.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Trump? The guy who claims he should be given an extra 2 years because of the Mueller investigation, thinks the people would want him to have a third term, and thinks he can make a way to stay president forever?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Drew, not trying to be a dick. I've mentioned in the last I highly respected the input you've contributed to this thread. I'm just trying to emphasis that I truly don't he'll leave willingly under any circumstances.


No, I mean, that's where my concern is coming from.  If he loses, I think we could have a legitimate constitutional crisis on our hands. Which is of course radically different from if he wins, in which case we have a legitimate constitutional crisis on our hands, so I suppose I should stop worrying. 



Adieu said:


> Dear gawd, screw policy alternatives
> 
> Democrat Policy is what got Trump elected in the first place
> 
> DAMAGE CONTROL should be the one and ONLY policy of whoever goes up against Trump.


Again, strongly disagree. Trump's policy initiatives were:

1) Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
2) Ban Muslims while we figure out "this muslim problem."

That was it. Meanwhile, Clinton had a very fleshed out policy plan that never got any airtime because we spent all our time talking about whether or not Trump was a racist, and whether or not he was a sex offender. Trump won because he managed to force the narrative onto a referendum of his bombastic personality and whether or not Clinton was corrupt, rather than any even remotely serious policy matters. He made it a personal referendum, and not a policy one, and that played to his advantage.

If the Democrats allow Trump to run a second campaign avoiding any policy issues, I'd say Trump still has his hands full, but it's an easier campaign for him to make it a personal referendum than a policy one - he has a better path to victory if his campaign is about "sticking it to the libtards" rather than what health care policy in this country should be. His strategy so far has been that "I've got a plan (to defeat IS/to make Mexico pay/to replace the ACA/to replace TPP/etc etc etc) but I'm not gonna tell you what it is because I don't want to tip my hand" because vague promises of something good are way easier to make than actual policy proposals. So, don't let him do that.

I mean, running a campaign on "stop Trump, because he's an asshole" isn't gonna fly. EVERYONE knows he's an asshole. 42% of the country actually _likes_ that about him. The Democrats need to be the adult in the room next to the spoiled six year old throwing a temper tantrum - have a serious policy conversation, point to how the things Trump has already done has hurt middle class voters, and put forth plausible plans that could help them. Force Trump to actually put forth proposals of his own, and when he won't/can't, call him out on being a charlatan making empty promises he has no intention of keeping. Ridicule him for being a lightweight, without the intellectual gravitas or emotional maturity to handle running a country. Hammer him on the fact he simply doesn't have any idea what he's doing and he's trying to get by on bravado and instinctive lashing, because he doesn't actually have a plan to "make america great."

"Vote for me because I'm not Trump" is literally the weakest possible reason to support a candidate. That's like the bare minimum amount of effort in an electoral appeal. If the Democrats can't make a better appeal than that, then we probably don't _deserve_ to win.


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> Don't selectively quote me. I said "AT A CERTAIN POINT it doesn't matter"
> 
> Obviously the degree of height difference is important. 6ft 3 vs 6ft 2 isn't a big deal.
> 
> The original question was about Buttigieg. He's a pretty average height, but he's competing against a whole bunch of statistically tall freaks. It's a big disadvantage for him.



This line of posts has been such a poor display in the use of statistics. Correlation does not equal causation. Should we cherry-pick some attributes that are even more strongly correlated with presidents in retrospect?


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> This line of posts has been such a poor display in the use of statistics. Correlation does not equal causation. Should we cherry-pick some attributes that are even more strongly correlated with presidents in retrospect?


Such as being in possession of a Y chromosome?


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> Such as being in possession of a Y chromosome?



Hillary didn't stand a chance. I'm surprised all the predictions were off when there was such a strong indicator right there. Even sophisticated models like 538 didn't seem to take this into account. And even now I'm not sure why we're wasting time with Bernie -- no one with an "S" last name has ever succeeded in being elected.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> no one with an "S" last name has ever succeeded in being elected.



So what you're saying is that each time it doesn't happen, it's more and more likely that it will, until it does? No...that would be more like a deck of cards or russian roulette. Since there's not really a practical finite quantity, then it's more like a lottery.

Or if we're going the other way, Kamala Harris is the most likely, since the most presidents have had "H" names.


----------



## Ralyks

Yup, good summary.


----------



## efiltsohg

https://twitter.com/ali/status/1146163362201505793

If you point out that Kamala Harris is a Jamaican/Indian raised in Canada when she postures as African American, you have to go to prison.


----------



## Randy

No people with African heritage living in Jamaica? That's news to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ali "Alexander" Akbar is a conspiracy theorists and right wing troll. The chances of him making an argument like this in good faith is nil.

That said, this is sounding an awful lot like the whole "not black enough" thing the right pulled with Obama.

Can you really say that a racist dipshit would look at Harris and go "Nah, she's cool. Looks like someone of Indian/Jamaican decent who spent their teenage years in Canada."? Probably not.



Randy said:


> No people with African heritage living in Jamaica? That's news to me.



This is Donald Harris:







For the record.

He emigrated to the United States in the 60's, peak Civil Rights Movement. You can't tell me he and his never faced similar racism to those here before him.


----------



## Adieu

efiltsohg said:


> https://twitter.com/ali/status/1146163362201505793
> 
> If you point out that Kamala Harris is a Jamaican/Indian raised in Canada when she postures as African American, you have to go to prison.





Randy said:


> No people with African heritage living in Jamaica? That's news to me.



Obama got a pass for being the first, it seems, but if comes up AGAIN, somebody really should say something

Obama: 50% African-African, or African*/*American (African-SLASH-American...NOT african-dash-american as per the usual implied meaning)

Harris: 50% Afro-Carribean, iirc

African-DASH-American, otoh, refers to people whose African ancestors ended up in colonial America, typically as slaves against their will... not immigrants.

They key point here being said oppressed common heritage, rather than being dark-skinned


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Obama got a pass for being the first, it seems, but if comes up AGAIN, somebody really should say something
> 
> Obama: 50% African-African, or African*/*American (African-SLASH-American...NOT african-dash-american as per the usual implied meaning)
> 
> Harris: 50% Afro-Carribean, iirc
> 
> African-DASH-American, otoh, refers to people whose African ancestors ended up in colonial America, typically as slaves against their will... not immigrants.
> 
> They key point here being said oppressed common heritage, rather than being dark-skinned



Systematic white supremacy doesn't care if you've been here 300 years or 300 seconds. 

The bank redlining you doesn't care if you're descended from slaves or second generation from Haiti. The KKK dipshit doesn't care either. Nor does the criminal justice system or the cop that stops and frisks. 

All bigots see is color.


----------



## narad

Can't tell if trolling or not...


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> They key point here being said oppressed common heritage, rather than being dark-skinned


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Systematic white supremacy doesn't care if you've been here 300 years or 300 seconds.
> 
> The bank redlining you doesn't care if you're descended from slaves or second generation from Haiti. The KKK dipshit doesn't care either. Nor does the criminal justice system or the cop that stops and frisks.
> 
> All bigots see is color.



And yet it ain't the same

The offspring-of-the-oppressed-rise-above symbolism and accompanying semblance of closure really work better when said person is the real deal, and not just a lookalike of entirely unrelated heritage

But then again, most paleskinned millenials could care less, because they're voting for the feel-good "participation trophy" and are actually secretly happy if their candidate is the veneer-deep version, since they can get "diversity points" without having to put up with anyone who's too alarmingly, ahem, DIFFERENT


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Systematic white supremacy doesn't care if you've been here 300 years or 300 seconds.
> 
> The bank redlining you doesn't care if you're descended from slaves or second generation from Haiti. The KKK dipshit doesn't care either. Nor does the criminal justice system or the cop that stops and frisks.
> 
> All bigots see is color.



Look it's like proudly saying "here, we've finally properly included the peasant class in the political process" --- after electing a 10-gazillion-acre rancher....

Obama was an Ivy-as-hell son of a privileged white woman and a playboy foreigner father. 50% white privilege, 0% African-American heritage.

To America, that might count as a step in the right direction nonetheless.

...But it's a SMALL STEP.

And if the next "black" candidate also has no relation to the African-American population, that might well be the start of a nasty tradition of veneer-deep tokenism


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Systematic white supremacy doesn't care if you've been here 300 years or 300 seconds.
> 
> The bank redlining you doesn't care if you're descended from slaves or second generation from Haiti. The KKK dipshit doesn't care either. Nor does the criminal justice system or the cop that stops and frisks.
> 
> All bigots see is color.


You can be a bigot and not see color at all. ie, it isn't the aspect of the person they are bigoted against. Besides, anyone can be a bigot.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> View attachment 70734



Dayuuum the denial is strong with you guys

AMERICA SEEMS READY FOR "BLACK" POLITICIANS, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT *PARTICULARLY* BLACK

Which is kinda messed up


....does THAT get the point across???


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Dayuuum the denial is strong with you guys
> 
> AMERICA SEEMS READY FOR "BLACK" POLITICIANS, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT *PARTICULARLY* BLACK
> 
> Which is kinda messed up
> 
> 
> ....does THAT get the point across???



This is like no-true-Scotsman. If anyone happens to go to an ivy league school, you consider them not really black enough to... I don't know... be "particularly" black to you? Hell, I mean, if they decided to get into politics in the first place, how black could they even be? Disqualified!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't think it's possible to project any harder. Oof.



Spaced Out Ace said:


> You can be a bigot and not see color at all. ie, it isn't the aspect of the person they are bigoted against. Besides, anyone can be a bigot.



I'm sure that sounded much better in your head.



narad said:


> This is like no-true-Scotsman. If anyone happens to go to an ivy league school, you consider them not really black enough to... I don't know... be "particularly" black to you? Hell, I mean, if they decided to get into politics in the first place, how black could they even be? Disqualified!



She's not African American, she's just black. Come on dude.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> This is like no-true-Scotsman. If anyone happens to go to an ivy league school, you consider them not really black enough to... I don't know... be "particularly" black to you? Hell, I mean, if they decided to get into politics in the first place, how black could they even be? Disqualified!



Study some history.

Most of the rest of the Americas have gone through a similar process a long-ass time ago ---- where part-African and part-Amerindian persons got some weight and status, but very very contingent on them being PART, not whole.

Hell Spanish has like 16 iirc different widely-used words for color gradations based on racial origin.... most of which you're unwittingly super-familiar with because they're in the top 20 most common Hispanic surnames in America.

This partial-part-only-acceptance thing? It's verrrry much a thing, dude


Edit: oh here we go, found it! Straight from Wikipedia, the "good" ol' color-codified Spanish caste system:


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Study some history.
> 
> Most of the rest of the Americas have gone through a similar process a long-ass time ago ---- where part-African and part-Amerindian persons got some weight and status, but very very contingent on them being PART, not whole.
> 
> Hell Spanish has like 16 iirc different widely-used words for color gradations based on racial origin.... most of which you're unwittingly super-familiar with because they're in the top 20 most common Hispanic surnames in America.
> 
> This partial-part-only-acceptance thing? It's verrrry much a thing, dude



Ah, history. Got it. Do you have any recommendations on which history books will teach me when a candidate is sufficiently black enough to be a black candidate? Like what qualifies as 5A mastergrade black, or at least a sufficiently black childhood experience? I guess I left the US before we defined this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Ah, history. Got it. Do you have any recommendations on which history books will teach me when a candidate is sufficiently black enough to be a black candidate? Like what qualifies as 5A mastergrade black, or at least a sufficiently black childhood experience? I guess I left the US before we defined this.



Dude, didn't you watch the Bob Taylor video? There's no more real ebony.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Dude, didn't you watch the Bob Taylor video? There's no more real ebony.



Ah shit. I had a feeling there was a good pun lying in wait there.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Ah shit. I had a feeling there was a good pun lying in wait there.



This is my moment, Narad.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think it's possible to project any harder. Oof.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that sounded much better in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> She's not African American, she's just black. Come on dude.


My point was that there are multiple types of bigotry, smart ass.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> My point was that there are multiple types of bigotry, smart ass.



No one cares about your completely useless and unrelated take.

Not every bigot is the same. Cool. Moving on.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> No one cares about your completely useless and unrelated take.
> 
> Not every bigot is the same. Cool. Moving on.


Great look for a moderator of this fine establishment. I'm sorry, I forgot you only wanted to perpetuate the echo chamber and to be agreed with. Anything else simply won't do for Maximilian the Mastermind.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Great look for a moderator of this fine establishment.



Listen, if you're just going to spew completely useless and lackluster drivel I'm going to call you on it. You knew exactly what the adults were talking about but needed to get your point in because no one can bring up bigotry or racism without the token "but actually" take about how everyone can be racist not just the system in which we're directly discussing.

It stale. It's been discussed. It's not related to the subject matter at hand. It's a red herring to a discussion no one is actually having.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

You said that "bigots only see color." I pointed out that you can be bigoted for plenty of reasons other than color. No need to be a dick, Max. But hey, if it makes you feel good stroking your power boner, keep on keepin' on. And apparently you didn't even get my point, since I wasn't talking about just bigotry based on racism, but based on other things such as religion and sexuality. Good job, Maximilian.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You said that "bigots only see color." I pointed out that you can be bigoted for plenty of reasons other than color. No need to be a dick, Max. But hey, if it makes you feel good stroking your power boner, keep on keepin' on.



Power boner? We can't ban folks anymore. Or really anything outside moving things around and deleting spam. 

I didn't delete or edit anything you said. I didn't even quote you out of context. Your take was plenty awful on its own. No need to translate, I know exactly what you meant.


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You said that "bigots only see color." I pointed out that you can be bigoted for plenty of reasons other than color. No need to be a dick, Max. But hey, if it makes you feel good stroking your power boner, keep on keepin' on. And apparently you didn't even get my point, since I wasn't talking about just bigotry based on racism, but based on other things such as religion and sexuality. Good job, Maximilian.



It wasn't supposed to be contrasting color with all-the-other-things. It was contrasting color with someone's heritage and personal history that aren't immediately accessible to the bigot when he's interacting with people in everyday life. That's why your interjection was a Tyson-esque "well, actually..." moment.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Power boner? We can't ban folks anymore. Or really anything outside moving things around and deleting spam.
> 
> I didn't delete or edit anything you said. I didn't even quote you out of context. Your take was plenty awful on its own. No need to translate, I know exactly what you meant.


You didn't even interpret my point correctly; you apparently didn't know what I meant.

"because no one can bring up bigotry or racism without the token "but actually" take about how everyone can be racist not just the system in which we're directly discussing."

Maximilian the Mastermind, folks. Again I was referring to a specific line in your comment that bigots only see color, except that bigots can also be prejudice towards muslims, or LGBTQIA+. But you knew exactly what I meant.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> It wasn't supposed to be contrasting color with all-the-other-things. It was contrasting color with someone's heritage and personal history that aren't immediately accessible to the bigot when he's interacting with people in everyday life. That's why your interjection was a Tyson-esque "well, actually..." moment.



It's a lost cause, dude.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's a lost cause, dude.


Maybe you shouldn't twist what I said to mean whatever you'd like it to mean then? Or perhaps being smarmy isn't the best look for a mod? Just a thought.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Maybe you shouldn't twist what I said to mean whatever you'd like it to mean then? Or perhaps being smarmy isn't the best look for a mod? Just a thought.



Here's the thing, the comment is just as useless both ways. It was that bad. 

Come to terms with it or not. I don't really care either way.

Also, can we knock off the "moderator respectability" bullshit? I'm just a dude who fucks around with guitars, makes beer, and listens to loud awful music. This is SevenStringDotOrg not the fucking customer service page of The GAP.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MaxOfMetal said:


> Here's the thing, the comment is just as useless both ways. It was that bad.
> 
> Come to terms with it or not. I don't really care either way.
> 
> Also, can we knock off the "moderator respectability" bullshit? I'm just a dude who fucks around with guitars, makes beer, and listens to loud awful music. This is SevenStringDotOrg not the fucking customer service page of The GAP.


Sure thing, Max. I'll consider the source though, seeing as you couldn't even comprehend my point in the slightest.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Sure thing, Max. I'll consider the source though, seeing as you couldn't even comprehend my point in the slightest.


----------



## MFB

narad said:


> Ah, history. Got it. Do you have any recommendations on which history books will teach me when a candidate is sufficiently black enough to be a black candidate? Like what qualifies as 5A mastergrade black, or at least a sufficiently black childhood experience? I guess I left the US before we defined this.



I believe we can say we had our first real black politician once we've elected at least three out of five candidates who have run.


----------



## Randy

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Maybe you shouldn't twist what I said to mean whatever you'd like it to mean then? Or perhaps being smarmy isn't the best look for a mod? Just a thought.



Drop the mod jabbing. You were both being snippy with eachother but you upped the ante by calling him an ass. I'd have had you banned for that. As insulted as you feel by him, you gave it back about a half dozen times and you're still here.

Like it or not, you can't just stick pins in mods. You can disagree and you can even return the sass but at a certain point, calling out mods on personality is kamikaze and not worth it. We get it, the two of you don't respect eachother. Take it outside.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Dayuuum the denial is strong with you guys
> 
> AMERICA SEEMS READY FOR "BLACK" POLITICIANS, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT *PARTICULARLY* BLACK
> 
> Which is kinda messed up
> 
> 
> ....does THAT get the point across???



Chill.

I actually agree with some of your point but you've been doing an awful job of explaining it.

There's absolutely truth that America hasn't elected someone 'black' in the cultural sense of the word. I've said it countless time, to me equality is and has always been not about 'seeing everyone the same' but about seeing everyone different (ethnically, culturally, socially, whatever) and saying that's okay and diversity is a good thing.

It doesn't make this country 'woke' electing a black/brown/mulatto person if they only do it under the assumption they went to a white college, had a white career and talk like a white person. In that sense, it's accepting color and not culture, and I absolutely do think that's a blind spot this country still has.

But jumping straight to the fact someone like Harris' ancestors were enslaved in a different Western country than the one she's running in or that she's not entirely black or whatever is missing the point and it's also ignoring the fact that people in this country still face an uphill climb based only on the color of their skin (and the bigoted assumptions that come with it), before you get into the other stuff. It's not by accident that most of the people resharing the questioning of Harris' blackness are,themselves, famously racist.


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Obama was an Ivy-as-hell son of a privileged white woman and a playboy foreigner father. 50% white privilege, 0% African-American heritage.
> 
> To America, that might count as a step in the right direction nonetheless.
> 
> ...But it's a SMALL STEP.
> 
> And if the next "black" candidate also has no relation to the African-American population, that might well be the start of a nasty tradition of veneer-deep tokenism



1. You ever step in an elevator and have an old white lady move to the corner and stare at you the whole time purely because of your skin color? Pretty sure she doesn't ask for a tax return and passport before she judges.

2. Obama wasn't black enough because he was rich and went to good schools? As you said, this makes him - "black" and a "token"? Damn, well that's some (not so) soft bigotry right there.

3. Did JFK or the Bushes have a relation to the "Caucasian-American" population? A bunch of CT and MA bluebloods who went to Ivy League schools and probably only saw blacks when they handed them their keys so they could park their car... you know... in Harvard Yard.



Adieu said:


> AMERICA SEEMS READY FOR "BLACK" POLITICIANS, BUT ONLY AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT *PARTICULARLY* BLACK



OK, nevermind... maybe you do get it.


----------



## efiltsohg

MaxOfMetal said:


> Systematic white supremacy doesn't care if you've been here 300 years or 300 seconds.
> 
> The bank redlining you doesn't care if you're descended from slaves or second generation from Haiti. The KKK dipshit doesn't care either. Nor does the criminal justice system or the cop that stops and frisks.
> 
> All bigots see is color.



It's 100% relevant to the reparations discussion

also props to you for taking a point about government powers gone mad and try to make it about evil racists


----------



## vilk

I didn't know we were talking about either of those things. I thought we were talking about how _different kinds of bigotry are different _and _arbitration of true blackness_...


----------



## narad

efiltsohg said:


> It's 100% relevant to the reparations discussion



It would be. But we're not discussing that. The word has not been mentioned in this forum in at least a month, and it is also not a key issue in the race.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

efiltsohg said:


> It's 100% relevant to the reparations discussion



Somewhat, yes, big picture. But that discussion doesn't really relate to Harris herself and validity as a candidate. 

Reparations aren't payment for some physical item damaged. It's not like we broke someone's window playing kickball and need to pay to replace it. It's about bridging the gap between those stilted by centuries of chattel slavery and decades of legalized terrorism, systematic disenfranchisement, and willful neglect and those who prospered and profited off of their backs.

Racial bias is so ingrained in our social systems that it doesn't care when your parents first arrived.

Like I said in the comment you quoted, a racially biased person isn't going to be less hateful based on familial history that they're likely never going to know anyway. Since the bias can't be removed it needs to be compensated for.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Somewhat, yes, big picture. But that discussion doesn't really relate to Harris herself and validity as a candidate.
> 
> Reparations aren't payment for some physical item damaged. It's not like we broke someone's window playing kickball and need to pay to replace it. It's about bridging the gap between those stilted by centuries of chattel slavery and decades of legalized terrorism, systematic disenfranchisement, and willful neglect and those who prospered and profited off of their backs.
> 
> Racial bias is so ingrained in our social systems that it doesn't care when your parents first arrived.
> 
> Like I said in the comment you quoted, a racially biased person isn't going to be less hateful based on familial history that they're likely never going to know anyway. Since the bias can't be removed it needs to be compensated for.



What will be interesting is the legal precedent. Will calls for reparations also eventually be brought by Irish, Italian, Chinese, and Indigenous Peoples?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> What will be interesting is the legal precedent. Will calls for reparations also eventually be brought by Irish, Italian, Chinese, and Indigenous Peoples?



I'm not going to pretend to know how it will all shake out, but I don't see anything fundamentally wrong about holding the country accountable for it's past in a way meant to better the future for all of its citizens. 

While reparations directly improves the lives of those it's given to, there are indirect benefits to everyone: reduced crime, economic stimulation, better community and collaboration, etc. 

Obviously this wouldn't happen overnight, but I think it would speed up the incredibly slow process already somewhat in place.


----------



## Randy

I personally find reparations to be a non-starter solution. I think the US has tried a lot of things like, affirmative action or increased benefits to minorities, as well as lots of programs "open to everyone" but disproportionately targeted at high percentage minority communities, all the way down to things like the NFL and the Rooney Rule.

So it's not like there hasn't been open admission by the US that slavery and segregation were wrong, and efforts made to level the playing field. I don't think reparations accomplish anything their others efforts haven't.

You've essentially got the whole thing split into columns, on one hand there's literally no amount of money and no amount of apologies that adequately pay for enslaving, torturing and killing people for hundreds of years and even after they're freed, systematically repressing them. Not that the fact it's so heinous means you shouldn't do anything, it's just that it's SO bad that trying to compensate for it as a 1:1 for the EMOTIONAL aspects of it is a bottomless pit.

In the other column, there's the fact that white people in this country were given a ~400 year head start on freedom and even after that, segregation was the law of the land until the 1960s (not even getting into passive segregation or atrocities at the state/local level). If you want to know why black people aren't co-equal with whites in this country, its the fact we're barely a full generation removed from segregation. That's not a playing field that's going to be leveled in 40-50 years no matter how much money you throw at it, it going to take TIME.

I think the programs we've had need to be continued and more instituted to deal with this because we're going to be paying for this for generations, but sending out 'sorry for the oppression' checks is probably the least effective solution.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I personally find reparations to be a non-started solution. I think the US has tried a lot of things like, affirmative action or increased benefits to minorities, as well as lots of programs "open to everyone" but disproportionately targeted at high percentage minority communities, all the way down to things like the NFL and the Rooney Rule.
> 
> So it's not like there hasn't been open admission by the US that slavery and segregation were wrong, and efforts made to level the playing field. I don't think reparations accomplish anything their others efforts haven't.
> 
> You've essentially got the whole thing split into columns, on one hand there's literally no amount of money and no amount of apologies that adequately pay for enslaving, torturing and killing people for hundreds of years and even after they're freed, systematically repressing them. Not that the fact it's so heinous means you shouldn't do anything, it's just that it's SO bad that trying to compensate for it as a 1:1 for the EMOTIONAL aspects of it is a bottomless pit.
> 
> In the other column, there's the fact that white people in this country were given a ~400 year head start on freedom and even after that, segregation was the law of the land until the 1960s (not even getting into passive segregation or atrocities at the state/local level). If you want to know why black people aren't co-equal with whites in this country, its the fact we're barely a full generation removed from segregation. That's not a playing field that's going to be leveled in 40-50 years no matter how much money you throw at it, it going to take TIME.
> 
> I think the programs we've had need to be continued and more instituted to deal with this because we're going to be paying for this for generations, but sending out 'sorry for the oppression' checks is probably the least effective solution.



For the record, I don't fully support outright payment in most cases.

I think the only thing that will really work is fixing certain gaps in the system:

-School to prison pipeline 
-Financial redlining 
-Pay equality gaps 
-Policing of culture
-Quality of education 
-Sentencing gaps for non-violent crimes 
-Stop the War On Drugs 

Taking care of those will serve everyone, and since they impact minorities in greater degree, will help, eventually, to even the playing field. 

It's a really tough nut to crack.


----------



## Drew

efiltsohg said:


> It's 100% relevant to the reparations discussion
> 
> also props to you for taking a point about government powers gone mad and try to make it about evil racists


While we're on the subject, the last handful of posts of yours in this thread have all been low-key racist or homophobic. I don't know if you're in any position to talk.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I personally find reparations to be a non-starter solution. I think the US has tried a lot of things like, affirmative action or increased benefits to minorities, as well as lots of programs "open to everyone" but disproportionately targeted at high percentage minority communities, all the way down to things like the NFL and the Rooney Rule.
> 
> So it's not like there hasn't been open admission by the US that slavery and segregation were wrong, and efforts made to level the playing field. I don't think reparations accomplish anything their others efforts haven't.


I haven't been following the debate closely, but as I undeerstand the bill being kicked around or whatever was about whether or not to study/discuss the subject? I'm all for that. I share your concern - I don't know how logistically you'd go about doing so in a manner that's fair and proportionate, and I think it's a mess of a problem to have to solve, but at the same time I see no harm in exporing possibilities. All the same, I haven't been following it closely at all so I could very easily be wrong.



Randy said:


> I think the programs we've had need to be continued and more instituted to deal with this because we're going to be paying for this for generations, but sending out 'sorry for the oppression' checks is probably the least effective solution.


I mean, also, not to minimize how it's rather nice to get an unexpected check in the mail, but it also just seems a little, well, _condescending_. "Hey, sorry we kept your great grandparents locked up in shackles, here's $600, don't spend it all at once." Like, does a single payment really adequately offset the harm done? Is it maybe just a little bit reeking of entitlement to suggest we can just "buy" forgiveness? Idunno. IT's a messy, messy, messy subject, and I'm personally kind of at a loss here.


----------



## efiltsohg

Drew said:


> While we're on the subject, the last handful of posts of yours in this thread have all been low-key racist or homophobic. I don't know if you're in any position to talk.



No, not at all

But I'm adding the hysterical screaming whiners who refuse to address content of a post to my ignore list


----------



## vilk

Can't stand the heat? Add the oven to your ignore list.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I haven't been following the debate closely, but as I undeerstand the bill being kicked around or whatever was about whether or not to study/discuss the subject? I'm all for that. I share your concern - I don't know how logistically you'd go about doing so in a manner that's fair and proportionate, and I think it's a mess of a problem to have to solve, but at the same time I see no harm in exporing possibilities. All the same, I haven't been following it closely at all so I could very easily be wrong.
> 
> 
> I mean, also, not to minimize how it's rather nice to get an unexpected check in the mail, but it also just seems a little, well, _condescending_. "Hey, sorry we kept your great grandparents locked up in shackles, here's $600, don't spend it all at once." Like, does a single payment really adequately offset the harm done? Is it maybe just a little bit reeking of entitlement to suggest we can just "buy" forgiveness? Idunno. IT's a messy, messy, messy subject, and I'm personally kind of at a loss here.



I'll avoid the 'S' word and the 'B' name but this dynamic is exactly why I support extending the commons to include most/all things essential to living. Equality should be there, right now but in lieu of that, being born to 'the wrong race' or in the 'wrong neighborhood' shouldn't predict your chances of living/dying, whether or not you're able to feed your family or whether or not you have a roof over your head. Yet the disparities that exist raise those stakes exactly that high.

If you make affordable health care, affordable quality education and affordable (and safe) housing accessible to everyone, yes, we still have a way to go for equality but at least that disparity doesn't have implications on your survival.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> sorry we kept your great grandparents locked up





Drew said:


> I'm personally kind of at a loss here.



You would be even more lost once you realize that "we" (they) never had anyones grandparents in chains because they were never alive then.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> You would be even more lost once you realize that "we" (they) never had anyones grandparents in chains because they were never alive then.


Figure of speech, pointing out that it was probably great-great grandparents doesn't fundamentally change the point. Thought you were done here?


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> Figure of speech, pointing out that it was probably great-great grandparents doesn't fundamentally change the point. Thought you were done here?


I'm not arguing what generation of parents it was, I'm saying, no one today was alive during that particular era of slavery. You said "we" as if anyone today owns slaves in chains. (And im not talking about bdsm sickos)

And I was done with that particular conversation.


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> I'm not arguing what generation of parents it was, I'm saying, no one today was alive during that particular era of slavery. You said "we" as if anyone today owns slaves in chains. (And im not talking about bdsm sickos)
> 
> And I was done with that particular conversation.


----------



## MetalHex

USMarine75 said:


>


Look what you did in your time in the service is between you and your comrades. (I'm assuming by your name that you are/were a Marine).

Semper Fi. Hoorah!


----------



## vilk

"hoorah"


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> Look what you did in your time in the service is between you and your comrades. (I'm assuming by your name that you are/were a Marine).
> 
> Semper Fi. Hoorah!



Well it wasn't all swinger parties and cipro treatments...

Occasionally I shot people in the face before they could shoot me. (that's what she said)


----------



## MetalHex

USMarine75 said:


> Well it wasn't all swinger parties and cipro treatments...
> 
> Occasionally I shot people in the face before they could shoot me. (that's what she said)


Ive heard stories from Marines that would take about guys daring each other to drink their own piss. Yuck!

I know I know......derailing. back to bashing Trump.


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> Ive heard stories from Marines that would take about guys daring each other to drink their own piss. Yuck!
> 
> I know I know......derailing. back to bashing Trump.



Probably... It does take a special kind of crazy to run towards the sound of gunfire, especially when you're outnumbered, instead of shitting yourselves hiding in a closet.

Anywho, Trump is Hitler/Jesus...


----------



## MetalHex

USMarine75 said:


> Probably... It does take a special kind of crazy to run towards the sound of gunfire, especially when you're outnumbered, instead of shitting yourselves hiding in a closet.
> 
> Anywho, Trump is Hitler/Jesus...


Especially if you are a soldier on the team of the offenders and aggressors and shit starters, and you dont necessarily agree with the cause


----------



## Ralyks

Knowing a few former Marines, who are pretty good people, they're the first to tell me that they're crazy. Also, I'm respectful not only for their service, but also the fact that they can kill me with a napkin.


----------



## USMarine75

MetalHex said:


> Especially if you are a soldier on the team of the offenders and aggressors and shit starters, and you dont necessarily agree with the cause



Yup, America always fucking up other people's shit. I'm still enjoying all my free oil. Derpity derp.


----------



## MetalHex

USMarine75 said:


> Yup, America always fucking up other people's shit. I'm still enjoying all my free oil. Derpity derp.


Never get high on your own supply...


----------



## Flappydoodle

Randy said:


> So is this an observation of American culture or human biases in general, or...? Because outside of the US, height of notable 'strong man' leaders are all average to below.



I think it's a human thing in general. It's totally natural to judge people on how they appear. That might be height, dress sense, posture, body language, accent etc. 

Think about it - we can judge strangers instantly. We know when somebody is dodgy or acting suspicious by the way they walk. When a crazy guy steps into the subway carriage, everybody knows it pretty quickly. We can be instantly attracted to somebody. We can generally sense when somebody is powerful by the way they walk and talk.

And of course any of those factors will come into play for selecting a president. Not the sole deciding factor of course, but it's subconscious thing which will affect people.

It simply can't be coincidence that almost all of the majority of male candidates are in the top 10% of height.

There are also well-known correlations with height and earnings, to quite a significant degree (around $800USD per year per inch in men, which is insane)



MaxOfMetal said:


> I completely agree, but I'd say, once all factors are considered, height plays an inconsequential role in actual outcomes.
> 
> You can have all the correlation in the world, and still not have causation.
> 
> Not to mention, anyone who seriously refers to another adult as a "manlet" is probably not going to be coming at this in good faith.



Well, I'm speculating that it might be important IF there are two candidates with a large difference. Nobody is saying that it's the sole deciding factor or anything like that.

If it's a 6ft guy vs Trump, it won't matter. If it's Pete vs Trump, maybe it will be a factor (though I agree it's shallow and stupid). And you know Trump *will* use his height as an attack. He called Rubio "little Rubio" and he's 5ft9, which is pretty average.




narad said:


> This line of posts has been such a poor display in the use of statistics. Correlation does not equal causation. Should we cherry-pick some attributes that are even more strongly correlated with presidents in retrospect?



I don't think it's cherry-picking. It's quite a well-known association. Height relates to earnings too:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/05/the-financial-perks-of-being-tall/393518/

Do you think it's total coincidence that almost every single male candidate for president is in the top 10% of height?

The sheer number of 6ft+ candidates is highly unusual, no?

I feel like lots of people missed my point (maybe my fault). Let me clarify: I'm not saying that height is directly related to success, and the tallest guy wins by default. But in a matchup between Trump vs Buttigieg, where there's a very large difference, it's one factor which will be an advantage for Trump.


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> Do you think it's total coincidence that almost every single male candidate for president is in the top 10% of height?
> 
> The sheer number of 6ft+ candidates is highly unusual, no?
> 
> I feel like lots of people missed my point (maybe my fault). Let me clarify: I'm not saying that height is directly related to success, and the tallest guy wins by default. But in a matchup between Trump vs Buttigieg, where there's a very large difference, it's one factor which will be an advantage for Trump.



It all depends. When untrained people latch onto statistics, they seem quick to spin a narrative around whatever they want. There's obvious confounds with height, you just have to think of it outside of your narrative. 

For instance, what do presidential candidates often have in common? Well, they're mostly white. That alone knocks up the average height within the demographic by more than an inch. They're also often middle-aged. Because the body shrinks as we age, with heavy losses of more than an inch in the elderly, that are contributing to the average calculation. Candidates aren't peak height (that's more around 30) but they're a bit outside the pull of the aging population. Finally, a huge percentage of height is determined by nutritional considerations (20-40%). What do white guys who later go into politics tend to have in common? Higher socio-economic status at birth and likely better nutrition.

These are just the first three to come to mind. If you were to show that presidential candidates are in the top 10% height demographics of upper class white men, I'd at least consider the seriousness of it a bit more. But you're talking about niche job that has historically selected for a very specific type of person. It is weird to think that that person is there because they are tall and completely neglect the other latent variables that have obvious causal relationships, and which are strongly correlated with "tall".

The incel alpha-male spin isn't impossible, but that people see tall and unroll this whole evolutionary psychology narrative (while not being evolutionary psychologists) is what's irresponsible.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> Sanders very likely wins if halfway through the primary voting we still have 10-12 candidates and he's just the largest draw in the room - he probably won't win outright, but it'll send us to a divided convention, and in that scenario if the DNC votes for someone _other_ than the candidate with the most delegates, then Sanders' supporters have a meltdown, and the Democrats lose in the General.
> 
> I think you're underestimating Harris' exchange with Biden - she drew blood. Biden still leads but his lead has fallen, and Harris is now in 2nd with Warren in 3rd. Harris still isn't terribly well known, so I think she's got some upside to come here, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if she was the eventual winner.



I don't quite understand how Sanders would win in that instance. Wouldn't that default win go to Biden? I feel like all Biden has to do is not fuck up, and he wins by default.



> I agree that "beat Trump" isn't enough to go on, as well - we need a concrete policy alternative. Warren has been killing it on that front, and probably will shape the core of the DNC platform this year.



I think Dems need a personality which can beat Trump. Nobody is voting on policies really. People vote their team mostly. A small number of swing voters will go for who they like/trust best, or based on highly-specific policies (i.e. farmers will vote on single issues).



> And I think Trump is at a disadvantage here, even as an incumbent, for the reasons I've outlined above - my biggest concern, frankly, is what happens if Trump loses - will he agree to cede power voluntarily?



Of course he will. Before the election it was "he can't be trusted with the nuclear codes" and "he'll crash the economy" and "he'll start WW3". None happened. Russian collusion narrative is also busted. So I don't think this fear of dictator Trump is justified whatsoever.



StevenC said:


> "The height gene and policy making gene are strongly linked"
> 
> Said no geneticist ever



Lol, you think policies matter?



Adieu said:


> Dear gawd, screw policy alternatives
> 
> Democrat Policy is what got Trump elected in the first place
> 
> DAMAGE CONTROL should be the one and ONLY policy of whoever goes up against Trump.



I don't see how he's been that bad. No wars. Economy good. Lots of jobs and opportunities. It's mostly the fringes shouting loudly. The AOCs and the Ann Coulters yelling at each other.

So I'm not convinced that a "damage control" approach will work. How does that win anybody over?




Drew said:


> Again, strongly disagree. Trump's policy initiatives were:
> 
> 1) Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.
> 2) Ban Muslims while we figure out "this muslim problem."



Not true.

He also had (off the top of my head, as a non-American): ending Obamacare, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, ending wars and withdrawing troops (and using that money for infrastructure), repairing relations with Russia, deporting criminal illegal aliens, ending the Iran deal, withdrawing from Paris agreement, appointing a conservative judge to the vacant SCOTUS seat, renegotiating trade deals and NAFTA, to increase domestic oil and energy production...

If you didn't hear about those policies, you weren't paying attention. He mentioned them at almost every rally.



> Meanwhile, Clinton had a very fleshed out policy plan that never got any airtime because we spent all our time talking about whether or not Trump was a racist, and whether or not he was a sex offender. Trump won because he managed to force the narrative onto a referendum of his bombastic personality and whether or not Clinton was corrupt, rather than any even remotely serious policy matters. He made it a personal referendum, and not a policy one, and that played to his advantage.



I can't recall a time when any modern election has been a debate on policies. And I can't see how that will ever be the case in the future. The system just isn't set up for it. Debates where everybody gets 2 minutes to speak. TV news isn't set up for it. Social media isn't set up for it.

I'd even say that voting on policies is fairly pointless in the first place. Most politicians lie and promise far more than they can achieve. Even if they truly intend to delivery, they probably won't/can't accomplish many of their policy goals anyway. Look at Obama and healthcare, Trump and the wall etc. Central, campaign-defining policies, and they didn't happen. Presidencies often become defined by unpredictable events too - like Bush getting derailed by 9/11. 

So really, what you have to ask is whether you think a person is going to make good decisions. That's the most important factor IMO. Their policies are fairly inconsequential since they won't get to actually carry them out.



> I mean, running a campaign on "stop Trump, because he's an asshole" isn't gonna fly. EVERYONE knows he's an asshole. 42% of the country actually _likes_ that about him.



Agree with most of this. 



> Force Trump to actually put forth proposals of his own, and when he won't/can't, call him out on being a charlatan making empty promises he has no intention of keeping. Ridicule him for being a lightweight, without the intellectual gravitas or emotional maturity to handle running a country. Hammer him on the fact he simply doesn't have any idea what he's doing and he's trying to get by on bravado and instinctive lashing, because he doesn't actually have a plan to "make america great."



Think you're totally wrong on this.

He IS president. And nothing catastrophic has happened.

He can't be attacked for lack of experience or intelligence/ability any more. Donald Trump is literally the most experienced candidate you can possibly have for president (unless any single-term presidents still alive want to have another go).

This argument would only work if things go horribly wrong with the country AND if that is perceived by a large majority of people. Assuming the economy stays good, and he stays out of wars, this argument is a waste of air.

IMO, if Democrats want to win, they need a strong personality to go against him. There will be personal attacks, and that candidate needs to come out on top. That means being brutal enough, while still maintaining composure and beating him in terms of "electability". 

The Dem candidate also needs some views which can go against Trump's. Easily digestible alternatives which are saleable to the majority of people. That's really, really difficult because Trump sets up strong views which are hard to argue against. For example, Trump promises deportations, but "abolish ICE" is too extreme of a response. Trump says "build the wall", but anybody against it will be labelled as wanting open borders. So somebody needs clever alternatives which can win over middle-ground voters.

Or, Dems have to absolutely double down on demographics and seriously rally minority turnout. Not sure if Biden would be able to replicate Obama's numbers, and I'm not sure whether a minority VP candidate would be enough. They have to be careful about going too far left, since Hispanics are quite socially conservative.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> He IS president. And nothing catastrophic has happened.



I guess it depends on how you define "catastrophic". 

I'd say the concentration camps at the border are a catastrophe. 

One could call an additional 7 million people without insurance catastrophic.

Our longest government shutdown in history was pretty catastrophic for many. 

The consolidation of power and near weekly constitutional crisis is probably catastrophic. 

Our EPA under Trump is catastrophic for the environment. 

Sure, we haven't started another war, but we're working on it. 



> He can't be attacked for lack of experience or intelligence/ability any more.



Why not? It's not like he's learned himself how any of our government functions and still makes Grandpa-Thought-Facebook-Is-Google level gaffes.


----------



## Adieu

Trump is displaying typical flashy short-termist posturing, to hell with the long term

Except doing the ol' pump-and-dump on national and international politics is downright immoral.

And, when it comes to long-term sabotage of international relations, world trade, and, hell, undermining the political ethics, legal system, and checks and balances behind the biggest country in a hemisphere and the whole world's mightiest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction....


----------



## MetalHex

Edit


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Just the POTUS instructing his DOJ to defy the SCOTUS' ruling on Independence Day. 

Nothing to see here folks. Totally normal and okay.


----------



## USMarine75

If Trump puts tariffs on Indonesian imports he gets my vote. 

#MAGA4life
#KAGA


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just the POTUS instructing his DOJ to defy the SCOTUS' ruling on Independence Day.
> 
> Nothing to see here folks. Totally normal and okay.



Sad how that second part really is the norm...

Also, why are my taxes going towards a parade for him to show how big his ego is and everyone knows there's no way this anything but a glorified re-election kick off?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Sad how that second part really is the norm...
> 
> Also, why are my taxes going towards a parade for him to show how big his ego is and everyone knows there's no way this anything but a glorified re-election kick off?



I know it's not consolation, but the cash is probably coming from some slush fund at the DOD normally reserved for torturing non-combatants and blowing up schools. 

Our tax dollars at work.


----------



## Ralyks

It's the fact that it's not a bipartisan celebration. We know this is a glorified re-election campign celebration. Otherwise I'd just grumble a bit and move on.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> He IS president. And nothing catastrophic has happened.


Disagree. It takes some time to see the impact of a change of policy on the economy. The trade war, though, is a pretty big deal. There's decent evidence that it's already having an impact on the economy, and the short term boost from tax policy changes is fading and will no longer offset that. If he follows through on the threat to tariff the remaining imports from China we're going to see about double the volume of imports taxed at 25%, with those taxes by and large passed on to the consumers via higher pricing. Ballpark, based on the tax rate, volume of imports, and current GDP, we're looking at shaving 3/4 of a point off the real GDP growth rate with full tariff implimentation, vs about 1/3 with what's already in place, from the impact of tariffs on chinese imports alone. This is at a time when US GDP growth should be slowing anyway after last quarter's 3.1%, thanks to some temporal effects on imports in advance of retaliatory tariffs, as well as an unsustainable increase in inventories. My back-of-envelope estimate at present is a fall by nearly half to 1.5-2%, and if you start shaving off 3/4 of a point from the trade war, well, we're talking an economy that's teetering on recession. I'm more bullish than I was a month ago thanks to some exceptionally strong upwards revisions to the retail sales numbers for the last few months, but we're talking an economy slowing from an unsustainable above-trendline growth, where we're starting to add some drag in the form of tariffs while also complicating business capital expenditure decisions due to the rapidly changing trade landscape, and with the debt ceiling showdown looming with maybe an early October deadline, political risk is rising too, and that could potentially be another factor weighing on growth. As long as retail sales data remains decent we may be ok, but certainly our economy is slowing, and it's not all that much of a stretch to think we could see a recession the end of this year or sometime next. 

So, aside from all those other things Max mentioned, there's some evidence that Trump may actually be blowing up the economy, too.


----------



## InHiding

LOL. NBC digitally added a pimple to Tulsi's face during the debates. They are all so fucking afraid of her.


----------



## Drew

InHiding said:


> LOL. NBC digitally added a pimple to Tulsi's face during the debates. They are all so fucking afraid of her.


citation plz.


----------



## InHiding

Honestly it's a conspiracy theory, but Tulsi says there was no pimple. This is a truly important discussion anyways, but you can google it.


----------



## Drew

InHiding said:


> Honestly it's a conspiracy theory, but Tulsi says there was no pimple. This is a truly important discussion anyways, but you can google it.



So, no citation. Instead, a major network is alleged to have photoshopped (or whatever you call it wiith video) a pimple onto a candidate at about 1% in national polling, on a live video stream, because they were so afraid of her. Got it.


----------



## InHiding

I didn't know this was so serious, lolcopter  but you can watch the pimple disappear on this video. It's very clear


----------



## spudmunkey

I've seen people say that it's more likely a flake of lipstick, which is better visible in higher res captures of the video, and not zoomed-in-cell-phone-captures-of-240-video. Haven't taken the time to dig in, though.


----------



## Drew

InHiding said:


> I didn't know this was so serious, lolcopter


Evidently serious enough that you thought it was worth contributing to this thread.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, one of my friends brought up the pimple thing too like the next day. Confusing, but probably a non-issue in the end.

Anyway, to further my belief Trump won't go quietly, he wants to fight the Census Question decision, and the Justice Department decided to also change their minds.

https://apple.news/As-BHbwP-SgG6C5JvKDUhnA

And how is there not more damage from the interment camp ordeal? That's pretty fucking vile.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Yeah, one of my friends brought up the pimple thing too like the next day. Confusing, but probably a non-issue in the end.
> 
> Anyway, to further my belief Trump won't go quietly, he wants to fight the Census Question decision, and the Justice Department decided to also change their minds.
> 
> https://apple.news/As-BHbwP-SgG6C5JvKDUhnA
> 
> And how is there not more damage from the interment camp ordeal? That's pretty fucking vile.


Re: the "pimple," I can't really see what the upside would be. Target an extreme longshot candidate for superfical embarassment by going after her appearance? 

Re: the migrant camp question - the simplest answer I can think of, I'm afraid, is that Trump's base really doesn't care and think the migrants are getting what they deserve, and the remainder of the country is already so completely turned off by what they've already seen of him that there's no room left to incrementally move the needle.


----------



## Ralyks

So am I wrong in thinking that Amash possibly making a presidential bid under the libertarian party could be a good thing for those opposing Trump, as he could take votes away from him from those who are conservative but not exactly a Trump fan (which I feel enough exist out there)?


----------



## bostjan

Unfortunately, no one votes Libertarian anymore. When Bob Barr was nominated to run in 2004, the party lost credibility, then Gary Johnson ran with that lack of credibility and decided that, every time people paid attention to him, he had to provide sound bites that could be used against him. I supported him, because I knew that he was taken out of context, but I had to whince and cringe as I watched him flounder with his expectations of people's patience and attention spans.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> So am I wrong in thinking that Amash possibly making a presidential bid under the libertarian party could be a good thing for those opposing Trump, as he could take votes away from him from those who are conservative but not exactly a Trump fan (which I feel enough exist out there)?



Eh, he's a far right toady. Co-founder of the House Freedom Caucasus. Remember them?

He doesn't want to be associated with the Party of Trump, but has no problem supporting most of the policy positions. He's voted with trump almost 65% of the time.

His record speaks for itself: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/justin-amash/

He'll run as a third-party candidate, but chicken out and pull a Weld at the top of the 7th instead of stealing votes from the GOP. 

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.


----------



## MetalHex

https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...g0hMBcnU65YNgSbljIStx3saeKEqM2LYrs1NNyeWLlOVQ

Yay for progress!


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## bostjan

MetalHex said:


> https://www.breitbart.com/entertain...g0hMBcnU65YNgSbljIStx3saeKEqM2LYrs1NNyeWLlOVQ
> 
> Yay for progress!


Did they proofread that article?


> For white people, or “non-persons of color,” early bird tickets cost $10, compared with $20 for people of color.


So, white people get in for half price? That's the opposite of what the headline says.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Did they proofread that article?
> 
> So, white people get in for half price? That's the opposite of what the headline says.



Well you can imagine the spasms a breitbart reporter would have hearing about such a thing. Frantic. Sweating profusely. Heavy breathing. Slippery sausage fingers adding a glissando to every key stroke. Can hardly blame him for getting the information completely mixed up in the process.

I have to roll my eyes at it being posted in this thread. Is this meant to characterize liberals or democrats or otherwise be a polarizing issue here? Which party wants people to pay different prices based on race? What presidential candidate would be in favor of such a thing?


----------



## MetalHex

@bostjan That also, is equally retarded.


----------



## MetalHex

narad said:


> Which party wants people to pay different prices based on race? What presidential candidate would be in favor



Which? And based on what? What are you even getting at? I know the democrats thrive on pandering to minorities for more votes while they pretend to care about them....so yeah which?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Well you can imagine the spasms a breitbart reporter would have hearing about such a thing. Frantic. Sweating profusely. Heavy breathing. Slippery sausage fingers adding a glissando to every key stroke. Can hardly blame him for getting the information completely mixed up in the process.
> 
> I have to roll my eyes at it being posted in this thread. Is this meant to characterize liberals or democrats or otherwise be a polarizing issue here? Which party wants people to pay different prices based on race? What presidential candidate would be in favor of such a thing?



It's obviously big news Narad because millennials socialism liberal antifa reparations free college wage gap POC abortions. 

You wouldn't understand.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's obviously big news Narad because millennials socialism liberal antifa reparations free college wage gap POC abortions.
> 
> You wouldn't understand.


You forgot baby murderers


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> You forgot baby murderers



Silly me, putting abortion and forgetting birth control. If my head wasn't attached amiright?

But seriously, other than making the pundit class' day and writing their headlines for the next week, how is that article politically relevant?


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Silly me, putting abortion and forgetting birth control. If my head wasn't attached amiright?
> 
> But seriously, other than making the pundit class' day and writing their headlines for the next week, how is that article politically relevant?


I guess the term abortion in place of baby murderer makes one feel good.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> I guess the term abortion in place of baby murderer makes it seem A ok



I know you're itching to have this fight, but I'm not taking the bait.


----------



## Adieu

This is precisely what makes an electoral system designed to generate a two-party equilibrium so inherently faulty.

ANY passionate enough stance on any issue locks you into a single viable choice.

And the only two available choices make DAMN sure to scoop up all manner of polarizing issues and rouse the rabble at every opportunity, because the few impassioned wingnut votes mobilized make or break the election.

Baby murderers! Fascists! Perverts! Bigots! Commies! Etc etc.... oh my


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> I know you're itching to have this fight, but I'm not taking the bait.


Looks like I gotta pull out the powerbait then. If I give away free stuff will you bite?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

MetalHex said:


> Looks like I gotta pull out the powerbait then. If I give away free stuff will you bite?


He's a liberal; of course he will.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> This is precisely what makes an electoral system designed to generate a two-party equilibrium so inherently faulty.
> 
> ANY passionate enough stance on any issue locks you into a single viable choice.
> 
> And the only two available choices make DAMN sure to scoop up all manner of polarizing issues and rouse the rabble at every opportunity, because the few impassioned wingnut votes mobilized make or break the election.
> 
> Baby murderers! Fascists! Perverts! Bigots! Commies! Etc etc.... oh my



It's definitely lead to "anti" voting. 

When the choice is more about who you don't want than who you do. No one wins when that happens.


----------



## MetalHex

Adieu said:


> This is precisely what makes an electoral system designed to generate a two-party equilibrium so inherently faulty.
> 
> ANY passionate enough stance on any issue locks you into a single viable choice.
> 
> And the only two available choices make DAMN sure to scoop up all manner of polarizing issues and rouse the rabble at every opportunity.
> 
> Baby murderers! Fascists! Perverts! Bigots! Commies! Etc etc.... oh my


I agree. "They" are only playing on human nature because they know people love to take identify with a "brand", join a clique and bash the opposite "side". Herd mentality, Psy-ops 101


----------



## Flappydoodle

narad said:


> It all depends. When untrained people latch onto statistics, they seem quick to spin a narrative around whatever they want. There's obvious confounds with height, you just have to think of it outside of your narrative.



Good job I do have a background in statistics then.

Again, at no point have I claimed that height makes you win. Only that height is one of many factors which people will take into account when deciding who to vote for. Those factors include many other aspects of appearance such as accent, posture, body language, clothing etc etc. I do have an opinion that a 6ft3 guy has an advantage over a 5ft7 guy though. 



> For instance, what do presidential candidates often have in common? Well, they're mostly white. That alone knocks up the average height within the demographic by more than an inch. They're also often middle-aged. Because the body shrinks as we age, with heavy losses of more than an inch in the elderly, that are contributing to the average calculation. Candidates aren't peak height (that's more around 30) but they're a bit outside the pull of the aging population. Finally, a huge percentage of height is determined by nutritional considerations (20-40%). What do white guys who later go into politics tend to have in common? Higher socio-economic status at birth and likely better nutrition.



I couldn't find statistics by race (not that all candidates I mentioned were white). But I did use the percentile based on their age, putting them into the correct brackets.

Since people are getting taller, it's even more unusual to see 6ft3 50, 60 and 70yr olds. The percentile figures in the census.gov link I posted earlier also shows that. Many more 6ft 20yr olds than 70yr olds.



> These are just the first three to come to mind. If you were to show that presidential candidates are in the top 10% height demographics of upper class white men, I'd at least consider the seriousness of it a bit more. But you're talking about niche job that has historically selected for a very specific type of person. It is weird to think that that person is there because they are tall and completely neglect the other latent variables that have obvious causal relationships, and which are strongly correlated with "tall".



Yes, I had many of these thoughts too. But you're putting words into my mouth, because at no point did I say that the person was there because they were tall.



> The incel alpha-male spin isn't impossible, but that people see tall and unroll this whole evolutionary psychology narrative (while not being evolutionary psychologists) is what's irresponsible.



Weird final sentence, but ok. I'm happily married with 3 kids, and totally average height and comfortable with it, if it matters


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess it depends on how you define "catastrophic".
> 
> I'd say the concentration camps at the border are a catastrophe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not? It's not like he's learned himself how any of our government functions and still makes Grandpa-Thought-Facebook-Is-Google level gaffes.



I don't think many people care about camps on the border. And no, they're not "concentration camps". I thought you were smarter than that.

These are detention camps where people are held after being caught sneaking into the country. To not end up in a detention centre is actually really easy... just don't cross the border illegally. No other country thinks it's normal to have literally thousands of people a day coming in illegally. It's also kinda insane that you break the law to enter a country, then complain about the facilities where you are held - which give you food, a place to sleep, air conditioning, entertainment etc.

All presidents have held people at the border. And what alternative is there? If you let border crossers go free, they'll disappear into the country forever. You can't just chuck them back over the border because it's insecure and they'll be back soon anyway. Some also claim asylum and then can't be removed legally. Courts are overwhelmed, and politicians won't agree on funding more judges to process cases and issue deportation orders. And even when there ARE deportation orders, people ignore them and some politicians weirdly support that. So the whole system backs up and there's no choice but to detain people. 

The only alternative is just say "fuck it" and have the border totally open and simply don't detain or process anybody who crosses.

Did you see the letter from the Polish MP to AOC? Sums it up pretty well. It's insanely offensive to Jews and everybody else who was rounded up by Nazis and shipped off to camps to throw around that term.



> Our longest government shutdown in history was pretty catastrophic for many.



Shutdown is long forgotten. It's not an election issue.

And let's be honest- Trump kept it going so long because most people affected are government workers who mostly hated him anyway. 



> The consolidation of power and near weekly constitutional crisis is probably catastrophic.



Only constitutional crisis is from the media. If anything it seems that Trump has been held back massively by people acting outside of the system.

Also, I don't think it's an election issue.



> Our EPA under Trump is catastrophic for the environment.



Environment is not a central election issue. Only a small % of people will be voting based on that. And none were voting Republican anyway.



> One could call an additional 7 million people without insurance catastrophic.



Healthcare might be an election issue. But for the uninsured, it comes down to who the people without insurance are, and who they voted for and what they wanted.



> Sure, we haven't started another war, but we're working on it.



Who is we? Trump seems incredibly averse to war. The Fox talking heads and others were all begging him to bomb Iran. 

McCain, Graham and others were begging him to bomb Syria. He did two small strikes to say "naughty boy" and that's it.

And his opponents will take any position against him. When he doesn't bomb, they say it's weak. When he withdraws troops from the Middle East they say he's quitting. How strange.




Drew said:


> Disagree. It takes some time to see the impact of a change of policy on the economy. The trade war, though, is a pretty big deal. There's decent evidence that it's already having an impact on the economy, and the short term boost from tax policy changes is fading and will no longer offset that. If he follows through on the threat to tariff the remaining imports from China we're going to see about double the volume of imports taxed at 25%, with those taxes by and large passed on to the consumers via higher pricing. Ballpark, based on the tax rate, volume of imports, and current GDP, we're looking at shaving 3/4 of a point off the real GDP growth rate with full tariff implimentation, vs about 1/3 with what's already in place, from the impact of tariffs on chinese imports alone. This is at a time when US GDP growth should be slowing anyway after last quarter's 3.1%, thanks to some temporal effects on imports in advance of retaliatory tariffs, as well as an unsustainable increase in inventories. My back-of-envelope estimate at present is a fall by nearly half to 1.5-2%, and if you start shaving off 3/4 of a point from the trade war, well, we're talking an economy that's teetering on recession. I'm more bullish than I was a month ago thanks to some exceptionally strong upwards revisions to the retail sales numbers for the last few months, but we're talking an economy slowing from an unsustainable above-trendline growth, where we're starting to add some drag in the form of tariffs while also complicating business capital expenditure decisions due to the rapidly changing trade landscape, and with the debt ceiling showdown looming with maybe an early October deadline, political risk is rising too, and that could potentially be another factor weighing on growth. As long as retail sales data remains decent we may be ok, but certainly our economy is slowing, and it's not all that much of a stretch to think we could see a recession the end of this year or sometime next.
> 
> So, aside from all those other things Max mentioned, there's some evidence that Trump may actually be blowing up the economy, too.



And if that blow-up happens at a bad time politically, it could affect his election chances. But, so far, things are going well and even the WaPo/NYT/etc have to report the lower unemployment, rising wages (finally), record unemployment of minorities etc. Having a job, and how much you get paid is something which directly affects people more than almost anything else. People will vote based on that. Cost of living is another factor, so if some goods really do start to jack up in prices, that could come back to bite him for sure.

Trump did also say that he was willing to accept a slower economy as trade-off for re-establishing relations with China. Since obviously they are going to be the rival nation for the rest of this century, it does seem a bit crazy to let them do whatever they want to catch up and overtake. If real impact of the "trade war" comes to bite, it's a political issue whether he can sell that to voters or not. It could become a "patriotism" issue, where people may be willing to pay more for goods, or businesses may change suppliers, customers change preferences etc for political reasons.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> I don't think many people care about camps on the border.



This is probably where it would help to be on the ground over here. 

Everyone is talking about it. Even folks who I've known to stay out of politics have spoken up. It's a very polarizing issue. 

I live in a purple state that tends to lean red. I interact with folks in five other states quite regularly and when mentioned they share similar experiences. 

Granted that's not a huge sample set, but it's definitely "a thing" right now. 



> And no, they're not "concentration camps". I thought you were smarter than that.



Don't overestimate me. 

They seem to fit decently within widely held definitions:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp



> These are detention camps where people are held after being caught sneaking into the country. To not end up in a detention centre is actually really easy... just don't cross the border illegally. No other country thinks it's normal to have literally thousands of people a day coming in illegally. It's also kinda insane that you break the law to enter a country, then complain about the facilities where you are held - which give you food, a place to sleep, air conditioning, entertainment etc.
> 
> All presidents have held people at the border. And what alternative is there? If you let border crossers go free, they'll disappear into the country forever. You can't just chuck them back over the border because it's insecure and they'll be back soon anyway. Some also claim asylum and then can't be removed legally. Courts are overwhelmed, and politicians won't agree on funding more judges to process cases and issue deportation orders. And even when there ARE deportation orders, people ignore them and some politicians weirdly support that. So the whole system backs up and there's no choice but to detain people.
> 
> The only alternative is just say "fuck it" and have the border totally open and simply don't detain or process anybody who crosses.



It is not illegal to seek asylum. 

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

The issue is not that they are being detained, but the inhuman way in which it is being done. 




> Did you see the letter from the Polish MP to AOC? Sums it up pretty well. It's insanely offensive to Jews and everybody else who was rounded up by Nazis and shipped off to camps to throw around that term.



You know what's insanely offensive to Jews, or any group really? Speaking for them. 

I am of Jewish decent and find it far more revolting what you're saying. So please cut the shit.



> Shutdown is long forgotten. It's not an election issue.



Maybe it doesn't come up in the headlines as much anymore, but it's certainly still fresh on a lot of people's minds. 

We're actually staring down the barrel of another potential gridlock and you best believe the most recent shutdown will be trending again. 

It's definitely an election issue. Wait till the actual race. 



> And let's be honest- Trump kept it going so long because most people affected are government workers who mostly hated him anyway.



There were a number of typically right leaning folks affected, such as Coast Guard. 



> Only constitutional crisis is from the media. If anything it seems that Trump has been held back massively by people acting outside of the system.
> 
> Also, I don't think it's an election issue.



We haven't had a full blown crisis yet, true. But this current administration trying to get around the Supreme Court is something new. 

Definitely something to keep an eye on. 

I'll disagree again, and add, much line height, all this stuff factors in. 



> Environment is not a central election issue. Only a small % of people will be voting based on that. And none were voting Republican anyway.



Obviously not one single issue is what drives voters specifically, but climate change and the environment is a big one. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx



> Healthcare might be an election issue. But for the uninsured, it comes down to who the people without insurance are, and who they voted for and what they wanted.



See link above. It's been a pretty hot issue the last decade plus. 

For and against. 



> Who is we?



The American Military Industrial Complex[TM]


----------



## Flappydoodle

narad said:


> I have to roll my eyes at it being posted in this thread. Is this meant to characterize liberals or democrats or otherwise be a polarizing issue here? Which party wants people to pay different prices based on race? What presidential candidate would be in favor of such a thing?



I mean, one party is literally discussing reparations in congress and 7 current Democratic candidates voted to support a bill "investigating" it. That's their way of supporting it without taking the political damage of actually supporting it. Harris, Booker and Warren have also made supportive statements of "history supports calls for restitution". And the crazy author lady openly supported it. 

I'd say paying reparations is pretty much the most extreme version of "paying different prices based on race".

One could also argue that changing university admission requirements based on skin colour, loans and financial products specifically for different races etc also falls under "different prices based on race". And those ideas are certainly supported by one party more than the other. 





Adieu said:


> This is precisely what makes an electoral system designed to generate a two-party equilibrium so inherently faulty.
> 
> ANY passionate enough stance on any issue locks you into a single viable choice.
> 
> And the only two available choices make DAMN sure to scoop up all manner of polarizing issues and rouse the rabble at every opportunity, because the few impassioned wingnut votes mobilized make or break the election.
> 
> Baby murderers! Fascists! Perverts! Bigots! Commies! Etc etc.... oh my



There aren't that many single-issue voters though. Most people broadly align with a party, and both parties contain extremists. That's why everyone swings left/right during the primaries and back to centre in the real election.

I might be wrong, but weren't you the one just two pages back saying that the single most important thing was to beat Trump, regardless of who or how? That seems to be a pretty common "single issue" right now.


----------



## Adieu

Flappydoodle said:


> I might be wrong, but weren't you the one just two pages back saying that the single most important thing was to beat Trump, regardless of who or how? That seems to be a pretty common "single issue" right now.



Well yeah, that's actually an example of this whole "bipolar" politics problem right there

See, I feel Trump is a damn wrecking ball and well on his way to leaving historic damage to the very foundation of the country... but, at the same time, most Dems make me cringe.

As to Republicans, I hate their President. And have long detested their religion.

Ughhh... sure would be nice to have some multiple choice options


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> This is probably where it would help to be on the ground over here.
> 
> Everyone is talking about it. Even folks who I've known to stay out of politics have spoken up. It's a very polarizing issue.
> 
> I live in a purple state that tends to lean red. I interact with folks in five other states quite regularly and when mentioned they share similar experiences.
> 
> Granted that's not a huge sample set, but it's definitely "a thing" right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't overestimate me.
> 
> They seem to fit decently within widely held definitions:
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp



I'd say it's more of a jail. 

Nobody is being rounded up, taken from their home etc. As I said, it's the easiest thing in the world to avoid - just don't come into the country.

The term "concentration camp" is obviously loaded, since most people wouldn't differentiate between that and "death camp". It's obviously a political term, designed to stoke outrage and conjour images of people being grabbed from their homes, tortured etc.

In reality, people who cross illegally are caught and need to be taken *somewhere* while their case is processed.





> It is not illegal to seek asylum.
> 
> https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum



I said that in my post. 

However, it's also pretty obvious that thousands of people per day are not actually being persecuted in Mexico, and those are are not Mexican chose not to stop and claim asylum as they passed through multiple countries. Some cases will be genuine, but the system is backed up and people are abusing it by claiming asylum, knowing that it is extremely hard to deport them and that they can probably stay.



> The issue is not that they are being detained, but the inhuman way in which it is being done.



How do you practically detain hundreds of people per day?

There are 100,000 illegal border crossings per month.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/politics/border-center-migrant-detention.html

You also have to contend with things like this:

"Some migrants clogged their toilets with blankets and socks in order to be released from the crowded cells."

You ignored all other points about how this problem would be solved.

I know everybody here hates Trump and blames him for conditions at the facilities. But if you have 1,000's crossing every day, what can you *actually* do? I don't think it's really a solvable problem by the means we are arguing about.

Do you want to just let them all go free? They'll never be seen again. That's essentially open borders if the law is not enforced in any way. If politicians support that, they they should just say it and see what voters think.

Or you hold them. That requires large-scale facilities. To house them in a "humane" way. What does that mean?

They're going to have to be secured large-scale "jails" of some sort. And that's going to cost a lot of money. And while they're there, you need to feed them, deal with their medical care, take responsibility every time something goes wrong (like them fighting each other, diseases going around etc). That doesn't seem like a win.

You need hundreds of judges and courts running 24/7 to review all cases. The asylum backlog alone is 900,000 cases, which would take years to clear. And you have the parties arguing over whether to fund more judges. Hell, the Democrats (for some reason) don't even want to deport illegals who broke other laws. It's really an insane situation. I've lived in several countries and this simply isn't normal. If you break the law, most countries will just kick you out. It's not even slightly debatable among the population or politicians.

The answer to me seems pretty obvious. The first step is to secure the border by whatever means necessary to reduce the number of crossings - wall, fences, drones, gun towers, whatever works. Right now, it's like spending furiously when you're already in debt. Illegal immigration can also be discouraged. That can be accomplished by forcing employers to check status. If illegals can't get jobs, there is far less incentive to come. Secondly, there needs to be lots of deportations and an end to sanctuary cities. That is also a deterrent. 





> You know what's insanely offensive to Jews, or any group really? Speaking for them.
> 
> I am of Jewish decent and find it far more revolting what you're saying. So please cut the shit.



Check out his letter for yourself:

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/AOC-...iamentarian-to-see-concentration-camps-593175




> Maybe it doesn't come up in the headlines as much anymore, but it's certainly still fresh on a lot of people's minds.
> 
> We're actually staring down the barrel of another potential gridlock and you best believe the most recent shutdown will be trending again.



Agree that another shutdown would be bad for Trump, unless he can successfully blame the Dems for it. Probably everybody would be keen to avoid it in an election year.



> There were a number of typically right leaning folks affected, such as Coast Guard.



I think that's why he ended it, rather than letting it just go on forever.




> Obviously not one single issue is what drives voters specifically, but climate change and the environment is a big one.
> 
> https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx



Is it a swing issue though? Maybe in 2020. I don't think it was in 2016.



> See link above. It's been a pretty hot issue the last decade plus.
> 
> For and against.



Oh definitely healthcare is an issue. But my point was that Trump did promise to scrap Obamacare and was elected on that premise. So if those 7 million voted for him, they presumably wouldn't be upset. 

For healthcare to become a real campaign issue, one candidate needs some sort of feasible plan where the election will be a referendum on that. Maybe if one of the Dems who supports UHC wins nomination, that could turn it into more of a swing issue. I imagine a lot of people who didn't like paying extra money for Obamacare might weigh that against actual universal healthcare which could provide for them and their family.






> The American Military Industrial Complex[TM]



Well, that's fair. Seems a lot of people have a hard-on for wars.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> I'd say it's more of a jail.



I've been to jails. I've worked for companies that did utilities work for them.

The stories I've heard and read and pictures I've seen don't look like any of the several jails I've been to.

They look like really shitty prisons in the 70's and 80's.



> As I said, it's the easiest thing in the world to avoid - just don't come into the country.



These folks don't make the decision lightly.

It's not a fun trip and the outcome is not guaranteed to be positive, but it's a shot at a better life, or just life for that matter.

You mentioned that you have a family. If their lives were threatened, what would you do?



> The term "concentration camp" is obviously loaded, since most people wouldn't differentiate between that and "death camp". It's obviously a political term, designed to stoke outrage and conjour images of people being grabbed from their homes, tortured etc.



Again, we can nitpick, but there are parallels.



> In reality, people who cross illegally are caught and need to be taken *somewhere* while their case is processed.



Most, including myself, would agree.



> However, it's also pretty obvious that thousands of people per day are not actually being persecuted in Mexico, and those are are not Mexican chose not to stop and claim asylum as they passed through multiple countries. Some cases will be genuine, but the system is backed up and people are abusing it by claiming asylum, knowing that it is extremely hard to deport them and that they can probably stay.



Mexico isn't without problems.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/tracking-mexicos-cartels-2019

If the asylum system is broken, which I think it is, we need to fix it.



> How do you practically detain hundreds of people per day?



Homeboy, this is America. We have mass detention down to an art form.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate

As I said, everything points to these for profit border detention facilities being worse than the greater majority of US prisons.



> You ignored all other points about how this problem would be solved.



Other than just saying "just don't come here" what are these other points you speak of?



> I know everybody here hates Trump and blames him for conditions at the facilities. But if you have 1,000's crossing every day, what can you *actually* do? I don't think it's really a solvable problem by the means we are arguing about.
> 
> Do you want to just let them all go free? They'll never be seen again. That's essentially open borders if the law is not enforced in any way. If politicians support that, they they should just say it and see what voters think.
> 
> Or you hold them. That requires large-scale facilities. To house them in a "humane" way. What does that mean?
> 
> They're going to have to be secured large-scale "jails" of some sort. And that's going to cost a lot of money. And while they're there, you need to feed them, deal with their medical care, take responsibility every time something goes wrong (like them fighting each other, diseases going around etc). That doesn't seem like a win.
> 
> You need hundreds of judges and courts running 24/7 to review all cases. The asylum backlog alone is 900,000 cases, which would take years to clear. And you have the parties arguing over whether to fund more judges. Hell, the Democrats (for some reason) don't even want to deport illegals who broke other laws. It's really an insane situation. I've lived in several countries and this simply isn't normal. If you break the law, most countries will just kick you out. It's not even slightly debatable among the population or politicians.
> 
> The answer to me seems pretty obvious. The first step is to secure the border by whatever means necessary to reduce the number of crossings - wall, fences, drones, gun towers, whatever works. Right now, it's like spending furiously when you're already in debt. Illegal immigration can also be discouraged. That can be accomplished by forcing employers to check status. If illegals can't get jobs, there is far less incentive to come. Secondly, there needs to be lots of deportations and an end to sanctuary cities. That is also a deterrent.



We're never going to fully secure the border. It's a fools errand. At some point we'll just be throwing so much money and resources at the problem that we might as well just help these people. They're human beings after all.

We need a clear, humane path to citizenship. That's why we're in this mess. Our system is too slow and uncaring. It's all by design.

What's clear is that what's being done now isn't working and it doesn't look like that's going to turn around out of thin air.



> Check out his letter for yourself:
> 
> https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/AOC-...iamentarian-to-see-concentration-camps-593175



I've read it.

Looks like he doesn't know the difference between concentration camps and death camps either. Wonder why......



> So if those 7 million voted for him, they presumably wouldn't be upset.



That's very optimistic.


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> Good job I do have a background in statistics then.
> 
> Again, at no point have I claimed that height makes you win. Only that height is one of many factors which people will take into account when deciding who to vote for. Those factors include many other aspects of appearance such as accent, posture, body language, clothing etc etc. I do have an opinion that a 6ft3 guy has an advantage over a 5ft7 guy though.



I never said _you said _that height makes you win. But your idea that people take height into account is not backed up by statistics in the strict sense that there has been shown to be a causal relationship between these things. When you're playing ad hoc statistics, there's many things one could point to that would appear to be causal if they fit your narrative. Tallness fits yours. 

To bring it back around to the classic example, ice cream sales are highly correlated with shark attacks. One ice cream factory develops a new highly optimized automated ice cream process and puts out 10x more ice cream and allows them to sell it at half the price. Ice cream sales skyrocket. You call for all beaches to be closed due to the unprecedentedly high risk of shark attacks.



Flappydoodle said:


> Weird final sentence, but ok. I'm happily married with 3 kids, and totally average height and comfortable with it, if it matters



Wasn't a personal comment.


----------



## ExileMetal

Summary of right wing anti immigration arguments in this thread:

“They aren’t concentration camps, they’re just detention centers or jails where we hold specifically Mexicans that are overcrowded and people occasionally die.”

“It’s not illegal to seek asylum but most of them are probably lying.”

“There are 100,000 illegal border crossings per month.”

So which is it? Are they claiming asylum, or are they doing it illegally, and which of those are we detaining them for? I understand that the difference doesn’t matter to you since you suggested gun towers (LMAO), but it would be good to get your Fox News rhetoric straight. Also, you’re glossing over the extremely racist social media groups they found for border patrol agents; how does that dovetail with the rest of your claims?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Homeboy, this is America. We have mass detention down to an art form.



Thanks Max, I needed that. Had a rough start this morning.


----------



## Drew

So, to add a _new_ subject to the discussion... This is a story worth keeping an eye on: 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...ey-epstein-arrest-is-a-worry-for-donald-trump



> The financier was a member of Trump’s Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago, and the men dined at one another’s homes. Trump flew on Epstein’s plane at least once. According to Brown, Epstein is quoted in court papers as saying he wanted to set up his modeling agency – which prosecutors believe he used to get access to underage girls – “the same way Trump set up his modeling agency.”
> 
> Although a court filing says Mar-a-Lago eventually dumped Epstein from its ranks after he approached an underage girl there, Trump has generally spoken about Epstein fondly – to me and to others. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
> 
> During the 2016 presidential campaign, an unidentified young woman filed a suit against Trump in which she alleged that he raped her when she was 13 at a party at Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse in Manhattan. Trump denied the claims and the woman later dropped the suit because, her lawyer said, she was intimidated by death threats. The Trump camp described her allegations as “untrue.”
> 
> There’s a strong likelihood that Epstein will end up trying to flip for prosecutors as the reality of a lengthy prison sentence approaches, but it’s unclear how much he has that would be interesting to the feds. If he has anything sordid or compromising that he’s willing to trade about Trump, however, the president could be in for an uncomfortable summer. The public may be interested in that kind of stuff even if prosecutors aren’t.



tl;dr - Trump and Epstein were evidently personal friends, Trump joked about sharing a fondness for pretty young girls with him, Epstein mentioned using Trump's modeling agency as a model for the one he himself set up to get access to underaged girls, and Trump himself was accused of raping a 13 year old during his campaign, though the suit was eventually dropped. 

More likely than not, there's nothing here. But, if there IS something here, this is going to get sordid in a hurry.


----------



## MetalHex

More shit-stirring


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> How do you practically detain hundreds of people per day?
> 
> There are 100,000 illegal border crossings per month.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/us/politics/border-center-migrant-detention.html


Though, the one nuance you're missing, that I think is important to keep in mind here - this is a new phenomena, and it didn't happen in a vacuum. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/us/politics/mexico-tariffs.html

The charts unfortunately lose their axis labels when copied as images, but you can either go to the original article, or take my word that the two show a spike in January 2019, the former chart stretching back to 2001 while the latter zoomed in to 2016.

Worth keeping in mind here is that illegal crossings have surged to near-all-time highs during a time when Trump was 1) publicly threatening to close down the border alltogether, and 2) during a time when _legal_ immigration at the border has been severely constrained by the Trump administration. Combined, we have a scenario where it's now virtually impossible to get legal entry into the country, while the Trump administration is publicly mooting a total border shutdown. 

What's the logical response to this situation, if you're a Latin American migrant fleeing your home country and looking for a better life in America? 

And, what's the likelihood that the Trump Administration somehow doesn't know that the clampdown on legal immigration, coupled with public threats to close down the border altogether at some point in the future, wouldn't result in a surge in illegal border crossings? 

This is a political crisis entirely of the Administration's devising, with the most likely intent to stir up enough fear and resentment of immigrants to shove through funding for his stupid Wall.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like Cuomo signed the bill to let Congress have Trump's state tax returns

https://apple.news/AHJ9i91HXSvC8G-iHykq3Jg


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Looks like Cuomo signed the bill to let Congress have Trump's state tax returns
> 
> https://apple.news/AHJ9i91HXSvC8G-iHykq3Jg


Moot point, though, because Neil has indicated he's not likely to pursue since he's holding out to get the IRS to release Trump's far-more-complete federal returns, and pursuing his state returns could complicate that.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Moot point, though, because Neil has indicated he's not likely to pursue since he's holding out to get the IRS to release Trump's far-more-complete federal returns, and pursuing his state returns could complicate that.



Thats the most limp dick Democrat excuse for anything I've heard in my entire life, and I've heard a lot of them.


----------



## MetalHex

Flappydoodle said:


> How do you practically detain hundreds of people per day?





Drew said:


> What's the logical response to this situation, if you're a Latin American migrant fleeing your home country and looking for a better life in America?


Nice deflection.



Drew said:


> This is a political crisis entirely of the Administration's devising, with the most likely intent to stir up enough fear and resentment of immigrants to shove through funding for his stupid Wall


Why dont you ask the millions of mexican americans, american indians, and other non-white americans who came here legally, who support tighter border security, and actually, the wall? (Since I know you think the only ones concerned about it are racist whites since that's what you're subtly getting at).


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Nice deflection.
> 
> 
> Why dont you ask the millions of mexican americans, american indians, and other non-white americans who came here legally, who support tighter border security, and actually, the wall? (Since I know you think the only ones concerned about it are racist whites since that's what you're subtly getting at).


I'm glad to hear you're a proponent of legal immigration. I am too. Trump, however, is not.

https://fortune.com/2019/05/21/donald-trump-immigration-backlog/

By late 2017, the backlog of immigration applications has increased to 2.3 million applications, well above the previous all-time high of 1.7 million in the wake of the post-9/11 restructurings, while wait times have doubled since the Obama administration. Refugees admitted into this country have fallen to a quarter of the last year of the Obama administration, by 2018. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is making tweaks to existing visa programs, making it harder to get approved, and adding criteria designed to make it hard for anyone who isn't already affluent to apply and be approved:

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/10/tr...l-immigration-only-the-privileged-need-apply/

Also, while again I applaud your desire to be inclusive and supportive of minority rights in America, I have to point out:



MetalHex said:


> Why dont you ask the millions of mexican americans, *american indians, *and other non-white americans who came here legally


American Indians are immigrants who came to this country legally? You want to maybe reconsider that claim?

So, yeah... Trump is making it much harder to come into this country legally, especially if you're poor and non-white. What's the most logical unintended consequences of making it extremely difficult to come into America _legally? _Think about that one for a bit. This surge in illegal immigration, after a decade of relatively low and declining illegal immigration, is no coincidence, nor are the policies that have encouraged it.


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> American Indians are immigrants who came to this country legally? You want to maybe reconsider


Ok yes the "native" indians are obviously seperate from immigrants, but there are those that are pro Trump, pro wall....are they racist too or does some attempt to keep out people who arent legal citizens just make sense?

Also, thinking about it, I've yet to be convinced the a slow down on immigration is a bad thing. But I mean, if it's getting tougher and tougher to come here, why not just go somewhere else, preferably to a country that has free healthcare anyways?


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Ok yes the "native" indians are obviously seperate from immigrants, but there are those that are pro Trump, pro wall....are they racist too or does some attempt to keep out people who arent legal citizens just make sense?
> 
> Also, thinking about it, I've yet to be convinced the a slow down on immigration is a bad thing. But I mean, if it's getting tougher and tougher to come here, why not just go somewhere else, preferably to a country that has free healthcare anyways?


I mean, I don't know how to say this gently, but if you're concerned about racism, perhaps not calling Native Americans "immigrants" because they're non-white, in a country where all the _white_ people are the immigrants, would give you a shred more credibility. 

We have a shortage of skilled labor in this country, of course immigration is a good thing. More skilled labor equals more growth, a higher tax base, and a stronger economy. If we get enough immigrants into this country, maybe we _could _have free health care like the other first-world countries in the world, too!


----------



## MetalHex

Drew said:


> I mean, I don't know how to say this gently, but if you're concerned about racism, perhaps not calling Native Americans "immigrants" because they're non-white, in a country where all the _white_ people are the immigrants, would give you a shred more credibility





MetalHex said:


> Ok yes the "native" indians are obviously seperate from immigrants,



Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MetalHex said:


> Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.



Come on dude. 
I'm with you so far on a lot of what you're saying on this topic but this line is a bit ridiculous.
The pioneers were colonists that came from England. They moved from one country to another. This country was already inhabited by the native americans. They were definitely immigrants in a fundamental sense- lets not play the "but _*technically*_" game; that's only going to hurt your point.


----------



## Adieu

MetalHex said:


> Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.



Pioneers as in people who helped themselves to whatever the hell they wanted and shot anyone who got in the way?

Cute


----------



## StevenC

MetalHex said:


> Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.


You've said some dumb crazy stuff on this forum, but damn.


----------



## Drew

MetalHex said:


> Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.


So, this is a closely-moderated sub-forum, a closely-moderated thread even by that forum's standards, and I'm trying to be as respectful as I possibly can here, in deference to, if nothing else, the mod team here. 

But, that is possibly the most cringe-worthy thing I've read on this entire message board in the ~15 years I've posted here, all the more so because a moment ago you were pointing to Native Americans as "legal immigrants." It sort of defies belief. 

I'm trying to be charitable here, and it's entirely possible that this _isn't_ actually a stupendous lack of awareness about privilege, and maybe you legitimately don't know what the word "immigrant" means. That's a stretch, but just in case, I hotlinked the Merriam-Webster definition for you. If you're aware of the meaning of the word, though, and you think that somehow your ancestors who came here from presumably some European country were "pioneers" and not "immigrants," then I'm at a loss for words that wouldn't just be insulting you.


----------



## MetalHex

Adieu said:


> Pioneers as in people who helped themselves to whatever the hell they wanted and shot anyone who got in the way?



Lets be real here, you or I dont know how anything went down and actually happened (without cherry picking through articles for the sake of semantics). Seeing how europeans have been here since the 1600's(? perhaps earlier or later), until the last major (afaik) displacement among the "native" tribes Trail of Tears, was a span of a couple hundred years or so, is simply false to assume that the white man came and murdered all the indians overnight like many assume.



Drew said:


> you were pointing to Native Americans as "legal immigrants."


 Let me set this straight



MetalHex said:


> Why dont you ask the millions of mexican americans, american indians, and other non-white americans who came here legally, who support tighter border security, and actually, the wall? (Since I know you think the only ones concerned about it are racist whites since that's what you're subtly getting at).



I was not pointing to them as "legal" immigrants, I put them in that sentence for a different reason and may have worded it wrong....The reason why they are in that sentence is not because I was lumping them together with illegal immigrants, but because alot of them are in support of tighter border security including but not limited to the wall.

Also, privelage is the cringiest word of the last few years.

Also, we can discuss who was here before the "native" indians if you would like and discuss where they came from


----------



## Adieu

The difference between an immigrant and a pioneer/settler/colonist/etc. is that the immigrant BUYS land or resources instead of just taking em.


----------



## narad

MetalHex said:


> N
> Why dont you ask the millions of mexican americans, american indians, and other non-white americans who came here legally, who support tighter border security, and actually, the wall? (Since I know you think the only ones concerned about it are racist whites since that's what you're subtly getting at).



I asked. He said, "Comrade, wall is great thing, no? It protects us from moose and squirrel."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

r/selfawarewolves


----------



## MetalHex

Adieu said:


> The difference between an immigrant and a pioneer/settler/colonist/etc. is that the immigrant BUYS land or resources instead of just taking em.


Ok, so these "immigrants" that are in these detention centers that have existed pre-Trump, which land are they specifically trying to buy?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> Ok, so these "immigrants" that are in these detention centers that have existed pre-Trump, which parcel of land are they specifically trying to buy?



Are you asking how someone in detention is going about purchasing land/a home?

Pretending you were actually asking if immigrants purchase homes:

https://nationalmortgageprofessiona...nds-immigrant-homeownership-rates-rising-fast

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...lestate/immigrants-and-homeownership.amp.html

https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/immigrants-housing-demand

If you don't feel like reading: immigrant homeownership is on the rise and has been so for quite some time. Immigrants are typically very hard workers and thus work towards buying homes.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> Are you asking how someone in detention is going about purchasing land/a home?
> 
> Pretending you were actually asking if immigrants purchase homes:
> 
> https://nationalmortgageprofessiona...nds-immigrant-homeownership-rates-rising-fast
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...lestate/immigrants-and-homeownership.amp.html
> 
> https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/immigrants-housing-demand
> 
> If you don't feel like reading: immigrant homeownership is on the rise and has been so for quite some time. Immigrants are typically very hard workers and thus work towards buying homes.


No when I responded to that I was in the mindset of buying "large" amounts of land, like large territories when this country was being formed so I was comparing today to a couple hundred years ago. I dont think people from poor countries are coming here to buy the state of Nevada. Though who knows maybe China will buy it.

Point being, when the europeans came here and created a civilization, there was no land to "buy" because the people living here at the time didnt think that one could actually "own" land to be able to sell it. Though I'd hardly consider some small tribal families living in straw huts on a riverbank to be "owning" any land in the first place.....tribes that were already butchering and battling each other over land prior to anyone else showing up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MetalHex said:


> No when I responded to that I was in the mindset of buying "large" amounts of land, like large territories when this country was being formed so I was comparing today to a couple hundred years ago. I dont think people from poor countries are coming here to buy the state of Nevada. Though who knows maybe China will buy it.
> 
> Point being, when the europeans came here and created a civilization, there was no land to "buy" because the people living here at the time didnt think that one could actually "own" land to be able to sell it. Though I'd hardly consider some small tribal families living in straw huts on a riverbank to be "owning" any land in the first place.....tribes that were already butchering and battling each other over land prior to anyone else showing up.



You've said a lot of questionable things in this thread. Typically they could be brushed off as pure ignorance. 

This though, this is actually a genuinely shitty take. It's still ignorant, and stupid as all get out, but it's also broadly myopic and racist. 

There's nothing really else to say on this. The shark has been jumped. Any hope to have a discussion in good faith is long gone. 

Get out.


----------



## MetalHex

MaxOfMetal said:


> You've said a lot of questionable things in this thread. Typically they could be brushed off as pure ignorance.
> 
> This though, this is actually a genuinely shitty take. It's still ignorant, and stupid as all get out, but it's also broadly myopic and racist.
> 
> There's nothing really else to say on this. The shark has been jumped. Any hope to have a discussion in good faith is long gone.
> 
> Get out.


I haven't said anything that implies that I think any race is better than the other or that my race is better or that I don't like any other race????

But whatever.


----------



## Adieu

MetalHex said:


> Ok, so these "immigrants" that are in these detention centers that have existed pre-Trump, which land are they specifically trying to buy?



Sorry sorry

They're clearly trying to trade up from some farmhouse in the Mexican boonies to a posh tent in a "refugee camp" in a prime location like 5th Street in DTLA*

.....NOT. as if. "Free misery" doesn't interest illegals in the slightest, plenty of similar and far better options back home with less risk and effort.

So yeah, illegals come with the aim of making and spending money. Cause for mooching purposes, this country royally sucks and always has.

*Note for the uninitiated: the homeless encampments of Los Angeles make all manner of favelas, Subsuharan slums, and UN refugee camps look positively cheery... no one in their right mind would ever WANT to end up there or stay if any other choice presented itself.


----------



## Explorer

From a deposition that Jeffrey Epstein gave years ago.

”Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?"

”Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.”

If Epstein did things with underage women but Trump wasn’t involved, Epstein could easily have just truthfully answered "no" to the question without incriminating himself. The only way he wouldn’t have been able to answer the question was if Trump was somehow involved.

Which takes us back to that accusation wherein Trump allegedly raped a 13-year-old, and then Epstein raped her afterwards.

"I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy … He’s a lot of fun to be with. He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Donald Trump speaking about Epstein.


----------



## Randy

MetalHex said:


> I'd hardly consider some small tribal families living in straw huts on a riverbank to be "owning" any land in the first place.....tribes that were already butchering and battling each other over land prior to anyone else showing up.





MetalHex said:


> I haven't said anything that implies that I think any race is better than the other or that my race is better or that I don't like any other race????



I think dismissing an entire race and culture of people as "living in straw huts on river banks" and "butchering eachother for land" is knowingly condescending way beyond being _accidentally_ racist, and you damn well know that.


----------



## spudmunkey

Explorer said:


> From a deposition that Jeffrey Epstein gave years ago.
> 
> ”Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?"
> 
> ”Though I’d like to answer that question, at least today I’m going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.”
> 
> If Epstein did things with underage women but Trump wasn’t involved, Epstein could easily have just truthfully answered "no" to the question without incriminating himself. The only way he wouldn’t have been able to answer the question was if Trump was somehow involved.
> 
> Which takes us back to that accusation wherein Trump allegedly raped a 13-year-old, and then Epstein raped her afterwards.
> 
> "I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy … He’s a lot of fun to be with. He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Donald Trump speaking about Epstein.



Imagine how pissed you would be if your friend told you that he was questioned about something illegal he was doing, and that when the cops as him about you, he said that he didn't tell him you were or weren't involved, when you definitely weren't.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

YES. I've been waiting for this arrest of Epstein to somehow circle back around to how we can get rid of Trump. Thank god.


----------



## Explorer

Well, Trump certainly has quite a few of the best sexual predators in his circle. Besides Epstein, George Nader and Cindy Yang, just tonight, he sat down to dinner at the same table as Robert Kraft. 

Unfortunately, reality is hard to argue against... but it's always amusing to watch some folks try.


----------



## Adieu

With every day, I become more and more convinced that poor ol' Donald would have been SOOO much happier if he could've just somehow become a smalltime feudal warlord somewhere in Yemen or Somalia

Better job security, endless well of perfectly acceptable and accessible pubescent virgins, harem full of barefoot and pregnant teenagers, easy succession, no elections, no eventual forced retirement, no investigations, lots of people respecting him, simple buy-technicals-recruit-rednecks-collect-trubute political/business system etc etc etc

....instead of this precarious, fussy, complicated Presidency nonsense, with its pesky rules and the ever-obnoxious American legal system always looking to cramp his style. Can't even play with girls or hang disrespectful people off the palace gates. Wtf is so great about that???


----------



## MetalHex

Randy said:


> I think dismissing an entire race and culture of people as "living in straw huts on river banks" and "butchering eachother for land" is knowingly condescending way beyond being _accidentally_ racist, and you damn well know that.


They were obviously more sohphisticated as a people than just living in huts on river banks, but in reality, their living quarters were just really sohpisticated huts, mostly near river banks. Thats the truth. That doesnt mean they were stupid or anything. They lived like that because thats how they had to. You cant survive without water. Also I'm sure they wanted to. Theres nothing wrong with that. They were and are a rather spiritually advanced people imo.....c Nothing racist about it.

But are you actually claiming that they didnt slaughter other tribes and live like brutal savages abusing women as well? There is this falsely painted romantic idea that they were the OG hippies who were always peaceful and humble and would never hurt a fly.

You and I were probably brought up reading the same Rockafeller/Carnegie Foundation-funded school history textbooks. Those books painted that picture. They covered the same main "hot topics" year after year and nothing more.

I'm responding since you quoted me. Back to bashing orange man.


----------



## narad

We don't choose to name our attack helicopters after tribes because we're all somehow under the impression they were OG hippies.


----------



## thraxil

MetalHex said:


> Also, I dont know about your ancestors who came to this country, but my ancestors who came to this country were pioneers, not immigrants.



Sorry to drag us back to this but I just woke up to this and wow... I don't know quite how we define "immigrant" vs "pioneer" but if we say that anyone who moved to the US before the revolutionary war was a "pioneer" (which I think is a generous definition), I'm willing to bet that just by the math, most of your ancestors were "immigrants" not "pioneers". Going with my own family history, my four grandparents were all born around 1920. If we go with a 30 year gap between generations (also a generous estimate, I think), that means that 8 of my ancestors were born around 1890, 16 around 1860, 32 in 1830, 64 in 1800, and 128 in 1770. So those are obviously *very* rough estimates, not exact numbers but do you see my point? My family has pretty deep roots in New England so I suspect that a few of my ancestors were in the US as "pioneers" but it's extremely unlikely that all or even a large portion of the 64-128 direct ancestors of mine that were around for the revolutionary war happened to be in America at that point. Much more likely, the vast majority of them were "immigrants". Outside of isolated Native American communities, I'd bet that most currently living Americans are also much more on the "immigrant" side than "pioneer".


----------



## Viginez

MaxOfMetal said:


> These folks don't make the decision lightly.


most of them are not making any decision by themselves. they are just beeing exploited at home for money. it's organized trafficking. lured by false promises. politicians just use them for their political goals.


----------



## ExileMetal

MetalHex said:


> They were obviously more sohphisticated as a people than just living in huts on river banks, but in reality, their living quarters were just really sohpisticated huts, mostly near river banks. Thats the truth. That doesnt mean they were stupid or anything. They lived like that because thats how they had to. You cant survive without water. Also I'm sure they wanted to. Theres nothing wrong with that. They were and are a rather spiritually advanced people imo.....c Nothing racist about it.
> 
> But are you actually claiming that they didnt slaughter other tribes and live like brutal savages abusing women as well? There is this falsely painted romantic idea that they were the OG hippies who were always peaceful and humble and would never hurt a fly.
> 
> You and I were probably brought up reading the same Rockafeller/Carnegie Foundation-funded school history textbooks. Those books painted that picture. They covered the same main "hot topics" year after year and nothing more.
> 
> I'm responding since you quoted me. Back to bashing orange man.



You’re “pioneering” ways to be a shit human being; embarrassed to be on the same forum as you.


----------



## SenorDingDong

The Cherokee had their own written language, a Constitution, laws, etc. There were many similar tribes. Making them sound like 'hut dwelling' savages is pretty insensitive and ignorant. 

Andrew Jackson fucked them over by not upholding a Supreme Court ruling that protected their land. If anything, THAT is idiotic and savage behaviour. 

Pioneer and immigrant are so loosely defined, as you cannot be a legitimate pioneer of there are already people living there, as it proves previous discovery. 

So regardless of what generation of settler you claim, unless you are Native Ameican, your claim as a pioneer is fraud. Just because most Americans are raised to skew meaning in their favour, doesn't make it accurate.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> Well, Trump certainly has quite a few of the best sexual predators in his circle. Besides Epstein, George Nader and Cindy Yang, just tonight, he sat down to dinner at the same table as Robert Kraft.
> 
> Unfortunately, reality is hard to argue against... but it's always amusing to watch some folks try.


Cindy Yang was the owner of the "massage parlour" that Kraft got busted at, right? I forget her name, but she and Trump were evidently close and she was a regular at Mar a Lago. 



MetalHex said:


> They were obviously more sohphisticated as a people than just living in huts on river banks, but in reality, their living quarters were just really sohpisticated huts, mostly near river banks. Thats the truth.


"When I said they were living in a van down by the river, I didn't mean they were _living in a van down by the river_, of course not! That would be racist! I only meant that they were living in a van, and that van happened to be near a river. Totally different thing!!!" 

I hope to god you're only 14 and this is a phase you grow out of. In the mean time, maybe your parents shouldn't let you on the internet unsupervised. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## SenorDingDong

MetalHex said:


> No when I responded to that I was in the mindset of buying "large" amounts of land, like large territories when this country was being formed so I was comparing today to a couple hundred years ago. I dont think people from poor countries are coming here to buy the state of Nevada. Though who knows maybe China will buy it.
> 
> Point being, when the europeans came here and created a civilization, there was no land to "buy" because the people living here at the time didnt think that one could actually "own" land to be able to sell it. Though I'd hardly consider some small tribal families living in straw huts on a riverbank to be "owning" any land in the first place.....tribes that were already butchering and battling each other over land prior to anyone else showing up.




Weird, you seem to be using "tribes didn't know they could 'buy' land" and "the original Americans didn't know that others could feel a right to take earth from each other through use of violent force" pretty synonymously. 

If anything, the idea of land 'ownership,' which back then was little more than a mere claim upheld through brute force, was more barbaric than you are attempting to make the Natives sound.


----------



## Drew

Explorer said:


> "I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy … He’s a lot of fun to be with. He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Donald Trump speaking about Epstein.


....which he said _after_ Epstein had been barred from Mar a Lago for making advances at underaged women there. 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> YES. I've been waiting for this arrest of Epstein to somehow circle back around to how we can get rid of Trump. Thank god.


Considering this is a thread about Trump, why else would it be discussed here?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Considering this is a thread about Trump, why else would it be discussed here?



Everything points to a bunch of political operatives on both sides of the aisle having dealt with Epstein. You'd think they'd be thrilled at the chance of taking down a Clinton, but instead it seems that the chance of implicating Trump has them wanting to avoid the subject altogether. Weird. 

Anyone involved with this slimeball needs to go down. Hard.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> ....which he said _after_ Epstein had been barred from Mar a Lago for making advances at underaged women there.



I haven't been able to find a date on when he was banned, but would looooove to.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> I haven't been able to find a date on when he was banned, but would looooove to.


You know, now that I'm digging into it myself, I can't either. And, despite pro-trump sites like The Federalist making much of the fact Trump banned him, there's actually no confirmation that Epstein was ever banned - an off-the-record comment to the media says he was told not to come back after he went after an 18 year old towel girl, her dad (who was evidently a member?) found out, and went apeshit, but MAr a Lago never officially confirmed anything and Epstein denies it, claiming he was invited as recently as last month. 

Meanwhile, I DID learn his plane was named "Lolita One." _Lovely. _


----------



## Ry Manchu

The 13 year-old Katie Johnson, claims Donald Trump was at all 4 Jeffery Epstein parties that she attended in the summer of 1994. She stated that he knew she was 13 and she gave him hand jobs at the first 3 parties. At the fourth party, he tied her up and raped her. Then Trump hit her and told her that he would have her and her family killed if she told anyone. Her witness Tiffany corroborated her testimony. What a gentleman.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, I DID learn his plane was named "Lolita One." _Lovely. _



Hooooo shit, this is _*that*_ guy? Man I've been so out of the news lately.
They finally got him!?!? Fucking nice!


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Hooooo shit, this is _*that*_ guy? Man I've been so out of the news lately.
> They finally got him!?!? Fucking nice!


Yup, _that _guy. 

I mean, I fucking love that novel as much as the next person, Nabokov is a genius... but in spite of and not because of the subject matter. I guess it's a good thing this guy's letting it all hang out like that? Like, if you're a 14 year old girl getting onto Lolita One, and you don't know what's coming, well, actually, you're probably not well enough read to be on guard at that age anyway. 

Fucking slimeball though, and evidently totally unabashed.


----------



## Adieu




----------



## Spaced Out Ace

Ry Manchu said:


> The 13 year-old Katie Johnson, claims Donald Trump was at all 4 Jeffery Epstein parties that she attended in the summer of 1994. She stated that he knew she was 13 and she gave him hand jobs at the first 3 parties. At the fourth party, he tied her up and raped her. Then Trump hit her and told her that he would have her and her family killed if she told anyone. Her witness Tiffany corroborated her testimony. What a gentleman.


So which banned member are you?


----------



## Ralyks

Somehow I feel like Trump defending Acosta right now is a terrible move.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Somehow I feel like Trump defending Acosta right now is a terrible move.



I debated at least three people over the last two days who said Acosta was on the chopping block and I said you clearly don't know Trump's brand. Not saying Acosta stays (from what I heard his defense was very flaccid) but the bulk of Trump supporters I know err on the side of 'suspension of disbelief' as long as he denies it. At a minimum he doesn't like having his hand forced on his firings, so even with the most egregious complaints against the guy, he'll probably wait a few weeks/months and quietly transition him out. And even that's a big 'if'


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> You know, now that I'm digging into it myself, I can't either. And, despite pro-trump sites like The Federalist making much of the fact Trump banned him, there's actually no confirmation that Epstein was ever banned - an off-the-record comment to the media says he was told not to come back after he went after an 18 year old towel girl, her dad (who was evidently a member?) found out, and went apeshit, but MAr a Lago never officially confirmed anything and Epstein denies it, claiming he was invited as recently as last month.
> 
> Meanwhile, I DID learn his plane was named "Lolita One." _Lovely. _



Yeah, I've got the same thing on my end. So far it seems the best defense Trump has in all of this is that he helped the victim's lawyer back in '09 and the lawyer stated as much. I haven't paid much attention, but I wonder if the bit about banning Epstein started popping up during Trump's campaign? 



Spaced Out Ace said:


> So which banned member are you?



I can verify that he's not a banned member.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Randy said:


> I debated at least three people over the last two days who said Acosta was on the chopping block and I said you clearly don't know Trump's brand. Not saying Acosta stays (from what I heard his defense was very flaccid) but the bulk of Trump supporters I know err on the side of 'suspension of disbelief' as long as he denies it. At a minimum he doesn't like having his hand forced on his firings, so even with the most egregious complaints against the guy, he'll probably wait a few weeks/months and quietly transition him out. And even that's a big 'if'



No, man, it's 4D chess. Trump picked Acosta so he could flush him out of the swamp himself.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> No, man, it's 4D chess. Trump picked Acosta so he could flush him out of the swamp himself.


Holy shit, best post in this thread in weeks.  



Randy said:


> I debated at least three people over the last two days who said Acosta was on the chopping block and I said you clearly don't know Trump's brand. Not saying Acosta stays (from what I heard his defense was very flaccid) but the bulk of Trump supporters I know err on the side of 'suspension of disbelief' as long as he denies it. At a minimum he doesn't like having his hand forced on his firings, so even with the most egregious complaints against the guy, he'll probably wait a few weeks/months and quietly transition him out. And even that's a big 'if'



The caveat, though, is sometimes he DOES just do it. Flynn comes to mind, as does Ryan Zinke. Probably a few more I'm just not thinking about at the moment. The pattern seems to be that he'll fight it as long as he can, but then hits a point where he sees the writing on the wall and decides to "act decisively." So, Acosta could ride this out for a long time and then quietly step down to "spend more time with his family" or something, in a year's time, or inside of two weeks Trump could demand and accept his resignation and act outraged for Acosta's having "hidden" his role from him. And then sort of imply that he's related to Jim Acosta or something, because Trump.


----------



## spudmunkey

RevDrucifer said:


> No, man, it's 4D chess. Trump picked Acosta so he could flush him out of the swamp himself.



That's called "swamping the drain".


----------



## Explorer

I'm liking how people who previously pretended to be concerned about cis females being put at a disadvantage competing in sports against the transgendered, now clearly could not care less about the even greater disadvantages of being raped underage girls. It's just another case of when someone shows you who they genuinely are, I suppose.

I personally find that apathy horrifying, but carry on!


----------



## SenorDingDong

Explorer said:


> I'm liking how people who previously pretended to be concerned about cis females being put at a disadvantage competing in sports against the transgendered, now clearly could not care less about the even greater disadvantages of being raped underage girls. It's just another case of when someone shows you who they genuinely are, I suppose.
> 
> I personally find that apathy horrifying, but carry on!




What if I'm concerned about both?

I'm concerned about the safety of cis women in combat sports with transgendered opponents. Running and such, not concerned about, simply unsupportive of competition between the two, at least not if it is a gender-specific event. There really have been too many proven advantages, and regardless that I believe all people should feel happy and safe in the skin they have, and should have the right to adjust their bodies in any way if they believe it will make them feel more true to themselves, I do believe there are sizable differences in strength and endurance between people's birth genders and the genders they may feel best suit them as human beings.

I also deeply care about the safety and mental well-being of all women of all ages, and believe that, although we cannot prevent all rape, which is a very depressing thought in itself, that victims should be de-stigmatized and encouraged to seek out help and support from the community and professionals. I also believe in free treatment for victims of rape. I believe all cases should be investigated and prosecuted thoroughly.


So not all people who believe in one and not the other are atrocious. I'm dead-center politically, so while I might believe something from either side of the road, my reasoning may be different, or the representation of the issue might be wrong in my eyes.


----------



## Ralyks

12 Mueller witnesses bring subpoenaed, including Kushner and Sessions

https://apple.news/ABbk91OoXQzOUmbE3f5sGLQ


----------



## Drew

In other news, someone evidently told Trump that trying to bypass the Supreme Court via executive order was a _bad_ idea, and he blinked on the citizenship question on the Census.


----------



## Ralyks

I see that:

https://apple.news/A5iDKok4BTXW4Ox6VkqwXYA


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaaand Acosta is out.

https://apple.news/A_6xvPFxeSXCwVcooF3VUBg


----------



## Drew

Drew said:


> The caveat, though, is sometimes he DOES just do it. Flynn comes to mind, as does Ryan Zinke. Probably a few more I'm just not thinking about at the moment. The pattern seems to be that he'll fight it as long as he can, but then hits a point where he sees the writing on the wall and decides to "act decisively." So, Acosta could ride this out for a long time and then quietly step down to "spend more time with his family" or something, in a year's time, or inside of two weeks Trump could demand and accept his resignation and act outraged for Acosta's having "hidden" his role from him. And then sort of imply that he's related to Jim Acosta or something, because Trump.


Revisiting this, the last I saw (this morning) Trump was saying he DIDN'T tell Acosta do resign. Weird.


----------



## spudmunkey

"I'm not saying you need to resign...but it would be a shame if my friends, Rudy and Bugsy, were to come over with their baseball bats, and..."


----------



## Drew

Quiet news week, for Trump - right now he's tripling down on his "go back to the countries you're from" tweets directed at non-white, US-born women in Congress and going all "I know you are but what am I?" to the chorus of people calling him a racist pig, while the child rapist his now-departed Labor Secretary gave a slap-on-the-list deal to is being arraigned for child sex trafficking charges on public television, Trump himself is threatening to investigate Google for "treason," and meanwhile the market just rolled over because he also re-threatened to impose another $350B in tariffs on Chinese imports. 

May we live in interesting times, indeed.


----------



## Ralyks

It's confusing on the left too. First AOC calling Pelosi racist, and it's the Squad vs the rest of the Dems, then Trump triples down on being racist towards THEM and supposedly unites the left and even a few Republicans got pissed at Trump, but the left uniting plays into Trumps hand because it will make AOC and The Squad the face of the left which NO ONE wants, but it may favor Pelosi because of a United front.....

Are we in government auto chess now?


----------



## tedtan

In other Trump news, he is currently ranked as tied with Andrew Johnson (who stated that "African-Americans were incapable of self-government and relapsed into barbarism if they weren’t closely supervised") as the most racist US president ever.

Yay for us.


----------



## vilk

tedtan said:


> In other Trump news, he is currently ranked as tied with Andrew Johnson (who stated that "African-Americans were incapable of self-government and relapsed into barbarism if they weren’t closely supervised") as the most racist US president ever.
> 
> Yay for us.


ehhhhhhh did they forget about Woodrow Wilson or something?


----------



## JSanta

I've thought a lot about what's happened this week (how is it only Tuesday???) and I think Trump's played this situation brilliantly. Hear me out: he's catering to his base and many in the GOP that are thinking the exact same things he's said and has said in the past. Why else wouldn't there be more widespread condemnation of something so overtly racist? There's only been one Republican congress member (that I have seen) that has called this situation out for exactly what it is, while all of the others that have spoken out (which is just a minor portion of the GOP) have basically just stated he shouldn't have used the language he used. In almost any other job in the US, you would be fired for cause using that type of language, if not more severe consequences.


----------



## tedtan

I think "brilliant" aspect to Trump's play, which may have flown completely over his head, is that the swing voters typically don't care for the squad, so by getting the democrats to join together against his insults, he is making the democrats appear further left, which may pull swing voters Trump's way. Of course, that may backfire, too, but at least he isn't risking loosing any of his base; they eat that shit up.


----------



## vilk

I figured he just wanted to change the topic away from child rape


----------



## tedtan

Well, there's that, too. But Trump has always managed to survive his sex scandals (to date, anyway), so I don't know how much of a concern that would be to him.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I've thought a lot about what's happened this week (how is it only Tuesday???) and I think Trump's played this situation brilliantly. Hear me out: he's catering to his base and many in the GOP that are thinking the exact same things he's said and has said in the past. Why else wouldn't there be more widespread condemnation of something so overtly racist? There's only been one Republican congress member (that I have seen) that has called this situation out for exactly what it is, while all of the others that have spoken out (which is just a minor portion of the GOP) have basically just stated he shouldn't have used the language he used. In almost any other job in the US, you would be fired for cause using that type of language, if not more severe consequences.


I suppose you could argue his _execution_ here is brilliant. The problem though is playing to the base is an idiotic strategy, because there aren't enough registered Republicans to overcome an energized left (and there are more registered Democrats than Republicans) and a center disgusted at his overt racism. He may be catering to his base brilliantly, but that's a brilliant way to being a one term president.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> I suppose you could argue his _execution_ here is brilliant. The problem though is playing to the base is an idiotic strategy, because there aren't enough registered Republicans to overcome an energized left (and there are more registered Democrats than Republicans) and a center disgusted at his overt racism. He may be catering to his base brilliantly, but that's a brilliant way to being a one term president.



I completely agree with your assessment. The other thing that struck me is that Trump stated he'd let the voters decide on his rhetoric. In the back of mind, it sounded like a plea to vote him out of office haha! Along the lines of "I'm going to continue to say and do more and more terrible/outlandish things proving I don't really want this job".


----------



## Drew

Eh, I suspect he's delusional/surrounded with enough yes men that he actually believes he's wildly popular and cruising to an easy re-election. This is the guy who is reported to have, when bad internal polling numbers leaked, simply fired his internal polling team.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Eh, I suspect he's delusional/surrounded with enough yes men that he actually believes he's wildly popular and cruising to an easy re-election. This is the guy who is reported to have, when bad internal polling numbers leaked, simply fired his internal polling team.



Logically, I know you're correct. Just a funny thought I had as I've seen things unfold.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> Eh, I suspect he's delusional/surrounded with enough yes men that he actually believes he's wildly popular and cruising to an easy re-election. This is the guy who is reported to have, when bad internal polling numbers leaked, simply fired his internal polling team.


Unfortunately, the scary side of this is "I know I won the 2020 election tonight, even if those FAKE results from the polling stations don't confirm it. I refuse to acknowledge those FAKE results that CNN and crooked Hillary cooked up and replaced the real results with, so I'm not leaving!"

I'd like to believe this is wild hyperbole. Day by day, I'm less and less able to.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Ap2lE7mcZQ9GzCybQuW3LJA

What a fucking shit show.


----------



## Ralyks

To update, the House voted in favor to condemn Trump for the tweets. All the Dems, 4 Republicans, and Amash. Again, what does that even mean? They're allowed to tell him he's been a bad boy? He goes on timeout for 10 minutes? No golf for a month? Someone help me out here. @Drew ? Anyone?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

It means your tax money got wasted on meaningless crap. How much time did they stop to vote on whether or not to condemn his tweets?


----------



## Ralyks

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It means your tax money got wasted on meaningless crap. How much time did they stop to vote on whether or not to condemn his tweets?



I mean, it already gets wasted on his golf trips...


----------



## JSanta

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It means your tax money got wasted on meaningless crap. How much time did they stop to vote on whether or not to condemn his tweets?



It's not a waste. It demonstrates to decent people both in this country and the rest of the world that we as a nation do not tolerate hateful rhetoric by our elected officials. It also shows voters in this country what all but 4 Republicans in the House actually stand for, and who they stand with.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> I mean, it already gets wasted on his golf trips...



MAGA: Mcdonald's And Golf Again.


----------



## StevenC

Spaced Out Ace said:


> It means your tax money got wasted on meaningless crap. How much time did they stop to vote on whether or not to condemn his tweets?


The hell else do you expect them to do when McConnell won't bring anything they pass to the Senate?


----------



## SenorDingDong

Wait, are people claiming him saying what boils down to "if you don't like this country, leave" to those women is racist? Or did I miss something?


----------



## narad

SenorDingDong said:


> Wait, are people claiming him saying what boils down to "if you don't like this country, leave" to those women is racist? Or did I miss something?



Yes, if you tell a black person, born in America, to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came", it counts as racist.

Just to be clear, that doesn't "boil down" to "if you don't like this country, leave".


----------



## JSanta

SenorDingDong said:


> Wait, are people claiming him saying what boils down to "if you don't like this country, leave" to those women is racist? Or did I miss something?



You're either willfully missing the part about going back to where you came from, or don't understand the subtext. Growing up in an immigrant family, being told to go back to where you came from was something I heard when i was with my father as a kid numerous times. It's a racist and/or overtly nationalistic statement. 

This country is broken in a lot of ways, and people have to be willing both to speak up, as well as try and make positive changes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SenorDingDong said:


> Wait, are people claiming him saying what boils down to "if you don't like this country, leave" to those women is racist? Or did I miss something?



Here's the full tweet (three merged together):

"So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, *who originally came from countries *whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. *Why don’t they go back* and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from *which they came*. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!"

Three of four that this is aimed at were born in the United States.

He just assumed because they weren't white that they were "foreign". He doesn't equate "American" with POC.

He later walked that back to "if you don't like it here, leave".

EDIT: Took awhile to post this comment, sorry to be the 736382th person to reply to your post. I don't mean to pile on.


----------



## Fred the Shred

That expression is used in a great many places, in my country as well, and always carries the same meaning, which is not "if you don't like it, leave" but rather "get the fuck out of my country" - it is deeply xenophobic and racist as well, so one shouldn't really try to sanitize it, especially since the man in question isn't "president of select citizens of pre-approved ethnic and socio-economic background", but rather of an entire, rather diverse nation, so exactly where do we draw the "gone too far" line in political debate or exchange?


----------



## Thaeon

Fred the Shred said:


> That expression is used in a great many places, in my country as well, and always carries the same meaning, which is not "if you don't like it, leave" but rather "get the fuck out of my country" - it is deeply xenophobic and racist as well, so one shouldn't really try to sanitize it, especially since the man in question isn't "president of select citizens of pre-approved ethnic and socio-economic background", but rather of an entire, rather diverse nation, so exactly where do we draw the "gone too far" line in political debate or exchange?



As always, well said. I think that this, with the context just added by @MaxOfMetal paints about as clear a picture as you can about what was meant and how ill informed it and many other things spoken by said source are. I think that the only reason Tweets are allowed unapproved by this president is that they are a huge media distraction.


----------



## Ry Manchu

From the EEOC Website:

“Ethnic slurs and other verbal or physical conduct because of nationality are illegal if they are severe or pervasive and create an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, interfere with work performance, or negatively affect job opportunities. Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person’s foreign accent or comments like, ‘Go back to where you came from."

Therefore any government employee could get fired for saying what President Trump said to the four. The scary thing is that a majority of Trump supporters don't seem to care.


----------



## SenorDingDong

A bit of a strong arm against my comment, as I was genuinely asking. I couldn't find the tweet, wasn't defending anything and was simply asking what was said and if I missed the significance of it.

Pitchforks down, boys.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> A bit of a strong arm against my comment, as I was genuinely asking. I couldn't find the tweet, wasn't defending anything and was simply asking what was said and if I missed the significance of it.
> 
> Pitchforks down, boys.



Okay but now that you know what he said, maybe lead into it a little more carefully if you're going to stand up for the guy without having all the information. You sounded awfully dismissive.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Okay but now that you know what he said, maybe lead into it a little more carefully if you're going to stand up for the guy without having all the information. You sounded awfully dismissive.



Wait, when did I stand up for him? I asked if what I ascertained from the buzz I've seen was true, or if I was missing something.

You can't nail me to the wall for asking clarification and then accuse me of defending someone, that's just silly.

Nowhere did I say "he did nothing wrong" or "he was right " or any iteration of such. Asked a question, and got bombarded by defensive and a bit agitated responses.

This is why I sit firmly in the middle, both the left and right have huge issues with being questioned and love to hurl "you're against us" accusations if you ask questions they don't like the framing of, and it's a bit counterintuitive, if you want someone to see things your way, generally you don't achieve that by starting a fuss with their inquiries.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Also, considering I saw the EDITED Tweet first, you can see why I would be a bit confused by the buzz over simply "leave if you don't like it."


----------



## spudmunkey

SenorDingDong said:


> A bit of a strong arm against my comment, as I was genuinely asking. I couldn't find the tweet, wasn't defending anything and was simply asking what was said and if I missed the significance of it.
> 
> Pitchforks down, boys.



To be fair (*sigh*, I know), you did say "what boils down to", which seemed to _intend _to communicate that you DID have all of the information, and came to your own dismissive distillation of that information.

To me, it sounded like:
Guy 1: "What it boils down to, is that I gave him an unexpected, express delivery of a gift of some free lead."
Officer 1: "Dude... you shot him in the back..."

Yes, though, tone-of-voice does drastically change the perception/intent of the exact words that you used, and somehow the internet usually guesses wrong. When someone's genuine, it's often read as sarcastic (and vise versa).


----------



## SenorDingDong

Top be fair, what I read, which turned out to be the EDITED Tweet, DID boil down to exactly what I said, which is why I asked for clarification and preceded to basically be called racist.

You can see how "picking sides" in politics leads some people to see enemies out of every situation.

From my perspective, telling someone to leave the country is one of the least controversial things this president has said. But now that I call people out, the back rubbing stops and everyone weill go radio silence without any apologies, because "if you ask a question we don't like, the jumped-top conclusion is that you're the enemy."

And of course, after all his accusation, Randy won't say anything even bordering on an apology for reacting so emotionally to the subject and throwing a bunch of accusations my way, c'est la vie.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> Wait, when did I stand up for him? I asked if what I ascertained from the buzz I've seen was true, or if I was missing something.
> 
> You can't nail me to the wall for asking clarification and then accuse me of defending someone, that's just silly.
> 
> Nowhere did I say "he did nothing wrong" or "he was right " or any iteration of such. Asked a question, and got bombarded by defensive and a bit agitated responses.
> 
> This is why I sit firmly in the middle, both the left and right have huge issues with being questioned and love to hurl "you're against us" accusations if you ask questions they don't like the framing of, and it's a bit counterintuitive, if you want someone to see things your way, generally you don't achieve that by starting a fuss with their inquiries.



Its not everyone else's fault you ask your question in a leading way. Completely separate from political debate, as a human being that interacts with other human beings, I very well know what "Wait, are you telling me..." framing of a question means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SenorDingDong said:


> Top be fair, what I read, which turned out to be the EDITED Tweet, DID boil down to exactly what I said, which is why I asked for clarification and preceded to basically be called racist.
> 
> You can see how "picking sides" in politics leads some people to see enemies out of every situation.



I mean, it wouldn't have killed you to ask in a way that didn't _seem_ so disingenuous at first glance.

But, moving on, what do you think of what the actual President of the United States said of four US Congresswomen? 

What a time to be alive, huh?

EDIT:



SenorDingDong said:


> From my perspective, telling someone to leave the country is one of the least controversial things this president has said.



Now that you've seen the actual quote in question, why do you still revert to your original assumption?

Obviously he didn't mean "if you don't like it here, leave", he told four people that they're basically "not from here" or "not one of us (as in Americans)" even though all but one was born here, and all four were elected to represent even more Americans. 

I know there's so much controversy that it's easy to become desensitized, but that's pretty darn bad.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> You can see how "picking sides" in politics leads some people to see enemies out of every situation.



Yeah if that were the case. I've voted for and campaigned for Republicans several times so take your tribalism accusation and stuff it.

You framed your question like everyone was being unreasonable for taking what the president said as racist and it's an asshole position to take, and it's treated as such. It's not on us that you chimed in half informed when you decided to throw that one over the fence.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Its not everyone else's fault you ask your question in a leading way. Completely separate from political debate, as a human being that interacts with other human beings, I very well know what "Wait, are you telling me..." framing of a question means.



Man, you're really digging your feet in. 

Yes, because to accuse someone of racism over "if you don't like it, leave," seemed absolutely absurd to me. It's a staple of life--if you don't enjoy something, there are plenty of better places/things to spend your time on. A pretty mellow statement. Which is why I was confused. 

Which is why I was asking for clarification, as I seemed to be missing information. You read into it, got offended, accused me of being racist and dig your fucking feet in claiming you have the moral high ground do to not liking how I worded my question. Seems like someone has a difficult time saying, "hey, maybe I overreacted, my bad, dude."


----------



## spudmunkey

I love how when Trump was asked about Grahm's comments that Trump should "aim higher", Donnie took it to mean that he should pick a target with a higher rank, and said he thought the comment was ridiculous because, "Who should I wait for, a Senator?" (or soemthing to that effect).


----------



## SenorDingDong

MaxOfMetal said:


> Now that you've seen the actual quote in question, why do you still revert to your original assumption?
> 
> Obviously he didn't mean "if you don't like it here, leave", he told four people that they're basically "not from here" or "not one of us (as in Americans)" even though all but one was born here, and all four were elected to represent even more Americans.
> 
> I know there's so much controversy that it's easy to become desensitized, but that's pretty darn bad.




I am not reverting to it, I am defending being bombarded by a bunch of accusations over my question.

As a whole, his original statement was absolutely outrageous, racist and unacceptable from the leader of a first world country. There is no way to defend how wholly offensive what he said is.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> Seems like someone has a difficult time saying, "hey, maybe I overreacted, my bad, dude."



Apology accepted.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Apology accepted.



Man, so can I just outright be a dick to a mod without ramifications, or is that reserved for your lack of ability to see beyond your own nose?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SenorDingDong said:


> I am not reverting to it, I am defending being bombarded by a bunch of accusations over my question.



What's there to defend?

You admitted to not really knowing what was going on, and in turn we had to make the decision of either "is this guy for real, and clueless" or "is this dude just being disingenuous".

It's a coin toss. 

I don't feel like anyone really hit you too hard, folks were mostly shocked that you hadn't seen the original quote. 

I guess look on the bright side, everyone thought you were smart, just a dick, and not clueless. 



> As a whole, his original statement was absolutely outrageous, racist and unacceptable from the leader of a first world country. There is no way to defend how wholly offensive what he said is.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> Man, so can I just outright be a dick to a mod without ramifications, or is that reserved for your lack of ability to see beyond your own nose?



I've said before (especially after modding here for 10 years), this website isn't a Democracy and you don't get the same rights as the people that help keep it running. If that bothers you, you don't have to participate.

As far as your original comments, the subtext you're missing is that Trump apologists have spent the last two days spinning exactly what he said as "I just meant if you don't like it, leave". Knowingly rewriting history, despite the fact he's doubled and tripled down on his sentiment. For people who were already enflamed by what he said, two days of the GOP predictably rewriting his statements for him have been maddening.

So when someone comes in and lobs that same thing at a group of people who they know are not a fan of the guy and have probably be incensed over those comments for the last two days, yeah, it comes across as knowingly abrasive.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Yeah, I just don't like the "mod being overly rude even after given clarification of intent and refusing to back down or stop being increasingly rude" aspect, it seems unfair as I am not allowed the privilege of passively calling Randy an "asshole" without threat of removal from the forum. Seems like uneven footing. 

Now that I've seen the original Tweet and how he framed everything, it was blatant that he's either pandering towards his racist far right crowd or is genuinely racist himself. I haven't seen enough to call him racist outright, he's at the very least "superior" to everyone in his head, definitely sexist and classist, but a lot of race issues he focuses on seem to simultaneously be geared towards gaining traction with certain voter groups.

I do think surrounding himself with a crowd of yes-men has gotten him lulled into a false sense of security as we've seen more and more of his brash behaviours unfold as of late. Not to say this was ever a stable presidency, but I believe he feels secured for a re-election.


----------



## Fred the Shred

The whole "if you don't like it you can leave" thing is Trump's attempt at an excuse (which obviously is not going to stick at all given the original tirade), when the actual words he employed are indeed always used in a deeply racist / xenophobic context, so given how the question was formulated, I can see how it can be taken as a way to somehow mitigate the impact of the original statement. Personally, I just added that the whole thing is so universal he can't claim to attribute some different meaning to it because of the backlash.

I saw some people still attempt to defend him, and once I debated about it it became abundantly clear that I was either talking to someone who idolized him to such a degree he could rape 10 women and shoot 100 babies in the face it wouldn't matter or someone who was on the group of people who saw some sort of economic growth during Trump's tenure, associated said increased success with Trump's team and their implemented measures, and assumed a rather egocentric "if it doesn't harm me, it's negligible" posture in light of that. Historically, we know exactly what the "I'm doing alright, fuck the others" indifference has wrought so far, so I'm not as optimistic.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> I've said before (especially after modding here for 10 years), this website isn't a Democracy and you don't get the same rights as the people that help keep it running. If that bothers you, you don't have to participate.
> 
> As far as your original comments, the subtext you're missing is that Trump apologists have spent the last two days spinning exactly what he said as "I just meant if you don't like it, leave". Knowingly rewriting history, despite the fact he's doubled and tripled down on his sentiment. For people who were already enflamed by what he said, two days of the GOP predictably rewriting his statements for him have been maddening.
> 
> So when someone comes in and lobs that same thing at a group of people who they know are not a fan of the guy and have probably be incensed over those comments for the last two days, yeah, it comes across as knowingly abrasive.




"So because you had no idea what other people who aren't you were doing, you are equally guilty by asking in a way that questions the issue."

Weird, that doesn't sound very fair.

It's almost like you're slightly admitting you were wrong, but you'e unwilling to just say that you jumped down my throat wrongly.

I'll take that as your version of being slightly humble, I guess, as it's about as close as I'm going to get to you just putting things aside and admitting you jumped down someone's throat who had no idea what was going on and was asking for help clarifying, and that maybe you realise you might be tense about something that someone else wasn't aware of, and you took it out on them.

It's also bizarre that as someone who overtly dislikes Trump, and all that he stands for, I can be accused of supporting and defending him because my wording ticked at a raw nerve with someone on the internet.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> To update, the House voted in favor to condemn Trump for the tweets. All the Dems, 4 Republicans, and Amash. Again, what does that even mean? They're allowed to tell him he's been a bad boy? He goes on timeout for 10 minutes? No golf for a month? Someone help me out here. @Drew ? Anyone?


It's a formal censure - it's now in the congressional record that the House passed a resolution condemning the President's language as racist. 

What does that accomplish? Think of it as a watered down version of having a written complaint on your record at work, if you work in an office environment. Or, about the same, minus the liklihood of getting fired. It's just documenting the fact that a majority of the House of Representatives thinks he fucked up when he said that. 

Does it change anything? Not really... Though it's interesting 4 1/2 Republicans (Amash being one until he broke with his party and declared himself an independent maybe two weeks back) were willing to break with party leadership and condemn him. That's a small crack, but a crack nonetheless. Also, and this was Pelosi's goal no doubt, all but those five members of the Republican coalition are now on record saying they DON'T think telling four minority women "go back to your country" is racist, which isn't a good look and will be held against them in the next election. 

So, it's a symbolic gesture, with some second-order effects, I guess. Sort of another round in the skirmish that may eventually lead up to an impeachment, though I think Pelosi is hoping that she doesn't have to go that far and instead can just let 2020 become a referendum on Trump's (lack of) leadership. 



SenorDingDong said:


> I am not reverting to it, I am defending being bombarded by a bunch of accusations over my question.
> 
> As a whole, his original statement was absolutely outrageous, racist and unacceptable from the leader of a first world country. There is no way to defend how wholly offensive what he said is.


If you'll take a humble suggestion, I think this would be a good opportunity to agknowledge two things - one, that when you asked your question, there was a LOT of fairly crucial information you didn't have, and two, that as a direct result of that, you asked your question in a very leading manner that implied you thought the whole thing was ridiculous. As you note, that led to a pretty brisk reaction here, but also one that (IMO) is pretty well justified given the _long_ history that "go back to your country" directed at a minority has had as a form of racial intimidation. 

There's nothing wrong with asking something stupid because you were unaware of some pretty important facts... But, apologizing for the way you asked that question rather than digging in and fighting is going to be a much more effective way of smoothing things over.


----------



## Randy

Or maybe I'm trying to deescalate things because I think it's bad form to continue attacking you when 1.) The entire rest of the room thinks you were ignorant to post what you did 2.) I could have you banned and you don't have the ability to do the same to me. So I said, hey, let's let bygones be bygones. But apparently trying to become civil is some kind of a sign of weakness to you so fuck it. I tried.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> Or maybe I'm trying to deescalate things because I think it's bad form to continue attacking you when 1.) The entire rest of the room thinks you were ignorant to post what you did 2.) I could have you banned and you don't have the ability to do the same to me. So I said, hey, let's let bygones be bygones. But apparently trying to become civil is some kind of a sign of weakness to you so fuck it. I tried.



How were you civil, you called me racist and an asshole? You wanted to ban me for asking a question because you thought it was leading? I really don't follow this line, at all. But, this is obviously not going to get resolved between us as we have seen so I guess you're right, no use continuing on about it.


----------



## Drew

SenorDingDong said:


> "So because you had no idea what other people who aren't you were doing, you are equally guilty by asking in a way that questions the issue."
> 
> Weird, that doesn't sound very fair.
> 
> It's almost like you're slightly admitting you were wrong, but you'e unwilling to just say that you jumped down my throat wrongly.
> 
> I'll take that as your version of being slightly humble, I guess, as it's about as close as I'm going to get to you just putting things aside and admitting you jumped down someone's throat who had no idea what was going on and was asking for help clarifying, and that maybe you realise you might be tense about something that someone else wasn't aware of, and you took it out on them.
> 
> It's also bizarre that as someone who overtly dislikes Trump, and all that he stands for, I can be accused of supporting and defending him because my wording ticked at a raw nerve with someone on the internet.


Ok, I'll say this in a less gentle way since it's not getting through. 

You didn't know what Trump had said. Because of this lack of knowledge, you asked a question that _strongly_ implied anyone having a problem with Trump's comments was being a whiny little snowflake. That's on you, and while - through no fault of your own - you were unaware of the full facts here, you decided to weigh in in a highly opinionated manner as if you did. Because of that, this entire forum read your post exactly as it seems to read - as a defense of Trump and as brushing off anyone who thought his words were racist as being oversensitive - and called you out on that. 

You now know that you were wrong. You can do one of two things with that knowledge - say "hey, I fucked up, that one's on me, guys," or double down and attack everyone who criticized your original post, by accusing them AGAIN of being oversensitive. One accepts responsibility for the words coming out of your mouth/keyboard and de-escalates the situation, while the other doubles down on it and continues to escalate the situation, and I have NO idea why you're choosing to do the latter here.

You - accidentally - said something that made you look like a racist asshole, and now when people are calling you out on that, you're being hostile and antagonistic about it because you didn't _mean_ to be a racist asshole, rather than taking any responsibility at all for what you said when you chose to weigh in on something you didn't know much about. Personally, if I was in your shoes and I had been the one who posted that, I'd have been _glad_ to get the response I did, because at least I now have more evidence that this isn't a site full of racist jackasses. I don't get why this is hard for you to get your head around.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I've said before (especially after modding here for 10 years), this website isn't a Democracy and you don't get the same rights as the people that help keep it running. If that bothers you, you don't have to participate.


Brings a tear to my eye. It sounds like... _me_, ten years ago.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> How were you civil, you called me racist and an asshole? You wanted to ban me for asking a question because you thought it was leading? I really don't follow this line, at all. But, this is obviously not going to get resolved between us as we have seen so I guess you're right, no use continuing on about it.



I was referring to the specific post you quoted, not the rest of the argument. I was trying to say 'okay, okay, so you didn't know what you were invoking with your post, we'll all take that as a learning experience'. You chose not to read it that way. 

My point in the last post was that I don't like abusing a position of power, whether thats having the rest of the crowd in your favor or having a position of authority. I think it's bad form and I'd prefer not to go there if I can. That's all I was saying. You made your point, everyone else made theirs, there's no sense in continuing to repeat the same arguments in either direction.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Brings a tear to my eye. It sounds like... _me_, ten years ago.



Man I feel fucking old.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Man I feel fucking old.


Jesus dude, how do you think _I _feel?  You're feeling old and cynical, and ten years ago I'd modded here long enough to already be old and cynical.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Randy said:


> I was referring to the specific post you quoted, not the rest of the argument. I was trying to say 'okay, okay, so you didn't know what you were invoking with your post, we'll all take that as a learning experience'. You chose not to read it that way.
> 
> My point in the last post was that I don't like abusing a position of power, whether thats having the rest of the crowd in your favor or having a position of authority. I think it's bad form and I'd prefer not to go there if I can. That's all I was saying. You made your point, everyone else made theirs, there's no sense in continuing to repeat the same arguments in either direction.




Fair enough. In the future, how would you prefer I ask a question so as to incite more information that reaction? 

Not being sarcastic: seeing as this was blown into a full page of back and forth and butting heads (I'll admit, I hate the feeling of being called racist which is why I'm upset), obviously there's some middle ground where I can still ask things "my way" without getting other people upset with it.


----------



## Drew

SenorDingDong said:


> Fair enough. In the future, how would you prefer I ask a question so as to incite more information that reaction?
> 
> Not being sarcastic: seeing as this was blown into a full page of back and forth and butting heads (I'll admit, I hate the feeling of being called racist which is why I'm upset), obviously there's some middle ground where I can still ask things "my way" without getting other people upset with it.


Nothing wrong with being upset that one of your posts was called racist.

Honestly, re-reading your question, and knowing what you knew at the time, it's hard to think of a better way to phrase it that would have stopped you from walking into a veritable landmine here. I'd say that maybe rather than wondering how to better ask the question, a quick google search to answer your own question, rather than posing it to the board, would have saved you a lot of grief.

Beyond that, honestly, I think you could have avoided all of the subsequent back and forth had you paused, re-read your post, and admitted to yourself that someone reading the exact words you had posted without knowing anything else about you probably would have_ had a point_ in thinking you were being a bit racist, and offered a stronger apology than "pitchforks down, boys." We _should_ condemn racism wherever we see it. If you accidentally said something that looked like racism, acknowledging that it was done by mistake and apologizing for making that mistake should put to bed pretty thoroughly any concern that you might have meant that in a racist manner.

So, I guess, maybe do a bit of research when something a lot of people are really heated about seems absurd to you at first glance rather than asking about it in a manner that shows you think it's absurd, and then maybe be a little more thoughtful in how you handle the aftermath, and start by admitting where you made a mistake rather than immediately getting your hackles up. We all say stupid shit on occasion, and provided we own that and apologize when we do, that's ok.


----------



## Drew

SenorDingDong said:


> Also, considering I saw the EDITED Tweet first, you can see why I would be a bit confused by the buzz over simply "leave if you don't like it."


Also, just to nitpick a bit, Trump actually never edited that tweet - he later toned down _subsequent_ remarks to "if you don't like it here, leave," but his original "go back to the totally broken and crime infested countries from which you came" tweet is still up on his twitter account: 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448


----------



## SenorDingDong

Drew said:


> Also, just to nitpick a bit, Trump actually never edited that tweet - he later toned down _subsequent_ remarks to "if you don't like it here, leave," but his original "go back to the totally broken and crime infested countries from which you came" tweet is still up on his twitter account:
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1150381394234941448



When I heard all the hubbub about it, I looked at his Twitter feed and found the remarks that I originally quoted, and that's why I was so confused about what was so terrible about it, as it was more tame than 90% of the shit that spews out of his mouth.

I got upset because I felt I asked a genuine question and stepped on a landmine and lost myself in defending the fact that I wasn't what I was being accused of, and rabbit holed from there when I felt that was being heard, as it bothered me a lot to be lumped in with people whose political, social and world views I so strongly disagree with.

I feel Max definitely corrected me instead of jumping on me, which was helpful, as I still was being taken at my question (as it bothered some people, obviously) instead of being given further information that I hadn't found on my own, so that hot buried and it went into argument mode. 

Obviously I wouldn't think what Max reposted was "not a big deal," as I've already voiced it was a huge deal. But that wasn't the information I was originally in possession of and had it been clarified sooner, as I did genuinely ask if I was missing something, I would've immediately agreed that it was wrong and racist from the start.


----------



## MFB

Randy said:


> I've said before (especially after modding here for 10 years), this website isn't a Democracy and you don't get the same rights as the people that help keep it running. If that bothers you, you don't have to participate..



So what you're saying is, if I don't like it here, I should leave?


----------



## spudmunkey

MFB said:


> So what you're saying is, if I don't like it here, I should leave?



No, I specifically want you to go back to where you came from. Although, you might have to stand in line. Because I mean your mom's vagina. Ay-oh!


----------



## Drew

SenorDingDong said:


> When I heard all the hubbub about it, I looked at his Twitter feed and found the remarks that I originally quoted, and that's why I was so confused about what was so terrible about it, as it was more tame than 90% of the shit that spews out of his mouth.
> 
> I got upset because I felt I asked a genuine question and stepped on a landmine and lost myself in defending the fact that I wasn't what I was being accused of, and rabbit holed from there when I felt that was being heard, as it bothered me a lot to be lumped in with people whose political, social and world views I so strongly disagree with.
> 
> I feel Max definitely corrected me instead of jumping on me, which was helpful, as I still was being taken at my question (as it bothered some people, obviously) instead of being given further information that I hadn't found on my own, so that hot buried and it went into argument mode.
> 
> Obviously I wouldn't think what Max reposted was "not a big deal," as I've already voiced it was a huge deal. But that wasn't the information I was originally in possession of and had it been clarified sooner, as I did genuinely ask if I was missing something, I would've immediately agreed that it was wrong and racist from the start.


....and that's a much more nuanced, thoughtful reaction.


----------



## Randy

SenorDingDong said:


> Fair enough. In the future, how would you prefer I ask a question so as to incite more information that reaction?
> 
> Not being sarcastic: seeing as this was blown into a full page of back and forth and butting heads (I'll admit, I hate the feeling of being called racist which is why I'm upset), obviously there's some middle ground where I can still ask things "my way" without getting other people upset with it.



Question was perfectly fine if that's what he actually said or how you interpreted it and you were prepared to defend it. It was neither of those things, so I guess chalk it up to a mutual misunderstanding. 

I didn't look to see when you made the post, I only happened to come in here, see it quoted with multiple replies and I didn't see a clarification, and interpreted it to be a deliberately asshole comment (since I was familiar with the original tweet and the last few days of context). That doesn't turn out to have been the case, so I guess long way around but we all came to some understanding.

So to your point, ask your question however you choose. I personally like people who disagree or offer alternative reads on things as long as they're well thought out and they're willing to defend them intelligently. Or sometimes you make a mistake and it's the internet and hard to read context in everything everybody says and shit happens, no harm no foul, we can't all get it all 100% right all the time, so on. I think we've all argued enough for one day.


----------



## tedtan

SenorDingDong said:


> Fair enough. In the future, how would you prefer I ask a question so as to incite more information that reaction?
> 
> Not being sarcastic: seeing as this was blown into a full page of back and forth and butting heads (I'll admit, I hate the feeling of being called racist which is why I'm upset), obviously there's some middle ground where I can still ask things "my way" without getting other people upset with it.



I don't know that this is a case of an appropriate way vs. an inappropriate way to ask the question, so much as it is a case of considering your audience before speaking/typing. In this situation, people were pretty heated over what Trump had tweeted, so stating: 



SenorDingDong said:


> Wait, are people claiming him saying what boils down to "if you don't like this country, leave" to those women is racist? Or did I miss something?



is open enough to interpretation that it could easily be read as just reiterating what Trump supporters and republicans have been saying for a couple of days.

Maybe rephrasing it a bit, something like this:

"Hey, you guys seem pretty heated over Trump tweeting "if you don't like this country, leave", so there must be more to this than just that tweet. What am I missing?"​
would be less open to interpretation.


----------



## vilk




----------



## Ralyks

... Boy, this thread escalated quickly.


----------



## Randy




----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.newsweek.com/republican-mike-kelly-white-person-color-defend-trump-1449748

"I'm a person of color [...] I don't get offended"


----------



## Ralyks

And we've reached a new low...


----------



## zappatton2

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.newsweek.com/republican-mike-kelly-white-person-color-defend-trump-1449748
> 
> "I'm a person of color [...] I don't get offended"


I've often wondered what it might feel like being born without the ability to feel shame.


----------



## Ralyks

zappatton2 said:


> I've often wondered what it might feel like being born without the ability to feel shame.



Isn't that basically a sociopath?


----------



## Thaeon

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.newsweek.com/republican-mike-kelly-white-person-color-defend-trump-1449748
> 
> "I'm a person of color [...] I don't get offended"



I... What... How... Uh... I give up...


----------



## spudmunkey

No, see, 'cuz he's Irish. Basically the same.


----------



## mongey

Fuck man. You guys are headed for civil war no doubt.saw footage of people chanting nazi style. 

Good luck.


----------



## Vyn

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.newsweek.com/republican-mike-kelly-white-person-color-defend-trump-1449748
> 
> "I'm a person of color [...] I don't get offended"



Are you fucking kidding me? I mean, given the events after Trump winning the election I really shouldn't be this surprised anymore but fuck. What the hell happened America? When did you become THIS fucking stupid


----------



## Lemonbaby

Haha... had a big laugh. Can't believe that ridiculous lineup of clowns in US politics...


----------



## Fred the Shred

Honestly, the one thing that I can't process is that there were always competent people in both parties, regardless of one's agreement with the policies they propose, and THIS is what ends up in office? I am white, therefore I have colour. Oh, Jesus Christ.


----------



## Ralyks

So now "Send her back" is the new "Lock her up". So "Lock her up", "Send her back" "Grab em by the pussy".... I sense a theme here.


----------



## SenorDingDong

Ralyks said:


> So now "Send her back" is the new "Lock her up". So "Lock her up", "Send her back" "Grab em by the pussy".... I sense a theme here.



Most Trump supporters are under the misguided notion that they would be in his circle rather than on the receiving end of his long list of prejudices.


----------



## vilk

Lock'er up, send'er back
send'er back, lock'er up
lock'er up, send'er back
RAW HIDE! *CRACK*
*whistling*


----------



## Ralyks

SenorDingDong said:


> Most Trump supporters are under the misguided notion that they would be in his circle rather than on the receiving end of his long list of prejudices.



Which I just don't get. Those aren't the people he's making rich or their lives better. I'm pretty sure the new tax law is a testament to that.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Which I just don't get. Those aren't the people he's making rich or their lives better. I'm pretty sure the new tax law is a testament to that.



It's not like any edition of the tax law in recent memory was ever written to be comprehensible for a layman

What percent of the population has any friggin clue how their taxes work? 5%?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> What percent of the population has any friggin clue how their taxes work? 5%?



That's probably being generous.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's probably being generous.



SUPER generous. All I know if a lot more people than normal were pissed when tax time came around this season.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Which I just don't get. Those aren't the people he's making rich or their lives better. I'm pretty sure the new tax law is a testament to that.



That's the "everyone's a down on their luck millionaire" pitch of the Republican party over the last 30 years.

I've mentioned it before but that was embodied in the "Joe the Plumber" thing during the 2008 campaign. Obama was pitching a 'tax the rich' plan (likely to help pay for Obamacare) that I believe originally started at taxing income over $250,000/yr. but after some flak shifted to $500,000/yr. or $1,000,000/yr. Somewhere along the way Obama was confronted by "Joe the Plumber" (who turned out to be a Republican plant) at a campaign stop, who argued that Obama's tax plan would punish people like him who (hypothetically) would work a blue collar job as a plumber, saved all his money and eventually bought the company he worked for. Basically the argument of taxing success.

The stupidity of the "Joe the Plumber" argument was 1.) that's a success the vast majority of people working that same job will never accomplish, so it's appealing to shape policy based on the .1% of people who get there rather than the 99.9% who don't 2.) The policy was regarding personal, yearly income from salaries and the tax rate on the company the guy was hypothetically buying wouldn't be effected, plus it was tiered so everything beneath that was taxed at the lower rate anyway 3.) Biggest point, the Obama tax policy would have helped "Joe the Plumber" to SAVE the money he was going to need to eventually achieve his dreams, so it was also advocating policy to hobble himself now to hypothetically (but not really) help himself later, but likely guarantee he won't get there in the interim.

It's brainwashing. It also stands to reason "Joe the Plumber" actually never became the owner of that company and instead became a conservative radio show host. Funny that.

The main reason that argument took root is something I've also mentioned before, and that's the mental defense mechanism most people employ to guard their ego. Honestly, outside of maybe the top 5% of earners, we're all living the same shitty lives. These days, you can work as a cashier at Tractor Supply Company and still come home to the same 65" television, post on the same Facebook on the same iPhone as your boss or your bosses boss. People lean on creature comforts as confirmation as status and as a mental affirmation that they have made the right choices in life, which is something they need to regularly remind themselves of to distract from the fact their kids are failing college they can't pay for and addicted to opioids, they're another 20 years of working a job they hate before they finally own their house and they're one catastrophic illness from losing it all.

And as the stakes get higher on the 'bottom falling out' on their lives and the road markers they use to gauge success get more and more reachable by others, they draw imaginary lines between their life status and everyone else's. Yeah I'm on social assistance but you're on more. Yeah my family immigrated to this country but mine spoke English. Yeah I'm black but you're blacker. On and on.

And that's exactly the reason why people vote against their own best interests. It's virtue signaling because coddling their sensitive ego is more valuable to their survival than, you know, actually surviving.


----------



## tedtan

Fred the Shred said:


> Honestly, the one thing that I can't process is that there were always competent people in both parties, regardless of one's agreement with the policies they propose, and THIS is what ends up in office? I am white, therefore I have colour. Oh, Jesus Christ.



Yeah, it's been a real shit show of late.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's the "everyone's a down on their luck millionaire" pitch of the Republican party over the last 30 years.


The alternative, which I happen to like but have a feeling it wouldn't be a successful campaign pitch, is that as a reasonably successful guy, I'm all FOR taxing success because I don't like to be surrounded by uneducated people and will happily pay hard earned money to fix that, and when I'm more successful than someone, I want the peace of mind to know that I legitimately bested them by a combination of hard work and luck, and not because my parents could afford to send me to a better school than theirs could them. 

Idunno. If I'm successful, then by all means, lets use that success to make the world I have to live the rest of my life in a better place to spend time in. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The alternative, which I happen to like but have a feeling it wouldn't be a successful campaign pitch, is that as a reasonably successful guy, I'm all FOR taxing success because I don't like to be surrounded by uneducated people and will happily pay hard earned money to fix that, and when I'm more successful than someone, I want the peace of mind to know that I legitimately bested them by a combination of hard work and luck, and not because my parents could afford to send me to a better school than theirs could them.
> 
> Idunno. If I'm successful, then by all means, lets use that success to make the world I have to live the rest of my life in a better place to spend time in. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.



I don't have two nickels to rub together, and that doesn't stop me from helping people. You can be greedy rich (like the people Trump's policies favor) and you can be greedy poor (like the people who vote for him).


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> The alternative, which I happen to like but have a feeling it wouldn't be a successful campaign pitch, is that as a reasonably successful guy, I'm all FOR taxing success because I don't like to be surrounded by uneducated people and will happily pay hard earned money to fix that, and when I'm more successful than someone, I want the peace of mind to know that I legitimately bested them by a combination of hard work and luck, and not because my parents could afford to send me to a better school than theirs could them.
> 
> Idunno. If I'm successful, then by all means, lets use that success to make the world I have to live the rest of my life in a better place to spend time in. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.


My sister's student loan for 4 years at Cambridge is less than one year's tuition at Harvard, so you may be onto something.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AgQuClNfXQ-SNI3ETfo9P_w

Unsealed documents show Cohen and Trump were in regular contact during the hush payments.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> My sister's student loan for 4 years at Cambridge is less than one year's tuition at Harvard, so you may be onto something.



Harvard will work with whatever someone's financial situation is and adjust tuition accordingly, because they have a huge endowment. Obviously overall the UK handles education so much better than the US, but if you're going to single Harvard out as an example, they actually see to it that no student admitted there is ever turned away for financial reasons (in theory).

On the flip-side, let's just say the compensation for a prof at Harvard is much, much better than being on at Cambridge. You basically have to work a night shift to afford housing in Cambridge as a prof there.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Harvard will work with whatever someone's financial situation is and adjust tuition accordingly, because they have a huge endowment. Obviously overall the UK handles education so much better than the US, but if you're going to single Harvard out as an example, they actually see to it that no student admitted there is ever turned away for financial reasons (in theory).
> 
> On the flip-side, let's just say the compensation for a prof at Harvard is much, much better than being on at Cambridge. You basically have to work a night shift to afford housing in Cambridge as a prof there.


Yeah, actually I did know that. Bad example.


----------



## Thaeon

narad said:


> Harvard will work with whatever someone's financial situation is and adjust tuition accordingly, because they have a huge endowment. Obviously overall the UK handles education so much better than the US, but if you're going to single Harvard out as an example, they actually see to it that no student admitted there is ever turned away for financial reasons (in theory).
> 
> On the flip-side, let's just say the compensation for a prof at Harvard is much, much better than being on at Cambridge. You basically have to work a night shift to afford housing in Cambridge as a prof there.



Yeah, Harvard basically makes sure that if you're smart enough to get accepted, you get to go, whatever your situation is. I had a buddy from a poor family that scored a 36 on the ACT. They didn't have scholarships left for that year and he still didn't have to pay. They took the federal grants and comped the rest of everything.


----------



## Thaeon

Interestingly enough, MIT publishes their entire degree catalog of lecture transcripts and educational materials online for free.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

I don't mind being taxed when it's something helping my fellow people. Filling the pockets of greedy fucking CEO's/Government officials is not what I want. I want kids to never have to go without lunches at school, I want kids to be able to read, and I don't want mothers to have to choose between feeding themselves or their own children, same for fathers. If my taxes are contributing to that and better healthcare, I don't mind being taxed. As it is, I feel like more than enough of our taxes have gone into their pockets which if for nothing else is the reason they should be taxed more so some of that can go back into the system they stole from, talking about the rich assholes with that statement.


----------



## tedtan

Republicans' Quest for a White America is Destroying America.


----------



## BlackSG91

Now if Trump gets impeached and it goes through the House and he gets convicted then wouldn't the Republican Senate give him a free pass and he would be pardoned? Is that what the Democrats are afraid of that he will get off scot free even after he is not President?


;>)/


----------



## Adieu

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, Harvard basically makes sure that if you're smart enough to get accepted, you get to go, whatever your situation is. I had a buddy from a poor family that scored a 36 on the ACT. They didn't have scholarships left for that year and he still didn't have to pay. They took the federal grants and comped the rest of everything.



Grades and recommendations and crap to match, or did Harvard take and then even free-ish-ride your buddy purely on test results?


----------



## Thaeon

Adieu said:


> Grades and recommendations and crap to match, or did Harvard take and then even free-ish-ride your buddy purely on test results?



He very much had the grades to match.


----------



## narad

Thaeon said:


> He very much had the grades to match.



If he didn't have grades to match Harvard should still have accepted him due to having an outrageously high luck stat.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> If he didn't have grades to match Harvard should still have accepted him due to having an outrageously high luck stat.


Indeed. He could have found the crashed saucer and looted the alien blaster with those stats.


----------



## Ralyks

BlackSG91 said:


> Now if Trump gets impeached and it goes through the House and he gets convicted then wouldn't the Republican Senate give him a free pass and he would be pardoned? Is that what the Democrats are afraid of that he will get off scot free even after he is not President?
> 
> 
> ;>)/



Impeachment is not remove from office (see: Bill Clinton). And if anything, he’s likely screwed when he is out of office because SDNY will go after him the second he is out of office. And he ain’t getting a pardon or anything on the state level.


----------



## Thaeon

narad said:


> If he didn't have grades to match Harvard should still have accepted him due to having an outrageously high luck stat.



No, he had a Vorpal Pen.



Xaios said:


> Indeed. He could have found the crashed saucer and looted the alien blaster with those stats.



He already did. His mom used IDDQD when she was pregnant with him.


----------



## Adieu

Damn pretentious talented poor people

Making the rest of us broke-ass losers look and feel bad

Meritocracy is discrimination too, damnit


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Meritocracy is discrimination too, damnit


Yeah, but I like it way more than aristocracy, and this is why we need social safety net programs, so even untalented people can have a good shot at a decent life.

(edit, and I hope it's clear this is partially tongue in cheek, lol. I do support social safety net programs, though, and I'd rather live in a world where talent and hard work are rewarded, rather than family wealth and connections).


----------



## Ralyks

So is Mueller testifying tomorrow basically a way for the Dems to go “Hey, you people who don’t want to slog through the report, here’s the movie version”? Basically have the report spelled out? Mueller already made it clear he won’t comment outside of the report. Meanwhile, the DOJ is telling him not to respond to certain questions, and Nadler just came out saying Mueller doesn’t have to comply with their letter.


----------



## spudmunkey

Video clips of him saying things will have more weight and a are more attn grabbing than an anchor reading portions while a photo of the highlighted text is shown. So there's at least that.

I feel like the think they will be able to press him enough, with specific, pointed questions, to get him to veer ever so slightly beyond the exact verbiage of the report. Then, seconds later, "New revelations about Trump's possible illegal activity from Special Council Robert Mueller today on Capital Hill!"


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> I'd rather live in a world where talent and hard work are rewarded


Talent is kind of a weird one. On one hand, there are some areas where a person's talent (or rather, the skills they've developed as a result of dedication to honing their talent) can be gauged, such as whether a surgeon is determined to be capable of specializing in high-risk procedures such as spinal or neurosurgery, or they're more suited to being a general surgeon. On the other hand, if we're judging talent based on the concept of a meritocracy, is the compensation structure for said talent derived simply from its usefulness to the party paying for said talent, or should we also be trying to evaluate how much the use of a particular talent contributes to the betterment of society? After all, I'm sure that militaries of the world who contract out to PMCs and mercenaries to do their clandestine dirty work consider those they hire to be very good at what they do, and given how incredibly inflated military contracts can be, I'd bet that they're extremely well compensated. Do they necessarily contribute to the good of human society as a whole though? Not necessarily. If a societal meritocracy were to be enforced, how on earth would the "merit" of that kind of thing possibly be determined in a scope beyond simply how useful it is for the party paying for it?

Without really diving deep into it, I assume that "hard work" would be at least a _little_ more clear-cut, but I can imagine similar pitfalls for that as well. A meritocracy sounds great in theory, but in a situation where the "value" of everything becomes weighted against an absolute, the principles of how talent and effort are evaluated are compensated would need to be outlined in excruciating detail, but also with enough clarity so that they're not completely abstruse.

I'll grant that it's entirely possible these issues have already been pondered in detail by someone who's been thinking about it for a lot longer than myself (i.e. more than a few minutes). Does anyone know of anyone who's written about the details of how a meritocracy could function?


----------



## Xaios

I'm sure to no one's surprise, the Justice Department is now muzzling Mueller before his testimony.


----------



## Ralyks

Xaios said:


> I'm sure to no one's surprise, the Justice Department is now muzzling Mueller before his testimony.



Yeah I mentioned that, and Nadler came out saying Mueller doesn't have to comply to their letter. This is going to somehow turn into a complete shitshow by the time all is said and done.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Yeah I mentioned that, and Nadler came out saying Mueller doesn't have to comply to their letter. This is going to somehow turn into a complete shitshow by the time all is said and done.



Somehow?


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Somehow?



I was being beyond generous.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Yeah I mentioned that, and Nadler came out saying Mueller doesn't have to comply to their letter. This is going to somehow turn into a complete shitshow by the time all is said and done.


Read an interesting op-ed a little while ago that as a long-term Justice Dept legal professional, Mueller isn't stupid enough to publicly ask questions where he doesn't already know the answers. Basically, his play here is probably two-fold; clearly define, to the Democrats, what he can and can't talk about, and garner a little bit of goodwill from the GOP in case the Democrats get too pushy and try to force him into areas he doesn't believe he can talk about. 

At the same time, the Democrats should have been pretty clear from the get-go that Mueller wasn't going to speak on anything else that wasn't already in his report, so while I'm sure one or two will try, the main objective tomorrow will be getting him, under oath and on video, to say that he doesn't believe Trump has a factual basis for saying there was no evidence of collusion, that there was similarly no basis for his claim of no obstruction, and that he didn't believe DoJ policy authorized him to charge Trump with a crime, if he believed one had occurred, because the Constitution gave that power to the House of Representatives and not the Justice Department. 

Basically, the Democrat's best outcome tomorrow is to get Mueller to say, under oath, without actually using the "L-word," that when Trump claims Mueller found no obstruction and no collusion, Trump is lying, and the only reason Mueller didn't charge him with obstruction of justice is because DoJ policy is that only Congress can do so, regardless of what Barr says.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> I'll grant that it's entirely possible these issues have already been pondered in detail by someone who's been thinking about it for a lot longer than myself (i.e. more than a few minutes). Does anyone know of anyone who's written about the details of how a meritocracy could function?


Well, a meritocracy is as simple as people should be given power in accordance with their abilities and abilities alone, rather than some other system (say, a monarchy, where power is allocated by your place within a ruling family, or theocracy, where it's allocated based on your role within a religious organization). 

How those places are "measured" and what happens to people who do not "measure" well are going to be problems in ANY system. So, for me, my concern is two-fold. One, that the system we have is fair and equitable, and two, that it also protects and take care of those who do _not_ get allocated significant amounts of power. If the means of allocating power is fair, and the weak are protected from the strong, then in theory you have the basis for a workable system of rule.


----------



## Ralyks

So I... Think the Dems accomplished what they wanted to accomplish with Mueller? While of course the Republicans tried their damnedest to discredit him.


----------



## Drew

For the most part it was a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, but Rep. Lieu got Mueller to state under oath that the only reason he DIDN'T indict Trump was the OLC opinion stating a sitting president couldn't be indicted, and when (Republican) Rep. Lesko pushed back on that, Mueller didn't backtrack and held fast.

That's pretty damned major - Mueller confirmed, under oath, that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction of justice if he was able to.

EDIT - spoke to soon, in his opening statement this afternoon he went back and clarified that what he meant wasn't that the OLC opinion was the reason they didn't charge 
Trump, but rather that they didn't make a determination. That doesn't preclude te OLC opinion from being the reason they didn't make a determination, but it dials back the explicitness quite a lot, and this is no longer new info.


----------



## Randy

Most substantial things I saw so far, one was Swalwell bringing up the 1,000 prosecutors who recounted prosecuting officials for similar actions and Swalwell asking if he'd like to add his name to the list and he smirked. The other was the Congressman reading off Trump's tweets praising Wikileaks and Mueller, who's said very little most of the day, volunteering that it disturbing and even implying it warrants investigation on it's own. The fact he saw fit to weigh in on that in detail seemed to stand out.


----------



## Ralyks

Trump is claiming a total victory for Republicans and "the country", and that the Democrats and Mueller embarrassed themselves. I... Feel like he was watching a different hearing.


----------



## Xaios

Ralyks said:


> Trump is claiming a total victory for Republicans and "the country", and that the Democrats and Mueller embarrassed themselves. I... Feel like he was watching a different hearing.


Given how some Republicans seem to be willing to use their own bodies to insulate him from the hellfire he so richly deserves, I don't know if it would surprise me at this point if said insulation involved staging their own hearing with hand puppets and showing that to Trump instead.

I mean, that's basically what Fox already does.


----------



## Ralyks

Xaios said:


> Given how some Republicans seem to be willing to use their own bodies to insulate him from the hellfire he so richly deserves, I don't know if it would surprise me at this point if said insulation involved staging their own hearing with hand puppets and showing that to Trump instead.
> 
> I mean, that's basically what Fox already does.



That last bit especially made me


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> That last bit especially made me



Same.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

So what did we learn from Ferris Mueller's Hearing today?


----------



## narad

Spaced Out Ace said:


> So what did we learn from Ferris Mueller's Hearing today?



It's been a while, but IIRC he learned that life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it. 

Or was that not what you were asking?


----------



## Ralyks

That Trump is fucked the moment he leaves office from more than just the SDNY?


----------



## Ralyks

Apparently twice today, GOP senators blocked election security bills after Mueller said flat out that meddling from the Russians is still going on as we speak. Gee, wonder why.


----------



## Ralyks

Boy, Trump really hates Baltimore.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> Boy, Trump really hates Baltimore.



Last week Mueller outright stated that his report did not exonerate Trump, and went as far as to say that he believes Trump will be charged with obstruction after he leaves office, but instead of discussing that, we're talking about Trump's tweets against the squad and Elijah Cummings.

Trump may not be competent as POTUS, but he has been able to shift our focus away from topics he doesn't want covered with his BS tweets, like he's throwing out a red herring and we all follow after it rather than the facts. I doubt this approach will be successful in the upcoming election, but he is currently shaping the news coverage of the day with his tweet tantrums and this affect what most people are thinking.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

What facts did Mueller's testimony actually uncover?


----------



## JSanta

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What facts did Mueller's testimony actually uncover?



He didn't uncover anything that wasn't already written in the report. But he did serve the purpose of discussing those facts rather than relying on people to read the report. Bottom line, the President continues to lie about the substance of the report, and Mueller effectively demonstrated the facts of the report, rather than the abhorrent false tirades of the President.


----------



## Randy

I'm no Adam Schiff fan but to me, this exchange is the most concise cliff notes of what's in this report.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> Last week Mueller outright stated that his report did not exonerate Trump, and went as far as to say that he believes Trump will be charged with obstruction after he leaves office, but instead of discussing that, we're talking about Trump's tweets against the squad and Elijah Cummings.



It's almost like he's so stupid hes smart or something. Except I'd hate to give him that credit. I still don't think Impeachment is a good idea because it will never make it through the Senate, but Trump is going to be desperate because if he's out of office, he now has to face both the House AND SDNY. He truly is fucked either the moment he's out of office, or if by some miracle he stays in AND the Democrats take the Senate (note that I did say miracle).


----------



## Randy

My only objection to impeachment would be if the Senate fast tracks things to get it in and denied to deliver a win shortly before Nov 2020, and then you won't be able to revisit it IF he does win but you flip the Senate. But that's a very narrow circumstance. 

There's a lot of wrongdoing bubbling underneath the surface that you're not going to get without a number of documents he's refusing to give up, and other than the fact the court process is very slow, the closer you lurch to the SCOTUS, the more the decisions start to come down to "fine but what do you want this for?" and just saying "because I can" isn't good enough. An impeachment inquiry implies you suspect the President of wrong doing and it would be his inclination to not cooperate, so the procedures are in place to make him (or his handlers).


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> It's almost like he's so stupid hes smart or something. Except I'd hate to give him that credit.



He's not brilliant, but he's good at dividing people into groups and pitting them against each other (think middle school cliques) and misdirection (think street level con man). Basically, like a mean girl grew up to run three card monte hustle.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My only objection to impeachment would be if the Senate fast tracks things to get it in and denied to deliver a win shortly before Nov 2020, and then you won't be able to revisit it IF he does win but you flip the Senate. But that's a very narrow circumstance.


The liklihood of the Senate flipping is _extremely_ low - there aren't enough possible swing Republican seats in play. That said, yeah, I think this is on Pelosi's radar as a possible reason not to impeach now; maybe less the flip, than the fact that if the Democrats just win the 2020 election, they don't HAVE to go through the process of impeaching him only to have him cleared by the GOP-controlled Senate, and instead can just count on the criminal justice process doing it's job. 

If Trump were to win in 2020, I'd peg the odds of impeachment at right around an even 100%. He'll be cleared in the Senate if it's before 2022, though it's possible the Democrats could retake the senate then and even then it'll be tough to peel off enough Republican votes, but who knows. These two aren't mutually exclusive, of course - if Trump survives one impeachment, there are enough investigations or suits into potential wrongdoing going on that it's not implausible he could be impeached a second time for something else - flagrantly continuing to violate the emoluments clause after a Supreme Court decides against him, say.


----------



## Drew

https://www.wfsb.com/news/poll-more...cle_30324190-b2d8-11e9-af69-2f108bb21395.html

Short version:

*51% of Americans think Trump is a racist, 45% do not (4% evidently do not own a TV or computer). 
*52% think Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian meddling, 40% think he did not. 

Yet, 32% of Americans think we should begin impeachment, 60% do not. A little surprised by that disconnect, I wish the poll got into why - clearly 40 percentage points of those 60 think nothing happened, but do the remaining 20 points think the charges do not justify impeachment, an attempted impeachment will help him in 2020, or there's just no point if the Senate won't convict?


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> https://www.wfsb.com/news/poll-more...cle_30324190-b2d8-11e9-af69-2f108bb21395.html
> 
> Short version:
> 
> *51% of Americans think Trump is a racist, 45% do not (4% evidently do not own a TV or computer).
> *52% think Trump obstructed the investigation into Russian meddling, 40% think he did not.
> 
> Yet, 32% of Americans think we should begin impeachment, 60% do not. A little surprised by that disconnect, I wish the poll got into why - clearly 40 percentage points of those 60 think nothing happened, but do the remaining 20 points think the charges do not justify impeachment, an attempted impeachment will help him in 2020, or there's just no point if the Senate won't convict?



Somebody should poll "DESERVES TO BE impeached" as a separate question next to "SHOULD ATTEMPT impeachment in the here & now"


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly I think a lot more Americans agree with Pelosi on impeachment than the news let's on.


----------



## Viginez

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What facts did Mueller's testimony actually uncover?


that he himself was a puppet


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Somebody should poll "DESERVES TO BE impeached" as a separate question next to "SHOULD ATTEMPT impeachment in the here & now"


Yeah - my hunch is a lot of people think he either deserves impeachment, or has done potentially impeachable things, but they think it's a waste of time to try because the Senate Republicans have placed party over country.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Yeah - my hunch is a lot of people think he either deserves impeachment, or has done potentially impeachable things, but they think it's a waste of time to try because the Senate Republicans have placed party over country.



Bingo.

Unfortunately for us, the current state is that even with being shown irrefutable proof that he is guilty of a crime that is an impeachable offense, Republicans will go for party over country in this climate, so it feels like why even get them the ability to go down in history as, "We have so much power, even your impeachment process is futile."


----------



## Ralyks

Go figure, the progressive candidates came out swinging the most last night. Warren in particular I imagine greatly raised her stock after last night.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Go figure, the progressive candidates came out swinging the most last night. Warren in particular I imagine greatly raised her stock after last night.



In fairness, the progressive candidates likely came out swinging because CNN disproportionately targeted them with Republican talking points.


----------



## Ralyks

Either way, it felt like Sanders and especially Warren won the night. Don't know about Bernie, but Warren is starting to feel like a legit contender.


----------



## Randy

I personally didn't watch because I think CNN is the absolute worst of the worst perpetrator of controversy for the sake of controversy. Fox and MSNBC are a known commodity but CNN will change their coverage or interrupt a narrative with a new one to try and keep people off balance. 

The last thing I wanted to see is how they flank Democrats to make sure the race remains competitive and lo and behold, that's what they did and half of the coverage today.

As far as winners, I'm seeing pretty universal that the progressives won the night and semi 50/50 split on if Bernie or Warren won more points. The fact Bernie found himself into more of the soundbytes, to me, will likely benefit his brand more in the days after this.


----------



## Jeff

Dumb question: why do Conservatives complain and/or make light of the amount of spending Democratic candidates want to do (Green New Deal, education, healthcare, etc.) but completely ignore the issue that massive corporations completely skirt taxes? Couldn't we just tax them fairly, and use that money for good stuff, i.e. not stuff that blows up people? Just a thought.


----------



## Drew

Because the GOP, at least pre-Trump and to a certain extend still to this day, espouses small-government conservativism. Low/no taxes, little to no social program sending, "the government that governs best governs least" or Reagan's crack about "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" being the nine scariest words in the English language. Corporations skirting taxes is a feature, not a bug, in the coonservative world view, because taxes are an inefficient deadfall loss.

Obviously not saying I agree.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> Dumb question: why do Conservatives complain and/or make light of the amount of spending Democratic candidates want to do (Green New Deal, education, healthcare, etc.) but completely ignore the issue that massive corporations completely skirt taxes? Couldn't we just tax them fairly, and use that money for good stuff, i.e. not stuff that blows up people? Just a thought.



I know you're being rhetorical, and I believe we're of the same mind here.

Because "Trickle Down Economics" apparently. 

The GOP (and to a similar extent, centrist/old Democrats) is beholden to big business and big donors who own big businesses, which they rely on for lobbying and campaign cash, as well post-government employment.

Until those factors are effectively neutralized, we'll always have a party that shuns redistribution of wealth, from a select few hoarders, to remain in power.

The GOP has spent decades teaching poor, stupid people that it's shameful to need help, and have done such a poor job actually governing that regular people distrust the government to help them. So they'll vote against their own interests.

EDIT: Drew =


----------



## Randy

Jeff said:


> Couldn't we just tax them fairly, and use that money for good stuff, i.e. not stuff that blows up people? Just a thought.



Aside but related and also dovetailing with Max/Drew's points... 

I don't think corporations need to be treated as the enemy. There's some truth to the value of corporate investment and job creation. The issue is that this can be achieved through tiering of your taxes at the corporate level and also when executives cash in or out (so, salaries and capital gains) through incentives for reinvestment or hey, even on spending (since they go back into the economy). A master plan.

There didn't seem to be massive movement on the Trump administration on incentives to corporations to invest or reinvest, it looks like they achieved the bulk of their stability through SOME relaxation on regulations but primarily on the tax cuts favoring the incomes of the types of people who are RUNNING these corporations. It's an especially snakey way of doing it because you keep the stock market running at a high level not because of the actual performance of the companies day to day, you just keep the people that own, manage or trade them happy. That keeps the effects on main street of that company's success (like hiring, wage increases, infrastructure investment) limited.

The biggest issue with the taxes favoring the rich is that they don't reinvest or even spend the money, they stash it away somewhere. Even if you're rich and buy very expensive cars or big houses, you're only driving one of those cars at a time, drying your hands with one roll of paper towels at a time, etc. A person that makes 1,000x more than the average person doesn't have as much economic activity as 1,000 average people combined.

I personally think MOST people and corporations are taxed enough or more than enough. The money we give the government isn't appropriated correctly, there are too many loopholes for taxes on the wealthy class and not enough incentives to spend or invest the money on tangible things as opposed to stashing it away. The money we are spending (through taxes and individual spending) don't do enough to help us


----------



## Drew

Excellent post. 

FWIW, if it wasn't for the fact that this is so open to abuse, I'd much rather see corporations treated as pass--through entities and instead have higher progressive _personal_ income taxes, but that's a loooooong conversation for a different thread.


----------



## BlackMastodon

Jeff said:


> Dumb question: why do Conservatives complain and/or make light of the amount of spending Democratic candidates want to do (Green New Deal, education, healthcare, etc.) but completely ignore the issue that massive corporations completely skirt taxes? Couldn't we just tax them fairly, and use that money for good stuff, i.e. not stuff that blows up people? Just a thought.


Sounds like commie talk to me... 

This does blow my mind, though, but the quick answer is probably corporate lobbyists making deals so they pay less taxes and politicians don't bring it up.


----------



## Drew

BlackMastodon said:


> Sounds like commie talk to me...
> 
> This does blow my mind, though, but the quick answer is probably corporate lobbyists making deals so they pay less taxes and politicians don't bring it up.


No, this has been a pretty consistent trend through at least the modern post-silent-majority era of American policics - Democrats promote government social programs that require high spending, and want to raise taxes to pay for them, while Republicans just want to cut taxes and not spend on anything except the military. It's a fundamental different understanding of economics - the Democrats favor stimulus spending, while the Republicans believe tax cuts _themselves_ are stimulative. FWIW, while both sides have enthusiastic support from certain economists, the general economic consensus are that while both stimulus spending and tax cuts are capable of driving growth, the latter becomes less effective as the marginal rate falls and the US is already well below that threshold, and while it certainly matters _where_ you direct spending, the former tends to be much more effective at driving economic growth. I suppose this could be another reason why the GOP has turned increasingly anti-science; economics is less scientific than some social science disciplines, maybe, but it certainly doesn't back their tax cuts above all else ethos.


----------



## narad

Feel like if I need a new username anytime soon it'll be MyDadTheUnionElectrician


----------



## Ralyks

Can't believe I'm saying this, but I feel like Warren did the best over both nights of debates.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Can't believe I'm saying this, but I feel like Warren did the best over both nights of debates.



I'm not sure why folks are surprised by this. She's a very strong candidate, a skilled debater, sharp as a tack, and as fed up with this bullshit as Bernie, maybe even more so.

Really Warren and Sanders are after the same goal, they just have different ideas of how to accomplish it. 

Truthfully, while I'm probably more of a Sanders supporter, I think Warren's "how" is probably more likely to be able to be implemented in the real world. 

In a perfect world we'd have Sanders as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. One can dream.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> *In a perfect world *we'd have Sanders as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. One can dream.



Amd free zero-calorie ice cream. That tastes good. And is free.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not sure why folks are surprised by this. She's a very strong candidate, a skilled debater, sharp as a tack, and as fed up with this bullshit as Bernie, maybe even more so.
> 
> Really Warren and Sanders are after the same goal, they just have different ideas of how to accomplish it.
> 
> Truthfully, while I'm probably more of a Sanders supporter, I think Warren's "how" is probably more likely to be able to be implemented in the real world.
> 
> In a perfect world we'd have Sanders as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. One can dream.



Not to get go as similar as the guy who was all height-obsessed, but even though I agree with her points, it's very hard for me to stand behind her as a person/candidate. Her delivery is just not great to me. Put Warren ideas through a Mayor Pete or Williamson mouthpiece and I think I'd have a candidate.


----------



## Jeff

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not sure why folks are surprised by this. She's a very strong candidate, a skilled debater, sharp as a tack, and as fed up with this bullshit as Bernie, maybe even more so.
> 
> Really Warren and Sanders are after the same goal, they just have different ideas of how to accomplish it.
> 
> Truthfully, while I'm probably more of a Sanders supporter, I think Warren's "how" is probably more likely to be able to be implemented in the real world.
> 
> In a perfect world we'd have Sanders as President and Warren as Senate Majority Leader. One can dream.



Yeah I’d be happy with any combination of Warren/Sanders.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

narad said:


> Not to get go as similar as the guy who was all height-obsessed, but even though I agree with her points, it's very hard for me to stand behind her as a person/candidate. Her delivery is just not great to me. Put Warren ideas through a Mayor Pete or Williamson mouthpiece and I think I'd have a candidate.



Pete: 5'9"
Warren: 5'8"

Coincidence? _I THINK NOT_.


----------



## Randy

Jeff said:


> Yeah I’d be happy with any combination of Warren/Sanders.



I agreed although I think general consensus would be that they're too similar on policy to scratch all the necessary bits in the general.

I do think Sanders has shown to be successful as a thought leader, considering 99% of what he advocated in 2016 is considered mainstream now, but you'd need someone pragmatic to temper that in a general.

Harris took a lot of people by surprise going for the throat on Biden in the first debate and she's seemingly kept up her fervor but I dunno its already gotten a little old, especially with Tulsi confronting her on her aggressive prosecutions. She still may end up being the candidate but if she's going to get there it'll be through trash and burn, and that worked for Republicans in 2016 but I'm not sure that's the Democratic 2020 brand.

I think my current favored combo is Warren/Booker.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I agreed although I think general consensus would be that they're too similar on policy to scratch all the necessary bits in the general.


Agreed.

I think, regardless of who wins, Warren has done the best job really moving/setting the goalposts for WHAT the Democrats are talking about and proposing policies for in 2020, and hers have consistently been the most fleshed out and complete of any of the candidates - "I have a plan for that," etc. When it comes time to nail down the DNC platform next summer, regardless of the name at the top of the ticket I think Warren's fingerprints are going to be all over it, and as a guy who's never been really wild about her for her overt populism in the past, I think she's tempered that a bit and frankly I'm pretty cool with her being the party's thought leader this time around.

I'm probably more Harris than Warren, myself, but honestly of the front-runners, pretty much any of them would be an acceptable choice to me, so I just want to winnow the field and get on to the general election ASAP.


----------



## Xaios

I remember I posted when Warren announced her candidacy at the end of last year, and the response to that post was pretty tepid. Looking at it now, it seems like people are a lot more enthusiastic about her. What's been the change? Does it come down to how she's handled the debates so far? Has there been something external which happened in the interceding time that has shifted people's perspectives on her?


----------



## Adieu

Any port in a storm?


----------



## iamaom

Xaios said:


> I remember I posted when Warren announced her candidacy at the end of last year, and the response to that post was pretty tepid. Looking at it now, it seems like people are a lot more enthusiastic about her. What's been the change? Does it come down to how she's handled the debates so far? Has there been something external which happened in the interceding time that has shifted people's perspectives on her?


She announced to run soon after the whole native American DNA test debacle. Since this race is 100% about beating Trump, letting him get to her like that was seen as a move of major weakness. People were also holding out for Bernie and a lot of Bernie voters are still kind of bitter about her endorsing Hillary on Maddow's show. I've also been keeping a fairly close eye on politics since the 2016 election, and after she gave a very lack-luster announcement she just kind of fell off the radar until now. Hardly heard a single word about her on reddit, 538, or any of the political YT channels I'm subscribed to except in passing. It really felt like her campaign was DOA and no one gave a shit. The debates put her in the limelight again and time seems to have mellowed out a lot of her detractors on the far left (especially after Biden announced he was running).

That said I'm not sure if she gets the nomination that she can take on Trump. In an age of soundbyte-twitter media, Trump's reality TV personality shines and I'm not sure if Warren can keep up. As much as I hate Hillary, she was pretty stoic against Trump's nonsense. I feel a lot of fence sitters will sit this election out if Warren and Trump make it to a debate together. All it'll take is one "Alright, easy there Pocahontas" from Trump and I fear Warren would turn into a bumbling Jeb like figure. As much as I like Warren, she has a frail "may I speak to your manager" kind of voice that I think is kinda of off putting and will hurt her image against Trump's loud never ending stream of insults and gotchas.


----------



## BlackSG91

I think Americans really deserve this President. Donald still has a lot of supporters and a majority who cling onto his every word. After the Mueller report people still choose Donald's lies. I feel tired of how Americans respond especially Evangelical Christians who turn a blind eye to his actions. America is going downhill and the Russians and Chinese will benefit from this. How long will it take for all the Wal-Mart shoppers to realize their country is going downhill. I'm just here to watch the entertainment like Donald would have it because it's all about HIM and not your country. At this point I think it is hopeless due to the dumbing of the masses. Good luck to the U.S. of A. because you really need it!!!


;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

........ I can't even be mad at that.


----------



## narad

BlackSG91 said:


> I think Americans really deserve this President.



People don't deserve bad things, just because they vote for leaders who create them. Especially America as a whole, when he didn't even win the popular vote.


----------



## BlackSG91

narad said:


> People don't deserve bad things, just because they vote for leaders who create them. Especially America as a whole, when he didn't even win the popular vote.



People sure don't deserve bad things. Especially a lunatic who occupies the White House and is destined to run the U.S.A. into the ground like with his past business dealings & FAILURES that always fell short like his Taj Mahal casino in New Jersey. And does anyone remember the U.S.F.L?...United States Football League back in the 1980's. Good ol' Donny was the owner of the New Jersey Generals, but due to his incompetent business dealings the team folded and eventually the whole league. I bet little Donny profited from the demise of the U.S.F.L. just like he makes money on his other failures due to loopholes and having good lawyers. He is a mastermind at fraud and money laundering (links to the mob) and the U.S. is in BIG time trouble unless there is some kind of a major intervention! Where's Dr. Phil?








;>)/


----------



## Vyn

BlackSG91 said:


> I think Americans really deserve this President. Donald still has a lot of supporters and a majority who cling onto his every word. After the Mueller report people still choose Donald's lies. I feel tired of how Americans respond especially Evangelical Christians who turn a blind eye to his actions. America is going downhill and the Russians and Chinese will benefit from this. How long will it take for all the Wal-Mart shoppers to realize their country is going downhill. I'm just here to watch the entertainment like Donald would have it because it's all about HIM and not your country. At this point I think it is hopeless due to the dumbing of the masses. Good luck to the U.S. of A. because you really need it!!!
> 
> 
> ;>)/



While I 100% agree with you the US has kind of brought this upon themselves, the issue is that the US imploding into a shit heap has wider implications than just the US - the rest of us in other countries are kind of fucked without the US (as much as I hate to admit that one country is keeping the balance at the moment, the fact is they are to a degree stopping China and Russia from being complete shit cunts).


----------



## Adieu

Uhm, yeah, the problem being that China and Russia have their own surprisingly similar tools firmly entrenched on their respective thrones


----------



## BlackSG91

Vyn said:


> While I 100% agree with you the US has kind of brought this upon themselves, the issue is that the US imploding into a shit heap has wider implications than just the US - the rest of us in other countries are kind of fucked without the US (as much as I hate to admit that one country is keeping the balance at the moment, the fact is they are to a degree stopping China and Russia from being complete shit cunts).



It would affect me the most since I can see Rochester, NY across the lake from me. I can feel it blowing up my way...it's clinging to the air. The blizzard is happening!




;>)/


----------



## Vyn

BlackSG91 said:


> It would affect me the most since I can see Rochester, NY across the lake from me. I can feel it blowing up my way...it's clinging to the air. The blizzard is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/




Ouch. Yeah, I think we're (Australia) going to come off VERY badly if things go too south in the US as the current bunch of muppets we have in power are intent on being cosy to the Trump administration whilst at the same time pissing off China...


----------



## JSanta

BlackSG91 said:


> It would affect me the most since I can see Rochester, NY across the lake from me. I can feel it blowing up my way...it's clinging to the air. The blizzard is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/




I live in Rochester, and can see many of the same things happening in Ontario. It's not like Doug Ford is a whole lot better than Trump, and considering how messed up the Government is in Canada right now (I have dual US/Canadian citizenship for what it's worth), there's a lot for the Canadians to be worried about. The next federal elections will be very telling about what kind of direction the Canadians are headed.


----------



## zappatton2

JSanta said:


> I live in Rochester, and can see many of the same things happening in Ontario. It's not like Doug Ford is a whole lot better than Trump, and considering how messed up the Government is in Canada right now (I have dual US/Canadian citizenship for what it's worth), there's a lot for the Canadians to be worried about. The next federal elections will be very telling about what kind of direction the Canadians are headed.


I agree that Ford is an absolute shootshow, and have been quite disappointed at the performance of the federal Liberals, but I will say this for Trudeau, he's one of the dwindling number of leaders in the West providing an unwavering voice against populism, and for the rule of constitutional law, and the independence of public institutions. His days may be numbered, but I dread how much of the rhetoric south of the border will be wielded up here by the most likely alternative.


----------



## JSanta

zappatton2 said:


> I agree that Ford is an absolute shootshow, and have been quite disappointed at the performance of the federal Liberals, but I will say this for Trudeau, he's one of the dwindling number of leaders in the West providing an unwavering voice against populism, and for the rule of constitutional law, and the independence of public institutions. His days may be numbered, but I dread how much of the rhetoric south of the border will be wielded up here by the most likely alternative.



That's exactly my sentiment. A lot of what's going on in the States is happening in Canada right now too. The Trudeau government is mired in controversy, and populists have taken over many high level positions within the Government. Even if Trudeau is re-elected, whether or not he can form a majority government remains to be seen. But the tide is turning in Canada, but to what level, I don't know. 

For what it's worth, I'm a Trudeau fan, and if I could vote in the elections (even with his issues), I'd still vote for him as a moderating voice.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> I remember I posted when Warren announced her candidacy at the end of last year, and the response to that post was pretty tepid. Looking at it now, it seems like people are a lot more enthusiastic about her. What's been the change? Does it come down to how she's handled the debates so far? Has there been something external which happened in the interceding time that has shifted people's perspectives on her?





iamaom said:


> She announced to run soon after the whole native American DNA test debacle. Since this race is 100% about beating Trump, letting him get to her like that was seen as a move of major weakness. People were also holding out for Bernie and a lot of Bernie voters are still kind of bitter about her endorsing Hillary on Maddow's show. I've also been keeping a fairly close eye on politics since the 2016 election, and after she gave a very lack-luster announcement she just kind of fell off the radar until now. Hardly heard a single word about her on reddit, 538, or any of the political YT channels I'm subscribed to except in passing. It really felt like her campaign was DOA and no one gave a shit. The debates put her in the limelight again and time seems to have mellowed out a lot of her detractors on the far left (especially after Biden announced he was running).



Grabbing these together to reply, and I'll start with the second, because in doing so it answers the first, I think. Let me start by saying that I was one of the ones that, while a Massachusetts resident and perfectly fine with her being a senator, I wasn't wild about her as a candidate when she declared, though my reasons were less the DNA test (though that was a questionable and oddly tone-deaf move) and more I have a problem with populism in ANY stripe, be it Trump's or hers and Sanders'.

What changed? I don't think she fell off the radar at all, really - it was just a period in the campaign where not much was going on and what news there was was mostly about who else had declared. She continued to poll reasonably well, as a second tier candidate behind Biden and Sanders, it's just there wasn't much newsworthy going on for ANY of the candidates. Rather, she used that time to launch policy proposal after policy proposal. Her "I have a plan for that" is almost something of a joke, but the punchline is that she really _does_ have a plan for that, and it's pretty detailed. 

One of the maybe less "newsworthy" but still pretty important things that was happening during the quiet part of the campaign that I believe 538 did discuss at length at one point (so she wasn't totally under the radar, either) was that really Warren was the candidate staking out the policy ground where the rest of the candidates would then spend the rest of the cycle fighting for their various proposals - simply by being the first mover, and by bring pretty detailed at that, too, she's sort of defined the "arena" of policies that the Democratic party will be hashing out as we move closer to the general election. So, naturally, when we hit the debates, she was going to be the best prepared. 

So, why have I warmed to her? Because she seems to be becoming less overtly populist as she becomes more policy specific, and because I think she's running a great campaign. Will she suffer against Trump in sound bites by coming across as a shrill, angry woman? Maybe... But she's run a great campaign so far and if she wins, I'd be happy to give her a shot to be the one to take down Trump, and while the GOP is going to make things very hard on her if she wins, she's got the makings of at least a fairly decent president, I think.


----------



## Ralyks

Right now, if Warren can figure out how to stand up to Trump during a debate and not get shaken, I can absolutely see her having a shot. Part of why I am liking her now is, like you said, while her "I have a plan for that" seems amusing, she actually DOES. Everyone else just seemed to fight each other. And by each other, I mean Biden.


----------



## MFB

Why does everyone think she'll _get_ shaken during a debate? She's been dealing with Trump's bullshit since he took office, which means telling him off for the past 3 years, why would one night of doing it in person be different? If anything, he'll probably try to talk over her so much she'll get to raise her voice to shut him down.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MFB said:


> Why does everyone think she'll _get_ shaken during a debate? She's been dealing with Trump's bullshit since he took office, which means telling him off for the past 3 years, why would one night of doing it in person be different? If anything, he'll probably try to talk over her so much she'll get to raise her voice to shut him down.



Because she's a woman.

Men are forceful alpha males, women are nagging bitches.

That's exactly how the media is going to play it and there are plenty of GOPers and Blue Dogs waiting to lap it up.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because she's a woman.



Disagree.
I think it's got more to do with the fact that since Trump is so blunt and rude, odds are he's going to say something so bizarre and out of left field that she's going to have trouble responding on her feet, because who _*does*_ that? I give Clinton a lot of guff but I think she handled his crap pretty well; I think if she gets there all she has to do is maintain composure and resist the urge to fire back.

I don't think she'll _do_ that though- unless she really did learn her lesson with the ancestry test thing. The winning move is not to play.

vote Tulsi btw. Hope you guys got to watch her publicly execute Harris.


----------



## Ralyks

Ordacleaphobia said:


> vote Tulsi btw. Hope you guys got to watch her publicly execute Harris.



Harris has lost it for me. First the obviously calculated attack at Biden the first debate, then she responds to Tulsi BY GOING AFTER BIDEN. That and her record as a prosecuted and I've definitely cooled on Harris.


----------



## Drew

MFB said:


> Why does everyone think she'll _get_ shaken during a debate? She's been dealing with Trump's bullshit since he took office, which means telling him off for the past 3 years, why would one night of doing it in person be different? If anything, he'll probably try to talk over her so much she'll get to raise her voice to shut him down.


Yeah, this. She's not exactly unfamiliar with what it's like to be mocked by Trump. I think anyone he runs against, man or woman, is going to be subject to some pretty awful, out of left field, unpredictable, personal attacks, and honestly I think Trump will have more trouble with a smart, capable woman standing up to him, than he'll have an advantage from seeming "strong" compared to a "weak" woman, to the more chauvinistic elements of his base.


----------



## BlackSG91

Here is some good sound bites out of Trump and someone whom I am very disappointed in is Mike Huckabee who I thought was a great politician until he sold his soul to Donald.




;>)/


----------



## StevenC

BlackSG91 said:


> someone whom I am very disappointed in is Mike Huckabee who I thought was a great politician until he sold his soul to Donald.


You meant to post this in the memes thread, right?


----------



## BlackSG91

StevenC said:


> You meant to post this in the memes thread, right?



Are YT videos considered memes?


;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

JSanta said:


> I live in Rochester, and can see many of the same things happening in Ontario. It's not like Doug Ford is a whole lot better than Trump, and considering how messed up the Government is in Canada right now (I have dual US/Canadian citizenship for what it's worth), there's a lot for the Canadians to be worried about. The next federal elections will be very telling about what kind of direction the Canadians are headed.



Doug Ford sure is a populist government. He takes the playbook away from Trump. But his polls show he is not doing good, especially with cuts across the board concerning healthcare and such. He will be a thorn in the side for the Conservative part of Canada who hope to be the next government of Canada. They are aligned with the Republican party down in the U.S. while our current Liberal government is aligned very much with the Democratic party. Even Howard Dean who ran the Democrats attended a Liberal party convention in Montreal in the 2000's. It seems like our parties are aligned to each other. But for Donald it is a great day to be a Conservative.




;>)/


----------



## StevenC

BlackSG91 said:


> Are YT videos considered memes?
> 
> 
> ;>)/


You seriously thought Mike Huckabee was a great politician?


----------



## BlackSG91

StevenC said:


> You seriously thought Mike Huckabee was a great politician?



Why sointenly...Nyuk, Nyuk,Nyuk!








;>)/


----------



## JSanta

BlackSG91 said:


> Doug Ford sure is a populist government. He takes the playbook away from Trump. But his polls show he is not doing good, especially with cuts across the board concerning healthcare and such. He will be a thorn in the side for the Conservative part of Canada who hope to be the next government of Canada. They are aligned with the Republican party down in the U.S. while our current Liberal government is aligned very much with the Democratic party. Even Howard Dean who ran the Democrats attended a Liberal party convention in Montreal in the 2000's. It seems like our parties are aligned to each other. But for Donald it is a great day to be a Conservative.
> 
> ;>)/



Polls showed that Trump was not going to be elected either, and we've seen what happened there. Furthermore, just because Ford is unpopular doesn't necessarily mean he and his government couldn't win again.

My bottom line message is that it's one thing to point fingers at the US, but Canada is not in such great shape either. There's a tremendous amount of political and social strife that will be a major part of the next election. I'm not saying that Scheer is going to win, but I am saying that many of the same issues happening in the States are happening in Canada, and that it's quite obvious many people in Canada feel the same as those in the US that got Trump elected.


----------



## BlackSG91

JSanta said:


> Polls showed that Trump was not going to be elected either, and we've seen what happened there. Furthermore, just because Ford is unpopular doesn't necessarily mean he and his government couldn't win again.
> 
> My bottom line message is that it's one thing to point fingers at the US, but Canada is not in such great shape either. There's a tremendous amount of political and social strife that will be a major part of the next election. I'm not saying that Scheer is going to win, but I am saying that many of the same issues happening in the States are happening in Canada, and that it's quite obvious many people in Canada feel the same as those in the US that got Trump elected.



It sure is! The populist rhetoric ran with Stephan Harper when he was Prime Minister of Canada. He was like Trump as in not answering questions from the media and denouncing their facts. We even had a FOX news North called SUN TV that promoted conservative values...a propaganda machine. There is no such thing as a country like the U.S.A. or Canada...it's all about political parties controlling a certain agenda.


;>)/


----------



## gunch

Well Drumpf can't even get the cities in Ohio straight


----------



## Randy

Not even wading into this, since we've been there dozens (hundreds?) of times on this site, but catching that the GOP are going full "violent video games" scapegoat on this one which I BELIEVE is a first for the Trump admin and also hilariously out of touch when you consider the DOOM/Wolfenstein/Duke Nukem generation are pushing 50 years old.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Not even wading into this, since we've been there dozens (hundreds?) of times on this site, but catching that the GOP are going full "violent video games" scapegoat on this one which I BELIEVE is a first for the Trump admin and also hilariously out of touch when you consider the DOOM/Wolfenstein/Duke Nukem generation are pushing 50 years old.



The good news is, that since Looney Tunes are no longer aired with the frequency they once were, there's been a drastic decline in death by malicious falling anvils/pianos. Clearly, removing these images from television screens has improved the safety of American citizens. Clearly, a similar line could be drawn about what would happen if violent video game access was reduced!


----------



## Randy

One thing I will say is that this might finally be a bridge too far, as far as Trump goes. I see lots of failson adolescent kids rocking the MAGA hat because they like the macho finger in the face to their helicopter parents but I don't know how cool Trump stays when he's taking away your video games.

There was a shaky alliance between the 8chan shitposter bored teenage culture and the baby boomers that really needed to be broken up.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Polls showed that Trump was not going to be elected either, and we've seen what happened there. Furthermore, just because Ford is unpopular doesn't necessarily mean he and his government couldn't win again.


To nitpick a bit, polls said Trump had about a 1-in-4 chance of winning on the eve of the election, which happens about a quarter of the time. That's hardly the same as no chance at all. 



Randy said:


> Not even wading into this, since we've been there dozens (hundreds?) of times on this site, but catching that the GOP are going full "violent video games" scapegoat on this one which I BELIEVE is a first for the Trump admin and also hilariously out of touch when you consider the DOOM/Wolfenstein/Duke Nukem generation are pushing 50 years old.


It kinda makes sense, though. It's an explanation that dates back to roughly the _last_ time anyone gave a fuck what Donald Trump had to say. It's like the 80s all over!


----------



## Drew

Also, so hey, about them markets the last few days.... We'/re now on a six-day losing streak and 10yr Treasury yields are in danger of testing 2016 lows, after Trump just torpedoed trade talks with an unexpected followup round of tariffs that the Chinese met by weakening the yuan. It's cool, though, trade wars are easy to win, and it's not like any of us were ever going to retire anyway, right?


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> To nitpick a bit, polls said Trump had about a 1-in-4 chance of winning on the eve of the election, which happens about a quarter of the time. That's hardly the same as no chance at all.



From a statistical perspective, 25% is hugely significant, and I agree with you on that point.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Also, so hey, about them markets the last few days.... We'/re now on a six-day losing streak and 10yr Treasury yields are in danger of testing 2016 lows, after Trump just torpedoed trade talks with an unexpected followup round of tariffs that the Chinese met by weakening the yuan. It's cool, though, trade wars are easy to win, and it's not like any of us were ever going to retire anyway, right?



I see this literally right after seeing the DOW dropping 650.

Yet with all of the bullshit in the past month or two ALONE, Trump will get reelected...


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> From a statistical perspective, 25% is hugely significant, and I agree with you on that point.


Yeah, I mean, on one hand, I don't want to nitpick, but on the other, there's this narrative that "the polls got it wrong" in 2016. They didn't - they called the popular vote correctly, and the final margin was within the margin of error and less than the average polling miss in recent years. It's just, that margin of error was enough to flip from losing the electoral college, to winning the electoral college. 

What DID get it wrong, in 2016, was virtually all commentators, who read a narrow Clinton lead in the polls as a "certain" Clinton win.


----------



## Bearitone

I’m not very involved in politics. 

Can someone explain to me what exactly in the mueller report shows trump did any wrong doing?


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> I’m not very involved in politics.
> 
> Can someone explain to me what exactly in the mueller report shows trump did any wrong doing?


I mean, it's been covered pretty extensively in this thread, and unfortunately since Mueller was not able to charge Trump with a crime under DoJ policy (which considers that power constitutionally delegated to Congress and therefore not within the power of law enforcement agents), it involves a lot of context and a fair amount of reading between the lines. 

But, the gist is this: 


Only Congress can charge the President with wrongdoing because that authority is given to them in the Constitution, so if Mueller thinks Trump broke the law, he can't say so without overstepping his mandate. The Mueller report notes this explicitly, in discussing why an obstruction of justice determination was not made. 
Mueller determined there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with coordinating with Russia, concluding while there was plenty of evidence of both sides taking action that was directly beneficial to the other, there was not enough evidence to establish that an agreement was in place to help each other. 
Mueller pointedly refused to make a similar determination on the question of obstruction of justice, and walked through ten instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice. 

Good summary, with quotes from the report: https://www.axios.com/mueller-repor...ons-e8bc12dc-31f2-4f49-992c-a46383463d80.html

So, from the left's perspective, Trump's claims that the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion or obstruction are problematic for two reasons - first, and the smaller of the two issues, is that there actually _was_ a fair amount of evidence of both sides helping each other, it's just Mueller was unable to identify a "smoking gun" agreement between the two parties. And, second, there actually _was_ pretty clear evidence of obstruction of justice, it's just Mueller was not empowered to indict a sitting president because of the DOJ's OLC opinion on the matter, so he merely summarized the obstruction case without passing a legal judgement, beyond saying he could _not_ exonerate him. To quote: 



Mueller Report said:


> "Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."



Does that help?


----------



## Bearitone

Drew said:


> I mean, it's been covered pretty extensively in this thread, and unfortunately since Mueller was not able to charge Trump with a crime under DoJ policy (which considers that power constitutionally delegated to Congress and therefore not within the power of law enforcement agents), it involves a lot of context and a fair amount of reading between the lines.
> 
> But, the gist is this:
> 
> 
> Only Congress can charge the President with wrongdoing because that authority is given to them in the Constitution, so if Mueller thinks Trump broke the law, he can't say so without overstepping his mandate. The Mueller report notes this explicitly, in discussing why an obstruction of justice determination was not made.
> Mueller determined there was not enough evidence to charge Trump with coordinating with Russia, concluding while there was plenty of evidence of both sides taking action that was directly beneficial to the other, there was not enough evidence to establish that an agreement was in place to help each other.
> Mueller pointedly refused to make a similar determination on the question of obstruction of justice, and walked through ten instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice.
> 
> Good summary, with quotes from the report: https://www.axios.com/mueller-repor...ons-e8bc12dc-31f2-4f49-992c-a46383463d80.html
> 
> So, from the left's perspective, Trump's claims that the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion or obstruction are problematic for two reasons - first, and the smaller of the two issues, is that there actually _was_ a fair amount of evidence of both sides helping each other, it's just Mueller was unable to identify a "smoking gun" agreement between the two parties. And, second, there actually _was_ pretty clear evidence of obstruction of justice, it's just Mueller was not empowered to indict a sitting president because of the DOJ's OLC opinion on the matter, so he merely summarized the obstruction case without passing a legal judgement, beyond saying he could _not_ exonerate him. To quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that help?



That actually helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time to break that down for me. I appreciate it.

I assume the “actions that benefited each other” are also layed out in the report?


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> That actually helps a lot. Thank you for taking the time to break that down for me. I appreciate it.
> 
> I assume the “actions that benefited each other” are also layed out in the report?


Yeah - it found evidence of multiple contacts between the two, the Trump tower meeting being the most well known. The evidence of a massive infuence campaign and the Russian hack of the DNC servers and subsequent release throguh wikileaks is pretty well known, as too is the fact Trump had the GOP drop a call for sanctions on Russia from the invasion of ukraine, and his campaign promised russian diplomats that any sanctions imposed by Obama for election meddling would be reversed. 

Again, though, there's no evidence that Trump ever said anything like "hey, if you hack the DNC email servers and release them, and then wage a massive online influence campaign, I'll do X, Y, and Z for you." That lack of evidence of an _agreement_ is why the Mueller report stopped short of finding evidence of collusion, but rather only a series of parallel actions that were beneficial to the other.


----------



## Ralyks

Basically, the modern day "If the glove doesn't fit, you must aquit."


----------



## Bearitone

To keep the discussion balanced, did anything ever come out showing corruption on Hillary’s end?


----------



## Randy

Bearitone said:


> To keep the discussion balanced, did anything ever come out showing corruption on Hillary’s end?



No, basically. I mean, she's as dirty a politician as you'll usually encounter but the Trump campaign was a new threshold. The fact his campaign manager, personal attorney and national security advisor are in jail as a result says a lot, doesn't it?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Also, so hey, about them markets the last few days.... We'/re now on a six-day losing streak and 10yr Treasury yields are in danger of testing 2016 lows, after Trump just torpedoed trade talks with an unexpected followup round of tariffs that the Chinese met by weakening the yuan. It's cool, though, trade wars are easy to win, and it's not like any of us were ever going to retire anyway, right?



Red herring.

Trump presidency is chaos on all fronts with new material literally every day. Every other era in my life, the markets would freefall on literally one day of Trump's tweetstorming. The markets and the US' trade partners have normalized this behavior such that they've shown a willingness to selectively ignore what they want to ignore.

I think the Dow inevitably bounces back 1000+ points because this is the time we're living in. This seems to be their way of negotiating.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> No, basically. I mean, she's as dirty a politician as you'll usually encounter but the Trump campaign was a new threshold. The fact his campaign manager, personal attorney and national security advisor are in jail as a result says a lot, doesn't it?



"Witchhunt" /s


----------



## Bearitone

Randy said:


> No, basically. I mean, she's as dirty a politician as you'll usually encounter but the Trump campaign was a new threshold. The fact his campaign manager, personal attorney and national security advisor are in jail as a result says a lot, doesn't it?



Wow i actually never uncovered that. Good to know.

You know what’s a bummer is a lot of people i know (myself included) don’t get reccomend both left-wing & right-wing news sources/videos/articles. I have to actively seek them out if I’m interested in a story and want to hear both sides.

It sad because i feel people get stuck hearing just ONE side because search engines and reccomendations just give you MORE of whatever it is you were just watching. It takes energy and effort to actually obtain some level of objectivity


----------



## Ralyks

On the topic of the market, am I wrong in thinking that China may actually know how.to play the long game better than Trump?


----------



## Randy

Bearitone said:


> Wow i actually never uncovered that. Good to know.
> 
> You know what’s a bummer is a lot of people i know (myself included) don’t get reccomend both left-wing & right-wing news sources/videos/articles. I have to actively seek them out if I’m interested in a story and want to hear both sides.
> 
> It sad because i feel people get stuck hearing just ONE side because search engines and reccomendations just give you MORE of whatever it is you were just watching. It takes energy and effort to actually obtain some level of objectivity



I look at it a little differently. I don't think there is a "both sides" when it comes to facts. It's either true or it's not and if it's not, then it's not news. The fact that there's a perception we need to assume a slant in all reporting and seek out two sides of the slant to approximate the truth is depressing.

FWIW, I usually do my news gathering by hitting ~6-8 news sites and getting a feel for who's covering the story and how. Of the mainstream news sites, I think I usually get the cleanest read from The Hill, which is actually conservative leaning on their editorial side but usually the news coverage is pretty straight and the headlines or order of the stories isn't doctored for a specific narrative like Fox News or HuffPo.


----------



## Bearitone

Randy said:


> I look at it a little differently. I don't think there is a "both sides" when it comes to facts. It's either true or it's not and if it's not, then it's not news. The fact that there's a perception we need to assume a slant in all reporting and seek out two sides of the slant to approximate the truth is depressing.
> 
> FWIW, I usually do my news gathering by hitting ~6-8 news sites and getting a feel for who's covering the story and how. Of the mainstream news sites, I think I usually get the cleanest read from The Hill, which is actually conservative leaning on their editorial side but usually the news coverage is pretty straight and the headlines or order of the stories isn't doctored for a specific narrative like Fox News or HuffPo.



True but, a lot of times the girlfriend will be reading an article out loud to me (she’s more political than I am) and i can tell by the language used whether or not it’s a conservative or liberal source. It’s like they each have their own vocabulary that gives them away and reveals their bias.

And i don’t think there is a “both sides” when it comes to facts but, there are usually two ways the facts are being presented. Each side grossly exaggerating some facts while leaving other facts out completely. Whatever is to their benefit. All the while lacing in their own interpretion and trying to push a narrative.

Statistics are also facts. But, they can be divisively presented in ways that work for either side. That’s why, to me, it’s dangerous to just listen to one side. It’s a recipe for dividing a country and creating fanatics on either side.

I’ll check out The Hill. Thanks!


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> I look at it a little differently. I don't think there is a "both sides" when it comes to facts. It's either true or it's not and if it's not, then it's not news. The fact that there's a perception we need to assume a slant in all reporting and seek out two sides of the slant to approximate the truth is depressing.
> 
> FWIW, I usually do my news gathering by hitting ~6-8 news sites and getting a feel for who's covering the story and how. Of the mainstream news sites, I think I usually get the cleanest read from The Hill, which is actually conservative leaning on their editorial side but usually the news coverage is pretty straight and the headlines or order of the stories isn't doctored for a specific narrative like Fox News or HuffPo.



I completely agree with this perspective. I try my best not to read news from sources that have a political leaning. I don't want the pundit evaluations, I want the facts. I have the ability to draw conclusions based on those facts. I do not believe that opinions should share the same space as facts, which is what a lot of what cable news has become. I try my best to stick with the sources that are at the middle of this chart: http://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-ch...actly-are-we-reading/#iLightbox[gallery138]/0


----------



## spudmunkey

A litmus test for myself: If the reporting sounds like (or is telling the same side of the story as) the onion, then it requires a bit more than the average amount of skepticism.


----------



## Randy

Bearitone said:


> True but, a lot of times the girlfriend will be reading an article out loud to me (she’s more political than I am) and i can tell by the language used whether or not it’s a conservative or liberal source. It’s like they each have their own vocabulary that gives them away and reveals their bias.
> 
> And i don’t think there is a “both sides” when it comes to facts but, there are usually two ways the facts are being presented. Each side grossly exaggerating some facts while leaving other facts out completely. Whatever is to their benefit. All the while lacing in their own interpretion and trying to push a narrative.
> 
> Statistics are also facts. But, they can be divisively presented in ways that work for either side. That’s why, to me, it’s dangerous to just listen to one side. It’s a recipe for dividing a country and creating fanatics on either side.
> 
> I’ll check out The Hill. Thanks!



Well one thing you have working in your favor is that you seem you have enough cognition to extract facts from opinion, which I think is more reliable than just relying on words on a page anyway.

The statistics are a good example. I think I'm pretty finely tuned to read when someone's setting a narrative and cherry picking their statistics, which could've been asked originally in very leadings ways or offered to a very narrowed audience in the first place, plus only picking SOME of the answers that imply certain stuff. I still believe in statistics as facts, the just need to be read in context. I also take them with a grain of salt because I've never participated in a significant poll of any kind, nor do I pickup the phone to random numbers or talk to people holding clipboards in the mall, so I know right off the bat people like me are potentially completely unaccounted for.


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> To keep the discussion balanced, did anything ever come out showing corruption on Hillary’s end?


Nothing material. The GOP-lead inquiry into Benghazi eventually cleared her fully of wrongdoing, releasing their report on a Friday evening, I believe a long holiday weekend at that, to bury it as much as possible. Her email server inquiry, Comey found that she had executed questionable judgement and was negligent, but not to the degree that it could be called criminally negligent. The Clinton Foundation briefly lost its approved status by some nonprofit watchdog, but that was due to an organizational change that resulted in the review being delayed and it was re-approved after the review was completed. Pizzagate was a hoax. The DNC staffer who died was another conspiracy where there was no evidence and his own family finally forced Fox to drop the story. The leaked DNC emails were certainly embarrassing (though, arguably the worst of it was not a single DNC staffer evidently knew how to make a decent risotto), but were also free of anything even remotely criminal. That whole uranium deal that Fox also ran with where a Clinton Foundation donor profited from the sale while she was secretary of state, she wasn't on the committee that approved the sale (or recused herself, I forget), and he no longer had a beneficiary stake in the firm that profited from the deal when it happened. Whitewater ultimately cleared her and Bill of wrongdoing, as well. 

I'm not saying any of this makes her a perfect angel, it's just that she's been in the political spotlight for 30 years, has has had the GOP crosshairs on her since the mid-90s, and is not-stupid enough to have at least made sure she had obeyed the _letter_ of the law while in public office, at least so far as any paper trail has emerged today.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I look at it a little differently. I don't think there is a "both sides" when it comes to facts. It's either true or it's not and if it's not, then it's not news. The fact that there's a perception we need to assume a slant in all reporting and seek out two sides of the slant to approximate the truth is depressing..


Honestly, Fox won the day that their "Fair and Balanced" tagline got Americans to accept that there was a need to see "both sides" of the story, and that the truth was a matter of perspective and partisan spin, and rather objective fact. That was really the turning point in the modern era of hyper-partisanship.



Randy said:


> The statistics are a good example. I think I'm pretty finely tuned to read when someone's setting a narrative and cherry picking their statistics, which could've been asked originally in very leadings ways or offered to a very narrowed audience in the first place, plus only picking SOME of the answers that imply certain stuff. I still believe in statistics as facts, the just need to be read in context. I also take them with a grain of salt because I've never participated in a significant poll of any kind, nor do I pickup the phone to random numbers or talk to people holding clipboards in the mall, so I know right off the bat people like me are potentially completely unaccounted for.


As Mark Twain quipped, there are three sorts of lies; lies, damned lies, and statistics. Pausing and thinking about context and about if the numbers pass a basic "sniff test" is hugely important when evaluating statistical arguments.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Red herring.
> 
> Trump presidency is chaos on all fronts with new material literally every day. Every other era in my life, the markets would freefall on literally one day of Trump's tweetstorming. The markets and the US' trade partners have normalized this behavior such that they've shown a willingness to selectively ignore what they want to ignore.
> 
> I think the Dow inevitably bounces back 1000+ points because this is the time we're living in. This seems to be their way of negotiating.


I think in the past this has been the case, but I'm not convinced. I think what's different this time is that the markets are finally realizing that at this point, both sides are bearing costs but neither side really has much incentive to budge, because both blame the other - the Trump Administration accues China of backing out of a prior agreement, and thinks they're trying to wait them out in the hopes there's a new administration to negotiate with after 2020 (and, likely, there's a "wag the dog" element in play here), while the Chinese see the Trump administration as refusing to compromise, expecting a mile every time they're given an inch, trying to bully their way into a deal, and trying to look tough in front of the 2020 election. I've been frankly a little dumbfounded the market has been as sanguine as it has on the prospects of a deal, and I think the surprise round of tariffs on the 31st were a wake-up call that this isn't going to have a fast resolution (I mean, christ, it's already been 18 months), and it's going to get worse for at least the next 18 months unless one side makes a high-profile and public total capitulation, which isn't likely.


----------



## Ralyks

Two shootings, ICE raids leaving children abandoned, Trump having a hissy fit over no one hailing him a hero for visiting the sites of the shootings and then trashing his opponents rather than focusing on comforting a nation, no one with the power to do anything about it willing to do so (fuck you Mitch McConnell).... Hell of a week in the US.

Also, has anyone elses retirement taken a beating too?


----------



## PunkBillCarson

So will someone please remind me which video games inspired every violent act in history before electricity even existed?


----------



## MFB

PunkBillCarson said:


> So will someone please remind me which video games inspired every violent act in history before electricity even existed?



I bet it was those damned, insufferable Parker Brothers! They stoked the fires of war for decades with their board games.


----------



## Ralyks

Jeffrey Epstein 'found dead in cell' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49306032

Holy fuck


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Jeffrey Epstein 'found dead in cell' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49306032
> 
> Holy fuck



The conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> The conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this.


I saw the news in a PBS post. Every comment, down to the last one, was basically, "no way."


----------



## Ralyks

This is what I call a Bipartisan fuck up. Both sides were/are going to be affected by this.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

MaxOfMetal said:


> The conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this.


IIRC he already had a suicide attempt, so I assume he was under extreme supervision. I know police are incompetent but are they _that_ incompetent?


----------



## vilk

""""""suicide""""""


----------



## spudmunkey

"Suicide watch" is a catch-all term that describes many individual aspects and levels. Everything from switching to slip-on shoes and hourly check-ins, to full-on captivity where you'rs strapped down, sometimes sedated. So...we don't actually know (I don't think) just how intense of a 'watch' was prescribed, but I can't help but assume that not only because of the charges, and what we've been told was a previous attempt, that it would be pretty damn high up on the chart. At least 24/7 video surveillance, and I wouldn't have doubted if the jumper he was given was tear proof, with locking "holes" (meaning, once you're dressed, you can't get it off to hang yourself with it).

An interesting (I think) anecdote: In 1 of the 300 rooms, we had to provice "anti-ligature" hooks, which would break away if anything more than 5 lbs or so was hung on them.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

It's just still wild to me that this was even able to happen.
Taking his initial suicide attempt out of consideration, he's still an extremely high profile man under some extremely high profile, salacious, and serious charges. I would expect him to be on watch _anyway_. Especially with how everyone keeps trying to connect him to politicians. As it is, child offenders are usually pretty high-risk inmates, let alone a guy like Epstein. This blew me away.


----------



## vilk

If you were surprised by Epstein's suicide... imagine how he must have felt!


----------



## Drew

Also, how have we not talked about this? 







Baby in the picture was orphaned in the El Paso shooter. Trump: huge grin, giant thumbs up in the photo op they staged.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Also, how have we not talked about this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby in the picture was orphaned in the El Paso shooter. Trump: huge grin, giant thumbs up in the photo op they staged.



Because this sums him up as a human being. I don't even have to be surprised anymore, because that's expecting him to be anything other than what he's demonstrated time and time again. I mean, what kind of person would even want to have the photo-op? That says it all.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Because this sums him up as a human being. I don't even have to be surprised anymore, because that's expecting him to be anything other than what he's demonstrated time and time again. I mean, what kind of person would even want to have the photo-op? That says it all.


I mean, the shitty thing is it's perfectly on brand. 

Posing with orphaned infant after mass shooting: Big shit eating grin, thumbs up. 
Walking from the helicopter en route to a 9/11 memorial service: big shit-eating grin, double fist pump
At Puerto Rico press conference after hurricane: Big shit-eating grin, throwing paper towel rolls randomly into the crowd like some deranged post-dystopian Oprah. 

It's fucking _weird_ how little empathy for others he seems to have.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> "Suicide watch" is a catch-all term that describes many individual aspects and levels. Everything from switching to slip-on shoes and hourly check-ins, to full-on captivity where you'rs strapped down, sometimes sedated. So...we don't actually know (I don't think) just how intense of a 'watch' was prescribed, but I can't help but assume that not only because of the charges, and what we've been told was a previous attempt, that it would be pretty damn high up on the chart. At least 24/7 video surveillance, and I wouldn't have doubted if the jumper he was given was tear proof, with locking "holes" (meaning, once you're dressed, you can't get it off to hang yourself with it).
> 
> An interesting (I think) anecdote: In 1 of the 300 rooms, we had to provice "anti-ligature" hooks, which would break away if anything more than 5 lbs or so was hung on them.



Also worth mentioning that one of the claims against him was committing ANOTHER sexual assault during his work release last time around. So everything in this guy's past and (up until a couple days ago) current history would say not to take eyes off the guy at all, ever.



JoshuaVonFlash said:


> IIRC he already had a suicide attempt, so I assume he was under extreme supervision. I know police are incompetent but are they _that_ incompetent?



I'm not looking to gaslight the infinite number of conspiracies that can and will present themselves as this goes on, but I heard mention today he might've claimed last time around that he was attacked, not that he tried to commit suicide. I haven't substantiated that (although, considering what happened, I'd be skeptical on anyone that says either as "fact") but it's something that's out there.

Related to the previous quote, I'll put this in the same column as the raid on Bin Laden's house and his body being unceremoniously dropped into the sea. I won't go as far as saying it's totally made up or that there's some incredibly deep insidious reason behind what we've been told, but the answer we got and the context in which we're given it is less believable than the conspiracies.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Also worth mentioning that one of the claims against him was committing ANOTHER sexual assault during his work release last time around. So everything in this guy's past and (up until a couple days ago) current history would say not to take eyes off the guy at all, ever.



Haven't gotten further in substantiating it than this, but Bloomberg was citing an ABC story citing sources claiming his own defense attorneys requested he be taken off suicide watch, and if so standard protocol was that he successfully pass a psychological evaluation to demonstrate he was not likely to be a threat to himself before they would lift it.

Not that I'd doubt this guy was capable of lying his way past a team of psychologists, of course.

EDIT - only other thing I'll say is this - _in general_, my willingness to accept conspiracy theories is pretty damned low, and the bar they have to exceed before I take them at all seriously is pretty damned high - Occam's Razor almost always sides with the accepted story and not the conspiracy.

However, the thing that's sort of piquing my curiosity here, is AG Barr is making some awfully public responses to this, citing "irregularities" in the prison in press conferences. A man who by and large has stayed _out_ of the public eye save for his letter summarizing the Mueller report and the ensuing mudfight seems to be going out of his way to get involved in this. I don't know what to make of it just (any of the possible justifications I can think up immediately sound crazy) yet but it's odd.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Two shootings, ICE raids leaving children abandoned, Trump having a hissy fit over no one hailing him a hero for visiting the sites of the shootings and then trashing his opponents rather than focusing on comforting a nation, no one with the power to do anything about it willing to do so (fuck you Mitch McConnell).... Hell of a week in the US.
> 
> Also, has anyone elses retirement taken a beating too?



What retirement?


----------



## Ralyks

Thaeon said:


> What retirement?



Exactly.

And on that note.

https://apple.news/ATsxf-x1PQFKcG8Ao-iHNNg

Because no shit, everyone outside of the GOP saw this coming.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, this article maybe veers a little into hyperbole, but for the first 10 months of the fiscal year (ending in October), the US has now run up a $866.8 billion dollar deficit, which is 11.2% bigger than the _entire year's_ deficit in the fiscal year ending October 2018. We're *probably* going to stay under $1 trillion for the year, but not by much, and we're slated to break $1 trillion in next year's deficit. 

Those are pretty shocking numbers - with the most recent GDP around $21 trillion, we're talking a current accounts deficit of roughly 4.8% of GDP. In a late-cycle but still expanding economy, that's unprecidented, and the real concern here isn't _current_ deficit levels, but what would happen if the economy rolls over, federal revenue declines sharply, and the government has to engage in significant (and debt-financed) stimulus spending.


----------



## Ralyks

So that all sucks.

Now someone please explain HOW THE FUCK DO YOU CHANGE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY POEM?!?


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> So that all sucks.
> 
> Now someone please explain HOW THE FUCK DO YOU CHANGE THE STATUE OF LIBERTY POEM?!?



Is it actually changed or did the guy just make some off-the-cuff remark? Headlines push the former, article content pushes the latter, as far as what I've seen so far.


----------



## Randy

CNN with it's priorities straight, clearly.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> CNN with it's priorities straight, clearly.
> 
> View attachment 71906



One of the many reasons that "news" sources like CNN and Fox should be avoided.


----------



## Adieu

POTUS has left the closet????


----------



## Thaeon

Adieu said:


> POTUS has left the closet????



I can't say that it would surprise me. Even a little.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Yeah, this article maybe veers a little into hyperbole, but for the first 10 months of the fiscal year (ending in October), the US has now run up a $866.8 billion dollar deficit, which is 11.2% bigger than the _entire year's_ deficit in the fiscal year ending October 2018. We're *probably* going to stay under $1 trillion for the year, but not by much, and we're slated to break $1 trillion in next year's deficit.
> 
> Those are pretty shocking numbers - with the most recent GDP around $21 trillion, we're talking a current accounts deficit of roughly 4.8% of GDP. In a late-cycle but still expanding economy, that's unprecidented, and the real concern here isn't _current_ deficit levels, but what would happen if the economy rolls over, federal revenue declines sharply, and the government has to engage in significant (and debt-financed) stimulus spending.



Where's Tyler Durden when you need him?


----------



## Smoked Porter

Randy said:


> CNN with it's priorities straight, clearly.
> 
> View attachment 71906


"Analysis".


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AgkYZlhY4SwCbQe2t3Pw1Xw

Looking at a recession, baby!!!


----------



## Randy

Smoked Porter said:


> "Analysis".



Which is one letter away from "anal isis". Coincidence?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AgkYZlhY4SwCbQe2t3Pw1Xw
> 
> Looking at a recession, baby!!!


Some context - the curve "inverting," or the spread between the 2yr Treasury and the 10Yr Treasury going negative (meaning 10yrs yield less than 2yrs) is a traditional warning sign of a recession with about a 12-18 month lag time. It doesn't CAUSE a recession, nor does it mean a recession WILL happen, though while the old joke about economists correctly predicting seven of the last three recessions is worth keeping in mind, this is usually a pretty good indicator that there are major concerns with global growth, and the Fed policy is likely too restrictive. 

First, that's not the ONLY spread people track as an economic indicator, and the spread between 3 month Treasuries and 10yrs has been negative since late spring. That's not a good sign. 

Second, "this time it's different" of course, but there ARE things different this time around - what arguably drove the curve into inversion wasn't slow growth in the US, but a GDP contraction in Germany with the next quarter believed likely to be negative as well, and with the traditional definition of a recession being two quarters of negative GDP growth, Germany, one of the manufacturing powerhouses of the world, is probably now entering a recession, thanks to tepid EU zone economic growth. We're doing a bit better here (though I'm watching retail sales reports closely, and Macy's was exceptionally weak today). However, IMO the real issue is the impact of Trump's trade war, and there aren't many economists alive who can remember a time when barriers to free trade weren't falling globally, so I think people are having a hard time knowing what to make of Trump's escalation of trade barriers in the last year. Also, given he timed the surprise announcement of the final round of 10% tariffs on essentially all remaining untariffed Chinese goods to the evening after the Federal Reserve cut rates by less than he wanted them to, it's fairly plausible to conclude he's trying to spook markets enough to force the Fed to cut further. Not sure if there's a polite way to say this, but this would be stupid. 

So, don't jump to any conclusions, since this is an imperfect indicator and trade concerns are a bigger factor than domestic weakness (though those of course will trickle through over time - Trump tacitly admitted as much when he delayed categories yesterday to not impact the Christmas retail season). But, yeah, I'd say the odds of a recession before the end of 2020 are higher than they were a year ago, and the bond market is flashing a warning signal about investor risk appetites here.


----------



## Smoked Porter

Randy said:


> Which is one letter away from "anal isis". Coincidence?


There's a stretch to be made here linking CNN's implication that Trump's repressed homosexuality may be starting to leak out, and the sexual repression in fanatical religious groups like ISIS, but I am way too unambitious for that.


----------



## Drew

Also concerning - at the moment, the 30 year Treasury is yielding about 2.03%. This is an all-time low. On 7/31 that was 2.54%, and the 10yr was at 2.04%. At the start of the year, the 10yr was 2.68%, more than 1% higher than it is today, and the 30 year was 3.01%. 

That's a lot of numbers all at once, but yields on _extremely_ long-dated Treasury bonds, carrying a LOT of interest rate risk (meaning investors will get crushed if rates rise even modestly) have come screaming in, over the past two weeks, to unprecedented lows. That's a trade that only makes sense if you think rates are going lower still, and that's a scenario that is most likely consistent with the stock market falling off a cliff. 

Also worth thinking about - the 1M Treasury yield is currently 1.99%, while the 3 month is 1.96%. We're within a couple basis points of the 30 year inverting vs the very front of the curve. I only have records as far back as 2001 for the 1M, but the only time that'd ever happened in the past was briefly during the 2nd quarter of 2007, and we all know what happened in the 4th quarter of that year and the first of the following.


----------



## Ralyks

So, this ISN'T the greatest economy in the history of our country?!

WHAT ELSE HAS HE BEEN LYING AB    ahem.... Keeping it together now...


----------



## Drew

I mean, unemployment is low, inflation is low, workforce participation is up, the stock market has hit a whole bunch of record highs under Trump, we had a couple quarters of 3%+ GDP growth, if you want to cherry pick your data points you can definitely put together a really swell-sounding montage real on the Great American Economy. 

It's just, there's a LOT more going on than the highlight reel that is Trump's twitter account admits, and some of it is pretty dire.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Which is one letter away from "anal isis". Coincidence?


Trump is the world's second therapist and analyst.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> I mean, unemployment is low, inflation is low, workforce participation is up, the stock market has hit a whole bunch of record highs under Trump, we had a couple quarters of 3%+ GDP growth, if you want to cherry pick your data points you can definitely put together a really swell-sounding montage real on the Great American Economy.
> 
> It's just, there's a LOT more going on than the highlight reel that is Trump's twitter account admits, and some of it is pretty dire.



I think I was just having a weird moment there when I was posting all of that. I'm just at some odd point where all of this insane stuff that would have had almost any previous president have a mob come upon them is happening, but in the back of my head I keep going "... And somehow he STILL will get reelected."


----------



## Ralyks

Oh, the Dow dropped 800 points today.


----------



## Randy

I'm sure DJT and Co. were hoping they could hold out another year. The timing of this makes it very inconvenient to blame on the Dems. Shame.


----------



## Aso

Randy said:


> I'm sure DJT and Co. were hoping they could hold out another year. The timing of this makes it very inconvenient to blame on the Dems. Shame.


Yes, but he has already found a new fall guy. It's all Powelll at the Federal Reserves fault. Most folks are as educated in how the economy works as DJT that most the country will believe it.


And now reports that Epstein had broken bones in his neck. I am sure they left him a chair and hook on the ceiling so he could properly asphyxiate himself. I don't see how this whole event doesn't devolve into conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Randy

Aso said:


> Yes, but he has already found a new fall guy. It's all Powelll at the Federal Reserves fault. Most folks are as educated in how the economy works as DJT that most the country will believe it.



I'm going to preface this by saying I give ZERO value to the concept of winning over or changing the mind of Trumpies. I argue about this shit with my friends constantly that waste their time arguing with their family on Facebook or reading /The_Donald or /pol and they're always like "Yeah but...", ignoring the fact that the audience have already deified and absolved Trump of any wrongdoing or culpability, forever and always. So I give zero fucks about appealing to them, I'm more concerned with reality.

As far as the reality of things is concerned, Powell was Trump's pick. He dumped on Yellen and made clear he needed HIS guy there, so it's not like he inherited him or begrudgingly accepted him. This is like typical Trump where he picks the person and then he assaults their character or the abilities so that he can play it both ways; when things are good "there's my boy!", when things are bad "that bum I never liked him in the first place". 

He's further responsible for all of this because the first three or four times he complained about the guy and signaled wanting a change (or at least acting that way for his audience), he picked hilariously unqualified fucks like Stephen Moore. If you don't get the guy for the fact he picked a loser in the first place, you can blame him for the fact he couldn't come up with a competent replacement either.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> As far as the reality of things is concerned, Powell was Trump's pick. He dumped on Yellen and made clear he needed HIS guy there, so it's not like he inherited him or begrudgingly accepted him. This is like typical Trump where he picks the person and then he assaults their character or the abilities so that he can play it both ways; when things are good "there's my boy!", when things are bad "that bum I never liked him in the first place".
> 
> He's further responsible for all of this because the first three or four times he complained about the guy and signaled wanting a change (or at least acting that way for his audience), he picked hilariously unqualified fucks like Stephen Moore. If you don't get the guy for the fact he picked a loser in the first place, you can blame him for the fact he couldn't come up with a competent replacement either.


Bingo. Yellen was (IMO) a remarkably competent, impressive Chairwoman of the Federal Reserve. Powell was cut from the same policy cloth as she was, has maybe lacked some of her press conference finesse, but in return the only real "advantages" he offers relative to Yellen is he's a man, and looks better in a suit. 

I'll only nit-pick that Moore wasn't intended to replace _Powell_, but was supposed to take an empty seat on the Federal Reserve Board. Also, while Moore would have been a historically bad pick had it not been followed up with Herman Cain, his picks before that (including Powell, and Nellie Liang) had generally been pretty good - respected, moderate, qualified, credentialed economists. Even Marvin Goodfriend wasn't _completely _horrible, if hardly an encouraging pick. His two nominations to replace Cain and Moore after both withdrew nominations, Waller isn't bad, though Shelton is a clear partisan "yes-woman" pick who I'd be surprised if she gets seated.

The first year of his term, though, he kept talking about wanting lower rates, yet kept appointing - which, again, is the only way for him to directly influence Fed policy - sensible moderates unlikely to cut rates without justification. It's like he didn't realize he couldn't just tell them to cut rates and they would, which being perfectly honest here is actually possible.


----------



## Drew

Aso said:


> And now reports that Epstein had broken bones in his neck. I am sure they left him a chair and hook on the ceiling so he could properly asphyxiate himself. I don't see how this whole event doesn't devolve into conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories.


The odds of the Clintons or Trump killing him are essentially zero - certainly not the Clinton's style despite all the conspiracy theories, and despite Trump's mob ties from his Atlantic City days I can't even believe he'd be stupid enough to take out a hit on someone in a federal prison while President. 

The odds of _someone_ killing Epstein? These injuries can happen with hanging, but are unusual, and he cultivated a network of very powerful friends, some of whom absolutely are going to want him silenced. I wouldn't rule it out. 

I've also heard reports, so far unsubstantiated, that AG Barr met secretly with Epstein before his death. Anyone?


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> I've also heard reports, so far unsubstantiated, that AG Barr met secretly with Epstein before his death. Anyone?



At this point, nothing shocks me.


----------



## Adieu

Foreign powers?

"PImping underage azz to the powerful" is a complex and risky but potentially INSANELY REWARDING persona to play for a spy

But the masters running the circus would be forced to end him asap to avoid burning decades of hard earned leverage for sure, and possibly the very people they had leverage on, should said entrapment genius ever be put in a place from where talking to authorities would be a tempting play


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> At this point, nothing shocks me.


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-barr-visit/

Snopes says no, and how he'd get in and out with his security detail is a legitimate point. Though the use of the absolute "never" always worries me.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'll only nit-pick that Moore wasn't intended to replace _Powell_, but was supposed to take an empty seat on the Federal Reserve Board. Also, while Moore would have been a historically bad pick had it not been followed up with Herman Cain, his picks before that (including Powell, and Nellie Liang) had generally been pretty good - respected, moderate, qualified, credentialed economists. Even Marvin Goodfriend wasn't _completely _horrible, if hardly an encouraging pick. His two nominations to replace Cain and Moore after both withdrew nominations, Waller isn't bad, though Shelton is a clear partisan "yes-woman" pick who I'd be surprised if she gets seated.



Considering he seems two brain cells rich of playing with his own shit, I'd imagine the wide variety of picks (including some reasonable ones) are an indication the recommendations are coming from a variety of people as opposed to coming from Trump himself (sans Moore and Cain which probably WERE his).


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Considering he seems two brain cells rich of playing with his own shit, I'd imagine the wide variety of picks (including some reasonable ones) are an indication the recommendations are coming from a variety of people as opposed to coming from Trump himself (sans Moore and Cain which probably WERE his).


I agree completely. Mnuchin is selfish, self-interested, power-hungry, and greedy, but he's not a total fucking idiot and he definitely wants to see competent decision-makers in the Federal Reserve. Powell and Liang were Trump's best two picks, by far, and if I had to lay them at anyone's feet he'd be the one. 

Moore and Cain, however, (and Shelton most recently) are staunch Trump political supporters and highly public advocates, all three having ties to the Trump campaign directly or through PACs, and Moore and Shelton having written books and articles praising Trump's economic policies. They're stooges. They're the last people we should have on the Fed in a Trump presidency if we want to maintain central bank independence, and Moore and Cain were going to be a struggle to get confirmed even before the stories about their chauvanism and in Cain's case sexual harrassment allegations started to get legs. With Shelton, he seems to be daring critics to criticize her record so he can flip the scrip and accuse them of sexism, which seems like a pretty desperate strategy if he wants to actually get her seated. You have to wonder if his longer play here is to just leave the Fed understaffed as long as possible to make it less effective, though I have a hard time seeing how that actually benefits him.


----------



## Drew

Also, can we just stop and acknowledge for a moment that Yellen was just damned _good_ as Chairwoman of the Fed? Cool as a cucumber, avoided any major policy faux passes during some really critical junctures as we were coming out of QE (the so called "taper tantrum" wasn't pretty but even then I have a hard time faulting her for that, she eased the market into that about as carefully as anyone could have) and taking the first steps towards rate normalization, and if there was any justice in this world or our Commander in Chief wasn't a chauvinistic, short-sighted, reality TV obsessed idiot, she would be serving a second term right now. I was seriously impressed with the job she did heading up the Fed.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Also, can we just stop and acknowledge for a moment that Yellen was just damned _good_ as Chairwoman of the Fed? Cool as a cucumber, avoided any major policy faux passes during some really critical junctures as we were coming out of QE (the so called "taper tantrum" wasn't pretty but even then I have a hard time faulting her for that, she eased the market into that about as carefully as anyone could have) and taking the first steps towards rate normalization, and if there was any justice in this world or our Commander in Chief wasn't a chauvinistic, short-sighted, reality TV obsessed idiot, she would be serving a second term right now. I was seriously impressed with the job she did heading up the Fed.



I thought Yellen was absolutely brilliant, and she certainly should be serving a second term right now. For what has been going on the past couple of years in the market (i.e. since Trump came into office), she was the exact right person to lead the Fed.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> chauvinistic



Ding ding ding, I'd say that's it right there. Running against Hillary, he had this 'stop the Feminazis' schtick that absolutely hated powerful, competent women.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us-m.cnn.com/2019/08/15/politics/trump-buy-greenland-wall-street-journal/index.html?r=https://us.cnn.com/

“*Trump has asked aides if it's possible to buy Greenland, sources say”
*
“Trump's aides were divided on the issue, with some praising it as solid economic strategy and others dismissing it as a passing fancy.“

Trump is treating Greenland like a girl he spotted in the crowd and wants one of his aides to offer her $15k and an NDA for the night.


----------



## Aso

Since the President wants to bring back mental institutions, Can the first one be named after him? 

The "Donald J. Trump Sanitarium" has a ring to it that both supporters and detractors could get behind. 


Just want to say thank you to Randy and Drew along with the other's in this thread that have detailed and well thought out responses. We need more intelligent civil discourse in this world.


----------



## Drew

Thanks man. Trump loving trolls can go fuck right off, but I'll happily have a civil discussion with actual ideological conservatives, and since I follow this stuff pretty closely I'm happy to share observations when I can. 

The Greenland story reads like something right out of The Onion, as well as _weirdly_ like ONAN Experialism right out of Johnny Gentile, Famous Crooner's playbook in Infinite Jest. If Trump starts selling the naming rights to federal monuments to try to pay down the national debt, well, maybe he actually DOES read.


----------



## spudmunkey

As much as the Trump Greenland thing thing makes him sound like a crazy person...

Make no mistake, it's still looney tunes to think about it seriously, but it's an interesting thing to think about, purely from the direction of strategery.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/16/trump-greenland-purchase-harry-truman-denmark/

But as is so often the case, the last line is the best:
“And if this whole global-warming thing turns out to be worse than expected, at least we’ll all have a place to live.”


----------



## Ralyks

Too bad Greenland told him to kick rocks.


----------



## Demiurge

Drew said:


> The Greenland story reads like something right out of The Onion, as well as _weirdly_ like ONAN Experialism right out of Johnny Gentile, Famous Crooner's playbook in Infinite Jest. If Trump starts selling the naming rights to federal monuments to try to pay down the national debt, well, maybe he actually DOES read.



If he wins reelection, 2020 will be the Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment indeed.


----------



## iamaom

spudmunkey said:


> “And if this whole global-warming thing turns out to be worse than expected, at least we’ll all have a place to live.”


I love how we skip right over "global warming is happening" and instead go straight from "global warming is a lie" to "how can I profit off it?" in a single sentence.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Aonh2JmT9Rv2XQ1BerdFDxw

More short term solutions with potentially disaterous long term ramifications.


----------



## BlackSG91

With all the hate Trump is spreading over the internet he should be re-named Atgolf Twittler.


;>)/


----------



## ImNotAhab

The President of the US cancelled a trip to Denmark because they would not sell him Greenland...

Holy Shitsnacks. The more I say it the more I doubt my grasp my reality...


----------



## Adieu

Stranger than fiction


----------



## BlackSG91

He probably had a brilliant idea of building golf courses on Greenland...the land of many greens.


;>)/


----------



## Drew

BlackSG91 said:


> He probably had a brilliant idea of building golf courses on Greenland...the land of many greens.
> 
> 
> ;>)/


You kidding me? He just wants to look at a map of America, see a giant new land mass, and say, "I did that." 

In other news, the (non-partisan) CBO released updated projections of the deficit today, and now think our national debt should reach 100% of GDP, a traditional "danger threshold" amongst economists, within the next 10 years, thanks to Trump's tax cuts and the impact on growth of the latest round of tariffs. Thanks, Obama.


----------



## Ralyks

Forget Russia, this shit I why I want him out of office.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Forget Russia, this shit I why I want him out of office.


Why do you think Russia wanted him _in_ office?


----------



## BlackSG91

Of course now Trump wants Russia back in the G7 or G8 if they're accepted back. He is making it plainly clear out in the open that he is looking out for Russia's best interests. Trump is clearly delusional and is living in a world that he created out of his mind with FOX news feeding his fantasies.


----------



## possumkiller

BlackSG91 said:


> Of course now Trump wants Russia back in the G7 or G8 if they're accepted back. He is making it plainly clear out in the open that he is looking out for Russia's best interests. Trump is clearly delusional and is living in a world that he created out of his mind with FOX news feeding his fantasies.


Well hopefully Putin can at least make it to G3...


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Why do you think Russia wanted him _in_ office?



Touche...


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Why do you think Russia wanted him _in_ office?





BlackSG91 said:


> Of course now Trump wants Russia back in the G7 or G8 if they're accepted back. He is making it plainly clear out in the open that he is looking out for Russia's best interests. Trump is clearly delusional and is living in a world that he created out of his mind with FOX news feeding his fantasies.



I still stand by my position 300 some-odd pages ago that Russia's main goal has always been sowing discord and instability in American politics, but specifically getting Trump the job was their stretch goal and he/we/they delivered.


----------



## Thaeon

Country's teetering on recession. I think I'll cut taxes more and spend more money buying something extravagant.


----------



## Ralyks

Guess he walked back the Paycut tax. Then internally threw a fit when he was told Greenland wasn't for sale. Sigh.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Guess he walked back the Paycut tax. Then internally threw a fit when he was told Greenland wasn't for sale. Sigh.



Can anyone really say they're surprised? I know I can't.


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> Country's teetering on recession. I think I'll cut taxes more and spend more money buying something extravagant.



I think he just hates the idea of paying rent for our military base there. "Paying rent is something poor people do." - Donnie, probably.


----------



## zappatton2

At the end of the day, maybe Greenland can do everyone a favour and buy the States?


----------



## Adieu

Thaeon said:


> Country's teetering on recession. I think I'll cut taxes more and spend more money buying something extravagant.



Actually, that IS the accepted 20th century anti-reception/depression measure

I think he just missed the part about spending that money with domestic not foreign entities

The hilarious part is his pet wall would actually be an excellent anti-recession measure... not because it's a wall, but just because it is huge long labor-intensive and expensive

An aqueduct or interstate highway straggling the border would be just as effective in that sense (and actually just as effective at detering border hoppers, come to think of it)... commercially more useful, though


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AswB-yAkfSRu98-2bu4F12Q

"The U.S. federal deficit will expand by about $800 billion more than previously expected over the next decade, as recent increases in spending are on track to push the nation into levels of debt unseen since the end of World War II, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday"

Well then...


----------



## Randy

Useful for pointing out Trump and the GOP's hypocrisy, but also hypocritical crowing by the left that said the Rs deficit hawkishness was stupid for the previous 8 years.

The thing I've never understood about deficit projections is that they assume everything stays exactly as it is for the next 10 years, yet it never does.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Guess he walked back the Paycut tax. Then internally threw a fit when he was told Greenland wasn't for sale. Sigh.


I hate to say it, but this is actually pretty good politics - he never really went all in on pushing for a payroll tax, which even his own party might have resisted him on a bit but certainly would have been DOA in the House, which in turn saves him the trouble of having to publicly argue why "the greatest economy ever" needs fiscal stimulus.

But, at the same time, now if the economy DOES tip into recession, he can say "I told you so" and that only he knows enough to run the American economy. No matter that his trade war is why we're flirting with recession.



Randy said:


> Useful for pointing out Trump and the GOP's hypocrisy, but also hypocritical crowing by the left that said the Rs deficit hawkishness was stupid for the previous 8 years.
> 
> The thing I've never understood about deficit projections is that they assume everything stays exactly as it is for the next 10 years, yet it never does.


Deficits are something you only care about when you're in the opposition. That said, as I recall it wasn't that deficit hawkishness was "stupid" so much as it was "a politically expedient argument against fiscal stimulus directed at things that aren't Republican priorities," and by the end of that window it was less necessary, but in the early days after the Great Recession that was exactly the sort of market where you DO apply fiscal stimulus, and then be more prudent at times like these so you can be sure you can afford it the next time the market crashes. If we're already running trillion dollar deficits at around 5% of GDP to finance tax cuts (something which have a fairly low return on investment in the economy), significant fiscal stimulus gets awfully tough.

To your second question... We all _know_ things will change in the next 10 years, but we don't know _how_. So, the assumption that nothing changes saves you from making even more questionable assumptions about how the economy and policy will evolve, and at least gives you a useful baseline.


----------



## Ralyks

To be clear, I stated earlier that the payroll tax was a bad idea.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> To be clear, I stated earlier that the payroll tax was a bad idea.


Oh, I didn't think you were supporting it, nor do I think it's warranted right now, either. I just think Trump's buying himself some insurance here by floating a lot of stimulus measures at what might be the top of a bull market, measures he knows will never pass, so that if he continues to escalate the trade war and the economy DOES tank, he can blame Congress for inaction while continuing to blame the Fed for not giving him the rate cuts he wants (whcih now that he's demanding a "100bps cut over time" he's not even _pretending_ to respect Fed independence).


----------



## Ralyks

Recession, Greenland, and now he thinks he's God. What a hell of a day.


----------



## spudmunkey

Well, knock me over with a feather. Sarah Sanders is now (debuting next month) a "contributor" for Fox News.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Recession, Greenland, and now he thinks he's God. What a hell of a day.


Please, that was _yesterday_. Today he's bitching about Denmark not paying enough into NATO, then bitching about all NATO nations not paying enough into NATO, then bitching about negative interest rates in Europe and why it's so unfair that ours are higher, and then waiving all college debt for permanently disabled veterans. Which, that last one, I can actually get behind, oddly enough.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Please, that was _yesterday_. Today he's bitching about Denmark not paying enough into NATO, then bitching about all NATO nations not paying enough into NATO, then bitching about negative interest rates in Europe and why it's so unfair that ours are higher, and then waiving all college debt for permanently disabled veterans. Which, that last one, I can actually get behind, oddly enough.



Yeah, that last one is cool. This is the first I'm hearing about the rest off that. Holy shitsnacks.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Yeah, that last one is cool. This is the first I'm hearing about the rest off that. Holy shitsnacks.


It's kind of awesome because you can totally see the rabbithole he goes down. 

1) Let's bash Denmark because of Greenland
2) Let's point to their low NATO contributions. Sad! 
3) Let's tweet at NATO calling out ALL countries' NATO contributions. Sad! 

I also forgot his complaining the auto industry seems to be lining up behind the CA standards anyway, for simplicity and not to get cut out of a market that, if CA was its own nation, would be the 5th largest economy in the world, as "wanting to build a more expensive car, that is far less safe and doesn't work as well, because execs don't want to fight California regulators." That's a quote. He's been going on about safety due to the more stringent emissions regulations for a little while now without actually saying WHY he thinks they're less safe, of course.


----------



## Sumsar

spudmunkey said:


> I think he just hates the idea of paying rent for our military base there. "Paying rent is something poor people do." - Donnie, probably.



I actually don't think that you guys pay rent to either us here in Denmark or to Greenland for having those bases. You DO get to pay for all the radars and air planes. So you help us maintain superiority over greenland by proxy, which is also in your interest and it saves us a looot of military spending.
One of the issues though is that there is a lot of old abandoned US bases from the cold war that are environmental disasters, and we can't get you to clean up the waste.

Either way the Danish news have gone totally bananas over this Trump thing. Honestly most danish people don't care. News talk about diplomatic crises etc, but I think we all take that Trump dude with a decent amount of salt.


----------



## Ralyks

Sumsar said:


> News talk about diplomatic crises etc, but I think we all take that Trump dude with a decent amount of salt.



I mean, a lot of us do too, but he happens to have the codes to the nukes.


----------



## possumkiller

People took that Hitler guy with a grain of salt until 1939...


----------



## Sumsar

Ralyks said:


> I mean, a lot of us do too, but he happens to have the codes to the nukes.



Well a lot of people these days have codes to the nukes. But nukes are as worthless as they have always been, in that you can't use them.
I also guess that your president doesn't have an actual button in his office that fires all the nukes and that is has to go through several chains of military personal before firering, right?

And even though Trump has the mental capabilities of a 5 year old, he doesn't have the 'let's go kill a lot of people in other countries, it'll be fun' attitude that George Bush had and to some extent Obama 'Let's do it with drones, it'll be like playing a video game, it'll be fun'. He might fuck up many things but at least he hasn't started some useless war that ends in genocide, one way or the other... at least as far as I know?


----------



## Adieu

Sumsar said:


> Well a lot of people these days have codes to the nukes. But nukes are as worthless as they have always been, in that you can't use them.
> I also guess that your president doesn't have an actual button in his office that fires all the nukes and that is has to go through several chains of military personal before firering, right?
> 
> And even though Trump has the mental capabilities of a 5 year old, he doesn't have the 'let's go kill a lot of people in other countries, it'll be fun' attitude that George Bush had and to some extent Obama 'Let's do it with drones, it'll be like playing a video game, it'll be fun'. He might fuck up many things but at least he hasn't started some useless war that ends in genocide, one way or the other... at least as far as I know?



Uno problemo: 

Does he actually REALIZE he can't just nuke people??


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Sumsar said:


> he doesn't have the 'let's go kill a lot of people in other countries, it'll be fun' attitude that George Bush had and to some extent Obama 'Let's do it with drones, it'll be like playing a video game, it'll be fun'.



True, he doesn't have the same attitude towards drone strikes as Obama. He uses them more often than Obama did...

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-has-expanded-obamas-drone-war-to-shadow-war-zones-2018-11

...and he revoked Obama's policy requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AcrQSI7OXQkaL56Zf4D1rxg

China aint's taking any shit.


----------



## Drew

Sumsar said:


> News talk about diplomatic crises etc, but I think we all take that Trump dude with a decent amount of salt.


Lots of Americans took Trump with a grain of salt when he was talking about his Muslim Ban or building a wall at the Mexican border. Look where that got us. 



Sumsar said:


> Well a lot of people these days have codes to the nukes. But nukes are as worthless as they have always been, in that you can't use them.
> I also guess that your president doesn't have an actual button in his office that fires all the nukes and that is has to go through several chains of military personal before firering, right?


The US is one of the very few nuclear powers in the world - the _only_ one, I believe - that hasn't ruled out first use in a nuclear conflict. So, yeah, he has the authority to launch them. I would like to think in that situation that the general tasked with conveying his order would refuse to follow it if he believed it was unjust or there were other non-nuclear options on the table, but we've seen how well Trump takes to being told no, so more likely than not he'd just start firing generals and giving out battlefield promotions until he found someone willing to do it. The entirity of US nuclear warfare policy is conditioned on the fact that we have a rational actor in the White House, and I think career diplomats and our allies are quickly learning how dangerous an assumption that can be. 

tl;dr - I don't think a nuclear strike is _likely_. But, the only reason I would bet my life on that is my life likely wouldn't be worth much if Trump triggered a nuclear Armageddon with strike after counterstrike after counterstrike.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Lots of Americans took Trump with a grain of salt when he was talking about his Muslim Ban or building a wall at the Mexican border. Look where that got us.



Additionally, his cabinet and appointees, who are supposed to be representations of his administration, are constantly undermined and replaced...so even our ambassadors, secretaries and other diplomats can't say anything with weight behind it, because the president could pull the rug out from under anything/anyone, at any time.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Additionally, his cabinet and appointees, who are supposed to be representations of his administration, are constantly undermined and replaced...so even our ambassadors, secretaries and other diplomats can't say anything with weight behind it, because the president could pull the rug out from under anything/anyone, at any time.


I suppose lots of people also took him at face value when he said he would hire "only the best people," rather than people he now describes as "nut jobs," "fraudsters," "mentally retarded," "sloppy," and "clueless." 

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...times-trump-insulted-people-he-appointed.html


----------



## Ralyks

Sounds like G-7 is off to a lovely start...

https://apple.news/Aefzzk2RbSGeG1iAk3oL-CQ


----------



## Drew

All this talk about whether or not Trump could go ahead and order a nuclear strike on a whim should add a whole new level of nuance to these stories that Trump asked advisers why we can't just nuke hurricanes to stop them from making landfall in the US. 

https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html


----------



## Ralyks

I saw that and WHAT SANE PERSON SAYS THAT?! I've gotten stoned thousands of times and have NEVER give down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> All this talk about whether or not Trump could go ahead and order a nuclear strike on a whim should add a whole new level of nuance to these stories that Trump asked advisers why we can't just nuke hurricanes to stop them from making landfall in the US.
> 
> https://www.axios.com/trump-nuclear-bombs-hurricanes-97231f38-2394-4120-a3fa-8c9cf0e3f51c.html



No 4D chess but the guy isn't afraid to be a convenient heel as long as he gets to control the news cycle, especially a story like this that is so easy to walk back.


----------



## Xaios

This is likely just a big misunderstanding.

He probably just meant the _Carolina_ Hurricanes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Or the Kiel Baltic Hurricanes of Kiel, Germany.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> No 4D chess but the guy isn't afraid to be a convenient heel as long as he gets to control the news cycle, especially a story like this that is so easy to walk back.


Only thing that has me reluctant to agree here is that this evidently is a fairly old story, from hurricane season last year, and it seems unlikely Trump ordered someone to release it while out of the country, and so soon after Greenland. It seems way more plausible that some newsroom had gotten ahold of this from a source, thought it was too crazy to run, and then the Greenland story broke and they figured "why not??"


----------



## Vyn

Can't believe I'm saying this, however Trump is probably going to win 2020. Just can't see the Dems both organised behind a candidate and then having an effective message that cuts through enough swing voters to get there. @Drew , @Randy , please tell me I'm wrong on this one  Another 4 years of a Trump administration is a bloody nightmare.


----------



## spudmunkey

If the farmers get any worse off, one may not need to even think about traditionally swing voters.


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> Can't believe I'm saying this, however Trump is probably going to win 2020. Just can't see the Dems both organised behind a candidate and then having an effective message that cuts through enough swing voters to get there. @Drew , @Randy , please tell me I'm wrong on this one  Another 4 years of a Trump administration is a bloody nightmare.



Early enough in the process that there's time for solidarity. I think I heard this morning they already have the debates down to 10 candidates, which means you'll get to see _everybody_ on one night and will likely have the effect of shaving off most of the people that didn't make it.

Polls seem to indicate progressives will hold their nose and vote for Biden and moderates will hold their nose and vote for Warren/Sanders, which is already more promising than 2016. Obama/Biden was a great ticket for covering all the important demographics and districts, and I'm sure you can scratch that same itch with combos like Biden/Warren, Warren/Booker, Harris/Castro or Sanders/Harris, etc.

HOWEVER, I'm a "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" kinda guy, so I'm already prepared for a Trump re-election but I think his path to a full four years is very narrow, even moreso if the Senate swings Dem in 2020 or 2022.


----------



## Ralyks

I get so torn believing Trump is going to win, then immediately seeing all these reports showing that if the election happened today, Trump would lose to all 5 main candidates, and the main 3 (Biden, Warren, and Sanders) by wide margins.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> I get so torn believing Trump is going to win, then immediately seeing all these reports showing that if the election happened today, Trump would lose to all 5 main candidates, and the main 3 (Biden, Warren, and Sanders) by wide margins.


I think Trump will win. He probably should win. America is still all divided and fighting itself. If Trump can finally become the epic disaster that unites the country into action to turn shit around, I think things could turn out well.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> I think Trump will win. He probably should win. America is still all divided and fighting itself. If Trump can finally become the epic disaster that unites the country into action to turn shit around, I think things could turn out well.



We're not already there yet?


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> We're not already there yet?


Nah. He still has a lot of supporters. He still has to fuck things up enough for everyone to get fed up enough to work together to fix it. I think some time in the middle of his third term we will see some revolution.


----------



## zappatton2

possumkiller said:


> Nah. He still has a lot of supporters. He still has to fuck things up enough for everyone to get fed up enough to work together to fix it. I think some time in the middle of his third term we will see some revolution.


I hope you're right, but it seems like if he fucks things up enough that it significantly impacts his base, he can just rile them up, point them at a scapegoat and let them loose. I could certainly be wrong, that would be my preference, as the alternative would present limitless worst-case scenarios.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Can't believe I'm saying this, however Trump is probably going to win 2020. Just can't see the Dems both organised behind a candidate and then having an effective message that cuts through enough swing voters to get there. @Drew , @Randy , please tell me I'm wrong on this one  Another 4 years of a Trump administration is a bloody nightmare.


In addition to Randy's points, Trump is also making NO attempt to reach out to swing voters, and is instead doubling down on his base whenevr pushed. That's not a winning strategy when there are fewer Republicans than Democrats in this country and Trump won 2016 on independents. Beyond that, he sort of tore into Fox news today in a tweetstorm because they had the gall to invite a Democrat onto the network and then didn't burn them at the stake, which if that continues could start to cause him harm with his _base_. 

It's early, a lot could still change... but at the moment, my sense is Trump is a modest underdog for 2020.


----------



## Demiurge

I dunno- I feel like Trump is going to win again. Whatever condition in the US is that let him get elected hasn't changed. In fact, that element has probably strengthened. The Venn diagram of people who thought that it was a good idea for him to be president and people who could convince themselves that he's still doing a great idea is probably very close to a circle. I mean, I know that Scaramucci guy made headlines turning on him recently, but, really, anybody now saying, "Guys, you know what- I think things are a bit fucked up now" can't be taken seriously.


----------



## spudmunkey

My only hope is anecdotal, but I haven't talked to a single person who didn't vote for Trump but *would* next time, which is in stark contrast to the number of people I've talked who who *did* vote for him the first time, but wouldn't again.


----------



## Ralyks

I've honestly noticed a lot of my friends who voted for Trump and have been very outspoken for him in the past have been pretty quiet lately. One of them even COMPLIMENTED AOC recently, which is shocking because I'm not even sold on her. And I've gotten to the point where I've had no problem asking "Seriously? TRUMP was the best you can do?"
And as a reminder, I didn't like Hilary either, so that was a fault to the Dems for me. And I knew I didn't like Trump the moment I was a kid and saw him make a cameo in Home Alone 2. Seriously.


----------



## Ralyks

So the hurricane mostly passed Puerto Rico, is gaining strength, and going right to Florida. Y'know, the state where the President has a private club where he spends a ton of time. And he just moved money from FEMA to the border.

If that isn't divine intervention, I don't know what to say.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> So the hurricane mostly passed Puerto Rico, is gaining strength, and going right to Florida. Y'know, the state where the President has a private club where he spends a ton of time. And he just moved money from FEMA to the border.
> 
> If that isn't divine intervention, I don't know what to say.



Well, cue him asking about if it's possible to nuke hurricanes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Not so close to his Doral property... the one he said would be perfect for the next G7.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> In addition to Randy's points, Trump is also making NO attempt to reach out to swing voters, and is instead doubling down on his base whenevr pushed. That's not a winning strategy when there are fewer Republicans than Democrats in this country and Trump won 2016 on independents. Beyond that, he sort of tore into Fox news today in a tweetstorm because they had the gall to invite a Democrat onto the network and then didn't burn them at the stake, which if that continues could start to cause him harm with his _base_.
> 
> It's early, a lot could still change... but at the moment, my sense is Trump is a modest underdog for 2020.





Ralyks said:


> I've honestly noticed a lot of my friends who voted for Trump and have been very outspoken for him in the past have been pretty quiet lately. One of them even COMPLIMENTED AOC recently, which is shocking because I'm not even sold on her. And I've gotten to the point where I've had no problem asking "Seriously? TRUMP was the best you can do?"
> And as a reminder, I didn't like Hilary either, so that was a fault to the Dems for me. And I knew I didn't like Trump the moment I was a kid and saw him make a cameo in Home Alone 2. Seriously.



I really hope both of you are right. However, his opposition underestimated his ability to rally people and get support when he got elected in the first place. He could certainly do it again if the Democratic Party can't get their shit together and get behind someone that can draw a crowd. Its pretty clear to me that this is more a popular ideals and charisma contest and not much rational thinking involved with the public at large.


----------



## vilk

Who said it, Trump or Biden?

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2019-trump-or-biden-quotes-quiz/

I was actually pretty surprised that Trump was able to articulate some of the sentences that turned out to be his. Will anyone be able to ace it first try?

I realize that this isn't exactly an examination of his policies (which are..........?)
... But when I hear Bernie Sanders speak into a microphone, he's so intelligent and well spoken, and straight, and serious. When it comes to speaking, I feel like no one even touches him. Being president _is _serious. 

I would be interested to see if someone could make a similar compilation of Bernie saying dumb stuff. I'm sure he must have, he's been a politician so freaking long... I'm not being rhetorical, I'd really like to see one because if he does get to run for president you know it's gonna come out.


----------



## iamaom

vilk said:


> I would be interested to see if someone could make a similar compilation of Bernie saying dumb stuff.


I've been looking for a video for over 20 minutes, but google ain't what it used to be (99% of all Bernie searches no matter what keywords I use are fucking op-ed articles from npr or slate). There was some weird impromptu interview in a subway back in 2016 and a guy asked Bernie about criticizing career politicians despite being one himself and he laughed and told the guy to go away, when pressed on it he kind of mumbled something the camera didn't pick up and took another question. Kinda shitty to see Bernie dodge a question like that but maybe he was having an off day.


----------



## vilk

iamaom said:


> I've been looking for a video for over 20 minutes, but google ain't what it used to be (99% of all Bernie searches no matter what keywords I use are fucking op-ed articles from npr or slate). There was some weird impromptu interview in a subway back in 2016 and a guy asked Bernie about criticizing career politicians despite being one himself and he laughed and told the guy to go away, when pressed on it he kind of mumbled something the camera didn't pick up and took another question. Kinda shitty to see Bernie dodge a question like that but maybe he was having an off day.


Huh, that's too bad, because there is a good answer to that question.

"Career politicians" has a different nuance than a politician with a long career. A career politician acts to serve himself--his career as a politician. The things he says and the promises he makes and his votes are cast so as to ensure his own reelection, to enrich himself/his family primarily; not to fulfill the needs and desires of his constituency. On the other hand, a politician may serve his constituents primarily and make decisions with their best interest in mind irrespective of how it might affect his own campaign funds and still have a long career.

And really, Bernie is such a perfect example of this, it's a real shame he didn't answer that way.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Not so close to his Doral property... the one he said would be perfect for the next G7.



Oddly enough, I'm now reading the hurricane will hit "the entirety of Florida"


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I realize that this isn't exactly an examination of his policies (which are..........?)
> ... But when I hear Bernie Sanders speak into a microphone, he's so intelligent and well spoken, and straight, and serious. When it comes to speaking, I feel like no one even touches him. Being president _is _serious.


Eh, I'd say Pete Buttigieg has been the guy to beat there, and that the Democratic pack this year has had some pretty strong moments from a few others - Beto O'Rourke's response to the last shooting in his home state was absolutely on point, precisely because it was so clearly from the heart.



Thaeon said:


> I really hope both of you are right. However, his opposition underestimated his ability to rally people and get support when he got elected in the first place. He could certainly do it again if the Democratic Party can't get their shit together and get behind someone that can draw a crowd. Its pretty clear to me that this is more a popular ideals and charisma contest and not much rational thinking involved with the public at large.



Yes, but that's a reason to be doubly careful not to OVER-estimate him now, and instead look at what the hard numbers says. And, they say he's lost the independent vote, and his policies are absolutely screwing much of middle America - the trade war is doing incalculable harm to farmers across this country, and his continuing to deny that they are being hurt is just pissing them off. Manufacturing, particularly auto manufacturing, in this country is suffering as well. I don't think too many Republican farmers are going to line up to vote for Elizabeth Warren, say, but I think a lot of them might just stay home in disgust. 

And, face if - if this is going to come down to a contest of popular ideals and charisma, Trump will lose. Both he and Clinton were extremely unpopular in 2016, and even a only moderately unpopular candidate should be at an edge to him in 2020. And he hasn't put forth much of a platform thus far and I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## vilk

I think Donald Trump will try to cheat. That's what he's done his whole life, it's his motto and creed. If we don't count preventing our intelligence agencies from prepping to prevent Russians from influencing the election as cheating already, I see him doing something else. 

I mean, in what aspect of his life has the man ever _not _tried to cheat.


----------



## Evil Chuck

I'm voting for that guy that wears the boot on his head. Fuck all of you.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Evil Chuck said:


> I'm voting for that guy that wears the boot on his head. Fuck all of you.



Uhhh this guy?


----------



## bostjan

The democratic primary will determine the outcome of the election. Plenty of these candidates would get dragged through the mud by the Republicans, who are willing to accept whatever Trump does as means to an end. Only a couple of the 20-ish still in the race will be able to effectively deflect. Recall that the average American voter has a 12 second attention span and basically zero critical thinking skills.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Science_Penguin said:


> Uhhh this guy?


None of you realize it yet, but this man is going to be the next POTUS.


----------



## Adieu

Evil Chuck said:


> None of you realize it yet, but this man is going to be the next POTUS.



Damn

I gotta get in on that... time to upgrade the ol' green card and go vote for pink horsey fisting geezer (whoever the hell that is)


----------



## Aso

Adieu said:


> Damn
> 
> I gotta get in on that... time to upgrade the ol' green card and go vote for pink horsey fisting geezer (whoever the hell that is)



That would be Vermin Supreme ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme) . Very interesting character and he is running in 2020


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I think Donald Trump will try to cheat. That's what he's done his whole life, it's his motto and creed. If we don't count preventing our intelligence agencies from prepping to prevent Russians from influencing the election as cheating already, I see him doing something else.
> 
> I mean, in what aspect of his life has the man ever _not _tried to cheat.


In what I'm sure is merely a wild coincidence, the Federal Election Committee now has too few members to be able to reach quorum, meaning it's powerless to enact any new regulations or actions to ensure the integrity of our elections. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/7555...uch-as-stopping-election-interference-on-hold


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> In what I'm sure is merely a wild coincidence, the Federal Election Committee now has too few members to be able to reach quorum, meaning it's powerless to enact any new regulations or actions to ensure the integrity of our elections.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/7555...uch-as-stopping-election-interference-on-hold



I think the whole thing was transparent in his rant about how much he likes "acting" positions. The guy built his brand specifically on knocking people off balance, whether it's his competition or somone on the other end of a negotiation or his own employees/partners. He thrives on uncertainty.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> I think the whole thing was transparent in his rant about how much he likes "acting" positions. The guy built his brand specifically on knocking people off balance, whether it's his competition or somone on the other end of a negotiation or his own employees/partners. He thrives on uncertainty.



Which he's demonstrated doesn't work given his numerous business failings and crumbling relationships. I honestly believe if he hadn't been given the position in life he previously had, no one would know who he is.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> Which he's demonstrated doesn't work given his numerous business failings and crumbling relationships. I honestly believe if he hadn't been given the position in life he previously had, no one would know who he is.



Right, right but with caveat. A business negotiation the way he does it is essentially like flipping a coin. Half the time they call your bullshit, half the time you win.

Also, the Mueller report has shown that Trump frequently takes on people who are willing to work as human shields for him. Over and over in the report, you read about Trump within inches of committing a crime and someone pulls him back from the edge or jumps infront of him. I'm sure in business, for how many failings he's had, he's had just as many accountants or assistants who knowingly or unknowingly committed a crime to save him (as is evidenced by Michael Cohen sitting in a jail cell).


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Right, right but with caveat. A business negotiation the way he does it is essentially like flipping a coin. Half the time they call your bullshit, half the time you win.


I'll only add that in business, those half the times you get called out, you can usually just walk away and move onto another deal, while if you fuck up a trade agreement with China, you can't just go find another China to make a deal with and hope you get luckier this time.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> I'll only add that in business, those half the times you get called out, you can usually just walk away and move onto another deal, while if you fuck up a trade agreement with China, you can't just go find another China to make a deal with and hope you get luckier this time.



Therein lies the very distinct difference between business and government. And ultimately, if a CEO had messed up as many times (and as publicly) as Trump, they wouldn't be there long.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Therein lies the very distinct difference between business and government. And ultimately, if a CEO had messed up as many times (and as publicly) as Trump, they wouldn't be there long.


Unfortunately, we only have board meetings every four years, and it's awfully hard to remove the American CEO in between meetings.


----------



## Drew

Trump was on CNBC a moment ago, where he had been asked in a press conference if he was worried the Chinese held so much US debt. He got the amount right, roughly one trillion dollars, but that was about it - the gist of his argument was that if they ever called it we would have no problem refinancing it because demand was so high. 

Treasury notes, as evidently everyone but the US President knows, are not callable by the issuer _or_ holder, but have a fixed maturity. The Chinese can't "call" Treasury debt. They can only sell it or hold it to maturity. I don't think it's likely they'll engage in mass fire-sales either since doing so would 1) cause them to lose money, and 2) they'd then have to put the proceeds into _something,_ and if it wasn't dollar-denominated then a likely side-effect would be weakening the dollar and on a relative if not direct basis strengthening the yuan, but that's besides the point - Trump, the President of the United States, literally doesn't understand how Treasury debt works. 

CNBC sort of awkwardly glossed over this by reinterpreting his comments into something that sort of worked, but _man_.


----------



## Aso

With the Trump administration taking money away from any and every program that they can to build the wall, what happens those programs run out of funding? If he is taking hundreds of millions away from FEMA at the start of hurricane season what happens if a big US city get's a direct hit by one. Will they go back to congress and be asking for more money? 

I think it's crazy that they can move around funds for whatever they want without some Congressional oversight.


----------



## Ralyks

Aso said:


> I think it's crazy that they can move around funds for whatever they want without some Congressional oversight.



Because "National Emergency". Congress is pretty pissed about it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's really illuminating how much of our system relies upon handshakes and winks between awful people to form a semblance of checks and balances.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's really illuminating how much of our system relies upon handshakes and winks between awful people to form a semblance of checks and balances.


I think something that's become very clear in the Trump era is how much of the system of checks and balances really depends on honest actors and a respect for the democratic institutions and traditions. This is an inflection point where we either will have to strengthen those checks and balances, or expect to see them break altogether, in coming years.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I think something that's become very clear in the Trump era is how much of the system of checks and balances really depends on honest actors and a respect for the democratic institutions and traditions. This is an inflection point where we either will have to strengthen those checks and balances, or expect to see them break altogether, in coming years.



I can't remember a time in my life where we had honest actors or genuine respect for our democratic institutions. 

It's all winks and nudges between ghouls.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't remember a time in my life where we had honest actors or genuine respect for our democratic institutions.
> 
> It's all winks and nudges between ghouls.


I mean, this is clearly a new low - in the past people at least tried to keep up appearances.  Even Nixon had the decency to quit when it became apparent the votes to impeach him were there, and FDR backed away from trying to pack the courts even though there was really nothing that could have stopped him had he just gone for it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I mean, this is clearly a new low - in the past people at least tried to keep up appearances.  Even Nixon had the decency to quit when it became apparent the votes to impeach him were there, and FDR backed away from trying to pack the courts even though there was really nothing that could have stopped him had he just gone for it.



I tried explaining something like this to my nephew. He's 11. He's literally never lived in this country where politics weren't an absolute shit show.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-pay-for-trumps-border-wall-idUSKCN1VP2VY

Cool.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-pay-for-trumps-border-wall-idUSKCN1VP2VY
> 
> Cool.


Imagine being this petty, that you were willing to divert money intended to provide for the education of the children of US troops stationed overseas, to build this stupid campaign promise boondoggle of a wall?


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...e-to-pay-for-trumps-border-wall-idUSKCN1VP2VY
> 
> Cool.



Huh...never before heard "US military schools and daycare" referred to as "Mexico", which is paying for the wall. /s


----------



## vilk

Why pick someone like this if we have other options? Plenty of other candidates who aren't in bed with fossil fuel money and lying to the public about it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/joe-biden-climate-fossil-fuel.html


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Why pick someone like this if we have other options? Plenty of other candidates who aren't in bed with fossil fuel money and lying to the public about it.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/us/politics/joe-biden-climate-fossil-fuel.html



He's a relic of the old system. The one I was talking about above. 

He genuinely has no idea what the fuss is. He's just running a campaign like he has for the last million years. 

As that suggests, his appeal is with the older crowd. Palatable for Trump hating centrist on both sides.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Imagine being this petty, that you were willing to divert money intended to provide for the education of the children of US troops stationed overseas, to build this stupid campaign promise boondoggle of a wall?



America's infatuation with its overseas troops is pretty surprising. Not like they're physically capable of defending America when they're, well, *overseas* and nowhere near America.

On a side note, last time they fought anyone physically capable of reaching US soil was....ACTUALLY VS. THE MEXICANS. Along that very same border.

...Ironically enough.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> America's infatuation with its overseas troops is pretty surprising. Not like they're physically capable of defending America when they're, well, *overseas* and nowhere near America.
> 
> On a side note, last time they fought anyone physically capable of reaching US soil was....ACTUALLY VS. THE MEXICANS. Along that very same border.
> 
> ...Ironically enough.



I don't know, the Japanese got pretty close to US soil on December 7th, 1941. German U-Boats in the Atlantic Theater came really close too.

Though I don't believe anyone genuinely believes an actual war is an immediate concern, more of insurgency and "terrorism". The concept being to stop bad actors from making it to the country.

The National Guard is the arm of the service charged with defending America on its' soil.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know, the Japanese got pretty close to US soil on December 7th, 1941. German U-Boats in the Atlantic Theater came really close too.
> 
> Though I don't believe anyone genuinely believes an actual war is an immediate concern, more of insurgency and "terrorism". The concept being to stop bad actors from making it to the country.
> 
> The National Guard is the arm of the service charged with defending America on its' soil.



Hawaii and the Philippines were obvious overseas colonies and not perceived as "United States of America soil" by anyone, anywhere

Literally NOT states, NOT in America

Colonial skirmishes between powers were never perceived as being in any way related to, much less fully equivalent to a mainland assault in that historical period


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Hawaii and the Philippines were obvious overseas colonies and not perceived as "United States of America soil" by anyone, anywhere
> 
> Literally NOT states, NOT in America



The point stands, an aggressor has gotten close enough to attack what would become American soil, even if not an actual state at the time. 

It's still shitty that service members are being punished, regardless of your personal feelings about their strategic usefulness.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> The point stands, an aggressor has gotten close enough to attack what would become American soil, even if not an actual state at the time.
> 
> It's still shitty that service members are being punished, regardless of your personal feelings about their strategic usefulness.



It only ever became a state thanks to japan and the events of that day

The Japanese never had any intention of sailing gunboats up the Hudson, Perry-style... that was the American game.

What followed was a boatload of spin to whip up hysteria.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> It only ever became a state thanks to japan and the events of that day



Not really. 

Hawaii had been fighting for statehood for decades before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor, having been annexed and made a territory in the 1890's, and it didn't get traction until it was rolled in with Alaska and as a compromise to bring in both a Democratic (Alaska) leaning and Republican (Hawaii) leaning states.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not really.
> 
> Hawaii had been fighting for statehood for decades before and after the attack on Pearl Harbor, having been annexed and made a territory in the 1890's, and it didn't get traction until it was rolled in with Alaska and as a compromise to bring in both a Democratic (Alaska) leaning and Republican (Hawaii) leaning states.



Well YEAH

What occupied island's elite doesn't want to turn their backwater military base colony into the power and financial windfall that comes with 2 senate seats????


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with current armed forces members losing important benefits?


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> America's infatuation with its overseas troops is pretty surprising. Not like they're physically capable of defending America when they're, well, *overseas* and nowhere near America.
> 
> On a side note, last time they fought anyone physically capable of reaching US soil was....ACTUALLY VS. THE MEXICANS. Along that very same border.
> 
> ...Ironically enough.


Yeah, we're going WAY off topic here.

Troops have always been sort of a third rail of American politics - you can support wars, you can oppose wars, but you ALWAYS support the troops. All troops are heroes simply for their being American soldiers. It's actually a little problematic in certain ways - I remember the whole thing when Tilson was killed in battle in Afghanistan, it was covered up for a LONG time that it was actually friendly fire because it interfered with the mythos of a NFL player being killed in the line of duty fighting for his country, and it's probably not helpful when it comes to prosecuting war crimes, etc. Neither here nor there.

For whatever reason, fucking over active duty troops is not something politicians of any stripe generally do because America sees its troops as kind of sacred. It's surprising to see Trump gutting programs to support active duty troops for this pet project of his.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A7Q0zqwkYTuyNJ1XlQmIcbg

Not that anyone stood a chance against Trump, but that's fuuuuucked up.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Yeah, we're going WAY off topic here.
> 
> Troops have always been sort of a third rail of American politics - you can support wars, you can oppose wars, but you ALWAYS support the troops. All troops are heroes simply for their being American soldiers. It's actually a little problematic in certain ways - I remember the whole thing when Tilson was killed in battle in Afghanistan, it was covered up for a LONG time that it was actually friendly fire because it interfered with the mythos of a NFL player being killed in the line of duty fighting for his country, and it's probably not helpful when it comes to prosecuting war crimes, etc. Neither here nor there.
> 
> For whatever reason, fucking over active duty troops is not something politicians of any stripe generally do because America sees its troops as kind of sacred. It's surprising to see Trump gutting programs to support active duty troops for this pet project of his.



Maybe his bull in a china shop approach has its uses, then

About time someone sees the military as less shining beacon, more huge bottomless black hole sucking tax dollars out of everyone's pockets


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A7Q0zqwkYTuyNJ1XlQmIcbg
> 
> Not that anyone stood a chance against Trump, but that's fuuuuucked up.


Not without precident, but IMO the biggest side-effect of this move is it will further discourage any _credible_ challengers from running. Not to knock Bill Weld of course, but his campaign hasn't exactly caught fire. 



Adieu said:


> Maybe his bull in a china shop approach has its uses, then
> 
> About time someone sees the military as less shining beacon, more huge bottomless black hole sucking tax dollars out of everyone's pockets


While I think the US's relationship with our military is hardly healthy, I don't think fucking over the _children_ of troops stationed overseas is the way to go about changing it.


----------



## mastapimp

Drew said:


> I remember the whole thing when *(Pat) Tillman* was killed in battle in Afghanistan


Had to correct you there...


----------



## Adieu

Educating military brats reduces the pool of potential next-generation recruits and/or drives up what you gotta pay em

Besides, it costs money and only brings adverse returns.

Ridiculous, from an impartial accounting-only standpoint. 

Education for military = bad for business, bad for military


----------



## Drew

mastapimp said:


> Had to correct you there...


Ah, thank you. No excuse - a close friend ran the Chicago marathon last year for his charity. 



Adieu said:


> Educating military brats reduces the pool of potential next-generation recruits and/or drives up what you gotta pay em
> 
> Besides, it costs money and only brings adverse returns.
> 
> Ridiculous, from an impartial accounting-only standpoint.
> 
> Education for military = bad for business, bad for military


I hope you're being facetious.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Ah, thank you. No excuse - a close friend ran the Chicago marathon last year for his charity.
> 
> 
> I hope you're being facetious.



Well, he CLAIMS to want to bring business sense back to government...

And has no qualms about being an azzhat.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> It's actually a little problematic in certain ways - I remember the whole thing when Tilson was killed in battle in Afghanistan, it was covered up for a LONG time that it was actually friendly fire because it interfered with the mythos of a NFL player being killed in the line of duty fighting for his country, and it's probably not helpful when it comes to prosecuting war crimes, etc. Neither here nor there.



That's one my buddy used on this Trumpy "thin blue line" chick he works with. She's super 'rah rah rah, support the military' and she one day she said explicitly "every member of the military is a hero" and my friend's like "Yeah, even the guy that shot Pat Tillman in the back?". She didn't know who that was, which kinda tells you all you need to know.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's one my buddy used on this Trumpy "thin blue line" chick he works with. She's super 'rah rah rah, support the military' and she one day she said explicitly "every member of the military is a hero" and my friend's like "Yeah, even the guy that shot Pat Tillman in the back?". She didn't know who that was, which kinda tells you all you need to know.


I bet she's a real fan of that Real American Hero, Chelsea Manning, too. 

(making no personal judgements on her actions here, of course)


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I hope you're being facetious.



Facetious, maybe but true. 

Twenty-first century military recruitment revolves around appealing to psychopaths that want to shoot brown people and kids from families too poor to afford college or buying a home. Post 9/11 patriotism was probably as noble a recruitment tool as we've gotten in the last 75 years but outside of that, I almost think we were better off when the benefits were LSD and cheap foreign hookers.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Facetious, maybe but true.
> 
> Twenty-first century military recruitment revolves around appealing to psychopaths that want to shoot brown people and kids from families too poor to afford college or buying a home. Post 9/11 patriotism was probably as noble a recruitment tool as we've gotten in the last 75 years but outside of that, I almost think we were better off when the benefits were LSD and cheap foreign hookers.


Tell me about it. Iraq would've been way better with drugs and hookers. You couldn't even go eat without signing out on a whiteboard like a kindergartner going to take a dump. Although, the horny female soldiers probably worked out cheaper than hookers. Unless you piss her off later and she decides you assaulted her. Speaking as a veteran, I don't really think they should take money from kid's programs. They would save a shit ton of money if they really cracked down on all the malingering fake injury douchebags getting paid disability for life on top of what they make at their civilian jobs that they aren't too disabled to do.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Facetious, maybe but true.
> 
> Twenty-first century military recruitment revolves around appealing to psychopaths that want to shoot brown people and kids from families too poor to afford college or buying a home. Post 9/11 patriotism was probably as noble a recruitment tool as we've gotten in the last 75 years but outside of that, I almost think we were better off when the benefits were LSD and cheap foreign hookers.



You lost me at the 9/11 thing

"Some nutters demolished a symbol of American capitalism, it's a confusing time for the public and we NEED A SHOW OF FORCE TO SAVE FACE. Ideas? Solutions? 
... No? OK then, let's whip everyone into a decade of hysteria and blow up a few random brown people countries SO OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE REASSURED THAT WE'RE #1 AND KEEP VOTING FOR US" 

That was SO random and SO calculated and had nothing to do with what happened.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> You lost me at the 9/11 thing
> 
> "Some nutters demolished a symbol of American capitalism, it's a confusing time for the public and we NEED A SHOW OF FORCE TO SAVE FACE. Ideas? Solutions?
> ... No? OK then, let's whip everyone into a decade of hysteria and blow up a few random brown people countries SO OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE REASSURED THAT WE'RE #1 AND KEEP VOTING FOR US"
> 
> That was SO random and SO calculated and had nothing to do with what happened.



Dunno if that dynamic exists other places, but here in the US we have a 'do something even if it makes no sense' culture. A reminder of this is are the (fake) couple that was given money by the (fake) homeless person and everyone said "awwwwww" and poured a few hundred thousand into a 'gofundme' for... I'm not sure but it ended up being a scam. Or the 'gofundme' they put together to make Kylie Jenner the youngest female billionaire. Like what?

So 9/11 happened and there was this mix of anger and feeling insulted/targeted and needing to "circle the wagons". There was definitely a need for some degree of a measured military solution but a drawn out "boots on the ground" engagement rife with corruption to be used as a recruitment tool is exactly what Bin Laden et all were after in the first place.

Original point still stands. There's a lot of jobs in the military that aren't just shooting people for political reasons, and patriotism is as noble a motivation you're going to find in a voluntary army but I think they went to the well too many times on that tool for another 40 years.


----------



## Adieu

Volunteer?

Uhm, nope, only in the "currently no conscripts" sense.

USA has a salaried contract professional military.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Volunteer?
> 
> Uhm, nope, only in the "currently no conscripts" sense.
> 
> USA has a salaried contract professional military.



I would argue it has a volunteer military in the "definition of a volunteer military" sense?

"A *volunteer military* or all-*volunteer military* is one which derives its manpower from *volunteers* or as a *voluntary* occupation, rather than conscription or mandatory service. A country may offer attractive pay and benefits through *military* recruitment to attract potential recruits."


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Volunteer?
> 
> Uhm, nope, only in the "currently no conscripts" sense.
> 
> USA has a salaried contract professional military.



That's not what that means. Just like how most towns have a volunteer fire department, they are paid. Volunteer does not necessarily mean no pay.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> That's not what that means. Just like how most towns have a volunteer fire department, they are paid. Volunteer does not necessarily mean no pay.



That's a traditional title from the past.

Today's version are part-timers.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> That's a traditional title from the past.
> 
> Today's version are part-timers.



Right...but still paid. Just like the volunteer military service.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Ralyks

Can someone in Alabama tell us how you guys are holding up with the hurriOH WAIT.....


----------



## Karmaic

SpaceDock said:


> Looks like he will win the Republican nomination. He has no policies, he is just firing up a bunch of idiots to get them to vote for him. If he wins the presidency, I'm leaving the usa.



Just wondering, did you leave? If so, what country did you choose as your new home for freedom? Asking for a friend...


----------



## narad

Karmaic said:


> Just wondering, did you leave? If so, what country did you choose as your new home for freedom? Asking for a friend...



Hilarious.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Dunno if that dynamic exists other places, but here in the US we have a 'do something even if it makes no sense' culture. A reminder of this is are the (fake) couple that was given money by the (fake) homeless person and everyone said "awwwwww" and poured a few hundred thousand into a 'gofundme' for... I'm not sure but it ended up being a scam. Or the 'gofundme' they put together to make Kylie Jenner the youngest female billionaire. Like what?
> 
> So 9/11 happened and there was this mix of anger and feeling insulted/targeted and needing to "circle the wagons". There was definitely a need for some degree of a measured military solution but a drawn out "boots on the ground" engagement rife with corruption to be used as a recruitment tool is exactly what Bin Laden et all were after in the first place.
> 
> Original point still stands. There's a lot of jobs in the military that aren't just shooting people for political reasons, and patriotism is as noble a motivation you're going to find in a voluntary army but I think they went to the well too many times on that tool for another 40 years.


Well, there's also the fact that W's administration was filled with alums of HW's administration, and they absolutely were looking for an encore/revival tour of their big act from the 90s. I mean, we were in Iraq - which had no real ties to Al Qaeda at the time - almost immediately, but took the better part of a year to get around to sending a small force into Afghanistan where at the time Bin Laden was actually hiding out, and accordingly took about ten years to actually catch up with the guy.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AeOM0NVNrTYOnUjMKnVnugg

This seems shady as fuck.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AeOM0NVNrTYOnUjMKnVnugg
> 
> This seems shady as fuck.



Yeahhhh, it's kind of a waste of time because there's really next to no chance of him not getting the nomination, but it does _*toooootally*_ feel anti-democratic. 
I'm one of those dudes that got super butthurt about how the DNC screwed over Bernie [and currently over how they appear to be screwing Tulsi]; isn't this the same thing, but...worse? Not a good look imo. 

If they want to waste their time let them waste their time. Give the people a chance to vote at least, fuck.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeahhhh, it's kind of a waste of time because there's really next to no chance of him not getting the nomination, but it does _*toooootally*_ feel anti-democratic.
> I'm one of those dudes that got super butthurt about how the DNC screwed over Bernie [and currently over how they appear to be screwing Tulsi]; isn't this the same thing, but...worse? Not a good look imo.
> 
> If they want to waste their time let them waste their time. Give the people a chance to vote at least, fuck.



The thing is, Trump's biggest fear, and by extension the GOP's, is credible attacks from within the party.

Weld, Sanford, and Walsh all have deeply conservative records. They're far from centrist. It's going to be nigh impossible to engage in the usual attacks this administration has used.

While I'm sure none of them have a shot, any debates would give the Dems tons of ammo and overall poor optics for Trump/GOP.

The right doesn't really care about voting rights, so it's an easy move to make.


----------



## SpaceDock

Karmaic said:


> Just wondering, did you leave? If so, what country did you choose as your new home for freedom? Asking for a friend...



Still here...

I guess it is sad how we slowly become ok with the status quo as it drifts into whatever you want to call this. I feel like the junkie reminded of the first time he shot up. What I thought we could never tolerate is now a constant.


----------



## Karmaic

MaxOfMetal said:


> The right doesn't really care about voting rights, so it's an easy move to make.



Im confused. In what way does the right not care about voting rights? Last I checked, all legal US citizens, regardless of gender, race or religion, are able to vote in all US elections. What policies/ideas has Trump put forward that would take this away?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Karmaic said:


> Im confused. In what way does the right not care about voting rights? Last I checked, all legal US citizens, regardless of gender, race or religion, are able to vote in all US elections. What policies/ideas has Trump put forward that would take this away?



See: gerrymandering, poll taxes, and voter disenfranchisement for a start. 

Voting is still mostly a state run affair. I never mentioned Trump, so not quite sure where you're getting that from.

Some light reading:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkp...-against-securing-elections-ee5dba5d71d0/amp/

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-gop-gets-anti-voting-rights-win-11718436

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1722188002

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/6597...orts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...olitics/voting-suppression-elections.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.c...ppression-recount-republicans-trump/?amp=true

https://www.thenation.com/article/video-voter-suppression-rigged-film/

https://www.kaporcenter.org/florida...ter-suppression-was-motive-behind-voter-laws/

This isn't a Trump problem. It's been an issue for decades.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Karmaic said:


> Im confused. In what way does the right not care about voting rights? Last I checked, all legal US citizens, regardless of gender, race or religion, are able to vote in all US elections. What policies/ideas has Trump put forward that would take this away?


You'll note, if you read through this thread, that there is little to no acknowledgement of the political left's fuckery. Even though there's a metric fuckton of material that could be discussed and ridiculed, it isn't. It's almost completely one sided. When the political right does something untoward, it's the literal worst thing ever perpetrated upon humanity. When the political left does something untoward, it's either not even mentioned or it's just savvy politics. That's not real discussion, that's a bunch of people who've already made up their minds (they've figured it all out, everyone else is just a dumb dumb) complaining about stuff they all already agree on.

Moral of the story is (and I'm sure you're already aware), if you want actual political *discussion*, this isn't the place for it. If you want to bash the political right, conservatism, capitalism, etc., pull up a chair friend!

Vermin Supreme 2020!!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> You'll note, if you read through this thread, that there is little to no acknowledgement of the political left's fuckery. Even though there's a metric fuckton of material that could be discussed and ridiculed, it isn't. It's almost completely one sided. When the political right does something untoward, it's the literal worst thing ever perpetrated upon humanity. When the political left does something untoward, it's either not even mentioned or it's just savvy politics. That's not real discussion, that's a bunch of people who've already made up their minds (they've figured it all out, everyone else is just a dumb dumb) complaining about stuff they all already agree on.
> 
> Moral of the story is (and I'm sure you're already aware), if you want actual political *discussion*, this isn't the place for it. If you want to bash the political right, conservatism, capitalism, etc., pull up a chair friend!
> 
> Vermin Supreme 2020!!



There are plenty of folks that are far from left that manage to have insightful, productive good faith discussion. 

While I certainly disagree with much of the politics @Ordacleaphobia , @wedge_destroyer , @bostjan , @Flappydoodle have, they've all been great contributors to this thread, and the forum as a whole. 

If you take the time, you'll also notice most of us dirty libtard communists have had some pretty strong critiques of the left as well. 

If you can't hack it. Leave.


----------



## narad

Evil Chuck said:


> YEven though there's a metric fuckton of material that could be discussed and ridiculed, it isn't.



Because in America, we don't discuss things measured in the metric system.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> If you can't hack it. Leave.


If I can't hack what, exactly? I don't care what you talk about. I'm literally campaigning for Vermin Supreme over here. If that isn't evidence of how little I give a shit about the political discourse in this thread, I don't know what is.

He'll give you a pony if you vote for him.

Vermin Supreme 2020!!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> I don't care what you talk about.



Who are you trying to convince?

If you're just going to troll, move on.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> If you're just going to troll, move on.



Well, Vermin Supreme is the troll candidate...


----------



## possumkiller

Evil Chuck said:


> You'll note, if you read through this thread, that there is little to no acknowledgement of the political left's fuckery. Even though there's a metric fuckton of material that could be discussed and ridiculed, it isn't. It's almost completely one sided. When the political right does something untoward, it's the literal worst thing ever perpetrated upon humanity. When the political left does something untoward, it's either not even mentioned or it's just savvy politics. That's not real discussion, that's a bunch of people who've already made up their minds (they've figured it all out, everyone else is just a dumb dumb) complaining about stuff they all already agree on.
> 
> Moral of the story is (and I'm sure you're already aware), if you want actual political *discussion*, this isn't the place for it. If you want to bash the political right, conservatism, capitalism, etc., pull up a chair friend!
> 
> Vermin Supreme 2020!!


Idk man it sounds like a bunch of whataboutism to me.


----------



## Evil Chuck

possumkiller said:


> Idk man it sounds like a bunch of whataboutism to me.


I don't care what anyone's politics are, I'm just saying one sided discussion of a system that is completely and utterly corrupt on both sides, isn't really a discussion at all. It's just a bunch of people that already agree with each other pretending to have an open discussion about politics. 

Cheerleading either side is stupid is my point. Of course I'm called a troll by people who can't stand to be disagreed with, but I'm not trolling. Just like Vermin Supreme isn't trolling when he says he'll give you a free pony if you vote for him.

I truly believe he will give everyone in the country a free pony if elected POTUS, yet here we all are arguing about conservative this and liberal that...

Vermin Supreme 2020!!


----------



## c7spheres

The GOP here in AZ just decided to not hold a vote for candidates. So Trump is automatically the candidate for AZ's vote. The people have no say in it if they want a different candidate. That just goes against what America is supposed to be abou, imo, so what's the point if you have no say then.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

r/selfawarewolves


----------



## InHiding

Tulsi is already polling at 5%. I'm happy that as a non-US person my posts on sevenstring.org will change the results of the next presidental election (just ask Hillary!).


----------



## Karmaic

c7spheres said:


> The GOP here in AZ just decided to not hold a vote for candidates. So Trump is automatically the candidate for AZ's vote. The people have no say in it if they want a different candidate. That just goes against what America is supposed to be abou, imo, so what's the point if you have no say then.



Hasnt California threatened to leave Trump completely off the ballot because they dont like him?


Never looked in the politics forum on here. So I decided to drop in, and the first thread I saw was this one, go figure. Also, since the title of this thread is called "Trump Administration Edition", I just figured the thread was entirely about Trump, to save myself from reading through 385 pages.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Karmaic said:


> Hasnt California threatened to leave Trump completely off the ballot because they dont like him?



They are considering a requirement of obtaining certain financial disclosures from all candidates, not just Trump.

You can read more about SB27 here: https://www.politifact.com/californ...sident-trump-wasnt-kicked-california-ballot-/

Here's the actual bill if you're curious:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27

In the interest of objectivity, here is Joe Biden also being full of shit: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../joe-biden-and-his-somali-cab-driver-friends/

Both sides!


----------



## Karmaic

Evil Chuck said:


> You'll note, if you read through this thread, that there is little to no acknowledgement of the political left's fuckery. Even though there's a metric fuckton of material that could be discussed and ridiculed, it isn't. It's almost completely one sided. When the political right does something untoward, it's the literal worst thing ever perpetrated upon humanity. When the political left does something untoward, it's either not even mentioned or it's just savvy politics. That's not real discussion, that's a bunch of people who've already made up their minds (they've figured it all out, everyone else is just a dumb dumb) complaining about stuff they all already agree on.
> 
> Moral of the story is (and I'm sure you're already aware), if you want actual political *discussion*, this isn't the place for it. If you want to bash the political right, conservatism, capitalism, etc., pull up a chair friend!
> 
> Vermin Supreme 2020!!



Seems that way. And speaking of that evil capitalism. Imagine a country without capitalism, we could all pay $5000 for junk guitars because the markets wouldnt be allowed to weed out the junk. Capitalism gives us all CHOICES in how we spend our money. We have EMG, ESP, Mesa, Marshall, Ibanez, Gibson, Peavey etc etc. because the free market (the people) allowed these companies to stay in business by producing shit worth buying. Without capitalism, we could all be buying Crate amps for $3000 each no matter the wattage or features. Because theyd have a monoply on the market. 

"Here is a guitar. Its $5000. Take it or leave. Oh, by the way, I have the only guitar shop." 

This is what capitalism annihilates. No monopilies. Evil. Sooo evil. Any anti capitalism talk is purely ignorant on how little someone knows about business.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Karmaic said:


> Seems that way. And speaking of that evil capitalism. Imagine a country without capitalism, we could all pay $5000 for junk guitars because the markets wouldnt be allowed to weed out the junk. Capitalism gives us all CHOICES in how we spend our money. We have EMG, ESP, Mesa, Marshall, Ibanez, Gibson, Peavey etc etc. because the free market (the people) allowed these companies to stay in business by producing shit worth buying. Without capitalism, we could all be buying Crate amps for $3000 each no matter the wattage or features. Because theyd have a monoply on the market.
> 
> "Here is a guitar. Its $5000. Take it or leave. Oh, by the way, I have the only guitar shop."
> 
> This is what capitalism annihilates. No monopilies. Evil. Sooo evil. Any anti capitalism talk is purely ignorant on how little someone knows about business.



No one in this entire thread has supported doing away with capitalism as a whole. 

There have been critiques of late stage capitalism when compared to countries that run hybrid systems which amount to mostly capitalism with support for essential services, for example healthcare.


----------



## Randy

Karmaic said:


> Capitalism gives us all CHOICES in how we spend our money



So we're just going to ignore all the mega media mergers over the last couple years, despite being under Republican control? Consolidating several competing companies into one or two mega companies increases our choices how exactly?

EDIT: And continuing with your comparison to music choices, the prominence of WMI as that main factory for most affordable brands in the US has absolutely homogenized our choices. Whew, we get to choose from a poplar burl blue burst shaped like a V, poplar burl blue burst shaped like a strat, a poplar burl burst shaped like a strat with an arm contour. Yay capitalism and yay choices!


----------



## Karmaic

MaxOfMetal said:


> They are considering a requirement of obtaining certain financial disclosures from all candidates, not just Trump.
> 
> You can read more about SB27 here: https://www.politifact.com/californ...sident-trump-wasnt-kicked-california-ballot-/
> 
> Here's the actual bill if you're curious:
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB27
> 
> In the interest of objectivity, here is Joe Biden also being full of shit: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-.../joe-biden-and-his-somali-cab-driver-friends/
> 
> Both sides!



Certain financial disclosures from all candidates eh? Lol Im sure that will be 100% partisan lol can you honestly sit there and say that California would have twisted Hillarys arm and dug through years of her finances? Yeah right.

Btw, nobody wants creepy uncle joe. The left doesnt have a solid candidate that appeals to more than 25% of the population as it stands. The democratic party didnt used to be so fucking weird. 25-30 years ago, both parties were pretty much on the "same side". The disagreements were small. They werent so radical as they are now. They def werent "America sucks!" Example...Democrats:"We want freely open borders!"....Republicans:"We want border security." 

Democrats:"Voting rights for non citizens!".....Republicans:"Only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections."

That is pretty far off from a "discussion". I have family members that were lifelong democrats. They even voted for Obama the first time. They switched parties after Obama turned the party anti american.

The democrats always stir the racism and sexism card. Its their #1 campaign stratedgy. Always putting people against each other. 

Fact of the matter is, Trump fills arenas everywhere he goes, with thousands of people still outside because there wasnt enough room inside. Any dem candidate cant fill a town hall building in their own hometown. Yet its "neck and neck" according to the media...people are sick of the anti american push by the left. 

If the election is fair (no voter fraud!) and dead people arent voting democrat, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. That is all.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> So we're just going to ignore all the mega media mergers over the last couple years, despite being under Republican control? Consolidating several competing companies into one or two mega companies increases our choices how exactly?



Yeah, this is the problem. I'm pretty pro-capitalism, but the fact that just about every industry is ran by it's own MegaCorp, Inc. is not exactly pro-consumer.
Case in point, look at computer hardware and GPUs specifically. NVIDIA was way more dominant than AMD this last product cycle, and since there are _*literally no other competitors*_, obtained a completely uncontested stranglehold on the mid to high-end market. The result? Prices for the next product iteration _effectively doubled_ with middling performance gains akin to what you'd expect from a typical refresh. It's going to take years for that to correct itself now, because now AMD is going to price it's newer, more competitive mid-range cards in line with that pricing, because why wouldn't they? We had _*one year*_ of a monopoly, and prices doubled _for the foreseeable future_. 

We're just experiencing peak capitalism atm, and no one really knows how to deal with it yet without violating people's rights or generally being a dick.


----------



## Randy

Karmaic said:


> can you honestly sit there and say that California would have twisted Hillarys arm and dug through years of her finances? Yeah right.



Hilllary willingly released her tax returns. We're not talking about some obscure financial documents. Releasing your tax returns has been standard practice for ages with the sole exception of Trump, which is hilarious considering he's also the same guy that insisted on rewriting that tax code. I've never seen a group of people more brainwashed. Let the guy rewrite the tax code and most of his voters lose a bunch of valuable exemptions but "rah rah rah" about making sure nobody (including you) see his tax returns to figure out why he wrote it the way he did.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, this is the problem. I'm pretty pro-capitalism, but the fact that just about every industry is ran by it's own MegaCorp, Inc. is not exactly pro-consumer.
> Case in point, look at computer hardware and GPUs specifically. NVIDIA was way more dominant than AMD this last product cycle, and since there are _*literally no other competitors*_, obtained a completely uncontested stranglehold on the mid to high-end market. The result? Prices for the next product iteration _effectively doubled_ with middling performance gains akin to what you'd expect from a typical refresh. It's going to take years for that to correct itself now, because now AMD is going to price it's newer, more competitive mid-range cards in line with that pricing, because why wouldn't they? We had _*one year*_ of a monopoly, and prices doubled _for the foreseeable future_.
> 
> We're just experiencing peak capitalism atm, and no one really knows how to deal with it yet without violating people's rights or generally being a dick.



2019 conservatives completely ignoring that there were eras in this country where we TRIED laissez faire capitalism and none of them ever benefited the consumer.


----------



## Karmaic

Randy said:


> So we're just going to ignore all the mega media mergers over the last couple years, despite being under Republican control? Consolidating several competing companies into one or two mega companies increases our choices how exactly?
> 
> EDIT: And continuing with your comparison to music choices, the prominence of WMI as that main factory for most affordable brands in the US has absolutely homogenized our choices. Whew, we get to choose from a poplar burl blue burst shaped like a V, poplar burl blue burst shaped like a strat, a poplar burl burst shaped like a strat with an arm contour. Yay capitalism and yay choices!



Mergers happen because a particular company was about to go belly up due to the free market. They dont merge because they were doing so amazing on their own 

Also, with Capitalism, you have the choice not to buy that shit. You can freely buy whatever you want. Isnt capitalism awesome?


----------



## spudmunkey

Well. John Bolton is out. Whoodathunkit?


----------



## possumkiller

Idk man. Capitalism doesn't seem all that great. Unless you are rich. Or love being a servant to your betters. I've noticed a lot of people really are like that. My dad was explaining to me the hierarchy in heaven. We are good and all because we are Christians and Americans. However, we will never be as good in God's eyes as the Israelites.


----------



## Randy

Karmaic said:


> Mergers happen because a particular company was about to go belly up due to the free market. They dont merge because they were doing so amazing on their own



So, Disney and Fox merger happened because which one of those two were doing poorly?


----------



## Drew

Karmaic said:


> Democrats:"Voting rights for non citizens!".....Republicans:"Only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections."
> 
> If the election is fair (no voter fraud!) and dead people arent voting democrat, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. That is all.


Um, with all due respect, I don't think you really understand the voting rights debate.

Democrats aren't arguing that non-citizens should be allowed to vote. Voting is only open to registered voters, which requires you to be a US citizen. What Democrats are opposed to is Republican requirements, based on the spectre of alleged illegal voting (and ironically today is the day where we're having a revote in North Carolina for the only actual example of voter fraud that occured in 2016, which was perpetrated by a Republican and was so overt that even the alleged Republican winner backed down and came out in support of a revote) to require some form of voter ID at the polling station, rather than providing a name and address that tied with that of a voter on the voter registry. Is there a partisan slant to this? Absolutely - minorities tend to have forms of photo ID at a lower rate than whites, and _weirdly enough_ minorities are also far more likely to vote Democratic, so imposing the additional time, effort, and cost to obtain a photo ID is a pretty sure-fire way to suppress a Democratic voting constituency. Of course, the GOP doesn't stop there - Georgia, for example, was a pretty egregious example this year where they closed down a lot of polling stations in minority neighborhoods, resulting in particularly long commutes and long lines for polling stations in Democratic-leaning minority neighborhoods, but short lines and ample locations in republican-leaning white neighborhoods. Democratic opposition to that, while clearly motivated by partisan politics, is a far cry from "voting rights for non-citizens," and frankly Constitutional law is very likely on their side.

I've gotten into it at length elsewhere, but my read right now is at the moment Trump is likely a modest underdog in 2020. He's lost too much moderate support, he's starting to divide his constituencies (his attempts to reverse Obama era emissions requirements for cars is turning into an ugly fight between Midwestern farmers and the oil patch over biofuel content in gasoline), his trade war is hurting American manufacturing, and when in doubt his inclination is to double down on his base, not broaden his appeal. If or when he loses, he - and you - will undoubtably claim rampant voter fraud, but he already did that as a reason why he lost the popular vote in 2016, and Kris Kobach's commission charged with looking into it came up empty. If it didn't cost him the popular vote in 2016, it probably won't cost him the Electoral College in 2020.



Randy said:


> So, Disney and Fox merger happened because which one of those two were doing poorly?


Beat me to it - as one of the more unabashed defenders of capitalism on this board, that comment was pretty dumbfounding. M&A happens for any number of reasons, but two common ones are because two companies think they can be more profitable combined than separate (not a bad thing), or to buy out a potential competitor before they can be a threat (eeeeh.... a little anti-capitalistic).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Karmaic said:


> Also, with Capitalism, you have the choice not to buy that shit. You can freely buy whatever you want. Isnt capitalism awesome?



Just like fire service! 


Oh wait.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Karmaic said:


> Certain financial disclosures from all candidates eh? Lol Im sure that will be 100% partisan lol



I take it you didn't read either link. Typical. 

By enshrining it into law as they're trying to, it is non-partisan as everyone is held to the same standard.



> can you honestly sit there and say that California would have twisted Hillarys arm and dug through years of her finances? Yeah right.



They didn't have to. Every single candidate has already freely handed over these documents. 

This is unprecedented. Trump is the only candidate since 1976 to not show his taxes.

Also, while talking about Clinton, she released an almost unheard of 15 years of returns. Hard to twist someone's arm when they just lay it all out there.



> Btw, nobody wants creepy uncle joe.



I certainly don't, but there are many who do. 

Though, it's more of folks wanting anyone but Trump.



> The left doesnt have a solid candidate that appeals to more than 25% of the population as it stands.



The field is still very full, once some of the larger primary challengers back out you'll see the polls lineup accordingly.



> The democratic party didnt used to be so fucking weird.



The democrats are mostly the same boring centrist of old. At least for the time frame you're talking about (two or three decades). 

The GOP has gone through some major shifts, especially with the rise of the Tea Party and HFC.



> 25-30 years ago, both parties were pretty much on the "same side".



Not really. Much of the division was born from the Reagan administration, fostered by Bush1, and came to a head at the end of the Clinton administration. Compared to the decades before especially, and before that you had the birth of the "Southern Strategy".

Maybe you don't remember.



> The disagreements were small.



Yes and no. The issues were big, and there were plenty of government shutdowns over it. But I'd say it's certainly gotten uglier.



> They werent so radical as they are now.



That's called progress. Issues caused by Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2 are pushing the country and planet to the breaking point. Big problems take big, complex, meaningful solutions.



> They def werent "America sucks!"



If you love this country, it's people, and what it stands for, you'll call out and try and fix it's flaws. 

Tough love is still love. 



> Example...Democrats:"We want freely open borders!"



Citation needed.



> ....Republicans:"We want border security."



Then make the borders safer, don't steal money from soldiers and children to build a vanity project.



> Democrats:"Voting rights for non citizens!"



Again, citations please.



> .....Republicans:"Only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections."



Unless you don't have a certain address, are too poor to purchase a driver's license, have been convicted (in some places even if exonerated) of a crime, or are a minority that typically votes for the opposition.

I've posted citations for all those in a previous post that you also probably didn't read.



> That is pretty far off from a "discussion".



It would be, if it were true. 



> I have family members that were lifelong democrats. They even voted for Obama the first time. They switched parties after Obama turned the party anti american.



How exactly?



> The democrats always stir the racism and sexism card. Its their #1 campaign stratedgy. Always putting people against each other.



There are issues with systematic racism in this country. It needs to be acknowledged and fixed so we can all live better, happier lives. 



> Fact of the matter is, Trump fills arenas everywhere he goes, with thousands of people still outside because there wasnt enough room inside. Any dem candidate cant fill a town hall building in their own hometown. Yet its "neck and neck" according to the media...people are sick of the anti american push by the left.



Not that it matters, but Sanders and Warren have had no problems drawing tens of thousands of people, even in states outside their own.



> If the election is fair (no voter fraud!) and dead people arent voting democrat, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. That is all.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Well. John Bolton is out. Whoodathunkit?



Straight up fired his ass too from the looks of it.


----------



## spudmunkey

"...the best people."


----------



## c7spheres

Karmaic said:


> Hasnt California threatened to leave Trump completely off the ballot because they dont like him?
> .



I'm not sure. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, this is the problem. I'm pretty pro-capitalism, but the fact that just about every industry is ran by it's own MegaCorp, Inc. is not exactly pro-consumer.
> Case in point, look at computer hardware and GPUs specifically. NVIDIA was way more dominant than AMD this last product cycle, and since there are _*literally no other competitors*_, obtained a completely uncontested stranglehold on the mid to high-end market. The result? Prices for the next product iteration _effectively doubled_ with middling performance gains akin to what you'd expect from a typical refresh. It's going to take years for that to correct itself now, because now AMD is going to price it's newer, more competitive mid-range cards in line with that pricing, because why wouldn't they? We had _*one year*_ of a monopoly, and prices doubled _for the foreseeable future_.
> 
> We're just experiencing peak capitalism atm, and no one really knows how to deal with it yet without violating people's rights or generally being a dick.



MegaCorp is the problem with Capitalism,imo. Something needs to be done to prevent this total domination effect. Everything seems to lean this way with everything in life. The wireless and communication companies are teh same way too. There's always a handful of companies with so much domination that nobdy else has a chance in the market. It's not so much that they dominate the market. It's that it's practically impossible for anyone else to effectively compete in the market. 

- I may unwatch this thread before I get pissed off. This political stuff (not you guys) just chafes my ass.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> MegaCorp is the problem with Capitalism,imo. Something needs to be done to prevent this total domination effect. Everything seems to lean this way with everything in life.


So, I feel like I've spent most of my posts here in the last week fact-checking you, but.... 

This isn't really a feature of capitalism, much as its critics like to call it one. You go all the way back to Wealth of Nations and you see John Smith specifically describing the monopoly or any firm with monopolistic power in the market place as _anti-_capitalistic due to the way they can distort market price discovery. A functioning capitalist economy depends on regulators with monopoly-busting power who are able to prevent firms from becoming so powerful they're able to distort the free market, and if we're in a situation today where that's happening then we don't truly have a free market economy.

That said, I'll quote a meme I saw somewhere and say I'll believe in corporate citizenship the day I see one get beheaded.


----------



## efiltsohg

c7spheres said:


> I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> MegaCorp is the problem with Capitalism,imo. Something needs to be done to prevent this total domination effect. Everything seems to lean this way with everything in life. The wireless and communication companies are teh same way too. There's always a handful of companies with so much domination that nobdy else has a chance in the market. It's not so much that they dominate the market. It's that it's practically impossible for anyone else to effectively compete in the market.
> 
> - I may unwatch this thread before I get pissed off. This political stuff (not you guys) just chafes my ass.



For America to live, Amazon must die


----------



## Xaios

efiltsohg said:


> For America to live, Amazon must die


Don't worry, it's already on fire.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> So, I feel like I've spent most of my posts here in the last week fact-checking you, but....
> 
> This isn't really a feature of capitalism, much as its critics like to call it one. You go all the way back to Wealth of Nations and you see John Smith specifically describing the monopoly or any firm with monopolistic power in the market place as _anti-_capitalistic due to the way they can distort market price discovery. A functioning capitalist economy depends on regulators with monopoly-busting power who are able to prevent firms from becoming so powerful they're able to distort the free market, and if we're in a situation today where that's happening then we don't truly have a free market economy.
> 
> That said, I'll quote a meme I saw somewhere and say I'll believe in corporate citizenship the day I see one get beheaded.


 Not sure what you're talking about. It sounds like we're talking about the same thing. I don't recall mentioning or claiming anything to be a fact. 
It's not really a feature of Capitalism, it's a side effect. An uncurable one, but it's true for all systems because none of them can escape the human condition. Capitalism is good when it works, but I can't point to any time in history when that happened. Same for any other system too.


----------



## Adieu

Karmaic said:


> Certain financial disclosures from all candidates eh? Lol Im sure that will be 100% partisan lol can you honestly sit there and say that California would have twisted Hillarys arm and dug through years of her finances? Yeah right.
> 
> Btw, nobody wants creepy uncle joe. The left doesnt have a solid candidate that appeals to more than 25% of the population as it stands. The democratic party didnt used to be so fucking weird. 25-30 years ago, both parties were pretty much on the "same side". The disagreements were small. They werent so radical as they are now. They def werent "America sucks!" Example...Democrats:"We want freely open borders!"....Republicans:"We want border security."
> 
> Democrats:"Voting rights for non citizens!".....Republicans:"Only US citizens should be allowed to vote in US elections."
> 
> That is pretty far off from a "discussion". I have family members that were lifelong democrats. They even voted for Obama the first time. They switched parties after Obama turned the party anti american.
> 
> The democrats always stir the racism and sexism card. Its their #1 campaign stratedgy. Always putting people against each other.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, Trump fills arenas everywhere he goes, with thousands of people still outside because there wasnt enough room inside. Any dem candidate cant fill a town hall building in their own hometown. Yet its "neck and neck" according to the media...people are sick of the anti american push by the left.
> 
> If the election is fair (no voter fraud!) and dead people arent voting democrat, Trump wins 2020 in a landslide. That is all.



Plenty of morons fill large arenas

Do you think most big names in the music business would make fine world leaders?


----------



## Adieu

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, this is the problem. I'm pretty pro-capitalism, but the fact that just about every industry is ran by it's own MegaCorp, Inc. is not exactly pro-consumer.
> Case in point, look at computer hardware and GPUs specifically. NVIDIA was way more dominant than AMD this last product cycle, and since there are _*literally no other competitors*_, obtained a completely uncontested stranglehold on the mid to high-end market. The result? Prices for the next product iteration _effectively doubled_ with middling performance gains akin to what you'd expect from a typical refresh. It's going to take years for that to correct itself now, because now AMD is going to price it's newer, more competitive mid-range cards in line with that pricing, because why wouldn't they? We had _*one year*_ of a monopoly, and prices doubled _for the foreseeable future_.
> 
> We're just experiencing peak capitalism atm, and no one really knows how to deal with it yet without violating people's rights or generally being a dick.



Bad example

PC hardware makers really screwed the pooch in the last decade, and gave up an emerging market that quickly grew and shows far more potential for further growth (mobile device hardware, SOCs) to newcomers

Hell a decent octacore Mediatek SOC wholesales at ~$3.... fanless, compact, little heat, low wattage, great low power modes and ability to downshift to running just several % of a single core.

Nvidia and Intel are unbelievably screwed in the long run... 

EDIT: well maybe not Nvidia, their Tegra has largely fallen off the map in mobile phones but is apparently enjoying significant success powering Nintendos and automotive systems


----------



## Evil Chuck

Imagine living in reality (and being of sound mind) and simultaneously believing Democrats aren't for open borders. All while insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you because their hero politicians are cowards and won't actually come out and say those *exact *words, "I'm for open borders!". 

Imagine being so hopelessly tied to one side of the political spectrum that you can't admit something so god damn obvious my miniature pink pony could tell me it's the truth.

Surely by now I don't need to tell you how we can all solve this problem, AND get a free pony, do I?

Succumb to Nihilism, vote Vermin Supreme 2020!!


----------



## narad

Evil Chuck said:


> Imagine living in reality (and being of sound mind) and simultaneously believing Democrats aren't for open borders. All while insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you because their hero politicians are cowards and won't actually come out and say those *exact *words, "I'm for open borders!".
> 
> Imagine being so hopelessly tied to one side of the political spectrum that you can't admit something so god damn obvious my miniature pink pony could tell me it's the truth.



Man, John Lennon's later stuff got really weird.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> Imagine living in reality (and being of sound mind) and simultaneously believing Democrats aren't for open borders. All while insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you because their hero politicians are cowards and won't actually come out and say those *exact *words, "I'm for open borders!".
> 
> Imagine being so hopelessly tied to one side of the political spectrum that you can't admit something so god damn obvious my miniature pink pony could tell me it's the truth.
> 
> Surely by now I don't need to tell you how we can all solve this problem, AND get a free pony, do I?
> 
> Succumb to Nihilism, vote Vermin Supreme 2020!!



The term "open borders" is just an appeal to emotion proliferated by RWNJ. It's a red herring inserted into the conversation specifically to conjure images of immigrant caravans coming over the border in droves unabated to take everyone's job and rape white women with impunity. 

Don't be so emotional. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...-a-nation-of-open-borders-we-are-a-nation?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.amp.html

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/03/ye...g-point-but-its-leaching-into-the-mainstream/

But it's cool, you really don't care.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> The term "open borders" is just an appeal to emotion proliferated by RWNJ. It's a red herring inserted into the conversation specifically to conjure images of immigrant caravans coming over the border in droves unabated to take everyone's job and rape white women with impunity.
> 
> Don't be so emotional.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/rising/437143-dem-lawmaker-on-immigration-we-are-not-a-nation-of-open-borders-we-are-a-nation?amp
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-donald-trump-democrats-open-borders.amp.html
> 
> https://www.salon.com/2019/08/03/ye...g-point-but-its-leaching-into-the-mainstream/
> 
> But it's cool, you really don't care.


Are three random articles you found with a Google search that say Dems don't want open borders supposed to convince me of something? Here, I can do that too:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigration-democrats-open-borders/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders

https://www.newsmax.com/jameswalsh/...immigration-reform-daca/2018/01/09/id/836059/

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigra...n-borders-wind-up-closing-doors-for-democrats

Are you convinced? No? Then you see how stupid that is. I could probably find an article that said my dog's poop was a cure for skin cancer if I looked hard enough. 

Also, I know your argument is weak right away because you pulled the race card. It's very telling that instead of acknowledging there might actually be legitimate concerns over the issue, you reduce other people's (that you've never met and clearly know nothing about) concerns to "they're just afraid of white women being raped with impunity".

That is a typical conceited leftist point of view and is precisely why the person you loathe more than anyone on the face of the Earth is currently President of the United States. So congratulations, I guess. 

Here's my take on the whole thing, boiled down real nice: I don't think Trump is a good person and people like you are the reason he's POTUS. So this 387 page thread could really be boiled down to, "fuck, I guess I'm an asshole after all."

Should I put a dancing banana here?


----------



## ExileMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> Are three random articles you found with a Google search that say Dems don't want open borders supposed to convince me of something? Here, I can do that too:
> 
> https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigration-democrats-open-borders/
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders
> 
> https://www.newsmax.com/jameswalsh/...immigration-reform-daca/2018/01/09/id/836059/
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/immigra...n-borders-wind-up-closing-doors-for-democrats
> 
> Are you convinced? No? Then you see how stupid that is. I could probably find an article that said my dog's poop was a cure for skin cancer if I looked hard enough.
> 
> Also, I know your argument is weak right away because you pulled the race card. It's very telling that instead of acknowledging there might actually be legitimate concerns over the issue, you reduce other people's (that you've never met and clearly know nothing about) concerns to "they're just afraid of white women being raped with impunity".
> 
> That is a typical conceited leftist point of view and is precisely why the person you loathe more than anyone on the face of the Earth is currently President of the United States. So congratulations, I guess.
> 
> Here's my take on the whole thing, boiled down real nice: I don't think Trump is a good person and people like you are the reason he's POTUS. So this 387 page thread could really be boiled down to, "fuck, I guess I'm an asshole after all."
> 
> Should I put a dancing banana here?



Before you do, just thought I’d point out his articles were not opinions or editorial pieces. 

Also, what’s your goal here? Telling everyone they’re wrong, or only “leftists”? And what does it mean if I’m a democrat that doesn’t support open borders? Is it possible in your mind to have nuance or subtlety around issues, or do you automatically claim all of us in our unsound thoughts can only conform to your inflexible, baseless, and self-admittedly uncaring view of things?

But before I can commit to a viewpoint or idea and thus be open to scrutiny, vote Vermin Supreme!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> Are three random articles you found with a Google search that say Dems don't want open borders supposed to convince me of something? Here, I can do that too:
> 
> https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/illegal-immigration-democrats-open-borders/
> 
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...cratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders
> 
> https://www.newsmax.com/jameswalsh/...immigration-reform-daca/2018/01/09/id/836059/
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/immigra...n-borders-wind-up-closing-doors-for-democrats
> 
> Are you convinced? No? Then you see how stupid that is.



It shows that the concept isn't as simple as:

_"Dems want open borders. Repubs want border security."_

There's nuance there, not to mention both concepts aren't entirely mutual exclusive when looked at critically.



> I could probably find an article that said my dog's poop was a cure for skin cancer if I looked hard enough.



Hopefully you'd consider the sources and journalistic integrity of the author before drawing any conclusions.

It's downright sad that in the year of our lord, 2019, that is lost on a non-insignificant portion of people.



> Also, I know your argument is weak right away because you pulled the race card.



And I know I'm right because of how tightly you're clutching your pearls.



> It's very telling that instead of acknowledging there might actually be legitimate concerns over the issue, you reduce other people's (that you've never met and clearly know nothing about) concerns to "they're just afraid of white women being raped with impunity".



It is intellectually dishonest to divorce the racial and social baggage of the issue.

It is morally repugnant to not consider it legitimate.



> That is a typical conceited leftist point of view and is precisely why the person you loathe more than anyone on the face of the Earth is currently President of the United States. So congratulations, I guess.



A few things:

While I think Donald Trump is a dipshit, I also hold that view of many politicians. Most probably. My malice is also not focused on one side. The fact that you think it is shows your own bias.

It's also not mine or anyone else's fault that a bunch of people chose to vote for Trump. That's something that these folks are going to have to come to terms with. Stop blaming others for your mistakes, which is funny considering the scapegoat complex.



> Here's my take on the whole thing, boiled down real nice: I don't think Trump is a good person and people like you are the reason he's POTUS. So this 387 page thread could really be boiled down to, "fuck, I guess I'm an asshole after all."



Translation: the truth hurts and I rather make things objectively worse because ego.

Or

_It's very telling that instead of acknowledging there might actually be legitimate concerns over the issue, you reduce other people's (that you've never met and clearly know nothing about) concerns..._



> Should I put a dancing banana here?



Only if you don't care.

Where's the Vermin Supreme plug?


----------



## c7spheres

Only an all powerful dictatorship or externalized human control force not yet know to humans, even if it is made up of humans, can actually fix the world in any type of meaningful way, globally. All the other systems have proven themselves failures time and time again. The problem comes with whether you like the changes or freedom(s) you're left with, but that's a personal issue, and not a global issue. The only other alternative is for people to actually practice a peaceful life and treat others fairly regardless of their views. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening globally, yet, but is still possible if we still have hope, practice peace and spread the love. Good luck.


----------



## Evil Chuck

ExileMetal said:


> Before you do, just thought I’d point out his articles were not opinions or editorial pieces.


The first and third articles are just articles about a Democrat saying "we don't support open borders". Why don't we ask my grandma what she thinks and use that as evidence? The NYT article is mostly just talking about Dems and a path for Dreamers.



ExileMetal said:


> Also, what’s your goal here? Telling everyone they’re wrong, or only “leftists”?


Yes, everyone is wrong, but you're mostly leftists in this thread so that's who I'm addressing here. If I could find a right leaning POV in this thread that I disagreed with I'd point that out too.



ExileMetal said:


> And what does it mean if I’m a democrat that doesn’t support open borders?


That you're not an idiot like some of the more extreme and visible members of your party.



ExileMetal said:


> Is it possible in your mind to have nuance or subtlety around issues, or do you automatically claim all of us in our unsound thoughts can only conform to your inflexible, baseless, and self-admittedly uncaring view of things?


Regular people who align politically with Democrats (or Republicans)? Sure, nuance is possible. I'm sorry your party has left you behind with all your sensible thoughts, but they've become quite extreme, generally speaking.



ExileMetal said:


> But before I can commit to a viewpoint or idea and thus be open to scrutiny, vote Vermin Supreme!


You can scrutinize me all you like. My point is, it's all a joke. We cannot save ourselves from ourselves. The only logical choice is the guy who admits it's all a fucking joke. If you're late to the party don't get mad at me. Put a fuckin' boot on your head and let's talk about ponies.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Bla bla bla


Listen, I'm sure irl you're a decent enough guy and we could probably even discuss things face to face like people used to, and even get along with one another (or at least not punch each other in the face).

I wish we could all treat each other better, I don't want anyone to be the victim of hate, violence, racism, whatever. I'm not a hateful person. If you treat me with respect I will gladly return the favor. Please, if you don't mind, don't cast bullshit aspersions on me because we disagree with one another over political nonsense and I won't do that to you either. It's shitty. I'm not racist because I think open borders is fucking retarded. You're not a mouth breathing imbecile because you ascribe to a leftist point of view.

My sincere apologies if I offended you.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171631144414208000


----------



## possumkiller

Evil Chuck said:


> I'm not racist


Idk man that sounds pretty racist to me. That's like the very first thing a racist person would say. Followed closely by, "I have black friends".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> Listen, I'm sure irl you're a decent enough guy and we could probably even discuss things face to face like people used to, and even get along with one another (or at least not punch each other in the face).
> 
> I wish we could all treat each other better, I don't want anyone to be the victim of hate, violence, racism, whatever. I'm not a hateful person. If you treat me with respect I will gladly return the favor. Please, if you don't mind, don't cast bullshit aspersions on me because we disagree with one another over political nonsense and I won't do that to you either. It's shitty. I'm not racist because I think open borders is fucking retarded. You're not a mouth breathing imbecile because you ascribe to a leftist point of view.
> 
> My sincere apologies if I offended you.



You could say that there are _very fine people on both sides_.

I both accept your apology and extend my own. It's easy to fall into the trap of making assumptions about each other.


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> There are plenty of folks that are far from left that manage to have insightful, productive good faith discussion.
> 
> While I certainly disagree with much of the politics @Ordacleaphobia , @wedge_destroyer , @bostjan , @Flappydoodle have, they've all been great contributors to this thread, and the forum as a whole.
> 
> If you take the time, you'll also notice most of us dirty libtard communists have had some pretty strong critiques of the left as well.
> 
> If you can't hack it. Leave.



Ah shit, now I get summoned back to this thread, lol



MaxOfMetal said:


> No one in this entire thread has supported doing away with capitalism as a whole.
> 
> There have been critiques of late stage capitalism when compared to countries that run hybrid systems which amount to mostly capitalism with support for essential services, for example healthcare.



Usually those views are pretty idealistic though. UK, Canada, Scandinavian countries - they all have their share of problems despite having much more "hybrid" systems than the US. I really think this is a "grass is greener" situation.

You could argue that with healthcare, the US system is already more of a socialised system than others. Government healthcare spending (i.e. not including insurance company spending) per capita in the US is higher than anywhere else. So you're already spending more taxpayer money than the USA - just spending it in a much shittier and less effective way. 

THAT should be the outrage. That said, so much blame is misplaced - it isn't doctor salaries, drug companies, lobbyists, or any of the other commonly blamed entities. This guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Makary) wrote a book about the system and why costs are so high. Long story short, it's complicated!





Randy said:


> EDIT: And continuing with your comparison to music choices, the prominence of WMI as that main factory for most affordable brands in the US has absolutely homogenized our choices. Whew, we get to choose from a poplar burl blue burst shaped like a V, poplar burl blue burst shaped like a strat, a poplar burl burst shaped like a strat with an arm contour. Yay capitalism and yay choices!



Not sure if this was sarcastic or not, but there have been loads of factories all over China and SE Asia who made guitars. WMI did well because they could actually hit quality and cost requirements, and be reliable.

With regards to poplar, that's just some trend which isn't really driven by limited manufacturers. It's like, why can'y you get a phone with a physical keyboard any more? Why are they all massive? The iPhone 5s was only a few years ago. That's a consumer trend, not a feature of capitalism.

Not sure how many people here have ever done business in China, but it's NOT easy. They will basically lie to you, cheat, steal, produce knockoffs and generally fuck you over. All of that will just wreck your margins, and shit quality will disappoint your customers and ruin your brand. Any company (such as WMI) which is able to deliver is going to succeed. There are still plenty of competitors, but none are measuring up.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, this is the problem. I'm pretty pro-capitalism, but the fact that just about every industry is ran by it's own MegaCorp, Inc. is not exactly pro-consumer.
> Case in point, look at computer hardware and GPUs specifically. NVIDIA was way more dominant than AMD this last product cycle, and since there are _*literally no other competitors*_, obtained a completely uncontested stranglehold on the mid to high-end market. The result? Prices for the next product iteration _effectively doubled_ with middling performance gains akin to what you'd expect from a typical refresh. It's going to take years for that to correct itself now, because now AMD is going to price it's newer, more competitive mid-range cards in line with that pricing, because why wouldn't they? We had _*one year*_ of a monopoly, and prices doubled _for the foreseeable future_.
> 
> We're just experiencing peak capitalism atm, and no one really knows how to deal with it yet without violating people's rights or generally being a dick.



I partly agree with this. But that's not really a "monopoly". You simply had one company which made terrible strategic decisions and they lost out to a competitor. At the end of the day, people could have simply not upgraded to whatever new NVIDIA product. If they *were* willing to pay those higher asking prices, then that upgrade must have still been worth it. If not, sales would suck and prices would have come down. In that instance, capitalism is still working fine - you just don't like the results. 

I also don't believe it's a feature of capitalism, but rather a feature of 2019. Entering the semiconductor and chip design industry isn't something you can just do. It's decades of built up know-how, IP and talent accumulation by the company. As things become more technological, barriers to entry are going to be steeper. There's still plenty of competition in other industries, and especially those with smaller barriers to entry such as retail, food and drink etc. Despite Starbucks, you still have very successful and abundant independent coffee shops.

Don't get me wrong - there are problems and monopolies do exist, but quite often those are monopolies which happened BECAUSE of government, such as giving out contracts which gave that company a stranglehold.



possumkiller said:


> Idk man. Capitalism doesn't seem all that great. Unless you are rich. Or love being a servant to your betters. I've noticed a lot of people really are like that. My dad was explaining to me the hierarchy in heaven. We are good and all because we are Christians and Americans. However, we will never be as good in God's eyes as the Israelites.



Have you ever experienced an alternative system?

And let's be real here, the USA is still only of the most socially mobile countries in the world. I'm not even American and I can say that. Plenty of other countries have formal and informal hierarchies which WILL keep you down and you can NEVER reach beyond a certain point.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Can we propose a new topic of discussion?

China.

Seems to me like the media and Trump's opponents are attacking him for the whole "China trade war" thing, but it's more opportunist to hurt a guy they hate, rather than actual disagreement. I wonder whether secretly lots of them realise that what he's doing makes sense.

My opinion is that that what Trump is doing is justified. Furthermore, it should have ideally been done a LONG time ago. Obama, Bush and Clinton were all asleep at the wheel.

China has absolutely abused the world order in order to catch up, and their goal is to dominate. They're not even shy about saying it. They want to overtake the EU and overtake America, and everybody has been ignoring it. They use institutions against us, since we generally follow rules and they do not. So we end up crippled by our own good intentions, and they run right past not giving a shit. A very good example is environmental laws. China DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK about whatever laws the "international community" comes up with. But they're very happy to keep the charade going, happy that we spend extra time and money complying, while they shit all over it. (That's not to say we should also say "fuck it" and pollute everything, but rather we should force them to play fair.)

The US and UK intel services agree that Chinese government performs organised intellectual property theft in order to benefit their companies. They are also highly active online - far more than the Russians. 100% they are shaping our politics, sowing discontent in our populations, spreading outrage etc.

They operate with far less ethical standards than Western countries. This is particular evident in science, especially biosciences where they are more "relaxed" about animal and human testing, while the West is making those things much harder to do. Their foreign graduate students could rightly be called "spies" in many instances - since they will take know-how back to China, set up their own labs and companies, get government funding, and then out-compete us. This is exploiting the good nature and ethics of science where collaboration is encouraged but there's an assumption of good faith. Same goes for manufacturing - they'll lie, cheat, steal your IP, sell cheaper knock-offs of your product and cut every single corner they possibly can to squeeze out a single extra penny. They're still getting busted with child slave labour, for example.

You've also got a country which is pretty fucking evil on a large scale. Building artificial islands and putting missiles and bases on them in order to control waters, shipping routes and other countries. Locking up literally millions of people for being the wrong religion. Locking citizens up (or "disappearing" you) for criticising the government. Carrying out mass censorship, mass facial recognition, social credit scores and other dystopian visions.

You'd think that the left wing would be pretty horrified by China when it comes to the environment, treatment of minorities, and you'd think the right wing would be upset by their imperial military ambitions, quashing of freedoms, and you'd think both sides would be united against them stealing IP, disrupting elections etc. 

But apparently everybody is terrified to act. The UK has bent over for them. And when Trump is actually brave enough to do something, the rest of the government just kinda turns a blind eye, and opportunist Trump-haters whine about soy bean farmers.

Thoughts?


----------



## StevenC

Evil Chuck said:


> Yes, everyone is wrong, but you're mostly leftists in this thread so that's who I'm addressing here. If I could find a right leaning POV in this thread that I disagreed with I'd point that out too.


Now, you don't read this thread so it's fair to give you a pass here, but every unbiased lib-pwner that comes in here says that.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Man, John Lennon's later stuff got really weird.



That's why the Illuminati killed him.

He was making The Truth public! @Evil Chuck , man, avoid urban archways like the plague!


Avtually, better yet, stick to your native trailer park (100% archless, I'm sure) for safety and everyone's peace of mind!!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> Can we propose a new topic of discussion?
> 
> China.
> 
> Seems to me like the media and Trump's opponents are attacking him for the whole "China trade war" thing, but it's more opportunist to hurt a guy they hate, rather than actual disagreement. I wonder whether secretly lots of them realise that what he's doing makes sense.
> 
> My opinion is that that what Trump is doing is justified. Furthermore, it should have ideally been done a LONG time ago. Obama, Bush and Clinton were all asleep at the wheel.
> 
> China has absolutely abused the world order in order to catch up, and their goal is to dominate. They're not even shy about saying it. They want to overtake the EU and overtake America, and everybody has been ignoring it. They use institutions against us, since we generally follow rules and they do not. So we end up crippled by our own good intentions, and they run right past not giving a shit. A very good example is environmental laws. China DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK about whatever laws the "international community" comes up with. But they're very happy to keep the charade going, happy that we spend extra time and money complying, while they shit all over it. (That's not to say we should also say "fuck it" and pollute everything, but rather we should force them to play fair.)
> 
> The US and UK intel services agree that Chinese government performs organised intellectual property theft in order to benefit their companies. They are also highly active online - far more than the Russians. 100% they are shaping our politics, sowing discontent in our populations, spreading outrage etc.
> 
> They operate with far less ethical standards than Western countries. This is particular evident in science, especially biosciences where they are more "relaxed" about animal and human testing, while the West is making those things much harder to do. Their foreign graduate students could rightly be called "spies" in many instances - since they will take know-how back to China, set up their own labs and companies, get government funding, and then out-compete us. This is exploiting the good nature and ethics of science where collaboration is encouraged but there's an assumption of good faith. Same goes for manufacturing - they'll lie, cheat, steal your IP, sell cheaper knock-offs of your product and cut every single corner they possibly can to squeeze out a single extra penny. They're still getting busted with child slave labour, for example.
> 
> You've also got a country which is pretty fucking evil on a large scale. Building artificial islands and putting missiles and bases on them in order to control waters, shipping routes and other countries. Locking up literally millions of people for being the wrong religion. Locking citizens up (or "disappearing" you) for criticising the government. Carrying out mass censorship, mass facial recognition, social credit scores and other dystopian visions.
> 
> You'd think that the left wing would be pretty horrified by China when it comes to the environment, treatment of minorities, and you'd think the right wing would be upset by their imperial military ambitions, quashing of freedoms, and you'd think both sides would be united against them stealing IP, disrupting elections etc.
> 
> But apparently everybody is terrified to act. The UK has bent over for them. And when Trump is actually brave enough to do something, the rest of the government just kinda turns a blind eye, and opportunist Trump-haters whine about soy bean farmers.
> 
> Thoughts?



We're kind of reaping what we've sown.

We [US] gave corporate interests incentives to offshore, and they took it. Short term, it was very profitable, but as you said thanks to their manufacturing capabilities and willingness to steal IP, they'll be paying in the long run, at least eventually.


----------



## Adieu

China's living the American Dream.

If undermining their rise is a valid goal unto itself, fine, so be it... but in that case, high time to ditch that hypocritical values crap everyone in American politics loves to spout.

It's blatant self-interest and playing dirty to preserve the status quo.


----------



## Ralyks

Short answer on China: Nobody wants to pay $12,500 for an iPad. I wish I was being sarcastic, but that feels like the gist. I'm just using the iPad as an example (even if it's true), but if everything is American made, you're going to see prices on everything go way the fuck up. And as MaxOfMetal said, we kind of did this to ourselves.


----------



## thraxil

Flappydoodle said:


> And when Trump is actually brave enough to do something, the rest of the government just kinda turns a blind eye, and opportunist Trump-haters whine about soy bean farmers.
> Thoughts?



I actually agree with most of your assessments of China (and I lived there for a while in the 90's). I just don't think that any of them really have anything to do with why Trump started the trade war. It really seems like he saw the trade deficit numbers and decided that that meant that China was "winning" against the US (plus maybe wanting some optics of being the tough guy, standing up for US manufacturing, etc). I really don't think it was any sort of principled stand against them for censorship or human rights.

I also agree that Clinton, Obama, and Bush should've been taking a more aggressive attitude towards China for those reasons. But they didn't because they realized that strong trade with China was beneficial to the US, at least in the short term. The problem is that now, in 2019, a trade war like Trump is trying to do won't work. China has too much leverage and it's going to harm the US far more than China.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> I actually agree with most of your assessments of China (and I lived there for a while in the 90's). I just don't think that any of them really have anything to do with why Trump started the trade war. It really seems like he saw the trade deficit numbers and decided that that meant that China was "winning" against the US (plus maybe wanting some optics of being the tough guy, standing up for US manufacturing, etc). I really don't think it was any sort of principled stand against them for censorship or human rights.
> 
> I also agree that Clinton, Obama, and Bush should've been taking a more aggressive attitude towards China for those reasons. But they didn't because they realized that strong trade with China was beneficial to the US, at least in the short term. The problem is that now, in 2019, a trade war like Trump is trying to do won't work. China has too much leverage and it's going to harm the US far more than China.



I agree with everything here. 

Maybe a trade war would have worked at the tail end of the Clinton administration, and probably would have worked immediately after 9/11 during Bush2, but after that returns would be too diminishing really. 

And while I'm not strictly against a trade war, I don't think this administration is up to the task. Though I suppose time will tell.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Short answer on China: Nobody wants to pay $12,500 for an iPad. I wish I was being sarcastic, but that feels like the gist. I'm just using the iPad as an example (even if it's true), but if everything is American made, you're going to see prices on everything go way the fuck up. And as MaxOfMetal said, we kind of did this to ourselves.



You'd THINK so, but.... nah




It's like 6% savings.

And, as I understand it, that's manufacturing COSTS, so the impact on actual product price...would be a fraction of that.

PS i think the bigger issue is INVESTMENT: a lot of Chinese stuff is essentially practice runs and alpha/beta versions, sold below cost to recoup SOME of the costs of tooling up and ramping up production when opening new factories....while they learn to get good and consistent, cut costs, upgrade, improve, achieve economies of scale, and eventually seek supplier contracts for future, mature versions of their product

But THAT only happens when manufacturing is lucrative and growing, and people are lining up to throw money at building and expanding. No investment = no discount merchandise from newbie companies.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> The first and third articles are just articles about a Democrat saying "we don't support open borders". Why don't we ask my grandma what she thinks and use that as evidence? The NYT article is mostly just talking about Dems and a path for Dreamers.


Not sure what you're going on about here. 

Here's a workable enough summary of the deal to reopen the government after Trump shut the federal government down this February, demanding more funding for a border wall. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-2019-whats-border-security-deal/2868170002/

Not much detail on who wanted what - the side effect of this being about as vanilla a source as you could ask for - but Trump was pushing for the full sum to be used to construct a border wall, whereas the Democratic priorities were investing in additional technology at ports of entry, and Funding allowing ICE to hire more immigration lawyers to deal with the backlog of people held in detention while seeking asylum, as well as a modest reduction in the number of beds in detainment facilities to further pressure the administration to make timely immigration decisions. 

How you spin this to "the Democrats support open borders" is a little beyond me - they clearly don't, or investing in border checkkpoint technology (the site of the vast majority of illegal crossings) and additional lawyers to hear immigration and asylum cases would be a pointless waste of time. Rather, what the Democrats don't support is using US taxpayer money for building a _border wall_, which weirdly enough Candidate Trump had also pledged not to do. 

If not wanting to build a wall is exactly analogous in your mind to wanting open borders, then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> You'd THINK so, but.... nah
> 
> View attachment 72734
> 
> 
> It's like 6% savings.
> 
> And, as I understand it, that's manufacturing COSTS, so the impact on actual product price...would be a fraction of that.
> 
> PS i think the bigger issue is INVESTMENT: a lot of Chinese stuff is essentially practice runs and alpha/beta versions, sold below cost to recoup SOME of the costs of tooling up and ramping up production when opening new factories....while they learn to get good and consistent, cut costs, upgrade, improve, achieve economies of scale, and eventually seek supplier contracts for future, mature versions of their product
> 
> But THAT only happens when manufacturing is lucrative and growing, and people are lining up to throw money at building and expanding. No investment = no discount merchandise from newbie companies.



Gotcha. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> A very good example is environmental laws. China DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK about whatever laws the "international community" comes up with. But they're very happy to keep the charade going, happy that we spend extra time and money complying, while they shit all over it. (That's not to say we should also say "fuck it" and pollute everything, but rather we should force them to play fair.)
> 
> The US and UK intel services agree that Chinese government performs organised intellectual property theft in order to benefit their companies. They are also highly active online - far more than the Russians. 100% they are shaping our politics, sowing discontent in our populations, spreading outrage etc.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> But apparently everybody is terrified to act. The UK has bent over for them. And when Trump is actually brave enough to do something, the rest of the government just kinda turns a blind eye, and opportunist Trump-haters whine about soy bean farmers.
> 
> Thoughts?


So, it's more complicated than this. Let's go with "yes, and no." 

There are valid, legitimate concerns with China's rise as an international power, and their using their economic muscle to advance political aims globally. Zero arguments there. China has a right to a larger part on the global stage, but in turn should be expected to follow global economic and political norms, which they have not. 

In passing, I'd argue that prior leaders were maybe a little less asleep at the wheel than you make them out to be - before it died in the 2016 election, it's worth noting that the Trans Pacific Partnership was a trade deal with the US and a whole bunch of countries with little in common save relative geographic proximity to China, and that's not at all a coincidence: 






But, turning to the trade war... There are a few major issues I'd highlight with Trump's approach. 

1) He's focused on the wrong things, namely solely on the size of the bilateral trade deficit. This is counterproductive for a number of reasons, the largest being a trade deficit has very little to do with terms of trade, and a lot more to do with relative savings rates between countries, and the consumption patterns of goods and services. The size of the deficit is kind of immaterial, and all he's accomplishing with his tariffs is pushing trade deficits higher elsewhere (we as a nation are still a net borrower and primarily provide services rather than manufactured goods on the global stage, thus we will run trade deficits). Ironically, his war has pushed the trade deficit _higher _since the war began, partly through weaker demand overseas and partly through our burgeoning deficits - we're spending more than we produce, so we have to import. 

2) The real issue, intellectual property theft, is entirely off Trump's radar and only rarely mentioned by advisors. Both forced public-private enterprises to grant internationals access to China, as well as straight-up industrial espionage. This is extremely damaging to IP value of American firms globally, and you're right to single it out... but tariffs do nothing to change this. 

3) Trump's strategy doesn't seem well thought out, hasn't been effective, and is slowing economic growth globally, _including_ here in the US. His strategy seems straight out of his real estate empire days - continue to slap tariffs on the Chinese and wait for them to collapse. The problem is that ins't working, has actually widened the trade deficit, and won't do a think to address IP violations.... And, is probably a waste of time because while we're a free-market economy, China is a centrally planned economy led by a single-party state with state-controlled media, and can and will convince everyday Chinese to endure a fair amount of economic harm out of "patriotic duty." He's not used to working against trading partners that he can't simply overpower and can't simply walk away from the table if he can't get the terms he wants, and frankly I think Trump is kind of at a loss here. 

4) As a byproduct of pushing a trade war focusing on the wrong things and with poor strategy, he's hurting middle class Americans, particularly the American Heartland where a lot of his supporters live. Agribuisness is suffering as US exports to China become uncompetitive, manufacturing is suffering as global demand is weakening broadly, and the reason Trump's critics are focusing on these things is he's hurting everyday Americans by fighting a misguided war that totally misses the point and is not going to address any of the real chhallenges we face with China. 

The issue with China is they're a single-party government with full state control of the economy and of private life, and only nominal free-market qualities to their economy. Trump is trying to wage a go-it-alone trade war focused solely on the size of the trade deficit - again, a product of the fact we're a net borrower economy and not because the Chinese are "ripping us off," and no one nation has the leverage to force the Chinese to make the sort of market reforms and political reforms necessary to modernize and liberalize the Chinese state and economy. Multi-national trade deals excluding China and offering "carrot" incentives to trade with the US rather than "stick" incentives not to trade with China could work... Except Trump is hell-bent on blowing those up, partly because Obama was for them, and partly because he sees the world in zero-sum terms where there are only winners and losers, which is fundamentally not how capitalism works. 

So, yeah, I agree China is a problem and we need to address them sooner rather than later... But, Trump's "bull in a china shop" approach is probably making matters worse, not better, and is certainly fucking up the livlihood of a whole bunch of middle-class Americans, who, last I checked, are the sort of people American politicians should be trying to _help_.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Gotcha. Learn something new every day.


It's actually evidently the supply chain control, not cost advantages - in China, you can have a slew of manufacturing centers in a dedicated manufacturing city making all of the various parts you need for the manufacture of something like an iPhone, and with weak labor protections, if you need more of a certain chip or resistor at 3 in the morning, you can call in laborers to work then and not miss a beat in production, and have the finished parts being completed a quarter mile from the factory where they're needed. Weak environmental protections and a government that turns a blind eye probably don't hurt, either, but the reality is this is mostly about an authoritarian government where labor has few rights.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Flappydoodle said:


> Ah shit, now I get summoned back to this thread, lol



I know right.... 

But I've got more pressing things to take care of at the moment than discussing the morons in DC. You know sanding a neck, fixing cables, watching paint dry, etc. 

I might have to come back for some of that sweet China action though...


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> We're kind of reaping what we've sown.
> 
> We [US] gave corporate interests incentives to offshore, and they took it. Short term, it was very profitable, but as you said thanks to their manufacturing capabilities and willingness to steal IP, they'll be paying in the long run, at least eventually.



Agree with that.

And previous US (and European) governments were short sighted and stupid if they didn't see this coming

I think they imagined that as China developed, they would naturally "Westernise" - at least pretending to follow rules, participating in the international order etc. But obviously that was very naive.

Or, the politicians knew all along but were too scared to rock the boat, be called nationalist/xenophobic/protectionist etc.



Adieu said:


> China's living the American Dream.
> 
> If undermining their rise is a valid goal unto itself, fine, so be it... but in that case, high time to ditch that hypocritical values crap everyone in American politics loves to spout.
> 
> It's blatant self-interest and playing dirty to preserve the status quo.



Bit of both IMO. There ARE values which I hope almost any US/UK/EU government would support. Like, locking up a million people for religious beliefs - that's pretty fucked.

And there's also some expectation of fairness. If Western countries sign some agreement, they do at least attempt to follow it.



Ralyks said:


> Short answer on China: Nobody wants to pay $12,500 for an iPad. I wish I was being sarcastic, but that feels like the gist. I'm just using the iPad as an example (even if it's true), but if everything is American made, you're going to see prices on everything go way the fuck up. And as MaxOfMetal said, we kind of did this to ourselves.



Nobody even really manufactures cheap shit in China any more. It's all going to Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh etc nowadays.

You also have legislation to blame for this - discouraging Western companies from bringing money back. And you have Chinese laws PREVENTING them from doing that also. Apple needs servers in China to store iCloud data - basically ensuring the Chinese government has a stranglehold at all times. Same with financial transactions. China played smart and aggressive. So it isn't just greed of people buying, but the behaviour and rules set by governments which allowed this.



thraxil said:


> I actually agree with most of your assessments of China (and I lived there for a while in the 90's). I just don't think that any of them really have anything to do with why Trump started the trade war. It really seems like he saw the trade deficit numbers and decided that that meant that China was "winning" against the US (plus maybe wanting some optics of being the tough guy, standing up for US manufacturing, etc). I really don't think it was any sort of principled stand against them for censorship or human rights.
> 
> I also agree that Clinton, Obama, and Bush should've been taking a more aggressive attitude towards China for those reasons. But they didn't because they realized that strong trade with China was beneficial to the US, at least in the short term. The problem is that now, in 2019, a trade war like Trump is trying to do won't work. China has too much leverage and it's going to harm the US far more than China.



I think the "trade deficit" is more like something easily digestible for people.

And he's not wrong that China has been winning against us for a very long time.

I don't know if his tarrif-based trade war is the right approach either. But for a better approach, you'd need some bi-partisan law-making, which I don't see happening.

Sad indictment of our politics that everybody kicked the can down the road for future governments, as long as it kept themselves looking good and not causing trouble. Same happened with North Korea. Clinton, Bush or Obama should have stepped in BEFORE they got nukes. Now we've got Trump negotiating from a weaker position. Same happening with climate change. Nobody really wants to do anything because it will hurt short-term. Even the Democrats would NEVER actually pass their New Green Deal because it would destroy the economy and make them unpopular.

It's the one benefit of a dictatorship like China, that you don't need to give a fuck about short-term popularity.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> So, it's more complicated than this. Let's go with "yes, and no."
> 
> There are valid, legitimate concerns with China's rise as an international power, and their using their economic muscle to advance political aims globally. Zero arguments there. China has a right to a larger part on the global stage, but in turn should be expected to follow global economic and political norms, which they have not.
> 
> In passing, I'd argue that prior leaders were maybe a little less asleep at the wheel than you make them out to be - before it died in the 2016 election, it's worth noting that the Trans Pacific Partnership was a trade deal with the US and a whole bunch of countries with little in common save relative geographic proximity to China, and that's not at all a coincidence:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, turning to the trade war... There are a few major issues I'd highlight with Trump's approach.
> 
> 1) He's focused on the wrong things, namely solely on the size of the bilateral trade deficit. This is counterproductive for a number of reasons, the largest being a trade deficit has very little to do with terms of trade, and a lot more to do with relative savings rates between countries, and the consumption patterns of goods and services. The size of the deficit is kind of immaterial, and all he's accomplishing with his tariffs is pushing trade deficits higher elsewhere (we as a nation are still a net borrower and primarily provide services rather than manufactured goods on the global stage, thus we will run trade deficits). Ironically, his war has pushed the trade deficit _higher _since the war began, partly through weaker demand overseas and partly through our burgeoning deficits - we're spending more than we produce, so we have to import.
> 
> 2) The real issue, intellectual property theft, is entirely off Trump's radar and only rarely mentioned by advisors. Both forced public-private enterprises to grant internationals access to China, as well as straight-up industrial espionage. This is extremely damaging to IP value of American firms globally, and you're right to single it out... but tariffs do nothing to change this.
> 
> 3) Trump's strategy doesn't seem well thought out, hasn't been effective, and is slowing economic growth globally, _including_ here in the US. His strategy seems straight out of his real estate empire days - continue to slap tariffs on the Chinese and wait for them to collapse. The problem is that ins't working, has actually widened the trade deficit, and won't do a think to address IP violations.... And, is probably a waste of time because while we're a free-market economy, China is a centrally planned economy led by a single-party state with state-controlled media, and can and will convince everyday Chinese to endure a fair amount of economic harm out of "patriotic duty." He's not used to working against trading partners that he can't simply overpower and can't simply walk away from the table if he can't get the terms he wants, and frankly I think Trump is kind of at a loss here.
> 
> 4) As a byproduct of pushing a trade war focusing on the wrong things and with poor strategy, he's hurting middle class Americans, particularly the American Heartland where a lot of his supporters live. Agribuisness is suffering as US exports to China become uncompetitive, manufacturing is suffering as global demand is weakening broadly, and the reason Trump's critics are focusing on these things is he's hurting everyday Americans by fighting a misguided war that totally misses the point and is not going to address any of the real chhallenges we face with China.
> 
> The issue with China is they're a single-party government with full state control of the economy and of private life, and only nominal free-market qualities to their economy. Trump is trying to wage a go-it-alone trade war focused solely on the size of the trade deficit - again, a product of the fact we're a net borrower economy and not because the Chinese are "ripping us off," and no one nation has the leverage to force the Chinese to make the sort of market reforms and political reforms necessary to modernize and liberalize the Chinese state and economy. Multi-national trade deals excluding China and offering "carrot" incentives to trade with the US rather than "stick" incentives not to trade with China could work... Except Trump is hell-bent on blowing those up, partly because Obama was for them, and partly because he sees the world in zero-sum terms where there are only winners and losers, which is fundamentally not how capitalism works.
> 
> So, yeah, I agree China is a problem and we need to address them sooner rather than later... But, Trump's "bull in a china shop" approach is probably making matters worse, not better, and is certainly fucking up the livlihood of a whole bunch of middle-class Americans, who, last I checked, are the sort of people American politicians should be trying to _help_.



1. Maybe. But I also think he talks about trade deficit because it's something which normal people have some idea of what that means.

2. I don't think it's off his radar. He met with Tim Apple and others - they have all been complaining about it. And the CIA and FBI just last week I think are reporting this again. Trump is definitely aware. I also seem to recall him giving a speech and saying he had asked Xi to stop the IP theft, and him later on tweeting that they hadn't stopped. That's also a harder thing to deal with, because your countermeasures would presumably be covert and you wouldn't report them.

3. Yes and no. I agree it isn't the best approach, but it's all he can do (to my knowledge) as a President because this power is available to him. A real approach would require bi-partisan effort, new legislation, co-operation of various departments... and somehow I don't see that happening. So what we're left with is Trump and a blunt instrument of tariffs which he announced on twitter...

4. Problem is, the alternative is to do nothing. And that's probably worse in the long run. And let's be real - it's not like Elizabeth Warren actually cares about soy bean farmers or whatever, lol. The US could presumably play the China game and just use unlimited government money to prop up the industry anyway. I know for fact that they're doing that now in order to dry Trump a "win" from tarrifs. I have several friends who do business in China and SE Asia, and the impact of tariffs has been huge. Companies are moving, and I know for fact at least two factories in China were keeping everybody employed, keeping production at full speed, and then basically giving away their products - just to keep the economic numbers up and not look bad. Food for thought!


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> Not sure what you're going on about here.
> 
> Here's a workable enough summary of the deal to reopen the government after Trump shut the federal government down this February, demanding more funding for a border wall.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-2019-whats-border-security-deal/2868170002/
> 
> Not much detail on who wanted what - the side effect of this being about as vanilla a source as you could ask for - but Trump was pushing for the full sum to be used to construct a border wall, whereas the Democratic priorities were investing in additional technology at ports of entry, and Funding allowing ICE to hire more immigration lawyers to deal with the backlog of people held in detention while seeking asylum, as well as a modest reduction in the number of beds in detainment facilities to further pressure the administration to make timely immigration decisions.
> 
> How you spin this to "the Democrats support open borders" is a little beyond me - they clearly don't, or investing in border checkkpoint technology (the site of the vast majority of illegal crossings) and additional lawyers to hear immigration and asylum cases would be a pointless waste of time. Rather, what the Democrats don't support is using US taxpayer money for building a _border wall_, which weirdly enough Candidate Trump had also pledged not to do.
> 
> If not wanting to build a wall is exactly analogous in your mind to wanting open borders, then I don't know what to tell you.


With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, I think a lot of your problem understanding people on the other side of certain issues is that you're convinced you're smarter than everyone you disagree with.

What you see as genuine effort on the part of Democrats I see as smoke and mirrors. I'm sorry, but putting words in my mouth like "If not wanting to build a wall is exactly analogous in your mind to wanting open borders, then I don't know what to tell you" is how you converse with people then I'll just politely not converse with you. I don't know if you're purposely using a Strawman or it just goes back to you being convinced you already know everything so you assume that's the only possible argument I could make, either way, there is little point in discussing it with you.

With all due respect of course. I'm sure you're an international playboy, intellectual giant, and all around great guy.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Adieu said:


> That's why the Illuminati killed him.
> 
> He was making The Truth public! @Evil Chuck , man, avoid urban archways like the plague!
> 
> 
> Avtually, better yet, stick to your native trailer park (100% archless, I'm sure) for safety and everyone's peace of mind!!


Are you assuming that anyone who disagrees with your point of view lives in a trailer park? Or are you saying I'm unintelligent therefore I must live in a trailer park?

Why do you assume someone who lives in poverty couldn't be as intelligent as you are? No offense, but that doesn't exactly seem like a very high bar to climb.

Is ridiculing someone's less than stellar economic status or sub-par living conditions something you think is impressive or laudable?

I've been inside trailers that were really fucking nice and in trailer parks that were kind of like any other neighborhood. I know people that grew up in trailer parks that are good people and that I proudly call friends.

You're pretty fucking ignorant aren't you?


----------



## c7spheres

I know lots of trailer dwellers and many are actually very smart. Not the stereotypical image people get, though stereotypes do exist for a reason. Someday I may live in a class b camper van or class c, because it equals freedom, minimalisim, early retirement and more money for studio and gear stuff. I spent almost all my free time in my jam spot studio anyways when I had one. The only reason to come home is to eat, sleep, shit, shower and shave. Even then I still lived at my studio for extended periods of months at a time occasionally. Go "white trash"!. Seriously though, many "great people" came from poverty and, imo, know more about life/being human, generally speaking. There are a lot of people you could swear are straight from the Idiocracy movie though : ) Those are the types you're talking about probably. Peace and long life. Live long and prosper.


----------



## USMarine75

Eeew. Poor people are gross.


----------



## Andromalia

> With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, I think a lot of your problem understanding people on the other side of certain issues is that you're convinced you're smarter than everyone you disagree with.



With all due respect, every legislation push from conservatives I've seen in my life has been a deliberate lie, crafted to fool the have-nots into voting for the haves. It follows that people who vote for a party whose goal is to abuse them are:

-Stupid
-Misinformed
-Deliberately misled
-Masochist
Pick at least one.

So yes, left wing people have a tendency to think they are smarter. Problem: it's not inbred, it's a discovery they make when they see women, poor and minorities voting Trump (adapt to your home country, it works the same in every " western democracy".)

I understand it might not be politically correct to assert it, but the universal suffrage is the tool the 1 percenters have found to have the morons in their pocket. And the 1 percenters don't care about China, because it won't affect them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, I think a lot of your problem understanding people on the other side of certain issues is that you're convinced you're smarter than everyone you disagree with.
> 
> What you see as genuine effort on the part of Democrats I see as smoke and mirrors. I'm sorry, but putting words in my mouth like "If not wanting to build a wall is exactly analogous in your mind to wanting open borders, then I don't know what to tell you" is how you converse with people then I'll just politely not converse with you. I don't know if you're purposely using a Strawman or it just goes back to you being convinced you already know everything so you assume that's the only possible argument I could make, either way, there is little point in discussing it with you.
> 
> With all due respect of course. I'm sure you're an international playboy, intellectual giant, and all around great guy.



It's hard to take the moral high ground when you outright refuse to engage the issues. 

Drew never outright attacked your character, but you did his. Why? What does that do? 

I let go of the petty backhanded puffery when you were sending it my way, but Drew is being much more personable.


----------



## Randy

Evil Chuck said:


> Is ridiculing someone's less than stellar economic status or sub-par living conditions something you think is impressive or laudable?
> 
> You're pretty fucking ignorant aren't you?



Both sides love the troupe of pointing to financial status as an indication of validity and intelligence. The left attack trailer parks, the right attack unemployed minorities and college kids. I think it makes the point but is pretty ignorant, yeah.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to take the moral high ground when you outright refuse to engage the issues.
> 
> Drew never outright attacked your character, but you did his. Why? What does that do?
> 
> I let go of the petty backhanded puffery when you were sending it my way, but Drew is being much more personable.


I don't think I'm morally superior to him or anyone, I just don't see the point in engaging someone in conversation who a) erects Strawmen by putting words in my mouth I never even said and b) clearly thinks he is intellectually above people he disagrees with.

I think what I think, I'm not here to convince anyone that my opinions are correct. It's hilarious that because I voice an opinion certain people feel like I owe them some kind of explanation and they won't even engage honestly about it. He's so convinced he knows what I'm going to say he doesn't even bother asking me, he just argues some point I never even made. 

Thanks, but no thanks.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> Both sides love the troupe of pointing to financial status as an indication of validity and intelligence. The left attack trailer parks, the right attack unemployed minorities and college kids. I think it makes the point but is pretty ignorant, yeah.


I don't think that's really an "across the board" kind of thing. Ridiculing someone's economic status is something intellectual midgets do. I don't really think politics has anything to do with it.


----------



## Randy

Evil Chuck said:


> I don't think that's really an "across the board" kind of thing. Ridiculing someone's economic status is something intellectual midgets do. I don't really think politics has anything to do with it.



That's actually kind of my point. It's a tactic anybody can use but which group you mock is dependent on your leanings.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Andromalia said:


> With all due respect, every legislation push from conservatives I've seen in my life has been a deliberate lie, crafted to fool the have-nots into voting for the haves. It follows that people who vote for a party whose goal is to abuse them are:
> 
> -Stupid
> -Misinformed
> -Deliberately misled
> -Masochist
> Pick at least one.
> 
> So yes, left wing people have a tendency to think they are smarter. Problem: it's not inbred, it's a discovery they make when they see women, poor and minorities voting Trump (adapt to your home country, it works the same in every " western democracy".)
> 
> I understand it might not be politically correct to assert it, but the universal suffrage is the tool the 1 percenters have found to have the morons in their pocket. And the 1 percenters don't care about China, because it won't affect them.


Not gonna lie, it's funny that you think "conservatives" are the only ones who do this. People in power (with very few exceptions) do not give a flying fuck about those they rule over. Rooting for one "team" over the other is just playing into their hands.

But, what do I know, I'm not Parisian.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> the right attack unemployed minorities


I dunno man. I honestly don't get where you're coming from with this. I'm not saying racists don't exist, but I'm not seeing a lot of white conservatives (I'm assuming this is who you're talking about) attacking minorities of any economic status or societal position. I feel like it's some stereotype that exists in the minds of liberals from a time long in the past.

I'm going to tell you a little secret, and you can believe me or not, up to you obviously. I probably know far more black people than most white liberals do. The black people I know say far more racist shit than the white people I know. I know it's anecdotal, but my experience does not at all match up with what you're saying.


----------



## Randy

Evil Chuck said:


> I dunno man. I honestly don't get where you're coming from with this. I'm not saying racists don't exist, but I'm not seeing a lot of white conservatives (I'm assuming this is who you're talking about) attacking minorities of any economic status or societal position. I feel like it's some stereotype that exists in the minds of liberals from a time long in the past.
> 
> I'm going to tell you a little secret, and you can believe me or not, up to you obviously. I probably know far more black people than most white liberals do. The black people I know say far more racist shit than the white people I know. I know it's anecdotal, but my experience does not at all match up with what you're saying.



Ah, so you're a contrarian. Carry on then. Nothing worth engaging with here.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> Ah, so you're a contrarian. Carry on then. Nothing worth engaging with here.


I don't mean to be a contrarian, it's just my actual real life experience. Obviously it's anecdotal like I said. You aren't mad because I know more black people than you do are you? lol.


----------



## Randy

Evil Chuck said:


> You aren't mad because I know more black people than you do are you? lol.



Considering I'm mulatto, I'd have a hard time believing that.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> Considering I'm mulatto, I'd have a hard time believing that.


Ok, but I know a lot, and that's my actual real life experience. I've admitted it's anecdotal. I wasn't trying to be contrarian just to annoy you.


----------



## Randy

You do your thing.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> You do your thing.


I'm someone with very different political and social viewpoints (I assume) that is willing to engage you openly and honestly about race. Something that doesn't happen frequently enough in my opinion, but you can't be bothered I guess. That's fine.

I'll take my ball and go home then.


----------



## Randy

Evil Chuck said:


> I'm someone with very different political and social viewpoints (I assume) that is willing to engage you openly and honestly about race. Something that doesn't happen frequently enough in my opinion, but you can't be bothered I guess. That's fine.
> 
> I'll take my ball and go home then.



I'm well aware of the fact a black person is capable of being racist just like a white person (or any other ethnicity) is capable of. I'm not rebutting your anecdote but the history of slavery and segregation, etc in this country implies that the outlets for how racism can be used against people is lopsided against minorities. 

So to interject your anecdote about black people being racist as if it's a narrative that needs to be spoken at equal (or according to you, greater) volume as white racism against blacks (or other minorities), to me, is contrarian. Racism against any person to any person for any reason is abhorrent and has no place. There's a lot of things that you've said I don't disagree with but the context in which you feel the need to bring them up and a lot of the 'broad brush' stuff you assume/imply about the people in this thread when you make them strongly implies you're, well, contrarian.

And that's fine. I just don't make a practice out of trying to have serious discussions with people bent on telling everyone else they're wrong, even if I agree with them from time to time or even often. Nobody likes to feel like they're being lectured, as I'm sure you've felt in this thread, and jumping straight to what you ASSUME are differences in your opinions rather than looking for common ground, to me, is tantamount to be lectured.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> With all due respect, and I genuinely mean that, I think a lot of your problem understanding people on the other side of certain issues is that you're convinced you're smarter than everyone you disagree with.
> 
> What you see as genuine effort on the part of Democrats I see as smoke and mirrors. I'm sorry, but putting words in my mouth like "If not wanting to build a wall is exactly analogous in your mind to wanting open borders, then I don't know what to tell you" is how you converse with people then I'll just politely not converse with you. I don't know if you're purposely using a Strawman or it just goes back to you being convinced you already know everything so you assume that's the only possible argument I could make, either way, there is little point in discussing it with you.
> 
> With all due respect of course. I'm sure you're an international playboy, intellectual giant, and all around great guy.


With all due respect, calling people who disagree with you condecending know-it-alls, which you did to me and another person disagreeing with you in consecutive posts, probably isn't going to be an effective debating strategy. 

But, since we're here, give it an honest shot to change my mind. What makes you so sure that wanting to invest in better technology at the points of entry where most people illegally in this country DO enter is "smoke and mirrors," and that Democrats are secretly for open borders. You're totally entitled to think that when Democrats argue they're for border security, just not physical barriers, they're lying, I'd just expect you to have some evidence for that than "oh, what Democrats say, and what budgetary priorities they DO fight for, are just smoke and mirrors." I mean, considering Trump pretty much folded across the board in that shutdown debate (he settled for less border funding, and with greater restrictions, than the Democrat's initial opening offer had, it was a full-bore capitulation on his part), a lot of the border-related provisions they asked for are things they didn't HAVE to include in a deal if they didn't want them there. I specifically went to the shutdown fight for evidence of the Democrats commitment to border security here because 1) it was a fight predicated on different approaches to border security, and 2) it was one that Trump lost so badly that there was very little compromise needed on the part of the Democrats, so where they made ground up from the start of the debate and what priorities they chose to push in the final bill reopening the government should be a pretty honest look at where their priorities are.

Right now, your argument here is "people who disagree with me are doing so because they assume they're smarter than me, and has nothing to do with the merits of my, or their, arguments." Sure, let's assume that's true. Lay out your argument. Show me why you think the Democrats' actions are consistent with wanting "open borders," rather than just not wanting to build some massive boondoggle with taxpayer money that's a tribute to Trump's ego. And writing off people's arguments because you believe they have an inflated impression of their own self-worth is, at the end of the day, just the other side of the coin of writing off people's arguments because they're less intelligent than you. Both are intellectually sloppy, just for different reasons.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Randy said:


> I'm well aware of the fact a black person is capable of being racist just like a white person (or any other ethnicity) is capable of.


I respect that you can admit that. A lot of people nowadays can't.



Randy said:


> I'm not rebutting your anecdote but the history of slavery and segregation, etc in this country implies that the outlets for how racism can be used against people is lopsided against minorities.


I get what you're saying, some truly terrible shit went on in the past, there is no question about that. I'm not saying bad people don't still exist, or bad things no longer happen, obviously they do. I'm just not convinced racism is the barrier some people want to make it out to be. I think a lot of people (I'm talking about everyone) don't want to, or even even understand how to, take personal responsibility for themselves anymore and just want to blame a bogeyman for all their problems. This is a large part of my problem with the political left. Identity politics. I don't believe for one second they care about anyone beneath them, they only pay lip service. They work very hard to pit us against one another so we don't turn our eye towards them.



Randy said:


> So to interject your anecdote about black people being racist as if it's a narrative that needs to be spoken at equal (or according to you, greater) volume as white racism against blacks (or other minorities), to me, is contrarian.


I honestly didn't mean for it to be contrarian, I was just illustrating a point with my personal experience.



Randy said:


> Racism against any person to any person for any reason is abhorrent and has no place.


Agreed.



Randy said:


> There's a lot of things that you've said I don't disagree with but the context in which you feel the need to bring them up and a lot of the 'broad brush' stuff you assume/imply about the people in this thread when you make them strongly implies you're, well, contrarian.


The broad brush stuff is probably true to some extent. It's clear I'm outnumbered here though so my instinct is to be more aggressive.



Randy said:


> And that's fine. I just don't make a practice out of trying to have serious discussions with people bent on telling everyone else they're wrong, even if I agree with them from time to time or even often. Nobody likes to feel like they're being lectured, as I'm sure you've felt in this thread, and jumping straight to what you ASSUME are differences in your opinions rather than looking for common ground, to me, is tantamount to be lectured.


I suppose you're right, I can be abrasive from time to time. I don't ever intend to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian though, but I when you disagree with a lot of things in a particular thread it's hard to not look like you're just trying to be disagreeable I guess.

At any rate, even though we might disagree about a lot of stuff you seem like a decent guy. Sorry If I came off poorly. In my defense I'm not the only one acting in a less than stellar way in this thread. If I feel attacked I will defend myself, as most people would.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> With all due respect, calling people who disagree with you condecending know-it-alls, which you did to me and another person disagreeing with you in consecutive posts, probably isn't going to be an effective debating strategy.



That's easy, I don't need an effective debating strategy for someone I'm not debating. Plus, I called you an international playboy and some other nice shit. Wtf do you want?


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> 1. Maybe. But I also think he talks about trade deficit because it's something which normal people have some idea of what that means.
> 
> 2. I don't think it's off his radar. He met with Tim Apple and others - they have all been complaining about it. And the CIA and FBI just last week I think are reporting this again. Trump is definitely aware. I also seem to recall him giving a speech and saying he had asked Xi to stop the IP theft, and him later on tweeting that they hadn't stopped. That's also a harder thing to deal with, because your countermeasures would presumably be covert and you wouldn't report them.
> 
> 3. Yes and no. I agree it isn't the best approach, but it's all he can do (to my knowledge) as a President because this power is available to him. A real approach would require bi-partisan effort, new legislation, co-operation of various departments... and somehow I don't see that happening. So what we're left with is Trump and a blunt instrument of tariffs which he announced on twitter...
> 
> 4. Problem is, the alternative is to do nothing. And that's probably worse in the long run. And let's be real - it's not like Elizabeth Warren actually cares about soy bean farmers or whatever, lol. The US could presumably play the China game and just use unlimited government money to prop up the industry anyway. I know for fact that they're doing that now in order to dry Trump a "win" from tarrifs. I have several friends who do business in China and SE Asia, and the impact of tariffs has been huge. Companies are moving, and I know for fact at least two factories in China were keeping everybody employed, keeping production at full speed, and then basically giving away their products - just to keep the economic numbers up and not look bad. Food for thought!



1) Honestly, I think corporate espionage is a LOT easier to understand than trade deficits. If anything I think you could argue that Trump is talking about trade deficits because most people understand them incorrectly, and that incorrect understanding that a deficit means we're "getting ripped off" works for him... But even then, I'd buy that more if it wasn't for the fact that all of his advisors swear he legitimately doesn't understand what drives trade deficits and sees it as a zero-sum-game, and if there was any evidence that they were using the trade deficit argument to try to back-door IP protections in, which there's very little I've seen that supports that. It's just straight-up not a major part of the conversations, and China is doing their best to _keep_ it that way - saying any changes to the functioning of their own economy are off-limits, and specifically noting that national security measures are seperate and apart from any trade matters (read: corporate espionage and military espionage are separate and apart from each other). 

2) I fully agree people are telling him this is an issue and some of his advisors think this is a big issue. It IS a big issue, far bigger than the trade deficit, which is kind of a false flag. Trump just remains fixated on the trade deficit, and since so much of the escalation of this war is his doing, mostly announcing new policies over twitter, that's a really, really big problem. 

3) So, why go it alone? The TPP would have been a pretty effective economic check on China, and did include a fair amount on harmonizing and strengthening IP protections. He blew that up as soon as he came to office, sure, but just as he bitched about NAFTA and then unveiled the USMCA as this brand-spanking-new accomplishment of his that was really just some light tweaks to NAFTA, why not announce, oh, the US-Pacific Intellectual Property Accord, and use the USPIPA as a way to extend favorable trade terms to China's near-neighbors in return for strengthening IP law and requiring IP protections to extend beyond borders, effectively cutting China out of these areas and limiting their power abroad while also making these nations more attractive manufacturing/trade partners on a relative basis? Or, why not work with Congress to get some sort of IP protection law drafted banning the sort of partnerships China required with the handover of IP, and use that as a leverage chip here? Instead Trump is wielding tariffs like a battering axe, and as the saying goes is cutting off his nose to spite his face by doing real economic damage at home (the other day Moody's Analytics estimated job losses due to the trade war are about 300,000 and counting so far, on track for 450,000 by year end and 900,000 by the end of 2020 if things continue at their current pace). Even if you agree with his _objective_, I think it's pretty clear that the _strategy_ he is using is badly flawed. 

4) But that's kind of what I'm getting at - when push comes to shove, which economy is going to fall apart first, the free market economy with democratically elected leaders only a year and a half from the next election and an honest-to-god opposition party, or the single-party state with a ruler facing no real opposition and no real elections, with a centrally planned economy with no clear line between the party and the economy? Trump's trying to play their game, right now we're paying subsidies to farmers at about 1.5x the rate of what we're collecting from American importers, but despite his public praises the economy is "doing great," farming is suffering, manufacturing is suffering, and most of the swing states he won to eke out his electoral college win are heavily dependent on those two sectors. The best case scenario here is that voters abandon him in droves, some Democrat wins, and we as a nation have to try to undo a lot of the harm he's done and return the focus here to IP protections, where it belongs. The worst case scenario is a global recession before that can even happen.


----------



## tedtan

Evil Chuck said:


> That's easy, I don't need an effective debating strategy for someone I'm not debating. Plus, I called you an international playboy and some other nice shit. Wtf do you want?



The thing is, when you come in with broad brush proclamations without supporting evidence, insults, and then refuse discuss/debate your point of view, it comes across as trolling whether that is your intent or not.

If you are willing to discuss these issues in good faith, there are many here willing to engage in discussion with you.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> That's easy, I don't need an effective debating strategy for someone I'm not debating. Plus, I called you an international playboy and some other nice shit. Wtf do you want?


Well, considering this is a discussion forum, to discuss. You're telling me I'm wrong, because you think I have an inflated sense of my own intelligence. That's not a serious argument. If you think I'm wrong, then explain _why_ you think I'm wrong. I think I've made a pretty solid argument that the Democrats do support border security, but if you've got a couple good points to the contrary, who knows, I might even learn something here.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> Well, considering this is a discussion forum, to discuss. You're telling me I'm wrong, because you think I have an inflated sense of my own intelligence. That's not a serious argument. If you think I'm wrong, then explain _why_ you think I'm wrong. If you've got a couple good points, I might even learn something.


This is a discussion forum, yes, but I'm not obligated to discuss anything with you in particular. You've already erected, and argued against, a point I never even made (the wall). And now you act as though you're entitled to an explanation from me. You're literally hounding me now to debate you. 

Why? My guess is your intellectual superiority complex needs it, fuck if I know.

Will it make you leave me alone if I say you win? Lol.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> This is a discussion forum, yes, but I'm not obligated to discuss anything with you in particular. You've already erected, and argued against, a point I never even made (the wall). And now you act as though you're entitled to an explanation from me. You're literally hounding me now to debate you.
> 
> Why? My guess is your intellectual superiority complex needs it, fuck if I know.
> 
> Will it make you leave me alone if I say you win? Lol.


Now you're just trolling.

What makes you think it's "smoke and mirrors" when the Democrats say, and act in a manner consistent with their statements, that they're for border security? When you said this:



Evil Chuck said:


> Imagine living in reality (and being of sound mind) and simultaneously believing Democrats aren't for open borders. All while insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you because their hero politicians are cowards and won't actually come out and say those *exact *words, "I'm for open borders!".
> 
> Imagine being so hopelessly tied to one side of the political spectrum that you can't admit something so god damn obvious my miniature pink pony could tell me it's the truth.
> 
> Surely by now I don't need to tell you how we can all solve this problem, AND get a free pony, do I?
> 
> Succumb to Nihilism, vote Vermin Supreme 2020!!


...what made you think anyone who thinks Democrats _aren't_ pushing for open borders isn't of sound mind?

Because, if you're going to sit here and insult 1) my intelligence, 2) my opinion of my intelligence, and 3) my state of mind, then yeah, I'm going to tell you I think I'm entitled to an explanation from you.

With all due respect, naturally. I'm sure you're a perfectly lovely person.


----------



## StevenC

Evil Chuck said:


> This is a discussion forum, yes, but I'm not obligated to discuss anything with you in particular. You've already erected, and argued against, a point I never even made (the wall). And now you act as though you're entitled to an explanation from me. You're literally hounding me now to debate you.
> 
> Why? My guess is your intellectual superiority complex needs it, fuck if I know.
> 
> Will it make you leave me alone if I say you win? Lol.


Posting with no intent to discuss anything sounds an awful lot like trolling.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> ...what made you think anyone who thinks Democrats aren't pushing for open borders isn't of sound mind?


You're reading what I typed wrong. That's not what I meant.

I was being a bit sarcastic, yes, but what I meant was imagine living in reality AND being of sound mind (basically that you are of sound mind, not mentally incapacitated in some way), AND ALSO believing that Democrats aren't for open borders. Obviously, not all Democrats are for open borders, but I believe many would openly support it if they thought it was politically viable to do so.


----------



## Evil Chuck

StevenC said:


> Posting with no intent to discuss anything sounds an awful lot like trolling.


Obviously I'm discussing things with people, I'd just rather not discuss with him. Is that the new definition of trolling now?


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> You're reading what I typed wrong. That's not what I meant.
> 
> I was being a bit sarcastic, yes, but what I meant was imagine living in reality AND being of sound mind (basically that you are of sound mind, not mentally incapacitated in some way), AND ALSO believing that Democrats aren't for open borders. Obviously, not all Democrats are for open borders, but I believe many would openly support it if they thought it was politically viable to do so.


So, why do you think that? I don't think, at a minimum, the current House coalition is pushing for open borders, and have made a case for that. Why, other than the strength of your your deeply-held-conviction, do you think that they are? It's a discussion forum, if you're going to share an opinion, you should be able to defend it with some sort of reasonable basis.



Evil Chuck said:


> Obviously I'm discussing things with people, I'd just rather not discuss with him. Is that the new definition of trolling now?


Who are you, the President on Twitter? You expect to only discuss things with people who don't raise things that fit in neatly with your worldview?


----------



## zappatton2

Evil Chuck said:


> This is a discussion forum, yes, but I'm not obligated to discuss anything with you in particular. You've already erected, and argued against, a point I never even made (the wall). And now you act as though you're entitled to an explanation from me. You're literally hounding me now to debate you.
> 
> Why? My guess is your intellectual superiority complex needs it, fuck if I know.
> 
> Will it make you leave me alone if I say you win? Lol.


You're presenting the exact problem with debating populism. I see it here in Canada too, with the global rise in right wing populism. Not that there isn't a left wing version of it, but political conservatism has come to define itself by it. It's the idea that having opinions or ideas makes them equally valid to anyone else's, regardless of the merits.

Someone knowledgeable of a subject presents evidence and reliable sources, and rather than being debated on the merits of the points, or offered reliable evidence to the contrary, the "elitist card" gets played. The whole "you just think you're better/smarter than me" argument. That's not _at all_ the point being made.

It's like people who think climate science has two equally grounded positions; 1) that humans are contributing to an irreversible climate catastrophe through our industrial activities (supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence), or 2) that it's all a conspiracy by scheming socialists (supported by populist conspiracy, with brazen industry and political support). So why can't the media stop being so biased and liberal and give equal time to both arguments, because merely having another opinion makes it of equal worth. It isn't. It is not of equal worth, not to appease people who need to feel smarter, but because any honest debate should be engaged on grounded facts alone.


----------



## zappatton2

At the end of the day, I think what can be said about the Trump administration can be said about what we're seeing the world over. I can't help but always think of the burning of the ancient library of Alexandria, for me, the symbolic end of the great civilizations of antiquity and the ushering in of Dark Ages in the West.

It's the abandonment of knowledge, science and reason in governing human affairs. It's the targeting of those pillars for accusation of "elitism", and the replacement of our better traits as a species with populism, patriotic nationalism, authoritarianism and intolerant extremism. I truly am worried about the future of our species on this planet, I can only hope this is the dying gasp of the boomers and the kids will take the mantle and turn this shit around. It's pretty disheartening to put it mildly.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> So, why do you think that? I don't think, at a minimum, the current House coalition is pushing for open borders, and have made a case for that. Why, other than the strength of your your deeply-held-conviction, do you think that they are? It's a discussion forum, if you're going to share an opinion, you should be able to defend it with some sort of reasonable basis.




Hillary Clinton's comment about open borders in that infamous private speech (I don't believe her excuse about energy or whatever the fk it was).
The abolish ICE bill that was co-sponsored by 8 Democrats in the House.
The whole abolish ICE movement
The whole asylum excuse is a facade.
The fact that only a tiny number of asylum seekers ever show up for their hearings (Democrats are obviously aware of this fact)
Keith Ellison wearing a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders"
Sanctuary cities
Drivers Licenses for people here illegally
Dems support for healthcare for illegal immigrants
All but one candidate in the June Dem debate supporting the decriminalization of crossing the border illegally

The main reason I believe the left is pro open borders is that they have a motive that is too overwhelming for them to pass up; more power.


----------



## Evil Chuck

zappatton2 said:


> You're presenting the exact problem with debating populism. I see it here in Canada too, with the global rise in right wing populism. Not that there isn't a left wing version of it, but political conservatism has come to define itself by it. It's the idea that having opinions or ideas makes them equally valid to anyone else's, regardless of the merits.
> 
> Someone knowledgeable of a subject presents evidence and reliable sources, and rather than being debated on the merits of the points, or offered reliable evidence to the contrary, the "elitist card" gets played. The whole "you just think you're better/smarter than me" argument. That's not _at all_ the point being made.
> 
> It's like people who think climate science has two equally grounded positions; 1) that humans are contributing to an irreversible climate catastrophe through our industrial activities (supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence), or 2) that it's all a conspiracy by scheming socialists (supported by populist conspiracy, with brazen industry and political support). So why can't the media stop being so biased and liberal and give equal time to both arguments, because merely having another opinion makes it of equal worth. It isn't. It is not of equal worth, not to appease people who need to feel smarter, but because any honest debate should be engaged on grounded facts alone.


I do not think all opinions are equally valuable. I also don't support censorship.

I'm not playing an "elitest card". As I've said several times now, he painted my argument in a false light in an attempt to dismiss it. I think that's disingenuous, but according to you, I should just let him mischaracterize my argument however it suits his purposes? And if I don't I've descended into some dark abyss where knowledge is forsaken?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

> Hillary Clinton's comment about open borders in that infamous private speech (I don't believe her excuse about energy or whatever the fk it was).



https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-have-open-/



> The abolish ICE bill that was co-sponsored by 8 Democrats in the House.
> The whole abolish ICE movement



https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/abolish-ice

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...s/fact-check-ice-immigration-abolish.amp.html

https://www.apnews.com/5b09f646b1be406c8415b08798e061bf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ation-what-is-ice-and-why-is-it-controversial



> The whole asylum excuse is a facade.
> The fact that only a tiny number of asylum seekers ever show up for their hearings (Democrats are obviously aware of this fact)



https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/26/how-many-migrants-show-up-immigration-court-hearings/?outputType=amp



> Keith Ellison wearing a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders"



Nothing to add really. He did this. 

He's Minnesota's AG.



> Sanctuary cities



The heart of the issue looks to be cities not wanting to deal with ICE, the reasons for which are detailed above.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/01/29/512002076/why-sanctuary-cities-are-safer

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-sanctuary-policies-on-crime-and-the-economy/



> Drivers Licenses for people here illegally



If they're here, it's better for everyone if they get licensed.

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/24/7199...nts-may-lead-to-safer-roads-connecticut-finds

https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag....g-drivers-licenses-to-undocumented-immigrants

Not expecting a reply. Don't care for one really. Just throwing some information up for anyone else following.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not expecting a reply. Don't care for one really. Just throwing some information up for anyone else following.


The drivers license, healthcare, sanctuary cities, all incentivizes and rewards people coming here illegally.

Your link about the asylum hearings says nearly half (44%) don't show up. How is that good?

Abolish ICE? Fine, replace it with what though? Seems like they just want it abolished to make it easier to get across the border to me.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Don't care for one really.


Was that necessary?


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-says-hillary-clinton-wants-have-open-/


Don't know why she walked that back. Sounds like an EU for America. That's a good idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> The drivers license, healthcare, sanctuary cities, all incentivizes and rewards people coming here illegally.



But it's not creating "open borders". Better conditions here does not remove the barriers to getting here. 

It's helping those already here, and in most cases helps legal residents as well. 

Driver's licenses actually adds accountability, hence lower instances of hit and run. Anyone can buy a car privately, so it's not like not having a license is a barrier to driving. 

If we lived in a bubble we'd be able to ignore healthcare for these people. Infectious disease doesn't ask for papers. Not to mention emergency room costs which are spread out to all of us in the form of higher premiums.

As for ICE RE: Sanctuary Cities. I've already explained. 



> Your link about the asylum hearings says nearly half (44%) don't show up. How is that good?



So we're saying 56% is a "tiny number"?

Aside from that, read the whole article. 

The fact is that the government (that is Republican controlled at the moment) doesn't make the raw data available. There are certain methodologies used to reach certain public numbers, but they are filtered snapshots. 

Some folks don't have court dates for years out, and don't get proper notification of changes in court dates and scheduling.



> Abolish ICE? Fine, replace it with what though? Seems like they just want it abolished to make it easier to get across the border to me.



They've only been around since 2003. 

The number of illegal border crossings has risen in that time too. In fact there's little evidence that ICE has had any positive impact on the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States. 

So I guess I'd say, without wasting a bunch of words, to just go back to pre-2003 enforcement agencies. 



> Was that necessary?



Given your attitude the last time I tried to have a discussion with context, yes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Don't know why she walked that back. Sounds like an EU for America. That's a good idea.



If you want to take a trip down the crazy internet rabbit hole: Google the "Amero".

The concept is pretty straight forward, but the conspiracy theorists really grabbed on.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> Hillary Clinton's comment about open borders in that infamous private speech (I don't believe her excuse about energy or whatever the fk it was).
> The abolish ICE bill that was co-sponsored by 8 Democrats in the House.
> The whole abolish ICE movement
> The whole asylum excuse is a facade.
> The fact that only a tiny number of asylum seekers ever show up for their hearings (Democrats are obviously aware of this fact)
> Keith Ellison wearing a shirt that said "I don't believe in borders"
> Sanctuary cities
> Drivers Licenses for people here illegally
> Dems support for healthcare for illegal immigrants
> All but one candidate in the June Dem debate supporting the decriminalization of crossing the border illegally
> The main reason I believe the left is pro open borders is that they have a motive that is too overwhelming for them to pass up; more power.


I can run through most of these

1) not familiar with the Clinton speech nor the context. Sorry. However, you're talking about someone who is not an active part of the Democratic party. This isn't 2016.
2-3) yes, the Dems have an extreme far-left wing too. It goes without saying, that bill died. That said, it's also worth looking into WHY they wanted to abolish ICE - that they being militarized into a force used to harass minorities in America. I don't want people empowered to demand proof of immigration status from people with brown skin either. That doesn't mean I'm for open borders, just that I'm for civil liberties.
4-5) Citation? I'm sure some asylum claims are "a facade" but that's why we have an asylum court to make sure that asylum claims are justified, and again, the Democrats are increasing the number of justices available to hear asylum claims. As far as asylum claimers not showing up for hearings, massive backlog in asylum cases would suggest that this isn't true, but if you've got evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.
6) Who the fuck is Keith Ellison?
7) Sanctuary cities get a bit tricky, but I'll observe that a) sanctuary cities, even those near borders, don't try to circumvent border controls, but don't actively work with federal immigration officials on routine non-federal criminal matters, which is a _very_ different thing than wanting open borders, and b) is in recognition of the fact that illegal immigrants are still an important part of many local economies, and fill workforce gaps that we have trouble finding American citizens or legal immigrants to fill. It's a matter of choosing not to go out of our way to aggressively prosecute the people already _in_ the country, many of whom have been living here peacefully for years to decades, than it is wanting no control over new people coming in in the first place. There are pros and cons here, with maybe (for me) the most compelling pro being it's probably not cost-effective to aggressively hunt down illegal immigrants, who generally break the law at a lower rate than legal residences and pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits (not being able to file tax returns matters), but I don't see how this really is an attack on _borders_.
8) This kind of dove-tails into #7 - a driver's license alone won't let you cross the border unchecked and is no proof of citizenship. You could argue the pros or cons of letting people with undocumented immigration statuses apply for drivers licenses and I don't really have strong feelings either way, but again I don't see how this weakens our borders. Also worth noting - this isn't something I've ever researched extensively, but a google search says that while the 14 states that allow this do lean democratic, they're hardly uniform, with CO being pretty purple/libertarian in bent and UT being fairly conservative, though again with a libertarian bent.
9) Honestly, I support this too simply because it's cheaper to treat people up front than it is to wait for someone without insurance to become so sick that even they realize they have no choice but to go to the local ER for care they know they can't pay for. I could care less about the immigration argument - for me, this is simple economics.
10) Yes. They want to reduce it from a crime to a misdemeanor, because the relevant section of legal code is what the Trump administration is using to justify family separation at the border, on the justification these families have committed a federal crime. That's both a bit of a catch-22, and needlessly cruel. It also wasn't on anyone's radar before Sessions rolled out his zero tolerance policy, so this is a direct response to that.

****

I mean, the only other observation I'll make here... Most of your evidence that the Dems are "for open borders" is that they're opposed to the Trump administration's attempts to make life as miserable as possible for people already in this country but without legal documentation. Considering the percentage of illegal immigrants that have lived in the US for more than a decade has risen to more than 66%, this is less about borders than it is a disagreement about how big a deal we think it is that there's a population of undocumented immigrants _already here_.

That's a fair debate to have, even if I disagree with a lot of Trump's methods, but I think you can simultaneously believe that a population of people who have been living inside our borders for a decade and have respected the laws otherwise are probably people who can safely stay here and potentially be granted a path to citizenship, while _also_ believing that border security is important, and we can't do anything about our borders having been more porous in the past than might have been ideal, but we can find ways to strengthen them in the present. And, that one of the best things we can do to clamp down on _illegal_ immigration is to make the path to _legal_ immigration ans clear and open as possible. The Trump administration's decision to severely restrict legal routes into this country is honestly a huge factor in the fact we've seen an increase in illegal immigration under his tenure. 

Food for thought.


----------



## JSanta

On NPR this morning, the acting secretary of the US Citizenship and Immigration services was talking about the issue of those seeking asylum, and their rates of actually making the court dates. Rachel Martin (I think rightly) pressed Ken Cucinnelli on the issue, where she asked (and this is copied directly from the transcripts, which I'll link to):

MARTIN: I imagine you've seen all the reporting about how difficult it is for migrants to make their court dates because they're required now, as a result of another policy change by the administration, to wait in Mexico for those claims to be processed. But there is a lot of reporting that these migrants are waiting in squalid, dangerous conditions. They get to the border to cross for their hearing, and then they're delayed so long by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, they miss it. Is that intentional? Is that by design?

CUCCINELLI: Yeah, it is absolutely not by design. The design is set up to work. I will say that this is still relatively new. It was started last December. And in California and in El Paso and - we are still in the relatively early stages and adding on Brownsville and Laredo. And we want this to work. We will make it work. And I think I read the same article that you're referencing. And you know, the main person in that article got a hearing rescheduled. We don't want people...

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/7600...its-u-s-government-to-curtail-asylum-requests


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> If you want to take a trip down the crazy internet rabbit hole: Google the "Amero".
> 
> The concept is pretty straight forward, but the conspiracy theorists really grabbed on.


"Congressman Ron Paul has made the NAU one of his central issues."

You know it's crazy when Ron Paul is talking about it.


----------



## Drew

I mean, really, the tl;dr argument I'm making here is Dems are all for strong borders, as are Republicans, it's just we disagree on what that means. 

The GOP wants physical barriers on the border and wants to make an example of people seeking asylum or already living here illegally, regardless of the merits in their particular cases, to attempt to discourage people from seeking asylum or trying to enter the country legally. 

The Democrats figure the immigrants living here legally for years are probably not a risk, that since most people enter the country illegally through established points of entry a border barrier isn't necessary and our money would be more effective in technological improvements at the points where most people are actually coming, and that we should be making legal immigration as fair and transparent as possible to encourage people who want to come to this country to apply for legal immigration status rather than trying to enter illegally. 

In both cases, border security is a priority, it's just we're coming at the problem in radically different directions.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Weak environmental protections and a government that turns a blind eye probably don't hurt, either, but the reality is this is mostly about an authoritarian government where labor has few rights.



When our Japanese and South Korean friends do the same, we call it "work ethic", "culture", and "innovative just-in-time logistics" though...


----------



## Adieu

Evil Chuck said:


> You're pretty fucking ignorant aren't you?



Yeah, I probably am.

But my WIS score is finally high enough to freely recognize and even openly admit that.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> When our Japanese and South Korean friends do the same, we call it "work ethic", "culture", and "innovative just-in-time logistics" though...


Oh we said that about China too right until we didn't, and while I'm less familiar with Korean business culture than Japanese, they both clearly have problems. Neither here nor there, though - this isn't about cost of labor, it's about supply chain management. And honestly the geographic elements here, the fact you can cluster all the factories you need for the chain into a newly developed Special Economic Opportunity Zone or whatever, is probably bigger than the labor timing component just to cut down on delivery time and expense.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> I can run through most of these
> 
> 1) not familiar with the Clinton speech nor the context. Sorry. However, you're talking about someone who is not an active part of the Democratic party. This isn't 2016.


I don't know why a huge figurehead saying something 3 years ago is completely dismissed by you, but whatever.



Drew said:


> 2-3) yes, the Dems have an extreme far-left wing too. It goes without saying, that bill died. That said, it's also worth looking into WHY they wanted to abolish ICE - that they being militarized into a force used to harass minorities in America. I don't want people empowered to demand proof of immigration status from people with brown skin either. That doesn't mean I'm for open borders, just that I'm for civil liberties.


I don't believe all the hype about ICE being big meanies. I mean, they're law enforcement, I'm sure they aren't going around handing out roses.



Drew said:


> 4-5) Citation? I'm sure some asylum claims are "a facade" but that's why we have an asylum court to make sure that asylum claims are justified, and again, the Democrats are increasing the number of justices available to hear asylum claims. As far as asylum claimers not showing up for hearings, massive backlog in asylum cases would suggest that this isn't true, but if you've got evidence to the contrary I'm all ears.


@MaxOfMetal posted a link detailing how 44% of "asylum seekers" never show up for their hearings.



Drew said:


> 6) Who the fuck is Keith Ellison?


He's Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee, member of the House of Representatives, accused by two separate women of domestic abuse (#BelieveAllWomen right? RIGHT?!). ANTIFA supporter, and lover of no borders.



Drew said:


> 7) Sanctuary cities get a bit tricky, but I'll observe that a) sanctuary cities, even those near borders, don't try to circumvent border controls, but don't actively work with federal immigration officials on routine non-federal criminal matters, which is a _very_ different thing than wanting open borders, and b) is in recognition of the fact that illegal immigrants are still an important part of many local economies, and fill workforce gaps that we have trouble finding American citizens or legal immigrants to fill. It's a matter of choosing not to go out of our way to aggressively prosecute the people already _in_ the country, many of whom have been living here peacefully for years to decades, than it is wanting no control over new people coming in in the first place. There are pros and cons here, with maybe (for me) the most compelling pro being it's probably not cost-effective to aggressively hunt down illegal immigrants, who generally break the law at a lower rate than legal residences and pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits (not being able to file tax returns matters), but I don't see how this really is an attack on _borders_.


I'm not claiming they circumvent border controls, I'm claiming they reward and incentivize people coming here illegally.



Drew said:


> 8) This kind of dove-tails into #7 - a driver's license alone won't let you cross the border unchecked and is no proof of citizenship. You could argue the pros or cons of letting people with undocumented immigration statuses apply for drivers licenses and I don't really have strong feelings either way, but again I don't see how this weakens our borders. Also worth noting - this isn't something I've ever researched extensively, but a google search says that while the 14 states that allow this do lean democratic, they're hardly uniform, with CO being pretty purple/libertarian in bent and UT being fairly conservative, though again with a libertarian bent.


Again, I feel this rewards and incentivizes people coming here illegally. You think Democrats support this because humanitarian purposes. I call bullshit. Politicians are all evil and only do anything because it perpetuates their power and control over others.



Drew said:


> 9) Honestly, I support this too simply because it's cheaper to treat people up front than it is to wait for someone without insurance to become so sick that even they realize they have no choice but to go to the local ER for care they know they can't pay for. I could care less about the immigration argument - for me, this is simple economics.


Same as above.



Drew said:


> 10) Yes. They want to reduce it from a crime to a misdemeanor, because the relevant section of legal code is what the Trump administration is using to justify family separation at the border, on the justification these families have committed a federal crime. That's both a bit of a catch-22, and needlessly cruel. It also wasn't on anyone's radar before Sessions rolled out his zero tolerance policy, so this is a direct response to that.


They want to reduce the penalty because they want to make crossing the border easier, and then they want to reward those who do by giving them IDs and healthcare. Sounds to me like they support open borders, but I'm not giving them an automatic pass on everything they do or say and taking them by their word. A politician's word is meaningless.




Drew said:


> I mean, the only other observation I'll make here... Most of your evidence that the Dems are "for open borders" is that they're opposed to the Trump administration's attempts to make life as miserable as possible for people already in this country but without legal documentation.


This is why I didn't want to debate you. You make unfounded aspersions against my motives for wanting strong border control. I do not want anyone's life to be made miserable. I do not want anyone to be hurt. I do not want anyone's humanity to be violated. I disagree with you vehemently and I think you're gullible for taking politician's at their word, but I DO NOT want anyone, even brown people (crazy right!), to be hurt in anyway.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Given your attitude the last time I tried to have a discussion with context, yes.


And I apologized for that, but I guess we're back to being uncivil. That's fine with me, it's more fun anyway.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> And I apologized for that, but I guess we're back to being uncivil. That's fine with me, it's more fun anyway.



Whatever you say, chief.


----------



## narad

I feel like if the vast majority of actual democratic policy and rhetoric is ignored in favor of "Yea, but what they really want to do is...", then this discussion is more at home in the Conspiracy Theories Thread than in political discussion.


----------



## Evil Chuck

narad said:


> I feel like if the vast majority of actual democratic policy and rhetoric is ignored in favor of "Yea, but what they really want to do is...", then this discussion is more at home in the Conspiracy Theories Thread than in political discussion.


A lot of the people in this thread may as well be members of a cult, so you're spot on with the conspiracy theory idea.


----------



## Andromalia

Evil Chuck said:


> Not gonna lie, it's funny that you think "conservatives" are the only ones who do this. People in power (with very few exceptions) do not give a flying fuck about those they rule over. Rooting for one "team" over the other is just playing into their hands.
> 
> *But, what do I know, I'm not Parisian*.



Other than reeking of american redneck snubbery, this is interesting. Because if you were, you'd notice the city with the highest level of education in the country has elected a socialist mayor for the last 18 years and people are pretty happy with what's been happening. It's not for nothing that right wing parties try to destroy public education wherever they can.


----------



## StevenC

Evil Chuck said:


> A lot of the people in this thread may as well be members of a cult, so you're spot on with the conspiracy theory idea.


"no u"


----------



## Drew

*double post*


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> I'm not claiming they circumvent border controls, I'm claiming they reward and incentivize people coming here illegally.
> 
> This is why I didn't want to debate you. You make unfounded aspersions against my motives for wanting strong border control. I do not want anyone's life to be made miserable. I do not want anyone to be hurt. I do not want anyone's humanity to be violated. I disagree with you vehemently and I think you're gullible for taking politician's at their word, but I DO NOT want anyone, even brown people (crazy right!), to be hurt in anyway.


First, you ARE claiming they circumvent borders, because this is an example you _chose_ to give me about how Democrats are for open borders. Unless possibly you're agreeing with me that this _isn't_ a reason Democrats are for open borders? Say it ain't so.

Second, maybe you missed my follow-up post, but you're making rebuttals using almost exactly the same language I did, here:


Drew said:


> I mean, really, the tl;dr argument I'm making here is Dems are all for strong borders, as are Republicans, it's just we disagree on what that means.
> 
> The GOP wants physical barriers on the border and wants to make an example of people seeking asylum or already living here illegally, regardless of the merits in their particular cases, to attempt to discourage people from seeking asylum or trying to enter the country legally.
> 
> The Democrats figure the immigrants living here legally for years are probably not a risk, that since most people enter the country illegally through established points of entry a border barrier isn't necessary and our money would be more effective in technological improvements at the points where most people are actually coming, and that we should be making legal immigration as fair and transparent as possible to encourage people who want to come to this country to apply for legal immigration status rather than trying to enter illegally.
> 
> In both cases, border security is a priority, it's just we're coming at the problem in radically different directions.


...which to me looks like the "assumptions" I made were actually a pretty accurate assesment of your views. I guess - not assume, guess - that when you "remove incentives" you think those are not disadvantaging the people who you're affecting, somehow, and that preventing people from taking out health insurance or rounding them up in surprise ICE raids is a fun, wholesome experience all Americans should participate in?

And I don't know where you think you get to "choose" who you debate. If you don't want to debate me, then the fastest way to not debate me is to not start telling me I'm full of shit because I _obviously_ favor open borders, I just don't have the "courage" to admit it, or if I don't realize the Democrats secretly favor open borders then I have some sort of mental handicap. If you're going to come in swinging like that, then yeah, you're going to get some responses, whether you like it or not. If you "didn't want to debate me," then you probably should have held your tongue in the first place.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Drew said:


> First, you ARE claiming they circumvent borders, because this is an example you _chose_ to give me about how Democrats are for open borders. Unless possibly you're agreeing with me that this _isn't_ a reason Democrats are for open borders? Say it ain't so.


There is nuance to my argument, but you're just ignorantly flailing around in an attempt to disagree with me. incentivizing and rewarding people who cross the border illegally is the same in my mind as being for open borders. I get that you're taking the Dems at their word. They love everyone and just want the world to be a happy place where there are no cows and we take the train to Europe for vacations



Drew said:


> Second, maybe you missed my follow-up post, but you're making rebuttals using almost exactly the same language I did, here:


No



Drew said:


> ...which to me looks like the "assumptions" I made were actually a pretty accurate assesment of your views. I guess - not assume, guess - that when you "remove incentives" you think those are not disadvantaging the people who you're affecting, somehow, and that preventing people from taking out health insurance or rounding them up in surprise ICE raids is a fun, wholesome experience all Americans should participate in?


You're right. When people break the law we should look the other way because it would be mean to do otherwise. Holding people accountable is just white supremacy in action. Your argument is nonsense.



Drew said:


> And I don't know where you think you get to "choose" who you debate. If you don't want to debate me, then the fastest way to not debate me is to not start telling me I'm full of shit because I _obviously_ favor open borders, I just don't have the "courage" to admit it, or if I don't realize the Democrats secretly favor open borders then I have some sort of mental handicap. If you're going to come in swinging like that, then yeah, you're going to get some responses, whether you like it or not. If you "didn't want to debate me," then you probably should have held your tongue in the first place.


Sounds like you're mad. Calm down.


----------



## Evil Chuck

Andromalia said:


> Other than reeking of american redneck snubbery, this is interesting. Because if you were, you'd notice the city with the highest level of education in the country has elected a socialist mayor for the last 18 years and people are pretty happy with what's been happening. It's not for nothing that right wing parties try to destroy public education wherever they can.


You think his socialist views are the ONLY thing at play here? The ONLY variable that matters? This is your evidence that socialism is awesome and capitalism is evil? Or socialists are awesome and conservatives are bad? Maybe if you had gone to an American public school you wouldn't try to make arguments on such weak grounds.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## tedtan

Evil Chuck said:


> There is nuance to my argument, but you're just ignorantly flailing around in an attempt to disagree with me. *incentivizing and rewarding people who cross the border illegally is the same in my mind as being for open borders.*



So much for nuance. 




Evil Chuck said:


> You're right. When people break the law we should look the other way because it would be mean to do otherwise. Holding people accountable is just white supremacy in action. Your argument is nonsense.



No, but we can change the outdated laws we have in place now to reflect the current need and context.


----------



## vilk




----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


>



I absolutely loathe pictures like this.

They're just devoid of any substance.

Not that I outright doubt it's validity, my gut tells me it's probably mostly accurate, but there are so many ways to funnel money to the armed forces that it more than likely doesn't tell the whole story.

For instance, the last NDAA Warren, Harris, Booker, and of course Sanders didn't vote for.


----------



## Ralyks

"A federal appeals court revived an ethics lawsuit against President Donald Trump that argues his business interests are conflicts of interest and violate the US Constitution."

Basically the court is accepting the argument that Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself. I'd say this could lead to tax returns, but that feels like a broken record statement at this point.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> 1) Honestly, I think corporate espionage is a LOT easier to understand than trade deficits. If anything I think you could argue that Trump is talking about trade deficits because most people understand them incorrectly, and that incorrect understanding that a deficit means we're "getting ripped off" works for him... But even then, I'd buy that more if it wasn't for the fact that all of his advisors swear he legitimately doesn't understand what drives trade deficits and sees it as a zero-sum-game, and if there was any evidence that they were using the trade deficit argument to try to back-door IP protections in, which there's very little I've seen that supports that. It's just straight-up not a major part of the conversations, and China is doing their best to _keep_ it that way - saying any changes to the functioning of their own economy are off-limits, and specifically noting that national security measures are seperate and apart from any trade matters (read: corporate espionage and military espionage are separate and apart from each other).
> 
> 2) I fully agree people are telling him this is an issue and some of his advisors think this is a big issue. It IS a big issue, far bigger than the trade deficit, which is kind of a false flag. Trump just remains fixated on the trade deficit, and since so much of the escalation of this war is his doing, mostly announcing new policies over twitter, that's a really, really big problem.
> 
> 3) So, why go it alone? The TPP would have been a pretty effective economic check on China, and did include a fair amount on harmonizing and strengthening IP protections. He blew that up as soon as he came to office, sure, but just as he bitched about NAFTA and then unveiled the USMCA as this brand-spanking-new accomplishment of his that was really just some light tweaks to NAFTA, why not announce, oh, the US-Pacific Intellectual Property Accord, and use the USPIPA as a way to extend favorable trade terms to China's near-neighbors in return for strengthening IP law and requiring IP protections to extend beyond borders, effectively cutting China out of these areas and limiting their power abroad while also making these nations more attractive manufacturing/trade partners on a relative basis? Or, why not work with Congress to get some sort of IP protection law drafted banning the sort of partnerships China required with the handover of IP, and use that as a leverage chip here? Instead Trump is wielding tariffs like a battering axe, and as the saying goes is cutting off his nose to spite his face by doing real economic damage at home (the other day Moody's Analytics estimated job losses due to the trade war are about 300,000 and counting so far, on track for 450,000 by year end and 900,000 by the end of 2020 if things continue at their current pace). Even if you agree with his _objective_, I think it's pretty clear that the _strategy_ he is using is badly flawed.
> 
> 4) But that's kind of what I'm getting at - when push comes to shove, which economy is going to fall apart first, the free market economy with democratically elected leaders only a year and a half from the next election and an honest-to-god opposition party, or the single-party state with a ruler facing no real opposition and no real elections, with a centrally planned economy with no clear line between the party and the economy? Trump's trying to play their game, right now we're paying subsidies to farmers at about 1.5x the rate of what we're collecting from American importers, but despite his public praises the economy is "doing great," farming is suffering, manufacturing is suffering, and most of the swing states he won to eke out his electoral college win are heavily dependent on those two sectors. The best case scenario here is that voters abandon him in droves, some Democrat wins, and we as a nation have to try to undo a lot of the harm he's done and return the focus here to IP protections, where it belongs. The worst case scenario is a global recession before that can even happen.



Unfortunately, mostly it comes to politics and capability, doesn't it? The majority of things you are mentioning (which are all fine and good suggestions) require functioning government cooperation. Even USMCA had to be done "around" Congress, and I believe it isn't in force yet because US Congress won't ratify(?) it.

Paul Ryan hated Trump and crippled him during the two years of Republican majority. Ryan wasn't interested in a trade war, the wall, or many other Trump policies, so Trump was left with mostly executive actions and twitter, lol. Plus the whole "Russia" thing handcuffed him for two years. And now the Dems hold Congress, so saying "work together" etc is unrealistic in this day and age. The opposing party won't pass anything that makes the President look even slightly good in the year before an election. No way in hell the Democrats are going to help with punishing China which might make the US economy dip for a moment. I think what we're also seeing is Trump increasingly desperate to get things done quickly. And let's be honest, if a Dem president wins, and Republicans re-take Congress, they won't let him/her do anything either. That seems to be the way it's played nowadays. 

You also have to bear in mind that US tech companies clearly WANT to do business with China, as they move over there and willingly follow their laws, so you'd probably (bizarrely) see massive resistance by lobbyists to any US restrictions on doing business with China. They are also stupid and greedy, and I assume they feel that if China is going to steal their stuff anyway, they might as well profit while it happens.

With China, I think one key thing you are still missing is that they literally DGAF. They'll sign agreements, and just violate them anyway, then deny, and during the years of wrangling legal arguments and back-and-forth, they're still making money and stealing your shit. Look at Hong Kong. Look at them locking up a MILLION people. Look at how they're treating the environment after god knows how many treaties. So whatever you can get on paper is pretty much worthless. I honestly think that's a good use case for why a blunt instrument is needed which will actually hurt them, even if it also hurts us in the process. And my previous post did share some stories of people I know personally who have told me the effect of the tariffs so far. 

If some Democrat wins, relaxes tariffs, then starts making some complicated legal agreement for IP protections, China would be MUCH happier than they are right now. That's a game they've been playing and winning for decades already, and there's no reason to believe that would change in the future. I disagree with Trump on a lot (most?) things, but this is something I think he's doing quite well at.


----------



## Flappydoodle

narad said:


> I feel like if the vast majority of actual democratic policy and rhetoric is ignored in favor of "Yea, but what they really want to do is...", then this discussion is more at home in the Conspiracy Theories Thread than in political discussion.



I mean, it's not like politicians lie, right? I think it's fair to read into the intent of candidates who want to decriminalise border crossings. That doesn't align well with the idea of strong borders. Or the candidates want to "reform" ICE, to the tune of requiring warrants etc, which would make their job essentially impossible.

And anyway, the 250+ pages of "Russian collusion" probably would have justified moving this thread to the "conspiracy theories thread" long ago


----------



## narad

Flappydoodle said:


> I mean, it's not like politicians lie, right? I think it's fair to read into the intent of candidates who want to decriminalise border crossings. That doesn't align well with the idea of strong borders. Or the candidates want to "reform" ICE, to the tune of requiring warrants etc, which would make their job essentially impossible.



It would be like harping on how many democrats want to decriminalize marijuana, and insinuate that they're secretly scheming to decriminalize all drugs. There's no evidence of this, it wouldn't be a popular position, and the current target of the policy concerns are both long-standing (war on drugs + criminalized border crossings) to the extent we can see the harm they do and how poorly we've been able to implement them.


----------



## Evil Chuck

narad said:


> It would be like harping on how many democrats want to decriminalize marijuana, and insinuate that they're secretly scheming to decriminalize all drugs. There's no evidence of this, it wouldn't be a popular position, and the current target of the policy concerns are both long-standing (war on drugs + criminalized border crossings) to the extent we can see the harm they do and how poorly we've been able to implement them.


I understand what you're saying, and typically I would agree with you, but in this particular case I think the Democrats have too powerful a motive to ignore.

Decriminalizing all drugs doesn't really benefit them, at least not like fighting to keep the border as porous as possible does. It's no secret who people coming across the border are going to, or will vote for, once given the chance. The party promising them "free" shit.

Of course the Democrats aren't going to come out and say they're pro open borders because politicians are cowards whose only concern is the perpetuation of their power over others. They no more care about the well-being of the poor immigrants coming across the border than the Republicans do. 

It's all about power. It's always about power.


----------



## ExileMetal

Brought it up a couple of times already, but the amount of times in the past year alone that a brand new account comes here and posts a ton of ultra right wing stuff is fascinating, truly.

It must be exhausting to believe that people’s only purpose is to acquire power. I also find it charming that politicians who seek to end things like oppressive migrant detention as incapable of being humanitarian, while good ol’ Evil Chuck here doesn’t want anyone to get hurt (not even brown people)! Believing that something like Medicare for All’s intention is something other than an attempt to fix our catastrophically fucked health care system and instead a tool to exchange the voting population is laughable indeed.


----------



## Adieu

Flappydoodle said:


> Unfortunately, mostly it comes to politics and capability, doesn't it? The majority of things you are mentioning (which are all fine and good suggestions) require functioning government cooperation. Even USMCA had to be done "around" Congress, and I believe it isn't in force yet because US Congress won't ratify(?) it.
> 
> Paul Ryan hated Trump and crippled him during the two years of Republican majority. Ryan wasn't interested in a trade war, the wall, or many other Trump policies, so Trump was left with mostly executive actions and twitter, lol. Plus the whole "Russia" thing handcuffed him for two years. And now the Dems hold Congress, so saying "work together" etc is unrealistic in this day and age. The opposing party won't pass anything that makes the President look even slightly good in the year before an election. No way in hell the Democrats are going to help with punishing China which might make the US economy dip for a moment. I think what we're also seeing is Trump increasingly desperate to get things done quickly. And let's be honest, if a Dem president wins, and Republicans re-take Congress, they won't let him/her do anything either. That seems to be the way it's played nowadays.
> 
> You also have to bear in mind that US tech companies clearly WANT to do business with China, as they move over there and willingly follow their laws, so you'd probably (bizarrely) see massive resistance by lobbyists to any US restrictions on doing business with China. They are also stupid and greedy, and I assume they feel that if China is going to steal their stuff anyway, they might as well profit while it happens.
> 
> With China, I think one key thing you are still missing is that they literally DGAF. They'll sign agreements, and just violate them anyway, then deny, and during the years of wrangling legal arguments and back-and-forth, they're still making money and stealing your shit. Look at Hong Kong. Look at them locking up a MILLION people. Look at how they're treating the environment after god knows how many treaties. So whatever you can get on paper is pretty much worthless. I honestly think that's a good use case for why a blunt instrument is needed which will actually hurt them, even if it also hurts us in the process. And my previous post did share some stories of people I know personally who have told me the effect of the tariffs so far.
> 
> If some Democrat wins, relaxes tariffs, then starts making some complicated legal agreement for IP protections, China would be MUCH happier than they are right now. That's a game they've been playing and winning for decades already, and there's no reason to believe that would change in the future. I disagree with Trump on a lot (most?) things, but this is something I think he's doing quite well at.



Regarding the Chinese "re-education" policies for Muslims, I just can't see Trump getting too upset about that.

If only maybe about his inability to repeat the same thing here?


----------



## Evil Chuck

ExileMetal said:


> Brought it up a couple of times already, but the amount of times in the past year alone that a brand new account comes here and posts a ton of ultra right wing stuff is fascinating, truly.
> 
> It must be exhausting to believe that people’s only purpose is to acquire power.


That's not what I said. I said politicians, that's a very different thing than "people". "people" implies I meant everyone on the face of the planet and that's not what I said or meant.


ExileMetal said:


> I also find it charming that politicians who seek to end things like oppressive migrant detention as incapable of being humanitarian,


It's not an absolute impossibility, but I certainly start from a place of distrust and skepticism. If you want to take every politician at his/her word, that's your option.


ExileMetal said:


> while good ol’ Evil Chuck here doesn’t want anyone to get hurt (not even brown people)!


Do you have some evidence that I do want people to be hurt, or is that a conspiracy theory of yours? I don't see how advocating for strong border control means I want people hurt.


ExileMetal said:


> Believing that something like Medicare for All’s intention is something other than an attempt to fix our catastrophically fucked health care system and instead a tool to exchange the voting population is laughable indeed.


So, you're saying that the ONLY possible outcome of Medicare for All is that it will "fix our catastrophically fucked health care system"? I have a different opinion, unless you're an expert on healthcare and the economy, then your opinion on it is no more valid than mine. I don't think the answer is to give the government more power and authority over our lives, which is what handing over control of healthcare to the government will do. You seem to be looking at it on a strictly emotional level, which frankly, is a bit silly.

And in the context of what I was talking about, open borders, offering free healthcare to illegal immigrants is incentivizing people crossing the border illegally. In my opinion, it's the stance of someone who is pro open borders. And no, I don't think (generally speaking) the Democrats give any more of a shit about immigrants than Republicans do. Do I need to say something equally negative about Republicans for you to understand that I hate all politicians? I can't think of a single Republican I respect, other than maybe Dan Crenshaw, but I have issues with him too.

So now that I knocked all your Strawmen down, what do you have?


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Considering I'm mulatto, I'd have a hard time believing that.



I'm not racist either. I let a mulatto build me a guitar. Hopefully you're the good kind... at least a quadroon... 

BTW, are we really debating border security? It is probably the 437th most important topic, just after soil erosion in Kansas and before wtf is happening with the Miami Dolphins.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/13/donald-trump-national-emergency-border-225781


----------



## ExileMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> That's not what I said. I said politicians, that's a very different thing than "people". "people" implies I meant everyone on the face of the planet and that's not what I said or meant.
> 
> It's not an absolute impossibility, but I certainly start from a place of distrust and skepticism. If you want to take every politician at his/her word, that's your option.
> 
> Do you have some evidence that I do want people to be hurt, or is that a conspiracy theory of yours? I don't see how advocating for strong border control means I want people hurt.
> 
> So, you're saying that the ONLY possible outcome of Medicare for All is that it will "fix our catastrophically fucked health care system"? I have a different opinion, unless you're an expert on healthcare and the economy, then your opinion on it is no more valid than mine. I don't think the answer is to give the government more power and authority over our lives, which is what handing over control of healthcare to the government will do. You seem to be looking at it on a strictly emotional level, which frankly, is a bit silly.
> 
> And in the context of what I was talking about, open borders, offering free healthcare to illegal immigrants is incentivizing people crossing the border illegally. In my opinion, it's the stance of someone who is pro open borders. And no, I don't think (generally speaking) the Democrats give any more of a shit about immigrants than Republicans do. Do I need to say something equally negative about Republicans for you to understand that I hate all politicians? I can't think of a single Republican I respect, other than maybe Dan Crenshaw, but I have issues with him too.
> 
> So now that I knocked all your Strawmen down, what do you have?



The entire point of using the word people in my sentence is to highlight the absurdity that every politician is out for only power. And I didn’t use your statement about wanting to not hurt people as to make people think that you did, but to rather further underline your extreme assumptions and accusations while you felt the need to deflect it yourself. I’m sure you don’t want to hurt people.

You also completely missed the point of my Medicare For All comparison. Claiming its purpose as only existing to give the government more power is a foolish and misleading characterization, but I’m sure you know that. It all goes back to your assessment that politicians only seek power. And yeah, it would help if you didn’t repeatedly only attack democratic positions in bad faith.


----------



## pwsusi

ExileMetal said:


> The entire point of using the word people in my sentence is to highlight the absurdity that every politician is out for only power.


Okay i'll bite on this one...

You may share a different point of view but is it really absurd for one to come to a different conclusion than you on this? It's great if you take some politicians (assuming the ones with whom you share political ideology) at their word, but in my book actions speak louder than words and the actions I see seem to indicate power is the primary objective far outweighing other motivations. Politicians seem more interested in driving a wedge between people than working with the other side to get anything done (which is ultimately how you move the ball forward). It's more important that they remain in good standing with their base and colleagues in their party (i.e. get re-elected and ensure their party stay in control) than upset the apple cart and take a stand even if unpopular. They are opportunistic in taking whatever the current event of the day is and making it fit their narrative for political purposes otherwise changing the subject when it is unfavorable to them or their party. Trump makes derogatory statement about a woman, he's a misogynist. BJ's in the white house by a subordinate under Clinton...no problem. Asking about one's citizenship status on a census, voter suppression ... black panther voter intimidation at the ballots, not a peep from the left because it helps them. I could come up with similar examples on the right all day long...it's all a game and about their own self-preservation.

The counter argument to this may be their motivations are because more power by their party is the only thing that will help people (as opposed to compromise). If this were true the democrats would have implemented whatever gun control measures they're screaming about now that they want (it's not even clear exactly what they want...other than to drive a wedge) when they had the white house and both the house and senate. Same with impeachment....if they REALLY though it was best for the country and they were right about Trump they would move forward. But they won't...why... because they've done the research and know they will pay the price at the ballot and ultimately that's all that matters to them. It's more effective for them to use it as red meat to try to oust Trump and win more seats in congress than actually do what they thing is right. Same with republicans...if they really wanted the affordable healthcare act repealed and replaced, or wanted immigration laws fixed they would have addressed it when they occupied the white house and both the house and senate. They don't though...cheap labor is good for big businesses who are their donors. Trump can get people fired up about the wall again in 2020 because he thinks it will be something that gets him votes. It's much easier to cry about this stuff and why the other side is to blame for one not getting their way as a way to rally your base to get re-elected than it is to actually do anything productive

If they want to prove they really want something other than power then how about demonstrating it. For example, why didn't any anyone in congress voluntarily drop their gold plated healthcare plan and jump on Obama care if it was so great? For those politicians pushing universal healthcare now why are they not vocal in saying they will abandon their benefits and join the rest of us if they are able to get it implemented? Gun control ... if guns are the problem (and not the lunatics that use them for evil purposes) then why do their secret service people need guns. Aren't those guns equally as dangerous? If it's good enough for them it's good enough for us. Illegal immigration ... The "cages" the racist Trump is responsible for at the border all of a sudden we find out were also used during the Obama era and many of the photos used against Trump were from 2014 and 2018. No one had an issue back then, but now is ammo to push the narrative that Trump is a racist and we change the subject that the photos were on Obama's watch. What about many of the speeches from Clinton, to Biden to Obama that sound eerily similar to Trump about illegal immigration. Why no praise for those guys from the right....and whey did the left have no issue back then, but now that much of it is coming out of Trump's mouth he's a racist. Climate change ... If the situation is as dire as the politicians espouse (ie.. 11 years until disaster) than why is Obama buying multi-million dollar mansion on Cape Code (one of the more likely places to be completely under water in such an event). If you were really worried is that a move you'd make? I've yet to see any meaningful major sacrifice to any of the politician's lifestyles that would mitigate the pending doom. Instead they they drive a wedge and we take the bait....seems most people you talk to on the issue are more interested in self-righteously calling the other side names, and belittle people and trying to prove superiority with their "facts" than actually doing anything to fix the problem.

I could go on and on with the hypocrisy (on both sides) and yes i sound cynical but I just don't see how politicians really have our backs and why we are supposed to believe what they say. Seems to me they're in it for themselves and their party, and the more they control the more levers they have to pull come election time. If people are dependent on you and the things you promise them they will likely vote for you regardless if it's in the country's best interests. It's human nature to worry about yourself first (voters and politician's alike).


----------



## spudmunkey

pwsusi said:


> For example, why didn't any anyone in congress voluntarily drop their gold plated healthcare plan and jump on Obama care if it was so great? For those politicians pushing universal healthcare now why are they not vocal in saying they will abandon their benefits and join the rest of us if they are able to get it implemented?



A) While most folks in the legislature have health insurance available to them through their employment, a huge portion are actually on their spouses plans. The ACA is for people who don't qualify for health insurance elsewhere, like from an employer. For a short time, I had 3 part-time jobs, working nearly 70 hours per week, and none offered health insurance. "Obamacare" would have been my option, other than COBRA, which I couldn't afford.

B) They are actually required to buy from an exchange. The ACA's specific verbiage prohibited them because they are eligible for other insurance. A parallel exchange was setup so that they could both stay outside the ACA, and also to have the good PR of having to buy from an exchange that they wouldn't normally qualify for.

C) Because having a baseline health insurance for all doesn't make an additional available layer of premium health insurance illegal. Nothing, in any verbiage that I've seen, would stop someone like a Kaiser or United Healthcare from managing their own facilities and upgrade plans for anyone who wanted them, while at the same time, there would be the "medicare for all" safety net and preventative care program to give everyone a baseline standard of healthcare.


----------



## Evil Chuck

ExileMetal said:


> The entire point of using the word people in my sentence is to highlight the absurdity that every politician is out for only power.


Words have specific meanings. If you're going to disagree with me, fine, but changing the words I used in order to make your point seems disingenuous to me.


ExileMetal said:


> And I didn’t use your statement about wanting to not hurt people as to make people think that you did, but to rather further underline your extreme assumptions and accusations while you felt the need to deflect it yourself. I’m sure you don’t want to hurt people.


I didn't say Democrats want to hurt illegal immigrants. I think Democrats want to use them. I understand there are probably a few decent human beings in Congress, but for the most part I think Democrats want to use illegal immigrants as a wedge, but ultimately to perpetuate their own power. The same with Republicans. Politicians, GENERALLY SPEAKING, do not give a fuck about the people they rule over. That's my opinion of politicians. If you think most politicians are wonderful honest people, that's your prerogative. 


ExileMetal said:


> You also completely missed the point of my Medicare For All comparison. Claiming its purpose as only existing to give the government more power is a foolish and misleading characterization, but I’m sure you know that.


I didn't miss your point. You made the claim that Medicare for All would "fix our catastrophically fucked health care system". What is there to miss? Your claim is that Medicare for All is THE solution, and I said giving the government more power is not something I agree with. You seem to not be able to deal with another person having a different opinion because that's all this is really. I have a different opinion than you do. I don't want to give the government more power over my life. Is that really so crazy an opinion?


ExileMetal said:


> It all goes back to your assessment that politicians only seek power. And yeah, it would help if you didn’t repeatedly only attack democratic positions in bad faith.


How is it "bad faith" to say that, in my opinion, most politicians only care about the perpetuation of their power? Democrats are the ones that want to give illegal immigrants "free" healthcare. Democrats are the ones that want to abolish ICE while offering no alternative. Democrats are the ones incentivizing illegal border crossings. That's why I'm talking about Democrats. If you can't hear another person's opinion that differs from yours without getting offended then why are you even bothering to have a conversation at all? Why don't you just go yell down a well so you can hear your own echo?


----------



## USMarine75

Evil Chuck said:


> Your claim is that Medicare for All is THE solution, and I said giving the government more power is not something I agree with. You seem to not be able to deal with another person having a different opinion because that's all this is really. I have a different opinion than you do. I don't want to give the government more power over my life. Is that really so crazy an opinion?



So you prefer giving more power to businesses and corporations, because ungoverned you trust them to do the right thing? 



Evil Chuck said:


> How is it "bad faith" to say that, in my opinion, most politicians only care about the perpetuation of their power?



So are you arguing that Republicans are "doing it better", or that both sides are equally at fault?



Evil Chuck said:


> Democrats are the ones that want to give illegal immigrants "free" healthcare.



Do you oppose "free" healthcare for illegal immigrants or just "free" health care in general?



Evil Chuck said:


> Democrats are the ones that want to abolish ICE while offering no alternative. Democrats are the ones incentivizing illegal border crossings. That's why I'm talking about Democrats.



Most economic research into this area (not done by the Heritage Foundation or some other political "thinktank") depicts that:
a) illegal immigration is either net zero or negative
b) an "illegal immigrant" workforce is necessary for the US economy. 
c) illegal immigration is not a real issue threatening America

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/



Evil Chuck said:


> Democrats are the ones incentivizing illegal border crossings.



Lastly, you realize most illegal immigrants are not due to border crossings. A moat with sharks with frickin laser beams will not stop them. They are due to visa overstays. Meaning they came to the US legally, then never left.

https://cmsny.org/publications/essay-2017-undocumented-and-overstays/


----------



## Evil Chuck

USMarine75 said:


> So you prefer giving more power to businesses and corporations, because ungoverned you trust them to do the right thing?


No, I don't trust anyone to do the "right" thing, I trust that they'll do the selfish thing when forced to compete in an open market.



USMarine75 said:


> So are you arguing that Republicans are "doing it better", or that both sides are equally at fault?


I'm arguing our political system as a whole is completely broken and is probably beyond repair at this point. 



USMarine75 said:


> Do you oppose "free" healthcare for illegal immigrants or just "free" health care in general?


There is no such thing as free healthcare. Or free college. Or free anything. I believe there is a significant portion of our government that would like everyone to believe there is such a thing. I believe there is a significant portion of our government that would like to see as many people dependent upon government as possible, thus perpetuating the government's power. I believe power begets power and just because it's 2019 and we have Virtual Reality porn doesn't mean we've evolved past that part of the human condition. I understand the average person is not running around looking to fuck everyone over and take advantage of everyone, but there is evil in all of us and power has a way of bringing that out.



USMarine75 said:


> Most economic research into this area (not done by the Heritage Foundation or some other political "thinktank") depicts that:
> a) illegal immigration is either net zero or negative
> b) an "illegal immigrant" workforce is necessary for the US economy.
> c) illegal immigration is not a real issue threatening America
> 
> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/


Yes, I know. I do think it's an issue (c), but probably not for the reason you think I think it's an issue. I said Democrats are pro open borders. I know most of the people disagreeing with me are trying to frame my argument in whatever way suits their purposes, but I never said I worried about the country being overrun by people that look different than me. 

I think Democrats would like anyone and everyone, especially poor and uneducated people, to be able to enter our country with ease so they can then promise them free stuff (along with anyone else who will listen and take the bait - cancelling student debt, reparations, etc.) and a facade of compassion in return for votes. Votes = power. It's a matter of strategy. If Democrats can turn Texas blue, they will win every Presidential election for the foreseeable future.

I'm worried about the country being taken over by people like Bernie Sanders (and other extreme left members of the Democratic party) because I disagree vehemently with how he, and people like him, would attempt to alter this country. I think Trump was a reactionary response to how insane the left has become. The politically correct nonsense, identity politics, free everything, #BelieveAllWomen which apparently means fuck due process, etc.



USMarine75 said:


> Lastly, you realize most illegal immigrants are not due to border crossings. A moat with sharks with frickin laser beams will not stop them. They are due to visa overstays. Meaning they came to the US legally, then never left.
> 
> https://cmsny.org/publications/essay-2017-undocumented-and-overstays/


When think tanks mention politics in any way in their reports I immediately become skeptical. I'm not saying their numbers are inaccurate, but I'm interested in reading more about this from other sources so I thank you for the link.


----------



## USMarine75

Evil Chuck said:


> No, I don't trust anyone to do the "right" thing, I trust that they'll do the selfish thing when forced to compete in an open market.



There has to be some form of governance, unless you're an anarchist. Not that these systems are mutually exclusive. The US is basically Capitalism+ or Socialism-Lite. We have tons of social welfare programs. We have tons of socialist welfare programs whether it be left of center targeted towards masses of individuals: Job Works program, farm subsidies, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. - or right of center targeted at corporations and big business: military contractors, Wall Street, oil subsidy, business tax incentives, etc.



Evil Chuck said:


> I'm arguing our political system as a whole is completely broken and is probably beyond repair at this point.



Fair enough. Except I disagree about it being beyond repair. That incites civil disengagement or uprising.



Evil Chuck said:


> There is no such thing as free healthcare. Or free college. Or free anything. I believe there is a significant portion of our government that would like everyone to believe there is such a thing. I believe there is a significant portion of our government that would like to see as many people dependent upon government as possible, thus perpetuating the government's power. I believe power begets power and just because it's 2019 and we have Virtual Reality porn doesn't mean we've evolved past that part of the human condition. I understand the average person is not running around looking to fuck everyone over and take advantage of everyone, but there is evil in all of us and power has a way of bringing that out.



I don't think anyone is arguing that. Hence the quotation marks. I don't know anyone making this argument either. But there's several trillion dollars that went to the military and Afghanistan/Iraq that could have been better well spent on healthcare.

But I guess maybe this is where we disagree (which is perfectly ok) -> I believe proper governance of the people requires that well-health is a right and not a privilege (again feel free to disagree). I think the government of a great society owes well-health to its people. Therefore, "Healthcare for All" (universal health care, "free healthcare", whatever you want to call it), as well as protective agencies (EPA, FDA, etc), are all requirements of proper governance.



Evil Chuck said:


> Yes, I know. I do think it's an issue (c), but probably not for the reason you think I think it's an issue.



Now I'm curious. Do tell. 



Evil Chuck said:


> I said Democrats are pro open borders. I know most of the people disagreeing with me are trying to frame my argument in whatever way suits their purposes, but I never said I worried about the country being overrun by people that look different than me.



Much like your "nothing is free" argument, nothing is fully "open" either. I'm not aware of a majority opinion of Democrats that believe in fully open borders. It's not all or nothing.



Evil Chuck said:


> I think Democrats would like anyone and everyone, especially poor and uneducated people, to be able to enter our country with ease so they can then promise them free stuff (along with anyone else who will listen and take the bait - cancelling student debt, reparations, etc.) and a facade of compassion in return for votes. Votes = power. It's a matter of strategy. If Democrats can turn Texas blue, they will win every Presidential election for the foreseeable future.



I ran out of time to answer this one... can I tag someone else in? 



Evil Chuck said:


> I'm worried about the country being taken over by people like Bernie Sanders (and other extreme left members of the Democratic party) because I disagree vehemently with how he, and people like him, would attempt to alter this country.



Keep in mind the President actually has less power here than you think. President Trump has intentionally (whether you approve or disapprove lol) done more to deconstruct the government, malign and shun allies, break tradition, etc. than any President in US history. And even then, a lot of what he's done is still reversible. What makes you think Bernie Sanders is any different?



Evil Chuck said:


> I think Trump was a reactionary response to how insane the left has become. The politically correct nonsense, identity politics, free everything, #BelieveAllWomen which apparently means fuck due process, etc.



Agree with a lot of this. I'm a huge fan of Bill Maher, precisely because he constantly points out how his own party has been hijacked and become the party of: PC, regulating free speech, identity politics, etc. And I completely agree Trump was reactionary. There were a lot of disenfranchised working class people that formerly belonged to the majority (AKA "flyover country") and felt themselves being alienated by the former party of the working class people.



Evil Chuck said:


> When think tanks mention politics in any way in their reports I immediately become skeptical. I'm not saying their numbers are inaccurate, but I'm interested in reading more about this from other sources so I thank you for the link.



Totally agree... and thank you. Any time someone starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to back them up, nothing good usually comes from it.


----------



## ExileMetal

You keep spinning things around outcomes when I was talking about intent, including your own intent. You 100% missed my point, then doubled down on your failure to read, and insulted me in the process. Go back and read my original post, one more time, and maybe you’ll understand. But probably not, because you’re here purely to troll as others have pointed out.

And the way you argue your points is completely one sided. You claim that the entire system is broken, but fail to highlight Republican corruption around the same things you attack Democrats for. You can hate whatever you want about Democrats, just stop retreating back to “there are bad people on both sides” defense whenever you get cornered into talking about the shitshow that is the current GOP. Since you’re so interested in ICE, maybe you should talk about how it’s currently going? Or is it damaging to your argument to talk about things that actually happen, rather than vague assumptions around people you hate?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

How many new accounts is this guy on at this point?


----------



## Randy

Hard to keep track, I think there are like 2 to 4 different guys. This one sounds like one dude, the IP doesn't match up but looks like it could be a VPN. Delivery sounds the most like MetalHex?

I never discount the possibility all Trump apologist anarcho-libertarians sound the same, though.


----------



## Drew

Evil Chuck said:


> There is nuance to my argument, but you're just ignorantly flailing around in an attempt to disagree with me. incentivizing and rewarding people who cross the border illegally is the same in my mind as being for open borders. I get that you're taking the Dems at their word. They love everyone and just want the world to be a happy place where there are no cows and we take the train to Europe for vacations
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> You're right. When people break the law we should look the other way because it would be mean to do otherwise. Holding people accountable is just white supremacy in action. Your argument is nonsense.
> 
> 
> Sounds like you're mad. Calm down.



First, if there's any nuance in your argument then you throw it right out the window with "incentivizing and rewarding people who cross the border illegally is the same in my mind as being for open borders." 

Second, I don't care if you say no, go back and re-read what I posted and what you posted. You're saying _the exact same thing _as I outline the GOP's current position to be. 

Third, yeah, I think you came in here swinging, looking to pick a fight, and now don't have the balls to actually try to defend your position beyond "in my mind, this thing is the same as wanting open borders." That's pathetic.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> I never discount the possibility all *Trump apologist anarcho-libertarians *sound the same, though.


Glad I'm not the only who was mind f**ked at all the contradictory positions he took


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Delivery sounds the most like MetalHex?


A bit less butchery of the English language, though, even if some of the, ahem, odd logical leaps sound about right.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> A bit less butchery of the English language, though, even if some of the, ahem, odd logical leaps sound about right.



I was thinking more of the "I'm not racist, but *checkout this inflammatory race baiting trope*"


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I was thinking more of the "I'm not racist, but *checkout this inflammatory race baiting trope*"


One of my favorite snarky bits of received wisdom, and I wish I could remember where this was from but I'm drawing a blank, was "everything before the 'but' is bullshit."  I agree.


----------



## StevenC

Come on guys, if we label every free thinker as being one of the same few trolls/genuine fools and not real autonomous people, are we really better than they say we are?


----------



## c7spheres

Randy said:


> I was thinking more of the "I'm not racist, but *checkout this inflammatory race baiting trope*"


 What happened to MetalHex? Haven't seen him around for a while. Did he do something wrong?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A2Q5ihrLRQkOzTFa18CnpNg

On a different note, a Manhattan district attorney subpoenaed 8 years of Trump's tax returns as part of an investigation into the high money, and Mazars said they'd comply.


----------



## Flappydoodle

narad said:


> It would be like harping on how many democrats want to decriminalize marijuana, and insinuate that they're secretly scheming to decriminalize all drugs. There's no evidence of this, it wouldn't be a popular position, and the current target of the policy concerns are both long-standing (war on drugs + criminalized border crossings) to the extent we can see the harm they do and how poorly we've been able to implement them.



But again, it's not like politicians mis-stating their opponents' views is a brand new thing

Republicans probably would be saying that about drugs, if it was a vote winner. They do do it any time Democrats talk gun control - they tell gun-owners that the Dems will take their guns, and that drives fear of confiscations and motivates their base to vote.

(And then, of course, a leading 2020 candidate literally said "Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47")

And with the "open borders" argument, it goes way beyond de/criminalising border crossings, as you know. When there's an "abolish ICE" movement, and you have current, well-polling 2020 candidates literally going to Mexico and helping people to cross the border... it's not exactly conspiracy theory territory.



ExileMetal said:


> Brought it up a couple of times already, but the amount of times in the past year alone that a brand new account comes here and posts a ton of ultra right wing stuff is fascinating, truly.
> 
> It must be exhausting to believe that people’s only purpose is to acquire power. I also find it charming that politicians who seek to end things like oppressive migrant detention as incapable of being humanitarian, while good ol’ Evil Chuck here doesn’t want anyone to get hurt (not even brown people)! Believing that something like Medicare for All’s intention is something other than an attempt to fix our catastrophically fucked health care system and instead a tool to exchange the voting population is laughable indeed.



Probably what you'll find is that, maybe to your surprise, there are lots of right wing people in the world. What tends to happen is that each discussion forums take on particular "community" viewpoint where most people agree with each other. This forum has a particular view, and anybody posting a right wing opinion is generally getting multiple hostile and disagreeing replies. Generally, most people won't stick around to keep conversing, because generally people like to be surrounded by those they agree with. There are plenty of other general discussion, non-political forums on the Internet which have off-topic politics sections where you'll find right wing views, and posts by left-wing people would be attacked in the same way, and they end up becoming more of an echo chamber.

So you'll see people post here, get attacked, and then stop posting. I assume mods would see/IP ban people registering lots of accounts as some sort of shill operation. And if you're referring to this guy, I wouldn't say it's "ultra right" from what I've seen.

As for power, it's clearly a huge priority. You see more and more votes down party lines now. Almost nobody "swings" except those in tenuous seats (Collins, Murkowski, Manchin etc) or incredibly safe seats (Rand Paul), or those who don't need to face long-term consequences (Flake [retiring], McCain [dying]). And political candidates will generally say anything in order to win and in order to support their party, which is pretty much the definition of chasing power.



Adieu said:


> Regarding the Chinese "re-education" policies for Muslims, I just can't see Trump getting too upset about that.
> 
> If only maybe about his inability to repeat the same thing here?



I'll ignoring your silly dig at Trump. Truth is, nobody in western governments is really upset about it. And certainly nobody is going to DO anything about it. I'm just making a simple point that nobody should assume China is reasonable or that they can be appealed to on any sort of humanitarian grounds.



USMarine75 said:


> I'm not racist either. I let a mulatto build me a guitar. Hopefully you're the good kind... at least a quadroon...
> 
> BTW, are we really debating border security? It is probably the 437th most important topic, just after soil erosion in Kansas and before wtf is happening with the Miami Dolphins.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/13/donald-trump-national-emergency-border-225781



I mean, I'm not even American, but I'd say that having 100,000's of people every month crossing into the country illegally is a big problem. There's basically another whole society of tens of millions of people living outside of the system. They've cheated their way in. And even more insane, their children become citizens, bypassing an entire pathway to citizenship which is supposed to root out bad people, keep good people who will contribute etc. That's completely insane and I can't think of a single other country that allows this sort of thing.

It's also not just illegal immigrants, but drugs, weapons and criminals which come across the border. It's a multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise in people smuggling and drug running. Countries such as China also weaponise the weak borders (https://nbc24.com/news/nation-world...ficked-across-us-mexico-border-not-from-china), making it also an issue of national security. It's also not just South Americans coming over, but also Africans (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/7341...frica-cross-southern-u-s-border-to-seek-asylu) and people from all over the world. That's a huge national security risk.

Those realities aside, it's also an amazing issue to use politically for each side to appeal to their base. Trump can be hard-line, be seen to be clamping down, pander a bit to xenophobic people and the "law and order" type Republicans. And the Democrats can pretend to be sympathetic, pandering to the SJWs, do-gooders and minorities who sympathise. In reality, neither side is really truthful about their motivation to change things.

The really, really crazy thing is how much things have changed. Watch this 1 minute long video of Bill Clinton:



Trump says the exact same thing in 2016 and people go completely mental. And the situation is far worse in 2019 than it was in the 1990's.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Flappydoodle said:


> a leading 2020 candidate literally said



His polled average is 3%. That's hardly "leading".

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/beto-orourke.html



> I mean, I'm not even American, but I'd say that having 100,000's of people every month crossing into the country illegally is a big problem. There's basically another whole society of tens of millions of people living outside of the system.



Your numbers are make believe.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/

I'm not sure what qualifies as living "outside the system" considering how many work, pay taxes, and participate in local communities and in the greater national economy. Could you explain?


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> The really, really crazy thing is how much things have changed. Watch this 1 minute long video of Bill Clinton:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump says the exact same thing in 2016 and people go completely mental. And the situation is far worse in 2019 than it was in the 1990's.



Man from 25 years ago saying incorrect things legitimizes man saying incorrect things now? 

Let me tell you about a man called Isaac who had some incorrect notions about gravity and another man a few years later called Al who understood the world just a little better.


----------



## Ralyks

Saying Beto is leading candidate is like saying I'm a leading candidate. Also, I'm for redoing the gun laws, and even I thought he was stupid to say that AK comment.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Saying Beto is leading candidate is like saying I'm a leading candidate. Also, I'm for redoing the gun laws, and even I thought he was stupid to say that AK comment.



I definitely think the comment does more harm than good. 

The only reason he's still in the game is his "just so done with this shit, honesty" shtick. Does he believe it? Sure. Will it help him get elected? Not really. 

It certainly keeps him in the news though. 

Really, at this point, if you're not polling in the top two or three you're just working on your resume for a cabinet position or lower office run.


----------



## Xaios

I'm gonna play the opposite side and say that, while Beto O'Rourke may not be a "leading" candidate, for people who are tuned into the process thus far, he certainly holds a similar level of awareness as the big guns in the Democratic running, and so the things that he says can be taken as representative of the DNC's overall position for at least a decent portion of the party's base in the same way as platform positions articulated by someone like Sanders or Warren could be. As such, I think Flappy's citing of that little nugget is justified as an indicator of some of the positions held within the Democratic ranks that would seem extreme to people who swing the opposite direction in their political leanings.

Kinda like the things that Trump was saying at this point before the 2016 election.


----------



## Thaeon

Flappydoodle said:


> The really, really crazy thing is how much things have changed. Watch this 1 minute long video of Bill Clinton:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump says the exact same thing in 2016 and people go completely mental. And the situation is far worse in 2019 than it was in the 1990's.




I think its interesting that Trump was paraphrased and a direct quote not taken. Easy to make claims without playing a clip to back it up. Also, Trump refers to most illegal aliens as terrible people. Clinton specifically spoke to deporting criminal aliens. Not people who overstayed their visas in general. If we're going to make comparative statements, about what people say, it doesn't make sense to quote one and not the other. You can make all sorts of wild claims that way. Put the verbatim statements right next to each other. Don't comment. Just let people see/hear them. Then let them make their own decision about it. The guy in that clip is making a very concerted effort to lead the viewer to the same conclusion he made. That's not news. That's an opinion piece.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Xaios said:


> I'm gonna play the opposite side and say that, while Beto O'Rourke may not be a "leading" candidate, for people who are tuned into the process thus far, he certainly holds a similar level of awareness as the big guns in the Democratic running, and so the things that he says can be taken as representative of the DNC's overall position for at least a decent portion of the party's base in the same way as platform positions articulated by someone like Sanders or Warren could be. As such, I think Flappy's citing of that little nugget is justified as an indicator of some of the positions held within the Democratic ranks that would seem extreme to people who swing the opposite direction in their political leanings.
> 
> Kinda like the things that Trump was saying at this point before the 2016 election.



I can agree with you. 

But, O'Rourke was specifically called out as a "leading 2020 candidate", which by no metric he would be. Though, I guess if "punk rock" was one, he'd get a blip.


----------



## Aso

How does Beto's call for confiscation of firearms play into any backup plans to run for a senate set in Texas? I would think that statement alone would make his chances in Texas even harder. 
I don't like the debate around guns because it seems neither side is honest about trying to find a solution other then a all or nothing approach. I would like to see our politicians put forth ideas that actually would do something and not just a knee jerk feel good response. I am not really sure what the right plan would be but I really wish the media would stop making the shooters folk heros to the segment of the population that look to these people as examples of how they can "be someone" and famous. I know this is not likely to happen since blood boosts the ratings.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Aso said:


> How does Beto's call for confiscation of firearms play into any backup plans to run for a senate set in Texas? I would think that statement alone would make his chances in Texas even harder.
> I don't like the debate around guns because it seems neither side is honest about trying to find a solution other then a all or nothing approach. I would like to see our politicians put forth ideas that actually would do something and not just a knee jerk feel good response. I am not really sure what the right plan would be but I really wish the media would stop making the shooters folk heros to the segment of the population that look to these people as examples of how they can "be someone" and famous. I know this is not likely to happen since blood boosts the ratings.



I don't think he's going to try for round two in Texas for the senate, at least not immediately. Two very visible losses (recent senate and upcoming presidential primary) usually means aiming smaller or going into hiding for a bit. I think he wants to be a cabinet member, and something like this is perfect for pickup by a far more progressive candidate.

That said, Texas is a lot more purple than it used to be.

https://apps.texastribune.org/features/2019/texas-turn-blue-voting-pattern-history/

I think we're starting to see the beginning of the breaking point in the smaller communities that have always been reliably red.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Probably what you'll find is that, maybe to your surprise, there are lots of right wing people in the world. What tends to happen is that each discussion forums take on particular "community" viewpoint where most people agree with each other.


I can say with a reasonably high degree of confidence that at least several of our occasional right wing trolls were in fact the same person. I don't disagree that there;s a whole bunch of right wing Trump fans in this world who get off on trolling libtards, but that's not what we were dealing with here. 

Also, you're kind of falling into the same fallacy that this new troll is, re: ICE. The Democratic party, just like the Republican party, doesn't have an entirely uniform viewpoint. There ARE Democrats calling to abolish ICE. They're a small minority. A few more want to seperate immigration and criminal justice activities and restructure how ICE works - there's more of them, but we're still talking about a minority. The majority of the Democratic party is NOT calling to abolish ICE, and while that's a platform idea for several _Democrats_, it's not part of the Democratic platform.

Saying the Democrats want to abolish ICE because AOC wants to abolish ICE is about intellectually akin to saying the GOP wants to molest children because Dennis Hastert wants to molest children. It doesn't really hold water.


----------



## Randy

I don't necessarily think Beto's statement helps Democrats but the idea that walking on eggshells over your language about gun reform matters one fucking bit to the gun lobby, the NRA membership or GOP voters is hilariously feckless. Like the Democrats are speaking in some kind of code only liberals can understand that will move the needle on gun control and Beto accidentally spoke in a language the other side can understand.


----------



## Drew

Aso said:


> How does Beto's call for confiscation of firearms play into any backup plans to run for a senate set in Texas? I would think that statement alone would make his chances in Texas even harder.
> I don't like the debate around guns because it seems neither side is honest about trying to find a solution other then a all or nothing approach. I would like to see our politicians put forth ideas that actually would do something and not just a knee jerk feel good response. I am not really sure what the right plan would be but I really wish the media would stop making the shooters folk heros to the segment of the population that look to these people as examples of how they can "be someone" and famous. I know this is not likely to happen since blood boosts the ratings.


I don't think we're going to be able to have any sort of debate about sensible gun control measures - and many such as "red flag" laws and universal background checks are quite popular with both Democrats AND Republicans, often polling north of 80% - until the NRA finishes collapsing and drops THEIR "all or nothing" opposition to even the most modest controls as a violation of constitutional rights. Neither here nor there, but... 

...my guess? Three things in play. One, it probably isn't purely calculated, and this is probably what Beto believes. Two, it certainly didn't hurt in drawing additional attention to his presidential bid, at a time he needs all the attention he can get. Three, he ran a pretty progressive campaign anyway in Texas, and came within a couple percentage points of taking down a powerful incumbent, albeit one who looks like Grandpa Munster and who even his Senate colleagues joke that if you shot him dead on the Senate floor and were tried in the Senate, you probably would be found innocent. I think he's operating under the assumption that he's not going to get too many crossover voters if he runs for Senate so he's not doing much harm.


----------



## Aso

I do agree there are things like background checks and red flag laws that have a majority of the countries support but that is until you get into the details of how they would be implemented. With red flag laws, what would be the threshold for when the guns can be taken, does the person have any due process to challenge the order? How will law enforcement handle these situations so we don't end up with shoot outs? 

Background checks makes sense if the government creates a process so individuals can perform the background check for a private sale. I have a couple firearms and thought of selling l but with no way to vet who you are selling to, I don't want to be responsible for them getting into the wrong hands. 

If as a country we can't even agree to have a balanced budget, how can we deal with more complex issues like climate change, health care, the rise in unemployment due to AI.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Aso said:


> I do agree there are things like background checks and red flag laws that have a majority of the countries support but that is until you get into the details of how they would be implemented. With red flag laws, what would be the threshold for when the guns can be taken, does the person have any due process to challenge the order? How will law enforcement handle these situations so we don't end up with shoot outs?
> 
> Background checks makes sense if the government creates a process so individuals can perform the background check for a private sale. I have a couple firearms and thought of selling l but with no way to vet who you are selling to, I don't want to be responsible for them getting into the wrong hands.
> 
> If as a country we can't even agree to have a balanced budget, how can we deal with more complex issues like climate change, health care, the rise in unemployment due to AI.



It's impossible to have a fully fleshed out law while campaigning. 

The process is just so long and complex and involves multiple parties. 

So it's either "do nothing" vs. "do something". I can see how it can be difficult for single-issue voters to have faith that the "do something" side will come out with something workable for those who lean "do nothing". 

I guess it comes down to this: are things bad enough where you'd be willing to take a leap of faith?


----------



## c7spheres

- The pattern with guns is they take a little more rights away every time there's mass shootings. They took bump stocks already, then they will take the high capacity magazines and Ak's etc. eventually they will take all guns is where this leads too, then knives, then pen's and pencils etc. but will all know that means civil war if they try that. 
- The problem with what I'm saying is that "they" are taking away a little more when they have no right to take. This is evidence of the corruption. People can go on all they want about what the founders intended for and couldn't imagine today's weapons etc, but the entire point was to keep the gov't in check and from being oppressive to the people. It's to late for that, it just doens't look the same as it does in other countries. This has become impossibly realistic unless you allow citizens to have all the same weapons and capability, but that would lead to others taking over the entire country and a period of total chaos. This is an impossible scenario to resolve and from here on will always be short periods and waves of peace and also despair and tragedy. Eventually this will settle into either a new golden or dark age for humanity. Actions are what matters, not what they say.


----------



## vilk

nvm


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> nvm



Pretty much.


----------



## JSanta

c7spheres said:


> - The pattern with guns is they take a little more rights away every time there's mass shootings. They took bump stocks already, then they will take the high capacity magazines and Ak's etc. eventually they will take all guns is where this leads too, then knives, then pen's and pencils etc. but will all know that means civil war if they try that.
> - The problem with what I'm saying is that "they" are taking away a little more when they have no right to take. This is evidence of the corruption. People can go on all they want about what the founders intended for and couldn't imagine today's weapons etc, but the entire point was to keep the gov't in check and from being oppressive to the people. It's to late for that, it just doens't look the same as it does in other countries. This has become impossibly realistic unless you allow citizens to have all the same weapons and capability, but that would lead to others taking over the entire country and a period of total chaos. This is an impossible scenario to resolve and from here on will always be short periods and waves of peace and also despair and tragedy. Eventually this will settle into either a new golden or dark age for humanity. Actions are what matters, not what they say.



I hate to point out the obvious, but how do you think our "well regulated militias" will compete against predator drones and any of the other types of destructive firepower and training our military currently has? How about the years of training our military receives regarding how to engage in any number of situations? This is where you're right - normal citizens cannot fight on equal footing with our military, so whenever I hear the argument that our access to weapons is meant to be a way to keep our government in check, I laugh. I spent 5 years as an infantryman, the capabilities and the weapons are mind-boggling. It's one of the reasons I believe strongly in common sense gun control. I lived it. 

The bottom line with gun control is that in reality, no one needs a 30 round magazine, no one needs military style weapons. Arguing that it's a right, but denying that healthcare is a right doesn't make sense. The actions we see right now are of indifference by a government majority that clearly does not have anyone but their own interests in mind. So I'll take a person boldly saying something at this point.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

JSanta said:


> I hate to point out the obvious, but how do you think our "well regulated militias" will compete against predator drones and any of the other types of destructive firepower and training our military currently has?



So, what...the best workaround is to restrict people to old school lever-action rifles then? Or....?
Don't get me wrong, I see what your point is, but how is that in any way true to the spirit of the 2nd amendment? Remember the "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" quote? It _*is *_a deterrent, and absolutely does keep the government in check. If the government wanted to start mowing down civilians, they'd have an armed populace to deal with, and a good chunk of the military that _*does*_ have the training and hardware would likely defect and they know it. It doesn't have to be a strict apples to apples gunfight situation; walk softly, talk softly, carry a big stick.

The right to bear arms and defend oneself is a right- it is enshrined in the constitution of the united states. Healthcare is not. Whether or not it should be, up for debate- sure, but strictly speaking, it is not.


----------



## Thaeon

c7spheres said:


> - The pattern with guns is they take a little more rights away every time there's mass shootings. They took bump stocks already, then they will take the high capacity magazines and Ak's etc. eventually they will take all guns is where this leads too, then knives, then pen's and pencils etc. but will all know that means civil war if they try that.
> - The problem with what I'm saying is that "they" are taking away a little more when they have no right to take. This is evidence of the corruption. People can go on all they want about what the founders intended for and couldn't imagine today's weapons etc, but the entire point was to keep the gov't in check and from being oppressive to the people. It's to late for that, it just doens't look the same as it does in other countries. This has become impossibly realistic unless you allow citizens to have all the same weapons and capability, but that would lead to others taking over the entire country and a period of total chaos. This is an impossible scenario to resolve and from here on will always be short periods and waves of peace and also despair and tragedy. Eventually this will settle into either a new golden or dark age for humanity. Actions are what matters, not what they say.



Slippery slope fallacy. That's an irrational argument. Adding to gun control laws does not guarantee that stricter regulation is going to happen later, and then later again until the right is abridged.

@JSanta Exactly. Your AK or AR or FNH aren't going to stand up to an Apache, or a drone. If they wanted to put us in the Crosshairs, there's nothing that we, and likely anyone else on the planet could do to stop them aside from our own solders.

@Ordacleaphobia I certainly think that you are correct here. There is a middle ground generally. I know that most solders are smart enough, and free thinking enough to disobey orders that would lead to the slaughter of American Citizens. Likely in this case there would be a Coup.

Do I think that guns should go away? Absolutely not. Do I think that access to guns should be limited to those with the faculties to use them responsibly and lawfully? Yes, absolutely. I include police officers in that.


----------



## Ralyks

I know this could be a apples and oranges deal, but I’m just going to say it anyway: Guns have killed plenty of innocent people in shootings this year alone. Meanwhile, vaping kills SIX (I’ll say that again, SIX) people and we’re going for instant banning. And I haven’t vaped in years, but I find that to be kinda horseshit (especially since it’s a specific ingredient in shit juices you get from gas stations, bodegas, and shady online stores, not the act itself. The ingredient has been consistent in each casualty). But I guess Big Tobacco and the NRAs money talks...

And again, I don’t hate guns. But let’s use some goddamn logic here.


----------



## JSanta

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So, what...the best workaround is to restrict people to old school lever-action rifles then? Or....?
> Don't get me wrong, I see what your point is, but how is that in any way true to the spirit of the 2nd amendment? Remember the "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" quote? It _*is *_a deterrent, and absolutely does keep the government in check. If the government wanted to start mowing down civilians, they'd have an armed populace to deal with, and a good chunk of the military that _*does*_ have the training and hardware would likely defect and they know it. It doesn't have to be a strict apples to apples gunfight situation; walk softly, talk softly, carry a big stick.
> 
> The right to bear arms and defend oneself is a right- it is enshrined in the constitution of the united states. Healthcare is not. Whether or not it should be, up for debate- sure, but strictly speaking, it is not.



What I'm saying is that the deterrent is not a reality. IF we get to a point where it's civilians versus military, there's not a chance of resistance. The only scenario that I see this working is if the military held a coup over a government. You're also thinking that John Doe with the AR under his bed for "protection" is going to be any type of force multiplier against actual military troops with years of training, body armor, and technology? The difference between the majority of American's and guerrilla forces in places like Afghanistan is they have spent generations living in warzones. We haven't lived like that in over 200 years.

The reality is (and you can argue against this until you're blue in face) is that even a well-armed civilian cannot protect themselves from the Government. It's a fallacy. We can however make healthcare and basic human rights available to our populace instead of allowing them to die because they can't afford coverage, or allowing them and their families to go bankrupt because of cancer.

EDIT: Let this percolate: Gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege. Seems backwards to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> The right to bear arms and defend oneself is a right- it is enshrined in the constitution of the united states. Healthcare is not. Whether or not it should be, up for debate- sure, but strictly speaking, it is not.



You are 100% correct, and I completely agree: we must abolish the second amendment. 

Though, you're acting like we don't have a 9th amendment. I'd say the right to life is an unenumerated right.


----------



## vilk

I could give a rat's ass what some ancient fucks said about a well regulated militia during a time period when loading a single round took 10 minutes.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though, you're acting like we don't have a 9th amendment. I'd say the right to life is an unenumerated right.



This is why I prefer to stay out of healthcare debate as the right to life should be a right and was not enumerated because they felt that was a truth self evident.
However the nature of how things are handled by governments and Big Pharma buying politicians (not to mention my preference toward small government), leaves me sceptical of it in the hands of government.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

vilk said:


> I could give a rat's ass what some ancient fucks said about a well regulated militia during a time period when loading a single round took 10 minutes.



For one, It didn't take that long.
For two those same ancient fucks gave you the right to say whatever you wish about them or anything else. Something most governments take away. Just food for thought.


----------



## vilk

wedge_destroyer said:


> For one, It didn't take that long.
> For two those same ancient fucks gave you the right to say whatever you wish about them or anything else. Something most governments take away. Just food for thought.


oh ok lol


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So, what...the best workaround is to restrict people to old school lever-action rifles then? Or....?
> Don't get me wrong, I see what your point is, but how is that in any way true to the spirit of the 2nd amendment? Remember the "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" quote? It _*is *_a deterrent, and absolutely does keep the government in check. If the government wanted to start mowing down civilians, they'd have an armed populace to deal with, and a good chunk of the military that _*does*_ have the training and hardware would likely defect and they know it. It doesn't have to be a strict apples to apples gunfight situation; walk softly, talk softly, carry a big stick.
> 
> The right to bear arms and defend oneself is a right- it is enshrined in the constitution of the united states. Healthcare is not. Whether or not it should be, up for debate- sure, but strictly speaking, it is not.


Honestly, I think the biggest deterrent here isn't the possibility rebels may have AR15s, and more the fact that the government doesn't want to deal with the public backlash of having American blood on its hands.

The Bundy standoff could have been ended in about 30 minutes, or however long it would have taken to get a F-22 within striking range of their compound. They would have all died before they even knew a missile had been fired. Instead, we got a lengthy standoff and took all but one of them alive into custody, after what WAS an armed rebellion questioning the sovereignty of the United States. It wasn't like, "gee, I'm not sure we can take that compound, they have guns," but rather no one involved wanted to treat them as an actual armed rebellion - i.e a military threat - and have to apply a military solution, so instead we treated it as a law enforcement one and applied a law enforcement solution.

There's also the irony of resisting gun control because it leaves guns in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens, and then as a reason why anyone should own semiautomatic rifles with large caliber high velocity ammo in the first place suggesting we need to be able to fight our government which, last I checked, was illegal, but that's neither here nor there. It's a moot point, because if it ever came to that point where an anti-government "militia" became an actual threat, they would get steam rolled.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> For one, It didn't take that long. For two those same ancient fucks gave you the right to say whatever you wish about them or anything else. Something most governments take away.



They were human, and like most humans they could be wrong, or more generously, lack forethought. 

How could they have known that DC v. Heller would bastardize their well meaning amendment?



wedge_destroyer said:


> This is why I prefer to stay out of healthcare debate as the right to life should be a right and was not enumerated because they felt that was a truth self evident.
> However the nature of how things are handled by governments and Big Pharma buying politicians (not to mention my preference toward small government), leaves me sceptical of it in the hands of government.



The thing is, much like the gun debate, we don't have to wonder what it would be like if things were different.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> They were human, and like most humans they could be wrong, or more generously, lack forethought.
> 
> How could they have known that DC v. Heller would bastardize their well meaning amendment?


um EXCUSE ME Max but they also invented free speech, so how about you repent for your sins against The Second Commandment and as your penance say 25 _Holy Madisons _and 15 _Our Forefathers_


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> Something most governments take away. Just food for thought.



Keep in mind that this is an argument being made on a website with members from all across the globe. Minus living in China or Iran, I have a hard time believing our freedom of speech is appreciably more valuable than most countries in the modern world.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> um EXCUSE ME Max but they also invented free speech, so how about you repent for your sins against The Second Commandment (thou shalt regulated militia p.s. we gave you free speech) and say 25 _Holy Madisons _and 15 _Our Forefathers_



I understand the frustration, but please be civil.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> I understand the frustration, but please be civil.



I'm attempting to use humor in illustrating a point: they weren't gods, and the ideas they had aren't holy commandments.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I'm attempting to use humor in illustrating a point: they weren't gods, and the ideas they had aren't holy commandments.



I know. I just don't want things going a certain way again. No biggie.


----------



## thraxil

wedge_destroyer said:


> For two those same ancient fucks gave you the right to say whatever you wish about them or anything else. Something most governments take away. Just food for thought.



Freedom of speech is a little hard to quantify, but freedom of the press is related and the US doesn't do all that well: https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Not *terrible* (better than China or Saudi Arabia), but there seem to be a whole lot of countries with much stricter gun laws that are more "free" at least when it comes to press.


----------



## vilk

thraxil said:


> Freedom of speech is a little hard to quantify, but freedom of the press is related and the US doesn't do all that well: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
> 
> Not *terrible* (better than China or Saudi Arabia), but there seem to be a whole lot of countries with much stricter gun laws that are more "free" at least when it comes to press.


And more free when it comes to incarceration
and more free when it comes to social mobility


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> They were human, and like most humans they could be wrong, or more generously, lack forethought.
> 
> How could they have known that DC v. Heller would bastardize their well meaning amendment?
> 
> The thing is, much like the gun debate, we don't have to wonder what it would be like if things were different.



They were human. That is why they even said the system they setup wasnt perfect and TRIED to allow for that.

We will have to agree to disagree on the possible results of that thought experiment.



Randy said:


> Keep in mind that this is an argument being made on a website with members from all across the globe. Minus living in China or Iran, I have a hard time believing our freedom of speech is appreciably more valuable than most countries in the modern world.



For one the reason I made that statement is because I was responding to an American, where he was using one of his enumerated rights to disparage the people who enumerated one he doesn't agree with. 

I am also not so closed minded to think the US is the only country with that right. I know that most places are very lax. However there are many places where certain dissent is not tolerated at all. Also people arrested for saying things determined to be hate speech or disparaging leaders in some places may disagree with your assessment of the value of that right.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

thraxil said:


> Freedom of speech is a little hard to quantify, but freedom of the press is related and the US doesn't do all that well: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
> 
> Not *terrible* (better than China or Saudi Arabia), but there seem to be a whole lot of countries with much stricter gun laws that are more "free" at least when it comes to press.



48 out of 180 surveyed that is above the 50th percentile and if i remember my math that puts the Us in the top 30 percent. You're right it's not terrible, comparing to the rest.
Yet it's also a sign of government overreaching our rights. So yes it is terrible, especially when considering the first item added to the founding document of the country guarantees freedom of press.

Also worth note when you click on the details for the US it lays out how Trump is effect and a cause of this yet the position on the index was already dropping during Obama. And infact had its largest drop during his tenure. From 2013 to 2014 a drop from 32 to 46.
The point there is that it's should not be a partisan issue.

And honestly they may be more free in the press but are less free to defend themselves, and maybe more or less free to speak their mind on a personal level as there is not data for that. That primarily is a choice for each country to determine themselves where their priorities are. Those of this country were laid out for us it's our fault we failed to execute them.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

JSanta said:


> What I'm saying is that the deterrent is not a reality. IF we get to a point where it's civilians versus military, there's not a chance of resistance. The only scenario that I see this working is if the military held a coup over a government. You're also thinking that John Doe with the AR under his bed for "protection" is going to be any type of force multiplier against actual military troops with years of training, body armor, and technology? The difference between the majority of American's and guerrilla forces in places like Afghanistan is they have spent generations living in warzones. We haven't lived like that in over 200 years.
> 
> The reality is (and you can argue against this until you're blue in face) is that even a well-armed civilian cannot protect themselves from the Government. It's a fallacy. We can however make healthcare and basic human rights available to our populace instead of allowing them to die because they can't afford coverage, or allowing them and their families to go bankrupt because of cancer.
> 
> EDIT: Let this percolate: Gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege. Seems backwards to me.



Listen, I'm not arguing that healthcare shouldn't be a right. I'm not even touching that debate.
What I *am* arguing is that millions of armed civilians is not exactly a non-issue to a would-be oppressive government.
You served- do you really think that in a civil conflict like that that any majority of your fellow soldiers would have turned on the people they were fighting for?

It isn't one thing in particular, it's a multitude of factors that cumulatively add up to the fact that the american population is not one that really needs to worry about the kind of crazy shit that a lot of people in the world need to worry about from their government, and an armed populace is one of them. But yes, you're right; 10 marines with military hardware vs 1000 random dudes with whatever they got from Sportsman's Warehouse, deathmatch one team leaves, my money is on the marines every single time. That isn't my point though.



MaxOfMetal said:


> You are 100% correct, and I completely agree: we must abolish the second amendment.
> 
> Though, you're acting like we don't have a 9th amendment. I'd say the right to life is an unenumerated right.



Max people can't even agree on how to _*read*_ the 9th amendment 
But sure, fair point. Just cause it's not on the list doesn't mean it can't be. That's kind of what I said. I'm not touching that one though.



Drew said:


> Honestly, I think the biggest deterrent here isn't the possibility rebels may have AR15s, and more the fact that the government doesn't want to deal with the public backlash of having American blood on its hands.
> 
> The Bundy standoff could have been ended in about 30 minutes, or however long it would have taken to get a F-22 within striking range of their compound. They would have all died before they even knew a missile had been fired. Instead, we got a lengthy standoff and took all but one of them alive into custody, after what WAS an armed rebellion questioning the sovereignty of the United States. It wasn't like, "gee, I'm not sure we can take that compound, they have guns," but rather no one involved wanted to treat them as an actual armed rebellion - i.e a military threat - and have to apply a military solution, so instead we treated it as a law enforcement one and applied a law enforcement solution.



Totally- yet another factor.
Those guns made them take them seriously though, didn't they? @JSanta is totally correct- if the military wanted to, they could absolutely wipe any insurrection I want to stitch together off the face of the goddamn _*planet*_. But they would need to want to, and we would need to be in that situation in the first place. If I have a gun, they can't just walk all over me- they need to take me seriously. Times 300,000,000. Sure, their course of action regarding 'taking me seriously' could be to just blow my ass up; but that's not a good look. Not to mention that they'd have to convince the armed forces to strike against their countrymen, and who knows, in this hypothetical, maybe we have a good point.

You can't rely on the fear of public backlash if there is no potential for public backlash- if those guys didn't have any guns, they could have just waltzed right in there and started arresting people. Instead, because they were armed, they needed to be tactful. They were put in a situation where things could go wrong and everyone involved needed to really think about what they were doing and how they were doing it.

With no guns, and all of the power in the hands of the government, all we can do is hope that they listen to us. Which, if we were in the kind of situation where an armed rebellion is imaginable, is almost guaranteed not to happen. You don't know what's gunna happen, you can't tell the future- better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.



> There's also the irony of resisting gun control because it leaves guns in the hands of criminals and not law abiding citizens, and then as a reason why anyone should own semiautomatic rifles with large caliber high velocity ammo in the first place



I don't understand the left's fixation on the term 'semiautomatic.' One trigger pull, one bullet. That's all it means. Totally unrelated, but seeing the press throw out terms like "fully semi-automatic" never gets old 
Is the problem high-caliber rounds? There are 2 reasons to own a gun, hunting and self defense, and in both cases, I want to kill whatever I'm shooting at as fast as possible.
Is the problem because it's a rifle? The shape is scary? A .45 can sure do a hell of a lot of damage, I'll tell you what 

FWIW, I'll give a lot of ground on high-capacity magazines. Although I'd _like_ to have the extra in case the nerves come into play and I miss, I don't think that in anywhere near most cases it would be necessary. I'll also cede the point that Biden was right and that imo a shotgun would be a more effective home defense choice than a rifle, but that shouldn't negate the option.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

vilk said:


> And more free when it comes to incarceration
> and more free when it comes to social mobility



Yea and both of those needed fixed decades ago. Two big steps would have been to not privatize prisons or start a war on inanimate objects.


----------



## JSanta

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Listen, I'm not arguing that healthcare shouldn't be a right. I'm not even touching that debate.
> What I *am* arguing is that millions of armed civilians is not exactly a non-issue to a would-be oppressive government.
> You served- do you really think that in a civil conflict like that that any majority of your fellow soldiers would have turned on the people they were fighting for?
> 
> It isn't one thing in particular, it's a multitude of factors that cumulatively add up to the fact that the american population is not one that really needs to worry about the kind of crazy shit that a lot of people in the world need to worry about from their government, and an armed populace is one of them. But yes, you're right; 10 marines with military hardware vs 1000 random dudes with whatever they got from Sportsman's Warehouse, deathmatch one team leaves, my money is on the marines every single time. That isn't my point though.



I did serve, and there are plenty of people that blindly do as their told, and I would not at all be surprised if they would follow the kind of orders that would involve killing their own citizens if the government told them it was necessary. I was a bullet catcher, there's not a lot of room to be a self-thinker in that position. 

Armed civil conflict is a very real reality, and there's nothing to say that it couldn't happen here; with that leading to troops staying loyal to a government/military coup and killing tens of thousands of civilians.

What I am saying is that if it was civilians versus the government, and a government that controlled the military, civilians would not stand a chance of survival. Even if Soldiers or others defected to protect the civilians, armed civilians by-in-large would not stand a chance against sophisticated weapons and tactics. Best case scenario is a long, drawn out conflict like we see in the Middle East. But we are not a culture where many in the population have served, nor understand what it it means to take up arms. I'm fortunate, I didn't have to get shot at while I was in, even though it was the height of the war.

I'm trying to grasp what your point is though, and I apologize if I'm missing it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

JSanta said:


> I'm trying to grasp what your point is though, and I apologize if I'm missing it.



Yeah, I do that sometimes. Have a way of saying a lot about nothing at all 

Basically, armed civilians, even though they wouldn't stand a chance, still act as some level of deterrent against an oppressive force. Even if it may be little more than a paper tiger, better than nothing at all. It's still something they wouldn't want to have to deal with for any number of reasons, even though they have tanks and we don't.


----------



## JSanta

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, I do that sometimes. Have a way of saying a lot about nothing at all
> 
> Basically, armed civilians, even though they wouldn't stand a chance, still act as some level of deterrent against an oppressive force. Even if it may be little more than a paper tiger, better than nothing at all. It's still something they wouldn't want to have to deal with for any number of reasons, even though they have tanks and we don't.



I get what you're saying now, thank you for the clarification. 

I would say that it's not even a paper tiger in the best of scenarios, nor would it act as any kind of deterrent. If the opposition can send in drones/missiles/aircraft against an unorganized, yet lightly armed group, their ARs and shotguns aren't going to be much of a concern. 

That's where I stand. I completely get that neither of our points will change our minds, but I appreciate the discussion!


----------



## StevenC

This again?

Hello Americans,

We're still here.

Sincerely,
The Rest of the World



wedge_destroyer said:


> So yes it is terrible, especially when considering the first item added to the founding document of the country guarantees freedom of press.


Yes, the sanctity of the first thing they remembered they forgot.


----------



## Ralyks

Kinda why I never understood the whole "If they're going to take my guns, they're going to have to come get them!" argument. You're a dude/dudette. They have more guns, missiles, drones, nukes, and a whole trained military to handle them. You can handle, at most, two guns at a time. Best case scenario, you'll look like Hitler at the end of Inglorious Basterds.

Also, their flame thrower is probably way better than yours.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Ralyks said:


> Kinda why I never understood the whole "If they're going to take my guns, they're going to have to come get them!" argument. You're a dude/dudette. They have more guns, missiles, drones, nukes, and a whole trained military to handle them. You can handle, at most, two guns at a time. Best case scenario, you'll look like Hitler at the end of Inglorious Basterds.
> 
> Also, their flame thrower is probably way better than yours.



That's the point, though. To _*make*_ them do it. It's a martyrdom complex, kinda. I don't think anybody seriously thinks that they can out-muscle the government; it's more about sending a message of "Ok, if you want to violate my right to bear arms, you're going to have to kill me for it. And you're gunna have to live with and be prepared to deal with the fallout from that."


----------



## wedge_destroyer

StevenC said:


> This again?
> 
> Hello Americans,
> 
> We're still here.
> 
> Sincerely,
> The Rest of the World



Yes, never forgot about you guys. I can't in my line of work even if I wanted to, which I do not. Honestly wish our leaders weren't poking around in y'alls backyards.

Regards,
This one guy.



> Yes, the sanctity of the first thing they remembered they forgot.



Yes that's how humans tend to work. Although to be accurate it's the politicians and populace later that did the damage to the system. Even more importantly it is our fault we dont recognize this and then hold our representatives and leaders to account for their part in the situation as it sits, and the requirement to correct it.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Ralyks said:


> Kinda why I never understood the whole "If they're going to take my guns, they're going to have to come get them!" argument. You're a dude/dudette. They have more guns, missiles, drones, nukes, and a whole trained military to handle them. You can handle, at most, two guns at a time. Best case scenario, you'll look like Hitler at the end of Inglorious Basterds.
> 
> Also, their flame thrower is probably way better than yours.


one minor quibble: flamethrowers are banned by the geneva conventions and the military hasn't had them in decades.
Technically they could use flamethrowers if they wanted to, since the rebels would probably be considered non uniformed combatants. Non uniformed combatants are not protected by the conventions, which only protect uniformed soldiers/noncombatants.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

KnightBrolaire said:


> one minor quibble: flamethrowers are banned by the geneva conventions and the military hasn't had them in decades.
> Technically they could use flamethrowers if they wanted to, since the rebels would probably be considered non uniformed combatants. Non uniformed combatants are not protected by the conventions, which only protect uniformed soldiers/noncombatants.



We can also happily note that Napalm, chemical warfare and torture can all be on the menu as well, if being considered non uniformed combatants.


----------



## Ralyks

KnightBrolaire said:


> one minor quibble: flamethrowers are banned by the geneva conventions and the military hasn't had them in decades.
> Technically they could use flamethrowers if they wanted to, since the rebels would probably be considered non uniformed combatants. Non uniformed combatants are not protected by the conventions, which only protect uniformed soldiers/noncombatants.



.... I was hoping I didn't need to clarify that the flamethrower part was a joke, but here we are...


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Ralyks said:


> .... I was hoping I didn't need to clarify that the flamethrower part was a joke, but here we are...



I thought Elon Musk making one was joke but alas The Boring company exists...


----------



## KnightBrolaire

wedge_destroyer said:


> We can also happily note that Napalm, chemical warfare and torture can all be on the menu as well, if being considered non uniformed combatants.


true but don't forget the good ole hollow point. Also denial of medical care.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

Ralyks said:


> .... I was hoping I didn't need to clarify that the flamethrower part was a joke, but here we are...


I mean if you wanted to make a more relevant joke you should have subbed in white phosphorus


----------



## wedge_destroyer

KnightBrolaire said:


> true but don't forget the good ole hollow point. Also denial of medical care.



Per the hollow points DHS already bought some so it's obvious they would use them. 

Yup no Red Cross/Crescent at all. 

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...ime-for-a-national-conversation/#3e50d970624b


----------



## KnightBrolaire

wedge_destroyer said:


> Per the hollow points DHS already bought some so it's obvious they would use them.
> 
> Yup no Red Cross/Crescent at all.
> 
> Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphb...ime-for-a-national-conversation/#3e50d970624b


 they've been using hollow points against the insurgents for years now, but they tried to keep it hush hush since InSuRgeNtS hAvE rIgHtS ToO


----------



## wedge_destroyer

KnightBrolaire said:


> they've been using hollow points against the insurgents for years now, but they tried to keep it hush hush since InSuRgeNtS hAvE rIgHtS ToO



Yea just like the limitless detentions without charges or tribunals... all in the name of securing oi.. I mean spreading freedom.


----------



## Ralyks

wedge_destroyer said:


> I thought Elon Musk making one was joke but alas The Boring company exists...





KnightBrolaire said:


> I mean if you wanted to make a more relevant joke you should have subbed in white phosphorus



Both fair points.


----------



## Adieu

thraxil said:


> Freedom of speech is a little hard to quantify, but freedom of the press is related and the US doesn't do all that well: https://rsf.org/en/ranking
> 
> Not *terrible* (better than China or Saudi Arabia), but there seem to be a whole lot of countries with much stricter gun laws that are more "free" at least when it comes to press.




Top 50~!!




The founding fathers would be SOO proud!


Maybe....someday....watch out Botswana!!


----------



## c7spheres

- No, we can't stand up against the military or gov't in case if they turn on us. That's a problem. 
- Yes, people that are going to hurt others, other than in self defense, shouldn't have guns.
- Yes, more gun control will not stop a determined killer from killing. 
- Yes, more gun control will make the military, police and criminals more powerful and the people weaker. 
- Yes, more gun control will cause other less predictable forms of killing to occur.
- Yes, The military and gov't can't be trusted. They (some) will turn on the people when given a choice between themselves and their families and other groups whom they don't know. The military and police and it's leaders are whom to be feared, for they only obey orders from the President and every superior officer down the line, if they choose to. In reality, they have the weapons and can do whatever is in their ability to do, just like everyone else. Obeying is a choice, and regardless of the law or what is right and wrong, the fact remains: Ability=Right, meaning anything within a persons ability is their right to do given to them by nature/universe, regardless if other people think it's right or wrong.


----------



## StevenC

A few quick thoughts for the new people who haven't read this conversation before. 

People get murdered whether or not guns are available, but mass murders are way more difficult. 

Being a person from a country with gun control, my government has come after fewer of my rights than yours has. Not sure what your well regulated militia is waiting for. 

And this should go without saying, but fewer guns means there are fewer illegal guns. The vast majority of guns were at one point legally purchased somewhere. Shout out to legal guns, privately purchased in the USA for supplying terrorists in other countries, like Ireland. 



c7spheres said:


> - Yes, The military and gov't can't be trusted. They (some) will turn on the people when given a choice between themselves and their families and other groups whom they don't know. The military and police and it's leaders are whom to be feared, for they only obey orders from the President and every superior officer down the line, if they choose to. In reality, they have the weapons and can do whatever is in their ability to do, just like everyone else. Obeying is a choice, and regardless of the law or what is right and wrong, the fact remains: Ability=Right, meaning anything within a persons ability is their right to do given to them by nature/universe, regardless if other people think it's right or wrong.


That is not what "right" means. It's the opposite of what "right" means because it violates other people's rights.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> A few quick thoughts for the new people who haven't read this conversation before.
> 
> People get murdered whether or not guns are available, but mass murders are way more difficult.
> 
> Being a person from a country with gun control, my government has come after fewer of my rights than yours has. Not sure what your well regulated militia is waiting for.
> 
> And this should go without saying, but fewer guns means there are fewer illegal guns. The vast majority of guns were at one point legally purchased somewhere. Shout out to legal guns, privately purchased in the USA for supplying terrorists in other countries, like Ireland.
> 
> 
> That is not what "right" means. It's the opposite of what "right" means because it violates other people's rights.


 I understand what you mean. I guess I'm getting a little to new-age. I was talking hippie stuff, not man made rights. Sorry. I was talking about in reality what people can actually do if they ignore laws and just do what they want. The law of the wild where only natural law's exist. Nature doesn't comply to the standards man creates. It allows anything within one's ability (ability=right). In reality, this is what murderers and people do who basically say screw the law I'm doing what I want. This can apply to anything and is still the rule of mankind. That's natural law, which is above all else and which humans will never escape.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> I understand what you mean. I guess I'm getting a little to new-age. I was talking hippie stuff, not man made rights. Sorry. I was talking about in reality what people can actually do if they ignore laws and just do what they want. The law of the wild where only natural law's exist. Nature doesn't comply to the standards man creates. It allows anything within one's ability (ability=right). In reality, this is what murderers and people do who basically say screw the law I'm doing what I want. This can apply to anything and is still the rule of mankind. That's natural law, which is above all else and which humans will never escape.


So you're using nonfunctional definitions and applying them to a conversation about legal rights enshrined in a constitution?


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Totally- yet another factor.
> Those guns made them take them seriously though, didn't they? @JSanta is totally correct- if the military wanted to, they could absolutely wipe any insurrection I want to stitch together off the face of the goddamn _*planet*_. But they would need to want to, and we would need to be in that situation in the first place. If I have a gun, they can't just walk all over me- they need to take me seriously. Times 300,000,000. Sure, their course of action regarding 'taking me seriously' could be to just blow my ass up; but that's not a good look. Not to mention that they'd have to convince the armed forces to strike against their countrymen, and who knows, in this hypothetical, maybe we have a good point.
> 
> You can't rely on the fear of public backlash if there is no potential for public backlash- if those guys didn't have any guns, they could have just waltzed right in there and started arresting people. Instead, because they were armed, they needed to be tactful. They were put in a situation where things could go wrong and everyone involved needed to really think about what they were doing and how they were doing it.
> 
> With no guns, and all of the power in the hands of the government, all we can do is hope that they listen to us. Which, if we were in the kind of situation where an armed rebellion is imaginable, is almost guaranteed not to happen. You don't know what's gunna happen, you can't tell the future- better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the left's fixation on the term 'semiautomatic.' One trigger pull, one bullet. That's all it means. Totally unrelated, but seeing the press throw out terms like "fully semi-automatic" never gets old
> Is the problem high-caliber rounds? There are 2 reasons to own a gun, hunting and self defense, and in both cases, I want to kill whatever I'm shooting at as fast as possible.
> Is the problem because it's a rifle? The shape is scary? A .45 can sure do a hell of a lot of damage, I'll tell you what
> 
> FWIW, I'll give a lot of ground on high-capacity magazines. Although I'd _like_ to have the extra in case the nerves come into play and I miss, I don't think that in anywhere near most cases it would be necessary. I'll also cede the point that Biden was right and that imo a shotgun would be a more effective home defense choice than a rifle, but that shouldn't negate the option.



You're someone I've found I can disagree with a fair amount, yet still have a reasonable conversation, so thanks again for a civil response. 

I guess, _personally_, I need a better reason than "it helps people rebelling against their government be taken seriously" to support unconditional gun ownership in the United States. As of present writing, somewhat more than 10,600 Americans have been shot and killed in 2019, through mid-September. More than 21,000 people have been injured by firearms. Sure, we could argue there's a tradeoff somewhere in there, but considering we're a total anomaly when it comes to gun violence in first world nations, I'm going to want more compelling reasons to support unconstrained gun ownership in this country than that.

To be fair I'm picking an unfair example, perhaps, because the Bundys _should_ have had cops waltz in and arrest them and in fact that outcome is vastle preferable to the week-long standoff and one death we got, but I'm not really aware of too many situations where people had guns, were taken seriously for it, and were also morally in the right in the cause they were fighting for.

For me, the issue with something like an AR15 vs a 45 is muzzle velocity. A 45 CAN do a hell of a lot of damage, it's a big slug. It also has a muzzle velocity roughly, what, a quarter of what an AR15 can deliver, but while an AR15 bullet is only about half of the size of a .45, because of the way force increases exponentially with velocity a bit of quick googling tells me that a Colt 45 will deliver about 400 foot-pounds of force on impact, while an AR15 will deliver more than triple that, around 1,300 foot-pounds. That's the difference between punching a good-sized hole in someone, and effectively liquidating any internal organs behind the impact point, from a gun that can in competent hands fire off a couple bullets a second. They're not designed to stop people or neutralize people, they're designed to hit someone with a slug moving so fast that even fairly superficial impact sites can be fatal due to the sheer trauma a slug moving at that speed causes.

And, considering you CAN do "a hell of a lot of damage" with a 45, what's the real marginal gain here by allowing ready access to something that can produce nearly triple the kinetic energy, and that can be shot several times faster, with (even with "normal" magazines) much less reloading?

Re: semiautomatic, yeah, "fully semiautomatic" is silly and just scare tactics. I think in and of itself its less of an issue - a semi 9mm is still a weapon designed to stop someone, I buy the argument that a semiauto one is useful if adrenaline gets you and your first shot or two is a miss, and on the flip side you can fire off the entire magazine in a 9mm pistol into a crowd and realistically the death toll won't be THAT high, maybe a couple people, before you need to reload, unless you're an amazing shot. Do that with an AR15, though... The combination of rapid fire, large capacity magazine, and extremely high kinetic energy behinid each shot is something that makes it easier than I'm really comfortable with for one person to kill large numbers of people, for me to want just anyone to be able to go and buy one.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Listen, I'm not arguing that healthcare shouldn't be a right. I'm not even touching that debate.
> What I *am* arguing is that millions of armed civilians is not exactly a non-issue to a would-be oppressive government.
> You served- do you really think that in a civil conflict like that that any majority of your fellow soldiers would have turned on the people they were fighting for?
> 
> It isn't one thing in particular, it's a multitude of factors that cumulatively add up to the fact that the american population is not one that really needs to worry about the kind of crazy shit that a lot of people in the world need to worry about from their government, and an armed populace is one of them. But yes, you're right; 10 marines with military hardware vs 1000 random dudes with whatever they got from Sportsman's Warehouse, deathmatch one team leaves, my money is on the marines every single time. That isn't my point though.
> 
> 
> 
> Max people can't even agree on how to _*read*_ the 9th amendment
> But sure, fair point. Just cause it's not on the list doesn't mean it can't be. That's kind of what I said. I'm not touching that one though.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally- yet another factor.
> Those guns made them take them seriously though, didn't they? @JSanta is totally correct- if the military wanted to, they could absolutely wipe any insurrection I want to stitch together off the face of the goddamn _*planet*_. But they would need to want to, and we would need to be in that situation in the first place. If I have a gun, they can't just walk all over me- they need to take me seriously. Times 300,000,000. Sure, their course of action regarding 'taking me seriously' could be to just blow my ass up; but that's not a good look. Not to mention that they'd have to convince the armed forces to strike against their countrymen, and who knows, in this hypothetical, maybe we have a good point.
> 
> You can't rely on the fear of public backlash if there is no potential for public backlash- if those guys didn't have any guns, they could have just waltzed right in there and started arresting people. Instead, because they were armed, they needed to be tactful. They were put in a situation where things could go wrong and everyone involved needed to really think about what they were doing and how they were doing it.
> 
> With no guns, and all of the power in the hands of the government, all we can do is hope that they listen to us. Which, if we were in the kind of situation where an armed rebellion is imaginable, is almost guaranteed not to happen. You don't know what's gunna happen, you can't tell the future- better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the left's fixation on the term 'semiautomatic.' One trigger pull, one bullet. That's all it means. Totally unrelated, but seeing the press throw out terms like "fully semi-automatic" never gets old
> Is the problem high-caliber rounds? There are 2 reasons to own a gun, hunting and self defense, and in both cases, I want to kill whatever I'm shooting at as fast as possible.
> Is the problem because it's a rifle? The shape is scary? A .45 can sure do a hell of a lot of damage, I'll tell you what
> 
> FWIW, I'll give a lot of ground on high-capacity magazines. Although I'd _like_ to have the extra in case the nerves come into play and I miss, I don't think that in anywhere near most cases it would be necessary. I'll also cede the point that Biden was right and that imo a shotgun would be a more effective home defense choice than a rifle, but that shouldn't negate the option.



If I remember correctly, the military is sworn to protect the constitution and not the governing body. Yes. The oath says: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" I goes on to swear to obey the POTUS. But there's a reason behind listing the Constitution first and domestic enemies. If the POTUS or anyone in government is arguably a threat to the constitution, it is the sworn duty of the military to protect it from that threat. We also forget that the Police are another paramilitary organization and their oath of office is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And a lot of them are former military.


----------



## Randy

ITT: You're not allowed to have an opinion on mass shootings unless you're romantically entwined with every aspect of designing, manufacturing, handling and using firearms. Come back when you are.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> ITT: You're not allowed to have an opinion on mass shootings unless you're romantically entwined with every aspect of designing, manufacturing, handling and using firearms. Come back when you are.


Romantically, eh? That would go a long way to describe the American fetishization of guns.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> So you're using nonfunctional definitions and applying them to a conversation about legal rights enshrined in a constitution?



I think it's relevant. Just because something is a law doesn't make it reality. The reality is that it doesn't matter because humans will do what they want regardless, that was my point. The only thing humans are bound by is their ability, not laws.




Thaeon said:


> If I remember correctly, the military is sworn to protect the constitution and not the governing body. Yes. The oath says: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" I goes on to swear to obey the POTUS. But there's a reason behind listing the Constitution first and domestic enemies. If the POTUS or anyone in government is arguably a threat to the constitution, it is the sworn duty of the military to protect it from that threat. We also forget that the Police are another paramilitary organization and their oath of office is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And a lot of them are former military.



A much better way of what I was trying to explain. If they follow their oath we can be screwed, if they don't we can be screwed. We are not the priority, we are disposable. We are not them. We might have once been them, but if you're not in it, you're not one of them. We are either a disposable resource or a nuisance to them ultimately, but definitely not equals or peers.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> So you're using nonfunctional definitions and applying them to a conversation about legal rights enshrined in a constitution?



I think he is essentially saying that, in practice, might makes right, even if it is not an enumerated right, or, in fact, even legal.




Drew said:


> For me, the issue with something like an AR15 vs a 45 is muzzle velocity. A 45 CAN do a hell of a lot of damage, it's a big slug. It also has a muzzle velocity roughly, what, a quarter of what an AR15 can deliver, but while an AR15 bullet is only about half of the size of a .45, because of the way force increases exponentially with velocity a bit of quick googling tells me that a Colt 45 will deliver about 400 foot-pounds of force on impact, while an AR15 will deliver more than triple that, around 1,300 foot-pounds. That's the difference between punching a good-sized hole in someone, and effectively liquidating any internal organs behind the impact point, from a gun that can in competent hands fire off a couple bullets a second. They're not designed to stop people or neutralize people, they're designed to hit someone with a slug moving so fast that even fairly superficial impact sites can be fatal due to the sheer trauma a slug moving at that speed causes.



These are two completely different rounds, though. The .45 ACP is a handgun round shot from guns with short barrels, so it's maximum velocity is necessarily limited by a handgun's barrel length and it's short cartridge designed for handgun use (handgun ammo tends to feature a relatively short, fat bullet sitting atop a short powder charge), whereas the 5.56mm NATO round is a rifle round so it will be much faster by design (rifle ammo tends to feature long, thin bullets sitting atop a long powder charge because the added length of a rifle's barrel allows the additional powder to continue burning as it propels the bullet down the barrel, thereby building additional pressure inside the barrel resulting in increased muzzle velocity).

Both have more than enough power to kill people within their effective range, but have different strengths. A 45 ACP is a side arm; it's easy to carry, can be concealed, and is effective out to 30 or 40 yards give or take a few. An AR15 firing the 5.56mm NATO round, being a rifle, is more cumbersome to carry, and especially to conceal, but it is accurate and deadly out to 400+ yards and can penetrate "bullet proof" vests. It also benefits from higher capacity magazines; I've never seen a 45 ACP magazine capable of holding more than a dozen or so rounds, whereas I have seen 100 round magazines for the M16/AR15.

In short, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, and I do realize you are responding to Ordacleaphobia, but I wanted to point out for those not familiar with guns that your post is comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah, I do that sometimes. Have a way of saying a lot about nothing at all
> 
> Basically, armed civilians, even though they wouldn't stand a chance, still act as some level of deterrent against an oppressive force. Even if it may be little more than a paper tiger, better than nothing at all. It's still something they wouldn't want to have to deal with for any number of reasons, even though they have tanks and we don't.



One reason, being too oppressive to a populace is screwing with the means of production. People aren't generally as productive when at gunpoint as they are when they're well taken care of and have a sense that their work is valued. Holding an entire country hostage with a military force doesn't make you look powerful to your rivals either. It makes you look weak.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> In short, I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, and I do realize you are responding to Ordacleaphobia, but I wanted to point out for those not familiar with guns that your post is comparing apples and oranges.


I mean, that was exactly my point, though. They ARE apples to oranges, and we should treat them as such when it comes to our gun laws.

Why do I have a problem with an AR15 where I don't necessarily with a 9mm semiauto pistol or a .45? One is designed to put a bullet through someone at close range, the other is designed to basically liquify anything in a cone starting at the entry point of a bullet. Add in the potential for the latter to also use large capacity magazines, coupled with the vastly longer effective range, and I think it's pretty sensible that they should be treated differently by regulators and we should maybe be considering restricting access to the latter, even if we're comfortable with widespread private ownership of the former.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> I mean, that was exactly my point, though. They ARE radically different, and we should treat them as such when it comes to our gun laws.
> 
> Why do I have a problem with an AR15 where I don't necessarily with a 9mm semiauto pistol or a .45? Because they ARE apples to oranges. One is designed to put a bullet through someone at close range, the other is designed to basically liquify anything in a cone starting at the entry point of a bullet. Add in the potential for the latter to also use large capacity magazines, coupled with the vastly longer effective range, and I think it's pretty sensible that they should be treated differently by regulators and we should maybe be considering restricting access to the latter, even if we're comfortable with widespread private ownership of the former.



One other piece of important information. The 5.56 round also tumbles as it hits flesh, which makes the damage it causes a person much worse than most regular pistol rounds.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Romantically, eh? That would go a long way to describe the American fetishization of guns.



Wording wasn't an accident, either. I don't know a hobby out there where anybody is a stubbornly selfish about keeping it completely unregulated. I could see being a gun enthusiast and saying "I like guns, please don't ban all guns" but getting butthurt because the ban effects specifics looks, features, capacities, etc. give me a fucking break.

CITES damn near banned rosewood and at least half the guitar community was like "good, as long as it helps the forests, it's for the better" and half or MORE of the industry made a push for sustainability. And even after the exemption for musical instruments to CITES, half or more of community said "meh, we were just fine without it, this rollback is more harm than good"/

Also as a guitar community, we can get pretty nerdy and stubborn about specifics but I've never once thought to condescend to people about what kind of tremolo I use or what particular names or designations are appropriate for a guitar. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people refer to a humbucker as a "double " or "double humbucking pickupS" plural referring to a single item. Never once thought to insult them for not knowing the difference.

But start talking guns and its "you're only targeting those guns because they're black and you don't know the difference, this guitar has a wood stock and it's just as damaging" "banning flash suppressors and 10 million round clips (LOLOLOLO THEY'RE CALL MAGAZINES N00B) only hurts sportsman and legal owner!" "LOL! You called it a machine gun but full auto guns are already banned, stupid!".

Between the stubbornness and the geekiness, I can't help but conclude these people have, yes, a fetish for weapons. Big, long, hard, phallic shaped tools that fire projectiles that make them feel manly.


----------



## StevenC

RE: private gun ownership as a detterent

If the US government really wanted to start killing off masses of the population, your weapon isn't going to be any use and they aren't going to care about optics. 

RE: some soldiers would defect in that situation

OK some would, but no evil regime has ever had trouble with recruitment. arewethebadguys.gif


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> RE: private gun ownership as a detterent
> 
> If the US government really wanted to start killing off masses of the population, your weapon isn't going to be any use and they aren't going to care about optics.
> 
> RE: some soldiers would defect in that situation
> 
> OK some would, but no evil regime has ever had trouble with recruitment. arewethebadguys.gif



There's some irony to me that the government already heavily regulates guns at one jurisdiction or the other, but we're acting like we need the maximum allowable strength of munitions to fight back, as if they didn't already pick and choose what we can have to hamper our ability to overthrow them. 

It's also funny to me that gun nuts insist on having AR-15s to be able to fight the government but then also muddy the water by saying they're not notably more effective or deadlier than X obscure hipster rifle reference.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> There's some irony to me that the government already heavily regulates guns at one jurisdiction or the other, but we're acting like we need the maximum allowable strength of munitions to fight back, as if they didn't already pick and choose what we can have to hamper our ability to overthrow them.
> 
> It's also funny to me that gun nuts insist on having AR-15s to be able to fight the government but then also muddy the water by saying they're not notably more effective or deadlier than X obscure hipster rifle reference.


Because a good faith argument on the topic wouldn't last long and one side wouldn't get further than "because we like them".

EDIT: By the way, if there is ever a string of mass murders committed with 100W amps and 4x12s I'll be the first to give mine up.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I guess, _personally_, I need a better reason than "it helps people rebelling against their government be taken seriously" to support unconditional gun ownership in the United States. As of present writing, somewhat more than 10,600 Americans have been shot and killed in 2019, through mid-September. More than 21,000 people have been injured by firearms. Sure, we could argue there's a tradeoff somewhere in there, but considering we're a total anomaly when it comes to gun violence in first world nations, I'm going to want more compelling reasons to support unconstrained gun ownership in this country than that.
> 
> To be fair I'm picking an unfair example, perhaps, because the Bundys _should_ have had cops waltz in and arrest them and in fact that outcome is vastle preferable to the week-long standoff and one death we got, but I'm not really aware of too many situations where people had guns, were taken seriously for it, and were also morally in the right in the cause they were fighting for.



For starters, I'm not too sure about that source. I clicked through some of the reports and there are reports where the victim survived, but they're counting it as a death.
They're also counting accidental deaths and officer involved shootings, neither of which I would count for the purpose of this discussion. But since I don't have my own source, we'll leave that alone.

But lets assume they're all pure violence, some guy walking down the street deciding to shoot somebody. For no reason. Hell, let's just use the 21,000, we'll be generous. 21,000 people shot dead so far this year.
The US population is currently roughly 330,000,000. That would make your chance of being a victim roughly 0.000064%. For scope, there were about 40,000 driving deaths in 2018, which would be about double.

I wouldn't want the 0.00012% chance that I become a statistic to impact my ability to drive a car; and I _*definitely*_ wouldn't want an even less likely event to impact my right to protect myself. I understand you aren't coming from a position of abolishing the 2nd amendment, but with the rather extreme positions many on the left take in this discussion, it's tough not to think that way.

I'm also not aware of such a situation either; aside from the revolutionary war. Ideally, there would never be such a situation again. But you never know.
The united states is a total anomaly in a lot of things, there are multiple factors. The pure amount of nihilism in this country is an anomaly. This country is so socially broken that to infer a simple cause / effect relationship between gun ownership and shootings seems analogous to a kid refusing to show his work on his homework because "it's obvious."

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you're getting unconstrained gun ownership from. Your ability to own a gun is currently far, far from unconstrained, and I don't think anybody is arguing for that position, either. If that's what you think I'm arguing, allow me to clearly state that I am not.



> For me, the issue with something like an AR15 vs a 45 is muzzle velocity. A 45 CAN do a hell of a lot of damage, it's a big slug. It also has a muzzle velocity roughly, what, a quarter of what an AR15 can deliver, but while an AR15 bullet is only about half of the size of a .45, because of the way force increases exponentially with velocity a bit of quick googling tells me that a Colt 45 will deliver about 400 foot-pounds of force on impact, while an AR15 will deliver more than triple that, around 1,300 foot-pounds. That's the difference between punching a good-sized hole in someone, and effectively liquidating any internal organs behind the impact point, from a gun that can in competent hands fire off a couple bullets a second. They're not designed to stop people or neutralize people, they're designed to hit someone with a slug moving so fast that even fairly superficial impact sites can be fatal due to the sheer trauma a slug moving at that speed causes.
> 
> And, considering you CAN do "a hell of a lot of damage" with a 45, what's the real marginal gain here by allowing ready access to something that can produce nearly triple the kinetic energy, and *that can be shot several times faster*, with (even with "normal" magazines) much less reloading?
> 
> Re: semiautomatic, yeah, "fully semiautomatic" is silly and just scare tactics. I think in and of itself its less of an issue - a semi 9mm is still a weapon designed to stop someone, I buy the argument that a semiauto one is useful if adrenaline gets you and your first shot or two is a miss, and on the flip side you can fire off the entire magazine in a 9mm pistol into a crowd and realistically the death toll won't be THAT high, maybe a couple people, before you need to reload, unless you're an amazing shot. Do that with an AR15, though... The combination of rapid fire, large capacity magazine, and extremely high kinetic energy behinid each shot is something that makes it easier than I'm really comfortable with for one person to kill large numbers of people, for me to want just anyone to be able to go and buy one.



Great! Because not anyone can just go and buy one.
And absolutely, you can definitely kill the shit out of someone with a 9mm. But I think you may be conflating stopping power with lethality. If somebody is drugged up or riding that adrenaline high, a 9mm doesn't necessarily have the ability to knock them onto the ground. I believe this was actually an issue in the Vietnam war; soldiers were all hopped up on amphetamines and would be shot multiple times before they realized it or were put down. If I'm fighting for my life, I don't want to kill the guy trying to take it 5 minutes from now. I want him dead _now_.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in California, a large-capacity magazine is defined as _10 rounds_. It is illegal for you to purchase a magazine that can hold 11 rounds of ammunition. I'm sure the rest of the country isn't as strict, but I don't know how you could conceivably go much smaller than that.

I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that a rifle can be shot _*several times*_ faster than a handgun.

Not to mention that according to the FBI, handguns are responsible for substantially more deaths than rifles. They're used _*dramatically*_ more often in violent crime; you just don't hear about it as often because the big scary black rifle is an easier tool to get the public all riled up to sign away their rights.
(Also thanks Drew, I'm at work on 3 hours of sleep on a day where nothing's going on. You're literally keeping me conscious.)

@Randy, again, nobody is saying completely unregulated, that is not the way things are currently, nobody is trying to make it like that, and it's absolutely true that people are "more ok" with guns with a wooden look over a metal one. Just watch this clip for example, lol. Crowder's entire channel is just one big conservative circle jerk so I don't expect you to listen to his talking points, but listen to and watch how the people walking by react. If it doesn't look 'tactical' people are _way _more ok with it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> There's some irony to me that the government already heavily regulates guns at one jurisdiction or the other, but we're acting like we need the maximum allowable strength of munitions to fight back, as if they didn't already pick and choose what we can have to hamper our ability to overthrow them.
> 
> It's also funny to me that gun nuts insist on having AR-15s to be able to fight the government but then also muddy the water by saying they're not notably more effective or deadlier than X obscure hipster rifle reference.



Because the media has an obsessive hard-on for the AR-15, and a lot of the stuff they say or insinuate about it is just incorrect. It's the big scary black rifle. 
There are _*way*_ more effective *and* deadlier rifles out there; I know a guy with a .300 winmag that I'm pretty sure could kill a building. Yet nobody talks about .300 winmag; but it's impossible to get them to shut up about the AR-15. 



StevenC said:


> Because a good faith argument on the topic wouldn't last long and one side wouldn't get further than "because we like them"



Glass houses. 
Ask me how many times I've been accused of not caring whether children live or die because I don't want to lose my rights due to some lunatic.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Glass houses.
> Ask me how many times I've been accused of not caring whether children live or die because I don't want to lose my rights due to some lunatic.


That's not really the argument. The argument is what is the purpose of having that right and why should it be a right? And in the context of that right does it make sense anymore? I don't care about the kids dying, that's a whole different thing, what is the actual worth of that right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Because the media has an obsessive hard-on for the AR-15, and a lot of the stuff they say or insinuate about it is just incorrect. It's the big scary black rifle.
> There are _*way*_ more effective *and* deadlier rifles out there; I know a guy with a .300 winmag that I'm pretty sure could kill a building. Yet nobody talks about .300 winmag; but it's impossible to get them to shut up about the AR-15.



Yeah, but look at what comes in WinMag. Either a $5k+ AR derivative platform, which is still an AR, or a <3+1 specialty hunting rifle. Sure, you can get MilSpec upper/lower kits cheaper but you're going to spend real money on the BCG and barrel since they're not common.

Meanwhile, you can get a serviceable .223 AR for $300. 

A deadly gun isn't a powerful one, it's a present one. What makes the AR scary isn't that it looks like an M4, it's that they're dirt cheap, readily available, and can be purchased same day.

Not to mention the aftermarket is fucking HUGE, making it really easy to assemble your own. An 80% lower, which only needs basic drilling and milling, maybe an hour of work, is only $50. Everything else can be bought online and delivered without the need of an FFL or background check.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

StevenC said:


> That's not really the argument. The argument is what is the purpose of having that right and why should it be a right? And in the context of that right does it make sense anymore? I don't care about the kids dying, that's a whole different thing, what is the actual worth of that right?



That's my point 
These discussions don't typically get very far before someone starts assuming ill of the other party. If I present an argument and you respond with "well you don't care about dead kids," you're arguing in bad faith, the same way if you present an argument and I end up responding with "j-just shut up, I like my rifle," I'm arguing in bad faith (because I never really had an argument to begin with in that case). Happens all the time.

As for an actual answer to your question, I don't think it's even answerable, since everyone is going to have a differing opinion on it.
Personally, as a pretty scrawny guy, yes- I value my right to self defense immensely, because I am easy pickings for anyone that wants to rob or assault me. I have nice things in a house in a middling neighborhood in a very, very poor and crime-ridden town. Four people on my block have had armed intruders break into their house in the last three years, one of them got raped. To me, the peace of mind a gun brings means that thing may as well be worth it's weight in gold.

Not the case for everybody, and that's fine- I can't argue that, can't say "you have the wrong opinion."



MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, but look at what comes in WinMag. Either a $5k+ AR derivative platform, which is still an AR, or a <3+1 specialty hunting rifle. Sure, you can get MilSpec upper/lower kits cheaper but you're going to spend real money on the BCG and barrel since they're not common.
> 
> Meanwhile, you can get a serviceable .223 AR for $300.
> 
> A deadly gun isn't a powerful one, it's a present one. What makes the AR scary isn't that it looks like an M4, it's that they're dirt cheap, readily available, and can be purchased same day.
> 
> Not to mention the aftermarket is fucking HUGE, making it really easy to assemble your own. An 80% lower, which only needs basic drilling and milling, maybe an hour of work, is only $50. Everything else can be bought online and delivered without the need of an FFL or background check.



I don't really think that was Randy's point.
But yeah; I can't argue with a word of this post. It's not even my world, really. I'm not super into guns, I'm not a hobbyist. I just value the right greatly.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I don't really think that was Randy's point.
> But yeah; I can't argue with a word of this post. It's not even my world, really. I'm not super into guns, I'm not a hobbyist. I just value the right greatly.



Just giving you some context, as a hobbyist, as to why the AR platform is given the airtime it is.

It's disingenuous to say it's because they're "just scary black rifles" or deflect by saying "there are more deadly rifles" when talking about an obscure hunting cartridge.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just giving you some context, as a hobbyist, as to why the AR platform is given the airtime it is.
> 
> It's disingenuous to say it's because they're "just scary black rifles" or deflect by saying "there are more deadly rifles" when talking about an obscure hunting cartridge.



Wasn't intended as a deflection. Just an acknowledgment, since the criticism seemed to imply that there's no acknowledgement that there are deadlier weapons. 
May be a nitpick, but I never said 'just,' I said '_the_,' because it IS _*the*_ quintessential scary black rifle. Like it or not, that's why it's discussed so often.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Wasn't intended as a deflection. Just an acknowledgment, since the criticism seemed to imply that there's no acknowledgement that there are deadlier weapons.
> May be a nitpick, but I never said 'just,' I said '_the_,' because it IS _*the*_ quintessential scary black rifle. Like it or not, that's why it's discussed so often.



You're confusing the kinetic energy of a specific cartridge and how “deadly” a firearm is. One is a physical measurement, the other is more opaque. 

Take your .300 WinMag. It is a very powerful round, but that's because it's made to be shot long distance and take down large game. Close range, you're going to just go through whatever or whomever you're shooting at. The more common amongst AR style platforms, the 5.56 has a lot less kinetic energy, but being designed to kill people, when fired at close range, you get a bullet that tumbles inside the target tearing apart everything it touches. Objectively, when speaking about most situations shootings occur, the 5.56 is more likely to result in a fatality. 

Look at the militaries of the world. You'll find they use cartridges that are much closer to the 5.56 than the big, long range oriented hunting cartridges.

There is such a thing as too much power. Clean holes don't kill like liquefied insides. 

But that's somewhat besides point, as ARs aren't exclusive to a single cartridge. You can buy receivers and magazines to fit just about anything, including that WinMag. 

Again, I'm not sure you know enough about 
_*"the*_ quintessential scary black rifle" to really say why people are against its proliferation. While I'm sure there are folks who don't like them because they look scary, there are far more who are weary about them because of the factors I enumerated earlier.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, I'm not sure you know enough about _*"the*_ quintessential scary black rifle" to really say why people are against its proliferation. While I'm sure there are folks who don't like them because they look scary, there are far more who are weary about them because of the factors I enumerated earlier.



You're probably right- I just disagree with your second sentence. From what I've found, most outspoken people on the issue are even less informed than I am. People with a full, in-depth understanding of both sides of the coin seem to be a very, _*very*_ small minority. Most people seem to just assume that they're basically the M4 that they represent, because that's almost how the media makes them sound to people that are uninformed. I don't blame the look of the gun, I blame the media and people's tendency to speak out about issues they have a limited understanding of.
Yes, I see the irony in that statement.

I mean, just a couple months ago I had to have an argument with a coworker over whether or not fully automatic weapons were legal, because they throw the phrase 'weapons of war' around.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You're probably right- I just disagree with your second sentence. From what I've found, most outspoken people on the issue are even less informed than I am. People with a full, in-depth understanding of both sides of the coin seem to be a very, _*very*_ small minority. Most people seem to just assume that they're basically the M4 that they represent, because that's almost how the media makes them sound to people that are uninformed. I don't blame the look of the gun, I blame the media and people's tendency to speak out about issues they have a limited understanding of.
> Yes, I see the irony in that statement.
> 
> I mean, just a couple months ago I had to have an argument with a coworker over whether or not fully automatic weapons were legal, because they throw the phrase 'weapons of war' around.



Eh, there are plenty examples of loud know-nothings on both sides for sure, but you'd be surprised how informed a large portion of the pro-gun control movement is. 

It's a conservative trope and a key NRA prerogative to frame proponents of gun control as being clueless libtards brainwashed by CNN. Don't fall for it.


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You're probably right- I just disagree with your second sentence. From what I've found, most outspoken people on the issue are even less informed than I am. People with a full, in-depth understanding of both sides of the coin seem to be a very, _*very*_ small minority. Most people seem to just assume that they're basically the M4 that they represent, because that's almost how the media makes them sound to people that are uninformed. I don't blame the look of the gun, I blame the media and people's tendency to speak out about issues they have a limited understanding of.
> Yes, I see the irony in that statement.
> 
> I mean, just a couple months ago I had to have an argument with a coworker over whether or not fully automatic weapons were legal, because they throw the phrase 'weapons of war' around.


You blame the media for so many mass murders involving ARs? That's the real reason they are _the _scary black rifle.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Is the problem high-caliber rounds? There are 2 reasons to own a gun, hunting and self defense, and in both cases, I want to kill whatever I'm shooting at as fast as possible.
> 
> Anything I'd like to have the extra in case the nerves come into play and I miss, I don't think that in anywhere near most cases it would be necessary.



And this is the gun owner 'superhero' fallacy on full display. "I want powerful bullets and I want a lot of them so that I can kill an intruder".

Except allowing them to exist also ensures that your intruder ALSO has powerful bullets and ALSO has a high capacity. And he has the advantage of the fact he's breaking into your house seemingly when you're not expecting him.

That's the reason why mass shootings play out the way they do. Because 300 people are standing around with shopping on their mind, strategizing what aisle they'll go down to get their grocery list done without having to backtrack, and one guy is strategizing how to kill the most people before they even know he's there. The effectiveness of the weapon is multiplied several times over again when you add in the element of surprise, an advantage a 'good guy with a gun' does not get the benefit of, by design.

The notion of "well I can have the powerful guns because I only want to do the right thing with them" is also a fallacy. Crazy people don't know they're crazy. Infact, they usually consider their cause quite noble. And it's narcissistic to assume you have your guns and you're 100% well intentioned and that can never change. Maybe you pickup a drug habit. Maybe you get fired a month before your last mortgage payment and you end up losing the house you paid 14 years for. Maybe your daughter dates a guy and he throws her around and his family is covering for him.

The idea that you bought your guns for one reason and you're so completely in control of your life and your psyche so much that the rest of us should leave our safety in your hands because you insist on arming yourself to the max, is shortsighted to the point of blindness.

And again, maybe you are entirely infallible in doing the right thing but leaving that door open to you leaves it open to everyone else that's not so pure of heart. The more open ended gun ownership remains, the more the odds work against you if you're counting on the idea of you needing to have your gun to protect youself from someone else with a gun.

I'm not trying to pick on you, btw. I just happened to hear a lot of the canned gun lobbyist memes I've heard over time and it's a convenient jumping off point.


----------



## Flappydoodle

MaxOfMetal said:


> His polled average is 3%. That's hardly "leading".
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/beto-orourke.html



Lol, wow, I didn't realise that his poll numbers sucked that badly and that his campaign had flopped. He's still widely reported as a serious candidate everywhere. MSM holds him up as a totally viable candidate. And he's a nationally known name, not some fringe candidate (Yang etc) or a nobody like Inslee or that Hickelwhatever guy.



> Your numbers are make believe.
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/
> 
> I'm not sure what qualifies as living "outside the system" considering how many work, pay taxes, and participate in local communities and in the greater national economy. Could you explain?



https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

Official statistics seem to indicate 50-130,000 border *apprehensions* per month. So yes, not 100,000's per month on a routine basis, but certainly peaking at that number during the right seasons.

I also suppose that the number of illegal crossings is not included in these data, since it lists only apprehensions. 



StevenC said:


> Man from 25 years ago saying incorrect things legitimizes man saying incorrect things now?



Is it incorrect? I didn't actually make any argument about whether it was correct.

However, I will say that Clinton's speech sounds pretty reasonable and common sensical to me. 

The main point is that it was a totally mainstream viewpoint. This is not normal in any other country in the world to have mass illegal immigration and a sizeable portion of the population and politicians who are seemingly ok with it.



Ralyks said:


> Saying Beto is leading candidate is like saying I'm a leading candidate. Also, I'm for redoing the gun laws, and even I thought he was stupid to say that AK comment.



See above. I didn't realise his poll numbers were so bad, but he's still a national figure and he is treated as a serious candidate. He's given countless hours on mainstream media. He's not treated as some fringe guy or loon or extremist.

Assume his AK comment was basically a desperate plea for attention to try and revive his dead campaign. He'll probably drop out soon.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Thaeon said:


> I think its interesting that Trump was paraphrased and a direct quote not taken. Easy to make claims without playing a clip to back it up. Also, Trump refers to most illegal aliens as terrible people. Clinton specifically spoke to deporting criminal aliens. Not people who overstayed their visas in general. If we're going to make comparative statements, about what people say, it doesn't make sense to quote one and not the other. You can make all sorts of wild claims that way. Put the verbatim statements right next to each other. Don't comment. Just let people see/hear them. Then let them make their own decision about it. The guy in that clip is making a very concerted effort to lead the viewer to the same conclusion he made. That's not news. That's an opinion piece.



Hmmm.. feels like you are also paraphrasing. Trump also said "and some I assume are good people"  

Trump has also spoken extensively about deporting criminal aliens. My main point isn't to defend Trump at all here - rather to point out that these views are pretty mainstream. If they are no longer mainstream, that indicates a radical shift in mainstream politics, where the "Hitler-like" Republican candidate now sounds like a Democrat. 

More along this point, there are cities, states and politicians actively OPPOSING Trump's government from deporting illegal immigrant criminals, or even from collecting data about them.



Aso said:


> How does Beto's call for confiscation of firearms play into any backup plans to run for a senate set in Texas? I would think that statement alone would make his chances in Texas even harder.
> I don't like the debate around guns because it seems neither side is honest about trying to find a solution other then a all or nothing approach. I would like to see our politicians put forth ideas that actually would do something and not just a knee jerk feel good response. I am not really sure what the right plan would be but I really wish the media would stop making the shooters folk heros to the segment of the population that look to these people as examples of how they can "be someone" and famous. I know this is not likely to happen since blood boosts the ratings.



Agree. At the end of the day, Beto doesn't really need to do anything. His wife is a billionaire. He got his moment of fame. I'd suppose that it would be a case of "President or nothing" for him. I can't see him running for anything else now. Just my opinion.

Agree with you on guns. The media having graphics showing kill rankings and MOST DEADLY ATTACK YET etc doesn't exactly help.



Drew said:


> I can say with a reasonably high degree of confidence that at least several of our occasional right wing trolls were in fact the same person. I don't disagree that there;s a whole bunch of right wing Trump fans in this world who get off on trolling libtards, but that's not what we were dealing with here.
> 
> Also, you're kind of falling into the same fallacy that this new troll is, re: ICE. The Democratic party, just like the Republican party, doesn't have an entirely uniform viewpoint. There ARE Democrats calling to abolish ICE. They're a small minority. A few more want to seperate immigration and criminal justice activities and restructure how ICE works - there's more of them, but we're still talking about a minority. The majority of the Democratic party is NOT calling to abolish ICE, and while that's a platform idea for several _Democrats_, it's not part of the Democratic platform.
> 
> Saying the Democrats want to abolish ICE because AOC wants to abolish ICE is about intellectually akin to saying the GOP wants to molest children because Dennis Hastert wants to molest children. It doesn't really hold water.



Yeah, it's definitely possible that some are trolls. But also I stand by my earlier theory. Newcomers (people who like guitars and metal music) will find this forum, and they are probably pretty equally split left/right IMO. I don't think metal music is particularly left or right wing. I'd assume a gun and hunting forum would be right wing by default, and an environmental activist forum would be more left wing by default. But for 7 string guitars, I'll assume it's pretty equal. But any right wing person posting here probably won't do so for long because it's not a welcoming, agreeable place for those views.



Randy said:


> And this is the gun owner 'superhero' fallacy on full display. "I want powerful bullets and I want a lot of them so that I can kill an intruder".
> 
> Except allowing them to exist also ensures that your intruder ALSO has powerful bullets and ALSO has a high capacity. And he has the advantage of the fact he's breaking into your house seemingly when you're not expecting him.



Is this not fallacy also? Because there's also the classic "criminals don't obey the law" phrase. You seem to be assuming that you *could* made those powerful bullets not exist. That's a fallacy in itself since you most likely can't practically ever remove them from existence. 

Mr law-abiding guy might begrudgingly hand over his arsenal, but mr arsehole criminal home-invader probably won't. Now the playing field is even less level.



> The idea that you bought your guns for one reason and you're so completely in control of your life and your psyche so much that the rest of us should leave our safety in your hands because you insist on arming yourself to the max, is shortsighted to the point of blindness.
> 
> And again, maybe you are entirely infallible in doing the right thing but leaving that door open to you leaves it open to everyone else that's not so pure of heart. The more open ended gun ownership remains, the more the odds work against you if you're counting on the idea of you needing to have your gun to protect youself from someone else with a gun.



This is such a snapshot view of the difference between left and right thinking. The right say that personal responsibility is paramount, and your ability to defend yourself is a fundamental right. And you are essentially saying that nobody should be trusted to do that, with the implication that you must trust some sort of authority (because someone will have to deal with the shooter at some point).

FYI, I'm not taking a position on gun control, because I'm not American and I don't give a fuck. But at the end of the day, it seems to me that these mass shooting are shocking events, but they're also still very uncommon. It's like terrorism, where the perceived threat and the response is far larger than is actually justified. But it appeals to our irrational nature.

If we reported the numbers of people killed in drug overdoses etc with the same furore, I think this wouldn't be such a large issue. There's also massive fudging of statistics by everybody - including suicides and shootings by police as "gun deaths", including gang violence as "mass shootings" etc. 

Honestly, if I believed what you believe about peoples' ability to police themselves, I'd start by banning sugary drinks, drive-thru stores, all cigarettes etc. You'd then also want to consider mandated exercise programs. Given that heart disease and cancer are bigger killers by an order of magnitude, if we are removing personal autonomy then we might as well actually make a difference.


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> Is it incorrect? I didn't actually make any argument about whether it was correct.
> 
> However, I will say that Clinton's speech sounds pretty reasonable and common sensical to me.
> 
> The main point is that it was a totally mainstream viewpoint. This is not normal in any other country in the world to have mass illegal immigration and a sizeable portion of the population and politicians who are seemingly ok with it.


Correctness doesn't even need to come in to it, it's not a revolutionary thought that ideals from 25 years ago have become outdated.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

MaxOfMetal said:


> You're confusing the kinetic energy of a specific cartridge and how “deadly” a firearm is. One is a physical measurement, the other is more opaque.
> 
> Take your .300 WinMag. It is a very powerful round, but that's because it's made to be shot long distance and take down large game. Close range, you're going to just go through whatever or whomever you're shooting at. The more common amongst AR style platforms, the 5.56 has a lot less kinetic energy, but being designed to kill people, when fired at close range, you get a bullet that tumbles inside the target tearing apart everything it touches. Objectively, when speaking about most situations shootings occur, the 5.56 is more likely to result in a fatality.
> 
> Look at the militaries of the world. You'll find they use cartridges that are much closer to the 5.56 than the big, long range oriented hunting cartridges.
> 
> There is such a thing as too much power. Clean holes don't kill like liquefied insides.
> 
> But that's somewhat besides point, as ARs aren't exclusive to a single cartridge. You can buy receivers and magazines to fit just about anything, including that WinMag.
> 
> Again, I'm not sure you know enough about
> _*"the*_ quintessential scary black rifle" to really say why people are against its proliferation. While I'm sure there are folks who don't like them because they look scary, there are far more who are weary about them because of the factors I enumerated earlier.


Actually the reason most militaries adopted 5.56 is
1. standardization due to NATO 2. data shows that the majority of gunfighting is done under 300m, with most kills happening under 100m (which is stupidly close for long rifles). The original M16/stoner rifles were purposely designed to induce tumbling within 100m, though past that the rounds tend to stabilize again. Current iterations of the 5.56 are nowhere near as good at causing the fabled tumbling wound patterns.
3. Smaller caliber weapons allow better accuracy under duress due to the mininimal recoil.
4. Smaller caliber weapons alllows soldiers to carry significantly more ammo which increases the amount of time they can engage the enemy or supress them before resupply.
5. Multiple battlefield studies have shown that shot placement trumped caliber of round in terms of killing effectiveness, which is yet another reason most countries have moved away from higher cal weapons.

A 7.62x51 fmj is still going to rip someone apart internally, it's just that they don't tumble/fragment on impact with flesh/bone like 5.56. There are numerous accounts from WW1 and WW2 showcasing the wounds patterns of large high velocity rounds like the 7.92 mm Mauser, 30-06, .303. Large caliber rounds *kill just fine provided you can actually hit your target.*
Another thing, the tumbling of 5.56 is dependent on barrel length/# of twists (and some other factors iirc). So early M16s had significantly more tumbling, which caused the rounds to make some very impressive wounds (including decapitations/near amputations). Later iterations changed a number of variables, so the tumbling wasn't as signifcant at close range.
The temporary wound cavitation (basically the transfer of the bullet's energy into the flesh which creates a shockwave/mushroom that pushes the tissues around) is typically not as significant as soft tipped larger calibers (though more so than say 7.62 fmj), but the permanent wound channels are typically nastier given the possible tumbling/fragmenting of 5.56.


----------



## Randy

Flappydoodle said:


> Is this not fallacy also? Because there's also the classic "criminals don't obey the law" phrase. You seem to be assuming that you *could* made those powerful bullets not exist. That's a fallacy in itself since you most likely can't practically ever remove them from existence.
> 
> 
> This is such a snapshot view of the difference between left and right thinking. The right say that personal responsibility is paramount, and your ability to defend yourself is a fundamental right. And you are essentially saying that nobody should be trusted to do that, with the implication that you must trust some sort of authority (because someone will have to deal with the shooter at some point).
> 
> FYI, I'm not taking a position on gun control, because I'm not American and I don't give a fuck. But at the end of the day, it seems to me that these mass shooting are shocking events, but they're also still very uncommon. It's like terrorism, where the perceived threat and the response is far larger than is actually justified. But it appeals to our irrational nature.
> 
> If we reported the numbers of people killed in drug overdoses etc with the same furore, I think this wouldn't be such a large issue. There's also massive fudging of statistics by everybody - including suicides and shootings by police as "gun deaths", including gang violence as "mass shootings" etc.
> 
> Honestly, if I believed what you believe about peoples' ability to police themselves, I'd start by banning sugary drinks, drive-thru stores, all cigarettes etc. You'd then also want to consider mandated exercise programs. Given that heart disease and cancer are bigger killers by an order of magnitude, if we are removing personal autonomy then we might as well actually make a difference.



Fallacy? No. It's part of the dynamic but not a fallacy. You shoehorned it INTO a fallacy by saying I was implying you can get rid of all munitions and I wasn't.

I was just pointing out that having a LOT of ammo (more than a standard capacity) and having them be EXCEPTIONALLY powerful is a very narrow scenario of events where it's necessary or useful in saving your life. As the guy I was discussing with even said, a shotgun is a lot more useful against a home invader. The concept you need a bandolier of high powered ammo to shoot an intruder dead is a speculative position based on a rare if not non-existent set of circumstances is absolutely fallacy, if not complete fantasy.

To your second point, there a significant regulation of all those things. Sugary drinks, et al. For all your "I'm not a Republican, I'm not even an American and not necessarily a conservative, I'm just saying..." stuff and floating the Republican Party mindset as "personal responsibility first", you conveniently leave out Trump's current push to ban flavored vapes and pressure on video game industry over violence. Make no mistake, the Republican Party love nanny state bullshit as much as anybody as long as it's a cause they can see winning them votes.


----------



## Thaeon

Flappydoodle said:


> Hmmm.. feels like you are also paraphrasing. Trump also said "and some I assume are good people"
> 
> Trump has also spoken extensively about deporting criminal aliens. My main point isn't to defend Trump at all here - rather to point out that these views are pretty mainstream. If they are no longer mainstream, that indicates a radical shift in mainstream politics, where the "Hitler-like" Republican candidate now sounds like a Democrat.
> 
> More along this point, there are cities, states and politicians actively OPPOSING Trump's government from deporting illegal immigrant criminals, or even from collecting data about them.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. At the end of the day, Beto doesn't really need to do anything. His wife is a billionaire. He got his moment of fame. I'd suppose that it would be a case of "President or nothing" for him. I can't see him running for anything else now. Just my opinion.
> 
> Agree with you on guns. The media having graphics showing kill rankings and MOST DEADLY ATTACK YET etc doesn't exactly help.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's definitely possible that some are trolls. But also I stand by my earlier theory. Newcomers (people who like guitars and metal music) will find this forum, and they are probably pretty equally split left/right IMO. I don't think metal music is particularly left or right wing. I'd assume a gun and hunting forum would be right wing by default, and an environmental activist forum would be more left wing by default. But for 7 string guitars, I'll assume it's pretty equal. But any right wing person posting here probably won't do so for long because it's not a welcoming, agreeable place for those views.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this not fallacy also? Because there's also the classic "criminals don't obey the law" phrase. You seem to be assuming that you *could* made those powerful bullets not exist. That's a fallacy in itself since you most likely can't practically ever remove them from existence.
> 
> Mr law-abiding guy might begrudgingly hand over his arsenal, but mr arsehole criminal home-invader probably won't. Now the playing field is even less level.
> 
> 
> 
> This is such a snapshot view of the difference between left and right thinking. The right say that personal responsibility is paramount, and your ability to defend yourself is a fundamental right. And you are essentially saying that nobody should be trusted to do that, with the implication that you must trust some sort of authority (because someone will have to deal with the shooter at some point).
> 
> FYI, I'm not taking a position on gun control, because I'm not American and I don't give a fuck. But at the end of the day, it seems to me that these mass shooting are shocking events, but they're also still very uncommon. It's like terrorism, where the perceived threat and the response is far larger than is actually justified. But it appeals to our irrational nature.
> 
> If we reported the numbers of people killed in drug overdoses etc with the same furore, I think this wouldn't be such a large issue. There's also massive fudging of statistics by everybody - including suicides and shootings by police as "gun deaths", including gang violence as "mass shootings" etc.
> 
> Honestly, if I believed what you believe about peoples' ability to police themselves, I'd start by banning sugary drinks, drive-thru stores, all cigarettes etc. You'd then also want to consider mandated exercise programs. Given that heart disease and cancer are bigger killers by an order of magnitude, if we are removing personal autonomy then we might as well actually make a difference.



I don't generally disagree with any of what you said here. My point was that the person speaking was showing bias towards trump and using the lack of direct and often conflicting statements represented there to support his position. Whether or not something is widely known, it is considered bad journalistic practice to not reference the material you're comparing something with. It makes the journalist in question have a much easier time leading his audience in the direction he wants rather than reporting just the facts and allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions. I may have been paraphrasing Clinton in that clip, but I was speaking my actual thoughts on the reporter. The material being spoken of was referenced in my post so that any one reading the conversation had access to it and can draw their own conclusions. I will include a link to Trumps statements on immigration and some other topics even though my post wasn't directly related to that. I will let the reporter's own words stand for themselves. I will say, that Trump's position is generally as was stated, but there is some contextual difference between what he and Clinton both said, which can amount to a lot. Which sound bites aren't going to make very readily apparent. 

https://www.apnews.com/fb21a03e4d2246b1926830e8def6e999

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-07-05/how-trump-manipulates-migration-debate

This one ties together with the links included in the article.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm

A list of statements Trump has made.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Fallacy? No. It's part of the dynamic but not a fallacy. You shoehorned it INTO a fallacy by saying I was implying you can get rid of all munitions and I wasn't.
> 
> I was just pointing out that having a LOT of ammo (more than a standard capacity) and having them be EXCEPTIONALLY powerful is a very narrow scenario of events where it's necessary or useful in saving your life. As the guy I was discussing with even said, a shotgun is a lot more useful against a home invader. The concept you need a bandolier of high powered ammo to shoot an intruder dead is a speculative position based on a rare if not non-existent set of circumstances is absolutely fallacy, if not complete fantasy.
> 
> To your second point, there a significant regulation of all those things. Sugary drinks, et al. For all your "I'm not a Republican, I'm not even an American and not necessarily a conservative, I'm just saying..." stuff and floating the Republican Party mindset as "personal responsibility first", you conveniently leave out Trump's current push to ban flavored vapes and pressure on video game industry over violence. Make no mistake, the Republican Party love nanny state bullshit as much as anybody as long as it's a cause they can see winning them votes.



I find the EXCEEDINGLY profound knee jerk reaction to the relatively low number of deaths attributed to vaping recently VERY interesting considering the MASS GRAVES you can lay at the feet of the Big Tobacco industry. We're all about regulating it, KNOWING that it will continue to make people die. Nothing pulled off of any shelves anywhere despite a very scientific link to cancer and other respiratory diseases. Its pretty stunning how willing we are to accept the one but not the other based on the fact that one is a part of our culture while generating a bunch of revenue, taxes, and jobs, and the other is relatively new.

As far as a gun is concerned, if you need more than one or two bullets to stop an intruder, you're doing it wrong and you're probably pretty dangerous to your family and neighbors as well at that point. Any other home invader participating in said activity that doesn't IMMEDIATELY turn around and run when seeing the bright light, hearing/feeling the BANG, and seeing their compatriot drop, is either a moron or a moron.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

StevenC said:


> You blame the media for so many mass murders involving ARs? That's the real reason they are _the _scary black rifle.



I blame the media for the current state of absolute hysteria around rifles, yes. If we're being honest, mass shootings are mostly irrelevant in the discussion of gun violence because they account for such a small number of murders.
The amount of murders perpetrated in this country by ARs is statistically negligible compared to handguns. Never in my life have I been concerned about getting shot with a rifle, but on multiple occasions I've been worried about a handgun.



Randy said:


> And this is the gun owner 'superhero' fallacy on full display. "I want powerful bullets and I want a lot of them so that I can kill an intruder".
> 
> *Except allowing them to exist also ensures that* your intruder ALSO has powerful bullets and ALSO has a high capacity. And he has the advantage of the fact he's breaking into your house seemingly when you're not expecting him.



This conversation is so scripted; because yeah- now I get to move down the flowchart to the "since when do criminals care about the law" talking point.

So in your next post, you try to walk this statement back a little- but I don't quite see what other way to interpret it.
Bolded phrasing indicates that it's a personal choice and that that decision can be changed; yet you acknowledge that you cannot simply remove these items from the streets.

So it's an easy assessment to make that people you don't want having these things would continue to have them. Which...unbalances the playing field.
Yeah, in most cases I'd opt for a shotgun. But there's an infinite number of circumstances and when it comes to defending my life, I don't want anything that can help me off the table. Removing an option for me but not for the aggressor is not helping.



> That's the reason why mass shootings play out the way they do. Because 300 people are standing around with shopping on their mind, strategizing what aisle they'll go down to get their grocery list done without having to backtrack, and one guy is strategizing how to kill the most people before they even know he's there. The effectiveness of the weapon is multiplied several times over again when you add in the element of surprise, an advantage a 'good guy with a gun' does not get the benefit of, by design.



Sadly, yes. There's nothing you can do about that.
I _would_ say that the knowledge that some of these people could be carrying would act as some level of deterrent, but since we're talking about mass shootings now these perpetrators usually have some mental issues and most seem to have a deathwish of some level anyway.

Did you hear about the Sutherland Springs shooting? Read into it?



> The notion of "well I can have the powerful guns because I only want to do the right thing with them" is also a fallacy. Crazy people don't know they're crazy. Infact, they usually consider their cause quite noble. And it's narcissistic to assume you have your guns and you're 100% well intentioned and that can never change. Maybe you pickup a drug habit. Maybe you get fired a month before your last mortgage payment and you end up losing the house you paid 14 years for. Maybe your daughter dates a guy and he throws her around and his family is covering for him.
> 
> The idea that you bought your guns for one reason and you're so completely in control of your life and your psyche so much that the rest of us should leave our safety in your hands because you insist on arming yourself to the max, is shortsighted to the point of blindness.
> 
> And again, maybe you are entirely infallible in doing the right thing but leaving that door open to you leaves it open to everyone else that's not so pure of heart. The more open ended gun ownership remains, the more the odds work against you if you're counting on the idea of you needing to have your gun to protect youself from someone else with a gun.



Right, so instead, we should all trust that strictly to the government. Because they've never done anything wrong and are immune to corruption?
_*SOMEBODY*_ is always going to have a gun. End of the day, a human being is going to have access to a weapon that can punch a hole in your face. Everything you've just outlined here, totally irrelevant for that point alone. What if the chief of the local police dept just got sacked because he had someone arrested who had a handshake deal with a local politician who then got him muscled out of his job after 20 years of service right before he could retire, so he loses his goddamn mind and shoots up a Costco? We can play hypotheticals all day.

What about cars? You know how many people I can kill with a car? What, are we just supposed to trust that I'll never have a shitty day at work and see how many pedestrians I can mow over just for kicks? Should only the government have cars?

As for your last point, I'm not even concerned about defending myself purely from people with guns. People use more weapons than just guns.
What about knives? Do you really want to be on an even playing field when someone pulls a knife on you? I'm not trying to get into a knife fight, dude.

"But dumbass," you say, "I don't want to ban _all guns_, I'm only talking about certain munitions and equipment here. If you have your shotgun you'll be fine."
Sure. But what's to stop me from shooting up my local DMV office with said shotgun? Handgun? I mean shit dude didn't some guy in Japan just kill like 30 people in a school with a knife last year or something like that?

You're proposing we legislate against the human condition, and that's never going to work. And I, for one, am not interested in surrendering my rights to chase that dragon.



Randy said:


> You conveniently leave out Trump's current push to ban flavored vapes and pressure on video game industry over violence. Make no mistake, the Republican Party love nanny state bullshit as much as anybody as long as it's a cause they can see winning them votes.



I wouldn't be so sure about that, have you _*seen*_ the _*massive*_ backlash that's getting? From _*everybody*_?
Just because a politician with an R next to his name does / says some dumb shit doesn't mean that everyone that holds a conservative viewpoint agrees with them or is fine with that notion, that's ridiculous. It's just like a few posts ago when someone mentioned open borders and tried to paint the entire left with that brush because a couple of clowns in DC said something laughable.


----------



## Thaeon

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I blame the media for the current state of absolute hysteria around rifles, yes. If we're being honest, mass shootings are mostly irrelevant in the discussion of gun violence because they account for such a small number of murders.
> The amount of murders perpetrated in this country by ARs is statistically negligible compared to handguns. Never in my life have I been concerned about getting shot with a rifle, but on multiple occasions I've been worried about a handgun.
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is so scripted; because yeah- now I get to move down the flowchart to the "since when do criminals care about the law" talking point.
> 
> So in your next post, you try to walk this statement back a little- but I don't quite see what other way to interpret it.
> Bolded phrasing indicates that it's a personal choice and that that decision can be changed; yet you acknowledge that you cannot simply remove these items from the streets.
> 
> So it's an easy assessment to make that people you don't want having these things would continue to have them. Which...unbalances the playing field.
> Yeah, in most cases I'd opt for a shotgun. But there's an infinite number of circumstances and when it comes to defending my life, I don't want anything that can help me off the table. Removing an option for me but not for the aggressor is not helping.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, yes. There's nothing you can do about that.
> I _would_ say that the knowledge that some of these people could be carrying would act as some level of deterrent, but since we're talking about mass shootings now these perpetrators usually have some mental issues and most seem to have a deathwish of some level anyway.
> 
> Did you hear about the Sutherland Springs shooting? Read into it?
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so instead, we should all trust that strictly to the government. Because they've never done anything wrong and are immune to corruption?
> _*SOMEBODY*_ is always going to have a gun. End of the day, a human being is going to have access to a weapon that can punch a hole in your face. Everything you've just outlined here, totally irrelevant for that point alone. What if the chief of the local police dept just got sacked because he had someone arrested who had a handshake deal with a local politician who then got him muscled out of his job after 20 years of service right before he could retire, so he loses his goddamn mind and shoots up a Costco? We can play hypotheticals all day.
> 
> What about cars? You know how many people I can kill with a car? What, are we just supposed to trust that I'll never have a shitty day at work and see how many pedestrians I can mow over just for kicks? Should only the government have cars?
> 
> As for your last point, I'm not even concerned about defending myself purely from people with guns. People use more weapons than just guns.
> What about knives? Do you really want to be on an even playing field when someone pulls a knife on you? I'm not trying to get into a knife fight, dude.
> 
> "But dumbass," you say, "I don't want to ban _all guns_, I'm only talking about certain munitions and equipment here. If you have your shotgun you'll be fine."
> Sure. But what's to stop me from shooting up my local DMV office with said shotgun? Handgun? I mean shit dude didn't some guy in Japan just kill like 30 people in a school with a knife last year or something like that?
> 
> You're proposing we legislate against the human condition, and that's never going to work. And I, for one, am not interested in surrendering my rights to chase that dragon.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure about that, have you _*seen*_ the _*massive*_ backlash that's getting? From _*everybody*_?
> Just because a politician with an R next to his name does / says some dumb shit doesn't mean that everyone that holds a conservative viewpoint agrees with them or is fine with that notion, that's ridiculous. It's just like a few posts ago when someone mentioned open borders and tried to paint the entire left with that brush because a couple of clowns in DC said something laughable.



I'm a commie leftist, and I think getting rid of guns is dumb. It's like I've said on multiple other occasions about multiple different things. Take away the need the human has to have something they don't have and you can reduce most of this stuff. Most of this comes from fear. On both sides of it. Some of it from anger. The two most basic human reactions to situations. If you can inflame one or both of those and give someone a direction, you have them in the palm of your hand. Its human nature that is the reason that this stuff happens. You can take the human from the jungle, but you can't remove the jungle from the human. Its evolutionary.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I blame the media for the current state of absolute hysteria around rifles, yes. If we're being honest, mass shootings are mostly irrelevant in the discussion of gun violence because they account for such a small number of murders.



Well yeah, because I mitigate dying in gang violence by not joining a gang, I mitigate dying in a bad drug deal by not doing drugs, I mitigate dying in a domestic situation by not screwing somebody's else's wife. 

Asking people to mitigate dying in a mass shooting is asking people to not go to church (your example) or Walmart or to school. That's asking a lot.


----------



## Thaeon

The likelyhood that you'll die in a mass shooting in the US is 1 in 11,125. You're more likely to die from an accidental gunshot, riding your bike, ANY force of nature, falling, choking on your food and many others. Including assualt by sharp object. Do we ban bikes, cars, food, everything taller than the ground, nature? No. Assault by gun didn't make the top ten and is barely in the top 20 most probable way to go out. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3


----------



## Randy

Which, again, are all risks you can mitigate.


----------



## Thaeon

If that's your stance after reading that article, then there's nothing you can't mitigate. My stance is this. Humans are a part of nature. You can't make a human not be a human. Nature always wins because there isn't anything that isn't a part of it. You can move the numbers of one thing around by exerting influence over it, but something else picks up the slack. Ultimately, it all ends. Including nature. Once the system (universe) uses up the available energy it becomes inert. It seeks balance. Sure, we can reduce mass shootings. But that doesn't guarantee that that negative energy doesn't spill out somewhere else in some other way. Address the real problem. The afflicted human. I'm happy with added precautions for purchasing a gun. Weed out potential episodes of violence. Prohibition doesn't work though. Humans are rebellious. We learned that in the 20's. We learned it more recently with the drug war (some are still resisting the lesson), and this is the same thing. Removing the guns doesn't address the real issue. Its a bandaid. The issue is human nature and dissatisfaction with the current status quo of their life when compared to others. Address the issue, and you don't just mitigate gun violence, you mitigate suicide, other violence, crime, drug/alcohol addiction, poverty, etc.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> For starters, I'm not too sure about that source. I clicked through some of the reports and there are reports where the victim survived, but they're counting it as a death.
> They're also counting accidental deaths and officer involved shootings, neither of which I would count for the purpose of this discussion. But since I don't have my own source, we'll leave that alone.
> 
> But lets assume they're all pure violence, some guy walking down the street deciding to shoot somebody. For no reason. Hell, let's just use the 21,000, we'll be generous. 21,000 people shot dead so far this year.
> The US population is currently roughly 330,000,000. That would make your chance of being a victim roughly 0.000064%. For scope, there were about 40,000 driving deaths in 2018, which would be about double.
> 
> I wouldn't want the 0.00012% chance that I become a statistic to impact my ability to drive a car; and I _*definitely*_ wouldn't want an even less likely event to impact my right to protect myself. I understand you aren't coming from a position of abolishing the 2nd amendment, but with the rather extreme positions many on the left take in this discussion, it's tough not to think that way.
> 
> I'm also not aware of such a situation either; aside from the revolutionary war. Ideally, there would never be such a situation again. But you never know.
> The united states is a total anomaly in a lot of things, there are multiple factors. The pure amount of nihilism in this country is an anomaly. This country is so socially broken that to infer a simple cause / effect relationship between gun ownership and shootings seems analogous to a kid refusing to show his work on his homework because "it's obvious."
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not sure what you're getting unconstrained gun ownership from. Your ability to own a gun is currently far, far from unconstrained, and I don't think anybody is arguing for that position, either. If that's what you think I'm arguing, allow me to clearly state that I am not.
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Because not anyone can just go and buy one.
> And absolutely, you can definitely kill the shit out of someone with a 9mm. But I think you may be conflating stopping power with lethality. If somebody is drugged up or riding that adrenaline high, a 9mm doesn't necessarily have the ability to knock them onto the ground. I believe this was actually an issue in the Vietnam war; soldiers were all hopped up on amphetamines and would be shot multiple times before they realized it or were put down. If I'm fighting for my life, I don't want to kill the guy trying to take it 5 minutes from now. I want him dead _now_.
> 
> I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in California, a large-capacity magazine is defined as _10 rounds_. It is illegal for you to purchase a magazine that can hold 11 rounds of ammunition. I'm sure the rest of the country isn't as strict, but I don't know how you could conceivably go much smaller than that.
> 
> I'm also curious as to how you've arrived at the conclusion that a rifle can be shot _*several times*_ faster than a handgun.
> 
> Not to mention that according to the FBI, handguns are responsible for substantially more deaths than rifles. They're used _*dramatically*_ more often in violent crime; you just don't hear about it as often because the big scary black rifle is an easier tool to get the public all riled up to sign away their rights.
> (Also thanks Drew, I'm at work on 3 hours of sleep on a day where nothing's going on. You're literally keeping me conscious.)
> 
> @Randy, again, nobody is saying completely unregulated, that is not the way things are currently, nobody is trying to make it like that, and it's absolutely true that people are "more ok" with guns with a wooden look over a metal one. Just watch this clip for example, lol. Crowder's entire channel is just one big conservative circle jerk so I don't expect you to listen to his talking points, but listen to and watch how the people walking by react. If it doesn't look 'tactical' people are _way _more ok with it.



Busy day so I'll apologize for what's going to be a fairly brief response. Brief not because I'm trying to be snarky or dismissive, brief because I'm typing fast on my lunch break.

The problem with normalizing (in a statistical sense) the number of people shot to death in a given year over the US population is that, well, most people don't_ die _in a given year, so using that as a base gives you some awfully small looking numbers. As you point out, guns kill roughly half as many people as cars, even given fairly generous assumptions that you and I both agree are probably suspect (I didn't fact check that source carefully, if there are issues in their data I apologize, but we've settled on an estimation that we both agree is probably high, for the sake of discussion). Mathematically, automobile accidents kill 0.012% of the US population (you forgot to convert from decimal to percent), and of course no one would want to have their ability to drive a car impacted for such a remote possibility... Except, we have mandatory licensing laws, require all drivers to pass a test before getting a license, can revoke that license for violations of driving laws, age-restrict the right to drive, have widespread training programs to prepare people to safely drive, and in I believe all jurisdictions require car owners to register their cars and in most jurisdictions require drivers to carry insurance. For people looking to drive vehicles bigger than a passenger car, we require additional testing and licensing. Hell, we even tax cars. We do this because we as a society have determined that losing 0.012% of our population to automobile accidents is an unacceptably high number. I don't really see why gums should be any different and why 0.012% loss to cars is too much and requires a response but 0.006% to guns is perfectly acceptable.

Heck, we have had six people die from vaping, and in the last several weeks e-cigarette sales have been restricted or banned outright in a number of cities and states. Why? Because we as a society believe that preventable deaths _should_ be prevented. 

I didn't arrive at a conclusion that a rifle could be shot several times faster than a handgun - wording may have been a little confusing there but I arrived at the - I believe reasonable - conclusion that a semi-auto gun can be shot several times faster than a gun that _isn't_ semiautomatic. 

Nihilism? Ever visited Norway?  

IF you're in CA you're living in a country-sized state that already has far more strict gun laws than the rest of the country, and frankly a good first step would be rolling those out nationwide. Mass is pretty strict too, but even before we get to the private seller loophole there are a LOT of states in the middle of this country where the barriers to gun ownership are low and the state and local governments are pushing to make them lower. 

Handguns may kill more people than "assault rifles," air quotes intentional, but that's hardly a reason not to restrict ownership for a class of gun that's extremely good at allowing one person to fatally injure a whole bunch of others. Most people in car accidents die in or after being hit by passenger cars, but we still make it a lot harder to get licensed to drive an 18 wheeler for a reason. Rather, to me, that's a reason why we should be tightening up the _rest_ of our gun laws and doing a better job stemming the flow of guns into the black market. 

(I'd send you a coffee if I could, man!)


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Which, again, are all risks you can mitigate.



True, and not a bad point, either.
But to what extent do you want to take that to? Like I said above, if you take away rifles, they'll use handguns. If you take away handguns, they'll use knives. If you take away knives, they'll use hammers; and that's assuming they're all unable to get their hands on the remaining ones that are still around anyway. Not to mention that I would argue getting your CCW would at least partially mitigate your risk of becoming a statistic but that's neither here nor there. You can't truly mitigate evil, there is no answer to your question. The most you can do is prepare for it, which I think is the spirit of the 2A.


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> The likelyhood that you'll die in a mass shooting in the US is 1 in 11,125. You're more likely to die from an accidental gunshot, riding your bike, ANY force of nature, falling, choking on your food and many others. Including assualt by sharp object. Do we ban bikes, cars, food, everything taller than the ground, nature? No. Assault by gun didn't make the top ten and is barely in the top 20 most probable way to go out.



Not gonna lie...I know you're using those as examples of things that are more common but are supposed to be examples of rare things...but are those numbers accurate? That's actually way more common than I would have thought.

I mean...I've been aquainted with two people who died on their bike (one died when off-road mountain biking, and the other was hit by a car...heck, i was a passenger in a car that hit and injured a bike rider). 1 person who died by flood and one by tornado, I've had to give the heimlich to two different people who were choking on their food (one would probably have been fine, but the other was about to pass out before she caught my attn to get help). I'm not sure what falling includes, but a great aunt fell and broke her hip, and she died from an infection. Probably not the type of "fall" they would include, though, I guess. So if dying in a mass shooting is only just a little more rare than those...I'm kinda shocked, TBH.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> Do we ban bikes, cars, food, everything taller than the ground, nature?



We sure as heck regulate them though.


----------



## Xaios

tedtan said:


> An AR15 firing the 5.56mm NATO round, being a rifle, is more cumbersome to carry, and especially to conceal, but it is accurate and deadly out to 400+ yards and can penetrate "bullet proof" vests.


That's exactly why I want to own one: for hunting bullet-proof deer.


Thaeon said:


> Do we ban bikes, cars, food, everything taller than the ground, nature?


Do you really think anyone puts food and transportation in the same category as guns? Modern society is built around the mobility that transportation affords, and food (and I can't believe I have to say this) is essential for human life. Guns have _absolutely nowhere near_ the same level of practical applicability. You _need_ food, you _need_ transportation. No one _needs_ a gun outside of occupational necessity, and even making the comparison is incredibly disingenuous. That's not just apples and oranges, that's apples and black holes.


Ordacleaphobia said:


> You're proposing we legislate against the human condition, and that's never going to work.


Sure it does. We do it all the time. Unfettered greed is absolutely part of the human condition, and yet the business world is incredibly regulated because, when left unchecked, lack of oversight will result in levels of criminality that are very detrimental to society. I'm sure @Drew, being incredibly knowledgeable in the world of finance, can chime in with plenty of examples of how financial legislation is both beneficial and effective.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> Yeah, it's definitely possible that some are trolls. But also I stand by my earlier theory. Newcomers (people who like guitars and metal music) will find this forum, and they are probably pretty equally split left/right IMO. I don't think metal music is particularly left or right wing. I'd assume a gun and hunting forum would be right wing by default, and an environmental activist forum would be more left wing by default. But for 7 string guitars, I'll assume it's pretty equal. But any right wing person posting here probably won't do so for long because it's not a welcoming, agreeable place for those views.


Idunno. I'd say an online community of seven (and more) string guitarists is a sample of the population that tilts pretty young, and my sense is outside of certain strains of neo-nazi black metal and the like, metal IS a pretty inclusive, liberal community. The world at large, absolutely, but I'd say the fact the majority of this discussion at least leans left is fairly indicative of, if not the community as a whole, at least the subset who cares enough about politics to post in a dedicated subforum. 

And, while we should and do run off straight-up trolls, we also are pretty cool with more conservative-leaning points of view if they're civil, rational, and willing to discuss. @Ordacleaphobia is near as I can tell somewhere in the center-right area, and I really would send the dude a coffee if I could - I don't always agree with him, but I'll always hear him out and I feel like he does the same when we disagree. Hell, in some respects here _I_ lean center-right at least compared to the prevailing attitudes in this thread, particularly in the business/finance/economics areas where I'm an unabashed capitalist, but no one's tried to run me off either. Randy and I have probably spent more words butting heads than either of us have directed at our alt-right trolls. 

Just a gut level hunch here - I think hard alt-right attitudes really _are_ in the minority here, by a longshot.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> I'm sure @Drew, being incredibly knowledgeable in the world of finance, can chime in with plenty of examples of how financial legislation is both beneficial and effective.


I won't take the opportunity to nerd out, and done wrong yeah it can be very harmful. But done right... Yeah, if the financial markets were truly unregulated, I sure as shit wouldn't want to work in them. If you ever are having trouble sleeping some night, I'd be happy to wax poetically about how something as simple as Dodd-Frank setting up a central clearinghouse for swaps could have prevented the worst of the whole damned Great Recession.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Busy day so I'll apologize for what's going to be a fairly brief response. Brief not because I'm trying to be snarky or dismissive, brief because I'm typing fast on my lunch break.
> 
> The problem with normalizing (in a statistical sense) the number of people shot to death in a given year over the US population is that, well, most people don't_ die _in a given year, so using that as a base gives you some awfully small looking numbers. As you point out, guns kill roughly half as many people as cars, even given fairly generous assumptions that you and I both agree are probably suspect (I didn't fact check that source carefully, if there are issues in their data I apologize, but we've settled on an estimation that we both agree is probably high, for the sake of discussion). Mathematically, automobile accidents kill 0.012% of the US population (you forgot to convert from decimal to percent), and of course no one would want to have their ability to drive a car impacted for such a remote possibility... Except, we have mandatory licensing laws, require all drivers to pass a test before getting a license, can revoke that license for violations of driving laws, age-restrict the right to drive, have widespread training programs to prepare people to safely drive, and in I believe all jurisdictions require car owners to register their cars and in most jurisdictions require drivers to carry insurance. For people looking to drive vehicles bigger than a passenger car, we require additional testing and licensing. Hell, we even tax cars. We do this because we as a society have determined that losing 0.012% of our population to automobile accidents is an unacceptably high number. I don't really see why gums should be any different and why 0.012% loss to cars is too much and requires a response but 0.006% to guns is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Heck, we have had six people die from vaping, and in the last several weeks e-cigarette sales have been restricted or banned outright in a number of cities and states. Why? Because we as a society believe that preventable deaths _should_ be prevented.
> 
> I didn't arrive at a conclusion that a rifle could be shot several times faster than a handgun - wording may have been a little confusing there but I arrived at the - I believe reasonable - conclusion that a semi-auto gun can be shot several times faster than a gun that _isn't_ semiautomatic.
> 
> Nihilism? Ever visited Norway?
> 
> IF you're in CA you're living in a country-sized state that already has far more strict gun laws than the rest of the country, and frankly a good first step would be rolling those out nationwide. Mass is pretty strict too, but even before we get to the private seller loophole there are a LOT of states in the middle of this country where the barriers to gun ownership are low and the state and local governments are pushing to make them lower.
> 
> Handguns may kill more people than "assault rifles," air quotes intentional, but that's hardly a reason not to restrict ownership for a class of gun that's extremely good at allowing one person to fatally injure a whole bunch of others. Most people in car accidents die in or after being hit by passenger cars, but we still make it a lot harder to get licensed to drive an 18 wheeler for a reason. Rather, to me, that's a reason why we should be tightening up the _rest_ of our gun laws and doing a better job stemming the flow of guns into the black market.
> 
> (I'd send you a coffee if I could, man!)



I have no problems with any of this. More stringent gun laws are most likely a good thing. Training and Licensure, especially in cases where you would carry one in public SHOULD be the bare minimum.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> The likelyhood that you'll die in a mass shooting in the US is 1 in 11,125. You're more likely to die from an accidental gunshot, riding your bike, ANY force of nature, falling, choking on your food and many others. Including assualt by sharp object. Do we ban bikes, cars, food, everything taller than the ground, nature? No. Assault by gun didn't make the top ten and is barely in the top 20 most probable way to go out.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3


See, I don't buy this argument.

Say you rub a magic lamp and a genie pops out and says, "I can't grant you three wishes, but I CAN eliminate one of the 20-most-likely ways you're going to die, if you say yes." What the fuck are you going to do, say, "oh, no, never mind, I'll be going now." Just because seventeen _other_ things are more likely to kill you doesn't mean we should stop worrying about number 18. Cancer is way more likely to kill you than the flu. Does that mean we shouldn't get flu shots?

How is this an argument against gun control? "We shouldn't have driving laws, because cancer?"



Thaeon said:


> I have no problems with any of this. More stringent gun laws are most likely a good thing. Training and Licensure, especially in cases where you would carry one in public SHOULD be the bare minimum.


Glad we're in agreement here at least. Maybe if you could mention it to the NRA, because things like this are evidently "unconstitutional restrictions on personal liberty."


----------



## Thaeon

Xaios said:


> That's exactly why I want to own one: for hunting bullet-proof deer.
> 
> Do you really think anyone puts food and transportation in the same category as guns? Modern society is built around the mobility that transportation affords, and food (and I can't believe I have to say this) is essential for human life. Guns have _absolutely nowhere near_ the same level of practical applicability. You _need_ food, you _need_ transportation. No one _needs_ a gun outside of occupational necessity, and even making the comparison is incredibly disingenuous. That's not just apples and oranges, that's apples and black holes.
> 
> Sure it does. We do it all the time. Unfettered greed is absolutely part of the human condition, and yet the business world is incredibly regulated because, when left unchecked, lack of oversight will result in levels of criminality that are very detrimental to society. I'm sure @Drew, being incredibly knowledgeable in the world of finance, can chime in with plenty of examples of how financial legislation is both beneficial and effective.



I was being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> True, and not a bad point, either.
> But to what extent do you want to take that to? Like I said above, if you take away rifles, they'll use handguns. If you take away handguns, they'll use knives. If you take away knives, they'll use hammers; and that's assuming they're all unable to get their hands on the remaining ones that are still around anyway. Not to mention that I would argue getting your CCW would at least partially mitigate your risk of becoming a statistic but that's neither here nor there. You can't truly mitigate evil, there is no answer to your question. The most you can do is prepare for it, which I think is the spirit of the 2A.


I mean, these are all improvements, no? I've never heard of anyone holing up in a Las Vegas hotel room and killing a couple hundred people at a music fest across the street with a hammer.

I remember not long after the HarvestFest shooting, I think, that someone attacked a classroom full of schoolchildren in China, I think. Burst into a room of 40-50 kids. Pulled out a knife. Someone lost an ear, one or two people got stabbed, but the guy was restrained before much more harm could be done. Compare that to Sandy Hook or Parkland. This is clear progress.

Being a little flippant here, but lots of people make "slippery slope" style arguments like these, and often seem to miss that the various scenarios they're spelling out are all, to a fault, better than a guy with three semiauto rifles and several hundred rounds shooting up a crowd.


----------



## Randy

I was surprised to see an article about Barr's memo on background checks and in the NRA response they invoke their "5 million members". For how much influence they have on the narrative, leadership and legislation in this country, that isn't a whole lot of people.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> See, I don't buy this argument.
> 
> Say you rub a magic lamp and a genie pops out and says, "I can't grant you three wishes, but I CAN eliminate one of the 20-most-likely ways you're going to die, if you say yes." What the fuck are you going to do, say, "oh, no, never mind, I'll be going now." Just because seventeen _other_ things are more likely to kill you doesn't mean we should stop worrying about number 18. Cancer is way more likely to kill you than the flu. Does that mean we shouldn't get flu shots?
> 
> How is this an argument against gun control? "We shouldn't have driving laws, because cancer?"
> 
> 
> Glad we're in agreement here at least. Maybe if you could mention it to the NRA, because things like this are evidently "unconstitutional restrictions on personal liberty."



I'm not anti gun control. I'm anti gun bans.

Its more of a suggestion that our reaction to mass shootings is largely due to media outcry. I'm not attempting to minimize them or say they're acceptable. They aren't. Something absolutely needs to be done. But I think that the way that we're attempting to frame the problem itself is part of the larger issue. The human condition is the larger issue. I'm not saying "Guns for everyone!" That's fucking insane. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have them. Licensing and training is a great idea. Completely removing access to them from the populace is over reaching. I'm arguing from one side since the standard arguments tend to approach the situation as if there is a single solution. Guns or no guns. That's not a real world answer. I'm also suggesting that while we think about this other stuff and have these visceral reactions to it, why aren't we reacting to the things causing harm in far greater numbers the same way? In my experience, making people care about heart disease isn't sexy enough in the news. No one wants to look at that till its too late and they HAVE to address it. So you have whole swaths of business profiting off the the willful ignorance of people, eating Big Macs, buying iPhones built at Foxcon, and supporting the NRA. I want to talk about the whole issue. Not just the symptoms. To me its asinine that we talk about all of the surface level issues when there are underlying issues that are causing them. What is the root cause of all of this ignorance? How do we address that?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I was surprised to see an article about Barr's memo on background checks and in the NRA response they invoke their "5 million members". For how much influence they have on the narrative, leadership and legislation in this country, that isn't a whole lot of people.


1.5%, in fact, or roughly three members for every person who the CDC has estimated has been killed by a gun since 1968.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I was surprised to see an article about Barr's memo on background checks and in the NRA response they invoke their "5 million members". For how much influence they have on the narrative, leadership and legislation in this country, that isn't a whole lot of people.



Agreed. In fact in light of that, why do politicians listen? Money maybe?


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> I was surprised to see an article about Barr's memo on background checks and in the NRA response they invoke their "5 million members". For how much influence they have on the narrative, leadership and legislation in this country, that isn't a whole lot of people.



While they may "only" have 5 million members, A) they aren't the only gun owners advocacy group, B) not all gun owners are members of a group, and like worker's unions, the NRA will also say that they are fighting for the rights of all gun owners and not just their members.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Its more of a suggestion that our reaction to mass shootings is largely due to media outcry. I'm not attempting to minimize them or say they're acceptable. They aren't. Something absolutely needs to be done. But I think that the way that we're attempting to frame the problem itself is part of the larger issue. The human condition is the larger issue. I'm not saying "Guns for everyone!" That's fucking insane. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have them. Licensing and training is a great idea. Completely removing access to them from the populace is over reaching. I'm arguing from one side since the standard arguments tend to approach the situation as if there is a single solution. Guns or no guns. That's not a real world answer. I'm also suggesting that while we think about this other stuff and have these visceral reactions to it, why aren't we reacting to the things causing harm in far greater numbers the same way? In my experience, making people care about heart disease isn't sexy enough in the news. No one wants to look at that till its too late and they HAVE to address it. So you have whole swaths of business profiting off the the willful ignorance of people, eating Big Macs, buying iPhones built at Foxcon, and supporting the NRA. I want to talk about the whole issue. Not just the symptoms. To me its asinine that we talk about all of the surface level issues when there are underlying issues that are causing them. What is the root cause of all of this ignorance? How do we address that?


More nuanced post here, thanks.  

I still don't agree, though. You're three times as likely to die from a gun than from riding a motorcycle, but we have guys with super loud mufflers and "check twice save a life" bumper stickers everywhere. Your five times more likely to be killed by a gun than die of fire or smoke inhalation, but we have mandatory building codes and a smoke alarm in every bedroom to mitigate this risk. You're 145 times more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack, which is a fact you should keep in mind the next time you go through airport security. 

The only difference, near as I can tell, for any of these, is advocating for motorcycle safety laws or the use of smoke detectors isn't very controversial (I'm not even gonna touch terrorism, lol). Guns are. Terrorism is too, and gets at least as much attention in mass media, even though you're way more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack. I think the reason this is a cause of death that generates so much media attention is simply that large swathes of the American public staunchly opposes any attempt to do anything about it, whereas everyone is for stopping shark attacks, which are about 27,000 times less likely to kill you than getting shot is. 

I mean, imagine a politician running on a platform of "we should stop trying to stop shark attacks!" It boggles the mind, no?


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Agreed. In fact in light of that, why do politicians listen? Money maybe?





spudmunkey said:


> While they may "only" have 5 million members, A) they aren't the only gun owners advocacy group, B) not all gun owners are members of a group, and like worker's unions, the NRA will also say that they are fighting for the rights of all gun owners and not just their members.


They're not a gun owner advocacy group. They're a very well-funded gun _manufacturer_ advocacy group.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> More nuanced post here, thanks.
> 
> I still don't agree, though. You're three times as likely to die from a gun than from riding a motorcycle, but we have guys with super loud mufflers and "check twice save a life" bumper stickers everywhere. Your five times more likely to be killed by a gun than die of fire or smoke inhalation, but we have mandatory building codes and a smoke alarm in every bedroom to mitigate this risk. You're 145 times more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack, which is a fact you should keep in mind the next time you go through airport security.
> 
> The only difference, near as I can tell, for any of these, is advocating for motorcycle safety laws or the use of smoke detectors isn't very controversial (I'm not even gonna touch terrorism, lol). Guns are. Terrorism is too, and gets at least as much attention in mass media, even though you're way more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack. I think the reason this is a cause of death that generates so much media attention is simply that large swathes of the American public staunchly opposes any attempt to do anything about it, whereas everyone is for stopping shark attacks, which are about 27,000 times less likely to kill you than getting shot is.
> 
> I mean, imagine a politician running on a platform of "we should stop trying to stop shark attacks!" It boggles the mind, no?



Again, I absolutely think that the bandaid is a tool and should be used when necessary. But we talk about it like its the endgame. It can't be the endgame. The endgame is looking at the whole problem of why violence happens in the first place and addressing that.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> While they may "only" have 5 million members, A) they aren't the only gun owners advocacy group, B) not all gun owners are members of a group, and like worker's unions, the NRA will also say that they are fighting for the rights of all gun owners and not just their members.



Agreed but still a surprisingly low number in view of their level of influence.

For the record, I'm not looking to shop around my views on guns or seek any confirmation from this group but since we're discussing it... I'm not looking to ban all or most guns. Maybe not ban any at all, idk.

But there are a lot of bullshit arguments out there, and yes they exist on both sides except I think it's worth noting the current paradigm leans heavily on the side of no regulation than it does on the side of over regulation. So if two shitty arguments negate eachother, we end up with status quo which includes things gun advocates are happy about (like access to assault rifles, high capacity magazines in most states and high powered rounds in most states) and includes things even gun advocates say are useful/reasonable (red flag, gun show loopholes, straw purchase, etc). I get it, statements like Beto saying they're coming to take ARs and AKs inflame the gun rights advocates but the idea that one stupid argument throws away any movement, to me, belies any feigned desire to fix anything on the part of supposed "common sense" gun advocates.

If you're so easily turned off to making any progress than did you want any progress in the first place? This discussion leads me to believe otherwise. I get it, you get into arguing and debating with people and you spend most of your brain capacity focusing on the fact they're now your enemy but if you want to look at all objective, you find your common sense points even if it means agreeing with people you don't like at that moment.

Circling back to the original point, I think the hardline approach from the NRA hurts their members more than helps them. They're not advocating for their members or gun owners, they're advocating for gun manufacturers. Full stop. As long as a shooting doesn't result in a ban, the more bullets fly and the less safe people feel, the more money the gun manufacturers benefit from.

It's hilarious 'slugs for salt' braindead lemming mentality that have these people going to bat for a lobbying group who's methods 1.) put their members and their families in danger 2.) inflame the political base working against them, such that they're constantly in danger and having to overspend to combat losing much of their rights because they constantly overplay their hand.

A gun rights group that actually works for common sense improvements to legislation, as well as the safety of members themselves (like trigger locks and cabinets to keep their kids from shooting themselves by accident), I'd be enormously in favor of. And they're out there, but the NRA sucks all the oxygen out of the room with their stubbornness. This thread seems to indicate they're right about their audience, though.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> Again, I absolutely think that the bandaid is a tool and should be used when necessary. But we talk about it like its the endgame. It can't be the endgame. The endgame is looking at the whole problem of why violence happens in the first place and addressing that.



I agree but it's funny to me that the Republican Party and the NRA have been promoting that mindset for years now (decades?) and we still haven't seen an actual policy proposal to go along with it. It's like ghosts and UFOs, "We don't know... we may never know!!!" *reverb intensifies


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Again, I absolutely think that the bandaid is a tool and should be used when necessary. But we talk about it like its the endgame. It can't be the endgame. The endgame is looking at the whole problem of why violence happens in the first place and addressing that.


Why gun violence happens in the first place, or rather why violence happens in the first place, is a very important question, but it's also a very _difficult_ question and one we at present don't have an answer to. So, I think it absolutely makes sense to first mitigate the symptoms, before continuing to dwell on the cause. 

I mean, when your downstairs neighbor's place is on fire, you don't wait to figure out why the fire started in the first place before taking any action - you get the fuck out and hope the fire department can put it out before it spreads to your place. It's important in the long run to figure out why it started, but knowing why a fire started isn't actually all that important when it comes to trying to put it out before your place can catch fire, too.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I agree but it's funny to me that the Republican Party and the NRA have been promoting that mindset for years now (decades?) and we still haven't seen an actual policy proposal to go along with it. It's like ghosts and UFOs, "We don't know... we may never know!!!" *reverb intensifies



The NRA is a shill for the gun business. And come off like a caricature of a used car salesman. I can't believe why anyone would believe them. About anything. They fabricate all sorts of BS about things as long as it supports the narrative of who pays the bills. What I find interesting is that they make that claim and then block research being used to that end.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Why gun violence happens in the first place, or rather why violence happens in the first place, is a very important question, but it's also a very _difficult_ question and one we at present don't have an answer to.



That's kinda my issue about this whole thing that, to me, boils down to bullshit. This is an argument frequently made by personal rights/liberties advocates... What do you think is more intrusive to you as an individual, not being allowed to own scary black guns or the whole population frequently undergoing psychological screenings so a panel of people can decide what rights to take away from you personally?

It's either an entirely poorly thought out argument or it's known bullshit red herring because they know it's impossible to do.

For the record, I agree with tracking down the causes and getting people help but, other than the fact there's been a conspicuous lack of movement on it, the concept of having your mental makeup analyzed is a draconian rabbit hole.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Why gun violence happens in the first place, or rather why violence happens in the first place, is a very important question, but it's also a very _difficult_ question and one we at present don't have an answer to. So, I think it absolutely makes sense to first mitigate the symptoms, before continuing to dwell on the cause.
> 
> I mean, when your downstairs neighbor's place is on fire, you don't wait to figure out why the fire started in the first place before taking any action - you get the fuck out and hope the fire department can put it out before it spreads to your place. It's important in the long run to figure out why it started, but knowing why a fire started isn't actually all that important when it comes to trying to put it out before your place can catch fire, too.



I don't disagree. Mitigating the issue is part of the solution. I've already agreed to that. If we can't completely contain the fire though and figure out how to shut off what is fueling it, the fire will continue to spread despite our best efforts. Mitigation isn't going to stop it from happening. Slow it down a little? Sure. But we aren't putting this particular fire out by regulating guns. And taking them away will end up with pandemonium and potentially further violence. The talk we keep having and the laws we put in place aren't ending with the results we want. That being, uphold the 2nd amendment AND stop mass shootings from happening.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> That's kinda my issue about this whole thing that, to me, boils down to bullshit. This is an argument frequently made by personal rights/liberties advocates... What do you think is more intrusive to you as an individual, not being allowed to own scary black guns or the whole population frequently undergoing psychological screenings so a panel of people can decide what rights to take away from you personally?
> 
> It's either an entirely poorly thought out argument or it's known bullshit red herring because they know it's impossible to do.
> 
> For the record, I agree with tracking down the causes and getting people help but, other than the fact there's been a conspicuous lack of movement on it, the concept of having your mental makeup analyzed is a draconian rabbit hole.



I think training and licensure are the solution there. You can have intelligent people pass an MMPI because they can play chess with the test and win. And the whole business of psychology/psychiatry is inexact. You can be diagnosed with something and not have it. Or have something else. And then meds that either work or make it worse. Adding additional time to heal your mind. When what we really need to sort out is how to be vulnerable and have real conversations with each other.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Why gun violence happens in the first place


Dude, you didn't hear? Turns out it was video games this whole time.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't disagree. Mitigating the issue is part of the solution. I've already agreed to that. If we can't completely contain the fire though and figure out how to shut off what is fueling it, the fire will continue to spread despite our best efforts. Mitigation isn't going to stop it from happening. Slow it down a little? Sure. But we aren't putting this particular fire out by regulating guns. And taking them away will end up with pandemonium and potentially further violence. The talk we keep having and the laws we put in place aren't ending with the results we want. That being, uphold the 2nd amendment AND stop mass shootings from happening.


Disagree with you here - better gun control laws would be like dumping a lot of flame redardant material on the building where there's a unit on fire. It won't undo the fire that's already started, but it'll do a LOT to stop the spread.

Also, perfection can't be the enemy of good here - if sensible gun control measures can reduce gun violence, then aren't they worth pursuing even if they fall short of totally stamping it out? How many lives exactly do we have to be able to save before better gun laws are "worth it"?



vilk said:


> Dude, you didn't hear? Turns out it was video games this whole time.


No shit. And here I was thinking it was rap music all along!


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Quite honestly, I think the gun issue is a mix of culture issues and lack of regulation. I read awhile back that Iceland has 300,000 people that possess 90,000 guns, and yet gun violence is EXTREMELY rare there. Why? Because of the process required to obtain one. There's training, licensure, I'm pretty sure mental examinations, though I could be wrong on that. Now, what exactly they allow and what they don't, I'm not sure of, so that may be where the hole is, but at the same time, you also can't ignore the fact that violent crime in Iceland is rare in and of itself, which brings me to the cultural aspect. I think there are a litany of other countries that we should try to imitate or perhaps, emulate. I used to believe in one world governments and that every country is fucked up, and I finally saw the forest for the trees and saw that we're one of the few countries that has problems this severe. We're not the worst country in the world, but we're far from the greatest and IMO, a true patriot, whether you're a liberal or a conservative would be someone who would want to try and mitigate that. Obviously, there are a multitude of paths as to what they believe could achieve that, and I think we're at a point where if we want the freedom this country promises, we're going to have to do more to earn it and it's going to start with a lot of processes that people don't like. I'll meet in the middle here, I'll register all my guns so long as you promise not to further tax me afterward or take them away in the future. I'll even undergo a gun safety course, despite the fact that I've owned guns for years to show I'm not a fucking idiot when it comes to handling them.


----------



## Xaios

Thaeon said:


> I was being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point.


Apologies. As made apparent by the fact that I didn't catch your jest, my obtuseness is of the wholly involuntary kind when it does manifest.


----------



## Xaios

PunkBillCarson said:


> We're not the worst country in the world, but we're far from the greatest and IMO, a true patriot, whether you're a liberal or a conservative would be someone who would want to try and mitigate that.


I agree in theory, but remember that the group which made "Make America Great Again" their slogan has _very_ broad overlap with the group that tends to view people who are in favor of firearms restrictions as a one of America's problems, and also views those firearms themselves as one of the solutions to America's problems.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Xaios said:


> I agree in theory, but remember that the group which made "Make America Great Again" their slogan has _very_ broad overlap with the group that tends to view people who are in favor of firearms restrictions as a one of America's problems, and also views those firearms themselves as one of the solutions to America's problems.



Which is why I said afterwards that there are a multitude of ways to get there depending on what you believe. Ideally, it would just be live and let live, but that's something that's WAYYYYY the fuck off in terms of time scale and not realistic for the time being, BUT something everyone should strive towards. The way I see it, you should be able to live your life as long as it's not hurting anyone else. The sad part about that, is that we have sick fucks out there who think that ism's don't hurt anyone and that's a thought process that needs to be changed, as well as other thought processes that are damaging to progress.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> No shit. And here I was thinking it was rap music all along!


Guns don't kill people rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Disagree with you here - better gun control laws would be like dumping a lot of flame redardant material on the building where there's a unit on fire. It won't undo the fire that's already started, but it'll do a LOT to stop the spread.
> 
> Also, perfection can't be the enemy of good here - if sensible gun control measures can reduce gun violence, then aren't they worth pursuing even if they fall short of totally stamping it out? How many lives exactly do we have to be able to save before better gun laws are "worth it"?
> 
> 
> No shit. And here I was thinking it was rap music all along!



I think you're missing me here a little. I'm not saying don't do that. Absolutely apply better regulations. Fund the ones we have already that we cut funding for. I'm saying that's half of it, we need to expand the dialogue so that we're not just addressing half of it. I think gun violence' underlying cause is also the underlying cause drug and alcohol addiction, and the majority of crime. The way I see it, it can't be completely eradicated. The goal is reduction in numbers. We can absolutely reduce the numbers by reducing access in the short term. But we're going to further reduce those numbers over the long term and improve our country's general quality of life by addressing the root cause at the same time over the long term. But no one wants to have that dialogue. They only want to talk about regulation. Partly because its an easier thing to politicize, and partly because changing the underlying culture and enduring difficult changes for the greater good is not what anyone wants to do.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> I mean, that was exactly my point, though. They ARE apples to oranges, and we should treat them as such when it comes to our gun laws.



I wasn't arguing to the contrary, merely pointing out that difference for those unfamiliar with what .45 or .223 are (beyond firearm calibers).

The points I would disagree with you on are 1) some of the language you used in your post was more emotionally charged hyperbole rather than factual (e.g., slug, liquefied), and 2) I wouldn't necessarily remove access to assault rifles altogether.

As to point 2, there are many places one can rent a fully automatic machine gun (for use on premises only) that don't result in mass shootings, so applying similar controls to assault rifles would likely result in providing access to shoot assault rifles for those who enjoy shooting them responsibly while simultaneously eliminating their use in mass shootings.

Or, we could take a different approach. If I want to drive a car, I go take a class and get supervised instruction behind the wheel in order to obtain a license. If I want to drive a motorcycle, I have to go back and take additional training in order to obtain the motorcycle license. If I want to drive commercially, I have to go back and get more training in order to obtain a commercial license. And if I want to drive for NASCAR or FIA, I have to go through their organization in order to obtain training and licensing to do so.

Perhaps a similar approach would work for guns. After taking both your classroom and hands on instruction (plus background checks, etc.), those who pass the exam could obtain a basic license for hunting rifles and shotguns. For those so inclined, they could take further instruction and testing in order to obtain an enhanced license for handguns, and further instruction and testing for assault rifles. Possibly even a higher license (equivalent to the current class 3 FFL) for fully automatic weapons.


----------



## Ralyks

StevenC said:


> Guns don't kill people rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2



I go by Eddie Izzards reasoning of "Guns don't kill people, people do. But uhh, I think the gun helps, yeah? Not really effective if you look at someone and go 'bang! Bang! Ratatat! Pow pow!'"


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> But we're going to further reduce those numbers over the long term and improve our country's general quality of life by addressing the root cause at the same time over the long term. But no one wants to have that dialogue. They only want to talk about regulation. Partly because its an easier thing to politicize, and partly because changing the underlying culture and enduring difficult changes for the greater good is not what anyone wants to do.


I mean, we're having this discussion in a forum dedicated to finding ways to address the root cause of suffering in american life and address those cultural and structural issues to improve this country's general quality of life. Those conversations are _absolutely_ happening. It's just when we do we don't explicitly tie them to guns, largely because if we did diiscuss guns in the context of, say, poverty and drug addiction and the vicious cycle they cause, it would just turn into a second amendment shitshow like this.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> Guns don't kill people rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2



Guns don't kill people, Tech N9ne kills people.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Guns don't kill people, Tech N9ne kills people.


Guns don't kill people, I do.


----------



## vilk

Drew said:


> Guns don't kill people, I do.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I mean, we're having this discussion in a forum dedicated to finding ways to address the root cause of suffering in american life and address those cultural and structural issues to improve this country's general quality of life. Those conversations are _absolutely_ happening. It's just when we do we don't explicitly tie them to guns, largely because if we did diiscuss guns in the context of, say, poverty and drug addiction and the vicious cycle they cause, it would just turn into a second amendment shitshow like this.





Fair. But the conversation isn't normalized enough to get past people's "No" reflex before they'll hear you out. Its one thing to be having it here. Its another thing entirely to have the conversation in the open on a national scale. Everyone making lots of noise about it is screaming so loud that the people in the middle can't be heard or are being silenced before they can speak. It's almost as if the two biggest voices have picked their hills to die on and are forcing everyone saying "that's not the only way to look at this" out of the debate. Its two people with mostly opposite opinions saying its my way or the highway. And we all know how persuasive that is.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Guns don't kill people, Tech N9ne kills people.



Well what did they do to Tech N9ne to deserve it?!


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AtK9DLIGPSDWds6InjlepNw

Oh, and Colt is going to stop making AR-15s available for civilian sale.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AtK9DLIGPSDWds6InjlepNw
> 
> Oh, and Colt is going to stop making AR-15s available for civilian sale.



Damn strange if you ask me

If you're gonna part-ban firearms, SHORT pocket-able pistols would be the obvious first obvious target.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> The problem with normalizing (in a statistical sense) the number of people shot to death in a given year over the US population is that, well, most people don't_ die _in a given year, so using that as a base gives you some awfully small looking numbers. As you point out, guns kill roughly half as many people as cars, even given fairly generous assumptions that you and I both agree are probably suspect (I didn't fact check that source carefully, if there are issues in their data I apologize, but we've settled on an estimation that we both agree is probably high, for the sake of discussion). Mathematically, automobile accidents kill 0.012% of the US population (you forgot to convert from decimal to percent), and of course no one would want to have their ability to drive a car impacted for such a remote possibility... Except, we have mandatory licensing laws, require all drivers to pass a test before getting a license, can revoke that license for violations of driving laws, age-restrict the right to drive, have widespread training programs to prepare people to safely drive, and in I believe all jurisdictions require car owners to register their cars and in most jurisdictions require drivers to carry insurance. For people looking to drive vehicles bigger than a passenger car, we require additional testing and licensing. Hell, we even tax cars. We do this because we as a society have determined that losing 0.012% of our population to automobile accidents is an unacceptably high number. I don't really see why gums should be any different and why 0.012% loss to cars is too much and requires a response but 0.006% to guns is perfectly acceptable.



I don't really think that's relevant because I [hopefully] wasn't going to die that year anyway; I just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Out of everyone else in the country, it happened to be me. Not out of a final destination-esque pool of 'people that were going to die this year'.

We have most of that stuff for guns, too.
Well, I say we, but I have to keep catching myself to remind myself that I already live in a heavily restricted state. So when I hear "gun control," I think "gun control on top of what exists already," which given my state, would feel excessive. I really should read up more on national-level regulation, I just don't usually find myself discussing this topic with people that I don't see face to face 
The one entry on that list I'm not a fan of is the registry. I don't need the government to have some Orwellian list of every gun owner in the country. Even that though, I guess if that were to be specific and only apply under certain circumstances or to certain pieces of equipment, I could be on board. Maybe.



> I didn't arrive at a conclusion that a rifle could be shot several times faster than a handgun - wording may have been a little confusing there but I arrived at the - I believe reasonable - conclusion that a semi-auto gun can be shot several times faster than a gun that _isn't_ semiautomatic.



Shit dude I must have misread that, my bad.
Can't believe I forgot to convert either, fuck that's embarrassing  Can you tell I was tired? 



> Most people in car accidents die in or after being hit by passenger cars, but we still make it a lot harder to get licensed to drive an 18 wheeler for a reason.



I think you may be reading your own reasoning into this; you need to get a specific license for these vehicles because they operate much, much differently from your normal passenger car. So we can't just infer that you know how to drive an 18 wheeler because you know how to drive your civic to work every day.



Drew said:


> I mean, these are all improvements, no? I've never heard of anyone holing up in a Las Vegas hotel room and killing a couple hundred people at a music fest across the street with a hammer.
> 
> Being a little flippant here, but lots of people make "slippery slope" style arguments like these, and often seem to miss that the various scenarios they're spelling out are all, to a fault, better than a guy with three semiauto rifles and several hundred rounds shooting up a crowd.



Ok, 58 is not 'a couple hundred,' come on, Drew. It was a big deal for sure, but don't just throw out numbers.
It's also worth noting that the equipment used in that shooting is currently restricted, and I haven't really heard any opposition to that fact either.

And on paper, yes, those are improvements- but nothing's ever black and white. If rifles are outlawed tomorrow, that doesn't mean there isn't going to be a shooting committed with a rifle 6 months from now. When there's a will, there's a way, and these guys definitely have the will.



Drew said:


> I still don't agree, though. You're three times as likely to die from a gun than from riding a motorcycle, but we have guys with super loud mufflers and "check twice save a life" bumper stickers everywhere. Your five times more likely to be killed by a gun than die of fire or smoke inhalation, but we have mandatory building codes and a smoke alarm in every bedroom to mitigate this risk. You're 145 times more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack, which is a fact you should keep in mind the next time you go through airport security.
> 
> The only difference, near as I can tell, for any of these, is advocating for motorcycle safety laws or the use of smoke detectors isn't very controversial (I'm not even gonna touch terrorism, lol). Guns are. Terrorism is too, and gets at least as much attention in mass media, even though you're way more likely to be shot to death than killed in a terrorist attack. I think the reason this is a cause of death that generates so much media attention is simply that large swathes of the American public staunchly opposes any attempt to do anything about it, whereas everyone is for stopping shark attacks, which are about 27,000 times less likely to kill you than getting shot is.



The difference is that a cyclist pleading for me to not run him over doesn't infringe on my rights, neither does a smoke alarm.
Airport security sucks and is bitched about by just about everybody. I've brought drugs on a plane while at the same time getting busted by TSA forcing me to toss out the mouthwash in my overnight bag. It's invasive, obnoxious, and most importantly, ineffective. Not the best example.



Thaeon said:


> Fair. But the conversation isn't normalized enough to get past people's "No" reflex before they'll hear you out. Its one thing to be having it here. Its another thing entirely to have the conversation in the open on a national scale. Everyone making lots of noise about it is screaming so loud that the people in the middle can't be heard or are being silenced before they can speak. It's almost as if the two biggest voices have picked their hills to die on and are forcing everyone saying "that's not the only way to look at this" out of the debate. Its two people with mostly opposite opinions saying its my way or the highway. And we all know how persuasive that is.



Again, broken record, but I blame the media. The over-the-top, instant politicization of any shooting to push their agenda is so divisive and irresponsible.
So then you have conservatives worried that the left is moments away from pushing legislation in hopes to capitalize off of a tragedy. Everyone's gotta climb up on their soapbox before the bodies even get cold and it's so tiring and infuriating. The hyper-partisanship just pushes people to assume the worst of whatever side they don't agree with, and nothing ever gets done and everyone gets pissed. God I hate politics.


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> Damn strange if you ask me
> 
> If you're gonna part-ban firearms, SHORT pocket-able pistols would be the obvious first obvious target.



I wouldn't really call it a ban. They just aren't producing them for civilian use. Doesn't say anything about those that own them already.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Yeah and they've kinda got a good point. Given how much it's been in the news the last few years, anyone that was likely going to buy one probably already has. Don't want to get stuck with too much inventory sitting around.


----------



## c7spheres

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AtK9DLIGPSDWds6InjlepNw
> 
> Oh, and Colt is going to stop making AR-15s available for civilian sale.



That's obvious bullshitting the public they're doing there. Colt has confirmed themselves and pledged its' allegiance as part of the new world order agenda, one world gov't. They are under control. Well, Maybe : )
- They're basically saying the market for civilian sales is over saturated so they are going to stop selling to cilivilians going as far to even make them unavailable to buy on their website.
- Companies aren't supposed to stop selling their product if they have too much inventory and increased competition. They reduce the price to try to move the over stock, unless they're manipulating the market. They go on to say they will still sell and manufacture to the Police and Military though. That's discriminating against one group of citizens and not others. Are they taking the current overstock and reallocating it to the military and police? That would make sense, but they arene't saying that. Sounds like they are tooling up for a big war or something.
- Either Colt is anti-gun for cilivians, market manipulating, or under some one else's control. Obviously they aren't anti gun for mlitary and police, but they are anti civlians having guns, which means pro authoritarian oppresion. Hey, my imagination is more belivable to me than what they tell me. : ) Why suddenly do I want an AR-15 though I never wanted a gun before?
- What's really funny is with this supposed saturated market if you type in Colt Ar-15 into Google an then click the shopping tab, no matches at all come up. But I thought there was an oversaturation of them, why can't I get one then? I think we know where Google stands on the issue. Obvisouly, you can get them with a normal search. It just shows how Google does in fact manipulate eveything. Evil Corp, go figure. I'm joking people. Let's lighten up and play guitar.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> That's obvious bullshitting the public they're doing there. Colt has confirmed themselves and pledged its' allegiance as part of the new world order agenda, one world gov't. They are under control. Well, Maybe : )
> - They're basically saying the market for civilian sales is over saturated so they are going to stop selling to cilivilians going as far to even make them unavailable to buy on their website.
> - Companies aren't supposed to stop selling their product if they have too much inventory and increased competition. They reduce the price to try to move the over stock, unless they're manipulating the market. They go on to say they will still sell and manufacture to the Police and Military though. That's discriminating against one group of citizens and not others. Are they taking the current overstock and reallocating it to the military and police? That would make sense, but they arene't saying that. Sounds like they are tooling up for a big war or something.
> - Either Colt is anti-gun for cilivians, market manipulating, or under some one else's control. Obviously they aren't anti gun for mlitary and police, but they are anti civlians having guns, which means pro authoritarian oppresion. Hey, my imagination is more belivable to me than what they tell me. : ) Why suddenly do I want an AR-15 though I never wanted a gun before?
> - What's really funny is with this supposed saturated market if you type in Colt Ar-15 into Google an then click the shopping tab, no matches at all come up. But I thought there was an oversaturation of them, why can't I get one then? I think we know where Google stands on the issue. Obvisouly, you can get them with a normal search. It just shows how Google does in fact manipulate eveything. Evil Corp, go figure. I'm joking people. Let's lighten up and play guitar.


The rest of the world hasn't had guns for decades now, but amazingly the government hasn't culled us all yet. There's something so America-centric about so many of these new world order theories.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> The rest of the world hasn't had guns for decades now, but amazingly the government hasn't culled us all yet. There's something so America-centric about so many of these new world order theories.


 I'd rather buy a used Prestige than an AR-15. I can kill just as many people, maybe more, with my crappy guitar playing I'm sure.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> I wouldn't really call it a ban. They just aren't producing them for civilian use. Doesn't say anything about those that own them already.



Still, it's ODD

There's a reason why carrying knives is often regulated, while carrying two-handed axes generally isn't.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> The rest of the world hasn't had guns for decades now, but amazingly the government hasn't culled us all yet. There's something so America-centric about so many of these new world order theories.



ACTUALLY... most places have gone a few rounds of various homicidal regimes and land wars / civil wars.

In a way, so has America, but said homicidal regimes and internal conflicts focused on non-whites, so everybody just kinda acts like that didn't count


----------



## c7spheres

Adieu said:


> Still, it's ODD
> 
> There's a reason why carrying knives is often regulated, while carrying two-handed axes generally isn't.


 What's awsome and makes no sense here in the Phoenix area is that you can openly carry guns, concealed or not, axe's, knives, swords etc, but you're not allowed to carry a concealed 4" pocket knife or have brass knuckels. It's literally illegal to carry a concelaed box cutter if the blade is over 4" or have brass knuckels on you in public , unless you're a cop, but I can carry a loaded gun, concealed or not, without a license, no problem. I can go into most stores and restaraunts and bars too. Bars and corporate America is starting to say no guns allowed though. What's messed up is that all I really want is a pair of brass knuckels. Damn. I didn't want a gun but it's the only weapon I'm allowed to carry concealed. Maybe I should look in to getting one. Concelaed pellete guns I think are still illegal if I remember right. Genuis!


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> The rest of the world hasn't had guns for decades now, but amazingly the government hasn't culled us all yet. There's something so America-centric about so many of these new world order theories.



The rest of the world still has guns, they just don't make it a huge part of their self image/personal identity the way many Americans do so guns are more under the radar elsewhere.


----------



## narad

c7spheres said:


> What's awsome and makes no sense here in the Phoenix area is that you can openly carry guns, concealed or not, axe's, knives, swords etc, but you're not allowed to carry a concealed 4" pocket knife or have brass knuckels. It's literally illegal to carry a concelaed box cutter if the blade is over 4" or have brass knuckels on you in public , unless you're a cop, but I can carry a loaded gun, concealed or not, without a license, no problem. I can go into most stores and restaraunts and bars too. Bars and corporate America is starting to say no guns allowed though. What's messed up is that all I really want is a pair of brass knuckels. Damn. I didn't want a gun but it's the only weapon I'm allowed to carry concealed. Maybe I should look in to getting one. Concelaed pellete guns I think are still illegal if I remember right. Genuis!









Just make your brass knuckles into a gun, now it's legal.


----------



## c7spheres

narad said:


> Just make your brass knuckles into a gun, now it's legal.


  That's the answer !


----------



## Adieu

Just gotta punch people with one of these instead


----------



## c7spheres

Adieu said:


> Just gotta punch people with one of these instead
> 
> View attachment 72982


 That might work pretty well. I have one somewhere from when I did staging work. I don't want to fight but it's good to have something in case you can't get away from someone. I wanna protect my hands and body above all else.


----------



## Adieu

c7spheres said:


> That might work pretty well. I have one somewhere from when I did staging work. I don't want to fight but it's good to have something in case you can't get away from someone. I wanna protect my hands and body above all else.



Palm strike

Bit short range, but no warning and kicks like a donkey

Imho punches are an evolutionary quirk derived from hunter-gatherers beating off bitey carnivores anyway... fists are woefully ineffective for anything except protecting your fingers from getting bit off (which doesn't really happen much anymore in human-on-human altercations)


----------



## Vyn

I see a lot of the justification for keeping the right to bear arms being along the lines of 'The Government can't be trusted.' Why is not fixing the issue of the government can't be trusted a thing, ie ending donations to parties from lobby groups, establishment of corruption agencies etc? As an Australian I'm pretty ashamed of our government at the moment however there are mechanisms in place that work and are respected enough to stop things from fucking up too badly. Why is this not the case in the US?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> I see a lot of the justification for keeping the right to bear arms being along the lines of 'The Government can't be trusted.' Why is not fixing the issue of the government can't be trusted a thing, ie ending donations to parties from lobby groups, establishment of corruption agencies etc? As an Australian I'm pretty ashamed of our government at the moment however there are mechanisms in place that work and are respected enough to stop things from fucking up too badly. Why is this not the case in the US?



Easier said than done. 

I think if you asked most Americans they'd be all for removing monied interests from government, unfortunately, for many, that's a far lower priority than other issues, even if it would likely be the first step in actually fixing said other issues. 

It doesn't help that both primary parties greatly benefit from lobbying, limited watchdog power, large donations from corporate interests, etc. 

The only ones who endorse such reforms are very far left progressives, who until very recently, weren't very visible on the political main stage.


----------



## c7spheres

Vyn said:


> I see a lot of the justification for keeping the right to bear arms being along the lines of 'The Government can't be trusted.' Why is not fixing the issue of the government can't be trusted a thing, ie ending donations to parties from lobby groups, establishment of corruption agencies etc? As an Australian I'm pretty ashamed of our government at the moment however there are mechanisms in place that work and are respected enough to stop things from fucking up too badly. Why is this not the case in the US?


 I think because people realize that no matter what is done it will always be like this and it's not repairable. It was like this from the start and only the illusion of not living in a dystopia is possible, and only for a select few at that. So at this point everyone is just getting what they can while they can, at any cost. Any perception of caring is just a strategy or tactical mean to an end. Damn, sorry for the major downer there.


----------



## USMarine75

A big part of arguing over the 2nd amendment is whether you are a collective rights theorist or not. Some argue the phrases "the right of the people" and "a well regulated Militia" are stand alone clauses; others argue for the collective rights theory, which states "the people" are the members of the state militia, ultimately the 2nd amendment is the right of the state writ large.

I'm a centrist and I can see both sides:

I firmly believe that citizens should be able to own guns, but via a robust and well-regulated system consisting of common-sense gun laws - as do most Americans (polling upwards of 90% supports this).
But there is the slippery slope argument - where do _you _draw the line? You can own a handgun, but you can't own an ICBM. You can own a rifle, but you can't own a flamethrower. Laws require clear definition and not grey area to be enforceable. So where do you draw the line? Both sides of this argument are far apart.
Owning weapons and transporting weapons are not the same thing. Just because you can own a gun, does not inherently give you the legal right to carry and/or transport the weapon. This is a legal distinction, regardless of whether or not you believe it is a semantic argument. I can see the argument for owning semi-automatic rifles (such as the big black scary AR-15), but there is no way I think it should be legal to shop at Walmart with one on your shoulder. Court precedent has stated (Miller) there should be a "law-abiding reason" for such carry and transport, not just because it's my god-given 2nd amendment right. No reasonable person would argue a semi-automatic rifle serves any "law-abiding purpose" for everyday carry. So for home defense or "collective rights of the people (state)" arguments, yes I can totally see why you should be able to lawfully purchase and keep such weapons. Transportation (different than carry) to the range or hunting would seem to also be permissible. But IMO regular carry should be illegal.
Based on Miller, I also don't believe ownership of weapons of warfare with no clear and reasonable use by a civilian, should be owned by an individual civilian. E.g. fully-automatic, large capacity, specialized rounds (e.g. API), and bigger than a given size or powder load - all TBD. A reasonable person should be able to own a .177 semi-auto rifle, but not an AK-47. They can own a semi-auto 5.56mm AR-15, but not a .50 cal. Again just random examples, as the actual specs would need to be agreed upon and codified. For me, this is where state's collective rights come in - that is why states have a national guard, to defend the state from a tyrannical federal government. Not individual citizens with tanks and flamethrowers because it's their god-given 2nd amendment right to protect themselves from the communist democrats coming to take their guns like the Nazis did. 
Anywho... just wanted to drop some debate points for you all to agree, disagree, or fight over.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> A big part of arguing over the 2nd amendment is whether you are a collective rights theorist or not. Some argue the phrases "the right of the people" and "a well regulated Militia" are stand alone clauses; others argue for the collective rights theory, which states "the people" are the members of the state militia, ultimately the 2nd amendment is the right of the state writ large.
> 
> I'm a centrist and I can see both sides:
> 
> I firmly believe that citizens should be able to own guns, but via a robust and well-regulated system consisting of common-sense gun laws - as do most Americans (polling upwards of 90% supports this).
> But there is the slippery slope argument - where do _you _draw the line? You can own a handgun, but you can't own an ICBM. You can own a rifle, but you can't own a flamethrower. Laws require clear definition and not grey area to be enforceable. So where do you draw the line? Both sides of this argument are far apart.
> Owning weapons and transporting weapons are not the same thing. Just because you can own a gun, does not inherently give you the legal right to carry and/or transport the weapon. This is a legal distinction, regardless of whether or not you believe it is a semantic argument. I can see the argument for owning semi-automatic rifles (such as the big black scary AR-15), but there is no way I think it should be legal to shop at Walmart with one on your shoulder. Court precedent has stated (Miller) there should be a "law-abiding reason" for such carry and transport, not just because it's my god-given 2nd amendment right. No reasonable person would argue a semi-automatic rifle serves any "law-abiding purpose" for everyday carry. So for home defense or "collective rights of the people (state)" arguments, yes I can totally see why you should be able to lawfully purchase and keep such weapons. Transportation (different than carry) to the range or hunting would seem to also be permissible. But IMO regular carry should be illegal.
> Based on Miller, I also don't believe ownership of weapons of warfare with no clear and reasonable use by a civilian, should be owned by an individual civilian. E.g. fully-automatic, large capacity, specialized rounds (e.g. API), and bigger than a given size or powder load - all TBD. A reasonable person should be able to own a .177 semi-auto rifle, but not an AK-47. They can own a semi-auto 5.56mm AR-15, but not a .50 cal. Again just random examples, as the actual specs would need to be agreed upon and codified. For me, this is where state's collective rights come in - that is why states have a national guard, to defend the state from a tyrannical federal government. Not individual citizens with tanks and flamethrowers because it's their god-given 2nd amendment right to protect themselves from the communist democrats coming to take their guns like the Nazis did.
> Anywho... just wanted to drop some debate points for you all to agree, disagree, or fight over.



Where does it say you can't carry a flamethrower?

They're unregulated





EDIT: ....okay, maybe not QUITE unregulated. Bad example. https://www.usasafety.com/regulations.php

...although you can still buy them. And, theoretically, have own and use them, unless it violates some regulation. Which it does ~100% of the time, cause there's a gazillion of them (not that anyone seems to care)


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Where does it say you can't carry a flamethrower?
> 
> They're unregulated
> 
> View attachment 73036
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: ....okay, maybe not QUITE unregulated. Bad example. https://www.usasafety.com/regulations.php
> 
> ...although you can still buy them. And, theoretically, have own and use them, unless it violates some regulation. Which it does ~100% of the time, cause there's a gazillion of them (not that anyone seems to care)



Kind of makes you want to own one even more doesn't it lol?

BTW Wasn't there someone selling a flamethrower DIY kit on like kickstarter or something?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Kind of makes you want to own one even more doesn't it lol?
> 
> BTW Wasn't there someone selling a flamethrower DIY kit on like kickstarter or something?



Elon Musk was selling ready to go ones. Sold something like 20,000 of them. 

Really, there's nothing too complicated about them. There are companies that will sell you a for real, military style (napalm compatible, 100'+ range, backpack based) thrower for price of a Prestige Ibby.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Elon Musk was selling ready to go ones. Sold something like 20,000 of them.



That's prob the story I was remembering reading somewhere.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Really, there's nothing too complicated about them. There are companies that will sell you a for real, military style (napalm compatible, 100'+ range, backpack based) thrower for price of a Prestige Ibby.



If someone says "but does it djent" they should have it used on them... lol


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> a robust and well-regulated system consisting of common-sense gun laws
> 
> there is no way I think it should be legal to shop at Walmart with one on your shoulder



FYI, these two positions instantly make you 'not a centrist'


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> Elon Musk was selling ready to go ones. Sold something like 20,000 of them.



I mean...it made a 10ft long propane flame. In my head, a flamethrower throws burning liquid fuel, that lands on things and burns them. he Boring Company "not a flamethrower".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> I mean...it made a 10ft long propane flame. In my head, a flamethrower throws burning liquid fuel, that lands on things and burns them. he Boring Company "not a flamethrower".



By definition, it is a flamethrower ["a weapon that sprays out burning fuel"], if perhaps not the liquid spewing one you think of being in war footage and action flicks. 

Since they're not quite legislated we don't have a federal definition to go off of, like machine guns.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Well, I say we, but I have to keep catching myself to remind myself that I already live in a heavily restricted state. So when I hear "gun control," I think "gun control on top of what exists already," which given my state, would feel excessive. I really should read up more on national-level regulation, I just don't usually find myself discussing this topic with people that I don't see face to face
> 
> ...
> 
> I think you may be reading your own reasoning into this; you need to get a specific license for these vehicles because they operate much, much differently from your normal passenger car. So we can't just infer that you know how to drive an 18 wheeler because you know how to drive your civic to work every day.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ok, 58 is not 'a couple hundred,' come on, Drew. It was a big deal for sure, but don't just throw out numbers.
> It's also worth noting that the equipment used in that shooting is currently restricted, and I haven't really heard any opposition to that fact either.


Only grabbing a couple points here, since I'm still busy and on lunch. 

1) Yeah, I absolutely think it has a lot to do with your living in a heavily regulated (and very large) state, and that things really ARE a lot weaker elsewhere. Super high level editorial sort of discussion: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/california-gun-laws-gilroy.html

2) But, as I was discussing with someone else earlier, comparing an AR-15 to a Colt-45 really IS an apples to oranges comparison - they're very different weapons, intended for very different things. Shouldn't sensible gun control measures treat different types of guns differently? 

3) My bad, I think I was confusing the 58 dead with the 421 wounded. Either way, swap "killed" with "shot" and I think the point still stands.


----------



## Thaeon

Interestingly, while legal to own by a private citizen, flamethrowers are strongly discouraged by the Geneva Convention. Not outright banned. But its not seen as a weapon except in very specific circumstances.


----------



## c7spheres

- What about supporting the view of everyone having the right to all the same weapons, even chemical and nuclear weapons etc. Then, inevitably, America will destroy itself and half the world with it while also spreading the weapons to the rest of the world causing the rest of the world to fall as well. From the remains, and hopefully a near zero population, without knowledge of how to operate or recreate this technology, humanity and the rest of the world can go in another direction and leave all this bad technology behind. Sounds good to me, as long as I'm one of the one's who gets to live. We can give baby's guns too and see how that works out. 
- Ok, maybe not such a good idea. So much for Plan A, Plan B it is.


----------



## c7spheres

Thaeon said:


> Interestingly, while legal to own by a private citizen, flamethrowers are strongly discouraged by the Geneva Convention. Not outright banned. But its not seen as a weapon except in very specific circumstances.


 That's what I was saying. If you get rid of these guns and regulate them. You're going to get even worse and more creative killings, like people going into Schools and Walmarts with flamethrowers, and cocktails etc. Keep the guns. It's harder to get hit by a bullet or die from one than by fire like this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> That's what I was saying. If you get rid of these guns and regulate them. You're going to get even worse and more creative killings, like people going into Schools and Walmarts with flamethrowers, and cocktails etc. Keep the guns. It's harder to get hit by a bullet or die from one than by fire like this.



Or, you know, _just regulate flamethrowers too_. 

But, since flamethrowers are both legal* and actively sold, and there isn't a high instance of their use (professional and otherwise), I doubt that's going to become the go-to weapon for would-be mass murderers. 

Unlike firearms flamethrowers are incredibly conspicuous, very heavy, difficult to control, and make the wearer an easy target. 

We don't see instances of flamethrower use in developed countries that have effective gun control.



c7spheres said:


> - What about supporting the view of everyone having the right to all the same weapons, even chemical and nuclear weapons etc. Then, inevitably, America will destroy itself and half the world with it while also spreading the weapons to the rest of the world causing the rest of the world to fall as well. From the remains, and hopefully a near zero population, without knowledge of how to operate or recreate this technology, humanity and the rest of the world can go in another direction and leave all this bad technology behind. Sounds good to me, as long as I'm one of the one's who gets to live. We can give baby's guns too and see how that works out.
> - Ok, maybe not such a good idea. So much for Plan A, Plan B it is.



Do you know how much that stuff costs? 

We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you know how much that stuff costs? We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars.



So....Bezos is getting chemical weapons then?
Look out, Walmart. It'd be a shame if...something happened to the corporate office...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


----------



## Thaeon

To be honest. I'm more scared of hackers than I am psychos with assault rifles.


----------



## Randy

In fairness, most Walmarts already look like they've been hit by chemical weapons.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Interestingly, while legal to own by a private citizen, flamethrowers are strongly discouraged by the Geneva Convention. Not outright banned. But its not seen as a weapon except in very specific circumstances.


True. Normally they're seen as a method of lighting your garage on fire while trying to take a shortcut or two in weeding or snow removal. 



c7spheres said:


> That's what I was saying. If you get rid of these guns and regulate them. You're going to get even worse and more creative killings, like people going into Schools and Walmarts with flamethrowers, and cocktails etc. Keep the guns. It's harder to get hit by a bullet or die from one than by fire like this.


This is the most convoluted "people will always find a way to kill people if we ban guns" slippery slope sort of argument I've ever heard, and I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> True. Normally they're seen as a method of lighting your garage on fire while trying to take a shortcut or two in weeding or snow removal.
> 
> 
> This is the most convoluted "people will always find a way to kill people if we ban guns" slippery slope sort of argument I've ever heard, and I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.


 Convoluted, yes, but people will always find a way to find a way to kill people, like they always have throughout human history. Even before guns existed. Banning guns might stave off some of the killings for awhile until the media gives everyone step by step instructions on what happened at the next mass killing and how they did it, planting seeds into others unstable people/kids for even more killings to occur. I think the media and internet is a far more dangerous potential weapon than guns.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> Convoluted, yes, but people will always find a way to find a way to kill people, like they always have throughout human history. Even before guns existed. Banning guns might stave off some of the killings for awhile until the media gives everyone step by step instructions on what happened at the next mass killing and how they did it, planting seeds into others unstable people/kids for even more killings to occur. I think the media and internet is a far more dangerous potential weapon than guns.



The whole point is to stave off all the deaths and injuries we can. Of course there will never be no murder, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. 

We just think it would be prudent to make it more difficult for those willing to harm themselves and others from having access to what is a very cheap, accessible, and easy method to do so that serves little to no actual purpose in day to day life.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> The whole point is to stave off all the deaths and injuries we can. Of course there will never be no murder, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
> 
> We just think it would be prudent to make it more difficult for those willing to harm themselves and others from having access to what is a very cheap, accessible, and easy method to do so that serves little to no actual purpose in day to day life.



Shoosh, 25 people dead is exactly the same as one person dead. Somehow.


----------



## c7spheres

MaxOfMetal said:


> The whole point is to stave off all the deaths and injuries we can. Of course there will never be no murder, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.
> 
> We just think it would be prudent to make it more difficult for those willing to harm themselves and others from having access to what is a very cheap, accessible, and easy method to do so that serves little to no actual purpose in day to day life.


 I totally agree. I think the issue is how do you do that and still keep the people safe from it's gov't or military turning on the people. I think the answer is that you can't so you either give people a fighting chance, no chance, or a little chance. I think a fighting chance is never gonna happen realistically, no chance is impossible because you'll never get rid of all the weapons, so a little chance is what's left. How to get the weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them is easy when obvious, but outta the hands of whom is not obvious and you start getting into the whole thought police or obstructing freedom of speech etc. because now your talking about people losing their guns even though they are legally sane so every case would have to be argued individually before a court. Even then it won't matter because they will still be able to get guns anyways. The conclusion is just to minimize the obvious damage that can be averted. I agree with taking guns completely away from minors, even for hunting, but then don't charge them as adults when they're 8 years old either, like was the case here in AZ several years back. If you're going to be able, under any circumstance be able to charge a kid as an adult then that kid should have all the right of an adult before they committed the crime. That's another topic though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

c7spheres said:


> I totally agree. I think the issue is how do you do that and still keep the people safe from it's gov't or military turning on the people. I think the answer is that you can't so you either give people a fighting chance, no chance, or a little chance. I think a fighting chance is never gonna happen realistically, no chance is impossible because you'll never get rid of all the weapons, so a little chance is what's left. How to get the weapons out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them is easy when obvious, but outta the hands of whom is not obvious and you start getting into the whole thought police or obstructing freedom of speech etc. because now your talking about people losing their guns even though they are legally sane so every case would have to be argued individually before a court. Even then it won't matter because they will still be able to get guns anyways. The conclusion is just to minimize the obvious damage that can be averted. I agree with taking guns completely away from minors, even for hunting, but then don't charge them as adults when they're 8 years old either, like was the case here in AZ several years back. If you're going to be able, under any circumstance be able to charge a kid as an adult then that kid should have all the right of an adult before they committed the crime. That's another topic though.



There is absolutely nothing your average civilian can reasonably purchase, even if all current gun legislation was removed, that would mean a lick of difference if the government decided out of the blue to kill us all one day. Nothing. 

It's literally a pigeon vs. a freight train. 

So toss that garbage argument in the bin and try to actually save some lives. Or don't. Whatever.


----------



## c7spheres

MaxOfMetal said:


> There is absolutely nothing your average civilian can reasonably purchase, even if all current gun legislation was removed, that would mean a lick of difference if the government decided out of the blue to kill us all one day. Nothing.
> 
> It's literally a pigeon vs. a freight train.
> 
> So toss that garbage argument in the bin and try to actually save some lives. Or don't. Whatever.


 I started my last comment saying "I totally agree" in reply to your comment prior to that. I said already in regards to "keep the people safe from it's gov't or military turning on the people."; "I think the answer is that you can't so you either give people a fighting chance, no chance, or a little chance. I think a fighting chance is never gonna happen realistically, no chance is impossible because you'll never get rid of all the weapons, so a little chance is what's left." I went on to say "The conclusion is just to minimize the obvious damage that can be averted." That's trying to save some lives. I'm not making an argument. I've already stated the same points you made. We agree it would seem to me. Save lives, minimize damage.


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> I totally agree. I think the issue is how do you do that and still keep the people safe from it's gov't or military turning on the people.


I'm sorry, but this whole premise is nonsensical, and we've beaten it to death earlier. Even your fellow gun advocates here aren't arguing anything more strong than guns are a modest deterrent. Even that I don't buy. 

This is a F-22. 







It has a range of 1,600 nautical miles and can drop a half-ton guided bomb from 50,000 feet to strike a target 24 miles away. What the fuck is a _gun_ going to do about that? 

Seriously. You're welcome to defend your desire to own guns here, but please drop all the make-believe "protect ourselves from our government" bullshit.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's literally a pigeon vs. a freight train.



*Pigeon every time, bro.*
Trains can't even _fly_.


----------



## Adieu

c7spheres said:


> - What about supporting the view of everyone having the right to all the same weapons, even chemical and nuclear weapons etc. Then, inevitably, America will destroy itself and half the world with it while also spreading the weapons to the rest of the world causing the rest of the world to fall as well. From the remains, and hopefully a near zero population, without knowledge of how to operate or recreate this technology, humanity and the rest of the world can go in another direction and leave all this bad technology behind. Sounds good to me, as long as I'm one of the one's who gets to live. We can give baby's guns too and see how that works out.
> - Ok, maybe not such a good idea. So much for Plan A, Plan B it is.



My kinda TV show


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, while we're debating gun ownership, this Ukraine story is getting interested. 

The House committee hasn't yet been able to get the formal complaint made against Trump by a senior intelligence officer related to a "promise" to a foreign leader unsealed, but it's believed to be related to Ukraine. Trump allegedly pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to open an investigation into Joe Biden's son's business dealings in Ukraine (it's irrelevant, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing, OR of Biden doing anything on his son's behalf). Trump now denies this, but initially he did not, and Rudy Giuliani has been careful not to deny these conversations happened either. Around the same time, military aid to Ukraine got unexpectedly held up, and was nearly cancelled. Shortly after the alleged conversation, military aid was unexpectedly approved after all, and _increased_ by $140mm more than the Ukrainians were expecting.

Essentially, it's exactly what Trump was alleged to have done with Russia, asked for dirt on a political rival and used his power as first a candidate and then the president-elect to aid the country in return. The difference here is this should be relatively straightforward to prove or disprove, whereas the Russia investigation involved too many things that were happening off public record and out of public sight. 

And, if Trump _was_ using the diplomatic and economic power of the United States to discredit a political rival, it's awfully hard to argue that doesn't cross into "high crimes and misdemeanors" territory.


----------



## Adieu

...also note: even spitting on a sidewalk or changing your shirt inside a vehicle is a misdemeanor in some jurisdictions. Yes, for real.

Finding misdemeanors really ain't hard.


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, but this whole premise is nonsensical, ...
> 
> This is a F-22.


 Try reading the rest of what I wrote instead of the first sentence : ) What I wrote was obviously sarcasm. I was making a great tv show according to Adieu : ) I've already stated what I think about what should be done and it's basically the same as you and most other people's opinions here too. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## StevenC

c7spheres said:


> Try reading the rest of what I wrote instead of the first sentence : ) What I wrote was obviously sarcasm. I was making a great tv show according to Adieu : ) I've already stated what I think about what should be done and it's basically the same as you and most other people's opinions here too. Sorry for the confusion.


Nothing you've written on this site is obviously sarcasm.


----------



## thraxil

c7spheres said:


> Try reading the rest of what I wrote instead of the first sentence : ) What I wrote was obviously sarcasm.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law


----------



## Andromalia

The USA, land of the free, where the person getting the most votes doesn't get elected and the first cause of childhood mortality is firearms. /shrug


----------



## Ralyks

I’m seeing people make posts about how obesity kills more than guns. Please tell me the last time someone went on a spree of stuffing fried chicken down people’s throats at the local Target.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, while we're debating gun ownership, this Ukraine story is getting interested.
> 
> The House committee hasn't yet been able to get the formal complaint made against Trump by a senior intelligence officer related to a "promise" to a foreign leader unsealed, but it's believed to be related to Ukraine. Trump allegedly pressured his Ukrainian counterpart to open an investigation into Joe Biden's son's business dealings in Ukraine (it's irrelevant, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing, OR of Biden doing anything on his son's behalf). Trump now denies this, but initially he did not, and Rudy Giuliani has been careful not to deny these conversations happened either. Around the same time, military aid to Ukraine got unexpectedly held up, and was nearly cancelled. Shortly after the alleged conversation, military aid was unexpectedly approved after all, and _increased_ by $140mm more than the Ukrainians were expecting.
> 
> Essentially, it's exactly what Trump was alleged to have done with Russia, asked for dirt on a political rival and used his power as first a candidate and then the president-elect to aid the country in return. The difference here is this should be relatively straightforward to prove or disprove, whereas the Russia investigation involved too many things that were happening off public record and out of public sight.
> 
> And, if Trump _was_ using the diplomatic and economic power of the United States to discredit a political rival, it's awfully hard to argue that doesn't cross into "high crimes and misdemeanors" territory.



https://apple.news/Alo7Vcw7cROizJkCf6xQ_8g

And now he’s admitting to withholding the money, and giving a pretty bullshit reason for it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I’m seeing people make posts about how obesity kills more than guns. Please tell me the last time someone went on a spree of stuffing fried chicken down people’s throats at the local Target.



These are the same people that'll then bitch about soft drink legislation and tell fat jokes.

It's not a good faith argument.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I’m seeing people make posts about how obesity kills more than guns. Please tell me the last time someone went on a spree of stuffing fried chicken down people’s throats at the local Target.


And, also, the address of said Target!


----------



## Drew

c7spheres said:


> Try reading the rest of what I wrote instead of the first sentence : ) What I wrote was obviously sarcasm. I was making a great tv show according to Adieu : ) I've already stated what I think about what should be done and it's basically the same as you and most other people's opinions here too. Sorry for the confusion.


Except you're coming to different conclusions - we SHOULDN'T regulate guns, because we'll just find some other way to kill each other, and at least guns give us some shred of a chance to fight our government.


----------



## c7spheres

StevenC said:


> Nothing you've written on this site is obviously sarcasm.


 Didn't realize that. Touche' good sir. : )



thraxil said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law


 Touche' good sir. : )


----------



## c7spheres

Drew said:


> Except you're coming to different conclusions - we SHOULDN'T regulate guns, because we'll just find some other way to kill each other, and at least guns give us some shred of a chance to fight our government.


 Sorry for any confusion. I didn't exactly say what you're saying I said but I could see now how it was taken that way. I think I need to be more obvious about my stance maybe vs potential viewpoints or scenarios that exist or would likely exist. Thanks


----------



## Ralyks

Trump Ukraine row: Democrats 'to launch Trump impeachment inquiry' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49814927

Ummm.... welp, here we are.


----------



## Drew

Yeah. A formal inquiry is still a couple steps short of actually impeaching, this is just a fact--finding inquiry though one with a stated intent of building the case for or against impeachment. 

but, well... That escalated quickly.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Trump Ukraine row: Democrats 'to launch Trump impeachment inquiry' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49814927
> 
> Ummm.... welp, here we are.





Drew said:


> Yeah. A formal inquiry is still a couple steps short of actually impeaching, this is just a fact--finding inquiry though one with a stated intent of building the case for or against impeachment.
> 
> but, well... That escalated quickly.



Super, super cautious on this one. We've been burned too many times. The Dems pushing for a Kavanaugh impeachement and then the next day the NYT printing a retraction saying the victim doesn't even remember the incident happening was near if not fatal to their credibility. I'd hate to find out the whistleblower story was a deliberate leak by "John Miller" or to have the info in it recanted and see the Dems fall right on their face again.


----------



## Ralyks

Wouldn’t a deliberate leak still be an issue?


----------



## Randy

Well, the implication would be that the actual underlying incident is a lot tamer than the leak is meant to imply. Like, whistleblower story leaks, Dems commit to impeachment inquiry, whistleblower recants or fades into obscurity, Trump releases transcript which is tame, with no way of corroborating the original story, Dems look happless and never say the word "impeachment again. Hypothetically.


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> Well, the implication would be that the actual underlying incident is a lot tamer than the leak is meant to imply. Like, whistleblower story leaks, Dems commit to impeachment inquiry, whistleblower recants or fades into obscurity, Trump releases transcript which is tame, with no way of corroborating the original story, Dems look happless and never say the word "impeachment again. Hypothetically.



This scenario is likely enough that it's terrifying


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Well, the implication would be that the actual underlying incident is a lot tamer than the leak is meant to imply. Like, whistleblower story leaks, Dems commit to impeachment inquiry, whistleblower recants or fades into obscurity, Trump releases transcript which is tame, with no way of corroborating the original story, Dems look happless and never say the word "impeachment again. Hypothetically.



Wasn't that supposedly how they were going to hunt down "leakers"?


----------



## Randy

There've been a couple Wiley Coyote-esque plots to uncover leakers yes, and I believe that was one of them.

The funny thing to me is that they (Trump, Miller, etc.) seem to believe in earnest this is a deep state "never Trump" Manchurian Democrat push to undermine the guy from within, but this is literally stereotypical disgruntled employee with shitty boss pissing in their coffee pot. I'm sure a lot of people go to work for the guy and act in good faith to agree with him but he's such an asshole that they inevitably turn on him. He literally had a television for a decade that was a competition to kiss his ass so he would hire someone to replace the last person who got fed up with his bullshit.


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaand right on que, GOP vowing to squash any impeachment articles if they pass the house.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A_mtL0sqARxSJNaGMZjfldQ

So that’s not good


----------



## thraxil

It basically reads like a cliche mob shakedown. If it were a regular citizen in a regular criminal case, it would be a slam dunk. But I think we can all guess that the Trumpist reaction is going to be "What are you talking about? There's nothing wrong there! No bribery! No collusion! Hillary's emails!"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> It basically reads like a cliche mob shakedown. If it were a regular citizen in a regular criminal case, it would be a slam dunk. But I think we can all guess that the Trumpist reaction is going to be "What are you talking about? There's nothing wrong there! No bribery! No collusion! Hillary's emails!"



The reaction is going to be even more base:

"It's just creepy Joe Biden the socialist democrat."

The GOP has rallied their base to absolutely despise Dems as people, thus doing bad/illegal things is fine as long as it's against them.

See:






Do you think they care about the implications besides sticking it to a Democrat?


----------



## Ralyks

What’s funny is, I lean moderate Dem, and I’m a good chunk Russian heritage


----------



## thraxil

Also worth pointing out that simply requesting that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden, even without making an explicit quid pro quo is soliciting an in-kind campaign contribution from a foreign entity and is completely illegal by itself. The Mueller report concluded that he had basically done that with the Russians in 2016 but that it wasn't worth prosecuting because he maybe sort of didn't realize that he wasn't supposed to do that kind of thing so it was an honest mistake. This time around, that excuse really doesn't fly.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, the implication would be that the actual underlying incident is a lot tamer than the leak is meant to imply. Like, whistleblower story leaks, Dems commit to impeachment inquiry, whistleblower recants or fades into obscurity, Trump releases transcript which is tame, with no way of corroborating the original story, Dems look happless and never say the word "impeachment again. Hypothetically.


I don't think we have to worry about that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...es-president-annotated/?wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

This happened less than a week after military aid to Ukraine was unexpectedly blocked, at the White House's request, something Zelenskyy obliquely mentions when he says he hopes to buy more Javelin missiles soon. The conversation is a "congrats, we'vbe done way more for you than you've done for me, so let me tell you a few favors I was hoping you could do for me," and then not only does he ask Zelenskyy to investigate Biden, his then-probable 2020 rival, he also asks him to investiugate Clinton's email server, his old 2016 nemesis. 

I understand Trump released this after speaking with Pelosi, over the objections of his advisors, thinking it would forestall an impeachment inquiry if he just released the transcript, and was then furious when she opened one anyway. 

Honestly, I can't believe Trump put this out in the open. There's no _explicit_ quid pro quo, but there's an extremely clear implicit "you wash my back I wash mine," and the whole call is Trump asking for help investigating political rivals. In what _universe_ did he think that would clear his name?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> There's no _explicit_ quid pro quo



Another example of Democrats overpromising and underdelivering. An explicit quid pro quo were stupid stakes to play for and when that inevitably ends up missing, the GOP gets another 'so what?' win.


----------



## Ralyks

Isn’t it still illegal without explicitly quid pro quo?


----------



## Randy

Murky, by Trumpian standards.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Another example of Democrats overpromising and underdelivering. An explicit quid pro quo were stupid stakes to play for and when that inevitably ends up missing, the GOP gets another 'so what?' win.


Was that the Democrats, though? The initial whistleblower report referred to promises made to a world leader, and I'm trying to remember where the quid pro quo stuff might have first started to bubble up. I know the media ran with it, but honestly it may have been the Trump team.

There's 100% an implicit "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" here, though, and when Trump moved to release this so quickly, I didn't expect the document to be half as damning as what we got. Especially when it contains things that others in his administration have already denied - Barr has previously stated he was never directed to work with the Ukrainians on an investigation of Biden.

*The President:* Well, she’s going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. 
*The President:* Good. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call.


----------



## Thaeon

So, just for clarity of discussion, the US ranked 99 out of some 190+ countries in 2010 murders per 1 million people. The actual number of them was 42/million. That's 0.000042% The rate is generally going down year after year and has been for a long time. When you look at it contextually like this, we're doing pretty damn good. Any is too much obviously and there is always room to improve. The numbers in this context is something you'll never see the media publish though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> So, just for clarity of discussion, the US ranked 99 out of some 190+ countries in 2010 murders per 1 million people. The actual number of them was 42/million. That's 0.000042% The rate is generally going down year after year and has been for a long time. When you look at it contextually like this, we're doing pretty damn good. Any is too much obviously and there is always room to improve. The numbers in this context is something you'll never see the media publish though.



We're now somewhere in the 80 range and it's absolutely nothing to be proud of. 

Throw that on a t-shirt if you want, but it honestly sends the exact opposite message you think it does. 

It is a disgrace.


----------



## Vyn

Thaeon said:


> So, just for clarity of discussion, the US ranked 99 out of some 190+ countries in 2010 murders per 1 million people. The actual number of them was 42/million. That's 0.000042% The rate is generally going down year after year and has been for a long time. When you look at it contextually like this, we're doing pretty damn good. Any is too much obviously and there is always room to improve. The numbers in this context is something you'll never see the media publish though.



If "America is the greatest country in the world" holds true, then it should be the safest country in the world. Its position on that list clearly indicates that it isn't.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> the US ranked 99 out of some 190+ countries


----------



## Ralyks

Uhhh, so apparently Pence talked to the Urkraine too?

I didn’t see President Pelosi coming... I mean, we still won’t, but this is getting a little scary.


----------



## Vyn

Source for the following comment is here (it's murders per 100k however the ranking/number of countries looked at is roughly on par with the stat quoted earlier): https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html

So the US is ranked 111/216 with 4.7 deaths per 100k population (works out to be 47 per 1 million). By comparison, Australia ranks 183/216 at 1.1 deaths per 100k population (11 per 1 million). We are not perfect by any means and we need to do better however what we do have:

1 - Actual gun control legislation. It's difficult to get a gun, police checks, psycological checks, licences and then there's only certain categories of firearms you are allowed based on your licence type.
2 - A culture that doesn't see firearms necessary to protect individual freedoms because they are pretty well protected as is. 
3 - We have a country with a decent healthcare and social security system to provide people with basic needs (it's not the best, we again need to do more) such that resorting to crime (which could result in murder) isn't worth the effort. People don't get desperate and/or resort to unlawful means anywhere near as much if you stop them from getting in that situation in the first place. 

You'll always have some people that are un-hinged or genuinely evil/psychopathic however by having restrictions on weapons in place (we don't just restrict fire-arm usage over here, there's plenty of weapons that are outright illegal to own let alone carry) you can reduce the impact these individuals will have when they go postal. It's unfortunate that lives may still be lost and you won't get it down to 0 however its a better scenario than having millions of Average Joe's with firearms that have no access to healthcare or money to get them through difficult situations and as a result go "fuck it" and shoot up the local highschool.


----------



## Thaeon

You guys must have missed where I said one is too many... Pretty sure the argument that I was making is that the framing of it by the media is dubious. But by all means ignore all of my posts where I said there should be more gun control.


----------



## spudmunkey

I am annoyed that almost everyone seems to think that an actual impeachment process has started, and not just the inquiry that it is.


----------



## narad

Thaeon said:


> You guys must have missed where I said one is too many... Pretty sure the argument that I was making is that the framing of it by the media is dubious. But by all means ignore all of my posts where I said there should be more gun control.



We got it, but the reality is properly shameful so the media framing seems generous at best, given that I rarely hear media discuss what is an unacceptable state for a supposedly civilized country.


----------



## Ralyks

Umm, I’m pretty sure we all knew it was only at the inquiry process.

Or are you talking about the general population?


----------



## Thaeon

narad said:


> We got it, but the reality is properly shameful so the media framing seems generous at best, given that I rarely hear media discuss what is an unacceptable state for a supposedly civilized country.



I understand what you’re saying. The state IS shameful. I guess where I’m coming from is that I judge everything based on data. It is absolutely true that it getting so little attention is a huge problem. It’s also true that we should be covering this from every angle we can. I have children. I don’t want some crazed asshat charging through their school with a pistol let alone semi-auto or automatic weapons. I live in Texas where restrictions are loose. I just want the real data reported sans spin. For such an important issue it’s shameful that ANYONE is attempting to slant the data beyond the science. I’m literally taking the unpopular stance here so that it’s represented. Chances are, my views are much more in line with what most here are presenting.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> I understand what you’re saying. The state IS shameful. I guess where I’m coming from is that I judge everything based on data. It is absolutely true that it getting so little attention is a huge problem. It’s also true that we should be covering this from every angle we can. I have children. I don’t want some crazed asshat charging through their school with a pistol let alone semi-auto or automatic weapons. I live in Texas where restrictions are loose. I just want the real data reported sans spin. For such an important issue it’s shameful that ANYONE is attempting to slant the data beyond the science. I’m literally taking the unpopular stance here so that it’s represented. Chances are, my views are much more in line with what most here are presenting.



The data shows that we are an aberration amongst modern, developed countries. There's no slant there. 

The majority of countries ranked near us have either no functional government, are in a state of civil unrest, are in an active war, or similar within the last decade. 

Our rates are closer to those of countries with HDI in the .5 to .6 range. Every single country with the same HDI (~.9) has less intentional homicide. Every one. 

Yes, the data shows we have less intentional homicide than Sudan or Somalia or one of the various other Sub-Saharan African countries that are constantly in civil war. But what does that actually tell you?

Presenting the data is one thing, but no reasonable person would see that data, all of it within proper context, and say "we're doing pretty good" without their own bias.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> So, just for clarity of discussion, the US ranked 99 out of some 190+ countries in 2010 murders per 1 million people. The actual number of them was 42/million. That's 0.000042% The rate is generally going down year after year and has been for a long time. When you look at it contextually like this, we're doing pretty damn good. Any is too much obviously and there is always room to improve. The numbers in this context is something you'll never see the media publish though.



Yeah but they're all in Chicago so it's okay...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Yeah but they're all in Chicago so it's okay...
> 
> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-chicago-homicides-data-tracker-htmlstory.html



Not really & not really

Also, Chicago is on track for ~500 murders for the year, which would put it around the national average for a population of 10 million.

...which it might actually effectively be, since the greater metro area is ~10 million, many of those spend a significant amount of time in Chicago, and American crime in general tends to focus in the middle of sprawling cities.


Meanwhile:
Louisiana : 12.4 / 100k
Missouri : 9.8 / 100k

And these are entire states...


PS New Hampshire 1.0, North Dakota 1.3, which is interesting. Maine 1.7, Idaho and Rhode Island 1.9


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Not really & not really
> 
> Also, Chicago is on track for ~500 murders for the year, which would put it around the national average for a population of 10 million.
> 
> ...which it might actually effectively be, since the greater metro area is ~10 million, many of those spend a significant amount of time in Chicago, and American crime in general tends to focus in the middle of sprawling cities.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile:
> Louisiana : 12.4 / 100k
> Missouri : 9.8 / 100k
> 
> And these are entire states...
> 
> 
> PS New Hampshire 1.0, North Dakota 1.3, which is interesting. Maine 1.7, Idaho and Rhode Island 1.9



I guess we get our stats from different places. This is per FBI crime stats:

1st QTR 2019 for LA was 56 with population of 4M =14/M.
1st QTR 2019 for Chicago was 76 (4 year low and 30% less than last year) with population of 2.7M = 28/M.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> The data shows that we are an aberration amongst modern, developed countries. There's no slant there.
> 
> The majority of countries ranked near us have either no functional government, are in a state of civil unrest, are in an active war, or similar within the last decade.
> 
> Our rates are closer to those of countries with HDI in the .5 to .6 range. Every single country with the same HDI (~.9) has less intentional homicide. Every one.
> 
> Yes, the data shows we have less intentional homicide than Sudan or Somalia or one of the various other Sub-Saharan African countries that are constantly in civil war. But what does that actually tell you?
> 
> Presenting the data is one thing, but no reasonable person would see that data, all of it within proper context, and say "we're doing pretty good" without their own bias.



The "Pretty good" was a reference to consistently decreasing the rate year over year. We're making progress. I guess I wasn't articulating myself as clearly as I thought I was. I've had the flu for the last couple days so... I am by no means suggesting the work is done and we should accept the status quo.


----------



## StevenC

Thaeon said:


> The "Pretty good" was a reference to consistently decreasing the rate year over year. We're making progress. I guess I wasn't articulating myself as clearly as I thought I was. I've had the flu for the last couple days so... I am by no means suggesting the work is done and we should accept the status quo.


You've managed to make up between 10 and 20 relatively very easy places in 10 years based on the numbers presented in this thread, while still massively out of step with the rest of the developed world. Going from your number of 4.2 in 2010 to Vyn's number of 4.7 more recently. That's not progress.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> You've managed to make up between 10 and 20 relatively very easy places in 10 years based on the numbers presented in this thread, while still massively out of step with the rest of the developed world. Going from your number of 4.2 in 2010 to Vyn's number of 4.7 more recently. That's not progress.



And then there's the whole issue of why the hell North Dakotans are ~3.5x less homicidal than the rest of the country

New Hampshire too, but that place has been intentionally accumulating a bunch of organic hipsters and libertarians and the like for years, which might explain it... not something that can be said of North Dakota.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> And then there's the whole issue of why the hell North Dakotans are ~3.5x less homicidal than the rest of the country
> 
> New Hampshire too, but that place has been intentionally accumulating a bunch of organic hipsters and libertarians and the like for years, which might explain it... not something that can be said of North Dakota.



Space.

The lower the population density, the lower the violent crime. Additionally, the distribution of those people matters. North Dakota is both wide open and doesn't have many large population centers.

There tons of other factors, but those are definitely some big ones for states like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc.


----------



## Ralyks

I’m really surprised no one has made the joke that the whistleblower was Tekashi 6ix9ine...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I’m really surprised no one has made the joke that the whistleblower was Tekashi 6ix9ine...



A family member shared a meme depicting that yesterday on social media. It exists and it is terrible. Not posting it here because it doesn't deserve to be shared.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Space.
> 
> The lower the population density, the lower the violent crime. Additionally, the distribution of those people matters. North Dakota is both wide open and doesn't have many large population centers.
> 
> There tons of other factors, but those are definitely some big ones for states like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc.



And yet Alaska is charting at a whopping 8.4 (2017 data)...

Nah it sounds more like economics. ND had a bit of a rowdy reputation, but a booming jobs market keeps gives everyone other stuff to focus on instead of grudges and murder


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> And yet Alaska is charting at a whopping 8.4 (2017 data)...
> 
> Nah it sounds more like economics. ND had a bit of a rowdy reputation, but a booming jobs market keeps gives everyone other stuff to focus on instead of grudges and murder



Alaska has larger population centers than North Dakota. 

Anchorage is almost three times the population of the largest city in ND, Fargo.


----------



## Randy

Not sure why there's an obsession over the whistleblowers identity, tbh.

Testimony today indicates the story surrounding the whistleblower complaint was at least partially substantiaited in what the IG found and the transcript pretty much confirms it, mind you, that's even in a transcript that the WH had over a month to look at under the microscope for anything they can consider privledged information, written based on a specific persons notes/recollection of the event that, has a likelihood of being partially or heavily doctored to minimize. And t'si still pretty damning.

Unfortunately the testimony reasserts what I've been saying for a few years now (especially after reading the Mueller report). Both with the office as president and as Donald Trump himself, there always layers of reluctant human shields that keep him inches from criminal liability.

In this case, a whistleblower complaint with a statute that states explicitly how it should be handled (sent to Congress) but so much confusion and red tape infront of him, the entity responsible for seeing this through took the case to the perpetrator (Trump) and someone else named in the complaint (Barr) to ask them what they wanted to do, then gave them a month to cherrypick what they wanted in it and how to roll it out. 

It's a dictionary definition constitutional crisis. What the GOP/Trump apologists and Dershowitzes of the world refuse to recognize is that they refuse to hold Trump legally responsible because of X,Y or Z statute tying their hands but he refuses to play by the rules anyway. We're constantly shooed away with parliamentary red tape and he can literally just improvise anything he wants and there's a guaranteed safety shield for him literally no matter what it is. 

At a certain point we have to recognize the guy does not respect the rule of law and the fact he's free is by virtue of the office and nothing else, and we need to stop unnecessarily tying our own hands and playing by vague rules while he plays by none.


----------



## Ralyks

I’m wondering if, let’s say he’s impeached, the evidence is blatant, but the senate acquits him anyway (which is probably the most likely scenario at this point). Does public perception change at all since it’s documented that he did this and only got off on a technicality, or are we just back to where we are now, and he still somehow gets re-elected?


----------



## possumkiller

People in North Dakota don't kill other people. They kill themselves. It's a horrible desolate wasteland. I was there in the middle of May and the rivers and lakes were still frozen over.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> In this case, a whistleblower complaint with a statute that states explicitly how it should be handled (sent to Congress) but so much confusion and red tape infront of him, the entity responsible for seeing this through took the case to the perpetrator (Trump) and someone else named in the complaint (Barr) to ask them what they wanted to do, then gave them a month to cherrypick what they wanted in it and how to roll it out.


To be fair, I didn't catch the whole thing, it got interrupted by a meeting and a very dry conference call, but I caught at least half of today's testimony. I thought Maguire actually presented himself fairly well, and I have a lot more sympathy for his claim that he wanted to push the complaint forward but was unsure what the legal standing for doing so was. He made it clear that he really wasn't thrilled Barr was one of the people responsible for reviewing the legal basis for the claim, but he also didn't have any other options, and one of the things that came out was that he didn't straight-up ignore the subpoena, he asked for, and was granted, an extension. He was also teed-up on a couple occasions to undercut the proceedings or defend Trump, notably by Nunes (he was given an opportunity to note that "credible" was not necessarily "true" and pointedly defended the process, and after letting Nunes complain about how unprecedented it was to review whistleblower complaints in a public forum, let him vent for a while and then closed by observing Trump's decision to release a rough transcript of the call was also unprecedented), and did not.

Some quick thoughts here.


The transcript alone or the call alone would be damaging enough to Trump - seeking aid from a foreign nation against a political rival itself would be a problem, even _without_ indication that he was tying military aid funding into it.

The transcript broadly substantiates the relevant passages in the complaint. From a purely Bayesian standpoint, this makes the alllegations outside of the transcript somewhat more credible
The popular narrative here is that Pelosi chose to impeach Trump and is running a big political risk. That misses the mark in two important ways:

In short order the number of House Democrats who supported impeachment rose from 120 to 180 before Pelosi's announcement, and is now over the critical 218 threshold. Most of that new support came from competitive districts where Clinton either won modestly or Trump won, while earlier impeachment supporters were generally from safe deeply liberal districts where NOT supporting impeachment would be a risk. Painting this as ultra-liberal Pelosi overstepping doesn't make sense, since really it was movement on the more moderate side of her caucus that opened the door to moving forward.
A lot of the "impeachment will hurt the Dems" argument dates back to the GOP suffering electorally after trying and failing to impeach Clinton. I'm not sure that analogy holds - Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a blowjob. Trump seems likely to get impeached for thwarting US foreign policy for personal gain. Those are crimes of a VERY different nature - Nixon may be the better comp here, where the Dems expanded majorities after impeaching Nixon. It's complicated because the first effort failed and the second didn't... But the crimes alleged are much closer to a Nixon than a Clinton. I certainly cant give much credence to the argument that this somehow HELPS Trump, having the prospect of impeachment for failing to uphold US foreign policy for personal gain hanging over him.

Regardless of the merit of Trump's accusations (which seem likely to be groundless), it does no favor to Biden. If I wasn't already of the mindset that Warren is the more likely eventual winner, I think this would make me strongly consider the prospect of a Warren win (and she's now shifting strategy to talk about her advantages in electability).

EDIT - also, a lot of Trump supporters are pointing to the relative lack of stock market reaction as proof that todays hearing and release aren't a big deal. The market DID trade off modestly, and dipped further on trade news. I'm not sure how much confidence I'd put in the market's assessment right now though, for a slew of factors - 1) trade and the Fed are running the show now, 2) replacing Trump with a rational actor is probably a net plus for a happy resolution to the trade war, 3) I do think Warren is the most likely Dem right now, and that's also not an outcome the market really loves, and 4) the Senate is a pretty solid backstop right now so unless news gets so damning that GOP senators start coming out against Trump, the market isn't going to move a ton since an actual removal remains remote - this just adds to the gridlock, which is already well priced in.


----------



## c7spheres

With a bit of sarcasm I must say I don't see anything wrong with abusing office or making deals to get dirt on opponents. I mean, it's for a good cause to know a bunch of dirt on who's going to be holding office plus "they" waste more money than that on far more useless things anyways. Maybe this is the only time a politician is putting money to good use for all the people instead of just some of the people. An actual public service? : )


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> I certainly cant give much credence to the argument that this somehow HELPS Trump, having the prospect of impeachment for failing to uphold US foreign policy for personal gain hanging over him.



I think the argument is along the lines of if he survives the impeachment attempt, the allegations won't stick, and it'll be seen as just another desperate grab by the democrats. 
Then, since they're puffing their chests out right now, if they don't even try, they're going to run into the same effect; since the public perception will be "Well if they didn't push it through then they must have been wrong," save for your dime-a-dozen "Trump is literally satan and I can feel it in my bones" crowd, who's opinion doesn't matter in this context because they were always going to vote blue anyway. Not necessarily good for the president, but a mark on the public image of the democrats.

SOOOooo...if I were a sitting democrat, I would _really_ be hoping that this leads to a successful impeachment. If it does, I think they're gunna see a *huge* payoff come the next election cycle.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I think the argument is along the lines of if he survives the impeachment attempt, the allegations won't stick, and it'll be seen as just another desperate grab by the democrats.
> Then, since they're puffing their chests out right now, if they don't even try, they're going to run into the same effect; since the public perception will be "Well if they didn't push it through then they must have been wrong," save for your dime-a-dozen "Trump is literally satan and I can feel it in my bones" crowd, who's opinion doesn't matter in this context because they were always going to vote blue anyway. Not necessarily good for the president, but a mark on the public image of the democrats.
> 
> SOOOooo...if I were a sitting democrat, I would _really_ be hoping that this leads to a successful impeachment. If it does, I think they're gunna see a *huge* payoff come the next election cycle.


I mean, I'm obviously hoping for a successful impeachment attempt here. Don't get me wrong.  

I also think this is a question we'll have to come back to when we have better polling data. Noting that and moving on, for now. 

But, one of the things that's kind of interesting in the polling we saw on Russia was that a majority of Americans thought Trump had done something wrong, but a majority of Americans also thought it didn't warrant impeachment. That's not necessarily a 1-1 sample, it was roughly 65-35 in both cases so obviously 35 percentage points of the people who didn't thing Trump should be impeached also didn't think he'd done anything wrong. But that leaves a sizable portion of the electorate, 30%, who thought Trump had likely done some or all of the things he was accused of in the Russia probe, but also didn't think he should be impeached. It's how THOSE voters respond that will matter, IMO. 

Some of them are definitely "don't impeach, because it'll only rally his base" voters. I'm personally not overly swayed by that argument since he's been routinely doubling up on his base all along, but I think it's also fairly save to assume that if this DOES go to impeachment, their reason for not wanting to see him impeached becomes moot and they get on board. I don't think that's going to turn them off if the attempt fails. That leaves the other subset who thinks what he did was wrong, but doesn't believe it either warrants impeachment, or for a first term president, the ballot box is the more appropriate venue to asses his actions. You may lose some of the first group, if you move to impeach and fail, though I'd be cautious here too because, again, this is a subset of the electorate who believes Trump was _in the wrong_, so it's not like they're going to become enthusiastic supporters. I think the second group, people who think Trump likely committed a crime but should be voted out of office rather than removed, are still going to be reliable votes against him. 

Idunno, man. If we just split that demographic group evenly in three pieces, then that's about 10 percentage points, out of 30, that's in play. Say you lose a third of them, that's a 3 point shift. With Trump polling in the low 40s, that's definitely going to improve his odds of surviving an election that's a referendum on his actions in office, but I'm still not sure I'd call him a favorite. 

I'm definitely thinking out loud, though, and this is all contingent on that relationship in the polling that was in place during the Russian investigation not changing. If we start seeing polls that suggest a majority of the electorate thinks he did something wrong, and a majority of the electorate thinks impeachment would be an appropriate response if the evidence bore out the allegations, Trump is _fucked_.


----------



## Randy

It's stupid overengineered bullshit. The Dems have lost piles of seats for much less substantive reasons. A typical election year is 50/50. To abandon your principals, and the chance you get rid of the worst disease inflicting this country or lose but potentially have the public in agreement with you, is everything wrong with the modern Democratic Party.

I can see just as many people abstaining from voting over Dems NOT pursuing impeachment as I can see this identityless centrist independent bloc we're afraid of turning off.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> People in North Dakota don't kill other people. They kill themselves. It's a horrible desolate wasteland. I was there in the middle of May and the rivers and lakes were still frozen over.



I fail to see the problem

May isn't even summer... i've lived places that got snow in May and September both, and ok whatever

The frost is actually really refreshing


PS snow for more months than not doesn't a wasteland make.... you want wasteland, look to places like California or the Middle East. No sprinklers, no life.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> but I'm still not sure I'd call him a favorite.



I definitely wouldn't call him a favorite either; semi-unrelated, but I think a huge part of what got him elected was the fact that a lot of people just wanted to shake things up. Which leads into...



Randy said:


> I can see just as many people abstaining from voting over Dems NOT pursuing impeachment as I can see this identityless centrist independent bloc we're afraid of turning off.



This. Personally, I think the big issue for 2020 is going to be convincing people _*to vote*_, not trying to affect _*how*_ they vote.
Because I can see this being a huge problem for the Republicans too; if they don't get all the shit-stirrers they got in 2016, they're going to have a really rough time getting The Donald re-elected. And I think that's going to be tricky because those guys already made their statement. Or if they proceed with filing impeachment and he manages to walk that out, I can easily see a lot of overconfident, would-be voters staying home because they think it'll be a sure thing. Hell, vice versa even if they succeed; there's going to be a national surplus of smug confidence on one side or the other regardless of who wins.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Or if they proceed with filing impeachment and he manages to walk that out, I can easily see a lot of overconfident, would-be voters staying home because they think it'll be a sure thing.


That's an interesting argument, actually.


----------



## Thaeon

Population density is a huge factor. I wonder if the social programs coupled with better gun reform are what drives the differences between the US and Europe.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> Population density is a huge factor. I wonder if the social programs coupled with better gun reform are what drives the differences between the US and Europe.



Well, that's the two things we most lack, so it wouldn't surprise me. 

I'm sure there are cultural factors at play. 

Though, again, our gun culture is absolutely toxic. I didn't really start moving away from it until I saw it on social media. It was a real eye opener that the shittiest dude at the gun range that nobody likes is a hero archetype to these folks, who view firearms as an extension of both their masculinity and self worth. 

I've met competition shooters from Germany, Switzerland, and Spain and the attitude is completely different. It's looked as a tool or an instrument, not a lifestyle.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Well, that's the two things we most lack, so it wouldn't surprise me.
> 
> I'm sure there are cultural factors at play.
> 
> Though, again, our gun culture is absolutely toxic. I didn't really start moving away from it until I saw it on social media. It was a real eye opener that the shittiest dude at the gun range that nobody likes is a hero archetype to these folks, who view firearms as an extension of both their masculinity and self worth.
> 
> I've met competition shooters from Germany, Switzerland, and Spain and the attitude is completely different. It's looked as a tool or an instrument, not a lifestyle.



All of this 100%. I’m not anti-gun, but we are the only culture that looks at guns as a dick waving contest.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> Isn’t it still illegal without explicitly quid pro quo?



I think the quid pro quo is very obvious here to anyone not wearing republican goggles. While this is partisan now, I think history will look back on this as what broke Trump. I hope.

Anyone who hasn’t read the “transcript” really should take the five minutes. Also take note of the truncated ... in the Joe Biden paragraph. This is clearly a “we do a lot for you” “you don’t reciprocate” and when the Ukraine president states “we would like more missiles” Trump sets the simple condition “we need a favor.” What does he want: a hacked DNC server and dirt on the Bidens. This is beyond the pale and completely disgraceful.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> I’m wondering if, let’s say he’s impeached, the evidence is blatant, but the senate acquits him anyway (which is probably the most likely scenario at this point). Does public perception change at all since it’s documented that he did this and only got off on a technicality, or are we just back to where we are now, and he still somehow gets re-elected?





Drew said:


> A lot of the "impeachment will hurt the Dems" argument dates back to the GOP suffering electorally after trying and failing to impeach Clinton. I'm not sure that analogy holds - Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a blowjob. Trump seems likely to get impeached for thwarting US foreign policy for personal gain. Those are crimes of a VERY different nature - Nixon may be the better comp here, where the Dems expanded majorities after impeaching Nixon. It's complicated because the first effort failed and the second didn't... But the crimes alleged are much closer to a Nixon than a Clinton. I certainly cant give much credence to the argument that this somehow HELPS Trump, having the prospect of impeachment for failing to uphold US foreign policy for personal gain hanging over him.



Clinton wasn't found guilty in the senate and we still ended up with a republican president after him (Bush 43). Granted, Clinton was a second term president, so taking it to the ballot box wasn't an option at the time, but I don't think a failure to convict Trump would automatically turn swing voters towards the GOP now. Trump's supporters at this point are his base and those republicans who are willing to overlook his negatives in order to keep the democrats out of the office; I really doubt he will get much of the swing vote, if any, come election day. If anything, bringing factual evidence of Trump's wrongdoings to light via an impeachment hearing may cause those republicans who don't really like Trump to begin with but went along with him as the party's choice to turn on him.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> I think the quid pro quo is very obvious here to anyone not wearing republican goggles. While this is partisan now, I think history will look back on this as what broke Trump. I hope.
> 
> Anyone who hasn’t read the “transcript” really should take the five minutes. Also take note of the truncated ... in the Joe Biden paragraph. This is clearly a “we do a lot for you” “you don’t reciprocate” and when the Ukraine president states “we would like more missiles” Trump sets the simple condition “we need a favor.” What does he want: a hacked DNC server and dirt on the Bidens. This is beyond the pale and completely disgraceful.


I'll say beyond that, it's NOT legal without a quid pro quo. Directing Ukraine to open investigations into an old political rival and a new political rival and setting up backdoor channels to do so with your personal lawyer - NOT a member of the State Department, and not authorized to engage in US diplomacy - is a violation of Trump's obligations under the oath of office. 

Or, rather, "illegal" and "legal" isn't really the appropriate term here, because it can be a dereliction of his constitutional duty even if it's not in violation of a specific legal code. He's using the power entrusted him in the US constitution to serve his personal interests, and not those of the United States. The transcript alone is probably grounds for impeachment, and if it can be determined that Trump DID cut off military aid before this conversation to increase leverage on them, as has been alleged, that's a slam dunk. 

Another reason I wouldn't be so quick to write this off as "a bad mistake by the Democrats" from a conversation with a buddy earlier on - this is a pretty easy to understand, clear cut scandal, and the early polling has been pretty consistent that a majority of Americans think that if what has been alleged is accurate, this is very wrong. Call it 60% wrong, 20% ok, 20% no opinion for "is it ok to use presidential powers for personal gain by directing a foreign party to discredit a political rival." It's going to put Republican congressmen (and, like, their token congresswoman or two) in a really awkward place if they have to continually explain to an angry electorate why they didn't have an issue with Trump self-dealing in US foreign policy like this.


----------



## StevenC

Apparently Ukrainians are calling their president Monica Zelensky, and I think that's just terrific.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Apparently Ukrainians are calling their president Monica Zelensky, and I think that's just terrific.



That's fucking great. 

I mean it's awful on every level seeing as this isn't a plucky new situational comedy on TBS, but if it was, it would be great.


----------



## Ralyks

StevenC said:


> Apparently Ukrainians are calling their president Monica Zelensky, and I think that's just terrific.



This so made my day 

Seriously though, he can't look good coming out of this either, can he.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> This so made my day
> 
> Seriously though, he can't look good coming out of this either, can he.


He's in a tough spot. He needs US aid because his country is occupied by the Russians, yet he ran on a base of anti-corruption. On the other hand, he supposedly reported this to the House Democrats or something. On the third hand, anything that makes Ukraine look bad is good for Putin.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> He's in a tough spot. He needs US aid because his country is occupied by the Russians, yet he ran on a base of anti-corruption. On the other hand, he supposedly reported this to the House Democrats or something. On the third hand, anything that makes Ukraine look bad is good for Putin.



I guess in Pripyat, you can have three hands.


----------



## Ralyks

In Soviet Russia, hand others on you?


----------



## BlackSG91

It's amazing how Trump threw Mike Pence under the bus for also making phone calls to the Ukraine. If both he & Donald get removed from office then the only successor to the Oval Office would be Nancy Pelosi...proof that there is a God.


;>)/


----------



## c7spheres

BlackSG91 said:


> It's amazing how Trump threw Mike Pence under the bus for also making phone calls to the Ukraine. If both he & Donald get removed from office then the only successor to the Oval Office would be Nancy Pelosi...proof that there is a God.
> 
> 
> ;>)/


 Pelosi would be great for president. She seems nice. I don't even care what she stands for. She just seems nice. : )


----------



## oversteve

StevenC said:


> Apparently Ukrainians are calling their president Monica Zelensky, and I think that's just terrific.


Funny think is that he compared Ukraine to a prostitute or a whore while doing his comedy stand ups , and now karma comes bashing him


----------



## oversteve

Ralyks said:


> This so made my day
> 
> Seriously though, he can't look good coming out of this either, can he.



Majority of people here in Ukraine are very susceptible to propaganda, you can say that Zelensky won the elections due to the media relentlesly bashing his opponent for what he has and hasn't done while praising him and due to the comedy drama where he played a president. So unless the media start working against him or the prices rise up to the extent that people cannot bear them they will tolerate him whatever he does...


----------



## Ralyks

So why are we still in estimating Hilary?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> So why are we still in estimating Hilary?



Because we're getting close to another election. It worked for them last time, so perhaps they think it'll work again.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because we're getting close to another election. It worked for them last time, so perhaps they think it'll work again.



When, you know, that was the person he was actually running against 

Hunter Biden is slimey AF but it's funny to me Trump couldn't get the ammunition he wanted on them, so they're going back to the well on the Hillary stuff again.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> When, you know, that was the person he was actually running against
> 
> Hunter Biden is slimey AF but it's funny to me Trump couldn't get the ammunition he wanted on them, so they're going back to the well on the Hillary stuff again.



Yeah, they kind of flew too close to the sun on the Hunter Biden thing. Were it not for the whistle blower it probably would have been what they push the most vs. old nemesis.


----------



## Ralyks

From what I’m reading, there’s no way to avoid the impeachment because either 1. He hands over docs and it helps with making him look back or 2. He stonewalls and then gets obstructing congress added to it.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, they kind of flew too close to the sun on the Hunter Biden thing. Were it not for the whistle blower it probably would have been what they push the most vs. old nemesis.


Honestly, despite the progressive/socialist left taking great joy in "Pelosi only cared when Trump went after an establishment candidate," there may actually be something to your point, though not for the reasons the far left thinks. 

The whistleblower complaint didn't even mention Clinton. There are two reasons for this that I can see: 

1) It falls short of the "urgent" test, since whatever Trump is doing to re-litigate the 2016 election, it's not especially likely to have any impact at all on 2020. 
2) The Clinton/DNC email server question has been extensively researched under the Mueller investigation, and the Dems have not yet made any serious move to go forward with impeachment as a result of the Mueller report. 

Had Trump only asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Clinton, I don't know if this would have moved forward through the intelligence committee the way it did, and with public opinion being so entrenched after the Mueller report was released, I'm not sure they would have wanted to open that pandora's box. I think the fact this was a _new_ attempt to dig up dirt on a _different_ opponent is why this has blown up as fast as it did - it confirms the earlier pattern that the Mueller report suggested but couldn't actually prove, it has the potential to impact an _upcoming_ election, and public opinion is much less solidified here than it is on Russian meddling, which by now is kind of an article of faith on both sides of the aisle. 

tl;dr - Trump could have asked them to open an investigation that somehow impunged Sanders, and this would have blown up just as fast. 



Randy said:


> When, you know, that was the person he was actually running against
> 
> Hunter Biden is slimey AF but it's funny to me Trump couldn't get the ammunition he wanted on them, so they're going back to the well on the Hillary stuff again.


The irony also isn't lost on me that the gist of the allegations here, near as I can tell, is Biden used his influence to get his son a job on an Ukranian energy company board, then used his influence to shut down an investigation on that board by firing the prosecutor. Which is funny, because Trump used his influence to get Ivanka and Jarrod white house jobs and Eric and Don Jr campaign jobs, and then fired the investigator looking into his campaign to try to shut down the investigation.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> From what I’m reading, there’s no way to avoid the impeachment because either 1. He hands over docs and it helps with making him look back or 2. He stonewalls and then gets obstructing congress added to it.


IMO, only way he can avoid being impeached at this point is to come up with evidence that the blocking of Ukrainian aid was above the line, while simultaneously reframing the question here so that what's at stake is whether or not there was an explicit quid pro quo, and not the fact that leaning on the Ukranian president to open an investigation into the son of a political rival was _itself_ inappropriate and very likely an unconstitutional abuse of executive power and dereliction of the oath of office. 

Dems have the votes to move forward if they want to, a couple Republicans have come out and said, while stopping short of supporting impeachment, that they support an impeachment _investigation_, anyone on the GOP delegation of the Senate Intelligence Committee who reviewed the whistleblower report before it was declassified basically refused to comment, rather than the usual jumping to Trump's defense we'd become accustomed to, and McConnell stated today in an interview that if the House _were_ to impeach, he would "have no choice" but to open hearings, eliminating one more potential way out for Trump where the House impeaches but the Senate continuously postpones and never actually gets around to hearing the case. 

Unless a whole lot of mitigating evidence comes out in a hurry, this is a greater existential threat to the Trump presidency than the Mueller investigation was, and there's a strong case to be made that Mueller intended that Trump should be impeached for obstruction of justice.


----------



## Ralyks

Ok, now he’s threatening a civil war if impeached. This is getting out of hand even by his standards.

Meanwhile, Giuliani subpoenaed for Ukraine documents, and Chris Collins resigning ahead of being charged with insider training. What a day.


----------



## Vyn

Oh, and now apparently our Prime Minister is involved in this. For fuck's sake 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ott-morrison-for-help-mueller-report/11562604


----------



## StevenC

Vyn said:


> Oh, and now apparently our Prime Minister is involved in this. For fuck's sake
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...ott-morrison-for-help-mueller-report/11562604


It seems like, being Australia, you could do something about this...


----------



## Vyn

StevenC said:


> It seems like, being Australia, you could do something about this...



We tried - there was a recent election to vote the current mob out however the opposition was lead by a very unpopular leader and had a portfolio of policies too broad so that the slogans and "We don't need to do anything, she'll be right mate" message of the conservative party was the only thing that cut through. As a result we are still being governed by a mob of climate change deniers and coal worshippers.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## Drew

So, Pompeo told the State Department not to comply with House impeachment inquyity requests. Reportedly, his staff is refusing to comply, with the State Dept. IG scheduling a meeting tomorrow to discuss and provide documents, and a few others agreeing to appear before committee. 

That's a _very _bad sign for Trump.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> So, Pompeo told the State Department not to comply with House impeachment inquyity requests. Reportedly, his staff is refusing to comply, with the State Dept. IG scheduling a meeting tomorrow to discuss and provide documents, and a few others agreeing to appear before committee.
> 
> That's a _very _bad sign for Trump.



My impression, based on history, is to try and slow the process by getting this into the courts.


----------



## Ralyks

So not only did Pompeo try to block staff, but he’s now admitted he was part of the phone call.

I don’t think he gets how this works. Or realizes he’s boned and confessed. I’m going for the former.


----------



## Thaeon

If the RNC endorses him again after this fiasco, I have no idea what to think about them. Were it me, I might just back out of the race, "Dem's can have this one, we're clearly needing to pull our pants up and get our shit together."


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My impression, based on history, is to try and slow the process by getting this into the courts.


Probably their approach. What would be concerning for Trump here is it's looking rather like Pompeo be damned, the State Department _staff_ aren't willing to risk the consequences of ignoring a subpoena from an impeachment inquiry, and this may continue to move rapidly.

The State Dept IG is briefing congressional intelligence committees today, I'll be curious what comes out of that.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> If the RNC endorses him again after this fiasco, I have no idea what to think about them. Were it me, I might just back out of the race, "Dem's can have this one, we're clearly needing to pull our pants up and get our shit together."



Yeah I think i talked about that earlier or elsewhere. He put the fear of God into the Rs with threats and some success primarying people who aren't on board and the fact he has these high approval ratings among R voters, but I think those voters will blow in whatever direction the party goes anyway.

If I'm a Republican and I haven't been up Trump's ass but I say "hey, I'm in favor of border security, I'm in favor of tax cuts, I'm in favor of 2A but fuck this guy and his distractions and failure to deliver because he's divisive", I would bet that's a winning pitch in most states.

We'll see if they grow a backbone. I'm seeing increased speculation if McConnell is forced to do an earnest impeachment trial, there's a chance they get to 2/3rds considering Dems are nearly 50% of Senate and likely to all vote in favor, and you only need what, like 20 Republicans in either Blue, Purple or Red states that are fed up with Trump? An impeachment on 2016 Russian collusion would've stained Pence too much but Trump and his minions being the main perpetrator of this Ukraine thing draws a safe line. You get President Pence for 6 months with an option for 2020 or new candidate is one of the people who helped out him.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> So not only did Pompeo try to block staff, but he’s now admitted he was part of the phone call.
> 
> I don’t think he gets how this works. Or realizes he’s boned and confessed. I’m going for the former.



One thing I just struggle with: IF our leaders are REALLY so stupid, wtf does this say about us???


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> You get President Pence for 6 months with an option for 2020 or new candidate is one of the people who helped out him.



How bad WOULD a President Pence be?

With Donald's attention whoring, I struggle to discern whether this Pence character is the usual butt-ugly goblin with a few party connections and the charisma of bad furniture that most American candidates USUALLY run with (being the egomaniacs they all are)... or something far more ominous?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see if they grow a backbone. I'm seeing increased speculation if McConnell is forced to do an earnest impeachment trial, there's a chance they get to 2/3rds considering Dems are nearly 50% of Senate and likely to all vote in favor, and you only need what, like 20 Republicans in either Blue, Purple or Red states that are fed up with Trump? An impeachment on 2016 Russian collusion would've stained Pence too much but Trump and his minions being the main perpetrator of this Ukraine thing draws a safe line. You get President Pence for 6 months with an option for 2020 or new candidate is one of the people who helped out him.


I've also seen insider estimation that 30-33 Republican senators would vote to impeach if it was an anonymous vote, and since they get to set their own rules of procedure in an impeachment, I could totally see someone like Romney who is in a safe seat where the electoral costs of opposing Trump are pretty low proposing a secret ballot. If that were to happen, then yeah, Trump is a goner. 

I saw an outlet, Politico maybe, also note that technically impeachment doesn't HAVE to both remove someone from office, and prevent them from holding office again, as it has the power to do both but there is no requirement they're done together, so the Senate could impeach Trump, but allow him to run in 2020, and they proposed they should do just that to both punish him for clearly unconstitutional acts but also "let the people decide." I don't think that's realistic, but mentioning it in the spirit of making conversation.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> How bad WOULD a President Pence be?
> 
> With Donald's attention whoring, I struggle to discern whether this Pence character is the usual butt-ugly goblin with a few party connections and the charisma of bad furniture that most American candidates USUALLY run with (being the egomaniacs they all are)... or something far more ominous?


Pence is an EXTREME religious right politician. Given his way we'd see full rollback of LGBTQ protections, ban on abortion, ban on same sex marriage, and widespread rollout of other "faith-based" measures. This is the man who won't eat dinner with another woman for fear of offending god or being tempted into sin.

He won't be as volatile and reactionary as Trump - the POTUS twitter account would quiet down in a hurry - and we'd see a lot less of the neoptism and self-dealing. And I think he'd be a more reliable negotiator in, say, trade related matters. I also think the xenophobia would get rolled back, from an "off the charts" to maybe a 5-6 on a 1-10 scale. He'd be a much more conventional president, just WAY too religious in a country with a separation of church and state, and way too uncommitted to preserving that separation.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Pence is an EXTREME religious right politician. Given his way we'd see full rollback of LGBTQ protections, ban on abortion, ban on same sex marriage, and widespread rollout of other "faith-based" measures. This is the man who won't eat dinner with another woman for fear of offending god or being tempted into sin.
> 
> He won't be as volatile and reactionary as Trump - the POTUS twitter account would quiet down in a hurry - and we'd see a lot less of the neoptism and self-dealing. And I think he'd be a more reliable negotiator in, say, trade related matters. I also think the xenophobia would get rolled back, from an "off the charts" to maybe a 5-6 on a 1-10 scale. He'd be a much more conventional president, just WAY too religious in a country with a separation of church and state, and way too uncommitted to preserving that separation.



That's problematic

And not even for the reasons that you listed.

Because this leaves three potential conclusions:

Hypocrisy option 1: fake fake fake

Hypocrisy option 2: sellout who can't hardly stand being in the same room with our godless whoring Chief Pussy Grabber, but is willing to gag through it for self-advancement

Scheming fanatic option 3: he's the real deal. He'd just hoped the American people would have impeached Trump much sooner, since he only signed up for this with hopes of landing in the oval quickly and advancing some un-electable agendas.


----------



## Ralyks

Even if we had Pence in the interim, no way he's there beyond 2020. I think he scares even most Republicans.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> That's problematic
> 
> And not even for the reasons that you listed.
> 
> Because this leaves three potential conclusions:
> 
> Hypocrisy option 1: fake fake fake
> 
> Hypocrisy option 2: sellout who can't hardly stand being in the same room with our godless whoring Chief Pussy Grabber, but is willing to gag through it for self-advancement
> 
> Scheming fanatic option 3: he's the real deal. He'd just hoped the American people would have impeached Trump much sooner, since he only signed up for this with hopes of landing in the oval quickly and advancing some un-electable agendas.


More likely, he was pitched the same deal Kasich was, where he could be in charge of foreign and domestic policy, and Trump was in charge of making America great again. 

He's probably a bit miffed Trump hasn't kept his word, come to think of it.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> He's probably a bit miffed Trump hasn't kept his word, come to think of it.



Trump lying to people to get what he wants and then pulling the rug out from under them? So uncharacteristic! He's literally a Die Hard villain.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Pence, deep down, hates Trump. He's just along for the ride because 1) he thinks God told him he'll be president this way somehow and 2) Trump doesn't care what Pence does to the LGBTQ community. 

Every interaction the two have, which is very infrequent, is awkward and leads to some sort of gaffe that makes the other (usually Pence) seem awful, or stupid, or weak. 

I don't think Pence can do _that much_ damage in 6 months, and he's nowhere near likable to run as #1 on the ticket, so let it be.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Trump lying to people to get what he wants and then pulling the rug out from under them? So uncharacteristic! He's literally a Die Hard villain.


Weirdest thing, eh? 

Single pettiest thing he's ever done, IMO, was preventing Sean Spicer (a devout roman catholic) from meeting the Pope when he visited the Vatican. As far as the hurtful things Trump has done this barely represents a blip on the radar, but as far as things he's done to go out of his way to spite someone for no other reason than to be spiteful, it's hard to top.


----------



## Thaeon

I think Pence in office would largely be a lame duck as far as policy is concerned. And he's not going to get an election bid on 2020. He's certainly far too religious for the good of the country. However, the herculean amount of damage Trump has done to the country and the office itself is pretty clear to anyone really watching. And I think that Pence has much greater respect for the office and the country itself than Trump does.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Ad30Co7sATR6PolGKU95KCg

So now Trump is urging the Urakine and China (y'know, the country he's trade earring with and tariffing) to look into Biden. IS HE FUCKING KIDDING?!

Oh, and going after Thunberg on Twitter again.


----------



## Randy

I'm personally all little stunned the hypocrisy doesn't turn the guy to stone instantly.

Hasn't he and the Republicans spent the last 3 years crowing over "Obama wire tapping Trump Tower" and funding a dossier with the help of a foreign country and with coordination from the DOJ to investigate Trump and associates for unfounded crimes in an effort to damage his campaign for president?

And you literally just move a couple of the names around and that's exactly what he's doing to Biden out in the open now?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ADmCnhUOITySeXBvpWb7hSA

On top of that, Republican senators echoed Biden in urging Ukrainian president to reform prosecutor general's office.


----------



## sleewell

trump needs to go but the dems are pretty pathetic. i can tell why it was so hard for biden to decide to run or not. he clearly has dementia. 

is trump trying to get impeached? does another country have something on him? does he think pence would pardon him to avoid the criminal charges he is facing? if russia has something on trump forcing an impeachment and bringing up phrases like civil war would really help to further destabilize our country. 

read the transcript of the ukraine call to a trump supporter but say obama did it instead of trump. how do they respond?


----------



## Adieu

IMHO, the whole facade of half of the country fanatically defending Trump (who supposedly can do no wrong) is actually a peculiar form of BUYER'S REMORSE

You know the symptoms, that vocal denial stage when someone splurges on a promising toy and it's a total flop, but they run around arguing with everyone how wonderful their shiny new guitar/amp/computer/truck/whatever is... it's pretty much equivalent to the bargaining stage of grief.

And when it turns --- as it invariably does --- it turns HARD.


----------



## Randy

So what you're saying is that Donald Trump is Zune.


----------



## Adieu

Not sure what that is?

I'm saying Trump is the dog they FINALLY got for Christmas and bragged about to the whole class.

By the end of the first week turns out it's retarded, pooping everywhere, biting the hand that feeds it, humping everyone's legs, and being a general bitter disappointment... but dad said too bad so sad, no refunds no takebacks, go walk the dog and don't forget your pooper scooper son.

So the prideful child bites back the tears and keeps on bragging about the damn mutt to everyone, more and more.

Why? Because they HATE THAT FUCKING DOG. But no one can ever ever know!


----------



## vilk

Or in fewer words, it's like a Ford owner.


----------



## Adieu

vilk said:


> Or in fewer words, it's like a Ford owner.



Shaddup

I ♡ my truck


----------



## vilk

Adieu said:


> Shaddup
> 
> I ♡ my truck



Which of your truck's transmissions do you love more, the original or the rebuild?  I'm sorry I'm just goofin. I drive an Escape that shits on me every chance it's ever had.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Not sure what that is?



Exactly. And hopefully in three years, people will be saying the same thing about Trump.


----------



## spudmunkey

vilk said:


> Which of your truck's transmissions do you love more, the original or the rebuild?  I'm sorry I'm just goofin. I drive an Escape that shits on me every chance it's ever had.



Driving a Ford transmission past the warranty is asking for trouble.

I say that as a long-time Ford fan. 

Besides...the Escape isn't a "truck" anyway.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, a Zune was, I believe Microsofts?, Take on the iPod. And yeah, no surprise you didn't know what it was.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> So what you're saying is that Donald Trump is Zune.



That's a disservice to the Zune. I had both, and the Zune was legitimately a better product. In shittier colors. Literally.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Driving a Ford transmission past the warranty is asking for trouble.
> 
> I say that as a long-time Ford fan.



I'm not a "HURR AMERICAN CARS SUCK" guy but I grew up with my mom driving every model Ford Taurus that came out, and every one disintegrated the minute it made it past 150,000 miles. My girlfriend's main car far a long time was a Ford Focus, what also started to die around 180,000 miles.

By comparison, my old car was a VW jetta that had 380,000 miles without a spot of rust and I only got rid of it because it needed a clutch and I'd become bored with it, girlfriend's car is a Jetta with 290,000 miles on it and the car I drive to work everyday is a Hyundai Sonata with 280,000miles on it. All of them with the original engine and transmission they left the factory with.

I mean, if you're somebody that leases or buys new on a regular basis I guess it doesn't matter but the idea a car is disposable after 10 years or 140,000 miles is a uniquely American narrative IME.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> That's a disservice to the Zune. I had both, and the Zune was legitimately a better product. In shittier colors. Literally.



You had both a Zune AND Donald Trump? You poor soul.


----------



## Ralyks

I drove two Taurus's and helped a friend buu a third. All 3 did not fair well.

Then again, I'm a Subaru guy...


----------



## c7spheres

Every Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler I had (a total of about 6 or them) was a complete piece of junk. No matter how well I babied them, did maintenance and properly I drove they then just fell apart for no reason. I think they were all bulit by hungover people on the Monday after the SuperBowl or something. The all sucked. 
- Go back to one of my first cars, a used 84' Toyota Corolla with over 250,000 miles, owned by an ex gang banger that had hydraulics on it and used to bounce it off the ground (all 4 tires) ,busted and rewelded the frame 4 times etc before I even bought it. I never changed the oil, drove it like a crazy kid, romped it in the desert sand, jumped it of dirt hills, used it as a snow mobile up north etc. and it wouldn't die. Bought it for $1200 with the stereo system too. I was the only guy rockin Pantera and Metallica on a pair of Fosgate sub's at 150db! -- I finally threw out the tranny when I didn't notice I was riding in 2nd gear for 20 miles at 70mph. I threw it down into 2nd because I drove it through a flooded wash and didn't feel or hear it beacuse my system was blasting. Even after that I still had 1st, 2nd and reverse for about 2 months, then only 2nd and no reverese for about a month. It was crazy driving like that. Then it finally died. Best car I ever had. Wish I just got it fixed rather than get a new car. : )


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Driving a Ford transmission past the warranty is asking for trouble.
> 
> I say that as a long-time Ford fan.
> 
> Besides...the Escape isn't a "truck" anyway.



You DO know that, for most intents and purposes, there's like a whole whopping TWO transmissions on the market for most "N-speed automatic" generations?

A GM design and a ZF design. Some later get licensed though, so there's weird ones like Ford-built versions of ZFs (which, surprisingly, are actually somewhat upgraded and improved)

But still, you can literally have the same tranny in a BMW 3series and a Lincoln Navigator.


PS and it's the GM ones that reaaaaally suck. I knew some livery drivers who were on their FOURTH tranny in their Suburbans


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> You DO know that, for most intents and purposes, there's like a whole whopping TWO transmissions on the market for most "N-speed automatic" generations?
> 
> A GM design and a ZF design. Some later get licensed though, so there's weird ones like Ford-built versions of ZFs (which, surprisingly, are actually somewhat upgraded and improved)
> 
> But still, you can literally have the same tranny in a BMW 3series and a Lincoln Navigator.
> 
> 
> PS and it's the GM ones that reaaaaally suck. I knew some livery drivers who were on their FOURTH tranny in their Suburbans



Didn't mean to include Ford as a way to exclude others. I personally had an Escort, Ranger, Explorer (two), F150, and my parents had 2 more explorers, an F150 that i learned to drive on, an earlier Escort, a Grenada, a Windstar, and currently have an Edge and an Explorer. The only one of that whole list that didn't need to have it's transmission at least rebuilt, if not replaced, within 100,000 miles was the Ford Ranger. A) Because it was a 2-year lease, and B) because i rolled/totaled it 3 weeks before the lease was up. 

*edit: Almost forgot to include my '01 Mercury Cougar. Needed transmittion re-built at under 80k.

**edit 2: Also, I wasn't just including automatics. My Ranger, one of the explorers, the F150s, the Grenada were all manual. Not sure about the others...


----------



## Vyn

vilk said:


> Or in fewer words, it's like an American made car owner.



FIFY  There hasn't been a good car come out of the states in the last 10-20 years.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Randy said:


> Exactly. And hopefully in three years, people will be saying the same thing about Trump.


You think it's gonna be in an "I have no idea who that is" kinda way or "Oh god, we swept that under the rug, don't mention it" kinda way?


----------



## Ralyks

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> You think it's gonna be in an "I have no idea who that is" kinda way or "Oh god, we swept that under the rug, don't mention it" kinda way?



The latter. Don’t forget he was around forever prior to his presidency. As I mentioned previously, my dislike of him began as a little kid seeing his cameo in Home Alone 2.


----------



## Randy

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> You think it's gonna be in an "I have no idea who that is" kinda way or "Oh god, we swept that under the rug, don't mention it" kinda way?



See also: George W. Bush, basically.

The closer it got to 2008, the more Republicans you had saying 'I never agreed with the war in Iraq anyway, TBH' after we heard 6 or 7 years of them beating the drum and calling people traitors for saying the same thing. Likewise, AFTER the election was over and GWB was on his way out the door, you had loads of people saying 'I never liked him anyway but you know, best of a bad situation' grumble grumble grumble, and not long after that, you couldn't find anybody volunteering that they voted for him in the first place.

And miraculously, these same people that stubbornly insisted he HAD to be the guy and you weren't allowed to disagree with him on anything were the same people that said you HAVE to support Donald Trump (including spitting in their patron St. GWB, St. GHWB and St. McCain at his behest).

They remind me of bandwagon sports fans. Only show up when the team is winning, only interested in 'being right', passionately anti-opposition, but they're the first rats to jump of the ship once it starts sinking. Fragile egos that can't handle the concept of give and take, ebb and flow. If I'm not winning, I'm not participating.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

vilk said:


> Which of your truck's transmissions do you love more, the original or the rebuild?  I'm sorry I'm just goofin. I drive an Escape that shits on me every chance it's ever had.



Fuck, I was feelin' good about my mustang until I got to this one.

NAH....U RIGHT. Love that car but those transmissions are T R A S H.


----------



## sleewell

i have a 2014 flex that has been pretty good for 4 years so far.


can you imagine the outrage on faux news if obama had his personal atty (who was never senate confirmed and is not a govt employee) out there working with the state dept on international affairs?


----------



## Ralyks

Bernie had a heart attack.
He's gotta drop out at this point, doesn't he...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Bernie had a heart attack.
> He's gotta drop out at this point, doesn't he...



Yeah. That's probably the death knell to his campaign. He's been fighting the image of a fragile old man since the beginning and this is pretty much the worse case scenario to that, outside of a terminal illness like cancer. 

I say that as someone who would whole-heartedly vote for him. 

It'll interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe he'll get passed it, if not, I can see a huge surge for Warren, which I'm also perfectly happy about.

That's probably the best scenario: practically all Sanders folks move to the Warren camp and she trounces Biden handedly.


----------



## spudmunkey

I was suprised Bernie's age got him as far as it did for 2016! He's only 5 years older than trump, but he shows it more. And the words "heart attack" aren't confidence inspiring, when the VP is described as "one heartbeat away from the presidency".

OK, so he left the hospital with triumphantly-raised arms...but...no. Any lingering thoughts I had to put any support behind him have passed. And it wouldn't really matter how i felt about his politics a this point: it's purely about perceived electability.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's probably the best scenario: practically all Sanders folks move to the Warren camp and she trounces Biden handedly.



As someone who currently would.vote Warren, yeah, guess that's a silver lining.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> As someone who currently would.vote Warren, yeah, guess that's a silver lining.



The shitty part is it's going to be a long drawn out self-defeating shit show. 

I'm thinking at least 6 more months before reality sets in for the Sanders campaign.

Again, really like Bernie, but it's time to cut your losses and think big picture. Consolidate the progressive campaign while it's still fairly friendly.

It was fairly inevitable that the Warren and Sanders campaigns would at some point cannibalize each other we just didn't know who would blink first.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AEFvi2R7OSpGnq2PcQCjfYg

Second whistleblower has come forward to the IG, and this one actually has first hand knowledge of the events of the Ukraine scandal.


----------



## @zwen

I thought the accusations of Russian Collusion were bullshit, but this is super troubling. Even Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro admit that Trump’s self-proclaimed innocence is a “hard sell.”


----------



## Adieu

@zwen said:


> I thought the accusations of Russian Collusion were bullshit, but this is super troubling. Even Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro admit that Trump’s self-proclaimed innocence is a “hard sell.”




Anyone who thinks the Russians didn't approach him just doesn't understand how Russian security and intelligence types think. Of course they did. It's too much of a career maker not to try.

....and anyone who doesn't think he engaged in dialogue with them to some degree is looking more and more lacking in understanding of how Trump's mind works


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Anyone who thinks the Russians didn't approach him just doesn't understand how Russian security and intelligence types think. Of course they did. It's too much of a career maker not to try.
> 
> ....and anyone who doesn't think he engaged in dialogue with them to some degree is looking more and more lacking in understanding of how Trump's mind works


I mean...


----------



## @zwen

I wish the admins hadn’t locked down that post. I am not a White Nationalist, quite the opposite, in fact. I am Antifa. I just believe our country is in for a radical change in it’s political system, and I detail why I think it’s possible that they could takeover the United States via elections. I see MAGA as a separate entity now because White Nationalists themselves have distanced themselves from Trump.


----------



## ExileMetal

Finally, a point on the board for the United States of America:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/nyregion/trump-taxes-lawsuit-vance.html

It’ll probably get appealed and die in a game of Devil’s Triangle, but I’ll take a win where we can get it.


----------



## Randy

If past history is any indicator, this will end up in SCOTUS (or another court, I'm not sure how far up the food chain this is) and the Dems will relax any deadlines for this to be delivered while they wait for appeal. For some reason.


----------



## iamaom

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah. That's probably the death knell to his campaign. He's been fighting the image of a fragile old man since the beginning and this is pretty much the worse case scenario to that, outside of a terminal illness like cancer.
> 
> I say that as someone who would whole-heartedly vote for him.


This hits me double hard as Hillary collapses in public and the media was hush-hush about it, and Trump got elected despite being just as old as Bernie and eating Mcdonalds everyday.


----------



## Randy

iamaom said:


> This hits me double hard as Hillary collapses in public and the media was hush-hush about it, and Trump got elected despite being just as old as Bernie and eating Mcdonalds everyday.



There's a great John Mulvaney bit where he talks about how savage little kids are at bullying because they latch right onto the thing you're most self conscious about and latch right on.

That's been Trump's tactic from the beginning, and the thing he's the best at IMO.

Hillary and her 'cloak and dagger' nature, particularly her desire to obscure even the most trivial things, and then the health concerns, and on cue she faints (at a 9/11 memorial ceremony!) and there's a rush to lie/cover-up/obscure what happened. He takes shit that has little to nothing to do with somebody's leadership capabilities next to his, and totally disarms them over something trivial by baiting people into saying "well, he is kinda right...".

The problem with fighting back against Trump with the same tactic is that his only Achilles heel is his ego, but saying things like "He's not worth as much as he thinks he is!" stab the guy right through the heart but is the kinda thing voters give absolutely no shits about. Every shot at the guy is a glancing blow.

But my main point is that he's completely immune to hypocrisy. The guy is walking heart attack but his voters will see absolutely no irony in him attacking someone else's health. As long as he lands the blow, he can be the pot calling the kettle old over and over again.


----------



## Ralyks

And everyday I wonder how was THIS asshole the one to pull that tactic off.


----------



## sleewell

wait so if everything you did was perfect and you have nothing to hide why are you blocking witness testimony, withholding docs and trying to cover it all up? don't guilty people act that way?


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> wait so if everything you did was perfect and you have nothing to hide why are you blocking witness testimony, withholding docs and trying to cover it all up? don't guilty people act that way?



That's a level of cognition lost on Trump supporters. Trump's argument is that the Dems and the media will lie and twist anything they get no matter how innocent it is, so he, Pompeo and Co. are doubling down on "this is a witch hunt and we're not going to humor them on it", and that's all their supporters need to hear.

That might have been an effective strategy when the Dems were trying to go 'death by a million papercuts' by nickel and diming them on a subpeona here or subpeona there for obscure bills by obscure committees, but now that we're in impeachment inquiry territory, the protocol specifically assumes the Executive Branch would be inclined NOT to comply. That essentially tells Trump that "no" isn't an answer.


----------



## sleewell

excuse my language but the dems are a bunch of pussies. republicans may be wrong on a lot of issues but at least they act. the dems look weak and spineless. they look like they have never stood up to a bully and have no idea why crying to mom isnt working. if the situation were reversed and trump were a democrat (like he has been his entire life) the gop would have booted him out a long time ago.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The shitty part is it's going to be a long drawn out self-defeating shit show.
> 
> I'm thinking at least 6 more months before reality sets in for the Sanders campaign.
> 
> Again, really like Bernie, but it's time to cut your losses and think big picture. Consolidate the progressive campaign while it's still fairly friendly.
> 
> It was fairly inevitable that the Warren and Sanders campaigns would at some point cannibalize each other we just didn't know who would blink first.


The only thing I would say against this, is what from his 2016 campaign gives you any indication Sanders is the sort of candidate who will cut his losses and think big picture? I think the clear right thing for him to do here is recognize that his having a heart attack in the middle of his primary campaign would make him an extremely risky top-of-ticket pick and the general election would be a referendum on his VP if he were to somehow win, but my gut feeling here is the only way Sanders suspends his campaign and his supporters rally around an alternative (and the politics are more complex than they might seem at first glance, by the way - I haven't seen post-Ukraine numbers but the last polling I saw, a plurality of Sanders supporters named Biden as their second pick) would be if the second heart attack kills him. At which point, and forgive me for making light of this, his supporters will probably just blame Clinton.  



iamaom said:


> This hits me double hard as Hillary collapses in public and the media was hush-hush about it, and Trump got elected despite being just as old as Bernie and eating Mcdonalds everyday.


Were they? I remember SHE tried to brush it under the rug, but Trump pounced immediately and it became a pretty big story, at least until the Comey letter a couple weeks later ate up all the bandwidth. Honestly, I've been a little out of the loop lately, but I feel like Bernie's heart attack is getting a lot less media coverage than Clinton's fainting at a campaign event did, which makes a lot of sense I suppose because Sanders was maybe the third-most likely nominee at the time, while Clinton was the favorite to win the Presidency at the time.


----------



## Drew

@zwen said:


> I thought the accusations of Russian Collusion were bullshit, but this is super troubling. Even Conservative pundits like Ben Shapiro admit that Trump’s self-proclaimed innocence is a “hard sell.”


I disagree on the Russian accusations - Mueller found plenty of evidence of mutually-beneficial behavior but no explicit agreement of support, although he did find plenty of evidence of obstruction - but I suppose at the end of the day I'm mostly relieved that someone who could find the Mueller report "not a big deal" could then turn around and find the (IMO) way--more-explicit Ukraine scandal "super troubling." I think the Russian collusion was troubling but stopped short of a smoking gun, whereas the transcript alone probably constitutes one, before we even start talking about the White House suppressing it, the cancellation of military aid for unknown reasons, Trump making even taking the call conditional on assurances Ukraine would investigate Biden, etc etc etc. 



@zwen said:


> I wish the admins hadn’t locked down that post. I am not a White Nationalist, quite the opposite, in fact. I am Antifa. I just believe our country is in for a radical change in it’s political system, and I detail why I think it’s possible that they could takeover the United States via elections. I see MAGA as a separate entity now because White Nationalists themselves have distanced themselves from Trump.


Nothing good would have come of that thread. Trust me.


----------



## sleewell

mueller failed big time by not forcing trump to sit down for an interview. allowing the target of an investigation to dictate the terms is unacceptable.


trump came out on national tv and asked the russians to hack clinton. we need to stop accepting him saying that he was joking. he is not joking. he asked for collusion. they started hacking that night.


----------



## Randy

Fwiw


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> wait so if everything you did was perfect and you have nothing to hide why are you blocking witness testimony, withholding docs and trying to cover it all up? don't guilty people act that way?



These are Trump supporters; logic and reason hold no sway with them. 




Drew said:


> The only thing I would say against this, is what from his 2016 campaign gives you any indication Sanders is the sort of candidate who will cut his losses and think big picture?



Unfortunately, this is a good point. I don't think he can win, and his remaining in the race just divides voters on the left.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Fwiw
> View attachment 73416


Yeah, nothing about this surprises me.  It doesn't matter, though - this put a hard cap on his upside, if you're concerned about beating Trump in the general election, a man one week removed from a heart attack is not going to be your first choice unless you were already 100% on board.



tedtan said:


> Unfortunately, this is a good point. I don't think he can win, and his remaining in the race just divides voters on the left.



I don't think it will as long as we don't get a repeat of 2016 with Sanders refusing to concede well after he's been mathematically eliminated and causing some pretty large cracks in the Democratic coalition. I think that's a less likely outcome if he's 3rd or 4th in the voting, rather than 2nd. However, a Democratic Socialist isn't especially likely to give a shit about Democratic party unity coming into 2020, so yeah, it's a risk...


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Fwiw
> View attachment 73416



His campaign surges head. It didn't say his performance in the polls surges ahead.


----------



## sleewell

Drew said:


> I don't think it will as long as we don't get a repeat of 2016 with Sanders refusing to concede well after he's been mathematically eliminated and causing some pretty large cracks in the Democratic coalition. I think that's a less likely outcome if he's 3rd or 4th in the voting, rather than 2nd. However, a Democratic Socialist isn't especially likely to give a shit about Democratic party unity coming into 2020, so yeah, it's a risk...





ummmmmmm that didn't happen at all. Sanders got completely hosed by the DNC. from the beginning whenever they showed the delegates totals they were counting all of the superdelegates for hillary, which helped convince people she had already won or that the lead was so large it wasnt worth voting for sanders. also right before the California primary hillary's camp erroneously said she had won the nomination and it for sure affected would be voters. there were many clips from voters that said they heard clinton had won so they didn't vote as planned in CA. if sanders won CA which, was a real possibility at the time, it would have been a totally different race. 

The fix from the dnc was in from the beginning and it cost the dems the general election by falsely propping up a horrible candidate. 

all that being said i dont think sanders should be running now. he has some good ideas but i'm not voting for someone who is that old with heart issues.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> ummmmmmm that didn't happen at all. Sanders got completely hosed by the DNC. from the beginning whenever they showed the delegates totals they were counting all of the superdelegates for hillary, which helped convince people she had already won or that the lead was so large it wasnt worth voting for sanders. also right before the California primary hillary's camp erroneously said she had won the nomination and it for sure affected would be voters. there were many clips from voters that said they heard clinton had won so they didn't vote as planned in CA. if sanders won CA which, was a real possibility at the time, it would have been a totally different race.
> 
> The fix from the dnc was in from the beginning and it cost the dems the general election by falsely propping up a horrible candidate.
> 
> all that being said i dont think sanders should be running now. he has some good ideas but i'm not voting for someone who is that old with heart issues.


No, they didn't.  It's been a long-standing practice to include pledged superdelegates in thedelegate count, just as it's been long standing practice for the second-place candidate to complain about this. That was Clinton in 2008, and despite her also jumping to an early superdelegate lead, when it became apparent Obama was winning the delegate vote the superdelegates coalesced around him. 

And it was the AP that started calling Clinton the presumptive nominee, something Clinton's camp tried to downplay, Sanders was never particularly close to bringing California into play, and since California gives out delegates proportionally rather than winner take all so had Sanders won by Clinton's margins instead of vice verse, Sanders would have gained 254 pledged delegates to Clinton's 221, and would have tightened the delegate count by 33 - 0.8% of total pledged delegates - rather than falling 33 further behind. It would have been a symbolic, but empty, victory - with Clinton at 2271 pledged delegates to Sanders' 1820, moving 33 from her camp to his would have left her with 2,238 to his 1,853, still a commanding lead. And that's just pledged delegates, totally ignoring the 714 superdelegates. That's hardly a "totally different race."


----------



## Vyn

^Have to agree with @Drew on this one, Sanders didn't have a hope in hell of winning nomination. Too progressive for the majority of Americans to consider as a viable presidential candidate. That being said, there feels like a big shift at the moment, a progressive candidate is actually viable this time around.


----------



## @zwen

Drew said:


> I disagree on the Russian accusations - Mueller found plenty of evidence of mutually-beneficial behavior but no explicit agreement of support, although he did find plenty of evidence of obstruction - but I suppose at the end of the day I'm mostly relieved that someone who could find the Mueller report "not a big deal" could then turn around and find the (IMO) way--more-explicit Ukraine scandal "super troubling." I think the Russian collusion was troubling but stopped short of a smoking gun, whereas the transcript alone probably constitutes one, before we even start talking about the White House suppressing it, the cancellation of military aid for unknown reasons, Trump making even taking the call conditional on assurances Ukraine would investigate Biden, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> Nothing good would have come of that thread. Trust me.



Project Lahtke was a real thing as well. Trump wasn’t caught, but everyone around him were implicated in corruption.


Drew said:


> I disagree on the Russian accusations - Mueller found plenty of evidence of mutually-beneficial behavior but no explicit agreement of support, although he did find plenty of evidence of obstruction - but I suppose at the end of the day I'm mostly relieved that someone who could find the Mueller report "not a big deal" could then turn around and find the (IMO) way--more-explicit Ukraine scandal "super troubling." I think the Russian collusion was troubling but stopped short of a smoking gun, whereas the transcript alone probably constitutes one, before we even start talking about the White House suppressing it, the cancellation of military aid for unknown reasons, Trump making even taking the call conditional on assurances Ukraine would investigate Biden, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> Nothing good would have come of that thread. Trust me.



Trump may have not been indicted, but I certainly don’t think he was innocent either.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> However, a Democratic Socialist isn't especially likely to give a shit about Democratic party unity coming into 2020, so yeah, it's a risk...



Disingenuous. Party is embracing his policies of 4 years ago (Biden supporting free 2 year community college just this week), it would be silly to assume Sanders would prefer Trump or a Republican majority in either/both houses when he's on the cusp of having his big banner legislation passed and caucusing with a majority party.

I said it before, a robust and thorough primary helps the party this year and that's what we're getting.

Even if Sanders comes in second (it'll likely be third and I personally thing he concedes and offers his support to Warren BTW), having the delegates spread among a dozen candidates in the early stages and not having, you know, debate questions given to the establishment pick the day before, will contrast 2016 and the winner will look like an earnest one. IF Sander didn't concede, I think the perception will be that it's petty and it won't have the impact the 2016 snub did.

Counterpoint on Sanders staying in, if he's still drawing significant enough support to stay in the top three, 1.) He has a right to stay in this race, arguably more than anyone beneath him, including fan favorites like Kamala, 2.) if and when does bow out, he offers a large war chest for whatever Democratic campaign comes afterward, which will likely be a unique group of donors the other candidates arent drawing, 3.) It's further disingenuous for the Sanders cue to leave being a heart attack, but almost as old Joe Biden gets a 'leave the guy alone' on frequent senior moments and Dems all eyerolled over the rights framing Hillary as sick when she passed out at a 9/11 memorial, pissed her pants and was dragged into a van unconscious like Weekend at Bernie's (irony of the title notwithstanding)


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Disingenuous. Party is embracing his policies of 4 years ago (Biden supporting free 2 year community college just this week), it would be silly to assume Sanders would prefer Trump or a Republican majority in either/both houses when he's on the cusp of having his big banner legislation passed and caucusing with a majority party.
> 
> I said it before, a robust and thorough primary helps the party this year and that's what we're getting.
> 
> Even if Sanders comes in second (it'll likely be third and I personally thing he concedes and offers his support to Warren BTW), having the delegates spread among a dozen candidates in the early stages and not having, you know, debate questions given to the establishment pick the day before, will contrast 2016 and the winner will look like an earnest one. IF Sander didn't concede, I think the perception will be that it's petty and it won't have the impact the 2016 snub did.
> 
> Counterpoint on Sanders staying in, if he's still drawing significant enough support to stay in the top three, 1.) He has a right to stay in this race, arguably more than anyone beneath him, including fan favorites like Kamala, 2.) if and when does bow out, he offers a large war chest for whatever Democratic campaign comes afterward, which will likely be a unique group of donors the other candidates arent drawing, 3.) It's further disingenuous for the Sanders cue to leave being a heart attack, but almost as old Joe Biden gets a 'leave the guy alone' on frequent senior moments and Dems all eyerolled over the rights framing Hillary as sick when she passed out at a 9/11 memorial, pissed her pants and was dragged into a van unconscious like Weekend at Bernie's (irony of the title notwithstanding)


Fair point on your first point there, I'm probably being more dismissive, at a minimum in tone, than I should. But, I think having a heart attack mid-campaign makes his odds here a LOT longer than they were before.

I haven't seen a ton of good polling about how he's doing post-heart attack, but I've heard some anecdotal claims his base is rallying around Warren. I'll believe it when I see it, largely because Warren was _not_ the dominant second choice of Sanders supporters the last time I did see good polling, and while her increasingly being seen as an electable front-runner could have made a lot of voters who named Biden as their second switch to Warren, I'd want to see some hard evidence of that first considering the polling I HAD seen flew in the face of the conventional wisdom, that Sanders voters should fall back to Warren. It's certainly a very big open question here.

I think as far as the perceptions of how Sanders not conceding again would look... I think a lot of voters would agree with you, that his holding out to the bitter end would look petty, all the more so if he was polling 3rd or 4th at the time. But I worry about the "Bernie or Bust!" voters. Maybe it's not realistic to expect them to support the eventual nominee in the first place, but IMO that sort of questions the logic of Sanders running as a Democrat to begin with. And thankfully there weren't many, but I definitely recall Sanders voters saying with a straight face they would support Trump before Clinton in 2016, so that's certainly a risk.

Honestly, I don't have strong feelings about Biden one way or another, as a candidate, so I'm struggling to really engage on him. I think I like him well enough personally, it's just when I look at the Democratic party today, he's not what I see. If he wins the primary of course I'll vote for him, and I think early on he was my second pick behind Harris (whose campaign seems to have fizzled), but very much to my surprise I've come around to Warren. She's toned down the populism (which I find dangerous from ANY political party), and she's really run a great, well-disciplined, platform-oriented campaign.

End of the day though I don't really care who wins the primary, I just want to put this behind us and move on to the general and the sooner it ends the sooner we don't have to worry about the Democratic electorate committing unforced errors or landing headshots on their own candidates.


----------



## Adieu

It's really troubling that, in a country this large and with a political duopoly at that, there's such a glaring vacuum of electable politicians


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> It's really troubling that, in a country this large and with a political duopoly at that, there's such a glaring vacuum of electable politicians


It's like the Groucho Marx phenomena. Any club that wants me as a member is a club I wouldn't want to join, etc.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> It's like the Groucho Marx phenomena. Any club that wants me as a member is a club I wouldn't want to join, etc.



I can't remember who was talking about this years ago, but they basically said, "Imagine the kind of person who thinks they should be a congressperson, and realize that pool of people who we are voting for". Or something to that effect...


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AFOo17QxPRxakuJIqJx0z8A

Two of Rudy’s associates who helped wit with Ukraine arrested for campaign finance charges.

Ruh Roh.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AFOo17QxPRxakuJIqJx0z8A
> 
> Two of Rudy’s associates who helped wit with Ukraine arrested for campaign finance charges.
> 
> Ruh Roh.




well he did want to put a stop to corruption so i guess he achieved his goal lol.


----------



## @zwen

Nothing good would have come of that thread. Trust me.[/QUOTE]

The last thing I’ll say is that if that post is still up, I feel that it should be also open to read, because the title is intentionally inflammatory so that I can bring attention to what I see as a real threat to the United States.


----------



## @zwen

While that is something that is in the future, Donald Trump is a present threat to the Constitution. Even if you somehow see him innocent of coercing the Ukraine, his pledge and actions to “stonewall” the impeachment process is a Constitutional Crisis.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AwkeHCDolTaarg7mFBCjXcg

Trump has to turn one his financials to the house. Allegedly for real this time.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AwkeHCDolTaarg7mFBCjXcg
> 
> Trump has to turn one his financials to the house. Allegedly for real this time.




i bet he would resign before turning them over. he certainly wont until it goes to the supreme court.


----------



## Ralyks

And it will just further “Well, if you have nothing to hide...”

Something I found amusing in the ruling:


"“Indeed, for six of the eight years covered by the subpoena, President Trump was merely Mr. Trump or Candidate Trump,” the two judges wrote."

Sick burn brah.


----------



## sleewell

apparently the pentagon deemed trump withholding aid to Ukraine for political dirt as illegal while back. and yet they did nothing about it. 

looks like rudy's buddies were funneling russian money right into a trump super pac. no collusion though for sure. 

the dems are morons. why are they inviting anyone to testify without just sending a subpoena first? wasted time when they dont show and then they send a subpoena, just send them first and assume they will not show.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> morons. why are they inviting anyone to testify without just sending a subpoena first? wasted time when they dont show and then they send a subpoena, just send them first and assume they will not show.


If they make a show of playing nice, and are blocked, and only _then_ subpoena as a "last resort," and are blocked, it makes for a somewhat stronger obstruction case. Not radically so, but it looks better at the margins and this is probably going to the Supreme Court so you're damned sure you want to cross your Ts and dot all your Is.


----------



## Drew

Friday: Trump announces a "phase one" trade deal. After trading up on trade optimism all day, the market drops from +2% to about +1% right at the close when news breaks, as traders' and analysts' consensus seems to be this doesn't really do anything substantial, but at least it's a truce. 

Monday: After Trump spends the weekend touting the "biggest trade deal ever for Patriotic American Farmers," the Chinese mention "actually, we still have a lot more negotiations to do before we can sign this 'phase one' agreement." On extremely low volume the market at least stays around break-even, but once again this major milestone in the trade negotiations turned out to be pretty empty and Trump continues to trash his credibility.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Friday: Trump announces a "phase one" trade deal. After trading up on trade optimism all day, the market drops from +2% to about +1% right at the close when news breaks, as traders' and analysts' consensus seems to be this doesn't really do anything substantial, but at least it's a truce.
> 
> Monday: After Trump spends the weekend touting the "biggest trade deal ever for Patriotic American Farmers," the Chinese mention "actually, we still have a lot more negotiations to do before we can sign this 'phase one' agreement." On extremely low volume the market at least stays around break-even, but once again this major milestone in the trade negotiations turned out to be pretty empty and Trump continues to trash his credibility.



Was literally just reading about this. Even the "40 - 50 billion dollar" initial purchase was apparently just a number throw out there for headlines, and as you mentioned, the Chinese want a lot more before forking over any of that. This is going to falter again badly before it gets any better.


----------



## sleewell

if you haven't learned yet trump likes to make things up to change the subject when he is getting lots of bad news.


----------



## Ralyks

We've learned. It's just he has a base that could care less, can't have their mind swayed either way, and can get him reelected. And thus we get terms like "libtards" and I have to respond with "republicunt", and it's not like I feel good about it. I mean, shit, I lean moderate Democrat, and I voted Republican first time I was old enough to vote (Dubya the second term).


----------



## Vyn

Ralyks said:


> We've learned. It's just he has a base that could care less, can't have their mind swayed either way, and can get him reelected. And thus we get terms like "libtards" and I have to respond with "republicunt", and it's not like I feel good about it. I mean, shit, I lean moderate Democrat, and I voted Republican first time I was old enough to vote (Dubya the second term).



Reasonable, bipartisan discussion unfortunately has been a massive casualty in the last couple of decades.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Was literally just reading about this. Even the "40 - 50 billion dollar" initial purchase was apparently just a number throw out there for headlines, and as you mentioned, the Chinese want a lot more before forking over any of that. This is going to falter again badly before it gets any better.


It sounds like $50 billion was actually the number I discussed, which I only know for sure because early this morning the news broke that China had said, "actually, $50b in agricultural imports isn't really feasible to to with tariff waivers, so to commit to that number we're really going to need permanent removal of these tariffs." 

So, it's going to come down to how desperately Trump thinks he needs a "win," vs how much he's prepared to risk being attacked by Democrats in the 2020 election for waging this massive tariff dumpster fire and then totally capitulating to the Chinese in an "easy to win" trade war. If he's desperate, he may do it. If not, then he's likely to respond (probably the night of October 30th, where the Federal Reserve is expected to cut rates by 25bps, and certainly not the full 1.75-2% he wants to push us into negative rates territory) with an irate text about the Chinese not honoring our deal so he's imposing more tariffs. Three guesses which I think is most likely, and the first two don't count.


----------



## Randy

The thing I tried to explain to Republicans about my dislike for Trump is his self serving, slimy nature.

I mean, I get it, they wanted a guy who was 'not a politician' and they wanted someone from the business community, which isn't necessarily my personal criteria but I get the appeal. It's just that Donald Trump, himself, has a lifetime of being unscrupulous, lying, bailing himself out first and burying his partners/investors. Any success Trump has had in business has been almost entirely in spite of his abilities or his acumen.

I bring all that up because we're basically living through the way a career faker looks like at phase 3 or 4 of his presidency. I think the vast majority of his actual POLICIES are boilerplate Republican things, which is probably 80% of his support on Capital Hill. These are things like tax cuts, more common sense border security things, religion stuff, etc.

First it was self serving shit to offer up the red meat he needed to win, then it was more red meat to feed his ego in approval ratings, then it was policies to enrich himself and his family, now it's policies to put up a firewall to keep him out of jail; and currently, slowing impeachment through trying to sway public opinion or winning in 2020 are his only hope for survival. And these are things like "good people on both sides", arming teachers, 'who cares about a guy chopped up and put in a suitcase if the guy that did it is buying billions in arms', and now leaving the Kurds to be exterminated and lying/threatening the markets and trade.

The way the guy plays with lives to save his own skin or his own poll numbers is worsening by the day. The guy knowingly does this that can and have gotten people killed (and now bordering on hundreds or thousands) should be enough to turn people against him. "Should be".


----------



## sleewell

nah liz cheney just blamed the syria move on dems impeachment inquiry. they have no bottom. 


the other line that is hilarious is yeah we know this was bad but we should let the next election decide, not impeachment. ok so just let the guy who admitted multiple times to trying to get foreign countries to intervene in our elections to just let the election play out? pls explain how you would have recommended the same had obama done what trump has already admitted to doing.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> they have no bottom.



They're all bottoms IMO


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The way the guy plays with lives to save his own skin or his own poll numbers is worsening by the day. The guy knowingly does this that can and have gotten people killed (and now bordering on hundreds or thousands) should be enough to turn people against him. "Should be".


The one silver lining I keep in mind is, as shitty as the things Trump is doing are, they do point to an increasing level of desperation. On some level, he knows the sharks are circling and there's blood in the water. 

Speaking of, anyone else catch the highlights of Fiona Hill's testimony yesterday? Giuliani is going to have some explaining to do, and Bolton - who has no reason to kiss up to Trump these days or play nice, after finding out he was fired over Twitter, and who was _deeply_ disturbed by the Ukraine scandal - is almost certainly going to get subpoenaed to testify.


----------



## sleewell

"hand grenade" - bolton referring to rudy and how his criminal activities would explode on all of them

"drug deal" - bolton again referring to the quid pro quo trump was trying to achieve


yeah i think bolton is (rightly) pissed. it shows they were holding meetings on this quid pro quo weeks before trump made the phone call and that many people were not comfortable with what trump wanted to do. 

also the name of the company that paid rudy 500k is AWESOME..... wait for it..... you cant write this stuff..... Fraud Guarantee.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> and Bolton - who has no reason to kiss up to Trump these days or play nice, after finding out he was fired over Twitter, and who was _deeply_ disturbed by the Ukraine scandal - is almost certainly going to get subpoenaed to testify.



...but at the same time, in my mind, he's tainted anyway. I don't think his testimony would mean much unless there's evidence. Personally, I'd only really trust positive things said by a disgruntled employee ("Dude's an asshole, but he pays well), and negative things from a...er..."gruntled" employee (He's a super awesome boss. The best. Don't get me wrong. It's just...sometimes..."


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> ...but at the same time, in my mind, he's tainted anyway. I don't think his testimony would mean much unless there's evidence. Personally, I'd only really trust positive things said by a disgruntled employee ("Dude's an asshole, but he pays well), and negative things from a...er..."gruntled" employee (He's a super awesome boss. The best. Don't get me wrong. It's just...sometimes..."


Perhaps, but if someone in the Trumposphere tries to argue John Bolton, an establishment neocon war hawk, is part of a "deep state" conspiracy seeking to work with the Democrats to remove Trump, then this administration has officially jumped the shark. And Bolton's no Scaramucci. He may look like the Swedish Chef and I may think he's an idiot, but he's also a career diplomat and I'm sure he can provide documentation to back up anything he has to say.

Also, in case anyone hasn't been keeping an eye on it: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/

There's now majority support to pass articles of impeachment and send the case to the Senate, if by a sliver, after a couple weeks of plurality support. Importantly, we're nearly at majority support amongst _independent_ voters to impeach Trump, 3.7 percentage points shy.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Perhaps, but if someone in the Trumposphere tries to argue John Bolton, an establishment neocon war hawk, is part of a "deep state" conspiracy seeking to work with the Democrats to remove Trump, then this administration has officially jumped the shark. And Bolton's no Scaramucci. He may look like the Swedish Chef and I may think he's an idiot, but he's also a career diplomat and I'm sure he can provide documentation to back up anything he has to say.
> 
> Also, in case anyone hasn't been keeping an eye on it:
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/do-americans-support-impeaching-president-trump/
> 
> There's now majority support to pass articles of impeachment and send the case to the Senate, if by a sliver, after a couple weeks of plurality support. Importantly, we're nearly at majority support amongst _independent_ voters to impeach Trump, 3.7 percentage points shy.



That's a bit the part I was arguing some weeks back when Pelosi was vocally pushing back against impeachment, clearly bowing to the argument that it would help Trump in 2020 based on polling.

My argument was that most of the general public aren't familiar with the process enough to answer the question in an informed way in the first place.

Second, that people have the tendency to answer questions like "what team do you want to win?" as "what team do you think is going to win?" (which is further distorted by the misunderstanding of what impeachment is).

Third, positions on the level of Speaker of the House are supposed to be thought leaders and trend setters, and rather than bowing to polls, should be setting the narrative and the standards, and the public chooses to follow or not. 

Fourth,much of the information that's going to sway people on the conviction/removal/chance of success stuff (which is what people assume impeachment is) comes from the impeachment inquiry, investigation and discovery process. Asking someone if they support impeachment is like asking someone if they want a car but instead of actually showing them the car, speculating on what it looks like and how much it costs.

The best gift the Dems and Nancy Pelosi were ever given was the whistleblower and phone transcript, not because of the chance of success but because it forced their hand to take action swiftly and break the log jam.

The public now have to become acclimated to the fact this is happening, whether they like it or not, and the news coverage shifting to it as if it's happening, not SHOULD it happen hypothetically. Plus, Trump and his compatriots have to react to this as fact and offer their counterpoint to the narrative that's out there (which they're doing a very poor job of). As a result, a few weeks of living in the world as if this is a definite has fed a bolder and more informed populous to answer that question, and it's going to continue to trend that way.


----------



## Ralyks

So is Warren the front runner at this point? It sure felt that way with her getting the brunt in the debates usually reserved for Biden.


----------



## sleewell

gotta say i really like mayor Pete.


----------



## Ralyks

I'm not sure I see Mayor Pete as President just yet. As someone's VP? Absolutely.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The public now have to become acclimated to the fact this is happening, whether they like it or not, and the news coverage shifting to it as if it's happening, not SHOULD it happen hypothetically. Plus, Trump and his compatriots have to react to this as fact and offer their counterpoint to the narrative that's out there (which they're doing a very poor job of). As a result, a few weeks of living in the world as if this is a definite has fed a bolder and more informed populous to answer that question, and it's going to continue to trend that way.


The only thing I'll say here is it may put the cart before the horse to a certain extent. Pelosi moved to open an impeachment inquiry not because she chose to and her causus followed, but because suddenly whole swathes of her moderate caucus started to come out and say what they'd seen in this Ukraine whistleblower complaint seemed likely to warrant impeachment, _before_ she announced that she was in favor, too. Public polling is a little trickier because polls are inherently lagged, they survey for a few days and then report, but making no adjustments for survey period you see polls breaking that show an uptick in support for impeachment more or less at the same time that Pelosi announced her inquiry, and shifting everything back even 3 days would be enough to show a pretty big upswing in support for impeachment already in place as of the night Pelosi announced she was moving forward with an inquiry. Presumably her caucus wasn't working in a vacuum either and the feedback they were getting from constituents was that this was a really big deal, otherwise the moderates wouldn't put their necks out on the line like that.

I think you raise a number of good points, but at the end of the day I still feel like Pelosi was the follower, not the leader, here, and regardless of whether she supported impeaching Trump over the Mueller report and just held back or not, it seems like with Ukraine it looked a lot more politically feasible to pass a resolution in the House.

EDIT - in the interest of not making unsupported assertations, here's a look at the House members who came out in favor of impeachment between mid-July and the night Pelosi announced an inquiry: 
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-the-democratic-groundswell-for-impeachment-happened/



Ralyks said:


> So is Warren the front runner at this point? It sure felt that way with her getting the brunt in the debates usually reserved for Biden.


Tough to say for sure, but the moderators certainly treated her as one.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Tough to say for sure, but the moderators certainly treated her as one.



Counterpoint to a skeptic like me would be that Warren is the consensus most likely Progressive to make it into the top 2 and the establishment is laying the groundwork to paint her as a Socialist quack like they did Bernie.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Counterpoint to a skeptic like me would be that Warren is the consensus most likely Progressive to make it into the top 2 and the establishment is laying the groundwork to paint her as a Socialist quack like they did Bernie.



But, but, Bernie told me Warren is "a capitalist to her bones"!
Which, honestly, gets Warren my vote moreso.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> I'm not sure I see Mayor Pete as President just yet. As someone's VP? Absolutely.




fair enough. looks like lots of people do though. i think he is very well spoken and smart. plus a gay dude with military experience sounds like a guy who can stand up to trump. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...gn-says-it-raised-over-1-million-since-debate


----------



## vilk

Ralyks said:


> But, but, Bernie told me Warren is "a capitalist to her bones"!
> Which, honestly, gets Warren my vote moreso.



Why would owing billionaires be a plus in your book? I mean, if you are choosing an anti-wealth-inequality candidate, why would you choose the person in bed with the ultra-wealthy?

It's as simple as: Sanders doesn't take money from billionaires out of principle, and he's showing with his own actions that he means what he says. Warren has taken money from several billionaires. I mean, we can perhaps naively believe that taking money from the ultra-wealthy doesn't come with any strings. Do you believe that? I don't know if I do.

I'm not saying I hate Warren or that I wouldn't vote for her, but when it comes down to Warren vs. Sanders, only one of them is putting their (absence of) money where their mouth is.


----------



## Randy

Buttigieg looking more and more like an identity politics first, pro-corporate establishment pick, which is unfortunate.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Counterpoint to a skeptic like me would be that Warren is the consensus most likely Progressive to make it into the top 2 and the establishment is laying the groundwork to paint her as a Socialist quack like they did Bernie.


...though, Warren also has elements of an establishment pick as well - I've always seen her as the establishment-friendly answer to Sanders. I'd say that Biden is definitely the clear establishment pick this time around, but if for whatever reason you can't get Biden, Warren strikes me as an establishment-acceptable pick, even if she is less friendly to Wall Street than most. 



Ralyks said:


> But, but, Bernie told me Warren is "a capitalist to her bones"!
> Which, honestly, gets Warren my vote moreso.


She is. She talks about how she was a Republican in her youth, until she began to see how Republican policies were designed to hurt everyday Americans. That pushed her into the consumer advocate she became - not a desire to dismantle capitalism like Sanders, but to make it work for ordinary people, not just businesses. Her story as she tells it, at least. 

And, agreed - I'm pro-capitalism, but also acknowledge capitalism as it exists in America today has some problems we need to address. I see those problems as related to greed rather than structural issues with capitalism itself, though, and greed left unchecked can fuck up socialism just as fast.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> ...though, Warren also has elements of an establishment pick as well - I've always seen her as the establishment-friendly answer to Sanders. I'd say that Biden is definitely the clear establishment pick this time around, but if for whatever reason you can't get Biden, Warren strikes me as an establishment-acceptable pick, even if she is less friendly to Wall Street than most.
> 
> 
> She is. She talks about how she was a Republican in her youth, until she began to see how Republican policies were designed to hurt everyday Americans. That pushed her into the consumer advocate she became - not a desire to dismantle capitalism like Sanders, but to make it work for ordinary people, not just businesses. Her story as she tells it, at least.
> 
> And, agreed - I'm pro-capitalism, but also acknowledge capitalism as it exists in America today has some problems we need to address. I see those problems as related to greed rather than structural issues with capitalism itself, though, and greed left unchecked can fuck up socialism just as fast.



I'd be curious to hear what a capitalist solution to healthcare and education looks like. Even without flagrant greed, I don't see either as anything you can solve with the traditional "let competition drive the prices down and offer consumers better products" since most people don't decide their doctor or even their school based on price.

I bring that up because I can see being pro-capitalism when comes to not letting the government handcuff business when they're doing what they're good at doing (speaking as a small business owner for most of my adult life). But when we're talking about the issues at the heart of 2020 (minus ousting Trump), I don't see a capitalist solution to things like student debt, healthcare cost, climate change or border security.

To me, being pro-capitalist first and running in 2020 means either voting to keep money in politics or being governed by status quo. While I don't see how traditional 'competition' fixes something like, say, healthcare, I can certainly see a lot of ways it can fuck it up worse.


----------



## Randy

Speaking of corporatist solutions to healthcare, I didn't watch the debate last night but 'public option' anti-Medicare for All candidates fail to mention the likelihood of class separation if you do that.

You already see it in specialized medicine and dentistry. It's like clockwork that the shittiest specialized practices are the only ones that take Medicaid, and even if decent place does, they dissuade people from using it or don't prioritize treatment for them, plus they're picky about what insurances they do take and their real preference is no insurance at all. I can't tell you how many chiropractors, dentists, etc that I've been to in the last 5 years that prefer you to pay "cash" and put your treatment on "Care Credit" which is essentially a credit card. That's fucking predatory and imagine that being the preferred way to of getting AIDs treatment or a heart transplant.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Speaking of corporatist solutions to healthcare, I didn't watch the debate last night but 'public option' anti-Medicare for All candidates fail to mention the likelihood of class separation if you do that.
> 
> You already see it in specialized medicine and dentistry. It's like clockwork that the shittiest specialized practices are the only ones that take Medicaid, and even if decent place does, they dissuade people from using it or don't prioritize treatment for them, plus they're picky about what insurances they do take and their real preference is no insurance at all. I can't tell you how many chiropractors, dentists, etc that I've been to in the last 5 years that prefer you to pay "cash" and put your treatment on "Care Credit" which is essentially a credit card. That's fucking predatory and imagine that being the preferred way to of getting AIDs treatment or a heart transplant.



In my head, there's ways to legislate around that. Make turning away certain things illegal, or heck...make them easy/appealing enough to encourage them to accept it. I think that's the rub...how to you make the work fairly-priced, yet lucrative enough to still attract high-quality care providers.

Don't defense lawyers have something where they need to provide a minimum amount of public defense work, or something like that?


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> fair enough. looks like lots of people do though.



Not enough to get elected at this point IMO.




Randy said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a capitalist solution to healthcare and education looks like.



Those aren’t capitalist problems, so there won’t be a capitalist solution. The current state of health insurance and public education in the US proves that point.


But we need a capitalist economy to build those social solution upon, as a socialist economy won’t work.




Randy said:


> You already see it in specialized medicine and dentistry. It's like clockwork that the shittiest specialized practices are the only ones that take Medicaid, and even if decent place does, they dissuade people from using it or don't prioritize treatment for them, plus they're picky about what insurances they do take and their real preference is no insurance at all. I can't tell you how many chiropractors, dentists, etc that I've been to in the last 5 years that prefer you to pay "cash" and put your treatment on "Care Credit" which is essentially a credit card. That's fucking predatory and imagine that being the preferred way to of getting AIDs treatment or a heart transplant.



Medicare actually provides good coverage. Those providers don’t want to accept insurance or Medicare because they’ve negotiated discounted prices, including free services like twice yearly cleanings, with those companies, so they prefer the “Care Credit” where they can charge full price.

With a Medicare for All type solution, there would only be one option - Medicare - so the poor can‘t be disadvantaged.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> With a Medicare for All type solution, there would only be one option - Medicare - so the poor can‘t be disadvantaged.



My point exactly. I was curious if there was captialist friendly version of that because logically and practically, I haven't seen one.

Great post btw.


----------



## Ralyks

Uhh, Elijah Cummings just died.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Uhh, Elijah Cummings just died.



What's the over/under on Trump knowing that Elijah Cummings and John Lewis are two different people?


----------



## sleewell

ok who else thought that letter trump sent to Erdogan was written by Charlie from its always sunny?


GODDAMMIT Charlie your illiteracy has screwed us yet again!!!


----------



## vilk

Call me insensitive, but I'm glad that Trump is pulling out of Syria. I've said before that I'm anti-war, and I almost totally reject the merit of sending the US military to the middle east (or anywhere) to create "peace" there. I know, I know, it's our fault that there's a problem, we've gotta clean up our mess, etc... but we gotta cut the cord at some point. We can't fall into the fallacy of sunken cost. We made Vietnam worse, too, you know, but thank god we finally got the fuck out. We as a people need to abandon the idea of merit in fighting foreign wars. But that's just my opinion.

Not that I believe Trump's motives are pacifistic in the least. I'm just glad we're bringing troops home. Just as I am always glad when we bring troops home.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Call me insensitive, but I'm glad that Trump is pulling out of Syria. I've said before that I'm anti-war, and I almost totally reject the merit of sending the US military to the middle east (or anywhere) to create "peace" there. I know, I know, it's our fault that there's a problem, we've gotta clean up our mess, etc... but we gotta cut the cord at some point. We can't fall into the fallacy of sunken cost. We made Vietnam worse, too, you know, but thank god we finally got the fuck out. We as a people need to abandon the idea of merit in fighting foreign wars. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> Not that I believe Trump's motives are pacifistic in the least. I'm just glad we're bringing troops home. Just as I am always glad when we bring troops home.



The thing is, it's not even like he's pulling all the troops out. 

He's pulling out just enough in the "right"(wrong) places to appease Turkey and Russia. 

This is going to lead to more American bloodshed. Full stop. 

I understand wanting out of the Middle East and an end to American intervention abroad as a whole, but that is NOT what this is.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> The thing is, it's not even like he's pulling all the troops out.
> 
> He's pulling out just enough in the "right"(wrong) places to appease Turkey and Russia.
> 
> This is going to lead to more American bloodshed. Full stop.
> 
> I understand wanting out of the Middle East and an end to American intervention abroad as a whole, but that is NOT what this is.


Oh... I hadn't realized that... fuckin hate that guy


----------



## sleewell

so we are celebrating pulling 1k troops out of Syria but he just sent many more than that to his buddies in Saudi Arabia. 

makes no sense and no one ever holds his blatant hypocrisy accountable.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> so we are celebrating pulling 1k troops out of Syria but he just sent many more than that to his buddies in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> makes no sense and no one ever holds his blatant hypocrisy accountable.



I don't think anyone is celebrating. Heck, the House voted to condemn Trump for this by a large margin. Problem is the Senate won't deviate from Trump come hell or high water.

Oh, also, Ambassador to the EU says trump told him to work with Rudy on Ukraine. Oh boy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I don't think anyone is celebrating.



I've heard the "at least he's bringing our boys home" line from a number of conservatives and more than one liberal/centrist folks I know/work with. 

While anecdotal I think it represents the thoughts of a number of folks who don't really care to follow where and how many troops are stationed abroad.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'd be curious to hear what a capitalist solution to healthcare and education looks like. Even without flagrant greed, I don't see either as anything you can solve with the traditional "let competition drive the prices down and offer consumers better products" since most people don't decide their doctor or even their school based on price.
> 
> I bring that up because I can see being pro-capitalism when comes to not letting the government handcuff business when they're doing what they're good at doing (speaking as a small business owner for most of my adult life). But when we're talking about the issues at the heart of 2020 (minus ousting Trump), I don't see a capitalist solution to things like student debt, healthcare cost, climate change or border security.
> 
> To me, being pro-capitalist first and running in 2020 means either voting to keep money in politics or being governed by status quo. While I don't see how traditional 'competition' fixes something like, say, healthcare, I can certainly see a lot of ways it can fuck it up worse.



Well, I'd argue part of the problem at least with health care is that how we handle it today is NOT a capitalist free market. To your point, no one comparison shops when it comes time to have a procedure, no one pays what the hospital bills them (the hospital has a procedure rate, then a separate "negotiated by your plan" rate), and then once you're over your deductible no one actually pays for the procedures done so there's no incentive to self-ration your care for cost control reasons. Nothing about the way healthcare functions in America looks anything at _all_ like a free market. We either need to address that and make healthcare function like a market and respond to market supply and demand, or we need to just throw in the towel and accept that healthcare in this country isn't capitalist so let's stop pretending the fact we can "choose" our insurance plans is some sort of free market choice. 

Education is tricky here too, since its another one of those expenses that no one ever suggests you should question as some sort of a cost/benefit thing. In the rare instances you do, it's often some sort of "you should learn a trade, not go to college" vaguely anti-elite thing rather than purely rational analysis. There's some evidence that individual students DO think about this when it comes to degree choice - for all the backlash about getting a "art history degree" or some other such useless degree du jour and graduating with tons of debt and no prospect to repay it, I don't have the data handy but you evidently see a lot less of those degrees in community college and part-time programs, and a lot more of them in prestigious private liberal arts colleges. Major generalizations here, but the former group is probably going to have more people putting themselves through school and paying for it themselves, rather than graduating and going on their parents tab because college is just what you do after high school if you're upper middle class in America. I think there are some definite market failures here too - college debt is bankruptcy-remote, but borrowed at rates well above the risk free rate that imply a fair amount of repayment risk anyway (and to be fair just because you can't write it off in bankruptcy doesn't mean a lender is guaranteed to get every dime back, on the agreed upon payment schedule, but the degree to which repayment risk seems to be priced in seems awfully high), there's no differentiation between borrowers based on factors likely to influence their ability to repay, like reputation of the school, average post-grad earnings of a holder of that degree, etc, all of which should make different loans more or less risky than each other, and of course at the extreme end of the prestige scale a degree from Harvard or Yale or MIT are classic examples of so-called Giffen goods, where their high price is partly why they're in such demand,s o that's always going to make things messy. 

That said, these are a whole bunch of observations, and none of them are terribly helpful or actionable.  

One thing I will say though is the reason I favor a public option over Medicare for All is I think that a proper, well run, comprehensive public option should have enough of a competitive advantage over for-profit insurance that in the long run I think a public option DOES get you to the same point, it just will slowly take over the market from private insurers. I prefer that approach because, well, there's a whole lot of people employed in the for-profit sector, so I'd rather spread the transition out over a decade or two rather than take that massive hit to our economy overnight.


----------



## spudmunkey

My uncle Leroy's comment to an early Fox New story about the pull-out: "If we dont want muslims between us and the left in the inevitible [sic] civil war, then we also dont belong there."


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've heard the "at least he's bringing our boys home" line from a number of conservatives and more than one liberal/centrist folks I know/work with.
> 
> While anecdotal I think it represents the thoughts of a number of folks who don't really care to follow where and how many troops are stationed abroad.



I listened to a whole NPR thing about it on the way home from work yesterday and they made it seem like Trump was pulling all the troops from Syria; no mention of it only being a fraction of troops or worries about more American deaths as a result. All anyone had to say about it was that it was a betrayal of the Kurds... which it is, to be sure.

Just curious, what percent of laymen do you suppose have _any idea whatsoever_ about how many troops are stationed where? You see me writing and reading on here on PC&E every day, and this isn't the only political forum I hang out at online. And I've got no clue. Zero. Am I just not paying attention? I think it's more likely that just no one really talks about it?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I listened to a whole NPR thing about it on the way home from work yesterday and they made it seem like Trump was pulling all the troops from Syria; no mention of it only being a fraction of troops or worries about more American deaths as a result. All anyone had to say about it was that it was a betrayal of the Kurds... which it is, to be sure.
> 
> Just curious, what percent of laymen do you suppose have _any idea whatsoever_ about how many troops are stationed where? You see me writing and reading on here on PC&E every day, and this isn't the only political forum I hang out at online. And I've got no clue. Zero. Am I just not paying attention? I think it's more likely that just no one really talks about it?



They are eventually pulling all forces from Syria...maybe. 

I don't think there's any way of knowing exactly where and what all of our assets are stationed globally. There are maybe 50 countries in the whole world without something of an American military presence in some form at any given time. 

No one really knew we had troops in Nigeria until it made the news. 

It's become something of an embarrassment, you can tell because both sides are pretty mum until it becomes a football in the media again. So there's little mainstream reporting and no one really looks into it, until again, something goes very wrong and we hear about fallen soldiers.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> One thing I will say though is the reason I favor a public option over Medicare for All is I think that a proper, well run, comprehensive public option should have enough of a competitive advantage over for-profit insurance that in the long run I think a public option DOES get you to the same point, it just will slowly take over the market from private insurers. I prefer that approach because, well, there's a whole lot of people employed in the for-profit sector, so I'd rather spread the transition out over a decade or two rather than take that massive hit to our economy overnight.



I haven't seen any proof that's the case. Like I said, I have a long list of providers that don't take Medicaid (which I cite as someone who's had it).

I don't know how it is in the rest of the country but at least in NYS, there are some government direct Medicaid plans but the bulk of enrollment are legitimate, private insurance companies that contract with NYS to subsidize their plans (CDPHP and Fidelis are two of them). The idea being that it provides even Medicaid recipients with some choices of insurer, it theoretically offers them more options for doctors/care and it offers more dignity since you carry an actual insurance card instead of just a benefit card.

The rub is, however, instead of having insurance companies legitimizing Medicaid plans, Medicaid drags down the reputation of insurance companies. I know people who work in healthcare and they whitewash everyone that comes in with Fidelis or CDPHP as Medicaid patients, even when they're not. A lot of practices explicitly accept plans from those companies but deliberately refuse service for the Medicaid policies. A lot of practices just deny service to those companies all together.

Likewise, specialty medicine (like chiropractors) that do take Medicaid plans are overbooked and, as I stated earlier, known shittier. And it's not that they're flooded because there's a ton of Medicaid recipients flooding into them, it's because they're poorly run and usually understaffed. Also, yes, all the Medicaid recipients are funneled into them instead of spread more of the companies available.

Also as I mentioned before, if you call a doctor that doesn't take a Medicaid qualified insurance program, they encourage you to pay cash. Often times offering you to pay less out of pocket than you would if you had a qualifying insurance plan and again, suggesting you pay for it on credit (which they undoubtedly get a kickback from).

If public option hasn't worked for specialty medicine, what makes you think it'll work for general medicine so much that it "takes over"?


----------



## vilk

I'm curious of how Japan pulls off their public option system without running into aforementioned problems. When I lived there, I had both the government health insurance for a time, and then I also had private. It seems that the gov't plan is accepted everywhere. It was really reasonable, too (less than a quarter of what I'm paying now for BCBS). Many people have private insurance provided through their company, which I assume negotiates a deal to get costs lower for their employees than if each individual employee signed up for the gov't plan. When I was on a company plan, it was only a few dollars different.

They must have some kind of law that all medical establishments accept the government plan. I never had any issues having my private insurance accepted either, but I remember that they did actually check to make sure they took that one. Probably gonna be hard to sell limited-provider private insurance plans against a low cost gov't option that's accepted everywhere... unless maybe it's dirt cheap lol

Isn't that the same system as in Australia and Poland?


----------



## Vyn

vilk said:


> I'm curious of how Japan pulls off their public option system without running into aforementioned problems. When I lived there, I had both the government health insurance for a time, and then I also had private. It seems that the gov't plan is accepted everywhere. It was really reasonable, too (less than a quarter of what I'm paying now for BCBS). Many people have private insurance provided through their company, which I assume negotiates a deal to get costs lower for their employees than if each individual employee signed up for the gov't plan. When I was on a company plan, it was only a few dollars different.
> 
> They must have some kind of law that all medical establishments accept the government plan. I never had any issues having my private insurance accepted either, but I remember that they did actually check to make sure they took that one. Probably gonna be hard to sell limited-provider private insurance plans against a low cost gov't option that's accepted everywhere... unless maybe it's dirt cheap lol
> 
> Isn't that the same system as in Australia and Poland?



Pretty much how it works over here. All GPs are covered under Medicare whether public or private. Still have to pay $70-$80 upfront however there's an automated rebate of $38-ish back into your account. If you are under a certain income threshold or receive social security you are entitled to a healthcare card which enables you to be bulk billed (ie the government pays the consultation at the government rate on your behalf). Some doctors bulk bill regardless of income threshold and healthcare card because they want to.

Specialists are the same, they can bulk bill you if you meet the requirements or choose to bulk bill you however you need a referral to see them. You can go to a specialists without a referral but you will be paying the full consultation out of pocket.

Procedures are a whole different kettle of fish as well which unfortunately I have to go to work and can't explain them right now. However, I will say that I'd rather be on the table in a public hospital than a private one - the public hospitals see all the really gnarly Emergency shit and are used to having to keep patients alive that are close to death. Private hospitals really only do easy, elective surgeys that are low risk.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I
> 
> If public option hasn't worked for specialty medicine, what makes you think it'll work for general medicine so much that it "takes over"?


Well, I'm going at this with the assumption that, without a profit motive, a public option should operate at a cost advantage to private insurance, and should be able to offer the same or better coverage for cheaper. Likewise, it looks like with coverage of 56.8 million Americans, it's already at a slight scale advantage than the largest private insurer, which is evidently UnitedHealth at about 49.5 million Americans. That should grow, possibly significantly, with the introduction of a public option, and would give them signficant negotiating muscle with service providers and pharmaceuticals. 

Coming at this from the other side of the coin, then, a lot of the reason that you're seeing a two-tier system here is a byproduct of that negotiating muscle - Medicare reimbursement rates are generally lower than private insurance reimbursement rates. That creates an incentive where, if a practice is confident it can do enough private insurance business to stay fully booked, they're better _not _taking Medicare to boost the practice's profitability. It's a perverse sign the system is working, by pushing down prices. 

I'd argue that the "shittier" and "overbooked" run hand in hand, so to me it seems like a sensible way to handle this would be to also introduce a mandate that service providers were not able to choose to NOT take public option/Medicare patients, at which point they wouldn't only be funneled to a smaller set of providers that accepted public insurance and had to make up for margin with volume, and the overall burden of seeing Medicare patients would be spread out across a much larger pool of service providers, and overbooking would fall and service quality would improve. In theory, at least.


----------



## Vyn

Drew said:


> Well, I'm going at this with the assumption that, without a profit motive, a public option should operate at a cost advantage to private insurance, and should be able to offer the same or better coverage for cheaper. Likewise, it looks like with coverage of 56.8 million Americans, it's already at a slight scale advantage than the largest private insurer, which is evidently UnitedHealth at about 49.5 million Americans. That should grow, possibly significantly, with the introduction of a public option, and would give them signficant negotiating muscle with service providers and pharmaceuticals.
> 
> Coming at this from the other side of the coin, then, a lot of the reason that you're seeing a two-tier system here is a byproduct of that negotiating muscle - Medicare reimbursement rates are generally lower than private insurance reimbursement rates. That creates an incentive where, if a practice is confident it can do enough private insurance business to stay fully booked, they're better _not _taking Medicare to boost the practice's profitability. It's a perverse sign the system is working, by pushing down prices.
> 
> I'd argue that the "shittier" and "overbooked" run hand in hand, so to me it seems like a sensible way to handle this would be to also introduce a mandate that service providers were not able to choose to NOT take public option/Medicare patients, at which point they wouldn't only be funneled to a smaller set of providers that accepted public insurance and had to make up for margin with volume, and the overall burden of seeing Medicare patients would be spread out across a much larger pool of service providers, and overbooking would fall and service quality would improve. In theory, at least.



It's not just about having public healthcare cover, it's about having enough of the bread-and-butter stuff (GP's, some specialists for common procedures and infrastructure) that are at a set public rate controlled and administered by the government. Can have a private sector component, because that's where new and exciting things can be tested/trialled, or for people to specialise right down on say one exact form of cancer however the core healthcare stuff here is all public. If you have to go to the emergency department for whatever reason in a public hospital, regardless of your income or whether you have private health insurance, you don't pay a cent.


----------



## Thaeon

Vyn said:


> It's not just about having public healthcare cover, it's about having enough of the bread-and-butter stuff (GP's, some specialists for common procedures and infrastructure) that are at a set public rate controlled and administered by the government. Can have a private sector component, because that's where new and exciting things can be tested/trialled, or for people to specialise right down on say one exact form of cancer however the core healthcare stuff here is all public. If you have to go to the emergency department for whatever reason in a public hospital, regardless of your income or whether you have private health insurance, you don't pay a cent.



The US needs to take to heart what most of our allies have already done. We're lagging behind the rest of the developed world.


----------



## JSanta

Thaeon said:


> The US needs to take to heart what most of our allies have already done. We're lagging behind the rest of the developed world.



I'm not sure what has caused the problem, but I've talked to so many people that treat healthcare as something they've earned, and not a basic human right. Until people start to accept that it's not ok for their neighbors to go bankrupt because of a terminal illness diagnoses, the premise of some sort of universal healthcare won't be accepted. 

Frankly, it disgusts me.


----------



## Thaeon

JSanta said:


> I'm not sure what has caused the problem, but I've talked to so many people that treat healthcare as something they've earned, and not a basic human right. Until people start to accept that it's not ok for their neighbors to go bankrupt because of a terminal illness diagnoses, the premise of some sort of universal healthcare won't be accepted.
> 
> Frankly, it disgusts me.



You and me both dude. Its the height of self-centeredness.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I'm not sure what has caused the problem, but I've talked to so many people that treat healthcare as something they've earned, and not a basic human right. Until people start to accept that it's not ok for their neighbors to go bankrupt because of a terminal illness diagnoses, the premise of some sort of universal healthcare won't be accepted.
> 
> Frankly, it disgusts me.



"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will protect the environment which sustains us, in the knowledge that the continuing health of ourselves and our societies is dependent on a healthy planet.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."


----------



## BlackSG91

I've been following the news so closely these past few weeks and it's amazing what is happening! This is what you call an epic movie script for Oliver Stone or Martin Scorsese for the next epic movie. I believe the Senate trial will look something like this scene below for ol' Donald who is guilty as a cat in a gold fish bowl.




;>)/


----------



## Drew

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-impeachment-poll-quid-pro-quo-trouble-ahead

Worth a read - prior to Mulvaney's admitting there WAS a quid pro quo, the polling suggested that nearly 2/3 of Americans including just shy of majority of Republicans though that if there WAS a quid pro quo, that would be grounds for impeachment. Further, again prior to yesterday, the more closely people had been following this story, the more likely they were to believe a quid pro quo had occurred, again before Mulvaney's press conference. 

tl;dr - support for impeaching Trump has risen, but could rise a whole lot further if Mulvaney represents a turning point where the Trump admin loses control of the narrative claiming no quid pro quo.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A8aVkIuAiQX-pAA3ckTSBzA

They may actually get his financials. It may actually happen. For real this time. I guess.


----------



## Drew

I mean, Trump had a spectacularly bad week, no?  


China "phase one" deal turned out to not be settled.
Syria blew up on him and he's facing broad bipartisan rebuke for his handling of the matter. 
Mulvaney's "get over it" speech severely weakened his defense in the impeachment inquiry. 
Again facing bipartisan outrage, he had to backtrack on the decision to host G-7 at one of his own (money-losing) properties. 
A couple decisions related to his financials and his tax returns went against him. 
Pretty much everything that could have gone wrong for him, did.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> I mean, Trump had a spectacularly bad week, no?
> 
> 
> China "phase one" deal turned out to not be settled.
> Syria blew up on him and he's facing broad bipartisan rebuke for his handling of the matter.
> Mulvaney's "get over it" speech severely weakened his defense in the impeachment inquiry.
> Again facing bipartisan outrage, he had to backtrack on the decision to host G-7 at one of his own (money-losing) properties.
> A couple decisions related to his financials and his tax returns went against him.
> Pretty much everything that could have gone wrong for him, did.



And Trump's campaign printed "Get Over It" t-shirts and are selling them for $30. Not sure what more to say about that one...


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> And Trump's campaign printed "Get Over It" t-shirts and are selling them for $30. Not sure what more to say about that one...


 

Pelosi should do the same!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://apple.news/AsunZgY9NQ8SlthV5L18-oA

"[US] may have to get in[to] wars."

-Trump 

I just felt a shift in the libertarian force.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://apple.news/AsunZgY9NQ8SlthV5L18-oA
> 
> "[US] may have to get in[to] wars."
> 
> -Trump
> 
> I just felt a shift in the libertarian force.



Oof....


----------



## sleewell

seems like Taylor dropped bombs today. reports of audible gasps during his opening statement and multiple people saying it directly implicates trump and mulvaney and could accelerate the process.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AcC-h2G5WRJKHSknzj9lkxw

I hope House Republicans get hit with all of the shit for this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AcC-h2G5WRJKHSknzj9lkxw
> 
> I hope House Republicans get hit with all of the shit for this.



They're all terrified that they might be the next one to have their treason and self dealing made public.


----------



## sleewell

when you are too embarrassed to argue the facts you pull stunts like that.

the dems have said many times that there will be public hearings, the gop have nothing to stand on so they just make stuff up.

they had to have these closed door hearings, that the gop is a part of, bc AG barr basically said there was nothing to see here and never investigated. they already got one of trump's stooges caught in perjury. if the hearings were public it would give them a chance to get their stories aligned.


----------



## Drew

I mean, for all the Republican supporters harping on about how this is only going to hurt the Democrats in the long run... I would NOT want to be an elected Republican right now. 

Hardline conservatives keep arguing that trying to impeach Trump will hurt the Democrats because when they tried to impeach Clinton it hurt the GOP. That misses a few important points, though. 

Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob. Trump is alleged to have undercut US national security aims for personal political gain, which is much more serious allegation. 
Clinton never had a majority of the country support impeachment, only a majority of Republicans. Trump has a majority of the country supporting impeachment, and as of today in 538's impeachment tracker is only 1.6 percentage points short of a majority of _independents_ supporting impeachment. Public perception is more favorable for pursuing articles of impeachment.
Clinton's popularity never suffered all that much during the impeachment, and during the process had a modest net positive approval rating, in the 5-7 point range. Trump's net approval is already 10-12 points underwater as of the start of the inquiry, and has shown some signs of weakening (he's now pushing -14). 
It's also debatable how much it actually hurt the Republicans - they lost a couple seats in the house but held onto a majority, the Democrats picked up four seats in the Senate but that only brought them to a 50-50 tie and with the states in question being Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri, three of those four were in the process of becoming fairly blue, and with Cheney the Senate still stayed Republican until Jeffords' defection later that next year. And, of course, the GOP did go on to win the White House. So, the whole premise is questionable, before you even start looking at differences between the specific situations.


----------



## Ralyks

So the testimony resumed after a 5 hour delay. And, well, assistant the Ukraine knew about the money freeze by early August. Which totally undermines Trumos arguement that there was no quid pro quo because the Ukraines didn't know funds were being withheld.

Well goddamn.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So the testimony resumed after a 5 hour delay. And, well, assistant the Ukraine knew about the money freeze by early August. Which totally undermines Trumos arguement that there was no quid pro quo because the Ukraines didn't know funds were being withheld.
> 
> Well goddamn.


...which makes the "...we hope to resume weapons purchases shortly" I honed in on when the summary originally broke all the more telling, no? 

Honestly, I'd love to see a FULL transcript of that call, rather than a summary transcript. It was a 30 minute call, and there's no more than ten minutes of dialogue there.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Honestly, I'd love to see a FULL transcript of that call, rather than a summary transcript. It was a 30 minute call, and there's no more than ten minutes of dialogue there.



I could imagine 2 minutes of awkward silences for every 1 minute of speak when trying to converse with Trump.

Or, perhaps, translator delays? I know even when leaders of other countries can speak english well enough, translators are still often used to ensure that "well enough" isn't "not good enough" when things get technical, and nuance matters.


----------



## sleewell

i'd also like to hear the call with erdogan where trump bent over and got nothing in return. 

quinnipiac poll has support for impeachment inquiry at 55%. nixon got to 58% before they told him to gtfo.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> I could imagine 2 minutes of awkward silences for every 1 minute of speak when trying to converse with Trump.
> 
> Or, perhaps, translator delays? I know even when leaders of other countries can speak english well enough, translators are still often used to ensure that "well enough" isn't "not good enough" when things get technical, and nuance matters.


Possibly. And translation could be a factor, for sure, and if Ukranian is a language that takes longer to get to the point than english, then that's definitely a potential explanation. But, I recall a story around the time the transcript broke where a congressman and his aids staged a read-through, speaking in normal conversation pace, and the length of what was presented (and described as a "summary" rather than a full transcript), and they came in _far_ short of the actual running length. Could be lots of awkward silences, could be translators, could be a lot of detail cut out or downplayed.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> quinnipiac poll has support for impeachment inquiry at 55%. nixon got to 58% before they told him to gtfo.


Some nuance there - support for the inquiry is 55%, but support for impeaching him and removing him from office is only up to 48%. Still VERY high, but about ten points behind Nixon. 

The 538 impeachment support tracker is worth keeping an eye on, it's consistently showing a plurality to outright majority of support for impeachment, and while independent support isn't yet up to majority, it's been a consistent plurality for a while now. Anyone who thinks this inquiry is going to "help" Trump is either in denial or expecting a hail mary.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Apc6aSjOAQU21eV80Oz4jmw

"U.S. Annual Budget Deficit Nears $1 Trillion With 26% Rise"

But the economy!


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/Apc6aSjOAQU21eV80Oz4jmw
> 
> "U.S. Annual Budget Deficit Nears $1 Trillion With 26% Rise"
> 
> But the economy!





i mean who could have predicted that tax cuts for the 1% funded entirely by debt would not pan out? certainly the barely literate guy who has bankrupted several businesses funded entirely by his daddy would think it was a great idea, right?


for real do we have any historical data to prove that trickle down economics is a sham?


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> i mean who could have predicted that tax cuts for the 1% funded entirely by debt would not pan out? certainly the barely literate guy who has bankrupted several businesses funded entirely by his daddy would think it was a great idea, right?
> 
> 
> for real do we have any historical data to prove that trickle down economics is a sham?



Only every time we've ever attempted to use trickle down economics...


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A2kJbCn9XTx2b-_luw2HJNw

Judge orders DOJ to release grand jury material from Mueller report to Congress

Uhh, holy shit?


----------



## JSanta

And the Trump Administration ordered Defense Department officials not comply with subpoenas.

https://www.militarytimes.com/congr...agon-was-ordered-to-not-comply-with-subpoena/


----------



## possumkiller

Having spend a few years in the military, I know that ever since WW2 when "I was just following orders" was the number one excuse for the Holocaust, the US military made it mandatory to disobey unlawful orders.


----------



## JSanta

But the question is whether nor not the subpoenas are legal or not then, correct? Which a Federal judge just did. Which would make disobeying the subpoena an illegal act.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> But the question is whether nor not the subpoenas are legal or not then, correct? Which a Federal judge just did. Which would make disobeying the subpoena an illegal act.



Hasn't really stopped them yet. Not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. More like spoons, if anything.

I can't wait to see the Bolton testimony if it materializes.


----------



## Ralyks

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: IS leader killed in US operation in Syria https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50200339

Is this his "Obama got Bin Laden" moment?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: IS leader killed in US operation in Syria https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50200339
> 
> Is this his "Obama got Bin Laden" moment?



You mean his symbolic killing of an easily replaceable leader that will have no affect on continuing hostilities? 

Yes, that is his bin Laden moment.

Though, my money is on the White House and his more vociferous supporters using it to claim "victory" over IS.

This will probably be remembered more as his "flight suit with victory banner on flight deck" moment depending on how it's played.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> You mean his symbolic killing of an easily replaceable leader that will have no affect on continuing hostilities?
> 
> Yes, that is his bin Laden moment.
> 
> Though, my money is on the White House and his more vociferous supporters using it to claim "victory" over IS.
> 
> This will probably be remembered more as his "flight suit with victory banner on flight deck" moment depending on how it's played.



Oh, in no way do I feel this is on the scale of Bin Laden or Saddam. And I agree on your points that he is really replaceable, and will add that this will fire ISIS up.

On top of that, the troops didn’t even get him. He blew himself up. He basically pulled a Hitler.


----------



## Thaeon

Solid timeline for the impeachment inquiry. Not really new information, but a decent place to keep your finger on the events.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/12/7689...he-path-to-the-impeachment-inquiry-a-timeline


----------



## sleewell

we also got him due to kurdish intelligence. after royally screwing them over and leaving them to be ethnically cleansed i wonder how much more intelligence they or other nations will share with us?



i'm noticing more and more there is an up trump and then a down trump. seems like he uses uppers a lot and is coming down off them when he looks really tired and is slurring his words.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> we also got him due to kurdish intelligence. after royally screwing them over and leaving them to be ethnically cleansed i wonder how much more intelligence they or other nations will share with us?
> 
> 
> 
> i'm noticing more and more there is an up trump and then a down trump. seems like he uses uppers a lot and is coming down off them when he looks really tired and is slurring his words.



Could be as simple as Bipolar Disorder. Same effects even physically, and sometimes comes with a healthy dose of paranoia. Could explain a lot. We already can observe the Megalomania. Its fairly often to find co-morbidity in mental disorders.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> But the question is whether nor not the subpoenas are legal or not then, correct? Which a Federal judge just did. Which would make disobeying the subpoena an illegal act.


I know in at least one of these cases (Kupperman, an advisor to Bolton who had worked closely with Trump on Ukraine) they're kicking it to the courts (Kupperman filed the suit asking the courts to weigh in himself) to determine whether or not as an adviser to the president executive privilege can be used to prevent a witness from being forced to testify. Kupperman's lawyer's belief is he cannot be forced to testify, but if the court disagrees then at that point he'd be happy to comply. In such a situation, it's doubtful that Kupperman himself would be found to have broken the law... But, at the same time, Adam Schiff's stance that this White House order could potentially be part of an obstruction of justice charge is also entirely correct, and encapsulates the risk of this strategy to _Trump_.


----------



## Ralyks

Thaeon said:


> Could be as simple as Bipolar Disorder. Same effects even physically, and sometimes comes with a healthy dose of paranoia. Could explain a lot. We already can observe the Megalomania. Its fairly often to find co-morbidity in mental disorders.



I've heard multiple times over the years that he likes to snort Adderall.

As for Kupperman, I feel like precedent will have the judge go "Um, yeah, you were subpoenaed."


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> As for Kupperman, I feel like precedent will have the judge go "Um, yeah, you were subpoenaed."


....though, there IS some precedent for confidential advice from an adviser to the President being protected under executive privilege, so it's not an impossible argument to make. Not a lawyer and this gets far enough into constitutional law that I won't even try to weigh in on the merits of the case itself. Instead, I'll come at this from more of a behavioral standpoint, and say his actions point to two potential explanations - one, that the Trump administration has an interest in setting as wide as possible a precedent for how that privilege can be used, so if they're choosing to have the courts rule on one of the claims, they likely believe this is a strong one, or alternately if the Trump Administration was not involved in the decision to send this to the courts, then Kupperman likely believes his read is correct, but not with enough confidence to straight-up refuse to answer the subpoena, and instead leave himself a safety check. Not sure which we're seeing here.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Kupperman likely believes his read is correct



FWIW, the wording in Kupperman's appeal to the court explicitly argues the weight/significance of both bodies equally and basically says it's not his place to decide which precedent matters more. So just because he didn't meet Schiff's deadline, I'm not ready to chalk this up as a pro-Trump stall tactic. He was put between a rock and a hard place.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> FWIW, the wording in Kupperman's appeal to the court explicitly argues the weight/significance of both bodies equally and basically says it's not his place to decide which precedent matters more. So just because he didn't meet Schiff's deadline, I'm not ready to chalk this up as a pro-Trump stall tactic. He was put between a rock and a hard place.


On the other side, though, my concern is based mostly on what his lawyer has had to say. His lawyer was a little more explicit - that there's a half century of precedent that a President's closest advisers are protected by testimonial immunity, "but of course if the courts agree the subpoena is lawful, then of course Dr. Kupperman will comply." I hope you're right, and I suspect that's at least _part _of the decision, but his lawyer makes me think it's a little more likely that there's at least a stall component.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A5KWdaVc2TgWmcDKmmD6-Uw

"House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures after weeks of GOP attacks"

Guess they got fed up.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A5KWdaVc2TgWmcDKmmD6-Uw
> 
> "House to vote on impeachment inquiry procedures after weeks of GOP attacks"
> 
> Guess they got fed up.


Not sure of the merits of this move, TBH.

There's no requirement that the _full_ House has to vote on an impeachment inquiry before it can go forward. There's some precedent for it, maybe, but nowhere in the constitution does it specify that it HAS to happen before an impeachment can be "valid." On one hand, you could argue that it removes one more argument against compliance from the Trump administration's quiver, but it was a pretty shitty argument, and doing so runs the risk of giving an air of legitimacy to the rest of their grievances (like the hearings have been closed door so far and that the GOP wants to be able to subpoena witnesses) that are also kinda BS. And sure enough the White House response to this has been a predictable "the inquiry is already irreparably tainted," which is again bullshit, but one that will likely play well with the Fox News personality set.

I'm not really sure I see what the upside is for Pelosi here... But, at the same time, Pelosi has played this year's term SO savvily (her management of the situation after Trump shut down the government was a tour de force) that I have an awfully hard time believing she'd do this without some clear upside. So, idunno. I'm not seeing a clear benefit here, but I guess I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

EDIT - idunno, if the right gets to engage in 11th dimensional chess to explain some of Trump's stranger moves, maybe the left should too. I guess, at the end of the day, a vote on a set of procedures specified by the Democratic coalition in the House as to how the impeachment proceedings can proceed and what Trump can and can't do is hard to see as a particularly _good_ development for Trump, and maybe the real upside to the left here is that after bitching about the lack of a formal chamber-wide vote and the closed door hearings, the fact that this is how low the GOP has set the bar is the real victory here. Who knows.


----------



## sleewell

She probably knows enough GOP will vote with her after being in the room for all the testimony thus far which will give cover to dems in red districts. 

Kind of eliminates their while argument and really doesn't have the risk of failure anymore since every witness has confirmed what happened and no one has backed trump.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> She probably knows enough GOP will vote with her after being in the room for all the testimony thus far which will give cover to dems in red districts.
> 
> Kind of eliminates their while argument and really doesn't have the risk of failure anymore since every witness has confirmed what happened and no one has backed trump.



I would have found this impossible probably even a month ago. Now?... Not outside the realm of possibility.


----------



## Drew

Eh, the House GOP has been pretty staunch in their defense of Trump. Which makes sense - they're in the minority, know the Dems have enough votes to impeach and send to the Senate, and many of them are from highly gerrymandered red districts. They already know the outcome so they have very little incentive to come out in favor of impeachment unless they're at legitimate risk of losing their seat to a Democrat in 2020. The Senate is a different story, they'll have to try him, the GOP has the majority here, and if public support for removing him from office is high enough there will be electoral consequences if they fail to do so. 

This is why you're seeing things like the House having no trouble getting the full GOP contingent to unanimously support a vote condemning the impeachment process, while the Senate has been slow to do the same. The opportunity costs are very different.


----------



## sleewell

this could be a war crime....

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/In...-Evidence-Of-The-US-Smuggling-Syrian-Oil.html


----------



## vilk

NVM


----------



## sleewell

1.9% Q3 GDP. pretty bad since trump was assuming +3% every quarter for the next 10 years to make his tax cut work. 

also a very lackluster jobs report and they revised down the numbers from last month pretty significantly.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> 1.9% Q3 GDP. pretty bad since trump was assuming +3% every quarter for the next 10 years to make his tax cut work.
> 
> also a very lackluster jobs report and they revised down the numbers from last month pretty significantly.


Beat the Bloomberg consensus median estimate of 1.6%, at least, with stronger-than-expected consumer spending offsetting weaker-than-expected business investment. Net trade impact was flat, better than expected, as was inventories. We were discussing that this morning and our working hypothesis is the buildup in Boeing 737MAX jets that have been completed but not delivered is probably mostly offset by a rundown in inventory at GM due to the strike, but if there was a broader inventory reduction and GM alone wasn't enough to offset Boeing, then that's on one hand a concerning sign for retail business confidence, but on the other if demand remains strong that could lead to additional ordering in Q4 and could potentially boost output. 

Personal bias is this will probably get revised down as consumer data HAS been weakening. Any impact from the TCJA was expected to be fleeting and is now clearly behind us, and the incredibly uncertain international business environment right now thanks to Trump's trade war has really brought business investment to a near standstill as no one knows what the trade picture will look like in 6 months' time.


----------



## sleewell

Drew said:


> Beat the Bloomberg consensus median estimate of 1.6%, at least, with stronger-than-expected consumer spending offsetting weaker-than-expected business investment. Net trade impact was flat, better than expected, as was inventories. We were discussing that this morning and our working hypothesis is the buildup in Boeing 737MAX jets that have been completed but not delivered is probably mostly offset by a rundown in inventory at GM due to the strike, but if there was a broader inventory reduction and GM alone wasn't enough to offset Boeing, then that's on one hand a concerning sign for retail business confidence, but on the other if demand remains strong that could lead to additional ordering in Q4 and could potentially boost output.
> 
> Personal bias is this will probably get revised down as consumer data HAS been weakening. Any impact from the TCJA was expected to be fleeting and is now clearly behind us, and the incredibly uncertain international business environment right now thanks to Trump's trade war has really brought business investment to a near standstill as no one knows what the trade picture will look like in 6 months' time.




very valid points.

what is your take on today's rate cut?


----------



## Drew

Probably needed, and fully priced in my the market. The most important part, IMO, wasn't the cut so much as the accompanying language, particularly removing language about supporting the ongoing expansion and instead moderating it to monitoring economic conditions - it looks like they're trying to subtly note that unless economic conditions deteriorate between now and then they're holding in November.


----------



## vilk

I wonder why candidates never talk about removing daylight savings time. It's highly unpopular; virtually no one still wants it. Maybe it's not as important as wealth inequality or our crumbling infrastructure, but it would be so incredibly easy just to say it and instantly have that many more people say _that candidate has a policy I agree with_.

Same feelings on Bernie's plan to make election days national holidays. Why doesn't he lead with that more? It's super popular, it's super easy to understand, it's very difficult to disagree with that idea without being very transparently anti-democracy.


----------



## Ralyks

I was actually talking Daylight Savings with a friend yesterday. Doesn't Arizona not follow it?

Oh, and House voted to formalize impeachment proceedibgs, as expected. One less thing for the GOP to have to make up something to complain about for.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I was actually talking Daylight Savings with a friend yesterday. Doesn't Arizona not follow it?
> 
> Oh, and House voted to formalize impeachment proceedibgs, as expected. One less thing for the GOP to have to make up something to complain about for.


It does not. I learned this when I flew OUT of Arizona on Daylight Savings Time this year.  Airport employees just have to start everything an hour earlier to accommodate States that do follow DST, so it kind of gets them to the same point. 

Ironically, this weekend I'll be in Spain when we fall back an hour, which sucks because that first week where it feels like I'm getting up an hour later than normal is the only part of this whole mess I enjoy.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Trump's trade war has really brought business investment to a near standstill as no one knows what the trade picture will look like in 6 months' time.



What's remarkable to me is that the result of the uncertainty is a standstill rather than a steep decline. I swear almost any other time in my life, industry would be freaking out at the idea they need to keep treading water indefinitely.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> It does not. I learned this when I flew OUT of Arizona on Daylight Savings Time this year.  Airport employees just have to start everything an hour earlier to accommodate States that do follow DST, so it kind of gets them to the same point.



Isn't there a place where there something like: the states does, the county doesn't, but the native american reservation does...so by going through this one specific area, you could in theory have to change your watch 4-5 times within an hour if you wanted to be precise to local time?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> What's remarkable to me is that the result of the uncertainty is a standstill rather than a steep decline. I swear almost any other time in my life, industry would be freaking out at the idea they need to keep treading water indefinitely.


I think that's the deregulation magic pixie dust keeping them from losing their shit, personally.


----------



## efiltsohg

https://babylonbee.com/news/picture...nst-alien-fleet-prompts-flurry-of-fact-checks


----------



## MaxOfMetal

efiltsohg said:


> https://babylonbee.com/news/picture...nst-alien-fleet-prompts-flurry-of-fact-checks



The Babylon Bee would be a lot funnier if I didn't have a couple family members emailing (_emailing!_) me articles from it as "gotchas". 

Or maybe that's why it's funny.


----------



## Randy

Biggest giveaway is his hair. Too neat.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> The Babylon Bee would be a lot funnier if I didn't have a couple family members emailing (_emailing!_) me articles from it as "gotchas".
> 
> Or maybe that's why it's funny.



The Onion needs to change it's name for April Fools Day, but, like...March 20th or something.. It's been around for so long it's to the point that people recognize their font in screenshots where their name is cropped out. Give us just *one* day of Arial and Times New Roman font and a header that says, "Politics Today Weekly" or something, and see how many people fall for their articles again.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A7pFcgTqDTbSg6Piec5QfRg

Lost his appeal in NY for his tax returns. How many times can we say "No, for real this time!"?


----------



## Thaeon

He's going to attempt to say no or appeal again.

This is also HILARIOUS. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ecries-written-answers-whistleblower-n1075981


----------



## Ralyks

So is this impeachment actually going to go anywhere with the no shows and delays with the courts, or will this be dragged out past the election?

Also, the only thing about his tax returns issue going to the Supreme Court is that Roberts won't put up with it.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> So is this impeachment actually going to go anywhere with the no shows and delays with the courts, or will this be dragged out past the election?
> 
> Also, the only thing about his tax returns issue going to the Supreme Court is that Roberts won't put up with it.


I have a feeling, based on what I’ve absorbed so far. Something will come of this.


----------



## tedtan

I agree.

I seriously doubt the Senate will remove Trump from office unless the Senators' constituencies turn against him, but it looks like there will be an impeachment in the House, and likely criminal proceedings against Trump once he leaves office as well.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> I agree.
> 
> I seriously doubt the Senate will remove Trump from office unless the Senators' constituencies turn against him, but it looks like there will be an impeachment in the House, and likely criminal proceedings against Trump once he leaves office as well.



Results from last night (Virginia legislature flip, Kentucky Gov's office goes blue) implies something I mentioned some time back, that there was a chance of 'Trump Fatigue' even in red districts and that the GOP would be watching closely to decide which direction they go heading into 2020. If Trump looks like he does more harm than good to the party and he's going to be gone after 2020 anyway, there's a good chance they turn on him to protect their interests. IMO it's about 60/40 this happens but likely too little too late to save their majority in the Senate or the presidency or both.


----------



## tedtan

I agree, but I don't think the Senate will go so far as to remove Trump from office at this point. I do think they will likely end up running someone other than Trump in 2020, though as he is losing support from republican voters.


----------



## sleewell

yeah the suburbs hate trump now, that was shown in 2018 and repeated last night. what was more interesting to me were some of the eastern rural coal counties that went blue. that should be terrifying for the gop. also moscow mitch is polling lower than bevin was so hopefully he gets shown the door in 2020. 

trump: i am making this ky election about me, vote for bevin

voters: ok well we are voting for the other guy bc we don't like you

trump: this was not about me at all. 

lol


----------



## Randy

I don't think the 11/6/19 GOP led Senate will convict Trump, no. But six to eight months from now... who knows. Even if they're stubborn and they're not there now, the trend at least points that way more than the opposite.

Again, gotta remember that it's at least mildly pointing to the possibility that the voters will hold support of Trump against them in elections. I don't expect the GOP to grow scruples overnight but I do expect them to try and save their own skin. 

It's way outside of the box right now but I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate is Pence or even somebody else, they give Trump an out like Nixon where he escapes the embarrassment of a conviction, they escape having to take a vote that will damn them one way or another, he leaves office and hands over the reins to the guy who's going to pardon him and also run in his place. 

That's the version that saves face for any of them the most and stops the bleeding. I just doubt Trump has the humility to take it.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I don't think the 11/6/19 GOP led Senate will convict Trump, no. But six to eight months from now... who knows. Even if they're stubborn and they're not there now, the trend at least points that way more than the opposite.
> 
> Again, gotta remember that it's at least mildly pointing to the possibility that the voters will hold support of Trump against them in elections. I don't expect the GOP to grow scruples overnight but I do expect them to try and save their own skin.
> 
> It's way outside of the box right now but I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate is Pence or even somebody else, they give Trump an out like Nixon where he escapes the embarrassment of a conviction, they escape having to take a vote that will damn them one way or another, he leaves office and hands over the reins to the guy who's going to pardon him and also run in his place.
> 
> That's the version that saves face for any of them the most and stops the bleeding. I just doubt Trump has the humility to take it.



Completely agree. I think Trump's ego is far too large to allow him to duck out. I think he'd rather go down in flames believing his own hype. I just hope that that's what we'll see. And not some mindless rallying behind him just because fuck dems.


----------



## Ralyks

Thaeon said:


> Completely agree. I think Trump's ego is far too large to allow him to duck out. I think he'd rather go down in flames believing his own hype. I just hope that that's what we'll see. And not some mindless rallying behind him just because fuck dems.



As long as he doesn't push the button on the way out.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> I don't think the 11/6/19 GOP led Senate will convict Trump, no. But six to eight months from now... who knows. Even if they're stubborn and they're not there now, the trend at least points that way more than the opposite.
> 
> Again, gotta remember that it's at least mildly pointing to the possibility that the voters will hold support of Trump against them in elections. I don't expect the GOP to grow scruples overnight but I do expect them to try and save their own skin.
> 
> It's way outside of the box right now but I wouldn't be surprised if the candidate is Pence or even somebody else, they give Trump an out like Nixon where he escapes the embarrassment of a conviction, they escape having to take a vote that will damn them one way or another, he leaves office and hands over the reins to the guy who's going to pardon him and also run in his place.
> 
> That's the version that saves face for any of them the most and stops the bleeding. I just doubt Trump has the humility to take it.



...wait, can you pardon somebody who hasn't been convicted? Was that ever a thing?


----------



## Vyn

Ralyks said:


> As long as he doesn't push the button on the way out.



This is what I'm most worried about.


----------



## Adieu

Don't worry about advance warning, he'll be tweeting for tech support after 30 minutes of trying and failing to operate it correctly


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> ...wait, can you pardon somebody who hasn't been convicted? Was that ever a thing?



Not on the state level, which Trump should REALLY be worried about.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> ...wait, can you pardon somebody who hasn't been convicted? Was that ever a thing?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon


----------



## sleewell

Bloomberg to enter the race... thoughts?


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> Bloomberg to enter the race... thoughts?



Noooooooop.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> Noooooooop.




deep thoughts lol. care to expand?

i dont claim to know everything about him but if you want trump gone i think he looks like the best chance. biden is way past his prime. warren and bernie are too far left. i like mayor pete the most but there are lots of homophobes out there. doesnt seem like any of the others can get past low single digits.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> deep thoughts lol. care to expand?



A billionaire too late to the party. Meh. 

On issues:
- For the War on Drugs 
- Supports employer based healthcare 
- Wants to cut all entitlements

I can't get behind that. He's not an absolute dumpster fire of a candidate, but he's definitely not someone I'd enjoy voting for.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> deep thoughts lol. care to expand?
> 
> i dont claim to know everything about him but if you want trump gone i think he looks like the best chance. biden is way past his prime. warren and bernie are too far left. i like mayor pete the most but there are lots of homophobes out there. doesnt seem like any of the others can get past low single digits.



Too late in the process. If he'd been running since the beginning, yes, I think he'd have a good shot.

Also, what Max said


----------



## sleewell

i am not going to let when someone enters the race override if i think they are a good or bad candidate. i think he gave everyone else a shot and is realizing they might lead to trump's re-election.

he is worth 52 billion. certainly has enough money available to catch up. do you really think biden is still all there? i see dementia. do you really think warren or bernie can pull in the center leaning independents who voted for trump last time? i think they play into the fake socialism hate trump wants to run against even though i agree with them on many issues. 


very good points Max, i will have to investigate those futher.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Too late in the process. If he'd been running since the beginning, yes, I think he'd have a good shot.
> 
> Also, what Max said



I'm pretty sure waiting things out was his strategy from the get go. He's dodged the. arguably, more difficult parts of the primary race by bypassing debates and having to compete with fewer candidates. Now that he's seen what has and hasn't worked he can mold his answers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> i am not going to let when someone enters the race override if i think they are a good or bad candidate. i think he gave everyone else a shot and is realizing they might lead to trump's re-election.
> 
> he is worth 52 billion. certainly has enough money available to catch up. do you really think biden is still all there? i see dementia. do you really think warren or bernie can pull in the center independents who voted for trump last time?
> 
> 
> very good points Max, i will have to investigate those futher.



I think Trump is toxic enough to any independents that would be swayed by a ho-hum democratic candidate. 

The amount of people that are real independents that can't choose between any of the front runners and Trump is too small to matter as much as republicans and centrists want us to believe. 

Also, if Tom Steyer couldn't buy a candidacy, what makes you think Bloomberg can?


----------



## Randy

Purely as an observer and strategically (not speaking from preference), my guess is the pick is going to be Warren.

Biden's age is an issue. He had a reputation for saying the wrong thing even when he was running in 2008 and even if it's just note being careful with his words, he's in a box where any small thing he does is interpreted as a "senior moment" and believe me there'll be more. I also think this shit Trump was doing with Ukraine is grounds for impeachment but there's some legitimacy to the argument Hunter Biden is filthy and a major liability since he was getting all of these "no show" gigs shopping his dad's name around.

Sanders is also too old and even though he got a quick bump after the heart attack, there's going to be increased focus on his health. That's only 1/3rd of his issue, the rest comes from the "too far left" stuff but that stains him more than it does Warren. Warren is a Democrat, Sanders was and still is an independent Democratic Socialist. Sanders had and still has a problem getting establishment Dems to support him because he has zero loyalty to the Democratic Party. 

Warren, by comparison, is a Democrat and she has had no problem winning re-election in a state that, while liberal, still swings Republican often enough to keep it competitive. She also worked in the Obama administration at a pretty high level at the CFPB, so she's shown she's not a total anarchist.

My concern with Bloomberg, supposedly Eric Holder and now Buttigieg's turn to the center is this is less about electability and more about protecting corporate interests. And I don't mean that as a "boo! jail the Wall Streeters" sentiment, I mean things like Citizens United that reward the practice of paying off politicians, and giving us poor representation.

I don't necessarily believe in all the purity tests being floated out there by the liberal wing of the party but the "well, you have to be able to win in swing states!" argument for centrism, IMO, is bunk. We were given a hellfire and brimstone warning on AOC when she won against the second in command in the HoR that she couldn't win in the general, and she did. And we were told it was because it's a safe district but now she's raising money 3 to 1 vs an establishment pick in a neighboring district like Jeffries.

If progressive politics poll badly in the midwest it's less to do with conservatism or centrism and more to do with the poor level of education and information reaching them. Democrats were told they needed a "safe pick" in Hillary, not a socialist like Bernie, to win in the midwest and then she went there and told them all their jobs were obsolete and that they needed to get over it. THAT'S how you lose those people. Sanders, Warren and even Yang favor policies that will rebuild the middle class in the midwest speaking from a position of empowerment rather than condescension and when you're talking to poor and poorly educated people, that's more effective than telling them to learn to code.


----------



## Ralyks

Warrens still my pick and it’s looking like she’ll get the nod, Wall Street be damned.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Warrens still my pick and it’s looking like she’ll get the nod, Wall Street be damned.



I'm not optimistic enough to call it for Warren.

This timeline is too dark.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Warrens still my pick and it’s looking like she’ll get the nod, Wall Street be damned.



Glad we're having this discussion while Drew is in Spain 

Honestly, I think we're experiencing an especially rosey "on our best behavior" perception of Wall Street right now, but I'm expecting one bubble or the other to burst and for us to see this decade's version of the mortgage meltdown or savings and loan scandal all over again to expose SOME network of bullshit. If it happens sometimes in the next year, she's gonna walk right into that Presidency.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Glad we're having this discussion while Drew is in Spain
> 
> Honestly, I think we're experiencing an especially rosey "on our best behavior" perception of Wall Street right now, but I'm expecting one bubble or the other to burst and for us to see this decade's version of the mortgage meltdown or savings and loan scandal all over again to expose SOME network of bullshit. If it happens sometimes in the next year, she's gonna walk right into that Presidency.



I've believed for a while now that this "great economy" is merely short term solutions that are going to cause major long term problems.


----------



## Ralyks

The GOP wants Hunter Biden and the whistleblower to testify. They really don't get how this whistleblower thing works, do they?


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> The GOP wants Hunter Biden and the whistleblower to testify. They really don't get how this whistleblower thing works, do they?



They do. What they want is for anyone still in the white house thinking about whistleblowing to know that they will be dragged out in public and smeared, accused of treason, and threatened by millions of devoted Trump supporters. They also want to keep the entire narrative about whether Hunter Biden committed crimes and whether the whistleblower is a "never Trumper" rather than Trump's own corruption and crimes.


----------



## stockwell

Whether Hunter Biden committed a crime or not doesn't matter to me that much. The issue is that we accept that kind of influence-bartering as normal for people as wealthy and powerful as the Bidens, the Trumps, the Clintons, and everyone like them. It's completely normal for children of the powerful and wealthy, and it's disgusting. That's why I'm not very invested in the impeachment. Partisans are acting like this is the straw that broke the camel's back, even though it's relatively minor compared to a lot of the administration's decision. 

It's so predictable watching Warren continue to bow to the wealthy and the establishment. Once the establishment realized how visible and obvious Biden's flaws as a candidate are, they started to shift their support to Warren to hedge their bets. She's another technocrat who'll promise reforms and then, like Obama, accomplish very little actual change. Warren's entire campaign is premised on Chuck Schumer's electoral philosophy, and I don't think Warren is different enough from HRC to be able to overcome that dead-end approach.


----------



## iamaom

Randy said:


> If it happens sometimes in the next year, she's gonna walk right into that Presidency.


And then the GOP will promptly blame her and the Dems for it for 4 years, and it will work.

Also I hope it happens cuz I'm gonna swoop in and buy a boomer-house while they get carted off to the retirement home.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> Whether Hunter Biden committed a crime or not doesn't matter to me that much. The issue is that we accept that kind of influence-bartering as normal for people as wealthy and powerful as the Bidens, the Trumps, the Clintons, and everyone like them. It's completely normal for children of the powerful and wealthy, and it's disgusting. That's why I'm not very invested in the impeachment. Partisans are acting like this is the straw that broke the camel's back, even though it's relatively minor compared to a lot of the administration's decision.
> 
> It's so predictable watching Warren continue to bow to the wealthy and the establishment. Once the establishment realized how visible and obvious Biden's flaws as a candidate are, they started to shift their support to Warren to hedge their bets. She's another technocrat who'll promise reforms and then, like Obama, accomplish very little actual change. Warren's entire campaign is premised on Chuck Schumer's electoral philosophy, and I don't think Warren is different enough from HRC to be able to overcome that dead-end approach.



Agreed up until the last sentence.

Hillary had some VERY deep flaws that went way back, and some totally unnecessary self inflicted wounds (like passing out at a fucking 9/11 memorial, pissing herself and being dragged into a waiting van like a malfunctioning robot, then lying about it three different ways). Warren perpetuates the sexist stereotype Hillary started of the shrieky school principal but that and the corporate donations aren't enough to draw a 1:1 IMO.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Glad we're having this discussion while Drew is in Spain
> 
> Honestly, I think we're experiencing an especially rosey "on our best behavior" perception of Wall Street right now, but I'm expecting one bubble or the other to burst and for us to see this decade's version of the mortgage meltdown or savings and loan scandal all over again to expose SOME network of bullshit. If it happens sometimes in the next year, she's gonna walk right into that Presidency.




I think at this point if I could pick one of the frontrunners to run in the general it would be Warren... but, IMO, rumors of the demise of the Biden campaign seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Warren has surged in the polls and has been steadily gaining for some time, true, and she's come across as a polished, well prepared, and highly competent candidate. I have some policy disagreements with her, but would have no problem voting for her. But, her momentum seems to have stalled a little, and despite her rise Biden still has held onto the frontrunner position in the polling. To a certain extent you can make arguments that you need to handicap polling to account for other factors, like the fact Warren is gaining ground or the potential for the Ukraine scandal to implicate the Biden family somehow, when trying to project who the eventual nominee will be... But at the end of the day this will be put to a vote, and the closer you get to the polling dates the more credence you have to give the polling numbers, or come up with plausible reasons why they may be biased (in the statistical sense of the term). And I'm not sure I see those reasons.

I think either Biden or Warren is pretty likely, and if I had to put money down on the question I'd have to choose Biden. Two months ago I don't know if I'd have said that, and honestly at this point I think the single biggest reason I'd have to give the edge to Biden is the passage of time, and two months later he still leads in the polling.

Spain was fucking awesome, btw.



sleewell said:


> Bloomberg to enter the race... thoughts?


IMO, he's keeping his options open. Bloomberg is pretty centrist and can't be wild about the way the left wing of the Democratic party is surging this cycle, but he also clearly wants to see Trump lose and the last thing he wants to do is totally blow up the primary. It would be unprecedented for a candidate to declare THIS late in the cycle, and it's hard to believe he REALLY thinks he could declare and start peeling votes off from the likes of Warren or Sanders. If somehow the Biden campaign blows up and Buttigieg doesn't seem to be able to fill the gap I think we'd have to give pretty serious consideration to the possibility, but I think the main reason for his decision to file in Alabama is the deadline to do so is today.


----------



## stockwell

HRC is obviously infinitely worse than Warren, because she's a hawk with blood on her hands. I'm not saying they're 1:1 equivalent, just that they're fulfilling a similar role. If you like I could compare Warren to Obama instead. They're both technocratic reformers espousing the same neoliberal program the US has stuck to since Reagan.

One of the reasons Trump won (besides our broken electoral system and how godawful of a candidate Clinton is) is because he actually admitted that things are bad for a lot of people. He actually admitted that there's a problem. Unfortunately, he misdiagnosed the source of the issue and used the typical scapegoats. But at least he acknowledged that things are pretty bad. Now that the mask is off, you can't run a "I'll make everything continue as normal with slight changes" candidate again. 

Take M4A. M4A is the biggest issue of this election, for obvious reasons. After Warren announced her stance on healthcare, stocks rose for the private healthcare industry. Investors know Warren isn't a threat to business as usual. Just like how Obama had a Democratic senate, house, and Supreme Court and the milquetoast ACA only limped through, to be promptly dismantled under the current admin. Warren would be useless after her 100 days of executive reforms were done. 

I don't agree with Sanders on some things, and I don't think electing him and calling it a day would accomplish much. But his policies are a huge step in the right direction, and he's the only one talking about actual bottom-up pressure rather than just top-down reform. Which is why the media is acting like he's too far left, or that his base is racist frat bros, or openly ignoring him, or whatever the current strategy is. More and more polls are showing Bernie beating Trump, unlike the rest of the field. But the political and financial elite would rather have Trump over Bernie, as Bill Gates openly admitted.


----------



## Drew

I've said it here before, but Bernie and Trump essentially both ran the same campaign - "Everything is bad, and it's _not your fault_." They just blamed different people. There are lessons there, of course, and I agree that anyone who doesn't think America wants the status quo to change hasn't been paying attention, but I also think there's a pretty big disagreement on what those changes need to be, and maybe it'd be helpful here to also think a bit about what we as a country do _well_. (Also worth noting in passing was that this read doesn't really do the Clinton platform justice, exactly, as while her read was a lot more nuanced, it was intended to address a lot of the same outcomes as Sanders' platform, it just sought to do so within the system rather than through wholesale tearing it down to build it back up)

Only thing I'll specifically disagree on, though: 



allheavymusic said:


> More and more polls are showing Bernie beating Trump, unlike the rest of the field.


Virtually every single plausible nominee in the Democratic party has pretty consistently beat Trump in hypothetical head to head matchups, so I've been surprised to see Sanders supporters latch onto this talking point. It's neither true, nor really a differentiator. I'd say the bigger message to take away here is Democrats of _any _point on the left wing spectrum is more popular than Trump, which IMO is a good thing for all Democratic candidates. 

That said, the gist of the argument here that Sanders supporters are making is an appeal to electibility, and the thing I'd be concerned about if I was a Sanders supporter is the_ other _way of formulating this question, which is of the candidates who consider the ability to beat Trump their top priority in selecting a candidate, who are they choosing? And there, both Biden and Warren are getting the most support, with Sanders as a fairly distant third.


----------



## InHiding

Here's an actual discussion about how the US politics and media work if you are not too brainwashed to listen to that type of stuff:


----------



## stockwell

Drew said:


> I've said it here before, but Bernie and Trump essentially both ran the same campaign - "Everything is bad, and it's _not your fault_." They just blamed different people. There are lessons there, of course, and I agree that anyone who doesn't think America wants the status quo to change hasn't been paying attention, but I also think there's a pretty big disagreement on what those changes need to be, and maybe it'd be helpful here to also think a bit about what we as a country do _well_. (Also worth noting in passing was that this read doesn't really do the Clinton platform justice, exactly, as while her read was a lot more nuanced, it was intended to address a lot of the same outcomes as Sanders' platform, it just sought to do so within the system rather than through wholesale tearing it down to build it back up)



Trump and Bernie have completely different platforms in almost every aspect. I'm not a proponent of horseshoe theory, and the comparison doesn't make sense beyond a surface level "both ran populist campaigns" take. 

Calling Clinton's platform more nuanced is bizarre to me. Centrism is not the same as nuance. When unethical systems exist, compromising with them is not the more nuanced take, it's just bowing to the powers that be. Do you honestly think Clinton would have any positive impact on, say, private prisons? Or ending the War on Drugs (which Bill ramped up during his presidency)? Even if her stated goals were good (they were paper thin), there's nothing to indicate she would be any more capable or willing to fulfill them than Obama was. 



Drew said:


> Virtually every single plausible nominee in the Democratic party has pretty consistently beat Trump in hypothetical head to head matchups, so I've been surprised to see Sanders supporters latch onto this talking point. It's neither true, nor really a differentiator. I'd say the bigger message to take away here is Democrats of _any _point on the left wing spectrum is more popular than Trump, which IMO is a good thing for all Democratic candidates.
> 
> That said, the gist of the argument here that Sanders supporters are making is an appeal to electibility, and the thing I'd be concerned about if I was a Sanders supporter is the_ other _way of formulating this question, which is of the candidates who consider the ability to beat Trump their top priority in selecting a candidate, who are they choosing? And there, both Biden and Warren are getting the most support, with Sanders as a fairly distant third.



I wouldn't extrapolate from what I've said to Sanders' base as a whole, I'm not that plugged in. I've only seen a scattering of random polls and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Polling methodology is weird anyway. I think 2016 turned most of us off to most polls. 

But I agree. An appeal to electability is what tanked the 2016 primary. But if you're right that all candidates are beating Trump, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support Sanders. He's a socdem, so he's not actually too far left for liberals. He's better on every issue (IMO obviously) than the rest of the field, and has been for his entire political career. As for electability, I think he has fewer weaknesses. No major scandals, no serious baggage. I don't get why people are so insistent that we need a safer, more centrist candidate in a post-Trump era.


----------



## USMarine75

*Overview*
Investigative journalist Lee Smith uses his unprecedented access to Congressman Devin Nunes, former head of the House Intelligence Committee, to expose the deep state operation against the president--and the American people.
Investigative journalist Lee Smith's _The Plot Against the President_ tells the story of how Congressman Devin Nunes uncovered the operation to bring down the commander-in-chief. While popular opinion holds that Russia subverted democratic processes during the 2016 elections, the real damage was done not by Moscow or any other foreign actor. 

Rather, this was a slow-moving coup engineered by a coterie of the American elite, the "deep state," targeting not only the president, but also the rest of the country. The plot officially began July 31, 2016 with the counterintelligence investigation that the FBI opened to probe Russian infiltration of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. But the bureau never followed any Russians. In fact, it was an operation to sabotage Trump, the candidate, then president-elect, and finally the presidency. The conspirators included political operatives, law enforcement and intelligence officials, and the press.

The plot was uncovered by Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and his investigative team. They understood that the target of the operation wasn't just Trump, but rather the institutions that sustain our republic. A country where operatives use the intelligence and security services to protect their privileges by spying on Americans, coordinating with the press, and using extra-constitutional means to undermine an election then undo a presidency is more like the third world than the republic envisioned by the founding fathers.
Without Nunes and his team, the plot against the president -- and against the country -- never would have been revealed. 

Told from the perspective of Nunes and his crack investigators -- men and women who banded together to do the right thing at a crucial moment for our democracy -- the story of the biggest political scandal in a generation reads like a great detective novel, feels like a classic cowboy movie. The congressman from the cattle capital of California really did fight corruption in Washington. Devin Nunes took on the "deep state."

It was also turned in to a movie...


----------



## Adieu

...lol


----------



## Adieu

allheavymusic said:


> Trump and Bernie have completely different platforms in almost every aspect. I'm not a proponent of horseshoe theory, and the comparison doesn't make sense beyond a surface level "both ran populist campaigns" take.
> 
> Calling Clinton's platform more nuanced is bizarre to me. Centrism is not the same as nuance. When unethical systems exist, compromising with them is not the more nuanced take, it's just bowing to the powers that be. Do you honestly think Clinton would have any positive impact on, say, private prisons? Or ending the War on Drugs (which Bill ramped up during his presidency)? Even if her stated goals were good (they were paper thin), there's nothing to indicate she would be any more capable or willing to fulfill them than Obama was.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't extrapolate from what I've said to Sanders' base as a whole, I'm not that plugged in. I've only seen a scattering of random polls and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Polling methodology is weird anyway. I think 2016 turned most of us off to most polls.
> 
> But I agree. An appeal to electability is what tanked the 2016 primary. But if you're right that all candidates are beating Trump, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support Sanders. He's a socdem, so he's not actually too far left for liberals. He's better on every issue (IMO obviously) than the rest of the field, and has been for his entire political career. As for electability, I think he has fewer weaknesses. No major scandals, no serious baggage. I don't get why people are so insistent that we need a safer, more centrist candidate in a post-Trump era.



People insist on a centrist because they're tired of the populist hysteria see-saw and just want to stabilize the nation before it derails entirely

Occasional vanilla is actually very good for everyone in a 2 party system

Hell, TRUMP is the one that figured it out and pandered to it. A crude, pussy-grabbing, philandering, racist, mysoginist, greedy and scheming suit still subconsciously seemed more FAMILIAR and thus "far safer" than a Democratic party seemingly hell-bent on pitching a choice between minorities, skirts, commies, and gays.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Investigative journalist Lee Smith uses his unprecedented access to Congressman Devin Nunes



Ooo wee, I've never gone flaccid so fast.



Adieu said:


> People insist on a centrist because they're tired of the populist hysteria see-saw and just want to stabilize the nation before it derails entirely



I think his point was that the American interpretation of centrism isn't the same thing as pragmatism. One hallmark of centrists in both parties is relaxed regulations on corporations and on the stock market, and one could argue that our "boom and bust" see-saw is just as dangerous as the supposed "ideological extremes". Centrism *is* a version of ideological extremism.


----------



## sleewell

it is interesting to me that it only takes 3 senators to force a private impeachment vote. murkowski, collins and rommney have not yet signed onto graham's bill calling the process flawed. 

if senators can vote privately i think its an entirely different ball game...


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Trump and Bernie have completely different platforms in almost every aspect. I'm not a proponent of horseshoe theory, and the comparison doesn't make sense beyond a surface level "both ran populist campaigns" take.
> 
> Calling Clinton's platform more nuanced is bizarre to me. Centrism is not the same as nuance. When unethical systems exist, compromising with them is not the more nuanced take, it's just bowing to the powers that be. Do you honestly think Clinton would have any positive impact on, say, private prisons? Or ending the War on Drugs (which Bill ramped up during his presidency)? Even if her stated goals were good (they were paper thin), there's nothing to indicate she would be any more capable or willing to fulfill them than Obama was.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't extrapolate from what I've said to Sanders' base as a whole, I'm not that plugged in. I've only seen a scattering of random polls and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Polling methodology is weird anyway. I think 2016 turned most of us off to most polls.
> 
> But I agree. An appeal to electability is what tanked the 2016 primary. But if you're right that all candidates are beating Trump, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support Sanders. He's a socdem, so he's not actually too far left for liberals. He's better on every issue (IMO obviously) than the rest of the field, and has been for his entire political career. As for electability, I think he has fewer weaknesses. No major scandals, no serious baggage. I don't get why people are so insistent that we need a safer, more centrist candidate in a post-Trump era.



Two major themes here, I'll address separately.

First, you described Trump's platform more or less as so:



allheavymusic said:


> One of the reasons Trump won (besides our broken electoral system and how godawful of a candidate Clinton is) is because he actually admitted that things are bad for a lot of people. He actually admitted that there's a problem.



That's where I was getting at. Trump and Sanders had different solutions - at least, beyond the fact both were isolationist anti-trade populists - but the overall _theme _of their campains were things in this country were irrepairably broken, and that they had a scapegoat to blame. That's not a view I necessarily share, and when I described Clinton's campaign as "more nuanced" I meant specifically that - that she _did_ think there were a lot of ways America wasn't working for Americans, but that it could still be made to work for Americans without blowing the whole thing up. You specifically mention private prisons and the war on drugs - Clinton praised the DoJ decision to move away from their use in a debate, and had supported medical marijuana and loosening sentencing on marijuana use, and was potentially open to legalization, pending more time to observe what was coming out of states that had legalized. Bill Clinton may have pushed the war on drugs in the 90s, but Bill is not Hillary. Pretty interesting read on her explicit agknowledgement that the criminal justice system was itself part of the problem, in her acceptance speech.

And, if you're going to argue, "sure, she said she would do it, but we all know she wouldn't actually deliver," I'd say the same criticism could be leveed at Sanders. I have no doubt he'd, as did Obama, try to deliver on most or all of his pledges. I just think unless he had a house majority and a fillibuster-proof Senate majority, and both chambers were 100% on board with his proposals - which he wouldn't and they weren't - he wasn't going to be able to deliver. 

Second, on Sanders' appeal to electability... I see plenty of reasons I wouldn't support Sanders. I'm a liberal, center-left economically, pretty solidly left socially, and I don't support him, though in a pinch I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him if he were to win. He's a socialist and I'm not, for one rather large one, and I don't like the fact he's trying to co-opt the Democratic party to fund a run for the presidency, when he refuses to join the party himself. I don't think he has a very good understanding of mechanically how capital markets function, and some of his proposals from 2016 - a transaction tax on all financial transactions and trades to pay for his health care proposals for example - would be absolutely devastating to the abilty of the capital markets to function. He's also 78 years old and had a heart attack a month ago, which is a pretty major concern if we're thinking of handing him one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I also have problems with populists of ANY stripe, and don't want to see the United States pull back from the global stage. In fact, I would say more or less the opposite - considering their high degree of policy overlap, I don't see what the point of supporting Sanders is in a race where Elizabeth Warren is also a candidate - younger, far more thoughtful and substantive in her policy proposals vs Sanders big ideas but relatively light substance, and a woman at a time where I really hope we can do better than running one angry old white man against another angry old white man.


----------



## stockwell

Adieu said:


> People insist on a centrist because they're tired of the populist hysteria see-saw and just want to stabilize the nation before it derails entirely
> Occasional vanilla is actually very good for everyone in a 2 party system
> Hell, TRUMP is the one that figured it out and pandered to it. A crude, pussy-grabbing, philandering, racist, misogynist, greedy and scheming suit still subconsciously seemed more FAMILIAR and thus "far safer" than a Democratic party seemingly hell-bent on pitching a choice between minorities, skirts, commies, and gays.



Centrism in an Overton window heavily shifted to the right is not good for everyone. Certainly wasn't good for Iraq, or Libya, or Yemen, or any of the countries in which both parties have supported our military efforts. It wasn't good for anyone affected by the 2008 recession. It's not good for anyone who's homeless, unemployed, uninsured, or still in poverty because of the neoliberal political program. As for the Democratic party, I wouldn't worry. They're just as resolutely liberal as the GOP, if that's what you're into. 



Drew said:


> Trump and Sanders had different solutions - at least, beyond the fact both were isolationist anti-trade populists - but the overall _theme _of their campaigns were things in this country were irreparably broken, and that they had a scapegoat to blame. That's not a view I necessarily share, and when I described Clinton's campaign as "more nuanced" I meant specifically that - that she _did_ think there were a lot of ways America wasn't working for Americans, but that it could still be made to work for Americans without blowing the whole thing up. You specifically mention private prisons and the war on drugs - Clinton praised the DoJ decision to move away from their use in a debate, and had supported medical marijuana and loosening sentencing on marijuana use, and was potentially open to legalization, pending more time to observe what was coming out of states that had legalized. Bill Clinton may have pushed the war on drugs in the 90s, but Bill is not Hillary. Pretty interesting read on her explicit agknowledgement that the criminal justice system was itself part of the problem, in her acceptance speech.



To me those aren't examples of nuance. The existence of any private prisons (especially in cases where they can sue states if prisoner quotas aren't met) is absurd. Imprisoning people for using drugs is unethical. Merely "loosening sentencing" when we have the highest per capita incarceration rate is not a more nuanced position, it's a worse position. Anything that isn't a step towards full decriminalization is a retrograde, barbaric policy that belongs in the 20s along with Prohibition. Nuanced doesn't mean "less disruptive" when something desperately needs to be disrupted. 



Drew said:


> And, if you're going to argue, "sure, she said she would do it, but we all know she wouldn't actually deliver," I'd say the same criticism could be leveed at Sanders. I have no doubt he'd, as did Obama, try to deliver on most or all of his pledges. I just think unless he had a house majority and a fillibuster-proof Senate majority, and both chambers were 100% on board with his proposals - which he wouldn't and they weren't - he wasn't going to be able to deliver.



By executive order, Sanders can do extremely important things Obama would never do. He could stop drone strikes and military action abroad. We all know Obama loved his drone strikes. He could force the CIA to stop assassinating people, engineering coups, torturing people, trafficking drugs, training and arming terrorists, destabilizing the Americas and the Middle East, etc. Our foreign policy has been nightmarish for a long time. He can shut down private prisons and migrant detention centers. He can legalize marijuana and end mandatory minimums. He can even take a huge chunk out of student loan debt. Admittedly, executive actions are all reversible, which is an issue. But they're also hugely important, and his track record suggests he'd follow through. Unlike Obama, who was never going to do anything that wasn't approved by both parties, regardless of popular support. And that's not even considering the idea of bottom-up pressure. 



Drew said:


> Second, on Sanders' appeal to electability... I see plenty of reasons I wouldn't support Sanders. I'm a liberal, center-left economically, pretty solidly left socially, and I don't support him, though in a pinch I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him if he were to win. He's a socialist and I'm not, for one rather large one, and I don't like the fact he's trying to co-opt the Democratic party to fund a run for the presidency, when he refuses to join the party himself. I don't think he has a very good understanding of mechanically how capital markets function, and some of his proposals from 2016 - a transaction tax on all financial transactions and trades to pay for his health care proposals for example - would be absolutely devastating to the ability of the capital markets to function. He's also 78 years old and had a heart attack a month ago, which is a pretty major concern if we're thinking of handing him one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I also have problems with populists of ANY stripe, and don't want to see the United States pull back from the global stage. In fact, I would say more or less the opposite - considering their high degree of policy overlap, I don't see what the point of supporting Sanders is in a race where Elizabeth Warren is also a candidate - younger, far more thoughtful and substantive in her policy proposals vs Sanders big ideas but relatively light substance, and a woman at a time where I really hope we can do better than running one angry old white man against another angry old white man.



Sanders is center-left economically. Although he describes himself as a socialist, his policies construe him as a social democrat, which is a center-left position in most countries, if not a centrist one. I don't think it's productive to have the "is he or isn't he" debate. I do think he has strong connections to American socialism. But his stated policy goals are not innately anti-capitalist, and he's not running on a socialist platform. It's bizarre to say he's trying to co-opt the Democratic Party. It's a two party system. He has no other choice. He either runs as a Democrat or as a spoiler candidate. 

As far as I understand it, he's proposed multiple possible options for financing M4A. The one I've seen most commonly is a progressive tax that would, for the vast majority of Americans, be much cheaper than paying for insurance, but would still raise taxes. Either way, it's clearly something we can fund. It's essentially emulating the Canadian system, and if Canadians can do it...

Characterizing him as an isolationist is a bit misleading. He's openly described himself as an internationalist, but his opposition to trade deals is based on his claim that they'll negatively impact US workers. I don't know if I would agree in all cases, but it's certainly not blanket isolationism. As for his populism, backing the working class isn't a bad thing unless, again, you're Chuck Schumer. 

Ultimately, Warren is a progressive democrat. I don't think her platform is bad full stop. It's true that they agree on a lot of policy issues. But Sanders is a unique candidate in the US. He's been committed to the labor movement, activism, civil rights, and economic reform his whole career. He's proved himself over decades, and he's always been vindicated by history. Warren is a former Republican who is committed first and foremost to markets, by her own admission. She might not be a neoliberal, but she's certainly a social liberal who doesn't advocate for fundamental change. She's in no way more substantive, just more conciliatory to established powers. As for the idea that Sanders is just another angry white man, I think most people will see that that criticism is skin deep. As a bonus, Sanders has never pretended to be a minority to further his career goals.


----------



## vilk

Actually Sanders is ethnically Jewish, and despite that his skin is white, Jewish people are a kind of minority group and have faced all sorts of racism, or I guess they call it antisemitism, and especially in the past. It's usually not as horrible as the sort of things that have happened and still happen to people of color, but I'm sick of people acting like the guy is a WASP or something just because he's not a woman or a person of color.

If elected he would be the first openly non-Christian president in our country's history.


----------



## Adieu

Lol I was surprised nobody really dared make a fuss about Obama being fairly white back in the day.... 

but looks like this time around, someone actually might open the TOO WHITE/NOT WHITE ENOUGH can of worms


----------



## sleewell

Mayor Pete seems to be polling #1 in Iowa. Pretty solid surge from just a few weeks ago. 

Bernie is 80 and just had a heart attack. That ship has sailed folks, sorry.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Lol I was surprised nobody really dared make a fuss about Obama being fairly white back in the day....
> 
> but looks like this time around, someone actually might open the TOO WHITE/NOT WHITE ENOUGH can of worms


60 Minutes, the day after he announced his candidacy in 2007, asked him something along the lines of, "when did you decide you were black?"


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> Mayor Pete seems to be polling #1 in Iowa. Pretty solid surge from just a few weeks ago.
> 
> Bernie is 80 and just had a heart attack. That ship has sailed folks, sorry.



Not sure those statements were meant to go with eachother, but a big point of the current conversation is that one is not easily replaceable with the other.


----------



## Thaeon

I think the heart attack thing is a straw man argument. I understand concern. But how many people with the assistance of modern medicine live DECADES after a heart attack? Its not a heart attack, but Carter just had brain surgery, and he's going right back to his hustle at 94. In my opinion, arguing Bernie's age is a pretty lame argument. Dude has proven he's got the grit to make it happen. Don't count him out until the votes are in.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> To me those aren't examples of nuance. The existence of any private prisons (especially in cases where they can sue states if prisoner quotas aren't met) is absurd. Imprisoning people for using drugs is unethical. Merely "loosening sentencing" when we have the highest per capita incarceration rate is not a more nuanced position, it's a worse position. Anything that isn't a step towards full decriminalization is a retrograde, barbaric policy that belongs in the 20s along with Prohibition. Nuanced doesn't mean "less disruptive" when something desperately needs to be disrupted.


Ok, two things here.

First, I see eye to eye on you, but importantly so does Clinton. Again, she praised the DOJ's decision, under Obama, to phase out the use of private prisons, and wanted to see the states follow suit. I don't know how you can reconcile that with Clinton "would have no impact on limiting the use of private prisons," unless you were going to argue that merely maintaining the existing phase-out of the Obama administration technically wasn't an impact because they were going away when she came to office. Second, you may personally find imprisoning people for using drugs unethical, but in America (and in virtually all of the world) the use of at least some drugs is illegal, and cause for imprisonment. I'd like to see marijuana legalized, regulated, and taxed, too, but that's still a far cry from total legalization of all drugs, which I wouldn't support. It's also an odd example to pick here, because back in 2016 Sanders only advocated for medical marijuana legalization, so even he wasn't pushing full legalization back when he was running against Clinton. It's only in 2020 he's now making that case, and IMO I think that's in part testimony to the shift in public perception over the past 4 years.



allheavymusic said:


> By executive order, Sanders can do extremely important things Obama would never do.


IMO, no president should be able or encouraged to push radical reforms through executive order. I don't want Trump doing it, I don't want Sanders doing it, and I didn't want Obama or Bush doing it. Executive order should only be used _very_ carefully. This, IMO, would be a reason NOT to support Sanders, if he's really pledging to make these sort of changes through executive order.



allheavymusic said:


> It's bizarre to say he's trying to co-opt the Democratic Party. It's a two party system. He has no other choice. He either runs as a Democrat or as a spoiler candidate.


Ok, so why his refusal to join the Democratic party? He vowed to do so, win or lose, in 2016, and still hasn't followed through. He wants to run with the support of a party he won't join?


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I think the heart attack thing is a straw man argument. I understand concern. But how many people with the assistance of modern medicine live DECADES after a heart attack? Its not a heart attack, but Carter just had brain surgery, and he's going right back to his hustle at 94. In my opinion, arguing Bernie's age is a pretty lame argument. Dude has proven he's got the grit to make it happen. Don't count him out until the votes are in.


It's not a reason NOT to vote for him, but it's certainly a concern. He's 78 and will be 79 in January 2020 - if he serves two terms, he'll be 87 at the end of those two terms. Carter is 95 and still alive, true, but he's also not a sitting president and was 57 at the end of his term. Reagan was 78 at the end of his second term, meanwhile, the age Sanders is today, and there's speculation that he may have already been suffering from Alzheimer's while he was in the white house, before he went public with it.

Trump was the oldest president ever elected, at 70, and Sanders would be 79 when sworn in if he were to win. It's definitely not a reason to disqualify him, but it's still a factor that needs to be taken into account, for sure, and at a minimum it would make his choice of VP extremely important.

EDIT - same's true of Biden as well, who's only two years younger than Sanders, although whose health hasn't shown any outwardly visible issues as of yet. If youy're running for President in your upper 70s, that's definitely something where it should be taken under consideration as we evaluate candidates.


----------



## Thaeon

Sure. As is the case for anyone that age. But most of the people with a real shot are in the 20 year age group where this stuff is an actual concern. Bernie just catches most of it cause he's the oldest. But any one of those people could drop tomorrow, or show signs of dementia.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Sure. As is the case for anyone that age. But most of the people with a real shot are in the 20 year age group where this stuff is an actual concern. Bernie just catches most of it cause he's the oldest. But any one of those people could drop tomorrow, or show signs of dementia.


Agreed. I was just coming back here to add an edit to the effect that the same would be true of Biden, who's only two years younger than Sanders (which I'll do anyway, for the sake of anyone else reading it). With Biden we don't have any additional evidence to suggest his health may be a risk - i.e., he hasn't also had a heart attack - but if you were to ask me for a list of my reservations on Biden as a candidate, his age would be towards the top of that list too.


----------



## Drew

*double post*


----------



## Randy

Answer: Stop electing fucking boomers.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Answer: Stop electing fucking boomers.



The thing is...these people are older than the oldest boomers. Baby boomers births started after WWII. These guys are 5+ years PAST that. Obama was, technically, still considered a "baby boomer".


----------



## Randy

Okay, so replace "boomers" with "geriatrics"


----------



## Drew

Seems reasonable enough to me.


----------



## Ralyks

Too many boomers still around...


----------



## Ralyks

Anyone watching the hearings? Sounds like the GOP is still fixated on 2016.


----------



## Randy

Waste of time chasing down what the GOP is after. The leaked Stephen Miller emails to Breitbart and Trump's own history indicate the GOP is infected top to bottom with Infowaritis. Everything's about Hillary and the deep state and Crowdstrike, so on. Its their convenient excuse for everything, they're still trying it 3 and almost 4 years after the fact and the only people that appeals to are the people already drink their Kool Aid.

I'm more interested in the testimonies themselves which so far appear to be quite damning. If the Trump impeachment is going to be 11 months of this, he's not going to survive till June.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Seems reasonable enough to me.



I think putting an age limit on public service isn't unreasonable at all. Mitigates some of the obvious issues with aging people's health and forces new blood into the system.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Waste of time chasing down what the GOP is after. The leaked Stephen Miller emails to Breitbart and Trump's own history indicate the GOP is infected top to bottom with Infowaritis. Everything's about Hillary and the deep state and Crowdstrike, so on. Its their convenient excuse for everything, they're still trying it 3 and almost 4 years after the fact and the only people that appeals to are the people already drink their Kool Aid.
> 
> I'm more interested in the testimonies themselves which so far appear to be quite damning. If the Trump impeachment is going to be 11 months of this, he's not going to survive till June.



Damning or not, I'm in a "I'll believe they'll do something about it when I see it" sort of head space on it. My honest inclination is that the strategy was to air the dirty laundry to the public and let the election be a referendum on the public's ability to trust him as a candidate. Which means that rationally he should be getting no votes at all. But the mob wants what it wants. Give them Barabas and crucify anyone who actually wants to legitimately help.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Waste of time chasing down what the GOP is after. The leaked Stephen Miller emails to Breitbart and Trump's own history indicate the GOP is infected top to bottom with Infowaritis. Everything's about Hillary and the deep state and Crowdstrike, so on. Its their convenient excuse for everything, they're still trying it 3 and almost 4 years after the fact and the only people that appeals to are the people already drink their Kool Aid.
> 
> I'm more interested in the testimonies themselves which so far appear to be quite damning. If the Trump impeachment is going to be 11 months of this, he's not going to survive till June.


I mean, there's very little incremental information that's coming to life (the bit about Sondland telling one of Taylor's aids after getting off the call with Trump that Trump cares more about investigating Biden than he does what happens to Ukraine being a notable exception, especially in that Sondland will be testifying himself before much longer), but they've done a very good job bringing it to life in a very public manner, at least based on today.

It's ironic, though. Trump proxies are quick to accuse the Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" but really it's the Trump team that's still so fixated on it, and presumably the fact that he won the presidency but lost the popular vote. Meanwhile, the Democrats are pursuing impeachment even knowing perfectly well that could send Pence to the presidency, which is hardly "overturning" the results. It's not like Trump gets impeached and we get President Clinton, exactly. There's a lot of talk about the Dems running an electoral risk by moving to impeach, an argument I don't necessarily buy, but I think maybe not as much is being made about the fact they're convinced enough impeachment is an appropriate response to what Trump's done that they're willing to risk putting _Pence_ in office to do so.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> Damning or not, I'm in a "I'll believe they'll do something about it when I see it" sort of head space on it. My honest inclination is that the strategy was to air the dirty laundry to the public and let the election be a referendum on the public's ability to trust him as a candidate. Which means that rationally he should be getting no votes at all. But the mob wants what it wants. Give them Barabas and crucify anyone who actually wants to legitimately help.



Oh yeah, I'm not necessarily saying the guy gets tossed. My prediction is less about him being removed or leaving (which are possible) as much as he becomes completely NOT viable as a candidate or maybe even totally incapable of doing his job after that point.

So yeah, I think your assessment is a more tempered version of what I'm referring to.


----------



## Ralyks

I agree with this being a strategy to let the public decide in the end. Also, as far as Pence goes, I doubt he would be in office long enough to do any damage, and he definitely wouldn’t get the 2020 nod.


----------



## sleewell

sadly enough nothing is going to change the minds of most trumpists which won't change how their politicians act. they admit if he shot someone they would still vote for him so something they probably don't even understand is not going to begin to sway them. he tells them not to believe what they see or hear - and they don't.

the dems needed to keep this beyond simple and quick. like everything i think they are over complicating things and most people's attention span is so short we may have lost them. trump speaks at 3rd or 4th grade level for a reason - that is what most people understand. most people don't read or pay attention outside of their echo chambers. they watch tv for reinforcement and they need quick & easy to digest sound bites with catchy slogans.

i think polling on impeachment has maxed and sadly nothing will come of this. if nixon had faux news he wouldn't have had to resign.


----------



## Drew

I'd withhold judgement on how this plays out in the public eye just yet. This is only the first day, and this has _not_ gone well for Trump, I think. A couple weeks of this and his numbers could begin to sag - it wasn't until well into the Watergate investigation that Nixon's approval really began to sag, and it's only been about two months since the allegations here even surfaced.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I'd withhold judgement on how this plays out in the public eye just yet. This is only the first day, and this has _not_ gone well for Trump, I think. A couple weeks of this and his numbers could begin to sag - it wasn't until well into the Watergate investigation that Nixon's approval really began to sag, and it's only been about two months since the allegations here even surfaced.



Agreed. I think his public image will suffer. Whether it suffers with the right cross section of American Voters is anyone's guess. We're really early in this particular investigation, and not enough has come to light that his base will find inappropriate. Keep the pressure on though, and I think someone is going to crack. I know Rudy has attorney/client protections but I feel like out of all of them, that's the nut to crack.


----------



## pwsusi

> It's ironic, though. Trump proxies are quick to accuse the Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" but really it's the Trump team that's still so fixated on it, and presumably the fact that he won the presidency but lost the popular vote.



The "he lost the popular vote" thing makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying the Bruins really won the stanley cup because they scored more goals than the blues over the 7 game series....when it's pointless because the winner is determined by the results of the individual games and everything else is irrelevant. The outcome (both electoral votes and individual votes) are a result of an election that was based on a certain set rules for which the game was played. The candidate's strategy for winning were based on those same rules. If there was no electoral college how can you be certain the "populate vote" would have turned out the same? The candidates likely would have campaigned differently and voter turn-out would have likely been much different. For example, many republican voters stay home on election night in blue states that have no chance of electing a republican, and same for democrats in red states. If there was no electoral college many of these people may have decided to come out to vote. How would that have changed the popular vote...we have no way of knowing unless we played the game under those rules. There likely would have been very different results. Interestingly had hillary spent more time campaigning in areas she thought she had locked up but ended up losing and less time drumming up more votes in areas she ended up winning comfortably she may have won the election but got fewer overall votes.



> Meanwhile, the Democrats are pursuing impeachment even knowing perfectly well that could send Pence to the presidency, which is hardly "overturning" the results. It's not like Trump gets impeached and we get President Clinton, exactly. There's a lot of talk about the Dems running an electoral risk by moving to impeach, an argument I don't necessarily buy, but I think maybe not as much is being made about the fact they're convinced enough impeachment is an appropriate response to what Trump's done that they're willing to risk putting _Pence_ in office to do so.



The democrats know they have no chance of the senate voting to remove Trump. This is not a criminal trial where facts are put in front an impartial jury and applied to a specific law or set of laws. This founding fathers purposely did not give this to the judicial branch to decide. There is no clear definition of what an impeachable offense. Clinton purgured himself which is a crime and was disbarred and that wasn't impeachable. Why...because it is all political and not a criminal trial .. it's settled in the senate which is far from impartial and majority party is the opposite party in this case and with 2/3rds required to vote him out the dems know it's not going to happen. Removing him to replace him with Pence isn't the end game. They are going to drag this out because it gives them the best chance to win in 2020. Yes it's risky (which is why Pelosi was so gun shy at first), but the establishment wants Biden and they are seeing he's a weak candidate (which is why other estabishment alternatives like bloomberg and patrick are getting in). The progressive left wants warren or sanders , and while they seem to be polling well now and have a better shot on paper of get the nomination, the establishment doesn't think they have as good of a shot in the general and they're worried it will result in a trump re-election. This is all about swaying the very small number of undecided and a progressive candidate is not what the establishment wants. So while impeachment is a risk to the dems, i think for them it's a risk worth taking. If they drag this out they can continue this all through next year so this becomes the center of the conversation during the election cycle and not the ideas (or lack thereof) of their candidates. Yes Fox is biased, but the rest (CNN, NBC, etc) are all far from impartial and with their help i think the democrats feel if they throw enough mud enough will stick to sway enough of the 10% or so that usually decide the presidential election. Probably 90% is locked in one way or the other...if you can get some of those swing voters to move to the left or some that voted for Trump to simply stay home because they have no motivation to vote for any of these clowns (on the left or right) the dems will win.

My prediction -- it will depend on who emerges on the left. If the establishment can push Joe over the finish line it will likely anger the growing progressive wing (i.e. Clinton and Bernie all over again), but i think he has the best shot with that ~10% swing vote and the strategy might work. If it's someone like Warren it's probably most reflective of who deserves the nod on the democrat side but i suspect Trump will be re-elected despite the impeachment efforts. There is also the bonus that if it gets late into next year and it's clear the dems are going to lose they can drag this into his 2nd term and then try to kick him out then. It's probably not their end game because president Pence wouldn't be ideal for the dems but they have promised since election night 2016 to impeach trump and it would energize their base and probably add to republican fatigue for 2024 if someone like pence was in. There are many upsides for the dems here depending on how things play out. 

It's interesting to watch what's going on with the democrats...very similar to the whole Tea Party thing on the right several years back.


----------



## stockwell

It's hard to stay invested in the impeachment hearings. For one thing, it is very partisan and not focused on the issues that matter to voters. But on a purely tactical level, Democrats are terrible at selecting what things to bring against Trump. The president has committed plenty of crimes and misdemeanors both in and out of office. But for some reason, the Democrats keep fixating on ones that are either unsubstantiated (Russiagate hysteria), arcane and complicated, or, even worse, boring. Is anyone not employed as a political columnist genuinely infuriated by the Ukraine deal? It's clearly wrong, but I don't find myself caring that much. It's just not that compelling. 



pwsusi said:


> It's interesting to watch what's going on with the democrats...very similar to the whole Tea Party thing on the right several years back.



I disagree. The Tea Party movement was astroturf, not grassroots. It was another mouthpiece for the Koch brothers and their stealth politics. That's not an exaggeration, the movement was openly started by the Citizens for a Sound Economy, a Koch brothers think tank. They also funded it through the Americans for Prosperity. It always was a ploy by the Koch brothers to push for deregulation and lower taxes. 

What's happening in the Democratic Party is that the actual left is starting to work its way into the Overton window again. Since McCarthyism and the Red Scare, it's been acceptable for the government to target leftist political movements. We jailed people for openly being leftists. The House Un-American Activities Committee wasn't disbanded until 1975. The FBI and CIA targeted and infiltrated leftist movements in the US. Even MLK's every move was being watched by the FBI, who declared his movement a hate group. It's insane how normalized this stuff is in the US. If we saw it in any other country we'd call it political repression. 

The Tea Party's ideology was already mainstream and acceptable for most of the GOP. That Ron Paul style libertarianism didn't meaningfully conflict with the GOP's overall agenda. Meanwhile, the DP is in genuine conflict. Progressive liberals and leftists have contradictory goals. There's a small but growing leftist coalition in the Democratic party, and I'm curious to see how the mainstream DP will deal with it. Without laying all the blame on boomers, I do think zoomers deserve the credit. We've grown up without the deep-seated fear of leftism instilled by Cold War propaganda, and we also have the fortune of entering the workplace during or after the recession. 

One possible outcome is that the Democratic Party is forced to shift towards a social democrat platform. Either that, or the DP shifts even farther right and joins the GOP in stamping out anti-capitalists. The latter seems more likely. I personally doubt that a leftist coalition can go far in the existing structure of the DP.


----------



## pwsusi

You may be right about how differences in how they got started, but fundamentally i think they are the same in that in both cases they are/were an anti-establishment movement comprised of the more extreme wings of each party who are sick of the estblishment and status quo. There seems to be little difference between establishment democrats and republicans and nothing changes in Washington so i think both are an attempt to reclaim their parties so to speak and implement change.

It would be interesting to know how much overlap there is Trump supporters and those that associate with the Tea Party. i would suspect the overlap of Trump supports to Tea Party is very high (in fact you don't hear much about the Tea Party anymore because i think this is what it has morphed into). 2016 was not a Koch brothers led thing and more of a grassroots movement as you described the progressive movement. Trump pulled off what i thought was impossible, Bernie was close but Clinton and the democrats were stronger and more organized. The establishment republicans were easier for Trump to over power. However i think with AOC and company and the fueled hatred for Trump you will see the one of the more extreme candidates penetrate the establishment just like Trump did on the republican side in 2016. 2020 could very well be the year for that. I personally don't think so...i think it will take 1 more cycle but we shall see.


----------



## MatiasTolkki

allheavymusic said:


> It's hard to stay invested in the impeachment hearings. For one thing, it is very partisan and not focused on the issues that matter to voters. But on a purely tactical level, Democrats are terrible at selecting what things to bring against Trump. The president has committed plenty of crimes and misdemeanors both in and out of office. But for some reason, the Democrats keep fixating on ones that are either unsubstantiated (Russiagate hysteria), arcane and complicated, or, even worse, boring. Is anyone not employed as a political columnist genuinely infuriated by the Ukraine deal? It's clearly wrong, but I don't find myself caring that much. It's just not that compelling.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The Tea Party movement was astroturf, not grassroots. It was another mouthpiece for the Koch brothers and their stealth politics. That's not an exaggeration, the movement was openly started by the Citizens for a Sound Economy, a Koch brothers think tank. They also funded it through the Americans for Prosperity. It always was a ploy by the Koch brothers to push for deregulation and lower taxes.
> 
> What's happening in the Democratic Party is that the actual left is starting to work its way into the Overton window again. Since McCarthyism and the Red Scare, it's been acceptable for the government to target leftist political movements. We jailed people for openly being leftists. The House Un-American Activities Committee wasn't disbanded until 1975. The FBI and CIA targeted and infiltrated leftist movements in the US. Even MLK's every move was being watched by the FBI, who declared his movement a hate group. It's insane how normalized this stuff is in the US. If we saw it in any other country we'd call it political repression.
> 
> The Tea Party's ideology was already mainstream and acceptable for most of the GOP. That Ron Paul style libertarianism didn't meaningfully conflict with the GOP's overall agenda. Meanwhile, the DP is in genuine conflict. Progressive liberals and leftists have contradictory goals. There's a small but growing leftist coalition in the Democratic party, and I'm curious to see how the mainstream DP will deal with it. Without laying all the blame on boomers, I do think zoomers deserve the credit. We've grown up without the deep-seated fear of leftism instilled by Cold War propaganda, and we also have the fortune of entering the workplace during or after the recession.
> 
> One possible outcome is that the Democratic Party is forced to shift towards a social democrat platform. Either that, or the DP shifts even farther right and joins the GOP in stamping out anti-capitalists. The latter seems more likely. I personally doubt that a leftist coalition can go far in the existing structure of the DP.



The tea party started out grassroots and then became a Koch brothers thing.

I still have no opinion of the Kochs only because the media has slandered so many people for so long I dont even trust what I learned before. If anyone has some INDEPENDENT proof that the Koch brothers are as evil as people say (NOT from mainstream media sources, I want INDEPENDENT reporting) im not passing judgement on them.

if you wanna know more about the house un-american activities committee, I shall post this. Watch it for yourself.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZOtinTlx7yo/


----------



## MatiasTolkki

pwsusi said:


> You may be right about how differences in how they got started, but fundamentally i think they are the same in that in both cases they are/were an anti-establishment movement comprised of the more extreme wings of each party who are sick of the estblishment and status quo. There seems to be little difference between establishment democrats and republicans and nothing changes in Washington so i think both are an attempt to reclaim their parties so to speak and implement change.
> 
> It would be interesting to know how much overlap there is Trump supporters and those that associate with the Tea Party. i would suspect the overlap of Trump supports to Tea Party is very high (in fact you don't hear much about the Tea Party anymore because i think this is what it has morphed into). 2016 was not a Koch brothers led thing and more of a grassroots movement as you described the progressive movement. Trump pulled off what i thought was impossible, Bernie was close but Clinton and the democrats were stronger and more organized. The establishment republicans were easier for Trump to over power. However i think with AOC and company and the fueled hatred for Trump you will see the one of the more extreme candidates penetrate the establishment just like Trump did on the republican side in 2016. 2020 could very well be the year for that. I personally don't think so...i think it will take 1 more cycle but we shall see.



I support god emperor and had NOTHING to do with the tea party. This thread sounds like an echo chamber. Maybe i should shine some light and disinfect some of this bias:

I couldnt give two shits about Trump initially, and i sided more on the Bernie side of things, but Shitlery appeared. The DEFINING issue between who to support came down to Free trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Who supported it? Shitlery. Who was against it? Trump. Thats all I needed to support him. Over time, the way the media has lambasted him for NO reason, had false trials and all sorts of other crap to smear him made me even happier he was elected. He is not the President we needed, but the one we deserved.

Addendum:

I'm not some alex jones conspiracy theorist either (even though Alex jones has been proven right on a lot of things lately), I'm actually liberal on social issues (and no not that 82 gender bullshit or Drag queen story hours crap, YUCK) and slightly conservative on fiscal issues, but I dont identify as republican OR democrat. I take each issue on its own merits and I hate it when just because I support the president I'm considered a nazi or far right in many leftist circles (which is insulting as hell as my uncle, by marriage, is jewish).


----------



## Adieu

God Emperor?

A moderator trolling the poor Trumpist, or is this for real???


----------



## sleewell

wouldn't the TPP have been better for combating china compared to tariffs/taxing the american people? its a lot easier to combat an enemy when you have many other countries on your side vs tariffs/taxes which have proven to fail many times before. seems like china is just figuring ways around the tariffs and that its just a tax increase to us. they know someone as dumb as trump who hasn't declared bankruptcy so many times wont be in power forever so they can just wait it out and/or deal with other countries.

i think farm bankruptcies and suicides are both at all time highs. is that maga?


----------



## MatiasTolkki

sleewell said:


> wouldn't the TPP have been better for combating china compared to tariffs/taxing the american people? its a lot easier to combat an enemy when you have many other countries on your side vs tariffs/taxes which have proven to fail many times before. seems like china is just figuring ways around the tariffs and that its just a tax increase to us. they know someone as dumb as trump who hasn't declared bankruptcy so many times wont be in power forever so they can just wait it out and/or deal with other countries.
> 
> i think farm bankruptcies and suicides are both at all time highs. is that maga?



Wrong, it would have completely eliminated my national health care here in Japan thanks to the way laws were created. Basically the American system would take precedent over all member states, meaning nationalized health care would have been illegal under those guidelines. Also, any arguments in regards to policies in the TPP would be done in front of a 3 judge panel, 1 from each country (i.e. Japan and the US) and the third would have been from the IMF iirc, which is based in the US and would take the US' side. Completely unfair rules by which the US would basically become the controlling state with no way to fight back against it.

I wouldnt expect you to know this because these points were only discussed in Japanese media and the Obama administration would have tried to hide it, because that was their pet FTA.

Now what about how the US economy is booming huh? All trustworthy sources (of which there arent many) have statistics to show that minority employment is the highest in history and overall employment is at a 50 year high.


----------



## MatiasTolkki

Adieu said:


> God Emperor?
> 
> A moderator trolling the poor Trumpist, or is this for real???



I prefer to call him by that because it triggers everyone.


----------



## Drew

pwsusi said:


> The "he lost the popular vote" thing makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying the Bruins really won the stanley cup because they scored more goals than the blues over the 7 game series....when it's pointless because the winner is determined by the results of the individual games and everything else is irrelevant.


This is literally true. However, that doesn't stop it from _bothering_ Trump, and Trump has on many occasions argued that he WOULD have won the popular vote, if only there weren't so many illegal votes. He even went as far as setting up a voter fraud commission, that was quietly dismantled when no evidence was found. 

Maybe I wasn't clear, **I** don't think the popular vote is pertinent to the legitimacy of Trump's win in 2016. However, I feel like it's been _extremely_ pertinent to Trump, and he sees it as a threat to his legitimacy and has tried to explain it away in numerous ways. His fixation on the Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2016 plays into that, as part of his argument there was no Russian collusion, and it was either someone else who hacked the DNC, or that Ukraine hacked them, not Russia. That's where I'm coming from. 



MatiasTolkki said:


> Wrong, it would have completely eliminated my national health care here in Japan thanks to the way laws were created. Basically the American system would take precedent over all member states, meaning nationalized health care would have been illegal under those guidelines. Also, any arguments in regards to policies in the TPP would be done in front of a 3 judge panel, 1 from each country (i.e. Japan and the US) and the third would have been from the IMF iirc, which is based in the US and would take the US' side. Completely unfair rules by which the US would basically become the controlling state with no way to fight back against it.


These are all things that have nothing to do with the post you're quoting, which is that one of the goals of the TPP was to build trade relationships with nations in China's backyard, to try to draw them into the US/Western economic order and basically box china out of their own backyard. What that has to do with healthcare or trade disputes is beyond me. 



MatiasTolkki said:


> I prefer to call him by that because it triggers everyone.


Ahh, a R/TheDonald reader. Didn't you guys get shut down?


----------



## diagrammatiks

Drew said:


> This is literally true. However, that doesn't stop it from _bothering_ Trump, and Trump has on many occasions argued that he WOULD have won the popular vote, if only there weren't so many illegal votes. He even went as far as setting up a voter fraud commission, that was quietly dismantled when no evidence was found.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear, **I** don't think the popular vote is pertinent to the legitimacy of Trump's win in 2016. However, I feel like it's been _extremely_ pertinent to Trump, and he sees it as a threat to his legitimacy and has tried to explain it away in numerous ways. His fixation on the Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2016 plays into that, as part of his argument there was no Russian collusion, and it was either someone else who hacked the DNC, or that Ukraine hacked them, not Russia. That's where I'm coming from.
> 
> 
> These are all things that have nothing to do with the post you're quoting, which is that one of the goals of the TPP was to build trade relationships with nations in China's backyard, to try to draw them into the US/Western economic order and basically box china out of their own backyard. What that has to do with healthcare or trade disputes is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Ahh, a R/TheDonald reader. Didn't you guys get shut down?



Don't post much in this thread but I've enjoyed reading your posts...

I'd suggest just ignoring mattias. the gap between your levels of discourse is......


----------



## Drew

MatiasTolkki said:


> Now what about how the US economy is booming huh? All trustworthy sources (of which there arent many) have statistics to show that minority employment is the highest in history and overall employment is at a 50 year high.


All true. And the stock market is at or near all time highs as well. 

However, that misses the point - we're in a manufacturing recession, ISM Manufacturing has been below 50 since August and has been falling since August of 18, the ISM Non-Manufacturing index is still in expansion but only just, and has been falling since September of 2018. Wage growth is weak, real wages are up 1.2% year over year and actually fell 0.2% last month. We're probably close to full employment, but the economy itself is definitely weaker than it's been. 

Final note on unemployment - the U-3 rate may be at or near 50-year lows, but attributing that as proof that Trump's policies are working is a tenuous argument to make. For one, on 10/31, days before the election, the unemployment rate was 4.9%, so if we're at 3.6% today then under Trump the unemployment rate has fallen 1.3%. That's not a huge move. Further, usually it takes some time for a president's policies to come into effect, so a common approach is to start looking at indicators after the first year - at the end of 2017 we were down at 4.1%. We're down about 0.5% from there. These are pretty small moves - the unemplotment rate was basically down to cyclical lows by the time Obama handed the keys over to Trump anyway. And, again, the lack of real wage growth we're seeing at these unemployment levels is _weird_. I'm seeing prominent economists crowing that the Phillips Curve is dead based on what they're seeing, though IMO that seems a little premature. 

tl;dr - you're pointing to two data points to build an argument that this is the greatest economy ever. There's a LOT of conflicting data points out there, and most of it points to a slowing economy both domestically and globally, and a very conflicted domestic labor picture where employment _levels_ are great, but wages are oddly depressed.


----------



## Drew

diagrammatiks said:


> Don't post much in this thread but I've enjoyed reading your posts...
> 
> I'd suggest just ignoring mattias. the gap between your levels of discourse is......


Thanks - I follow this stuff pretty closely, and this board is kind of a useful venue to structure some of my thoughts and to use it as a sounding board and get outside opinions and input from people with different perspectives than mine.


----------



## Randy

MatiasTolkki said:


> Now what about how the US economy is booming huh? All trustworthy sources (of which there arent many) have statistics to show that minority employment is the highest in history and overall employment is at a 50 year high.



Unemployment =/= Prosperity


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Unemployment =/= Prosperity



THANK YOU. This needed to be said clearly.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Unemployment =/= Prosperity


While we're at it, the rate of job creation is slowing, too, based on the BLS jobs report data. YTD we've averaged 167k jobs a month, below 2018's average of 223k. Overall, Obama's second term saw jobs created at a rate just shy of 210k/mo average, while Trump has been more like 190k. Not radically different and I wouldn't necessarily argue the Trump administration is weaker here based on those two data points, but I think it IS pretty fair to say, based on the data, that for much of his term Trump has seen jobs creation at broadly the same rate as it was during Obama's second term, and that the most recent period is coming in materially _below_ that rate. It's not exactly a flashing red light just yet, but the rate of job creation is something to keep an eye on.



Ralyks said:


> THANK YOU. This needed to be said clearly.


Yeah, I probably wonked it up a little too much, talking about real wages, eh?


----------



## Thaeon

MatiasTolkki said:


> Wrong, it would have completely eliminated my national health care here in Japan thanks to the way laws were created. Basically the American system would take precedent over all member states, meaning nationalized health care would have been illegal under those guidelines. Also, any arguments in regards to policies in the TPP would be done in front of a 3 judge panel, 1 from each country (i.e. Japan and the US) and the third would have been from the IMF iirc, which is based in the US and would take the US' side. Completely unfair rules by which the US would basically become the controlling state with no way to fight back against it.
> 
> I wouldnt expect you to know this because these points were only discussed in Japanese media and the Obama administration would have tried to hide it, because that was their pet FTA.
> 
> Now what about how the US economy is booming huh? All trustworthy sources (of which there arent many) have statistics to show that minority employment is the highest in history and overall employment is at a 50 year high.



Employment is at an all time high... Sure. But how many of those people employed are doing the work they got educated or have the experience to do, and how many are doing work that is not of the level they should be getting just so that they can have a job and income? The blanket term, "Employement" is easily skewed to look better than it actually is. In April of this year unemployment was 5%. On the surface, that's a great number. But factor in underemployment at 13.5%. That's nearly 20% of the workforce not making what they should. 1/5 of the US population. This isn't what I would call a great economy with such a large population having to take jobs that pay less than they deserve in order to make it.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> THANK YOU. This needed to be said clearly.


 
Unemployment among minorities was 0% prior to 1863.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> In April of this year unemployment was 5%. On the surface, that's a great number. But factor in underemployment at 13.5%. That's nearly 20% of the workforce not making what they should. 1/5 of the US population. This isn't what I would call a great economy with such a large population having to take jobs that pay less than they deserve in order to make it.


While I don't disagree with your fundamental conclusion, the various "flavors" of unemployment are cumulative, not segmented. What you're referring to is "U-6" unemployment, which is all workers who are unemployed, employed part time for economic reasons but who would prefer to be employed full time, and "marginally attached" workers who are willing to work but have given up looking within the past 12 months, expressed as a percent of the workforce. This is the broadest measure of unemployment, although it does exclude "discouraged workers" who are unemployed and have given up on looking for a job for more than 12 months, so even it too is incomplete (discouraged workers are excluded from workforce, so they're neither part of the numerator nor denominator) Meanwhile, the headline Unemployment rate is U-3, the number of people without a job and actively seeking one, as a percentage of the workforce.

tl;dr - you can't add U-6 and U-3 to determine the number of people not working or working less than they want to, because U-3 is a component of U-6.

I'm also seeing different numbers than you, U-3 of 3.6% and U-6 of 7.0%, but I guess on the flip side neither level reflects the broader definition of "underemployment" where someone with a law degree they'd really love to use is working full time in a retail or other non-professional position while searching for a law degree, for example. Either way the "quality" of employment is lower than it should be, especially given the low absolute level of unemployment.



Randy said:


> Unemployment among minorities was 0% prior to 1863.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> While I don't disagree with your fundamental conclusion, the various "flavors" of unemployment are cumulative, not segmented. What you're referring to is "U-6" unemployment, which is all workers who are unemployed, employed part time for economic reasons but who would prefer to be employed full time, and "marginally attached" workers who are willing to work but have given up looking within the past 12 months, expressed as a percent of the workforce. This is the broadest measure of unemployment, although it does exclude "discouraged workers" who are unemployed and have given up on looking for a job for more than 12 months, so even it too is incomplete (discouraged workers are excluded from workforce, so they're neither part of the numerator nor denominator) Meanwhile, the headline Unemployment rate is U-3, the number of people without a job and actively seeking one, as a percentage of the workforce.
> 
> tl;dr - you can't add U-6 and U-3 to determine the number of people not working or working less than they want to, because U-3 is a component of U-6.
> 
> I'm also seeing different numbers than you, U-3 of 3.6% and U-6 of 7.0%, but I guess on the flip side neither level reflects the broader definition of "underemployment" where someone with a law degree they'd really love to use is working full time in a retail or other non-professional position while searching for a law degree, for example. Either way the "quality" of employment is lower than it should be, especially given the low absolute level of unemployment.



I just grabbed some quick numbers with a search engine. I don't know all of the definitions of the different types of "Unemployment". Which defining them under one blanket of unemployment seems exceedingly obtuse when trying acquire any sort of understanding or get any transparency on the subject. There's a reason a lot of people don't understand things in this country. We make things intentionally difficult to understand, seemingly to obfuscate the realities of situations. Different conversation though. You're obviously more well read on the subject than I am. Your final statement is exactly my point though. We use the low unemployment number to make it look as though the issue has be resolved, when we have a really shitty patch job happening. Lawyers gotta lawyer or law school debt will crush them.

Another thing I've seen, is that the requirements for getting an entry level position in literally ANYTHING have gotten absurd. Was looking at the requirements for being a Police officer in a couple places recently out of curiosity, and its prohibitive if you're past your mid-20s, because they want to know every time you've ever had contact with a Police Officer. Tickets, detained for questions (including as a witness), etc. I don't want to be a cop, but at 39, if I decided I did, I couldn't tell you every ticket/traffic stop I'd had over the last 23 years. The memes about job searches are apt. Are you no older than 23, have 2 PhDs, 15 years of experience, and 32 on your ACT? Then you qualify for a job as a librarian at the public library with a salary of $15k a year.


----------



## JSanta

Thaeon said:


> I just grabbed some quick numbers with a search engine. I don't know all of the definitions of the different types of "Unemployment". Which defining them under one blanket of unemployment seems exceedingly obtuse when trying acquire any sort of understanding or get any transparency on the subject. There's a reason a lot of people don't understand things in this country. We make things intentionally difficult to understand, seemingly to obfuscate the realities of situations. Different conversation though. You're obviously more well read on the subject than I am. Your final statement is exactly my point though. We use the low unemployment number to make it look as though the issue has be resolved, when we have a really shitty patch job happening. Lawyers gotta lawyer or law school debt will crush them.
> 
> Another thing I've seen, is that the requirements for getting an entry level position in literally ANYTHING have gotten absurd. Was looking at the requirements for being a Police officer in a couple places recently out of curiosity, and its prohibitive if you're past your mid-20s, because they want to know every time you've ever had contact with a Police Officer. Tickets, detained for questions (including as a witness), etc. I don't want to be a cop, but at 39, if I decided I did, I couldn't tell you every ticket/traffic stop I'd had over the last 23 years. The memes about job searches are apt. Are you no older than 23, have 2 PhDs, 15 years of experience, and 32 on your ACT? Then you qualify for a job as a librarian at the public library with a salary of $15k a year.



And even then (as someone with a doctoral degree), it's difficult for employers to see you as a contributor versus someone that takes up space. In my case, it's also been difficult because I didn't attend "the right" school for full time employment as a professor or lecturer, as well as the fact that many employers have told me I'm overqualified for a job I've selectively applied to. No right answers here unfortunately.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Yeah, I probably wonked it up a little too much, talking about real wages, eh?



No, you said it fine. Just that the unemployment argument is pointless if the wages and cost of living are out of wack, as you and a few others have explained.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't know all of the definitions of the different types of "Unemployment". Which defining them under one blanket of unemployment seems exceedingly obtuse when trying acquire any sort of understanding or get any transparency on the subject. There's a reason a lot of people don't understand things in this country. We make things intentionally difficult to understand, seemingly to obfuscate the realities of situations.


I promise that, as confusing as it seems at a glance, it's extremely useful to be able to segment them out to this degree of granularity, and that the fact we as a country make this level of data publicly available, for free, and that there's no serious concern about the data being manipulated for political aims, is fucking amazing. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

That link is worth poking around - FRED is the St. Louis Federal Reserve's online database. I use this all the time at work - I can access a lot of it through a Bloomberg terminal, but honestly it's often easier to get at just here through the web. It also, in the case of the BLS statistics, hotlinks to the actual release.


----------



## Thaeon

JSanta said:


> And even then (as someone with a doctoral degree), it's difficult for employers to see you as a contributor versus someone that takes up space. In my case, it's also been difficult because I didn't attend "the right" school for full time employment as a professor or lecturer, as well as the fact that many employers have told me I'm overqualified for a job I've selectively applied to. No right answers here unfortunately.



That's exactly what I mean. People won't hire you because you're too good for a position. But you don't have what the market wants for the position you're qualified for. So even WELL educated and wanting work, you can fall through the cracks and end up on the street.



Drew said:


> I promise that, as confusing as it seems at a glance, it's extremely useful to be able to segment them out to this degree of granularity, and that the fact we as a country make this level of data publicly available, for free, and that there's no serious concern about the data being manipulated for political aims, is fucking amazing.
> 
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
> 
> That link is worth poking around - FRED is the St. Louis Federal Reserve's online database. I use this all the time at work - I can access a lot of it through a Bloomberg terminal, but honestly it's often easier to get at just here through the web. It also, in the case of the BLS statistics, hotlinks to the actual release.



Oh, no complaint with getting granular and naming things. But calling them all unemployment is opaque at best and at worst a way for them to make it difficult to understand and muddy the waters. I just think more clear distinctions would make things easier to understand for the general populace.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Oh, no complaint with getting granular and naming things. But calling them all unemployment is opaque at best and at worst a way for them to make it difficult to understand and muddy the waters. I just think more clear distinctions would make things easier to understand for the general populace.


For general purposes, when someone refers to "the unemployment rate," unless they specify otherwise it's essentially going to be U-3, which is people not working but actively seeking divided by total workforce. 

There's a lot of important stuff baked into that that's important to keep in mind when interpreting it - the numerator only includes people with 1) no job and 2) actively seeking one, so it ignores people who are part time but want to be full time ("underemployed"), or who have stopped seeking ("discouraged workers"). The latter are also assumed to have dropped out of the workforce, so they're excluded from the denominator, as well (in practice, it's a sizable number of people, but we're in the 800k range last I saw so it doesn't _hugely_impact the size of the workforce). The bigger impact to the denominator is it excludes people who are _not_ interested in working (not merely having given up on looking, but if they were offered a job they wouldn't want it) - people who have retired, who have chosen to stay home with the family, who are in school, who are in prison, who are handicapped or disabled or otherwise unable to work, etc. So, one of the more interesting things to watch in this recovery isn't the unemployment rate itself, but the participation rate, which is the workforce normalized by the working-age population. 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

It's down somewhat from 2000-ish highs and from the pre-Great Recession levels, and it probably _should_ be down as there's a demographic bubble there thanks to the Baby Boomers where a disproportionate number of the population was prime working age and not potentially able to retire, but one of the real questions economists are trying to answer right now is how much "slack" is still out there in the workforce, meaning how many people uninterested in a job might be persuaded to change their mind and rejoin the workforce if the conditions were right. Or, in other words, how much of job creation is directed to an increasingly small number of unemployed workers where employers have to bid aggresively to hire them (which should push real wages up, and this isn't really happening), versus how much of it is instead pushing up the participation rate by encouraging people to change their miunds and re-enter the workforce. If this is where the preponderance of job growth is occurring, then that could potentially explain the lack of wage growth, and if that's the case then we need to grow the economy faster than we are. Of course, if we try to do that and we're wrong, and it's not labor slack but some other unknown reason keeping jobs down, then overheating the economy, spiking inflation, and eventually causing an economic crash as consumers suddenly get priced out is a very real risk. 

I know this is WAY more info than you wanted, but I guess where I'm going with all of this is even fairly seemingly simple concepts like "the unemployment rate" have a lot of assumptions baked into them, and understanding those assumptions is _really_ important when it comes to using those statistics. And there's definitely some odd stuff going on with the unemployment rate, and the traditional inverse relationship between U-3 and wage growth and inflation.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> For general purposes, when someone refers to "the unemployment rate," unless they specify otherwise it's essentially going to be U-3, which is people not working but actively seeking divided by total workforce.
> 
> There's a lot of important stuff baked into that that's important to keep in mind when interpreting it - the numerator only includes people with 1) no job and 2) actively seeking one, so it ignores people who are part time but want to be full time ("underemployed"), or who have stopped seeking ("discouraged workers"). The latter are also assumed to have dropped out of the workforce, so they're excluded from the denominator, as well (in practice, it's a sizable number of people, but we're in the 800k range last I saw so it doesn't _hugely_impact the size of the workforce). The bigger impact to the denominator is it excludes people who are _not_ interested in working (not merely having given up on looking, but if they were offered a job they wouldn't want it) - people who have retired, who have chosen to stay home with the family, who are in school, who are in prison, who are handicapped or disabled or otherwise unable to work, etc. So, one of the more interesting things to watch in this recovery isn't the unemployment rate itself, but the participation rate, which is the workforce normalized by the working-age population.
> 
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
> 
> It's down somewhat from 2000-ish highs and from the pre-Great Recession levels, and it probably _should_ be down as there's a demographic bubble there thanks to the Baby Boomers where a disproportionate number of the population was prime working age and not potentially able to retire, but one of the real questions economists are trying to answer right now is how much "slack" is still out there in the workforce, meaning how many people uninterested in a job might be persuaded to change their mind and rejoin the workforce if the conditions were right. Or, in other words, how much of job creation is directed to an increasingly small number of unemployed workers where employers have to bid aggresively to hire them (which should push real wages up, and this isn't really happening), versus how much of it is instead pushing up the participation rate by encouraging people to change their miunds and re-enter the workforce. If this is where the preponderance of job growth is occurring, then that could potentially explain the lack of wage growth, and if that's the case then we need to grow the economy faster than we are. Of course, if we try to do that and we're wrong, and it's not labor slack but some other unknown reason keeping jobs down, then overheating the economy, spiking inflation, and eventually causing an economic crash as consumers suddenly get priced out is a very real risk.
> 
> I know this is WAY more info than you wanted, but I guess where I'm going with all of this is even fairly seemingly simple concepts like "the unemployment rate" have a lot of assumptions baked into them, and understanding those assumptions is _really_ important when it comes to using those statistics. And there's definitely some odd stuff going on with the unemployment rate, and the traditional inverse relationship between U-3 and wage growth and inflation.



I'm following, and I agree with you. I still think that this is way over the heads and interest levels of the general populace. My point being, that most people hearing all this stuff glaze over. When they hear unemployment, they don't see the nuance, and generally don't care to. They want a stark image they can grasp quickly. So when we get into Trump saying that unemployment is at a 50 year low, what they hear is "All but 3.5% of able bodied people are working".


----------



## Adieu

...and, honestly, presidents should not just be impeached but FUCKING BEHEADED for the treason of lying to the people if they want to use this bogus, tailored "U-3" number as a figure that proves national economic wellness


----------



## MatiasTolkki

Drew said:


> This is literally true. However, that doesn't stop it from _bothering_ Trump, and Trump has on many occasions argued that he WOULD have won the popular vote, if only there weren't so many illegal votes. He even went as far as setting up a voter fraud commission, that was quietly dismantled when no evidence was found.
> 
> Maybe I wasn't clear, **I** don't think the popular vote is pertinent to the legitimacy of Trump's win in 2016. However, I feel like it's been _extremely_ pertinent to Trump, and he sees it as a threat to his legitimacy and has tried to explain it away in numerous ways. His fixation on the Ukraine conspiracy theory in 2016 plays into that, as part of his argument there was no Russian collusion, and it was either someone else who hacked the DNC, or that Ukraine hacked them, not Russia. That's where I'm coming from.
> 
> 
> These are all things that have nothing to do with the post you're quoting, which is that one of the goals of the TPP was to build trade relationships with nations in China's backyard, to try to draw them into the US/Western economic order and basically box china out of their own backyard. What that has to do with healthcare or trade disputes is beyond me.
> 
> 
> Ahh, a R/TheDonald reader. Didn't you guys get shut down?



I dont use reddit at all, but thanks for assuming.

What about the fixation of the democrats on Russian collusion, which has been proven to not have happened yet there are still honest questions about the ukraine situation that Biden seems to be trying to cover up?

Regarding the TPP, the line youre using is more of the propaganda used by the Obama administration to get people on board with it. I can provide PLENTY of links (in Japanese) to prove that the TPP was evil and would have destroyed the entire middle class of japan.


----------



## Vyn

MatiasTolkki said:


> I dont use reddit at all, but thanks for assuming.
> 
> What about the fixation of the democrats on Russian collusion, which has been proven to not have happened yet there are still honest questions about the ukraine situation that Biden seems to be trying to cover up?
> 
> Regarding the TPP, the line youre using is more of the propaganda used by the Obama administration to get people on board with it. I can provide PLENTY of links (in Japanese) to prove that the TPP was evil and would have destroyed the entire middle class of japan.



With @MatiasTolkki on this one. The only country to get benefit out of the TPP was the US and even then it was a select group in the US.


----------



## Drew

MatiasTolkki said:


> I dont use reddit at all, but thanks for assuming.
> 
> What about the fixation of the democrats on Russian collusion, which has been proven to not have happened yet there are still honest questions about the ukraine situation that Biden seems to be trying to cover up?
> 
> Regarding the TPP, the line youre using is more of the propaganda used by the Obama administration to get people on board with it. I can provide PLENTY of links (in Japanese) to prove that the TPP was evil and would have destroyed the entire middle class of japan.


You're welcome. "God Emporer" is the preferred way of referring to Trump over in r/TheDonald - if you're not a regular, you know people who are. 

Close - it was not proved definitively that collusion did NOT occur, the Mueller report concluded there was a lot of really suspicious things that happened and both sides were taking actions to directly benefit the other, but there was not enough evidence to concretely determine any sort of agreement was in place (noting in doing so that part of the reason for this very well may have been the obstruction that Mueller determined there WAS pretty robust evidence for, and laid out ten instances of probable obstruction). Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's enough to not get prosecuted, but it doesn't prove the whole thing was a made up witch hunt, either, much as Trump would like it to be. As far as Biden, his son taking a job on the board of a Ukranian firm was probably a bad idea, but the investigation was into tax fraud, not Biden's role in the firm, and Biden was pressuring the Ukranians to _reopen_ the investigation, not close it. If you have a problem with the nepotism of Biden's son using his last name to get a consulting position, well, that's a conversation I'd be _happy_ to have with a Trump supporter.  

Again, with the TPP, you're talking about things completely irrelevant to the point that the OP was making, which was the TPP was intended to build a free trade network in China's back door and box them out with their neighbors, which would be vastly preferable to this clusterfuck of a tariff war we got instead.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I'm following, and I agree with you. I still think that this is way over the heads and interest levels of the general populace. My point being, that most people hearing all this stuff glaze over. When they hear unemployment, they don't see the nuance, and generally don't care to. They want a stark image they can grasp quickly. So when we get into Trump saying that unemployment is at a 50 year low, what they hear is "All but 3.5% of able bodied people are working".


I agree to a point, but I'd argue it's less U-3 is a bad measure (it isn't - if you used the broadest possible definition, then arguably you could see situations where an improving economy _creates_ unemployment, where say increasingly people feel confident to drop out of the workforce for four years to get an advanced degree, or two-earner households determine they can afford to be one-earner ones, and that metric would paint an inaccurate picture, as well), so much as it's just dangerous to use any single metric to gauge the strength of the economy.

Unemployment is too narrow and too sensitive to how you define it, the stock market is very susceptable to investor confidence and as far as measuring a wealth effect is weighted pretty heavily to the very rich (who tend to have more of their assets in investment markets), GDP is backwards looking and isn't available until well after the close of a quarter... I'm personally biased a little more to looking at things like real wages, retail sales, and business confidence surveys if you need something to track month by month, but even these are very incomplete, and if you want to make an assessment on the health of the economy, you probably want to be looking at a _lot_ of different variables.

tl;dr - economics is _complicated_.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I agree to a point, but I'd argue it's less U-3 is a bad measure (it isn't - if you used the broadest possible definition, then arguably you could see situations where an improving economy _creates_ unemployment, where say increasingly people feel confident to drop out of the workforce for four years to get an advanced degree, or two-earner households determine they can afford to be one-earner ones, and that metric would paint an inaccurate picture, as well), so much as it's just dangerous to use any single metric to gauge the strength of the economy.
> 
> Unemployment is too narrow and too sensitive to how you define it, the stock market is very susceptable to investor confidence and as far as measuring a wealth effect is weighted pretty heavily to the very rich (who tend to have more of their assets in investment markets), GDP is backwards looking and isn't available until well after the close of a quarter... I'm personally biased a little more to looking at things like real wages, retail sales, and business confidence surveys if you need something to track month by month, but even these are very incomplete, and if you want to make an assessment on the health of the economy, you probably want to be looking at a _lot_ of different variables.
> 
> tl;dr - economics is _complicated_.



I guess that's sort of unpacking what I'm trying to say. I think people are attempting to understand it painted with the broadest brush possible, and that leaves them open to being manipulated politically. Economics is incredibly complex. Such that the best minds that have studied it for years, have degrees, and write books on it can't always tell you exactly what is happening. A good friend of mine had a degree in Economics and we used to talk a lot about Macro Economics. Its fascinating stuff. But a quick gauge of the people hearing Trump say that things are going well based on that just aren't seeing the full picture and they aren't going to want to put in the work to get even a layman's grasp of it.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I guess that's sort of unpacking what I'm trying to say. I think people are attempting to understand it painted with the broadest brush possible, and that leaves them open to being manipulated politically. Economics is incredibly complex. Such that the best minds that have studied it for years, have degrees, and write books on it can't always tell you exactly what is happening. A good friend of mine had a degree in Economics and we used to talk a lot about Macro Economics. Its fascinating stuff. But a quick gauge of the people hearing Trump say that things are going well based on that just aren't seeing the full picture and they aren't going to want to put in the work to get even a layman's grasp of it.


I mean, easy example here, but economics (and capital markets in general) are probably a lot like medicine in that respect, in that they're extremely complex fields that take a lot of engagement to really understand the full nuance of, yet a little knowledge and access to Web MD and suddenly everyone thinks they're an expert and also have cancer. These trading platform television ads always piss me off because the implicit point is that anyone can do it and the ticket to untold riches is simply signing up at the right trading platform. Long term investment is incredibly important, yes, but the 800 pound gorrilla in the room is virtually no one consistently beats the market on a risk-adjusted basis, so if you think you're going to pick stocks better than a room full of analysts at Goldman with Ivy League PhDs and the most powerful and sophisticated computing power at their disposal, you're probably deluding yourself. I'm not exactly losing sleep over it, and thankfully the market has been pretty directional for the last decade, but there's probably a whole lot more people day trading and not really understanding what they're doing than their would be without E-Trade ads, just like all those "ask your doctor about..." ads are funneling people towards drugs they probably don't need, often with messy side-effects. 

*gets off soapbox*


----------



## sleewell

roger stone found guilty on all counts.


how soon until the pardon?


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> roger stone found guilty on all counts.
> 
> 
> how soon until the pardon?



If it happens at all it'll be on Trump's way out the door. 

Dems already made the case a lot earlier (Manafort, Flynn and Cohen convictions) that pardons on people who can/would lie under oath in exchange for that pardon would be considered witness tampering, and the Cohen case already showed that coordination in doing something illegal isn't covered under privilege. Pardoning Stone opens a huge can of worms, especially while he's neck deep in impeachment.

But they are buddies going back a long way. So I do think he'll get the pardon or at least a commutation, just not right now.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> If it happens at all it'll be on Trump's way out the door.
> 
> Dems already made the case a lot earlier (Manafort, Flynn and Cohen convictions) that pardons on people who can/would lie under oath in exchange for that pardon would be considered witness tampering, and the Cohen case already showed that coordination in doing something illegal isn't covered under privilege. Pardoning Stone opens a huge can of worms, especially while he's neck deep in impeachment.
> 
> But they are buddies going back a long way. So I do think he'll get the pardon or at least a commutation, just not right now.


These are all great points, the only thing I'd add is that just because something is stupid and self-destructive hasn't historically prevented Trump from doing it, and so far the GOP has been REALLY slow to hold him accountable for pretty much anything (the fact that party line on the Ukrainian investigation is it's not a big deal isn't an encouraging precedent), so I wouldn't rule it out - it's very unclear to me that pardoning Stone is a red line the GOP wouldn't let Trump cross. 

Then again, he never actually fired Mueller. Only Comey.


----------



## Randy

The fact he didn't pardon Manafort or Flynn, despite going to bat for him, says a lot though. He's said they both got a raw deal but still let them go to jail. 

The issue with Stone being that Gates testified Trump lied in his responses to Mueller, saying that he discussed the hacked email several times, including weeks before the first Wikileaks dump. Pardoning Stone now could become a serious issue.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The fact he didn't pardon Manafort or Flynn, despite going to bat for him, says a lot though. He's said they both got a raw deal but still let them go to jail.
> 
> The issue with Stone being that Gates testified Trump lied in his responses to Mueller, saying that he discussed the hacked email several times, including weeks before the first Wikileaks dump. Pardoning Stone now could become a serious issue.


Good point.

And yeah, I was reading that... All of this was redacted in the Mueller report (due to the ongoing trial), but Gates testified Trump was aware from very early on of the Wikileaks hack, actively was involved in seeking to leverage that for the campaign, and that (as Bannon testified) the whole campaign saw Stone as "the Wikileaks guy," rightly or wrongly, and saw him as a conduit with some pull there. That's pretty awkward for the Trump team - at a minimum it shows that Trump himself was very active in seeking to utilize foreign intelligence, which is veering into a grey area.

Also worth a thought - Nunes read a "reconstructed transcript" or whatever they call them of the _first_ call with Zelensky at the start of today's hearing, to establish that it was a normal conversation, and Trump had already made a no-strings-attached offer to visit the White House. Problem is, that doesn't square with the official readout of the call that had been published earlier, where the call was summarized as including discussion of the territorial and sovereign integrity of Ukraine, and the countries' mutual itnerest in promoting democracy and rooting out corruption. Neither subject was mentioned at all:

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1195347268280471554

Either today's "transcript" was heavily redacted, or the original readout was completely inaccurate.

EDIT - NY Times story about this below. The story's getting some traction. I'm thinking this may be another unforced error on the part of the Trump administration, up there with releasing the _original_ transcript to refute the whistleblower report, except that transcript showed Trump explicitly asking that the Ukranians investigate Biden's son and the location of the hacked server from the 2016 DNC hacks, and that led to the announcement of an impeachment investigation that night.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/trump-phone-call-transcript.html


----------



## stockwell

In my extremely limited understanding, unemployment isn't a bug, it's a feature. Low unemployment means higher wages, and higher wages are used as a proxy for inflation, which central banks set their policy to avoid. The possibility of unemployment also allows employers to reduce wages. I don't know how much stock to put in unemployment as a measure of policy success if I correctly understand the economics behind it. I guess the exception is under a job guarantee, and we do have one on the books (Humphrey-Hawkins act). 

Others have brought up underemployment. I don't think the example of a PhD working in a coffee shop best illustrates what I've seen. It seems like more and more companies want part time workers (under 25 hours / week), presumably because they don't have to offer as many benefits. Depending on how much control you have over your hours scheduling, it can make it difficult to work as many hours as you might need. I've heard people describe it as "everyone is working either 20 or 60 hours", and I think there might be a grain of truth to that. 

One Russian troll farm dedicating a portion of its resources to spamming Facebook and Twitter with fake accounts is far less of an issue in terms of election interference than gerrymandering by both parties, weakening the Voting Rights Act, the GOP constantly passing voter suppression laws, our outdated FPTP voting system, lack of a national paid holiday for elections, inadequate polling sites...Like Drew said, I don't think Russiagate is a pure fabrication, but I also think it's mostly a red herring. 

Gray areas and awkwardness won't cut it in the court of public opinion. I don't think that people are that invested in the actual crime as much as they are in "owning" Trump. For me, the best possible outcome is that Trump cracks under the non-pressure, embarrasses himself, and ruins his 2020 campaign. Or that he runs out of uppers and hibernates until he's no longer a threat.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> In my extremely limited understanding, unemployment isn't a bug, it's a feature. Low unemployment means higher wages, and higher wages are used as a proxy for inflation, which central banks set their policy to avoid. The possibility of unemployment also allows employers to reduce wages. I don't know how much stock to put in unemployment as a measure of policy success if I correctly understand the economics behind it. I guess the exception is under a job guarantee, and we do have one on the books (Humphrey-Hawkins act).


Not exactly... I'd look at it more as there should be _some_ unemployment due to routine, ongoing turnover, and unemployment at that level is fine and probably unavoidable. Economists refer to "full employment" as the unemployment rate being down to that level, where people aren't being let go because there's too little demand for labor, but rather in aggregate the supply of labor and demand for labor is well balanced. It's when demand for labor exceeds supply of labor that things get a little tricky - that's generally considered a symptom of an overheating economy, and while it does push wages to a faster rate of growth, in turn that starts to fuel inflation and price increases, which is _not _a desirable outcome. 

Generally 4% unemployment has been considered the full employment rate of the economy, but we've breached that by half a percentage point (a breach of nearly 13%) and wages have remained muted, which _suggests_ we're not at full employment and there's more "slack" in the form of part time workers who could go full time, or workers who are out of the workforce and who could be persuaded to rejoin. There's also the matter of job "quality" you allude to - if I have a PhD in economics and I'm working full time in an entry level hospitality service position, then I'm technically fully employed, but I'm also a viable source of labor force slack.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> at a minimum it shows that Trump himself was very active in seeking to utilize foreign intelligence, which is veering into a grey area.



There's some important distinctions in here. 

Lets not forget that Wikileaks didn't hack the emails, Guccifer (who ended up being the Russian government) did. The argument from Trump's camp has been that Wikileaks was handed these emails to do what they wished with them, so they released them and at that point, it's public knowledge and they can promote them however they want. Trump's people didn't get much into Stone's roll, at most MAYBE saying he heard some rumblings something was coming, but it was from Assange, so Trump, nor Stone, nor Assange hacked the computer or paid anybody to do so or for the information.

Where this turns thing upside down is that Stone was in direct communication WITH Guccifer AKA GRU. The actually entity that was hacking the emails. And Gates testimony says Trump was talking to Stone BEFORE the Wikileaks dumps about these emails. So now you have Stone and Trump communicating about this stuff before it was "public knowledge" and directly WITH the hacker, that turned out to be the Russian government. That's a valuable distinction.

Anyway, to my original point, all that seems to be dead and buried as of now since we've all moved on to Ukraine but if these are new and accurate revelations, the last thing Trump's camp should want is spending any amount of time backing this guy up.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So now you have Stone and Trump communicating about this stuff before it was "public knowledge" and directly WITH the hacker, that turned out to be the Russian government. That's a valuable distinction.
> 
> Anyway, to my original point, all that seems to be dead and buried as of now since we've all moved on to Ukraine but if these are new and accurate revelations, the last thing Trump's camp should want is spending any amount of time backing this guy up.


....though with respect to Ukraine, it certainly reinforces the narrative. Just as the Clinton email server investigation and the Comey Letter was so damning to Clinton precisely because it played into an existing narrative of Clinton being the sort of person who didn't believe the normal rules applied to her, the Ukraine investigation fits awfully neatly with a narrative that Trump was the sort of guy who had no qualms with cutting deals with foreign powers to get dirt on political rivals in an election.


----------



## Ralyks

I know we have military/former military in this thread. Anyone care to weigh in on Trump pardoning 3 war crime cases today, despite the Pentagon being against it?


----------



## Ralyks

@USMarine75 Do you have any input there?


----------



## JSanta

Former Army Infantry here: I think the pardons set a dangerous precedent. However, I also completely disagreed with Obama pardoning Chelsea Manning. Obvious differences were that two of pardons from Trump were either convicted or on trial for murder, whereas the intelligence leaks, though quite damaging, are very different types of crimes.

I get that when bullets fly, and you're being shot at, that some times rational actions cannot be viewed as such, but the crimes depicted in the testimony for the two Soldiers goes well beyond that, in my opinion. 

I also understand that many of our enemies do not abide by the Geneva Convention, but it does not mean that we shouldn't have some degree of "ethical war" parameters to follow.


----------



## Ralyks

Thanks. Trying to get a better understanding of military law. From what I heard, they are NOT happy about the pardons.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> Thanks. Trying to get a better understanding of military law. From what I heard, they are NOT happy about the pardons.



I can't and I won't speak for everyone in uniform. IMO, the White House, as well as the Pentagon, should not be in the business of making war crimes seem acceptable.


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> @USMarine75 Do you have any input there?



I actually do. 

I think the President is a f... [Hatch Act] and I can't believe that he [Hatch Act]. Moreover, he is a [Hatch Act] and [Hatch Act]. Basically, [Hatch Act] him in the A.


----------



## stockwell

The pardon thing is news to me. To clarify: one of the soldiers was in jail for ordering soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians; the second was awaiting trial for murdering a civilian; the third was demoted for posing with a corpse. 

The most surprising aspect for me is that the military was actually trying them. US military actions in the 21st century have resulted in how many civilian casualties? Conservative estimates put it in the 100s of thousands. The military and international allies are killing more civilians than the terror groups they're fighting. Not sure how much stock I'd put in the power of our ethical war parameters. Obviously stuff like the Kandahar massacre has to be dealt with for the bad PR, but I'm curious who these guys pissed off to actually face consequences. 

But as a symbol it's very concerning. By bypassing the military courts he's sending a message that he'll be willing to protect soldiers who kill civilians. Some in the military with a certain mentality might see the president as having their back over bureaucracy. That's concerning. When you apply the greasy, amoral, bullying leadership style of New York real estate to government it begins to look somewhat...I can't think of a word that doesn't sound hyperbolic.


----------



## Thaeon

allheavymusic said:


> The pardon thing is news to me. To clarify: one of the soldiers was in jail for ordering soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians; the second was awaiting trial for murdering a civilian; the third was demoted for posing with a corpse.
> 
> The most surprising aspect for me is that the military was actually trying them. US military actions in the 21st century have resulted in how many civilian casualties? Conservative estimates put it in the 100s of thousands. The military and international allies are killing more civilians than the terror groups they're fighting. Not sure how much stock I'd put in the power of our ethical war parameters. Obviously stuff like the Kandahar massacre has to be dealt with for the bad PR, but I'm curious who these guys pissed off to actually face consequences.
> 
> But as a symbol it's very concerning. By bypassing the military courts he's sending a message that he'll be willing to protect soldiers who kill civilians. Some in the military with a certain mentality might see the president as having their back over bureaucracy. That's concerning. When you apply the greasy, amoral, bullying leadership style of New York real estate to government it begins to look somewhat...I can't think of a word that doesn't sound hyperbolic.



Mafioso? Gestapo?


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> The most surprising aspect for me is that the military was actually trying them. US military actions in the 21st century have resulted in how many civilian casualties? Conservative estimates put it in the 100s of thousands.


I haven't followed the story closely, but it seems to me there are two reasons why these cases were more likely to be tried - one, the military is clearly aware that killing whole boatloads of civilians is not likely to be a popular policy so they have to do something about it, and two, these situations seem to have been wanton, intentional, and callous killings of civilians, rather than accidently hitting the wrong building with a guided bomb. I suspect upper brass is a LOT more willing to look pasty accidental deaths than they are someone taking target practice by sniping a civilian girl walking along the banks of a river, or ordering his troops to open fire on a crowd of known civilians.

In impeachment news, the AP is reporting that, despite public denials, Zelensky had meetings with his staff as early as early May to discuss how to handle pressure from Trump to take action that would be beneficial to him in the 2020 election. This further undercuts Trump's claim that nothing happened because Zelensky was not under pressure.

https://www.axios.com/ukraine-volod...ion-a81badba-892f-4a4f-9a92-0a6c7b1968a7.html

That's potentially VERY big news, especially if there's tangible evidence to demonstrate that despite later denials (in a press conferece with Trump standing right next to him), Zelensky did, in fact, feel pressure from the Trump administration.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> In impeachment news, the AP is reporting that, despite public denials, Zelensky had meetings with his staff as early as early May to discuss how to handle pressure from Trump to take action that would be beneficial to him in the 2020 election. This further undercuts Trump's claim that nothing happened because Zelensky was not under pressure.
> 
> https://www.axios.com/ukraine-volod...ion-a81badba-892f-4a4f-9a92-0a6c7b1968a7.html
> 
> That's potentially VERY big news, especially if there's tangible evidence to demonstrate that despite later denials (in a press conferece with Trump standing right next to him), Zelensky did, in fact, feel pressure from the Trump administration.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Zelensky did, in fact, feel pressure from the Trump administration.



Forgive the saying but it's retarded that we're letting them move the goal post even that far.


----------



## Drew

I mean, yeah, we've gone from... 

"Nothing inappropriate happened, it was a perfect call!" to 

"there was no quid pro quo, there was no pressure," to 

"There was a quid pro quo, but big deal, it happens all the time, and there was no pressure" to 

"there was a quid pro quo and there was enough pressure on the Ukrainians that we know they were meeting in early May to discuss what to do about it, but that's fiiiiiine." 

I mean, this is straight up blackmail, at this point. "Investigate my rival, or your military assistance gets cut off while you have an active war raging on your border with Russia, who incidentally was the same nation that helped get me elected."


----------



## sleewell

i saw a clip from laura ingram's show where she flat out said attempted bribery is not in the constitution as an impeachable offense (bribery is though). jim jordan was running around foolishly saying the same thing.

so they are now admitting he tried to commit bribery but was just outed before the plot was successful so everything is fine.


every defense they trot out gets destroyed almost instantly by new evidence or something dumb trump says or does.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> i saw a clip from laura ingram's show where she flat out said attempted bribery is not in the constitution as an impeachable offense (bribery is though). jim jordan was running around foolishly saying the same thing.





The Constitution said:


> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.



Yeah, so about that.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Yeah, so about that.



And last I checked, attempting a crime was still a crime.

"He tried to launder the money, but was unsuccessful... So he wasn't guilty."

Guilt isn't predicated on a successful action. Its predicated on committing an act with the intent of a successful action.

Next thing you know they'll be walking it back to, "Well he didn't mean it."

As the parent of toddlers, it's like catching a toddler in the act.


----------



## Randy

SCOTUS put a hold on the order for House to get Trump's financials on Wednesday with no definite date when they'll hear the case or whether they will at all. I think this is the first SCOTUS action of any kind related directly to the Trump inquiries, no?


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> And last I checked, attempting a crime was still a crime.
> 
> "He tried to launder the money, but was unsuccessful... So he wasn't guilty."
> 
> Guilt isn't predicated on a successful action. Its predicated on committing an act with the intent of a successful action.
> 
> Next thing you know they'll be walking it back to, "Well he didn't mean it."
> 
> As the parent of toddlers, it's like catching a toddler in the act.



The example i saw on either Seth Meyers or SNL that amused me: "It's like if someone's on a plane and their bomb vest fails to explode, it's not 'Oh well' and then they let you continue on to..." however it went.


----------



## Thaeon

spudmunkey said:


> The example i saw on either Seth Meyers or SNL that amused me: "It's like if someone's on a plane and their bomb vest fails to explode, it's not 'Oh well' and then they let you continue on to..." however it went.







Randy said:


> SCOTUS put a hold on the order for House to get Trump's financials on Wednesday with no definite date when they'll hear the case or whether they will at all. I think this is the first SCOTUS action of any kind related directly to the Trump inquiries, no?



Is there a way we can find SCOTUS in contempt of court?

EDIT: Apparently, you can be in contempt of Congress if obstructing their duties. Considering Congress is the appropriate entity to rule on impeachment and the subpoenas related to it, it would seem that this doesn't fall into an area where SCOTUS can rule. Doesn't mean they won't try and even succeed. But I think that would establish poor precedence and potentially overturn a previous ruling of SCOTUS itself.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Yeah, so about that.



....misdemeanors can include spitting on sidewalks and changing your shirt inside a vehicle in some US jurisdictions, though.

(From browsing the city code of Long Beach, CA in search of something to fight a very bogus parking ticket)


----------



## Thaeon

In oklahoma it’s a misdemeanor to molest another man’s vehicle.


----------



## bostjan

The SCotUS is seriously (probably) not going to hear a case involved in an impeachment proceeding for a sitting PotUS?! This is insanity.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> ....misdemeanors can include spitting on sidewalks and changing your shirt inside a vehicle in some US jurisdictions, though.
> 
> (From browsing the city code of Long Beach, CA in search of something to fight a very bogus parking ticket)


Well it's a good thing they have the bribery charge to go on!

EDIT - reading back, I suspect my post is being misunderstood. I was merely commenting that "bribery" was specifically itemized an impeachable offense, and that our legal system doesn't generally weigh whether or not you were successful in committing a crime or were caught in the act while assessing what statues you may have tried to violate. I.e. - if Trump tried to bribe Ukraine, it's irrelevant if he was sucessful. 

It's also extremely telling how low the bar is falling for Trump. From "perfect phone call" to "well, _attempted_ bribery isn't actually mentioned as grounds for impeachment, only bribery, so that's cool." 



bostjan said:


> The SCotUS is seriously (probably) not going to hear a case involved in an impeachment proceeding for a sitting PotUS?! This is insanity.


They're almost going to have to hear it on a fairly expidited basis. They may not have set a timeline yet, but I'd honestly be shocked if we don't have dates shortly. This is a kind of big deal, but they may have to do some shuffling of their existing hearing schedule to make it work.


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> In oklahoma it’s a misdemeanor to molest another man’s vehicle.



For what it's worth, "molest" doesn't necessarily mean it's sexual in nature. It can be, though.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, the GOP indeed had the balls to criticize Lt. Col. Vindman. A purple heart, no less.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Well, the GOP indeed had the balls to criticize Lt. Col. Vindman. A purple heart, no less.



They DO realize that THEY hired him, though, right??? Intentionally, knowingly, and almost certainly BECAUSE of his background



PS I couldn't give two sh!ts about purple hearts or iraq veterans, but if you go around trying to hire a security guy with connections to ukraine, it's pretty damn hypocritical to later suddenly go "omfg he has connections to ukraine" when he's now a liability


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> They DO realize that THEY hired him, though, right??? Intentionally, knowingly, and almost certainly BECAUSE of his background



He also STILL DOES work for them.


----------



## sleewell

our country needs many more Vindmans and way less trumps and the spineless lemmings who defend him.



why don't they just subpoena Bolton? he seems like he has a lot he wants to say.


----------



## Drew

Pretty interesting read on impeachment polling: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-think-trump-committed-an-impeachable-offense/

Biggest takeaway, IMO, is not that 56% of the country thinks Trump did something impeachable (whether or not that should be acted upon is a different story and there's some dissagreement). Rather, 42% of Americans believe no new piece of information could change their mind on whether or not Trump committed impeachable crimes. Of the remainder who considers themselves still persuadable, a disproportionate number currently do not think he's done anything impeachable. 

Basically - as more information of wrongdoing continues to come out, there's a LOT of room for public opinion to shift against Trump.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> why don't they just subpoena Bolton? he seems like he has a lot he wants to say.


Because he's indicated he won't comply unless the courts order him to, and it'll be a long and protracted court case. It could still happen, but the Democrats likely believe they can build roughly as strong a case without Bolton as with him.


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> why don't they just subpoena Bolton? he seems like he has a lot he wants to say.



They probably will, but Sondland's testimony (and the numerous witnesses corroborating it) is likely to be enough to secure an impeachment.

EDIT:



Drew said:


> Because he's indicated he won't comply unless the courts order him to, and it'll be a long and protracted court case. It could still happen, but the Democrats likely believe they can build roughly as strong a case without Bolton as with him.



The courts have already ruled that anyone receiving a Congressional subpoena must comply with that subpoena, so I don't think this would be too protracted in Bolton's case.


----------



## Randy

Volker going to be incredibly lucky if he doesn't catch a charge for lying to Congress. Enormously mischaracterized the Bolton/Sondland-Ukraine meeting and tried to plead the "oh yeah, hearing the other people testifying jogged my memory" defense when it didn't gel with what everyone else in the room said.

I'm no Schiff fan but I thought he nailed Volker pretty good when he recalled his previous accounting that nothing was inappropriate about the meeting and nobody raised concerns, then today Volker said everyone in the room knew it was inappropriate and rolled their eyes when it came up. Tough to walk back details and characterizations you volunteer in vivid detail, then say you barely remember the meeting but you now vividly recount it being exactly the opposite way AFTER the other people in the room offer more detailed, reputable and corroborated accounting.

Also telling that these were the GOP's witnesses and when it came time for Nunes' questioning, he had to proclaim those weren't the real witnesses they wanted to see.  Also hilarious that he read the same script about the Whistleblower in his opening remarks today and afterward, wanting to cry foul on an investigation based on 'hearsay' and 'second, third and fourth person accounting' of the phone call, when meanwhile they had the people infront of them today who DID hear the phone call in rrealtime and said the same damn thing. Looking desperate.


----------



## Ralyks

Good Lord Nunes is a lying douche in his opening statement


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> Good Lord Nunes is a lying douche in his opening statement


In a way it’s good to see some of these Trump defenders showing their true colors. The shit they are trying to pull is just so easy to see through. It’s like hearing an 8 year old trying to lie and not get into trouble.


----------



## sleewell

sondland throwing everyone under the bus!


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> sondland throwing everyone under the bus!


At this point, I can’t really blame a person for trying to bail from the sinking orange ship.


----------



## sleewell

aaaaaaand he just got pence involved in a direct lie that pence has been trying to claim about the missing aid not coming up in his meeting with Zelensky.


----------



## Randy

Total bloodletting.


----------



## Randy

I'm officially abandoning any belief of anything resembling a strategy from the GOP, after their counsel argued that it wasn't an order from Trump to talk to Giuliani because he sais "talk to Rudy" not "go talk to Rudy".  I was waiting for him to say "Well, how did you know THAT was the Rudy he was referring to?". C'mon.

Also, it's mind boggling that it took 5 days and several hours in for someone (Schiff) to bring up how absurd it is for someone to hear and push "investigate Burisma" at the order of Giuliani and Trump both, but no idea that meant the Bidens until after it was on the news for a weeks, several months after the fact. Nobody ever used Bidens name or he had no idea there was a conspiracy theory out there about Hunter Biden on Burisma board even though you were working in Ukraine this whole time?


----------



## Ralyks

Nunes can't be serious. He’s going on about making sure there’s no corruption before sending aid. He’s heard before that Ukraine was cleared of that to receive the aid before there was a hold put on it.

Like, really?


----------



## Thaeon

I like how Nunes doesn't actually do anything other than Pontificate and Speculate, but asks literally no questions that lead anywhere. It's like he's just attempting to garner the ire of Trump's die hard supporters and stoke the fires enough that they can't listen to the rational questioning through their anger.


----------



## vilk

can't tell if Nunes is retarded or just thinks everyone else is


----------



## Randy

Like I said above, I've just completely abandoned the notion of anything resembling a coherent strategy from the GOP. Volker was their first star witness, he 180'd on his original testimony, Sondland was their backup and he got spooked by what everyone else has said and also pulled a 180. This is full crisis mode for them.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> The courts have already ruled that anyone receiving a Congressional subpoena must comply with that subpoena, so I don't think this would be too protracted in Bolton's case.


Trump has been trying to use "executive privilege" as a reason to shield aids from congressional subpoenas, which the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on. I don't believe the case you're referencing has made it as far as the Supreme Court on appeal, yet, either. It's probable that Bolton would lose if he appealed to the courts, but it would also take several months to get to a decision, and the Democrats are trying to keep this moving. 

IMO, of course... Sondland's testimony did NOT go well for the GOP today. First off (ironically while listening to an anonymous macro econ chat token Trump fans proclaiming this would go nowhere because there was no quid pro quo) he testified directly that there WAS a quid pro quo, per Giuliani and at Trump's direction. This was a reversal from his own prior testimony. Then, when the GOP counsel kept probing him on various subjects, you could tell they weren't getting the answers they wanted and the guy had to keep changing lines of questioning when the answers started to get problematic for Trump's defense. Finally, Nunes' opening was essentially that anything Trump did was fine, because it was intended to shut down a "Democratic witch hunt" (which is not a defense against abusing executive power), and that we need the whistleblower to testify so we don't have to ask people what they thought the whistleblower may have been aware of (which is immaterial now that there is an actual investigation and pretty good proof the report was accurate, and of course is a total violation of whistleblower protections). 

There's also the number of high-profile Trump inner circle members who have issued statements in response already - off the top of my head, Giuliani, Pence, and Perry have all had to go into damage control mode. And this was a lifelong republican that the GOP had cause to believe could help them with his testimony. Ouch.


----------



## Thaeon

I've been listening for most of the day if not watching. Its ugly.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Trump has been trying to use "executive privilege" as a reason to shield aids from congressional subpoenas, which the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on. I don't believe the case you're referencing has made it as far as the Supreme Court on appeal, yet, either. It's probable that Bolton would lose if he appealed to the courts, but it would also take several months to get to a decision, and the Democrats are trying to keep this moving.
> 
> IMO, of course... Sondland's testimony did NOT go well for the GOP today. First off (ironically while listening to an anonymous macro econ chat token Trump fans proclaiming this would go nowhere because there was no quid pro quo) he testified directly that there WAS a quid pro quo, per Giuliani and at Trump's direction. This was a reversal from his own prior testimony. Then, when the GOP counsel kept probing him on various subjects, you could tell they weren't getting the answers they wanted and the guy had to keep changing lines of questioning when the answers started to get problematic for Trump's defense. Finally, Nunes' opening was essentially that anything Trump did was fine, because it was intended to shut down a "Democratic witch hunt" (which is not a defense against abusing executive power), and that we need the whistleblower to testify so we don't have to ask people what they thought the whistleblower may have been aware of (which is immaterial now that there is an actual investigation and pretty good proof the report was accurate, and of course is a total violation of whistleblower protections).
> 
> There's also the number of high-profile Trump inner circle members who have issued statements in response already - off the top of my head, Giuliani, Pence, and Perry have all had to go into damage control mode. And this was a lifelong republican that the GOP had cause to believe could help them with his testimony. Ouch.



So far totally overlooked by most pundits covering this today is the fact Sondland made a point to mention meeting with Trump in person, Trump specifically brings up what "Ukraine tried to do to him in 2016" and directly mentioning working with Rudy Giuliani as a response to Sondland talking about working with Ukraine and Zelensky. Relevant because Sondland knowingly trying to preclude any argument that Giuliani was going 'rogue' by saying Trump invoked the same conspiracy theory, then said "now go talk to Rudy".

Also, a lot of Republicans and people testifying clearly planned on using the defense that "nobody knew Burisma or investigations in general meant the Bidens", which probably would've worked out well if it wasn't for President Shit for Brains literally saying Biden, Biden, Biden on the phone call he made.

Sondland and Volker both looking like the first of the rats jumping off the ship, but also clear is the frustration of the idea of people going out of their way to shield this guy from things, and then he implicates himself in plain English, then tries to pull them infront of him as a human shield. If self preservations doesn't get people to turn on him, the frustration of him constantly undoing every defense they make for him has to.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So far totally overlooked by most pundits covering this today is the fact Sondland made a point to mention meeting with Trump in person, Trump specifically brings up what "Ukraine tried to do to him in 2016" and directly mentioning working with Rudy Giuliani as a response to Sondland talking about working with Ukraine and Zelensky. Relevant because Sondland knowingly trying to preclude any argument that Giuliani was going 'rogue' by saying Trump invoked the same conspiracy theory, then said "now go talk to Rudy".
> 
> Also, a lot of Republicans and people testifying clearly planned on using the defense that "nobody knew Burisma or investigations in general meant the Bidens", which probably would've worked out well if it wasn't for President Shit for Brains literally saying Biden, Biden, Biden on the phone call he made.
> 
> Sondland and Volker both looking like the first of the rats jumping off the ship, but also clear is the frustration of the idea of people going out of their way to shield this guy from things, and then he implicates himself in plain English, then tries to pull them infront of him as a human shield. If self preservations doesn't get people to turn on him, the frustration of him constantly undoing every defense they make for him has to.


Yeah the "I didn't know Burisma meant Biden" defense is extremely shaky and I think even they know it, it's just trying to grasp at some sort of a straw to distance themselves from what Trump and Giuliani were doing. IMO, the most important takeaway from that defense, is that Sondland and Volker WERE trying to distance themselves from Trump and Giuliani in their testimony to Congress. 

The GOP tried to spin that as "talk to Giuliani" was somehow Trump just not wanting to be bothered, rather than a directive, since it wasn't "_go_ talk to Giuliani" or "_you should_ talk to Giuliani" or "_I want you to_ talk to Giuliani," or something like that. That's also a _very_ big stretch.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Trump has been trying to use "executive privilege" as a reason to shield aids from congressional subpoenas, which the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on. I don't believe the case you're referencing has made it as far as the Supreme Court on appeal, yet, either. It's probable that Bolton would lose if he appealed to the courts, but it would also take several months to get to a decision, and the Democrats are trying to keep this moving.



It has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS, but prior US appellate court cases have upheld that a Congressional subpoena is legally binding so long as it is within the scope of Congress to issue the subpoena, and the SCOTUS ruled that Nixon's Watergate tapes must be turned over to the special prosecutor (e.g., no executive privilege), so given these precedents, I doubt there is much of a case to made by Trump's attorneys. It's just a stall tactic at this point, and not a particularly good one IMO.

____________

Given Sondland's testimony today, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican Congressmen and Senators begin distancing themselves from Trump in the next couple of days.


----------



## Thaeon

tedtan said:


> It has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS, but prior US appellate court cases have upheld that a Congressional subpoena is legally binding so long as it is within the scope of Congress to issue the subpoena, and the SCOTUS ruled that Nixon's Watergate tapes must be turned over to the special prosecutor (e.g., no executive privilege), so given these precedents, I doubt there is much of a case to made by Trump's attorneys. It's just a stall tactic at this point, and not a particularly good one IMO.
> 
> ____________
> 
> Given Sondland's testimony today, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican Congressmen and Senators begin distancing themselves from Trump in the next couple of days.



Good point. With previous impeachment precedents, it sounds like an intentional waste of time and taxpayer money.


----------



## Ralyks

Rep Maloney does NOT fuck around.


----------



## Science_Penguin

tedtan said:


> Given Sondland's testimony today, I wouldn't be surprised to see republican Congressmen and Senators begin distancing themselves from Trump in the next couple of days.



If they're anything like the Republicans in the inquiry, I think they're gonna hold on to the "the Dems are out to get your president" narrative. I'd be surprised to see any of them risk losing the votes for that.


----------



## Thaeon

Science_Penguin said:


> If they're anything like the Republicans in the inquiry, I think they're gonna hold on to the "the Dems are out to get your president" narrative. I'd be surprised to see any of them risk losing the votes for that.



If this were the Senate I would probably give them room to distance themselves, but the house is constantly in election mode. They can't afford to not represent the constituency. As long as the majority of voters on the right appear to be standing behind Trump, they'll stick behind him. As soon as voters start appearing to bail on him, they won't be able to abandon ship fast enough.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> As soon as voters start appearing to bail on him, they won't be able to abandon ship fast enough.



I think his point was that voters are or will be bailing on him. Red is red, but a lot of purple or blue districts voted for Trump or went Republican in 2016 for a number of reasons.

I see a lot of pundits mistakingly pontificate over what a politician should do based on if Trump won a certain area in 2016 or by how much, but polling shows that anything that was remotely 'in play' but edged Trump have totally given up on him now.

Elise Stefanik playing a dangerous game because she's in a red-ish district in a very blue state with Democrats on almost all sides. Her main competition went from 6k followers on twitter to 250k+ overnight (and probably more by now), and a million dollars in donations practically overnight as well. Going to bat for the president may lose her her job, or at a minimum, is going to cost her a lot more to keep and if she wins, it'll be by alot less than last time.

If this theme applies elsewhere, I can see supporting Trump becoming untenable on survival alone, much less principal


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> I think his point was that voters are or will be bailing on him. Red is red, but a lot of purple or blue districts voted for Trump or went Republican in 2016 for a number of reasons.
> 
> I see a lot of pundits mistakingly pontificate over what a politician should do based on if Trump won a certain area in 2016 or by how much, but polling shows that anything that was remotely 'in play' but edged Trump have totally given up on him now.
> 
> Elise Stefanik playing a dangerous game because she's in a red-ish district in a very blue state with Democrats on almost all sides. Her main competition went from 6k followers on twitter to 250k+ overnight (and probably more by now), and a million dollars in donations practically overnight as well. Going to bat for the president may lose her her job, or at a minimum, is going to cost her a lot more to keep and if she wins, it'll be by alot less than last time.
> 
> If this theme applies elsewhere, I can see supporting Trump becoming untenable on survival alone, much less principal



Therein lies the problem we're currently faced with. The Republicans are protecting a person instead of the office, and that unfortunate distinction is a reflection of where we've gone. I can't imagine being a rational person, having heard and read everything going on, still supporting the POTUS, regardless of party. But there are a significant number of people that appear to be willfully ignorant of the situation and/or activities that have transpired.


----------



## sleewell

if the mueller report along with the senate and house intel reports all exonerated trump, as he claims, why then does he need to involve a foreign country to investigate the same things? why is it important for trump to prove that russia didn't interfere in our election when all our intel agencies claim they did?



even if you believe the latest of the 22+ ever changing defenses for trump that the aid was eventually released so there is no crime here (that is false, still a crime) you are still saying its ok to ask a foreign govt to dig up dirt on a political opponent to sway an election which is a pretty alarming thing to be ok with.


I think it would be hilarious to go out into parts of the country where people aren't paying attention and describe everything trump did only insert obama's name and see people's reactions. chances are slim they would be ok with a black democrat doing 1/000000th of what has been proven to be true in this situation.


----------



## cwhitey2

sleewell said:


> I think it would be hilarious to go out into parts of the country where people aren't paying attention and describe everything trump did only insert obama's name and see people's reactions. chances are slim they would be ok with a black democrat doing 1/000000th of what has been proven to be true in this situation.


This has been my issue with the entire ordeal.

They will give a Trump a free pass claiming 'drain the swamp'...but if Obama did anything even close to what trump is doing they would have flipped shit.


----------



## tedtan

Suburban republicans have turned on Trump lately, even going blue rather than vote for Trump, so he has lost some support of the republican voting base.

But go a bit further into red territory and you'll see the farmers that Trump fucked over with his tariffs on Chinese imports, the people who voted for Trump in order to bring back manufacturing jobs who are still unemployed, etc. And what do these people see when they look at Trump in 2019/20 that they didn't see in 2015/16? Many of them see him for what he is - a corrupt business person who is putting himself and his family above the people he was elected to represent. And while they aren't likely to turn blue, I seriously doubt they'll show up to support Trump to the extent they did in 2016 after seeing the true Trump.

In short, he is losing support from the voters, and this will be reflected in who remains/is elected to the House and the Senate next year.


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I think the only factor that hasn't been settled in defeating Trump is the Dems not being able to settle on a candidate. Trump has done enough damage to the suburbs and farmers himself, and it's has become a majority for those in favor of impeachment and removal.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Suburban republicans have turned on Trump lately, even going blue rather than vote for Trump, so he has lost some support of the republican voting base.
> 
> But go a bit further into red territory and you'll see the farmers that Trump fucked over with his tariffs on Chinese imports, the people who voted for Trump in order to bring back manufacturing jobs who are still unemployed, etc. And what do these people see when they look at Trump in 2019/20 that they didn't see in 2015/16? Many of them see him for what he is - a corrupt business person who is putting himself and his family above the people he was elected to represent. And while they aren't likely to turn blue, I seriously doubt they'll show up to support Trump to the extent they did in 2016 after seeing the true Trump.
> 
> In short, he is losing support from the voters, and this will be reflected in who remains/is elected to the House and the Senate next year.


For the most part they did in the midterms and subsequent special elections....

....but, no doubt, Trump is risking death by a thousand cuts here. There's a whole bunch of things breaking against him, and none are in and of themselves fatal, but they might add up. 

*The suburbs are turning rather blue, as the Trump brand of the republican party - racism, isolationism, raw white male anger - doesn't play well with suburban voters and, especially, suburban women voters. 
*His trade war is hurting manufacturing and farming jobs, and despite his constant statements about the strongest economy ever, they're not seeing it at home. They may not be as far as feeling betrayed, but they certainly are a little confused. Turnout of his base is a risk. 
*He'd already lost the independent vote prior to this impeachment hearing. And, a majority of independents support impeachment, so it's not making them reconsider. 
*Democrats are EXTREMELY fired up and motivated to turn out. 

Again, no one of these factors alone would necessarily be enough to prevent Trump from winning... But, with the suburbs increasingly identifying as and voting Democratic in response to his policies, with independent voters everywhere cooling on Trump, with his Republican base at the raw end of his war on trade and less motivated to support him, and with the Democrats chomping at the bit to vote him out of office, there's a lot working against him here.


----------



## sleewell

tedtan said:


> Suburban republicans have turned on Trump lately, even going blue rather than vote for Trump, so he has lost some support of the republican voting base.
> 
> But go a bit further into red territory and you'll see the farmers that Trump fucked over with his tariffs on Chinese imports, the people who voted for Trump in order to bring back manufacturing jobs who are still unemployed, etc. And what do these people see when they look at Trump in 2019/20 that they didn't see in 2015/16? Many of them see him for what he is - a corrupt business person who is putting himself and his family above the people he was elected to represent. And while they aren't likely to turn blue, I seriously doubt they'll show up to support Trump to the extent they did in 2016 after seeing the true Trump.
> 
> In short, he is losing support from the voters, and this will be reflected in who remains/is elected to the House and the Senate next year.




i am not sure i buy this even though it makes perfect sense. i think a lot of people are ashamed to tell another person they like trump but once they are alone in a voting booth they will vote for him again. i also am not 100% sure even the 2018 elections or the recent gov election results will translate into similar outcomes in the next presidential election. 

the gop does a great job of targeting single issue voters and convincing them to ignore everything else and vote against their interests. they might hate trump but are they going to vote for the evil socialist who is going to take your guns? or vote for the person who is going to kill unborn babies?


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> i think a lot of people are ashamed to tell another person they like trump



I'm going to rebut this by saying I've never met a Trump supporter who wasn't loud and proud about it. I don't remember Obama supporters walking around with big bright red hats on like assholes.


----------



## cwhitey2

Randy said:


> I'm going to rebut this by saying I've never met a Trump supporter who wasn't loud and proud about it. I don't remember Obama supporters walking around with big bright red hats on like assholes.


 at the last sentence

Where I live NY is extremely Republican...Like I'm an outcast, other than a few select people with a brain. One of my best friends is one of the worst/dumbest people I have ever met when it comes to politics...sometime I wonder why I'm even friends with him. I will literally say it to his face because of how uninformed he is.

Everyone of the the Republicans always say "You should support our President no matter who it is". My jaw hits the floor every time I hear them say that.


----------



## Randy

Gotta keep in mind that Trump did NOT win the popular vote and it took an excruciating amount of interference and dumb luck for things to break the way he needed to get the electoral votes. 

The guy was already <50% when he WON, much less after 3-4 years of fatigue from scandal after scandal. I get cautious skepticism but it can't devolve into aparthy. If you're going to convince me Trump wins, it'd take proving to me he has MORE support than he did in 2016 and i haven't seen a metric that implies that.


----------



## Thaeon

cwhitey2 said:


> at the last sentence
> 
> Where I live NY is extremely Republican...Like I'm an outcast, other than a few select people with a brain. One of my best friends is one of the worst/dumbest people I have ever met when it comes to politics...sometime I wonder why I'm even friends with him. I will literally say it to his face because of how uninformed he is.
> 
> Everyone of the the Republicans always say "You should support our President no matter who it is". My jaw hits the floor every time I hear them say that.



Where was that kind of support when Obama was in the white house?


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Gotta keep in mind that Trump did NOT win the popular vote and it took an excruciating amount of interference and dumb luck for things to break the way he needed to get the electoral votes.
> 
> The guy was already <50% when he WON, much less after 3-4 years of fatigue from scandal after scandal. I get cautious skepticism but it can't devolve into aparthy. If you're going to convince me Trump wins, it'd take proving to me he has MORE support than he did in 2016 and i haven't seen a metric that implies that.



At the same time, huge swaths of the population see this ENTIRE process as a sham, and couldn't care less....like they are making a point of not following it. Everything from "they are all liberal lairs (the worst ones being the life-long republican, Trump-appointed "traitors")" and "they are still trying to steal the 2016 election from us" to "I don't see what's so bad about any of this if he actually did it." I think it's worth considering those as two separate groups, though, also, because I think that 2nd group could still be swayed IF something that's more "black and white" were to come out. Like...I can't imagine what it would be, short of video of actual murder of maybe child abuse....but there's a sliver of hope there.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Gotta keep in mind that Trump did NOT win the popular vote and it took an excruciating amount of interference and dumb luck for things to break the way he needed to get the electoral votes.
> 
> The guy was already <50% when he WON, much less after 3-4 years of fatigue from scandal after scandal. I get cautious skepticism but it can't devolve into aparthy. If you're going to convince me Trump wins, it'd take proving to me he has MORE support than he did in 2016 and i haven't seen a metric that implies that.



I think that the only possible way he's going to win is party line voting which seems to be a way that a lot of the older generations cast their votes. Loyalty to their group despite what they know is bad politics and rationalizing. I'll throw Obama under the bus any time his bad policy comes up. Bad policy is bad policy, and he made a lot of mistakes. The irrational, almost religious loyalty people have to the Republican party is baffling. And I think a lot of it is that they closely associate themselves with the Evangelism. Which to me is Spiritual Imperialism.


----------



## Randy

That's fine. He still narrowly won last time. I'm having a hard time believing the ~200,000 votes in swing states that made the difference last time or the who knows how many people abstained or voted 3rd party because of Hillary and the expectation she was going to win won't break different this time.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> For the most part they did in the midterms and subsequent special elections....



Yeah, and I think that "blue wave" we saw in 2018 will will be bigger come 2020. Maybe not a huge breaker (e.g., flipping the Senate), but the trend will continue.




sleewell said:


> i am not sure i buy this even though it makes perfect sense. i think a lot of people are ashamed to tell another person they like trump but once they are alone in a voting booth they will vote for him again. i also am not 100% sure even the 2018 elections or the recent gov election results will translate into similar outcomes in the next presidential election.
> 
> the gop does a great job of targeting single issue voters and convincing them to ignore everything else and vote against their interests. they might hate trump but are they going to vote for the evil socialist who is going to take your guns? or vote for the person who is going to kill unborn babies?



This is true, but Trump barely squeaked by by a paper thin margin in 2016, and he has lost all of the swing voters and some of the GOP voters. I just don't see how he can eke out a win in 2020, especially with things getting progressively worse and worse for him on the impeachment front.


----------



## sleewell

dems will find a way to lose, especially if the prevailing logic is that there is no way trump can win. also... look at the candidates they are running - not exactly confidence inspiring. i don't think many people will admit this but biden has dementia. warren and sanders would both be easy "socialist" targets. who else could beat trump?

i get everything you all are saying but the last few years have proven to me that nothing that makes sense will happen. 

lastly i would just say if the economy is still going strong in a lot of people's minds and they keep appointing conservative judges i think a lot people will hold their noses and vote for him again.


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> dems will find a way to lose, especially if the prevailing logic is that there is no way trump can win. also... look at the candidates they are running - not exactly confidence inspiring. i don't think many people will admit this but biden has dementia. warren and sanders would both be easy "socialist" targets. who else could beat trump?
> 
> i get everything you all are saying but the last few years have proven to me that nothing that makes sense will happen.
> 
> lastly i would just say if the economy is still going strong in a lot of people's minds and they keep appointing conservative judges i think a lot people will hold their noses and vote for him again.



I get that, and actually agree.

I just don't think that 2020's "a lot of people" will be enough to get Trump the win.

But the democrats absolutely need to put a good candidate up this time to avoid the lack of voter turnout we saw last time.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> I get that, and actually agree.
> 
> I just don't think that 2020's "a lot of people" will be enough to get Trump the win.
> 
> But the democrats absolutely need to put a good candidate up this time to avoid the lack of voter turnout we saw last time.



The question is, who can everyone agree upon? Or are willing to set aside that there chosen candidate is too moderate or too progressive?


----------



## Vyn

Something to keep in mind - there's a whole group of voters between 18 to 22 who will be eligible to vote in the upcoming election that are extremely unlikely to support Trump. You could argue that this has always been the case in other elections and the reason it hasn't affected any vote previously is getting young people engaged in politics and the system is incredibly difficult. However, given the recent climate protests and the massive push from younger generations, I reckon it might end up being a blood bath this time around. Young people are getting engaged and informed actively of their own accord more often now.


----------



## Adieu

Vyn said:


> Something to keep in mind - there's a whole group of voters between 18 to 22 who will be eligible to vote in the upcoming election that are extremely unlikely to support Trump. You could argue that this has always been the case in other elections and the reason it hasn't affected any vote previously is getting young people engaged in politics and the system is incredibly difficult. However, given the recent climate protests and the massive push from younger generations, I reckon it might end up being a blood bath this time around. Young people are getting engaged and informed actively of their own accord more often now.



Are you sure?

Populists and hate-mongers have traditionally had absolute power over this naive demographic


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Populists and hate-mongers have traditionally had absolute power over this naive demographic



I don't know. I'm pretty sure the younger demographic may be sick of their schools getting shot up and the administration not doing anything about it. Or someone like Greta Thunberg who is closer to their age making them realize something is apocalyptically wrong with the climate that will affect THEM when they're older.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> I don't know. I'm pretty sure the younger demographic may be sick of their schools getting shot up and the administration not doing anything about it. Or someone like Greta Thunberg who is closer to their age making them realize something is apocalyptically wrong with the climate that will affect THEM when they're older.



Rants about climate vs. rants about evil Mexicans and Muslims and Chinese??? For youngsters?

Nah. Climate has no chance.

Also, young people NEVER believe ANYONE who talks about what will happen when they're older. Because the whole idea of middle age being closer than they think seems like unfathomable, heretical bullshit.


----------



## Vyn

Adieu said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Populists and hate-mongers have traditionally had absolute power over this naive demographic



See normally I would have agreed, however:



Ralyks said:


> I don't know. I'm pretty sure the younger demographic may be sick of their schools getting shot up and the administration not doing anything about it. Or someone like Greta Thunberg who is closer to their age making them realize something is apocalyptically wrong with the climate that will affect THEM when they're older.



Young people are no longer shielded in the same way as they used to be. Is it two or 3 decades that schools have been shot up? Either way they are sick of it. 



Adieu said:


> Rants about climate vs. rants about evil Mexicans and Muslims??? For youngsters?
> 
> Nah. Climate has no chance.



Half my country is on fire at the moment and our politicians have finally realised they have dropped the ball regarding climate change and that they will face annihilation in the next election if they don't do something. I'm hoping it doesn't take a disaster for your country to get it's shit together as well.


----------



## Adieu

Vyn said:


> Half my country is on fire at the moment and our politicians have finally realised they have dropped the ball regarding climate change and that they will face annihilation in the next election if they don't do something. I'm hoping it doesn't take a disaster for your country to get it's shit together as well.




AUSTRALIA???

...you're being deceived by your cynical asshole politicians.



1) your population is too small to affect climate change no matter wtf you do on a national level

2) your national politics have very little impact on the international arena.... there are CITIES bigger than your COUNTRY. And no, the still-noticeably-larger California and its influence on environmental matters is not a valid comparison, because it has massive sway over the politics of the USA.

3) your huge landmass and total control of a continent actually makes y'all best placed to BENEFIT from climate change (unless you screw up and get re-colonized)....sure your coastal regions and more arid areas are fooked, but that doesn't matter much. Not compared to everyone else, except Canada and Russia.


----------



## Vyn

Adieu said:


> AUSTRALIA???
> 
> ...you're being deceived by your cynical asshole politicians.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) your population is too small to affect climate change no matter wtf you do on a national level
> 
> 2) your national politics have very little impact on the international arena.... there are CITIES bigger than your COUNTRY. And no, the still-noticeably-larger California and its influence on environmental matters is not a valid comparison, because it has massive sway over the politics of the USA.
> 
> 3) your huge landmass and total control of a continent actually makes y'all best placed to BENEFIT from climate change (unless you screw up and get re-colonized)....sure your coastal regions and more arid areas are fooked, but that doesn't matter much. Not compared to everyone else, except Canada and Russia.



Oh, our Prime Minister is a massive cock, however he's going to go under with the rest of his incompetent muppets. Especially in the energy sector, private enterprise is pretty much ignoring the government's official (read RETARDED) position on a lot of things. Energy sector has basically gone "It's more economic for us to go to renewable than run the coal plant" so change is happening with or without the government on-board and they are slowly realising that they are boned if they don't do something.

1 - Our population as a whole is tiny, however when you consider the amount of carbon-based exports we produce, it's insane (gas, coal etc). And being a giant country away from everything else the amount of fuel required for ships/planes just to get here is enormous.

2 - You are correct in that we are small internationally, however we carry a lot of political clout despite that. Heck, the NRA in the states hates us because our very existence challenges their "Gun control doesn't work" mantra haha. Even if Australia reduced it's domestic emissions by 9/10ths of fuck all, the fact that we are trying to do something about it sends a strong signal to other countries. I know Russia generally doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone bar who has a nuke however the rest of the world usually pays attention somewhat.

3 - On paper that's fine, except it's the inland bits that are on fire, so we have a choice of either being BBQ'd or drowning. Or option 3, China comes in and steals everything.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> Populists and hate-mongers have traditionally had absolute power over this naive demographic



There is not a single non-fringe source that puts the current generation of young/new/first-time voters as leaning Republican/conservative. Even the last election showed a double-digit skew towards progressive politics. 

For the last few decades, when the newest batch actually goes and votes, they vote progressive, which is typically Democrat in this country. I don't think there has been a conservative leaning young voter-ship since at least Ronald Reagan.

You can be populist and left leaning: see Bernie Sanders. 

A 17 to 22 year old now sees the Republican party as the party of the endless War on Terror, the party of Trump, and the party of MAGA assholes. They see poor job prospects and medical care they'll never be able to afford.

There will always be youthful naivete, but this generation has access to more information than any previously.


----------



## stockwell

I don't think populism is a very precise or useful term. From its usage, it seems to equate a large number of meaningfully distinct positions. I also haven't seen many people who identify with populism as their political ideology. It seems to be a very mild snarl word. By definition, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of a majority. In a successful democracy, any elected leader would be populist. 

That's the thing about younger voters. Most people tend to agree with most center-left policies divorced of context. Most of Sanders' key policy positions are supported by 60-75% of whoever all these pollsters are polling. Soft left policies and values have majority support when you don't label them as such, or it's not hard to lead people to supporting them. But if you roll these policies that people largely support together and call it leftist, suddenly the US's long history of anti-leftism kicks in. I think that conditioning is wearing off on younger people, which is why you see polls (for whatever they're worth) saying that 70% of zoomers would vote for a socialist. I highly doubt that 70% of young people are left of social democrats or can recite you Marx texts, but I do think the negative gut reaction to scary leftists is dissipating.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

allheavymusic said:


> I don't think populism is a very precise or useful term. From its usage, it seems to equate a large number of meaningfully distinct positions. I also haven't seen many people who identify with populism as their political ideology. It seems to be a very mild snarl word. By definition, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of a majority. In a successful democracy, any elected leader would be populist.
> 
> That's the thing about younger voters. Most people tend to agree with most center-left policies divorced of context. Most of Sanders' key policy positions are supported by 60-75% of whoever all these pollsters are polling. Soft left policies and values have majority support when you don't label them as such, or it's not hard to lead people to supporting them. But if you roll these policies that people largely support together and call it leftist, suddenly the US's long history of anti-leftism kicks in. I think that conditioning is wearing off on younger people, which is why you see polls (for whatever they're worth) saying that 70% of zoomers would vote for a socialist. I highly doubt that 70% of young people are left of social democrats or can recite you Marx texts, but I do think the negative gut reaction to scary leftists is dissipating.





The last couple generations never had the fear of communism or socialism put into them right proper, any objection to them on face value is an inherited response, so the words aren't as scary as they were to their parents or parents' parents.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> The last couple generations never had the fear of communism or socialism put into them right proper, any objection to them on face value is an inherited response, so the words aren't as scary as they were to their parents or parents' parents.



Oh yikes, the Cubans wanna eat our rich!!


PS who cares?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Oh yikes, the Cubans wanna eat our rich!!
> 
> 
> PS who cares?



Exactly.


----------



## Randy

If you're going to eat a rich person, it might as well be thinly sliced on a crisp, freshly toasted roll with dijon mustard and chili flakes.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> If you're going to eat a rich person, it might as well be thinly sliced on a crisp, freshly toasted roll with dijon mustard and chili flakes.



Don't be so boo-gee

Just mince 'er up, grill, and slather in BBQ sauce


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> If you're going to eat a rich person, it might as well be thinly sliced on a crisp, freshly toasted roll with dijon mustard and chili flakes.





Adieu said:


> Don't be so boo-gee
> 
> Just mince 'er up, grill, and slather in BBQ sauce



No, if its a fancy rich person I want them prepped like the fancy food that they are. Some French fusion, and an app of sushi, with a little pan seared in a wasabi glaze.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

They deserve no less than to be treated as foie gras.


----------



## Ralyks

This thread has made me hungry. Which is concerning since it's delved into cannibalism


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> This is true, but Trump barely squeaked by by a paper thin margin in 2016, and he has lost all of the swing voters and some of the GOP voters. I just don't see how he can eke out a win in 2020, especially with things getting progressively worse and worse for him on the impeachment front.


Excellent point - and for all this talk of the Left getting cocky and "we can't possibly lose" turning into a loss, I think there's a real risk of that for Trump, as well, who seems totally distanced from reality. This is the man who fired his internal pollsters when their polling numbers were coming in kinda bleak, who really believed all he had to do to make this whole Ukraine thing blow over was release the transcript and was evidently personally hurt and offended when the firestorm it touched off was so intense that Pelosi opened an impeachment investigation that night, and was sure he could browbeat the Dems in the shutdown this January, until he suddenly realized he couldn't and capitulated so abrudptly that he accepted a worse deal than the Dems had opened negotiations by offering, and tried to paint it as a win. He's delusional; he speaks in front of friendly crowds so often that I don't think he really believes he's vulnerable. 

IIRC Trump's cumulative margin in the Rust Belt states that led to his EC win was somewhere in the 80-100k vote range, in four states. The size of the EC win really doesn't depict how close he cut it - as it happens it was one of the tighter margins in recent years but in absolute terms 304-227 certainly _looks_ more impressive than it was (according to this wikipedia page his margin was 13th tightest out of 58 using the normalized margin statistic they present, and the top two were ties settled in the House of Representatives).

You don't have to move very many votes at all in a couple swing states to change this from a comfortable-looking EC win, to a sizable-looking loss. 



Ralyks said:


> The question is, who can everyone agree upon? Or are willing to set aside that there chosen candidate is too moderate or too progressive?


One of the big take-aways I've seen in polling this year, is the Dems are well-aware how resentment may have hurt them after the protracted Sanders-Clinton contrast, and "beating Trump" is a top priority for Democratic voters. Polling data strongly suggests that voters may have strong primary preferences, but are prepared to hold their notes and vote for whoever wins. 


sleewell said:


> i am not sure i buy this even though it makes perfect sense. i think a lot of people are ashamed to tell another person they like trump but once they are alone in a voting booth they will vote for him again. i also am not 100% sure even the 2018 elections or the recent gov election results will translate into similar outcomes in the next presidential election.


Seconding what Randy said, the Trump supporters I've seen make it a point of pride that they can "trigger libtards" by talking about their politics. And, there's a LOT of recent evidence that people ARE voting differently, again it's worth looking at the suburb vote after the last round of special elections, and any theory trying to explain it away that these were "shy Trump voters" who just didn't mind voting for a Democratic governor and won't talk about their support but will vote for Trump in 2020 is tough to reconcile with Trump's active campaigning, his blatant self-interest and inability to talk about anyone other than himself in those campaigns, and how closely he tied support for the Republican candidate to support for him while the House was exploring impeachment, and how he needed voters to send a message that they wouldn't tolerate his impeachment. 

Also, hot take - the economy isn't in _that_ great shape. Wages are oddly low, income inequality is the highest it's been in decades, we're in a manufacturing recession, GDP growth, rather than the 3-4% Trump promised, was 1.9% last quarter and the Bloomberg economists' consensus for Q4 is further deceleration to 1.7%, and we'll be lucky if we gget as high as 2.5% on the year. The trade war has ground business investment to a standstill, and remember that Trump keeps trying to pressure the Fed to cut rates, which I don't know how your grasp of Fed policy theory is but cutting rates is something you do to stimulate a weak and weakening economy when you're trying to stave off recession - if it really was off to the races, the appropriate thing to do would be to _raise_ them, which the Fed was doing until Trump started escalating his trade war. 

Anyone who guarantees we're going to have a recession or market crash before November 2020 is insane, but anyone who guarantees we _won't_ is just as nuts, and it's probably somewhere north of a 1-in-3 chance that we get one.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> The question is, who can everyone agree upon? Or are willing to set aside that there chosen candidate is too moderate or too progressive?



Personally, I think the country needs a more progressive candidate because, even though they won't be able to implement all of their campaign promises, they'll move the country that much closer, making it easier for the people that follow to implement them (much like Sanders' platform in 2016 has impacted everyone else's platform in 2020). And, like Drew mentioned, most democrats want Trump out of office first and foremost, so I think they'll go along with whomever wins the primary.

But that approach is a harder sell for swing voters and any republicans who may hold their nose and vote for a democrat in order to get Trump out of office, so Biden may be a safer strategy in order to remove Trump from office now to mitigate the damages he is causing and then focus on the more progressive reforms in 2024.

But ultimately, 2020 comes down to a pro-Trump versus anti-Trump vote, and Trump has caused so many people so many problems during his time in office that I don't think he has the support to pull off a second term (assuming he survives his first, which he may not after some of the testimony that we've heard so far in the impeachment hearings).


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> But ultimately, 2020 comes down to a pro-Trump versus anti-Trump vote, and Trump has caused so many people so many problems during his time in office that I don't think he has the support to pull off a second term (assuming he survives his first, which he may not after some of the testimony that we've heard so far in the impeachment hearings).


Let's put it this way. IF this election becomes a referendum on Trump, there's a number of elections we've had since 2016 that explicitly became referendums on Trump. Trump has NOT done well in those elections. I wouldn't mind fighting it on some grounds other than Trump vs. Not-Trump, but if that's what it comes down to, then I won't complain.


----------



## Ralyks

Maybe a touchy subject, and if it is feel free to stop it, but I'm curious how the armed forces and their families are handling how Trump is handling Spec Ops Chief Edward Gallagher. This is looking messy.


----------



## bostjan

So, what if: Trump is impeached, and a handfull of Senate republicans break from the party line, and we end up with 65 or 66 votes to remove him, just shy of the 67 required, Trump declares victory and galvanizes his base again with talk of being cleared. Then, in 2020, because of all the crazy EC BS and gerrymandering, Trump wins the EC again but loses the popular vote again, say by an even bigger margin that 2016... Trump will be president and will basically be invincible, yet the American people will be pissed. It's not really an unlikely scenario when you think about it. But what might happen after those events?


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ANtnggsWWQgKvZ9MMtqK9XQ

Hahahahahah


----------



## Adieu

In conclusion: stupid outdated Constitution needs to be torn up and fukken shredded as a perversion of Democracy and the People's Will

This is all because the system is irreparably broken


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Maybe a touchy subject, and if it is feel free to stop it, but I'm curious how the armed forces and their families are handling how Trump is handling Spec Ops Chief Edward Gallagher. This is looking messy.



I'm conflicted.

To put it bluntly, he is a monster. A cold blooded, indiscriminate killer.

But he's also mostly a product of the system and circumstances this country has created over the last two decades and more.

He deserves to be kicked out of the armed forces and really should have served more time. He only got off the murder charge because the chief witness perjured themselves at the last minute. 

This level of interference with the operations of the armed forces is bullshit, and you can't tell me this has nothing to do with the GOP treating Lt. Col. Vindman like shit. 

On the ground, this is a huge propaganda win for our enemies, and will likely lead to more brutal treatment of our forces and allies on the battlefield.


----------



## MatiasTolkki

diagrammatiks said:


> Don't post much in this thread but I've enjoyed reading your posts...
> 
> I'd suggest just ignoring mattias. the gap between your levels of discourse is......



Excuse me, I dont have either the left or right media bias of Faux news or NPCNN in my face 24 hours a day. 

I can provide PLENTY of evidence to support my claims, they are in Japanese. that doesnt make them any less relevant to why I stand by Trump.


----------



## MatiasTolkki

Drew said:


> You're welcome. "God Emporer" is the preferred way of referring to Trump over in r/TheDonald - if you're not a regular, you know people who are.
> 
> Close - it was not proved definitively that collusion did NOT occur, the Mueller report concluded there was a lot of really suspicious things that happened and both sides were taking actions to directly benefit the other, but there was not enough evidence to concretely determine any sort of agreement was in place (noting in doing so that part of the reason for this very well may have been the obstruction that Mueller determined there WAS pretty robust evidence for, and laid out ten instances of probable obstruction). Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It's enough to not get prosecuted, but it doesn't prove the whole thing was a made up witch hunt, either, much as Trump would like it to be. As far as Biden, his son taking a job on the board of a Ukranian firm was probably a bad idea, but the investigation was into tax fraud, not Biden's role in the firm, and Biden was pressuring the Ukranians to _reopen_ the investigation, not close it. If you have a problem with the nepotism of Biden's son using his last name to get a consulting position, well, that's a conversation I'd be _happy_ to have with a Trump supporter.
> 
> Again, with the TPP, you're talking about things completely irrelevant to the point that the OP was making, which was the TPP was intended to build a free trade network in China's back door and box them out with their neighbors, which would be vastly preferable to this clusterfuck of a tariff war we got instead.



Wrong, I dont use reddit and I dont know people who use reddit. Again, when you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me. The term god emperor is a mainstream internet term at this point, regardless of where it originally started. I didnt even know people were calling him that until I saw Sargon of akkad and Styxhexenhammer use it.

You using that same line of "not definitive" that everyone seems to like to use. Why not ask why Shitlery received MASSIVE donations from firms DIRECTLY connected to russia and Ukraine. Also the same organization that falsified the Dossier that everyone throws around as "the smoking gun" as to trump's guilt? You question me and these sorts of things yet you never bother to look into it yourself. Puzzling.

No, my points on the TPP are NOT irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, in my first comment, I stated that I was against the TPP because it would have gotten rid of my national health care, which was the deciding issue on whether to support trump or not. Doesnt matter about the tertiary issues; thats all that mattered to me.


----------



## MatiasTolkki

Drew said:


> ....though with respect to Ukraine, it certainly reinforces the narrative. Just as the Clinton email server investigation and the Comey Letter was so damning to Clinton precisely because it played into an existing narrative of Clinton being the sort of person who didn't believe the normal rules applied to her, the Ukraine investigation fits awfully neatly with a narrative that Trump was the sort of guy who had no qualms with cutting deals with foreign powers to get dirt on political rivals in an election.



Except the transcript of the call was released, and he had NO QUID PRO QUO, hell even all of the democrat witnesses have said it was just their assumptions that they didnt have proof for.


----------



## narad

MatiasTolkki said:


> Excuse me, I dont have either the left or right media bias of Faux news or NPCNN in my face 24 hours a day.
> 
> I can provide PLENTY of evidence to support my claims, they are in Japanese. that doesnt make them any less relevant to why I stand by Trump.



Not left or right media bias. Japanese media bias.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MatiasTolkki said:


> Except the transcript of the call was released, and he had NO QUID PRO QUO, hell even all of the democrat witnesses have said it was just their assumptions that they didnt have proof for.



That is inaccurate.

A prepared summary, called a “memorandum”, of the call in question was released, but not an actual transcript.

The only full transcripts we've seen have been from calls months prior.


----------



## Ralyks

MatiasTolkki said:


> Except the transcript of the call was released, and he had NO QUID PRO QUO, hell even all of the democrat witnesses have said it was just their assumptions that they didnt have proof for.



Democratic witnesses? Most of them ARE CURRENTLY in the Trump administration.


----------



## stockwell

When someone mentioned the presidential pardons earlier, all the news articles described Gallagher as was a guy who posed with a debt body. Disgusting but not utterly reprehensible. To clarify, he has allegedly: strangled/stabbed POWs to death, shot a young girl out of a group of young girls, shot an unarmed old man, taking random shots at buildings, "indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine gun fire with no known enemy force in the region", threatening to kill SEALs who reported him, and by his own dubious testimony, killing 3 people per day over 80 days. That's all from wikipedia. To me it seems like an example of the extremely rare individuals who naturally love violence and are disproportionately selected for and rewarded by the military/police. 

Truly insane. But it's not the first case and it's likely he got convicted for threatening fellow SEALs and flaunting rules, not necessarily because of all the civilian killings. Just another reminder that we have to stop the ongoing conflicts the US is involved in. I hate to sink to the lowest level of political discourse, referencing 1984, but it really is a 1984 situation. Constant, meaningless, opaque, insane low-level ongoing conflict perpetuated to justify anything and everything from a surveillance state to regime changes to black sites to outright murder. 

US foreign policy is horrific. I hate the feeling of powerlessness that goes along with it. The DNC debate drove it home even harder for me. The vast majority of candidates will not do anything about it because they know it's political suicide to actually end wars. Some lowlights include Warren's baffling response about more people in the military and Harris's partisan "I'll do whatever Trump doesn't do" response about restoring military demonstrations in South Korea. Obviously I'm biased, but the only small ray of anything akin to hope was Sanders saying he'd pull out of Afghanistan, back off of supporting the Saudis, and rethink the War on Terror. It's bonkers that those are radical stances relative to the mass line of the US political system.


----------



## Politics of Ecstasy

Here’s my quick 2 cents (with my slight libertarianesque conservatism)
1) trump won’t get impeached
2) no democrat can beat him as of yet
3) as much as no one likes him, he probably didn’t do anything criminal (partially because his sentences, statements, fragments, and rants are so hard to understand because he breaks thought and breaks his sentence with it so its ambiguous, everything he says is ambiguous, thats his trick)
4) with that said, he cant make a quid pro quo, grammatically, so if it was inferred or implied, it just isnt a fact
5) you guys know foreign leaders do stuff like this all the time?
6) if they are investigating trump, and they left crooked Hillary (she’s a war criminal) alone, then its only fair Biden gets investigated too as BIDEN definitely showed more evidence of a quid pro quo than trump
7) this might have been trumps way of getting rid of Biden, the only real threat to his next election
8) trump wins again, in the weirdest, roundabout, nonsense way
9) what Hillary and Obama got away with, like Benghazi, and Iran, and all the other back door, back channel deals that went wrong and were caught, imagine what they were really doing with what they didnt get caught
10)Trump May be a horrible person, but hes definitely not as bad of a president in certain ways; other ways, his human side ruins the good

For the record, I may be on the right, but I’m not a trump supporter. While he’s done some good, no one allowed him to really work, just like Obama when he came in....good things were started, nothing was actually done

I advocate bipartisanship, i think the country need to talk until people understand each area needs its own governance; which is why it goes from Federal>state>county>municipality and the less Federal government involvement the better. Too bad there is no republican that can go against trump

And to be completely honest: We should’ve never been in the Middle East, that’s where all the problems start and end, and were like 15 hours away by plane and ocean. So even if pulling out our guys means turkey and Syria and Kurds go at it, they were gonna go an it anyway, like they have been for 5000 years.....its an OLD problem so we have no business in the Middle East

Where should US foreign policy be refocused: aid and development in africa, and setting up new trade lines with Asia and Europe. Things are changing in the east, in so many places and ways, too many to put here

But anyway, i think wherever diplomacy and democracy has failed a republic, and there is no leadership in place, we get out......we dont try to build....and next time someone has WMD’s lets google earth it ourselves before we let the president go back to the Middle East for something else (more oil)

Its all about an energy scramble now......who in the east will control the oil and water and gas pipelines....Russia? Iran? Turkey? Etc

So I’m not sure where else other people are, but I just hope a democratic candidate with a real plan emerges....


----------



## Adieu

I will support anyone who seriously advocates turning Saudi Arabia into a parking lot and ditching Israel to its doom.

These two twisted regimes have been stirring shit in the Middle East for half a century and only exist due to American support. They are the two real reasons the whole region is in perpetual shithole mode.

A middle east pullout should start with righting these two wrongs.


----------



## possumkiller

The Christian Republicans will never abandon the Israelites to those godless Muslims. They are God's chosen people. If they suck Israel's dick sweetly enough, God might give them better seats in heaven.


----------



## vilk

Imagine being born after 9/11 and going to school and learning about the wars we're in.

How did the War on Terror start?
_Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 terror attack._
So we attacked Saudi Arabia?
_No, we attacked Afghanistan._
Why did we attack them if all the terrorists were Saudi?
_Well a couple of them knew this guy in Afghanistan._
So then why are the soldiers in Iraq?
_Colon Powell was compelled to lie about connections between Saddam Hussein and a terrorist, so we thought he had weapons of mass destruction._
Did we destroy the weapons?
_No, they didn't have any. And we found out Saddam didn't know that guy anyway._
So then we left?
_No we had to stay and fix the country we destroyed._
So it's fixed now?
_No...

_

I feel like short of straight up writing propaganda lies in textbooks, people who are becoming old enough to vote are going to see this for what it is: Rich people enriching themselves through the military industrial complex, unjust wars started for fake reasons killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. You know, the same way we look at Vietnam.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Imagine being born after 9/11 and going to school and learning about the wars we're in.
> 
> How did the War on Terror start?
> _Saudi Arabia funded the 9/11 terror attack._
> So we attacked Saudi Arabia?
> _No, we attacked Afghanistan._
> Why did we attack them if all the terrorists were Saudi?
> _Well a couple of them knew this guy in Afghanistan._
> So then why are the soldiers in Iraq?
> _Colon Powell was compelled to lie about connections between Saddam Hussein and a terrorist, so we thought he had weapons of mass destruction._
> Did we destroy the weapons?
> _No, they didn't have any. And we found out Saddam didn't know that guy anyway._
> So then we left?
> _No we had to stay and fix the country we destroyed._
> So it's fixed now?
> _No...
> 
> _
> 
> I feel like short of straight up writing propaganda lies in textbooks, people who are becoming old enough to vote are going to see this for what it is: Rich people enriching themselves through the military industrial complex, unjust wars started for fake reasons killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. You know, the same way we look at Vietnam.



_*Implying this is even mentioned in passing in American schools.*_


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> So then why are the soldiers in Iraq?
> _Colon Powell [...]_



Not sure if unintentionally hilarious or not...


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> _*Implying this is even mentioned in passing in American schools.*_


You think they don't teach about it? Or do you think they teach a propaganda version of it?


----------



## vilk

MFB said:


> Not sure if unintentionally hilarious or not...


Everyone knew then and now that the man behind the curtains for it all is Dick Cheney... it's just kinda hard to explain that concisely.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> You think they don't teach about it? Or do you think they teach a propaganda version of it?



Per a few high school teachers I know, the War on Terror is mentioned in the most brief and abstract terms. One who has been teaching since the 80s likens it to the treatment of the Vietnam War: it is a thing that happened/is happening, but the history of, direct causes, and outlook are not discussed.


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> Everyone knew then and now that the man behind the curtains for it all is Dick Cheney... it's just kinda hard to explain that concisely.



I meant the spelling of colon vs. Colin, so you made him a literal sack of shit vs. a figurative one that everyone considers him


----------



## vilk

MFB said:


> I meant the spelling of colon vs. Colin, so you made him a literal sack of shit vs. a figurative one that everyone considers him


Oh, that was totally an accident HAHAHA


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Per a few high school teachers I know, the War on Terror is mentioned in the most brief and abstract terms. One who has been teaching since the 80s likens it to the treatment of the Vietnam War: it is a thing that happened/is happening, but the history of, direct causes, and outlook are not discussed.



I was fortunate enough to have a US History teacher than opened the class with Timothy Leary quotes and told us to ask if the losing team writes the story. If there was financial gain involved, and who stood to profit from it... Also, supported a lot of it with actual News Reel from the time periods discussed when possible. We didn't just learn dates. She taught us how to look at the situations and parse the real agenda from the propaganda. Often discussing when the textbook was hiding information, to what end, and why leading a discussion in the direction the textbooks were leading it might be beneficial to some people.

Most students aren't so lucky.


----------



## Drew

MatiasTolkki said:


> Wrong, I dont use reddit and I dont know people who use reddit. Again, when you assume, you make an Ass out of U and Me. The term god emperor is a mainstream internet term at this point, regardless of where it originally started. I didnt even know people were calling him that until I saw Sargon of akkad and Styxhexenhammer use it.


You're using a nickname for Donald Trump that was coined and popularized at r/TheDonald. I'm SURE I'm not the first person to point this out to you, and if you've picked it up from internet discussions, then I'm sure some of those people you picked it up with were active at r/TheDonald. More to the point, I'm not sure why you found that observation so offensive.


MatiasTolkki said:


> Except the transcript of the call was released, and he had NO QUID PRO QUO, hell even all of the democrat witnesses have said it was just their assumptions that they didnt have proof for.


Ok, but at the same time you have both Sondland saying he believed it to be a quid pro quo and that announcing - just announcing, not actually participating in - an investigation would "break the logjam" of held-up Ukranian aid and the oft-delayed meeting Zelensky was looking for, and Mulvaney saying "of course it was a quid pro quo, who cares, get over it." Meanwhile, despite the Administrations denials, numerous witnesses testified the Ukranians were aware the military aid was held up, and Zelensky had a meeting in early May with his team about how to best handle political pressure from Trump to do something to influence the 2020 campaign. 

This is all beside the point anyway, to a certain extent - evidence of a direct quid pro quo would make a bribery conviction - outlined in the constitution as an impeahable offense - a slam dunk charge, but even pressuring the Ukranians to investigate political rivals is itself an abuse of executive power and potentially one that meets the "high crimes and misdemeaners" standard.

Trump fucked up, plain and simple. Worse, he got caught. If he survives impeachment it'll be due to a hyper-partisan environment and not because there was any doubt that trying to pressure a foreign country to launch a trumped-up investigation into a political rival so he could talk about it on the campaign was wrong. 

But, of course, you probably have some source in Japanese that says otherwise.


----------



## sleewell

"I need you to do a favor _though_"


that is enough to be convicted if we weren't living in a party over country moment, and it was put out by the white house.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> "I need you to do a favor _though_"
> 
> 
> that is enough to be convicted if we weren't living in a party over country moment, and it was put out by the white house.


Yeah, and there's the fact that Trump has adopted the habit of never asking _directly_ for things that are in legally dubious territory - see Cohen's entire testimony, and his "I hope you can let it go" to Comey about investigating Flynn. 

Shit, remember when asking the Director of the FBI to look the other way on an investigation into whether or not Trump's National Security Adviser had lied to federal investigators about his conversations with Russian diplomats was the extent of Trump's crimes? Now, we're arguing over whether or not when Trump unilaterally blocked military aid to Ukraine, which lest we forget is a nation with an open war raging on its border with Russia, because he was trying to increase pressure on the Ukrainians to open the investigation into a political rival he wanted, or if it was just a total random coincidence that be blocked aid to Ukraine over concerns taxpayer money was being wasted, but no other nations, and the testimony of all of his aides that the White House hasn't managed to block from testifying has been "yeah, we believe this was intentional and it was intended as a quid pro quo, and that the Ukrainians knew this." These aren't Democratic loyalists either, we're hearing this from a mix of career diplomats who served with distinction under both Democratic and Republican presidents, some as far back as Reagan, and from large Trump donors who were rewarded for their loyalty with appointed diplomatic positions. 

Like, what the actual fuck.  Let's pause for a moment and look at how far the goalposts have shifted here.


----------



## Randy

This Nunes thing moving the goal post even further. I read three different places following up on the claim that he went to Ukraine, also looking for dirt on the Bidens, and all three articles made a point to say that it wasn't clear if that was legal or not. MOTHERFUCKER, forget legal or illegal in a vacuum, the guy was the minority chair of the hearings discussing this exact subject matter and didn't think it was necessary to make clear he was directly involved in the covert operation he was (partially) overseeing the hearings about? Also continually forgetting that he was the executive of the Trump transition team.

Someone made the point last week about how Republicans were starting to argue "hearsay" on the testimonies of people IN THE ROOM when these things were being done, essentially boiling down the concept of a "direct witness" to mean the whole Congress needed to be in the room watching it happen to count. These standards are absurd, but MSM seem to keep letting them redefine guilt as they choose that particular day.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> MOTHERFUCKER, forget legal or illegal in a vacuum, the guy was the minority chair of the hearings discussing this exact subject matter and didn't think it was necessary to make clear he was directly involved in the covert operation he was (partially) overseeing the hearings about? Also continually forgetting that he was the executive of the Trump transition team.


Yeah, the "courtroom" standard is yet another moving of the goalposts since this ISN'T a criminal trial... But, in a court of law, Nunes would almost certainly have to recuse himself from having a hand in overseeing the proceedings, even before the fact he himself may have been going to Ukraine to try to drum up an investigation came out.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> This Nunes thing moving the goal post even further. I read three different places following up on the claim that he went to Ukraine, also looking for dirt on the Bidens, and all three articles made a point to say that it wasn't clear if that was legal or not. MOTHERFUCKER, forget legal or illegal in a vacuum, the guy was the minority chair of the hearings discussing this exact subject matter and didn't think it was necessary to make clear he was directly involved in the covert operation he was (partially) overseeing the hearings about? Also continually forgetting that he was the executive of the Trump transition team.
> 
> Someone made the point last week about how Republicans were starting to argue "hearsay" on the testimonies of people IN THE ROOM when these things were being done, essentially boiling down the concept of a "direct witness" to mean the whole Congress needed to be in the room watching it happen to count. These standards are absurd, but MSM seem to keep letting them redefine guilt as they choose that particular day.



We need Presidential Bodycams. ASAP.



PS oddly enough, the idea isn't new. Apparently Korean royalty had assigned scribes following them around everywhere to record everything they did, so they would be deterred from doing underhanded illegal shit. Netflix has a couple costume dramas about it...


----------



## Vostre Roy

As a Canadian, I must say that I have a very limited understanding of how all your political stuff works and English is not my first language, so keep that in mind while reading this (its also the reason why I don't usually post in here). Don't really know or care about my actual political position either, had an hard time to find who to vote for in our last federal elections as I hated all chief and liked/hated points from all the parties. As for Trump himself, he's a terrible human being and although some good stuff will come out of his presidency (cue "a broken clock..."), I believe that he'll have done more harm than good to your nation, especially the relationship with your allies. On an egotistical point of view, I love that he's putting stress on the economy as this means that the gold price raise, and I work in the gold mining industry, so Trump is good for me lol.

All of that being said, in my opinion the case regarding the Ukrainian issue might not be the strongest case to impeach that guy. Not because he haven't done anything wrong, it seems that so far everything point in that direction, but no paper trail has been shown to prove the case. I understand that a lot of witness, many of which were employed during past administration even, have said under oath that they believed a quid pro quo was indeed clear in their mind, nonetheless its their interpretation of the issue and its hard to use that as a solid evidence.

What I believe would be a stronger case of impeachment in this situation is all the attempt that has been done to avoid providing with documents and basically telling everybody in the administration to defy the Congress subpoenas. As far as I understand your system, this is a clear impeachable offense and there is a good chance that the paper trail that I've mentioned previously could had been hid. Its a clear case of "if there is nothing to see, there should have nothing to hide". If the House go ahead with the impeachment and that the Senate decide to let him go, it would create a dangerous precedent that could fire back right at their face should the situation be reversed in the future. I also believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the GOP will defend him as much as possible because if he get impeached, time is running out until the next election and it will be hard for them to rally behind a new candidate in such a short notice.

Well, I had more to say on the subject than I initially thought. Been following this shit show since Day one, never been that interested in American politics before, you guys knows how to put entertainment in politics


----------



## Drew

First, for a guy claiming to have a limited understanding of both how US political process works and of the English language, yours was a polite, articulate, and thoughtful contribution. I'd love to see more of that around here.  



Vostre Roy said:


> What I believe would be a stronger case of impeachment in this situation is all the attempt that has been done to avoid providing with documents and basically telling everybody in the administration to defy the Congress subpoenas. As far as I understand your system, this is a clear impeachable offense and there is a good chance that the paper trail that I've mentioned previously could had been hid. Its a clear case of "if there is nothing to see, there should have nothing to hide". If the House go ahead with the impeachment and that the Senate decide to let him go, it would create a dangerous precedent that could fire back right at their face should the situation be reversed in the future. I also believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the GOP will defend him as much as possible because if he get impeached, time is running out until the next election and it will be hard for them to rally behind a new candidate in such a short notice.



I think the charges _themselves_ are both pretty damning, and have been reasonably well documented, despite the obsctruction campaign you note and the Administration's doing everything in its power to stop people from complying, while simultaneously criticising the investigation as all "hearsay" and not having enough firsthand testimony. 

But, that's something we can go back and forth on, and what order you rank the eventual charges in an impeachment vote is sort of irrelevant, I suppose. I can say that what you're describing here will _absolutely_ be a count of obstruction of justice in the impeachment documents, that the Trump administration unconstitutionally abused executive power to both cover up the attempted bribery, and to try to shut down and otherwise stonewall the investigation. Obstruction of justice has been a count in, I believe, every impeachment proceeding to date, and at a minimum every one in the modern era. 

So, yeah, your instincts are pretty good.


----------



## sleewell

there aren't any documents bc trump blocked them all. if they allowed the release of what has been requested i am sure there would be a mountain of damning evidence against trump, pompeo, pence and perry.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> there aren't any documents bc trump blocked them all. if they allowed the release of what has been requested i am sure there would be a mountain of damning evidence against trump, pompeo, pence and perry.


I'll be very curious how the court ruling on this goes today. At a minimum, a favorable decision may be enough to convince Bolton that his desire for the courts to weigh in before he agreed to testify had been met. What little he's said publicly seems to suggest he'd _like_ to testify, at least.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, I've been waiting on the McGahn decision, which is suppose to come by end of business day. I understand that to be within the next 2 hours and 15 minutes, at least here in NY...


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> Yeah, I've been waiting on the McGahn decision, which is suppose to come by end of business day. I understand that to be within the next 2 hours and 15 minutes, at least here in NY...



And there's the ruling:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/7827...n-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house

McGahn must testify, though we can be certain the Justice Department will appeal, and even if he does go to testify, I'm willing to bet he won't divulge much.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> And there's the ruling:
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/7827...n-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house
> 
> McGahn must testify, though we can be certain the Justice Department will appeal, and even if he does go to testify, I'm willing to bet he won't divulge much.



I don't think they can appeal? Correct me if I'm wrong here.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> I don't think they can appeal? Correct me if I'm wrong here.



The Trump administration can appeal the ruling.


----------



## Ralyks

I'm starting to question the point of all of these rulings if everything can be appealed.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> I'm starting to question the point of all of these rulings if everything can be appealed.



See, "NORMALLY", it's meant to give the upper hand to the side with more money, as they can just wear down and exhaust the uppity paupers who don't know their place into submission

....but with government bodies and high offices, it turns into an even bigger politicized farce with zero regard for the judicial process


----------



## Ralyks

On a different note, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Houses subpoena for Trumps financials. Go fucking figure.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> On a different note, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Houses subpoena for Trumps financials. Go fucking figure.



A supreme court that always uses the same panel of politically appointed lifelong juror-judges is a damn farce

It should at least be a lottery system from a large pool or something. And a proven record of "voting" the party line should be FELONY PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE.


----------



## stockwell

Here's a radical idea: what if we actually elected Supreme Court justices? I mean, if we're going to have them, it might as well be more democratic. 

Ah wait Bolivia tried that and we overthrew them for lithium


----------



## MaxOfMetal

allheavymusic said:


> Here's a radical idea: what if we actually elected Supreme Court justices? I mean, if we're going to have them, it might as well be more democratic.
> 
> Ah wait Bolivia tried that and we overthrew them for lithium



I'd settle for needing at least 2/3rds majority vote in both houses.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd settle for needing at least 2/3rds majority vote in both houses.



...that just stimulates horsetrading


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> ...that just stimulates horsetrading



It beats potential Supreme Court Justices pandering to denizens of flyover country who's only grasp of the legal system is "lock her up" and "I swear she looked 18" for votes. Ugh.


----------



## Randy

allheavymusic said:


> Here's a radical idea: what if we actually elected Supreme Court justices? I mean, if we're going to have them, it might as well be more democratic.
> 
> Ah wait Bolivia tried that and we overthrew them for lithium



While we're on that topic, how about the fact their deliberations are done completely behind closed doors?

The concept of 1/3rd of the political branches (arguably the most powerful of the three) being unelected, life long positions is made exponentially more appalling when you consider how opaque the process is, even compared to all lower courts.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd settle for needing at least 2/3rds majority vote in both houses.



Dems didn't help that either. The race to abolish the filibuster seemed to blow right past without a decent debate or chance to slow it. I remember it being chipped away at issue by issue, and most coverage saying Dems were in favor of killing it, even when they were in the minority. Seems ill advised 

Between the overpowered, lifetime appointment of SCOTUS, simple majority for every decision in the Senate and the elevation of the POTUS to operate completely beyond the boundaries of the law (including the laws that help get him elected), this has to be one of most bleak eras in American democracy.

I'm not saying all the TDS theories on Trump are true but if you think about it as a hypothetical, a foreign power can rig our elections to install whoever they want, then blackmail, extort or bribe him to do anything they want, and as long as one house of Congress shares a party with him (also potentially through rigging), there's no way of getting rid of him (for at least 4 years, but easily 8 if foreign influence goes deep enough, who knows, maybe longer) and he can fill SCOTUS appointments that will grease the wheels on anything he or that foreign power sees fit, for years or decades after he's gone, and guarantee nothing can be done to change it (see: Citizens United).

The guardrails on democracy are basically the three branches, term limits/regular elections and impeachment, all of which have been proven left to interpretation and easily compromised if desired. I've got to imagine the Founding Fathers had a number of blind spots we're not ready to tackle.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I've got to imagine the Founding Fathers had a number of blind spots we're not ready to tackle.



That's some commie talk.


----------



## bostjan

It's amazing how many direct parallels and direct juxtapositions there are between this case and Nixon. One of the last fights between Nixon and congress was his financials, which he fought so much about hiding, and knfamously promising "I am not a crook," then, once released, Nixon was a crook. I don't see Trump fighting this so hard if there isn't anything wrong with his tax returns.


----------



## possumkiller

Does it really matter? It's not like he would face any real consequences if they do try him and find him guilty.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Does it really matter? It's not like he would face any real consequences if they do try him and find him guilty.



It would make him even more politically toxic and probably lead to a major shift away from his policies from the rank and file GOP. Possibly enough to move deeper red hold outs more towards the center. 

Then again, to get to that point you'd need a significant level of defection already. 

Definitely a chicken/egg situation. 

I can't think of any genuine negatives. If he's let off it'll be a nakedly partisan move, which isn't likely to win over any moderates or swing voters, and definitely won't budge those already left leaning. 

It doesn't hurt that going through the motions, as pointless and tiring as they seem at the moment, is the right thing to do. 

As for personal consequences, he's in something of a legal pickle in NY, and is pretty much shielded purely by his office. 

It's crazy to think a straight up war criminal like Bush2 could evade repercussions after leaving office, but Trump might not. Not minimizing how terrible Trump is, but damn did W. Bush get away scot-free.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not minimizing how terrible Trump is, but damn did W. Bush get away scot-free.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not minimizing how terrible Trump is, but damn did W. Bush and Cheney get away scot-free.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> It would make him even more politically toxic and probably lead to a major shift away from his policies from the rank and file GOP. Possibly enough to move deeper red hold outs more towards the center.
> 
> Then again, to get to that point you'd need a significant level of defection already.
> 
> Definitely a chicken/egg situation.
> 
> I can't think of any genuine negatives. If he's let off it'll be a nakedly partisan move, which isn't likely to win over any moderates or swing voters, and definitely won't budge those already left leaning.
> 
> It doesn't hurt that going through the motions, as pointless and tiring as they seem at the moment, is the right thing to do.
> 
> As for personal consequences, he's in something of a legal pickle in NY, and is pretty much shielded purely by his office.
> 
> It's crazy to think a straight up war criminal like Bush2 could evade repercussions after leaving office, but Trump might not. Not minimizing how terrible Trump is, but damn did W. Bush get away scot-free.



Bush made a lot of corporations a lot of money. Much more than Trump has. Arguably, Trump has done some damage to corporate america too through his tariff lunacy. Bush got off because his decisions may have been morally just as bad if not worse, people got extra filthy rich from them which makes them tolerable.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thaeon said:


> Bush made a lot of corporations a lot of money. Much more than Trump has. Arguably, Trump has done some damage to corporate america too through his tariff lunacy. Bush got off because his decisions may have been morally just as bad if not worse, people got extra filthy rich from them which makes them tolerable.



Let's be clear: Bush and Cheney (and other W administration ghouls) got away with it because Obama was too naive to nail them to the wall. In hindsight, it wouldn't have saved him as much as he thought it would have, as the GOP was dead set on ruining his presidency. Might as well hang the traitors.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Let's be clear: Bush and Cheney (and other W administration ghouls) got away with it because Obama was too naive to nail them to the wall. In hindsight, it wouldn't have saved him as much as he thought it would have, as the GOP was dead set on ruining his presidency. Might as well hang the traitors.



On the surface it does look that way. Without all the information available to Obama at that time and in that office, I don't know that I can judge his decision. With as much information as may remain classified to this day in regards to the W. administration, I don't know that I can pass judgement either. I'm not informed enough on it. I was taking a break from politics in general during the latter Bush years and the Obama years. My views were changing a great deal, and to focus on what I thought, I had to break away from following the system as it was. The web as a mass media tool was in its infancy then too. I leave it as a past I can't change. If there is reason to to try any of them, then they should. If a democrat didn't and has access to all the information I don't have access to, then I find it difficult to take a hard line.


----------



## Randy

Worth noting that the Bush clan was notably opposed to Trump, but other Bush administration ghouls have had no problem finding their tentacles into the Trump administration in one way or another. Bolton and Barr being two of the more obvious ones, but there as also an article on Politico last year about Cheney haranguing Pence at the American Enterprise Institute Forum.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Worth noting that the Bush clan was notably opposed to Trump, but other Bush administration ghouls have had no problem finding their tentacles into the Trump administration in one way or another. Bolton and Barr being two of the more obvious ones, but there as also an article on Politico last year about Cheney haranguing Pence at the American Enterprise Institute Forum.



The Bush cadre, like most Republicans, hated Trump only superficially. It was the optics and not policy. These are the architects of the War on Terror.


----------



## stockwell

Thaeon said:


> On the surface it does look that way. Without all the information available to Obama at that time and in that office, I don't know that I can judge his decision. With as much information as may remain classified to this day in regards to the W. administration, I don't know that I can pass judgement either. I'm not informed enough on it. I was taking a break from politics in general during the latter Bush years and the Obama years. My views were changing a great deal, and to focus on what I thought, I had to break away from following the system as it was. The web as a mass media tool was in its infancy then too. I leave it as a past I can't change. If there is reason to to try any of them, then they should. If a democrat didn't and has access to all the information I don't have access to, then I find it difficult to take a hard line.



Passing judgement on Obama isn't hard at all. Let's not ignore that fact that he had plenty of his own war crimes to go along with Bush's. I used to wonder why Obama didn't close black sites. Especially towards the end of his presidency. I always figured he was just trying to save political points with the GOP for useful projects. Which would have been pointless, since Max is right that they were dead set on ruining anything he tried. But at some point, I had to realize that Obama differed from Bush2 in tactics, not ideology. 

I mean, Libya and Yemen aren't Bush's fault. Obama's ramped-up drone strike program wasn't Bush's fault. For all the partisan fighting, Bush and Obama had way more in common than they ever had in opposition. Being a warhawk, constant regime changing, and supporting the War on Terror is the mass line in US politics and it's not going to change without a fight. 

In a way, Trump's bully mentality has been a good thing. All smoke and no fire. He's genuinely too much of a coward to ramp up or start wars. Which is fine by me, everyone should be terrified of war. But I've also heard that he signed over drone strike authority to the CIA and that he rescinded the requirement that the US attempt to count casualties from drone strikes, so...that bodes poorly. And also, John Bolton would go to war anywhere he could. He's a ticking time bomb. I have zero doubt he'd invade Iran if he could, which would be terrible on a strategic level alone. On some incredibly twisted level, it would be funny to see. It would probably make Nam look like casual fun.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

allheavymusic said:


> Libya and Yemen aren't Bush's fault.



Purely his fault? Of course not. But you can't ignore the affect the War on Terror has had to destabilize the region and helped foster an environment that allowed for the unchecked growth of pre-ISIL and other militias that are key belligerents in both conflicts. 

Which is to say, I think it's very generous to absolve the G.W. Bush administration of blame.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I'm starting to question the point of all of these rulings if everything can be appealed.


Well, eventually, they'll be appealed to the Supreme Court, and whatever their decision is is final. 

Trump's strategy here is to just run down the clock - his case is, ahem, not likely to be held up by the supreme court (he's arguing executive privilege grants aids total immunity to subpoenas during and after their tenure, which is another way of saying the Executive branch can freely block anyone they want from testifying, which is lunacy), so his gamble is the case doesn't get heard by the Supreme Court until after the 2020 election, or too close to it for any subpoenas to have time to produce damaging evidence. 

It's not a strategy likely to prevail in courts, but that's not really the point.


----------



## bostjan

The Supreme Court already ruled that the Executive branch cannot ignore a congressional subpoena during Nixon's investigation, so it IS bullshit that this is happening again.


----------



## Randy




----------



## narad

Well, could be the same republicans that want confederate statues to stay up, so that's not really the best president to throw up for comparison.


----------



## ImNotAhab

When they find a set of pyjamas with matching slippers made from the hides of missing camp counselors in that guy's closet I will not be super surprised.


----------



## Ralyks

So Trumps refusing to partake in the impeachment to defend himself, and just put tariffs on Brazil and Argentina for steel and aluminum.

And it's only Monday.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So Trumps refusing to partake in the impeachment to defend himself, and just put tariffs on Brazil and Argentina for steel and aluminum.
> 
> And it's only Monday.


Technically he reinstated tariffs that had been waived to allow time to negotiate. There's some method to his madness here, in that both countries have been significant beneficiaries of the escalating trade war between the US and China in that China has redirected soybean and other agricultural purchases to these two countries that had previously gone to the US, so presumably Trump is looking to hit them for that. That said... It's still kind of a stupid idea, and there's no causal mechanism that should make China start buying agri products from us instead, just because they now have steel tariffs. I'm not sure what Trump's end game is, maybe that he's hoping they'll agree to not sell to China if we roll back the tariffs...? That seems awfully hard to accomplish. 

Trump is refusing to participate in the _House_ Judiciary Committee proceedings, on the grounds that the proceedings are so biased it's a waste of his time. That argument is going to be a lot harder to make in the Republican-controlled Senate, so I'll be curious what he chooses to do there. Or, rather, what excuse he gives for not agreeing to provide sworn testimony.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Or, rather, what excuse he gives for not agreeing to provide sworn testimony.



...or even so much as sending council to attend.


----------



## tedtan

But I thought he wanted a trial.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> But I thought he wanted a trial.



In the Republican-majority Senate, yes.


----------



## dreamspace

Let's be real here, putting Trump on _any_ stand or hearing would be a total disaster for him and the GOP.

The undeniable truth is that Trump is a shitty liar, and that he instinctively lies about anything he's unsure of, or things he sees as a weakness. This is not political - it's just who he is . And he's been like that forever. 

Even hardcore Trump followers see that he's frequently embellishing stories, or just making shit up as he goes.

And hell, even if he doesn't manage to incriminate himself, he's surely going to throw someone under the bus - which just creates more stress and division in his own camp. 

There are no good outcomes for Trump in a situation where he's under heavy scrutiny. Either he manages to screw himself over, or someone else.


----------



## Randy

dreamspace said:


> Let's be real here, putting Trump on _any_ stand or hearing would be a total disaster for him and the GOP.
> 
> The undeniable truth is that Trump is a shitty liar, and that he instinctively lies about anything he's unsure of, or things he sees as a weakness. This is not political - it's just who he is . And he's been like that forever.
> 
> Even hardcore Trump followers see that he's frequently embellishing stories, or just making shit up as he goes.
> 
> And hell, even if he doesn't manage to incriminate himself, he's surely going to throw someone under the bus - which just creates more stress and division in his own camp.
> 
> There are no good outcomes for Trump in a situation where he's under heavy scrutiny. Either he manages to screw himself over, or someone else.



I think it was McGahn that appealed to Mueller, saying that Trump couldn't testify because it was 100% certain he would perjure himself because he can't string together a sentence without lying.

That's absolutely indicative of a guy that's been coddled his whole life. I've said it before in here, the whole Mueller report is story after story of Trump standing on the ledge, about to commit some egregious crime and someone jumping infront of him the last second. Over and over. The Ukraine thing is a good example because everyone was speaking in vague terms and coded language to offer some plausible deniability on what they were asking for, but King Pudding Brain blurts it out in plain English.


----------



## Ralyks

And now he's saying he'd prefer to hold off trade talks with China until after 2020. And the DOW dropped 100 points thusly.


----------



## vilk




----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> View attachment 75146



Well, he's un-shot, alive, and he ain't fighting a nasty civil war

...they might have a point. If only because lowest common denominator if viewed very literally in a very specific context.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AvxiBJWaER8ijNagsJALmSw

2nd Circuit Appeals court sided with the Democrats AGAIN on Trumps financials. And I bet they STILL won't get them.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> And now he's saying he'd prefer to hold off trade talks with China until after 2020. And the DOW dropped 100 points thusly.


Dropped way more than 100 points (also, points are kind of irrelevant because it depends on the base - a 1,000 point drop would be nearly unprecedented in a day, but would only be about a 3.6% drop. Still big, but a thousand point drop isn't what it used to be. 

IMO, that's also a capitulation to political reality on his part. 

1) Trump wants a deal where he's the "winner." He's said he won't accept a fair or "even" deal. 
2) China wants a rollback of existing tariffs as part of any Phase 1 deal. Their growth is slowing, but their back isn't to the wall exactly here, so they have no incentive to sign a deal that hurts them. 
3) Unless they've been burying their head in the sand, they have no reason to expect a Democrat would be any easier on them than Trump in trade talks. 
4) They DO have reason to believe that an unnamed Democratic president would be more likely to honor terms of any Phase 1 deal than Trump, however, who has shown he's quick to tear up his own deals when it's politically expedient - see the USMCA and the Mexican border fiasco. In other words, they have an incentive NOT to make concessions to Trump if at all possible, because there's no guarantee those concessions will get them anywhere. 
5) Trump is also presumably well aware that any deal other than a clear "win" will open him to criticism from the left that his trade war was massively disruptive to American manufaturers and farmers, and he didn't even get anything in return for it. Signing even an "even" deal in the run-up to the 2020 election is going to open him to attack. It's in his best interest politically to stall, and instead talk about the "huge" deal he'll sign once re-elected. 

The incentives - IMO of course - on both sides are to hold off on any serious deal until after November 2020. The Chinese want to hold out for a negotiator they can actually trust, while Trump doesn't want to accept anything other than total capitulation from the Chinese for fear of looking like a "loser." 

The problem, of course, is that the incentives - again, IMO - are for Trump to keep upping the pressure on the Chinese in the interim in the hopes he DOES get them to capitulate, in that a clear "win" would be invaluable in 2020, and because he evidently legitimately believes tariffs don't hurt America and any economic slowdown is the Fed's fault, not his.

That makes the most likely outcome of all of this no deal and a recession or market crash before the election. IMO, of course.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AvxiBJWaER8ijNagsJALmSw
> 
> 2nd Circuit Appeals court sided with the Democrats AGAIN on Trumps financials. And I bet they STILL won't get them.



Death by a million mehs


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> In the Republican-majority Senate, yes.



Yeah, so he claims.

But I think that either 1) he would all out refuse to participate given the opportunity as Drew mentioned, or 2) end up perjuring himself under oath (which, incidentally, is the only thing they got Clinton on).

Knowing Trump, he'll probably find a way to do both and then try to blame the democrats for his own incompetency.


----------



## Drew

Only thing I'll say for Trump in this context is, he HAS had to testify under oath on a number of occasions, and in the past he's been uncharacteristically tight lipped and limited in his responses. I'm sure he was coached, and a very real factor to consider is in the courtroom he likely believed he couldn't get away with just making shit up whereas as President he does seem to think there's a plausible argument to be made he's above the law. 

But, if forced to testify under oath in a Senate trial, he might be more restrained than we're accustomed. How that plays with his base, though...


----------



## Ralyks

Kamala Harris dropped out. About damn time.
Even worse, Bloomberg already passed her in the polls and sits in 5th place. Damn.


----------



## Drew

Eh, the party moved a lot post-2016, but I think Harris could have been a very strong contender and a very good president, had this been a different year. She just missed the tone of the party. There's a boatload of candidates I'd have rather see drop out before her.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Eh, the party moved a lot post-2016, but I think Harris could have been a very strong contender and a very good president, had this been a different year. She just missed the tone of the party. There's a boatload of candidates I'd have rather see drop out before her.



ANDREW GODDAMN YANG outlasted her. That's sad.


----------



## Drew

Like I said, 2020 is shaping up to be a very different electorate than 2016.

It's actually a little curious she dropped out when she did - she qualified for the next debate. Maybe her campaign is running low on money, or maybe she's just being realistic about her odds and it's a "good of the party" move? Could also be a direct reaction to Bloomberg and Patrick entering, they're both going after the establishment vote, which is her territory as well, and if late entrants are thinking we need more establishment candidates, that's saying something. 

Most of the "establishment" voters I know, FWIW, think we're fucked and headed for another four years of Trump. I disagree, but it's worth mentioning.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/


----------



## Thaeon

Captain Butterscotch said:


> https://intelligence.house.gov/report/



Looks like the impeachment is going forward. Not that we didn't think it would. Based on how the report is framed, they should be able to successfully impeach him based on the obstruction alone. There's plenty of evidence for it. I expect weak defenses like "well, he didn't successfully obstruct justice so we can't charge him with that." Seems to be how the current GOP likes to defend him. Which is interesting considering there are so many attorneys in congress and the senate. They KNOW it doesn't work like that.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Even worse, Bloomberg already passed her in the polls and sits in 5th place. Damn.



How long in the cycle do the normies catch that he donated to Lindsey Graham in 2015?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> It's actually a little curious she dropped out when she did - she qualified for the next debate. Maybe her campaign is running low on money, or maybe she's just being realistic about her odds and it's a "good of the party" move? Could also be a direct reaction to Bloomberg and Patrick entering, they're both going after the establishment vote, which is her territory as well, and if late entrants are thinking we need more establishment candidates, that's saying something.



So I'm apparently the only person that saw this two days ago?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...igns-scathing-letter-staff-treated-poorl.html


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So I'm apparently the only person that saw this two days ago?
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...igns-scathing-letter-staff-treated-poorl.html


Didn't see that particular article, but I'd seen variations of it. 

Considering Harris entered the campaign as a top prospect, and at one time came close to taking the lead in the polls, I think it'd be more surprising that there WEREN'T reports of staffers second-guessing her decisions and accusing her campaign of mismanagement. Not saying there isn't a reasonable basis for this, but if she was leading in the polls, her sister would look live a visionary rather than a screw-up for doing the exact same things. And, again, it doesn't explain why she dropped out _now_, since nothing in that story alone was pointing to an imminent blow-up (unless I missed something). 



Thaeon said:


> Looks like the impeachment is going forward. Not that we didn't think it would. Based on how the report is framed, they should be able to successfully impeach him based on the obstruction alone. There's plenty of evidence for it. I expect weak defenses like "well, he didn't successfully obstruct justice so we can't charge him with that." Seems to be how the current GOP likes to defend him. Which is interesting considering there are so many attorneys in congress and the senate. They KNOW it doesn't work like that.


The part about getting Giuliani's phone records from AT&T to show he was in touch with the White House, Mulvaney, Sondland, Nunes (particularly damning, given his role in this investigation), Sondland, and his own now-indicted associates, with calls often corresponding to particularly critical moments in the already-established evidence record was, IMO, a particularly nice touch.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And, again, it doesn't explain why she dropped out _now_, since nothing in that story alone was pointing to an imminent blow-up (unless I missed something).



Well, the point is two fold. 

One, that the staffer left two days ago and wrote a poison-pen letter, most likely triggered by news they were going to close up shop. Thats pretty good harbinger of something coming shortly.

Second, she is an authoritarian nightmare and the only answer she had for being heavy handed against liberal causes (like her record of prosecutions for low level drug offenses) was to be heavy handed about other shit, none of which made her particularly likeable. It shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that staffers leave someone's campaign and salt the Earth where they once stood. If that's what the perception was inside that campaign, I can only imagine what that meant for her prospects when the GOP attack machine wasn't spread out over 17 other targets. And if that was the case on the inside, I can only imagine what the conversations were like inside the network of donors or endorsement she would've been seeking.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, the point is two fold.
> 
> One, that the staffer left two days ago and wrote a poison-pen letter, most likely triggered by news they were going to close up shop. Thats pretty good harbinger of something coming shortly.
> 
> Second, she is an authoritarian nightmare and the only answer she had for being heavy handed against liberal causes (like her record of prosecutions for low level drug offenses) was to be heavy handed about other shit, none of which made her particularly likeable. It shouldn't be a forgone conclusion that staffers leave someone's campaign and salt the Earth where they once stood. If that's what the perception was inside that campaign, I can only imagine what that meant for her prospects when the GOP attack machine wasn't spread out over 17 other targets. And if that was the case on the inside, I can only imagine what the conversations were like inside the network of donors or endorsement she would've been seeking.



Your second point I won;t really debate - that seems to be more in the vein of how you interpret a candidate's presentation and actions, and that's a totally valid interpretation.

But the first... I guess you're seeing that as a early warning sign not that there was internal disagreement in the campaign, but that there were imminent announcements coming? Eh... Again, really tough to say. Sanders just had the head of his Mass operations quit, who until recently was the head of his New Hampshire operations, and I wouldn't necessarily read that as proof that something was coming in his campaign. It's awfully easy to say with the benefit of hindsight it was a clear signal, but prior to the announcement it seems more tenuous.

And again, at the end of the day she quit about two weeks before the next debate, which she was one of only 7 candidates to have qualified for. The thesis of "we should have known this was coming because a prominent staffer quit and wrote a scathing op-ed" doesn't really address the fact that the cost-benefit breakout for staying in the race another two weeks certainly _seems_ favorable.

EDIT - I'm doing a bad job explaining why I'm confused. End of the day, it seems like Harris had made it through the biggest culling of the primary pack to date, and a strong performance on the 19th could have offered her a _lot _of upside to reignite her campaign. Why then drop out now, when she could have just scaled back spending or something? What drove her campaign to shut down now, rather than the 20th? It just seems strange.


----------



## bostjan

Captain Butterscotch said:


> https://intelligence.house.gov/report/


Wow. I just read some of that. Are they going to go after Trump for witness intimidation?! Seems like a stretch to me. Also, linking Nunes to the Ukrainian henchmen the day after Nunes's minority report (which I also read and is clearly bullshit) might be a checkmate move by Schiff. Even if Trump skates, there's now a fair chance Nunes goes down.

It looks like the whole back channel bribery angle is solid enough now, with the timeline of events established and a few key testimonies, that Senate Republicans are going to have to challenge themselves with some serious mental gymnastics.

And if this blows over, I insist that the precedent be set for me as well, that bribery only occurs if I actually pay.  I might be able to get out of a few jams in the future if I have that in my back pocket. I'm sure the cops will see it that way when I offer them bribes and then don't make good on them, right?  Seriously, though, that has to be the most shit legal defense for a bribe anyone has ever tried.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Didn't see that particular article, but I'd seen variations of it.
> 
> Considering Harris entered the campaign as a top prospect, and at one time came close to taking the lead in the polls, I think it'd be more surprising that there WEREN'T reports of staffers second-guessing her decisions and accusing her campaign of mismanagement. Not saying there isn't a reasonable basis for this, but if she was leading in the polls, her sister would look live a visionary rather than a screw-up for doing the exact same things. And, again, it doesn't explain why she dropped out _now_, since nothing in that story alone was pointing to an imminent blow-up (unless I missed something).
> 
> 
> The part about getting Giuliani's phone records from AT&T to show he was in touch with the White House, Mulvaney, Sondland, Nunes (particularly damning, given his role in this investigation), Sondland, and his own now-indicted associates, with calls often corresponding to particularly critical moments in the already-established evidence record was, IMO, a particularly nice touch.



Seriously. Nunes should have recused himself. The fact that he didn't is, in my opinion, compromising to the inquiry. However, if the sort of corruption that he is defending is literally something he doesn't see as wrong, then his being involved in presiding over such an inquiry where he himself is implicated and finding no issue in that is probably just another Tuesday to him. In my opinion, Trump could just be a bumbling idiot and not understand how or why what he was asking for was wrong. Nunes behavior is absolutely corrupt considering he knows exactly what is happening, and is attempting to garner emotional response from the public rather than appealing to their rational thinking. It seems almost sociopathic.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> Seriously. Nunes should have recused himself. The fact that he didn't is, in my opinion, compromising to the inquiry. However, if the sort of corruption that he is defending is literally something he doesn't see as wrong, then his being involved in presiding over such an inquiry where he himself is implicated and finding no issue in that is probably just another Tuesday to him. In my opinion, Trump could just be a bumbling idiot and not understand how or why what he was asking for was wrong. Nunes behavior is absolutely corrupt considering he knows exactly what is happening, and is attempting to garner emotional response from the public rather than appealing to their rational thinking. It seems almost sociopathic.



Nunes thing even worse considering I saw mention one of the phone calls was between Nunes and Parnas. This guy had absolutely no business conducting a hearing or overseeing the drafting of a report about this in any capacity, doubly not even divulging the fact he was neck deep in this.

I believe in eating the elephant one bite at a time and considering the GOP's interference campaign on all House impeachment efforts, the next stage should be a House Ethics Committee microscope lodged up Nunes' ass.

I also get a laugh about Nunes opening a lawsuit again CNN over their story about him flying to Ukraine for Biden dirt, claiming it untrue and defamation and later that same day it comes out he was leaking to a Ukrainian troll whos currently in fucking jail for paying off politicians.  Fuck on outta here, clown.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Nunes thing even worse considering I saw mention one of the phone calls was between Nunes and Parnas. This guy had absolutely no business conducting a hearing or overseeing the drafting of a report about this in any capacity, doubly not even divulging the fact he was neck deep in this.
> 
> I believe in eating the elephant one bite at a time and considering the GOP's interference campaign on all House impeachment efforts, the next stage should be a House Ethics Committee microscope lodged up Nunes' ass.
> 
> I also get a laugh about Nunes opening a lawsuit again CNN over their story about him flying to Ukraine for Biden dirt, claiming it untrue and defamation and later that same day it comes out he was leaking to you a Ukrainian troll whos currently in fucking jail for paying off politicians.  Fuck on outta here, clown.


Same Devin Nunes who championed the Frivilous Lawsuit Act?


----------



## Thaeon

Dude is a textbook asshat.


----------



## Ralyks

Anyone following today's hearings? Checking in when I get free moments at work.


----------



## Randy

Just tuning in. Only thing I heard so far was the GOP scheduling Jonathan Turley to come in and say impeachment isn't Constitutional in this case, which is hilarious considering he works for The Hill alongside John Solomon, who was the person tasked by the White House to run interference on Ukraine.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, haven't been following it closely either, I've just checked a few summaries here and there. I'm not expecting any incremental new information, but to be fair I didn't expect that nugget about Giuliani's phone records in the House Intelligence Committee report, either, so who knows.


----------



## Randy

My friend who's particularly well tuned to, um, lower IQ considerations said the Dems case was looking worse and worse with the Professors testifying, up until they shifted to Turley, who's unarguably more droll and makes all of his arguments within a vacuum. The Dem's witnesses look like the half time show at the fucking Super Bowl compared to him, WOW he's dry.


----------



## Thaeon

In a vacuum? Its like he's read a completely different constitution and participated in a completely other legal system in an entirely different galaxy. Who argues that a separate legal case as a response to denying a subpoena, takes priority over the subpoena itself coming from the governing body that writes the very laws they rule on. Wait for SCOTUS? Its Congress' enumerated power to make those subpoenas in an impeachment in the first place. The guy is a tool.


----------



## Randy

I was trying to be polite


----------



## Thaeon

I think its interesting that every person in opposition is taking a part of their time to pontificate about their opinion of the situation rather than actually ask the expert witnesses questions.


----------



## JSanta

Turley testimony from the Clinton Impeachment (the gentlemen that is now stating the arguments being made by the Democrats is wafer thin:

"Executive power exhibits the same physical properties as a gas in a confined space. When you expand the space the gas will fill the space. You should not be misled. Your decision will define executive power and authority. If you decide certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for conduct and we will have to live with that expansion. And we will have to live with that expansion."


----------



## Randy

Definitely not the type of hearings that are going to appeal to the general public but for me, I'm super satisfied because the witnesses and the Dem counsel both focused on things I thought were missing in previous coverage and really sharpened the focus of the charges on the most actionable stuff.

The Turley stuff was actually a massive waste of time considering he mostly parroted his written statements but meanwhile there were developments throughout the hearing that negated his points. One of the witnesses brought up all the cases of obstruction of Justice in the Mueller report, which was a nice reminder that Muellers conclusion was also that an impeachment was the appropriate course of action. Turley argued the case was historically "thin" based on Ukraine and that testimony was a reminder they've got other material to draw from if they choose.

If I can go off script for sec, my  is that the Dems have obvious political motives, but their argument is legally sound and founded in legitimate misconduct and setting a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately, this is still being viewed 90% as a sharply political act, and so if nothing changes, Republicans will be safe at home brushing this off.

The headshot this needs is like the #MeToo movement. A single accusation is a single accusation. Even two accusations. As soon as it's like Cosby or Weinstein where every story that comes out is just as substantial as the last and the pattern is there, he's sunk.

Mueller and Russia was a glancing blow, Ukraine shows a pattern but they're debating what's in his rights or what he asked for, etc. If the Republicans exhaust all their "Yeah, buts" on Ukraine and someone else comes forward about a 'pay to play' (which likely exists, based on the story about all the calls in the super secret log next to the Ukraine one), I think he's sunk Nixon style.

They're out there, just a matter of if anyone has the stomach to come forward. They're definitely out there though. They were so bold and loose about this, it's just like a serial killer, you see the level of comfort in what they do and you know it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time until they're caught.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Turley testimony from the Clinton Impeachment (the gentlemen that is now stating the arguments being made by the Democrats is wafer thin:
> 
> "Executive power exhibits the same physical properties as a gas in a confined space. When you expand the space the gas will fill the space. You should not be misled. Your decision will define executive power and authority. If you decide certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for conduct and we will have to live with that expansion. And we will have to live with that expansion."


Great quote... but, source? Google turned up nothing which makes me suspicious. This article cites what appears to be _part_of that quote, but I'm seeing it nowhere else. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/rep...ey-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> They're out there, just a matter of if anyone has the stomach to come forward. They're definitely out there though. They were so bold and loose about this, it's just like a serial killer, you see the level of comfort in what they do and you know it wasn't the first time and won't be the last time until they're caught.


Excellent, excellent point.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Great quote... but, source? Google turned up nothing which makes me suspicious. This article cites what appears to be _part_of that quote, but I'm seeing it nowhere else.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/rep...ey-contradicted-impeachment-testimony-2019-12



I grabbed it from the CNN ongoing feed of the events today. Granted, bias in the website is known, and the quote could very well be part of a larger narrative.


----------



## Drew

Ehh, CNN is somewhat biased... But in interpretation, and isn't the sort of place to just make up facts. That's more likely to be legit than not.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> Granted, bias in the website is known


Never stopped Fox.


----------



## bostjan

I love how the GOP just completely ignores all of the successful prosecutions came from the Mueller investigation, and how close those people were to Trump. Maybe Giuliani will come to Jesus just like Cohen did, once he realized he was caught. Even if Rudy goes to prison, though, GOP Senators will be like "Rudy is a criminal, why trust him?" and continue fellating Trump as a better president than Lincoln.


----------



## Ralyks

And we're officially getting the articles of impeachment drawn up. Surpassed they haven't tried to bring in more witnesses first.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> And we're officially getting the articles of impeachment drawn up. Surpassed they haven't tried to bring in more witnesses first.




they tried to bring in many more witnesses and asked for lots of docs. WH illegally blocked them from appearing and turning over docs. 

plays into trump's plan to delay everything if they fight it out in the courts.


----------



## Adieu

....has Trump REALLY not done anything stunningly stupid for 3 consecutive days now???

C'mon SSO, I depend on you for my daily dose of entertaining political shenanigans


----------



## spudmunkey

Sorry, I was too busy flushing my toilet for the 14th time to post about anything he's said/done, apparently.


----------



## Ralyks

Nah, I've noticed this thread usually isn't active on the weekends. Of course he's done some stupid stuff we haven't discussed. Pretty sure we didn't even touch upon NATO or how he refuses to take part in the impeachment inquiry, which, uhh, if you did nothing wrong, why not do something to show as much?


----------



## Ralyks

Also, Nadler does not look great right now, and this whole hearing seems like a fucking mess.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Nah, I've noticed this thread usually isn't active on the weekends. Of course he's done some stupid stuff we haven't discussed. Pretty sure we didn't even touch upon NATO or how he refuses to take part in the impeachment inquiry, which, uhh, if you did nothing wrong, why not do something to show as much?


Part of it is I also don't spend very much time online over the weekends.  

That said, there's plenty of stupid things he's said over the weekend (his free rambling comments on water and sinks and how there's not enough of it and some people have to flush the toilet as much as 14-15 times because there isn't enough water were truly special), but none of it really moves the needle functionally. Like, yeah, he said some stupid crap, but it doesn't make it more or less likely he'll get impeached, it won't change anyone's thoughts, and it's just kinda masterbatory to sit back in glee every time he opens his mouth and word salad comes out, and after a while that just makes you feel dirty. 

Also, the impeachment hearings only occuring during the week are another reason things are slow. 



Ralyks said:


> Also, Nadler does not look great right now, and this whole hearing seems like a fucking mess.


This was pretty predictable, though. The GOP has every incentive to be disruptive as they can here, and there's a couple proper Trump attack dogs on the committee.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> This was pretty predictable, though. The GOP has every incentive to be disruptive as they can here, and there's a couple proper Trump attack dogs on the committee.



Honestly, from what I've read up on the hearings today, what a fucking mess.

Two things I'm thinking about though:
1. I saw someone on CNN ask "So why didn't you investigate Hunter Biden during the 4 years the Republicans held most of the power?"

2. If Trump is impeached, the Republicans do know they still hold the White House, right?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> 2. If Trump is impeached, the Republicans do know they still hold the White House, right?


It's way easier to accuse the Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" than it is "trying to put Mike Pence in power." 

I mean, if the Democrats think this is a big enough deal that they're willing to put _Pence _in power, doesn't that kinda say something?


----------



## sleewell

the best response to the overturning the 2016 election line would be to ask why is the gop trying to overturn the 2018 election? by the biggest margin in history the American people indicated they wanted checks and balances on the most corrupt president in history. the president is implying that the people's votes don't matter when he is saying his administration is above congressional oversight and doesn't have to turn in documents or allow people to testify by ignoring perfectly legal subpoenas.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> the best response to the overturning the 2016 election line would be to ask why is the gop trying to overturn the 2018 election? by the biggest margin in history the American people indicated they wanted checks and balances on the most corrupt president in history. the president is implying that the people's votes don't matter when he is saying his administration is above congressional oversight and doesn't have to turn in documents or allow people to testify by ignoring perfectly legal subpoenas.



The voice of the people is only important to Trump when they line up with his intentions, because he's actually neither Republican nor Democrat. He's an Autocrat.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> It's way easier to accuse the Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" than it is "trying to put Mike Pence in power."
> 
> I mean, if the Democrats think this is a big enough deal that they're willing to put _Pence _in power, doesn't that kinda say something?



SERIOUSLY!!


----------



## thraxil

So the IG report is out and showing that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was justified and legal...


----------



## Ralyks

thraxil said:


> So the IG report is out and showing that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was justified and legal...



The fact that he AND Barr are probably pissed about this should speak volumes.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> So the IG report is out and showing that the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was justified and legal...


Imperfect, and they did point to I think 17 deficiencies that the GOP is latching onto in a big way, but notwithstanding that they also concluded that the decision itself had a reasonable basis and was justified, and any of the deficiencies they noted didn't change the face that the FBI made the right decision.

Barr naturally is saying he came to a different conclusion than the report, and Trump is saying the evidence is "even worse than I thought." Honestly, Trump I expected, but I kind of expected Barr to at least pretend to be unbiased and not merely be blindly defending Trump. Aftr he put his neck out the way he did writing his own conclusion on the obstruction of justice charge in the Mueller Report, you'd think he'd realize that it would become increasingly important for him to _look_ unbiased. And, here we have him not disagreeing with the House or with CNN or with someone else you could fairly accuse of bias, but _his own department that he heads_.

If _anything_ comes of the Mueller Report and the Ukraine investigation, then the two most obvious victims are going to be Giuliani and Barr, considering how vulnerable both men have made themselves for Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

Probably a minor thing but I found it hilarious. From the IG report, remember Christopher Steele? Who Trump bad mouthed quite a bit? Turns out he's been friends with Ivanka for years.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Probably a minor thing but I found it hilarious. From the IG report, remember Christopher Steele? Who Trump bad mouthed quite a bit? Turns out he's been friends with Ivanka for years.



Of COURSE he has.


----------



## Ralyks

So Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress were presented


----------



## Randy

I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well. The only real legal defender the GOP had was Turley, his argument was that they were rushing things and Schiff was right to point out things like McGahn testimony being held up in lower court for 8 months, could be another 8 months for appeal or SCOTUS, then McGahn can testify and not answer anything arguing privileged information and put them right back in court again.

The time-frame and the obstruction charges are necessary to actually compel any action at all.


----------



## Ralyks

That's a pretty damn good arguement. That and the fact his impeachment has really been THAT much quicker than previous impeachments.


----------



## sleewell

its odd that pro trump texts between fbi agents are not garnishing the same levels of outrage on faux news as much as the ones they chose to latch onto for the last 3 years.

also ivanka and christoper steele are good friends lol


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> its odd that pro trump texts between fbi agents are not garnishing the same levels of outrage on faux news as much as the ones they chose to latch onto for the last 3 years.



A lot of Dems still riding whatever narrative Trump and his enablers throw out there.

When it comes to politics, most of my circles of friends were always big on calling stuff right or wrong objectively regardless of who it's about and who it comes from. As such, a lot of us are quick to knock Dems for stuff even in the Trump era, and a few of them latched onto the possibility/likelihood that there was bias in the Trump-Russia investigation (see: Strozk and Page texts). 

They wanted to see heads roll from this IG report and I tried to remind them that political bias doesn't paint just one direction, and they're letting Trump/Fox dictate the narrative. Lo and behold, here we are. They used the same tactic in 2016 of accusing Hillary and Obama of things they're infinitely more guilty of. Trump ragging on Hillary's closed door speech to Goldman Sachs, enough to drive apathy in her own party, then he proceeds to bottom for GS et all. for the last three years.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I thought Schiff laid it out pretty well. The only real legal defender the GOP had was Turley, his argument was that they were rushing things and Schiff was right to point out things like McGahn testimony being held up in lower court for 8 months, could be another 8 months for appeal or SCOTUS, then McGahn can testify and not answer anything arguing privileged information and put them right back in court again.
> 
> The time-frame and the obstruction charges are necessary to actually compel any action at all.


Yeah, it's a tough situation. The Supreme Court would _probably_ support the lower courts' finding that Trump's claim of total immunity to persecutiion or even investigation while in office under executive privlidge is bullshit, but by the time they did, we'd only be a couple months from the November elections. And, when the charge is that Trump is trying to use his power to coerce foreign powers into _interfering_ in those elections, then it's pretty clear that we have to have a decision well before the election. 

Of course, Turley's argument becomes nonsensical in this light - "it's not that impeachment is _wrong_, it's just you're moving too fast without input from all the necessary people." You mean, the ones Trump is refusing to let comply with subpoenas, where we won't get a Supreme Court decision until mid-summer at the earliest, where it'll be too late, if unconstitutionally using presidential power to cultivate election interference is the charge?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Of course, Turley's argument becomes nonsensical in this light - "it's not that impeachment is _wrong_, it's just you're moving too fast without input from all the necessary people." You mean, the ones Trump is refusing to let comply with subpoenas, where we won't get a Supreme Court decision until mid-summer at the earliest, where it'll be too late, if unconstitutionally using presidential power to cultivate election interference is the charge?



Trump trying to shape Turley (or Turley trying to shape himself) into Roy Cohn. 

This is a classic mob lawyer tactic where you deliberately hinge the whole argument on information you control. Witness 1 sees guy shoot other person in the face and tells cops. Witness 1 disappears, body for other guy is never found. No body, no witness means you can't even prove the guy is dead, muchless that my client did it.

They're essentially doing the same here hinging the whole argument that you're being unreasonable on the fact you don't have enough information, while simultaneously not giving you the information. FWIW, this is less of a PR centric tactic than it is a "save me from going to jail" tactic, so it does show some level of desperation.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like Rick Gates is getting out of jail time for helping with the Mueller investigation?


----------



## Ralyks

Good point made: Even while doing impeachment, the House was able.to get USMCA done. Basically, they can impeachment and still get shit done.


----------



## Randy

Wasn't expecting Horowitz to testify today. I'm sure the Trumpettes already have him pegged as deep-state cuck, but for three years he was the darling of the Q-anons.


----------



## sleewell

lol just keep investigating Bengahzi. when you don't like the results of multi year, multi million dollar, thousands of witnesses interviewed, millions of pages of documents reviewed - just start a new investigation. 

people are so dumb. if dear leader immediately changes his opinion on someone who he has been raving about for years they don't think twice, they just blindly follow him.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Good point made: Even while doing impeachment, the House was able.to get USMCA done. Basically, they can impeachment and still get shit done.


I mean, stating the obvious, but this was something not lost on Pelosi, and almost certainly was a factor in her decision to push to get this done. 

As it happens, with the AFL-CIO endorsing the final bill, it was a reasonably pro-Democrat compromise anyway. Bloomberg News jokes that it wasn't any surprise that the House Democrats agreed to work with Trump on this even while impeaching him, because it reads like they wrote it.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> lol just keep investigating Bengahzi. when you don't like the results of multi year, multi million dollar, thousands of witnesses interviewed, millions of pages of documents reviewed - just start a new investigation.
> 
> people are so dumb. if dear leader immediately changes his opinion on someone who he has been raving about for years they don't think twice, they just blindly follow him.



Let's be honest, though, this is hardly a conservative phenomena. Look how warmly John Bolton of all people was received by the left for calling Giuliani a "hand grenade" or how warmly Sondland was praised for alleging their was a quid pro quo after all, a man who let's not forget was a prominent Trump supporter and massive campaign donor. 

Neither party has a lock on this.


----------



## stockwell

Very simple litmus test: anyone who doesn't despise John Bolton as a warmongering ghoul is not on the left. Anyone in the DP who received John Bolton warmly was a centrist or neoliberal. There's nothing Bolton can do that can make up for what he's already done. 

Neither party has any real disagreements in their ideology, except that they each want power. That's why the DP is so quick to praise anyone on the right who lobs the mildest bit of dissent towards Trump. The DP is fully invested in defeating Trump but they don't actually disagree with the core values that he's operating from. It's the Reagan era repeating itself, and just like with the Clinton administration, the only thing that they'll change is that the (R) becomes a (D).


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> Very simple litmus test: anyone who doesn't despise John Bolton as a warmongering ghoul is not on the left. Anyone in the DP who received John Bolton warmly was a centrist or neoliberal. There's nothing Bolton can do that can make up for what he's already done.
> 
> Neither party has any real disagreements in their ideology, except that they each want power. That's why the DP is so quick to praise anyone on the right who lobs the mildest bit of dissent towards Trump. The DP is fully invested in defeating Trump but they don't actually disagree with the core values that he's operating from. It's the Reagan era repeating itself, and just like with the Clinton administration, the only thing that they'll change is that the (R) becomes a (D).


I still don't have the faintest idea what a "neoliberal" is.  

In case it wasn't clear in my post, I meant rank and file democratic voters, not the elected officials themselves. I think the tendency to play "teams" in politics and welcome anyone who can help your "team" in the short term is something both parties' supporters do, and in the interest of intellectual honesty, it's important to note that it's not just a Republican thing. I think in the case of the Democratic _Party_, then it's a lot more self-aware and cynical. If Sondland is praised by Democratic officials for speaking out, they know full well he's a snake but also concede that sometimes you have to play the hand you're given. That seems to be a small distinction, but if Bolton does end up testifying, I guarantee you Pelosi will not be thinking he's an American hero, whereas many rank-and-file Democratic voters will praise his patriotism, and fully mean it. 

I'd also say that the Democrats DO disagree with a lot of Trump's core values - they're in favor of a fairer tax code, a liberal and relatively open immigration policy, the government playing an active role in extending health insurance and providing social safety net programs, and freedom of religion in the united states. Trump is opposed to all of those.


----------



## sleewell

hate to say it but my prediction right now is that trump wins reelection. truth and facts are no longer even relevant to a vast majority of people. he has divided us beyond any ability to think logically and nothing really matters to his supporters. the infinite propaganda feedback loop that circles between the white house to faux news is too loud. 

dems are doing the right thing with impeachment but it probably will backfire because senators will not do their jobs. i think the tax cuts that only benefited the 1% will trickle down only in the fact that they will use a small fraction of their piles of money to convince the poor and middle class that it somehow helped them. people who hate trump will vote for him again to get more judges and/or to own the libs. 

all that in addition to a field of really weak dem candidates basically seals the deal for trump. makes no sense to me, the man is clearly a fraud, but that just sadly does not seem to matter to people. scary time for our country for sure, when checks and balances and the rule of law both fail it could be downhill from here in a hurry.


----------



## Adieu

But.... are they getting elected for their politics? Or making up politics TO get elected?

Maybe just maybe the Republicans are sick and tired of their bible thumping bigot rednecks and the Democrats absolutely detest having to suck up to every socioeconomic ethnic and sexual minority and interest group under the sun???


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah I think Trump is going to win hard in 2020. Just look at how the morons in the UK voted. It will be the same in the US. Just wait and see. All of this impeachment stuff is going to backfire and Trump will come out looking like Jesus Christ.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Yeah I think Trump is going to win hard in 2020. Just look at how the morons in the UK voted. It will be the same in the US. Just wait and see. All of this impeachment stuff is going to backfire and Trump will come out looking like *Jesus Christ*.



Just FYI: Jesus Christ was convicted and executed by the authorities for rabble-rousing


----------



## Ralyks

I'm still baffled by how every poll constantly shows Trump losing to almost every democratic candidate by double.digits, even Fox News, yet even I'm convinced hell get reelected somehow.


----------



## sleewell

polls = shit. they were close the day before the election and Boris won in a landslide.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> I'm still baffled by how every poll constantly shows Trump losing to almost every democratic candidate by double.digits, even Fox News, yet even I'm convinced hell get reelected somehow.



Not putting any faith in the knuckledraggers that put him in there in the first place, but if he wins it'll be via more shenanigans like last time. A clean vote based on the last 4 years alone, I don't think he'd stand a chance.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> Just look at how the morons in the UK voted.



I'd be weary of looking at that as a 1:1. Brexit was an ill conceived plan, as was Boris the first time around but they've largely been insulated from the repercussions of it. UK politics seems to be a "Do you want to do this? Are you really sure you want to do this? Are you really really really sure you want to do this?" process, whereas we dove right into Trump nose first.

UK are reacting to the fact they voted twice for the same self destructive decision and haven't actually been given it yet, so they're tripling down on it. We've been living in Trump's America for three years and if fucking sucks.


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> dems are doing the right thing with impeachment but it probably will backfire because senators will not do their jobs.



Statistically, I'm not sure I agree based on past impeachments.

Nixon (a republican) resigned before the full House voted on the articles of impeachment, the democrats picked up quite a few seats in the House and Seanate in the mid term elections, and won the next presidential election (Jimmy Carter); and
Clinton was impeached in the House and acquitted by the Senate, but the republicans won the following presidential election (Bush 43).
Granted, this is a bit different, but keep in mind that 1) things were just as divided under Nixon thanks to the US's involvement in the Vietnam conflict, and 2) Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job from an intern, something which has absolutely nothing to do with how well he performed, or didn't perform, in his role as president.

Trump is as dirty as Nixon, but too stupid and egotistical to resign, so even if the GOP in the Senate let him off the hook, I don't think the American voters will.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> Just FYI: Jesus Christ was convicted and executed by the authorities for rabble-rousing


And yet his followers are still worshiping him and murdering in his name thousands of years later...


----------



## thraxil

possumkiller said:


> Yeah I think Trump is going to win hard in 2020. Just look at how the morons in the UK voted. It will be the same in the US. Just wait and see. All of this impeachment stuff is going to backfire and Trump will come out looking like Jesus Christ.



I wish I didn't agree, but as an American living in the UK, I'm definitely having flashbacks today to the day after the brexit vote. No one here could believe that it would pass and brits would vote against their own self-interest like that. I still thought there was no way that Trump could win but I did start become more aware that the attitudes in the US before the election *felt* like they had in the UK so I think I was less surprised than many when he did win.



sleewell said:


> polls = shit. they were close the day before the election and Boris won in a landslide.



I think just like with the 2016 presedential election, the polls actually weren't too far off. Keep in mind that the conservatives only got 43% of the vote here yesterday, but with the districting and first past the post system, that was enough to secure a solid majority. Just like how Trump lost the popular vote but still won by a pretty sizeable margin of electoral college votes.


----------



## spudmunkey

So I know it doesn't actually matter, but have we crossed the legal-definition-line to say that Trump is "impeached"? Yes, I know that the term doesn't mean "removed from office", but at what point have we/will we pass that line? What needs to happen for him to be included in the list of "Impeched US presidents"?


----------



## sleewell

it just passed committee, the full house vote will be next week. i think they would need to lose 17 dems for it not to pass, which seems very unlikely.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> it just passed committee, the full house vote will be next week. i think they would need to lose 17 dems for it not to pass, which seems very unlikely.


All I want for Christmas is impeachment. Otherwise we set the precedent for other politicians feeling like they are above the law, a scary situation.


----------



## pwsusi

> Clinton was impeached for lying about getting a blow job from an intern, something which has absolutely nothing to do with how well he performed, or didn't perform, in his role as president.


He lied to a federal grand jury, which is a felony and he was disbarred. Doesn't matter what the lie was about; it was still a felony. While this was the primary motivator Lewinsky was also a subordinate. With all the sex scandals and smears it's comical the "me too movement" throws this guy and his wife a pass. It's hard to argue he shouldn't have been impeached because Trump was getting B.J.'s in the oval office we all know he'd be held to a different standard and his head would role. That being said impeachment isn't a criminal trial so even though he committed a felony and was disbarred it's all political...so given that the economy was strong, he was very popular, and was a very good politician...who like Trump was somewhat teflon as his support seemed to sustain no matter what was thrown at him and he could lie and talk his way out of anything. At the end of the day it comes down to the senators who are voting during the impeachment and their own self-preservation. For the most part they will tow the party line, but ultimately it comes down to what's popular in their home-state and they're not going to vote in a way that will ultimately jeopardize their re-election.


> Trump is as dirty as Nixon, but too stupid and egotistical to resign, so even if the GOP in the Senate let him off the hook, I don't think the American voters will.


Nixon resigned because he knew the senate would convict him so either way he'd be out of office. he decided not to put the country through the process but also resign as his legacy (as bad as it is) would be that much worse if he were forced out. I would argue the opposite of your statement; that trump would be stupid to resign. He knows there is very little chance the house will convict him and he seems to think (right or wrong) that this may actually help him in 2020. Seems some even in this thread are coming to the same conclusion.


> hate to say it but my prediction right now is that trump wins reelection. truth and facts are no longer even relevant to a vast majority of people. he has divided us beyond any ability


Truth and facts are subjective. People are spoon fed selective data points from biased media talking heads that paints the one side of the picture that they want you to hear. Both sides are guilty of this. Some may call these facts but i would say they are simply data points, for which there are opposing data points. Very rarely do we know what the actual truth is because both parties are slimy and i'm sure there is a lot of info buried and swept under the rug that us stupid common citizens aren't supposed to know. Look at all the B.S. that's coming out with the FBI and CIA.
I think most people don't have the time or interest to be open minded and seriously consider or look into the other side's argument...perhaps to actually be persuaded. It's much easier and more gratifying to listen to someone to tells you what you want to hear, reaffirms opinions you already have, and presents "facts" in such a way to make you feel superior and the opposition stupid (of course i don't mean you specifically...speaking in general terms).

I would disagree that Trump divided us anymore than we were already divided. In fact i would argue that the hatred from the anti-trump people (including the portion of the media that is left leaning) has divided us more than he has. Sure he has rallied his base and his language often is devisive...but this is fuel added to a fire that is already burning. What has rallied his base even more is the hatred for this president and that (like him or not) one must admit is unprecedented when it comes to how a president has been treated. You can argue he deserves it, but to his supports there is a feeling that he's not getting a fair shake and the constant reminder that they are stupid people for voting for him. Whether that's true or not, telling someone that is going to do nothing but anger and motivate them. Guilty or not of what he has been accused of, the dems have done themselves a disservice by openly discussing impeachment before he was even sworn in. Then when it actually happens, legit or not, many people are going to dismiss it as B.S. None of this excuses Trump's rhetoric, but without the hatred for him he wouldn't be able to play the hand he is playing...and quite frankly he's pretty smart for doing so as it seems to help him politically.

For some reason people seem to take him seriously and think he believes everything he says. He was once a New York liberal democrat....and for the most part i think he's just doing what other politicians are doing including what his predecessors have done in the past...say and do whatever you think you have to in order to score points with your base to gain more seats in congress to promote your agenda and get re-elected. I thought Clinton was the best at this but he definitely has a strong challenger here


----------



## spudmunkey

pwsusi said:


> because Trump was getting B.J.'s in the oval office...



If there's still time, please edit your post to include the obviously-missing "if" in that phrase...jesus, you've ruined my dinner. (and also, his head would "roll").

The court of public opinion is always entertaining, because to this day, you still have people say "Clinton got impeached because he got a blow job from an intern."


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> He was once a New York liberal democrat....



This gets brought up frequently, but deserves further context. 

Trump has changed political affiliation five times in the last three decades. 

1987: Registered Republican
1999: Independence Party of New York (Center-Right)
2001: Registered Democrat
2009: Registered Republican 
2011: Independent 
2012: Registered Republican 

Twenty years ago, the Democratic Party was far closer to center, and it's worth considering how unpopular the Bush2 presidency at that time. 

The narrative that he was a long-time "liberal democrat" until he had some sort of awakening is not accurate. He's been registered as Republican far longer and more recently and anecdotally always has been unless it was very unpopular to be.


----------



## stockwell

It'd be unwise to put too much stock in the UK's election as a predictor of the US's. As I understand it, the Conservatives were fully committed to being the Leave party for nationalistic and anti-immigrant reasons. Libdems went Remain IIRC. Labour didn't put out a firm stance on Brexit either way. This was probably their ultimate mistake, even though it's arguably the best position to take. There are left arguments for both remain (opposing the anti-immigrant, nationalist stance of the Tories) and leave (the Economic and Monetary Union is pro-capital and opposes labor). This is a core issue in the campaign that doesn't at all map to the US. It's also worth considering that UK press adopted and ran a wholesale fiction about Corbyn being anti-semitic. It would be...difficult to claim that in the case of the US's leftmost candidate. 



Dumple Stilzkin said:


> All I want for Christmas is impeachment. Otherwise we set the precedent for other politicians feeling like they are above the law, a scary situation.



Were you born 4 years ago? Reagan/HW didn't go down for Iran-Contra even though congress passed an amendment specifically saying "do not do this". In fact, since Bush pardoned them all, AFAIK nobody faced ANY consequences for Iran-Contra. HW also got away with being the director during Operation Condor. HW started the Gulf War after giving Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait. And then W did the same thing a decade later, lying to start a horrific war in the Middle East without the approval of congress. 

The precedent was set a long time ago. If anything, this proves that Trump has figured out how to finally act presidential. All he needs is more dead bodies in countries the average US citizen can't find on a map.


----------



## USMarine75

allheavymusic said:


> Reagan/HW didn't go down for Iran-Contra even though congress passed an amendment specifically saying "do not do this". In fact, since Bush pardoned them all, AFAIK nobody faced ANY consequences for Iran-Contra.



Hey now... there was some harsh penalties still handed down...

Oliver North (conviction vacated after some community service)
Admiral Poindexter (conviction was overturned on appeal)



allheavymusic said:


> All he needs is more dead bodies in countries the average US citizen can't find on a map.



Kurdistan - in all fairness, those a-holes didn't help us in WWII... or WWI... or the Revolutionary War.
Ukraine


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ASZklJ8ZyRbiCF6Vx5nNt8A

Guess we're adding federal crime charges of bribery and wire fraud to it as well.


----------



## sleewell

its hilarious that trump has very recently been ordered to pay 2 million dollars for stealing from his corrupt scam charity while his last line of defense after 25 other preposterous claims have been debunked is that he was just trying to fight corruption as a reason for holding up the aid. granted he has never really come out against corruption in the past, we are just supposed to believe now that he actually cares about corruption even though nothing in his personal or public life either before or after taking office would support this idea.

as if the 25 million he was ordered to pay for running his scam corrupt university 2 years ago was not enough evidence that the man is 100% corrupt. or is it that he just cares about other people's corruption and no one should look into or care about his corrupt acts?


----------



## tedtan

pwsusi said:


> He lied to a federal grand jury, which is a felony and he was disbarred. Doesn't matter what the lie was about; it was still a felony. While this was the primary motivator Lewinsky was also a subordinate. With all the sex scandals and smears it's comical the "me too movement" throws this guy and his wife a pass. It's hard to argue he shouldn't have been impeached because Trump was getting B.J.'s in the oval office we all know he'd be held to a different standard and his head would role.



First, I never suggested that he should or shouldn't have been impeached, my point was that getting a blow job, even from a subordinate, does not reflect on how he performed or failed to perform as POTUS. And to add to that, can you legitimately say that his impeachment was anything more than the republicans going after him?




pwsusi said:


> I would argue the opposite of your statement; that trump would be stupid to resign. He knows there is very little chance the house will convict him and he seems to think (right or wrong) that this may actually help him in 2020.



That's not the opposite of my statement. 1) Trump being stupid and egotistical and 2) Trump not resigning from office for strategic reasons are not mutually exclusive concepts. (And for what its worth, I do agree that he does not currently have any incentive to resign).




pwsusi said:


> Truth and facts are subjective. People are spoon fed selective data points from biased media talking heads that paints the one side of the picture that they want you to hear. Both sides are guilty of this. Some may call these facts but i would say they are simply data points, for which there are opposing data points.



No, truth and facts are objective data points, it's our interpretation of them that can become subjective, such as the political spinning of these facts that you mentioned. I would also disagree that every data point has an "equal and opposite" data point with which to negate it. Sure, things can be spun in such a way that some people will believe that there is an opposite data point, but again, that is most often just spin, not objective facts.




pwsusi said:


> I would disagree that Trump divided us anymore than we were already divided. In fact i would argue that the hatred from the anti-trump people (including the portion of the media that is left leaning) has divided us more than he has.



Would you also include the hatred of the anti-Obama people, including Trump, himself, with his birther BS, as contributing to the division we are currently experiencing?




pwsusi said:


> Guilty or not of what he has been accused of, the dems have done themselves a disservice by openly discussing impeachment before he was even sworn in. Then when it actually happens, legit or not, many people are going to dismiss it as B.S.



I agree that this contributed to bad optics, but the optics don't change the facts at play in the situation, so this is primarily of concern for those democrats who are up for reelection in 2020.




pwsusi said:


> None of this excuses Trump's rhetoric, but without the hatred for him he wouldn't be able to play the hand he is playing...and quite frankly he's pretty smart for doing so as it seems to help him politically.



No, but its not just rhetoric. He has legitimately blocked Muslims from traveling to the US; blocked refugees seeking asylum from entering the US, leading to several deaths; attempted to take healthcare away from many people who don't have other options; extorted/bribed the leader of another country into providing dirt on a political rival in exchange for military aid, etc.

Sure, Trump says a lot of stupid shit, but let's not forget that he also DOES a lot of stupid shit, too, and its what he has done/is doing that is of concern here.

And as far as it benefiting him politically, it plays well with his base, but he's losing support from other republicans and independents which he will need in order to win reelection, so I wouldn't say its helping him. His base is just so rabidly supportive that this gives the optics that it is benefiting Trump even when it is not.


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> . or is it that he just cares about other people's corruption and no one should look into or care about his corrupt acts?



I have friends who are Trump supporters and according to what they say/how they act, they stand with Trump no matter what he says and or does, past and present. And I'm not trying to say all Trump supporters/conservatives are like my friends but that's just how they (my friends) are. 

One of them (friend) is all about the Trump wall and keeping illegal drugs out. Make American great again and all that according to him. However, he does illegal drugs himself. When I asked him, "you support the Trump wall to keep illegal drugs out but don't you find it hypocritical that you do illegal drugs yourself?" He'll say something weird like, "the drugs I do were planted here in the U.S. so I'm good". If that's his best answer, I'm not surprised at all that's he's not going to question, investigate and/or think Trump is guilty of anything, even if there's solid proof.


----------



## Ralyks

Rosal76 said:


> I have friends who are Trump supporters and according to what they say/how they act, they stand with Trump no matter what he says and or does, past and present. And I'm not trying to say all Trump supporters/conservatives are like my friends but that's just how they (my friends) are.
> 
> One of them (friend) is all about the Trump wall and keeping illegal drugs out. Make American great again and all that according to him. However, he does illegal drugs himself. When I asked him, "you support the Trump wall to keep illegal drugs out but don't you find it hypocritical that you do illegal drugs yourself?" He'll say something weird like, "the drugs I do were planted here in the U.S. so I'm good". If that's his best answer, I'm not surprised at all that's he's not going to question, investigate and/or think Trump is guilty of anything, even if there's solid proof.



Illegal drugs are a hell of a drug.

Also, as one Christopher Titus said "I hate it when people bad mouth this country, don't you? 'Make America Great Again'. Fuck you, it's already great, what the fuck are you talking about?"


----------



## Vyn

Ralyks said:


> Illegal drugs are a hell of a drug.
> 
> Also, as one Christopher Titus said "I hate it when people bad mouth this country, don't you? 'Make America Great Again'. Fuck you, it's already great, what the fuck are you talking about?"



The irony is that America WAS great. Then Trump was elected...


----------



## Ralyks

Vyn said:


> The irony is that America WAS great. Then Trump was elected...



THIS! Seriously, what was so wrong with everything before Trump came along? I mean, I don't think any of us are rich enough to benefit from his administration.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Let's not pretend everything was perfect before Trump. 

He's mostly shown that there are significant issues that need to be addressed vs. ones he's directly caused (which he certainly has).


----------



## vilk

Vyn said:


> The irony is that America WAS great. Then Trump was elected...



Were we great? Or were we fighting two needless, meaningless wars started using gov't fabricated lies and propaganda for the express purpose of enriching the ultra-wealthy, while our wages remained stagnant for the nth decade in a row that we continued to neglect our infrastructure in lieu of a the biggest military budgets ever. Ignoring monopolies, intentionally tanking efforts to fix our healthcare system, bailing out the filthy rich and holding the middle class accountable for catastrophic financial failures that were knowingly created and allowed to happen, keeping open all the black sites and maintaining our status as an evil empire lead by war criminals

but I guess we do let gay people get married now so at least there's that


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> Let's not pretend everything was perfect before Trump.
> 
> He's mostly shown that there are significant issues that need to be addressed vs. ones he's directly caused (which he certainly has).



They weren't perfect, however I'll take the previous administration with it's faults any day over trump.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> They weren't perfect, however I'll take the previous administration with it's faults any day over trump.



The previous administration isn't this country.

I'd prefer them as well, but it's not the same thing. 

I know what you mean though.


----------



## Ralyks

We were definitely on a upswing that Trump attempting is taking credit for (see: economy. It was already on its way up before Trump took office). And at least didn't have world leaders laughing at us like they were in a high school cafeteria. No, we weren't perfect, but we had our shit more in order, relatively speaking.

My point/question is, those those that are ride or die for Trump, how has their lives improved vs the Obama or even Dubya administration's (well, ok, Dubya had the recession...)?


----------



## stockwell

People who act like Trump is a sudden turn for the worse in American history have to be willfully ignorant. As I've said before, he's not even unusual for recent presidents. Reagan was a rapist, HW was a groper, and we all know Clinton's history. Reagan was also sundowning for probably his whole presidency, and I doubt HW and W could activate an MRI without a sizable line of coke. People said the same exact things about Reagan, that he would do whatever anyone in a room told him. The anomalous thing about Trump is that he has Twitter and no ability to mask his complete lack of empathy. In some ways, an open, incompetent monster is preferable to a quiet, intelligent, charming sociopath like Obama. Trump is still catching up to Obama in terms of deportations, concessions to banks/industry, and drone strikes on civilians. Trump wants to look tough but I doubt he has a stomach for killing, and that's better than Obama. 

Reminder that in 2011, Obama told his aides: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” 

America didn't have anything in order before Trump. We subsumed Western Europe as the premier imperialist power of the modern age. We've regime changed most countries. We do mass surveillance of our citizens (with zero of the targeted results) and the Democrats still re-upped the Patriot Act just recently. We're basically a petrostate at this point, completely subservient to the interests of capital. For all the DP's sound and fury about impeachment, they approved Trump's space force. Why? Because it's another massive military contract and both parties are united in their craven desire to please the military-industrial complex. You'd have to buy into a real twisted narrative to consider the US to be great at any point in its history.


----------



## narad

allheavymusic said:


> You'd have to buy into a real twisted narrative to consider the US to be great at any point in its history.



Historically, what countries do we consider "great", and in what time periods? When they're crushing other countries and their economies, and providing their citizens a comparatively high standard of living. Not when they're being nice.

Also, Obama quote out of context.


----------



## bostjan

The GOP's defense tactics make no logical sense, but seem to be working. The American public* has a long history of utter stupidity. They bought into the Bush wars, even though the lies were so transparent. They bought into Obama's promises, and later his going back on them because they were too hard to do, and now they are going to give Trump a pass.

*not reflective of the actual majority, just the majority opinion as it is taken by the government.

For a long time, I didn't believe Trump was elected by Russia, because I didn't want to believe it was possible.


----------



## Randy

The problem with Obama was that he ran as an uber-populist, borderline socialist in the primary and when he made the transition into "well, maybe we can take lobbyist money as long as we make it clear we're not going to give them anything in return", it tainted everything he did afterward. It's entirely possible some of his promises WERE too difficult to deliver on, but they also happened to be against a lot of corporate interests, and the reneging came after he let them into his campaign/admin. 

At that point it makes it impossible to separate one intention from the other. Or you have to ask if intentions matter more than outcomes at all.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> polls = shit. they were close the day before the election and Boris won in a landslide.


Worth noting, though, is that the Brits don't have a particularly good track record with polling, whereas the US does. It's very popular to say that "the polls were wrong in 2016," but really they weren't - the national polls were implicitly measuring the national popular vote, which they got basically on the nose, state-level polls showed a lot of tightening in the final week of the race and most if not all of Trump's "rust belt" wins were inside the margin of error on election day, meaning they should have been considered tossups. People think the US polling was wrong for two reasons - one, polling moved a lot in the final week of the election, and the popular understanding of the shape of the race didn't keep pace, and two, the Electoral College map added a layer of complexity, the 2016 map was broadly favorable to Trump while the popular understanding of the map was still rooted back in 2008's "blue wall" where the Rust Belt wasn't in play, and between the two it wasn't nearly as save a bet as it seemed to consider a ~2 percentage point national vote margin as a equivalent liklihood of winning the Electoral College.

The polls were actually pretty good. The interpretation of what they were saying, though, was pretty awful. Intrestingly, I think that's a lesson the left has learned but the right, who whenever you point out that the polling nailed the popular vote margin to a conservative they knee-jerk reply that the president isn't elected by the popular vote, probably has not.



tedtan said:


> Trump is as dirty as Nixon, but too stupid and egotistical to resign, so even if the GOP in the Senate let him off the hook, I don't think the American voters will.


I continue to think the biggest risk in impeachment here is to the _GOP_, with McConnell openly saying he's going to work closely with the White House on the proceedings and do whatever they say. Trump is not popular, impeachment has majority support overall and among independents, and removal from office has plurality support overall and among independents. If the Senate Republicans are perceived to be blindly protecting Trump in light of pretty clear evidence of wrongdoing, that's likely to hurt them.



allheavymusic said:


> The precedent was set a long time ago. If anything, this proves that Trump has figured out how to finally act presidential. All he needs is more dead bodies in countries the average US citizen can't find on a map.


Debatable. Reagan wasn't implicated because it was never proved he actually knew about the Iran-Contra affair. There's no real debate that Trump knew about what was going on in Ukraine, or was part of the effort to stonewall Congressional investigators. And even then, the scandal was crippling to his administration, severely hit Reagan's approval numbers and America's faith in elected officials, and led to a large number of resignations and firings after Reagan had to change course and launch an investigation into his own government's actions here. Trump has shown no such course correction. If you want to cheapen this, you could fairly say Reagan got caught and acted suitably contrite, while Trump doubled down and dared anyone to stop him.



pwsusi said:


> one must admit is unprecedented when it comes to how a president has been treated.


I'm sorry, but this is absolutely laughable. Exhibit A. If you think it's "unprecedented" how badly he's been treated, then please go tell him to stop fucking asking foreign governments for dirt on political opponents.



spudmunkey said:


> So I know it doesn't actually matter, but have we crossed the legal-definition-line to say that Trump is "impeached"? Yes, I know that the term doesn't mean "removed from office", but at what point have we/will we pass that line? What needs to happen for him to be included in the list of "Impeched US presidents"?


The legal definition is when the full House votes to impeach, which we appear on track for that to happen either tonight or in the early hours of tomorrow morning.



Rosal76 said:


> I have friends who are Trump supporters and according to what they say/how they act, they stand with Trump no matter what he says and or does, past and present. And I'm not trying to say all Trump supporters/conservatives are like my friends but that's just how they (my friends) are.


Supposition here... But I think we're probably approaching the poing where, yes, all Trump supporters DO feel that way. He seems to have lost most of the moderate "reluctant Trump supporter" vote, if the last election and this season of special elections can be trusted, and anyone whose support was conditional on him, you know, not being an xenophobic raging asshole have already withdrawn it.


----------



## stockwell

narad said:


> Historically, what countries do we consider "great", and in what time periods? When they're crushing other countries and their economies, and providing their citizens a comparatively high standard of living. Not when they're being nice.
> 
> Also, Obama quote out of context.



Labeling states "great" seems extremely simplistic to me. "Crushing other countries and their economies" would certainly describe the US for most of its history, but imperialism makes a state dangerous, not great. "Being nice" seems like a pat way to handwave away atrocities and warmongering. Your description could just as easily include the USSR, China, Cuba, etc., as the US. Not that that's a digression I'd like to follow. 

The quote was in the context of discussing drone strikes in private with aides. There's not a context that makes it cool and good. Concealed evil is as bad as open evil, and sometimes it can be more harmful. 



Randy said:


> The problem with Obama was that he ran as an uber-populist, borderline socialist in the primary and when he made the transition into "well, maybe we can take lobbyist money as long as we make it clear we're not going to give them anything in return", it tainted everything he did afterward. It's entirely possible some of his promises WERE too difficult to deliver on, but they also happened to be against a lot of corporate interests, and the reneging came after he let them into his campaign/admin.



I'd push back on the idea that his campaign was "borderline socialist" even in the primary. You don't praise Reagan and advocate for invading Pakistan as a socialist. Vague promises of change and hope have nothing to do with, idk, workplace democracy and class consciousness. The narrative that Obama meant well but was corrupted by corporate interests, or that he couldn't beat the GOP congress, are both ridiculous. He was beholden to corporate interests from the very start. I mean, he picked Biden as his VP, and Biden is an anthropomorphic banking lobby. Obama was a true centrist and didn't have core disagreements with Bush. He was merely shrewder and less braindead than Bush, which made his efforts subtler. And there were genuinely positive reforms under Obama, but they were minor concessions, not real change to core systems of the economy or politics. And it's too bad, because 2008 was a ripe opportunity for genuine change. Imagine if someone had, I don't know, nationalized banking instead of propping up a failing industry. 



Drew said:


> Debatable. Reagan wasn't implicated because it was never proved he actually knew about the Iran-Contra affair. There's no real debate that Trump knew about what was going on in Ukraine, or was part of the effort to stonewall Congressional investigators. And even then, the scandal was crippling to his administration, severely hit Reagan's approval numbers and America's faith in elected officials, and led to a large number of resignations and firings after Reagan had to change course and launch an investigation into his own government's actions here. Trump has shown no such course correction. If you want to cheapen this, you could fairly say Reagan got caught and acted suitably contrite, while Trump doubled down and dared anyone to stop him.



The Tower Commission didn't find evidence of Reagan's guilt? Strange. I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that Reagan appointed them. Or maybe the limited resources, power, and time they were afforded. At least the guilty parties were convicted, went permanently to jail, were never pardoned, and never re-entered politics...

And you're right that Reagan's approval ratings dropped. As he left office, his approval ratings tanked to levels only matched by FDR (an embarrassing 68%). Even today his is remembered as one of the most shameful presidencies in the modern era by all Americans. Even today he's still called the Teflon President, because every scandal and wrongdoing stuck to him and forever tainted his legacy. 

I'm serious, the more I learn about past presidents, the more Trump's nonsense seems less like a crazed anomaly and more like the inevitable result of America's broken, dumb politics. People find him more objectionable than most because he has no zero positive qualities as a human being, but he's par for the course in terms of presidential nonsense and casual cruelty.


----------



## narad

allheavymusic said:


> Labeling states "great" seems extremely simplistic to me. "Crushing other countries and their economies" would certainly describe the US for most of its history, but imperialism makes a state dangerous, not great. "Being nice" seems like a pat way to handwave away atrocities and warmongering. Your description could just as easily include the USSR, China, Cuba, etc., as the US. Not that that's a digression I'd like to follow.



And yet you brought it up. The USSR, China, and Cuba, in modern times, all have large scale poverty and therefore _not_ easily captured by my description, whereas the US, Britain, France, Rome, Greece, etc., would. They've all done terrible things. All nations have done terrible things.

If you're having trouble understanding my point: A great father does whatever he has to in order to protect his children. In order to do this, he may be forced to do things for which he would not typically be considered a good person. Similarly, a great country, in its most typical use, is one which is great for its own people.



allheavymusic said:


> The quote was in the context of discussing drone strikes in private with aides. There's not a context that makes it cool and good. Concealed evil is as bad as open evil, and sometimes it can be more harmful.



To put it in context simply enough for debate-class-with-random-internet-people, as described in by the aide in the original account, the quote would be:

_Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine :-/_

not:

_Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine _


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> _Turns out I’m really good at killing people. _


----------



## stockwell

narad said:


> And yet you brought it up. The USSR, China, and Cuba, in modern times, all have large scale poverty and therefore _not_ easily captured by my description, whereas the US, Britain, France, Rome, Greece, etc., would. They've all done terrible things. All nations have done terrible things.



Alright I'm bored, let's do this. I'm dumb enough to take the bait. 

Any assessment even mildly informed by history would consider the USSR, China, and Cuba to be successful under your conditions. Czarist Russia was an un-industrialized feudal empire where 80% of the population were peasants who owned no land. Fast forward through a revolution, WW1, a civil war, forced industrialization, famines, WW2, opposition and sanctions by every single world power, and the USSR still managed to become a world superpower and arguably win the space race. Even the CIA reported that the average Soviet had a more nutritious diet than the average US citizen. 

China was a pre-industrial combined agrarian and manufacturing economy ruled by an emperor that had just suffered the "century of humiliation". Britain used war to pump opium into the country with the goal of encouraging mass addiction and ruining China's control on manufacturing. After civil war and industrialization, China is once again the manufacturing superpower of the world and boasts the only consistently rising wages in the Global South. 

Cuba, despite again being heavily sanctioned by the Western world, has universal healthcare and one of the best literacy rates in the world. They've made crazy progress in life expectancy, infant mortality, and housing. People call it the Cuban health paradox because it's atypical for the developing world. They also have unrestricted legal abortion and access to contraception. Compared to any developing/global south nation, especially if you look around Central/South America and the Caribbean, I don't see how Cuba isn't considered one of the most successful. 

"All nations have done terrible things" is not a justification for conquest, imperialism, and slavery. If nations can't avoid doing terrible things we should stop having nations. 



narad said:


> If you're having trouble understanding my point: A great father does whatever he has to in order to protect his children. In order to do this, he may be forced to do things for which he would not typically be considered a good person. Similarly, a great country, in its most typical use, is one which is great for its own people.



It's a cute analogy, but states aren't families. They're groups of human beings who happen to share a political system. Everyone in every other state in the world is also a human being and deserves the same protections and QOL that I do regardless of where they exited their mother. A country that exploits and terrorizes the majority of the world (while still having 1 out of 8 people be in poverty) is definitely not successful. This kind of nationalist "we'll get ours, screw everyone else" attitude has already caused tons of suffering and will doom the world if left unchecked. 

_


narad said:



Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine :-/

Click to expand...

_
You can't try to glass the Middle East AND get the benefit of the doubt when you brag about it. But I guess it's fine and good for Obama to bomb weddings, funerals, rescue operations, hospitals, and Doctors Without Borders as long as the military can say their head dowser smelled terrorism or whatever.


----------



## bostjan

allheavymusic said:


> Alright I'm bored, let's do this. I'm dumb enough to take the bait.
> 
> Any assessment even mildly informed by history would consider the USSR, China, and Cuba to be successful under your conditions. Czarist Russia was an un-industrialized feudal empire where 80% of the population were peasants who owned no land. Fast forward through a revolution, WW1, a civil war, forced industrialization, famines, WW2, opposition and sanctions by every single world power, and the USSR still managed to become a world superpower and arguably win the space race. Even the CIA reported that the average Soviet had a more nutritious diet than the average US citizen.
> 
> China was a pre-industrial combined agrarian and manufacturing economy ruled by an emperor that had just suffered the "century of humiliation". Britain used war to pump opium into the country with the goal of encouraging mass addiction and ruining China's control on manufacturing. After civil war and industrialization, China is once again the manufacturing superpower of the world and boasts the only consistently rising wages in the Global South.
> 
> Cuba, despite again being heavily sanctioned by the Western world, has universal healthcare and one of the best literacy rates in the world. They've made crazy progress in life expectancy, infant mortality, and housing. People call it the Cuban health paradox because it's atypical for the developing world. They also have unrestricted legal abortion and access to contraception. Compared to any developing/global south nation, especially if you look around Central/South America and the Caribbean, I don't see how Cuba isn't considered one of the most successful.
> 
> "All nations have done terrible things" is not a justification for conquest, imperialism, and slavery. If nations can't avoid doing terrible things we should stop having nations.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a cute analogy, but states aren't families. They're groups of human beings who happen to share a political system. Everyone in every other state in the world is also a human being and deserves the same protections and QOL that I do regardless of where they exited their mother. A country that exploits and terrorizes the majority of the world (while still having 1 out of 8 people be in poverty) is definitely not successful. This kind of nationalist "we'll get ours, screw everyone else" attitude has already caused tons of suffering and will doom the world if left unchecked.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't try to glass the Middle East AND get the benefit of the doubt when you brag about it. But I guess it's fine and good for Obama to bomb weddings, funerals, rescue operations, hospitals, and Doctors Without Borders as long as the military can say their head dowser smelled terrorism or whatever.



Not to speak for another forumite, but you seem to be reading words here and there but not piecing them together into sentences, because you don't really address what he's said.


----------



## stockwell

My point was that "crushing other countries" and "providing a comparatively high standard of living", which is true of the states I mentioned, is not a great metric for greatness. Yeah it's a tangent, but anything's better than the minutiae of impeachment proceedings. 

I can't say I'm particularly coherent, in general. Hats off to anyone who attempts to read my comments.


----------



## Drew

allheavymusic said:


> And you're right that Reagan's approval ratings dropped. As he left office, his approval ratings tanked to levels only matched by FDR (an embarrassing 68%). Even today his is remembered as one of the most shameful presidencies in the modern era by all Americans. Even today he's still called the Teflon President, because every scandal and wrongdoing stuck to him and forever tainted his legacy.


Again, not catching the whole story. His ratings _recovered_, especially in the final days of his presidency, but when the scandal broke, he slipped from an approval rating in the low-mid 60s down to the high 40s - the scandal knocked roughly 15 points off his approval ratings almost overnight, and it wasn't until the final six months or so of his presidency that he recovered to majority support on a sustained basis again. 

The right glorifies him to this day, but of course they're not going to dwell on Iran-Contra, rather his tax cuts (which they forget to mention he had to in part reverse).


----------



## Ralyks

Does anyone else think Matt Gaetz comes off as a douchebag jock from a John Hughes film?


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, so far he's been impeached for abuse of powerm I'm curious as to the five members of the GOP that chose not to vote.


----------



## Vyn

Both articles of impeachment passed. Now to see the shitshow that is going to be the senate.


----------



## Ralyks

When it does get to the Senate. Pelosi talking about holding off delaying transmitting the articles to the Senate until there's a "fair trial" and not an expedited aquital like McConnell basically said would happen.


----------



## SpaceDock

So many in depth analyses of the impeachment, but really the bottom line is:

You think Trump was looking out for us or him?


----------



## budda

Americans, fill me in:

McConnell said he wouldnt be impartial, but he's still going to basically be running things?

This is legal?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

budda said:


> Americans, fill me in:
> 
> McConnell said he wouldnt be impartial, but he's still going to basically be running things?
> 
> This is legal?



Maybe? 

We're in somewhat uncharted waters.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> So many in depth analyses of the impeachment, but really the bottom line is:
> 
> You think Trump was looking out for us or him?


Is that a rhetorical question, because I don't think anyone is changing their answer from the one they had months ago.

Several House Republicans have gone on record stating that abuse of power is not a crime. That ought to say a lot about their own philosophy of public service.


----------



## budda

MaxOfMetal said:


> Maybe?
> 
> We're in somewhat uncharted waters.



Hm. That is properly messed up.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Does anyone else think Matt Gaetz comes off as a douchebag jock from a John Hughes film?



I thought he looks like Dorian Tyrell from The Mask.


----------



## sleewell

this is when trump goes nuts. he knows the senate will protect him. now he wants revenge. in his mind obama will always be better and more liked than him and things for him are just so unfair. he didn't see any repercussions from 10 instances of obstruction clearly outlined in the mueller report thanks in part to his lacky bill barr so he leans on ukraine the very next day and again sees no punishment or drop in support. there is literally nothing he can do which would lose support from his base and thus gop members of congress.


would he sign a trade deal with china if they announced investigations into biden? i think he already said he wanted that on the white house lawn. 

would he look into a camera and ask russia to find emails to aid his election? yup, already did that and saw no penalty. 

would he allow north korea to have nuclear weapons if they hacked the dnc? doesnt seem like that would matter to his base. 

what would he do that people would think went too far? i cant think of anything. the cult of personality is very strong right now.


----------



## Randy

budda said:


> Americans, fill me in:
> 
> McConnell said he wouldnt be impartial, but he's still going to basically be running things?
> 
> This is legal?





MaxOfMetal said:


> Maybe?
> 
> We're in somewhat uncharted waters.



Roll of Justice Roberts potentially hangs over this in a big way.



sleewell said:


> this is when trump goes nuts. he knows the senate will protect him. now he wants revenge. in his mind obama will always be better and more liked than him and things for him are just so unfair. he didn't see any repercussions from 10 instances of obstruction clearly outlined in the mueller report thanks in part to his lacky bill barr so he leans on ukraine the very next day and again sees no punishment or drop in support. there is literally nothing he can do which would lose support from his base and thus gop members of congress.
> 
> 
> would he sign a trade deal with china if they announced investigations into biden? i think he already said he wanted that on the white house lawn.
> 
> would he look into a camera and ask russia to find emails to aid his election? yup, already did that and saw no penalty.
> 
> would he allow north korea to have nuclear weapons if they hacked the dnc? doesnt seem like that would matter to his base.
> 
> what would he do that people would think went too far? i cant think of anything. the cult of personality is very strong right now.



Something to keep in mind and maybe put this in better perspective... Trump lost the popular vote by 2.5 million people, and he won the swing states by somewhere in the neighborhood of 250,000 people. This was three years ago and since then, the Democrats won a majority in the House in an unprecedented number of races and have fared well in special elections, notably a Democrat for Jeff Sessions' old seat in Alabama, a Democratic governor of Kentucky (Mitch McConnel's state) and flipping the Virginia legislature. Even that NJ ass-hat who's leaving the Democratic party, he was a freshman that won an NJ seat in a bright red district that voted for Trump but elected a Democrat in 2018 after 12 years of a Republican in that same seat (he's also only leaving the party because the Dems said they were primarying him out anyway, BTW).

Looking at some of this a little closer, I saw a recent article that said going into 2020, 43% of Republicans in the house when Trump took office will be gone via 1.) losing re-election in subsequent years 2.) retiring from office 3.) not seeking re-election. 43% of them *GONE* is a huge number. A notable addition to that list being ardent Trump defender Mark Meadows and don't forget Paul Ryan.

I get it, we all have stubborn family and people in our social media feed that will literally follow Trump over the edge of the cliff, and the MSM has been doing a disfavor to the public by making this look like the norm but literally none of the actual HARD NUMBERS reflect "Trump right or wrong, hell or high water" as being the norm at all.

I'm not expecting the Senate to grow a backbone or any moral compass but I wouldn't be so quick to chalk this up as Trump doing whatever he wants, his followers going along with it and the GOP subsequently following their lead as any sort of definite.


----------



## sleewell

i hear everything you are saying, and i really hope you are correct. i am just far more jaded. 

i think the retiring congress members will be replaced by "people" (aka lemmings) more devoted to trump and most are in pretty red districts. 

we also have not changed the election to a popular vote. trump could easily lose by more votes than last time and still win. the election comes down to 3-4 states. with people firmly encamped in their respective echo chambers and many getting all their news from fb it's very easy to convince people what to think and how to vote.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> retiring congress members



Still have to ask yourself why they're leaving office (a lot voted out, also) in an unprecedented exodus if they're seeing information that implies their districts stay red.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Still have to ask yourself why they're leaving office (a lot voted out, also) in an unprecedented exodus if they're seeing information that implies their districts stay red.



With some of the people retiring (think gerrymandered districts in NC), they wouldn't get reelected now that the district boundaries are more fair. Drew is far more insightful with these things than I am, but I think it's a fair assessment given what we do know, that some of these historically red districts are more purple or even blue, and it's easier for many of them to "retire" than not be reelected.


----------



## sleewell

that is a fair point. PA re districted before the 2018 midterms and the dems picked up a lot of those seats.


----------



## Randy

Hey, I'm as skeptical as anyone. I just keep seeing the prevailing narrative revolving around "Republicans got their asses kicked after impeaching Clinton" and Mitch McConnell saying it's going to be a quick trial and they're even going to "exonerate Trump" and it's more gloom and doom fear baiting that the MSM loves to sell papers. They wanted Donald Trump for exactly this reason, and considering there are conflicting (and, IMO, more convincing) counter-narratives out there, I think they're at least worth discussing. 

As far as what happens in the end, I have no goddamn clue.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> this is when trump goes nuts. he knows the senate will protect him. now he wants revenge. in his mind obama will always be better and more liked than him and things for him are just so unfair. he didn't see any repercussions from 10 instances of obstruction clearly outlined in the mueller report thanks in part to his lacky bill barr so he leans on ukraine the very next day and again sees no punishment or drop in support. there is literally nothing he can do which would lose support from his base and thus gop members of congress.
> 
> 
> would he sign a trade deal with china if they announced investigations into biden? i think he already said he wanted that on the white house lawn.
> 
> would he look into a camera and ask russia to find emails to aid his election? yup, already did that and saw no penalty.
> 
> would he allow north korea to have nuclear weapons if they hacked the dnc? doesnt seem like that would matter to his base.
> 
> what would he do that people would think went too far? i cant think of anything. the cult of personality is very strong right now.



I see no fault in your reasoning. Where exactly is the line? I think that the line only exists insofar as means of a divider between parties and only functions as such. There is no too far, because its whatever it takes to keep us in power and them out.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Roll of Justice Roberts potentially hangs over this in a big way.


This, IMO, is a HUGE question that's getting comparatively little attention.

Last time we saw this, the Cheif Justice (Rhenquist, I think..?) basically sat back and took a passive role. The time before that was so long ago (Johnson) that I honestly neither remember what happened, nor would I know where to look to get some commentary (the Senate record is terse on the subject) or even know how likely it would be considered a useful precedent. But, Roberts certainly _could_ take a much larger role in the proceedings, as the Constitution stipulates that he presides, but doens't provide detailed clarity on what his powers are. And while Roberts was a Republican appointee, he's the swing vote today, is a moderate conservative, is extremely concerned with the public's perception of the Court as impartial, all reasons where it's hard to rule him out deciding not to let McConnell run this as a kangaroo court, and to actually step in and ensure a proper trial. It's really hard to say, though, and it could potentially get a bit dicey if McConnell tried to overrule him - that itself could become a constitutional crisis.

Re: @sleewell and @JSanta 's points/questions - I think it's a combination of factors, but on the balance I'd say it's a recognition of the fact that the GOP is aware of the fact they'll likely facing a blue wave in 2020. Far more conservatives are retiring than liberals, and while some are fearing a primary challenger or a general election challenger, a lot of them are just not that wild about Trump and running in safe districts, so the calculation there looks as simple as just not wanting to be the minority party again, and expecting that outcome. They want to make it someone else's problem. That said, every once in a while you get something like Mark Meadows' announcement that he's retiring, so who knows. (EDIT - a fair conclusion here, though, is that yes, we should expect a smaller but more loyal GOP House contingent at the start of 2021).

I'm firmly in the camp that this is going to hurt the GOP more than the Democrats, FWIW. While only a pluralioty of Americans and of independents actually support impeaching Trump, a full 57% of the country and a majority of both believe Trump committed impeachable acts. They just differ on recourse, and about ten points' there is people who think we should just let the voters decide in 2020.

Two things follow from that - one, now that were already moving towards impeachment, some of those ten points could start to shift and favor removal since, hey, we're already here. And two, that's NOT a pretty environment for Trump to be entering an election year into. Only 43% of the country, paraphrasing a bit here, think he's "not a crook." @Randy's right, the GOP's belligerence and outward confidence is probably shakier than it looks.


----------



## Ralyks

In regards to Pelosi not sending the articles to the Senate: it's my understanding that once she does send them over, the Senate has to drop everything for the trial. Is there some timing she's trying to plan here? I get she's saying she won't submit until the Senate agrees to a fair trial, but the Senate doesn't seem too concerned, at least in public.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> In regards to Pelosi not sending the articles to the Senate: it's my understanding that once she does send them over, the Senate has to drop everything for the trial. Is there some timing she's trying to plan here? I get she's saying she won't submit until the Senate agrees to a fair trial, but the Senate doesn't seem too concerned, at least in public.


Well, short term yes. Medium term, I'm not sure. 

Short term, the Senate has a government funding bill from the House to debate. If they don't pass it and send it to Trump to sign into law, the government shuts down tomorrow night at midnight. So, they're not doing a _thing_ until we have a government spending bill. Knowing this, there's an outside chance Trump tries to throw a spoke in the wrench by not signing a bill the Senate is expected to pass, but I'd hardly say that's in his long term best interest, considering he's about to depend on being in the Senate's good graces. 

Medium term.. Idunno? I mean, it definitely puts a damper on Senate business if they know that anything they're debating can be iced at pretty much a moment's notice by the House, so... maybe...?

I'd say that the degree to which the GOP is attacking Pelosi for considering to leave it hanging and the vitriol they're bringing to bear suggests that maybe she's onto something, but that's just a hunch.


----------



## sleewell

she wants a fair trial. not the quick, no witness, rush to vote style that is being described by a "leader" who claims to be working with the defense and who says won't be impartial which violates the oath they must take before starting the trial. 

7/10 Americans want witnesses in the senate trial.

doesn't mean a lot. 9/10 Americans want some form of gun reform / background checks and that hasn't happened.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Well, short term yes. Medium term, I'm not sure.
> 
> Short term, the Senate has a government funding bill from the House to debate. If they don't pass it and send it to Trump to sign into law, the government shuts down tomorrow night at midnight. So, they're not doing a _thing_ until we have a government spending bill. Knowing this, there's an outside chance Trump tries to throw a spoke in the wrench by not signing a bill the Senate is expected to pass, but I'd hardly say that's in his long term best interest, considering he's about to depend on being in the Senate's good graces.
> 
> Medium term.. Idunno? I mean, it definitely puts a damper on Senate business if they know that anything they're debating can be iced at pretty much a moment's notice by the House, so... maybe...?
> 
> I'd say that the degree to which the GOP is attacking Pelosi for considering to leave it hanging and the vitriol they're bringing to bear suggests that maybe she's onto something, but that's just a hunch.



That's the thing, so far Pelosi seems like she's got this calculated pretty well, so I feel like something up with timing


----------



## Vyn

In theory the best thing for Trump would be for this to be over as quickly as possible so I imagine the stall to be designed to stop that from happening.


----------



## bostjan

I think Pelosi is waiting until after Christmas. Polls are showing that people are hitting the fatigue level on impeachment. The Senate wants to rush an acquittal, so there is no flippin way Trump is getting forced out of office directly by this. However, if this starts up again after the holidays, maybe people will watch the trial on the TV and get boiling mad at how it is handled. In that case, Trump thinks he won, but Pelosi wins a strategic position for her party on the eve of an election year.

It might have been the plan all along. If the GOP figures that out (I think they will, but slowly - they aren't completely stupid but they don't seem to be very quick, either), they'll attack Pelosi over the move after they fall for the trap. Maybe Pelosi will have another move ready to counter that, or, maybe she's counting on Trump to blunder again and she'll come back with another impeachment. Who knows?

I think that the Mueller report is sort of the democrats' high card showing at the moment. The GOP senators keep saying that the dems wanted Trump out since before the phone call, and I don't hear them denying it. The Mueller report, if anyone bothers to read it, says that Trump obstructed the investigation. The GOP will probably clumbsily deny it, but I'm sure it's super easy to refute. The dems could easily point at the report, point at the impeachment, and then tell the public that the republicans botched the trial. Then, in November, people vote for democrats.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> When Pelosi tells the public that this was a “bipartisan” impeachment effort then maybe we need to think twice about if she is still ok upstairs.
> 
> Why is Pelosi refusing to ask questions about something as major as the impeachment she put forth just a day ago.
> 
> Why is Pelosi withholding articles of impeachment to the senate?
> 
> I’m sorry folks but I predict you guys will have at least another 437 pages of how Trump got there.



Source for first paragraph? Other than people in his own administration testifying against him, of course.

Why would she be the one asking questions about the impeachment?

We're already trying to figure out what shes witholding so that's a redundant statement.

Who are you, MetalHex? Because you only have one post. From today. On a guitar based message board.


----------



## spudmunkey

fullmetaltilt said:


> When Pelosi tells the public that this was a “bipartisan” impeachment effort then maybe we need to think twice about if she is still ok upstairs.



Well...a number of the people who were willing to testify were from Trump's own administration, so...sort of, kind of? 

It's also likely more "marketing" than "not understanding".


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> I can’t post the link. I need 3 posts to do it. She’s on video saying it.
> 
> Sorry I meant answer questions not ask*
> 
> No I’m not a metal hex.



As pointed out, people in his own administration testified against him. Technically, she’s not wrong.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> I can’t post the link. I need 3 posts to do it. She’s on video saying it.
> 
> Sorry I meant answer questions not ask*
> 
> No I’m not a metal hex.



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Why is the GOP calling it a sham yet not giving an actual defense at all? Why was Trump given a chance to defend himself, and didn't whatsoever? Why are the Senate refusing to allow witnesses? Why did Trump block people like Bolton from testifying? Why are you just quoting me but not giving an actual response? Why would you join a guitar board and hop right to the politics section? You could argue all of these deserve an answer before asking why Pelosi is doing what she did, which, as she actually said, was basically wanting to see how the Senate is handling the trial, which is not very well. McConnell, who is suppose to head the jury, flat out said he isn't impartial. The Democrats knew this, and went through with it anyway.


----------



## Ralyks

You mean like the whistleblower who is defended by law? Or Hunter Biden, who's part of a fictional conspiracy theory that has already been debunked? And what is your basis for "no crimes"? Because the constitution, which the president swore and oath to, says otherwise. Also, if this was Obama, there would be blood in the streets. Doesn't sound like a two way street to me.


----------



## spudmunkey

fullmetaltilt said:


> Also it doesn’t look good when a Democrat from New Jersey flips parties after an impeachment. Aka Van Drew.



He was being removed from the democratic primaries by the DNC. he was barely a democrat. And you can change parties because you disagree with the parties direction or leadership, and you can oppose the impeachment...but anyone who is leaving simply because of those first two aspects, wouldn't "pledge undyring support" for President Trump. That would be like me, at my girlfriend's company party at a vegan restaurant, stopping for In-n-Out for a burger after dinner. Which I did. 



fullmetaltilt said:


> this impeachment process is highly unusually.



There is no "usual".



fullmetaltilt said:


> What gives her the right to dictate the terms and conditions to the Senate?



Nothing? because there's no law, rule or regulation preventing it?


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> Of course it’s “debunked” the media told you so.



It was debunked long before Trump brought it up. And what's your source for it not being debunked?


----------



## spudmunkey

fullmetaltilt said:


> Of course it’s “debunked” the media told you so.



*sigh*



fullmetaltilt said:


> Just like the media told you the IG report is all rainbows and lollipops.



What are you talking about? I've seen more articles about the shortcomings from everyone from CNN to freakin' PBS, than I have about their findings. By, like, a lot. And the comments of those articles are always from people saying, "Why are you talking about this when the same people found the investigation to be without bias?"


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> Meh. I didn’t know you could “barely” be a Democrat. Do you need to do some special handshake to make it official?



Did you seriously not know Conservative Democrats are a thing?


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> So what’s the big deal then? If there is no corruption why are they afraid of having a second look at it?
> 
> I guess it’s ok if you are a Democrat. You are allowed to use the FBI to investigate a political opponents campaign and get away with it.



Because none of the democrats were asking for a favor though.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> Im sorry buddy, but that is election interference.



Which is exactly what Trump, the guy you're defending, did.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> Im sorry buddy, but that is election interference. The Steele dossier was the central piece in getting the FISA warrant. The Steele dossier relied on foreign intelligence and was bought and paid for by the DNC.



Omitting the fact that Steele is friends with Ivanka and had a bias IN FAVOR of Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4382659002

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.va...rump-christopher-steele-inspector-general/amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/dossier-author-chris-steele-met-ivanka-trump-years/story?id=67597270


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...opher-steele-years-before-russia-dossier.html

Also, still curious as to why you joined a guitar message board and went right to the Trump thread. We've had these trolls before. Dime a dozen.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> I love how you brush aside the fact that this was a clear case of election meddling.



I don't think anyone here is brushing aside the fact that Trump is meddling in the election.


----------



## Ralyks

fullmetaltilt said:


> Apparently that’s not tolerated ?



I'm not one to determine what's tolerated. Just really odd that that's the reason someone joined a guitar based message board when many of us have actually had discussions outside of here. Also, if you're going to debate, if you look through the back pages of this thread, you should see this coming. So, carry on.


----------



## Randy

Guess who?


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Guess who?



Dammit, now I look like I'm having a long arguement with myself 

Thought I smelled a familiar troll though.


----------



## sleewell

brutal.

*U.S. Steel to Eliminate 1,545 Michigan Jobs*


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> brutal.
> 
> *U.S. Steel to Eliminate 1,545 Michigan Jobs*



Wasnt he JUST there for a rally?


----------



## sleewell

yes, battle creek on impeachment night. 

did anyone catch those poor dumb kids behind trump at that rally as he was going after another dead guy? you could tell they literally had no idea who he was talking about however they just went along with the crowd in booing him. that is the cult of personality exemplified. hey lets disparage a dead guy we don't know just to go along with the crowd!!! drink up all that kool aid folks!!


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> yes, battle creek on impeachment night.
> 
> did anyone catch those poor dumb kids behind trump at that rally as he was going after another dead guy? you could tell they literally had no idea who he was talking about however they just went along with the crowd in booing him. that is the cult of personality exemplified. hey lets disparage a dead guy we don't know just to go along with the crowd!!! drink up all that kool aid folks!!



What's funny is, even Lindsay Graham condemned Trump for that after. Not that that means much these days.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> brutal.
> 
> *U.S. Steel to Eliminate 1,545 Michigan Jobs*



Greatest economy in US history though, right? Right guys? Hello..?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Guess who?


Surprised we haven't seen him in that long. I guess, if you want any more evidence the Trumpsters are rattled, MetalHex et al re-emerging is a prime example.  Was that even his original username? I honestly can't remember.

@Ralyks - food for thought here is that the Senate just passed a spending bill that Trump will almost certainly sign into law. This time last year, Trump torpedoed a similar spending build to force a shutdown to get funding for his wall. Pelosi then handed his ass to him - I'm sure if MetalHex resurfaces he'll say differently, but the deal Trump finally took was actually less favorable to him than Pelosi's starting offer. She wiped the floor with him, plain and simple. So, I'll confess I still don't have a great handle on what her strategy is here and who has the most leverage... But if she sees opportunity, well, she's proven to be a VERY dangerous opponent to Trump.



bostjan said:


> I think Pelosi is waiting until after Christmas. Polls are showing that people are hitting the fatigue level on impeachment. The Senate wants to rush an acquittal, so there is no flippin way Trump is getting forced out of office directly by this. However, if this starts up again after the holidays, maybe people will watch the trial on the TV and get boiling mad at how it is handled. In that case, Trump thinks he won, but Pelosi wins a strategic position for her party on the eve of an election year.



She's now waiting till January - the House is out of session for the rest of the year.


----------



## tedtan

And now George Conway, the husband of Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, has begun referring to Trump as the IMPOTUS.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> And now George Conway, the husband of Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, has begun referring to Trump as the IMPOTUS.



Saw that. Love it. First Toad from Mario Kart, now this.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> Saw that. Love it. First Toad from Mario Kart, now this.



Yeah, this shit is too good to make up.


----------



## BlackSG91

Moscow Mitch sure does want a quick trial and said he is coordinating with the White House lawyers to have the trial to Trump's advantage. He openly admits this out in public and believes Trump should be acquitted guaranteed! Even Mr. McConnell put out a YouTube video for the purpose of raising money to fight the impeachment. It is obvious that the Senate is openly trying to rig the trial and they are doubling down.

Here's a question to all...what if Trump gets acquitted on the 2 articles of impeachment. Can he then be impeached again on other articles of impeachment. I mean come on now...this lunatic in office has probably drawn up 58.7 possible articles of impeachment if not more. He makes Nixon look like a choir boy.


;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Yes, they can absolutely impeachment him again. Especially in the unlikely-but-not-impossobly chance the Democrats retake the Senate in addition to the more likely.outcome they keep the house.


----------



## Randy

My prediction is that more articles of impeachment get written up before this ultimately gets voted on or at least before he leaves office.

I think the Dems win court cases on either subpeonas or financial records in the next few months and those open up a new can of worms, and Trump extorting Ukraine the day after Mueller testifies says Trump is easily emboldened and gets sloppier and more brazen with every move. What we know as of today is the tip of the iceberg.

I said it earlier in this thread, this will be like Cosby/Weinstein/Franken, where they exhaust all their denials and deflections of specific details on a single case, then it's two cases, then three cases, before it metastasizes. GOP surprisingly stubborn but they'll be sick of him before he's gone.


----------



## Randy

First weekend after historic 3rd impeachment ever in American history but don't worry, CNN to the rescue.


----------



## Demiurge

^To be fair, part of the headline included the click-baity "Great week EXCEPT for one big thing- click to find out!!!"


----------



## Randy

Yeah I left that out because the headline included zero information, the subheadline included all those specifics when meanwhile they know 95% of people look at the frontpage only and move on.

But yours right, a click baity headline to finish it off is peak CNN.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Ao1b1gFxoSO2_keHJZYA-Jw

Emails released showing Trump asking about the Ukraine funds a month before the Zelensky call, then administration orders to hold the aid an hour after the phone call.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/Ao1b1gFxoSO2_keHJZYA-Jw
> 
> Emails released showing Trump asking about the Ukraine funds a month before the Zelensky call, then administration orders to hold the aid an hour after the phone call.


Yeah, but is there any new info in there? I scrolled through about a hundred pages of "Hi Mike, redacted, EM" and "Hi Elaine, redacted, Mike" and gave up.


----------



## stockwell

Support for Trump's border wall, space force (as part of an overall military budget increase), and a trade deal. The Democrats keep giving him anything he wants, because they share the same core interests. And yet the political theater of impeachment is supposed to be historic? 

To reiterate, the US has a secret police force rounding up immigrants and putting them in concentration camps. We are, without much hyperbole, running a Children of Men type scenario. But the impeachable offense was the Ukraine call? Does anyone not in the media genuinely find this compelling? How is this going to improve anyone's life? Impeachment is a purely symbolic gesture that won't get POTUS removed and won't accomplish anything.


----------



## Ralyks

allheavymusic said:


> Support for Trump's border wall, space force (as part of an overall military budget increase), and a trade deal. The Democrats keep giving him anything he wants, because they share the same core interests. And yet the political theater of impeachment is supposed to be historic?
> 
> To reiterate, the US has a secret police force rounding up immigrants and putting them in concentration camps. We are, without much hyperbole, running a Children of Men type scenario. But the impeachable offense was the Ukraine call? Does anyone not in the media genuinely find this compelling? How is this going to improve anyone's life? Impeachment is a purely symbolic gesture that won't get POTUS removed and won't accomplish anything.



While there should be consequences to what he is doing with immigrants, unfortunately the situation surrounding Ukraine is what's outlined in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. And yes, I'm aware of the irony as I type this.


----------



## bostjan

allheavymusic said:


> Support for Trump's border wall, space force (as part of an overall military budget increase), and a trade deal. The Democrats keep giving him anything he wants, because they share the same core interests. And yet the political theater of impeachment is supposed to be historic?
> 
> To reiterate, the US has a secret police force rounding up immigrants and putting them in concentration camps. We are, without much hyperbole, running a Children of Men type scenario. But the impeachable offense was the Ukraine call? Does anyone not in the media genuinely find this compelling? How is this going to improve anyone's life? Impeachment is a purely symbolic gesture that won't get POTUS removed and won't accomplish anything.



Well, Trump's behaviour with Ukraine threatens the Democratic party directly. So, of course they took special offense. When GWB wanted an illegal war in Iraq, the dems voted yes, despite the facts available at the time pointing strongly to bullshit. When the Patriot Act came up, the dems gleefully voted to take away the Constitutional Rights of Americans. When Trump took office and immediately started dismantling the EPA, no one in congress batted an eye. But interfering with elections is not only bad behaviour; it threatens the political careers of the dems themselves.

Keep an eye on how the dems and republicans spin the impeachment into a number of talking points in 2020, which is an election year not only for president, but for many congresspeople as well. Neither of them really have the interests of you nor me in mind; it's all a game. Trump got caught trying to cheat at the game he almost got caught trying to cheat at before, but the ref's are all somehow on his team. It's just a cluster.


----------



## USMarine75

A story in pictures...


















^(Obvious Secretary of Space)


















tl;dr Ergo, we need to impeach.


----------



## Randy

That head to hand size ratio tho


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> While there should be consequences


Not a single one of these rich motherfuckers will ever face actual consequences for anything they've done. They don't care because the worst thing that can ever happen to them is maybe lose a little money. They will never wind up homeless in the street. They will never do a real prison sentence. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, so what? He's still going to live out his days in a comfort people like us can only daydream about.


----------



## Vostre Roy

possumkiller said:


> Not a single one of these rich motherfuckers […]



Thanks to your avatar, I just read that part with Samuel Jackson's voice


----------



## stockwell

Trump only exists because he's immune to real consequences. His signature move is to stiff contractors and employees, and if they sue or seek recrimination, tie them up in court until they run out of funds. There's dozens of cases of him doing this. Every one of his business ventures has been a failure or a scam, but he always profits because they either never get caught or because he uses them as marketing for his brand. But he's the rule, not the exception. Once you're in the club, you're in for good. There's never any real consequences. It doesn't even matter whether you fail or succeed. At that level, money generates money, it buys almost unlimited power, and everyone around you shares the same interest in keeping it. 

I mean, Bill Clinton isn't exactly suffering. He's still a huge political player. He's still wealthy and has immense power through the Clinton Foundation. HRC would have been president if she hadn't been surprisingly terrible at campaigning. A slap on the wrist would hurt Trump more than impeachment would. He's going to play the victim all the way to a second term if there's no coherent movement to oppose him.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> Not a single one of these rich motherfuckers will ever face actual consequences for anything they've done. They don't care because the worst thing that can ever happen to them is maybe lose a little money. They will never wind up homeless in the street. They will never do a real prison sentence. Even if Trump is impeached and removed from office, so what? He's still going to live out his days in a comfort people like us can only daydream about.



I agree with everything except the last part. And while I'm not saying you're wrong on that either, I want to see what SDNY does first once he leaves office, because they'd have mailed him and his family to the wall already if he wasn't in office.


----------



## bostjan

Clinton is much richer now than before he took office. Trump probably is too, but he hides everything, so we'll never know.
You guys are right, though. Trump will never face the music for any of his evil. He ran on the promise of eliminating corruption. How many corrupt politicians has he managed to expose?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> How many corrupt politicians has he managed to expose?



I can think of at least one.


----------



## possumkiller

Vostre Roy said:


> Thanks to your avatar, I just read that part with Samuel Jackson's voice


That is how all of my posts should be read.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My prediction is that more articles of impeachment get written up before this ultimately gets voted on or at least before he leaves office.
> 
> I think the Dems win court cases on either subpeonas or financial records in the next few months and those open up a new can of worms, and Trump extorting Ukraine the day after Mueller testifies says Trump is easily emboldened and gets sloppier and more brazen with every move. What we know as of today is the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> I said it earlier in this thread, this will be like Cosby/Weinstein/Franken, where they exhaust all their denials and deflections of specific details on a single case, then it's two cases, then three cases, before it metastasizes. GOP surprisingly stubborn but they'll be sick of him before he's gone.


I think you're probably going to be right, when the dust settles. As it stands, part of what makes the Ukraine allegations carry so much weight is it's basically the same thing he was accused of with Russia. The biggest thing going on in his favor is his new head of the National Security Council slashed the number of non-political-appointee staff, largely to cut the risk of another whistleblower. 



allheavymusic said:


> Support for Trump's border wall, space force (as part of an overall military budget increase), and a trade deal. The Democrats keep giving him anything he wants, because they share the same core interests. And yet the political theater of impeachment is supposed to be historic?


I can't speak to whatever happened with wall funding - I suspect it wasn't much and had a ton of strings attached, but I haven't seen the details of what was passed. And the space force is dumb. 

But, if you mean the renegotiated Nafta, it wasn't perfect by any means, but for the most part it addressed Democratic concerns and read like the Democrats wrote it. I wouldn't necessarily call that a win for Trump - he was eager to get _any_ kind of a "win" he could put his name to done, the Dems took advantage of that, and to boot passing that the same week they impeached him sort of undercuts his "Do Nothing Democrats" attack. Just because it happened while he was president, doesn't mean it was really a win for him. And if you mean the China trade deal, just keep in mind that "details are still being finalized" and even if it does go through - which is more likely than not I'd say - all we're doing is reverting back to where we were in May. It may be a "win" for Trump, but it's a problem he created and where we're still worse off than when he came into office.


----------



## bostjan

Why are we even talking about a space force when NASA's budget is less than half of what it was during the Apollo years?


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> Why are we even talking about a space force when NASA's budget is less than half of what it was during the Apollo years?



Because NASA isn't shooting shit up.


----------



## Vostre Roy

bostjan said:


> Why are we even talking about a space force when NASA's budget is less than half of what it was during the Apollo years?



Because the NASA couldn't get to Mars by the end of his first or second mandate, so no chance to have his name in the history books with that. But being the one who implemented a new branch to the army? Guess that'll do!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Why are we even talking about a space force when NASA's budget is less than half of what it was during the Apollo years?



As if this isn't going to become a vehicle to funnel billions to defense contractors.

This is going to pay for the college tuition of every executive at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing's children until the inevitable heat death of our solar system.


----------



## spudmunkey

See, I'm torn on this one.

So: as much as I hate the guy and basically everything he's ever stood for...he *is* the president, and his party is currently the majority of the senate. So while I don't like it, that does come with certain perks. A part of that is a few pet projects.

Do i want or see a need for a "space force"? No. Do I want to see more money pumped into space exploration and associated technology? Yes. What's one of the biggest drivers of technological advancement besides pornography? The military. So, like...I kinda "get" it...

But it's so hard to even get past the name: "Space Force".


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> See, I'm torn on this one.
> 
> So: as much as I hate the guy and basically everything he's ever stood for...he *is* the president, and his party is currently the majority of the senate. So while I don't like it, that does come with certain perks. A part of that is a few pet projects.
> 
> Do i want or see a need for a "space force"? No. Do I want to see more money pumped into space exploration and associated technology? Yes. What's one of the biggest drivers of technological advancement besides pornography? The military. So, like...I kinda "get" it...
> 
> But it's so hard to even get past the name: "Space Force".



In theory, a galatic branch of the military would be cool and possibly necessary for the future. But I stress "the future". This absolutely seems more like something to invest in AFTER we work on our infrastructure a hell of a lot more.

Also, yes, Space Force is an awful, awful name.


----------



## BlackSG91

Forget the Space Force, now Donald is back on his rant about windmills again! The windmills are mostly made in in China & Germany (....not the U.S.) and are killing the bald eagle...maybe that's why they are more bald. And the windmills are spewing out gases and emissions according to the orange man in the oval office. This lunatic currently in power is getting more bizarre each & everyday and the Republicans and others just keep enabling his alternate reality world.

Actually I don't blame Trump because he is what he is. It is the enablers that is a threat to the U.S. especially evangelical Christians. These group of self-righteous sock puppets make me want to puke in my soup. They get a hard-on when Trump appoints Supreme court judges like Bart Kavanaugh who fucking RAPES women in his drunken college years! White evangelicals are a bunch of sell-outs and they know it deep down. As far as I'm concerned I think Jesus would hang himself today if he knew the followers he attracted are nothing but a bunch of dotards!


;>)/


----------



## spudmunkey

He complained about windmill fumes. I think he's just spelling the wind blowing his bullshit/hot air back at himself.


----------



## Randy

BlackSG91 said:


> It is the enablers



A valuable point. The non-stop rallies are just as much about building Trump's ego as they are about building his base. And seemingly every night he's behind the podium at a rally making another dubious claim and being met with applause and zero repercussions, so the lies keep getting bigger and more flagrant.

At this point Trump and his followers are a toxic, abusive relationship neither will willingly break on their own.


----------



## sleewell

trump hates wind power bc some were constructed by one of his golf courses. he sued and of course lost and was forced to pay their legal fees.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> trump hates wind power bc some were constructed by one of his golf courses. he sued and of course lost and was forced to pay their legal fees.



I never put two and two together, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is why he constantly talks (incorrectly and incoherently) about wind power.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> I never put two and two together, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is why he constantly talks (incorrectly and incoherently) about wind power.



Correct, and that's also why he always talks about LED lights and low flow toilets, too. Mr. Big Brain supervillain is basically trying to slash regulations and speed up the destruction of the planet because he's a slum lord and he wants to save a few bucks.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I never put two and two together, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is why he constantly talks (incorrectly and incoherently) about wind power.


In Scotland, I believe. They were installed off shore and he fought them tooth and nail because he thought they fucked up the view. He's hated wind power ever since.



MaxOfMetal said:


> This is going to pay for the college tuition of every executive at Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing's children until the inevitable heat death of our solar system.



Oddly, a goal shared by the progressive left. They just differ sliiiiiiiiightly in their means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Oddly, a goal shared by the progressive left. They just differ sliiiiiiiiightly in their means.



Whatever you say, Mayor Pete.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Whatever you say, Mayor Pete.


It was a joke.  Universal college tuition vs universal war.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> It was a joke.  Universal college tuition vs universal war.



I too was making a funny.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> It was a joke.





MaxOfMetal said:


> I too was making a funny.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I too was making a funny.


Just checking.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> In Scotland, I believe. They were installed off shore and he fought them tooth and nail because he thought they fucked up the view. He's hated wind power ever since



I remember that situation very well, I just never equated the two. He's obviously petty enough to keep making ridiculous claims against wind power because of the situation near his golf course!


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I remember that situation very well, I just never equated the two. He's obviously petty enough to keep making ridiculous claims against wind power because of the situation near his golf course!


He also LOVED to shit on John Kerry for being a cyclist, and crashing and breaking his leg, I think, while overseas serving as Obama's Secretary of State. Don't remember his exact comments, but the gist was "he was riding a _bike_! Who could take someone seriously in negotiations if they knew he was someone who _rode bikes_?!?"

Oft-forgotten fact - in the late 80s, Trump was the key name sponsor of the Tour de Trump, an attempt to bring continental style bike racing to the US. His business ventures were beginning to sour around this time, he was a highly controversial figure and was protested at a number of the stages, and - arguably, worst of all - the tour became larger and more successful for several years after he dropped out as the Tour duPont, during which he was in bankruptcy proceedings.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> He also LOVED to shit on John Kerry for being a cyclist, and crashing and breaking his leg, I think, while overseas serving as Obama's Secretary of State. Don't remember his exact comments, but the gist was "he was riding a _bike_! Who could take someone seriously in negotiations if they knew he was someone who _rode bikes_?!?"
> 
> Oft-forgotten fact - in the late 80s, Trump was the key name sponsor of the Tour de Trump, an attempt to bring continental style bike racing to the US. His business ventures were beginning to sour around this time, he was a highly controversial figure and was protested at a number of the stages, and - arguably, worst of all - the tour became larger and more successful for several years after he dropped out as the Tour duPont, during which he was in bankruptcy proceedings.


Truly the Onion no longer serves a purpose.


----------



## Randy

> President Trump's tariffs on imports — meant to boost the economy — ultimately led to job losses and higher prices, a new study from the Federal Reserve has found.
> 
> "We find that tariff increases enacted in 2018 are associated with relative reductions in manufacturing employment and relative increases in producer prices," the report by Fed economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce reads.



https://thehill.com/policy/finance/...backfired-caused-job-losses-and-higher-prices


----------



## Ralyks

Pretty sure we all saw that coming.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> Pretty sure we all saw that coming.


Let’s see how they spin this one.


----------



## Xaios

They won't have to. The Trump faithful will simply say "fake news", same as they bleat to everything that deflates dear leader's narrative. The Trump camp itself won't even have to bother trying to address it.


----------



## Drew

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mpeachment-whistleblower-name-retweet-twitter

The media, IMO, has actually handled this pretty well - I remembered seeing a few headlines to this effect on Monday, but then nothing further, so for a while there I was wondering if I'd imagined it until I did a search. Stories note he re-tweeted a tweet alleging an indivudal was the whistleblower, but not mentioning the name, and the story is getting very little traction which, IMO, is appropriate. If Trump won't protect a whistleblower's identity, the press shouldn't help him blow their cover.


----------



## sleewell

so we have pompeo, bolton and mulvaney all sitting down with the president in august to try to convince him to release the aid because everyone thinks what they are doing is illegal (newsflash... it is). he refuses until the whistleblower comes forward, then he releases it when he realizes he got caught. 


and now we are going to have a trial without hearing from these people under oath??? i would love a trump supporter to explain how that makes sense. how can you make a determination of guilt or innocence without hearing from the most crucial witnesses who have direct knowledge of what happened? why is trump blocking their testimony if they would exonerate him?


----------



## Randy

Deja Vu



> According to Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, Biden said, “Anybody who can go down 3,000 feet in a mine can sure as hell learn to program as well... Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God’s sake!”
> 
> According to Weigel, the comment was met with silence from the audience.



https://thehill.com/changing-americ...6391-biden-tells-coal-miners-to-learn-to-code


----------



## Ralyks

I mean, coding really isn't that hard, and I get the point of the message, but that's the type of group that seems set in their ways and will have a much harder time transitioning to new careers. Even though we really do need to move away from what or president calls "beautiful, clean coal".


----------



## SpaceDock

The “anyone can code” argument is a failure, imo. It takes a certain type of person to sit at a desk and code 40+ hours a week. We really need to address what to do with the manual laborers in our society and sending them to a desk is not the answer to me. I think coding will get replaced in a large part by AI in the not too distant future. I would argue we need to get these dudes to help rebuild our roads, bridges, airports, school, and then help to maintain them. What is wrong with guys working with their hands?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> The “anyone can code” argument is a failure, imo. It takes a certain type of person to sit at a desk and code 40+ hours a week. We really need to address what to do with the manual laborers in our society and sending them to a desk is not the answer to me. I think coding will get replaced in a large part by AI in the not too distant future. I would argue we need to get these dudes to help rebuild our roads, bridges, airports, school, and then help to maintain them. What is wrong with guys working with their hands?



Really, that's the best solution: vocational training. We'll always need plumbers, steamfitters, electricians, machinists, carpenters, mechanics, etc. Skilled trades are in very high demand, and have been for almost two decades now. 

It's just going to take a huge investment in people, and the second you start talking about investing in people folks get all emotional about how they never got a hand out, etc. 

The skilled trade apocalypse is coming. We just don't have the apprentices to replace the folks who will be retiring in the next five years.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> I mean, coding really isn't that hard, and I get the point of the message, but that's the type of group that seems set in their ways and will have a much harder time transitioning to new careers. Even though we really do need to move away from what or president calls "beautiful, clean coal".





SpaceDock said:


> The “anyone can code” argument is a failure, imo. It takes a certain type of person to sit at a desk and code 40+ hours a week. We really need to address what to do with the manual laborers in our society and sending them to a desk is not the answer to me. I think coding will get replaced in a large part by AI in the not too distant future. I would argue we need to get these dudes to help rebuild our roads, bridges, airports, school, and then help to maintain them. What is wrong with guys working with their hands?



I pulled that quote out because that is almost universally understood as the "out of touch" line from Hillary in 2016. It's not that it applies exclusively to people working in coal mines, it's telling people working blue collar and manual labor type jobs that they're obsolete. That one line alone echoed in the midwest (where Hillary lost traditional blue collar union Democrats and ultimately lost the electoral college).

And for the record, this is what Yang's campaign is founded on, and here's Biden pretending like 2016 didn't happen and that Yang hasn't already beat back all of those arguments. In all studies of significance, job retraining doesn't work. A minimal amount of workers choose to participate, those that do have a graduation right sub 10%, and the ones that do have a <5% success rate finding and retaining a job.

@SpaceDock is right and even if it weren't for AI in programming, IT companies aren't hiring 55 year old repurposed coal miners who are leaving somewhere they'd worked for 20+ and expect salary and compensation comparable, and likely have medical issues and will be retiring sometime in the next 5 to 10 years versus a 22 year old college kid with none of that baggage. It's a non starter.

And I don't mean to be condescending but throughout all of human history, there have always been people who work in the fields. That's not to say, like, dumb people work bad jobs, smart people work good jobs. That was the whole purpose of the labor and union movement in this country; to properly compensate and bring dignity to blue collar work.

Telling people that "work" for a living they need to go to college and learn to work behind a computer 1.) already lost one election 2.) does not work in practice.


----------



## Randy

~1:40 to ~6:50


----------



## MaxOfMetal

You couldn't _pay me _to listen to those two talk at each other. Sorry.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> I would argue we need to get these dudes to help rebuild our roads, bridges, airports, school, and then help to maintain them. What is wrong with guys working with their hands?





MaxOfMetal said:


> Really, that's the best solution: vocational training. We'll always need plumbers, steamfitters, electricians, machinists, carpenters, mechanics, etc. Skilled trades are in very high demand, and have been for almost two decades now.



These. So much these.


----------



## Randy

That's fine, the cliff notes is basically what I covered in my post. Also the fact people who gravitate toward blue collar work are people who avoided or failed at college 30 years earlier in the first place. Also that the bulk of the "learn to code" argument is basically a condensed argument that blue collar work has little value in the modern world and they're encouraging people to work in STEM fields when meanwhile 8% of current jobs are in that work, so you're left with figuring out how to shoehorn 92% of people into 8% of openings.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> That's fine, the cliff notes is basically what I covered in my post. Also the fact people who gravitate toward blue collar work are people who avoided or failed at college 30 years earlier in the first place. Also that the bulk of the "learn to code" argument is basically a condensed argument that blue collar work has little value in the modern world and they're encouraging people to work in STEM fields when meanwhile 8% of current jobs are in that work, so you're left with figuring out how to shoehorn 92% of people into 8% of openings.



They want more educated, unemployed folks working for scraps because they're easier to control. They're desperate and scared and will do everything to survive the next day even if it means selling out their future.

Trades folk have power. They organize and fight, and that scares the ruling class on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Randy

For the record, I'm not a Yang guy but I think everyone that's made it this far into the primary have probably one thing they're especially knowledgeable of (and it's just a matter of how 1:1 that "thing" is to beating Donald Trump and governing), and that's one thing he's handled more concisely than everyone else.


----------



## bostjan

Having had worked with quite a few older blue collar folks, I get the ipression that it's a thing of pride above all else. Telling them to do college and become white collar is like telling someone to change religions. It's not only insulting a person's traits, but it's insulting their pride pretty directly.

And coal mining was never really a high paying occupation like oil derrick work or factory work.

STEM jobs have not been as opprotunity rich as they were prior to 2008. It's a severely undervalued skill set currently. Older people aren't letting that sink in. Sure, you _can_ make a lot of money, but most aren't. Skilled trades aren't even really making what they could be, but they bounced back better, that's all.

But anyway. Biden is polling poorly in Iowa and NH, so I get the feeling that he's losing momentum and, once the primaries start in earnest, he'll lose more momentum. But if the DNC continues pumping his campaign, it'll just end up repeating 2016 with a stale candidate republicans hate and only half of democrats can stomach. I think we all know that Trump is certain to be acquitted in the Senate, and once impeachment is over, the GOP is going to go after Biden relentlessly over Ukraine (which he has no way to respond to it, being that the accusations aren't even really directed at anything he _did_). If 2020 winds up just being a shittier version of 2016, be prepared for an even more belligerent Trump in 2021.

The GOP and Democratic parties both have been really proving their incompetence at governance for my entire lifetime, but the last five-six years, they've turned it up to ludacris speed. This year, they are both poised to try to make another quantum leap. Hot take: time to replace them all.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> They want more educated, unemployed folks working for scraps because they're easier to control. They're desperate and scared and will do everything to survive the next day even if it means selling out their future.
> 
> Trades folk have power. They organize and fight, and that scares the ruling class on both sides of the aisle.



Oh totally. It's actually quite remarkable the way the Democratic Party have turned their back on labor, with how they were THE party of Unions for the last 100 years but you look at how they elevate tech companies like Facebook or Amazon that are rabidly anti-labor and it makes sense.

This has been my argument since 2015 at least, the Democratic Party of the 2010s was all about using identity politics like race and sexual orientation as leverage to claim progressivism, while selling out labor and really most of the middle class.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Oh totally. It's actually quite remarkable the way the Democratic Party have turned their back on labor, with how they were THE party of Unions for the last 100 years but you look at how they elevate tech companies like Facebook or Amazon that are rabidly anti-labor and it makes sense.
> 
> This has been my argument since 2015 at least, the Democratic Party of the 2010s was all about using identity politics like race and sexual orientation as leverage to claim progressivism, while selling out labor and really most of the middle class.



You're spot on. 

Losing labor is probably the single biggest misstep of the Democratic Party. Full stop. 

It's allowed the GOP to swoop in and take over blue collar America.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Having had worked with quite a few older blue collar folks, I get the ipression that it's a thing of pride above all else. Telling them to do college and become white collar is like telling someone to change religions. It's not only insulting a person's traits, but it's insulting their pride pretty directly.
> 
> And coal mining was never really a high paying occupation like oil derrick work or factory work.
> 
> STEM jobs have not been as opprotunity rich as they were prior to 2008. It's a severely undervalued skill set currently. Older people aren't letting that sink in. Sure, you _can_ make a lot of money, but most aren't. Skilled trades aren't even really making what they could be, but they bounced back better, that's all.
> 
> But anyway. Biden is polling poorly in Iowa and NH, so I get the feeling that he's losing momentum and, once the primaries start in earnest, he'll lose more momentum. But if the DNC continues pumping his campaign, it'll just end up repeating 2016 with a stale candidate republicans hate and only half of democrats can stomach. I think we all know that Trump is certain to be acquitted in the Senate, and once impeachment is over, the GOP is going to go after Biden relentlessly over Ukraine (which he has no way to respond to it, being that the accusations aren't even really directed at anything he _did_). If 2020 winds up just being a shittier version of 2016, be prepared for an even more belligerent Trump in 2021.
> 
> The GOP and Democratic parties both have been really proving their incompetence at governance for my entire lifetime, but the last five-six years, they've turned it up to ludacris speed. This year, they are both poised to try to make another quantum leap. Hot take: time to replace them all.



Anecdotally, my dad went to visit my family who live downstate this last weekend. My grandmother is gravely ill and it seemed like an important (and maybe last) chance to get the whole family together.

Blue collar family, my grandmother worked as an aid in an old folks home and my grandfather was a union high rise construction worker. Not poor but a big family, so they lived modestly if-not hand to mouth. My grandmother is currently living off of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, my aunt and uncle have both been living there helping to take care of her, both of them have been on Social Security disability for at least the last 20 years.

Because of Facebook, everybody knows everybody's politics. My dad came in the door and all five of them started harassing him asking him why he doesn't like Trump and they didn't relent for the entire time he was there. It was painful, especially in the context of what's going on with everyone medically and everything else, and doubly when you're surrounded and also trying not to attack people in an otherwise solemn event. At one point my aunt said "anyone would have to be a total idiot to be a Democrat, I don't care who you are" so my dad said "where do you get your news from?" "I get it from a lot of places, I watch Fox News, AND I listen to Sean Hannity AND Rush Limbaugh on the radio".

He was obviously very uncomfortable with the whole thing but he squeaked through, finally was ready to leave and as a group they insisted he watch this video on the computer before he went. He said no, no that's okay and they insisted, so he did and it was I guess a YouTube video of Joe Biden superimposed into the Dog Whisperer being led around on a leash and told "no" not to touch people. It was so low brow and so low IQ.

But THESE are the people we're led to believe Joe Biden wins. Can't have a progressive candidate, they'll scare off all the blue collar and retiree class with all their socialism talk. You need somebody who's a centrist who can get their respect.  It's totally 2016 replayed.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

What the Democratic Party doesn't understand is that:

A) They abandoned these people and it's going to take a heck of a lot more than crusty old Joe Biden to win them back. 

B) These folks don't like to be talked down to. Most blue collar folks have been talked down to by management and who they perceive as the "liberal elite" forever. They can see through the bullshit when they want to. 

I work with these people. 

Sorry you and your dad had to deal with that, @Randy. Shit like that is the worst. I've pretty much excommunicated much of my extended family over this (I'm pretty sure they've done the same), and it's unfortunate.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> They abandoned these people
> 
> These folks don't like to be talked down to.
> 
> I work with these people.



Thank you. 

I'd even go as far as saying *I am* one of these people.

I just know that the big (and even small) companies will screw you just as hard or harder than the government when given the opportunity. The government does their fair share of screwing but to their own people, the bulk of it is still primarily in enabling the companies to do what they do; whether it's employers lowering wages, denying benefits, etc or the people you buy things from knowingly selling you overpriced, substandard or even dangerous merchandise (ie: medical care,drugs and drinking water).

All the worst times for people in this country were predicated on deregulation and allowing the companies to do what they want. So I'm as skeptical of the government as anyone but when the GOP says the solution is more deregulation, I know 1.) they're wrong 2.) they know they're wrong, and it's disingenuous.

That's actually kind of my gripe with the Democrats in 2016 and the theme continuing to now. I wasn't going to the GOP for solutions to my issues because I knew they were out-and-out lying about their solutions (ie: claiming to be the family values party, being led by a serial philanderer and locking kids in cages), and the Democrats have evolved into being an almost co-equal party of offering solutions they know don't work.

That's kinda what 2016 came down to. Selling under-informed, desperate and prideful people on one lie or the other. Either Donald "I'm saving your jobs and bringing even more of them back" Trump or Hillary "You can be retrained to be the next Gates/Jobs/Bezos. All 300 million of you" Clinton, and everyone gravitated toward the path of least resistance. Now we've had 4 years of brainwashing and the Democrats now trying to trot out the same lie.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I too am a blue collar worker disenfranchised by the Democrats. 

I can see the attraction of running to the GOP out of spite or the path of least resistance. I can also see the apathy and the wanting the world to burn.


----------



## Randy

Misery loves company.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Anecdotally, my dad went to visit my family who live downstate this last weekend. My grandmother is gravely ill and it seemed like an important (and maybe last) chance to get the whole family together.
> 
> Blue collar family, my grandmother worked as an aid in an old folks home and my grandfather was a union high rise construction worker. Not poor but a big family, so they lived modestly if-not hand to mouth. My grandmother is currently living off of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, my aunt and uncle have both been living there helping to take care of her, both of them have been on Social Security disability for at least the last 20 years.
> 
> Because of Facebook, everybody knows everybody's politics. My dad came in the door and all five of them started harassing him asking him why he doesn't like Trump and they didn't relent for the entire time he was there. It was painful, especially in the context of what's going on with everyone medically and everything else, and doubly when you're surrounded and also trying not to attack people in an otherwise solemn event. At one point my aunt said "anyone would have to be a total idiot to be a Democrat, I don't care who you are" so my dad said "where do you get your news from?" "I get it from a lot of places, I watch Fox News, AND I listen to Sean Hannity AND Rush Limbaugh on the radio".
> 
> He was obviously very uncomfortable with the whole thing but he squeaked through, finally was ready to leave and as a group they insisted he watch this video on the computer before he went. He said no, no that's okay and they insisted, so he did and it was I guess a YouTube video of Joe Biden superimposed into the Dog Whisperer being led around on a leash and told "no" not to touch people. It was so low brow and so low IQ.
> 
> But THESE are the people we're led to believe Joe Biden wins. Can't have a progressive candidate, they'll scare off all the blue collar and retiree class with all their socialism talk. You need somebody who's a centrist who can get their respect.  It's totally 2016 replayed.


Sorry to hear that, Randy.

My dad voted for Trump. I don't know what sorts of conversations he had with other people, but, he knew I didn't like Trump (although I wasn't a fan of either major candidate), and he never tried to argue with me about it. At his funeral, though, my aunt and a couple of cousins got into a pretty hot political debate evoking my dad's opinions a bunch. It was pretty uncomfortable, but funerals are rearely pleasant.


----------



## JSanta

Chiming in with a similar story. My immigrant father (from the former Soviet Block) has been a skilled tradesmen (machining) his whole life. I would say he was fairly centrist for most of my life (I'm in my mid-30s), but something changed since the recession. He refers to shop management using their academic backgrounds in a derogatory manner (those f-ing MBAs don't know shit about running a business (with a quick apology to his son with a doctorate in business haha)), and has clinched onto the foundation that he is being screwed by everyone. 

We can't talk about politics, but he's very much in the Trump can't do wrong camp. Dunno, my hunch is that a lot of people like my father would rather cut their nose off to spite their face rather than admit that things aren't going well for them. Especially in his industry.


----------



## iamaom

bostjan said:


> and once impeachment is over, the GOP is going to go after Biden relentlessly over Ukraine (which he has no way to respond to it


He'll probably challenge them to a push-up contest.


----------



## narad

The learn to code argument is terrible. The type of coding skill you'd be able to acquire at some vocational transfer type training program would be so mediocre you'd be relegated to some sort of data entry / data munging. You might as well just be saying "OK boomer".

We gotta ditch Biden asap.


----------



## diagrammatiks

It’s all such a train wreck.


----------



## Hollowway

Do you guys think that if a leftist candidate could win the democratic nomination (Sanders, for instance) that the dems could peel away any significant number of Trump supporters? Much of what Sanders campaigns on is similar to what Trump campaigned on, from the financial impact on the average American’s finances. (Obviously the immigration/gay rights/abortion stuff is different.) But I’m supposing that if a Trump voter is convinced that their lives are getting better, that the tax cuts are going to put more money in their pocket, that the tariffs are going to increase their wages, and that immigration control will provide them more jobs, then there’s not a lot more that could shake them loose. In other words, it seems to me that Trump has not done everything he promised, and has not accomplished much into better the average American. But when I talk with a lot of Trump voters, I hear them tell me the opposite. So we saw a bunch of 2008/2012 Obama voters move over to Trump. Do you guys think there is any chance a reasonable number could move back, if one of the more leftist candidates wins the Democratic nomination? Or if Biden, the centrist, wins it?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Hollowway said:


> Do you guys think that if a leftist candidate could win the democratic nomination (Sanders, for instance) that the dems could peel away any significant number of Trump supporters? Much of what Sanders campaigns on is similar to what Trump campaigned on, from the financial impact on the average American’s finances. (Obviously the immigration/gay rights/abortion stuff is different.) But I’m supposing that if a Trump voter is convinced that their lives are getting better, that the tax cuts are going to put more money in their pocket, that the tariffs are going to increase their wages, and that immigration control will provide them more jobs, then there’s not a lot more that could shake them loose. In other words, it seems to me that Trump has not done everything he promised, and has not accomplished much into better the average American. But when I talk with a lot of Trump voters, I hear them tell me the opposite. So we saw a bunch of 2008/2012 Obama voters move over to Trump. Do you guys think there is any chance a reasonable number could move back, if one of the more leftist candidates wins the Democratic nomination? Or if Biden, the centrist, wins it?



I don't think any candidate that aligns with the Democratic Party will peel any voters from Trump's base and those directly adjacent.

See what Randy posted. These people hate "democrats" regardless of the policies or real world ramifications. It's not a political stance for them, it's literally who they are. 

Really, we just need to get people out to fucking vote.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Hollowway said:


> Do you guys think that if a leftist candidate could win the democratic nomination (Sanders, for instance) that the dems could peel away any significant number of Trump supporters? Much of what Sanders campaigns on is similar to what Trump campaigned on, from the financial impact on the average American’s finances. (Obviously the immigration/gay rights/abortion stuff is different.) But I’m supposing that if a Trump voter is convinced that their lives are getting better, that the tax cuts are going to put more money in their pocket, that the tariffs are going to increase their wages, and that immigration control will provide them more jobs, then there’s not a lot more that could shake them loose. In other words, it seems to me that Trump has not done everything he promised, and has not accomplished much into better the average American. But when I talk with a lot of Trump voters, I hear them tell me the opposite. So we saw a bunch of 2008/2012 Obama voters move over to Trump. Do you guys think there is any chance a reasonable number could move back, if one of the more leftist candidates wins the Democratic nomination? Or if Biden, the centrist, wins it?



there is absolutely no way the democrats win this election unless something prevents trump from running. And even then they still have a big chance of losing to whoever else they run. 

you said it right. People need to believe things are better. Facts be damned.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> there is absolutely no way the democrats win this election unless something prevents trump from running. And even then they still have a big chance of losing to whoever else they run.
> 
> you said it right. People need to believe things are better. Facts be damned.



I don't think you're wrong. 

Biden will probably wind up being the candidate, and he'll probably do a shitty job campaigning. 

As much as I don't want another four years of Trump, I have very little faith in any stakeholders here. 

But, I can only do what I can. I'll continue to fight the good fight, and I'll cast my own vote when it's time.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, I think this race is going to be all about getting people off the sidelines.

I do think there was some regret about Trump from some Republican voters (evidenced by some Reps. like Flake and Amash) but I think that leveled off within the first year or two. We've condensed down to "Ride or Die" Trumpers a long time ago and the numbers imply even then it's still dangerously close.

Other than the chance (likelihood) of more interference, the two major concerns are Democratic turnout (which is why I'm vocal about not letting Biden and the party turn voters off this time) but the thing that worries me most is how many REPUBLICANS sat on the sidelines last time and show up in 2020? I see so many "Trump 2020: No More Bullshit" "Trump 2020: Fuck Your Feelings", shirts, hats, flags etc. I've got to wonder how many people were apolitical or cynical about party politics that have been radicalized by the brand AFTER 2016.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, Castro dropped out.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Yeah, I think this race is going to be all about getting people off the sidelines.
> 
> I do think there was some regret about Trump from some Republican voters (evidenced by some Reps. like Flake and Amash) but I think that leveled off within the first year or two. We've condensed down to "Ride or Die" Trumpers a long time ago and the numbers imply even then it's still dangerously close.
> 
> Other than the chance (likelihood) of more interference, the two major concerns are Democratic turnout (which is why I'm vocal about not letting Biden and the party turn voters off this time) but the thing that worries me most is how many REPUBLICANS sat on the sidelines last time and show up in 2020? I see so many "Trump 2020: No More Bullshit" "Trump 2020: Fuck Your Feelings", shirts, hats, flags etc. I've got to wonder how many people were apolitical or cynical about party politics that have been radicalized by the brand AFTER 2016.



Not just republicans, but fairly centrist/moderates too. 

I can't tell you how many fairly apolitical, centrist folks I know who are now dyed in the wool, hard-core anti-democrat. 

It's not even that they're especially for Trump, I'd say most range from outright not liking him, to ambivalence, but so against any form of "progressiveness". 

The crazy thing is how young some of these guys are, late 20s/early 30s, but talk as if they've lived through the Cold War. 

They're not even that regressive. They're for gay marriage, abortion rights, unions, etc. it's just any time you mention democrats they just scowl and regurgitate thoroughly debunked conservative talking points and "gotchas" about "socialism" and "entitlements" or Climate Change. It's just so weird. 

These guys have absolutely nothing to be bitter about, yet act they've been physically assaulted. Blows my mind.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> What the Democratic Party doesn't understand is that:
> 
> A) They abandoned these people and it's going to take a heck of a lot more than crusty old Joe Biden to win them back.
> 
> B) These folks don't like to be talked down to. Most blue collar folks have been talked down to by management and who they perceive as the "liberal elite" forever. They can see through the bullshit when they want to.
> 
> I work with these people.
> 
> Sorry you and your dad had to deal with that, @Randy. Shit like that is the worst. I've pretty much excommunicated much of my extended family over this (I'm pretty sure they've done the same), and it's unfortunate.



I work in manufacturing plant. One of the few White Collar people here. Those of us with progressive views literally can't speak openly about them without catching the ire of someone. We're in a niche industry, and there's no reason we have to stay inside what we do. But we do, because that's the industry the parent company knows. That's how people are though. They could often improve their situation by being open to change. But change is scary, especially when it requires you rethinking the way you look at and understand the world. To most Americans, socialism=dictatorship. It means you don't get to keep your hard earned money. When it reality, it generally means more prosperity for everyone in the long term. People also need to feel like they can earn an advantage somehow. Its in our DNA. Acquire power to support Legacy. But there's a bigger overarching Legacy here. The human one. If we like the idea of a future where everyone has what they need and all the opportunity the universe has to offer, people have to learn to accept some challenging ideas. Specifically, that one kind of work isn't better or more valuable than another kind of work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Well, Castro dropped out.



I missed this post the first time. 

It's a shame as I really liked his platform. The only thing I'd really ding him on is fossil fuel support, but it's a pragmatic stance (especially coming from Texas) and nobody's perfect. 

He probably could have had a better education plan too. 

Oh well. The drum beats on.


----------



## possumkiller

I can see Trump winning again. There is nobody to oppose him that really lights a fire under people. They need another Obama style character that can get everyone on the same page.

Watch Trump win 2020 and his buddies get term limits abolished. The Space Force will be swearing allegiance to Trump's head in 2060...


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think any candidate that aligns with the Democratic Party will peel any voters from Trump's base and those directly adjacent.
> 
> See what Randy posted. These people hate "democrats" regardless of the policies or real world ramifications. It's not a political stance for them, it's literally who they are.
> 
> Really, we just need to get people out to fucking vote.


This, pretty much. Most of the moderate GOP is long gone, what's left is pretty staunch voters who are probably Trump supporters before they're Repuublicans. Any strategy focused on peeling away Republican votes, I would think, is probably going to be doomed to failure. 



Randy said:


> Yeah, I think this race is going to be all about getting people off the sidelines.
> 
> I do think there was some regret about Trump from some Republican voters (evidenced by some Reps. like Flake and Amash) but I think that leveled off within the first year or two. We've condensed down to "Ride or Die" Trumpers a long time ago and the numbers imply even then it's still dangerously close.
> 
> Other than the chance (likelihood) of more interference, the two major concerns are Democratic turnout (which is why I'm vocal about not letting Biden and the party turn voters off this time) but the thing that worries me most is how many REPUBLICANS sat on the sidelines last time and show up in 2020? I see so many "Trump 2020: No More Bullshit" "Trump 2020: Fuck Your Feelings", shirts, hats, flags etc. I've got to wonder how many people were apolitical or cynical about party politics that have been radicalized by the brand AFTER 2016.


This is pretty much my take, though I'm a little more optimistic than you. 

Democrats outnumber Republicans, and while the polling numbers are aways a little in flux, it's probably by 3-5 percentage points. Clinton won by 2 percentage points in 2016 and lost the EC by a hair's breath, so we probably need a win of at least 3 points in the popular vote for, assuming similar demographic patterns as 2016, a Democratic candidate to win the Electoral College. there are two basic ways to do that - hold the independent vote to no worse than a draw (Trump won independents about 60-40 in 2016), or do a no worse job getting Democrats and Democratically-alighed Independents to turn out than the GOP. Either alone would probably be enough to beat Trump, both together would likely make it a landslide. 

I'm seeing a lot of people calling or a Trump win in 2020 as basically a done deal. I don't think the facts support that - Trump's disapproval numbers are consistently in the 52-54% range, his approval numbers are consistently in the 40-42% range, which both are historically bad. In 2016 he was seen as a gamble and a way to buck the establishment, which helped him with independents. That's not true today, where he's a known quantity. Some of his policies have been fairly popular, like standing up to China, but even there he's absolutely slammed the US farming industry and manufacturing industries with his trade war, and his tax cuts are widely seen as helping the rich more than middle class Americans. In head to head polls pretty much every Democratic challenger outpolls him, Democrats have a demographic advantage, and the Democratic voters are pretty energized and have consistently ranked "beating Trump" as the top criteria they have in a candidate. 

Looking at all of this, I think you'd have to be crazy to call a Trump win a foregone conclusion. You don't have to necessarily agree with me that Trump is a modest underdog, exactly, but I think you have to at least have a competitive race as your base case.


----------



## Randy

That's fine but I think 2016 teaches us the assumed reality a year out has minimal effect on game day, considering everything that happens in between.

I agree the two core factors will be trying to break even or gain in independents, or do a better job getting Dems out than Rs. The main trajectory of the conversation is that most of the people chiming in right now don't have any confidence the Dems can do that based on what appears to be the current performance and recent history (2016).

If 2020 is an exact replay of 2016 but with Biden and just what we know about Trump since then, I think Dems still lose by the same margins or worse.


----------



## bostjan

Outnumbering your political opponents means nothing in the 21st Century. GW Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore and it was a big deal recounting votes and so forth. Trump lost the popular vote to Hilary by about 3 million votes, but no one batted an eye. Yes there are more democrats than republicans, in terms of voters, but the republicans will likely easily maintain the Senate for the next election or two, and may even retake the house. 

If Biden had been in a position to run in 2016, maybe it would have been different, but now, he's older and crankier, and I don't think people trust that he'll have his wits in four years.

Face it, though, political parties are about consolidation of political power and supporting the establishment status quo. A big part of why Trump won in 2016 (and why Obama won in 2008) was the perception that they were _against_ the establishment. Obama was too timid to bite the hand that ushered him into the office and Trump is the guy the establishment had been working for all along. But no candidate who truly pisses off the establishment will ever get close to the presidency, because the establishment decides, ultimately. It doesn't matter if 90% of people like the populist candidate more than the establishment candidate, because the votes that make the king are not cast by the people, but by the establishment on behalf of the people. And before you put a tinfoil hat on my head, just look at 2016. Really, virtually nobody liked Trump (during the primaries), but most people didn't like Clinton, either. The candidates with the most people who really liked them early on were sidelined in the primaries. It's because the parties care about what's best for the party, not the people.


----------



## Ralyks

Qasem Soleimani: Iran Quds force leader killed, Iranian state TV reports https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463

Uhh, so Trump made THAT happen...


----------



## stockwell

I don't know what to say. The Democrats are going to get in some sick burns about how reckless Trump is and then strap in for both parties' favorite hobby, trying to glass the Middle East. There's no outcome to a war with Iran that doesn't end in absurd bloodshed and death. I hate 2020 already.


----------



## Hollowway

Can anyone tell me why we’ve been trying so hard to get into a war with Iran? I mean, I get the, “they’re doing bad things over there,” but we gave a pass to the Saudis when that reporter was killed, and we gave a pass to the Turks invading when we stopped helping the Kurds. But Trump (aka the people manipulating him) have been doing everything that can to prod Iran into striking, so we can get into a war. But why?


----------



## eggy in a bready

Hollowway said:


> Can anyone tell me why we’ve been trying so hard to get into a war with Iran? I mean, I get the, “they’re doing bad things over there,” but we gave a pass to the Saudis when that reporter was killed, and we gave a pass to the Turks invading when we stopped helping the Kurds. But Trump (aka the people manipulating him) have been doing everything that can to prod Iran into striking, so we can get into a war. But why?


I mean, how else is Raytheon going to make money?

Also, it's an election year


----------



## MaxOfMetal

eggy in a bready said:


> I mean, how else is Raytheon going to make money?
> 
> Also, it's an election year


----------



## eggy in a bready

Aaaalso, the UAE and Turkey are allies, so it wouldn't exactly make sense to invade them


----------



## bostjan

There are really only two warring powers in the ME: Saudi Arabia and Iran. Every conflict in the region ties into one or both of those. Yemen: rebels backed (and most likely instigated) by Iran against the established government backed (and most likely placed in power) by Saudi. Israel: Hezbullah backed by Iran versus Israel backed by the West (which is supported by Saudi). Syria: three way war between Asaad (backed by Russia) versus the Sunni rebellion (Saudi funded) versus the Shiites (using Iranian weapons and, most likely, troops). Etc. Etc.

The Saudi government is just as scary as the Iranian government, but because the Saudis sell oil to the USA (and her allies), everyone (meaning governments except Iran) is cool with them brutally and cruelly murdering their own people, as long as they stay out of Israel and stick to torturing/killing brown people.

Here in the USA, we seem more interested in protecting Israel than we are in protecting our own nation, because we love Jesus. And we have been very interested, since G HW Bush, in spinning a narrative, largely from lies, that Iran is a big bad that wants to kill us all, and that Saudi Arabia loves us and wants to help. So, we pissed off Iran, by arming the Taliban and putting Saddam Hussein into power, but, whoops, both of those are bad, so we have to get rid of them, but how do we stop more like them? I guess we keep wars going on in both of Iran's Eastern and Western neighbours ad eternum...

Now that there's the internet, with it's vast plethora of facts at our fingertips, it's easier to see through the Bush-era BS, and, I think, a lot of Trump supporters did, but, for unknown rationales, thought Trump would get us out of there. No one will get us out of there, though.

So, what we have been trying to do with Iran, ever since their current government came into existance, was to keep them as angry as possible without getting into a direct war, and keep them distracted from the Saudis, in hopes that they will get exhausted and somehow self-destruct. It was GHWB's plan since he was CIA, and even though he's dead, his ideas live on in his followers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Now that there's the internet, with it's vast plethora of facts at our fingertips, it's easier to see through the Bush-era BS, and, I think, a lot of Trump supporters did, but, for unknown rationales, thought Trump would get us out of there. No one will get us out of there, though.



I shit you not, in the last 24 hours I've had not one, not two, but three Trumpers I work with use the Bush2 era tag line "We fight them there so we don't have to face them [here]." in a pseudo-justification for maybe going to war with Iran. 

Bonkers.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I shit you not, in the last 24 hours I've had not one, not two, but three Trumpers I work with use the Bush2 era tag line "We fight them there so we don't have to face them [here]." in a pseudo-justification for maybe going to war with Iran.
> 
> Bonkers.



Fool me once, shame on uh... you. Fool me tw, uh .. we wont get fooled again.


----------



## zappatton2




----------



## Ralyks

David Cross is a treasure


----------



## sleewell

trump said it best:

"@BarackObama will attack Iran in the not too distant future because it will help him win the election," Trump tweeted on Nov. 14, 2011. 

Days later, he said, “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran,” according to a video posted this week by a Washington Post video editor. 

"In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran," he followed up on Nov. 29, 2011. 

Nearly a year later, on Oct. 22, 2012, Trump repeated the same claim, writing, "Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected — be careful Republicans!"

In October 2012, Trump also suggested that Obama would "launch a strike in Libya or Iran" because his "poll numbers are in tailspin."


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's fine but I think 2016 teaches us the assumed reality a year out has minimal effect on game day, considering everything that happens in between.
> 
> I agree the two core factors will be trying to break even or gain in independents, or do a better job getting Dems out than Rs. The main trajectory of the conversation is that most of the people chiming in right now don't have any confidence the Dems can do that based on what appears to be the current performance and recent history (2016).
> 
> If 2020 is an exact replay of 2016 but with Biden and just what we know about Trump since then, I think Dems still lose by the same margins or worse.


No, I agree with the first point - the best we can do now, 11 months out from the election, is sort of take the lay of the land. Broadly speaking, while Trump's previous edge in the electoral college based on the distribution of his supporters *probably* still holds (it's complicated by the suburbs increasingly going blue, but for the sake of estimating a conservative starting point, let's say it's not enough to matter), the demographic makeup of the population _as a whole_ is favorable to Democrats, and arguably a little more so in 2020 than it was in 2016. If you're going to sit down and make a list of positives and negatives for the Democrats in 2020, that one's a clear positive I think. (Offsetting, of course, is an incumbency advantage, and one likely augmented by Trump not hesitating to - how to say this gently - do things most other candidates wouldn't to sue the power of incumbency to his advantage). 

Personally, I think Biden would have done better in the Rust Belt than Clinton, but you're right - I think assuming we're just going to re-fight 2016 is probably a dangerous mistake. 



bostjan said:


> Outnumbering your political opponents means nothing in the 21st Century. GW Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore and it was a big deal recounting votes and so forth. Trump lost the popular vote to Hilary by about 3 million votes, but no one batted an eye. Yes there are more democrats than republicans, in terms of voters, but the republicans will likely easily maintain the Senate for the next election or two, and may even retake the house.
> 
> If Biden had been in a position to run in 2016, maybe it would have been different, but now, he's older and crankier, and I don't think people trust that he'll have his wits in four years.


I think you misunderstood my point. 


The Senate is very likely not in play. There are more rural states than urban ones, and the Senate is state-weighted rather than population-weighted. Meanwhile, because the House is population-weighted, the GOP will have an uphill battle taking it back. It's not impossible, but I think your base-case in 2020 has to be a split Congress where current control holds. 
Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, yes, nearly two percentage points, and still lost. However, based on how narrow the margins were in the "swing states" that broke to Trump - roughly 100,000 votes all in in enough states to shift the outcome - that's a pretty good estimation of the margin the Democrats need to win, two points, to take the Electoral College. And, while my estimation in the post you're responding to wasn't especially scientific, if we're seeing an advantage in registration in the realm of 3-5 points rather than 2, that strongly suggests that if both parties do an equal job turning out voters, then the Democrats should be favored to win. 



bostjan said:


> It doesn't matter if 90% of people like the populist candidate more than the establishment candidate, because the votes that make the king are not cast by the people, but by the establishment on behalf of the people. And before you put a tinfoil hat on my head, just look at 2016. Really, virtually nobody liked Trump (during the primaries), but most people didn't like Clinton, either. The candidates with the most people who really liked them early on were sidelined in the primaries.


The problem with this argument, though, is that you're conflating personal favorability numbers with votes. Plenty of people_ liked _Sanders. They just didn't want to vote for him. Yes, the primary is decided by delegates and not by popular vote, just as the general election is decided by the Electoral College rather than popular vote... But, Sanders got 43.1% of the "popular vote" in the primary to Clinton's 55.2%, losing by about 8 points. Sanders actually _outperformed _in the delegate count, getting 46% of delegates to Clinton's 54%, so the indirect representation of the primary system actually _helped_ him, rather than somehow blocked him from winning as you're alleging here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Another 3500 troops to the Middle East. Cool.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Another 3500 troops to the Middle East. Cool.



We'll see where it goes. I don't like the direction things are going but my threshold for outrage is a direct preemptive strike against a foreign government or outright war, and the thing with the Qods guy is a definite provocation but I'd still put that a smidge below those two things. 

My biggest concern is provoking Iran/Iraq in that way, in a place where they're known for either shooting you in the back or overrunning whole facilities, and then potentially sending more troops into a dangerous situation. I mean, strategically I can see needing them there for support if/when something happens but even with 3,500 more troops, 100 acres in the middle of Baghdad is a big target and 7 million angry people surrounding the place is scary.


----------



## MikeH

Super stoked that I’m getting deployed right after this shit pops off. Can’t wait. Excellent. Tremendous.


----------



## DiezelMonster

MikeH said:


> Super stoked that I’m getting deployed right after this shit pops off. Can’t wait. Excellent. Tremendous.



Oh man. Good luck, from a Canadian who doesn't have to go. Good luck.


----------



## Thaeon

MikeH said:


> Super stoked that I’m getting deployed right after this shit pops off. Can’t wait. Excellent. Tremendous.



Sorry you have big orange douche running things. But thank you for your willingness to serve regardless.


----------



## Ralyks

MikeH said:


> Super stoked that I’m getting deployed right after this shit pops off. Can’t wait. Excellent. Tremendous.



Thank you for your service, and sorry you have to get dragged into this.


----------



## MikeH

I mean, it is what it is. Volunteer service and all that. But it’s definitely not the news my wife wanted right before I go.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The problem with this argument, though, is that you're conflating personal favorability numbers with votes. Plenty of people_ liked _Sanders. They just didn't want to vote for him. Yes, the primary is decided by delegates and not by popular vote, just as the general election is decided by the Electoral College rather than popular vote... But, Sanders got 43.1% of the "popular vote" in the primary to Clinton's 55.2%, losing by about 8 points. Sanders actually _outperformed _in the delegate count, getting 46% of delegates to Clinton's 54%, so the indirect representation of the primary system actually _helped_ him, rather than somehow blocked him from winning as you're alleging here.


Not everyone is allowed to vote in the primary. My post did not allege Sanders was blocked by delegates. I merely stated that the parties don't care what the people want, which is evidenced by the fact that both parties in 2016 nominated candidates that were generally disliked by the American public.


----------



## Vyn

Is it possible just for once that the US could stop glassing the middle east? Please?


----------



## vilk

Vyn said:


> Is it possible just for once that the US could stop glassing the middle east? Please?



The funny thing is that almost _no one_ in the USA trusts our gov'ts intentions in the middle east. If there were an anti-war candidate that wants to end our foreign wars and re-purpose our _absolutely fucking ridiculous _military budget, he'd be wildly popular. Oh wait. There is a guy like that...


----------



## Randy

I'm digging what a clusterfuck of repercussions this has been for Trump so far. I don't want war and I don't want to see anybody die, but the threat of being charged as a war criminal for targeting Iranian cultural sites and Iraq saying "cool, so hey, get the fuck out of our country" are a hilarious shit avalanche.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not everyone is allowed to vote in the primary. My post did not allege Sanders was blocked by delegates. I merely stated that the parties don't care what the people want, which is evidenced by the fact that both parties in 2016 nominated candidates that were generally disliked by the American public.


I'm sorry, I still don't buy it. What exactly did you mean by "the vote isn't cast by the people, but rather the establishment on behalf of the people?" if not the delegates? And, the only impediment to voting for Sanders in the primary in even the most _restrictive_ primary states was registering as a Democrat, what, 30 days in advance? Many states allowed same-day registration, and a number even offered open primaries where any registered voter could vote regardless of party identification. 

Face it. Sanders lost, not because the establishment "blocked" him through nefarious means, but because more people wanted to vote for Clinton than for Sanders. He had good personal approval numbers, but the primary isn't a contest over who has the highest favorability, it's about who gets the most people to vote for them. 



Randy said:


> I'm digging what a clusterfuck of repercussions this has been for Trump so far. I don't want war and I don't want to see anybody die, but the threat of being charged as a war criminal for targeting Iranian cultural sites and Iraq saying "cool, so hey, get the fuck out of our country" are a hilarious shit avalanche.


Good lord this is embarrassing. And long-term European allies are distancing themselves from us, even before Trump's bone-headed "sure, let's target non-military targets, Geneva what??" tweets. 

@MikeH, fingers crossed for you man.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It would almost be funny if not terrifying.


----------



## Ralyks

Bolton willing to testify for the Senate if subpoenaed. Now you know the GOP is going to fight tooth and nail to have no witnesses.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And, the only impediment to voting for Sanders in the primary in even the most _restrictive_ primary states was registering as a Democrat, what, 30 days in advance?



I don't know how it was in other states but in NYS, you had to be registered as a Democrat prior to the LAST primary to be able to vote in the POTUS primary. That came out to ~14 months before the Presidential primary, long before anybody would've even known who was going to be on the ticket. That's filthy.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> I'm digging what a clusterfuck of repercussions this has been for Trump so far.



And yet... Old' Uncle Leroy, and two of my cousins on Facebook:


----------



## budda

Odds Canada just goes along with things? *sigh*

Also did trump not violate twitter TOS with the culture site bomb talk?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

budda said:


> Odds Canada just goes along with things? *sigh*
> 
> Also did trump not violate twitter TOS with the culture site bomb talk?



Twitter doesn't give a shit as long as it keeps the platform relevant.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I don't know how it was in other states but in NYS, you had to be registered as a Democrat prior to the LAST primary to be able to vote in the POTUS primary. That came out to ~14 months before the Presidential primary, long before anybody would've even known who was going to be on the ticket. That's filthy.


That IS awfully restrictive.  Here in Mass, you have to register 20 days before the primary or election, and my understanding was that was a little on the more conservative side. New York would be an extreme outlier. 

This is the current set of deadlines/primary dates, and it looks like maybe 45 days in advance is the longest. 
https://www.headcount.org/deadlines-dates/

Can't find a similar table for 2016, though... If anyone can I'd be curious to see it.


----------



## Drew

budda said:


> Also did trump not violate twitter TOS with the culture site bomb talk?


Fuck Twitter, what he's discussing violates the Geneva convention. 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-01-05/iran-donald-trump-cultural-sites-war-crime


----------



## JSanta

budda said:


> Odds Canada just goes along with things? *sigh*
> 
> Also did trump not violate twitter TOS with the culture site bomb talk?



Echoing what Drew said, what Trump's discussing violates the Geneva Convention. Though I would argue that all of our recent Presidents aren't innocent of that either. 

My guess is that if this war starts, the US is on its own until further destabilization. If this becomes a full blown world war, which I honestly believe it could, that's when NATO allies begin participating. The UK has already issued a warning to the US about Trumps words, and the EU are doing their best to cool the situation down, going as far as inviting the Iranian Foreign Minister in for talks.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> Echoing what Drew said, what Trump's discussing violates the Geneva Convention. Though I would argue that all of our recent Presidents aren't innocent of that either.



Theres (fortunately or unfortunately) a difference between "I think there's a terrorist base in that ancient temple I'm about to blow up" and "I'm blowing up that ancient temple as revenge".


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Theres (fortunately or unfortunately) a difference between "I think there's a terrorist base in that ancient temple I'm about to blow up" and "I'm blowing up that ancient temple as revenge".



Which is a fair assessment of the distinction.


----------



## sleewell

i think enough senators would vote to allow bolton to testify. he's got a book coming out and isnt exactly part of the far left deep state. would look really bad if his book has new first hand info that was blocked from a senate trial.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> i think enough senators would vote to allow bolton to testify. he's got a book coming out and isnt exactly part of the far left deep state. would look really bad if his book has new first hand info that was blocked from a senate trial.


...especially with Collins and Murkowski already expressing hesitation, and Jones, the Democrat with the most to lose, in support of having him testify. You only need two more Republican votes, and I can't imagine Trump's little stunt with a Reaper and his telling random Mar a Lago guests more about his plans than the Senate won him many favors there.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, I still don't buy it. What exactly did you mean by "the vote isn't cast by the people, but rather the establishment on behalf of the people?" if not the delegates? And, the only impediment to voting for Sanders in the primary in even the most _restrictive_ primary states was registering as a Democrat, what, 30 days in advance? Many states allowed same-day registration, and a number even offered open primaries where any registered voter could vote regardless of party identification.
> 
> Face it. Sanders lost, not because the establishment "blocked" him through nefarious means, but because more people wanted to vote for Clinton than for Sanders. He had good personal approval numbers, but the primary isn't a contest over who has the highest favorability, it's about who gets the most people to vote for them.



Please don't try to put words into my mouth.

1. If the party decides who gets to appear on the ballot for president, then *all* primaries must be open to achieve the fairest election possible.
2. If it is pointed out and understood that a process is not as fair as possible, but an organization decides to fight to keep an election process from being adjusted to increase fairness, then that organization is against fairness in elections.
3. You were the one who brought up Sanders. Yes, I live in VT, but I don't even like most of Sanders's platform. I don't mind you using him as an example, but I don't need to "Face it" that he lost. "More people" wanting to vote for a person *is* their favourability. If people vote for a candidate that they fear will do them some social or economic harm, then the election process isn't working for those people. You with me up to this point or not? Now, if a majority of people vote for a candidate that they strongly disfavour, it's a strong sign that something in the process is broken.
4. Both Trump and HRC in 2016 were disfavoured by the majority of the polled public. While that doesn't definitively prove anything, it is still reasonably strong evidence that our election process is not the best it could be. The fact that both parties dealt with election scandals involving foreign players and disemination of misinformation, and it's surprising to hear someone argue against someone else saying that the election process needs improvement.


----------



## sleewell

I could also see bolton lying to protect trump since he just gave him his 30+ year wet dream of war in iran.


Anyone see the old vid of pence lying in congress that they had proof of wmd in Iraq so we had to invade? Prepare for the sequel next week.

If you voted for trump bc you believed his no more wars bs and have to go fight in Iran I sort of feel bad for you but not really, he has been a liar his entire life.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Theres (fortunately or unfortunately) a difference between "I think there's a terrorist base in that ancient temple I'm about to blow up" and "I'm blowing up that ancient temple as revenge".


I agree that there is a big difference between those two. However, do we really need to blow up the temple in either case? It's an important question, because of the implications that a single person in a military from outside of your country of birth and residence determines a charge, endictment, verdict, and death sentence. And we know this process has led to serious mistakes several times under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

Also, if any hostages taken in the process are automatically killed, we ought to equate hostage taking to murder.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Please don't try to put words into my mouth.
> 
> 1. If the party decides who gets to appear on the ballot for president, then *all* primaries must be open to achieve the fairest election possible.
> 2. If it is pointed out and understood that a process is not as fair as possible, but an organization decides to fight to keep an election process from being adjusted to increase fairness, then that organization is against fairness in elections.
> 3. You were the one who brought up Sanders. Yes, I live in VT, but I don't even like most of Sanders's platform. I don't mind you using him as an example, but I don't need to "Face it" that he lost. "More people" wanting to vote for a person *is* their favourability. If people vote for a candidate that they fear will do them some social or economic harm, then the election process isn't working for those people. You with me up to this point or not? Now, if a majority of people vote for a candidate that they strongly disfavour, it's a strong sign that something in the process is broken.
> 4. Both Trump and HRC in 2016 were disfavoured by the majority of the polled public. While that doesn't definitively prove anything, it is still reasonably strong evidence that our election process is not the best it could be. The fact that both parties dealt with election scandals involving foreign players and disemination of misinformation, and it's surprising to hear someone argue against someone else saying that the election process needs improvement.



Favorability is the number of people who _like_ a candidate, not _want to vote for them_. You usually see some sort of version of "net favorability," where you take % who like a candidate and subtract % who don't like them, and Bernie DID have high net favorability numbers. But, voters ultimately vote for the candidate they want to win, not the candidate they think is a nice guy. And Sanders had high favorability, but consistently lagged Clinton in polls, received fewer votes than Clinton, and despite evidently having a structural delegate advantage and receiving a higher percentage of delegates than of votes, lost the primary because he received fewer delegates than Clinton.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

You may not have brought up Sanders by name, but he was the only "populist candidate" running against a winning "establishment" candidate in 2016, so I don't know who else you could possibly be talking about.


----------



## iamaom

vilk said:


> The funny thing is that almost _no one_ in the USA trusts our gov'ts intentions in the middle east. If there were an anti-war candidate that wants to end our foreign wars and re-purpose our _absolutely fucking ridiculous _military budget, he'd be wildly popular. Oh wait. There is a guy like that...


The problem is middle eastern problems are a lot like universal health care: people seem cool with it until they're lives are even slightly affected. Lower the military budget? Oh so now the troops are gonna get paid less and there will be less military contracts so less jobs in places that rely on those contracts. Israel and the evangelicals (whose religion relies on a zionist state to bring about the end times) will throw a conniption fit and how we're abandoning them and letting radical Muslims (that we helped create) run rampant and gain geopolitical power. It will also piss the Saudis off and they'll fuck with the gas prices, and despite having the lowest costing gas in the world Americans are ALREADY throwing a shit fit at predicted increases because of the Iran events. The profiteers who have the most to gain from the US being in a never ending conflict are truly genius architects, because pulling out of the middle east would be like pulling a knife out of an artery and everyone knows it, so nothing will happen.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Favorability is the number of people who _like_ a candidate, not _want to vote for them_. You usually see some sort of version of "net favorability," where you take % who like a candidate and subtract % who don't like them, and Bernie DID have high net favorability numbers. But, voters ultimately vote for the candidate they want to win, not the candidate they think is a nice guy. And Sanders had high favorability, but consistently lagged Clinton in polls, received fewer votes than Clinton, and despite evidently having a structural delegate advantage and receiving a higher percentage of delegates than of votes, lost the primary because he received fewer delegates than Clinton.
> 
> https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
> 
> You may not have brought up Sanders by name, but he was the only "populist candidate" running against a winning "establishment" candidate in 2016, so I don't know who else you could possibly be talking about.



In some ways you're either makings his point for him or you're making mine 

If you that observation to the next logical step, Sanders had higher favorability but lower poll numbers because the sentiment was "I like him, but he won't win". The establishment sold the concept that even though you like Sanders, you've gotta go with the safe pick. Except the safe pick lost.


----------



## vilk

iamaom said:


> The problem is middle eastern problems are a lot like universal health care: people seem cool with it until they're lives are even slightly affected. Lower the military budget? Oh so now the troops are gonna get paid less and there will be less military contracts so less jobs in places that rely on those contracts. Israel and the evangelicals (whose religion relies on a zionist state to bring about the end times) will throw a conniption fit and how we're abandoning them and letting radical Muslims (that we helped create) run rampant and gain geopolitical power. It will also piss the Saudis off and they'll fuck with the gas prices, and despite having the lowest costing gas in the world Americans are ALREADY throwing a shit fit at predicted increases because of the Iran events. The profiteers who have the most to gain from the US being in a never ending conflict are truly genius architects, because pulling out of the middle east would be like pulling a knife out of an artery and everyone knows it, so nothing will happen.



If we weren't blowing billions upon trillions on military, we could use it to create all kinds of jobs... certainly jobs that people would prefer to dying in a rich man's war that no one supports or understands or even trusts the gov't with regards to. Instead of spending that money on contracts with Lockheed Martin we could be spending it on contracts with road construction companies, build and maintain windmills or whatever other kinds of clean energy, we could spend A LOT MORE on education especially in states like Oklahoma where they can't even keep public schools open 4 days a week. 

We obviously need to revamp our whole immigration system, that means employing a fuck ton more people to work for USCIS. Or how about all the EPA cuts? We could get a head start on the next Flint, MI disaster.

The whole idea that we need to spend all this money on military contracts only for the purpose of supporting Americans who work for the companies that get the contracts is bogus.

I do sorta understand the "you break it you buy it" mentality and that we have some responsibility to help the middle-eastern countries that we've destroyed... but how many decades should that be? I say it's time to throw in the towel, and I don't think that's an unpopular opinion.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> In some ways you're either makings his point for him or you're making mine
> 
> If you that observation to the next logical step, Sanders had higher favorability but lower poll numbers because the sentiment was "I like him, but he won't win". The establishment sold the concept that even though you like Sanders, you've gotta go with the safe pick. Except the safe pick lost.


 

Not quite. 

"I like him" and "I think he should be President" are two different beliefs. I thought Sanders stood for a lot of pretty good things - I support a lot of his goals, and I broadlly agree with him on what the problems we as a country have to solve are. If polled, I'd be a vote for "favorable." I did NOT want him to be president, though, because while I thought while we agreed on the challenges we as a nation face and while we share a lot of objectives, his plans on how to actually _get_ there were _not_ very good. That doesn't mean I don't have a "favorable opinion of Bernie Sanders," it just means I'm not going to vote for him. 

That has nothing to do with whether I thought he could win or not, or whether some hive-mind "establishment" told me he couldn't win, and everything to do with I just don't think he's someone I want setting government _policy_. I'd love to have him set government _priorities_, but that's not really what we're voting on. 

(also worth thinking about, as maybe a broader point, as 1) there are a lot of other reasons to not want someone you like to be president than "they can't win," 2) that line of thought gets used to DQ a lot of pretty establishment-friendly picks like Buttigieg as well, and 3) you're probably overestimating the degree of centralization and degree of influence this nebulous "establishment" has - I mean, Clinton was an establishment candidate in 2008, as well)


----------



## Ralyks

So authentic McConnell is saying they will go ahead with a impeachment trial without a decision on witnesses? Can that happen? Especially since the articles weren't handed over?


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> So authentic McConnell is saying they will go ahead with a impeachment trial without a decision on witnesses? Can that happen? Especially since the articles weren't handed over?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_and_pony_show


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, Iran just hit two US Bases in Iraq. Here we go.


----------



## SpaceDock

“Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Welp, Iran just hit two US Bases in Iraq. Here we go.


----------



## Randy

No casualties reported as of now. Hopefully we just get a couple weeks of muscle flexing before we negotiate our way out of this bullshit.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He's weak and he's ineffective. So the only way he figures that he's going to get reelected — and as sure as you're sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”



Oh, irony...


----------



## Ralyks

And he's not even addressing the country tonight. Umm, this seems like the most logical time to address the country.


----------



## Randy

Worst. President. Ever.


----------



## Xaios

budda said:


> Odds Canada just goes along with things? *sigh*


I don't see that happening. We didn't go to Iraq at a point in time where the popular sentiment for that was a lot more favorable than it is now. I think it's possible that we'll even see some sort of formal censure come out of parliament.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Xaios said:


> I don't see that happening. We didn't go to Iraq at a point in time where the popular sentiment for that was a lot more favorable than it is now. I think it's possible that we'll even see some sort of formal censure come out of parliament.





It's the UK who has historically followed us into the Middle East. Let's see if they're up for "Iraq, But Worse".

That said, Canada has been there in some form since at least 2001.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's the UK who has historically followed us into the Middle East. Let's see if they're up for "Iraq, But Worse".
> 
> That said, Canada has been there in some form since at least 2001.



Historically when the US says jump, Australia says “How high?” Can’t imagine that will change as our current PM is chummy with Trump


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> Historically when the US says jump, Australia says “How high?” Can’t imagine that will change as our current PM is chummy with Trump



I'd like to think that this is going to be a difficult test for Trump aligned world leaders. 

It's one thing to support certain policies, it's another to get involved in what will surely be a very long, bloody conflict. 

But, I can just as easily see them go "fuck it" and send troops because they have no real skin in the game.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd like to think that this is going to be a difficult test for Trump aligned world leaders.
> 
> It's one thing to support certain policies, it's another to get involved in what will surely be a very long, bloody conflict.
> 
> But, I can just as easily see them go "fuck it" and send troops because they have no real skin in the game.



The only hope we have at the moment is Iran is currently holding an Australian academic under bogus charges so there’s a hesitation already to not piss off Iran. Fingers crossed that’s enough to keep us out of this mess.


----------



## SpaceDock

Sounds like we all got super lucky with the Iranian payback missing troops. Hopefully this provides the off ramp we need.


----------



## JSanta

SpaceDock said:


> Sounds like we all got super lucky with the Iranian payback missing troops. Hopefully this provides the off ramp we need.



The Foreign Minister made it sound like it was a deescalation attempt. The real question (IMO) is whether or not Trump will allow the Iranians to have the last word with respects to the who struck last.


----------



## SpaceDock

Hmmm... Trump letting someone have last word????


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> The Foreign Minister made it sound like it was a deescalation attempt. The real question (IMO) is whether or not Trump will allow the Iranians to have the last word with respects to the who struck last.



I have a bad feeling no, Trump will not be rational here.


----------



## sleewell

it seems like they missed on purpose. wanted to send their people a message they took revenge, didn't want to kill anyone to escalate this further.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> it seems like they missed on purpose. wanted to send their people a message they took revenge, didn't want to kill anyone to escalate this further.


Yeah. They don't want the US all up in their shit for the next century like Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and such. But they can't let themselves look like punk ass bitches either. I think it was well played on their part. Let's see what the annoying orange does next.


----------



## Randy

Should be a wake-up call for the people over here beating their chests, for sure. No casualties but keep in mind those missiles weren't intercepted, they landed where they landed. I'm not jumping to thank Iran for doing it but the point they were making is that they could drop missiles essentially anywhere they want in the middle east with minimal warning or chance of stopping them from landing.

I'm probably more of an isolationist when it comes to being involved with Middle Eastern politics, but I'll cede that we've got allies and interests over there that we've been working at for decades. I think the Iraqi reaction is an indication overreacting and smacking the hornets nest, other than the danger to lives that comes with it, also can and is already undoing the work we've done there.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Should be a wake-up call for the people over here beating their chests, for sure. No casualties but keep in mind those missiles weren't intercepted, they landed where they landed. I'm not jumping to thank Iran for doing it but the point they were making is that they could drop missiles essentially anywhere they want in the middle east with minimal warning or chance of stopping them from landing.
> 
> I'm probably more of an isolationist when it comes to being involved with Middle Eastern politics, but I'll cede that we've got allies and interests over there that we've been working at for decades. I think the Iraqi reaction is an indication overreacting and smacking the hornets nest, other than the danger to lives that comes with it, also can and is already undoing the work we've done there.


I mean, no surprises, save to hear you saying this perhaps (  ), but of course I agree with you here - we have to start from the reality that we ARE entwined in the Middle East in ways that can't be easily undone, and make policy from that starting point.

From what I've read, this was an intentional de-escalation on Iran's part. They had to do some show of strength, and launching about a dozen missiles at three American air force bases was certainly that. At the same time, we're pretty sure the attacks were intended _not_ to lead to casualties, which appears to have been successful. Iran struck, but in a way not designed to kill anyone, and then made a public show of being satisfied with the attack, basically giving Trump an opportunity to stand down. And his press conference today suggests he's taking it - haven't seen color on the additional sanctions, but they're not likely to move the needle much on what's already in place, so they're probably largely symbolic.

I think what's getting less attention is your first point - that they've shown they COULD hurt our troops stationed there if they were to choose to, soon after an impressively surgical strike on a Saudi oilfield. Iran obviously doens't want all out war and if it came to it would likely lose... but they've made it clear that we can't take them down without some serious collateral damage of our own.

Best case scenario is things quiet down from here, and it's encouraging that the price of oil fell to pre-strike levels after Trump's press conference.

Of course, then there's that Ukrainian airliner that crashed/may have been erroneously shot down... If it was Iran, that'll both put some pressure on Canada to back the US and probably lessen the very cool reception our move got from European allies. If somehow WE were the ones to shoot it down, that's gonna get ugly. Of course, I've heard totally-serious speculation that this sounds like something Russia might have done, which certainly fits their style but I'm not sure why they'd have anti-aircraft installations around Tehran...


----------



## tedtan

This:



sleewell said:


> it seems like they missed on purpose. wanted to send their people a message they took revenge, didn't want to kill anyone to escalate this further.




But, unfortunately, also this:



Ralyks said:


> I have a bad feeling no, Trump will not be rational here.


----------



## Demiurge

For all the plausible strategy behind Iran's actions, there's no way that it doesn't lead to Trump's only takeaway from the matter being, "I won- I assassinated that prick and got away with it!"


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Of course, I've heard totally-serious speculation that this sounds like something Russia might have done, which certainly fits their style but I'm not sure why they'd have anti-aircraft installations around Tehran...



Tehran has always cozied up to Moscow, so it's not implausible, though I tend to think it more likely to have been a mistake on Iran's (or possibly he US's) part rather than Russian intervention.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Tehran has always cozied up to Moscow, so it's not implausible, though I tend to think it more likely to have been a mistake on Iran's (or possibly he US's) part rather than Russian intervention.


Yeah, I agree. Far more plausible. It's just a lot more innocent blood that didn't need to be spilled.


----------



## Randy

Sounds like the apocalypse is going to have to wait for another day.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Sounds like the apocalypse is going to have to wait for another day.


----------



## iamaom

vilk said:


> The whole idea that we need to spend all this money on military contracts only for the purpose of supporting Americans who work for the companies that get the contracts is bogus.


I know it is, but for a disturbing amount of voters "muh jorbs" is a huge issue, it's why coal miners (despite making up less than 1% of the entire US workforce) get so much media attention every election cycle.


----------



## narad

A small tangent but I went back to NY for Christmas holidays and while queued up at the airport leaving Japan, and coming back to Japan, there were guys talking loudly about how great Trump was. Japanese media always has a pretty pro-USA stance in terms of government relations, but that doesn't always trickle down to create like outspoken talk-about-politics-with-strangers-in-queue followers. Not getting great vibes about 2020.


----------



## Ralyks

narad said:


> A small tangent but I went back to NY for Christmas holidays and while queued up at the airport leaving Japan, and coming back to Japan, there were guys talking loudly about how great Trump was. Japanese media always has a pretty pro-USA stance in terms of government relations, but that doesn't always trickle down to create like outspoken talk-about-politics-with-strangers-in-queue followers. Not getting great vibes about 2020.



Man, Japan is the place I want to go to most in the world. Why you gotta harsh my vibe...


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Man, Japan is the place I want to go to most in the world. Why you gotta harsh my vibe...



I also should have pointed out that it was Americans saying this, but yea, Japan is a pretty bad place for progressive values in general.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I also should have pointed out that it was Americans saying this, but yea, Japan is a pretty bad place for progressive values in general.


The Trump = God Emperor dude around here is from somewhere else originally, but also lives in Japan. 

Honestly, a lot of it is going to come down to WHERE the votes are cast, and who turns out, I think. I tend to see Trump as a mild underdog due to his degradation of support with independents and the smaller Republican base, and the betting markets (so far) agree with me there. But this seems like it's an election that will either go in a landslide due to externalities and event risk, or will ultimately be settled by idiosyncratic factors like was the case in 2016 where despite a commanding popular vote lead Clinton barely lost enough swing states to give the edge to Trump. We're still 10 months out from votes being cast, but as of today that's my base case, that again this looks like it'll be an election settled by surprisingly small margins in very specific areas.


----------



## sleewell

is it strange that trump can tell a rally crowd about the "imminent" threat but that info somehow did not come up in the classified briefing to congress?


also, trump's DOJ just wrapped the investigation into her emails aaaaaaaaaaaaand found nothing.


----------



## Ralyks

Booker is out.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Booker is out.



I think we've known that for awhile...


----------



## Randy

I keep forgetting about all these ancillary people that are still technically in. I saw a headline last week that Mary Anne Williamson was laying off staff. I thought she was gone, like, three months ago.


----------



## sleewell

didn't realize she was an anti vaxxer.... good riddance.


----------



## MFB

Ralyks said:


> Booker is out.





MaxOfMetal said:


> I think we've known that for awhile...



There go our hopes of First Lady Rosario Dawson


----------



## Randy

In more significant Democratic primary news, Sanders and his surrogates going aggressive against Biden and Warren both, I'm assuming emboldened by the numbers in Iowa.

I said from the beginning that the primary should be 1000x more focused on Trump and the GOP Senate than infighting. I'm not a Biden fan but I thought he did a good job of staying above the fray, most of the "establishment" attacks were from his surrogates or directly from Buttigieg.

I think it's a miscalculation by Sanders because I think he's been doing a good job of beating back all these false 'socialism will lose us the election' fears. The biggest wrinkle in his campaign is that he's a "first place or nothing" bomb thrower based on the headshots he landed on HRC in 2016, and he's spreading those attacks out against the rest of the top 3. I think it's a bad look and he loses more support from it as opposed to turning anyone OFF of Biden/Warren and onto him.

EDIT: One thing I WILL say in Sanders favor, Iowa is definitely a midwestern-y, blue collar state that it was claimed a progressive couldn't win in. If the numbers keep like that, with Sanders as the candidate or not, that could be a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I keep forgetting about all these ancillary people that are still technically in. I saw a headline last week that Mary Anne Williamson was laying off staff. I thought she was gone, like, three months ago.



It's 2020, we're long past the point of using the primary as a vehicle for ancillary political positions in the future. 

The circumstances that would have to exist for anyone aside from Biden, Warren, or Sanders getting the nod are downright Lovecraftian in mystery and horror.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> The circumstances that would have to exist for anyone aside from Biden, Warren, or Sanders getting the nod are downright Lovecraftian in mystery and horror.



Are you saying I should go reseal the Ogdru Jahad, before they help the wrong candidate win?


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> is it strange that trump can tell a rally crowd about the "imminent" threat but that info somehow did not come up in the classified briefing to congress?
> 
> 
> also, trump's DOJ just wrapped the investigation into her emails aaaaaaaaaaaaand found nothing.


Getting less news attention, but the Pentagon is reportedly saying they were unaware of an imminent threat. Getting a little more attention, though not enough, is the fact Trump has reportedly said he based his decision to strike in part on the fact that a few Senators whose votes he's going to depend on in the impeachment trial really wanted him to.



Randy said:


> In more significant Democratic primary news, Sanders and his surrogates going aggressive against Biden and Warren both, I'm assuming emboldened by the numbers in Iowa.
> 
> I said from the beginning that the primary should be 1000x more focused on Trump and the GOP Senate than infighting. I'm not a Biden fan but I thought he did a good job of staying above the fray, most of the "establishment" attacks were from his surrogates or directly from Buttigieg.
> 
> I think it's a miscalculation by Sanders because I think he's been doing a good job of beating back all these false 'socialism will lose us the election' fears. The biggest wrinkle in his campaign is that he's a "first place or nothing" bomb thrower based on the headshots he landed on HRC in 2016, and he's spreading those attacks out against the rest of the top 3. I think it's a bad look and he loses more support from it as opposed to turning anyone OFF of Biden/Warren and onto him.
> 
> EDIT: One thing I WILL say in Sanders favor, Iowa is definitely a midwestern-y, blue collar state that it was claimed a progressive couldn't win in. If the numbers keep like that, with Sanders as the candidate or not, that could be a good sign for the Democratic party as a whole.


Agree with both your main post, and your edit, here. Sanders has probably moved up to 2nd from 3rd over Warren, and is benefitting in Iowa mostly from Buttigieg's fade... But it's still a positive for him that he's competitive in Iowa, and it would be a fucking mess if he runs another "first place or bust" campaign and we have another extremely contentious run-up to the convention. Doubly so if Biden is the overall leader but without a full majority, and Sanders is in 2nd, which is a possible outcome here.

Best case scenario is this turns off non-core, progressive but still establishment friendly members of his caucus, and this results in his sliding in the polls (not for nothing, unlike 2016, the top issue for virtually the entire Democratic voting public is "beat Trump," so a guy going around lobbing headshots at the front runners will presumably pay a price). Worst case scenario is that this entrenches lines of support and we get another progressive vs establishment divide, except unlike 2016 we're also splitting the progressive bloc between the Sanders supporters and Warren/other progressives.

EDIT - oh, and Williamson dropped out on Friday.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Ralyks said:


> Booker is out.


Perhaps I'm just showing my age here but am I the only one who thought "Cory is no longer in the house" upon reading this?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MFB said:


> Are you saying I should go reseal the Ogdru Jahad, before they help the wrong candidate win?



No, you MUST leave it unattended.


----------



## Randy

"Liberal" "News"


----------



## Vyn

Aren't there laws about straight up lying in America?


----------



## spudmunkey

Eh, aren't analysises opinion pieces/editorials?


----------



## budda

spudmunkey said:


> Eh, aren't analysises opinion pieces/editorials?



Arguably still a bad look?


----------



## sleewell

seems like the least of our worries at the moment. even the hill has liberal opinion pieces from time to time. I don't think CNN should be anti trump 24/7. that would be a worse look imo.


----------



## Vyn

spudmunkey said:


> Eh, aren't analysises opinion pieces/editorials?



Even though it's an opinion, surely there should be some mechanism in place as it's an opinion that's outright dangerous said from a position of power (ie a journalist with access to a known platform).


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Even though it's an opinion, surely there should be some mechanism in place as it's an opinion that's outright dangerous said from a position of power (ie a journalist with access to a known platform).


Eh, tough to say... Opinion pieces are supposed to be written free of influence from the editorial board, save of course the occasional piece _written_ by the board (the NY Times does this a lot), and the fact you see an occasional opinion piece cutting against the prevailing tone of a publication is probably healthy. 

I wouldn't read too much into a single editorial here - there are plenty of reasons someone could have for being anti-Pelosi, one of which certainly being she's not liberal _enough_ in the author's eyes. 

From here her strategy didn't seem like it was overly effective, but I, well, never really understood its nuance, and at a minimum I think it's too early to write it off - if nothing else in the time this dragged on we saw a number of potentially flippabble conservative Senators express distate for the degree to which McConnell was working in collusion with the White House, and as increasingly Trump has been angling for a simple up/down vote to dismiss without a trial, a whole bunch of Senators have come out against that, keeping that option off the table. It may be that the strategy here was never really about trying to force McConnell's hand at all, and if you want to go all conspiracy theory here, Pelosi is a pretty "establishment" Democrat, and the two Presidential candidates with the most to lose with this going to trial in late January and early February are progressive darlings Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, though that seems a step too far, to me.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/APgL9DZuoSAKMw9zT71UxEw

Maybe I’m reaching, but could this have factored at all into Pelosi finally sending the articles over?


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Eh, aren't analysises opinion pieces/editorials?



Stewart made the point well back when he was on the air and lampooning Fox News.

For long time the 'fairness doctrine' made unbiased news a legal requirement (or at least equal time for opposing viewpoints). That's not the case anymore but the unspoken rule for a long time was that news and opinion should have a very clear line separating them. Fox News was really first fore into blurring and eventually erasing that line.

As Stewart pointed out, Fox News touted it's 'fair and balanced' news coverage but was entirely lopsided in their commentary. Which they excused by saying the opinion programming was a specific block separate from their news coverage.

What Stewart pointed out was that

1.) The opinion programming airs during primetime (when most people are home from work and inclined to watch TV)

2.) 99% of the marketing/advertising both on and off the station is committed to opinion programming.

3.) Eventually opinion contributors featured during the commentary portion of the programming are brought into the news programming hours as 'experts' or 'contributors'. So the news could cover it straight and then say "so chairman of the RNC, what do you think of this?" to selectively taint the narrative.

And CNN and MSNBC eventually followed suit because they knew how well it worked for Fox and their ratings. Worth noting, just because people like to consume something doesn't mean it's good for them (see: drugs, alcohol, fats, sugars, etc).

So back to the question at hand, you have CNN running a heavy slanted opinion piece on the frontpage of the website 'above the fold'. I can see carrying the story further down the screen or with a less incendiary headline, but making it the first thing you see when you land on the frontpage and adding a small 'analysis' tag on it is knowingly baiting and misleading.

And @sleewell , fwiw, i posted that because I've long held that CNN doesn't have an anti-Trump bias, they have "whatever sells clicks" bias and they frequently run opinion pieces counter to their own narrative, not when they think they've gone too far but when they think it's starting to stick.

The idea all our coverage has too be neo-nazis or antifa, instead of the 95% of us that disagree but don't need to literally kill eachother to contrast one another is accepting propaganda instead of news.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> seems like the least of our worries at the moment. even the hill has liberal opinion pieces from time to time. I don't think CNN should be anti trump 24/7. that would be a worse look imo.


To be fair, you can just be the news.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> and the fact you see an occasional opinion piece cutting against the prevailing tone of a publication is probably healthy.



Oh boy, that's a bit of a "good people on both sides"-ism. Context matters. CNN covering two extremes of a subject as fact is unhealthy.


----------



## BlackSG91

OAN (One America News) is the new FOX news for Trump. Rudy sure made a nice guest appearance on there to bolster up Trump's Ukrainian hoax. FOX has become lame steam mainstream FAKE news!


;>)/


----------



## Vyn

Warren: "Can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost ten elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. Amy and me."

Fucking burn!


----------



## Randy

I'd have no qualms with a Warren/Klobucher ticket, tbh.

Biden and Amy both incrimentalists or consensists (is that a word?), which is fine if they're matched with a progressive to counterbalance the blue dogs.

Amy with less baggage than Biden, Warren with less baggage than Sanders. Irony being that I think an all girl ticket couldn't win (despite the fact I'm 100% down for it). Sexist Bernie bro confirmed!


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> I'd have no qualms with a Warren/Klobucher ticket, tbh.
> 
> Biden and Amy both incrimentalists or consensists (is that a word?), which is fine if they're matched with a progressive to counterbalance the blue dogs.
> 
> Amy with less baggage than Biden, Warren with less baggage than Sanders. Irony being that I think an all girl ticket couldn't win (despite the fact I'm 100% down for it). Sexist Bernie bro confirmed!



Yeah, unfortunately even after the empowerment of the #metoo movement I don't think America quite has the numbers for a female President this time around.


----------



## Randy

Pendulum swinging from black community organizer guy with funny Muslim sounding name to rich white racist baby boomer that incites race war shows how at odds America is with itself and how quick we are to scapegoat others to deflect our own inadequacies.

Men and women are different than eachother, that's not a sexist notion. But as a guy, I see too many guys with these really unhealthy perceptions of women. I already hear Warren called "screechy" or a "hag" just because she's tough at times, where a man doesn't get the same flak for being animated. Projections abound.


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> Pendulum swinging from black community organizer guy with funny Muslim sounding name to rich white racist baby boomer that incites race war shows how at odds America is with itself and how quick we are to scapegoat others to deflect our own inadequacies.
> 
> Men and women are different than eachother, that's not a sexist notion. But as a guy, I see too many guys with these really unhealthy perceptions of women. I already hear Warren called "screechy" or a "hag" just because she's tough at times, where a man doesn't get the same flak for being animated. Projections abound.



Yeah, it's that deep entrenchment of "any women who is strong must be taken down a peg/discredited" mentality (not always conscious, quite often subconscious) that society still hasn't managed to get rid of.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'm a little more optimistic on an all female, or female lead, ticket in of itself, I've just noticed how some folks, even those who could potentially vote blue, talk about Warren like @Randy said.


----------



## sleewell

i think warren looks really foolish with this gambit. at a time with so many more important issues this is not the hill she should die on. 

she seems desperate and petty. releasing her dna test was another very bad judgment call. she wouldn't even shake his hand afterwards over something that doesn't even matter.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

CNN: Bernie did you say that a woman can't be President?
Bernie: Absolutely not.
CNN: Warren, how do you feel about this slur Bernie definitely assaulted you with?

Regardless of political affiliation, the one thing people can agree on is that Bernie is a true believer and wouldn't say that. This is a strange and pretty damned unbelievable thing to put out there.


----------



## Randy

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Bernie is a true believer


----------



## Randy

That said, yeah, Warren had her chance to take the high road on this one and didn't, which kinda negates my criticism of Bernie earlier. Even after all this fracas, prior to the debate, Warren said she refused to feed the argument any further because [paraphrase] "the two of us have more in common than we do different". Then they get out there and she does some petty shit like refusing to shake his hand.

Also, CNN doubling down on my criticism from yesterday. Instead of covering the news, pushing to control the spin and CREATE the news. It's awful. We have to have the absolute worst election vs. propaganda system in the western world.


----------



## vilk

Biden's billionaires must be slipping CNN some FAT cash


----------



## Randy

Establishment definitely smelling some blood in the water.

I thought Bernie's critique of Warren wasn't something I wanted to hear but fairly benign, especially because they eventually retracted or re-wrote it. The Warren jab was meant to make Bernie, himself, sound like a sexist and played into a criticism his campaign already had going back to 2016. I thought it was an expected, but disproportionate response.

He retracted his negative talking point (it was actually more of an observation) about her, she said "eh, we'll let bygones be bygones" but it was revived with full force last night. I thought that the comment was deliberately taken out of context in the first place, and magnified further when it could've easily been contextualized last night and squashed. If the audience wants to judge Bernie for UNDERESTIMATING a woman candidate or the American people as being sexist, so be it, but leaving it in a context where it sounds like he think she's incapable of running a winning campaign is knowingly dripping with sexism.

I'll still support Warren 100% but any illusion of a high road is completely gone here.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Oh boy, that's a bit of a "good people on both sides"-ism. Context matters. CNN covering two extremes of a subject as fact is unhealthy.


Well, I'd say it more as in the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, but I concede that's dangerous when you have only one side doing that. I also think your longer post above here is excellent and you raise a bunch of good points there. 

I tend to agree with you on CNN, I think someone like MSNBC may have a little more explicit "liberal" bias, but CNN's bias is if anything more classic Washignton-area elite, fiscally conservative/socially liberal news media bias than it is a true "liberal" bias, and as far as their reporting goes they're pretty content-light and accessible. Their focus on election-coverage special effects is pretty telling, and comical. I still generally watch them for presidential election coverage, though less for Wilf Blitzer and the special guests from the Republican and Democratic partisann ranks, than for John Kelly (he usually does a pretty good job on district level commentary, though you have to watch whaht he's NOT saying as much as what he is), but even then I'll have 538 going in another tab.


----------



## Drew

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Regardless of political affiliation, the one thing people can agree on is that Bernie is a true believer and wouldn't say that. This is a strange and pretty damned unbelievable thing to put out there.


Not to fan the flames... But I feel like you're saying that with more confidence than is really warranted. Sanders' 2016 campaign faced accusations of sexism, those are still present in 2020, and he's, as Randy noted the other day, running a "victory or bust!" campaign for the second election in a row. I'm not sure if he did say it... But I'm definitely not sure he _didn't_.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I agree, too much confidence there.


----------



## sleewell

its strange that the docs released yesterday are mostly being ignored. pretty damning stuff and no one seems to care. that guy Hyde seems like a real piece of work and he is currently running for congress while running a surveillance operation on a us ambassador. was that one text implicating that he could have her removed for the right price?? rudy's letter completely undercuts trump's claim that he had no idea what he was doing. and the Ukrainian prosecutor straight up said he would dig up dirt on biden if rudy could get yovanovitch removed.


----------



## Drew

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I agree, too much confidence there.


Holy shit, a rational reply to someone disagreeing with you, _on the internet_?!? You need to post here more, bro.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> its strange that the docs released yesterday are mostly being ignored. pretty damning stuff and no one seems to care. that guy Hyde seems like a real piece of work and he is currently running for congress while running a surveillance operation on a us ambassador. was that one text implicating that he could have her removed for the right price?? rudy's letter completely undercuts trump's claim that he had no idea what he was doing. and the Ukrainian prosecutor straight up said he would dig up dirt on biden if rudy could get yovanovitch removed.


I read summaries this morning. 

Odd that this release is timed with Pelosi's decision to send the impeachment to the Senate. I can't figure out how this would be more beneficial than just releasing these right away... but it's hard to not at least consider that her strategy here was to intentionally lose a fight she knew she was going to, but then just release a barrage of evidence afterwards that badly undercuts the GOP's position to damage their credibility, once they were well and truly entrenched...? Idunno though, I can't see how that would necessarily be more effective than playing to win from day one, unless she was 100% sure it was a foregone conclusion that she couldnt get subpoenaed witnesses.


----------



## sleewell

she probably knows more is coming.


----------



## Drew

Romney has come out saying he's in favor of subpoenaing Bolton. 

On one hand, that's just one Republican vote... But on the other, I think getting _anyone_ to stick their neck out was the hard one on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Collins and Murkowski follow in pretty short order. That would leave it a 50-50 split with Pence as the tiebreaking vote (CAN he vote as the tiebreaker in an impeachment trial, considering he's next in the chain of command if Trump is removed) and you would need only one other vote to force McConnell to call witnesses.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> Holy shit, a rational reply to someone disagreeing with you, _on the internet_?!? You need to post here more, bro.


My exact reaction to that as well. Kudos, Captain Butterscotch!!


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Romney has come out saying he's in favor of subpoenaing Bolton.
> 
> On one hand, that's just one Republican vote... But on the other, I think getting _anyone_ to stick their neck out was the hard one on this, and I wouldn't be surprised if Collins and Murkowski follow in pretty short order. That would leave it a 50-50 split with Pence as the tiebreaking vote (CAN he vote as the tiebreaker in an impeachment trial, considering he's next in the chain of command if Trump is removed) and you would need only one other vote to force McConnell to call witnesses.


The VP cannot vote in the impeachment trial, and, historically, hasn't voted on anything to do with impeachment proceedings, but with things the way they are now, who knows! I don't think it'll make any difference, though, since you'd need 17 or more republican senators to change their minds as a result of witness testimony. If Trump himself got in front of the Senate and testified that he purposely withheld the Ukraine money to get an investigation opened on the Bidens, and also admitted that the investigation would likely be bogus, I honestly don't see 20 Republicans jumping ship. And no other testimony could possibly be a stronger scenario than that.


----------



## Randy




----------



## sleewell

Lev parnas on maddow tonight. They claim he implicates trump, pence, pompeo, barr and nunes. 


More docs were just released too.... is the damn breaking?


----------



## Randy

CNN further trying to sow seeds of discontent and effect outcomes, first with the leading questions during the debate, then with selectively 'leaking' the post-debate exchange between Warren and Bernie. For how 'anti-Trump' CNN is, they're sure working overtime to guarantee another 4 years of him.

Parnas interview is bombshell after bombshell but lead story in CNN is still the hot mic.


----------



## sleewell

trying to think of a reason why the gop is so loyal to trump at this point. if they all stuck together, grew a spine and made the case why trump needed to go that would be a lot better of a look for them instead of going down with this ship. anyone who took over for him could get the same judges and tax cuts approved. 

is there any possibility that russia is paying them off? it's seems like the people who used to have principles who have now lost them all would need something in exchange rather than just the possibility of re election. heck it even happens to the ones who are not seeking re election, you would think they would have the courage to speak up. graham said show me proof of a quid pro quo and it would change my mind. overwhelming proof now exists and his new position is i wont look at it, this all should be dismissed. there are so many examples of this happening. one of them talks like they might stand up and do the right thing and then a few days go by and they do a complete 180 to protect trump. i don't think that just happens without money being exchanged.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AkqvzkrjHSOapEDz4d6_PSQ

So Ukraine is launching an investigation. Just not into the Bidens. In fact, this seems like the complete opposite of what Trump wanted.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...e-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682
That can't be good either.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The VP cannot vote in the impeachment trial, and, historically, hasn't voted on anything to do with impeachment proceedings, but with things the way they are now, who knows! I don't think it'll make any difference, though, since you'd need 17 or more republican senators to change their minds as a result of witness testimony. If Trump himself got in front of the Senate and testified that he purposely withheld the Ukraine money to get an investigation opened on the Bidens, and also admitted that the investigation would likely be bogus, I honestly don't see 20 Republicans jumping ship. And no other testimony could possibly be a stronger scenario than that.


I definitely agree testimony is pretty unlikely to effect the outcome of the _trial._ I think it still matters for two reasons though. 

1) If nothing else, if John Bolton testifies under oath that Trump ordered aid to Ukraine blocked until they re-opened the Burisma investigation and specifically linked it to the Bidens, then we now have that in the public record, from a first person source directly involved, and not on hearsay or supposition, as the GOP has argued to defend Trump. That's not nothing.

2) It will have the potential to have a VERY big impact on the way the outcome of the trial is _perceived_. If we get testimony from senior Trump advisors with direct knowledge that the allegations behind the impeachment are essentially true, but the Senate still votes to not convict (doubly so if it's not a party-line vote and, say, 51 senators including four Republicans vote guilty, and we have a majority just not 2/3 support for removal) then the public perception of the impeachment trial will be different than if we get a straight party-line vote and no new information - it'll be a lot harder to argue that this was a "partisan witch hunt" and the Dems were just "trying to overturn 2016" when there's strong evidence that Trump was guilty that comes out in the trial. In turn, it'll look like the Senate Republicans were solely looking to protect him for political reasons. That's likely to damage Trump in the 2020 elections, if the impeachment trial is broadly seen as a miscarriage of justice, and it's also likely to cost the Republicans a few seats in the Senate. If things break right, it's possible we start 2021 with a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, and while minorities still have a LOT of power to block, it means whatever the eventual Democratic nominee's platform is has a much better chance of being passed into law. 

I guess, also, 3) - a majority of Americans DO think Trump did something impeachable, even if there's disagreement on whether he should be impeached, or merely voted out. There's something to be said for going to as great lengths as possible to demonstrate the facts of the case, in light of highly probable wrongdoing.



sleewell said:


> trying to think of a reason why the gop is so loyal to trump at this point. if they all stuck together, grew a spine and made the case why trump needed to go that would be a lot better of a look for them instead of going down with this ship. anyone who took over for him could get the same judges and tax cuts approved.


The GOP base loves Trump, and Trump isn't afraid to wield his Twitter account to attack people he sees as disloyal. If it happens, it'd have to be an en masse abandonment, because short of that no one wants to stick their neck out. 



Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...e-law-by-freezing-ukraine-aid-gao-says-099682
> That can't be good either.


Only problem is, the branch charged with enforcing GAO decisions is, wait for it... the Executive branch.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...he-impeachment-trial/?slreturn=20200016174652

So could this actually be enforced?


----------



## Randy




----------



## Ralyks

I honestly think Pelosi and Schiff have taken it into consideration, and Roberts wouldn’t oppose it. Every time I think Pelosi doesn’t know what she’s doing, she surprises me.


----------



## Ralyks

Oh good grief, Trump got Ken Starr for his legal team....


----------



## Thaeon

I'm not holding my breath that the Senate is going to go along with any of that agreeably. They'll try to fight it, and Trump with create a media frenzy with. Calling democrats corrupt for using the law to support their case. Turn it around though, and he'd be scrambling at the opportunity to take any advantage he could. He's already not above lying through is teeth. Including about things that people honestly don't give a shit about. Its like he wants to spin a yarn just to see where it takes him. Like he's reading a book of fiction he plans to adopt and sell as real.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Ralyks said:


> Oh good grief, Trump got Ken Starr for his legal team....



And Alan Dershowitz... Soon as I was told what's on his resume, it became one of those "The Onion is now obsolete" moments.


----------



## sleewell

pelosi holding the articles back was a good move. a lot of new information came out in that time and if she sent them right away bitch mcconnel would have moved to dismiss or held a very quick "trial". now that seems much less likely.


unrelated but hilarious. did you hear that trump told the Indian prime minister that at least they didn't have China on their border? (India and China share more than 2,000 miles of border). Apparently the Indian prime minister's eyes bulged when he said that and they basically have withdrawn from working with trump since.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I honestly think Pelosi and Schiff have taken it into consideration, and Roberts wouldn’t oppose it. Every time I think Pelosi doesn’t know what she’s doing, she surprises me.


The complication, I think, is that I believe any decision Roberts made can be overturned by a simple majority of the Senate. If the Democratic Senators moved to have McConnell and Graham barred from serving as jurors because they'd made public statements saying they'd already made their minds up and had no intention of being impartial no matter what evidence was presented, Roberts' most likely course of action, IMO, would be to put the matter to a Senate vote (he has the option to either rule but possibly be overturned by simple majority, or defer the question to the Senate to vote, where he'd likely only be the tiebreaking vote), where I'm SURE regardless of their personal feelings there wouldn't be three Republicans willing to vote to have "biased" Republicans thrown out, and the question of whether McConnell or Graham could vote on whether or not they should be disqualified would itself be a procedural question likely to be decided by majority vote, unless there's an existing precedent I'm unaware of.

Or, in the words of Hemingway, "Yes, isn't it pretty to think so."


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> unrelated but hilarious. did you hear that trump told the Indian prime minister that at least they didn't have China on their border? (India and China share more than 2,000 miles of border). Apparently the Indian prime minister's eyes bulged when he said that and they basically have withdrawn from working with trump since.



Donald Trump also made a mistake when it came to maps and whatnot during hurricane Dorian from last year. In the footage/Youtube videos, Trump has a sharpie pen and states/draws curves on a map indicating that Alabama was in the past of Dorian. According to the National weather service, Dorian did not hit Alabama. Trump does not like to be proven wrong so of course, he's going to go on Twitter and state that he is right. Most people I know would have been like, "I made a mistake and thank God, the state of Alabama was safe from Dorian". But Trump doesn't like to admit his mistakes and doesn't like to listen to individuals who know about something more than him, like say, the National weather service.

In the picture below, the white curves show where hurricane Dorian is going to affect, which is primarily Florida and some of Georgia. For some reason, Trump got a sharpie and drew a black curve and stating Dorian was going towards Alabama, which it didn't.


----------



## Ralyks

Ahh yes, Sharpiegate...


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> pelosi holding the articles back was a good move. a lot of new information came out in that time and if she sent them right away bitch mcconnel would have moved to dismiss or held a very quick "trial". now that seems much less likely.
> 
> 
> unrelated but hilarious. did you hear that trump told the Indian prime minister that at least they didn't have China on their border? (India and China share more than 2,000 miles of border). Apparently the Indian prime minister's eyes bulged when he said that and they basically have withdrawn from working with trump since.





Rosal76 said:


> Donald Trump also made a mistake when it came to maps and whatnot during hurricane Dorian from last year. In the footage/Youtube videos, Trump has a sharpie pen and states/draws curves on a map indicating that Alabama was in the past of Dorian. According to the National weather service, Dorian did not hit Alabama. Trump does not like to be proven wrong so of course, he's going to go on Twitter and state that he is right. Most people I know would have been like, "I made a mistake and thank God, the state of Alabama was safe from Dorian". But Trump doesn't like to admit his mistakes and doesn't like to listen to individuals who know about something more than him, like say, the National weather service.
> 
> In the picture below, the white curves show where hurricane Dorian is going to affect, which is primarily Florida and some of Georgia. For some reason, Trump got a sharpie and drew a black curve and stating Dorian was going towards Alabama, which it didn't.



You literally can't make this shit up. Can he find Alabama or India on a map or does he have people for that?


----------



## Rosal76

Thaeon said:


> You literally can't make this shit up. Can he find Alabama or India on a map or does he have people for that?



Did you ever read/hear about Trump's theory on exercise? He thinks exercise is fake news. No, seriously. He actually thinks exercise is not beneficial/can kill you. When I first read about it in 2017, I thought, "this has to be fake news from the Democrats/anti-Trump crowd. This has to be a prank. There is no way the President of the United States would say that exercise is bad when he's telling young children to exercise on the White House lawn". Trump speech on the White House lawn, not for children to exercise on it. LOL. Back then, though, I didn't know Trump was a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do, so they say.

This can be a dangerous thing for Trump supporters who are unfit/unhealthy that follow him closely because if he's gonna state that exercise is not beneficial, there is a possibly that they may follow his lifestyle of not exercising. Some of my friends who are anti-Trump can be harsh with their responses when discussing this particular topic. Saying things like, "dude, if some fat Trump supporter doesn't believe in exercise and they die of a heart attack, who gives a shit?". And I'm like, "so you don't care if some of our friends, Trump supporters or not, die of heart attacks/develop health problems from not exercising?" Some of them are like, "fuck em. They made their decision". I swear, my jock friends can be the biggest assholes in the world. And I'm not trying to sound like Oprah Winfrey/Dr. Phil but you still have to tell people that exercise is beneficial to one's health.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AFKRCcLZ9RH2rx-9yM319oA

Welp, he implicated Nunes


----------



## Adieu

iamaom said:


> Israel and the* evangelicals (whose religion relies on a zionist state to bring about the end times)* will throw a conniption fit and how we're abandoning them and letting radical Muslims (that we helped create) run rampant and gain geopolitical power. It will also piss the Saudis off and they'll fuck with the gas prices, and despite having the lowest costing gas in the world Americans are ALREADY throwing a shit fit at predicted increases because of the Iran events. The profiteers who have the most to gain from the US being in a never ending conflict are truly genius architects, because pulling out of the middle east would be like pulling a knife out of an artery and everyone knows it, so nothing will happen.




...wait up wait up, the Bible Thumpers actually ALSO believe those naughty radical Islamists are trying to SAVE THE WORLD , which is apparently a bad thing?


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Of course, then there's that Ukrainian airliner that crashed/may have been erroneously shot down... If it was Iran, that'll both put some pressure on Canada to back the US and probably lessen the very cool reception our move got from European allies. If somehow WE were the ones to shoot it down, that's gonna get ugly. Of course, I've heard totally-serious speculation that this sounds like something Russia might have done, which certainly fits their style but I'm not sure why they'd have anti-aircraft installations around Tehran...



Russians almost certainly DO "have" anti aircraft installations around Tehran, since the ol' Soviet template for a sales & service contract on high-end expensive military kit typically comes with a number of "technicians", "advisors", and "instructors" --- who in practice immediately bench the locals and do the actual operating in any high-alert or combat conditions

And yeah they take their orders from Moscow not Tehran, and although the typical standing order is "obey Tehran until further notice" that's not always the case


----------



## bostjan

Not that I think they did, but the Russian government is certainly clever enough to have pulled something like this off and let everyone think Iran did it. Russia being at conflict with Ukraine and indirectly with Iran would benefit from the entire situation.

At any rate, I'm not prone to believe that any radar tech worth his salt would have honestly mistaken a passenger airline, moving 250 m/s for an ICBM moving 7000 m/s.


----------



## Randy

Worth noting how close Tehran is to the Caspian Sea, which is teeming with Russian ships and subs.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not that I think they did, but the Russian government is certainly clever enough to have pulled something like this off and let everyone think Iran did it. Russia being at conflict with Ukraine and indirectly with Iran would benefit from the entire situation.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not prone to believe that any radar tech worth his salt would have honestly mistaken a passenger airline, moving 250 m/s for an ICBM moving 7000 m/s.


I think what's more likely is you had an Iranian airbase on high alert and freaking the fuck out when they saw what they thought might have been a bomber or drone on their radar. Which, again, seems a bit of a stretch when you consider the huge investments into stealth technology we've made and a 737 being about as far from that as possible... But with most airlines grounding their fleet ant tension running high, I can at least see where the mistake could have come from.


----------



## InHiding

A few videos that include an exact description about the future of the U.S.


----------



## JSanta

This is pretty terrifying:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ente...524214-3a0d-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html


----------



## Randy

Too many people in this country writing off the prospect of this becoming a fascist nation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Too many people in this country writing off the prospect of this becoming a fascist nation.



Plenty of folks don't see it as a bad thing. 

The hardcore right would have no problem so long as he "hurts the right people". 

This administration has been something of a litmus test for how much power can be ceded to a single branch of the government before folks start getting uncomfortable. 

Judging by most recent polling we haven't even hit the ceiling yet.


----------



## sleewell

trump also wants to make the yearly security threat assessment presentation private that has always been public bc they disagreed with his propaganda last year on north korea, russia and iran.

treasury also wants to take over secret service so that they don't have to report how much his travel is costing us.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> The hardcore right would have no problem so long as he "hurts the right people"



Alex Jones is a good example of this. 20 years of shouting about jack boot thugs and internment camps, and when it turns out they're there to hold migrants, he's all MAGA, all the time.



sleewell said:


> trump also wants to make the yearly security threat assessment presentation private that has always been public bc they disagreed with his propaganda last year on north korea, russia and iran.
> 
> treasury also wants to take over secret service so that they don't have to report how much his travel is costing us.



Even the transition away from holding press conferences/briefings.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Even the transition away from holding press conferences/briefings.


Honestly, that's way more worrying than it's getting proper credit for. I get that it's only PART about secrecy and not wanting to be questioned, and also part of it is Trump is so damned mercurial that no one wants to have to speak on the record for him, for fear he'll flat-out contradict you four hours later... But a free press IS a bulwark of democracy, and they're doing their best to neuter them in a number of ways, this being front and center.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Honestly, that's way more worrying than it's getting proper credit for. I get that it's only PART about secrecy and not wanting to be questioned, and also part of it is Trump is so damned mercurial that no one wants to have to speak on the record for him, for fear he'll flat-out contradict you four hours later... But a free press IS a bulwark of democracy, and they're doing their best to neuter them in a number of ways, this being front and center.



Especially when you take into account Trump's press secretary claims "unprecedented access" to POTUS but Trump and his officials give interviews 10:1 on Fox or other conservative outlets vs. even tame/unbiased networks like ABC, CBS or NBC proper. 

Other than pervasive fear baiting, Fox and Friends was always a low budget Today Show/The View kinda vanilla morning news magazine. I'm constantly horrified when I see some unprecedented authoritarian breaking news, and the next day you see, like, Pompeo on Fox and Friends to explain it.

This is legit the Dollar General version of fascism.

And speaking of "nothing to see here" bullshit and Pompeo, does anybody have any confidence in this internal investigation into the Yovananvitch surveillance? The green light probably came from Pompeo himself.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

That Yovananvitch situation is fucking terrifying. Full stop.

That's the kind of "deep state" shit these cousin fuckers have been going on about forever and they don't care because she's not a 20-something blonde wearing an American flag bikini and holding a Bible while going on about how sexy guns are.


----------



## Randy

Oh, you could smell the hypocritical sanctimony a mile away. This was the party of the Patriot Act. 

Like two or three years ago, the first time I heard Nunes complaining about either Popadopolous, Flynn or Page (forgot which asshole) being "snared" into the Russia investigation, I could smell the bullshit already. He argued the rules of "unmasking" meant that, they could wire tap any kind of horrible crook (say, a mobster or a terrorist ready to detonate a bomb any second) but the identity of the person on the other end of the call needed to remain "masked", even internally. That's INSANE.

If they made an actual piece of legislation out of that just to shield Trump's associates (or as we're learning, Nunes and his associates), you could be looking at hundreds or thousands of dangerous criminals going free because you're never allowed to know who the terrorist is calling. 

And yeah, it was also all feigned privacy purist bullshit because they were okaying surveillance and using official channels to investigate all of their political opponents and apparently anybody standing in the way of their corrupt dealings too. Swamp the drain!


----------



## Randy

The irony being that the guy the FISA court hired to do the study and make recommendations on changes is the guy that runs Lawfare (liberal leaning), and Nunes, et all hit the roof. Meanwhile, if ANYONE was going to make a recommendation to FISA that would boost privacy rights, it would be an anti-Bush liberal. 

Of course, that's not Nunes game or his goal, so his people aren't happy.


----------



## zappatton2

Worth the read at what legitimate press has to compete with these days;
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...t6KyAFuf9jjqVISVxctbkztOwZjwpXQCQgCXMMvj4SHlE


----------



## Randy




----------



## MaxOfMetal

Reverse psychology?


----------



## sleewell

probably was a brain fart, she had to have thought the question was about her. 


Iran just put out a 3mm bounty for killing trump.


----------



## Drew

I'm not sure I disagree with her - he HAS been a career politician, and hasn't held a normal job since, what, 24? But, there's something to be said for if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it. Not a great look.

At the same time, I can I guess understand why she's not Bernie Sanders Biggest Fan #1, after how ugly things got there at the end of the primary season in 2016 so while I'd rather she held her tongue, I hope this isn't actually a surprise to anyone that Hillary doesn't like Bernie.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm not sure I disagree with her - he HAS been a career politician, and hasn't held a normal job since, what, 24? But, there's something to be said for if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it. Not a great look.
> 
> At the same time, I can I guess understand why she's not Bernie Sanders Biggest Fan #1, after how ugly things got there at the end of the primary season in 2016 so while I'd rather she held her tongue, I hope this isn't actually a surprise to anyone that Hillary doesn't like Bernie.



And I'm sure if it were the other way around and Bernie sat out 2020 but was lobbing shots over the fence at Hillary as the #2 candidate in the race, you would have no concerns about how this potentially effects the general election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I'm not sure I disagree with her - he HAS been a career politician, and hasn't held a normal job since, what, 24? But, there's something to be said for if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say it. Not a great look.
> 
> At the same time, I can I guess understand why she's not Bernie Sanders Biggest Fan #1, after how ugly things got there at the end of the primary season in 2016 so while I'd rather she held her tongue, I hope this isn't actually a surprise to anyone that Hillary doesn't like Bernie.



Most establishment politicians from both sides of the aisle (but Dems especially) hate Bernie. 

That's kind of his shtick. 

This is all just petty bullshit the right is going to use against every Dem candidate. One of their most recent go-to shin jabs is talking up the disarray and infighting within the Democratic Party. Yeah, they're no better at times, but they don't care. 

This was a bad move and driven purely by HRC's ego. Maybe she'll remember that's partly what lost her the election.


----------



## Drew

Eh, the odds of Bernie being the Democratic candidate aren't especially high. If I was Sanders, I'd be way more worried about that than what Clinton thinks of me.



Randy said:


> And I'm sure if it were the other way around and Bernie sat out 2020 but was lobbing shots over the fence at Hillary as the #2 candidate in the race, you would have no concerns about how this potentially effects the general election.


No, again, I think this was in poor taste - "not a great look." It's just also not very surprising, and I don't necessarily think she's wrong, with respect to Sanders being a career politician. It's something I've always been a little confused by, Sanders being an anti-establishment hero, while having I think only held one non-elected-office job in his entire life. That's neither here nor there, of course, and I do think Clinton should have held her tongue here.

EDIT - especially because, to your point, if somehow Sanders were to win, there's enough truth to that attack that I could see it drawing blood.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Eh, the odds of Bernie being the Democratic candidate aren't especially high. If I was Sanders, I'd be way more worried about that than what Clinton thinks of me.



It doesn't matter. The right is still going to use this against whoever grabs the nod. 

No one is surprised that Clinton does not like Bernie (and I'm sure the feeling is plenty mutual), it's just surprising to an extent (not completely) that she's fucking petty enough to do this. 

She can get off the cross about losing any time now instead of burning it for everyone.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It doesn't matter. The right is still going to use this against whoever grabs the nod.
> 
> No one is surprised that Clinton does not like Bernie (and I'm sure the feeling is plenty mutual), it's just surprising to an extent (not completely) that she's fucking petty enough to do this.
> 
> She can get off the cross about losing any time now instead of burning it for everyone.


Go back and read my edit.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Go back and read my edit.



No mention about this being potentially weaponized against Biden or Warren or whoever. Another edit?


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> No mention about this being potentially weaponized against Biden or Warren or whoever. Another edit?


Not sure what you're referring to, but the fact that if Sanders WERE to somehow win the nomination (which I don't think is especially likely), the attack of "he's just another career politician only pretending to be different" is something that I could see becoming problematic, when he's running against someone who never held elected office before the White House.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Not sure what you're referring to, but the fact that if Sanders WERE to somehow win the nomination (which I don't think is especially likely), the attack of "he's just another career politician only pretending to be different" is something that I could see becoming problematic, when he's running against someone who never held elected office before the White House.



Obviously this is most damaging to Bernie, but there are wider implications. 

See:



MaxOfMetal said:


> Most establishment politicians from both sides of the aisle (but Dems especially) hate Bernie.
> 
> That's kind of his shtick.
> 
> *This is all just petty bullshit the right is going to use against every Dem candidate. One of their most recent go-to shin jabs is talking up the disarray and infighting within the Democratic Party. *Yeah, they're no better at times, but they don't care.
> 
> This was a bad move and driven purely by HRC's ego. Maybe she'll remember that's partly what lost her the election.





MaxOfMetal said:


> *It doesn't matter. The right is still going to use this against whoever grabs the nod. *
> 
> No one is surprised that Clinton does not like Bernie (and I'm sure the feeling is plenty mutual), it's just surprising to an extent (not completely) that she's fucking petty enough to do this.
> 
> She can get off the cross about losing any time now instead of burning it for everyone.


----------



## Drew

Ok, then I guess I'm a bit confused - how does Clinton not liking Bernie and thinking he's a career politician even if he pretends otherwise hurt, say, Warren or Yang? I think the attack would be especially damaging to Sanders because he _is_ running an "outsider"/"anti-establishment" campaign. Someone like, say, Buttigieg is definitely not an anti-establishment candidate, and even Warren is more progressive than she is anti-establishment, so I don't see it as necessarily damaging.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Ok, then I guess I'm a bit confused - how does Clinton not liking Bernie and thinking he's a career politician even if he pretends otherwise hurt, say, Warren or Yang?



I've seen/heard a lot of right leaning folks harp on how fractured the Democratic Party is as a whole, how it supposedly colludes against certain candidates, and that brings up questions about how well the party could govern. 

Now, I don't put much stock in any of that, but it's cannon fodder for the GOP spin machine and definitely low hanging fruit for Trump's team. 

The threat to not endorse the winner of the primary isn't a great look either. That'll definitely bolster those clamoring for third-party options. 

It just seems to be a liability for the overall goal. 

You're free to disagree, but I'm unconvinced that this is the sniper shot to an unlikely candidate you're making it out to be. 

I rather you be right, for the record.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've seen/heard a lot of right leaning folks harp on how fractured the Democratic Party is as a whole, how it supposedly colludes against certain candidates, and that brings up questions about how well the party could govern.
> 
> Now, I don't put much stock in any of that, but it's cannon fodder for the GOP spin machine and definitely low hanging fruit for Trump's team.
> 
> The threat to not endorse the winner of the primary isn't a great look either. That'll definitely bolster those clamoring for third-party options.
> 
> It just seems to be a liability for the overall goal.
> 
> You're free to disagree, but I'm unconvinced that this is the sniper shot to an unlikely candidate you're making it out to be.
> 
> I rather you be right, for the record.


Ok, I do see where you're going, then.

Eh, that's an awfully tough argument for the GOP to make after 2016, when a badly fractured, directionless GOP ended up nominating a candidate who looked nothing like a traditional Republican, who somehow then went on to win. I'm also not sure if it helps or hurts the GOP that the Democratic party has always been seen as the "big tent" party representing a wide array of interests while the GOP has historically been a lot more, well, "unified" or "single-minded" depending on your perspective.

And I guess I'd say finally that I don't think pointing to a "divided, in-fighting Democratic party" will be an effective attack if after the primary we move on and get unified behind the eventual winner. Again, I think this is more dangerous to a Sanders candidacy than it is anyone else, because as someone who historically has caucused with the party but not actually identified as a Democrat, there's room to attack him for not actually being representative of the party's priorities and interests, and to try to exploit that weakness to argue he's not *really* a Democrat. That was probably going to happen one way or another, though, given how fractious 2016 was. However, I think if, say, Buttigieg were to win the nomination, it would be pretty straightfoward to look back at the primary and call it a "healthy discussion about the future of the party," and that now that the Democrats have resolved that discussion and picked a direction, we can all move forward as one.

The risk of course is if the primary DOES get very divisive in the same way that 2016 did. If Sanders wins after an _ugly_ primary season, well, this whole conversation is a moot point beause neither of us disagreed that it hurts Sanders most immediately, and because Sanders was always going to have a hard time "uniting" the party behind him if the primary got bruising (you have to wonder what his ultimate strategy was in 2016, when things started to get a bit ugly. A lot has been made about did the "establishment" have any right to count on Sanders supporters' votes after that primary, but say he did eke it out - did he really expect the establishment would welcome him with open arms, either? If he wants to win in 2020, he has to run with an aim to how he can expect to unify the party behind him in the general just as ANY candidate has to be very concerned with that). However, if there's a lot of really, really bad blood coming out of the primary season, then continuing to attack the Dems as being too divided to be trusted could be damaging.

But, let's be honest - that's happening with or without Clinton's comments here. How the Democratic primary resolves is going to be the real crux of this issue, and I think the Republican attacks are an attempt to make this something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clinton isn't doing anyone any favors here, but she's not where that line of attack that the Dems are "too divided" is coming from.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Eh, the odds of Bernie being the Democratic candidate aren't especially high.



Not an argument you say in good conscience if you've given consideration to any nominee besides Biden. There's been ups and downs but It's been pretty steady 1 Biden 2 Bernie, and the first polls haven't even opened yet. If you're projecting because that's the outcome you don't want to see fine but "aren't especially high" for #2 in a race that started as 17+ is overly simplistic.


----------



## spudmunkey

A firefighter family friend posted this to FB. My mom texted it to me, asking if this is real:


----------



## sleewell

no martial arts lol


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> A firefighter family friend posted this to FB. My mom texted it to me, asking if this is real:
> View attachment 76881



How do people fall for this shit? Probably Russian propaganda.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not an argument you say in good conscience if you've given consideration to any nominee besides Biden. There's been ups and downs but It's been pretty steady 1 Biden 2 Bernie, and the first polls haven't even opened yet. If you're projecting because that's the outcome you don't want to see fine but "aren't especially high" for #2 in a race that started as 17+ is overly simplistic.


I mean, literally, the odds of Bernie being the nominee are about 1 in 5 right now, per 538's model. Betting markets tell roughly the same story - if you want to translate contract prices into probabilities it gets a little complex, because properly speaking an efficient market should have total contract prices for a dollar payoff per contract summing up to $1.00, while even before you get into the myriad of longshot candidates at $0.01 each you're up to $1.15, but if we just assume all of the penny contracts themselves have a total likelihood equal to a penny on the dollar then $0.29/$1.16 implies a probability of exactly 1 in 4. That's not nothing - that's actually roughly what 538's estimate of Trump winning was in 2016 as it happens. But that's also consistent with the view that Sanders has a 3-in-4 chance of NOT winning, which is more where I was coming from. 

And, full disclosure, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter at this point. I'd say he's the most likely nominee at this point, but again using current predictit market contract prices, 0.42/1.16 gives him about a 36% shot, or a little better than 1-in-3. Better than Sanders, but also a 64% chance of his also not being the nominee. 

Long story short, I don't think it's a stretch to say, or displays any bias, to say that it's not especially likely for Sanders to be the nominee. That's a simple result of probability.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> A firefighter family friend posted this to FB. My mom texted it to me, asking if this is real:
> View attachment 76881



What they've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent response were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.


----------



## Science_Penguin

tedtan said:


> How do people fall for this shit? Probably Russian propaganda.



Well, where do you get your proof that it's not true? 

The government? No one trusts them

The MSM? All fake news

Normal people who've actually looked into it and can't find any sources to back it up? Mere sheeple brainwashed by one or both of the above.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> How do people fall for this shit? Probably Russian propaganda.



I honestly don't think that most folks who share that kind of stuff actually believe it. It's just done as some roundabout way to "own the liberals" or to start arguments "for the lulz".

The few that actually do believe it are already invested in equally crazy conspiracy nonsense. So it's just another stream of thought bouncing around the noggin of someone who believes the Illuminati killed JFK because he faked the moon landing with help from aliens to hide the fact that the Earth is flat and has no bottom to the oceans.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> I honestly don't think that most folks who share that kind of stuff actually believe it. It's just done as some roundabout way to "own the liberals" or to start arguments "for the lulz".
> 
> The few that actually do believe it are already invested in equally crazy conspiracy nonsense. So it's just another stream of thought bouncing around the noggin of someone who believes the Illuminati killed JFK because he faked the moon landing with help from aliens to hide the fact that the Earth is flat and has no bottom to the oceans.



To a point. What i can say is that a good portion of my family doesn't question the moon landing, because 'USA! USA! USA'. They also don't think the earth is flat, because every picture of the globe they see has the USA front-and-center and they are OK with that. They don't question things they've been taught for decades. Which is also why they are all still "christian" even though there are no signs that they practice besides sharing God's Love memes and poems on facebook, and wear a cross necklace. They cling to anything that reinforces their believe that other races, whether they are immigrants or not (and the countries they come from), are beneath them and the nation is weaker because of it.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, literally, the odds of Bernie being the nominee are about 1 in 5 right now, per 538's model. Betting markets tell roughly the same story - if you want to translate contract prices into probabilities it gets a little complex, because properly speaking an efficient market should have total contract prices for a dollar payoff per contract summing up to $1.00, while even before you get into the myriad of longshot candidates at $0.01 each you're up to $1.15, but if we just assume all of the penny contracts themselves have a total likelihood equal to a penny on the dollar then $0.29/$1.16 implies a probability of exactly 1 in 4. That's not nothing - that's actually roughly what 538's estimate of Trump winning was in 2016 as it happens. But that's also consistent with the view that Sanders has a 3-in-4 chance of NOT winning, which is more where I was coming from.
> 
> And, full disclosure, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter at this point. I'd say he's the most likely nominee at this point, but again using current predictit market contract prices, 0.42/1.16 gives him about a 36% shot, or a little better than 1-in-3. Better than Sanders, but also a 64% chance of his also not being the nominee.
> 
> Long story short, I don't think it's a stretch to say, or displays any bias, to say that it's not especially likely for Sanders to be the nominee. That's a simple result of probability.


No one likes HRC, and she's a career politician. That's what makes the statement painfully ironic. No one is buying her books. Also, not that this us scientific in the least, especially in terms of sampling, but skip to 8:34 
I agree that politicians don't like Bernie Sanders. I don't like Bernie Sanders, but most young Americans love Bernie Sanders. Most old hippies love Bernie Sanders. A lot of non-young non-hippies like him. But he will not be the nominee, because he's not a proper Democrat. On the other hand, no one likes Joe Biden right now. His popularity is the lowest ever and it'll likely continue going lower throughout the year. He will tick most of the same boxes of what people didn't like about HRC, and he will lose the electoral vote to Trump, but win the pop vote. Then we will have a super unpopular president Trump with nothing to fear- no re-election, no impeachment, no stopping him. And he will dismantle government bureaucracies like the EPA and the SEC, because toxins and white collar crimes are all a myth, and beef up ICE and Space Farce, because the only thing scarier than aliens are illegal aliens taking away our jobs! [/sardonicism]


----------



## Xaios

MaxOfMetal said:


> I honestly don't think that most folks who share that kind of stuff actually believe it. It's just done as some roundabout way to "own the liberals" or to start arguments "for the lulz".


This, but also that many Trump supporters, evangelicals included, basically believe that an outright lie, otherwise known as bearing false witness (but hey, it's not like there's a commandment against that kind of thing), made in service of what they perceive as being the greater good is not only acceptable, but righteous.


----------



## USMarine75

tedtan said:


> How do people fall for this shit? Probably Russian propaganda.



Thank god he gave us permission to copy and paste it though.


----------



## Ralyks

Sooooo that was a shit show yesterday. And Roberts didn't seem pleased with Trump's defense. Too bad this will all end along party lines.


----------



## sleewell

Our country is fucked. The cult is winning.


Trump: we will call witnesses once this moves to the senate.

Also Trump: no witnesses in the senate trial. Let's also limit evidence. 


Cult members: everything is fine 

Trumps atty: no one in the house trial had any direct contact with trump bc trump blocked them all from appearing


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> No one likes HRC, and she's a career politician. That's what makes the statement painfully ironic. No one is buying her books. Also, not that this us scientific in the least, especially in terms of sampling, but skip to 8:34
> I agree that politicians don't like Bernie Sanders. I don't like Bernie Sanders, but most young Americans love Bernie Sanders. Most old hippies love Bernie Sanders. A lot of non-young non-hippies like him. But he will not be the nominee, because he's not a proper Democrat. On the other hand, no one likes Joe Biden right now. His popularity is the lowest ever and it'll likely continue going lower throughout the year. He will tick most of the same boxes of what people didn't like about HRC, and he will lose the electoral vote to Trump, but win the pop vote. Then we will have a super unpopular president Trump with nothing to fear- no re-election, no impeachment, no stopping him. And he will dismantle government bureaucracies like the EPA and the SEC, because toxins and white collar crimes are all a myth, and beef up ICE and Space Farce, because the only thing scarier than aliens are illegal aliens taking away our jobs! [/sardonicism]




Two things here - I don't see anything ironic with Clinton calling Sanders a "career politician" at all, considering as an establishment Democratic candidate and former Secretary of State the fact she was an "insider" candidate was never really at all in question - you yourself used the insider/outsider divide to describe issues with her campaign a few pages back. What makes it ironic is that Sanders, the "outsider" candidate, actually has a shorter non-politcal resume than Clinton, the "insider" career one, by a fairly wide margin. What she's getting at is the difference in _perception_ and how in Sanders's case his stance as being somehow different from career politicians doesn't hold water. 

Second... I - again - think you're still confusing "popularity" with voting, and candidate favorability is only a small part of the picture here. As it happens, Sanders' favorability has been falling, post flareup with Warren, and at least as of this morning he and Biden are neck and neck at the top of the heap for the Democratic nomination, with 73% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Sanders (20% unfavorable, net +53) vs 72% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Biden (21% unfavorable, net +51). So, favorability is kind of an iffy statistic to hang your hat on to begin with... but it's also not one that really tells a favorable story for Sanders, or at least it certainly doesn't tell the story you think it does. 

And, per my last post in this thread, Biden winning is hardly a foregone conclusion, and _also_ not an especially likely outcome right now. He's the favorite, sure, but the favorite in a tight race, and it's still more likely than not that someone other than Biden is our nominee.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Sooooo that was a shit show yesterday. And Roberts didn't seem pleased with Trump's defense. Too bad this will all end along party lines.


Didn't watch it live, so the color on Roberts is interesting. That's potentially important, since in a 50-50 split, it does appear that Roberts _would_ be the tiebreaking vote. 

Also, a lot's being made of the fact that McConnell had to backtrack for spplitting the alloted timing over three days rather than two - the two conflicting explanations are that it's a reminder the rules ARE in play and McConnell can't just force through whatever he wants... But, also that allegedly the White House may have had advance warning of the change, and it's possible it may have been a tactical play on his part, to give moderates in his caucus cover that they did push back for a fair trial, and he staked his position at two days knowing full well he'd have too give and allow 3. 

We know too that both Romney and Collins are in favor of ultimately allowing witnesses after the first three days of the trial, when the second vote comes up (Romney had previously indicated he'd vote down including them in the rules, but would vote for witnesses with firsthand knowledge in the proceedings, so nothing there was a surprise). There's also quiet speculation that this is a tactical move on Collins' part, that she knows that there won't be four votes to allow witnesses so she can safely take this position and look independent knowing it won't change the outcome. That's worth keeping an eye on too, especially if all 47 democrats vote for witnesses and Romney and Collins are joined by Murkowski or Lamar Alexander or someone, and we get a 50-50 split that then goes to Roberts. Though, if he voted in favor, it's still possible someone could be pressured into flipping their vote andf a majority vote could overrule him. 

There's little real doubt about the outcome... But there's a surprising amount of uncertainty about how exactly this is going to play out, and I don't think it's at all a sure thing that we don't get a few subpoenas for the trial, with Bolton at least being a sure thing to actually show, though Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Pompeo are unknowns.


----------



## Ralyks

At the gym today i looked over at one of the TVs and it was showing WaPo reporting Democrats nuking a trade for Hunter testimony in exchange for Bolton. If true, I say just do it.

And yeah, Trump isn't getting removed. I think this is more about November at this point.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> At the gym today i looked over at one of the TVs and it was showing WaPo reporting Democrats nuking a trade for Hunter testimony in exchange for Bolton. If true, I say just do it.



Of course they nuked that deal. Because protecting Hunter Biden is more important than skewering Trump.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Of course they nuked that deal. Because protecting Hunter Biden is more important than skewering Trump.



This just indicates to me that Biden is the DNC choice and we're going to get railroaded again.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Of course they nuked that deal. Because protecting Hunter Biden is more important than skewering Trump.


We're having a parallel conversation here, with another board... 

...but not for nothing, if Trump is being impeached for improperly using presidential power to try to get the Ukrainian PM to re-open an investigation into Burisma and publicly linking Hunter Biden to that investigation, arguably having Hunter Biden testify on the Senate floor denying allegations that he was involved in the tax fraud Burisma was being investigated in is a far, far bigger prize for Trump than an Ukrainian announcement. 

If push came to shove I'd probably make that trade, but look at this from the GOP's perspective - this isn't not buying the cow because you can get the milk for free, this is someone giving you the milk, AND tossing in the cow. 

Anyway, the real negotiations will be after the three days where both sides pitch their cases, when they negotiate what next steps will be. There are enough Republican senators wavering that some serious back-and-forth about a witness and evidence deal will likely begin then.


----------



## Drew

I guess, tl;dr, it seems to me calling Hunter Biden as a witness is a bigger _political_ win for Trump than even getting Ukraine to announce an investigation referencing the Bidens would have been, and that's absolutely something that we need to keep in mind as we go forward. If you're going to hand that to Trump, you'd better be damn sure you're getting a plausible shot at bombshell witness testimony in return.


----------



## sleewell

also.... who would go first? hunter goes first, gives team cult a huge propaganda win. bolton steps up and claims exec privilege and doesn't say anything besides buy my book.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> also.... who would go first? hunter goes first, gives team cult a huge propaganda win. bolton steps up and claims exec privilege and doesn't say anything besides buy my book.


I mean, these are some of the details that would have to be worked out. If we agree to a witness swap and get Giuliani and Bolton in return for, oh, Hunter and Schiff, then I think you'd need some sort of assurances that Bolton and Giuliani actually testify. The former has said he will, but partly because of that some of the other insiders would be the real prize, because at this point its not entirely clear that McConnell has the votes to STOP Bolton from being subpoenaed by the Senate. The more pertinent question might be if it's better to block Hunter, or trade his testimony for Giuliani or Mulvaney's. 

And, honestly, considering this is all showmanship until after the three days each side has to make their cases, blocking efforts to trade Hunter's testimony for Bolton's may very well be negotiation at this point, with the end goal finding out if they have the votes to subpoena Bolton, and THEN seeing what they can get for Hunter.


----------



## Ralyks

Rick Scott now saying he's open to witnesses. That makes him, Collins, Romney, and Merkowski if they don't cave.


----------



## spudmunkey

Uncle Leroy just posted on facebook that he just read Aaron Rogers (quarterback for the Green Bay Packers american rules football team) is basically an athiest. Uncle Leroy declared that he is now boycotting the Packers, and said he should have rooted for the 49ers last weekend.

Should I remind him that the 49ers are the "gay San Francisco" 49ers from "Commiefornia"?


----------



## Randy

"Hunter Biden is off the table" 2020 is "you don't need to see the transcripts of Hillary's meeting with Goldman Sachs" 2016 all over again.

Dems claim blocking stuff to not give Republicans ammunition, when meanwhile voters in their own party are just as concerned and being shut out. For a party so obsessed with courting independents, they sure love gaslighting corruption and condescension. Perfect formula for low turnouts and protest votes, well done.

Worth pointing out Biden isnt even the candidate yet. If they play this like 'bloody knuckles' between witnesses damaging to Trump and witnesses damaging to Joe Biden, if Biden loses the nomination, they've gained nothing but Dems still have a mountain of stuff to uas against the Rs candidate. But, nope.


----------



## Vyn

IMO, thowing the Bidens under a bus and putting the party behind Warren in response to whatever shit comes out of that would be the best move.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Two things here - I don't see anything ironic with Clinton calling Sanders a "career politician" at all, considering as an establishment Democratic candidate and former Secretary of State the fact she was an "insider" candidate was never really at all in question - you yourself used the insider/outsider divide to describe issues with her campaign a few pages back. What makes it ironic is that Sanders, the "outsider" candidate, actually has a shorter non-politcal resume than Clinton, the "insider" career one, by a fairly wide margin. What she's getting at is the difference in _perception_ and how in Sanders's case his stance as being somehow different from career politicians doesn't hold water.
> 
> Second... I - again - think you're still confusing "popularity" with voting, and candidate favorability is only a small part of the picture here. As it happens, Sanders' favorability has been falling, post flareup with Warren, and at least as of this morning he and Biden are neck and neck at the top of the heap for the Democratic nomination, with 73% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Sanders (20% unfavorable, net +53) vs 72% of primary voters having a favorable opinion of Biden (21% unfavorable, net +51). So, favorability is kind of an iffy statistic to hang your hat on to begin with... but it's also not one that really tells a favorable story for Sanders, or at least it certainly doesn't tell the story you think it does.
> 
> And, per my last post in this thread, Biden winning is hardly a foregone conclusion, and _also_ not an especially likely outcome right now. He's the favorite, sure, but the favorite in a tight race, and it's still more likely than not that someone other than Biden is our nominee.


Career politician no one likes is making the news by saying no one likes other career politician.
It's ironic to me. I guess it's not ironic to you.

The Sanders/Warren feud is hurting them both, but hurting Warren worse for sure, in terms of favourability. No one is confusing votes for anything. When you vote for a bad candidate, you end up with bad elected officials. What's to misunderstand about wanting less unfavourable candidates to get more support?

Who is going to be nominated by the DNC, if not Biden?


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> IMO, thowing the Bidens under a bus and putting the party behind Warren in response to whatever shit comes out of that would be the best move.



FWIW, my read is that Hunter Biden probably did nothing illegal and Joe Biden didn't do anything corrupt.

I get the feeling that Hunter was the consumate "black sheep" kid Joe was constantly bailing out, and at a certain point you figure out that you love your kid, but you're asking for trouble lending him money or your car keys.

I don't doubt they had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on Hunter's business dealings. Burisma probably gave Hunter the job expecting to buy influence, Hunter took that job because of the opportunistic crackhead that he is but at some point it was clear they weren't going to get much out of it, so they parted ways.

I don't think Biden's push to remove the prosecutor was with corrupt intent. It was well known he was crooked and everybody wanted him gone, but my one concession is that he was likely FAMILIAR with that specific guy based on his son's proximity.

I say all of that because I'm a "sunlight is the best disinfectant" guy. You're not going to get around the fact its ugly politics and the Republicans are going to use it, but you're doing yourself no favors deflecting it and gaslighting the belief in a cover-up, especially if it hurts you with your own voters and especially if there's "no there there" anyway.

It's all politics at this point. They're not removing Trump with this impeachment, so the Senate battle is 100% about 2020 electoral politics. By that measure, as my friend said today "you sink more battleships with Bolton's testimony than they do with Hunter's".


----------



## Randy

My main complaint about Hillary (among many) was the constant indignation, like she never needed to explain anything because you're a dumb nobody and afraid of Trump enough to vote for her no matter what. In my head, I gave her like a dozen different opportunities to play one of her scandals clean and she never did.

That's me on Biden. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate no matter who it is, but I'll proudly vote for the front runner in the primary to give a decisive, united message going into the general if they show any respect for their constituents, and so far hes failed miserably. I don't even think he's that bad a guy but he's absolutely buying his own hype.


----------



## thraxil

Randy said:


> I get the feeling that Hunter was the consumate "black sheep" kid Joe was constantly bailing out, and at a certain point you figure out that you love your kid, but you're asking for trouble lending him money or your car keys.



I feel like there's a lot of nepotism involved, but probably no more than you'd find looking into any reasonably wealthy, politically connected family. Plenty of Bushes and Kennedy's got further ahead in life because of their last name (not to mention some with a last name that rhymes with "Drump"). Wealthy well-connected people's kids end up wealthy and well-connected. Some of it is outright corruption and nepotism, but a lot is also just that they are given all the opportunities early in life, have social connections to powerful people, and are valued by less connected people because of the access that they can grant.

Still, the dude did graduate Yale law school, ran some investment and venture capital companies, and was vice president of Amtrak's board of directors for a few years. Nothing seems to indicate that he was a total failure at any of that. It doesn't seem right to cast him as a total fuckup. Like, "VP's son gets $50k/month job at Ukrainian gas company" and "former venture capitalist, international investor, VP of Amtrak's board of directors with a history of handling multi-million dollar deals is paid $50k/month to advise on corporate governance" are both true, but paint a very different picture. Hell, $50k/month isn't that unreasonable at all for a Yale law school grad that's been practicing for 20 years to bill a client. My partner's a graphic designer (without a degree in the field, just talent) and there were months when she pulled in $20k in contracts when she had the right combination of desparate clients.

It all sounds pretty gross to most of us who work regular jobs for a living, but it's just how a lot of the world works. If they get him to testify, the republicans will be working hard to tar and feather him for doing things that most of them and their families are also doing.


----------



## sleewell

Why isn't anyone pushing for Rudy to testify? He was in the middle of everything and is batshit crazy. Seems like it would be a treasure trove both for impeachment and the election. Only the best people lol.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> We're having a parallel conversation here, with another board...
> 
> ...but not for nothing, if Trump is being impeached for improperly using presidential power to try to get the Ukrainian PM to re-open an investigation into Burisma and publicly linking Hunter Biden to that investigation, arguably having Hunter Biden testify on the Senate floor denying allegations that he was involved in the tax fraud Burisma was being investigated in is a far, far bigger prize for Trump than an Ukrainian announcement.
> 
> If push came to shove I'd probably make that trade, but look at this from the GOP's perspective - this isn't not buying the cow because you can get the milk for free, this is someone giving you the milk, AND tossing in the cow.
> 
> Anyway, the real negotiations will be after the three days where both sides pitch their cases, when they negotiate what next steps will be. There are enough Republican senators wavering that some serious back-and-forth about a witness and evidence deal will likely begin then.



My position on this is that publicly making it clear that Hunter is off the table as a bargaining chip implies guilt. It may be that he's not guilty at all. But its better to have a stance of Anti-Corruption when being willing to shine a light on the corruption of your own party. Maybe especially so since the alleged corruption is closely associated or involving the person on trial's biggest political opponent in the next election. If you come at it like you're willing to out your own party's corruption the appearance then isn't about politics. The appearance is that its about doing the right thing. So the biggest head on the democratic hydra is put on the block. It's not a good look to be openly protecting your own potential corruption while trying to expose that of your opponent. My only reason for thinking this may be the case, is that the DNC has chosen Biden already. They should have learned their lesson in regards to this in 2016. If not, their constituents should be livid and should honestly abandon the party. Its a disingenuous process, and robs voters of their voices. I'm an Independent. And I don't have any strong feelings toward Biden as a politician. So I don't honestly care if he gets thrown under the bus. There are better candidates in my opinion. If we get railroaded again, Then I think I'll maintain my independence and start casting my votes to shape the other side's primaries.


----------



## sleewell

also.... does trump think thomas edison is alive and that the wheel was invented in america?


said he would be open to cutting social security and medicare too. that should make good material for commercials.


----------



## Ralyks

I think the arguement for Hunter is the Dems saying "you could have subpoenaed him or anyone else. You didn't. We did and you blocked us".

Still, I would have just done it. You'd get more from Bolton and less from Hunter and that would be a win.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> "Hunter Biden is off the table" 2020 is "you don't need to see the transcripts of Hillary's meeting with Goldman Sachs" 2016 all over again.


Hot take: If you made a list of reasons Hillary lost in 2016, "She didn't release her Goldman speech transcripts" wouldn't be top five, and probably wouldn't make the top 10, either. Not irreverent, but the sort of thing that plays better to conservative beltway junkies than it does Main Street voters. 



bostjan said:


> Who is going to be nominated by the DNC, if not Biden?


We'll begin to find out in about two weeks, when Iowa holds their caucus. By the odds, either Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Buttigieg, in about that order, but it's pretty close among the first three and even Buttigieg has a real shot. 



Thaeon said:


> My only reason for thinking this may be the case, is that the DNC has chosen Biden already. They should have learned their lesson in regards to this in 2016. If not, their constituents should be livid and should honestly abandon the party. Its a disingenuous process, and robs voters of their voices.



Most of your argument I think we need to shelf until next week, when debate about witnesses begins in earnest. But, I'm awfully curious why you think Biden's winning is a foregone conclusion here, or why the DNC, and not primary voters, decides this. Last I checked, the candidate who wins a majority of the delegates, who are awarded based on popular vote, wins the nomination, no?



Ralyks said:


> Still, I would have just done it. You'd get more from Bolton and less from Hunter and that would be a win.



Ultimately I think this is my position, too, and I think if any sort of deal on witnesses comes together, Hunter Biden testifying is very likely to be part of it. The only thing I'd caution for the time being, at risk of sounding like a broken record, was impeachment rules specifying from the outset that witnesses would be called was never going to happen, was not part of the Clinton rules either, and any decision about witnesses and subpoenas and additional evidence won't be made until the six days in which the prosecution and defense present their case, so anything happening until then is just posturing and maneuvering into an opening position for negotiation. 

Based on what I've seen so far, I think the odds may be slightly in _favor _of witness testimony.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Hot take: If you made a list of reasons Hillary lost in 2016, "She didn't release her Goldman speech transcripts" wouldn't be top five, and probably wouldn't make the top 10, either. Not irreverent, but the sort of thing that plays better to conservative beltway junkies than it does Main Street voters.



Not true. Death by a million papercuts and by "papercut" I mean Hillary's campaign either lying, distorting or fuzzying an issue driving mistrust among people in her own party, muchless independents with no loyalty to her or party. I could write a much longer list. James Comey gets a lot of blame for the last minute bubble being burst but it's relevant WHAT he went on TV to talk about.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Based on what I've seen so far, I think the odds may be slightly in _favor _of witness testimony.



Considering Scott, Collins, Merkowski, and Romney are currently on board with witnesses, I think it's becoming a possibility as well. Provided they don't cave and Rand Paul shuts the fuck up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I’m sick of this Democratic Party hubris. 

Maybe if they stopped tripping over their own dicks over every situation we'd see some more meaningful victories. 

But nope. Didn't learn a damn thing since the last election.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not true. Death by a million papercuts and by "papercut" I mean Hillary's campaign either lying, distorting or fuzzying an issue driving mistrust among people in her own party, muchless independents with no loyalty to her or party. I could write a much longer list. James Comey gets a lot of blame for the last minute bubble being burst but it's relevant WHAT he went on TV to talk about.


I mean, we can definitely agree to disagree, but I have a hard time seeing Joe Plumber going to the voting booth thinking, "...but her Goldman transcripts." As one more point of evidence in a "Crooked Hillary" narrative, sure, but I think that's going to fall far behind her email server, for example.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Considering Scott, Collins, Merkowski, and Romney are currently on board with witnesses, I think it's becoming a possibility as well. Provided they don't cave and Rand Paul shuts the fuck up.


Yeah, hardly a done deal, but there's enough GOP senators with a mix of actual concerns, and a desire, motivated by politics or otherwise, to make this look as little like a sham trial as possible, that it's definitely a possibility. And there's a lot of people saying it's not now because "the DNC said they won't trade Hunter for Bolton or Giuliani" but remember that 48 hours ago Romney _voted_ to not mandate witnesses in the trial, yet he's been pretty clear that when the opening remarks conclude he's going to want them. The negotiations simply haven't begun in earnest.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I mean, we can definitely agree to disagree, but I have a hard time seeing Joe Plumber going to the voting booth thinking, "...but her Goldman transcripts." As one more point of evidence in a "Crooked Hillary" narrative, sure, but I think that's going to fall far behind her email server, for example.



Well, my point was that any of those scandals are interchangeable. Also, Joe the Plumber isn't a Democrat or a centrist independent or first time voter deciding if they care enough to turnout vs rolling the dice with Trump.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Well, my point was that any of those scandals are interchangeable. Also, Joe the Plumber isn't a Democrat or a centrist independent or first time voter deciding if they care enough to turnout vs rolling the dice with Trump.


Joe American, then. I actually forgot, until halfway through writing that, that I was referring to a real person and he ended up being a hardcore conservative and it wasn't just a random name.  

But, be that as it may - that's a big difference between 2016 Hillary and 2020 Joe, that he DOESN'T have a long list of interchangeable scandals. That's part of why I was questioning that comparison.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Most of your argument I think we need to shelf until next week, when debate about witnesses begins in earnest. But, I'm awfully curious why you think Biden's winning is a foregone conclusion here, or why the DNC, and not primary voters, decides this. Last I checked, the candidate who wins a majority of the delegates, who are awarded based on popular vote, wins the nomination, no?



I remember Superdelegates have a HUGE influence last time around and they had all already decided who they were collectively throwing their weight behind. Effectively sandbagging the candidate that polled better against Trump.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Joe American, then. I actually forgot, until halfway through writing that, that I was referring to a real person and he ended up being a hardcore conservative and it wasn't just a random name.
> 
> But, be that as it may - that's a big difference between 2016 Hillary and 2020 Joe, that he DOESN'T have a long list of interchangeable scandals. That's part of why I was questioning that comparison.



To clarify, I didn't mean literally "Joe the Plumber", I just meant that Democratic leaning and independent voters are frequently better informed than their single-issue conservative counterparts.

As far as part two, I think the GOP has made an effort to tar Biden the same way they did Clinton in 2016 (which she made very easy BTW) and MOST of it hasn't had same stickiness as her issues. I'd still stop short of saying Biden doesn't have "interchangeable scandals" especially with regard to Democratic and Progressive perceptions, especially when you compare him to someone like Liz or Amy.



Thaeon said:


> I remember Superdelegates have a HUGE influence last time around and they had all already decided who they were collectively throwing their weight behind. Effectively sandbagging the candidate that polled better against Trump.



I'll preemptively rebut Drew on this one, since I know he's going to point out that Hillary won the delegate count by more than the superdelegate difference. 

The most significant effect of Hillary locking up superdelegates was less to do with their votes and more to do with the fact they worked as surrogates for her for several months and perpetuated the idea that Sanders had no support inside the beltway. This likely drove apathy toward potential voters for Bernie (and reverberated into the general), along with the fact Hillary's name was on the tongue of all the people these people were already voting for. Can't be overstated.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> To clarify, I didn't mean literally "Joe the Plumber", I just meant that Democratic leaning and independent voters are frequently better informed than their single-issue conservative counterparts.
> 
> As far as part two, I think the GOP has made an effort to tar Biden the same way they did Clinton in 2016 (which she made very easy BTW) and MOST of it hasn't had same stickiness as her issues. I'd still stop short of saying Biden doesn't have "interchangeable scandals" especially with regard to Democratic and Progressive perceptions, especially when you compare him to someone like Liz or Amy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll preemptively rebut Drew on this one, since I know he's going to point out that Hillary won the delegate count by more than the superdelegate difference.
> 
> The most significant effect of Hillary locking up superdelegates was less to do with their votes and more to do with the fact they worked as surrogates for her for several months and perpetuated the idea that Sanders had no support inside the beltway. This likely drove apathy toward potential voters for Bernie (and reverberated into the general), along with the fact Hillary's name was on the tongue of all the people these people were already voting for. Can't be overstated.



I think that's my point. If the Superdelegates voted as their constituents did, rather than as unit things might actually have panned out a little closer. That's my problem with that system. The fact that they played HRC up so much and acted as her personal hype squad is a problem. They aren't there for that reason. They're there to be representatives of us. Not to persuade us. Persuade each other? Sure. Persuade the GOP? Definitely. They're there to represent our wishes.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> I think that's my point. If the Superdelegates voted as their constituents did, rather than as unit things might actually have panned out a little closer. That's my problem with that system. The fact that they played HRC up so much and acted as her personal hype squad is a problem. They aren't there for that reason. They're there to be representatives of us. Not to persuade us. Persuade each other? Sure. Persuade the GOP? Definitely. They're there to represent our wishes.



Someone posed the question to my local Congressman 2016 if he would endorse whoever his district voted for in the primary, and he unapologetically said 'No'. So it wasn't even subtle.

EDIT: FWIW, i didn't vote for him for reelection and I never will after that.


----------



## Cynicanal

sleewell said:


> said he would be open to cutting social security and medicare too. that should make good material for commercials.


Agreed. Biden is doing a fantastic job at alienating young voters; cutting services used solely by old people that most younger people don't expect to ever receive (most of us realize that SS will be bankrupt by the time we retire) is an excellent move to appeal to this potential base that the Democratic Party seems to be adversarial to.


----------



## Thaeon

Cynicanal said:


> Agreed. Biden is doing a fantastic job at alienating young voters; cutting services used solely by old people that most younger people don't expect to ever receive (most of us realize that SS will be bankrupt by the time we retire) is an excellent move to appeal to this potential base that the Democratic Party seems to be adversarial to.



I'm the tail end of Gen-X and I'll likely never see any of it...


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I think that's my point. If the Superdelegates voted as their constituents did, rather than as unit things might actually have panned out a little closer. That's my problem with that system. The fact that they played HRC up so much and acted as her personal hype squad is a problem. They aren't there for that reason. They're there to be representatives of us. Not to persuade us. Persuade each other? Sure. Persuade the GOP? Definitely. They're there to represent our wishes.


To be fair, you understand WHY we have the supedelegate system we do today, right?

I'd give a little more credence to the argument that superdelegates may have changed the "perception" of the race, but arguments I've seen that claim the reason Sanders lost Super Tuesday was because it was a dead heat in pledged delegates coming into that day but Clinton's advantage in superdelegates made her _seem_ like the favorite, conveniently ignore the fact that Clinton basically swept all the Southern states that day, where Sanders had always polled well behind her, and if anything the national polling had tightened up somewhat as the race went along, despite Clinton's "perception" of winning due to the superdelegates. Could that have made a slight difference at the margin? Sure, and maybe it would have been enough to flip Massachusetts to Sanders, where Clinton eked out a win by less than a point. But, as a neighbor state to Bernie's home state of Vermont, Mass would have been on the short lists of states that would have been assumed to be potentially competitive as a prior without an ounce of polling info, and I don't think any credible argument could be made that the only reason Clinton won Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia was that people were looking at the delegate count and not stripping out superdelegates. She had too strong a demographic advantage there to begin with, and she never was _not_ leading the pledged delegate race from that point forward.



Thaeon said:


> I remember Superdelegates have a HUGE influence last time around and they had all already decided who they were collectively throwing their weight behind. Effectively sandbagging the candidate that polled better against Trump.



Beyond that, this is no longer the case in 2020. Superdelegates will not vote until the second round of voting, and to the best of my knowledge there are no pledged superdelegates out there now. So if you're saying the DNC is putting their thumb on the scale with superdelegates in 2020, I'm not really seeing any evidence of that, with the Biden campaign, this time around. 

You don't have to LIKE Biden. But I've seen nothing that suggests to me that in the 2020 DNC primary, barring a contested convention where no one gets a majority of delegates, the candidate with the most people voting for them will _not_ be the one to win the nomination. 

Again, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter here, if I had to vote today Buttigieg might edge out the rest of the field for me. So while I'm more "establishment" aligned than you and Randy, I'm also definitely NOT a Biden shill who's going to defend my candidate to the death. I just don't see any evidence that the reason Sanders is trailing Biden in the polls is some sort of "bias" or evil DNC master plan, and not just that a divisive candidate who is only loosely affiliated with the Democratic party is running in a crowded field against the popular vice president of a popular recent president, and against a popular senator who happens to come from a very similar ideological space as Sanders.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> To be fair, you understand WHY we have the supedelegate system we do today, right?
> 
> I'd give a little more credence to the argument that superdelegates may have changed the "perception" of the race, but arguments I've seen that claim the reason Sanders lost Super Tuesday was because it was a dead heat in pledged delegates coming into that day but Clinton's advantage in superdelegates made her _seem_ like the favorite, conveniently ignore the fact that Clinton basically swept all the Southern states that day, where Sanders had always polled well behind her, and if anything the national polling had tightened up somewhat as the race went along, despite Clinton's "perception" of winning due to the superdelegates. Could that have made a slight difference at the margin? Sure, and maybe it would have been enough to flip Massachusetts to Sanders, where Clinton eked out a win by less than a point. But, as a neighbor state to Bernie's home state of Vermont, Mass would have been on the short lists of states that would have been assumed to be potentially competitive as a prior without an ounce of polling info, and I don't think any credible argument could be made that the only reason Clinton won Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia was that people were looking at the delegate count and not stripping out superdelegates. She had too strong a demographic advantage there to begin with, and she never was _not_ leading the pledged delegate race from that point forward.
> 
> 
> 
> Beyond that, this is no longer the case in 2020. Superdelegates will not vote until the second round of voting, and to the best of my knowledge there are no pledged superdelegates out there now. So if you're saying the DNC is putting their thumb on the scale with superdelegates in 2020, I'm not really seeing any evidence of that, with the Biden campaign, this time around.
> 
> You don't have to LIKE Biden. But I've seen nothing that suggests to me that in the 2020 DNC primary, barring a contested convention where no one gets a majority of delegates, the candidate with the most people voting for them will _not_ be the one to win the nomination.
> 
> Again, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter here, if I had to vote today Buttigieg might edge out the rest of the field for me. So while I'm more "establishment" aligned than you and Randy, I'm also definitely NOT a Biden shill who's going to defend my candidate to the death. I just don't see any evidence that the reason Sanders is trailing Biden in the polls is some sort of "bias" or evil DNC master plan, and not just that a divisive candidate who is only loosely affiliated with the Democratic party is running in a crowded field against the popular vice president of a popular recent president, and against a popular senator who happens to come from a very similar ideological space as Sanders.



I honestly am not really committed to any candidate right now. More indifferent to Biden I think. I just don't like the look of how Congressional Dems are trying to keep Hunter in the closet while pointing at GOP corruption.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> stuff



But then again, Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin... and lost in the electoral college.



Drew said:


> Again, I'm not even sure I'm a Biden voter here, if I had to vote today Buttigieg might edge out the rest of the field for me. So while I'm more "establishment" aligned than you and Randy, I'm also definitely NOT a Biden shill who's going to defend my candidate to the death. I just don't see any evidence that the reason Sanders is trailing Biden in the polls is some sort of "bias" or evil DNC master plan, and not just that a divisive candidate who is only loosely affiliated with the Democratic party is running in a crowded field against the popular vice president of a popular recent president, and against a popular senator who happens to come from a very similar ideological space as Sanders.



I don't know that the resistence to Sanders in the Democratic Party has to be evil to be worth discussion, though. I honestly don't think anyone votes thinking about doing evil. People vote based on some series of decision making. I think that those decisions can be wrong without thinking people are evil or even intentionally biased. But in a political climate where most people refuse to have any sort of civil discussion, I think a lot of people will make bad decisions.


----------



## budda

How about that clean water? Wait...


----------



## Randy

> “He asked, ‘Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?’ He used the F-word in that sentence and many others,” Kelly told her co-host Ari Shapiro, according to a transcript of the program.
> 
> “He asked if I could find Ukraine on a map. I said yes, and he called out for aides to bring us a map of the world with no writing. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away.”
> 
> “He said, ‘People will hear about this,’” Kelly recounted.



https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-reporter-asks-if-she-could-find-ukraine-on-a


Both cringey and menacing in equal doses. No idea how you say something like this, then hear it played back and not realize YOU'RE the bad guys.


----------



## Ralyks

Definitely a man falling apart at the seam. And yeah, kind of screams guilty.


----------



## sleewell

Nope never met the guy

Ah sir there are lots of pictures of you two together

Nope never met the guy

Ah sir he claims you two interacted a lot more than just taking pics at fundraisers

Nope, never met the guy

Ahh sir what about this tape of you two at dinner talking for hours?

NEVER MET THE GUY!!!!!!!


----------



## Ralyks

Soooo Trump threatened Schiff in a tweet pretty much.

Anyway, a US Embassy in Baghdad got struck by rockets. Fun.


----------



## Randy

Might come as a surprise but there's a lot of people over there that don't like us.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Might come as a surprise but there's a lot of people over there that don't like us.



Nope. Not surprised.

Also, Bolton basically put in his book what everyone figured he would.
https://apple.news/AJdsZawO2R6m6IzNzL8Yy0A


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I don't know that the resistence to Sanders in the Democratic Party has to be evil to be worth discussion, though. I honestly don't think anyone votes thinking about doing evil. People vote based on some series of decision making. I think that those decisions can be wrong without thinking people are evil or even intentionally biased. But in a political climate where most people refuse to have any sort of civil discussion, I think a lot of people will make bad decisions.


I think there's a lot of resistance to Sanders amongst _Democrats_, and it's not like the DNC is somehow turning people against him. The end of the 2016 campaign got pretty ugly, there's a lot of Democrats who believe (and FWIW, I'm not one of them) Sanders may have cost Clinton the election, and the fact Sanders isn't even a registered Democrat, and after committing to in the home stretch of 2016 still retains his Independent/caucuses with Democrats status. There's some bad blood there, not universally, but enough to matter.

And, my bigger point there wasn't that it was "evil," but that I didn't see ANY credible evidence that _the DNC _was the reason Sanders isn't winning in the polls. It's as simple as more people prefer someone else to him.



Ralyks said:


> Nope. Not surprised.
> 
> Also, Bolton basically put in his book what everyone figured he would.
> https://apple.news/AJdsZawO2R6m6IzNzL8Yy0A


Yeah, that's gonna get messy.

Bolton's book has been in for review by intelligence to ensure nothing he wrote is classified, and has been for about a month. The White House was ware of this and, allegedly, was aware of the contents, which makes the fact they've been arguing this whole thing was a mistake because no one with direct knowledge of Trump's motives had said he was freezing Ukrainian aid to get what he wants, completely ridiculous.

My question here, though, is if the White House knew this was in Bolton's upcoming book... Do you think _Pelosi_ knew? Do you think maybe this was the reason she was stalling, in the hopes that this would either leak, or be approved and released before the trial? If so, then she absolutely played this perfectly.


----------



## sleewell

well at least now the gop senators are getting a better picture of exactly how foolish they are going to look if they quickly acquit and then tons more damning evidence keeps coming out.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I honestly am not really committed to any candidate right now. More indifferent to Biden I think. I just don't like the look of how Congressional Dems are trying to keep Hunter in the closet while pointing at GOP corruption.


By the way, since we glossed over this - the DNC introduced the superdelegate system after 1972 when McGovern managed to outmaneuver his way into the nomination as an underdog in a contested convention, and got absolutely destroyed by Nixon in the general election (though even then he was so damned paranoid that he had his henchmen break into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel to wiretap them, and the rest, as they say, is history). If you've never read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72," it's an awesome read and his coverage of what went down on the convention floor is the second best political reporting I've read from an unexpected source anywhere, after David Foster Wallace's "Up, Simba," on the McCain campaign in 2000.

Consider the source, and the wording should be taken VERY carefully, but Bloomberg is reporting that "it's not clear there are 51 votes to bring in either Biden." That's definitely a weaker characterization than "it's clear there are NOT 51 votes," but that kinda gets to the heart of why I was saying don't necessarily read anything into Democratic reps saying they wouldn't agree to a Hunter for Bolton witness trade - since the negotiations wouldn't begin in earnest until the end of this week at the earliest it was a costless position to take, and there was no reason to agree up front and potentially have to backtrack, since they might not HAVE to offer anything in return to get witnesses with fist hand knowledge of Trump's thinking.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> By the way, since we glossed over this - the DNC introduced the superdelegate system after 1972 when McGovern managed to outmaneuver his way into the nomination as an underdog in a contested convention, and got absolutely destroyed by Nixon in the general election (though even then he was so damned paranoid that he had his henchmen break into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate Hotel to wiretap them, and the rest, as they say, is history). If you've never read Hunter S. Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72," it's an awesome read and his coverage of what went down on the convention floor is the second best political reporting I've read from an unexpected source anywhere, after David Foster Wallace's "Up, Simba," on the McCain campaign in 2000.



Superdelegate allocation isn't a "hard and fast" rule, though. Republican superdelegates (or better characterized as 'unpledged delegates') were a significantly smaller proportion of the overall delegate numbers in 2016. Also worth noting that the DNC opted to roll back the superdelegate ratio for 2020 specifically because of the perception it had in 2016.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Superdelegate allocation isn't a "hard and fast" rule, though. Republican superdelegates (or better characterized as 'unpledged delegates') were a significantly smaller proportion of the overall delegate numbers in 2016. Also worth noting that the DNC opted to roll back the superdelegate ratio for 2020 specifically because of the perception it had in 2016.


Oh, agreed. And nor am I saying that had we had 2016 superdelegate rules in 1972, the Democrats would have defeated Nixon (though, it's a LOT less likely McGovern would have been the nominee). Rather, that the history behind the superdelegate rules we had in place in 2016 is actually really, really interesting.


----------



## Drew

John Thune, the Senate's #2 Republican, while asking that "people just kind of stay calm here," while waiting to see what the Trump defense has to say, sounded a little caught off guard and concerned by this - "You sort of suspect that stuff like this is going to happen in this environment, but yeah, I mean, it's a little surprising." 

It's sounding increasingly like this really HAS thrown the GOP into disarray, and they may be starting to think the fight on banning witnesses isn't one they can win.


----------



## sleewell

its funny that everyone is saying they need 4 gop senators to get witnesses. technically they only need 3 if Roberts casts the tie breaking vote. hard to imagine he would be against witnesses at this point.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> its funny that everyone is saying they need 4 gop senators to get witnesses. technically they only need 3 if Roberts casts the tie breaking vote. hard to imagine he would be against witnesses at this point.


This is true... But, Roberts is if anything unusually concerned with the perception of the Supreme Court as being independent, and breaking a 50-50 tie in a way that resolves VERY strongly against the Trump administration is something I think he'd be VERY leery to do, especially because if the vote for witnesses is a 50-50 tie, then Trump is all but assured to be found not guilty. And technically, a 50-50 tie would mean the rule change would have failed to gather majority support, and would fail - in the event of a 50-50 tie on supoenaing John Bolton, Roberts certainly COULD vote to break the tie... but he could also abstain and let the measure fail, and justify doing so on the grounds that there was not majority support within the Senate. 

I'd be VERY surprised if Roberts were to stick his neck out in any way that could change the outcome and open him to accusations of partisan bias... And even more so if he would stick his neck out and open himself to accusations of partisan bias, for something that _wouldn't _ change the outcome.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew I suppose I'll agree to disagree with you about the DNC and Sanders.
--------------
In all honesty, does anyone expect that *any* circumstances would lead to a 2/3 majority voting to remove Trump?!

Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump admits that he withheld the money and even comes flat out and says it was to get a political favour that benefitted him personally, and even went all the way as far as saying that Biden did nothing illegal, but then brushed it off as "executive privelege." Say he admits that he's refusing to hand over documents and witnesses, because he was afraid Democrats would call it illegal, but he brushes it off as "executive privelege." Heck, say he admits that the Russians rigged the election for him, but then says that it was to keep "crooked Hillary" from winning and murdering all of the unborn babies. In that hypothetical case, do you think that 67 senators would vote to remove him from office?

I don't think so. Barring the last part about the Russians, I'd be somewhat surprised if there were even 52 or more votes to remove him. Are my expectations of the Senate lower than what you guys think is plausible?

The other side of this, though... what about Giuliani? What about Nunez? I think there is some really serious stuff about them alleged here. Assuming Trump is let off the hook, do those guys get automatic pardons?


----------



## SpaceDock

If there aren’t witnesses there won’t be removal. Let’s see if they vote for witnesses, which is doubtful. I wager if they vote for witnesses, then anything could happen.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> If there aren’t witnesses there won’t be removal. Let’s see if they vote for witnesses, which is doubtful. I wager if they vote for witnesses, then anything could happen.


What kind of wager is a wager that anything could happen? How do you bet against that?

Obviously, if they vote not to allow witnesses, it's over. If they vote to hear witnesses, there's just going to be another long delay, and tons of hemming and hawing over witness credibility, etc.

We've already heard plenty of "no true Scotsmen" logic from all sorts of GOP congressmen. That is, anyone who testifies against Trump has no credibility, because they testified against Trump. The only way to have any credibility, in the eyes of the GOP, is to be on the Trump train. If you do anything that threatens Trump, you are obviously not on the Trump train, therefore you are a taitor. No one trusts traitors.

There's no way to win an argument in a world where that sort of logic is "okay."

0% chance Trump is removed from office, unless 67% or more vote to hear witnesses.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I'm with bostjan, I don't know if removal is a viable outcome unless something truly groundbreaking happens.

There are a bunch of these senators up for re-election soon and the Republican base _really_ likes Trump. Voting for removal is a non-starter unless all of a sudden they have a come to Jesus moment and start worrying about how they will be perceived by history.

And then suppose that witnesses come forward and prove that Trump did the thing. Do you really think his supporters will care? Have they ever cared about any of the things he's done wrong? Him in office gets their agenda forwarded. I figured the Evangelicals would be the ones that care the most about his behavior and actions but they don't because "God has used sinners to forward his will all throughout history".

People have been shouting that Trump is "done" with every scandal that has come. Every one. He has a seriously amazing ability to slough off all attacks. He's basically a Tarrasque. He might actually be able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.


----------



## JSanta

Captain Butterscotch said:


> I'm with bostjan, I don't know if removal is a viable outcome unless something truly groundbreaking happens.
> 
> There are a bunch of these senators up for re-election soon and the Republican base _really_ likes Trump. Voting for removal is a non-starter unless all of a sudden they have a come to Jesus moment and start worrying about how they will be perceived by history.
> 
> And then suppose that witnesses come forward and prove that Trump did the thing. Do you really think his supporters will care? Have they ever cared about any of the things he's done wrong? Him in office gets their agenda forwarded. I figured the Evangelicals would be the ones that care the most about his behavior and actions but they don't because "God has used sinners to forward his will all throughout history".
> 
> People have been shouting that Trump is "done" with every scandal that has come. Every one. He has a seriously amazing ability to slough off all attacks. He's basically a Tarrasque. He might actually be able to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.



Here's what I think the underlying issue really is: The Trump team has effectively admitted guilt to what the House has charged. They are not arguing that - they are arguing that a President cannot be removed for those charges. It's a small distinction, but an important one. IMO, it's a foregone conclusion that the President will not be removed from office. I also think that not removing this President sets an extremely dangerous precedent of what feels like enormous unchecked power of the executive branch. That's ultimately what scares me, not so much Trump, but what this Presidency means for the country moving forward.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

JSanta said:


> Here's what I think the underlying issue really is: The Trump team has effectively admitted guilt to what the House has charged. They are not arguing that - they are arguing that a President cannot be removed for those charges. It's a small distinction, but an important one. IMO, it's a foregone conclusion that the President will not be removed from office. I also think that not removing this President sets an extremely dangerous precedent of what feels like enormous unchecked power of the executive branch. That's ultimately what scares me, not so much Trump, but what this Presidency means for the country moving forward.



I completely agree with you.


----------



## Randy

Reminder that the Congress aren't the only ones with a say in the legality or repercussions of what the President does.

*New York Can Subpoena Ukraine Witnesses and Documents*


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Drew I suppose I'll agree to disagree with you about the DNC and Sanders.
> --------------
> In all honesty, does anyone expect that *any* circumstances would lead to a 2/3 majority voting to remove Trump?!
> 
> Assume, for argument's sake, that Trump admits that he withheld the money and even comes flat out and says it was to get a political favour that benefitted him personally, and even went all the way as far as saying that Biden did nothing illegal, but then brushed it off as "executive privelege." Say he admits that he's refusing to hand over documents and witnesses, because he was afraid Democrats would call it illegal, but he brushes it off as "executive privelege." Heck, say he admits that the Russians rigged the election for him, but then says that it was to keep "crooked Hillary" from winning and murdering all of the unborn babies. In that hypothetical case, do you think that 67 senators would vote to remove him from office?
> 
> I don't think so. Barring the last part about the Russians, I'd be somewhat surprised if there were even 52 or more votes to remove him. Are my expectations of the Senate lower than what you guys think is plausible?
> 
> The other side of this, though... what about Giuliani? What about Nunez? I think there is some really serious stuff about them alleged here. Assuming Trump is let off the hook, do those guys get automatic pardons?


I mean, if you think there's some sort of DNC conspiracy to stop Sanders from winning the nomination, and that's the only reason that he isn't leading in the polls, then that's not a matter of agreeing to disagree - that's a matter of your needing to present some sort of evidence to substantiate that claim. I'm arguing the poll numbers are exactly what they appear, and that's the explanation that requires the fewest angels dancing on the head of a pin to explain what we're seeing, but if you have evidence to the contrary aside from "Sanders' favorability numbers are a point or two higher than Biden's," then I'll absolutely hear you out with an open mind.  

I've long said that the only way we get 2/3rds of the Senate to vote to remove is if public opinion moves so sharply against Trump that even Republicans start calling for his removal. I think that requires some sort of bombshell witness testimony, so _having_ witnesses is a necessary precondition. And, FWIW, I think the odds are now fairly good, thanks to Bolton, that we have witnesses, and that it's not even impossible we get witnesses solely related to the impeachment inquiry rather than a "Hunter for Bolton" deal, though I still think that's the most likely outcome. 

I think the GOP is well aware they have to make this trial at least _look_ impartial, even if none of them want to convict if they don't have to. And I think that just got a lot harder to do without at least calling Bolton to testify. I still think the odds are pretty low that Trump is removed from office, but I think the odds of some fairly damning testimony coming out are much higher than they were previously. 

I think in the hypothetical scenario you present, with Trump flagrantly saying "yeah, so what if I broke the law, but it was to stop Hillary from winning..." I think the Senate would have a very hard time NOT convicting. As long as Trump manages to hold onto some argument, however implausable, that either his actions were "totally perfect," or that he _believed_ it was legal at the time and didn't actually realize he was breaking the law, it's going to take a significant movement in public opinion before he's at real risk of impeachment. In the scenario you depict, though... His base will probably hold up fairly well, but he's going to roundly lose independent support for not impeaching (right now, pretty evenly balanced) and enough more centrist/moderate/pragmatic Republicans will peel off that the percent of GOP voters who think he should be removed from office will rise, from today's 8-9% to, oh, 20-30%. Enough to matter, and enough to make Republicans think long and hard about not removing a guy for crimes he's openly bragging that he did.


----------



## Drew

Food for thought for you guys arguing Biden was "picked" by the DNC to win, and that's the only reason Sanders isn't winning right now - not saying this is my stance and I'm merely passing this along for discussion, but in an article about the surprising _lack _of establishment endorsements this far into the race, FiveThirtyEight referenced the below Vanity Fair article and argued that what we may be seeing is the DNC party establishment actually didn't want Sanders OR Biden, but voter support has been enough to bump them to the top two spots in the four current probable frontrunners:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/democrats-face-a-generational-reckoning

There are a lot of people in this thread, enough that I won't even bother listing names, arguing from the starting point that Biden is the establishment pick. What if we don't take that assumption for granted? What are we actually seeing in the race? High personal popularity, very high name recognition, well liked VP of a very popular recent President, on paper there are fairly decent arguments to be made that he actually would have had a good shot at carrying the Rust Belt in 2016 while not losing ground anywhere Clinton did well... Yet, the party establishment hasn't actually rallied behind him in any formal way yet, very few DNC endorsements have been made for ANY candidate, no superdelegate pledges to speak of have been made, and a lot of the ways that the party MIGHT try to support a preferred candidate simply aren't happening.

There's a few alternative explanations I could argue, the two best probably being that they want to ensure historically gaffe-prone Biden can prove himself by carrying the primary on his own, or that they're terrified of creating even the _appearance _of having a favored candidate after the hell Sanders raised in 2016... But, at a minimum, it's an argument with no obvious weaknesses that I can see. And, I think the lack of obvious party support for, well, ANY candidate at this stage in the game makes it harder to argue that any candidate is having their prospects artificially depressed by the DNC.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Food for thought for you guys arguing Biden was "picked" by the DNC to win, and that's the only reason *Sanders isn't winning right now*



Boy is that a selective reading of what's going on. 

I thought 538 was your bible, and in the last week I've seen two different articles about how Sanders is in the lead in Iowa AND New Hampshire, and that he's the only candidate who's polled steadily higher than he started out at before the first debates, and that the last candidate to win Iowa and New Hampshire was Kerry, who steamrolled through the rest of the primary as a result.

I'm starting to think this isn't a DNC conspiracy and it's more of a Drew conspiracy


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Boy is that a selective reading of what's going on.
> 
> I thought 538 was your bible, and in the last week I've seen two different articles about how Sanders is in the lead in Iowa AND New Hampshire, and that he's the only candidate who's polled steadily higher than he started out at before the first debates, and that the last candidate to win Iowa and New Hampshire was Kerry, who steamrolled through the rest of the primary as a result.
> 
> I'm starting to think this isn't a DNC conspiracy and it's more of a Drew conspiracy




Nah, Sanders is leading in NH, no question. He's also tightened the gap a bit nationally, though calling Iowa anything other than a tossup at this point is IMO a stretch.

But, while that bolded bit is a lot stronger than what you've been arguing, it's at worst a mild paraphrase of bostjan's argument:


bostjan said:


> I agree that politicians don't like Bernie Sanders. I don't like Bernie Sanders, but most young Americans love Bernie Sanders. Most old hippies love Bernie Sanders. A lot of non-young non-hippies like him. But he will not be the nominee, because he's not a proper Democrat. On the other hand, no one likes Joe Biden right now. His popularity is the lowest ever and it'll likely continue going lower throughout the year. He will tick most of the same boxes of what people didn't like about HRC, and he will lose the electoral vote to Trump, but win the pop vote. Then we will have a super unpopular president Trump with nothing to fear- no re-election, no impeachment, no stopping him. And he will dismantle government bureaucracies like the EPA and the SEC, because toxins and white collar crimes are all a myth, and beef up ICE and Space Farce, because the only thing scarier than aliens are illegal aliens taking away our jobs! [/sardonicism]





bostjan said:


> Who is going to be nominated by the DNC, if not Biden?


I'm not reading between the lines TOO far if I'm interpreting that as "Sanders will lose and Biden will win because Biden is a proper Democrat so the party will choose him.

Anyway, way to selectively miss my point and ignore the question I was asking.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Nah, Sanders is leading in NH, no question. He's also tightened the gap a bit nationally, though calling Iowa anything other than a tossup at this point is IMO a stretch.
> 
> But, while that bolded bit is a lot stronger than what you've been arguing, it's at worst a mild paraphrase of bostjan's argument:
> 
> 
> I'm not reading between the lines TOO far if I'm interpreting that as "Sanders will lose and Biden will win because Biden is a proper Democrat so the party will choose him.
> 
> Anyway, way to selectively miss my point and ignore the question I was asking.



I think 2016 was rigged, top to bottom and you've essentially admitted the same by making the argument at the time "The DNC has no requirement to be unbiased" and that "Sanders isn't a registered Democrat anyway, so there's nothing wrong with them having preference toward the actual Democrat on the ticket" (paraphrased). Take your pick, the money Hillary gave the DNC in exchange for picking the management there before the primary even started, getting the leaked debate questions, the inflexibility of state parties to relax registration rules, the internal emails with Wasserman-Schultz, so on.

It's fact but it's also in the past.

I don't think 2020 is rigged. I DO think the DNC is actively trying to insulate Biden but it has less to do with the primary and more to do with the fact that he's the frontrunner and if he turns out to be the nominee, they don't want those things to come back to haunt him in the general. 

I do think there's an establishment push in favor of him from within that's more substantial than the Progressive push against him, but I don't think it plays anywhere near the role that it did 2016. Progressives got enough seats at the table and made enough gains in the offseason that they're better represented in the management of the party than they were.

My main complaint (and I see shades of this in the other people who are hating on the process) is that there's a *chance* Biden's wounds are already near fatal in the general election and insulating him from them NOW guarantee the Dems putting up a candidate more likely to fail. I've said from the beginning, I just wanted to see a clean and fair, but legitimate primary with no shenanigans, because I want the absolute best shot at taking Trump down regardless of who it is. And I don't like arbitrary, selective or cherry picked arguments, I mean it should go legitimately to whoever can beat out the 16 or so well qualified people.


----------



## Drew

I think we have different bars for "rigged," and I'm not sure you're really taking some of those comments in the appropriate context - Sanders pushing for open primaries so non-registered Democrats could vote, which he thought would be to his advantage, well, I don't see anything wrong with the DNC saying that to vote in the Democratic Primary you have to be a registered Democrat. I don't call that "rigged," at least in that it doesn't specifically favor Clinton, it just favors Democratic candidates over non-Democratic candidates, and this was the first election where that happened to matter. Likewise, it's possible _I'm_ remembering this wrong, but I think I'd mentioned there being nothing wrong with party officials preferring Sanders to Clinton in the context of them literally mentioning having a preference. I think it crosses the line when they're actively taking steps to put him at a disadvantage, and I saw very little evidence of that in 2016. The "leaked debate question," wasn't that something like, "hey, you're going to be asked about your emails?" I remember thinking it was a bit of a tempest in a teakettle when the Sanders camp got outraged about that - it shouldn't have happened, but it also was a question where if you weren't expecting it or preparing for it, well, you'd be an idiot, as I recall. 

I generally agree with you on sunshine being the best disinfectant, etc. 

I guess what I'm not seeing though is much evidence that there IS an establishment push to protect him. And a lot of the other ways the "establishment" would try to favor one candidate - again, I only brought this up in the context of the establishment wing of the party really not endorsing ANYONE in any significant strength just yet, which is extremely unusual.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, if you think there's some sort of DNC conspiracy to stop Sanders from winning the nomination, and that's the only reason that he isn't leading in the polls, then that's not a matter of agreeing to disagree - that's a matter of your needing to present some sort of evidence to substantiate that claim. I'm arguing the poll numbers are exactly what they appear, and that's the explanation that requires the fewest angels dancing on the head of a pin to explain what we're seeing, but if you have evidence to the contrary aside from "Sanders' favorability numbers are a point or two higher than Biden's," then I'll absolutely hear you out with an open mind.
> 
> I've long said that the only way we get 2/3rds of the Senate to vote to remove is if public opinion moves so sharply against Trump that even Republicans start calling for his removal. I think that requires some sort of bombshell witness testimony, so _having_ witnesses is a necessary precondition. And, FWIW, I think the odds are now fairly good, thanks to Bolton, that we have witnesses, and that it's not even impossible we get witnesses solely related to the impeachment inquiry rather than a "Hunter for Bolton" deal, though I still think that's the most likely outcome.
> 
> I think the GOP is well aware they have to make this trial at least _look_ impartial, even if none of them want to convict if they don't have to. And I think that just got a lot harder to do without at least calling Bolton to testify. I still think the odds are pretty low that Trump is removed from office, but I think the odds of some fairly damning testimony coming out are much higher than they were previously.
> 
> I think in the hypothetical scenario you present, with Trump flagrantly saying "yeah, so what if I broke the law, but it was to stop Hillary from winning..." I think the Senate would have a very hard time NOT convicting. As long as Trump manages to hold onto some argument, however implausable, that either his actions were "totally perfect," or that he _believed_ it was legal at the time and didn't actually realize he was breaking the law, it's going to take a significant movement in public opinion before he's at real risk of impeachment. In the scenario you depict, though... His base will probably hold up fairly well, but he's going to roundly lose independent support for not impeaching (right now, pretty evenly balanced) and enough more centrist/moderate/pragmatic Republicans will peel off that the percent of GOP voters who think he should be removed from office will rise, from today's 8-9% to, oh, 20-30%. Enough to matter, and enough to make Republicans think long and hard about not removing a guy for crimes he's openly bragging that he did.



You are assuming a lot of things about my position here. Maybe I should just let you argue both sides of it for me. 

The DNC has one goal in mind, to do what's best for the Democratic Party. Right?

What if, and just assume for a moment, that something that was best for the Democratic Party was not the same thing as the best option for the USA. Would the DNC choose the nation or the party?

Now let's assume that an independent candidate entered a presidential race as a Democrat, and the DNC showed a bias against that candidate, because that candidate was not a proper Democrat. Right, wrong, or indifferent, do you or do you not think that such a scenario would have a negative outcome on that candidate's momentum in the primary?

If you answered "yes, but...", then I don't think the wall of text was necessary.


----------



## StevenC

Looks like we're getting witnesses


----------



## Ralyks

StevenC said:


> Looks like we're getting witnesses



The fact that the Republican's have to "fight off" witnesses is astounding.

But yeah, I’m seeing CNN on my YouTube feed that McConnell told people behind closed doors that the GOP doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses. So yeah.


----------



## bulb

So who here digs Yang?


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> The fact that the Republican's have to "fight off" witnesses is astounding.
> 
> But yeah, I’m seeing CNN on my YouTube feed that McConnell told people behind closed doors that the GOP doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses. So yeah.



Headline today saying McConnell's making a other push to get everyone 'in line'. I'm wonder what his options are for stalling.


----------



## Thaeon

bulb said:


> So who here digs Yang?



I like Yang a lot. I don't think he'll get the nomination. But I like seeing him continuing to debate. I think his ideas are important to consider as solutions. Even if they aren't in the form he's presenting them in.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Keep in mind, McConnell also said he wasn't sure if he had enough votes to push Kavanaugh through. I don't like McConnell but he plays the game well. But if it's true then we should be hearing of more Republicans asking for witnesses before the vote on Friday.


----------



## Randy

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Keep in mind, McConnell also said he wasn't sure if he had enough votes to push Kavanaugh through. I don't like McConnell but he plays the game well. But if it's true then we should be hearing of more Republicans asking for witnesses before the vote on Friday.



I'm wondering if he's got an option to take the acquittal vote BEFORE taking the witness vote.


----------



## sleewell

ok, trump gets away with it. all presidents moving forward can decide not to participate in any investigation. all presidents can ask foreign govts to help them win elections. 

the day after all dems should head to a mic and ask every country listening to dig up dirt on trump.

fair is fair right? nothing wrong with that by their own words.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> ok, trump gets away with it. all presidents moving forward can decide not to participate in any investigation. all presidents can ask foreign govts to help them win elections.
> 
> the day after all dems should head to a mic and ask every country listening to dig up dirt on trump.
> 
> fair is fair right? nothing wrong with that by their own words.



As wrong as that is, that would be so fucking funny


----------



## sleewell

its not wrong though. perfect call remember. he did nothing wrong.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> its not wrong though. perfect call remember. he did nothing wrong.



I don't know about you, but _a stable genius_ would certainly rate it a 10.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> ok, trump gets away with it. all presidents moving forward can decide not to participate in any investigation. all presidents can ask foreign govts to help them win elections.
> 
> the day after all dems should head to a mic and ask every country listening to dig up dirt on trump.
> 
> fair is fair right? nothing wrong with that by their own words.



I mean, that's the obvious play. If Trump is going to do this and ask for foreign espionage on other candidates both in 2016 and now as a sitting president, and gets cleared of any wrong doing for what he's done with the evidence staring everyone in the face, ruling fair play on it just legally clears the Dem's to treat Trump the same way. Its actually not a bad checkmate in my opinion. Its dirty, sure. In this instance, I think that its fair. Watching the fallout from everyone doing it may serve as a nuclear option/deterrent in the future. Unfortunately we have to pick up the mess and deal with the results.


----------



## Randy

I mean, I get the frustration but this is a thing that needs to be dissected.

What the Russians did WAS and IS illegal (and they've been indicted in absentia for it). The information uncovered in the Mueller investigation seems to indicate that several facets of the Trump campaign's interactions with foreign entities were also illegal. The only reason the cuffs don't go *clink* is because the investigation and it's findings didn't come to light until the guy was holding the office of President, and affords him a number of protections.

If the Democratic candidate went on TV and said "Russia, hack Trump's emails!", Barr would have a subpeona for that candidates phone, email, etc records in a matter of hours and they'd probably be in cuffs by the end of the week. Trump's surrogates (and he himself) bitch and moan about the investigation Obama's administration undertook to look into candidate Trump, but the truth is that they weren't aggressive enough because 1.) I don't think they anticipated Hillary losing (this is the biggy) 2.) I don't think they realized how far reaching the corruption went and what a reverberating effect it would have.

But yeah, put more simply, everything Trump's been taken to task over HAS been illegal but you're witnessing all the safeguards against prosecuting or removing a President. The Democratic candidate will not have the benefit of the same protections, so even before you get into the ethics of the whole thing, right off the bat it just won't work.

Best option for Democrats right now is to do their damndest to wage a winning campaign and when they get either the Presidency or the Senate majority, do everything possible to plug those holes.


----------



## vilk

I think the most overwhelmingly popular political sentiment among everyone that is NOT a Trump Cultist (or super duper filthy rich) is that _the people should choose the president_. So when the DNC bends over backwards to protect the nomination of their preferred billionaire-friendly candidate at the expense of a candidate who actually has more living human supporters, it starts to sound like maybe the DNC doesn't care what Americans want, and maybe they care more about what the ultra-wealthy want. I'm not saying that that's some undeniable truth; rather that's just a perception many people might take away. Primaries should be open--as long as you can only take one party's ticket. Telling someone they can't vote in a primary because they didn't register with the DNC is, in my eyes, anti-democratic.

Any move that in any way prevents or discourages people from getting to choose their leaders is anti-democratic.

Two-party system is broken, as everyone knows, and should be changed to an ordered preference style of elections. But as long as we are stuck with our broken system, I foresee any perceived form an anti-democratic-ness is going to be extremely unpopular, and if you want as many people as possible to vote for your candidate, you need to avoid at all costs anything that might lead to the perception that the party is working against democracy.

Just a thought a had


----------



## Randy

Apropos of that, I dunno if anybody else saw it but Bernie shining the bat signal because the DNC just gave committee leadership positions to Barney Frank and John Podesta. Frank a semi-controversial pick because of his scandalous history and also being an unapologetic hitman for Hillary in 2016, but Podesta is political suicide. I bet the guy didn't even change his email password since last time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> I think the most overwhelmingly popular political sentiment among everyone that is NOT a Trump Cultist (or super duper filthy rich) is that _the people should choose the president_. So when the DNC bends over backwards to protect the nomination their preferred billionaire-friendly candidate at the expense of a candidate who actually has more living human supporters, it starts to sound like maybe the DNC doesn't care what Americans want, and maybe they care more about what the ultra-wealthy want. I'm not saying that that's some undeniable truth; rather that's just a perception many people might take away. Primaries should be open--as long as you can only take one party's ticket. Telling someone they can't vote in a primary because they didn't register with the DNC some amount of time in advance is, in my eyes, anti-democratic.
> 
> Any move that in any way prevents or discourages people from getting to choose their leaders is anti-democratic.
> 
> Two-party system is broken, as everyone knows, and should be changed to an ordered preference style of elections. But as long as we are stuck with our broken system, I foresee any perceived form an anti-democratic-ness is going to be extremely unpopular, and if you want as many people as possible to vote for your candidate, you need to avoid at all costs anything that might lead to the perception that the party is working against democracy.
> 
> Just a thought a had



The problem is, a non-insignificant amount of the populous doesn't actually care about democracy. They actually hate it.

Sure, they might talk a big game about "freedom", but the very idea that someone with significantly different values can have an equal seat at the table downright offends them.

They rather have fascism that agrees with them.

I do agree with you though.



Randy said:


> Apropos of that, I dunno if anybody else saw it but Bernie shining the bat signal because the DNC just gave committee leadership positions to Barney Frank and John Podesta. Frank a semi-controversial pick because of his scandalous history and also being an unapologetic hitman for Hillary in 2016, but Podesta is political suicide. I bet the guy didn't even change his email password since last time.



DNC gonna DNC. 

It's like the second you think they might have learned anything the last decade they go and pull this shit.

They do realize the whole "lesser of two evils" thing hasn't been a solid long-term strategy since Saddam was in power right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> You are assuming a lot of things about my position here. Maybe I should just let you argue both sides of it for me.
> 
> The DNC has one goal in mind, to do what's best for the Democratic Party. Right?
> 
> What if, and just assume for a moment, that something that was best for the Democratic Party was not the same thing as the best option for the USA. Would the DNC choose the nation or the party?
> 
> Now let's assume that an independent candidate entered a presidential race as a Democrat, and the DNC showed a bias against that candidate, because that candidate was not a proper Democrat. Right, wrong, or indifferent, do you or do you not think that such a scenario would have a negative outcome on that candidate's momentum in the primary?
> 
> If you answered "yes, but...", then I don't think the wall of text was necessary.



The problem with this whole line of reasoning, near as I can tell, is two fold. 

1) It assumes that "what's best for the country" is knowable ex ante. I'm not sure I agree with this, and in fact I'd go so far as to say I'm reasonably sure we CAN'T know in advance what outcomes of policy proposals will be "best for the country." But, what the hell, let's say we can. 
2) What's best for the Democratic Party is to win elections. If they had a candidate who was running on a platform that could be knowable the "best for the country," then it's in their best interest to go all in on this candidate, because definitively their platform is going to be better than what any other candidate, inside or outside the party, will be running on, so it should be a pretty easy election to win. 

So, yeah, I'd say that "wall of text" of a single paragraph is still necessary.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> What's best for the Democratic Party is to win elections.



If only they knew that.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I think the most overwhelmingly popular political sentiment among everyone that is NOT a Trump Cultist (or super duper filthy rich) is that _the people should choose the president_. So when the DNC bends over backwards to protect the nomination of their preferred billionaire-friendly candidate at the expense of a candidate who actually has more living human supporters, it starts to sound like maybe the DNC doesn't care what Americans want, and maybe they care more about what the ultra-wealthy want. I'm not saying that that's some undeniable truth; rather that's just a perception many people might take away. Primaries should be open--as long as you can only take one party's ticket. Telling someone they can't vote in a primary because they didn't register with the DNC is, in my eyes, anti-democratic.
> 
> Any move that in any way prevents or discourages people from getting to choose their leaders is anti-democratic.
> 
> Two-party system is broken, as everyone knows, and should be changed to an ordered preference style of elections. But as long as we are stuck with our broken system, I foresee any perceived form an anti-democratic-ness is going to be extremely unpopular, and if you want as many people as possible to vote for your candidate, you need to avoid at all costs anything that might lead to the perception that the party is working against democracy.
> 
> Just a thought a had


The caveat here, and if you want to change the system anywhere, this is the point where you'd need to start, is that the primary system is NOT a part of the federal or state government, in the strictest sense. 

Strictly speaking, the Democratic Primary may look a lot like the federal election that happens 6-10 months later, but it's a internal matter of the Democratic Party, overseen by the Democratic Party, for the benefit of the Democratic Party, to allow the Democratic Party to select the candidate they're going to run in the federal election. From the standpoint of the federal government, the Democratic Party is just another nonprofit political group, and has no special importance in the running of federal elections, save that they run a fuck of a lot of candidates and have done so for hundreds of years. There are no political parties in the Constitution, there's no provision for how to regulate how political parties select candidates, and while the whole thing may superficially LOOK very formal and federal and regulated, it's actually not a function of the federal government at all. 

So, if you want to change how the Democratic Party selects candidates, step one is to - paradoxically - bring the political parties formally into the realm of the federal government, entrench them into law, and THEN federally regulate how parties can select candidates. Barring that, the best thing you can hope for is exactly what's happening - trust that the Democratic Party (and Republican Party, and Green Party, and Libertarian Party, and Rainbow Party, and anyone else I'm forgetting) will bow to public opinion, and when criticized for their primary registration rules being too draconian in 2016, relax them for 2020.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> If only they knew that.


 

But, I think that gets us back to point 1 there. If bostjan will allow me to continue putting words into his mouth, he appears to be arguing from the starting point that Bernie Sanders is the candidate who's "best for America." I don't think you can know that for sure in advance, and I'm not personally sure he IS the best candidate for the nation, and that has nothing at all with me being especially concerned for the feelings of billionaires. 

Since there's a fair amount of subjectivity here anyway, arguably the best way to decide which candidate IS best for america, is to let a whole bunch of people vote, and the one who the most people think would be best for the country is the one who runs. And, again, I'm really not seeing any evidence of the DNC trying to depress Sanders' standing in the polls or share of the vote.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> But, I think that gets us back to point 1 there. If bostjan will allow me to continue putting words into his mouth, he appears to be arguing from the starting point that Bernie Sanders is the candidate who's "best for America." I don't think you can know that for sure in advance, and I'm not personally sure he IS the best candidate for the nation, and that has nothing at all with me being especially concerned for the feelings of billionaires.
> 
> Since there's a fair amount of subjectivity here anyway, arguably the best way to decide which candidate IS best for america, is to let a whole bunch of people vote, and the one who the most people think would be best for the country is the one who runs. And, again, I'm really not seeing any evidence of the DNC trying to depress Sanders' standing in the polls or share of the vote.



While I can't say I 1:1 agree with @bostjan, I see where he's coming from. 

It's hard to have faith in the DNC when they are, as you say (paraphrasing): "for the DNC, and not necessarily the American people". 

They [DNC] have shown that they are totally fine dropping the popular candidate or position in favor of "their people" or more contemporary Democratic Party orthodoxy. 

Which makes sense in a vacuum, but it seems to not pan out as well, by losing elections, which in turn is bad for the party if the goal is more power.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> They [DNC] have shown that they are totally fine dropping the popular candidate or position in favor of "their people" or more contemporary Democratic Party orthodoxy.


But, again, I've seen no real evidence that this actually happened.

Sure, the DNC party officials liked Clinton more than they liked Sanders. But, Sanders never even got particularly close to Clinton in the polls, and when he "caught" her in the pledged delegate race, it was largely because of the calendar, that a number of fairly Sanders-friendly states voted before Super Tuesday, making the race look closer for Sanders than polling implied.

Unless you're thinking of someone other than Sanders...? I mean, 2008, the party had no trouble dropping Clinton for Obama...

Idunno. At risk of sounding obtuse, a lot of this thread seems to be taking for granted that the Democratic Party and in particular party insiders are responsible for Clinton beating Sanders in 2016, and is responsible for Biden being in the lead today. That's fine.... But rather than taking it for granted, could we maybe start by building the case that the DNC DID prevent Sanders from winning in 2016, and IS responsible for Biden's lead today?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Idunno. At risk of sounding obtuse, a lot of this thread seems to be taking for granted that the Democratic Party and in particular party insiders are responsible for Clinton beating Sanders in 2016, and is responsible for Biden being in the lead today. That's fine.... But rather than taking it for granted, could we maybe start by building the case that the DNC DID prevent Sanders from winning in 2016, and IS responsible for Biden's lead today?



That's the sort of macro view of things I'm talking about. 

I think the party sort of chooses who they want and will work towards their success. That's fine, it's their party, but if so they really hold the blame for what we've been willing to hold our nose and vote for and still lose. 

Like I said, the "lesser evil" thing has gone stale.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I mean, I get the frustration but this is a thing that needs to be dissected.
> 
> What the Russians did WAS and IS illegal (and they've been indicted in absentia for it). The information uncovered in the Mueller investigation seems to indicate that several facets of the Trump campaign's interactions with foreign entities were also illegal. The only reason the cuffs don't go *clink* is because the investigation and it's findings didn't come to light until the guy was holding the office of President, and affords him a number of protections.
> 
> If the Democratic candidate went on TV and said "Russia, hack Trump's emails!", Barr would have a subpeona for that candidates phone, email, etc records in a matter of hours and they'd probably be in cuffs by the end of the week. Trump's surrogates (and he himself) bitch and moan about the investigation Obama's administration undertook to look into candidate Trump, but the truth is that they weren't aggressive enough because 1.) I don't think they anticipated Hillary losing (this is the biggy) 2.) I don't think they realized how far reaching the corruption went and what a reverberating effect it would have.
> 
> But yeah, put more simply, everything Trump's been taken to task over HAS been illegal but you're witnessing all the safeguards against prosecuting or removing a President. The Democratic candidate will not have the benefit of the same protections, so even before you get into the ethics of the whole thing, right off the bat it just won't work.
> 
> Best option for Democrats right now is to do their damndest to wage a winning campaign and when they get either the Presidency or the Senate majority, do everything possible to plug those holes.



I don't think that you, or I, or anyone else here is really all that confident that illegal things aren't happening behind closed doors on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I'm more confident that they ARE happening. I don't think that the issue here in question is where or not its right. Justice isn't necessarily about what is right. Its about balancing the scales. Fairness. In this case, Trump and his goons are getting a pass because the Senate sides with them. Full stop. People who aren't protected as an official are getting a pass because rather than being willing to say it was wrong, they're the fact that he has the office justifies any act he used to get there and we won't even hold other people involved accountable because it'll make lord god king asshat look bad in the process. My problem isn't the imminent end result. Its the inability for there to be an honest discussion about it by the people who make the laws in this country. If we keep letting people like this have power, over time we'll end up as powerless as any citizen in any other dictatorship in the world.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

New York Times- Republicans are growing confident they will block witnesses and win a speedy acquittal.


Republican leaders signaled they were regaining confidence on Wednesday that they would be able to block new witnesses and documents and bring the trial to an acquittal verdict as soon as Friday, after revelations from John R. Bolton threatened to knock their plans off course.

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 3 Senate Republican, told reporters that if they were successful in holding off new witnesses, Republicans planned to move directly to a vote on the two articles of impeachment themselves.
“Yes, that’s the plan,” he told reporters in the Capitol.

It was unclear if there would be additional closing arguments, or if the Senate would vote up or down on the abuse of power and obstruction charges Friday evening.

“I’ve heard enough,” Mr. Barrasso said. “I’m ready to vote on final judgment. This has been fully partisan, fully political.”

Mr. Barrasso’s prediction came as Republican senators appeared to be falling into line to block witnesses a day after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, warned them privately that he did not currently have the votes to stop Democrats from calling them.

Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the week expressed some support for a witness deal, said Wednesday that he was now unlikely to be a yes.

“I remain very very skeptical that there is any witness” that I would vote to hear from, Mr. Toomey told reporters in the Capitol.

Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, who is seeking re-election this year in a politically competitive state, also told Colorado Politics that he had heard enough and would vote against hearing from more witnesses.

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah maintained that he would vote in favor of witnesses and documents, but said he was uncertain how many Republicans would join him.
“I’m sure there’ll be others,” he said. “How many there will be on my side of the aisle, I just don’t know.”​


----------



## Thaeon

Captain Butterscotch said:


> New York Times- Republicans are growing confident they will block witnesses and win a speedy acquittal.
> 
> 
> Republican leaders signaled they were regaining confidence on Wednesday that they would be able to block new witnesses and documents and bring the trial to an acquittal verdict as soon as Friday, after revelations from John R. Bolton threatened to knock their plans off course.
> 
> Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 3 Senate Republican, told reporters that if they were successful in holding off new witnesses, Republicans planned to move directly to a vote on the two articles of impeachment themselves.
> “Yes, that’s the plan,” he told reporters in the Capitol.
> 
> It was unclear if there would be additional closing arguments, or if the Senate would vote up or down on the abuse of power and obstruction charges Friday evening.
> 
> “I’ve heard enough,” Mr. Barrasso said. “I’m ready to vote on final judgment. This has been fully partisan, fully political.”
> 
> Mr. Barrasso’s prediction came as Republican senators appeared to be falling into line to block witnesses a day after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, warned them privately that he did not currently have the votes to stop Democrats from calling them.
> 
> Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, who earlier in the week expressed some support for a witness deal, said Wednesday that he was now unlikely to be a yes.
> 
> “I remain very very skeptical that there is any witness” that I would vote to hear from, Mr. Toomey told reporters in the Capitol.
> 
> Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, who is seeking re-election this year in a politically competitive state, also told Colorado Politics that he had heard enough and would vote against hearing from more witnesses.
> 
> Senator Mitt Romney of Utah maintained that he would vote in favor of witnesses and documents, but said he was uncertain how many Republicans would join him.
> “I’m sure there’ll be others,” he said. “How many there will be on my side of the aisle, I just don’t know.”​



I don't follow him much, but at least Romney is taking a stand and showing some character here.


----------



## sleewell

romney has no character. anyone too chicken shit to actually say something so they take to making a fake twitter acct is a bitch.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> I don't think that you, or I, or anyone else here is really all that confident that illegal things aren't happening behind closed doors on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I'm more confident that they ARE happening. I don't think that the issue here in question is where or not its right. Justice isn't necessarily about what is right. Its about balancing the scales. Fairness. In this case, Trump and his goons are getting a pass because the Senate sides with them. Full stop. People who aren't protected as an official are getting a pass because rather than being willing to say it was wrong, they're the fact that he has the office justifies any act he used to get there and we won't even hold other people involved accountable because it'll make lord god king asshat look bad in the process. My problem isn't the imminent end result. Its the inability for there to be an honest discussion about it by the people who make the laws in this country. If we keep letting people like this have power, over time we'll end up as powerless as any citizen in any other dictatorship in the world.



Mixed group, so I'm not sure when everybody in here's political awareness took off but for me, it was in the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was totally neutral and uneducated at the time, but two somewhat defining moments for me was the way the Dixie Chicks were absolutely destroyed in the media for not supporting GWB and the war, and also Janeane Garafalo was totally shamed off the air and blacklisted for saying she didn't believe the intel that Bush was selling; and she ended up being right.

For me at the time, what stood out was the idea of things you're not allowed to say or think, or questions you're not allowed to ask. To me, that's the genesis of corruption. It's worth noting that Donald Trump is the President of NO tax returns and now NO testimonies.

Anyway, at the time, the big Democratic push was about reining in the powers of the President, at the time he was seeking unprecedented power.

First with the Patriot Act, then it was the Military Commissions Act and all the things that came from these blanket military authorizations. It's worth noting that Trump Admin used the Iraq military authorization of 18 years ago as his license to carry out the attack on Solimeni; an authorization for military action against Sadaam Hussein as President of Iraq, used to kill an Iranian general leaving an airport during an otherwise 'peace time' almost 20 years later. That's what happens with these open ended executive privileges.

And the Democrats crow about it until their guy is in power, and then they'll renew it perpetually. The same thing as they chipped away at the Senate filibuster. Democrats were in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to prevent Republican interference in passing Democratic legislation, but two or four years later, Republicans are in majority and mad that you gave them no power for their tenure in the majority, so they're more than happy to chip away at minority rights even further.

Now you get where we are now. The President has, I would consider, 40+ years of increasingly unchecked power. I think it started with Nixon when both parties said "okay, now lets make sure that never happens to us again" and chip chip chip with the fear baiting. Donald Trump becomes President and everybody's worst fears of Executive powers are on full display. The scary part is, despite the horror show that we're living through, it's highly likely the next President and their party will put even more barriers up against oversight.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's the sort of macro view of things I'm talking about.
> 
> I think the party sort of chooses who they want and will work towards their success. That's fine, it's their party, but if so they really hold the blame for what we've been willing to hold our nose and vote for and still lose.
> 
> Like I said, the "lesser evil" thing has gone stale.


Well, ok, but the "the party decides" theory was the hot new political science theory coming into the 2016 election, that parties have a lot of power to shape the outcome of a primary, until 2016 kind of roundly shot holes through that with Trump's win. 

I think if you wanted to make some sort of argument that the party "chose" Clinton in 2016, then by the time you get into things like superdelegate counts and the pledged vs superdelegate race, you're already far too far down the road. Most of the ways I've seen actual credible evidence that the DNC "helped" Clinton in 2016 were WELL before that - things like keeping a clear field to ensure there weren't really any other credible competitors in the race in 2016 (Sanders was after all considered a longshot when he declared, even if he ended up getting his polling numbers into the 40s, he started off in single digits) and with Obama and other prominent Democrats encouraging Biden to sit out rather than run against Clinton. I think you can make THAT kind of a case fairly easily, but by the time the primary was going in earnest, I don't know if there's much credible evidence that the DNC was somehow tipping the scales against Sanders, aside from the sort of "well, everyone knows the DNC rigged the primaries" heresay arguments. 

In 2020, I don't know if I see ANY evidence that the party "chose" Biden. What I've seen suggests that the party really wanted some younger candidate who was left enough to appeal to progressives, while not being SO far left that they'd turn off the establishment. Biden was just the candidate who gathered the most support, and the fact that the so-called party elite has been sitting on the sidelines in the endoresement horse-race, while in 2016 and 2008 they were quick to endorse Clinton (before eventually coalescing behind Obama when he took the lead) makes it harder to conclude that the DNC is trying to call the shots here, rather than letting the primary play itself out and see who floats to the top.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Now you get where we are now. The President has, I would consider, 40+ years of increasingly unchecked power. I think it started with Nixon when both parties said "okay, now lets make sure that never happens to us again" and chip chip chip with the fear baiting. Donald Trump becomes President and everybody's worst fears of Executive powers are on full display. The scary part is, despite the horror show that we're living through, it's highly likely the next President and their party will put even more barriers up.


I have to hope that this is an inflection point. The Presidency HAS gotten more powerful over the years, but a lot of the growth in power has been with the tacit assumption that the president is a "rational actor." Obama may have relied on drone strikes to accomplish military objectives while skirting under the restrictions of the Congressional war powers act, but at the same time you could be reasonably sure he wasn't going to be a fucking idiot and, say, assassinate a top Iranian general and risk throwing the whole Middle East into war, so hey, no harm no foul, right? America would never put that kind of power in the hands of someone who'd just use it willy-nilly with no respect to consequences, at time to accomplish personal, and not national, objectives like distracting the country from an impeachment investigation, right? 

We now know that's bullshit. So, _hopefully_, in 2020 whoever wins will be open to re-balaning the branches of government a little. 

FWIW, the point where I really started becoming politically aware was the Clinton impeachment, though the Iraqi War certainly sped the process up a bit. And, in 2008, one of the main reasons I didn't support Clinton was because I was concerned she wouldn't be as open to allowing some of the expanse of executive power under the Bush administration to be rolled back. I can't say for sure in the benefit of hindsight if I was wrong - Obama pushed power through use oif executive action in unprecedented ways, but it's possible Clinton would have done more. It's also probably a necessary side-effect of hyper-partisanship, and that with Congress gridlocked, the only way you can really do anything without majorities in both chambers is unilaterally, so that may be something else we have to address before we can really see any hope of executive limitation.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Mixed group, so I'm not sure when everybody in here's political awareness took off but for me, it was in the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was totally neutral and uneducated at the time, but two somewhat defining moments for me was the way the Dixie Chicks were absolutely destroyed in the media for not supporting GWB and the war, and also Janeane Garafalo was totally shamed off the air and blacklisted for saying she didn't believe the intel that Bush was selling; and she ended up being right.
> 
> For me at the time, what stood out was the idea of things you're not allowed to say or think, or questions you're not allowed to ask. To me, that's the genesis of corruption. It's worth noting that Donald Trump is the President of NO tax returns and now NO testimonies.
> 
> Anyway, at the time, the big Democratic push was about reining in the powers of the President, at the time he was seeking unprecedented power.
> 
> First with the Patriot Act, then it was the Military Commissions Act and all the things that came from these blanket military authorizations. It's worth noting that Trump Admin used the Iraq military authorization of 18 years ago as his license to carry out the attack on Solimeni; an authorization for military action against Sadaam Hussein as President of Iraq, used to kill an Iranian general leaving an airport during an otherwise 'peace time' almost 20 years later. That's what happens with these open ended executive privileges.
> 
> And the Democrats crow about it until their guy is in power, and then they'll renew it perpetually. The same thing as they chipped away at the Senate filibuster. Democrats were in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to prevent Republican interference in passing Democratic legislation, but two or four years later, Republicans are in majority and mad that you gave them no power for their tenure in the majority, so they're more than happy to chip away at minority rights even further.
> 
> Now you get where we are now. The President has, I would consider, 40+ years of increasingly unchecked power. I think it started with Nixon when both parties said "okay, now lets make sure that never happens to us again" and chip chip chip with the fear baiting. Donald Trump becomes President and everybody's worst fears of Executive powers are on full display. The scary part is, despite the horror show that we're living through, it's highly likely the next President and their party will put even more barriers up.



You will find no argument from me on this. I have not party loyalty as I don't belong to one. I vote on issues alone. Most of the time that lines me up with the Dems, but I'm not one who will avoid pointing out the serious issues in that party. Both make power grabs when possible and cry about things they can't use to their advantage currently but will use without issue next its available to them. My hate for politicians and political parties has no loyalty to a specific party. I hate both parties and their agendas equally.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> You will find no argument from me on this. I have not party loyalty as I don't belong to one. I vote on issues alone. Most of the time that lines me up with the Dems, but I'm not one who will avoid pointing out the serious issues in that party. Both make power grabs when possible and cry about things they can't use to their advantage currently but will use without issue next its available to them. My hate for politicians and political parties has no loyalty to a specific party. I hate both parties and their agendas equally.



Yeah, I mean, at this point it's like the plane is careening toward the ground and there's no saving it, the best you can do is hope to sift through the wreckage and figure out what happened for next time.

I think there's some people in the Republican party you can work with but unfortunately Mitch McConnell isn't one of them. So to me, if you want to fix any of this, he's gotta go. My priority would be not necessarily hobbling yourself if you're the majority party but look at some rules fixes to at least let the minority party be heard. Republicans previously weaponized this as the "super minority", where they you couldn't pass a single piece of legislation unless you had 2/3rds, thus making the minority MORE powerful than the majority.

I know Harry Reid floated a couple rules changes before he was out, but I'm not sure where they went. I know there's a lot of bills that have majority support but the Majority Leader has the ability to keep them off the floor, so there was some stuff about items automatically being able to make it to the floor for a vote depending on committee % or a roll call vote. I think similarly, you can change the rules of filibuster so you can't grind the Senate to a halt with 35/65 votes but you can't just approve SCOTUS justices, cabinet appointments or absolving the President with a simple majority and no questioning.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The problem with this whole line of reasoning, near as I can tell, is two fold.
> 
> 1) It assumes that "what's best for the country" is knowable ex ante. I'm not sure I agree with this, and in fact I'd go so far as to say I'm reasonably sure we CAN'T know in advance what outcomes of policy proposals will be "best for the country." But, what the hell, let's say we can.
> 2) What's best for the Democratic Party is to win elections. If they had a candidate who was running on a platform that could be knowable the "best for the country," then it's in their best interest to go all in on this candidate, because definitively their platform is going to be better than what any other candidate, inside or outside the party, will be running on, so it should be a pretty easy election to win.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd say that "wall of text" of a single paragraph is still necessary.


Has everyone forgetten this debacle? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders

The whole idea of not seeing the future is a cop out when you have a bunch of people telling you not to do the thing.  I mean, how do you parse that logical approach with the fact that we've been having this same argument in this same thread since before the election?


----------



## Randy

Dershowitz arguing tonight that a president, even theoretically in a case of proven 'quid pro quo' or even outright extortion cannot be impeached if he does it because he thinks aiding his reelection campaign is in the public's best interest.  Truly in bizarro world now.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Has everyone forgetten this debacle? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders
> 
> The whole idea of not seeing the future is a cop out when you have a bunch of people telling you not to do the thing.  I mean, how do you parse that logical approach with the fact that we've been having this same argument in this same thread since before the election?



Not gonna get anywhere. Drew has his mind made up and anything you throw at him that implies a rigged election either falls in the column of speculation or within Democratic Party rights, doubly because Sanders wasn't/isn't a Democrat. The fact he's still arguing like 2016 was totally above board is mind numbing.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A25s-V6e2Qe-DFpMOg7oN7A

So much for witnesses.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A25s-V6e2Qe-DFpMOg7oN7A
> 
> So much for witnesses.



NY Times is predicting exactly what I predicted, but nothing has yet come to pass, so we shall see.

But the future rammifications of legitimizing the argument that a sitting president cannot be removed from office under any circumstances are frightening as hell. Although, such has virtually been the case from the moment the two party system took hold of the government, by the government saying it out loud, you *know* that they don't give a shit about anything other than their own personal interests.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AkaeMhJ2PQ5WOb29NR0CS1g

Basically, the house should pretty much let McConnell block witnesses and evidence, and then keep investigating Trump after the inevitable aquittal. Polls are averaging 73% of voters want witnesses. To sent it will look like a cover up, this justifying the Dems continuing to investigate without coming off as show losers, and keep the cover up and corruption fresh in the public's mind as we head to November.

Bold strategy Cotton. Let's see if it would payol off.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Dershowitz arguing tonight that a president, even theoretically in a case of proven 'quid pro quo' or even outright extortion cannot be impeached if he does it because he thinks aiding his reelection campaign is in the public's best interest.  Truly in bizarro world now.



Does that also work on just deciding you're not leaving office when the next dude is elected at the end of your term/s? Cause, it's in the public's best interest.


----------



## Ralyks

Thaeon said:


> Does that also work on just deciding you're not leaving office when the next dude is elected at the end of your term/s? Cause, it's in the public's best interest.



Reports already going around that the Dems are already planning for and expecting a messy transition in case Trump losses in November. So, probably.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> Reports already going around that the Dems are already planning for and expecting a messy transition in case Trump losses in November. So, probably.



I can't roll my eyes hard enough...


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> Does that also work on just deciding you're not leaving office when the next dude is elected at the end of your term/s? Cause, it's in the public's best interest.



"It's irresponsible, and not in the nation's best security interests, to change presidents in the middle of a war." -somebody, I'm sure


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> "It's irresponsible, and not in the nation's beat security interests, to change presidents in the middle of a war." -somebody, I'm sure



I can practically hear that in Barr or Pompeo's voice. *skin crawl*


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can practically hear that in Barr or Pompeo's voice. *skin crawl*



I was thinking Kellyanne or McConnell.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> I was thinking Kellyanne or McConnell.



There's just something more terrifying about an Attorney General or Secretary of State saying it.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> Does that also work on just deciding you're not leaving office when the next dude is elected at the end of your term/s? Cause, it's in the public's best interest.



Uncharted territory and absolutely no ceiling on what you can do with it. I guess the hope would be you either see some kind of legislation or a court case making it to SCOTUS to rein that in, because this totally blows up the concept of checks and balances. It literally makes the President a King.



Ralyks said:


> Reports already going around that the Dems are already planning for and expecting a messy transition in case Trump losses in November. So, probably.



We'll see, I heard a lot of speculation about GWB as well and it didn't go down that way. I will say that Trump's likely going to put in an added effort to stay in office, less to do with being a power hungry tyrant and more to do with the legal quagmire that awaits him when he becomes a private citizen again.

Worth noting that the open-endedness of Dershowitz's defense means Trump could even shoot the Democratic nominee dead if he thinks it's in the best interest of the public. And that's a claim that's only proven/disproven inside of his own head, so there's no refuting it. Insanely dangerous.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Has everyone forgetten this debacle? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/2/16599036/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-sanders
> 
> The whole idea of not seeing the future is a cop out when you have a bunch of people telling you not to do the thing.  I mean, how do you parse that logical approach with the fact that we've been having this same argument in this same thread since before the election?


Actually, I HAD forgotten about that.  Still, while definitely shady, that article is also quick to point out that despite Sanders' camp's protestations to the contrary, that didn't "steal" the nomination from Sanders.

You're also side-stepping the two points you asked me to address, implying Sanders' election would be "in the nation's best interest" and that the DNC is therefore working against the nation's best interest. I don't think that you CAN conclude objectively that Sanders is "in the nation's best interest" vs anyone else in Democratic Primary, and I think the DNC is concerned first and foremost with winning elections, not with "looking after themselves."

I guess worth mentioning, thinking back too that Vox piece, is it sort of glosses over the fact that the DNC was strapped for cash after the 2012 election, after Obama didn't really do much to help them replenish and prepare for 2016. Not excusing anything, but at the same time how much fundraising did Sanders (or anyone else who ran) do for them in 2016?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Not gonna get anywhere. Drew has his mind made up and anything you throw at him that implies a rigged election either falls in the column of speculation or within Democratic Party rights, doubly because Sanders wasn't/isn't a Democrat. The fact he's still arguing like 2016 was totally above board is mind numbing.


I'm not saying everything was "totally above board." I'm saying that claims that Sanders only lost because the DNC wouldn't let him win are sour grapes, as nothing I've seen can credibly have changed the outcome.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see, I heard a lot of speculation about GWB as well and it didn't go down that way. I will say that Trump's likely going to put in an added effort to stay in office, less to do with being a power hungry tyrant and more to do with the legal quagmire that awaits him when he becomes a private citizen again.
> 
> Worth noting that the open-endedness of Dershowitz's defense means Trump could even shoot the Democratic nominee dead if he thinks it's in the best interest of the public. And that's a claim that's only proven/disproven inside of his own head, so there's no refuting it. Insanely dangerous.


Both, really - self interest in wanting to hold onto power and be perceived to be "winning," and save his ass from the shitshow that'll occur once he loses what protections from prosecution he has. 

And yeah, Dershowitz' arguments essentially close the door to ANY impeachment, provided a President, um, isn't riddled with crippling self-doubt, I guess.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> I don't think that you CAN conclude objectively that Sanders is "in the nation's best interest" vs anyone else in Democratic Primary



How does everyone stack up in response to climate change?

It is a clear and present danger, and how each candidate plans on dealing with it could make them an objectively better choice, all things being the same.

Just food for thought.



> and I think the DNC is concerned first and foremost with winning elections, not with "looking after themselves."



True, but they've show to be fairly shitty at both. 



Drew said:


> I'm not saying everything was "totally above board." I'm saying that claims that Sanders only lost because the DNC wouldn't let him win are sour grapes.



I don't think anyone believes that was the only factor, but it seems naive to think that having high ranking DNC affiliates not like, for whatever reason, a candidate might lead to issues of impropriety.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Both, really - self interest in wanting to hold onto power and be perceived to be "winning," and save his ass from the shitshow that'll occur once he loses what protections from prosecution he has.
> 
> And yeah, Dershowitz' arguments essentially close the door to ANY impeachment, provided a President, um, isn't riddled with crippling self-doubt, I guess.



Trump: "I shot the guy because I wanted to"

Dershowitz: "Mr. President, that's a crime. Are you sure you didn't mean you shot him because it's in the best interest of the people of this country?"

Trump: "Oh yeah, right right, I meant that one."

Schiff: "No, you can't do that. That's not why he said he did it the first time. Arrest this man!"

Dershowitz: "No, *you* can't do that. He only answered the question that way because he thought it was in the best interest of the people to not know the real reason he shot that guy. He was protecting you from the truth. He's actually a hero"


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> How does everyone stack up in response to climate change?
> 
> It is a clear and present danger, and how each candidate plans on dealing with it could make them an objectively better choice, all things being the same.
> 
> Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> True, but they've show to be fairly shitty at both.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone believes that was the only factor, but it seems naive to think that having high ranking DNC affiliates not like, for whatever reason, a candidate might lead to issues of impropriety.


Running through this in reverse order - it certainly creates an _appearance _of impropriety, and if there's ANYTHING we can all agree here, looking at recent conversations about Hunter Biden and the DNC in 2016 and, like, the entire fucking dumpster fire that is the Trump Administration, you kind of need to avoid that appearance.  

That's been a DNC failing for _generations_ I'm afraid.  

Climate change is tricky, and therefore a great example. In _general_, all Democratic candidates want to fight climate change, but they all want to do so in different manners. Do you vote for the guy who wants to ban fracking, or the guy who thinks tapping domestic natural gas reserves gets us off foreign oil, makes it easier to avoid international conflicts (which let's be flippant, aircraft carriers are hardly carbon neutral) and buys us time to build out wind and solar capacities? Or is the guy favoring cap and trade better, because it increases costs to emitters? You have to have some objective evidence that one of these approaches clearly surpasses the others, which we really don't. The best you can do is make your own mind up on what seems likely to be the most effective, hope you're right, and vote your conscience, and just count on the fact that pretty much anyone running is going to do a better job fighting climate change than Trump will. 

I guess my main point here is that deciding one candidate is objectively "the best for the country" requires knowing a lot of things that are unknowable. It just isn't possible.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Trump: "I shot the guy because I wanted to"
> 
> Dershowitz: "Mr. President, that's a crime. Are you sure you didn't mean you shot him because it's in the best interest of the people of this country?"
> 
> Trump: "Oh yeah, right right, I meant that one."
> 
> Schiff: "No, you can't do that. That's not why he said he did it the first time. Arrest this man!"
> 
> Dershowitz: "No, *you* can't do that. He only answered the question that way because he thought it was in the best interest of the people to not know the real reason he shot that guy. He was protecting you from the truth. He's actually a hero"


It makes me want to drink. 

I mean, more than usual. 

The sick thing is, the whole GOP is now looking at this guy like he's some sort of broadly accepted constitutional authority, and not on the absolute fringe of what people believe on executive power. And they're eating it up - it now looks like we have two GOP votes, maybe three, for witnesses, but it's really unclear if there will be more. 

Fivethirtyeight's take on it from this morning seems right - watch Bolton. If he truly wants to testify and truly believes Trump did something impeachable, he pretty much has to do something today to tie the GOP's hands and make it way harder to vote against ending the trial without witnesses. If by 6pm tonight he's been silent and isn't slated for a high profile prime time news interview or anything, then the odds are fairly good the Senate will acquit tomorrow.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> I guess my main point here is that deciding one candidate is objectively "the best for the country" requires knowing a lot of things that are unknowable. It just isn't possible.



It basically requires a) hindsight, and b) a hard evidence forsome sort of hypothetical scenario's outcome. 

The subtleties being dealt with aren't things like Skynet or blocking out the sun like in Highlander.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Uncharted territory and absolutely no ceiling on what you can do with it. I guess the hope would be you either see some kind of legislation or a court case making it to SCOTUS to rein that in, because this totally blows up the concept of checks and balances. It literally makes the President a King.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see, I heard a lot of speculation about GWB as well and it didn't go down that way. I will say that Trump's likely going to put in an added effort to stay in office, less to do with being a power hungry tyrant and more to do with the legal quagmire that awaits him when he becomes a private citizen again.
> 
> Worth noting that the open-endedness of Dershowitz's defense means Trump could even shoot the Democratic nominee dead if he thinks it's in the best interest of the public. And that's a claim that's only proven/disproven inside of his own head, so there's no refuting it. Insanely dangerous.



Does this moron realize he's arguing potential case law supporting Rogue POTUS despotism?


----------



## JSanta

Thaeon said:


> Does this moron realize he's arguing potential case law supporting Rogue POTUS despotism?



I think the better question in this case is whether he cares or not. Despots are good for people that are closely aligned and supportive of said despot. 

I mean, do we really think that Trump's comment to/about rethinking term limits when Xi Jinping was named President for Life in China was said in jest?


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Running through this in reverse order - it certainly creates an _appearance _of impropriety, and if there's ANYTHING we can all agree here, looking at recent conversations about Hunter Biden and the DNC in 2016 and, like, the entire fucking dumpster fire that is the Trump Administration, you kind of need to avoid that appearance.
> 
> That's been a DNC failing for _generations_ I'm afraid.
> 
> Climate change is tricky, and therefore a great example. In _general_, all Democratic candidates want to fight climate change, but they all want to do so in different manners. Do you vote for the guy who wants to ban fracking, or the guy who thinks tapping domestic natural gas reserves gets us off foreign oil, makes it easier to avoid international conflicts (which let's be flippant, aircraft carriers are hardly carbon neutral) and buys us time to build out wind and solar capacities? Or is the guy favoring cap and trade better, because it increases costs to emitters? You have to have some objective evidence that one of these approaches clearly surpasses the others, which we really don't. The best you can do is make your own mind up on what seems likely to be the most effective, hope you're right, and vote your conscience, and just count on the fact that pretty much anyone running is going to do a better job fighting climate change than Trump will.
> 
> I guess my main point here is that deciding one candidate is objectively "the best for the country" requires knowing a lot of things that are unknowable. It just isn't possible.


Your aircraft carriers are all nuclear powered, so they're far closer to carbon neutral than anything wind powered.


----------



## Vyn

Collins and Romney yes, Alexander no, Murkowski TBA.

It's going to be fucking tight.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Dershowitz arguing tonight that a president, even theoretically in a case of proven 'quid pro quo' or even outright extortion cannot be impeached if he does it because he thinks aiding his reelection campaign is in the public's best interest.  Truly in bizarro world now.



So, as long as HE sees HIMSELF as an "enlightened despot", it's ~all~ good???


Niiice. Go Democracy!


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Running through this in reverse order - it certainly creates an _appearance _of impropriety, and if there's ANYTHING we can all agree here, looking at recent conversations about Hunter Biden and the DNC in 2016 and, like, the entire fucking dumpster fire that is the Trump Administration, you kind of need to avoid that appearance.
> 
> That's been a DNC failing for _generations_ I'm afraid.
> 
> Climate change is tricky, and therefore a great example. In _general_, all Democratic candidates want to fight climate change, but they all want to do so in different manners. Do you vote for the guy who wants to ban fracking, or the guy who thinks tapping domestic natural gas reserves gets us off foreign oil, makes it easier to avoid international conflicts (which let's be flippant, aircraft carriers are hardly carbon neutral) and buys us time to build out wind and solar capacities? Or is the guy favoring cap and trade better, because it increases costs to emitters? You have to have some objective evidence that one of these approaches clearly surpasses the others, which we really don't. The best you can do is make your own mind up on what seems likely to be the most effective, hope you're right, and vote your conscience, and just count on the fact that pretty much anyone running is going to do a better job fighting climate change than Trump will.
> 
> I guess my main point here is that deciding one candidate is objectively "the best for the country" requires knowing a lot of things that are unknowable. It just isn't possible.



Uhm....Aircraft carriers can even be CARBON NEGATIVE (technically)

Just use nuclear power for shipyard and component production & install lots of carbon bling and doodads, while refraining from burning anything wherever possible


PS electric planes/choppers/drones would help


----------



## bostjan

Vyn said:


> Collins and Romney yes, Alexander no, Murkowski TBA.
> 
> It's going to be fucking tight.



So, by my count, unless someone votes contrary to how they are expected, there will be neither witnesses nor documents.

The thing that upsets me most about this, though, is Alexander is saying that the no vote is because the evidence available is already clear enough that the president did exactly what the House Democrats alleged that he did. But he just doesn't think there should be consequences for it.

Meanwhile, a big part of the debate in the House was that it was so clear Trump did this, but who knows what else he's done, so, let's get the Senate to leverage evidence and see what is being covered up.

Also, the GOP wanted so bad to treat everything like a criminal trial, so that the standard of evidence would be super high. In a jury trial, the jury decides whether the thing was done or not, and then it's later decided what the consequences will be, and, even in an impeachment of a non-president, that's been the case, but here, it sounds like the party stance is becoming, yes, he did the bad thing, but acquit anyway.


It's insane.


----------



## Ralyks

So this is how democracy dies. Instead of proving your innocence, you can just go "nuh-uh!"


----------



## sleewell

llamar got bribed. only explanation. 

he said the dems proved their case and trump did it but he is still voting with the cult. that makes no sense.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

bah, nvm


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> So this is how democracy dies. Instead of proving your innocence, you can just go "nuh-uh!"



Don't forget. You have to have enough power to say "Nuh-uh!". Otherwise, they'll throw the book at you. If you do have wealth or hold office for whoever is the it crowd of the time (best if you have both), then you're going to get ground into dust by the same people making allowances for each other. Basically, if you're not in the club, ALL rules apply and you must submit to the will of the club. If you're in the club, NONE of the rules apply, including the rules of the club.


----------



## Randy

I'm mostly curious how this will play out politically.

The whole Trump fiasco reminds me a lot of what it's like going through some kind of a tragedy and seeing how friends and family react to it. You think of people one way but things get intense and people change in unexpected ways. Some people you think you can rely on crack under pressure and disappear, some people you didn't think much of step up big time, etc.

I personally never anticipated how willing people in this country were to take on a fascism. You read the history books and you say "Yeah, well, that's just because of the time they live in, or the culture. That couldn't happen here", forgetting that we're the same people, prone to pride, fear, hate, whatever that the people in places like Nazi Germany were.

The assumption is that people will be turned off by seeing this guy's flagrant disregard for the law and the constitution or basic human decency, but the last 3 or so years have taught me that those kinds of things make some people like a guy even more. I honestly have no idea what the perception is going to be after this.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> I'm mostly curious how this will play out politically.
> 
> The whole Trump fiasco reminds me a lot of what it's like going through some kind of a tragedy and seeing how friends and family react to it. You think of people one way but things get intense and people change in unexpected ways. Some people you think you can rely on crack under pressure and disappear, some people you didn't think much of step up big time, etc.
> 
> I personally never anticipated how willing people in this country were to take on a fascism. You read the history books and you say "Yeah, well, that's just because of the time they live in, or the culture. That couldn't happen here", forgetting that we're the same people, prone to pride, fear, hate, whatever that the people in places like Nazi Germany were.
> 
> The assumption is that people will be turned off by seeing this guy's flagrant disregard for the law and the constitution or basic human decency, but the last 3 or so years have taught me that those kinds of things make some people like a guy even more. I honestly have no idea what the perception is going to be after this.



I had this discussion with my mother (both parents grew up on Soviet satellites) and she said what happened in Germany and Italy could never happen in the United States. I then essentially drew her a picture of all of the parallels going on right now, with my point being what happened in the 30s is similarly happening in this country right now.


----------



## spudmunkey

Judge Roberts refused to read a question from Rand Paul that included the alleged name of the whistleblower. Fuck that guy (Rand).


----------



## Thaeon

JSanta said:


> I had this discussion with my mother (both parents grew up on Soviet satellites) and she said what happened in Germany and Italy could never happen in the United States. I then essentially drew her a picture of all of the parallels going on right now, with my point being what happened in the 30s is similarly happening in this country right now.



Based on some cursory research, the US doesn't generally rank in even the top 10 most free nations. Sometimes not even in the top 20. Not what you'd expect from the "Land of the Free and the home of the Brave."


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

*Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says*


Jan. 31, 2020 Updated 12:31 p.m. ET WASHINGTON — More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.


----------



## sleewell

Captain Butterscotch said:


> *Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says*
> 
> 
> Jan. 31, 2020 Updated 12:31 p.m. ET WASHINGTON — More than two months before he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate his political opponents, President Trump directed John R. Bolton, then his national security adviser, to help with his pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats from Ukrainian officials, according to an unpublished manuscript by Mr. Bolton.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Collins and Romney yes, Alexander no, Murkowski TBA.
> 
> It's going to be fucking tight.


Honestly, the odds are against it, but I think we can't eliminate the possibility of Roberts casting a tie-breaking vote to allow witness testimony, if this does in fact come in 50-50.

Couple reasons - Rand Paul being a douchebag, Dershowitz basically arguing right in front of him that there are essentially no valid grounds for impeachment, Trump's defense arguing that the proper recourse to Trump blocking witnesses from testifying to the House was the courts, not impeachment, while across the street Trump's lawyers are arguing that the proper recourse to Trump blocking witnesses from testifying is impeachment, not the courts, and then Warren submitting this question last night, which absolutely had an audience of one in mind. To his credit, Roberts did read it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...in-awkward-spot-with-supreme-court-legitimacy

Do I think this will end with a 50-50 vote and Roberts breaking it to call witnesses? No. More likely than not this ends tonight. Would I be shocked if it happened? Also no. I'd put the odds about on par, perhaps a little better, with another, unexpected Republican voting in favor of witnesses, or a Democrat like Jones breaking ranks and making it a moot point. But, it was a clear shot across the bow to Roberts, and he's a man who's very concerned with the perception of legitimacy of the courts, and can't help but be aware that legitimacy is under attack.


----------



## sleewell

how many of trumps attys arguments could be immediately disproved by clips of trump talking?


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> how many of trumps attys arguments could be immediately disproved by clips of trump talking?


At this point, all of them. He's contradicted pretty much every point of his defense at one point or another by now, and even though his lawyers have moved on to calling it merely "not impeachable," he still swears the call was "perfect" and will continue to do so once cleared.


----------



## spudmunkey

*ugh* I'm just picturing the right-wing "We won!/I'm still your president" memes...


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> ... and then Warren submitting this question last night, which absolutely had an audience of one in mind. To his credit, Roberts did read it.
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...in-awkward-spot-with-supreme-court-legitimacy


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> *ugh* I'm just picturing the right-wing "We won!/I'm still your president" memes...



"Still not tired of winning!"


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Murkowski is going to vote against witnesses. Life's real weird, ya know?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> "Still not tired of winning!"



Being acquitted at a trial with no witnesses, why, that almost sounds like getting fewer votes, and becoming president. 

Thus we further canonize the right's inability to win without gaming/cheating the system. 

Their large adult sons must be so proud. 

The party of law and order, everyone.


----------



## Randy

Alexander gave her the easy out. Numbers didn't look like they were going to work, and he positioned himself to say "Yep, Dems proved it but the votes aren't there, so what's the point of witnesses to tell us what we already know?". If they have any belief their constituents are tepid about Trump, this gives them the ability to say "hey, I know the guy's a bum but we didn't have the numbers to do anything else anyway"


----------



## Drew

Saw that, was just coming here to post. You're fast. 

That pretty much seals the deal. Unless some BIG breaking news causes Republicans to reconsider, or there's a couple surprise yes votes that McConnell was taking for granted, the vote will go down along near-party lines, with Romney and probably Collins crossing over but the vote failing 49-51. 

I mean, the final outcome was never in doubt, but I'd still at least hoped we'd get sworn witness testimony in the Senate. As a Democrat I guess you just have to hope that with roughly 2/3 of the country wanting the Senate to call witnesses, there are electoral consequences for burying the proceedings like this.


----------



## Thaeon

Why can't the population of the US send up a vote of No Confindence in the current sitting members of government? I think there should be a law that lets the citizens send up an emergency vote that could strip everyone of their titles and force an emergency election to replace everyone.


----------



## vilk

Thaeon said:


> Why can't the population of the US send up a vote of No Confindence in the current sitting members of government? I think there should be a law that lets the citizens send up an emergency vote that could strip everyone of their titles and force an emergency election to replace everyone.


...you know who makes the laws, right?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Trump: "I shot the guy because I wanted to"
> 
> Dershowitz: "Mr. President, that's a crime. Are you sure you didn't mean you shot him because it's in the best interest of the people of this country?"
> 
> Trump: "Oh yeah, right right, I meant that one."
> 
> Schiff: "No, you can't do that. That's not why he said he did it the first time. Arrest this man!"
> 
> Dershowitz: "No, *you* can't do that. He only answered the question that way because he thought it was in the best interest of the people to not know the real reason he shot that guy. He was protecting you from the truth. He's actually a hero"



Goddamn this would make for a hilarious three stooges skit.


----------



## Thaeon

vilk said:


> ...you know who makes the laws, right?
> 
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...age-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B



It's pretty obvious. Whatever is best for the people making the most money is what is best for the country. Its Aristocracy by way of wealth rather than birth. Which, in a few generations will be completely by birth because of birth into wealth. No voice matters but the voice of capital gains.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Why can't the population of the US send up a vote of No Confindence in the current sitting members of government? I think there should be a law that lets the citizens send up an emergency vote that could strip everyone of their titles and force an emergency election to replace everyone.


No constitutional provision for doing so, would take a constitutional amendment to be passed by 2/3 of the states. Get busy.


----------



## sleewell

hey this is the dumbest thing you might read today:

*Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed*


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> hey this is the dumbest thing you might read today:
> 
> *Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed*



That's just outright denial. That's precisely what impeachable actions means. You broke the laws governing your specific position of power. Goodbye. Bunch of Narcissistic asshats up there. Loving to point fingers at people without calling them entitled at the same time their own feelings of entitlement to power are on full display.


----------



## Drew

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/t...e-shirks-its-responsibilities-john-kelly-says

This is interesting. Bolton is definitely pouring a little more gasoline on the fire today, though probably not enough to move the needle, but I'm surprised to see _John Kelly _coming out and saying the Senate isn't living up to their responsibility if they close this without calling a single witness. 

Like, these aren't Never Trumpers. These are lifelong Republicans, and in Kelly's case a core member of his administration for rather a long time.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

sleewell said:


> hey this is the dumbest thing you might read today:
> 
> *Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed*



Yeah....as someone who really wanted Rubio to get the nomination for 2016, that's a rough read. To be fair, the title is a slight mischaracterization, of "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean _*it is in the best interest of the country*_ to remove a President from office," which I guess is technically true, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where that applies.

I especially don't understand his logic of how since a large plurality of the country would view the impeachment as illegitimate, confidence in our democracy [*_*coughrepublic*_*] would be undermined; but then make that quote. If a sitting officer violated a written rule with the listed penalty being removal of office, how would _*not*_ removing them _*not*_ shake confidence in our democracy?

Damn, Marco- that's disappointing.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> hey this is the dumbest thing you might read today:
> 
> *Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed*



It's hard to recognize a Rubio quote without the condescending Bible quote that actually refutes his position within the context of the actual text. 

Him, Gaetz, and Scott are walking examples of why climate change can be objectively good. The faster Florida sinks, the faster these goons get less relevant than they already are. 

Surprised he has time to write. You'd figure he'd be busy spending all that NRA money while campaigning for rape and incest victims to be forced to have their abusers' children.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Yeah....as someone who really wanted Rubio to get the nomination for 2016, that's a rough read. To be fair, the title is a slight mischaracterization, of "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean _*it is in the best interest of the country*_ to remove a President from office," which I guess is technically true, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a situation where that applies.


He's absolutely right, though. He doesn't necessarily have to be removed. Instead, he could simply step down.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> He's absolutely right, though. He doesn't necessarily have to be removed. Instead, he could simply step down.



I don't think Donald J. Trump is physically capable of stepping down from any position, lol.


----------



## Drew

It was a joke anyway.


----------



## bostjan

So... today was also the court date for one of Trump's many pending sexual assault cases, but the White House cancelled it, saying that the President is immune to state laws. Evidently, that flew, too, and it looks like the case will be frozen until Trump leaves office.

So...yeah, I guess Trump is basically declared king of the USA if everything goes his way today, and we have every indication that it will.

"L'etate c'est moi!" - Louis XIV Trump I


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So... today was also the court date for one of Trump's many pending sexual assault cases, but the White House cancelled it, saying that the President is immune to state laws. Evidently, that flew, too, and it looks like the case will be frozen until Trump leaves office.
> 
> So...yeah, I guess Trump is basically declared king of the USA if everything goes his way today, and we have every indication that it will.
> 
> "L'etate c'est moi!" - Louis XIV Trump I


Got a source for that state law case? A google news search for "trump sexual assault case" turned up nothing, save for yesterday's news that one of Trump's accuser wants a DNA sample to confirm what's believed to be a semen sample on the (still unwashed) dress she was raped in. 

That would be a pretty BIG development, as one of the limits on presidential pardons has always been granting immunity to federal, but not state, prosecution, on the grounds that since any power not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the state, the president doesn't have the power to commute state law, only federal.


----------



## bostjan

> “We believe that the Court of Appeals will agree that the U.S. Constitution bars state court actions while the president is in office,” Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP said in a statement.


https://apnews.com/ffd5bed820ee55ca1ace1463ddcfef41
Closest to the coverage I could find in print, but it's a few weeks old.

Edit: what is presented as presidential immunity from state laws is the position of the White House, not of the courts, in case I was unclear earlier. But it's worth noting that Trump was not President when the alleged incident occured, and the case started just days before he was sworn in.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> *A google news search for "trump sexual assault case" turned up nothing*, save for yesterday's news that one of Trump's accuser wants a DNA sample to confirm what's believed to be a semen sample on the (still unwashed) dress she was raped in.


Also... really? Doesn't he have 3 or 4 of those ongoing?


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> hey this is the dumbest thing you might read today:
> 
> *Rubio: Impeachable actions don't necessarily mean a president should be removed*


Can't spell Rubio without "rube"


----------



## vilk

Trump admitted to hand-raping strangers on national television _before he even ran in the 2016 Republican Primary and *spineless brainless thoughtless retarded euthanasia-waitlisted Republican mongoloids still nominated him to be the president of the United States.*_


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Trump admitted to hand-raping strangers on national television _before he even ran in the 2016 Republican Primary and *spineless brainless thoughtless retarded euthanasia-waitlisted Republican mongoloids still nominated him to be the president of the United States.*_



There is a cross section of people where that's a pro and not a con. 

Think about that.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> There is a cross section of people where that's a pro and not a con.
> 
> Think about that.



Confirmed heterosexual, alpha male baboon type best fit for pack leader?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Confirmed heterosexual, alpha male baboon type best fit for pack leader?



Add to that incel edgelords and contrarian trolls. Though simple misogynists could fit the bill depending on their politics. 

Really, all it takes is someone who believes that whatever Trump wrought is worth more than the women he assaulted.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also... really? Doesn't he have 3 or 4 of those ongoing?


Something like that, yes. :/ That was the only news in the last 48 hours, though. 

I mean, Trump has legal cases moving through the courts where he's alleged to have sexually assaulted or raped a number of women. He has cases subpoenaing financial documents for allleged tax fraud and money laundering. He has related election finance cases moving through the courts. He has cases seeking to overturn his broad claim of executive privilege, which would be extremely detrimental for all of the above cases, and would likely send a lot of his subordinates and associates to jail, Giuliani at the top of that heap. Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation found evidence but not conclusive evidence of collusion with Russia, strong evidence for obstruction of justice, and Mueller was open about the fact that the obstruction likely prevented him from proving the collusion case, and while the current impeachment proceedings are almost certain to end with no conviction, a majority of Americans think he did something at least theoretically impeachable, and a material number of Republicans are voting not to impeach not because they don't thin the House proved their case and what Trump did was wrong, but because they just don't think impeachment was the remedy. Meanwhile, Trump and his family has been barred from operating a nonprofit in NY and the Trump Foundation was shut down, Trump University settled out of court for fraud claims, and a number of pornstars are currently suing him over breaching the terms of alleged NDAs. 

Am I forgetting anything? Idunno. Trump has a LOT of cases moving through the court where he's the defendant, and many of them don't look promising. I think it's inevitable at some point the wheels are going to come off the cart. The question will be 1) will it happen soon enough to stop him from winning a second term, and/or 2) will it result in his removal from office, or will he face the music only AFTER his term has ended. 

I think the odds of Trump not losing a few of these is pretty high, and the odds of him not spending at least some time in jail depend mostly on whether or not someone pardons him before he goes. It's just a matter of how much harm he can do to American democracy first.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A4XFQDrJ0TJCM0B-7jLY2ZQ

How convenient. Right after new evidence is blocked.


----------



## iamaom

Drew said:


> The question will be 1) will it happen soon enough to stop him from winning a second term, and/or 2) will it result in his removal from office, or will he face the music only AFTER his term has ended.


This is assuming the universe has some sense of justice or karma, which it doesn't. I predict Trump will be elected 2nd term and die in office having to face no consequences and the executive branch will continue to consolidate power; we will then get Pence, who centrists will praise as being "presidential", to still carry out the vast majority of Trump's ideas while the Democrats sit there muttering to themselves about how it's all the progressive's fault while letting the Republicans get away with everything. Ginsberg will also die somewhere along all of this and we'll get Scalia v2.0.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

iamaom said:


> This is assuming the universe has some sense of justice or karma, which it doesn't. I predict Trump will be elected 2nd term and die in office having to face no consequences and the executive branch will continue to consolidate power; we will then get Pence, who centrists will praise as being "presidential", to still carry out the vast majority of Trump's ideas while the Democrats sit there muttering to themselves about how it's all the progressive's fault while letting the Republicans get away with everything. Ginsberg will also die somewhere along all of this and we'll get Scalia v2.0.



Are you a wizard?


----------



## Drew

I mean, I should probably explicitly include a nonzero probability of Trump dying before he can face the music; this is the man who hates cardio because he thinks the heart has a finite amount of beats, and lo es fast food.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> I mean, I should probably explicitly include a nonzero probability of Trump dying before he can face the music; this is the man who hates cardio because he thinks the heart has a finite amount of beats, and lo es fast food.



You mean his doctor who said he could live to be 200 was a liar?! Blasphemous!!


----------



## Randy

Am I the only one here thinking something smells funny about no last poll results before iowa?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Am I the only one here thinking something smells funny about no last poll results before iowa?


One of them got shut down by the Buttigieg camp. This is second- or third-hand so don't quote me here, but I understand what happened is one of his staffers got a call for the poll, and when asked who he was voting for, his name wasn't on the list. The polling firm traced it to a change in font size on the program they were using to prompt their dialers, where when they bumped it up to make it easier to read quickly while on the phone, they didn't check it afterwards and it made it large enough that the last name on the list was just offscreen and the caller would have to scroll down (which they weren't aware they needed to do). The order of names was randomized... But the polling company, when they reallized what had happened, decided it was enough to question the validity of the poll or at a minimum question the perception of validity. so, they opted to not publish. 

Don't recall who this was, and I can't speak for the others... But, polls have pretty consistently reported a dead heat, with no consensus on a clear leader. It looks like it could be the most competitive Iowa caucus in the modern era.


----------



## Randy

I only need to get as far as Buttigieg's staffer getting called to answer a poll in the first place and it's already too fucking weird to suit me, much less his name accidentally being left off the list when the person on the phone read the question.


----------



## possumkiller

The guy on the left looks like an 80s has been doofus. The guy on the right looks like the wise and rightful king of America that we all voted for. I wonder what the crown will look like. Maybe they will have a design contest like they did with the Space Force logo?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Something like that, yes. :/ That was the only news in the last 48 hours, though.
> 
> I mean, Trump has legal cases moving through the courts where he's alleged to have sexually assaulted or raped a number of women. He has cases subpoenaing financial documents for allleged tax fraud and money laundering. He has related election finance cases moving through the courts. He has cases seeking to overturn his broad claim of executive privilege, which would be extremely detrimental for all of the above cases, and would likely send a lot of his subordinates and associates to jail, Giuliani at the top of that heap. Meanwhile, the Mueller investigation found evidence but not conclusive evidence of collusion with Russia, strong evidence for obstruction of justice, and Mueller was open about the fact that the obstruction likely prevented him from proving the collusion case, and while the current impeachment proceedings are almost certain to end with no conviction, a majority of Americans think he did something at least theoretically impeachable, and a material number of Republicans are voting not to impeach not because they don't thin the House proved their case and what Trump did was wrong, but because they just don't think impeachment was the remedy. Meanwhile, Trump and his family has been barred from operating a nonprofit in NY and the Trump Foundation was shut down, Trump University settled out of court for fraud claims, and a number of pornstars are currently suing him over breaching the terms of alleged NDAs.
> 
> Am I forgetting anything? Idunno. Trump has a LOT of cases moving through the court where he's the defendant, and many of them don't look promising. I think it's inevitable at some point the wheels are going to come off the cart. The question will be 1) will it happen soon enough to stop him from winning a second term, and/or 2) will it result in his removal from office, or will he face the music only AFTER his term has ended.
> 
> I think the odds of Trump not losing a few of these is pretty high, and the odds of him not spending at least some time in jail depend mostly on whether or not someone pardons him before he goes. It's just a matter of how much harm he can do to American democracy first.


Well, if the White House dictates that no one can sue the President and that he is not subject to criminal law, and that becomes the courts' interpretation of the law (according to what?), then there will be a very high chance that Trump will win every case.


----------



## MFB

Bald Trump looks like a cross between an old version of Kane from Command & Conquer, and the General from Fifth Element


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MFB said:


> Bald Trump looks like a cross between an old version of Kane from Command & Conquer, and the General from Fifth Element



I was thinking more of Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 77194
> 
> The guy on the left looks like an 80s has been doofus. The guy on the right looks like the wise and rightful king of America that we all voted for. I wonder what the crown will look like. Maybe they will have a design contest like they did with the Space Force logo?



Guy on left: Trump
Guy on right: Trump voter _(who also drives a pickup truck so tall you need a ladder to get inside but has a handicapped parking pass, who also "drives a Harley Davidson" like a badass but it's a 3 wheel trike with a windshield and heat, who also hates *hates* Democrats and social programs but is retired Union contractor that collects social security and Medicare)_


----------



## possumkiller

MFB said:


> Bald Trump looks like a cross between an old version of Kane from Command & Conquer, and the General from Fifth Element


I like how you say "Bald Trump" as if there is a not-bald Trump lol.


----------



## Randy

Wondering if this damages @Drew assertion enough that there's no establishment push to sideline Sanders, we're switching back over to the "well, he's not a real Democrat anyway" argument.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Wondering if this damages @Drew assertion enough that there's no establishment push to sideline Sanders, we're switching back over to the "well, he's not a real Democrat anyway" argument.
> 
> View attachment 77201


I'll believe Kerry runs when I see it.  He's missed every single filing deadline, no? I suppose he could be floated as a compromise candidate in a contested convention, but that's about it. 



Randy said:


> I only need to get as far as Buttigieg's staffer getting called to answer a poll in the first place and it's already too fucking weird to suit me, much less his name accidentally being left off the list when the person on the phone read the question.


My buddy's hunch was that the poll wasn't terribly favorable to Buttigieg so they had extra incentive to squelch it, but ultimately it was the Des Moines Register, and not one of the candidates, who decided not to run it.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 77194
> 
> The guy on the left looks like an 80s has been doofus. The guy on the right looks like the wise and rightful king of America that we all voted for. I wonder what the crown will look like. Maybe they will have a design contest like they did with the Space Force logo?


How has no one pointed out that Bald Trump looks like Putin?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'll believe Kerry runs when I see it.  He's missed every single filing deadline, no? I suppose he could be floated as a compromise candidate in a contested convention, but that's about it.
> 
> 
> My buddy's hunch was that the poll wasn't terribly favorable to Buttigieg so they had extra incentive to squelch it, but ultimately it was the Des Moines Register, and not one of the candidates, who decided not to run it.



Who has an editorial board that endorsed a candidate, and thus has an incentive to play cute with the poll numbers.


----------



## spudmunkey

I was gonna say Dr Phil if he had a beard.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Who has an editorial board that endorsed a candidate, and thus has an incentive to play cute with the poll numbers.


Who endorsed Warren, at a time where she had fallen out of the lead and was already trailing the other three front runners. It's not like they endorsed Biden and wanted to mask Sanders' surge or something, they had endorsed a candidate who, with the caveat that things were close enough that anyone _could_ win, was the least likely of the four favorites. 

Idunno, man. That seems _awfully_ hard to take at face value, that there was something nefarious going on where the Register just didn't want to release a poll that wasn't favorable to Warren.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'll believe Kerry runs when I see it.  He's missed every single filing deadline, no? I suppose he could be floated as a compromise candidate in a contested convention, but that's about it.



Could be less about legitimately running and more about floating stories like this out there to detract from Sanders electability. In that case, the threat alone is enough to get the desired outcome.



Drew said:


> Who endorsed Warren, at a time where she had fallen out of the lead and was already trailing the other three front runners. It's not like they endorsed Biden and wanted to mask Sanders' surge or something, they had endorsed a candidate who, with the caveat that things were close enough that anyone _could_ win, was the least likely of the four favorites.
> 
> Idunno, man. That seems _awfully_ hard to take at face value, that there was something nefarious going on where the Register just didn't want to release a poll that wasn't favorable to Warren.



I mean, I wouldn't sharpen the point as much to say it somehow points to an anti-Sanders cover-up, I just meant that it was an anomaly at a time there shouldn't be one. I'd have just as soon released the poll with a caveat or adjust the margin of error to suit.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Could be less about legitimately running and more about floating stories like this out there to detract from Sanders electability. In that case, the threat alone is enough to get the desired outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, I wouldn't sharpen the point as much to say it somehow points to an anti-Sanders cover-up, I just meant that it was an anomaly at a time there shouldn't be one. I'd have just as soon released the poll with a caveat or adjust the margin of error to suit.



I'll be honest, I didn't hear anything about this story until your post here. This was one of the top google results;

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/3/21120006/john-kerry-presidential-run-bernie-sanders-biden

tl;dr - Kerry says he was on the phone with someone who asked why he didn't run to try to beat Sanders, so he started listing off all the reasons that this was ludicrous. Someone evidently overheard that and thought what he was laying out was a serious plan, and not a "that's crazy, because of this, this, this, and this." There's also the bit about him having endorsed Biden. 

My personal hot take - the person who gains the most from this story, and from fanning the flames to keep it in the news, is Bernie Sanders. If any campaign wants this story out there, it's the anti-establishment candidate who's actively painting himself as having to overcome establishment special interests to fight for the little guy. 

Honestly, without knowing more about what went on (like, if there was some reason to believe that the mistake had _systematically_, and not randomly, impacted the results), I tend to agree with you on the poll, and publishing it but with a bigger margin of error. I guess the tricky thing though is if they're doing anything fairly sophisticated from a sampling standpoint, even a random omitting of one of the candidates could have some pretty big impacts on the demographic cross sections in ways that would probably be really, really hard to estimate without knowing for sure which candidate was omitted where. You could just go with it and arbitrarily adjust your sampling error up subjectively to try to account for this, but you wouldn't know exactly what your error actually was, without knowing more about which parts of your sample didn't get which candidate. I think if this was any other pollster, even then you might see them publish... but the Register evidently hasn't yet got this one wrong since they've been publishing, so if there IS reason to suspect your error is going to be elevated in unpredictable ways, then you're running a very real risk of blowing your perfect record. You can't really publish and say "yeah, but we don't stand behind this one," so I think their motivation here was largely self-interest. I'd _love_ to see the results myself, though, even with all the caveats above. But I'd be way more likely to believe that the Register just decided it was better to sit this one out rather than blow a perfect pilling record, rather than they were concerned about the impact their poll might have on the race, for whatever reasons.


----------



## Xaios

Guys, you've got it wrong.

It's Don Cherry.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'll be honest, I didn't hear anything about this story until your post here. This was one of the top google results;
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2020/2/3/21120006/john-kerry-presidential-run-bernie-sanders-biden
> 
> tl;dr - Kerry says he was on the phone with someone who asked why he didn't run to try to beat Sanders, so he started listing off all the reasons that this was ludicrous. Someone evidently overheard that and thought what he was laying out was a serious plan, and not a "that's crazy, because of this, this, this, and this." There's also the bit about him having endorsed Biden.
> 
> My personal hot take - the person who gains the most from this story, and from fanning the flames to keep it in the news, is Bernie Sanders. If any campaign wants this story out there, it's the anti-establishment candidate who's actively painting himself as having to overcome establishment special interests to fight for the little guy.



May be so. Still would have to be another "oh, so the guy in the room listening to Kerry's conversation was a Sander agitator" thing just like the pollster calling a Buttigieg campaign staffer and omitting Buttigieg's name from his questionaire. It's just all to close for me. Are the only people in Iowa pollsters and campaign staffers?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> May be so. Still would have to be another "oh, so the guy in the room listening to Kerry's conversation was a Sander agitator" thing just like the pollster calling a Buttigieg campaign staffer and omitting Buttigieg's name from his questionaire. It's just all to close for me. Are the only people in Iowa pollsters and campaign staffers?


Have you ever BEEN to Iowa?  

I'll say this too - based on a quick scan of my facebook feed right now, the vocal Sanders supporters are sharing the _fuck_ out of stories with titles like "Bernie Might Win Iowa - and the Democratic Establishment is in Freak-Out Mode." 

Person in the room was an NBC employee, but nothing about them has been made public. The Sanders camp is eating this story up though, with what seems like glee.


----------



## StevenC

Randy is closing in on MetalHex levels of conspiracy.


----------



## Drew

Nah, no one is THAT nuts.  He's at least logically consistent. I just think there are far more straightforward explanations. 

I get it though - we're hitting the intense part of a historically important election. There's a lot at stake. We should all be taking everything we see with a grain of salt. I don't agree with Randy here, but I don't fault him at all for wondering. 

I initially kinda agreed with him on the polling, but as I was responding I started thinking about how much of a mess a random error could make when introduced to some sort of stratified sampling basis. If by dumb luck the number of older black respondants who had Biden as an option was higher than average, then, yeah, when you start introducing a random but randomly directionally error that happens to impact an attribute with a fair amount of predictive power, you could make a proper mess out of your weighting and have no idea. I'd like to see the results anyway, but the margin of error would be awfully hard to even _begin_ to estimate, and I'm sure the Register's decision was as simple as it was better to sit this one out and hold onto their perfect record with an asterisk, than to run a poll where they had no idea if they were wildly off and risk getting the result wrong and blowing their streak. It's selfish, sure, but it makes sense.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> Randy is closing in on MetalHex levels of conspiracy.



Not really. Democratic primary is all over the map and includes tribes just as dug in as the Rs vs. the Ds. Everyone's leaking everything to the media ahead of the primaries to jockey for their position, doubly because it's as tight as it is. I'm not saying it's all A+B=C, I just meant it's not a lot to ask that 1.) the polls be carried out and reported cleanly 2.) high profile persons in the Democratic Party (see, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry) not make outlandish statements about their distaste for other candidates if the stakes are so high and if they don't want people floating the possibility of bias.

That's not a lot to ask.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'll say this too - based on a quick scan of my facebook feed right now, the vocal Sanders supporters are sharing the _fuck_ out of stories with titles like "Bernie Might Win Iowa - and the Democratic Establishment is in Freak-Out Mode."



And why do you think people are receptive or responding positively to narratives like that?


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> And why do you think people are receptive or responding positively to narratives like that?


Could be a number of reasons. People generally like conflict. The Republicans are going to especially be reaching for the popcorn now. And, without the complete shitshow GOP primary last cycle, there's just going to be more of a spotlight on this. Whoever wins the primary is going up against Trump, who is the most polarizing president we've had in most of our lives.

Once the primaries are over, the election will essentially become Trump versus not-Trump, IMO. I doubt that there are many voters out there who are at all on the fence about Trump at this point. Same with Bush in 2004, though, and the DNC chose the two Johns to run against him and they might as well have sent them right into the lions' den, because Bush, despite being super polarizing, easily defeated the Democrats and stayed in the Oval Office for another four years, doing a ton of damage to the freedoms that made Americans unique while overseeing the worst economic trends since WWII.


----------



## Ralyks

GEOGRAPHY MOTHER FUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT?!


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I doubt that there are many voters out there who are at all on the fence about Trump at this point.



Me either, but that's why I think the race is going to be fought on turnout and interference. Unfortunately this Senate impeachment hearing, Mueller report and 2016 overall indicate there's nothing we're going to be able to do about the second thing, but we CAN help the first, I just don't the circular firing squad is the way to do it.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> GEOGRAPHY MOTHER FUCKER, DO YOU KNOW IT?!



Perhaps he should call in Pompeo and his 'map with no names on it' to see if he can find where Missouri is.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Perhaps he should call in Pompeo and his 'map with no names on it' to see if he can find where Missouri is.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> And why do you think people are receptive or responding positively to narratives like that?


I mean, it's certainly a narrative that's treated Bernie pretty will, "us vs them," and it's not exactly a stone's throw from Trump's 2016 strategy either. 

The problem is this quickly gets circular - either you believe there IS a "Them" out to get "Us," and the establishment is actively railroading the Sanders camp, in which case all these little slights are clear evidence that it's happening, Kerry really WAS weighing strategy to enter the race and save us all from Sanders, or you believe it's not and these little things taken out of context to suggest a giant conspiracy to disenfranchise the Sanders vote are just that - a giant conspiracy. 

I can't tell you're wrong to think this is an establishment conspiracy to Swift Boat the Sanders camp, because unless you already agree with me you're not going to believe me. All I can say, and all I'll ask is you weigh this with an open mind, is Sanders supporters today seem awfully _excited_ and energized about this "fresh new proof" that the establishment is "out to get Bernie." Frankly given a week of strong polling, he probably *needs* a story like this to really drive home turnout tonight, if he wants to win.


----------



## Vyn

In all honesty, regardless of whether or not there is/in't some sort of establishment/anti-establishment conspiracy/bullshit I think it's going to be Warren or Biden that wins Iowa. I think Bernie has burned a few too many metaphorical bridges.


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> In all honesty, regardless of whether or not there is/in't some sort of establishment/anti-establishment conspiracy/bullshit I think it's going to be Warren or Biden that wins Iowa. I think Bernie has burned a few too many metaphorical bridges.


Warren would be a bit of an upset, she's slid in the polls the last few weeks. Her upside scenario tonight would almost have to involve Sanders choking and missing the 15% cutoff in a whole BUNCH of districts, which seems implausible, but I guess isn't impossible.

With nothing better than polling to go on, the most likely outcome as it stands is in Sanders and Biden finishing within a delegate or two of each other, and with Warren and Buttigieg probably splitting a couple between them. Caucuses are _weird_, though.


----------



## bostjan

It's definitely an "us vs. them" mentality these days, but no one realizes:
A) Trump, Bernie, or whatever democrat are really more on the same side of the equation as each other
B) "Them" are not making it their mission in life to screw "us," but they will if it benefits them, because they don't actually care. Some care less than others.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I mean, it's certainly a narrative that's treated Bernie pretty will, "us vs them," and it's not exactly a stone's throw from Trump's 2016 strategy either.
> 
> The problem is this quickly gets circular - either you believe there IS a "Them" out to get "Us," and the establishment is actively railroading the Sanders camp, in which case all these little slights are clear evidence that it's happening, Kerry really WAS weighing strategy to enter the race and save us all from Sanders, or you believe it's not and these little things taken out of context to suggest a giant conspiracy to disenfranchise the Sanders vote are just that - a giant conspiracy.
> 
> I can't tell you're wrong to think this is an establishment conspiracy to Swift Boat the Sanders camp, because unless you already agree with me you're not going to believe me. All I can say, and all I'll ask is you weigh this with an open mind, is Sanders supporters today seem awfully _excited_ and energized about this "fresh new proof" that the establishment is "out to get Bernie." Frankly given a week of strong polling, he probably *needs* a story like this to really drive home turnout tonight, if he wants to win.



Confirmation bias paints both ways.


----------



## Ralyks

So now apparently Trump wants revenge on everyone, and will even try to imprison Bolton. What happened to "Let's get this over with so we can get back to rubbing our country"?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Confirmation bias paints both ways.


Yeah, that was exactly my point, sorry if it wasn't clearer - right now, there isn't enough incontrovertible evidence in either direction, but there's a ton of stuff that you can use to build a case one way or another.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> So now apparently Trump wants revenge on everyone, and will even try to imprison Bolton. What happened to "Let's get this over with so we can get back to rubbing our country"?




that's only for for the other guys. graham wants to investigate the whistle blower. another senator was calling for biden to be impeached if elected. its bengahzi 2.0.


----------



## ThePIGI King

First off, I'm being genuine and am curious as I hardly know any Dems or Liberals or Left-wingers (whichever is the correct term), so I honestly haven't heard answers to these questions that weren't coming as an argument.

So, I really would like some of yalls opinions on why progressive taxes are good? For me, I don't like the idea because I work very hard to get promoted at work or for a raise or a better paying job or what have you. And the last thing I want when I finally start making more is to bring home proportionally less by being taxed more. In a way I'd feel discouraged from working hard for that promotion or new job, especially if you toss in the ideas of free healthcare or free college or other stuff.

So I'd like to hear yalls ideas and opinions on it, because other than the usual Right Vs Left rage war, I've never heard any real discussion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> First off, I'm being genuine and am curious as I hardly know any Dems or Liberals or Left-wingers (whichever is the correct term), so I honestly haven't heard answers to these questions that weren't coming as an argument.
> 
> So, I really would like some of yalls opinions on why progressive taxes are good? For me, I don't like the idea because I work very hard to get promoted at work or for a raise or a better paying job or what have you. And the last thing I want when I finally start making more is to bring home proportionally less by being taxed more. In a way I'd feel discouraged from working hard for that promotion or new job, especially if you toss in the ideas of free healthcare or free college or other stuff.
> 
> So I'd like to hear yalls ideas and opinions on it, because other than the usual Right Vs Left rage war, I've never heard any real discussion.



This is probably better suited for the overall politics thread. EDIT: Moved.

That said, can you point out a specific tax policy you're talking about?

Pretty much all the most liberal leaning folks are for taxing the top 1% (those with a net worth at least $10,000,000 and above), which hold an outsized amount of wealth compared to the taxes they pay, and not increasing taxes on folks making less than that, which is the greater majority of Americans.

The United States used to have a marginal tax rate just like that:




You'll notice the rate has dropped over the years, which has lead to more accumulated wealth and less distribution, while stuff like infrastructure spending has stagnated and the national debt has risen.

As for you making less (lower take home vs. gross) it's almost impossible for that to happen in the current tax code. At least as far as payroll taxes. If you received less pay, even though you received a raise, check your pre-tax items (insurance, 401k, FSA, etc.) as those are still based on the same percentage.

This is how tax brackets work:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/an...ax-bracket-cause-me-have-lower-net-income.asp


----------



## jaxadam

ThePIGI King said:


> First off, I'm being genuine and am curious as I hardly know any Dems or Liberals or Left-wingers (whichever is the correct term), so I honestly haven't heard answers to these questions that weren't coming as an argument.
> 
> So, I really would like some of yalls opinions on why progressive taxes are good? For me, I don't like the idea because I work very hard to get promoted at work or for a raise or a better paying job or what have you. And the last thing I want when I finally start making more is to bring home proportionally less by being taxed more. In a way I'd feel discouraged from working hard for that promotion or new job, especially if you toss in the ideas of free healthcare or free college or other stuff.
> 
> So I'd like to hear yalls ideas and opinions on it, because other than the usual Right Vs Left rage war, I've never heard any real discussion.



The “Trump” tax cuts, or whatever they are called, saved me quite a bit of money last year; in addition, we saw an overall increase in net direct deposits on payrolls.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> First off, I'm being genuine and am curious as I hardly know any Dems or Liberals or Left-wingers (whichever is the correct term), so I honestly haven't heard answers to these questions that weren't coming as an argument.
> 
> So, I really would like some of yalls opinions on why progressive taxes are good? For me, I don't like the idea because I work very hard to get promoted at work or for a raise or a better paying job or what have you. And the last thing I want when I finally start making more is to bring home proportionally less by being taxed more. In a way I'd feel discouraged from working hard for that promotion or new job, especially if you toss in the ideas of free healthcare or free college or other stuff.
> 
> So I'd like to hear yalls ideas and opinions on it, because other than the usual Right Vs Left rage war, I've never heard any real discussion.


Most left leaning tax raises are not for you. You can get free college and free healthcare without paying anymore taxes because there are people out there making way more money than you and not paying a significant amount of tax. USA is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but for that fact has some of the worst wealth inequality. When you compare USA to other similarly wealthy countries, they have a lower average effective tax rate, but they also have far worse/more expensive schools, roads and healthcare.

Nobody in the UK works less hard because when they get a raise or promotion they will get taxed more. This isn't a thing I've ever heard out of a non-American. Sure, if you get a raise that puts you into a higher tax bracket your effective tax rate might go up, but you will never make less money. You know that, right?

Progressive tax policy is a good thing because the higher rates are aimed at people who won't be impacted by them, to give more to the people that will be helped most. Basically everyone on this board would benefit overall with progressive policies for tax, education and healthcare. Maybe one or two would lose out on some of their massive wealth, but they won't actually be harmed by that loss.


----------



## ThePIGI King

@MaxOfMetal I didn't have any particular tax plan in mind, was skim reading some posts and saw progressive taxes in a couple. Thanks for the info, never seen that chart before. 

@jaxadam In my mind that's a good thing!

And finally @StevenC Yea, I know I won't make less, but proportionally speaking I will, if that makes sense. I disagree with how you said the people in the higher tax brackets won't be effected by paying a larger percentage though. I've seen people who could've greatly benefited from a flat tax. That being said, I also know people who would benefit from a progressive tax.

Thanks all for the input.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> @MaxOfMetal
> And finally @StevenC Yea, I know I won't make less, but proportionally speaking I will, if that makes sense. I disagree with how you said the people in the higher tax brackets won't be effected by paying a larger percentage though. I've seen people who could've greatly benefited from a flat tax. That being said, I also know people who would benefit from a progressive tax.
> 
> Thanks all for the input.


I mean yeah, make more and you'll pay more tax no matter what. I just don't see how making a few percent less on the last couple thousand dollars is that big of a deal when you are in actuality still making more. But also, border cases like this aren't what any progressives are talking about going after. They're talking about people making millions a year, not 10s of thousands. And literally no one making millions will be negatively impacted by having a higher tax rate. Example, the 80% on $10 million.

The point is that people making $50k, regardless of tax situation, already have more to live off than people who make $25k. If you want to argue that the amount people make is a measure of their value, then people who deserve a raise should be capable enough to negotiate over their post tax raise. Soccer players are able to do that. And if you get a different job or a promotion where you have to work harder for your money, you haven't negotiated a raise, you've negotiated for more hours.

Anyone you've seen who could have benefited from a flat tax would benefit more from higher taxes on high earners and better social programs. The UK and NI aren't necessarily great examples of strong social policy, but I know plenty of people here who don't have great jobs, but have nice houses, their kids go to good schools and have no worry of unexpected medical bills. But if they get a raise that puts them over the next tax threshold they won't care because they just make more money.

Because higher taxes and better spending policy means people can have better lives for less money.

Alternatively, specifically for the USA, just stop spending stupid money on Defense and you could have all the nice things from the rest of the world without raising taxes.


----------



## BlackSG91

What a great Super Bowl win for the state of Kansas but an awful day for travel bans including Nigeria!








;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

Ralyks said:


> So now apparently Trump wants revenge on everyone, and will even try to imprison Bolton. What happened to "Let's get this over with so we can get back to rubbing our country"?



I can see the state of California separating from the U.S. because of Trump. He will not let California to vote due to the Coronavirus which will guarantee his 2nd & his 3rd & his 4th & his 5th & 6th & 7th term as U.S. King!!!


;>)/


----------



## narad

jaxadam said:


> The “Trump” tax cuts, or whatever they are called, saved me quite a bit of money last year; in addition, we saw an overall increase in net direct deposits on payrolls.



At the cost of hurdling national debt into the stratosphere. I mean, I also enjoy the month in which I buy cool stuff with my credit card. I enjoy a lot less the next n months of paying for it. I don't really understand how these economic forces play out at national scale, where it feels like we never have to pay anyone back, but these principles applied on the individual scale are clearly reckless. 

And bear in mind, proportionately, the corporate tax cuts are benefitting the rich / shareholders now, likely at the cost of future burdens on the lower/middle class.


----------



## ThePIGI King

StevenC said:


> I mean yeah, make more and you'll pay more tax no matter what. I just don't see how making a few percent less on the last couple thousand dollars is that big of a deal when you are in actuality still making more. But also, border cases like this aren't what any progressives are talking about going after. They're talking about people making millions a year, not 10s of thousands. And literally no one making millions will be negatively impacted by having a higher tax rate. Example, the 80% on $10 million.
> 
> The point is that people making $50k, regardless of tax situation, already have more to live off than people who make $25k. If you want to argue that the amount people make is a measure of their value, then people who deserve a raise should be capable enough to negotiate over their post tax raise. Soccer players are able to do that. And if you get a different job or a promotion where you have to work harder for your money, you haven't negotiated a raise, you've negotiated for more hours.
> 
> Anyone you've seen who could have benefited from a flat tax would benefit more from higher taxes on high earners and better social programs. The UK and NI aren't necessarily great examples of strong social policy, but I know plenty of people here who don't have great jobs, but have nice houses, their kids go to good schools and have no worry of unexpected medical bills. But if they get a raise that puts them over the next tax threshold they won't care because they just make more money.
> 
> Because higher taxes and better spending policy means people can have better lives for less money.
> 
> Alternatively, specifically for the USA, just stop spending stupid money on Defense and you could have all the nice things from the rest of the world without raising taxes.


Cost of living? That makes a huge difference. In some places, 25k is enough to live comfortably. In other places the 50k isn't even enough to get by.

An extreme example but rural America vs NYC. Why tax the guy that can hardly live off his 50k more than the guy that is comfy with 25k? The only time that would work is if the dollar was worth the same across the entire nation.


----------



## narad

ThePIGI King said:


> Cost of living? That makes a huge difference. In some places, 25k is enough to live comfortably. In other places the 50k isn't even enough to get by.
> 
> An extreme example but rural America vs NYC. Why tax the guy that can hardly live off his 50k more than the guy that is comfy with 25k? The only time that would work is if the dollar was worth the same across the entire nation.



Liberals would likely try to give tax cuts to both of these guys, while taxing someone's third million of the year by 50+%.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Cost of living? That makes a huge difference. In some places, 25k is enough to live comfortably. In other places the 50k isn't even enough to get by.
> 
> An extreme example but rural America vs NYC. Why tax the guy that can hardly live off his 50k more than the guy that is comfy with 25k? The only time that would work is if the dollar was worth the same across the entire nation.



The market adjusts for this to an extent. If you can't live off of a certain amount in a given area, you'll either move or you won't prosper and thus population drops through attrition. It's in a local economy's best interest to have 1) people, and 2) people who can buy stuff to keep the economy afloat.

That said, median income across the country isn't as extremely different as you'd think. While it tops out at ~$85k (DC) and sinks to ~$44k (WV), most hover in the $50k/60k range.

The tax brackets, as imperfect as they are, are wide enough that it doesn't have as extreme as an impact relative to location.

In your example, both the people making $25k and $50k are taxed the same as HoH, 12%.

You'd have to make an additional $3500 to hit the next bracket at 22%, though you'd then have a ceiling of $85k until a meager increase to 24%.

That's where the problem is. As you make much more you get taxed significantly less relative to gross income. That 24% bracket gets you all the way to $163k, which would be the top 10% of incomes in the country.

To put it plainly, someone making $25k a year gets taxed up to 12%, someone making at least $500k gets taxed as much as 37%. They might be paying three times the taxes, but they're making at least 20 times the wage. As the numbers get bigger the inequality gets more apparent.

It's a lot more complicated as the different brackets build on each other, but that's the gist of the brackets themselves. See my link above for a better run through of the mechanics of it.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> Cost of living? That makes a huge difference. In some places, 25k is enough to live comfortably. In other places the 50k isn't even enough to get by.
> 
> An extreme example but rural America vs NYC. Why tax the guy that can hardly live off his 50k more than the guy that is comfy with 25k? The only time that would work is if the dollar was worth the same across the entire nation.


That's not really the point considering in America you have varying state and city income taxes. I'm comparing people making different amounts in the same places. If you're making $50k in NYC you already have more to live off than someone making $25k in NYC, no matter where the tax brackets are. If you're struggling to make ends meet at the higher income rate and there are people making many orders of magnitude more, the problem isn't how much _you're_ getting taxed.


----------



## sleewell

Tax cuts for the rich funded entirely by debt that didn't provide any of the economic gains which were promised by a con man with how many bankruptcies?


what could go wrong?


oh yeah that's right you guys only care about the debt when the other guys are in charge.


----------



## ThePIGI King

sleewell said:


> Tax cuts for the rich funded entirely by debt that didn't provide any of the economic gains which were promised by a con man with how many bankruptcies?
> 
> 
> what could go wrong?
> 
> 
> oh yeah that's right you guys only care about the debt when the other guys are in charge.


Someone didn't watch the state of the Union


----------



## sleewell

you mean the state of lies?

why is GDP so far below the target they set when they made all the promises?

why is the deficit exploding faster than any point in history?

why arent big corps coming back to the US like was promised?

why is manufacturing doing so poorly when were told the opposite would happen?


i get it. when someone tells you that the crack they are giving you is a vegetable you eat that shit up. but just don't try to tell me it was good for everyone bc it wasn't. the lions share went to the richest and trickle down has proven to be a lie that doesn't work over and over again.


----------



## ThePIGI King

Fact check it bro, its pretty much all spot on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Fact check it bro, its pretty much all spot on.



Okay.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/factchecking-the-state-of-the-union-3/

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/04/8009...p-delivers-his-3rd-state-of-the-union-address

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/05/live-fact-checking-president-donald-trumps-2020-st/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2020/02/04/state-of-the-union-democrats-wear-white/amp/

https://reporterslab.org/live-fact-...of-the-union-address-with-our-factstream-app/

Sorry if those are sort of difficult to read. It was done in real time, so it doesn't flow like a conventional article. Individual links and foot notes are used thought.


----------



## sleewell

‘We Will Always Protect Patients With Preexisting Conditions’

nope. total lie. multple current gop lawsuits are trying to kill the proteciton of pre existing conditions. to date the president has not offered any replacement healthcare plan despite saying it would be easy and done on day 1. 


Total economic growth last year was 2.3%. That is roughly in line with the average gains achieved after the Great Recession — and a far cry from growth of as much 3%, 4% or more that Trump told voters he could deliver.


“We will always protect your Medicare and your Social Security.”

In a recent television interview, the president appeared to suggest that he's willing to consider entitlement cuts in the future.


“We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”

Factory output fell 1.3% over the past 12 months.


“In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my administration, 3.5 million working-age people have joined the workforce.”

During the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the labor force rose by 5.06 million, according to the Labor Department.


----------



## vilk

lol I'm like kinda dumbfounded that anyone could be so confident in something Trump said that they'd say "go ahead and fact check it"


----------



## sleewell

vilk said:


> lol I'm like kinda dumbfounded that anyone could be so confident in something Trump said that they'd say "go ahead and fact check it"




well of course his next response is yeah that is all fake news.


----------



## ThePIGI King

sleewell said:


> well of course his next response is yeah that is all fake news.


Good try. But really, Trump has done great things for our nation. 

https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4

If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.

Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.

Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.

Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> Good try. But really, Trump has done great things for our nation.
> 
> https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4
> 
> If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.
> 
> Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.
> 
> Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.
> 
> Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.


Link doesn't work for me.

Also, kinda rich to complain about Pelosi or Clinton when Trump rigged the last election, locks kids up on the border, tries to rig the next election and has the GOP throw a legitimate impeachment.

Giving up on checks and balances, consolidating power in the executive, threatening not to leave office if not reelected. But yeah, it's the Democrats and their free healthcare.


----------



## InHiding

Here's an interesting video how Pete Butt-I-Check and the DNC bought? the Iowa results


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

sleewell said:


> “We are restoring our nation’s manufacturing might, even though predictions were that this could never be done. After losing 60,000 factories under the previous two administrations, America has now gained 12,000 new factories under my administration.”
> 
> Factory output fell 1.3% over the past 12 months.
> 
> 
> “In eight years under the last administration, over 300,000 working-age people dropped out of the workforce. In just three years of my administration, 3.5 million working-age people have joined the workforce.”
> 
> During the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, the labor force rose by 5.06 million, according to the Labor Department.



Just want to point out some inconsistencies here.
>It doesn't matter that factory output fell over 1.3% over the last _*12 months*_, the claim was that the states had gained 12,000 _*under his administration*._ That's a much larger window.
>The quote doesn't specify a net loss of 300,000, it merely states that 300,000 dropped out of the workforce. As an aside, if that 3.5M figure is correct, that's still an impressive number and would put him on track to surpass the 5.06M achieved by the Obama administration.

I didn't watch the speech, don't know if these are exact quotes, and didn't look into any of these claims. I'm not saying the president is right. I'm just saying that you're arguing a different point than what was quoted, weasel words or not. 



StevenC said:


> Link doesn't work for me.
> 
> Also, kinda rich to complain about Pelosi or Clinton when Trump rigged the last election, locks kids up on the border, tries to rig the next election and has the GOP throw a legitimate impeachment.
> 
> Giving up on checks and balances, consolidating power in the executive, threatening not to leave office if not reelected. But yeah, it's the Democrats and their free healthcare.



lmao are we still really on the 'Trump rigged the election' train? We still can't accept that loss?


----------



## Randy

ThePIGI King said:


> Good try. But really, Trump has done great things for our nation.
> 
> https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4
> 
> If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.
> 
> Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.
> 
> Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.
> 
> Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.



I get that you want to rebut what you perceive as the 'one sided' views of this board, but cucking to the guy to yank hard right as a course correction isn't doing yourself or anybody any favors either. I think a lot of the criticism of Trump is entirely based on the fact people just don't like him. And they have good reason not to like him but that shouldn't cloud how you look at everything else about the guy.

The tax breaks helped some people, and not exclusively the ultra wealthy. I know they made absolute no difference to me (as a low income person) and I know conservative leaning people with middle income that had very very modest take home increases, but got absolutely cratered in their tax return; potentially a net zero change because of the take-home but then totally killed by changes to deductions (property tax was a big one). I know a guy with a big family, owns his own business and filing for this year and the changes specifically to the deductions for their kids THIS YEAR are going to cost him ~$10,000.

Border security is an important point. And a lot of Democrats go way overboard and complain about every little thing Trump does at the border, like acting as if building a wall is inhumane. A wall as a deterrent to people illegally crossing your border isn't inhumane. It's stupid because this isn't the fucking 10th century.

China and a lot of countries in the East were eating our lunch on trade and in industry. Needed to be dealt with. Near as I can tell, for all the market gains and employment numbers, I haven't seen a metric that shows companies either moving here from overseas or US companies with factories overseas coming back here because of the tariffs. Or at all. It looks like we've been insulated from most of the impact on this, but the farmers have been taking the brunt of it. And my most accounts, Trump deadened the blow but it's still half or less what they were making before the restrictions were in place.

The biggest thing I fault Trump for is the same reason I fault Jimmy Carter. Probably the legit NICEST person to ever have the office of president but universally known for being bad in that job, and primarily because he got absolute manhandled. Trump uses his rhetoric and "good people on both sides" talk to rally his base, but he does it at the expense of everyone else, which is exactly why there's such animosity toward him. It caused an entire body of Congress to halt what they were doing just to tell the world what an asshole he is, and then send the articles to the next body, and it also ground progress to a halt. It wasn't because he was a Republican (didn't happen to GWB, GHWB or Reagan), it's because he insists on being an *asshole* and it hobbles his ability to get anything done, all to give his base red meat and stoke his ego.

To me, the biggest takeaway from the Trump presidency is that he was mostly a standard Republican, borderline neo-con that was needlessly divisive and it effect his ability to get anything done. For every positive thing he accomplished, there's another 3 or 4 he could've if he wasn't a fuckin' dink.


----------



## Drew

ThePIGI King said:


> @MaxOfMetal I didn't have any particular tax plan in mind, was skim reading some posts and saw progressive taxes in a couple. Thanks for the info, never seen that chart before.
> 
> @jaxadam In my mind that's a good thing!
> 
> And finally @StevenC Yea, I know I won't make less, but proportionally speaking I will, if that makes sense. I disagree with how you said the people in the higher tax brackets won't be effected by paying a larger percentage though. I've seen people who could've greatly benefited from a flat tax. That being said, I also know people who would benefit from a progressive tax.
> 
> Thanks all for the input.


Oh god, huge question.  

So, I'm a financial analyst by trade. That means I could get REALLY wonky on this stuff, if left to my own devices. I also have to explain fairly complex financial concepts to laypeople fairly often, and progressive tax rates are pretty simple compared to, say, bond premium amortizatrion, so I'll try to keep this pretty "two guitarists shooting the shit over a beer" and if you want to dig deeper into any of it we can go from there. 

As a baseline, it sounds like you get how progressive taxation works, but just in case, there's a LOT of misunderstanding about it so let's start with that. Marginal tax rates only impact your taxation _over_ a certain threshold, they don't impact your total tax rate. So, right now, there's no income tax on earnings of less than about $9,900, income tax of 12% on income up to about $40,000, and then 22% on income up to about $85,500. After that, it's 24% on income up to about $163,000. 

What that means in practice is this: if you make $60,000 a year, then you pay no taxes on the first let's-round-to-$10k (contribution to your tax bill: $0), then 12% on your next 30k (10 to 40, contribution $3,600), and then 22% on your final 20k ($40k to 60k, contribution $4,400). You'd pay total taxes of about $8,000 on 60k of income, or an effective rate of about 13.3%, even though your income put you in the 22% marginal tax bracket. Tax brackets are commonly misunderstood to work the other way, that if you're in the 22% bracket, you PAY 22%, or $13,200 on $60k in income. A common misunderstanding is that if you were at the edge of one bracket, got a raised and crossed over into the next, then your take-home income could actually decrease because you were now in a higher bracket. In the VAST majority of situations (AMT or the phase-out of certain deductions can do some weird stuff at the margins, but none of us are really in an income bracket where we have to worry about that), that's not the case. It's only every additional _marginal_ dollar that's taxed at the higher rate. 

tl;dr - going from one tax bracket to a higher one won't reduce your take home pay, you'll only get a few cents less of every dollar on each extra dollar you've earned. 

So, that being said, arguments for progressive taxation... 

1) Living expenses are variable past a certain point as income increases (for example, you might rent or buy a nicer house if your income doubled), but the baseline is pretty fixed, and below a certain threshold they really can't be cut easily. IF you're already in the cheapest living situaton you can find and eating ramen noodles most days and wearing a winter jacket in Chicago with the stuffing starting to fall out in a few places, there's not much else you can cut. Considering below that threshold the government would have to step in to use tax revenue to provide assistance, it's more efficient to simply try to structure taxes so we just don't charge them at all at the level of income where you're struggling to meet bare minimum living expenses. Basically, you're cutting out a bunch of middle men, if you don't have one government agency taking tax revenue and another one providing food stamps and affordable housing vouchers. 

2) There's an economic measure called thge Gini coefficient that attempts to measure the concentration of wealth in a country, with 0 rrepresenting perfect equality (wealth is divided evenly amongst all citizens) and 1 representing perfect concentration of wealth (one person has everything, everyone else has nothing). All else equal, progressive taxation, or taxing the highest incomes at a higher rate than the lowest, tends to fight against the concentration of wealth. This is good, because the Gini coeficient also correlates VERY strongly with social stability, and higher coeficients tend to see far more civil unrest, protests, and in extreme instances government overthrows. I'm personally of the mindset that social stability is generally a desirable thing, doubly so if you happen to be pretty well off and have the most to lose. 

3) a common argument AGAINST progressive taxation, the Laffer Curve, is that it tends to discourage productivity - high tax rates disincentivize people to invest and to work. That's one of those economic concepts that's plainly true in a vacuum - if your tax rate is 100%, and you receive $0 after taxes for every marginal $1 you earn before taxes, then yeah, whats the point? Conservative economists like to stop there, and argue that the best way to raise tax revenue is to cut tax _rates_ to encourage productivity - so called "supply side economics," seeking to boost the supply of labor. The reality however is that while there clearly ARE tax rates so high that cutting rates probably will increase the labor supply, there's a whole bunch of rates where taxes are not high enough to really impact the labor supply at all, and anecdotally while a couple European countries are probably getting close to the Laffer peak, the US is likely nowhere close. Anyone with a straight face making this argument is basically saying they're cool working in an environment where they can take home, $63 post tax for every $100 pre tax they earn, but $60.40 is just too little to make them get out of bed every morning. Those figures aren't made up, by the way, that's the change in marginal rates under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that was supposed to pay for itself by boosting productivity and growth. 

Anyway, this is getting pretty wonky.  I'll guess I'll add one fourth reaosn. 

4) the theory of diminishing utility. Economics holds that people are motivated to maximize "utility," or the value they get for all possible aspects of their lives. So, if you were making $1,000,000 a year and working 65 hours a week, and someone offered you an extra $10,000 to work 66, a rational individual would "maximize utility" by choosing whichever would make them happier, an extra $10,000 or an extra hour of free time not at work. The theory here is, if you're already making a million dollars a year, $10,000 may not be worth THAT much to you, so there's a real chance that you might say no, and say that you'd rather have 52 more hours of leisure a year than an extra $10k. However, if you were working 65 hours a week and making $30,000 a year, more likely than not an extra $10,000 WOULD be "utility-maximizing," in that if you have $30k in income, the move to $40k is pretty big, whereas if you're making $1,000,000, the move to $1,010,000 really isn't that big. Or, in simpler english, the value of a "marginal" dollar declines as income increases. If that's true, and it seems pretty reasonable, then the impact to utility of paying higher taxes on marginal dollars at VERY high levels is a lot less than paying higher rates on marginal dollars at lower rates. 

I guess that's still pretty wonky.  

tl;dr - progressive taxation is often misunderstood, and a lot of resistence to it comes from people who really just don't understand how it works - there are some very smart people I know who didn't get how progressive taxes work, and thought when you go up a tax bracket, your WHOLE income is reduced by the new higher rate. After that, there's a bunch of good reasons to consider progressive taxation - it's a more efficient way of helping the working poor than taxing them and then giving them federal benefits, it works against increases in concerntration of wealth which in turn promotes social stability, despite conservative arguments to the contrary it seems very unlikely to discourage work or investment at the prevailing tax rates in the US, and there's strong evidence that marginal dollars really do become less valuable as income increases.


----------



## wannabguitarist

InHiding said:


> Here's an interesting video how Pete Butt-I-Check and the DNC bought? the Iowa results




Jimmy Dore the (ex?) 9/11 truther? That bullshit aside the guy isn't a great source for political commentary, unless you're just into outrage and left-leaning conspiracy theories 

A few things:
-Pete and/or his campaign didn't actually fund the app. A number of candidates paid Acronym (the parent company for Shadow) and Shadow for services.
-Caucusing is dumb and people can receive the same number of delegates for different numbers of voters within a district. It's always been like this; though I think this is the first year they've also discussed the popular vote winner (Sanders).
-There's an actual paper trail that has been used to verify the results.

I used to do forensic accounting and audit work and the sort of connections drawn by the idiots in videos like the one linked make my blood boil. It's conspiracy theory rabbit hole bullshit with nothing actually substantive to back up the claims being made. Manufactured outrage.

The Iowa Democratic Party really fucked this situation up, and people should be upset about that. Claiming or implying something nefarious happened without anything to actually lean on is just irresponsible.


----------



## InHiding

I've honestly never heard any professional political commentator (except maybe Sam Vaknin) make any sense whatsoever. They seem to be completely out of touch about regular people's lives, the human psyche and the laws of physics (which ultimately govern everything no matter how many layers of conceptual man-made systems / though patterns you build, in effect hiding them) to deserve any attention but then again virtually 100% of people live in similar bubbles. So... might just as well listen to a professional bullshit artist comedian, they know something about regular people's lives at least and they are funny to listen to.


----------



## wannabguitarist

ThePIGI King said:


> Good try. But really, Trump has done great things for our nation.
> 
> https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4
> 
> If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.
> 
> Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.
> 
> Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.
> 
> Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.



Stick around. We need more conservative voices in here and as long as you're not an ass people don't care if you have a different opinion. 

For what it's worth I think Pelosi's actions were incredibly childish. I wish Trump was impeached, but it's a political process and the Democrats lost. Move on.

I have a hard time seeing how the nation has improved honestly. The tax cuts barely changed my take home pay as a renter but quick napkin math shows I would have been better off with the prior system when I buy a home later this year. Not a fan of the increase in deficit spending, but I'm also all for lower corporate tax rates (gotta jack up the rates on high income individuals though). It's damn wash.

Essentially, I guess I agree with everything @Randy has already said


----------



## Drew

wannabguitarist said:


> Caucusing is dumb and people can receive the same number of delegates for different numbers of voters within a district. It's always been like this; though I think this is the first year they've also discussed the popular vote winner (Sanders).


Sanders pushed for this after 2016 when he got more raw votes than Clinton but barely lost the delegate count (probably for the same reaosn that's happening again here - he ran up the vote in cities and college towns, but the less populous rural areas have more delegates per capita. 

Irony here is this is one of the things that could very well contribute to the end of caucuses, since the triple tabulation and reporting that was required was part of why this ebcame such a clusterfuck.


----------



## wannabguitarist

InHiding said:


> I've honestly never heard any professional political commentator (except maybe Sam Vaknin) make any sense whatsoever. They seem to be completely out of touch about regular people's lives, the human psyche and the laws of physics (which ultimately govern everything no matter how many layers of conceptual man-made systems / though patterns you build, in effect hiding them) to deserve any attention but then again virtually 100% of people live in similar bubbles. So... might just as well listen to a professional bullshit artist comedian, they know something about regular people's lives at least and they are funny to listen to.



I'm not really sure how to address the middle section, but if you're trying to get information on a subject it's probably best to get it from a source that isn't going to misrepresent the facts. Bias is unavoidable and can be mitigated by looking at multiple sources. If you prefer listening I could point you to a number of podcasts.



Drew said:


> Sanders pushed for this after 2016 when he got more raw votes than Clinton but barely lost the delegate count (probably for the same reaosn that's happening again here - he ran up the vote in cities and college towns, but the less populous rural areas have more delegates per capita.
> 
> *Irony here is this is one of the things that could very well contribute to the end of caucuses*, since the triple tabulation and reporting that was required was part of why this ebcame such a clusterfuck.



Hopefully this is the final nail in the coffin for caucuses  Such a stupid system.


----------



## spudmunkey

Especially since at least one was decided by a coin flip.


----------



## InHiding

wannabguitarist said:


> If you prefer listening I could point you to a number of podcasts.



I could check 'em out, thanks.


----------



## sleewell

romney will vote to convict.


----------



## bostjan

sleewell said:


> romney will vote to convict.



Wow. I mean, this may not come as the biggest surprise in the world, but it sort of torpedoes the bulk of the defense that this is just a unilateral partisan impeachment.

This also means that Romney will likely not be re-elected next go-around.

But, seriously. You have this guy who abused his power and got caught. This guy who threatened witnesses and tried to obstruct the investigation into his transgression, very openly (which is further abuse of power, of course). And now that the trial is all but over, he's rampantly threatening to make those who stood against him "pay the price." And now Romney, knowing full well that his own party would gladly throw him to the lions over this, is sticking his neck out... over principle.


----------



## Randy

Worth noting that George HW Bush, George W Bush, John McCain AND Mitt Romney all hate(d) Trump's guts.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Wow. I mean, this may not come as the biggest surprise in the world, but it sort of torpedoes the bulk of the defense that this is just a unilateral partisan impeachment.
> 
> This also means that Romney will likely not be re-elected next go-around.
> 
> But, seriously. You have this guy who abused his power and got caught. This guy who threatened witnesses and tried to obstruct the investigation into his transgression, very openly (which is further abuse of power, of course). And now that the trial is all but over, he's rampantly threatening to make those who stood against him "pay the price." And now Romney, knowing full well that his own party would gladly throw him to the lions over this, is sticking his neck out... over principle.



Romney is probably in one of, if not _the_, safest seats in the country. 

He trounced his primary challengers, handedly won the state, and has very high approval ratings. His connection to the LDS Church in Utah doesn't hurt either.


----------



## Ralyks

Good for Mitt. At least someone has a set.


----------



## Randy




----------



## bostjan

Sorry for the double post, but, with the State of the Union Address fresh in mind, with all of the fact-checking and so forth, it might be worth taking a moment to inspect Trump's performance against his most visible campaign promises from 2016.

Build a wall and make Mexico pay. Now this is a 2020 promise that we will build a wall and it won't be as expensive.

The USA will be completely energy independent. Within days of taking office, Trump was signing all sorts of deals to get more oil from Canada. I guess "dependent on Canada" = "independent" to him?

Repeal and replace the ACA. What happened to this goal?? Does no one care anymore?

Bring back manufacturers who left the USA. I think that might be up for discussion. I give him a low passing grade on that.

Lock her up! Investigate HRC. This one is maybe too easily forgotten. Any investigations into HRC had little or nothing to do with Trump. He just used the slogan and misinformation about her to rile people up solely for the election. Sound like a familiar modus operandi?

Cut taxes. A+ to him for that. My taxes were cut to shreds.

Term limits for congress. You and I and even the bears foraging for nuts and berries in the woods all know this would never happen. But he didn't even try. This was obviously just talk to get elected.

Banning lobbyists from congress. I'll give him a C for this one. Lobbyists are banned, for 1-2 years (depending on the house or senate) from dealing with congress after they leave congress. He did it pretty much right away, too. 

Ban Muslims or whatever. He tried, sortof. I don't know what to make of that nonsense either way.

Reneg all of the trade deals and undo all of Obama's executive orders. He's been doing this somewhat.

Pack the courts with conservatives. Yeah, I mean, this is pretty easy to do, and he's been doing it.

Make DC a state. I don't think he was serious about that anyway.

Defeat ISIS. Didn't happen.

....

So, I mean, he did some of the stuff he said he would do right away. Since 2017, not so much. Now, in 2020, I don't think he cares about those promises from 2016 anymore. Typical politician.

Personally, I didn't like most of his promises anyway. But, there you go. I like what Obama was saying, but hated how poorly he executed his policies. Now I can say that I never liked what Trump was saying, and he's also been just as bad at getting the job done as his predecessor, whom he criticized endlessly...


----------



## Ralyks

Obama also had to deal with the Republicans having both the House and Senate


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Sorry for the double post, but, with the State of the Union Address fresh in mind, with all of the fact-checking and so forth, it might be worth taking a moment to inspect Trump's performance against his most visible campaign promises from 2016.
> 
> Build a wall and make Mexico pay. Now this is a 2020 promise that we will build a wall and it won't be as expensive.
> 
> The USA will be completely energy independent. Within days of taking office, Trump was signing all sorts of deals to get more oil from Canada. I guess "dependent on Canada" = "independent" to him?
> 
> Repeal and replace the ACA. What happened to this goal?? Does no one care anymore?
> 
> Bring back manufacturers who left the USA. I think that might be up for discussion. I give him a low passing grade on that.
> 
> Lock her up! Investigate HRC. This one is maybe too easily forgotten. Any investigations into HRC had little or nothing to do with Trump. He just used the slogan and misinformation about her to rile people up solely for the election. Sound like a familiar modus operandi?
> 
> Cut taxes. A+ to him for that. My taxes were cut to shreds.
> 
> Term limits for congress. You and I and even the bears foraging for nuts and berries in the woods all know this would never happen. But he didn't even try. This was obviously just talk to get elected.
> 
> Banning lobbyists from congress. I'll give him a C for this one. Lobbyists are banned, for 1-2 years (depending on the house or senate) from dealing with congress after they leave congress. He did it pretty much right away, too.
> 
> Ban Muslims or whatever. He tried, sortof. I don't know what to make of that nonsense either way.
> 
> Reneg all of the trade deals and undo all of Obama's executive orders. He's been doing this somewhat.
> 
> Pack the courts with conservatives. Yeah, I mean, this is pretty easy to do, and he's been doing it.
> 
> Make DC a state. I don't think he was serious about that anyway.
> 
> Defeat ISIS. Didn't happen.
> 
> ....
> 
> So, I mean, he did some of the stuff he said he would do right away. Since 2017, not so much. Now, in 2020, I don't think he cares about those promises from 2016 anymore. Typical politician.
> 
> Personally, I didn't like most of his promises anyway. But, there you go. I like what Obama was saying, but hated how poorly he executed his policies. Now I can say that I never liked what Trump was saying, and he's also been just as bad at getting the job done as his predecessor, whom he criticized endlessly...



If you look at that list, you'll notice the promises that directly effect him personally got done, the ones that indirectly effect him got sorta done and the ones that don't effect him at all got dropped. Funny that.


----------



## ThePIGI King

bostjan said:


> For example, remember when he paid off a porn star to not talk about their affair?


Remember when Clinton was found guilty of having an affair AND lied about it to everybody, and was actually found guilty of all of that and was impeached and still nobody really cared?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Remember when Clinton was found guilty of having an affair AND lied about it to everybody, and was actually found guilty of all of that and was impeached and still nobody really cared?



He wasn't found guilty of an affair. That is neither illegal or impeachable. He was found guilty of lying under oath about it.

Also, I don't know how old you are, but it was a big fucking deal back in the 90's. It's just kind of not news anymore, being over two decades old. At the time Clinton's approval ratings were north of 70%, which definitely insulated him from some of the backlash that Trump is getting. 

If you're using this to defend Trump, I don't know what to tell you. If the overarching message is "lying is bad", then you're kind of in a glass house there. If the message is "infidelity is bad", it's just as bad. If the message is that lying under oath is bad, then Trump refuses to take the stand specifically because he will lie.

I guess I just don't see anything here other than tired whataboutism. So Trump can be a scumbag because Clinton was too? Is that really a cogent argument?


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's all doom and gloom now, myself included, but let's see how things go over the next couple months.
> 
> The American people have short memories, and I'm sure something will happen in that time that makes this look trivial.
> 
> Or...the DNC continues fucking up royal, which is equally possible.



The only slight sliver of good news as of late was Romney voting with the Dems on the first article of impeachment. Everything else honestly over the last 12 months has been completely shit


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> The only slight sliver of good news as of late was Romney voting with the Dems on the first article of impeachment. Everything else honestly over the last 12 months has been completely shit



I'm pretty indifferent to the Romney thing. 

It's just symbolic and even then it can be construed as a hit at Trump the person, not Trump the President. 

It's all but meaningless. 

Romney is 72, stupid rich, and sits on the safest seat in the Senate.


----------



## Randy

Aaand the victory lap begins


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Aaand the victory lap begins
> 
> View attachment 77276



Which is probably why they should have traded testimony to try and get witnesses. This was always going to happen. 

Benghazi 2.0 here we come.


----------



## vilk

If Hunter Biden committed a crime he should be held responsible. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but why the fuck should anyone care about what happens Hunter Biden? Why are republicans even interested in nailing him?


----------



## sleewell

Romney will win reelection in UT.


ThePIGI King said:


> Remember when Clinton was found guilty of having an affair AND lied about it to everybody, and was actually found guilty of all of that and was impeached and still nobody really cared?




remember when trump testified under oath in the investigation for his impeachment?


oh wait.


clinton should have just refused to comply with any subpeona or document request like the con man did.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> If Hunter Biden committed a crime he should be held responsible. Maybe I'm out of the loop, but why the fuck should anyone care about what happens Hunter Biden? Why are republicans even interested in nailing him?



Republicans still think Biden is Trump's most likely opponent in the general election, and they believe Joe greased the wheels for Hunter in a lot of unsavory and potentially illegal ways. Or if he didn't, they believe they could imply it did enough to hurt him in the election.

The unexpected perk that came along with this is that the Democrats have been pushing the "nothing to see here folks" thing, which Republicans believe makes people even more suspicious; and it's been working. To add to that, even if Biden isnt the nominee, the visual of an establishment push fracturing the Democratic Party also benefits the Republicans. So they're inclined to keep running this story on repeat.


----------



## narad

Man, just got curious how the impeachment is being presented over on right leaning media outlets. I haven't visited fox in years and can't watch cable tv so I didn't really know how crazy it's gotten. This video is insane -- it's what I expect from personal youtube channel, not a professional news organization:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/laura...y-consider-opposing-him-in-4-and-a-half-years


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Yeah Ingrahm is a clown. She's like all of the worst aspects of the stereotypical youtuber that styles themselves as an 'antifeminist,' just needlessly inflammatory.

Honestly the right-wing news is just as bad as the left-wing news. Big news organizations are getting absolutely BTFO by independent reporters these days.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

narad said:


> Man, just got curious how the impeachment is being presented over on right leaning media outlets. I haven't visited fox in years and can't watch cable tv so I didn't really know how crazy it's gotten. This video is insane -- it's what I expect from personal youtube channel, not a professional news organization:
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/laura...y-consider-opposing-him-in-4-and-a-half-years



Yeah, it's weird to see. When you realize that retirees basically have that channel on all day while they go about their business it becomes easier to see why people believe what they believe. Rage is addictive and that network has it on tap.


----------



## ThePIGI King

sleewell said:


> Romney will win reelection in UT.
> 
> 
> 
> remember when trump testified under oath in the investigation for his impeachment?
> 
> 
> oh wait.
> 
> 
> clinton should have just refused to comply with any subpeona or document request like the con man did.


Differences in opinion aside, why the name calling? What is it about politics that makes people forget how to be civil?


----------



## Thaeon

ThePIGI King said:


> Differences in opinion aside, why the name calling? What is it about politics that makes people forget how to be civil?



Because Trump has defined himself as a Con Man in his business dealing prior to being president and prides himself on how much of a snake he is in how he screws people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Differences in opinion aside, why the name calling?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump


----------



## sleewell

lol you guys want civility but elected a guy who brags about walking up to strangers and sexually assaulting them? calls certain nations shithole countries? who ran a scam fake university? who ran a fake charity that had to be shut down? to be honest i would say con man is pretty fair given how many times he has conned people. 




it also not a difference in opinion to state facts unless we have moved into a total post fact arena. why didn't trump testify? 


can you honestly say you would have been fine with president clinton refusing to comply with all subpoenas? you would have been A OK with president clinton standing on the west lawn saying china should investigate her political opponent?


----------



## Ralyks

By the way, am I the only would who would be interested in Schiff making a bid for 2024?


----------



## StevenC

Ran a fake charity while calling the Clinton Foundation a scam, guys. Get it right.

People v. Trump is an anthology.

Trump Steaks.

Not paying contractors.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> By the way, am I the only would who would be interested in Schiff making a bid for 2024?




i'd prefer 2020. he seems smarter and more well spoken than the field.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> By the way, am I the only would who would be interested in Schiff making a bid for 2024?



I might not go that far but I was very impressed on his handling of the impeachment. I understand the Senate Democrats are at a disadvantage but how he specifically handled the House's part and then had to go into the lion's den and plead his case infront of the Senate was VERY endearing. I personally didn't get the impression the Senate Democratic leadership did as much as they could, and he outshined them even on their own turf.


----------



## diagrammatiks

ThePIGI King said:


> Differences in opinion aside, why the name calling? What is it about politics that makes people forget how to be civil?



genuinely curious. 

Can you name 5 ways in which this administration has personally benefited your life.


----------



## Drew

ThePIGI King said:


> Remember when Clinton was found guilty of having an affair AND lied about it to everybody, and was actually found guilty of all of that and was impeached and still nobody really cared?


You know, after all that time I spent writing up a long explanation of progressive taxes and why they're used by most developed economies, I'd really _hate_ it if you were merely just a republican troll. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Which is probably why they should have traded testimony to try and get witnesses. This was always going to happen.
> 
> Benghazi 2.0 here we come.



Broken record, but if we did get a vote to bring in witnesses, this was going to happen. The vote wasn't on a deal where the Dems traded Biden for Bolton, it was whether to allow witness testimony, period. Had it passed, there was no way the Democratic party was going to be able to stop Hunter Biden from being subpoenaed, and the only way his testimony wouldn't have happened was if Roberts had somehow ruled his testimony not material to the case (which wasn't impossible, but was not likely to happen. 

Remember that the deciding votes were not "well, the Democrats wouldn't agree to let us subpoena Biden, so we're not going to let them subpoena Bolton," but "the House proved their case, we don't need additional witnesses. We just think it's not impeachable." Saying they wouldn't trade Biden in witness testimony was pure negotiation, the reality is if witnesses were called there was almost nothing the Democrats in the Senate could have done to stop it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> You know, after all that time I spent writing up a long explanation of progressive taxes and why they're used by most developed economies, I'd really _hate_ it if you were merely just a republican troll.



Just wait until you realize that I'm secretly MetalHex. 
Boi let me talk to you about Schiff's sun cult.


----------



## Randy

The sun is pretty awesome. Where do I sign up?


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Just wait until you realize that I'm secretly MetalHex.
> Boi let me talk to you about Schiff's sun cult.


Sun cult? 

Shit, the Egyptians worshipped the sun, there's a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill, there's an eye at the top of the pyramid, eye sounds like I, and there's no "I" in Donald J Trump. HOLY SHIT MIND BLOWN SCHIFF IS REALLY RA COME BACK TO STRIKE GOD EMPEROR TRUMP DEAD AT THE BEHEST OF THE DEEP STATE!


----------



## Ralyks

Does Schiff also pray to Joe Pesci?


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Does Schiff also pray to Joe Pesci?


----------



## sleewell

pretty good read:

https://theconversation.com/this-is...-parallels-at-trumps-impeachment-trial-131121

lots of similarities to the fall of rome with our current situation.


----------



## ThePIGI King

MaxOfMetal said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump


Did not know all of that. Good to know actually, thanks Max.

@diagrammatiks https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/
For starters. And as a construction worker, since he took office there has been a huge increase in demand which really effected the amount of work I've got along with my company willing to give larger raises.

@Drew I'm not trying to be a troll by any means, but I don't regularly have time to have responses and comebacks to all of you 

@sleewell I mean, some nations are pretty awful  would you rather have a con man or a commie in office? Trump was for sure not my first or second pick in 2016, but compared to what the Dems had and currently have I'll take him.

Imagine Bernie, a socialist, practically communist, wins office. That means America voted for someone that stands against everything our nation fought against for many years. The deaths of everyone involved in the Vietnam and Korean war would be mocked. And I'm not about to spit on the graves of brave men and women.

And yes, I am aware that "democratic socialist" and communist aren't exactly the same. However, they aren't far apart.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Did not know all of that. Good to know actually, thanks Max.
> 
> @diagrammatiks https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/
> For starters. And as a construction worker, since he took office there has been a huge increase in demand which really effected the amount of work I've got along with my company willing to give larger raises.
> 
> @Drew I'm not trying to be a troll by any means, but I don't regularly have time to have responses and comebacks to all of you
> 
> @sleewell I mean, some nations are pretty awful  would you rather have a con man or a commie in office? Trump was for sure not my first or second pick in 2016, but compared to what the Dems had and currently have I'll take him.
> 
> Imagine Bernie, a socialist, practically communist, wins office. That means America voted for someone that stands against everything our nation fought against for many years. The deaths of everyone involved in the Vietnam and Korean war would be mocked. And I'm not about to spit on the graves of brave men and women.
> 
> And yes, I am aware that "democratic socialist" and communist aren't exactly the same. However, they aren't far apart.



Can you define communism and socialism? Fascism? The terms are thrown around a lot these days, but more often than not the actual meanings and function of these systems are obfuscated.

It's also worth mentioning that both the Korean and Vietnam wars were more or less proxy wars with China and Russia respectively. It was less about communism and more about Cold War saber rattling.


----------



## ThePIGI King

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you define communism and socialism? Fascism? The terms are thrown around a lot these days, but more often than not the actual meanings and function of these systems are obfuscated.
> 
> It's also worth mentioning that both the Korean and Vietnam wars were more or less proxy wars with China and Russia respectively. It was less about communism and more about Cold War saber rattling.


Can I define them off the top of my head? No I cannot. But I can look up the definitions and compare them to what Sanders wants our country to be. Which is a disgrace to what America really is.


----------



## Vyn

ThePIGI King said:


> Did not know all of that. Good to know actually, thanks Max.
> 
> @diagrammatiks https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/
> For starters. And as a construction worker, since he took office there has been a huge increase in demand which really effected the amount of work I've got along with my company willing to give larger raises.
> 
> @Drew I'm not trying to be a troll by any means, but I don't regularly have time to have responses and comebacks to all of you
> 
> @sleewell I mean, some nations are pretty awful  would you rather have a con man or a commie in office? Trump was for sure not my first or second pick in 2016, but compared to what the Dems had and currently have I'll take him.
> 
> Imagine Bernie, a socialist, practically communist, wins office. That means America voted for someone that stands against everything our nation fought against for many years. The deaths of everyone involved in the Vietnam and Korean war would be mocked. And I'm not about to spit on the graves of brave men and women.
> 
> And yes, I am aware that "democratic socialist" and communist aren't exactly the same. However, they aren't far apart.



For what it’s worth, democratic socialism and communism are quite different from each other - and they are both VERY different from what most Americans associate communism with (which is an authoritarian system that controls absolutely EVERYTHING).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Can I define them off the top of my head? No I cannot. But I can look up the definitions and compare them to what Sanders wants our country to be. Which is a disgrace to what America really is.



What do you think about emergency services like police and firefighters? The military? 

They're all run socially. As in resources are pooled by the people and distributed as needed when needed. It's basically mini-socialism.


----------



## spudmunkey

Hell, any sort of insurance is mini (or gigantic) socialism.


----------



## ThePIGI King

MaxOfMetal said:


> What do you think about emergency services like police and firefighters? The military?
> 
> They're all run socially. As in resources are pooled by the people and distributed as needed when needed. It's basically mini-socialism.


I think all three of those could use some reconstruction.

My issue with socially ran services is things such as free college. Or free medical insurance. Nothing is free. Somebody pays for it. And I pay for my own insurance. I already paid for my education. Why should I pay for everybody elses?

Nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody else anything. If I could get a degree from busting balls working full time at minimum wage through college, so can everybody else. I did it. I know plenty of people who were worse off than I was who made it look easy.

Plus now we go back to taxes. For "free" stuff, we pay for it socially. I believe it's Sweeden, correct me if I'm wrong, that has free education and teenagers get "allowance" paychecks from the government. But the taxes are something around 60%. So, 24 of that 40hrs that you worked go to Uncle Sam?

I'd be pissed to have 60% of my paycheck given to people who are too lazy to work for their own college or healthcare or what have you.

Small government = Best government.

Also, there's the whole gun rights thing. And the abortion thing. Amongst many others. Needless to say, I'm a bit right leaning


----------



## StevenC

@ThePIGI King WEAK


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> I think all three of those could use some reconstruction.



We have privatized examples of all three already. 

Without exception they are more expensive with inconsistent quality. 

I highly recommend you look into the state of the private ambulance industry. It's pretty terrifying. 



> My issue with socially ran services is things such as free college. Or free medical insurance. Nothing is free. Somebody pays for it. And I pay for my own insurance. I already paid for my education. Why should I pay for everybody elses?



What's the difference between insurance premiums and taxes? 

They both function identically. 



> Nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody else anything. If I could get a degree from busting balls working full time at minimum wage through college, so can everybody else. I did it. I know plenty of people who were worse off than I was who made it look easy.



I worked my way up from little as well. 

I don't wish that on anyone. I think the more opportunity we can open up for future generations the better. 

I think the big difference between us is that I'm not really bitter about it. I want things to be better for the next guy. Just because I had to work really hard doesn't make it right. 



> Plus now we go back to taxes. For "free" stuff, we pay for it socially. I believe it's Sweeden, correct me if I'm wrong, that has free education and teenagers get "allowance" paychecks from the government. But the taxes are something around 60%. So, 24 of that 40hrs that you worked go to Uncle Sam?



The highest taxed countries have the highest standard of living and the highest happiness index. It can't be all bad.

It's difficult to imagine because in the United States our ROI for taxes is so shitty. We funnel pretty much everything into social security that we'll likely never see, and a defense budget that's comically bloated. 

If we got actual return on it, like solid infrastructure, healthcare, and retirement out of it the pill would be far easier to swallow. 






> I'd be pissed to have 60% of my paycheck given to people who are too lazy to work for their own college or healthcare or what have you.



Do you feel the same about the insurance you pay?



> Small government = Best government.



Why?



> Also, there's the whole gun rights thing. And the abortion thing. Amongst many others. Needless to say, I'm a bit right leaning



Eh, you can have right leaning politics without those issues too. 

Would you mind explaining what's "small government" about policing womens' bodies?


----------



## ThePIGI King

@MaxOfMetal
Lots of good info I've not been introduced to before. Thanks. I'll definitely do some more reading into this stuff.

And I'm not saying to police women's bodies. Are you mentioning how I was talking about abortion? Because if so, I just feel killing babies is wrong.

Oh, and as for why I'd rather small government. Simply as I feel as if no one entity can really look out for the best interest of so many people. I mean, clearly everybody wants or needs different things. With a smaller federal government that would give the majority of power to state governments things could be governed...better (for lack of better words). But I guess you could say I'm more constitutionalist, and I feel as if the government should really only hold up those things and nothing more.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Okay, so- devil's advocate. I agree with you on just about every topic listed, but here's what you're going to see:



ThePIGI King said:


> I think all three of those could use some reconstruction. My issue with socially ran services is things such as free college. Or free medical insurance. Nothing is free. Somebody pays for it. And I pay for my own insurance. I already paid for my education. Why should I pay for everybody elses?



How would you reconstruct them? Nothing is free, so how would we set up these (I think everyone would agree) necessary services in such a manor to where they aren't socialized in some capacity?
Speaking of education and health care, what about those that can't pay for their education or medical coverage? There are people in situations where that is their reality. Cancer aint cheap; what should we do for the neighborhood baker who takes home $40k a year? Put our arms up and say "gee, that sucks for you, guess you've just gotta die"? Isn't everyone entitled to some kind of medical support? The treatment that could save that guy's life may break me or you, but guys like Gates and Bezos literally wouldn't even notice that amount went missing. For folks that have capitalized on our society in the ways that they have, don't they kind of owe it to pay it forward and help do their part to ensure that the very citizens that permitted them to be in such a position have their basic fundamental needs met?

Even on a more micro-scale, if you look at all of the GoFundMe's and such out there for people covering freak expenses, you see that people _*do*_ want to pay for everybody else's; folks that have and can afford to often genuinely _*want*_ to help those that have not, and me and you likely don't differ from this. The main difference is that we just don't trust the government to do it.



> Nobody owes me anything. And I don't owe anybody else anything. If I could get a degree from busting balls working full time at minimum wage through college, so can everybody else. I did it. I know plenty of people who were worse off than I was who made it look easy.



True, but what about those people that are worse off? Folks that are fighting their way up from broken homes, the guys and gals that were dealt a shit hand from the start? I knew a girl in high school who got a job so that she could help her parents make their mortgage payments so that they didn't lose their house- simply 'working your way through it' may well not be an option for someone like her. 

Even if it is, is that what we _*want*_ for the youth in our society? Do we _*want*_ people to have to bust ass working 8+ hours a day at the shitty entry-level job that's invariably going to be all that's available to them so that they can go to school for another 8 hours, followed up with 2 more hours of homework when they finally get home for the evening? God help them if they have kids. Don't we want education to be attainable to all that want it? Wouldn't that make for an overall better populace?



> Plus now we go back to taxes. For "free" stuff, we pay for it socially. I believe it's Sweeden, correct me if I'm wrong, that has free education and teenagers get "allowance" paychecks from the government. But the taxes are something around 60%. So, 24 of that 40hrs that you worked go to Uncle Sam?
> 
> I'd be pissed to have 60% of my paycheck given to people who are too lazy to work for their own college or healthcare or what have you.



The argument here is that that 60% of your paycheck is money that you would have been spending on these things anyway. I work in payroll- the figures that I've seen for some people's medical deductions are _*IN.SANE*_. I'm sure Max or Drew or any of our other policy gurus around here has numbers handy, but I bet they'd show you studies that were done that show the amount that you would have been spending as an average american on these services is higher than the projected amount that would be taken from you via an increase in your tax rate.



> Small government = Best government.



...which again, would be great, if you could trust the government. 
I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that and I'm probably bastardizing most of these points something fierce, but this is the gist of what I tend to see on this topic.


----------



## Cynicanal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Speaking of education and health care, what about those that can't pay for their education or medical coverage? There are people in situations where that is their reality. Cancer aint cheap; what should we do for the neighborhood baker who takes home $40k a year? Put our arms up and say "gee, that sucks for you, guess you've just gotta die"?


Uh, yes? People with money are able to afford better goods and services, and thus enjoy a better quality of life in many regards; film at 11.


----------



## spudmunkey

Better? sure. But none? That's an unfortunate perspective, IMO.


----------



## pwsusi

From dsausa.org

_"Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
_
The "few" that are making the profits are doing so because they took risks that others didn't. If the argument is that once successful someone else should dictate what they do with their earnings then I'd like to see what the democratic socailists are going to offer those that are unsuccessful. Why take a risk if the rewards are taken away yet you still assume all of the risk? Might as well take the easier path and work 9 to 5 and not take the risks and tell everyone else they should be doing with their money. I would argue this would kill innovation and you would not have many of the things we enjoy in society today. People go to work to make money. There is always someone lower on the totem pole...and just like we wouldn't want them telling us what to do with money we work 9 to 5 for we shouldn't be telling people a notch or two higher on the ladder. The interesting term used here is "ordinary americans". Deincentivize enough "extra ordinary" americnas and soon everyone becomes ordinary and we have a whole different society....i would argue not for the better.

As for the comment above "Would you mind explaining what's "small government" about policing womens' bodies?"
In a free society you are able to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of someone else. Assuming you believe the entity in a woman's womb is a human being, terminating it is a violation of that person's human rights. So it has nothing to do with policing a woman's body and more about ensuring the rights and freedoms of the person who's life is being ended by their parents. Whether or not one believes the being in a woman's womb is a person is a whole other discussion. Then you get into when questions about when it becomes okay to kill it...moment of conception? heartbeat? development of limbs? arbitrary # of weeks? moment it is delivered? Like i said that's a whole separate debate but to call it a policing a woman's body is either disingenuous or not understanding the other side's position. Even though you may or may not agree that a person's life is being terminated...that is the belief of the counter argument which means it really has nothing to do with the woman's body and more about protecting the rights of the helpless baby. Just like most are probably not in favor of the government policing our paychecks or bedrooms, most would probably agree that it may be okay to intervene if that money spent infringed on the rights of someone else (example buying a slave, sex trafficking, sex with minors etc). Same concept...do what you want as but you can't infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Cynicanal

spudmunkey said:


> Better? sure. But none? That's an unfortunate perspective, IMO.


How does any other perspective make sense? People die all the time, whether through accidents, heart attacks or similar, birth defects (and sometimes not immediately in that case), or whatever else. It's literally impossible to save everyone's lives, and as such, some nebulous "right to live" doesn't make any sense, at least not when applied to health care. A disease like cancer is only different in that, depending on the type of cancer, a few lucky people might be able to splash around some cash to survive it; good for them.


----------



## spudmunkey

Cynicanal said:


> How does any other perspective make sense? People die all the time, whether through accidents, heart attacks or similar, birth defects (and sometimes not immediately in that case), or whatever else. It's literally impossible to save everyone's lives, and as such, some nebulous "right to live" doesn't make any sense, at least not when applied to health care. A disease like cancer is only different in that, depending on the type of cancer, a few lucky people might be able to splash around some cash to survive it; good for them.



Isn't "life" an "unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independance?


----------



## Cynicanal

Sure, but I didn't write that document, so I see no reason why I can't say an idea in it is nonsense.


----------



## SpaceDock

ThePIGI King said:


> @MaxOfMetal
> I just feel killing babies is wrong.



so does any sane person. Women’s rights and abortion rights are not “killing babies” as flippant people like to toss around. There is a tremendous amount of nuance here and something you should educate yourself on before voting on something so important.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> Isn't "life" an "unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independance?





The Declaration of Independence said:


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



@Cynicanal, not to throw shade or anything, but that really sounds like an edgy teenager style outlook. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? If it's in our power to prevent people's ailments, why should we not do everything we can to do so? If you saw someone in a terrible car accident on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, would you not stop and call 911?


----------



## bostjan

ThePIGI King said:


> But I guess you could say I'm more constitutionalist, and I feel as if the government should really only hold up those things and nothing more.


Trump has done as little to uphold the Constitution as any other president the past 20 years, though.
For example, the President who wants to "ban Muslims" is not aware of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
When he flipflopped on that and amended his wording to only include foreign Muslims, it violates the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment.
He has threatened, specifically, to legally limit the New York Times from publishing truthful negative statements against him, personally, which would not only violate the guaranteed freedom of the press, but also be an abuse of executive power for personal reasons, something with which he seems to constantly struggle.
What about a president who, at a campaign rally, promised that, if elected, he would not only torture those accused of terrorism, but their mothers, sons, daughters, etc., as well, regardless of their citizenship. Are people voting for that guy doing proper service to the Eighth Amendment?! Is it okay to punish a US citizen for having a family member who is accused of a heinous crime?!
I could go on, but no one cares anyway at this point. Trump's supporters will support his policies no matter what they are because "he tells it like it is," yet, when it's pointed out that his words are unprofessional and untrue, they try the other side of "I like his policies." I can see if you mean abortion, but aside from abortion and tax cuts...well....


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> From dsausa.org
> 
> _"Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
> _
> The "few" that are making the profits are doing so because they took risks that others didn't. If the argument is that once successful someone else should dictate what they do with their earnings then I'd like to see what the democratic socailists are going to offer those that are unsuccessful. Why take a risk if the rewards are taken away yet you still assume all of the risk? Might as well take the easier path and work 9 to 5 and not take the risks and tell everyone else they should be doing with their money. I would argue this would kill innovation and you would not have many of the things we enjoy in society today. People go to work to make money. There is always someone lower on the totem pole...and just like we wouldn't want them telling us what to do with money we work 9 to 5 for we shouldn't be telling people a notch or two higher on the ladder. The interesting term used here is "ordinary americans". Deincentivize enough "extra ordinary" americnas and soon everyone becomes ordinary and we have a whole different society....i would argue not for the better.
> 
> As for the comment above "Would you mind explaining what's "small government" about policing womens' bodies?"
> In a free society you are able to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of someone else. Assuming you believe the entity in a woman's womb is a human being, terminating it is a violation of that person's human rights. So it has nothing to do with policing a woman's body and more about ensuring the rights and freedoms of the person who's life is being ended by their parents. Whether or not one believes the being in a woman's womb is a person is a whole other discussion. Then you get into when questions about when it becomes okay to kill it...moment of conception? heartbeat? development of limbs? arbitrary # of weeks? moment it is delivered? Like i said that's a whole separate debate but to call it a policing a woman's body is either disingenuous or not understanding the other side's position. Even though you may or may not agree that a person's life is being terminated...that is the belief of the counter argument which means it really has nothing to do with the woman's body and more about protecting the rights of the helpless baby. Just like most are probably not in favor of the government policing our paychecks or bedrooms, most would probably agree that it may be okay to intervene if that money spent infringed on the rights of someone else (example buying a slave, sex trafficking, sex with minors etc). Same concept...do what you want as but you can't infringe on the rights of others.



There was a time when the ultra wealthy paid a higher share, I believe I posted the historic marginal tax rates a page or so back, and none of the ill effects you're hypothesizing came to fruition. Innovation didn't stop. The ultra wealthy were still leaps and bounds more well off than 99% of society. We just had money for better social and infrastructure programs.

As for abortion, it's often forgotten that the incubator of that person in potentia is also a person with rights. Pregnancy comes with complications up to and including death. If we refuse to offer comprehensive prenatal care, how can we subject someone to the risks associated?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> As for abortion, it's often forgotten that the incubator of that person in potentia is also a person with rights. Pregnancy comes with complications up to and including death. If we refuse to offer comprehensive prenatal care, how can we subject someone to the risks associated?


 
To get meta for a second: does anyone here think that the abortion issue will _*ever*_ be decisively tackled? Will that ever cease to be a humongous Schrodinger's clusterfuck wherein both sides are both simultaneously wrong and right? I honestly can't see that ever happening.


----------



## spudmunkey

Not until it can legally be made into a for-profit venture.


----------



## ThePIGI King

@SpaceDock For sure. I agree with a good bit of what you said. However, I recognize that I am super biased on abortion due to some personal things I rather not post online.

@bostjan And I agree with much of what you said. As I said earlier, Trump wasn't my first or second pick either during 2016 Primaries. Also, no politician is 100% truthful. As well as I will likely never agree with 100% a politician does. So sometimes it's the lesser evil, and hoping the checks and balances of the system work.


----------



## Cynicanal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> @Cynicanal, not to throw shade or anything, but that really sounds like an edgy teenager style outlook. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying? If it's in our power to prevent people's ailments, why should we not do everything we can to do so? If you saw someone in a terrible car accident on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere, would you not stop and call 911?


As best as I can tell, literally no one on Earth believes that we should do everything possible to help everyone live; no one clamors for more liver transplants for alcoholics, most people are in favor of "pulling the plug" on people in a persistent vegitative state, etc. The only question remaining is "why do people treat cancer like it's something special/different in these discussions? Why is it an exception that we all have to drop everything to treat every case of, when the same is not true of other ailments?"


----------



## pwsusi

MaxOfMetal said:


> There was a time when the ultra wealthy paid a higher share, I believe I posted the historic marginal tax rates a page or so back, and none of the ill effects you're hypothesizing came to fruition. Innovation didn't stop. The ultra wealthy were still leaps and bounds more well off than 99% of society. We just had money for better social and infrastructure programs.


I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.


> As for abortion, it's often forgotten that the incubator of that person in potentia is also a person with rights. Pregnancy comes with complications up to and including death. If we refuse to offer comprehensive prenatal care, how can we subject someone to the risks associated?


Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want (as the father the man should have rights too) . Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is ever going to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was raped, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men from such false accusations and with the me too movement mentality it seems you're guilty until proven innocent. That also does a disservice IMO to the woman who is legitimately raped. Not saying these are reasons to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.


*WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?*
*Percentage Reason
<0.5% Victim of rape
3% Fetal health problems
4% Physical health problems
--------------------
~7%

4% Would interfere with education or career
7% Not mature enough to raise a child
8% Don't want to be a single mother
19% Done having children
23% Can't afford a baby
25% Not ready for a child
----------------------------------------
86%

6% Other
*
*https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

pwsusi said:


> I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.



Taxes would be the primary mechanism of change.



> Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want. Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is mature enough to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was rated, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men (some...not all of course ) from such false accusations. Not saying that's a reaosns to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.



Again, been there, done that. We've seen what happens when abortion is illegal.


----------



## Cynicanal

pwsusi said:


> Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't.


You're aware that this is a self-defeating stance, right? If you think abortion is wrong because it's baby-killing, then rape or incest are irrelevant; neither of those change the fact that you'd be taking a life. Thus, either you have to be against abortion in those two cases as well, or you have to admit that your reasons for being anti-abortion have nothing to do with "killing babies".


----------



## pwsusi

Cynicanal said:


> You're aware that this is a self-defeating stance, right? If you think abortion is wrong because it's baby-killing, then rape or incest are irrelevant; neither of those change the fact that you'd be taking a life. Thus, either you have to be against abortion in those two cases as well, or you have to admit that your reasons for being anti-abortion have nothing to do with "killing babies".


I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general. Usually this is the first counter argument to the pro-choice position...which was actually the case above too. It's a red herring.

So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call the thing that is being terminated. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion and/or partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".

I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these nor does it really matter because many pro choice people are not in favor of late term or partial birth abortions. just like many pro life may be okay with certain exceptions. Is that inconsistent, sure. Regardless of either or our personal positions I personally think these bring complexity into the conversation and can understand why people may be inconsistent in their thinking...although i wouldn't go so far to call them self-righteous.
I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective ....but that's often not how actual legislation or compromise plays out


----------



## SpaceDock

pwsusi said:


> *4% Would interfere with education or career*
> *7% Not mature enough to raise a child*
> *8% Don't want to be a single mother*
> *19% Done having children*
> *23% Can't afford a baby*
> *25% Not ready for a child*
> *----------------------------------------*
> *86%*
> 
> *6% Other*
> 
> *https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/*



These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells. Late term abortions are for extreme circumstances, the reasons above are lumped in as abortion but are Morning After pill and other pills that are for very early termination. For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening, movement of the fetus can be felt internally. It is not normal to kill babies, it is not normal to ban all forms of abortion, giving women the ability to decide their lives when they have an early pregnancy is normal for literally thousands of years.


----------



## StevenC

Cynicanal said:


> Sure, but I didn't write that document, so I see no reason why I can't say an idea in it is nonsense.


At this point why anything?


----------



## Cynicanal

pwsusi said:


> I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general.
> 
> So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call it. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion/partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".
> 
> I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these, but would like to think whether you are in favor of them or not acknowledge that are certainly more complex topics to talk about just like rape and incest are. I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective and consistency in position....but that's often not how legislation plays out.


I'm totally in favor of late-term/partial-birth abortion. No inconsistencies in my stance!

And, no, it's really not a complex topic. If abortion is wrong because it's killing, then it doesn't matter the circumstances that formed that life; abortion is wrong.


----------



## pwsusi

Cynicanal said:


> I'm totally in favor of late-term/partial-birth abortion. No inconsistencies in my stance!
> 
> And, no, it's really not a complex topic. If abortion is wrong because it's killing, then it doesn't matter the circumstances that formed that life; abortion is wrong.


Cool, i can respect that you're open about and consistent in your thinking with respect to a mother being able to end the life of her child up to and possibility including the birth. With this argument personally i question why not allow it after birth too as the baby is still completely dependent on it's parents to live. But whatever...we're free to agree to disagree and have different perspectives.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> To get meta for a second: does anyone here think that the abortion issue will _*ever*_ be decisively tackled? Will that ever cease to be a humongous Schrodinger's clusterfuck wherein both sides are both simultaneously wrong and right? I honestly can't see that ever happening.



The problem is, we'll never address the structural issues that lead to the greater majority of abortions, it's just not sexy enough. 

- Providing sex education and easy access to contraceptives.

- Affordable/subsidized/free prenatal/postnatal care and family counseling. 

- Adequate maternity/paternity leave.

- Expand SNAP/CHIP 

Those would all but eliminate abortion as we know it. 

I'm 100% pro-choice, but it's not like I enjoy the thought of abortions. I just understand that it's often the most humane option given the situation.


----------



## pwsusi

SpaceDock said:


> These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells. Late term abortions are for extreme circumstances, the reasons above are lumped in as abortion but are Morning After pill and other pills that are for very early termination. For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening, movement of the fetus can be felt internally. It is not normal to kill babies, it is not normal to ban all forms of abortion, giving women the ability to decide their lives when they have an early pregnancy is normal for literally thousands of years.


Just like there are pro-choice people that have different lines that they draw in terms of when it's okay to abort (20 weeks, vs. late term, etc) people on the pro-life side have lines that they draw too (ex..morning after pill okay vs. not, or some extreme would even argue no condoms even to interfere with God's will). Anyway, The problem with the above argument is that the morning after pill is taken within 120 hours. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until like 6 weeks or so when you have a heart beat, ears, beginnings of arms and legs etc. So the question comes down to when exactly is it no longer just a clump of cells? I would argue once you get into this timeframe it's not exactly the same as taking the morning after pill. How many pro-choice people do you think would be okay with a law that said that was okay but no abortions after the 120 hours.....not many. Thus, the lump of cells argument doesn't really hold...it's more about the freedom to course correct when you later figure out you made a mistake and don't want the baby.

The rape and incest argument is a red herring because if we're truly trying to address that scenario it doesn't take 6 weeks to realize you were raped.. in those cases you would know immediately and the morning after pill would be the likely way to address it...so a law that says abortion exceptions for rape and incest actually make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## SpaceDock

pwsusi said:


> Just like there are pro-choice people that have different lines that they draw in terms of when it's okay to abort (20 weeks, vs. late term, etc) people on the pro-life side have lines that they draw too (ex..morning after pill okay vs. not, or some extreme would even argue no condoms even to interfere with God's will). Anyway, The problem with the above argument is that the morning after pill is taken within 120 hours. Most women don't even know they're pregnant until like 6 weeks or so when you have a heart beat, ears, beginnings of arms and legs etc. So the question comes down to when exactly is it no longer just a clump of cells? I would argue once you get into this timeframe it's not exactly the same as taking the morning after pill. How many pro-choice people do you think would be okay with a law that said that was okay but no abortions after the 120 hours.....not many. Thus, the lump of cells argument doesn't really hold...it's more about the freedom to course correct when you later figure out you made a mistake and don't want the baby.
> 
> The rape and incest argument is a red herring because if we're truly trying to address that scenario it doesn't take 6 weeks to realize you were raped.. in those cases you would know immediately and the morning after pill would be the likely way to address it...so a law that says abortion exceptions for rape and incest actually make no sense whatsoever.



I did not say only morning after only. I said “and other pills” and these run into the first 10 weeks normally. This is a very early stage that is not the characterized abortion that many will use to horrify people. This is a rational timeframe I hope most can agree grants women the ability to decide their life without “killing babies.”


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> For centuries it has been common to use herbal means to end pregnancy prior to the quickening,


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Just came across this, thought it was interesting.


----------



## Evil Chuck

pwsusi said:


> I was talking about socialism...not a modification of the tax code. I would agree we need serious tax reform, but that is not the same as adoption of democratic socialism.
> 
> Comprehensive prenatal care is fine. Killing an unwanted child is something else entirely. Look at the stats of how many abortions have to do with jeopardy of the mother's life or even rape or incest. If we want to have a serious conversation about the edge cases and how to handle them that is reasonable, but to use those few cases as a argument to allow or justify abortion in general isn't. The argument of "policing a woman's body" isn't one of protecting a mother's life in an unusual circumstance, it's a statement indicating that the woman carrying the baby can do whatever she wants regardless of the circumstances or what the father may want (as the father the man should have rights too) . Leaving aside the vast majority of abortions and only speaking of the edge cases. even those will require serious debate and consideration which i believe neither side is ever going to have. Let's face it..if you or i got a woman pregnant and abortion was only allowed if she was raped, what do you think will happen to the number of reported rapes in this country? Now there is a whole different problem of protecting men from such false accusations and with the me too movement mentality it seems you're guilty until proven innocent. That also does a disservice IMO to the woman who is legitimately raped. Not saying these are reasons to deny those unfortunate situations from abortion, but it's not as easy as it may seem on the surface. It's much easier for both sides to just argue all or none.
> 
> 
> *WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?*
> *Percentage Reason*
> *<0.5% Victim of rape*
> *3% Fetal health problems*
> *4% Physical health problems*
> *--------------------*
> *~7%*
> 
> *4% Would interfere with education or career*
> *7% Not mature enough to raise a child*
> *8% Don't want to be a single mother*
> *19% Done having children*
> *23% Can't afford a baby*
> *25% Not ready for a child*
> *----------------------------------------*
> *86%*
> 
> *6% Other*
> 
> *https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/*


I'll just say, that like many of you here, I was fine with abortion being legal and honestly never gave it too much thought. The semantics used like "choice" and "clump of cells" made it easy for me to to hand wave it away. It didn't effect me personally so I didn't see much point in stressing over it or advocating that abortion be outlawed. 

Then I had a kid and the thought of my child not being in my life completely changed my view on abortion. It's true that most abortions are performed for purposes of convenience, and that truth is something that I have a hard time reconciling. 

A society that calls abortion "healthcare" when abortions are almost always performed "because I can't be bothered", is not a well society. 
A society that enables several hundred thousand abortions a year, without even batting an eye, even celebrating it as some sort of human rights victory, is not a well society.

To @Cynicanal above who said he / she supported partial birth and late term abortions, it's honestly depressing that someone could be so callous. It's easy to make a post on the internet about supporting such a thing, but I wonder if you had to witness a partial birth abortion in person if you'd be so quick to throw your support behind it.

Obviously, nothing I say is going to change anyone's mind, but maybe if there's someone out there reading this who is pro-life, or even just questioning the rhetoric from the other side, just know you aren't alone in your feelings.


----------



## bostjan

ThePIGI King said:


> @SpaceDock For sure. I agree with a good bit of what you said. However, I recognize that I am super biased on abortion due to some personal things I rather not post online.
> 
> @bostjan And I agree with much of what you said. As I said earlier, Trump wasn't my first or second pick either during 2016 Primaries. Also, no politician is 100% truthful. As well as I will likely never agree with 100% a politician does. So sometimes it's the lesser evil, and hoping the checks and balances of the system work.



The two party system is only in our heads. You do realize that you can vote for anyone, right?

Going back to the beginingish of this thread, I was saying all along that if the DNC nominates HRC and the GOP nominates DJT, the only option is to vote for *not* a major party candidate to tell these twits that they cannot get away with that nonsense. What if the GOP nominated Hitler and the DNC nominated Stalin? Would you still vote for the lesser of two evils?



SpaceDock said:


> These are not “babies.” They are clumps of cells.



Are you not a clump of cells, though?

The abortion debate is very likely not something we want to dive into any more than we already have. Suffice it to say that different folks define a human being as different things when it comes to prenatal development, and that there is *no objective answer*, and never will be. Therefore no one will ever "win" any argument concerning that topic, nor any other topic in which people get to make up their own definitions of the terminology used in the topic. 

But applying this conversation back onto Trump, there are people who feel *very strongly *about abortion, and are convinced that the USA is a two party government, so, if you put Stalin and Hitler as the two candidates, and said that Hitler was anti-abortion and also wanted to commit genocide, and Stalin was pro-choice and also wanted to commit genocide, these people would vote for Hitler, based on pro/con compare/contrast. The only fallacy in their logic would be the assumption that no third choice was allowed.

To be clear, Trump is not Hitler, and HRC is not Stalin. Neither of them are nearly as bad. I made the hypothetical situation for rhetorical purposes, because the left thinks Trump is going the direction toward Hitler, and the right thinks Sanders is going in the direction of Stalin, and both sides' common denominators see these candidates starting the nation down a potential slippery slope.

And I agree that we need more moderate candidates on both sides of the aisle if our government is ever going to get any work done. Sadly, we won't see anything like that in the next 4 or 8 or probably 12 years. Obama tried to work with compromises, and it just alienated his base without impressing his opponents. We needed more like him, but, on his own, he ended up being an ineffective leader, because the people he was leading were, as a group, idiots.


----------



## InHiding




----------



## narad

InHiding said:


>




Whatever your political leanings, you have to concede -- the conservatives' meme game is WEAK.


----------



## Thaeon

pwsusi said:


> From dsausa.org
> 
> _"Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
> _
> The "few" that are making the profits are doing so because they took risks that others didn't. If the argument is that once successful someone else should dictate what they do with their earnings then I'd like to see what the democratic socailists are going to offer those that are unsuccessful. Why take a risk if the rewards are taken away yet you still assume all of the risk? Might as well take the easier path and work 9 to 5 and not take the risks and tell everyone else they should be doing with their money. I would argue this would kill innovation and you would not have many of the things we enjoy in society today. People go to work to make money. There is always someone lower on the totem pole...and just like we wouldn't want them telling us what to do with money we work 9 to 5 for we shouldn't be telling people a notch or two higher on the ladder. The interesting term used here is "ordinary americans". Deincentivize enough "extra ordinary" americnas and soon everyone becomes ordinary and we have a whole different society....i would argue not for the better.
> 
> As for the comment above "Would you mind explaining what's "small government" about policing womens' bodies?"
> In a free society you are able to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of someone else. Assuming you believe the entity in a woman's womb is a human being, terminating it is a violation of that person's human rights. So it has nothing to do with policing a woman's body and more about ensuring the rights and freedoms of the person who's life is being ended by their parents. Whether or not one believes the being in a woman's womb is a person is a whole other discussion. Then you get into when questions about when it becomes okay to kill it...moment of conception? heartbeat? development of limbs? arbitrary # of weeks? moment it is delivered? Like i said that's a whole separate debate but to call it a policing a woman's body is either disingenuous or not understanding the other side's position. Even though you may or may not agree that a person's life is being terminated...that is the belief of the counter argument which means it really has nothing to do with the woman's body and more about protecting the rights of the helpless baby. Just like most are probably not in favor of the government policing our paychecks or bedrooms, most would probably agree that it may be okay to intervene if that money spent infringed on the rights of someone else (example buying a slave, sex trafficking, sex with minors etc). Same concept...do what you want as but you can't infringe on the rights of others.



When we had higher tax brackets up until the 70's for the wealthy, literally none of this happened.



pwsusi said:


> I never stated my position on rape or incest...i simply stated it becomes a more complex issue and since they are a very small percentage they shouldn't be used to justify abortions in general. Usually this is the first counter argument to the pro-choice position...which was actually the case above too. It's a red herring.
> 
> So using your logic applied to the pro-choice argument, if you think abortion is okay because of a woman's right to choose then it doesn't really matter if it's a baby or fetus or whatever you want to call the thing that is being terminated. Thus, you either have to be in favor of things like late term abortion and/or partial birth abortion, or have to admit that your reasons for being pro-choice have nothing to do with "a woman's right to choose".
> 
> I'm not going to make assumptions on what your position is on these nor does it really matter because many pro choice people are not in favor of late term or partial birth abortions. just like many pro life may be okay with certain exceptions. Is that inconsistent, sure. Regardless of either or our personal positions I personally think these bring complexity into the conversation and can understand why people may be inconsistent in their thinking...although i wouldn't go so far to call them self-righteous.
> I get your black and white view from an ideology perspective ....but that's often not how actual legislation or compromise plays out



You're equating the circumstances of early term abortions with those of late term abortions. You can't do that as the reasons for one are not generally the reasons for the other. In order for your premise to work, the reasons for making the choice in early term and late term would have to generally be the same. Since they are not, as late term and partial birth are generally due to fetal viability and risk to the mother's life vs. contraception in early term, your statement literally holds no water rationally as its a logical fallacy under the guidelines of false equivalence.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Whatever your political leanings, you have to concede -- the conservatives' meme game is WEAK.


r/therightcantmeme


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> r/therightcantmeme



Holy shit. It's like the entire Rigtalk OffTopic got its own subreddit.


----------



## sleewell

Thaeon said:


> When we had higher tax brackets up until the 70's for the wealthy, literally none of this happened.




which is ironic because the 50-70s are probably what they are referring to when they are saying make America great again.


----------



## vilk

I cannot believe that someone with internet access believes so much McCarthyist propaganda in the year 2020, asking "Would you rather have a commie or a con man" like the answer is clear and that a person who is trying to lie and cheat you is somehow preferable to someone who identifies with a political philosophy you admittedly don't even understand. I'm not trying to direct this straight at PIGI, because the scary truth is that there are millions of Americans who actually think this.

The Vietnam War was not justified. You wanna talk about killing babies? How about *napalming* them. Over nothing. Literally nothing. No skin in the game. Nothing to do with America or the thousands of young men who were forced against their will to go and died there for *nothing*. It was even started over a false flag, as the Pentagon admitted in 2005 that the Gulf of Tonkin incident didn't even happen. It's fucking disgraceful.


----------



## zappatton2

I tend to think education breeds a more nuanced and moderate stance on most issues, but I'm not convinced the US overall does a good job on publicly funded education (FWIW, no nation is perfect on this front, but most G7 nations at least see value in funding the Public Interest beyond just "me and mine").

It seems many of the positions on the American right are so deeply intransigent and fact-poor as a direct result, and it is worrying when the policy implications of that have global ramifications. It's worth repeating, for those that think Democrats are Soviets in disguise, in any other Western democracy, they'd be seen as right-wing corporatists. Beyond the Greens maybe, there is no organized left in the USA.


----------



## Drew

ThePIGI King said:


> Imagine Bernie, a socialist, practically communist, wins office. That means America voted for someone that stands against everything our nation fought against for many years. The deaths of everyone involved in the Vietnam and Korean war would be mocked. And I'm not about to spit on the graves of brave men and women.



I don't want to be overly flippant, but I think you're underestimating the degree to which the Vietnam and Korean war were parts of the Cold War, where the Russians were supporting the communist regimes in the north, fighting US-aligned regimes in the south, and the war was a lot less about economic models (we entered Vietnam to help support the French, which these days the right likes to derride as the sort of Socialism we need to be afraid of in America) and was primarily about geopolitical _power_, where we were trying to prevent Russia from spreading their circle of influence. 

With that in mind, if you want to talk about spitting on the graves of the men and women who died in the name of Russian containment, well... I kinda wonder if you're supporting the right horse in this race, exactly.


----------



## InHiding

It's funny to call someone a communist when your country has public roads, police, fire department etc. Why have police protect people out of tax funds and not the medical professionals? Completely illogical but I guess that's the whole point and goal. Gotta feed that narcissist somehow.


----------



## vilk

In Latin class in high school, my teacher told us that in Ancient Rome the "fire department" was privatized. They would pull up in front of a burning house with residents watching in horror as their belongings and home were destroyed and give them a price that would have to be paid in full before they'd even start to try to put out the fire. If you didn't have enough, they'd just let it burn... but of course they would stick around and watch, with a truck full of water, hoping that the flames would spread to the neighbors.


----------



## spudmunkey

vilk said:


> In Latin class in high school, my teacher told us that in Ancient Rome the "fire department" was privatized. They would pull up in front of a burning house with residents watching in horror as their belongings and home were destroyed and give them a price that would have to be paid in full before they'd even start to try to put out the fire. If you didn't have enough, they'd just let let it burn... but of course they would stick around and watch, with a truck full of water, hoping that the flames would spread to the neighbors.



I mean...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/...pray-firefighters-let-home-burn/#.Xj20k2hKj-g


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

InHiding said:


> It's funny to call someone a communist when your country has public roads, police, fire department etc. Why have police protect people out of tax funds and not the medical professionals? Completely illogical but I guess that's the whole point and goal. Gotta feed that narcissist somehow.



Public utilities are a very far cry from communism. Not saying it's correct to call Bernie one either, but that's a stretch.
And what does that statement have to do at all with narcissism?


----------



## StevenC

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Public utilities are a very far cry from communism. Not saying it's correct to call Bernie one either, but that's a stretch.
> And what does that statement have to do at all with narcissism?


Public utilities are a far cry from communism, but they're certainly not a capitalist ideal. There's a massive irony in the same people flaunting the socialist boogeyman, while pissing away billions on corporate welfare for defence contractors.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

StevenC said:


> Public utilities are a far cry from communism, but they're certainly not a capitalist ideal. There's a massive irony in the same people flaunting the socialist boogeyman, while pissing away billions on corporate welfare for defence contractors.



Sure, totally a fair point. That's not what was said, though.


----------



## Ralyks

Vindman brothers fired. That's fuuuucked.


----------



## Ralyks

Add Sondland to the list


----------



## BlackSG91

ThePIGI King said:


> Good try. But really, Trump has done great things for our nation.
> 
> https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4
> 
> If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.
> 
> Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.
> 
> Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.
> 
> Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.
> 
> 
> t
> 
> https://www.kare11.com/mobile/artic...ress/507-6586fc8e-2556-4878-bd5a-2f7e73da31c4
> 
> If you read the whole article, the ones that say "Needs context" are even true, so don't be quick to piss on it.
> 
> Political opinions anymore are either all for or all against, so I'm not trying to sway opinions, but the hate that Dems give Trump is insane.
> 
> Look at Nancy from last night. The first time IN HISTORY that the speech the President handed to the speaker of the house was ripped up. Add onto that, Hillary was THE FIRST presidential nominee that didn't congratulate the winner or at least acknowledge their loss.
> 
> Say what you will, but in my personal experiences, Trump improved the nation. I'll likely bow out of the politics thread since it seems that the vast majority is left based.



Correction...TRUMP has done GREAT things for HIMSELF. I laugh at your statement because I'm glad I don't live in the U.S.A. The baby in chief is taking your country down and in a few years Donald will be living a comfortable life in Russia while reaping the rewards of the almighty Russian Ruebel. I think you are TOTALLY CLUELESS!!! The blind leading the BLIND. I'm entertained by your ignorance. Have a fun ride with TRUMP because it's downhill all the way!


;>)/


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Vindman brothers fired. That's fuuuucked.


I mean, are you suprised?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I mean, are you suprised?



I'm actually surprised they (Vindman) weren't court-marital'd and dishonorably discharged. 

I suppose wait until Trump figures out that firing them from their NSC/White House posts doesn't fire them from the military.


----------



## bostjan

There's still time.


----------



## Ralyks

I feel like you'd see actual backlash if he was court Marshall'd and dishonerably discharged.

But at this point, what the fuck do I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Some people might get angry, if they court martialed them, but so what.

If Trump has sufficient evidence to support insubordination charges under uniform code of military justice, being commander in chief, he would be fully within his rights to have them court martialed.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeani...-get-the-hell-out-of-the-united-states-senate

Regardless of what side you are on... this viewpoint is indefensible. She never actually argues his view is wrong (or why), only that his voting against the President is wrong.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/media/jeani...-get-the-hell-out-of-the-united-states-senate
> 
> Regardless of what side you are on... this viewpoint is indefensible. She never actually argues his view is wrong (or why), only that his voting against the President is wrong.



This Fox monologue stuff is crazy. Only came to my attention this week, but jeez, it's like a bad WWF beef dialogue. YOU SEE WHAT YOU GET ROMNEYYYY YOU SEE WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU MESS WITH THE TRUMPPAHH URR GONNA FOLD LIKE A WIMMPPAH


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Some people might get angry, if they court martialed them, but so what.
> 
> If Trump has sufficient evidence to support insubordination charges under uniform code of military justice, being commander in chief, he would be fully within his rights to have them court martialed.



Doesn't make it right, nor is it a good look. 

Punishing Alex Vindman is one thing, but going after his brother, Yevgeny, who had no involvement with the impeachment, is gross. 

It just seems so North Korea-y.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doesn't make it right, nor is it a good look.
> 
> Punishing Alex Vindman is one thing, but going after his brother, Yevgeny, who had no involvement with the impeachment, is gross.
> 
> It just seems so North Korea-y.



Let's just add this to the dumpster fire of awful things the POS-in-Chief has done. To say he was removed for poor performance while his former boss PRAISED his performance. 

This is the perfect example of why people don't speak up in the military. Obviously it's not just Trump doing it, it's a shitty culture that needs to be dealt with. The toxicity of it all was part of the reason I did my five and got out.


----------



## zappatton2

Since Trump seems to be getting used to wielding power without consequence, I'm wondering what's going to happen if he actually loses the election in November. What will that transition be like? Does he have any viable means of simply refusing to give up the Presidency? Will he call on the extremist and well-armed elements of his base to sow actual violence?

These are the things that worry me, because after his time in office, after kids in cages, the rise of strongman posturing and the constant strain on checks, balances, and basic civics, nothing strikes me as terribly hyperbolic. Does he have any back door means of circumventing a decisive electoral loss?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'm not really worried about that. 

It's like all the "Civil War II" stuff. You can't convince me that folks who need an AR to feel secure enough to do the laundry will be willing to fight a legit, in the trenches, war.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> Since Trump seems to be getting used to wielding power without consequence, I'm wondering what's going to happen if he actually loses the election in November. What will that transition be like? Does he have any viable means of simply refusing to give up the Presidency? Will he call on the extremist and well-armed elements of his base to sow actual violence?
> 
> These are the things that worry me, because after his time in office, after kids in cages, the rise of strongman posturing and the constant strain on checks, balances, and basic civics, nothing strikes me as terribly hyperbolic. Does he have any back door means of circumventing a decisive electoral loss?


It'll never come to that.

If Trump is clever enough to set up a Civil War contingiency plsn, he's clever enough to set up a way to rig the electoral college. Rigging is quicker, cheaper, and easier than war.

Actually, from 3 years of observation, I don't even think Trump does even half of the bad stuff that goes on around him. He's like conservative catnip. Anyone conservative in his presence goes crazy. The reason there are no consequences is that everything around him is constantly a clusterfuck and no one can tell who is calling the shots. This entire impeachment investigation made Trump look bad, but, honestly, it seems possible that Giuliani was the primary mover and shaker of nefarious activity. Giuliani will not face the music while Trump is in office, though, because so many of his other close associates are acting just as crazy.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Are you a wizard?



Nah it's just basic maths

Trump is an old man who appears to have many vices. Heart attack snorting something and/or boning someone, sooner than later, wouldn't be out of character.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> How has no one pointed out that Bald Trump looks like Putin?



But 1 foot taller and 120 lbs heavier?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doesn't make it right, nor is it a good look.
> 
> Punishing Alex Vindman is one thing, but going after his brother, Yevgeny, who had no involvement with the impeachment, is gross.
> 
> It just seems so North Korea-y.



I wasn't really commenting on the morality or optics of it, simply the legality of it. The optics can be skewed both ways and both sides will see what they want to see from it.

Haven't followed the other brother's role that closely honestly.

The left would probably see despotic behavior, the right may see it as removing someone who has done some thing improper. I can see both sides of it.

I can see why you would say it feels like North Korean behavior, but if it's legal without modifying the law it's legal. Morally proper and above board, maybe not, but still legal.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> I wasn't really commenting on the morality or optics of it, simply the legality of it. The optics can be skewed both ways and both sides will see what they want to see from it.
> 
> Haven't followed the other brother's role that closely honestly.
> 
> The left would probably see despotic behavior, the right may see it as removing someone who has done some thing improper. I can see both sides of it.
> 
> I can see why you would say it feels like North Korean behavior, but if it's legal without modifying the law it's legal. Morally proper and above board, maybe not, but still legal.



I never said, nor implied illegality.


----------



## zappatton2

Remember when the internet was going to make us "better informed"?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...HSKSNjRpX5-qirLy94MGgSl3ilsgD0ECXF8Rb3C0rx61g


----------



## Randy

zappatton2 said:


> Remember when the internet was going to make us "better informed"?
> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...HSKSNjRpX5-qirLy94MGgSl3ilsgD0ECXF8Rb3C0rx61g



I've had a little bit of a "has the internet been more bad than good" thought experiment going on the last few years. Taking into account election meddling, child porn/abuse, cyber fraud, terrorist recruitment and general misinformation.

The potential of the internet as a resource for information and to communicate things like scientific research are notable but the most substantial gains in those categories still predate the internet. Notably things like vaccines; which, by the way, were considered totally safe and necessary, and the bulk of the dangerous misinformation about them have been spread almost exclusively through the internet.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I've had a little bit of a "has the internet been more bad than good" thought experiment going on the last few years. Taking into account election meddling, child porn/abuse, cyber fraud, terrorist recruitment and general misinformation.
> 
> The potential of the internet as a resource for information and to communicate things like scientific research are notable but the most substantial gains in those categories still predate the internet. Notably things like vaccines; which, by the way, were considered totally safe and necessary, and the bulk of the dangerous misinformation about them have been spread almost exclusively through the internet.



Honestly it's had quite a negative effect on the scientific / ML community as well, creating weird hubs of twitter science celebs who get tons of cites and can essentially direct more citations by retweeting and directing attention to other works. Now the lazy scientist that doesn't go out looking for related research can still rattle off a number of sort-of-related things that have been trending in the academic twittersphere.

Previous it was more difficult to stay up on cutting edge ideas, but because you had to work for it, I think people wound up doing more impartial literature searches.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> I've had a little bit of a "has the internet been more bad than good" thought experiment going on the last few years. Taking into account election meddling, child porn/abuse, cyber fraud, terrorist recruitment and general misinformation.
> 
> The potential of the internet as a resource for information and to communicate things like scientific research are notable but the most substantial gains in those categories still predate the internet. Notably things like vaccines; which, by the way, were considered totally safe and necessary, and the bulk of the dangerous misinformation about them have been spread almost exclusively through the internet.



Its a "Festering neon distraction". Its great for a lot of things. But its going to destroy a lot of things too. It was an inevitable thing and a great big open resource like fire. Or nuclear technology. Great wondrous potential growth and progress when used responsibly. Horrific potential for abuse. And when have we know humans to be responsible with powerful things? Just saw on the news this morning, that incidences of child porn are up 50%. Humans are a disease most of the time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I think the internet itself is fairly benign, but the unprecedented amount of anonymity while still interacting and exerting influence are it's downfall.


----------



## USMarine75

wedge_destroyer said:


> Some people might get angry, if they court martialed them, but so what.
> 
> If Trump has sufficient evidence to support insubordination charges under uniform code of military justice, being commander in chief, he would be fully within his rights to have them court martialed.



Well that’s not quite how it works. He could instruct Amy Command to have him referred for Court Martial. There’s several kinds and the nature of his crime would determine the type of court martial. There would need to be probable cause of a crime for it to proceed, of which there is likely none, since you know, he didn’t commit a crime (nor was he accused of one).

He is not serving in a political position per se. He is a military liaison and advisor to the NSC, advising a political appointee (NSA) on military matters. He may be dismissed from that role without cause, but he reverts back to his prior unit.

Any suggestion that Vindman, or Bill Taylor, are anything other than American Heroes is disgusting... and I’ll let Chaos speak for me:


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doesn't make it right, nor is it a good look.
> 
> Punishing Alex Vindman is one thing, but going after his brother, Yevgeny, who had no involvement with the impeachment, is gross.
> 
> It just seems so North Korea-y.



Yeah, this was pretty much my thought process too. I mean I get why he did it, since they're brothers after all, who's to say Yevgeny won't start leaking stuff or something after what happened to Alex, but it's still a tough one to watch. I really feel for the guy.



zappatton2 said:


> Remember when the internet was going to make us "better informed"?



Ah...yes...times were simpler then. Better times. Before the fire nation attacked...


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doesn't make it right, nor is it a good look.
> 
> Punishing Alex Vindman is one thing, but going after his brother, Yevgeny, who had no involvement with the impeachment, is gross.
> 
> It just seems so North Korea-y.


Well, beyond that, firing him in retaliation for testimony is evidently a violation of federal law, which is precicely what Trump Jr. tweeted was the rationale for his removal. 

Like so many things here, WHY you do it matters. If you shoot someone to death because they were trying to kill you and you were in legitimate fear of your life, you're probably not breaking any laws. If you shoot someone to death because you really want to you've committed homicide. Trump doesn't seem to get this distinction, or rather seems to think he can do whatever he wants and then lie about it after the fact.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Well, beyond that, firing him in retaliation for testimony is evidently a violation of federal law, which is precicely what Trump Jr. tweeted was the rationale for his removal.
> 
> Like so many things here, WHY you do it matters. If you shoot someone to death because they were trying to kill you and you were in legitimate fear of your life, you're probably not breaking any laws. If you shoot someone to death because you really want to you've committed homicide. Trump doesn't seem to get this distinction, or rather seems to think he can do whatever he wants and then lie about it after the fact.



except they weren’t “fired”.


----------



## sleewell

does breaking the law even matter any more?



*‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power – pure power.’*


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It'll never come to that.
> 
> If Trump is clever enough to set up a Civil War contingiency plsn, he's clever enough to set up a way to rig the electoral college. Rigging is quicker, cheaper, and easier than war.
> 
> Actually, from 3 years of observation, I don't even think Trump does even half of the bad stuff that goes on around him. He's like conservative catnip. Anyone conservative in his presence goes crazy. The reason there are no consequences is that everything around him is constantly a clusterfuck and no one can tell who is calling the shots. This entire impeachment investigation made Trump look bad, but, honestly, it seems possible that Giuliani was the primary mover and shaker of nefarious activity. Giuliani will not face the music while Trump is in office, though, because so many of his other close associates are acting just as crazy.


The only scenario where I think this becomes a concern, is if Trump is either so cocky, or so dismissive of evidence to the contrary, or - really - both, that he ignores perfectly clear evidence that he's not expected to win, loses, and then freaks the fuck out and tries to hold onto power. 

It's possible, and it's a really, really scary scenario to think through, because I'm not sure what happens here. Military coup, probably...? And then hope they have the decency to turn over the government to the rightful winner after arresting Trump?


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> does breaking the law even matter any more?



Laws/rules don't apply to Trump and (some) his supporters. Remember that quote Trump said back in, I think, 2016. "President Trump famously said during his campaign that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it". His lawyer says: "In court Wednesday, his lawyers argued that legally, he really could -- and no one could do a thing about it". They even had a reporter ask a bunch of Trump supporters if they would still support Trump if he did indeed shoot someone and they said, yes.

Same thing for (some) his supporters. A lot of supporters say that Nancy Pelosi was disrespectful for tearing up Trump's State of the Union speech. However, they are totally O.K. with Trump calling third world countries, shit world countries and calling celebrity, Rosie O'Donnel, fat.

Die hard Trump supporters are very, very hard to understand. I have friends who are die hard Trump supporters and they have a lot of hate in their hearts. And what's weird is that the Trump supporters (friends) who go to Church are like, "Love everyone no matter who they are". I'm like, "you mean, whoever is wearing a "Make America Great again" cap. LOL.


----------



## sleewell

its really not that hard to understand at all. the party is all important and can do no wrong. the party is trump. kiss the ring and you are ok, say one thing against them and you are finished. you are fully expected to embrace every position, even if its opposite to what they used to believe. you are expected to give trump every pass and hold anyone from the other party accountable for those same actions. it's a cult.

if anyone hasnt read 1984 you really should at this point.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> its really not that hard to understand at all. the party is all important and can do no wrong. the party is trump. kiss the ring and you are ok, say one thing against them and you are finished. you are fully expected to embrace every position, even if its opposite to what they used to believe. you are expected to give trump every pass and hold anyone from the other party accountable for those same actions. it's a cult.
> 
> if anyone hasnt read 1984 you really should at this point.



Most of his supporters at this point I think would see no problems with seeing Emperor Trump happen.

Democracy and Freedom will die silently while the masses enraptured in the joys of their party winning willingly hand it all over.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I never said, nor implied illegality.



Fair, however I interpreted the statement as to it feeling "North Korea-y", to imply despotic action that abides no rule of law save that which comes from a Kim's mouth, hence why I returned to legality. Because if it is in a legal framework, its not as easy to make depotic comparisons.
If I am incorrect in the meaning of the phrase that i inferred please extrapolate.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

USMarine75 said:


> Well that’s not quite how it works. He could instruct Amy Command to have him referred for Court Martial. There’s several kinds and the nature of his crime would determine the type of court martial. There would need to be probable cause of a crime for it to proceed, of which there is likely none, since you know, he didn’t commit a crime (nor was he accused of one).
> 
> He is not serving in a political position per se. He is a military liaison and advisor to the NSC, advising a political appointee (NSA) on military matters. He may be dismissed from that role without cause, but he reverts back to his prior unit.
> 
> Any suggestion that Vindman, or Bill Taylor, are anything other than American Heroes is disgusting... and I’ll let Chaos speak for me:




Thank you for making the process a bit clearer, I was simply referring to he could have the process begun via a lawful order, which as such would have to shake down the chain. Which its highly unlikely he would (or his advisors would let him) bother with it anyways.
Being in their rank and the positions they were in, they have a nice desk waiting for them somewhere, I'm sure.

Also I did not mean to imply they were anything, just that I could see how the left and right, would try to frame it. If Trump was foolish enough to bother with it. He has bigger fish to fry I would imagine.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The only scenario where I think this becomes a concern, is if Trump is either so cocky, or so dismissive of evidence to the contrary, or - really - both, that he ignores perfectly clear evidence that he's not expected to win, loses, and then freaks the fuck out and tries to hold onto power.
> 
> It's possible, and it's a really, really scary scenario to think through, because I'm not sure what happens here. Military coup, probably...? And then hope they have the decency to turn over the government to the rightful winner after arresting Trump?



I mean, my first instinct for a year or so was to shrug and say "but he's not _*that *_bad," but IDK anymore.

You're a lot more qualified to address his economic policies than I am, but I just see a bunch of stuff that either plays the long game ineffectively or gets a quick boost at the cost of less longterm stability.

From the standpoint of principle, Trump is a mess. That call with Ukraine was shady as it could be, but Republicans either say it's "perfect," or say something like "meh, not good but whaddabout democrats...". This ongoing purge of political enemies from the excutive branch is also shady, but Trump's supporters are calling for much worse.

Pollsters are all saying that either Buttigieg or Sanders or Biden are going to beat Trump, pretty much for sure. But I bet that they won't. The Democrats seem primed to stumble all the way to November, and Trump's supporters are all galvanized as ever to make sure to get out and vote. If Buttigieg runs, he probably won't even win his own home state. People are afraid of Sanders's policies (what's the matter, Sanders, chicken?). Biden is talking like he doesn't want people to vote for him. Super likely right now, Trump will win Florida, win Indiana, and beat any of those three in OH, and two in PA, plus carry all of the normally red states. Even if he loses the popular vote by 7 million, he'll get the right swing states to clinch the electoral college, even if by a slim margain. So a Civil War II is not likely.

The key will be to keep enough Democrats in Congress to stop the Republicans from repealing the 22nd Amendment.


----------



## ThePIGI King

sleewell said:


> does breaking the law even matter any more?
> 
> 
> 
> *‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power – pure power.’*


Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.

Double edged sword. People of power can do as they please, no matter their political association. Both the right and left have plenty of people who get away with things.

I didn't realize that people getting away with crimes was new in 2020 

@Rosal76 Also, I'd be willing to support anybody who shoots somebody, based on the context of the shooting. If it's in self defense or in the defense of children or something like that? Hell yea. If it's murder and was not done in self defense? Nah, no more support.


----------



## USMarine75

ThePIGI King said:


> Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.



Haha no.


----------



## narad

ThePIGI King said:


> @Rosal76 Also, I'd be willing to support anybody who shoots somebody, based on the context of the shooting. If it's in self defense or in the defense of children or something like that? Hell yea. If it's murder and was not done in self defense? Nah, no more support.



The Tinder profile version of this post is "I like having fun, traveling, and food!"


----------



## Vyn

ThePIGI King said:


> Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.
> 
> Double edged sword. People of power can do as they please, no matter their political association. Both the right and left have plenty of people who get away with things.
> 
> I didn't realize that people getting away with crimes was new in 2020



Your argument would hold up if ripping up the the speech was illegal - it's not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Fair, however I interpreted the statement as to it feeling "North Korea-y", to imply despotic action that abides no rule of law save that which comes from a Kim's mouth, hence why I returned to legality. Because if it is in a legal framework, its not as easy to make depotic comparisons.
> If I am incorrect in the meaning of the phrase that i inferred please extrapolate.



I was mainly referring to the familial guilt by association and inflicting punishment as such, which is something of a hallmark of the Kim Regimes. 

Outside of the flagrant disregard of established whistle blower protections for those who acting in good faith and who go through the proper channels, which is what happened in this particular case. 

It's also not a great look putting petty personal vendettas ahead of national security.

If Trump did do anything against the rule of law, who would hold him accountable? The Senate has shown they don't care, and Barr definitely isn't doing anything.



ThePIGI King said:


> Nancy ripping up the State of the Union speech is 100% illegal.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2020/02/06/pelosi-ripping-sotu-illegal/amp/

tl;dr: A printed out copy of a document doesn't meet the criteria of a document meant for preservation in an official capacity. If it was the only physical copy and had been formally submitted and checked with the clerk, it would potentially have been a violation, but that was not the case.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I was mainly referring to the familial guilt by association and inflicting punishment as such, which is something of a hallmark of the Kim Regimes.
> 
> Outside of the flagrant disregard of established whistle blower protections for those who acting in good faith and who go through the proper channels, which is what happened in this particular case.
> 
> It's also not a great look putting petty personal vendettas ahead of national security.
> 
> If Trump did do anything against the rule of law, who would hold him accountable? The Senate has shown they don't care, and Barr definitely isn't doing anything.



Ah I see, I dont directly correlate punishing the family with the Kims heavily, as it is a tactic used by a large portion of dictators, despots and their regimes throughout history. I mean its literally biblical.

So after a very quick brushup, he dealt with The Infamous Whistleblower, but apparently was not one himself but was perhaps the one who leaked the info to the whistleblower. Schiff stopped him short from naming the WB during testimony even. So how would he be the WB? Which we were told must have secrecy for safety purposes. Yet there he was all over CNN, by name, rank, and with an expose on his family history. Perhaps i missed something.

Personal vendetta, yea I can see that not a great look especially if looking just at these two. After 3 years of multiple investigations and impeachment, I doubt his base would care, they see all of that as a whitchunt. And this perhaps keeping others from starting.
He is also removing many people from his NSC, the vindmans were the news worthy ones. Bush and Obama did the same variety of house cleaning, its just taking trump 3 years, instead of 3 months.

And holding accountable, well that was supposed to be the house, however they were impatient. Once the subpoenas were ignored those should have been sent to the Judiciary for them to rule on if it was proper use of executive privilege and gone from there. It is one of the reasons the Judiciary are even there. Just as they did with Nixon. Lets not even talk about the minority hearing day (precedent goes back to Andrew Johnson). Straight up they rushed it and got it through on straight party line (after Mueller didnt pan out right for them) and it fell flat accordingly. For them to go our case is solid, 100% and btw we need witnesses that we didnt sort when the ball was in our court. I cant totally blame the senate for going party lockstep in return and saying nope on witnesses as that should have theoretically been done in the house. Its not like you have time 8 weeks to complete it once you start it or its thrown out.

I personally wanted witnesses, ALL of them from BOTH sides, including and especially the whistleblower that kicked off this shitshow. If we are gonna air out the dirty laundry, then lets get it all out there.

Ultimately how is an appointee that runs the Justice Department (part of the Executive branch) going to hold his boss; who can fire him on a firm whim; accountable for anything. Quick answer he wont, he doesnt want to be the next Jeff Sessions.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Ah I see, I dont directly correlate punishing the family with the Kims heavily, as it is a tactic used by a large portion of dictators, despots and their regimes throughout history. I mean its literally biblical.



It was just an off hand remark, I didn't think it was going to garner such analysis. 

It was just the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading about it. 

I wouldn't call Trump a dictator or despot really, so I felt those terms were a little harsh and inflammatory, as well as distracting. 



> So after a very quick brushup, he dealt with The Infamous Whistleblower, but apparently was not one himself but was perhaps the one who leaked the info to the whistleblower. Schiff stopped him short from naming the WB during testimony even. So how would he be the WB? Which we were told must have secrecy for safety purposes. Yet there he was all over CNN, by name, rank, and with an expose on his family history. Perhaps i missed something.



I guess we don't know exactly how it played out. Though whistle blower protections don't directly apply to Vindman, it's pretty clear why they're keeping things rather hush. I could see the administration coming down even harder. 

I understand part of whistle blowing and/or testifying in a situation like this bears risk. 



> Personal vendetta, yea I can see that not a great look especially if looking just at these two. After 3 years of multiple investigations and impeachment, I doubt his base would care, they see all of that as a whitchunt. And this perhaps keeping others from starting.
> He is also removing many people from his NSC, the vindmans were the news worthy ones. Bush and Obama did the same variety of house cleaning, its just taking trump 3 years, instead of 3 months.



I could see them trying to suss out the whistle blower this way. 

It was somewhat known that both Vindman and Sondland were making an exit, the theatrics fall on Trump, not the media, here. 



> And holding accountable, well that was supposed to be the house, however they were impatient. Once the subpoenas were ignored those should have been sent to the Judiciary for them to rule on if it was proper use of executive privilege and gone from there. It is one of the reasons the Judiciary are even there. Just as they did with Nixon. Lets not even talk about the minority hearing day (precedent goes back to Andrew Johnson). Straight up they rushed it and got it through on straight party line (after Mueller didnt pan out right for them) and it fell flat accordingly. For them to go our case is solid, 100% and btw we need witnesses that we didnt sort when the ball was in our court. I cant totally blame the senate for going party lockstep in return and saying nope on witnesses as that should have theoretically been done in the house. Its not like you have time 8 weeks to complete it once you start it or its thrown out.



I don't think the case was at all weak as is. More witnesses would have strengthened it for sure, as well as made Trump look even worse, but there was no chance. None. 

We'll see how this pans out down the road, now that senators are on record. 



> I personally wanted witnesses, ALL of them from BOTH sides, including and especially the whistleblower that kicked off this shitshow. If we are gonna air out the dirty laundry, then lets get it all out there.



I would have no problem with the whistle blower testifying...if Trump did as well. You can't have it both ways. 



> Ultimately how is an appointee that runs the Justice Department (part of the Executive branch) going to hold his boss; who can fire him on a firm whim; accountable for anything. Quick answer he wont, he doesnt want to be the next Jeff Sessions.



Perhaps that is why I said Barr would not do anything.


----------



## ThePIGI King

USMarine75 said:


> Haha no.


Alright, I was definitely very wrong here, thats my bad going off a usually good source being wrong(No it wasn't Facebook).

But at least we can agree about Kansas city being in Kansas am i rite


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> It was just an off hand remark, I didn't think it was going to garner such analysis.
> 
> It was just the first thing that popped into my head as I was reading about it.
> 
> I wouldn't call Trump a dictator or despot really, so I felt those terms were a little harsh and inflammatory, as well as distracting.



I can see where it may have caught you off guard, but sometimes off hand comments can carry meaning.

Wasnt trying be inflamatory or distracting but i felt the door had been opened via a comment with N Korea.



> I guess we don't know exactly how it played out. Though whistle blower protections don't directly apply to Vindman, it's pretty clear why they're keeping things rather hush. I could see the administration coming down even harder.
> 
> I understand part of whistle blowing and/or testifying in a situation like this bears risk.



Thats the thing that we could have found out if the house took more time, or with senate witnesses. 
As far as hush hush, could be several reasons, malicious or not, we cant really say.

I know it does and thats why I wasnt too up in arms about who it is.



> I could see them trying to suss out the whistle blower this way.
> 
> It was somewhat known that both Vindman and Sondland were making an exit, the theatrics fall on Trump, not the media, here.



Yes thats possible, however im certain some people outside of the approved circle already know. Too many leaks in Washington.

Yes the whole thing screams dog and pony show.



> I don't think the case was at all weak as is. More witnesses would have strengthened it for sure, as well as made Trump look even worse, but there was no chance. None.
> 
> We'll see how this pans out down the road, now that senators are on record.



I was not implying the case was weak, simply that there were some items that procedurally werent done, that traditionally were. The weakest point is that they didnt wait for the Judiciary to do its job, to rule in regards to if subpoenas are null under executive privilege.



> I would have no problem with the whistle blower testifying...if Trump did as well. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that is why I said Barr would not do anything.



There is a reason I said all. I only wanted it one way complete and fully transparent  

And in the interest of personal transparency, I have never voted for a D or R when it comes to president.

Yes sorry, its just strange to me that some people dont understand the structures (that part was not really directed to you just a bit of venting from an earlier convo, my bad.)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I just don't see a different outcome had they waited, aside from hearing out the judiciary, with either call certainly going to appeal. 

Their base was champing at the bit, they had the votes, and figured giving the judiciary its time would have allowed the White House to better hide and obfuscate. 

The goal was never removal, or even conviction, it was putting a solid case to the Senate to go on record with. That was accomplished. 

Was it worthwhile? We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## sleewell

ThePIGI King said:


> Alright, I was definitely very wrong here, thats my bad going off a usually good source being wrong(No it wasn't Facebook).
> 
> But at least we can agree about Kansas city being in Kansas am i rite



Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?


In terms of civility how about the congressman who shouted out you lie during the state of the union? Did that make it on faux n friends?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and you lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?



Take it down a notch. I understand the frustration, but try to keep it...*sigh*..._civil_.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't see a different outcome had they waited, aside from hearing out the judiciary, with either call certainly going to appeal.
> 
> Their base was champing at the bit, they had the votes, and figured giving the judiciary its time would have allowed the White House to better hide and obfuscate.
> 
> The goal was never removal, or even conviction, it was putting a solid case to the Senate to go on record with. That was accomplished.
> 
> Was it worthwhile? We'll have to wait and see.



Well I get into this argument with my dad, who is a sort of "forever acquitted" guy. Of course the goal was never removal, but I think it was a significant enough event that 10, 20 years from now, when we look back on this without any political skin-in-the-game, Trump's behavior will be a forever shameful blot on presidential history (at least, in the more reliably recorded times). 

I don't think impeachment was a particularly useful political move, maybe even a bad one, but it was effectively earmarking a particular set of Trump actions for future people to review. Like when Nixon was impeached, I could imagine there maybe was not as much of a backlash to him as there is now? Or maybe if he was impeached during a booming economy and not a quagmire of a conflict out in Vietnam. When we think Nixon now, we simply think "oh ya, the one that was impeached for real". I think we'll think similarly of Trump.


----------



## Randy

Trump and his followers is the classic abusive relationship, and he'll continue to abuse them and they'll continue to make excuses for him. Only solution is for him to be taken away from them, and November looks like the only path there. You'll be amazed how quick you won't be able to find anybody that liked the guy all that much after that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Trump and his followers is the classic abusive relationship, and he'll continue to abuse them and they'll continue to make excuses for him. Only solution is for him to be taken away from them, and November looks like the only path there. You'll be amazed how quick you won't be able to find anybody that liked the guy all that much after that.



It's just going to be Dubya 2.0.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?
> 
> In terms of civility how about the congressman who shouted out you lie during the state of the union? Did that make it on faux n friends?



Wow, yeah as Max said take it easy, bruh. It ain’t often anyone apologizes on the internet. It’s a huge sign of being an adult and deserves respect not a follow on tear down. 

Federal record handling procedures are not common knowledge. Him officially handing her an original on WH letterhead embossed with a seal could have made it an official record (if procedure was he hand delivered the only copy for Congress), let alone if it was emailed to her and she deleted it (the email not the printed copy would be the federal record).


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

sleewell said:


> Interesting how faux news runs with a clearly debunked story for days and lemmings just lap it up and repeat it over and over again though isn't it?



_*CNN would like to know your location.*_


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, my first instinct for a year or so was to shrug and say "but he's not _*that *_bad," but IDK anymore.
> 
> You're a lot more qualified to address his economic policies than I am, but I just see a bunch of stuff that either plays the long game ineffectively or gets a quick boost at the cost of less longterm stability.
> 
> From the standpoint of principle, Trump is a mess. That call with Ukraine was shady as it could be, but Republicans either say it's "perfect," or say something like "meh, not good but whaddabout democrats...". This ongoing purge of political enemies from the excutive branch is also shady, but Trump's supporters are calling for much worse.
> 
> Pollsters are all saying that either Buttigieg or Sanders or Biden are going to beat Trump, pretty much for sure. But I bet that they won't. The Democrats seem primed to stumble all the way to November, and Trump's supporters are all galvanized as ever to make sure to get out and vote. If Buttigieg runs, he probably won't even win his own home state. People are afraid of Sanders's policies (what's the matter, Sanders, chicken?). Biden is talking like he doesn't want people to vote for him. Super likely right now, Trump will win Florida, win Indiana, and beat any of those three in OH, and two in PA, plus carry all of the normally red states. Even if he loses the popular vote by 7 million, he'll get the right swing states to clinch the electoral college, even if by a slim margain. So a Civil War II is not likely.
> 
> The key will be to keep enough Democrats in Congress to stop the Republicans from repealing the 22nd Amendment.


His economic policies are just as horrible as you'd suspect they are.  The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act didn't even meet the _CBO's_ far-more-modest projections for boosting growth, much less Trump's own rosy 3%+ real GDP growth in perpetuitiy because of the magic pixie dust of tax cuts assumptions, and the trade war has harmed the entire global economy. 

I think the odds of a contested convention, or at least a convention with only a plurality and not a majority for the leader, is a real possibility, and if anything is understated in the 538 model.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just don't see a different outcome had they waited, aside from hearing out the judiciary, with either call certainly going to appeal.
> 
> Their base was champing at the bit, they had the votes, and figured giving the judiciary its time would have allowed the White House to better hide and obfuscate.
> 
> *The goal was never removal, or even conviction, it was putting a solid case to the Senate to go on record with.* That was accomplished.
> 
> Was it worthwhile? We'll have to wait and see.



Well for starters, they should have used the Judiciary as that, is the other check or balance. It would have lent some additional legitimacy to the proceedings.

But that doesnt matter due to whats bolded. If one party undertakes one of the most serious possible actions our government can undertake, it had better be for all the marbles.

But if the goal is not removing him for high crimes and misdemeanors (the end goal of every inpeachment is supposed to be to build a solid enough case to Remove in the Senate, as established in the Constitution) but ONLY to put a solid case in front of the senate, that fact, if accurate, makes the case that this was a political farce. 
Which honestly is detestable, to use the most severe action, that is supposed to be reserved for the most grievous of situations; for bringing charges to simply attack an opponent without even trying or intending to follow to the proper end. THAT IS abuse of power. 

If one argues Trump abused power, fine nail his ass to the wall in a proper (involving the Judiciary) and Bipartisan way. That didnt happen. If the goal was not removing him then all of this was is pointless political game on our dime.


----------



## tedtan

wedge_destroyer said:


> Well for starters, they should have used the Judiciary as that, is the other check or balance. It would have lent some additional legitimacy to the proceedings.
> 
> But that doesnt matter due to whats bolded. If one party undertakes one of the most serious possible actions our government can undertake, it had better be for all the marbles.
> 
> But if the goal is not removing him for high crimes and misdemeanors (the end goal of every inpeachment is supposed to be to build a solid enough case to Remove in the Senate, as established in the Constitution) but ONLY to put a solid case in front of the senate, that fact, if accurate, makes the case that this was a political farce.
> Which honestly is detestable, to use the most severe action, that is supposed to be reserved for the most grievous of situations; for bringing charges to simply attack an opponent without even trying or intending to follow to the proper end. THAT IS abuse of power.
> 
> If one argues Trump abused power, fine nail his ass to the wall in a proper (involving the Judiciary) and Bipartisan way. That didnt happen. If the goal was not removing him then all of this was is pointless political game on our dime.



Not really, it was just a realistic understanding that the GOP Senators wouldn't vote to remove him from office no matter what the House proved. Mitch McConnell bragged about that from the get go and several GOP senators have stated that the House proved their case, so why wouldn't they vote to convict Trump? The fact that the GOP Senators failed to do their jobs is on them, not on the House.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

tedtan said:


> Not really, it was just a realistic understanding that the GOP Senators wouldn't vote to remove him from office no matter what the House proved. Mitch McConnell bragged about that from the get go and several GOP senators have stated that the House proved their case, so why wouldn't they vote to convict Trump? The fact that the GOP Senators failed to do their jobs is on them, not on the House.



One can point the arrow at either side for not doing their due diligence in the matter. Most of the witnesses the House tried to get but were blocked could have had the items needed to make a solid enough case to break the partisan gridlock. They didnt follow through with the Judiciary to see if privilege applied. Thats on them. They have the task of building the case, they took misteps.
Is the Senate lilly white in all this? Nope, but there were procedural items, (supported by precedent) that were not done on the Houses end prior to the Senate doing anything besides McConnell posturing.
Not kicking the subpoenas to the Judiciary, on the House.
Not having a minority hearing day, on the House.( if this had occured individual senators may have been more receptive.)
Rushing it through, couldnt wait on the courts for nebulous reasons, trying to get it done before Christmas, are all follies of the House.

Also if your partisan case which you know is going to be blocked in a partisan manner, why wouldnt you wait for the subpoenas that actually have teeth to attempt to deal with that?

It makes a much better case if all the witnesses that cried privilege have to walk in and plead the 5th or incriminate themselves and the president dont you think? The possibility of that should have been worth the time in the courts to the dems.


----------



## tedtan

wedge_destroyer said:


> One can point the arrow at either side for not doing their due diligence in the matter. Most of the witnesses the House tried to get but were blocked could have had the items needed to make a solid enough case to break the partisan gridlock. They didnt follow through with the Judiciary to see if privilege applied. Thats on them. They have the task of building the case, they took misteps.
> Is the Senate lilly white in all this? Nope, but there were procedural items, (supported by precedent) that were not done on the Houses end prior to the Senate doing anything besides McConnell posturing.
> Not kicking the subpoenas to the Judiciary, on the House.
> Not having a minority hearing day, on the House.( if this had occured individual senators may have been more receptive.)
> Rushing it through, couldnt wait on the courts for nebulous reasons, trying to get it done before Christmas, are all follies of the House.
> 
> Also if your partisan case which you know is going to be blocked in a partisan manner, why wouldnt you wait for the subpoenas that actually have teeth to attempt to deal with that?
> 
> It makes a much better case if all the witnesses that cried privilege have to walk in and plead the 5th or incriminate themselves and the president dont you think? The possibility of that should have been worth the time in the courts to the dems.



I agree that the House should have spent more time and effort in getting witnesses to testify, but it wouldn't have changed the Senate vote. The GOP sticks together; even when they're wrong, they stick together. They won't convict one of their own in an impeachment trial unless it benefits the party to do so.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

tedtan said:


> I agree that the House should have spent more time and effort in getting witnesses to testify, but it wouldn't have changed the Senate vote. The GOP sticks together; even when they're wrong, they stick together. They won't convict one of their own in an impeachment trial unless it benefits the party to do so.



The same thing can be said about the dems, they decry the action momentarily, then close ranks. The GOP has a history of booting people that have done wrong. I live in a red state and see them do it often.

Would the GOP follow that trend on the national, not likely but it is possible, they have in the past just not with a prez.

But the idea that you cant convince Republicans to break party lines, is a bit too black and white, they will of given fully sussed out arguments. 

Trying to break gridlock after going about an investigation on a partisan basis, and not following procedure? There is not a snowball's chance in hell. 

If they had followed the procedures as laid out in precedent and pursued it through the courts as well, then we might have had a different ball game.


----------



## spudmunkey

wedge_destroyer said:


> If they had followed the procedures as laid out in precedent and pursued it through the courts as well, then we might have had a different ball game.



Would we, though? Perhaps, but it would be 2022 before we got to the same inning.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

spudmunkey said:


> Would we, though? Perhaps, but it would be 2022 before we got to the same inning.



Yea if they hadnt rushed through the first couple innings, we might have not even needed to have the game anyways. You know elections coming up and all.

Because with the spectre of it hanging over him and random news probably negative trickling from the courts wouldnt help his reelection. Where an aquittal just throws egg on the Democrats faces. The case is supposedly, airtight, with out a shadow of a doubt. Telling me that ALL of the Senators [Romney has been vocal about detesting Trump for some time before this.] (some of which are lawyers) completely ignored their morals (and legal training) to toe a party line doesnt compute. If it was as airtight as the dems said it was, more than just Romney would have defected from party line.

Where an ongoing investigation doesnt make them look like someone tried to make an omelette on their faces, and would probably help the dems in election bids.


----------



## bostjan

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea if they hadnt rushed through the first couple innings, we might have not even needed to have the game anyways. You know elections coming up and all.
> 
> Because with the spectre of it hanging over him and random news probably negative trickling from the courts wouldnt help his reelection. Where an aquittal just throws egg on the Democrats faces. The case is supposedly, airtight, with out a shadow of a doubt. Telling me that ALL of the Senators [Romney has been vocal about detesting Trump for some time before this.] (some of which are lawyers) completely ignored their morals (and legal training) to toe a party line doesnt compute. If it was as airtight as the dems said it was, more than just Romney would have defected from party line.
> 
> Where an ongoing investigation doesnt make them look like someone tried to make an omelette on their faces, and would probably help the dems in election bids.



"I'd like you to do us a favour, though" is not on the up-and-up, and the Senators vocally agreed that Trump's activities were improper. They just didn't see removal from office as an appropriate consequence.

The loss for the democrats was that the Senate did *not* agree that obstruction of Congress was even a thing.

I think that's a mistake, though, since it's not a good look long-term for the GOP to undo checks and balances if anyone other than a Republican is elected president and gets out of control.

Trump's demeanor is uncouth, and it's potentially a problem. I think it's a bigger than usual problem, but that's an opinion. Trump's command of basic facts is as bad or worse than GWB's. And Trump's attitude toward consequences is as bad as Clinton's. He's got a lot of traits I see as negative (and a majority of Americans agree).

But, as I said earlier (and Drew disagree), I think there is a fair chance he will be re-elected.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

bostjan said:


> "I'd like you to do us a favour, though" is not on the up-and-up, and the Senators vocally agreed that Trump's activities were improper. They just didn't see removal from office as an appropriate consequence.
> 
> The loss for the democrats was that the Senate did *not* agree that obstruction of Congress was even a thing.
> 
> I think that's a mistake, though, since it's not a good look long-term for the GOP to undo checks and balances if anyone other than a Republican is elected president and gets out of control.
> 
> Trump's demeanor is uncouth, and it's potentially a problem. I think it's a bigger than usual problem, but that's an opinion. Trump's command of basic facts is as bad or worse than GWB's. And Trump's attitude toward consequences is as bad as Clinton's. He's got a lot of traits I see as negative (and a majority of Americans agree).
> 
> But, as I said earlier (and Drew disagree), I think there is a fair chance he will be re-elected.



It definately looks shady, but thats about it, especially since the Ukrainian president said he didnt feel pressured. Far less shady than Biden and the "son of a bitch got fired" clip "official policy" at the time or not; its still no way for either side to run a railroad. 
Without alot more information it seems that it fails to meet critera of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, at least in the opinion of many people and Senators apparantly. With out the Judiciary ruling as to if it was a thing, they went with "we dont think it is" in their current spot cant blame them. Doesnt mean it can be tossed back up on the table later, it just needs to be verified by the courts if so.

Yea hes a rough one but people were (and may still be) tired of slick political operators. The unfortunate part of a turn away from that slick politician is that you get some things that range from "jarringly out of decorum" to "what the fuck was that?". Can it be an issue, yes. Will it start nuclear war? Probably not. I agree he's far from perfect. But given the shitshow that was 2016, I think we got the slightly better of the two. Hell it was even hard to vote Libertarian with Johnson's goofy ass.

I dont think the dems will knock him out at this point, unless they get their act together last month.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> The case is supposedly, airtight, with out a shadow of a doubt. Telling me that ALL of the Senators [Romney has been vocal about detesting Trump for some time before this.] (some of which are lawyers) completely ignored their morals (and legal training) to toe a party line doesnt compute.



What about American politics of the last two decades makes that not compute?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Its less the nature of politics and more the nature of humanity. Just that people are a bit contrarian by nature and will dissent from a majority especially if told to believe one thing and being presented good fully fleshed out arguments, supported an authority outside of the people arguing against the belief.

Tribalism sucks, but is not absolute. The fact that the handful of resident republican contrarians or former Never Trumpers, didnt break rank says something about the nature of the arguments as some who you expect would didnt. Only Romney did who has been against Trump since 2016 primaries.

Short anwer I have a tiny glimmer of faith left in humanity. Even if with politicians its only a reflection...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Its less the nature of politics and more the nature of humanity. Just that people are a bit contrarian by nature and will dissent from a majority especially if told to believe one thing and being presented good fully fleshed out arguments, supported an authority outside of the people arguing against the belief.
> 
> Tribalism sucks, but is not absolute. The fact that the handful of resident republican contrarians or former Never Trumpers, didnt break rank says something about the nature of the arguments as some who you expect would didnt. Only Romney did who has been against Trump since 2016 primaries.



All it proves is that it was in their collective best interest to toe the party line. 

Right now, he's a net positive for the party, so he gets to stay. 

Folks can be contrarian, but career politicians know to play the game.


----------



## bostjan

wedge_destroyer said:


> It definately looks shady, but thats about it, especially since the Ukrainian president said he didnt feel pressured. Far less shady than Biden and the "son of a bitch got fired" clip "official policy" at the time or not; its still no way for either side to run a railroad.
> Without alot more information it seems that it fails to meet critera of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, at least in the opinion of many people and Senators apparantly. With out the Judiciary ruling as to if it was a thing, they went with "we dont think it is" in their current spot cant blame them. Doesnt mean it can be tossed back up on the table later, it just needs to be verified by the courts if so.
> 
> Yea hes a rough one but people were (and may still be) tired of slick political operators. The unfortunate part of a turn away from that slick politician is that you get some things that range from "jarringly out of decorum" to "what the fuck was that?". Can it be an issue, yes. Will it start nuclear war? Probably not. I agree he's far from perfect. But given the shitshow that was 2016, I think we got the slightly better of the two. Hell it was even hard to vote Libertarian with Johnson's goofy ass.
> 
> I dont think the dems will knock him out at this point, unless they get their act together last month.


Whether or not the guy allegedly being pressured publicly states he didn't feel pressure is moot. We have the transcripts from the White House where it's clear that there was pressure, and we know the timing of the call, release of aid, publicity of the whistleblower, etc., and it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce what happened. But regardless of all of that, diplomacy is a presidential power and abusing that power to win an election is now determined to be unimpeachable. And I can see from Trump's perspective how this was all just playing the dem's own game. I think the only reason he got caught was that he expected zero consequences. If he had thought he might actually be removed, he would have been more careful.

He believes he's smarter than everyone else. But we've heard his logic and seen him fail at basic maths. But we have also seen Obama think he had visited 57 states (with one more to go) and plenty of dumb things from HRC embellishing stories or fibbing about her voting record.

But history won't judge these presidents based on the candidates they ran against. Those people will be forgotten, anyway. History remembers what people actually did, and Trump's record with that is pretty bad so far.

As for nuclear war... I do think we are safer with Trump than HRC, but again, "what if" doesn't matter in the past. Frankly, Johnson, for as unpresidential and wacky as he was in 2016, his foreign policy of not giving a damn about the middle east would have likely been much better than the messes we got ourselves into over the last 3 years.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Well, Max, they had the option to pull the 'my faith wont let me ok this' card, like Romney (his smartest move in voting against) and didnt, their reasons are their own. Much as we can speculate, we wont know. And we will probably never agree on what percentage voted on soley on party basis, their own moral basis, or a mix. And that happens.

Besides one or two wouldnt matter except in optics, they needed a super majority on the final didnt they?


----------



## Randy

Biggest issue is that


wedge_destroyer said:


> Well, Max, they had the option to pull the 'my faith wont let me ok this' card, like Romney (his smartest move in voting against) and didnt, their reasons are their own. Much as we can speculate, we wont know. And we will probably never agree on what percentage voted on soley on party basis, their own moral basis, or a mix. And that happens.
> 
> Besides one or two wouldnt matter except in optics, they needed a super majority on the final didnt they?



There's still something majorly wrong when the winner of the election got 2 million less votes and the representatives that acquitted the President represent 18 million less people than those that voted to convict. Tail wagging dog all day long.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

bostjan said:


> Whether or not the guy allegedly being pressured publicly states he didn't feel pressure is moot. We have the transcripts from the White House where it's clear that there was pressure, and we know the timing of the call, release of aid, publicity of the whistleblower, etc., and it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce what happened. But regardless of all of that, diplomacy is a presidential power and abusing that power to win an election is now determined to be unimpeachable. And I can see from Trump's perspective how this was all just playing the dem's own game. I think the only reason he got caught was that he expected zero consequences. If he had thought he might actually be removed, he would have been more careful.
> 
> He believes he's smarter than everyone else. But we've heard his logic and seen him fail at basic maths. But we have also seen Obama think he had visited 57 states (with one more to go) and plenty of dumb things from HRC embellishing stories or fibbing about her voting record.
> 
> But history won't judge these presidents based on the candidates they ran against. Those people will be forgotten, anyway. History remembers what people actually did, and Trump's record with that is pretty bad so far.
> 
> As for nuclear war... I do think we are safer with Trump than HRC, but again, "what if" doesn't matter in the past. Frankly, Johnson, for as unpresidential and wacky as he was in 2016, his foreign policy of not giving a damn about the middle east would have likely been much better than the messes we got ourselves into over the last 3 years.



Thats honestly a part of the problem he was playing the same game as the dems had previously done, and they had no consequences. Neither side is proper in what was done. And both should be held to account in full.

Well again he is far from perfect, never said he wasnt a narcissistic blowhard.
If anything the books will either say he was haunted by unfounded investigations while making the economy rebound or that he was finally deposed through years of tireless work after he gutted years international relations.

Yea only slightly better and thats why Johnson still got my vote.
Edit: Trump only slightly better than HRC. Johnson was far away better even if bumbling at times


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Biggest issue is that
> 
> 
> There's still something majorly wrong when the winner of the election got 2 million less votes and the representatives that acquitted the President represent 18 million less people than those that voted to convict. Tail wagging dog all day long.



So what youre saying is that the electoral college and the rules regarding Senate numbers; Functioned the way the founders intended, in that mob rule didnt come into play.

The electoral college makes sure that the states and thus people in them are represented, rather than drowned by a coastal mob, as would happen in a true democracy.

Also in that the states, which also have some rights under the constitution, with equal representation in the Senate, felt it wasnt in their best interest.

This Republic is not a straight democracy, it is not perfect, none of them are.

Tail wagging dog? I cant agree with that.
A republic does wierd things because republics are wierd? Yup


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> So what youre saying is that the electoral college and the rules regarding Senate numbers; Functioned the way the founders intended, in that mob rule didnt come into play.
> 
> The electoral college makes sure that the states and thus people in them are represented, rather than drowned by a coastal mob, as would happen in a true democracy.
> 
> Also in that the states, which also have some rights under the constitution, with equal representation in the Senate, felt it wasnt in their best interest.
> 
> This Republic is not a straight democracy, it is not perfect, none of them are.
> 
> Tail wagging dog? I cant agree with that.
> A republic does wierd things because republics are wierd? Yup



I call bullshit. You're essentially arguing that laws/rules afford for a certain amount of malfeasance, therefore it must have been by design and not manipulation.

250 years of legislation, SCOTUS decisions and amendment say that the Founding Father's didn't get it all 100% right on the first try, and whitewashing every crooked thing that happens as being totally normal and appropriate just because the sun didn't fall from the sky when it happened is being needlessly obtuse.

There are two Houses of Congress, one that's proportional and one that isn't, so that more populous states don't have a unilateral control of federal law, but the separation of powers ALSO were not designed to overpower the minority at the expense of the majority. When the electoral map is drawn up in a way where you only need to appeal to a minority of people to gain control over everyone else, that is absolutely the tail wagging the dog and not as it was intended to function.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> drowned by a coastal mob



As someone who has lived all over, and wound up settling in the Midwest, folks have some weird feelings towards folks on the coast, even in the bigger cities, out here. 

It's like a weird pseudo-xenophobia. 

You'd swear they're talking about space aliens or *gasp* Europeans.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> As someone who has lived all over, and wound up settling in the Midwest, folks have some weird feelings towards folks on the coast, even in the bigger cities, out here.
> 
> It's like a weird pseudo-xenophobia.
> 
> You'd swear they're talking about space aliens or *gasp* Europeans.



Yea they do some times, I find it very odd but thats not me.

Now the reason why i chose coastal mob is because that is an old and established concern that goes back centuries. Even as far back as the federalist papers if memory serves.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea they do some times, I find it very odd but thats not me.
> 
> Now the reason why i chose coastal mob is because that is an old and established concern that goes back centuries. Even as far back as the federalist papers if memory serves.



But is it a well founded fear, today?

Getting back to what I said, people out here act like actual Americans that just live a fun road trip away are from a different planet.

We're all human and have the same needs for good jobs, healthcare, child care, clean air, clean water, etc. The notion that the "coastal” folks want to take anything or control folks living out here is bogus.

How dare the coastal elites force clean air and affordable healthcare upon us.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> I call bullshit. You're essentially arguing that laws/rules afford for a certain amount of malfeasance, therefore it must have been by design and not manipulation.



I am saying that the structures built in to our Republic functioned.



> 250 years of legislation, SCOTUS decisions and amendment say that the Founding Father's didn't get it all 100% right on the first try, and whitewashing every crooked thing that happens as being totally normal and appropriate just because the sun didn't fall from the sky when it happened is being needlessly obtuse.



Im not being obtuse, nor am i whitewashing anything, if you would note im firm in that corruption (once proven legally) on both sides of the aisle needs to be dealt with, firmly and post haste.

I didnt say that it was 100% perfect without reproach. However until modified the electoral college and the system of representatives in the Senate is the law.



> There are two Houses of Congress, one that's proportional and one that isn't, so that more populous states don't have a unilateral control of federal law, but the separation of powers ALSO were not designed to overpower the minority at the expense of the majority. When the electoral map is drawn up in a way where you only need to appeal to a minority of people to gain control over everyone else, that is absolutely the tail wagging the dog and not as it was intended to function.



Now youre moving into gerrymandering which has effect on several things but thats really neither here nor there with the Senate. As Senators are often done by direct popular vote. Can it have an effect, Yes it certainly can. Does it mean the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, No.

One could argue that being non proportional to population the senate is not true representation of the populace, that however IS by design. It is ment to give equal representation to the individual states, not the people. The House of Reps is for the people and honestly it has issues there, and as a result gerrymandering is a more apt topic when adressing that body.


----------



## Randy

Now now Max, stop exerting your coastal elitist mob mentality.

The middle of the United States deserve their say just as the Founding Fathers intended (even though half of those states didn't exist at that time but, moving on).

In fact, they deserve a disproportionate amount of representation at the federal level. What they lack in population, they make up for with their contributions to the economy... eerr, okay, well maybe their contributions to federal taxes.... err, okay well fine maybe not those things but definitely their contributions to technology. Not that either? Okay well maybe based on their contributions to science right? Okay well maybe not that either but you can't overlook their contributions to medicine...right? Hello?

It's a fucking joke. We're being governed by literally the stupidest and poorest among us just because they occupy a certain volume of land, and for no other reason. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers were written when there were just as many states inland as there were along the coast. The 20th and 21st centuries are basically both coasts wiping the middle's ass and being resented for it.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> But is it a well founded fear, today?



To a degree it could be. The Senate negates most of the legitimacy of it however.
How many Reps do California and New York have in the house? Is that body going to be very reflective of someone from Wyoming? Nebraska? Kansas? In laws that pass the house, not very often.



> Getting back to what I said, people out here act like actual Americans that just live a fun road trip away are from a different planet.
> 
> We're all human and have the same needs for good jobs, healthcare, child care, clean air, clean water, etc. The notion that the "coastal” folks want to take anything or control folks living out here is bogus.
> 
> How dare the coastal elites force clean air and affordable healthcare upon us.



Oh i totally get what youre saying, it is a disconnect that has existed for sometime, and for the life of me i cant understand it, but it still happens, i try to laugh at is most of the time. Just another made up tribal division.

My only issue with that is being forced anything by anybody


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> How many Reps do California and New York have in the house? Is that body going to be very reflective of someone from Wyoming? Nebraska? Kansas? In laws that pass the house, not very often.



Can you find me an example of a California or New York championed bill that would harm Wyoming, Nebraska, or Kansas?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you find me an example of a California or New York championed bill that would harm Wyoming, Nebraska, or Kansas?



Give me a bit I know there are some out there. I also wasnt trying to imply that the bill would of harm but has a higher chance of being opposed to their stance on a given issue. 

I wasnt planning on spending the whole night on politics but hell i made it this far 

I want to go peruse the rest of the forum but like a moth to a dumpster fire.....


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Now now Max, stop exerting your coastal elitist mob mentality.
> 
> The middle of the United States deserve their say just as the Founding Fathers intended (even though half of those states didn't exist at that time but, moving on).
> 
> In fact, they deserve a disproportionate amount of representation at the federal level. What they lack in population, they make up for with their contributions to the economy... eerr, okay, well maybe their contributions to federal taxes.... err, okay well fine maybe not those things but definitely their contributions to technology. Not that either? Okay well maybe based on their contributions to science right? Okay well maybe not that either but you can't overlook their contributions to medicine...right? Hello?



Do you like food? Pretty sure none of that would have happened with out access to affordable food.



> It's a fucking joke. We're being governed by literally the stupidest and poorest among us just because they occupy a certain volume of land, and for no other reason. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers were written when there were just as many states inland as there were along the coast. The 20th and 21st centuries are basically both coasts wiping the middle's ass and being resented for it.



Well as a third party independent i understand the pain about being ruled by morons, your options are

A. Campaign to change shit.
B. Time travel
C. Go elsewhere
D. Learn to live with the flaws and the fact that people go unrepresented, even though its morally wrong.

Yes when they were written that was almost the case. We had several territories, all of them inland, that we were grooming to become states. As such the population was lower in the undeveloped areas, thus why they had a concern of the new states being browbeaten in government by the larger established coastal centers. 
Strange how things change but stay the same.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> I also wasnt trying to imply that the bill would of harm



Nah. I want to know what the evil coastal elites are inflicting on the poor landlocked amongst us.

I'm sure there is some abortion/religious freedom bill that is functionally meaningless, or a complex land acquisition bill that affects <1% of the population but the powers that be have folks worked up into a fury about. 

As @Randy pointed out, it seems that the coasts are far more beneficial to the flyovers. I just want to know what everyone is so afraid of in 2020.



wedge_destroyer said:


> Do you like food? Pretty sure none of that would have happened with out access to affordable food.



You mean the affordable food propped up by socialist subsidies payed for by the coastal elites?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Nah. I want to know what the evil coastal elites are inflicting on the poor landlocked amongst us.
> 
> I'm sure there is some abortion/religious freedom bill that is functionally meaningless, or a complex land acquisition bill that affects <1% of the population but the powers that be have folks worked up into a fury about.



See i never implied they were evil but given how much of that area is with religion, abortion fits the bill. Also just about any expansion of 2A regulations (all are illegal, imho but thats a different argument) as well as there are more hunters per captia, one would imagine.



> As @Randy pointed out, it seems that the coasts are far more beneficial to the flyovers. I just want to know what everyone is so afraid of in 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the affordable food propped up by socialist subsidies payed for by the coastal elites?



They are afraid of what they are engineered to be afraid of really, there is no concern save for the call to dismantle the electoral college.

Oh you mean those same subsidized bills that pay farmers to leave plots fallow for longer than needed in crop rotation and thus bringing food prices up as there could be more of a surplus, which could be used for oh idk maybe biofuels.


----------



## Evil Chuck

wedge_destroyer said:


> So what youre saying is that the electoral college and the rules regarding Senate numbers; Functioned the way the founders intended, in that mob rule didnt come into play.
> 
> The electoral college makes sure that the states and thus people in them are represented, rather than drowned by a coastal mob, as would happen in a true democracy.
> 
> Also in that the states, which also have some rights under the constitution, with equal representation in the Senate, felt it wasnt in their best interest.
> 
> This Republic is not a straight democracy, it is not perfect, none of them are.
> 
> Tail wagging dog? I cant agree with that.
> A republic does wierd things because republics are wierd? Yup


Imagine trying to pass yourself off as some sort of America loving intellectual, but because your "team" lost last time you (against all logic) advocate for transforming the United States into a pure democracy simply because it would have given your "team" the victory. 

This is the stuff of tyrants.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> Imagine trying to pass yourself off as some sort of America loving intellectual, but because your "team" lost last time you (against all logic) advocate for transforming the United States into a pure democracy simply because it would have given your "team" the victory.
> 
> This is the stuff of tyrants.



Democracy is tyranny.

- This guy apparently.

What a time to be alive.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Democracy is tyranny.
> 
> - This guy apparently.


That's not at all what I said. Of course you know that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Evil Chuck said:


> That's not at all what I said. Of course you know that.



Huh. I was expecting a big JS Mill quote or Federalist excerpt. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement.


----------



## Evil Chuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Huh. I was expecting a big JS Mill quote or Federalist excerpt. To say I'm disappointed is an understatement.


Why do I need to quote anyone else to show that you can't seem to engage in conversation with me without purposely misrepresenting my arguments?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news...cle_81af279b-0879-53f1-8bc7-83a4f30c06e2.html

Not the best example being, a budget vote involving land purchases, but due to other projects in Florida, the funding to buy portions of Wyoming for Grand Teton National Park was placed on hold. Where in all 3 representatives from Wyoming voted against the budget.



Jackson Hole News and Guide said:


> A revised list of projects was submitted to federal legislators in June but has not been made public. Despite the revised list, several individuals confirmed that the two projects in Florida remained at the top of the list.
> 
> The spending bill approved by Congress last month includes provisions that allow money to be shifted by the agencies that receive money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Those provisions, however, require congressional approval and can be made only to address unexpected changes to a project.
> 
> The Senate passed the spending bill 67 to 32, and the House approved it 296 to 121.
> 
> All three members of Wyoming’s congressional delegation voted against it.
> 
> Before he left office, former Gov. Dave Freudenthal told federal officials he would sell the 1,405 acres of school trust lands in the park at a public auction if the federal government didn’t take action to buy or swap for the land. Interior Department officials subsequently said they would pay $107 million for the property.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Evil Chuck said:


> Imagine trying to pass yourself off as some sort of America loving intellectual, but because your "team" lost last time you (against all logic) advocate for transforming the United States into a pure democracy simply because it would have given your "team" the victory.


I would rather not. I dont need an aneurism.



> This is the stuff of tyrants.



No its the stuff of sore losers.
You dont see people trying to upend the system because Johnson lost do you?


----------



## narad

> Democracy [for reasons I don't agree with] is tyranny.
> 
> - This guy apparently.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Also with regards to people calling for democracy being tyrannical I give you a very flawed man with atleast one bright idea, 7th Vice president Mr. John C. Calhoun


John C. Calhoun said:


> The government of the absolute majority is but the government of the strongest interests; and when not effectively checked, is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised... [To read the Constitution is to realize that] no free system was ever farther removed from the principle that the absolute majority, without check or limitation, ought to govern.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's just going to be Dubya 2.0.



As if.

Dubya runs a good chance of being remembered as the last pre-populism "honest president", after which everything quickly went to hell

Obama paved it with hope posters, ruling by decree, and quietly droning everybody... and then Trump really really liked what he saw and REALLY ran wild with it. Teh end, bye democracy, hello latin american style antics

(Yeah Obama had more finesse and restraint... but ultimately, he made Trump, in just soooo many ways)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> As if.
> 
> Dubya runs a good chance of being remembered as the last pre-populism "honest president", after which everything quickly went to hell
> 
> Obama paved it with hope posters, ruling by decree, and quietly droning everybody... and then Trump really really liked what he saw and REALLY ran wild with it. Teh end, bye democracy, hello latin american style antics
> 
> (Yeah Obama had more finesse and restraint... but ultimately, he made Trump, in just soooo many ways)



I just meant that it's going to be a similar transition with most transgressions quickly forgotten.

We're a forgetful people.

That said, I think, historically, Dubya will always be known as the President that started the War on Terror.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just meant that it's going to be a similar transition with most transgressions quickly forgotten.
> 
> We're a forgetful people.
> 
> That said, I think, historically, Dubya will always be known as the President that started the War on Terror.



Ah good old President Patriot Act.....


----------



## wedge_destroyer

But seriously the fact that the people are so forgetful and dont learn from the past, is balls out frightening.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> But seriously the fact that the people are so forgetful and dont learn from the past, is balls out frightening.


----------



## bostjan

wedge_destroyer said:


> Thats honestly a part of the problem he was playing the same game as the dems had previously done, and they had no consequences. Neither side is proper in what was done. And both should be held to account in full.
> 
> Well again he is far from perfect, never said he wasnt a narcissistic blowhard.
> If anything the books will either say he was haunted by unfounded investigations while making the economy rebound or that he was finally deposed through years of tireless work after he gutted years international relations.
> 
> Yea only slightly better and thats why Johnson still got my vote.
> Edit: Trump only slightly better than HRC. Johnson was far away better even if bumbling at times


Trump _thinks_ he is playing the same game. It's not that the rules are different for him, as an outsider, it's that he doesn't attempt to understand the rules, or just doesn't care. I do not agree that his actions are no worse. Why it is worse could be an entire side discussion, much of which was already done in this thread, maybe while you weren't reading it, IDK.

Which investigation was unfounded? The one where it was determined that Russia *did* interfere with the election, and Trump obstructed the investigation; or the one where Trump *did *abuse his power, but not badly enough to be ousted?  I don't see how those summaries are mischaracterized, but feel free to make the argument.

Johnson was a hot mess at times, but he seemed to be doing some of it on purpose, because the media was loving it. The whole Aleppo thing, to me, was him making a point that no one bothered to try to understand, because it was easier to point and laugh at the looney than to put oneself into another mindset for a moment. I also voted for him, but because I agreed with his platform and disagreed with both major candidates platforms. From a personal standpoint, I didn't like any of them.


----------



## Randy

Politicans of all parties and persuasions are beholden to much more powerful people than you, no matter what they say or what they project.

Picking a politican based on who you "like" is the same as marrying a prostitute and expecting faithfulness. Setting yourself up for disappointment and also heaping unreasonable expectations on somebody you barely know and has no loyalty to you. 

That's about 80% of my frustration over Trump and his followers, it's all about idol worship when he's done nothing to be deserving of it. Obama oversaw the biggest turn around of the economy in modern history, he overhauled the healthcare system in a way that helped increase access to vulnerable people (like kids with preexisting conditions, etc), I voted for the guy twice but 90% of the time, if you heard something coming out of my mouth about the guy it was about drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay still being open or something else. Nobody is beyond criticism, and that goes ten fold for your representatives.

The fact that Trump voters bought whole hog on him just because he says mean things about people they're predisposed to not like is selling themselves off for very cheap. He was a crook, a con man and a cheat even before he took office and THATS the guy they decide to ride-or-die with. I said it just a few days ago, for every accomplishment he made, there's another three, four or five he left on the table just because he's an asshole.

You wanna talk about being petty? How about Benghazi, Hillary's emails and now the Bidens? Biden looking like he'll be lucky to end the race in 4th place and they're still pushing the investigations. Why? Because of Trump's petty fixation on Obama and because his party and his followers aren't going to be happy until they confirm he has a "perfect phone call".

These last two or three pages of thought experiments over how the Democrats are petty and impeachment was unfair and unnecessary was fun but fucking hilariously out of touch contrarian bullshit when you look at who's on the other side of the table.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

bostjan said:


> Trump _thinks_ he is playing the same game. It's not that the rules are different for him, as an outsider, it's that he doesn't attempt to understand the rules, or just doesn't care. I do not agree that his actions are no worse. Why it is worse could be an entire side discussion, much of which was already done in this thread, maybe while you weren't reading it, IDK.



Its the same game, extorting foreign governments, you do X be it, launch investigations, fire the prosecutor looking into your son's boss, let us use your port, dont eat chinese cheese, pick anything. Or i wont give you Y normally money, or arms. Still extortion. Yes i did scan over it during those discussions while choosing not to get involved. 



> Which investigation was unfounded? The one where it was determined that Russia *did* interfere with the election, and Trump obstructed the investigation; or the one where Trump *did *abuse his power, but not badly enough to be ousted?  I don't see how those summaries are mischaracterized, but feel free to make the argument.



I wasnt trying to make the argument that they were unfounded (although that FISA warrant seems a little funky). It was a comment on how this all of this is so hyperpartisan and hyperbolic that when it shakes out over the next few years and we will see which side is writing the history books. If its the left it will say X if its the right it will say Y.
I'm really not here to make glue.



> Johnson was a hot mess at times, but he seemed to be doing some of it on purpose, because the media was loving it. The whole Aleppo thing, to me, was him making a point that no one bothered to try to understand, because it was easier to point and laugh at the looney than to put oneself into another mindset for a moment. I also voted for him, but because I agreed with his platform and disagreed with both major candidates platforms. From a personal standpoint, I didn't like any of them.



He very much was at times, but sometimes it did seem a bit heavy. Of course they did it was good non-Trump ratings gold. The whole Aleppo thing, left me mixed, it was a very good point in that the place is so far removed from the daily need to know for people as to be almost a non issue. Not realizing the optics of the comedic approch (if intentional) was more my issue. Exact same reasons he got my vote closest platform. None of them were optimal really.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> ~~~~~Mostly Tribalism stuff~~~~~~~
> 
> These last two or three pages of thought experiments over how the Democrats are petty and impeachment was unfair and unnecessary was fun but fucking hilariously out of touch contrarian bullshit when you look at who's on the other side of the table.



Odd because I dont recall having said they were petty, unfair or unnecessary. Just that they didnt exercise their full due diligence, which should include the Judiciary if necessary, as it was here. Many misteps, including not following procedure set by previous precedent, and rushing. If the crime is there nail them. Any and all of them. 
But for something as serious as possible removal you had best build your case to be so airtight that nothing short of Jesus Christ himself literally showing up and saying he's cool, can beat it. So as to make an opponent who stands against you look like a political hack for oppposing you. They didnt, so now Trump gets to use aquittal for a campaign ad and the DNC looks to have about a dozen eggs on its face. Not really sure how discussing that or items that pertain is contrarian bullshit.
Or does adding my thoughts and opinion make the thought in here too diverse? 
I can gladly step back out and go talk about speakers and leave you to the reverb if you'd prefer.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> Odd because I dont recall having said they were petty, unfair or unnecessary. Just that they didnt exercise their full due diligence, which should include the Judiciary if necessary, as it was here. Many misteps, including not following procedure set by previous precedent, and rushing. If the crime is there nail them. Any and all of them.
> But for something as serious as possible removal you had best build your case to be so airtight that nothing short of Jesus Christ himself literally showing up and saying he's cool, can beat it. So as to make an opponent who stands against you look like a political hack for oppposing you. They didnt, so now Trump gets to use aquittal for a campaign ad and the DNC looks to have about a dozen eggs on its face. Not really sure how discussing that or items that pertain is contrarian bullshit.
> Or does adding my thoughts and opinion make the thought in here too diverse?
> I can gladly step back out and go talk about speakers and leave you to the reverb if you'd prefer.



If the Senate acquitted out of principal and not because Trump was innocent, they share the blame.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> If the Senate acquitted out of principal and not because Trump was innocent, they share the blame.



Never said they were blameless if it was voted simply to stick with the party which some did. 

If that principal was innocent until proven guilty, and not seeing evidence that proved guilt to them beyond the shadow of a doubt, then they should have no blame to be felt. 
Because thats the principle one should hope that every juror adheres to.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> Thats honestly a part of the problem he was playing the same game as the dems had previously done, and they had no consequences. Neither side is proper in what was done. And both should be held to account in full.
> 
> Well again he is far from perfect, never said he wasnt a narcissistic blowhard.
> If anything the books will either say he was haunted by unfounded investigations while making the economy rebound or that he was finally deposed through years of tireless work after he gutted years international relations.
> 
> Yea only slightly better and thats why Johnson still got my vote.
> Edit: Trump only slightly better than HRC. Johnson was far away better even if bumbling at times


Conversation has gone well past this, but: 

1) Zelensky may have publicly stated he felt he was under no pressure... But internal memos say he had discussed with the US embassy and his own cabinet how best to navigate pressure from the White House. 
2) Biden getting a prosecutor fired for not doing his job wasn't just stated US foreign policy, it was also a stated policy goal of the EU, the UK, and I believe NATO as well at the time. There was BROAD international support for what Biden was doing.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Drew said:


> Conversation has gone well past this, but:
> 
> 1) Zelensky may have publicly stated he felt he was under no pressure... But internal memos say he had discussed with the US embassy and his own cabinet how best to navigate pressure from the White House.


Sources please ive yet not seen that.



> 2) Biden getting a prosecutor fired for not doing his job wasn't just stated US foreign policy, it was also a stated policy goal of the EU, the UK, and I believe NATO as well at the time. There was BROAD international support for what Biden was doing.


Well official policy of where ever the hell, or not. That doesnt make it proper for us to mettle in their affairs.
Not to mention if half of the allegations including ties to money laundering and other past charges against the guy (owner of burisma and more) that the prosecutor was looking into are true. Then he should have been looked into. If was official policy in all those places to fire a guy looking at people with possible money laundering ties then there is something rotten in DC, London, Brussels and Kiev.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> Sources please ive yet not seen that.
> 
> 
> Well official policy of where ever the hell, or not. That doesnt make it proper for us to mettle in their affairs.
> Not to mention if half of the allegations including ties to money laundering and other past charges against the guy (owner of burisma and more) that the prosecutor was looking into are true. Then he should have been looked into. If was official policy in all those places to fire a guy looking at people with possible money laundering ties then there is something rotten in DC, London, Brussels and Kiev.



https://www.axios.com/ukraine-volod...ion-a81badba-892f-4a4f-9a92-0a6c7b1968a7.html

And behind a paywall but here's the Wall Street Journal running a story with the same conclusions - Axios is pretty solid as far as accurate reporting goes, but the WSJ has a clear conservative bent so it's tough to accuse them of being biased for running a story counter to Trump's claims.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-mon...ials-sweated-white-house-pressure-11570231665

And to your second point... Yes, I agree. Ukraine SHOULD have been looking into allegations of money laundering and corruption. The problem was, they weren't. That's why basically the whole western world wanted this guy fired, because their top prosecutor wasn't actually doing any prosecution.  Shit, man, I thought this was pretty widely discussed and understood in this thread by now, but I guess I was wrong to assume you knew that.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> That's why basically the whole western world wanted this guy fired, because their top prosecutor wasn't actually doing any prosecution.  Shit, man, I thought this was pretty widely discussed and understood in this thread by now, but I guess I was wrong to assume you knew that.



A hallmark of corruption is the selective enforcement. In context, you've gotta think the selective telegraphing of investigations with no charges attached to them was more about politics and likely hoping for a bribe or a favor to make it go away. That makes the way Giuliani and Trump used this information all the more ironic. Or not ironic at all.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Now now Max, stop exerting your coastal elitist mob mentality.
> 
> The middle of the United States deserve their say just as the Founding Fathers intended (even though half of those states didn't exist at that time but, moving on).
> 
> In fact, they deserve a disproportionate amount of representation at the federal level. What they lack in population, they make up for with their contributions to the economy... eerr, okay, well maybe their contributions to federal taxes.... err, okay well fine maybe not those things but definitely their contributions to technology. Not that either? Okay well maybe based on their contributions to science right? Okay well maybe not that either but you can't overlook their contributions to medicine...right? Hello?
> 
> It's a fucking joke. We're being governed by literally the stupidest and poorest among us just because they occupy a certain volume of land, and for no other reason. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers were written when there were just as many states inland as there were along the coast. The 20th and 21st centuries are basically both coasts wiping the middle's ass and being resented for it.



This is kind of exactly the point.
The coastal areas stand out because they're population hubs. The point is to not have the majority of the states in the country dictated to by a few states on the coast simply because they're extremely popular places to live. Of course if you stick an order of magnitude more people in one place, they're going to accomplish more stuff. 

Would you really make the argument that the opinion of California should be able to offset the collective opinion of Connecticut, Utah, Iowa, Nevada, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virgina, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, DC, Vermont, and Wyoming? Because if we're talking about purely population-based representation, they could. That notion sounds ridiculous to me. 



Randy said:


> Politicans of all parties and persuasions are beholden to much more powerful people than you, no matter what they say or what they project.
> 
> Picking a politican based on who you "like" is the same as marrying a prostitute and expecting faithfulness. Setting yourself up for disappointment and also heaping unreasonable expectations on somebody you barely know and has no loyalty to you.
> 
> That's about 80% of my frustration over Trump and his followers, it's all about idol worship when he's done nothing to be deserving of it. Obama oversaw the biggest turn around of the economy in modern history, he overhauled the healthcare system in a way that helped increase access to vulnerable people (like kids with preexisting conditions, etc), I voted for the guy twice but 90% of the time, if you heard something coming out of my mouth about the guy it was about drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay still being open or something else. Nobody is beyond criticism, and that goes ten fold for your representatives.
> 
> The fact that Trump voters bought whole hog on him just because he says mean things about people they're predisposed to not like is selling themselves off for very cheap. He was a crook, a con man and a cheat even before he took office and THATS the guy they decide to ride-or-die with. I said it just a few days ago, for every accomplishment he made, there's another three, four or five he left on the table just because he's an asshole.
> 
> You wanna talk about being petty? How about Benghazi, Hillary's emails and now the Bidens? Biden looking like he'll be lucky to end the race in 4th place and they're still pushing the investigations. Why? Because of Trump's petty fixation on Obama and because his party and his followers aren't going to be happy until they confirm he has a "perfect phone call".
> 
> These last two or three pages of thought experiments over how the Democrats are petty and impeachment was unfair and unnecessary was fun but fucking hilariously out of touch contrarian bullshit when you look at who's on the other side of the table.



How is being concerned about procedure being followed contrarian bullshit?
What's ironic to me is that I agree with this entire post _all the way up_ to the bottom. Just because someone's a dick doesn't mean they should be treated any different by law and procedure.
If he honestly believes Biden is worthy of investigation, why should he stop investigating him just because he thinks he won't have to worry about him politically?
If they honestly believe Trump is worthy of impeachment, why should they not do everything in their power to impeach him?


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> How is being concerned about procedure being followed contrarian bullshit?



Contrarian bullshit is the guy selectively bouncing between "the law is the law" and whether or not someone's intentions matter depending on which party he's referring to and which argument they're making. It wreaked of having his own personal bias/conclusions and resetting what he considered valid parameters based on if they do or do not arrive at his conclusion. 

That's acting like you want to have a substantive conversation but just faking rationality to make your own point sound more measured than it is.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is kind of exactly the point.
> The coastal areas stand out because they're population hubs. The point is to not have the majority of the states in the country dictated to by a few states on the coast simply because they're extremely popular places to live. Of course if you stick an order of magnitude more people in one place, they're going to accomplish more stuff.



Right, and my point was that it's the tail wagging the dog when you take that point to the extreme and reverse the dynamic so that now LESS populous states have MORE of a say in the outcomes. 

He specifically pissed me off when I said the President won with 2 million less votes than the loser and the vote to acquit the guy came from people who represent 18 million less US Citizens of the Country than those who voted to convict, and he's like "oh well, that's how it is". I'm just pointing out, yes, the minority has a role to play. But when an outsized amount of decisions that have a RESOUNDING effect on the MAJORITY of people, who make up the BULK of the economic activity in this country are decided by the substantially smaller minority, I think it generates some questions worth asking. That's all.


----------



## USMarine75

wedge_destroyer said:


> If that principal was innocent until proven guilty, and *not seeing evidence that proved guilt* to them beyond the shadow of a doubt, then they should have no blame to be felt.
> Because thats the *principle one should hope that every juror adheres to*.



-and by that you mean having no evidence or witnesses presented during the trial?

-or by jurors are you referring to the people playing with fidget spinners during the trial? The ones who said their job is to acquit the president and get this trial over with as soon as possible?

And let’s remember the whataboutism and pivoting. Hunter Biden is being accused of a crime with NO evidence. None. There has been no allegation of any actual crime. If you disagree... Please name the actual US Code violation you think he’s guilty of. Because the only thing he is guilty of as of now is the appearance of impropriety. It is a terrible look for him to get a $50k/mo job based on what looks like who his father is and no other actual merit. But to reiterate - not a crime. Hunter is not a federal employee and has no obligation to not accept a token job like that from a foreign power. Yet the Republican Senators are frothing at the mouth about how that is the real crime, these are the real witnesses they wanted to hear from, etc.


----------



## Ralyks

Not to mention, if you're going to bring Hunter Biden into this, maybe bring Jared, Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr., Who had no political experience, Along too.
Nepotism is a bitch.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Contrarian bullshit is the guy selectively bouncing between "the law is the law" and whether or not someone's intentions matter depending on which party he's referring to and which argument they're making. It wreaked of having his own personal bias/conclusions and resetting what he considered valid parameters based on if they do or do not arrive at his conclusion.
> 
> That's acting like you want to have a substantive conversation but just faking rationality to make your own point sound more measured than it is.


Strange you just described the same moving of goal post that is done by both sides. 

I never said intent doesnt matter, been pretty cut and dry that corruption should be burned out of both sides.

The respose you have given shows that, your confimation bias is entrenched to where your post reek of misplaced tribal rage. Because I dont toe a line? I have been consistent, in the following; no party affiliation, dont care for trump, and honestly want to see both sides held to the fire for their impropriety. I want to see us stop mettling in the affairs of other countries, which has sparked this mess. Pretty basic.



Randy said:


> Right, and my point was that it's the tail wagging the dog when you take that point to the extreme and reverse the dynamic so that now LESS populous states have MORE of a say in the outcomes.



Yes it would be if taken to the extreme which is not quite what occurred, nor was I arguing for an extreme.



> He specifically pissed me off when I said the President won with 2 million less votes than the loser and the vote to acquit the guy came from people who represent 18 million less US Citizens of the Country than those who voted to convict, and he's like "oh well, that's how it is". I'm just pointing out, yes, the minority has a role to play. But when an outsized amount of decisions that have a RESOUNDING effect on the MAJORITY of people, who make up the BULK of the economic activity in this country are decided by the substantially smaller minority, I think it generates some questions worth asking. That's all.



Well wasnt trying to piss you off, apparently you cant say the same, given the nature of how you adressed my posts.

I was stating that is what it is, (also never said we couldn't or shouldn't question it). Unless you go out and try to change it, and succeed, this is how it is. Further to that point our system has flaws, all do. We have a means of change to the system and that means a super majority in both houses and 2/3 of the states being in agreement. Until that happens, the current method is the law of the land. Dont like it? Fine but fact is fact.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

USMarine75 said:


> -and by that you mean having no evidence or witnesses presented during the trial?


No I mean that the house, whose job it is to build the case so fully and stoutly that witnesses in the Senate should have been an afterthought or only if needed for more clarification. If they presented evidence that did not remove all doubt then aquit.



> -or by jurors are you referring to the people playing with fidget spinners during the trial? The ones who said their job is to acquit the president and get this trial over with as soon as possible?



Oh you mean those people I have said from the start werent blameless. As they obviously didnt vote beyond the just following party line.



> And let’s remember the whataboutism and pivoting. Hunter Biden is being accused of a crime with NO evidence. None. There has been no allegation of any actual crime. If you disagree... Please name the actual US Code violation you think he’s guilty of. Because the only thing he is guilty of as of now is the appearance of impropriety. It is a terrible look for him to get a $50k/mo job based on what looks like who his father is and no other actual merit. But to reiterate - not a crime. Hunter is not a federal employee and has no obligation to not accept a token job like that from a foreign power. Yet the Republican Senators are frothing at the mouth about how that is the real crime, these are the real witnesses they wanted to hear from, etc.
> 
> 
> View attachment 77481



Well, the actual Us code funny i could spend the next 12 hours digging through legal code and could probably find something.

Ok if you're a professional prosecutor and you see the following, Son of political official, known drug user, in a country that he doesnt speak the language, on the board of a company of which he has no skill in the field, whos owner has ties to money laundering and was on a no entry list for the US, which was lifted after he joined the company. Father of son then gets prosecutor (looking into son's boss) is fired.

Sorry but that reeks of Nepotism and has ALL of the earmarks of corruption. Any prosecutor worth the air they breathe should be on that shit like a doberman on a bleeding steak. And anyone concerned with corruption should be even more concerned.

The Senators can froth at the mouth if they so choose they voted not to see more witnesses. They can move on down the line with those crocodile tears. My thoughts were Senate isnt required to hear witness and chose not to. I wish they had ok'ed them and dragged anyone and everyone with any possible connection up there and grilled them extra fucking crispy.

Whataboutism? Huh such an odd buzzword, it doesnt have much merit when dealing from a perspective of both side were wrong, in method, action and probably reasoning.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> Contrarian bullshit is the guy selectively bouncing between "the law is the law" and whether or not someone's intentions matter depending on which party he's referring to and which argument they're making. It wreaked of having his own personal bias/conclusions and resetting what he considered valid parameters based on if they do or do not arrive at his conclusion.



Where did this happen? Did we read two different conversations?



Randy said:


> But when an outsized amount of decisions that have a RESOUNDING effect on the MAJORITY of people, who make up the BULK of the economic activity in this country are decided by the substantially smaller minority, I think it generates some questions worth asking. That's all.



Questions like what? 
This stuff doesn't just affect San Francisco millionaires, it affects everybody. Why is majority of people more important than majority of states? What role does the minority have to play if they aren't already playing it?
Popular vote counts and senator representation are apples and oranges. They're both fruit but that's about it. Would you feel better if Cruz flipped instead of Romney? Texas is pretty big.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Ralyks said:


> Not to mention, if you're going to bring Hunter Biden into this, maybe bring Jared, Ivanka, Eric, and Don Jr., Who had no political experience, Along too.
> Nepotism is a bitch.



As a matter of fact, Yes, please. Nepotisim is a soft form of corruption and as such should be, attacked where ever found


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Would you feel better if Cruz flipped instead of Romney? Texas is pretty big.



Flipped what?


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Why is majority of people more important than majority of states?



Because a "majority of states" that's not also "a majority of people" is a bunch of empty fucking space  C'mon guys.


----------



## vilk

People eat, people work, people pay the rent. "States" are just some invisible lines some asshole doodled on a map.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> Flipped what?



Didn't you hear? Having an opinion on something that doesn't align with the lock-step requirements of your political party clearly means that you are 100% the enemy, never were on their side to begin with, and are un-fit to hold your elected position. And if you lost an election, like every single other person who ran except for the single winner, that clearly means that you're a loser and incapable of doing anything else, ever.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Flipped what?



Party lines on the impeachment vote? 
What point are you trying to make?



Randy said:


> Because a "majority of states" that's not also "a majority of people" is a bunch of empty fucking space  C'mon guys.



A huge part of the foundation of the country is based on the idea of state's rights.
How can we say we respect state-level government, and then go "yea but where's your people tho?" when shit gets weird. Why don't we just axe Delaware and merge it with Maryland? Why not squish Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut together? I'm sure they'd all love that.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

spudmunkey said:


> Didn't you hear? Having an opinion on something that doesn't align with the lock-step requirements of your political party clearly means that you are 100% the enemy, never were on their side to begin with, and are un-fit to hold your elected position. And if you lost an election, like every single other person who ran except for the single winner, that clearly means that you're a loser and incapable of doing anything else, ever.



Sweet christ, are we really reading this deep into _*one*_ word? _*One word*_ that clearly made sense in it's context? 

To think I forgot why I stopped posting in here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Party lines on the impeachment vote?
> What point are you trying to make?



I just don't understand what you were getting at within context.

Romney and Cruz are Senators, population doesn't mean anything.

What were you trying to say? I'm just asking for clarification. 



> A huge part of the foundation of the country is based on the idea of state's rights.
> How can we say we respect state-level government, and then go "yea but where's your people tho?" when shit gets weird. Why don't we just axe Delaware and merge it with Maryland? Why not squish Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut together? I'm sure they'd all love that.



This isn't a state's rights issue. It's a federal issue.

Making all votes count equally, nationally, doesn't remove rights from the individual state.

Removing the electoral college wouldn't make it illegal for Wyoming to make laws for Wyoming.


----------



## bostjan

Thread is getting a little warm. I might duck out. It's not my intention to piss anyone off.

The States were originally supposed to be like little countries with their own currency, their own army, their own government, etc., when the Constitution was written. Like the EU with Germany, France, Spain, etc., but pretty soon, the states abandoned a lot of those things, and after the Civil War, the entire idea was dropped and the states became districts (basically).

Places like Alaska never really made any sense as a state, from a constitutional standpoint. The fact that the Senate is based on states and the House is based on population is a sort of roundabout and mostly ineffective way of minority/majority compromise control. Except it clearly has a lot of problems.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Drew said:


> https://www.axios.com/ukraine-volod...ion-a81badba-892f-4a4f-9a92-0a6c7b1968a7.html
> 
> And behind a paywall but here's the Wall Street Journal running a story with the same conclusions - Axios is pretty solid as far as accurate reporting goes, but the WSJ has a clear conservative bent so it's tough to accuse them of being biased for running a story counter to Trump's claims.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-mon...ials-sweated-white-house-pressure-11570231665


Ok so for starters if you're going to link to a source behind a paywall, archive it, and post the archive, as I am not going to give the WSJ money, and as i cant verifiy what is in the article, it is not very useful as a source.
Second, and more to the point these memos may exist and they may be honest in their story but they dont provide links or copies of the document, just hearsay from several anonymous sources apparently in the state department. If they have the memos lets see them. Bring it to the sunlight.

This is my issue with ALL news media. And any story I read gets the same level of skeptical doubt, be it from CBS, Fox, Axios, or Infowars.



> And to your second point... Yes, I agree. Ukraine SHOULD have been looking into allegations of money laundering and corruption. The problem was, they weren't. That's why basically the whole western world wanted this guy fired, because their top prosecutor wasn't actually doing any prosecution.  Shit, man, I thought this was pretty widely discussed and understood in this thread by now, but I guess I was wrong to assume you knew that.



Even if he was fucking up everything which is possible, its still striking (to the point of being peculiar) that he is only catches the boot when the one investigation that we DO know he was doing, is into Burisma, and gets fired by a guy who's son is on the board of directors for Burisma. 
What kind of person with any logic or concerns of corruption sees that and says "oh they said nothing to see here, guess I'll move along"?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Let's say Joe Biden did collude to remove the prosecutor to save the sweet gig his son had.

How does that: a) make it okay to withhold military aid, b) have a foreign power investigate an immediate political rival, and c) explain why they did it in the most outwardly shady way possible?

Are there no better channels to investigate and hunt corruption then getting your personal lawyer and his buddies to play spy?


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> And to your second point... Yes, I agree. Ukraine SHOULD have been looking into allegations of money laundering and corruption. The problem was, they weren't. That's why basically the whole western world wanted this guy fired, because their top prosecutor wasn't actually doing any prosecution.  Shit, man, I thought this was pretty widely discussed and understood in this thread by now, but I guess I was wrong to assume you knew that.



Whaaaaat???

How the hell CAN you do business in a place like Ukraine without a bit of money laundering?

It's normal, it's expected, and "uncovering" it all would wipe out the economy overnight.

Some reforms gotta go gently and slowly to work. Prosecuting everybody because some foreigners want certain scalps is neither smart nor justice.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Whaaaaat???
> 
> How the hell CAN you do business in a place like Ukraine without a bit of money laundering?
> 
> It's normal, it's expected, and "uncovering" it all would wipe out the economy overnight.
> 
> Some reforms gotta go gently and slowly to work. Prosecuting everybody because some foreigners want certain scalps is neither smart nor justice.



How am I the one quoted here? 

Fucking Xenforo.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> Ok so for starters if you're going to link to a source behind a paywall, archive it, and post the archive, as I am not going to give the WSJ money, and as i cant verifiy what is in the article, it is not very useful as a source.
> Second, and more to the point these memos may exist and they may be honest in their story but they dont provide links or copies of the document, just hearsay from several anonymous sources apparently in the state department. If they have the memos lets see them. Bring it to the sunlight.
> 
> This is my issue with ALL news media. And any story I read gets the same level of skeptical doubt, be it from CBS, Fox, Axios, or Infowars.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he was fucking up everything which is possible, its still striking (to the point of being peculiar) that he is only catches the boot when the one investigation that we DO know he was doing, is into Burisma, and gets fired by a guy who's son is on the board of directors for Burisma.
> What kind of person with any logic or concerns of corruption sees that and says "oh they said nothing to see here, guess I'll move along"?


Ok, holy shit, way to miss the fucking point. 

I'm not a wall street journal subscriber, I don't want to give them money either. But, Axios is an extremely credible source, is NOT behind a paywall, and I only provided WSJ as well - as an edit no less - just so you couldn't then say it was some "liberal media" conspiracy.

Anyway, rather than going into a diatribe against the media, you asked for a source confirming that Zelensky was so concerned about White House pressure that he called a meeting specifically to discuss how to navigate said pressure. I provided you two.

And the reason everyone knows about the Burisma investigation is because, wait for it, Trump leaned on the Ukrainians to reopen that investigation and publicly tie it to the Bidens, and ended up getting impeached for abuse of power for doing so. Prior to September or so, not a soul in America who wasn't involved in eastern european energy or foreign policy/anticorruption had the faintest idea what Burisma was, until Trump seized on it as a way to go after his perceived 2020 main rival.

And, again, the issue here was that this prosecutor was NOT investigating Burisma, or really any other corruption in Ukraine for that matter, either. The supreme irony of this is that the GOP and right-wing media is trying to paint Biden (along with the entire western diplomatic community) getting this dude fired as some nefarious scandal, where in reality if Biden wanted to "protect his son," the single best thing he could have done was look the other way and let this guy continue to not investigate corruption.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Drew said:


> Ok, holy shit, way to miss the fucking point.
> 
> I'm not a wall street journal subscriber, I don't want to give them money either. But, Axios is an extremely credible source, is NOT behind a paywall, and I only provided WSJ as well - as an edit no less - just so you couldn't then say it was some "liberal media" conspiracy.
> 
> Anyway, rather than going into a diatribe against the media, you asked for a source confirming that Zelensky was so concerned about White House pressure that he called a meeting specifically to discuss how to navigate said pressure. I provided you two.
> 
> And the reason everyone knows about the Burisma investigation is because, wait for it, Trump leaned on the Ukrainians to reopen that investigation and publicly tie it to the Bidens, and ended up getting impeached for abuse of power for doing so. Prior to September or so, not a soul in America who wasn't involved in eastern european energy or foreign policy/anticorruption had the faintest idea what Burisma was, until Trump seized on it as a way to go after his perceived 2020 main rival.
> 
> And, again, the issue here was that this prosecutor was NOT investigating Burisma, or really any other corruption in Ukraine for that matter, either. The supreme irony of this is that the GOP and right-wing media is trying to paint Biden (along with the entire western diplomatic community) getting this dude fired as some nefarious scandal, where in reality if Biden wanted to "protect his son," the single best thing he could have done was look the other way and let this guy continue to not investigate corruption.



You took my quibble farther than intended, I'll try to hit it quickly,

You did provide a source that has a good record. I was not disputing the facts there in, simply a gripe that many of the articles, from both sides, will speak to KNOWING what is said on these memos, documents, ect. Okay, so they tell me what it says, thats all well and good, but all humans have a slant of some sort even if they worked to remove it. So show me damned document or dont phrase it as hard fact without a document. Any Breitbart article would have drawn the same criticism if it did the same thing. Its not a right or left item to me. 
The journalist may be upfront with the info they have given to them by a source. Is the source lying or do they have an axe to grind? I cant know for sure. Prove they aren't with the documents.

Also as someone who payed close attention the Donbass war, yes i was familiar with Burisma prior to 2019, it pays to know the basic players in the hotspots that were making news (energy firms are kind of important with russians at the door).

Fine even if he wasnt invesgating them, there are mixed reports of documents that show he (or his subordinates) were but same validity issue I complained about with the aforementioned memo.

It is still not the job of Our Vice President (or any leader) to be holding back aid to a country supposedly an ally, in a shooting war, to fire one of their officials. 
National Sovereignty do you respect it?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Let's say Joe Biden did collude to remove the prosecutor to save the sweet gig his son had.
> 
> How does that: a) make it okay to withhold military aid, b) have a foreign power investigate an immediate political rival, and c) explain why they did it in the most outwardly shady way possible?
> 
> Are there no better channels to investigate and hunt corruption then getting your personal lawyer and his buddies to play spy?



A. It doesnt however its not as hot of a war currently. But refusing to send weaponry to an ally in hot war wasn't okay either. Both sides handled it wrong.
B. I read the transcript, im neutral, its odd defiantely not perfect. But he seemed more concerned with corruption. Could easily be totally political. It could also be an amateur bumbling about wanting to start deal with corruption. My take is the truth seems to be lost in the middle.
C. Anti-Corruption cases often look shady, because by definition they are dealing with the possibility that the probable investgators, as the circle of involvement expands, are also corrupt. As a result they look a bit more cloak and dagger. Honestly there are items that he could have pulled off cleaner if thats what he is doing but he is a noob in the Anti-Corruption game.

There are certainly better channels, but the trust factors come to play. Its been shown he cant trust his NSC, probably doesnt trust a lot of the "normal channels". He could have followed the normal paths, special prosecutors, and anti corruption task forces. Only he knows exactly why he didnt.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wedge_destroyer said:


> A. It doesnt however its not as hot of a war currently. But refusing to send weaponry to an ally in hot war wasn't okay either. Both sides handled it wrong.
> B. I read the transcript, im neutral, its odd defiantely not perfect. But he seemed more concerned with corruption. Could easily be totally political. It could also be an amateur bumbling about wanting to start deal with corruption. My take is the truth seems to be lost in the middle.
> C. Anti-Corruption cases often look shady, because by definition they are dealing with the possibility that the probable investgators, as the circle of involvement expands, are also corrupt. As a result they look a bit more cloak and dagger. Honestly there are items that he could have pulled off cleaner if thats what he is doing but he is a noob in the Anti-Corruption game.
> 
> There are certainly better channels, but the trust factors come to play. Its been shown he cant trust his NSC, probably doesnt trust a lot of the "normal channels". He could have followed the normal paths, special prosecutors, and anti corruption task forces. Only he knows exactly why he didnt.



Do you think the target of Trump's first foray into anti-corruption was chosen in good faith?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Because a "majority of states" that's not also "a majority of people" is a bunch of empty fucking space  C'mon guys.



Yes but as states those empty spaces, have rights, and that includes equal representation in the senate. Corporations have rights too, not that it makes any sense as they dont even have a population.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do you think the target of Trump's first foray into anti-corruption was chosen in good faith?



I think it was low hanging fruit. 
Finding corruption in Ukraine, the Balkans, or Chicago is like finding a crow near a cornfield. Sprinkle some shady links to the previous administration, a company with (false) links election mettling, and a guy with known underworld ties, and large stakes in both large natural gas and banking firms who is also tied to the previous administration. 

Seems like a quick easy case. The fact is that being tied in what looks like nepotism to any one in Obama's white house. That means an added bonus if it pans out in addition to the corruption win. It also brings the spectre of is it for political purpose.He probabaly just couldnt help himself.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

@USMarine75 becuase i was unable to edit the previous post, here you are. The RICO Act, may hold some items as being linked to (paid by) a person with money laundering allegations against them, that likely does put RICO on the table. Or at the very least an investigation into it under RICO.


----------



## bostjan

wedge_destroyer said:


> I was not disputing the facts there in, simply a gripe that many of the articles, from both sides, will speak to KNOWING what is said on these memos, documents, ect. Okay, so they tell me what it says, thats all well and good, but all humans have a slant of some sort even if they worked to remove it. So show me damned document or dont phrase it as hard fact without a document. Any Breitbart article would have drawn the same criticism if it did the same thing. Its not a right or left item to me.
> The journalist may be upfront with the info they have given to them by a source. Is the source lying or do they have an axe to grind? I cant know for sure. Prove they aren't with the documents.



I agree in general, but, if the original document is in Ukrainian and the article/analysis is in English, theyobviously are not going to post the original.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

bostjan said:


> I agree in general, but, if the original document is in Ukrainian and the article/analysis is in English, theyobviously are not going to post the original.



In the age of print I would argree with that in theory and in practice. However in the age of the internet and numerous different translation programs available, to those of us that wish to take the time, that agrument has less merit than it previously held.
If they are being honest in their analysis they should have no problems in putting forth the documents. The language barriers are weakening, and no longer really constitute a reason to not publish documents.

To build an analysis on what is essentially the claims of two unknown people, who saw it, is hearsay. If the reporter never saw the documents then articles should not be phrased in absolutes.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> You took my quibble farther than intended, I'll try to hit it quickly,
> 
> You did provide a source that has a good record. I was not disputing the facts there in, simply a gripe that many of the articles, from both sides, will speak to KNOWING what is said on these memos, documents, ect. Okay, so they tell me what it says, thats all well and good, but all humans have a slant of some sort even if they worked to remove it. So show me damned document or dont phrase it as hard fact without a document. Any Breitbart article would have drawn the same criticism if it did the same thing. Its not a right or left item to me.
> The journalist may be upfront with the info they have given to them by a source. Is the source lying or do they have an axe to grind? I cant know for sure. Prove they aren't with the documents.
> 
> Also as someone who payed close attention the Donbass war, yes i was familiar with Burisma prior to 2019, it pays to know the basic players in the hotspots that were making news (energy firms are kind of important with russians at the door).
> 
> Fine even if he wasnt invesgating them, there are mixed reports of documents that show he (or his subordinates) were but same validity issue I complained about with the aforementioned memo.
> 
> It is still not the job of Our Vice President (or any leader) to be holding back aid to a country supposedly an ally, in a shooting war, to fire one of their officials.
> National Sovereignty do you respect it?


 

1) Can't IMAGINE why Axios or the Wall Street Journal weren't publishing internal State Department memos. You wanted a source. I gave you one. Are you disputing that Zelensky was so concerned about pressure from the White House that he called a meeting specifically on that subject not long before the call in question? 

2) Mixed reports? Source please. 

3) I honestly think you don't have an understanding of why Trump was impeached over this. Biden, with the full blessing of the Obama administration, and with the full coordinated support of the international community, _threatened_ to have the US cut off a commitment for _future _aid, to Ukraine, for failing to live up to their anti-corruption commitments they had made. Trump went and _did_ cut off _previously Congressionally-approved_ aid, something the President does not have authority to do, unilaterally and in direct contradiction of both US and international policy, with a clear political motive, and only released the aid after news of the whistleblower report had been made public. Biden was playing hardball while advancing US and EU policy goals, while Trump went rogue and was _circumventing_ US and EU political goals for personal gain. Please tell me you understand why these two actions are extremely different.


----------



## USMarine75

wedge_destroyer said:


> @USMarine75 becuase i was unable to edit the previous post, here you are. The RICO Act, may hold some items as being linked to (paid by) a person with money laundering allegations against them, that likely does put RICO on the table. Or at the very least an investigation into it under RICO.



You'll just have to trust me (or not) that I'm a subject matter here...

So what you're saying is... you want to go after a *US private citizen* employed by a *foreign* company with *no* (that I see) *commercial ties to the US (=* *no nexus, *i.e. foreign commerce with no tie to US commerce), again unless I missed something here), *no venue* (where did the crime occur or where is it tied to in the US?), and again _no actual stated impropriety by the accused_. You need several instances of predicate activity for criminal RICO to apply to Biden - which of the 35 criminal activities outlined by 18 USC are you accusing Hunter of specifically and with what evidence? Remember we're talking criminal malfeasance here, so you need to demonstrate probable cause (90%+) that he knowingly and willfully participated, unlike civil RICO which is more likely than not was aware (51%+).

Or, as above you allege he knowingly profited directly or indirectly from a RICO enterprise... well... Burisma Holdings has not been convicted of being a RICO enterprise - so, you are missing the required premise. IIRC the Ukraine prosecutor's office had procedural violations (missed filing dtaes IIRC?) and the criminal proceedings were dismissed. Additionally, Burisma Holdings has not been charged by any US federal court with any crimes.

Burisma Holdings is also a _foreign_ enterprise, not specifically covered under RICO. Famously, the courts stated RICO was silent to extraterritorial application. The 2nd Circuit ruled that for RICO to be applicable to a foreign company, you need to show a US law was broken causing injury to a US citizen (="the nexus"). Or you need to show his actions violated one of the extraterritorial federal statutes included as predicate acts under the RICO statute - meaning the crimes committed have to fall under extraterritorial reach. Which these don't, because those statutes (without going into to much detail) were designed to target terroristic activity, narcoterrorism, and kidnapping. Basically, without Congressional Intent (i.e. Congress intervenes and says we ascertain this crime should be considered under extraterritorial jurisdiction), those foreign violations can not be held as predicate acts, and therefore is not prosescutable under RICO. 

(Anyways, if you want to read some fascinating case law check out the RJR Reynolds case.)

Also, why is there no push to go after other prominent Americans such as Cofer Black, who also held a similar position as Hunter Biden?

More importantly, this is all whataboutism at its greatest. Because it does not matter what Hunter Biden did or did not do. It has no material affect on the case against President Trump. This is nothing more than political "she was asking for it your honor, did you see how she was dressed?".

Regardless of your political beliefs, there is an impeachment system outlined by the US Constitution. You don't get to pick an choose whether the system is right based on which side you're on. The fact that anyone can defend Senate Republican's and the Executive Office's actions is just astonishing. The House impeached President Trump. Regardless of your political views this was done according to the rules. The Senate should have held a fair trial, allowed witnesses and evidence, and then if they believed this was a sham then voted accordingly. The White House should have complied with subpoenas, just as the Nixon and Clinton offices did. What the Senate and Executive Office did was nothing short of a mockery of the Constitution, both literally and in spirit. I don't understand how anyone that is for rule of law can see otherwise.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/john-kelly-trump-criticism-vindman/index.html

At what point does a reasonable person say enough is enough?

As the wise old saying goes:

If one person tells you you’re an asshole... tell them to fuck off. 

If two people tell you you’re an asshole... you should think about it. 

And if three people tell you you’re an asshole.... you’re an asshole.


----------



## Drew

Bravo.


----------



## sleewell

is there a point where people check out and just stop caring?


no one really cared about separating families.

no one really cared when mueller said there were 10 easy cases for obstruction of justice.

no one really cared that he bribed a foreign govt to aid his re election. 

no one really cares that he is now intervening in the trials of his friends and forcing the prosecution of his political enemies.


i mean have we reached the point where he can do anything and people just won't care??


----------



## Drew

Eh, I don't agree with all of these: 



sleewell said:


> is there a point where people check out and just stop caring?
> 
> 
> no one really cared about separating families.
> 
> no one really cared when mueller said there were 10 easy cases for obstruction of justice.
> 
> no one really cared that he bribed a foreign govt to aid his re election.
> 
> no one really cares that he is now intervening in the trials of his friends and forcing the prosecution of his political enemies.
> 
> 
> i mean have we reached the point where he can do anything and people just won't care??



There was a HUGE backlash to family separation, to the degree that the administration had to backtrack, publicly at least. The public was pretty outraged, though. 

Mueller, fair... But Barr's pre-concluding that Trump had not obstructed justice probably had a lot to do with this. 

Strong-arming a foriegn government to get dirt on a rival got Trump impeached, and while he was not convicted by the senate, one Republican crossed over and a lot of the ones who didn't said they did so because they believed letting voters decide was the right answer. Only a plurality of americans wanted him removed from office (including 10% of republicans), but a sizable majority thought what he had done was at least theoretically grounds for impeachment, they too just thought voters should decide. People definitely cared. 

Too early to say on Stone... But this has the look of something that could turn against Trump as well. If nothing else, it's the sort of corruption that's really easy to sell to normal Americans - no one seriously denies that Stone was guilty of lying to Mueller and to Congress, and using his bully pulpit and his role as the head of the Justice Department to get a buddy a lighter sentence, resulting in the whole prosecution team quitting in protest, is the kind of straight-up sleaziness that it's hard to look past. Doubly so when, undoubtably, Trump pardons Stone anyway. 

I'm mostly impressed that Barr continues to go to new depths to "protect" Trump, really.


----------



## sleewell

zero actual consequences. most people don't have any idea what is actually going on. i think many have tuned it all out.

the executive branch diving into the judicial branch for personal gain is a huge deal and not one thing will happen. gop senators gave him a free pass to do anything and he isn't wasting any time.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> is there a point where people check out and just stop caring?
> 
> 
> no one really cared about separating families.
> 
> no one really cared when mueller said there were 10 easy cases for obstruction of justice.
> 
> no one really cared that he bribed a foreign govt to aid his re election.
> 
> no one really cares that he is now intervening in the trials of his friends and forcing the prosecution of his political enemies.
> 
> 
> i mean have we reached the point where he can do anything and people just won't care??



It's not that people don't care, it's that the people with the power to do something about it don't care.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Eh, I don't agree with all of these:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a HUGE backlash to family separation, to the degree that the administration had to backtrack, publicly at least. The public was pretty outraged, though.
> 
> Mueller, fair... But Barr's pre-concluding that Trump had not obstructed justice probably had a lot to do with this.
> 
> Strong-arming a foriegn government to get dirt on a rival got Trump impeached, and while he was not convicted by the senate, one Republican crossed over and a lot of the ones who didn't said they did so because they believed letting voters decide was the right answer. Only a plurality of americans wanted him removed from office (including 10% of republicans), but a sizable majority thought what he had done was at least theoretically grounds for impeachment, they too just thought voters should decide. People definitely cared.
> 
> Too early to say on Stone... But this has the look of something that could turn against Trump as well. If nothing else, it's the sort of corruption that's really easy to sell to normal Americans - no one seriously denies that Stone was guilty of lying to Mueller and to Congress, and using his bully pulpit and his role as the head of the Justice Department to get a buddy a lighter sentence, resulting in the whole prosecution team quitting in protest, is the kind of straight-up sleaziness that it's hard to look past. Doubly so when, undoubtably, Trump pardons Stone anyway.
> 
> I'm mostly impressed that Barr continues to go to new depths to "protect" Trump, really.


;

That last but has surprised me the most. I cannot understand why the Republicans have decided protecting Trump is their first priority. It boggles my mind.


----------



## Randy

Because his approval rating among Republicans are still sky high and they think they're still riding his wave.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> It's not that people don't care, it's that the people with the power to do something about it don't care.




the people in power take their queues from their constituents so they stay in power. if there were non stop protests in the streets or even if enough people were calling them in disgust they would do something.

they aren't taking these positions on their own. they are doing it bc that is what will get them re-elected based on all the polling they are doing.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Because his approval rating among Republicans are still sky high and they think they're still riding his wave.


...that and he has no qualms about lashing out at anyone who he sees as "disloyal" on Twitter.


----------



## Randy

Keep in mind that these are people that run in elections, including primaries where they're attacked from inside their own party, and they're constantly having pins stuck in them through the local and national media. So it's not like they're thin skinned or afraid of being insulted, they just shy away from being criticized by him in particular.


----------



## Ralyks

It's amazing the loyalty they have to someone that is going to get bent over by SDNY the moment he leaves office.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AVH19VAZmQ4GyTTvN9lakEg

Speaking of which...


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Drew said:


> 1) Can't IMAGINE why Axios or the Wall Street Journal weren't publishing internal State Department memos. You wanted a source. I gave you one. Are you disputing that Zelensky was so concerned about pressure from the White House that he called a meeting specifically on that subject not long before the call in question?



First item your op mentioning memos, in the way it is phrased alludes to it them being Ukrainian in source. Its also worth noting that you didnt read one of the sources you sited. Why would you use something youve never read as a source?

Second: Given the protections supposedly afforded to the press by the 1st ammendment, they ought to be able to do so with impunity.
Many have published internal government documents before, not just from the state dept either, DoD documents as well. Pentagon papers anyone?



> 2) Mixed reports? Source please.



https://www.kyivpost.com/article/op...culation-regarding-burisma.html?cn-reloaded=1

Although an opinion piece there are direct quotes from Ukrainian officials refering to the investigations underway during the time frame.

You mean to tell me that with 15 seperate investigations into the owner of Burisma, that NO ONE single person at all in the entire Prosecutor Generals Office didnt generate memos on that.



> 3) I honestly think you don't have an understanding of why Trump was impeached over this. Biden, with the full blessing of the Obama administration, and with the full coordinated support of the international community, _threatened_ to have the US cut off a commitment for _future _aid, to Ukraine, for failing to live up to their anti-corruption commitments they had made. Trump went and _did_ cut off _previously Congressionally-approved_ aid, something the President does not have authority to do, unilaterally and in direct contradiction of both US and international policy, with a clear political motive, and only released the aid after news of the whistleblower report had been made public. Biden was playing hardball while advancing US and EU policy goals, while Trump went rogue and was _circumventing_ US and EU political goals for personal gain. Please tell me you understand why these two actions are extremely different.



I do understand actually, because Trump paused aid, to get investigations (that never materialized), released the aid, prior to the deadline to send aid, without investigation being launched. Because he did this and it was against policy set by the previous administration, those in the NSC and state department blew a whistle. The people who had been calling for impeachment since inauguration went ballistic. Cue shit loads of posturing and a botched house investigation and here we are.

That Biden's actions are "perfectly proper" is simply that he was hiding behind "official policy". That it was policy agreed on by other nations that were not Ukraine, lends no legitimacy to my jaded eyes.
It does not change the fact it was literally the same action, more blatant if anything. If it is a high crime or misdemeanor for Trump, and there is consistency in our rule of law whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
The fact that you are arguing it is Ok for Biden to demand an official be fired because official policy. But not ok for Trump (who being head of the executive is supposed to set foreign policy i might add) to pressure for, not demand, an investigation.
I think both are fucked up actions and both should be punished. The fact that you say its fine becuse it was "Official Policy" backed up by Brussels and London tells me you dont have much consideration for the Sovereignty of the Ukrainians.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

USMarine75 said:


> You'll just have to trust me (or not) that I'm a subject matter here...



You are indeed a subject of matter.


> So what you're saying is... you want to go after a *US private citizen* employed by a *foreign* company with *no* (that I see) *commercial ties to the US (=* *no nexus, *i.e. foreign commerce with no tie to US commerce), again unless I missed something here), *no venue* (where did the crime occur or where is it tied to in the US?), and again _no actual stated impropriety by the accused_. You need several instances of predicate activity for criminal RICO to apply to Biden - which of the 35 criminal activities outlined by 18 USC are you accusing Hunter of specifically and with what evidence? Remember we're talking criminal malfeasance here, so you need to demonstrate probable cause (90%+) that he knowingly and willfully participated, unlike civil RICO which is more likely than not was aware (51%+).
> 
> Or, as above you allege he knowingly profited directly or indirectly from a RICO enterprise... well... Burisma Holdings has not been convicted of being a RICO enterprise - so, you are missing the required premise. IIRC the Ukraine prosecutor's office had procedural violations (missed filing dtaes IIRC?) and the criminal proceedings were dismissed. Additionally, Burisma Holdings has not been charged by any US federal court with any crimes.
> 
> Burisma Holdings is also a _foreign_ enterprise, not specifically covered under RICO. Famously, the courts stated RICO was silent to extraterritorial application. The 2nd Circuit ruled that for RICO to be applicable to a foreign company, you need to show a US law was broken causing injury to a US citizen (="the nexus"). Or you need to show his actions violated one of the extraterritorial federal statutes included as predicate acts under the RICO statute - meaning the crimes committed have to fall under extraterritorial reach. Which these don't, because those statutes (without going into to much detail) were designed to target terroristic activity, narcoterrorism, and kidnapping. Basically, without Congressional Intent (i.e. Congress intervenes and says we ascertain this crime should be considered under extraterritorial jurisdiction), those foreign violations can not be held as predicate acts, and therefore is not prosescutable under RICO.



Well i am not an expert in the field, however money laundering, and profiting from it is covered. Given that Zlochevsky is currently being charged with embezzling large amounts of government funds, which could easily include foreign aid money we sent them. Then paying a Us citizen, with nepotistic ties to the white house. And suddenly the ban on travel to the US for Zlochevsky, is lifted, while having 23 million frozen in England, for suspected money laundering.
Yea seems totally legit.


> (Anyways, if you want to read some fascinating case law check out the RJR Reynolds case.)


Ill have to check that out.


> Also, why is there no push to go after other prominent Americans such as Cofer Black, who also held a similar position as Hunter Biden?


No exposure, if the same thing is going on dig through and burn him if impropriety is found. But that he's not related to the any one in the white house has some effect.



> More importantly, this is all whataboutism at its greatest. Because it does not matter what Hunter Biden did or did not do. It has no material affect on the case against President Trump. This is nothing more than political "she was asking for it your honor, did you see how she was dressed?".
> 
> Regardless of your political beliefs, there is an impeachment system outlined by the US Constitution. You don't get to pick an choose whether the system is right based on which side you're on. The fact that anyone can defend Senate Republican's and the Executive Office's actions is just astonishing. The House impeached President Trump. Regardless of your political views this was done according to the rules. The Senate should have held a fair trial, allowed witnesses and evidence, and then if they believed this was a sham then voted accordingly. The White House should have complied with subpoenas, just as the Nixon and Clinton offices did. What the Senate and Executive Office did was nothing short of a mockery of the Constitution, both literally and in spirit. I don't understand how anyone that is for rule of law can see otherwise.



If anything im more pissed that rule of law isn't being applied more consistently. If Trump (allowed to set foreign policy by the constitution) is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors for the action, of extorting a foreign government, via aid, for investigations into possible corruption (allegations political motive aside). Then why are we not seeking to punish someone who extorted a foreign government, via aid, for firing an official? Where is the consistency? (Never mind the possible nepotism)

Yes the constitution does have rules on impeachment, and subpoenas, the executive can claim privilege on information or decline to answer (even outside of impeachment hearings). The Congress gets the option of dropping it, or sending it to the Judiciary, where it is ruled on applicable use of privilege or not. Which is what happened with Nixon. Thats the same thing that should happen with anyone who uses executive privilege to deny question from Congress. Dont care if its Nixon, Trump or Eric Holder when asked about fast and furious, if its not challenged in the Judiciary and ruled as not valid a use then its vaild and Congress cant do shit (unless they never sent the challenge).

I can only personally defend any part of the sentate's vote (I detest party line voting) in that the case was flawed procedurally in ways I have laid out. The short of it is that the house didnt have a minority hearing day, didnt follow proper methods for dealing with difficult witnesses, rushing through at breakneck speed. Then telling them we wont turn articles (passed on partisan line) over till you agree to our terms. Its not hard to see why the Senate wouldnt be happy on decorum reason alone, never mind that its ran by the opposing party.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

This was fun and all but yea i remember why i stepped back last time.

Got more important stuff to mess with, resoldering multi connectors, maybe run some scales.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/john-kelly-trump-criticism-vindman/index.html
> 
> At what point does a reasonable person say enough is enough?
> 
> As the wise old saying goes:
> 
> If one person tells you you’re an asshole... tell them to fuck off.
> 
> If two people tell you you’re an asshole... you should think about it.
> 
> And if three people tell you you’re an asshole.... you’re an asshole.



Yea, but it's like the opposite instance of that old Roman general / Marcus Aurelius legend. While the whole world is telling Trump he's an asshole, he has slaves following him everywhere, whispering into his ear, "Remember, you're number 1, the greatest, huuuge"


----------



## USMarine75

wedge_destroyer said:


> You are indeed a subject of matter.
> 
> 
> Well i am not an expert in the field, however money laundering, and profiting from it is covered. Given that Zlochevsky is currently being charged with embezzling large amounts of government funds, which could easily include foreign aid money we sent them. Then paying a Us citizen, with nepotistic ties to the white house. And suddenly the ban on travel to the US for Zlochevsky, is lifted, while having 23 million frozen in England, for suspected money laundering.
> Yea seems totally legit.



Appearance of impropriety and nepotism are not federal crimes.

I’m a 15+ year subject matter expert and you conquered me and shut me down with your internet warrior knowledge. You’re not even willing to listen to anyone else, even someone who clearly knows more on this subject. You so desperately need assertions to be true, so you can ignore and obfuscate what the evidence is clearly telling us.

You are still failing on several accounts here:

1. You are equating unequal actions - overt commission of crimes with evidence and witnesses; vs. implication of crime with no actual crime, evidence, or witness to wit.

2. You constantly defend against all reason with whataboutism - you say what about this, what about that.

3. You’re searching for evidence to prove your hypothesis is true which is bad science.

There is no reasoning with you. Because there is nothing sound or cogent about anything you say. You’re the worst version of Occam’s Razor - you heard the sound of hoofbeats, a subject matter expert on horses told you it was definitely a horse, and you said you have no evidence to the contrary except opinion, but “it sure sounds like a zebra to me”.

I hesitated to post and now I’ll bow out. But I’ll leave you with this... think where you’ll be in 20-40 years. Will you be on the side of right, or will you be downplaying your support for this regime.

I need to go back to my happy place - watching Andy James and Per Nilsson tear it up at NAMM 2020.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

USMarine75 said:


> Appearance of impropriety and nepotism are not federal crimes.



No but they are great places to start looking.



> I’m a 15+ year subject matter expert and you conquered me and shut me down with your internet warrior knowledge. You’re not even willing to listen to anyone else, even someone who clearly knows more on this subject. You so desperately need assertions to be true, so you can ignore and obfuscate what the evidence is clearly telling us.



Never questioned your expertise, just a quip on a typo. Then defended my position.


> You are still failing on several accounts here:
> 
> 1. You are equating unequal actions - overt commission of crimes with evidence and witnesses; vs. implication of crime with no actual crime, evidence, or witness to wit.
> 
> 2. You constantly defend against all reason with whataboutism - you say what about this, what about that.
> 
> 3. You’re searching for evidence to prove your hypothesis is true which is bad science.



1. By comparing extortion with aid (by the man who sets foreign policy), with extortion with aid (by the right hand man of who sets policy)? Or with the oddities in the Ukraine?

2. By asserting if guilty nail them both to the wall, the whataboutism in this case is not trying to defend trump AT ALL but wanting reform in government.

3. Hmmm what does an investigation do? Event happens, evidence collected, hypothesis forms, look for hard evidence that can prove or disprove hypothesis. Repeat ad nauseam.



> There is no reasoning with you. Because there is nothing sound or cogent about anything you say. You’re the worst version of Occam’s Razor - you heard the sound of hoofbeats, a subject matter expert on horses told you it was definitely a horse, and you said you have no evidence to the contrary except opinion, but “it sure sounds like a zebra to me”.



I cant be reasoned with because experts are human thus can be wrong. So when an expert says believe me. Is it wrong to say show me with hard evidence?
To use your analogy, why cant I theorize that its a zebra, until you bring a horse back. You may bring back a donkey and we're both wrong.



> I hesitated to post and now I’ll bow out. But I’ll leave you with this... think where you’ll be in 20-40 years. Will you be on the side of right, or will you be downplaying your support for this regime.



You act as though, someone who 1. Didnt vote for him. 2. Will not vote for him. 3. Knows there is something rotten going on. 4. Believes if that rotten thing is indeed proven to be a High Crime or Misdemeanor, nail him, and anyone else who did the same. 5. Thinks he wriggled out of it because the house screwed the pooch.
All of that and I support Trump? Really, wow, ok.



> I need to go back to my happy place - watching Andy James and Per Nilsson tear it up at NAMM 2020.



We can at least agree on this much.


----------



## USMarine75

wedge_destroyer said:


> No but they are great places to start looking.
> 
> 
> 
> Never questioned your expertise, just a quip on a typo. Then defended my position.
> 
> 
> 1. By comparing extortion with aid (by the man who sets foreign policy), with extortion with aid (by the right hand man of who sets policy)? Or with the oddities in the Ukraine?
> 
> 2. By asserting if guilty nail them both to the wall, the whataboutism in this case is not trying to defend trump AT ALL but wanting reform in government.
> 
> 3. Hmmm what does an investigation do? Event happens, evidence collected, hypothesis forms, look for hard evidence that can prove or disprove hypothesis. Repeat ad nauseam.
> 
> 
> 
> I cant be reasoned with because experts are human thus can be wrong. So when an expert says believe me. Is it wrong to say show me with hard evidence?
> To use your analogy, why cant I theorize that its a zebra, until you bring a horse back. You may bring back a donkey and we're both wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You act as though, someone who 1. Didnt vote for him. 2. Will not vote for him. 3. Knows there is something rotten going on. 4. Believes if that rotten thing is indeed proven to be a High Crime or Misdemeanor, nail him, and anyone else who did the same. 5. Thinks he wriggled out of it because the house screwed the pooch.
> All of that and I support Trump? Really, wow, ok.
> 
> 
> 
> We can at least agree on this much.



Sweet Jesus this is just too much to idiocracy and nonsense to reason with....




Tag @Drew you’re it.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

USMarine75 said:


> Sweet Jesus this is just too much to idiocracy and nonsense to reason with....
> 
> View attachment 77505
> 
> 
> Tag @Drew you’re it.



I can be reasoned with, its difficult as I only accept facts to alter my position, supported by actual documents, or multiple unconnected sources (I never take one article as gospel [often 3+] unless it gives me unredacted documents and even then). An article from the best news source on the planet, with only the reports of two guys that saw a document. To me is a most likely a trustworthy article (un or lightly slanted journalist trying to honest) about the hearsay from those two guys (who may be accurate or not [innocently or otherwise]), concerning a document they either don't have or won't show me. (Welcome to how an independent, and a skeptic operates in a fake news world. The common thread between left and right sources is both peddle lies albeit often different ones and often by omittion).

Its also very difficult when you approach anything with me in a partisan manner. Partisan arguments seem and often are tribalistic to be honest. I've no tribe, and detest the existence of both political tribes, so please dont waste both our time with tribalistic arguments, they will find no quarter with me.

This whole thing is terribly interesting to me because any time i point to something, that Republicans normally point to and they try to say "Biden did it too, and you didnt hang him, so stop trying to hanging Trump." But I'm not a Republican, I point to those same things, and instead say: "if you want to hang trump for this, ok prove the case, and do it. Why dont you want hang people that did the same thing? If its bad enough to hang one out to dry why not the others? Why arent you being consistent?"
And you guys act like I've a big fat R behind my name.

As i said before I believe its wrong to violate any country's sovereignty, by invasion, blackmail, or extortion via aid (A.K.A. OUR tax dollars). In both cases it is undeniable that aid was used as leverage over not just another sovereign nation but a sovereign ALLY. 

The why it was carried out by either party that carried it out is of minuscule, nigh microscopic importance to me, skulduggery is skulduggery, extortion is extortion, violating the sovereignty of our allies is violating the sovereignty of our allies, and none of those actions have a legitimate place in any proper government and whomever does so should be punished quickly and severely, when and wherever that behavior is found.


----------



## vilk

We understand what hypocrisy is; but what you don't seem to understand is that it isn't a logical defense. I personally think we should have mandatory minimum sentences for political corruption and clean house Spanish Inquisition style. But when we're talking about Donald Trump, it doesn't matter how hypocritical someone might be for not complaining about the same thing when a democrat did it, it's still not a logical defense of Trump or his actions. An appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, decidedly. It's a moot point in the context of debate.


----------



## Aso

I need to lose my tin foil hat cause when I saw this

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/tech/fortnite-taxes/index.html

All I could think was that it was done so Baron didn't have to declare taxes on his Fortnite currency.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Let me see if I can translate.


wedge_destroyer said:


> This whole thing is terribly interesting to me because any time i point to something, that Republicans normally point to and they try to say "Biden did it too, and you didnt hang him, so stop trying to hanging Trump." But I'm not a Republican, I point to those same things, and instead say: "if you want to hang trump for this, ok prove the case, and do it. Why dont you want hang people that did the same thing? If its bad enough to hang one out to dry why not the others? Why arent you being consistent?"



Because it sounds like Biden's actions were above board at the time, as far as policy goes. Even if the _*why*_ behind the action was shady, the actual action that was done was "innocent." 
The argument is that prodding people to investigate him over an action that was legitimate because "we just know" there was some sketchy reasoning behind it is infringing on judicial process. Something like that wouldn't hold up in court if it were done to you and me, since you had no reason to investigate me. So why should it work for Biden? It's a technicality. I'm sure most people in this thread would like to hold his feet to the fire over that action, but just because we want to doesn't mean we can.

This is what Randy was referring to in that earlier post about how you can't bounce between 'the law is the law' and 'he did a bad thing and should be punished,' since the _*action itself*_ was not against the law, even though we all know that if we could peer inside Uncle Joe's head we'd definitely find what we're looking for.



vilk said:


> But when we're talking about Donald Trump, it doesn't matter how hypocritical someone might be for not complaining about the same thing when a democrat did it, it's still not a logical defense of Trump or his actions. An appeal to hypocrisy is a logical fallacy, decidedly. It's a moot point in the context of debate.



He isn't trying to defend Trump. The point that he's trying to make is that the Democrats aren't showing any consistency in their actions since they aren't supporting any action against Biden. It's not a "Leave Donald ALONE" post, it's a "Won't somebody please get the pitchforks" post. Which doesn't work, due to that first block of text up there ^.



Aso said:


> I need to lose my tin foil hat cause when I saw this
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/tech/fortnite-taxes/index.html
> 
> All I could think was that it was done so Baron didn't have to declare taxes on his Fortnite currency.



Best post in the thread tbh


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> I can be reasoned with, its difficult as I only accept facts to alter my position, supported by actual documents, or multiple unconnected sources (I never take one article as gospel [often 3+] unless it gives me unredacted documents and even then). An article from the best news source on the planet, with only the reports of two guys that saw a document. To me is a most likely a trustworthy article (un or lightly slanted journalist trying to honest) about the hearsay from those two guys (who may be accurate or not [innocently or otherwise]), concerning a document they either don't have or won't show me. (Welcome to how an independent, and a skeptic operates in a fake news world. The common thread between left and right sources is both peddle lies albeit often different ones and often by omittion).
> 
> Its also very difficult when you approach anything with me in a partisan manner. Partisan arguments seem and often are tribalistic to be honest. I've no tribe, and detest the existence of both political tribes, so please dont waste both our time with tribalistic arguments, they will find no quarter with me.
> 
> This whole thing is terribly interesting to me because any time i point to something, that Republicans normally point to and they try to say "Biden did it too, and you didnt hang him, so stop trying to hanging Trump." But I'm not a Republican, I point to those same things, and instead say: "if you want to hang trump for this, ok prove the case, and do it. Why dont you want hang people that did the same thing? If its bad enough to hang one out to dry why not the others? Why arent you being consistent?"
> And you guys act like I've a big fat R behind my name.
> 
> As i said before I believe its wrong to violate any country's sovereignty, by invasion, blackmail, or extortion via aid (A.K.A. OUR tax dollars). In both cases it is undeniable that aid was used as leverage over not just another sovereign nation but a sovereign ALLY.
> 
> The why it was carried out by either party that carried it out is of minuscule, nigh microscopic importance to me, skulduggery is skulduggery, extortion is extortion, violating the sovereignty of our allies is violating the sovereignty of our allies, and none of those actions have a legitimate place in any proper government and whomever does so should be punished quickly and severely, when and wherever that behavior is found.



tl;dr - American political leadership do shady shit regardless of party.

I think the bulk of the resistance you're getting in here is because you frame everything as a "whataboutism", like I'm not allowed to complain about Trump withholding aid to somebody without simultaneously invoking Hunter Biden to make that point. Then you get flabbergasted that somebody would make such a partisan sounding comment, and you go 100% to the opposite side and start arguing that withholding the aid WAS justified because Democrats are shady about Hunter Biden, so Trump legitimately had a reason to ask and was justified in withholding aid because he was legitimately concerned with corruption.

The whole thing keeps getting spun around in circles. You can't decide if you want to analyze this situation in a totally open analysis or if you want to react (overreact, actually) to everyone else's perceived one-sidedness. It's like as soon as someone says something negative about Trump, you 100% decide that everything they say or think it tribal partisanship, so now you need to argue on behalf of Trump or his position, then you jump back and say "but I'm totally neutral on this".

It's tiring. 

First of all, not all of us in this thread are entirely one-sided. Drew and I, two of the more vocal liberal posters in this thread, both conceded Hunter Biden's involvement in Burisma looked sketchy. We both even conceded that Hunter Biden's testimony in exchange for others (say, Bolton) should've potentially been on the table, both strategically and because it deserved some answers. @USMarine75 and I used to scrap all the time because he had a different position on stuff like the military and some of the characters involved in the last few elections cycles; he is absolutely NOT a lock step Democrat or liberal, he more than most people I know decides on people case by case.

So the fact you paint this whole thread and everyone in here as an echo chamber... either your obsession with "both sides-ism" is hobbling your ability to have an objective discussion or you're masking your legitimate intentions as attacks on everyone else because THEY'RE partisan, not you. If you're earnest in wanting an entirely neutral, facts based conversation, you can't do it by jumping straight to the polarized counterpoint that immediately neutralizes any discussion. If anything, the fact that view every action as inherently liberal or inherently conservative is more of a reflection of your own polarized opinions than it is the facts.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is what Randy was referring to in that earlier post about how you can't bounce between 'the law is the law' and 'he did a bad thing and should be punished,' since the _*action itself*_ was not against the law, even though we all know that if we could peer inside Uncle Joe's head we'd definitely find what we're looking for.



Thank you.


----------



## tedtan

wedge_destroyer said:


> "if you want to hang trump for this, ok prove the case, and do it. Why dont you want hang people that did the same thing? If its bad enough to hang one out to dry why not the others? Why arent you being consistent?"
> And you guys act like I've a big fat R behind my name.



This is a big part of the issue others in this thread have had with your arguments: equating Trump's actions and Biden's actions in Ukraine is a non sequitur. Biden DID NOT do the same thing that Trump did; his actions were in support of US (and intentional) foreign policy intended to strengthen anti corruption investigation(s) in Ukraine, whereas Trump's actions were for personal gain. You continue to ignore the why, but it makes for a huge distinction between the two, and is why Biden's actions were legal and Trump's were not legal.

To equate the two is a republican talking point of late, so if you repeat the talking point, you can expect others to perceive your comments as coming from a republican (whether you are, in fact, a republican, or not).




wedge_destroyer said:


> As i said before I believe its wrong to violate any country's sovereignty, by invasion, blackmail, or extortion via aid (A.K.A. OUR tax dollars).
> In both cases it is undeniable that aid was used as leverage over not just another sovereign nation but a sovereign ALLY.



You are certainly welcome to your beliefs, but our providing of aid to a foreign entity is not something that that entity is entitled to merely by their existence; it's something that we elect to provide them with, or not. And, like it or not, using it as leverage in order to change their behaviors is absolutely fair game so long as it is done in accordance with the relevant laws and policies. It's only an issue when it is used in violation of those relevant laws and policies, such as Trump's investigation into Biden for personal political gain, which is why trump was impeached and Biden won't be prosecuted.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> First item your op mentioning memos, in the way it is phrased alludes to it them being Ukrainian in source. Its also worth noting that you didnt read one of the sources you sited. Why would you use something youve never read as a source?
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand actually, because Trump paused aid, to get investigations (that never materialized), released the aid, prior to the deadline to send aid, without investigation being launched. Because he did this and it was against policy set by the previous administration, those in the NSC and state department blew a whistle. The people who had been calling for impeachment since inauguration went ballistic. Cue shit loads of posturing and a botched house investigation and here we are.
> 
> That Biden's actions are "perfectly proper" is simply that he was hiding behind "official policy". That it was policy agreed on by other nations that were not Ukraine, lends no legitimacy to my jaded eyes.
> It does not change the fact it was literally the same action, more blatant if anything. If it is a high crime or misdemeanor for Trump, and there is consistency in our rule of law whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
> The fact that you are arguing it is Ok for Biden to demand an official be fired because official policy. But not ok for Trump (who being head of the executive is supposed to set foreign policy i might add) to pressure for, not demand, an investigation.
> I think both are fucked up actions and both should be punished. The fact that you say its fine becuse it was "Official Policy" backed up by Brussels and London tells me you dont have much consideration for the Sovereignty of the Ukrainians.



1) Clearly you didn't click on the links either, because while the WSJ article is behind a paywall, as is the standard for them the first three or so sentences are visible and you have to log in to read beyond them, and that was enough to confirm that they, too, were reporting that the US State Department had become aware that Ukraine was holding internal meetings to discuss pressure from the White House. So, yeah, I read enough of it to determine it was reporting the same news, and passed it along as a second source from a conservative publication that ALSO reported that the Ukrainians were feeling pressure from the White House. 

2) No, you really don't.  Your order of events is wrong. Trump released Ukranian aid _after_ the whistleblower report was filed, and in fact the media first began to suspect it may have something to do with Ukraine when after the story broke that someone had filed a whistleblower report about Trump's interactions with foriegn leaders, a reporter put twoo and two together and noticed that after a lengthy and unexplained block foreign aid to Ukraine had suddenly been released with no explanation shortly after the date the report was filed. 

So, basically, Trump released aid when he realized it was very likely about to become public knowledge _why_ he was holding aid. In plain english, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

And at the end of the day, you're just parroting Trump's impeachment defense here. I provide a source that contradicts your claim that the Ukranians felt no pressure? "Oh, it's not a first-hand source, it's worthless." On whether or not the differences between what Trump did and what Biden did matter? "Oh, well, Biden did it first, and it's Trump's right to set whatever policy proposals he wants for foreign policy, because he's the commander in chief." 

That second claim requires a proper breakdown of why it's bullshit, really. 
1) The oath of office requires Trump to use executive power in the national best interest, to "protect the Constitution of the United States." It does NOT empower him to use executive power to pursue his own personal interests. The presidency comes with a lot of power, but also without a blanket allowance to do whatever you want with that power. For his actions to be constitutional, he would have to have a reasonable basis that Ukraine announcing an investigation of Hunter Biden (not even investigating him, merely announcing that they were going to in public) was in the national best interest. His defense attorneys kind of fell apart on this one, and argued that he believed it was in the national best interest to investigate Biden because he believed his remaining President was in the national best interest and therefore he could take steps whose direct intention was hurting a rival candidate. That's clearly bullshit - simply refusing to cede the office of the president after losing an election or serving two terms would ALSO be constitutional under this argument, which is obviously not the case. 
2) The executive branch has fairly wide authority to set policy - within the constraints above, that it be reasonably believed to be in the national best interest - but has very little authority at ALL to control spending to support those policy goals. Spending is authorized by Congress, and once authorized the President is legally bound to see that it occurs. Congress authorized aid to Ukraine, and by blocking it, he was violating his constitutional duties even _before_ we get into motives. The GAO ruled on this about a month ago, and while the reasons are fairly wonky, concluded that the OMB was already in violation of the Impoundment Control Act by early August, well before the funding was released, for failing to notify Congress as to why the funding was being withheld and formally asking them to rescind it. 

The defense you're trying to make, that anything we don't have a direct firsthand source for should be ignored, that motives don't matter, and if they did the President still could set whatever policy he wants, and if he couldn't then there's no harm because the investigation didn't get announced and the funds were never released, is the same bullshit lines of rapidly retreating defenses the White House tried to make. Though, I'll confess, your sudden concern for the sovereignty of the Ukrainians is a new wrinkle, although it's worth noting that the reason the EU, US, and NATO alliance were pressuring them to do something about corruption was Ukraine was trying to _join _the EU and NATO, and both organizations have anti-corruption requirements for member states that Ukraine was not meeting. 

And a "flawed House inquiry?" The same House inquiry that the GOP senators ultimately concluded was so thorough that there was no need to call witnesses because all the charges had already been proven? 

Again, you're just parroting Trump's own talking points here, and Trump's arguments are full of shit.


----------



## Drew

wedge_destroyer said:


> I can be reasoned with, its difficult as I only accept facts to alter my position, supported by actual documents, or multiple unconnected sources (I never take one article as gospel [often 3+] unless it gives me unredacted documents and even then). An article from the best news source on the planet, with only the reports of two guys that saw a document. To me is a most likely a trustworthy article (un or lightly slanted journalist trying to honest) about the hearsay from those two guys (who may be accurate or not [innocently or otherwise]), concerning a document they either don't have or won't show me. (Welcome to how an independent, and a skeptic operates in a fake news world. The common thread between left and right sources is both peddle lies albeit often different ones and often by omittion).


Stop trying your refusal to listen to sources that contradict your own views as some sort of virtue. It's cheap expediency and you know it.



wedge_destroyer said:


> As i said before I believe its wrong to violate any country's sovereignty, by invasion, blackmail, or extortion via aid (A.K.A. OUR tax dollars). In both cases it is undeniable that aid was used as leverage over not just another sovereign nation but a sovereign ALLY.


This is another point that you seem to just not be getting.

Ukraine was an _ally_ in that they had a loose, non-member affiliation with NATO, but after the annexation of parts of their territory by [strike]Russian forces[/strike] unaffiliated patriotic citizens who were just really pro-Russian and definitely weren't plainclothes militia, Ukraine wanted to become a full member state. With full NATO membership comes member requirements, one of which being certain commitments to anti-corruption, and having a functional prosecuution system. This "attack on Ukrainian sovereignty" you keep going off about is anything but - it's a precondition for membership in a club they wanted very badly to join. Strengthening rule of law was one of the top criteria in Ukraine's Member Action Plan adopted in 2002. So, yes, this was entirely respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty - they chose to apply for NATO membership.

"I.1.A.8 fight corruption, money laundering and illegal economic activities, through economic, legal, organisational and law-enforcement measures; take the necessary steps to be removed from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) non-compliance list, in particular by passing and implementing law that meets FATF standards;"


----------



## sleewell

i only trust unredacted documents.

trump will only release redacted documents.


well that solves it, he must be innocent.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> i only trust unredacted documents.
> 
> trump will only release redacted documents.
> 
> 
> well that solves it, he must be innocent.


 

Seriously, this whole "sovereignty of Ukraine" thing is extra special. For one, if you truly believe that, Trump is running just as ramshod over Ukrainian sovereignty as you think Biden did. And two, if you're going to ask how we would dare to "violate the sovereignty of an ally," well the reason is taking immediate steps to fight corruption was a _condition_ of their becoming an ally.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/02/16/politics/prosecutors-doj-officials-barr-resign/index.html


----------



## Ralyks

I was literally just reading that article. Boy did this DoJ stuff escalate.


----------



## Randy

And yet, zero checks and balances in play to do anything about it. Because the same glorious 'low population states deserve representation too' system that gives you a lopsided electoral college to put a guy in is the same system that hands him lock-step support from his party. They're the body capable of removing and approving cabinet appointments, and they're totally please with how this is playing out.

Mitch for a while implying he didn't seat Garland because it was a lame duck session a year before an election, and he'd seat a Justice this year if it came up because Trump technically could serve another 4 years, now totally explicitly stating he'd seat a Justice because he and the president share the same party. It's brain cancer inducing.


----------



## Randy

Also, the Daytona 500 photo-op with the Presidential limo taking a lap would be considered cringey in South Korea and Russia, much less this supposed bastion of liberty and freedom we're living in. Compounded with Trump also calling himself "The King" this weekend.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> And yet, zero checks and balances in play to do anything about it. Because the same glorious 'low population states deserve representation too' system that gives you a lopsided electoral college to put a guy in is the same system that hands him lock-step support from his party. They're the body capable of removing and approving cabinet appointments, and they're totally please with how this is playing out.
> 
> Mitch for a while implying he didn't seat Garland because it was a lame duck session a year before an election, and he'd seat a Justice this year if it came up because Trump technically could serve another 4 years, now totally explicitly stating he'd seat a Justice because he and the president share the same party. It's brain cancer inducing.



Good ol' Mitch, elected by the state ranked 45 out of 50 for education and double digit illiteracy numbers.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Also, the Daytona 500 photo-op with the Presidential limo taking a lap would be considered cringey in South Korea and Russia, much less this supposed bastion of liberty and freedom we're living in. Compounded with Trump also calling himself "The King" this weekend.



This is vomit inducing.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> And yet, zero checks and balances in play to do anything about it. Because the same glorious 'low population states deserve representation too' system that gives you a lopsided electoral college to put a guy in is the same system that hands him lock-step support from his party. They're the body capable of removing and approving cabinet appointments, and they're totally please with how this is playing out.


Honestly, the only "check and balance" on Trump with any degree of efficacy seems to be the court of public opinion. He defends his guys until the backlash becomes so severe that he cant, and then he lashes out and fires them so he could look like the decisive one. Flynn is the perfect example here, but it's a pattern we've seen a number of times so far. 

But with Barr, I wonder what exactly that pain point would be. I mean, this was the guy who pre-released a summary of the Mueller report to get the "no obstruction" narrative out into the public eye, even though the Mueller report itself was very clear about the ten cases it presented that probably rose to the bar of obstruction of justice. This is the guy who is now launching an investigation into investigations of political figures, who launched an investigation into the start of Operation Crossfire Hurricane over alleged impropriety, who is now under the gun for - at a minimum - creating the impression of political interference into the Stone sentencing, as well as probably another half dizen things I'm forgetting here. 

At what point has Barr done enough shit that Trump can't risk him talking, period? I have to think that if Trump's former attorney general comes out and says he's prepared to testify under oath that he and Trump discussed his Mueller Report summary before release and Trump asked him to add the no obstruction collusion, that he and Trump had discussed blocking Ukrainian aid to get an investiation of the Bidens, that he had launched a number of investigations specifically at Trump's request to get back at people for their roles in his own investigations, etc etc etc, that at SOME point the Senate would have a very hard time sticking with Trump. 

I mean, Trump's supporters will probably stick with him right up to the point where he betrays _them,_ and being told the whole thing was a lie, the Dems were actually right, Trump was making you look foolish this whole time by your loyalty, and I can say this with confidence because I was in on it... There's at least a chance that cracks his grip. I don't even know how good a chance anymore, but it's a chance.


----------



## Ralyks

So now Trump wants Barr to clean house at the DoJ. After more than 2000 former officials said he should resign.


----------



## sleewell

trump is going to pardon everyone who broke the law to get him elected. and he will continue to pardon people if they donated large sums to his campaign.



he will not face any consequences. i think barr is just saying that and has no plans to leave or do anything that resembles justice.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> So now Trump wants Barr to clean house at the DoJ. After more than 2000 former officials said he should resign.



DT: "You'd better get rid of all those former DOJ employees!"

WB: "Ummm....ok. _*Barr waves his hands around like a wizard* _"Poof! Done!"

DT: "Thank you. That was easier than I thought. Who knew so many formers worked in the DOJ. Do they park their tractors outside?"


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> DT: "You'd better get rid of all those former DOJ employees!"
> 
> WB: "Ummm....ok. _*Barr waves his hands around like a wizard* _"Poof! Done!"
> 
> DT: "Thank you. That was easier than I thought. Who knew so many formers worked in the DOJ. Do they park their tractors outside?"


----------



## Ralyks

Stone got 40 months. And he’s filing an appear, which gives Trump more time to consider a pardon.

What’s democracy?


----------



## Randy

I'm not 100% convinced that's a definite considering he's let Manafort sit in jail for a while now.

My biggest frustration here would be how slow the gears of justice move, especially Stone getting two or three "redoes" after he violated the terms of his bail and now he's getting a hold on the sentence while they hear his appeal. Also, state and local districts like NYC and Washington, DC that have standing (and CANNOT be pardoned out of) that keep echoing the threat of stepping in but haven't.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Arib5I9KmSYGljmyOFcXDWw

Oh this is fun.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/Arib5I9KmSYGljmyOFcXDWw
> 
> Oh this is fun.



Thanks, I hate it.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Also, state and local districts like NYC and Washington, DC that have standing (and CANNOT be pardoned out of) that keep echoing the threat of stepping in but haven't.


My hunch is they're holding off because this would entail going nuclear - openly and aggressively piss off Trump, and trigger some sort of retaliation (see: TSA Pre-check getting blocked in NY in response to ongoing legal cases against Trump and "sanctuary city" concerns).

On one hand, I do think they go after Stone if Trump pardons him. On the other, the fact they're not isn't exactly an encouraging sign for the way Trump is putting his thumb on the court scales in this country, already. It's not like their concerns are unfounded, exactly.


----------



## Ralyks

So apprently, Russia is trying to help Bernie too


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> So apprently, Russia is trying to help Bernie too



"Help" is a very slippery term. I think we visited this in 2016, and there were narrative that Russia was trying to "help" Hillary Clinton but really the point was that they wanted to sow discord and attempt to buy as many politicans as possible.

Russia benefits from two things, either direct collusion (like a president who rolls back sanctions or avoids imposing more) or the US looking unstable and taking a diminished role in the world stage (so they can take their place in things like trade, for example). Trump had essentially delivered both but never underestimate their interest in hedging their bets or at least maintaining an overall impression of chaos as a backup plan.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> "Help" is a very slippery term. I think we visited this in 2016, and there were narrative that Russia was trying to "help" Hillary Clinton but really the point was that they wanted to sow discord and attempt to buy as many politicans as possible.
> 
> Russia benefits from two things, either direct collusion (like a president who rolls back sanctions or avoids imposing more) or the US looking unstable and taking a diminished role in the world stage (so they can take their place in things like trade, for example). Trump had essentially delivered both but never underestimate their interest in hedging their bets or at least maintaining an overall impression of chaos as a backup plan.




...or they think Bernie on the ticket would sow discord within the Dems and help their boy Donnie


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> ...or they think Bernie on the ticket would sow discord within the Dems and help their boy Donnie



Yeah, this was my thought.


----------



## Randy

They love playing both sides against eachother, don't forget them promoting both white supremacists and black lives matter groups on Facebook in 2016. I'm sure they're enjoying the tumult in the Democratic Party right now regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> "Help" is a very slippery term. I think we visited this in 2016, and there were narrative that Russia was trying to "help" Hillary Clinton but really the point was that they wanted to sow discord and attempt to buy as many politicans as possible.
> 
> Russia benefits from two things, either direct collusion (like a president who rolls back sanctions or avoids imposing more) or the US looking unstable and taking a diminished role in the world stage (so they can take their place in things like trade, for example). Trump had essentially delivered both but never underestimate their interest in hedging their bets or at least maintaining an overall impression of chaos as a backup plan.





Adieu said:


> ...or they think Bernie on the ticket would sow discord within the Dems and help their boy Donnie



I think it's a win-win. 

Russia wants to sow discord. Right now, supporting Sanders in the primary, and doing whatever they can to help push the narrative that "the establishment is out to get Bernie" and providing what support they can to Sanders/against other candidates a accomplishes a couple clear goals for Russia that I can see: 1) sows discord and division within the DNC, and shaking voters' faith in democracy, 2) increases the chances that Sanders wins, which a) probably increases Trump's odds of winning, though this is debatable, b) pairs a GOP candidate who wants to pull back from the traditional Western Alliance against a Democratic candidate who wants to pull back from pretty much all international commitments, giving Russia a vaccum to selectively fill on the international stage, and 3) probably increases the liklihood of further political fragmentation in the US, weakening faith in democratic institutions in general, but also contributing to a disenfranchisement of the traditional "establishment" voters on both sides of the political spectrum, where for all their areas of disagreement, Russian containment and a furthering of the US hegemony were always at least common goals. 

The fact Sanders is an open socialist and Russia has a vested interest in showing that free market economies with representative democracy are inferior to their oligopolist central economy is kind of the icing on the cake. I doubt Sanders was at all surprised to hear Russian troll farms were working to support his campaign, nor do I blame him for that, since the person who was supposed to be tamping down on this kind of shit to ensure it wasn't going to happen in 2020 is Donald Trump, not Bernie Sanders, and Trump is willing to take all the foreign help he can get, and THEN spin it as a "Democratic conspiracy, because they can't win so they're going to blame Russia" or something. 

Probably a comment better suited for the Primary thread, but the tricky thing as a Democrat here is to simultaneously acknowledge it's extremely likely to be happening right now, without attacking the beneficiaries (here, Sanders) of said help, so long as they're not courting it, which I have no reason to believe Sanders would do.


----------



## Randy

Haven't heard anyone mention this.... might be too grim for most people to go there, IDK. 

Considering the whole theme of Trump's presidency is "so what? those guys answer to me", the latest example being the national security guy getting the ax because he gave a briefing to an APPROPRIATE Congressional committee on Russian interference, and Trump was able to fire him because technically he works for the Executive Branch. How outside of the realm of possibility do you think it is Trump tells the Secret Service to not protect whoever his Democratic rival ends up being?


----------



## Ralyks

Soooooo everyone's fucked is what I'm gathering.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> How outside of the realm of possibility do you think it is Trump tells the Secret Service to not protect whoever his Democratic rival ends up being?



I'd be appalled if he could even do that, tbh.
If he could, I doubt he would- even strictly out of self-interest; that would be an unfathomably bad look.


----------



## JSanta

I think we should be paying VERY close attention to what is going to happen with the Russian Constitution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0187ca-4cf6-11ea-967b-e074d302c7d4_story.html


----------



## Adieu

JSanta said:


> I think we should be paying VERY close attention to what is going to happen with the Russian Constitution.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...0187ca-4cf6-11ea-967b-e074d302c7d4_story.html




....paywalled


----------



## Drew

Here you go.



WaPo said:


> *Putin as Russia’s supreme leader? A constitutional rewrite brings out some ‘crazy’ ideas.*
> MOSCOW — When President Vladimir Putin threw open the gates for Russians to propose changes to the country's constitution, the rewrite frenzy was on — particularly among nationalists, social conservatives, chauvinists and militants, who all dream of a Russia even more strident and militaristic.
> 
> Russia is revamping its liberal Boris Yeltsin-era constitution, and citizens and organizations have put forward more than 700 suggested amendments — many with a distinctly anti-liberal bent.
> 
> How about declaring Putin Russia’s “Supreme Leader”? Or maybe enshrining the country’s nuclear weapons in the constitution? Perhaps it’s time to work in wording to protect the purity of the Russian language, or elevate Russia’s “civilized identity” or preserve its “cultural patrimony”?
> 
> There are calls, backed by Putin, to rule out same sex-marriage and LGBT parental rights in the constitution.
> 
> And the Russian Orthodox Church leaped at the chance to scythe away the references to Russia as a secular nation, proposing words about God instead and highlighting Russia as “God’s storied native land.”
> 
> Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party — the ideological successor to the atheist party that governed the Soviet Union for more than 70 years — supported the church’s idea in a sign of the party’s drift from its roots.
> 
> Vladimir Ryzhkov, a historian and opposition politician, said many of the amendments were “crazy proposals” mainly from people who opposed the liberal, humanist constitution of 1993.
> 
> But it’s a road map of where Russia has moved under Putin, who ordered the constitutional redo last month as part of an apparent plan to keep his grip on power after term limits force him out of the presidency in 2024.
> 
> “Many people around Putin and many people in this country, they hate the [1993] constitution because it’s too liberal for them,” Ryzhkov said. “Now that Putin opened this Pandora’s box of changing the constitution, all these conservative, reactionary, nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-European, anti-liberal political forces feel the possibility to kill this constitution, to kill this liberal spirit.”
> 
> “That’s the reason,” he added, “so many crazy amendments are being proposed now.”
> 
> The deadline for proposals from the public is April 2. No date has been set for a national plebiscite on the changes.
> 
> Putin set up a working group of 75 doctors, politicians, musicians, actors, film directors, business people, sports figures and others to decide on amendments. One participant, former pole vaulter Yelena Isinbayeva, admitted that she had never read the constitution before joining the group — she saw no need to.
> 
> Putin is popular, but without some candy to attract voters, the turnout could be embarrassingly low, or worse: The result could be the wrong one. The bait is two amendments to index pensions and to set the minimum wage above the poverty line, even though that already happens under Russian law.
> 
> “There’s nothing new. Both proposals guarantee nothing. But it’s using propaganda to increase the support of these amendments,” Ryzhkov said.
> 
> Voters will be given a yes-or-no vote on the full text of the new constitution. So if they like the state commitment to social payments, they will get every other amendment, too.
> 
> In early February, Putin denied the changes were a ploy to retain power.
> 
> “The amendments that are proposed are simply dictated by life, I believe,” he told a gathering in Cherepovets, about 300 miles north of Moscow. “It is just that over the course of my term in the office of president and prime minister, it became evident to me that certain things are not working as they should.”
> 
> Putin’s critics say this is nonsense.
> 
> After 2024, Putin could take on a powerful post-presidency role such as State Council head. Vesting new powers in that body could create a vehicle for him to steer foreign and military policy and to ensure that his vision of Russia as a great world nuclear power does not unravel in some future orgy of corruption and incompetence.
> 
> There are other proposals for retiring presidents: One would guarantee him immunity from prosecution. Another would make him a lifetime senator in Russia’s upper house.
> 
> 
> Ryzhkov and others argue the measures would fossilize Russia as authoritarian and inward-looking, and weaken checks on power.
> 
> Among them are proposals to ban Russians who ever held foreign residency from running for president or parliament. That would rule out pro-democracy figures and business executives who have fled Putin’s Russia.
> 
> The new constitution could also give Russian law supremacy over international law — which would mean that the thousands of appeals by Russians annually to the European Court for Human Rights would be in vain. At the beginning of 2020, there were 17,748 Russian appeals to the court, which has often criticized Russian authorities for rights abuses.
> 
> Other proposals would remove the term “independent” from an article on the Constitutional Court and make it easier for the president to remove judges.
> 
> Andrei Klishas, the co-chairman of the constitutional review group, said many of the 700 amendments from the public expressed simple ideas, such as the desire for good health care and education.
> 
> “Many of these proposals are the same. They repeat each other,” said Klishas, who heads the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building.
> 
> “So our task as the working group,” he said, “is to look at these proposals, discuss them with representatives of civil society and then decide which proposal will gain the most support in society and then develop texts of amendments based on these proposals.”
> 
> About 40 are expected to make the final cut.
> 
> No matter what proposals come forward, Klishas insisted, Putin has ruled out any change to fundamental human rights.
> 
> “We discussed this situation with Putin several times, and the president’s position on this is very firm and strong,” he said. “The basic rights and freedoms should remain untouched.”
> 
> Klishas’s Federation Council office has eight chunky white telephones, underscoring his importance, including four hotlines without dials or buttons. When one of them rang, he asked Washington Post journalists to leave the room. His walls are decked with maps, bright icons and a photograph of Putin speaking on the phone in a grand office, a raw portrait of power.
> 
> Klishas said Russians who survived the chaos of the early 1990s — when pensions and salaries went unpaid or were late — associated Russia’s social stability with Putin, hence the need to write provisions in the constitution guaranteeing social payments in future.
> 
> Andrei Kolesnikov, a political analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center, said Putin’s recent dismissal of an unpopular government and promises of increased social benefits were designed to boost his popularity, just as his annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 saw his ratings soar, even as Russia came under international sanctions and denunciations.
> 
> “He’s trying to mobilize people,” Kolesnikov said. “But it’s really uncomfortable because Crimea was a really serious boost to his popularity, and the constitution can’t add anything to his ratings.”
> 
> An opinion poll by Levada last month showed that 47 percent of Russians believed Putin was using the referendum to expand his powers and remain in power. Still, 72 percent planned to vote in favor.
> 
> “Putin becomes the successor of himself,” Kolesnikov said. “But institutionally this is a problem because the simultaneous existence of the president, who is still empowered, and the head of a State Council, could generate conflict between these two figures.
> 
> “This has only been developed for Putin. There is no practical need for any kind of chair of the State Council,” he said. “This is all about Putin himself, not about the political structure.”


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Haven't heard anyone mention this.... might be too grim for most people to go there, IDK.
> 
> Considering the whole theme of Trump's presidency is "so what? those guys answer to me", the latest example being the national security guy getting the ax because he gave a briefing to an APPROPRIATE Congressional committee on Russian interference, and Trump was able to fire him because technically he works for the Executive Branch. How outside of the realm of possibility do you think it is Trump tells the Secret Service to not protect whoever his Democratic rival ends up being?


I could see him trying. 

I think if he tried, we'd get another whistleblower, and he'd backtrack as soon as the news goes public. But, I could see him trying, for sure.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Here you go.



Not all heroes wear capes.
What a crazy article. The fact that they're planning on an all or nothing vote is nuts.


----------



## JSanta

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Not all heroes wear capes.
> What a crazy article. The fact that they're planning on an all or nothing vote is nuts.



Sorry about not posting the entire article. I forget that I have access to some of these sources by virtue of where I work. I think what Putin has been pushing that country towards since he took power is very alarming, and the recent happenings there (including this) are quite concerning.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWhs-4vJ9TkmjWFftoym8mg

So the White House asked Congress for $2.5 billion for the coronavirus. Pelosi rebuked saying that 2.5 wasn't enough, that the White House should have asked sooner, and the House will pass their own bill.

Part of me was hoping they'd says "the coronavirus, or your wall. Pick one."


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AWhs-4vJ9TkmjWFftoym8mg
> 
> So the White House asked Congress for $2.5 billion for the coronavirus. Pelosi rebuked saying that 2.5 wasn't enough, that the White House should have asked sooner, and the House will pass their own bill.
> 
> Part of me was hoping they'd says "the coronavirus, or your wall. Pick one."


Well how do you expect to stop the spread of coronavirus from mexico without a wall? 

Maybe getting less attention here is the fact that so many of the cabinet-level and reporting-to-cabinet-level posts that would normally be responsible for dealing with our response to a pandemic, are either held by temporary acting appointees many of whom are badly unqualified political appointees, empty, or both. We're missing most of the infrastructure you would normally have to fight this.


----------



## BlackSG91

Trump is so dumb that he probably thinks the Coronavirus is a Mexican hangover...justifying his wall.


;>)/


----------



## possumkiller

Most of the time I want to help people. I want the top % to be forced to help the lower classes instead of taking advantage. But then I see things like this 
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/f7SkttJ
and I think these fucking morons get what they deserve.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> Most of the time I want to help people. I want the top % to be forced to help the lower classes instead of taking advantage. But then I see things like this
> https://m.imgur.com/gallery/f7SkttJ
> and I think these fucking morons get what they deserve.



I read about this when I woke up this morning and seriously laughed hard. He even said during the concert that he was talking about BARRY Sanders.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

possumkiller said:


> Most of the time I want to help people. I want the top % to be forced to help the lower classes instead of taking advantage. But then I see things like this
> https://m.imgur.com/gallery/f7SkttJ
> and I think these fucking morons get what they deserve.


Funny. Don’t assume everyone that is lower class is ignorant. I am making minimum wage but my head isn’t in the sand


----------



## Randy

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Funny. Don’t assume everyone that is lower class is ignorant. I am making minimum wage but my head isn’t in the sand



Oh, no high horse here either. I've spent most of my working life at or below the poverty line (including now).

I think the grain of truth in "poor and ignorant" as synonymous with eachother is that people are so guided by ego, there's a lot of us that wear being ignorant or uneducated on our sleeve as a coping mechanism. Like "I didn't go to college and I work on a farm because I'm not one of dem libtards".

I'm not sure when it STARTED in the Republican Party. I know Sarah Palin was the poster child for anti-intellectualism and they cozied up to things like being anti-science, etc but eventually the movement evolved into being anti-facts. Call it laziness, but there's a correlation between "poor" people who are too proud strive for anything better and being knowingly, boastfully ignorant.


----------



## possumkiller

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Funny. Don’t assume everyone that is lower class is ignorant. I am making minimum wage but my head isn’t in the sand


I never claimed to be a millionaire.


----------



## Demiurge

Looks like Garth Brooks' got fans in low (IQ) places.

I'll see myself out.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Boy, imagine when they find out he performed at Obama's inauguration...and refused to do Trump's. 

You know, and also openly supporting the LGBTQ community, especially same sex marriage. 

These morons are somewhere at the evolutionary crossroads of primates, goldfish, and lemmings. Really, a marvel of nature.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Boy, imagine when they find out he performed at Obama's inauguration...and refused to do Trump's.
> 
> You know, and also openly supporting the LGBTQ community, especially same sex marriage.
> 
> These morons are somewhere at the evolutionary crossroads of primates, goldfish, and lemmings. Really, a marvel of nature.



Stereotypes do exist. I was Army infantry, and the number of people that want to talk to me about loving God, Guns, and Trump is unnerving.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> Stereotypes do exist. I was Army infantry, and the number of people that want to talk to me about loving God, Guns, and Trump is unnerving.



To a lot of folks, music is an escape from the shitty world we live in. So it can be jarring when that world invades the escape. 

But, thinking every little thing is an attack, especially something as mundane as the name on a jersey, is pure projection. They see it as a petty attack because that's supposed to be their move. 

By "they" I mean the typical lowest common denominator pseudo-conservative trolls.


----------



## JSanta

Feds just cut rates, suspiciously after Trump was ranting and raving that they weren't doing enough to curb what's going on with the markets. So that's great.


----------



## sleewell

JSanta said:


> Feds just cut rates, suspiciously after Trump was ranting and raving that they weren't doing enough to curb what's going on with the markets. So that's great.




he just said he wants them cut even further. 

you know you would think that someone with as many bankruptcies and bail outs from daddy would be a little more economically savvy. but i guess being nearly illiterate probably curbed a bit of growth in that area for him.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> he just said he wants them cut even further.
> 
> you know you would think that someone with as many bankruptcies and bail outs from daddy would be a little more economically savvy. but i guess being nearly illiterate probably curbed a bit of growth in that area for him.



You've made the point I would make. Someone that has failed so frequently from an economic perspective has zero business interfering with the economy of both this country and the entire world. But here we are.


----------



## Randy

All these threads starting to blend together, but I'd be very suspicious of a week long stock market divebomb over coronavirus capped off on Friday afternoon, then two to four of the first deaths from coronavirus stateside and the first case confirmed IN New York City IN Manhattan over the weekend, and the next day of trading stocks bounces back whatever it was, 600+ points.


----------



## sleewell

yesterday was +1200

but yeah still lots to be suspicious of. 

i think the rate cut means its going to get worse before it gets better, probably more so than they initially thought.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

State of Emergency here in Washington. People are freaked the [email protected] out. I am employed by a company that sells things related to health and wellness. We have been having record sales lately. Trump is doing nothing to settle peoples nerves and actually adding to some of the paranoia. The paranoiac conspiracy theorist that come in have quite a few interesting theories. None of them based in reality.
Hold onto your butts.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Feds just cut rates, suspiciously after Trump was ranting and raving that they weren't doing enough to curb what's going on with the markets. So that's great.


Honestly, I'm less worried about Fed independence here, though Trump's timing was a pretty unfortunate coincidence. Fed. Governor Lael Braniard had, back on the 21st, made a speech that argued, effectively, that the Fed's tool kit was _most_ effective when used with the element of surprise, and not when the market was already expecting it and pricing it in. On Friday the Fed had indicated they were prepared to take action if conditions warranted, which initially calmed the markets somewhat but that calm deteriorated as we moved into the close. Today, the G7 statement was heavy on promises for coordination, but light on detail, so the market began to roll over. So, the Fed announced a surprise cut. Magnitude was on the higher end of what was expected, 25bps is their usual increment and they cut 50, but their next meeting wasn't for two weeks so this came a bit out of the blue.

Basically, the calculation is the Fed only has so many "bullets in the chamber," and with coronavirus absolurely crushing overseas demand and with demand here in the States expected to dry up too as consumers stay home to quarrentine, their thought was 1) this is going to be a big deal for the markets, something the markets are only just starting to realize, and 2) if they only have a handful of rate cuts at their disposal, they'd better go big and make this one count.

Trump's an idiot, and is no doubt blathering on about how they didn't do enough and they need to go negative, but this was (IMO, as someone who follows this stuff) an appropriate policy standpoint given the options available to the Fed. The fact this was unanimous is one additional facet. They needed to do something attention-getting to show they were serious here, and Trump is just an unfortunate sideshow.

Honestly, the markets are still off nearly 2% today and the 10yr Treasury was at last glance down to 1.03%, so if anything a surprise 50bps cut (I think the last time they did this between meetings was after 9/11) may have been too _little_ policy action - even broken clocks can be right every now and then. It's entirely possible we get a second cut at the regularly-scheduled meeting.



Randy said:


> All these threads starting to blend together, but I'd be very suspicious of a week long stock market divebomb over coronavirus capped off on Friday afternoon, then two to four of the first deaths from coronavirus stateside and the first case confirmed IN New York City IN Manhattan over the weekend, and the next day of trading stocks bounces back whatever it was, 600+ points.


I'm more inclined to think it was purely technical - some sort of bounce after breaching the market's 200-day moving average isn't uncommon do to short-covering or algo strategies following that indicator - but I've also heard it was potentially attributable to the Dems seeming to consolidate behind Biden and Sanders' odds of winning falling. I don't know if I would give that much weight, honestly. Coronavirus news wasn't great, for sure.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Honestly, I'm less worried about Fed independence here, though Trump's timing was a pretty unfortunate coincidence. Fed. Governor Lael Braniard had, back on the 21st, made a speech that argued, effectively, that the Fed's tool kit was _most_ effective when used with the element of surprise, and not when the market was already expecting it and pricing it in. On Friday the Fed had indicated they were prepared to take action if conditions warranted, which initially calmed the markets somewhat but that calm deteriorated as we moved into the close. Today, the G7 statement was heavy on promises for coordination, but light on detail, so the market began to roll over. So, the Fed announced a surprise cut. Magnitude was on the higher end of what was expected, 25bps is their usual increment and they cut 50, but their next meeting wasn't for two weeks so this came a bit out of the blue.
> 
> Basically, the calculation is the Fed only has so many "bullets in the chamber," and with coronavirus absolurely crushing overseas demand and with demand here in the States expected to dry up too as consumers stay home to quarrentine, their thought was 1) this is going to be a big deal for the markets, something the markets are only just starting to realize, and 2) if they only have a handful of rate cuts at their disposal, they'd better go big and make this one count.
> 
> Trump's an idiot, and is no doubt blathering on about how they didn't do enough and they need to go negative, but this was (IMO, as someone who follows this stuff) an appropriate policy standpoint given the options available to the Fed. The fact this was unanimous is one additional facet. They needed to do something attention-getting to show they were serious here, and Trump is just an unfortunate sideshow.
> 
> Honestly, the markets are still off nearly 2% today and the 10yr Treasury was at last glance down to 1.03%, so if anything a surprise 50bps cut (I think the last time they did this between meetings was after 9/11) may have been too _little_ policy action - even broken clocks can be right every now and then. It's entirely possible we get a second cut at the regularly-scheduled meeting.
> 
> 
> I'm more inclined to think it was purely technical - some sort of bounce after breaching the market's 200-day moving average isn't uncommon do to short-covering or algo strategies following that indicator - but I've also heard it was potentially attributable to the Dems seeming to consolidate behind Biden and Sanders' odds of winning falling. I don't know if I would give that much weight, honestly. Coronavirus news wasn't great, for sure.



And this is why I should defer to people that actually know their way around financial policy! I think my issue is that we are still well under the rates before the crash in 2008, and I'm sincerely concerned that we haven't been able to climb back up.


----------



## InHiding

I think it's fairly easy to understand why expertise and knowledge are not held in high regard. The fact is that a lot of people's quality of life is dropping so the "experts" didn't get us anywhere. If they are incapable of really improving the world and people's actual quality of life through better education, legislation and governance then why should they be listened to. They had decades to make things better and they failed. Now it's the time for morons and idiots to take over. I think this would be most people's logic (even if it's actually pretty flawed but I won't get into that).

I personally do not believe in free will at all (not backed up by any science where the opposite is strongly backed up) so I do not have any real opinions about this or anything else and no-one else obviously has either (or neither?).


----------



## Ralyks

Sooooo we're entering Idiocracy?


----------



## sleewell

i don't think you can say the system didn't work. it did work for a select few. really well in fact. look at the income disparity and how much it has shifted to the wealthy in recent years. top that all off with a massive tax cut primarily for the 1% and those folks are easily saying the system works for them which is why they hate a candidate like bernie. the problem is the system has failed the vast majority of everyone else so electing a failed reality tv host made sense to a lot of people who just wanted to say f you to the system without really knowing he would make things worse for them.


----------



## sleewell

its hard to argue with this logic:

“historically, the FOMC is reluctant to do an inter-meeting move on the fears that it looks like it’s panicking, that it conveys concerns about the economy from some insider knowledge, it feeds suspicions that it’s responding to equity moves, and lastly that it feeds suspicions that it was influenced by political actors.”

Reinhart added that the Fed “basically went four for four” on those concerns, which were reinforced by Fed Chair Jay Powell’s “pretty underwhelming” press conference that also failed to provide a rationale for the cut. 



so powell meets with the treasury sec and then cuts the rate right after that meeting. 

how can this not be inferred as political intervention in the federal reserve?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm more inclined to think it was purely technical - some sort of bounce after breaching the market's 200-day moving average isn't uncommon do to short-covering or algo strategies following that indicator



Not sure what you call that in-house but around here we call that a 'dead cat bounce'.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> And this is why I should defer to people that actually know their way around financial policy! I think my issue is that we are still well under the rates before the crash in 2008, and I'm sincerely concerned that we haven't been able to climb back up.


By all means, weigh in. I'm hardly infallible, lol. 



Randy said:


> Not sure what you call that in-house but around here we call that a 'dead cat bounce'.


That's pretty commonly used in house too.  



sleewell said:


> so powell meets with the treasury sec and then cuts the rate right after that meeting.
> 
> how can this not be inferred as political intervention in the federal reserve?


More likely he was giving the Treasury Secretary a heads up that they were about do do something so unusual they hadn't done it in 12 years. 

Whether or not the Fed policy response was _effective_ is definitely up for debate, and the fact the markets closed down almost 3% while the 10Yr Treasury closed at 1%, and hit an intra-day all time low of 0.909%, isn't a great sign. But Brainard, in particular, had been making the case publicly that if the Fed was going to do anything, they had to do it immediately, and it had to be bigger than a single cut, from as far back as even before the market rolled over the last week of February, and as far as Fed governors who when they speak they have my full attention, she's on my short list - extremely well respected policy thinker, and she's been calling for the Fed going outside the box for a while now. Additionally, this was approved by unanimous vote of the FOMC - there's no way Powell would have been able to meet with Mnuchin and then drum up everyone's approval in that time, if it wasn't something they were already talking about for some time now. 

The optics are pretty shitty since Trump was blabbering about how the Fed needed to cut rates when the news broke... But, at the same time, Powell's not an idiot and knew if they cut it could create the impression of a lack of political independence, and they did it anyway. That's saying something.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AET3TXp5BQ6SjGSboaLKu3w

Goddamn he's delusional


----------



## Ralyks

With Roberts chastising Schumer recently and how Schumer was during the impeachment, is he a liability for the DNC at this point?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> With Roberts chastising Schumer recently and how Schumer was during the impeachment, is he a liability for the DNC at this point?



Probably not. 

At least not on the short list.


----------



## Randy

It was a stupid statement, and Schumer has been totally limp dick on Trump's appointments and was limp dick on impeachment. And all of this from the party who's capitulating on rule changes to further restrict the powers of the minority party.

I think Schumer has been an absolute dumpster fire of a Minority Leader. Maybe they gave him the job with some expectation he could be more effective if/when the Democrats regain a majority but if there was any expectation of the guy slowing the Trump/McConnell agenda, the guys been a fucking turnstyle.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Haven't heard anyone mention this.... might be too grim for most people to go there, IDK.
> 
> Considering the whole theme of Trump's presidency is "so what? those guys answer to me", the latest example being the national security guy getting the ax because he gave a briefing to an APPROPRIATE Congressional committee on Russian interference, and Trump was able to fire him because technically he works for the Executive Branch. How outside of the realm of possibility do you think it is Trump tells the Secret Service to not protect whoever his Democratic rival ends up being?









https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...on-categorically-false-acusations-questioning


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I think Schumer has been an absolute dumpster fire of a Minority Leader. Maybe they gave him the job with some expectation he could be more effective if/when the Democrats regain a majority but if there was any expectation of the guy slowing the Trump/McConnell agenda, the guys been a fucking turnstyle.


I can't think of any real accomplishments or high points of his - even things like the ACA repeal's spectacular failure have a lot more to do with things like public pressure on moderate Republicans than any lobbying efforts I've heard attributed to Schumer. Pelosi, meanwhile, has kicked all sorts of ass as the majority leader in the House - her performance on the shutdown was masterful, I thought.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I can't think of any real accomplishments or high points of his - even things like the ACA repeal's spectacular failure have a lot more to do with things like public pressure on moderate Republicans than any lobbying efforts I've heard attributed to Schumer. Pelosi, meanwhile, has kicked all sorts of ass as the majority leader in the House - her performance on the shutdown was masterful, I thought.



You look at a guy like Franken, even with his party in the minority, his questioning during Sessions confirmation almost single handedly led to Sessions recusal from the Russian probe and laid the groundwork for an investigation that went on for two years, led to substantial findings that still have implications into today, along with a number of arrests, and it likely would've been DOA if left in his hands.

So crying victimhood just because they're in the minority is bunk. You have leverage. In the Senate even more than the House because there are still SOME minority party powers.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You look at a guy like Franken, even with his party in the minority, his questioning during Sessions confirmation almost single handedly led to Sessions recusal from the Russian probe and laid the groundwork for an investigation that went on for two years, led to substantial findings that still have implications into today, along with a number of arrests, and it likely would've been DOA if left in his hands.
> 
> So crying victimhood just because they're in the minority is bunk. You have leverage. In the Senate even more than the House because there are still SOME minority party powers.


Oh, no, that wasn't my point, that we should give him a pass because he was in the minority. I was agreeing with you, that I can't think of a single constructive thing he's done aside from voting. 

And I miss Franken. :/


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Oh, no, that wasn't my point, that we should give him a pass because he was in the minority. I was agreeing with you, that I can't think of a single constructive thing he's done aside from voting.
> 
> And I miss Franken. :/



I was agreeing with you. I know it's so rare sometimes it's hard to recognize


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I was agreeing with you. I know it's so rare sometimes it's hard to recognize


 Dammit!


----------



## Ralyks

I miss Franken too


----------



## Ralyks

I'm pretty sure we're entering a recession Dow down 1800.


----------



## Randy

Was down 2,000 when I left home. 

For the last 30-40 years, this is typically when Trump finds the back door and leaves all this partners/investors holding the bag. Not sure what his out is this time.


----------



## JSanta

I read this in an opinion piece earlier today, but this virus (any maybe other health issues) are not things that Trump can bully away with tweets. His administrations seemingly complete lack of preparation for anything future facing (like this) may actually be the first fissures for Trump voters.

Edit: found a non-paywalled version of the article.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...emy-he-cant-tweet-away/ar-BB10V9en?li=BBnbcA1


----------



## sleewell

its not only the denial aspect but failure to prepare as well.

why didnt they start producing or buying test kits sooner? why does it feel like he only cares about the stock market and not people's lives?


the stock market covers 40-50% of his 2+ hour rallies. wonder what will cover that space now?


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> why didnt they start producing or buying test kits sooner? why does it feel like he only cares about the stock market and not people's lives?



Because he does care more about the market more than people's lives?


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I read this in an opinion piece earlier today, but this virus (any maybe other health issues) are not things that Trump can bully away with tweets. His administrations seemingly complete lack of preparation for anything future facing (like this) may actually be the first fissures for Trump voters.
> 
> Edit: found a non-paywalled version of the article.
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...emy-he-cant-tweet-away/ar-BB10V9en?li=BBnbcA1


To make matters worse, he's bragging about things like our - so far - low case count, and setting the expectation that his administration is on top of things. It would be one thing if we had been testing from day 1 and had confidence in that number, but once we begin testing in earnest and it turns out that the case count is exponentially higher than it looked, he's going to look pretty fucking stupid. 



sleewell said:


> its not only the denial aspect but failure to prepare as well.
> 
> why didnt they start producing or buying test kits sooner? why does it feel like he only cares about the stock market and not people's lives?
> 
> 
> the stock market covers 40-50% of his 2+ hour rallies. wonder what will cover that space now?


Not sure on the details exactly, but the first batch of test kits were largely contaminated, so our usable stock was way lower than it was supposed to be. It was probably too low anyway, and Trump firing and not replacing key pandemic response officials hasn't helped, but we certainly didn't plan to be this ill=prepared.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> To make matters worse, he's bragging about things like our - so far - low case count, and setting the expectation that his administration is on top of things. It would be one thing if we had been testing from day 1 and had confidence in that number, but once we begin testing in earnest and it turns out that the case count is exponentially higher than it looked, he's going to look pretty fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> Not sure on the details exactly, but the first batch of test kits were largely contaminated, so our usable stock was way lower than it was supposed to be. It was probably too low anyway, and Trump firing and not replacing key pandemic response officials hasn't helped, but we certainly didn't plan to be this ill=prepared.



Add to all of this the tremendous market drop - the Baby Boomer generation by far holds most of their wealth in stocks. You have to wonder if those that voted conservative are still going to do so after the biggest drop in portfolio value in more than a decade. The trade war, not filling cabinet positions, and an overall lack of competency may be the trifecta for people to start finally putting on life jackets.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Add to all of this the tremendous market drop - the Baby Boomer generation by far holds most of their wealth in stocks. You have to wonder if those that voted conservative are still going to do so after the biggest drop in portfolio value in more than a decade. The trade war, not filling cabinet positions, and an overall lack of competency may be the trifecta for people to start finally putting on life jackets.


Nooooo shit, right? Or that bond yields are falling through the floor (we're off overnight lows, but we're around 0.50% on the 10-year at the moment and we got as low as 0.39%) which means retirees depending on fixed income for retirement income are going to be struggling. The trade war banged up the economy, but his Phase One deal was timed - probably by design - to allow a spring-back this spring and summer as economic activity picked back up. That's extremely unlikely to happen now.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Nooooo shit, right? Or that bond yields are falling through the floor (we're off overnight lows, but we're around 0.50% on the 10-year at the moment and we got as low as 0.39%) which means retirees depending on fixed income for retirement income are going to be struggling. The trade war banged up the economy, but his Phase One deal was timed - probably by design - to allow a spring-back this spring and summer as economic activity picked back up. That's extremely unlikely to happen now.



All of the issues that I think many people have been pointing out with this administration, all of the cracks, are being put through a stress test. And the administration is failing in a spectacular way.


----------



## Vyn

Can anyone say bear market? Fuck.


----------



## SpaceDock

Just wait until Trump is bailing out the hospitality industry and oil companies, then will rail democrats for socialism.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A11DZm9ZHTu2Tm3tkr1wM7A

So now Trump is talking about a payroll tax cut.


----------



## Aso

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A11DZm9ZHTu2Tm3tkr1wM7A
> 
> So now Trump is talking about a payroll tax cut.



I don't see how this will help anything. I feel right now the economy was juiced with the corporate tax cuts when it shouldn't of been and this is a lame attempt to keep the high going now that the crash is beginning to happen.

Also the Covid-19 issue is health issue and it seems like they don't care about people and their health. They only care about money and now that it's affecting the global economy they are worried.


----------



## Ralyks

Aso said:


> I don't see how this will help anything. I feel right now the economy was juiced with the corporate tax cuts when it shouldn't of been and this is a lame attempt to keep the high going now that the crash is beginning to happen.
> 
> Also the Covid-19 issue is health issue and it seems like they don't care about people and their health. They only care about money and now that it's affecting the global economy they are worried.



I am completely with you on both points.


----------



## sleewell

yeah i am hoping someone can explain why a payroll tax cut would help in this situation?

i believe that the concern is that people will be out of work while sick. if they aren't working, lowering the amount taxed seems to be unhelpful.

what am i missing here?


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Aso said:


> Also the Covid-19 issue is health issue and it seems like they don't care about people and their health. They only care about money and now that it's affecting the global economy they are worried.



Call me a pessimist, but I'm betting this economical focus is out of concern for the election. One of Trump's main rallying topics was market performance under his administration, and if things don't get better by campaign season, he can't really beat that drum.


----------



## sleewell

its also very easy for him to beat the hey this was not my fault drum that his lemmings would most likely buy.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> its also very easy for him to beat the hey this was not my fault drum that his lemmings would most likely buy.



However, a potential pandemic is fuel for the M4A argument. Imagine how much everyone would save if everyone could go get tested and we were able to minimized who had to be quarantined and miss out on work. Making sure that productivity is maximized.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> yeah i am hoping someone can explain why a payroll tax cut would help in this situation?
> 
> i believe that the concern is that people will be out of work while sick. if they aren't working, lowering the amount taxed seems to be unhelpful.
> 
> what am i missing here?


For hourly employees nothing, and there's some talk about the federal government stepping in and covering the equivalent of "sick time" for hourly employees quarrentined or forced to stay home over this. IMO that would be very helpful for dulling the economic impact.

For salaried employees, it would either 1) provide them with more disposable income, to fuel spending and demand once containment measures are lifted, to boost the recovery on the other side of the dip, if the employee side was cut, or 2) provide additional capital for capital investment, in turn stimulating demand, if the employer side was cut. I'd say the former is more likely than the latter in an election year, but you never know.



Thaeon said:


> However, a potential pandemic is fuel for the M4A argument. Imagine how much everyone would save if everyone could go get tested and we were able to minimized who had to be quarantined and miss out on work. Making sure that productivity is maximized.


Eh, anyone CAN go get tested by walking into an ER with flu-like symptoms, although we haven't really been able to test in volume until basically this week. I think it's a better argument for some sort of universal paid sick time policy, personally, as well as a higher minimum wage so missing a shift or two isn't the difference between paying rent and falling behind. M4A wouldn't really help there - it ensures you can get treatment, but doesn't do a think to pay your bills if you're out of work for two weeks. Either way, it's showing we need to do SOME deep thinking as a nation about the intersection between employment and public health.


----------



## tedtan

Thaeon said:


> However, a potential pandemic is fuel for the M4A argument.



Not only that, it's also taking away the one positive point Trump has to discuss, the economy. Without that, and without healthcare, people could turn on Trump.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> Not only that, it's also taking away the one positive point Trump has to discuss, the economy. Without that, and without healthcare, people could turn on Trump.



This but with shirts that say "I'd rather have coronavirus than be a Democrat".


----------



## tedtan

I doubt a Trump supporter would turn hard core democrat, but they may well stay home and not vote if they lose their job and healthcare coverage and have no government help to turn to.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I doubt a Trump supporter would turn hard core democrat, but they may well stay home and not vote if they lose their job and healthcare coverage and have no government help to turn to.


Anecdotally, and with the giant caveat that this is Massachusetts, hardly a center of arch-conservativism, I do know Republicans who grudgingly voted for Trump in 2016, who plan on voting for Biden (but NOT Sanders) in 2020. I don't know if that could be enough to swing the election... But considering that the rust belt states also have their share of moderate conservatives and even a percent or so of voters going from Trump to Biden could swing the difference, that could matter.

Also, not for nothing, one of the armchair quarterback arguments for why we should have run Biden in 2016 was that he WAS very likely to have drawn heavy support in the rust belt. At the margins that could matter, too.


----------



## sleewell

the republican mayor of sterling heights, mi is one of those people. voted for trump in 2016, regrets it, is now telling people to vote for biden.


----------



## Ralyks

In what should be a shock to no one reasonable, Trump's approval rating dropped through all of this.


----------



## wankerness

Thaeon said:


> However, a potential pandemic is fuel for the M4A argument. Imagine how much everyone would save if everyone could go get tested and we were able to minimized who had to be quarantined and miss out on work. Making sure that productivity is maximized.



Yeah, but fortunately we have Biden, who just said unequivocally that he would veto M4A if it was presented to him. He's basically Trump when it comes to medical care. The one positive is he wouldn't cut it further for the old people like Trump has been trying to do.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Yeah, but fortunately we have Biden, who just said unequivocally that he would veto M4A if it was presented to him. He's basically Trump when it comes to medical care. The one positive is he wouldn't cut it further for the old people like Trump has been trying to do.


...because he supports introducing a public option rather than banning private insurance, as a hybrid solution, whereas Trump is just trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid as far as he can. I don't see how you can equivocate the two, one wants to increase public access to health care, the other wants to destroy it.


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> ...because he supports introducing a public option rather than banning private insurance, as a hybrid solution, whereas Trump is just trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid as far as he can. I don't see how you can equivocate the two, one wants to increase public access to health care, the other wants to destroy it.



Public option is kind of a non-solution as it does very little to help with the spiraling costs and is also a money blackhole if no one's paying into it besides people that need health coverage. I mean, better than nothing, but barely. It's still basically a concession to the healthcare industry and lipservice to the general public instead of something actually designed to help society. Considering Obamacare is still alive in its zombified state, Biden's not really likely to do anything other than maybe not make things worse. Especially if he hires a republican VP that will likely take over in short order.  I'm curious what happens if he announces a republican running mate and then dies to COVID19 before the election? Do we vote for a republican vs Trump?


----------



## JSanta

wankerness said:


> Public option is kind of a non-solution as it does very little to help with the spiraling costs and is also a money blackhole if no one's paying into it besides people that need health coverage. I mean, better than nothing, but barely. It's still basically a concession to the healthcare industry and lipservice to the general public instead of something actually designed to help society. Considering Obamacare is still alive in its zombified state, Biden's not really likely to do anything other than maybe not make things worse. Especially if he hires a republican VP that will likely take over in short order.  I'm curious what happens if he announces a republican running mate and then dies to COVID19 before the election? Do we vote for a republican vs Trump?



I think you're wrong. A public option that's affordable and transparent would force other providers to do the same or lose business/go out of business. If I as a consumer was given a legitimate alternative to what's offered, I would take it.


----------



## SpaceDock

JSanta said:


> I think you're wrong. A public option that's affordable and transparent would force other providers to do the same or lose business/go out of business. If I as a consumer was given a legitimate alternative to what's offered, I would take it.



I agree with this as well. I think that the crazy prices are because there is too much profiteering involved. If we had a public buy in option that was negotiated by governmental fiduciaries, we might have an option for a competitive market. Market competition is what ACA was meant to have but the marketplace is too much like rural internet service, only one option and the owners know it. I do believe that businesses can be much more price competitive that government when they need to be. Sadly we might be forced to create the needed competition.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I think you're wrong. A public option that's affordable and transparent would force other providers to do the same or lose business/go out of business. If I as a consumer was given a legitimate alternative to what's offered, I would take it.


Same here. Considering a public option is under no obligation to turn a profit while private insurers have to answer to shareholders, I have a hard time picturing a market equilibrium where private insurers _aren't _gradually driven out of business, unless somehow the private sector figures out how to do it better.



wankerness said:


> Public option is kind of a non-solution as it does very little to help with the spiraling costs and is also a money blackhole if no one's paying into it besides people that need health coverage. I mean, better than nothing, but barely. It's still basically a concession to the healthcare industry and lipservice to the general public instead of something actually designed to help society. Considering Obamacare is still alive in its zombified state, Biden's not really likely to do anything other than maybe not make things worse. Especially if he hires a republican VP that will likely take over in short order.  I'm curious what happens if he announces a republican running mate and then dies to COVID19 before the election? Do we vote for a republican vs Trump?


How does that differ from Medicare today, then? Is Medicare not something that's designed to help society? A public option is allowing but not forcing Americans to opt into Medicare. If they do, it should lower the _existing_ Medicate costs as it broadens the coverage pool.

And, even if I take everything you just said at face value, that _still_ doesn't get us to a point where we're talking a policy that's "basically Trump," a man who's actively at war with public involvement in health care coverage. Trying to equate the two is pure hyperbole, and considering the stakes here, is kind of irresponsible.



SpaceDock said:


> Market competition is what ACA was meant to have but the marketplace is too much like rural internet service, only one option and the owners know it. I do believe that businesses can be much more price competitive that government when they need to be. Sadly we might be forced to create the needed competition.



Yeah, it was a step in the right direction, but in practice most states still operate in an oligopoly with 2-3 insurers, most conservative states opted not to set up exchanges since judges ruled the bill said they could but didn't have to, and of course Trump did away with the mandate penalty. And yet, even then it STILL hasn't imploded, which is saying something.


----------



## possumkiller

I think you guys are way underestimating how much people will follow Trump to their grave. Hitler had people worshipping him and dying for him long past the time everyone figured out he was a moron that was losing everything. Most of the people I know in the US are hardcore conservative Republican rugged individualist gun hoarding dumbasses. They have so much of themselves invested into being hardcore conservative Republican puppets that they would rather the world burned than admit they or Trump weren't completely correct about everything. These people look at democrats and liberals with the same hatred and contempt that they look at brown people that belong to different evil religions. I saw the same shit with the way fellow soldiers treated non-American people in Iraq. I'm pretty sure it was very similar with the Nazis. They see everyone that isn't in agreement with them as the enemy and less than human. 

When all this shit goes down and every person with a brain knows that Trump fucked everyone over, he will just blame anyone or anything else and his loyal army will swallow up and regurgitate his lies because those are the lies they want to hear. It's the same thing that has happened time and time again. I'm not wondering what it will take to open their eyes. I'm wondering what it's going to take to open everyone else's eyes about Trump and his followers.

Even after he fucks America to pieces and leaves office, his supporters will still be singing his praises and saying how he could've done so great if only the evil democrats and gays and immigrants and feminists and tree huggers had let him do his job and not fucked everything up.


----------



## sleewell

possumkiller said:


> I think you guys are way underestimating how much people will follow Trump to their grave. Hitler had people worshipping him and dying for him long past the time everyone figured out he was a moron that was losing everything. Most of the people I know in the US are hardcore conservative Republican rugged individualist gun hoarding dumbasses. They have so much of themselves invested into being hardcore conservative Republican puppets that they would rather the world burned than admit they or Trump weren't completely correct about everything. These people look at democrats and liberals with the same hatred and contempt that they look at brown people that belong to different evil religions. I saw the same shit with the way fellow soldiers treated non-American people in Iraq. I'm pretty sure it was very similar with the Nazis. They see everyone that isn't in agreement with them as the enemy and less than human.
> 
> When all this shit goes down and every person with a brain knows that Trump fucked everyone over, he will just blame anyone or anything else and his loyal army will swallow up and regurgitate his lies because those are the lies they want to hear. It's the same thing that has happened time and time again. I'm not wondering what it will take to open their eyes. I'm wondering what it's going to take to open everyone else's eyes about Trump and his followers.
> 
> Even after he fucks America to pieces and leaves office, his supporters will still be singing his praises and saying how he could've done so great if only the evil democrats and gays and immigrants and feminists and tree huggers had let him do his job and not fucked everything up.




this is 100% correct. if you doubt this go to rig talk.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> this is 100% correct. if you doubt this go to rig talk.


This is what always gets me. People keep posting how Trump keeps fucking up bigger and harder and saying, "They can't tweet this away or blame someone else. All the Trump supporters are about to start jumping like rats off a sinking ship". It's not gonna happen. You guys keep acting like you're dealing with reasonable people when you aren't. You are dealing with something more like a zombie horde or people plugged in to the fox news matrix.


----------



## sleewell

i get it. i think stuff like that just gets clicks or ratings but will never move the needle.

the only hope we have is the few people on the fringe who voted for him bc they didnt like her. margins are tight. but yeah nothing will ever convince a large majority of them.


----------



## JSanta

My boss is a die-hard Republican. He is a gun nut and proud of it. 

He hates Trump and what he's done to the GOP. I think at some point, voices like his will be heard and the politicians that pandered to him will come to their senses. I honestly think there are more people like my boss in the Republican party than not.


----------



## budda

History repeats itself until we learn from it.

And we're kind of bad at learning from it.


----------



## possumkiller

JSanta said:


> My boss is a die-hard Republican. He is a gun nut and proud of it.
> 
> He hates Trump and what he's done to the GOP. I think at some point, voices like his will be heard and the politicians that pandered to him will come to their senses. I honestly think there are more people like my boss in the Republican party than not.


I really hope so but I kind of doubt it. But then I used to be the same way until I spent some years in Iraq seeing how the machine works.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

possumkiller said:


> I really hope so but I kind of doubt it. But then I used to be the same way until I spent some years in Iraq seeing how the machine works.


Your insight here is appreciated.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> My boss is a die-hard Republican. He is a gun nut and proud of it.
> 
> He hates Trump and what he's done to the GOP. I think at some point, voices like his will be heard and the politicians that pandered to him will come to their senses. I honestly think there are more people like my boss in the Republican party than not.



Eh. The second someone brings up gun control he'll happily vote for Trump and will do so until the end of time.

Honestly, I don't care about republicans who hate Trump. They'll still vote for absolutely anyone who will tow the party line so long as the one or two strongly held personal beliefs are left alone.

I can't tell you how sick to death I am of all these dipshit GOP’ers who want a fucking cookie because they have the courage (*rolleyes*) to say they don't like Trump but will have no problem voting in someone 99.99% identical, just with better diction.

It's also funny how they make such a point of telling everyone, especially liberal leaning folks. As if it's the person we have a problem with, and not the administration they lead. But they don't get it. It's projection as they hated Obama just as much, but they hated the person because...(racist) reasons. So they can't understand why folks bitching about the latest Trump shit show aren't patting them on the back.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Eh. The second someone brings up gun control he'll happily vote for Trump and will do so until the end of time.
> 
> Honestly, I don't care about republicans who hate Trump. They'll still vote for absolutely anyone who will tow the party line so long as the one or two strongly held personal beliefs are left alone.
> 
> I can't tell you how sick to death I am of all these dipshit GOP’ers who want a fucking cookie because they have the courage (*rolleyes*) to say they don't like Trump but will have no problem voting in someone 99.99% identical, just with better diction.
> 
> It's also funny how they make such a point of telling everyone, especially liberal leaning folks. As if it's the person we have a problem with, and not the administration they lead. But they don't get it. It's projection as they hated Obama just as much, but they hated the person because...(racist) reasons. So they can't understand why folks bitching about the latest Trump shit show aren't patting them on the back.



Maybe he's an outlier, then. He didn't vote for Trump and won't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> Maybe he's an outlier, then. He didn't vote for Trump and won't.



Low bar is low. 

Thinking Trump is the worst of the worst of the party takes some real mental gymnastics, though it's definitely helped the unreasonable _seem_ somewhat reasonable.


----------



## ImNotAhab

"Welt am Sonntag quoted an unidentified German government source as saying Trump was trying to secure the scientists' work exclusively, and would do anything to get a vaccine for the United States, "but only for the United States."

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/15...eeking-vaccine.html?__twitter_impression=true

I'll take the exclusivity part of that story with a grain of salt but it is not a stretch to think he would do something like that...


----------



## Ralyks

The fed just cut rates to zero.


----------



## Randy

And is purchasing $700 million in bonds and securities. This wreaks of 2008 when the banks were bailed out but the home owners weren't. Corporate socialism is alive and well.


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaand the market plummeted upon open


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> And is purchasing $700 million in bonds and securities. This wreaks of 2008 when the banks were bailed out but the home owners weren't. Corporate socialism is alive and well.



Yeah, Trump and Co are allergic to actually doing anything to directly help anyone other than our corporate overlords. They better get on it quick or we're going to see severe social unrest.

Speaking of, is everyone aware of the loophole the republicans demanded with that paid time off thing in the coronavirus bill? Any company with over 500 employees is exempt from that law. Aka, any big company you've ever heard of. Grocery chains, mcdonalds, etc. All the companies with the most lobbying power and also the most ability to actually FUND it are exempt from having to do it. Disgusting. I think I read that it means 54% of workers wouldn't be covered by it.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't tell you how sick to death I am of all these dipshit GOP’ers who want a fucking cookie because they have the courage (*rolleyes*) to say they don't like Trump but will have no problem voting in someone 99.99% identical, just with better diction.
> 
> It's also funny how they make such a point of telling everyone, especially liberal leaning folks. As if it's the person we have a problem with, and not the administration they lead. But they don't get it. It's projection as they hated Obama just as much, but they hated the person because...(racist) reasons. So they can't understand why folks bitching about the latest Trump shit show aren't patting them on the back.



Can't refute that first point- the GOP definitely has a boatload of single-issue voters.
I think a lot of this stuff though is a result of media coverage. It's extremely difficult to identify as a republican and not feel like people try to project Trump and his bullshit onto you. There's so much coverage about Trump _the man_, and it's difficult to hold a conversation with folks, especially liberal leaning folks, without the initial assumption being made that you're a fan of everything Donald. You always feel like you're on the defensive from the start.

Also, again, I know CA is pretty sheltered as far as cultural acceptance goes, but FWIW I've never met someone who lists his race as a reason why they weren't a fan of Obama. Love him or hate him, there were definitely some valid reasons to dislike the guy.



wankerness said:


> Speaking of, is everyone aware of the loophole the republicans demanded with that paid time off thing in the coronavirus bill? Any company with over 500 employees is exempt from that law. Aka, any big company you've ever heard of. Grocery chains, mcdonalds, etc. All the companies with the most lobbying power and also the most ability to actually FUND it are exempt from having to do it. Disgusting. I think I read that it means 54% of workers wouldn't be covered by it.



It's infuriating. "Yeah sure, lets help cover people that can either afford to take some time away, likely have some form of paid leave, or likely work in an industry where working remotely is more plausible- but forget about the MILLIONS of Americans working for minimum wage in check-to-check living situations who are systematically abused by their megatitan employers. Goddamn we're good- saved the fuckin' day once again."

In California our governor is asking all restaurants in the state to shut down or switch to takeout only.
I get it, we're in a crisis, but who are you to just tell this MASSIVE amount of people "Yeah, just don't work for a couple months bro, haha don't worry about it, you can live off thousands of dollars you have in the bank, right?" Restaurant workers don't have politician money, how the hell are these people supposed to just not go to work? Does he realize how many Californians work in *restaurants!?!?*

Once again, it's another re-run of the little guy gets fucked episode- I swear dude, it's like this every season. This show needs to get cancelled already.


----------



## spudmunkey

What a fucking degenerate asshole.


----------



## fantom

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Restaurant workers don't have politician money, how the hell are these people supposed to just not go to work? Does he realize how many Californians work in *restaurants!?!?*
> 
> Once again, it's another re-run of the little guy gets fucked episode- I swear dude, it's like this every season. This show needs to get cancelled already.



In all seriousness, people who are "working from home" with kids could really use some people to be a nannies for a few months. I'm sure delivery companies and warehouses could use help too. Why not pick up some work doing something else?


----------



## possumkiller

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Can't refute that first point- the GOP definitely has a boatload of single-issue voters.
> I think a lot of this stuff though is a result of media coverage. It's extremely difficult to identify as a republican and not feel like people try to project Trump and his bullshit onto you. There's so much coverage about Trump _the man_, and it's difficult to hold a conversation with folks, especially liberal leaning folks, without the initial assumption being made that you're a fan of everything Donald. You always feel like you're on the defensive from the start.
> 
> Also, again, I know CA is pretty sheltered as far as cultural acceptance goes, but FWIW I've never met someone who lists his race as a reason why they weren't a fan of Obama. Love him or hate him, there were definitely some valid reasons to dislike the guy.
> 
> 
> 
> It's infuriating. "Yeah sure, lets help cover people that can either afford to take some time away, likely have some form of paid leave, or likely work in an industry where working remotely is more plausible- but forget about the MILLIONS of Americans working for minimum wage in check-to-check living situations who are systematically abused by their megatitan employers. Goddamn we're good- saved the fuckin' day once again."
> 
> In California our governor is asking all restaurants in the state to shut down or switch to takeout only.
> I get it, we're in a crisis, but who are you to just tell this MASSIVE amount of people "Yeah, just don't work for a couple months bro, haha don't worry about it, you can live off thousands of dollars you have in the bank, right?" Restaurant workers don't have politician money, how the hell are these people supposed to just not go to work? Does he realize how many Californians work in *restaurants!?!?*
> 
> Once again, it's another re-run of the little guy gets fucked episode- I swear dude, it's like this every season. This show needs to get cancelled already.


Just learn to code.


----------



## Ralyks

Apparently we’ve gotten to the point that Trump is now considering ACA enrollment. You know, the thing he spent so long trying to get rid of.


----------



## stockwell

My prediction is that the GOP will implement some limited form of direct aid, and the Democrats will try to means-test it as much as they can. The result will be that Trump can credibly say that he's more generous than the Democrats come general season. If he does anything to keep people afloat, even if it's completely ineffectual, he'll sweep the general.


----------



## BlackSG91

Trump has proven himself a complete A-Hole by sarcastically mocking Romney with the virus. How low will the baby-in-cheif try to completely glorify himself & his never-ending ego?


;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Can someone explain why the democrats are blocking the stimulus bill in its current form? My understanding is that it is helping the businesses more and not so much the actual workers.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> Can someone explain why the democrats are blocking the stimulus bill in its current form? My understanding is that it is helping the businesses more and not so much the actual workers.




like normal the gop has written a bill which greatly rewards large corps. there is about a 500 billion slush fund in the bill can be given to big corps with no strings attached regarding what they do with it.

the dems are saying that is ludicrous and are trying to make bailouts more reasonable so they don't just go out and use that money for top exec bonuses and stock buy backs like they do every single time there is a bail out.


----------



## spudmunkey

Also, democrats are fighting for employee protections for employment, protections for health insurance, and student loans.

That said, if there are also things in there about airline emissions and solar panel credits, I do think that's a little stupid to include in the current bill.


----------



## sleewell

why are we even bailing out airlines or worse... cruise lines?

they got a massive corp tax cut and used the money on stock buy backs. cruise lines pay no taxes and are based out of the country. 

fuck em. 

give the money to the workers directly, big corps have proven time and again they cant be trusted and will just take the path of greed. 

nothing is too big to fail. let them fail. some other person will see an opening and start a new company in their place. that is how capitalism is supposed to work.


----------



## vilk

Our economy isn't capitalistic; it's cronyistic. Bailing out companies (instead of people) so that they can give huge bonuses to their top execs and and pull some backhanded stock shit _is _exactly how it's supposed to work.


----------



## Ralyks

lo_wang said:


> I guess you guys don’t remember Obama’s bailout.



Oh, we do. Think it’s unfair to assume we all think two wrongs make a right.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Oh, we do. Think it’s unfair to assume we all think two wrongs make a right.



Depends on what you mean by "wrong". Bush authorized two phases of a bailout before Obama came in, and Obama just finished the job, while also pushing stipulations to make sure the money would be paid back (which it was) and that the circumstances that lead to the crash wouldn't happen again.

I don't like 'too big to fail', I don't like criminal behavior without criminal consequences and I don't like that the banks got more courtesy than the people that were kicked out of their homes in the process. But at this point, most people's retirement is heavily invested in the stock market and a total free fall with no stimulus fucks the little guy over worse than letting a billionaire become an $800 millionaire to prove a point.

That said, this is why the specifics matter here. I'm not opposed to a bailout. I'm not opposed to a bailout of the airlines or the cruise industry specifically, either. But an equal or greater amount of care should be given to workers and small businesses owners, first for being effected as a result of this but especially because the government is playing a direct (telling them to close, limiting customers or limiting staff) or indirect (failure to mitigate this in the first place) role in their hardships. Likewise, a bailout of industries should be strict toward solutions that help maintaining employment, as opposed to being allows to use for stock buybacks and bonuses.


----------



## Vostre Roy

Well, Quebec just ordered shutdown of all "non-essential" services, and Nunavut has restricted flights from coming in, but in both case mining operation will remain as "essential services" or exceptions to the restriction (still need minerals to build medical equipment, along other essential things is my guess, or lobby is just super strong). Not going to complain, I'll be happy for as long as I can work for sure, but I expect the shit to hit the fan even my industry at some point.

Still flying back home tomorrow so at least I'll be with my girlfriend for the next 14 days.

Edit: Oups, meant to post that in the Covid-19 thread. Guess I'm getting tired


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Oh, we do. Think it’s unfair to assume we all think two wrongs make a right.



Aw man, did I just sleep through a troll's entire existence on the boards?


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Aw man, did I just sleep through a troll's entire existence on the boards?



All one posts of it, yep. Alex needs to up his IP banning plugin to include VPNs.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Depends on what you mean by "wrong". Bush authorized two phases of a bailout before Obama came in, and Obama just finished the job, while also pushing stipulations to make sure the money would be paid back (which it was) and that the circumstances that lead to the crash wouldn't happen again.
> 
> I don't like 'too big to fail', I don't like criminal behavior without criminal consequences and I don't like that the banks got more courtesy than the people that were kicked out of their homes in the process. But at this point, most people's retirement is heavily invested in the stock market and a total free fall with no stimulus fucks the little guy over worse than letting a billionaire become an $800 millionaire to prove a point.
> 
> That said, this is why the specifics matter here. I'm not opposed to a bailout. I'm not opposed to a bailout of the airlines or the cruise industry specifically, either. But an equal or greater amount of care should be given to workers and small businesses owners, first for being effected as a result of this but especially because the government is playing a direct (telling them to close, limiting customers or limiting staff) or indirect (failure to mitigate this in the first place) role in their hardships. Likewise, a bailout of industries should be strict toward solutions that help maintaining employment, as opposed to being allows to use for stock buybacks and bonuses.



I was more just trying to counter his attempt to go “Oh, you’d give Obama a free pass on this”, and uhh, nope. We’d be pretty furious at Obama handling a life or death matter like this too.


----------



## fantom

You missed the part that Obama put protections in place to prevent abuse of subprimes in the future, which Trump immediately tried to dismantle.


----------



## BlackSG91

spudmunkey said:


> What a fucking degenerate asshole.




You just figured out that Trump is an A-Hole? You haven't seen nothing yet. Wait until the economy really takes a dive. The toddler-in-cheif does not take responsibility at all and will do everything to blame other people for the China virus. Trump is the master at shifting blame to anyone else but him. He has lived a sheltered & rich life. Now the little baby in a man's body is facing real world problems. His true colours are showing...and it's mostly orange.


;>)/


----------



## BlackSG91

The toddler-in-cheif has everyone assured for the time being. Watch as he frantically thinks about the stock market & the economy instead of real human lives!




;>)/


----------



## Ralyks

Speaking of which, looks like the stimulus bill is a go.


----------



## fantom

Anyone else think these "President Trump covid 19" snail mail fliers are literally just Trump trying to take credit for crap doctors have been saying for months now? Why is it from him instead of the surgeon general? Why does his ego need to be in huge text on the front of the flier? Ug


----------



## Adieu

allheavymusic said:


> My prediction is that the GOP will implement some limited form of direct aid, and the Democrats will try to means-test it as much as they can. The result will be that Trump can credibly say that he's more generous than the Democrats come general season. If he does anything to keep people afloat, even if it's completely ineffectual, he'll sweep the general.



Seriously 

I'm already hearing that the news are saying that Democrats are standing between me and my gubmint cheese????

Whether or not that's true is even kind of irrelevant. The implication alone is pretty damning.


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> Seriously
> 
> I'm already hearing that the news are saying that Democrats are standing between me and my gubmint cheese????
> 
> Whether or not that's true is even kind of irrelevant. The implication alone is pretty damning.



Only Faux News can spin to conservatives that Democrats are trying to limit socialism and incite hatred for "the left". And in reality, they just want to stop rich people from syphoning the money. It is so depressing. People, legally allowed to vote, can't even think anymore.


----------



## sleewell

most trump fans i know dont even know that trump was calling covid a hoax for months while he should have been working on it. 

the bill mcconnell wanted to jam through on sunday had no restrictions on the 500 billion bailout for big corps and let mnunchin/trump distribute the money as they saw fit. thank god the dems fixed that.


----------



## Adieu

fantom said:


> Only Faux News can spin to conservatives that Democrats are trying to limit socialism and incite hatred for "the left". And in reality, they just want to stop rich people from syphoning the money. It is so depressing. People, legally allowed to vote, can't even think anymore.



I think the one I browsed past was CBS

I was really just looking for a "yes/no/maybe/how soon" update, because I could use some gubmint cheese right now.


----------



## possumkiller

My dad just forwarded this to me. I'm not sure how true it is but that would be amazing.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 78825
> 
> My dad just forwarded this to me. I'm not sure how true it is but that would be amazing.



My BS meter right now is off the charts.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 78825
> 
> My dad just forwarded this to me. I'm not sure how true it is but that would be amazing.





narad said:


> My BS meter right now is off the charts.



It is completely true: 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text?r=1&s=1

That said, there's no way it'll even be considered by the current Senate.

If you read through it, it's actually really well thought out. I especially like the focus on dealer reform, classification for consumer safety standards/laws, and funding for independent research. 

This is just one of those bills that's too good to make it. It'll either be ignored or stripped of anything meaningful.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> It is completely true:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text?r=1&s=1



Sorry, I should rephrase: the BS is about the "those sneaky guys are trying to pass this through while you're not looking!" and then a "vote no" like you get to vote or like retweeting it goes to your representative somehow.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Sorry, I should rephrase: the BS is about the "those sneaky guys are trying to pass this through while you're not looking!" and then a "vote no" like you get to vote or like retweeting it goes to your representative somehow.



Yeah, I've come to expect a lack of understanding of the procedure, just like the lack of grammar and spell-check. 

It's a House bill. That's it. It's snaking it's way through the system at the glacial pace most bills do when they'll obviously hit significant partisan obstacles.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> It is completely true:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text?r=1&s=1
> 
> That said, there's no way it'll even be considered by the current Senate.
> 
> If you read through it, it's actually really well thought out. I especially like the focus on dealer reform, classification for consumer safety standards/laws, and funding for independent research.
> 
> This is just one of those bills that's too good to make it. It'll either be ignored or stripped of anything meaningful.



It's been tabled for the last two weeks, so I don't know why anyone's bringing it up now. I heard something about it almost two months ago, but with all of the crap going on the past couple of months, I honestly forgot about it. Congress probably will, too.


----------



## Demiurge

Maybe they should just try Chris Rock's suggestion: no gun control but make bullets cost $5,000.


----------



## bostjan

Demiurge said:


> Maybe they should just try Chris Rock's suggestion: no gun control but make bullets cost $5,000.


Yeah, well, between the supply chain being ravaged by SARS-CoV-2 and the proposed 50% tax, that's going to be a little more closer to reality than a lot of gun hobbyists will be comfortable thinking about.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think bullets should have to pay for medical bills of gun violence victims etc the way cigarettes have done for many years now.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> most trump fans i know dont even know that trump was calling covid a hoax for months while he should have been working on it.


There's this amazing ad that the Trump campaign is now threatenign to sue TV networks who have run it paid for by Progress America, that superimposes clips of Trump calling it a hoax and talking about how quickly we were going to stop this, with a graph time-sync'd with the quotations, showing its exponential growth. 

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/w...QYsgVTOFG0ilh6WkHfAZSNchlzBRdokpq_EdpKPoUzvcQ

MSNBS link, but they play the ad almost immediately in the segment... And then another two times for measure.


----------



## ThePIGI King

MaxOfMetal said:


> It is completely true:
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5717/text?r=1&s=1
> 
> That said, there's no way it'll even be considered by the current Senate.
> 
> If you read through it, it's actually really well thought out. I especially like the focus on dealer reform, classification for consumer safety standards/laws, and funding for independent research.
> 
> This is just one of those bills that's too good to make it. It'll either be ignored or stripped of anything meaningful.


Too good to make it? Limiting a constitutional freedom is a good thing?

Why should somebody have to own a license to own or operate a firearm? The laws limiting firearms are already extensive and ludicrous enough. There is already the CHL, so why make it so someone has to get a license to purchase any firearm, or even more insane, to shoot previous purchased ones?

Most people who want tighter gun regulations, in my experience, are the ones who aren't comfortable shooting and don't understand how they work. I believe education will solve more issues than regulation. Guns aren't the problem, stupid people are.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> There's this amazing ad that the Trump campaign is now threatenign to sue TV networks who have run it paid for by Progress America, that superimposes clips of Trump calling it a hoax and talking about how quickly we were going to stop this, with a graph time-sync'd with the quotations, showing its exponential growth.
> 
> https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/w...QYsgVTOFG0ilh6WkHfAZSNchlzBRdokpq_EdpKPoUzvcQ
> 
> MSNBS link, but they play the ad almost immediately in the segment... And then another two times for measure.



Even though the most damning evidence of his incompetence is just quoting him directly, I'm sure if you show the ad to some Trump delusional person they'd just ignore or redirect. I'd love a campaign season where all democratic ads are just Trump saying stuff though.


----------



## sleewell

Drew said:


> There's this amazing ad that the Trump campaign is now threatenign to sue TV networks who have run it paid for by Progress America, that superimposes clips of Trump calling it a hoax and talking about how quickly we were going to stop this, with a graph time-sync'd with the quotations, showing its exponential growth.
> 
> https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/w...QYsgVTOFG0ilh6WkHfAZSNchlzBRdokpq_EdpKPoUzvcQ
> 
> MSNBS link, but they play the ad almost immediately in the segment... And then another two times for measure.




I posted this ad at rig talk this morning lol


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> I posted this ad at rig talk this morning lol



Let me guess: ad hominem attack?*

*not to attribute the behavior of those guys to one of actually having a substantive debate instead of a conspiracy theory circlejerk


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Too good to make it? Limiting a constitutional freedom is a good thing?



If the net outcome is less senseless violence and death, it's a good thing.



> Why should somebody have to own a license to own or operate a firearm?



Because it has been demonstrated that folks aren't capable of being responsible. Much like a license to drive or operate heavy machinery commercially.

Activities shown to be dangerous, especially to those around you are permit/license restricted all the time.

Should we remove those other restrictions?



> The laws limiting firearms are already extensive and ludicrous enough.



That's mostly because they're convoluted compromises. Having sensible gun control at the federal level will likely remove most of the weird/obscure/useless legislation already at play.



> There is already the CHL, so why make it so someone has to get a license to purchase any firearm, or even more insane, to shoot previous purchased ones?



The current CC system is a joke. There's no oversight and varies significantly. At least with federal level regulation you'd likely get national reciprocity, something 2A advocates have been wanting for decades.



> Most people who want tighter gun regulations, in my experience, are the ones who aren't comfortable shooting and don't understand how they work. I believe education will solve more issues than regulation. Guns aren't the problem, stupid people are.



There's extensive policy aimed at education in the bill. The whole point is to keep stupid/violent people away from guns.

For the record, I've been shooting since I was 8 years old. I've probably owned almost as many firearms as I've owned guitars over the years. I still own and work on my guns. I just realize that there's a gun problem in this country and I'm sick to death of it. We're the only developed country in the world with this problem. Literally everyone else has figured this out and they're not "police states" or "shit holes".

Years of fighting incremental and sensible gun laws have lead to needing a "nuclear" option and oversight.

I've watched the slow decline of advocacy groups go from safety and education focused to little more than political lobbying groups for gun manufacturers with complete disregard for the tenets they were founded on.


----------



## ThePIGI King

@MaxOfMetal I can see what you're getting at but I have to disagree to some extents.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides. Yes, more homicides are from pistol than other means, but I'm of the mindset that if somebody's gonna be violent, they'll be violent with a gun, a knife, or a pencil if need be.

I agree, people aren't responsible. But if you look, alcohol related deaths are more per year than gun related (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics). We don't make people pass background checks to buy beer or make people have a license to let them purchase liquor from the store. We just go "are ya 21? Okay here ya go". I'm not saying we ought to regulate alcohol either. I'm just using it as am example.

I do agree on the CC system being lacking. Some reform could be done to it to make it more educational. But I'm more of a constitutional carry kind of guy.

I get that the purpose is to keep stupid and violent people away from guns, but as far as I'm concerned, that's not Uncle Sam's job.

I've been shooting for about 17 years now myself, which is why I dislike the idea of tighter restrictions. Also, I worry that once more regulations and bills pass now, the easier it will be in the future to further tighten them limiting firearm rights further.

Also, by bringing in licensing as another barrier to begin shooting, some people will get turned off to the idea of ever getting into shooting, thus making more people uneducated in the world of firearms which makes more people willing to restrict them. That's just how I see it though.

EDIT: Oh and another thing. If I'm a criminal and I'm gonna go murder somebody, I don't really care if the law says I need a license to own and shoot my gun. Imma just go do my thing. Laws clearly aren't the best at stopping illegal activity. Look at drugs. Drugs are illegal. And clearly there's no drugs being used illegally in the U.S.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> The majority of gun deaths are suicides. Yes, more homicides are from pistol than other means, but I'm of the mindset that if somebody's gonna be violent, they'll be violent with a gun, a knife, or a pencil if need be.



The idea isn't to stop all murder or violence, or even suicides, it's to make it harder to do so, and do so as easily as a firearm allows.

What would you rather have to deal with? A violent person with a gun or a violent person with a pencil?



> I agree, people aren't responsible. But if you look, alcohol related deaths are more per year than gun related (https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics). We don't make people pass background checks to buy beer or make people have a license to let them purchase liquor from the store. We just go "are ya 21? Okay here ya go". I'm not saying we ought to regulate alcohol either. I'm just using it as am example.



This would be an example of "whataboutism". Deaths caused by alcohol are immaterial to the damage gun violence does to communities.

Though, we do more to inform people, especially children, about the dangers of alcohol than we do firearms.

That said, outside of driving while intoxicated, it's hard to kill other people with your own drinking.



> I do agree on the CC system being lacking. Some reform could be done to it to make it more educational. But I'm more of a constitutional carry kind of guy.



In a vacuum, that's fine. But not everyone has the stability, maturity, or ability to safely carry a firearm in public.



> I get that the purpose is to keep stupid and violent people away from guns, but as far as I'm concerned, that's not Uncle Sam's job.



Who's job is it then, because they've been doing a fucking awful job. 



> I've been shooting for about 17 years now myself, which is why I dislike the idea of tighter restrictions. Also, I worry that once more regulations and bills pass now, the easier it will be in the future to further tighten them limiting firearm rights further.



Listen, I've been shooting longer than most on here have been alive.

I've seen the fearmongering about not being able to have guns for that entire time.

It's just a ploy to sell more guns.



> Also, by bringing in licensing as another barrier to begin shooting, some people will get turned off to the idea of ever getting into shooting, thus making more people uneducated in the world of firearms which makes more people willing to restrict them. That's just how I see it though.



The bill at hand focuses significantly on education and research.

Cart before the horse, folks should probably be educated about shooting prior to getting into shooting, not the other way around. That's sort of the problem.



> EDIT: Oh and another thing. If I'm a criminal and I'm gonna go murder somebody, I don't really care if the law says I need a license to own and shoot my gun. Imma just go do my thing. Laws clearly aren't the best at stopping illegal activity. Look at drugs. Drugs are illegal. And clearly there's no drugs being used illegally in the U.S.



Again, the idea is to reduce gun crime, nothing will completely eliminate it. 

No laws stop all crime. That's not the purpose of laws. 

I recommend you read the bill posted. It's actually not a lot to read, and is broken down pretty well.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> Too good to make it? Limiting a constitutional freedom is a good thing?
> 
> Why should somebody have to own a license to own or operate a firearm? The laws limiting firearms are already extensive and ludicrous enough. There is already the CHL, so why make it so someone has to get a license to purchase any firearm, or even more insane, to shoot previous purchased ones?
> 
> Most people who want tighter gun regulations, in my experience, are the ones who aren't comfortable shooting and don't understand how they work. I believe education will solve more issues than regulation. Guns aren't the problem, stupid people are.


I'm 37. I was raised around guns. I lived and breathed guns in my teens and 20s. Most of the guys in my family have accidentally shot themselves or been accidentally shot by others. My uncle was shot through the leg with a Marlin .30-30 in his truck during deer season. My other uncle shot one of his toes off because he thought a steel toe boot would stop a .22lr point blank. My father shot himself in the ankle with a 12ga in front of my sister and I when I was 9 and in a small room (he says it just "went off by itself" but that's horse shit. I studied firearms enough to know that one never just goes off by itself. It was a Browning Auto 5 and he was mindlessly dicking around with the loading gate while he was walking. If you press it up too far while the bolt is locked open, it will release the bolt and slam another shell into the chamber.) I even managed to shoot myself twice by ricochet with my own badass 1991 Crosman M16 bb gun when I was 8. My step father was in a wheelchair because he was shot through the spinal cord during deer season. That was all normal stuff to me though. Just one of the risks of life in the country. My grandfather fought in the Pacific during WW2 when millions of people had guns and were trying to shoot other people on purpose and somehow he managed to get shot less than everyone else in the family lol. 
I spent seven years in the army. Three of those in Iraq. Not only did I manage to not get shot, I managed to not shoot anyone else either. Not even a clearing barrel! It always used to disgust me how someone could be in the army, where their job is to shoot a weapon, and have no clue how that weapon works. There were so many accidental discharges that they changed the name from AD accidental discharge to ND negligent discharge and started punishment under UCMJ. For my second deployment I carried the notorious M249 as my personal weapon. Everyone was fucking scared of this thing because it was a scary different open-bolt weapon. I was just an E4 but wound up getting called into my platoon sergeants hooch because I had been going around correcting the bullshit misinformation that the other NCOs had been putting out to the other SAW gunners. I had to give him a class and explain how every part of that weapon worked in relation to the other parts. The problem was just the fact that an open-bolt weapon confused the fuck out of our dumbass soldiers and leaders. The 249 isn't unique to the US military. It was designed by Fabrique Nationale in Belgium. It's used by all NATO countries. You know what IS unique to the American M249? A fucking safety button! It does not need a safety button! It's an open-bolt weapon! Bolt open is on fire. Bolt closed is on safe! There is no hammer! The bolt is the hammer! So the presence of a safety button means people in charge of ordering weapons high up the chain didn't know dick about it either. The safety button was on the the pistol grip and blocked the trigger and had nothing to do with the bolt(hammer). SOP was to put the 249 in green status (safe) you pull the bolt back to lock it open and then put on the safety button. That is the most retarded fucking idea since the idea of putting a safety button on it to start with. So basically now you are walking around with it cocked and ready to fire but a little safety button stops the trigger being pulled. But the safety has nothing to do with the bolt. Once open, the trigger is the only thing keeping the bolt held back. The 249 is so reliable like the AK because of the loose tolerances meaning a lot of parts have some wiggle room. So if you drop that 249 and the pistol grip section housing the trigger AND the safety moves, it can release the bolt. If you have rounds in the feed tray, you just had a negligent discharge. BOLT FORWARD, PEOPLE!

Anyway, I was also a gun addict freaking out about all the boogeyman bullshit the NRA spewed about people trying to take away muh rights and how I wouldn't survive in America without a bunch of guns. Like the normal stuff like a .30-06 or .45 just weren't getting me off anymore. I needed exotic stuff like a .500 Linebaugh or anything Ackley Improved.

Then I got drunk at a bbq and run over by my aunt in the driveway and woke up in jail as a felon and haven't had a firearm since. That was ten years ago. I've forgotten more about guns and ammo than most people here will ever know in their lives. I don't miss it. It's just like smoking. I didn't see through the bullshit until after I had quit for a while. Visiting Europe really drove it home. Nobody here has a gun. They aren't illegal they're just difficult to get. Nobody cares. There are plenty of shooting ranges anyone can go and shoot the range's weapons. I haven't went. Nobody gets shot over here because nobody has guns. It doesn't matter how much you want to twist it or hide from it that is fact. 15 years ago I would've had the typical NRA bullshit misinformation to spew into my face because I loved having guns and would do anything to defend them. Now I know they are no better than the tobacco people brainwashing everyone to become addicted to their products. They are just selling death in a different form.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> I'm 37. I was raised around guns. I lived and breathed guns in my teens and 20s. Most of the guys in my family have accidentally shot themselves or been accidentally shot by others. My uncle was shot through the leg with a Marlin .30-30 in his truck during deer season. My other uncle shot one of his toes off because he thought a steel toe boot would stop a .22lr point blank. My father shot himself in the ankle with a 12ga in front of my sister and I when I was 9 and in a small room (he says it just "went off by itself" but that's horse shit. I studied firearms enough to know that one never just goes off by itself. It was a Browning Auto 5 and he was mindlessly dicking around with the loading gate while he was walking. If you press it up too far while the bolt is locked open, it will release the bolt and slam another shell into the chamber.) I even managed to shoot myself twice by ricochet with my own badass 1991 Crosman M16 bb gun when I was 8. My step father was in a wheelchair because he was shot through the spinal cord during deer season. That was all normal stuff to me though. Just one of the risks of life in the country. My grandfather fought in the Pacific during WW2 when millions of people had guns and were trying to shoot other people on purpose and somehow he managed to get shot less than everyone else in the family lol.
> I spent seven years in the army. Three of those in Iraq. Not only did I manage to not get shot, I managed to not shoot anyone else either. Not even a clearing barrel! It always used to disgust me how someone could be in the army, where their job is to shoot a weapon, and have no clue how that weapon works. There were so many accidental discharges that they changed the name from AD accidental discharge to ND negligent discharge and started punishment under UCMJ. For my second deployment I carried the notorious M249 as my personal weapon. Everyone was fucking scared of this thing because it was a scary different open-bolt weapon. I was just an E4 but wound up getting called into my platoon sergeants hooch because I had been going around correcting the bullshit misinformation that the other NCOs had been putting out to the other SAW gunners. I had to give him a class and explain how every part of that weapon worked in relation to the other parts. The problem was just the fact that an open-bolt weapon confused the fuck out of our dumbass soldiers and leaders. The 249 isn't unique to the US military. It was designed by Fabrique Nationale in Belgium. It's used by all NATO countries. You know what IS unique to the American M249? A fucking safety button! It does not need a safety button! It's an open-bolt weapon! Bolt open is on fire. Bolt closed is on safe! There is no hammer! The bolt is the hammer! So the presence of a safety button means people in charge of ordering weapons high up the chain didn't know dick about it either. The safety button was on the the pistol grip and blocked the trigger and had nothing to do with the bolt(hammer). SOP was to put the 249 in green status (safe) you pull the bolt back to lock it open and then put on the safety button. That is the most retarded fucking idea since the idea of putting a safety button on it to start with. So basically now you are walking around with it cocked and ready to fire but a little safety button stops the trigger being pulled. But the safety has nothing to do with the bolt. Once open, the trigger is the only thing keeping the bolt held back. The 249 is so reliable like the AK because of the loose tolerances meaning a lot of parts have some wiggle room. So if you drop that 249 and the pistol grip section housing the trigger AND the safety moves, it can release the bolt. If you have rounds in the feed tray, you just had a negligent discharge. BOLT FORWARD, PEOPLE!
> 
> Anyway, I was also a gun addict freaking out about all the boogeyman bullshit the NRA spewed about people trying to take away muh rights and how I wouldn't survive in America without a bunch of guns. Like the normal stuff like a .30-06 or .45 just weren't getting me off anymore. I needed exotic stuff like a .500 Linebaugh or anything Ackley Improved.
> 
> Then I got drunk at a bbq and run over by my aunt in the driveway and woke up in jail as a felon and haven't had a firearm since. That was ten years ago. I've forgotten more about guns and ammo than most people here will ever know in their lives. I don't miss it. It's just like smoking. I didn't see through the bullshit until after I had quit for a while. Visiting Europe really drove it home. Nobody here has a gun. They aren't illegal they're just difficult to get. Nobody cares. There are plenty of shooting ranges anyone can go and shoot the range's weapons. I haven't went. Nobody gets shot over here because nobody has guns. It doesn't matter how much you want to twist it or hide from it that is fact. 15 years ago I would've had the typical NRA bullshit misinformation to spew into my face because I loved having guns and would do anything to defend them. Now I know they are no better than the tobacco people brainwashing everyone to become addicted to their products. They are just selling death in a different form.



Awesome post

But wait.... your aunt ran YOU over, yet YOU got a felony record???


----------



## possumkiller

Let's also not forget about educating our children about firearms so they know how to safely handle them. I was well educated in firearms safety as well as my step brother and cousins and friends. That didn't stop us from doing stupid shit with them. I think it was mainly because we were kids and not responsible enough to handle firearms because we were KIDS. Being educated about them only meant that we knew where they were and how to unlock them and how to load them and how to use them. Kids and guns just don't mix. It is pure dumb luck that I survived childhood without being seriously injured or killed by a gun and I know for a fact that my story is the norm and not unique. The two times I shot myself with my own bb gun were not serious. Didn't even break skin. It was just enough to teach me some humility. Other people won't be so lucky. We used to burn our trash in a pit in the backyard. My cousin and I would toss a handful off .22lr rounds into the fire and run. One of my middle school buddies and I used to balance a .22lr round over the muzzle of a bb gun stood up on the ground and try to fire the bb into the rim of the cartridge to set it off. Right by our heads. I used to use my pocket knife to carve .22lr bullet tips into all kinds of weird experimental shapes and shoot them into various things in the back yard until one time I put the muzzle on the tree and got splinters blown into my face. Some friends and I used a .22lr, .22WMR, and a .410 to cut a tree down. My father and I used to trim high branches in the pine trees in our yard with Remington 800 12ga shotguns. My step brother was a teenager when I was about 9 or 10 and he was carrying around his loaded shotgun and threatening to shoot my dog while his dad was at work. He pointed a loaded shotgun at me when I threatened him with my ball bat. My uncles and their friends used to play army and shoot each other with .22 rat shot back in the 60s and 70s before paintball really took off. They had to stop because one of the parents got pissed off when their kid caught one in the eye and wound up in the hospital. One of the kids at my school had a steel plate for a skull because he blew the top of his face off with a 20ga. One of my army buddies used to hate our sergeants so much that he would hide out behind the vehicles in the motorpool and sit watching the sergeants walk around through the sights of his weapon. We actually played a prank on one of our other buddies. I took the firing pin out of my M16A2 (first deployment, they call them muskets nowadays). I put in a loaded magazine and was sitting in a chair pretending to be depressed with the barrel in my mouth Full Metal Jacket style. My other friend was yelling at me and taunting me saying I was chicken shit and wouldnt do it as my other friend was returning to the hooch from chow. He just went over to his cot saying I dont see shit man leave me out of it. And then I pulled the trigger. It just clicked. But then I charged the weapon again and when a live round came out and another live round loaded he started to panic. I pulled the trigger and reloaded a couple of times before I could barely contain my laughter and got up and threw my rifle down in feigned outrage and ran out the door. 

Young people and guns don't mix because of three things. Curiosity, recklessness, and peer pressure. It doesn't matter how good or responsible you think your kid is. As soon as your back is turned and their friends get involved, it always ends in horseplay. You can talk about survival of the fittest all you want until something happens to your own dipshit kid. If you ever slipped up and thought to yourself, "that dumbass never should've been allowed to mess with a gun in the first place" then you just agreed with everyone else about gun control. That's all it is. The NRA wants to convince you that the evil libtards are out to steal your guns because they want to sell you something. They want your money. They want donations. They want you to buy guns or ammo or any other merch they are selling. They don't give a flying fuck about your rights. They are just televangelists selling you a bunch of fear and lining their pockets with your cash. It isn't about that at all. Libtards and the gubment don't give a shit about people that want to hunt or shoot or whatever. Even Joe Prepper with his arms room full of machine guns and ammo isn't a threat to them. One of the things I noticed after I got out of the army in 2009 was that even local law enforcement is better armed than my platoon was. You aren't dealing with Andy and Barney anymore. Barney is covered in body armor now and packing a hi cap automatic handgun on his hip with a short barrel shotty in the seat and an MP5 in the trunk. You and your AR15 aren't going to stop them. Gun control advocates want to make it more difficult for irresponsible dipshits to be able to go on killing sprees. Even here in Europe guns are not illegal. It is very common for farmers to have guns. They have guns that are useful to them because they actually use them as tools and not a dick replacement or security blanket. They use shotguns. Plain old single or double barreled shotguns. Break it open and load it and shoot it and repeat. That is the only gun that any civilian can ever claim to need. It is the swiss army knife of guns. Small game? Birdshot. Bigger game? Buckshot or heavier birdshot. Large game or aggressive game? Buckshot or slugs. High velocity? Sabot rounds. They have packed just about anything you could need into a shotgun shell. Flares, fireballs, flechettes, bolos, non-lethal. A shotgun is perfect for home defense because it won't go through the target and the next wall and another person you weren't trying to shoot. 

The simple fact is gun control works. There is no kind of double talk word twisting that will disprove it. The one and only argument against it is "but I dont want to give up my guns". Any time someone starts trying to argue against gun control, that is all they are really saying because there is zero factual evidence to prove it does not work. I know because it was me. It wasnt my problem that all these other dumbasses couldnt be trusted with a gun. I loved my guns and I was going to keep them. Once I was forced to quit cold turkey, I began to realize that much like any other cult or addiction, once you get some distance from it, you start to see through the BS and find the truth.


----------



## Adieu

...i wonder what percentage of adult gun owners first stocked up when they realized their neighbor's juvenile delinquent offspring were running around with significantly more guns than brains?


----------



## tedtan

"Trump has never been worse — but his approval is surging. Why?"

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-never-worse-approval-surging-095500857.html


----------



## Ralyks

So looks like everyone is rushing back to DC to vote on the package because of Massie. What an asshole. Even Trump wants him ousted because of this.


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaand the bill passed the house.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Massie. What an asshole.



"#Masshole"

- John Kerry, former US Secretary of State (March 27, 2020.)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I can't wait for all the vocal anti-socialists to not accept their bailout checks on principle.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can't wait for all the vocal anti-socialists to not accept their bailout checks on principle.



It's blowing the minds of two of my cousins that I still want them to get a check, even though I likely won't get one.

The same cousins who shared "All you who said Trumps not your president, better be sending those checks right back!" memes the momeny there was check talk a week or two ago.


----------



## fantom

Replace "gun" with "guitar" and "bullets" with "strings" and I'll kind of understand what gun enthusiasts are saying. I need 137 guitars and enough strings to restring them every day for 100 years.

In all seriousness, I grew up not aware of guns my parents had. I had a BB gun once, it was fun to shoot the target, sure. One day, I found a rifle and some bullets, decided to load it and shoot the fence. I was probably not even 10 and had no idea what I was doing. I probably could've killed someone. Luckily the gun jammed. I told my mom when she came home. She didn't punish or even lecture me, but the next day the gun was gone. I think people who want stricter gone control see it the same way. It isn't about taking things away, it's about reducing risk.

From my point of view, guns as a hobby is fine. But when guns make injuring or killing yourself or others easy, it is the responsibility of the government to make a choice regarding what is best for society. That is literally the reason governments exist. And as pointed out, the government, local communities, and gun shops have done an awful job at this in USA.


----------



## blacai

TED NUGENT: DONALD TRUMP Is 'The Greatest Leader In The History Of The Human Experience'

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/t...eader-in-the-history-of-the-human-experience/


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah yeah, we all know Nugents schtick...


----------



## possumkiller

So the EPA just said fuck it they give up? All EPA regs are suspended indefinitely.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> So the EPA just said fuck it they give up? All EPA regs are suspended indefinitely.



Petrochemical Companies:


----------



## gunch

possumkiller said:


> So the EPA just said fuck it they give up? All EPA regs are suspended indefinitely.



Mmmmm I love carcinogens in my groundwater


----------



## BlackSG91

tedtan said:


> "Trump has never been worse — but his approval is surging. Why?"
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-never-worse-approval-surging-095500857.html



I guess this is why.








;>)/


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/28/opinions/stimulus-bill-tax-break-for-1-mccaffery/index.html

How anyone can be pro-Trump or pro-McConnell if you're an average joe is beyond me. This is griftopia scumbaggery of the highest order. Using the pandemic to unofficially repeal tax laws is gross.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/28/opinions/stimulus-bill-tax-break-for-1-mccaffery/index.html
> 
> How anyone can be pro-Trump or pro-McConnell if you're an average joe is beyond me. This is griftopia scumbaggery of the highest order. Using the pandemic to unofficially repeal tax laws is gross.



But what you fail to understand, @USMarine75, is that freedom guns abortion Burisma deep state QAnon immigrants taking jobs clean coal libtard... *trails off as brain melts*


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/28/opinions/stimulus-bill-tax-break-for-1-mccaffery/index.html
> 
> How anyone can be pro-Trump or pro-McConnell if you're an average joe is beyond me. This is griftopia scumbaggery of the highest order. Using the pandemic to unofficially repeal tax laws is gross.



Somehow people making $50,000/yr are going to defend this...


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Somehow people making $50,000/yr are going to defend this...



Exactly. We talked about this one day at work... how people vote against their own basic best interests. Poor fly-over country deplorables should be voting Dem all day long... should want more EPA and OSHA protections, more social programs, higher tax rates for "earners", etc. And intellectuals making $200K+ should be voting conservative Republican... protect their income, lower their tax rates, etc. Yet the rich have somehow convinced the poor that things like trickle down economics exist - you're too dumb to know how to spend your money, so give it to me. Makes no damn sense.


----------



## BlackSG91

blacai said:


> TED NUGENT: DONALD TRUMP Is 'The Greatest Leader In The History Of The Human Experience'
> 
> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/t...eader-in-the-history-of-the-human-experience/



There are a least 2 things that Ted & Donald have in common. They are both draft dodgers & both these fine men have a desirable taste for under-aged women.


;>)/


----------



## vilk

possumkiller said:


> So the EPA just said fuck it they give up? All EPA regs are suspended indefinitely.



This will kill people. Probably not this or maybe even the next election cycle, but rest assured that people will die because of this.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> This will kill people. Probably not this or maybe even the next election cycle, but rest assured that people will die because of this.


I'd be willing to at least hear it out if it was targeted relaxation in the production of personal protective equiptment, ventilators, etc etc wtc, all things we desperately need to fight the pandemic... But I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's not.


----------



## fantom

BlackSG91 said:


> I guess this is why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/



I think he means median, not average. Considering it is George Carlin, I'll give him benefit of the doubt and call it subtle statistics humor.



USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/28/opinions/stimulus-bill-tax-break-for-1-mccaffery/index.html
> 
> How anyone can be pro-Trump or pro-McConnell if you're an average joe is beyond me. This is griftopia scumbaggery of the highest order. Using the pandemic to unofficially repeal tax laws is gross.



Ug... What the actual f....


----------



## fantom

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/490358-mcconnell-hits-brakes-on-next-economic-stimulus-package

"I’m not going to allow this to be an opportunity for the Democrats to achieve unrelated policy items that they would not otherwise be able to pass.” -Mitch

After removing the cap on depreciation write-offs, let's make sure Democrats don't fix some roads... If there is any politician that defines scumbag self-serving pile of poo, McConnell is definitely a frontrunner.


----------



## zappatton2

But wait, there's more... sadly, there's always more;
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-watchdog-fired-impeachment-michael-atkinson-1.5521927


----------



## JSanta

Glad to see this asshat gone: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/07/8291...n-as-acting-navy-chief-over-warship-skipper-f

If you're going to accuse an Officer of a UCMJ offense, especially in this manner, you better have the evidence to back your mouth up.


----------



## sleewell

JSanta said:


> Glad to see this asshat gone: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/07/8291...n-as-acting-navy-chief-over-warship-skipper-f
> 
> If you're going to accuse an Officer of a UCMJ offense, especially in this manner, you better have the evidence to back your mouth up.




agreed. what a complete moron. insults the guy who just tried to save all their lives after he fired them. yeah thats going to go over well. 

only the best people right? what a fucking joke.


----------



## bostjan

I was kinda hoping that the Trump administration would settle on some good people in charge for this catastrophe, but we still see a revolving door- new press secretary, new Navy chief, new press secretary, new admin for relief fund... all in a matter of days.

I also wonder if all of the deaths in urban areas will somehow get played by the administration- it seems like it could lead to some redistricting of the electoral college. Take a few votes from NY, CA, and WA, and stick them in other places... I wouldn't put it past them at this point.


----------



## Ralyks

JSanta said:


> Glad to see this asshat gone: https://www.npr.org/2020/04/07/8291...n-as-acting-navy-chief-over-warship-skipper-f
> 
> If you're going to accuse an Officer of a UCMJ offense, especially in this manner, you better have the evidence to back your mouth up.



Good. Fuck him.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> I was kinda hoping that the Trump administration would settle on some good people in charge for this catastrophe, but we still see a revolving door- new press secretary, new Navy chief, new press secretary, new admin for relief fund... all in a matter of days.
> 
> I also wonder if all of the deaths in urban areas will somehow get played by the administration- it seems like it could lead to some redistricting of the electoral college. Take a few votes from NY, CA, and WA, and stick them in other places... I wouldn't put it past them at this point.



after what happened in Wisconsin today I think democracy is officially dead in this country.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> after what happened in Wisconsin today I think democracy is officially dead in this country.



Sad, but, yeah, I mean, after what we saw in Iowa already, I didn't have any doubt that the election was f*cked from the start.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> after what happened in Wisconsin today I think democracy is officially dead in this country.



What a fucking knob: https://cnn.it/2Vc0Mwr


----------



## Adieu

wankerness said:


> after what happened in Wisconsin today I think democracy is officially dead in this country.



...probably?

But why, what happened in Wisconsin?


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> ...probably?
> 
> But why, what happened in Wisconsin?



Neutered governor (thanks, Scott Walker) tried to postpone primary/election and extend mail voting. Republican majority supreme court shot that down. But reduced staffing and reduced polling places. For example, in Milwaukee which should have 180 polling places, only had 5. For 50,000 expected voters making for looooooooooooong lines of people, during a national emergency pandemic.


----------



## sleewell

Trump: if we had voting by mail there is no way a Republican would ever win an election 

Reporter: didn't you vote by mail last time?


It's different for me! Fake news!


----------



## USMarine75

Don't forget... what are we at now? 3 fired IG? Trump specifically saying because one wasn't "his guy". The OIG is never supposed to be run by anyone's "guy".

But then again, this is a guy who thinks (and has 40+% of voters somehow bamboozled enough to agree) that they should (only) get their news directly from him... that everyone else is fake news.

Just two more examples of how he doesn't think he should ever be held accountable by anyone other than himself.

https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-t...ing-stimulus-spending/TqZ7Wqou0VHLFedm9f5uMJ/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...3166de-77b4-11ea-b6ff-597f170df8f8_story.html


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Its sad how the axe convinced the trees he was one of them because he had a wooden handle


----------



## possumkiller

I'm pretty sure democracy was dead in America for a long time. It's just Trump exposing how bad these problems actually can be. We've never had anyone in office at the same level of deluded self-serving scumbag as Trump that would absolutely exploit every advantage and loophole to maximum effect in plain sight. 

The fact that people can actually listen to his incoherent nonsensical ramblings and still take him seriously and treat him like a president scares me. Every time he gets in front of a crowd and talks, I wonder how all those people can listen to him with a straight face and not die laughing.


----------



## Aso

So what is Trumps end game for after he leaves office? I mean firing inspector generals so he can do what he wants until he gets out of office works great while you're in office. What if the new guy elected isn't on his team and digs into some of the shadier things his administration has done? What happens if he gets re-elected but the senate goes back to the Democrats?

I just don't see what the end game is.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Aso said:


> So what is Trumps end game for after he leaves office? I mean firing inspector generals so he can do what he wants until he gets out of office works great while you're in office. What if the new guy elected isn't on his team and digs into some of the shadier things his administration has done? What happens if he gets re-elected but the senate goes back to the Democrats?
> 
> I just don't see what the end game is.



There is no plan. There was never a plan. There won't ever be a plan. 

Remember, folks thought they were going to get certain Bush2 administration officials in the guillotines when out of office. It never happened. It wasn't going to happen. 

There just aren't mechanisms to handle this within the confines of our political and legal systems like there are for "us", regular people. 

That said, we're in somewhat uncharted waters.


----------



## Aso

I am afraid you are right Max but figured I would ask since there are much smarter/informed people on this thread than I am. I suppose when someone new comes in they are just going to say "lets bring the country together and heal so forget about any nefarious stuff these guys did" . Which I think was already done once and by not holding administrations accountable for their actions it just enables the next group that wants to push the boundaries further.


----------



## sleewell

trump's plan is to win that day. he clearly has no plans for anything he promised during the campaign. he isn't responsible for any legislation, only signing them after the adults write the bills. he isn't responsible for appointing any judges, any other gop president could have let mcconnel do that. he gets on twitter and morons think that is accomplishing something. he just said he is a cheerleader and that the fereral govt is a backup. he thinks the job is playing golf and going to rallies.


----------



## JSanta

Aso said:


> I am afraid you are right Max but figured I would ask since there are much smarter/informed people on this thread than I am. I suppose when someone new comes in they are just going to say "lets bring the country together and heal so forget about any nefarious stuff these guys did" . Which I think was already done once and by not holding administrations accountable for their actions it just enables the next group that wants to push the boundaries further.



This is just my opinion, but I don't think the next President is going to be able to get into office and become an apologist for the previous regime UNLESS the Republicans are also pushing that narrative. There are too many people in the States that voted for Trump that believe that the man can do no wrong, and the next President isn't going to be able to get up on the international stage and apologize for the country electing Trump without causing significant further damage. I just don't see that being a plausible path forward while people like McConnell and Paul are in power.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

JSanta said:


> This is just my opinion, but I don't think the next President is going to be able to get into office and become an apologist for the previous regime UNLESS the Republicans are also pushing that narrative. There are too many people in the States that voted for Trump that believe that the man can do no wrong, and the next President isn't going to be able to get up on the international stage and apologize for the country electing Trump without causing significant further damage. I just don't see that being a plausible path forward while people like McConnell and Paul are in power.



Bingo.

Not to mention it would set a terrible precedent that the GOP would absolutely without a doubt use at the first opportunity. 

You can't tell me they aren't already plotting Biden's impeachment.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Not to mention it would set a terrible precedent that the GOP would absolutely without a doubt use at the first opportunity.
> 
> You can't tell me they aren't already plotting Biden's impeachment.



I absolutely agree with you. I don't think this current administration is going to be something we can meaningfully learn and heal from for a very long time. Even if the Senate flips, and Biden is elected, they know they are on thin ice with anything they say or do against the Trump apologists.


----------



## Ralyks

Bernie is out.

Welp, your move Joe.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Bernie is out.
> 
> Welp, your move Joe.



I think what Bernie does now is infinitely more important.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think what Bernie does now is infinitely more important.



As a senator, absolutely. I felt he needed too steep down on focus on being a senator during the crisis.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Bernie is out.
> 
> Welp, your move Joe.



Biden?

He looks like he's about to need a lojack to keep him from wandering off and getting lost.

If he doesn't keel over and stroke out or something first.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> As a senator, absolutely. I felt he needed too steep down on focus on being a senator during the crisis.



As in, how he guides his following towards Biden.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> As in, how he guides his following towards Biden.



Even without the corona factor, the lot of em are old enough that anything goes... one or more may yet croak before election day.

WITH corona, Trump could easily screw the pooch hard enough to make a 3way race possible even without a Dem nomination.

Or, you know, some of the geriatric set might actually kick it...


----------



## possumkiller

Fuck Biden. He's just another do-nothing blowhard wealthy part of the problem. If non-Republicans still can't seem to figure out that a revolution is needed, I guess four more (or who knows how many more if he gets his way) years of Trump will help them pull their heads out of the sand.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Even without the corona factor, the lot of em are old enough that anything goes... one or more may yet croak before election day.
> 
> WITH corona, Trump could easily screw the pooch hard enough to make a 3way race possible even without a Dem nomination.
> 
> Or, you know, some of the geriatric set might actually kick it...



If the general election is anything like the primary, the "COVID factor" isn't only going to have an effect on the olds.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> If the general election is anything like the primary, the "COVID factor" isn't only going to have an effect on the olds.



I meant that we might end up with new names entirely if shit really gets wild

Or even if it doesn't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> I meant that we might end up with new names entirely if shit really gets wild
> 
> Or even if it doesn't.



I suppose that's a possibility.


----------



## tedtan

Aso said:


> So what is Trumps end game for after he leaves office? I mean firing inspector generals so he can do what he wants until he gets out of office works great while you're in office. What if the new guy elected isn't on his team and digs into some of the shadier things his administration has done? What happens if he gets re-elected but the senate goes back to the Democrats?
> 
> I just don't see what the end game is.



Die in office, even if it means taking measures to extend the maximum number of terms a person can serve as POTUS.


----------



## wankerness

Adieu said:


> I meant that we might end up with new names entirely if shit really gets wild
> 
> Or even if it doesn't.



That would DEFINITELY be the ideal situation.


----------



## spudmunkey

_[Bill Weld re-enters the chat]_


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> As in, how he guides his following towards Biden.


The fact he dropped out now, IMO, is encouraging for party unity, and evidently what moves would give Sanders the best shot at influencing the 2020 platform were a big part of his team's recent deliberations and his decision to hang up his hat now. 

Hot take - I think it's being under-appreciated how far to the left Sanders has ALREADY pulled the Democratic party. Every single candidate in 2020 had some sort of universal health care program, $15 minimum wage plan, college affordability plan, etc. This is further left than Clinton's general election campaign in 2016, which was further left than her 2016 primary campaign, which was further left than Obama's 2008 and 2012 campaigns. At some level, Sanders himself as an antagonistic iconoclast with a well-earned reputation for being a pain in the ass to work with in the Senate was probably becoming an impediment to the progressive movement, because he dominated the discussion and it became a referendum on HIS particular progressive plans, not on what was the best way to achieve the policy goals that pretty much every single Democrat in the primary sought to accomplish. I'm not sure who the next major progressive candidate will be after Sanders and Warren, but they'll be starting from more comfortable territory and - if they're smart - they won't make their own persona such a large part of the progressive brand. Sanders bowing out is an opportunity, not a death blow, for the progressive movement. 

Hot Take #2 - in a hypothetical campaign where Sanders realized well in advance that his polling suggested he was going to underperform, not overperform, 2016, and didn't declare... I think Warren could have won this. It's a moot point since we never got to see that world, but Sanders carved off a good chunk of the progressive vote while alienating basically the entire rest of the party, and Warren - outside of her brief stint as the frontrunner before she rolled out a Medicare For All plan that even she had to admit the numbers didn't really work and walk back with an interim plan - might have had enough support from the progressive left where her electability appeal to the moderate center-left might have gotten some traction.


----------



## bostjan

I apologize in advance, but it's my rant time.

It's no secret that I was not a Trump fan. I really wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt, time and time again. That wore thin within a couple of months (and a lot of scandals I honestly don't even remember anymore), and, by the time he was impeached, I was full on tired of the garbage. But this, this is just upsetting me.

The folks supporting him before are 100% defending his handling of this outbreak. In the past three or four days, it's come out that his administration was warned by the intelligence community in November that this virus would cause a pandemic in no uncertain terms. And as he's time and time again pushed HCQ+Azithromycin as the cure for the disease, the non-blind-supporters all knew something was fishy in Denmark.

Aside-HCQ or hydroxychloroquine- it's a drug that is used to treat lupus, an autoimmune disease, by telling the immune system to cool it. It works for lupus, because the immune system that is causing problems gets less aggressive on the drug and stops attacking the body's own cells. A _related_ chemical, that *is not the same drug*, chloroquine phosphate, was suggested for trials in China, because it has some success treating viruses. The mechanism of that drug is that it raises the pH of cytoplasm in the cells of the patient, which makes for an antagonistic environment for mRNA. Viruses that use mRNA to infect, then are less likely to be replicated by infected cells, because the mRNA they use to replicate gets damaged and ignored by the cells' production. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, because chloroquine phosphate is not HCQ. How HCQ interacts with covid-19 is that it switches off the immune system, such that fever subsides and phlegm dries up. Meanwhile, if the virus is not being stopped by any drug action (which most doctors believe it isn't), the virus spreads uncontrolled. So why is HCQ being talked about so much by Trump?

Well, as you are almost all already aware, I'm sure, the news-media has tied Trump's cronies to the company that is set to make generic HCQ and profit on the order of tens of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, other actual anti-viral medications with some theoretical basis are being investigated, but no one is reporting about those.

But, because Trump has set the bar so incredibly low with his sleaziness so far, his supporters are shrugging this one off, and his opponents are shrugging, too.

Let it sink in for a minute that the man who was briefed about how bad this would be, in November, up until mid-March, was downplaying this. The man who's buddiies are contracted to make a drug that will not only not work, but potentially make this much worse in the long run, is also publicly saying over and over that the drug is a "game changer" despite protests from his own medical advisors.

Things are about to get worse here in the USA, and we are already worse than any other country. As we hit peak and urban areas are affected the worst, and gubernatorial requests to postpone primary elections during a national state of emergency worse than anything in our lives are being shot down by Trump-appointed judges... how can we have any faith in our electoral process? The same electoral process that put Trump in charge in the first place due to tampering from outside powers!

And all of this information is out there in government reports, not just in the mainstream media, ... but Trump's supporters, many of whom are good friends of mine, are unwilling to read the reports and unwilling to spend a moment's thought about it, because democrats...

I dunno, I think I'm just a point where I have no faith left in this country.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## possumkiller

The sad thing is it's not even really a two-party system anymore. It's a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system. Trump, Biden, the Clintons, the Bushes are all on the same team and it's not our team.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Things are about to get worse here in the USA, and we are already worse than any other country. As we hit peak and urban areas are affected the worst, and gubernatorial requests to postpone primary elections during a national state of emergency worse than anything in our lives are being shot down by Trump-appointed judges... how can we have any faith in our electoral process? The same electoral process that put Trump in charge in the first place due to tampering from outside powers!
> 
> And all of this information is out there in government reports, not just in the mainstream media, ... but Trump's supporters, many of whom are good friends of mine, are unwilling to read the reports and unwilling to spend a moment's thought about it, because democrats...
> 
> I dunno, I think I'm just a point where I have no faith left in this country.



there is about a 99% chance the November election is going to be loaded with unbelievably blatant scumfuckery like the WI election was and that Trump will be re-elected because of it. Not that we have an even remotely decent candidate to begin with, but this is not a democracy anymore.

this country is absolutely and utterly dead. Unless you are in the 1%. I predict that California and some of the other richer blue states will try to secede in less than 20 years, probably followed by civil war #2 since the blue states are the ones that drive the economy.

I wish there was a way to get out of it, but there isn’t going to be. Other than a meteor hitting Washington DC while trump and the whole GOP are present.


----------



## vilk

wankerness said:


> there is about a 99% chance the November election is going to be loaded with unbelievably blatant scumfuckery like the WI election was and that Trump will be re-elected because of it. Not that we have an even remotely decent candidate to begin with, but this is not a democracy anymore.
> 
> this country is absolutely and utterly dead. Unless you are in the 1%. I predict that California and some of the other richer blue states will try to secede in less than 20 years, probably followed by civil war #2 since the blue states are the ones that drive the economy.
> 
> I wish there was a way to get out of it, but there isn’t going to be. Other than a meteor hitting Washington DC while trump and the whole GOP are present.



I like to believe that the internet will kill it. Access to information is the combatant of ignorance, which, and I'm not sure how to say this without sounding offensive but I think I'm safe on SSO, is why rates of religiosity have been steadily going down. Fewer people are Christian now than ever before, and that trend will continue. It seems like a weird parallel to draw, but I think we can agree that [mainstream] religiosity is intrinsically tied with conservatism, at least in America. When you're not already fully brainwashed for most of your life, it doesn't take long with any search engine to see that the majority of talking points for practically any American conservative Christian movement are not only bunk but also have very little to do with the actual teachings of Jesus in the Bible. Likewise, if you're not fully brainwashed by nationalism (folks often get mixed up and call it patriotism), it doesn't take long with any search engine to see that the Bush administration were war criminals and that America has a long and obvious history of doing unprovoked evil things militarily.

Vietnam snapped a lot of folks out of it... but not enough of them. But it was a start. It will take time, but I want to believe that with our ever-growing access to information, eventually we'll have a population that 100% sees through the bullshit. 

The weird thing is that philosophically, conservatism doesn't necessarily need to be tied so tightly to conventional religiosity and nationalism and unrestricted cronyist-capitalism... but it is for some reason, and I can't really imagine how they will ever be disconnected.


----------



## possumkiller

wankerness said:


> Other than a meteor hitting Washington DC while trump and the whole GOP are present.


Unfortunately, that would still leave half of the politicians responsible for this mess. The Democrats are nothing more than the GOP with a different branding that appeals to the people that disagree with the GOP. Think of it as buying a Cadillac because you think it is better than a Chevrolet. You actually just bought a Chevrolet that had a face-lift. They are the same on the inside. Biden is softer spoken and a bit more well-behaved and articulate than Trump. But do you really think he is going to do anything for you that goes against the interests of his wealthy masters?


----------



## ThePIGI King

possumkiller said:


> The sad thing is it's not even really a two-party system anymore. It's a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system. Trump, Biden, the Clintons, the Bushes are all on the same team and it's not our team.


Did somebody say boogaloo?

On a serious note I doubt the Boogaloo would happen anytime soon. In my lifetime? Depends, I'll die young  but I think it will happen. Only a matter of time.


----------



## wankerness

possumkiller said:


> Unfortunately, that would still leave half of the politicians responsible for this mess. The Democrats are nothing more than the GOP with a different branding that appeals to the people that disagree with the GOP. Think of it as buying a Cadillac because you think it is better than a Chevrolet. You actually just bought a Chevrolet that had a face-lift. They are the same on the inside. Biden is softer spoken and a bit more well-behaved and articulate than Trump. But do you really think he is going to do anything for you that goes against the interests of his wealthy masters?



the democrats definitely share culpability. But they would not have handled this even remotely as badly, and they have in recent history ALWAYS advocated for things like fair elections. There’s a hell of a lot of difference between fascist voter suppression, refusal to take health of citizens into account, and blatant undermining of any government program that helps ANYONE other than the rich, and garden variety corporate dems like Obama.


----------



## shadowlife

If you want to fix the political system in America, you start with Congress.
The first thing you do is impose term limits- no more than two (just like many other elected political positions), then their asses are out and they can go back to whatever job they had before. 
That's just the tip of the iceberg.

US citizens get f*cked 100x more by the actions of congress than by the actions of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.

I don't expect things to change, but that's my opinion anyway.


----------



## possumkiller

shadowlife said:


> If you want to fix the political system in America, you start with Congress.
> The first thing you do is impose term limits- no more than two (just like many other elected political positions), then their asses are out and they can go back to whatever job they had before.
> That's just the tip of the iceberg.
> 
> US citizens get f*cked 100x more by the actions of congress than by the actions of whoever is sitting in the Oval Office.
> 
> I don't expect things to change, but that's my opinion anyway.


Exactly! Everyone is always talking about which president was better or worse. Apart from Trump presidents do little apart from presiding over the country. Congress are the lawmakers that keep fucking everyone over. People need to start paying attention to their senators and representatives instead of focusing so much on just the president.


----------



## Necris

ThePIGI King said:


> Did somebody say boogaloo?
> 
> On a serious note I doubt the Boogaloo would happen anytime soon. In my lifetime? Depends, I'll die young  but I think it will happen. Only a matter of time.



A few White Supremacist groups have been trying to accelerate the arrival of the boog' as of late (as you'd expect from accelerationists); AWD members were arrested on their way to executing a plan to kick it off with a mass shooting at a pro-2A rally in Virginia, and a member of the NSM was recently killed during a sting while trying to retrieve a bomb he was planning to use to take out a hospital in Kansas City a couple weeks ago. If a few slip through you might get to see it.


----------



## zappatton2

I'd never heard of this definition of Boogaloo, I'm more familiar with the "Electric" version. And after Googling it, just like that, another great word is ruined forever.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ADgdpv9K-RtqJzXETGl723A

Might want to go fill up your gas tanks now.


----------



## Hollowway

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/ADgdpv9K-RtqJzXETGl723A
> 
> Might want to go fill up your gas tanks now.



In any normal industry this would be considered “price fixing” and illegal. For anyone who says capitalism works because the market will balance itself, I challenge them to rationalize how OPEC does this. You can’t believe in both capitalism and supporting the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## devastone

wankerness said:


> I wish there was a way to get out of it, but there isn’t going to be. Other than a meteor hitting Washington DC while trump and the whole GOP are present.



Nope, gotta take them all out, extremists on either side are bad. I tend to see most answers as being in the middle, the problem with our current system is that to be elected you have to be part of that system, if you are part of that system you have to pick a team, you have to be a team player, therefore you can't meet the other team in the middle. 

This commentary is IMO only, but I really think there is something to it.


----------



## wankerness

devastone said:


> Nope, gotta take them all out, extremists on either side are bad. I tend to see most answers as being in the middle, the problem with our current system is that to be elected you have to be part of that system, if you are part of that system you have to pick a team, you have to be a team player, therefore you can't meet the other team in the middle.
> 
> This commentary is IMO only, but I really think there is something to it.



"Both sides are equally bad" is an incredibly outdated argument. One side is trying to turn this into a dictatorship and is actively undermining the ability of the citizens to vote. What are the democrats doing that's even CLOSE to as bad?

To say nothing of Trump sending feds to steal life-saving medical equipment that's been paid for by states, and then keeping it hostage and only releasing it to people that praise him, and making a huge public show of it. See: Colorado for the most obvious and egregious example thus far.


----------



## possumkiller

wankerness said:


> "Both sides are equally bad" is an incredibly outdated argument. One side is trying to turn this into a dictatorship and is actively undermining the ability of the citizens to vote. What are the democrats doing that's even CLOSE to as bad?
> 
> To say nothing of Trump sending feds to steal life-saving medical equipment that's been paid for by states, and then keeping it hostage and only releasing it to people that praise him, and making a huge public show of it. See: Colorado for the most obvious and egregious example thus far.


I'm not sure if Trump and his cronies really count as Republicans. This admin seems to be some batshit crazy thing of its own.


----------



## bostjan

Trump's holding a press conference soon about reopening the economy.

And... we are almost halfway through this thing.

I hope he doesn't make as idiotic a move as it sounds like...


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> I'm not sure if Trump and his cronies really count as Republicans. This admin seems to be some batshit crazy thing of its own.



This. So much this.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Ralyks said:


> This. So much this.




Even removing Trump. Republican policy goals are gerrymandering districts, voter suppression, aggresive partisan judge apointments, and for some reason abortion.

Democrats seem to try to helll people but try to ensure every thing hits every groups need and then it is unpassable and has to get watered down because they try to pander and play identity politics too much.

Either way Republicans actively anti democracy. Democrats bumbling/inept.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Even removing Trump. Republican policy goals are gerrymandering districts, voter suppression, aggresive partisan judge apointments, and for some reason abortion.
> 
> Democrats seem to try to helll people but try to ensure every thing hits every groups need and then it is unpassable and has to get watered down because they try to pander and play identity politics too much.
> 
> Either way Republicans actively anti democracy. Democrats bumbling/inept.



The democrats aren't inept, they're just beholden to some of the same masters as the GOP. 

The party is run by corporate centrists, not liberal progressives, so there's an undercurrent of protecting the status quo. 

They can often talk a good game, and if the goal is democracy, they're the better option in most cases. 

So it's not that the democrats are so great, they're really not, the bar is just set so low by the GOP that they look shinier.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/14/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-governors-economy/index.html

The Dear Leader is losing his shit.

You can be pro/anti Democrat. You can be pro/anti Republican. But how can anyone still be pro that guy?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> But how can anyone still be pro that guy?



Because fake news, guns, abortion, socialism, the Bible, brown people, jobs numbers, her emails, Burisma, yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because fake news, guns, abortion, socialism, the Bible, brown people, jobs numbers, her emails, Burisma, yadda yadda yadda.



True.

Very well. 

Carry on then.


----------



## possumkiller

Maybe he still thinks he's starring in a reality show? Maybe Americans think they are also in a reality show and he is part of it.


----------



## wankerness

There are some encouraging signs that some people are waking up to his bullshit. Even with HEAVY, truly scary voter suppression and intentional endangering of peoples' lives to try and stuff the ballot box for the Republicans, they lost the election in Wisconsin for the supreme court. Some historically extremely solid red counties flipped blue, and she won handily even with the fiasco in Milwaukee making turnout there very low compared to most counties.

Unfortunately, we still have a conservative majority in the state supreme court until at least 2023, but it's certainly a huge step in the right direction.

There's about 30-40% of this country that is completely a lost cause and will support Trump no matter what he does. But, as long as the election in November still happens, I think we might finally get out of this national nightmare. It's just too bad we have a candidate that's 10x worse than Hillary. Gotta love how now his sexual assault allegations are blowing up the airwaves on both sides of the aisle. I guess it's good that Trump is melting down so spectacularly to distract from that, but ugh. The only counterargument is "well, he's less of a molester than Trump."


----------



## devastone

FWIW, I said "extremists on both sides..." and sorry for being outdated, I'm old, but it's been the way I've seen it most of my life. And, the 2 actual choices we had for the both election, how did that happen, I'm not sure i could have imagined worse choices. But, that is old news too, or may you disagree. Yeah, sorry I popped into this thread, please continue, I need to get back to work, for better or worse, I'm still working.


----------



## devastone

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because fake news, guns, abortion, socialism, the Bible, brown people, jobs numbers, her emails, Burisma, yadda yadda yadda.



I though socialism was Bernie's thing?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

devastone said:


> I though socialism was Bernie's thing?



I was referring to it's use as a scare tactic.

To some folks, it's a dirty word, even though many lauded institutions use the fundamental concept, such as the police and fire service, and any other public service in which a contemporary business model is eschewed in favor of providing a public good financed by society as a whole.


----------



## spudmunkey

devastone said:


> I though socialism was Bernie's thing?



I assume, like "abortions" that it was just a list of hot topics, and not meant to convery that they were for or against all of them.


----------



## bostjan

devastone said:


> FWIW, I said "extremists on both sides..." and sorry for being outdated, I'm old, but it's been the way I've seen it most of my life. And, the 2 actual choices we had for the both election, how did that happen, I'm not sure i could have imagined worse choices. But, that is old news too, or may you disagree. Yeah, sorry I popped into this thread, please continue, I need to get back to work, for better or worse, I'm still working.



Yes, both sides have extremists, and politics isn't just one debate, it's hundreds. But in US politics, if you are talking about Trump and Biden, I think that it's clear that one choice is more extreme than the other.



devastone said:


> I though socialism was Bernie's thing?



I don't know that any US political figure in the 21st Century is advocating for total socialism, but Sanders is a lot further along the socialism path than mainstream candidates are, and socialism has been informing Democratic party politics for many years now. Obama wanted socialized health care. Honestly, I think that was why he got elected. And Trump ran on a platform heavy with repealing socialized health care, and won the electoral vote whilst losing the popular cote. I believe that the compromise that resulted was that he has been unable to repeal the ACA. So, healthcare will heretofore be socialized in the USA, just to varying degrees.

Bernie Sanders has also been "not a democrat," essentially, since he came to local political prominence. Every time his senate seat is up, he runs in the Democratic party primary and then wins and turns down the nomination to remain independent. It's a bit of a song and dance ritual, but it signifies that he isn't willing to compromise on his values for the party. So, it's no wonder that the party never backs him for presidential bids. Imagine if he won the nomination for president, then turned it down in a similar ritual. I'm not sure people at the national level would appreciate that at all.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I was referring to it's use as a scare tactic.
> 
> To some folks, it's a dirty word, even though many lauded institutions use the fundamental concept, such as the police and fire service, and any other public service in which a contemporary business model is eschewed in favor of providing a public good financed by society as a whole.



Sure, it's a buzz word. The mainstream media thinks we all have a three second attention span, and they are probably correct. The Trump vs. Biden race is going to probably be just a huge stockpile of buzzwords and little substantive debate. Brace yourself for months of "Creepy Uncle Joe" memes and tons of memes of Biden forgetting where he is or what he was doing, because that's basically the best the right has. And the best Biden supporters will have will likely be just quotes from Trump where he is either mean or incoherent, since Trump is mean and incoherent.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, Biden now got 'dem Obama and Warren endorsements.


----------



## sleewell

i love the clip where trump cant find the motorcade that is right in front of him so he just starts randomly walking in the other direction.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> i love the clip where trump cant find the motorcade that is right in front of him so he just starts randomly walking in the other direction.



My grandmother once did that when we were picking her up from the airport. 

She was 81 with advanced dementia and Parkinson's. 

We gave my aunt, whom my grandmother was traveling with, a lot of shit for letting her walk off. If only we had known she was operating on the level of presidential aids and the Secret Service.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> i love the clip where trump cant find the motorcade that is right in front of him so he just starts randomly walking in the other direction.


Where is this clip? You can't just talk up this clip and then not post it...


----------



## sleewell

"oh shit its the only car right in front of the plane. my bad dawg, her emails and all."


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> "oh shit its the only car right in front of the plane. my bad dawg, her emails and all."



HAHAHAHA I swear to god he's President Benson from Hot Shots Part Deux!


----------



## sleewell

at first you are like well there were probably lots of cars there, easy mistake right. nope. they scroll back and its the only fucking car there.


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> at first you are like well there were probably lots of cars there, easy mistake right. nope. they scroll back and its the only fucking car there.



And has the POTUS seal on the door.


----------



## bostjan

I've done dumb things before. I don't judge Trump for that. I still think it's hilarious, though...

I mean, Obama seemed really smart, but he forgot how many states there were in the US during an interview when he was tired. It's funny, but doesn't prove anything about a person's leadership skills until they start doing it often.

What I'm more concerned about is when a leader does deliberate action to harm people. Like Bush and the Iraq War. It wasn't "oops, no WMD," it was that they all knew there were not going to be WMD and planned in advance to lie about it over and over until they had just enough support to go in without serious direct repercussions.


----------



## sleewell

sort of like cutting funding from the WHO in the middle of a pandemic that will cause more deaths because he is trying to find a scapegoat for his own failings?


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> i love the clip where trump cant find the motorcade that is right in front of him so he just starts randomly walking in the other direction.



The one that really got me was when Trump was in Fort Myers, FL. in 2017 and said, "Melania really wanted to be with us," and Melania was standing right next to him. And to be fair, this was after Hurricane Irma and I can understand Trump had a lot on his mind.

At 0:14.


----------



## sleewell

that was awesome.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Rosal76 said:


> The one that really got me was when Trump was in Fort Myers, FL. in 2017 and said, "Melania really wanted to be with us," and Melania was standing right next to him. And to fair, this was after Hurricane Irma and I can understand Trump had a lot on his mind.
> 
> At 0:14.




To be fair, he hasn't really kept track of, or cared, where Melania is since, what, mid 2007?


----------



## SpaceDock

Rosal76 said:


> The one that really got me was when Trump was in Fort Myers, FL. in 2017 and said, "Melania really wanted to be with us," and Melania was standing right next to him. And to be fair, this was after Hurricane Irma and I can understand Trump had a lot on his mind.
> 
> At 0:14.




Oof, not getting any nookie that night.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ehh, that one's a bit of a stretch for me.

Isn't it more plasible that someone would have meant it that she really wanted to be here...she didn't need to be, but she is, because she really wanted to be there?


----------



## narad

Rosal76 said:


> The one that really got me was when Trump was in Fort Myers, FL. in 2017 and said, "Melania really wanted to be with us," and Melania was standing right next to him. And to be fair, this was after Hurricane Irma and I can understand Trump had a lot on his mind.
> 
> At 0:14.




I like the glance over... "Am I here?", and the nod to confirm, "Yes, you are actually here".


----------



## sleewell

so federalists say nothing as trump says he has total control of the states. believe in state rights your entire life and turn on a dime the second dear leader says something dumb. 

the lack of anything resembling a backbone from these people is further proof that there is no republican party at this point. cult of trump or die.


----------



## USMarine75

Rosal76 said:


> The one that really got me was when Trump was in Fort Myers, FL. in 2017 and said, "Melania really wanted to be with us," and Melania was standing right next to him. And to be fair, this was after Hurricane Irma and I can understand Trump had a lot on his mind.
> 
> At 0:14.




In all fairness, I’ve forgotten where I put packages I ordered from overseas too.


----------



## vilk

This might be stupid but I'm not sure so bear with me:

$1200 is about the cost of the average mortgage payment or rent payment. If banks own the homes and apartment buildings, then isn't giving $1200 to everyone without freezing mortgage/rent more or less another bank bailout? I mean those are maybe a high average, but ultimately well over 50% of this money being distributed is just going straight to the banks.


----------



## sleewell

cant speak for other banks but i know we are deferring payments if people ask


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> This might be stupid but I'm not sure so bear with me:
> 
> $1200 is about the cost of the average mortgage payment or rent payment. If banks own the homes and apartment buildings, then isn't giving $1200 to everyone without freezing mortgage/rent more or less another bank bailout? I mean those are maybe a high average, but ultimately well over 50% of this money being distributed is just going straight to the banks.



It's sorta buried in a too long post in the wrong thread, but I mentioned it yesterday that the stimulus checks were a response to the stock market volatility, and intended as a gesture to Wall Street of encouraging people to buy stuff. They tried for a month to negotiate a way to skate through the corona-induced-selloffs solely by handing money directly to Wall Street but a certain point, people need to buy shit for the marketplace to be viable. 

Direct money to people was like, last resort.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> cant speak for other banks but i know we are deferring payments if people ask



Which is fine but even car insurers instituted automatic 15% reductions/rebates for customers without asking.

I pay all of my bills online, as do most people. I wouldn't even know how to contact my bank to ask for a deferral, muchless the fact most people wouldn't want to have to go through the shame/embarrassment of asking.


----------



## sleewell

Randy said:


> Which is fine but even car insurers instituted automatic 15% reductions/rebates for customers without asking.
> 
> I pay all of my bills online, as do most people. I wouldn't even know how to contact my bank to ask for a deferral, muchless the fact most people wouldn't want to have to go through the shame/embarrassment of asking.




why defer payments if people are still working? i know i wouldn't want my mortgage company to just automatically do that.

you can't even figure out how to call your bank?!? seriously??? really not that hard, look out for real life... really comes at you fast.

i work as an underwriter during the week but do collections for extra money 2 saturdays a month. if someone says they arent working i say we can defer payments, not exactly a horrible conversation. they are actually thankful. this isnt anyone's fault. we are being told not to work right now.

this whole "i only text and am afraid to talk on the phone" thing is getting pretty old. makes you look silly imo, put on some big boy pants.

15% on car insurance is nothing. that is not exactly a great analogy. they did it for the publicity and that amount is basically insignificant.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> why defer payments if people are still working? i know i wouldn't want my mortgage company to just automatically do that.
> 
> you can't even figure out how to call your bank?!? seriously??? really not that hard, look out for real life... really comes at you fast.
> 
> i work as an underwriter during the week but do collections for extra money 2 saturdays a month. if someone says they arent working i say we can defer payments, not exactly a horrible conversation. they are actually thankful. this isnt anyone's fault. we are being told not to work right now.
> 
> this whole "i only text and am afraid to talk on the phone" thing is getting pretty old. makes you look silly imo, put on some big boy pants.
> 
> 15% on car insurance is nothing. that is not exactly a great analogy. they did it for the publicity and that amount is basically insignificant.



First of all, that wasn't meant as a direct attack on you or your bank.

Second, okay, it doesn't have to be deferrals for people who are working. How about reductions or a hold on interest? How a reduction on minimum payments and an extension of promotional interest rates to offset the hardship?

I have Capital One and a Paypal Credit account, both of which happened to come due to the end of promotional interest rates, so I had to pay the full remaining balance of both, which I intended to do, but not after I hadn't been working for a month and a half. Both have a "we'll work with you" policy on COVID-19 hardship but no further explanation and I had to find that myself, they didn't call, email or snail mail me to tell me that.

Also, saying "put on your big boy pants" "I'm afraid to talk on the phone" confrontational talk is supposed to convince me I was wrong about the bank's attitude if you contact them about hardship?  I hope you're not the one handling the phone, my man.

And "15% reduction in rates" is somehow less significant than offering someone to move their payments up a month? No double standard there at all.

For the record, I've been trying to get individual assistance and assistance for my business, as I'm in a zone and industry directly effected by the shutdown and I've been nothing but insulted OVER THE PHONE by banks, et al. But thanks for minimizing the shit I'm personally going through. Glad you're doing fine.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Which is fine but even car insurers instituted automatic 15% reductions/rebates for customers without asking.
> 
> I pay all of my bills online, as do most people. I wouldn't even know how to contact my bank to ask for a deferral, muchless the fact most people wouldn't want to have to go through the shame/embarrassment of asking.



You know I don't stump for banks, but Wells Fargo (I know I know. They bought my mortgage from the local credit union I established it with, so it wasn't my choice.) and USAA have been sending me regular emails regarding payment deferral and other arrangements. I don't even have to talk to a person, it's all automated.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> You know I don't stump for banks, but Wells Fargo (I know I know. They bought my mortgage from the local credit union I established it with, so it wasn't my choice.) and USAA have been sending me regular emails regarding payment deferral and other arrangements. I don't even have to talk to a person, it's all automated.



Good on them. I think my parents have Wells Fargo, they haven't mentioned their situation with them one way or another, but it's good to hear they had/have that option available to them.

Call it bad luck or call it the dynamic that comes from having no credit/poor credit, but I didn't anticipate everyone I bank with to be kinda shitty when a once-in-100 year pandemic struck. Again about vulnerable populations, etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Good on them. I think my parents have Wells Fargo, they haven't mentioned their situation with them one way or another, but it's good to hear they had/have that option available to them.
> 
> Call it bad luck or call it the dynamic that comes from having no credit/poor credit, but I didn't anticipate everyone I bank with to be kinda shitty when a once-in-100 year pandemic struck. Again about vulnerable populations, etc.



I'm really sorry you're dealing with corporate bullshit. I don't wish that on anyone, and especially now. 

If we're going to depend on the benevolence of large private institutions, there needs to be some kind of transparency. I'm not at all surprised that the "Red Lining" banking industry is still treating the most vulnerable like shit. 

Non-profit, public Postal Banking can't some soon enough.


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> This might be stupid but I'm not sure so bear with me:
> 
> $1200 is about the cost of the average mortgage payment or rent payment. If banks own the homes and apartment buildings, then isn't giving $1200 to everyone without freezing mortgage/rent more or less another bank bailout? I mean those are maybe a high average, but ultimately well over 50% of this money being distributed is just going straight to the banks.


What's the alternative? Freeze all mortgages so people spend $1200 on groceries? Sounds like a bail out for Walmart. Tell Walmart to freeze all grocery payments so people spend $1200 on guitars? Sounds like a bail out for Gibson.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> What's the alternative? Freeze all mortgages so people spend $1200 on groceries? Sounds like a bail out for Walmart. Tell Walmart to freeze all grocery payments so people spend $1200 on guitars? Sounds like a bail out for Gibson.



I don't like notching a win for Trump anymore than the next guy, nor do I think $1200 once is some blockbuster offer, but I think it was a 'win-win'. People, in general, could use another $1200 to spend and the market needed something to encourage spending.

I think vilk's point is sound, it's just maybe a separate but related issue to this. Debt and wages in this country were totally out of whack before this happened, so it's further magnified when it hit. To his point, yeah, 100% of my $1200 check WILL be going to bills that have been accruing interest as I've been making minimum payments, since the bills stack up and I've been out of work. There's some truth there but it goes beyond the stimulus/pandemic.


----------



## sleewell

if you have no income or reduced income would you rather pay 85% of something or nothing? again, not the best analogy. lots of people probably didn't drive at all or just to the grocery store a few times for the entire month. 85% seems kinda greedy to me but there is always the banks to pile on i guess. def makes for a good commercial though. i dont think any of the car insurance companies would go out of business or even miss a meal if they setup a program to waive one month of premiums if you can prove loss of income. 

you went from saying you would have no idea how to contact your bank to saying you are talking to them constantly. sorry i couldn't understand what that meant. also, i'm sorry you are getting the run around. where i work is a family run business and we treat people well but we are not mind readers.

banks are not going to sit there and try to figure out if every single one of their customers are still working or not or even beyond that who would want deferments and who would not. the only way they are going to know to defer your payments is if you ask. its not a horrible conversation. takes about 1 min and is actually very easy, at least where i work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Auto insurers aren't doing this out of altruism. They pretty much have to. They're under scrutiny from regulators. 

The savings is also just about as much as many would get by adjusting their yearly mileage to zero or almost zero. 

It's cool they're doing it automatically, but it's not out of the kindness of their hearts.


----------



## diagrammatiks

vilk said:


> This might be stupid but I'm not sure so bear with me:
> 
> $1200 is about the cost of the average mortgage payment or rent payment. If banks own the homes and apartment buildings, then isn't giving $1200 to everyone without freezing mortgage/rent more or less another bank bailout? I mean those are maybe a high average, but ultimately well over 50% of this money being distributed is just going straight to the banks.



money moves in a circle man. everyday dollar you spend goes somewhere else. do not directly eat the stimulus check.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> you went from saying you would have no idea how to contact your bank to saying you are talking to them constantly.



I have a small community bank for my personal checking, a different bank for my business account(s) and a third bank I spoke to about an SBA loan when both of my other banks stiffed me. All three have branches where I live/work, and I can either visit, call or email them.

My personal lines of credit are handled by Capital One and Paypal Credit, because they were who would offer me credit at a time when I couldn't get it elsewhere. They're who I owe debt to and they don't have a branch or individual I work directly with, they're very blackbox. I'm sure I could Google a phone number and eventually talk to a person, if that's where you want to set the bar.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Auto insurers aren't doing this out of altruism. They pretty much have to. They're under scrutiny from regulators.
> 
> The savings is also just about as much as many would get by adjusting their yearly mileage to zero or almost zero.
> 
> It's cool they're doing it automatically, but it's not out of the kindness of their hearts.



Didn't say it was, and I don't see why we're to assume everything the bank does is from the kindness of theirs either 

To follow sleewell's line of thought, lots of people are still working and still driving just as much as they did before. How come blanket policy for everyone vs mind reading is a selectively valid argument? All I meant was that the banks could have offered some kind of blanket assistance by default and ratcheted up or down based on individual need.


----------



## Demiurge

MaxOfMetal said:


> Auto insurers aren't doing this out of altruism. They pretty much have to. They're under scrutiny from regulators.



It's a win-win for insurers, really. Companies look like good citizens while the regulators are sated, but the returned premium is also a pittance compared to savings due to the drop in claims. Where I work, lower-level adjusters are being tapped to assist with administrative and customer service call-center duties because there's so little coming in now. My desk, however, never sleeps . It's going to be a treat when people start suing over COVID-19 exposure, though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Didn't say it was, and I don't see why we're to assume everything the bank does is from the kindness of theirs either
> 
> To follow sleewell's line of thought, lots of people are still working and still driving just as much as they did before. How come blanket policy for everyone vs mind reading is a selectively valid argument? All I meant was that the banks could have offered some kind of blanket assistance by default and ratcheted up or down based on individual need.



I was agreeing with you, Randy.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I was agreeing with you, Randy.



Sorry for the argumentative tone. I don't believe insurance companies of any stripes are altruistic and actually, my 6-month insurance premium ALSO came due after I was outta work, so fuck them anyway 

Maybe I'm overly cynical but with the mountain of red tape I've gone through, so far, with zero concessions from a single institution (no Pandemic assistance from unemployment, no stimulus check and no SBA loan or even a processed application from THREE different banks), I'm VERY skeptical of the "well, if you need help just let us know" approach.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Sorry for the argumentative tone. I don't believe insurance companies of any stripes are altruistic and actually, my 6-month insurance premium ALSO came due after I was outta work, so fuck them anyway
> 
> Maybe I'm overly cynical but with the mountain of red tape I've gone through, so far, with zero concessions from a single institution (no Pandemic assistance from unemployment, no stimulus check and no SBA loan), I'm VERY skeptical of the "well, if you need help just let us know" approach.



The fact that two Americans, you and I, could experience such different situations is symptom of our broken, apathetic system. 

Again, I'm really sorry to hear about the problems you're dealing with. 

That seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Those who really need the help are being stone walled, while those who don't get offers at an almost absurd rate. At least talking with friends and family.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AKVnNhVoKTMaZRJyp4PVPYA

Sooooo how many times do we need to confirm that Russia helped Trump?


----------



## InHiding

I'm not advocating for Trump but this is how you crush an election:


----------



## spudmunkey

InHiding said:


> I'm not advocating for Trump but this is how you crush an election:




The often-self-reported billionaire shaming someone for having a nice refrigerator and staffers who can stock it....while Trump Organization asks for money from Trump administration, and spending more in 2 years on golf, much at his family's own private resort, than Obama did in all vacations 8 years? Got it.


----------



## InHiding

He will crush Biden. This is not a game of logic. Trump doesn't show total ignorance and blindness to the existence of the human race like Pelosi does all the time.


----------



## sleewell

yeah that dumb vid doesn't really own the libs at all. ads like these however are pretty devastating to swing voters.


----------



## spudmunkey

InHiding said:


> This is not a game of logic.



Oh, of course not. I'll definite agree with you on--



InHiding said:


> Trump doesn't show total ignorance and blindness to the existence of the human race like Pelosi does all the time.


----------



## InHiding

Yeah, I'm sure you are extremely intelligent.


----------



## Randy

InHiding said:


> I'm not advocating for Trump but this is how you crush an election:




I mean, fire away. He's entirely right and this is as bad as it looks, but this is typical 'out of touch, ivory tower' politician shit versus literally the worst President and most abhorrent political figure in modern US history. That might resonate with people who are already voting for him but Nancy Pelosi (who's not running for POTUS, btw) isn't magically so bad that it somehow makes Trump good. I'm fully prepared for another 6 months of this.


----------



## sleewell

looks like the drudge report is turning on trump. many negative stories featured near the top. support from seniors seems to be cratering too which is a huge demographic for him. 

i think its going to hinge on his insistence to re open the economy. if it goes well he could win. if it goes poorly and things are shut down again with many more deaths he will lose in a landslide.


----------



## Frosty the Snowperson

I have no say in the US election, but, from what I can tell, whoever wins Florida will be 95% likely to win the entire election, because most of the other states in the US are already decided before the election, and the election result is decided by state majorities and not by each person's vote. 

Only Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe North Carolina are undecided. A person might say that something major might happen to change the result, but it seems that several major things have happened already and it changed no one's mind anyway. The only way one candidate will win the election without winning in Florida is if every single other state that is undecided casts for the other candidate, including North Carolina.

So the same Florida man who is attacking a restaurant employee over not getting his drinking straw, fooling his family into thinking his murdered wife is alive for months, stealing the pickup truck of the good Samaritan who stopped to help him, and is denying that the syringes of illegal narcotics doctors found in his rectum belong to him (all in one month)- is going to decide whether Trump or Biden will be president in 2021.


----------



## bostjan

sleewell said:


> looks like the drudge report is turning on trump. many negative stories featured near the top. support from seniors seems to be cratering too which is a huge demographic for him.
> 
> i think its going to hinge on his insistence to re open the economy. if it goes well he could win. if it goes poorly and things are shut down again with many more deaths he will lose in a landslide.


I see a lot of folks from the right saying that if they reopen the economy, the people who want to continue to stay home can simply continue to do so without any consequences. I think a lot of seniors are aware of the fact that if a bunch of idiots start getting everyone sick by ignoring the CDC recommendations, it could negatively affect them.

Also:


Frosty the Snowperson said:


> I have no say in the US election, but, from what I can tell, whoever wins Florida will be 95% likely to win the entire election, because most of the other states in the US are already decided before the election, and the election result is decided by state majorities and not by each person's vote.
> 
> Only Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe North Carolina are undecided. A person might say that something major might happen to change the result, but it seems that several major things have happened already and it changed no one's mind anyway. The only way one candidate will win the election without winning in Florida is if every single other state that is undecided casts for the other candidate, including North Carolina.
> 
> So the same Florida man who is attacking a restaurant employee over not getting his drinking straw, fooling his family into thinking his murdered wife is alive for months, stealing the pickup truck of the good Samaritan who stopped to help him, and is denying that the syringes of illegal narcotics doctors found in his rectum belong to him (all in one month)- is going to decide whether Trump or Biden will be president in 2021.


Haha, yes, Florida Man is quite infamous. But, taking into account the previous post, along with the fact that Florida has a lot of senior citizens, this could end up being the tipping point.


----------



## SpaceDock

InHiding said:


> I'm not advocating for Trump but this is how you crush an election:



How ridiculous, what do you think Drumpf and Moscow Mitch are eating right now? You think they are struggling to eat. Get real.


----------



## narad

InHiding said:


> He will crush Biden. This is not a game of logic. Trump doesn't show total ignorance and blindness to the existence of the human race like Pelosi does all the time.



Last I checked Pelosi wasn't running, but what do I know.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> How ridiculous, what do you think Drumpf and Moscow Mitch are eating right now?



Eachother's butts, I'd imagine.


----------



## fantom

vilk said:


> This might be stupid but I'm not sure so bear with me:
> 
> $1200 is about the cost of the average mortgage payment or rent payment. If banks own the homes and apartment buildings, then isn't giving $1200 to everyone without freezing mortgage/rent more or less another bank bailout? I mean those are maybe a high average, but ultimately well over 50% of this money being distributed is just going straight to the banks.



There is a huge difference. The bank bailout years ago did absolutely nothing to help people with underwater mortgages. The bank effectively got to foreclose, kick people out and make them declare bankruptcy, then reimbursed from the federal government on the property valuation screw up. So they pretty much got the federal government to buy property at ridiculously over market values and give the property back to the bank to sell on auction. Sadly, the banks were rewarded for grossly overextending on loans. People didn't benefit.

Compare to now. If someone chooses to pay mortgage with a stimulus check, the money is going towards the person to pay down their debt and build equity instead of the bank directly. There is a huge difference there. People aren't getting foreclosed and bankrupt while the bank gets a check.

And if we just defer payments... Does the bank still charge interest?


----------



## vilk

fantom said:


> There is a huge difference. The bank bailout years ago did absolutely nothing to help people with underwater mortgages. The bank effectively got to foreclose, kick people out and make them declare bankruptcy, then reimbursed from the federal government on the property valuation screw up. So they pretty much got the federal government to buy property at ridiculously over market values and give the property back to the bank to sell on auction. Sadly, the banks were rewarded for grossly overextending on loans. People didn't benefit.
> 
> Compare to now. If someone chooses to pay mortgage with a stimulus check, the money is going towards the person to pay down their debt and build equity instead of the bank directly. There is a huge difference there. People aren't getting foreclosed and bankrupt while the bank gets a check.
> 
> And if we just defer payments... Does the bank still charge interest?



You're right, that is a lot different! Thank you for breaking it down like that for me. I guess on some level I did know both of those things but somehow my brain didn't remember that mortgages theoretically disappear someday. I'm a renter, my dummy brain is just like "Mortgage? Oh yeah, that's what they call rent when you live in a house".


----------



## sleewell

they also did stimulus checks directly to people when bush was in office. they were smaller but i remember getting one. 

funny how the last 2 republican presidents both passed massive tax cuts for the rich, ran huge deficits and did bailouts. the second a dem takes office they all of a sudden remember the fake part about financial conservatism.


----------



## Jeff

sleewell said:


> they also did stimulus checks directly to people when bush was in office. they were smaller but i remember getting one.
> 
> funny how the last 2 republican presidents both passed massive tax cuts for the rich, ran huge deficits and did bailouts. the second a dem takes office they all of a sudden remember the fake part about financial conservatism.



Socialism is bad, let’s give rich people tax cuts. Socialism is bad, let’s send out checks.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jeff said:


> Socialism is bad, let’s give rich people tax cuts. Socialism is bad, let’s send out checks.



For real. 

Conservatives: Universal Basic Income is a socialist pipe dream that'll never work in the real world.

Also Conservatives: IT'S STIMULUS CHECK TIME MOTHERFUCKERS! THE ECONOMY IS GREAT WHEN FOLKS CAN BUY MORE STUFF!


----------



## Jeff

MaxOfMetal said:


> For real.
> 
> Conservatives: Universal Basic Income is a socialist pipe dream that'll never work in the real world.
> 
> Also Conservatives: IT'S STIMULUS CHECK TIME MOTHERFUCKERS! THE ECONOMY IS GREAT WHEN FOLKS CAN BUY MORE STUFF!



It’s not socialism, when it’s their idea. They’re helping you feed the machine.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> looks like the drudge report is turning on trump. many negative stories featured near the top. support from seniors seems to be cratering too which is a huge demographic for him.
> 
> i think its going to hinge on his insistence to re open the economy. if it goes well he could win. if it goes poorly and things are shut down again with many more deaths he will lose in a landslide.


I've LONG said that Trump can get away with murder as long as the Republican media defends him. Drudge has more o an independent streak than Brietbart or Fox (or the new OAN circle-jerk), but any signs of cracks should be concerning to him. 

I'll say this, too - most of my colleagues are moderate Republicans, but Republicans nonetheless, bu Mitch McConnell's recent suggestion that US States should declare bankruptcy rather than being bailed out the same way companies have been generated a LOT of backlash in a shockingly bipartisan swathe of Wall Street. Mitch _seriously_ miscalculated if he as floating this as a trial balloon (and it may not have been since the actual logistical means of allowing this to happen would be extremely hard), which is ironic since he made the same noise back in '08 and got shut down pretty hard then, too.


----------



## sleewell

i work at a very conservative bank. everyone i know who has been in lockstep with trump is now opposite from him on reopening right now with no testing and is even starting to say how stupid he sounds at the daily briefings.


moscow mitch really stepped in it and just shows how out of touch he is. KY takes 146 billion from the federal govt every year. NY ends up contributing money. calling this a blue state bailout and that states should just declare BK is going to piss off a lot people. airlines get bailouts but states should not pay police officers, fire fighters and teachers?!?


congress needs term limits.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> i work at a very conservative bank. everyone i know who has been in lockstep with trump is now opposite from him on reopening right now with no testing and is even starting to say how stupid he sounds at the daily briefings.
> 
> 
> moscow mitch really stepped in it and just shows how out of touch he is. KY takes 146 billion from the federal govt every year. NY ends up contributing money. calling this a blue state bailout and that states should just declare BK is going to piss off a lot people. airlines get bailouts but states should not pay police officers, fire fighters and teachers?!?
> 
> 
> congress needs term limits.



I am really glad that Cuomo called Mitch out on that very fact during his conference today. 


"Let me go back to my self-proclaimed grim reaper, Senator McConnell," Cuomo continued, citing New York contributing $116 billion more in tax revenue to the federal government than it receives, while Kentucky is one of the largest net receivers at $148 billion.
"Senator McConnell, who's getting bailed out here? It's your state that is living on the money that we generate. Your state is getting bailed out, not my state."
https://www.businessinsider.com/cuomo-lays-into-mcconnell-over-states-going-bankrupt-2020-4


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> moscow mitch really stepped in it and just shows how out of touch he is. KY takes 146 billion from the federal govt every year. NY ends up contributing money. calling this a blue state bailout and that states should just declare BK is going to piss off a lot people. airlines get bailouts but states should not pay police officers, fire fighters and teachers?!?


He also conveniently glossed over his own state, Kentucky, being one of the most strained pensions in the country, or that most of the generous pension benefits he's now decrying were passed at times when state pensions were _over_funded, and as often as not by a Republican governor as a Democratic one. 

Honestly, that may be a miscalculation he lives to regret. He's currenty in an unusually competitive race for his own seat, against a challenger who can now paint him as advocating bankruptcy restructuring for states like Kentucky who have "excessive" pension obligations. That'll play rather badly with the public sector.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> He also conveniently glossed over his own state, Kentucky, being one of the most strained pensions in the country, or that most of the generous pension benefits he's now decrying were passed at times when state pensions were _over_funded, and as often as not by a Republican governor as a Democratic one.
> 
> Honestly, that may be a miscalculation he lives to regret. He's currenty in an unusually competitive race for his own seat, against a challenger who can now paint him as advocating bankruptcy restructuring for states like Kentucky who have "excessive" pension obligations. That'll play rather badly with the public sector.



While I still have a hard time believing that Mitch might actually lose his election, what he said is beyond the pale. Especially considering that he glossed over many ugly facts that Kentucky is currently facing. Only time will tell if this marked the beginning of the end for him and his reign of idiocy and hypocrisy over the Senate.


----------



## fantom

Nothing will change with Mitch and Kentucky. I do not know a single Republican that thinks the government should not write checks. They just want the checks to be given to them and not immigrants/minorities. If Mitch is defending that they deserve the federal money more than "them", he isn't miscalculating anything. And it will probably work.

This is the sad state of entitled lower class people that identify more as rich white people than their actual social class.


----------



## fantom

sleewell said:


> they also did stimulus checks directly to people when bush was in office. they were smaller but i remember getting one.
> 
> funny how the last 2 republican presidents both passed massive tax cuts for the rich, ran huge deficits and did bailouts. the second a dem takes office they all of a sudden remember the fake part about financial conservatism.



I definitely didn't, and I was broke. Either way. Giving stimulus checks instead of bankrupting people vs. giving banks a bunch of free property to hold onto and auction for more money years later... Not sure they are the same at all.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Nothing will change with Mitch and Kentucky. I do not know a single Republican that thinks the government should not write checks. They just want the checks to be given to them and not immigrants/minorities. *If Mitch is defending that they deserve the federal money more than "them",* he isn't miscalculating anything. And it will probably work.
> 
> This is the sad state of entitled lower class people that identify more as rich white people than their actual social class.


Not really. He's saying that the government should bail out businesses, but that state governments should declare bankrupty if they can't meet ends meet, because it's their fault if their pensions are too big to pay for. While representing a state with the most-underfunded pension in the country. Though weirdly he name-checked California, Illinois, and Connecticut, all three represented by Democratic governors, and particularly in the case of California an odd choice since they're right around the median in terms of thew % of their pension that's currently funded.


----------



## possumkiller

Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 79841
> 
> Pretty much sums it up.



Don't forget pandering to and enabling the continued existence of other oligopolies, which all inadvertently provide extremely iffy and overpriced service... all manner of telecoms are stuck in the 20th century (internet, cellular.... oh well at least the cable TV racket seems to be dying a slow death), health insurance and banking are firmly under the control of half a dozen companies or less, etc.

AND THEY ALL SUUUUCK.


----------



## Ralyks

Umm, is anyone else seeing this news that Kim Jong Un might be dead?


----------



## Demiurge

^TMZ is reporting it, but I haven't seen any other outlets reporting it.


----------



## spudmunkey

Goddamn you, The Onion...


----------



## zappatton2

spudmunkey said:


> Goddamn you, The Onion...
> 
> View attachment 79983


Man, the chasm between parody and reality is so thin these days, you could practically skip between them.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Umm, is anyone else seeing this news that Kim Jong Un might be dead?



Yeah, I saw that over the weekend. South Korea is saying it isn't true, but almost exactly the same thing happened when Kim Jong-Il died ten or so years ago.

Does anyone know if Jong Un ever had more kids? Last I heard, he only had a daughter. I think he only has one surviving older brother, who was passed over for being too liberally-minded.



spudmunkey said:


> Goddamn you, The Onion...
> 
> View attachment 79983



The Onion has to step up their game like this, because Trump is too good at sounding like a satire now that he's the world's premier medical expert.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I saw that over the weekend. South Korea is saying it isn't true, but almost exactly the same thing happened when Kim Jong-Il died ten or so years ago.
> 
> Does anyone know if Jong Un ever had more kids? Last I heard, he only had a daughter. I think he only has one surviving older brother, who was passed over for being too liberally-minded.



Yeah, typical. I think the most credible sources say he is/was in a vegetative state. Considering the condition they handed over Otto Warmbier in, they might actually consider "vegetative state" to be "perfectly healthy and alive"

Un was a useless little brat when he got the post in the first place. I wouldn't put it past them to give control of the arsenal to a 7 year old girl.


----------



## spudmunkey

Is fear of being overrun by fleeing citizens from NK the main reason why SK might lie about Un being dead? Are there other motivations?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Is fear of being overrun by fleeing citizens from NK the main reason why SK might lie about Un being dead? Are there other motivations?



He was just a figurehead for the regime. Him being alive, dead, or somewhere in the middle changes nothing. 

A replacement will be found and then it's back to business as usual. 

I could see SK being more cautious given what's at stake, but I don't see this unfolding any differently than when Il died.


----------



## sleewell

justin amash is running for president. obviously have to see how it plays out but it sounds bad for biden.


----------



## SpaceDock

I would think Amash supporters are Republican Never Trumpers.


----------



## sleewell

yep. they probably would vote for him instead of biden or just staying home. every single never trump vote should go to the person who has the best chance to beat trump. 

ross perot helped bush win. jill stien helped trump win.


----------



## thraxil

I haven't heard anything yet about what he'll need to get on ballots, or what the polling looks like, but my gut reaction is that if Amash is in there as a legit third party option, it's pretty much guaranteeing a Trump win.

There might be some Republicans that don't like Trump that much, but he's consistently polled in the 80-90% approval range among Republicans. Amash will peel some supporters off, but mostly he's going to appeal to the people who don't like Trump or Biden but aren't progressive enough to be completely repelled by his super-conservative background.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Is fear of being overrun by fleeing citizens from NK the main reason why SK might lie about Un being dead? Are there other motivations?



An unknown but large amount of NK citizens are avid secret consumers of SK media.

If it turns out to be nonsense but unconfirmed SK reports cause unrest in the North, they're afraid it would be viewed as a hostile act of intentional sabotage or worse... information warfare / attempted regime change / act of war.

And if the other side decides to overreact, well, shiiiiit....


----------



## bostjan

sleewell said:


> ross perot helped bush win.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The first time Ross Perot ran was in 1992, the year Bush lost re-election. The last time Perot ran was in 1996, when no Bushes ran. In 2000, he endorsed the younger Bush and didn't run a campaign, but getting the Reform Party support thrown behind Bush, rather than their own candidates helped Bush win and also destroyed the Reform Party- if that's what you mean by that, but that doesn't really seem to fit your context.



sleewell said:


> jill stien helped trump win.



I think that the only states where she theoretically made any difference were PA and WI, but even if HRC had taken those two states, Trump still would have had enough electoral votes to win the general election, although it would have been closer.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Amash hasn't even officially announced anything and it's practically May.

He hasn't even switched his party affiliations to Libertarian (currently Independent).

If [when] he runs he won't even be on the ballet in almost a third of states, including presumptive "battle grounds" of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

America just really loves an underdog story, whether it's long shot mainstream candidates or protest vote fodder for the general. The Amash saga is quite the narrative.


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> If [when] he runs he won't even be on the ballet in almost a third of states, including presumptive "battle grounds" of Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.



Very hypothetical, but that leads to pretty much the only way I see this helping Biden, which is if Amash stays off the ballot in most of the expected battleground states but does get on the ballot in some red states and effectively turns them from guaranteed Trump wins to 3-way battleground states. Probably not a likely scenario, but kind of fun to think about.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> Very hypothetical, but that leads to pretty much the only way I see this helping Biden, which is if Amash stays off the ballot in most of the expected battleground states but does get on the ballot in some red states and effectively turns them from guaranteed Trump wins to 3-way battleground states. Probably not a likely scenario, but kind of fun to think about.



Even if Amash doubles the highest Libertarian Party voter turnout in history it'll still be under 7% of the popular vote, and if anything like previous races, it'll be insignificant as far as the electoral vote. 

I agree, it's fun and interesting to think about the "what if" scenarios, but that's pretty much all it is. 

It reflects very poorly on the media pushing for this being more than a footnote in this election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## zappatton2

An article on the musings of an American psychiatrist regarding the Trump crowd;
https://www.salon.com/2020/04/23/ya...H11nkjzgkplJTwffkvWtKaT2lUSnRsRvah5Qk0DRVVS40

Obviously this is her opinion, but she does highlight one of my main concerns with these folks. There is an inherent undercurrent of violence amongst the fringes of the Trump crowd that I do really worry about should he lose the next election. Trump and these extremist elements are in a feedback loop that is destabilizing the States, and the resultant fear may in fact create violence in the streets, or an even more authoritarian regime should he win. I'm not American, be we do share a border, and this stuff does tend to spill over.

One of my favourite lines in the article, that points out the me-first inflexibility of the American concept of freedom; _"Like cigarette smoking, shooting rampages and reckless driving, "freedoms" that endanger lives and curtail others' freedoms are not legitimate freedoms but a public health concern."
_
It's sort of like the idea that spreading false and harmful information is just the equally legitimate "other side" of free speech.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> An article on the musings of an American psychiatrist regarding the Trump crowd;
> https://www.salon.com/2020/04/23/ya...H11nkjzgkplJTwffkvWtKaT2lUSnRsRvah5Qk0DRVVS40
> 
> Obviously this is her opinion, but she does highlight one of my main concerns with these folks. There is an inherent undercurrent of violence amongst the fringes of the Trump crowd that I do really worry about should he lose the next election. Trump and these extremist elements are in a feedback loop that is destabilizing the States, and the resultant fear may in fact create violence in the streets, or an even more authoritarian regime should he win. I'm not American, be we do share a border, and this stuff does tend to spill over.
> 
> One of my favourite lines in the article, that points out the me-first inflexibility of the American concept of freedom; _"Like cigarette smoking, shooting rampages and reckless driving, "freedoms" that endanger lives and curtail others' freedoms are not legitimate freedoms but a public health concern."
> _
> It's sort of like the idea that spreading false and harmful information is just the equally legitimate "other side" of free speech.




Hmm. I've been seeing a lot in the news lately from bloggers and even mainstream media reporters (opinion pieces) regarding how harmful these conspiracy theories and other looney-bargain-bin-shitposts on social media are just as dangerous as assault, and therefore, not free speech. But, yes, whilst I agree that it's very frustrating to have to see this and whilst people who are too stupid to add two and two together and somehow get the answer of flat-earth or fake-moonlanding... let's take a step back.

What would outlawing this sort of speech solve? Do places that outlaw free speech, like China and Russia, have fewer or less severe misinformational problems?

I think the underlying problem here is that public schools in the USA have sucked really bad for decades now. Stupid kids without decent schooling grow up to be logically illiterate adults.

Also, from a personal standpoint, I've posted things that ended up being wrong before. I absolutely try not to do it, but I think we all make mistakes. Do I need to be punished by a court of law for, say, asserting that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election, only to later be proven wrong? Also, who then determines what is correct? Is it a team of factcheckers? Is that team apolitical? If not, then, uh-oh, as soon as there are a few Republicans on that panel, we are all going to jail for sure, alternative facts and all...

As far as people self-harming due to misinformation, well, I mean that stuff is coming through mouth of Trump, because he is telling people to take immunosuppressive drugs (HCQ and CQ-P), telling people to insuflate sun light, telling people to inject clorox, etc. What are you even going to do?


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Hmm. I've been seeing a lot in the news lately from bloggers and even mainstream media reporters (opinion pieces) regarding how harmful these conspiracy theories and other looney-bargain-bin-shitposts on social media are just as dangerous as assault, and therefore, not free speech. But, yes, whilst I agree that it's very frustrating to have to see this and whilst people who are too stupid to add two and two together and somehow get the answer of flat-earth or fake-moonlanding... let's take a step back.
> 
> What would outlawing this sort of speech solve? Do places that outlaw free speech, like China and Russia, have fewer or less severe misinformational problems?
> 
> I think the underlying problem here is that public schools in the USA have sucked really bad for decades now. Stupid kids without decent schooling grow up to be logically illiterate adults.
> 
> Also, from a personal standpoint, I've posted things that ended up being wrong before. I absolutely try not to do it, but I think we all make mistakes. Do I need to be punished by a court of law for, say, asserting that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election, only to later be proven wrong? Also, who then determines what is correct? Is it a team of factcheckers? Is that team apolitical? If not, then, uh-oh, as soon as there are a few Republicans on that panel, we are all going to jail for sure, alternative facts and all...
> 
> As far as people self-harming due to misinformation, well, I mean that stuff is coming through mouth of Trump, because he is telling people to take immunosuppressive drugs (HCQ and CQ-P), telling people to insuflate sun light, telling people to inject clorox, etc. What are you even going to do?



I think it's time to admit the inevitable.

The great experiment has failed, democracy always eventually goes tits up latin american style, and lest we end up with a Chavez or a Pinochet, we might as well just ask Beijing to occupy Washington now and send an interim government of mildly authoritarian techno-bureaucrats.

Then once the appropriate people are shipped off to the looney bin and the fringe ideologies and religions get reeducated thru mandatory community service, we should be mostly ok.

"Freedom" is nice and all in theory, but in practice, society cannot function when harmful lunatics are officially free from mandatory corrective psychiatry. And not just walking around without straightjackets, but actually free to rabble-rouse and stir sh!t and destabilize at will.


FUCK FREE SPEECH, GIVE US FREE MANDATORY CORRECTIVE PSYCHIATRIC INTERVENTIONS INSTEAD.


----------



## zappatton2

bostjan said:


> Hmm. I've been seeing a lot in the news lately from bloggers and even mainstream media reporters (opinion pieces) regarding how harmful these conspiracy theories and other looney-bargain-bin-shitposts on social media are just as dangerous as assault, and therefore, not free speech. But, yes, whilst I agree that it's very frustrating to have to see this and whilst people who are too stupid to add two and two together and somehow get the answer of flat-earth or fake-moonlanding... let's take a step back.
> 
> What would outlawing this sort of speech solve? Do places that outlaw free speech, like China and Russia, have fewer or less severe misinformational problems?
> 
> I think the underlying problem here is that public schools in the USA have sucked really bad for decades now. Stupid kids without decent schooling grow up to be logically illiterate adults.
> 
> Also, from a personal standpoint, I've posted things that ended up being wrong before. I absolutely try not to do it, but I think we all make mistakes. Do I need to be punished by a court of law for, say, asserting that Russia did not interfere with the 2016 election, only to later be proven wrong? Also, who then determines what is correct? Is it a team of factcheckers? Is that team apolitical? If not, then, uh-oh, as soon as there are a few Republicans on that panel, we are all going to jail for sure, alternative facts and all...
> 
> As far as people self-harming due to misinformation, well, I mean that stuff is coming through mouth of Trump, because he is telling people to take immunosuppressive drugs (HCQ and CQ-P), telling people to insuflate sun light, telling people to inject clorox, etc. What are you even going to do?


I would never propose outlawing the expression of opinions, barring unambiguous incitement, hate speech, slander, ect. But I do think it's incumbent on platforms to vet the information they disseminate, and I don't think false information is owed an equal podium in the public space.

It's like when people say that the media is liberal when it doesn't give equal weight to the idea that climate change is not driven by human activity. Well, no. Almost all accumulated scientific evidence points to climate change driven primarily by the mass consumption of fossil fuels. When an institution that is supposed to be a journalistic gatekeeper to the dissemination of factual information is demonstrably spreading conspiracy and distorting facts, calling for accountability in my view is not unreasonable.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> I would never propose outlawing the expression of opinions, barring unambiguous incitement, hate speech, slander, ect. But I do think it's incumbent on platforms to vet the information they disseminate, and I don't think false information is owed an equal podium in the public space.
> 
> It's like when people say that the media is liberal when it doesn't give equal weight to the idea that climate change is not driven by human activity. Well, no. Almost all accumulated scientific evidence points to climate change driven primarily by the mass consumption of fossil fuels. When an institution that is supposed to be a journalistic gatekeeper to the dissemination of factual information is demonstrably spreading conspiracy and distorting facts, calling for accountability in my view is not unreasonable.


So, freedom of the press, then, tomato tomato.

I guess I don't have a solution for you. There are more people now who believe the Earth is flat than there were during Christopher Colombus's time.

Does that mean that the government steps in to gauge whether the press's statements are factual or not? And what if the government decides that they are not- then what?

I know it sounds great right now, but, overall, it just doesn't sit right with me. And I understand where you are coming from. People out there on the internet will argue about absolutely anything and cannot possibly be proven wrong. You could come across a guy telling other people that zappatton2 prefers mangos over pineapples, and you might tell him that you are zappatton2 and you know better than him and he would likely argue with you for 110 pages about easily disproven conspiracy crap. Maybe part of the lesson we need to learn, as a society, is when to engage and when to disengage.

Also, some people are just shitty at simple deduction. I 100% believe that we shouldn't put much value into their opinions once their true nature is known, but should they be further punished by fines or jail time?!


----------



## bostjan

Speaking of questionable thought processes: Trump claims that Obama left him with broken covid-19 tests. https://www.vox.com/2020/4/30/21243117/trump-blames-obama-coronavirus-broken-tests-jim-acosta

I mean, I get that you'd have to do some serious mental gymnastics to conclude that the brain inside of that guy's head is good for making decisions to steer the nation. But, is there maybe a happy medium where we instate a mandatory IQ test for presidential candidates? Like require a minimum of a 75 or something?


----------



## Necris

Well, you see, Obama has been bestowed with eldritch powers by the demonic powers which truly run the democratic party behind the scenes. These powers allow for the manipulation of the space time continuum and during his last days in office Obama used them to reach into the future and sabotage the Covid-19 tests which were only created months after the virus was discovered in order to hurt Trump's poll numbers prior to the election.

(I feel like I need to point out clearly that I'm not being serious. )
The guy has a level of brain rot that's probably equal to Biden's and he's had the luxury of over 3 years of telling some pretty bold lies with minimal pushback from Fox, it probably didn't even register in his mind that anyone would question that claim and on the off chance enough people in his base do he can rely on the nightly lineup "clarifying" what he meant or arguing he was taken out of context, just like with bleach injections.


----------



## narad

Necris said:


> Well, you see, Obama has been bestowed with eldritch powers by the demonic powers which truly run the democratic party behind the scenes. These powers allow for the manipulation of the space time continuum and during his last days in office Obama used them to reach into the future and sabotage the Covid-19 tests which were only created months after the virus was discovered in order to hurt Trump's poll numbers prior to the election.



Of course the democrats have a time travel device. Why else would conservatives still be harping on about Benghazi in 2020, if not because it is something still fixable?


----------



## Ralyks

So I know we're all pretty mad at China, but is Trump reigniting the trade war really a good idea right now?


----------



## Andromalia

> I guess I don't have a solution for you. There are more people now who believe the Earth is flat than there were during Christopher Colombus's time.



That's what happens when the powerful can get their hands on the information network. It allows them to persuade gay, women, black people to vote for Trump. I'm pretty sure Rupert Murdoch could persuade some blacks to vote for the KKK.
When, in a democracy, the majority can't manage to win an election, you have to ask yourself why.

One of the possible outcomes, though, and one that has been seen in the past, is that the majority can be, in effect, the top revenue 51% enslaving the lower revenue 49%.

Democracy has, in effect, become a manipulation of the vote of the dumb.


----------



## bostjan

Former presidents Clinton and Bush are pulling a bunch of political moves telling people to knock off the hyperpartisanship. I agree, but, at the same time, if Bush, in particular, is running an ad on the television, what's his angle? Nobody spends that much money just to make people feel fuzzy and warm for a minute.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Former presidents Clinton and Bush are pulling a bunch of political moves telling people to knock off the hyperpartisanship. I agree, but, at the same time, if Bush, in particular, is running an ad on the television, what's his angle? Nobody spends that much money just to make people feel fuzzy and warm for a minute.



Bush2 is enjoying something of a renaissance and he’s milking it for political capital, maybe he’s bored and wants some attention. 

Though we all know that by “don’t be so partisan” they mean “give our side a chance”. It’s not about compromise as much as switching sides, perhaps at best heading more center right/left.


----------



## Ralyks

I think Bush is bored. I've seen interviews with him post-presidency, and he just comes off as a total down to earth dude who also has no issue self-depricating. Not a bad painter, either.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Former presidents Clinton and Bush are pulling a bunch of political moves telling people to knock off the hyperpartisanship. I agree, but, at the same time, if Bush, in particular, is running an ad on the television, what's his angle? Nobody spends that much money just to make people feel fuzzy and warm for a minute.



W. Bush post-presidency is like W. Bush during presidency had a lobotomy. If people think he was too much of a dolt to run things during his presidency, it's not a stretch to assume someone else might be pulling the strings now.

If you want to figure out the why, a good place to start would be with the 'who'.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Bush2 is enjoying something of a renaissance and he’s milking it for political capital, maybe he’s bored and wants some attention.
> 
> Though we all know that by “don’t be so partisan” they mean “give our side a chance”. It’s not about compromise as much as switching sides, perhaps at best heading more center right/left.


I can't really speak for sure with Clinton, as the math changes a bit with Sanders out of the race, although there still is the matter of appealing to his supporters and getting them to actually turn up and vote. For W., I think it's as simple as the center-right wing of the Republican party thinks Trump is unhinged, and they're concluding that if they can't get _him_ to moderate directly, then getting his base to tone it down a bit might not be such a bad idea, and try to get him to stop fucking around with politics and start actually, you know, trying to focus on fighting the pandemic. 

So, "hey, maybe we should move back a bit closer to the center" is probably most of it. The rest, eh, lots of time on their hands, and I don't think you run for president for a major party without _some_ sort of ego/ability you can get shit done, and there's probably at least an element of legitimately believing the world needs some encouragement right now, and that maybe they're just the man to do it.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like they're dropping the charges against Flynn.... Why?


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> I think Bush is bored. I've seen interviews with him post-presidency, and he just comes off as a total down to earth dude who also has no issue self-depricating. Not a bad painter, either.



I met President Bush a few times when I was stationed in DC and had a few details assigned to work with him. He was always really nice and funny in person. Even if I don't agree with many of his policies, I liked him as a person. Same with his wife. Mrs. Bush was always as kind as you can imagine to all of us. President Obama was very funny and liked to joke around. Mrs. Obama wasn't as personable as Mrs. Bush, but still nice.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> Looks like they're dropping the charges against Flynn.... Why?




bc barr is trump's lackie and will do whatever he says.


----------



## Drew

The pretext is investigators who interviewed him discussed, before the interview, trying to trap him in a lie and then use that to get him to step down and flip. Flynn is now alleging entrapment. 

The problem with that line of thinking of course is Flynn _pleaded guilty_ to what he claimed he was entrapped in.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The pretext is investigators who interviewed him discussed, before the interview, trying to trap him in a lie and then use that to get him to step down and flip. Flynn is now alleging entrapment.
> 
> The problem with that line of thinking of course is Flynn _pleaded guilty_ to what he claimed he was entrapped in.



If they tricked him into lying, then that, technically, is entrapment. I'm not sure how the legality of that would pan out for Joe Schmo, but, I'm pretty sure that if the FBI put you into a position where you or I had to either lie or incriminate yourself/myself by telling the truth, and you/I lied, you or I or anyone like us would have been locked up and no amount of appealing would have helped. Or, I dunno, maybe you could hire a high-power attorney or something, but I sure couldn't.

At this point, the lying, cheating, and defrauding the government is so blatant, that I don't think anything matters anymore. Trump is going to get re-elected, and then the next president will be even worse. Because this proves that everyone is okay enough with this sort of stuff to just let it happen and there is no consequence.


----------



## Vyn

bostjan said:


> If they tricked him into lying, then that, technically, is entrapment. I'm not sure how the legality of that would pan out for Joe Schmo, but, I'm pretty sure that if the FBI put you into a position where you or I had to either lie or incriminate yourself/myself by telling the truth, and you/I lied, you or I or anyone like us would have been locked up and no amount of appealing would have helped. Or, I dunno, maybe you could hire a high-power attorney or something, but I sure couldn't.
> 
> At this point, the lying, cheating, and defrauding the government is so blatant, that I don't think anything matters anymore. Trump is going to get re-elected, and then the next president will be even worse. Because this proves that everyone is okay enough with this sort of stuff to just let it happen and there is no consequence.



The next president won't be worse it'll be the same - Trump will attempt to do a Putin and stay in power for eternity, his brain placed inside a jar connected to the iPhone 1337 tweeting away 

Jokes aside, there does seem to be some glimmer of hope - unfortunately it feels like it's going to take the USA collapsing first before things start getting better. Both sides need to be pulled back to the centre enough to be able to compromise and discuss issues, otherwise the paralysis of hyper-partisanship is going to continue.


----------



## narad

Vyn said:


> The next president won't be worse it'll be the same - Trump will attempt to do a Putin and stay in power for eternity, his brain placed inside a jar connected to the iPhone 1337 tweeting away



At least we won't have to pay for a large jar.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> TBoth sides need to be pulled back to the centre enough to be able to compromise and discuss issues, otherwise the paralysis of hyper-partisanship is going to continue.



That's sort of the problem. American politics has been pulled so far to the right that even most of our ”left wing” politicians would be considered center or even center right in a lot of countries.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's sort of the problem. American politics has been pulled so far to the right that even most of our ”left wing” politicians would be considered center or even center right in a lot of countries.



Very true - if you take out the social policy of the democrats, they are still more to the right of the ruling right wing party here in Australia.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> At least we won't have to pay for a large jar.



I guarantee you there's no problem there, I guarantee you. Trump has the best brain jars in the world, I don't think you don't need that much of a jar. Some people disagree with him, but some people agree with him. But he has the greatest brain jars in the world, and he has the most brain jars in the world. More than any other country. Our best doctors assess that Trump has sufficient brains to place in a jar today. Unfortunately, some partisan voices are attempting to politicize the issue of the jars, which they shouldn’t be doing, because Trump inherited broken jars from Obama. The greatest and best jars. Trump would build a great jar, and nobody builds jars better than Trump, believe me, and Trump will build them very inexpensively. Trump will build a great great jar on our southern border and Trump will have Mexico pay for that jar. Covfefe.


----------



## spudmunkey

Racist uncle leroy shared this article on Facebook, adding the caption, "Who gave the _______ guns?" (you can probably guess the word he used). 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/michigan-lawmaker-armed-escort-rightwing-protest


----------



## Drew

Vyn said:


> Very true - if you take out the social policy of the democrats, they are still more to the right of the ruling right wing party here in Australia.


Not to be flip... But, you're basically saying, "if you take out all the liberal policies of the Democrats, they're basically conservatives."


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Not to be flip... But, you're basically saying, "if you take out all the liberal policies of the Democrats, they're basically conservatives."


I think he's saying the only liberal thing about the dems is they're less racist and less homophobic.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> I think he's saying the only liberal thing about the dems is they're less racist and less homophobic.


I mean, I'm not being completely fair to his point, for comic value - zero argument there.  

But, I think there's also some confusion on BOTH sides of the pond when it comes to talking about the political spectrum. In Europe, "liberal" usually corresponds with "socialist," but that's a correlation, not an actual identity. In the classical sense, liberal simply means you think laws should be written down, rather than decided upon by royal whim, and we should have formal governing documents. Almost every single political party in the world is liberal by that definition, although I'm growing increasingly unsure of the GOP under Trump. 

But, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are a few different axises on the left-right spectrum, and capitalism vs socialism is one of them, but not the ONLY one of them. America is a fundamentally capitalist society. It's part of our cultural identity in ways that would be very difficult to undo today, and even some of the avowed "capital is theft" guys I've discussed this stuff with around here, when pushed, don't actually question the premise that individuals should be free to invest the proceeds of their labor however they see fit, which is squarely on the capitalist/individual control of allocation of resources side of the economic debate. Saying the Democrats are further right than most right-wing Australian politicians is true for a very specific, limited standpoint... but only true from that one specific limited standpoint. 

Where Democrats ARE reliably left are on pretty much every other axis you want to measure. Social issues, they're the party of inclusivity and social justice and equal rights for all. Historically they've been the party most responsible for leftward movement on the isolationism/international cooperation axis as well. They've been reliably on the left on the axis of government-provided social welfare programs vs private charity as well. Related to that, they've been reliably left on taxation/private property issues, arguing for the need for higher taxes to fund these programs. 

I think maybe what makes this debate so hard to understand is that liberal vs conservative, in America, actually in some ways gets down to the original definition of what it means to be liberal, obliquely. In America, being a liberal means believing that, fundamentally, the government CAN be both good and effective, and offers value to its citizens. That's sort of a "no shit" statement for the rest of the world, maybe, but remember on the right the Republican party is the party of anything from Reagan's famous "I believe the scariest words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help," all the way up to Grover Norquest's "It's not that I want _no_ government... I just want it to be small enough to drown in my bathtub." A lot of what makes American politics tough to follow from an outsider's perspective is the core political divide in American government, is whether or not there should even BE an American government.


----------



## possumkiller

Dammit, Drew! It's axes! There is no such thing as axises! Now everything you've ever written is thrown into question!


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> Dammit, Drew! It's axes! There is no such thing as axises! Now everything you've ever written is thrown into question!



I'm not even gonna bother to read a post that long knowing that it contains such a glaring mistake (and likely others!)


----------



## wankerness

So Donald Trump just tweeted that we need to throw out the entire vote for California in the presidential election, cause they’re allowing vote by mail and thus “the democrats are going to steal another election.” Here we go. If our country survives this blatant fascist and gets him out if office this election I’ll be amazed.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1259147372984180736


----------



## narad

Another? Which one did we steal? I always felt that losing the popular vote but somehow still winning was the most akin to stealing an election that we do in the US.


----------



## Ralyks

The fact that Trump himself has said that if we did mail in voting, we'd never have another Republican president ever again, should speak volumes about how people feel about the republican party. You're basically admitting the majority of the country doesn't agree with you or your ideology.


----------



## zappatton2

narad said:


> Another? Which one did we steal? I always felt that losing the popular vote but somehow still winning was the most akin to stealing an election that we do in the US.


To be fair, I suppose there are all sort of electoral systems that could result in the popular vote losing out that could still be considered generally democratic, but it's the brazen political gerrymandering in the U.S. that I'm most concerned about!


----------



## Ralyks

What's funny is of you think about it, a Republican hasn't won the popular vote since, what, HW Bush?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> What's funny is of you think about it, a Republican hasn't won the popular vote since, what, HW Bush?



Bush2 won the popular in 04'.

In modern times (post 19th century) the winner of the electoral college lost the popular vote only twice, Bush2 in 00' and Trump in 16'.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Bush2 won the popular in 04'.
> 
> In modern times (post 19th century) the winner of the electoral college lost the popular vote only twice, Bush2 in 00' and Trump in 16'.



Your right. In my mind I wasn't thinking about incumbents.
But yeah, that was the first time I could vote and as a democratic, even I voted for Bush that time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Your right. In my mind I wasn't thinking about incumbents.
> But yeah, that was the first time I could vote and as a democratic, even I voted for Bush that time.



I don't like the idea of political dynasties. 

Plus, Dubya always seemed like a blithering idiot who would go whatever direction his handlers asked, if they'd even ask. Just didn't really seem like a leader. 

Hindsight is 20/20, but this world is, and likely always will be, an objectively worse place because he was President.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Hindsight is 20/20, but this world is, and likely always will be, an objectively worse place because he was President.



Yeah, I gotta be honest, I don't know why I wasn't into the idea of John Kerry at the time. Plus I would have voted for Gore if I was old enough at the time.


----------



## Randy

I knew a lot of young guys that voted for gwb in 2004, surprisingly. Not that the youth ever swing elections anyway but I don't recall Kerry having an especially progressive agenda, outside of "Bush lied and got us into war under false pretenses", which was further stained by the fact Kerry voted for that war in the first place.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/09/politics/biden-vice-president-latina/index.html


He's going to pick the best Latina for the job.


Meanwhile it's wrong when I say "I'm taking that fine-ass extra-THICC Black chick home for the night"?


Granted, I said it during a meeting at work, but that's beside the point...


----------



## Ralyks

I'd be cool with a Latina VP


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I'd be cool with a Latina VP



He'd be smart to choose a counterpoint to himself, someone much younger who seems younger, more progressive (but not too much, I suppose), very well spoken and quick witted. 

But he can't go too crazy. The last thing we need is his version of Palin. Someone so far in the other direction that there’s no chemistry or unified message. 

I would still like to see Stacey Abrams. She checks all the boxes and is recognizable.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> He'd be smart to choose a counterpoint to himself, someone much younger who seems younger, more progressive (but not too much, I suppose), very well spoken and quick witted.
> 
> But he can't go too crazy. The last thing we need is his version of Palin. Someone so far in the other direction that there’s no chemistry or unified message.
> 
> I would still like to see Stacey Abrams. She checks all the boxes and is recognizable.



All of this, plus it could ease people on Biden in regards to his age and mental facilities.


----------



## wankerness

MaxOfMetal said:


> He'd be smart to choose a counterpoint to himself, someone much younger who seems younger, more progressive (but not too much, I suppose), very well spoken and quick witted.
> 
> But he can't go too crazy. The last thing we need is his version of Palin. Someone so far in the other direction that there’s no chemistry or unified message.
> 
> I would still like to see Stacey Abrams. She checks all the boxes and is recognizable.



I was thinking this at first, before this coronavirus thing really exposed just how horrible much of the general population is, how close we are to a full blown splintering of the Union, and how dire the government situation is, but as this election really is the last hope as to whether America solidifies as a banana republic with permanent GOP rule or not, I feel like she’s too risky. She’d be choosing someone that will lose him the considerable “racist, but not as racist as Trump supporters” slightly blue electorate that will say things like she’s too uppity or too urban, and it would just further encourage any full-blown racists to make absolutely sure to go out and vote so we don’t get another Obama (who they still clearly all have nightmares about.) I think the whiter she is, the less Trumpists will go insane. I’m all for Elizabeth Warren.

obviously Abrams would still be a far smarter choice than Hillary Clinton. Or someone as bland as Biden is, like Amy Klobuchar.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I would still like to see Stacey Abrams.



Down vote on Abrams. Her resume doesn't do enough for me, and she's not any more progressive than Biden. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to assume her skin color or where she's from makes her a lock for black people or people from the South.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Down vote on Abrams. Her resume doesn't do enough for me, and she's not any more progressive than Biden. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to assume her skin color or where she's from makes her a lock for black people or people from the South.



Anything in particular?

Things I like:
- 7% NRA rating
- for Medicaid expansion with a "universal option" since around 2016 at least
- Pro separation of church and state
- voter enfranchisement is a core part of her agenda
- pro union
- for expansion of SNAP
- anti War On Drugs
- for clean energy
- against for profit schools (vouchers, charter schools, etc.)

Things I can see as turn offs:
- little in the way of international policy
- not sure where she stands on the death penalty
- "family values" i.e. "traditional families" and "faith"

I mean, she happens to be black, but I don't think that sways me either way.

There are much worse options, and certainly some better ones. I don't think who is chosen is really going to affect my vote.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Anything in particular?
> 
> Things I like:
> - 7% NRA rating
> - for Medicaid expansion with a "universal option" since around 2016 at least
> - Pro separation of church and state
> - voter enfranchisement is a core part of her agenda
> - pro union
> - for expansion of SNAP
> - anti War On Drugs
> - for clean energy
> - against for profit schools (vouchers, charter schools, etc.)
> 
> Things I can see as turn offs:
> - little in the way of international policy
> - not sure where she stands on the death penalty
> - "family values" i.e. "traditional families" and "faith"
> 
> I mean, she happens to be black, but I don't think that sways me either way.
> 
> There are much worse options, and certainly some better ones. I don't think who is chosen is really going to affect my vote.



Oh, I mean, her positions aren't bad. She's no Joe Manchin or Joe Lieberman, for example.

But effective duos, these days, are a 'yin and yang'. In both cases, Obama and Trump both benefited mightily from the fact they were seemingly "change agent" "untainted" fresh faced candidates, and the fear they were too inexperienced was tempered by the fact they took an experienced legistlator as their VP. I remember a marked change in how people discussed Trump after Pence manhandeled Tim Kaine in the VP debate.

Abrams positions sound too much like Biden's positions. At that point, the only 'yin to his yang' IS the fact she's a black woman from Georgia. This is the same mistake they made running Tim Kaine, who also didn't have much daylight between he and Hillary Clinton besides being a man from Virginia.

If you hang on dislike of Trump as enough to give the win to anyone from the Democratic Party, that's fine but if you're pursuing either crossover appeal or inspiring either new voters or people who would potentially abstain otherwise, Abrams brings none of those people on-board.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Oh, I mean, her positions aren't bad. She's no Joe Manchin or Joe Lieberman, for example.
> 
> But effective duos, these days, are a 'yin and yang'. In both cases, Obama and Trump both benefited mightily from the fact they were seemingly "change agent" "untainted" fresh faced candidates, and the fear they were too inexperienced was tempered by the fact they took an experienced legistlator as their VP. I remember a marked change in how people discussed Trump after Pence manhandeled Tim Kaine in the VP debate.
> 
> Abrams positions sound too much like Biden's positions. At that point, the only 'yin to his yang' IS the fact she's a black woman from Georgia. This is the same mistake they made running Tim Kaine, who also didn't have much daylight between he and Hillary Clinton besides being a man from Virginia.
> 
> If you hang on dislike of Trump as enough to give the win to anyone from the Democratic Party, that's fine but if you're pursuing either crossover appeal or inspiring either new voters or people who would potentially abstain otherwise, Abrams brings none of those people on-board.



All fair points. 

Has anyone piqued your interest?


----------



## Randy

I mean, Biden's positioning isn't a bad starting point but it's gotta be "Bides PLUS *something*" and the *something* needs to be of substance. Abrams would be fine with either a better resume or being a *leader* (bolded for emphasis) in some other area (ie. green, social justice, reining in corporations, etc).

I do think we're going to get a female and person of color as the VP pick regardless. I made peace with a Kam Harris selection, I think I can still live with that but I've warmed up to the option of Val Demings or Letitia James. A Nina Turner pick would check just about all of my boxes.


----------



## Randy

So, when does Mnuchin become a liability? He's been a good Trump soldier, but Trump's been selling this "nothing's wrong, nothing was ever wrong" thing and Mnuchin was on the weekend shows saying unemployment is close to 25% in reality. At some point what Wall Street want to see to ensure long term stability and what Trump wants to see to bolster re-election are two diverging paths.


----------



## bostjan

We've all known unemployment was around 25% with these extenuating circumstances. But, I mean, it's clearly Obama's fault. I'm sure Trump will fire Mnuchin, blame Obama, declare that he won, and go back to playing golf. If Trump loses the election, he'll do similar - scapegoat someone, fire them, blame Obama, declare victory, act like nothing ever happened. Biden doesn't stand a chance, because he wants to play by the rules.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> Dammit, Drew! It's axes! There is no such thing as axises! Now everything you've ever written is thrown into question!


 

It's been a long few months.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So, when does Mnuchin become a liability? He's been a good Trump soldier, but Trump's been selling this "nothing's wrong, nothing was ever wrong" thing and Mnuchin was on the weekend shows saying unemployment is close to 25% in reality. At some point what Wall Street want to see to ensure long term stability and what Trump wants to see to bolster re-election are two diverging paths.


That's a tough one, because while I'm no fan of Mnuchin and see him as a little too close to letting the fox run the henhouse... He's also clearly competent, and while I think Powell at the Fed deserves more crtedit that Mnuchin at the Treasury, he was also pretty clearly instrumental on getting a deal done with Democrats to get the CARES act passed. 

Haven't seen where he shakes out on the "no more deficit funded stimulus" thing, but Trump seems to be making it a point of faith that we don't do a similar stimulus package to support the states because he doesn't want to "bail out a bunch of Democratic states for being too generous with their pensions" (even though the worst offender is McConnell's own Kentucky, and even the blue states, had their pension benefits really ratcheted up under Republican governors, interestingly enough). Mnuchin may be enough of a realist to break with Trump over that, and if so, then yeah, he might be on thin ice.


----------



## Randy

Same guys complaining about wire tapping and unmasking people for the last 4 years...


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Same guys complaining about wire tapping and unmasking people for the last 4 years...
> 
> View attachment 80558


How WEIRD.


----------



## Randy

Donald J. Sanders


----------



## narad

"make it go up" "both ways" "barely legal" ...dude's been checking my browser history.


----------



## sleewell

the entire world is rigged against him. you should only believe the guy who lies 15k times in 3 years and files for BK whenever possible. all hail dear leader!!!


----------



## Drew

Interesting tidbits from a FiveThirtyEight chat published today.


Joe Biden has had a very consistent 6 point lead in head-to-head matchups against Trump for all of 2019 and what 2020 we've had so far; his lead has been the most stable against an incumbent since at least 1944.
PredictIt state-by-state polling has Biden the favorite in enough states to win the Electoral College.
Yet, a modest majority of Americans - 55% - think Trump is the favorite to win re-election, and despite PredictIt betting markets suggesting Biden is the favorite to win the Electoral College when looking at it from a state by state basis, the national election betting market has Trump the mot likely candidate to win (altough there's some noise there with, for example, Hillary having some support, and to be fair the "which _party _will win" has the Democratic party the modest favorite in an extremely close match.

There's a LOT of evidence that suggests Trump's reelection campaign is in real trouble, and I've been beating a dead horse here calling him a modest underdog for months now. A bottom-up analysis based on state by state polling and betting markets supports this. Yet, despite all of this. public opinion is still that Trump is a modest _favorite_. It's a really weird disconnect, the difference between the top down and bottom up assessments of the race.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> a modest majority of Americans - 55% - think Trump is the favorite to win re-election



Because he IS the incumbent, because all the polls put him behind in 2016, and because no matter that the scandal (including 80,000+ deaths from a preventable virus or being impeached), his core support hasn't wiggled. Even if people don't like him, they think he's unstoppable and I don't blame them.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ralyks

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...my9t6Okw5gJhXHDvdLbwQpVlIiBK2OxN1oIz-Xxg7fFZU

"But in a shock upset, the privacy-preserving amendment fell short by a single vote after several senators who would have voted “Yes” failed to show up to the session, including Bernie Sanders."


----------



## GoldDragon

Ralyks said:


> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...my9t6Okw5gJhXHDvdLbwQpVlIiBK2OxN1oIz-Xxg7fFZU
> 
> "But in a shock upset, the privacy-preserving amendment fell short by a single vote after several senators who would have voted “Yes” failed to show up to the session, including Bernie Sanders."



That doesn't make sense.

I'm conservative, but I actually wanted this to pass. Why did Bernie not vote?


----------



## sleewell

wouldn't it still need to go through the house?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Because he IS the incumbent, because all the polls put him behind in 2016, and because no matter that the scandal (including 80,000+ deaths from a preventable virus or being impeached), his core support hasn't wiggled. Even if people don't like him, they think he's unstoppable and I don't blame them.


I'm not attributing this argument to you, so this isn't directed at you... but, The polls had him behind because he WAS behind, he lost the popular vote by about 2%, which was enough to eke out an electoral college win by about 78,000 voters across three states. The polls now have him about 6 points behind nationally, which is a MUCH bigger deficit to try to flip the EC from.


----------



## Drew

*dupe*


----------



## sleewell

trump is losing support in the elderly population. 


national polls are worthless. dig into the state polls broken down by demographics, especially the swing states.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> trump is losing support in the elderly population.
> 
> 
> national polls are worthless. dig into the state polls broken down by demographics, especially the swing states.


No argument there. However, Biden's polling in state polls suggests if the election was held now he'd be very likely to win the electoral college, and is pretty consistent with the lead he's showing in the national polls. And yet people still think he's the favorite to win.


----------



## bostjan

Florida is going to be the state with almost all of the sway. I'd say that whoever wins Florida will be 80% likely to win the election. If Trump loses support in Florida _for a reason_, it's also likely that the same reason could cause a tiny sway away from him in other key swing states, anyway.


----------



## Ralyks

He'd lose Florida because with the way they're handing the current circumstances, they will barely be a healthy population left.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> He'd lose Florida because with the way they're handing the current circumstances, they will barely be a healthy population left.


You can't lose if there's nobody left to vote.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> You can't lose if there's nobody left to vote.



That's fair.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Florida is going to be the state with almost all of the sway. I'd say that whoever wins Florida will be 80% likely to win the election. If Trump loses support in Florida _for a reason_, it's also likely that the same reason could cause a tiny sway away from him in other key swing states, anyway.


Eh, I don't think it's too hard to imagine scenarios where Florida goes Trump, and Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona all go Biden. Florida has moved distinctly rightward since 2012. I don't think that's true of the rust belt, and Arizona is moving left.


----------



## sleewell

trump could lose WI too based on recent elections there. 

also kemps approval rating in GA is in the 30s, that state could be in play too if their early reopening does not go well.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> also kemps approval rating in GA is in the 30s, that state could be in play too if their early reopening does not go well.



Georgia and Florida infection charts look like shark teeth, Texas looks like shark teeth and an overall upward trend along with it. Seems like conservative states are embracing the 'sweat it out' strategy regardless of outcomes.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like Justin Amash isn't running for president after all.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Looks like Justin Amash isn't running for president after all.



Called it.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Called it.



He's blaming Covid, but probably because he knew he wouldn't have any resemblance of a chance and it would take votee from Biden (I only say Biden because he's the presumed candidate. You could have put any of the other candidates in this spot. It's just known he hates Trump).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> He's blaming Covid, but probably because he knew he wouldn't have any resemblance of a chance and it would take votee from Biden (I only say Biden because he's the presumed candidate. You could have put any of the other candidates in this spot. It's just known he hates Trump).



He hates how Trump makes the party look, but he hates actual left of center policies and politicians more. He rather not steal libertarian right-leaning folks from Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

So it’s moot point really


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Perhaps I am wrong but wasn't free speech meaning you can complain about your government and they cant lock you up??

Like its not just a you can say anything about anyone without any regard for truth. Like most right wing "news" is practically libelous.

Its the whole "post truth" society thing. A Carl Rove thing haha


----------



## Ralyks

“Free speech” means you can say what you want. It doesn’t absolve you of retaliation though.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AGqMBHw3WTSySABcMJDvLRQ

OH COME THE FUCK ON! JUST LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.
As a moderate, this is fucking stupid.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AGqMBHw3WTSySABcMJDvLRQ
> 
> OH COME THE FUCK ON! JUST LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.
> As a moderate, this is fucking stupid.



As not a moderate, I think it's a waste of time.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> As not a moderate, I think it's a waste of time.



See? We can all agree on something!


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AkaX3rGayT72ILIIB9X_3ig

The takeaway I'm getting here is that the Trump administration just debunked Obamagate themselves.


----------



## fantom

Dineley said:


> Perhaps I am wrong but wasn't free speech meaning you can complain about your government and they cant lock you up??
> 
> Like its not just a you can say anything about anyone without any regard for truth. Like most right wing "news" is practically libelous.
> 
> Its the whole "post truth" society thing. A Carl Rove thing haha





Ralyks said:


> “Free speech” means you can say what you want. It doesn’t absolve you of retaliation though.



The first amendment means the government can't censor you or punish you as well as gives a right to peacefully protest to influence change. It doesn't mean anything about what private parties can do in retaliation.

Also, the court has made many exceptions for circumstances that are not protected by the amendment, such as advocating for a crime to occur or accusing someone of a crime they did not commit. As an example, you can't threaten to kill someone and expect the government to ignore you. You also can't call someone a pedophile on Twitter as we recently found out. Thanks Elon!

Hopefully the court stops this Obamagate garbage, as it seems libel more than "news"


----------



## gunch

Drew said:


> Yet, despite all of this. public opinion is still that Trump is a modest _favorite_. It's a really weird disconnect, the difference between the top down and bottom up assessments of the race.



You forget that this is a post-truth/reality society


----------



## zappatton2

I'm really thinking I might renew a proper newspaper subscription, I'm always too inclined to glance at the comments section when I read stuff online, and it's always such a shitshow. Whenever I see posts peppered with words like "sheeple" and "snowflakes", I feel like I'm looking at the results of a bad childhood and deep-seated trust issues, rather than a political argument. At least we've still got some decent print journalism in North America.


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> I'm really thinking I might renew a proper newspaper subscription, I'm always too inclined to glance at the comments section when I read stuff online, and it's always such a shitshow. Whenever I see posts peppered with words like "sheeple" and "snowflakes", I feel like I'm looking at the results of a bad childhood and deep-seated trust issues, rather than a political argument. At least we've still got some decent print journalism in North America.



I took a free 3-mo trial subscription of a paper last year. For me, the hardest part was always feeling a day behind. Y
ou're almost always exposed to someone else's opinion/interpretation if the newsworthy event first, which is a bit weird.


----------



## zappatton2

spudmunkey said:


> I took a free 3-mo trial subscription of a paper last year. For me, the hardest part was always feeling a day behind. Y
> ou're almost always exposed to someone else's opinion/interpretation if the newsworthy event first, which is a bit weird.


I actually don't mind that. I still found when I did get the paper (up until maybe three years ago), I found I was generally more informed because I'd take my time, and read things pretty thoroughly, including articles I might not have if they required clicking on first. Online news almost feels like a race from one article to the next, and since more ppl seem to gravitate towards editorial content that confirms their own bias, there seems to me a general loss of nuanced understanding of the broader issues. That said, I'll still peek in with the CBC on a daily basis, I just need to avoid getting sucked into all the nonsense online.


----------



## sleewell

cuben on hannity last night. pretty good observations.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

zappatton2 said:


> I'm really thinking I might renew a proper newspaper subscription, I'm always too inclined to glance at the comments section when I read stuff online, and it's always such a shitshow. Whenever I see posts peppered with words like "sheeple" and "snowflakes", I feel like I'm looking at the results of a bad childhood and deep-seated trust issues, rather than a political argument. At least we've still got some decent print journalism in North America.



My work still gets The New York Times delivered to some break rooms and common areas. I work third, and it's delivered around the end of my shift so I'm always able to snag a fresh copy.

I don't think I'd subscribe otherwise, but the NYT Mag they throw in on Sundays is consistently good.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I'm really thinking I might renew a proper newspaper subscription, I'm always too inclined to glance at the comments section when I read stuff online, and it's always such a shitshow. Whenever I see posts peppered with words like "sheeple" and "snowflakes", I feel like I'm looking at the results of a bad childhood and deep-seated trust issues, rather than a political argument. At least we've still got some decent print journalism in North America.


I haven't done it in years, probably more than a decade, but there was a while there where I made the point of buying a sunday paper every week or two and going out to a coffee shop to read it over breakfast. 

It's a VERY different way of "consuming" news, even back in the mid-2000s. Online news is great because it's extremely easy to hone in on your areas of interest. This is a blessing and a curse, though, because it means you tend to no read anything you aren't already interested in. A newspaper, meanwhile, really promotes browsing - you find yourself reading interesting stories that left to your own devices you'd never have bothered with had they not been right in front of you, but turn out to be really interesting. 

I've been a subscriber to The Economist for a long time now for similar reasons, but even then their area of focus is so much more narrow than the New York Times or Boston Globe, that it's not really the same. Great coverage of politics, financial markets, and economic themes/takes on current events, but not much beyond that.


----------



## GoldDragon

zappatton2 said:


> I'm really thinking I might renew a proper newspaper subscription, I'm always too inclined to glance at the comments section when I read stuff online, and it's always such a shitshow. Whenever I see posts peppered with words like "sheeple" and "snowflakes", I feel like I'm looking at the results of a bad childhood and deep-seated trust issues, rather than a political argument. At least we've still got some decent print journalism in North America.


This is why liberalism has overwhelmed political discourse.

Conservatives and older people have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out. It's also the reason why polls are becoming less accurate, conservatives don't need to shout their allegiance from a rooftop, they are more likely to hang up on pollsters.

This forum is a prime example. The nation was roughly split 50 / 50 in last election, yet this forum is 95% liberal. Look at the thread titles and anti Trump rhetoric.

There are as many conservatives as liberals on this site, yet they were run out of here.

I hope you all realize this is not because you are "winning", it's because you are relentless in your need for affirmation and belonging. You verbally assault anyone who attempts reasoned and logical argument. Most reasonable people just bow out and say, "I'll see you at the polls."

This is why people virtue signal. Its why political correctness is entirely a liberal phenomenon.

If conservatives had the same need to dominate political discussion, this forum and every forum would be 50 / 50 split. And that is hardly the case.

Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a 95% conservative political forum? You never have because it doesn't exist.


----------



## sleewell

What a load of shit. Have you been to rig talk? There are tons of conservative forums, that's easily the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.


----------



## Demiurge

This is a pretty big forum with a lot of subsections, and there are literally only three threads that touch politics right now. It bears mentioning that it only would have been two if the _existence of a fucking pandemic_ wasn't somehow wrenched into being a political opinion. 

It's hard assume a political bent on non-political topics unless you're a nutball.


----------



## narad

'You verbally assault anyone who attempts reasoned and logical argument. Most reasonable people just bow out and say, "I'll see you at the polls."'

So... are you bowing out? Or calling yourself unreasonable?


----------



## zappatton2

GoldDragon said:


> This is why liberalism has overwhelmed political discourse.
> 
> Conservatives and older people have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out. It's also the reason why polls are becoming less accurate, conservatives don't need to shout their allegiance from a rooftop, they are more likely to hang up on pollsters.
> 
> This forum is a prime example. The nation was roughly split 50 / 50 in last election, yet this forum is 95% liberal. Look at the thread titles and anti Trump rhetoric.
> 
> There are as many conservatives as liberals on this site, yet they were run out of here.
> 
> I hope you all realize this is not because you are "winning", it's because you are relentless in your need for affirmation and belonging. You verbally assault anyone who attempts reasoned and logical argument. Most reasonable people just bow out and say, "I'll see you at the polls."
> 
> This is why people virtue signal. Its why political correctness is entirely a liberal phenomenon.
> 
> If conservatives had the same need to dominate political discussion, this forum and every forum would be 50 / 50 split. And that is hardly the case.
> 
> Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a 95% conservative political forum? You never have because it doesn't exist.


I don't think anyone is being "run out" or "verbally assaulted" per se, but within the context of political debate, the right has overwhelmingly embraced a set of narratives that aren't supported with credible evidence. What perhaps appears to be "verbal assault" is simply a frustration with talking points that don't have anything to back them up. The left certainly does have its extremist elements, but nowhere even close to how conservatism is increasingly defining itself.

If you want to see "verbal assault", scan the comments sections of literally any news article or YouTube clip. I know plenty of conservatives who are capable of reasoned debate, but the internet has become a cesspool of "immigrant are evil" this, and "everything is a liberal conspiracy" that, fed by misinformation, and ever shrouded in the threat of guns, misogyny, racism and violence. I'm not at all suggesting this to be you, but it is overwhelming, and those susceptible to that kind of thinking are being exploited by misinformation campaigns that are creating chaos, not just in the U.S., but the world over.

Until nations start embracing critical thinking tools and skills in their curriculum, we're going to keep having this problem. It's like a debate between evolution and creationism. Reams of evidence across scientific fields being aggressively dismissed by people with "biblical evidence" can be a little more than frustrating to people who value critical thought and cherish how far it has taken civilization.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> Conservatives and older people have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out.


The current crop of red fossils in your government contradicts this.


----------



## zappatton2

StevenC said:


> The current crop of red fossils in your government contradicts this.


No kidding, I'm pretty sure "dignity" and the American Right have a mutual restraining order against each other. Dignity must come no closer than 300ft from any given Trump rally at all times.


----------



## Alexa run my life

GoldDragon said:


> This is why liberalism has overwhelmed political discourse.
> 
> Conservatives and older people have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out. It's also the reason why polls are becoming less accurate, conservatives don't need to shout their allegiance from a rooftop, they are more likely to hang up on pollsters.
> 
> This forum is a prime example. The nation was roughly split 50 / 50 in last election, yet this forum is 95% liberal. Look at the thread titles and anti Trump rhetoric.
> 
> There are as many conservatives as liberals on this site, yet they were run out of here.
> 
> I hope you all realize this is not because you are "winning", it's because you are relentless in your need for affirmation and belonging. You verbally assault anyone who attempts reasoned and logical argument. Most reasonable people just bow out and say, "I'll see you at the polls."
> 
> This is why people virtue signal. Its why political correctness is entirely a liberal phenomenon.
> 
> If conservatives had the same need to dominate political discussion, this forum and every forum would be 50 / 50 split. And that is hardly the case.
> 
> Ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a 95% conservative political forum? You never have because it doesn't exist.


You're absolutely right mate. The proof is in the 6 responses to your post within a 5 hour time span all clubbing you over the head.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> You're absolutely right mate. The proof is in the 6 responses to your post within a 5 hour time span all clubbing you over the head.



"Conservatives have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out."

vs.

"Conservatives create accounts on liberally-leaning guitar forums not to talk at all about guitar, but rather just to argue politics, get banned, and with literally no indication of even the tinniest amount of dignity or self-restraint, do it again."


I wonder which more accurately captures the situation here.


----------



## Alexa run my life

narad said:


> "Conservatives have more dignity and self restraint, they are more likely to bow out."
> 
> vs.
> 
> "Conservatives create accounts on liberally-leaning guitar forums not to talk at all about guitar, but rather just to argue politics, get banned, and with literally no indication of even the tinniest amount of dignity or self-restraint, do it again."
> 
> 
> I wonder which more accurately captures the situation here.


Because covid 19 isn't a hot topic no matter where you go right? Also, this is my second post in this particular thread.

You know, over at TGP they don't allow this kind of discussion so I think it's good to have an outlet for political realted things while hanging with guitar buddies.

Take a chill pill dude!


----------



## LordCashew

GoldDragon said:


> Conservatives and older people have more dignity and self restraint...



I don’t know man, I’ve found old people on both sides are even more likely to be opinionated blowhards. You’re richly blessed if the older people in your life show dignity and restraint!


----------



## spudmunkey

So, Anne Coulter went on a Trumpian-style twitter rant, using the words "complete moron", "disloyal actual retard", "lout" and "blithering idiot".


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Ann Coulter makes Trump look like Mr. Rodgers


----------



## Ralyks

I mean, many of us are thinking these things, but clearly someone shat in her cornflakes that morning.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> So, Anne Coulter went on a Trumpian-style twitter rant, using the words "complete moron", "disloyal actual retard", "lout" and "blithering idiot".
> 
> View attachment 81150


"complete moron" I'd agree with that and that seems like an understatement really...


----------



## GoldDragon

spudmunkey said:


> So, Anne Coulter went on a Trumpian-style twitter rant, using the words "complete moron", "disloyal actual retard", "lout" and "blithering idiot".
> 
> View attachment 81150



The only explanation is that she realizes the new breed of conservative political commentator is young and hot; she may feel she has a better chance standing out on CNN or MSNBC.

Or she forgot to take her meds.


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> Or she forgot to take her meds.



Or took too much. Ambien.


----------



## Randy

Ann Coulter's was dick riding Jeff Sessions a decade before Donald Trump was even a viable candidate. That's basically where it begins and ends.


----------



## AxRookie

Our Commander in Chief...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cB-iSmNVCGyO6995qlALPj3KVs6sNKey/view?usp=sharing

Cockadoodledoo folks...

He's trying to have this wiped from the web...


----------



## Randy

He sure can dance though.


----------



## MFB

AxRookie said:


> Our Commander in Chief...
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cB-iSmNVCGyO6995qlALPj3KVs6sNKey/view?usp=sharing
> 
> Cockadoodledoo folks...
> 
> He's trying to have this wiped from the web...


----------



## Science_Penguin

AxRookie said:


> He's trying to have this wiped from the web...



Meanwhile, at the White House:

"Uhh, Mr. President? The King of Thailand just called, he's got some bad news..."


----------



## AxRookie

"Jeff Kiesel said: ↑
Again Suhr, Tom Anderson, Knaggs, etc etc all better guitars hands down!"

What's up with that sig MFB, Jeff Kiesel isn't a member here???

Did you fabricate that or is it from somewhere else? and why would you make that of all things your sig???


----------



## Randy

AxRookie said:


> "Jeff Kiesel said: ↑
> Again Suhr, Tom Anderson, Knaggs, etc etc all better guitars hands down!"
> 
> What's up with that sig MFB, Jeff Kiesel isn't a member here???
> 
> Did you fabricate that or is it from somewhere else? and why would you make that of all things your sig???



Somebody joined the forum to share their Kiesel horror-story (as happens often here) and they chose the username Jeff Kiesel. It was very entertaining while it lasted.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Somebody joined the forum to share their Kiesel horror-story (as happens often here) and they chose the username Jeff Kiesel. It was very entertaining while it lasted.



Oh man, that was quite the saga


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

"President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters ...

McEnany did not specify what the order would include, but it signals the most significant step the President has taken in his war with tech companies as they struggle to balance freedom of speech with the growing problem of misinformation.

On Tuesday, Twitter applied a fact-check to two of Trump's tweets, including one that falsely claimed mail-in ballots would lead to widespread voter fraud. Trump immediately shot back, accusing the social media giant of censorship and warning that if it continued to offer addendums to his messages, he would use the power of the federal government to rein it in or even shut it down."


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html



Man, this is going to get good.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Man, this is going to get good.



Bezos, Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey vs DJT.

I feel like I saw this episode of Billions already?


----------



## Ralyks

What exactly can he do, anyway?


----------



## JSanta

narad said:


> Man, this is going to get good.



"MOM, some of the kids pushed me down on the playground because I was knocking everyone off the swings, but THEY ARE THE BAD PEOPLE NOT ME". - Donald Trump, probably.


----------



## budda

Ralyks said:


> What exactly can he do, anyway?



Im curious too.


----------



## JSanta

budda said:


> Im curious too.



Realistically, not much. I've seen discussion of reforming the Communications Decency Act, but that seems pretty far fetched, and because that would need Congressional approval, I doubt that would happen. There is already anti-trust pressure, and he could try and force the FTC/FCC to move quicker on those reviews. 

In my opinion, Twitter didn't do anything wrong, if anything more of his insane lies need to have that fact check applied. The outrageous slander against Joe Scarbarough really should have been the last straw for getting him at least temporarily suspended. Twitter should assign a few people to that job alone. It's not bias so much as it is notifying users of what is factual and what is not.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think it is far past due for the internet to have some broader fact checking so Pizza Gate and Fat Earth Nonsense can be separated out. I think Trump is going to do the opposite. Republicans are always mad that science and mainstream facts don’t agree with them, not realities fault they are wrong.


----------



## sleewell

Hey look the victim card again.


----------



## narad

Man, shame on Michael Moore for spreading this conspiracy. I expect it more from tin foil hat guys, not from weirdly-always-wearing-normal-hat guys. What's under the hat, Michael? What don't you want us to know??


----------



## USMarine75

I'm watching the Netflix Jeffrey Epstein doc and I'm waiting for when they get to the part where Hillary was orchestrating it all from the pizza place.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

The draft order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/100000-deaths-moment-of-reflection/index.html
It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not.

"In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power."


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html
> 
> The draft order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet."
> It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not.
> 
> "In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power."


It's unbelievable how frequently "freedom" has to be defined to Republicans.


----------



## Ralyks

Sigh, again?


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Sigh, again?



They say on nights when Trump's doing something especially stupid, he appears.


----------



## tedtan

lolatlibtards said:


> Tell us more libtard from Ireland.
> 
> It’s unbelievable how frequently libtards from the EU and Quebec Canada think they know what they are talking about.



Is that you, MetalHex? You must really be bored in lockdown.


----------



## zappatton2

lolatlibtards said:


> Tell us more libtard from Ireland.
> 
> It’s unbelievable how frequently libtards from the EU and Quebec Canada think they know what they are talking about.


Those are some pretty keen observations there, they clearly broaden the discourse of this thread with unparalleled wit and insight.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> Is that you, MetalHex? You must really be bored in lockdown.


Damn, I missed another one?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Damn, I missed another one?



Just gotta keep refreshing the browser non-stop if you want to catch them. The mods are getting so quick it's like muscle memory for them at this point.


----------



## Ralyks

They didn't even TRY with the name this time.


----------



## fantom

Can someone who is a Trump-backing Republican please explain to me how the president trying to censor a private business for adding context to his rant is protecting the first amendment?

The first amendment does not apply to private businesses. It was written to allow the people to raise grievances with the government without fear of persecution. If anything, adding context to a tweet by a politician who is consistently manipulating and lying is literally the thing the first amendment is intended to protect. The president is crossing a line by going after them, because he is the one violating the first amendment right now. Ironically, they didn't even censor anything.

And for clarity. I am *not* a Democrat or liberal. This has nothing to do with politics. I actually fear conservative Republicans are ignoring extremely concerning behavior yet again to push an agenda. Honestly, they would be better at pushing an agenda with Pence in charge, as Trump seems to be getting in the way far more than helping them at this point.


----------



## sleewell

most people who are pretty dumb think free speech applies everywhere. they are most likely nearly illiterate and haven't really read into the ins and outs of exactly where that applies and where it doesn't; namely when you are using a platform provided by a private business or yelling fire in a crowded area for example. 


i know mah rights!!!!!



did you guys see the WH is choosing to hide all of the economic data from this summer? they foolishly say they are transparent and then blatantly hide things or block them from being released when its politically advantageous and all their enablers are fine with it.


----------



## ThePIGI King

fantom said:


> Can someone who is a Trump-backing Republican please explain to me how the president trying to censor a private business for adding context to his rant is protecting the first amendment?
> 
> The first amendment does not apply to private businesses. It was written to allow the people to raise grievances with the government without fear of persecution. If anything, adding context to a tweet by a politician who is consistently manipulating and lying is literally the thing the first amendment is intended to protect. The president is crossing a line by going after them, because he is the one violating the first amendment right now. Ironically, they didn't even censor anything.
> 
> And for clarity. I am *not* a Democrat or liberal. This has nothing to do with politics. I actually fear conservative Republicans are ignoring extremely concerning behavior yet again to push an agenda. Honestly, they would be better at pushing an agenda with Pence in charge, as Trump seems to be getting in the way far more than helping them at this point.



So, not saying I agree with the President on this one, but what he is getting at makes some sense. This article helped clear some stuff up for me:
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891

I think that extreme censorship is wrong, although not illegal. For example, during the primaries for the Dems this year, a coworker said that Google had censored anything positive about Gabbard (including her own website not appearing as a result on any page) and he couldn't find anything about her via google. Messed up, but not illegal.


----------



## tedtan

fantom said:


> Can someone who is a Trump-backing Republican please explain to me how the president trying to censor a private business for adding context to his rant is protecting the first amendment?
> 
> The first amendment does not apply to private businesses. It was written to allow the people to raise grievances with the government without fear of persecution. If anything, adding context to a tweet by a politician who is consistently manipulating and lying is literally the thing the first amendment is intended to protect. The president is crossing a line by going after them, because he is the one violating the first amendment right now. Ironically, they didn't even censor anything.
> 
> And for clarity. I am *not* a Democrat or liberal. This has nothing to do with politics. I actually fear conservative Republicans are ignoring extremely concerning behavior yet again to push an agenda. Honestly, they would be better at pushing an agenda with Pence in charge, as Trump seems to be getting in the way far more than helping them at this point.



Not a Trump supporter, but I'm with you. This executive order appears to violate the private companies' first amendment rights, so I'm sure it will be challenged and almost certainly dismissed in the courts.


----------



## fantom

ThePIGI King said:


> So, not saying I agree with the President on this one, but what he is getting at makes some sense. This article helped clear some stuff up for me:
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891
> 
> I think that extreme censorship is wrong, although not illegal. For example, during the primaries for the Dems this year, a coworker said that Google had censored anything positive about Gabbard (including her own website not appearing as a result on any page) and he couldn't find anything about her via google. Messed up, but not illegal.



To be perfectly clear. Twitter did not censor anything. The definition of censor clearly states "suppress information". They did not do that. They annotated more information in addition to what a government official publicly stated. Trump is trying to stop them from doing that, which *is* censoring, by the government... And violating their constitutional rights. It is illegal if it is done by the government.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...enting-online-censorship/?utm_source=facebook

Well, here's the order.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...enting-online-censorship/?utm_source=facebook
> 
> Well, here's the order.



I only got as far as the but “Adam Schiff” wasn’t fact checked over “Russian Hoax” tweets when my eyes rolled so hard that I couldn’t read anymore. I’ll have to wait for the synopsis.


----------



## fantom

Well according to his own text, censoring "harassing" and "otherwise objectionable" content is still protected, so Twitter can officially block everything he tweets without fear of retaliation.


----------



## fantom

In all seriousness, reading that EO is hard to take without seeing a bias tone. There is a very clear attitude in the way it is written and it calls out specific companies that he has a problem with. If someone could just hire an impartial legal assistant to rewrite it without the defensive tone, it might make good points about when a platform becomes an editorial. But it is so conflated with hatred for platforms which honestly have helped him in the long run more than they have hurt him, it is hard to take more than a temper tantrum by a Putin wannabe.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> Well according to his own text, censoring "harassing" and "otherwise objectionable" content is still protected, so Twitter can officially block everything he tweets without fear of retaliation.


Trump logic, In order to stop the censorship of government officials, we need to implement government-mandated censorship???

Oh yeah, that makes total sense all right?

There is something very wrong with his "aaa-biga-braina" brain...

And he's talking out of his a$$ because he was never censored at any time and none of his lies were removed???


----------



## fantom

AxRookie said:


> Trump logic, In order to stop the censorship of government officials, we need to implement government-mandated censorship???
> 
> Oh yeah, that makes total sense all right?
> 
> There is something very wrong with his "aaa-biga-braina" brain...



This is the conflated part. Most of the order actually discusses websites like Facebook and YouTube moderating and taking down false information. It is claiming that the act of doing that for reasons that are not protected means they are acting like a publisher / editor and not a information platform. I can understand where this perspective comes from, even though I don't agree the government should intervene.

I think someone had written this up and then they interjected Twitter and the whole annotation thing last minute (it was very obviously rushed considering the numbers and letters aren't correctly in order throughout the doc). They are claiming that inserting additional content without consent of the author is also more like an editorial / publisher model.

So they pretty much want information platforms to be regulated by the government for "fairness", after comparing the platforms to newspapers. Government controlling content of publishers... Kind of sounds like communist / socialism to me... And Republicans will eat it up because 'Merica

Edit: There is some irony here. They want to classify Twitter, Facebook, YouYube, etc. as publishers/editors so the FCC can regulate and defund "unfair" publishers, yet FoxNews is a pretty clearly biased publisher that seems to go under the radar for all the same reasons. The only difference is that they pay their opinionated people? Ug, politics is stupid.


----------



## JSanta

fantom said:


> This is the conflated part. Most of the order actually discusses websites like Facebook and YouTube moderating and taking down false information. It is claiming that the act of doing that for reasons that are not protected means they are acting like a publisher / editor and not a information platform. I can understand where this perspective comes from, even though I don't agree the government should intervene.
> 
> I think someone had written this up and then they interjected Twitter and the whole annotation thing last minute (it was very obviously rushed considering the numbers and letters aren't correctly in order throughout the doc). They are claiming that inserting additional content without consent of the author is also more like an editorial / publisher model.
> 
> So they pretty much want information platforms to be regulated by the government for "fairness", after comparing the platforms to newspapers. Government controlling content of publishers... Kind of sounds like communist / socialism to me... And Republicans will eat it up because 'Merica
> 
> Edit: There is some irony here. They want to classify Twitter, Facebook, YouYube, etc. as publishers/editors so the FCC can regulate and defund "unfair" publishers, yet FoxNews is a pretty clearly biased publisher that seems to go under the radar for all the same reasons. The only difference is that they pay their opinionated people? Ug, politics is stupid.



Because it's clearly that he doesn't want companies like Twitter or Facebook to apply any type of fact-checking to the ridiculous, and sometimes harmful content he and many others put out there. And this isn't just a Trump issue, there are plenty of people on the left that are just as bad about posting lies, or at best misleading information. 

This EO is very scary because of the connotations it has to what we see in places like China and Russia, where the Government controls media in such a way that it is weaponized. 

In other news, did anyone happen to see this last night? https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...dges-to-step-aside-ahead-of-november-election


----------



## thraxil

The irony of doing an EO like this after repealing Net Neutrality...


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A8ZeFtd1ZQxmM1LgfKtTIhg

Well, Twitter doesn't seem to be completely backing down.


----------



## Randy

An escalation on their part, really.


----------



## GoldDragon

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891

In a similar vein, GOP tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) wrote in a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday that the company's “decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "And he later teased on social media plans for a separate proposal to "end these special government giveaways."

"If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair," Hawley tweeted.


----------



## Ralyks

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891
> 
> In a similar vein, GOP tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) wrote in a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday that the company's “decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "And he later teased on social media plans for a separate proposal to "end these special government giveaways."
> 
> "If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair," Hawley tweeted.



If, and that's a HUGE If, it went through, you're just going to see them editorize the shit out of Trump and have it backfire on him spectacularly. You think Dorsey, Zuckerberg etc will take this lying down? They actually are as rich as they claim to be, they can afford the legal battle.

I don't think much positively of social media companies, but Trumps just having a tantrum because things aren't going this way after he's been allowed to spew bullshit and lies for so long without consequences. It's like anytime Fox says one small negative thing about him. This will be another non-story in a week or two.


----------



## Demiurge

It seems like the threat to remove special privileges & immunity is patently hollow. Wouldn't that mean that Twitter would need to regulate their content _more_ if they were exposed to liability? Of course, their recent annotation of Trump's tweet about Minneapolis suggests that his own content barely survives under the aegis of the current arrangement.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> This is the conflated part. Most of the order actually discusses websites like Facebook and YouTube moderating and taking down false information. It is claiming that the act of doing that for reasons that are not protected means they are acting like a publisher / editor and not a information platform. I can understand where this perspective comes from, even though I don't agree the government should intervene.
> 
> I think someone had written this up and then they interjected Twitter and the whole annotation thing last minute (it was very obviously rushed considering the numbers and letters aren't correctly in order throughout the doc). They are claiming that inserting additional content without consent of the author is also more like an editorial / publisher model.
> 
> So they pretty much want information platforms to be regulated by the government for "fairness", after comparing the platforms to newspapers. Government controlling content of publishers... Kind of sounds like communist / socialism to me... And Republicans will eat it up because 'Merica
> 
> Edit: There is some irony here. They want to classify Twitter, Facebook, YouYube, etc. as publishers/editors so the FCC can regulate and defund "unfair" publishers, yet FoxNews is a pretty clearly biased publisher that seems to go under the radar for all the same reasons. The only difference is that they pay their opinionated people? Ug, politics is stupid.


Well they are not an information platform (other than youtube sort of), they are a privately run social media platform that can do what they like on that platform...

They shouldn't have to let anyone say anything they like on those privately run platforms!


----------



## fantom

AxRookie said:


> Well they are not an information platform (other than youtube sort of), they are a privately run social media platform that can do what they like on that platform...
> 
> They shouldn't have to let anyone say anything they like on those privately run platforms!



I think you are hyperfocusing on words and missing the forest for the trees. The EO says "internet platform". Social media is information. The platforms are the same in that they host 3rd party content: tweets, videos, status updates, etc. They don't own the copyright and they are not commissioning people to upload. They are just a hosting service. The argument is that when they choose to filter what they host, they become a publisher. To me, it is dumb. They are a private business. But the protections they have are clearly defined. You should read the EO. The argument is that they should still do whatever they like but lose protections they are given... Oh and lose government funding too..because gotta stick it to em.


----------



## fantom

thraxil said:


> The irony of doing an EO like this after repealing Net Neutrality...



Alternate facts... I finally figured it out. We have been misunderstanding the term the entire time. They want to alternate when to use facts and when to ignore them.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> If, and that's a HUGE If, it went through, you're just going to see them editorize the shit out of Trump and have it backfire on him spectacularly. You think Dorsey, Zuckerberg etc will take this lying down? They actually are as rich as they claim to be, they can afford the legal battle.
> 
> I don't think much positively of social media companies, but Trumps just having a tantrum because things aren't going this way after he's been allowed to spew bullshit and lies for so long without consequences. It's like anytime Fox says one small negative thing about him. This will be another non-story in a week or two.



IMO these sites should be required to filter what is being published, they should be moderating content, and they should be treated like other publishers. Social media sites like FB have been given a pass on this for too long and they choose not to be responsible. In fact, I find that this website has been more responsible with moderating hate speech and aggressive escalations than those media giants. If SSO can do it, so can FB and Twitter. They just don’t want to because it would cost money and I don’t think Zuckerberg is short on cash.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> IMO these sites should be required to filter what is being published, they should be moderating content, and they should be treated like other publishers. Social media sites like FB have been given a pass on this for too long and they choose not to be responsible. In fact, I find that this website has been more responsible with moderating hate speech and aggressive escalations than those media giants. If SSO can do it, so can FB and Twitter. They just don’t want to because it would cost money and I don’t think Zuckerberg is short on cash.


If that were the case then all of Trump's racist, bigoted, misogynist, BS lies, and much more would be removed...


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> IMO these sites should be required to filter what is being published, they should be moderating content, and they should be treated like other publishers. Social media sites like FB have been given a pass on this for too long and they choose not to be responsible. In fact, I find that this website has been more responsible with moderating hate speech and aggressive escalations than those media giants. If SSO can do it, so can FB and Twitter. They just don’t want to because it would cost money and I don’t think Zuckerberg is short on cash.





AxRookie said:


> If that were the case then all of Trump's racist, bigoted, misogynist, BS lies, and much more would be removed...



Basically both of these, while I don’t disagree with your point SpaceDock, you know the only reason this is even happening is because Trump is having a tantrum, and not for anyone else but himself.


----------



## SpaceDock

I, for one, am glad that Twitter found its balls, too bad it is four years too late.


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> IMO these sites should be required to filter what is being published, they should be moderating content, and they should be treated like other publishers. Social media sites like FB have been given a pass on this for too long and they choose not to be responsible. In fact, I find that this website has been more responsible with moderating hate speech and aggressive escalations than those media giants. If SSO can do it, so can FB and Twitter. They just don’t want to because it would cost money and I don’t think Zuckerberg is short on cash.



Filter based on what criteria? It's pretty clear that FauxNews had been filtering their content for decades. Do you really want every major company to have a personality and filter anything that doesn't agree with that persona? Will that outcome be beneficial for society? While I think tech companies should be partially responsible for creating divisions in society over the last decade, the society was already fragmenting even in the 90s due to filtered and biased news. Filtering content is not the way. I actually think the approach Twitter has been taking the last few days is responsibly trying to address the problems without removing content. I really want to see how this unfolds. I'm rooting for them. And I hope other tech companies have the balls to stand up.

And if they are classified as publishers, does that mean they need copyright agreements with every user? Do they need to pay commission? How many users will stick around if their content isn't shown?

How did PBS work? Maybe that is a worthwhile model.


----------



## SpaceDock

@fantom I agree, maybe filtering is the wrong word. I do like the current Twitter model as well for now. I keep thinking about how in libraries you know fiction from non fiction based on where it is and how it is organized. I think social media and news needs some of that as well; scientific fact, debatable but widely accepted fact, fiction, And opinion. I just don’t think normal people can tell the difference anymore. That is the filtering I am thinking of.


----------



## Vyn

SpaceDock said:


> @fantom I agree, maybe filtering is the wrong word. I do like the current Twitter model as well for now. I keep thinking about how in libraries you know fiction from non fiction based on where it is and how it is organized. I think social media and news needs some of that as well; scientific fact, debatable but widely accepted fact, fiction, And opinion. I just don’t think normal people can tell the difference anymore. That is the filtering I am thinking of.



The issue is that thanks to social media bombarding us with so much information, people don't have the time to go fact-checking for themselves anymore, combine that with a lack of understanding about how statistics work, ideological echo chambers and confirmation bias, you end up with this perfect storm of people being able to spread misinformation easily.


----------



## fantom

And people don't agree on what "fact" or "fiction" mean anymore. You can't fix that when people intentionally lie about what the truth is to oppress and manipulate for power/wealth. I don't think society will ever be able to fix that.


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> The issue is that thanks to social media bombarding us with so much information, people don't have the time to go fact-checking for themselves anymore, combine that with a lack of understanding about how statistics work, ideological echo chambers and confirmation bias, you end up with this perfect storm of people being able to spread misinformation easily.



You're entirely right but the threshold for what's considered fact checking/filtering out bias is totally out of whack.

If you tell someone on the opposite side you watch Fox or you watch CNN, instantly "okay, you don't know what you're talking about because they're so biased".

Even if Fox reports "Trump holds rally, record attendance!" and CNN reports "Trump holds rally, disappointing turnout!", from the two headlines alone you can gather that Trump held a rally and there was at least someone there. If you read either article, you will most likely even read the specifics on crowd size, and reach your own conclusions.

The idea that gathering facts needs to be a full-time job is primarily saved for people too lazy to read more than one headline on one page. Any person with even rudimentary critical thinking can answer what's facts and what's conjecture pretty easily. I just haven't decided if people are more stupid or lazy.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/05/27/trump-executive-order-social-media-twitter-285891
> 
> In a similar vein, GOP tech critic Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) wrote in a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday that the company's “decision to editorialize regarding the content of political speech raises questions about why Twitter should continue receiving special status and special immunity from publisher liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. "And he later teased on social media plans for a separate proposal to "end these special government giveaways."
> 
> "If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers. Fair is fair," Hawley tweeted.



Hawley is right but it's throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's stupid that social media companies were offered less oversight than publications by assuming they don't or never will wield the ability to editorialize based on what they allow or don't allow on their platform. So to that end, he's entirely right.

But yeah, as has been stated, that's attacking social media for limiting free speech by empowering the government to tell private companies what they can and can't do on their own platform. That's a classic "cure is worse than the disease" solution.


----------



## spudmunkey

dblpost


----------



## spudmunkey

https://whytrumpisgreat.com/


----------



## Vyn

Randy said:


> You're entirely right but the threshold for what's considered fact checking/filtering out bias is totally out of whack.
> 
> If you tell someone on the opposite side you watch Fox or you watch CNN, instantly "okay, you don't know what you're talking about because they're so biased".
> 
> Even if Fox reports "Trump holds rally, record attendance!" and CNN reports "Trump holds rally, disappointing turnout!", from the two headlines alone you can gather that Trump held a rally and there was at least someone there. If you read either article, you will most likely even read the specifics on crowd size, and reach your own conclusions.
> 
> The idea that gathering facts needs to be a full-time job is primarily saved for people too lazy to read more than one headline on one page. Any person with even rudimentary critical thinking can answer what's facts and what's conjecture pretty easily. I just haven't decided if people are more stupid or lazy.



Agreed. The bar for "Do I need to investigate this further?" is stupidly high and if anything is raised if it "came from the other side". 

This is just a personal anecdote - Over the last couple of years I've made an active effort to try and read news from multiple sources across the political spectrum because I used to just find myself bashing conservative news without actually investigating the claims simply because it conservative and therefore, in my mind, full of shit. So I began reading and actually looking into some of the claims an outlet such as Fox News makes when reporting on a story. Most of them did turn out to be complete garbage however I was wrong to dismiss the claims without actually investigating them and justifying my lack of investigation with "It's conservative propaganda, I don't need to know this."

Cool side-effect though of having done this and continuing to do it - understanding why the claims are being made and why they appeal to the audience in the way they do. It's allowed me to have more effective and valuable discussions with people of different view points (even if I think their viewpoint is fucking insane).


----------



## SpaceDock

^ haha I do that too, I read Fox every morning for a glimpse into the mind of madness


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> You're entirely right but the threshold for what's considered fact checking/filtering out bias is totally out of whack.
> 
> If you tell someone on the opposite side you watch Fox or you watch CNN, instantly "okay, you don't know what you're talking about because they're so biased".
> 
> Even if Fox reports "Trump holds rally, record attendance!" and CNN reports "Trump holds rally, disappointing turnout!", from the two headlines alone you can gather that Trump held a rally and there was at least someone there. If you read either article, you will most likely even read the specifics on crowd size, and reach your own conclusions.
> 
> The idea that gathering facts needs to be a full-time job is primarily saved for people too lazy to read more than one headline on one page. Any person with even rudimentary critical thinking can answer what's facts and what's conjecture pretty easily. I just haven't decided if people are more stupid or lazy.


The biggest prob is 99% of people don't have any rudimentary critical thinking...


----------



## fantom

Let me fix that for you...


AxRookie said:


> The biggest prob is 99% of people don't have any ... thinking...


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> Let me fix that for you...


Thank god! how are you going to do that? lol


----------



## possumkiller

I feel like we need a new game show. We can get Jeff Foxworthy to do something similar to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader but he will read random quotes and contestants will have to guess if it was trump or a toddler. The grand prize could be Canadian citizenship for the winning contestant and their immediate family.


----------



## BlackSG91

AxRookie said:


> If that were the case then all of Trump's racist, bigoted, misogynist, BS lies, and much more would be removed...



I can see you are new here and I agree with you 100%.


;>)/


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> But yeah, as has been stated, that's attacking social media for limiting free speech by empowering the government to tell private companies what they can and can't do on their own platform. That's a classic "cure is worse than the disease" solution.



I haven't analyzed the problem, but social media companies *only* survive if they are not responsible for libelous/slanderous user content.

When they editorialize, attach labels or pinochios to some user content, then the question needs to be asked, did you scour your entire site for opposing opinons and vet them for truth?

So they cannot selectively editorialize. They either have to do none, or all. They can't just pick out the president's tweets while ignoring hate speech from the left that may not be grounded in reality.

Furthermore, concerns about social media "stealing" an election are valid. Probably more valid than arguments about russia or foriegn countries meddling with elections.

So basically you have technology companies who have subsumed traditional media, and who aren't held to the same standards that traditional media are held to. I think everyone agrees that those restrictions on the press, were necessary to ensure that papers and magazines couldn't lie about political candidates to further their agenda.

In fact, a paper lying about a political candidate would be worse than any foreign government meddling in our elections. (Also the mechanism which foreign governments interfere, IS social media, knowing that social media is not responsible for pulling their content.) Now imagine that almost every publication was aligned in its agenda to upset the results of an election.

Honestly, social media has created more problems than it has solved. I would not be opposed to the government indirectly shutting the whole thing down.

1) Hold social media sites accountable to the same standards of traditional press.

2) Let them figure out if they still have a viable business model.

My concern is that new media believes Trump stole the election by using their platforms to lie. And now they appear to feel justified in selectively applying filters to their content to "right the ship".

We are in a "post truth" era. This was not brought on by Trump or the republicans, this is social media's doing.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> I haven't analyzed the problem, but social media companies *only* survive if they are not responsible for libelous/slanderous user content.
> 
> When they editorialize, attach labels or pinochios to some user content, then the question needs to be asked, did you scour your entire site for opposing opinons and vet them for truth?
> 
> So they cannot selectively editorialize. They either have to do none, or all. They can't just pick out the president's tweets while ignoring hate speech from the left that may not be grounded in reality.
> 
> Furthermore, concerns about social media "stealing" an election are valid. Probably more valid than arguments about russia or foriegn countries meddling with elections.
> 
> So basically you have technology companies who have subsumed traditional media, and who aren't held to the same standards that traditional media are held to. I think everyone agrees that those restrictions on the press, were necessary to ensure that papers and magazines couldn't lie about political candidates to further their agenda.
> 
> In fact, a paper lying about a political candidate would be worse than any foreign government meddling in our elections. (Also the mechanism which foreign governments interfere, IS social media, knowing that social media is not responsible for pulling their content.) Now imagine that almost every publication was aligned in its agenda to upset the results of an election.
> 
> Honestly, social media has created more problems than it has solved. I would not be opposed to the government indirectly shutting the whole thing down.
> 
> 1) Hold social media sites accountable to the same standards of traditional press.
> 
> 2) Let them figure out if they still have a viable business model.
> 
> My concern is that new media believes Trump stole the election by using their platforms to lie. And now they appear to feel justified in selectively applying filters to their content to "right the ship".
> 
> We are in a "post truth" era. This was not brought on by Trump or the republicans, this is social media's doing.



1: it is not possible to review everything. It makes complete sense to prioritize content that had more views over content that might be seen 4 times in a month.

2: your comment about the media is garbage. Fox News regularly pushes lies about candidates. Other media outlets are worse. The problem is that they do "opinion pieces" and report it as news without actually telling people it is an opinion. You seem to think the media lies about Russian meddling. How is that a better standard.

3. According to most experts, social media already stole an election by allowing Russian interference. You cannot separate the two. The concerns are valid and the tech companies are trying not to repeat history. It is pretty funny that you think them trying to address a problem that already happens is them trying to meddle and sway results. Ignore what the media thinks here. The experts think it happened and Republicans do not care because it worked out in their favor.

4. I completely agree that social media created more problems for society than it is worth. But I don't think the government has a right to shut it down. If you say guns create a problem for society, or alcohol creates a problem, would you want the government to intervene? Example countries that shut down social media... China and North Korea

5. I'm fine if social media and the news are held to higher standards, but I think you really need to consider how biased and deceitful regular media already is and ask if social media is really doing worse than major media conglomerates. You seem to think every media company that isn't Fox is slanderous. So maybe consider your view of media already isn't too positive

Edits: autocomplete sucks


----------



## GoldDragon

I've marked the parts that I don't agree with.



fantom said:


> 1: it is not possible to review everything. It makes complete sense to prioritize content that had more views over content that might be seen 4 times in a month.
> 
> 2: your comment about the media is garbage. Fox News regularly pushes lies about candidates. Other media outlets are worse. The problem is that they do "opinion pieces" and report it as news without actually telling people it is an opinion. *You seem to think the media lies about Russian meddling.* How is that a better standard.
> 
> *(Bipartisan senate comittee found that russian interference did not affect the outcome. *https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf)
> 
> 3. *According to most experts, social media already stole an election by allowing Russian interference. You cannot separate the two*. The concerns are valid and the tech companies are trying not to repeat history. It is pretty funny that you think them trying to address a problem that already happens is them trying to meddle and sway results. Ignore what the media thinks here. The experts think it happened and Republicans do not care because it worked out in their favor.
> 
> *(See above linked report. It interesting that you think the social media and Russia helped Trump defeat Hillary. He was a better campaigner, he had a much more aggressive campaign trail. He out worked her.)*
> 
> 4. I completely agree that social media created more problems for society than it is worth. *But I don't think the government has a right to shut it down.* If you say guns create a problem for society, or alcohol creates a problem, would you want the government to intervene? Example countries that shut down social media... China and North Korea
> 
> *(Government cannot shut it down. But they can require social media sites to follow same laws as traditional media. Those laws were put in place to avoid what we have been seeing. It is up to social media to see if they have a sustainable business model or if there are creative solutions to curb false information. )*
> 
> 5. I'm fine if social media and the news are held to higher standards, but I think you really need to *consider how biased and deceitful regular media already is* and ask if social media is really doing worse than major media conglomerates. You seem to think every media company that isn't Fox is slanderous. So maybe consider your view of media already isn't too positive
> 
> 
> *(When a paper publishes something libelous, they can be sued. Mainstream media is mostly liberal, so this deceit benefits one party more than the other.)*
> 
> Edits: autocomplete sucks


----------



## fantom

Russia didn't interfere?
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections

Is media really liberal?
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba

I guess if you think fox news is not biased, everything looks liberal


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> We are in a "post truth" era. This was not brought on by Trump or the republicans, this is social media's doing.



Disagree. Not that Trump and Republicans brought it on. People, in general, brought it on. Social media companies turned out to be just as greedy as media companies, with encouraging and rewarding bad behavior if they believe it brought more click-thrus. 

You might disagree with me but in the case of Trump in particular, he LONG posted things that were against policies they enforced on everyone else. They looked the other way because keeping Trump's tweets on the frontpage of all the major news organizations was good for business. Yes, I think they selectively ignored posts from people on the other side of the aisle too, so this was not one-sided. Don't know what changed but I doubt they developed scruples overnight, they very well may have decided they wanted to tip the scales for 2020 or they may have decided they don't like Trump's chances and now they're looking to curry favor with the Democrats 

Either way, there's zero altruism in what these big media and social media companies do. But to the subject at hand, a kneejerk EO for the government to control oversight is not the solution 'the people' need.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> When they editorialize, attach labels or pinochios to some user content, then the question needs to be asked, did you scour your entire site for opposing opinons and vet them for truth?



It wasn't about opinions, it was about facts.




GoldDragon said:


> So they cannot selectively editorialize. They either have to do none, or all. They can't just pick out the president's tweets while ignoring hate speech from the left that may not be grounded in reality.



Actually, they can. The president, as a public figure, is more open to criticism and other discussion than is the average citizen. It goes with the job.


----------



## fantom

I wanted to elaborate regarding the Russian troll farms. So the link I posted has indicted people for trying to manipulate the election using social media after the investigation. Whether or not the election would have had a different outcome is very hard to prove, but I can accept the government said it didn't even if there reasons may be more political than I would like. But they really had no other choice.

Tech companies recognize that, hey, 4 years ago foreign governments actively tried to change America by trolling social media, maybe that was irresponsible to allow it. Whether or not the trolls succeeded kind of does not matter. That is like saying, "I'm sorry officer, I tried to steal this car but I couldn't get it to start before you got here."

Given that we know for a fact that social media was used as a tool to sway public opinion by foreign intelligence, it would be irresponsible for tech companies to not do something about it. Trying to fact check and limit spam from troll farms is one approach. Is it perfect, no, but I have no idea how that can be viewed as a bad thing, regardless of political views.


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Disagree. Not that Trump and Republicans brought it on. People, in general, brought it on. Social media companies turned out to be just as greedy as media companies, with encouraging and rewarding bad behavior if they believe it brought more click-thrus.
> 
> You might disagree with me but in the case of Trump in particular, he LONG posted things that were against policies they enforced on everyone else. They looked the other way because keeping Trump's tweets on the frontpage of all the major news organizations was good for business. Yes, I think they selectively ignored posts from people on the other side of the aisle too, so this was not one-sided. Don't know what changed but I doubt they developed scruples overnight, they very well may have decided they wanted to tip the scales for 2020 or they may have decided they don't like Trump's chances and now they're looking to curry favor with the Democrats
> 
> Either way, there's zero altruism in what these big media and social media companies do. But to the subject at hand, a kneejerk EO for the government to control oversight is not the solution 'the people' need.



We are having this discussion NOW, because everyone in the media believed the polls and thought Hillary was a lock.

If the race was believed to be closer, this discussion would have come up 4 years ago.

They back whoever has policies more favorable to them or more aligned with their values. Most SV tech companies are 80% liberal, so obviously the right is more concerned about this than the left.

CEO of Facebook or Twitter has more sway over outcome of election than entire Russian intelligence/hacking operation.


----------



## fantom

Do you really think the CEO of Facebook or Twitter telling probably thousands of reports, many of whom don't even live in America, to influence the election would not result in employee protests and walkouts? They really have no power. Their employees are intelligent and opinionated people that can easily get a job at another company if they aren't happy.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> Do you really think the CEO of Facebook or Twitter telling probably thousands of reports, many of whom don't even live in America, to influence the election would not result in employee protests and walkouts? They really have no power. Their employees are intelligent and opinionated people that can easily get a job at another company if they aren't happy.



People with that level of education tend to be very left-leaning though -- implementing a policy that makes conservatives look bad (like fact-checking) probably wouldn't get too much internal push back.

But ya, it's kinda dumb to compare FB/Twitter to Russian hacking initiatives. Social media companies obviously have -the potential- to have a larger sway in the election, since the Russian efforts simply used these platforms. But these companies don't exploit that power because it would go against the social contract people have with these services. People didn't sign up to FB because they were liberal, and to make politics a big part of any platform is a quick way to make people feel uncomfortable using them.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> They back whoever has policies more favorable to them or more aligned with their values. Most SV tech companies are 80% liberal, so obviously the right is more concerned about this than the left.



Lmao, you know literally nothing. People vote in their best interest, and big tech are interested in MONEY. Does Mark Zuckerberg care more about trans people in bathrooms or saving a few billion dollars in taxes? What goddamn planet are you from?

I'm also not understanding why, if big tech wanted Hillary to win and not Trump, they waited 4 years to turn on him? You make no sense.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> https://whytrumpisgreat.com/


LOL, But I already knew that! lol


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> Lmao, you know literally nothing. People vote in their best interest, and big tech are interested in MONEY. Does Mark Zuckerberg care more about trans people in bathrooms or saving a few billion dollars in taxes? What goddamn planet are you from?
> 
> I'm also not understanding why, if big tech wanted Hillary to win and not Trump, they waited 4 years to turn on him? You make no sense.


They thought they had a ten point lead.

There was no reason to complain, every indication was that their online campaign was doing better. That the tools were working in their favor.

Complaining about media bias isn't something you do when you have a ten point lead and the vast majority of media outlets are liberal.

The media is absolutely biased in favor of liberals, so this is a republican rallying cry, must like gerrymandering is for the left.

The thing is though, it's obvious social media need to be brought to heel, and there are laws in place to do just that.


----------



## Randy

And what does that look like?


----------



## GoldDragon

Randy said:


> And what does that look like?


It looks like social media scrambling to find creative solutions that let them keep their doors open.

They make so much money they technically could hire legions of arbiters and have a dispute resolution process.

What I would do is limit the scope of messages based on level of vetting. Some assclown wants to rant politics, make sure only up to 50 ppl can see his posts. Pull them from feeds.

Someone with 5 million followers will be allowed to reach a larger audience. Some armchair commentator with five folliwers will be limited.

Twitter is complete garbage. It institutionalized gossip. It shouldn't survive.


----------



## narad

Obviously these companies would just leave the US before doing something so fundamentally inefficient and damaging.


----------



## fantom

narad said:


> People with that level of education tend to be very left-leaning though -- implementing a policy that makes conservatives look bad (like fact-checking) probably wouldn't get too much internal push back.



I'd be curious to see stats here... I can't find anything about tech workers, but by county,
https://siliconvalleyindicators.org...tage-of-registered-voters-by-political-party/

This doesn't surprise me. Of note is that less than half are Democrat over time. The number of Republicans drops over time, and the number of independent / unaffiliated rises. I personally wouldn't read into that 2018 number much, as Trump has alienated a lot of people in bay area (even Republicans). But, with respect to this discussion, even with like 20-30% Republicans at tech companies, the CEOs would not be able to pull shit like what has been stated here. Also, a 2018 Wired article indicates that 40% or so of tech company leads (out of 600 sampled) are Republican (likely due to taxes and wanting less government involvement in the industry). So ya, any conspiracy about tech companies organizing to manipulate political messaging to win an election would mean that somehow they can get nearly half of leads and 1 out of every 3 or 4 employees to stay quiet.... Haha... Not likely



GoldDragon said:


> Complaining about media bias isn't something you do when you have a ten point lead and the vast majority of media outlets are liberal.
> 
> The media is absolutely biased in favor of liberals, so this is a republican rallying cry, must like gerrymandering is for the left.



Repeating this again. Most media is closer to neutral than you think. Your belief that media is liberal and trying to shut out conservatives is pretty much a belief based on no actual facts. Your definition of neutral leans further right than what is really neutral. Once you can accept that you have bias, maybe you will be able to argue less with many members of this forum that are mostly being neutral and civil.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/


----------



## Randy

WHO MADE THAT WEBSITE THO


----------



## fantom

SATAN


----------



## AxRookie

GoldDragon said:


> It looks like social media scrambling to find creative solutions that let them keep their doors open.
> 
> They make so much money they technically could hire legions of arbiters and have a dispute resolution process.
> 
> What I would do is limit the scope of messages based on level of vetting. Some assclown wants to rant politics, make sure only up to 50 ppl can see his posts. Pull them from feeds.
> 
> Someone with 5 million followers will be allowed to reach a larger audience. Some armchair commentator with five folliwers will be limited.
> 
> Twitter is complete garbage. It institutionalized gossip. It shouldn't survive.


They sure don't look like they're scrambling, if anything they've doubled down...


----------



## Randy

Welp, Dragon and Tinfoil can deflect it all they want but I think the last couple days is the absolute living embodiment and finale of a failed presidency.

Trump enjoyed 3 1/2 years of a semi-normal presidency in terms of national stability and general 'day to day', despite the over-the-top sociopathy, gaslighting all the worst elements of our society to feed his ego, and the overall corruption and sawing away of institutional table legs. It's been 3 years of careening down the hill knowing the brakes were cut and hoping for a miracle, and naively thinking that prayer was answered every second you hadn't yet reached the bottom.

This is what the bottom looks like.

100,000 people dead from a preventable virus that only was allowed to mature to that point by deliberate divestment in public safety apparatus, vanity and braggadocio encouraging people to flout even basic safety measures as a blood sacrifice for their tribe, and precipitously reopening to fake a return to normal for the sake of gamesmanship.

20% of people unemployed, the majority of are either too afraid to go back, don't want to go back or there's nowhere to go back to. Thousands of small businesses shuttered and not coming back, and several that are hanging on either until they reopen and the full strength of their customers never come back or they're finished off in the second virus peak. The strongest economy in the history of the world brought to it's knees in two months!

Now every major city in this country is on fire or fixing to be, because mob rule looks better than institutional lawlessness. The fish rots at the head. Each level of leadership inherits a shitty attitude and no respect for the people that put them there from the next office above them that gets away with it, until you have cops killing people in broad daylight because they know they'll get away with it. It's a double indictment, first that people were brought to this point and secondly, that leadership couldn't say nor do anything to quell the anger.

He's passing vanity laws against online criticism instead! You could call it 'moving deck chairs on the Titanic' but this example is even worse!

Trump's three years were like Chip Kelly being called a genius because he won games with Andy Reid's roster. Then it's been 3 months of what happens when Chip Kelly had to play with Chip Kelly's roster. A steady decline and then the drop right off the cliff when the last table leg comes out.

MAGA is dead. KAGA is dead. This is the dictionary definition of a failure of leadership. Donald Trump didn't inherit the country before it was consumed by a volcano or swallowed by the Earth, and given an impossible task. He was given infinite opportunities to do right things, and he always chose wrong things, and because lightning did not strike him dead then and there, his cheering section proclaimed he must be right.

He is not an even remotely viable candidate anymore. It would be 4 years just like this last 3 months.


----------



## SpaceDock

America is just another failed Trump business.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> He is not an even remotely viable candidate anymore. It would be 4 years just like this last 3 months.



Let's see how well he does against our least viable candidate though.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Let's see how well he does against our least viable candidate though.



Didn't say he couldn't win. There's just no more valid excuses to speak in favor of his abilities as a leader. You've got the cult and you've got arguing AGAINST the other guy, but arguing in Trump's favor is done.


----------



## Andromalia

Randy said:


> People vote in their best interest



No, they don't. They vote for what they believe their interest is, which is wildly different, and why right wing politicians _have to_ lie to win an election.
If people voted for their interest, we wouldn't have a paradigm where majority votes endup having policies favoring the top 20% revenue people to the detriment of the 80% others.

Education and meaningful votes are an integral part of universal suffrage.
This is why parties whose policies only benefit a minority usually target the public education budget first: they need the voters to be idiots and to vote against their best interest to get elected.

To paraphrase a famous historical quote, 10 wolves and 1000 sheep voting on what to have for lunch isn't a democracy either when 500 sheep were taught at school they're wolves.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> Welp, Dragon and Tinfoil can deflect it all they want but I think the last couple days is the absolute living embodiment and finale of a failed presidency.
> 
> Trump enjoyed 3 1/2 years of a semi-normal presidency in terms of national stability and general 'day to day', despite the over-the-top sociopathy, gaslighting all the worst elements of our society to feed his ego, and the overall corruption and sawing away of institutional table legs. It's been 3 years of careening down the hill knowing the brakes were cut and hoping for a miracle, and naively thinking that prayer was answered every second you hadn't yet reached the bottom.
> 
> This is what the bottom looks like.
> 
> 100,000 people dead from a preventable virus that only was allowed to mature to that point by deliberate divestment in public safety apparatus, vanity and braggadocio encouraging people to flout even basic safety measures as a blood sacrifice for their tribe, and precipitously reopening to fake a return to normal for the sake of gamesmanship.
> 
> 20% of people unemployed, the majority of are either too afraid to go back, don't want to go back or there's nowhere to go back to. Thousands of small businesses shuttered and not coming back, and several that are hanging on either until they reopen and the full strength of their customers never come back or they're finished off in the second virus peak. The strongest economy in the history of the world brought to it's knees in two months!
> 
> Now every major city in this country is on fire or fixing to be, because mob rule looks better than institutional lawlessness. The fish rots at the head. Each level of leadership inherits a shitty attitude and no respect for the people that put them there from the next office above them that gets away with it, until you have cops killing people in broad daylight because they know they'll get away with it. It's a double indictment, first that people were brought to this point and secondly, that leadership couldn't say nor do anything to quell the anger.
> 
> He's passing vanity laws against online criticism instead! You could call it 'moving deck chairs on the Titanic' but this example is even worse!
> 
> Trump's three years were like Chip Kelly being called a genius because he won games with Andy Reid's roster. Then it's been 3 months of what happens when Chip Kelly had to play with Chip Kelly's roster. A steady decline and then the drop right off the cliff when the last table leg comes out.
> 
> MAGA is dead. KAGA is dead. This is the dictionary definition of a failure of leadership. Donald Trump didn't inherit the country before it was consumed by a volcano or swallowed by the Earth, and given an impossible task. He was given infinite opportunities to do right things, and he always chose wrong things, and because lightning did not strike him dead then and there, his cheering section proclaimed he must be right.
> 
> He is not an even remotely viable candidate anymore. It would be 4 years just like this last 3 months.



You missed the part where the pandemic was first China's fault and now the WHO's fault. So our best chance at collaborating with other countries to find a treatment or preventative measure is now being blamed, and USA is withdrawing from WHO, just like it withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement because the president decided scientists are stupider than he is.

This isn't just an example of failed leadership of one country, this is the fall of USA as a leader in the world. China will emerge ahead of USA because they have spent decades positioning themselves for this moment. And Trump will say "I told you so" to prove he was right while not accepting his administration is to blame. This is sabotage by ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## fantom

Andromalia said:


> No, they don't. They vote for what they believe their interest is, which is wildly different, and why right wing politicians _have to_ lie to win an election.
> If people voted for their interest, we wouldn't have a paradigm where majority votes endup having policies favoring the top 20% revenue people to the detriment of the 80% others.
> 
> Education and meaningful votes are an integral part of universal suffrage.
> This is why parties whose policies only benefit a minority usually target the public education budget first: they need the voters to be idiots and to vote against their best interest to get elected.
> 
> To paraphrase a famous historical quote, 10 wolves and 1000 sheep voting on what to have for lunch isn't a democracy either when 500 sheep were taught at school they're wolves.



When you start voting based on the inherit belief that you are better than other people and therefore want to make sure other people get screwed over by your belief system, it is hard to realize that you are screwing yourself too.

As an example, the fact that poor white people were cheering to repeal the "death tax" was sad. None of those people would benefit from that law being out of play unless they somehow died a multimillionaire.


----------



## fantom

And now Trump and Fox News are blaming nationwide protests over Floyd on Antifa? I am definitely not in support of Antifa, but talk about deflection and delusion. Might as well blame "Obama Bin Laden" while they are at it.


----------



## Boofchuck

I'm so sick of these dumb, heartless motherfuckers.

I'm very fortunate to live in a beautiful small town growing my own food and have employment lined up in these crazy times. But I have a strong desire to make a difference. Mankind is sick and really needs to heal. And I'm pissed off and want to help but I don't know where to begin right now.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> He is not an even remotely viable candidate anymore. It would be 4 years just like this last 3 months.


I love this country and I hope and pray this Is true, even as strong as this country is I don't think it can take 4 more years like the last 4...


----------



## SpaceDock

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 81346



WTF!?! If that has credibility it will certainly be mainstream news. Absolutely sickening.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> WTF!?! If that has credibility it will certainly be mainstream news. Absolutely sickening.


It wouldn't surprise me if the "grab em by the [email protected]##$" guy was in reality far worse...


----------



## fantom

Butt or shemales! I mean but her emails...


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 81346



Just the way this is written strikes me as super fake. Where's it from?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Just the way this is written strikes me as super fake. Where's it from?



Head over to where this is sourced from, it's fucking crazy conspiracy central.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Head over to where this is sourced from, it's fucking crazy conspiracy central.


It's crazy just how much of that is everywhere you look these days! The news used to be fact-checked and now very little of it is... if any...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> It's crazy just how much of that is everywhere you look these days! The news used to be fact-checked and now very little of it is... if any...



There is a difference between news, editorials, and just plain bullshit. This isn't anything new, the only thing that's changed is it's easier to make a website look more polished and legitimate.

Back in the 90's/early 00's, you could tell something was bullshit because the website looked like this:



And the "crazy papers" were just bulk printed at Kinkos.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> There is a difference between news, editorials, and just plain bullshit. This isn't anything new, the only thing that's changed is it's easier to make a website look more polished and legitimate.
> 
> Back in the 90's/early 00's, you could tell something was bullshit because the website looked like this:
> View attachment 81354
> 
> 
> And the "crazy papers" were just bulk printed at Kinkos.



Hmm... Swamp Truth appears to be an anagram of "Trump's What?". This will require more digging...


----------



## possumkiller

AxRookie said:


> It's crazy just how much of that is everywhere you look these days! The news used to be fact-checked and now very little of it is... if any...


Whoa whoa whoa...

I thought we aren't fact-checking anymore?


----------



## possumkiller

I sent that to my dad along with some conspiracy theory stuff that the basic gist is trump knows he will never win another election and is looking at a lot of court cases once he leaves office so he is having his red hat army riot and destabilize the country so he can declare military law and make himself supreme dick tater of America.

It's funny because he's a trump lover and is constantly sending (mostly forwarding) me stupid right wing conspiracy crap and now he is just silent.


----------



## broj15

So the big man in charge is trying to label Antifa as a terrorist "organization". Here's the problems with that:

1) Antifa isn't a unified group. It's an ideology that directly opposes fascism and oppression. If the government is anti - antifascism then does that not make the government a fascist entity?

2) Antifa never was or will be an "organized group". In fact the lack of organization is one of the defining characteristics of of the ideology as a whole.

3) this is straight up McCarthyism in the year 2020. Now idk about the rest of y'all, but even at my highschool in backwater hell hole, USA we were taught that the McCarthy trials were BAD and UNCONSTITUTIONAL and amounted to little more than a witch-hunt that targeted any political dissidents the state perceived as a threat, along with many members of the Jewish community and was a direct result of cold war era fear mongering and propaganda.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

If I'm being honest, voting Trump out in November and installing Biden in his place won't really change much. I'm sure the tweets from Biden will be nicer sounding and maybe even less coherent. But, I think we should all remind ourselves that these problems that sparked the unrest and protests have been a problem under every administration any of us here have lived under, including Obama. None of them has done anything substantial to fix these issues. Because at the end of the day, although we vote them in, they do not answer to us. Nor do they have our best interests at heart. 

I'm ranting a bit, but I feel as a country, the only people who can be trusted to take care of ourselves is ourselves.


----------



## MFB

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> If I'm being honest, voting Trump out in November and installing Biden in his place won't really change much. I'm sure the tweets from Biden will be nicer sounding and maybe even less coherent. But, I think we should all remind ourselves that these problems that sparked the unrest and protests have been a problem under every administration any of us here have lived under, including Obama. None of them has done anything substantial to fix these issues. Because at the end of the day, although we vote them in, they do not answer to us. Nor do they have our best interests at heart.
> 
> I'm ranting a bit, but I feel as a country, the only people who can be trusted to take care of ourselves is ourselves.



It's all about the people Biden will appoint to also help run everything, and the fact that they'll be competent at their jobs, and more importantly: allowed to do them


----------



## AxRookie

MFB said:


> It's all about the people Biden will appoint to also help run everything, and the fact that they'll be competent at their jobs, and more importantly: allowed to do them


Absolutely! with the people he brings replacing all of Trump's do-nothing yes men everything will change!

And after that, and with REAL leadership this country can get back to actually being great again!


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

MFB said:


> It's all about the people Biden will appoint to also help run everything, and the fact that they'll be competent at their jobs, and more importantly: allowed to do them


Obama had very competent people in his cabinet, but they weren't competent in serving us. Who they were competent in serving were the banks and auto manufacturers they bailed out, the people who lost their homes never got that windfall. Even with ACA, he and democrats at the time had strong representation in the senate and they passed a corpse of a bill. The people crumbs and bankers got a buffet. That's not even getting to the immigrant camps, drones, increasing inequality, etc that either Obama inherited and accelerated from W or started during his administration. 

I was still a teenager at the time but that kind of dissonance between what someone says and what they end up doing felt wrong to me even then. And now I'm seeing people ready to fall for the same trick all over again.


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Head over to where this is sourced from, it's fucking crazy conspiracy central.


Hey, they do a pretty good job being as reliable as the POTUS.


----------



## AxRookie

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Obama had very competent people in his cabinet, but they weren't competent in serving us. Who they were competent in serving were the banks and auto manufacturers they bailed out, the people who lost their homes never got that windfall. Even with ACA, he and democrats at the time had strong representation in the senate and they passed a corpse of a bill. The people crumbs and bankers got a buffet. That's not even getting to the immigrant camps, drones, increasing inequality, etc that either Obama inherited and accelerated from W or started during his administration.
> 
> I was still a teenager at the time but that kind of dissonance between what someone says and what they end up doing felt wrong to me even then. And now I'm seeing people ready to fall for the same trick all over again.


You've been drinking the Kool-aid for too long...

Obama didn't bail out anyone, The "Fed" did! and Ben Bernanke did the right thing to save the economy from another Great Depression!!!

Gees, you really have no idea what's happing, Stop watching news shows and go learn what's really happened since Bush let everything go to s#$%...

Your avatar is a good fit...


----------



## Ralyks

MFB said:


> It's all about the people Biden will appoint to also help run everything, and the fact that they'll be competent at their jobs, and more importantly: allowed to do them



This, plus the fact that he's basically hinted he'll be a one term president makes his VP pick all the more important. Hell, that could be the most important part in this instance.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

AxRookie said:


> You've been drinking the Kool-aid for too long...
> 
> Obama didn't bail out anyone, The "Fed" did! and Ben Bernanke did the right thing to save the economy from another Great Depression!!!
> 
> Gees, you really have no idea what's happing, Stop watching news shows and go learn what's really happened since Bush let everything go to s#$%...
> 
> Your avatar is a good fit...


You do realize that the board of governors for the "Fed" is made up of officials that the president nominates right? They're not an independently operating organization. Meaning the president is just as responsible for the actions they take. Lastly, it's quite facetious to claim that one guy saved the country from another great depression. Things are relative and I doubt the millions in this country that lost homes and jobs consider the economic crises of '08 a "crises averted".


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Obama had very competent people in his cabinet, but they weren't competent in serving us. Who they were competent in serving were the banks and auto manufacturers they bailed out, the people who lost their homes never got that windfall. Even with ACA, he and democrats at the time had strong representation in the senate and they passed a corpse of a bill. The people crumbs and bankers got a buffet. That's not even getting to the immigrant camps, drones, increasing inequality, etc that either Obama inherited and accelerated from W or started during his administration.
> 
> I was still a teenager at the time but that kind of dissonance between what someone says and what they end up doing felt wrong to me even then. And now I'm seeing people ready to fall for the same trick all over again.


Eh, I'm not so sure I agree. The ACA may not have been a dream bill, but some sort of universal health care coverage had been a Democratic policy objective since the 90s, and really Ted Kennedy's primary legislative goal for far longer than that. The fact Obama managed to pass something _at all_, and that the GOP's rallying cry ever since has been "Repeal Obamacare," is pretty striking, I think. 

Other than the ACA, we can thank Obama for

The DREAM EO
Iranian denuclearization agreement
Consumer Protection Bureau
Dodd-Frank
Bears Ears National Monument
Kathadin Woods and Waters National Monument
a ban on new drilling in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
Significant increases in automobile emissions standards, bringing the US in line with California. 
ordering the FCC to treat broadband as a utility, making net neutrality the law of the land
liberalized travel with Cuba
introduced protection for trans federal workers
The so-called "Fiduciary rule" issued by the Dept of Labor requiring financial advisors to have a fiduciary relationship with their clients, in plain english requiring them to act only in their clients' best interests. 
Stopped the practice of providing surplus military equiptment to state and local police
the Paris Accord on climate change
opened the military to transgender soldiers
a whole slew of crackdowns on for-profit schools focusing on strengthening consumer protections for student loans
sweeping criminal justice reform under Eric Holder
Directed the EPA to draft rules regulation carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act
instituted a review/oversight process for police forces with a history of unnecessary violence

I'll be honest, a bunch of these were off memory, but a bunch were also drawn from a list of the exhaustive number of Obama-era regulations or acts that Trump has been busy trying to systematically undo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> You do realize that the board of governors for the "Fed" is made up of officials that the president nominates right? They're not an independently operating organization. Meaning the president is just as responsible for the actions they take. Lastly, it's quite facetious to claim that one guy saved the country from another great depression. Things are relative and I doubt the millions in this country that lost homes and jobs consider the economic crises of '08 a "crises averted".


There's also the whole American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - it's not like the Fed was alone here.


----------



## AxRookie

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> You do realize that the board of governors for the "Fed" is made up of officials that the president nominates right? They're not an independently operating organization. Meaning the president is just as responsible for the actions they take. Lastly, it's quite facetious to claim that one guy saved the country from another great depression. Things are relative and I doubt the millions in this country that lost homes and jobs consider the economic crises of '08 a "crises averted".


Facepalm... go look up when Ben became the head of the Fed and get back to me Kool-aid drinker...


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> They thought they had a ten point lead.
> 
> There was no reason to complain, every indication was that their online campaign was doing better. That the tools were working in their favor.


I'm going to go ahead and nit-pick this, and perhaps this is nit-picking, but when you're extremely confident of your conclusions and the facts you're throwing around tp show why you know you're right are actually wrong, then maybe it isn't nit-picking.

Clinton never had a "ten point lead." After the conventions, her margin in national popular vote polling was at widest maybe 7 points, was 2 points or less for much of September, and 2-3 points in November. Her final margin was 2.1 points, which was on the lower end but certainly inside that range.

Now, a whole lot of people did a poor job _interpreting_ that data... But polling showed a close race where Clinton was consistently, not heavily, the favorite.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I'm going to go ahead and nit-pick this, and perhaps this is nit-picking, but when you're extremely confident of your conclusions and the facts you're throwing around tp show why you know you're right are actually wrong, then maybe it isn't nit-picking.
> 
> Clinton never had a "ten point lead." After the conventions, her margin in national popular vote polling was at widest maybe 7 points, was 2 points or less for much of September, and 2-3 points in November. Her final margin was 2.1 points, which was on the lower end but certainly inside that range.
> 
> Now, a whole lot of people did a poor job _interpreting_ that data... But polling showed a close race where Clinton was consistently, not heavily, the favorite.
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/



I was considering trying to explain this but..what's the point? That's just the condition. The rest of the argument is that social networks view fact-checking as some election game-changer trump card that they just bide their time for the right moment to play it.


----------



## sleewell

trump also wasn't the incumbent last time. voters will have almost 4 years to judge him for what he has or hasn't done in office when they head out to cast a ballot this time. 

i think he has spent the majority of his time pandering to his base of 35-37% instead of reaching out to new voters or at least those on the fence. it was so close last time, it will be interesting to see if his calculation for this election was correct or not. 

it's going to be hard to get seniors back. its not like there is another voting block he can get to replace them. also suburban white females have really swung away from him going back to the 2018 midterms to current.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I was considering trying to explain this but..what's the point? That's just the condition. The rest of the argument is that social networks view fact-checking as some election game-changer trump card that they just bide their time for the right moment to play it.


I mean, the premise is just as idiotic - if they waited to play their fact-check card _now_, only after the Trump base has had three and a half years to be indoctrinated in believing only what Trump tells them, then they severely mis-played their hand - but there's no harm in cutting down the deck of cards the whole argument was built on while we're at it, either. 

I do kinda wonder if the polling in 2016 has become part of the Trump mythos, on the right - not just that he was behind in the polls before election day, but that the polls were _hugely and wildly stacked against him by massive, unheard-of margins_, so that his surprise win on election day has some sort of mythical redemption-arc twist to it. The reality is far less fantastical, if as dramatic in its own right albeit in more of an "inside baseball" manner - Trump lost the popular vote by almost exactly the margin the polls expected, but had just enough states break right that, by a margin of something like 80,000 votes across three states, he was able to eke out a narrow Electoral College win. If so. I guess the "lesson" to the Trump faithful here is to ignore his current 10-point deficit in the national polling because "he's done it before, he can do it again" even if he didn't _actually_ do it before.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> There's also the whole American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - it's not like the Fed was alone here.


I'm aware but the person I responded to specifically mentioned The "Fed". 

Also, @MaxOfMetal @Randy apparently I'm a "kool-aid drinker"....



AxRookie said:


> Facepalm... go look up when Ben became the head of the Fed and get back to me Kool-aid drinker...


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I mean, the premise is just as idiotic - if they waited to play their fact-check card _now_, only after the Trump base has had three and a half years to be indoctrinated in believing only what Trump tells them, then they severely mis-played their hand - but there's no harm in cutting down the deck of cards the whole argument was built on while we're at it, either.



And entirely ignoring that the social media companies have different stances on things. FB and Twitter are taking completely opposing stances on this.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> Eh, I'm not so sure I agree. The ACA may not have been a dream bill, but some sort of universal health care coverage had been a Democratic policy objective since the 90s, and really Ted Kennedy's primary legislative goal for far longer than that. The fact Obama managed to pass something _at all_, and that the GOP's rallying cry ever since has been "Repeal Obamacare," is pretty striking, I think.
> 
> Other than the ACA, we can thank Obama for
> 
> The DREAM EO
> Iranian denuclearization agreement
> Consumer Protection Bureau
> Dodd-Frank
> Bears Ears National Monument
> Kathadin Woods and Waters National Monument
> a ban on new drilling in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge
> Significant increases in automobile emissions standards, bringing the US in line with California.
> ordering the FCC to treat broadband as a utility, making net neutrality the law of the land
> liberalized travel with Cuba
> introduced protection for trans federal workers
> The so-called "Fiduciary rule" issued by the Dept of Labor requiring financial advisors to have a fiduciary relationship with their clients, in plain english requiring them to act only in their clients' best interests.
> Stopped the practice of providing surplus military equiptment to state and local police
> the Paris Accord on climate change
> opened the military to transgender soldiers
> a whole slew of crackdowns on for-profit schools focusing on strengthening consumer protections for student loans
> sweeping criminal justice reform under Eric Holder
> Directed the EPA to draft rules regulation carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act
> instituted a review/oversight process for police forces with a history of unnecessary violence
> 
> I'll be honest, a bunch of these were off memory, but a bunch were also drawn from a list of the exhaustive number of Obama-era regulations or acts that Trump has been busy trying to systematically undo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-rolling-back-obama-rules/


I'm gonna ask you this and I really want your honest opinion on the matter. Did any of this provide any substantial change? Did the oversight process for police forces actually hold police responsible for the action of ill intent? I'm not a trans person myself but why no protection for all trans workers in the nation? The Paris Accords sounds nice but are they actually gonna prevent rising sea levels and climate change?

My point here is that with Liberals they get handed softballs every time to knock out of the park and they always manage to bunt. It's always performance over substance.


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I'm gonna ask you this and I really want your honest opinion on the matter. Did any of this provide any substantial change? Did the oversight process for police forces actually hold police responsible for the action of ill intent? I'm not a trans person myself but why no protection for all trans workers in the nation? The Paris Accords sounds nice but are they actually gonna prevent rising sea levels and climate change?
> 
> My point here is that with Liberals they get handed softballs every time to knock out of the park and they always manage to bunt. It's always performance over substance.


Yeah, I think it does provide substantive change. 

Consent decrees have generally been found to be effective at reducing racial profiling and improving community relations with the police force: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/maga...ce-heres-what-has-hasnt-happened/?arc404=true

Why not protect trans rights nationally? Well, he did - the Obama Administration did take the stance that the Civil Rights' Act's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex also included sexual identity. I probably should have included that in my list. However, as the head of the federal government, Obama had a LOT more authority to make immediate changes to federal hiring and termination practices, which he also did. 
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/lgbtq-rights/

Would the Paris Climate Agreement have been effective? Probably, if enacted and if countries lived up to their commitments. There was some criticism from the left that it was possible the "less than 2 degrees C" minimum commitment (though, evidently, not the "less than 1.5 degrees" target) was still too high to prevent a feedback loop of rising temperatures, but the terms of the Agreement were largely believed to have been enough to make, at a minimum, significant strides in stopping global warming. Countries not living up to their commitments under the agreement were a risk, however, and arguably one much larger now that Trump has pulled us out - if we don't do it, why should they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

As far as "getting handed softballs, and bunting rather than knocking it out of the park," the Paris Agreement is a perfect example - the reason Trump was able to back out was the US commitment was not a legally-enforcable ratified treaty and it took considerable structural work on our part to allow us to sign it without ratifying it, and the reason for _that_ was Obama knew, and Mitch McConnell had made it clear as day, that any climate change treaty was DOA in the Senate. So, I don't know if I'll agree on your "softball" analogy - fairer, I'd say, would be to say that Obama was given a really_ nasty _slider, and still managed to get enough wood on the ball to eke out a base hit with two out in the bottom of the 9th.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> The media is absolutely biased in favor of liberals, so this is a republican rallying cry, must like gerrymandering is for the left.



I'll just post this again: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba


----------



## GoldDragon

tedtan said:


> I'll just post this again: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba



Posting the link again doesn't make it any more true.

HuffPost in the middle. L. O. L.

A moderate publication would say complimentary things about the president's performance, mixed with negatives.


----------



## fantom

I don't read Huffington Post, but can you present some actual evidence that they aren't neutral?


----------



## sleewell

direct quotes from gregg popovich

“It’s unbelievable. If Trump had a brain, even if it was 99 percent cynical, he would come out and say something to unify people. But he doesn’t care about bringing people together. Even now. That’s how deranged he is. It’s all about him. It’s all about what benefits him personally. It’s never about the greater good. And that’s all he’s ever been.”

“It’s so clear what needs to be done. We need a president to come out and say simply that ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Just say those three words. But he won’t and he can’t. He can’t because it’s more important to him to mollify the small group of followers who validate his insanity. But it’s more than just Trump. The system has to change. I’ll do whatever I can do to help because that’s what leaders do. But he can’t do anything to put us on a positive path because he’s not a leader.

“It’s like what Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz used to say when they had the courage to say it: He’s unfit. But they have chosen instead to be invisible and obsequious in the face of this carnage. In the end what we have is a fool in place of a president, while the person who really runs the country, Senator Mitch McConnell, destroys the United States for generations to come. McConnell has destroyed and degraded our judicial system. He has tried to destroy heath care. He’s destroyed the environment. He’s the master and Trump’s the stooge, and what’s funny is that Trump doesn’t even know it. Trump’s always wanted to be part of the in-group, but McConnell is an in-group of one and Trump plays the fool.

“He’s not just divisive. He’s a destroyer. To be in his presence makes you die. He will eat you alive for his own purposes. I’m appalled that we have a leader who can’t say ‘Black Lives Matter.’ That’s why he hides in the White House basement. He is a coward. He creates a situation and runs away like a grade-schooler. Actually, I think it’s best to ignore him. There is nothing he can do to make this better because of who he is: a deranged idiot.”


----------



## Necris

sleewell said:


> “It’s so clear what needs to be done. We need a president to come out and say simply that ‘Black Lives Matter.’ Just say those three words. But he won’t and he can’t. He can’t because it’s more important to him to mollify the small group of followers who validate his insanity. But it’s more than just Trump. The system has to change. I’ll do whatever I can do to help because that’s what leaders do. But he can’t do anything to put us on a positive path because he’s not a leader.



The idea that the words "Black Lives Matter" coming from *any* member of Trump's administration past or present would not be immediately recognized wholly empty and meant solely to placate is frankly insulting. The idea that all these people want or need is a slogan parroted back to them is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> I don't read Huffington Post, but can you present some actual evidence that they aren't neutral?



I'm a white left-leaning male, under 45 years old, living near and working in San Francisco. And even I tihnk they aren't neutral. Perhaps their factual reporting may be, but their editorial/opinion content (which is a massive chunk of their 'reporting') certainly is not.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> A moderate publication would say complimentary things about the president's performance, mixed with negatives.


No they wouldn't, they would print facts.

Neutrality doesn't mean all opinions get equal attention. It means reality.

If some doofus does 0 good things they should say that and not look for fluff stories about how he said please and thank you to a servant one time.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Trump would win the election in a huge landslide If he came out and told the left what they wanted to hear, it wouldn't even be close. All he has to do is give leftists that tingly dopamine rush that they're searching for, by coming out and saying BLM, then he's got 2020 in the bag.


----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


> I'm a white left-leaning male, living near and working in San Francisco. And even I tihnk they aren't neutral. Perhaps their factual reporting may be, but their editorial/opinion concent (which is a massive chunk of their 'reporting') certainly is not.


Also this. See Wall Street Journal also in the reliable/neutral area despite being right leaning in editorials.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> Trump would win the election in a huge landslide If he came out and told the left what they wanted to hear, it wouldn't even be close. All he has to do is give leftists that tingly dopamine rush that they're searching for, by coming out and saying BLM, then he's got 2020 in the bag.


Please, please put in some effort.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> Posting the link again doesn't make it any more true.
> 
> HuffPost in the middle. L. O. L.
> 
> A moderate publication would say complimentary things about the president's performance, mixed with negatives.



He would have to have done something worthy of compliment before receiving one. And at this point, I can't think of a positive thing he's done. I can find something positive in Reagan's presidency, GHWB's presidency, GWB's presidency, but not Trump's. So where would those compliments come from, just ass kissing?


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> I'm a white left-leaning male, under 45 years old, living near and working in San Francisco. And even I tihnk they aren't neutral. Perhaps their factual reporting may be, but their editorial/opinion content (which is a massive chunk of their 'reporting') certainly is not.



This is the thing: reporting and editorializing are not the same thing. And most news sources do have a bias one way or the other in their editorial content. It's the fact based reporting that ends up being skewed right on Fox/Breitbart/etc. vs neutral in other "MSM" sources.


----------



## spudmunkey

tedtan said:


> This is the thing: reporting and editorializing are not the same thing. And most news sources do have a bias one way or the other in their editorial content. It's the fact based reporting that ends up being skewed right on Fox/Breitbart/etc. vs neutral in other "MSM" sources.




That may be, but any outlet actually trying to be perceived as "neutral" wouldn't add an editorial note like this, I don't believe:
"From January 2016 through November 2016, the Huffington Post included an editor’s note on the bottom *of all articles relating to Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump*, attacking him. The note read: “Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

An example of one of those articles:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-eye-for-an-eye_n_56a9790fe4b0016489225a54


----------



## Drew

GoldDragon said:


> A moderate publication would say complimentary things about the president's performance, mixed with negatives.


I'm sorry, but SteveC is spot-on here. 


StevenC said:


> No they wouldn't, they would print facts.
> 
> Neutrality doesn't mean all opinions get equal attention. It means reality.
> 
> If some doofus does 0 good things they should say that and not look for fluff stories about how he said please and thank you to a servant one time.


If the coverage of Trump's presidency is predominately negative, then there are two distinct possibilities: 
1) The coverage is extremely biased, and Trump is doing at least an average-or-better job as a president. 
2) The coverage is actually pretty fair, and Trump is doing such a bad job of it that there's little good to write. 

Now, as I write this, sheltering in place in my house in the middle of a global pandemic, during a time when roughly one in five Americans are out of work for the first time since the Great Depression, during an interlude in rounds of retaliaory tariffs in a trade war with China that appears to be heating back up, while they're clearing the downtown of the city I live in of the burned wreckage of cop cars after a protest over how American police keep killing unarmed black men, and Trump is busy tweeting about how much he approves of someone saying the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat, praising Henry Ford's "pure bloodline, and railing at mayors and governors for not being "strong" enough to order the National Guard to order fire on protestors - who, until the cops tried to break things up last night, were actually by and large a peaceful group here in Boston, at least - I think I can hazard a guess over which scenario is more likely. 

But you never know. Maybe Trump has been helping a whole bunch of little old grannys cross the street and wrapping up a cure for cancer when no one was looking and those dastardly media moguls just haven't reported on it.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> That may be, but any outlet actually trying to be perceived as "neutral" wouldn't add an editorial note like this, I don't believe:
> "From January 2016 through November 2016, the Huffington Post included an editor’s note on the bottom *of all articles relating to Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump*, attacking him. The note read: “Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”
> 
> An example of one of those articles:
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fox-news-eye-for-an-eye_n_56a9790fe4b0016489225a54


I'm confused. Which part of that is an editorial opinion?


----------



## Alexa run my life

StevenC said:


> If some doofus does 0 good things they should say that and not look for fluff stories about how he said please and thank you to a servant one time


And likewise, if he does do some good things, don't just focus on soundbytes that were said years ago.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> And likewise, if he does do some good things, don't just focus on soundbytes that were said years ago.


Yeah, let's focus on the violence he incites this week, this week. Leave last week's aggravations in the past, and next week's for the future.


----------



## Drew

Alexa run my life said:


> And likewise, if he does do some good things, don't just focus on soundbytes that were said years ago.


He's said enough mind-bendingly idiotic shit in the past week to keep the press busy for months. Thanks for playing.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Drew said:


> Yeah, I think it does provide substantive change.
> 
> Consent decrees have generally been found to be effective at reducing racial profiling and improving community relations with the police force:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/maga...ce-heres-what-has-hasnt-happened/?arc404=true
> 
> Why not protect trans rights nationally? Well, he did - the Obama Administration did take the stance that the Civil Rights' Act's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex also included sexual identity. I probably should have included that in my list. However, as the head of the federal government, Obama had a LOT more authority to make immediate changes to federal hiring and termination practices, which he also did.
> https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/lgbtq-rights/
> 
> Would the Paris Climate Agreement have been effective? Probably, if enacted and if countries lived up to their commitments. There was some criticism from the left that it was possible the "less than 2 degrees C" minimum commitment (though, evidently, not the "less than 1.5 degrees" target) was still too high to prevent a feedback loop of rising temperatures, but the terms of the Agreement were largely believed to have been enough to make, at a minimum, significant strides in stopping global warming. Countries not living up to their commitments under the agreement were a risk, however, and arguably one much larger now that Trump has pulled us out - if we don't do it, why should they?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
> 
> As far as "getting handed softballs, and bunting rather than knocking it out of the park," the Paris Agreement is a perfect example - the reason Trump was able to back out was the US commitment was not a legally-enforcable ratified treaty and it took considerable structural work on our part to allow us to sign it without ratifying it, and the reason for _that_ was Obama knew, and Mitch McConnell had made it clear as day, that any climate change treaty was DOA in the Senate. So, I don't know if I'll agree on your "softball" analogy - fairer, I'd say, would be to say that Obama was given a really_ nasty _slider, and still managed to get enough wood on the ball to eke out a base hit with two out in the bottom of the 9th.


I feel like Consent decrees while effective, are only as effective as people in charge want them to be. If higher ups aren't holding their own officers accountable then who's holding them accountable for ignoring the problem? Sure, they themselves could be rid of but only if someone higher than them disapproves.

As for the rights of trans folks, it seems like a lot of them are not set in stone the way say, discrimination based on race is. But it's not complete legal protection against discrimination, for example: "Employers with 15 or more employees are prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act from discriminating on the basis of sex."

Why 15? How was that even decided on? Why not just make illegal to discriminate against them even if you just have one trans employee? It's a half measure. Additionally, a lot of these protections are still being mulled over by SCOTUS, so their legal basis is still up in the air. Even if Obama could wave a magic wand and instill those protections, he'd still be working in the confines of our legal system that thinks human rights are something to be decided upon not by the people themselves but by a few elderly folks, that one hopes are sympathetic enough to recognize them as people. 

The Paris accords are another example imo of why our system is broken or failed. The health and life of literally everyone on this are at stake and the best we've got so far at changing that is the Paris Accords. Yeah, it sucks that Trump had us step out of it but were they really gonna effectively combat climate change? I feel like the latter is the more important issue.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AYwHgi88dTOqKybU_-cmJuw

Hey, would it kill Trump to do something like this?


----------



## Drew

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> I feel like Consent decrees while effective, are only as effective as people in charge want them to be. If higher ups aren't holding their own officers accountable then who's holding them accountable for ignoring the problem? Sure, they themselves could be rid of but only if someone higher than them disapproves.
> 
> As for the rights of trans folks, it seems like a lot of them are not set in stone the way say, discrimination based on race is. But it's not complete legal protection against discrimination, for example: "Employers with 15 or more employees are prohibited by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act from discriminating on the basis of sex."
> 
> Why 15? How was that even decided on? Why not just make illegal to discriminate against them even if you just have one trans employee? It's a half measure. Additionally, a lot of these protections are still being mulled over by SCOTUS, so their legal basis is still up in the air. Even if Obama could wave a magic wand and instill those protections, he'd still be working in the confines of our legal system that thinks human rights are something to be decided upon not by the people themselves but by a few elderly folks, that one hopes are sympathetic enough to recognize them as people.
> 
> The Paris accords are another example imo of why our system is broken or failed. The health and life of literally everyone on this are at stake and the best we've got so far at changing that is the Paris Accords. Yeah, it sucks that Trump had us step out of it but were they really gonna effectively combat climate change? I feel like the latter is the more important issue.


Ok, but please understand that all of those "failings" of the Obama administration are failing that were set in law before him and were baked into the rules he had to work with. 

Consent decrees are only as effective as the Department of Justice overseeing them wants them to be. Exactly. This is why they worked well under Obama and under Eric Holder, and abysmally under Trump and Sessions. 

Slight semantic point, the 15 isn't the number of trans employees, or female employees, or black employees, or whatever, but the total number of employees a company has before the Civil Rights Act's Title VII protections come into play.This is probably a necessary tradeoff to minimize regulatory reporting burdens, and while you could argue - perhaps fairly - that there shouldn't be a restriction for businesses with less than 15, in either case this was the Civil Rights Act that Obama was given to work with because that's how it was written when passed in 1964 (a grace period of 25, then down to 15), and he expanded protections as far as he could under that Act. 

ALL laws are subject to be mulled over by the SCOTUS and enacted under the US legal system. That's enshirined in the US Constitution. Thank fucking god, too, in the case of the current president. 

On the Paris Agreement, again, yes, the consensus of the scientific community - noting it was not unanimous, but was very broad - was that by keeping climate chance under 2*C, better yet under 1.5, we would be able to avoid catastrophic outcomes, and that the measures put forward were very likely to be successful in doing so. 

I think one of the common undercurrents of this discussion is you have an exagerated understanding of what one president can do _unilaterally_, without the support of a majority of the House and Senate, and often times a supermajority of the Senate. Obama did a tremendous amount with the hand he was dealt, pushing executive power to limits that even his supporters weren't always comfortable with... But you're not going to change the Civil Rights Act without the support of Congress, you're not going to change the Supreme Court's power without a constitutional amendment, and no US president can have an realistic hope of unilaterally naming all the terms of an international agreement. As it was, the Paris Agreement was so substantive that the GOP flatly refused to support it. To then criticize him for not going _far enough_, well, that's sort of tough to understand..


----------



## Drew

I mean, @JoshuaVonFlash, maybe this is the better way of framing it. Let's imagine a hypothetical where Bernie Sanders won the Democratic primary and, in November, beats Trump and is sworn into office in January 2021. 

Do you think it's realistic to believe that Sanders would 1) Get Congress to vote to change the Civil Rights Act, 2) pass a constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court's ability to weigh in on the constitutionality of executive actions, 3) get China and the EU to agree to an even lower temperature change and even greater CO2 targets, and then 4) get Mitch McConnell to ratify said treaty when Sanders sends it to Congress for ratification? 

I'm arguing that, while I too wanted more than we got, the Obama administration accomplished a _tremendous _amount given the constraints they were under. You can criticize the ACA for not going far enough... but remember that it passed the House by five votes, and only avoided being filibustered to death in the Senate via reconciliation. It was the very limit of what _could_ be passed. Unfortunately a lot of it had to be done via executive power, which means that a lot of what Obama accomplished, Trump has been able to at least in part undo. THAT is why I think getting Trump out and Biden in matters - even if Biden can't do a _thing_ further, and without gains in the Senate that very well may be the case, he can at least fix a lot of what Trump has tried to undo. 

And, you know, maybe fully staff the government while he's at it.


----------



## GoldDragon

tedtan said:


> He would have to have done something worthy of compliment before receiving one. And at this point, I can't think of a positive thing he's done. I can find something positive in Reagan's presidency, GHWB's presidency, GWB's presidency, but not Trump's. So where would those compliments come from, just ass kissing?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/



This one always gets me:
"Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh"

How is this an "accomplishment"?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/



Crazy how much of that has been absolutely squandered by the poor response to COVID19 and made even worse by recent civil unrest.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> This one always gets me:
> "Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh"
> 
> How is this an "accomplishment"?



Accomplishment: 2 under par


----------



## Vyn

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/



I was almost expecting Error 404 upon clicking this because he’s done fucking nothing.


----------



## fantom

So this one is on Fox coming from a Bishop. Can you Trump backers please explain this?

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-episcopal-bishop-i-am-outraged-by-president-trump-church-visit

Trump had police shoot rubber bullets and tear gas at protestors so he could take a photo for campaigning at the church. He didn't want to pray or look for guidance. He literally wants to appeal to the religious right. The Bishop is publicly calling out his behavior as non Christian and political.


----------



## Randy

Yeah but he's Bishop of a heathen liberal cesspool so his opinion doesn't count.

Edit: Excuse me. She. Two strikes.


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> So this one is on Fox coming from a Bishop. Can you Trump backers please explain this?
> 
> https://www.fox5dc.com/news/dc-episcopal-bishop-i-am-outraged-by-president-trump-church-visit
> 
> Trump had police shoot rubber bullets and tear gas at protestors so he could take a photo for campaigning at the church. He didn't want to pray or look for guidance. He literally wants to appeal to the religious right. The Bishop is publicly calling out his behavior as non Christian and political.



Donald "I don't know what to do with my tiny hands or this book" Trump:
https://i.imgur.com/gjJMuSX.gifv


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/


Did you read this before posting?


----------



## possumkiller

Believe it or not, I _do _have something positive to say about trump. He has become a catalyst for change. He has fucked things up so bad and pushed America to the breaking point. These riots and protests give me more hope for America than I have ever had. I don't think this would have happened with Hilary. We would've just kept on with business as usual.

Well ok I guess I don't have anything positive to say about the man himself.


----------



## Andromalia

GoldDragon said:


> A moderate publication would say complimentary things about the president's performance, mixed with negatives.



A moderate publication isn't going to invent stuff that doesn't exist to pamper to your delusions.
At this point, the main relevant question about Trump is, will he accept losing the election. Because I can very well see it turning into an NRA dictatorship claiming the results are fake.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

fantom said:


> So they pretty much want information platforms to be regulated by the government for "fairness", after comparing the platforms to newspapers. Government controlling content of publishers... Kind of sounds like communist / socialism to me... And Republicans will eat it up because 'Merica




Do they not teach what communism and socialism actually are in America??


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Crazy how much of that has been absolutely squandered by the poor response to COVID19 and made even worse by recent civil unrest.





possumkiller said:


> Believe it or not, I _do _have something positive to say about trump. He has become a catalyst for change. He has fucked things up so bad and pushed America to the breaking point. These riots and protests give me more hope for America than I have ever had. I don't think this would have happened with Hilary. We would've just kept on with business as usual.
> 
> Well ok I guess I don't have anything positive to say about the man himself.




With 30% unemployment, most of them younger people and minorities, they have alot of time on their hands to riot. The scale of the protests and riots are because of coronavirus and unemployment with the murder of George Floyd the catalyst.

Blacks destroyed neighborhoods in Baltimore when Freddie Grey was killed. Obama was president when that happened. But do you blame Obama? Of course not.

If we were in the middle of a pandemic when Freddie Gray was killed, the same thing would have happened. It wouldn't have just been Baltimore.

Now you are going to try to blame the CV response on Trump? The USA performed about as well as the EU as an aggregate. Thats about the only analagous entitiy. The states were in control of many facets of the response, with Trump/Faucc/Birk providing guidance. Government did not have the ability to lock down interstate travel, like China could. 

The bipartisan relief bill worked well. The PPP and EIDL loans, plus PUA insurance was quick action to support the economy. The stock market still believes there will be a V shaped recovery.

Logic. Try some.


----------



## sleewell

oh the hypocrisy...

are you not able to remember trump blaming obama for the fergueson protests or just selectively remembering things to fit your views?

i also think the US could have done a lot better against covid had trump not spent the first 2 months denying it in between rounds of golf. 35k lives could have been saved had they acted a week earlier, imagine if he had taken his daily security briefings seriously in jan instead of in march when the stock market crashed.


----------



## GoldDragon

sleewell said:


> oh the hypocrisy...
> 
> are you not able to remember trump blaming obama for the fergueson protests or just selectively remembering things to fit your views?
> 
> i also think the US could have done a lot better against covid had trump not spent the first 2 months denying it in between rounds of golf. 35k lives could have been saved had they acted a week earlier, imagine if he had taken his daily security briefings seriously in jan instead of in march when the stock market crashed.



Its like you are living in an alternate reality. Timeline of events is well documented.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Just an observation.

That list is functionally meaningless now. 

Almost all of it is gone, neither COVID19 or the protests have an end date, and I don't see the administration making meaningful headway on either front.


----------



## sleewell

GoldDragon said:


> Its like you are living in an alternate reality. Timeline of events is well documented.




it certainly is and it def does not fit your false position.




https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/mar/20/how-donald-trump-responded-coronavirus-pandemic/


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> Its like you are living in an alternate reality. Timeline of events is well documented.



You ever watch some alternate reality sci-fi and get to the point where the guy thinks, "Wait, is our reality the alternate reality??"


----------



## possumkiller

GoldDragon said:


> With 30% unemployment, most of them younger people and minorities, they have alot of time on their hands to riot. The scale of the protests and riots are because of coronavirus and unemployment with the murder of George Floyd the catalyst.
> 
> Blacks destroyed neighborhoods in Baltimore when Freddie Grey was killed. Obama was president when that happened. But do you blame Obama? Of course not.
> 
> If we were in the middle of a pandemic when Freddie Gray was killed, the same thing would have happened. It wouldn't have just been Baltimore.
> 
> Now you are going to try to blame the CV response on Trump? The USA performed about as well as the EU as an aggregate. Thats about the only analagous entitiy. The states were in control of many facets of the response, with Trump/Faucc/Birk providing guidance. Government did not have the ability to lock down interstate travel, like China could.
> 
> The bipartisan relief bill worked well. The PPP and EIDL loans, plus PUA insurance was quick action to support the economy. The stock market still believes there will be a V shaped recovery.
> 
> Logic. Try some.


I am not blaming trump for anything other than being himself. That is my entire point. Trump is proving to be exactly what America needs in order to pull their head out and take action. I have already seen your logic. I was taught your logic since I was born. At every step in my life, I have found one hole after another in that logic. I will stick to my own better judgement instead of listening to brainwashed right-wing hypocrites.


----------



## Boofchuck

Dineley said:


> Do they not teach what communism and socialism actually are in America??


Absolutely fucking not.


----------



## possumkiller

Boofchuck said:


> Absolutely fucking not.


Well I wouldn't say that. We were always told communism was evil. We never really talked about nazis but we were definitely supposed to be afraid of communism. Communism was like satanism. You weren't supposed to ask about how it worked, you were just supposed to know it was the most evil fucking thing to ever exist. Asking about it only made people suspect you of wanting to be one.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> Well I wouldn't say that. We were always told communism was evil. We never really talked about nazis but we were definitely supposed to be afraid of communism. Communism was like satanism. You weren't supposed to ask about how it worked, you were just supposed to know it was the most evil fucking thing to ever exist. Asking about it only made people suspect you of wanting to be one.



We can talk about Communism, but it was allowed to play out in other countries over the last 100 years and you end up with the same problems we're trying to solve here. Disparate social classes and dictators. There's pros and cons of any system, so I won't argue one is any better than the other if taken to it's conclusion but nothing about the situation we're in right now says Communism fix all or even some of the problems we have without creating others.

I think you can fix corruption and inequality in the economic system we have. There's barriers, some brought on by the system itself but most of them not.

As much as I support small 's' socialism, I don't think we can argue Communism hasn't been given it's chance.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/



I have to agree with Max on this. What little of that list might be positive has been more than undone by Trump's piss poor response to the Covid19 and his handling of the George Floyd protests has flushed any remaining good will the majority of people had towards Trump down the toilet.


----------



## zappatton2

I think for a lot of Americans, in particular those with working memories of the Soviet/Reagan era, their vision of "socialism" consists entirely of a terrifying Red Dawn fever dream. The Commies are coming, one strategically and geographically insignificant small town at a time.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> We can talk about Communism, but it was allowed to play out in other countries over the last 100 years and you end up with the same problems we're trying to solve here. Disparate social classes and dictators. There's pros and cons of any system, so I won't argue one is any better than the other if taken to it's conclusion but nothing about the situation we're in right now says Communism fix all or even some of the problems we have without creating others.
> 
> I think you can fix corruption and inequality in the economic system we have. There's barriers, some brought on by the system itself but most of them not.
> 
> As much as I support small 's' socialism, I don't think we can argue Communism hasn't been given it's chance.




Oh I just mean everything gets protested as communism, mixed race marriages = Communism, twitter fact checking trump = communism, wearing face masks = Communism, and sorry i didnt attach the images of all these particular things I swear I'm not making it up.

But yeah possumkiller seemed to nail it, communism is just painted as the evil catch all. Guess that speaks to the teaching the sheep they are wolves. A little bit of small s socialism would do good in the US. Sadly its all big S socialism for billion dollar corporations.


----------



## Necris

We can laugh at Trump's list of "accomplishments" and argue whether or not recent events have erased any gains he's made but that list isn't for the general population really, its for the true believers. Trump is at 94% approval among Republicans; re-read the list with that in mind.


----------



## GoldDragon

tedtan said:


> I have to agree with Max on this. What little of that list might be positive has been more than undone by Trump's piss poor response to the Covid19 and his handling of the George Floyd protests has flushed any remaining good will the majority of people had towards Trump down the toilet.



How is organizing the national guard and military to combat riots a bad response?

Oh, did he hurt your feelings? Did he overreact? Was police and military action "off limits" because the problem was triggered by a police officer killing a black man? Should he have let it play out naturally?

Should he have got on camera and had a minute of silent prayer while cities were burning? 

The federal government is giving a massive aid package to states. The net effect of the riots will be to set back progress against Covid, which will delay reopening of states. Which will extend PUA benefits for majority of people protesting and rioting. See how that works? Do you now realize why the federal govt needs to get involved? Do you wonder why it is liberal states that are pushing back? (A: It has nothing to do with policy or what is right, just trying to win the next election by resisting Trump. If we had a democratic president, liberal governors would be praising her for the military aid she leant.)

Furthermore, if you listened to his televised message yesterday, he denounced the violence and suffering of miniorities.

Its like you guys are living in an alternate reality.

When people are rioting, especially when they are being funded and organized by outside groups, you get the military involved.

When is a president wrong to protect our country? What alternative do you propose? Let the protests continue unabated when there is a stay at home order because of CV? Do nothing and expect domestic terrorists to stop looting and destroying property because the police and national guard stayed at home? WTF are you smoking?

Its like liberals are living in an alternate reality governed by subjective feelings.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> Furthermore, if you listened to his televised message yesterday, he denounced the violence and suffering of miniorities.



What's he proposed to fix this?


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Oh I just mean everything gets protested as communism, mixed race marriages = Communism, twitter fact checking trump = communism, wearing face masks = Communism, and sorry i didnt attach the images of all these particular things I swear I'm not making it up.
> 
> But yeah possumkiller seemed to nail it, communism is just painted as the evil catch all. Guess that speaks to the teaching the sheep they are wolves. A little bit of small s socialism would do good in the US. Sadly its all big S socialism for billion dollar corporations.



Ah, my apologies. I misread that along with possum's post. Yeah, the slippery slope of communism has been a convenient scapegoat for status quo.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Same problem that kicked off this mess: escalation vs. de-escalation.


----------



## Boofchuck

possumkiller said:


> Well I wouldn't say that. We were always told communism was evil. We never really talked about nazis but we were definitely supposed to be afraid of communism. Communism was like satanism. You weren't supposed to ask about how it worked, you were just supposed to know it was the most evil fucking thing to ever exist. Asking about it only made people suspect you of wanting to be one.


Yeah. Which is to say we weren't actually taught what it is haha.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> How is organizing the national guard and military to combat riots a bad response?
> 
> Oh, did he hurt your feelings? Did he overreact? Was police and military action "off limits" because the problem was triggered by a police officer killing a black man? Should he have let it play out naturally?
> 
> Should he have got on camera and had a minute of silent prayer while cities were burning?
> 
> The federal government is giving a massive aid package to states. The net effect of the riots will be to set back progress against Covid, which will delay reopening of states. Which will extend PUA benefits for majority of people protesting and rioting. See how that works? Do you now realize why the federal govt needs to get involved? Do you wonder why it is liberal states that are pushing back? (A: It has nothing to do with policy or what is right, just trying to win the next election by resisting Trump. If we had a democratic president, liberal governors would be praising her for the military aid she leant.)
> 
> Furthermore, if you listened to his televised message yesterday, he denounced the violence and suffering of miniorities.
> 
> Its like you guys are living in an alternate reality.
> 
> When people are rioting, especially when they are being funded and organized by outside groups, you get the military involved.
> 
> When is a president wrong to protect our country? What alternative do you propose? Let the protests continue unabated when there is a stay at home order because of CV? Do nothing and expect domestic terrorists to stop looting and destroying property because the police and national guard stayed at home? WTF are you smoking?
> 
> Its like liberals are living in an alternate reality governed by subjective feelings.



Denouncing violence while then using force to move protesters out of the way for a photo op. The police shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at identified journalists. These strongman tactics are not American, and they should scare every single one of us.

Please show all of us the proof that the protesters and rioters are being funding. All you have there are George Soros conspiracy theories. I have honestly looked for proof, and all I end up with is computer cancer.

The President is not protecting this country, and he hasn't been. And because of the awful job he's done, it's not like anyone would take a nurturing sentiment from him seriously. His lack of action on COVID-19, and continued use of racist and inflammatory language will not help mend the scars that have constantly been picked at. If you really want to talk about an alternative universe, you really should be taking at look at what's really going on around this country and examine your own perspective first.


----------



## budda

The state said they will fire on their people and GD is out here defending it. What a hill to literally and figuratively die on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Just a reminder: the folks protesting are part of this country too.


----------



## sleewell

im not a medical professional but when you repeatedly insist that its everyone else who is living in an alternate reality you might wanna look at that.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Just a reminder: the folks protesting are part of this country too.



I had a conversation about this with a family member last night. I don't speak for everyone that put on the uniform, but as a Vet, people rising up against their oppressors with a unified voice is one of the freedoms I gladly served to protect. Blind patriotism is forgetting that we are to be a voice for those without one, and that we protect those freedoms for all Americans. My father grew up in a country where you could be killed without trial for speaking out against oppressive forces. But it's a slippery slope that allows that freedom to be revoked in the name of law and order. If people don't think that something like fascist or a dictatorship could happen in this country, just take a look at what's going on around us. Journalists having non-lethal force used against them as they report on what's going on around them, the federal government actively dismissing facts and data, and language used to make people view things as us vs. them. This is dangerous. And we all need to take note of reality before it's too late. I mean, the thought of employing our own military forces in order to suppress protesters is disgusting. I am so grateful that I was not put in a position to be out there in full battle rattle against my own countrymen and women.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> How is organizing the national guard and military to combat riots a bad response?
> 
> Oh, did he hurt your feelings? Did he overreact? Was police and military action "off limits" because the problem was triggered by a police officer killing a black man? Should he have let it play out naturally?



When do you bring in the US military against US citizens? You don't unless you are involved in a civil war. Otherwise, the military is to serve the citizens.




GoldDragon said:


> Should he have got on camera and had a minute of silent prayer while cities were burning



No, a minute of prayer from Trump would be perceived as hollow and patronizing.

As the leader of the free world, he needs to unite people rather than parade his military around like a wannabe Kim Jong Un.




GoldDragon said:


> The federal government is giving a massive aid package to states. The net effect of the riots will be to set back progress against Covid, which will delay reopening of states. Which will extend PUA benefits for majority of people protesting and rioting. See how that works? Do you now realize why the federal govt needs to get involved? Do you wonder why it is liberal states that are pushing back? (A: It has nothing to do with policy or what is right, just trying to win the next election by resisting Trump. If we had a democratic president, liberal governors would be praising her for the military aid she leant.)



I doubt that. This isn't an "us vs. them thing", it's about manning up and doing what needs to be done, even when that isn't pleasant.




GoldDragon said:


> Furthermore, if you listened to his televised message yesterday, he denounced the violence and suffering of miniorities.



What has he done to effect that change, though? Even with those few hollow words, his actions have spoken very clearly to the contrary.




GoldDragon said:


> Its like you guys are living in an alternate reality.



Yes, one where actual facts reign, not political spin. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly people on the left who live in political bubble, too, but most of us here in this thread are pretty level headed and fact oriented.




GoldDragon said:


> When people are rioting, especially when they are being funded and organized by outside groups, you get the military involved.



As I mentioned above, no, you don't. National Guard to augment local police forces, sure. But not the actual military.




GoldDragon said:


> When is a president wrong to protect our country? What alternative do you propose? Let the protests continue unabated when there is a stay at home order because of CV? Do nothing and expect domestic terrorists to stop looting and destroying property because the police and national guard stayed at home? WTF are you smoking?



How is he protecting the country? All he is doing is escalating things, adding fuel to the fire.




GoldDragon said:


> Its like liberals are living in an alternate reality governed by subjective feelings.



No, the subjective feelings generally come from those on the right side of the political spectrum. Not always, but certainly more often than not.


----------



## Choop

GoldDragon said:


> Oh, did he hurt your feelings? Did he overreact? Was police and military action "off limits" because the problem was triggered by a police officer killing a black man? Should he have let it play out naturally?



Police action is exactly what started this whole thing, and rather than attempting to de-escalate the situation, the police are pushing back with more force. There are several instances floating around on social media in other cities, but also definitely here in Louisville (where Breonna Taylor was killed) of the police abusing protestors and even bystanders who aren't involved. A guy was shot and killed recently who wasn't involved in the protests (David McAtee) on the west side of town, and his body was left there for a day before any "investigation" took place. Why were nonlethal rounds not used in this situation? We won't know because there were no body cams active at the time, apparently. This is the kind of stuff that just adds to the problem. I don't see Trump trying to be forthcoming in any way, and tbh I don't think I've ever seen it. His response comes off as "yeah-yeah" and rhetoric, like its an obligation he begrudgingly endures. It's just a bad look. 

As far as covid, the states were already opening back up regardless of the fact that covid remains to be a threat--evident in the spikes in confirmed cases in states that had already begun to reopen.


----------



## ThePIGI King

@tedtan no, they serve the uphold the Constitution. They don't serve the civilians or the President.

Also in 1992 during the LA riots active duty Army was sent to LA.


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> @tedtan no, they serve the uphold the Constitution. They don't serve the civilians or the President.
> 
> Also in 1992 during the LA riots active duty Army was sent to LA.



The President needs to be reminded of this very fact. Though, I'd make the argument that upholding the Constitution and protecting our civilian population are pretty much the same thing. When the military is politicized in the way that it has been, it creates a very dangerous state of existence where people are repressed in the name of whatever leadership decides is good law and order. 

As Soldiers, we were taught to have ultimate respect for the citizens and residents of the country that pay for our existence. We are not taught that we are above or better, but serve as the foundation on which freedom can continue to exist.


----------



## ThePIGI King

JSanta said:


> The President needs to be reminded of this very fact. Though, I'd make the argument that upholding the Constitution and protecting our civilian population are pretty much the same thing. When the military is politicized in the way that it has been, it creates a very dangerous state of existence where people are repressed in the name of whatever leadership decides is good law and order.
> 
> As Soldiers, we were taught to have ultimate respect for the citizens and residents of the country that pay for our existence. We are not taught that we are above or better, but serve as the foundation on which freedom can continue to exist.


Depends on whether or not the civilians are doing something for or against the Constitution as well.

I agree with doing whatever is necessary to end the rioting. So many people hurt and killed it's insane. Some Las Vegas cop just got shot in the back of the head for subduing a rioter. If MPs and 11bang bangs going to help control the situation is what it takes then do it. Every infantryman I know would love to go do that.


----------



## tedtan

ThePIGI King said:


> @tedtan no, they serve the uphold the Constitution. They don't serve the civilians or the President.
> 
> Also in 1992 during the LA riots active duty Army was sent to LA.



Abraham Lincoln's famous words, spoken at his Gettysburg address, state that the federal government of the USA is a "government of the people, by the people, _*FOR*_ the people", which pretty much sums this up. No, the military does not directly report to you and I, but as part of the executive branch of the US federal government, the military exists for and serves the people of the USA.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> Depends on whether or not the civilians are doing something for or against the Constitution as well.
> 
> I agree with doing whatever is necessary to end the rioting. So many people hurt and killed it's insane. Some Las Vegas cop just got shot in the back of the head for subduing a rioter. If MPs and 11bang bangs going to help control the situation is what it takes then do it. Every infantryman I know would love to go do that.


Man, some of this stuff is going to age like milk the next time this forum has a 2nd Amendment argument.


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> I have already seen your logic. I was taught your logic since I was born. At every step in my life, I have found one hole after another in that logic. I will stick to my own better judgement instead of listening to brainwashed right-wing hypocrites.



This. I was force fed the right wing agenda until I was in high school. I have been called a conservative and old-fashioned at work more times than I want to count (including during the 2018 election). As a kid and teenager, when you see your politics contradict your religious teachings and authority figures punish you for asking why that is ok, you start to think for yourself.

My or anyone else's political preferences do not change that Trump and McConnell are burning this country and our society to the ground.


----------



## fantom

Dineley said:


> Do they not teach what communism and socialism actually are in America??


When education is the same as daycare...


Boofchuck said:


> Absolutely fucking not.



So I was lazy typing that, but I thought places like former USSR (socialist) and China (communist) censored their news about the same way. I could be wrong.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Kill thousands of Americans or install greater accountability for those given authority?

I know which one I'd rather have.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> With 30% unemployment, most of them younger people and minorities, they have alot of time on their hands to riot. The scale of the protests and riots are because of coronavirus and unemployment with the murder of George Floyd the catalyst.



I agree that Floyd is a catalyst for people's frustration boiling over. But I would also argue that the pandemic is a catalyst and people were upset at this administration long before the pandemic reached US soil.



GoldDragon said:


> Now you are going to try to blame the CV response on Trump? The USA performed about as well as the EU as an aggregate. Thats about the only analagous entitiy. The states were in control of many facets of the response, with Trump/Faucc/Birk providing guidance. Government did not have the ability to lock down interstate travel, like China could.



LOL the states were left to fend for themselves while Trump pretended nothing was wrong. He cannot take credit for governors acting with no federal assistance to help their people. Many governors, including Republicans, were on record saying the federal government was not helping. Not to mention the whistleblower...


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> Depends on whether or not the civilians are doing something for or against the Constitution as well.
> 
> I agree with doing whatever is necessary to end the rioting. So many people hurt and killed it's insane. Some Las Vegas cop just got shot in the back of the head for subduing a rioter. If MPs and 11bang bangs going to help control the situation is what it takes then do it. Every infantryman I know would love to go do that.



11B here bud, and I would take zero pleasure in hurting people unnecessarily. You've highlighted a key problem with our military - that too many people put on the uniform and take pleasure in the taking of lives or the use of force. The use of lethal military force is not going to solve this problem. If that was the case, the wars around the world would subside quickly. An ideology worth fighting for, our democracy and equal protection under the law, are worth taking a stand against those that do not protect those interests. If the answer to rioting is always military force, we are much less free than led to believe. The uniform is not meant as a tactic to intimidate, and should not be viewed as such.

How many more people have to have their own constitutional rights stripped away before these problems are fundamentally addressed? Where is George Floyd's due process? How about all of the others killed or abused by police? Do their rights not matter? 

I just can't agree with your line of thinking on this one. I don't like the rioting, but I get it.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> If MPs and 11bang bangs going to help control the situation is what it takes then do it. Every infantryman I know would love to go do that.


Exactly why I left the army. Too many sick sadistic white supremacist nazi wannabe pieces of shit become infantrymen for the sole purpose of getting a chance to murder people. The same shit bag types are also drawn to becoming police officers apparently. trump loves these guys that's why he personally intervened in a military trial and pardoned a war criminal.


----------



## GoldDragon

JSanta said:


> The President needs to be reminded of this very fact. Though, I'd make the argument that upholding the Constitution and protecting our civilian population are pretty much the same thing. When the military is politicized in the way that it has been, it creates a very dangerous state of existence where people are repressed in the name of whatever leadership decides is good law and order.
> 
> As Soldiers, we were taught to have ultimate respect for the citizens and residents of the country that pay for our existence. We are not taught that we are above or better, but serve as the foundation on which freedom can continue to exist.



Rioters are destroying people's businesses, physically attacking people. IMO, using the military to protect citizens and their property is necessary.

Its not political. I say that 100% of the time when rioting gets this bad, the sitting president will mobilize the military.


----------



## possumkiller

GoldDragon said:


> Rioters are destroying people's businesses, physically attacking people. IMO, using the military to protect citizens and their property is necessary.
> 
> Its not political. I say that 100% of the time when rioting gets this bad, the sitting president will mobilize the military.


There is a difference between mobilizing the military and threatening to use the military to kill civilians.

The military is usually mobilized in national emergencies.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> How is organizing the national guard and military to combat riots a bad response?



Organizing the national guard and backup to local police is completely normal. Threatening to have the military shoot protestors on Twitter is not. See the difference?



GoldDragon said:


> When is a president wrong to protect our country?



The role of the police is to protect and *serve*. The military is usually referred to as *service members*. The point is that they are doing what is in the best interest of the people, not the government. The first amendment allows peaceful protests....



JSanta said:


> Denouncing violence while then using force to move protesters out of the way for a photo op. The police shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at identified journalists. These strongman tactics are not American, and they should scare every single one of us



This. A president threatening violence and using police to escalate a peaceful situation for a photo op... What the hell



MaxOfMetal said:


> Just a reminder: the folks protesting are part of this country too.



Thank you for saying this.



tedtan said:


> When do you bring in the US military against US citizens? You don't unless you are involved in a civil war. Otherwise, the military is to serve the citizens.



This. Not to mention threatening to shoot protestors and then throwing a hissy fit when Twitter calls you out on it.



StevenC said:


> Man, some of this stuff is going to age like milk the next time this forum has a 2nd Amendment argument.



Agreed. 2nd amendment defendents love to use the government using military and unnecessary force as a reason to justify owning assault rifles and using deadly force to "protect themselves". The only thing different right now is that they agree with the government force since they aren't on the receiving end of it.


----------



## sleewell

it also should be noted that in 1992 the gov of CA asked for help from the feds. I don't think any state is currently asking trump to send in the military.


----------



## ThePIGI King

possumkiller said:


> Exactly why I left the army. Too many sick sadistic white supremacist nazi wannabe pieces of shit become infantrymen for the sole purpose of getting a chance to murder people. The same shit bag types are also drawn to becoming police officers apparently. trump loves these guys that's why he personally intervened in a military trial and pardoned a war criminal.


Because tear gas and non-lethal rounds being shot is murdering people? Helping police to maintain peace is murder? If you and @JSanta left 11B because you felt like it was sadists and nazis then that's fine, but making the assumption that anybody supporting the military helping contain a nationwide issue is in support of murder then you've both lost your minds.

Killing civilians won't help, but detaining them and showing that we won't just let them riot will. Peaceful protests are fine. But the crap that's going down is not.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> it also should be noted that in 1992 the gov of CA asked for help from the feds. I don't think any state is currently asking trump to send in the military.


Not only that. The president has no authority to send US Army (regular Army not national guard) into states without their asking because it violates the state's rights.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> Peaceful protests are fine. But the crap that's going down is not.


It's not for you because you don't care about what caused it. 

I said already there is a difference between mobilizing the military and threatening to use them to kill civilians so I really don't know what you're on about. Of course there's no problem with the national guard pulling guard on businesses to deter anarchists from trying to burn them down or looters from stealing everything. There is no problem until they start killing people which is how this shit started to begin with. Trying to stop people from protesting brutality and abuse of authority by using brutality and abuse of authority is idiotic and only going to make people riot and protest more.


----------



## GoldDragon

possumkiller said:


> There is a difference between mobilizing the military and threatening to use the military to kill civilians.
> 
> The military is usually mobilized in national emergencies.



I googled and I found what you might be talking about.

“I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right,” Trump tweeted minutes before 1 a.m.

In the second part of his message, Trump wrote: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”


He did not threaten to kill anyone.

This is the same thing the media did when Trump said, "You should ask China about the emails".

He was being sarcastic, but the media took it literally to mean that Trump had some knowledge of who hacked DNC/Hillary and conflated that to mean he was colluding with them.

This is drawing the worst possible conclusion from what was written.

Is a man not allowed to express his anger at liberal governors who allowed things to get out of control? Is he not allowed to express what will happen if they don't fix things?

You dislike his style, but the message is the same. And justified.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It is naive to think escalation of force will result in anything but more dead civilians, law enforcement, and military, not to mention property and collateral damage. 

People are in the streets, already putting their lives at risk, because they're angry and feel there is no other way. Bringing out the big guns is only going to agitate and reinforce those feelings, and potentially galvanize further protesters to the cause.


----------



## Randy

GoldDragon said:


> Obama had eight years. What did he do?



So nothing then? You're admitting Trump proposed doing nothing?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> So nothing then?



Stupid lazy democrats not fixing every problem in the nation in less than a decade.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> He was being sarcastic, but the media took it literally



Are we in 2016? This excuse might have worked once or twice. But you can't use this excuse for everything stupid he says and tried to take back. He should have learned by now. If he can't learn from it, he should have someone read his tweets before he posts them to minimize chance of being "misunderstood".

Or the simpler explanation... Within a day he had DC police shoot at peaceful protesters with rubber bullets. He wasn't being sarcastic.


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> Because tear gas and non-lethal rounds being shot is murdering people? Helping police to maintain peace is murder? If you and @JSanta left 11B because you felt like it was sadists and nazis then that's fine, but making the assumption that anybody supporting the military helping contain a nationwide issue is in support of murder then you've both lost your minds.
> 
> Killing civilians won't help, but detaining them and showing that we won't just let them riot will. Peaceful protests are fine. But the crap that's going down is not.



I did not make that assumption, nor did I make an inference. Your inference about your military friends taking pleasure in participating in subduing rioters (using violence against the people they swore to protect) is the problem, at least for me.

Everyone saying the military needs to be called in to protect property is failing to understand that while that may stop the violence, it does not solve the problem, and I'm willing to bet it will stoke the flames even more. Peoples that have been at war for generations know this to be true. You don't snuff out ideas with military force.

Again, you and I have fundamentally different perspectives on this issue. I don't think that you want or enjoy having people die over this, but the reality is that there are hundreds of years of oppression and anger that are spilling over. Elected officials need to be reminded who holds the power.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". - Benjamin Franklin

EDIT - I've gone through non-lethal training. We really should call it less-than lethal because rubber bullets at close enough range will most certainly kill someone (and even at "safe ranges", they fucking hurt like crazy. Tear gas also sucks. A lot)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's refreshing to see that Franklin quote not referring to the summary execution of Hilary Clinton by QAnon or some bullshit.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> I googled and I found what you might be talking about.
> 
> “I can’t stand back & watch this happen to a great American City, Minneapolis. A total lack of leadership. Either the very weak Radical Left Mayor, Jacob Frey, get his act together and bring the City under control, or I will send in the National Guard & get the job done right,” Trump tweeted minutes before 1 a.m.
> 
> In the second part of his message, Trump wrote: “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!”
> 
> 
> He did not threaten to kill anyone.
> 
> This is the same thing the media did when Trump said, "You should ask China about the emails".
> 
> He was being sarcastic, but the media took it literally to mean that Trump had some knowledge of who hacked DNC/Hillary and conflated that to mean he was colluding with them.
> 
> This is drawing the worst possible conclusion from what was written.
> 
> Is a man not allowed to express his anger at liberal governors who allowed things to get out of control? Is he not allowed to express what will happen if they don't fix things?
> 
> You dislike his style, but the message is the same. And justified.



Jesus fucking christ.

How many times do you get to claim the "he was just kidding" defense? He's not Joe Rogan he's the President of the United States.

Words have power.

*"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"*
Do you not know where this quote comes from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_looting_starts,_the_shooting_starts#:~:text="When the looting starts, the,the 1967 Christmas holiday season.

tl;dr Trump isn't the real problem, you are. Bad people will do bad things; can you really be mad at them for doing what's in their nature? However, you enable, empower, and embolden him.


----------



## Randy

Smooth brains think societal unrest is a disease, when it's a symptom. Whether it's BLM or Ya'll Qaeda, people don't fill the streets, risk their lives, get tear gassed, etc. just cause it's something to do. And I don't think George Soros has enough money to pay everyone to do it either.


----------



## Necris

When speaking with conservatives eventually it begins to feel like you're speaking an English that's 99% identical until you use specific words, "tyranny" is a good example of that.


----------



## possumkiller

Necris said:


> When speaking with conservatives it eventually it begins to feel like you're speaking an English that's 99% identical until you use specific words, "tyranny" is a good example of that.


Tyranny? You mean saying trump supporters have to stay home or wear a mask outside? Isn't that the definition of tyranny?


----------



## Alexa run my life

tedtan said:


> When do you bring in the US military against US citizens?


The correct answer is this...


GoldDragon said:


> Rioters are destroying people's businesses, physically attacking people. IMO, using the military to protect citizens and their property is necessary


So much this. Part of the job of the federal government is to protect it's citizens from enemies both domestic and abroad. In this case the enemies happen to be citizens.

My livlihood and my life should not be threatened by anarchistic mob rioters. If I am fired from my job because I could not make it to work on time or at all, because an angry mob who is living vicariously through victims of police brutality in other states are blocking my route to my workplace, they are threatening my livlihood. When those same virtue-signaling anarchists start bashing my car with a skateboards and tire irons, they are now threatening my actual life: in which case I can and will use my 2nd amendment right (thank goodness for it's existence), to stop those people at all costs, dead in their tracks, from threatening both my life and my livlihood. If the police and military can't be present at the time to protect me from those people, I have to stand my ground. Just like anybody should who finds themselves in that situation.


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> Trump isn't the real problem, you are. Bad people will do bad things; can you really be mad at them for doing what's in their nature? However, you enable, empower, and embolden him.


Nail on the fucking head. He's helped infinitely at weeding these assholes out.


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> When those same virtue-signaling anarchists start bashing my car with a skateboards and tire irons, they are now threatening my actual life: in which case I can and will use my 2nd amendment right (thank goodness for it's existence), to stop those people at all costs, dead in their tracks, from threatening both my life and my livlihood. If the police and military can't be present at the time to protect me from those people, I haven to stand my ground. Just like anybody should who finds themselves in that situation.


No. They are threatening your car.


----------



## JSanta

Alexa run my life said:


> The correct answer is this...
> So much this. Part of the job of the federal government is to protect it's citizens from enemies both domestic and abroad. In this case the enemies happen to be citizens.
> 
> My livlihood and my life should not be threatened by anarchistic mob rioters. If I am fired from my job because I could not make it to work on time or at all, because an angry mob who is living vicariously through victims of police brutality in other states are blocking my route to my workplace, they are threatening my livlihood. When those same virtue-signaling anarchists start bashing my car with a skateboards and tire irons, they are now threatening my actual life: in which case I can and will use my 2nd amendment right (thank goodness for it's existence), to stop those people at all costs, dead in their tracks, from threatening both my life and my livlihood. If the police and military can't be present at the time to protect me from those people, I haven to stand my ground. Just like anybody should who finds themselves in that situation.




I take it that you've never had the make the decision whether or not to end the life of another human being. It shows.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> Nail on the fucking head. He's helped infinitely at weeding these assholes out.



Dafuq? Trump has?


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> No. They are threatening your car.


When burglars are trying to pry open the front door to your house, they're just doing it because they hate your door.


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> When burglars are trying to pry open the front door to your house, they're just doing it because they hate your door.


When did you say they were breaking into your house? You said you would shoot them for hitting your car with a skateboard.


----------



## USMarine75

Seriously how the F can anyone abide by the whataboutism of this President and his enablers?

*Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*


And your outcry is... Fuck Soros, Hillary, Antifa, and those "Thugs"?

*Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*


Your concern is... I know they murdered the guy... but why you have to burn down the Walgreens where I get my cheetos and mountain dew?

tl;dr *Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*


----------



## USMarine75

Sorry if this was already shared. This is one of the most impassioned speeches I have heard in my lifetime.


----------



## GoldDragon

USMarine75 said:


> Seriously how the F can anyone abide by the whataboutism of this President and his enablers?
> 
> *Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*
> 
> 
> And your outcry is... Fuck Soros, Hillary, Antifa, and those "Thugs"?
> 
> *Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*
> 
> 
> Your concern is... I know they murdered the guy... but why you have to burn down the Walgreens where I get my cheetos and mountain dew?
> 
> tl;dr *Someone in a position of public trust publicly tortured another human being for almost 9 minutes and murdered him.*



I cant speak for anyone else, but this was my thought process.

1) Geez, the cop murdered that man. This is really bad.

2) Not excusing the murder, but policing in the ghetto must be very challenging. Some people are not up to it and snap, but many others conduct themselves properly. Lets not assume all cops are bad.

3) These people are rioting and looting. They can't be that stupid to be destroying their own neighborhoods. There must be outside instigation.

4) Yes there are problems with inequality. And there is racism. But crime is endemic of poor communities. So of course black people are going to have more run ins with police. And they are more likely to be there on the day the bad cop snaps and loses it. It would be easy for black community to feel they are being targeted and that police are bad.

5) On the other side of that coin... Police officer signs up for job. Majority of his calls are to minority neighborhoods. Over the course of years, he starts believing that most black people are bad, and develop racist beliefs. Because he doesn't have a context for understanding what he sees every day, the danger he is in every day.

6) The solutions to these problems need to be slow and methodical. Affirmative action, more integration with white communities, interracial marriages, etc. Will eventually bring down the walls. More money into education and food security for poor neighborhoods. Combined with stricter penalties for violent crime to get them out of these communities.

7) The rioters are setting back race relations 50 years. Both the police and black community probably have more negative opinions of each other than is deserved. Poor black people are in a difficult situation, but so are the police officers who try to protect their communities.

8) Apparently official autopsy of George Floyd was that he was experiencing Fentanyl intoxication and evidence of Methamphetamine use combined with comorbid health issues causing a heart attack. He did not deserve to die, the police officer snapped and should be charged with Murder 1. One of the other police officers can be heard on video asking the bad cop to roll him onto his side so he can breathe, and Chauvin said "no, hes staying here". Not all the cops should be charged with murder. Also, there is a large section of the video missing.

9) I don't like Trump's tweets either. He comes of as a bully. Sometimes when he is off script he goes after reporters and says dumb things when he should let it go. He has been embattled since the first day in office and its obvious he is fighting back. I recognize he is in a much more difficult situation than Obama, who the press loved from the beginning. I believe that Trumps tweets are playing to a certain portion of his base. Much in the same way when Obama said, If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.

But his actions outside of twitter have been sane and rational. He has followed the republican playbook and this stimulated the economy and military. Stock market at record highs. Unemployment record lows.

10) Much of the negativity (Trump derangement syndrome) is caused by the press and social media. Constantly attacking the president's credibility makes it harder for him to be the leader he needs to be. He took on the swamp and the swamp is fighting back. An embattled president has a more difficult time, in that sense the press is making our country weaker, stoking racial and class divides. Creating an us vs. them mentality.


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> My livlihood and my life should not be threatened by anarchistic mob rioters. If I am fired from my job because I could not make it to work on time or at all, because an angry mob who is living vicariously through victims of police brutality in other states are blocking my route to my workplace, they are threatening my livlihood.



People are protesting for more than 1 random guy in another state. As already mentioned, part of their outcry is systemic oppression that is preventing them to have a job right now.



Alexa run my life said:


> When those same virtue-signaling anarchists start bashing my car with a skateboards and tire irons, they are now threatening my actual life: in which case I can and will use my 2nd amendment right (thank goodness for it's existence), to stop those people at all costs, dead in their tracks, from threatening both my life and my livlihood. If the police and military can't be present at the time to protect me from those people, I have to stand my ground. Just like anybody should who finds themselves in that situation.



The 2nd amendment is not there so you can shoot a thug breaking into your car. A militia is an organized group of citizens to aid the people. The 2nd amendment is designed so that when the federal government or local government oppresses people, they have a right to organize and arm themselves to protect themselves from the state. You going to work is not at all what the forefathers were thinking of when the amendment was drafted. They were reflecting on giving the people the right to rebel against a future king like the King of England in the 1700s... Like Trump is trying to be now


----------



## SpaceDock

Russia, pornstar affairs, fake charity, Covid, riots; can’t wait to see what happens next on The Trump Show.


----------



## possumkiller

I don't know why you guys bother responding. There is only so many ways everyone can say the exact same thing. Arguing with these guys is like arguing with religious fanatics. Facts and reason mean nothing to those people. Otherwise they wouldn't be religious fanatics or trump supporters.


----------



## GoldDragon

USMarine75 said:


> Jesus fucking christ.
> 
> How many times do you get to claim the "he was just kidding" defense? He's not Joe Rogan he's the President of the United States.
> .



I didn't claim he was kidding, just that the media draws the most negative possible interpretation to run as a headline. He didn't threaten to kill anyone, he was using tough language for a tough situation.

I'm out. i'm not sure if you are pseudo trolling to get a response or if you actually believe everything.


----------



## SpaceDock

possumkiller said:


> I don't know why you guys bother responding. There is only so many ways everyone can say the exact same thing. Arguing with these guys is like arguing with religious fanatics. Facts and reason mean nothing to those people. Otherwise they wouldn't be religious fanatics or trump supporters.



They are religious fanatics and Trump is their god. Logic has no bearing on devotion and faith.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> I cant speak for anyone else, but this was my thought process.
> 
> 2) Not excusing the murder, but



What follows this is the definition of empowering, emboldening, and enabling.


----------



## GoldDragon

USMarine75 said:


> What follows this is the definition of empowering, emboldening, and enabling.



Please describe specifically what those labels mean to you as applied to this situation, so someone can respond to them. It wont be me.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> I didn't claim he was kidding, just that the media draws the most negative possible interpretation to run as a headline. He didn't threaten to kill anyone, he was using tough language for a tough situation.



He quoted a famous/notorious segregationist. Words have literal meanings. You don't get to interpret them however you want.



GoldDragon said:


> I'm out. i'm not sure if you are pseudo trolling to get a response or if you actually believe everything.



You're kidding right? How am I trolling to get a response?


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> Please describe specifically what those labels mean to you as applied to this situation, so someone can respond to them. It wont be me.



Unlike Trump I mean the words I say. You can find them in a dictionary.


----------



## spudmunkey

Not gonna lie...I've seen every one of these clips in this video liked below, but they did a great job with the editing. Also, getting "MAGA2020.com"? Effing brilliant.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> But his actions outside of twitter have been sane and rational.


----------



## Alexa run my life

fantom said:


> People are protesting for more than 1 random guy in another state. As already mentioned, part of their outcry is systemic oppression that is preventing them to have a job right now.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment is not there so you can shoot a thug breaking into your car. A militia is an organized group of citizens to aid the people. The 2nd amendment is designed so that when the federal government or local government oppresses people, they have a right to organize and arm themselves to protect themselves from the state. You going to work is not at all what the forefathers were thinking of when the amendment was drafted. They were reflecting on giving the people the right to rebel against a future king like the King of England in the 1700s... Like Trump is trying to be now


You are right however, have younnever heard of the stand your ground law?


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> What follows this is the definition of empowering, emboldening, and enabling.


"Not excusing the murder, but" sounds very similar to I'm not racist, but... 

Once you put the but, everything before it disappears.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> You are right however, have younnever heard of the stand your ground law?



"Stand your ground" laws are highly dependent on State Law. Even in states that have those loans, many require you to flee if you have the option. You must prove in court you did not have the ability to flee and that use of force was your only option. Otherwise, you are guilty of manslaughter at a minimum.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> "Not excusing the murder, but" sounds very similar to I'm not racist, but...
> 
> Once you put the but, everything before it disappears.



"With all due respect..."


----------



## Alexa run my life

USMarine75 said:


> "Stand your ground" laws are highly dependent on State Law. Even in states that have those loans, many require you to flee if you have the option. You must prove in court you did not have the ability to flee and that use of force was your only option. Otherwise, you are guilty of manslaughter at a minimum.


Yes true. And I don't live in a state with such laws. But if my car is being bashed in, I can assume that my head is next. If that doesn't hold up in court, well at least I'm alive. 

Edit: And no, theres nowhere to flee on a highway with an angry mob surrounding you.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Yes true. And I don't live in a state with such laws. But if my car is being bashed in, I can assume that my head is next. If that doesn't hold up in court, well at least I'm alive.
> 
> Edit: And no, theres nowhere to flee on a highway with an angry mob surrounding you.



That actually will NOT hold up in any court in the US. You would be charged with manslaughter.


----------



## Alexa run my life

USMarine75 said:


> That actually will NOT hold up in any court in the US. You would be charged with manslaughter.


Well im not sure I agree to that extent. For instance if someone breaks in your house you are supposed to hide in a closet and wait until they leave. If you come out and shoot them, your getting manslaughter. However if they open that closet door and raise a sword over your head as if they are about to thrust it down into your skull, then that is self defense to shoot them dead.

Which is why I think if you are trapped in your car and surround by a mob, then that is literraly your last chance/self defense to stay alive. You are literally trapped and about to die. And if you can prove with a dashboard cam or something, then I think that WILL hold up in court.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Well im not sure I agree to that extent. For instance if someone breaks in your house you are supposed to hide in a closet and wait until they leave. If you come out and shoot them, your getting manslaughter. However if they open that closet door and raise a sword over your head as if they are about to thrust it down into your skull, then that is self defense.
> 
> Which is why I think if you are trapped in your car and surround by a mob, then that is literraly your last chance/self defense to stay alive. You are literally trapped and about to die. And if you can prove with a dashboard cam or something, then I think that WILL hold up in court.



Without going too far off topic... No. You would need to show that a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger AND that this was the only means available for you to survive. Meaning, you had prior knowledge (a priori) that they had intent to kill you and were not just an unruly mob. Did you attempt any other means? Did they say they were going to kill you? Did they have lethal weapons and was there demonstrated intent (or a reasonable belief) to use them on you? Did they use them on you? Use of lethal force would not be authorized without meeting several criteria such as this. In most states the prosecution would charge you with Inv or V manslaughter.

Aren't we talking about a bunch of people that look different than you breaking the mirror on your car?


----------



## Alexa run my life

USMarine75 said:


> Without going too far off topic... No. You would need to show that a reasonable person would believe their life was in danger AND that this was the only means available for you to survive. Meaning, you had prior knowledge (a priori) that they had intent to kill you and were not just an unruly mob. Did you attempt any other means? Did they say they were going to kill you? Did they have lethal weapons and was there demonstrated intent (or a reasonable belief) to use them on you? Did they use them on you? Use of lethal force would not be authorized without meeting several criteria such as this. In most states the prosecution would charge you with Inv or V manslaughter.
> 
> Aren't we talking about a bunch of people that look different than you breaking the mirror on your car?


Ah Ok. So they would have to have said something like "let's kill this white mufucka" in order for it to be justified. Which is a little ridiculous if you ask me because I shouldn't need someone to give me a verbal warning that my life is in danger, for my life to actually be in danger. Anyone with natural human instincts would agree and see my stance was perfectly justified. But these are all hypoethticals

Also,
"Aren't we talking about a bunch of people that look different than you breaking the mirror on your car?"

...admit it, you soooo wanted to say brown people

I say these things with a light heart, not anger or trolling. And yes this is way off topic so we should stop going back and forth about this.


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> Admit it, you soooo wanted to say brown people



Ah, my favorite. "I'm not a racist, you're a racist"


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Ah Ok. So they would have to have said something like "let's kill this white mufucka" in order for it to be justified. Which is a little ridiculous if you ask me because I shouldn't need someone to give me a verbal warning that my life is in danger, for my life to actually be in danger. Anyone with natural human instincts would agree and see my stance was perfectly justified. But these are all hypoethticals
> 
> Also,
> "Aren't we talking about a bunch of people that look different than you breaking the mirror on your car?"
> 
> ...admit it, you soooo wanted to say brown people
> 
> I say these things with a light heart, not anger or trolling. And yes this is way off topic so we should stop going back and forth about this.



I have no problem saying Brown people. Or Black people.

What I hate is "African-American". 

First, if he's a US Citizen he's 100% American. Like that George Floyd fellow was.

Second, how the F do I know where he's from because of his skin color? I once had a friend joke that my Black girlfriend should go back where she's from and she replied "London"?

And you'll just have to trust (or not lol) that I know what I'm talking about regarding case law. You'd be f'd in the A if you tried to use any of your defense above in court. The burden of proof would be on you to show you had no other choice and that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances and what was known to you at the time.

tl;dr Trump


----------



## SpaceDock

Alexa run my life said:


> Ah Ok. So they would have to have said something like "let's kill this white mufucka" in order for it to be justified. Which is a little ridiculous if you ask me because I shouldn't need someone to give me a verbal warning that my life is in danger, for my life to actually be in danger. Anyone with natural human instincts would agree and see my stance was perfectly justified. But these are all hypoethticals
> 
> Also,
> "Aren't we talking about a bunch of people that look different than you breaking the mirror on your car?"
> 
> ...admit it, you soooo wanted to say brown people
> 
> I say these things with a light heart, not anger or trolling. And yes this is way off topic so we should stop going back and forth about this.



Dude Alexa, I want so hard for you to not do this again and again, but isn’t it just the worst when a white person is obsessed with their own perceived persecution? Seriously why are white people thinking up ridiculous scenarios of being attacked by BROWN or BLACK people so they can finally have a reason to defend themselves and use that shiny penis, oops I mean gun they bought. These BLACK and BROWN people are not needing to fantasize being attacked like you are, they are literally being killed by the people paid to protect them. That is what this is all about.


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> Rioters are destroying people's businesses, physically attacking people. IMO, using the military to protect citizens and their property is necessary.
> 
> Its not political. I say that 100% of the time when rioting gets this bad, the sitting president will mobilize the military.



I don't have any issues with bringing in the National Guard to help reinforce the local police departments in protecting citizens, their businesses, homes and other property so long as they do so peacefully. And by that I mean that they do the minimum necessary to protects those people and property they are responsible for rather than instigating violence like Trump's goons did in DC yesterday so he could have a photo op.

Also, the protesters are a different group than the looters and rioters, and have a constitutional right to protest; don't conflate the two. The looters and rioters definitely hide amongst the protesters, but they are not the same group, even though there is likely some overlap.

So how do you protect the people and their property without stepping on the constitutional rights of the peaceful protesters?




GoldDragon said:


> 8) Apparently official autopsy of George Floyd was that he was experiencing Fentanyl intoxication and evidence of Methamphetamine use combined with comorbid health issues causing a heart attack. He did not deserve to die, the police officer snapped and should be charged with Murder 1. One of the other police officers can be heard on video asking the bad cop to roll him onto his side so he can breathe, and Chauvin said "no, hes staying here". Not all the cops should be charged with murder. Also, there is a large section of the video missing.



I won't bother responding to the rest of the comments in this post, but my wife is a nurse, so I am aware that toxicological screenings take anywhere from 2 to 4 weeks to come back from the lab.

How did the official medical examiner get the results back so quickly when everyone else has to wait so long? Is he special or does he perhaps have an agenda to protect these bad (former) cops?


----------



## Alexa run my life

Nevermind


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> Nevermind



Why? That was your best post


----------



## Alexa run my life

It probably would have gotten me in trouble.


----------



## Randy

Since when has that stopped you?


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Why? That was your best post



It is now.



GoldDragon said:


> BTW, I have black family members through marriage and child birth. Go fuck yourself.



And the "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" card has been played. I have Bingo!


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> You are right however, have younnever heard of the stand your ground law?



Ya, I grew up in a state that had one. 30 seconds of wikipedia can answer that you would be breaking the law still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Laws


> ... that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death



Someone hitting your car doesn't count as seriously bodily harm or death unless they are trying to attack you. You still need to provoke them to attack you before you shoot, or just lie about it. You probably were referring to the castle doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions_in_the_United_States

But that doesn't protect you if your are away from home in your car unless you live in North Dakota, Wisconsin, or Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castl...:Stand-your-ground_law_by_US_jurisdiction.svg

Why is it the gun nuts don't understand gun laws?


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/02/politics/steve-king-iowa-primary-election/index.html

I don’t care what side of the aisle you’re on, but this piece of garbage should have been out of public office forever ago. And my problem isn’t with him, it’s with every enabler that voted for him.




fantom said:


> Ya, I grew up in a state that had one. 30 seconds of wikipedia can answer that you would be breaking the law still.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law#Laws
> 
> 
> Someone hitting your car doesn't count as seriously bodily harm or death unless they are trying to attack you. You still need to provoke them to attack you before you shoot, or just lie about it. You probably were referring to the castle doctrine.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#State-by-state_positions_in_the_United_States
> 
> But that doesn't protect you if your are away from home in your car unless you live in North Dakota, Wisconsin, or Ohio.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castl...:Stand-your-ground_law_by_US_jurisdiction.svg
> 
> Why is it the gun nuts don't understand gun laws?



And this is exactly why all states should have mandatory gun laws requiring classes in relevant constitutional law, as well as state and local laws. Not to mention mandatory gun safety, familiarization, and operation.

He’s 100% wrong and yet even when I try and explain he still keeps trying to poke holes in what I’m saying. Someone attacks your car and you even pull out your gun and show it to him To scare him away, and in some states you’re getting time in jail for brandishing. He’s the person who argues why don’t cops fire a warning shot. Or why didn’t they shoot him in the leg. Or why did they have to shoot him 10 times instead of just once. If you don’t like the law, lobby to change it. Otherwise you’re just uselessly bullshitting on an Internet forum. Oh wait. Dammit. Bye.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## ThePIGI King

SpaceDock said:


> Dude Alexa, I want so hard for you to not do this again and again, but isn’t it just the worst when a white person is obsessed with their own perceived persecution? Seriously why are white people thinking up ridiculous scenarios of being attacked by BROWN or BLACK people so they can finally have a reason to defend themselves and use that shiny penis, oops I mean gun they bought. These BLACK and BROWN people are not needing to fantasize being attacked like you are, they are literally being killed by the people paid to protect them. That is what this is all about.


I don't care what color you are, you break into my home and make even a glance at my family and you'll be put down before I even register what race you are.

@possumkiller that picture with the tree...
First example: Be smarter, go to the other side
Second: Why'd you get a ladder way too short? Be smarter.
Third: THERE YA GO JOHNNY!
Fourth: What the hell? What was wrong with the tall ladder that let you get the apple?

I get what you're trying to say, but that's a poor example. That should be titled "Why the world has made helpless losers that would die in the real world". If someone can't figure out how to help themselves, they'll be modern day slaves to whomever is taking care of them.


----------



## vilk

ooo tough guy lol


----------



## zappatton2

ThePIGI King said:


> I don't care what color you are, you break into my home and make even a glance at my family and you'll be put down before I even register what race you are.
> 
> @possumkiller that picture with the tree...
> First example: Be smarter, go to the other side
> Second: Why'd you get a ladder way too short? Be smarter.
> Third: THERE YA GO JOHNNY!
> Fourth: What the hell? What was wrong with the tall ladder that let you get the apple?
> 
> I get what you're trying to say, but that's a poor example. That should be titled "Why the world has made helpless losers that would die in the real world". If someone can't figure out how to help themselves, they'll be modern day slaves to whomever is taking care of them.


The entire point of the graphic is that some people face systemic barriers to opportunity and success that others do not. Part of that is reflected in the concept of white privileged; it's not that white people don't work hard, or face hardships, it's that _being_ white is never a barrier to your success.

A system needs to address those systemic problems so individuals actually have the tools to succeed. And of the "developed nations", the US scores so much lower in social mobility (the opportunity for someone to start from the bottom and work their way up) than nations that invest in public safety nets and tools that smooth over the sharp edges of the economy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index).

I would add that America's deification of monetary wealth, coupled with writing off anyone who is struggling as a "helpless loser" adds a particularly sociopathic cultural barrier that pretty much sums up why America can't seem to progress like social democratic nations have been able to.


----------



## narad

vilk said:


> ooo tough guy lol



Damn. He SOLVED the ladder tree problem??? Researchers have been trying to make headway on that for almost a hundred years!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ThePIGI King said:


> Be smarter, go to the other side



Shhhhh. Nobody tell him.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> That should be titled "Why the world has made helpless losers that would die in the real world". If someone can't figure out how to help themselves, they'll be modern day slaves to whomever is taking care of them.


There was a group in Germany in the 30s and 40s that shared your opinion. I have a little boy with autism. There is no way he would survive on his own. Probably not even when he becomes an adult. So you are saying we should just throw him out to let him fend for himself? Or he is going to become our slave? I really do not think you know anything about the real world. At least from what you write on here. 

That is one thing we can really thank trump for. He has really emboldened all the white supremacists so that they come crawling out of the woodwork and show themselves. It makes it so much easier to see who all of them are and where they come from.


----------



## ThePIGI King

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ment-to-black-civil-war-soldiers-boston-54th/

https://www.wcvb.com/article/shaw-54th-regiment-memorial-defaced/32733306#

@MaxOfMetal tHaTs RaCiSt 

@possumkiller Specials needs are different. However, you posted that pic in a conversation about racism and equality, so mental illnesses weren't what you, or I, were talking about.

As for white supremacist, you throw that around a lot, as if everybody who isn't actively protesting for "equality" is one. I'd say I'm a very equality based person. I don't care what gender, color, religion, height, weight, or whatever somebody is. I treat people on how they are as an individual.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> I'd say I'm a very equality based person.


That's a relief.

The tree analogy was about a system with built-in racial bias. You were the one that brought up eugenics. I guess implying that blacks are "helpless losers that would die in the real world"?


----------



## Alexa run my life

The problem with that tree example is.........Go find another tree!


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> The problem with that tree example is everyone wants what someone else has and that illustrates it. Actually, its not even that someone wants what someone else has, Go find another tree! I bet that tree is on that first guys property


So now the blacks are "helpless losers that would die in the real world" as well as trespassing on the white guy's property and stealing his apples... 

Is this where you exercise your 2nd amendment right to shoot them?


----------



## ThePIGI King

possumkiller said:


> That's a relief.
> 
> The tree analogy was about a system with built-in racial bias. You were the one that brought up eugenics. I guess implying that blacks are "helpless losers that would die in the real world"?


How is the analogy about "built-in racial bias"? You can just walk to the other side of the tree and then BAM! You get apples too. Or if you know the tree is higher on your side, get a taller ladder than the other guy. Or pay him for his apples (yay commerce) or barter (yay old time commerce). Or, again, the easiest option, walk around the tree? Maybe a total of 15 feet. If you can't figure out how to walk 10 or 15 feet, and you're a non-handicapped or special needs person, then yes, you are helpless, regardless of color. I know a one year old that knows to walk over to stuff it wants.

Plus, in the illustration, both the kids are white


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Analogies are hard.


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> So now the blacks are "helpless losers that would die in the real world" as well as trespassing on the white guy's property and stealing his apples...
> 
> Is this where you exercise your 2nd amendment right to shoot them?


Watch it with the unnecesaary skin color name throwing and putting words in my mouth


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> Watch it with the unnecesaary skin color name throwing and putting words in my mouth


I don't have to put any words in your mouth. They flow freely from your mouth and are there for everyone to see.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> The problem with that tree example is.........Go find another tree!


Yeah, why can't everybody find their own place to manifest destiny.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> How is the analogy about "built-in racial bias"? You can just walk to the other side of the tree and then BAM! You get apples too. Or if you know the tree is higher on your side, get a taller ladder than the other guy. Or pay him for his apples (yay commerce) or barter (yay old time commerce). Or, again, the easiest option, walk around the tree? Maybe a total of 15 feet. If you can't figure out how to walk 10 or 15 feet, and you're a non-handicapped or special needs person, then yes, you are helpless, regardless of color. I know a one year old that knows to walk over to stuff it wants.
> 
> Plus, in the illustration, both the kids are white








Short people, am I right?


----------



## Randy

Go find a different sport! Go get a different pair of legs!


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Go find a different sport! Go get a different pair of legs!


Motherfuckers probably don't even have tickets. Trying to illegally watch a sports game that all us hard workin folk pay good money to see. LOCK EM UP!


----------



## Alexa run my life

Or, chop off the fathers legs to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator! That's ageism!


----------



## Randy

I'm getting enjoyment out of how only one 'side' of this discussion can't grasp the concept of an analogy.


----------



## zappatton2

Randy said:


> I'm getting enjoyment out of how only one 'side' of this discussion can't grasp the concept of an analogy.


I've been noticing the sheer volume of concepts left ungrasped, and have wondered if, at this point, it's simply an active refusal to grasp rather than the inability to.


----------



## USMarine75

ThePIGI King said:


> I don't care what color you are, you break into my home and make even a glance at my family and you'll be put down before I even register what race you are.
> 
> @possumkiller that picture with the tree...
> First example: Be smarter, go to the other side
> Second: Why'd you get a ladder way too short? Be smarter.
> Third: THERE YA GO JOHNNY!
> Fourth: What the hell? What was wrong with the tall ladder that let you get the apple?
> 
> I get what you're trying to say, but that's a poor example. That should be titled "Why the world has made helpless losers that would die in the real world". If someone can't figure out how to help themselves, they'll be modern day slaves to whomever is taking care of them.



0/6

Congratulations, you're the human version of the Browns.


----------



## narad

understands analogy
-> passes SAT
-> goes to college
-> gets job

doesn't understand analogy
-> fails SAT
-> hangs around town
-> gets bitter, buys red hat


----------



## shadowlife

ThePIGI King said:


> I don't care what color you are, you break into my home and make even a glance at my family and you'll be put down before I even register what race you are.



Amen.

It's a sad indication where society is at when a man's basic right to defend his home and family is taken away in all but a few places, and when some one says they would be willing to do so, the immediate reaction is to make fun of them as a "tough guy".

I'd wager anyone using the cute "tough guy" response has never been the victim of a violent crime, or had to visit a loved one in the hospital (or cemetery) because they were the victim of a violent crime.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> Amen.
> 
> It's a sad indication where society is at when a man's basic right to defend his home and family is taken away in all but a few places,



I don't need a gun. No one's going to be able to break into my home because they'd have to pass a million security checks, and in this strategy I have a 0% chance at killing any friend or family member. I don't know why people think that guns are the only way one has to defend their place. I'm amazed that people will do very little to secure their premises, but talk about the need for guns and some cool grip, and what kind of ammo they want to use, and stopping power this or that. Just say you want it 'cause it's cool and I'll believe you more. 

All that talk about "What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun." Well... sometimes. Kinda a toss-up isn't it? You know what stops a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of walls. I've never seen a gunman win a fight with a wall before.


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> I don't need a gun. No one's going to be able to break into my home because they'd have to pass a million security checks, and in this strategy I have a 0% chance at killing any friend or family member. I don't know why people think that guns are the only way one has to defend their place. I'm amazed that people will do very little to secure their premises, but talk about the need for guns and some cool grip, and what kind of ammo they want to use, and stopping power this or that. Just say you want it 'cause it's cool and I'll believe you more.
> 
> All that talk about "What stops a bad guy with a gun? A good guy with a gun." Well... sometimes. Kinda a toss-up isn't it? You know what stops a bad guy with a gun. A bunch of walls. I've never seen a gunman win a fight with a wall before.



While I understand your view, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I shouldn't need "a million security checks" to stop someone from entering my home who doesn't belong there. Not entering someone else's home is something that every person who's not severely mentally disabled knows is correct behavior. So anyone choosing to enter someone els'es home (and let's be honest, if they're breaking into someone's home, it's because they are intent on committing a crime) is setting themselves up for the consequences of such action. You may not feel that shooting them is justified- that's your right. But there are plenty of people who do feel it is justified, and those people should be able to do so without being treated like they are the criminals.

I do agree with you that not having a gun takes away the chance of shooting a friend or family member, and is why I think training classes for anyone who wants to own a gun should be required before they are allowed to purchase a weapon.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Alexa run my life said:


> The problem with that tree example is.........Go find another tree!



The tree is a metaphor for opportunity, it's not actually just a tree, or say it is a tree, there's things in place that don't qualify you from owning another nice tree, or you were taken from your tree to help someone else pick their tree, or you found another tree but somebody called the police on you because it didn't look like you could have a tree that nice and now you have been shot.

The point was to demonstrate the meaning of equality and equity and things like that, it's showing that with equity everyone gets what they need, it's not pie, somebody getting more respect doesn't mean you get less.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> While I understand your view, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> I shouldn't need "a million security checks" to stop someone from entering my home who doesn't belong there. Not entering someone else's home is something that every person who's not severely mentally disabled knows is correct behavior. So anyone choosing to enter someone els'es home (and let's be honest, if they're breaking into someone's home, it's because they are intent on committing a crime) is setting themselves up for the consequences of such action. You may not feel that shooting them is justified- that's your right. But there are plenty of people who do feel it is justified, and those people should be able to do so without being treated like they are the criminals.
> 
> I do agree with you that not having a gun takes away the chance of shooting a friend or family member, and is why I think training classes for anyone who wants to own a gun should be required before they are allowed to purchase a weapon.


So what you're saying is we need societal structures that reduce dependence on crime?


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> So what you're saying is we need societal structures that reduce dependence on crime?



While yes, "reduce" doesn't mean eliminate, but also: there are also just assholes.


----------



## JSanta

shadowlife said:


> While I understand your view, we'll have to agree to disagree.
> I shouldn't need "a million security checks" to stop someone from entering my home who doesn't belong there. Not entering someone else's home is something that every person who's not severely mentally disabled knows is correct behavior. So anyone choosing to enter someone els'es home (and let's be honest, if they're breaking into someone's home, it's because they are intent on committing a crime) is setting themselves up for the consequences of such action. You may not feel that shooting them is justified- that's your right. But there are plenty of people who do feel it is justified, and those people should be able to do so without being treated like they are the criminals.
> 
> I do agree with you that not having a gun takes away the chance of shooting a friend or family member, and is why I think training classes for anyone who wants to own a gun should be required before they are allowed to purchase a weapon.



I keep going back to the same thing. If you are a legal gun owner and are protecting your home, and don't have extensive firearms training, along with how to properly use that firearm in a confined space, like your home, it's a recipe for disaster. In the Army, we spend months going through drills on how to clear rooms and buildings well before ever being asked to do that with live rounds. And more than that, we learn to become intimately familiar with our assigned weapon(s). Even being an Infantryman with extensive weapons and room clearing tactics, it's still a huge risk.

This is more than training classes, this is a way of life that we are trained on to know when to and not to squeeze the trigger. It's the breathing and the immediate threat analysis training that we have to help figure out these situations with near immediacy. And even then, mistakes are made.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that people make about defending their homes with a firearm the way I've seen posted by many people here. The years of training it takes to really be able to make the decision to end a life is not going to be covered in a few weapons handling courses. And to expect a civilian to make those choices without the kind of training I've had is not reasonable. And even with my training, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable making that choice.


----------



## Boofchuck

We seem to be getting off topic and deep into hypotheticals here. 

And yes, the "right" to own firearms does not qualify most people to handle them responsibly.

This is coming from a victim of a violent crime in which someone died. Very rarely will a firearm make a situation better.


----------



## Alexa run my life

possumkiller said:


> So now the blacks are "helpless losers that would die in the real world" as well as trespassing on the white guy's property and stealing his apples...
> 
> Is this where you exercise your 2nd amendment right to shoot them?



Heres what I said that you responded to and nowhere did I mention race or color, nor was it on my mind. 

"The problem with that tree example is everyone wants what someone else has and that illustrates it. Actually, its not even that someone wants what someone else has, Go find another tree! I bet that tree is on that first guys property" 

What I said actually wasn't a metaphor to anything, but is literally about the giving tree pictures.

I guess your "open racism" from the past is still lingering.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Boofchuck said:


> Very rarely will a firearm make a situation better.



It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.


----------



## JSanta

Boofchuck said:


> We seem to be getting off topic and deep into hypotheticals here.
> 
> And yes, the "right" to own firearms does not qualify most people to handle them responsibly.
> 
> This is coming from a victim of a violent crime in which someone died. Very rarely will a firearm make a situation better.



I agree with you here. I do think the relevance is the fetish-ization of firearms and how ownership applies to the second amendment are relevant to the overall discussion.

To be clear, I am not calling for the abolishment of private firearm ownership. But I do think the laws are too lax.


----------



## JSanta

Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.



That's a stretch, at best. Again, you give me the impression you've never had to make the decision to fire a weapon at another human being.


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.



"Better" is a subjective term. "Wrong side" is also a subjective term.


----------



## Boofchuck

Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.


Killing somebody is not so simple.


----------



## StevenC

Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.


Have you considered psychiatric help?


----------



## possumkiller

Alexa run my life said:


> What I said actually wasn't a metaphor to anything, but is literally about the giving tree pictures.


If you say so. You probably should have thought of that defense to begin with instead of editing it out of your original post only to later realize that editing your post doesn't edit it out of the posts of people quoting you.

I never said I used to be an open racist. I was a quiet cowardly racist in private like most racists. I was only openly racist in the company of other racists.


----------



## ImNotAhab

It is very, very distressing to see what is happening in the US at the moment. Looting is dumb and ultimately counterproductive but the brutality from the police is disgusting. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like to be a black person in the US.

I hope there is some real change soon.


----------



## Randy

I don't know which frequent flyer Alexa is, I'm assuming it's Metal Hex, but until that's resolved I'm recommending everyone ignoring him because every thread he sticks his nose in gets derailed. There's nothing wrong with confronting someone with opposing ideas but this is the same troll deflection stuff Metal Hex did, and it's not about someone with alternative positions, it's literally contrarian distractions so that we DON'T discuss things of substance. It's a waste of time chasing a moving target or someone with no investment in their arguments.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> I don't know which frequent flyer Alexa is, I'm assuming it's Metal Hex, but until that's resolved I'm recommending everyone ignoring him because every thread he sticks his nose in gets derailed. There's nothing wrong with confronting someone with opposing ideas but this is the same troll deflection stuff Metal Hex did, and it's not about someone with alternative positions, it's literally contrarian distractions so that we DON'T discuss things of substance. It's a waste of time chasing a moving target or someone with no investment in their arguments.


I get the hint


----------



## Necris

The Sartre quote about anti-semites is pretty applicable to certain posters, change the descriptor and it's a perfect fit:


> "Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse, for by giving ridiculous reasons they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."


----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> I get the hint



You notice I didn't make the same recommendation about Gold Dragon or jax or shadowlife? I don't care if you're conservative, and I'm not going to ban you for your politics or even if I think you're annoying. I just gathered that this goes beyond either of those things and it's becoming clear you're someone that was banned here before for a reason.


----------



## shadowlife

StevenC said:


> So what you're saying is we need societal structures that reduce dependence on crime?



No, we need societal structures that don't treat law-abiding citizens who decide to defend themselves against criminals as if they are the criminals.
I do agree with those who've said that this has gotten too far off the main topic, so feel free to start a new thread about dependence on crime if it is a subject that interests you.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.



Spoken like an idiot who will spend 10 years in jail for manslaughter.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> No, we need societal structures that don't treat law-abiding citizens who decide to defend themselves against criminals as if they are the criminals.
> I do agree with those who've said that this has gotten too far off the main topic, so feel free to start a new thread about dependence on crime if it is a subject that interests you.


Cart, meet Horse


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Necris said:


> The Sartre quote about anti-semites is pretty applicable to certain posters, change the descriptor and it's a perfect fit:



wow this was spot on!


----------



## Alexa run my life

Randy said:


> You notice I didn't make the same recommendation about Gold Dragon or jax or shadowlife? I don't care if you're conservative, and I'm not going to ban you for your politics or even if I think you're annoying. I just gathered that this goes beyond either of those things and it's becoming clear you're someone that was banned here before for a reason.



Well I apologize but It's just that I've had i think 3 insults hurled at me in the past week, and I have not insulted anybody. Some button-pushing jabs, some direct. It makes me suspicous of what is and isn't allowed here since those members are still thriving here it seems. It certainly can't be the first time they've insulted anyone as at least one of those members have been here for years. So it's hard to believe that this was their first time ever insulting another member. 

Couple that with the fact there are only a few conservatives here, and one gets an ever-slight hint of biased banning.

I think it's great that you wont ban people for having different opinions, (over at TGP, they allow 0 politics)...but does that mean that another mod wouldn't?


----------



## Vyn

shadowlife said:


> Amen.
> 
> It's a sad indication where society is at when a man's basic right to defend his home and family is taken away in all but a few places, and when some one says they would be willing to do so, the immediate reaction is to make fun of them as a "tough guy".
> 
> I'd wager anyone using the cute "tough guy" response has never been the victim of a violent crime, or had to visit a loved one in the hospital (or cemetery) because they were the victim of a violent crime.



So it's only a man's basic right? What about a woman's? Oh sorry, forgot that woman don't have rights. Carry on being chauvinist.

A "man's basic right to defend his home and family" is the most bullshit thing I've seen on this board in a while. This whole "I am an American man and therefore I am a super protector of all" attitude and way of thinking needs to go in the bin.


----------



## TedEH

Oh hey, a politically charged thread that I'm mostly out of the loop on.... Lets jump in!



Vyn said:


> So it's only a man's basic right? What about a woman's? Oh sorry, forgot that woman don't have rights. Carry on being chauvinist.


Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the premise of shadowlife's comment, but this is a blatant intentional misreading of what he said.

I'm generally not "on the side of" the more conservative members here, but to a point, comments like this are just going to provoke the kinds of conversations you're complaining about being disruptive. "I disagree with you, I bet you're also a sexist" is just as ridiculous as the trolling on the other side.


----------



## Alexa run my life

shadowlife said:


> the immediate reaction is to make fun of them as a "tough guy



You were half right, it's actually "chauvinist", not tough guy.


----------



## Vyn

TedEH said:


> Oh hey, a politically charged thread that I'm mostly out of the loop on.... Lets jump in!
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the premise of shadowlife's comment, but this is a blatant intentional misreading of what he said.
> 
> I'm generally not "on the side of" the more conservative members here, but to a point, comments like this are just going to provoke the kinds of conversations you're complaining about being disruptive. "I disagree with you, I bet you're also a sexist" is just as ridiculous as the trolling on the other side.



I'm going to be the first to admit that there wasn't much (if anything) constructive about that post and I mainly made it out of anger and frustration at seeing the same goddamn argument being made and phrased word-for-word over and over again as to why dudes need to keep guns in their homes. I could go through the same arguments that everyone else has against these guys as to why their way of thinking needs to change (and kudos to a lot of the people on this board, they have phrased things far more eloquently and intelligently that I ever could). I'm tired of trying to use proper debating techniques, researching, posting cited and sourced examples (not just on SSO, on other boards as well) just to have some (fuck it, it's been called out but I'm going to use it anyway) 'tough guy' ingore all of it and go 'But the 2nd! I need mah guns!"


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...nounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/

James Freaking Mattis called Trump a threat to the constitution.

I don’t think we’re topping that right now.


----------



## TedEH

Vyn said:


> I mainly made it out of anger and frustration


There's a lot of that going around this year. 

As a tiny positive takeaway, this year has seen the most people admitting that we mean well and have been acting on frustration.


----------



## Vyn

TedEH said:


> There's a lot of that going around this year.
> 
> As a tiny positive takeaway, this year has seen the most people admitting that we mean well and have been acting on frustration.



Agreed. It's been a hell of a long year.


----------



## TedEH

More on the topic of the thread - I somehow ended up on Trump's facebook page, and I've officially had my fill of internet for today. Brain is getting shut off for the rest of the evening.


----------



## fantom

JSanta said:


> I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument that people make about defending their homes with a firearm the way I've seen posted by many people here. The years of training it takes to really be able to make the decision to end a life is not going to be covered in a few weapons handling courses. And to expect a civilian to make those choices without the kind of training I've had is not reasonable. And even with my training, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable making that choice.



I think there is an assumption here that people care about whether or not they end someone else's life. Have you read what has been posted here?



ThePIGI King said:


> I don't care what color you are, you break into my home and make even a glance at my family and you'll be put down before I even register what race you are





shadowlife said:


> You may not feel that shooting them is justified- that's your right. But there are plenty of people who do feel it is justified, and those people should be able to do so without being treated like they are the criminals.





Alexa run my life said:


> It does if you are not on the wrong side of the barrel.



Let me try to explain this a way that most conservatives understand
Exodus 20:13


----------



## Randy

Steve Bannon leading the Chinese invasion of the US or what? The fuck was that?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> Steve Bannon leading the Chinese invasion of the US or what? The fuck was that?



Link?? I seem to have missed this in my daily news foraging lol.


----------



## Randy

https://twitter.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1268328603571240961

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BdGYQZPNeLGX?t=15m19s

https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/f...welcome-to-federal-state-of-new-china/788875/


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> Exodus 20:13



Is the portmanteau of the words "shall not", "shat"?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

fantom said:


> Let me try to explain this a way that most conservatives understand
> Exodus 20:13



Yea nice try, however if you want to use the bible, (any religious text for that matter) in an argument at least know what is in the damned thing.

Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief is caught breaking in and is beaten to death, no one shall be guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, there is guilt for his bloodshed.

Its all over Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers about legal killing of idolaters, sorcerers and more.
Want some new testament? Ive got Jesus telling a disciple to sell his cloak to buy a sword Luke 22:36-38

Disclaimer: I am no longer religious but having spent more of my childhood in a chruch than out of one, the shit was ingrained.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Is the portmanteau of the words "shall not", "shat"?



I believe it is shant....

Edit: It is https://www.dictionary.com/browse/shant


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea nice try, however if you want to use the bible, (any religious text for that matter) in an argument at least know what is in the damned thing.
> 
> Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief is caught breaking in and is beaten to death, no one shall be guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, there is guilt for his bloodshed.
> 
> Its all over Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers about legal killing of idolaters, sorcerers and more.
> Want some new testament? Ive got Jesus telling a disciple to sell his cloak to buy a sword Luke 22:36-38
> 
> Disclaimer: I am no longer religious but having spent more of my childhood in a chruch than out of one, the shit was ingrained.



Wait, there's wizards in the Old Testament? I gotta brush up, that's awesome.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> https://twitter.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1268328603571240961
> 
> https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BdGYQZPNeLGX?t=15m19s
> 
> https://dailyvoice.com/new-jersey/f...welcome-to-federal-state-of-new-china/788875/



Most Extreme Elimination Challenge


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Wait, there's wizards in the Old Testament? I gotta brush up, that's awesome.



It was a new class for the second DLC pack.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> Wait, there's wizards in the Old Testament? I gotta brush up, that's awesome.



Spies, sex, war, magic, demons, life lessons (logical ones) what else can you ask for in a book lol. The Old Testament can be a page turner at times, once you get familiar with the phrasing and structure.


----------



## Drew

Alexa run my life said:


> Well I apologize but It's just that I've had i think 3 insults hurled at me in the past week...


I'm sorry, that's your idea of a bad week? Oh, sweet child...


----------



## Randy

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea nice try, however if you want to use the bible, (any religious text for that matter) in an argument at least know what is in the damned thing.
> 
> Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief is caught breaking in and is beaten to death, no one shall be guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, there is guilt for his bloodshed.
> 
> Its all over Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers about legal killing of idolaters, sorcerers and more.
> Want some new testament? Ive got Jesus telling a disciple to sell his cloak to buy a sword Luke 22:36-38
> 
> Disclaimer: I am no longer religious but having spent more of my childhood in a chruch than out of one, the shit was ingrained.



I'm semi-religious or at least appreciative of religion in a general sense, but I always thought the Bible as more of like an Aesop's Fables. Most of the stories have some kind of a moral or practical applications, although obviously most of them don't hold up 2000 years later. Like, I don't think God tells you not to fuck someone in the butt because it's sinful, he tells you not to do it because there wasn't indoor plumbing or toilet paper back then, etc.


----------



## fantom

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea nice try, however if you want to use the bible, (any religious text for that matter) in an argument at least know what is in the damned thing.
> 
> Exodus 22:2-3: If a thief is caught breaking in and is beaten to death, no one shall be guilty of bloodshed. But if it happens after sunrise, there is guilt for his bloodshed.
> 
> Its all over Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers about legal killing of idolaters, sorcerers and more.
> Want some new testament? Ive got Jesus telling a disciple to sell his cloak to buy a sword Luke 22:36-38
> 
> Disclaimer: I am no longer religious but having spent more of my childhood in a chruch than out of one, the shit was ingrained.



I have read it... Many times. Reformed non-christian here. Note I said "the way most conservatives would understand". Most conservatives I know haven't actually read the bible. Let's not get into a who was forced to go to church more dick size contest. I agree I'm not even touching the surface and more meant to incite the discussion. You are right to call me out on that part.



Randy said:


> Wait, there's wizards in the Old Testament? I gotta brush up, that's awesome.



The old testament is great source material if you just need some black metal concepts.


----------



## ThePIGI King

Vyn said:


> I'm going to be the first to admit that there wasn't much (if anything) constructive about that post and I mainly made it out of anger and frustration at seeing the same goddamn argument being made and phrased word-for-word over and over again as to why dudes need to keep guns in their homes. I could go through the same arguments that everyone else has against these guys as to why their way of thinking needs to change (and kudos to a lot of the people on this board, they have phrased things far more eloquently and intelligently that I ever could). I'm tired of trying to use proper debating techniques, researching, posting cited and sourced examples (not just on SSO, on other boards as well) just to have some (fuck it, it's been called out but I'm going to use it anyway) 'tough guy' ingore all of it and go 'But the 2nd! I need mah guns!"


To be fair, other than self defense purposes, I view firearms the way I view my guitars. If it's a not inclement weather, all I wanna do on the weekend is go to the range (I prefer outdoors). Because it is simply fun to shoot IMO. Hearing that *ting* of steel targets is like when you nail that sweep in a solo! And so you learn more, like proper reloading, how to speed it up, different techniques to switch between targets, etc. And it all is a fun time.

Not to mention competition shooting. That's another animal! And a challenging one.

I think too often people associate firearms with violence that they forget that it can also be a sport, a hobby, and even a means of living (hunting, even Canada, who banned many different kinds of rifles recently allows hunting).

Also, slightly sidebar, despite me being a die-hard believer in guns being a right, I do hear what @JSanta is saying about training. Guns are and can be dangerous. But if you learn properly and practice a metric dick-ton, you can mitigate safety issues and hopefully minimize the risk if you ever use one. I carry my CCW 99% of my life (unless laws say I can't) and until I trained with professionals and practiced for hours with thousands of rounds I wasn't fully comfortable with it. I also pray I never have to point it at another person. But if I have to, to protect myself or family, I will.

Okay, I'm done for now


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> I'm semi-religious or at least appreciative of religion in a general sense, but I always thought the Bible as more of like an Aesop's Fables. Most of the stories have some kind of a moral or practical applications, although obviously most of them don't hold up 2000 years later. Like, I don't think God tells you not to fuck someone in the butt because it's sinful, he tells you not to do it because there wasn't indoor plumbing or toilet paper back then, etc.



I guess by time I figure out how anal sex and indoor plumbing are related, I'll either be a liberal or a plumber. No offense to liberals


----------



## ThePIGI King

fantom said:


> I guess by time I figure out how anal sex and indoor plumbing are related, I'll either be a liberal or a plumber. No offense to liberals


Bidet?


----------



## Randy

ThePIGI King said:


> To be fair, other than self defense purposes, I view firearms the way I view my guitars. If it's a not inclement weather, all I wanna do on the weekend is go to the range (I prefer outdoors). Because it is simply fun to shoot IMO. Hearing that *ting* of steel targets is like when you nail that sweep in a solo! And so you learn more, like proper reloading, how to speed it up, different techniques to switch between targets, etc. And it all is a fun time.
> 
> Not to mention competition shooting. That's another animal! And a challenging one.
> 
> I think too often people associate firearms with violence that they forget that it can also be a sport, a hobby, and even a means of living (hunting, even Canada, who banned many different kinds of rifles recently allows hunting).
> 
> Also, slightly sidebar, despite me being a die-hard believer in guns being a right, I do hear what @JSanta is saying about training. Guns are and can be dangerous. But if you learn properly and practice a metric dick-ton, you can mitigate safety issues and hopefully minimize the risk if you ever use one. I carry my CCW 99% of my life (unless laws say I can't) and until I trained with professionals and practiced for hours with thousands of rounds I wasn't fully comfortable with it. I also pray I never have to point it at another person. But if I have to, to protect myself or family, I will.
> 
> Okay, I'm done for now



Hunting and sport shooting are both awesome, full stop.

That said, with how much you appreciate the importance of how you handle a firearm, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact there are some people who handle them despite being woefully untrained or irresponsible. I was at a birthday thing not that long ago and someone mentioned that they had their pistol in their backpack and they were gonna try to sell it because it was jamming and generally unreliable. After four beers, proceeds to pull it out of the backpack and they're prying on it, loading and unloading and it's point everywhere, his head, my head, his dad's head, etc. I was like okay, I'm getting out of here before this goes south.

I'm not going to try and make some overarching, super specific point there but I'd say that there are people who respect their weapon (and by association, I'd be less concerned to be around) and then there are people that are not and endanger everyone around them.


----------



## SpaceDock

I have sadly witnessed uncontrolled handling like you are describing and know far more negatively affected by guns than positively. Sport shooting is fun but weapons in the home are really dangerous. People spend so much time worrying about being a victim that they are victimizing themselves. I am prepared to defend myself if that ever happens but people are too flippant with guns in America.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

Randy said:


> I'm semi-religious or at least appreciative of religion in a general sense, but I always thought the Bible as more of like an Aesop's Fables. Most of the stories have some kind of a moral or practical applications, although obviously most of them don't hold up 2000 years later. Like, I don't think God tells you not to fuck someone in the butt because it's sinful, he tells you not to do it because there wasn't indoor plumbing or toilet paper back then, etc.



It does have many applicable to this day, for example dont eat unclean animals. Its generally not a good idea to eat bats, hyrax, or carrion eaters.
The item you bring up is generally framed with the language detestable to the lord, as opposed to being unclean, which they tend to be very clear on. 

There is a practical application to that which only becomes clear with other clarifications, it boils down to population. The only line per wanking it reads: it is better that your seed falls into a whore than upon the ground. Survival was the main goal and sexual energy spent not making children is wasted energy. For a society constantly at war, or enslaved, whose opponents often practiced sex magic (no jew may be a temple prostitute male or female) it makes sense. Those combined factors made it both a spiritual and pragmatic choice for them to frown upon homosexuality, especially with the infant mortality rates of those days.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

fantom said:


> I have read it... Many times. Reformed non-christian here. Note I said "the way most conservatives would understand". Most conservatives I know haven't actually read the bible. Let's not get into a who was forced to go to church more dick size contest. I agree I'm not even touching the surface and more meant to incite the discussion. You are right to call me out on that part.



Yes there are many that dont, and they will often preach the loudest. I was unsure that you had, as many people that just go straight to thou shall not kill, in discussions havent and use that to shut things down, I assumed, my mistake.

Nope not aiming for a religious dick measurement. (So many untapped catholic jokes.....)




> The old testament is great source material if you just need some black metal concepts.



Fuck yes it is


----------



## Vyn

ThePIGI King said:


> To be fair, other than self defense purposes, I view firearms the way I view my guitars. If it's a not inclement weather, all I wanna do on the weekend is go to the range (I prefer outdoors). Because it is simply fun to shoot IMO. Hearing that *ting* of steel targets is like when you nail that sweep in a solo! And so you learn more, like proper reloading, how to speed it up, different techniques to switch between targets, etc. And it all is a fun time.
> 
> Not to mention competition shooting. That's another animal! And a challenging one.
> 
> I think too often people associate firearms with violence that they forget that it can also be a sport, a hobby, and even a means of living (hunting, even Canada, who banned many different kinds of rifles recently allows hunting).
> 
> Also, slightly sidebar, despite me being a die-hard believer in guns being a right, I do hear what @JSanta is saying about training. Guns are and can be dangerous. But if you learn properly and practice a metric dick-ton, you can mitigate safety issues and hopefully minimize the risk if you ever use one. I carry my CCW 99% of my life (unless laws say I can't) and until I trained with professionals and practiced for hours with thousands of rounds I wasn't fully comfortable with it. I also pray I never have to point it at another person. But if I have to, to protect myself or family, I will.
> 
> Okay, I'm done for now



I'm all for gun clubs/ranges/target sports (I'm an archer myself and understand the satisfaction of nailing a bullseye, it'd be a tad hypocritical for me to call those out!) however in the case of my bow for example (ignoring that guns are more accurate and can fire faster for the moment) unless I am on the range, it is dissembled and stored safely. In Australia with guns used for recreational hunting/gun clubs/target sports, they have to be locked up in a safe that meets a minimum standard at all times when not being used, and that's after you've joined a club, passed a comprehensive psych and police check before you can even buy one.

The issue I have is that i don't buy the "I need my guns to defend myself" argument, or that guns should be as easily available as there are. The idea that John Smith can just walk into a store and buy one with no formal training is beyond insane.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

On the whole gun thing its a tool. Just like any other it can be used improperly and can have massive repercussions. But if I need a gun I should be able to get one, whichever suits my task. Its a listed right to keep and bear arms in the founding documents of the US and my state of residence. Nevermind the natural right to self defence by whatever means necessary, which knows no man made border, its part of the human condition.

Training is very key, thats what regulated was reffering to in the 2nd ammendment. In my case I was taught about proper weapon handling as soon as I asked my dad (former Navy shore patrolman) about his shotgun when I was in kindergarten. First thing out of his mouth was quite literally "All guns are loaded all the time, until YOU physically check", and the rest of the rules followed and were hammered in harder than gospel. It turned out to be a good thing he started me young, as soon both of my parents were working in armored car service, so there were pistols, all day, everyday.
There werent any issues because everyone in the house was trained on proper weapon handling for rifles, shotguns, autos and revolvers. Even though they only had shotguns and auto pistols.

Fun fact atleast in Indiana, gun saftey used to be taught in elementary schools. Hell my sister's HS had a functioning small bore rifle range (for JROTC) until atleast 2008ish. Im firmly of the opinion that there would be far fewer issues with unsafe behavior if that was still taught in school.


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> On the whole gun thing its a tool.



I don't buy this "it's just a tool" argument. Basically everything is "just a tool". A bunch of high-grade explosives are just a tool. Acid is just a tool. Bombs are tools. What actions and outcomes are enabled by the tool are an important consideration.

And in terms of trying to shift emphasis to the people, not "the tool", because gun ownership is treated as a right and not a privilege, I can't even trust that the people who own them are mentally stable or able to understand an analogy. The fact that the people who are typically least educated, most into "tough guy" lingo, and seemingly most eager to shoot something are the ones with the guns is a real shaking-my-head moment. I mean, open carry? What a dumb idea that is. We still have to honor people's desire to cosplay as cowboys in the year 2020?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> I don't buy this "it's just a tool" argument. Basically everything is "just a tool". A bunch of high-grade explosives are just a tool. Acid is just a tool. Bombs are tools. What actions and outcomes are enabled by the tool are an important consideration.



Indeed it is a tool just as are most things humans make, by definition are tools. 
Bombs and explosives? Mining.
Acid? Clearing drains, etching and degreasing. 
Gun? Food, pest removal or deterrence. 
Yes all of those can be used to bad ends doesnt mean they will be. The same can be said of a car, a hammer, and a stick.



> And in terms of trying to shift emphasis to the people, not "the tool", because gun ownership is treated as a right and not a privilege, I can't even trust that the people who own them are mentally stable or able to understand an analogy. The fact that the people who are typically least educated, most into "tough guy" lingo, and seemingly most eager to shoot something are the ones with the guns is a real shaking-my-head moment. I mean, open carry? What a dumb idea that is. We still have to honor people's desire to cosplay as cowboys in the year 2020?



The reason it is treated as a right is because it is listed and protected as one, in the document that began the country in which I reside, thus here it is a right and shall be until you get a super majority of states to ammend it, many would also have to ammend thier state constitution as well. Just remember as a nation we can barely agree on who to bomb or not, so good luck with that. Freedom can be dangerous, sorry.

Yea if there was better education on the matter then there would probabaly be less of that mentality, or at least it wouldnt be the first thing some people think of when it comes to gun owners.

Open carry is a deterrence method little else, it shows everyone the force they are ready to take. I personally feel its stupid as it makes you a target. I can legally carry my rifle slung on my back, condition 0 and walk around town, doesnt mean I do. Doesnt mean other people cant.

Really? So you're saying in 2020, we should not respect that a dude wants cosplay as a cowboy, which still exist in a manner and he may not be a cosplayer, he may be a ferrier.
However also in 2020, we should respect dude when he wants cosplay as a cat and self identify as one of a number of different things.
Seems inconsistent.


----------



## StevenC

I'm so sorry that your country has failed to the point that some of you don't feel safe walking down the street without your anti-tyranny tool.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

StevenC said:


> I'm so sorry that your country has failed to the point that some of you don't feel safe walking down the street without your anti-tyranny tool.



Failed, yea about that. We were explicitly encouraged, by the guys that fought to leave the monarchy and founded this republic, to be armed. So to that end being armed can very easily be seen as a civic duty. Read the Federalist papers, or just about anything most of those guys say about arms or being armed.
And yes it can be an anti-tyranny tool, as well and more often, an anti-burglar, and anti-varmint tool.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

And domestic violence tool...

https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/guns_and_dv0.pdf

https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-intimate-partner-violence/

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/

We should just pick a date every year to specifically hash out this same argument again and again.


----------



## narad

When we invent laser guns we really need to call them blasters or something so people don't consider this a constitutional right. I mean, it was a smart thing to put in the constitution at the time, and it made sense them, but man did it need some sort of qualification on the advancement of the technology.

"The people need the guns to put the government in check, lest we see again the exploitation of the people!"

Time-traveler: "Well the government has a weapon that drops from the stratosphere and can in a single blast destroy both Lexington and Concord."

"Oh, uh, and the guns?"

Time-traveler: "Nope, just regular ol' bullets"

"I see..."


----------



## TedEH

ThePIGI King said:


> To be fair, other than self defense purposes, I view firearms the way I view my guitars. If it's a not inclement weather, all I wanna do on the weekend is go to the range (I prefer outdoors). Because it is simply fun to shoot IMO. Hearing that *ting* of steel targets is like when you nail that sweep in a solo! And so you learn more, like proper reloading, how to speed it up, different techniques to switch between targets, etc. And it all is a fun time.


I already typed up my view in another thread - and I do think a gun is "just a tool", but in the sense that it's not really a right - it's something required in some cases, but usually not necessary for a given situation. And it's something that should be treated with respect for what it is. You wouldn't keep a bomb or a vat of acid around without special training and a whole mountain of precautions. And you'd still act in a fearful/cautious way despite those precautions - because you respect what the item is.

The gun problem is entirely an attitude problem. The problem is not _that there are guns_ or _that people have guns_, the problem is _the handling of guns_, and the _the unhealthy attitudes and culture surrounding them_, and the application of their use when it's really not appropriate, and the insistence on having them, any variation of them, widely available for unrealistic reasons. I said it before - almost everyone will claim to be a responsible gun owner, but many gun _enthusiasts_ will act in ways that would disqualify them from being "responsible". (I hesitate to say "most", but anecdotally speaking...)

I would be willing to bet that most anti-gun people are not anti-_all-guns_. Sometimes a gun is appropriate. Are you a hunter? Are you actively serving in a military? I hesitate to include this one right now- but are you a police officer? Are you _at a range right now?_ If you answered no to all of those questions, a gun is not appropriate right now. And even in those cases, it's only appropriate _sometimes_, and when not being used, it should be handled and stored with care and respect.

If your enthusiasm is for range shooting, then I'd be all on board for letting the range own all the guns and not let anyone use them unsupervised. No need to take them home at the end of the day.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

MaxOfMetal said:


> And domestic violence tool...
> 
> https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/guns_and_dv0.pdf
> 
> https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-intimate-partner-violence/
> 
> https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/domestic-violence-firearms/
> 
> We should just pick a date every year to specifically hash out this same argument again and again.



Never said they werent. They can be used stop it too. But that fall under different stats...

I would like to point out those two sources are transparent as cellophane in their anti-gun stance, not derision of the data, just the the slant of the sources.

Yes we could wait a year and try again but Sisyphean tasks and what not..


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Never said they werent. They can be used stop it too. But that fall under different stats...



Imaginary ones?


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> When we invent laser guns we really need to call them blasters or something so people don't consider this a constitutional right. I mean, it was a smart thing to put in the constitution at the time, and it made sense them, but man did it need some sort of qualification on the advancement of the technology.



Too late its an armament, so its covered just like coil and rail guns.
Why should technological advancements matter to inalienable rights? 
Should my right to speech be limited only to letters written on parchment with quill, and delivered by horse or sailboat? 
Should my harddrive with my data not be secure from search or seizure, because its 010101 instead of written on paper?

To say these men that saw the cotton gin and some the steam engine, were not thinking forward is wrong.


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> Imaginary ones?


Nope, page 15
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#50
Edit: page 15 of the Pdf which is free.

Gary Kleck criminologist and Professor Emeritus of Criminology at FSU. Studies going back to the 90s on defensive use of firearms, not just limited to domestics.

Edit 2: straight from a criminologist dislikes guns;
Marvin Wolfgang


> I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. [...] The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well


----------



## narad

wedge_destroyer said:


> Nope, page 15
> https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#50
> Edit: page 15 of the Pdf which is free.
> 
> Gary Kleck criminologist and Professor Emeritus of Criminology at FSU. Studies going back to the 90s on defensive use of firearms, not just limited to domestics.
> 
> Edit 2: straight from a criminologist dislikes guns;
> Marvin Wolfgang



I appreciate the link to a real document that's not from a complete wacko alt-right blog. I may need to turn off the cynical response mode initiated when the conservative trolls showed up last week.

But as to the stats I want to see, they're not there. Basically we need the number of defensive shootings where an abuse victim shot/killed their abuser. Basically we want this result:

_"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."_

In that sense I don't care too much about absolute numbers of anything, but numbers normalized by ownership or wrongful deaths. But at the same time, I don't feel this would help anything. If I could show you that because of guns, 5x more innocent people died than without guns, or that you yourself were at statistically higher risk of death for owning it, I don't believe it would change your stance. It would just be like...well, that's not me.


----------



## TedEH

narad said:


> 5x more innocent people died than without guns


Probably not a helpful comment from me, but I imagine this would be hard to quantify, since the definition of "innocent" is going to vary depending on your views, as much as anything else will. Language is hard. Politics is hard.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> Probably not a helpful comment from me, but I imagine this would be hard to quantify, since the definition of "innocent" is going to vary depending on your views, as much as anything else will. Language is hard. Politics is hard.



Yea, I mean that in the most hypothetical sense though (since I'm throwing that number out of nowhere). Even if they were people we all agreed were "innocent"-ish (the abused people in the relationship, the family member in the room next to you, the bystander on the street, etc.).


----------



## wedge_destroyer

narad said:


> I appreciate the link to a real document that's not from a complete wacko alt-right blog. I may need to turn off the cynical response mode initiated when the conservative trolls showed up last week.



Why would I send you to a blog when hard documents are there. But with me it would be some wacko libertarian blog but they often yield source documents  . I dont really care for the regular left or right that much, they tend to want similar things aside from a couple core issues just different methods and I cant stand the fringes, they almost prove horseshoe theory...



> But as to the stats I want to see, they're not there. Basically we need the number of defensive shootings where an abuse victim shot/killed their abuser. Basically we want this result:
> 
> _"For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."_
> 
> In that sense I don't care too much about absolute numbers of anything, but numbers normalized by ownership or wrongful deaths. But at the same time, I don't feel this would help anything. If I could show you that because of guns, 5x more innocent people died than without guns, or that you yourself were at statistically higher risk of death for owning it, I don't believe it would change your stance. It would just be like...well, that's not me.



Thats where it gets sticky in that each of these surveys used different terms and questions when interviewing people. Part of that could be due to bias. Part of that could be ignorance to the other surveys. The ultimate end is that this is an area that is generally not researched as well/fully as it could or researched by people who dont have an axe to grind in one direction or another, especially as there is not much of those sweet federal funds earmarked for these studies.
Nor do I know of anyone who has looked into defensive firearms useage specifically in domestic incidents.
I would love to find the hard data from the a CDC study from 2018 i believe, some of those aforementioned right leaning blogs mention it and state that DGU is inline with Kleck, but cant find the document itself so thats in the ? pile.


You are correct it would not change my stance, but that would not be my answer. My answer would be that it is my choice and risk to make, and the repercussions of them are mine to take.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> Probably not a helpful comment from me, but I imagine this would be hard to quantify, since the definition of "innocent" is going to vary depending on your views, as much as anything else will. Language is hard. Politics is hard.



Swooping in and holding only one side to a high standard on their language, apparently not so hard.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> Swooping in and holding only one side to a high standard on their language, apparently not so hard.


Hey, I wasn't taking sides. Everyone's done their fair share of trolling, and that was my point.

But more to your point, yeah, dropping in out of nowhere and calling everyone trolls is pretty easy, relatively speaking.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> Hey, I wasn't taking sides. Everyone's done their fair share of trolling, and that was my point.



If you think both sides have trolled equally than you've made my point for me.


----------



## TedEH

I wouldn't say equally, but I think closer to equal than most want to admit. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> I wouldn't say equally, but I think closer to equal than most want to admit. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.



Well I'd like to think our side has a certain.. je ne sais quoi when it comes to trolling, and a superior use of memes. I mean, if you can't understand an analogy, your meme game is going to be quiiite limited.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> *But his actions outside of twitter have been sane and rational*. He has followed the republican playbook and this stimulated the economy and military. Stock market at record highs. Unemployment record lows.
> 
> 10) Much of the negativity (Trump derangement syndrome) is caused by the press and social media.



https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/donald-trump-james-mattis-esper-protests/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/donald-trump-james-mattis-esper-protests/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/john-allen-trump-protests-george-floyd/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/mattis-statement-trump/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-president-trump/5ed819fa88e0fa32f8231813/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/military-national-guard-trump-protests.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/mar...ving-trump-administration-kelly-mattis-2020-2







^ This is what heroes look like. And they have all left the Trump administration and condemn his actions (along with many other former Trump officials).

Still think all his actions are "sane and rational"?

Still think it's just the media and another Democratic Impeachment Hoax?


----------



## sleewell

are you guys thinking anything will change? i am doubtful. so many are saying this moment feels different. but we also heard the same sentiment after parkland and nothing changed. 

i see the protests dying down in a few days. maybe the cops get convicted, maybe they don't. no systematic changes and more instances of police killings. i hope i am wrong.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> are you guys thinking anything will change? i am doubtful. so many are saying this moment feels different. but we also heard the same sentiment after parkland and nothing changed.
> 
> i see the protests dying down in a few days. maybe the cops get convicted, maybe they don't. no systematic changes and more instances of police killings. i hope i am wrong.



Will things change? That’s really hard to tell. I will say again, if the four ex-officers get the equivalent of a slap on the wrist, you’re going to see bedlam around the country.


----------



## TedEH

I wouldn't say nothing has changed. Every time something goes down and there's protesting, riots, the world basically gets talking about things -> This is effectively now embedded in the consciousness of the worlds culture involved in and surrounding the events. The fact that it's now a part of the country's history is significant and I would hope will continue to influence how we think of ourselves and the system we live in, even if in small, subtle, invisible ways.

Change doesn't have to be immediate monumental sweeping change to be valuable. Even if "nothing changes" in the moment, the fact that it went down and was basically witnessed by the entire world is irreversible.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> are you guys thinking anything will change? i am doubtful. so many are saying this moment feels different. but we also heard the same sentiment after parkland and nothing changed.
> 
> i see the protests dying down in a few days. maybe the cops get convicted, maybe they don't. no systematic changes and more instances of police killings. i hope i am wrong.



I don't see the current administration doing much of anything. The "Might is Right" mentality of the GOP in power does not lend itself well to change where it's needed. I'd even argue that unless there is a fully Democratic Congress and President in charge, we may not see much come from this. And even that could be a stretch.

Part of the issue here is that so many people are racist, and that is a learned behavior. It took me years to figure out the even subtextual racism ingrained in me by my father to finally recognize what's going on around me. It's funny, even though I found the Army to be extremely racist and sexist, I had this incredible opportunity to work with so many different kinds of people, and that was hugely eye opening. We're all people, and understanding and respecting the struggles of those different from you can also be experienced and learned from. But you have to change the hearts and minds of people to move away from deep-seated, generationally held ideals in order to really solve what is at the heart of this issue.

But we need a Federal Government that takes action - that is not a Left or Right issue, both sides are complicit. The mass shooting in Nova Scotia resulted in immediate changes to gun ownership laws in Canada. We need to same actions here in the States, whether it's gun laws, or responses to institutional racism. I have hope that positive things will happen because of the most recent upheaval, but I honestly don't have much to base it on considering my perceived lack of action of my lifetime.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/donald-trump-james-mattis-esper-protests/index.html
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/donald-trump-james-mattis-esper-protests/index.html
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/john-allen-trump-protests-george-floyd/index.html
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/03/politics/mattis-statement-trump/index.html
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ith-president-trump/5ed819fa88e0fa32f8231813/
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/military-national-guard-trump-protests.html
> https://www.businessinsider.com/mar...ving-trump-administration-kelly-mattis-2020-2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ This is what heroes look like. And they have all left the Trump administration and condemn his actions (along with many other former Trump officials).
> 
> Still think all his actions are "sane and rational"?
> 
> Still think it's just the media and another Democratic Impeachment Hoax?



Trumpettes drift between police and military boner and "they're all warring deep state murderers" depending on what favors Supreme Leader.

I had an argument with a guy yesterday saying Off. Chauvin was justified in killing Floyd because he was a 'thug' and inner city cops know "who's committing the crime". And this same guy has a "Come Back With A Warrant" welcome mat. Hypocrisy just bounces right off of them.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Trumpettes drift between police and military boner and "they're all warring deep state murderers" depending on what favors Supreme Leader.
> 
> I had an argument with a guy yesterday saying Off. Chauvin was justified in killing Floyd because he was a 'thug' and inner city cops know "who's committing the crime". And this same guy has a "Come Back With A Warrant" welcome mat. Hypocrisy just bounces right off of them.



It's been fascinating reading through the apparent cognitive dissonance between Trump supporters and the retired General Officers that have condemned the president. These Officers are only ok with them, as long as they are on their side. The comments on Foxnews articles from people about Mattis have been eye-watering. A decorated Marine General that devoted his entire life to public service, and is arguably one of the finest Officers the USMC has ever produced, is now effectively scum in their eyes. It's unreal.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> It's been fascinating reading through the apparent cognitive dissonance between Trump supporters and the retired General Officers that have condemned the president. These Officers are only ok with them, as long as they are on their side. The comments on Foxnews articles from people about Mattis have been eye-watering. A decorated Marine General that devoted his entire life to public service, and is arguably one of the finest Officers the USMC has ever produced, is now effectively scum in their eyes. It's unreal.



These are the same people that are 'rah rah rah' about the military but allow them to disproportionately make up the bulk of homeless in this country, and the same people that are anti-abortion but are in favor of policies that allow children and poor families to die from starvation and lack of medical care once they're no longer a fetus. I wouldn't take much of what they say to heart because it's all ego affirming, fragile kneejerk bullshit that they'll 180 on in a moment. I think Necris' quote from earlier rings true.


----------



## budda

Will this spark real change any time soon?

That depends, are you going to keep fighting towards justice?


----------



## Alexa run my life

narad said:


> When we invent laser guns we really need to call them blasters or something so people don't consider this a constitutional right. I mean, it was a smart thing to put in the constitution at the time, and it made sense them, but man did it need some sort of qualification on the advancement of the technology.
> 
> "The people need the guns to put the government in check, lest we see again the exploitation of the people!"
> 
> Time-traveler: "Well the government has a weapon that drops from the stratosphere and can in a single blast destroy both Lexington and Concord."





narad said:


> and a superior use of memes.


Doubtful


----------



## JSanta

Alexa run my life said:


> Doubtful
> View attachment 81521



Except one of these are written into the Constitution as a right (as much as it is misrepresented) and one isn't. Nice try, I guess.


----------



## narad

JSanta said:


> Except one of these are written into the Constitution as a right (as much as it is misrepresented) and one isn't. Nice try, I guess.



Yea, it's a real swing and a miss. Again, conservative meme game...not a strong suit.

It would be more like if in the constitution there was an article, "The speed at which people travel shall not be restricted", at a time when the max attainable speed was like 35 mph and something like getting up to sustained 150+ mph speeds in < 20 seconds was unfathomable. "I know these roads are basically bloodbaths, but damnit, if our forefathers were not basically gods-in-human form who could create perfect rules for governing a country that will last indefinitely into the future. You just gotta suck it up and join the death race with the rest of us."


----------



## Alexa run my life

The point is more that the forefathers had insight as to how technology would develop in the future. Like, they knew weapons were going to eventually advance away from muskets.


----------



## TedEH

^ I think you'd need to back that up with something, because at face value, I don't think that's true. Humans in general don't have a good track record for predicting the future of anything.


----------



## JSanta

Alexa run my life said:


> The point is more that the forefathers had insight as to how technology would develop in the future. Like, they knew weapons were going to eventually advance away from muskets.



Care to back that up with any credible evidence? The second amendment existed to make sure citizens could prevent a tyrannical government. The following link has a great deal of legal information as it pertains to lawsuits and legal interpretation, as well as the turning point on how the Supreme Court viewed individual rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> The point is more that the forefathers had insight as to how technology would develop in the future. Like, they knew weapons were going to eventually advance away from muskets.



They knew that technology was going to advance? Damn, no wonder we revere them. If only we had their sage-like wisdom today. Will technology continue to advance, I wonder? Only time will tell.


----------



## tedtan

wedge_destroyer said:


> Yea nice try, however if you want to use the bible, (any religious text for that matter) in an argument at least know what is in the damned thing...
> 
> Want some new testament? Ive got Jesus telling a disciple to sell his cloak to buy a sword Luke 22:36-38



And just after that, when that very disciple chose to use the sword to cut off the high priest's servant's ear, "Jesus answered, 'No more of this!' And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. [Luke 22:51]".

And trumping (no pun intended) that, when questioned by the Pharisees as to which was the most important commandment, "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. [Matthew 22:34-46]"

There is so much written in the bible by so many different people over so much time that one can find a verse or two to justify almost anything. But if you look at Jesus, he was basically a socialist hippie type who fed the people, turned water into wine, hung out with prostitutes and preferred peace and love.


----------



## Alexa run my life

TedEH said:


> ^ I think you'd need to back that up with something, because at face value, I don't think that's true. Humans in general don't have a good track record for predicting the future of anything.


Sure. This are some good points on this site.
https://gunowners.org/underestimating-the-vision-of-the-founders/

They had grand imaginations to envision the future of the country and gave us the blueprint including checks and balances to keep government in check (via legal system). I am sure they knew weapons would become more efficient than to fire a ball once every 45 seconds or whatever it was.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> Sure. This are some good points on this site.
> https://gunowners.org/underestimating-the-vision-of-the-founders/
> 
> They had grand imaginations to envision the future of the country and gave us the blueprint including checks and balances to keep government in check (via legal system). I am sure they knew weapons would become more efficient than to fire a ball once every 45 seconds or whatever it was.



A "more efficient than to fire a ball once every 45 seconds" gun is not a problem. Everyone gets guns that fire 2x as fast, and the purpose of guns (to serve as a check on the government, and the reasoning of the bill of rights) still holds. Guns become 10x faster, still holds. Guns become 1000x faster, 100x larger, and attached to a flying machine, and there's thousands of them... and only the government has them. Point no longer holds. 

Spend all your country's money on the military, and you get a military that civilians can't "check". Pretty obvious, right?

This is the most dumb line of reasoning for gun ownership justification. At least home protection is plausible. At least for a personal interest and hobby is honest.


----------



## StevenC

It's actually because they were timeless lizard people.

Or were they the only ones that weren't lizard people?


----------



## possumkiller

https://imgur.com/gallery/jkJsINs


----------



## TedEH

Alexa run my life said:


> Sure. This are some good points on this site.
> https://gunowners.org/underestimating-the-vision-of-the-founders/



These are poorly worded arguments coming directly from someone invested in protecting gun ownership, so no, I don't think that backs you up at all.

For example - they list a bunch of technologies that are protected by the bill of rights, but conveniently leaves out that some of the contexts and uses of those things actually ARE restricted, sometimes quite heavily, which would mirror what people want for guns. iPhone? Sure you can have one, but you can't film someone in a bathroom with one. Sound recording? Sure you can record sound, but you can't secretly record a phone call. Woodstock is listed? We're literally living in a state right now where concerts are forbidden, so that misses the mark entirely.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> When those same virtue-signaling anarchists start bashing my car with a skateboards and tire irons, they are now threatening my actual life: in which case I can and will use my 2nd amendment right (thank goodness for it's existence), to stop those people at all costs, dead in their tracks, from threatening both my life and my livlihood. If the police and military can't be present at the time to protect me from those people, I have to stand my ground. Just like anybody should who finds themselves in that situation.





Alexa run my life said:


> Sure. This are some good points on this site.
> https://gunowners.org/underestimating-the-vision-of-the-founders/



From your own website reference



> *Bill of Rights: Amendment II*
> Founding Fathers were visionaries and so were “The People” of the day. They ALL knew that Government has the potential to get out of control. They recognized that a Government unchecked by the People would most certainly turn towards the side of tyranny.



And part 1



> *Bill of Rights: Amendment I*
> ...petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Our right to own these tools as private property is also guaranteed in The Bill of Rights



So where do they say the founding fathers want you to shoot citizens ("the people") using your 2nd amendment right? They are literally saying the people have a right to rebel against a government, both peacefully (amendment 1) and with arms (amendment 2). It says nothing about shooting your neighbors or other private citizens. Considering they were oppressed by a monarch, these are the first 2 amendments for pretty obvious reasons.

If anything, the protestors you are condemning to death are allowed to do so by the same site you just used to justify your position.


----------



## Alexa run my life

narad said:


> I agree that the judicial system has long-standing racial biases (a





narad said:


> Yea, I have a friend who prior to the kneeling and the recent string of police killings (maybe post-Trayvon) said earnestly that racism wasn't a problem in the US. :-/
> 
> If people didn't protest these things, didn't explain what it's like to get pulled over as a minority in the US, didn't make sure these cop-kills-guy cases didn't slip to page 2, etc., there's a huge part of the population who I think wouldn't believe it was a modern-day problem. I think the kneeling helped tremendously to bring racism back into minds of people whose lives exist pretty much entirely separate from those kinds of experiences, and that awareness is going to result in millions of small changes, and that's what we need.
> 
> We already have laws that are generally written in ways that are equal for all races, but still major problems with the way things are enforced or enacted within that structure. That's where change needs to happen (like in this instance, actually charging the cops, not letting them cop out to some all-white district for the jury, etc.).


So these quotes are from the George Floyd thread. I knew you've said these things I just had to find them. But now you are saying "Guns become 1000x faster, 100x larger, and attached to a flying machine, and there's thousands of them... and only the government has them. Point no longer holds."

So which is, the government is run by white supremecists, or only the government should have guns? Pick a side. The goal posts have been moved so far that we're now aiming to kick the ball into the locker room.



fantom said:


> So where do they day the founding fathers want you to shoot citizens ("the people") using your 2nd amendment right?


You conveniently left out where I said this,


Alexa run my life said:


> Yes true. And I don't live in a state with such laws. But if my car is being bashed in, I can assume that my head is next. If that doesn't hold up in court, well at least I'm alive.



Look, I agree that it's hard to decide where to draw the line for what is and isn't lawfully allowed, and yes it can get ridiculous when you look at the weaponry the government has. Well, I'm not saying that citizens should have giant laser shooting equipped drone tanks, what I am saying is that, well maybe the government shouldn't have such weaponry either.

Edit: actually, I'm not sure that they shouldn't have those weapons either so I take that back.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Doubtful
> View attachment 81521



That is literally one of the dumbest fucking memes I've ever seen.

Russian troll farms think that's dumb.

Glad to see you continue shitposting just for shitposting's sake.

Do you contribute this little in real life?


----------



## spudmunkey

Not only that...but healthcare isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution anywhere.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/white-house-fence-barricade/index.html
^ Trump kept his campaign promise!!! He finally built that wall.

Anyways...

Killer Mike makes a prolific speech from his heart, one that the President should have made.

Instead, the President inflames the situation by directly quoting segregationist/racist police chiefs from the 60s and hides in an underground shelter and now behind a wall.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 81526
> View attachment 81527



Notice every former POTUS and FLOTUS has no issue attending events together after they're out of office. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they were on. W and Michelle O are besties. Do you think Trump will ever be welcome at these events in the future?


----------



## spudmunkey

Now that there's a new wall around the white house, Can someone just put a padlock on the new wall around the white house and lock him in? It'd at least be a start...



USMarine75 said:


> Notice every former POTUS and FLOTUS has no issue attending events together after they're out of office. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle they were on. W and Michelle O are besties. Do you think Trump will ever be welcome at these events in the future?



Obama doesn't even want his own official portrait to be unveiled/hung while Trump is president. A president unveiling his predecessor's portrait has been a tradition for almost 50 years.


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> Now that there's a new wall around the white house, Can someone just put a padlock on the new wall around the white house and lock him in? It'd at least be a start...
> 
> 
> 
> Obama doesn't even want his own official portrait to be unveiled/hung while Trump is president. A president unveiling his predecessor's portrait has been a tradition for almost 50 years.



What do you think Trump will leave Biden in his "welcome" letter every president leaves for their successor?


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> Look, I agree that it's hard to decide where to draw the line for what is and isn't lawfully allowed...



It really isn't that hard or confusing. Use of a firearm is "deadly force".

The 2nd amendment. 1) allows citizens to organize as militias and 2) those militias to have weapons. It gives you no rights to use those weapons against other citizens. It is a contract between the government and the people.

Self-defense. Respond to a threat with an equal threat is not criminal. In other words, if someone is attacking you with deadly force, you can respond with deadly force. If someone is not using deadly force (such as hitting your car with a skateboard), use of deadly force would not be protected and you would be charged with manslaughter or murder.

Stand your ground. It literally just means you are not required to run away if you are legally allowed to be somewhere. It doesn't give you permission to use deadly force. It just means that if you had an option to run away, you don't have to use it.

Castle doctrine. Use of deadly force including by gun, if you are home and someone is breaking a law, is not criminal. You may still be required to avoid violence, but the burden of proof is not as strong as it would be for self defense or stand your ground.

I promise, I'm not trying to argue with you over this. I support people owning and using guns. I just want this false narrative that the 2nd amendment gives you rights to use weapons against other citizens to stop. That absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Alexa run my life

fantom said:


> It really isn't that hard or confusing. Use of a firearm is "deadly force".
> 
> The 2nd amendment. 1) allows citizens to organize as militias and 2) those militias to have weapons. It gives you no rights to use those weapons against other citizens. It is a contract between the government and the people.
> 
> Self-defense. Respond to a threat with an equal threat is not criminal. In other words, if someone is attacking you with deadly force, you can respond with deadly force. If someone is not using deadly force (such as hitting your car with a skateboard), use of deadly force would not be protected and you would be charged with manslaughter or murder.
> 
> Stand your ground. It literally just means you are not required to run away if you are legally allowed to be somewhere. It doesn't give you permission to use deadly force. It just means that if you had an option to run away, you don't have to use it.
> 
> Castle doctrine. Use of deadly force including by gun, if you are home and someone is breaking a law, is not criminal. You may still be required to avoid violence, but the burden of proof is not as strong as it would be for self defense or stand your ground.
> 
> I promise, I'm not trying to argue with you over this. I support people owning and using guns. I just want this false narrative that the 2nd amendment gives you rights to use weapons against other citizens to stop. That absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.


It does because if we didn't have a 2nd amendment thennI wouldn't be able to buy a gun because they wouldn't be making guns for citizens because there would be no need.

I never claimed the 2nd amendment protected me in any case other than the fact that because it exists, guns are manufactured, and I can then buy one....which is why I said thank goodness for the 2nd

I also am not trying to argue, I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding..


----------



## TedEH

Alexa run my life said:


> It does because if we didn't have a 2nd amendment thennI wouldn't be able to buy a gun because they wouldn't be making guns for citizens because there would be no need.


Generally speaking, there isn't a need, with or without the 2nd. But more than that, accessibility to a gun doesn't grant you an automatic right to use it on a person. And even more than that, losing the 2nd doesn't eliminate all of the other uses for guns: hunting, range shooting, etc. You can have guns without the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Alexa run my life

TedEH said:


> Generally speaking, there isn't a need, with or without the 2nd. But more than that, accessibility to a gun doesn't grant you an automatic right to use it on a person. And even more than that, losing the 2nd doesn't eliminate all of the other uses for guns: hunting, range shooting, etc. You can have guns without the 2nd amendment.


I never said it granted an automatic right to use it on a person.

For the third time now,I said, if I was in a car surrounded by a mob that was bashing my car in and bashing my head in next, my life is then being threatened and I am going to shoot them dead regardless if I get charged for manslaughter or not. Rights or not. I will still have my life.

After I said that, people kept on saying "the 2nd doesn't gaurantee"... And "that wont hold up in court"....

And I'm like, yeah I know, but at least I will still have my life.

Edit: if we never had a second amendment to begin with, we probably would have never been able to purchase a firearm at a store, ever.


----------



## TedEH

fantom said:


> I just want this false narrative that the 2nd amendment gives you rights to use weapons against other citizens to stop.





Alexa run my life said:


> It does


^
You literally said you think the 2nd amendment gives you rights to use a weapon against other citizens. If that's not what you meant to say, then I apologize for mischaracterizing your statement.

Regardless of that, to your point that you want the means to defend yourself against an angry mob that wants to harm you - I understand, but disagree. Unless you're a cop right now, that's still a pretty unlikely scenario. Don't forget though, that in this hypothetical scenario, it's one angry person with a gun, against an angry mob that also has guns, so it's still not helping you any.


----------



## Alexa run my life

TedEH said:


> ^
> You literally said you think the 2nd amendment gives you rights to use a weapon against other citizens. If that's not what you meant to say, then I apologize for mischaracterizing your statement.
> 
> Regardless of that, to your point that you want the means to defend yourself against an angry mob that wants to harm you - I understand, but disagree. Unless you're a cop right now, that's still a pretty unlikely scenario. Don't forget though, that in this hypothetical scenario, it's one angry person with a gun, against an angry mob that also has guns, so it's still not helping you any.


You quoted the wrong sentence.
"That absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd amendment."
That was the sentence I was responding to, and without clarification and me not being specific, I can understand how it seemed otherwise. I meant "it does" as in being able to buy and own a gun has something to do with the 2nd in that because it exists I can buy one whereas without the 2nd there probably wouldnt be gun manufacturers selling to the public.....but I made it vague I suppose. So I apologize. Just some misunderstandings.


----------



## StevenC

I think I've figured it out. We keep typing comments and responses in this thread, but when have you ever seen an Alexa with a keyboard input? We should be saying our comments out loud and then they will have a much better chance of responding coherently.


----------



## ThePIGI King

narad said:


> A "more efficient than to fire a ball once every 45 seconds" gun is not a problem. Everyone gets guns that fire 2x as fast, and the purpose of guns (to serve as a check on the government, and the reasoning of the bill of rights) still holds. Guns become 10x faster, still holds. Guns become 1000x faster, 100x larger, and attached to a flying machine, and there's thousands of them... and only the government has them. Point no longer holds.
> 
> Spend all your country's money on the military, and you get a military that civilians can't "check". Pretty obvious, right?
> 
> This is the most dumb line of reasoning for gun ownership justification. At least home protection is plausible. At least for a personal interest and hobby is honest.


The only "argument" I have with the idea that we couldn't keep the government in "check" is that from the sample of people I know serving, if for whatever reason there was another civil war or a new revolution, the majority of service members would defect and join the other side (in the event it's pro-gun people vs anti-gun people). Again, that's simply based off my personal encounters with service members.

Also, considering some of the ROE for our men and women overseas, I'd hate to see what kind of rules they would make for a domestic war or uprising.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think republicans are burning up this thread with off topic because their boy Trump is getting blasted for being the worst president in modern history. Can’t unite and is hiding in the newly walled off WH like a little bitch. The walls are closing in!


----------



## SpaceDock

This is what Trump just posted since Murkowski says she doesn’t know if she can support him anymore:
“Few people know where they’ll be in two years from now, but I do, in the Great State of Alaska (which I love) campaigning against Senator Lisa Murkowski. She voted against HealthCare, Justice Kavanaugh, and much else...”

Bully pulpit? This guy is the worst!


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## fantom

Someone open the popcorn. The president sued for 1st amendment violation for his stupid photo op.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/protesters-lawsuit-lafayette-trump-302135


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> Guns become 1000x faster, 100x larger, and attached to a flying machine, and there's thousands of them... and only the government has them. Point no longer holds.


I'm 100٪ certain that the founding fathers fully intended for me to be able to defend my property with an RPG mounted to the hood of my car. I think Ben Franklin even envisaged me blasting "Pour Some Sugar On Me" through the stereo while I do it when that amendment was drafted.


----------



## GoldDragon

fantom said:


> Someone open the popcorn. The president sued for 1st amendment violation for his stupid photo op.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/04/protesters-lawsuit-lafayette-trump-302135



The visit to the church was long scheduled.

Protesters burned St John's, they needed to be dispersed for the safety of the president.

The liberal narrative on this point is way off base. A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?

Listen to yourselves.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> The visit to the church was long scheduled.
> 
> Protesters burned St John's, they needed to be dispersed for the safety of the president.
> 
> The liberal narrative on this point is way off base. A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?
> 
> Listen to yourselves.


Yes. According to the 1st Amendment, if the President wants to walk down the street where people are protesting, shooting tear gas to stop them protesting is illegal.

He should instead walk around them, and if there are so many protesters that he can't walk around them, he should address their grievances.


----------



## USMarine75

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with your right to defend yourself against your fellow citizens. It was written to empower the people to defend themselves against (another) tyrannical government.
If you think your cute little personal stache will defend you against the US military if they decide they're coming for you or every single one of us, well... that's cute.



Alexa run my life said:


> I also am not trying to argue.



Posts 244 times arguing.


----------



## sleewell

GoldDragon said:


> The visit to the church was long scheduled.
> 
> Protesters burned St John's, they needed to be dispersed for the safety of the president.
> 
> The liberal narrative on this point is way off base. A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?
> 
> Listen to yourselves.



Congrats. You sound like the exact lemming the north korean govt would want their citizens to sound like. All hail dear leader!


----------



## USMarine75

Calling peaceful protestors "terrorists" sure is a way to help heal the country. All Trump forgot was to remind people that Floyd was a "Thug" who was on drugs and had a criminal record.

Trump - "The phony protesters near Lafayette were not peaceful and are not real. They are terrorists using idle hate filled students to burn and destroy."


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?


The whole point of a protest is to be visible and disruptive, given that the alternative of not being disruptive hasn't worked. That's not a "liberal narrative", it's the definition and purpose of a protest.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/burgess-owens-drew-brees-cowards-and-marxists

Those damn Democrats always disenfranchising Blacks... 

Discuss.


----------



## sleewell

the right 3-4 weeks ago: protesting is our god given right!!!!!!

the right today: gas all peaceful protesters so dear leader can get a photo op using military figures for a political fundraising video holding a book we all know he has never read.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Makes you think how they'd react to the Boston Tea Party today.


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> The whole point of a protest is to be visible and disruptive, given that the alternative of not being disruptive hasn't worked. That's not a "liberal narrative", it's the definition and purpose of a protest.




Blocking traffic is illegal. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traff...er the obstruction,a public street or highway.

Do you think Trump walked to the church? Pretty sure it was a cavalcade of SUVs. And the church visit was long scheduled, he didn't just "decide to do this as a result of the riots." 

So if illegally blocking roads is a legit form of protest, is trashing and looting? Tell me, where do you draw the line?

Listen to yourself.


----------



## StevenC

GoldDragon said:


> Blocking traffic is illegal.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_obstruction#:~:text=Most jurisdictions consider the obstruction,a public street or highway.
> 
> Do you think Trump walked to the church? Pretty sure it was a cavalcade of SUVs. And the church visit was long scheduled, he didn't just "decide to do this as a result of the riots."
> 
> So if illegally blocking roads is a legit form of protest, is trashing and looting? Tell me, where do you draw the line?
> 
> Listen to yourself.


An uncited quote from a wikipedia article talking in very unspecific terms sure is a strong counterargument to the Constitution.

Also legality or otherwise does not justify use of force. But you know that and don't care.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Definitely not at blocking roads, especially for stupid photo ops. 

"Listen to yourself."


----------



## sleewell

gold dragon 5 mins ago: the protesters damaged the church so trump had to go view it

gold dragon just now: the trip was planned a long time ago.


fail.

the trip was planned in a rush bc trump was upset the press found out he was rushed to the bunker and thought that made him seem weak. the protesters were peaceful. it was the middle of day. trump was giving a speech about supporting the protesters as he was gassing them for his photo op.

if you support that you are truly fucked as a person in terms of having no ability to see past your cult and think rationally.

what would have happened had the gov of any state done that 3 weeks ago when people were protesting stay at home orders? i bet you would have been on board with that too right?


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> So if illegally blocking roads is a legit form of protest, is trashing and looting? Tell me, where do you draw the line?
> 
> Listen to yourself.



Define "legit". What exactly do you think a protest is? A protest doesn't aim to be "legal", it aims to get it's point across. Think of the irony that part of what is being protested against is the legal system. Wouldn't want to break any of those rules we're trying to change.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's legal to block a road for protests. The ones they're having nearby here today are preemptively closing off a bunch of roads to make them accessible for protesters.


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> Define "legit". What exactly do you think a protest is? A protest doesn't aim to be "legal", it aims to get it's point across. Think of the irony that part of what is being protested against is the legal system. Wouldn't want to break any of those rules we're trying to change.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure it's legal to block a road for protests. The ones they're having nearby here today are preemptively closing off a bunch of roads to make them accessible for protesters.



You dont even know what rules you/they are trying to change. Haven't thought it through in the slightest. Not to a logical conclusion at least.


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> You dont even know what rules you/they are trying to change. Haven't thought it through in the slightest. Not to a logical conclusion at least.


What are you talking about? The goals of the protests have been discussed up and down in both this thread, and the other one specific to the situation.

They're also pretty clearly spelled out in those shared images that "don't work".


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> What are you talking about? The goals of the protests have been discussed up and down in both this thread, and the other one specific to the situation.
> 
> They're also pretty clearly spelled out in those shared images that "don't work".



Changes to the laws don't require protests. How many of these protesters have been writing their elected officials and fighting for change?

Almost none of them. Let that sink in. Almost none of them.

You want better vetting of police officers? Great! Sounds like a great idea until you realize they have problems filling vacancies already. OK, so you need to pay them more. That will require more taxes. OK, we may be able to get that.

But in order to increase taxes, there will need to be a logical examination of the facts. One fact for instance that has been overlooked, is that there are more white police shooting victims. And also, the vast majority of deaths at the hands of police are by armed and violent suspects. Are minorities disproportionately targeted? Maybe, but its not so clear cut.


Like I said, this hasn't been thought through to any logical conclusion. I'm not saying that POC don't have it worse and need assistance, but I'm trying to be the adult in the room and look at the big picture. The protests and riots are making things worse. All of that energy invested into legitimate political action would get results.

Another parting thought; how many of the protesters would sign up to be police officers? Knowing that there is a need for fair policing, you would think many of them would want to sign up. You see, there is the rub, none of them want to be police officers. They are saying, we need YOU to do a better job, but aren't signing up themselves.


----------



## Alexa run my life

GoldDragon said:


> The visit to the church was long scheduled.
> 
> Protesters burned St John's, they needed to be dispersed for the safety of the president.
> 
> The liberal narrative on this point is way off base. A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?
> 
> Listen to yourselves.


These are the people who always claim that this country was founded and built upon racism and oppression. These are the people who want to destroy all of the founding documents because said documents are systemically racist and oppressive. These are the same people who mock conservatives by saying "muh rights. Muh guns". And are always quick to use extreme examples to what extent the Constitution doesn't protect you. These are the people who despise true freedom.

NOW they want to claim that they're 1st and 4th amendment rights are being violated. How convenient and ironic. Boo fucking hoo.


----------



## GoldDragon

Alexa run my life said:


> These are the people who always claim that this country was founded and built upon racism and oppression. These are the people who want to destroy all of the founding documents because said documents are systemically racist and oppressive. These are the same people who mock conservatives by saying "muh rights. Muh guns". And are always quick to use extreme examples to what extent the Constitution doesn't protect you. These are the people who despise true freedom.
> 
> NOW they want to claim that they're 1st and 4th amendment rights are being violated. How convenient and ironic. Boo fucking hoo.



I hadn't thought about that, but there is massive hypocrisy here.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> Changes to the laws don't require protests. How many of these protesters have been writing their elected officials and fighting for change?
> 
> Almost none of them. Let that sink in. Almost none of them.
> 
> You want better vetting of police officers? Great! Sounds like a great idea until you realize they have problems filling vacancies already. OK, so you need to pay them more. That will require more taxes. OK, we may be able to get that.
> 
> But in order to increase taxes, there will need to be a logical examination of the facts. One fact for instance that has been overlooked, is that there are more white police shooting victims. And also, the vast majority of deaths at the hands of police are by armed and violent suspects. Are minorities disproportionately targeted? Maybe, but its not so clear cut.
> 
> 
> Like I said, this hasn't been thought through to any logical conclusion. I'm not saying that POC don't have it worse and need assistance, but I'm trying to be the adult in the room and look at the big picture. The protests and riots are making things worse. All of that energy invested into legitimate political action would get results.
> 
> Another parting thought; how many of the protesters would sign up to be police officers? Knowing that there is a need for fair policing, you would think many of them would want to sign up. You see, there is the rub, none of them want to be police officers. They are saying, we need YOU to do a better job, but aren't signing up themselves.



You're spouting off nonsense without backing it up with any facts. How you can a statement about letters to elected officials without substantiating the claim? 

Your other arguments are strawmen, at best. Of course more white people are involved in police shootings, because the US is a majority white country. You need to cite figures about proportions. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6080222/

"Victims were majority white (52%) but disproportionately black (32%) with a fatality rate 2.8 times higher among blacks than whites. Most victims were reported to be armed (83%); however, black victims were more likely to be unarmed (14.8%) than white (9.4%) or Hispanic (5.8%) victims. Fatality rates among military veterans/active duty service members were 1.4 times greater than among their civilian counterparts. Four case subtypes were examined based on themes that emerged in incident narratives: about 22% of cases were mental health related; 18% were suspected “suicide by cop” incidents, with white victims more likely than black or Hispanic victims to die in these circumstances; 14% involved intimate partner violence; and about 6% were unintentional deaths due to LE action. Another 53% of cases were unclassified and did not fall into a coded subtype. Regression analyses identified victim and incident characteristics associated with each case subtype and unclassified cases."

And your last argument is ridiculous. Good people at lower echelons can only invoke so much change. A good private in the Army is not going to change the path of their unit. That is not how things work in the real world. There has to be systematic changes to have power at the top lead the change needed.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

You've never watched Serpico have you?


----------



## Alexa run my life

GoldDragon said:


> One fact for instance that has been overlooked, is that there are more white police shooting victims.


Your whole post is great! But dont forget over 77% of the entire police force is white


----------



## TedEH

There's so much to unpack there, but I'm mostly being lazy on the forum while I should be working, so I'll get back to you later.


----------



## MFB

GoldDragon said:


> One fact for instance that has been overlooked, is that there are more white police shooting victims.





Alexa run my life said:


> Your whole post is great! But dont forget over 77% of the entire police force is white



Just for clarity on this, do you mean there are more white police, shooting victims or do you mean there are more white people who are victims of shooting?


----------



## Choop

GoldDragon said:


> The protests and riots are making things worse. All of that energy invested into legitimate political action would get results.



Protesting is a legitimate political action, and it does get results.


----------



## GoldDragon

JSanta said:


> And your last argument is ridiculous. Good people at lower echelons can only invoke so much change. A good private in the Army is not going to change the path of their unit. That is not how things work in the real world. There has to be systematic changes to have power at the top lead the change needed.



So you don't believe in democracy? You don't believe the system can be changed meaningfully without violent protests?

What about when Obama was in office? What about hope and change? You weren't out there protesting police violence yet the situation was the same back then.

Let me explain what is happening. There is a coronavirus lockdown. Black people disproportionately lost jobs because more of them work in service industries impacted by CV. These unemployed workers are getting the state minimum unemployment + $600/wk, which in many cases is more than they were earning at their prior job. This legislation also includes ICs. (I am also collecting this atm because my job was impacted, which is why I have time to post here.)

So the federal government did an exceptional job taking care of the people who lost their jobs. I read that black unemployment is 40-50% atm.

Police were already in a difficult situation with Coronavirus, and a racist cop snapped and killed a black man. Not saying that was not wrong. He should be and will be convicted of murder.

However, at least two of the other police officers were heard in the video questioning the murderers actions, yet they were in training and had little authority to overrule the veteran officer. This alone should show that not all cops are racist scumbags.

All these people at home, not working because of CV. They are anxious and insecure because they don't know if they will find work when the UE+600 stops at end of July. They see a black man murdered in a video and they begin to protest and then riot. The protests were not thought out, they were knee jerk reaction. Now after the fact, people are intellectualizing and attaching meaning to what happened, in order to justify it.

The net effect of the riots will be to make it even harder to find qualified officers. Or it will attract even rougher candidates. This was the wrong way to solve this problem.

And even though this will make the situation worse, everyone will claim that it actually made things better and that they were an agent of change for participating in the protests turned riots. BS.

Democrats are absolutely gleeful that this may tilt the 2020 election.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> Blacks destroyed neighborhoods in Baltimore when Freddie Grey was killed. Obama was president when that happened. But do you blame Obama? Of course not.





GoldDragon said:


> What about when Obama was in office? What about hope and change? You weren't out there protesting police violence yet the situation was the same back then.



So what was it?


----------



## Alexa run my life

GoldDragon said:


> and a racist cop snapped and killed a black man.



The killing probably wasn't due to racism. We know this becauae they both knew each other and worked at the same club. The club owner says that the two "never had any interactions with each other", which doesn't mean jack shit, really.

My hypothesis is that both of them were involved in some illegal activities perhaps drug dealings or prostitution, on the side. And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man.

You have to read between the lines because not everything is so black and white.....


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> So what was it?



Both of my statements are consistent. Idk what youre getting at.


----------



## GoldDragon

Alexa run my life said:


> The killing probably wasn't due to racism. We know this becauae they both knew each other and worked at the same club. The club owner says that the two "never had any interactions with each other", which doesn't mean jack shit, really.
> 
> My hypothesis is that both of them were involved in some illegal activities perhaps drug dealings or prostitution, on the side. And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man.
> 
> You have to read between the lines because not everything is so black and white.....



That is a reasonable explanation. Chances are that they did know each other. There was probably some bad blood.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> Both of my statements are consistent. Idk what youre getting at.



Did folks protest during the Obama administration or not?


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> So you don't believe in democracy? You don't believe the system can be changed meaningfully without violent protests?
> 
> What about when Obama was in office? What about hope and change? You weren't out there protesting police violence yet the situation was the same back then.
> 
> Let me explain what is happening. There is a coronavirus lockdown. Black people disproportionately lost jobs because more of them work in service industries impacted by CV. These unemployed workers are getting the state minimum unemployment + $600/wk, which in many cases is more than they were earning at their prior job. This legislation also includes ICs. (I am also collecting this atm because my job was impacted, which is why I have time to post here.)
> 
> So the federal government did an exceptional job taking care of the people who lost their jobs. I read that black unemployment is 40-50% atm.
> 
> Police were already in a difficult situation with Coronavirus, and a racist cop snapped and killed a black man. Not saying that was not wrong. He should be and will be convicted of murder.
> 
> However, at least two of the other police officers were heard in the video questioning the murderers actions, yet they were in training and had little authority to overrule the veteran officer. This alone should show that not all cops are racist scumbags.
> 
> All these people at home, not working because of CV. They are anxious and insecure because they don't know if they will find work when the UE+600 stops at end of July. They see a black man murdered in a video and they begin to protest and then riot. The protests were not thought out, they were knee jerk reaction. Now after the fact, people are intellectualizing and attaching meaning to what happened, in order to justify it.
> 
> The net effect of the riots will be to make it even harder to find qualified officers. Or it will attract even rougher candidates. This was the wrong way to solve this problem.



First, you don't know anything about what I do, or how I conduct myself. You make gross generalizations with every (often unfactual) statement you make. I wore the American flag on my shoulder - I know what it means to serve. I saw and dealt systematic racism and sexism in the military everyday. I left the Infantry right before women were allowed to earn the blue cord, and the disgusting talk I heard every day was enough to make me question why I made the decision to even join. I was there, I lived it. 

Unfortunately, this country was founded by force - talking nicely and protesting to the King did not accomplish much. I think there are many parallels that can be seen there with the peaceful protests the last 70 years in this country. I don't believe that our democracy as it currently stands responds well to well spoken words - sometimes a reminder of who holds the real power need to be made. 

You've also contradicted yourself regarding the police and seniority. Maybe those guys were indeed good people that felt like they couldn't do something because of the actions of a senior officer. So how do people being oppressed joining their local police root out these issues?

You continue to make sweeping claims without substantiation. It's not worth having a discussion with someone that makes sweeping claims or generalizations without offering proof. There are facts, and those are what need to be discussed. I mean, of course not all cops are bad, but what whataboutism does not reflect the lived experiences of minorities. The federal response to unemployment has been great? How do you quantify that? You can't, it's an opinion, and at best not a good one when compared to what other developed nations have done to help curb the disease and help their workers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Alexa run my life said:


> The killing probably wasn't due to racism. We know this becauae they both knew each other and worked at the same club. The club owner says that the two "never had any interactions with each other", which doesn't mean jack shit, really.
> 
> My hypothesis is that both of them were involved in some illegal activities perhaps drug dealings or prostitution, on the side. And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man.
> 
> You have to read between the lines because not everything is so black and white.....



Occam's Battle Axe, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Choop

Alexa run my life said:


> The killing probably wasn't due to racism. We know this becauae they both knew each other and worked at the same club. The club owner says that the two "never had any interactions with each other", which doesn't mean jack shit, really.
> 
> My hypothesis is that both of them were involved in some illegal activities perhaps drug dealings or prostitution, on the side. And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man.
> 
> You have to read between the lines because not everything is so black and white.....



If you're referring to the cop who killed George Floyd, he had allegations and a record of abuse toward minorities, and was almost certainly a white supremacist. He had a picture up on his social media wearing a "make whites great again" hat.


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Did folks protest during the Obama administration or not?



They did. But they didn't blame obama.

The murder rate in Baltimore has increased since Freddy Grey riots as a result of reduced policing.

The riots had a negative and measureable effect on black communities in Baltimore.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> They did.



Then why did you say they didn't?


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Then why did you say they didn't?


I think you misinterpreted what I wrote.


----------



## vilk

lol you must _really _idolize Donald Trump  Just pretending you didn't say something or that the person who has heard it didn't understand your _sophisticated nuance _or some shit. Dude we can all fucking read it, the guy just copy/pasted it. Look at the words you wrote. Read them. Think about what the words mean. I used to teach ESL if you need some help.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Choop said:


> If you're referring to the cop who killed George Floyd, he had allegations and a record of abuse toward minorities, and was almost certainly a white supremacist. He had a picture up on his social media wearing a "make whites great again" hat.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wu...ally/507-1d6f8a24-cf7c-4c57-bed2-777361c96cdb
It's not him. Also, I'd imagine a white supremicist wouldn't tolerate working alongside asian people (cop). So that narrative crumbles.


----------



## Choop

Alexa run my life said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wu...ally/507-1d6f8a24-cf7c-4c57-bed2-777361c96cdb
> It's not him. Also, I'd imagine a white supremicist wouldn't tolerate working alongside asian people (cop). So that narrative crumbles.



Ah I stand corrected about the photo! He really does have the history of abuse toward minorities though--people can be racist to varying degrees and it may be that he tolerates working with minorities in the police force, but still takes opportunities to abuse his power against others.

Edit: Can't find the source for the histories of minority abuse, only that he has taken stronger measures in situations involving minorities. Unfortunately that seems like a common occurrence with police responses. He had a recorded shooting incident with a minority that was probably legit and one more serious incident against a woman. Sorry, I'll try to reply with stronger reference material from now on.


----------



## GoldDragon

vilk said:


> lol you must _really _idolize Donald Trump  Just pretending you didn't say something or that the person who has heard it didn't understand your _sophisticated nuance _or some shit. Dude we can all fucking read it, the guy just copy/pasted it. Look at the words you wrote. Read them. Think about what the words mean. I used to teach ESL if you need some help.



I'm sorry, I'm reading and re-reading the comments and I don't see how they are inconsistent.


----------



## mlp187

Alexa run my life said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wu...ally/507-1d6f8a24-cf7c-4c57-bed2-777361c96cdb
> It's not him. Also, I'd imagine a white supremicist wouldn't tolerate working alongside asian people (cop). So that narrative crumbles.



Although the concept of racism is incredibly stupid, it can be very nuanced.


----------



## mlp187

mlp187 said:


> Although the concept of racism is incredibly stupid, it can be very nuanced.



To be clear: I side with the protesters.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Choop said:


> Ah I stand corrected about the photo! He really does have the history of abuse toward minorities though--people can be racist to varying degrees and it may be that he tolerates working with minorities in the police force, but still takes opportunities to abuse his power against others.


You could be right, but it seems everyone wants a lynching and not a fair trial.


----------



## Edika

So now our two resident conservatives have untangled the conspiracy, found out that Floyd wasn't murdered due to racism but a personal vendetta and that politicians give a shit about what poor people have to say and writing strongly worded letters and continuous phone calls can change everything but most of all systematic racism.

If you're making a case that left wingers make fan of right wing people well right wingers write the jokes themselves. Everyone else just points them out.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Edika said:


> systematic racism


I think you meant "systemic" racism. Big difference.

......After you had just gotten done sticking it to the token conservatives, too.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Randy

Alexa run my life said:


> Your whole post is great! But dont forget over 77% of the entire police force is white



BotH SIdeS ArE TRolLinG ThO


----------



## tedtan

GoldDragon said:


> Do you think Trump walked to the church? Pretty sure it was a cavalcade of SUVs. And the church visit was long scheduled, he didn't just "decide to do this as a result of the riots."



You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own "facts".




GoldDragon said:


> Another parting thought; how many of the protesters would sign up to be police officers? Knowing that there is a need for fair policing, you would think many of them would want to sign up. You see, there is the rub, none of them want to be police officers. They are saying, we need YOU to do a better job, but aren't signing up themselves.



Why would I take a HUGE pay cut to go perform the much more dangerous job of a police officer when I make more money, more conveniently, and with much less risk to my, and my family's, safety? That's just stupid.

It's THEIR job to be a LEO; THEY need to perform it satisfactorily.If they don't, what we need to do is to remove them and replace them with people who will, even if it means paying them more.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> I think you misinterpreted what I wrote.



Can you clarify these statements:



GoldDragon said:


> *Blacks destroyed neighborhoods in Baltimore when Freddie Grey was killed. Obama was president* when that happened. But do you blame Obama? Of course not.



So there were protests during the Obama administration. OK, that tracks.



GoldDragon said:


> What about when Obama was in office? What about hope and change? *You weren't out there protesting police violence* yet the situation was the same back then.



But you just said folks _were_ protesting.

Pick one. 

You can't even get your thoughts straight between now and Tuesday. Get outta'ere.


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> Do you think Trump walked to the church? Pretty sure it was a cavalcade of SUVs.



#fakenews


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you clarify these statements:
> 
> 
> 
> So there were protests during the Obama administration. OK, that tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said folks _were_ protesting.
> 
> Pick one.
> 
> You can't even get your thoughts straight between now and Tuesday. Get outta'ere.





spudmunkey said:


> #fakenews




Shitposter Systems Initialize: Prepare for Subject Matter Change in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## GoldDragon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you clarify these statements:
> 
> 
> 
> So there were protests during the Obama administration. OK, that tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> But you just said folks _were_ protesting.
> 
> Pick one.
> 
> You can't even get your thoughts straight between now and Tuesday. Get outta'ere.




There were riots in Baltimore for Freddie Gray, almost exclusively black people.

There have been nationwide riots for George Floyd, including many white people.

"You" refers to people in general. "You" didn't apply to the Baltimore riots, but it does apply to the nationwide riots.

The point I made was that when Obama was president, the riots were isolated to Baltimore and the national consciousness was generally against the protesters/rioters. Now that Trump is president, national consciousness is FOR the protesters/rioters. The situation for POC was actually better before CV, with lowest black ue rate in history. A pandemic does not erase that truth.

The observation is that the political climate (Trump) and the number of idle people with time to protest /riot is the only difference. Since Freddy Grey, over the past five years, how many protesters and rioters wrote letters to their elected officials? Probably next to nil.


As an aside, they made changes to Baltimore policing policy, and as a result the murder rate has gone up significantly in Baltimore. The riots made the police wary of doing police work in dangerous neighborhoods, they pulled back, and crime went up.

History has shown that rioting is actually bad for black communities, besides the destruction of neighborhoods, police pull back and crime goes up.

If as a result of these riots, they institute stricter practices for officers, the net result will be that they pull back from hot spots and crime will skyrocket.

As I said earlier you haven't thought this through beyond "riots work". No they don't.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> You dont even know what rules you/they are trying to change. Haven't thought it through in the slightest. Not to a logical conclusion at least.



The nearly 9-minute long torture and assassination of a black man by a police officer, you twat.


----------



## spudmunkey

GoldDragon said:


> There were riots in Baltimore for Freddie Gray, almost exclusively black people.



Dude, c'mon. Just stop it.







Yes, this is a protest, not a riot. But you yourself are blending them as if they ar eone and the same.


----------



## Choop

GoldDragon said:


> There have been nationwide riots for George Floyd, including many white people.



There have been far more peaceful protests in the US--and how can you not realize that it's about more than George Floyd's death?


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> The observation is that the political climate (Trump) and the number of idle people with time to protest /riot is the only difference


Is a cause invalidated because it's _too convenient_ to advocate for it? Would you feel better about protests if it was incredibly painful and nobody had time to do it?

As an outsider who barely pays attention to politics, even I can tell you that political and racial tension has been escalating outside of the influence of COVID.


----------



## JSanta

I was in Baltimore when everything with Freddie Gray happened. It wasn't just brown and black people in the streets. The whole community was out there.


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> Is a cause invalidated because it's _too convenient_ to advocate for it? Would you feel better about protests if it was incredibly painful and nobody had time to do it?
> 
> As an outsider who barely pays attention to politics, even I can tell you that political and racial tension has been escalating outside of the influence of COVID.



No, I did not say that.

The only reason there is a "tear down the system" mentality is because of CV and liberal hatred of Trump.

When Obama was president, the circumstances were largely the same after Freddie Grey, but people didn't want to "tear down the system" because their boy was in office.

As history has proven, riots against police does not work. If police are further restricted, they will just do less police work in dangerous neighborhoods. (As shown in Baltimore.)

What I did ask is over the past five years, how many of the protesters wrote their elected officials? That was the correct action to take.

This is a larger issue than the police. Its poverty, education and other factors. The reason they are taking this up now is because of factors independent of the underlying issues.

BTW, Im not saying they are wrong about the issues, just the they are going about it wrong. The reason the fires are being stoked, the real reason behind the protests, is to win the presidency in 2020.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

GoldDragon said:


> the riots were isolated to Baltimore



The protests spanned over a dozen states.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> No, I did not say that.
> 
> The only reason there is a "tear down the system" mentality is because of CV and liberal hatred of Trump.
> 
> When Obama was president, the circumstances were largely the same after Freddie Grey, but people didn't want to "tear down the system" because their boy was in office.
> 
> As history has proven, riots against police does not work. If police are further restricted, they will just do less police work in dangerous neighborhoods. (As shown in Baltimore.)
> 
> What I did ask is over the past five years, how many of the protesters wrote their elected officials? That was the correct action to take.
> 
> This is a larger issue than the police. Its poverty, education and other factors. The reason they are taking this up now is because of factors independent of the underlying issues.
> 
> BTW, Im not saying they are wrong about the issues, just the they are going about it wrong. The reason the fires are being stoked, the real reason behind the protests, is to win the presidency in 2020.



How many letters to politicians result in tangible change/legislation? Since you're willing to throw numbers around, can you cite evidence supporting the contrary?

I get the impression that you're unwilling to show evidence that is contrary to your own deeply held beliefs. That is part of the cultural problem we have, IMO. If we based our actions on facts, versus opinions, it would be much easier to have a level playing field conversation with one another.


----------



## Choop

GoldDragon said:


> This is a larger issue than the police. Its poverty, education and other factors. The reason they are taking this up now is because of factors independent of the underlying issues.
> 
> BTW, Im not saying they are wrong about the issues, just the they are going about it wrong. The reason the fires are being stoked, the real reason behind the protests, is to win the presidency in 2020.



You're not wrong in that there are other contributing factors, but all factors are essentially related to systemic racism. The excessive use of force used by the police against POC is definitely part of it. 

And come on, you can't possibly blame the death of George Floyd exclusively for all the protests, and then immediately say it's really about winning the presidency. It's not our fault the president is conducting himself like a buffoon in the midst of everything, and that's putting it extremely lightly.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> The visit to the church was long scheduled.
> 
> Protesters burned St John's, they needed to be dispersed for the safety of the president.
> 
> The liberal narrative on this point is way off base. A mob of protesters has the ability to change the president's ability to travel and perform his job safely?
> 
> Listen to yourselves.



If I understand it, the church was burned the day before and already boarded up. The Bishop said the president didn't schedule it. Do I take your word or a Bishop?

Why are you even getting upset about what I said? All I said is that Trump was sued and it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds. I didn't make any claims regarding if he was right or wrong in my post.

And for the record, having the DC police shoot peaceful protestors with tear gas and rubber bullets, independent of his scheduled or not photo op, *is illegal*. That is literally the first amendment. That is exactly why multiple plaintiffs and civil rights groups are suing the president, secret service, national guard, army, and police. They want to be able to investigate who made the decision and hold the people that allowed it to happen to be responsible.

How can you preach the 2nd amendment while simultaneously telling people they don't have a right to the 1st amendment.

Edit: I removed some defensive text.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> I've also stated about 20 times now that I am not a Democrat or liberal.



Apparently you aren't familiar with how Trump loyalty works. Go ask Sen. Murkowski how not being a Democrat or a liberal is working out for her.


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> win the presidency in 2020.


This is what I was looking for. This has _nothing_ to do with the election. You're reframing everything as if it is, and honestly, I think that explains why you see things the way you do. I read this as an implication that care more about "your side winning" than any of the relevant issues.

How do you explain the people in other countries who are also protesting? Do you think the people organizing today in front of the US embassy are doing so because they want to influence the results of your elections? Moreso than they want to address the racial tensions and police issues that exist in both (all) of our countries?


----------



## fantom

@Alexa run my life

So I think I found a way to make sure the president is safe while going to church: ban all weapons across the country. Guns, knives, bows, etc. Make it so the secret service has weapons and people don't. Then the president can do his "scheduled" photo op safely without worrying about protestors.

Doesn't it sound a bit more ridiculous when I argue to strip away 2nd amendment rights instead of 1st amendment rights?


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> Apparently you aren't familiar with how Trump loyalty works. Go ask Sen. Murkowski how not being a Democrat or a liberal is working out for her.



Ya that is exactly why I decided to delete the part of my post that was just repeating


----------



## GoldDragon

TedEH said:


> This is what I was looking for. This has _nothing_ to do with the election. You're reframing everything as if it is, and honestly, I think that explains why you see things the way you do. I read this as an implication that care more about "your side winning" than any of the relevant issues.


Wait a second. I'm not reframing everything as it is. I wrote 50 lines about racial inequality, effectiveness of riots, and you take one line and act as if thats my whole interest in the matter.

However, I think I've made a pretty good case for it. There are people involved who it very much IS about the election. The media's coverage, whats right and whats wrong has morphed since the five years since Freddy Grey.

There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office, yet there is now that Trump is in office. Freddie Grey and George Floyd not a whole lot different.

It has been proven there are outside agitators involved in the riots, so the agenda runs deeper than racial equility and police brutality. It may be to flip the election, it may be to weaken the country.

I am concerned about outside entities creating anarchy, when everything bad that happens, the media says "Trump handled this wrong." No. There are protesters, there are looters, and there are anarchists. Trump didn't do this. Trump did not create these conditions.

Some people don't want to go back to government handouts, Obamacare, high taxes, and a stagnant economy. I'm not a Trump fanatic, just opposed to socialism. I would have voted for almost any republican.

BTW, Obama's handling of the housing crisis had a very negative impact on my bets against the housing market a decade ago. Honest, hardworking people are hurt by socialism.


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> liberal hatred of Trump



Hey now, moderate conservatives hate him about as much as Bernie Sanders too.


----------



## USMarine75

@Alexa run my life
@MetalHex
@GoldDragon

Prove you're not shitposting and that you're actually decent human beings who have different political beliefs. Prove that your issues are only with looters, rioters, and different political parties. Repost this with no additional commentary:


I am entitled to my own opinions and beliefs. My political beliefs are very different than yours, which is okay. But I agree with you regarding the following: 

Racism is endemic in the US.
There needs to be policing reform.
George Floyd, Freddie Gray, and Ahmaud Arbery were murdered by the police.

The criminal justice system is biased against people of color.
Black people are far more likely to go to jail and have longer sentences for the same crime committed by a white man.
Black people are more likely to be stopped by police and more likely to be asked for identification than white men.

There are more black people in jail today than were slaves pre-1860.
I will not support any congressperson or president that promotes racist policies (e.g. Steve King).


----------



## fantom

GoldDragon said:


> I am concerned about outside entities creating anarchy, when everything bad that happens



You need to understand that people protesting think that inside entities, like the president and police, have already created anarchy and that is a more immediate and tangible concern than some external party.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office, yet there is now that Trump is in office.



Hmm, you might be right! Maybe... and I'm just positing here, it's because Trump:

Called the protesters "Thugs".
Quoted a segregationist/racist Miami police chief when he said "When the looting starts, the shooting starts".
Threatened to invoke Posse Comitatus to have the US Military engage the protesters - something that has been UNIVERSALLY denounced by US Military leaders past and present, including Trump's current SecDef. In response, Trump is likely to fire SecDef Esper, because he won't use military force against US civilians.
Denies there are any actual protesters, effectively saying there is no actual outrage, and that this is all an Antifa/Democratic Impeachment Hoax.
Called the brother of George Floyd, made the conversation about himself, then hung up without allowing the brother to speak.
Immediately ran to a church and held a bible upside down for a cheesy photo-op.
Has made no "healing speech" of any kind to help bring the nation together.
Instead of bringing the nation together, he hides in his bunker and then builds a wall around the WH.
Obama was soundly criticized by the Black community for not coming out stronger in defense of Blacks murdered by police.


----------



## JSanta

GoldDragon said:


> Wait a second. I'm not reframing everything as it is. I wrote 50 lines about racial inequality, effectiveness of riots, and you take one line and act as if thats my whole interest in the matter.
> 
> However, I think I've made a pretty good case for it. There are people involved who it very much IS about the election. The media's coverage, whats right and whats wrong has morphed since the five years since Freddy Grey.
> 
> There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office, yet there is now that Trump is in office. Freddie Grey and George Floyd not a whole lot different.
> 
> It has been proven there are outside agitators involved in the riots, so the agenda runs deeper than racial equility and police brutality. It may be to flip the election, it may be to weaken the country.
> 
> I am concerned about outside entities creating anarchy, when everything bad that happens, the media says "Trump handled this wrong." No. There are protesters, there are looters, and there are anarchists. Trump didn't do this. Trump did not create these conditions.
> 
> Some people don't want to go back to government handouts, Obamacare, high taxes, and a stagnant economy. I'm not a Trump fanatic, just opposed to socialism.



Here's the issue, I don't think that most reasonable (and I use that word specifically) are calling for true socialism in this country. But they are calling for better social safety nets. You posted about getting your stimulus money from the government. That's socialism. Access to medical care without having to go bankrupt should not be political issues. We are the only industrialized country in the world without socialized medicine. Why? How is that countries around the world have figured this out, but we haven't? There are fundamental issues that need to be resolved in order for the US to be better for everyone. Again, it's not a political issue, it's a human rights issue. 

And even if Trump didn't create the conditions, he's certainly a flash point. He's used openly racist and sexist language, and quite frankly, language that is inflaming the situation further. He's not a good person, and an even worse president. No person can reasonably say that Trump is the cause of 200 years of inequality, but he's made very little effort to be someone that brings people together, quite the opposite, I think. Obama didn't do enough, and was called out by the Black community for inaction. But never once did he use the kind of dangerous rhetoric and language that is all to common coming out of the mouth or twitter feed of Trump.


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man



That entire argument falls apart when 3 other officers that didn't have a personal vendetta failed to intervene in the abuse of power. Assuming a person vendetta for one even existed...


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/politics/melania-trump-messaging-west-wing/index.html

Melania will be the next to be fired...


----------



## Alexa run my life

fantom said:


> That entire argument falls apart when 3 other officers that didn't have a personal vendetta failed to intervene in the abuse of power. Assuming a person vendetta for one even existed...


I think that that's just cops lookin out for each other.


----------



## Alexa run my life

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/politics/melania-trump-messaging-west-wing/index.html
> 
> Melania will be the next to be fired...


Replace everytime they use the word "protest" with "riot" and it'll make more sense.


----------



## fantom

Alexa run my life said:


> I think that that's just cops lookin out for each other.



LOL


----------



## TedEH

GoldDragon said:


> There are people involved who it very much IS about the election.


I'm sure some want to make it about the election. I have no respect for that view. It's putting politics and power games above human rights.



GoldDragon said:


> There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office


There absolutely was. It may not have been as loud, but it was there.



GoldDragon said:


> the media says "Trump handled this wrong."


Because he handles everything wrong. Compare him to Trudeau, who, as I type this, is _in the crowd of protesters_ in Ottawa. You can angle that as "he's doing it to make himself look good" if you really want to, but when the bar is set as low as where Trump has set it, you can't really criticize someone who can't be said to misunderstand the message of the protest based on his actions.



GoldDragon said:


> Trump didn't do this. Trump did not create these conditions.


He absolutely created these conditions. At the very least he contributed considerably. See USMarine's post.



GoldDragon said:


> BTW, Obama


Who cares about Obama? Obama isn't the one dealing with this right now, Trump is. I don't care how much you might think other presidents have set up the conditions for what happens today, but at the end of the day, Trump is the one here right now, and he has to deal with what's put in front of him. I'm not judging Trump based on the actions of any former president, I judge him solely for his own actions. And he acts poorly.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> Ya that is exactly why I decided to delete the part of my post that was just repeating



I'm just busting your balls. It's ridiculous that you literally can't level a single criticism on Trump or anything going on in the last 3 1/2 years without being a Commie libtard.

I always say the absolute worst thing for quality of leadership is unchecked power. Regardless of party. Typically this happens when there's one party rule, but Trump's figured out how to do it with the contrarian Stockholm Syndrome cult. He was right about shooting someone on 5th Avenue. These guys would jump in line for it to be them.


----------



## sleewell

in the last 24 hours 3 former chairman of the joint chief of staffs have spoken out against trump.

if you love the military so much why do you disregard the opinion of the people who have risen to the top of it?

"I think we need to look harder at who we elect," Kelly said, adding, "I think we should look at people that are running for office and put them through the filter: What is their character like? What are their ethics?"

"Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us," Mattis said, adding, "We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership."

“The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations," Esper said at a Pentagon news conference. "We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act."


----------



## Alexa run my life

GoldDragon said:


> There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office,


There were plenty of card carrying Marxists movements during the 99% wall street protests though. It just never caught the same amount of mainstream traction. Those boogaloo nincompoops never went away though. 



USMarine75 said:


> Prove you're not shitposting and that you're actually decent human beings who have different political beliefs. Prove that your issues are only with looters, rioters, and different political parties. Repost this with no additional commentary:


Wow. You just shit on all shit posts across the world. Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. 

Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Racism is endemic in the US. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> There needs to be policing reform. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> George Floyd, Freddie Gray, and Ahmaud Arbery were murdered by the police. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> 
> The criminal justice system is biased against people of color. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> Black people are far more likely to go to jail and have longer sentences for the same crime committed by a white man. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> Black people are more likely to be stopped by police and more likely to be asked for identification than white men. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> 
> There are more black people in jail today than were slaves pre-1860. - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.
> I will not support any congressperson or president that promotes racist policies (e.g. Steve King). - Please flush the toilet it stinks in here. Seriously, knock it off with the flame baiting please.



Here I put your racism in context. Thanks for proving what we all knew was true about you.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Racism is prevalent throughout the world and despite our best efforts, likely always will be.
There needs to be policing reform.
George Floyd, Freddie Gray, and Ahmaud Arbery were _absofuckinglutely _murdered by the police.

The criminal justice system is biased against people of color.
Black people are far more likely to go to jail and have longer sentences for the same crime committed by a white man.
Black people are more likely to be stopped by police and more likely to be asked for identification than white men.

I trust my good friend USMarine75 that there are more black people in jail today than were slaves pre-1860.
I will not support any congressperson or president that promotes racist policies (e.g. almost all of them).
Damn, I almost made it. Oh well. Guess I'm only almost decent. Fuck rioters, though. Way to fuck over innocent people AND cause major damage to a good cause; fucking idiots.
--
Like Randy mentioned in this post, there are simple procedural changes that would make a very noticeable impact on this type of thing.
I firmly believe that you'll never get rid of racism, and that all of the hyper-focusing on it that's been going on in the last decade is making the problem worse rather than better. You'll never stop a racist in a position of authority from trying to abuse that position, but the least we can do is make it less plausible for them to PUBLICLY MURDER SOMEBODY and more or less get away with it. Do the best with what you have.

Take a look at this page- and read about how a lot of these people were killed. As you read the cliffnotes of these encounters, try to pick out how many of them would not have ended in a fatality of cops were REQUIRED to wear a body cam, if chokeholds and strangleholds were FORBIDDEN, if use of force was REQUIRED to be reported, if duty to intervene was a STANDARD, or if even something as simple as requiring a warning first was STANDARD. It's crazy how many cases involved the same knee-on-neck pin that they got Floyd with.

Most importantly, and I have no idea how to tackle this one, we need to change the way the police interact with the people. The folks who's job is to serve and protect should not have an adversarial relationship with the people the way that our cops do. My last speeding ticket, I owned up to it right out of the gate, explained that I was trying to catch a flight, acknowledged I was in the wrong, was extremely apologetic and cooperative, and the guy was still talking to me like I was a felon- could't even have a civil dialogue. My brother was driving cross country, saw a cop had someone else pulled over on the side of the road, and switched lanes to give him space, filing in behind another truck. Cop lit him up for 'following too closely,' and harassed this 19 year old kid for 2 hours in the middle of the night while they tore apart his truck, broke his belongings, damaged his vehicle, and accused him of being a drug dealer because he had California plates. For a courtesy. I can only imagine how intense of an interaction it must be on a criminal call, or the bullets you'd be sweating if you were a POC in the wrong part of the country. They're supposed to be there to help, not make things worse. It's insane that most people are _afraid_ of the cops. That's wrong, things shouldn't be like that.


----------



## Ralyks

When people bring up Obamagate, or Hilarys emails, and how they're supposedly being investigated right now, it's like... Who fucking cares right now? Obama isn't president anymore. Hilary didn't win. They weren't around for a pandemic that could have been prevented or at least slowed. Say they get convicted of whatever bullshit Trump comes up with. What, you want a fucking cookie or something?
TRUMP is in power NOW, And he's failing THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Not his base, but he wasn't elected to serve his base, he was elected to serve THE WHOLE COUNTRY.

Anyway, you want a fucking cookie or not?


----------



## possumkiller

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/05/politics/melania-trump-messaging-west-wing/index.html


----------



## USMarine75

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Racism is prevalent throughout the world and despite our best efforts, likely always will be.
> There needs to be policing reform.
> George Floyd, Freddie Gray, and Ahmaud Arbery were _absofuckinglutely _murdered by the police.
> 
> The criminal justice system is biased against people of color.
> Black people are far more likely to go to jail and have longer sentences for the same crime committed by a white man.
> Black people are more likely to be stopped by police and more likely to be asked for identification than white men.
> 
> I trust my good friend USMarine75 that there are more black people in jail today than were slaves pre-1860.
> I will not support any congressperson or president that promotes racist policies (e.g. almost all of them).
> Damn, I almost made it. Oh well. Guess I'm only almost decent. Fuck rioters, though. Way to fuck over innocent people AND cause major damage to a good cause; fucking idiots.
> --
> Like Randy mentioned in this post, there are simple procedural changes that would make a very noticeable impact on this type of thing.
> I firmly believe that you'll never get rid of racism, and that all of the hyper-focusing on it that's been going on in the last decade is making the problem worse rather than better. You'll never stop a racist in a position of authority from trying to abuse that position, but the least we can do is make it less plausible for them to PUBLICLY MURDER SOMEBODY and more or less get away with it. Do the best with what you have.
> 
> Take a look at this page- and read about how a lot of these people were killed. As you read the cliffnotes of these encounters, try to pick out how many of them would not have ended in a fatality of cops were REQUIRED to wear a body cam, if chokeholds and strangleholds were FORBIDDEN, if use of force was REQUIRED to be reported, if duty to intervene was a STANDARD, or if even something as simple as requiring a warning first was STANDARD. It's crazy how many cases involved the same knee-on-neck pin that they got Floyd with.
> 
> Most importantly, and I have no idea how to tackle this one, we need to change the way the police interact with the people. The folks who's job is to serve and protect should not have an adversarial relationship with the people the way that our cops do. My last speeding ticket, I owned up to it right out of the gate, explained that I was trying to catch a flight, acknowledged I was in the wrong, was extremely apologetic and cooperative, and the guy was still talking to me like I was a felon- could't even have a civil dialogue. My brother was driving cross country, saw a cop had someone else pulled over on the side of the road, and switched lanes to give him space, filing in behind another truck. Cop lit him up for 'following too closely,' and harassed this 19 year old kid for 2 hours in the middle of the night while they tore apart his truck, broke his belongings, damaged his vehicle, and accused him of being a drug dealer because he had California plates. For a courtesy. I can only imagine how intense of an interaction it must be on a criminal call, or the bullets you'd be sweating if you were a POC in the wrong part of the country. They're supposed to be there to help, not make things worse. It's insane that most people are _afraid_ of the cops. That's wrong, things shouldn't be like that.



Just for citation purposes:

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/michelle-alexander-more-black-men-prison-were-enslaved-1850
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...an-family-ceo-makes-point-about-19th-century/

There were actually Black leaders that did not like the way this was framed, because it can be misconstrued that Blacks and criminality go hand in hand. Also, you have to take into account population statistics. 

The US has 4% of the world's population, but 1/4 of all prisoners in the world are in US prisons.

IMO the mass incarceration system prevalent today will be another hideous blot on US civility that we shamefully look back on 150 years from now like we do on slavery.


----------



## TedEH

If anyone's making cookies, I'll take one. Cookie would be great right about now.


----------



## Randy

@Alexa run my life you're a previously banned member and you have no business being on this site, and you have no protections under the rules in here 

This thread typically would get locked but it's important enough of a subject, I'm not letting the racist clown car silence it. So until Alex does what he's supposed to, this is the fucking Thunderdome, if you don't like the way people treat you in here, stay out.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Ralyks said:


> When people bring up Obamagate, or Hilarys emails, and how they're supposedly being investigated right now, it's like... Who fucking cares right now? Obama isn't president anymore. Hilary didn't win. They weren't around for a pandemic that could have been prevented or at least slowed. Say they get convicted of whatever bullshit Trump comes up with. What, you want a fucking cookie or something?
> TRUMP is in power NOW, And he's failing THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Not his base, but he wasn't elected to serve his base, he was elected to serve THE WHOLE COUNTRY.
> 
> Anyway, you want a fucking cookie or not?


It cracks me up when I see "whataboutism"...
Because for 8 years under Obama, no one has ever said "Bush's wars....Bush's mess....Bush this, Bush that". (Of course they did). And It is somewhat justified because these minutes do roll over you know..

But yeah stop criticizing people for "whataboutism"


----------



## possumkiller

Don't know how true this is but it's something to think about.


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> It cracks me up when I see "whataboutism"...
> Because for 8 years under Obama, no one has ever said "Bush's wars....Bush's mess....Bush this, Bush that". (Of course they did). And It is somewhat justified because these minutes do roll over you know..
> 
> But yeah stop criticizing people for "whataboutism"



Your rant literally makes no sense... like everything you say.

George W Bush started a war based on a lie, as confirmed by Judith Miller (the reporter), Colin Powell, and others. Even the Republican party distanced themselves from him. He wasn't welcomed at the RNC or by any organizations such as CPAC or the NRA.

BTW you're getting "cracked up" about whataboutism and then deflecting from Trump by saying "OBAMA!" is by it's very nature, whataboutism.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Alexa run my life said:


> It cracks me up when I see "whataboutism"...
> Because for 8 years under Obama, no one has ever said "Bush's wars....Bush's mess....Bush this, Bush that". (Of course they did). And It is somewhat justified because these minutes do roll over you know..



It's okay when I do it.™

For real real tho if you told Dave 2+2=6 and then Dave told Sally 2+2=6 Dave is still wrong. It's not fine because you were wrong first. We can play the whataboutism relay race all the way back to the dark ages if you want.


----------



## Alexa run my life

USMarine75 said:


> Your rant literally makes no sense... like everything you say.
> 
> George W Bush started a war based on a lie, as confirmed by Judith Miller (the reporter), Colin Powell, and others. Even the Republican party distanced themselves from him. He wasn't welcomed at the RNC or by any organizations such as CPAC or the NRA.
> 
> BTW you're getting "cracked up" about whataboutism and then deflecting from Trump by saying "OBAMA!" is by it's very nature, whataboutism.


Nevermind. I'm staying out.


----------



## Ralyks

Alexa run my life said:


> It cracks me up when I see "whataboutism"...
> Because for 8 years under Obama, no one has ever said "Bush's wars....Bush's mess....Bush this, Bush that". (Of course they did). And It is somewhat justified because these minutes do roll over you know..
> 
> But yeah stop criticizing people for "whataboutism"



Are you going to have a cookie or what? Because you eating a cookie makes more sense than whatever rambling nonsense you gave there, and at least the shit would come out of your ass instead of your mouth.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Ralyks said:


> Are you going to have a cookie or what? Because you eating a cookie makes more sense than whatever rambling nonsense you gave there, and at least the shit would come out of your ass instead of your mouth.


Do you have cookies?


----------



## USMarine75

Alexa run my life said:


> Do you have cookies?



I'll bet you've shared posts about and believe:

The Rothschilds control the media and the world's money.
George Soros is evil.
AIDS is the gay plague.
Obama is a Muslim from Kenya
The Hillary Kill List
Hillary was responsible for Ambassador Stevens and 3 others killed in Libya


----------



## shadowlife

Well, I had a lot to catch up on after the past two days, but here goes:

-I'm not sure protesting is going change anything, but at the least it s raises awareness, and hopefully has people listening to each other, which can only be a good thing

-Rioting serves zero constructive purposes, and those fools are lucky I'm not in charge because I would've had the high pressure fire hoses out on day #2 and put an end to that nonsense 

-As much of an idiot as Trump is, and as difficult as it might be for some people to believe, he still might be seen as the "lesser of two evils" on Election Day. Sadly that is what voting comes down to in many case in the US.

-If you are a US citizen, and you truly want change in this country, the most important thing is getting those old timer congressmen out of there as soon as possible. And do not put anyone in those seats unless they are willing to accept term limits on congressional positions. I am no fan of Obama, but I will give him credit for at least trying to fix the broken healthcare system in the US before Congress got to the bill and did their usual bullshit.

-Stop with the insults and name calling towards members here- all it does it make you look immature, and weaken any valid argument you are trying to make. If @Randy lets a post stay, then respect his decision and refrain from the childish behavior just because you don't agree with what the person said.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Its hopeless with the Trump supporters. Someone was arguing with my wife on Facebook saying the liberals don't give Trump credit for ending the Korean war???? 

I dont even know what to say anymore


----------



## Randy

To be clear, 


shadowlife said:


> Well, I had a lot to catch up on after the past two days, but here goes:
> 
> -I'm not sure protesting is going change anything, but at the least it s raises awareness, and hopefully has people listening to each other, which can only be a good thing
> 
> -Rioting serves zero constructive purposes, and those fools are lucky I'm not in charge because I would've had the high pressure fire hoses out on day #2 and put an end to that nonsense
> 
> -As much of an idiot as Trump is, and as difficult as it might be for some people to believe, he still might be seen as the "lesser of two evils" on Election Day. Sadly that is what voting comes down to in many case in the US.
> 
> -If you are a US citizen, and you truly want change in this country, the most important thing is getting those old timer congressmen out of there as soon as possible. And do not put anyone in those seats unless they are willing to accept term limits on congressional positions. I am no fan of Obama, but I will give him credit for at least trying to fix the broken healthcare system in the US before Congress got to the bill and did their usual bullshit.
> 
> -Stop with the insults and name calling towards members here- all it does it make you look immature, and weaken any valid argument you are trying to make. If @Randy lets a post stay, then respect his decision and refrain from the childish behavior just because you don't agree with what the person said.



The whole moderation system isn't dead but it's moving at a snail's pace. The current loose nature of this thread is a temporary relaxing of rules because *somebody* was permibanned here for inexcusable conduct regardless of what political affiliation, and I don't expect a fair fight if everyone needs to follow rules and one person doesn't.

To @shadowlife 's point, name calling and the rest of it isn't conducive to conversation, hence why I encouraged people to ignore rather than engage. I can't guarantee people flouting the rules right now won't eventually get a ban once things get caught back up, so in the interest of quality discussion, not making our lives miserable and not getting yourself banned in the next few days, I'd agree that a return to 'normal' would be a good idea for most people.

That said, there are some positions and some discussions that are controversial but valid, and there's those that are not. I understand that we're in an especially racially charged news cycle right now, so I can't expect it won't come up but there's a stark and noticeable difference between debating one side or the other, and racism, which has no place here and will get you banned every time. I'm not going to tell people what to think but if you're an adult seeing fit to post in here or the other threads in this sub-forum, you should know the difference or expect you could be gone any minute. Please consider that.


----------



## Alexa run my life

shadowlife said:


> -Stop with the insults and name calling towards members here- all it does it make you look immature, and weaken any valid argument you are trying to make. If @Randy lets a post stay, then respect his decision and refrain from the childish behavior just because you don't agree with what the person said


Agreed. I just read the previous two pages and tried to pinpoint where it all went bad for ME........and I've come up empty handed. It makes no sense. Nowhere did I say anything racist. @Randy if I am the one who said something racist, show me.....because you said racist clown car. Who? Where? I dont think anyone has said anything racist on either side?


----------



## shadowlife

^^^
I have a feeling if there were any racist posts, they would have already been dealt with, and aren't here anymore, as well as the people who posted them.


----------



## Alexa run my life

Yeah. Well I'm clearly on the shitlist and getting banned when things catch up


----------



## Randy

shadowlife said:


> ^^^
> I have a feeling if there were any racist posts, they would have already been dealt with, and aren't here anymore, as well as the people who posted them.



The member who posted those things WAS banned and they decided to come back despite it being explicitly against the rules, and we're not relitigating either matter. What they did was against the rules, making another account is against the rules, and coming in here and treading as close as possible to what got them banned last time is stupid because it got them caught. Period.


----------



## budda

Protesting does work. You're seeing it right now. Change isn't fast but it's happening.


----------



## TedEH

shadowlife said:


> -Rioting serves zero constructive purposes, and those fools are lucky I'm not in charge because I would've had the high pressure fire hoses out on day #2 and put an end to that nonsense


Honestly, this is exactly what would cause _more _rioting. I've said it before, but if you look at Canada, I think what happened today was the correct response. Let people protest peacefully. Respond with support. Our cops, while recognizing they were the target of the protest, were out giving people water, keeping protesters safe, etc. They continued to do their job, as they should. That doesn't get them "off the hook" by any means, but it was the correct response to what's happening, IMO. This "we'll put them in their place" response is part of what's provoking people to act out even more.



shadowlife said:


> he still might be seen as the "lesser of two evils" on Election Day.


I honestly can't think of a more evil person for the role than the person already there.



shadowlife said:


> -If you are a US citizen, and you truly want change in this country, the most important thing is getting those old timer congressmen out of there as soon as possible.


I'll agree with you on this part, at least.


----------



## TedEH

Think what you want about the source, but someone at Lifehacker compiled a short list of some of the things that have changed because of the protests:
https://lifehacker.com/protesting-is-a-hack-1843927165


----------



## shadowlife

TedEH said:


> Let people protest peacefully. Respond with support. Our cops, while recognizing they were the target of the protest, were out giving people water, keeping protesters safe, etc. They continued to do their job, as they should.



I have zero objection to this.

But if there is a crowd protesting at Bryant Park, and group of people looting over on Park Ave, the first group should absolutely be allowed to continue what they are doing, the second group should be stopped and arrested.


----------



## TedEH

If those arrests can be done in a safe and reasonable manner, without inciting any more problems, then maybe there's an argument there. But if you need to incite more violence to do so, then no - let it happen. Not because it's ok, but because it's the lesser of the two evils happening.

That's what people are getting at -> nobody is endorsing theft and destruction of property at face value, but recognizing that it's not the worst thing that's going on right now. If one guy is smashing a window and stealing something, but a cop is shooting a homeless guy in the face with beanbags, attacking the press, pushing over and potentially killing old men, etc., then I don't care about the window - stop that cop from shooting homeless people first.


----------



## Randy

The idea that the cops should stand by and allow people to blow up buildings and flip cars even if the protesting is for a just cause is silly and it's a strawman argument.

Just like 2A protestors use their guns and their presence as a threat to authority and reminder that they serve the people, violence in protesting serves as a reminder of the same. But even as someone that believes in the cause and *understands* the means, I'm in full agreement that it's breaking the law and it shouldn't be allowed unabated.


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> The killing probably wasn't due to racism. We know this becauae they both knew each other and worked at the same club. The club owner says that the two "never had any interactions with each other", which doesn't mean jack shit, really.
> 
> My hypothesis is that both of them were involved in some illegal activities perhaps drug dealings or prostitution, on the side. And someone screwed over the other somewhere along the line, creating bad blood. So I dont think this was a racist issue. The cop had a personal vendetta against this particular man.
> 
> You have to read between the lines because not everything is so black and white.....



lol, literally more willing to write a fanfiction piece than to allow for racism to enter the picture. The problem here is you don't have any sort of redemption arc, and where's the love interest? Some more world-building would help.


----------



## Randy

That said though, the visual of blasting protestors with water cannons is terrible optics. That's the same shit cops were doing to anti-segregation protestors for sitting at lunch counters. That's not the visual you want to calm the stampede.


----------



## narad

GoldDragon said:


> They did. But they didn't blame obama.
> 
> The murder rate in Baltimore has increased since Freddy Grey riots as a result of reduced policing.
> 
> The riots had a negative and measureable effect on black communities in Baltimore.



As an ex-Baltimorean, just going to call bullshit on this claim (for the record).


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> That said though, the visual of blasting protestors with water cannons is terrible optics. That's the same shit cops were doing to anti-segregation protestors for sitting at lunch counters. That's not the visual you want to calm the stampede.


That's kind of my point. I'm phrasing everything terribly, but I think the _attempts_ to stop the looting would make things worse. The less police respond to anything, the less push back they'll get, the quicker the tension will calm down. Pretty much any action the cops take that can be framed as "against anyone" is going to excite more tension, whether they're doing the right thing nor not, whether they're properly upholding the law or not.


----------



## Edika

Alexa run my life said:


> I think you meant "systemic" racism. Big difference.
> 
> ......After you had just gotten done sticking it to the token conservatives, too.



Sorry for using an incorrect term, you're right it is systemic but also systematic too. I guess because I've used a wrong term it makes whatever you say correct. Isn't that what your Cheeto in Chief thinks?


----------



## narad

Alexa run my life said:


> I think you meant "systemic" racism. Big difference.
> 
> ......After you had just gotten done sticking it to the token conservatives, too.



You used the wrong word! Your argument is therefore VOID!


----------



## thraxil

Trump is right, voter fraud is rampant:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/donald-trump-felony-voter-fraud-florida.html


----------



## USMarine75

thraxil said:


> Trump is right, voter fraud is rampant:
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/donald-trump-felony-voter-fraud-florida.html


----------



## CTID

thraxil said:


> Trump is right, voter fraud is rampant:
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/donald-trump-felony-voter-fraud-florida.html



Conservatives are masters of projection. He would fraudulently register to vote with mail-in ballots in a state he doesn't live in, so obviously everyone else would, right?


----------



## zappatton2

CTID said:


> Conservatives are masters of projection. He would fraudulently register to vote with mail-in ballots in a state he doesn't live in, so obviously everyone else would, right?


So true, I had a roommate once who was a raging klepto, yet lived in constant fear of people taking his shit, assuming everyone was like him. Whenever cons paint the world as tooth and claw to vote in a predatory authoritarian, I have to wonder where the mindset comes from...


----------



## Ralyks

Maybe Trump is voting bDemocrat? I mean, they're the ones doing the fraud...


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> The media's coverage, whats right and whats wrong has morphed since the five years since Freddy Grey.
> 
> There was no "tear down the system" mentality when Obama was in office, yet there is now that Trump is in office.



For years now I have heard the word "*Wait*!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "*Wait*" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that justice too long delayed is justice denied.


----------



## USMarine75

GoldDragon said:


> It has been proven there are outside agitators involved in the riots, so the agenda runs deeper than racial equility and police brutality.



Does that invalidate the cause? 

Do racial inequality and police brutality exist or not?


----------



## fantom

Looks like Trump is getting his "Big Big Crowds". It might actually be the "biggest crowd of all time". All those people celebrating his superb job with the economy this week. And he even built his wall finally! What a great turn of events.

This is my sarcasm face.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/07/politics/colin-powell-donald-trump-protests-cnntv/index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...colin-powell-donald-trump-constitution-305616

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...20/06/07/colin-powell-voting-joe-biden-305335

Still a Democratic Impeachment Hoax?

All his generals and now a former SecState and Chairman of JCS for Republican presidents has condemned Trump and his actions.


----------



## Randy

Joe Biden hits a milestone Hillary Clinton never did: 50%



> Trump's comeback in 2016 was made considerably easier by the fact that Democrat Hillary Clinton wasn't polling close to 50%. The average live interview poll taken in June 2016 (when Libertarian Gary Johnson was included) had Clinton at a mere 42%. Not a single one of those polls had her even touching 50%. In fact, she never got close in the average of polls during the rest of the campaign.


----------



## spudmunkey

Nvrmnd


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...er-goodell-sorry-too-late-pearlman/index.html

So this is where I’m on the other side... Hoping @Alexa run my life and @GoldDragon have cookies. 

I think this is a terrible message to send. Not everyone is woke (I cringed typing that word) at the same time you are. This sends the message that the other side is irredeemable even when the other side is slowly coming over to your way of thinking. This is precisely why the goal should be to educate. Have difficult conversations. Find common ground.

Saying if you’re not with us your against us (e.g. Mike Fuller, Drew Brees, etc) is not the right way. It emboldens the other side. It takes people that are on the fence and kicks them off. It makes the issue not about the issue. 

Stay on message. This IS about human rights. This isn’t about riots. This isn’t about looters. This isn’t about being anti-business. 

Every time you make broad categories of 0 or 1, pro or anti, you push people from your side to the other side. Since when did Drew Brees become the problem? He’s on our side. He’s not enough on our side. But people can hold two beliefs in their head. It’s okay to be anti-looting AND pro-rights. It’s okay to be anti-flag-burning AND pro-rights. Public shaming may have convinced Drew Brees that we’re right, but it probably convinced a whole lot of people we’re wrong. 

If we want real and permanent change we have to stay on message. George Floyd had a criminal record and may have been on drugs at the time of his arrest. He was also a human being who was tortured for 9 minutes and then executed by a (most likely) racist cop. We can hold these two thoughts in our heads and agree both are “true”, but only one was “right”. 

Sorry for the rant I’ve just had enough. My dad marched with Dr King in Selma 50 years ago and I feel like the only thing that’s changed is we look over our shoulder now before we call a black man a n***r.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> Joe Biden hits a milestone Hillary Clinton never did: 50%


While I don't really understand enough of that system to know what the numbers really mean, my takeaway from that article is still that there's WAY too many people who still support Trump after all of the horrible nonsense that has been this year. It blows my mind that any significant group of people would have more than 40% of people _wanting _that guy to stay where he is, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

I think it's telling of what really matters to Americans. None of the protests going on mean anything if this many people don't understand how much damage this man is doing. I mean, we've just witnessed literal fascism, and people are still voting for that. The fact that there's any chance of this guy being voted back again is one of those things that makes you lose faith in humanity.


----------



## sleewell

Seems like now would be a good time to drop the apprentice tapes w trump using the n word if they exist.


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> Seems like now would be a good time to drop the apprentice tapes w trump using the n word if they exist.



These days half of his supporters would call it a Deep Fake, and the other half would say "One of us. One of us"


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Randy said:


> That said though, the visual of blasting *looters *with water cannons is *hilariously satisfying*.



I absolutely agree


----------



## USMarine75

TedEH said:


> While I don't really understand enough of that system to know what the numbers really mean, my takeaway from that article is still that there's WAY too many people who still support Trump after all of the horrible nonsense that has been this year. It blows my mind that any significant group of people would have more than 40% of people _wanting _that guy to stay where he is, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
> 
> I think it's telling of what really matters to Americans. None of the protests going on mean anything if this many people don't understand how much damage this man is doing. I mean, we've just witnessed literal fascism, and people are still voting for that. The fact that there's any chance of this guy being voted back again is one of those things that makes you lose faith in humanity.



I'll give them this... Trump supporters are ride-or-die. When it came down to it, the "Never Trumpers" like Lyndsey Graham, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz acquiesced and towed the party line per usual.

Meanwhile, the in-fighting within the Democratic Party did them in. Bernie Bros cost Hillary the election because many of them stayed home. Imagine if Dems could actually get their collective shit together, instead of fighting to get further left of the next candidate? With all of the shit Trump has done - and that's A LOT of questionable shit - where is the internal dissent? Meanwhile, Al Franken does one objectionable thing and the party called for his immediate stepping down which he immediately complied with. Imagine if Steve King was a democrat how quickly they would have ejected him?


----------



## TedEH

^ I only know maybe three of those names, tops. What I do know is that Trump being in power scares me.


----------



## Necris

Republican Party messaging has basically eliminated nuance and provided Trump's base with an easy response to just about anything:
Coronavirus response criticism? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 Election
Military Leaders Speaking Out Against Trump? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 election
Colin Powell Speaking Out Against Trump? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 election
Protests against Police Brutality and Systemic Racism? Co-Opted by the Democratic Party to win the 2020 Election
Criticism of Trumps Response to the Protests? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 Election


----------



## possumkiller

Necris said:


> Republican Party messaging has basically eliminated nuance and provided Trump's base with an easy response to just about anything:
> Coronavirus response criticism? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 Election
> Military Leaders Speaking Out Against Trump? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 election
> Colin Powell Speaking Out Against Trump? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 election
> Protests against Police Brutality and Systemic Racism? Co-Opted by the Democratic Party to win the 2020 Election
> Criticism of Trumps Response to the Protests? Democratic Party ploy to win the 2020 Election


And to think all that time it was actually trump scheming to win the Democrats the 2020 election all along.


----------



## AxRookie

President Rump - No More Years, No More Years, No More Years, No More Years...


----------



## possumkiller

Someone needs to edit a Scooby Doo unmasking scene with trump pulling the mask off of the person that's sabotaging his election to reveal trump.


----------



## StevenC

Flying Predator drones over Minneapolis sure seems like it's flaunting the 1st Amendment while laughing hysterically at the 2nd, but as a not American I don't feel qualified to comment.


----------



## ThePIGI King

StevenC said:


> Flying Predator drones over Minneapolis sure seems like it's flaunting the 1st Amendment while laughing hysterically at the 2nd, but as a not American I don't feel qualified to comment.


And why would you say it's "laughing hysterically" at the 2nd?

It's a surveillance drone, with zero equipped weapon systems. It's not a show of force, it's a way to look at the area from a birds eye view and gather data.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> And why would you say it's "laughing hysterically" at the 2nd?
> 
> It's a surveillance drone, with zero equipped weapon systems. It's not a show of force, it's a way to look at the area from a birds eye view and gather data.


Predator drones are only allowed to operate 100 miles inland, that does not stretch to Minneapolis.

But basically you're arguing it's ok to threaten some with a gun as long as it's not loaded?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Predator drones are only allowed to operate 100 miles inland, that does not stretch to Minneapolis.



It's within 100 miles inland of the Mississippi river.


----------



## ThePIGI King

StevenC said:


> Predator drones are only allowed to operate 100 miles inland, that does not stretch to Minneapolis.
> 
> But basically you're arguing it's ok to threaten some with a gun as long as it's not loaded?


What're you talking about? It doesn't even have a gun at all. It's like cops doing a stake out of a criminal, only from the sky. If you think a stake out is a threat, than you probably get scared of everything.

Also, you avoided my question then accused me of something. So man up. Answer my question: Why is it "laughing hysterically" at the 2nd?

Furthermore, I never agreed with the use of the SURVEILLANCE drone.

And finally, if I walked up to you with a camera (hell, my cell phone), would you say I'm threatening you? It's simply a camera in the sky. Do I want to be watched by a camera at 20k feet? No. But would I call it being threatened by an unloaded gun? Hell no.


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> And why would you say it's "laughing hysterically" at the 2nd?
> 
> It's a surveillance drone, with zero equipped weapon systems. It's not a show of force, it's a way to look at the area from a birds eye view and gather data.



Even unarmed, a Predator drone used to capture data is still a show of force. Full stop. What's to stop the next one from being armed? The Predator drone is not a tool of peace, it is a weapon of war. Military parades are still the same thing. It's no differet than a tank rolling down the street. They are all demonstrative of the capabilities of a military. 

I think your analogy of the cell phone camera is a strawman when compared to military equipment. They are not the same thing.


----------



## ThePIGI King

JSanta said:


> Even unarmed, a Predator drone used to capture data is still a show of force. Full stop. What's to stop the next one from being armed? The Predator drone is not a tool of peace, it is a weapon of war. Military parades are still the same thing. It's no differet than a tank rolling down the street. They are all demonstrative of the capabilities of a military.
> 
> I think your analogy of the cell phone camera is a strawman when compared to military equipment. They are not the same thing.


I disagree on the show of force, no hard feelings. As for what stops the next from being a drone with a weapon? Not a whole lot. But as I said, I disagree with using the camera drone too. My main point in what you quoted was, for the third time now, asking Steven how it was laughing at the 2nd.

Again, because everyone seems to overlook most of what I say: _I don't think using the drone is right. However I don't think it is a show of force, nor do I believe it's meant to be a threat_.


----------



## narad

ThePIGI King said:


> And finally, if I walked up to you with a camera (hell, my cell phone), would you say I'm threatening you? It's simply a camera in the sky. Do I want to be watched by a camera at 20k feet? No. But would I call it being threatened by an unloaded gun? Hell no.



I would say it's more like if you went through a metal detector that's supposed to catch these things, walked up to a guy, pulled out a (metal) camera, took his photo and said, "Imagine what I could bring next time."


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> I disagree on the show of force, no hard feelings. As for what stops the next from being a drone with a weapon? Not a whole lot. But as I said, I disagree with using the camera drone too. My main point in what you quoted was, for the third time now, asking Steven how it was laughing at the 2nd.
> 
> Again, because everyone seems to overlook most of what I say: _I don't think using the drone is right. However I don't think it is a show of force, nor do I believe it's meant to be a threat_.



Just for the record, I did not say that you agreed with the use of them. And we'll just have to disagree on what constitutes a show of force. The use of military aircraft over our own country to survey our own citizens certainly doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. 

I can't speak for StevenC, but I can surmise that the feeling is that with the government already flying Predator drones in our cities, the 2nd amendment as it stands to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government doesn't really hold water anymore. One of these drones equipped with Hellfire missiles can level city blocks while the pilot is in a trailer hundreds or thousands of miles away. With the advanced weapon technology at the disposal of the US military, there's no fight, even if the government decided to never put boots on the ground.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> I disagree on the show of force, no hard feelings. As for what stops the next from being a drone with a weapon? Not a whole lot. But as I said, I disagree with using the camera drone too. My main point in what you quoted was, for the third time now, asking Steven how it was laughing at the 2nd.
> 
> Again, because everyone seems to overlook most of what I say: _I don't think using the drone is right. However I don't think it is a show of force, nor do I believe it's meant to be a threat_.


If you need a simpler analogy, this is like threatening someone with your trunk full of AR-15 rails and attachments.


----------



## ThePIGI King

JSanta said:


> Just for the record, I did not say that you agreed with the use of them. And we'll just have to disagree on what constitutes a show of force. The use of military aircraft over our own country to survey our own citizens certainly doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
> 
> I can't speak for StevenC, but I can surmise that the feeling is that with the government already flying Predator drones in our cities, the 2nd amendment as it stands to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government doesn't really hold water anymore. One of these drones equipped with Hellfire missiles can level city blocks while the pilot is in a trailer hundreds or thousands of miles away. With the advanced weapon technology at the disposal of the US military, there's no fight, even if the government decided to never put boots on the ground.


And I get that, it can be a little frightening, yes. However, it would have to be a civil war for that to happen. And I guess you could say that my "comfort" is that most people I know serving or that have served wouldn't follow an order that would kill many innocent Americans.

Plus, firepower doesn't always equal victory. Look at how the war on terror has been going for two decades. They don't have drones or tanks like we do and 20+ years later we're still over there.

@StevenC that's when you just nod at the guy and say "anytime you want boss", because most people wouldn't do it. And if you packing, or even got a knife, you got a good chance to win that fight, seeing as he only has the furniture. What'll he do, chuck the handguard at me?


----------



## TedEH

ThePIGI King said:


> And finally, if I walked up to you with a camera (hell, my cell phone), would you say I'm threatening you?


I imagine some people would actually find this threatening. Why are you filming them? What are you going to do with that footage? It's not an immediate, direct, physical threat - but it IS an indirect one. Threat doesn't have to mean threat of direct violence. It could be threat of more surveillance, threat of blackmail, threat of invasion of privacy, etc. Or it very well could be threat of violence, who knows.


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> And I get that, it can be a little frightening, yes. However, it would have to be a civil war for that to happen. And I guess you could say that my "comfort" is that most people I know serving or that have served wouldn't follow an order that would kill many innocent Americans.
> 
> Plus, firepower doesn't always equal victory. Look at how the war on terror has been going for two decades. They don't have drones or tanks like we do and 20+ years later we're still over there.
> 
> @StevenC that's when you just nod at the guy and say "anytime you want boss", because most people wouldn't do it. And if you packing, or even got a knife, you got a good chance to win that fight, seeing as he only has the furniture. What'll he do, chuck the handguard at me?



I see your perspective about it taking a Civil War, but I disagree. But I appreciate the civil discourse. I could easily imagine the military fracturing and mass casualties of civilians. 

Regarding your comment about our ongoing wars. Culturally, we are significantly different than the many countries we are either actively at war with or are assisting in some way. The Afghans have been effectively fighting in their own country for decades. I don't think you can make an honest comparison between the Afghani's and the US. Even in Syria, the Government has committed war crimes to suppress their people. If they really wanted too, the Syrian military could do far more damage than they have done. I think the same could be said about our own military. My 240B could do a lot of damage, but it was targeted. If the US Government didn't care about mass casualties, it would be relatively easy to just level cities. There's a level of restraint, IMO.


----------



## AxRookie

This is our POTUS Baby Trump!



He has to go!!!


----------



## fantom

ThePIGI King said:


> And finally, if I walked up to you with a camera (hell, my cell phone), would you say I'm threatening you? It's simply a camera in the sky. Do I want to be watched by a camera at 20k feet? No. But would I call it being threatened by an unloaded gun? Hell no.



So again. The constitution is a contract between the federal government and the people. The 4th amendment protects us from illegal search. Sending a drone to spy on a US citizens without a court order targeting a specific person and reason violates the 4th amendment. This is the same reason you can fight a traffic camera ticket and win or the feds can't just wiretap everyone. Remember Trump ranting about being wire tapped? Comparing the situation to a private citizen or corporation recording us is a different situation altogether.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AUABXi-E-TqelfXrd0qWyHg

"More than 1,250 former Justice Department workers on Wednesday called on the agency’s internal watchdog to investigate Attorney General William P. Barr’s involvement in law enforcement’s move last week to push a crowd of largely peaceful demonstrators back from Lafayette Square using horses and gas"

And Trump will shield him somehow.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> I can't speak for StevenC, but I can surmise that the feeling is that with the government already flying Predator drones in our cities, the 2nd amendment as it stands to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government doesn't really hold water anymore. One of these drones equipped with Hellfire missiles can level city blocks while the pilot is in a trailer hundreds or thousands of miles away. With the advanced weapon technology at the disposal of the US military, there's no fight, even if the government decided to never put boots on the ground.


Well, that and, isn't the whole "we need our guns to protect us from a tyrannical government" theory predicated on actually stepping up to protect ourselves from the government if they ever did become tyranical? Say, by tear-gassing peaceful protesters, locking up nonviolent protestors without due cause, and assaulting and in some cases killing peaceful protesters, to silence political dissent? 

Hey, don't get me wrong, I've long said that a dude with an AR-15 doesn't stand a chance against a M-1 Abrams or a Predator, but maybe you 2nd amendment dudes are right with your Afghani comparisons. The government's gone full tyrannical, you can step up and show us it wasn't all just a bullshit excuse because you liked the feeling of power having a gun gave any time now.


----------



## possumkiller

Drew said:


> Well, that and, isn't the whole "we need our guns to protect us from a tyrannical government" theory predicated on actually stepping up to protect ourselves from the government if they ever did become tyranical? Say, by tear-gassing peaceful protesters, locking up nonviolent protestors without due cause, and assaulting and in some cases killing peaceful protesters, to silence political dissent?
> 
> Hey, don't get me wrong, I've long said that a dude with an AR-15 doesn't stand a chance against a M-1 Abrams or a Predator, but maybe you 2nd amendment dudes are right with your Afghani comparisons. The government's gone full tyrannical, you can step up and show us it wasn't all just a bullshit excuse because you liked the feeling of power having a gun gave any time now.


They're on the other side. Whenever trump decides he doesn't want to leave the white house, he will call out to his loyal army of racist gun hoarders to stir up a shitstorm.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> They're on the other side. Whenever trump decides he doesn't want to leave the white house, he will call out to his loyal army of racist gun hoarders to stir up a shitstorm.


I'm sorry, I really should have made the sarcasm in that post clearer. :/


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> They're on the other side. Whenever trump decides he doesn't want to leave the white house, he will call out to his loyal army of racist gun hoarders to stir up a shitstorm.



I remember just yesteryear, Trump thought the Whitehouse was crappy and wanted to live in Trump Tower... To think 4 years later he won't let it go...


----------



## fantom

I have learned something in this thread that I didn't expect. I remember barely learning US history and political structure in middle school. As I grew up, I remember Republicans and conservatives usually were strongly in favor of interpreting the constitution as a holy sacrament and using it to keep the status quo...

But at this time in history, we've now had Republicans shit all over amendments 1, 2, 4, 10, and 15 (at least). In this thread, the Trump backers act like these amendments are meaningless unless it gives them a "win". I've always viewed myself as a moderate conservative, but I don't even recognize what the hell the right is doing anymore. It isn't just Trump. It's the senators and voting public that just don't give a shit about the history of this country and the lessons the founding fathers tried to teach us. Sigh

Edit: might as well throw in 10 and 15 while we are at it.


----------



## Xaios

Same boat, friendo. I used to be what I'd call a conservative idealist. I voted for Stephen Harper 3 times. What ultimately lead me to abandon being a conservative was the growing inhumanity and lack of decency and decorum of the CPC. When they finally had a majority government that couldn't be voted down by the combined votes of other parties in parliament, they proceeded to do nearly everything that they promised they wouldn't. That's when I realized that I was voting in favor of a party that was ultimately only interested in perpetuating its own power, and I walked away. Considering that they nearly elected buffoons like Kelly Leitch and Maxime Bernier to be head of the party, and that Andrew Scheer turned out to be not much better, so far I feel pretty justified in that decision.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> I have learned something in this thread that I didn't expect. I remember barely learning US history and political structure in middle school. As I grew up, I remember Republicans and conservatives usually were strongly in favor of interpreting the constitution as a holy sacrament and using it to keep the status quo...
> 
> But at this time in history, we've now had Republicans shit all over amendments 1, 2, 4, 10, and 15 (at least). In this thread, the Trump backers act like these amendments are meaningless unless it gives them a "win". I've always viewed myself as a moderate conservative, but I don't even recognize what the hell the right is doing anymore. It isn't just Trump. It's the senators and voting public that just don't give a shit about the history of this country and the lessons the founding fathers tried to teach us. Sigh
> 
> Edit: might as well throw in 10 and 15 while we are at it.



Names are loaded things, basically. I consider myself a progressive or even liberal leaning Democrat, but I believe in not raising taxes, I believe laws/rules that restrict civil liberties and privacy should be rare and limited to the most extreme cases, I believe Constitution should serve as a reminder to limit how far we stray away from our foundation, and I believe in state (and local!) rights. So to a lot of people, what I identify as and my positions likely don't match up, but the idea a party affiliation means you're 100% in lock step with everywhere a party is and will be is bullshit.

To that end, no, the Republican Party does not resemble the party of 30 or 40 years ago. In a lot of ways, it doesn't resemble the party of 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. That's no reflection on you as an individual, or most people really. It's just that having positions on individual policy is hard, so they prefer to just pick a guy and say 'yeah whatever he said'.


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> Names are loaded things, basically.





Xaios said:


> Stephen Harper


I've said a bajillion times that I really hate the way we divide and categorize our politics. My usual social circles tend to be the ones that would describe Harper, or anything vaguely conservative, as being literally evil incarnate. I doubt that surprises anyone who's familiar with the way that I post (lol). But I really don't follow the same politics as most of the people I call friends, or most of the people I work with, etc. I've always thought of myself as being sort of centrist - but it doesn't really look that way from the outside since I'm more willing to share left leaning views than right leaning views. Opposing the wrong right wing view might make you unpopular, but opposing the wrong left wing view gets you fired, so I just don't. Not at work, not online, I just don't touch some subjects. Not worth it. And I think that's unfortunate.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Names are loaded things, basically. I consider myself a progressive or even liberal leaning Democrat, but I believe in not raising taxes, I believe laws/rules that restrict civil liberties and privacy should be rare and limited to the most extreme cases, I believe Constitution should serve as a reminder to limit how far we stray away from our foundation, and I believe in state (and local!) rights. So to a lot of people, what I identify as and my positions likely don't match up, but the idea a party affiliation means you're 100% in lock step with everywhere a party is and will be is bullshit.
> 
> To that end, no, the Republican Party does not resemble the party of 30 or 40 years ago. In a lot of ways, it doesn't resemble the party of 10 years ago or even 5 years ago. That's no reflection on you as an individual, or most people really. It's just that having positions on individual policy is hard, so they prefer to just pick a guy and say 'yeah whatever he said'.



This has been my problem with the GOP since the rise of Trump. I mean, you have Jeb Bush's son endorsing Trump. The same guy that ruthlessly disparaged his father, mother, and grandmother. The cognitive dissonance that would allow him to make that endorsement is mind boggling to me. I would say that I had considered myself existing in the middle ground between the parties, but as the GOP has effectively become the Trump party, and I can't support it.


----------



## Ralyks

Can someone explain why the Dow is in a total freefall right now? @Drew ?


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> So again. The constitution is a contract between the federal government and the people. The 4th amendment protects us from illegal search. Sending a drone to spy on a US citizens without a court order targeting a specific person and reason violates the 4th amendment. This is the same reason you can fight a traffic camera ticket and win or the feds can't just wiretap everyone. Remember Trump ranting about being wire tapped? Comparing the situation to a private citizen or corporation recording us is a different situation altogether.



Depends.

The FAA solely regulates and maintains flightpaths and airspace. Local and state govt controls landing zones (except on federal lands).

https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22938

When it comes to crime surveillance - "right to be, right to see" applies, except where it violates local/state laws. Where is the drone and where is the subject under surveillance. It also depends on whether the subject of the drone surveillance is targeted (e.g. camera focued on your home vs a traffic camera).

https://www.brookings.edu/research/drones-and-aerial-surveillance-considerations-for-legislatures/


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Can someone explain why the Dow is in a total freefall right now? @Drew ?


It is, actually, you're a day late - the S&P is off 5% today. 

As to why we'd essentially regained all the ground we lost, the general tone of the news for the last several weeks has been optimistic. Good treatment trial results, a couple vaccines moving into phase 2 testing, case counts did seem to be stabilizing, states were opening up, oil surpluses were stabilizing due to production cuts and less-awful-than-expected demand, the unemployment report headline number of 13.7% I think it was _looked_ good (even though BLS noted in the release due too the miscaricartization of temporarily laid off workers in surveys it likely should have been mid-16s), etc etc etc. And one of the more interesting and non-consensus-but-plausible theories I read about why we continued to rise during the race riots is that it'd a well known truism that the markets hate uncertainty, and by having millions of protesters out on the streets in major cities all over the world we were going to find out in a hurry just how likely a second wave was. All in, the marke had basically made peace with the fact that Q2 and probably Q3 were going to be abysmal for earnings, but by Q4/1Q21 we should be well on our way to recovery, and just decided to look through the chaos to the recovery. Pure positive sentiment. 

What happened today are, I think, two things. One, there is a growing awareness that we ARE seeing a surge in cases in the first states to reopen, notably Texas. And two, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell in remarks today noted that he expected the recovery from this recession would take years. I don't think there's anything controversial about that opinion... But he rattled the complacent confidence that had been pushing up valuations, and we're getting slammed now.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> Depends.
> 
> The FAA solely regulates and maintains flightpaths and airspace. Local and state govt controls landing zones (except on federal lands).
> 
> https://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=22938
> 
> When it comes to crime surveillance - "right to be, right to see" applies, except where it violates local/state laws. Where is the drone and where is the subject under surveillance. It also depends on whether the subject of the drone surveillance is targeted (e.g. camera focued on your home vs a traffic camera).
> 
> https://www.brookings.edu/research/drones-and-aerial-surveillance-considerations-for-legislatures/



So I didn't read the entire article. To me, this is an opinion with a recommendation. I personally think suggestions #2 and #3 are bad.

#2 is the disagreement. Should a drone be able to focus on a single person. To me, no. The is a good discussion that using a drone in response to an event should be less restricted (is, lower the requirement for probable cause), but presuming someone is a threat before they do something is kind of the problem.

#3 is just not realistic or feasible. The tech industry and many places like credit card companies have gotten this wrong with 20+ years of experience. Considering most government projects are a worse clusteref*ck, I am terrified of this type of approach being acceptable. I would take a similar stance as EU with GDPR. As a citizen, I would want to be able to review and delete all recorded videos of me or my family on demand. I don't see the government giving anywhere near that level of transparency or control.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AWy2Cy_JFT7uQPomoRpCocQ

Isn't this what oversight is for? And that fact it was our tax payer money?


----------



## possumkiller

https://imgur.com/gallery/Lfdqg2K


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/13/media/seattle-fox-news-autonomous-zone-protest/index.html

Fox News still painting this moment in history as mostly Antifa and rioters/looters with a small amount of protesters. This isn’t about systemic racism, this is about looting and just another Democratic Impeachment Hoax. Gleeful Democrats everywhere salivating. This is the modern day painting of Blacks as savages out to rape white women at any given chance. 

If you actually believe any of these things you will be on the wrong side of history. You’ll be just as wrong as celebrating insurrection with bases named after Bragg or flying the Confederate flag. And FWIW I’ve yet to meet a soldier in 20 years that thought naming a base after a scumbag loser asshole like Bragg was a good idea. Might as well be a Browns fan too while you’re at it.


----------



## USMarine75

JSanta said:


> Even unarmed, a Predator drone used to capture data is still a show of force. Full stop. What's to stop the next one from being armed? The Predator drone is not a tool of peace, it is a weapon of war. Military parades are still the same thing. It's no differet than a tank rolling down the street. They are all demonstrative of the capabilities of a military.
> 
> I think your analogy of the cell phone camera is a strawman when compared to military equipment. They are not the same thing.



Drones were used by the military and intelligence community for years before they were weaponized. To this date, the amount of unarmed UAS is way higher than those with weapons systems. When you say "Predator Drone" it's like saying make a xerox of this. Predator is just one type. And the deployment and use of armed UAS in US civilian airspace is illegal... it violates Posse Comitatus Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAVs_in_the_U.S._military

It is absolutely not a "show of force". You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.

"What's to stop the next one from being armed" is a slippery slope fallacy. Police also carry guns. What's to stop them from carrying a flamethrower? Or a Meowmere?!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Drones were used by the military and intelligence community for years before they were weaponized. To this date, the amount of unarmed UAS is way higher than those with weapons systems. When you say "Predator Drone" it's like saying make a xerox of this. Predator is just one type. And the deployment and use of armed UAS in US civilian airspace is illegal... it violates Posse Comitatus Act.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAVs_in_the_U.S._military
> 
> It is absolutely not a "show of force". You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.
> 
> "What's to stop the next one from being armed" is a slippery slope fallacy. Police also carry guns. What's to stop them from carrying a flamethrower? Or a Meowmere?!



I guess the idea is that not as many folks are as informed about drones, most only knowing them for bombing raids in the Middle East they hear about on the news, so your average citizen could see them as more of a threat. 

As always, I appreciate your knowledge here. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> I guess the idea is that not as many folks are as informed about drones, most only knowing them for bombing raids in the Middle East they hear about on the news, so your average citizen could see them as more of a threat.
> 
> As always, I appreciate your knowledge here. I'm certainly not disagreeing with you.



Hey where I live in the ME is safer than anywhere in the US so what do I know right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Hey where I live in the ME is safer than anywhere in the US so what do I know right?



I don't doubt it.


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> Drones were used by the military and intelligence community for years before they were weaponized. To this date, the amount of unarmed UAS is way higher than those with weapons systems. When you say "Predator Drone" it's like saying make a xerox of this. Predator is just one type. And the deployment and use of armed UAS in US civilian airspace is illegal... it violates Posse Comitatus Act.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAVs_in_the_U.S._military
> 
> It is absolutely not a "show of force". You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.
> 
> "What's to stop the next one from being armed" is a slippery slope fallacy. Police also carry guns. What's to stop them from carrying a flamethrower? Or a Meowmere?!



Here's the thing, I don't inherently disagree with you. I also still stand by my comment regarding a show of force. I also think that people like you and I with military experience can see the difference, but people that have no connection to the military may not. 

And laws can be changed. The Patriot Act and the subsequent reauthorization is a prime example of how laws can target individual rights in this country. So when you say it's illegal to fly an armed drone over US Airspace, that law can be changed. The Posse Comitatus Act was signed into law in the late 1870s, and I would argue that the use of federal military forces for riot protection is a violation of that act.

We can agree to disagree, but I also think the slippery slope fallacy, while perhaps overused (on my part), is still a valid concern. The militarization of the police, and the use of force against rioters, and then peaceful protesters, and then identified journalists could follow the same logic, right? What I mean is that it does not take a lot to go from having rights to the illusion of having rights.


----------



## SpaceDock

What’s up with Trump needing two hands to drink from a cup and struggling to walk down stairs today. Looks like he is really messed up.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> What’s up with Trump needing two hands to drink from a cup and struggling to walk down stairs today. Looks like he is really messed up.



It was obviously heavy water. /s


----------



## sleewell

He is not doing well. This should be in ads pronto. 100% they'd already be attacking Biden if he couldn't lift a glass or walk.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Hey where I live in the ME is safer than anywhere in the US so what do I know right?


You know, you people who think you are always right are really starting to piss off us people who are always right! lolol


----------



## USMarine75

Oh hey I found Trump’s generals...

https://edition.cnn.com/ampstories/us/10-military-posts-are-named-for-these-confederate-commanders


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> Oh hey I found Trump’s generals...
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/ampstories/us/10-military-posts-are-named-for-these-confederate-commanders



What's personally sad is that while I was in, I never took the time to learn about who the installations were named for. One of my jobs was to learn about the history of Arlington Cemetery, but their names never came up. So really, shame on me for not learning about it. 

IMO - it's well past due to change the installation names. These men defied their constitutional oaths and should not be celebrated in this way.


----------



## AxRookie

Man, this thread moves at a feverish rate, Hard to keep up!


----------



## Ralyks

Umm, the Bolton stuff is pretty fucked up.

https://apple.news/Ae2yEFebnTD6QUZCqSBgOww

“Mr. Bolton describes several episodes where the president expressed willingness to halt criminal investigations “to, in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked,” citing cases involving major firms in China and Turkey. “The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Mr. Bolton writes, adding that he reported his concerns to Attorney General William P. Barr.

Mr. Bolton also adds a striking new allegation by saying that Mr. Trump overtly linked trade negotiations to his own political fortunes by asking President Xi Jinping of China to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Trump, he writes, was “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.”


----------



## spudmunkey

How the FUCK did i get on a mailing list that would entitle me to emails like this:


----------



## sleewell

bolton is fucking coward. he had several chances to step up and testify and instead chose to try to sell books. imo he is just as guilty as trump.


----------



## TedEH

I read that as "those who support the most", not as an abbreviation for anything. Unless there's a joke here I'm missing.


----------



## SpaceDock

These Bolton revelations are disgusting and so f’ed that he refused to testify.


----------



## spudmunkey

TedEH said:


> I read that as "those who support the most", not as an abbreviation for anything. Unless there's a joke here I'm missing.



Oh, hah...Boy, I'm a dummy. I forgot how Trump types RANDOM words in all caps. MOMENTUM!


----------



## TedEH

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that looks like a phishing email. I'm not sure if the legitimacy of the email changes much of my thoughts about it though.


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> How the FUCK did i get on a mailing list that would entitle me to emails like this:
> View attachment 81972
> 
> View attachment 81973



So that's the meaning of 42? Finally we have an answer. It is: Getting ripped off by a con artist using a different con-man as the bait. Surprised it is a US based address and not Nigerian. Also surprised you just have to send $42 to join the greatest convention that Earth has ever been privileged to host.



TedEH said:


> If I didn't know any better, I'd say that looks like a phishing email. I'm not sure if the legitimacy of the email changes much of my thoughts about it though.



Wait, you mean it might have been legit? That thing was screaming scammer... Guess that does sound like Trump


----------



## spudmunkey

TedEH said:


> If I didn't know any better, I'd say that looks like a phishing email. I'm not sure if the legitimacy of the email changes much of my thoughts about it though.



It could be, but the "official rules" are hosted at donaldjtrump.com , and that is registered to The Trump Organization, for what it's worth.


----------



## TedEH

To clarify, I was hoping to make the joke that I would expect communications like that from Trump to borrow heavily from tactics used in phishing emails, despite otherwise being "legit".


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Umm, the Bolton stuff is pretty fucked up.
> 
> https://apple.news/Ae2yEFebnTD6QUZCqSBgOww
> 
> “Mr. Bolton describes several episodes where the president expressed willingness to halt criminal investigations “to, in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked,” citing cases involving major firms in China and Turkey. “The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn’t accept,” Mr. Bolton writes, adding that he reported his concerns to Attorney General William P. Barr.
> 
> Mr. Bolton also adds a striking new allegation by saying that Mr. Trump overtly linked trade negotiations to his own political fortunes by asking President Xi Jinping of China to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Trump, he writes, was “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.”


The thing is, it was pretty widely known he was doing this. 

I mean, maybe laypeople didn't put it together, somehow, but in financial circles where we were watching the negotiations pretty carefully with an eye on what was motivating both sides and in turn where the other side might have leverage, with an eye on trying to figure out what was coming next, one of Trump's biggest vulnerabilities was the fact he had to run for re-election and Xi really didn't, so Trump was being careful to either avoid or delay tariffs that would have a direct impact on American consumers, while Xi was trying to directly hit American producers as hard as possible. The irony, and one of the reasons I think Trump essentially lost the trade war, is that this meant he was putting tariffs on good where American firms could absorb higher input costs and not pass them on to consumers, meaning American firms were paying the "cost" of the tariffs in lower margins rather than Chinese firms paying them in lost business, while Xi was putting tariffs on goods where American firms would pay the cost in lost business, rather than Chinese firms paying them in lost margins - we were getting hit on *both* sides. I think one of the reasons we actually DID get a 'Phase One' deal was that mid-December would have brought the first wave of tariffs on things like consumer electronics that would have had a very immediate impact on US consumers, and when push came to shove Trump wasn't willing to risk having voters get pissed off when suddenly their cell phones and laptops jumped 10-25% in price in the middle of the holiday season. 

Anyway, Trump's motivations all along were extremely political. He had three major political considerations that I could see: 

1) look tough on China, which played well with his base, doubly so if he could imply Obama was weak in doing so. 
2) spare US consumers from price increases from the trade war, and in doing so convince them that China was "paying" the cost of the tariffs (which if you get the interplay between tariffs and consumption, is kind of a nonsensical proposition)
3) stop China from putting tariffs on goods that were predominately produced in "Trump-friendly" states, and to the extend that couldn't be done, support the impacted industries. 

So, you had things like Xi targeting tariffs on US pork and soybeans, both heavily consumed in China where a decline on Chinese consumption would have a heavy impact on demand, which were also predominately produced in the US heartland, which votes reliably conservative... As well as somewhat more esoteric taxes, like on bourbon, produced in Trump-friendly Kentucky, and motorcycles, with Harley-Davidson being a prime target and Wisconsin being a swing state in 2016, as well as the brand kind of being a symbolic bit of Americana for conservatives. 

Honestly, the most surprising part of this to me would be Trump straight-up admitting to Xi that he was being driven by political calculations, but it shouldn't be - one, because I don't think Trump is a shadow of the negotiator he claims to be, when he's not working from a position of power to browbeat the other side, and two, because, let's be honest - it's not like Xi wasn't already pretty likely aware of what Trump's motivations/vulnerabilities were.

tl;dr - the only really damning thing about what Bolton's saying is the fact he's giving it a much broader audience, and large swathes of America may legitimately have never put it together that Trump was motivated by ensuring he wouldn't hurt any constituency he desperately needed to win in 2016. If there was some evidence of him, say, suggesting Xi should drop soybean tariffs and replace them with an equivalent tariff on US wine, predominately produced in Democratic-leaning California, Washington, and Oregon, that might be a bit more awkward for him... but honestly his supporters would probably just eat that up, anyway.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> How the FUCK did i get on a mailing list that would entitle me to emails like this:
> View attachment 81972
> 
> View attachment 81973


Oh god NO! he's coming to Las Vegas?!? dam it...


----------



## sleewell

any trumpists able to answer why everyone trump fired was washed up and a dope when he hired them? i seem to remember an often repeated line about hiring only the best people. 

mattis, kelly, tillerson, bolton... i'm sure i'm leaving many out but the point remains why did he hire these people if he is now claiming they were all washed up dopes? is he that bad at judging people's character or is it just that he cant take any criticism so he's making it all up to save face? doesn't it appear worse to hire so many bad people, seems like a really bad reflection on the boss - not the people he hires.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A1tJqnsggSBmnOH54QYrExA

Supreme Court voted against Trump for DACA, so he can’t strike it down.

Ok, really, how much of what Trump has promised has actually happened? Especially for immigration? How’s that wall coming?


----------



## zappatton2

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A1tJqnsggSBmnOH54QYrExA
> 
> Supreme Court voted against Trump for DACA, so he can’t strike it down.
> 
> Ok, really, how much of what Trump has promised has actually happened? Especially for immigration? How’s that wall coming?


The one around the White House is looking pretty spiffy, lol.


----------



## Drew

Thinking a bit more on my post above, I guess I do think it matters that Trump _said_ his reason for wanting Xi to buy more agricultural products was political, because he wanted the farmer vote in 2020, even if it's pretty reasonable to expect Xi to have come to that conclusion on his own. It's one thing for it to be reasonable to suppose Trump was influenced by political considerations while negotiating, it's another for him to be straight up telling the other side this is what he needed to get from them to get the votes he needed in November. It may be as simple as giving up plausible deniability, but motivations matter here and he laid his right out on the table. 

This is doubly true when he was also making civil rights concessions and granting waivers to Chinese-owned companies as gestures of goodwill in those negotiations, where he was sacrificing things that were clearly in American best interests for his own self-interest.


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> The one around the White House is looking pretty spiffy, lol.



This one? Yeah, he worked very hard to make this one what it is today.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/A81Dx1EyCQOewLn6Xovzk9w
Trump Takes Credit For 'Making Juneteenth Famous' In Dumbfounding Interview

I can’t. I can’t with this douche.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/A81Dx1EyCQOewLn6Xovzk9w
> Trump Takes Credit For 'Making Juneteenth Famous' In Dumbfounding Interview



“It’s actually an important event, an important time. But nobody had ever heard of it.”







From the White House, 2018:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-juneteenth/


----------



## sleewell

ivanka was using a personal email address for govt work even before she had a position in the WH. 


wasnt there something about her emails in the last campaign? oh wait.


----------



## SpaceDock

sleewell said:


> ivanka was using a personal email address for govt work even before she had a position in the WH.
> 
> 
> wasnt there something about her emails in the last campaign? oh wait.



yep she did the same BS as Hilary but of course republicans have different rules for her. Also Jared using chat apps for government business but no complaints from republicans on that either


----------



## fantom

Holyshit Facebook finally grew a pair and blocked something team Trump thought was ok. They literally posted an ad using the Nazi symbol for political prisoners talking about Antifa. I can understand if you are talking about Antifa that using a fascist symbol is fitting, but coming from a government being compared to fascism is just really stupid messaging.


----------



## Ralyks

Guess Zuckerberg found his Zuckerballs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Guess Zuckerberg found his Zuckerballs.



Meh. Low bar is low.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh. Low bar is low.



No arguements here. I deactivated my Facebook two days ago anyway.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> No arguements here. I deactivated my Facebook two days ago anyway.



I've weighed the options, and unfortunately, I need a FB for the animal rescue work my wife and I do, and that's more important to me.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've weighed the options, and unfortunately, I need a FB for the animal rescue work my wife and I do, and that's more important to me.



That's at least a good (and Noble) reason. I just got sick of watching friends being dirtbags to each other, and my kid is more popular on my own Facebook than I am. I'll probably bring it back when I have actually music endeavors going again, as opposed to my IG where I can post random riffs and actually get feedback.


----------



## SpaceDock

Maybe people should use Facebook to do a Facebook boycott for like a week or something to push Zuckerberg to change his ways. If they don’t give in, extend it. The reason why Zuckerberg doesn’t change is because he is profiting. Anyone still using Facebook and asking for him to step it up needs to do the same.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> That's at least a good (and Noble) reason. I just got sick of watching friends being dirtbags to each other, and my kid is more popular on my own Facebook than I am. I'll probably bring it back when I have actually music endeavors going again, as opposed to my IG where I can post random riffs and actually get feedback.



Not to be "that guy", but Facebook owns Instagram. 

But I'm in a glass house on both, at least my family is. 

So I'm definitely not judging.


----------



## SpaceDock

I’m still surprised no one has dethroned FB.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not to be "that guy", but Facebook owns Instagram.
> 
> But I'm in a glass house on both, at least my family is.
> 
> So I'm definitely not judging.



I should clarify my decision of Facebook isn't the politics of the company itself. And trust me, I know IG is owned by Facebook. They feel the need to remind me every time I open the app. But IG, I feel I can curate my feed better, so it's all music and gaming stuff, or my friends most likely posting stuff of their kids. The only news related thing I follow is BBC. Much less anxiety. No people spewing politics or being conspiracy nuts. Because to be honest, SSO is the only place I discuss politics. Which feels ironic in itself.


----------



## spudmunkey

mastadon is an open-source social media platform. Last year I had one cousin try to get everyone to switch to it, but nobody did.


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


> I’m still surprised no one has dethroned FB.


If you look at the history of social media platforms it's surprising, but if you look at how the world changed as Facebook was becoming a thing it's not surprising at all.


----------



## budda

SpaceDock said:


> I’m still surprised no one has dethroned FB.



It took them a while to kill msn messenger and myspace.

It would be great if, y'know, the stuff that needs to be banned actually was.


----------



## thraxil

fantom said:


> Holyshit Facebook finally grew a pair and blocked something team Trump thought was ok. They literally posted an ad using the Nazi symbol for political prisoners talking about Antifa. I can understand if you are talking about Antifa that using a fascist symbol is fitting, but coming from a government being compared to fascism is just really stupid messaging.



I think there's more to it than that. Facebook wants to be "neutral", but the right really, really likes to present themselves as victims of censorship by the lying, fake, biased, leftist media.

So the tactic is to keep escalating these things until they finally cross a line and get banned/blocked/etc. If they do it with something like this, where the red triangle has a well-known meaning among nazis and nazi sympathizers but isn't really something that the general public is aware of, they get to cry victim, get tons of free publicity because the blocking becomes the story itself, and maintain some degree of plausible deniability. Someone not familiar with the history and meaning of it and lacking the time or inclination to really dig into it just goes "why did Facebook censor them over an innocent red triangle? maybe they're right and Facebook really is leftist biased and trying to steal the election from Trump?"


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> No arguements here. I deactivated my Facebook two days ago anyway.


I deactivated my Facebook two days after I opened it years ago...


----------



## sleewell

i think we often make fun of trump's incompetence and laziness, and it is pretty funny, but its actually coming in pretty handy in terms of not getting anything done. everything with trump is on twitter for the media and his precious base but then they never do the actual work to implement their plans.

pretty sure the supreme court would have sided with trump on daca had the administration gone through the proper steps to end the program. instead they just got completely bitch slapped by the court and they look like morons who shouldn't even be qualified to work in the parks and rec dept in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere.



also, trump's case right now... just to be clear: is that bolton is totally lying AND at the same time is leaking classified info. let that sink in for a second. its all lies but somehow still highly classified. how fucking dumb are you if you believe that?


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> also, trump's case right now... just to be clear: is that bolton is totally lying AND at the same time is leaking classified info. let that sink in for a second. its all lies but somehow still highly classified. how fucking dumb are you if you believe that?



Que troll of the week making another fake account to argue this logic in 3... 2...


----------



## spudmunkey

The book is several hundred pages. There could be both.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Que troll of the week making another fake account to argue this logic in 3... 2...



This is such a bad week for Trump I imagine they'd just take the week off. Gotta know when to fold. I've been really impressed with the courts though -- like some level of commonsense seems to cut partisan boundaries, at least at the SC level.


----------



## sleewell

trump's exact quote was that it was all lies and is fiction. hard to then say there is anything classified.


----------



## Randy

thraxil said:


> So the tactic is to keep escalating these things until they finally cross a line and get banned/blocked/etc.



You don't say?


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.businessinsider.com/sta...h-taylor-resigns-trump-response-racism-2020-6



> One of the highest-ranking Black women in the Trump administration resigns over Trump's response to racial injustice, saying it 'cut sharply against my core values and convictions'



She's been on Trump's team since basically the beginning, and previously worked for Mitch McConnell.


----------



## JSanta

One of my colleagues just sent me this link: https://tulsa.craigslist.org/evg/d/broken-arrow-trump-rally-actors-needed/7143481637.html

I don't know for certain if it's real or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.


----------



## SpaceDock

JSanta said:


> One of my colleagues just sent me this link: https://tulsa.craigslist.org/evg/d/broken-arrow-trump-rally-actors-needed/7143481637.html
> 
> I don't know for certain if it's real or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.



probably fake but still funny


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> I think there's more to it than that. Facebook wants to be "neutral", but the right really, really likes to present themselves as victims of censorship by the lying, fake, biased, leftist media.
> 
> So the tactic is to keep escalating these things until they finally cross a line and get banned/blocked/etc. If they do it with something like this, where the red triangle has a well-known meaning among nazis and nazi sympathizers but isn't really something that the general public is aware of, they get to cry victim, get tons of free publicity because the blocking becomes the story itself, and maintain some degree of plausible deniability. Someone not familiar with the history and meaning of it and lacking the time or inclination to really dig into it just goes "why did Facebook censor them over an innocent red triangle? maybe they're right and Facebook really is leftist biased and trying to steal the election from Trump?"


Let's also note that they ran 88 ads with that red triangle that Facebook took down, which I'm SURE is no coincidence and is something being noted clear as day by the sort of people it was intended to reach. 

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88


----------



## SpaceDock

They used that triangle exactly like the Nazis used it which lets me know this was no accident, but I am sure his apologist followers will cook up some asinine excuse.


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> They used that triangle exactly like the Nazis used it which lets me know this was no accident, but I am sure his apologist followers will cook up some asinine excuse.



Duh... he was kidding. Just like when he asked Russia to investigate and doxx Hillary. Or when he said to drink bleach and shine a light up your ass to kill COVID-19. Of course what made the joke funnier was when he never said it was a joke or laughed or anything, and then the bleach manufacturer had to put out additional warnings not to drink their product. Remember that? Hilarious.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> They used that triangle exactly like the Nazis used it which lets me know this was no accident, but I am sure his apologist followers will cook up some asinine excuse.


"It was just an emoji!" 

The people who weren't supposed to recognize the symbol will probably give him the benefit of the doubt, the people who were just got a loud and clear dog-whistle to let them know that Trump had their backs.


----------



## Necris

The Trump campaign is specifically crafting messages like that around plausible deniability because it allows them to communicate to the extremists in their base while also aiding them in painting their opposition as unhinged lunatics who see Nazis lurking in every shadow; this is also why the far-right try to co-opt existing symbols that are widely known and regarded as benign.

Over the past 4 years the Trump administration has effectively pushed a narrative to its base that its opposition is unreasonable, hostile and will do anything to take them down. If their ads cause an outcry they'll likely reach a wider audience than they otherwise would have, and if they're taken down they get to claim "conservative voices are being censored" yet again. There is almost zero downside to doing this.


----------



## fantom

Necris said:


> There is almost zero downside to doing this



Do you call the current state of our country "zero downside"?


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> Do you call the current state of our country "zero downside"?



it’s a story as old as time... 

One man’s kleptocracy is another’s zero downside.


----------



## Necris

fantom said:


> Do you call the current state of our country "zero downside"?


 No, I should have put "from the administration's perspective" at the end of that.

Running those ads during the ongoing protests against police brutality and racial injustice and taking into consideration the blowback against Trumps desire to have "ANTIFA" declared a terrorist organization due to (in my opinion) completely reasonable fears that that designation will be used by the Trump administration to criminalize political opposition gives me a very strong sense that no, they don't see any downside to doing this and that they see opportunity in the chaos.


----------



## Aso

Drew said:


> Let's also note that they ran 88 ads with that red triangle that Facebook took down, which I'm SURE is no coincidence and is something being noted clear as day by the sort of people it was intended to reach.
> 
> https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/88



Not only 88 ads but also everyone of them had 14 words in the first sentence. 

https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/14-words


I am putting my tinfoil hat back on now.


----------



## fantom

Necris said:


> taken down they get to claim "conservative voices are being censored" yet again. There is almost zero downside to doing this.





Necris said:


> No, I should have put "from the administration's perspective" at the end of that.



And this is where I fundamentally disagree with this administration. The *people's perspective* is what should matter. That is a fundamental requirement of American politics. The people (not just 35-40% of them) matter more than the administration. Making this about conservatives being silenced at the cost of acting like Nazis is a huge downside.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AgK07rO5yTDGtoVzJ2v70pQ

"Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, is resigning, the Justice Department said late Friday.

Attorney General William Barr said in a statement that President Donald Trump intends to nominate Jay Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to replace him."

So how does this affect everything Trump is possibly facing when he's out of office? Just going to be let off the hook like he always seems to be?


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AgK07rO5yTDGtoVzJ2v70pQ
> 
> "Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, is resigning, the Justice Department said late Friday.
> 
> Attorney General William Barr said in a statement that President Donald Trump intends to nominate Jay Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to replace him."
> 
> So how does this affect everything Trump is possibly facing when he's out of office? Just going to be let off the hook like he always seems to be?



Well, for now, Berman says he has no intention of resigning. This will get ugly. 

tl;dr I already saw this episode of Billions


----------



## Ralyks

USMarine75 said:


> Well, for now, Berman says he has no intention of resigning. This will get ugly.
> 
> tl;dr I already saw this episode of Billions



Yup, you're right.

https://apple.news/AoEc3CIslS9uRPDFLMpG-2Q


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> Yup, you're right.
> 
> https://apple.news/AoEc3CIslS9uRPDFLMpG-2Q









My favorite part was:

"I learned in a press release from the Attorney General tonight that I was 'stepping down'"


----------



## USMarine75

Also, Trump has a history of going to war with federal judges, especially Chief Justice Roberts:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lashes-out-at-supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-2018-11


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/Axdow3EmpRGyr9MNRCTzIvA

Federal judged denied Trump from blocking Boltons book.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AST4fh5BfQgKRjuLBxRO8UA

Barr said Trump requested he remove Berman.
Given that Berman is investigating Trump, isn't that obstruction?


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AST4fh5BfQgKRjuLBxRO8UA
> 
> Barr said Trump requested he remove Berman.
> Given that Berman is investigating Trump, isn't that obstruction?



Not in this administration.



Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/Axdow3EmpRGyr9MNRCTzIvA
> 
> Federal judged denied Trump from blocking Boltons book.



Bolton. Another far-left libtard dimocrat like Colin Powell. What is this like the 47th Democratic Impeachment Hoax? Pfft.


----------



## fantom

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AST4fh5BfQgKRjuLBxRO8UA
> 
> Barr said Trump requested he remove Berman.
> Given that Berman is investigating Trump, isn't that obstruction?



Wasn't he investigating Guliani?

If Berman was investigating Trump, maybe Barr chose his words intentionally to see if Senate would act.


----------



## fantom

So if Barr says Trump fired Berman. And Trump says he didn't. Doesn't that mean Berman wasn't fired?

Also, never thought Trump would be able to resist saying "You're fired!" on TV.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/ASF5CnkzGQ7euFl9HSVhAVA

And now Berman is stepping down. I can't with this administration.


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/ASF5CnkzGQ7euFl9HSVhAVA
> 
> And now Berman is stepping down. I can't with this administration.


Say My Name!

lol I see your sig and I couldn't help myself! lol


----------



## AxRookie

A racist, an adulterer, and a criminal walk into a McDonald's ... The cashier asks, "What can I get you Mr. Trump?"


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


> A racist, an adulterer, and a criminal walk into a McDonald's ... The cashier asks, "What can I get you Mr. Trump?"



"The usual"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> "The usual"



What MickeyDs serves crushed up Adderall?


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> Duh... he was kidding. Just like when he asked Russia to investigate and doxx Hillary. Or when he said to drink bleach and shine a light up your ass to kill COVID-19. Of course what made the joke funnier was when he never said it was a joke or laughed or anything, and then the bleach manufacturer had to put out additional warnings not to drink their product. Remember that? Hilarious.



https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/21/politics/trump-coronavirus-testing/index.html

Hey... guess what the official White House response was to Trump saying at the rally he wanted to slow down COVID testing?


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/21/politics/peter-navarro-john-bolton-cnntv/index.html

1. He’s a “trade adviser” not legal consul or law enforcement. What does he know about safeguarding classified information regulations or the nature of the material included in the book. Has he ever read the book to know what potentially might have been disclosed? Of course not because he’s a shill. 

2. So is this what we do to anyone that writes negative words about the Dear Leader? We threaten them with jail? Don’t like a reporter, threaten them with jail. Don’t like a political rival, threaten them with jail. Don’t like a news publication or website, threaten them with jail. This guy is a despotic dictator wannabe.


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> Don’t like a reporter, threaten them with jail. Don’t like a political rival, threaten them with jail. Don’t like a news publication or website, threaten them with jail.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> What MickeyDs serves crushed up Adderall?


Kentucky Fried Chicken was closed...


----------



## Ralyks

So the Tulsa rally was foiled by TikTok users and K Pop fans getting a bunch of tickets with no intention of showing up.

Trump was foiled by teens. Not protesters. Not Antifa. TEENS.

That. Is. HILARIOUS.

Oh and his speech basically showed he learned nothing in 4 years and he's still racist.


----------



## zappatton2

Ralyks said:


> So the Tulsa rally was foiled by TikTok users and K Pop fans getting a bunch of tickets with no intention of showing up.
> 
> Trump was foiled by teens. Not protesters. Not Antifa. TEENS.
> 
> That. Is. HILARIOUS.
> 
> Oh and his speech basically showed he learned nothing in 4 years and he's still racist.


So many people my age are down on the youth of today, but not me, I really think the future might be brighter than this.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So the Tulsa rally was foiled by TikTok users and K Pop fans getting a bunch of tickets with no intention of showing up.
> 
> Trump was foiled by teens. Not protesters. Not Antifa. TEENS.
> 
> That. Is. HILARIOUS.
> 
> Oh and his speech basically showed he learned nothing in 4 years and he's still racist.


It's actually better than that - the rally required online registration beforehand, but it was free, admission was first come first serve and didn't come with assigned seating, and I believe it was uncapped, too, so there was no maximum number of seats that were filled up by these teens. 

So, what they DID do, was convince Trump that several hundred thousand people wanted to hear him speak, and when he showed up and only the 7-9 thousand people who actually wanted to see him actually showed up...  

The actual "harm" was limited to planning for and paying for overflow capacity that wasn't actually used, but it was certainly an embarrassment for Trump.


----------



## sleewell

tulsa fire dept said 6,200 people. pretty sad.


we have officially reached trump at the fat elvis period of his life during the vegas residency before he died. takes odd drugs, rambles on about nothing, no new material, incoherent, only plays the hits, oblivious to the outside world.


----------



## Ralyks

"All around me are familiar faces, worn out places, worn out faaaceeeess..."


----------



## spudmunkey

The 6,000 attendees to Trumps r


Ralyks said:


> View attachment 82082
> 
> "All around me are familiar faces, worn out places, worn out faaaceeeess..."


----------



## StevenC




----------



## spudmunkey

dblpst

(aren't there any settings or plugins that can be added to the forum platform to prevent double-posting within, like, 1 second? I feel like that would cut down on 95% of double-posts. Or better yet, be able to identify duplicate post content within, like, 2 seconds? Double/triple posting is super common here, more than any other forum I frequent.)


----------



## spudmunkey

Goddamn you, The Onion...



> *White House Announces Entire U.S. Populace Of 6,200 Attended Trump’s Tulsa Rally*





> "It’s unfortunate that the media would take a beautiful event like this, at which every single person in America turned out to show their love of President Trump, and make it into something negative."



https://www.theonion.com/white-hous...IOYFjJOpLjD73i_c-9pXvE_fYQU007Y5e6fsoorOet0Bw



Not from The Onion:
MAGA = Minimal Audience Gathering, Again

This is pretty well-done...


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/auto/nascar-president-noose-bubba-wallaces-garage-banned

The comments section tells you everything you need to know about Fox News fans.

It's literally the worst, of the worst, of the worst.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/nascar-president-noose-bubba-wallaces-garage-banned
> 
> The comments section tells you everything you need to know about Fox News fans.
> 
> It's literally the worst, of the worst, of the worst.



At least we know where MetalHex hangs out in between accounts here. 

Really though, that was gross.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/nascar-president-noose-bubba-wallaces-garage-banned
> 
> The comments section tells you everything you need to know about Fox News fans.
> 
> It's literally the worst, of the worst, of the worst.


Maybe it's because I'm connecting from deep within the heart of communism, but I can't see the comments.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Maybe it's because I'm connecting from deep within the heart of communism, but I can't see the comments.



Nah, just atrocious web design.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/auto/nascar-president-noose-bubba-wallaces-garage-banned
> 
> The comments section tells you everything you need to know about Fox News fans.
> 
> It's literally the worst, of the worst, of the worst.



Jesus...almost literally every post.

Here's some winners, for those who can't get the comments to load:


----------



## Drew

To paraphrase a pretty awesome meme I saw, if coming into the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic apocalypse you had said the liberals would get NASCAR and the conservatives Harry Potter, I'd have laughed at you. 



spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 82129



Ignoring some of the implicit transphobia, ethnocentricism, and yes, racism of that... "it doesn't have to have anything representing racist" (and ignoring the fact the poster is evidently pro-abortion, based on how they treat grammar), this is the sort of post-structuralist bullshit that the "heritage not hate" folks fall back on. "It's not racist because it doesn't signify racism TO ME" is an insanely solipsistic worldview, that ignores the fact that symbols work via a _shared_ understanding of meaning, and a _collective_ understanding of what they represent. If you want to display a symbol, you can choose what it means to you, sure... but you also have to own what it means to _everyone else_, and if everyone else thinks it's racist as shit, to continue to display it means you have no regard for the collective understanding and communal experience of what a symbol represents. This is problematic, even before you account for the fact that virtually every single one of these "heritage not hate" types is white, and their argument is a pretty explicit disenfranchising of the (predominately black) members of society who see it as a symbol of hatred and oppression. 

"It dorsn't have to represent racism." No, it actually _does_ have to represent racism, because it's the flag of a failed nation that fought for the right to own black Americans as property, and whatever else it may mean to you doesn't erase that heritage.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> "It doesn't have to represent racism. It's just a choice of lifestyle".



I don't understand why they wouldn't have made their own flag, then. The gay rights movement didn't use a "don't tread on me" or a swaztika flag...they came up with their own and it's fabulous!


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> https://us.cnn.com/2020/06/21/politics/trump-coronavirus-testing/index.html
> 
> Hey... guess what the official White House response was to Trump saying at the rally he wanted to slow down COVID testing?
> 
> View attachment 82067



But guess what the official Donald Trump response was to the official White House response to Trump saying he wanted to slow down COVID testing?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...wing-coronavirus-testing/ar-BB15SmFt?ocid=sf2

*‘I don’t kid’*

*




*


----------



## sleewell

does he tell his lackeys to go out and say he was joking knowing that he is going to say the opposite the next day and make them all look like fools?? seems like this has happened a few dozen times now, you would think his handlers would get smarter.


so we have a president who is serious about reducing testing in the midst of pandemic. 

the rest of the gop: crickets


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> does he tell his lackeys to go out and say he was joking knowing that he is going to say the opposite the next day and make them all look like fools?? seems like this has happened a few dozen times now, you would think his handlers would get smarter.



No, I just think it's his team trying to rationalize irrational behavior, and then hoping it just goes away...but then someone brings it up again, and DJT then pivots or holds his ground..again, based on nothing rational.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> At least we know where MetalHex hangs out in between accounts here.
> 
> Really though, that was gross.



Or rigtalk, seems he actually has an account there. 

Man, it's gotten incredibly gross over there this month, with outright pushes for black people to go back to Africa. It's actually funny to see the same guys make accounts here and try to tip-toe around moderation to push what sounds like probably racist ideas in the most PC way possible, then go "no filter" over on rigtalk and spew the most vile stuff. Kind of validating any seemingly harsh policies against them here. It's like..yup...it sounded like you were probably a white supremacist, sad to see it really is that way, but glad to see it wasn't my imagination.


----------



## sleewell

yeah i had to leave RT. i cant hang out with racists and those who tolerate them in situations where i cant punch them in the face. never really liked it there so not a loss at all. the rest of the dudes there should say something but they just remain quiet which is beyond pathetic.


----------



## Boofchuck

I just checked out RT for the first time. 

I'm glad this forum is not such a hell hole. That was awful.


----------



## spudmunkey

From the man who ran Mcain's 2008 campaign:
https://twitter.com/Eleven_Films/status/1261557712590012416

Transcript:


> _"Donald Trump has been the worst president this country has ever had. And I don't say that hyperbolically. He is. But he is a consequential president. And he has brought this country in three short years to a place of weakness that is simply unimaginable if you were pondering where we are today from the day where Barack Obama left office. And there were a lot of us on that day who were deeply skeptical and very worried about what a Trump presidency would be. But this is a moment of unparalleled national humiliation, of weakness.
> 
> "When you listen to the President, these are the musings of an imbecile. An idiot. And I don't use those words to name call. I use them because they are the precise words of the English language to describe his behavior. His comportment. His actions. We've never seen a level of incompetence, a level of ineptitude so staggering on a daily basis by anybody in the history of the country whose ever been charged with substantial responsibilities.
> 
> "It's just astonishing that this man is president of the United States. The man, the con man, from New York City. Many bankruptcies, failed businesses, a reality show, that branded him as something that he never was. A successful businessman. Well, he's the President of the United States now, and the man who said he would make the country great again. And he's brought death, suffering, and economic collapse on truly an epic scale. And let's be clear. This isn't happening in every country around the world. This place. Our place. Our home. Our country. The United States. We are the epicenter. We are the place where you're the most likely to die from this disease. We're the ones with the most shattered economy. And we are because of the fool that sits in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk."_


----------



## sleewell

Very, very well said. Steve is brilliant and he's not exactly some far left winger either.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> From the man who ran Mcain's 2008 campaign:
> https://twitter.com/Eleven_Films/status/1261557712590012416
> 
> Transcript:


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## possumkiller

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 82150


He was just kidding though right?


----------



## sleewell

that rally yesterday really looked like it easily could have been hosted by the kkk. seriously if you were sitting in a crowd of all white people making jokes about the kung flu would you ever have a moment where you looked around and were like what the fuck am i doing here? if not, your parents have failed on every level. if you didn't purposely exclude non whites.... why did virtually none show up and what does that say about the message of the speaker? 


the only person who was social distancing was trump. the only person who gets tested daily is trump. says a lot that he is scared but doesn't care at all about the people who showed up.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apple.news/AitxE4UKnQTaF0fs4GpOa7Q

Aaaaand Michael Flynn walks free.


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> seriously if you were sitting in a crowd of all white people making jokes about the kung flu would you ever have a moment where you looked around and were like what the fuck am i doing here? if not, your parents have failed on every level.



I have 2 friends (married couple) who are die hard Trump fans and they have no problem with what Trump said at the rally, the Kung Flu comment and the other comment Trump said, the "s__t hole countries" from 2018. I've known them since 1995 and the fact that they don't care doesn't surprise me at all. From what I've seen/heard from the 25 years I've been friends with them, their upbringing and moral compass is very, very, very, very, very questionable. If I told you the things that they did, do, said and say, past and present, you, like me, would not be surprised that they're Trump supporters. Not just political issues but life issues in general. When I first started hanging out with them in 1995, it was heavy metal music, old horror movies and then video and NFL games. Nothing political at all. Then Trump got elected in 2016 and they became huge fans of him. But anyways, when you talk to them, their philosophy/moral compass is so backwards, that you actually have to ask them to repeat what they said and have to watch their mouths just to make sure that what they're saying is what you actually heard and that it came from them and not from the movie that's on t.v. I'm thinking and just dying to ask them, "hey man..., did your parents give you hugs and kisses when you were young???"

And to be fair, I know all Trump supporters are not like that but those 2 (married couple) are.


----------



## vilk

Rosal76 said:


> And to be fair, I know all Trump supporters are not like that but those 2 (married couple) are.


 You sure? I definitely have never met let alone even heard of one. Maybe back in 2016 you could say something like that with confidence... but in 2020?


----------



## Rosal76

vilk said:


> You sure? I definitely have never met let alone even heard of one. Maybe back in 2016 you could say something like that with confidence... but in 2020?



Trump supporters who are not racist? They're out there. A lot of the black and Mexican Trump supporters I know aren't racist. If you meant white Trump supporters who aren't racist, I have met maybe, 3 or 4.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AitxE4UKnQTaF0fs4GpOa7Q
> 
> Aaaaand Michael Flynn walks free.


Not yet - this will be appealed up to the hhigher district court, and one way or another I could see it making it to the Supreme Court. 

IIRC much of the majority opinion's basis was that the amicus brief filed by the lawyer the judge asked to argue against the Justice Department's motion to dismiss was based on the _tone_ of his argument, and the fact that they believed his allegation that Trump was interfering to help a friend was based on news reports, tweets, social media, etc. That seems like the sort of basis that I could easily see being overturned in a court that isn't two Republicans to one Democrat - it sounded mostly like they took his brief personally.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Not yet - this will be appealed up to the hhigher district court, and one way or another I could see it making it to the Supreme Court.
> 
> IIRC much of the majority opinion's basis was that the amicus brief filed by the lawyer the judge asked to argue against the Justice Department's motion to dismiss was based on the _tone_ of his argument, and the fact that they believed his allegation that Trump was interfering to help a friend was based on news reports, tweets, social media, etc. That seems like the sort of basis that I could easily see being overturned in a court that isn't two Republicans to one Democrat - it sounded mostly like they took his brief personally.



So kinda like the Roger Stone situation that's playing out at we speak?


----------



## USMarine75

Side note... I started watching a bunch of those PragerU vids and did a deep google on them. Despicable. Indoctrination videos paid for by Dennis Prager and the Wilks (mini-Koch Bros worth $1B+). Not scholarly in the slightest.

You can always tell when ALL of their videos are how the left is evil, Republicans arent racist, the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, etc.

This was my fav because unlike the Southern Strategy vid which was garbage because it strung together cherry-picked facts and terrible strawman arguments, this one is just straight-up lies and intentional misrepresentations:


----------



## tedtan

^

I stopped watching about two minutes in, but still feel stupider for having viewed that much of it.


----------



## TedEH

You missed some of the best (worst?) parts of the video.


----------



## tedtan

OK, I went back and watched the rest of it and feel even stupider now than I did before.


----------



## sleewell

name some things that would a priority in your 2nd term:


trump: well i won the 2016 election which was great. now i live in washington and have met some really nice people. except for john bolton, he is terrible.


hannity: great answer sir


----------



## USMarine75

tedtan said:


> ^
> 
> I stopped watching about two minutes in, but still feel stupider for having viewed that much of it.





TedEH said:


> You missed some of the best (worst?) parts of the video.



Tell me you at least got to the "English Dept took down the portrait of the great white man" and replaced him with a "black lesbian" because of the school dept being leftist.

Politifact rates this as "Hannity levels of bullshittery".


----------



## wankerness

Ralyks said:


> https://apple.news/AitxE4UKnQTaF0fs4GpOa7Q
> 
> Aaaaand Michael Flynn walks free.



You post good articles, but apple news links try to launch an app on my computer and never work. Only seems to work on my iphone.


----------



## Ralyks

wankerness said:


> You post good articles, but apple news links try to launch an app on my computer and never work. Only seems to work on my iphone.



I just noticed that myself and will try to post the articles directly from the source in the future instead of the apple news app.


----------



## tedtan

USMarine75 said:


> Tell me you at least got to the "English Dept took down the portrait of the great white man" and replaced him with a "black lesbian" because of the school dept being leftist.
> 
> Politifact rates this as "Hannity levels of bullshittery".



Yeah, I saw that part the first time but then went back and watched the rest after TedEH mentioned that I missed the best (worst) parts of the vid.

I don't understand how people can fall for this shit - it's like they are being willfully stupid (not ignorant, stupid). How much mental gymnastics does it take people doing to believe that shit?


----------



## wannabguitarist

tedtan said:


> I don't understand how people can fall for this shit - it's like they are being willfully stupid (not ignorant, stupid). How much mental gymnastics does it take people doing to believe that shit?



Gold medal mental gymnastics . I know a couple of _really_ smart people that are deep into Prager U stuff (even dated one for a while, but that was before PU was a thing) and it fucking blows my mind. I mentioned this in another thread but Prager's stuff scares me because it's very slick and hard for someone who's not somewhat into US politics to refute some of the bullshit.


----------



## possumkiller

Someone needs to get on photoshop and make up some gold medals for mental gymnastics to put into some political memes.


----------



## narad

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/trump-signs-monuments-executive-order/index.html

Executive order protecting statues. This may be the first thing Trump's done I'm actually in support of  To me the statue issue is getting to grey areas on my own values. Robert E Lee? Sure, take it down, obviously. Christopher Columbus? I didn't think he himself really was a representation of racism, any more than one of discovery. And George Washington? I don't know where to draw the line, but would prefer it be drawn through representational democracy than by opportunistic mobs of > 20 people.

Still, with all that's going on, definitely not my 1st priority exec order.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/trump-signs-monuments-executive-order/index.html
> 
> Executive order protecting statues. This may be the first thing Trump's done I'm actually in support of  To me the statue issue is getting to grey areas on my own values. Robert E Lee? Sure, take it down, obviously. Christopher Columbus? I didn't think he himself really was a representation of racism, any more than one of discovery. And George Washington? I don't know where to draw the line, but would prefer it be drawn through representational democracy than by opportunistic mobs of > 20 people.
> 
> Still, with all that's going on, definitely not my 1st priority exec order.



Statues of Colombus or Washington are more of a part of the long overdue reckoning of coming to terms with the past. 

The fact that so much of history has been white washed and sanitized has lead to this. 

I agree that I'd prefer there to be a democratic way to remove statues vs. mob rule, but I understand people's frustration when you have entities outside the immediate community dictating what statue goes where.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Statues of Colombus or Washington are more of a part of the long overdue reckoning of coming to terms with the past.



I mean, still remembering my elementary school grade 1-3 presentation of these figures as Disney-esque infallible heroes (and really not receiving a whole lot of pushback later in high school), I agree we need to get a realistic picture of these figures into the minds of America in general. But with respect to statues, if we're not allowed to have statues of flawed people, then are we going to scrap statues altogether? Is there a founding father who didn't passively accept slavery, if not overtly racist outright? Even Lincoln said things that are pretty racially insensitive even if gets emancipation cred. Get all the faces of money too?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I mean, still remembering my elementary school grade 1-3 presentation of these figures as Disney-esque infallible heroes (and really not receiving a whole lot of pushback later in high school), I agree we need to get a realistic picture of these figures into the minds of America in general. But with respect to statues, if we're not allowed to have statues of flawed people, then are we going to scrap statues altogether? Is there a founding father who didn't passively accept slavery, if not overtly racist outright? Even Lincoln said things that are pretty racially insensitive even if gets emancipation cred. Get all the faces of money too?



I don't think statues are really that important, so sure. I'd be fine with no more statues. I don't really care what's printed on money or pressed on coins either.


----------



## TedEH

I honestly think it would be a step forward culturally to stop putting people on pedestals at all, literally or figuratively.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think statues are really that important, so sure. I'd be fine with no more statues. I don't really care what's printed on money or pressed on coins either.



It's not like I care about those things, but such celebrations are a human culture universal. I can't see moving past putting national heroes on money before moving to some society beyond money and dress like the Bill & Ted future council.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> It's not like I care about those things, but such celebrations are a human culture universal. I can't see moving past putting national heroes on money before moving to some society beyond money and dress like the Bill & Ted future council.



Sure, I get it. 

But if, even short term, it can help quell some of the divisivensss, why not? 

I'd be more than happy to never see a statue of [insert mostly harmless, or even genuinely good, historical figure] again if it meant never seeing statues and monuments dedicated to shit heads. 

It reduces the discussion down to the tired "but it's history" argument used by these pseudo-confederate dick munches. Yeah, we have books and museums and the internet for that now. We don't need a 30ft tall statue in town square lest we forget who everyone was.


----------



## Ralyks

So for anyone digging at Biden because they aren't sure of his policies, well, Trump basically showed on Hannity that he doesn't exactly have anything planned for the next 4 years either.


----------



## vilk

narad said:


> Christopher Columbus? I didn't think he himself really was a representation of racism, any more than one of discovery.



At least George Washington was a human being; Columbus was a fucking monster. Literal child rapist, human mutilation, feeding babies to dogs, frozen in the lake at the bottom of hell monster. 

George Washington owned slaves, which was a common practice in his time. What Christopher Columbus did was considered freakishly brutal even by his contemporaries. Wasn't he even removed from his post because of it? Iirc the guy was fired for being a psychopath butcher child rape lunatic.


----------



## diagrammatiks

just gotta embrace the past.

statues need to have either
big dicks
big boobs
big butts

pick any 2.


----------



## Ralyks

vilk said:


> Columbus was a fucking monster. Literal child rapist, human mutilation, feeding babies to dogs, frozen in the lake at the bottom of hell monster.



I'm having flashbacks of MetalHex telling us his ancestors were pioneers...


----------



## diagrammatiks

Ralyks said:


> I'm having flashbacks of MetalHex telling us his ancestors were pioneers...



I like that. that makes it really easy to go back to where you came from.


----------



## Ralyks

diagrammatiks said:


> I like that. that makes it really easy to go back to where you came from.



You had to see it in context.


----------



## Randy

So Trump retweets a guy chanting 'white power'. Who thinks this was accidental? Anyone?


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> So Trump retweets a guy chanting 'white power'. Who thinks this was accidental? Anyone?



So Tim Scott is pissed about this, as he should be. Meanwhile, Judd Deere said Trump didn't here anything. I mean, I could believe that if you took a few seconds to watch the clip and clearly hear it in the first few seconds before posting it and then having to delete it.


----------



## Randy

It's bullshit. "Good people on both sides", not disavowing David Duke, defending Confederate monuments and military bases, etc. He knows he's blowing the dog whistle, including deliberately 'tweeting and deleting' the post so that his followers get the message but he ducks liability.

EDIT: Forgot to include scheduling the Tulsa rally on Juneteenth as well.


----------



## Randy

And FYI, I know the term gets thrown around a lot but trying to incite a race war or a civil war is treasonous.


----------



## Ralyks

By the way, did anyone catch the part where Russia was offering cash payment bounties to the Taliban to take out US troops?


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## sleewell

putin paying bounties to kill US troops, trump briefed, no action taken besides saying russia should be back in the G7.

full on embrace of white power


#maga


----------



## Randy

It's amazing the way the guy goes off on even the most minor personal insult but Russia pays bounties to kill US troops and he's like "oh I didn't know that" *sips tea*.

Worth pointing out Trump and press secretary MORE focused on attacking NYT and the Obama administration over bounty story than doing anything about the actual foreign government paying militants to kill our troops.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/28/8844...sian-bounties-reportedly-placed-on-u-s-troops

Claiming neither he nor Pence were briefed on the bounties because he didn't find the Intel "credible". Bullshit. There's no way he's not briefed on anything military ever.


----------



## sleewell

we told the british bc they were targeting their troops as well ours. chances we told another country before telling our president and VP? answer: zero.

all that nonsense aside... he knows now and what is he doing about it?? looks like nothing and the gop enablers appear to be sleeping as usual.


where are the trump supporters in this thread? havent seen them for a bit. wondering how clinton should be executed for bengazhi but trump gets a free pass for this??


https://thehill.com/regulation/504994-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-restrictions

another supreme court loss for trump. twitter temper tantrum in 3... 2... 1....


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> And FYI, I know the term gets thrown around a lot but trying to incite a race war or a civil war is treasonous.


I seem to recall getting some flack from Metal Hex or one of his aliases for saying this... But, offering a White House meeting in return for announcing an investigation on the son of a political rival he was expecting to run against in roughly one year's time is putting his personal interests over the natonal best interest, is an abjection of his oath of office, and is also treason. It's not like he hasn't given us plenty of grounds, even _before_ the potential that he knew about a government placing bounties on the heads of US soldiers and chose to do nothing with that information,


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> It's amazing the way the guy goes off on even the most minor personal insult but Russia pays bounties to kill US troops and he's like "oh I didn't know that" *sips tea*.
> 
> Worth pointing out Trump and press secretary MORE focused on attacking NYT and the Obama administration over bounty story than doing anything about the actual foreign government paying militants to kill our troops.



https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/28/...ussian-intelligence-taliban-bounty/index.html

"The fact that the President feels compelled to tweet about the news story here shows that what his fundamental focus is, is not the security of our forces, but whether he looks like he wasn't paying attention. So he's saying well nobody told me therefore you can't blame me," Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

The former official added that he believed Trump's motivation for denying a briefing is "because it looks bad if Russians are paying to kill Americans and we're not doing anything about it."

"So what is the presidential reaction? It's to say it's not my responsibility, nobody told me about it," Bolton said.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/trump-phone-calls-national-security-concerns/index.html

In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

The calls caused former top Trump deputies -- including national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as intelligence officials -- to conclude that the President was often "delusional," as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders. The sources said there was little evidence that the President became more skillful or competent in his telephone conversations with most heads of state over time. Rather, he continued to believe that he could either charm, jawbone or bully almost any foreign leader into capitulating to his will, and often pursued goals more attuned to his own agenda than what many of his senior advisers considered the national interest.
These officials' concerns about the calls, and particularly Trump's deference to Putin, take on new resonance with reports the President may have learned in March that Russia had offered the Taliban bounties to kill US troops in Afghanistan -- and yet took no action. CNN's sources said there were calls between Putin and Trump about Trump's desire to end the American military presence in Afghanistan but they mentioned no discussion of the supposed Taliban bounties.

By far the greatest number of Trump's telephone discussions with an individual head of state were with Erdogan, who sometimes phoned the White House at least twice a week and was put through directly to the President on standing orders from Trump, according to the sources. Meanwhile, the President regularly bullied and demeaned the leaders of America's principal allies, especially two women: telling Prime Minister Theresa May of the United Kingdom she was weak and lacked courage; and telling German Chancellor Angela Merkel that she was "stupid."

Trump incessantly boasted to his fellow heads of state, including Saudi Arabia's autocratic royal heir Mohammed bin Salman and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, about his own wealth, genius, "great" accomplishments as President, and the "idiocy" of his Oval Office predecessors, according to the sources.

In his conversations with both Putin and Erdogan, Trump took special delight in trashing former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama and suggested that dealing directly with him -- Trump -- would be far more fruitful than during previous administrations. "They didn't know BS," he said of Bush and Obama -- one of several derisive tropes the sources said he favored when discussing his predecessors with the Turkish and Russian leaders.


----------



## USMarine75

For anyone that is a Trumpist or PragerU fan, this is who you associate and identify with:

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgwTEqlny-TQCbH8Iyd4AaABCQ

Read the comments. I tell myself these are Russian trolls so I can sleep at night, not thinking these are actually my fellow Americans.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> For anyone that is a Trumpist or PragerU fan, this is who you associate and identify with:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/post/UgwTEqlny-TQCbH8Iyd4AaABCQ
> 
> Read the comments. I tell myself these are Russian trolls so I can sleep at night, not thinking these are actually my fellow Americans.


From there I ended up on an hour and a half video about how Isrealites are white, colonized Europe and Jesus wasn't Jewish. Suffice to say the comments were full of MetalHexes.


----------



## Ralyks

That didn't age well


----------



## spudmunkey

That belongs here: https://twitter.com/awaysatweet?lang=en


----------



## StevenC

So do you guys think Trump has a birth certificate?


----------



## Randy

Dunno, does the xenomorph hatchery have a notary?


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Dunno, does the xenomorph hatchery have a notary?



They've had one since the Alien vs. Predatory Lending series.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> They've had one since the Alien vs. Predatory Lending series.



Super inconvenient, though. No wheelchair access, and he's only open on Tuesdays from 10:30-11:45, and Thursday nights from 11:45PM to 1:55AM. Oh, and they don't serve black people.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> ...that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.


If only there was some formal channel of recourse that these cabinet-level officials had, in case they deemed the president unfit to execute his duties under the Constitution.


----------



## sleewell

didnt trump kill soleimani bc he was ordering US troops killed via proxies in iraq... basically exactly what putin has done here? 


also, this story broke on friday. its now tues. he didn't read any of the daily briefs but this has been on tv, which is apparently how he gets his news, for a while now and he still hasn't done anything...


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> didnt trump kill soleimani bc he was ordering US troops killed via proxies in iraq... basically exactly what putin has done here?
> 
> 
> also, this story broke on friday. its now tues. he didn't read any of the daily briefs but this has been on tv, which is apparently how he gets his news, for a while now and he still hasn't done anything...



https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...7dbb44-4a75-43aa-ab7e-632ff58957b2_popular4-1

Probably because someone needs to explain how they knew about this shit A YEAR AGO.


----------



## SpaceDock

StevenC said:


> So do you guys think Trump has a birth certificate?



I’m gonna need to see the long form before I believe anything.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> I’m gonna need to see the long form before I believe anything.



It's probably printed on the back of his super-long ties. That's why he's always so careful when drinking around it.


----------



## sleewell

trump's press secretary: trump was not briefed on russians paying bounties to kill US troops

same person 2 mins later: trump is the most well informed person on planet earth.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> trump's press secretary: trump was not briefed on russians paying bounties to kill US troops
> 
> same person 2 mins later: trump is the most well informed person on planet earth.



Sorry, I stand by my statement that she comes off dumb as rocks.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> Sorry, I stand by my statement that she comes off dumb as rocks.


There are only two types of trump supporters/associates. 

Intelligent but pure evil. 

Dumb as rocks.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> There are only two types of trump supporters/associates.
> 
> Intelligent but pure evil.
> 
> Dumb as rocks.


To be fair, that's definitely a Venn diagram, not a dichotomy.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace

This wanted to drop in to post this. It is pretty hilarious to me, considering this dude is about as popular as a herpes infection among a pretty large portion of the state.

"I'm sick of this shit!" "YOU'RE DYING UP THERE GOVERNOR!" "Yeah, go hide!"

You're out of your element, Jay. Which is to say, you aren't just signing whatever the fuck you want despite how the state votes.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1611772742333586&ref=watch_permalink


----------



## Drew

Spaced Out Ace said:


> This wanted to drop in to post this. It is pretty hilarious to me, considering this dude is about as popular as a herpes infection among a pretty large portion of the state.
> 
> "I'm sick of this shit!" "YOU'RE DYING UP THERE GOVERNOR!" "Yeah, go hide!"
> 
> You're out of your element, Jay. Which is to say, you aren't just signing whatever the fuck you want despite how the state votes.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1611772742333586&ref=watch_permalink


I can't hear a word of what he's saying.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> I can't hear a word of what he's saying.



I think that was the point.


----------



## sleewell

are we 100% sure trump wants another term? i know it would shield him from legal actions but look at just the last few days. 


-white power tweet. claims he doesn't kid around and that he notices everything. 

-threatening to veto a military funding bill to protect confederate statutes

-saying that putting black lives matter on the street in front of his building would denigrate a luxury street

-still saying covid is just going to go away, says to reduce testing. calling it the kung flu. 

-not doing a thing in response to russian bounties on our troops

-losses in the supreme court on lgbtq, abortion, daca

-trying to get the supreme court to overturn the ACA without proposing any alternative plan


do these things add to his base? who is he bringing on his side with this stuff? clearly the 35% are going to vote for him regardless... what is he doing to expand the base or is that not the plan at this point?

to me it doesn't seem like he is trying to get seniors, military or minority votes and he kinda needs them to win again.


----------



## TedEH

My gut reaction would be to say that anyone with a shred of self-awareness in his position would not want to stay in that role for any longer than necessary.

I'm not convinced he has said shred of self-awareness though.


----------



## zappatton2

TedEH said:


> My gut reaction would be to say that anyone with a shred of self-awareness in his position would not want to stay in that role for any longer than necessary.
> 
> I'm not convinced he has said shred of self-awareness though.


I've been wondering the same thing. It seems like he really _wants_ to lose so he doesn't have to play anymore, and he's said things that suggest he's resigned to that fate (all the power to him, if so), but his brain doesn't make sense, how can anyone know what's running through it between the temper tantrums?

Plus there's the fact that his base is pretty unhinged and well armed, my concern is that he's voted out, and just before leaving, pulls the pin on all the psychos he's got under his spell to take to the streets and do much worse than protest.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

sleewell said:


> are we 100% sure trump wants another term? i know it would shield him from legal actions but look at just the last few days.
> 
> 
> -white power tweet. claims he doesn't kid around and that he notices everything.
> 
> -threatening to veto a military funding bill to protect confederate statutes
> 
> -saying that putting black lives matter on the street in front of his building would denigrate a luxury street
> 
> -still saying covid is just going to go away, says to reduce testing. calling it the kung flu.
> 
> -not doing a thing in response to russian bounties on our troops
> 
> -losses in the supreme court on lgbtq, abortion, daca
> 
> -trying to get the supreme court to overturn the ACA without proposing any alternative plan
> 
> 
> do these things add to his base? who is he bringing on his side with this stuff? clearly the 35% are going to vote for him regardless... what is he doing to expand the base or is that not the plan at this point?
> 
> to me it doesn't seem like he is trying to get seniors, military or minority votes and he kinda needs them to win again.



He's been held unaccountable for so many things for so long now. I don't think that he even utilizes long-range rationale at all anymore. Could be that he just doesn't care or could be that he feels that his delusional ideas and strategies will carry him into another term. Dude seriously needs psychological evaluation.


----------



## TedEH

What he needs is to be locked up for the damage he's done to his country and the world as a whole.

I almost always give people the benefit of the doubt and don't read any malice into a person's action - but not this guy.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> are we 100% sure trump wants another term? i know it would shield him from legal actions but look at just the last few days.
> 
> 
> -white power tweet. claims he doesn't kid around and that he notices everything.
> 
> -threatening to veto a military funding bill to protect confederate statutes
> 
> -saying that putting black lives matter on the street in front of his building would denigrate a luxury street
> 
> -still saying covid is just going to go away, says to reduce testing. calling it the kung flu.
> 
> -not doing a thing in response to russian bounties on our troops
> 
> -losses in the supreme court on lgbtq, abortion, daca
> 
> -trying to get the supreme court to overturn the ACA without proposing any alternative plan
> 
> 
> do these things add to his base? who is he bringing on his side with this stuff? clearly the 35% are going to vote for him regardless... what is he doing to expand the base or is that not the plan at this point?
> 
> to me it doesn't seem like he is trying to get seniors, military or minority votes and he kinda needs them to win again.



+200 federal judges, most are lifetime appointments (Magistrates are 15).

+2 SCOTUS judges, lifetime appointments.

Aligned US with Turkey, NK, China, and Russia.

Destroyed historic relationships with Mexico, Canada, Germany, Kurds, Syrian rebels, NATO, UN, etc.

More executive orders than any president, even though he criticized Obama for using such powers.

Ravaged federal agencies, turning Americans against the State Dept, FBI, CIA, NSA, EPA, etc. Has people (including himself) trusting Putin over them.

Empowered the military to act as key diplomacy officials instead of State Dept.

His actions are universally condemned by many ex-Trump officials and former senior officials, including many retired 4-star Generals.

Passed historic tax breaks for companies/corporations that will have long-lasting effects no matter who is the next President.

Empowered racists, nationalists, and populists both domestic and foreign.

Refused to comply with Congressional inquiries and won.

Impeached and won.

Investigated by the FBI, turned the public opinion against them, and won.

Imagine what he could do unchecked in a second term.


----------



## LordCashew

I honestly thought his first campaign was so absurd I wasn’t convinced he really wanted to be elected. To me, it looked like an elaborate publicity stunt. Wishful thinking I guess.

Now people are speculating that he doesn’t really want reelection and it kind of feels like history repeating itself. Looks like it to me too, but I was wrong before.  It’s amazing what people are willing to look past. 

But I still wonder if his long game is to head some kind of media organization. He certainly has a rabidly loyal audience that will hang on anything he says without questioning it...


----------



## Ralyks

LordIronSpatula said:


> But I still wonder if his long game is to head some kind of media organization. He certainly has a rabidly loyal audience that will hang on anything he says without questioning it...



If he's not in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OAN.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Imagine what he could do unchecked in a second term.



I audibly gasp whenever I see RBG mentioned in a headline, and will continue to until January.


----------



## LordCashew

Ralyks said:


> If he's not in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OAN.


 
I have had that specific thought. Then he can use it as a megaphone to criticize the next administration (and lambast anyone he feels wronged or slighted by). His Obama-era tweets will pale in comparison.


----------



## Drew

LordIronSpatula said:


> I honestly thought his first campaign was so absurd I wasn’t convinced he really wanted to be elected. To me, it looked like an elaborate publicity stunt. Wishful thinking I guess.
> 
> Now people are speculating that he doesn’t really want reelection and it kind of feels like history repeating itself. Looks like it to me too, but I was wrong before.  It’s amazing what people are willing to look past.
> 
> But I still wonder if his long game is to head some kind of media organization. He certainly has a rabidly loyal audience that will hang on anything he says without questioning it...


I think at first maybe it was, and possibly with an eye on using it to launch a media empire, either through aquisition or just starting one from scratch. I think once he started to think he could win, though, he got serious. 

I also fully believe he's trying to win in 2020, for equal parts ego and fear of state and federal persecution once he's out of office, and he's just either doing an awfully poor job of it, or this really is the best he can do and that speaks volumes to how poor his position is. Looking at this list...



sleewell said:


> are we 100% sure trump wants another term? i know it would shield him from legal actions but look at just the last few days.
> 
> 
> -white power tweet. claims he doesn't kid around and that he notices everything.
> 
> -threatening to veto a military funding bill to protect confederate statutes
> 
> -saying that putting black lives matter on the street in front of his building would denigrate a luxury street
> 
> -still saying covid is just going to go away, says to reduce testing. calling it the kung flu.
> 
> -not doing a thing in response to russian bounties on our troops
> 
> -losses in the supreme court on lgbtq, abortion, daca
> 
> -trying to get the supreme court to overturn the ACA without proposing any alternative plan
> 
> 
> do these things add to his base? who is he bringing on his side with this stuff? clearly the 35% are going to vote for him regardless... what is he doing to expand the base or is that not the plan at this point?
> 
> to me it doesn't seem like he is trying to get seniors, military or minority votes and he kinda needs them to win again.


...most of this is the old "culture wars" playbook, to rile up and double down on his base. Dog-whistles like the "accidental" white power tweet, protecting confederate "heritage," attacking BLM (did he really use "denigrate" in that coontext? That's absolutely not a coindicende if so), the vague xenophobic tone on COVID-19... 

...to me, all of that looks like a calculated attempt to change the narrative from three major problems that are all coming to a head at once: 


it's becoming clear with every passing day that the US response to COVID-19 is amongs the very worse in the world (he's hoping if he can stop testing, the extent will become less clear - that's a desperation strategy).
The largest protests against police brutality since at least the Civil Rights era are occurring, and he's squarely on the wrong side of public opinion.
Russia was putting bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan, he knew about it for some time, and continued to cozy up to Putin anyway, and while the reasons aren't especially important compared to the act, the fact it was very likely for personal political gain really doesn't do him any favors. 
All the Supreme Court stuff is coincidental, the timing is really unfortunate for him and it suggests to the culture warrior types that even two SC justices aren't enough (although they've had their share of wins too - that abortion case was very limited in scope and Roberts was clear he was voting to overturn it because it was nearly verbatim a Texas law that had been overturned, so even though Roberts was in the minority in that one, prior precedent held and the second law also couldn't stand. But, he believed the Texas decision was mistaken and would be willing to hear other challenges that hadn't been previously settled. And, the Court agreed today to hear the case on whether or not the unredacted Mueller report could be released to congress, in their term beginning in October. Had they not heard the case it would have been released now; instead, it's highly unlikely it'll be released before the election). 

I think it's as simple as he wants to win, probably _needs_ to win if he wants to stay out of jail, but he may not have many other viable options with so much going against him right now than to double down on his base and try to change the media narrative. And his base isn't big enough to win. He won mostly in 2016 because he was a historically unpopular candidate running against an even more divisive candidate, a large number of undecideds decided when given the choice of two evils to try the one they hadn't tried before, and the Comey letter pushed enough undecided voters to him at the last possible second, plus some Russian troll farms. I don't know if he can count on everything aligning for him in 2020, now that he's a known quantity.


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> If he's not in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OAN.



Hasn't he already mentioned that he could pardon himself if he wanted to?


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Hasn't he already mentioned that he could pardon himself if he wanted to?


He's floated that idea. And, at a minimum, there's no obvious reason he couldn't step down shortly before his term ends, elevating Pence to President, and Pence could pardon him. 

However, that only protects him from _federal_ prosecution, and there are a number of _state_ crimes already moving through the justice system that a federal pardon would grant him no protection from.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> However, that only protects him from _federal_ prosecution, and there are a number of _state_ crimes already moving through the justice system that a federal pardon would grant him no protection from.



This. This is actually why I thought it was bullshit when Barr got rid of Berman. SDNY likely has enough to bend him over pretty badly.


----------



## Adieu

The rants about mail-in voting suggest he's considering making use of corona to cancel, delay, or invalidate the election


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/05/politics/strongmen-world-order-trump-election-intl/index.html

Irreparable damage done by this clown.

This past week, on US President Donald Trump's watch Russia and China have effectively re-aligned the coming world order. They didn't do it together, but both took advantage of uncertainty and unpredictability that Trump has helped create.

It's far from clear that the next US President will be able to roll back the consequences of this week, which leave both Presidents Vladimir Putin in Moscow and Xi Jinping in Beijing more decisively in control of their own countries and more able to act assertively.
In other words, Trump has made an indelible mark on the world -- and it may not be for the good.

It is no coincidence that Putin and Xi have cemented their grip on cherished goals, as the clock runs down on Trump's first, and possibly only, term in office.

This past week, in a referendum on constitutional revisions so predictable that copies were on sale before the vote, Putin has effectively been made President for life, as Xi has moved equally ruthlessly, taking control of Hong Kong through a new national security law, while telling US allies Canada, Australia and the UK to keep out of China's internal affairs.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> He's floated that idea. And, at a minimum, there's no obvious reason he couldn't step down shortly before his term ends, elevating Pence to President, and Pence could pardon him.
> 
> However, that only protects him from _federal_ prosecution, and there are a number of _state_ crimes already moving through the justice system that a federal pardon would grant him no protection from.



Worth noting that crimes that a president is impeached for cannot be pardoned, even if he wasn't removed by the Senate. That's the reason why Nixon didn't wait around to see how an impeachment played out. Would be worth revisiting what the Democrats wrote into the final articles and also worth considering if there's anything else they want to draft, considering the pardon potential.


----------



## fantom

So Kanye and Trump on the same ballot? The country really has gone down the toilet.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> So Kanye and Trump on the same ballot? The country really has gone down the toilet.



I saw this news yesterday and immediately googled how to test for citizenship for Canada.


----------



## fantom

If they ever share a stage in the debate, Trump better ask Kanye if he likes fish sticks. That would give him some positive karma.


----------



## zappatton2

fantom said:


> If they ever share a stage in the debate, Trump better ask Kanye if he likes fish sticks. That would give him some positive karma.


All geniuses love fish sticks. And that ticket clearly needs a genius.


----------



## possumkiller

So what is going on? Kayne Kardashian-West wants to run as Trump's VP?


----------



## sleewell

Kanye wants to revisit a very brief period of history where his music wasn't trash.


Trump has really misjudged the current culture war, again. 2018 his entire message before the midterms was fear based hate of the caravans. Did not resonate and led to a historic route in the house with many deep red seats going blue and Pelosi taking the speaker seat. I think/hope his current position which basically sounds like he's running to be president of the confederacy will have a similar resounding defeat.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> Kanye wants to revisit a very brief period of history where his music wasn't trash.
> 
> 
> Trump has really misjudged the current culture war, again. 2018 his entire message before the midterms was fear based hate of the caravans. Did not resonate and led to a historic route in the house with many deep red seats going blue and Pelosi taking the speaker seat. I think/hope his current position which basically sounds like he's running to be president of the confederacy will have a similar resounding defeat.


One can only hope and vote...


----------



## Ralyks

So far today, the SCOTUS ruled electoral college members can't go rouge, and upheld the law banning robocalls for cell phones.

What's the betting line for Trumps tax returns?


----------



## Randy

Judges are almost always egotistical, by design. The one nice thing about this court vs. Scalia is that it's not always 100% predictable down ideological lines. I mean, you've got the two teams but you seems to get a conservative defector here or there depending on the specifics of the case, so you really never know.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Judges are almost always egotistical, by design. The one nice thing about this court vs. Scalia is that it's not always 100% predictable down ideological lines. I mean, you've got the two teams but you seems to get a conservative defector here or there depending on the specifics of the case, so you really never know.



Ifeel like Roberts will be the deciding factor (again) and will go by history, meaning ruling in favor of releasing the documents.

But who knows this this administration.


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> So what is going on? Kayne Kardashian-West wants to run as Trump's VP?



Worse...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeeten...un-heres-why-we-all-need-to-think-like-kanye/


----------



## Science_Penguin

How long do we wait before starting the "Is Kanye Really Gonna Get There?" thread?


----------



## spudmunkey

Can we all just collectively agree to not even acknowledge his existence? Not give him ANY of the attention he craves?


----------



## possumkiller

Idk I think he has the scumbag personality it takes to be a politician.


----------



## Adieu

Mitt Romney should say eff it and run independent.

At this point he could probably win half or more of EACH candidate's base just by continuing to act halfway decent and principled, intelligent, sane, and aware of his surroundings --- which, sadly, is more than can be said about ANY of the rest of em.


----------



## possumkiller

I can see why they're doing it. The Bloomberg thing backfired. Now they're hoping they can steal some Biden votes from the BLM crowd or the people they thought voted for Obama "just because he was black".

I think most people realize that a billionaire celebrity with a porn star wife and family full of money grubbing shitbags is probably the last person we want running the country. And Kayne Kardashian-West isn't any better.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## sleewell

The ppp program has been proven not to have saved many jobs. It was a huge wealth transfer to those w lobbyists connections who were already rich and didn't need the money. we've had several people try to use the entire amount as the down payment towards a 2nd, 3rd or 4th home. Its disgusting.



the lincoln project just keeps dropping bombs


----------



## possumkiller

Is it Kayne or Kanye? Believe it or not, I have never heard his name spoken out loud. I thought people just didn't know how tf to spell Kayne but I keep seeing the same typo over and over and I am thinking maybe his name is not Kayne? I thought it was Kayne pronounced like Michael Caine.


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> Is it Kayne or Kanye? Believe it or not, I have never heard his name spoken out loud. I thought people just didn't know how tf to spell Kayne but I keep seeing the same typo over and over and I am thinking maybe his name is not Kayne? I thought it was Kayne pronounced like Michael Caine.



KAHN-yay. Not my style of music, but he's been in the industry for almost 20 years, making music a lot of people like. But he's also clearly crazy.


----------



## sleewell

its kanye. i had a typo above on my phone and it wont let me edit.

pronounced con yay

his first couple of albums were great. then he went full on crazy, stupid. i think he has said he does suffer from mental issues and is probably not getting proper treatment.


----------



## TedEH

sleewell said:


> i think he has said he does suffer from mental issues and is probably not getting proper treatment.



If people took things like that into account before they voted, well... we'd be living in a very different world.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 82486
> View attachment 82487
> View attachment 82488
> View attachment 82489
> View attachment 82490
> View attachment 82491
> View attachment 82492
> View attachment 82493



Yeah, but... besides that.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Yeah, but... besides that.



His secret service detail appears to be homogenously white

...which, if hollywood films are any indication, suggests he rounded up literally every last white dude the secret service could muster

Or maybe it's the hollywood films???


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> His secret service detail appears to be homogenously white
> 
> ...which, if hollywood films are any indication, suggests he rounded up literally every last white dude the secret service could muster
> 
> Or maybe it's the hollywood films???



It’s mostly white men anyways... many LDS with law degrees actually.


----------



## Ralyks

Vindman retired from the military, claiming retaliation from the Trump administration.

That should be a huge deal, but it won’t be.


----------



## sleewell

can anyone explain the logic in deporting or deny entry to college students if they are paying for online courses?

around here the kids from overseas going to college drive brand new lambos and spend a crap ton of money around town. and in our weak tiny minds these are the people we don't want supporting our economies? what the fuck is wrong with trump?

mary trump's book hits a lot of things square on the head of accuracy. every time he brags its bc he knows he is weak and not good enough.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> can anyone explain the logic in deporting or deny entry to college students if they are paying for online courses?
> 
> around here the kids from overseas going to college drive brand new lambos and spend a crap ton of money around town. and in our weak tiny minds these are the people we don't want supporting our economies? what the fuck is wrong with trump?
> 
> mary trump's book hits a lot of things square on the head of accuracy. every time he brags its bc he knows he is weak and not good enough.



MIT and Harvard are suing. http://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-and-harvard-file-suit-against-new-ice-regulations-0708

I work for a private research university. I have the honor of teaching many of them as well. This is just another move by the current administration to make america white again. It's vindictive and petty, and serves zero functional purpose. Hell, if the students are brave enough to even visit the States right now, we should welcome them with open arms. I sure as shit wouldn't come to this country right now.

And to offer another point, many of the international students are full pay, which means they get zero break on the tuition. The colleges around this country count on this population to keep the doors open. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it is a reality for many institutions. There are good and bad international students, just like domestic ones, but so many of them shine when they get here. It is a huge loss to research, academia, and culture not to have these students on college campuses.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump wants to ban Tik Tok? There’s goes 80% of the votes under 30 and all of the votes age 13-16


----------



## Science_Penguin

USMarine75 said:


> Trump wants to ban Tik Tok? There’s goes 80% of the votes under 30 and all of the votes age 13-16



Most of those votes he probably never had to begin with, but I'm sure the Country Boy/Girl niche might be disappointed.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> Trump wants to ban Tik Tok? There’s goes 80% of the votes under 30 and all of the votes age 13-16


On the other hand, I have a hard time disagreeing with him.


----------



## Ralyks

Don’t care for TikTok, but why is he wasting his time with this?


----------



## Drew

Isn't the company a Chinese firm?


----------



## sleewell

yes


----------



## Vostre Roy

Ralyks said:


> Don’t care for TikTok, but why is he wasting his time with this?



Didn't some kids on TikTok massively trolled him by reserving seats for his rallies, which ended up being almost empty?


----------



## sleewell

yes and no. they just submitted a lot of fake rsvps but it was open to the public so its not like there were people outside who couldn't get it. it did make trump and parscale look really dumb bc they were bragging about how many people were going to be there based on the rsvps.


----------



## Vostre Roy

sleewell said:


> [...]it did make trump [...] look really dumb [...]



Well, thats basically want I meant. Here's the reason lol


----------



## Adieu

More and more petty feudal posturing

Kinda sad but funny how people used to think democratic institutions were far too strong to be rapidly subverted and coopted by a wannabe-autocrat

Still think America is entirely dictator-proofed???


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> More and more petty feudal posturing
> 
> Kinda sad but funny how people used to think democratic institutions were far too strong to be rapidly subverted and coopted by a wannabe-autocrat
> 
> Still think America is entirely dictator-proofed???


Honestly, the democratic institutions have held up a LOT better than I expected. The courts in particular, have been pretty good at checking any _blatant_ abuse of executive power. The press has also grown a backbone, but since Trump's 40% of the country doesn't trust the press, it's unclear how useful that is. Still, half of the Russia collusion investigation, and the Ukraine allegations, were broken by investigative journalists (as too was the Russian bounty scandal) so getting Trump impeached by the house isn't nothing. 

That said - it way clear even before Trump was elected that the executive branch has a LOT of power, even without a friendly House or Senate. Trump HAS a friendly Senate, and it's interesting to think how things might have gone differently with a Democratic majority in the Senate as well as the House. The two years Trump had both, thankfully, he couldn't get out of his own way, otherwise things would likely be worse if the Dems didn't take back the house when they did.


----------



## USMarine75

Vostre Roy said:


> Didn't some kids on TikTok massively trolled him by reserving seats for his rallies, which ended up being almost empty?





sleewell said:


> yes and no. they just submitted a lot of fake rsvps but it was open to the public so its not like there were people outside who couldn't get it. it did make trump and parscale look really dumb bc they were bragging about how many people were going to be there based on the rsvps.



Well he said a million people wanted in and they ended up with 7,000. Close enough.


----------



## possumkiller

https://amp.theguardian.com/music/2...e-anti-abortion-stance-in-us-presidential-bid


----------



## TedEH

We officially live in a cartoon.


----------



## spudmunkey

> West has missed the deadline to appear on the ballot in a number of states, but he argued that he could be added as a latecomer due to the coronavirus.
> 
> _He said he was “going to speak with Jared Kushner, the White House, with Biden” to make his bid a reality – although he was also critical of the presumptive Democratic nominee.
> 
> He said: “Obama’s special. Trump’s special. We say Kanye West is special. America needs special people that lead. Bill Clinton? Special. Joe Biden’s not special.”
> 
> West’s campaign advisers are his wife, the TV star Kim Kardashian-West, and the Tesla founder Elon Musk, both of whom have endorsed him. Speaking about Musk, West said: “I proposed to him to be the head of our space programme.”
> _


_





_


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> _




....Musk????

Is Musk trolling the election, or way cash poor and trying to con this birdbrain?


----------



## Ralyks

Vostre Roy said:


> Well, thats basically want I meant. Here's the reason lol



That and TikTok is from a Chinese company. No, seriously. He said he’d ban TikTok to punish China over the coronavirus.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...d-trump-considering-banning-tiktok-2020-7?amp


----------



## diagrammatiks

tik tok is the worst. so even a broken clock does the right thing for the wrong reason maybe once in its life.


----------



## possumkiller

Why not? 
Cut funding and they can't afford to keep the school open. School stays closed, kids and staff don't get sick.
Teachers should just quit en masse anyway. They've been putting up with bullshit like this for way too long. Kids won't die if they miss a year or two of school while politicians battle over education funding and teacher's rights.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't know what the big deal is with missing some school. Cut out all the bullshit test prep and revisionist history and you can make up the missed curriculum in an afternoon.


----------



## TedEH

That's one of those headlines that _sounds_ terrible when you first see it ("OMG they're taking money away from education! Away from _kids!_"), but if you think about it for a second, it kinda makes sense.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> That's one of those headlines that _sounds_ terrible when you first see it ("OMG they're taking money away from education! Away from _kids!_"), but if you think about it for a second, it kinda makes sense.



Our schools are so underfunded in much of the country that even when operating without a full load it's difficult to operate. The infrastructure is crumbling and teachers are woefully underpaid.

So yeah, there's probably some savings from not having to run HVAC and utilities, but payroll isn't significantly reduced, and you can't just leave the buildings derelict. 

There's context behind the headline that's worth reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...sidering-withholding-funding-from-schools?amp


----------



## TedEH

I can get that. I come from a sort of strange school system where I was in one of the few english schools in Quebec, but surrounded by Quebec french schools and hearing about Ontario's schools and seeing how much of a difference there is in terms of resources available. Cutting funding to one school is not the same as another - so it seems clear to me that a blanket statement of "we're just gonna cut education spending" is not nearly a nuanced enough look at the situation. Maybe it would make sense for some schools to scale back a bit. But for a school like what I went to as a kid.... probably not a great idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I can get that. I come from a sort of strange school system where I was in one of the few english schools in Quebec, but surrounded by Quebec french schools and hearing about Ontario's schools and seeing how much of a difference there is in terms of resources available. Cutting funding to one school is not the same as another - so it seems clear to me that a blanket statement of "we're just gonna cut education spending" is not nearly a nuanced enough look at the situation. Maybe it would make sense for some schools to scale back a bit. But for a school like what I went to as a kid.... probably not a great idea.



In the United States, most schools fall into the "not enough funding" category. Our system is sort of stupid. Schools are allocated tax money from property taxes in the surrounding area, so areas of lower wealth in turn get less funding, which happens to be most. 

Federal funding and grants are supposed to help offset that, it doesn't, but it's still essential.


----------



## budda

I'd wait for actual teachers to chime in on that one.


----------



## TedEH

This is the internet, when do we ever wait for the experts?


----------



## Ralyks

As a single father to a kid about to enter kindergarten, I really want my kid to go to school in the fall. But not in what feels like a gun to the head from the administration. Teachers I know more or less feel the same.

Anyway, are those tax return going to be forced to be released or what?


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> As a single father to a kid about to enter kindergarten, I really want my kid to go to school in the fall. But not in what feels like a gun to the head from the administration. Teachers I know more or less feel the same.
> 
> Anyway, are those tax return going to be forced to be released or what?



Dunno how it is now but kindergarten was halfway like preschool when I was a kid and half a day long anyway. I know big kid schools in NYC are saying one to three days a week in school and the rest virtual on a staggered schedule and shorter hours, which at least has some scientific/disease control merits as opposed to "open em all up!".

Considering children, while not getting the most severe symptoms of the disease, can still carry it, and their teachers are present in the building too, then factor in emerging information saying brain damage occurs even in minor COVID cases... I think it's worth not rushing into. If anything the quality for virtual education should be raised as a 'just in case' rather than the threats from admin just to open.

How well did that work for their threats to NC about the convention? It's gotta be full convention, no distancing, no capacity limits or I'm moving it to Florida! Move the convention and the disease followed right along with them, now they're lucky if they have one at all. What did this anti science bluster get them?


----------



## sleewell

i worry that my kids are missing out on both education and social growth but you cant learn either if you are dead. if case numbers were significantly lower, and we had rapid testing readily available and had contact tracing i would be much more comfortable sending them back, which again is what we all want much like going back to work, but it doesn't look like any of that will be in place.

where we wanted to be in terms of cases, testing and tracing requires work and planning. it doesn't involve hoping and tweeting and things magically ending up with a good resolution. trump wants the results of other countries but consistently has avoided doing the work to get us there.

trump is up against a deadline with the election which is driving every action and decision. the virus has no such timeline and is thriving in places were science was ignored and we rushed back to normal life like it was gone.


----------



## zappatton2

Wow, Kanye really appears to be upping his game as a viable American politician by coming out against vaccinations, abortion, and all manner of intelligence generally. If Trump ever takes the fall and Kanye ends up on the Republican ticket, the deplorables are going to have to make a choice between their racism and their ignorance. Can they overcome their racism because he says thing stupid enough for them too agree with, or would race be a deal-breaker regardless of how poorly informed he is?

And to bring it back to publicly funded education, the collapse of America really should be a cautionary tale on what happens when you don't publicly invest in knowledge and critical thinking skills. I hope the world learns lessons from this.


----------



## Ralyks

I hope I made it clear that even though I want my kid in school, I’m also only wanting it if it’s safe. Which the administration feels like it can control whether it’s safe or not.

As for kindergarten being part of a day, he was already going to be in a before-and-after school program, since, well, I gotta work and I raise him by myself. I have my family near by too, but still.


----------



## Ralyks

Oh, 7 - 2 decision, Trump is not immune from hiding taxes


----------



## Randy

CNN already running that story saying Trump won. It leaves open NY's ability to get the taxes, which they already had a clear shot at but Congress said they wanted to try and get it themselves. Now IF NY takes a next step, that will likely spur another drawn out legal action.


----------



## sleewell

If his taxes showed straight up bribes from Russia or more likely significantly lower net worth would it change anyone minds at this point?

Trump fan in Tulsa was asked if there was anything he could do which would lose her support. she said if he cheated on his wife. When told he admitted to cheating on her she immediately back tracked and said that was before the election so it was fine.

There is no bottom.


----------



## Randy

Change minds, no but it'll put his relationship with Russia into a new context, and could likely lead to serious charges now or when he leaves office.


----------



## SpaceDock

sleewell said:


> If his taxes showed straight up bribes from Russia would it change anyone minds at this point?
> 
> Trump fan in Tulsa was asked if there was anything he could do which would lose her support. she said if he cheated on his wife. When told he admitted to cheating on her she immediately back tracked and said that was before the election so it was fine.
> 
> There is no bottom.



srly, he has broken every rule of traditional republican standards. destroyed the budget, in love with North Korean dictator, Putin’s buttboy, cheats on wife and mistress, wife did nude photos, never goes to church, etc. I think he could literally wipe his ass with the constitution and republicans would say it was about time.


----------



## sleewell

he actually has done that too lol. diverting funds appropriated by congress for the military to fund his wall was ruled to be illegal last month. also not specifically in the constitution but most likely frowned on by the founding fathers; separating kids from their parents with no plan on how to ever reunite them did not seem to get any sustained negative blow back from so called conservatives. they did a a quick 180 on hating tariffs to supporting a foolish tariff based trade war that cost consumers millions and got no results except a delayed reaction to a pandemic.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> srly, he has broken every rule of traditional republican standards. destroyed the budget, in love with North Korean dictator, Putin’s buttboy, cheats on wife and mistress, wife did nude photos, never goes to church, etc. I think he could literally wipe his ass with the constitution and republicans would say it was about time.



Are we sure he's not FAKING his sex scandals to prove to his base that he's still a virile macho man???

Sounds like something he would actually do if he had ED and was depressed and self-conscious about it


----------



## SpaceDock

Well the description from Stormy wasn’t exactly flattering.


----------



## spudmunkey

"Oh, she said I have a mushroom dick? Because I'm such a fungi to be with, right? Yeah, it's probably that."


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> Change minds, no but it'll put his relationship with Russia into a new context, and could likely lead to serious charges now or when he leaves office.



Nothing's going to come out of this until after the election other than temper tantrums from Trump, but yeah, it could lead to some very serious problems for him if he doesn't manage to steal the next election (and manages to survive his inevitable case of COVID).

It's less that it's exciting news with good ramifications for anything bad happening to Trump, and more "thank god they didn't rule the other way."


----------



## Randy

I'm under the impression he had COVID back when his staff were all coming down with it and he was taking HCQ "preventatively". I don't buy people in his office have it but he didn't, people in Pence's office had it but he didn't and Trump Jr. girlfriend had it but he doesn't. Too many close calls to suit me.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Our schools are so underfunded in much of the country that even when operating without a full load it's difficult to operate. The infrastructure is crumbling and teachers are woefully underpaid.
> 
> So yeah, there's probably some savings from not having to run HVAC and utilities, but payroll isn't significantly reduced, and you can't just leave the buildings derelict.
> 
> There's context behind the headline that's worth reading: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/506427-devos-very-seriously-considering-withholding-funding-from-schools?amp


Beyond that, DeVos is threatening all-or-none on reopening and funding - anything other than a full, unconditional, normal reopening, she wants to withhold funding. A lot of districts are looking at hybrid reopenings where students spent part of their time in school, in small groups, and part of their time at home. She's basically telling schools that they can't do that, if they want to stay afloat. 



Randy said:


> CNN already running that story saying Trump won. It leaves open NY's ability to get the taxes, which they already had a clear shot at but Congress said they wanted to try and get it themselves. Now IF NY takes a next step, that will likely spur another drawn out legal action.



The court sided against Trump on the NY case, tossing his (laughable) argument that he was totally immune from state prosecution, but my understanding is they kicked the Congressional case back to the lower courts rather than sided wholly in his favor, no? I haven't seen a really god summary, though - this is the first I'm coming up for air and there wasn't much online at 7:45.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> The court sided against Trump on the NY case, tossing his (laughable) argument that he was totally immune from state prosecution, but my understanding is they kicked the Congressional case back to the lower courts rather than sided wholly in his favor, no? I haven't seen a really god summary, though - this is the first I'm coming up for air and there wasn't much online at 7:45.



The gist I got was, while they voted 7 - 2 in both cases, Roberts (who wrote the opinion on both) basically said Congress needs a better argument, and sent it back to the lower courts. It still confusing to me even though it’s pretty fucking bad for Trump either day.
Also, the stock market dropped when the ruling came. JPMorgan at the point where they think stocks would do better if the democrats swept November.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

His taxes will be revealed... almost certainly. But it's not going to happen before November, unfortunately. Short term = good for trump/ long term... not so much. My understanding is that since he will appeal this ruling, that it will be past November for things to play out. This way he doesn't have to worry about any scathing info affecting his votes. He's biding his time now but the clock is ticking. I think that ultimately he's got a lot to be worried about. They're going to string this criminal up. TBH I don't even think any damning information is going to rattle his fan-base. They've already proven to be so delusional that they won't even acknowledge factual information... even presented in irrefutable video context. What a sick sorry bunch of zombies they are.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> Nothing's going to come out of this until after the election other than temper tantrums from Trump, but yeah, it could lead to some very serious problems for him if he doesn't manage to steal the next election (and manages to survive his inevitable case of COVID).
> 
> It's less that it's exciting news with good ramifications for anything bad happening to Trump, and more "thank god they didn't rule the other way."



Narrow possibility he wins the election but loses the Senate, the taxes come out with bombshells and he's on the losing side of another impeachment hearing. If they have things like Trump looking the other way on Russian bounties while he's being paid by the Kremlin, I think you get enough Senate votes to install Pence.


----------



## spudmunkey

We already do have John Cena statues everywhere. You just can't see them.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Narrow possibility he wins the election but loses the Senate, the taxes come out with bombshells and he's on the losing side of another impeachment hearing. If they have things like Trump looking the other way on Russian bounties while he's being paid by the Kremlin, I think you get enough Senate votes to install Pence.


I'd agree with this, especially if the narrative post-2020 is that Trump, as an incumbent, cost the GOP the Senate, lost ground in the House, and ALMOST botched the re-election too, losing the popular vote but eeking out another Electoral College win by similarly tight margins as 2016. I also suspect that the GOP would be a little less likely to worry about repercussions from Trump when he's no longer facing another election, especially if they clearly already paid a price for supporting him. 

Though, it ain't over till the fat lady sings, but let's also pause and note that Trump's gap in the polls is both remarkably steady, and even four months out from an election is approaching absolutely _historic_ proportions. People love to say that "the polls were wrong" in 2016, but that doesn't really hold water - Trump lost the popular vote and the totals were comfortably inside the margin of error - I think he outperformed his national polling by something like a point. The way the polls were _interpreted_ however, was wrong, to Trump's benefit, but with him holding steady between 9 and 10 points behind in head to head national polling and trailing Biden in every single swing state, badly in enough of them to put Biden over the top in the Electoral College, it's going to take more than a normal-sized polling error for Trump to pull off a win here, and if he wants to change that he's gotta get going, _fast_. 

To be fair I've been calling Trump a modest underdog in 2020 before we even had a candidate and when we were pitching him against Generic Democratic Candidate(tm), which was not a popular or consensus view back then. And, I suppose, we ARE running him against Generic Democratic Candidate(tm) today... But, Trump doesn't have a path forward unless he can tighten up the race in an _extremely_ significant manner, and his strategy of trying to brush COVID-19 under the rug, coming out against BLM when support for the cause is, what, pushing 80%+ and even close to majority support amongst the GOP (last poll I saw had support there at 40%), and then not really dealing convincingly with accusations he knew that Russia was putting bounties on American soldiers' heads, while doubling down in support of the _Confederate_ Flag, something he wouldn't even do in 2016, doesnt seem like a winning proposition.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> The gist I got was, while they voted 7 - 2 in both cases, Roberts (who wrote the opinion on both) basically said Congress needs a better argument, and sent it back to the lower courts. It still confusing to me even though it’s pretty fucking bad for Trump either day.
> Also, the stock market dropped when the ruling came. JPMorgan at the point where they think stocks would do better if the democrats swept November.


538 provided some decent color - basically, in both cases, they roundly rejected the argument that Trump's team put forward, that he could't be prosecuted. In the NY case, that was the end of it - the requested documents would be released to a grand jury, but not to the public until after the investigation was complete. In the Congressional case, the Court rejected the argument that Trump had _total_ immunity from Congressional subpoena, but rather he had the same protections as any private citizen, and basically instructed the lower courts to take the case back and review rather the subpoena request would stand up to the same legal scrutiny it would get if it was MY taxes and financial records being subpoenaed, rather than Trump's. 

So, I'd say it's fair to say that, by a pure strict legal reading, Trump lost both cases, since in both his argument was that he couldn't be subpoenaed because he was President. At the same time, in a pure strict _political_ reading, he's likely to have his taxes remain hidden until after the election, so you could call that a "win" I suppose. It's certainly a Pyrrhic one, though, and looking down the road, the precedent the court has set here has been to enforce some pretty clear limits on executive power, although note in doing so that Congress's power to subpoena the president isn't limitless and won't be held to a lower standard than that of any other citizen just because of his heightened public profile.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Narrow possibility he wins the election but loses the Senate, the taxes come out with bombshells and he's on the losing side of another impeachment hearing. If they have things like Trump looking the other way on Russian bounties while he's being paid by the Kremlin, I think you get enough Senate votes to install Pence.



Why on Earth would he pay taxes on or deduct or otherwise declare foreign bribes????


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Why on Earth would he pay taxes on or deduct or otherwise declare foreign bribes????



That's assuming the bribe is like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, with bags with big green dollar signs on them, etc. It's well known that Trump properties have a signficant amount of Russian investment, Trump Village for example is deep in 'Little Russia' in Brighton Beach. It's also well known that Russians helped bail out Trump and his kids out a number of times (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/).

So no, you're not going to see an itemized list of Putin sending money to Trump for bribes. What you will see is 30 years of Russian oligarchs sending Trump money for him to launder, and those will line up with the folks he's gone easy on, or that he sent Rick Perry and Pomeo to do favors for.


----------



## Randy

Alot of people forget, the worst thing about Trump's "perfect phone call" to Ukraine wasn't the fact he wanted dirt on his political rival, it was that it was about a gas deal and the whole story behind "the three amigos" was the qualified ambassadors were removed in place of Trump lackies tasked with brokering a deal for more Americans on the board of the competing gas/oil company, that's also a money laundering operation for Russian oligarchs. That's where Lev Parnas and Igor start showing up. Always follow the money.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> That's assuming the bribe is like a Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon, with bags with big green dollar signs on them, etc. It's well known that Trump properties have a signficant amount of Russian investment, Trump Village for example is deep in 'Little Russia' in Brighton Beach. It's also well known that Russians helped bail out Trump and his kids out a number of times (https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/how-russian-money-helped-save-trumps-business/).
> 
> So no, you're not going to see an itemized list of Putin sending money to Trump for bribes. What you will see is 30 years of Russian oligarchs sending Trump money for him to launder, and those will line up with the folks he's gone easy on, or that he sent Rick Perry and Pomeo to do favors for.



This is America.

Circumstantial evidence is only ever "effective" against persons of color, immigrants, or the most broke-azz creditless* of white trash nobodies.


*Granted, Trump probably has more debt and liability than the entire state of West Virginia's population put together, and not an unborrowed dime to his name.... but in modern America, owing billions = "rich".


----------



## Randy

We'll see, certainly. 

Obama and Pelosi set a precedent of not going after previous administration officials when they both unilaterally announced there'd be no investigations into Bush for the Iraq War but Trump raised the stakes by orders of magnitude. I also get the impression Bush was told they'd go easy if he went the fuck away, and Trump seems completely incapable of leaving quietly. He also spent the last 4 years putting the previous administration under the microscope, so I'm not so sure Biden (who was also part of that administration) would or should be inclined to act generously.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am curious if there is anyone who can make a cogent case for why Trump should remain in office? Seems like he can’t even make a case for himself.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> I am curious if there is anyone who can make a cogent case for why Trump should remain in office? Seems like he can’t even make a case for himself.



The US is breaking all sorts of records, and is #1 on so many lists.*

_*please don't look at what the lists and records are actually about or for. #TRUMP2020 #KAG_


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> I am curious if there is anyone who can make a cogent case for why Trump should remain in office? Seems like he can’t even make a case for himself.



Because he's not a Democrat (...anymore)

Like, duh. Best reason ever!!! Make America Grating Again!!!


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> I am curious if there is anyone who can make a cogent case for why Trump should remain in office? Seems like he can’t even make a case for himself.



Because his base will follow him to the ends of the world to own "libtards" while not realizing they aren't rich enough to benefit from his presidency.


----------



## Randy

I've said it before, it's all a sport to them. And just like any sports team, you only see their jerseys out in force when they're winning. Once they lose, you can't find a single one of them. An election year with a rabid base and an uphill climb, I'm sure they're louder and more over the top than normal but a week after the election, you won't find a single Trump flag anywhere.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Because his base will follow him to the ends of the world to own "libtards" while not realizing they aren't rich enough to benefit from his presidency.



Just read a comment on a story about confederate flag that read, "I'll continue to fly mine proudly, while sitting on my porch with my AR-15. Every lib who seens me pops a vein. It's all the reason I need."


----------



## SpaceDock

Still waiting on the cogent argument, I would love to see a Republican try to actually build a case based on Trump positive assets. I think Randy has it right, it is just tribal followings at this point or single issue voters.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Just read a comment on a story about confederate flag that read, "I'll continue to fly mine proudly, while sitting on my porch with my AR-15. Every lib who seens me pops a vein. It's all the reason I need."



I rest my case.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## spudmunkey

Oh, like all of those radical left catholic schools?


----------



## zappatton2

Yup, attack education, right out of the playbook.


----------



## Ralyks

They can't learn the best words from home I guess.
Seriously, screw him. Like I said, as much as I want my kid in school in the fall, I don't want it if it's a health risk and this douche and DeVos are holding a gun to the schools heads.


----------



## Ralyks

https://apnews.com/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6

"The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups."

Fuck this. Hail Satan.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 82568



Knowingly bullshit, this is the same Mueller bluster I mentioned the other day. He wants the political benefits of the threat hanging out there, not the repercussions of taking an action. The goal is to shit-tweet and get everyone chasing that around the next couple days.


----------



## Vostre Roy

In other un-surprising news, Trump has commuted Roger Stone's sentence

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/politics/trump-stone-prison-clemency/index.html


----------



## Ralyks

He commuted Roger Stones sentence.

Welp, fuck.

Edit: Ninja'd


----------



## Cynicanal

Ralyks said:


> Because his base will follow him to the ends of the world to own "libtards" while not realizing they aren't rich enough to benefit from his presidency.


Whether or not you benefit from the Trump tax policy is more dependent on where you live than how much you make. If you're in a state with high sales and property taxes, you benefit; if you're in a state with state income tax, you end up worse. The reason for this is that the old tax code unfairly favored the latter, because the official stance of both the Democratic party and the neo-Conservative Bush-like wing of the Republican party is "fuck everyone that isn't North-east coast or West coast."



SpaceDock said:


> I am curious if there is anyone who can make a cogent case for why Trump should remain in office? Seems like he can’t even make a case for himself."


Because there isn't a single Democrat who won't sell us out to Western European and Canadian interests. 

Western Europeans like going on about "oh, you're so backwards, you don't our social services and you spend so much on defense" without mentioning that the reason they don't spend hardly anything on their own defense is _we do it for them_. I work for a defense contractor, so I see this first-hand -- the U.S. pays the bill for all sorts of projects for countries all around the world that aren't us. Go to the RAAF base in Brisbane some time if you're in Australia for a quick object lesson in this -- those F-18 Super Hornets? Paid for by the U.S. Government. The maintenance of said aircraft? Paid for by the U.S. Government. The training of pilots for said aircraft (which, btw, costs a _shitload_ of money, far more than you probably think)? Paid for by the U.S. Government. Same is largely true of their F-35s (Australia paid for a tiny portion of those, so it wasn't totally free, but it was largely paid for by the U.S.). Then we get Democratic leaders who bow down to them and say "yes, you're so much better than us, please continue asking for handouts from us on climate change accords that are unbinding and many other issues and health organizations that lie to protect China's image." The correct answer should be "oh, you think we're a third world country, and want to treat us like one? Fine, fuck you, we're pulling out of NATO, pay for your own defense." Similar story with Canada -- they've put tariffs on American dairy for years, and the instant we put any tariffs on any of their goods it's an outrage? Get fucked.

Trump at least pays lip service to putting American interests ahead of international interests, which makes him the best candidate by default.


----------



## narad

Cynicanal said:


> Whether or not you benefit from the Trump tax policy is more dependent on where you live than how much you make. If you're in a state with high sales and property taxes, you benefit; if you're in a state with state income tax, you end up worse. The reason for this is that the old tax code unfairly favored the latter, because the official stance of both the Democratic party and the neo-Conservative Bush-like wing of the Republican party is "fuck everyone that isn't North-east coast or West coast."
> 
> 
> Because there isn't a single Democrat who won't sell us out to Western European and Canadian interests.
> 
> Western Europeans like going on about "oh, you're so backwards, you don't our social services and you spend so much on defense" without mentioning that the reason they don't spend hardly anything on their own defense is _we do it for them_. I work for a defense contractor, so I see this first-hand -- the U.S. pays the bill for all sorts of projects for countries all around the world that aren't us. Go to the RAAF base in Brisbane some time if you're in Australia for a quick object lesson in this -- those F-18 Super Hornets? Paid for by the U.S. Government. The maintenance of said aircraft? Paid for by the U.S. Government. The training of pilots for said aircraft (which, btw, costs a _shitload_ of money, far more than you probably think)? Paid for by the U.S. Government. Same is largely true of their F-35s (Australia paid for a tiny portion of those, so it wasn't totally free, but it was largely paid for by the U.S.). Then we get Democratic leaders who bow down to them and say "yes, you're so much better than us, please continue asking for handouts from us on climate change accords that are unbinding and many other issues and health organizations that lie to protect China's image." The correct answer should be "oh, you think we're a third world country, and want to treat us like one? Fine, fuck you, we're pulling out of NATO, pay for your own defense." Similar story with Canada -- they've put tariffs on American dairy for years, and the instant we put any tariffs on any of their goods it's an outrage? Get fucked.
> 
> Trump at least pays lip service to putting American interests ahead of international interests, which makes him the best candidate by default.



I mean, if the US pulls out of NATO, what do you think happens? Australia, Sweden, France, etc, suddenly start building aircraft carriers?

The projecting strength game is an America/China/Russia thing and the rest of the world doesn't really care about it. That's why the US pays for it...because the US wants the benefits that would come from strong-arming negotiations around the world.


----------



## Cynicanal

narad said:


> I mean, if the US pulls out of NATO, what do you think happens? Australia, Sweden, France, etc, suddenly start building aircraft carriers?


They'll have to do something, that's for sure. I mean, Ukraine couldn't even protect their claims to Crimea with half-hearted support from NATO -- if the U.S. stops defending Europe entirely, how long do you think it takes for the T-14s to roll across Ukraine, Poland, and Finland? This would also leave the status of the Mediterranean Dialogue countries unclear (we pay for a lot of their stuff, too), and I'm sure a lot of them would love a bit of payback on France for the Colonial days...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Cynicanal said:


> They'll have to do something, that's for sure. I mean, Ukraine couldn't even protect their claims to Crimea with half-hearted support from NATO -- if the U.S. stops defending Europe entirely, how long do you think it takes for the T-14s to roll across Ukraine, Poland, and Finland? This would also leave the status of the Mediterranean Dialogue countries unclear (we pay for a lot of their stuff, too), and I'm sure a lot of them would love a bit of payback on France for the Colonial days...



We've seen this episode before.

Russia isn't going to start WW3 for funsies. There's no benefit to it.

Even without American intervention, the EU (for which Finland and Poland are members) spends about six times as much as Russia on defense. They're a nuclear power (by way of France) as well.

Russian can play tough guy and gobble up former Soviet territories, but they're not dumb enough to engage the EU, some of its biggest trade partners.

The US spends so much on defense internationally for its own benefit, the idea that we're some protector of the free world is a false narrative used to bolster exceptionalism and nationalism. We want our forces closer to our enemies, and available for the next misguided forray into interventionism.


----------



## Cynicanal

You are aware that "former Soviet territory" extends well into Poland, right?

The US _used_ to spend on defense internationally for its own benefit. The USSR fell 30 years ago; at this point, the US funding the defense of countries in Europe and North Africa is mostly a case of "the divorce would be messy, so we'll keep doing it, even though our current interests align better with Russia than with Western Europe." Most American politicians (and, really, most people in general) are basically prison bitches, so they'll gladly bow down and kiss the feet of countries that look down on us in the hopes that they'll let us sit at the cool-kids table, but that doesn't mean it's good for us that they do so.

(I have to admit, I'm rather surprised at the part of my post people have latched on to. I was basically sure that telling Canada to "get fucked" would be the part that raised people's eyebrows, not a pretty straightforward anti-Europe argument.)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Cynicanal said:


> You are aware that "former Soviet territory" extends well into Poland, right?
> 
> The US _used_ to spend on defense internationally for its own benefit. The USSR fell 30 years ago; at this point, the US funding the defense of countries in Europe and North Africa is mostly a case of "the divorce would be messy, so we'll keep doing it, even though our current interests align better with Russia than with Western Europe." Most American politicians (and, really, most people in general) are basically prison bitches, so they'll gladly bow down and kiss the feet of countries that look down on us in the hopes that they'll let us sit at the cool-kids table, but that doesn't mean it's good for us that they do so.



There's a lot to unpack here, but again, you're operating on the false premise that the rest of the world is defenseless without us. 

We're not "funding defense", like a protection racket, we're paying for position and influence the only way we know how, brute force.


----------



## TedEH

Cynicanal said:


> I was basically sure that telling Canada to "get fucked" would be the part that raised people's eyebrows


If it makes you feel any better, as a Quebecer, my eyebrows were good and raised.

I feel like I'm close enough to Ottawa to warrant an opinion that Canada generally has no interest in making the US "bow to our interests". The sentiment I hear from the majority of people (just average people, not politicians or anything, granted) is that we want as little to do with the US as possible. Being a Canadian right now, paying attention to what goes on in American politics is like watching a train wreck happen, and the more distance we can put between us and that situation, the better.


----------



## Ralyks

TedEH said:


> If it makes you feel any better, as a Quebecer, my eyebrows were good and raised.
> 
> I feel like I'm close enough to Ottawa to warrant an opinion that Canada generally has no interest in making the US "bow to our interests". The sentiment I hear from the majority of people (just average people, not politicians or anything, granted) is that we want as little to do with the US as possible. Being a Canadian right now, paying attention to what goes on in American politics is like watching a train wreck happen, and the more distance we can put between us and that situation, the better.



I'm at the point where I'm trying to figure out how to join YOU guys.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> I mean, if the US pulls out of NATO, what do you think happens? Australia, Sweden, France, etc, suddenly start building aircraft carriers?
> 
> The projecting strength game is an America/China/Russia thing and the rest of the world doesn't really care about it. That's why the US pays for it...because the US wants the benefits that would come from strong-arming negotiations around the world.



France Italy UK and Spain HAVE aircraft carriers, and the French one is a bigazz nuclear one.

Japan is reportedly building two carriers.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> France Italy UK and Spain HAVE aircraft carriers, and the French one is a bigazz nuclear one.
> 
> Japan is reportedly building two carriers.



I mean there -are- countries that benefit from US military presence, Japan being one of them. But I doubt the US military presence in Europe is appreciated by western/northern Europe. It's not really appreciated here either, but more of a necessary evil. We'll tolerate some soldiers raping some Okinawan women every once in a while if it keeps China from advancing its stake on the Senkaku islands apparently.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

Is the unnamed forum... Rig Talk?


----------



## zappatton2

I find the concept that unless you're protected by a super-military, the rest of the world is just waiting to carpet bomb you, to be thoroughly bizarre. It's like the gun issue write large; if I'm not hoarding a personal arsenal, cartoon-character criminals are going to salivate at the prospect of breaking into my home, taking my stuff and killing my family. It's absurd, and the more you buy into projecting weaponized hostility, the more you actually destabilize everything around you.

I really think the world will do just fine if the U.S. stops imagining every world problem is a nail, and it needs to act like the world's hammer. And think about the kind of international stability that could spring from cutting military funding in half, and putting some of those savings towards foreign aid and development.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

zappatton2 said:


> I find the concept that unless you're protected by a super-military, the rest of the world is just waiting to carpet bomb you, to be thoroughly bizarre. It's like the gun issue write large; if I'm not hoarding a personal arsenal, cartoon-character criminals are going to salivate at the prospect of breaking into my home, taking my stuff and killing my family. It's absurd, and the more you buy into projecting weaponized hostility, the more you actually destabilize everything around you.
> 
> I really think the world will do just fine if the U.S. stops imagining every world problem is a nail, and it needs to act like the world's hammer. And think about the kind of international stability that could spring from cutting military funding in half, and putting some of those savings towards foreign aid and development.



Very well said. 

It's so ingrained in American culture, you could easily have been talking about the restructuring of the police.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html
> 
> Is the unnamed forum... Rig Talk?



No idea why CNN refused to say it by name but its 4chan. And he looks exactly like a 4chan person.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> No idea why CNN refused to say it by name but its 4chan. And he looks exactly like a 4chan person.



Yeah, apparently it was some guy on 4chan named MetalHex.


----------



## zappatton2

MaxOfMetal said:


> Very well said.
> 
> It's so ingrained in American culture, you could easily have been talking about the restructuring of the police.


I originally worked that into my response, but figured I was getting a touch long-winded, lol!


----------



## fantom

zappatton2 said:


> I find the concept that unless you're protected by a super-military, the rest of the world is just waiting to carpet bomb you, to be thoroughly bizarre. It's like the gun issue write large; if I'm not hoarding a personal arsenal, cartoon-character criminals are going to salivate at the prospect of breaking into my home, taking my stuff and killing my family. It's absurd, and the more you buy into projecting weaponized hostility, the more you actually destabilize everything around you.
> 
> I really think the world will do just fine if the U.S. stops imagining every world problem is a nail, and it needs to act like the world's hammer. And think about the kind of international stability that could spring from cutting military funding in half, and putting some of those savings towards foreign aid and development.



So much this. The arguments for having a ridiculous military and ability to nuke the entire planet out of orbit come from the same people that believe the 2nd amendment means they should own 20 assault rifles, a flame thrower, and maybe some artillery. All to protect themselves from getting attacked by boogie men they have never encountered. Because Murica.

Ironically the amendment that lets them own so much firepower is to protect them from a government that they want to own ridiculous firepower... So illogical it hurts my head.


----------



## Cynicanal

zappatton2 said:


> I find the concept that unless you're protected by a super-military, the rest of the world is just waiting to carpet bomb you, to be thoroughly bizarre. It's like the gun issue write large; if I'm not hoarding a personal arsenal, cartoon-character criminals are going to salivate at the prospect of breaking into my home, taking my stuff and killing my family. It's absurd, and the more you buy into projecting weaponized hostility, the more you actually destabilize everything around you.
> 
> I really think the world will do just fine if the U.S. stops imagining every world problem is a nail, and it needs to act like the world's hammer. And think about the kind of international stability that could spring from cutting military funding in half, and putting some of those savings towards foreign aid and development.


It's only a recent development that open hot-wars between world powers have become rare. We're in a weird blip right now -- throughout most of history, you had to keep your military power ready to go, or your neighbors would be there to take your land and enslave you. A dip in American military spending would make it very, very easy for the world to return to these kind of days, and for us to find ourselves the victims.

I mean, people are bringing up the cops as an example... yeah, it's a great one -- New York dropped police funding as a result of all of the nonsense protests, and murder rates have skyrocketed! Good job, NY -- way to have no sense of cause-and-effect!

At the end of the day, violence or the threat thereof is all that keeps people in line. As such, the tools of institutional violence need to be kept in good shape.



TedEH said:


> If it makes you feel any better, as a Quebecer, my eyebrows were good and raised.
> 
> I feel like I'm close enough to Ottawa to warrant an opinion that Canada generally has no interest in making the US "bow to our interests". The sentiment I hear from the majority of people (just average people, not politicians or anything, granted) is that we want as little to do with the US as possible. Being a Canadian right now, paying attention to what goes on in American politics is like watching a train wreck happen, and the more distance we can put between us and that situation, the better.


If that was the case, why did Canada's PM cry like crazy when Trump instituted a tariff on Canadian steel (which, again, seems entirely fair given the many decades long tariff Canada has had on a lot of American agricultural products)? If Canada wanted nothing to do with the U.S., a tariff on their products would equal less trade with Canada, which would be exactly what they want!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Cynicanal said:


> I mean, people are bringing up the cops as an example... yeah, it's a great one -- New York dropped police funding as a result of all of the nonsense protests, and murder rates have skyrocketed! Good job, NY -- way to have no sense of cause-and-effect!



The budgetary changes for the NYPD don't take place until the next fiscal year, which doesn't even start until October, with execution taking place second quarter, which is January at the earliest.


----------



## Cynicanal

MaxOfMetal said:


> The budgetary changes for the NYPD don't take place until the next fiscal year, which doesn't even start until October, with execution taking place second quarter, which is January at the earliest.


Given that just the _appearance_ of weakness was enough to cause that much of a spike, I'm sure that actual weakness will work out wonderfully for them!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Cynicanal said:


> Given that just the _appearance_ of weakness was enough to cause that much of a spike, I'm sure that actual weakness will work out wonderfully for them!



Move them goal posts. 

Perhaps massive civil unrest, high unemployment, and further effects of the pandemic are exacerbating the situation. 

But yeah, maybe it's just the idea of only having $5 billion to work with next year.


----------



## Adieu

Cynicanal said:


> Given that just the _appearance_ of weakness was enough to cause that much of a spike, I'm sure that actual weakness will work out wonderfully for them!



Yeah

Now that the armed police department of the Los Angeles School District got pressured by libtards to return those grenade launchers... we're certainly doomed.


Our FREEDOM is in peril.

How? Who knows.... maybe we'll get conquered and enslaved by a bunch of 15yo communists led by that underaged-looking ex-waitress from the Bronx


BRING BACK THE ROCKET LAUNCHERS!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!


----------



## zappatton2

The idea that people need the threat of punishment to play nice in civil society is an excuse far too often concocted by wannabe autocrats, and is demonstrably untrue.

The least punitive nations on earth are often also those nations most conducive to public investment and engagement. The idea that everyone counts in a society tends to broadly make people more collectively invested in their society. Not as some showy, breast beating expression of mindless nationalism, but as an understanding that we, as citizens, all have a stake in our collective well-being, strong civil protections and a supportive safety net.

If America is burning, it is because half of America is demanding civil rights for citizens who's very lives are still treated as expendable, and the other half who are happy to keep America brutish, militaristic and racist, and perfectly comfortable with state authorities killing citizens with no consequence, under the illusion that we're all just rabid dogs waiting to eat our neighbors the moment that cop steps off our neck (no due respect to Alex Jones for the eating neighbors thing).


----------



## Cynicanal

Adieu said:


> Yeah
> 
> Now that the armed police department of the Los Angeles School District got pressured by libtards to return those grenade launchers... we're certainly doomed.
> 
> 
> Our FREEDOM is in peril.
> 
> How? Who knows.... maybe we'll get conquered and enslaved by a bunch of 15yo communists led by that underaged-looking ex-waitress from the Bronx
> 
> 
> BRING BACK THE ROCKET LAUNCHERS!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!


Personally, I'd like the police to be armed enough to deal with hostage or active shooter situations, but that's just me. 



zappatton2 said:


> The idea that people need the threat of punishment to play nice in civil society is an excuse far too often concocted by wannabe autocrats, and is demonstrably untrue.
> 
> The least punitive nations on earth are often also those nations most conducive to public investment and engagement. The idea that everyone counts in a society tends to broadly make people more collectively invested in their society. Not as some showy, breast beating expression of mindless nationalism, but as an understanding that we, as citizens, all have a stake in our collective well-being, strong civil protections and a supportive safety net.
> 
> If America is burning, it is because half of America is demanding civil rights for citizens who's very lives are still treated as expendable, and the other half who are happy to keep America brutish, militaristic and racist, and perfectly comfortable with state authorities killing citizens with no consequence, under the illusion that we're all just rabid dogs waiting to eat our neighbors the moment that cop steps off our neck (no due respect to Alex Jones for the eating neighbors thing).


Yeah, maybe all of that hippie shit works in a very homogeneous country where people share a culture and a history, but the U.S. isn't that. The way NY was cleaned up in the first place was through aggressive "broken windows" policing, and it took about 3 seconds for CHAZ to become a hellscape of rape and robbery. We're heterogeneous enough that we'll always be at cross-purposes with each other -- some groups demanding "give me free shit from every white person, even though most white people today aren't descended from slave owners!", and others being the people that free shit is demanded of... it's never going to work. I mean, if you're not of "my tribe" in some way -- whether through friendship, familial relation, or affiliation -- I don't give a shit about your well being, and that's true of everyone whether they want to admit it or not (see: Dunbar's Number). When everyone is in the same tribe, people might care about each other, but that's not the case in the U.S. due to our history, and it never will be the case short of a genocidal civil war. Brutal crime-ridden every-man-for-himself hellscape or punitive retaliation are the only two options we have here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## zappatton2

I dunno, Canada certainly isn't without racism or social strife, but we do officially celebrate the concept of multiculturalism; the idea that we can celebrate the best of the cultural mosaic that we are, as one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world. That doesn't mean that there aren't some people who don't grumble about multiculturalism, or do get tribal about things, but the broader consensus is that we do all fit together, and that our differences bring a broader cultural enrichment. If I might add on a personal level, I work with people of every colour and creed, from across the world, and our commonalities as co-workers and friends far outweigh the differences of our backgrounds.

Our BLM demonstrations have been largely without incident or violence, and a big part of that was that our police were there handing out water and summoning paramedics when people succumbed to the heat. And that was the trend across the country. I won't paper over police brutality here, but they read the room, and things stayed peaceful and harmonious.

Your attitude about those around you is unfortunate, and I believe it is the result of an ideology you have been raised with. If I might quote one of our past Prime Ministers, which I think should apply equally to citizens of the United States;


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> The budgetary changes for the NYPD don't take place until the next fiscal year, which doesn't even start until October, with execution taking place second quarter, which is January at the earliest.



way to have no sense of cause-and-effect!


----------



## Adieu

Cynicanal said:


> Personally, I'd like the police to be armed enough to deal with hostage or active shooter situations, but that's just me.
> 
> 
> Yeah, maybe all of that hippie shit works in a very homogeneous country where people share a culture and a history, but the U.S. isn't that. The way NY was cleaned up in the first place was through aggressive "broken windows" policing, and it took about 3 seconds for CHAZ to become a hellscape of rape and robbery. We're heterogeneous enough that we'll always be at cross-purposes with each other -- some groups demanding "give me free shit from every white person, even though most white people today aren't descended from slave owners!", and others being the people that free shit is demanded of... it's never going to work. I mean, if you're not of "my tribe" in some way -- whether through friendship, familial relation, or affiliation -- I don't give a shit about your well being, and that's true of everyone whether they want to admit it or not (see: Dunbar's Number). When everyone is in the same tribe, people might care about each other, but that's not the case in the U.S. due to our history, and it never will be the case short of a genocidal civil war. Brutal crime-ridden every-man-for-himself hellscape or punitive retaliation are the only two options we have here.



School cops with absolutely necessary and totally rational rocket launchers?

I miss the KGB. They had subtlety and restraint. And got sh!t done without any rocket launchers whatsoever. The Soviet citizenry thought it was kinda cool but somewhat excessive that they got special issue cars with V8 engines not available to the general public....that was IT.


----------



## Vyn

Trump finally seen wearing a mask. Only took how many people dying in the US? I stopped counting after 100K.


----------



## StevenC

Vyn said:


> Trump finally seen wearing a mask. Only took how many people dying in the US? I stopped counting after 100K.


Trump's going after the wrong 1%


----------



## TedEH

Cynicanal said:


> If that was the case, why did Canada's PM cry like crazy when Trump instituted a tariff on Canadian steel


I said Canadian CITIZENS want nothing to do with the US's problems right now. I really hope that you don't believe that a country's government always acts 100% reflective of it's citizens. I stand by what I said. The majority of us want no piece of that trainwreck. As was mentioned, we have our own problems to deal with.



Cynicanal said:


> If Canada wanted nothing to do with the U.S., a tariff on their products would equal less trade with Canada


So more trade between the two countries means bowing to our interests? .....???



Cynicanal said:


> Personally, I'd like the police to be armed enough to deal with hostage or active shooter situations, but that's just me.


Even the police here in Canada are MORE than armed for those situations. You're very clearly missing every nuance of the intent of the defunding thing. Yeah, we want law enforcement to be equipped enough to _do their jobs_. What we don't want is for them to be armed to the teeth in _every _situation regardless of whether it's needed or appropriate. Because it's very often not needed or appropriate.



Cynicanal said:


> Brutal crime-ridden every-man-for-himself hellscape or punitive retaliation are the only two options we have here.


That whole paragraph is the most us-vs-them bullshit I think I've ever read on this forum.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Cynicanal said:


> Personally, I'd like the police to be armed enough to deal with hostage or active shooter situations, but that's just me.
> 
> Yeah, maybe all of that hippie shit works in a very homogeneous country where people share a culture and a history, but the U.S. isn't that. The way NY was cleaned up in the first place was through aggressive "broken windows" policing, and it took about 3 seconds for CHAZ to become a hellscape of rape and robbery. We're heterogeneous enough that we'll always be at cross-purposes with each other -- some groups demanding "give me free shit from every white person, even though most white people today aren't descended from slave owners!", and others being the people that free shit is demanded of... it's never going to work. I mean, if you're not of "my tribe" in some way -- whether through friendship, familial relation, or affiliation -- I don't give a shit about your well being, and that's true of everyone whether they want to admit it or not (see: Dunbar's Number). When everyone is in the same tribe, people might care about each other, but that's not the case in the U.S. due to our history, and it never will be the case short of a genocidal civil war. Brutal crime-ridden every-man-for-himself hellscape or punitive retaliation are the only two options we have here.




Sometimes I like to sit here and imagine what type of third world shithole you imagine you live in.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/07/12/politics/trump-puerto-rico-hurricane-maria/index.html


----------



## Randy

I love that Trump runs the country like a slumlord, all the way down to refusing to upgrade the lights and toilets.


----------



## Cynicanal

zappatton2 said:


> the idea that we can celebrate the best of the cultural mosaic that we are, as one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Canada is 73% white, and 45% of the rest is Asian. That is such a _huge_ difference from what the U.S. has to deal with, where 13% of our population is demanding that the 60% group give all of their money to them and allow themselves to be raped and murdered without the ability to defend themselves.

I mean, we're in a nation where when a pair of homeowners in the 60% showed that they were armed when their home was being attacked by a group from that 13%, the entire internet said "NO, THEY SHOULDN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES, SOMEONE, PRESS CHARGES!" That's how crazy shit has gotten in the U.S. Diversity isn't our strength; it's an obstacle that we repeatedly overcome.


----------



## budda

Cynicanal said:


> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> 
> Canada is 73% white, and 45% of the rest is Asian. That is such a _huge_ difference from what the U.S. has to deal with, where 13% of our population is demanding that the 60% group give all of their money to them and allow themselves to be raped and murdered without the ability to defend themselves.
> 
> I mean, we're in a nation where when a pair of homeowners in the 60% showed that they were armed when their home was being attacked by a group from that 13%, the entire internet said "NO, THEY SHOULDN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES, SOMEONE, PRESS CHARGES!" That's how crazy shit has gotten in the U.S. Diversity isn't our strength; it's an obstacle that we repeatedly overcome.



The delusion is old.

Signed,

Black Canadian.


----------



## Cynicanal

I didn't say there were no black canadians, but being roughly 4% black is very different than being roughly 13% black. Y'all don't have the "once per decade, but becoming more common" racial riots that move in waves and destroy cities/beat random whites to death for being white/get in open shootouts with immigrants of other colors that the U.S. does.


----------



## zappatton2

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong, grew up in Toronto and mixed up national demographics with the Greater Toronto Area. That said, the only "race wars" I'm seeing in America are the long, endless examples of lynch mobs and trigger happy cops. If I was black, I would be terrified to leave my house for fear of a paranoid gun-toter deciding I was walking through the wrong neighbourhood, or, glob forbid, stepping on their lawn.

What I see at the protests are black and white citizens coming together to demand justice and an end to systemic and brutal racism. And I'm seeing cops on a broad scale use acts of violence against unarmed, overwhelmingly peaceful protesters, while dressed and armed like an occupying military. I'm sure there could be an isolated incident or two, but I am definitely NOT seeing white people being randomly attacked for being white.


----------



## Cynicanal

Then you're completely unfamiliar of what "black and white citizens coming together to demand justice and an end to systemic and brutal racism" looks like. Google "Reginald Denny". Or "Destruction of Koreatown". Or even watch what happened in Minneapolis recently. I mean, sure, most of our news media tries valiantly to deny it (to the point that they'll say "there's only peaceful protesting happening here" _while buildings are being set on fire on camera behind the anchor_), but that's the same news media that's been caught having anchors pretend to have Covid-19 so they can document their recovery when they never actually had it, so you'd be a fool to listen to anything they have to say.

We've hit the point where we have white liberals kissing the shoes of black protesters in the streets (ironically, while calling conservatives "boot lickers"). This isn't "people coming together"; this is subjugation.


----------



## StevenC

Wow, who would have thought the "let half the population die" guy would also be a racist?


----------



## Cynicanal

You're behind the times, the word "racist" lost its power in 2015. Besides, according to the left, every white is by definition racist anyways, so of course I am -- and so are most of the people participating in this thread, I'd guess.


----------



## Boofchuck

Cynicanal. Bro, I hope you eventually learn to operate from love rather than fear.


----------



## Cynicanal

To love something is to hate and fear that which threatens it.

"Operating from love rather than fear" isn't operating from love at all. It's operating from _sentimentality_.


----------



## Adieu

Cynicanal said:


> I didn't say there were no black canadians, but being roughly 4% black is very different than being roughly 13% black. Y'all don't have the "once per decade, but becoming more common" racial riots that move in waves and destroy cities/beat random whites to death for being white/get in open shootouts with immigrants of other colors that the U.S. does.



You know a good way to avoid living in utter terror of a local population?

They say "not messing with and antagonizing them on a daily basis" works wonders.


----------



## Cynicanal

If that were the case, we'd see the _whites_ rising up and rioting across the nation. They get killed by cops at a higher rate, both in total and per-contact than blacks (that's right! Contrary to what your TV tells you, a white guy is significantly more likely to be killed by police when being arrested than a black guy), and they're far more likely to be the victims of interracial crime.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Wow, who would have thought the "let half the population die" guy would also be a racist?



Odds of this guy having a Rig-talk account rising fast...


----------



## Randy

Cynicanal said:


> Diversity isn't our strength; it's an obstacle that we repeatedly overcome.



Y'all gotta start reporting shit like this, we can't be in every thread all the time to catch it.


----------



## budda

Open call to SSO: don't feed the Cynical troll anymore. No place here for racist misinformants. Don't quote, don't reply, don't engage.

Thanks.


----------



## budda

Randy said:


> Y'all gotta start reporting shit like this, we can't be in every thread all the time to catch it.



I didn't even see it


----------



## USMarine75

Cynicanal said:


> I didn't say there were no black canadians, but *being roughly 4% black is very different than being roughly 13% black*. Y'all don't have the "once per decade, but becoming more common" racial riots that move in waves and destroy cities/beat random whites to death for being white/get in open shootouts with immigrants of other colors that the U.S. does.









vs


----------



## USMarine75

Cynicanal said:


> Diversity isn't our strength; it's an obstacle that we repeatedly overcome.








I didn't even realize you played guitar, Steve. I guess you have a lot of time on your hands these days for hobbies...


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Y'all gotta start reporting shit like this, we can't be in every thread all the time to catch it.



The racism is definitely putting a damper on things, but I'd like to report his bullshit statistics.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Y'all gotta start reporting shit like this, we can't be in every thread all the time to catch it.



This.

The more reports the faster Alex takes care of these things.


----------



## MFB

budda said:


> don't engage.
> 
> Thanks.



_Zack Khoury would like to know your location_


----------



## budda

MFB said:


> _Zack Khoury would like to know your location_


----------



## fantom

Cynicanal said:


> [Whites] get killed by cops at a higher rate, both in total and per-contact than blacks (that's right! Contrary to what your TV tells you, a white guy is significantly more likely to be killed by police when being arrested than a black guy)



So I thought this claim was ridiculous. I went to the DOJ stats, and low and behold, he is right about the total. From 2003-2009, 2026 whites and 1529 blacks were killed by police. So the total number of whites killed by police is higher than blacks, but...

Then I used my brain. I realized, hey, the "total" statistic is absolutely (pun intended) a garbage measurement. The last census [2010] has 73% of the population is white and 12.7% is black. So if you normalize the total arrest related deaths stats, you have 2026 /.73=2775 and 1529/0.127=15953. This means a black person is almost 5.75x more likely to be killed by police than a white person.

I will say, present your sources when making claims so it is easier to show you are biased and manipulating information to justify your worldview.

See raw data: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf


----------



## Cynicanal

I didn't say per-person. I said in total and per-contact (that is, per arrest). A lot more black people get arrested per capita.


----------



## Drew

Cynicanal said:


> If that were the case, we'd see the _whites_ rising up and rioting across the nation. They get killed by cops at a higher rate, both in total and per-contact than blacks (that's right! Contrary to what your TV tells you, a white guy is significantly more likely to be killed by police when being arrested than a black guy), and they're far more likely to be the victims of interracial crime.


Gonna have to ask you for a citation here, because my sources say this is total bullshit, and if anything the problem is probably _understated_ because a Black american is much more likely to be selected for "contact" with police, to borrow your term, than a white American. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...full-extent-of-the-systemic-bias-in-policing/


----------



## fantom

Cynicanal said:


> I didn't say per-person. I said in total and per-contact (that is, per arrest). A lot more black people get arrested per capita.



This isn't the 1500s. You can't just make claims and expect people to believe you without showing your sources. You are repeatedly making biased claims with no sources. I honestly don't know much about the stats here, but I find your claims to be incredulous and your agenda to be pushing racism. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if you have actual studies and stats from reputable places. But until then, please stop trolling with unjustified claims. It isn't our job to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The US spends so much on defense internationally for its own benefit, the idea that we're some protector of the free world is a false narrative used to bolster exceptionalism and nationalism. We want our forces closer to our enemies, and available for the next misguided forray into interventionism.


Yeah, the number of people who don't get this, that our role as the world's largest superpower conveys a TON of soft power and is responsible for things like the US Dollar being the currency of global business (meaning, amongst other things, that the US Treasury bill is the safe haven asset of the world and we can issue as many Treasuries as we want because demand is baked in), and the US operating from a position of negotiation strength pretty much everywhere, or organizations like NATO and the UN being essentially instruments of US soft power themselves, rather than some sort of "globalist check" on American power...

Like, we're not funding as much global defense as we do because we feel bad for people. We do it because we want other nations to be dependent on us, and to defer to our interests over theirs.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> This isn't the 1500s. You can't just make claims and expect people to believe you without showing your sources. You are repeatedly making biased claims with no sources. I honestly don't know much about the stats here, but I find your claims to be incredulous and your agenda to be pushing racism. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if you have actual studies and stats from reputable places. But until then, please stop trolling with unjustified claims. It isn't our job to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.


Let's also mention, in passing, his use of "ratio" while distussing "total numbers." Ratio implies a denominator. He's dead wrong about "per contact" violence anyway, but he's either intentionally misleading here, or not very good with stats and language. Take your pick.


----------



## Cynicanal

fantom said:


> This isn't the 1500s. You can't just make claims and expect people to believe you without showing your sources. You are repeatedly making biased claims with no sources. I honestly don't know much about the stats here, but I find your claims to be incredulous and your agenda to be pushing racism. I'm willing to accept I'm wrong if you have actual studies and stats from reputable places. But until then, please stop trolling with unjustified claims. It isn't our job to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.


I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.



Drew said:


> Let's also mention, in passing, his use of "ratio" while distussing "total numbers." Ratio implies a denominator. He's dead wrong about "per contact" violence anyway, but he's either intentionally misleading here, or not very good with stats and language. Take your pick.


What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.


----------



## sleewell

cynicanal did you recently lose your job writing for tucker carlson?


----------



## Cynicanal

No. Just remember, though, he's the most watched news-anchor in the U.S. My ideas are downright commie compared to mainstream America, where the most popular news anchor reads the 14 words and promotes "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.


----------



## fantom

Cynicanal said:


> I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.



So your source to justify your position is a mathematician that literally said you are wrong?

"These statistics are consistent with excessive use of deadly force against Black people"​


Cynicanal said:


> What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.



The link @Drew posted to a fivethirtyeight article is consistent with the link you shared. You either failed to read the articles or you don't understand statistics.

I think I'm going back to ignoring you.


----------



## fantom

Cynicanal said:


> "This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.



I'm a moderate conservative and have not experienced anything you describe on this site happening to me.


----------



## TedEH

Cynicanal said:


> It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!"


I don't think that this is the case. I'm not the most left-leaning person, but whenever I get shouted down it's either because I've gotten too argumentative and went off track, or because I've challenged something that was held strongly - but it's never been because of the political leaning. People don't like being challenged or told they don't understand, or continuing a conversation when they feel they've reached everything they're going to get out of it. It's entirely your choice whether you think it's worth continuing to challenge, or if you might reconsider that you might actually be wrong, etc.

I, like you, have an arguably bad habit of remaining engaged past the point of your message being received, and it rubs some people the wrong way, especially when that message doesn't align with what would otherwise be some consensus in the conversion.

I mean, you're coming to a place where you _know_ you're in the minority, it shouldn't be a surprise that you'd get push back from challenging that.


----------



## StevenC

Cynicanal said:


> I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.


This says the opposite of what you think it says. It says it's a fallacy in the first paragraph.

It says, very clearly to anyone who can pass elementary reading comprehension, that black people are stopped by police way more frequently than white people. This is what people mean when they talk about systemic racism. Black people get stopped by traffic police way more often and they get the police called for "suspicious activity" way more often. This leads to more black people being arrested and shot per capita than white people.

If anything arguing "deaths per contact" is higher for white people means that white people more frequently interact with police for justified reasons.


Cynicanal said:


> No. Just remember, though, he's the most watched news-anchor in the U.S. My ideas are downright commie compared to mainstream America, where the most popular news anchor reads the 14 words and promotes "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.


The most left leaning person I know yells at me constantly for being a centre right monster. The conservatives that don't last in here are the trolls. See Rig Talk for an example of what you think is happening.


----------



## USMarine75

Cynicanal said:


> It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods.


----------



## USMarine75

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f0c37a0c5b6480493d2a13a




Woolery > Fauci


----------



## spudmunkey

Well...when Fauci goes away, we never really know when he'll be back. At least with Chuck, we know it'll be "two and two".


----------



## Drew

Cynicanal said:


> I'm far from the first person to point out the deaths-per-contact rate is skewed heavily towards whites. Even leftist pro-BLM articles mention it: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/06/11/opinion/statistical-paradox-police-killings/ It's such a well-known fact, I'm surprised there's any debate over it.
> 
> 
> What's misleading about using the stat that shows who is more likely to be shot if a white guy and a black guy are both arrested? I mean, aside from the fact that it doesn't come to the ideologically-mandated conclusion.


I'm sorry, did you actually _read_ the link you included there?

I'm struggling to find a polite way to respond to you here - finding someone who takes the time to refute your argument, doesn't somehow give intellectual heft to your argument or suggest it was right in the first place.

Or, maybe the better thing to point out is this - if the best way you can defend the claims you're making here is to share articles disproving your claims on the grounds that "enough other people incorrectly believe what I do that someone bothered to prove us wrong," then you're basically telling us you're making arguments here you know to be absolute bullshit, which really leaves your credibility in tatters.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## USMarine75

@Cynicanal 

Please fill in the blanks...

_____ won't replace us.

_____ took our jobs.

_____ is the size of the trenchcoat I wore in school.



Cynicanal said:


> It's because *anything even slightly right-of-center* instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.



He thinks he's "slightly right-of-center"?


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Adieu

Cynicanal said:


> This site has wondered recently why more conservatives don't post in the political section -- well, I guess now you know. It's because anything even slightly right-of-center instantly gets shouted down as "OMG, RACITS!" and gets reported to the mods. You choose to live in an echo chamber and then question why -- it's really rather ridiculous.





fantom said:


> I'm a moderate conservative and have not experienced anything you describe on this site happening to me.



I am/was mostly conservative until the Trump debacle and the conservative moral bankruptcy that followed.

At the moment, the only conservative I feel any amount of trust and confidence in is Romney...although I also trust him far more than any major Democrat.


PS ...I also admit that I personally consider myself somewhat subconsciously racist. Enough to bother me when I catch myself thinking it, but at the same time so far below the threshold of what passes for racist in America that that is also troubling in its own right.


----------



## sleewell

im anti dumb people and enjoy debate with informed people from all points on the political spectrum. it seems like what were up against is someone who cant defend their position without saying its everyone else that's the problem rather than their own inability to form cohesive sentences.


----------



## Cynicanal

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, did you actually _read_ the link you included there?
> 
> I'm struggling to find a polite way to respond to you here - finding someone who takes the time to refute your argument, doesn't somehow give intellectual heft to your argument or suggest it was right in the first place.
> 
> Or, maybe the better thing to point out is this - if the best way you can defend the claims you're making here is to share articles disproving your claims on the grounds that "enough other people incorrectly believe what I do that someone bothered to prove us wrong," then you're basically telling us you're making arguments here you know to be absolute bullshit, which really leaves your credibility in tatters.


Yes I did, and I'm wondering if you did. The article outright admitted that the stats showed that, per contact/arrest, whites get shot more than blacks (that is, the thing I claimed); the article I linked used that as a launching point to make a different claim. Using a point that contradicts your own in order to introduce your point and debate it further is a common rhetorical technique, and is widely taught in high school, so I'm surprised you're unable to recognize it when you see it. But, hey, if you want it from a source that argues that we don't have too much police violence against blacks, there's this paper from a black Harvard professor: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf



some guy whose name I can't be bothered to look up and remember said:


> Please fill in the blanks...
> 
> _____ won't replace us.
> 
> _____ took our jobs.
> 
> _____ is the size of the trenchcoat I wore in school.


1. You
2. Boomers
3. Didn't wear one. But the fact that you think this is relevant demonstrates that you're simply a bully looking to extend high school forever, probably because that's when you peaked.



> He thinks he's "slightly right-of-center"?


I guess if you consider anything slightly to Stalin's left to be "far right", then no. But compared to the mainstream right in this country, I'm actually fairly far to the left.


----------



## TedEH

Oof. You took the bait.


----------



## budda

Told you guys not to feed him


----------



## spudmunkey

An amusing edit:


----------



## fantom

So what about this deporting international students. How stupid is this administration? These people paid for classes at higher rates for years and are at risk of losing their degree track over xenophobia.

The reason this is stupid: the US education system is actually a pretty good export. We have many internationals that pay US colleges for years, then return home. It is a pretty succesfull business model. In that time, they meet Americans and network. They become dependent on some American culture. They make American friends. Overall, it helps align future American upper middle class with foreign way of life, allowing them to have mutually beneficial relationships.


Removing international students won't increase attendence by Americans. It will raise prices and isolate us. Foreigners (such as from China and India) will find another country to send their smarter and financially secure offspring. Our schools' prestige will suffer. In time, businesses will start to suffer too.

As someone who has interviewed hundreds of college students, I will say this is not a good move for the US short term or long term. You cannot make our population more capable and productive by simply removing people who are better. You have to make the people here more competitive independent of others. And when I say they are "better", I mean they are top people in their home countries too. So they are better than average Americans. I don't mean that their entire home country is better.


----------



## Ralyks

I thought they rescinded shipping out the international students earlier today?


----------



## sleewell

They did. What a terrible idea.


----------



## fantom

Ralyks said:


> I thought they rescinded shipping out the international students earlier today?



I didn't see that news. Good. Still don't even understand why it was considered and reach public discussion.


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> I didn't see that news. Good. Still don't even understand why it was considered and reach public discussion.


 because trump


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> because trump



Nah, that had Stephen Miller written all over it.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## sleewell

stop me if you think any of these statements don't hold water:

"This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism," his niece, who has a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, writes of Mr Trump. "Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be."

"He may have a long undiagnosed learning disability that for decades has interfered with his ability to process information"

"The past six months of the pandemic, says Mary Trump, have revealed the president to be a “petty, pathetic little man — ignorant, incapable, out of his depth, and lost in his own delusional spin.”


----------



## zappatton2

sleewell said:


> stop me if you think any of these statements don't hold water:
> 
> "This is far beyond garden-variety narcissism," his niece, who has a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, writes of Mr Trump. "Donald is not simply weak, his ego is a fragile thing that must be bolstered every moment because he knows deep down that he is nothing of what he claims to be."
> 
> "He may have a long undiagnosed learning disability that for decades has interfered with his ability to process information"
> 
> "The past six months of the pandemic, says Mary Trump, have revealed the president to be a “petty, pathetic little man — ignorant, incapable, out of his depth, and lost in his own delusional spin.”


I think all of this is plain as day. What I can't wrap my head around are the people who both possess eyes and ears, and still persist on supporting or finding excuses for him. It makes the precise opposite of sense.


----------



## StevenC

zappatton2 said:


> I think all of this is plain as day. What I can't wrap my head around are the people who both possess eyes and ears, and still persist on supporting or finding excuses for him. It makes the precise opposite of sense.


You have to understand, Donald Trump has a lot of experience handling everything America is currently going through. For example, within the space of ten years his grandfather died of the Spanish Flu and his dad was arrested at a klan rally.


----------



## zappatton2

Well, I suppose his policy on "owning libtards" is the one thing his base can really rally around, since they seem to collect whatever a libtard is, lol.

Also, I'm thinking of making this my standard response for every comments section, ever;


----------



## TedEH

zappatton2 said:


> I'm thinking of making this my standard response for every comments section, ever;


I'm not usually someone who thinks "there's always two sides" etc., but in this case, I think both "sides" are guilty of this. No matter which political bubble you look at, some subset of them get off on "destroying" and "owning" the "others". At that point, your goal isn't to have a conversation or move anything meaningfully forward, it's just to one-up people.

I really wish politics didn't amount to little more than a high-school level popularity contest.


----------



## Ralyks

Kanye dropped out.
Well... Shit.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> Kanye dropped out.
> Well... Shit.


Already? 

Was the paperwork too hard?


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> Already?
> 
> Was the paperwork too hard?



I dunno, but I guess not only were we not ready for a gay man to be president, were not ready for a gay fish either.


----------



## StevenC

TedEH said:


> I'm not usually someone who thinks "there's always two sides" etc., but in this case, I think both "sides" are guilty of this. No matter which political bubble you look at, some subset of them get off on "destroying" and "owning" the "others". At that point, your goal isn't to have a conversation or move anything meaningfully forward, it's just to one-up people.
> 
> I really wish politics didn't amount to little more than a high-school level popularity contest.


I'm in a group chat that is basically one extreme lib guy posting memes owning the medium libs.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Kanye dropped out.
> Well... Shit.


Huh. His campaign managed to last for _less_ time than his wife's previous marriage!


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/15/...sissippi-coronavirus-herd-immunity/index.html

Which brings me to a series of tweets from Reeves earlier this week in which he systematically destroyed the argument that everyone should just get Covid-19 now so that we build up a herd immunity. (The geniuses behind that theory of the case are some of the same ones pushing for young people to have coronavirus parties so everyone there gets exposed.)
Here's Reeves' data-driven argument against that thinking -- in seven tweets.

1) "Let's talk about herd immunity. I've listened to some people argue that the rapid spread of cases is a good thing, and we need to reach herd immunity in Mississippi and elsewhere to survive. I'm not a health care expert by any means, but I am a math guy. And I have thoughts:"

2) "The experts say we need 70-80% of the population to get COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity. Let's assume they're wrong (it's certainly possible, they have been before.) Let's assume they're being way overly cautious and we actually only need 40% infection for herd immunity."

3) "In Mississippi, our population is 3 million. We've had 36,680 cases so far. We'd need 1.2 MILLION infections to achieve that hypothetical 40% threshold. (Remember, experts say it's double that.)"

4) "Over the last two weeks, our hospital system has started to become stressed to the point of pain. We are seeing the early signs and effects of it becoming overwhelmed. We had to suspend elective surgeries again."

5) "On our worst day of new cases, we had just over 1,000. It has typically been between 700-900 during this most aggressive time. To get to 40% infections, we'd need 3,187 new cases every day for a full year from today. We would need to TRIPLE our worst day -- every day -- for a year."

6) "I'm not one of these guys that immediately dismisses any idea that challenges the expert status quo talking points. I'm pretty skeptical by nature. That's healthy. But herd immunity is not anything like a realistic solution in the short or mid-term. I wish it was."

7) "Unless you're willing to go without hospitals after a car wreck or heart attack, we need a different approach. Right now, despite mixed messages at the beginning, it seems like masks are the best bet. They're a hell of a lot better than widespread shut downs. Please wear one!"


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1233613

I hope Vindman sues the shit out of them


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1233613
> 
> I hope Vindman sues the shit out of them



Trump admin is 'bend until it breaks' test of the American political system. The military are servants of the The Constitution, but serve under a chain of command with the President at the top. Vindman is a test of whether or not you can serve both if their will are disparate things. MSM and Democrats being deliberately naive and acting like Trump admin. hasn't made it explicitly clear their interpretation is that loyalty to the President IS loyalty to the Constitution, regardless of what the President does or what he orders.


----------



## sleewell

sir you are getting crushed in the polls. were in the middle of pandemic and there are protesters in the streets upset about police brutality. what is your plan?



well i think we should talk about shower heads and water pressure, my support for the confederate flag and how i plan to deregulate fair housing.


----------



## zappatton2

sleewell said:


> sir you are getting crushed in the polls. were in the middle of pandemic and there are protesters in the streets upset about police brutality. what is your plan?
> 
> 
> 
> well i think we should talk about shower heads and water pressure, my support for the confederate flag and how i plan to deregulate fair housing.


I don't know what room he's reading, but I feel like Putin and the who's who of America's enemies are in there somewhere.


----------



## budda

What the fuck is going on in Portland??


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

budda said:


> What the fuck is going on in Portland??


Seems like the feds are intervening. Yikes.


----------



## budda

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Seems like the feds are intervening. Yikes.



You'd think the govt abducting citizens would gain more media coverage...


----------



## sleewell

the beatings will continue until morale improves.


----------



## Ralyks

Somebody donate a new everything to Ginsburg. She's literally falling apart and Trumo assigning a 3rd justice would have ramifications for a long time to come.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Science_Penguin

If you think things are violent now...


----------



## Boofchuck




----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/marsha-blackburn-cancel-culture-adam-parkhomenko-tweet

Fuckin' Hillary, man. Evil incarnate. I can't believe what Hillary said and did now...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

She should just troll the fuck out of them and say she's voting for Trump. The fucking idiots won't know what to do.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> She should just troll the fuck out of them and say she's voting for Trump. The fucking idiots won't know what to do.


Hahaha that would be awesome. She could make a video endorsing trump and then watch as their minds melt.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/media/marsha-blackburn-cancel-culture-adam-parkhomenko-tweet
> 
> Fuckin' Hillary, man. Evil incarnate. I can't believe what Hillary said and did now...
> 
> View attachment 82803



Wait... a FORMER ADVISOR told em to f off? 

And that's news???


----------



## Ralyks

John Lewis died...


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Wait... a FORMER ADVISOR told em to f off?
> 
> And that's news???



Exactly.

They even used her pic for the cover of the story lol.



Ralyks said:


> John Lewis died...



We keep losing leaders like McCain, Cummings, and now Lewis.

And we're left with scumbags like Devin Nunes


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> John Lewis died...



We keep losing leaders like McCain, Cummings, and now Lewis.

And we're left with scumbags like Devin Nunes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> John Lewis died...



And of course that dimwit Marco Rubio tweets a photo of Elijah Cummings.




Cummings has been dead for almost a year now. Who the fuck did he think he was talking to?


----------



## Boofchuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> And of course that dimwit Marco Rubio tweets a photo of Elijah Cummings.


Wow.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> And of course that dimwit Marco Rubio tweets a photo of Elijah Cummings.
> 
> View attachment 82823
> 
> 
> Cummings has been dead for almost a year now. Who the fuck did he think he was talking to?



Well dats wacist.


----------



## SpaceDock

At least he admitted that he was wrong openly and publicly. I can respect that. Wish our President could do the same.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Well dats wacist.



I'm not sure how racist it is or isn't, but it's pretty fucking stupid and lazy.


----------



## narad

That's hilarious. That guy has owned himself so many times I'm baffled how he still has a political career.


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> That's hilarious. That guy has owned himself so many times I'm baffled how he still has a political career.


I had shown my dad an itemized list of the ways trump has fucked the military, their dependents, and veterans since he took office. This was his reply. It reads like a weird auto response. It doesn't read like something he would write. It seems like he has some sort of trump training manual with a list of generic responses. He was also telling anyone and everyone that the virus is a hoax not so long ago. 

"That one you sent only has partial truth. I know for a fact Trump has done everything to protect our troops. He is one of the only ones that is proactive in trying to stop the spread and accelerate treatment for the corona virus. The only real virus that we need to be afraid of is the democrats! They are the real threat."


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> I had shown my dad an itemized list of the ways trump has fucked the military, their dependents, and veterans since he took office. This was his reply. It reads like a weird auto response. It doesn't read like something he would write. It seems like he has some sort of trump training manual with a list of generic responses. He was also telling anyone and everyone that the virus is a hoax not so long ago.
> 
> "That one you sent only has partial truth. I know for a fact Trump has done everything to protect our troops. He is one of the only ones that is proactive in trying to stop the spread and accelerate treatment for the corona virus. The only real virus that we need to be afraid of is the democrats! They are the real threat."



Sounds like your dad has a year or two head-start on mine, but this is sadly the trajectory of all dads. Someone needs to find out who is getting all the dads to start reading ZeroHedge -- that's the real conspiracy.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> I had shown my dad an itemized list of the ways trump has fucked the military, their dependents, and veterans since he took office. This was his reply. It reads like a weird auto response. It doesn't read like something he would write. It seems like he has some sort of trump training manual with a list of generic responses. He was also telling anyone and everyone that the virus is a hoax not so long ago.
> 
> "That one you sent only has partial truth. I know for a fact Trump has done everything to protect our troops. He is one of the only ones that is proactive in trying to stop the spread and accelerate treatment for the corona virus. The only real virus that we need to be afraid of is the democrats! They are the real threat."



That is some cult-ish shit


----------



## Shoeless_jose

possumkiller said:


> I had shown my dad an itemized list of the ways trump has fucked the military, their dependents, and veterans since he took office. This was his reply. It reads like a weird auto response. It doesn't read like something he would write. It seems like he has some sort of trump training manual with a list of generic responses. He was also telling anyone and everyone that the virus is a hoax not so long ago.
> 
> "That one you sent only has partial truth. I know for a fact Trump has done everything to protect our troops. He is one of the only ones that is proactive in trying to stop the spread and accelerate treatment for the corona virus. The only real virus that we need to be afraid of is the democrats! They are the real threat."



Wow i cant believe how much people are drinking the Koolaid for this guy.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/me...ans-durham-probe-results-i-expect-indictments

The end is nigh for the Democrats and their lackeys, the FBI.


----------



## Ralyks

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f14c04fc5b6d14c3368cdda?test_ad=taboola_iframe_mw_news

The whole thing in Oregon? Prepare to possibly see that elsewhere.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f14c04fc5b6d14c3368cdda?test_ad=taboola_iframe_mw_news
> 
> The whole thing in Oregon? Prepare to possibly see that elsewhere.



Mayor and Governor, regrow your balls and order YOUR cops to ARREST any unidentifiable people in military kit going around YOUR streets grabbing people up into vans

Unidentified allegedly-feds without insignia aren't feds at all until proven otherwise


----------



## zappatton2

I remember in grade school, when we were learning about the Nazis and WWII, one thing a lot of the kids asked was "why would the people allow this? Why wouldn't they fight back?" What's happening in Oregon isn't the return of the Nazis, I don't want to get all Godwin's Law, but this is definitely a flavour of fascism.

That a huge number of the population could look at what's happening and declare that it's Antifa out of control, rather than citizens fighting for their civil rights and against police brutality and systemic racism, while the State responds with absolute force and unaccountable violence, even using out-of-uniform agents, is precisely how the evil of fascism gains a foothold. Their aim isn't to quell the protests, which have tended to be peaceful until State violence introduced disruption. Their aim is to frighten the law-and-order crowd enough to allow for even worse violation of civil rights to become acceptable.

I still think back to the whole separating families and locking children in cages, a real, tangible evil that we all saw play out in real time. And I think about the sorts of people who could still make excuses for why it was justified, using talking points handed to them by propagandists. And I still think about those kids 30-some years ago asking "how could the people allow this?"


----------



## Adieu

It's actually very easy

Without proper tending-to, any democratic or liberal society naturally backslides into authoritarian, tribalistic, and/or feudal bullshit

Nazis DIDN'T shock anybody simply by existing in the 30's and 40's... people were just a little bewildered that this went down in allegedly-civilized Central Europe, and not some backwater 'stan.

Nazi Germany wasn't the outlier, it was the proof-of-concept. Civilization backslides fast and easy.


PS and, characteristically, many of the "scandalized and bewildered" were themselves constructing concentration camps, bullying ethnic groups, happily discriminating domestically, wreaking far worse utter havoc in all manner of colonies occupied territories protectorates etc., and of course letting their security services intimidate torture and murder dissidents at home and abroad. 

Just a teensie bit more "discreetly" than the Nazis. Or at least with some semblance of a socially acceptable facade they could cling to.


----------



## Ralyks

A 53 year old Navy vet went to the protest is Oregon, asking officers to remember their oaths.

In return, they broke his hand.

A 53 year old Navy vet.

Yeah.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> A 53 year old Navy vet went to the protest is Oregon, asking officers to remember their oaths.
> 
> In return, they broke his hand.
> 
> A 53 year old Navy vet.
> 
> Yeah.



The current administration only cares about Vets that are loyal to them. Otherwise, their military service was in vain.


----------



## sleewell

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


fun historical fact: hilter eventually turned on his own people. calling them weak he ordered their destruction.


----------



## zappatton2

Well, let's just hope the king abdicates his throne come November.


----------



## USMarine75

Some "great" quotes this week...

Director of the United States National Economic Council Larry Kudlow - "Just go back to school... it's not that hard".

VP Pence - “I disagree with @CDCgov on their very tough & expensive guidelines for opening schools,” he tweeted. “While they want them open, they are asking schools to do very impractical things. I will be meeting with them!!!”

The healthcare advocacy group Protect Our Care condemned [Pence's tweet]. Zac Petkanas, its coronavirus war room director, said: “It’s outrageous but not unsurprising that Donald Trump is openly pressuring his own medical experts at the CDC to weaken their scientific guidelines intended to keep school kids safe.”

Randi Weingarten, president of American Federation of Teachers, tweeted: “The President thinks what the @CDCgov is asking schools to do is ‘impractical’. I think it’s incomprehensible in the midst of a soaring #covid pandemic to send students & staff back to school with no guidance, no safety guardrails & no funding.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/08/us-school-reopenings-mike-pence-cdc-donald-trump


----------



## USMarine75

https://thetruetruetruth.com/ as seen on TV.




Quick someone send this to @Cynicanal


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> https://thetruetruetruth.com/ as seen on TV.
> 
> View attachment 82884
> 
> 
> Quick someone send this to @Cynicanal



Quit plagiarizing names from old Soviet newspapers


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/varney-biden-401k-wins

"FOX Business’ Stuart Varney, in his latest “My Take,” argues that former Vice President Joe Biden leading a recent election poll is not good news for investors, as a Biden win could drastically alter the markets."

“This is something that anyone with a few bucks in the market has to think about,” he said. “What happens to your 401(k) or your IRA if Joe Biden wins? I have to believe that if a Biden win looks likely, the selling will begin way before the election itself.”

“Ask yourself: what will you do with your money if it looks like we're heading for a Biden/Warren presidency?” he said. “It’s a dilemma. It’s called ‘election risk.’"


----------



## zappatton2

So, not to pivot too much, but I'm only just now reading up on the QAnon conspiracists. We've recently had a heavily armed man storm Rideau Hall (the residence of the Prime Minister) who was posting conspiracy content online (apparently including QAnon material), and allegedly there were ties between that movement and the killing of a judge in the States.

As if there isn't enough terrible right now, I'm having concerns about the possibility of conspiracists taking violent action en masse in the face of a likely Trump loss, not just in the States, but up here too. They do seem to draw support from a pool of the well-armed and chronically paranoid.


----------



## fantom

Ralyks said:


> https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f14c04fc5b6d14c3368cdda?test_ad=taboola_iframe_mw_news
> 
> The whole thing in Oregon? Prepare to possibly see that elsewhere.



This is ridiculous. What can people do about this? If this was Democrats going into Trump country we'd be hearing cries of 2nd amendment (and it would be the first time the amendment was voted in correct context). Why isn't Congress or the supreme court intervening?

local law enforcement has a chance to unify their community and build trust with police by standing up for protesters against unidentified feds.


----------



## Adieu

fantom said:


> This is ridiculous. What can people do about this? If this was Democrats going into Trump country we'd be hearing cries of 2nd amendment (and it would be the first time the amendment was voted in correct context). Why isn't Congress or the supreme court intervening?
> 
> local law enforcement has a chance to unify their community and build trust with police by standing up for protesters against unidentified feds.



Congress? Supreme court?

Dude did you forget the impeachment results alrrady???

Exactly ONE cog in the machine voted his conscience (Romney), everybody else stood the party line and even made ridiculous excuses when cornered about it (the "oh I think he learned his lesson" lady)

Now Gorsuch in SC might well be preparing groundwork for life after Trump and indicating that he has his own voice, but 1) that might just be adolescent posturing, 2) Supreme Court lacks the established mechanisms to weigh in as events unfold.


----------



## USMarine75

For those that think Trump will concede if he loses in November and just walk away... there is no chance there is a peaceful transition of power. This may end up going before SCOTUS as did the contested 2000 Election. However, Trump has stacked the Supreme Court and there is a real fear that RBG steps down due to health reasons. Any chance Trump and a Republican controlled Senate defer on selecting a new Justice because of the "unwritten rule" where you can't nominate one in your last 6mo (or year)?

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/20/politics/disputed-election-crisis-trump/index.html

Of particular note is Trump's penchant for declaring any contested or losing election as rigged:

Having lost this battle, Trump could blame mail-in voting if he loses in November. That would fit with his well-established past of questioning the legitimacy of elections, dating back eight years, even though there was no proof of widespread irregularities or fraud in any of these elections.

Presidential election, 2012: Trump backed Republican nominee Mitt Romney and spread false conspiracies on Election Day that machines were deleting Romney votes. After the race was called, Trump denounced the results as a "total sham" and tweeted, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty."
Iowa caucuses, 2016: Trump said the caucuses were illegitimate after he finished behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. After the vote, Trump said, "Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it," and accused Cruz of committing "fraud." Trump called for a new election, said Cruz's results should be "nullified" and said "the State of Iowa should disqualify" Cruz.
Presidential election, 2016: At the final debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump infamously refused to commit that he would accept the results. Instead, he said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." Even after Trump won, he falsely claimed there were millions of illegal votes in California and other states, creating a false narrative to explain why he lost the popular vote to Clinton.
Florida Senate election, 2018: On election night, Florida Republican Rick Scott led Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson by 38,000 votes, with many ballots still uncounted. Scott's lead narrowed over the next two weeks as mail ballots were tallied. But Trump quickly claimed there was massive "fraud" and "corruption," and accused Democrats of "stealing" the election by "finding" new votes. Trump declared that the election "should be called in favor of Rick Scott" and said Florida "must go with Election Night" results. After a statewide recount, Scott was up by about 10,000 votes, and Nelson conceded.
Arizona Senate election, 2018: Republican Martha McSally was ahead on election night, but Democrat Kyrsten Sinema later took the lead. Once that happened, Trump decried "corruption" and tweeted, "call for a new election?" McSally later conceded.
And comments like this from a campaign spokesperson set the stage for contesting any loss as rigged: "The central point remains clear: in a free and fair election, President Trump will win."


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> For those that think Trump will concede if he loses in November and just walk away... there is no chance there is a peaceful transition of power. This may end up going before SCOTUS as did the contested 2000 Election. However, Trump has stacked the Supreme Court and there is a real fear that RBG steps down due to health reasons. Any chance Trump and a Republican controlled Senate defer on selecting a new Justice because of the "unwritten rule" where you can't nominate one in your last 6mo (or year)?
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/20/politics/disputed-election-crisis-trump/index.html
> 
> Of particular note is Trump's penchant for declaring any contested or losing election as rigged:
> 
> Having lost this battle, Trump could blame mail-in voting if he loses in November. That would fit with his well-established past of questioning the legitimacy of elections, dating back eight years, even though there was no proof of widespread irregularities or fraud in any of these elections.
> 
> Presidential election, 2012: Trump backed Republican nominee Mitt Romney and spread false conspiracies on Election Day that machines were deleting Romney votes. After the race was called, Trump denounced the results as a "total sham" and tweeted, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty."
> Iowa caucuses, 2016: Trump said the caucuses were illegitimate after he finished behind Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. After the vote, Trump said, "Ted Cruz didn't win Iowa, he stole it," and accused Cruz of committing "fraud." Trump called for a new election, said Cruz's results should be "nullified" and said "the State of Iowa should disqualify" Cruz.
> Presidential election, 2016: At the final debate between Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump infamously refused to commit that he would accept the results. Instead, he said, "I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense." Even after Trump won, he falsely claimed there were millions of illegal votes in California and other states, creating a false narrative to explain why he lost the popular vote to Clinton.
> Florida Senate election, 2018: On election night, Florida Republican Rick Scott led Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson by 38,000 votes, with many ballots still uncounted. Scott's lead narrowed over the next two weeks as mail ballots were tallied. But Trump quickly claimed there was massive "fraud" and "corruption," and accused Democrats of "stealing" the election by "finding" new votes. Trump declared that the election "should be called in favor of Rick Scott" and said Florida "must go with Election Night" results. After a statewide recount, Scott was up by about 10,000 votes, and Nelson conceded.
> Arizona Senate election, 2018: Republican Martha McSally was ahead on election night, but Democrat Kyrsten Sinema later took the lead. Once that happened, Trump decried "corruption" and tweeted, "call for a new election?" McSally later conceded.
> And comments like this from a campaign spokesperson set the stage for contesting any loss as rigged: "The central point remains clear: in a free and fair election, President Trump will win."



The ONLY thing we can hope is that some of the spine (granted, it's minimal) being shown in the GOP today may kick into high gear if/when he's voted out.


----------



## sleewell

is anyone able to articulate the need or benefit from a payroll tax cut right now? budget deficits are exploding due to the tax cuts and loss of revenue from covid. to my understanding this would only help the people who have jobs which to me is not really the goal of the relief package right? seems like a pet project that trump just wants without really understanding anything about it.


----------



## spudmunkey

Yeah, I haven't been able to figure that out either, except as merely some sort of "spending economy" stimulous, for which there's some merrit....but it seems to be an odd priority over other options.


----------



## SpaceDock

Because Republicans hate taxes and the Federal government. Lowering payroll taxes hooks up his base that cringe when they look at the taxes they have to pay and appeals to them by slowly destroying the Federal government.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, I haven’t found anyone who sees the benefit of a tax cut either.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## spudmunkey

*sigh*


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> *sigh*
> 
> View attachment 82974



Well, I do NOT carry a gun intentionally, to PROTECT all the idiots I'd shoot if I DID have one


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> *sigh*
> 
> View attachment 82974



I should be able to drive drunk then without a license or insurance and it should be legal. It’s your job to protect you. This is my right.

Is Disney open yet? I have the Measles but that’s your problem not mine.

tl:dr fuck all libertarians. They’re just a crybaby wannabe anarchist that only wants to a la carte pick and choose the laws they want (1st, 2nd,4th,5th amendments) and call the ones they don’t govt overreach (13th, VRA, CRA).

Let’s take a famous example of Libertarian nonsense.




I want small government. The kind of small government that has the largest military on Earth; and then I want to increase military spending.

I also want corporate tax cuts and no workplace protections or govt regulations, because I don’t trust the govt, but I trust businesses to have my best interests in mind and to take care of the people.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> I should be able to drive drunk then without a license or insurance and it should be legal. It’s your job to protect you. This is my right.
> 
> Is Disney open yet? I have the Measles but that’s your problem not mine.
> 
> tl:dr fuck all libertarians. They’re just a crybaby wannabe anarchist that only wants to a la carte pick and choose the laws they want (1st, 2nd,4th,5th amendments) and call the ones they don’t govt overreach (13th, VRA, CRA).
> 
> Let’s take a famous example of Libertarian nonsense.
> 
> View attachment 82975
> 
> 
> I want small government. The kind of small government that has the largest military on Earth; and then I want to increase military spending.
> 
> I also want corporate tax cuts and no workplace protections or govt regulations, because I don’t trust the govt, but I trust businesses to have my best interests in mind and to take care of the people.



You're clearly not paying enough attention to the battleship. He has my vote!


----------



## Science_Penguin

USMarine75 said:


> I should be able to drive drunk then without a license or insurance and it should be legal. It’s your job to protect you. This is my right.
> 
> Is Disney open yet? I have the Measles but that’s your problem not mine.
> 
> tl:dr fuck all libertarians. They’re just a crybaby wannabe anarchist that only wants to a la carte pick and choose the laws they want (1st, 2nd,4th,5th amendments) and call the ones they don’t govt overreach (13th, VRA, CRA).
> 
> Let’s take a famous example of Libertarian nonsense.
> 
> View attachment 82975
> 
> 
> I want small government. The kind of small government that has the largest military on Earth; and then I want to increase military spending.
> 
> I also want corporate tax cuts and no workplace protections or govt regulations, because I don’t trust the govt, but I trust businesses to have my best interests in mind and to take care of the people.



For anyone who hasn't read it: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department


----------



## tedtan

I don't see any mention of the US closing the Chinese Consulate in Houston yet, so there's this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53497193

https://www.click2houston.com/news/...s-being-burned-at-consulate-general-of-china/

The US government is claiming (according to Marco Rubio) that the entire consulate was a massive espionage facility.


----------



## Ralyks

tedtan said:


> I don't see any mention of the US closing the Chinese Consulate in Houston yet, so there's this:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53497193
> 
> https://www.click2houston.com/news/...s-being-burned-at-consulate-general-of-china/
> 
> The US government is claiming (according to Marco Rubio) that the entire consulate was a massive espionage facility.



Saw this earlier on and thought "so much for a trade deal. Wonder how bad the market will be today." So far, flat. Also, espionage facility?


----------



## tedtan

Again, that was Marco Rubio stating that, so take that claim with a grain (or block) of salt.


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> Saw this earlier on and thought "so much for a trade deal. Wonder how bad the market will be today." So far, flat. Also, espionage facility?



Many Embassies and Consulates also serve as "espionage facilities". 

Google "US Embassy Paris spy".


----------



## spudmunkey

tedtan said:


> Again, that was Marco Rubio stating that, so take that claim with a grain (or block) of salt.



He probably thought "espionage" was some sort of chinese cheese, or perfume...


----------



## Ralyks

USMarine75 said:


> Many Embassies and Consulates also serve as "espionage facilities".
> 
> Google "US Embassy Paris spy".



Could the same be said for our embassies overseas and elsewhere?


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> Could the same be said for our embassies overseas and elsewhere?



That was my point... Read the stories that come up...


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> Could the same be said for our embassies overseas and elsewhere?


Embassies are spy posts. CIA agents are assigned to embassy work. It's not anything new.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Saw this earlier on and thought "so much for a trade deal. Wonder how bad the market will be today." So far, flat. Also, espionage facility?


Sounds crazy, but the fire department got called a couple times that night and found employees burning crate after crate of papers in the courtyard. 

Of course, the fact they were evidently keeping sensitive files in hardcopy IS a bit hard to swallow. 



USMarine75 said:


> Having lost this battle, Trump could blame mail-in voting if he loses in November. That would fit with his well-established past of questioning the legitimacy of elections, dating back eight years, even though there was no proof of widespread irregularities or fraud in any of these elections.


I've been suspicious that this is his real goal with railing against mail-in ballots for a while now - not to stop them from being used, but to prepare his followers to reject the outcome of any election, no matter how wide the margin, where mail in ballots were used.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## sleewell

this is so obvious.

covid response..... failed.

economy.... nothing to brag about.

the wall.... total of 3 new miles built in 4 years.


the only thing he can run on is a fake law and order ploy. send some goons in, beat up some people, get some good footage for campaign ads or just use some old pics from Ukraine and hope your moronic base won't notice. he is literally saying hey look what is happening under my watch, lets blame the guy who isn't in power for the uprising and protests happening while i am president. if i incite this riot will you give me credit for "solving it"?


----------



## Adieu

Welcome to the world's second-largest Generic Third World Country (TM)


Enjoy the quaint soap opera grade local politics.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> the wall.... total of 3 new miles built in 4 years.


I've seen this stat a bunch lately. Got a good citation for it? I was under the impression he'd gotten maybe a couple hundred built, well under what he promised and well under what he claimed, but certainly more than 3. I of course could very well be dead wrong. 

Unrelated - Trump playing the "law and order" card by sending federal forces to US "Democrat" cities to pander to his base seems like one of those political moves that is - how to put this gently - rather likely to backfire.


----------



## spudmunkey

The way I understand it, it's 3 new miles, and everything else was replacing existing barriers (which may have been as minimal as a chain link fence, but some were the previous "full security" standard).

edit: i also don't know if all of what was built was whatever the new standrd is, since we know he was still looking at prototypes seemingly not that long ago. So it may very well have just replaced some like-for-like, but newer.


----------



## sleewell

^ yes


----------



## Drew

Yes, I understand, but do we have any _source_ for that? It's a crazy enough stat that I'd like to make sure it's true before I start dropping it in conversation. 

EDIT - did my own googling, and as of the end of 2019, three miles may have been an _overstatement_, per the acting commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump..., acting,of that replaced existing structures.


----------



## Randy

Yeah but Mexico paid for those <3 miles, right? ...guys?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeah but Mexico paid for those <3 miles, right? ...guys?


Well, I mean, DUH, Randy - there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country, absolutely millions, it's a real shame, and it was their tax money, not that they pay taxes, we used to build those three miles of wall, from money they earned from jobs they stole from hard working Americans, on the side of all the murdering, raping, and drug dealing they were also doing. If only there were more illegal immigrants in this country, we would have had more money to use ad we might have built SIX miles!


----------



## Ralyks

So Trump cancelled the Jacksonville convention because of covid. That's gotta suck, he's basically admitting he was wrong about Covids effect on the country.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Ralyks said:


> So Trump cancelled the Jacksonville convention because of covid. That's gotta suck, he's basically admitting he was wrong about Covids effect on the country.



And it does indeed seem that he's now becoming aware that it's not Biden that he's up against... it's the virus. 

I've never in my life laughed, cringed, felt anger, and nausea all simultaneously while listening to someone speak. Everything that this vile bag of shit says is either vindictive, narcissistic, belittling, inciting, indignant, argumentative, contradictory, or just plain gibberish. His supporters at this point... I can't even respect nor relate to anymore.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## mongey

its crazy

I started this thread over 4 years ago and shit is so much worse now 

fuck I hope you guys kick this clown out. the world is just a shitter place with him in power


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> And it does indeed seem that he's now becoming aware that it's not Biden that he's up against... it's the virus.


I hope you're right - in some ways, that's probably the best hope for the most Americans, if he realizes that he's going to lose unless he gets this under control.



mongey said:


> its crazy
> 
> I started this thread over 4 years ago and shit is so much worse now
> 
> fuck I hope you guys kick this clown out. the world is just a shitter place with him in power


We're trying.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## vilk




----------



## High Plains Drifter

In his defense, adding more white to the flag was probably intentional.


----------



## zappatton2

Since we're posting jokes, I feel this fits so well;


----------



## Drew

Eh, Trump isn't an intellectual heavyweight, but I find it FAR easier to believe that he was intentionally making a "red lives matter"/"blue lives matter" flag that he just couldn't remember where the blue went.


----------



## Rosal76

High Plains Drifter said:


> His supporters at this point... I can't even respect nor relate to anymore.



I'm here in Jacksonville, FL. and believe it or not, some of the Trump's supporters here seem to believe that the Democrats cancelled the (Jacksonville, FL.) rally. Trump gave a speech/explanation yesterday as to why he cancelled the rally. I'm going to give them (Trump supporters here in Jacksonville, FL. angry about the cancelled rally) a pass because it's possible they are/were not aware of the speech Trump gave. However..., one guy (angry Trump supporter here in Jacksonville) was like, "our Mayor in gutless and is anti-Trump". I'm like, "bruh, our mayor is Lenny Curry. Lenny is Republican". 

Going back to your post/statement, some Trump supporters can be very, very hard to understand when they blame things that were not the fault of their opposition. I have friends who are Trump supporters who have made bad decisions in their life. Everyone makes bad decisions in their life. It gets really, really, weird when they start blaming the Democrats and Obama for their bad decisions. Past and present. I have to tell them things like, "girl, the Democrats/Obama didn't get you pregnant in high school and make it to where the school had to kick you out. You did that on your own" and "dude, the Democrats/Obama didn't make you a drug addict. You did that on your own". And then they'll say something weird like, "well, if the Mexicans didn't bring their illegal drugs into the U.S., I wouldn't be a drug addict". And then I'm like, "so with your theory, alcoholics should blame every store that sells alcohol for their problem?". Man, I tell you, some of the conversations I have with my Trump supporter friends are straight up, f__king weird.


----------



## Ralyks

mongey said:


> I started this thread over 4 years ago and shit is so much worse now



This is how I feel about the COVID thread I started


----------



## zappatton2

Ralyks said:


> This is how I feel about the COVID thread I started


It's kind of sad you have to post things like COVID and climate change in the "Politics" section. I mean, that's not a criticism, I totally understand why you did it, it's just sad that enough people have decided science is a political position that it becomes a necessity.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

zappatton2 said:


> It's kind of sad you have to post things like COVID and climate change in the "Politics" section. I mean, that's not a criticism, I totally understand why you did it, it's just sad that enough people have decided science is a political position that it becomes a necessity.



It's the Politics* and Current Events* subforum.


----------



## zappatton2

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's the Politics* and Current Events* subforum.


You are indeed correct. I tend to see the "Politics" and forget the "& Current Events". My own cognitive selectivity I suppose, gotta work on that.


----------



## Ralyks

zappatton2 said:


> You are indeed correct. I tend to see the "Politics" and forget the "& Current Events". My own cognitive selectivity I suppose, gotta work on that.



But to your point, why the fuck is a pandemic being politicized in America?


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> But to your point, why the fuck is a pandemic being politicized in America?



Because every politician lives for a good crisis


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu said:


> Because every politician lives for a good crisis



This. In the US every topic becomes an “issue”. And then each “side” is picked by a political party. 

Science gets hit very hard on this front. Good science is lobbied against by companies that profit off bad/lax regulations. 

See the oil industry and global climate change. 

Doctors and closing businesses for 4 measley weeks for Covid. 

Doctors and anti-vax people. 

Viable energy alternatives like nuclear energy and the last 50+ years of “cheap oil is my god given right to burn”. 

Teachers being allowed to teach actual history and the various not nice things the US has done.

Teachers and being able to teach evolution. 

Teaching sex education and basic sexual health. 

A good 40-50% of Americans want all the rewards of scientific progress but with none of the effort of learning, funding it, and only if the story is sanitized to fit a narrative. 

Aaaaaaaand that’s where politicians have a field day with wedge issues. Just pick a wedge issue to round out whatever your platform is and boom, instant coverage and a rally of support.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> But to your point, why the fuck is a pandemic being politicized in America?



I recommend this interview with the Author of “Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” Naomi Klein, which I think might help to answer your question and explain why this is happening. 

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...avirus-and-disaster-capitalism-shock-doctrine

A couple quotes to summarize:

“_The “shock doctrine” is the political strategy of using large-scale crises to push through policies that systematically deepen inequality, enrich elites, and undercut everyone else.”_

“_The shock-doctrine strategy was as a response to the original New Deal under FDR. [Economist] Milton Friedman believes everything went wrong in America under the New Deal: As a response to the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, a much more activist government emerged in the country, which made it its mission to directly solve the economic crisis of the day by creating government employment and offering direct relief.”_

And although this article is from March, my own personal opinion is that Trump will never say he would have done anything differently, and he still doesn’t actually care about people dying, but rather where the bailout money goes, a lot which is unaccountable from what I understand. 

And given other current events, it would seem that on a Philosophical level, Property is more important than Life to him and many of his supporters... ?


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> But to your point, why the fuck is a pandemic being politicized in America?



https://us.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/sinclair-fauci-conspiracy-bolling/index.html

For the record, the Sinclair Group is a right wing media group that creates required content and required phrasing that must be incorporated in the news of the local stations they own. Highly disingenuous.

In case anyone is not familiar with Sinclair Group’s scumbaggery propaganda:


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Because every politician lives for a good crisis





Mathemagician said:


> A good 40-50% of Americans want all the rewards of scientific progress but with none of the effort of learning, funding it, and only if the story is sanitized to fit a narrative.


Though, to be fair here, I think the degree to which COVID-19 was politicized in the US - and almost nowhere else BUT the US (Brasil, but nowhere else comes to mind) - rests squarely on the man currently residing in the White House. 

It's not like we've never had a pandemic before. SARS didn't hit America hard under Obama, nor did ebola, but bird flu and swine flu were significant enough in my recent memory that we had federal responses to them, even if they were far less dangerous. In all cases, there was never any serious discussion in politics over whether or not these threats were "real," or if they were hoaxes put on by the other party to make the incumbent party look bad. 

Yet, from day 1, Trump (allegedly at Kushner's advice) decided to treat this as a PR issue and not a humanitarian one. Early on it as a problem "outside America" and "China's fault," and one of his first actual responses was shutting down travel with China - after it was already raging in Europe, where he did nothing, and after we already had confirmed cases in the US. Then, it was a combination of "it's just a little flu, not a big deal," and "our cases will drop down to zero in a couple weeks!" with no scientific basis for saying so. Getting pissed off about a cruise ship stationed off the coast of San Francisco with a bunch of sick American passangers on board because "they shouldn't count in our numbers, they got sick elsewhere" was a real low. Over time his response changed increasingly to blaming Democrats for hyping this up because they wanted to "hurt" him, by hurting the economy, and then pushing states to reopen as fast as they could because he didn't want a bad stock market for his election. 

It's the most painfully, inanely solipsistic response to a national crisis I can ever recall in this country - the only thing that comes close was Barbara Bush's quip about all the Katrina survivors being sheltered in a football stadium to the effect of "well, they were all poor to begin with, so comparatively it's not like they're much worse off now, after losing what little they owned in a hurricane," except it's like she said that five to ten times a day, every day, for the last four months. 

Brasil is an outlier here to because Jair Bolsonaro has also dug in and denied COVID is actually a risk and that it's just an attempt to discredit his administration (and no surprise, they're also amongst the hardest hit countries in the world, per capita) but pretty much every other leader in the world did what a leader SHOULD do in a crisis - realize that it's in his or her best interest to act decisively to take control of the situation and stop a risk to the country from becoming a source of serious harm to the country, and count on voters rewarding successful crisis management in the next election. Trump didn't. 

You could nit-pick some of the _legislative_ responses to the crisis - there ultimately wasn't support for this, but for example the GOP's attempt to get a payroll tax reduction into a stimulus bill is a great example of using a crisis to try to dvance a long-standfing legislative goal. I'm sure the $3.5 trillion Democratic bill that passed the House two months ago tha McConnell still hasn't picked up also advances a number of Democratic agenda items that would both be potentially helpful to Americans while also accomplishing long-running Democratic goals. When people say "let no crisis go to waste," that kind of stuff is what they have in mind. 

What they DON'T have in mind, though, is whether or not you're even going to _address_ the crisis, and if you don't, if you then try to blame the opposition party for the ensuing damage, that you deny is actually real, and call the whole thing a hoax to make you look bad. It's fucking insane. 

Meanwhile, as a cyclist, I'm having very bittersweet feelings about the fact that the Giro d'Italia and the Tour de France both look very likely to be run this fall. That coulda been us...


----------



## sleewell

i think Drew hit it spot on. has anyone forgotten how this was billed as a fake dem impeachment hoax on fox news for a long time? i am still getting people saying that covid is something meant to take down trump which means people are hearing that from wherever they get their news. 

its just hilarious to be playing the victim for a botched response when if trump had handled this better he would be on a glide path to 4 more years instead of needing to spend money in states where it shouldn't even be close.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...-by-reciting-the-first-fifty-digits-of-pi/amp


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> But to your point, why the fuck is a pandemic being politicized in America?


It's not just America, though. It's a political issue everywhere that it hasn't been handled perfectly, which is basically everywhere because the point of opposition parties is to say "you should have done this" with hindsight.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

What's unreal to me is that I'm STILL having to bite my tongue around people that are surmising that "this virus nonsense should be coming to an end around November 3rd". Pointless to engage at this point but still... cringe.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> It's not just America, though. It's a political issue everywhere that it hasn't been handled perfectly, which is basically everywhere because the point of opposition parties is to say "you should have done this" with hindsight.


Yeah, I think there's a huge difference between politicizing the _response_, which is being done everywhere where the response hasn't been flawless, versus politicizing the _very thing itself_, which is something that pretty much only America, and sort of Brasil, have done. 

As sleewell points out, this was "the next Democratic impeachment hoax" in February and March (because evidently impeachment was a hoax, too?). Wearing masks is something that you don't do if you're loyal to Trump, because he sees it as a sign of disrespect. Plenty of other countries have opposition parties criticizing the party in power, or accusing them of using it as an excuse to push pet agendas (which to be fair Trump is doing too, trying to use it to cut down on legal immigration), but America is one of the few places in the world where whether or not we're even _having_ a pandemic is a matter of (evidently) political opinion.


----------



## USMarine75

Many Trump supporters, conservatives, and Libertarians will tell you racism doesn’t exist. That it’s made up by the left. The channel I referenced in another thread (Guitlogist) has a video about it and how poor white children are more likely to experience real racism from Blacks than the other way around (iirc it’s the newest vid on his channel 2). 

With that said... here is a recent Fox News obituary/legacy story regarding Congressman John Lewis... and the first group of comments beneath the article. I didn’t skip around. These are all in a row. I didn’t see one positive comment in the first hundred.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/27/trump-scotus-list-381418

Basically, it seems like Trump is pissed that the republican members of the SCOTUS aren’t siding with him on everything and pledging undying allegiance.


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> Many Trump supporters, conservatives, and Libertarians will tell you racism doesn’t exist. That it’s made up by the left. The channel I referenced in another thread (Guitlogist) has a video about it and how poor white children are more likely to experience real racism from Blacks than the other way around (iirc it’s the newest vid on his channel 2).
> 
> With that said... here is a recent Fox News obituary/legacy story regarding Congressman John Lewis... and the first group of comments beneath the article. I didn’t skip around. These are all in a row. I didn’t see one positive comment in the first hundred.
> 
> View attachment 83164
> View attachment 83159
> View attachment 83160
> View attachment 83161
> View attachment 83162
> View attachment 83163



I was checking out that story as well. WTF is wrong with people calling him racist and saying he is not good enough for worms and all that other trash. I just can’t believe what is happening in our country.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Although not necessarily one in the same... bigots, ultra-conservatives, maga fan bois, etc are seeing a potential shift in power and when they get scared they become venomously agitated. At least I think that's what we're seeing now. They're licking their wounded "pride"... in circle-jerk form.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’ve been reading “Fascism: A Warning” by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, and I can highly recommend it to anyone, no matter what your political persuasion is.

One of the highlights from the first chapter: she quickly reminds the reader that the terms “Make **** Great!” and “Drain the Swamp” were originally used by IL DUCE, Benito Mussolini...

I’m a bit surprised we’ve reverted to this kind politics here in the US: a few years ago, I’d hoped “fascist” was only a baseless insult, and would prove not to be the M.O. of the POTUS!

I’m also including a link to this PBS interview with Yale University Professor of Philosophy Jason Stanley it anyone’s interested.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Tom Morello posted this today scarily accurate


----------



## TedEH

Dineley said:


> scarily accurate


Except that this is a photo of an item in their gift shop - not anything that was created by, or exhibited by, the museum, according to a bit of googling. I don't disagree with the message, but we don't need to misrepresent the source of it to make that point.


----------



## possumkiller

Also, apart from controlled mass media and a few short years in the 20th century when there were labor unions and some semblance of workers rights, when has anything on this list NOT been part of America?
America has always been obsessed with crime and punishment.
America has always been obsessed with national security.
America has always been about the superiority of the military.
America has a long history of slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia. Human rights has always been an issue. (maybe we didn't exterminate all of our citizens of Japanese heritage like we tried to do to the natives, but we sure as hell arrested them and heaped them into concentration camps)
When has America not tried be unified under a common enemy such as communism, drugs, or terrorism?
When was America not rampant with sexism?
When has American government not been intertwined with religion?
When has there not been voter fraud and suppression in America?
When has America ever loved intellectuals and the arts apart from the times when it serves them?
You could apply this list to almost any period in history.


----------



## diagrammatiks

possumkiller said:


> Also, apart from controlled mass media and a few short years in the 20th century when there were labor unions and some semblance of workers rights, when has anything on this list NOT been part of America?
> America has always been obsessed with crime and punishment.
> America has always been obsessed with national security.
> America has always been about the superiority of the military.
> America has a long history of slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia. Human rights has always been an issue. (maybe we didn't exterminate all of our citizens of Japanese heritage like we tried to do to the natives, but we sure as hell arrested them and heaped them into concentration camps)
> When has America not tried be unified under a common enemy such as communism, drugs, or terrorism?
> When was America not rampant with sexism?
> When has American government not been intertwined with religion?
> When has there not been voter fraud and suppression in America?
> When has America ever loved intellectuals and the arts apart from the times when it serves them?
> You could apply this list to almost any period in history.



some part of America has always been fascist?
some people just need a daddy.


----------



## TedEH

diagrammatiks said:


> some part of America has always been fascist?


I thought this was sort of a given. I don't mean that to sound like it's coming from some kind of moral high ground or something, just about any place's history is going to be full of all kinds of terribleness that persists into the present.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I thought this was sort of a given. I don't mean that to sound like it's coming from some kind of moral high ground or something, just about any place's history is going to be full of all kinds of terribleness that persists into the present.


Not only that but was there really any administration under any president that did not have some kind of corruption and cronyism going on? Obviously the trump family stands out as an extreme case, but it doesn't have to directly involve a president and their family for a government to be filled with corruption and cronyism. Which leads me back to a point I keep trying to make with people over and over again. The government isn't just the president. The president isn't a king or a god. People need to stop thinking of the president as some all-powerful leader or else we will wind up with them trying to be exactly that like trump. All of this corruption and cronyism starts in your local city and county governments and works its way up to the national level. People need to start paying attention to who is running for local elections if they want to see any real changes. A progressive president means nothing if all the local governments are full of fascist bigots.


----------



## Ralyks

Speaking of corruption, there’s nothing that’s coming out of Barr testifying today, is there.


----------



## sleewell

please correct me if i am wrong but i have not recently seen peaceful protesters gassed so the president could have a photo op holding some strange book for the first time that he has never read or exemplified in real life.

i also have not recently seen a navy vet get beaten and gassed for calmly and non violently asking a question of the police.

been a while but i have not seen police shove a 75 year old man to the ground so hard that blood immediately started pouring from his fractured skull.


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> please correct me if i am wrong but i have not recently seen peaceful protesters gassed so the president could have a photo op holding some strange book for the first time that he has never read or exemplified in real life.
> 
> i also have not recently seen a navy vet get beaten and gassed for calmly and non violently asking a question of the police.
> 
> been a while but i have not seen police shove a 75 year old man to the ground so hard that blood immediately started pouring from his fractured skull.


That's not on the list though.


----------



## zappatton2

possumkiller said:


> Also, apart from controlled mass media and a few short years in the 20th century when there were labor unions and some semblance of workers rights, when has anything on this list NOT been part of America?
> America has always been obsessed with crime and punishment.
> America has always been obsessed with national security.
> America has always been about the superiority of the military.
> America has a long history of slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia. Human rights has always been an issue. (maybe we didn't exterminate all of our citizens of Japanese heritage like we tried to do to the natives, but we sure as hell arrested them and heaped them into concentration camps)
> When has America not tried be unified under a common enemy such as communism, drugs, or terrorism?
> When was America not rampant with sexism?
> When has American government not been intertwined with religion?
> When has there not been voter fraud and suppression in America?
> When has America ever loved intellectuals and the arts apart from the times when it serves them?
> You could apply this list to almost any period in history.


I remember a lifetime ago seeing Frank Zappa speak on a political debate panel, and tell everyone there that America's end goal was theocratic fascism. And oh boy, did that ever set off the rest of the panel. Until that point, I don't think I had seen grown men melt down in quite as undignified a manner.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

TedEH said:


> Except that this is a photo of an item in their gift shop - not anything that was created by, or exhibited by, the museum, according to a bit of googling. I don't disagree with the message, but we don't need to misrepresent the source of it to make that point.



Yeah regardless of where it's from the points are all true though although that misrepresentation does cause it to lose some credibility.


----------



## Adieu

zappatton2 said:


> I remember a lifetime ago seeing Frank Zappa speak on a political debate panel, and tell everyone there that America's end goal was theocratic fascism. And oh boy, did that ever set off the rest of the panel. Until that point, I don't think I had seen grown men melt down in quite as undignified a manner.



Same people who would surely shout that it would be UNGODLY and just UNAMERICAN to, say, elect a non-religious socialist (....much less an out and proud card carrying atheist and communist) for any kind of post.

...Frank seems to have been right.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I thought this was sort of a given. I don't mean that to sound like it's coming from some kind of moral high ground or something, just about any place's history is going to be full of all kinds of terribleness that persists into the present.


Eh, fascism isn't as simple as being terrible. I don't disagree though - one of the side effects of the civil war was pre pretty squarely settled the "states rights vs federal rights" argument on the side of the federal government, and while the decentralized nature of American politics acts as a limiting force to a certain extent, the executive branch of the government has been growing gradually stronger since at least WWII, and in between elections a president with an authoritarian bent - as Trump has clearly shown himself to be - can do quite a lot with very little checks against that.


----------



## Ralyks

So Barr is actually attempting to depoliticize the DoJ and is independent of Trump. Whoops, looks like we had it wrong the whole time guys.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> A good 40-50% of Americans want all the rewards of scientific progress but with none of the effort of learning, funding it, and only if the story is sanitized to fit a narrative



That is the result of capitalism. People want to buy cool things. The ruling class wants people to be too stupid to do anything on their own besides be consumers. This puts money in the pockets of big business so they can pay off the ruling class to make decisions that benefit businesses and business leaders. The result is greed that is fueled by consumers who think things like a red Camaro or the latest iPhone make them more appealing and like their rich overlords.


----------



## zappatton2

fantom said:


> That is the result of capitalism. People want to buy cool things. The ruling class wants people to be too stupid to do anything on their own besides be consumers. This puts money in the pockets of big business so they can pay off the ruling class to make decisions that benefit businesses and business leaders. The result is greed that is fueled by consumers who think things like a red Camaro or the latest iPhone make them more appealing and like their rich overlords.


You may be on to something, at least in part. I've gotta think the attitude mass consumerism (with no civically engaged counterbalance) feeds is that the consumer deserves and is entitled to that trinket you're waving in front of them, and so many products are almost infinitely customizable to preference. Why shouldn't you have a network that sells you the message you've secretly always _known_ was true, if it weren't for the brainwashed sheeple and those wily (insert preferred enemy here).


----------



## TedEH

Even if that wasn't a cartoonish charicature of what capitalism is, I don't think that's anything to do with why anyone in any system might misuse or misrepresent science and data to gain political power.


----------



## zappatton2

TedEH said:


> Even if that wasn't a cartoonish charicature of what capitalism is, I don't think that's anything to do with why anyone in any system might misuse or misrepresent science and data to gain political power.


I don't think it's capitalism per se, there's plenty of progressive, science-literate capitalist societies out there. But I think, like you say, it's the cartoonish extreme of consumer-culture capitalism that sells people anything, including their preferred narrative, and if facts get in the way, well, that's not what you paid for and you should really ask to see the manager.

That's not nearly the sum of it, of course! But I rarely watch US news, and when I do it's almost instantly recognizable as such. The broadcasters always look like they're putting on a show for the viewers, and all the networks (save maybe the public ones), regardless of editorial slant, use buzz terms and concepts that are easily consumable, reductive, and expendable once a new one comes along. It's like watching the news in the background of a future dystopia movie from the 80's.


----------



## TedEH

What I mean is that capitalism has nothing to do with it. It's not about "people being greedy" or "rampant consumerism" or something like that. Science gets ignored or misused because it doesn't lead to votes. It doesn't get people "on your side" - which is what's more important than truth when you're talking about politics.

The original topic was how politicians take advantage of crises, taking advantage of how you can polarize people on "the issues" in order to "win", to the detriment of nuance or any pursuit of truth. People don't ignore science because they want to buy things, they ignore science because it's more important to be on the winning team. (I mean, they might do both, but that's not what this conversation was about.)


----------



## USMarine75

The problem we have in the US is that we have one party that is vehemently anti-intellectualism and anti-science. 

It’s one thing to debate whether AOC’s Green Bill is the wrong approach (even though you have Congressman openly admitting they won’t vote for it but also won’t even read it) which is totally fair. Or that you applaud Warren and Sanders wanted to help everyone but disagree with their methods. But, instead you have scumbags like James Inhoff holding up a snowball in Congress as evidence that Climate Change doesn’t exist, which is contrary to the consensus of all published research and data. These are the same betrayers of public trust that denied cigarettes cause cancer, that toxic burning of waste products caused acid rain, that fracking causes earthquakes, that waste pollution in water causes cancer, etc. Nothing to see here. Let’s turn on Fox instead so we can be enraged over that damned Hillary, who has been a Grandma and private citizen for 4 years. FFS, you had a Representative saying you can’t get pregnant by rape, because the body has a way of shutting that down. 

Why do I dislike most nü-Republicans? Because you don’t believe in evolution or climate change, but you have no problem believing the Clintons have murdered 40 people and run a pedo ring. Your party makes Paul Ryan, Jeff Flake, Reagan, and Nixon all look like Che Guevara in comparison.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Dineley said:


> Tom Morello posted this today scarily accurate
> View attachment 83184



Sure there’s been various elements of this in all parts of US History, but the problem I see is that Trump checks every single one of these boxes, many of these willfully and knowingly. He brags about this and lies about it too. Like concentrated “Wannabe Fascism,” because thankfully we still have some sort of checks and balances despite this man’s ego. 

Although, I’m probably not the only one who wonders if he even knows what he’s doing. I think he does though, he’s been a con-artist so long it’s built in. 

I recently saw an old quote of him saying “I love poorly educated people” at a rally...

And the crowd went wild! Literally they did though...


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> Sure there’s been various elements of this in all parts of US History, but the problem I see is that Trump checks every single one of these boxes, many of these willfully and knowingly.



Trump would check all the boxes and then boast how he scored 100% on the exam. "I heard it was the most points of any president."


----------



## sleewell




----------



## SpaceDock

Trump just tweeted that we should delay the election:

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

He does this after a second Access Hollywood video yesterday with him literally filling out an absentee ballot and voting by mail. What’s it gonna take Republicans?


----------



## sleewell

i think his tweet is an obvious distraction from the horrendous GDP numbers released today but i am sure we will all fall for it again.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t find comfort in the “distraction” line of thinking anymore because it is obvious he can burn the constitution and chew gum at the same time.


----------



## Demiurge

Is someone in his admin going to tell him that his term still ends when it ends even if the election were to be pushed-back?


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> Trump just tweeted that we should delay the election:
> 
> With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???
> 
> He does this after a second Access Hollywood video yesterday with him literally filling out an absentee ballot and voting by mail. What’s it gonna take Republicans?



#CALLED IT

it's only been a few days since the last time someone called me paranoid or gave me the "cmon not in America" line when I predicted Trump would attempt to delay/cancel/invalidate the election


----------



## sleewell

he has no ability to delay the election. it would have to pass through both chambers of congress. again, he is distracting from his failed covid response, mass unemployment, horrible GDP, pulling federal goons out of portland, supporting the demon sperm doctor, etc..


when everything is going wrong its easier to throw out this nonsense as the media always falls for it and it changes the subject for a day or two.


----------



## Ralyks

Explains the DOW opening down 500 points


----------



## fantom

Demiurge said:


> Is someone in his admin going to tell him that his term still ends when it ends even if the election were to be pushed-back?



I hope not. It'll be far more entertaining if he finds out in January.


----------



## Adieu

sleewell said:


> he has no ability to delay the election. it would have to pass through both chambers of congress. again, he is distracting from his failed covid response, mass unemployment, horrible GDP, pulling federal goons out of portland, supporting the demon sperm doctor, etc..
> 
> 
> when everything is going wrong its easier to throw out this nonsense as the media always falls for it and it changes the subject for a day or two.



This is an unprecedent crisis, blah blah, our laws weren't written with this in mind, yada yada, anyway I'm awesome rich and reaaaally smart and the law is for regular shmucks

And my lawyer said doing illegal things for the public good is A-OK. 

A-OK, people. A-OK.


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> This is an unprecedent crisis, blah blah, our laws weren't written with this in mind, yada yada ....



Wish that worked for assault rifle bans.


----------



## Science_Penguin

fantom said:


> Wish that worked for assault rifle bans.



Well... my hot take for the year: If things get any worse, I think every end of the political spectrum is gonna love how easy it is to acquire an assault rifle...


----------



## spudmunkey

Eww...we didn't need to know that, Mr. President.


----------



## Randy

RIP Mr. '999'
Not to be mixed up with Mr. 'Nein, Nein, Nein'


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Eww...we didn't need to know that, Mr. President.
> 
> View attachment 83305



I chuckled.


----------



## sleewell

this is interesting, but not a huge surprise. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/rig...tifa-killed-none-2020-7?utm_source=reddit.com

New research, based on almost 900 politically-motivated plots and murders in the US since 1994, found only one person's death in the last 25 years was linked to "antifa" or anti-fascists, and the person who died was the attacker. In comparison, over that same period, 329 murders were linked to the far-right.

"The most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States."


----------



## zappatton2

sleewell said:


> this is interesting, but not a huge surprise.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/rig...tifa-killed-none-2020-7?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> New research, based on almost 900 politically-motivated plots and murders in the US since 1994, found only one person's death in the last 25 years was linked to "antifa" or anti-fascists, and the person who died was the attacker. In comparison, over that same period, 329 murders were linked to the far-right.
> 
> "The most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States."


It does bother me when I see the occasional right-winger in my family posting constant Facebook nonsense about the horrors of "Antifa", when the concept is little more than a philosophy of pushing back against actual fascism and right-wing extremism. And these are the same people who in decades past, would lionize the "greatest generation" for actually fighting and killing fascists.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> this is interesting, but not a huge surprise.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/rig...tifa-killed-none-2020-7?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> New research, based on almost 900 politically-motivated plots and murders in the US since 1994, found only one person's death in the last 25 years was linked to "antifa" or anti-fascists, and the person who died was the attacker. In comparison, over that same period, 329 murders were linked to the far-right.
> 
> "The most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists, anti-government militias and a handful of individuals associated with the 'boogaloo' movement that are attempting to create a civil war in the United States."



Does that total include the 1995 Oaklahoma city bombing?

I'm not trying to defend anyone, just trying to understand the data. When looking at overall statitics over time, how would/should one consider the OKC bombing? That's 168 deaths....should it be taken with the same weight as any other death, or should it be treated as one of those statistical outliers?


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/01/us/white-liberals-hypocrisy-race-blake/index.html

"Yet any attack against entrenched racism will run into one of the most formidable barriers for true change: Good White people.

The media loves to focus on the easy villains who get busted on cell phone videos acting like racists. But some scholars and activists say good White people -- the progressive folks in Blue states, the kind who would have voted for Obama a third time if they could -- are some of the most tenacious supporters of systemic racism."


If you're not with us, you're against us.

If you're with us, but not with us enough, then you're the real problem.


----------



## Necris

The "White Liberal/White Moderate" being a significant barrier to actual progress with regard to racial equality was noticed and directly commented on by Martin Luther King in his letter from Birmingham Jail:
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
It's worth reading the whole thing but here's an excerpt.


> First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> 
> I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
> 
> .....I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.



He returned to the subject in his book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? and had essentially the same outlook.

It may not sound "nice" that CNN simply pointing out again what was already apparent, at least to Martin Luther King, over 50 years ago.


----------



## fantom

So two related notes.

Trump's new postmaster general is intentionally cutting overtime and slowing down USPS. The theory is that he is doing it to make mail in ballots not get counted. Talk about mail in ballot fraud and election tampering seems to be Trump showing his hand.

Second, someone posted on YouTube (video has since disappeared, hopefully not by threats) showing trends in coronavirus stats in zip codes that Trump won and lost in 2016. Conveniently, the zip codes he lost have similar trajectory before July 15ish (when he stopped having data go to the CDC directly). The interesting part is that the stats for zip codes Trump won magically started declining in statistically improbable ways. Keep in mind that things like hospitalizations and deaths lag by weeks, so a drop off literally the day the reports changed is highly unusual. Keep on mind that these numbers are what the CDC and John's Hopkins receive from the federal government. So there is no way to verify them. The theory here is that Trump is trying to make it "safe" for zip codes that back him to vote in person while scaring zip codes that he is unlikely to win into staying home or using absentee ballots.

Put this together, he might not be able to delay the election, but he sure as hell is trying to manipulate the votes. The sad part, he is lying to his base and likely going to get many of them killed for his own personal gain. What the actual f...


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I don't think it's capitalism per se, there's plenty of progressive, science-literate capitalist societies out there. But I think, like you say, it's the cartoonish extreme of consumer-culture capitalism that sells people anything, including their preferred narrative, and if facts get in the way, well, that's not what you paid for and you should really ask to see the manager.
> 
> That's not nearly the sum of it, of course! But I rarely watch US news, and when I do it's almost instantly recognizable as such. The broadcasters always look like they're putting on a show for the viewers, and all the networks (save maybe the public ones), regardless of editorial slant, use buzz terms and concepts that are easily consumable, reductive, and expendable once a new one comes along. It's like watching the news in the background of a future dystopia movie from the 80's.


I don't think that's an attack on _capitalism_ so much as it is an attack on news becoming a form of _entertainment_. 

Idunno, maybe getting a little far afield here, but lots of folks on the left (and I write this as an unabashed liberal) attack capitalism on the grounds that a rich ruling class ripping off a working class is a feature, not a bug, of the system. That's the sort of attack that, while well-intentioned, really misunderstands capitalism, and in some ways misunderstands government. Capitalism is merely a mechanism - it's a way to allocate scare resources by way of a marketplace, to lead the most optimal distribution of capital by allocating it to where it can be used to the greatest profit. There's a couple issues with criticizing current-day America's many faults as the result of capitalism, one of the biggest being that the price mechanism kind of pre-assumes that all parties are starting from more or less equal starting points and if I'm prepared to pay more for a resource it's because I can use it more profitably than you, and not because I just have more capital to throw around period, but one of the biggest, IMO, is that nothing about capitalism says we HAVE to have the most efficient distribution of capital, and we can't favor less optimal distributions if we want to. Any Republican saying we can't have a higher minimum wage because of capitalism is equating a system of economics with a system of government, and the government's task is the betterment of its citizens' lives, and not merely ensuring the market can run as smoothly as possible. Meanwhile, any Democrat saying that poverty is a result of capitalism isn't being much more honest - however we want to have our economy mechanically function is one thing, but the role of government is making sure that all citizens can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it's kind of immaterial if that's because we give all Americans a house and a car in every driveway and a chicken in every pot etc etc etc and expect them to go work their government-appointed job 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in return, or if it's by ensuring that any American able to work is able to earn a salary that will allow them to support themselves, and any american that isnt has safety net programs available to them, too. A lot of so-called American "capitalists" think that market efficiency is an end unto itself, and that's really not the case - market efficiency is great because it allows for an ever-bigger proverbial pie, but overseeing how that pie gets divvied up and ensuring that the outcomes are fair for all, is the job of government, not the market alone, and sometimes will require the government to create inefficient market outcomes. 



Adieu said:


> This is an unprecedent crisis, blah blah, our laws weren't written with this in mind, yada yada, anyway I'm awesome rich and reaaaally smart and the law is for regular shmucks
> 
> And my lawyer said doing illegal things for the public good is A-OK.
> 
> A-OK, people. A-OK.


Nah, he doesn't have the power to do that by executive order, and god knows Pelosi, who does, won't do it.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Nah, he doesn't have the power to do that by executive order, and god knows Pelosi, who does, won't do it.



...and what happens if he goes on Fox News and Twitter and says that he's doing it anyway?

Or, worse yet, views a couple youtube videos on acting, listens to a half-decent speechwriter for once, and pulls off a faux-inspirational performance about "having the courage and responsibility to make this decision for the public good and safety of our democracy when no one else would"


If he does THAT, the only way he leaves office is in handcuffs with massive rioting in the streets... and Pelosi and Biden don't look to be any good at games of chicken.

Good chance of that "ending" in a lame joke of an endless court "battle" that he easily drags on forever. Or until we lose a couple more geriatrics from the Supreme Court and he stuffs it with a bunch of yes-men, and then "wins" the thing.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Drew said:


> I don't think that's an attack on _capitalism_ so much as it is an attack on news becoming a form of _entertainment_.
> 
> Idunno, maybe getting a little far afield here, but lots of folks on the left (and I write this as an unabashed liberal) attack capitalism on the grounds that a rich ruling class ripping off a working class is a feature, not a bug, of the system. That's the sort of attack that, while well-intentioned, really misunderstands capitalism, and in some ways misunderstands government. Capitalism is merely a mechanism - it's a way to allocate scare resources by way of a marketplace, to lead the most optimal distribution of capital by allocating it to where it can be used to the greatest profit. There's a couple issues with criticizing current-day America's many faults as the result of capitalism, one of the biggest being that the price mechanism kind of pre-assumes that all parties are starting from more or less equal starting points and if I'm prepared to pay more for a resource it's because I can use it more profitably than you, and not because I just have more capital to throw around period, but one of the biggest, IMO, is that nothing about capitalism says we HAVE to have the most efficient distribution of capital, and we can't favor less optimal distributions if we want to. Any Republican saying we can't have a higher minimum wage because of capitalism is equating a system of economics with a system of government, and the government's task is the betterment of its citizens' lives, and not merely ensuring the market can run as smoothly as possible. Meanwhile, any Democrat saying that poverty is a result of capitalism isn't being much more honest - however we want to have our economy mechanically function is one thing, but the role of government is making sure that all citizens can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it's kind of immaterial if that's because we give all Americans a house and a car in every driveway and a chicken in every pot etc etc etc and expect them to go work their government-appointed job 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in return, or if it's by ensuring that any American able to work is able to earn a salary that will allow them to support themselves, and any american that isnt has safety net programs available to them, too. A lot of so-called American "capitalists" think that market efficiency is an end unto itself, and that's really not the case - market efficiency is great because it allows for an ever-bigger proverbial pie, but overseeing how that pie gets divvied up and ensuring that the outcomes are fair for all, is the job of government, not the market alone, and sometimes will require the government to create inefficient market outcomes.
> 
> 
> Nah, he doesn't have the power to do that by executive order, and god knows Pelosi, who does, won't do it.



also anyone that thinks America is some kind of awesome/not awesome capitalism has got ignorant blinders on.

we're so past the point of where it ought to be.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> ...and what happens if he goes on Fox News and Twitter and says that he's doing it anyway?
> 
> Or, worse yet, views a couple youtube videos on acting, listens to a half-decent speechwriter for once, and pulls off a faux-inspirational performance about "having the courage and responsibility to make this decision for the public good and safety of our democracy when no one else would"
> 
> 
> If he does THAT, the only way he leaves office is in handcuffs with massive rioting in the streets... and Pelosi and Biden don't look to be any good at games of chicken.
> 
> Good chance of that "ending" in a lame joke of an endless court "battle" that he easily drags on forever. Or until we lose a couple more geriatrics from the Supreme Court and he stuffs it with a bunch of yes-men, and then "wins" the thing.



If Trump is going to go rogue anywhere, I don't think holding an election is where I'd worry. 

The US electoral infrastructure is decentralized and handled at the state level. Trump could issue an executive order that he doesn't have the power to do, ordering the election delayed, but it's not like anyone in his administration would be able to carry it out - it would need to be carried out at the state level, the district level, and the local precinct level. Maybe he'll even get a few red states or red cities to go along, but the majority of states in this country are going to tell him to go screw, certainly every state with a Democratic governor and the moderate Republican states as well, and probably even a good number of the deep red states. So, what's going to happen, he orders the election hated, and maybe DeSantis down in Florida complies but the rest of the country goes ahead and votes anyway? He doesn't have many paths through the electoral college without winning Florida, he's just going to shoot himself in the foot. Trump is, whatever else he may be, not a moron, and knows this. 

If you want to worry about anything, it's what he's probably _actually_ doing here - doing everything he can do undermine the legitimacy of the election up-front, so when he goes on to get blown out by 8 points in the popular vote and an electoral college landslide, he's primed his followers to not trust the results of the election, and he'll threaten to refuse to leave office because of "voter fraud." Whether he actually will see it through is tough to say, and if it's not at all a close election it's going to be awfully hard to cry foul, but I think his game plan is to create enough distrust in a vote-by-mail election in a pandemic that if he loses by 2-3 points in the national election and only by a state or so in the electoral college, then it's at least an option on the table for him to cry foul and hope Fox News sticks with him, and not step down. That's a LOT harder to do, to remove a president against his will, than to try to stop an election that you don't have the authority to stop and the states and not the federal government oversees. 

Also, Pelosi is rather adept at games of chicken, or have you forgotten the way she eviscerated him during the shutdown, when he finally agreed to a "compromise" bill that gave the Democrats even more than they'd asked for in their original negotiating position?


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> If Trump is going to go rogue anywhere, I don't think holding an election is where I'd worry.
> 
> The US electoral infrastructure is decentralized and handled at the state level. Trump could issue an executive order that he doesn't have the power to do, ordering the election delayed, but it's not like anyone in his administration would be able to carry it out - it would need to be carried out at the state level, the district level, and the local precinct level. Maybe he'll even get a few red states or red cities to go along, but the majority of states in this country are going to tell him to go screw, certainly every state with a Democratic governor and the moderate Republican states as well, and probably even a good number of the deep red states. So, what's going to happen, he orders the election hated, and maybe DeSantis down in Florida complies but the rest of the country goes ahead and votes anyway? He doesn't have many paths through the electoral college without winning Florida, he's just going to shoot himself in the foot. Trump is, whatever else he may be, not a moron, and knows this.
> 
> If you want to worry about anything, it's what he's probably _actually_ doing here - doing everything he can do undermine the legitimacy of the election up-front, so when he goes on to get blown out by 8 points in the popular vote and an electoral college landslide, he's primed his followers to not trust the results of the election, and he'll threaten to refuse to leave office because of "voter fraud." Whether he actually will see it through is tough to say, and if it's not at all a close election it's going to be awfully hard to cry foul, but I think his game plan is to create enough distrust in a vote-by-mail election in a pandemic that if he loses by 2-3 points in the national election and only by a state or so in the electoral college, then it's at least an option on the table for him to cry foul and hope Fox News sticks with him, and not step down. That's a LOT harder to do, to remove a president against his will, than to try to stop an election that you don't have the authority to stop and the states and not the federal government oversees.
> 
> Also, Pelosi is rather adept at games of chicken, or have you forgotten the way she eviscerated him during the shutdown, when he finally agreed to a "compromise" bill that gave the Democrats even more than they'd asked for in their original negotiating position?



I'm looking forward to him canceling the election just to see the look on his face when he realizes on Jan 20th at noon President Pelosi takes office lol.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> I'm looking forward to him canceling the election just to see the look on his face when he realizes on Jan 20th at noon President Pelosi takes office lol.



She's up for re-election, too. I think it would be Chuck Grassley. I had read somewhere else that it could be Leahy, but I think that was just with a special unusual series of circumstances.

edit: Just re-read. It would be grassley, except in the seemingly-likely scenario that the senate flips, because governors appoint the replacements of those whose terms would expire...in which case Leahy would be in Grassley's position, and next in line for the Presidency.


----------



## Randy

That sounds like a total cluster fuck


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> except in the seemingly-likely scenario that the senate flips



Which seemingly also wouldn't happen because if there's no election, then the make-up of the Senate doesn't change. Holy hell, this is sloppy.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Which seemingly also wouldn't happen because if there's no election, then the make-up of the Senate doesn't change. Holy hell, this is sloppy.



It does change (I think). The senate's terms also expire, i believe. And there are more republican seats up for re-election than Democratic, and D would take it over. Something like 23 R seats would be taken awy, but only like 14 D seats would be vacated, tipped the scales to D. And even if you take it a step further and wait until their replacements are appointed, well that's by a majority D of governors. It's sloppy, but it's an organized mess.

The reason it's seemingly messy is because it depends on who has the majority. And that can change, so there are "except in the case of" caveats all over the place...to catch loop holes, and power vacuums.


----------



## SpaceDock

Except I think you guys are forgetting how a take over works. Dissolve election, dissolve Congress, tell military your with me or them. He assumes power unless military sides with congress. A real move towards dictatorship would not follow the rules and since when has Trump ever followed the rules.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Except I think you guys are forgetting how a take over works. Dissolve election, dissolve Congress, tell military your with me or them. He assumes power unless military sides with congress. A real move towards dictatorship would not follow the rules and since when has Trump ever followed the rules.


Yeah, this. Again, Trump lacks both the authority, and the _means _to forcefully stop an election, so I'm not concerned about that. If he tries to ignore the outcome, that'll go up through the court in a hurry, and Roberts is too concerned with the perception of the court for me to be worried he'd overturn the results of a popular election without cause. No matter how you look at it, if Trump tries to hold onto power by ignoring an electoral loss, this pretty quickly escalates to full coup. I think the US military is independent enough from (and not overly enamored enough with) Trump that he wouldn't be able to count on them, so the most likely outcome is Trump is arrested, likely by the military, and forcefully removed from office. 

But, it kinda turns your stomach to have to think about this, and to concede that this is all very much now in the realm of possibility, no?


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Except I think you guys are forgetting how a take over works. Dissolve election, dissolve Congress, tell military your with me or them. He assumes power unless military sides with congress. A real move towards dictatorship would not follow the rules and since when has Trump ever followed the rules.



Well, yes, but that's the Lex Luthor conclusion and he's too low-T for that. I personally think all the talk about postponing the election is more of the "Fire Fauci" "Fire Mueller" stuff where he just likes the way it unsettles people and keeps his name in the news cycle. The only reason Trump wouldn't want to leave office (considering what a miserable, bruising life it's been) would be to avoid prosecution and he'd sooner do that by either winning or through his lawyers than through some kind of military insurrection. He doesn't have enough allies in the military to pull that off.

The other stuff about postponing it to cast uncertainty on the process and leave more room for foreign interference, IF he's actually going to act on that threat, is much more on his level.


----------



## SpaceDock

^ no doubt, I think what worries me is that last election he was telling his followers to go out to the streets with guns if he lost. I honestly believe he would rather watch the country burn than lose


----------



## High Plains Drifter

SpaceDock said:


> ^ no doubt, I think what worries me is that last election he was telling his followers to go out to the streets with guns if he lost. I honestly believe he would rather watch the country burn than lose



He actually wants the country to burn since a country in crisis directs the spotlight onto the leader. Quenching his ego is all that matters to this horrid excuse for a human being. A road that is paved with tens of thousands of dead bodies, is a road that he will continue to gladly travel in order to maintain privileged seclusion from accountability.


----------



## zappatton2

Honestly, I think he's just a wounded idiot who needs constant validation, can't bear any measure of humiliation or defeat, and having found a willful audience, is willing to burn the nation down to avoid saying he lost fair and square. I don't think he spends a moment thinking about the implications of his actions or the legitimacy of his follower's causes. He's literally a stunted child, entirely self-absorbed, deeply insecure, and for whatever reason, there is a sizable cohort who identify with that.

*edit* which is basically what the last couple of posts were saying, if I hadn't waited so long to post mine, lol.


----------



## SpaceDock

It really is frightening, we are all seeing how he can’t let something as small and stupid as hydroxychloroquine go and yet he continues to not back down regardless of evidence and those around him telling him he is wrong. Just imagine what he is going to do with something as big and consequential as the election.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> the government's task is the betterment of its citizens' lives



Once corporations became legal entities that went out the window.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Maybe he will actually leave office peacefully and seek asylum in Russia?


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> I'm looking forward to him canceling the election just to see the look on his face when he realizes on Jan 20th at noon President Pelosi takes office lol.



...is that what the constitution stipulates?


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> ...is that what the constitution stipulates?



Yeah as of noon on Jan 20th following an election the previous term for the President and VP expires unless they are re-elected. Without a President-elect in waiting (if he were to cancel/postpone the election) the 3rd in succession is the Speaker of the House (then President ProTem of the Senate, SecState, etc...).

Although apparently the issue would become that she is also up for re-election and if he delayed all federal elections (not just for President) then her term as a Congresswoman would also technically expire. So then it defaults to the next in succession that does not have their term expiring, which I think is the Pres ProTem of the Senate this year? 

Interestingly, this is the very reason why the Outgoing President should nominate the incoming President's senior Cabinet members - so there is a viable chain of succession (Continuity of Govt) should any issues result.


----------



## Adieu

...that's cute, but it presumes a law-abiding administration and/or an opposition willing and able to pressure the incumbent into submission to the rule of law.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Once corporations became legal entities that went out the window.


Eh, much like American capitalism isn't _really_ capitalism, don't confuse the exact specific instance of American government with all governments in general. What is the generalized purpose of a government? To improve the lives of its citizens. 



USMarine75 said:


> Although apparently the issue would become that she is also up for re-election and if he delayed all federal elections (not just for President) then her term as a Congresswoman would also technically expire. So then it defaults to the next in succession that does not have their term expiring, which I think is the Pres ProTem of the Senate this year?


...though a helpful wrinkle here is that her election is a state and not federal election, and would be overseen entirely by the state of California, meaning that any sort of federal kerfluffle that resulted in no clear winner by 1/20 would almost certainly not impact Pelosi's election. Congress is sworn in far earlier, as well, on January 3rd, although it's possible Pelosi might NOT be the Speaker of the House - I think I remember her saying she didn't plan to seek re-election after her current term as Speaker, though if there was any sort of major democratic crisis where it's possible she might legitimately need to step up as President due to an absent President and Vice President, I could probably see that going by the wayside in a hurry - out of the House, we could do a lot worse. 



Adieu said:


> ...that's cute, but it presumes a law-abiding administration and/or an opposition willing and able to pressure the incumbent into submission to the rule of law.


Again, you keep hinting at this, but I don't think this is at ALL a likely outcome. I could see Trump trying, but I don't see him succeeding. He's courted the military and "his generals" pretty aggressively over the years, but Matthis' thinly-disguised "fuck you" when he stepped down carries weight, and I don't think current military command would back what was essentially a coup - most recently, his little stunt with the bible and having the National Guard forcefully clear a square for a photo-op burned up a LOT of goodwill. Pelosi had him by the balls in the shutdown and he crumpled, so I think you're underestimating her, too. And it's not like Trump enjoys broad popular support - he's had the support of 39-42% of the country pretty consistently since his election, with opposition consistently in the 50-55% range, and he's currently trailing in the polls by nearly a double digit margin. 

He doesn't have the popular support, he doesn't have an especially firm grip on the military, and Pelosi at least has shown she can out-maneuver him. If he tries anything stupid, it'll be desperation, and not because he likes his odds. From a straight relpolitik standpoint, he's outnumbered and outgunned.


----------



## Adieu

Remember when the whole idea of him floating a delay/cancellation was treated as tinfoil hattery?

You guys still don't get it. We're LIVING IN A TYPICAL LATIN AMERICAN / AFRICAN / ASIAN failed democracy.

The third world ain't maybe-coming, it's here and intent on staying. Resist now or stock up on the vaseline.


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> Remember when the whole idea of him floating a delay/cancellation was treated as tinfoil hattery?
> 
> You guys still don't get it. We're LIVING IN A TYPICAL LATIN AMERICAN / AFRICAN / ASIAN failed democracy.
> 
> The third world ain't maybe-coming, it's here and intent on staying. Resist now or stock up on the vaseline.



I think the distinction here is that at least many of his GOP allies have already come out against any type of delay.


----------



## Adieu

JSanta said:


> I think the distinction here is that at least many of his GOP allies have already come out against any type of delay.




I'm not saying he's already won against democracy.... but he sure wants to try!


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> I'm not saying he's already won against democracy.... but he sure wants to try!



That I don't disagree with. That being said, Trump isn't the first administration to flex this kind of power. We have to place blame squarely on the shoulders of Congress for ceding power to the executive branch. Trump has very visibly flexed those powers, but he's far from the first president to do so. The idea of three coequal branches of government seems dead.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Eh, much like American capitalism isn't _really_ capitalism, don't confuse the exact specific instance of American government with all governments in general. What is the generalized purpose of a government? To improve the lives of its citizens



I live in the real world, not some idealistic Fantasyland where textbook definitions and fairies make everything the way they are supposed to be. The US government hasn't given a shit about common people my entire life. Maybe some local governments do, but most of the federal level decision making has nothing to do with improving common folk life. It is all about padding pockets of the wealthy. Maybe a different country is a bit better, bit as pointed out in other posts, many governments are terrible to their people for the benefit of few. So what they should be is kind of irrelevant.

Edit: I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think we aren't talking about the same thing at all and talking past each other. Talking about generalized ideals to me at this point is about the same as Trump saying there are no problems and fake news.


----------



## sleewell

i think that on election night trump will have a lead. as mail in ballots are counted over the next few days it will start to go bidens way and trump will throw a tantrum. lawsuits, sending federal troops to democratic cities, its going to get crazy.


did anyone watch the interview with jonathan swan? trump drank a few 4 lokos that afternoon, wow.

also now he is supporting vote by mail in FL which seems be a pretty quick about face.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am hoping that tons of people do early voting with mail in ballots so we know he lost days before the election. Just get this over with.

side note: I live in Colorado where we do mail in by default. I have never voted in person and cannot understand why other states don’t do it this way except that their leaders want to suppress voting.


----------



## zappatton2

fantom said:


> I live in the real world, not some idealistic Fantasyland where textbook definitions and fairies make everything the way they are supposed to be. The US government hasn't given a shit about common people my entire life. Maybe some local governments do, but most of the federal level decision making has nothing to do with improving common folk life. It is all about padding pockets of the wealthy. Maybe a different country is a bit better, bit as pointed out in other posts, many governments are terrible to their people for the benefit of few. So what they should be is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> Edit: I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think we aren't talking about the same thing at all and talking past each other. Talking about generalized ideals to me at this point is about the same as Trump saying there are no problems and fake news.


I think most liberal democracies still try to govern and regulate in the public interest, never flawlessly of course, and always balancing multiple interests, but it's really not an unreasonable expectation, and hardly utopian.

In the U.S., after casting itself on the front-lines of a decades long cold war with the Soviets, ruling governments and monied interests tended to frame the "public interest" as socialist tyranny. Civic engagement gave way to cynicism and a view that all taxation was merely confiscation (and considering how many private, already-wealthy hands are planted in the public til of the American taxpayer, not entirely an unfounded view).

But a government ideally _should_ work in the public interest, not through majoritarian tyranny, but through vigorously defending the charters and laws that protect the rights of citizens in a pluralistic society, especially those whose rights are often held in dispute or contempt by a significant slice of the majority population.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> I live in the real world, not some idealistic Fantasyland where textbook definitions and fairies make everything the way they are supposed to be. The US government hasn't given a shit about common people my entire life. Maybe some local governments do, but most of the federal level decision making has nothing to do with improving common folk life. It is all about padding pockets of the wealthy. Maybe a different country is a bit better, bit as pointed out in other posts, many governments are terrible to their people for the benefit of few. So what they should be is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> Edit: I'm not trying to be confrontational. I just think we aren't talking about the same thing at all and talking past each other. Talking about generalized ideals to me at this point is about the same as Trump saying there are no problems and fake news.


No, I think I get what you're saying. 

My point though is that judging capitalism by the US economy and government by the US government is an extremely ethnocentric way to understand how capitalism is supposed to work and how government is supposed to work, and if your attacks on either capitalism or governments are based on the peculiarities of the _US _versions of both, that's a critique more of America than it is of capitalism or of government. Does that make more sense?


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Remember when the whole idea of him floating a delay/cancellation was treated as tinfoil hattery?
> 
> You guys still don't get it. We're LIVING IN A TYPICAL LATIN AMERICAN / AFRICAN / ASIAN failed democracy.
> 
> The third world ain't maybe-coming, it's here and intent on staying. Resist now or stock up on the vaseline.


Oh, no. The idea of him ACTUALLY delaying or canceling the election is tinfoil hattery. The idea of him tweeting about it or mentioning it in an interview, either as a fleeting train-of-conscious mumble, or as a trial balloon, is pretty damned feasible, and has been for a while. Trump bitched about Mueller for years and publicly flirted with the idea of firing him, too, and it looks like he even tried at one occasion, and that went nowhere too. 

Trump runs his mouth. Sometimes he's stupid enough to try to follow through, and historically that hasn't gone too well for him. 

And, again, broken record, you keep saying Pelosi and Biden are just going to stand there and take it, but Pelosi _eviscerated_ Trump when he called her bluff and shut down the government, and it looks rather like she's getting the upper hand of his administration right now in the second stimulus bill negotiations.


----------



## Adieu

If these people were made of sterner stuff, an opportunist like Trump would never have gotten to paradigm shift normalcy as we know it so far

Pelosi is a damn enabler. And Joe belongs on late-night TV ads for a used car dealership.

Alas, we get what we deserve


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> If these people were made of sterner stuff, an opportunist like Trump would never have gotten to paradigm shift normalcy as we know it so far
> 
> Pelosi is a damn enabler. And Joe belongs on late-night TV ads for a used car dealership.
> 
> Alas, we get what we deserve


We're talking in circles. 

Yoou're accusing us of holding a position I don't think anyone in this thread ever did - namely, that Trump even _suggesting_ the election should be delayed is sheer madness, when everyone here has been uniform in saying that Trump isn't _able_ to do so, but says plenty of stupid and crazy shit he isn't able to do all the time. 

Likewise, you keep saying Pelosi and Biden are pushovers. I'm not even getting into Biden here - he's not currently an elected official - but I've given you several examples now of times that Pelosi absolutely destroyed Trump in negotiations, the best being the fact that the final compromise bill to end the government shutdown contained even more generous concessions to the Democrats than their _initial offer_ had. 

I don't know if you're just not reading my posts here, but no one ever said Trump wouldn't _talk_ _about _wanting to delay the election, because he's an idiot who runs his mouth, and Pelosi's track record of going head to head with Trump is actually pretty damned good. Simply repeating over and over again "people used to say Trump even hinting he'd like to delay the election is tinfoil hattery, and Pelosi is such a pushober enabler" over and over and over again doesn't actually make it so.


----------



## Adieu

...shit, there's unmarked federal police in military kit pushing people into vans and refusing to identify themselves.

Month ago, it was national guard dudes in body armor shooting nonlethals at and beating up not just angry mobs, but also random bystanders and even Aussie and German reporters after they identify as press.

Before that there were kids in cages and plans for alligator moats.

Oh and the President and/or members of his inner circle may or may not be foreign intelligence assets, but are sure as hell colluding with foreign intelligence operatives and lying about it. And that's not even newsworthy anymore.


BUT NOPE, PELOSI HAS IT UNDER CONTROL.


PS if this is handling it, wtf does NOT handling it look like? Fullblown Syria or Darfur?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> ...shit, there's unmarked federal police in military kit pushing people into vans and refusing to identify themselves.
> 
> Month ago, it was national guard dudes in body armor shooting nonlethals at and beating up not just angry mobs, but also random bystanders and even Aussie and German reporters after they identify as press.
> 
> Before that there were kids in cages and plans for alligator moats.
> 
> Oh and the President and/or members of his inner circle may or may not be foreign intelligence assets, but are sure as hell colluding with foreign intelligence operatives and lying about it. And that's not even newsworthy anymore.
> 
> 
> BUT NOPE, PELOSI HAS IT UNDER CONTROL.
> 
> 
> PS if this is handling it, wtf does NOT handling it look like? Fullblown Syria or Darfur?



There just isn't really much of a mechanism for which the minority party that holds a single house of congress can do. 

They're basically limited to withholding funds, but then we just get a government shutdown again.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/pence...iew-calls-him-disappointment-to-conservatives

All the hatred in the comments towards Roberts... calling him a traitor, a closet Dimocrat, suggesting he's in the pocket of Hillary lol.



Adieu said:


> ...shit, there's unmarked federal police in military kit pushing people into vans and refusing to identify themselves.
> 
> Month ago, it was national guard dudes in body armor shooting nonlethals at and beating up not just angry mobs, but also random bystanders and even Aussie and German reporters after they identify as press.
> 
> Before that there were kids in cages and plans for alligator moats.
> 
> Oh and the President and/or members of his inner circle may or may not be foreign intelligence assets, but are sure as hell colluding with foreign intelligence operatives and lying about it. And that's not even newsworthy anymore.
> 
> 
> BUT NOPE, PELOSI HAS IT UNDER CONTROL.
> 
> 
> PS if this is handling it, wtf does NOT handling it look like? Fullblown Syria or Darfur?



What did you want Pelosi to do? She is not a Senator. She powered the impeachment full force to the Senate and gave them ample evidence... you know... the evidence they refused to even view. Several Republican Senators said they had already made up their mind before the trial. Several ignored the hearing and played with fidget spinners during said trial.

So yeah.... damn Pelosi. She's no better.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Drew said:


> We're talking in circles.
> 
> Yoou're accusing us of holding a position I don't think anyone in this thread ever did - namely, that Trump even _suggesting_ the election should be delayed is sheer madness, when everyone here has been uniform in saying that Trump isn't _able_ to do so, but says plenty of stupid and crazy shit he isn't able to do all the time.
> 
> Likewise, you keep saying Pelosi and Biden are pushovers. I'm not even getting into Biden here - he's not currently an elected official - but I've given you several examples now of times that Pelosi absolutely destroyed Trump in negotiations, the best being the fact that the final compromise bill to end the government shutdown contained even more generous concessions to the Democrats than their _initial offer_ had.
> 
> I don't know if you're just not reading my posts here, but no one ever said Trump wouldn't _talk_ _about _wanting to delay the election, because he's an idiot who runs his mouth, and Pelosi's track record of going head to head with Trump is actually pretty damned good. Simply repeating over and over again "people used to say Trump even hinting he'd like to delay the election is tinfoil hattery, and Pelosi is such a pushober enabler" over and over and over again doesn't actually make it so.




there's at least this one guy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/opinion/trump-delay-election-coronavirus.html

who thinks the tweet itself is treason.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> What did you want Pelosi to do? She is not a Senator. She powered the impeachment full force to the Senate and gave them ample evidence... you know... the evidence they refused to even view. Several Republican Senators said they had already made up their mind before the trial. Several ignored the hearing and played with fidget spinners during said trial.
> 
> So yeah.... damn Pelosi. She's no better.




Pelosi and Biden are the only two potential faces of any serious opposition. And....what? Nothing.

I mean really, who else is there? Independent grandpa Bernie or barely legal novice AOC? Too late and too early. And both too unconnected and fringe.

Hell, even Romney has done a better job taking a stand


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Pelosi and Biden are the only two potential faces of any serious opposition. And....what? Nothing.
> 
> I mean really, who else is there? Independent grandpa Bernie or barely legal novice AOC? Too late and too early. And both too unconnected and fringe.
> 
> Hell, even Romney has done a better job taking a stand



Biden doesn't hold public office. What is he supposed to do?

What has Romney done? Most of his jabs at the current administration are bluster and he still votes with Trump over 81% of the time.


----------



## Adieu

Every novice autocrat loves a vocally yappy but functionally toothless opposition.

It's exactly what they need.


Some even PAY people to imitate that professionally. This one does it for free.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Every novice autocrat loves a vocally yappy but functionally toothless opposition.
> 
> It's exactly what they need.
> 
> 
> Some even PAY people to imitate that professionally. This one does it for free.



You've yet to really say what you want Biden or Pelosi to do. Mount an armed insurrection?


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Pelosi and Biden are the only two potential faces of any serious opposition. And....what? Nothing.
> 
> I mean really, who else is there? Independent grandpa Bernie or barely legal novice AOC? Too late and too early. And both too unconnected and fringe.
> 
> Hell, even Romney has done a better job taking a stand



Not being a dick.. seriously... do you understand how the US Govt works? (your profile says you're not in the US so you seriously might not)

Biden is a US citizen. He does not hold an office and he hasn't since 2017. He's doing the single most powerful thing he or anyone else can do - he's running for President against Trump to oust him legally from the WH and likely reverse most of Trump's EO's and policies.

It's like Fox News still railing at Hllary. She's a private citizen and a grandmother. She holds no office either and hasn't since 2013.

Romney is currently a US Senator that is why he had the ability to "take a stand".

Bernie did take a stand. He ran for US President and lost.

AOC has taken multiple stands. She's a junior representative and she's put forth tons of legislation that is "anti-Trump agenda". She also voted for impeachment. What more do you want her to do specifically?

And to reiterate - Pelosi impeached Trump. Only the 3rd time in US history that happened. It is the single most powerful thing the House of Representatives can do and she was the leader.

The Democrats are NOT the problem. I don't even blame Trump (because bad people do bad things). The problem is the enablers - Lyndsey Graham, Jim Jordan, Devine Nunes, etc. They are the traitors because they are betraying their public responsibility to be the "checks and balances" against tyranny. Remember, Nunes is the one who admitted he was sneaking into the back entrance of the WH to brief Trump on the investigation against Trump (the same thing FBI SA John Connely did for Whitey Bulger). Nunes's reason? He works for the President so he was reporting to his boss. For the record, Congress does not work for the President, they are an independent branch of the US Govt. The highest authorities in Congress are the Speaker and President Pro Temp of the Senate - they report to no one other than their constituents.

tl;dr You're yelling at clouds, man.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> ...shit, there's unmarked federal police in military kit pushing people into vans and refusing to identify themselves.
> 
> Month ago, it was national guard dudes in body armor shooting nonlethals at and beating up not just angry mobs, but also random bystanders and even Aussie and German reporters after they identify as press.
> 
> Before that there were kids in cages and plans for alligator moats.
> 
> Oh and the President and/or members of his inner circle may or may not be foreign intelligence assets, but are sure as hell colluding with foreign intelligence operatives and lying about it. And that's not even newsworthy anymore.
> 
> 
> BUT NOPE, PELOSI HAS IT UNDER CONTROL.
> 
> 
> PS if this is handling it, wtf does NOT handling it look like? Fullblown Syria or Darfur?


Again, you're changing the subject. 

Congress in general, and Pelosi specifically, doesn't have a tremendous amount of power to influence Department of Justice operations. About the best they can do is open an investigation into whether any laws were being broken, or in next year's budget cut funding. There just aren't many good checks and balances against Trump's ability to direct the DOJ, outside of the court system. 

Pelosi DOES have a tremendous amount of power to engage with Trump legislatively, however. She's successfulyl done so on budgetary matters, and since what you're talking about - delaying the election - would take _legislative_ action, she's well positioned to stop it. 

Biden, as a retired senator and former VP, is out of the picture save for the power of the bully pulpit afforded to a presidential candidate, which he has used to condemn Trump's actions. He certainly doesn't have any conceivable way to interfere wiih DOJ actions as a private citizen, however, and as he's not a resident of Portland, he doesn't even have standing to sue.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> You've yet to really say what you want Biden or Pelosi to do. Mount an armed insurrection?


I too would love an answer to this question, @Adieu.


----------



## Adieu

You don't need to be a star quarterback to know when the star quarterback done fucked up


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> You don't need to be a star quarterback to know when the star quarterback done fucked up



........ What does that even MEAN in this situation?


----------



## vilk

Ralyks said:


> ........ What does that even MEAN in this situation?


It means he has no answer to Max's question


----------



## spudmunkey

A grasshopper's only as wiley as his blindest eye.


----------



## Ralyks

So what are the chances a stimulus deal happens, oh, 11 pm ET tonight?


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> It means he has no answer to Max's question


That's how I interpreted it too. Considering his "proof" that the "star quarterback done fucked up" is merely his _conviction_ the QB fucked up, it's not an especially convincing argument, either. 



Ralyks said:


> So what are the chances a stimulus deal happens, oh, 11 pm ET tonight?


Not especially good. Maybe 1-in-3, I guess, is my gut level? The dynamics are not great for the GOP - they don't even know if their bill could pass the Senate, while at least the Democrats already got their bill through the House about three months ago. Accordingly, they haven't gotten much in the way of concessions out of the Democrats, and the big one is they're still hoping to get the bill done at $1 trillion rather than 2-3, with no aid to cities and states to help them through what's going to be a rough patch where their tax and service revenue is going to take a massive hit. This is ostentciously because they don't want to "bail out wasteful blue states with their too-generous public service pensions," which ignores the fact that 1) the blue states with the highest pension obligations had the benefits creating those obligations passed into law by republican governors, and 2) the most heavily-pension-indebted state is actually McConnell's own Kentucky.  

My guess is that the GOP holds firm, refuses to compromise, negotiations fail tonight, the futures market tanks in response and Monday trading is a bloodbath, and by the end of the week we either have a deal or both sides are much closer. It's an election year, and we vote in like 88 days - when push comes to shove both sides have an incentive to be generous. 

Trump will probably try to do a payroll tax cut by executive order tonight, btw. I say "try" not because he will fail, exactly - he has the authority to defer the collection of a tax for up to a year - but because it won't do jack shit, since he can't force companies to put that money back in their employees' pockets and since there's little appetitie to take this up even within the GOP, all he can do is defer and not cancel the tax payments, which means companies are just going to hold onto the cash for the day when the bill eventually comes do. So, ....yay?


----------



## Ralyks

Soooooo basically expect a deal next week and total chaos until then?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Soooooo basically expect a deal next week and total chaos until then?


That's my suspicion. And it does look like talks ended tonight with no deal (the GOP refuses to budge on a $1T cap, the Dems are asking them to meet them at $2T rather than their original proposal of $3T), and Trump is going to try to do something by EO. 

One conceivable outcome of this that I'd be curious to see how it plays out, but I also hope we don't see - Trump doing something he clearly has no authority for, and forcing one or both (most likely one, the Democrats) parties to sue to block him from doing something unconstitutional, that nonetheless has broad popular support. I guess if I was an unscrupulous sociopath like Trump that's how I'd be playing this, doing something like announcing a cut and not deferral of the payroll tax, and a restoration of the additional unemployment benefit at a reduced level of $300 or the $400 the GOP is already indicating they might be willing to compromise at, and kind of dare the Democrats to call him out on an entirely unconstitutional abuse of executive power to do something that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do, that nonetheless is very popular with voters. It would be absolutely sleazy electoral politics, but this IS Trump's America we're in...


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1236195

So probably as you expected, China wants Trump to lose while Russia is sabotaging Biden.

That's right, the US Presidential election is actually China vs Russia.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1236195
> 
> So probably as you expected, China wants Trump to lose while Russia is sabotaging Biden.
> 
> That's right, the US Presidential election is actually China vs Russia.



I wonder which side these guys are on.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Aaaaand our leaders go on vacation after getting nowhere on stimulus talks oh jeez who saw that coming?


----------



## possumkiller

Science_Penguin said:


> Aaaaand our leaders go on vacation after getting nowhere on stimulus talks oh jeez who saw that coming?


It's hard work getting nothing done. That's why they get paid the big bucks.


----------



## Ralyks

I think I saw McConnell say everyone will be on 24 hour notice to return to DC for a vote should a deal get done.
But yeah, this is some bullshit.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> I wonder which side these guys are on.
> 
> View attachment 83560



At least they are patriotic...


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/08/politics/trump-executive-order-stimulus/index.html

And here come the executive orders...


----------



## SpaceDock

Go ahead and try to buy votes why don’t you:

"If I'm victorious on Nov. 3, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax. I'm going to make them all permanent," Trump said, then turning to jab congressional Democrats and his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. "So they will have the option of raising everybody's taxes and taking this away. But if I win, I may extend and terminate. In other words I will extend it beyond the end of the year and terminate the tax. And so, we'll see what happens."


----------



## Randy

EO was the right thing to do. Pelosi rejecting $600/wk. two week extension while they negotiate final deal was bullshit. Terrible optics and Trump apparently the only one smart enough to mop it up this time, credit where credit is due.


----------



## Ralyks

The unemployment extension, yes. The payroll tax cut, no. Also, no stimulus payments again?


----------



## SpaceDock

I think it seems like a good thing that he is doing the unemployment benefit and student loan deferments. The previous bill that Pelosi voted against has junk like a new FBI headquarters across the street from Trumps DC hotel. The exact details on the EOs have not been revealed so we will see how this actually goes down. I actually think more Republicans would be mad about the EO payments and Payroll Tax deferments if this had been a Democrat plan, they were pushing 200 a week or nothing at all. 20 Republican senators said they would vote against any new stimulus.


----------



## Ralyks

The problem is, are the EO’s legal? Because only the house can set how much money can be spent anyway. And legal challenges are coming, which, if they agree only congress can spend money, I’d think the House would leverage that to get their deal through or at least get the senate to compromise.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> The problem is, are the EO’s legal? Because only the house can set how much money can be spent anyway. And legal challenges are coming, which, if they agree only congress can spend money, I’d think the House would leverage that to get their deal through or at least get the senate to compromise.



Read @Randy's post up there again. The GOP wants the Dems to sue as they can frame it as them trying to "take money away" from the people.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Read @Randy's post up there again. The GOP wants the Dems to sue as they can frame it as them trying to "take money away" from the people.



I know. And I’m saying how the other side can frame it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> I know. And I’m saying how the other side can frame it.



The legal system is too slow and meandering. We wouldn't have a ruling until far after the election. 

Remember this isn't a fair fight.


----------



## SpaceDock

I didn’t know the difference between income and payroll tax before this. Now I am understanding that Trump is deferring our payments into Social Security and Medicaid and pondering making it permanent.

That is horrible for the long term of our country just like his tax cuts for business. It’s that idea that we take a hit now and repay it later, but just like Bush era tax cuts there is no going back.

This is really the same way that he allowed a casino to loose money. You can’t just keep handing out without taking in. Our federal budgets have been ballooning over the Trump term and we are taking in less and less. Whatever happened to Republicans caring about the budget. We are screwing our future selves so bad.


----------



## Randy

You can't EO eliminating social security. The payroll tax deferment goes until the end of the year, I doubt anyone is going to not be able to retire because of 4 months of skipped SS payments.

Dems bluffed and lost, plain and simple, and it's 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' for them to push legal action over a stop gap EO that becomes meaningless if they broker a deal. Republicans already moved to agreement on stimulus and what income groups, and they were very close on unemployment benefits.

The biggest sticking is/was the state and local aid, which was even offered to be put into a separate bill but Dems insisted on goes in this one. I'm sure every municipality is different but the cities where I live don't deserve to be bailed out anyway, they've been wildly irresponsible with how they spend their tax money (biggest item has been economic development for bars and a casino that have been closed/restricted for 5 to 6 months) and they refuse to make any cuts when their budget was already bloated. Yes, there are concerns for hospitals and schools but the 'write a big check and let them figure out what to do with it' thing is absolutely pork for political allies during an election year. Holding up assistance to the unemployed to force that issue (and losing) is a failure of Democratic leadership, sorry.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> You can't EO eliminating social security. The payroll tax deferment goes until the end of the year, I doubt anyone is going to not be able to retire because of 4 months of skipped SS payments.
> 
> Dems bluffed and lost, plain and simple, and it's 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' for them to push legal action over a stop gap EO that becomes meaningless if they broker a deal. Republicans already moved to agreement on stimulus and what income groups, and they were very close on unemployment benefits.
> 
> The biggest sticking is/was the state and local aid, which was even offered to be put into a separate bill but Dems insisted on goes in this one. I'm sure every municipality is different but the cities where I live don't deserve to be bailed out anyway, they've been wildly irresponsible with how they spend their tax money (biggest item has been economic development for bars and a casino that have been closed/restricted for 5 to 6 months) and they refuse to make any cuts when their budget was already bloated. Yes, there are concerns for hospitals and schools but the 'write a big check and let them figure out what to do with it' thing is absolutely pork for political allies during an election year. Holding up assistance to the unemployed to force that issue (and losing) is a failure of Democratic leadership, sorry.



I’m not going to argue that Congress should have reached a deal and that Democrats fail us on a regular basis. What I will express is:

Trump doesn’t really have the power to do this and allowing him to do it is granting further power to the presidency and stripping it from congress.

Taking away a tax and reinstating it just does not happen. Trump already said during the signing that if he is re-elected he will make these payroll cuts permanent. See my quote above.

In my mind this EO is not something that republicans would have signed on for and is Trump going rogue again. Let’s be really careful how we praise this short term solution because giving Trump power over the purse strings is stepping into an arena we might not walk out of. Yeah, I know you need to money but that’s literally how we allow ourselves to be bought out.


----------



## gunch

Gullible Old Pissants


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> In my mind this EO is not something that republicans would have signed on for and is Trump going rogue again.



Republicans already agreed to $400/wk long term extension, pay roll tax deferment and some assistance on evictions/foreclosures. So he basically signed an EO that was the Republicans starting point. 

Dems can say whatever they want about EO and Rs offers, but bluffing 'no temporary deal because your offer isn't generous enough', and allowing people's paychecks to drop from $800/wk to $200 or less and allow evictions to resume for even one week is a failure of leadership and even if we don't like Trump, that's not something we should be excusing for them. Especially if the main sticking point was primarily money that was going to go to pet projects and not people.


----------



## Randy

"When asked what Democrats might be willing to give up to reduce the price tag of the bill, Pelosi said they might shorten the timeline that some benefits would be available, allowing Congress to address whether to renew them earlier next year rather than later."

Yeah, don't budge on the aid to states or the Postal Service bailout. Make sure you cut direct benefits to people instead, great optics. Sounds like she hasn't learned anything since the "tax rebate instead of direct payments" debacle.


----------



## SpaceDock

You’re right, it is really inconvenient to need congress to compromise until they reach a deal. So glad that now we can skip over that and allow the president to just be the tie breaker and just EO Multi trillion dollar budget addendums. Heck, now we might not have to worry about those pesky compromises because if the president has budget power, why even have a congress? let’s just move forward on that dictator thing we’ve been toying with. Glad 400 bones is worth democracy. I get that survival can “Trump” rights and the constitution.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> You’re right, it is really inconvenient to need congress to compromise until they reach a deal. So glad that now we can skip over that and allow the president to just be the tie breaker and just EO Multi trillion dollar budget addendums. Heck, now we might not have to worry about those pesky compromises because if the president has budget power, why even have a congress? let’s just move forward on that dictator thing we’ve been toying with. Glad 400 bones is worth democracy. I get that survival can “Trump” rights and the constitution.



I'm not thrilled about the EO thing, but it was always a possibility and it was poor judgment for Pelosi et al to forget that.


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> You’re right, it is really inconvenient to need congress to compromise until they reach a deal. So glad that now we can skip over that and allow the president to just be the tie breaker



This is the problem. Congress represents the states. If the states can't come to an agreement, the federal level does not have authority to override states. The correct action is do nothing. Even if it hurts the population, states have the power to do something locally without the federal government. The constitution specifically gives states this power, not the president. He overstepped his boundary. Honestly, I would expect any conservative to understand this.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/08/politics/trump-executive-order-stimulus/index.html
> 
> And here come the executive orders...



What the fuck, Trump?

Hardly anyone that needs it qualifies for unemployment the way unemployment was previously structured, and this new hot potato version is even more fun


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm not thrilled about the EO thing, but it was always a possibility and it was poor judgment for Pelosi et al to forget that.



I want to disagree that the EO was “always a possibility” because that means that anytime that congress has a stalemate in the future the presidency can just take control. If that is the case we have just handed all power to the presidency. Next budget showdown, EO. Controversial legislation, EO. Have an election (it is congress’ power to delay election), .......EO??


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> This is the problem. Congress represents the states. If the states can't come to an agreement, the federal level does not have authority to override states. The correct action is do nothing. Even if it hurts the population, states have the power to do something locally without the federal government. The constitution specifically gives states this power, not the president. He overstepped his boundary. Honestly, I would expect any conservative to understand this.



Total overreaction. EO was stop gap funding extension, hardly unprecedented, especially because they have a lot of money from CARES that hasn't been spent yet anyway.

States are facing an enormous financial hardship, there's no way they could shoulder funding boost unemployment etc on their own. Would also require completely new legislation at the state level and a rollout that could take weeks or months, as opposed to EO that just extends what they're already doing and will likely BE doing when the draft a new bill within weeks.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I want to disagree that the EO was “always a possibility” because that means that anytime that congress has a stalemate in the future the presidency can just take control. If that is the case we have just handed all power to the presidency. Next budget showdown, EO. Controversial legislation, EO. Have an election (it is congress’ power to delay election), .......EO??



It's stop gap temporary funding based on criteria and a pot of money Congress already passed. If an EO can't do that why have them at all?


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> It's stop gap temporary funding based on criteria and a pot of money Congress already passed. If an EO can't do that why have them at all?



As with Covid, I hope that I am the overreacting alarmist.


----------



## Randy

The worst thing Republicans did was giving Trump a free pass on anything he does or could do just because he's not on the other team. That lead to piss poor, rudderless leadership and it's why he's likely going to lose (unless Nancy and Co. decide to keep this up). The Dems would be wise to heed that warning. 

When I start reading about Dem leadership blowing up temporary funding for people being foreclosed on and not being able to pay for their groceries, and I hear people defending them by arguing state's rights and the Constitution, I get really fuckin' leary.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> Total overreaction. EO was stop gap funding extension, hardly unprecedented, especially because they have a lot of money from CARES that hasn't been spent yet anyway.
> 
> States are facing an enormous financial hardship, there's no way they could shoulder funding boost unemployment etc on their own. Would also require completely new legislation at the state level and a rollout that could take weeks or months, as opposed to EO that just extends what they're already doing and will likely BE doing when the draft a new bill within weeks.



You know how to stop the financial hardships? Be a leader, listen to experts, and send your federal troops to start cracking down on people not taking this shit seriously. Many countries have shown that the economic crisis is preventable if leaders take medical experts seriously and put polices in place to limit people spreading the virus. Throwing money at people is addressing a symptom. I'd rather see Trump grow the hell up and lead by addressing the core problem and not just trying to buy votes.


----------



## gunch

fantom said:


> You know how to stop the financial hardships? Be a leader, listen to experts, and send your federal troops to start cracking down on people not taking this shit seriously. Many countries have shown that the economic crisis is preventable if leaders take medical experts seriously and put polices in place to limit people spreading the virus. Throwing money at people is addressing a symptom. I'd rather see Trump grow the hell up and lead by addressing the core problem and not just trying to buy votes.


 I have a better chance of becoming as good as Shawn Lane


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> You know how to stop the financial hardships? Be a leader, listen to experts, and send your federal troops to start cracking down on people not taking this shit seriously. Many countries have shown that the economic crisis is preventable if leaders take medical experts seriously and put polices in place to limit people spreading the virus. Throwing money at people is addressing a symptom. I'd rather see Trump grow the hell up and lead by addressing the core problem and not just trying to buy votes.



Same guy arguing states rights is telling me the problem with COVID spread is all on Trump when meanwhile the hot spots have shifted to Red States because their "states rights" allowed them to not close down and not make people wear masks?

It would be nice for him to be more aggressive on following the experts on COVID but we're already where we are, so both the virus and the financial fallout need to be addressed. You know what else isn't quality leadership? Leaving DC without a deal while your constituents are trying to pay a mortgage, childcare and groceries on $200 a week.


----------



## fantom

Well according to CNN, by bypassing Congress, the funds for the $300 / $100 need a new system built anyways since the states didn't agree to it. So that argument about states not being able to make a system to distribute the funds if they enacted it seems to apply to the EO as well.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## Randy

Lowering taxes =/= Spending money


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Lowering taxes =/= Spending money



Doesn’t make it any less true.

Also, digging a bit around, as far as the EO for the unemployment bonus goes, because congress controls the money, there’s basically enough that Trumps unemployment EO will run dry in 4 weeks.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> States are facing an enormous financial hardship, there's no way they could shoulder funding boost unemployment etc on their own. Would also require completely new legislation at the state level and a rollout that could take weeks or months, as opposed to EO that just extends what they're already doing and will likely BE doing when the draft a new bill within weeks.


This is why I'm not concerned about the "optics" of Pelosi not folding and making a quick deal at $400 pandemic unemployment assistance because she was holding out get the GOP to agree to support stimulus assistance for the cities and states. A widespread, large-scale wave of states being forced to cut back on state level social safety net programs and state employment is going to have a horrific effect on the economy and on the quality of life for a huge number of Americans. You could argue over whether or not this is a bigger impact than the additional unemployment top-up funding dropping - I'd say it probably is but I'm not wedded to that as a matter of religious belief, exactly - but they're _both_ pretty severe outcomes, and if Pelosi can get the PUA back to $400-600 AND secure a second trillion dollar outlay to help keep the cities and states operating through this pandemic, that's worth a week or two lapse, especially if payments are then backdated.


----------



## sleewell

Randy said:


> Lowering taxes =/= Spending money




lowering taxes on mainly the 1% and big corps basically forces the spending of less money bc we take less in. so in effect what we have is an enormous wealth transfer. the rich get a massive tax break they don't need and it doesn't trickle down, they just save it offshore and the country is far worse off. then, of course, we are taking in way less money so the best plan is to demolish our social safety net. 

i get they aren't same things but doing one causes doing the other and the reason they did the first was just not logical.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> lowering taxes on mainly the 1% and big corps basically forces the spending of less money bc we take less in. so in effect what we have is an enormous wealth transfer. the rich get a massive tax break they don't need and it doesn't trickle down, they just save it offshore and the country is far worse off. then, of course, we are taking in way less money so the best plan is to demolish our social safety net.
> 
> i get they aren't same things but doing one causes doing the other and the reason they did the first was just not logical.



The term Jefferies used is "restraint". Cutting taxes on people who don't pay them anyway (especially because nobody dares touch capital gains) I wouldn't characterize as a 'lack of restraint'. I take issue with the fact tens of millions of people are having trouble figuring out how to pay their rent and their grocery bill in the middle of a pandemic and we're use slight of hand bullshit like constitutionality and who passed tax cuts on who to distract from the fact Congress couldn't walk away with a deal.

Facts, Republicans offered $400/wk unemployment along with the extension that's in place from the last bill, and Republicans offered a $600/wk bridge for at least two weeks while they work out a permanent deal. You can reason with the Dems motivation for not taking either deal but the fact is a failure TO make a deal falls in the lap of the poor, you had two "better than nothing" offers including one that was agreed to be temporary and they still balked at it. The only reason the sky hasn't fallen yet is because most people had a week or two buffer in the money they have on hand to deaden the blow, if the EO doesn't go into effect or a long term deal by next week, things are going to get very ugly for 25 million+ people.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> This is why I'm not concerned about the "optics" of Pelosi not folding and making a quick deal at $400 pandemic unemployment assistance because she was holding out get the GOP to agree to support stimulus assistance for the cities and states. A widespread, large-scale wave of states being forced to cut back on state level social safety net programs and state employment is going to have a horrific effect on the economy and on the quality of life for a huge number of Americans. You could argue over whether or not this is a bigger impact than the additional unemployment top-up funding dropping - I'd say it probably is but I'm not wedded to that as a matter of religious belief, exactly - but they're _both_ pretty severe outcomes, and if Pelosi can get the PUA back to $400-600 AND secure a second trillion dollar outlay to help keep the cities and states operating through this pandemic, that's worth a week or two lapse, especially if payments are then backdated.



Here in Schenectady, they're at a $12m shortfall on their current budget based on missing projections on revenues from the number of businesses and individuals who can't/won't pay, including the one things like the local casino that's closed indefinitely and bars that were closed for months or went out of business (both of which were the bulk of their economic development funding, and the bulk of county/city spending as a whole). They've done literally nothing to lower costs, zero layoffs, the only option they've exercised is a hiring freeze and looking to borrow $7m plus to fill holes short term.

Meanwhile, there's a $10m economic development grant that they were award from state that goes to downtown pet projects and they're still pursuing spending all of that money. You're talking theater projects (those are closed still), transportation from downtown to the casino (closed), and apartments based on housing studies that predate covid and all the downtown nightlife shit being closed. But none of that or a $12m budget hole is gonna stop them from spending that!

And I can't speak for all the hospitals but big story here lately that three local urgent care facilities waved Federal assistance to provide covid tests for uninsured people and they're charging them $200 a test! I could expect them these pop-up for profit facilities but one of them is Albany Med, which is biggest hospital within a three hour radius and operates as a non profit.

So excuse me if I don't put a blank check to local governments at the same level of urgency as things like foreclosure/eviction prevention and direct benefits to individuals. But please, y'all stably employed folks continue to explain to me why no deal or taking Trump to task on a benefits extension EO is anything other than gamesmanship at the expense of people's well-being.


----------



## Ralyks

Since when is Trump NOT about gamesmanship?


----------



## Randy

He's nothing but gamesmanship. But he's also out of a job in the next few months as long his competition maintain perspective.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

He's wanting to have his face added to Mount Rushmore.


----------



## spudmunkey

High Plains Drifter said:


> He's wanting to have his face added to Mount Rushmore.


Someone in SD needs to pass a law that says you can't have your face in display in the state on government property if you've been impeached, or something.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Here in Schenectady, they're at a $12m shortfall on their current budget based on missing projections on revenues from the number of businesses and individuals who can't/won't pay, including the one things like the local casino that's closed indefinitely and bars that were closed for months or went out of business (both of which were the bulk of their economic development funding, and the bulk of county/city spending as a whole). They've done literally nothing to lower costs, zero layoffs, the only option they've exercised is a hiring freeze and looking to borrow $7m plus to fill holes short term.
> 
> Meanwhile, there's a $10m economic development grant that they were award from state that goes to downtown pet projects and they're still pursuing spending all of that money. You're talking theater projects (those are closed still), transportation from downtown to the casino (closed), and apartments based on housing studies that predate covid and all the downtown nightlife shit being closed. But none of that or a $12m budget hole is gonna stop them from spending that!
> 
> And I can't speak for all the hospitals but big story here lately that three local urgent care facilities waved Federal assistance to provide covid tests for uninsured people and they're charging them $200 a test! I could expect them these pop-up for profit facilities but one of them is Albany Med, which is biggest hospital within a three hour radius and operates as a non profit.
> 
> So excuse me if I don't put a blank check to local governments at the same level of urgency as things like foreclosure/eviction prevention and direct benefits to individuals. But please, y'all stably employed folks continue to explain to me why no deal or taking Trump to task on a benefits extension EO is anything other than gamesmanship at the expense of people's well-being.


You know, they're very likely not ABLE to spend that economic development grant on anything other than what the grant-writers approved it for. 

But, part of the picture here too, of course, is that the unemployment payments we're talking about are paid _in part_ by the federal government, based on prior-year UE claim levels... but the bulk is paid by states, from money collected from state income taxes, and when unemployment surges while tax receipts plummet, states are going to be on the hook to find some way to make up the difference. If they can't, then they can't make unemployment insurance payments. 

Right now the consensus - either because this is a reasonable conclusion, or because the alternative is too unsettling to face - is that the federal government WILL have to step in and support cities and states, which is why Schenectady is following the lead of lots of other cities and states (and companies), where they're likely furloughing staff or telling them to work from home, but they haven't reduced headcount yet because there's still hope that this will be an aggressive V-shaped recession with a rapid recovery. If that doesn't happen, though, then the cities and states are going to need federal assistance, or many of the social safety net programs Americans are depending on, unemployment being one of them, are going to get awfully strained.


----------



## sleewell

is anyone following what is happening in the post office? i think that is a major reason why accepting a temporary unemployment deal would have been foolish for the dems. they need to get funding for the post office along with the other things needing funding which would not happen if they just accepted an extension for one issue. 

trump is saying mail in voting is a scam. trump is also destroying the post office so that there will be huge delays and no confidence in mail in voting.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> trump is saying mail in voting is a scam. trump is also destroying the post office so that there will be huge delays and no confidence in mail in voting.



Oh yeah, that definitely hasn't gotten past me.


----------



## BlackSG91

High Plains Drifter said:


> He's wanting to have his face added to *Mount Russia*.










;>)/


----------



## SpaceDock

cheeto scented scratch n sniff paint


----------



## sleewell

Dementia Don said the 1918 flu ended WWII which ended 2 decades later in 1945.

This is the guy saying Biden isnt all there...


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> Dementia Don said the 1918 flu ended WWII which ended 2 decades later in 1945.
> 
> This is the guy saying Biden isnt all there...



How do we get Dementia Don trending


----------



## Vostre Roy

Dementia Don
Tiny hands Trump
Baldy Donny

They just write themselve without even trying!


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...ol-agent-arrested-drug-trafficking-2020-8?amp

Border Agent arrested with 350,000 fentanyl pills.

But please, tell me how the wall is going to work when it’s our own guys.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> is anyone following what is happening in the post office? i think that is a major reason why accepting a temporary unemployment deal would have been foolish for the dems. they need to get funding for the post office along with the other things needing funding which would not happen if they just accepted an extension for one issue.
> 
> trump is saying mail in voting is a scam. trump is also destroying the post office so that there will be huge delays and no confidence in mail in voting.


Yeah, honestly, Trump's attempts to eviscerate the USPS before an election that will likely be largely contested by mail is one of his most subtle but most concerning attacks on American democracy. 

In other news, reportedly the holdup in negotiations is Mitch McConnell refuses to agree to any deal that does't include five year blanket immunity from lawsuits for any business or organization thats following CDC Covid guidelines. Trump is reportedly disinterested, and the Dems aren't prepared to give an unprecedented degree of blanket immunity, which is why we're at an impasse.


----------



## sleewell

once in a lifetime situation and maybe someone can prove me wrong, but i sort of agree with mitch on that aspect. how on earth are you going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got covid somewhere?? no one stays at home 24/7, if they tell you that they are lying. i don't think we can cripple our court system even further with millions of lawsuits where you could never prove your case. i think you could have a good hunch where you got it but you would never know for sure to the point where a court could grant monetary damages. 

you could get it at the grocery store or gas station on your way to work and never be able to prove exactly where you got it. i am not giving businesses a free pass to be reckless but i can see many situations where Americans who love to sue just get crazy with this and i don't agree with it.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> once in a lifetime situation and maybe someone can prove me wrong, but i sort of agree with mitch on that aspect. how on earth are you going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got covid somewhere?? no one stays at home 24/7, if they tell you that they are lying. i don't think we can cripple our court system even further with millions of lawsuits where you could never prove your case. i think you could have a good hunch where you got it but you would never know for sure to the point where a court could grant monetary damages.
> 
> you could get it at the grocery store or gas station on your way to work and never be able to prove exactly where you got it. i am not giving businesses a free pass to be reckless but i can see many situations where Americans who love to sue just get crazy with this and i don't agree with it.


Can't find it, but Bloomberg, I think, did a pretty good article about contact tracing using viral mutations and gene sequencing technology to confirm transmission points. This, again, speaks to the important of contact tracing, which we're nowhere close to being able to do today thanks to our slip-shod national response. 

Also, you're only scratching the surface over what sort of immunity we're talking about here. Imagine this hypothetical - the CDC recommends face coverings in public to reduce the risk of transmission. A company provides all its workers face masks. The face masks, however, were one of three designs that the company looked at, they either did their own testing or used third party research, and the masks they opted for were the poorest performing by a WIDE margin, but also the cheapest. The masks were branded with the company logo, however, and staff were required to wear them rather than one of their own. The company employs 500 people, and 120 of them contract COVID-19, while 17 die. A good number, say 85 of them, can demonstrate that they were practicing rigorous social distancing and quarantine outside work, and that it was exceedingly, exceedingly unlikely they would have contracted it anywhere else. 

Should they have standing for a class action lawsuit? Per Mitch McConnell, the answer is an automatic no.


----------



## Demiurge

sleewell said:


> once in a lifetime situation and maybe someone can prove me wrong, but i sort of agree with mitch on that aspect. how on earth are you going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you got covid somewhere?? no one stays at home 24/7, if they tell you that they are lying. i don't think we can cripple our court system even further with millions of lawsuits where you could never prove your case. i think you could have a good hunch where you got it but you would never know for sure to the point where a court could grant monetary damages.
> 
> you could get it at the grocery store or gas station on your way to work and never be able to prove exactly where you got it. i am not giving businesses a free pass to be reckless but i can see many situations where Americans who love to sue just get crazy with this and i don't agree with it.



Even worse, in civil liability the standard is more probable than not and not beyond reasonable doubt... which is much easier to make a case if a jury sees evidence that someone or a company that was somewhat lax with safety. COVID liability lawsuits could choke the civil courts- which are already behind as hell- and insurance companies would be hemorrhage money in legal spend even if the cases die on the vine. Blanket immunity seems like too blunt of a tool, seeing how careless some people/businesses/local governments have been, but there needs to be some level of standard enacted. What that is- I have no idea.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Besides the selfish rich, ignorant and racists, I’ve been wondering how did this prick get elected with a minority vote? I’m getting really tired of this shit.

Sure there’s gerrymandering, tampering and disenfranchisement! When hasn’t that been the case?

I’ve been reduced to posting memes and pics, logic escapes me...

Still wondering when “separation of church and state” will finally come to fruition I guess.

In addition to Freedom of Religion, is it too much to ask for Freedom From Religion?


----------



## Adieu

I wonder if I could get someone to pay me to run atheist propaganda.... are the Chinese hiring?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> I wonder if I could get someone to pay me to run atheist propaganda.... are the Chinese hiring?



Are you sure about that? You sound kind of skeptical...


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> Are you sure about that? You sound kind of skeptical...



Not at all.

I will gladly work for any propaganda machine that seeks to discredit, dishonor, and ritually humiliate any monotheistic religion.

ESPECIALLY if they pay me for this public good


----------



## TedEH

What about polytheistic religions?


----------



## Adieu

TedEH said:


> What about polytheistic religions?



Nah, they're fairly chill and innocuous, spot of human sacrifice back in the day notwithstanding..... still harmless compared to the big three.


Although harmful subsects should indeed be discouraged if they get oddly focused on one person and/or divinity. For example, I believe Chinese suppression of the cult of personality of some living godchild-theocrat in an orange robe was probably the sole sensible solution


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> Yeah, honestly, Trump's attempts to eviscerate the USPS before an election that will likely be largely contested by mail is one of his most subtle but most concerning attacks on American democracy.
> 
> In other news, reportedly the holdup in negotiations is Mitch McConnell refuses to agree to any deal that does't include five year blanket immunity from lawsuits for any business or organization thats following CDC Covid guidelines. Trump is reportedly disinterested, and the Dems aren't prepared to give an unprecedented degree of blanket immunity, which is why we're at an impasse.



He's starting to make it a lot less than subtle. Here's a video from Fox News this morning in which his direct quote is:

"They want 3 and a half trillion, billion dollars for the mail-in votes, so, universal mail-in ballots. They want 25 billion dollars. Billion, for the post office. Now they need that money in order to have the post office work, so they can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now in the meantime, they aren't getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don't get those two items, then that means you can't have universal mail-in voting."

https://t.co/73NBmSnoNC

This is really terrifying. This accompanies a news story in my state newspaper today that found that 79% of democrats in our state plan to vote mail-in, and 81% of republicans plan to vote in person. (https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...e-between-wisconsin-gop-democrats/3354938001/ - paywalled) Guess who's going to win the election in a landslide if he is allowed to destroy the post office? Quotes from that article:

"Among people planning to vote absentee by mail, Joe Biden leads the race for president by 67 points.

Among people planning to vote in person on Election Day, Donald Trump leads by 41 points.
.....
In a Wisconsin poll by CBS, 62% of Democrats said they preferred to vote by mail or absentee ballot in November, compared to 25% of Republicans.

And in the Marquette poll, Biden led 81% to 14% among those who plan to vote by mail and 50% to 45% among those who plan to vote early in person. But Trump led 67% to 26% among those who plan to vote at the polls on Election Day. "

I'm glad that I stopped getting prescriptions through mail, cause it's obvious that in this country, those who depend on that are going to be left flapping in the breeze just so Trump can steal the election.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/08/13/politics/trump-bill-barr-chris-wray/index.html

He’s draining the Swamp. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/amp/


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Wuuthrad

spudmunkey said:


>




Asked if he regrets lying to Citizens for years, he doesn’t directly answer, but only replies with a few questions in an attempt to deflect and feign not understanding the question, and then quickly ignores the question and moves on to the next. Seems a bit out of character.

What this tells me is maybe he doesn’t even care. Before the questions, he was reading from a script, and not doing a particularly good job of it.

He seems more like a puppet as the days go by, especially when comparing this to when he tries to speak of his own mind which is usually a garbled mess of delusion.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/videos/politics/...therism-trump-theory-gop-senators-ctn-vpx.cnn

Oh look. Birtherism is back.


----------



## budda

USMarine75 said:


> https://us.cnn.com/videos/politics/...therism-trump-theory-gop-senators-ctn-vpx.cnn
> 
> Oh look. Birtherism is back.



You mean racism?


----------



## USMarine75

budda said:


> You mean racism?



You know the old saying... one man’s racism is another man’s racism.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> He's starting to make it a lot less than subtle. Here's a video from Fox News this morning in which his direct quote is:
> 
> "They want 3 and a half trillion, billion dollars for the mail-in votes, so, universal mail-in ballots. They want 25 billion dollars. Billion, for the post office. Now they need that money in order to have the post office work, so they can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. Now in the meantime, they aren't getting there. By the way, those are just two items. But if they don't get those two items, then that means you can't have universal mail-in voting."
> 
> https://t.co/73NBmSnoNC


Yeah, in the last 48 hours, he's really doubled down on this. The USPS is, currently, a very highly regarded government service with 91% approval and no strong partisan divide. I suspect that's about to change in a big way. 

Actually severely disrupting the post office operations (and he's trying to do it - I've seen plenty of photos and videos of USPS drop boxes being removed, and the operational changes put in place are essentially guaranteed to cause turmoil and delays) is a two-edge-sword though that Trump seems to be grabbing ahold of full-fisted - if the post office starts to become legitimately unreliable and that starts to impact things like bill payments or parcels or benefit checks not coming through in time, that's going to start to piss off both Democrats and Republicans alike.


----------



## sleewell

lots of folks depend on usps for medicine delivery. trump is telling people in the middle of a pandemic to drive to a pharmacy instead of going to their mailbox all so he can prevent people from voting. needs to be boiled down that simple and ads run on fox news immediately.


----------



## Drew

In case anyone missed it, 538 launched their presidential forecast. few days ago: 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

Currently Biden is about the 3-in-4 favorite, with most of the uncertainty related to their being 80 days to go, rather than probability that there are outcomes within the polling margin of error where Trump could pull it off. He still could, but the race is going to have to tighten between now and the election, or he'll have to find some way to successfully fuck up the voting process.


----------



## SpaceDock

You know they’ll pull some BS like Barr announcing Biden investigation.


----------



## fantom

On the topic of post office and mail in ballots. Several news sites reporting that USPS notified 46 states that they would not guarantee delivery of mail in ballots on time.

Trump backers, can you please explain to me why you support what Trump is doing to undermine the mail system? According to USPS, over 120 million people use mail in ballots (including Trump himself). That is 1/3 of the population. How is this not seen as voter tampering? Would you be ok if Obama, Hillary, or Biden did the same thing that Trump is doing?


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> On the topic of post office and mail in ballots. Several news sites reporting that USPS notified 46 states that they would not guarantee delivery of mail in ballots on time.
> 
> Trump backers, can you please explain to me why you support what Trump is doing to undermine the mail system? According to USPS, over 120 million people use mail in ballots (including Trump himself). That is 1/3 of the population. How is this not seen as voter tampering? Would you be ok if Obama, Hillary, or Biden did the same thing that Trump is doing?



Posted a similar question to FB:

Some of the replies:
1) Even in the last round of primaries, there's documented fraud.
2) They wouldn't trust the post office with a ballot, anyway.
3) Some sort of non-sensical answer that confirmed that are anti-democracy, as long as it's their side that's "winning", aka "I don't care as long as it owns the libs."


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t understand this “own the libs.” No amount of political rhetoric will even convince someone to change their opinion. Not one of these people will ever break a persons will or drive them away. Owning someone is called slavery and how can any civil person ever desire that in the modern era? I just don’t understand what they think they are accomplishing with the attempt to “own” someone. There is nothing there to “win” as the only thing it does is build further rage and hatred between our fellow countrymen. That only weakens our nation and strengthens our enemies. If they say their countrymen are the enemy, are they not traitors to our nation?


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t understand this “own the libs.” No amount of political rhetoric will even convince someone to change their opinion. Not one of these people will ever break a persons will or drive them away. Owning someone is called slavery and how can any civil person ever desire that in the modern era? I just don’t understand what they think they are accomplishing with the attempt to “own” someone. There is nothing there to “win” as the only thing it does is build further rage and hatred between our fellow countrymen. That only weakens our nation and strengthens our enemies. If they say their countrymen are the enemy, are they not traitors to our nation?



Gods no

"They" aren't people per se, they're perverts commies foreigners and subhumans.

Inciting rage in that group or humiliating them is a meritorious achievement.



...or something. Idk.


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t understand this “own the libs.” No amount of political rhetoric will even convince someone to change their opinion. Not one of these people will ever break a persons will or drive them away. Owning someone is called slavery and how can any civil person ever desire that in the modern era? I just don’t understand what they think they are accomplishing with the attempt to “own” someone. There is nothing there to “win” as the only thing it does is build further rage and hatred between our fellow countrymen. That only weakens our nation and strengthens our enemies. If they say their countrymen are the enemy, are they not traitors to our nation?



I think you are being too literal. In modern internet times, "own" just means to be better than someone else. Usually, it is used when people think they are better but really aren't as a way to shit talk.

Sample definitions:

"To be excellent or superior."​
"To beat someone in a game in a manner that displays a much greater level of ability"​
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=owns


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...idential-crimes-commission-to-investigate?amp

Eric Swalwell wants to create the presidential crimes commission to investigate Trump after he leaves office and why didn't this sort of thing happen back during Watergate?


----------



## SpaceDock

fantom said:


> I think you are being too literal. In modern internet times, "own" just means to be better than someone else. Usually, it is used when people think they are better but really aren't as a way to shit talk.
> 
> Sample definitions:
> 
> "To be excellent or superior."​
> "To beat someone in a game in a manner that displays a much greater level of ability"​
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=owns



I don’t think I am not getting it, from the link you provided as a verb, not as you first adjective use “owns.”

1.To win a round in a game. (usually a video/pc game) 

2.To beat someone at a game.(usually a video/pc game) 

3. To be better at someone. (usually a video/pc game)

I am really not understanding the drive to beat, be better, or own our fellow citizens if it is at the expense of our country. It just seems like an ass backwards Way to operate because the only purpose it serves is sowing discourse within our nation.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/512140-swalwell-calls-for-creation-of-presidential-crimes-commission-to-investigate?amp
> 
> Eric Swalwell wants to create the presidential crimes commission to investigate Trump after he leaves office and why didn't this sort of thing happen back during Watergate?



Nixon was pardoned, corrupt as hell. Absolutely no recourse and Trump expects the same.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-mail-democrats-hearing-dejoy/?outputType=amp

So people are obviously pissed at what's going on with USPS and the House Oversight Commitee is trying to speed up a hearing from the Postmaster General.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump finally getting rid of some political appointees (first ones ever) at the CDC that some scumbag appointed... drain that swamp baby!


----------



## USMarine75

Ahh dammit they figured us out. They know us Dimocrat Libtards want people to die and the economy obliterated? Who talked?

I'll have to ask Hillary, Soros, and Rothschild at our next meeting.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/steve-bannon-democrats-want-death-and-destruction

[Steve Bannon] then explained that Democrats “want death and destruction.”

“They want the death of the American economy and the destruction of the American way of life, and I think if that’s highlighted by the end of the week, it’ll smoke Joe Biden out of his basement,” Bannon continued.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Nostalgia...(if only 20/20!!! ᎢᎹ???)







“each winner will receive a pillow silkscreened with the Donald’s face”

I’ll bet a lot of women want to “silkscreen” his face right about now with ANY pillow!

by that I mean “flatten like a pancake”


----------



## budda

Holy shit


----------



## Adieu

...wait, and he made an ad for women to sleep with him, called himself a MULTI-billionaire, tall, good looking, and the best in bed ever --- and even THAT was a scam selling pillowcases????


----------



## spudmunkey

Don't forget: you also get a copy of this book: (FYI, the writer was the director of "Blood Sucking Freaks."


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Don't forget: you also get a copy of this book: (FYI, the writer was the director of "Blood Sucking Freaks."



 Troma fans, woop woop


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 83813



I dunno what the Democratic obsession is with mail in voting, TBH. Katie Hill's district was majority mail-in voting for her replacement and the Republican won. Sorry if I sound like a broken record but how many votes do you gain hardlining on a relief bill that saves the Post Office, expecting better delivery to enhance mail-in voting and giving Democrats an edge versus how many votes you lose holding up a relief bill with weeks/months dragging on with your voters living off <$200/wk. to pay their bills? Or corrections, sub-$200/wk. plus Trump's EO'd $300/wk. - $400/wk?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I dunno what the Democratic obsession is with mail in voting, TBH. Katie Hill's district was majority mail-in voting for her replacement and the Republican won. Sorry if I sound like a broken record but how many votes do you gain hardlining on a relief bill that saves the Post Office, expecting better delivery to enhance mail-in voting and giving Democrats an edge versus how many votes you lose holding up a relief bill with weeks/months dragging on with your voters living off <$200/wk. to pay their bills? Or corrections, sub-$200/wk. plus Trump's EO'd $300/wk. - $400/wk?



I think it's a stupid hill to die on in the context of a relief bill, but big picture, I think it's worth supporting on its own.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> I dunno what the Democratic obsession is with mail in voting, TBH. Katie Hill's district was majority mail-in voting for her replacement and the Republican won. Sorry if I sound like a broken record but how many votes do you gain hardlining on a relief bill that saves the Post Office, expecting better delivery to enhance mail-in voting and giving Democrats an edge versus how many votes you lose holding up a relief bill with weeks/months dragging on with your voters living off <$200/wk. to pay their bills? Or corrections, sub-$200/wk. plus Trump's EO'd $300/wk. - $400/wk?



Pandemic that democrats believe in and republicans don't????

Besides, people don't like-like Joe, not really... they just dislike Donald.

So the balance of the election depends entirely on "hatred of Donald vs. fear of virus" on a day in November if mail in voting gets broken and it's an in-person show-up-or-don't choice. Trump knows that. Dems know it, too.


----------



## spudmunkey

I saw a recent survey that people who say they prefer in-person voting support DJT 67/33%, while people who would prefer mail in voting (a majority of the country) would more likely vote for Biden 80/20%.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I saw a recent survey that people who say they prefer in-person voting support DJT 67/33%, while people who would prefer mail in voting (a majority of the country) would more likely vote for Biden 80/20%.



Theoretically. I'm not sure how many states have actually *had* in-person voting during the pandemic versus haven't. New York did, and I said I was going to insist on mailing in my ballot but when the time came, just finding a stamp, being worried it would get lost or not be delivered on time led me to just mask up and vote in person. I'm not sure how believable/accurate those surveys are versus reality. I mean, they're worth taking into account but like Max said, questionable hill to die on. Still not sure you guarantee you gain more votes than you lose by disappointing your base to get there.


----------



## SpaceDock

My thought is that we have been floundering to control Covid and our numbers are still miserable, this has been during the summer with no kids in school and most jobs shuttered or moved to at home work. As we transition to kids going back to school and into the traditional flu season, Covid deaths and infections are set to reach new heights. Trumps own CDC rep Redfield confirms this. Most volunteers for polling locations are elderly. In lots of rural and low income areas, churches bus people to the polls. An in person voting situation could get real bad or just lead to low participation. I believe most Democrats support more voters even when they aren’t voting for them, it is just part of their belief system. 

I, for one, can’t believe any state doesn’t default to mail in like Colorado. I have voted in every election and primary since I turned 18 and I can honestly say I would never go to a polling location, wait in line, etc if that was my only option.

The “problem” with Democrats in so many of these scenarios is that they put their ideals ahead of their own best interests instead of scamming and cheating any chance they get like a lot of Republicans. Do we really want them to be any other way?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Do folks at large find it to be disappointing? 

Most I talk to seem to blame Trump, the Senate, or congress as a whole vs. just Dems trying to push a bill with superfluous funding to "sneak in". 

I don't hang my hat on polls either, or even my own anecdotes. I will say, I have family who don't have the option to just throw a mask on and hope for the best, so for them it's more important.


----------



## Wuuthrad

These guys (Trump and co.) will take any angle they see possible. The guy ran a Casino ffs...

They were gassing expectant mothers in the face over 20 years ago while mobilizing Tanks purchased from the former Soviet Union in NYC to stop lawful legal licensed street activities like May Day celebrations...

Beyond any normal politician they cannot be trusted at all, and if they gain your confidence in any way, the safest form of self preservation is to assume you’ve been had!


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Do folks at large find it to be disappointing?
> 
> Most I talk to seem to blame Trump, the Senate, or congress as a whole vs. just Dems trying to push a bill with superfluous funding to "sneak in".
> 
> I don't hang my hat on polls either, or even my own anecdotes. I will say, I have family who don't have the option to just throw a mask on and hope for the best, so for them it's more important.



To be clear, there's no indication the Postal Service will cease to exist by November or that they magically can't handle a deluge of mail-in votes when they have no trouble delivering junk mail or DMV reminders or census to literally every household. 

The debate is over how robust the Democrats think the Postal service needs to be 'beefed up' to handle to mail-in votes, and I have a sneaking suspicion even that will include funding and pork that extends beyond November. Likewise, even if they okay a trillion dollars to the USPS, all indications are that the inefficiencies in the department come from Trump's postmaster appointment, so somehow he's supposed to regrow his scruple glands with all that extra money?


----------



## Wuuthrad

This shit has to stop! Seriously what kind of colossal D’bag fuks with the US Post Office! It’s a Public Service Job like the Military! This shithead has to go! Take your ball Donald and go the fuck home!


----------



## Wuuthrad

And more important to “some” I guess, or so I’ve heard:


----------



## Adieu

I just saw a video, supposedly real, of Chuck Norris, in-character, threatening the President of Belarus....maybe somebody should hire Kevin Costner to tell Trump to back off the USPS???


----------



## Wuuthrad

^ real lol


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> I just saw a video, supposedly real, of Chuck Norris, in-character, threatening the President of Belarus....maybe somebody should hire Kevin Costner to tell Trump to back off the USPS???


In what character?


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> In what character?



80s and 90s action movie stars only had ONE character for all occasions


----------



## spudmunkey

I'm growing a 2nd mind ion the postal service situation, or at least pulling back from initial outrage. I'll admit that I jumped to worst-case-scenario mode...but I'm not pulling back totally.

"Sorting machines are being removed!!"...well, they've been tagged for removal for a long time, actually.

"Mailboxes are being taken away! Look, here's a photo of a truck full of them!" In the vast majority of cases, they seem to be just reducing the qty where there are multiple. And if not, they sometimes just take out low-use mailboxes. The one 2 blocks from my home was all set to be removed last year, until the nearby National Guard armory nearby mentioned in a city council meeting that it's one that some of their staff like to walk to to, to take a break. This is a regular, reocurring process for the USPS, but it's just more visible now, like when you buy a certain car, and now you see it everywhere. Or seeing "mystery" piles of bricks at protests. In February, i watched someone run into a pile of sidewalk paving bricks with their electric scooter. The bricks didn't even start to get used for almost a month after they were delivered. (Amusingly, the pile of bricks was placed in front of a post office...yes, that was purely a coincidence...that's where the sidewalk was being repaired).

"Look at these locked-up mailboxes, and the post office doors are also all locked up!"...it's Sunday, and vandalism is so rampant they lock the mailboxes when the post office is closed. (although I am fortunate enough to live near an airport, with an attached post office with late evening and weekend hours)

"There will be 10s of millions more pieces of mail!" The postal service handles 191 million pieces per day, and an additional 1.3 billion christmas cards in the last month of two of the year...and extra 100 million over a few weeks isn't _that_ overwhelming...but defintitely can cause significant delays if they aren't able to handle that similar increase in volume.

With all of that said:
The newly-appointed Postmaster General, a Trump Campaign donor, still has $250K invested in UPS (a USPS competitor), and has tens of millions of dollars invested in other carrier companies, at least one of which is a contractor for the USPS that is brought on to help with sorting and carrying when the USPS needs the extra capacity.

Said postmaster General, in the face of a viral pandemic (when more people than ever will want to vote by mail, and more states than ever want to make that a possibility, and fewer people are willing to even work at polling places which will lead to long waiting lines at polling places which will exasperate the stress on the already-seen reduction of polling places in many areas) has directed the USPS from spending money on overtime, and put in a hiring freeze. So while people are retiring out of the ranks, and some retiring early because they are old enough to have concerns about their safety/health, they aren't able to back-full those staff.

Combined with just the optics of it, where you have the president himself saying that if voting is made too easy, a republical will never win an election again, and countless other republical strategists sometimes outright saying that voter supression is a campaign strategy, it's not hard to see why the recent actions have upset a lot of people. Especially when the mail in voter/election fraud is only a fraction of the death rate of COVID, it seems unreasonable to be pushing against it so hard...while at the same time his campaign/the GOP encouraging registered republican voters to apply for absentee ballots (which he's complained about states doing themselves), and saying the only states that should be able to have vote-by-mail are states with republican, Trump-supporting governors.

Then there's all of the emotional weaponry, such as anecdotes about veterans and the elderly not getting the medications on time, and all of those viral out-of-context photos, etc...it's certainly not a clear-cut issue.

There's also a lot of half-right/wrong information about how the post office is self-sustaining/losing money, how the 75-year pension pre-funding has cripled them (but it also got them out of having to find the benefits if they were veterans, and the USPS is the largest employer of veterans in the country, with up to 60% of those having some sort of disability), that their partnership with Amazon is both keeping them afloat, and also somehow losing them money...but then the USPS isn't allowed to raise prices without legislation behind it, etc etc etc....


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> In what character?



My guess:


----------



## wankerness

The mailbox removal I think is understandable. The mail sorting machine thing is NOT. They're literally destroying some of them, not moving them. There's no plans to replace them before the election. It's severely going to hobble the ability of the mail centers to process mail in the meantime.

In Wisconsin, now there's a scandal as Kanye West got on the ballot using a petition that was loaded with fake signatures, including Bernie Sanders. Fortunately Republicans control most of the state government so he's probably going to remain on the ballot and no one will get in trouble for committing electoral fraud (most years, this is a serious crime, but now, nothing matters anymore if you're a Republican).


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/china-election-interference-threat

Then again, the current DNI is the least experienced person to ever hold the position, and by least experience I mean none. And he's a political hack in what was meant to be an apolitical position. But other than that...


----------



## spudmunkey

wankerness said:


> The mailbox removal I think is understandable. The mail sorting machine thing is NOT. They're literally destroying some of them, not moving them. There's no plans to replace them before the election. It's severely going to hobble the ability of the mail centers to process mail in the meantime.



The other part of that is, though: when did the USPS start their plans for removal? If 350+ were planned to be removed by July, could that have been turned around so fast with the current Inspector General only starting June 15th?

Therer's no denying that mail volume has plummeted. I could see how re-distributing some, and selling others (even for scrap) would make more finalancial sense than keeping them in operation, etc.


----------



## Randy

Don't worry though, Nancy Pelosi is ORDERING Congress back to Washington to save the postal service. Nothing else, just that.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Don't worry though, Nancy Pelosi is ORDERING Congress back to Washington to save the postal service. Nothing else, just that.



Clarification: she's can only order the _House, _right? And nearly half of Senate republicans say they would oppose any further COVID-related releif.


----------



## spudmunkey

To dig a little further, the president doesn't appoint the Postmaster general. That role is appointed by the Board of Governors. 

But the Board of Governors IS appointed by the president....but they are approved by COngress, and no more than 5 of the 9 seats can be held by a single party.

Apparently when Trump took office, in 2017, there hadn't been any appointees since 2010. Howewever, it's worth noting that congress did not hold votes on many of Obama's nominations, which including some replublicans.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Clarification: she's can only order the _House, _right? And nearly half of Senate republicans say they would oppose any further COVID-related releif.



So Senate Republicans are in favor of a postal service bill?


----------



## wankerness

He's saying it's pointless because anything she does will get ignored by the Senate, I think. As is the case.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like the postmaster general agreed to appear in front of the House Oversight Committee next week.


----------



## sleewell

he's pretty heavily invested in competitors of the post office. always good to have someone in charge of something who would profit by demolishing it.

should be interesting to hear his testimony.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> he's pretty heavily invested in competitors of the post office.



And also, investments in companies the USPS contracts out to when they need expanded capacity, like when, say, the USPS has newly-enacted overtime restrictions, and a hiring freeze. Which were put into place under him.


----------



## Adieu

...maybe Putin really DID hire Trump to pervert and latinamericanize American politics for good???


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## SpaceDock

WTF is even happening anymore!


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> WTF is even happening anymore!



Gloating I guess? Or post-truth propaganda?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I seriously think that the only ppl able to support trump at this point are homophobes, racists, and sexists... and those that have shit tons of money. That's it. You can't have a conscience that rises above any of those other factors if you're going to vote for trump.


----------



## SpaceDock

High Plains Drifter said:


> I seriously think that the only ppl able to support trump at this point are homophobes, racists, and sexists... and those that have shit tons of money. That's it. You can't have a conscience that rises above any of those other factors if you're going to vote for trump.



I sure do wish that was the case. I work with several Trump supporters and they are very well educated, intelligent, kind, and good people. They are just indoctrinated by propaganda to think that Trump is truth and that all else is lies. I was talking to someone today and I said, “I can’t believe Trump would say Democrats want to hurt God and get rid of religion.” They replied with “look at what happened to the church in Ventura” “Covid is how they end religion.” Not even kidding.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> I sure do wish that was the case. I work with several Trump supporters and they are very well educated, intelligent, kind, and good people. They are just indoctrinated by propaganda to think that Trump is truth and that all else is lies. I was talking to someone today and I said, “I can’t believe Trump would say Democrats want to hurt God and get rid of religion.” They replied with “look at what happened to the church in Ventura” “Covid is how they end religion.” Not even kidding.



Hurt god?

What kind of pushover do they take their higher power for???


----------



## SpaceDock

How white American Christians can paint themselves as the biggest victims of oppression is something I will never understand.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

SpaceDock said:


> I sure do wish that was the case. I work with several Trump supporters and they are very well educated, intelligent, kind, and good people. They are just indoctrinated by propaganda to think that Trump is truth and that all else is lies. I was talking to someone today and I said, “I can’t believe Trump would say Democrats want to hurt God and get rid of religion.” They replied with “look at what happened to the church in Ventura” “Covid is how they end religion.” Not even kidding.




Regarding the attributes of the people that you speak of... People seemingly accepting of different races can always possess closet tendencies. There are plenty of "kind" racists/ sexists/ homophobes depending on the setting and the audience. That same person may very well fear the involvement of people of dark complexion in government also. "Good" is fairly subjective so given these kinds of personal details that we don't always easily recognize, I'm sticking to my original statement ( but adding ignorant lol).


----------



## Wuuthrad

There’s also lots of dumb people who lack critical thinking that are eligible voters; both parties know this but I think the R party has taken more advantage of these people. Trump campaigned on it “I love poorly educated people” “Drain the Swamp” he said “ I didn’t even like it, I thought it was dumb, but people started cheering and I kept in there.”

Lots of people are programmed to want to believe what they hear and don’t question authority; I think it might give them comfort to believe someone knows what’s right for them, and that gives a sense of meaning to their lives to belong to a group (of like minded idiots, which is scarily too prevelant!) 

Thinking is pretty hard, and the Internet is making it even harder in some ways for lots of people. It makes you feel good to be liked and surrounded by the same mentality, and then slowly day by day the brain deteriorates, the pleasure centers are all that’s left, and there’s no room for intelligent thought which becomes atrophied, if it ever existed in the first place. And don’t even get me started on pharmaceuticals! I’m drifting...lol 

That’s why certain symbols and messages are dangerous; when they’re used like a tool to force people to conform, it doesn’t matter what the substance of the message is anymore because it hits them in “the feels” they fall in line, hook line and sinker. 

This is a side effect of consumerism: I want it and I want it now, which when driven to the extreme in unchecked highly unregulated capitalism breeds angry people with no compassion, no sense of community outside of their own iconography, and shallow self centered awareness based on brand and product self identification and ego boost endorphin rush of filling the void with buying more stuff.. nobody dare tell me I can’t shop without a mask it’s my right (no it absolutely isn’t) 


there is also the “morally superior” consumer, the “liberal nimby” who as long as they have the proper yard sign declaring their allegiance to whatever popular struggle of the day thats befalling those other people, they will identify with them and “support” them, but only as far as maintaing their comfortable status quo...

All this is a form of Symboilc pseudo-spiritualism which is also reflected and mirrored in athletic competition: Us vs Them, Christian vs Muslim, Packers vs Bears....

Mussolini said it himself:

“Sports are the opiate of the masses!” (Referring to soccer of course! Football by any other name is still football!) 

And that’s why they want sports to continue ( black folks entertaining privileged folks and amatuers risking their lives for no pay so a corrupt system can continue) because what the hell else are people gonna to do? Get together and organize? Stop fighting amongst themselves over petty bullshit like sports? Focus on real change and real community of your fellow citizens, not mindless athletic hedonism, a “plantation sport” and continuing the debacle of Roman coliseums? 

(Interseting that when Mussolini said that, he had a great national team. Hitler could never field a good team, despite all his military conquest! The Austrians destroyed The Nazi team, and would say “it takes only 12 men to beat 2 million Nazis!”
It bugged Hitler to no end, till his last breath.

Compare to the USA- we recently had a German born national Team coach who said “Germany has taken its failed military tactics and applied them to to football pitch with great success” and look how he drove our team into the ground!

we can’t even qualify for a World Cup! 

unless you count the ladies Woot Woot! USA USA!!! Kickin ass and taking names! 

anyone know why the Women so good?
Title 9 ! Government interference in athletics opening the door for women! Darn “socialists” lol 

ironic that many of the best urban programs in our countries history, ones that benefitted public welfare were in fact implemented by actual socialists! OMG!!!!


It’s Amazing what happens when tax money is spent helping the people who paid instead of...what...funding private military corps, arms deals and corporate interests , same corporations who pay no taxes!

my fingers crossed hoping that then next administration has more taxes being spent for people who aren’t genetically gifted super athletes but normal people who are tired of being exploited and basic services for society as a whole! Buot time!


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Hurt god?
> 
> What kind of pushover do they take their higher power for???



Havent you heard? Biden will "hurt god, hurt the bible" (a direct quote). And the current financial troubles is a personal test from God for Trump.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Havent you heard? Biden will "hurt god, hurt the bible" (a direct quote). And the current financial troubles is a personal test from God for Trump.



...i thought Trump was plenty tested and thoroughly failed by the 10 commandments alone?




I have no proof of 5 and 6, but he most certainly cannot pass muster on the rest.


Actually wait, never mind, 6 was that Iranian dude they blew up (even if he could be argued to be deserving, some random dudes died too). And his niece has things to say about 5.


PERFECT SCORE!!! Aced it~


----------



## TedEH

Wuuthrad said:


> This is a side effect of consumerism


I feel like this is something I always can't quite connect the dots on. Whenever there's a discussion that gets even vaguely political there ends up being a throwaway line about how "it's all consumerism's fault" or "it's all because late-stage capitalism" etc. etc., but there's rarely any real connecting argument to explain why that's the case.

It reads to me like a way to try to separate the people from the stupid or malicious things they're doing. It's not their fault - the system made them do it. Except the system is just _more people_. It's not the system's fault. It's people's fault. Without blaming the system we would need to conclude that the source of our problems is human. I prefer not to gloss over the idea that there's real human stupidity and malice at play.

If there's something I'm not understanding, feel free to correct me on this, 'cause I don't otherwise get it.


----------



## sleewell

trump will probably win. I think many ppl checked out long ago and will just vote with their team. I dont think polling reaches everyone and were getting lulled into the same mindset. 

It's easier to distrust and blame the other side rather than admit you got conned. It's easier to think that someone else is to blame for your crappy life than to consider you got misled by someone with more bankruptcies than actual wins in 4 years holding power.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.axios.com/senate-intell...nce-971619a8-a806-470a-9de6-1416220ab35b.html

Manafort dun fucked up


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> https://www.axios.com/senate-intell...nce-971619a8-a806-470a-9de6-1416220ab35b.html
> 
> Manafort dun fucked up




how do you figure? they won the election. he is not in jail. probably will get a pardon. easily can make tons of money hiring someone to write a book for him. 


kinda looks like we all lost and he is doing just fine. guarantee the same thing is happening again. we all know what happened. there are no consequences, no lessons learned, and they won.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

TedEH said:


> I feel like this is something I always can't quite connect the dots on. Whenever there's a discussion that gets even vaguely political there ends up being a throwaway line about how "it's all consumerism's fault" or "it's all because late-stage capitalism" etc. etc., but there's rarely any real connecting argument to explain why that's the case.
> 
> It reads to me like a way to try to separate the people from the stupid or malicious things they're doing. It's not their fault - the system made them do it. Except the system is just _more people_. It's not the system's fault. It's people's fault. Without blaming the system we would need to conclude that the source of our problems is human. I prefer not to gloss over the idea that there's real human stupidity and malice at play.
> 
> If there's something I'm not understanding, feel free to correct me on this, 'cause I don't otherwise get it.




Seems like a perfectly cromulent point to me lol.


----------



## Wuuthrad

TedEH said:


> I feel like this is something I always can't quite connect the dots on. Whenever there's a discussion that gets even vaguely political there ends up being a throwaway line about how "it's all consumerism's fault" or "it's all because late-stage capitalism" etc. etc., but there's rarely any real connecting argument to explain why that's the case.
> 
> It reads to me like a way to try to separate the people from the stupid or malicious things they're doing. It's not their fault - the system made them do it. Except the system is just _more people_. It's not the system's fault. It's people's fault. Without blaming the system we would need to conclude that the source of our problems is human. I prefer not to gloss over the idea that there's real human stupidity and malice at play.
> 
> If there's something I'm not understanding, feel free to correct me on this, 'cause I don't otherwise get it.



I hear and you I don’t know if I can. I used it as a kind of generalization, possibly a theorem, definitely a postulation. 

I wasn’t intending to place all blame an over consumption, but trying to make an example of kens and Karen’s shall we say. 

It think it’s why some people act like petulant children if they can’t get a haircut or buy a latte, or wear a mask when doing so. It’s like their existence is codified by a shopping or product choice, and when the fragility of that self image is challenged the red-veil is pulled over the eyes and they go into rage mode or something. “Fight or flight” “French Fries or Fascist Fries” lol

I absolutely do think people are part of the problem, they create a system and engage in it willfully. It can be a difficult thing to change. I’ll have to get back to this with hopefully more concrete examples later on.


----------



## TedEH

I only call it out because it's occasionally used as a filler for "I don't actually understand something, but I hear people say that capitalism is generally bad for reasons I can't articulate, and if I can blame things on that system I don't have to take any responsibility for or justify my views, because, like, that's just the system, man. Fight the system, man."

I don't think you've actually done that. But I've seen people do that. So my brain kinda lights up whenever I see a comment about consumerism that seems to have come out of nowhere. I think you justified what you meant well enough, and I didn't quite catch it the first time I read the post.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like the Post Master general backed down and no changes to USPS until after the election. It's a start.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Former DHS Chief of Staff Miles Taylor spoke out today on Donald Trump’s comments re. asylum seekers at the border.

“Highlights” include Trump wanting to make the spikes sharper in the fence so that people would cut their hands trying to climb it, and wondering “how hot” he could paint the wall, so that anyone trying to touch it would burn themselves.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> “Highlights” include Trump wanting to make the spikes sharper in the fence so that people would cut their hands trying to climb it, and wondering “how hot” he could paint the wall, so that anyone trying to touch it would burn themselves.



Heyyyyyy let's kick that wall up a notch!!!


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> Heyyyyyy let's kick that wall up a notch!!!


 I think you’ve nailed Trump’s self image! 

I wonder how Melania sees him...


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> I think you’ve nailed Trump’s self image!
> 
> I wonder how Melania sees him...



Infrequently, and rarely, if she has anything to say about it.


----------



## zappatton2

Wuuthrad said:


> “Highlights” include Trump wanting to make the spikes sharper in the fence so that people would cut their hands trying to climb it, and wondering “how hot” he could paint the wall, so that anyone trying to touch it would burn themselves.


 He's clearly drawing from his vast experience on the set of Home Alone.


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> I think you’ve nailed Trump’s self image!
> 
> I wonder how Melania sees him...



I believe patience and tolerance are key career skills for gold diggers... and she's practically the face of the profession


----------



## Rosal76

Wuuthrad said:


> I think you’ve nailed Trump’s self image!



I cannot believe, still to this day, that Trump posted this picture on his Twitter page in 2019. I completely understand if a dedicated Trump supporter would have posted it because fans normally do things to overhype who they like/support, regardless of how ridiculous it may get. But Trump hyping himself in this fashion is just f__king bizarre.


----------



## JSanta

This is what the GOP has turned into:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-primary-loomer-1.5691796

"At Loomer's victory party Tuesday night, according to the Palm Beach Post, she was feted by political provocateur Roger Stone, whose prison sentence for lying to Congress was recently commuted by Trump; right-wing writer and speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, who got fired by the website Breitbart in 2017 after he praised same-sex pedophilia; and Gavin McInnes, the founder of the Proud Boys, a male-only group that describes itself as "Western Chauvinist" but has been deemed a white nationalist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center."


----------



## Wuuthrad

TedEH said:


> I feel like this is something I always can't quite connect the dots on. Whenever there's a discussion that gets even vaguely political there ends up being a throwaway line about how "it's all consumerism's fault" or "it's all because late-stage capitalism" etc. etc., but there's rarely any real connecting argument to explain why that's the case.
> 
> It reads to me like a way to try to separate the people from the stupid or malicious things they're doing. It's not their fault - the system made them do it. Except the system is just _more people_. It's not the system's fault. It's people's fault. Without blaming the system we would need to conclude that the source of our problems is human. I prefer not to gloss over the idea that there's real human stupidity and malice at play.
> 
> If there's something I'm not understanding, feel free to correct me on this, 'cause I don't otherwise get it.



Here’s an example (I apologize for inducing any nausea)


----------



## TedEH

I'll admit you kinda lost me on that one. What's wrong with giant amp collections?

I agree with the general premise that people should be mindful of not allowing symbols and "stuff" define them, but there's a big difference between shopping for status symbols and collecting things as a hobby.


----------



## Wuuthrad

No worries just a joke man.

I guess classic blues rock excess goes over my head?

Maybe somebody with his persona and profile should buy up all the Confederate statues too and put them in a museum? 

Colonel Nerdville? Seems appropriate...


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...lligence-russian-interference-report.amp.html

So are we going to bring up that the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee released a bipartisan report showing that yes, Trump pretty much worked with Russia?


----------



## Wuuthrad

^ More to the point! I have a hard time with this and how it’s practically just ignored, compared to Nixon who resigned over Watergate for example.


----------



## SpaceDock

The disease is spreading even more as two QAnon supporters and now a “Proud Islamaphobe” who doesn’t think Parkland happened are on the Republican ticket for congress.

I know we all like to joke about Trump, but this is real life and how can anyone support these mad conspiracy theorists into Congress is beyond me.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> I know we all like to joke about Trump



We were joking?!


----------



## sleewell

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...th-fraud-by-federal-prosecutors-idUSKBN25G1J4


----------



## Randy

Not sure which version I like better though. Bannon going to jail for fraud, or bonehead Trump supporters losing their wall money in the most predictable way ever.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Not sure which version I like better though. Bannon going to jail for fraud, or bonehead Trump supporters losing their wall money in the most predictable way ever.



Can we just make an exception and add this as a another business he bankrupted?


----------



## budda

narad said:


> Heyyyyyy let's kick that wall up a notch!!!



Except guy Fieri is actually a good dude.


----------



## BigViolin

budda said:


> Except guy Fieri is actually a good dude.



It needs to be said. Dude does a shit ton of community, charity and relief work in this area. As we brace for another terrible fire season, he'll be helping folks out.


----------



## MFB

I'm assuming everyone has heard/seen it already, but if you haven't, look up Shane Torres' bit on Guy Fierri, he calls us all out on it.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Theoretically. I'm not sure how many states have actually *had* in-person voting during the pandemic versus haven't. New York did, and I said I was going to insist on mailing in my ballot but when the time came, just finding a stamp, being worried it would get lost or not be delivered on time led me to just mask up and vote in person. I'm not sure how believable/accurate those surveys are versus reality. I mean, they're worth taking into account but like Max said, questionable hill to die on. Still not sure you guarantee you gain more votes than you lose by disappointing your base to get there.


I don't see this as a "hill to die on" exactly - this isn't The Last Stand of the Democratic Party, or at least I hope to god it isn't - but I see it as both unquestionably the right thing to do - the USPS is a valuable and well liked US government service after all - and from a purely political standpoint, a necessary defense. 

I think the political argument (since the "right thing to do" argument is pretty self-evident) is that Trump clearly believes limiting mail in voting is going to give him an edge, because 
1) long lines in polling places are going to be most common in urban areas, and in particular majority-minority urban areas, thanks to recent gutting of the Civil Rights Act. Urban areas have been hit harder by COVID than rural areas, mironity populations have been hit harder than white populations, and both correlate strongly with voting Democratic. Voters in urban and majority-minority urban districts, in particular, will be spending more time out in public waiting in line to vote, and will be running a higher risk of exposure. 
2) Republicans are far more likely, statistically speaking, to view COVID as "just the flu" or "a liberal hoax" than Democrats. 
3) unrelated to demographics - intentionally fucking up the operations of the USPS is a pretty high-risk strategy for a sitting president, especially since while the _electoral _impact seems likely to be concentrated in the cities, the USPS is a lifeline for many rural Americans who depend on the USPS as a cheap method of package delivery. Three months out from the election, many Americans are already feeling the impact of long delays in mail delivery, and likely won't be happy about it. Trump's tweet a while back about "save the post office!" suggests that maybe he's keyed into the risks here more than it might appear, or merely belatedly playing defense, but if the Democrats are drawing a line in the sand to protect the post office while Trump is seen (with justification) as trying to disrupt it and gut it for short term political aims, that's not a great look for Trump. 



sleewell said:


> trump will probably win. I think many ppl checked out long ago and will just vote with their team. I dont think polling reaches everyone and were getting lulled into the same mindset.
> 
> It's easier to distrust and blame the other side rather than admit you got conned. It's easier to think that someone else is to blame for your crappy life than to consider you got misled by someone with more bankruptcies than actual wins in 4 years holding power.



As of right now, I don't think he's especially likely to win, and I don't see much evidence for any of this. 

1) "voting for their team" - the 2018 midterms and special elections over the last three and a half years have suggested this isn't the case, or rather that there's been some significant team re-alignment, with the joke being that any discussion over how moderate Republicans in the suburbs will vote is all academic now because they're now all Democrats anyway. Republicans have underperformed badly in virtually all special elections and midterm elections since Trump's win, which thus far has cost the GOP the House as well as a lot of state elections that shouldn't have been in play. Trump has been an incredibly polarizing national figure, and seems to have cut GOP support down to its core, by repeated plays to his base rather than attempts to broaden it. 
2) "I don't think polling reaches everyone" Pollsters, good ones anyhow, work extremely hard to ensure they're working with reliable samples. Polling in elections since 2016 has been pretty decent, and while Trump's win was a surprise in 2016, that was mostly a failure in analysis and interpretation - national polls called the margin almost perfectly, with the popular vote falling within most aggregators' margin of error around their weighted averages. The polling was actually pretty _good_, it's just it was badly misunderstood. 
3) "It's easier to distrust and blame the other side than admit you got conned" Yeah, but over three and a half years, it's hard not to notice things have gotten worse, and I mean while you might have had a harder case to make back in February, let's not forget we're in the middle of a recession thanks to a pandemic that's killing far more Americans than virtually any other country. Coupled with the fact that Trump has basically pushed all moderates out of the party... His base will stick with him, but his base isn't big enough to win.


----------



## spudmunkey

Now that the Postal Service was involved in Bannon's arrest on a $28m yacht, I suspect some intresting tweets from Trump, if he hasn't already gone nuclear.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Now that the Postal Service was involved in Bannon's arrest on a $28m yacht, I suspect some intresting tweets from Trump, if he hasn't already gone nuclear.



He's more worried about the Obama's hiring his feelings.
No. Seriously.


----------



## spudmunkey

"Ha, look how stupid Michelle Obama looks. In her pre-recorded speech, she said 150,000 deaths. Doesn't she look stupid, because it's 170,000? She must feel so embarassed for herself..."


----------



## sleewell

Recap:

2016 trump: we are going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it

2018 trump: we are going to build that wall but the us taxpayers need to pay for it. 

2018 steve bannon: hey let's start a go fund me to get that wall but I'm just going to steal all the money.

2020 trump: I barely knew my former campaign manager and white house adviser so that's no indication I had anything to do with this build a wall scam. I never said anything about building a wall.

2020 trump fans: man I love trump. He is the greatest. That go fund me scam for the wall really owns the libs.


----------



## Adieu

Well, i DO feel utterly dejected and humiliated 

...how did I not think of this scam first?!?!?


----------



## SpaceDock

Only thing that would have been better would be a Ban Abortion go fund me where all the money goes to Planned Parenthood.


----------



## Ralyks

So that was a pretty damn good speech from Biden.


----------



## Randy

Would've stuck this in the Democratic Primary thread since that's my default Democrat bitching thread but I just read NYS is not just foregoing the $100 share of the EO Unemployment boost but they're foregoing the whole $300 from the fed as well. 

Cuomo likely having to clarify this within the next few days, because the initial interview he gave on it was awful. He said nope no unemployment boost because we're so deep in the hole on the budget, the interviewer corrected him that the $300 comes direct from the fed and he said the answer is still no because he trusts FEMA less that he trusts a 'bookie' 

https://fingerlakes1.com/2020/08/19...utlined-by-trumps-executive-order-cuomo-says/


----------



## Adieu

Fellow Americans and other assorted US Denizens!!

Awaken to the fact that you too, like most of the rest of the world, live in a bullshit bogus banana republic where everybody goes on tv and runs their mouth and it doesn't mean shit-all... especially when it comes to promises of money for political theatre.


Enjoy~


----------



## Adieu

PS and, on a side note, Donald is just so damn small-time.


Hitler promised Volkswagens and never delivered. Putin promised everybody houses and never delivered. Lenin, Stalin, and the Kim family promised a communist utopia and never delivered.

The Donald....promised a pointless fence in the ass end of nowhere and three-fourths of $400.


...and never delivered. LOL.


----------



## sleewell

literally nothing moves the needle. people are so far in their bubbles they just don't even hear or care.

was on a conference call this morning. someone made a dumb comment about biden so i brought up the go fund me wall scam and everyone acted like they never even heard about it. it was insane.

it feels like we are living in an alternate reality where nothing matters.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> literally nothing moves the needle. people are so far in their bubbles they just don't even hear or care.
> 
> was on a conference call this morning. someone made a dumb comment about biden so i brought up the go fund me wall scam and everyone acted like they never even heard about it. it was insane.
> 
> it feels like we are living in an alternate reality where nothing matters.



Even though the right mostly use the term, I call them normies. I'm always trying to look at stuff through the lens of people who don't follow the news at all, just whatever they get from conversation at work or maybe what comes across their screen on social media. In that context, I bet most people don't even know there was a go fund me for the wall or some don't even know it never got built.


----------



## sleewell

so they knew biden gave the convention speech last night but they didn't hear that a high ranking former white house employee committed massive fraud that was aimed at fleecing trump supporters? 

i get not following the news but it seems odd to have such an intentionally selective grasp of what is happening. its like they wanted to talk about the news if it was negative about biden but suddenly didn't want to talk about obvious fraud aimed at folks on their side.


----------



## Randy

The dude that brought up Biden absolutely knew what he was doing, I just meant any onlookers that get easily confused by specifics and stuff they don't hear from their loud uncle.

It's an election year and the most polarized at least in my lifetime, so I don't think there's any such thing as an undecided voter right now. So I do think you're going to have a lot of willful ignorance and people who are very selective about where they get their news from, and those sources are very selective about what stories they'll cover.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Julia Louis Dreyfus is cool but I felt it was sorta cringy and unflattering for the DNC regarding her comedic jabs. Idk... Just seemed unnecessary.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> So that was a pretty damn good speech from Biden.



Yeah, even Fox news took note of it.



> Presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden closed out the Democratic National Convention with a powerful acceptance speech on Thursday. In fact, the speech even impressed the hosts and _Fox News Democracy 2020_ analysts like, Brit Hume, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace.
> 
> Hume said, “It was a very good speech, I thought, delivered with force and clarity by him.” While earlier in the program, Baier said, “He is not known for his public speaking, but this, having seen him speak on the stump many, many times, was the best he has been as far as his delivery.”
> 
> While Hume believes the speech will impact Biden’s polling numbers in a positive way, Wallace pointed out that it may also undermine a popular talking point of President Trump.
> 
> “I thought it was enormously effective,” said Wallace. “Remember, Donald Trump has been talking for months about Joe Biden as mentally shot, a captive of the Left. And yes, Biden was reading from the teleprompter and a prepared speech but I thought that he blew a hole, a big hole in the characterization.”


----------



## Boofchuck

Randy said:


> The dude that brought up Biden absolutely knew what he was doing, I just meant any onlookers that get easily confused by specifics and stuff they don't hear from their loud uncle.
> 
> It's an election year and the most polarized at least in my lifetime, so I don't think there's any such thing as an undecided voter right now. So I do think you're going to have a lot of willful ignorance and people who are very selective about where they get their news from, and those sources are very selective about what stories they'll cover.


This. I don't have the energy to discuss current events with some people because they literally receive all of their news from screenshot headlines on Instagram. No further thought, no research, no nuance.


----------



## Adieu

Boofchuck said:


> This. I don't have the energy to discuss current events with some people because they literally receive all of their news from screenshot headlines on Instagram. No further thought, no research, no nuance.




...as opposed to us intellectual elites, who get their news from the politics section of a metal guitar forum, 2-5 youtube channel subscriptions, and an old May issue of The Economist on the shelf next to the spare-but-borderline-unuseable Chinese offbrand TP in the crapper????


----------



## USMarine75

tedtan said:


> Yeah, even Fox news took note of it.



Brit and Chris are Fox News division, not the editorial division. So they are more reputable by a wide margin than the likes of Tucker and Hannity.

Both Tucker and Hannity trashed the entire DNC event as well as Biden's speech. Particularly disgusting was Tucker going after both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden. He literally has the most punchable face on TV.


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> Brit and Chris are Fox News division, not the editorial division. So they are more reputable by a wide margin than the likes of Tucker and Hannity.
> 
> Both Tucker and Hannity trashed the entire DNC event as well as Biden's speech. Particularly disgusting was Tucker going after both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden. He literally has the most punchable face on TV.



Exactly, the opinion pundits during prime time is where the trash pile burns strong.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Would've stuck this in the Democratic Primary thread since that's my default Democrat bitching thread but I just read NYS is not just foregoing the $100 share of the EO Unemployment boost but they're foregoing the whole $300 from the fed as well.
> 
> Cuomo likely having to clarify this within the next few days, because the initial interview he gave on it was awful. He said nope no unemployment boost because we're so deep in the hole on the budget, the interviewer corrected him that the $300 comes direct from the fed and he said the answer is still no because he trusts FEMA less that he trusts a 'bookie'
> 
> https://fingerlakes1.com/2020/08/19...utlined-by-trumps-executive-order-cuomo-says/


I haven't followe4d the specifics here as closely as I'd have liked to, but I understand by shuffling existing CARES Act funding around, Trump was likely able to extend PUA benefits for at most maybe four weeks. I don't know how long states would be required to continue to make payments, but I could see the federal money drying up and them being on the hook for the full $400 being a concern. 

Also, as I understand, the choice presented to Cuomo was a false one - states have to make a $100 payment to be eligible for the $300 in Fed funding, so it's not like NY could sit on the sidelines and not pay themselves, but NY citizens could still get $300 from the federal government. Remember that under the CARES act the entire $600 pandemic unemployment assistance came from the federal government, in addition to whatever state unemployment insurance was being provided (which included some federal money but primarily was paid by the states). So, what Trump is doing, is saying that the states have to continue to pay normal unemployment insurance, _plus_ another $100, in order to be eligible for a further $300/per person from the Federal government, stretching the state finances even further, with no expectations that the money will last more than another month. 

That said, yeah, he could have probably done a better job describing it.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I haven't followe4d the specifics here as closely as I'd have liked to, but I understand by shuffling existing CARES Act funding around, Trump was likely able to extend PUA benefits for at most maybe four weeks. I don't know how long states would be required to continue to make payments, but I could see the federal money drying up and them being on the hook for the full $400 being a concern.
> 
> Also, as I understand, the choice presented to Cuomo was a false one - states have to make a $100 payment to be eligible for the $300 in Fed funding, so it's not like NY could sit on the sidelines and not pay themselves, but NY citizens could still get $300 from the federal government. Remember that under the CARES act the entire $600 pandemic unemployment assistance came from the federal government, in addition to whatever state unemployment insurance was being provided (which included some federal money but primarily was paid by the states). So, what Trump is doing, is saying that the states have to continue to pay normal unemployment insurance, _plus_ another $100, in order to be eligible for a further $300/per person from the Federal government, stretching the state finances even further, with no expectations that the money will last more than another month.
> 
> That said, yeah, he could have probably done a better job describing it.



My understanding is that the $100 additional is optional, based on some articles I read saying most states took the $300/wk and a couple (three as of last night) offered the additional $100/wk. The fact Cuomo is one of only two states so far to outrightly reject the option leads me to believe it's not the most common sense approach. I've gotta assume there's some political gamesmanship afoot here, since his primary complain is the fiscal shape of the state and the hold up on along term PUA extension is disagreement over state aid. Cuomo might be the third part of the triangle leveraging over this, Pelosi (HoR), Schumer (Senate) and Cuomo (states/governors).


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My understanding is that the $100 additional is optional, based on some articles I read saying most states took the $300/wk and a couple (three as of last night) offered the additional $100/wk. The fact Cuomo is one of only two states so far to outrightly reject the option leads me to believe it's not the most common sense approach. I've gotta assume there's some political gamesmanship afoot here, since his primary complain is the fiscal shape of the state and the hold up on along term PUA extension is disagreement over state aid. Cuomo might be the third part of the triangle leveraging over this, Pelosi (HoR), Schumer (Senate) and Cuomo (states/governors).


Some poking round google suggests you may be right. It looks like the governors of NY and KY are teaming up to press Congress to do somehting, though, so this definitely could be part of an attempt to apply political pressure. 

Which, considering how short term this patch is, if it works, then great.


----------



## Boofchuck

Adieu said:


> ...as opposed to us intellectual elites, who get their news from the politics section of a metal guitar forum, 2-5 youtube channel subscriptions, and an old May issue of The Economist on the shelf next to the spare-but-borderline-unuseable Chinese offbrand TP in the crapper????


Yes.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Some poking round google suggests you may be right. It looks like the governors of NY and KY are teaming up to press Congress to do somehting, though, so this definitely could be part of an attempt to apply political pressure.
> 
> Which, considering how short term this patch is, if it works, then great.



We'll see, would be great if it works but two or three states out of 50 isn't a lot of leverage. I saw a number of articles yesterday saying the pandemic assistance long term fix could be months away, which would be very bad news for everybody. I've been hearing Democratic leadership pushing necessity of their demands but I haven't heard any renewed urgency, which is concerning.


----------



## Randy

Forgive NYP link but it looks like Cuomo reversed course on this one

https://nypost.com/2020/08/21/post-report-shames-cuomo-into-asking-trump-for-unemployment-help/


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Forgive NYP link but it looks like Cuomo reversed course on this one
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/08/21/post-report-shames-cuomo-into-asking-trump-for-unemployment-help/



great! Well be broke in a month! Yknow, unless Congress gets it shit together.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/22/politics/trump-fda-coronavirus-vaccine/index.html



> President Donald Trump on Saturday accused, without providing any evidence, the US Food and Drug Administration of deliberately delaying coronavirus vaccine trials, pressuring the man he had picked to head the agency.
> 
> "The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult for drug companies to get people in order to test the vaccines and therapeutics," Trump tweeted, continuing to push his unfounded theory that there is a "deep state" embedded within the government bureaucracy working against his reelection. He accused the agency of delaying a vaccine for the virus until after the fall election, tweeting, "Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd. Must focus on speed, and saving lives!" Trump ended his tweet by tagging the Twitter account of FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, who he nominated last year to take up the role.



I can't wait till Trump drains the swamp of all these Obama libtard dimocrats.


----------



## Ralyks

So now two of my teacher friends have told me Trump has silently cut 20% of school budgets.
And thats the non-Covid reason schools are going virtual. They’re now too poor.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> So now two of my teacher friends have told me Trump has silently cut 20% of school budgets.
> And thats the non-Covid reason schools are going virtual. They’re now too poor.



Obviously the rich deserve proper private “education” duh....


----------



## SpaceDock

Trumps going to announce some Covid cure/therapeutic “breakthrough” today at 6pm after railing on the deep state in the FDA yesterday.

Taking bets now, I will bet: My Pillow Oleander pills, Miracle Mineral Supplement (bleach pills pushed by QAnon), or my new favorite SoClean for cleaning your lungs with activated oxygen (ozone)!


----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> I bet most people don't even know there was a go fund me for the wall


I was about to say that I was only aware of this because of this forum until...



Adieu said:


> ...as opposed to us intellectual elites, who get their news from the politics section of a metal guitar forum




The whole personal bubble / echo chamber effect is strong enough that it seems no two people I encounter share any of the same understanding or knowledge of anything political at all. Tons and tons of people just don't know their politics outside of the random snippets that make it in front of their faces thanks to facebook or something. If you don't spend a lot of time looking into things deliberately, you basically know nothing about what's going on. Not even enough to know how much you don't know. And I won't pretend I'm not in that camp. The things I know about politics are from this forum, random facebook and youtube snippets, and.... I guess that's about it.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> Trumps going to announce some Covid cure/therapeutic “breakthrough” today at 6pm after railing on the deep state in the FDA yesterday.
> 
> Taking bets now, I will bet: My Pillow Oleander pills, Miracle Mineral Supplement (bleach pills pushed by QAnon), or my new favorite SoClean for cleaning your lungs with activated oxygen (ozone)!



https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/23...authorize-blood-plasma-as-covid-19-treatment/

Fucking blood plasma.


----------



## spudmunkey

The FDA is holding back in their approval of using it, because supply is very limited, you may have to administer it as early as within 3 days of diagnosis, and the Mayo Clinic study that seemed to have some positive results, didn't have a placebo group.

Seems Trump may be issuing some sort of emergency authorization. For him, the only bad scenario would be if it's found later to not be successful, while the supply dwindles and there are shortages. Every other scenario, he gets to appear on top, since there's little chance that the treatment could make things worse.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> https://www.statnews.com/2020/08/23...authorize-blood-plasma-as-covid-19-treatment/
> 
> Fucking blood plasma.



Would like to point out that I said this about four months ago. Somebody fetch me my lab coat!


----------



## SpaceDock

I think we might be better off if the US was run by sevenstring moderators instead of Trump.


----------



## MFB

SpaceDock said:


> I think we might be better off if the US was run by sevenstring moderators instead of Trump.



Sure, NGDs on the oval office couch would be neat, but do you think Technomancer could be trusted with the entire treasury's finances? Fort Knox would be cleared out in a second.


----------



## Adieu

Wait wait wait....they're rolling out treatment with blood-as-vaccine and they didn't even test it against a control group????

The hell???


----------



## Randy

Also, we're all assholes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Also, we're all assholes.



Co-signed.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Co-signed.



Where were you when I wanted to refinance my student loans?


----------



## SpaceDock

Can you build the wall of amps?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Where were you when I wanted to refinance my student loans?



I'm an asshole not a moron.


----------



## Ralyks

Kellyanne Conway leaving the White House at the end of the month. George stepping away from Lincoln project and Twitter as well.

Did we get a bingo yet?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Kellyanne Conway leaving the White House at the end of the month. George stepping away from Lincoln project and Twitter as well.
> 
> Did we get a bingo yet?



I'm betting there's an indictment with at least one of thier names on it coming down the pike. Possibly related to this crowd-sourcing scheme.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm an asshole not a moron.



Like there's any difference in the OT subforums


----------



## sleewell

1/3 of RNC convention speeches will be given by a person who has admitted criminal theft from a charity and who can no longer operate a charity as a result.


----------



## Adieu

sleewell said:


> 1/3 of RNC convention speeches will be given by a person who has admitted criminal theft from a charity and who can no longer operate a charity as a result.



Who cares?

We already have a Russian asset in the oval and a rapist in the supreme court don't we? What's a little borrowing from the collection plate after all that?

Oh and wasn't the EPA head honcho some climate denier? Or did he get fired already?


----------



## SpaceDock

^ exactly, Republicans don’t care. They say 175k deaths are “acceptable.” It’s all about tribalism and nothing else; where they go one, they go all.


----------



## Randy

It's Trump's party now (or at least will be until he loses and abandons them). They even said there's no 2020 platform, it's just whatever Trump says.


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> It's Trump's party now (or at least will be until he loses and abandons them). They even said there's no 2020 platform, it's just whatever Trump says.



They actually released a huge "platform" yesterday, saying it was Trump's "second term goals." It's full of stuff that will sound wildly appealing to moderates, as long as they don't realize a lot of it is obvious lies. Especially the health care section and the "drain the swamp."

https://t.co/aI1wQ78rrz


----------



## Randy

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/r...-of-full-support-for-trumps-agenda-2020-08-23

I guess there's a gap in terminologies

“The RNC has unanimously voted to forego the Convention Committee on Platform, in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement,” the RNC said.

The RNC said if it had been able to meet more traditionally, they “would have undoubtedly unanimously agreed to reassert the party’s strong support for President Donald Trump and his administration,” and resolved that “the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the president’s America-first agenda” and “will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Watching the USPS hearing... The US government is one stunningly complete Cluster Fuck. This country is just a fucking joke. Know your enemy.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jeff-flake-former-gop-congress-biden

https://us.cnn.com/2020/08/24/politics/trump-maryanne-conway-former-officials/index.html

Keep your enemies close, and your enemies closer.


----------



## tedtan

USMarine75 said:


> Brit and Chris are Fox News division, not the editorial division. So they are more reputable by a wide margin than the likes of Tucker and Hannity.
> 
> Both Tucker and Hannity trashed the entire DNC event as well as Biden's speech. Particularly disgusting was Tucker going after both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden. He literally has the most punchable face on TV.



Understood, but I was still surprised that they presented his speech as "I thought it was enormously effective... Donald Trump has been talking for months about Joe Biden as mentally shot... but I thought that he blew a hole, a big hole in the characterization" rather than leaving it at "Joe Biden read his speech from a teleprompter".


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> The FDA is holding back in their approval of using it, because supply is very limited, you may have to administer it as early as within 3 days of diagnosis, and the Mayo Clinic study that seemed to have some positive results, didn't have a placebo group.
> 
> Seems Trump may be issuing some sort of emergency authorization. For him, the only bad scenario would be if it's found later to not be successful, while the supply dwindles and there are shortages. Every other scenario, he gets to appear on top, since there's little chance that the treatment could make things worse.





Adieu said:


> Wait wait wait....they're rolling out treatment with blood-as-vaccine and they didn't even test it against a control group????
> 
> The hell???



The tricky thing here too, is thanks to Trump's order, it's going to be a lot harder to find out if it's actually effective, now. A true statistically valid test requires a good sized sample and a control group given a placebo, naturally. Bloomberg News did a piece on it this morning, where they noted even the presence of the Mayo Clinic "study" without a control has made this tough, because patients had the choice of enrolling in a study and getting a 50% shot at a treatment that might be effective but might not be, or just going to Mayo and getting a 100% chance of getting a treatment where there was some anecdotal evidence it might help, but no one knew for sure. Now, if patients can just request it anywhere, finding volunteers with severe symptoms who are willing to take a chance they may be treated with a placebo is going to be incredibly hard. One study they noted said they'd managed to get 190 of a planned 300 volunteers, and with this announcement it was really hard to see where they'd find a final 110.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## Drew

So, in today's improbable news, Richard Spencer just endorsed Joe Biden, saying that "the MAGA/alt-right moment is over," and "liberals are clearly more competent." 

https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-maga-1527141

I'm having a hard time taking this at face value, but I also can't really see what Spencer's ulterior motives could be here - a head-fake to try to convince Trump supporters that _Biden_ is the neo-nazi? Seems like that would only help his crossover appeal with the GOP.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Drew said:


> So, in today's improbable news, Richard Spencer just endorsed Joe Biden, saying that "the MAGA/alt-right moment is over," and "liberals are clearly more competent."
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-maga-1527141
> 
> I'm having a hard time taking this at face value, but I also can't really see what Spencer's ulterior motives could be here - a head-fake to try to convince Trump supporters that _Biden_ is the neo-nazi? Seems like that would only help his crossover appeal with the GOP.



lol That is some "Flashpoint Barry Allen has fd-up the timeline once again" kinda schtick.


----------



## Science_Penguin

Drew said:


> So, in today's improbable news, Richard Spencer just endorsed Joe Biden, saying that "the MAGA/alt-right moment is over," and "liberals are clearly more competent."
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/richard-spencer-joe-biden-trump-maga-1527141
> 
> I'm having a hard time taking this at face value, but I also can't really see what Spencer's ulterior motives could be here - a head-fake to try to convince Trump supporters that _Biden_ is the neo-nazi? Seems like that would only help his crossover appeal with the GOP.



Apparently, as much as he'd love that ethnostate, it ain't worth it if Trump's in charge.

That's... Kinda beautiful.


----------



## wankerness

I would say 10% chance what you're saying is true, 90% chance he's just trolling and trying to get his name attached to Biden's campaign to help Trump. I'm already seeing conservatives going WHY WON'T BIDEN DENOUNCE IT?! *someone posts link to him denouncing it* WELL THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a-bc79-834454439a44_story.html?outputType=amp

Looks like NY is getting the lub ready.


----------



## Necris

Drew said:


> I'm having a hard time taking this at face value, but I also can't really see what Spencer's ulterior motives could be here -



The simple interpretation is probably: "Racist grifter finds a new way to attract media attention and get eyes on his cause." 

The other option is that the "ulterior motive" could be accelerationism.
Many white supremacists who subscribe to the idea of creating an all white ethnostate, as Spencer does, are accelerationists: in other words they want to achieve what they see as the inevitable collapse of our society as quickly as possible so they can build their ideal society from the ashes.
If you look at it from the perspective of a far-right extremist it might look like we're something of a win/win situation right now. There are lots of militants desperately awaiting the "boogaloo" (a new civil war) and, in an extremists mind, a Biden win might actually mobilize the right to armed insurrection against the state. (The whole "if x happens then the people will wake up and join me" line of thinking that's common with extremists.)
A vote for Biden may be simple pragmatism, since you're not voting for a president, you're voting to expedite the arrival of a civil war and societal collapse. A Trump win means you get 4 more years of Trump, and civil unrest certainly doesn't seem to be slowing.

I'd prefer the guy just get punched back into obscurity again.


----------



## Adieu

...lovely.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Hold on a minute, somebody on this talking head puppeteer display (pick your color of choice) just said that a “vote for Trump will protect your God Given birth-right to protect you, your family and your property”

Basically as far as I understand (having read the King James and Satanic Bible, mostly for informational/educational purposes) Trump is advocating killing people with guns cuz “God” said so! Please correct me if I’m wrong, but...

Yeeeeehaawwww


Metalheads unite! Trump is a actually a Satanist! Whheeeeeeee!!


----------



## Ralyks

How I've interpreted what I've read about the RNC night one from the various sources I've read:

Republicans: The Democrats will destroy everything!

Me: Ok. So, what exactly is your agenda for the next 4 years?

Republicans: .... They'll kick your pets!

I don't think I even got anything from FOX of all places.


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> Hold on a minute, somebody on this talking head puppeteer display (pick your color of choice) just said that a “vote for Trump will protect your God Given birth-right to protect you, your family and your property”
> 
> Basically as far as I understand (having read the King James and Satanic Bible, mostly for informational/educational purposes) Trump is advocating killing people with guns cuz “God” said so! Please correct me if I’m wrong, but...
> 
> Yeeeeehaawwww
> 
> 
> Metalheads unite! Trump is a actually a Satanist! Whheeeeeeee!!



Their reply is that all rights are god-given, and that anything else is restrictions of some kind. The 1st and 2nd ammendment, for example, are just attempts to especially call out certain rights which you already have, but they felt deserved specific attention/protection.


----------



## sleewell

They cant write an agenda. thats why they didnt even bother with a platform this year. trump changes his mind on a whim so if something is written down they soon could be supporting the opposite position they had written down.

It's a party without beliefs. It's a party of one person, worshiping him above anything else. It is a cult. You cannot have a position other than whatever trump says. He is dear leader and we should all support him and do whatever he says. Only he can save us from the mess he has put us in.


----------



## Randy




----------



## MFB

Consider my monster succesfully grown


----------



## sleewell

she ripped her entire speech from dwight haha


----------



## Randy

Not to invoke Godwin's Law but it was little Hitlerish. I mean, partially the content itself with all the idol worship and nationalism (but that's mostly because it sounded like it was written by DJT, based on the goofishness) but mostly the waving hands and shouting. Yelling at people that their county is being taken away and yelling at them that they love their country and their leader. It's actually surprising she has any background as a broadcaster because the metering and modulation was so all over the place, ooph.


----------



## wankerness

sleewell said:


> They cant write an agenda. thats why they didnt even bother with a platform this year. trump changes his mind on a whim so if something is written down they soon could be supporting the opposite position they had written down.
> 
> It's a party without beliefs. It's a party of one person, worshiping him above anything else. It is a cult. You cannot have a position other than whatever trump says. He is dear leader and we should all support him and do whatever he says. Only he can save us from the mess he has put us in.



Here's a pretty good, pretty long article basically saying the same thing:

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> Not to invoke Godwin's Law but it was little Hitlerish. I mean, partially the content itself with all the idol worship and nationalism (but that's mostly because it sounded like it was written by DJT, based on the goofishness) but mostly the waving hands and shouting. Yelling at people that their county is being taken away and yelling at them that they love their country and their leader. It's actually surprising she has any background as a broadcaster because the metering and modulation was so all over the place, ooph.



She's such a transparent fame-whore. How does she reconcile being the former first lady of San Francisco with being Maga Queen? Why am I even asking


----------



## gunch

wankerness said:


> Here's a pretty good, pretty long article basically saying the same thing:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039



I tried asking myself that same question and couldn't come up with an answer. Any kind of playing the devils advocate or trying to understand the other side currently is just 

????

Baffling and terrifying. Like watching that video of the pig dying of a brain aneurysm.


----------



## Drew

Science_Penguin said:


> Apparently, as much as he'd love that ethnostate, it ain't worth it if Trump's in charge.
> 
> That's... Kinda beautiful.


The "the left is simply more competent" is kind of nice, isn't it.



wankerness said:


> I would say 10% chance what you're saying is true, 90% chance he's just trolling and trying to get his name attached to Biden's campaign to help Trump. I'm already seeing conservatives going WHY WON'T BIDEN DENOUNCE IT?! *someone posts link to him denouncing it* WELL THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH!


The problem with this line of reasoning is that this is pretty good rhetoric for Trump's base, and they're fluent enough in doublespeak that there's no conflict with denouncing Biden for taking a few hours to denounce the endorsement of a racist while voting for a racist, but I do't see how this actually _helps _Trump. Like, the same sort of conservative who wants Biden to denounce this, and then is still outraged when he does, is pretty much already a done deal for voting for Trump. He's not likely to convince many moderate Republicans (such as remain) or true independents with this line of reasoning, you know? 

I think more plausible is he's a rat who just realized Donald J Trump is a sinking ship.


----------



## sleewell

so american airlines is set to layoff about 19k employees after taking a huge covid bailout. i am sure more companies will soon be doing the same.

the bailout scam strikes again. just give the money right to the people, cut the execs out of the equation entirely. they had many massively profitable years and spent all of those profits on stock buybacks. instead of having a rainy day fund for something like this they just rely on free money from the govt and still layoff huge numbers of people.

insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

we are in the middle of the biggest transfer of wealth in history.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> so american airlines is set to layoff about 19k employees after taking a huge covid bailout. i am sure more companies will soon be doing the same.
> 
> the bailout scam strikes again. just give the money right to the people, cut the execs out of the equation entirely. they had many massively profitable years and spent all of those profits on stock buybacks. instead of having a rainy day fund for something like this they just rely on free money from the govt and still layoff huge numbers of people.
> 
> insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
> 
> we are in the middle of the biggest transfer of wealth in history.


Ok, but what _should_ they be doing here?

Look up at the sky. How many vapor trails do you see? How often have you seen an airplane in the sky? How many people do you know who hve flown in an airplane in the last two months?

Air travel has "recovered" domestically, sure, but to maybe something like 20% of pre-covid levels. There's every expectation that there will come a time, maybe in 6 months, maybe in 2 years, when we have a vaccine and it's safe to move about the country freely again when demand for air travel will recover, and when it does, we need airlines, we need airplanes, we need airports, and we need people to fly them. So, we need to keep the airlines from going under, or we need to nationalize them so profitability doesn't matter, and right now there's no appetite to nationalize them.

But what we _don't _need, right now, is crews to fly plans, or customer service agents to check people into flights or answer questions about itineraries. So, a firm that employs 133,000 people is laying of 19,000 who would have been laid off previously but had been kept on the payroll through Oct 1st, at which time federal aid that had helped them continue to pay their salaries expired.

So, I mean, I don'y want to be insensitive here... but what SHOULD a company whose revenue has suddenly dropped 80% do with tens of thousand employees who have no job to do, if not lay them off and bring them back on when they have actual work that can be done? American could pay them with money that they're_ not_ getting from the federal government, or furlough them, preserve their cash, and let them collect unemployment benefits while they don't work while this blows over. We have unemloyment for a reason, and that reason is to not force companies to pay people to do work that there's no demand for.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> so american airlines is set to layoff about 19k employees after taking a huge covid bailout. i am sure more companies will soon be doing the same.
> 
> the bailout scam strikes again. just give the money right to the people, cut the execs out of the equation entirely. they had many massively profitable years and spent all of those profits on stock buybacks. instead of having a rainy day fund for something like this they just rely on free money from the govt and still layoff huge numbers of people.
> 
> insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
> 
> we are in the middle of the biggest transfer of wealth in history.



It's a cliche at this point but the talking point is true, you're seeing a fundamental erosion of the middle class. And as much as the simple explanation villainizes the mega-wealthy and ends there, what you actually have is a _separation_ of the classes. It's hard to draw it on a specific dollar value because incomes vary so much depending on where you live but taking where I am in NY, there's a fundamental life experience difference between what someone's experiencing on $25,000 to $45,000/yr. and what somebody's experience is like at $150,000 to $250,000/yr.

It's always been that yeah, a better job and 'climbing the ladder' or getting an education meant a more comfortable life but that meant driving a nicer car, having a bigger house, having more toys, living in a nicer neighborhood or going on more vacations. When you talk about class separation in the US (besides even talking about ultra-rich), now you're talking about whether or not you can even afford to own your home, or own your car, whether or not a medical issue bankrupts you, etc.

I've shared the story before but it's worth reminding every once in a while. My grand-in-laws both worked assembly line jobs at the local food plant, they bought their house for $4,000 back in the 40s and paid it off in less than 10 years, they owned three vacation properties and an income property, raised three kids and when they retired, they both had pensions they *still* get monthly payments from at 95+ years old, along with stocks that pay out regular dividends and other stuff I'm sure I'm forgetting. All on an income they made at a almost zero skill, non-management level job that they could walk to from their house.

The mega wealthy are a huge target, and I don't believe in attacking anyone just because they make more/less than you do (I make an exception for people like Bezos that are robber baron-esque though) but if we're going to discuss who's losing in this economy, you gotta get into the full picture.

TBH, the $600/wk. unemployment probably moved the needle on income equality more than any long term policy has in the last 40+ years. Keeping in mind, however, people like my friend who worked through the pandemic as an essential worker and was still making <$400 a week. Not that you were ever going to fix class separation with band aid legislation in the midst of a pandemic but it's like Congress passed PUA out of fundamentally not understanding how much less than $600/wk. a lot of people make because of their out-of-touchness and only reining it in after the bosses started complaining to them they couldn't keep up with it.

The problem isn't/wasn't that PUA incentivized people to stay unemployed, the problem is that the jobs they were going back to are so terrible.

Places like American Airlines and even much smaller companies shouldn't have been getting that money to make payroll. It should have been heavily weighted EIDL's with low barrier to become grants, and hazard pay directly to workers from day one. The fact things like PUA and hazard pay got poo-poo'd but PPP and others got three or more full phases tells the story right there. PUA: "we've been giving too much money to too many people" PPP: "we need to give more money to less people"


----------



## sleewell

so we basically borrowed/printed in excessive of 5 trillion dollars to bailout companies that now still need to layoff people. the ppp program had so much fraud it was insane. lobbyists, congressmen, mega churches, celebrities, owners of pro sports teams, etc... - it was the rich and connected getting free money and us being told it will hopefully trickle down. great for yacht sales and super car sales; not so great for regular people.

wouldn't it have been smarter/more effective to have just used that same amount of money for a version of universal basic income with no corporate bailouts? i think we could all have gotten more money and for more months than getting to the end of august and still laying people off when the increased unemployment benefit has already run out. that 5 trillion is basically gone. i think we could have made it longer with a better plan but it would not have diverted as much money to the 1%.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

I watched the Republican Convention last night out of curiosity. No platform whatsoever, only pandering to Nationalism and a cult of personality. It honestly felt like watching the beginnings of Purge 2020. 

"...Blessed be our new founding fathers and America... A nation reborn. May God be with you all."


----------



## sleewell

MASS DEFECT said:


> I watched the Republican Convention last night out of curiosity. No platform whatsoever, only pandering to Nationalism and a cult of personality. It honestly felt like watching the beginnings of Purge 2020.
> 
> "...Blessed be our new founding fathers and America... A nation reborn. May God be with you all."




we can't trust the guy who helped to lead the country out of the 2008 recession and into 8 years of prosperity. we have to trust the guy who was asleep at the switch when things went to hell and who hasn't yet developed any plan to get us out.


sure there wasn't any of this type of rioting, protesting and tear gassing citizens when biden was in office for 8 years. and yes all of the chaos we are fear mongering about now is happening under trump's watch but things will be way worse if biden goes back to the white house. you just have to trust us. the videos we are using to warn you about biden were all filmed during trump's term, yet its somehow biden's fault even though he isn't the president right now. deep state. 

does it sound better if i frantically yell my speech in an empty room like i just did a huge mountain of blow?


its literal crazy talk. warning us about the chaos that is happening now (that trump is instigating) will somehow magically get better if he stays in office instead of putting someone back in office who oversaw 8 years with none of this. what.the.fuck.


----------



## Ralyks

So maiming migrants could have been in the cards.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-insider-president-wanted-to-maim-immigrants


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> So maiming migrants could have been in the cards.
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-insider-president-wanted-to-maim-immigrants



I should be surprised at accusations like that, but when it comes to Trump, I'm not shocked or surprised any more. I don't think that there is any depth that Trump could sink to that would surprise me these days.


----------



## wankerness

Here's a grimly amusing article trying to nail down the Republican platform:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/new-gop-platform-authoritarianism/615640/



> 1) The most important mechanism of economic policy—not the only tool, but the most important—is adjusting the burden of taxation on society’s richest citizens. Lower this level, as Republicans did in 2017, and prosperity will follow. The economy has had a temporary setback, but thanks to the tax cut of 2017, recovery is ready to follow strongly. No further policy change is required, except possibly lower taxes still.
> 
> 2) The coronavirus is a much-overhyped problem. It’s not that dangerous and will soon burn itself out. States should reopen their economies as rapidly as possible, and accept the ensuing casualties as a cost worth paying—and certainly a better trade-off than saving every last life by shutting down state economies. Masking is useless and theatrical, if not outright counterproductive.
> 
> 3) Climate change is a much-overhyped problem. It’s probably not happening. If it is happening, it’s not worth worrying about. If it’s worth worrying about, it’s certainly not worth paying trillions of dollars to amend. To the extent it is real, it will be dealt with in the fullness of time by the technologies of tomorrow. Regulations to protect the environment unnecessarily impede economic growth.
> 
> 4) China has become an economic and geopolitical adversary of the United States. Military spending should be invested with an eye to defeating China on the seas, in space, and in the cyberrealm. U.S. economic policy should recognize that relations with China are zero-sum: When China wins, the U.S. loses, and vice versa.
> 
> 5) The trade and alliance structures built after World War II are outdated. America still needs partners, of course, especially Israel and maybe Russia. But the days of NATO and the World Trade Organization are over. The European Union should be treated as a rival, the United Kingdom and Japan should be treated as subordinates, and Canada, Australia, and Mexico should be treated as dependencies. If America acts decisively, allies will have to follow whether they like it or not—as they will have to follow U.S. policy on Iran.
> 
> 6) Health care is a purchase like any other. Individuals should make their own best deals in the insurance market with minimal government supervision. Those who pay more should get more. Those who cannot pay must rely on Medicaid, accept charity, or go without.
> 
> 7) Voting is a privilege. States should have wide latitude to regulate that privilege in such a way as to minimize voting fraud, which is rife among Black Americans and new immigrant communities. The federal role in voting oversight should be limited to preventing Democrats from abusing the U.S. Postal Service to enable fraud by their voters.
> 
> 8) Anti-Black racism has ceased to be an important problem in American life. At this point, the people most likely to be targets of adverse discrimination are whites, Christians, and Asian university applicants. Federal civil-rights-enforcement resources should concentrate on protecting them.
> 
> 9) The courts should move gradually and carefully toward eliminating the mistake made in 1965, when women’s sexual privacy was elevated into a constitutional right.
> 
> 10) The post-Watergate ethics reforms overreached. We should welcome the trend toward unrestricted and secret campaign donations. Overly strict conflict-of-interest rules will only bar wealthy and successful businesspeople from public service. Without endorsing every particular action by the president and his family, the Trump administration has met all reasonable ethical standards.
> 
> 
> 
> 11) Trump’s border wall is the right policy to slow illegal immigration; the task of enforcing immigration rules should not fall on business operators. Some deal on illegal immigration must be found. The most important Republican priority in any such deal is to delay as long as possible full citizenship, voting rights, and health-care benefits for people who entered the country illegally.
> 
> 
> 12) The country is gripped by a surge of crime and lawlessness as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement and its criticism of police. Police misconduct, such as that in the George Floyd case, should be punished. But the priority now should be to stop crime by empowering police.
> 
> 13) Civility and respect are cherished ideals. But in the face of the overwhelming and unfair onslaught against President Donald Trump by the media and the “deep state,” his occasional excesses on Twitter and at his rallies should be understood as pardonable reactions to much more severe misconduct by others.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.po...5/rnc-viewership-first-night-lower-dnc-401697

The RNC did 15% less in the ratings than tHe DNC, And you know that's gonna piss Trump off more than anything else.

Also: "The Republican convention’s official YouTube channel garnered a little more than 342,000 views on its Day 1 live stream, and C-SPAN’s stream of the first night got just over 534,000 views. Meanwhile, the Democrats’ official YouTube live stream on the first day got more than 750,000 views, while C-SPAN’s live stream got just over 77,000 views."


----------



## SpaceDock

Hopefully they won’t renew the Trump Show for a second season with ratings like that.


----------



## wankerness

Don’t worry, the republicans have their own version of facts for that - I saw headlines about how the cspan ratings for the RNC were wayyyyy higher than the DNC!


----------



## Wuuthrad

These RNC Christian bootlickers...wowza Id like to take a vacuum to that one lady...Who the fk gave these tossers the idea that their religion in a country of supposed “freedom of religion” rules the dam world ...get out of my head dam Christians...give me a black metal politician already ffs!


----------



## Xaios

Wuuthrad said:


> These RNC Christian bootlickers...wowza Id like to take a vacuum to that one lady...Who the fk gave these tossers the idea that their religion in a country of supposed “freedom of religion” rules the dam world ...get out of my head dam Christians...give me a black metal politician already ffs!


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> so we basically borrowed/printed in excessive of 5 trillion dollars to bailout companies that now still need to layoff people. the ppp program had so much fraud it was insane. lobbyists, congressmen, mega churches, celebrities, owners of pro sports teams, etc... - it was the rich and connected getting free money and us being told it will hopefully trickle down. great for yacht sales and super car sales; not so great for regular people.
> 
> wouldn't it have been smarter/more effective to have just used that same amount of money for a version of universal basic income with no corporate bailouts? i think we could all have gotten more money and for more months than getting to the end of august and still laying people off when the increased unemployment benefit has already run out. that 5 trillion is basically gone. i think we could have made it longer with a better plan but it would not have diverted as much money to the 1%.



did you read drew's point? What's supposed to happen here. 
The CEO makes 12 million. So if he takes no salary he can keep 200 people employed for another year.

oh but wait the company has 130k employes.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> did you read drew's point? What's supposed to happen here.
> The CEO makes 12 million. So if he takes no salary he can keep 200 people employed for another year.
> 
> oh but wait the company has 130k employes.



The point is, writing blank checks to large companies has not had the positive impact it was sold as. 

If the goal was to shore up the economy and prevent large scale financial ruin it would have been more prudent to focus on individuals _in addition to_ impacted businesses.

It doesn't help that the actual application of the PPP was abysmal. 

Not every suggestion that perhaps, just maybe, regular folks benefit from _thier own taxes or labor_ is a call for the guillotine. 

This is sort of what I meant in the other thread. The second someone says that maybe the rich getting richer off of a once in a century pandemic while millions go into financial ruin isn't a good thing they're treated like Lenin.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> so we basically borrowed/printed in excessive of 5 trillion dollars to bailout companies that now still need to layoff people.


Zero arguments that there was fraud, but would would love to see a citation on that figure. CARES Act was a mix of corporate and personal, and was roughly $2.2 trillion. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> The point is, writing blank checks to large companies has not had the positive impact it was sold as.
> 
> If the goal was to shore up the economy and prevent large scale financial ruin it would have been more prudent to focus on individuals _in addition to_ impacted businesses.
> 
> It doesn't help that the actual application of the PPP was abysmal.
> 
> Not every suggestion that perhaps, just maybe, regular folks benefit from _thier own taxes or labor_ is a call for the guillotine.
> 
> This is sort of what I meant in the other thread. The second someone says that maybe the rich getting richer off of a once in a century pandemic while millions go into financial ruin isn't a good thing they're treated like Lenin.



I don't want the post I made above to be taken as arguing for anything more or less than I intended it, so I should clarify. 

The _baseline_ here, the minimum the federal government has to do here, is to make sure when we get through this recession, those companies are still around and able to bring the employees they laid off back off furlough. That's by no means a given, in the case of the airlines, where travel has been - zero hyperbole here - decimated, in the span of a few weeks. If the federal government can provide stimulus or loans to keep the lights on through the pandemnic, and unemployment benefits to the employees with nothing to do who have been laid off, then there's a reasonable expectation that at some point post vaccine demand for air travel will recover, and the infrastructure necessry to meet that demand will still exist. Considering the collapse of domestic air carriers would have some pretty serious downstream impacts for basically all other businesses that operate outside of a driving distance radius, it's fairly critically important to make sure at least SOME of the airlines surprise. 

That's definitely not the _most_ they can do, and hopefully they can do a bit better. But, right now, airlines are at risk of faling, not because they mismanaged their businesses or anything or can't be run competitively, but because one hell of a black swan event that they had no ability to control has essentially ground all domestic travel to a halt. There definitely needs to be some federal response here, and while it would be awesome if it could happen at a level where airlines could just pay all their employees to sit at home and wait it out, there's a LOT of other businesses and sectors that are under similar strains, and some layoffs are probably unavoidable. 

Keep in mind too that this is happening _after_ the federal stimulus benefits expired because the government couldn't get their shit together. It looks like the benefits helped, but just didn't last long enough.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Wow. RNC Night 3 just doubled down on the fear-mongering. Labeled Joe Bidden and the other party as Communist/Radical Left when they are nowhere near even Socialist. Dem platform is even centrist when compared against (first world) European policies. 

All those lies shattered the glass ceiling.


----------



## Wuuthrad

They said “America isn’t a Racist Country”


Which is only true when you consider that a country is only a defined geographical boundary.

But in reality a country is its people, and America is one the most ass backwards racist countries in the world, and the Prez is fanning the flames (it’s his only chance!)


----------



## spudmunkey

"America" isn't even a country...technically...it's two continents, one of which contains The United States of America.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I must have had the volume too low, obviously I misheard them pronounce AMERIKKKA!


----------



## Randy

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/kenosha-wisconsin-trump.html

Whew, thank God we have a nice moderate candidate to appeal to these incredibly reasonable, reliably Democratic voters in the mid west.


----------



## sleewell

Does trump realize he is the president? He seems to be running as the challenger, not the incumbent.

He said last night, "we can never have a situation where what is happening in cities happens again"

So does that mean to elect the other guy since what is happening is under his watch?

No platform. no plan. Only fear mongering that the chaos happening bc of him will continue if you elect the other guy. 


The kinowsa shooter was front row at a trump rally in Jan. He traveled from out of state to kill people. That is not bidens fault.


----------



## Adieu

Of course it's Biden's fault.

If Biden weren't so keen on working with all sorts of non-whites to help get them into government, the poor junior klansmen wouldn't have to busy themselves attending Trump rallies and crossing state lines to murder people.

It's probably adversely affecting the poor youth's education, too. He should be studying, not dashing about defending his unborn children's ongoing racial superiority.

Poor lad.



/Sarcasm


----------



## Randy

Yeah running as a change agent is weird for an incumbent. In a way it's an admission that his presidency has been a shit show. "I know you're all miserable and scared and everything's awful, that's why you need to re-elect me to fix this mess that I got you in!"


----------



## sleewell

instead of doing something about it right now while i am in power, i will only make promises to start working on it if you re elect me.

the sheep eat this shit up. same fools fall for every con man that ever gets in front of them.

trump is going to win.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

With last night's Trump speech, I think they have an 80% chance of winning. He just pushed all the right "wrong" buttons. Trump is probably the worst competition you can have when debating. He just swarms you with lie after lie, that you would just be fact-checking him when it's your turn to speak without you getting a chance to get your own points across.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I think his lies and fear campaign resemble a form of psychological abuse similar to Stockhausen Syndrome, which he is using in the same fashion as a domestic abusers verbal abuse, treating voters as victims who will be “worse of” with anyone else and essentially should be “afraid” to speak out or resist.

Pretty “scary” to think this might actually work again!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Trying to find some time to laugh but it’s getting harder after that shit show! 



How many crimes can he commit? You can’t use taxpayer money to throw a political party at OUR White House, where you temporarily reside, thanks to a minority vote! The Hatch Act _supposedly_ makes it illegal right? But strangely enough the POSPOTUS decides...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Just a friendly reminder this isn’t a representative democracy, it’s a white Christian male shitshow: GET out and VOTE!


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> Just a friendly reminder this isn’t a representative democracy, it’s a white Christian male shitshow: GET out and VOTE!
> 
> View attachment 84379




....according to the charts, we've actually been hijacked by mostly male jews and catholics moreso.


(Btw, I'm an equal-opportunity enemy of all monotheists.)


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> ....according to the charts, we've actually been hijacked by mostly male jews and catholics moreso.
> 
> 
> (Btw, I'm an equal-opportunity enemy of all monotheists.)



Yes me too. Catholics and Protestants are both Christians, having “borrowed” this brown skinned Anarchist Revolutionary Jew for their own devious deceptions, at least in my estimations.

Im not an expert on Abrahamic religions however! I might know a little more about spirituality and Pagan mythology, etc.


----------



## Adieu

Wait are we talking about the historical figure of manic street preacher Haysoos of Judea here or????


----------



## Wuuthrad

Dude, Zombie Jesus FTW!










Shoot I guess all that pedophelia was built in to that religion by design straight from the beginning! Dam that’s effed up!


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## narad

MASS DEFECT said:


> With last night's Trump speech, I think they have an 80% chance of winning. He just pushed all the right "wrong" buttons. Trump is probably the worst competition you can have when debating. He just swarms you with lie after lie, that you would just be fact-checking him when it's your turn to speak without you getting a chance to get your own points across.



I maybe agree. I let all 4 days of DNC and all 4 days of RNC play in the background this week. The DNC guest speaker were pretty good and Biden's speech much better than expected. 

In contrast, almost all the RNC speakers were cringeworthy, the speeches overall sounded like a hostage reading out the words written for them by captors. It had the vibes of a made-for-TV Christian movie, and I guess that makes sense. 

But, Trump's speech was well-delivered and sounded full of major accomplishments. None of them seemed so exaggerated to fall into disbelief (though most of them are very disingenuous). I think if someone was on the fence and tuned in for that, there's a reasonable chance that they'd be swayed more red than blue.


----------



## thraxil

Wuuthrad said:


> I think his lies and fear campaign resemble a form of psychological abuse similar to Stockhausen Syndrome.



I'm pretty sure you meant "Stockholm Syndrome", but now I'm quite entertained by the idea of an abuser forcing their victim to listen to avant-garde electronic music.


----------



## Wuuthrad

thraxil said:


> I'm pretty sure you meant "Stockholm Syndrome", but now I'm quite entertained by the idea of an abuser forcing their victim to listen to avant-garde electronic music.



Depending on who made the music I suppose they could be the same thing! lol


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-rnc-loses-bigly-to-bidens-dnc-in-tv-ratings

So apparently the DNC beat the RNC by a decent margin every single night. Normally that shouldn't mean anything, but since we're taking about Trump...


----------



## sleewell

im an underwriter mon-fri. i pickup collection shifts for some extra money a couple of saturdays a month.

people seem to be pretty pissed off about the postal service but some are not connecting the dots. they are mailing us their payments and they are not getting here in time to avoid late fees. just spoke with a rather pissed off lady in Wisconsin. she had no idea why the postal service was experiencing mass delays, guess the story didnt make it on fox news. i was like well i have an idea why but i cant really get into it, if you want to find out more you should google it bc its happening all over. hope that wasnt too political for my bosses but i couldn't just act like i had no idea what was going on.


----------



## SpaceDock

I for one will be dropping off my ballot and not mailing it this year.


----------



## Randy

MSM coverage claims mail-in vs in-person voting will be drawn on ideological lines based on which party 'believes in the virus' more, but much more likely to be based on who wants the win more, and tinged with who's healthier, and Dems energized by their suspicions of Trump's abuse of the USPS. I think you have more Trump voters mailing in their ballots and staying home this time


----------



## sleewell

im voting in person but dropping it off is a good choice for sure.


----------



## Ralyks

I used a paid day off from work (I had plenty of time left) just so I can go vote on person and then have anxiety the rest of the day at home instead of at work.



sleewell said:


> im an underwriter mon-fri. i pickup collection shifts for some extra money a couple of saturdays a month.
> 
> people seem to be pretty pissed off about the postal service but some are not connecting the dots. they are mailing us their payments and they are not getting here in time to avoid late fees. just spoke with a rather pissed off lady in Wisconsin. she had no idea why the postal service was experiencing mass delays, guess the story didnt make it on fox news. i was like well i have an idea why but i cant really get into it, if you want to find out more you should google it bc its happening all over. hope that wasnt too political for my bosses but i couldn't just act like i had no idea what was going on.



Having been in banking since 2012, I totally saw this shit coming.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/29/poli...ligence-congress-election-security/index.html

This also seems, well, wreckless?


----------



## wankerness

> "The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by anyone, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same. It does not matter if you find the political views of your opponents abhorrent, any loss of life is a tragedy. Today there is another family grieving in America, and Jill and I offer our deepest condolences.
> 
> We must not become a country at war with ourselves. A country that accepts the killing of fellow Americans who do not agree with you. A country that vows vengeance toward one another. But that is the America that President Trump wants us to be, the America he believes we are.
> 
> As a country, we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight. What does President Trump think will happen when he continues to insist on fanning the flames of hate and division in our society and using the politics of fear to whip up his supporters? He is recklessly encouraging violence. He may believe tweeting about law and order makes him strong – but his failure to call on his supporters to stop seeking conflict shows just how weak he is. He may think that war in our streets is good for his reelection chances, but that is not presidential leadership – or even basic human compassion.
> 
> The job of a President is to lower the temperature. To bring people who disagree with one another together. To make life better for all Americans, not just those who agree with us, support us, or vote for us.
> 
> Donald Trump has been president for almost four years. The temperature in the country is higher, tensions run stronger, divisions run deeper. And all of us are less safe because Donald Trump can’t do the job of the American president."



Biden needs to harp on this over and over any time Trump talks about how he'll bring law and order. Framing it like this, with Trump actually ENDANGERING law enforcement officers through his fanning the flames, is exactly the way to do it.

Of course they almost all hate the libs and will vote for Trump regardless of how it negatively impacts them just to spite the libs but hey, a man can dream.


----------



## USMarine75

https://gulfnews.com/opinion/editor...evive-hope-for-peace-in-the-region-1.73540698


----------



## sleewell




----------



## Ralyks

wankerness said:


> Biden needs to harp on this over and over any time Trump talks about how he'll bring law and order. Framing it like this, with Trump actually ENDANGERING law enforcement officers through his fanning the flames, is exactly the way to do it.
> 
> Of course they almost all hate the libs and will vote for Trump regardless of how it negatively impacts them just to spite the libs but hey, a man can dream.



https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bid...licksource_4380645_1_heads_hero_live_hero_hed


----------



## Randy

Worth pointing out, fall 2020's "looting mobs are going to overrun your city" was fall 2018's "caravan of criminals are going to overrun the border".


----------



## TedEH

^ Are you saying there are no looting or mobs? 'Cause there's lots of video out there of looting and mobs.


----------



## sleewell

Lots of the looting and riots have been linked to alt right and boogaloo groups. Saying the peaceful protesters are the looters is just not true.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> ^ Are you saying there are no looting or mobs? 'Cause there's lots of video out there of looting and mobs.



And there were caravans of immigrants seeking asylum at the US border. 

The issue is the framing of them as an existential threat to "small town USA", which neither was/is.

Given the history of the suburbs in the United States (long story short: to get away from minorities), it's being used as a scare tactic to illicit a base response from a certain type of person to vote a certain type of way.


----------



## TedEH

That's the bit that gets to me is that everything is about framing and no two people talking about current events ever seem to be having the same conversation. The Floyd thread posted a video that I would have hoped added more context to what was going on around that recent shooting, but it somehow was turned into a "they're trying to take our guns" piece. And it works. In part, cause people like me are dumb and don't have enough context to understand what is just a bad framing or what's actually happening. Like my last post was because I legitimately had no idea what was being said - and without context it reads like "those things aren't actually happening" when they clearly are. The truth is that so many people don't have that context (or have very different context) and therefor aren't having the same conversation.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> That's the bit that gets to me is that everything is about framing and no two people talking about current events ever seem to be having the same conversation. The Floyd thread posted a video that I would have hoped added more context to what was going on around that recent shooting, but it somehow was turned into a "they're trying to take our guns" piece. And it works. In part, cause people like me are dumb and don't have enough context to understand what is just a bad framing or what's actually happening. Like my last post was because I legitimately had no idea what was being said - and without context it reads like "those things aren't actually happening" when they clearly are. The truth is that so many people don't have that context (or have very different context) and therefor aren't having the same conversation.



It's almost like you need to care about being informed and read. Two things the general public aren't very great at. 

I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods, but to better understand the United States right now you have to realize two things: 1) we're knee deep in a culture war that makes even the most innocuous thing political, and 2) our media is just awful and mostly disingenuous, as it's ratings based.


----------



## TedEH

There's only so much reading into it a person can do if they aren't immersed in it - and everyone framing everything different ways makes it close to impossible to actually figure anything out. You said it yourself - media is awful and disingenuous, but not just media. It's the way everyone talks about it.

I really truly don't understand the "culture war" thing - I thought that was mostly people on the internet (and not strictly in the US) framing themselves as victims every time someone vaguely disagreed with them. I don't see clear "sides" to this so-called war. I don't understand what cultures are supposed to be warring. Everyone is just at war with everyone else - everyone's just at eachothers throats - for what reason?

I mean, there's a whole bunch of nonsense going on at the same time in the US and in the world in general, and without knowing any better it looks like people are conflating those things together as if they're all part of the same "war" going on. There's literal nazis/supremicists sometimes, there's everyone calling everyone else fascists without seeming to know what the word means, there's the BLM vs police isssue, some people seem to think it's a war on gun ownership for some reason, there's people talking about masks having something to do with it because it's somehow emblematic of freedoms being taken away or something.

I don't get it. I don't see a war, I just see people losing their minds.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> Two things the general public aren't very great at.


I mean, I want to understand what's going on - but this feels less like "the general public just aren't good at keeping up" and more "so many people are trying to manipulate narratives in different directions that the whole picture just isn't coherent anymore".


----------



## TedEH

I think googling "culture war" is probably the least useful thing I've done this morning. Every article/result has nothing to do with the one that came before it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I mean, I want to understand what's going on - but this feels less like "the general public just aren't good at keeping up" and more "so many people are trying to manipulate narratives in different directions that the whole picture just isn't coherent anymore".



It's a bit of both.

It's not hard too hard to keep up with what's going on if you really want to be somewhat informed. Stay away from editorials on fact issues, consider the sources, and try to remain objective.

If your only sources of information are random YT videos and your local Fox/NBC/etc. affiliate, yeah, you're not going to have a great, nuanced view on some of the more complex issues at hand.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I think googling "culture war" is probably the least useful thing I've done this morning. Every article/result has nothing to do with the one that came before it.



You're probably not going to learn much skimming a couple Google results in five minutes.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not hard too hard to keep up


I disagree. I think it's very hard to keep up.
I don't think I'm actually an idiot, but there's clearly a lot going on that just escapes me, and there's so much actively standing in the way of understanding.



MaxOfMetal said:


> If your only sources of information are random YT videos and your local Fox/NBC/etc. affiliate, yeah, you're not going to have a great, nuanced view on some of the more complex issues at hand.


Don't tell me where _not_ to look, instead tell me where I _should_ be looking.

If someone asks "how do I understand politics", the answer can't be "don't look at the news or anyone's opinions". Well then.... what does that leave?


----------



## TedEH

How about this -> I'll just pose the strait question:

As someone who doesn't currently have a clear understanding of the bigger picture of what's going on in the US, but recognizes that what happens in the US is hugely impactful to the world as a whole, how does someone get a clearer picture of what is actually going on? Assuming such a thing is even possible.


----------



## SpaceDock

TedEH said:


> How about this -> I'll just pose the strait question:
> 
> As someone who doesn't currently have a clear understanding of the bigger picture of what's going on in the US, but recognizes that what happens in the US is hugely impactful to the world as a whole, how does someone get a clearer picture of what is actually going on? Assuming such a thing is even possible.



Putin won. He got his puppet and the troll farm to fire up Americans into fighting ourselves. We are all just pushing it into the real world to defend our political bases. 

Trump doesn’t want to fix this, he wants to sow division like he always had. The only way to stop the vigilantes is to stop the riots, the only way to stop the riots is to reform the police. Trump is not willing to do that because even saying there might be a problem is against his base.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> How about this -> I'll just pose the strait question:
> 
> As someone who doesn't currently have a clear understanding of the bigger picture of what's going on in the US, but recognizes that what happens in the US is hugely impactful to the world as a whole, how does someone get a clearer picture of what is actually going on? Assuming such a thing is even possible.



There isn't an "Understanding America Wiki", you have to invest the time in reading the first few pages of Politifact, Reuters, AP, etc. and keep up on it. Even then it's sort of on you to interpret some of the nuance and details (hmmm, seems like every quote from that guy is bullshit, I don't think that group is genuine, etc.). Look into long form journalism like pieces from NYT Mag, NPR, Informant, etc.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> ^ Are you saying there are no looting or mobs? 'Cause there's lots of video out there of looting and mobs.



No there was a caravan too. But it seems like something that came about inorganically (see: the Facebook groups created specifically to pit two opposing sides together) right at the cusp of an election and all of the sudden, poof, four months later it wasn't happening anymore.


----------



## sleewell

ask yourself this: does trump have any history of starting a fire to try to get credit for putting it out? do you think he would do it again to try to win re election?

he has nothing to run on so they land on law and order. law and order doesn't work if the protests are peaceful, which by in large, they have been. so you send in federal goons to tear gas people, rile people up on social media, defend vigilantes coming from out state to kill innocent people, etc. how is a vigilante killing innocent people law and order? how is trump pardoning his friends who pled guilty law and order? he doesn't want law and order, he wants chaos to cause fear in dumb people.

fear for the other. the other side wants to destroy the suburbs. the other side is pro crime. the other side supports caravans of migrants with leprosy.

when you don't have results to run on this is all you are left with and its pretty pathetic. the incumbent president is saying after 4 years of being in charge that my america is in terrible shape but you better give me four more years because fear.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> The only way to stop the vigilantes is to stop the riots, the only way to stop the riots is to reform the police. Trump is not willing to do that because even saying there might be a problem is against his base.



Bull

The only way to stop vigilantes with assault rifles is with a SWAT team or National Guard deployment

Paramilitary thugs walking around BRANDISHING weapons (yes that alone is an actual CRIME) and there's no political will to crack down on it....what's next? We gonna look the other way too when they start mounting machine guns in their truck beds to turn em into technicals????

This is how you turn into Syria, Sudan, Yemen, or Afghanistan.... even Colombia never tolerated this shit in cities


----------



## budda

Im not sure how you cant see a culture war when many groups are banding together, citing their history of being oppressed and trying to bring about real change. The culture they are fighting is white supremacy and by extension racism in all its forms. White surpremacy is how people got into power and how they'll keep it. The proof is in history. So many lies have become truths (find me a christian church with a brown jesus) and it's so entrenched, that people will let it continue if it means they can be comfortable. Actual change for minorities worldwide will disrupt the white way of life, and white people are fighting against it. Subtely and overtly.


----------



## JSanta

budda said:


> Im not sure how you cant see a culture war when many groups are banding together, citing their history of being oppressed and trying to bring about real change. The culture they are fighting is white supremacy and by extension racism in all its forms. White surpremacy is how people got into power and how they'll keep it. The proof is in history. So many lies have become truths (find me a christian church with a brown jesus) and it's so entrenched, that people will let it continue if it means they can be comfortable. Actual change for minorities worldwide will disrupt the white way of life, and white people are fighting against it. Subtely and overtly.



What's going on in the States is a culture war. The "Make America Great Again" is racist, and was when Reagan first used something similar in the 80s (Let's Make America Great Again). It still was when Clinton used it in an advertisement for his wife in 2008. I think what Trump and his supporters have done is effectively turn the "wink wink nudge nudge" into a full blown symbol of white supremacy. Talk to Trump supporters, they (most of them) don't like multiculturalism, more than two genders, homosexuals, basically anyone that doesn't look like them. That's what the MAGA hat really says about that person. 

For me, what's going on is by definition a fight for what this country stands for, or should stand for. But Trump is not the only problem. Look around the world where far-right leaders have taken power (and look internally at this country, those MAGA people were always there). 

edit: as a point of clarification, I am not saying all MAGA people are dumpster fire human beings, but if after nearly four years of Trump rule they still support him, the shoe somewhat fits. I get voting for him in 2016, but not now.


----------



## sleewell

JSanta said:


> What's going on in the States is a culture war. The "Make America Great Again" is racist, and was when Reagan first used something similar in the 80s (Let's Make America Great Again). It still was when Clinton used it in an advertisement for his wife in 2008. I think what Trump and his supporters have done is effectively turn the "wink wink nudge nudge" into a full blown symbol of white supremacy. Talk to Trump supporters, they (most of them) don't like multiculturalism, more than two genders, homosexuals, basically anyone that doesn't look like them. That's what the MAGA hat really says about that person.
> 
> For me, what's going on is by definition a fight for what this country stands for, or should stand for. But Trump is not the only problem. Look around the world where far-right leaders have taken power (and look internally at this country, those MAGA people were always there).




this is very true. my old boss is full on maga and came down to show me the yard sign he created. he was so proud of it. i got to the 2nd line where it said boys are boys, girls are girls and basically found a way to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible. i dont get the intolerance and being so proud of it but that is not how i am raising my family.


----------



## budda

That fight is not just in the US, that's the thing.


----------



## Adieu

I dunno, it would seem more in line with the American legal system if they were forced to wait until they were legal adults

It's kinda odd how a teenager has almost NO legal rights before the law....except to get their dick cut off on a whim.


At least let em get a tattoo first lol


----------



## TedEH

I don't see a singular culture war, I see a bunch of unrelated disputes being bunched together, conflated, and used to split people into their "tribes" for lack of a more appropriate word. And, as Budda said, a lot of it spills out into the world in general. It's not a US thing.

The only reason I see to call these "culture wars" is because they're no longer constrained to being between recognizable groups or locations. It's not east vs west or north vs south or black vs white or one country vs another, it's just everyone against everyone else in the name vaguely of "culture".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I don't see a singular culture war, I see a bunch of unrelated disputes being bunched together, conflated, and used to split people into their "tribes" for lack of a more appropriate word. And, as Budda said, a lot of it spills out into the world in general. It's not a US thing.
> 
> The only reason I see to call these "culture wars" is because they're no longer constrained to being between recognizable groups or locations. It's not east vs west or north vs south or black vs white or one country vs another, it's just everyone against everyone else in the name vaguely of "culture".



I mean, you didn't even know it was a thing until like an hour ago, and you admit to not really following the news or anything, so perhaps it's a little too soon to discard the notion.


----------



## JSanta

TedEH said:


> I don't see a singular culture war, I see a bunch of unrelated disputes being bunched together, conflated, and used to split people into their "tribes" for lack of a more appropriate word. And, as Budda said, a lot of it spills out into the world in general. It's not a US thing.
> 
> The only reason I see to call these "culture wars" is because they're no longer constrained to being between recognizable groups or locations. It's not east vs west or north vs south or black vs white or one country vs another, it's just everyone against everyone else in the name vaguely of "culture".



Wars are usually never about one thing (whether it's a culture war, or one the one with military). It's always a bunch of things. 

Culture is a driving force what's going on in the world. In the EU, we've seen immigration (and let's call it what it is, immigration of brown and black people) used as a rally cry for the far-right. In the States, it's immigration, gender identity, abortion, policing, etc... The MAGA supporters in my family have explicitly stated that they don't want things to change, and when pressed, they don't like seeing how their antiquated ideology has been left in the past. If you believe in the American Constitution, or the Bible, you can't believe that all people aren't equal. My parents have picked the tenets that are easy for them to expound and have decided that is the hill they are going to die. If someone tells me "they don't like gay people, or don't believe that there are more than two genders", it means they don't believe that ALL people are afforded the same rights as them.


----------



## budda

TedEH said:


> I don't see a singular culture war...



White supremacy vs everybody else.


----------



## JSanta

budda said:


> White supremacy vs everybody else.



I don't see it as being as one-sided as that. It's like saying the American Civil War happened because of slavery. There's truth to that, but it's not the whole truth. I genuinely believe there are Trump supporters that aren't white supremacists, but have an ideology (against abortion) that means that they will always support the conservative candidate, regardless of whether or not that person is actually terrible. I mean, even in Canada where abortion was thought to be a done deal from a legal perspective, there were still grumblings about it during the last election, and I think we'll see it as a discussion point once again with new conservative leadership now in power. 

Like I said, lots of little things.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> I mean, you didn't even know it was a thing until like an hour ago


I never said I didn't know "culture wars" were a thing. That phrase has been thrown around for years now. I said that politics are difficult to keep up with. And I agree with JSanta that it's not as clear cut as people say it is.

Things like having to say:


JSanta said:


> I genuinely believe there are Trump supporters that aren't white supremacists


I think the painting of all Trump supporters as white supremacists is as much a narrative manipulation as anything the opposite side is doing as well. I'm not a Trump supporter by any stretch, but I'm not convinced that you have to be a racist to have bought into some of his message. It becomes a "culture war" when you paint everyone with a different opinion on something with the same broad strokes.


----------



## budda

If you think of anything in a racist way, you are being racist. 1% racist is still racist, just not one who goes around fighting minorities and threatening business owners.

Gotta confront that.

If you support a platform that enables white supremacy, what should I call you?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> It becomes a "culture war" when you paint everyone with a different opinion on something with the same broad strokes.



I don't know where you get these ideas/definitions from. Like making up your own definition of "social justice". I've literally never heard of it being broken down like this from anyone on either perceived side of American politics. 

It's a "war" because people have chosen thier enemy and are willing to ignore facts and nuance to score ideological "victories" regardless of the outcome.


----------



## budda

If you dont understand that white supremacy affects everything on a global scale, then it might seem like it's one issue - but its not.

Again, until white people concede their comfort for equity for minorities, this will be ongoing.

It's white supremacy versus everything else. That is entrenched in the company you work for, the place you live in, the laws you're expected to follow, the education you received, the news you watch, all of it. History tells us this. 

Until white people change, nothing changes. And the track record isnt great.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> I've literally never heard of it being broken down like this


I have. It's a dumb semantic thing, so I'm willing to concede it as far as this thread goes.



MaxOfMetal said:


> It's a "war" because people have chosen thier enemy and are willing to ignore facts and nuance to score ideological "victories" regardless of the outcome.


I think we fundamentally agree, but just phrase things very differently.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I think we fundamentally agree, but just phrase things very differently.



Not really, but that's okay too. 

Framing it as "broad strokes" way over simplifies things, which is very understandable if you're unfamiliar with the various groups across the political spectrum here. 

It gets a lot easier once you pick up on some of the nuance, but you're not going to get that in a day, which is also totally human and understandable. 

I gave you some starting points to look into, and I'd be happy to help further if you don't get sick of it after a few hours, which even I would if I had to dive into it.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> Framing it as "broad strokes" way over simplifies things


I mean, it does but it doesn't. Several in this thread have basically summed up things as "it's all white supremacy vs everything else" which I think is exactly the kind of generalization that clouds things for people who aren't super familiar with what's going on. "Everyone who didn't vote the way I would must have done so because they're racist" is a very broad brush to paint with.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> "Everyone who didn't vote the way I would must have done so because they're racist"



There's a difference between that and the existence of white supremacy in this country. And while sure, there are plenty of people who do paint their political counterparts in a certain light, that doesn't define what a culture war is nor what the current happenings in the United States are about.

A lot of Trump supporters are racist. Maybe they're not actual neo-Nazis or active Klan members, but at one point they decided that minority interests, even if they have potential positive repercussions for themselves, are bad because they for whatever reason, but typically deep seeded passive bias, are not as important and in fact worth fighting against. 

That's sort of the concept of white supremacy. That it doesn't take overt, comic book villian levels of malice, but to deny social equality to another group for reasons other than pure fact. It can be both a reactionary, emotional response or a cold, mechanical following of a targeted policy. 

The fact that we can't have a frank discussion about race or healthcare or coronavirus or gun control or any of the most important issues facing our country and society at large without it becoming "us vs. them" is the culture war we're talking about. These shouldn't be conservative or liberal things, it should be based on facts and the concept of working towards the greater good, but since political operatives who want "thier team" to stay in power understand that fear and anger are better motivators we have the shit show we're dealing with at the moment.


----------



## TedEH

MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact that we can't have a frank discussion about race or healthcare or coronavirus or gun control or any of the most important issues facing our country and society at large without it becoming "us vs. them" is the culture war we're talking about. These shouldn't be conservative or liberal things, it should be based on facts and the concept of working towards the greater good, but since political operatives who want "thier team" to stay in power understand that fear and anger are better motivators we have the shit show we're dealing with at the moment.


I think we're again saying basically the same thing but in very different terms, or maybe just framed from a different angle. I don't generally deny or disagree with anything you've said.

The only point I'd pick at is that _we're also doing it_. Boiling down those conversations to just "us vs. racists" also shuts down any conversation. And that's what I mean, it's not "people with reasonable views about guns vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about healthcare vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about race vs racists" (although sometimes it's the last one) - those conversations often have nothing to do with race at all IMO.


----------



## TedEH

But I'll concede that I'm partly just derailing things at this point over dumb semantics and talking about talking etc., that don't in themselves make any meaningful contribution to the conversation, so I can drop it at that and stop rambling until I have something valuable to add.


----------



## Necris

Adieu said:


> I dunno, it would seem more in line with the American legal system if they were forced to wait until they were legal adults
> 
> It's kinda odd how a teenager has almost NO legal rights before the law....except to get their dick cut off on a whim.
> 
> 
> At least let em get a tattoo first lol


Without going super in depth: you'll be happy to know that "on a whim" exists only in the realm of alarmist fantasy and the real life version involving doctors, parents and psychologists agreeing on a surgery for a minor is exceedingly rare. Also, puberty blockers are a thing which can be used and their effects are reversible (unlike long term-hormone treatment or surgeries) and again require doctors, psychologists, parents and child to be on board. It's not a free-for-all; if anything, the possibility of getting a tattoo at 16 with parental consent is more permissive.

When you hit adulthood you can do informed consent and get hormones, but that's quite new, even in the very recent past as legal adult you still needed psychologists and doctors to agree to prescribe you hormones. Hormones do the majority of the heavy lifting in changing a person's appearance when they transition, even if you already went through male or female puberty you go through a second puberty, essentially. That's kind of good news, too, because surgeries are exceedingly expensive and it's safer to assume that insurance won't cover them than that it will.


----------



## budda

TedEH said:


> and that's what I mean, it's not "people with reasonable views about guns vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about healthcare vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about race vs racists" (although sometimes it's the last one) - *those conversations often have nothing to do with race at all IMO.*[/B]



Emphasis mine.

Everything at some point had to do with race. The world we live in was formed largely in part by racists with power.

Denying this just makes matters worse. Racism is rampant in healthcare and education. You live in a country that ripped children from their families who died or tried to assimilate, only 60 years ago.

White supremacy versus everything. That's what people need to realize.


----------



## TedEH

You can't just say that everyone who doesn't share you view on every topic is automatically a white supremacist. I mean, you can say it, but it's not the truth. I clearly disagree with you on a number of things, and it doesn't make me a white supremacist.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> You can't just say that everyone who doesn't share you view on every topic is automatically a white supremacist. I mean, you can say it, but it's not the truth. I clearly disagree with you on a number of things, and it doesn't make me a white supremacist.



Coming from a guy who believes that dictionary terms and cultural interpretations of words are interchangeable. 

Enabling, excusing or diverting criticism from a system that perpetuates racism. I guess you can choose your own word to describe that.


----------



## TedEH

Ok then - disagreeing on any given topic does not by default enable, excuse, or divert criticism from systems that perpetuate racism.

Being disagreeable on something != being racist.

I've done a whole ton of disagreeing in this thread, but nothing I've said has enabled or excused racism.


----------



## TedEH

I mean, at this point you guys are mischaracterizing what I said, and I conceded that it was a dumb semantic thing on my part multiple times. I'm just waiting for the "you're actually being racist right now".


----------



## sleewell

trump with chris wallace a while back: we will be unveiling a full and comprehensive health care plan in 2 weeks. it is going to the best ever.

trump 2 weeks later: we are still working on that plan, it will be released by the end of aug.

trump fans: hey did you see biden's gaffe, he isn't all there. trump is the best.


----------



## budda

I'm saying you're enabling white supremacy by choosing not to see how race is a part of every discussion. Im not calling anyone racist.

Disagreeing isnt racist. Upholding systems that perpetuate white supremacy because it keeps you comfortable isn't racist. It does, however, make you complicit.


----------



## TedEH

budda said:


> I'm saying you're enabling white supremacy


I disagree entirely. Nothing I've said enables white supremacy. I'm very much against white supremacy. You've illustrated my point- I offered a vaguely differing perspective, and now I have to defend myself as not being an enabler of white supremacy.


----------



## Randy

Yeah because you're arguing semantics as delegitimatizing a movement. "People interpret social justice or culture war this way, which is now what means by default so it's no longer a just cause".

When you get red lined for a loan or called a name or threatened by someone before you even open your mouth just because of the color of your skin, let me know what kind of cold comfort you get from some guy on the internet saying the movement to be treated as a human being is worth derailing over semantics


----------



## budda

TedEH said:


> I disagree entirely. Nothing I've said enables white supremacy. I'm very much against white supremacy. You've illustrated my point- I offered a vaguely differing perspective, and now I have to defend myself as not being an enabler of white supremacy.



I've already explained how you're upholding it. Your disagreement doesn't magically mean you aren't being complicit in your actions. 

We can disagree about the earth being round all we want, but factually one of us would be wrong.


----------



## TedEH

That is not what I said. You're pretty blatantly mischaracterizing my statement - and _again_ focusing in on something I backed down on like four times now.

Why am I suddenly the enemy here? WTF did I actually do? I offered an alternative angle to the way some words are going to be interpreted on the internet. That's it. I've commited the huge crime of getting some words wrong on the internet.


----------



## budda

It's not just you, so don't sweat that part .

You had asked a question which I have tried to answer. My view of you as a fellow forumite has not changed.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Racism is institutional and systemic, and on this larger scale it’s not really about your personal feelings about people with different skin color, or whether or not you “feel” anything on way or another, although that certainly motivates people’s actions and influences society as well. 

“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

Class struggle and racism often collide, and meet in the same place, but are not the same. It benefits the ruling class to blur these distinctions.

I don’t know what Canada is like, but if you want to learn more about the US read about it!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 84517



No end to the wars? Srsly?

K then, pack your shit Mr. Trump, cuz if that's true, then the military-industrial complex and their saudi and zionist buddies have already elected Biden ahead of time, and no amount of plague locusts or gawd forbid voting will change that result


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## SpaceDock

Not sure if you guys have seen this stuff out of the Drudge Report tonight. Trump having stroke the reason for the Walter Reed visit last year, Pence saying “he doesn’t recall” instead of flat out denial. Then the can’t lift water, struggle down the ramp, dragging his leg, and hugging the podium videos are all starting to get rehashed. No big surprise the fat old man has fat old man problems but health is a top concern for any candidate, even for die hard republicans.


----------



## Ralyks

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 84517



I'm confused. Which of those do we have NOW?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> No end to the wars? Srsly?
> 
> K then, pack your shit Mr. Trump, cuz if that's true, then the military-industrial complex and their saudi and zionist buddies have already elected Biden ahead of time, and no amount of plague locusts or gawd forbid voting will change that result



It’s probably true, what are we suppose to do?



Ralyks said:


> I'm confused. Which of those do we have NOW?



Exactly, fuck if I know!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> I'm confused. Which of those do we have NOW?



So the best I can make of this:

She posted this in March, and back then there didn’t seem to be quite as much difference between Biden and Trump, compared to Bernie.

Compare to now and all that’s happened since the pandemic started, it becomes a bit more clear, I hope anyway.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> Why am I suddenly the enemy here?


Good god, Ted, if you would stop being a racist enabler of white supremacy for two minutes, maybe you could see.


----------



## TedEH

Thanks for all the screenshots from r/BlackPeopleTwitter. I clearly see now that I am exactly the problem with America. Now that you have defeated my wrong use of words that had nothing to do with race, you've solved racism. Who knew it was _me_ the whole time? I certainly didn't.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I think we're again saying basically the same thing but in very different terms, or maybe just framed from a different angle. I don't generally deny or disagree with anything you've said.
> 
> The only point I'd pick at is that _we're also doing it_. Boiling down those conversations to just "us vs. racists" also shuts down any conversation. And that's what I mean, it's not "people with reasonable views about guns vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about healthcare vs racists" and "people with reasonable views about race vs racists" (although sometimes it's the last one) - those conversations often have nothing to do with race at all IMO.


So, I have some sympathy for where you're coming from here, but I think it's a situation where they don't have anything _obvious_ to do with race.... but there are some subtle structural things in play that have a lot to do with race. At least promise to hear me out here. 

People with reasonable views about guns vs racists is a great jumping off point here. The NRA doesn't publish membership stats, but they skew far more Republican, white, and male than the US as a whole. They're known as an organization that promotes unresticted access to firearms in the US, but that hasn't always been the case... in fact, in the 1960s, they fought for stricter gun laws, when the Black Panthers took up the cause of unrestricted access to firearms, and then promptly reversed course after the Black Panthers began to disband. IT's pretty hard to conclude that the NRA doesn't want _all _Americans to bear arms, only white Americans. IF you ever get some downtime, watching 13th is worth the time for a look on how the "war on crime" was an attempt to leverage upper middle class white fears of black "thugs" to launch a wave of mass incarceration in the United States that resulted in a vast disproportionate number of black Americans being locked up and thus disenfranchised. As it happens, the "bad guy with a gun" that the "ood guy with a gun" wants to own a gun to stop, in American popular imagination, is usually black. 

So, on the surface, no, there's nothing racist at all about being opposed to gun control, or being "tough on crime" or wanting stricter sentencing laws for drug offenders, etc etc etc. However, when you start to dig in a little bit and dig below the surface, as it turns out there are some pretty strong, if subtle, racial underpinnings to a lot of these views and objectives. and the _structure_ that they support is absolutely racist. 

The tricky thing is that the real problem with structural racism and structural white supremancy, meaning as simple as a power structure that prioritizes white lives and interests over nonwhite ones, is that often times the people who are engaged in supporting a structure that is structurally racist, are completely blind to the _ways_ in which that structure supports racism and lower-case letter white supremacy. The Nazis and assholes waving confederate flags in KKK hoods are obvious examples of racism, but the wildly disparate sentencing laws between crack and cocaine, for example, or the way the NRA uses fear of violent thugs and the need to arm up to protect your family from them to promote gun ownership to a predominately white base, are the kind of things you can be completely unaware of how they play out racially until they're pointed out to you. 

And that's the irony - as you point out, in a somewhat different context, "we all do it." I'm pretty sure there are ways I'm structurally racist, as well. I pretty clearly don't know what those ways are, or I would hope I would be trying to do something about them, but I'm sure I've benefitted from, and had my worldview shaped, by a system that prioritized my interests as a white man over pretty much every other demographic group in this country. And that kind of sucks, because it's pretty awesome being a white man in America, and I kind of wish everyone could have that privilege. And if I'm not trying to dismantle the system that raises me up while pushing down everyone else, then I'm absolutely supporting lower-case-letter white supremacy.


----------



## sleewell

CBO predicts the budget deficit tripling to 3.3 trillion.


were like your drunk cousin running up massive CC debt before they skip town and/or file BK.


----------



## TedEH

Look I get it -> There's a lot of race issues embedded in a lot of topics, particularly when you're talking American politics. But nothing I said was racial at all. Not literally everything is racial.

I got called an enabler of white supremacy for doing nothing other than recognizing that some phrases can be taken in different ways. My whole "misstep" was not using the exactly approved words and thought processes to end up on the "right side" of the conversation, despite agreeing with the values people are spouting at me as if I'm against them. I find it ludicrous. I'm on your side guys. I agree with you. I'm just really not onboard with this whole deal of needing to parrot exactly the right phrases, lest you be "part of the problem". This kind of arguing is what turns would-be allies into foes. You've not "educated" me, you've vilified me.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> I'm just really not onboard with this whole deal of needing to parrot exactly the right phrases, lest you be "part of the problem"



Worth noting that the "misunderstanding" between you, jax and killa vs the rest of the board today is less about "not parroting the exact right phrase" and more to do with parroting the exact phrases OF the people you're accused of enabling. I'm willing to own up to being quick to judgment, but don't make this sound like it's because you refused to take some oath. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

But I'm past that, my apologies and whatever are earnest. Trying to scapegoat it as everyone else trying to choose you language, though, that's asking to rip the scab right off.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fiveth...ts-very-slight-and-may-already-be-fading/amp/

So the RNC only gave Trump a small bump, and that may ready be fading.


----------



## SpaceDock

@TedEH I read most of your posts and I didn’t find you offensive, but these topics are landmines even for the well meaning. Anytime I have a conversation like this I am always prepared to say I am an ass without the most well thought out ideas and opinions. I think we should work to respect each other even when we disagree as long as all parties are trying to have an open honest conversation.


----------



## Wuuthrad

TedEH said:


> Thanks for all the screenshots from r/BlackPeopleTwitter. I clearly see now that I am exactly the problem with America. Now that you have defeated my wrong use of words that had nothing to do with race, you've solved racism. Who knew it was _me_ the whole time? I certainly didn't.



I’m glad you’re finally staring to figure this out- what took you so long!


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...esidents-vote-twice-test-mail-system-n1239140

What the cinnamon toast fuck is this shit?


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## TedEH

Randy said:


> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.





Randy said:


> the exact phrases OF the people you're accused of enabling


I had a long rant typed up, but I don't think it's worth it. I think I'm just gonna leave the thread entirely at this point.


----------



## budda

Just a heads up, probably 99% of regular posters here are also upholding white supremacy in their day to day actions, as Drew pointed out. I dont know why you think you're being singled out . How am I excluded when my labor profits a company owned by a white man in one of the most conservative parts of the country (I dont know how he votes but Im sure he doesnt like the ACAB concept).

No one's villified you but you're doing a great job of being the victim.

I tried explaining things. Nothing changes until white people decide to be uncomfortable as a group.


----------



## USMarine75

https://us.cnn.com/2020/09/03/polit...lection-2020-north-carolina-voting/index.html




Inb4 “He was just kidding.”


----------



## Randy

Worth noting, there's a roadmap to type of people who are inclined to listen to him and perhaps it's not the worst thing if they vote twice.


----------



## narad

budda said:


> Just a heads up, probably 99% of regular posters here are also upholding white supremacy in their day to day actions, as Drew pointed out. I dont know why you think you're being singled out . How am I excluded when my labor profits a company owned by a white man in one of the most conservative parts of the country (I dont know how he votes but Im sure he doesnt like the ACAB concept).



I'm not sure <your actions benefitting some white person at some point> implies <upholding white supremacy>


----------



## budda

narad said:


> I'm not sure <your actions benefitting some white person at some point> implies <upholding white supremacy>



I guess think of it like this: what kind of policies and politicians will that person vote for? The parts that covertly or overtly threatens their power and standing, or the the parts that uphold the status quo?


----------



## wankerness

USMarine75 said:


> https://us.cnn.com/2020/09/03/polit...lection-2020-north-carolina-voting/index.html
> 
> View attachment 84582
> 
> 
> Inb4 “He was just kidding.”



Trump supporters in NC were actually convicted for voting twice in 2016, after he told them that Hillary was going to refuse to count votes from Republicans or some such idiocy. Their votes were still counted (at least in the primary, where I know one of these happened), but voting fraud is an actual crime with consequences.

My suspicion is that he doesn't actually think this would win him the election or get him more votes, it's just intended to sow more chaos for when he badly loses the election and starts pointing to all the recounts that have to happen thanks to his meddling as a reason why the results should not be trusted.


----------



## sleewell

pelosi becomes president on inauguration day if there isnt a winner and the dems still control the house. interesting to think about if the dems also win the senate. 


the federal debt is now 98% of GDP. this is up from 79% last year. a very large increase in a very short time.


----------



## wankerness

sleewell said:


> pelosi becomes president on inauguration day if there isnt a winner and the dems still control the house.



People keep saying that, as if this administration would follow the rules. Who exactly would enforce that? The military, who is currently under Trump's command? Are they all going to suddenly overthrow Trump if he won't leave? Why would anyone suddenly grow a spine then?

The most bright political news I've read in months was actually that Vox article the other day about how "life under a dictatorship really isn't all that bad" that talked about Malaysia. Since we're probably going to be living under one shortly, it was a welcome bit of perspective to show what it actually ends up like in practice in "developed" countries.

EDIT: Link: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...itarian-states-boring-tolerable-fascism-trump


----------



## Adieu

sleewell said:


> pelosi becomes president on inauguration day if there isnt a winner and the dems still control the house. interesting to think about if the dems also win the senate.
> 
> 
> the federal debt is now 98% of GDP. this is up from 79% last year. a very large increase in a very short time.



He should just blatantly campaign as "vote Trump unless you want President Pelosi"

...he'd win then


----------



## sleewell

trump's military support has cratered after gassing people for the upside down bible photo shoot and not doing anything about russian bounties on our troops. the military has said they will follow the constitution. that scenario is how Jefferson became president so there is precedent.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> trump's military support has cratered after gassing people for the upside down bible photo shoot and not doing anything about russian bounties on our troops. the military has said they will follow the constitution. that scenario is how Jefferson became president so there is precedent.



The majority of the people I served with are ardent Trump supporters. So while the brass needs to be following the constitution, I think there is still overwhelming rank and file support for Trump. Just as a point of clarification.


----------



## Randy

The reason people are floating the President Pelosi thing is because there's a lot of scenarios, and one of them is that Trump thinks he can win and tries, and when the numbers don't land in his favor, he tries to either win or run out the clock with a protracted legal battle (which he does often, so it's not a stretch).

That falls very short of a military coup in terms of boldness. I personally doubt it because if it looks like Peolsi would be president anyway, that means the numbers still aren't favoring him and it'll be an uphill battle trying to wrestle back the presidency with Pelosi and a Democratic majority in at least one house. In that case, he probably just grumbles and starts focusing on what he needs to try the do to shield himself from the impending civil/criminal onslaught awaiting him in civilian life.

To jump to military coup and all that, he'd have to be feathering his nest way in advance and even though he's nodded to fascism, there's not enough enabling him to do that.


----------



## sleewell

JSanta said:


> The majority of the people I served with are ardent Trump supporters. So while the brass needs to be following the constitution, I think there is still overwhelming rank and file support for Trump. Just as a point of clarification.



when was that though? both of the things i mentioned were pretty recent.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> when was that though? both of the things i mentioned were pretty recent.



When? Right now. I'm not active duty anymore, but I am still friends with many of the people I served with. The rank and file Soldiers I know (the majority of them) love him. In fact, a person I was really good friends with posted some Trump/QAnon bullshit on his IG this morning.

EDIT: I got out in 2011. Which means that the guys I served with are now almost at 20 years of service. They are senior non-commissioned officers in the Army.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> When? Right now. I'm not active duty anymore, but I am still friends with many of the people I served with. The rank and file Soldiers I know (the majority of them) love him. In fact, a person I was really good friends with posted some Trump/QAnon bullshit on his IG this morning.
> 
> EDIT: I got out in 2011. Which means that the guys I served with are now almost at 20 years of service. They are senior non-commissioned officers in the Army.



That's still a far cry from leading an armed military coup though. In most cases the despot needs a high ranking general who can command his private army or he has to be one himself. There were people in leadership roles in all the major branches and departments that were subverting his will up until the last year at least. Would be very hard to get them to lead an armed takeover in the next three months.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I had a long rant typed up, but I don't think it's worth it. I think I'm just gonna leave the thread entirely at this point.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> That's still a far cry from leading an armed military coup though. In most cases the despot needs a high ranking general who can command his private army or he has to be one himself. There were people in leadership roles in all the major branches and departments that were subverting his will up until the last year at least. Would be very hard to get them to lead an armed takeover in the next three months.



My apologies if the perception is that I conflated the two, that was not my intent. What I'm saying is I have faith that our senior military leadership will continue to uphold their constitutional oaths.

I'll try to be more explicit: I believe that the military leadership (those in uniform) will continue to jobs to a high standard and not play politics. However, within the military rank and file, my own interactions would lead me to believe that Trump is extremely popular. The way he talks and the things he glorifies fall very much in line with the things I experienced while I was in. I served with a few guys who were left-leaning, but the majority were conservatives (for lots of reasons). 

If there was a civil war in which the armed forces were involved, do I think some of my friends or former friends would take pleasure in shooting at people on the other side of their idea spectrum? Absolutely. But again, a far cry from a well-organized military insurrection.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...s-poll-more-troops-say-theyll-vote-for-biden/




"The latest Military Times poll shows a continued decline in active-duty service members’ views of President Donald Trump and a slight but significant preference for former Vice President Joe Biden in the upcoming November election among troops surveyed."


----------



## wankerness

I saw some info about that. Some of it was attributed due to fears by military members that Trump would deploy them against US citizens. Definitely a very real fear.


----------



## Randy

No love for DJT, but he's shades of isolationist and I'm sure there's a lot of military folks that don't mind getting paid to sit on base and play Xbox instead of getting shot at playing World Police. They can chalk it up to all the rest of the MAGA shit but I'm sure the lack of foreign escalations/interventions doesn't hurt, whether they admit it or not.


----------



## Wuuthrad

TedEH said:


> I had a long rant typed up, but I don't think it's worth it. I think I'm just gonna leave the thread entirely at this point.



You’re quite welcome! You pulled your own chain, with the help of others. I just helped clear the path...


----------



## Randy

Apropos




https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ho-died-at-war-are-losers-and-suckers/615997/


----------



## SpaceDock

^ that’s about right. Not surprised and I don’t see how anyone else could be. He is an absolute shit.


----------



## Randy

Comments on this some places saying "no way, that sounds like something Obama would say" etc ignoring that he already disparaged McCain's military service a number of times. It's literally zero stretching at all.


----------



## SpaceDock

My favorite part is that he didn’t want to go because the rain might mess up his hair.... a little late bro.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Says “bone spur”... 

Disparaging combat vets? That’s one of the lowest blows there is! No matter what your politics are, come on man that’s just disgusting.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> No love for DJT, but he's shades of isolationist and I'm sure there's a lot of military folks that don't mind getting paid to sit on base and play Xbox instead of getting shot at playing World Police. They can chalk it up to all the rest of the MAGA shit but I'm sure the lack of foreign escalations/interventions doesn't hurt, whether they admit it or not.


I'll have you know that back in my day we could play world police in a country we bombed into a third world shithole _and _xbox, fella!


----------



## spudmunkey

For me, while I ABSOLUTELY wouldn't doubt it...nobody is claiming sharing the intel, and nobody is attributed.

There's so much to hate Trump for, I've given up giving too much mental bandwidth to "sources say", etc until it a degree of separation is removed.


----------



## Wuuthrad

“Nobody’s done more than me!”

“I keep my promises!”

Did he though? No.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/...mises-check.html?referringSource=articleShare


----------



## Ralyks

Even Fox is corroborating the Atlantic story.... And somehow he'll STILL recovery from insulting one of his biggest bases.


----------



## Adieu

Maybe Trump is an idiot savant with an uncanny sense of what people REALLY think, but are afraid to say out loud?

I mean, yeah most of us are racists, yeah most of us think morality is overrated, and many who aren't combat veterans think the deference demanded by the recent, non-drafted contract personnel who voluntarily fought for salary in offensive foreign entanglements is maybe a bit much

And then Trump's just like "whaaat? Fuck em" and everybody's like "did he say that? CAN he say that? (Quietly) but yeah, maybe fuck em"


....Donald IS a genius at sweet-talking everyone's inner asshole, after all


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...Biden-November-despite-mistakes-hes-past.html

You know Trump has pissed enough enough people to the point ANITA HILL will vote for Biden.


----------



## fantom

Well let's look at the bright side of things. Since Trump took office:


Republicans are arguing to take vaccines before scientists even confirmed they are safe
Republicans are arguing in favor of schooling kids
Republicans are pushed for monthly "stimulus checks" (can we just call it universal basic income yet?)
Republicans argued that "factually inaccurate" teachings about historical events should be banned from public schools
It really doesn't look too bad after all! Trump 2024 /s


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> Well let's look at the bright side of things. Since Trump took office:
> 
> 
> Republicans are arguing to take vaccines before scientists even confirmed they are safe


Is it republicans? Arent republicans the ones claiming Fauci and Gates are trying to microchip everyone and deactivate the "religious gene"?


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Is it republicans? Arent republicans the ones claiming Fauci and Gates are trying to microchip everyone and deactivate the "religious gene"?



Maybe, but you seriously wouldn't put it past Trump to put a faulty vaccine out right in time to claim he's a hero for the election?


----------



## Randy

Does it turn you orange? Not that it would stop me just curious.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Does it turn you orange? Not that it would stop me just curious.



Except around the eyes, yes.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> People keep saying that, as if this administration would follow the rules. Who exactly would enforce that? The military, who is currently under Trump's command? Are they all going to suddenly overthrow Trump if he won't leave? Why would anyone suddenly grow a spine then?


IIRC it's actually the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, in the - very strictly limited - scenario where on inauduration day we don't have a clear winner to inaugurate. Otherwise, yeah, Pelosi is third in the chain of succession to the presidency under normal circumstances. 

And, honestly, if push came to shove, if Trump lost the election and tried to refuse to step down... Members of the military are career soldiers sworn to uphold the Constitution, and Trump hasn't exactly done much to curry the favor of military command. You might have some trouble with rank-and-file soldiers, but I think any attempted coup would be put down pretty quickly by the military.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Look I get it -> There's a lot of race issues embedded in a lot of topics, particularly when you're talking American politics. But nothing I said was racial at all. Not literally everything is racial.
> 
> I got called an enabler of white supremacy for doing nothing other than recognizing that some phrases can be taken in different ways. My whole "misstep" was not using the exactly approved words and thought processes to end up on the "right side" of the conversation, despite agreeing with the values people are spouting at me as if I'm against them. I find it ludicrous. I'm on your side guys. I agree with you. I'm just really not onboard with this whole deal of needing to parrot exactly the right phrases, lest you be "part of the problem". This kind of arguing is what turns would-be allies into foes. You've not "educated" me, you've vilified me.


In addition to Randy's post, I'd also point out that the phrase "enabling white supremacy" can be interpreted in a couple of ways, as well. 

You seem to be taking it in an active sense - that we're accusing you of _promoting_ white supremancy. That's definitely not the case, I don't interpret anything you've said as "you know, maybe white supremacy isn't so bad." 

I think I can speak for most of the other people you've been talking with here, in saying that we're using it in more of a passive sense - that you're not saying "hey, these white supremacists have a point" anywhere along the way here, but saying that it's not fair to reduce topics to "us vs the racists" when in fact most of the topics you mention DO have subtle, under-the-surface racist power structures that you just may not be aware of, is - for wholly and entirely innocent reasons, I don't want to give you the wrong impression here - passively promoting the perpetuation of many of those structures, and giving racists cover and plausible deniability. That's not you yourself being a white supremacist, that's not you knowingly sticking up for white supremacy, but that's providing valuable cover that could potentially let these structures persist, which indirectly IS supporting a structure that favors white Americans over non-white. I don't think that's what you have in mind when you hear someone say you're enabling white supremacy, whereas I think a lot of the people you're discussing this with, myself included, are trying to get across - that, as an example, arguing that race has nothing to do with gun culture in America is low-key, passively, indirectly supporting a group of Americans who see access to guns and "law and order" policing, as a way of keeping non-white Americans and specifically black Americans disenfranchised while protecting the interest of white Americans. 

That doesn't make you yourself a white supremacist.... But you can be damned sure they appreciate the assist, you know?


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Maybe, but you seriously wouldn't put it past Trump to put a faulty vaccine out right in time to claim he's a hero for the election?



That'll be difficult, Putin has already beaten him to running THAT con in a very public and visible manner


----------



## TedEH

On one hand I was having a shit week and was taking everything defensively.
On the other hand, I think you guys were very much putting words in my mouth, and someone _did_ post a meme basically comparing me to a Nazi so..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## budda

So after reading Drew's post, does it make sense? I think he explained it pretty well.


----------



## Randy

You're right its not you it was definitely the seven or eight people from different corners of the world complaining about the same thing, carry on.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 84746


There's Something About Biden


----------



## sleewell

fox news and several other outlets have now confirmed the atlantic story regarding trump's abhorrent comments on the military.

will there be any fallout within his base? i am guessing no.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> fox news and several other outlets have now confirmed the atlantic story regarding trump's abhorrent comments on the military.
> 
> will there be any fallout within his base? i am guessing no.



From what I see, not until a respected-enough people personally come forward and claim being the up-until-then-anonymous source.


----------



## Randy

I dunno, I've already seen it turn a few people.


----------



## TedEH

budda said:


> So after reading Drew's post, does it make sense? I think he explained it pretty well.


I never disagreed with any of it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Some scholars have said the real history of the USA is only 50 odd years old; since the passing of the Civil Rights Act.

We live in a Patriarchal Racist Society, systemically and institutionally speaking, not excluding personal beliefs or ideologies.

I’m not sure this is easy to convey without having been born and raised here, and been “educated” here, hopefully anyway.

People in the South have had their educations basically edited and modified to perpetuate racist ideologies and power structures for example.

Intellectuals and Scholars of diverse backgrounds also argue is Black Capitalism really a way forward? Since it perpetuates the exploitation of the worker, can it really be?


----------



## Wuuthrad

I recommend this watch- simply speaking, in summary- “government should treat each child as ‘our’ child:”


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 84788



Here it is in the flesh.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/08/joe-biden-faces-pushback-from-progressive-over-cabinet-picks/

Progressives are demanding cabinet picks having no loyalties to Wall Street (which is related to the job they're tasked with) and Democratic answer is "oh that's limiting. The picks need to be black and not having Wall Street ties eliminates black people from consideration".  Because that has anything to do with policy.

Assuming the Dems don't Mook this one up, that's what you're looking at. Four years of virtue signaling through diversity hires. As long as they're black, brown, female, etc it doesn't matter if they're a tyrant or a swamp monster. Sometimes I loathe this party.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> Here it is in the flesh.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/09/08/joe-biden-faces-pushback-from-progressive-over-cabinet-picks/
> 
> Progressives are demanding cabinet picks having no loyalties to Wall Street (which is related to the job they're tasked with) and Democratic answer is "oh that's limiting. The picks need to be black and not having Wall Street ties eliminates black people from consideration".  Because that has anything to do with policy.
> 
> Assuming the Dems don't Mook this one up, that's what you're looking at. Four years of virtue signaling through diversity hires. As long as they're black, brown, female, etc it doesn't matter if they're a tyrant or a swamp monster. Sometimes I loathe this party.



god bless identity politics.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Sometimes I loathe this party.



For real.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> On one hand I was having a shit week and was taking everything defensively.
> On the other hand, I think you guys were very much putting words in my mouth, and someone _did_ post a meme basically comparing me to a Nazi so..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Whoa whoa whoa...

Who is putting words into mouths now? I never compared you to a nazi. I was only saying you are a nice person. The Holocaust survivor was the one that said nice people make the best nazis. All I did was put the information out there to expose you and your nazi ways. I never called you a nazi. Stop being such a nazi, Ted, geez...


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> On one hand I was having a shit week and was taking everything defensively.
> On the other hand, I think you guys were very much putting words in my mouth, and someone _did_ post a meme basically comparing me to a Nazi so..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I've certainly had my fair share of shit weeks at work, and I'd certainly never compare you to a nazi. But I hope you at least came away with a better understanding of how things like "why do we have to make everything about race" when it turns out they ARE about race, is indirectly supportive of white people maintaining a position of power over non-white people, even if that's not at all your intention.



Randy said:


> Four years of virtue signaling through diversity hires. As long as they're black, brown, female, etc it doesn't matter if they're a tyrant or a swamp monster. Sometimes I loathe this party.


At risk of being even a little too cynical for my OWN comfort, I suppose that's an improvement over four years of vice-signaling by hiring a slate of rich white men who are ALSO tyrants and swamp monsters. I mean, brown children deserve to know that they _too_ can grow up to be tyrants if they just try hard and believe in themselves, you know?


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...itics/homeland-security-russia-trump.amp.html

What say you, comrades?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I'm curious how bad does today hurt trump... the recorded interview/ failing to protect citizens by downplaying the virus. Besides his insane core posse I wonder if this will sway a good number of swing voters? I know that any sane or half-way intelligent person was taking this seriously early on ( Feb?) but I wonder how many of his potential supporters or virus naysayers will finally get that this bag of garbage outright lied and potentially cost many more lives.


----------



## sleewell

It wont move the needle at all. There is no bottom. Dear leader rules his cult and tells them what to think.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

High Plains Drifter said:


> I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".



jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.


----------



## SpaceDock

Captain Butterscotch said:


> jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.



IMO it is because we now live in a post truth society. I don’t want to blame Trump for all of it, but he has been a huge factor in the erosion of trust in objective reality. We now only trust what supports our agenda and feel all others operate the same.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...itics/homeland-security-russia-trump.amp.html
> 
> What say you, comrades?



I say, as usual, that this is ALL very deja vu familiar BS for anyone from a failed or failing state, like those Latin America, the Middle East, or the former Soviet Union


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> At risk of being even a little too cynical for my OWN comfort, I suppose that's an improvement over four years of vice-signaling by hiring a slate of rich white men who are ALSO tyrants and swamp monsters. I mean, brown children deserve to know that they _too_ can grow up to be tyrants if they just try hard and believe in themselves, you know?



Not looking to demonize Wall Street, as at this point the bulk of the lives of people in this country rely on it (whether it's via jobs or retirements), but my bigger concern is doing things 2 degrees different than the Republican Party and then 4 years down the road, people being frustrated with the economy and the Democrats not being able to draw enough contrast between them and the Republicans on policy. That's one of the things that bit them on the ass in 2016, I could make an hour long compilation of Trump complaining about Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, etc. that played in his favor regardless of how hypocritical it ended up being.

Other than the fact I think economic inequality is the biggest common denominator (I bet neither George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, Daniel Prude or any of the people killed in the protests over the last couple weeks 1. made over $100,000/yr. or 2. owned the house they were living in), there's the fact that looking like the 'latte liberal' party is the most effective tool that gets used against them.

The Democratic Party of the last 40+ years has been fairly good at balancing being empathetic and recognizing working class people have a lot on their plate when it comes to just surviving day-to-day. Luckily those aren't mutually exclusive concepts, but Trump was very good at putting a wedge there (this is what you saw in swing states) where he basically said, you have a choice, saving yourself or saving illegal immigrants/gays/minorities etc. And not that they're a traditionally selfish demographic but the frustrations were there enough and he baited fear enough that it was a trade-off they were forced to make.

The fortunate thing about running against Trump in 2020 is that he made this choice a lot easier by making life harder for most Americans AND treating vulnerable populations in abhorrent, subhuman ways. So I'm sure there's a lot of midwestern, moderate-type voters that aren't falling for it this time, but be weary of a corporatist Democratic Party having to run against another Republican populist that's less of a compromise in 2024. Biden over Trump is an easy choice, Biden over John Kasich or Mitt Romney might not be.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Biden over Trump is an easy choice, Biden over John Kasich or Mitt Romney might not be.


Not to minimize an excellent post (that I broadly agree with) by focusing on the ending... but, frankly, a day when a presidential election was a choice between Biden on one hand and Kasich or Romney on the other - between old, white, boring moderate members of their respective parties - frankly sounds like a wonderful fantasy at the moment.


(impromptu less flippant answer below)

And, I guess, actually, I think the fact Trump IS who the Democrats were running against, and not Kasich or Romney or someone of their ilk, kind of matters here too. The last 3 1/2 years have been something of an existential crisis for liberals - speaking personally, I've always believed that human history was an arc, and that no matter how bad things are today, we would make them better tomorrow, and again the day after, and that the arc of human history has been one of slow, incremental, but unstoppable progress. Trump shook that belief to the core. I don't think it's a coincidence that three years after Trump was elected and after he'd begun to gut our democratic norms, the #1 priority in a candidate for almost all Democratic voters was some variation of "electability" or "ability to beat Trump." These are poorly defined concepts, sure... but when you look back at the primary, we actually had a fairly wide array of fairly decent candidates, and while Biden seemed like an early favorite, as we got into the debates and it got closer to the vote, we had a whole slew of different frontrunners. Warren had her moment, Harris looked strong very early on, Buttigieg surged after Iowa... and it was only when Sanders became the sudden favorite, but one who looked likely to win a plurality rather than a majority of the vote, and Biden had a strong night in South Carolina showing that Sanders never really managed to make inroads into the Black vote, than in a span of about 48 hours essentially the entire party, from elites to rank-and-file voters in the next wave of states to vote, all lined up behind him because, whatever "electable" meant, they all decided he was it.

So, take Trump out of there as the catalyst... And I honestly don't know WHO the nominee would have been, but it wouldn't have been Biden, I'd bet. Maybe we as a party would have decided it was worth the risk of running a woman again, against Romney, and Warren would have pulled through. Maybe the prospect of Sanders winning while failing to even unify the Democratic party wouldn't have felt like such a gamble. Maybe Buttigeg wouldn't have been seen as crippled by failing to win New Hampshire after upsetting Sanders in Iowa. Who knows, but I don't think the primary would have gone down in NEARLY the same manner.

I just think if you're running against Trump, someone like Biden - old, white, experienced, pretty closely in line with the center of the Democratic party, while still offering some crossover appeal - is the kind of candidate you run, whereas when running against someone who's more of the Republican version of Biden, _then_ you start to see voters considering someone more like a Sanders or a Warren or a Buttigieg. Differentiation is critical in, well, in a lot more things than politics, but politics is definitely one of them, and while there are a lot of disadvntages against running against an incumbent, the one major advantage you DO have is your opponent is a known quantity. It's easy to think about how your candidate will differentiate themselves from the other party's candidate, when they're not also running a competitive primary.

Idunno. tl;dr - if Romney was the president today, I don't think Biden would be our nominee. That kind of a matchup and the risk you point to is still possible in a situation like 2016 when bth parties are holding competitive primaries, but in 2020, if someone like Romney or Kasich had won in 2016, I think the Democratic party would have had a very different set of priorities.


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".


Maybe at the margins it'll cost him a few, especially when these clips make it into campaign ads, and god knows Trump's path to victory is already narrow enough...

...but my girlfriend's reaction, I think, was telling - paraphrasing, "saying he downplayed it because he didn't want to cause a panic is probably the best possible reason he COULD have presented for downplaying it, because that's actually a pretty reasonable, human concern. If he'd said he'd downplayed it because he didn't want to hurt his polling numbers, that might be a different story, but there's no real obvious way to attack his motives here." 

She's got a point - yeah, it's empirically clear he lied, and there will be some real awkward ads where he's talking about a "Democratic hoax" and then cutting to a clip from this from a day or two before... But he gave a pretty plausible, if WILDLY irresponsible, reason for lying, that suggests he did it out of concern for Americans. I think some of the other clips, calling "his generals" a "bunch of fucking pussies" because they cared more about alliances than trade deals, and suggesting Woodward was nuts for thinking they should be cognizant of their white privilege, are ultimately more damaging.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Not to minimize an excellent post (that I broadly agree with) by focusing on the ending... but, frankly, a day when a presidential election was a choice between Biden on one hand and Kasich or Romney on the other - between old, white, boring moderate members of their respective parties - frankly sounds like a wonderful fantasy at the moment.
> 
> 
> (impromptu less flippant answer below)
> 
> And, I guess, actually, I think the fact Trump IS who the Democrats were running against, and not Kasich or Romney or someone of their ilk, kind of matters here too. The last 3 1/2 years have been something of an existential crisis for liberals - speaking personally, I've always believed that human history was an arc, and that no matter how bad things are today, we would make them better tomorrow, and again the day after, and that the arc of human history has been one of slow, incremental, but unstoppable progress. Trump shook that belief to the core. I don't think it's a coincidence that three years after Trump was elected and after he'd begun to gut our democratic norms, the #1 priority in a candidate for almost all Democratic voters was some variation of "electability" or "ability to beat Trump." These are poorly defined concepts, sure... but when you look back at the primary, we actually had a fairly wide array of fairly decent candidates, and while Biden seemed like an early favorite, as we got into the debates and it got closer to the vote, we had a whole slew of different frontrunners. Warren had her moment, Harris looked strong very early on, Buttigieg surged after Iowa... and it was only when Sanders became the sudden favorite, but one who looked likely to win a plurality rather than a majority of the vote, and Biden had a strong night in South Carolina showing that Sanders never really managed to make inroads into the Black vote, than in a span of about 48 hours essentially the entire party, from elites to rank-and-file voters in the next wave of states to vote, all lined up behind him because, whatever "electable" meant, they all decided he was it.
> 
> So, take Trump out of there as the catalyst... And I honestly don't know WHO the nominee would have been, but it wouldn't have been Biden, I'd bet. Maybe we as a party would have decided it was worth the risk of running a woman again, against Romney, and Warren would have pulled through. Maybe the prospect of Sanders winning while failing to even unify the Democratic party wouldn't have felt like such a gamble. Maybe Buttigeg wouldn't have been seen as crippled by failing to win New Hampshire after upsetting Sanders in Iowa. Who knows, but I don't think the primary would have gone down in NEARLY the same manner.
> 
> I just think if you're running against Trump, someone like Biden - old, white, experienced, pretty closely in line with the center of the Democratic party, while still offering some crossover appeal - is the kind of candidate you run, whereas when running against someone who's more of the Republican version of Biden, _then_ you start to see voters considering someone more like a Sanders or a Warren or a Buttigieg. Differentiation is critical in, well, in a lot more things than politics, but politics is definitely one of them, and while there are a lot of disadvntages against running against an incumbent, the one major advantage you DO have is your opponent is a known quantity. It's easy to think about how your candidate will differentiate themselves from the other party's candidate, when they're not also running a competitive primary.
> 
> Idunno. tl;dr - if Romney was the president today, I don't think Biden would be our nominee. That kind of a matchup and the risk you point to is still possible in a situation like 2016 when bth parties are holding competitive primaries, but in 2020, if someone like Romney or Kasich had won in 2016, I think the Democratic party would have had a very different set of priorities.



Agreed on a lot of points. One thing I would be mindful of is that your POTUS either runs the next go around, or a new candidate does and they're seldom 180 degrees from the nominee/winner the last go around. Gore was very much a reverberation of Clinton (obviously as VP) and the GOP ran a de facto campaig against Clinton in 2000, McCain was in a lot of ways an extension of GWB (hawkish neocon) and Obama's campaign waged a de facto campaign against GWB.

HRC was probably the most ''different" follow-up of the bunch, but she still was an ex-Obama official and the bulk of her policy was 'more of the last 8 years but better', and obviously the endorsements of Obama. Other than the fact Trump couldn't shut up about Obama for the whole 2016 campaign or the 4 years after, he also ran as "Make America Great Again", not "Keep America Great" (implying things were good and Hillary would fuck it up) or "Make America Great" (like a commentary on a future country under Trump's vision). It was essentially a 'lets undo the last 8 or more years' campaign.

So yeah, Biden is a great contrast to Trump and also effective for the fact he IS a moderate but Biden/Harris 2024 or Harris/Buttigieg 2024 can't run against a moderate challenger as, like, "We're Firing All the Wall Street Guys This Time" or something. I'm expecting 4 years of a great relief from Trump's term, but there's nothing there that a Never Trumper (Jeb?) candidate couldn't springboard off of.

I'm unapologetically ticking the box for Biden (don't even have to hold my nose!) but I haven't seen a substantive policy that wins back working class besides a universal appeal to normalcy. That magic likely wears off when you don't have treasonous collusion, enabling white supremacists and a pandemic to blame for a slumping middle class life.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Lots of great stuff


I can't really disagree with any of this. If Biden wins, and let's say somehow serves two terms, then in 2028 we'll likely see Harris run as "Biden, But Incrementally More Progressive And Also A Mixed Race Woman." I'll say from the perspective of today, that's not the _worst_ outcome that could happen, but it makes you wonder what sort of monster the GOP will drudge up to run against her. Hell, Ivanka, Don Jr, and Eric are all old enough to run, though maybe that's not being nearly creative enough. The 'Nuge? Tucker Carlson? Someone of their ilk? 

Of course, on the flip side, if Biden _doesn't_ win, just imagine who we'll run in 2024. A Cardboard Cutout of Obama? John Kasich? Jeff Flake? Unless the DNC decides that running to the center in as bland a way as possible isn't an effective strategy against the Trump-led RNC, but honestly, not only am I convinced they won't, I don't think they'd be wrong to run a moderate against someone who, while he doesn't fit neatly on a political compass, is certainly _some_ form of extremist.


----------



## Randy

One of the issues I had that still lingers regardless no matter how hard I try to play nice is the notion that addressing income inequality is "far left" but committing to having a black woman as your VP candidate before you've even picked which one (binders full of women?) isn't drives me absolutely nuts.

Kamala quoted sometime in the last couple days saying she was "proud" of Jacob Blake. I'm all for REAL equality for people in this country, revising policing practices especially as they pertain to minorities, etc. but Jacob Blake was a rapist shot while ignoring the police after being tased twice and reached into a car where there was a knife while the police were ordering him not to AND HE SURVIVED. I don't think the legal outcome of anything he did should be death or paralysis, but the potential VP of the United States saying they're PROUD of him? I have a hard time believing that wins you midwestern moderate voters, but universal basic income scares them all away.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that there's no such thing as moderation in this party when it comes to identity politics but you talk about healthcare or taxes and it's WOAH HOLD ON THERE MAO. If Trump can promote 'across the board' stimulus of $1200 and support some kind of enhanced/extended unemployment as a Republican President/candidate, I don't think a Democratic platform that at least *addresses* income equality (tax rates and loopholes on the rich, social safety-net programs, minimum wage, expanded assistance for middle class, etc) is instant hard pass from moderate voters.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> yeah, it's empirically clear he lied... he did it out of concern for Americans.




What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.

Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?

He was obviously just joking?


----------



## diagrammatiks

Wuuthrad said:


> What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.
> 
> Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?
> 
> He was obviously just joking?



Drew’s saying that if the reason given is he didn’t want to incite a panic...that’s a reason that would make sense to his supporters. 

maybe. 

ostensibly this is the same reason the Wuhan government gave for silencing the doctor and suppressing reports of the virus in the first month. 

Of course the real reason and the real reason for trump to is that they don’t want to look bad.


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> IMO it is because we now live in a post truth society. I don’t want to blame Trump for all of it, but he has been a huge factor in the erosion of trust in objective reality. We now only trust what supports our agenda and feel all others operate the same.



People lying and changing facts is nothing new. It is kind of a leader's job to shield their population from a lot of information that would just cause a panic or national crisis. And it is human nature to use that power to build strong alliances and personal stability in the event shit does hit the fan. This isn't unique to Trump. It's been going on as long as the human race. Just look at the environmental movement and what was done in the 1960s-1970s and where that got us. Or maybe the war against the Taliban after 9/11 (or even the Gulf War from Bush #1). I think the only difference now is that people see the immediate effect of covid because it is on home soil and changing their daily routine. Also the internet makes information from other sources more accessible, meaning it is harder to silence disagreement (see China or North Korea).



Wuuthrad said:


> What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.
> 
> Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?
> 
> He was obviously just joking?



Impeach him for what? He can make the information classified if he wants and lie about the real data if he sees it as the best interests of the population. That is literally what he was elected to do. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think he did anything impeachable here and you are making a wrong judgement due to the person and not what he did.


----------



## LordCashew

Drew said:


> ...but it makes you wonder what sort of monster the GOP will drudge up to run against her. Hell, Ivanka, Don Jr, and Eric are all old enough to run, though maybe that's not being nearly creative enough. The 'Nuge? Tucker Carlson? Someone of their ilk?



Alex Jones.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Captain Butterscotch said:


> jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.



I'm rather cynical in general.. especially regarding politicians and people's level of common sense. But idk... I'm just hopeful that this latest revelation has cost him some votes. I don't necessarily think it has... just trying to convince myself that some people out there are still waking up. 



Drew said:


> ...but my girlfriend's reaction, I think, was telling - paraphrasing, "saying he downplayed it because he didn't want to cause a panic is probably the best possible reason he COULD have presented for downplaying it, because that's actually a pretty reasonable, human concern. If he'd said he'd downplayed it because he didn't want to hurt his polling numbers, that might be a different story, but there's no real obvious way to attack his motives here."



I think that I'm just trying to go into the mind of those that are still swaying... not that there are many of those ppl left at this point. But idk... when I say "go into the mind", I'm trying to picture these people distancing themselves from the dinner table & water-cooler conversations, from face-book, etc... realizing that not just a few times, but consistently and constantly... month after month... severely downplaying and lying to everyone that might've looked to him for direction. I personally don't trust politicians and I sure don't look to them for unbiased health related information. But again.. at what point when you only have yourself to look at in the mirror, do you actually say that ( regardless of actual motives) he knowingly did a "good" thing or the "right" thing? Obviously our numbers in the US were fucking skyrocketing. There has to be a point whether someone wants to admit it or not, that they realize that he did WAY more harm than good by perpetually misinforming the American public. Even if someone was so daft as to think he made honest mistakes... the recklessness has been astounding. Idk.. How does someone halfway logical, support that?


----------



## diagrammatiks

High Plains Drifter said:


> I'm rather cynical in general.. especially regarding politicians and people's level of common sense. But idk... I'm just hopeful that this latest revelation has cost him some votes. I don't necessarily think it has... just trying to convince myself that some people out there are still waking up.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I'm just trying to go into the mind of those that are still swaying... not that there are many of those ppl left at this point. But idk... when I say "go into the mind", I'm trying to picture these people distancing themselves from the dinner table & water-cooler conversations, from face-book, etc... realizing that not just a few times, but consistently and constantly... month after month... severely downplaying and lying to everyone that might've looked to him for direction. I personally don't trust politicians and I sure don't look to them for unbiased health related information. But again.. at what point when you only have yourself to look at in the mirror, do you actually say that ( regardless of actual motives) he knowingly did a "good" thing or the "right" thing? Obviously our numbers in the US were fucking skyrocketing. There has to be a point whether someone wants to admit it or not, that they realize that he did WAY more harm than good by perpetually misinforming the American public. Even if someone was so daft as to think he made honest mistakes... the recklessness has been astounding. Idk.. How does someone halfway logical, support that?



Why would him lying about coronavirus sway any one. 

the dems aren’t voting for him anyway. 

his supporters don’t think it’s a real thing. 

so just people on the fence...Who believe in Covid. But are unsure of trump. 

seems like a very small demographic.


----------



## downburst82

Randy said:


> One of the issues I had that still lingers regardless no matter how hard I try to play nice is the notion that addressing income inequality is "far left" but committing to having a black woman as your VP candidate before you've even picked which one (binders full of women?) isn't drives me absolutely nuts.
> 
> Kamala quoted sometime in the last couple days saying she was "proud" of Jacob Blake. I'm all for REAL equality for people in this country, revising policing practices especially as they pertain to minorities, etc. but Jacob Blake was a rapist shot while ignoring the police after being tased twice and reached into a car where there was a knife while the police were ordering him not to AND HE SURVIVED. I don't think the legal outcome of anything he did should be death or paralysis, but the potential VP of the United States saying they're PROUD of him? I have a hard time believing that wins you midwestern moderate voters, but universal basic income scares them all away.
> 
> I'm very skeptical of the idea that there's no such thing as moderation in this party when it comes to identity politics but you talk about healthcare or taxes and it's WOAH HOLD ON THERE MAO. If Trump can promote 'across the board' stimulus of $1200 and support some kind of enhanced/extended unemployment as a Republican President/candidate, I don't think a Democratic platform that at least *addresses* income equality (tax rates and loopholes on the rich, social safety-net programs, minimum wage, expanded assistance for middle class, etc) is instant hard pass from moderate voters.



Maybe I missed something and it is who your referring to but it was Mitt Romney who made the "Binders of women" quote.

I believe Kamala harris was referring to the words Jacob Blake spoke in the video released from his hospital bed.
Also he has not been convicted of the charges you mentioned and has pled not guilty...so maybe not fair to use it as partial justification for him being shot it the back.


----------



## Wuuthrad

fantom said:


> Impeach him for what? He can make the information classified if he wants and lie about the real data if he sees it as the best interests of the population. That is literally what he was elected to do. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think he did anything impeachable here and you are making a wrong judgement due to the person and not what he did.



He did an interview which was just released publicly where he states full knowledge of the severity of the disease and discussing it with the leader of China.

I didn’t make the judgement re. impeachment- I read an article where a lawyer was saying that withholding information, and subsequently telling lies contrary to that info that contribute to the death of many people is impeachable.

Anyway who gives a shit about panic before the virus took off? Especially now. They ended up locking us down too late and people still panicked.

Stop the damn virus in the beginning. People were panic buying toilet paper and all kinds of shit anyway!

If he told his cult the truth they would have followed him regardless right?

Hold on a second maybe he was right in lying? Cuz he knows people are so full of his shit, if he’d actually told the truth in the beginning, the vast majority of people wouldn’t have believed him anyway!


----------



## diagrammatiks

Wuuthrad said:


> He did an interview which was just released publicly where he states full knowledge of the severity of the disease and discussing it with the leader of China.
> 
> I didn’t make the judgement re. impeachment- I read an article where a lawyer was saying that withholding information, and subsequently telling lies contrary to that info that contribute to the death of many people is impeachable.
> 
> Anyway who gives a shit about panic before the virus took off? Especially now. They ended up locking us down too late and people still panicked.
> 
> Stop the damn virus in the beginning. People were panic buying toilet paper and all kinds of shit anyway!
> 
> If he told his cult the truth they would have followed him regardless right?
> 
> Hold on a second maybe he was right in lying? Cuz he knows people are so full of his shit, if he’d actually told the truth in the beginning, the vast majority of people wouldn’t have believed him anyway!



telling people to vote twice is also super illegal.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

There's a difference between "don't panic, we'll get through this" and "don't panic, the threat isn't real".


----------



## Wuuthrad

The irony of “don’t panic” is it’s used for crowded public spaces...

Don’t panic everyone the virus isn’t real- crowd the theaters and pack the bars!


----------



## fantom

Wuuthrad said:


> He did an interview which was just released publicly where he states full knowledge of the severity of the disease and discussing it with the leader of China.
> 
> I didn’t make the judgement re. impeachment- I read an article where a lawyer was saying that withholding information, and subsequently telling lies contrary to that info that contribute to the death of many people is impeachable.
> 
> Anyway who gives a shit about panic before the virus took off? Especially now. They ended up locking us down too late and people still panicked.
> 
> Stop the damn virus in the beginning. People were panic buying toilet paper and all kinds of shit anyway!
> 
> If he told his cult the truth they would have followed him regardless right?
> 
> Hold on a second maybe he was right in lying? Cuz he knows people are so full of his shit, if he’d actually told the truth in the beginning, the vast majority of people wouldn’t have believed him anyway!



First, I despise Trump. I'm not backing him at all. That being said...

Link to the article please? I just spent some time trying to find any articles or people claiming he committed an impeachable offense and didn't find anything.

Also, you can't fault him for not having a time machine. He gambled that the virus wouldn't spread here and fucked up. He had every right to do that. Should he have admitted he was wrong sooner? Probably, but we know that isn't the way Trump operates.

And he didn't kill anyone. He made a bad judgment and tried to save face. Hindsight is 20/20. If you want to impeach Trump again, at least pick something he did that Republicans will agree on.

Ya, it would be nice if he was more cautious and didn't act reckless with humans. But that is just as much on his entire cabinet and the senate as it is on him. The only way to fix this debacle is for people to go vote. So go vote


----------



## MaxOfMetal

He's already been impeached. It's done. I don't know why people keep coming back to that, especially now. 

They could begin another round of hearings in the House today and it won't matter because a) the Senate isn't going to vote to convict/remove, and b) we're less than two months away from the election.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Well here’s impeachment. Maybe it’s not going to happen here, and I didn’t suggest it should, but I don't think it’s something to just say- oh just another colossal fuck up buy the laughable guy in the Oval Office. He sure fucked up this time (again) but he really was trying wasn’t he? News flash: No he wasn’t. He didn’t give a damn! 

When has he ever tried to prevent panic? He literally stokes panic, fear and violence on the daily- haven’t you been paying attention? 

He’s a con-man, he’s not a bumbling idiot after all, and he’s known exactly what he’s doing all along in those regards, which is what I’ve always said. 

I think we can agree he had no idea what to do as President when it comes to being a public servant, and he’s out his league! He’s great at ripping off the taxpayer and lying to the public what else is new!

Yay vote him out! Woohoo! Meet the new boss same as the old boss! Same shit different color over and over again!

Just keep feeding the War Machine and Wall St and white power lives on dropping bombs! Yea USA USA USA! God bless AmeriKKKa!


_"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[4] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[5]

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[6] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself".[6] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][7]_


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Hey, I hate the players and the game too.


----------



## sleewell

I wasnt trying to cause panic. 

I just wanted to ruin your lives.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> I dunno, I've already seen it turn a few people.



I used to think he was a dangerous, traitorous, deceitful, horrendous human being, who broke our once robust form of government and is unfit to be president.

But now I'm starting to really dislike him.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Here it is in the flesh.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2020/09/08/joe-biden-faces-pushback-from-progressive-over-cabinet-picks/
> 
> Progressives are demanding cabinet picks having no loyalties to Wall Street (which is related to the job they're tasked with) and Democratic answer is "oh that's limiting. The picks need to be black and not having Wall Street ties eliminates black people from consideration".  Because that has anything to do with policy.
> 
> Assuming the Dems don't Mook this one up, that's what you're looking at. Four years of virtue signaling through diversity hires. As long as they're black, brown, female, etc it doesn't matter if they're a tyrant or a swamp monster. *Sometimes I loathe this party.*



As long as we have a trans kid vett the Secretary of Education I'm good.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/30/elizabeth-warren-vows-transgender-child-must-appro/

Seriously... who the F was this trying to appease? Congratulations, Liz, you won 37 votes nationwide and lost 10M including mine.

tl;dr there's only one thing worse than a damned Democrat.... and that's a Republican.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> As long as we have a trans kid vett the Secretary of Education I'm good.
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/30/elizabeth-warren-vows-transgender-child-must-appro/
> 
> Seriously... who the F was this trying to appease? Congratulations, Liz, you won 37 votes nationwide and lost 10M including mine.
> 
> tl;dr there's only one thing worse than a damned Democrat.... and that's a Republican.



this is why I don't understand about the dam strategy for this and last cycle. 

like they probably already have these votes.


----------



## Randy

downburst82 said:


> Maybe I missed something and it is who your referring to but it was Mitt Romney who made the "Binders of women" quote.
> 
> I believe Kamala harris was referring to the words Jacob Blake spoke in the video released from his hospital bed.
> Also he has not been convicted of the charges you mentioned and has pled not guilty...so maybe not fair to use it as partial justification for him being shot it the back.



Solid points all around.

Regarding the "binders full of women" thing, I'm referencing the fact it was used against Romney as an insult (other than the fact it was a weird phrase and funny visual) because they basically needed to go to their record of qualified females rather than something being present because they organically "made it there" and were "part of the group".

I don't think you fix institutional or individual sexism or racism by stamping a diversity requirement on the vice president's job and then picking from your couple of people who fit the criteria. Justice and equality, for me, would've been a Democratic Primary where people of color and women were _better_ represented, or hell, won the actual primary or were every spot in the top 3 or every candidate period!

Speaking as a person of color, justice isn't plucking a person at random because of what boxes they check and installing them somewhere. It's fixing the system so that ALL people of color have the same opportunity to make it there as white men. Other than the fact it's transparent virtue signaling that comes off as fake and will turn a lot of people off, the thing that chaps my ass the most about it is it's just some symbolic bullshit and the underlying disparity is allowed to stay. Black people make it onto the ticket by winning the pandering white guy lottery.

As far as the Jacob Blake stuff, that's totally fair but he also wasnt shot running into a burning house to save a family. I think it does a disservice to the mistreatment of people by the police to deify criminals by making it sound like cops only get rough with saintly people. The fact cops can't handle people who have broken the law without being heavy handed IS the problem.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> Solid points all around.
> 
> Regarding the "binders full of women" thing, I'm referencing the fact it was used against Romney as an insult (other than the fact it was a weird phrase and funny visual) because they basically needed to go to their record of qualified females rather than something being present because they organically "made it there" and were "part of the group".
> 
> I don't think you fix institutional or individual sexism or racism by stamping a diversity requirement on the vice president's job and then picking from your couple of people who fit the criteria. Justice and equality, for me, would've been a Democratic Primary where people of color and women were _better_ represented, or hell, won the actual primary or were every spot in the top 3 or every candidate period!
> 
> Speaking as a person of color, justice isn't plucking a person at random because of what boxes they check and installing them somewhere. It's fixing the system so that ALL people of color have the same opportunity to make it there as white men. Other than the fact it's transparent virtue signaling that comes off as fake and will turn a lot of people off, the thing that chaps my ass the most about it is it's just some symbolic bullshit and the underlying disparity is allowed to stay. Black people make it onto the ticket by winning the pandering white guy lottery.
> 
> As far as the Jacob Blake stuff, that's totally fair but he also wasnt shot running into a burning house to save a family. I think it does a disservice to the mistreatment of people by the police to deify criminals by making it sound like cops only get rough with saintly people. The fact cops can't handle people who have broken the law without being heavy handed IS the problem.



especially in this instance where you're telling the candidate and everyone else...this is a diversity hire. 100 percent.

but it's ok!


----------



## fantom

Wuuthrad said:


> Well here’s impeachment. Maybe it’s not going to happen here, and I didn’t suggest it should, but I don't think it’s something to just say- oh just another colossal fuck up buy the laughable guy in the Oval Office. He sure fucked up this time (again) but he really was trying wasn’t he? News flash: No he wasn’t. He didn’t give a damn!
> 
> When has he ever tried to prevent panic? He literally stokes panic, fear and violence on the daily- haven’t you been paying attention?
> 
> He’s a con-man, he’s not a bumbling idiot after all, and he’s known exactly what he’s doing all along in those regards, which is what I’ve always said.
> 
> I think we can agree he had no idea what to do as President when it comes to being a public servant, and he’s out his league! He’s great at ripping off the taxpayer and lying to the public what else is new!
> 
> Yay vote him out! Woohoo! Meet the new boss same as the old boss! Same shit different color over and over again!
> 
> Just keep feeding the War Machine and Wall St and white power lives on dropping bombs! Yea USA USA USA! God bless AmeriKKKa!
> 
> 
> _"High crimes and misdemeanors", in the legal and common parlance of England in the 17th and 18th centuries, is corrupt activity by those who have special duties that are not shared with common persons.[4] Toward the end of the 1700s, "High crimes and misdemeanors" acquired a more technical meaning. As Blackstone says in his Commentaries: The first and principal high misdemeanor...was mal-administration of such high offices as are in public trust and employment.[5]
> 
> The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust".[6] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself".[6] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[1][7]_



I agree with pretty much everything you are saying, but being pissed off and trying to burn the system down because you aren't happy with the current president is exactly how Trump got elected. You are just repeating the attitude of people that hated Obama.

If you want to have a real fix to the problem, you have to first accept that a large percentage of the country doesn't agree with your attitude on this. Taking extreme points in talking with others is not going to convince people that don't already see the issues.

The biggest realization I had this last few years is that America was not great before, and definitely isn't great now. Accepting the country for what it is is not easy. It's like one day realizing your parents weren't perfect people and seeing them for who they are.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## Randy

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/10/coronavirus-stimulus-vulnerbale-democrats-411935

Worth reading the whole thing but the synopsis is that Democratic leadership hardlining on covid relief is putting vulnerable Democratic seats in danger. At this point Pelosi and Schumer said no more piecemeal bills on relief, it's all or nothing, and the only things on the agenda are funding for testing and marijuana reform. Not good.

A couple notable quotes



> Those Democrats argue that the $3.4 trillion coronavirus relief bill the House passed in May, known as the Heroes Act, is fading from the public’s memory and the House needs to do something now to show lawmakers are taking action despite the Senate stalemate.
> 
> “The currency of that vote is eroding,” Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.), chair of the moderate New Democrat Coalition, argued on the caucus call Thursday, according to multiple sources. “Hoyer raises a legitimate question — whether we’re willing to adjourn in October with the understanding that help may not come... We want the American people that are hurting the most to know that we are fighting for them.”





> Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who chairs the House Budget Committee, said he has personally urged party leaders to take up a bill that deals with the most immediate needs, such as jobless benefits, small business loans or nutritional assistance, rather than holding out for one huge package as the GOP refuses to move.
> 
> "I think most Americans right now look at it and say, these people are just pathetic. They can't come together when people are suffering and they can't come together on a reasonable package," Yarmuth said, referring to the public perception of Washington as a whole. "So I think showing that we're reasonable would be important. I'd like to see us do it before we break for the campaign next month."





> Vulnerable House Democrats are furious about plans to vote in roughly two weeks on the bill, which they believe would fuel a barrage of GOP attack ads in the final weeks before the election despite being widely praised as a step toward racial justice.
> 
> A majority of Americans favor legalization. But some Democrats, particularly freshmen, have been spooked by recent polling that showed that Trump’s “law and order” attacks had already been taking some toll, with voters — particularly in the suburbs — uneasy about calls to defund the police amid nationwide protests.
> 
> Others worried that Democrats would head into the election with their chief message being about marijuana and the rest of their agenda drowned out by Trump, particularly if they leave for recess without a coronavirus relief deal.
> 
> “We can’t fund the government, we can’t fix Covid, but yet we can pass weed,” said one Democratic aide, summing up the frontliners’ anxieties.



Current projections verifying what I said previously. If there's no COVID bill before November, there may not be another on (as far as economic relief) at all and as of now, a second stimulus is dead in the water despite previous bipartisan support. Democrats making clear financial support for middle class is only a priority if its convenient or helps them in polls, if they don't need it after January then they won't bother with it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’ve gotta take a break from all this politics it’s winding me up.

After all these decades of false promises from Washington, I simply need the peace and comfort of 3 Channels of Amp Distortion...

Never meant to bother anyone!

Divide and conquer from the top down is making me regurgitate ideas that aren’t even my own!

I’ll stick with songs- I’ve been quoting them cuz to me they make more sense at the end of day then the endless blalbala of the news cycle...

What gets me tho is being asked to provide links to “prove” my ideas . I was born and raised on the assumption of “good faith” which is the basis of our entire system.

People online seem to assume you’re automatically full of shit and ask for links to support what you say. My response to this is “do your own research!”

I give links to things I think are interesting, that’s pretty much it, whether or not they support my ideas is mostly irrelevant.

I think this is a philosophical, logical and ethical problem that I believe is mostly due to the influence of the internet on human consciousness and perhaps even more so nearly all aspects of society- from Politics to Education all the way to interpersonal relations.

In fact as an Analog kid who was an adult prior to the internet (on a good day anyway) I almost feel pity for humans who’ve spent their entire existence inundated with technology and didn’t learn from books, stories, word of mouth, fliers, handwriting, etc...

It feels good to be a dying breed of Human- last in a line! 

Going forward I have decided I just might be adding to any Political discussion with my own variation on the History of Metal “Metal Tree” which is called:

“Politics Tree”

(First on the list is obviously TubGirl, from which all Politics have clearly flowed...)


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Solid points all around.
> 
> Regarding the "binders full of women" thing, I'm referencing the fact it was used against Romney as an insult (other than the fact it was a weird phrase and funny visual) because they basically needed to go to their record of qualified females rather than something being present because they organically "made it there" and were "part of the group".
> 
> I don't think you fix institutional or individual sexism or racism by stamping a diversity requirement on the vice president's job and then picking from your couple of people who fit the criteria. Justice and equality, for me, would've been a Democratic Primary where people of color and women were _better_ represented, or hell, won the actual primary or were every spot in the top 3 or every candidate period!
> 
> Speaking as a person of color, justice isn't plucking a person at random because of what boxes they check and installing them somewhere. It's fixing the system so that ALL people of color have the same opportunity to make it there as white men. Other than the fact it's transparent virtue signaling that comes off as fake and will turn a lot of people off, the thing that chaps my ass the most about it is it's just some symbolic bullshit and the underlying disparity is allowed to stay. Black people make it onto the ticket by winning the pandering white guy lottery.
> 
> As far as the Jacob Blake stuff, that's totally fair but he also wasnt shot running into a burning house to save a family. I think it does a disservice to the mistreatment of people by the police to deify criminals by making it sound like cops only get rough with saintly people. The fact cops can't handle people who have broken the law without being heavy handed IS the problem.



Exactly. But the problem is it's hard for us to bring the other side to the table when BS like this happens:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/us/usc-chinese-professor-racism-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

As someone who used to speak Mandarin fluently, it was funny to be in a group with two very senior Chinese gov't officials and having them say "nei ge" repeatedly, especially while pointing at people and buildings. My boss (a senior US gov't official) who was Black whispered in my ear "if that sonovabitch says n***r one more time I'm going to kick his ass". I had to calm him down. True story we still laugh about to this day (happened in 2016). Were the Chinese officials racist? Was my boss? Am I? 

Stupid. Anyone who speaks Chinese knows that is their "umm" or used with "zhe ge" to say this and that when referring to things.


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> Exactly. But the problem is it's hard for us to bring the other side to the table when BS like this happens:
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/us/usc-chinese-professor-racism-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
> 
> As someone who used to speak Mandarin fluently, it was funny to be in a group with two very senior Chinese gov't officials and having them say "nei ge" repeatedly, especially while pointing at people and buildings. My boss (a senior US gov't official) who was Black whispered in my ear "if that sonovabitch says n***r one more time I'm going to kick his ass". I had to calm him down. True story we still laugh about to this day (happened in 2016). Were the Chinese officials racist? Was my boss? Am I?
> 
> Stupid.



usc just keeps batting 100.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Exactly. But the problem is it's hard for us to bring the other side to the table when BS like this happens:
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/us/usc-chinese-professor-racism-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
> 
> As someone who used to speak Mandarin fluently, it was funny to be in a group with two very senior Chinese gov't officials and having them say "nei ge" repeatedly, especially while pointing at people and buildings. My boss (a senior US gov't official) who was Black whispered in my ear "if that sonovabitch says n***r one more time I'm going to kick his ass". I had to calm him down. True story we still laugh about to this day (happened in 2016). Were the Chinese officials racist? Was my boss? Am I?
> 
> Stupid. Anyone who speaks Chinese knows that is their "umm" or used with "zhe ge" to say this and that when referring to things.



That story is so ridiculous you almost think it's a hoax.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> That story is so ridiculous you almost think it's a hoax.



[Closes eyes]

Please let it be an Onion article. Please let it be an Onion article. Please let it be an Onion article.

[Opens eyes]

Fuck.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> [Closes eyes]
> 
> Please let it be an Onion article. Please let it be an Onion article. Please let it be an Onion article.
> 
> [Opens eyes]
> 
> Fuck.



Pretty much. 

2020 is the year that tests The Onion staff.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Exactly. But the problem is it's hard for us to bring the other side to the table when BS like this happens:
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/us/usc-chinese-professor-racism-intl-hnk-scli/index.html
> 
> As someone who used to speak Mandarin fluently, it was funny to be in a group with two very senior Chinese gov't officials and having them say "nei ge" repeatedly, especially while pointing at people and buildings. My boss (a senior US gov't official) who was Black whispered in my ear "if that sonovabitch says n***r one more time I'm going to kick his ass". I had to calm him down. True story we still laugh about to this day (happened in 2016). Were the Chinese officials racist? Was my boss? Am I?
> 
> Stupid. Anyone who speaks Chinese knows that is their "umm" or used with "zhe ge" to say this and that when referring to things.



Okay I was just arguing about this with some conservative guys at work. Like obviously the Chinese filler sounds that way, but it doesn't seem off at all that the professor doesn't realize it sounds just like the n-word? And he doesn't (to my, mostly unfamiliar ear) say it in the way that I hear it used in youtube videos I searched for. And he chooses this example out of all possible examples? It just seems a little tone-deaf. 

I'm not saying the guy really deserves backlash or that I agree with the students citing emotional "injury". I just think like, if it was me, and I was a professor giving a class about communication of all things, I would have obviously been aware that the word sounds like a racial slur and either chosen a different example or used it to exemplify how people can misunderstand themselves across languages (this particular one is well-known and has led to more than a few scuffles, so it could have been educational to point it out explicitly).


----------



## diagrammatiks

man Chinese people can't even make a hard r sound.

don't start a fight unless one of them starts calling you Nigel.


----------



## Adieu

This is ridiculous.

It doesn't even sound particularly similar.

And, in any case, the American slur is just borrowing the root of what is a perfectly generic and acceptable term for black the color in multiple languages. Which precluded the whole existence of the American colonies and the enslavement of persons of African descent therein, btw.


----------



## Adieu

I guess an uninformed misunderstanding IS borderline possible when Chinese who have or look like they might have extreme accents in English and could be assumed to have odd pronunciations of English terms use it repeatedly while on an agitated rant about some "THAT something"....which as far as I can tell is one of the typical uses of the word for added emphasis.... but to axe a professor for TEACHING that fact?

Fuck's wrong with society?


PS does it sound a looooot more n-wordy in a particular regional dialect???? Because in standardized Chinese film and TV Mandarin, it's not even remotely close, it's more like "nay gah" or something


----------



## MFB

Adieu said:


> And, in any case, the American slur is just borrowing the root of what is a perfectly generic and acceptable term for black the color in multiple languages. Which precluded the whole existence of the American colonies and the enslavement of persons of African descent therein, btw.



While that may be the case that some languages use the term for "negro," when you refer to a _person_ as nothing more than their color - and by that, also where they're from - that's when it starts to be come a problem you see?


----------



## Adieu

MFB said:


> While that may be the case that some languages use the term for "negro," when you refer to a _person_ as nothing more than their color - and by that, also where they're from - that's when it starts to be come a problem you see?



PERSONS weren't even part of the discussion... attempts to censor other languages for false or partial cognates of a recent insult from one specific, very YOUNG regional dialect were.

American English is very very new in the grand scheme of things, people. And modern American politics seem intent on diminishing its influence in the future anyway.

Might just end up yet another blip, like the brief use of French between the fall from grace of Latin (due to the rise of Protestants I guess?) and the current dominance of English.


----------



## SpaceDock

They had a great skit on Daily Show about this last night.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Okay I was just arguing about this with some conservative guys at work. Like obviously the Chinese filler sounds that way, but it doesn't seem off at all that the professor doesn't realize it sounds just like the n-word? And he doesn't (to my, mostly unfamiliar ear) say it in the way that I hear it used in youtube videos I searched for. And he chooses this example out of all possible examples? It just seems a little tone-deaf.
> 
> I'm not saying the guy really deserves backlash or that I agree with the students citing emotional "injury". I just think like, if it was me, and I was a professor giving a class about communication of all things, I would have obviously been aware that the word sounds like a racial slur and either chosen a different example or used it to exemplify how people can misunderstand themselves across languages (this particular one is well-known and has led to more than a few scuffles, so it could have been educational to point it out explicitly).



So I’ll admit I haven’t listened to it I just saw a response from a Chinese group that said it had the correct pronunciation. FWIW for mainland Mandarin dialect it’s “nay geh”. (The tones are descending on first word and neutral on the second.)

https://resources.allsetlearning.com/chinese/grammar/The_filler_word_"neige"

And yeah there are many languages that have offensive sounding homonyms like saying black in Spanish (negra or negro). This is some petty SJW shit if we’re going to go after other words In other languages that sound like English words that hurt our feelings.


----------



## vilk

Nevermind!


----------



## diagrammatiks

vilk said:


> IMO, firing a Chinese person for saying a non-offensive word in Mandarin is _more_ racist than actually saying the n-word. Saying the n-word is offensive and hurts people's feelings, but ultimately it doesn't directly affect the victim's life in any drastic way. However this dude was literally_ fired from his job _just for speaking his native language. I hope he sues the shit out of some people.



wait dude. it was a white guy.


----------



## vilk

diagrammatiks said:


> wait dude. it was a white guy.


Oh fuck are you serious lol ok nevermind


----------



## fantom

Wuuthrad said:


> ...
> 
> Never meant to bother anyone!
> 
> 
> I’ll stick with songs- I’ve been quoting them cuz to me they make more sense at the end of day then the endless blalbala of the news cycle...
> 
> What gets me tho is being asked to provide links to “prove” my ideas . I was born and raised on the assumption of “good faith” which is the basis of our entire system.
> 
> People online seem to assume you’re automatically full of shit and ask for links to support what you say. My response to this is “do your own research!”
> 
> I give links to things I think are interesting, that’s pretty much it, whether or not they support my ideas is mostly irrelevant.
> 
> I think this is a philosophical, logical and ethical problem that I believe is mostly due to the influence of the internet on human consciousness and perhaps even more so nearly all aspects of society- from Politics to Education all the way to interpersonal relations.
> 
> In fact as an Analog kid who was an adult prior to the internet (on a good day anyway) I almost feel pity for humans who’ve spent their entire existence inundated with technology and didn’t learn from books, stories, word of mouth, fliers, handwriting, etc...
> 
> It feels good to be a dying breed of Human- last in a line!
> 
> Going forward I have decided I just might be adding to any Political discussion with my own variation on the History of Metal “Metal Tree” which is called:
> 
> “Politics Tree”
> 
> (First on the list is obviously TubGirl, from which all Politics have clearly flowed...)



Fwiw, I don't think you were bothering anyone. 

Regarding providing evidence to "prove something", this isn't a new thing unique to the internet. This is the scientific method and the way court systems work. If you make a claim people find incredulous, you "show your work". In my line of work, everyone has a different opinion and preference, the only way to move forward on collaborating is for people to show the details that justify their claims and have open discussion about the trade offs at a detailed level. Otherwise I've seen people throw in the "seniority/experience" card and push a gut feeling to make some very bad decisions that people got bullied out of disagreeing with.

But before the internet, how do you think Galileo or Newton made revolutions? How do you think people built skyscrapers? Launched rockets? What happens when people trust "good faith" is more like the crusades and salem witch trials. Examples where people should have asked more questions on modern times are things like the Manhatten Project.

Anyways, I appreciate your point of view. It is really awesome if you have ability to trust people and take their word. I'm too cynical to be able to do that anymore. 

Go knock out some awesome tunes!


----------



## Wuuthrad

TLDR*


Sometimes I feel just like that crazy old man on the street corner waving my stick in the air shouting at no one in particular... which of course as many other things, this self image reflects on my thoughts about others, particularly certain parts of the internet as if we’re all doing this sort of thing rambling into the ether!


Pubs Bars Parties Shows Festivals Family Events etc... where the real human truths were told straight from the word of mouth, and song-telling through the ages...


somewhere along the way the “personal became political”


Imagine the entire course of human history reduced to bits and bytes on a dying short circuit network hard drive somewhere:


_Oops sorry we lost all human history of previously learned knowledge but never fear, here’s your delicious chip implant! _

(btW I choose BBQ!)

And now people are lining up for it, destroying nearly everything in the process and taken everyone down with them- Earth and themsElves!


Give me THE SINGULARITY and give me NoW! No “saving” of anything or anyone left, no room! Spend and burn, crash and burn never learn....


Fuse the “organic/inorganic” chip implant constructed of age old precious metals comprised from eons of fossilized dying souls of dead corpses unearthed illegally on sacred grounds-

*
Burn the Body Primitive! Human Tekno Sacrifice! *

*Sing Song Storied Truths, real Truths! *


Not troll bots’ cellular mind control feeding off the fueling of “mind(less)” rage induced fear lies and the accompanying accelerated decaying layers of cerebral cortex and neuronal networks corroding and eroding the deep mind for pleasure synapse response of endorphin dopamine rush junkied masses...

*
Forget a “Deep State!” It doesn’t exist!*

(even less so than this ‘rant-ercise’ mental exercise trudge of sloughing a reincarnated psychotropical dung heap up a hill of the endless tragedies of human history race to the bottom, this not-so-deep-state would imply far too much je ne sais qois or practical MO that is far beyond the human denizens or this Earth- it’s plain as Night!)


That slate was wiped clean eons BCE...ever since “Deep Mind” was lost in the pursuit of it’s own excellence, while simultaneously losing focus on the real prize: Collective Evolution- the advancement of human joy.


Wasn’t Tek supposed to free us from strife and hardship? Or was this only the “chosen (self-appointed) few?” Surely....???


*TLDR:

To tell myself anyway:

point is don’t focus on the garbage negative shit-stream, focus on the real and the now- create don’t destroy, its our only hope!



Anywho, I do appreciate your replies, Cheers!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Just... I dunno lol I guess...


----------



## Wuuthrad

High Plains Drifter said:


> Just... I dunno lol I guess...



Yard sign FTW!


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> TLDR*
> 
> 
> Sometimes I feel just like that crazy old man on the street corner waving my stick in the air shouting at no one in particular... which of course as many other things, this self image reflects on my thoughts about others, particularly certain parts of the internet as if we’re all doing this sort of thing rambling into the ether!
> 
> 
> Pubs Bars Parties Shows Festivals Family Events etc... where the real human truths were told straight from the word of mouth, and song-telling through the ages...
> 
> 
> somewhere along the way the “personal became political”
> 
> 
> Imagine the entire course of human history reduced to bits and bytes on a dying short circuit network hard drive somewhere:
> 
> 
> _Oops sorry we lost all human history of previously learned knowledge but never fear, here’s your delicious chip implant! _
> 
> (btW I choose BBQ!)
> 
> And now people are lining up for it, destroying nearly everything in the process and taken everyone down with them- Earth and themsElves!
> 
> 
> Give me THE SINGULARITY and give me NoW! No “saving” of anything or anyone left, no room! Spend and burn, crash and burn never learn....
> 
> 
> Fuse the “organic/inorganic” chip implant constructed of age old precious metals comprised from eons of fossilized dying souls of dead corpses unearthed illegally on sacred grounds-
> 
> *
> Burn the Body Primitive! Human Tekno Sacrifice! *
> 
> *Sing Song Storied Truths, real Truths! *
> 
> 
> Not troll bots’ cellular mind control feeding off the fueling of “mind(less)” rage induced fear lies and the accompanying accelerated decaying layers of cerebral cortex and neuronal networks corroding and eroding the deep mind for pleasure synapse response of endorphin dopamine rush junkied masses...
> 
> *
> Forget a “Deep State!” It doesn’t exist!*
> 
> (even less so than this ‘rant-ercise’ mental exercise trudge of sloughing a reincarnated psychotropical dung heap up a hill of the endless tragedies of human history race to the bottom, this not-so-deep-state would imply far too much je ne sais qois or practical MO that is far beyond the human denizens or this Earth- it’s plain as Night!)
> 
> 
> That slate was wiped clean eons BCE...ever since “Deep Mind” was lost in the pursuit of it’s own excellence, while simultaneously losing focus on the real prize: Collective Evolution- the advancement of human joy.
> 
> 
> Wasn’t Tek supposed to free us from strife and hardship? Or was this only the “chosen (self-appointed) few?” Surely....???
> 
> 
> *TLDR:
> 
> To tell myself anyway:
> 
> point is don’t focus on the garbage negative shit-stream, focus on the real and the now- create don’t destroy, its our only hope!
> 
> 
> 
> Anywho, I do appreciate your replies, Cheers!



I plugged this into Google Translate and even it had no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> I plugged this into Google Translate and even it had no idea what you're talking about.



Must be the Hemp oil- what can I say?


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.
> 
> Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?
> 
> He was obviously just joking?


Pretty much what @diagrammatiks said - to someone who's open to being persuaded by him , this is going to seem like a pretty plausible reason and they'll likely give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying it's a _good_ reason or he _deserves_ the benefit of the doubt -far from it - but in terms of providing a good, clear, concise soundbyte for his supporters to help them see the guy they're supporting has the blood of a fucking _lot_ of dead Americans on his hand, I don't think this is the sort of revelation that's going to turn too many people against him. At best, it'll likely come across as a mistake, and not criminal dishonesty. Which, let's be honest, is what I think it is, but I'm not the sort of person who needs to be persuaded that Trump is a dangerous, un-American megalomaniac. 



High Plains Drifter said:


> Even if someone was so daft as to think he made honest mistakes... the recklessness has been astounding. Idk.. How does someone halfway logical, support that?


I mean, I agree... But add in a healthy dose of "Coronavirus isn't THAT dangerous," "Most people who died did so because of preexisting conditions, only a small percent actually died of the coronavirus," "The Democrats are making this out to be worse than it is to hurt Trump," "who could have prevented Americans from getting sick from something so contagious?," etc etc etc, and it starts to seem less reckless. 

Besides, at this point, I'm not sure you CAN be halfway logical, and still buy Trump's "Keep America Great" slogan.


----------



## sleewell

trump on his indoor rallies: well i am up on stage far away from people so its fine


translation: i dont give a fuck if you live or die, i just like being up on stage.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> trump on his indoor rallies: well i am up on stage far away from people so its fine
> 
> 
> translation: i dont give a fuck if you live or die, i just like being up on stage.


Gotta have those regular shots of ego boost to offset the harsh reality of what’s really going on. Those non Trump supporters just can’t stand to let him him alone long enough to get any good accomplished. This is why he suggests two more terms. He needs a do-over. Naw! What he needs is to be imprisoned for all his illegal activities! Then I want to come by his cage and poke him with a stick. Put him in conditions that he put those immigrants being “detained” in.


----------



## Randy

Congrats DJT on brokering peace between three countries that weren't at war with eachother.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Congrats DJT on brokering peace between three countries that weren't at war with eachother.



Yeah, those countries were already doing business with Israel, and the Palestinians backed out of the negotiations stating that Trump and team were not negotiating in good faith.

But that only matters if you know the backstory; otherwise, this looks like a win for Trump and you know Fox will spin it that way for his base.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, last I heard Israel was using the pandemic and this Bahrain/UAE story as cover while they bulldozed more properties on contested land.


----------



## sleewell

https://www.theonion.com/conservative-evangelical-asks-god-to-give-him-strength-1845065847

*Conservative Evangelical Asks God To Give Her Strength To Incorporate Forced Hysterectomies Into Belief System*




forced hysterectomies new band name idea, called it!!


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Congrats DJT on brokering peace between three countries that weren't at war with eachother.



What did he do now?

And were they, whoever they might be, aware of His participation?


----------



## Drew

Interesting, not especially cheerful, read: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-trump-loses-and-wont-leave/

I continue to stand firm in my belief that the election WILL happen on November 3rd, and that for all his swagger there's nothing that Trump can actually do to stop that, However, I think it's pretty likely that we won't know who won come the morning of November 4th because there will still be large numbers of uncounted absentee ballots, and that in some states, at least, it could be more than another week before the last of the mail in ballots have arrived. Given that Democrats are significantly more likely to vote by mail than Republicans, if the race tightens up there's a real chance that Trump might win the in-person vote in enough swing states to lead by the time the in-person vote count is finished (especially if states don't count absentee votes in advance or do any initial prep-work to speed the count on election day, and have to go at it envelope by envelope), and Trump could very well seize on this opportunity to declare victory, and then rely on the massive groundwork he's already laid t get his follower to refuse to trust mail-in voting to paint his subsequent loss as the result of "widespread voter fraud." 

My hope here is my fears are misplaced, and that Biden's lead holds and is wide enough to account for even the bias towards voting by mail, and he is in the lead in enough swing states on election night that Trump can't credibly try to claim victory, even before his lead grows as absentee/mail-in ballots are counted. And, Biden's lead HAS been remarkably stable. But I also think it's pretty clear that Trump is preparing to contest the results of any election results where he doesn't win by a landslide, so...


----------



## Adieu

The Economist predicts the same play as described above


----------



## sleewell

vote in person!!!!!


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> What did he do now?
> 
> And were they, whoever they might be, aware of His participation?



Bahrain and UAE entered a joint peace agreement with Israel. It was supposed to include Palestine (this was the 'Jarod is going to solve peace in the middle east in the first week I'm in office' thing) but Israel is way too aggressive with Palestine for either to budge, so they settled for Israel making 'peace' with two countries they didn't even have a beef with.

Anyway, they threw a sunshine and rainbows announcement at the White House today where all the leaders sucked Trump off infront of the news cameras for an hour.


----------



## Adieu

Bahrain?

Wasn't that the one mellow spot in the entire Middle East?


----------



## SpaceDock

The supposed peace deal is so we can sell weapons.

I think the real news of the day is Trump retweeting the QAnon pedo accusations against Biden. How low can this get. Last week he was accusing Biden of taking enhancement drugs but this is just so low I almost can’t believe it. Still almost two months left, I can’t imagine how bad Trump is going to get. I am waiting for Bill Barr to drop some DOJ accusations last minute on Joe/Hunter.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> I think the real news of the day is Trump retweeting the QAnon pedo accusations against Biden. How low can this get. Last week he was accusing Biden of taking enhancement drugs but this is just so low I almost can’t believe it. Still almost two months left, I can’t imagine how bad Trump is going to get. I am waiting for Bill Barr to drop some DOJ accusations last minute on Joe/Hunter.




They can always arrest him with a Koran, an eight ball, and a transvestite, accuse him of treason, and ship him off to Guantanamo

That's how the regimes Donald admires roll in "election" years

PS Which him? Doesn't much matter


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adieu said:


> They can always arrest him with a Koran, an eight ball, and a transvestite, accuse him of treason, and ship him off to Guantanamo
> 
> That's how the regimes Donald admires roll in "election" years
> 
> PS Which him? Doesn't much matter



Guess just sprinkle some crack on Kamala Harris and lock her up too.


----------



## SpaceDock

"And you'll develop, you'll develop herd -- like a herd mentality. It's going to be -- it's going to be herd developed - and that's going to happen," Trump said."That will all happen.”

Please vote.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Well in trump's defense, if the majority of your supporters are delusional morons then you really don't have to say things that actually make sense.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Whats weird is even if he loses and some stability is restored to norms and institutions there are still all these people who believe they live in the world Trump tells them about.


----------



## possumkiller

Dineley said:


> Whats weird is even if he loses and some stability is restored to norms and institutions there are still all these people who believe they live in the world Trump tells them about.


Until the next Republican hero comes along to take his place.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Until the next Republican hero comes along to take his place.



I don't think it's really that party's fault

America's broken electoral system and the convention that Republicans sell whatever the largest block of average voters can coalesce around, while Democrats are a non-party united minorities of all stripes coalition --- that's what's to blame

This dumbass country has historically been a racist, xenophobic, religious fundamentalist, gun-happy backwater at heart... is it any wonder that there's a sellout candidate who gets behind all that????

He's no Republican hero, he's a mortgaged-to-the-hilt idiot son of a successful son of a brothel owner. With all the stereotypical traits that come with the package.

He'll personally lead a Latino gay pride parade through downtown Manhattan if he believes it'll help him win something he wants.


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Bahrain?
> 
> Wasn't that the one mellow spot in the entire Middle East?



Bahrain, UAE, Oman, and Qatar (to a degree).


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Oman



Is that the congress woman with the turban or the former President (sometimes photographed with a turban)?


----------



## SpaceDock

Oman is what I keep saying when I watch these Trump conferences.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Is that the congress woman with the turban or the former President (sometimes photographed with a turban)?



It's the one whose new king used to be the head of their football league.


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> I don't think it's really that party's fault
> 
> America's broken electoral system and the convention that Republicans sell whatever the largest block of average voters can coalesce around, while Democrats are a non-party united minorities of all stripes coalition --- that's what's to blame
> 
> This dumbass country has historically been a racist, xenophobic, religious fundamentalist, gun-happy backwater at heart... is it any wonder that there's a sellout candidate who gets behind all that????
> 
> He's no Republican hero, he's a mortgaged-to-the-hilt idiot son of a successful son of a brothel owner. With all the stereotypical traits that come with the package.
> 
> He'll personally lead a Latino gay pride parade through downtown Manhattan if he believes it'll help him win something he wants.


And he is their hero. Until the next hero comes along and says trump was a moron. 

You aren't dealing with real people. You're dealing with cult sheep. They are quick to hate whoever trump tells them to hate whether it's obvious like Obama or their own people like GW. 

When the next father and owner of the party comes, they will hate whoever he says to hate.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> And he is their hero. Until the next hero comes along and says trump was a moron.
> 
> You aren't dealing with real people. You're dealing with cult sheep. They are quick to hate whoever trump tells them to hate whether it's obvious like Obama or their own people like GW.
> 
> When the next father and owner of the party comes, they will hate whoever he says to hate.



Yeah.

Sometimes it's NOT just the current bad boyfriend that's the actual problem


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Sometimes it's NOT just the current bad boyfriend that's the actual problem


Trump isn't even the problem. When he's gone, all the tragically ignorant or naturally evil followers and people in places of power such as the police and politicians will still be there. Getting rid of trump isn't going to flip a switch and turn everything back to normal like a lot of people are thinking and hoping. Trump merely exposed our system and people for what they are.


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> Trump isn't even the problem. When he's gone, all the tragically ignorant or naturally evil followers and people in places of power such as the police and politicians will still be there. Getting rid of trump isn't going to flip a switch and turn everything back to normal like a lot of people are thinking and hoping. Trump merely exposed our system and people for what they are.


Well, and he's running America straight into a brick wall at 100MPH over and over again...

Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie! unless he's being recorded apparently...


----------



## SpaceDock

WTF RBG just died! If this election wasn’t serious enough!


----------



## Ralyks

Fuck... Ginsberg died....


----------



## Captain Butterscotch

I’m in shock. This election wasn’t dumb enough apparently.


----------



## Ralyks

Any of my Canadian brothers and sisters who happen to be in this thread, please let me know if your borders open again. Thanks.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Any of my Canadian brothers and sisters who happen to be in this thread, please let me know if your borders open again. Thanks.


They aren't. They extended the closure...a couple hours just before Trump assured everyone they would be "opening very soon".


----------



## Ralyks

Well. Fuck.


----------



## Randy

In fairness, the conservatives justices have had a majority the bulk of the last few decades and the majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous support of corporate rights and overturning convictions on corrupt politicians (RBG included). So another conservative justice probably doesn't change outcomes in especially grand fashion, it just turns my stomach Trump appointing three lifetime judgeships and also whatever kind of ghoul he picks this time in particular.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Can the dems phillibuster this appointment until after the election?


----------



## Adieu

diagrammatiks said:


> Can the dems phillibuster this appointment until after the election?



Probably not


They suck at underhanded trickery


----------



## Randy

I believe if filibuster ever applied to SCOTUS picks, it was gutted (with the help of the Democrats). I'm sure the Dems will have a lot of roadblocks to try and throw at this to at least slow it down but Kavanaugh appointment wrote the script for steamrolling through them. Unfortunately they're gonna get their pick


----------



## High Plains Drifter




----------



## narad

I'm confused in that this was exactly the same situation with Obama leaving office, with even less time before the election now, and the repubilcans slowed everything down to allow the incoming president to set that appointment. Not that precedent matters in wtf the government does, but in the eye of the public, wouldn't it be clearcut hypocrisy to push this one through in the next 6 weeks?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I'm confused in that this was exactly the same situation with Obama leaving office, with even less time before the election now, and the repubilcans slowed everything down to allow the incoming president to set that appointment. Not that precedent matters in wtf the government does, but in the eye of the public, wouldn't it be clearcut hypocrisy to push this one through in the next 6 weeks?



Since when does hypocrisy matter?


----------



## Randy

Yeah it's gonna be ugly. Perfect storm of division in this country, just a couple months out from an election, McConnell's double standard on seating a nominee in an election year, and Trump floating his God awful ideas like Cotton and Cruz. 

This might be one of the things that boils over into violence more than anything else.

I guess on silver lining is that if McConnell and Trump force a pick through, it will likely galvanize their opposition. If you're gonna retake the senate, that's what would trigger it.

Actually, if I were Trump, I'd probably think twice about how I handle this. The obvious thing would be to rush the pick but Trump isn't an ideologue, his main concern is himself. He could pick a ghoulish scotus nominee to satisfy the evangelicals, and then they can say 'thank you very much, goodbye' and skip the polls because they already have their anti-Roe super majority. If Trump held out his pick and either told conservatives they need to show up for him to get it or flipside, broker a moderate pick to Dems in exchange for re-electing him, he can leverage it a number of ways. Not that he will but he could.


----------



## Xaios

Ralyks said:


> Any of my Canadian brothers and sisters who happen to be in this thread, please let me know if your borders open again. Thanks.


Sorry man, but we just can't afford to loosen those restrictions. As demonstrated by the sheer fucking audacity and entitlement of people crossing the border claiming they were were traveling to Alaska and then not...

...well, let's just say that you're not sending us your best people.


narad said:


> Not that precedent matters in wtf the government does, but in the eye of the public, wouldn't it be clearcut hypocrisy to push this one through in the next 6 weeks?



You're forgetting one important thing: Obama was a black democrat. In the eyes of the GOP, there was no principle that couldn't be sacrificed, no hypocritical act that couldn't be committed, that wasn't justifiable in order to stop him from appointing a justice.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I'm confused in that this was exactly the same situation with Obama leaving office, with even less time before the election now, and the repubilcans slowed everything down to allow the incoming president to set that appointment. Not that precedent matters in wtf the government does, but in the eye of the public, wouldn't it be clearcut hypocrisy to push this one through in the next 6 weeks?



McConnell claim is two fold. 1.) Obama appointment was during 'lame duck session' so voters weren't going to get to have their will reflected in the SCOTUS pick because Obama wasn't up for re-election 2.) McConnell considers it relevant and a referendum by voters that they gave Republicans a majority in the Senate during Obama's last two years and all four years of Trump's; so he believes it's deliberate decision by voters to give Conservatives the reins in SCOTUS selection when and how they did. First to block Obama, and then to enable Trump's agenda. According to Mitch.


----------



## spudmunkey

The 2nd point, though, isn't really valid, though, is it? In the 2018 election, voters gave so many R seats to Democrats, they gave the house to the Democrat party.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am hoping that with only 46 days left they can’t force a new appointment through. I swear it has to take longer than that. 

for the love of god, please vote


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I am hoping that with only 46 days left they can’t force a new appointment through. I swear it has to take longer than that.
> 
> for the love of god, please vote



The average is about 2 months apparently, median a hair longer, to go from nomination to appointment.

This would be the fastest the process has been in almost 50 years if it only takes 46 days.

Of course, as you eluded to, the 46 days only matters if Trump doesn't win in November.

Jeez, I might just take up drinking again.


----------



## eggy in a bready

can't wait to see Justice Tom Cotton in action, ready to rip Roe v Wade to shreds


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I am hoping that with only 46 days left they can’t force a new appointment through. I swear it has to take longer than that.
> 
> for the love of god, please vote



McConnell's old explanation on Garland at the time was 'let the voters decide', which would be helpful now. Unfortunately his new interpretation, that the Senate matters more than the presidency, puts a twist on this. Even if Trump loses, I wouldn't be surprised if they still force a vote between late November and January. He'd have a significantly more difficult time doing that if they lose POTUS AND the Senate. This raises the stakes even higher.


----------



## USMarine75

The worst past is that regardless of politics she was a human being. Once upon a time she was universally looked up to as a role model for young women. 

Go and read the comments under any of the Fox News articles about her death. 90% are gross - “finally” and “RBG killed more people than Hitler”. That site is littered with foreign trolls (look for the posts with formatting errors e.g. Hillar$”s”) so here’s hoping they’re out en force and those aren’t actual humans celebrating her death.


----------



## fantom

The situation is definitely ruthless...


Too soon?


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-s-dying-wish-not-have-donald-trump-n1240507


----------



## USMarine75

Amazing how her and Justice Scalia could be best friends but scumbags are celebrating her death.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-s-dying-wish-not-have-donald-trump-n1240507
> 
> View attachment 85193



Even if it means we wait until 2024


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, McConnell and Trump have officially committed to filling the vacancy ASAP. Great.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Even if it means we wait until 2024



Haha you think he plans to leave?? Laws and constitutions mean very little to that guy


----------



## Randy

Fun Fact: Even if abortion is illegal, girls will still get them. The rich girls will get the safe ones, and the poor girls will get the dangerous ones. #whyincomeinequalityisalwaysrelevant


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> Fun Fact: Even if abortion is illegal, girls will still get them. The rich girls will get the safe ones, and the poor girls will get the dangerous ones. #whyincomeinequalityisalwaysrelevant



Ugh its sad that this is totally true. I don't understand how abortion became so baked into the politics of the US.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Ugh its sad that this is totally true. I don't understand how abortion became so baked into the politics of the US.



Because one of the biggest and most consistent voting blocks is vehemently anti-choice and really anti-women-enjoying-sex.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because one of the biggest and most consistent voting blocks is vehemently anti-choice and really anti-women-enjoying-sex.



Fair enough. It just is such a bizzare paradox any sort of government involvement that makes lives better gets them shouting communism or oppression but then they literally want to legislate womens bodies. 

Like I just don't think I care about ANYTHING on the level that the pro life people care about abortions it just blows my mind.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Dineley said:


> Fair enough. It just is such a bizzare paradox any sort of government involvement that makes lives better gets them shouting communism or oppression but then they literally want to legislate womens bodies.
> 
> Like I just don't think I care about ANYTHING on the level that the pro life people care about abortions it just blows my mind.



just put yourself in the shoes of someone that hates abortion and gays more then anything else in the world. 

lie to yourself all day that your religion is about love and forgiveness for extra kicks.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Fair enough. It just is such a bizzare paradox any sort of government involvement that makes lives better gets them shouting communism or oppression but then they literally want to legislate womens bodies.



Oh, absolutely. I know a number of people that either had an abortion or had a loved one that had an abortion that are all foaming at the mouth for Trump to get his pick ASAP because they're all about gamesmanship over policy. Most of them don't really know anything about policy.

That's the irony of the whole thing. It's not going to be a blanket overturning of Roe V. Wade, it'll most likely be a 'states rights' exemption allowing states to make it difficult/illegal to have an abortion if they decide to vote that way. That means conservative cousin/uncle fucking states will be the ones with illegal abortions but up north, it will still be totally safe and accessible.

So in essence, we're trying to protect people from themselves. It's conservatives pushing the agenda and it'll be conservatives in poor Southern states that are going to have to deal with the dearth of inbred and unwanted kids, or botched abortion deaths.


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> just put yourself in the shoes of someone that hates abortion and gays more then anything else in the world.



I've got a friend that's mostly liberal/moderate but pro-life (or I'd call it 'anti-choice') and not-coincidentally, he has terrible luck with women. We usually don't touch the abortion subject at all but considering I know it's going to come up in the midst of all this, I'm ready to tell him idgaf about women having abortions because I'm not self conscious enough to be offended by the idea of a woman rejecting my seed. That's essentially the foundation of that whole worldview, really.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Fair enough. It just is such a bizzare paradox any sort of government involvement that makes lives better gets them shouting communism or oppression but then they literally want to legislate womens bodies.
> 
> Like I just don't think I care about ANYTHING on the level that the pro life people care about abortions it just blows my mind.



They don't actually care about abortion. Abortion is a problem that they cause. Proper sexual education and destigmatization as well as access to contraceptives would all but eliminate the need for abortion in a generation.

They want control of women. 

When they say they want freedom it's freedom specific to well off (or perceived well off) heterosexual white, Christian men.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> They don't actually care about abortion. Abortion is a problem that they cause. Proper sexual education and destigmatization as well as access to contraceptives would all but eliminate the need for abortion in a generation.
> 
> They want control of women.
> 
> When they say they want freedom it's freedom specific to well off (or perceived well off) heterosexual white, Christian men.




Fair enough I love the "perceived well off" point haha.

I remember seeing an analogy that conservative politics is like an axe convincing trees they are the same because the axe has a wooden handle.

Obviously its the people with less than you that ars the reason you don't have more. Not the people with exponentially more.


----------



## spudmunkey

To be clear, wanting to eliminated abortions, and also being against programs that would eliminate the need aren't always one and the same. I know lots of people who are totally for education and services to lower unwanted pregnancies, and also don't want legal abortion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> To be clear, wanting to eliminated abortions, and also being against programs that would eliminate the need aren't always one and the same. I know lots of people who are totally for education and services to lower unwanted pregnancies, and also don't want legal abortion.



And those folks would be either outliers or disingenuous.

Though it's important to understand that *no one wants abortions to be necessary*. The idea is that they are needed because of issues regarding views on sexuality.

Anyone against abortion for medical reasons or in case of rape is, objectively, a monster.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> To be clear, wanting to eliminated abortions, and also being against programs that would eliminate the need aren't always one and the same. I know lots of people who are totally for education and services to lower unwanted pregnancies, and also don't want legal abortion.



What is their position on support for kids and parents once that fetus leaves the womb and needs food and clothes? Conservative hypocrisy trifecta isn't complete until we address what they want to do with unwanted kids that women are forced to birth.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> What is their position on support for kids and parents once that fetus leaves the womb and needs food and clothes? Conservative hypocrisy trifecta isn't complete until we address what they want to do with unwanted kids that women are forced to birth.



I suspect a lot of those opposed to birth control are actually mostly opposed to promiscuity.... their logic goes that dire and irreversible consequences are the best deterrent to premarital and extramarital fucking


----------



## Randy

Ah, there's where white privilege makes its entrance. Easy to say 'just don't make any mistakes and you'll be fine' when you can make as many mistakes as you want and face no ill effects (see: Lori Loughlin getting to choose which day camp she'll get to serve her 2 months).

I have to wonder how many abortions DJT and his associates have paid for their concubines to get over the years.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I have to wonder how many abortions DJT and his associates have paid for their concubines to get over the years.



But Randy, those were merely savvy financial transactions, kids are expensive afterall. Besides, they didn't have the abortion, those whores did.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> .
> 
> Anyone against abortion for medical reasons or in case of rape is, objectively, a monster.



For sure. As "religious" as much of my family is, I would bet that


Randy said:


> What is their position on support for kids and parents once that fetus leaves the womb and needs food and clothes? Conservative hypocrisy trifecta isn't complete until we address what they want to do with unwanted kids that women are forced to birth.



I know many aren't, but also many arent just "pro-birth".


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I know many aren't, but also many arent just "pro-birth".



Could you clarify that? Having trouble understanding.


----------



## Randy

Potential plot twist?

A Mark Kelly win in Ariz. Senate race could spoil McConnell's plans to replace Ginsburg


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Potential plot twist?
> 
> A Mark Kelly win in Ariz. Senate race could spoil McConnell's plans to replace Ginsburg



Eh, I have absolutely no faith in Murkowski or Collins and I'm pretty sure Romney won't stick his neck out if his vote actually matters.


----------



## Randy

On principal no but Collins is behind by 5 points and Maine increasingly liberal in the last two cycles, hence her surviving this long as a New England moderate rather than a MAGA R. If she wants even a 1% chance of saving her seat, this is it. There's a good chance this turns into a Republican bloodletting even in purple states just out distaste for the process, muchless vulnerable blue state seats and that's before you even get into the specifics of who they pick.

Best thing for Democracy (and not just because I don't want a conservative justice) would be to eliminate the nuclear option and get a SCOTUS confirmation back to 60 votes where it should be. For all involved, if you hold out for after the election, but need to woo some of the minority party to vote yes, you don't swing the pick from Uber conservative to Uber liberal with a 51% vote like you would now. The moderates might be able to stomach that.


----------



## Randy

Also noticing Graham is tied in SC.


----------



## zappatton2

At this point, I think Canada should be doing more to welcome American rationalists and vulnerable minorities should Trump get another term and have the chance to appoint an anti-civil rights Justice. This year has already been so terrible, and even though I tend to think there's no way Trump could win, I thought that the last time. The fascist half of America is genuinely terrifying, well-armed, and a legitimate terrorist threat, and there will be little to stop them if he gets another kick at the can, arguable not even the SC (though I will acknowledge that even the conservative Justices have proven themselves to not be complete Trump lackeys).

Either way, I think there's a lot more we could be doing north of the border to welcome the persecuted in these deeply divisive and disturbing times.


----------



## Adieu

zappatton2 said:


> At this point, I think Canada should be doing more to welcome American rationalists and vulnerable minorities should Trump get another term and have the chance to appoint an anti-civil rights Justice. This year has already been so terrible, and even though I tend to think there's no way Trump could win, I thought that the last time. The fascist half of America is genuinely terrifying, well-armed, and a legitimate terrorist threat, and there will be little to stop them if he gets another kick at the can, arguable not even the SC (though I will acknowledge that even the conservative Justices have proven themselves to not be complete Trump lackeys).
> 
> Either way, I think there's a lot more we could be doing north of the border to welcome the persecuted in these deeply divisive and disturbing times.



You guys trying to get invaded for "harboring" our anarcho-commie-terrorists?

Plus then you'd get covid. And probably herpes. America has a LOT of covid and herpes.


----------



## zappatton2

Adieu said:


> You guys trying to get invaded for "harboring" our anarcho-commie-terrorists?
> 
> Plus then you'd get covid. And probably herpes. America has a LOT of covid and herpes.


Haha, well, at the very least I would imagine those most inclined to leave would be of the demographic that actually takes both COVID and safe sex seriously.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Welp... Not surprising that Lamar Alexander is the latest to cave. Abuse of power remains alive and well in the swamp. Conservative Republicans... this is why we hate and this is why we weep. You get it... Right? "We the people" is a fucking joke to you. You wipe your ass with the Constitution... no conscience, no dignity, no democracy. Sleep well, you bags of shit.


----------



## budda

Adieu said:


> You guys trying to get invaded for "harboring" our anarcho-commie-terrorists?
> 
> Plus then you'd get covid. And probably herpes. America has a LOT of covid and herpes.



I think we have syphillis again, so we can add that to the list.

Canada also needs to do the right thing and honour treaties and agreements with its indigenous peoples and get shit sorted out.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because one of the biggest and most consistent voting blocks is vehemently anti-choice and really anti-women-enjoying-sex.



Untrue.

It’s ok if their wives enjoy sex.

As long as they get to watch.


----------



## zappatton2

budda said:


> I think we have syphillis again, so we can add that to the list.
> 
> Canada also needs to do the right thing and honour treaties and agreements with its indigenous peoples and get shit sorted out.


Agreed times 1000. There is no high ground, only levels. And it's as true here as in the States and anywhere else; civil rights are never "won". They are only maintained. And there is always someone waiting in the wings to to impede or roll them back, so they demand constant vigilance.


----------



## nightflameauto

The whole abortion subject just irks me because it's absolutely clear that both parties use it as a talking point to keep the commoners at each other's throats so they don't stop and ask each other why every time some bag of dicks in Washington does something all the dumbasses that voted for them can feel their asshole being torn apart a little bit more. That's all this type of thing is. No, no, don't notice how royally we're fucking you. You should be mad at those other people because "abortion, gun rights, evolution vs. divine creation and whatever else will keep you distracted."

This year just keeps punching harder. If we actually see a true conservative lapdog replace her, we'll effectively witness the end of true justice in the States. Trump likely wants to get this wrapped up before the election so that he has another "team player" on the bench when he decides to go to them over the election. You thought Bush Jr.'s election was a farce? Hold on, you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> "abortion, gun rights, evolution vs. divine creation and whatever else will keep you distracted."



Oh yeah, you definitely have a handful of things that show up everytime they need to gin up another party-line vote. Burning the flag is another one that gets a lot of play, also.


----------



## MFB

Randy said:


> Burning the flag is another one that gets a lot of play, also.



Which is why this November, I'm casting my vote for the first candidate willing to eat the flag!


----------



## Necris

MFB said:


> Which is why this November, I'm casting my vote for the first candidate willing to eat the flag!


----------



## MFB

Necris said:


>



Zoidberg/Necris 2020!

With ry_z for Secretary of J-Pop


----------



## Ralyks

Any speculation on why the market is dropping? Should I invoke @Drew ?


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> Any speculation on why the market is dropping? Should I invoke @Drew ?



covid wave three, Europe being hammered and we have our post Labor Day bump. The idea that this is just going to go away or not have lasting problems is slowly getting through to the market


----------



## Ralyks

Well, Trump is probably going to pull out all the stops to win in November, because the Manhattan District Attorney said they have grounds to investigate Trump and his businesses for tax fraud, and made a filing with he 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to get the documents and start a grand probe.


----------



## SpaceDock

Trump is a deflector, they investigate him...here comes Barr announcing Biden under investigation, just wait. 

I honestly think we are already living under authoritarian rule but haven’t realized it yet.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> Trump is a deflector, they investigate him...here comes Barr announcing Biden under investigation, just wait.
> 
> I honestly think we are already living under authoritarian rule but haven’t realized it yet.



Of course

Did everybody miss that video where Trump told a rally that he believes he should get a THIRD term... because investigations messed up his beautiful first term?????


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> Did everybody miss that video where Trump told a rally that he believes he should get a THIRD term... because investigations messed up his beautiful first term?????



Which time?


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Which time?



I'm not 100% sure, it was touched on in either Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, or Seth Meyers on youtube in like the last week or so


....2020, the year we get our news from comedians. Looooovely.


----------



## sleewell

Lead deputy on the Mueller investigation says they could have done a lot more and there are still many unanswered questions. Mueller backed down for fear of the reaction from trump and right wing media. Completely shat the bed. Handed things over to barr and didnt step up when he misrepresented their findings. What a disaster of failure and profile in lack of courage.

So now we let the people being investigated set the terms and scope of the investigation into them. Seems reasonable. Mueller is a chump.


----------



## budda

Adieu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, it was touched on in either Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, or Seth Meyers on youtube in like the last week or so
> 
> 
> ....2020, the year we get our news from comedians. Looooovely.



The public has had the comedy filter on news since the 60s have they not?


----------



## zappatton2

Adieu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, it was touched on in either Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, or Seth Meyers on youtube in like the last week or so
> 
> 
> ....2020, the year we get our news from comedians. Looooovely.


At the very least, John Oliver actually employs fact-checkers, a job Fox News appears to have left woefully undermanned.


----------



## Adieu

sleewell said:


> So now we let the people being investigated set the terms and scope of the investigation into them. Seems reasonable. Mueller is a chump.



I thought either overt intentional collusion with subject via self-sabotage or at least inadvertent assistance by subservient cowardice was self evident the moment he first opened his mouth???


----------



## sleewell

Adieu said:


> I thought either overt intentional collusion with subject by self-sabotage or at least inadvertent assistance by subservient cowardice was self evident the moment he first opened his mouth???




i guess we will never know since the investigation was allowed to be neutered and was cut off at every pass. barr was allowed to come out and say things that were obviously not true. mueller looked like a shell of himself when he testified. trump dictated the terms and scope of the investigation and for some reason no one fought back.

they never investigated any financial connections which were obviously the most important thing to find out. they never got in person testimony from key figures. written answers that were obvious lies, some even left blank?!? that is how you conduct the most important investigation in our history!?!?

the gop controlled senate even recommended criminal subpoenas that were never carried out. trump got barr in place and he squashed it. we all bought it hook, line and sinker. it has to be pretty bad if the lead deputy comes out now expressing his regrets for how badly they botched it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> I'm not 100% sure, it was touched on in either Trevor Noah, Steven Colbert, or Seth Meyers on youtube in like the last week or so
> 
> 
> ....2020, the year we get our news from comedians. Looooovely.


Well, they do tend to be slightly more honest than the MSM talking heads.


zappatton2 said:


> At the very least, John Oliver actually employs fact-checkers, a job Fox News appears to have left woefully undermanned.


Precisely.


sleewell said:


> i guess we will never know since the investigation was allowed to be neutered and was cut off at every pass. barr was allowed to come out and say things that were obviously not true. mueller looked like a shell of himself when he testified. trump dictated the terms and scope of the investigation and for some reason no one fought back.
> 
> they never investigated any financial connections which were obviously the most important thing to find out. they never got in person testimony from key figures. written answers that were obvious lies, some even left blank?!? that is how you conduct the most important investigation in our history!?!?
> 
> the gop controlled senate even recommended criminal subpoenas that were never carried out. trump got barr in place and he squashed it. *we all bought it hook, line and sinker.* it has to be pretty bad if the lead deputy comes out now expressing his regrets for how badly they botched it.


I don't think anybody bought it, sleewell. It was a ham-fisted ram-rodded bungle of epic proportions right from the word go, and never really gained any traction among those that were capable of actual follow-through. The rest of us plebes that were nodding at the first announcement of the investigation were left, as per usual, flabbergasted and appalled at how stupid the entire affair looks in retrospect.

Much like 99.99999% of what goes on in that dumpster-fire we call our capitol.


----------



## Ralyks

Romney will vote for SCOTUS. So that's that.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Is this why he’s popular with Christians? They think he’s the Anti-Christ or something? _Bout time eh?_ (He’s holding an upside down Bible!)




I’m sure this was no accident:


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Dude they're so void of humanity and conscience... hypnotized by their savior. Makes me actually physically nauseous at time.


----------



## Wuuthrad

High Plains Drifter said:


> Dude they're so void of humanity and conscience... hypnotized by their savior. Makes me actually physically nauseous at time.



Im with you there. I’m beyond sick and tired of this shit, I’m both exhausted and nauseated (with both parties really) but this one far more than the other...

Its becoming harder and harder to tolerate all the BS and lies of Politics, it seems so empty and corrupt and twisted. Far from what it’s supposed to be, a “Representative Democracy”


----------



## possumkiller

Wuuthrad said:


> Im with you there. I’m beyond sick and tired of this shit, I’m both exhausted and nauseated (with both parties really) but this one far more than the other...
> 
> Its becoming harder and harder to tolerate all the BS and lies of Politics, it seems so empty and corrupt and twisted. Far from what it’s supposed to be, a “Representative Democracy”


The thing is it's been this way the whole time. It's just that until trump came along, most politicians had the manners to be discreet with their white superiority and disdain for the lower classes. They at least pretended and acted like they cared. Which the democratic party still does. Quite a lot of people seem to prefer the current republican attitude of honest hate and bigotry out in the open to the traditional disingenuous faux caring that the democrats are still displaying.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## High Plains Drifter

Wuuthrad said:


> Im with you there. I’m beyond sick and tired of this shit, I’m both exhausted and nauseated (with both parties really) but this one far more than the other...
> 
> Its becoming harder and harder to tolerate all the BS and lies of Politics, it seems so empty and corrupt and twisted. Far from what it’s supposed to be, a “Representative Democracy”



No doubt. I mentioned dems in the global warming thread because out of nowhere this year there was suddenly a lotta buzz about it in the Biden campaign adverts. The topic is legitimate as should be the concern but this is the kind of thing that you really only hear about during election years. But I lean fairly far away from the right so whoever might topple the trumpatorship is who I'm on board with. If you've got a kitty cat with a winning smile and a can-do attitude, I'd be just as inclined to vote for him or her.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...s/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.amp.html

Let the violence commence.


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...s/trump-power-transfer-2020-election.amp.html
> 
> Let the violence commence.



"(G)et rid of the ballots and you'll have a very ... there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> "(G)et rid of the ballots and you'll have a very ... there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."



Pesky elections, we'll see about cancelling those


----------



## bostjan

Random fun fact:

The first public election for US President was won by George Washington. He won literally 100% of the popular vote. He barely won the electoral vote, though.

How the electoral college wasn't disbanded immediately after that has remained a mystery for well over 200 years.

If anybody thinks for even one second that this 2020 presidential election will fairly represent the will of the masses, I'd just like to know what the side effects are of the substances they are taking.


----------



## Ralyks

So now lawmakers on both sides came out pushing back on Trump being non-commital. This is going to get so goddamn messy.


----------



## budda

Who's following Bree Newsom Bass on twitter?


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> So now lawmakers on both sides came out pushing back on Trump being non-commital. This is going to get so goddamn messy.



It's the Cult of Trump, the affiliation with the Republicans is for the sake of having vague commonality, but he'll disown them or vice versa depending on how much they get in his way personally. The list of people that used to be 'okay' with Republican voters (McCain, Romney, Sessions, Dewine) that now draw steady 'boos' from people at Trump rallies grows larger every day.

Fwiw, in my tiny redneck town, I'm seeing more Biden signs on lawns than I've ever seen for any Democrats in any office before. And it's doubly as bold because of how violent and angry Trump supporters seem to get. 

Also neighboring town with a close Congressional race, the local Republican party has basically abandoned including Trump in their campaigning. The whole town is littered with GOP Congressional signs and only 1/20 also have any Trump signage at all, maybe less. Local loudmouth ran an editorial in the local paper voicing support for the local candidate and said "hey don't let your feeling about Donald Trump get in the way of who you pick for congress".

I think Trump has his, whatever, mid 30s support group but the handful of voters that will make this at all close will be people who actually have distaste for him but are afraid of the myth of the Democratic Party they're hearing. That's relevant because, those are NOT the makeup off people that will take up arms against their family and their neighbors just to die for that idiot. His threat of "not peacefully handing over control" is less Assad and more spoiled toddler in the toy store. If he loses, there'll be a handful of Lavoy Finicums but overall, his ass is going to get dragged out of there and potential straight into a fucking cell.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> It's the Cult of Trump, the affiliation with the Republicans is for the sake of having vague commonality, but he'll disown them or vice versa depending on how much they get in his way personally. The list of people that used to be 'okay' with Republican voters (McCain, Romney, Sessions, Dewine) that now draw steady 'boos' from people at Trump rallies grows larger every day.
> 
> Fwiw, in my tiny redneck town, I'm seeing more Biden signs on lawns than I've ever seen for any Democrats in any office before. And it's doubly as bold because of how violent and angry Trump supporters seem to get.
> 
> Also neighboring town with a close Congressional race, the local Republican party has basically abandoned including Trump in their campaigning. The whole town is littered with GOP Congressional signs and only 1/20 also have any Trump signage at all, maybe less. Local loudmouth ran an editorial in the local paper voicing support for the local candidate and said "hey don't let your feeling about Donald Trump get in the way of who you pick for congress".
> 
> I think Trump has his, whatever, mid 30s support group but the handful of voters that will make this at all close will be people who actually have distaste for him but are afraid of the myth of the Democratic Party they're hearing. That's relevant because, those are NOT the makeup off people that will take up arms against their family and their neighbors just to die for that idiot. His threat of "not peacefully handing over control" is less Assad and more spoiled toddler in the toy store. If he loses, there'll be a handful of Lavoy Finicums but overall, his ass is going to get dragged out of there and potential straight into a fucking cell.



Out here it's gone more from vehement Trump support to _completely not ironic_ Biden bashing.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 85366



...Waco Texas, 'nuff said


----------



## possumkiller

Adieu said:


> ...Waco Texas, 'nuff said


The thing is that isn't 'nuff said. People will see Waco and have the same dismissive reaction when the reality is it's not limited to Waco. Those psychos are everywhere. As soon as you leave the city limits of any major town, that's the kind of people you're dealing with.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> The thing is that isn't 'nuff said. People will see Waco and have the same dismissive reaction when the reality is it's not limited to Waco. Those psychos are everywhere. As soon as you leave the city limits of any major town, that's the kind of people you're dealing with.



Oh I know

But still... do they not get internet or something down there? The woman was elderly and dying already, with or without his prayers.

Unless... does he mean he's been praying for it since the 90s? In which case, dayum, somebody got some weak-sauce prayer skillz


----------



## nightflameauto

Wife was listing to podcasts this morning and I heard something that actually caught my interest on one of the political ones. They were saying that all the talk right now centering on Donald Trump not ceding power if he loses is a massive disincentive to the on-the-fence voters that would come out to vote for Biden because they don't want Trump to continue his reign of terror. The logic goes, if Trump's just gonna sweep the electoral college or just stay in office even if he doesn't get the win, what's the point of voting anyway? It doesn't mean anything if it's not counted or disregarded.

If I actually thought Donald Trump was a strategic thinker, I'd almost say he's floating this shit on purpose just to cause that sort of vibe among the rare voters that would come out if they thought their vote would matter. Sadly, I can't give him that much credit. Anybody as bumbling as he is can't possibly think that deeply about a subject this complex.


----------



## Bearitone

Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens


----------



## diagrammatiks

Bearitone said:


> Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens



I mean if you like trump and think he has enriched your life please give me 5 reasons. I would love to hear them.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Bearitone said:


> Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens



In defense of that.... 200k dead, economy crashing, threatening to not give up power, insane double standards on supreme court. Overall there are many reasons to be anti Trump right now.


----------



## possumkiller

Bearitone said:


> Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens


I wouldn't put 2020 on it. He's always been a scumbag.

Don't get me wrong. Biden is a scumbag as well. I don't get why people suddenly think Biden is some kind of saviour of america. He doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone but he and his own just like any other politician. What do people think he's actually going to do when he gets into office? Is he going to undo everything trump did and redo everything trump has undone? Is he going to bring us back to pre-trump america? Is he going to make america great again? Pre-trump america was still a pretty shitty place with the same problems being ignored by pre-trump politicians. 

So we lose trump after the election, so what? Then what happens? Ignorance, racism, and hatred are going to stop suddenly? The police are going to stop being a government-sponsored, military-budget, military-armed gestapo mafia funded by taxpayers to execute taxpayers whenever they feel like it?

Are all of these moronic, uneducated, religious bigots going to see their folly and decide to learn something and become understanding human beings?

Half the country and half the government are republican. We still have that shit to deal with when he's gone. He's like hitler. He didn't accomplish anything without help. All of those people that help and enable him and support him will still be around.


----------



## Bearitone

If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated opinion opposed to your own, here you go:


no matter how much you hate the guy, there’s good reason to vote for him and i think this guy^^^ covers that. Not everyone voting for the guy is a far-right-nAzi-bible-thumpin-racist-etc.


----------



## JSanta

Bearitone said:


> If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated opinion opposed to your own, here you go:
> 
> 
> no matter how much you hate the guy, there’s good reason to vote for him and i think this guy^^^ covers that. Not everyone voting for the guy is a far-right-nAzi-bible-thumpin-racist-etc.




Regarding your last point, that is a fair statement. However, every single Trump supporter I know is at least a few of those things.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I mean I don't think most of what this guy is saying is super wrong...

except the part about bush jr being a secret genius. come on....seriously.

but that doesn't answer my question.

you're not a far-right-nAzi-bible-thumpin-racist-etc right...

so how has this administration enriched your life. I really want to know.


----------



## TedEH

I'm not the most politically informed person (as my history in this thread would prove), but even I can tell that guy makes no sense.
"Taxing only the rich wouldn't be enough money".... really? Maybe show the math on that once, 'cause I don't think taxing the poorest people is going to net you a ton of money.
"We're going to lose rallies!" Uh.... good?
A bunch of gun arguments that I don't think fall along the lines he thinks they do.
"You'll see a tax on free speech" ...how do you tax free speech? In the age of the internet, you can't stop people from expressing whatever the hell they want to, and you certainly can't literally tax people expressing themselves. I mean, Trump is the one who keeps doing things like going after Twitter for fact checking.

Dude in the video blames covid response on "the far left" as if it's a hoax to sway the election. I can't take anything he said seriously after that point.
"We've had a brief golden age under Trump" he says..... uuuuuuh...... What?


----------



## nightflameauto

possumkiller said:


> I wouldn't put 2020 on it. He's always been a scumbag.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Biden is a scumbag as well. I don't get why people suddenly think Biden is some kind of saviour of america. He doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone but he and his own just like any other politician. What do people think he's actually going to do when he gets into office? Is he going to undo everything trump did and redo everything trump has undone? Is he going to bring us back to pre-trump america? Is he going to make america great again? Pre-trump america was still a pretty shitty place with the same problems being ignored by pre-trump politicians.
> 
> So we lose trump after the election, so what? Then what happens? Ignorance, racism, and hatred are going to stop suddenly? The police are going to stop being a government-sponsored, military-budget, military-armed gestapo mafia funded by taxpayers to execute taxpayers whenever they feel like it?
> 
> Are all of these moronic, uneducated, religious bigots going to see their folly and decide to learn something and become understanding human beings?
> 
> Half the country and half the government are republican. We still have that shit to deal with when he's gone. He's like hitler. He didn't accomplish anything without help. All of those people that help and enable him and support him will still be around.


While everything you're saying here is true, and I fully agree that Biden's just as much of a scumbag as Trump, there's a small part of me that sees some very slight relief possible under Biden. I mean, it's window-dressing level relief, but relief none-the-less. Biden won't be on twitter purposefully spouting bullshit 24/7. And he can, sometimes, finish a speech without calling somebody a pussy or a woman a fugly pig. It won't elevate the office of President if Biden's elected. But it won't slam it into the ground repeatedly as we've seen over the last three plus years.

Biden has also been known to actually listen to other people and sometimes even go so far as to implement other people's ideas. That might be a nice change of pace.

Still, we know there will still be underhanded bullshit going on. Deals to clamp down harder on our freedoms in the name of protecting us. Bullshit forgiveness for big business leaders caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Crack downs on common citizens for petty bullshit reasons. But hey, at least we'll have a dude in office that can bumble his way through conversations with other world leaders without directly insulting them or talking about how hot his daughter is.

I wonder if we'll ever have a good choice for a candidate in the end game? At one time I thought Obama would be, but he turned out to be an absolutely huge disappointment too. I kinda gave up hope after that fiasco. Now it's about minimizing damage, rather than hope for real positive change. And even that seems far-fetched sometimes.


----------



## budda

This thread needs more people scrutinizing the fuck out of their local and state/provincial government and start getting involved. This whole "not paying attention unless its federal level" thing is not helping.

This includes me.


----------



## spudmunkey

budda said:


> This thread needs more people scrutinizing the fuck out of their local and state/provincial government and start getting involved. This whole "not paying attention unless its federal level" thing is not helping.
> 
> This includes me.



To be fair, this thread is literally *"US Political Discussion: 2020 Presidential Race Edition".*


----------



## tedtan

possumkiller said:


> So we lose trump after the election, so what? Then what happens? Ignorance, racism, and hatred are going to stop suddenly? The police are going to stop being a government-sponsored, military-budget, military-armed gestapo mafia funded by taxpayers to execute taxpayers whenever they feel like it?



No, but the first step is to stop the hemorrhaging, and Biden accomplishes that. Then we can start to address the issues causing the hemorrhaging.


----------



## budda

spudmunkey said:


> To be fair, this thread is literally *"US Political Discussion: 2020 Presidential Race Edition".*



It's also a lot of "vote!" As if the other votes dont exist and/or dont matter.

It's the long game that needs focus too.


----------



## Ralyks

budda said:


> It's also a lot of "vote!" As if the other votes dont exist and/or dont matter.
> 
> It's the long game that needs focus too.



I mean, I don’t mean to sound like a dick when I say this... make a local government thread? Because I don’t think this thread is going to shift focus from the presidential election and everything surround that. Again, not trying to sound like a dick. I’d probably participate in discussions there.


----------



## budda

Ralyks said:


> I mean, I don’t mean to sound like a dick when I say this... make a local government thread? Because I don’t think this thread is going to shift focus from the presidential election and everything surround that. Again, not trying to sound like a dick. I’d probably participate in discussions there.



All good, no dickishness read. I decided to post it in this thread as everyone's worrying about what happens after etc, a lot of hopelessness (all rightfully placed) but no one's really discussing aftermath and other facets of government.

I think another thread or three on intrinsic topics is a pretty great idea.


----------



## Ralyks

budda said:


> All good, no dickishness read. I decided to post it in this thread as everyone's worrying about what happens after etc, a lot of hopelessness (all rightfully placed) but no one's really discussing aftermath and other facets of government.
> 
> I think another thread or three on intrinsic topics is a pretty great idea.



You’re absolute correct. There’s a lot of potential scenarios that can play out based on local government and of course, the Senate (pretty sure the House isn’t in a position to flip).


----------



## narad

Bearitone said:


> If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated opinion opposed to your own, here you go:




So if you really like guns or the stock market, vote for Trump. I agree with that.


----------



## Randy

Styx and 666 in the same username


----------



## Randy

Bearitone said:


> If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated opinion opposed to your own, here you go:
> 
> 
> no matter how much you hate the guy, there’s good reason to vote for him and i think this guy^^^ covers that. Not everyone voting for the guy is a far-right-nAzi-bible-thumpin-racist-etc.




Not gonna watch this because I just don't like people talking to camera videos. Cliff notes?


----------



## MFB

Randy said:


> Styx and 666 in the same username



Styx66 for maximum results


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> Not gonna watch this because I just don't like people talking to camera videos. Cliff notes?



bush jr is a super genius. We love guns. Guns guns guns.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

possumkiller said:


> The thing is that isn't 'nuff said. People will see Waco and have the same dismissive reaction when the reality is it's not limited to Waco. Those psychos are everywhere. As soon as you leave the city limits of any major town, that's the kind of people you're dealing with.


Where I live. That’s also people in city limits.


----------



## narad

"live rent free in Xs heads"... 

Where have I heard that trope before... oh ya, Rigtalk.


----------



## diagrammatiks

tdsTantrum said:


> Says the guy living in China...and the guys "liking"your post are mainly from Canada.
> 
> You can't make this shit up.



ya fuck me for not wanting to live in a clusterfuck. You realize that us citizens can live abroad right.


----------



## diagrammatiks

tdsTantrum said:


> Yes China is a great choice. Just don't mention anything about Winnie the Poo.



Ok. I’ll just keep not getting shot by cops as well.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

possumkiller said:


> I wouldn't put 2020 on it. He's always been a scumbag.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Biden is a scumbag as well. I don't get why people suddenly think Biden is some kind of saviour of america. He doesn't give a rat's ass about anything or anyone but he and his own just like any other politician. What do people think he's actually going to do when he gets into office? Is he going to undo everything trump did and redo everything trump has undone? Is he going to bring us back to pre-trump america? Is he going to make america great again? Pre-trump america was still a pretty shitty place with the same problems being ignored by pre-trump politicians.
> 
> So we lose trump after the election, so what? Then what happens? Ignorance, racism, and hatred are going to stop suddenly? The police are going to stop being a government-sponsored, military-budget, military-armed gestapo mafia funded by taxpayers to execute taxpayers whenever they feel like it?
> 
> Are all of these moronic, uneducated, religious bigots going to see their folly and decide to learn something and become understanding human beings?
> 
> Half the country and half the government are republican. We still have that shit to deal with when he's gone. He's like hitler. He didn't accomplish anything without help. All of those people that help and enable him and support him will still be around.


Man, you are 100% spot on. Church.


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> In defense of that.... 200k dead, economy crashing, threatening to not give up power, insane double standards on supreme court. Overall there are many reasons to be anti Trump right now.



There's also plainclothes cops breaking down doors and killing people in the night (and that's apparently "acceptable"), armored robocop-looking government goons beating on protesters and journos, national guard talking about deploying "heat rays", civilian paramilitary "militias" hijacking government buildings, underage boys with assault weapons killing people in the streets over politics, serious discussion of alligator moats, president talking about not accepting election results if he don't like em and speculating about going for additional unconstitutional terms in office later....

We're just an allegation of cannibalism away from Idi Amin's Uganda.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Adieu said:


> There's also plainclothes cops breaking down doors and killing people in the night (and that's apparently "acceptable"), armored robocop-looking government goons beating on protesters and journos, national guard talking about deploying "heat rays", civilian paramilitary "militias" hijacking government buildings, underage boys with assault weapons killing people in the streets over politics, serious discussion of alligator moats, president talking about not accepting election results if he don't like em and speculating about going for additional unconstitutional terms in office later....
> 
> We're just an allegation of cannibalism away from Idi Amin's Uganda.



not to mention forced sterilizations. internment amps at the borders. 

ya'll realize that you're already living in the worst version of china you could possibly imagine.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Random fun fact:
> 
> The first public election for US President was won by George Washington. He won literally 100% of the popular vote. He barely won the electoral vote, though.
> 
> How the electoral college wasn't disbanded immediately after that has remained a mystery for well over 200 years.
> 
> If anybody thinks for even one second that this 2020 presidential election will fairly represent the will of the masses, I'd just like to know what the side effects are of the substances they are taking.



Huh? Washington had twice the electoral votes of Adams.


----------



## Adieu

diagrammatiks said:


> not to mention forced sterilizations. internment amps at the borders.
> 
> ya'll realize that you're already living in the worst version of china you could possibly imagine.



Forced sterilizations?

What the fuck for? And how did I miss something like that?

2020 America, man.... so much dystopian bullshit that something that would previously make headline of the year is barely noticeable over all the other chaos


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated opinion opposed to your own, here you go:
> 
> 
> no matter how much you hate the guy, there’s good reason to vote for him and i think this guy^^^ covers that. Not everyone voting for the guy is a far-right-nAzi-bible-thumpin-racist-etc.




This is utterly counterfactual, delusional, and disingenuous at best; full of straw-man and boogey-man arguments.

"We've had a brief golden age under Trump"


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> "We've had a brief golden shower under Trump"



Ftfy


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> "We've had a brief golden shower under Trump"



This is utterly factual, realistic, and genuine at best; full of sound and cogent arguments.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> Forced sterilizations?
> 
> What the fuck for? And how did I miss something like that?
> 
> 2020 America, man.... so much dystopian bullshit that something that would previously make headline of the year is barely noticeable over all the other chaos



Kind of like the MO of USA over the last 20 years or so re. for profit prisons, continuation of slave like forced prison labor, morphing into some sick continuation of Menegele like procedures:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/16/9133...ct-questionable-hysterectomies-of-ice-detaine

https://www.theonion.com/conservative-evangelical-asks-god-to-give-him-strength-1845065847


----------



## Wuuthrad

Bearitone said:


> Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens



lol you had a Tumblr?

supporting Trump kinda makes sense- we can’t choose our own IQ after all 

but Tumblr? lmao


btw wth is a Tumblr?


----------



## Wuuthrad

So our next Supreme Court Nominee who is going to be ramrodded in for no apparent reason just before the election is part of some secret society Catholic purported cult of hand maids! Cant make this shit up! 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/coral_anika_theill_people_of_praise


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> So our next Supreme Court Nominee who is going to be ramrodded in for no apparent reason just before the election is part of some secret society Catholic purported cult of hand maids! Cant make this shit up!
> 
> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/coral_anika_theill_people_of_praise



Oh well... it's bad enough we're getting another Judeo-Christian conservative no matter WHO they choose.


----------



## Randy

I've drawn the analogy before but it reminds me of the movie "Lord of Illusions", where the cultists all kill their families and give everything away so that they can resurrect their leader, and his first act upon coming back to life is drowning all of them in a mud pit.

Moral of the story: "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it"

Coney Barrett with an especially cruel streak when it comes to her record on the bench. People dickriding Trump that I wouldn't even consider conservative (vulgar, violent, poor, some type of welfare recipients) just because he "pwns libs" and they're ramrodding ACB just because she's Trump's pick when meanwhile her record looks like potentially one more boot on their neck.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> If he loses, there'll be a handful of Lavoy Finicums but overall, his ass is going to get dragged out of there and potential straight into a fucking cell.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adieu said:


> Oh well... it's bad enough we're getting another Judeo-Christian conservative no matter WHO they choose.



Isn’t it majority Catholic? I could see tracing lines back to the Spanish Inquisition...

I’ll bet this is required reading :


----------



## Adieu

Wuuthrad said:


> Isn’t it majority Catholic? I could see tracing lines back to the Spanish Inquisition...
> 
> I’ll bet this is required reading :
> View attachment 85427



It's only these damn monotheist sects that somehow believe theirs is unique and different from the rest

Back when people were arguing whether Obama was Muslim or Christian, I was like "huuuuuh? Same difference, two rival cults of revisionist judaism-in-denial"

...me, I'm terrified of any kind of believer in the judiciary.


----------



## AxRookie

Bearitone said:


> Read through the last 3 pages of this thread. Might as well title change the title to “fuck Trump 2020”. Haven’t seen a bigger echo chamber since I had a Tumblr account in my teens


I prefer simply "Dump Trump"!

Two syllables so even Trump can understand it... understand it... understand it... understand it...

Really it's not an echo, It's much more of a consensus, When was the last time you heard someone get boo'ed at a funeral and everyone chanting "vote him out!", "vote him out!", "vote him out!"... 

I know, don't tell me, let me guess, the Clintons paid the crowd to do that, right???


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> Isn’t it majority Catholic? I could see tracing lines back to the Spanish Inquisition...
> 
> I’ll bet this is required reading :
> View attachment 85427


Pope Francis ended a Vatican summit by promising the Catholic Church would confront the clergy sex abuse "head-on" instead of their usual way, face down, a$$ up...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Fill the (*) Seat ! 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html


* (Toilet)


----------



## AxRookie

After a town hall participant confronted Trump over his lack of support for a national facemask mandate, Trump said "there are a lot of people who think face masks are not good", and it's true, all though, not as many as there used to be of course...


----------



## Randy

Waiting for the corporate Dems squad that had every excuse why Bezos/Amazon paying no taxes was awesome to now come in here and complain about Trump paying no taxes.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Waiting for the corporate Dems squad that had every excuse why Bezos/Amazon paying no taxes was awesome to now come in here and complain about Trump paying no taxes.




Four chapter 11's... LOL


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> Waiting for the corporate Dems squad that had every excuse why Bezos/Amazon paying no taxes was awesome to now come in here and complain about Trump paying no taxes.



bezos paid everything he couldn’t hide. If you don’t think that’s enough that’s a policy issue. 

trump straight commuted tax fraud. That’s a criminal issue.


----------



## Randy

Speculatively. I haven't heard anyone claim Trump committed or was being investigated for committing tax fraud. So far it looks like he claimed depreciation or losses/reinvestment the same way Bezos and Amazon do. I never claimed what Amazon does is illegal, I said it should be because it's sleazy loophole exploitation and even that was too much of an accusation for some people.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ppl born with silver spoons in their A€€ do love using them to ream those who weren’t!

USA!USA!


----------



## USMarine75

The buried lead is that he's used his position as President to attract lobbyists and foreign investments and enrich himself. He's literally using the office of the President to keep himself financially afloat. 

Illegal... and another impeachable offense... but... meh.


----------



## USMarine75

Former Trump Campaign Manager Brad Parscale tried to commit suicide?

#Killary at it again.


----------



## Xaios

Let's hope this one doesn't get Epstein'd. Seems like the Trump campaign is looking to make him the fall guy for a bunch of misspent campaign funds.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d27862-916d-11ea-9e23-6914ee410a5f_story.html

*Trump’s company has received at least $970,000 from U.S. taxpayers for room rentals.*

*The U.S. government has paid at least $970,000 to President Trump’s company since Trump took office — including payments for more than 1,600 nightly room rentals at Trump’s hotels and clubs, according to federal records obtained by The Washington Post.

Since March, The Post has catalogued an additional $340,000 in such payments. They were almost all related to trips taken by Trump, his family and his top officials. The government is not known to have paid for the rooms for Trump and his family members at his properties but it has paid for staffers and Secret Service agents to accompany the president.

The payments create an unprecedented business relationship between the president’s private company and his government — which began in the first month of Trump’s presidency, and continued into this year, records show.

*


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.citizensforethics.org/trump-conflicts-of-interest-tracking/

President Trump’s refusal to divest from his global businesses when he entered office created the potential for unprecedented conflicts of interest that have since become one of the defining characteristics of his administration. As a result, one question pervades every action and policy decision of consequence made by his administration: Are President Trump’s actions driven by his duty to represent the best interests of the American people or by a self-serving pursuit of his own personal financial interests?

Since day one of the Trump administration, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has been tracking the conflicts of interest that stem from the president’s decision not to divest from the Trump Organization. They fall into five broad categories:


Visits to Trump properties by foreign government officials, members of Congress, state government officials, and Trump administration officials, including Trump himself.
Events that political organizations, foreign governments and foreign government-linked groups, and special-interest groups hold at Trump properties, possibly to buy access to and curry favor with the Trump administration.
Instances in which President Trump and other White House officials have used their platform to publicly promote Trump Organization properties by mentioning or referencing them in official statements or on social media.
Trademarks to Trump businesses given final or preliminary approval by foreign countries since President Trump entered the White House.
Other interactions between foreign or domestic governments and the Trump Organization that defy categorization. Examples range from the president ordering his Bedminster, NJ golf club to give certain administration officials an exclusive discount to a former EPA Administrator trying to buy a mattress from the Trump Hotel in Washington.


----------



## sleewell

We are supposed to be defending the trump tax cuts for big corps now? 



Randy said:


> Speculatively. I haven't heard anyone claim Trump committed or was being investigated for committing tax fraud. So far it looks like he claimed depreciation or losses/reinvestment the same way Bezos and Amazon do. I never claimed what Amazon does is illegal, I said it should be because it's sleazy loophole exploitation and even that was too much of an accusation for some people.



You very much seem to be missing the forest through the trees.

Did bezos run for president using his business success as the sole reason to vote for him? Trump said we could trust him to get things done based on his track record of winning in the business world which now seems to be huge losses every year.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> We are supposed to be defending the trump tax cuts for big corps now?
> 
> 
> 
> You very much seem to be missing the forest through the trees.
> 
> Did bezos run for president using his business success as the sole reason to vote for him? Trump said we could trust him to get things done based on his track record of winning in the business world which now seems to be huge losses every year.






https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-plan-analysis-study-rich-rates-2017-9


----------



## Adieu

Ugh... the man has no finesse.

You're supposed to pillage the country ELEGANTLY during your first term in high office.


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Ugh... the man has no finesse.
> 
> You're supposed to pillage the country ELEGANTLY during your first term in high office.



Right? How come you got this piece of hot borscht?







And all we got is this?


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 85471
> 
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-plan-analysis-study-rich-rates-2017-9



his supporters are like. yes yes. very screwed. paying taxes is for libtards. trump best at avoiding taxes.


----------



## USMarine75

Went to Foxnews.com. Not one mention of Trump's taxes. (Or lack thereof)


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> You very much seem to be missing the forest through the trees.
> 
> Did bezos run for president using his business success as the sole reason to vote for him? Trump said we could trust him to get things done based on his track record of winning in the business world which now seems to be huge losses every year.



Treads a little too close to 'orange man bad' mindset for me.

The thing that's supposed to make us better as a party and as people is having convictions and principals, and drawing our lines accordingly. Once we start saying there's a line but we're more concerned with WHO crosses it, we lose all our ammo.

To be clear, I'm not saying 'so what' about Trump's taxes or the taxes he's not paying. I'm saying the minute we look like hypocrites on this issue, the less effective they become.



USMarine75 said:


> The buried lead is that he's used his position as President to attract lobbyists and foreign investments and enrich himself. He's literally using the office of the President to keep himself financially afloat.



Now *this* looks like some meat and potatoes. Trump himself during a debate said he didn't pay taxes and "that makes me smarter than you", so that in and of itself isn't news or a headshot. But when we get into abuse of office to enrich himself or to escape his debts, THAT'S where the real damning substance is.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Treads a little too close to 'orange man bad' mindset for me.
> 
> The thing that's supposed to make us better as a party and as people is having convictions and principals, and drawing our lines accordingly. Once we start saying there's a line but we're more concerned with WHO crosses it, we lose all our ammo.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not saying 'so what' about Trump's taxes or the taxes he's not paying. I'm saying the minute we look like hypocrites on this issue, the less effective they become.
> 
> 
> 
> Now *this* looks like some meat and potatoes. Trump himself during a debate said he didn't pay taxes and "that makes me smarter than you", so that in and of itself isn't news or a headshot. But when we get into abuse of office to enrich himself or to escape his debts, THAT'S where the real damning substance is.








... or not.


----------



## nightflameauto

Wuuthrad said:


> So our next Supreme Court Nominee who is going to be ramrodded in for no apparent reason just before the election is part of some secret society Catholic purported cult of hand maids! Cant make this shit up!
> 
> https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/23/coral_anika_theill_people_of_praise


Are we trying to turn into Gilead? 'Cause this sounds like a solid step towards turning into Gilead. (Handmaid's Tale reference, for those that don't recognize the word 'Gilead.')

We don't want someone like that on the Supreme Court. I would think even most Republicans wouldn't want that, but I don't understand the reasoning process that lands them in opposite to reality-ville on a regular basis, so I'm sure I'm somehow missing something.

The news this morning is all up in arms about Trump writing off 750k as a business expense for haircuts while running his reality show. First off, seriously? 750k to look like that? Second off, as one of the commentators said, "He can write off 750k for hair cuts as a business expense, but I can't write off my mortgage as a business expense when I work from home." It does seem a bit ridiculous.

I'm somewhat baffled by how up in arms people are acting about the news that he barely pays anything in federal taxes. As others have pointed out, he's flat out bragged about that since the beginning of his near farcical presidential run. This isn't a surprise.

And while it was well known all along that he was pouring tax money back into his businesses by having foreign dignitaries stay there, and always staying there himself and paying out of federal funds for his entourage, it's nice to finally get some real numbers out of all that. 

This is exactly what happens when we the people are so stupid that we elect an ego-driven sociopath to the highest office in the country. He's not even capable of putting up a front of propriety, because he just assumes everything he does is correct merely because it's him doing it. The rules, laws, and morality of any given situation, for him, completely revolves around whether or not it benefits him in some way. And he's not far-sighted enough to realize that tearing the country apart isn't a good long-term goal, 'cause it's fun right now for him.

It would be utterly fascinating if he wasn't taking the entire country down with him.


----------



## AxRookie

I didn't k


USMarine75 said:


> And all we got is this?


I didn't know they made tennis diapers in extra large? They must be Trump brand tennis diapers...


----------



## sleewell

Randy said:


> Treads a little too close to 'orange man bad' mindset for me.
> 
> The thing that's supposed to make us better as a party and as people is having convictions and principals, and drawing our lines accordingly. Once we start saying there's a line but we're more concerned with WHO crosses it, we lose all our ammo.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not saying 'so what' about Trump's taxes or the taxes he's not paying. I'm saying the minute we look like hypocrites on this issue, the less effective they become.
> 
> 
> 
> Now *this* looks like some meat and potatoes. Trump himself during a debate said he didn't pay taxes and "that makes me smarter than you", so that in and of itself isn't news or a headshot. But when we get into abuse of office to enrich himself or to escape his debts, THAT'S where the real damning substance is.




its just an odd position to take. bezos isnt running for office. his company didnt pay taxes due in part to very generous GOP tax law and no one credible is saying he broke any laws to achieve this. trump ran for office mainly around the idea that his business success was more important than having experience as a lawmaker. now were finding out that his businesses lose money every year and he is writing off personal expenses as business losses which is illegal. why are we comparing these two??

focus less on how little or how much taxes were paid and the whataboutism distraction techniques and pay more attention to the crimes that were committed by one person in this example. if you are saying the tax laws should be changed i would fully agree with you. if you are saying we should ignore trump's crimes because other people don't pay taxes thats where i would have some issues with that line of thinking.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> its just an odd position to take. bezos isnt running for office. his company didnt pay taxes due in part to very generous GOP tax law and no one credible is saying he broke any laws to achieve this. trump ran for office mainly around the idea that his business success was more important than having experience as a lawmaker. now were finding out that his businesses lose money every year and he is writing off personal expenses as business losses which is illegal. why are we comparing these two??
> 
> focus less on how little or how much taxes were paid and the whataboutism distraction techniques and pay more attention to the crimes that were committed by one person in this example. if you are saying the tax laws should be changed i would fully agree with you. if you are saying we should ignore trump's crimes because other people don't pay taxes thats where i would have some issues with that line of thinking.



I don't think @Randy is saying to ignore anything, quite the contrary.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Right? How come you got this piece of hot borscht?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all we got is this?



Seems pretty comparable but I'd have to see a pic with someone riding Trump to know for sure.


----------



## diagrammatiks

the funny thing is that if trump is actually that much in debt...he actually maybe doesn't have to pay that much taxes.

but...reading over the reports there's like definitely tax fraud going on.


----------



## dmlinger

So say there is no funny business going on and that this is all perfectly legal and well within the tax code...

Fundamentally, I have major issues with paying more in tax every MONTH than Trump has paid in TOTAL over the past decade.


----------



## nightflameauto

dmlinger said:


> So say there is no funny business going on and that this is all perfectly legal and well within the tax code...
> 
> Fundamentally, I have major issues with paying more in tax every MONTH than Trump has paid in TOTAL over the past decade.


That's the part that should irk people. I know the Trump fans will use this as another chance to worship him, but some part of their brains should feel a tiny bit of a sting when they look at their taxes and see how much they pay in compared to how much someone like Trump pays.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> That's the part that should irk people. I know the Trump fans will use this as another chance to worship him, but some part of their brains should feel a tiny bit of a sting when they look at their taxes and see how much they pay in compared to how much someone like Trump pays.



They won't care about Trump, and honestly they probably shouldn't, because it's not a Trump problem. It's the whole "taxes are too complex" and "the government is stupid" drum that the GOP has been beating for decades. It's vindication more than an indictment. 

These people are selfish and thus reward those that they see themselves in, even if it's a million miles away.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I think this honestly comes out in the wash...as far as the election is concerned.

people that don't support him pretty much knew this was happening.
people that support him...uh well they still support him.

if anything I bet trump is like look how much this idiot Biden is paying in taxes.

I also kind of get the feeling that some people think taxes only go towards funding abortion and welfare.


----------



## dmlinger

diagrammatiks said:


> I think this honestly comes out in the wash...as far as the election is concerned.
> 
> people that don't support him pretty much knew this was happening.
> people that support him...uh well they still support him.
> 
> if anything I bet trump is like look how much this idiot Biden is paying in taxes.
> 
> I also kind of get the feeling that some people think taxes only go towards funding abortion and welfare.



Like every election year, it is the undecided vote that this matters to.

Today's poll in TX shows 48% for Trump, 48% for Biden, and 4% undecided. This news matters uge and bigly for that 4%.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't believe that 4% exists. It's like when they poll how many people masturbate. That's just 4% that didn't feel like answering.


----------



## fantom

Ya I'm not sure this tax news is anything that we didn't know already. Now it is confirmed, nothing new here folks. The only people who care are people who believe that taxpayers should contribute to shared public resources. Does that sound like anyone that votes Republican?

Even for the "undecided" voters, this is a drop in the bucket. If they haven't made up their minds yet, they are voting for Trump and won't admit it.


----------



## AxRookie

orange man VERY bad...

And I was one of the people in the very beginning, day one, saying "come on, give him a chance, he could do some good" Holy $hit I've never been so wrong in my life!!!


----------



## spudmunkey

I've been trying to explain to family how the $750 itself isn't the issue. It's how he got there: by either lying to the IRS which makes him a criminal, or lying to all of us. That he simply isn't the man people thought they were voting for.

Then there's that ~$400 million dollars in loans that are due while he's still in office, likely shilling for more Goya beans or My Pillows.


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> I've been trying to explain to family how the $750 itself isn't the issue. It's how he got there: by either lying to the IRS which makes him a criminal, or lying to all of us. That he simply isn't the man people thought they were voting for.
> 
> Then there's that ~$400 million dollars in loans that are due while he's still in office, likely shilling for more Goya beans or My Pillows.



How he got there isn't new information. We knew this in 2016 before the elections. It didn't make a difference then. It won't make a difference now. We knew he was scamming contractors and using tax loopholes. Let the feds deal with him breaking the law, but don't expect this news to change anything.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html

https://fortune.com/2016/10/08/donald-trump-taxes-contractors/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/


----------



## Randy

AxRookie said:


> orange man VERY bad...
> 
> And I was one of the people in the very beginning, day one, saying "come on, give him a chance, he could do some good" Holy $hit I've never been so wrong in my life!!!



Same. In fairness:

1.) even the worst evaluations didn't project him completely cutting the brakes on democracy the way he has

2.) he's an egomaniac, so the 'bad' has mostly been a reaction to the people who've stood against him more than it was based on his core values. Howard Stern is right, the guy lives for having people like him, so he blasted varying messages in all directions until he found the group that loves him no matter what he does, and that's the closest he comes to having any loyalty. It's just, to like a guy who's as unscrupulous as Trump no matter what he does, you've gotta also be a pretty shitty person yourself, so the bar for what he's gotta do to impress them gets ever lower. NOBODY anticipated how far that would go.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

It took me a while to realize that trumps indiscretions and corrupt actions don't matter to his supporters because of the fact that they too would do just as he has done. For a long time it was hard to digest all of this b/c I kept thinking that some of his supporters were actually decent people, and while many of them likely conduct their day to day lives in seemingly moral ways, they see no harm because they know deep down inside they'd also lie, cheat, and steal in order to live the high life. It's sad... You don't want to think that nearly half the country is as unscrupulous and void of conscience as he is but they really must be. I'm sure that there are still some trump supporters that are indeed decent people...but simply dumb, senile, or void of coherence. It's a shame but I truly have to believe that the only ones able to keep defending him are just stupid, derelict, insane, or sleazy. There's truly no other answer that I might conceivably accept as to why he still has any admirers.


----------



## SpaceDock

To Trumps base this is all fake news and won’t change anything. To independents, fence sitters, and people who voted for him because “Hilary was worse” let’s all pray this drip drip of Trumps lies, failures, and felonies pulls them to Biden.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> It took me a while to realize that trumps indiscretions and corrupt actions don't matter to his supporters because of the fact that they too would do just as he has done. For a long time it was hard to digest all of this b/c I kept thinking that some of his supporters were actually decent people, and while many of them likely conduct their day to day lives in seemingly moral ways, they see no harm because they know deep down inside they'd also lie, cheat, and steal in order to live the high life. It's sad... You don't want to think that nearly half the country is as unscrupulous and void of conscience as he is but they really must be. I'm sure that there are still some trump supporters that are indeed decent people...but simply dumb, senile, or void of coherence. It's a shame but I truly have to believe that the only ones able to keep defending him are just stupid, derelict, insane, or sleazy. There's truly no other answer that I might conceivably accept as to why he still has any admirers.


It's crazy but I know a man who is not stupid, derelict, insane, sleazy, or anything like those things, YET he is a big Trump guy! I think some people love him because they have some money and they think he's somehow going to help them get more???

It seems like some people who have money really like him even though Rump is now known to be 421 million dollars in debt!

Sure he owns stuff but almost everything he owns is losing money by the truckloads! accept for some of his overseas properties in authoritarian countries of course...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> It's crazy but I know a man who is not stupid, derelict, insane, sleazy, or anything like those things, YET he is a big Trump guy! I think some people love him because they have some money and they think he's somehow going to help them get more???
> 
> It seems like some people who have money really like him even though Rump is now known to be 421 million dollars in debt!
> 
> Sure he owns stuff but almost everything he owns is losing money by the truckloads! accept for some of his overseas properties in authoritarian countries of course...



While what you say may be seemingly true about that guy, we really don't know the deeper hidden passions embedded within the hearts and minds of others... others that appear sane, decent, etc. I think that most people front a certain persona while around others, yet possess certain beliefs, priorities, or mindsets that are never exposed. It seems that "Me first" and "By any means necessary" and "Survival of the fittest" is much more deep-seated in people than what they wish to project. And I'm not suggesting that that's a necessarily bad thing in some regards... we all want to have nice things... but people are good at putting on an act in order to appear more humane and sympathetic towards others. It's not hard to realize how trump supporters easily prioritize their wealth and quality of life above others. I mean... just look how many of them will tout how "smart" they are... and we know that's a load of BS.


----------



## fantom

High Plains Drifter said:


> It took me a while to realize that trumps indiscretions and corrupt actions don't matter to his supporters because of the fact that they too would do just as he has done. For a long time it was hard to digest all of this b/c I kept thinking that some of his supporters were actually decent people, and while many of them likely conduct their day to day lives in seemingly moral ways, they see no harm because they know deep down inside they'd also lie, cheat, and steal in order to live the high life. It's sad... You don't want to think that nearly half the country is as unscrupulous and void of conscience as he is but they really must be. I'm sure that there are still some trump supporters that are indeed decent people...but simply dumb, senile, or void of coherence. It's a shame but I truly have to believe that the only ones able to keep defending him are just stupid, derelict, insane, or sleazy. There's truly no other answer that I might conceivably accept as to why he still has any admirers.



You are assuming 1) there is a global definition of "decency" and morality, and 2) that supporters have the same interpretation and mindset as you.

I know many Republicans and Trump supporters who are good people. They aren't idiots, they know Trump is a con. But they don't see a better alternative. Honestly, Biden is not a great candidate.

The mentality of many people in this world is that it is overpopulated and people are not equals. Americans are spoiled when compared to South America, Africa, Eastern Europe (some of it), Middle East, Asia, etc. If you truly believe that every person deserves the same fortunes and chances, you are in a dream world that doesn't exist. Intelligent Republicans understand this. They know that life is random and use the system to gain advantages when they can. They care about their inner circle and family more than a random stranger in another state, city, country, continent, etc. They even go as far as making sure their people can stockpile resources over "them". Does that mean they are immoral or indecent? Not at all, they just have a different world view. They watch out for people they care about because they can't watch out for billions of people. They know there is no fantasyland where that is feasible.

Anyways, it isn't about admiring him. It's about having no faith that modern politicians will take actions to improve the lives of their own circle over circles that are viewed as a threat. Not a physical threat, but a threat to drain resources that may be needed by them. Trump has their support because he very clearly doesn't give a shit about playing nice. He is a literal bully picking on the people and governnent that has put them behind modern times. And they can't admit to themselves that they deserve worse than what they want because people have an instinct to survive.

Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this planet is pretty screwed. No politicians are going to fix a damn thing. I can totally understand why people are ok with an idiot making a fool out of an entire country if they come out slightly ahead. I don't think that is being indecent. I think that is being intelligent and survivalist, even if I know it is not politically correct way to want decisions to happen.

Edit: I should be clear, I don't personally think Trump is good for anyone. I don't personally agree with much of what him or Moscow Mitch are doing to this country, but I think many liberals take things way too far.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> You are assuming 1) there is a global definition of "decency" and morality, and 2) that supporters have the same interpretation and mindset as you.
> 
> I know many Republicans and Trump supporters who are good people. They aren't idiots, they know Trump is a con. But they don't see a better alternative. Honestly, Biden is not a great candidate.
> 
> The mentality of many people in this world is that it is overpopulated and people are not equals. Americans are spoiled when compared to South America, Africa, Eastern Europe (some of it), Middle East, Asia, etc. If you truly believe that every person deserves the same fortunes and chances, you are in a dream world that doesn't exist. Intelligent Republicans understand this. They know that life is random and use the system to gain advantages when they can. They care about their inner circle and family more than a random stranger in another state, city, country, continent, etc. They even go as far as making sure their people can stockpile resources over "them". Does that mean they are immoral or indecent? Not at all, they just have a different world view. They watch out for people they care about because they can't watch out for billions of people. They know there is no fantasyland where that is feasible.
> 
> Anyways, it isn't about admiring him. It's about having no faith that modern politicians will take actions to improve the lives of their own circle over circles that are viewed as a threat. Not a physical threat, but a threat to drain resources that may be needed by them. Trump has their support because he very clearly doesn't give a shit about playing nice. He is a literal bully picking on the people and governnent that has put them behind modern times. And they can't admit to themselves that they deserve worse than what they want because people have an instinct to survive.
> 
> Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this planet is pretty screwed. No politicians are going to fix a damn thing. I can totally understand why people are ok with an idiot making a fool out of an entire country if they come out slightly ahead. I don't think that is being indecent. I think that is being intelligent and survivalist, even if I know it is not politically correct way to want decisions to happen.


Wow...


----------



## fantom

High Plains Drifter said:


> just look how many of them will tout how "smart" they are... and we know that's a load of BS.



Um, think you are overgeneralizing here. Many Trump supporters I know have PhDs, were top 10 of their graduating class, and have jobs at prominent "smart people only" companies.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I feel like not really understanding the opposition is pretty much one of the biggest issues of the left right now.

Just off the top of my head.

Minorities don't vote in a block.

Herman Caine was a big ole uncle tom but he has tons of supporters. 

Younger Asians are usually more liberal but old asians are conservative, racist, and homophobic as fuck. Both my parents and all their friends are lifelong republicans. 

I know tons of gay republicans that will be voting for trump this election. It makes absolutely no sense to me. But all these people are life long republicans. 

Most supporters are just normal people. There's of course tons of crazy. But even as this forum can attest, there's tons of fucking crazy on both sides.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> You are assuming 1) there is a global definition of "decency" and morality, and 2) that supporters have the same interpretation and mindset as you.
> 
> I know many Republicans and Trump supporters who are good people. They aren't idiots, they know Trump is a con. But they don't see a better alternative. Honestly, Biden is not a great candidate.
> 
> The mentality of many people in this world is that it is overpopulated and people are not equals. Americans are spoiled when compared to South America, Africa, Eastern Europe (some of it), Middle East, Asia, etc. If you truly believe that every person deserves the same fortunes and chances, you are in a dream world that doesn't exist. Intelligent Republicans understand this. They know that life is random and use the system to gain advantages when they can. They care about their inner circle and family more than a random stranger in another state, city, country, continent, etc. They even go as far as making sure their people can stockpile resources over "them". Does that mean they are immoral or indecent? Not at all, they just have a different world view. They watch out for people they care about because they can't watch out for billions of people. They know there is no fantasyland where that is feasible.
> 
> Anyways, it isn't about admiring him. It's about having no faith that modern politicians will take actions to improve the lives of their own circle over circles that are viewed as a threat. Not a physical threat, but a threat to drain resources that may be needed by them. Trump has their support because he very clearly doesn't give a shit about playing nice. He is a literal bully picking on the people and governnent that has put them behind modern times. And they can't admit to themselves that they deserve worse than what they want because people have an instinct to survive.
> 
> Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this planet is pretty screwed. No politicians are going to fix a damn thing. I can totally understand why people are ok with an idiot making a fool out of an entire country if they come out slightly ahead. I don't think that is being indecent. I think that is being intelligent and survivalist, even if I know it is not politically correct way to want decisions to happen.
> 
> Edit: I should be clear, I don't personally think Trump is good for anyone. I don't personally agree with much of what him or Moscow Mitch are doing to this country, but I think many liberals take things way too far.



But no one in his bases is actually coming out ahead, except for the rich, especially Trump and his interests.

The greatest con Trump has convinced his base of is that he's just like them and that he's a man of the people.

The majority of his base (average Joe's) had their taxes go up, their savings go down, and their protections eroded. He's trying to take away medical coverage for pre-existing conditions, get rid of coverage for millions of people, get rid of environmental protections that protect these very people, etc.

But he's convinced them that Biden will somehow be worse.


----------



## USMarine75

BTW, when are we going to talk about the millions likely paid to Ivanka in "consulting fees" to lower Trump's taxable income?

They already found $750k paid to her in consulting fees for a project she was also the project manager on = tax fraud.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> BTW, when are we going to talk about the millions likely paid to Ivanka in "consulting fees" to lower Trump's taxable income?
> 
> They already found $750k paid to her in consulting fees for a project she was also the project manager on = tax fraud.



White collar "crime" is only felonious when the plebs do it


----------



## High Plains Drifter

fantom said:


> You are assuming 1) there is a global definition of "decency" and morality, and 2) that supporters have the same interpretation and mindset as you.
> 
> I know many Republicans and Trump supporters who are good people. They aren't idiots, they know Trump is a con. But they don't see a better alternative. Honestly, Biden is not a great candidate.
> 
> The mentality of many people in this world is that it is overpopulated and people are not equals. Americans are spoiled when compared to South America, Africa, Eastern Europe (some of it), Middle East, Asia, etc. If you truly believe that every person deserves the same fortunes and chances, you are in a dream world that doesn't exist. Intelligent Republicans understand this. They know that life is random and use the system to gain advantages when they can. They care about their inner circle and family more than a random stranger in another state, city, country, continent, etc. They even go as far as making sure their people can stockpile resources over "them". Does that mean they are immoral or indecent? Not at all, they just have a different world view. They watch out for people they care about because they can't watch out for billions of people. They know there is no fantasyland where that is feasible.
> 
> Anyways, it isn't about admiring him. It's about having no faith that modern politicians will take actions to improve the lives of their own circle over circles that are viewed as a threat. Not a physical threat, but a threat to drain resources that may be needed by them. Trump has their support because he very clearly doesn't give a shit about playing nice. He is a literal bully picking on the people and governnent that has put them behind modern times. And they can't admit to themselves that they deserve worse than what they want because people have an instinct to survive.
> 
> Maybe I'm a bit cynical, but this planet is pretty screwed. No politicians are going to fix a damn thing. I can totally understand why people are ok with an idiot making a fool out of an entire country if they come out slightly ahead. I don't think that is being indecent. I think that is being intelligent and survivalist, even if I know it is not politically correct way to want decisions to happen.
> 
> Edit: I should be clear, I don't personally think Trump is good for anyone. I don't personally agree with much of what him or Moscow Mitch are doing to this country, but I think many liberals take things way too far.



I don't really have a preconceived definition of globally accepted decency. I'm speaking in a simplistic sense as it applies to just about everything that trump has openly shit upon. And I agree with you on both counts that a) Biden is no prize-pig and that b) no politician should be expected to "fix" most anything long term ( nor capable). I also think that we are forever screwed in an irreversible sense as long as government and big business are jerking each other off. 



fantom said:


> Um, think you are overgeneralizing here. Many Trump supporters I know have PhDs, were top 10 of their graduating class, and have jobs at prominent "smart people only" companies.



Of course that's true... There are smart and stupid supporters of every politician out there. But I also believe that those labels are quite subjective since being smart about some things doesn't mean being smart about everything. I'm referring more towards his venomously supportive base that refuses to use any degree of intelligence, logic, etc when defending their king. They're seemingly too ignorant or biased to be willing to support the simple concept of "we the people" and of constitutional rights and civil responsibilities... at least when a microphone is pointed in their direction. They seem to lack conscience, humility, and humanity. And, I didn't say "all"... I said "many". Also, just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you have empathy nor humanity. I continue to stand by my suggestion that many people indeed posses underlying feelings and convictions that they don't necessarily share with those around them which I guess was my main point. Anyway.. Much respect, man. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.


----------



## narad

High Plains Drifter said:


> Also, just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you have empathy nor humanity.



Probably the opposite, really.


----------



## diagrammatiks

narad said:


> Probably the opposite, really.



think god I didn't finish mine. I had very little of either trait to begin with.


----------



## nightflameauto

The thing that blows my mind is the number of "team players," lifelong party members on either side, that absolutely refuse to look at things objectively. It's always a bit irksome, but it's especially so now when Trump literally doesn't fit the mold of what traditional Republicans have stood for.

I can understand somebody not wanting to pay attention and missing all the missteps in a normal election cycle, but this three-ring circus of constant face-plants should show up on everybody's radar. So it's either gotta be "go team" or something more nefarious at work.

I do know at least two people that I've always thought were relatively intelligent and kind-hearted to a fault that are massive Trump supporters. They're reasoning, both of them, is that the US needed a massive gutting and Trump is the guy to do it. And they still hold that view at this point. Apparently they haven't realized that that massive gutting is going to be very, VERY painful for a very, very long time to come.

Side-note: Especially relevant here. Biden had a public statement where he said, and I quote, "I'm not the one that's gonna wanna get in the mosh pit and start throwing mud."

Who is coaching him to try being cool? I heard it and had to double-take. That didn't sound natural at all.


----------



## Demiurge

nightflameauto said:


> Side-note: Especially relevant here. Biden had a public statement where he said, and I quote, "I'm not the one that's gonna wanna get in the mosh pit and start throwing mud."
> 
> Who is coaching him to try being cool? I heard it and had to double-take. That didn't sound natural at all.



Who knows- could be his experience. Maybe those ice cream socials from nineteen dickety-two could get pretty fucking wild.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Looking forward to these two whacker doo’s “debate” tonight. I’m off work late, but should be able to stream it once home. I predict a messy one!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Looking forward to these two whacker doo’s “debate” tonight. I’m off work late, but should be able to stream it once home. I predict a messy one!



It's just going to be an hour of Trump lying while Chris "I'm not fact checking anyone" Wallace holds his dick in his hand. 

I'll wait for the highlights.


----------



## diagrammatiks

if Biden answers everything as one complete train of thought that's a win.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It'll be par the course.

Biden will pull a stupid, easily avoidable gaffe and get absolutely pile drived for it.

While Trump will say crazy shit like he invented blowjobs and Kamala is really a secret agent from Kolkata trying to steal everyone's bibles to distract from the fountain of eternal youth he's releasing in two weeks, and then Van Jones will cry about how that was the moment he truly became president.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

MaxOfMetal said:


> It'll be par the course.
> 
> Biden will pull a stupid, easily avoidable gaffe and get absolutely pile drived for it.
> 
> While Trump will say crazy shit like he invented blowjobs and Kamala is really a secret agent from Kolkata trying to steal everyone's bibles to distract from the fountain of eternal youth he's releasing in two weeks, and then Van Jones will cry about how that was the moment he truly became president.


You’re probably right, but I will still tune in. Ya know, gotta keep track of who is after my bibles and all.


----------



## mastapimp

Saw this yesterday and thought it'd lighten up the mood a little bit. NSFW btw.


----------



## zappatton2

Spitting Image came back at just the right time!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Hahahaha Van Jones crying.


----------



## USMarine75

Biden paid $300+k last year in taxes lol.

F'king amateur.



MaxOfMetal said:


> It'll be par the course.
> 
> Biden will pull a stupid, easily avoidable gaffe and get absolutely pile drived for it.
> 
> While Trump will say crazy shit like he invented blowjobs and Kamala is really a secret agent from Kolkata trying to steal everyone's bibles to distract from the fountain of eternal youth he's releasing in two weeks, and then Van Jones will cry about how that was the moment he truly became president.





Dineley said:


> Hahahaha Van Jones crying.



We need to bring back rep just for the Van Jones crying reference 

How can I tell my kids when they wake up tomorrow that you don't always get a trophy... sometimes the other side wins*?


----------



## spudmunkey

Are the tax laws actually to lax in the US compared to The Philippines, where he paid over $156,000?


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> Are the tax laws actually to lax in the US compared to The Philippines, where he paid over $156,000?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/trump-apparently-paid-200-times-064655929.html


----------



## AxRookie

After Trump gave a speech in Charlet North Carolina, Said Trump, I love Charlet, In fact, I consider to be a charlatan!

That is the perfect joke because it's so true it's scary!


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/trump-apparently-paid-200-times-064655929.html


Oh, Yahoo!...

"President Trump paid no income tax in 11 of the 18 years from 2000 to 1018,"


----------



## AxRookie

AxRookie said:


> After Trump gave a speech in Charlet North Carolina, Said Trump, I love Charlet, In fact, I consider to be a charlatan!
> 
> That is the perfect joke because it's so true it's scary!



It was supposed to be "I consider *myself* to be a charlatan!" but I didn't see the mistake in time to edit it...


----------



## AxRookie

For the fourth year in a row, Hawaii was named the happiest place in the country! That again, Hawaii is the furthest place away from the rest of the country!!!

I know I posted that in "Jokes of the day" BUT it fits here very good as well!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Welp... this is just painful to watch. 

Chris Wallace 2024?

... ugh


----------



## SpaceDock

Srsly, Chris Wallace is the strongest of all the moderators planned. Trump is just acting like a child.


----------



## spudmunkey

I've said from the beginning: mute their mic when it's not their turn. But of course, if they did, Kumquat Mussolini would likely scream "Censorship!"


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

It’s about impossible to watch. FFS.


----------



## shadowlife

spudmunkey said:


> I've said from the beginning: mute their mic when it's not their turn.



I kept thinking the same thing, but I'd go one step further and put them each in an isolation booth, so even even if they start yelling it doesn't interrupt the other's time to speak.

Basically this was just a live rehash of everything that's been hurled back and forth over the last few weeks.
I doubt anyone had their mind changed about who they're voting for.


----------



## SpaceDock

Stand by?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Stand by?



Yeah. Just...yeah.


----------



## Steinmetzify

Holy shit.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://store.joebiden.com/will-you-shut-up-man-black-t-shirt/

Related:


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## ArtDecade

I was working threw scales as I watched the debate, but there was no doubt in my mind that Biden walked right over Trump. That said, Trump supporters won't care.


----------



## Hollowway

ArtDecade said:


> I was working threw scales as I watched the debate, but there was no doubt in my mind that Biden walked right over Trump. That said, Trump supporters won't care.


I didn’t watch it either, but what you say is exactly right. And Trump supporters will plainly state that. There is literally nothing he can do that they will not vote for him. Almost all of what he’s accused others if he has done, and he rarely tells the truth. He’s partnered with our enemies and hurt those at home, harmed the military and the middle class, and continually gone against his GOP advisors. But he doesn’t lose supporters. It’s amazing, and I just don’t understand it, but that’s the way it is.


----------



## SpaceDock

It’s a cult


----------



## AxRookie

Well, that was sure different!

When one man is talking the others mic should be turned OFF!!!


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Stand by?



They're celebrating it but this is trying to find messages on alphabet soup with this guy. He speaks at near random, that statement in particular meant nothing, but as usual, just saying their name is enough to pacify them as an endorsement.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## MASS DEFECT

I'm pretty impressed that Biden had multiple strategies and "debate latch and catch" tactics and followed it to the letter during this whole thing. I thought Trump would easily overpower and swarm him (which he followed to the letter, too) but no, Biden came ready and delivered. I thought that talking to the viewer whenever Trump would overwhelm him with noise, was particularly smart.

Whoever planned his debate strategy should get a raise.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/29/...en-trump-first-presidential-debate/index.html

Trump won purely based on consistency.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/29/...en-trump-first-presidential-debate/index.html
> 
> Trump won purely based on consistency.


Well yes, consistently rambling lies... A+


----------



## sleewell

we are the shithole country now


----------



## Randy

Should cancel the rest of the debates or Biden should just refuse. Other than the fact these aren't changing anyone's mind and were a trainwreck mess (of Trump's doing), he officially used the platform as a means of mobilizing his brown shirt militia, so now simply giving him the microphone is a danger.


----------



## jco5055

Well this debate definitely strengthened my consideration of exploring trying to move out of the country if Trump wins. Hell if Biden wins it might be more of a delay in this process than actually not following through, I don't know how anyone could watch that debate and not think that this didn't confirm that America is just a mess at this point.


----------



## sleewell

mute button after 1 or 2 warnings - for both of them or just cancel them if they both won't agree. its just foolish to let someone carry on like that.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> mute button after 1 or 2 warnings - for both of them or just cancel them if they both won't agree. its just foolish to let someone carry on like that.


Agreed. Like we need the message any more loud and clear about how deep the Shit Creek is. The proud boy’s. Are they going to try and show up at polls to intimidate people with their big trucks, big flags, tiny weiners, and large guns now? Great. I can hardly wait.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Agreed. Like we need the message any more loud and clear about how deep the Shit Creek is. The proud boy’s. Are they going to try and show up at polls to intimidate people with their big trucks, big flags, tiny weiners, and large guns now? Great. I can hardly wait.



yup. trump is like literally recruiting these guys to be poll watchers.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

diagrammatiks said:


> yup. trump is like literally recruiting these guys to be poll watchers.


I don’t possibly see how this could lead to any problems?


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## MaxOfMetal

Called it!


----------



## dmlinger

I check /r/conservative every now and again to gain a different perspective. A consistent theme with the Republican opinion or mindset is that they always focus on fringe/trivial issues. For example, today that page is blowing up with complaints on how Chris Wallace was biased. 

Really? That is the big takeaway from the shitshow we witnessed last night? 

No acknowledgement of the botched softball question to condemn white supremacy, no discussion on Trump's unprofessional handling of an adult debate, none of that. Just complaints about Chris Wallace and highlights of Trump's personal attacks on Biden.


----------



## nightflameauto

Best comment I've heard about the debate came on a news program this morning. "Nobody won that debate. Certainly not the American people. It was an embarrassment, and anyone that doesn't believe so should be ashamed of themselves."

I knew it was going to be a shitshow. And it definitely was a shitshow. But I was impressed that Biden didn't rise to the constant baiting. And Chris Wallace, as much of a pacifist nature as he had with Trump, did have a moment or two where I legitimately thought he stood up to him. I mean, Trump didn't tolerate it and just kept shouting louder but at least he lodged a protest or two.

The big take away for me is Biden looked like he was in control, and Trump came across completely unhinged and obnoxious, but what's new there? Some other comments I've heard is that the debate itself was completely devoid of information from any candidate, because any moment that Biden began to express a real idea or policy Trump would bumble his way into a rant of stupidity and cover him up.

Encouraging white supremacists to "supervise" polling stations? That's pretty low even for him. It's like he's in some altered form of reality most of the time, but that moment was beyond embarrassing. 

I can only imagine people in other countries watching this shit and wondering why some American's insist we're the greatest country in the world. Clearly, any country that can not only produce that man, but elect him to the highest office in the country isn't the best at anything other than bullshit and bluster.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> Best comment I've heard about the debate came on a news program this morning. "Nobody won that debate. Certainly not the American people. It was an embarrassment, and anyone that doesn't believe so should be ashamed of themselves."
> 
> I knew it was going to be a shitshow. And it definitely was a shitshow. But I was impressed that Biden didn't rise to the constant baiting. And Chris Wallace, as much of a pacifist nature as he had with Trump, did have a moment or two where I legitimately thought he stood up to him. I mean, Trump didn't tolerate it and just kept shouting louder but at least he lodged a protest or two.
> 
> The big take away for me is Biden looked like he was in control, and Trump came across completely unhinged and obnoxious, but what's new there? Some other comments I've heard is that the debate itself was completely devoid of information from any candidate, because any moment that Biden began to express a real idea or policy Trump would bumble his way into a rant of stupidity and cover him up.
> 
> Encouraging white supremacists to "supervise" polling stations? That's pretty low even for him. It's like he's in some altered form of reality most of the time, but that moment was beyond embarrassing.
> 
> I can only imagine people in other countries watching this shit and wondering why some American's insist we're the greatest country in the world. Clearly, any country that can not only produce that man, but elect him to the highest office in the country isn't the best at anything other than bullshit and bluster.



Im in another country that has worldwide expats from everywhere. And that debate was basically painted as two 70 year olds bickering while another 70 year old failed to properly moderate. They referred to “the American debate model” as an outdated method of discourse because you learn nothing new about either sides beliefs that you didn’t already know. All it does it reaffirm what everyone believed prior to watching.

They also said the American model which was once known for civility is dead lol. 

So... you know... spot on.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> They also said the American model which was once known for civility is dead



That falls squarely on the lap of one of the people that was on that stage. 2008, 2012 and the primaries this year were not like that. Some mud slinging but there was substance. You literally only see total lack of substance in the Republican primaries and generals from 2016 and now this one.


----------



## Drew

Was away for a week there, what'd I miss?  



dmlinger said:


> I check /r/conservative every now and again to gain a different perspective. A consistent theme with the Republican opinion or mindset is that they always focus on fringe/trivial issues. For example, today that page is blowing up with complaints on how Chris Wallace was biased.
> 
> Really? That is the big takeaway from the shitshow we witnessed last night?
> 
> No acknowledgement of the botched softball question to condemn white supremacy, no discussion on Trump's unprofessional handling of an adult debate, none of that. Just complaints about Chris Wallace and highlights of Trump's personal attacks on Biden.


Chris Wallace, of Fox News, was biased against Trump? Sure thing.  

My conclusions - Chris Wallace lost the debate. My liquor cabinet won. 

Trump, from a pure election impact standpoint, lost last night. I think the best you could hope for, for a true independent persuadable voter, was a tie, with Trump essentially spending the whole night trying to talk over Biden and Wallace and acting like a child, and Biden having a few - to be fair, rehearsed sounding - strong moments, but for the most part putting in a lackluster performance. It was an awful debate, and while I think a lot of that goes to Trump, it's not like either candidate "won" the debate so much as maybe one of them "didn't lose." 

But, Trump is down 7 points in the polls right now. He has only a few more high profile opportunities to really shake up the race, and he blew one of them last night. Tie goes to the leader here, and last night favored Biden, inasmuch as that whole mess favored anyone, because today we're one day closer to voting, Trump has one less debate to force Biden into some sort of a gaffe, and it's hard to see last night's performance appealing to anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp. 

I think Karl Rove had the right of it by pointing out that Trump's racheting up his attacks on Biden for being senile before last night were a tactical error, too - I've seen a LOT of people who were no fans of Biden's commenting today that he actually seemed a lot more with it than they expected, and if anything if at times he seemed flustered it was because Trump spent the entire night tring to talk over him. 

I doubt Biden won over any new supporters either, but when you're winning 52%-46%, that's a luxury you have.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

So to those who watched. Am I imagining this? Is Trump either high on coke or some sort of stimulant? His behavior reminds me of other people who were under the influence.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> So to those who watched. Am I imagining this? Is Trump either high on coke or some sort of stimulant? His behavior reminds me of other people who were under the influence.



Supposedly he's been hitting Adderall hard for years, but it's all hearsay.


----------



## JSanta

MaxOfMetal said:


> Supposedly he's been hitting Adderall hard for years, but it's all hearsay.



You gotta be on SOMETHING to convince yourself that color of makeup looks alright...


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> mute button after 1 or 2 warnings - for both of them or just cancel them if they both won't agree. its just foolish to let someone carry on like that.


Exactly, I think when one person is talking just turn the others mic off until it's his turn! very simple and effective!


----------



## Ralyks

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> So to those who watched. Am I imagining this? Is Trump either high on coke or some sort of stimulant? His behavior reminds me of other people who were under the influence.



I've heard he likes to snort Adderall even before he was in office.


----------



## spudmunkey

Fast forward to 6:13 to see the hands-up poll of who won the debate, among undecided voters in a swing state:


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> mute button after 1 or 2 warnings - for both of them or just cancel them if they both won't agree. its just foolish to let someone carry on like that.



You know that someone with creative humor in now making a Youtube video with clips of Trump talking and having Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson interrupting him.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

I heard the next debate will be Town Hall style, the badgering gadfly style won't work there.


----------



## AxRookie

The video Rump doesn't want you to see! It has been banned everywhere so I had to put it on a Google drive...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cB-iSmNVCGyO6995qlALPj3KVs6sNKey/view?usp=sharing


----------



## TedEH

Sure, that doesn't look like a sketchy link at all


----------



## gunch




----------



## Wuuthrad

Trump: “we lowered the price of insulin... it’s like water” str8 up lie! Insulin vial costs near 400$ US and is closer to 30$ rest of world:







When asked to renounce white supremacy, Trump asked “who?” Biden said “proud boys”




Trump “stand back and stand by, someone needs to deal with antifa”






Biden gained some of my respect: 

He told Donnie Fatfux :

“Shut up man”

“You’re a clown” (have truer words ever been spoken?) 

“Let’s end this debate right now we’ll see who’s smart”

Don’t mess with Scranton Donny! Hard scrabble mother******!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Btw he’s also calling armed militia to intimidate voters...


----------



## SpaceDock

At least Biden was trying to speak to the American public repeating that the debate is supposed to be about us and not those two. I would love four years of not hearing about the president.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


>


Lol. That’s gold!


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> Sure, that doesn't look like a sketchy link at all


My god it's a link to this video, "Saturday Night Live - Donald Trump's House Of Wings" don't tell me let me guess, you don't want it to be seen either?





How much are you getting paid for that?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Is this saving face? 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pompeo-vatican-china-idUSKBN26L25G

And just yesterday the Russian minister of propaganda claims that it matters not who is President of the USA, and they better not try anything, because Russia is the only nation capable of reducing the USA to radioactive waste! 

These guys are running out of plays!


----------



## spudmunkey

Weird Al as presidential moderator.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Trump and Biden are just puppets, bootlickers of an “invisible” master (shielded from public view.)

Trump isn’t even the one posting his own tweets.

Both him and Biden are reading a script.

This shit is out of (your) control.

It’s been like this for a long time.


----------



## narad

Shielded from public view, only visible to those who spend long enough hours on the weirder parts of the internet to pick up on the breadcrumbs (while getting side-tracked from their cryptozoology browsing).


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> Trump and Biden are just puppets, bootlickers of an “invisible” master (shielded from public view.)
> 
> Trump isn’t even the one posting his own tweets.
> 
> Both him and Biden are reading a script.
> 
> This shit is out of (your) control.
> 
> It’s been like this for a long time.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/30/chris-christie-defends-trump-debate-423610

For someone two of my friends insist on telling me that Trump has condemns White supremacists hundreds of times, his party sure wants him to condemn white supremacists.


----------



## TedEH

AxRookie said:


> How much are you getting paid for that?


I got four whole Internet Points for it. One for recognizing a clickbait description, one for knowing google drive can host all kinds of stuff, one for the 30 seconds it took me to google and see that the same video is all over the internet and didn't need a sketchy link to share it, and the fourth is just for being Canadian since people seem to like reminding me of this point - true story, someone accidentally called me Tim yesterday because he knew my name starts with T, I'm in Canada, and his brain jumped to Tim Hortons.


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> I got four whole Internet Points for it. One for recognizing a clickbait description, one for knowing google drive can host all kinds of stuff, one for the 30 seconds it took me to google and see that the same video is all over the internet and didn't need a sketchy link to share it, and the fourth is just for being Canadian since people seem to like reminding me of this point - true story, someone accidentally called me Tim yesterday because he knew my name starts with T, I'm in Canada, and his brain jumped to Tim Hortons.


Really? give me one link to the full video that can be shared here Tim... 

OR better yet post up the video here and to hell with my link! otherwise, I'm sorry to say, you lose all your internet points... lol

By the way, it's not clickbait when it takes you to the whole video just as it says! Which it does, so one point lost already, now you're down to three, and google drive can host videos which my link is to, now you're down to two, for now, you can keep what's left once you post up the full video... should take you all of 30 seconds... and remember no "sketchy" links as you put it... I can't wait to see it here!


----------



## TedEH

"This was banned everywhere" is pretty standard clickbait. I believe you that the video is legit, I just make a habit of not clicking on random google drive links - which is generally good advice.


----------



## Andromalia

OOF.
(Out Of Facepalms)

The one lesson I guess can be derived from this and the brexit fiasco, is that common law countries are in big trouble as soon as all politicians don't "play fair" in the politcal arena... which nothing actually forces them to do. The UK and US governement systems are open to abuse so easily it would be comical if it wouldn't actually result in more people dying faster.


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> "This was banned everywhere" is pretty standard clickbait. I believe you that the video is legit, I just make a habit of not clicking on random google drive links - which is generally good advice.


So where are all the videos you say you could share? I'm really curious because it took me a while to get it and it wasn't easy???

I really wanted to post up the video here but couldn't find a way to do it that would last longer than an hour or two before it was taken down???

And it's not a "random" link? It's a link posted by a member here! Do you think I'm going to toss my membership here in the toilet by posting a link to something harmful?????


----------



## TedEH

Dude, who cares? I'm on a work PC, and I don't click google drive links from people I don't know. Can we move on?

Back to the Trump bashing, occsional Canada bashing, and being sad at how the debate went down.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> Do you think I'm going to toss my membership here in the toilet by posting a link to something harmful?????



Lolyes


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Lolyes


Sir Laurence Olivier I'm not... lol


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> Dude, who cares? I'm on a work PC, and I don't click google drive links from people I don't know. Can we move on?
> 
> Back to the Trump bashing, occsional Canada bashing, and being sad at how the debate went done.


Well, I wasn't too fond of the insinuation you were putting forth...

And still, no video so you have forfeited all your remaining internet points, sorry... lol


----------



## nightflameauto

So, scattered talk amongst the newsies this morning that the commission on presidential debates is considering rule changes, including adding mute buttons per microphone for the moderators.

Unsurprisingly, Trump's people have already said he'll bow out if they implement said rule changes. Because we wouldn't want to even give the perception of playing fair, now would we?


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> So, scattered talk amongst the newsies this morning that the commission on presidential debates is considering rule changes, including adding mute buttons per microphone for the moderators.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, Trump's people have already said he'll bow out if they implement said rule changes. Because we wouldn't want to even give the perception of playing fair, now would we?


I was floating that idea everywhere I could right after the debates, maybe someone picked up on it! lol

And really it should be automatic for the two minutes of uninterrupted time for each of them, SHUT THE OTHER MIC OFF! It's the ONLY way to get uninterrupted time with Rump because he doesn't want people to hear what anyone but himself says!


----------



## MFB

Mute buttons = no drama, no drama = less ratings, which is what TV companies rely on; so it's highly unlikely, regardless of what everyone I know has said thinking they were the first to suddenly say, "man, why don't they mute the other guy!"


----------



## AxRookie

MFB said:


> Mute buttons = no drama, no drama = less ratings, which is what TV companies rely on; so it's highly unlikely, regardless of what everyone I know has said thinking they were the first to suddenly say, "man, why don't they mute the other guy!"


Well, they never needed it before Rump...

If he is going to act like a petulant child then treat him as such!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I say Fuck 'Em... If they wanna play like children then why try to make them appear more restrained or mature than they really are? Biden was obviously at least trying to rein it in but let the shit-show fly so people can see the true colors. No need to put a shiny bow on a turd. Although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to shock-collars.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> I say Fuck 'Em... If they wanna play like children then why try to make them appear more restrained or mature than they really are? Biden was obviously at least trying to rein it in but let the shit-show fly so people can see the true colors. No need to put a shiny bow on a turd. Although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to shock-collars.


It's not about any of that, it's about letting a person talk, then when it's their turn they can go off the rails all they like! I for one want to hear what they both have to say but that couldn't happen with Rump tearing up the China shop all night!

How can you see anyone's true colors if they can't even talk???


----------



## MFB

High Plains Drifter said:


> Although I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to shock-collars.



All presidential races are now held via battle royale, Koushun Takami style


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## AxRookie

MFB said:


> All presidential races are now held via battle royale, Koushun Takami style


But you learn nothing about either of them except who can yell the loudest and that is NO DEBATE!

I want to hear both of their ideas and their criticisms of the other person's ideas and then decide which I like better! THAT"S DEBATE!

Hell, they can talk all the trash they want about each other because that can tell you something BUT ONE AT A TIME!

Trump can be as Trumpy as he wants BUT WHEN IT'S HIS DAM TURN!


----------



## sleewell

really doesnt matter if trump shows up for the next debates or not. biden should still show up and answer the questions. biden wins the next debates if trump shows up and acts a fool and he wins if trump the snowflake boycotts over the rules he has already agreed to follow but didnt. 

trump is not trying to win over voters. he is trying to start a civil war and his only hope of staying in power is stirring doubt in the voting process and going to the supreme court.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> Mute buttons = no drama, no drama = less ratings, which is what TV companies rely on; so it's highly unlikely, regardless of what everyone I know has said thinking they were the first to suddenly say, "man, why don't they mute the other guy!"


Better idea: instead of muting the mic of the person who isn't supposed to be talking, but weird-ass vocal effects on it, so if they say anything, they'll sound ridiculous. BAM - high ratings as everyone tunes in to see the shit show and you still enact the no-talking-out-of-turn rule.

As for Trump, fuck that guy. As for Biden, fuck that guy too. I think I'll vote for Biden on the premise that, if he croaks, we'll end up with Harris, who isn't really my cup of tea, but at least seems to be capable.


----------



## narad

MFB said:


> Mute buttons = no drama, no drama = less ratings, which is what TV companies rely on; so it's highly unlikely, regardless of what everyone I know has said thinking they were the first to suddenly say, "man, why don't they mute the other guy!"



If you don't think watching Trump get muted isn't going to be drama, you haven't been paying attention to Trump.


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> If you don't think watching Trump get muted isn't going to be drama, you haven't been paying attention to Trump.


He'll prob start yelling, Well more and louder then he already does!

Trump, in a nutshell, He's just a mouthpiece for all the ugliness in America, He gives it all a face and a voice!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> It's not about any of that, it's about letting a person talk, then when it's their turn they can go off the rails all they like! I for one want to hear what they both have to say but that couldn't happen with Rump tearing up the China shop all night!
> 
> How can you see anyone's true colors if they can't even talk???



That's right... It's about letting each other talk and if a grown man can't at the very least manage that, then it should be a big red flag right there. A perspective POTUS should have enough self-control and decorum to not fuck that up. In regards to the actual issues, I personally don't look at a debate several weeks before an election to be my guide. These debates always carry with them an great degree of disingenuous banter and although I understand that there may be people whom rely upon them as a means to choose the pick of the litter, I don't think that crunch-time debates are worth much... especially to those people that have been following the opponent's platforms long term.


----------



## InHiding

I listened to the Biden rape allegation interview and watched Biden's TV interview reply... The guy did it for sure. He almost said I regret near the end


----------



## narad

InHiding said:


> I listened to the Biden rape allegation interview and watched Biden's TV interview reply... The guy did it for sure. He almost said I regret near the end



Troll.


----------



## nightflameauto

InHiding said:


> I listened to the Biden rape allegation interview and watched Biden's TV interview reply... The guy did it for sure. He almost said I regret near the end


This is a timely and well intentioned post, I'm sure. All of the people that attempt to engage in legitimate discourse and dissemination of legitimate information appreciate your contribution to the conversation. I'm quite certain you will receive many responses that are equally as relevant, and eloquently written, as your post.


----------



## InHiding

nightflameauto said:


> This is a timely and well intentioned post, I'm sure. All of the people that attempt to engage in legitimate discourse and dissemination of legitimate information appreciate your contribution to the conversation. I'm quite certain you will receive many responses that are equally as relevant, and eloquently written, as your post.


Thanks! This is why you have Trump:


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This meme popped up during debate still makes me chuckle, and honestly if there were credible allegations against Biden the left would have sacrificed him for moral purity in a heart beat. Look what they are doing for Ellen for people being mean at her show.


----------



## Demiurge

The most dismal thing is that the allegations against Biden are essentially a wash because Trump's got a pile of 'em on his end. Who's gonna be dumb enough to pull at those threads?


----------



## spudmunkey

How Trump denounces racists:
(a reluctant) "Sure."

How someone like Bob Dole denounces racists: 
"But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise."


----------



## spudmunkey

MFB said:


> Mute buttons = no drama, no drama = less ratings, which is what TV companies rely on; so it's highly unlikely, regardless of what everyone I know has said thinking they were the first to suddenly say, "man, why don't they mute the other guy!"


----------



## MFB

_Player three - MODERATOR - has entered the game_


----------



## wankerness

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 85557



The spin on that is incredible. How many times did Donald Trump interrupt others? How much time did he spend speaking vs everyone else? 

Most importantly, did anything he said not sound like the rantings of a senile maniac? I can answer that last one!


----------



## wankerness

spudmunkey said:


> How Trump denounces racists:
> (a reluctant) "Sure."
> 
> How someone like Bob Dole denounces racists:
> "But if there's anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise."



It's so bad how George W, who was previously in the running for greatest american embarrassment of the last hundred years (pre-Palin/Trump), sounds like an enlightened master orator with incredibly lofty values compared to the garbage Trump spews. Stuff like what W said after 9/11 about Muslims would NEVER happen with the racist GOP of today.

It's literally impossible to support the republican party anymore without being stupid, mean, racist, or some combination.


----------



## spudmunkey

wankerness said:


> The spin on that is incredible. How many times did Donald Trump interrupt others? How much time did he spend speaking vs everyone else?
> 
> Most importantly, did anything he said not sound like the rantings of a senile maniac? I can answer that last one!


 70 of the 76 times was Chris saying variations of, "It's not your turn, Mr. President", "Your two minutes are up, Mr. President", and "Please let Vice President Biden answer the question."

If Trump was debating against two people at once, one of them was Biden and one of them was the infantile toddler who apparently lives in Trump's own mouth.


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## spudmunkey

If I understand correctly, his rational was that if he did it, that made him "gay", and could then speak authoritatively about the gay agenda, or something like that.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 85559



More like owning his own rectum. People actually take this moron seriously?


----------



## mongey

I hate to come on here as someone from another country and criticize . no one's system is even close to perfect 

But damn , that was fucked .what the actual fuck is going on . How can the country tolerate everything that "debate" stands for. 

everytime there a new low it feels like this has to be breaking point , but no, it gets lower


----------



## MaxOfMetal

You can't make this shit up.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 85563
> 
> 
> You can't make this shit up.



Technically correct. The best kind of correct.


----------



## SpaceDock

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/hope-hicks-positive-coronavirus/index.html

Oh Lord, you know I don’t ask for much but can you please let Trump get a bad case of Covid?


----------



## spudmunkey

The next debate is scheduled for 10/15, exactly 14 days away. Is recommended period still 14 days?


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 85563
> 
> 
> You can't make this shit up.



"So what is this 6-year break in your employment?"

"Oh, that's when I went to yale."

"Yale, huh? Amazing! You're hired!"

"Really? I'm so happy I got the yob!"


----------



## AxRookie

InHiding said:


> I listened to the Biden rape allegation interview and watched Biden's TV interview reply... The guy did it for sure. He almost said I regret near the end


Troll...


----------



## AxRookie

InHiding said:


> Thanks! This is why you have Trump:



I thought it was because of Seth Meyers? lol


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 85557


Spin city baby!


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> Spin city baby!



Aww, I miss that show. And News Radio. Aww, Phil Hartman. Now I'm sad.


----------



## narad

Ohhh baby:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/hope-hicks-positive-coronavirus/index.html

Trump & Melania test positive. Is this real? Is this the first test the president has passed?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Now what kind of a spin will they cook up for this one? It would hard for Trumptard’s to ignore this or call it a hoax.


----------



## spudmunkey

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Now what kind of a spin will they cook up for this one? It would hard for Trumptard’s to ignore this or call it a hoax.



He'll have escaped it, but will say he had it, and day it was no big deal because he took hydroxychloroquine.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> He'll have escaped it, but will say he had it, and day it was no big deal because he took hydroxychloroquine.



That's what I'm worried about. I don't really believe in such conspiracies, but this would have been a great play by them to have faked getting covid just to overcome it with either hydroxy or the new vaccine stuff.


----------



## mongey

Grump with COVID right after a debacle debate. Seems to stink to buggery to me.

I don’t wish anyone to die. But imagine if it’s real and it happens. The ultimate irony move of the universe.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> He'll have escaped it, but will say he had it, and day it was no big deal because he took hydroxychloroquine.



That's probably the most likely outcome. 

Because it's 2020 and it's not going to get better out of nowhere.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

spudmunkey said:


> He'll have escaped it, but will say he had it, and day it was no big deal because he took hydroxychloroquine.



Exactly what I just said to my wife ^^^ except for the hydroxychloroquine theory. He wouldn't have anything to gain from adding that part. Anyway... If he indeed has it, all I can say is that he was BEGGING for it. Yeah... I'll wait for more info but this would certainly coincide with his track record of outright dishonesty and I wouldn't put anything past him.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> That's what I'm worried about. I don't really believe in such conspiracies, but this would have been a great play by them to have faked getting covid just to overcome it with either hydroxy or the new vaccine stuff.



No sense. He and his followers have played it that exact way already, he even claimed he held off the virus by preemptively taking HCQ. Changing the story so that he had the virus and survived it doesn't change the 200,000 that died and will continue to die, there's no amount of smoke screen that will change that.

I think he's got it, I'm sure he'll be fine but it's a brush with death nonetheless and he knows people who have died from it. 

If you're someone that believes the virus exists (as I think everyone in this thread does), as apathetic or skeptical as the last four years have made you, a guy who globetrots and constantly refuses to wear a mask or have people around him wear masks, attends these rallies of anti mask people etc, Occam's Razor says it was implausible that he DIDN'T get the virus eventually. Likewise, if you think the vaccine or HCQ don't work, it's likely he does/will suffer ill effects of this. I know I'm just as skeptical as everyone else but him actually being sick is less far fetched than him not, it's actually a miracle this didn't happen sooner.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's probably the most likely outcome.
> 
> Because it's 2020 and it's not going to get better out of nowhere.



In a sudden surprise finale to 2020, Trump gave Biden covid at the debate. Trump survives and touts how hydroxychloroquine was effective all along (as he always said). Biden dies and all mail-in ballots mentioning Biden are considered void by the supreme court (with Amy Coney Barrett casting the decisive vote), and he beats Kamala in the election.


----------



## spudmunkey

mongey said:


> . The ultimate irony move of the universe.



The ultimate irony is that Trump could have gotten it from someone named "Hope".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> In a sudden surprise finale to 2020, Trump gave Biden covid at the debate. Trump survives and touts how hydroxychloroquine was effective all along (as he always said). Biden dies and all mail-in ballots mentioning Biden are considered void, and he beats Kamala in the election.



That sounds too 2020 to not happen.


----------



## Randy

And I don't rejoice in him being sick or am I implying it takes him out, I'm just saying he likely does have it and even people his and that get a minor case of it, it's no walk in the park.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> And I don't rejoice in him being sick or am I implying it takes him out, I'm just saying he likely does have it and even people his and that get a minor case of it, it's no walk in the park.



It's a good think he's so astoundingly healthy, and not at all obese.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> And I don't rejoice in him being sick or am I implying it takes him out, I'm just saying he likely does have it and even people his and that get a minor case of it, it's no walk in the park.



Him dying of it would pretty much guarantee four years of President Pence.

*shivers and gags at same time*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> It's a good think he's so astoundingly healthy, and not at all obese.



He's like one of those shitty cars that runs like garbage but makes it to half a million miles.


----------



## Randy

I'm not entertaining that he dies or that he's faking it as 3D chess. My bellwether for this is Gohmert, so he'll probably have a couple miserable weeks, admit the virus is real and should be taken seriously, but insist everyone should do what I did if they do get it, and we can go back to him fellatiating neo Nazis from the debate stage.


----------



## wankerness

My guess is that he's going to get tons of antibody-rich plasma transfusions, be fine, pretend he never felt sick at all, and then be even more defiant about refusing to wear a mask and telling his supporters the same thing cause now he's immune and also has shown it's not a big deal (leaving silent that he got the best medical attention possible, which most victims will not have access to). Cause this is the worst timeline.


----------



## AxRookie

HELL YES iT'S REAL! LOL

So Trump are masks a "bad look" now???

Campaign derailment............. :^()


----------



## broj15

I'm not expecting the half court hail Mary at the buzzer of 2020 but you know I've got my fingers crossed.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Herman cain died from this and the right didn't bat an eye. 

eh. 

I'm more worried for Biden. he had to be spewed on by trump for hours at the debate.


----------



## AxRookie

Trump - Biden wears those large masks every time you see him!

Biden - Well at least I don't have COVID mother [email protected]! (with a double finger point in his face)

Call me a bad person if you will BUT I hope he has to be put on a ventilator so he can experience what tens of thousands of other people have gone through from his mishandling of this pandemic!


----------



## spudmunkey

How did Melania get it? She never gets close enough to Donnie. Maybe she's sleeping with Hope.


----------



## USMarine75

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Now what kind of a spin will they cook up for this one?



Well...

In the late 90's Clinton ordered a Tomahawk cruise missile strike to take out UBL after he bombed the two US Embassies in Africa. They knew the camp he was en route to and timed it perfectly... or so they thought. As the story goes, UBL stopped for prayer and then decided not to go to the camp. The camp was later destroyed. 

By surviving the attack he became the Lion that not even the US could kill.

Make of that what you will.


----------



## Ralyks

At this point, Biden would have been tested and got his results, right?


----------



## StevenC

Just a reminder to any hopeful Americans: Boris Johnson had covid months ago and is still handling it like it doesn't exist.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This has to be ghost of Herman Cain after Trump saying nothing bad happened from rallies.


----------



## thraxil

I don't see any positive outcome likely from Trump getting Covid. There's a reasonably good chance he will be asymptomatic or have a mild case, which will just reinforce all his and his anti-mask followers views that it's a "hoax" or not serious. If he does get a serious case and is either in the ICU or dies in the next month, that just throws even more chaos into the election and I can't see that being good for the country. If he has a similar experience to Boris Johnson and gets really sick but narrowly pulls through, I don't think he is capable of the introspection and personal growth it would take for him to improve as a result. Johnson *did* come out of his Covid experience with a tiny bit of humility and took things more seriously for a couple months (then slid back into being a garbage person) and I don't think Trump could even do that.

If he dies, most of the criminal stuff that he, his administration, and his family have been up to will be investigated. I will be robbed of my dream of someday seeing him in an orange jumpsuit and all that shady stuff will stay hidden instead of getting exposed and fixed (OK, I'm probably being optimistic that there's any scenario where those things would happen, but if he dies in the near future it definitely won't).


----------



## sleewell

in a post truth world how do we even know he has it?

there is an upside to coming out in 10 days saying he beat it. easier to beat it if you never had it.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> in a post truth world how do we even know he has it?
> 
> there is an upside to coming out in 10 days saying he beat it. easier to beat it if you never had it.


Probably because if he did then get it for real later, the consequences of that would be harder to handle. If he's going to decry mask wearing, getting the disease at the same time as not wearing a mask counters that message.

Presumably the three scenarios of him getting it are: A) has it, tells people B) has it, hides it C) doesn't have it, tells people. B makes sense, but that's not what's happening here unless he had it earlier in the year, but that seems unlikely, and he is now doing C. C doesn't make sense if he hasn't ever had it, because that leaves him open to getting it "a second time", which doesn't seem to be a thing that happens and doesn't do his argument that it's not dangerous any favours. So A just makes the most sense. As far as I'm aware, he hasn't been out of the public eye long enough to have been sick with it, so if he did have it earlier in the year it would have been a mild case and he could have publicised it at the time.


----------



## nightflameauto

I have to say, as much as I distrust the man, I do think he likely actually has it. While the timing does seem suspicious, he ticks all the boxes possible for getting it. He's in the right age group, he's obese, he doesn't wear a mask, he loves large gatherings, he's continuing all the most risky behaviors, and he's continually traveling the country rubbing elbows with everyone he possibly can. The possibility that he hasn't had it up to now is absurdly low.

All that said, as much as I dislike him as a person AND as a politician, I really don't want him to expire from this. I wouldn't hate seeing him suffer a bit from it, just to get a small taste of what he's put hundreds of thousands of Americans through, but his death would do more harm to this country than his life has. The chaos that would follow would make the rest of 2020 look like a cakewalk. Putting Pence into power right at the point where the election results would be starting to be tallied would be an absolute nightmare scenario. Trump has no scruples, but is also disorganized and bumbling most of the time. Pence has no scruples but is well organized, well in control of his faculties, and completely devious and manipulative to the point where it would make Trump's presidency seem like a fond memory.

And I see zero percent chance that he would let the election results stand in the way of him taking the next four years from us. Trump has at least pissed off enough people in his party to have a chance at getting tossed if he loses. Pence? Not so much. We'll get ram-rodded into oblivion if Trump dies.

What else does 2020 have in store for us? Seems like the year that just keeps on giving.


----------



## USMarine75

He sounded pretty congested on Hannity yesterday.

Oh wait, nevermind, that was just his cocaine nose.


----------



## USMarine75

Luckily Trump is healthy so we have nothing to worry about.







Damn, Donnie looking real thicc like Cardi B right there.


----------



## Demiurge

This definitely exposes an enormous vulnerability in national security. There are security measures up the wazoo to prevent the leader of a country from being physically assaulted, but there seems to be fuck-all regarding disease. Granted, here we have a known pandemic and willful abandonment of risk management, but what's to prevent a situation where a 'bad actor' just sends an individual infected with ____ to glad-hand some of the leader's lackeys, ensuring that the infection reaches the leader or spreads through the administration?


----------



## SpaceDock

Man you guys are being real negative about this. We only have 30 days till election and this means Trump can’t do rallies, might bow out of debates, might get some press of him looking sick as fuck because you know he can’t hide in the bunker until this is over. Plus, I think he is so old and in such poor health this won’t be easy for him. Come on we need this fool to be wrecked until after the election!


----------



## tedtan

That's not likely, though, because 1) he is tested regularly, so caught it early, and 2) has access to the best medical care, which not everyone does.


----------



## Demiurge

SpaceDock said:


> Man you guys are being real negative about this. We only have 30 days till election and this means Trump can’t do rallies, might bow out of debates, might get some press of him looking sick as fuck because you know he can’t hide in the bunker until this is over. Plus, I think he is so old and in such poor health this won’t be easy for him. Come on we need this fool to be wrecked until after the election!



Understandable. At the same time, though, his base believes that the virus is a hoax, so if he is brought low by this, the tin foil hats will activate. Last thing we need is for some armed nut out there believing that Killary's Deep State have poisoned him and are on the attack.


----------



## sleewell

china and or bill gates or bezos or soros infected trump with the rona bc they want biden to get in there and keep the child sex 5g micro chip thing going. godemperor trump is the only one who can save us from the pedophiles/dems, faster internet and satanic vaccines.


----------



## Necris

SpaceDock said:


> Man you guys are being real negative about this. We only have 30 days till election and this means Trump can’t do rallies, might bow out of debates, might get some press of him looking sick as fuck because you know he can’t hide in the bunker until this is over. Plus, I think he is so old and in such poor health this won’t be easy for him. Come on we need this fool to be wrecked until after the election!


In Britain when Boris Johnson got Covid there was an uptick in support for him and basically every media outlet was kissing his feet (more than usual), and once he got out he got right back to pretending it didn't exist and generally being scum.

America is great at idiotic performative patriotism, just this morning some idiot on CNN was suggesting that Biden should suspend his campaign, referencing Woodrow Wilson suspending his campaign after an assassination attempt on Theodore Roosevelt, and because the liberal obsession with optics overrides everything that idea could very well catch on. Just a simple diagnosis has a lot of "never-Trumpers" and "resist" idiots who were (correctly) calling him fascist yesterday falling over themselves to wish him and his family well.

They should really just give him a few nice injections of bleach and hope for the best.



USMarine75 said:


> Damn, Donnie looking real thicc like Cardi B right there.


I look forward to hearing about his Wholly Annihilated Pulmonary system from the media.


----------



## gunch

Can you die from Schadenfreude


----------



## AxRookie

The anti-maskers are dropping like flys! who could have seen this coming?!? oh, that's right, EVERYONE!

I guess this is Trumps' idea of a coronavirus taskforce!


----------



## sleewell

seriously though... why all the testing? if trump hadn't gotten tested he would be totally fine right now. just stop the testing!!!


----------



## Ralyks

Biden tested negative.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> seriously though... why all the testing? if trump hadn't gotten tested he would be totally fine right now. just stop the testing!!!


He must have stopped taking his Hydroxy?

He's prob thinking "I knew I should have injected that bleach!"...

And will Trumps' ventilator be gold plated???

He better hope he doesn't get a "Trump" brand ventilator or he's a goner!

oh and will his tombstone read "This Virus is a Hoax"?

I have so many questions but I'm far too busy laughing my a$$ off at him to find the answers!


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> Call me a bad person if you will BUT I hope he has to be put on a ventilator so he can experience what tens of thousands of other people have gone through from his mishandling of this pandemic!



From what I hear, it hasn't benefitted Borris Johnson much.


----------



## AxRookie

Now if more things in the Trump world were like the coronavirus, such as...

If he got locked up...

or Trump got invected with morals and a conscience...

or Mexico built a wall to keep Trump out and claim Trump paid for it...

or the only thing spewing out of Trumps' mouth was the truth...

or they found 36,000 of his emails...

or he got fired from the Whitehouse...

or he was separated from his children (I guess that did happen now)...

or fox news let the "dems" call in daily to rant none stop about Trump while saying nothing...

or... well, this could go on forever...


----------



## Ralyks

Trump was hospitalized


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> Trump was hospitalized


They better get that gold plated ventilator on stand by...


----------



## Ralyks

AxRookie said:


> They better get that gold plated ventilator on stand by...



They're playing it as precautionary, but I don't know, something seems off.


----------



## AxRookie

He just received 8 grams of "Regeneron" antibodies, An unapproved experimental treatment...

That can't be good...


----------



## Ralyks

Biden pulled all of his negative ads, and Him and Jill wished Trump well.

The high road. What a concept.


----------



## AxRookie

It was just reported Trump is in worse condition than the first lady who has a cough and headache, Trump now is running a fever and his condition is deteriorating...

Also, 9 more people in Trumps' circle have now tested positive for the coronavirus...

The anti-maskers are dropping like flys! When you play with fire...


----------



## SpaceDock

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/02/politics/president-donald-trump-walter-reed-coronavirus/index.html


Trump hospitalized!


----------



## sleewell

I wonder if things are starting to sink in at all? The absolute lunacy of calling the virus a hoax that now has you in a hospital bed has gotta be hitting right square in the feels atm.

If only someone had told him this was a deadly easily transmittable air born virus back in January he might have not down played it for months.


----------



## AxRookie

Just reported - Trump is having some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired...

This is going downhill fast!

Update - 3 Whitehouse news correspondents have now tested positive...

The Whitehouse has become ground zero for a superspreader outbreak!

I should really be more careful about what I wish for...


----------



## Xaios

Necris said:


> Just a simple diagnosis has a lot of "never-Trumpers" and "resist" idiots who were (correctly) calling him fascist yesterday falling over themselves to wish him and his family well.


To quote what I said about Brazilian Mini-Trump in the COVID thread:


Xaios said:


> As far as Bolsonaro catching it goes... Despite recognizing that honestly a lot of people would be better off without him around, an acute case seems to be a horrible way to go, and that's the kind of suffering that I truly wouldn't wish on anyone, even if they so richly deserve it. Even if their governing policies are certainly a direct cause of other people going through it.


Let's get one thing straight: I _am_ a Never-Trumper. His wealth (whatever _that_ turns out to be) should be stripped and he should go to jail for the rest of his life. But when I say that I don't wish death, especially an incredibly painful death at the hands of a disease like Coronavirus, on anyone, that includes Trump. I am well aware that others might not share this view. I am well aware that someone with a diametrically opposed political viewpoint to me might have no problem wishing death on me specifically, simply because of the views that I hold. I am well aware that trying to take this high road, trying to be the better person, puts me and anyone and anyone who holds similar views at a serious disadvantage when combating an enemy that has absolutely no qualms about violating their own supposed morals in order to do me harm. And I'm well aware that this is a sentiment that the person in question, Trump, would likely not reciprocate. But there's a point that people have to look at the lines they're willing to cross and say "No, this is beyond the pale." And even though the benefits of Trump being out of power, an end that I would still actively work for, are as plain as day to me as they are to most people here, wishing his demise by a disease that fills the lungs with fluid and leaves its victims gasping and choking to death is wrong. End of story.

So, honestly and sincerely, I do hope he recovers. What happens after that...


----------



## AxRookie

Xaios said:


> To quote what I said about Brazilian Mini-Trump in the COVID thread:
> 
> Let's get one thing straight: I _am_ a Never-Trumper. His wealth (whatever _that_ turns out to be) should be stripped and he should go to jail for the rest of his life. But when I say that I don't wish death, especially an incredibly painful death at the hands of a disease like Coronavirus, on anyone, that includes Trump. I am well aware that others might not share this view. I am well aware that someone with a diametrically opposed political viewpoint to me might have no problem wishing death on me specifically, simply because of the views that I hold. I am well aware that trying to take this high road, trying to be the better person, puts me and anyone and anyone who holds similar views at a serious disadvantage when combating an enemy that has absolutely no qualms about violating their own supposed morals in order to do me harm. And I'm well aware that this is a sentiment that the person in question, Trump, would likely not reciprocate. But there's a point that people have to look at the lines they're willing to cross and say "No, this is beyond the pale." And even though the benefits of Trump being out of power, an end that I would still actively work for, are as plain as day to me as they are to most people here, wishing his demise by a disease that fills the lungs with fluid and leaves its victims gasping and choking to death is wrong. End of story.
> 
> So, honestly and sincerely, I do hope he recovers. What happens after that...


I somewhat agree BUT I do want him to experience the more severe symptoms that millions of American's have due to his criminal mishandling of the coronavirus from the very beginning! and then live to lie about it...


----------



## zappatton2

Xaios said:


> To quote what I said about Brazilian Mini-Trump in the COVID thread:
> 
> Let's get one thing straight: I _am_ a Never-Trumper. His wealth (whatever _that_ turns out to be) should be stripped and he should go to jail for the rest of his life. But when I say that I don't wish death, especially an incredibly painful death at the hands of a disease like Coronavirus, on anyone, that includes Trump. I am well aware that others might not share this view. I am well aware that someone with a diametrically opposed political viewpoint to me might have no problem wishing death on me specifically, simply because of the views that I hold. I am well aware that trying to take this high road, trying to be the better person, puts me and anyone and anyone who holds similar views at a serious disadvantage when combating an enemy that has absolutely no qualms about violating their own supposed morals in order to do me harm. And I'm well aware that this is a sentiment that the person in question, Trump, would likely not reciprocate. But there's a point that people have to look at the lines they're willing to cross and say "No, this is beyond the pale." And even though the benefits of Trump being out of power, an end that I would still actively work for, are as plain as day to me as they are to most people here, wishing his demise by a disease that fills the lungs with fluid and leaves its victims gasping and choking to death is wrong. End of story.
> 
> So, honestly and sincerely, I do hope he recovers. What happens after that...


This is indeed a high road I wish more people capable of taking. I admit I have like an internal sliding scale in relation to how much power the person actually holds over others. I don't wish death or undue suffering upon anybody regardless of how awful they are, but it's hard with a man in a position of power and influence, who spreads hate like a social cancer that threatens one of the pillars of western democracy. Still, if more people would post stuff like this online, we'd be a lot better off as a species.


----------



## AxRookie

I also believe that ANYONE who has claimed the coronavirus is a hoax...

Recklessly claim it would be gone in days or when it got warmer...

Hydroxy can keep you from getting it...

Masks are not good and some people say they are bad...

Is like the flu...

Made fun of people for wearing masks...

Made wearing masks a political tool to divide people...

AND MUCH MORE, should they get the virus they should not be admitted to ANY hospital or have access to any therapies of any kind other than what they have been trying to push on people AND they should be on their OWN!

You don't go around claiming wolfs aren't dangerous and the minute ones at your door go crying for help!

Don't get me wrong, I have deep sympathy for the millions of Americans that currently have it, fought their way through it, OR have lost someone, BUT, I have NONE for the person who got us into this mess!

BUT that's just me...


----------



## diagrammatiks

man I hope he doesn’t die. If only for the sake of all the Asians that still have to live in America.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> man I hope he doesn’t die. If only for the sake of all the Asians that still have to live in America.


That went right over my head, I don't get it?


----------



## spudmunkey

There's already racists berating and violence against asians because it's "kung flu", "wuhan virus", "china/chinese virus", etc. Now imagine if the virus ends up killing their god-sent savior/president.

Imagine the hatred that the average Muslim (or Sikh, or Indian/Pakistani, etc) had to wade through after 9/11. The average Japenese (or anyone who looked "asian") after Pearl Harbor.


----------



## AxRookie

Update - Kellyann Conway and Trumps' campaign manager have tested positive...


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> There's already racists berating and violence against asians because it's "kung flu", "wuhan virus", "china/chinese virus", etc. Now imagine if the virus ends up killing their god-sent savior/president.


He's not their savior, quite the opposite, He's the cause racists berating and violence against Asians because he has stigmatized the Asian community with his comments of the "kung flu", "wuhan virus", "china/chinese virus", etc and causing more division among all of the people here in America...


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> He's not their savior, He's the cause racists berating and violence against Asians because he has stigmatized the Asian community with his comments of the "kung flu", "wuhan virus", "china/chinese virus", etc...



Right, that's what I was getting at. People at his rallies hold up signs thanking God for sending trump, and his negative rhetoric fans the flames of anti-asian racism. Now imagine if the virus kills him. The backlash is what the previous poster was talking about.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Right, that's what I was getting at. People at his rallies hold up signs thinking God for sending trump, and his nevative rhetoric fans the flames of anti-asian racism. Now imagine if the virus kills him. The backlash is what the previous poster was talking about.


Well that's one way to look at it, I really don't know if he will die BUT it could happen, and only God knows (if you believe in that sort of thing) what will happen if he does???

BUT, if he does I won't be smiling, BUT, you won't see me shedding a tear either, poetic justice is a bitch...


----------



## AxRookie

Update - Trump just received a second type of experimental treatment, he is having some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired, he is experiencing a cough, nasal congestion, and a fever... All of that in just 10 hours...

That doesn't sound good?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> Just reported - Trump is having some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired...



I have heard "headaches and fatigue" but I've not at all heard the reports of "trouble breathing". Do you have a source on that? 

Now with more of trump's close contacts testing positive... and with the likelihood of more people testing positive in the White House, I keep thinking that the chances go up regarding potential severity of symptoms in at least one or more of these people. And as much as I do not wish ill-health upon anyone, I wonder if this may have a beneficial impact in regards to urgency and compliance... that we all need to wear a mask, that we all need to take this thing seriously, and that blindly following this particular President and administration, may indeed not be a wise decision ( regardless if trump recovers and touts that "I had it and it was no big deal"). Obviously there will still be those that simply don't care and that are just so ignorant that nothing will change their behavior but just maybe this current crisis will open some eyes. 

I have to also add to this, the absolute shame that I feel as a US citizen, knowing that due to all of the negligence, misinformation, and opacity of this administration... that any news coming from the White House fills me with instantaneous skepticism about the validity and accuracy. That's so fucking sad... not that I ever had much faith in the transparency of any politically motivated representative to begin with. But now... with all of the bullshit that this administration is STILL pouring down the throats of the American people, I know that without a doubt I'll never take anything that this administration says at face value ever again. And that's honestly just so damned pathetic.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> I have heard "headaches and fatigue" but I've not at all heard the reports of "trouble breathing". Do you have a source on that?
> 
> Now with more of trump's close contacts testing positive... and with the likelihood of more people testing positive in the White House, I keep thinking that the chances go up regarding potential severity of symptoms in at least one or more of these people. And as much as I do not wish ill-health upon anyone, I wonder if this may have a beneficial impact in regards to urgency and compliance... that we all need to wear a mask, that we all need to take this thing seriously, and that blindly following this particular President and administration, may indeed not be a wise decision ( regardless if trump recovers and touts that "I had it and it was no big deal"). Obviously there will still be those that simply don't care and that are just so ignorant that nothing will change their behavior but just maybe this current crisis will open some eyes.
> 
> I have to also add to this, the absolute shame that I feel as a US citizen, knowing that due to all of the negligence, misinformation, and opacity of this administration... that any news coming from the White House fills me with instantaneous skepticism about the validity and accuracy. That's so fucking sad... not that I ever had much faith in the transparency of any politically motivated representative to begin with. But now... with all of the bullshit that this administration is STILL pouring down the throats of the American people, I know that without a doubt I'll never take anything that this administration says at face value ever again. And that's honestly just so damned pathetic.


Some of it is from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC...

First came the hospital from everyone...

then came experimental treatment #1 from everyone...

then "some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired" was from one place at first then one other place...

then came "a fever" from another, then everyone...

then came experimental treatment #2 from a few, and now most...

then lastly was "he is experiencing a cough, nasal congestion, and a fever" from yet another and it's starting to spread to the others...

With some overlap between them from time to time...

I think that is about the timeline but each of my earlier posts is from right after I had seen each report and my last post before this one is all the info I had heard up to that point...

I just got back from a two-hour road walk and shower off so I'm not up on all the latest info...


----------



## USMarine75

AxRookie said:


> Some of it is from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC...
> 
> First came the hospital from everyone...
> 
> then came experimental treatment #1 from everyone...
> 
> then "some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired" was from one place at first then one other place...
> 
> then came "a fever" from another, then everyone...
> 
> then came experimental treatment #2 from a few, and now most...
> 
> then lastly was "he is experiencing a cough, nasal congestion, and a fever" from yet another and it's starting to spread to the others...
> 
> With some overlap between them from time to time...
> 
> I think that is about the timeline but each of my earlier posts is from right after I had seen each report and my last post before this one is all the info I had heard up to that point...
> 
> I just got back from a two-hour road walk and shower off so I'm not up on all the latest info...



Reads just like a citation page from every Breitbart article ever.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Reads just like a citation page from every Breitbart article ever.


Just calling it as I saw it, But, Breitbart goes on two-hour walks??? and then showers off???

That's kind of weird to talk about for someplace like Breitbart???

And has Breitbart ever said they're not up on all the latest info??? ever??? That just doesn't seem right for a place like Breitbart??? That's like Trump saying he's not up on what the "Dems" are doing???


----------



## USMarine75

AxRookie said:


> Just calling it as I saw it, Breitbart goes on two-hour walks??? and then showers off???
> 
> That kind of weird to talk about for someplace like Breitbart???



And just like a Breitbart article, I find myself asking "and that's what you took away from that?".


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> And just like a Breitbart article, I find myself asking "and that's what you took away from that?".


I wasn't finished... Here let me help you...

"And has Breitbart ever said they're not up on all the latest info??? ever??? That just doesn't seem right for a place like Breitbart??? That's like Trump saying he's not up on what the "Dems" are doing???"

But then again I've never seen any of their articles because I know who's behind them and that they are just a propaganda machine for the weak minded...


----------



## USMarine75

AxRookie said:


> I wasn't finished... Here let me help you...
> 
> "And has Breitbart ever said they're not up on all the latest info??? ever??? That just doesn't seem right for a place like Breitbart??? That's like Trump saying he's not up on what the "Dems" are doing???"



Are conversations with you this painful IRL?


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Are conversations with you this painful IRL?


prob so if you're a second-grader IRL? OR just an A-Hole trying to troll me? 

I'm thinking the latter because you did compare me to a propaganda machine for the weak-minded...


----------



## USMarine75

AxRookie said:


> prob so if you're a second-grader IRL? OR just an A-Hole trying to troll me?



Cool retort.

I’m going to put you on mute and ignore you at least for a little while because:

1. You’re a time vampire.

2. 90% of the people in this thread already have to wade through your 10+ inane posts per page just to read anything with content. And now you’ve already contributed 3 more useless posts due to my engaging you. I’m sorry everyone. I ignored the sign. I fed him.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Cool retort.
> 
> I’m going to put you on mute and ignore


Please do permanently! Go troll someone else so I can get back to the topic that I was talking about before you derailed the thread temporarily...

1. You're a thread derailing troll.

2. I could care less about your opinion of me, at least I stay on the topic unless someone starts talking nonsense at me.

Is he always like that???

I guess there's always a few at every forum...


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> I have heard "headaches and fatigue" but I've not at all heard the reports of "trouble breathing". Do you have a source on that?
> 
> Now with more of trump's close contacts testing positive... and with the likelihood of more people testing positive in the White House, I keep thinking that the chances go up regarding potential severity of symptoms in at least one or more of these people. And as much as I do not wish ill-health upon anyone, I wonder if this may have a beneficial impact in regards to urgency and compliance... that we all need to wear a mask, that we all need to take this thing seriously, and that blindly following this particular President and administration, may indeed not be a wise decision ( regardless if trump recovers and touts that "I had it and it was no big deal"). Obviously there will still be those that simply don't care and that are just so ignorant that nothing will change their behavior but just maybe this current crisis will open some eyes.
> 
> I have to also add to this, the absolute shame that I feel as a US citizen, knowing that due to all of the negligence, misinformation, and opacity of this administration... that any news coming from the White House fills me with instantaneous skepticism about the validity and accuracy. That's so fucking sad... not that I ever had much faith in the transparency of any politically motivated representative to begin with. But now... with all of the bullshit that this administration is STILL pouring down the throats of the American people, I know that without a doubt I'll never take anything that this administration says at face value ever again. And that's honestly just so damned pathetic.


'Increasing level of concern', "some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired", "experimental treatment"...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

USMarine75 said:


> Cool retort.
> 
> I’m going to put you on mute and ignore you at least for a little while because:
> 
> 1. You’re a time vampire.
> 
> 2. 90% of the people in this thread already have to wade through your 10+ inane posts per page just to read anything with content. And now you’ve already contributed 3 more useless posts due to my engaging you. I’m sorry everyone. I ignored the sign. I fed him.



This is why I asked for a specific citation on the "troubled breathing" comment. I've been staying on top of the news lately and never once heard anyone mention that. And when we're talking about covid, that's a pretty significant step-up from fatigue... as I believe most of us understand.

@AxRookie- I'm not slamming you but I'd suggest that you should've seen USMarine75's comments coming. I've personally seen you bounce around SSO lately in a way that's almost exhausting to keep up with. There's a certain level of restrained interaction here that generally allows threads to exist and evolve with some sense of calm quality content. Sometimes you seem like you've ingested way too many sugary treats. 

And dude... I'm not bagging on you nor trolling you... seriously. I'm just here to observe and occasionally share my thoughts. No disrespect intended.


----------



## AxRookie

"This is why I asked for a specific citation on the "troubled breathing" comment" and I just gave it to you above your post to me just now? Quote "'Increasing level of concern', "some trouble breathing, very fatigued, and very tired", "experimental treatment"..."

I have a total of 292 posts since May 24, 2020 and there are 12056 posts in this one thread alone! maybe 1/4 of my 292 posts have been in this thread and you think that's too much to keep up with??? Really dude??? until Trump tested positive I haven't posted any more than anyone else here in this thread, the only reason the pace picked up is that Trump's condition has been changing rapidly and I've been posting any new information I've heard about the President's worsening heath because I thought it might be of interest! I haven't repeated anything that has already been posted here in this thread, so I think you're blowing my participation in this thread out of proportion to be honest... 

A study at Cornel University has determined Donald Trump is the #1 Spreader of Misinformation!

Does that surprise anyone?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

*sigh*


----------



## fantom

Does anyone else think that giving Trump experimental medication has ethical issues?

Assuming it hadn't gone through a full trial and gotten cdc approval...

It makes no sense to endanger the life of the president. It also seems like people are pulling strings to treat him with it. IMO, the doctor should have his/her license revoked if this wasn't an approved treatment.

And that is assuming Trump does not decline, there is no way to prove the experimental medication did not cause it. The doctor could be looking at prison (especially considering it is an assault on the president).

Even if it is "promising", whoever decided to allow this treatment just threw out medical training for politics. If the CDC wasn't going to allow volunteers to enter human trials, they definitely should not be doing this crap on the POTUS.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> Does anyone else think that giving Trump experimental medication has ethical issues?
> 
> Assuming it hadn't gone through a full trial and gotten cdc approval...
> 
> It makes no sense to endanger the life of the president. It also seems like people are pulling strings to treat him with it. IMO, the doctor should have his/her license revoked if this wasn't an approved treatment.
> 
> And that is assuming Trump does not decline, there is no way to prove the experimental medication did not cause it. The doctor could be looking at prison (especially considering it is an assault on the president).
> 
> Even if it is "promising", whoever decided to allow this treatment just threw out medical training for politics. If the CDC wasn't going to allow volunteers to enter human trials, they definitely should not be doing this crap on the POTUS.



Trump received it under what they call "compassionate use of experimental drugs" so it would seem like he is worse than they are letting on...

I hope this isn't too inane of a post for anyone?


----------



## Edika

If he is taking experimental treatments he'd have to consent to them after getting the details and possible side effects. They won't just feed him drugs and treatments to help him especially since he's the President.

So his situation is actually severe, which is to be expected with his general health, or it's not as severe yet but he's so afraid for his life he'll try anything to stay alive or a combination of both.

And while I don't wish death to people that are ideologically opposed to me, if that ideology is used by the individuals to cause harm and death to a lot of other people, either directly or indirectly, I don't really feel any sympathy to whatever happens to them and how much they suffer.


----------



## Sumsar

I am wondering if he asked for it himself, and then as a doctor, do you say no to the US president, even if you know you should not do it? Then he would probably just get another doctor till he found one who is willing to give him 'some promising miracle cure', since it seems he believes in those kinds of things.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

An "experimental treatment" doesn't necessarily mean some new, unapproved drug fresh from the lab. It very well may be an untested use of an existing medication, which is pretty much what he's supposedly already been doing with hydroxychloroquine.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> An "experimental treatment" doesn't necessarily mean some new, unapproved drug fresh from the lab. It very well may be an untested use of an existing medication, which is pretty much what he's supposedly already been doing with hydroxychloroquine.


They called it an "unapproved experimental treatment" and used under "compassionate use of experimental drugs" which is the only way to use unapproved experimental treatments...

The "compassionate use of experimental drugs" by its very definition is "not-yet-approved drugs"...

"In certain situations, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows companies to provide their experimental drugs to people outside of clinical trials. This is referred to as compassionate use. But getting access to not-yet-approved drugs through a compassionate use request can be a long and challenging process"

I guess in the case of the President the request is greatly fast-tracked! within hours for him!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> They called it an "unapproved experimental treatment" and used under "compassionate use of experimental drugs" which is the only way to use unapproved experimental treatments...



Eh, I don't know how much to take at face value an administration that doesn't know the difference between being a Rhodes Scholar and attending Rhodes University.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Eh, I don't know how much to take at face value an administration that doesn't know the difference between being a Rhodes Scholar and attending Rhodes University.


It was reported at a few news outlets as "Regeneron" an antibody cocktail and is an unapproved experimental treatment...

I don't think the administration released that info, they just keep claiming "he's doing well"???

it was also reported at POLITICO: Trump Campaign Boss Bill Stepien Contracts Covid-19...

So that makes around 18 people close to trump testing pos, so far...


----------



## spudmunkey

More White House positive tests yesterday than the entire country of Australia.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> More White House positive tests yesterday than the entire country of Australia.


The new superspreader ground zero!


----------



## Andromalia

AxRookie said:


> It was reported at a few news outlets as "Regeneron" an antibody cocktail and is an unapproved experimental treatment...



Ok, who are the people bound to make money from this ? It all could be an elaborate advertising campaign.


----------



## StevenC

To clear things up, Trump was given an antibody treatment by Regeneron and then remdesivir, an antiviral which has been talked about for Covid for months.


----------



## AxRookie

Doctor John LaPook said 3:14 "a monoclonal antibody cocktail made by Regeneron was given to Trump" and it is "unapproved experimental treatment" "not proven to be safe or effective" and it is used under what is called the compassionate use of experimental drugs to be clear...



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-antibody-cocktail-for-covid-19-idUSKBN26N3CL

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/health/trump-antibody-treatment.html

They are made in two-story-high stainless steel vats brewing in trillions of hamster ovary cells!

I'm not making this stuff up! I've just been watching and reading A LOT about this and have been making short posts about what has happened...

If I need to list all my sources the posts get longer so I keep them short and to the point...


----------



## StevenC

AxRookie said:


> Doctor John LaPook said 3:14 "a monoclonal antibody cocktail made by Regeneron was given to Trump" and it is "unapproved experimental treatment" "not proven to be safe or effective" and it is used under what is called the compassionate use of experimental drugs to be clear...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-antibody-cocktail-for-covid-19-idUSKBN26N3CL
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/health/trump-antibody-treatment.html
> 
> They are made in two-story-high stainless steel vats brewing in trillions of hamster ovary cells!
> 
> I'm not making this stuff up! I've just been watching and reading A LOT about this and have been making short posts about what has happened...
> 
> If I need to list all my sources the posts get longer so I keep them short and to the point...



You realise that basically every COVID treatment is an unproven experimental treatment at this point?

Antibody treatments have a sound medical basis. It's a treatment the CDC fast-track approved a few months ago to be seen to be doing something, and everyone guessed Trump would get this treatment basically as soon as the news broke.

You can report news without hyperbole.


----------



## AxRookie

StevenC said:


> You realise that basically every COVID treatment is an unproven experimental treatment at this point?
> 
> Antibody treatments have a sound medical basis. It's a treatment the CDC fast-track approved a few months ago to be seen to be doing something, and everyone guessed Trump would get this treatment basically as soon as the news broke.
> 
> You can report news without hyperbole.


There is no hyperbole, just fact as they are stated by medical professionals.

As Doctor John LaPook said this is not convalescent plasma which has been used before for other viruses that is a treatment the CDC fast-track approved for COVID-19 a few months ago which you are referring to, it is not considered to be an experimental treatment, what you are talking about is an antibody plasma taken from a donors blood that has had the virus and beaten it and now tests neg for the virus, what was given to trump was 8 grams of a monoclonal antibody cocktail (which is a large dose) made by Regeneron and is made in a lab that is an "unapproved experimental treatment" "not proven to be safe or effective" but is looking promising after being given to less than 300 people, and it is used under what is called the compassionate use of experimental drugs!

Just the facts as they are reported...


----------



## SpaceDock

CHO (Chinese hamster ovary) is actually a very common drug reproduction methodology used for for the last few decades. I used to work as a contractor for a company that used it. They engineer a medicine, inject it into the ovaries, place the ovaries in a giant Petri dish (super clean vats three stories tall at the place I serviced) then the ovaries reproduce themselves with the drug in them.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> CHO (Chinese hamster ovary) is actually a very common drug reproduction methodology used for for the last few decades. I used to work as a contractor for a company that used it. They engineer a medicine, inject it into the ovaries, place the ovaries in a giant Petri dish (super clean vats three stories tall at the place I serviced) then the ovaries reproduce themselves with the drug in them.


Exactly! and thank you...


----------



## wankerness

Ron Johnson and Chris Christie both tested positive this morning, couldn't happen to nicer guys. Except Mitch Mcconnell, who refuses to disclose his test results or participate in contact tracing. Republicans are fricking plague rats. You'd think they could put aside their anti-science posturing to avoid killing each other, but nope. 

Not that any of them will die.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Randy

Hero derp


----------



## sleewell

Qanon is saying the dems are weaponizing covid and are giving it to trump and the gop. Their logic is that no dems are getting it so of course it makes sense, something about pedophiles too for extra legitimacy.


How do you give someone a virus if it was a hoax a few days ago??


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> Qanon is saying the dems are weaponizing covid and are giving it to trump and the gop. Their logic is that no dems are getting it so of course it makes sense, something about pedophiles too for extra legitimacy.
> 
> 
> How do you give someone a virus if it was a hoax a few days ago??



republicans wonder why people that wear condoms have less babies.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Hero derp
> 
> View attachment 85605


Stephen Colbert said to that "does anyone else find it odd that only people who skydive with a parachute make it to the ground alive and people who skydive without a parachute all die???" lol

hummm very fishy, It must be a conspiracy!!! that's it, a conspiracy I tell ya!!!

There is no other explanation!!!


----------



## StevenC

So I know that if a president dies/becomes incapacitated the vice president takes over, but how does it work for a presidential nominee? If something happens to Trump in the coming weeks does Pence go on the top of the ticket?


----------



## sleewell

StevenC said:


> So I know that if a president dies/becomes incapacitated the vice president takes over, but how does it work for a presidential nominee? If something happens to Trump in the coming weeks does Pence go on the top of the ticket?



Yes. Your actually just voting for the party


----------



## High Plains Drifter

StevenC said:


> So I know that if a president dies/becomes incapacitated the vice president takes over, but how does it work for a presidential nominee? If something happens to Trump in the coming weeks does Pence go on the top of the ticket?



I was under the impression that Biden would square off with trump's ghost but I may be mistaken. 

From qz.com- "Should the president be incapacitated or even die, the US constitution has a plan for covering his responsibilities. Vice-president Mike Pence, followed by House speaker Nancy Pelosi, are in his line of succession, and would take his place either until he recovered or until the end of his mandate. But what happens with the election? Does an incapacitated (or worse) Trump stay on the ballot? He very likely does."

From The NY Times- "The Constitution makes clear that the vice president is first in line to succeed the president should he or she die in office, and can step in to temporarily take on the duties of the presidency should the commander in chief become incapacitated. Vice President Mike Pence, 61, tested negative for the coronavirus on Friday.

Other situations become far more complicated and are wrapped in a cloud of legal disagreement over what to do if a president cannot exercise his duties but refuses to give them up, or wins election but cannot serve, or in a case in which the president and the vice president are incapacitated."


----------



## spudmunkey

Link to referenced video:
https://twitter.com/Olivianuzzi/status/1312429131079057409


----------



## AxRookie

Chris Christie has been hospitalized...


----------



## sleewell

Christie has asthma and is whatever is next past morbidly obese. He is going to have a rough go. Was very foolish for him to have been in those debate prep rooms.


----------



## AxRookie

With so many Rep testing pos now, the odds that one of them dies greatly goes up?

But unlike avg American's they have access to the best care *our* money can buy...


----------



## Ralyks

Is attempted or negligent homicide a thing?


----------



## AxRookie

*Who has tested positive:*

President Donald Trump


First lady Melania Trump


Hope Hicks, senior adviser to the president


Bill Stepien, Trump’s campaign manager


Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel


Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah


Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina


Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin


Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor who helped Trump with debate prep


Three White House reporters


One White House staffer


Kellyanne Conway, former White House senior adviser


The Rev. John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University (Jenkins was at the White House Saturday, when Trump introduced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee. Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame for 15 years before Trump nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.)
That makes 15 confirmed pos cases... for now...


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 85625
> 
> Is attempted or negligent homicide a thing?



A correction to this timeline: Hope Hicks tested negative Wednesday morning, started developing symptoms later in the day, and tested positive that evening. It wasn't reported to the public until Thursday.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 85625
> 
> Is attempted or negligent homicide a thing?


Probably be called manslaughter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Probably be called manslaughter.



It would probably follow similar outcomes of those who have recklessly infected those with HIV.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

StevenC said:


> Probably be called manslaughter.



Well thankfully for this particular administration, there are no rules, no accountability, and no consequences outside of a few deaths. And these rabid hyenas don't even care if they lose one of their own much less any outsiders... no conscience, no ethics, and no fear of retribution. It's truly sickening.


----------



## shadowlife

This doesn't look or sound like a person with a "serious" case of COVID-19 to me, nor someone with respiratory issues:



Then again, I'm loathe to believe anything at this point, so who knows what the real story is. The one thing I know I can count on is that the "mainstream media" won't be reporting the truth.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> This doesn't look or sound like a person with a "serious" case of COVID-19 to me, nor someone with respiratory issues:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, I'm loathe to believe anything at this point, so who knows what the real story is. The one thing I know I can count on is that the "mainstream media" won't be reporting the truth.




"We're gonna beat this coronavirus or whatever you want to call it"

Yes, we want to call it the coronavirus, asshat.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> This doesn't look or sound like a person with a "serious" case of COVID-19 to me, nor someone with respiratory issues:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, I'm loathe to believe anything at this point, so who knows what the real story is. The one thing I know I can count on is that the "mainstream media" won't be reporting the truth.


----------



## budda

Aw can we not ruin that?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

shadowlife said:


> This doesn't look or sound like a person with a "serious" case of COVID-19 to me, nor someone with respiratory issues:
> 
> Then again, I'm loathe to believe anything at this point, so who knows what the real story is. The one thing I know I can count on is that the "mainstream media" won't be reporting the truth.



There's still a good deal of time ( 5-10 more days) before doctors would be inclined to assess that he's out of the woods. This is still in the fairly early stage although at least for now he seems to be fairing pretty well. And as mentioned earlier, he's getting about the best care that he possibly could. His chances of recovery are very good even given his less than ideal health.


----------



## Vyn

It is worth noting that there are numerous accounts of COVID19 patients seeming to respond to treatment and then crashing/dying shortly after. Definitely worth waiting to see what happens


----------



## spudmunkey

How long before some representative of China starts calling it "Trump Flu" or "White House Flu"? "Trumpfluenza", maybe?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> How long before some representative of China starts calling it "Trump Flu" or "White House Flu"? "Trumpfluenza", maybe?



Precisely .043 seconds prior to some MAGAt claiming "reverse racism" with absolutely no irony.


----------



## Necris

sleewell said:


> Qanon is saying the dems are weaponizing covid and are giving it to trump and the gop. Their logic is that no dems are getting it so of course it makes sense, something about pedophiles too for extra legitimacy.
> 
> 
> How do you give someone a virus if it was a hoax a few days ago??


For Qanon believers the definitions of commonly understood words are actually infinitely malleable so on the off chance they even notice the contradiction they'll probably just claim the following: Covid-19 is a hoax and the death toll is attributable to other things but a weaponized highly virulent coronavirus is totally real and being used by Democrats in a mass assassination attempt. The widely publicized symptoms of Covid-19s are actually the symptoms of the weaponized strain and were spread by the media as a cover story. Because it's a globalist coup or something.

(It's sad that I feel like I need to point out this is stupid and I don't believe it.)

Nothing has to make sense, it just has to look plausible enough and be just internally consistent enough to convince someone who has already basically bought in. If Trump died tomorrow Qanon would carry on undaunted claiming it was all for show and he was actually one step ahead of the globalist illuminati lizard people or whatever; just like how they're convinced JFK is still alive and in hiding waiting for the moment to come out expose "the truth".


----------



## fantom

Hypothetical question.

If our government actually had some degree of integrity, wouldn't Trump's carelessness leading to a decent size of the executive branch being unable to perform their duties be something that is punishable?

I mean, if I went into the White House with a toxin and had 10+ cabinet members and the president sent to the hospital with a 5% chance of dying, I'd probably be thrown in jail and worry about being executed.

This situation is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.

Edit: I'm specifically referring to the overall carelessness. But a solid case can be made for Trump going to campaign events after testing positive.


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> It is worth noting that there are numerous accounts of COVID19 patients seeming to respond to treatment and then crashing/dying shortly after. Definitely worth waiting to see what happens



Again, I'm refusing to take it to that extreme but yeah, this is VERY early in the virus progression for them to be propping him up at a table and saying "see! healthy man! Dat tiger blood!"

Fwiw, I thought he sounded and looked like shit. Alpha male Donald Trump wouldn't be filmed with no makeup and bushy hair in an ill fitting jacket at any other occasion. Lots of stuff you can shoot a guy up with to get those 4 minutes out of him.

If anything, this would make me even more worried. I expected, whether it was fake or a mild case, Trump goes in to Walter Reed or even quarantines at WH and disappears for a week bitching on Twitter, then emerges and does cartwheels around the Rose Garden.

The timeline IS troubling. He said he was quarantining. That turned into staying at Walter Reed in a matter of hours. Confirmed he has a fever and fatigue. All but confirmed he was briefly on Oxygen before he went to Walter Reed. His doc gave a sunny press conference but still speculation next 48 hours will be 'telling', then Mark Meadows told reporters off the record its very serious, they don't have a plan for what course to "full recovery" looks like. This is all within a couple days of his diagnosis, there's at least another week or two of this getting WORSE by the 7 million+ cases we have to go by. Propping him up at a desk like that and, imo, looking like shit almost makes ME worried, and I don't even like the guy.


----------



## Randy

Btw, I always thought Pence adoration of Trump was smokescreen and he was secretly knifing him in the back or at least feathering his own nest. If I'm Pence, i'd be getting all my ducks in a row for a full on coupe while the guy is gone and chain of command is open.


----------



## fantom

As much as I can't stand Trump, Pence is the worse of the two. To me, the worst case scenario is Pence taking power and the Republican election nomination if Trump is no longer fit to serve.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> How long before some representative of China starts calling it "Trump Flu" or "White House Flu"? "Trumpfluenza", maybe?


"Trumpfluenza" LOLOL that's catchy!

Coronavirus doesn't really sound that deadly but Trumpfluenza sounds like it's killed 210,000 Americans!


----------



## Vyn

fantom said:


> As much as I can't stand Trump, Pence is the worse of the two. To me, the worst case scenario is Pence taking power and the Republican election nomination if Trump is no longer fit to serve.



Agreed. Pence is basically Trump, however a Trump who is smarter and can play the game far better. Genuinely terrified for you guys at the moment.


----------



## AxRookie

Vyn said:


> Agreed. Pence is basically Trump, however a Trump who is smarter and can play the game far better. Genuinely terrified for you guys at the moment.


After a while, you get used to it...


----------



## Randy

Vyn said:


> Agreed. Pence is basically Trump, however a Trump who is smarter and can play the game far better. Genuinely terrified for you guys at the moment.



I couldn't care less about vanilla conservative agenda shit, TBH. That you can campaign against and win on the issues.

The dangerous stuff is 'good people on both sides' 'stand back and stand by' type shit literally feeding a civil war, that falls uniquely on Donald Trump. There's a reason why he says some stupid dangerous shit and the next day every Republican under the sun says 'hey, take that back' and he does, but his base still roll with it. Without that, Trump is just GWB without two new wars. I think this country needs to hold the Republicans liable for what they allowed Trump to do to this country, but I'd be weary of a false equivalencey between Trump and general shitty conservative stuff that can be rolled back with a Democratic EO from the next guy/gal.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://twitter.com/stella_immanuel/status/1312165056222695424?s=20


----------



## Randy

Clearly Trump has been having sex with demons while he's sleeping.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I read the trip to Walter Reed was partly because the way symptoms can develop so rapidly they wanted him to get to the hospital before a stretcher was needed as that would be terrible optics for them. I just want some of these senators to have complications that push back the hearing crap.


----------



## AxRookie

Michael Cohen hit the nail on the head when he said "Trump is an Archie Bunker racist" and who would know better than the guy who paid off porn stars for Trump?


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> I read the trip to Walter Reed was partly because the way symptoms can develop so rapidly they wanted him to get to the hospital before a stretcher was needed as that would be terrible optics for them.



I'm sure this has changed already but it sounds like, according to Vanity Fair, that his temperature was up to 103 degrees and he had heart palpitations. These are both primarily attributed to the antibody cocktail, but obviously a guy his age and condition with COVID and those symptoms is a serious concern. At that point they decided they needed more monitoring and likely a setting with more privacy while the symptoms/side-effects worked their way out. If they were still treating him in the White House, other than the fact it's not as safe an environment, there'd also be leaks galore.


----------



## tedtan

Trump’s doctors gave another press conference this morning, and his doctor Sean Conley reported that they are now giving Trump dexamethasone which has shown to help COVID patients requiring oxygen, but to harm those not requiring oxygen.

According to my wife (a nurse), dexamethasone is the last course of treatment for COVID patients, and if it doesn’t help, there isn’t much more that can be given to help.

Based on that, it sounds like Trump is in worse condition than the doctors are reporting.


----------



## Andromalia

Randy said:


> Fwiw, I thought he sounded and looked like shit. Alpha male Donald Trump wouldn't be filmed with no makeup and bushy hair in an ill fitting jacket at any other occasion.



Alpha males don't wear makeup. I found him better looking than when he plasters orange shit on his face.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> https://twitter.com/stella_immanuel/status/1312165056222695424?s=20


Deleted. What’d it say?


----------



## spudmunkey

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Deleted. What’d it say?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...xperimental-antibody-stupidness-1536161?amp=1


----------



## USMarine75

tedtan said:


> Trump’s doctors gave another press conference this morning, and his doctor Sean Conley reported that they are now giving Trump dexamethasone which has shown to help COVID patients requiring oxygen, but to harm those not requiring oxygen.
> 
> According to my wife (a nurse), dexamethasone is the last course of treatment for COVID patients, and if it doesn’t help, there isn’t much more that can be given to help.
> 
> Based on that, it sounds like Trump is in worse condition than the doctors are reporting.



Related to this I used to prescribe it for patients that were ventilated. Likely Trump’s doctors are throwing everything at him due to his prominence, but it’s not a good sign. Neither was Regeneron. Based on what I’ve read I wouldn’t give it to my wife and kids. Just hearing these two meds makes me think he’s not mechanically ventilated yet but he’s not sat’ing well even on O2 and there’s concern he is or could be spiraling down.

You’ll know when Pence says he’s doing well but for precautionary measures or due to incapacitation Pence is the acting president.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/hydroxychloroquine-doctor-furious-donald-trump-took-experimental-antibody-stupidness-1536161?amp=1


*Totally
Under
Control 


Not...*​


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## AxRookie

Trump leaves the hospital for a drive around photo op in his bulletproof car and returns!

The only thing that will ever change this reckless so-called "man" is death...


----------



## Ralyks

Well, on the bright side, Bidens lead jumped from 7 points to 10 after Trumps diagnosis. So much for a sympathy bump for Trump.


----------



## shadowlife

Doesn't look like he's having any trouble breathing to me.


----------



## AxRookie

He sounds like someone who took cough syrup and is still a little horse, Prob using auto-tune or "deep fake" software?

Real doctors telling the truth think he may have mild pneumonia...

The thing is someone can sound somewhat ok and be standing on his own for a few minutes and still be very sick! Especially if that person is determined to lie about his condition...

Someone who is on high dose steroids is not doing great, My father got put on high dose steroids when he had stage 4 cancer! He too could have made a video saying how great he was doing while standing on his own for a few minutes and be driven around in a car so he could wave at people BUT he was VERY SICK!


----------



## Randy

Yeah, I'm hearing the steroid is either a better indication of his condition or it's irresponsible for him to be taking because of how it effects your immune system.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'm hearing the steroid is either a better indication of his condition or it's irresponsible for him to be taking because of how it effects your immune system.


It was pretty rough on my father, it made him lose muscle mass over time...


----------



## Randy

Fortunately for Trump, he's a human meatloaf


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Fortunately for Trump, he's a human meatloaf


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 85663


The resemblance is striking! BUT he's not doing the Trump-hands Jedi-mind-trick thing, he's just pointing one finger?


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> The resemblance is striking! BUT he's not doing the Trump-hands Jedi-mind-trick thing, he's just pointing one finger?


----------



## AxRookie

*Nah, I'm talking about the Trump Hands Jedi Mind Trick thing he does!*​



*These aren't the Droids you're looking for...*​


----------



## USMarine75

shadowlife said:


> Doesn't look like he's having any trouble breathing to me.




He looks... normal.


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> *Nah, I'm talking about the Trump Hands Jedi Mind Trick thing he does!*​
> 
> 
> 
> *These aren't the Droids you're looking for...*​


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


>



Yeah, that's it! lol

It's a "Hey! look at me!" thing he does for the weak-minded, but he does it with both hands...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I loved the "Look Trump fit for duty signing a blank page with a Sharpie" posts lol


----------



## AxRookie

Dineley said:


> I loved the "Look Trump fit for duty signing a blank page with a Sharpie" posts lol


That must be his new plan for tackling COVID-19...

Though, it is the same plan he's had from the beginning...


----------



## Ralyks

“In the Twitter video, Trump said he has spent part of his time at Walter Reed visiting wounded warriors and first responders but did not provide details about how those patients were protected against him infecting them with the coronavirus.”

WHY WOULD YOU LIE ABOUT THAT?!


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> He looks... normal.


It's the most weirdly human thing we've seen from Trump in decades.


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> It's the most weirdly human thing we've seen from Trump in decades.



Right? Hey maybe he's had a come-to-jesus / Ebeneezer Scrooge moment?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

USMarine75 said:


> Right? Hey maybe he's had a come-to-jesus / Ebeneezer Scrooge moment?



No way... He'd cough all over Jesus to infect him with the virus and then go before the people and claim that Jesus gave him a free pass for all his sins just before crying out "Make America Great Again" with his last dying breath. If this filthy pig could choose between buying a conscience for a dollar or a Big Mac, he'd gladly head for the nearest drive-thru. Only things that scare this bag of shit are morality and accountability.


----------



## sleewell

the utter disdain for the secret service is disgusting. hey i've got covid how about you all jump in this suv with me so i can wave at some people. thats worth risking your life right? fuck you thats why. all hail godemperor trump!!!


----------



## Necris

It's clear that Trump's health functions on the Duke Nukem Forever system where as long as his "Ego" meter is kept high enough he'll basically live through anything.


----------



## AxRookie

I'm going to vote in person to make sure my vote is counted and so is everybody I know! This is so important that I'm willing to risk my life for a Whitehouse without Trump!!!


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> the utter disdain for the secret service is disgusting. hey i've got covid how about you all jump in this suv with me so i can wave at some people. thats worth risking your life right? fuck you thats why. all hail godemperor trump!!!



https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/trump-secret-service-trip/index.html


It's a situation that has prompted growing and more vocal concern.

"That should never have happened," one current Secret Service agent who works on the presidential and first family detail said after Trump's drive-by, adding that those agents who went along for the ride would now be required to quarantine.

"I mean, I wouldn't want to be around them," the agent said, expressing a view that multiple people at the Secret Service also voiced in the wake of Sunday's appearance. "The frustration with how we're treated when it comes to decisions on this illness goes back before this though. We're not disposable."


----------



## Science_Penguin

Necris said:


> It's clear that Trump's health functions on the Duke Nukem Forever system where as long as his "Ego" meter is kept high enough he'll basically live through anything.



Well, it sure looks like his healthcare plan will be in development hell about as long as that game was...

Nah, I kid... He's definitely pulling a Half-Life 3 with that...


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/05/politics/trump-secret-service-trip/index.html
> 
> 
> It's a situation that has prompted growing and more vocal concern.
> 
> "That should never have happened," one current Secret Service agent who works on the presidential and first family detail said after Trump's drive-by, adding that those agents who went along for the ride would now be required to quarantine.
> 
> "I mean, I wouldn't want to be around them," the agent said, expressing a view that multiple people at the Secret Service also voiced in the wake of Sunday's appearance. "The frustration with how we're treated when it comes to decisions on this illness goes back before this though. We're not disposable."


Trump thinks of ALL Americans as disposable if in his mind it helps him in some twisted way...


----------



## Rosal76

AxRookie said:


> *Nah, I'm talking about the Trump Hands Jedi Mind Trick thing he does!*​



LOL. Trump using the Force to levitate a roll of Scott paper towel. 





​


----------



## Ralyks

Add Kayleigh McEnany to the list.


----------



## shadowlife

2:37 PM EST
_
"I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!"_

Looks like all those "Trump's Gone!" parties will have to be cancelled, or at least postponed.


----------



## bostjan

Trump said:


> _Don’t be afraid of Covid._


_
_
Tell that to Dr. Herman Cain.


----------



## sleewell

lots of people who have had it talk about feeling better and then a really nasty 2nd wave


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> Tell that to Dr. Herman Cain.



I'll keep it in mind should I see his spirit on the eve of the Election as the ghost of COVID Past


----------



## bostjan

Why wait?












sleewell said:


> lots of people who have had it talk about feeling better and then a really nasty 2nd wave



Kind of like the election years with Trump?


---------------------


EDIT:

Now White House Press aides Chad Gilmartin and Karoline Leavitt have tested positive.


----------



## AxRookie

Rosal76 said:


> LOL. Trump using the Force to levitate a roll of Scott paper towel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


*He is strong with the dark side of the force! *
*Watch out for the hands!*
*That's not lightning, It's COVID-19 and he's getting out today!*
*Emperor Super Spreader!!!*

*

*​


----------



## bostjan

Sorry for the double post, but this is irksome...

Trump downplaying the virus already, while he's still in the hospital receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of treatments is burning my ass.

*** Don't be scared of this virus! Look at me! I'm perfectly fine! I am a warrior, because I am not scared of the virus at all! Please give me antibodies that no average American could afford and follow that up with a drug that is $5k per dose. Let's add some steroids, too, because we don't want to miss anything. Please also give me another experimental treatment no one can afford, and... well, but this is no big deal! No need to be scared! Look how brave I am! ***

Come on man! If some schmuck like me gets Covid, we won't be able to afford going to the hospital in the first place, let alone getting synthetic freaking antibodies. I'm all for the president getting the best care, but for him to flaunt his illness as no biggie, and urging others to pay no mind to the virus, whilst he's getting infused with unobtanium - that is infuriating!


----------



## SpaceDock

Another grand example of how Trump has no understanding of what life normal Americans live. He exists in a golden tower his daddy paid for and just like other rich a-holes, his money will prevent him from dying like the 200k Americans. Don’t be scared of COVID, be scared of how far we are from equality.


----------



## nightflameauto

Trump gonna Trump.

I mean, it sucks. My wife and I are among the uninsured Americans and have been since her job was cut well before the pandemic. My job's medical insurance is so ridiculously expensive that it's near unaffordable for us and I work in the office as a programmer. I can't imagine what the people out on the shop floor do. 

And then we have to watch this pampered man talk about how easy this is to deal with while getting all this incredibly expensive treatment that we'd either not receive at all, or would absolutely destroy us financially for the rest of our lives if we did. But it's no big deal 'cause money.

I will repeat something I heard over the weekend: You almost have to admire the fact that he keeps inventing new reasons to despise him. You'd think at this point he'd have run out.


----------



## Randy

Reads as 3D chess, for sure but I still don't know what the point is. I don't think a miraculous recovery gains him any votes? My only possible thought is maybe he was hoping for a vaccine before election day but since that didn't happen, next alternative is looking like case study in effective treatment and fast recovery, and telling people "Hey! We basically have a cure!"


----------



## AxRookie

My mother was thinking "maybe this will be a turning point for Trump with a newfound perspective" and I told her he's going to lie about it from day one of his pos test and until the day he dies, that's just what he does, ALWAYS!

He's thinking "14 days in isolation my a$$, I'm out of here in a few days so I can infect others and start spinning this as soon as possible!"...


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I was pretty fucking livid at the hall of him downplaying it for all the reasons listed above. Like... I can't realize how more pissed off I can be. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here nervous that if I go to work and the thermometer says I have a 100 fever, I get sent home AND it's held against me as an absence, despite amount my efforts to work? And this asshole is going to tell me not to be worried when he's getting the best care in the world? Fuck that.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but he basically got socialized medicine.


----------



## AxRookie

He's leaving the hospital today at 6:30 and going to the Whitehouse where he is supposed to stay in the residence!

There is no way in hell he isn't still highly infectious but does he give a second thought to anyone else??? hell NO! Gota get back and start to spin this hard!!!


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.whitehousegiftshop.com/product-p/trump-defeats-covid.htm


----------



## AxRookie

Emperor Super Spreader is on his way back to the Whitehouse...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Randy said:


> Reads as 3D chess, for sure but I still don't know what the point is. I don't think a miraculous recovery gains him any votes? My only possible thought is maybe he was hoping for a vaccine before election day but since that didn't happen, next alternative is looking like case study in effective treatment and fast recovery, and telling people "Hey! We basically have a cure!"



I think it's simply the "playground bully" equivalent of "If I make fun of this disabled kid then I'll get a couple additional admirers!". It's insane that this is the way that this guy thinks but yeah.. he'd sell nude photos of his mother if he thought it might win him a handful of votes.


----------



## AxRookie

Trump still highly contagious, walks up the Whitehouse, turns around, takes off his mask and puts it in his pocket, and salutes for a photo op (for way too long), and walks into the Whitehouse with his mask still in his pocket!

Total disregard for anyone around him and the American people on full display!

*What an inspiration to us all! *​


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> 2:37 PM EST
> _
> "I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!"_



Tries to develop covid drug, does, AND accidentally discovers anti-aging serum. Is there anything this man can't do!


----------



## sleewell

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...y-presidents-covid-joyride-has-family-divided


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...y-presidents-covid-joyride-has-family-divided



Came here to post that.

SPACE FORCE! VOTE!


----------



## SpaceDock

The video of him at the top of the stairs and his own post about being “possibly immune” really show him puffing up and breathing weird. I think Don Jr is right that he is all f’ed up on steroids and is just out of control.


----------



## sleewell

Yeah it looked like he was breathing painfully 

Those are some pretty serious meds he was given


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...y-presidents-covid-joyride-has-family-divided



I have a hard time believing these recent vanity fair articles with their "source". It sounds like their source would need to be in the Trump family to have ears on these sorts of discussions.


----------



## AxRookie

*Read the books school!*

*Thank god he's on the case!*​


----------



## shadowlife

I'm too tired to find the article, but I read earlier that Trump plans on attending the second debate.
It will be interesting to see if there is any change in his behavior.


----------



## shadowlife




----------



## SpaceDock

@shadowlife is working overtime tonight, that’s the video of Trump puffed up like a lizard trying t o look extra strong while his breathing is labored. Extra f’ed up on steroids and no one to reign him in.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

shadowlife said:


>



You’d have to be pretty stupid to think this person is okay.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> @shadowlife is working overtime tonight, that’s the video of Trump puffed up like a lizard trying t o look extra strong while his breathing is labored. Extra f’ed up on steroids and no one to reign him in.


We the people will reign him in by voting him out of the Whitehouse! DUMP TRUMP!


----------



## Boofchuck

On one hand, I want to appreciate the optimism, and the message of not being controlled by fear. 

On the other hand, the man has been pumped full of hubris and god knows what else. 

HE has access to the best healthcare in the world through socialized health insurance paid for by US citizens. Most of whom make incomprehensibly less money than him, yet pay more taxes than him. Most of our basic needs have been commodified and privatized. But he has never had to worry about having basic needs met because he was born rich. 

His reality is so out of touch with the reality of most people. Leadership requires empathy. And he can't face the reality of his privilege.

Fuck this coward.


----------



## AxRookie

Boofchuck said:


> he can't face the reality of his privilege.
> 
> Fuck this coward.


Or the reality or the destruction he's created solely for his own political gain!

I hate to say it but I hope he relapses!

It's now up to 30 people around Trump that have tested positive! and what does he do? walks back into the Whitehouse with his mask in his pocket!

The Invector in Chef!


----------



## 777timesgod

Following this election from the outside I have a crucial question, after seeing the health of both candidates. Who will star in the "Weekend at Bernie's : White house Wipeout" remake? Do the RNC and DNC not have someone below 70 to choose from or is it a prerequisite? They will probably drug the winner more than Kennedy to keep him for the next 4 years running.


----------



## nightflameauto

I do find it funny that our entire federal government gets socialized healthcare on our dime, but we constantly be told it'd break the country to do it for us peons.

When I first read the side-effect list of the drugs they've given him I saw erratic behavior, anger issues, and confusion and thought, "Who will notice the difference?" I wasn't aware that there is another level, and we're witnessing it.

Lord this is nutty. That video looks like a guy barely holding it together.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> I do find it funny that our entire federal government gets socialized healthcare on our dime, but we constantly be told it'd break the country to do it for us peons.
> 
> When I first read the side-effect list of the drugs they've given him I saw erratic behavior, anger issues, and confusion and thought, "Who will notice the difference?" I wasn't aware that there is another level, and we're witnessing it.
> 
> Lord this is nutty. That video looks like a guy barely holding it together.


Not to mention gasping for air after walking up one flight of stairs...


----------



## bostjan

I haven't been this pissed since the Iraq War in 2003!


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Reads as 3D chess, for sure but I still don't know what the point is. I don't think a miraculous recovery gains him any votes? My only possible thought is maybe he was hoping for a vaccine before election day but since that didn't happen, next alternative is looking like case study in effective treatment and fast recovery, and telling people "Hey! We basically have a cure!"



If this was some sort of political play, it's one _fuck_ of a Hail Mary, and a poorly thought out one at that. 

By tweeting that he had Covid, Trump did at least three things I can think of that work against him: 
1) He returned popular attention to the fact that we're very much still in the middle of a pandemic, and that we haven't yet beat it,
2) After months of running attacks on Biden for being "too old" and "too infirm" to be president, Trump made _his_ age and health a central concern for voters. 
3) Less than four weeks before the election, Trump ensured that the media would be focused on the Covid pandemic for at LEAST a week to come, a subject that has hurt Trump's standing in the race, rather than on *insert subject here* that could potentially have boosted Trump's standing in the polls or made voters less sure they wanted to support Biden. He also, incidentally, sidelined most of his campaign infrastructure in doing so. 

So, at a minimum, the "cost" to Trump of a positive covid diagnosis is a very stark reminder that the pandemic is far from over, making his age and health a concern in the eyes of voters, and running damned near a quarter of the remaining time off the clock while he needs to be closing a huge gap in the polls. If there's some "gain" to Trump from claiming he had Covid, I'm not sure what there is that could possibly be worth the costs here.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> If this was some sort of political play, it's one _fuck_ of a Hail Mary, and a poorly thought out one at that.
> 
> By tweeting that he had Covid, Trump did at least three things I can think of that work against him:
> 1) He returned popular attention to the fact that we're very much still in the middle of a pandemic, and that we haven't yet beat it,
> 2) After months of running attacks on Biden for being "too old" and "too infirm" to be president, Trump made _his_ age and health a central concern for voters.
> 3) Less than four weeks before the election, Trump ensured that the media would be focused on the Covid pandemic for at LEAST a week to come, a subject that has hurt Trump's standing in the race, rather than on *insert subject here* that could potentially have boosted Trump's standing in the polls or made voters less sure they wanted to support Biden. He also, incidentally, sidelined most of his campaign infrastructure in doing so.
> 
> So, at a minimum, the "cost" to Trump of a positive covid diagnosis is a very stark reminder that the pandemic is far from over, making his age and health a concern in the eyes of voters, and running damned near a quarter of the remaining time off the clock while he needs to be closing a huge gap in the polls. If there's some "gain" to Trump from claiming he had Covid, I'm not sure what there is that could possibly be worth the costs here.



Add to all of that, he just tweeted that stimulus talks are on hold until after "he wins the election", at which point he will pass legislation (it was something to that affect).


----------



## spudmunkey

JSanta said:


> Add to all of that, he just tweeted that stimulus talks are on hold until after "he wins the election", at which point he will pass legislation (it was something to that affect).



...I can't seem to find this tweet you're referring to.


----------



## sleewell

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...orders-aides-to-halt-talks-on-covid-19-relief


----------



## JSanta

spudmunkey said:


> ...I can't seem to find this tweet you're referring to.





sleewell said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...orders-aides-to-halt-talks-on-covid-19-relief



Thanks Sleewell! I probably should have done the same.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...orders-aides-to-halt-talks-on-covid-19-relief



Ahh, OK. I was looking for a tweet.


----------



## sleewell

its in the article. doesn't really say what was posted above but its still a bad look coming from the guy who claimed to be such a master negotiator. how easy it was going to be. all the best deals he was going to get us. lol what a fraud. probably all the roids he is on getting the best of him.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Am I the only one with a sinking feeling that we're going to have 4 more years? With the way they're talking about this poll, that poll, and another poll saying Biden is going to win, I'm having flashbacks to last election.

I wouldn't blame the roids. Unless he's been on them for the past 4 years.


----------



## AxRookie

Señor Voorhees said:


> Am I the only one with a sinking feeling that we're going to have 4 more years? With the way they're talking about this poll, that poll, and another poll saying Biden is going to win, I'm having flashbacks to last election.
> 
> I wouldn't blame the roids. Unless he's been on them for the past 4 years.


Yep, it's just you... lol

The last election there was "The Emails", "Benghazi", and all manner of other stuff, plus she wasn't that likable, BUT this time none of the BS thrown has stuck and he is very likable, plus his name is Joe, he's one of us!

This time they haven't found a way in because it's a oneway train to the Whitehouse and COVID sealed the deal!

Everyone I know hates Trump and after Trumps' positive test the only two houses in my neighborhood with "Trump 2020" signs have taken them down! one house had THREE signs but now they are gone...


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaaand he refused to negotiate a new stimulus until after the election.

Extortion, anyone?


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> Aaaaaand he refused to negotiate a new stimulus until after the election.
> 
> Extortion, anyone?


Extortion? well of course! that's what he does...

That may sometimes work in the short run BUT you don't make too many friends with that...


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> If this was some sort of political play, it's one _fuck_ of a Hail Mary, and a poorly thought out one at that.
> 
> By tweeting that he had Covid, Trump did at least three things I can think of that work against him:
> 1) He returned popular attention to the fact that we're very much still in the middle of a pandemic, and that we haven't yet beat it,
> 2) After months of running attacks on Biden for being "too old" and "too infirm" to be president, Trump made _his_ age and health a central concern for voters.
> 3) Less than four weeks before the election, Trump ensured that the media would be focused on the Covid pandemic for at LEAST a week to come, a subject that has hurt Trump's standing in the race, rather than on *insert subject here* that could potentially have boosted Trump's standing in the polls or made voters less sure they wanted to support Biden. He also, incidentally, sidelined most of his campaign infrastructure in doing so.
> 
> So, at a minimum, the "cost" to Trump of a positive covid diagnosis is a very stark reminder that the pandemic is far from over, making his age and health a concern in the eyes of voters, and running damned near a quarter of the remaining time off the clock while he needs to be closing a huge gap in the polls. If there's some "gain" to Trump from claiming he had Covid, I'm not sure what there is that could possibly be worth the costs here.



all good points but ..

Biden is older. so if age and health is a concern for voters. I don't see it working for Biden 

In Trump's bizarro mind I could see him thinking that beating the virus gets him standing with voters ,making them believe he is a strong leader .Like the war time president he see's himself as .went to war with COVID and kicked it ass 

Im a cynic, but it all reeks to me


----------



## AxRookie

*Spin city full speed ahead!...*

I guess Tucker thinks my 82-year-old mother should be dead?​


----------



## Ralyks

mongey said:


> In Trump's bizarro mind I could see him thinking that beating the virus gets him standing with voters ,making them believe he is a strong leader .Like the war time president he see's himself as .went to war with COVID and kicked it ass



Oddly enough, Bidens lead INCREASED from all of this, because now TRUMP'S health and age are in question from getting covid.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> Yep, it's just you... lol
> 
> The last election there was "The Emails", "Benghazi", and all manner of other stuff, plus she wasn't that likable, BUT this time none of the BS thrown has stuck and he is very likable, plus his name is Joe, he's one of us!
> 
> This time they haven't found a way in because it's a oneway train to the Whitehouse and COVID sealed the deal!
> 
> Everyone I know hates Trump and after Trumps' positive test the only two houses in my neighborhood with "Trump 2020" signs have taken them down! one house had THREE signs but now they are gone...



Everyone in RI when I lived there was hardcore Bernie and jumped ship to Hillary when I lived up there. If your location can be trusted, you're in a blue leaning state too. It'd make sense that, unless you've moved, everyone hates trump. Between then and now, I live in NC, a Right leaning state, and there's almost nothing but praise from the people I know both personally and hear out in the wild. 

I guess I refuse to get comfy because last election it was the same exact "sure thing" they seem to be painting now. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. 

Worth noting that I'm a pessimist so worrying is my strong point.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

mongey said:


> all good points but ..
> 
> Biden is older. so if age and health is a concern for voters. I don't see it working for Biden
> 
> In Trump's bizarro mind I could see him thinking that beating the virus gets him standing with voters ,making them believe he is a strong leader .Like the war time president he see's himself as .went to war with COVID and kicked it ass
> 
> Im a cynic, but it all reeks to me



Especially if trump already (actually) got COVID. IN that sense, he's largely safe from re-infection unless it mutates.

I don't think many of his brain-dead followers stopped believing in him. I think his voter turnout will be similar to last time, and he might be able to at the very least game the electoral college angle again.


----------



## AxRookie

Satan's right-hand man Stephen Miller now tests positive for COVID...


----------



## SpaceDock

Good


----------



## AxRookie

Along with two more Press Aides...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Words fail me so imma resort to memes...Be well everyone. I want everyone to be happy and live life freely and coexist, I really do! Help me out...


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 85713



That's kind of a good point, but can't you get those stem cells from placentas from actually birthing the babies?


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> That's kind of a good point, but can't you get those stem cells from placentas from actually birthing the babies?



Dunno I suppose you’re right? Like foreskin tissue lots of money to be made...

I guess they might have to wait for her confirmation until after the election. I could hardly make it through this article though, I’m tired and there’s a lot of stuff in it!


https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-trump-covid-republican-senators-b839853.html


----------



## SpaceDock

narad said:


> That's kind of a good point, but can't you get those stem cells from placentas from actually birthing the babies?



Wow, I just spent a little time googling this one and kinda got mind fucked! The company Regeneron does use “embryonic” stems cells for undisclosed research and those are from early term abortions vs placenta or umbilical stem cells.... but Regeneron says that for this Covid treatment they used the HEK 293 cells culture. What is that? I had no idea before reading about it, but it is a cell culture from an abortion back in the 70s that has been used for all sorts of projects from disease research to artificial sweeteners. We really do live in a bizarre time.


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I had no idea before reading about it, but it is a cell culture from an abortion back in the 70s that has been used for all sorts of projects from disease research to artificial sweeteners. We really do live in a bizarre time.



How many babies do we need to abort to get rid of that Splenda aftertaste though?


----------



## Mathemagician

Once the single issue anti choice voters learned that medical science could cure diseases with research and access to stem cells they voted to shut that one down ASAP b/c “fuck living people and human progress”.


----------



## SpaceDock

Srsly though, using human stem cells to make sweeteners? Dafuq are people even thinking?


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> Srsly though, using human stem cells to make sweeteners? Dafuq are people even thinking?



There money to be made!

_Treating disease is more profitable than prevention and or cure._ ~for profit health care model no.1~

It can (and has) been reasonably argued that the average diet of many Americans is an intentional cesspool of disease creation. I digress...

Donald said “we’ve lowered the price of insulin, it’s like water.”

At face value this is a lie- Insulin is approaching 400$ US per vial, when it’s about 30$ and free nearly everywhere else in the world. He may have lowered co-pays for MA recipients. 

What people may not realize is that Donald wasn’t talking to the consumer, who has no choice (remember the Narcan meme- “why is Narcan free for a drug addict when insulin costs 1000k per month?) and often quite a bit more.

Donald was talking to the industry, not the consumer- the production of insulin is cheap like water, another product that we all know is being exploited.

But one of the problems that insulin price obfuscates is that stem cell research could provide a cure. But there’s no money in that.

Insulin, cheap as water to produce, who’s inventor said it should be available for free, is

Liquid Gold!

Just another criminal exploit to add to the list! Not sure either candidate can stand up to insurance and big pharma either. Kind of doubt it.


----------



## AxRookie

"HEK 293 cells culture" are lab-made...


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> That's kind of a good point, but can't you get those stem cells from placentas from actually birthing the babies?




There are different types of stem cells. I'm sure I'm understanding it in a "well...technically yeah, but it's also not quite that simple" sort of way, but my understanding is that umbilical cord and placenta-sourced stem cells are not as "good"(useful, powerful, etc) as embryonic stem cells.


----------



## Wuuthrad

spudmunkey said:


> There are different types of stem cells. I'm sure I'm understanding it in a "well...technically yeah, but it's also not quite that simple" sort of way, but my understanding is that umbilical cord and placenta-sourced stem cells are not as "good"(useful, powerful, etc) as embryonic stem cells.



They don’t circumcise newborns for the baby’s benefit either, it’s a profit based industry. Everything from stem cells to facials!


----------



## AxRookie

I don't know when I was circumcised, I'm just glad that I was! It looks magnificent!!! 

My hat off to the chef! 

And as far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they want with the "leftover"...


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...y-presidents-covid-joyride-has-family-divided


----------



## spudmunkey

Walt, what? 

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...y-presidents-covid-joyride-has-family-divided
> 
> View attachment 85726


To Don Jr... Thanks Captain Obvious! it took you this long to see what we've all been seeing???


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> Walt, what?
> 
> https://news.yahoo.com/trump-campaign-discussing-plans-appoint-090001571.html



SMH. GOP really doesn't care about anything except "winning" at this point.


----------



## AxRookie

You know, in an odd way, I feel a little sorry for the remaining Trump supporters because they only have one channel to watch during this pandemic which is "Fox" (a division of Fox Nonsense)! All other shows from the late-night talk shows, all news shows, all morning shows, and pretty much all entertainment are calling out all of Trump's nonsense, lies, and countless failures! so that rules all that out...

Those poor ignorant people have, for the most part, nothing to watch! The only other thing they've got is going out to cheer for their "Dear Leader" at some super spreader event to catch COVID!

Poor ignorant fools... :^(


----------



## sleewell

nah, there is also OANN, infowars and a few others i'm missing.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> nah, there is also OANN, infowars and a few others i'm missing.


I suppose you're right, but that still ain't much because they just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again and most of that is online, Their TV's are just collecting dust and the channel changer has become useless...


----------



## Ralyks

AxRookie said:


> I suppose you're right, but that still ain't much because they just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again and most of that is online...



Just wait, if somehow he doesn't end up in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OANN.

Anyway, apparently now Trump is (sort of) changing course and claiming he'd signed SOME of the provisions of the stimulus immediately. Probably saw that he single handedly made the market take a nose dive as soon as he made the announcement. Seriously, at work yesterday The market was up like 250 points, I go to the rest room, when I got back it was DOWN nearly 400. I was there that long!


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> Just wait, if somehow he doesn't end up in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OANN.
> 
> Anyway, apparently now Trump is (sort of) changing course and claiming he'd signed SOME of the provisions of the stimulus immediately. Probably saw that he single handedly made the market take a nose dive as soon as he made the announcement. Seriously, at work yesterday The market was up like 250 points, I go to the rest room, when I got back it was DOWN nearly 400. I was there that long!


Are you serious??? That doesn't sound very Trumpy to me??? or are you just kidding?

But then again he says A LOT of stuff but never follows through, Still waiting on his health plan and SO MUCH MORE...

Not holding my breath... Well except for when he's close by, I don't think Walter Reed will admit me...


----------



## gunch

Trump is going to run out of things to get away with, out of eventually


----------



## bostjan

Señor Voorhees said:


> Especially if trump already (actually) got COVID. IN that sense, he's largely safe from re-infection unless it mutates.
> 
> I don't think many of his brain-dead followers stopped believing in him. I think his voter turnout will be similar to last time, and he might be able to at the very least game the electoral college angle again.



Antibodies for covid have a half-life of about 30 days, and it get shorter with age. So, while he won't likely get it again before the election, by January, he's about 88% as likely to be infected as he was in the first place.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Necris

sleewell said:


> nah, there is also OANN, infowars and a few others i'm missing.


The whole cottage industry of dudes in sunglasses sitting in the cab of their truck yelling into their phone cameras about "the America i grew up in" on facebook live and youtube.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> View attachment 85740



It's a little out of focus. Is that Ghoul-iani, or Stephen Miller?


----------



## nightflameauto

Are we all sufficiently distracted by the shit-show circus going on this week to utterly ignore the VP side-show debate?

If Pence tells his lies calmly enough will people believe them?

If Harris manages to not snark out and comes across genuine will people warm up to her a bit?

Or have I already wasted too much of our time thinking about something that ultimately isn't big top enough to bother with?


----------



## sleewell

she is going to destroy him. like top to bottom ass kicking. the only thing pence is good at is talking for 5 mins without saying a damn thing. i don't think he sees women as being equal to men and will get easily flustered when she systematically annihilates every failure and back bone free moment of his vice presidency.


----------



## spudmunkey

So has pence relented to the divider screen, or has the debate organizer given in and given it up?


----------



## sleewell

spudmunkey said:


> So has pence relented to the divider screen, or has the debate organizer given in and given it up?




really small pieces of plexi glass. desks waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too close together. i saw the stage and thought it was a joke. the room is pretty big and they are super close. nothing between pence and the moderator.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> she is going to destroy him. like top to bottom ass kicking. the only thing pence is good at is talking for 5 mins without saying a damn thing. i don't think he sees women as being equal to men and will get easily flustered when she systematically annihilates every failure and back bone free moment of his vice presidency.



I don't want to underestimate him. Not saying it makes him invincible, but he's also got call-in radio experience hosting his own show. He's not as much of a push-over as he might want many to believe.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I think that if they both remain calm and actually answer some questions with apparent transparency, that it will be a boost for both sides. They would both be wise to seize this opportunity and act with civility.


----------



## nightflameauto

Yeah, I don't see it being a clean sweep by Harris by any means. Pence is a soft-spoken dude, but he can manipulate with the best of them.

I do know he doesn't view women as equals, so that could add some interesting dynamics if Harris does one of her usual carefully worded verbal beatings.

Gonna be interesting.


----------



## Drew

Señor Voorhees said:


> Am I the only one with a sinking feeling that we're going to have 4 more years? With the way they're talking about this poll, that poll, and another poll saying Biden is going to win, I'm having flashbacks to last election.
> 
> I wouldn't blame the roids. Unless he's been on them for the past 4 years.


We're at a point where Biden's campaign imploding and Trump winning at this stage in the game would be essentially an unprecedented comeback or polling miss. Clinton may have maintained a steady lead in 2016, but it was never especially large (with rare exceptions, like immediately after the Access Hollywood tape), and with tightening at the very end of the race thanks to the Comey Letter, the final popular vote was pretty much right on the screws with the polling (just a whole bunch of people misinterpreted how that would play out in the Electoral College). Right now, things could definitely change, but even a normal-sized polling error squarely in Trump's favor probably wouldn't be enough for him to win the Electoral College if the election was held today. 



mongey said:


> all good points but ..
> 
> Biden is older. so if age and health is a concern for voters. I don't see it working for Biden
> 
> In Trump's bizarro mind I could see him thinking that beating the virus gets him standing with voters ,making them believe he is a strong leader .Like the war time president he see's himself as .went to war with COVID and kicked it ass
> 
> Im a cynic, but it all reeks to me


None of these are wrong, but prior to last Friday, no one was really talking about or worrying about Trump's age or health. Now that's a central concern of the election. And, even if Trump THINKS beating Covid will make him more popular with voters, that doesn't really take away from the fact a subject that's a strong negative to Trump is now dominating the news, rather than one that's a strong positive. Voters would REALLY have to love the fact Trump survived Covid for this to be a positive on the net. 

That doesn't mean Trump isn't lying about having Covid, of course - he totally could be. It's just if he is, it's an absolutely stupid strategy.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Its so sad seeing just the power grab attempts are making like all these republican states suing to try to limit voting access and then the whole legislature picking electors thing is totally going to happen too like look at Wisconsin and Kentucky where they stripped incoming democratic Governors of powers and they sue over pandemic safety measures like how do these people sleep at night.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Yeah, I don't see it being a clean sweep by Harris by any means. Pence is a soft-spoken dude, but he can manipulate with the best of them.
> 
> I do know he doesn't view women as equals, so that could add some interesting dynamics if Harris does one of her usual carefully worded verbal beatings.
> 
> Gonna be interesting.


You know, the format is probably more friendly to Pence than it is to Harris, with what @spudmunkey is saying. A town hall is a lot more like a radio show than a courtroom.


----------



## Randy

I think she's gonna get eaten alive.

Kamala Harris the prosecutor or the Senator is a different person than Kamala Harris the VP candidate so far. She reminds me of what they turned Tim Kaine into, where he was basically a clown that was responsible for carrying water for all the 'B list' issues they don't want to saddle the POTUS pick with.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I think she's gonna get eaten alive.
> 
> Kamala Harris the prosecutor or the Senator is a different person than Kamala Harris the VP candidate so far. She reminds me of what they turned Tim Kaine into, where he was basically a clown that was responsible for carrying water for all the 'B list' issues they don't want to saddle the POTUS pick with.


I hope you're wrong, but this is plausible.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> I think she's gonna get eaten alive.
> 
> Kamala Harris the prosecutor or the Senator is a different person than Kamala Harris the VP candidate so far. She reminds me of what they turned Tim Kaine into, where he was basically a clown that was responsible for carrying water for all the 'B list' issues they don't want to saddle the POTUS pick with.



I was in a room full of US govt (political) people that struggled to remember who Hillary’s VP was earlier this week lol. 

Someone said “I think his name is Cain“ and all anyone could remember is Herman.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Someone said “I think his name is Cain“ and all anyone could remember is Herman.



RIP


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## zappatton2

I wonder if Pence is going to need to have his wife with him as chaperone, in case he is overwhelmed with alpha-lust in the presence of a strange female.


----------



## fantom

Dineley said:


> Its so sad seeing just the power grab attempts are making like all these republican states suing to try to limit voting access and then the whole legislature picking electors thing is totally going to happen too like look at Wisconsin and Kentucky where they stripped incoming democratic Governors of powers and they sue over pandemic safety measures like how do these people sleep at night.



Don't forget Arizona and Florida. Honestly, this crap is the first time I hope Democrats have the ability to throw out the electoral college. When state leaders literally try to put electorates non a position to make partisan decisions, the system no longer works.

Whatever happened to "we the people"?


----------



## spudmunkey

If there's one take-away from tonight's debate, even before it starts, is that Senator Harris needs an acrylic shield to protect her from the head of the Coronavirus Task Force.


----------



## SpaceDock

spudmunkey said:


> If there's one take-away from tonight's debate, even before it starts, is that Senator Harris needs an acrylic shield to protect her from the head of the Coronavirus Task Force.



yeah unbelievable that the coronavirus task force lead wrote this gem

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/vice-president-mike-pence-op-ed-isnt-coronavirus-second-wave/


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## bostjan

To be fair, though, Pence's task force isn't that bad on its own. It could certainly have been a lot better... But the reason this country is catching on fire, falling over, and then sinking into the swamp is mainly because our loudest vox populi is misinformed and illogical to the point of choosing death in every life-or-death decision.

Even if Trump resigned tomorrow, appointed Pelosi or whomever the top liberal is, and then rode off into the sunset, we'd still have over a third of the population of the USA frothing at the mouth, refusing to stay inside, refusing to wear masks, shooting and stabbing anyone who kindly asks them to wear masks or stay inside, yadda yadda. I don't know how many of those people are getting infected with covid, but, short of dying of the disease, I don't think anything would stop their antics.

And as long as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb are going around licking all of the ice cream in the grocer's store, purposely coughing and sneezing on bus drivers, and shooting retail employees, and as long as law enforcement decides to do nothing to prevent these sorts of things, it doesn't matter who is president or vice president.

That said, I hope the debate goes well tonight for both candidates, and I hope Pence distances himself from Trump as much as possible. I have no warm feelings about Pence, but he doesn't say nearly as much idiotic shit as Trump, or at least says it far less frequently. Maybe there is hope that he can move away from the image of the governor who infamously argued that smoking is not harmful to a person's health from the state that tried to pass a law legally declaring that pi should be 3.2.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## shadowlife




----------



## Randy

He looks darker than usual. They got a tanning bed in Walter Reed?


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


>




Is your face turning a burnt sienna a side effect of the drug?


----------



## shadowlife

narad said:


> Is your face turning a burnt sienna a side effect of the drug?



It could just be a sign that he is truly back to "normal".

Telling us that China is going to "pay" for the coronavirus certainly seems to be a return to form.


----------



## Ralyks

Ok, I get that this originated from China, but why is it glossed over that it entered the states from Europe?


----------



## SpaceDock

shadowlife said:


> It could just be a sign that he is truly back to "normal".
> 
> Telling us that China is going to "pay" for the coronavirus certainly seems to be a return to form.



Chinas gonna pay for this like Mexico paid for the wall.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Ok, I get that this originated from China, but why is it glossed over that it entered the states from Europe?



I wonder...


----------



## Randy

Because "The Italian Flu" sounds too exotic.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> He looks darker than usual. They got a tanning bed in Walter Reed?


Maybe it's Maybelline?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> He looks darker than usual. They got a tanning bed in Walter Reed?



Just rubbed himself down with the iodine.


----------



## AxRookie

Pence is getting slammed hard! lol


----------



## Randy

I just turned it off since Pence refuses to answer any questions and is lying nonstop, and Kamala is doing too much smirking and rolling her eyes dismissively to suit me. Credit to Harris for getting a little closer to answering the questions but only in a super vague way, soaked in campaign pitch. Also, as I expected, she spends the whole time rewriting her record to appeal to their demo (ie: "as attorney general, I prosecuted banks and for profit colleges). Not as bad as my worst fears, at least.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Kamala definitely seems to be doing better atm. Pence is just so sugary like a fucking con-man. Btw Mike, STFU.


----------



## AxRookie

She's eating him alive!


----------



## SpaceDock

Just painful that Pence is railroading the moderator and refusing to answer several questions outright. Kamala is doing alright, but I second the snarky smiles not being something I find appealing in such an important job interview.


----------



## Ralyks

Kamala is basically mom smirking at a child trying to argue his way out of trouble.

But yeah, she's handling herself well while Pence is... Really not doing anything.


----------



## Randy

Pence getting a lot more lost, losing his train of thought and forgetting names/details than I expected. Defending Trump has definitely become a more difficult job after 4 years of bullshit, but I guess also being 4 years older has it's effects.


----------



## mbardu

The funny thing is that if you read live comments or coverage from conservative sources, they're 100% drinking the Trump/Pence Kool-Aid and hailing the VP as the smoothest smartest man alive. Oh while piling on with the racist misogynistic comments too of course...but that was expected.


----------



## SpaceDock

The fly in Pences hair isn’t as good as the roach on Hannity’s face but I’ll take it.


----------



## narad

mbardu said:


> The funny thing is that if you read live comments or coverage from conservative sources, they're 100% drinking the Trump/Pence Kool-Aid and hailing the VP as the smoothest smartest man alive. Oh while piling on with the racist misogynistic comments too of course...but that was expected.



I'm only like 25 mins in, both seem to be holding their own. But I think it's always telling that no one's trying to poke fun at Pence's race, gender, appearance, etc. That's what these voting blocks look like -- on one hand, people listening to the content of the debate. On the other hand, OMG a vagina!! Let's make fun of that! ...Damn incels.


----------



## Ralyks

Does Pence has problems answering the CURRENT question? Jesus.


----------



## mbardu

So Pence also refuses to commit to accepting the results of the election then?
At least that much is clear.


----------



## spudmunkey

The moderator interrupting Pence made my night. "Your campaigns agreed to the rules, and It's my job to enforce them."


----------



## Ralyks

That moderator was piiiissssed.
Anyway, at least this wasn't the shit show of the presidential debate. I think Harris did well. Pence... Didn't do much really. Maybe a couple of points here and there.


----------



## mbardu

Ralyks said:


> That moderator was piiiissssed.
> Anyway, at least this wasn't the shit show of the presidential debate. I think Harris did well. Pence... Didn't do much really. Maybe a couple of points here and there.



Pence did quite well, especially in comparison with Trump lmao. That last answer was worded very well
Doesn't change the fact that he was still spouting shallow (if pretty!) lies to support a shit record from a shit administration.


----------



## SpaceDock

I thin Kamala did better, Pence didn’t do too bad but his not answering questions was real bad.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I think we need a new Debate format:

Live at the Apollo, straight outta Harlem- audience heckling and throwing tomatoes!

And btw old racist sexist white dudes talking over and down to everyone, and everyone else who thinks like that.

Just go away already...


----------



## SpaceDock

^ Yes!!!

You know I googled the next two moderators and I think this is not going to get better. That last debate is going to be done by a young lady. I pray she starts breaking in her screaming voice now.


----------



## gunch

The fly was the mvp


----------



## Ralyks

I will say Harris may have missed by not answering the court packing question, although the Lincoln story made a good point.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> The fly in Pences hair isn’t as good as the roach on Hannity’s face but I’ll take it.


His minions are coming to their master's aid!

Talk about the contrast of black and WHITE! that fly stood out like ultra-black on a white sheet of paper!


----------



## Wuuthrad

That wernt no ordinary fly boys and girls...

That was Robo Fly!




He was off script and needed a quick re-boot before what’s left of his “brain” got him into more trouble!


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## Randy

Harris clear winner. All she needed to do was not implode, and she was actually very good overall. The thing you wanted to avoid was anything where she gaffed or Pence landed an especially square blow as a soundbyte, and ultimately the fly landing on Pence swallowed up all post-debate social media discussion about this.

Trump has become impossible to defend, and Pence shifted from 2016 being the sane guy that can flesh policy out of Trump's ramblings, to now being the guy following behind Trump with bucket mopping up his piss. Last VP debate, he was making substantive policy out of MAGA, this time it was literally an hour and a half of him lying and deflecting to protect Donald Trump personally, not even the administration or policy as much as the man himself. Wrong audience, wrong platform for the Trump knob slobbering. 

They NEEDED this to slow down Biden's momentum and imo, Pence came out of this looking spinless and Harris looked very sympathetic and relatable, but also stoic and presidential.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 85764



Holy crap, it's real!

https://store.joebiden.com/truth-over-flies-fly-swatter/


----------



## Randy

Legit, the fly and maybe Pence's blood clot or whatever on his eye literally gobbled up ALL social media surrounding the debate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Pence Fly/Hair Microchip 2024


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> To be fair, though, Pence's task force isn't that bad on its own. It could certainly have been a lot better... But the reason this country is catching on fire, falling over, and then sinking into the swamp is mainly because our loudest vox populi is misinformed and illogical to the point of choosing death in every life-or-death decision.
> 
> Even if Trump resigned tomorrow, appointed Pelosi or whomever the top liberal is, and then rode off into the sunset, we'd still have over a third of the population of the USA frothing at the mouth, refusing to stay inside, refusing to wear masks, shooting and stabbing anyone who kindly asks them to wear masks or stay inside, yadda yadda. I don't know how many of those people are getting infected with covid, but, short of dying of the disease, I don't think anything would stop their antics.
> 
> And as long as Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb are going around licking all of the ice cream in the grocer's store, purposely coughing and sneezing on bus drivers, and shooting retail employees, and as long as law enforcement decides to do nothing to prevent these sorts of things, it doesn't matter who is president or vice president.
> 
> That said, I hope the debate goes well tonight for both candidates, and I hope Pence distances himself from Trump as much as possible. I have no warm feelings about Pence, but he doesn't say nearly as much idiotic shit as Trump, or at least says it far less frequently. Maybe there is hope that he can move away from the image of the governor who infamously argued that smoking is not harmful to a person's health from the state that tried to pass a law legally declaring that pi should be 3.2.



https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/07/health/nejm-editorial-political-leadership-bn/index.html


----------



## Wuuthrad

Legit lmao with this thread, good stuff- I really needed that after swearing at the silver fly trap most of the debate!


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> Legit lmao with this thread, good stuff- I really needed that after swearing at the silver fly trap most of the debate!


"silver fly trap" That's funny!

I know Wallmart is working on "Robo Bees" but maybe they already have the Robo Flys!

I think the flys know more about Pence's health than the Whitehouse doctors are letting on?



spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 85766
> View attachment 85767


Master sold separately but Trump already bought him...


----------



## AxRookie

Hey! did you hear? Trump said we're going to have a Vaccine very soon!


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## spudmunkey

Mike Pence's fly has a Twitter account:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MikePenceFly___


----------



## Ralyks

20 minutes ago: Next debate set to be virtual.

10 minutes after that: Trump said he won't bother with a virtual debate. Fine, give Biden a town hall then.


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> I will say Harris may have missed by not answering the court packing question, although the Lincoln story made a good point.



can someone please explain this to me? trump is accusing the biden of packing the courts as he is rushing through a supreme court pick days before an election when everyone in the senate previously said no supreme court pics during an election year?

it seems obviously hypocritical to me.


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> can someone please explain this to me? trump is accusing the biden of packing the courts as he is rushing through a supreme court pick days before an election when everyone in the senate previously said no supreme court pics during an election year?
> 
> it seems obviously hypocritical to me.



I just don't see the point of not saying "no, we have no such plans. If you want to talk packing the court -- look at what you're doing now". It's not like anyone sticks to campaign promises anyway, so I don't see the benefit of sowing this vibe of deceptiveness and plotting. 

And it's not like the president can just say, I want 15 supreme court justices, and BAM, they exist. If I was running and didn't want to answer, I feel like there's still a, "I have no such plans, but if the American people want the courts expanded and such a motion passes the house and senate, I would support it." etc.


----------



## Ralyks

narad said:


> I just don't see the point of saying "no, we have no such plans. If you want to talk packing the court -- look at what you're doing now". It's not like anyone sticks to campaign promises anyway, so I don't see the benefit of sowing this vibe of deceptiveness and plotting.
> 
> And it's not like the president can just say, I want 15 supreme court justices, and BAM, they exist. If I was running and didn't want to answer, I feel like there's still a, "I have no such plans, but if the American people want the courts expanded and such a motion passes the house and senate, I would support it." etc.



This would have been a great response.


----------



## USMarine75

Well that was gross.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Well that was gross.



Flies are an essential part of the ecosystem.

It's not it's fault it found a corpse.


----------



## sleewell

pence's eye looked pretty messed up too

trump wont show up to work if its virtual like so many Americans have to do every day now. that's another campaign ad gift to biden.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Flies are an essential part of the ecosystem.
> 
> It's not it's fault it found a corpse.


[WASP joke]


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Flies are an essential part of the ecosystem.
> 
> It's not it's fault it found a corpse.



The fly was the least gross part of that debate lol.


----------



## Bogner

Ralyks said:


> 20 minutes ago: Next debate set to be virtual.
> 
> 10 minutes after that: Trump said he won't bother with a virtual debate. Fine, give Biden a town hall then.


By all means, maybe he can break double digits if given another town hall.


----------



## Bogner

Randy said:


> Harris clear winner. All she needed to do was not implode, and she was actually very good overall. The thing you wanted to avoid was anything where she gaffed or Pence landed an especially square blow as a soundbyte, and ultimately the fly landing on Pence swallowed up all post-debate social media discussion about this.
> 
> Trump has become impossible to defend, and Pence shifted from 2016 being the sane guy that can flesh policy out of Trump's ramblings, to now being the guy following behind Trump with bucket mopping up his piss. Last VP debate, he was making substantive policy out of MAGA, this time it was literally an hour and a half of him lying and deflecting to protect Donald Trump personally, not even the administration or policy as much as the man himself. Wrong audience, wrong platform for the Trump knob slobbering.
> 
> They NEEDED this to slow down Biden's momentum and imo, Pence came out of this looking spinless and Harris looked very sympathetic and relatable, but also stoic and presidential.


I will have some of what you are smoking...lol.


----------



## bostjan

What has white hair and flies?

I wonder if the fly will need to get tested for covid now? That definitely wasn't six feet.

Vice-lord of the flies!

Seriously, though, these jokes are all rather disdainfly opproboscis ahem mean-spirited. We need to simply maggot ahem make it certain that Biden gets a clear wing ahem, excuse me, a clear win, and that we get a congressional housefly ahem, pardon me, a Congressional House full of the right representation for the pupae ahem people... darn it, I can't help it, it's too funny.


----------



## nightflameauto

Winner of the debate: The Fly.

I had a vision when I saw the fly come up and just casually land on him where it was like in horror movies where right before the really bad shit goes down you have a swarm of flies infest the room/scene and almost overwhelm the camera. I honestly, for a moment, was rooting for it, thinking Pence could turn into a demon live on stage and 2020 would be complete.

Alas, we just had to watch two people avoid answering questions for an hour and a half instead. While Kamala sorta/kinda addressed the questions, the only one either candidate paid real attention to was the closer from the eighth grader. The rest of it was typical political posturing using the long-prescribed talking points that we've all heard a bazillion times over. At this point the debate could just be two sheets of paper with all the common talking points and we could avoid watching these people try to restrain themselves from blowing up.

It was frustrating watching Pence just stomp all over the moderator, while Harris would typically shut down the second time she asked her to.

Overall impression: Having actual knowledge of the main debate points, watching Pence spew lie after lie after Republican Talking Point Lie, and watching him avoid even trying to pretend to address the questions, I somehow came away with even less respect for him than I had before. And believe me, that was a low bar to crawl under. "Alternative Facts" indeed, Mr. Pence.

Watching the way Harris conducted herself, while the snarky smiles were sorta off-putting, I imagine I probably had a similar smile at the same points as Pence spewed his lies. She spoke well and managed to prevent herself from going full snipe mode, which was actually surprising. She half-truthed her way through some answers, and outright lied about her record as a prosecutor, but that's politics for ya. I came away not losing respect for her, and not gaining much either.

Sadly, after that summary, I can say Harris "won" between the two, but only by the narrowest of margins. She didn't make herself look like an idiot, nor did she come across as aggressive as she did during the initial round of debates, so yeah. There we go.

Still, The Fly is the real winner. That dude's a superstar.


----------



## AxRookie

bostjan said:


> What has white hair and flies?


OH! I know this one!


----------



## shadowlife

Pence's "greatest hits":

1- "It looks a little bit like plagiarism...which is something Joe Biden knows a little bit about." 

2- "You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts."

and my favorite:

3- "Lost the trade war with China? Joe Biden never fought it."

The best Harris could come up with?

-“I want to ask the American people, how calm were you when you were panicked about where you're going to get your next roll of toilet paper?"

  

I'm pretty sure you lost a debate when your side is concentrating on a fly in your opponent's hair.

FWIW, I don't really think either person "won", I'm just happy we got a couple of straight answers, even if it wasn't anything we didn't already know.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

shadowlife said:


> 3- "Lost the trade war with China? Joe Biden never fought it."



What was private citizen Joe Biden supposed to do during Trump's "trade war"?


----------



## shadowlife

MaxOfMetal said:


> What was private citizen Joe Biden supposed to do during Trump's "trade war"?



China didn't exist when Biden was Vice President? 

Oh wait, I forgot- nothing bad in the word existed until Trump took over and ruined everything.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> What was private citizen Joe Biden supposed to do during Trump's "trade war"?



Imagine if you could ask Hitler which option would be better: A. Lose WW2 or B. Have not started WW2. Which do you think would have been the correct answer?

So, in a more general sense, is it better to have started a war and lost, or not to have started the war at all?



shadowlife said:


> China didn't exist when Biden was Vice President?
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot- nothing bad in the word existed until Trump took over and ruined everything.



I don't follow this one bit. Who said China didn't exist?


----------



## sleewell

tariffs are a good idea 


- herbert hoover and donald trump


do you guys hate socialism or is it fine when trump dolls out billions of tax payer money to farmers getting killed by his really really stupid tariff based trade war?

trade deficit has only increased btw, kinda the opposite of what he said would happen.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

shadowlife said:


> China didn't exist when Biden was Vice President?
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot- nothing bad in the word existed until Trump took over and ruined everything.



So what's the punchline?

"How dare Joe Biden not wage a wholly unsuccessful, self defeating trade war!"

Sure, our government let corporations sell out our jobs, but let's not pretend that Trump's trade war has fixed anything.

It's just not the zinger Trump zealots think it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/amp/

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...nald-trump-lose-trade-war-he-started-joe-bid/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-war-china-beijing-tariffs-unmitigated-disaster-2020-9?amp


----------



## Ralyks

Bogner said:


> By all means, maybe he can break double digits if given another town hall.



In the polls? Because Biden hit a double digit lead after Trump got Covid. Trump basically got the opposite of a sympathy bump.


----------



## tedtan

While that was not the debate I had hoped for, it's not far off what I expected.

And what I've seen in polls so far show that anywhere from 62-71% of respondents believe Harris won, 17-38% believe Pence won, and the remainder called it a draw.

This is important because Trump shot himself in the foot in the first debate and fell slightly in the polls. Pence needed to do something to reverse that situation and he failed to do so.

Right now, 538 is favoring Biden at an 85% chance of winning and Trump's chances, and approval ratings, continue to fall.


----------



## USMarine75

shadowlife said:


> China didn't exist when Biden was Vice President?
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot- nothing bad in the word existed until Trump took over and ruined everything.



So you’re a republican? And your upset a Democrat didn’t crack down more on businesses?

Mmkay.

Next you’ll complain why didn’t VP Biden tax the rich more?

Oh wait. Trump actually said that in their debate.

Oh the lulz from “you people”


----------



## AxRookie

I'll be glad when this is all over and Biden is in the Whitehouse, But they're going to have to fumigate it first...

I can only imagine what the Whitehouse will look like with a "breaking bad" fumigate tent over it?


----------



## BigViolin

How could anyone expect a clown that lives on credit to be anything but soundly defeated in a trade war with China. He wasn't ever qualified to be in the room. 

Cognitive dissonance is bad...mmkay?


----------



## bostjan

shadowlife said:


> This is important because Trump shot himself in the foot in the first debate and fell slightly in the polls. Pence needed to do something to reverse that situation and he failed to do so.
> 
> Right now, 538 is favoring Biden at an 85% chance of winning and Trump's chances, and approval ratings, continue to fall.



Careful, though nearly all of the polls predicted HRC beating DJT in 2016, and DJT's immediate approval rating was... not great, before he was even sworn in.

Anything could happen.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Careful, though nearly all of the polls predicted HRC beating DJT in 2016, and DJT's immediate approval rating was... not great, before he was even sworn in.
> 
> Anything could happen.



The polls showed Clinton winning, and she did win the popular vote. Trump just squeaked by in enough swing states to get the electoral college vote.

But that was Clinton with a 4 point lead and a +/- 3 point margin of error. Biden is up by 10 points, and is gaining popularity in swing states like Florida with an older electorate (Trump is loosing older voters' support).

So while it is certainly possible that Trump wins again, the circumstances are different enough that I'm a bit more comfortable predicting a Biden win this time.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> The polls showed Clinton winning, and she did win the popular vote. Trump just squeaked by in enough swing states to get the electoral college vote.
> 
> But that was Clinton with a 4 point lead and a +/- 3 point margin of error. Biden is up by 10 points, and is gaining popularity in swing states like Florida with an older electorate (Trump is loosing older voters' support).
> 
> So while it is certainly possible that Trump wins again, the circumstances are different enough that I'm a bit more comfortable predicting a Biden win this time.



I understand that.

But most predictions in 2016 took the electoral college approach and, although they had half as much certainty, and the popular vote prediction was not far off, the electoral predictions were not just wrong but way far off. 

Even in the primaries that year, no serious predictions had counted on Trump becoming the nominee.

It's worth going through the predictions, but I have a feeling that the predictions mean nothing as long as Trump is a candidate.


----------



## AxRookie

My prediction is Trump isn't done with COVID yet and as soon as he stops his big-money treatments COVID is going to come ROARING back...


----------



## zappatton2

I do think it's surreal watching old SNLs when Trump was just one of many Republican nominees, and how it was the running joke of "could you even imagine...?". Now that the world has been living that reality for the part four years, the jokes aren't nearly as hilarious. I'll be happy when November 3rd is in the rear view mirror.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> I do think it's surreal watching old SNLs when Trump was just one of many Republican nominees, and how it was the running joke of "could you even imagine...?". Now that the world has been living that reality for the part four years, the jokes aren't nearly as hilarious. I'll be happy when November 3rd is in the rear view mirror.



The Simpsons, among other less high-profile comedy cartoons, had played with the "what if Trump was president" thing years earlier.

Honestly, prior to The Apprentice, I didn't know that much about Donald Trump's political views, and never gave him a second thought as anything other than someone who was synonymous with greed and the material excesses of the late 1980's.


----------



## JSanta

zappatton2 said:


> I do think it's surreal watching old SNLs when Trump was just one of many Republican nominees, and how it was the running joke of "could you even imagine...?". Now that the world has been living that reality for the part four years, the jokes aren't nearly as hilarious. I'll be happy when November 3rd is in the rear view mirror.



I understand this perspective, but I think the thing that scares me the most are the people and mechanisms that allowed him to happen. Trump is not a fluke - almost half the electorate in 2016 voted for him. He represents how many people in this country actually feel about women, minorities, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+, etc...

Him getting removed from office is a small part in the healing that needs to happen in this country - and it's also about the continued dialogue about how this country really isn't that great, and hasn't been in a very long time, if ever (great moments, to be sure though). I think much of the world is in a very precarious position with nationalism that is explicitly anti-immigrant and inherently racist.


----------



## shadowlife

USMarine75 said:


> So you’re a republican? And your upset a Democrat didn’t crack down more on businesses?
> 
> Mmkay.
> 
> Next you’ll complain why didn’t VP Biden tax the rich more?
> 
> Oh wait. Trump actually said that in their debate.
> 
> Oh the lulz from “you people”



Do you often make assumptions about people you know nothing about based on a post on a guitar forum?

Is it conceivable to you that someone could not be a Republican and//or not like/agree with everything Trump does, but still think Trump/Pence is the better option in this election?

This "all or nothing" mentality that is so pervasive in modern culture is mind-numbing.

And if your username is accurate- Semper Fi


----------



## shadowlife

bostjan said:


> I don't follow this one bit. Who said China didn't exist?





MaxOfMetal said:


> So what's the punchline?
> 
> "How dare Joe Biden not wage a wholly unsuccessful, self defeating trade war!"
> 
> Sure, our government let corporations sell out our jobs, but let's not pretend that Trump's trade war has fixed anything.
> 
> It's just not the zinger Trump zealots think it is.



America has been "at war" (or "in competition" if you prefer) with China for decades. 

What has Joe Biden done, or at least tried to do in the last 47 years to help the American people in that war/competition?

Post links to his accomplishments in that area- maybe I'll gain some newfound respect for the man, though don't count on me changing my vote


----------



## shadowlife

tedtan said:


> Biden is up by 10 points, and is gaining popularity in swing states like Florida with an older electorate (Trump is loosing older voters' support).



I think Trump may have read you post, as he released a video this afternoon aimed directly at seniors, to reassure them that he cares and not to worry.
I couldn't find the video to link it here.


----------



## StevenC

shadowlife said:


> Is it conceivable to you that someone could not be a Republican and//or not like/agree with everything Trump does, but still think Trump/Pence is the better option in this election?


No. Unless one has a mental illness.

Which isn't a dig, we need better access to mental health care all over the world.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> The Simpsons, among other less high-profile comedy cartoons, had played with the "what if Trump was president" thing years earlier.
> 
> Honestly, prior to The Apprentice, I didn't know that much about Donald Trump's political views, and never gave him a second thought as anything other than someone who was synonymous with greed and the material excesses of the late 1980's.


I watched his bumbling business failures with bemusement as people declared him some massive genius as he came up to stardom. I remember two times hearing him say the following quote on television way the hell back when he first made the scene. Once on an Oprah appearance (I think it was for the book "The Art of the Deal") and once during a roast he attended:

"If I ever run for President, I'll run as a Republican. Those idiots will vote for anybody."

I can't believe that quote hasn't been shoved back in his face every single day of his original campaign, and I can't believe he still doesn't get called out for it by his "fellow" Republicans.

Trump though? He's a symptom, not the ultimate cause of our problems. Sure, he's a brash, loud, in-your-face symptom, like explosive diarrhea when you have the flu, but he's still just a symptom. Our scars run much, much deeper than him.


----------



## bostjan

shadowlife said:


> America has been "at war" (or "in competition" if you prefer) with China for decades.
> 
> What has Joe Biden done, or at least tried to do in the last 47 years to help the American people in that war/competition?
> 
> Post links to his accomplishments in that area- maybe I'll gain some newfound respect for the man, though don't count on me changing my vote



Biden has a middle-of-the-road policy history with China. He voted "yes" on the TRA, but "no" on the TSEA. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/joe-bidens-record-on-china-and-taiwan/

I don't think "at war" and "in competition" are anywhere near the same thing.

Personally, I'd prefer a tougher stance against China, but the way Trump is handling and strategizing, I have zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Voting for Trump because he wants to beat China, regardless of how well he knows how to do it, would be like if the Chicago Bulls hired their #1 fan as a coach. Having extreme fanaticism for achieving a goal is not a prerequisite to actually achieving it.


----------



## shadowlife

bostjan said:


> Biden has a middle-of-the-road policy history with China. He voted "yes" on the TRA, but "no" on the TSEA. https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/joe-bidens-record-on-china-and-taiwan/
> 
> I don't think "at war" and "in competition" are anywhere near the same thing.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer a tougher stance against China, but the way Trump is handling and strategizing, I have zero confidence that he knows what he's doing. Voting for Trump because he wants to beat China, regardless of how well he knows how to do it, would be like if the Chicago Bulls hired their #1 fan as a coach. Having extreme fanaticism for achieving a goal is not a prerequisite to actually achieving it.



Thanks for the post, and the link.


----------



## AxRookie

Trump is now calling Kamala Harris A "Monster" and a "Communist" after the debate which proves yet again he's an "Archie Bunker" old school racist...

If anyone had any doubts about his mental faculties before his latest rant allow him to knock you clean off the fence!


----------



## SpaceDock

IMO the problems we have with China have not been from them doing anything wrong but instead our American businesses exploiting low wages and no regulations over there to sell cheap shit back to us. We should not blame China for letting us open our businesses there. We should be blaming ourselves. Also, I will tell you that China buying up our debts and our property here in the US is our fault as well because we are greedy idiots. I will blame China for not respecting our copyrights and trademarks but I think it is hard to really blame them for that wholly when if we really cared about all that, we should just stop doing so much manufacturing over there. 

I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that right now China is planning to turn Africa into the China that we had 40 years ago. They are doing infrastructure projects there to move cheap and dirty production to Africa to exploit African labor. 

Sorry for the rant, but blame corporate America for turning China into a monster. Blame Americans for our desire for cheap products without regard for where they came from.


----------



## binz

Just an outsider view on a meta level towards the thread:
I gotta say I was very scared opening this thread, given the general vibe and demographics of this forum, and have avoided doing so for a long time.
I recently started reading up in here and frankly I am positively surprised by the tone and level of dispassion.

An outsider view on the topic:
It is really hard to understand how republicans let themselves get undermined by somebody like this for the sole purpose of winning one election.
It was hard to grasp in 2016 but the fact that the party nationwide as a whole is not protesting against their candidate now is really mind-blowing.


----------



## shadowlife

StevenC said:


> No. Unless one has a mental illness.



That's okay.
Realizing the limitations of what one's mind is capable of conceiving is the first step towards moving past those limitations.


----------



## AxRookie

binz said:


> Just an outsider view on a meta level towards the thread:
> I gotta say I was very scared opening this thread, given the general vibe and demographics of this forum, and have avoided doing so for a long time.
> I recently started reading up in here and frankly I am positively surprised by the tone and level of dispassion.
> 
> An outsider view on the topic:
> It is really hard to understand how republicans let themselves get undermined by somebody like this for the sole purpose of winning one election.
> It was hard to grasp in 2016 but the fact that the party nationwide as a whole is not protesting against their candidate now is really mind-blowing.


That's the ugly side here, The party only cares about their party and to hell with anything else! It's sickening...

The party will support Satan himself if he's a party member! That's how we got a Trump!

I imagine it must seem insane looking in from the outside but that's only because IT IS!

Power corrupts...


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> IMO the problems we have with China have not been from them doing anything wrong but instead our American businesses exploiting low wages and no regulations over there to sell cheap shit back to us. We should not blame China for letting us open our businesses there. We should be blaming ourselves. Also, I will tell you that China buying up our debts and our property here in the US is our fault as well because we are greedy idiots. I will blame China for not respecting our copyrights and trademarks but I think it is hard to really blame them for that wholly when if we really cared about all that, we should just stop doing so much manufacturing over there.
> 
> I think what a lot of people don’t realize is that right now China is planning to turn Africa into the China that we had 40 years ago. They are doing infrastructure projects there to move cheap and dirty production to Africa to exploit African labor.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but blame corporate America for turning China into a monster. Blame Americans for our desire for cheap products without regard for where they came from.



I've been waiting forever for someone to figure out how to put this into words. Well done sir.


----------



## AxRookie

I don't know if most people know this but Trump calling someone a "Communist" is an old school Archie Bunker racist way to call someone the "N" word...


----------



## Wuuthrad

sleewell said:


> can someone please explain this to me? trump is accusing the biden of packing the courts as he is rushing through a supreme court pick days before an election when everyone in the senate previously said no supreme court pics during an election year?
> 
> it seems obviously hypocritical to me.



If you follow what he says rather closely, or not since most of the time it’s plain as day, he’s accusing everyone else of the shit he’s doing!

I think it’s a built in defense mechanism/survival tactic- go on offense and attack, telling lies over and over till people believe them.


----------



## Wuuthrad

sleewell said:


> tariffs are a good idea
> 
> 
> - herbert hoover and donald trump
> 
> 
> do you guys hate socialism or is it fine when trump dolls out billions of tax payer money to farmers getting killed by his really really stupid tariff based trade war?
> 
> trade deficit has only increased btw, kinda the opposite of what he said would happen.



The irony is that some members of government use the fear of socialism as a ruse to scare people (stupid people) who aren’t able to see that various forms government socialism- corporate welfare in particular, is robbing them blind.

The government also creates a false narrative about race and low income people to scare people into division based on the class system. USA is highly segregated and divided by class and race, almost a caste system.

The use of Socialism as a scare tactic is a ridiculous strategy that harkens back to the “Red Scare” of the Cold War, and before that even. Which had validity back then, and still does of course. But we aren’t talking about Communism or Socialism as political theory, although they want you to think that and make that association. 

The only real association I can see is with a “Social Democracy” comparison with other countries, which is hardly accurate because we can’t even provide health insurance to everyone! 

In fact some of the best public projects were done by Socialist party in the US (when there was members in govt) beginning over 100 years ago.

Additionally the establishment of Parks, Forests, Interstate, Health Care, Social Security, education and enrichment of children, women’s advancement in athletics are some examples of Socialist investment by the government in infrastructure and its own people.

But everyone is complicit in Corporate Welfare, we all pay taxes to the tax dodgers that we continuously bail out, and the military industrial complex.

The fact that the majority of US citizens do not take an active part in the voting aspect of this is sad and pathetic, because they’re basically just propping the system up without a voice.

But that is absolutely by design: the two parties really don’t want everyone to wake up and or/vote as they would lose power.


----------



## Randy

binz said:


> It is really hard to understand how republicans let themselves get undermined by somebody like this for the sole purpose of winning one election.
> It was hard to grasp in 2016 but the fact that the party nationwide as a whole is not protesting against their candidate now is really mind-blowing.



Agreed. One party rule is a dangerous thing, and I think we're a much better Democracy when we have a diversity of voices and viewpoints. It's a shame the way the Republicans sold out for Trump and that their umbrella shrunk so much, because this election will likely be a total blood-letting and we're back to a Democratic echo-chamber.

It's a bit of 'the chicken or the egg', but we had things like the veto and 2/3rds majority requirement for Supreme Court and cabinet appointments to make sure there was representation of both parties in leadership. This meant that nominees and legislation had to pass a test for having broad appeal, which meant their qualifications were based on experience, competency, necessity, etc. 

When everything became 50%+1 to get whatever you want, now legislation or appointments are contingent on what the PARTY wants, which has little if anything to do with what's best for "The People". Amy Coney Barrett, in no way shape or form, represents an average person, she's a fucking weirdo. That pick would not happen at any other time in the last 240+ years.


----------



## Wuuthrad

tedtan said:


> The polls showed Clinton winning, and she did win the popular vote. Trump just squeaked by in enough swing states to get the electoral college vote.



And the rigged system continues! The Republicans have gerrymandered the entire country to stay in power. 

Makes me sick to my stomach when they talk with the “American people have spoken” crap.

They’ve only won the popular vote what once in the last 20 years?


----------



## thraxil

nightflameauto said:


> "If I ever run for President, I'll run as a Republican. Those idiots will vote for anybody."
> 
> I can't believe that quote hasn't been shoved back in his face every single day of his original campaign, and I can't believe he still doesn't get called out for it by his "fellow" Republicans.



The simple reason is that he never said it: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ald-trump-did-not-call-republican-voters-dum/


----------



## AxRookie

thraxil said:


> The simple reason is that he never said it: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ald-trump-did-not-call-republican-voters-dum/


I never heard anything about it until now?


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> I never heard anything about it until now?



What rock have you been living under.  Memes of the false quote have been shared constantly since he first made it known he was thinking of running.


----------



## narad

thraxil said:


> The simple reason is that he never said it: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ald-trump-did-not-call-republican-voters-dum/



Some people are so gullible. If Trump had ever said something like that, he would have called them losers.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> What rock have you been living under.  Memes of the false quote have been shared constantly since he first made it known he was thinking of running.


Memes are funny and good for a laugh but beyond that?

But I think it says a lot that it sounds like something he would say without thinking twice or batting an eye, He's said very similar things in the past and owned it all...

Who knows what is real anymore???

He just said he FEELS like he's not contagious and wants to hit the road and hold rallies again! and sadly that's real!?! I say let him, it's good to thin the herd from time to time...

In fact, let's add Trump saying he FEELS like he's not contagious to the list of "Feel Facts"...


----------



## nightflameauto

thraxil said:


> The simple reason is that he never said it: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ald-trump-did-not-call-republican-voters-dum/


That's not the exact quote I remember distinctly seeing on television, but I suppose I'll toss in the towel and say my mind isn't as clear as it used to be just to avoid looking like a curmudgeonly asshole.


----------



## vilk

thraxil said:


> The simple reason is that he never said it: https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ald-trump-did-not-call-republican-voters-dum/



Which calls to question, why does @nightflameauto claim that he heard Trump say it, not just once but twice? 

Trump actually says enough horrible things, you don't need to stoop the level of Republicans and make up lies. I believe that you read that he said it, but what's the point in claiming that you personally heard him say it on TV when you didn't?


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> Which calls to question, why does @nightflameauto claim that he heard Trump say it, not just once but twice?
> 
> Trump actually says enough horrible things, you don't need to stoop the level of Republicans and make up lies. I believe that you read that he said it, but what's the point in claiming that you personally heard him say it on TV when you didn't?


I think the term is Mandela effect.


----------



## nightflameauto

vilk said:


> Which calls to question, why does @nightflameauto claim that he heard Trump say it, not just once but twice?
> 
> Trump actually says enough horrible things, you don't need to stoop the level of Republicans and make up lies. I believe that you read that he said it, but what's the point in claiming that you personally heard him say it on TV when you didn't?


I honestly don't believe I'm making it up. But for the sake of the ongoing discussion, I'll say I made it up if it makes you feel better.

Again, the quote refuted there is not at all what I remember, so it's entirely possible I dreamt it or fell under the sway of the pundits.

I suppose at this point anything I add to the discussion will be insta-refuted, but I'll add this any way.

There was a repeat poll recently saying that the number of people involved in the political process that believe violence is the acceptable to achieve party goals has doubled in the past four years. And that's not along party lines, that's all parties.

And after some poking I did find one article about it. I originally overheard it being talked about in one of the wife's morning podcasts.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> what's the point in claiming that you personally heard him say it on TV when you didn't?



This was WIDELY circulated in 2015/2016 and even I thought I'd heard it before, TBH. I'm going to assume there's a different quote from him that gives a similar impression and when the 'fake' quote came up, everyone's brain filled in the gaps. It definitely didn't come from thin air.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> This was WIDELY circulated in 2015/2016 and even I thought I'd heard it before, TBH. I'm going to assume there's a different quote from him that gives a similar impression and when the 'fake' quote came up, everyone's brain filled in the gaps. It definitely didn't come from thin air.



When I first read it, I certainly believed that he had said it, as it definitely does sound like something he would say, but obviously I didn't believe that I had actually directly heard him say it. I think that some of my early childhood memories are fabricated, based on stories that my parents told me later in my childhood, but I can't think of any times that I fabricated a memory during adulthood... 

@nightflameauto Sorry for calling you out; I guess I'm just a little too cynical, and assume when I see someone lying on the internet that they were doing it maliciously. I'm not in the business of defending Donald Trump, far from it, but it rubs me the wrong way to see the "my" side spreading bullshit just as much as it upsets me to see the other side doing it. But now that you're set straight, I believe that you will not continue to tell others that you actually saw Trump on TV making that statement. Like I said, he really has actually said and done plenty of worse things. 

I mean, even if he had actually say that about Republicans, I don't think a single one of those who support him would care. As everyone says: it's a cult. It doesn't matter what he says or does anymore. Anyone still clinging to him at this point is beyond saving.


----------



## nightflameauto

No big deal. We all fuck up from time to time. FWIW, I'm sorry I brought that statement into what's otherwise been a fairly level headed conversation.


vilk said:


> I mean, even if he had actually say that about Republicans, I don't think a single one of those who support him would care. As everyone says: it's a cult. It doesn't matter what he says or does anymore. Anyone still clinging to him at this point is beyond saving.


And there's the sadness of our reality.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I think that some of my early childhood memories are fabricated, based on stories that my parents told me later in my childhood, but I can't think of any times that I fabricated a memory during adulthood...



Well, it's worth noting that the the quote (at least the way it was framed in it's first iteration) was supposed to have dated back to the 90s, back when Trump was still a liberal New Yorker and he was known to make talk show appearances touting his liberal New York bonafides. Being pro-choice, being pro-gay like in this interview https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914 and some of the quotes here https://www.womanandhome.com/life/n...rprisingly-liberal-donald-trump-quotes-56154/ 

So it's not at all far fetched that he would've made condescending cracks at Republicans then, including calling them idiots since he always slips jabs like that in when he's on a rant about something.


----------



## vilk

Randy said:


> Well, it's worth noting that the the quote (at least the way it was framed in it's first iteration) was supposed to have dated back to the 90s, back when Trump was still a liberal New Yorker and he was known to make talk show appearances touting his liberal New York bonafides. Being pro-choice, being pro-gay like in this interview https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914 and some of the quotes here https://www.womanandhome.com/life/n...rprisingly-liberal-donald-trump-quotes-56154/
> 
> So it's not at all far fetched that he would've made condescending cracks at Republicans then, including calling them idiots since he always slips jabs like that in when he's on a rant about something.


Yes, I did realize that, and that's why when I first read that he had said it, I believed it without questioning. If it weren't for that I had come across an article debunking it soon after, I'd probably still believe it (well until dudeman posted the article debunking it a page ago)


----------



## sleewell




----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Well, it's worth noting that the the quote (at least the way it was framed in it's first iteration) was supposed to have dated back to the 90s, back when Trump was still a liberal New Yorker and he was known to make talk show appearances touting his liberal New York bonafides. Being pro-choice, being pro-gay like in this interview https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-in-1999-i-am-very-pro-choice-480297539914 and some of the quotes here https://www.womanandhome.com/life/n...rprisingly-liberal-donald-trump-quotes-56154/
> 
> So it's not at all far fetched that he would've made condescending cracks at Republicans then, including calling them idiots since he always slips jabs like that in when he's on a rant about something.



And I think that it's important to attribute sources and quotes. While I can believe that Trump would say this, there's no proof. This is where we have to be better than him - back up statements with facts. 

We've gotten to a point where opinions have become (at least IMO) louder than facts. And most of the people with the loudest voices seem to be those that have little to no respect or knowledge of the facts. I had a professor tell me a long time ago that my opinion didn't count for shit until I had Dr. in front of my name, and even then, I could only speak authoritatively about my one little bubble of expertise.


----------



## USMarine75

shadowlife said:


> Do you often make assumptions about people you know nothing about based on a post on a guitar forum?
> 
> Is it conceivable to you that someone could not be a Republican and//or not like/agree with everything Trump does, but still think Trump/Pence is the better option in this election?
> 
> This "all or nothing" mentality that is so pervasive in modern culture is mind-numbing.
> 
> And if your username is accurate- Semper Fi



You attacked my commentary. But you didn't answer it.

And yes. If someone says "them gays shouldn't marry", you're allowed to assume their anti-gay until proven otherwise. We have a binary two-party system. You don't have to like it, but that's the way that it is.

I play devil's advocate all the time... and I'm prepared to answer for it. So if you're going to drop a comment and run, be prepared to answer for it.

tl;dr I don't care in the slightest what your political leaning is nor did I ask. I was merely taking a huge steamer on your POV. I still am. But I apologize for assuming your terrible opinion was due to your being a republican.


----------



## USMarine75

I'm actually looking forward to watching this... @shadowlife you need to bring the beer I'll be making the steaks. 


https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/plot-against-the-president-trump-movie

*'There are things in this movie that I don’t even feel comfortable knowing, but everyone needs to know.'*

*A new film, “The Plot Against the President,” examines the "slow-moving coup engineered by a coterie of the American establishment elite, targeting not only the president, but the whole country” when Democrats attempted to link President Trump’s campaign to Russia. *


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> In the polls? Because Biden hit a double digit lead after Trump got Covid. Trump basically got the opposite of a sympathy bump.


I'd say it's more that awful debate performance and the growing consensus obn BOTH sides of the aisle that Trump's strategy of interrupting Biden every single time he opened his mouth backfired, but yeah, Biden's lead expanded to 10.2 points in the 538 average as of this morning. That's the widest it's EVER been in this election, and about half again as wide as Clinton's lead over Trump at her PEAK. 

Trump's back is against the wall. It's no coincidence he's calling on Barr to indict Biden for whatever "Obamagate" is, because even he knows he's losing and he's getting desperate and pulling whatever levers he still has.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> I'm actually looking forward to watching this... @shadowlife you need to bring the beer I'll be making the steaks.
> 
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/plot-against-the-president-trump-movie
> 
> *'There are things in this movie that I don’t even feel comfortable knowing, but everyone needs to know.'*


Holy shit! This promises to be the best accidental comedy since The Room.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> Holy shit! This promises to be the best accidental comedy since The Room.



I can hear the Honest Trailers guy saying "In a world where Devin Nunes is the hero... wait... what?"


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I understand that.
> 
> But most predictions in 2016 took the electoral college approach and, although they had half as much certainty, and the popular vote prediction was not far off, the electoral predictions were not just wrong but way far off.
> 
> Even in the primaries that year, no serious predictions had counted on Trump becoming the nominee.
> 
> It's worth going through the predictions, but I have a feeling that the predictions mean nothing as long as Trump is a candidate.



I get where you're coming from; Trump is something of a wild card and we can't count him out yet. And I agree. But even you said let's give Trump a chance early on before realizing what a nightmare he actually is. And you're not alone - he's lost support from a lot of people that voted for him in 2016 once they got a look at the real Trump.

And if you look at the individual state polls, especially compared to 2016, you'll see that Trump is well behind Biden in many of the swing states he needs to win in order to get the electoral college vote. Here's a Business Insider article; notice the swing in support for Trump from just before the 2016 election to Biden now, just before the 2020 election in many of these states.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> I get where you're coming from; Trump is something of a wild card and we can't count him out yet. And I agree. But even you said let's give Trump a chance early on before realizing what a nightmare he actually is. And you're not alone - he's lost support from a lot of people that voted for him in 2016 once they got a look at the real Trump.
> 
> And if you look at the individual state polls, especially compared to 2016, you'll see that Trump is well behind Biden in many of the swing states he needs to win in order to get the electoral college vote. Here's a Business Insider article; notice the swing in support for Trump from just before the 2016 election to Biden now, just before the 2020 election in many of these states.



Yeah, but I never voted for Trump, I just thought that maybe we'd get lucky and he'd be better than campaign Trump. He totally started off on the wrong foot, though, and it's just gotten worse since... but a good part of that is exactly what his base wanted him to do. Not that any of that matters, though if the election is rigged.

It seems almost like everyone forgot that he was investigated for illegal shenanigans in the 2016 election, and rather than the investigative report claiming there was no evidence, it claimed that Trump impeded the investigation, destroyed evidence, and obstructed justice. And then, because his power base was so thrilled by the illegal shenanigans and illegal coverup, they defended him and he totally got away with everything. So what is he going to do this time, play fair?!

It's only a couple of weeks and we will start to find out. But no one was outraged enough to do anything about anything so far, and Trump has already crossed virtually every line. I'd say that the narrative from here in which Biden wins the electoral vote, Trump concedes the election, Trump leaves the White House peacefully, and then Biden is inaugurated - is pretty much off the table.


----------



## nightflameauto

I wish I could say I believe the Republican party as a whole will respect the results of a fair election even if they lose and help oust Trump no matter how big a tantrum he throws over it, but at this point it seems they're all complicit in his erratic and sometimes nonsensical speeches and actions. Sure, it may have started with "lock her up," which was just a slight push on the stance most of them had towards Hillary to begin with, but at this point he's straight up saying Barr needs to indict Obama and Biden and Harris just because he says so and nobody's putting a muzzle on him.

How far will they let it go? Will they suddenly grow a backbone on or after election and say "no" when Trump asks them to disregard the vote? I have my doubts.

The Republican party over the last four years has fallen lockstep in behind him. Even those attempting to slow his inevitable power grabs don't publicly speak out against him other than a very, VERY few. I mean, for god's sake, Mitt Romney is suddenly looking like the poster boy of what it means to be a real conservative. Now the word "conservative" is being subverted into . . . well, whatever Trump is at any given moment. Aside from autocratic authoritarian there's nothing else really consistent about him.

This year is such a dumpster fire, I could see it ending with him using the court to wipe the election clean. Or just having the "cooperative" state governments assign electoral college delegates based on Trumps orders rather than the vote. Either scenario ends any semblance of democracy we have left at the federal level.

I hope I'm wrong and the party turns on him as the results come in, but I don't have much faith in that possibility.


----------



## mbardu

tedtan said:


> I get where you're coming from; Trump is something of a wild card and we can't count him out yet. And I agree. But even you said let's give Trump a chance early on before realizing what a nightmare he actually is. And you're not alone - he's lost support from a lot of people that voted for him in 2016 once they got a look at the real Trump.
> 
> And if you look at the individual state polls, especially compared to 2016, you'll see that Trump is well behind Biden in many of the swing states he needs to win in order to get the electoral college vote. Here's a Business Insider article; notice the swing in support for Trump from just before the 2016 election to Biden now, just before the 2020 election in many of these states.



This Business Insider article is waaaayyyyy too optimistic for Biden.
I hope people go out and vote *massively *for an absolute blue tsunami despite voter suppression, to avoid any 2016 repeat on election night- and also leave as little ammunition to Trump as possible, since he'll _obviously _choose not to concede even if the results are obvious.


----------



## tedtan

mbardu said:


> This Business Insider article is waaaayyyyy too optimistic for Biden.
> I hope people go out and vote *massively *for an absolute blue tsunami despite voter suppression, to avoid any 2016 repeat on election night- and also leave as little ammunition to Trump as possible, since he'll _obviously _choose not to concede even if the results are obvious.



Yeah, it may be a bit rosy, but everything I'm seeing shows Biden by a wide margin.

Of course with Trump being Trump, we can expect some underhanded BS trying to keep himself in power, but it won't work IMO.


----------



## SpaceDock

You guys gotta remember this is about the time all the Comey stuff dropped on Clinton and she was 85% likely to win at that point to. I just wonder what October surprise is waiting for Biden.


----------



## shadowlife

USMarine75 said:


> You attacked my commentary. But you didn't answer it.
> 
> tl;dr I don't care in the slightest what your political leaning is nor did I ask. I was merely taking a huge steamer on your POV. I still am. But I apologize for assuming your terrible opinion was due to your being a republican.



I read your post as two questions, the first I answered, you think my opinion is terrible, so I think we're good on that one. 
You're right though I didn't answer the second in my reply to you, but did later in the thread. Simply that if Harris wanted to criticize Trump's failed trade war as a way of scoring points in a debate, she should have been prepared to tell us what Joe did for 47 years to try and help the US in its competition with China.

You are certainly correct that it is a two party system, although it gets more and more difficult for me to tell them apart, which is why I hate both equally.



USMarine75 said:


> I'm actually looking forward to watching this... @shadowlife you need to bring the beer I'll be making the steaks.
> 
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/plot-against-the-president-trump-movie



I hope Guinness is okay- the company should be having one of their best years ever due to the amount I've been buying to get me through this election season.


----------



## SpaceDock

Second debate, only Townhall style, cancelled. I am disappointed


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> Second debate, only Townhall style, cancelled. I am disappointed


Trump's too scared they will shut him off WHEN he starts ranting...


----------



## Randy

Am I the only person that gets legit anxiety from the Facebook voting commercial?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Randy said:


> Am I the only person that gets legit anxiety from the Facebook voting commercial?


Link?


----------



## Randy

It's got this kinda creepy dystopian feel and this sort of ascending noise with jumbled voices instead of actual music. I am also super super uncomfortable with the idea of registering to vote or requesting absentee ballots by an app, muchless Facebook's app. Also the idea of encouraging people to inform themselves via Facebook.



EDIT: This version has a music track but there's a 30 sec or maybe 1min edit that has no music but all the same confusing jump cutting and noise/voices making up almost all of the soundtrack to it. This one is still unsettling though.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Am I the only person that gets legit anxiety from the Facebook voting commercial?


I don't use any social media...


----------



## Randy

It's like, portraying voting as super confusing, and the old woman sitting inside afraid to leave the house to vote, then she yells at people on Facebook to vote?, then the woman runs off the job to vote, and there's all the spraying and people with masks AND faceshield, etc. It looks like the end of the world.


----------



## Randy

AxRookie said:


> I don't use any social media...



Me either, they air on TV all the time. It's a good reminder why I don't have social media. I just think it's irresponsible and feeds the same negatives social media presented in the last election. The most responsible thing they could do is encouraging people to get their information somewhere else. The idea of registering or gathering voting info from Facebook is the worst idea ever.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

No social media for me either... it's why I hang out here so much and am woefully uncool.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> No social media for me either... it's why I hang out here so much and am woefully uncool.


Saying you're uncool makes you cool! lol


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Me either, they air on TV all the time. It's a good reminder why I don't have social media. I just think it's irresponsible and feeds the same negatives social media presented in the last election. The most responsible thing they could do is encouraging people to get their information somewhere else. The idea of registering or from voting info from Facebook is the worst idea ever.


When it first started taking off I had it for a week, then I saw all these people I know and after looking at their "pages" I thought to myself "I know these people and none of them are as great as their pages make them out to be!", "All of this is so fake!", and I deleted my account the next day!


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> It's got this kinda creepy dystopian feel and this sort of ascending noise with jumbled voices instead of actual music. I am also super super uncomfortable with the idea of registering to vote or requesting absentee ballots by an app, muchless Facebook's app. Also the idea of encouraging people to inform themselves via Facebook.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: This version has a music track but there's a 30 sec or maybe 1min edit that has no music but all the same confusing jump cutting and noise/voices making up almost all of the soundtrack to it. This one is still unsettling though.




Jesus, that commercial is like if you asked someone with ADHD to describe the voting process after he:

drank a 2L bottle of Mountain Dew. 

has to pee really bad. 

did several lines of coke. 

all of the above.


----------



## AxRookie

Trump has lost his mind!!!

He said tonight that Biden is going to tear down all the buildings and build new ones with tiny windows so the people inside them can't see the light!

What in the hell is he talking about???


----------



## SpaceDock

AxRookie said:


> Trump has lost his mind!!!
> 
> He said tonight that Biden is going to tear down all the buildings and build new ones with tiny windows so the people inside them can't see the light!
> 
> What in the hell is he talking about???



I figure it’s some moronic way his peanut brain imagines energy efficient buildings, because he has the best brain and the best thoughts.


----------



## AxRookie

Trump is imploding...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

AxRookie said:


> Trump is imploding...



Noooooo! HE'S A GENIUS!!! He'S pLaYiNg 4 dImEnSiOnAl ChEsS!!!!


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## AxRookie

Dineley said:


> Noooooo! HE'S A GENIUS!!! He'S pLaYiNg 4 dImEnSiOnAl ChEsS!!!!


Maybe in a 12-dimensional universe...


----------



## broj15

I'm wondering where everyone saying "Trump's Imploding" or "Biden is gonna win by a landslide!" Is drawing these conclusions from? 
It could just be my own pessimism & me being jaded with America as a "democracy", but no matter how I slice it or whatever "unbiased" news outlets I read.... Trump's gonna win. Either by a fair, valid vote or by some fascist stunt he's gonna be our president for the next 4 years, and hopefully JUST 4 more years. 
I hate it and I'm still gonna vote, and as much as I hate it I'll still vote for Biden through the most gritted teeth ever, but I can't help but feel that it really is pointless. I just know that no matter the election results we're starring down the barrel (figuratively & probably literally) of the most violent & widespread civil unrest this country has seen in 60 years, if not ever.


----------



## AxRookie

broj15 said:


> I'm wondering where everyone saying "Trump's Imploding" or "Biden is gonna win by a landslide!" Is drawing these conclusions from?
> It could just be my own pessimism & me being jaded with America as a "democracy", but no matter how I slice it or whatever "unbiased" news outlets I read.... Trump's gonna win. Either by a fair, valid vote or by some fascist stunt he's gonna be our president for the next 4 years, and hopefully JUST 4 more years.
> I hate it and I'm still gonna vote, and as much as I hate it I'll still vote for Biden through the most gritted teeth ever, but I can't help but feel that it really is pointless. I just know that no matter the election results we're starring down the barrel (figuratively & probably literally) of the most violent & widespread civil unrest this country has seen in 60 years, if not ever.


From comments like last night that "Biden is going to tear down all the buildings and build new ones with tiny windows so the people inside them can't see the light!" and from saying stuff like he is "cured"...

Everyone I know is voting Biden AND in person!!! just to make sure AND I'm going with all of my elderly friends to make sure NO FAKE POLL WATCHES interfere with them!

After Trump tested positive for COVID-19 everyone in the surrounding neighborhoods where I live with "Trump 2020" took their signs down and now "Biden Harris" signs are popping up everywhere I look! and with very good reason!


----------



## broj15

AxRookie said:


> From comments like last night that "Biden is going to tear down all the buildings and build new ones with tiny windows so the people inside them can't see the light!"...
> 
> Everyone I know is voting Biden AND in person!!! just to make sure AND I'm going with all of my elderly friends to make sure NO FAKE POLL WATCHES interfere with them!



See, everyone I know is either voting for Biden, third party, writing in Harambee/Kanye/memelord42069, or just not voting....... But then I drive outside of the city, not even to the rural areas, but the suburbs just outside of the city and I'm immediately bombarded with Trump merch everywhere: signs, hats, shirts, stickers, etc. And then I'll take a look at right-wing Twitter and I see how many YOUNG people are on board with him and it's just really unnerving & infuriating.


----------



## AxRookie

broj15 said:


> See, everyone I know is either voting for Biden, third party, writing in Harambee/Kanye/memelord42069, or just not voting....... But then I drive outside of the city, not even to the rural areas, but the suburbs just outside of the city and I'm immediately bombarded with Trump merch everywhere: signs, hats, shirts, stickers, etc. And then I'll take a look at right-wing Twitter and I see how many YOUNG people are on board with him and it's just really unnerving & infuriating.


I live in the suburbs of Vegas... All of the "Trump merch" is disappearing everywhere I look, at least it is here...

I used to see "mega" hats here or there but now I see none...

Trump is losing even some of his hardcore supporters!


----------



## broj15

AxRookie said:


> I live in the suburbs of Vegas...



Not to detract from your point, because it is valid, but I live in the midwest, the home of the good 'ol silent "moral" majority, which I feel like is a more apt cross section of the white suburbanite demographic than what's found in the suburbs of Vegas.

Edit: Also, if you're NOT a trump supporter then I'd wager that you probably don't hang out with/know many people that ARE Trump supporters so maybe that's not a good representation of a demographic to look at either.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

broj15 said:


> See, everyone I know is either voting for Biden, third party, writing in Harambee/Kanye/memelord42069, or just not voting....... But then I drive outside of the city, not even to the rural areas, but the suburbs just outside of the city and I'm immediately bombarded with Trump merch everywhere: signs, hats, shirts, stickers, etc. And then I'll take a look at right-wing Twitter and I see how many YOUNG people are on board with him and it's just really unnerving & infuriating.



I live out in the county in the Midwest. It's Trump lawn signs and MAGA hats as far as the eye can see...but no one lives out here. So sure, I pass a bunch of that shit driving into town, but the city is far more liberal, or at least sick of Trump's bullshit, and the city has far more voters. 

When you look at Wisconsin on a map and plot out who votes for whom, the state is bright fucking red, but those two or three small blue dots (pretty much Dane and Milwaukee counties) have more people living in them than all the red combined.


----------



## broj15

MaxOfMetal said:


> I live out in the county in the Midwest. It's Trump lawn signs and MAGA hats as far as the eye can see...but no one lives out here. So sure, I pass a bunch of that shit driving into town, but the city is far more liberal, or at least sick of Trump's bullshit, and the city has far more voters.
> 
> When you look at Wisconsin on a map and plot out who votes for whom, the state is bright fucking red, but those two or three small blue dots (pretty much Dane and Milwaukee counties) have more people living in them than all the red combined.



See, it might just be where I'm at but I see this stuff as soon as I get to "the county" which is still pretty densely populated, though not as much as the city. But it could also be an outlier considering there was quite a bit of "white flight" going on back in the day so the people living there are just historically racist whether they realize it or not.
It just blows my mind when I see women or literally anyone with a woman they care about in thier life still supporting this guy. Like, okay Jethro, how would you like it if I decided to grab your wife/gf/mom/sister by the pussy? But yet I see it all the time and they just say "bUt ThE eCoNoMy BuT tHe SoCiAlIStS bUt MuH gUnZzzzzz"


----------



## AxRookie

broj15 said:


> Not to detract from your point, because it is valid, but I live in the midwest, the home of the good 'ol silent "moral" majority, which I feel like is a more apt cross section of the white suburbanite demographic than what's found in the suburbs of Vegas.
> 
> Edit: Also, if you're NOT a trump supporter then I'd wager that you probably don't hang out with/know many people that ARE Trump supporters so maybe that's not a good representation of a demographic to look at either.


One of my very good friends here is a Hardcore Trump supporter and others were so-so, the so-so's have all moved to Biden BUT I haven't talk to the hardcore friend since Trump tested positive, Wisely when we are together I make it a point NOT to talk about politics... that's why we are still friends...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

broj15 said:


> See, it might just be where I'm at but I see this stuff as soon as I get to "the county" which is still pretty densely populated, though not as much as the city. But it could also be an outlier considering there was quite a bit of "white flight" going on back in the day so the people living there are just historically racist whether they realize it or not.
> It just blows my mind when I see women or literally anyone with a woman they care about in thier life still supporting this guy. Like, okay Jethro, how would you like it if I decided to grab your wife/gf/mom/sister by the pussy? But yet I see it all the time and they just say "bUt ThE eCoNoMy BuT tHe SoCiAlIStS bUt MuH gUnZzzzzz"



It's hard to reckon with from the outside looking in, but Trump is HUGE (or "yuuuge" if you must) with educated white women.


----------



## AxRookie

AxRookie said:


> One of my very good friends here is a Hardcore Trump supporter and others were so-so, the so-so's have all moved to Biden BUT I haven't talk to the hardcore friend since Trump tested positive, Wisely when we are together I make it a point NOT to talk about politics... that's why we are still friends...


Even though he never comes right out and says it, deep down, I think my hardcore Trump Supporter friend is an old school racist, just from the way he talks about the occasional black person walking through his neighborhood... ?


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to reckon with from the outside looking in, but Trump is HUGE (or "yuuuge" if you must) with educated white women.


He seems to be losing them in droves...


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> I live out in the county in the Midwest. It's Trump lawn signs and MAGA hats as far as the eye can see...but no one lives out here. So sure, I pass a bunch of that shit driving into town, but the city is far more liberal, or at least sick of Trump's bullshit, and the city has far more voters.
> 
> When you look at Wisconsin on a map and plot out who votes for whom, the state is bright fucking red, but those two or three small blue dots (pretty much Dane and Milwaukee counties) have more people living in them than all the red combined.



I think that's almost universal anywhere in the US.
Sadly, land often has more weight and say than people in a lot of elections here. Go figure...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> He seems to be losing them in droves...



We'll see...



mbardu said:


> I think that's almost universal anywhere in the US.
> Sadly, land often has more weight and say than people in a lot of elections here. Go figure...



Yeah, it's been like that everywhere I've lived, but it got really bad in the 90's as Dems really started shedding support from blue collar workers through policy aimed at courting corporations. 

Growing up in rural Florida and New York it was a pretty even mix of red and blue, but as time went on those pockets of Democratic support dried up.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> We'll see...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's been like that everywhere I've lived, but it got really bad in the 90's as Dems really started shedding support from blue collar workers through policy aimed at courting corporations.
> 
> Growing up in rural Florida and New York it was a pretty even mix of red and blue, but as time went on those pockets of Democratic support dried up.


I think after the pandemic hit and Trump's failure to address it and as more and more people are directly affected by it those pockets of support are once again moistening...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> I think after the pandemic hit and Trump's failure to address it and as more and more people are directly affected by it those pockets of support are once again moistening...



You'd be surprised. 

A retired factory worker who saw thier jobs dry up and now lives in the boonies doesn't really give a shit to be honest. 

There are certainly blocks of would-be conservative voters who have soured on Trump, but there is some complexity to the issue for some groups who feel like they've already been screwed enough by both sides to really care, especially those (who feel) fairly insulated from stuff like financial scarcity and the pandemic.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> You'd be surprised.
> 
> A retired factory worker who saw thier jobs dry up and now lives in the boonies doesn't really give a shit to be honest.
> 
> There are certainly blocks of would-be conservative voters who have soured on Trump, but there is some complexity to the issue for some groups who feel like they've already been screwed enough by both sides to really care, especially those (who feel) fairly insulated from stuff like financial scarcity and the pandemic.


Most people only care about what directly affects them sadly, but more and more people are being directly affected by things that are happening all around them and it seems like more and more of them are starting to sit up and take notice?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Only reason I can think people are voting for Trump:

They make more than 400k and don’t want to pay higher taxes. They’re racist.

(Or both) I guess people may not have access to much info, and like the slogans and ads, more than policy and content too.

Any Trump supporters care to convince me why I should vote for him. I’m being serious. I can’t stand either candidate, but the lesser evil really is more in this case as far as I can see.

Or is it? Please let me know rationally and logically how a vote for Trump will be good for the USA and all of its citizens, without partisan insults and name calling.

Thanks in advance. I would like to learn specifically why Trump is a good choice for a second term?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Only reason I can think people are voting for Trump:
> 
> They make more than 400k and don’t want to pay higher taxes. They’re racist.
> 
> (Or both)



Don't forget single issue voters (anti-abortion, evangelicals, 2A zealots, immigration hardliners, etc.) who are happy to sink the ship for thier one pet cause.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> anti-abortion



Trump paying off abortions of mistresses and using experimental treatment for Covid made using stem cells.



MaxOfMetal said:


> evangelicals



Trump cheating on all three of his wives and mocking the religious.



MaxOfMetal said:


> 2A zealots



Trump saying he'd take the guns first, do due process second - and actually banning bump stocks (gun accessibility _increased _under Obama).



MaxOfMetal said:


> immigration hardliners



Trump being married to essentially an illegal immigrant doing chain migration for her family.



MaxOfMetal said:


> happy to sink the ship for thier one pet cause.



Nobody is getting their pet cause. Either they're dumb, or they're hypocritical (inclusive OR). Or the one pet cause is "we like racism and bigotry", but few people are willing to say that out loud.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> Trump paying off abortions of mistresses and using experimental treatment for Covid made using stem cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump cheating on all three of his wives and mocking the religious.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump saying he'd take the guns first, do due process second - and actually banning bump stocks (gun accessibility _increased _under Obama).
> 
> 
> 
> Trump being married to essentially an illegal immigrant doing chain migration for her family.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is getting their pet cause. Either they're dumb, or they're hypocritical (inclusive OR).



They don't care what he does as long as he's the vessel in which to boost thier cause. 

It is hypocritical, but they sell it as pragmatism.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> They don't care what he does as long as he's the vessel in which to boost thier cause.
> 
> It is hypocritical, but they sell it as pragmatism.



Except he's not even boosting their cause.
Mexico didn't pay for the wall, which didn't get built. It's actually Americans who are barred from leaving their country now- the irony...
2A zealots are not getting more gun rights.
I could see the argument that the right may yet get their ACB on the courts and they believe that will overturn Roe v Wade (let's see, that's if if they do manage to hide the contagious senators well enough), but even that shouldn't forgive using stem cells if in your heart you truly believe you're pro-life. And that wouldn't even be a Trump thing- any Republican would have done the same.

The only thing Trump has measurably achieved is making the rich richer and making America an international laughing stock. So my point: either dumb (not seeing that another more talented less foolish Repub may actually do more), or hypocritical (you actually just want to own the libs and see others suffer).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> Except he's not even boosting their cause.
> Mexico didn't pay for the wall, which didn't get built.
> 2A zealots are not getting more gun rights.
> I could see the argument that the right may yet get their ACB on the courts and they believe that will overturn Roe v Wade (let's see, that's if if they do manage to hide the contagious senators well enough), but even that shouldn't forgive using stem cells if in your heart you truly believe you're pro-life.
> 
> The only thing Trump has measurably achieved is making the rich richer and making America an international laughing stock. So either dumb (not seeing that another more talented less foolish Repub may actually do more), or hypocritical (you actually just want to own the libs and see others suffer).



Listen dude, you're preaching to the choir. 

But, these folks still see him as the better option than Biden as stupid as it may seem to us. 

Framing his supporters as just rich or racist, while definitely inclusive of those two, is a tactical error.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Listen dude, you're preaching to the choir.
> 
> But, these folks still see him as the better option than Biden as stupid as it may seem to us.
> 
> Framing his supporters as just rich or racist, while definitely inclusive of those two, is a tactical error.



Oh agreed for sure on the spirit, I was literally just replying on your hypocritical/pragmatism statement in particular.
The people actually falling in those categories are actually the exception rather than the rule.

I'm not framing his supporters as just rich or racist (there are some, plus some hypocrites, but those are not that many). For the majority, it's even worse and you could say even sad. I call it "dumb" but that's not 100% fair. It's mostly people indoctrinated to vote against their own best interest for the benefit of the very people who are mocking them the most and taking advantage.

I mean, Democrats are not that much better, but they're generally a little bit more aligned with the general public, are not actively supporting the end of human life on this planet, and the many who benefit from the system tend to hide it a little bit better and with more class / less crass


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> For the majority, it's even worse and you could say even sad. I call it "dumb" but that's not 100% fair. It's mostly people indoctrinated to vote against their own best interest for the benefit of the very people who are mocking them the most and taking advantage.



I believe "low information voter" is the euphemism of choice these days.


----------



## broj15

A friend of mine recently brought up an interesting point about all this that I just remembered. They posited that a good portion of trump supporters probably don't even agree with what he says most of the time or just straight up don't like him, but then they see things on the news (rights for marginalized groups, right to choose for women, abusive/shitty people being held accountable, the erosion & rejection of John Wayne & Ronald Reagan style masculinity in popular culture, etc.) And they view those things as a personal attack on them/thier own "culture" so they view thier support of trump as a way for them to punch back and "own the libs/trigger the snowflakes" despite not being down with his deplorable actions in his personal life or his total ineptitude to do the job he signed up for without creating a new shit storm with every tweet.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I really do want to hear a Trump supporters rational argument why he deserves a second term? 

I used a pretty general overreaching guess as to why, which should leave plenty of room for such an explanation shouldn’t it? 

Maybe they’re just aren’t that many rational Trump supporters on here? 

I’m also kind of wondering if it’s even possible...


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> I really do want to hear a Trump supporters rational argument why he deserves a second term?
> 
> I used a pretty general overreaching guess as to why, which should leave plenty of room for such an explanation shouldn’t it?
> 
> Maybe they’re just aren’t that many rational Trump supporters on here?
> 
> I’m also kind of wondering if it’s even possible...


With the heavy lean of this thread, I doubt they would feel safe to voice their opinion?

Their illogical, moronic, hypocritical, and just plain wrong opinion! lol JK...


----------



## USMarine75

Y’all are sleeping on 30-40% of Americans. Acting like “I’d like to hear a Trump supporter defend him now” is foolhardy. You want to hear it? Turn on Fox News. Dems see things in such a definitive way, but you don’t realize republicans are seeing things in an equal but opposite way. While you’re taking a premature victory lap (like in 2016) their bubble is talking about the “biggest scandal in US history“ - “Obamagate” - and that Hillary and Biden might/should be arrested before the election.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-trump-russia-andrew-mccarthy

And talking about population centers being blue as if that matters. Maybe Biden can win by 3M voters just like Hillary did? Although 30-40% of the country believes those 3M votes were illegal and if you subtract them Trump actually won.

Pussy-gate was the October surprise that was supposed to derail Trump and his poll numbers were down then too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...on-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html


“An ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump, 50% to 38%“
“CNN's Poll of Polls average has Clinton ahead 48% to 39%“


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> I really do want to hear a Trump supporters rational argument why he deserves a second term?
> 
> I used a pretty general overreaching guess as to why, which should leave plenty of room for such an explanation shouldn’t it?
> 
> Maybe they’re just aren’t that many rational Trump supporters on here?
> 
> I’m also kind of wondering if it’s even possible...



Really? Here allow me. Just off the top of my head...

200+ Conservative federal judges
3 Supreme Court Associate Justices
Building the Wall - doesn’t matter if it’s only 7 miles they are in a bubble and believe it’s being built
Tax cuts for working class - analysis after analysis says it’s not true, but they believe they are better off financially now than under Obama, and that Biden will repeal the Trump Tax Cuts and raise taxes on working class by a lot. 

China Tariffs - They believe Obama allowed China to own the US, but Trump is first president to push back and fix this. 

Peace in the Middle East - Israel, Bahrain, UAE (Abraham Accords)
Iran Deal - they believe Trump got US out of the bad Iran-US deal that gave billions to Iran and allowed them to still work on armaments. 

Paris Accord - They believe climate change is not that big of a deal, this was a bad deal that would cost the US more than any other country, that the only alternative the Dems want is the $3T Green New Deal, and that our climate is better under Trump and his real policies than the Dems and their scam policies. 

Military - Obama had us in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and they believe Trump brought our boys home. 

Law Enforcement - they believe Biden and Dems support anarchy, domestic terrorists (Antifa), looting/rioting, etc. Biden isn’t supported by any LE and Trump is supported by all LE everywhere. 

Rallies - they see the crowds at Trump‘S rallies and they see no one at Biden’s. They believe they are the real majority. 

COVID and Masks - they believe masks are a choice not a mandate. Or that they don’t really work. They believe COVID isn’t really as dangerous as the Dems are trying to make it out to be - that it’s another impeachment hoax by the Dems. 

Impeachment - they believe Dems tried to illegally remove Trump and got caught. 

Conservative values - they believe most Americans aren’t in favor of abortions, gay marriage, trans, etc.
Identity Politics - they believe Dems don’t really care about Blacks, trans, gays, etc and just pander to these small specific groups to get votes. 
Religion - they believe most Americans believe in Christ and that the Dems are all atheists or Radical Islamists lovers. (See War on Christmas)
Obamagate - they believe Obama, Hillary, Biden, and all the Dems tried to stage a coup and remove Trump before and after he was inaugurated. When that didn’t work they tried Impeachment. 

Conspiracies and QAnon - they believe and welcome people who believe this shit like Pizzagate
2nd Amendment - they believe Dems are coming for their guns. This and abortion are the 2 big single voter issues. 

Abortion - the other big single voter issue. They believe Dems are murderers. 

George Soros - they believe Dems get their money from this evil Jew, I mean, man. Definitely don’t also believe the Rothschilds who control the world (but shh they do). 

Democratic Cities and States - look at how California is doing. Chicago too. Is that the America you want? Because that’s what you’ll get under a Biden presidency.

Socialism - they believe Dems want to destroy American values like capitalism.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Really? Here allow me. Just off the top of my head...
> 
> 200+ Conservative federal judges
> 3 Supreme Court Associate Justices
> Building the Wall - doesn’t matter if it’s only 7 miles they are in a bubble and believe it’s being built
> Tax cuts for working class - analysis after analysis says it’s not true, but they believe they are better off financially now than under Obama, and that Biden will repeal the Trump Tax Cuts and raise taxes on working class by a lot.
> 
> China Tariffs - They believe Obama allowed China to own the US, but Trump is first president to push back and fix this.
> 
> Peace in the Middle East - Israel, Bahrain, UAE (Abraham Accords)
> Iran Deal - they believe Trump got US out of the bad Iran-US deal that gave billions to Iran and allowed them to still work on armaments.
> 
> Paris Accord - They believe climate change is not that big of a deal, this was a bad deal that would cost the US more than any other country, that the only alternative the Dems want is the $3T Green New Deal, and that our climate is better under Trump and his real policies than the Dems and their scam policies.
> 
> Military - Obama had us in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and they believe Trump brought our boys home.
> 
> Law Enforcement - they believe Biden and Dems support anarchy, domestic terrorists (Antifa), looting/rioting, etc. Biden isn’t supported by any LE and Trump is supported by all LE everywhere.
> 
> Rallies - they see the crowds at Trump‘S rallies and they see no one at Biden’s. They believe they are the real majority.
> 
> COVID and Masks - they believe masks are a choice not a mandate. Or that they don’t really work. They believe COVID isn’t really as dangerous as the Dems are trying to make it out to be - that it’s another impeachment hoax by the Dems.
> 
> Impeachment - they believe Dems tried to illegally remove Trump and got caught.
> 
> Conservative values - they believe most Americans aren’t in favor of abortions, gay marriage, trans, etc.
> Identity Politics - they believe Dems don’t really care about Blacks, trans, gays, etc and just pander to these small specific groups to get votes.
> Religion - they believe most Americans believe in Christ and that the Dems are all atheists or Radical Islamists lovers. (See War on Christmas)
> Obamagate - they believe Obama, Hillary, Biden, and all the Dems tried to stage a coup and remove Trump before and after he was inaugurated. When that didn’t work they tried Impeachment.
> 
> Conspiracies and QAnon - they believe and welcome people who believe this shit like Pizzagate
> 2nd Amendment - they believe Dems are coming for their guns. This and abortion are the 2 big single voter issues.
> 
> Abortion - the other big single voter issue. They believe Dems are murderers.
> 
> George Soros - they believe Dems get their money from this evil Jew, I mean, man. Definitely don’t also believe the Rothschilds who control the world (but shh they do).
> 
> Democratic Cities and States - look at how California is doing. Chicago too. Is that the America you want? Because that’s what you’ll get under a Biden presidency.
> 
> Socialism - they believe Dems want to destroy American values like capitalism.


Sounds like grandpa fell asleep with Fox News (a division of Fox Nonsense) on the TV again!


----------



## possumkiller

AxRookie said:


> Sounds like grandpa fell asleep with Fox News (a division of Fox Nonsense) on the TV again!


He's right though. Almost everyone here is making the mistake of assuming republicans and trump fans are equally intelligent and rational people that will play fair when nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Really? Here allow me. Just off the top of my head...
> 
> 200+ Conservative federal judges
> 3 Supreme Court Associate Justices
> Building the Wall - doesn’t matter if it’s only 7 miles they are in a bubble and believe it’s being built
> Tax cuts for working class - analysis after analysis says it’s not true, but they believe they are better off financially now than under Obama, and that Biden will repeal the Trump Tax Cuts and raise taxes on working class by a lot.
> 
> China Tariffs - They believe Obama allowed China to own the US, but Trump is first president to push back and fix this.
> 
> Peace in the Middle East - Israel, Bahrain, UAE (Abraham Accords)
> Iran Deal - they believe Trump got US out of the bad Iran-US deal that gave billions to Iran and allowed them to still work on armaments.
> 
> Paris Accord - They believe climate change is not that big of a deal, this was a bad deal that would cost the US more than any other country, that the only alternative the Dems want is the $3T Green New Deal, and that our climate is better under Trump and his real policies than the Dems and their scam policies.
> 
> Military - Obama had us in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and they believe Trump brought our boys home.
> 
> Law Enforcement - they believe Biden and Dems support anarchy, domestic terrorists (Antifa), looting/rioting, etc. Biden isn’t supported by any LE and Trump is supported by all LE everywhere.
> 
> Rallies - they see the crowds at Trump‘S rallies and they see no one at Biden’s. They believe they are the real majority.
> 
> COVID and Masks - they believe masks are a choice not a mandate. Or that they don’t really work. They believe COVID isn’t really as dangerous as the Dems are trying to make it out to be - that it’s another impeachment hoax by the Dems.
> 
> Impeachment - they believe Dems tried to illegally remove Trump and got caught.
> 
> Conservative values - they believe most Americans aren’t in favor of abortions, gay marriage, trans, etc.
> Identity Politics - they believe Dems don’t really care about Blacks, trans, gays, etc and just pander to these small specific groups to get votes.
> Religion - they believe most Americans believe in Christ and that the Dems are all atheists or Radical Islamists lovers. (See War on Christmas)
> Obamagate - they believe Obama, Hillary, Biden, and all the Dems tried to stage a coup and remove Trump before and after he was inaugurated. When that didn’t work they tried Impeachment.
> 
> Conspiracies and QAnon - they believe and welcome people who believe this shit like Pizzagate
> 2nd Amendment - they believe Dems are coming for their guns. This and abortion are the 2 big single voter issues.
> 
> Abortion - the other big single voter issue. They believe Dems are murderers.
> 
> George Soros - they believe Dems get their money from this evil Jew, I mean, man. Definitely don’t also believe the Rothschilds who control the world (but shh they do).
> 
> Democratic Cities and States - look at how California is doing. Chicago too. Is that the America you want? Because that’s what you’ll get under a Biden presidency.
> 
> Socialism - they believe Dems want to destroy American values like capitalism.



Whelp, you sold me!


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> He's right though. Almost everyone here is making the mistake of assuming republicans and trump fans are equally intelligent and rational people that will play fair when nothing could be further from the truth.


I'm under no such illusions, mostly I'm just joking around here, BUT I understand what they will try to do to hold onto power now that they've tasted it and I know Trump faces prison time when or if he loses so he's going to fight like there is no tomorrow because for him there is none...

BUT the reality is that we the people have it within our hands to defeat the bad orange man if enough of us can come together, ignore all the BS swirling around us, and use the ultimate power of VOTE!

And I for one BELIEVE WE CAN OVERCOME THE EVIL! JUST WHEN THINGS LOOK THE DARKEST THE LIGHT WILL COME SHINING THROUGH!


----------



## Randy

Biden ahead nationally 12%. I'm not trying to get cocky but ultimately, at this point, the main goal should be avoiding any self-sustained injury and keeping people from being complacent. If 100% of eligible people voted right this second, it would be a landslide.


----------



## shadowlife

USMarine75 said:


> Really? Here allow me. Just off the top of my head...
> 
> 200+ Conservative federal judges
> 3 Supreme Court Associate Justices
> Building the Wall - doesn’t matter if it’s only 7 miles they are in a bubble and believe it’s being built
> Tax cuts for working class - analysis after analysis says it’s not true, but they believe they are better off financially now than under Obama, and that Biden will repeal the Trump Tax Cuts and raise taxes on working class by a lot.
> 
> China Tariffs - They believe Obama allowed China to own the US, but Trump is first president to push back and fix this.
> 
> Peace in the Middle East - Israel, Bahrain, UAE (Abraham Accords)
> Iran Deal - they believe Trump got US out of the bad Iran-US deal that gave billions to Iran and allowed them to still work on armaments.
> 
> Paris Accord - They believe climate change is not that big of a deal, this was a bad deal that would cost the US more than any other country, that the only alternative the Dems want is the $3T Green New Deal, and that our climate is better under Trump and his real policies than the Dems and their scam policies.
> 
> Military - Obama had us in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria, and they believe Trump brought our boys home.
> 
> Law Enforcement - they believe Biden and Dems support anarchy, domestic terrorists (Antifa), looting/rioting, etc. Biden isn’t supported by any LE and Trump is supported by all LE everywhere.
> 
> Rallies - they see the crowds at Trump‘S rallies and they see no one at Biden’s. They believe they are the real majority.
> 
> COVID and Masks - they believe masks are a choice not a mandate. Or that they don’t really work. They believe COVID isn’t really as dangerous as the Dems are trying to make it out to be - that it’s another impeachment hoax by the Dems.
> 
> Impeachment - they believe Dems tried to illegally remove Trump and got caught.
> 
> Conservative values - they believe most Americans aren’t in favor of abortions, gay marriage, trans, etc.
> Identity Politics - they believe Dems don’t really care about Blacks, trans, gays, etc and just pander to these small specific groups to get votes.
> Religion - they believe most Americans believe in Christ and that the Dems are all atheists or Radical Islamists lovers. (See War on Christmas)
> Obamagate - they believe Obama, Hillary, Biden, and all the Dems tried to stage a coup and remove Trump before and after he was inaugurated. When that didn’t work they tried Impeachment.
> 
> Conspiracies and QAnon - they believe and welcome people who believe this shit like Pizzagate
> 2nd Amendment - they believe Dems are coming for their guns. This and abortion are the 2 big single voter issues.
> 
> Abortion - the other big single voter issue. They believe Dems are murderers.
> 
> George Soros - they believe Dems get their money from this evil Jew, I mean, man. Definitely don’t also believe the Rothschilds who control the world (but shh they do).
> 
> Democratic Cities and States - look at how California is doing. Chicago too. Is that the America you want? Because that’s what you’ll get under a Biden presidency.
> 
> Socialism - they believe Dems want to destroy American values like capitalism.



You left out Trump's "deal" with North Korea which saved us all from WWIII.

(sarcasm)


One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.

Show of hands- who wants to go live in North Korea for the next 4 years if Trump wins again, then come back and tell us how bad it is here in America?


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Biden ahead nationally 12%. I'm not trying to get cocky but ultimately, at this point, the main goal should be avoiding any self-sustained injury and keeping people from being complacent. If 100% of eligible people voted right this second, it would be a landslide.



Clinton was also ahead by 12% at this point.

Sigh.


----------



## sleewell

That's your selling point? Best argument ever. Turning America into just slightly better than living in north Korea in four years so give him four more? 

Wow.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> That's your selling point? Best argument ever. Turning America into just slightly better than living in north Korea in four years so give him four more?
> 
> Wow.



For real. 

"We're not as bad as North Korea!"

Not quite the rallying cry folks think it is. 

I've been actively persuing moving abroad through work for the last three years. No dice. 

The United States has become a great job with terrible management and awful benefits. Sure you're pumping mid-six figures, but everything is a shit show. 

I love living here, it's all I know. I definitely think it's worth saving and I agree that folks saying they're going to move out is cringey in the context of not winning an election...but compared to the rest of the world from work/life balance to healthcare it's just not competitive.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> For real.
> 
> "We're not as bad as North Korea!"
> 
> Not quite the rallying cry folks think it is.
> 
> I've been actively persuing moving abroad through work for the last three years. No dice.
> 
> The United States has become a great job with terrible management and awful benefits. Sure you're pumping mid-six figures, but everything is a shit show.
> 
> I love living here, it's all I know. I definitely think it's worth saving and I agree that folks saying they're going to move out is cringey in the context of not winning an election...but compared to the rest of the world from work/life balance to healthcare it's just not competitive.



Taking a job living abroad was the best decision I and the family ever made. We might have to come back to DC for a short while and we're like oh no - COVID irresponsibility, terrorism, crime, political violence... yikes.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I just want to chime in on what I see in this thread over the last page or two- I don't see that anyone is making a knee-jerk assumption that Biden will win. What I see is some optimism... not so much due to a particular news feed but because there are multiple indicators from multiple sources that it could happen. 

And on a more subconscious level, I also think that some of the optimism is coming to the surface because people realize that this may indeed be the only chance that we get to replace the constant frustration and anger with positivity. We can finally envision fuck-face actually falling from grace. It's kinda like Christmas and this is the big box behind the tree... yeah, it might be a shitload of socks and shirts but maybe... just maybe it's that mega hawt color-changing hover guitar with wushu grip. A lotta people feel closer than ever before that things might indeed shift. I do hope that NO ONE becomes complacent and that we ALL vote but right now we just desperately want to replace the despair with aspiration and in a sobering reality, we know that this could be as close as we get.


----------



## possumkiller

shadowlife said:


> You left out Trump's "deal" with North Korea which saved us all from WWIII.
> 
> (sarcasm)
> 
> 
> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.
> 
> Show of hands- who wants to go live in North Korea for the next 4 years if Trump wins again, then come back and tell us how bad it is here in America?


Moved my family to Europe. It's nice. Would 100% recommend it to people tired of the bullshit. Yeah maybe things will start to change for the better with biden. But just baby steps. It took them decades to get us to this point. My kids and I are not going to wait decades for them to unfuck everything.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Taking a job living abroad was the best decision I and the family ever made. We might have to come back to DC for a short while and we're like oh no - COVID irresponsibility, terrorism, crime, political violence... yikes.



Yeah, the wife is on board 100%, but I don't have the means without work subsidizing to a degree. I've had a couple video interviews but nothing has panned out in negotiations. 

How long have you been abroad?


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> How long have you been abroad?


There's a joke there but in this PC world we now live in I'll let it go by... lol


----------



## Ralyks

shadowlife said:


> You left out Trump's "deal" with North Korea which saved us all from WWIII.
> 
> (sarcasm)
> 
> 
> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.
> 
> Show of hands- who wants to go live in North Korea for the next 4 years if Trump wins again, then come back and tell us how bad it is here in America?



I'd have no problem going aborad. I've already said I'd like to live out my last days in Japan, and they are WAY more conservative.


----------



## USMarine75

https://nypost.com/2020/10/10/nurse-who-spoke-at-2020-rnc-busted-for-shooting-woman/


----------



## MASS DEFECT

shadowlife said:


> You left out Trump's "deal" with North Korea which saved us all from WWIII.
> 
> (sarcasm)
> 
> 
> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.
> 
> Show of hands- who wants to go live in North Korea for the next 4 years if Trump wins again, then come back and tell us how bad it is here in America?



I lived for years in a lot of countries. Europe, East Asia, SE Asia, SoKor, Canada...America aint all that. 

Like bottom 5. Most of the countries I lived in have better healthcare than yours, better STEM education for kids, better living wages etc. 

You just have the best shopping experience. You can say whatever you can say here. But if most of you are uneducated and ignorant towards the rest of the world, the freedom to say anything wont amount to much.


----------



## fantom

Wuuthrad said:


> Only reason I can think people are voting for Trump:
> 
> They make more than 400k and don’t want to pay higher taxes.



My biggest problem with Biden is his stance on 401ks. From my understanding, he wants to limit contributions towards retirement for the middle class by using tax credits. His justification is to enable the working class to contribute more, but, like all other federal tax code, it doesn't do shit with respect to cost of living. It punishes middle class people who live in more expensive regions like bay area, NYC, or Seattle.

Why do I care? Because I have no trust that the Republican party isn't going to get rid of social security and Medicare by time I retire. My 401k is the only safety net I currently have to make sure I'm not working until I die. Biden is threatening that.

What is the solution? Start taxing the shit out of people making multiple millions (via investments or salary). CEOs and companies are using tax loopholes instead of paying their employees. We don't need to raise minimum wage. We need to adjust federal taxes based on local cost of living, and we need to start heavily penalizing companies that aren't fairly distributing their profits. Let's just go back to the income inequality we had in the 60s and erase the last few decades of corporate greed. Let's not go after middle class workers that are honestly afraid they might have their houses foreclosed. Taking away retirement funding for people already terrified of a recession wiping them out is just wrong.


That being said... I'm willing to pay more to get rid of Trump. My main reasons, aside from the lies, gaslighting, and being an overall douche, are solely his lack of respect of science (see pandemic and climate change). I believe the latter issue is an existential threat that needs action taken now. I think even California is not being aggressive enough here. The pandemic mismanagement is just someone doing a horrendous job.


----------



## spudmunkey

shadowlife said:


> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.



Maybe they are smart enough to know that their options for what THEIR utopia would be are pretty limited.


----------



## AxRookie

MASS DEFECT said:


> I lived for years in a lot of countries. Europe, East Asia, SE Asia, SoKor, Canada...America aint all that.
> 
> Like bottom 5. Most of the countries I lived in have better healthcare than yours, better STEM education for kids, better living wages etc.
> 
> You just have the best shopping experience. You can say whatever you can say here. But if most of you are uneducated and ignorant towards the rest of the world, the freedom to say anything wont amount to much.


Now, what do all those other countries do? 

Do they make keychains?


----------



## budda

Raise minimum wage *and* close tax loopholes.

Neither will happen but its what should happen.


----------



## narad

shadowlife said:


> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.



I mean, we already did.


----------



## spudmunkey

shadowlife said:


> One difference I see between this election and the last is the lack of "I'm moving out of the USA if Trump wins" rhetoric.



Most countries won't let us in, anyway. We've become too much of a "shithole country".


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> Most countries won't let us in, anyway. We've become too much of a "shithole country".



This. I was trying to appeal to Canada a few pages back in this thread.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> My biggest problem with Biden is his stance on 401ks. From my understanding, he wants to limit contributions towards retirement for the middle class by using tax credits. His justification is to enable the working class to contribute more, but, like all other federal tax code, it doesn't do shit with respect to cost of living. It punishes middle class people who live in more expensive regions like bay area, NYC, or Seattle.



He (and by "he" I mean a nebulous policy he somewhat endorses) basically wants to "freeze" the current credit at 26%, basically creating a flat rate for everyone. 

This one of the better breakdowns I've seen: 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ma...ens-401k-plan-help-you-or-hurt-you-2020-09-09

Keep in mind, the folks in those "much higher brackets" like 37% are making at least $510k a year, which is far from middle class, even in some of the most expensive regions in the US. The three you list come up around $180k, which would still benefit, or at least not be negatively impacted by the plan.


----------



## broj15

fantom said:


> My biggest problem with Biden is his stance on 401ks. From my understanding, he wants to limit contributions towards retirement for the middle class by using tax credits. His justification is to enable the working class to contribute more, but, like all other federal tax code, it doesn't do shit with respect to cost of living. It punishes middle class people who live in more expensive regions like bay area, NYC, or Seattle.
> 
> Why do I care? Because I have no trust that the Republican party isn't going to get rid of social security and Medicare by time I retire. My 401k is the only safety net I currently have to make sure I'm not working until I die. Biden is threatening that.
> 
> What is the solution? Start taxing the shit out of people making multiple millions (via investments or salary). CEOs and companies are using tax loopholes instead of paying their employees. We don't need to raise minimum wage. We need to adjust federal taxes based on local cost of living, and we need to start heavily penalizing companies that aren't fairly distributing their profits. Let's just go back to the income inequality we had in the 60s and erase the last few decades of corporate greed. Let's not go after middle class workers that are honestly afraid they might have their houses foreclosed. Taking away retirement funding for people already terrified of a recession wiping them out is just wrong.
> 
> 
> That being said... I'm willing to pay more to get rid of Trump. My main reasons, aside from the lies, gaslighting, and being an overall douche, are solely his lack of respect of science (see pandemic and climate change). I believe the latter issue is an existential threat that needs action taken now. I think even California is not being aggressive enough here. The pandemic mismanagement is just someone doing a horrendous job.



Not trying to burst your bubble/rain on anyone's parade/derail the thread into a completely different topic, but depending on your age I'd be just as sceptical if your 401k/the stock market in general will mean shit next to nothing by the time we retire.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Clinton was also ahead by 12% at this point.
> 
> Sigh.



The baggage isn't even close, though. I dunno who they were polling but myself and everyone I know personally vocally hated her (keep in mind, she was my Senator, so we knew her for a long time before 2016) and at this point were planning on which 3rd party candidate we were throwing our vote away on, this time we're all adamantly, unapologetically voting Biden. 

It's an anecdote yeah, but all major indicators show Joe and HRC have very different dynamics regarding their level of support.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> The baggage isn't even close, though. I dunno who they were polling but myself and everyone I know personally vocally hated her (keep in mind, she was my Senator, so we knew her for a long time before 2016) and at this point were planning on which 3rd party candidate we were throwing our vote away on, this time we're all adamantly, unapologetically voting Biden.
> 
> It's an anecdote yeah, but all major indicators show Joe and HRC have very different dynamics regarding their level of support.



Baggage is one thing (although the right is trying to paint _Biden _as the dumb nepotist pedophile liar- proving once again that the irony is not dead/projection is a hell of a drug....) but the main difference IMO is apathy. So many people were convinced of a Clinton victory that very few people showed up to vote in contested states, and a few thousand missing votes gave Trump the EC.

This time around, there ain't going to be no apathy. As early voting is showing, people will be doing whatever they can to vote with no excuses.
The only contest however will be whether that's enough to beat the bigger-than-ever voter suppression efforts- and the "fraud" issues that have become Trump's focus (read: any incident will either be caused by Trump supporters "poll watching", or just blown way out of proportion to go to the packed GOP courts)...


----------



## AxRookie

This campaign is different than in 2016...


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/12/tech/microsoft-election-ransomware/index.html


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> The baggage isn't even close, though. I dunno who they were polling but myself and everyone I know personally vocally hated her (keep in mind, she was my Senator, so we knew her for a long time before 2016) and at this point were planning on which 3rd party candidate we were throwing our vote away on, this time we're all adamantly, unapologetically voting Biden.
> 
> It's an anecdote yeah, but all major indicators show Joe and HRC have very different dynamics regarding their level of support.



Totally agree... but read this and tell me it doesn’t feel eerie:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...on-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html

And Biden has his own “baggage” Trump will overhype and exploit. It doesn’t have to be real for 30-40% of America to be swayed. See 2016.


----------



## tedtan

broj15 said:


> I'm wondering where everyone saying "Trump's Imploding" or "Biden is gonna win by a landslide!" Is drawing these conclusions from?
> It could just be my own pessimism & me being jaded with America as a "democracy", but no matter how I slice it or whatever "unbiased" news outlets I read.... Trump's gonna win. Either by a fair, valid vote or by some fascist stunt he's gonna be our president for the next 4 years, and hopefully JUST 4 more years.
> I hate it and I'm still gonna vote, and as much as I hate it I'll still vote for Biden through the most gritted teeth ever, but I can't help but feel that it really is pointless. I just know that no matter the election results we're starring down the barrel (figuratively & probably literally) of the most violent & widespread civil unrest this country has seen in 60 years, if not ever.



Some states will always vote democrat (New York and California, to name a couple) and some will always vote republican (Alabama and Mississippi, to name a couple). Those states won't determine the outcome of the election, it's the swing states that could vote either way that will. And if we look at those swing states, Trump was polling ahead in 2016 and ended up winning, whereas Biden is polling ahead in those same states this election. Based on that fact, rather than the national polls, I'm optimistic that Trump will be on the way out of the White House come January.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/swing-states-2020-presidential-election-409000

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...decide-biden-trump-presidential-election-2020




MaxOfMetal said:


> Don't forget single issue voters (anti-abortion, evangelicals, 2A zealots, immigration hardliners, etc.) who are happy to sink the ship for thier one pet cause.



I was watching a talk show yesterday and after it ended, a televangelist "TV church" came on. Before I could get to the remote, the televangelist started talking about ending the madness and voting in someone who actually cares about American values. He didn't come out and endorse Biden, but it was obvious he was trying to move voters away from Trump.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Totally agree... but read this and tell me it doesn’t feel eerie:
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...on-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html
> 
> And Biden has his own “baggage” Trump will overhype and exploit. It doesn’t have to be real for 30-40% of America to be swayed. See 2016.



I'd have to see 2020 version of Comey investigation announcement for the parallel to be complete and considering that was an 'Obama alum on Obama alum' hitjob and we're coming out of a Republican admin, Barr or Durham doing the same wouldn't have the same weight


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/12/tech/microsoft-election-ransomware/index.html


Who in their right mind is going to click a link with "ransomware" in it??? lol

The right has thrown all kinds of "baggage" at Biden but none of it has really stuck yet...


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> I'd have to see 2020 version of Comey investigation announcement for the parallel to be complete and considering that was an 'Obama alum on Obama alum' hitjob and we're coming out of a Republican admin, Barr or Durham doing the same wouldn't have the same weight



I still think if Barr announces Obamagate Hearings into Biden like Trump wants that will reach the level of Servergate.


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> I still think if Barr announces Obamagate Hearings into Biden like Trump wants that will reach the level of Servergate.



An impartial and upstanding individual like Barr? Do such a thing? 
I would be shocked! SHOCKED!

Literally counting the days until this drops considering how corrupt the right's leadership truly is.


----------



## fantom

And it begins... GOP is putting unofficial ballot drop boxes out in the wild. Do we really think they are trying to encourage more votes? Much higher chance these are votes getting tossed in the garbage.

https://www.newsweek.com/california-gop-fake-official-ballot-boxes-1538221


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Some states will always vote democrat (New York and California, to name a couple) and some will always vote republican (Alabama and Mississippi, to name a couple). Those states won't determine the outcome of the election, it's the swing states that could vote either way that will. And if we look at those swing states, Trump was polling ahead in 2016 and ended up winning, whereas Biden is polling ahead in those same states this election. Based on that fact, rather than the national polls, I'm optimistic that Trump will be on the way out of the White House come January.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/08/swing-states-2020-presidential-election-409000
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/the...decide-biden-trump-presidential-election-2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching a talk show yesterday and after it ended, a televangelist "TV church" came on. Before I could get to the remote, the televangelist started talking about ending the madness and voting in someone who actually cares about American values. He didn't come out and endorse Biden, but it was obvious he was trying to move voters away from Trump.



Except, in 2016, HRC was projected, in many polls, to win in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and even North Carolina, swing states which would have given her a tremendous electoral lead, had she won them all. However, as we now know, Trump won in every single one of those states I had mentioned. Many of the predictions are still archived at 270towin, for example: https://www.270towin.com/maps/rothenberg-gonzales-political-report-ratings and those were based on several individual state polls that are usually listed in the sources.

Trump is probably going to drop a bombshell at some point this month, close enough to November and outlandish enough that no one will be able to fact check it fast enough, in a last-ditch effort to get people to stay home. Biden's campaign might do similar, who knows.

For someone like me, who is staunchly anti-Democrat and also anti-Republican in his personal political beliefs, Trump is extremely unlikeable, even moreso after the past 4 years, and Biden is just sort of meh, but way less unlikeable than HR Clinton. People like me are probably going to vote Biden just to try to avoid a situation where Trump feels mandated by the US population to do whatever he wants.

But, keep in mind that there are a substantial number of voters, maybe 5-10% of people who normally vote, who will vote for whomever is incumbent, which is Trump, and there is a base, say 33% or so of people who normally vote, who would vote for Trump even if he ate their first born baby in front of them. People like me make up less than 5% of the popular vote. But the biggest up-for-grabs demographic is people who don't normally vote, which is a majority of Americans.

Obama won, partly because people who don't normally vote got out and voted. But, before that, Bush won re-election, because people who normally vote for the incumbent voted for him and the people who don't normally vote thought John Kerry was kind of meh. So, here we are with Biden, who is meh, like Kerry, and Trump, who is like Bush, and a bunch of predictions telling people not to worry, because Trump will lose, just like 2016.... it's all of the elements that have failed for the Democratic party in elections past, all wrapped up in one giant shit sandwich.


----------



## AxRookie

All of Trump's so-called bombshells fizzle out because they're just nonsense...

He's got nothing but BS to throw at them and it ain't going to work this time, everyone just shrugs it off because that's all he's been dishing out for four years...


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> He (and by "he" I mean a nebulous policy he somewhat endorses) basically wants to "freeze" the current credit at 26%, basically creating a flat rate for everyone.
> 
> This one of the better breakdowns I've seen:
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ma...ens-401k-plan-help-you-or-hurt-you-2020-09-09
> 
> Keep in mind, the folks in those "much higher brackets" like 37% are making at least $510k a year, which is far from middle class, even in some of the most expensive regions in the US. The three you list come up around $180k, which would still benefit, or at least not be negatively impacted by the plan.



Thanks for the link. The big part in my post was regarding cost of living needs to be factored in when making federal tax decisions. While I agree that making 6 figures is upper class anywhere else in the country, in dense metros like bay area, Seattle, NYC, etc, 6 figures is likely middle class lifestyle at best. The result is people saving up for a decade, then fleeing to cheaper parts of the country. In that decade, they don't feel like they are wealthy. They worry about losing a job and going bankrupt on top of stress from work.

One of the links I saw a janitor on the subway has north of $200k salary (not including bonus). So ya, the definition of middle class in dense regions really isn't the same.

https://www.businessinsider.com/households-need-to-earn-300000-a-year-middle-class-lifestyle-2019-4

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...an-to-be-middle-class-in-the-Bay-13011118.php

So ya, "upper class" people who can't afford more than leases or mortgages north of $6k for 1000 sqft and no yard are treated by federal tax code worse than people in Georgia with a 4k sqft house on 2 acres.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Thanks for the link. The big part in my post was regarding cost of living needs to be factored in when making federal tax decisions. While I agree that making 6 figures is upper class anywhere else in the country, in dense metros like bay area, Seattle, NYC, etc, 6 figures is likely middle class lifestyle at best. The result is people saving up for a decade, then fleeing to cheaper parts of the country. In that decade, they don't feel like they are wealthy. They worry about losing a job and going bankrupt on top of stress from work.
> 
> One of the links I saw a janitor on the subway has north of $200k salary (not including bonus). So ya, the definition of middle class in dense regions really isn't the same.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/households-need-to-earn-300000-a-year-middle-class-lifestyle-2019-4
> 
> https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...an-to-be-middle-class-in-the-Bay-13011118.php
> 
> So ya, "upper class" people who can't afford more than leases or mortgages north of $6k for 1000 sqft and no yard are treated by federal tax code worse than people in Georgia with a 4k sqft house on 2 acres.



Check the tax brackets as they stand, your first example actually supports the "Biden plan" as they fall within the 24% bracket, which would be met with a greater 26% credit, or roughly a 2% surplus.

I can't access the second article, I don't subscribe to SFC.

Only about 2% of households pay over 28%.

I support the type of adjustment you're talking about, I just think that kind of local adjustment is better suited to the state.

My main point of contention is that the "Biden plan" would help a significant amount of people, almost all of them, outside of the super rich or some very specific cases which would, if you crunch the numbers, not likely have an earth shattering impact (~3% at most on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars of income over one's working life).


----------



## mbardu

fantom said:


> And it begins... GOP is putting unofficial ballot drop boxes out in the wild. Do we really think they are trying to encourage more votes? Much higher chance these are votes getting tossed in the garbage.
> 
> https://www.newsweek.com/california-gop-fake-official-ballot-boxes-1538221



This is the perfect plan.

Harvest ballots en-masse in GOP strongholds, then go dump then in a ditch, then show that as:

an example of issues with election safety
evidence that it's the poor GOP voters who are unfairly targeted
Boom, supreme court win for Trump.

Nevermind that it's the GOP who made up the whole _super-illegal_ scheme, since rules don't apply to them...


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> For real.
> 
> "We're not as bad as North Korea!"
> 
> Not quite the rallying cry folks think it is.
> 
> I've been actively persuing moving abroad through work for the last three years. No dice.
> 
> The United States has become a great job with terrible management and awful benefits. Sure you're pumping mid-six figures, but everything is a shit show.
> 
> I love living here, it's all I know. I definitely think it's worth saving and I agree that folks saying they're going to move out is cringey in the context of not winning an election...but compared to the rest of the world from work/life balance to healthcare it's just not competitive.


I will call Guinness and Harp in the morning for you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> I will call Guinness and Harp in the morning for you.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 85921


HELL YES! the Electoral College was instituted back when people wrote with feathers and there were only a few thousand people around each state! time to DUMP IT!


----------



## spudmunkey

When was the last time a republican would have actually won the presidency (not just a 2nd term) with a popular vote win?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> When was the last time a republican would have actually won the presidency (not just a 2nd term) with a popular vote win?



Bush 1 back in 88'. They haven't won the popular vote non-incumbent since.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Except, in 2016, HRC was projected, in many polls, to win in Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania, and even North Carolina, swing states which would have given her a tremendous electoral lead, had she won them all. However, as we now know, Trump won in every single one of those states I had mentioned. Many of the predictions are still archived at 270towin, for example: https://www.270towin.com/maps/rothenberg-gonzales-political-report-ratings and those were based on several individual state polls that are usually listed in the sources.
> 
> Trump is probably going to drop a bombshell at some point this month, close enough to November and outlandish enough that no one will be able to fact check it fast enough, in a last-ditch effort to get people to stay home. Biden's campaign might do similar, who knows.
> 
> For someone like me, who is staunchly anti-Democrat and also anti-Republican in his personal political beliefs, Trump is extremely unlikeable, even moreso after the past 4 years, and Biden is just sort of meh, but way less unlikeable than HR Clinton. People like me are probably going to vote Biden just to try to avoid a situation where Trump feels mandated by the US population to do whatever he wants.
> 
> But, keep in mind that there are a substantial number of voters, maybe 5-10% of people who normally vote, who will vote for whomever is incumbent, which is Trump, and there is a base, say 33% or so of people who normally vote, who would vote for Trump even if he ate their first born baby in front of them. People like me make up less than 5% of the popular vote. But the biggest up-for-grabs demographic is people who don't normally vote, which is a majority of Americans.
> 
> Obama won, partly because people who don't normally vote got out and voted. But, before that, Bush won re-election, because people who normally vote for the incumbent voted for him and the people who don't normally vote thought John Kerry was kind of meh. So, here we are with Biden, who is meh, like Kerry, and Trump, who is like Bush, and a bunch of predictions telling people not to worry, because Trump will lose, just like 2016.... it's all of the elements that have failed for the Democratic party in elections past, all wrapped up in one giant shit sandwich.



There were a few misses, but for the most part the actual results tracked the polls fairly closely. From Fortune:


----------



## sleewell

wow lots of those state polls were waaaaay off.

i'm sorry but biden is not going to win FL or OH or NC or GA or IA or TX. i think he has a good shot to take WI, MI, and PA.


----------



## mbardu

sleewell said:


> wow lots of those state polls were waaaaay off.
> 
> i'm sorry but biden is not going to win FL or OH or NC or GA or IA or TX. i think he has a good shot to take WI, MI, and PA.



Indeed. And even if Biden were to actually win some of those FL/OH/NC, you can be 100% sure that Trump would still _win _them the ole 'Bush v Gore' way in the end thanks to ACB. They aren't bum rushing the SC for nothing.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Biden ahead nationally 12%. I'm not trying to get cocky but ultimately, at this point, the main goal should be avoiding any self-sustained injury and keeping people from being complacent. If 100% of eligible people voted right this second, it would be a landslide.





USMarine75 said:


> Clinton was also ahead by 12% at this point.
> 
> Sigh.


Biden has run ads saying this, pointing to a 2016 and 2020 NBC poll, and using this as the basis to ask for donations. Two things to keep in mind, though.

One, what he glosses over, is that +12 poll was an outlier in 2016, and is pretty close to the median in 2020. If you look at polling aggregator averages, which try to control for outliers by systematically calculating a weighted average incorporating all reputable polling data, Clinton's lead never really got past about 7.5-8 percentage points in 2016. At present, 538 has Biden at +10.6, and RCP has Biden at +10.0. Biden's lead is, at present, meaningfully larger than Clinton's _ever_ was.

Two. Biden's lead has been both large, _and_ consistent. I don't think Trump ever led Clinton in the polls, but he tightened the race up to within a fraction of a point on a couple occasions in 2016. Polling was a lot more in flux, there were a lot more undecideds, and because the race was never really nailed down, he had a much more friendly envioronment when the Comey letter dropped, which allowed him to bring it into maybe a 2-3 point race. In 2020, ignoring the early days before the DNC primay was settled (and even then Biden still held onto 3-4 point leads in head to head matchups), Biden has never led Trump by _less_ than 5.5 points per RCP and 5.2 per 538. His margin has steadily and smoothly increased over time, but overall there has been VERY little volatility in the lead he's enjoyed over Trump.

None of this means that something couldn't happen in the next three weeks to tighten up the race, of course... but it would be a LOT more surprising in 2020 than it was in 2016. The race has been very stable, there are very few undecides, and there are no third party potential spoilers of note to draw liberal support (Jo Johnson or whatever her name is on the Libertarian ticket is far more likely to draw away conservative voters). All of these are reasons to expect Biden's lead to remain fairly strong. Honestly, Trump probably COULD have Barr announce an investigation into whatever "Obamagate" is and indict Biden as part of that, and Biden'd still win.



MASS DEFECT said:


> I lived for years in a lot of countries. Europe, East Asia, SE Asia, SoKor, Canada...America aint all that.
> 
> Like bottom 5. Most of the countries I lived in have better healthcare than yours, better STEM education for kids, better living wages etc.
> 
> You just have the best shopping experience. You can say whatever you can say here. But if most of you are uneducated and ignorant towards the rest of the world, the freedom to say anything wont amount to much.


Though, I think you're overlooking how much the "American experience" can vary, not only from state to state, but within states. Here in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, healthcare is excellent, education is excellent, prevalence of advanced degrees is quite high, etc etc etc. It would be a lie to say that was true of the whole state (I grew up in a poor, fairly uneducated working class area where my school being fairly decent was a fluke and had everything to do with a couple great teachers who had just ended up in the area), and even that is probably better off by a longshot than some of the more rural Bible Belt areas. 

This is before we even factor in how socioeconomic background can impact your experience. Now, it'd absolutely be fair to point to regional and socioeconomic differences as a flaw in the American experiment, and the former at least has a lot to do with the relatively decentralized nature of municipal government in this country, but you'd have to spend a lot of time in quite a few different regions of the country before you could really weigh in on America as a whole. And for all San Fran has done as a center of wealth generation, it's hardly the most functional city (or state) in this country.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> wow lots of those state polls were waaaaay off.
> 
> i'm sorry but biden is not going to win FL or OH or NC or GA or IA or TX. i think he has a good shot to take WI, MI, and PA.


 We'll see... :^)


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> Though, I think you're overlooking how much the "American experience" can vary, not only from state to state, but within states. Here in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, healthcare is excellent, education is excellent, prevalence of advanced degrees is quite high, etc etc etc. It would be a lie to say that was true of the whole state (I grew up in a poor, fairly uneducated working class area where my school being fairly decent was a fluke and had everything to do with a couple great teachers who had just ended up in the area), and even that is probably better off by a longshot than some of the more rural Bible Belt areas.



“Overlooking?” hmmm...


----------



## AxRookie

How much of the Black vote does Trump have? ZERO! lol


----------



## Wuuthrad

sleewell said:


> wow lots of those state polls were waaaaay off.
> 
> i'm sorry but biden is not going to win FL or OH or NC or GA or IA or TX. i think he has a good shot to take WI, MI, and PA.



Not so sure about WI, the State is besieged by Covid now, setting records, and a new emergency hospital is being set up.

All over the country, many working class people who voted against HRC, whom also voted for Obama, are seeing through Trumps fear mongering and false messages.

But will it be enough to defeat the scam being perpetrated?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Not so sure about WI, the State is besieged by Covid now, setting records, and a new emergency hospital is being set up.
> 
> All over the country, many working class people who voted against HRC, whom also voted for Obama, are seeing through Trumps fear mongering and false messages.
> 
> But will it be enough to defeat the scam being perpetrated?



Wisconsin resident here, as blue as Milwaukee and Dane counties are, most of the state is full of covid deniers of all stripes. 

This place really sucks sometimes.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Wisconsin resident here, as blue as Milwaukee and Dane counties are, most of the state is full of covid deniers of all stripes.
> 
> This place really sucks sometimes.


Sorry to hear that, It must really be infuriating at times...


----------



## spudmunkey

My family is in Wisconsin. August 31st there were 266 cases, and October 9th there were 3100+ new cases. But even still, I can understand why they are so nonchalant about it, even though "cases are sky-rocketing". Even at their very worst, their highest day ever, there was only 27 deaths state-wide, with the since-the-beginning average being about 8 or 9. The graphs look terrifying, but the actual quantities are low. Make no mistake, I'm not DEFENDING their inaction and laissez faire attitude, but at least I understand it. From their perspective, "those wussies" in California/NY, etc are freaking out about nothing. They haven't seen it's actual effects. I'm in California, and live near some of it's largest cities. I know two people who had it, and two people who lost someone close. I've had to be tested 6 times after contract tracing said I came in contact with people who tested positive. Even now, 7 months on, I only go to the grocery store once every two weeks and haven't hung out with my best friend since march...and my family is having huge anniversary parties, weddings, large group hangouts, going to bars the moment they open, etc etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> My family is in Wisconsin. August 31st there were 266 cases, and October 9th there were 3100+ new cases. But even still, I can understand why they are so nonchalant about it, even though "cases are sky-rocketing". Even at their very worst, their highest day ever, there was only 27 deaths state-wide, with the since-the-beginning average being about 8 or 9. The graphs look terrifying, but the actual quantities are low. Make no mistake, I'm not DEFENDING their inaction and laissez faire attitude, but at least I understand it. From their perspective, "those wussies" in California/NY, etc are freaking out about nothing. They haven't seen it's actual effects. I'm in California, and live near some of it's largest cities. I know two people who had it, and two people who lost someone close. I've had to be tested 6 times after contract tracing said I came in contact with people who tested positive. Even now, 7 months on, I only go to the grocery store once every two weeks and haven't hung out with my best friend since march...and my family is having huge anniversary parties, weddings, large group hangouts, going to bars the moment they open, etc etc.



I wouldn't trust our numbers at face value. Our testing has been terrible and our primary hospital networks (Ascension and Aurora) were leaning heavily into the "don't come if you think you're sick" thing. Only in the last month or so has testing become readily available, which is why the numbers show a spike, but in actuality were just testing more. I wouldn't be surprised if our death toll is significantly higher but with too few tests for the living we weren't testing the dead.


----------



## Wuuthrad

What is it about empathy and responsibility that is so difficult?

I saw an interview on PBS with a man from northern WI- he said in summary:

“it’s cool if you want to be safe but you can’t tell people what do, because freedom.”

Who knew right wingers were closet Anarchists?

Lol... seriously there’s a lot of dumb people out there! Maybe that’s what Trump is trying to do- “thin the herd?”


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> What is it about empathy and responsibility that is so difficult?
> 
> I saw an interview on PBS with a man from northern WI- he said in summary:
> 
> “it’s cool if you want to be safe but you can’t tell people what do, because freedom.”
> 
> Who knew right wingers were closet Anarchists?
> 
> Lol... seriously there’s a lot of dumb people out there! Maybe that’s what Trump is trying to do- “thin the herd?”



It's not even a Democrat vs. Republican thing out here. It's weird.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Wuuthrad said:


> What is it about empathy and responsibility that is so difficult?
> 
> I saw an interview on PBS with a man from northern WI- he said in summary:
> 
> “it’s cool if you want to be safe but you can’t tell people what do, because freedom.”
> 
> Who knew right wingers were closet Anarchists?
> 
> Lol... seriously there’s a lot of dumb people out there! Maybe that’s what Trump is trying to do- “thin the herd?”



i mean it's not really that dumb if you believe in (kinda) freedom (for white males) above everything.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not even a Democrat vs. Republican thing out here. It's weird.



Rural communities, in general. I live in NY but upstate and yeah, there's a lot of denial. I have close friends that are Democrats and believe in the virus but still go out drinking 5 nights a week with mixed groups of people.

The problem you encounter is that that in rural communities, people associate with eachother in smaller groups and don't leave those groups as often, so you've basically got hundreds of bubbles that are more or less family and close friends, and occasionally crossing a couple of people into the bubble and back out again. So since COVID transmission isn't a definite even in a known positive case, the chances of it being transmitted in the handful of times you are ACTUALLY within 6 feet of someone that has it and they're aspirating, is low but still possible. 

In rural communities, that translates into months and months and months of irresponsible behavior, no illness and maybe occasionally a peripheral infection that's contained and/or minor. Which would be great if it stopped there but the whole point is that COVID spread isn't a matter of "if", it's "when", so the rural communities will be where the virus slow burns in the off-season and then circulates back to the metros to explode again. Places like Wisconsin and upstate New York are basically incubators, but the 'us vs them' anti-city mentality and the 'it hasn't personally effected me' mentality ensure it keeps cycling, maybe for years, maybe for decades idk.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Rural communities, in general. I live in NY but upstate and yeah, there's a lot of denial. I have close friends that are Democrats and believe in the virus but still go out drinking 5 nights a week with mixed groups of people.
> 
> The problem you encounter is that that in rural communities, people associate with eachother in smaller groups and don't leave those groups as often, so you've basically got hundreds of bubbles that are more or less family and close friends, and occasionally crossing a couple of people into the bubble and back out again. So since COVID transmission isn't a definite even in a known positive case, the chances of it being transmitted in the handful of times you are ACTUALLY within 6 feet of someone that has it and they're aspirating, is low but still possible.
> 
> In rural communities, that translates into months and months and months of irresponsible behavior, no illness and maybe occasionally a peripheral infection that's contained and/or minor. Which would be great if it stopped there but the whole point is that COVID spread isn't a matter of "if", it's "when", so the rural communities will be where the virus slow burns in the off-season and then circulates back to the metros to explode again. Places like Wisconsin and upstate New York are basically incubators, but the 'us vs them' anti-city mentality and the 'it hasn't personally effected me' mentality ensure it keeps cycling, maybe for years, maybe for decades idk.



I agree with everything you said. 

But, it's not just out here, even the major cities, Milwaukee and Madison (pop. 600k and 260k respectively), have never really taken any of this seriously. Sure, our governor fell in line with others and had a soft lockdown and mask mandate, but there was zero meaningful enforcement.


----------



## Randy

I'd still put that under the small city, extended rural communities banner.

Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Albany areas all rife with anti-mask sentiment. Without a subway system, large indoor-outdoor markets, churches/synagogues/temples, or dynamics where people travel in and out of the state (or country) regularly, where the virus crosses from one family unit to several others in a single juncture, the rate of transmission is low. I don't think any areas in NYS outside of the city and New Rochelle tested at a rate above 1.5% even on their worst days (so far).

Same goes for Florida. Miami was a petri dish, then everything outside of that kinda tapered off the further you got outside the major cities. Gotta have that combination of major metros and hubs for travel.

I still do minimal public stuff and absolutely zero eating indoors, etc. I don't think I'm going to get the virus in most cases even if I took zero precautions and even if I did get it, I don't think I'd die. But being cavalier about it is exactly how it keeps passing from one person to the next, and I'd just as soon change my habits because it will inevitably be my turn for the virus to pass "around" me, and I'd rather not have to "hope" I was lucky enough to dodge it.


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> What is it about empathy and responsibility that is so difficult?
> 
> I saw an interview on PBS with a man from northern WI- he said in summary:
> 
> “it’s cool if you want to be safe but you can’t tell people what do, because freedom.”
> 
> Who knew right wingers were closet Anarchists?
> 
> Lol... seriously there’s a lot of dumb people out there! Maybe that’s what Trump is trying to do- “thin the herd?”


I can hardly believe how many "don't step on my freedoms" and "your messing with my faith" morons are out there?!? Masks work and stop gathering in crowds until this is under control! until then feel free to hit yourself on the head with a hammer all you like and sing to your sky daddy at the top of your lungs in YOUR HOME but wear a dam mask or stay the hell away from me or the people I care about!!! If you can't handle that then you should be locked up until this is all over!

Sorry, but it makes me angry because people all over the USA are making this SO MUCH WORSE because they are being selfish and ignorant when it's so easy to do the right thing!!! there's practically ZERO EFFORT TO IT!


----------



## nightflameauto

I don't have much hope that Biden's going to win. I voted for him because getting a meh-burger will feel like we're eating steak and lobster after the shit-sammiches we've been shoveling down for the past four years, but there's so many signs the Republicans aren't going to let this play out the way it would if we had a level playing field. From the fake ballot collection boxes to Trump and the Republicans literally coming out and saying they need the majority on the Supreme Court to decide the "contested" election results for an election that hasn't yet taken place, it's all feeling very, very sickening.

I feel like I'm watching the death of even the pretense of democracy in my country, and it's just one of the most depressing things I've ever witnessed.

You would think, at some point, someone in the Republican party would start thinking about the fact that their only reasonable choice to stay in power is to throw out valid votes or prevent people from voting to start with. Maybe you've lost the god damned thread if that's the case? I can't believe they still have any support with the way they've been behaving. The entire party is culpable for Donald Trump at this point as they literally fall in line with every stupid, moronic thing he says or does. I can't imagine being so head-in-the-sand as to think supporting the Republicans at any level would be good for the country or us as individuals.

Unless you're a multi-zillionare.

I'm just at a complete loss.


----------



## JSanta

nightflameauto said:


> I don't have much hope that Biden's going to win. I voted for him because getting a meh-burger will feel like we're eating steak and lobster after the shit-sammiches we've been shoveling down for the past four years, but there's so many signs the Republicans aren't going to let this play out the way it would if we had a level playing field. From the fake ballot collection boxes to Trump and the Republicans literally coming out and saying they need the majority on the Supreme Court to decide the "contested" election results for an election that hasn't yet taken place, it's all feeling very, very sickening.
> 
> I feel like I'm watching the death of even the pretense of democracy in my country, and it's just one of the most depressing things I've ever witnessed.
> 
> You would think, at some point, someone in the Republican party would start thinking about the fact that their only reasonable choice to stay in power is to throw out valid votes or prevent people from voting to start with. Maybe you've lost the god damned thread if that's the case? I can't believe they still have any support with the way they've been behaving. The entire party is culpable for Donald Trump at this point as they literally fall in line with every stupid, moronic thing he says or does. I can't imagine being so head-in-the-sand as to think supporting the Republicans at any level would be good for the country or us as individuals.
> 
> Unless you're a multi-zillionare.
> 
> I'm just at a complete loss.



I mean, the GOP is already setting up fake ballot drop boxes. The party creating voter fraud/voting issues has already started in plain site. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/us/politics/california-gop-drop-boxes.html

There's still a lot of support for Trump. Lots of people genuinely like him - because they are like him. Trump coming to power is not a fluke, he is a representation of a lot of this country.


----------



## Rosal76

Wuuthrad said:


> What is it about empathy and responsibility that is so difficult?



I can't speak for everyone but I can speak with certainty for 2 of my friends (husband and wife) who are die hard Trump supporters as to why they don't take the Coronavirus as serious as they should. For as long as I've know them (since 1995), they were never, ever healthy people and never took any kind of health precautions seriously. The husband is a functioning alcoholic/drug addict and is literally killing himself with excessive alcohol/cigarettes/weed and probably pain killers. I am not surprised one single bit that they don't take the Coronavirus seriously because they don't believe in health precautions/doctors/science/Fauci/etc, etc, etc, in the first place. Their philosophy when it comes to health is, "I feel fine, therefore I'm healthy". I'm thinking, "yeah, I bet the numbers on your medical exam/blood work/drug screening test would say something a whole lot different". Thing is, no one would ever get to see any kind of medical exam numbers from them because they don't have any because they don't believe in going to doctors to be checked out because, "they feel fine".

Like Max said in his post, "It's not even a Democrat vs. Republican thing out here. It's weird". His quote definitely applies to my 2 friends.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> “Overlooking?” hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 85940



Go back and find where in that post I said Boston wasn't racist.  We don't have people going around lynching people in effigy, exactly, but in some ways the fact we've had to confront systematic racism far left than the south has left it more entrenched, zero argument. 

However, everything I said about quality of education, prevalence of advanced degrees, and quality of healthcare is true, and considering these were the things that Mass Defect was talking about, and not racism, I'm not really sure what your point is here.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> I don't have much hope that Biden's going to win.


Then prepare to be surprised! lol


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Go back and find where in that post I said Boston wasn't racist.  We don't have people going around lynching people in effigy, exactly, but in some ways the fact we've had to confront systematic racism far left than the south has left it more entrenched, zero argument.
> 
> However, everything I said about quality of education, prevalence of advanced degrees, and quality of healthcare is true, and considering these were the things that Mass Defect was talking about, and not racism, I'm not really sure what your point is here.


If r/nba has taught me anything it's the Boston is the most racist place


----------



## AxRookie

StevenC said:


> If r/nba has taught me anything it's the Boston is the most racist place


I hate to be the bearer of bad news but everywhere you go here is a racist place, that's why there is "Black Lifes Matter"...


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Go back and find where in that post I said Boston wasn't racist.  We don't have people going around lynching people in effigy, exactly, but in some ways the fact we've had to confront systematic racism far left than the south has left it more entrenched, zero argument.
> 
> However, everything I said about quality of education, prevalence of advanced degrees, and quality of healthcare is true, and considering these were the things that Mass Defect was talking about, and not racism, I'm not really sure what your point is here.



Meh, it's overhyped. Boston has just a normal healthy amount of systemic racism.


----------



## AxRookie

I just watched South Park's "Pandemic Special" and they called people wearing their masks on their chins "Chin Diapers" LOLOL So true!

Leave it to South Park to see the reality of stupidity!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> I'm not really sure what your point is here.


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 86003


Well, it's a good thing you have well-informed experts chiming in to clear that up...

Thanks for that cassie!


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> I just watched South Park's "Pandemic Special" and they called people wearing their masks on their chins "Chin Diapers" LOLOL So true!



MST3K did it first.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> MST3K did it first.


That's chin underwear...


----------



## SpaceDock

The “unmasking” Obamagate scandal investigation fell apart and so now Trump needs new conspiracies, started retweeting QAnon crap that Biden killed Seal Team 6 and that the Osama bin Laden killing was staged:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbr...alleging-obama-staged-bin-ladens-killing/amp/

Wonder what madness he will bring to the table for the Townhall?


----------



## Mathemagician

USMarine75 said:


> Y’all are sleeping on 30-40% of Americans. Acting like “I’d like to hear a Trump supporter defend him now” is foolhardy. You want to hear it? Turn on Fox News. Dems see things in such a definitive way, but you don’t realize republicans are seeing things in an equal but opposite way. While you’re taking a premature victory lap (like in 2016) their bubble is talking about the “biggest scandal in US history“ - “Obamagate” - and that Hillary and Biden might/should be arrested before the election.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-trump-russia-andrew-mccarthy
> 
> And talking about population centers being blue as if that matters. Maybe Biden can win by 3M voters just like Hillary did? Although 30-40% of the country believes those 3M votes were illegal and if you subtract them Trump actually won.
> 
> Pussy-gate was the October surprise that was supposed to derail Trump and his poll numbers were down then too.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...on-donald-trump-presidential-polls/index.html
> 
> 
> “An ABC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump, 50% to 38%“
> “CNN's Poll of Polls average has Clinton ahead 48% to 39%“



Yeah I really don’t think people understand just how die-hard his fans are. And a SIGNIFICANT number of minorities vote single-issue conservative no matter what. The biggest condemnation I still hear amongst his supporters is “I think he’s doing great for this country I just wish he’d be a bit nicer, that’s why people don’t like him.” 

Polls don’t mean shit. Vote. 



tedtan said:


> There were a few misses, but for the most part the actual results tracked the polls fairly closely. From Fortune:



Yeah Florida is def going to be contested until the last minute. I wouldn’t count a hair over 1% as statistically significant in a poll in a swing state. 10%+ or it counts as tied.


----------



## spudmunkey

One of my cousins posted a image praising Trump's "working hard from the hospital" photos, and his son's "work ethic". I posted the articles breaking down the proof the photos were staged, that he was signing blank paper, and then an article about his family having to pay fines and take "don't steal" classes after misappropriating donations from their charity. 

Her response:
"I'm not even responding to that



"

Her friend:
"I wouldn't either..............too ignorant!"

My reply:
"You don't have to. The truth can stand on it's own."

Her reply: "Trump 2020!









"


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> Yeah I really don’t think people understand just how die-hard his fans are. And a SIGNIFICANT number of minorities vote single-issue conservative no matter what.



Agreed in full but they still need to overcome a numbers gap. The "shy Trump voter" narrative is bullshit, everyone knows who everyone is voting for, the only question is turnout and shenanigans. Trump's numbers aren't there but can he overcome the 5% to 10% gap with purging votes or disenfranchisement? That's what has yet to be seen.


----------



## AxRookie

Record turnouts are being set everywhere because first-time voters such as myself have had more than enough of Trump's BS...

I can hardly wait to see what Trump looks like in prison orange! first, they're going to have to find him an orange jumpsuit with extra rump room...


----------



## USMarine75

It was a conspiracy that Fox News portrayed as one of the greatest — if not _the greatest_ — political scandals in American history.

Tucker Carlson called it a "domestic spying operation" that was "hidden under the pretext of national security." Laura Ingraham characterized top Obama administration officials as having been "exposed." And Sean Hannity flatly declared it to be the "biggest abuse of power, corruption scandal" the country had ever seen.

That was back in May. This week, however, the conspiracy theory collapsed when The Washington Post reported that a Justice Department investigation into the supposed scandal quietly ended with no charges.


----------



## Mathemagician

Randy said:


> Agreed in full but they still need to overcome a numbers gap. The "shy Trump voter" narrative is bullshit, everyone knows who everyone is voting for, the only question is turnout and shenanigans. Trump's numbers aren't there but can he overcome the 5% to 10% gap with purging votes or disenfranchisement? That's what has yet to be seen.



And what I’m saying, and follow me here man, is that the gap is not actually that big.

It is going to take a LOT of first time voters (there are people in their 30’s that didn’t vote during Bush/Obama/Trump, not just youngsters 18-22) as well as a lot of moderates.

And the number of moderates who always vote Republican because of “taxes” is very very very high.

I’m not being “doom and gloom” I’m saying don’t feel bolstered because of some polls and the fact that your bubble broadly reflects your worldview.

There are plenty of young people that feel like rebel patriots defending America from stupid tax-loving commies, and they can vote too and are much more likely to ignore polls and vote in person on Election Day.

Issa big country. Go vote.


----------



## broj15

Fr everyone finding security in these latest polls... It's cool to be optimistic but don't be naive. And don't ride some self righteous high horse about how "all politicians are corrupt! Joe Biden bad man just like trump". That's ivory tower bullshit and comes from a place of privilege. VOTE. I didn't vote in 2016 and I regret it. I'm voting this year and while I'm not gonna be happy about who I vote for I'm doing it because I'll take it over the alternative.


----------



## spudmunkey

Keep the pedal to the metal, don't let off the gas. Even if it looks like Biden's winning, keep going and bury the fucker.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Keep the pedal to the metal, don't let off the gas. Even if it looks like Biden's winning, keep going and bury the fucker.


I'm on board! Leadfoot it til he's in prison where he belongs!


----------



## spudmunkey

At the website for the White House gift shop, you can buy commemorative coins.

This specific coin commemorates the 100th anniversary of the end if WWI...but...

"This is the 10th Coin in the Historic Moments Coin Collection Chronicling the Presidency of President Donald J. Trump"

Which is hilarious because even though President Trump was in France on this day, he didn't go to the ceremony because "it was very windy".

So a coin chronicling Trump's Presidency is commemorating an event he didn't go to.

Sounds about right.

https://www.whitehousegiftshop.com/...United-States-Donald-J-Trump-Gifts-s/2419.htm


----------



## spudmunkey

Clarification: 
[Edit: Apparently The White House Gift Shop is a private, for-profit company based in Lancaster Country, Pennsylvania. It has no connection to the White House, the Secret Service or any part of the US government.]


----------



## Surveyor 777

spudmunkey said:


> Keep the pedal to the metal, don't let off the gas. Even if it looks like Biden's winning, keep going and bury the fucker.



This. I don't want people to get complacent and think "oh, the polls show Biden far ahead. I don't need to stand in those lines to vote".

Too bad. Get off your butt, get in that voting line OR vote by mail AND drop it off at a real drop-off location, but VOTE. Full steam ahead. I will not be the least bit confident until things are official but I want it to be an overwhelming, crushingly positive vote for Biden.


----------



## thraxil

Sent off my absentee ballot today.


----------



## AxRookie

Surveyor 777 said:


> This. I don't want people to get complacent and think "oh, the polls show Biden far ahead. I don't need to stand in those lines to vote".
> 
> Too bad. Get off your butt, get in that voting line OR vote by mail AND drop it off at a real drop-off location, but VOTE. Full steam ahead. I will not be the least bit confident until things are official but I want it to be an overwhelming, crushingly positive vote for Biden.


Group of four all voting in person for Biden second day after polls are open here just to make sure all of our votes are counted! FULL STEAM AHEAD!


----------



## Demiurge

I can only guess that for my generation, the most significant, foundational lesson in civics was the episode of The Simpsons where Bart runs for class president. He went into the election with swagger, believing that he had made his opponent look unappealing enough that he was a shoe-in; however, he failed to secure the actual votes with what he thought was his base and lost. In 2016, I thought that Trump was Bart, but I was wrong. The lesson: don't take other people's participation for granted and don't rely on it, either.


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> Record turnouts are being set everywhere because first-time voters such as myself have had more than enough of Trump's BS...
> 
> I can hardly wait to see what Trump looks like in prison orange! first, they're going to have to find him an orange jumpsuit with extra rump room...


Ah, first time voter. That explains you're over-arching giddiness at the supposed decisive victory Biden's already scheduled to have.

Having voted a number of times over the course of my life, let me just let you in on a little secret. When your state literally takes your vote and turns it into the opposite every single god damn time you bother going to the polls, you'll get that giddiness beaten out of you. I'm 47 and have been voting since I was eighteen. Not one single time has my state shown support for the candidate I voted for on any level in the end.

I skipped 2016 because I honestly couldn't bring myself to vote for "the lesser of two evils," because there honestly wasn't one. Little did I know that congress was going to let Trump ride roughshod over the constitution. I thought I was a pessimist, yet I still had faith in the balance of power to prevent him from committing any egregious errors that would sweep our entire country into destitution.

What a different picture four years makes.

I'll vote this time because as much as I dislike Biden's political history, he'll at least tone down the rhetoric. And that's gotta count for something.

But I have zero faith my state won't just assume I really meant to vote with the majority and send our entire electoral college representation as Trump votes. It's happened my entire adult life, it'll happen again. 

My only hope is enough other states can pull their collective heads out and do the right thing. Talking with people where I live it's obvious where my state is heeaded.

On the bright side, at least recreational marijuana made the ballot this year. I would have never thought that would happen in my lifetime.


----------



## sleewell

rec is pretty sweet. hopefully the taxes actually go to what they say they will. crazy that SD has it on the ballot before many other states, good for you guys. 

i'm voting in person on election day. zero fucks.


----------



## Demiurge

I'm fairly sure the taxes from recreational pot in my state exclusively went to create & maintain the bureaucracy governing it.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> Ah, first time voter. That explains you're over-arching giddiness at the supposed decisive victory Biden's already scheduled to have.
> 
> Having voted a number of times over the course of my life, let me just let you in on a little secret. When your state literally takes your vote and turns it into the opposite every single god damn time you bother going to the polls, you'll get that giddiness beaten out of you. I'm 47 and have been voting since I was eighteen. Not one single time has my state shown support for the candidate I voted for on any level in the end.
> 
> I skipped 2016 because I honestly couldn't bring myself to vote for "the lesser of two evils," because there honestly wasn't one. Little did I know that congress was going to let Trump ride roughshod over the constitution. I thought I was a pessimist, yet I still had faith in the balance of power to prevent him from committing any egregious errors that would sweep our entire country into destitution.
> 
> What a different picture four years makes.
> 
> I'll vote this time because as much as I dislike Biden's political history, he'll at least tone down the rhetoric. And that's gotta count for something.
> 
> But I have zero faith my state won't just assume I really meant to vote with the majority and send our entire electoral college representation as Trump votes. It's happened my entire adult life, it'll happen again.
> 
> My only hope is enough other states can pull their collective heads out and do the right thing. Talking with people where I live it's obvious where my state is heeaded.
> 
> On the bright side, at least recreational marijuana made the ballot this year. I would have never thought that would happen in my lifetime.


We'll see... Back in 2016 Trump was an unknown entity and many people including myself thought "why not" and "he couldn't F it up anymore then someone else" and man WAS I WRONG! in 2020 even rep's are saying "no more"...


----------



## tedtan

I get nightflameauto's concerns. There are more people in the US who lean to the left than to the right, but they don't always turn out to vote, so we end up with more republicans in office than the overall US population would prefer. 

So even though Biden is winning in the polls, it doesn't guarantee that those people will actually vote (though I see a lot of people who want Trump out of office, so I predict record voter turn out in many states; hopefully that proves true in the swing states).

Ultimately, we all need to vote and to bring as many people along with us as we can to ensure no one sits this one out.


----------



## Ralyks

I've probably said it before, but I used paid time off from work just to make sure I'm at the polls in person. NY usually goes blue anyway but I'm not taking any fucking chances.

Anyway, remember that NY Post article on Hunter from a day or two ago? Good times:
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-may-have-identified-hunter-biden-source-2020-10


----------



## nightflameauto

tedtan said:


> So even though Biden is winning in the polls, it doesn't guarantee that those people will actually vote (though I see a lot of people who want Trump out of office, so I predict record voter turn out in many states; hopefully that proves true in the swing states).


I find it quite telling that the only thing that will get people interested in voting in this country is to rail against somebody. For the most part, Americans don't care about the leadership because, for the most part, they don't give a fuck about us. No matter who is in office, up to now, they pretty much just do the same old shit, making life worse for the rest of us slowly enough that we shrug it off.

Trump accelerated that to the point people actually started noticing. That's bad politics all the way around.


----------



## budda

America not giving time off to vote is ridiculous voter suppression, no? Morally at least.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

budda said:


> America not giving time off to vote is ridiculous voter suppression, no? Morally at least.



My sweet summer child...


----------



## sleewell

i feel bad for the places where it takes 11 hours to vote - that is insanity and you can only imagine how many people just gave up waiting and didnt vote which is obviously by design. i'm usually in and out in less than 5 minutes, last presidential was 10.


----------



## budda

MaxOfMetal said:


> My sweet summer child...



Hasn't it been the case since forever as well?

I wonder which countries with voting dont guarantee time off to do so.


----------



## bostjan

As the election gets closer, the polls are getting more chaotic. Things are close in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which were big wins for Trump in 2016. The polls are pretty much all assuming those states will swing to Biden, but those states were also expected to go for HRC in 2016. That's 36 electoral votes between the two, so, if it's anywhere near close otherwise, those will end up being the deciding factor. But, everyone should have learned in 2016 that the polls don't mean a damned thing.

So now we've got supposedly Hunter Biden's computer in possession of Rudy Giuliani? NYPost is claiming that the emails saved on it prove that Joe Biden met with some Burisma people. To me, it just seems so desperate- the supposed email looks kind of fake, there are a few pretty decent pieces of evidence that such a meeting never happened in any way as described in the email, and every single circumstance around the whole things smells fishy.

Furthermore, what is claimed is twice removed hearsay, when the Trump investigation made such a big deal out of the fact that evidence against Trump was hearsay. But the Trump supporters will never care about any of those things, they will only say "ha ha gotcha!" and forget about any of this the moment more weird fishy evidence comes out about any of Trump's opponents.

The big question is whether any "undecided" voters in potential battleground states care at all. I doubt they do.

I'm not going to go and say that Biden is not scummy. I dunno, to me, he seems scummy. Not HRC-level scummy, but "I wouldn't want him around my kids"-level.

The thing about elections is that the incumbent person will always win unless they fucked over their voter base. Bill Clinton beat George HW Bush, because Bush promised over and over that he would not allow congress to raise taxes, and then congress raised taxes. Some people blame Iraq or scummy crap he did around the Iraq thing (like having the daughter of a diplomat testify a bunch of false stuff about Iraq, under the identity that she was just a nurse in a hospital, instead of who she really was), but no one really cared about that except people who already hated Bush. But when he allowed the taxes to go up, the people _who actually voted for him_ got fed up and instead considered either staying home or voting for Ross Perot.

This round of elections, the only thing that might turn the tables is the coronavirus. The picture that we see in the media is that Trump supporters don't care about it, but I see a slightly different picture. But I don't know if it's significant enough to split his base. I really don't think it is. And, if we repeated the 2016 election, honestly, it was three states that allowed Trump to win: PA, WI, and MI. And those three states are where the Trump base seems more galvanized than ever. Anything can happen, so I don't think it's safe to say he will win, but if he loses, it'll have to be some sort of upset, like Florida going blue, or maybe both Ohio and Georgia shocking everyone - anything is possible. But, from a high level, I really don't see any clear evidence that Biden will win other than the same polls that were so stupidly wrong four years ago about HRC. In fact, just about everything about Biden is at least somewhat parallel to HRC - former Obama protégé who has a lot of government experience and some weird scummy tabloid-stuff in their history who is basically running on a platform of "make everything normal again" when no one liked the "normal" we had before. Trump promises to shake things up that he had promised to shake up before and didn't, and the stuff Trump has done to damage the nation has been largely seen by his supporters as a neverending string of big wins. From that outlook, I think Trump is slightly more likely to win than Biden.

But I was super wrong about 2016, so I'm likely wrong again.

Oh, and my ballot was finally mailed out yesterday. As much as I wanted to vote for Jo Jorgenson, I voted for Biden, because Trump is ruining the core values of the nation, and because, even if Biden loses the electoral vote, I hope he at least wins the popular vote by a historic margin. Maybe he'll get everyone in CA and NY and the other blue states to get out and vote, and he'll lose 60% to 38% or something, then we can finally trash the stupid electoral college.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> And what I’m saying, and follow me here man, is that the gap is not actually that big.
> 
> It is going to take a LOT of first time voters (there are people in their 30’s that didn’t vote during Bush/Obama/Trump, not just youngsters 18-22) as well as a lot of moderates.
> 
> And the number of moderates who always vote Republican because of “taxes” is very very very high.
> 
> I’m not being “doom and gloom” I’m saying don’t feel bolstered because of some polls and the fact that your bubble broadly reflects your worldview.
> 
> There are plenty of young people that feel like rebel patriots defending America from stupid tax-loving commies, and they can vote too and are much more likely to ignore polls and vote in person on Election Day.
> 
> Issa big country. Go vote.



My man, I appreciate your take but that's the definition of gloom and doom. Trump secret weapon is the same fickle kids that Dems and Independents couldn't get to turn out for the last 40 years? People are secretly going to go to the polls and vote for Trump because they're moderate on taxes, when Trump's spending has tripled the debt and he's asking for another $2 trillion to bolster his chances of winning? You're gonna have to give me something with more substance than that to scare me.


----------



## Mathemagician

Ok, how about I have LGBTQ clients/associates who have said they’ll vote for trump?

How about a shit ton of the hispanic and black population would vote Christian conservative (and does) but more would if the GOP wasn’t so blatantly pursuing the racists white base in many states, and constantly using dog-whistling about immigrants?

It’s not “doom” for me to tell voters “Don’t count your eggs before they’ve hatched, do not get complacent, continue donating to challengers to weak senate seats, continue staying involved in your local politics, and continue to be active in ensuring yourself and those around you get out to vote, because it’s not over until the fat lady sings.”

The results WILL get challenged and the GOP goal is to send it to the courts for a judgement in their favor.

The average person needs to be even more involved than ever in voting at the lower levels to prevent the ridiculous court stacking we’ve seen for the last 3 years (and the appointment blocking for years prior to that).

Too many people are posting graphs which support a “Biden is gonna crush it story”. And my take? It’s gonna be a close one, and every person needs to be sure they get their ballots in to be counted. Because it won’t be “an embarrassing sweep”.

They appointed someone to head the USPS whose role was to dismantle and weaken the federal mail system. That is not a group that intends on going quietly into the night.

Vooooooooote. Local AND federal. Stay involved.

Real life isn’t some 80’s movie, and politics isn’t a team sport with rules for equal play.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Mathemagician said:


> Ok, how about I have LGBTQ clients/associates who have said they’ll vote for trump?
> 
> How about a shit ton of the hispanic and black population would vote Christian conservative (and does) but more would if the GOP wasn’t so blatantly pursuing the racists white base in many states, and constantly using dog-whistling about immigrants?
> 
> It’s not “doom” for me to tell voters “Don’t count your eggs before they’ve hatched, do not get complacent, continue donating to challengers to weak senate seats, continue staying involved in your local politics, and continue to be active in ensuring yourself and those around you get out to vote, because it’s not over until the fat lady sings.”
> 
> The results WILL get challenged and the GOP goal is to send it to the courts for a judgement in their favor.
> 
> The average person needs to be even more involved than ever in voting at the lower levels to prevent the ridiculous court stacking we’ve seen for the last 3 years (and the appointment blocking for years prior to that).
> 
> Too many people are posting graphs which support a “Biden is gonna crush it story”. And my take? It’s gonna be a close one, and every person needs to be sure they get their ballots in to be counted. Because it won’t be “an embarrassing sweep”.
> 
> They appointed someone to head the USPS whose role was to dismantle and weaken the federal mail system. That is not a group that intends on going quietly into the night.
> 
> Vooooooooote. Local AND federal. Stay involved.
> 
> Real life isn’t some 80’s movie, and politics isn’t a team sport with rules for equal play.



this guy gets it. 

forget trump for a second.

how can you be gay and vote for pence. that don't make no sense. it make no sense at all.

but it's gonna happen.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> how can you be gay and vote for pence. that don't make no sense.



Because they're male, well off, and likely white, which will insulate them from almost all the bullshit that can be inflicted in a presidential term or two. 

Classic "I got mine, so fuck'em". 

The LGBTQ+ community isn't as homogeneous (no pun) as some think, same with the Hispanic community (see Southwestern folks of Mexican decent and South Floridian Cuban-Americans).


----------



## Mathemagician

And it’s not wrong to vote however you feel helps you best. I’m not the decision police, who TF am I?

Just focusing on that the point stands that this race won’t magically be some easy sweep. That’s the key to keep in mind.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mathemagician said:


> And it’s not wrong to vote however you feel helps you best. I’m not the morality police, who TF am I?
> 
> Just focusing on that the point stands that this race won’t magically be some easy sweep. That’s the key to keep in mind.



There's a fine line between deafeatist pessimism and cautious optimism, which I think splits the positions here. 

Not really choosing sides as I tend to switch between them day to day.


----------



## possumkiller

Yeah my old mexican army buddies are pretty hardcore trump fans for some reason.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> Yeah my old mexican army buddies are pretty hardcore trump fans for some reason.


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a fine line between deafeatist pessimism and cautious optimism, which I think splits the positions here.
> 
> Not really choosing sides as I tend to switch between them day to day.



Yep, cautious optimism makes people work harder to “win”. Overly rosy celebrating results in similar apathy to defeatism. That’s the point I’m concerned with people already thinking it’s in the bag. Several states have illegal “vote collection boxes” active right now FFS. Guys we gotta work to PREVENT these measures from affecting the electoral process.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump on Stuart Varney show on Fox News:

“Stuart, they always talk about the friendly transition,” Trump opined. “They spied on my campaign and they got caught. They tried to overthrow the president of the United States and they got caught. And then they stand up so innocent and they say, ‘Will you, you know, do a fair transition?’ Well, they didn’t do a fair transition.”




Scared yet?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Yeah, that's a major red flag for the near future. Between his behavior, his persistent pathological lies, telling his supporters to vote twice, his supporters manipulating/dumping ballots, and his supporters being generally culty and unreasonable yet unrelenting... I think this country is completely fucked even if he loses the election by a landslide. He opened the doors for a more competent fascist. The fourth reich is near. I don't think there is any saving this country when so many of its citizens are hellbent on destroying it to simply stick it to those who they perceive to hold values which they outwardly hate. These people are the real problem. They are the very thing they claim to hate. USA is dunzo. The rest of the world will move on.


----------



## broj15

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yeah, that's a major red flag for the near future. Between his behavior, his persistent pathological lies, telling his supporters to vote twice, his supporters manipulating/dumping ballots, and his supporters being generally culty and unreasonable yet unrelenting... I think this country is completely fucked even if he loses the election by a landslide. He opened the doors for a more competent fascist. The fourth reich is near. I don't think there is any saving this country when so many of its citizens are hellbent on destroying it to simply stick it to those who they perceive to hold values which they outwardly hate. These people are the real problem. They are the very thing they claim to hate. USA is dunzo. The rest of the world will move on.



I feel this. Reagan built the house, Sarah Palin knocked on the door, and then Donald Trump walked in and pissed on the couch & kicked the dog. We have a literal reality TV star as "the most powerful person in the country" and our representative on the world stage. The precedent has been set.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> My sweet summer child...


Is that a "Guns and Roses" song?


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> Ok, how about I have LGBTQ clients/associates who have said they’ll vote for trump?
> 
> How about a shit ton of the hispanic and black population would vote Christian conservative (and does) but more would if the GOP wasn’t so blatantly pursuing the racists white base in many states, and constantly using dog-whistling about immigrants?
> 
> It’s not “doom” for me to tell voters “Don’t count your eggs before they’ve hatched, do not get complacent, continue donating to challengers to weak senate seats, continue staying involved in your local politics, and continue to be active in ensuring yourself and those around you get out to vote, because it’s not over until the fat lady sings.”
> 
> The results WILL get challenged and the GOP goal is to send it to the courts for a judgement in their favor.
> 
> The average person needs to be even more involved than ever in voting at the lower levels to prevent the ridiculous court stacking we’ve seen for the last 3 years (and the appointment blocking for years prior to that).
> 
> Too many people are posting graphs which support a “Biden is gonna crush it story”. And my take? It’s gonna be a close one, and every person needs to be sure they get their ballots in to be counted. Because it won’t be “an embarrassing sweep”.
> 
> They appointed someone to head the USPS whose role was to dismantle and weaken the federal mail system. That is not a group that intends on going quietly into the night.
> 
> Vooooooooote. Local AND federal. Stay involved.
> 
> Real life isn’t some 80’s movie, and politics isn’t a team sport with rules for equal play.



I said from the get go that it's all going to be about turnout.

There's two metrics, one is net support. That's to say, if you could snap your fingers and poll 100% of people instantly, what would the breakdown be?

That's a little closer to what poll numbers reflect, as answering a poll is a lot easier than ACTUALLY making sure you're registered, waiting in line, not screwing your ballot, and your ballot being counted.

That's the second metric, which is how many people actually show up and vote, and if those votes are actually counted.

I know there are minority and "safe" Democratic demographics that will and have gone to Trump but the numbers are the numbers. Hillary won popular vote in 2016, she lost electoral college by potentially 50,000 in key places that made the difference. The polls are right and they were right, she lost within the margins of error and those margins apparently weren't weighted for Democratic apathy. I think so far the apathy is less than it was in 2016, the bigger concern this time is complacency (assuming that Biden wins in a landslide, so why come out?) or shenanigans (DOJ, fake ballot boxes, etc).

So my original question was how much are those things in play and will the Dems be able to overcome them.

To your point, I'm well aware of groups that aren't lining up directly behind their assumed demographic, the polls say Biden by 12% and I think it was more than generous for me to temper that down to 5%, I don't think that's cocky or reaching at all.


----------



## Mathemagician

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...n-manager-race-is-far-closer-than-experts-say

So yeah, stay on top of things people. It’s not a done deal yet, engagement for the next several weeks matters!


----------



## nightflameauto

Have we discussed how shit it is for Trump to schedule his town hall at exactly the same time Biden has his? I was torn about watching them anyway, as I've already done the absentee thing, but wouldn't have minded having them on as background noise just to see if either of them strokes out when confronted with something stupid they've done. But now I have to decide if I want to watch Biden to see if he can stay level headed when confronted by those that may not be fans of his policies, or watch Trump to see if he collapses mid-huff-and-puff rant due to his post-COVID recovery and drugs. 

Or watch neither and do something more productive like drink myself to blackout.

I have heard some rumblings among people that would/want to vote for Biden that they think it's pointless because Trump has made it clear he won't leave office anyway. That sort of shit is heart breaking. I mean, I try to say even if it feels like a throw-away (like it does for me) you have to at least lob the ball towards the goal line, but it feels like there is some strange level beyond apathy. Apathetic you can reach. These people seem near comatose when it comes to this subject.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Yeah, that's a major red flag for the near future. Between his behavior, his persistent pathological lies, telling his supporters to vote twice, his supporters manipulating/dumping ballots, and his supporters being generally culty and unreasonable yet unrelenting... I think this country is completely fucked even if he loses the election by a landslide. He opened the doors for a more competent fascist. The fourth reich is near. I don't think there is any saving this country when so many of its citizens are hellbent on destroying it to simply stick it to those who they perceive to hold values which they outwardly hate. These people are the real problem. They are the very thing they claim to hate. USA is dunzo. The rest of the world will move on.



Like the tail end of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 86003


Ok, but that still has _nothing at all to do with my post. _"Parts of the country actually have pretty good schools" "OH YEAH? WELL YOUR PART OF THE COUNTRY IS RACIST AND CAPITALISM IS BAD." Hey, we can discuss systematic racism and the pros and cons of economic systems, but that's a complete non sequitur to the post you were quoting when you decided to jump into a conversation Mass Effect and I were having. 



USMarine75 said:


> Meh, it's overhyped. Boston has just a normal healthy amount of systemic racism.


Eh, that may be true, but I don't think there's any harm in assuming that we're worse than most, if by doing so that helps drive systematic change by forcing us to overcompensate.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> “Stuart, they always talk about the friendly transition,” Trump opined. “They spied on my campaign and they got caught. They tried to overthrow the president of the United States and they got caught. And then they stand up so innocent and they say, ‘Will you, you know, do a fair transition?’ Well, they didn’t do a fair transition.”


He's also argued he "deserves" a third term because the Democrats wasted his first term investigating him for collusion with Russia and trying to force Ukraine to open an investigation into a rival. Excuse me, announce an investigation, he didn't give a shit of they actually opened it as long as they said they would.


----------



## mbardu

MASS DEFECT said:


> Like the tail end of the Roman Empire.



Or, as the meta says, like the end of the Roman Empire but this time with dank memes and wifi.


----------



## SpaceDock

MASS DEFECT said:


> Like the tail end of the Roman Empire.



I have been contemplating this over the last few months. We are at this weird place where we have no consensus of reality as a nation anymore. If someone was to drop the hammer on us, right after the election during the transition and inevitable turmoil would be the time.


----------



## Xaios

mbardu said:


> Or, as the meta says, like the end of the Roman Empire but this time with dank memes and wifi.


Interestingly, one thing the US has in common with the fall of the Roman Empire is the presence of Goths.


----------



## spudmunkey

I think this video pretty-well encompasses the conversation about Biden as a candidate, spanning the last few dozen/hundred pages.


----------



## AxRookie

I just got my first Voter Registration Card today! I am now for the first time A Registered Voter! And I'm watching the Biden Townhall and I'm liking what I'm hearing!!!

I'll check out the Trump Train wreck of lies later... He's prob ranting about the "unmasking" BS, claiming he's "immune", and blaming everyone but himself for his failures...


----------



## Ralyks

If people keep coming to Trumps Rally's without a mask, what's the chances enough of them get covod and have to quarantine during November 3rd?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> If people keep coming to Trumps Rally's without a mask, what's the chances enough of them get covod and have to quarantine during November 3rd?



No one gives a shit about quarantine. It's all pretty much optional, hence the problem we have here.


----------



## StevenC

I just don't understand the level of disenfranchisement in America that so many people don't vote. I've literally never voted for anyone that's ever had a chance of winning but I've voted in every election since turning 18. I absolutely despise my MP (literally a terrorist) and his party, and I'm not a fan of my MLA either. 

I suppose the voting booth is literally around the corner from my house, there are plenty of them and we get the day off. But people who get into their 30s without having voted for anything ever? I know there's all the voter suppression, but at some point American elections are important enough to the rest of the world that not voting is an abdication of duty.


----------



## AxRookie

StevenC said:


> I just don't understand the level of disenfranchisement in America that so many people don't vote. I've literally never voted for anyone that's ever had a chance of winning but I've voted in every election since turning 18. I absolutely despise my MP (literally a terrorist) and his party, and I'm not a fan of my MLA either.
> 
> I suppose the voting booth is literally around the corner from my house, there are plenty of them and we get the day off. But people who get into their 30s without having voted for anything ever? I know there's all the voter suppression, but at some point American elections are important enough to the rest of the world that not voting is an abdication of duty.


I guess vote shaming is a thing now? 

Well better late than never, and more important now than ever!


----------



## Mathemagician

StevenC said:


> I just don't understand the level of disenfranchisement in America that so many people don't vote. I've literally never voted for anyone that's ever had a chance of winning but I've voted in every election since turning 18. I absolutely despise my MP (literally a terrorist) and his party, and I'm not a fan of my MLA either.
> 
> I suppose the voting booth is literally around the corner from my house, there are plenty of them and we get the day off. But people who get into their 30s without having voted for anything ever? I know there's all the voter suppression, but at some point American elections are important enough to the rest of the world that not voting is an abdication of duty.



Historically it’s been pretty easy within the US for a lot of generally “moderate” people to just “ignore politics” and let things go how they may, occasionally tuning in every 4 years to vote for president. 

When things are “going pretty well” overall it’s easy to just not care about the thing that keeps democracy working. 

Unions busted? “Yeah but I still do ok, and screw those northerners and their high paying jobs”. 

Falling behind in education? “Yeah well I heard it’s worse somewhere else so there!” 

We’re a big ass country, and many people don’t strive to leave thier home town. Much less pay attention to what “that stupid state next door wants taxes for.” 

That’s why consistent long term engagement is required. I swear it feels like people voted for Obama then went to sleep and said “That was all I need to care about”. 

Can’t imagine being apathetic now, on the contrary I think everyone should be doing their h/w on their candidates on the ballot and making sure to vote. 

Can’t have half the country nap through elections anymore.


----------



## broj15

AxRookie said:


> I guess vote shaming is a thing now?
> 
> Well better late than never, and more important now than ever!



When you say vote shaming do you mean shaming people FOR voting, or shaming people for NOT voting?

Just curious, because I have atleast a few "woke leftist" friends who simply refuse to vote for anyone but thier own overly specific and hyper idealized imaginary candidate (Bernie comes close for a few but ppl will always complain about something). They're all either so jaded and apathetic to American politics or they're so "woke" that they voluntarily share anti Biden/Hilary/whoever propaganda because "muh drones in the middle east, muh corruption, lesser of two evils doesn't exist, all politicians are bad, voting doesn't change anything cuz muh broken electoral college, I'm so much smarter for not voting".. or they just really get off on being a contrarian shit lord when they see even the slightest opportunity to say "I told ya so", just so they can pretend to be the smartest person in the room for once. Do you think it's a coincidence that all of the ppl who hold that position are cishet white dudes who really don't stand to lose that much under an oppressive GOP administration? Idk maybe.

Either way, I know that's a very prevalent view point among alot of leftists and woke "brocialists" that it definitely drives voter apathy among ppl who actively DO NOT support Donald Trump.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> Ok, but that still has _nothing at all to do with my post. _"Parts of the country actually have pretty good schools" "OH YEAH? WELL YOUR PART OF THE COUNTRY IS RACIST AND CAPITALISM IS BAD." Hey, we can discuss systematic racism and the pros and cons of economic systems, but that's a complete non sequitur to the post you were quoting when you decided to jump into a conversation Mass Effect and I were having.
> 
> 
> Eh, that may be true, but I don't think there's any harm in assuming that we're worse than most, if by doing so that helps drive systematic change by forcing us to overcompensate.



Chill man, you really Don’t have to worry- your white privilege* _probably_ won’t be threatened in your lifetime. It’s All Good!

We can’t choose our raisin, Don’t forget it!

*Boston Tea party privilege I might add...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Mathemagician said:


> Ok, how about I have LGBTQ clients/associates who have said they’ll vote for trump?
> 
> How about a shit ton of the hispanic and black population would vote Christian conservative (and does) but more would if the GOP wasn’t so blatantly pursuing the racists white base in many states, and constantly using dog-whistling about immigrants?
> 
> It’s not “doom” for me to tell voters “Don’t count your eggs before they’ve hatched, do not get complacent, continue donating to challengers to weak senate seats, continue staying involved in your local politics, and continue to be active in ensuring yourself and those around you get out to vote, because it’s not over until the fat lady sings.”
> 
> The results WILL get challenged and the GOP goal is to send it to the courts for a judgement in their favor.
> 
> The average person needs to be even more involved than ever in voting at the lower levels to prevent the ridiculous court stacking we’ve seen for the last 3 years (and the appointment blocking for years prior to that).
> 
> Too many people are posting graphs which support a “Biden is gonna crush it story”. And my take? It’s gonna be a close one, and every person needs to be sure they get their ballots in to be counted. Because it won’t be “an embarrassing sweep”.
> 
> They appointed someone to head the USPS whose role was to dismantle and weaken the federal mail system. That is not a group that intends on going quietly into the night.
> 
> Vooooooooote. Local AND federal. Stay involved.
> 
> Real life isn’t some 80’s movie, and politics isn’t a team sport with rules for equal play.



Dude, serious question: Whatever made you think sucking dick made someone cool? 

I mean Look at Trump- he been on Putin’s dick for last 30 years or more!


----------



## Randy

3-for-3 of Trump going out in public infront of anyone other than his rally folks, and it instantly becomes combative and he's unable to answer even basic questions.


----------



## Wuuthrad

You know what I’m out...

Fuck Trump!

Fuck Biden too! 

Im voting for Kamala, bout time we had some Female power up in this b****!

Im serious tho...y’all kids don’t lose your spirit, they gone break you down try to bust you but you have the POWA!!! 

Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!


----------



## AxRookie

broj15 said:


> When you say vote shaming do you mean shaming people FOR voting, or shaming people for NOT voting?
> 
> Just curious, because I have atleast a few "woke leftist" friends who simply refuse to vote for anyone but thier own overly specific and hyper idealized imaginary candidate (Bernie comes close for a few but ppl will always complain about something). They're all either so jaded and apathetic to American politics or they're so "woke" that they voluntarily share anti Biden/Hilary/whoever propaganda because "muh drones in the middle east, muh corruption, lesser of two evils doesn't exist, all politicians are bad, voting doesn't change anything cuz muh broken electoral college, I'm so much smarter for not voting".. or they just really get off on being a contrarian shit lord when they see even the slightest opportunity to say "I told ya so", just so they can pretend to be the smartest person in the room for once. Do you think it's a coincidence that all of the ppl who hold that position are cishet white dudes who really don't stand to lose that much under an oppressive GOP administration? Idk maybe.
> 
> Either way, I know that's a very prevalent view point among alot of leftists and woke "brocialists" that it definitely drives voter apathy among ppl who actively DO NOT support Donald Trump.


Not voting...


----------



## USMarine75

Now that Obamagate, the single greatest conspiracy and threat ever was unfounded by the AG...

This is how many Hunter Biden stories are on Fox News online at one moment:


----------



## USMarine75

3 more...







Tl;dr Fox News online has 19 separate Hunter Biden articles and media at one time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Hunter Derangement Syndrome©


----------



## AxRookie

No surprise the Fox bull shit factory is going into overdrive as all the other News media outlets are shooting the BS down and calling it as it is Desperate Nonsense!

Only one big problem with their nonsense, Hunter isn't running for President!

But that BS is all they have courtesy of the Russan intelligence propaganda machine feeding Rudy Giuliani the putz disinformation to spoon-feed Trump who sucks it all up like a starving man eating a steak and then spitting it back up anywhere he can like the starving man realizing the steak he just ate is actually a Trump steak !!!


----------



## sleewell

isn't it remarkable that trump has no idea who the proud boys are or has no idea about what qanon is?

has access to the best intelligence departments in the world who would brief him on this and many other things within minutes of asking. admits to watching tv for 6-7 hours a day. claims to be very smart. 


i get so frusterated when he says things like that and no one pushes back. the very next question should be sir you are obviously either lying or are very purposely ignorant, would you like to try that one again? or why do you think its ok for the president of the united states not to know about these groups, isnt that you dropping the ball?

why is it ok for this president to just "not know" certain things that everyone else is familiar with? you are either saying its ok for him to lie right to your face or its ok for him to be clueless - either one makes you look like an idiot for supporting him.


----------



## Ralyks

USMarine75 said:


> Now that Obamagate, the single greatest conspiracy and threat ever was unfounded by the AG...
> 
> This is how many Hunter Biden stories are on Fox News online at one moment:
> 
> View attachment 86027
> View attachment 86028
> View attachment 86029
> View attachment 86030
> View attachment 86031
> View attachment 86032
> View attachment 86033
> View attachment 86034
> View attachment 86035
> View attachment 86036



Anyone else remember when kids were off limits?


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> Anyone else remember when kids were off limits?



I believe that was kids as in children, not kids as in offspring.


----------



## SpaceDock

Here is a fairly concise article on the Hunter laptop emails stuff that is not from a crazy right wing source:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hunter-biden-laptop-new-york-post-story/#app

Now here are the things I find important: 

Emails only have one exchange about how one of the Burishma guys got to meet Biden. That does not mean that they had nefarious policy discussions during that meeting at all even though that is the Fox spin. 

The laptop came from a suspicious source and there are thought that the emails might not even be real. Fox News even states their reasoning for the emails being real is that they have the correct email addresses, that seems real loose to me. I can type up fake emails with a known address. 

Then if we move to how the emails got found and distributed, a known Russian agent is directly involved in assisting Rudy and these are hacked emails if they are real. This just reeks of the same Russian disinformation and interference campaigns as in 2016. 

Now let’s go ahead and say all of this is real and not just last minute propaganda meant to confuse without time for validation of facts. Would any of this be bad for Biden? Meeting with people from a Ukraine company is not against any rules. There is also no evidence of policy discussions. The final concern that Republicans throw out is the motivation of the Burisma investigator firing and once again the EU also backed his firing and Biden was just the mouth piece. 

Really Republicans just think they are still running against Hillary and think a email scandal fires up other Republicans.


----------



## nightflameauto

For those wondering why so many people in America don't vote? For the most part it doesn't matter who is in office. The general trend of where we head as a nation is always the same. Up to now. The Democrats get power and then babble about reaching across the aisle so they don't have to implement a single policy that was in their campaign. The Republicans get power and they steamroll everything they possibly can through.

Obama was the breaking point for a ton of people that were big vote believers. I admit, I had hope when I voted for him. He really seemed to have something different about him that made me believe he would really try to change things for the better. Then he got into office and just as well have been Bush the third. He literally continued every shitty Bush policy that he had promised to get rid of, continued the "war on terra", left gitmo open for bidness, and made it clear he wasn't interested in follow-through on anything other than turning his healthcare reform into a blank check for the insurance industry on the backs of those that already couldn't afford care.

Sure, pre-existing conditions and blah blah. I know there were some minor good sides to it, but to the vast majority of us that thought he was really trying to push congress to do something for us, it looked like yet another step towards pulling more money out of the middle class. I know my insurance premiums went way up once it passed, and have continued to climb year after year.

After Obama, I know a ton of left-leaning people that just gave up entirely. I did for the presidential race because it literally meant nothing. I'm throwing away my vote every single time due to living in a backwardass state that insists on voting red regardless of how shitty the candidate is.

But I'm voting this time. I mean, seriously, fuck Biden, but at least he's not Trump.

Sadly, that seems to be his only real message that reaches anyone.

As for Trump not answering questions or flat out lying during debates and town halls? I overheard the wife's morning political podcasts a while back and the main point they kept bringing up about how the moderators behave was about how much backlash they got for fact-checking during the debates early on in the 2016 election cycle. Every time they'd fact-check or literally say something wasn't true that actually wasn't true, the media on the right would scream bloody murder about bias. And the reason they get by with it is because, in all seriousness, one side uses facts, truth (for the most part-ish), and science for their arguments, and the other side uses bullshit, lies and outright fabrication for their arguments. Unfortunately, reality is biased against liars. So the Republicans make up their own reality and then wonder why the left keeps scratching their heads and going, "the fuck you just say?"


----------



## broj15

if the claims pertaining to JB intimidating those prosecutors & whoever else in the Ukraine are legit (let's be honest, they probably are) then like.... What do people expect? Politicians gonna polotic. The whole system is corrupt and I guarantee you that deals like that, and even sketchier go down in Washington every single day, and have for years. Obama, Bush, Reagan, Nixon.... all of them have dirty laundry that's irrelevant to thier personal life. Also of course conservative media is gonna eat this up and try and blow it out of proportion, and I honestly think it's a double standard to criticize that, when we all know that if the roles were reversed and one of Trump's kids was smoking crack & banging hookers while asking for favors from thier dad (and let's be real they probably are) the left/liberal media would try and crucify him for it.

Not gonna lie though, if all the Hunter Biden claims are as legit as they say they are then that mirror selfie with the unbuttoned shirt is actually pretty fucking based . Looks like someone I probably would've enjoyed partying with 3-4 years ago.


----------



## mbardu

broj15 said:


> if the claims pertaining to JB intimidating those prosecutors & whoever else in the Ukraine are legit (let's be honest, they probably are) then like.... What do people expect? Politicians gonna polotic. The whole system is corrupt and I guarantee you that deals like that, and even sketchier go down in Washington every single day, and have for years. Obama, Bush, Reagan, Nixon.... all of them have dirty laundry that's irrelevant to thier personal life. Also of course conservative media is gonna eat this up and try and blow it out of proportion, and I honestly think it's a double standard to criticize that, when we all know that if the roles were reversed and one of Trump's kids was smoking crack & banging hookers while asking for favors from thier dad (and let's be real they probably are) the left/liberal media would try and crucify him for it.
> 
> Not gonna lie though, if all the Hunter Biden claims are as legit as they say they are then that mirror selfie with the unbuttoned shirt is actually pretty fucking based . Looks like someone I probably would've enjoyed partying with 3-4 years ago.



Even if all that was anything more than a Russian ops through brain-dead Giuliani (which it obviously is...I mean...come on), none of it should matter:

In Ukraine, Biden was demonstrably doing his job, backed by the entire administration and all the US allies. Threatening the corrupt Ukrainians into compliance was his mandate.
You don't even need hypotheticals here... Even if Hunter did get a few measly millions (still unproven), then do Republicans care about nepotism now? Ivanka and husband literally made _hundreds _of millions in the last few years as selfless public servants in the WH. And noone bats an eye?
But none of it matters, as shown before. It's all circus to give "fair and balanced" Fox News something to scream at.


----------



## bostjan

"I don't want to vote for that guy, his son is a corrupt business fraud who swindles people and tried to bribe the Ukrainians, I only vote for people who do stuff like that themselves." - Some Trump supporter somewhere, probably.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> "I don't want to vote for that guy, his son is *a corrupt business fraud who swindles people and tried to bribe the Ukrainians*, I only vote for people who do stuff like that themselves." - Some Trump supporter somewhere, probably.



Soooo...Rudy for president?


----------



## sleewell

Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85.

He gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (because there aren't repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.

The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up the most credible ex-Mayor on Earth and hands them the contents of these drives.

That totally credible ex-Mayor sits on them for months, then chooses to release them 3 weeks before the election. The mainstream media asks to independently verify their validity but said ex-Mayor does what all people trying to prove facts do and ignores these requests.

Is this how stupid we are now?

If these emails were as alarming as it's being pushed, Giuliani wouldn't have sat on them for months.
And if Giuliani wanted to prove their validity, he'd turn them over to forensic experts.

- Dan Sloan


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> Soooo...Rudy for president?



If Biden loses, then I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy runs in 2024. I don't know if Pence is outwardly zany enough to be a GOP candidate in this new era. On the Dem's side, Bernie will lose again in the primary, being cited as being too old, and then the Dems will trot out Feinstein as their nominee, who everyone will completely hate by then (if they don't already), and Giulilani will sweep the electoral college with 400+ votes, even though he will lose the popular vote somehow by 10 million votes. Probably.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> If Biden loses, then I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy runs in 2024. I don't know if Pence is outwardly zany enough to be a GOP candidate in this new era. On the Dem's side, Bernie will lose again in the primary, being cited as being too old, and then the Dems will trot out Feinstein as their nominee, who everyone will completely hate by then (if they don't already), and Giulilani will sweep the electoral college with 400+ votes, even though he will lose the popular vote somehow by 10 million votes. Probably.



Sorry to break it out to you but if Biden doesn't win this time around, then Trump will be president again in 2024, and essentially president for life- only to be succeeded by his children. Yes, the cult of personality is seriously that bad, and a lot of his supporters are saying unironically that he would be deserving of it. Yes they want a dynasty of dictators cause that's what freedom is about . He himself has already said he'd go for a third term, and we know he doesn't joke.

Pretty much all the "haha this cannot happen for real, there are laws and there's a constitution against it" have actually been proven wrong since Trump's inauguration. The right does not care about decorum or laws.

Might even be too late already, voter suppression efforts are already at all time highs, there is organized election fraud going unpunished in CA and elsewhere, Trump has pretty much announced that he knows he's going to win and won't accept anything else etc etc.

Anything but a historic blue wave and this country is done-zo.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Chill man, you really Don’t have to worry- your white privilege* _probably_ won’t be threatened in your lifetime. It’s All Good!
> 
> We can’t choose our raisin, Don’t forget it!
> 
> *Boston Tea party privilege I might add...


I've been extremely privileged. I own that, I've never denied that, and certainly don't plan to start now. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be offended by your pointing out I've benefited from white privilege, since I'm well aware that I have. And you're right that that probably won't change in my lifetime, even if I'd kind of rather it did. 

But, nothing about that changes the fact that the experience of living in America can vary WIDELY based on where in the country you happen to be living - urban or rural, northeast, midwest, pacific northwest, south, whatever. In fact, the systematic racism still present in this country is yet _another_ facet in which the American experience can differ pretty widely from person to person, and not just from region to region. 

If my original point here was it's probably not fair to base your impression of America as a whole from your subjective experience of living in San Francisco, then pointing out that there are racial disparities in this country as well, if anything, _strengthens_ the point I'm trying to make. 

So, again, I'm not exactly sure what the point you're trying to make here_ is. _


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85.
> 
> He gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (because there aren't repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.
> 
> The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up the most credible ex-Mayor on Earth and hands them the contents of these drives.
> 
> That totally credible ex-Mayor sits on them for months, then chooses to release them 3 weeks before the election. The mainstream media asks to independently verify their validity but said ex-Mayor does what all people trying to prove facts do and ignores these requests.
> 
> Is this how stupid we are now?
> 
> If these emails were as alarming as it's being pushed, Giuliani wouldn't have sat on them for months.
> And if Giuliani wanted to prove their validity, he'd turn them over to forensic experts.
> 
> - Dan Sloan


I'm sorry, did I miss another faux scandal?

I agree, this premise is ridiculous.



mbardu said:


> Sorry to break it out to you but if Biden doesn't win this time around, then Trump will be president again in 2024, and essentially president for life- only to be succeeded by his children.


He's already been talking about how he "deserves" a third term for a few years now, because of the Russia investigation. Right now, I don't think the GOP would let him. However, conditional on him somehow either legitimately beating Biden in three weeks, or losing the vote but through some sort of machination still being able to hold onto power come January, I don't think they'd have the balls to stop him if he tried.


----------



## sleewell

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, did I miss another faux scandal?
> 
> I agree, this premise is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> He's already been talking about how he "deserves" a third term for a few years now, because of the Russia investigation. Right now, I don't think the GOP would let him. However, conditional on him somehow either legitimately beating Biden in three weeks, or losing the vote but through some sort of machination still being able to hold onto power come January, I don't think they'd have the balls to stop him.




not really a scandal per say. more like a flailing group of incompetent nitwits trying to fabricate an oct surprise bc everything else is going so poorly. unmasking didn't pan out, lets just make something up lol.


----------



## bostjan

"...and coming next on Fox News, Joe Biden's ex-room-mate's dentist came to my house and kicked my dog! I didn't get it on camera, but my 86 year old neighbour said it looked like him!"


----------



## AxRookie

I'll be happy when this is all over, But until it is I'm going to do everything I can to Dump Trump even as he does everything he can to wear the voters down...


----------



## Randy

Surprise, it's October and we're talking about Hunter Biden! Do I win anything?


----------



## AxRookie

Rudy Giuliani's daughter just put out a statement and was on the news saying "Rudy Giuliani is my father and I'm pleading with people to vote for Biden!"...

Smart woman!!! I think I'm in love...


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> Rudy Giuliani's daughter just put out a statement and was on the news saying "Rudy Giuliani is my father and I'm pleading with people to vote for Biden!"...
> 
> Smart woman!!! I think I'm in love...




FWIW, this isn't new for her, though. She backed Clinton in 2016, and when Giuliani was running in '08, she joined a FB group for Obama.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden

How American of Trump. No, the irony is not lost on me.


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden
> 
> How American of Trump. No, the irony is not lost on me.



if anyone wasn’t motivated to vote before, this is it


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-threatens-to-leave-the-country-if-he-loses-to-biden
> 
> How American of Trump. No, the irony is not lost on me.


He has to or face prison time for all the crimes the presidency was protecting him from!


----------



## vilk

I believe the word he was looking for is "flee"


----------



## USMarine75

Oh shit Biden campaign is done now...

Fox News uncovered the biggest scandal yet. It turns out 2 of the self-identified Democrats during the town hall were in fact... Democrats.

What’s worse, these bastards had even voted Democrat before. They were even related to Democrats!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-silent-biden-town-hall-attendees-identified-dems


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> Oh shit Biden campaign is done now...
> 
> Fox News uncovered the biggest scandal yet. It turns out 2 of the self-identified Democrats during the town hall were in fact... Democrats.
> 
> What’s worse, these bastards had even voted Democrat before. They were even related to Democrats!
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-silent-biden-town-hall-attendees-identified-dems




Yeah but nodding lady was a Republican candidate a few years ago, seems about the same to me if not worse since the nodding is what so many people focused on instead of his words.


----------



## Randy

Dunno about you guys but I'm starting to rethink voting for Hunter Biden.


----------



## Randy

Lol jk, put Hunters crack spoon on the ballot and I'll vote for that too. Fuck these clowns.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85.
> 
> He gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (because there aren't repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.
> 
> The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up the most credible ex-Mayor on Earth and hands them the contents of these drives.
> 
> That totally credible ex-Mayor sits on them for months, then chooses to release them 3 weeks before the election. The mainstream media asks to independently verify their validity but said ex-Mayor does what all people trying to prove facts do and ignores these requests.
> 
> Is this how stupid we are now?
> 
> If these emails were as alarming as it's being pushed, Giuliani wouldn't have sat on them for months.
> And if Giuliani wanted to prove their validity, he'd turn them over to forensic experts.
> 
> - Dan Sloan



How did the blind tech read the emails?


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> How did the blind tech read the emails?


He felt the bumps on the outside of the hard drive...


----------



## Randy

Republicans with the winning strategy. Sympathetic story about Joe Biden having to cope with a drug addict son after his other adult son died of cancer. No wonder Trump's campaign manager tried to kill himself.


----------



## Randy

In other news, apparently the cult of Q think JFK Jr. is still alive and preparing to reveal himself as Trump's running mate.

https://twitter.com/travis_view/status/1317474081034301443?s=21


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> In other news, apparently the cult of Q think JFK Jr. is still alive and preparing to reveal himself as Trump's running mate.
> 
> https://twitter.com/travis_view/status/1317474081034301443?s=21


Yeah, heard that one yesterday. Those nuts go Q and on and on and on...


----------



## Demiurge

It seems like these guys were all about the shaggy-dog bullshitting "[random piece of news] means that it's all going according to plan- just wait". Predicting something that's going to be empirically falsifiable in short order is uncharacteristic.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Dunno about you guys but I'm starting to rethink voting for Hunter Biden.



I've been trying to get this joke out for days but couldn't nail how I wanted to phrase it. Perfect. Lol


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Randy said:


> Republicans with the winning strategy. Sympathetic story about Joe Biden having to cope with a drug addict son after his other adult son died of cancer. No wonder Trump's campaign manager tried to kill himself.



I'm likely missing points and not adding to any conversation, and not speaking against you, but thinking about it if I was even looked at by Trump at any point in life, I'd probably want to kill myself too. That's to say he was in Home Alone 2, which means that if I was Macaulay Culkin, I'd have contemplated suicide...

I'm kinda really drunk right now so ignore me if you want, but I am frequently depressed that Trump is our president right now and realistically could be for 4 more years. I DO have clinical depression, and being trapped in this country with what we have now makes the choice to pull a gun on myself more clear. Never mind the amount of support he has... Trump is largely anti-me, and four more years might see lead in my brain. Even if it ultimately means nothing, it says a TON about our population that he even got hired once.

Sorry for the pity party, but I hate the prospect of this election. I hate that the best option basically feels like shooting one foot instead of both... Fuck the two party system, and fuck people for adhering to it. 

Make America great again? When the fuck was it EVER great for anyone other than white males?


----------



## AxRookie

Señor Voorhees said:


> I'm likely missing points and not adding to any conversation, and not speaking against you, but thinking about it if I was even looked at by Trump at any point in life, I'd probably want to kill myself too. That's to say he was in Home Alone 2, which means that if I was Macaulay Culkin, I'd have contemplated suicide...
> 
> I'm kinda really drunk right now so ignore me if you want, but I am frequently depressed that Trump is our president right now and realistically could be for 4 more years. I DO have clinical depression, and being trapped in this country with what we have now makes the choice to pull a gun on myself more clear. Never mind the amount of support he has... Trump is largely anti-me, and four more years might see lead in my brain. Even if it ultimately means nothing, it says a TON about our population that he even got hired once.
> 
> Sorry for the pity party, but I hate the prospect of this election. I hate that the best option basically feels like shooting one foot instead of both... Fuck the two party system, and fuck people for adhering to it.
> 
> Make America great again? When the fuck was it EVER great for anyone other than white males?


Well, it doesn't help that so many Americans are complete morons...


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> Well, it doesn't help that so many Americans are complete morons...





That's what's scary, right? You know with every fiber of your being that things are really fucked up and that NOBODY could support such a steaming pile of shit. But then you look into the wild, and you see people supporting this nonsense. Enough people where, even if it was because of a gamed system, he was able to get power in the first place. It's scary to see something so simple as "hiter bad, anti-hitler good" and have so many people lean towards the obvious bad.

I love the sentiment of your "trump gonna lose and go to jail," but I'm incredibly iffy about his loss, and I can promise he's not leaving the country or going to jail. I hope I'm wrong, but knowing the people I do in a HARDCORE blue state (RI is HARD blue) who support that trash even now, I'm not wishful thinking. 

This isn't directed to you, or even anyone here in particular, but fucking people need to vote. I wish I could, but I'm registered to vote in a completely different state than I live... And the state I'm registered in is guaranteed to vote anti-trump anyway. So flying to where I'm registered to vote doesn't even matter, not that RI's fucking electoral vote matters anyway.


----------



## narad

Señor Voorhees said:


> That's what's scary, right? You know with every fiber of your being that things are really fucked up and that NOBODY could support such a steaming pile of shit. But then you look into the wild, and you see people supporting this nonsense. Enough people where, even if it was because of a gamed system, he was able to get power in the first place. It's scary to see something so simple as "hiter bad, anti-hitler good" and have so many people lean towards the obvious bad.
> 
> I love the sentiment of your "trump gonna lose and go to jail," but I'm incredibly iffy about his loss, and I can promise he's not leaving the country or going to jail. I hope I'm wrong, but knowing the people I do in a HARDCORE blue state (RI is HARD blue) who support that trash even now, I'm not wishful thinking.
> 
> This isn't directed to you, or even anyone here in particular, but fucking people need to vote. I wish I could, but I'm registered to vote in a completely different state than I live... And the state I'm registered in is guaranteed to vote anti-trump anyway. So flying to where I'm registered to vote doesn't even matter, not that RI's fucking electoral vote matters anyway.



As a NYer, I haven't ever voted (maybe 4 opportunities) as my vote's similarly never going to make a difference in the outcome. However, I'm starting to change my attitude towards this in that I'm beginning to think everyone should vote purely as a sort of referendum on the electoral college (something that years ago, I didn't see any problem with). 

In the current trend, where it's really close but opposite the popular vote, changing it will seem political (which, it is) but if the popular vote was vastly in favor of one candidate I think there'd be a much greater chance we could remove or alter the electoral system and finally tell Florida to fuck off forever.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

narad said:


> As a NYer, I haven't ever voted (maybe 4 opportunities) as my vote's similarly never going to make a difference in the outcome. However, I'm starting to change my attitude towards this in that I'm beginning to think everyone should vote purely as a sort of referendum on the electoral college (something that years ago, I didn't see any problem with).
> 
> In the current trend, where it's really close but opposite the popular vote, changing it will seem political (which, it is) but if the popular vote was vastly in favor of one candidate I think there'd be a much greater chance we could remove or alter the electoral system and finally tell Florida to fuck off forever.




The worst part is that I'm in a swing state now. My vote does matter WAY more than it did before. I've lived in NC since I think almost exactly 2 years ago, but I never got a new ID or anything. (never worried about it until recently, but COVID is fucking with getting a new ID. Won't get one until Nov at the earliest.) I still *technically* (re:legally) live/am registered to vote in RI which 100% votes blue without fail. (last election Sanders won our vote, and then Hillary afterwards as an example.) RI wasn't worth shit for electoral votes, but NC is. 

I feel useless because I can't even choose between shooting one foot or both. My own fault to be fair, but I don't hate it any less.


----------



## AxRookie

Señor Voorhees said:


> The worst part is that I'm in a swing state now. My vote does matter WAY more than it did before. I've lived in NC since I think almost exactly 2 years ago, but I never got a new ID or anything. (never worried about it until recently, but COVID is fucking with getting a new ID. Won't get one until Nov at the earliest.) I still *technically* (re:legally) live/am registered to vote in RI which 100% votes blue without fail. (last election Sanders won our vote, and then Hillary afterwards as an example.) RI wasn't worth shit for electoral votes, but NC is.
> 
> I feel useless because I can't even choose between shooting one foot or both. My own fault to be fair, but I don't hate it any less.


Don't shoot either foot, VOTE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, VOTE BIDEN!


----------



## Andromalia

You'd think "one man, one voice" would be a simple enough principle to put into application.
About the "stupid americans", well, that's the downside of universal suffrage: idiots get the same voting weight as Einstein.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> Don't shoot either foot, VOTE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, VOTE BIDEN!



Biden is the (much) lesser of two evils, but he's hardly ideal. (if I could vote, he'd have my vote for sure.) My main point is that I just hate the two party system. It's always black/white when there SHOULD be tons of grey areas too. Even with Biden in power, the government is going to fuck us over. Less so than currently, but we'll still be fucked because politicians gonna politician.


----------



## Necris

AxRookie said:


> Don't shoot either foot, VOTE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, VOTE BIDEN!


This sort of thing, while probably just you being hyperbolic, is actually a good illustration of my fears for a potential Biden presidency. Everything about his record immediately whitewashed and explained away, anything he does as president being hailed as a return to sanity, any controversies shrugged off and countered with "would you rather have had Trump?"; everyone up in arms now about the rise of fascism in the US basically tuning out for 4 years and assuming a Biden win means the danger has ceased to exist. Liberals tried to appeal to "the left" early on by casting Biden as a preferable adversary who they could hold accountable more readily than Trump but I can easily imagine a future in which Biden faces about as much scrutiny from his base as Trump currently does from his.


----------



## AxRookie

There's a big difference between "explained away" and explaining to the people why Trump nonsense is complete BS... AND he's spewing a LOT of it... That's what he does...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I know there isn't any actual Hunter Biden situation but this made me chuckle.


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> Don't shoot either foot, VOTE FOR A BETTER FUTURE, VOTE BIDEN!


This type of statement makes you seem like a great team player. The problem is you also come across as unaware that both teams are going to be willing to ride roughshod over you given half a chance.



Necris said:


> This sort of thing, while probably just you being hyperbolic, is actually a good illustration of my fears for a potential Biden presidency. Everything about his record immediately whitewashed and explained away, anything he does as president being hailed as a return to sanity, any controversies shrugged off and countered with "would you rather have had Trump?"; everyone up in arms now about the rise of fascism in the US basically tuning out for 4 years and assuming a Biden win means the danger has ceased to exist. Liberals tried to appeal to "the left" early on by casting Biden as a preferable adversary who they could hold accountable more readily than Trump but I can easily imagine a future in which Biden faces about as much scrutiny from his base as Trump currently does from his.


Yup. This whole "my team is awesome, your team is the devil" mentality is how we ended up with Trump in power and having no checks and balances utilized against him. 

Jon Lovett is not my favorite political pundit, but he does get more right than wrong. He said several times that we need to fight like hell to get Biden elected, and then fight Biden every step of the way to make him live up to his promises and move the needle in the correct direction. That's the right way to view politics. Whoever gets elected needs to be pushed in every way possible to do the right thing. Without that they'll all fall into complacency and start worrying more about funding themselves than taking care of the people that voted them in.


----------



## AxRookie

We'll s


nightflameauto said:


> This type of statement makes you seem like a great team player. The problem is you also come across as unaware that both teams are going to be willing to ride roughshod over you given half a chance.
> 
> 
> Yup. This whole "my team is awesome, your team is the devil" mentality is how we ended up with Trump in power and having no checks and balances utilized against him.
> 
> Jon Lovett is not my favorite political pundit, but he does get more right than wrong. He said several times that we need to fight like hell to get Biden elected, and then fight Biden every step of the way to make him live up to his promises and move the needle in the correct direction. That's the right way to view politics. Whoever gets elected needs to be pushed in every way possible to do the right thing. Without that they'll all fall into complacency and start worrying more about funding themselves than taking care of the people that voted them in.


We'll see...


----------



## tedtan

Necris said:


> This sort of thing, while probably just you being hyperbolic, is actually a good illustration of my fears for a potential Biden presidency. Everything about his record immediately whitewashed and explained away, anything he does as president being hailed as a return to sanity, any controversies shrugged off and countered with "would you rather have had Trump?"; everyone up in arms now about the rise of fascism in the US basically tuning out for 4 years and assuming a Biden win means the danger has ceased to exist. Liberals tried to appeal to "the left" early on by casting Biden as a preferable adversary who they could hold accountable more readily than Trump but I can easily imagine a future in which Biden faces about as much scrutiny from his base as Trump currently does from his.



I understand the concern, but an unchecked Biden will result in complacency rather than an unchecked Trump's trail of destruction. I want more accountability from our politicians too, but I don't see Biden being as bad as Trump even given the opportunity.




nightflameauto said:


> Jon Lovett is not my favorite political pundit, but he does get more right than wrong. He said several times that we need to fight like hell to get Biden elected, and then fight Biden every step of the way to make him live up to his promises and move the needle in the correct direction. That's the right way to view politics. Whoever gets elected needs to be pushed in every way possible to do the right thing. Without that they'll all fall into complacency and start worrying more about funding themselves than taking care of the people that voted them in.



Definitely. It appears that the job of a politician is merely to get elected these days; the representing the people part of the job seems to have been forgotten.


----------



## StevenC

I don't understand why there is so much talk of Hunter Biden doing... something? When Eric Trump is running around with a beard like that.


----------



## Drew

AxRookie said:


> He has to or face prison time for all the crimes the presidency was protecting him from!


Here's an interesting wrinkle, though. As an ex-president, Trump would be escorted by Secret Service agents anywhere he would travel, including outside of the United States. The Secret Service is, per Wikipedia, "...a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security charged with conducting criminal investigations and protecting the nation's leaders, their families, and visiting heads of state or government.[3]" 

So, if Trump wanted to flee the country to escape federal or state prosecution, he would have to do so _in the company of federal law enforcement agents_ who travel armed and very likely would be able to forcefully, discretely extradite Trump from even nations where we don't have extradition treaties, though of course doing so could be a little awkward after the fact, assuming the nation in question wasn't just grateful to get rid of The Donald.

Like, how exactly does he think fleeting the country to avoid arrest is going to work out for him, considering he's already under armed guard 24/7?


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> We'll s
> 
> We'll see...



Are you really that much of a blind supporter? You're no better than trump supporters other than the fact that the guy you seem to be blindly supporting is less heinous than the current guy.

Biden is better, but not good. Apologies for crude language, and possibly being insulting, but it sounds like you're choking so damn hard on Biden's dick it's scary. The way you're talking, you're no different than hardcore trump supporters, just leaning in the opposite way, and that scares me.


----------



## Ralyks

Señor Voorhees said:


> Are you really that much of a blind supporter? You're no better than trump supporters other than the fact that the guy you seem to be blindly supporting is less heinous than the current guy.
> 
> Biden is better, but not good. Apologies for crude language, and possibly being insulting, but it sounds like you're choking so damn hard on Biden's dick it's scary. The way you're talking, you're no different than hardcore trump supporters, just leaning in the opposite way, and that scares me.



I think he mentioned earlier this is the first time he's old enough to vote. Just... Let him have this until he realizes just how fucked up the voting system is.


----------



## AxRookie

Señor Voorhees said:


> Are you really that much of a blind supporter? You're no better than trump supporters other than the fact that the guy you seem to be blindly supporting is less heinous than the current guy.
> 
> Biden is better, but not good. Apologies for crude language, and possibly being insulting, but it sounds like you're choking so damn hard on Biden's dick it's scary. The way you're talking, you're no different than hardcore trump supporters, just leaning in the opposite way, and that scares me.


You're more than welcome to your opinion, BUT I know who I'm voting for! call it whatever you want...

I didn't reg to vote because I couldn't make up my mind who to vote for!

I've been watching everything that has happened over the last 4 years and more so since people started dying and the choice of who to vote for has become crystal clear for me!

If that is somehow scary to you then you should get a helmet because it's a scary time, personally, I don't need one because I've spent a lot of my life learning to fight for myself and what I believe in and no dick sucking talk is going to dissuade me from doing what's right for this country!

PS - age has nothing to do with me reg to vote for the first time, watching thousands of people dying every day while Trump says masks don't work, and ignoring the science on EVERYTHING made me get involved for the first time!

IT HAS TO STOP! and I'm doing what I can to see that it does! Voting is all that I have to fight the ignorance and disregard for anyone and everything other than what Trump believes is good for himself!

I understand the voting system completely BUT doing nothing is what Trump is hoping for and is his only chance to keep trashing this great land!


----------



## narad

This is quickly devolving into homo-erotic fanfiction.


----------



## Randy

Upgrade!


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> Upgrade!



Maybe if it was at least some "X-Men: First Class"-style throwback to their youths in the 60s.


----------



## AxRookie

I'm in my 50's but I've still watched the X-Men movies, I was never into the comics...


----------



## failsafe

narad said:


> This is quickly devolving into homo-erotic fanfiction.


Sign me up


----------



## AxRookie

failsafe said:


> Sign me up


Not that there's anything wrong with that... 

Steinfeld


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Señor Voorhees said:


> Are you really that much of a blind supporter? You're no better than trump supporters other than the fact that the guy you seem to be blindly supporting is less heinous than the current guy.
> 
> Biden is better, but not good. Apologies for crude language, and possibly being insulting, but it sounds like you're choking so damn hard on Biden's dick it's scary. The way you're talking, you're no different than hardcore trump supporters, just leaning in the opposite way, and that scares me.




I don't think its fair to come after him like this. It's a two party system and the nominee was chosen albeit in a bit of an janky primary. But yeah Biden is only alternative they have to Trump right now so might as well be enthusiastic about him.


----------



## nightflameauto

Dineley said:


> I don't think its fair to come after him like this. It's a two party system and the nominee was chosen albeit in a bit of an janky primary. But yeah Biden is only alternative they have to Trump right now so might as well be enthusiastic about him.


There's enthusiasm and then there's . . . whatever this dude's doing. It comes across like he believes the day Biden steps into office all corruption will disappear, the country will rise up out of the ashes of our own stupidity, we'll have a giant orgy of peaceful bliss all while singing kumbaya and kissing each other without any danger from the pandemic. Really, we'll just stop having a constant shit-sling asshole in the oval office. It'll just be a regular asshole that knows how to speak like a "nice guy." It'll be a nice change of pace, sure, but it's not gonna fix what's fundamentally fucked in our country or the world.

The chances of this election cycle not ending in massive violence regardless of who wins is pretty slim in my view. There's people fed up with literally every little thing, and they're poised and ready to strike given the slightest provocation.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> There's enthusiasm and then there's . . . whatever this dude's doing. It comes across like he believes the day Biden steps into office all corruption will disappear, the country will rise up out of the ashes of our own stupidity, we'll have a giant orgy of peaceful bliss all while singing kumbaya and kissing each other without any danger from the pandemic. Really, we'll just stop having a constant shit-sling asshole in the oval office. It'll just be a regular asshole that knows how to speak like a "nice guy." It'll be a nice change of pace, sure, but it's not gonna fix what's fundamentally fucked in our country or the world.
> 
> The chances of this election cycle not ending in massive violence regardless of who wins is pretty slim in my view. There's people fed up with literally every little thing, and they're poised and ready to strike given the slightest provocation.



As much as I agree with you, there is a missed opportunity here for you to suggest something better in place of whatever it is that you don't like.

I know this election is like being stuck at a restaurant where there are only two menu items: turd sandwich or liver and onion. Maybe you don't like liver and onion. Maybe you are allergic to onion. Who knows, but unless the patrons at the restaurant suggest something else (maybe Jo Jorgenson is a pickle sandwich with turd a la carte), they are stuck with the given choices.


----------



## Randy

Plus, if that turd came from the same restaurant, it probably has onions in it.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> There's enthusiasm and then there's . . . whatever this dude's doing. It comes across like he believes the day Biden steps into office all corruption will disappear, the country will rise up out of the ashes of our own stupidity, we'll have a giant orgy of peaceful bliss all while singing kumbaya and kissing each other without any danger from the pandemic. Really, we'll just stop having a constant shit-sling asshole in the oval office. It'll just be a regular asshole that knows how to speak like a "nice guy." It'll be a nice change of pace, sure, but it's not gonna fix what's fundamentally fucked in our country or the world.
> 
> The chances of this election cycle not ending in massive violence regardless of who wins is pretty slim in my view. There's people fed up with literally every little thing, and they're poised and ready to strike given the slightest provocation.


If I haven't already made it crystal clear "dude"? All I've said is I believe Biden is a better choice than Trump AND I'm voting for Biden! Is that clear enough for you to understand???

AND I'm urging others to do the same because Trump has failed in every way possible AND if he wins again it WILL BE FAR WORSE!!!


----------



## Randy

Ignore them. This is literally the stupidest time in history for false equivalencey of candidates or being puritanical on issues, and that's coming from a two time Bernie Sanders voter and a two time Jill Stein voter.

Nobody's enamored by Joe Biden, this is all about not using the highest office to mobilize white supremacist militias and encouraging people to die from a plague to save face. The rest of y'all can go scream at the fuckin wall about how Joe Biden isn't the Dalai Lama, that would've been way more helpful six months ago.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Nobody's enamored by Joe Biden, this is all about not using the highest office to mobilize white supremacist militias and encouraging people to die from a plague to save face.



Or using the White House to profit.


----------



## Randy

I'm not beyond assuming Biden didn't or wouldn't do the same, nor am I beyond assuming everyone else didn't or doesn't do the same. Dick Cheney and Halliburton come to mind. They're all corrupt, I start to give a shit when people start dying for the cause and that's happening now.


----------



## Drew

Now that Trump is ramping up his calls for AG William Barr to open an investigation into Hunter Biden, two things are occuring to me. ]

1) Trump is going STRAIGHT out of his 2016 playbook. If I was a Trump supporter, and prone to self-reflection on the state of the race, I'd be a little concerned tht he doesn't seem to have adapted to the realities of 2020. 

2) I'm not sure a last-moment investigation into Hunter Biden would have the same effect as the Comey letter did, anyway. For one, Hunter Biden, as @Randy so artfully noted, isn't on the ticket, but beyond that... in 2016 the narrative was Clinton was dishonest, had been investigated for SO many scndals, and where there was that much smoke there must be SOME fire. A reopening of an invetigation in the final week fit perfectly into that narrative. In 2020, though, the narrative is Trump is prepared to use all of the power of the presidency to give himself any advantage he can into an election, including leaning on foriegn powers and using a loyalist AG to squelch investigations into his own wrongdoing, and drum up investigations into people anf institutions Trump sees as threats, right up to the FBI itself. The negative narrative a last second Hunter Biden investigatipon would fit is Trump's own. Now, his supporters likely won't care and will still eat it up... But it's not going to convince too many independents. 

...which, I guess, as a Democrat, if this is Trump's final week Hail Mary, then I for one am happy to see him wasting his time.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> If I was a Trump supporter, and prone to self-reflection on the state of the race, I'd be a little concerned tht he doesn't seem to have adapted to the realities of 2020.



If you were a Trump supporter, I doubt you'd be looking at it at all that way. You'd probably be thinking "Whatever won in 2016 will win again in 2020! Can't stop winning! #MAGA #Trump2024 #Pizzagate!" or whatever.

Early voting has Biden winning in the electoral college 342 to 151 with 45 electors not in districts with early voting. However, Fox News was pointing out today that voter rolls in PA and FL have been purged of hundreds of thousands of names, ensuring that Trump will 100% win in both of those states, and since Latinos and Blacks love Trump so much more than Biden, Trump will win in all of the southern states, California, and Michigan, for sure, so Biden doesn't stand a chance. I guess Trump supporters might as well stay home and save themselves the hassle of waiting in long lines, just to vote for the candidate who is already getting 103% of the popular vote. I guess whatever works...

I still have the thought that it seems like an incumbent president cannot be unseated, or that Trump, at least, seems to believe that. If Biden wins and Trump refuses to leave the WH, then what? I sure hope Biden has some sort of a plan in this scenario.


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Now that Trump is ramping up his calls for AG William Barr to open an investigation into Hunter Biden, two things are occuring to me. ]
> 
> 1) Trump is going STRAIGHT out of his 2016 playbook. If I was a Trump supporter, and prone to self-reflection on the state of the race, I'd be a little concerned tht he doesn't seem to have adapted to the realities of 2020.
> 
> 2) I'm not sure a last-moment investigation into Hunter Biden would have the same effect as the Comey letter did, anyway. For one, Hunter Biden, as @Randy so artfully noted, isn't on the ticket, but beyond that... in 2016 the narrative was Clinton was dishonest, had been investigated for SO many scndals, and where there was that much smoke there must be SOME fire. A reopening of an invetigation in the final week fit perfectly into that narrative. In 2020, though, the narrative is Trump is prepared to use all of the power of the presidency to give himself any advantage he can into an election, including leaning on foriegn powers and using a loyalist AG to squelch investigations into his own wrongdoing, and drum up investigations into people anf institutions Trump sees as threats, right up to the FBI itself. The negative narrative a last second Hunter Biden investigatipon would fit is Trump's own. Now, his supporters likely won't care and will still eat it up... But it's not going to convince too many independents.
> 
> ...which, I guess, as a Democrat, if this is Trump's final week Hail Mary, then I for one am happy to see him wasting his time.



It's a bit of a dual reality thing for Trump supporters though, isn't it? Trump has convinced a large number of them that the election is not fair anyway, and that any outcome that does not go his way is illegitimate. Trump has made it obvious that he is catering to his own minority of the electorate, and weaving some bat-shit crazy narrative of his own creation. It requires some level of cognitive dissonance to make any kind of sense of it. 



bostjan said:


> If you were a Trump supporter, I doubt you'd be looking at it at all that way. You'd probably be thinking "Whatever won in 2016 will win again in 2020! Can't stop winning! #MAGA #Trump2024 #Pizzagate!" or whatever.
> 
> Early voting has Biden winning in the electoral college 342 to 151 with 45 electors not in districts with early voting. However, Fox News was pointing out today that voter rolls in PA and FL have been purged of hundreds of thousands of names, ensuring that Trump will 100% win in both of those states, and since Latinos and Blacks love Trump so much more than Biden, Trump will win in all of the southern states, California, and Michigan, for sure, so Biden doesn't stand a chance. I guess Trump supporters might as well stay home and save themselves the hassle of waiting in long lines, just to vote for the candidate who is already getting 103% of the popular vote. I guess whatever works...
> 
> I still have the thought that it seems like an incumbent president cannot be unseated, or that Trump, at least, seems to believe that. If Biden wins and Trump refuses to leave the WH, then what? I sure hope Biden has some sort of a plan in this scenario.



You posted your reply as I was typing mine, but I think you've hit the nail on the head. The narrative for Trump supporters doesn't seem to be seated in any kind of reality.


----------



## gunch

Any case I foresee Children of Men type shit in our future


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> As much as I agree with you, there is a missed opportunity here for you to suggest something better in place of whatever it is that you don't like.
> 
> I know this election is like being stuck at a restaurant where there are only two menu items: turd sandwich or liver and onion. Maybe you don't like liver and onion. Maybe you are allergic to onion. Who knows, but unless the patrons at the restaurant suggest something else (maybe Jo Jorgenson is a pickle sandwich with turd a la carte), they are stuck with the given choices.


I used to make suggestions for something better. The problem is we're now at a point where just tearing the entire thing down and starting over is beginning to look like the only option.

Hey, I tossed my primary votes to who I wanted to have stand a chance. That's as much of a voice as I get when it comes to our current presidential voting process. My vote is literally a throw-away in the end, as my state is so red it's practically a blood vessel.



AxRookie said:


> If I haven't already made it crystal clear "dude"? All I've said is I believe Biden is a better choice than Trump AND I'm voting for Biden! Is that clear enough for you to understand???
> 
> AND I'm urging others to do the same because Trump has failed in every way possible AND if he wins again it WILL BE FAR WORSE!!!



This message is on-point. The thing that's tripping my trigger is your super happy-time posts where you seem to have yourself convinced it's some massive sea-change for everyone to get Biden elected. As somebody that currently sits at, "gotta support Biden, but it sucks," it makes me feel like a beaten dog to see someone acting like it's gonna instantly flip the world to happy, happy, joy, joy.



Randy said:


> Ignore them. This is literally the stupidest time in history for false equivalencey of candidates or being puritanical on issues, and that's coming from a two time Bernie Sanders voter and a two time Jill Stein voter.
> 
> Nobody's enamored by Joe Biden, this is all about not using the highest office to mobilize white supremacist militias and encouraging people to die from a plague to save face. The rest of y'all can go scream at the fuckin wall about how Joe Biden isn't the Dalai Lama, that would've been way more helpful six months ago.



I was saying the same thing six months ago. I've already tossed my end-vote his way, so I feel free to say I don't care for the man or his policies, but he's better than Trump. Doesn't mean I think they're equivalent in any way, shape, or form. I mean, it's a choice between "meh" and "go fuck yourself," so it's an easy one to make. Doesn't mean we have to stand by with big stupid grins talking about how wonderful it all is.



bostjan said:


> I still have the thought that it seems like an incumbent president cannot be unseated, or that Trump, at least, seems to believe that. If Biden wins and Trump refuses to leave the WH, then what? I sure hope Biden has some sort of a plan in this scenario.


I think at this point trying to understand what Trump thinks is a lost effort and will only lead to brain-bleeds.

And in the end, I don't think it can be up to Biden if Trump refuses to leave. It needs to be up to the rest of the government, the supposed checks and balances. And we've had four years showing us those checks and balances no longer exist in any real capacity. It would most likely come down to either military or someone in the secret service deciding morality and doing the right thing is more important than saving the current President from the big meanie doody heads that voted him out. As the secret service doesn't make public statements showing us their opinion of the man on a regular basis, I'm not sure where they'd fall on this one.

At least Jon Oliver got his waste treatment facility. At least we got that going for us. When this is all over we should all go hang out on those bleachers and watch the shit be stirred.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

They don't seem to care at all if their narratives, policy (or lack thereof), beliefs, or platform is consistent or makes sense. Because it doesn't matter to them. None of that even registers. That's why they'll defend Trump on anything. He stands for one thing to them which is being against progressivism. The whole current platform is simply being against other American Liberals. That's the whole angle. No amount of conflicts, no ridiculous statements from their leaders, no blatant contradictions, nothing will ever matter to them. All that matters is that American Liberals lose and that their leaders have a veneer of religiosity, patriotism, and pretend to uphold the constitution. They are simply voting against Liberalism in the USA. It's only that.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> It's a bit of a dual reality thing for Trump supporters though, isn't it? Trump has convinced a large number of them that the election is not fair anyway, and that any outcome that does not go his way is illegitimate. Trump has made it obvious that he is catering to his own minority of the electorate, and weaving some bat-shit crazy narrative of his own creation. It requires some level of cognitive dissonance to make any kind of sense of it.


Yeah, that was what I was kind of getting to with the "prone to self reflection" bit, but there really isn't a good way to put it. Maybe it was different in 2016, but in 2020 there really aren't "rational" reasons for voting for Trump, because he's spent the last four years building a cult of personality - he's the only one you can trust, everyone else is lying to you. I guess maybe there's still a "my taxes will be lower under Trump than Biden, and fuck whatever he thinks about minorities and women," but even then his handling of the economy - something polling suggested a majority of Americans used to approve of - has gotten banged up enough lately that at some point you have to make the calculation that growth is probably going to be higher under Biden than Trump - citing known progressive-left socialist outfit Goldman Sachs here - and paying a little more taxes on a whole lot more earnings is still going to leave you better off. Idunno. We're at a point where you either believe Trump wholly, think everyone else who doesn't also support him is lying to you, so of course you vote for him, or you don't and are voting for anyone else. 

Either way - I kinda think that if Trump DOES get Barr to open an investigation into Hunter Biden... Well, that he's going to be sorely disappointed with the impact that would have on the presidential race.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> I was saying the same thing six months ago. I've already tossed my end-vote his way, so I feel free to say I don't care for the man or his policies, but he's better than Trump. Doesn't mean I think they're equivalent in any way, shape, or form. I mean, it's a choice between "meh" and "go fuck yourself," so it's an easy one to make. Doesn't mean we have to stand by with big stupid grins talking about how wonderful it all is.



Don't question my Democratic apathy cred, I've been bitching about Dems on this site for over 10 years. This just happens to be the first race where the contrast of what you get between the two is stark enough and the stakes are high enough that I'll gladly walk in and out of that polling place with the biggest stupid grin on my face. Might not go away for a few weeks, actually.

As far as the '6 months' thing, I meant if people want to be so insistent on quality, change-agent candidates, we had a primary with 17-fuckin' people. That was the time for that energy, when it could actually effect outcomes for the better. I'm a Jets fan, I don't need anybody to pop my damn balloon for me.


----------



## broj15

Cyanide_Anima said:


> They don't seem to care at all if their narratives, policy (or lack thereof), beliefs, or platform is consistent or makes sense. Because it doesn't matter to them. None of that even registers. That's why they'll defend Trump on anything. He stands for one thing to them which is being against progressivism. The whole current platform is simply being against other American Liberals. That's the whole angle. No amount of conflicts, no ridiculous statements from their leaders, no blatant contradictions, nothing will ever matter to them. All that matters is that American Liberals lose and that their leaders have a veneer of religiosity, patriotism, and pretend to uphold the constitution. They are simply voting against Liberalism in the USA. It's only that.



Exactly this. Aside from single issue voters who only care about issues like abortion & 2A (usually come in a husband/wife duo, clad in denim and real tree or plaid) the only other people who vote for Trump are doing it to own the libs, trigger the snowflakes, and low key (or not so low key) making America a white etno-state.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Don't question my Democratic apathy cred, I've been bitching about Dems on this site for over 10 years. This just happens to be the first race where the contrast of what you get between the two is stark enough and the stakes are high enough that I'll gladly walk in and out of that polling place with the biggest stupid grin on my face. Might not go away for a few weeks, actually.
> 
> As far as the '6 months' thing, I meant if people want to be so insistent on quality, change-agent candidates, we had a primary with 17-fuckin' people. That was the time for that energy, when it could actually effect outcomes for the better. I'm a Jets fan, I don't need anybody to pop my damn balloon for me.


Hey man, I think in some ways we're on the same page. I was a Cards fan when they hired Denny Greene for crying out loud. "THEY WERE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!"

Truth be told, while I agree with you there is a stark difference between the candidates this go-round, I always feel let down by the end-game. The one point of happiness I have is if Biden wins we'll get to witness what may be the most epic public meltdown of all time as Trump either has to come to grips with it, or we watch what's left of our supposed Democracy crumble to dust.

I just can't get folks all giddy at the moment with the process, no matter the outcome.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I honestly wouldn't be at all surprised if Trump loses, that almost immediately he'll be rallying his troops from some undisclosed location... reassuring his cult that it ain't over and commanding his proud puppet militia to storm Washington and their State Capitols in an attempt to disrupt a peaceful transition. I mean.. If he loses, there's going to be a great deal of violence anyway so why not just orchestrate a real Trump-style shit show to let the rest of America know what an awful mistake they've made?


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Ignore them. This is literally the stupidest time in history for false equivalencey of candidates or being puritanical on issues, and that's coming from a two time Bernie Sanders voter and a two time Jill Stein voter.
> 
> Nobody's enamored by Joe Biden, this is all about not using the highest office to mobilize white supremacist militias and encouraging people to die from a plague to save face. The rest of y'all can go scream at the fuckin wall about how Joe Biden isn't the Dalai Lama, that would've been way more helpful six months ago.


Good advice! From the responses below yours, I can see some of them are just yanking chains looking for a rise...

In the morning I'm taking my 82-year-old mother and myself, stand in line for an hour, and cast two more early votes in person for Biden! Her friend cast her early vote in person for Biden today!


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> Don't question my Democratic apathy cred, I've been bitching about Dems on this site for over 10 years. This just happens to be the first race where the contrast of what you get between the two is stark enough and the stakes are high enough that I'll gladly walk in and out of that polling place with the biggest stupid grin on my face. Might not go away for a few weeks, actually.



I bet that grin goes away real fast when, despite clearly losing the popular vote and EC, Trump still declares himself president for life come early December- and ACB just goes "sure, just go right ahead" with it.


----------



## Randy

mbardu said:


> I bet that grin goes away real fast when, despite clearly losing the popular vote and EC, Trump still declares himself president for life come early December- and ACB just goes "sure, just go right ahead" with it.



I prefer a balance of optimism and realism. There will be shenanigans but it was a very low bar to squeak out a win last time, this is a much higher bar to get there. Not saying it can't happen but it's gonna take a lot to make it work.

If he wins again (or does something else to stay in office), I won't be happy about it but I think there'll still be a way forward. I can't see another four years like the last, or the accelerated version he and his followers are threatening.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Dineley said:


> I don't think its fair to come after him like this. It's a two party system and the nominee was chosen albeit in a bit of an janky primary. But yeah Biden is only alternative they have to Trump right now so might as well be enthusiastic about him.



And I admitted this. I said "shooting one foot instead of both." They came back with "don't shoot either, vote biden." as if that wasn't my "shoot one foot" option. And it is. That's blind biden following imo. Biden is shooting one foot vs shooting both (trump.)

edit, keeping in mind that if I could vote, I'd vote Biden 1000% but I won't pretend he's a good option. He's, again, cutting off one foot vs cutting off both. He is not a good choice, but the only realistic choice that's better than trump right now.


----------



## zappatton2

Señor Voorhees said:


> And I admitted this. I said "shooting one foot instead of both." They came back with "don't shoot either, vote biden." as if that wasn't my "shoot one foot" option. And it is. That's blind biden following imo. Biden is shooting one foot vs shooting both (trump.)
> 
> edit, keeping in mind that if I could vote, I'd vote Biden 1000% but I won't pretend he's a good option. He's, again, cutting off one foot vs cutting off both. He is not a good choice, but the only realistic choice that's better than trump right now.


My general observation is that most registered American voters who are voting Democrat are not particularly enthused about Biden, which I think is a good thing; we've already seen the effect of hero worship in politics. But if I could borrow the same metaphor; I think for a registered voter, not voting at all in this case is _also _shooting both feet. So voters, pick your foot.

Do you shoot the left foot, and allow a Biden presidency that keeps things status quo, or do you shoot the right and hold his other foot to the fire?


----------



## spudmunkey

Señor Voorhees said:


> And I admitted this. I said "shooting one foot instead of both." They came back with "don't shoot either, vote biden." as if that wasn't my "shoot one foot" option. And it is. That's blind biden following imo. Biden is shooting one foot vs shooting both (trump.)
> 
> edit, keeping in mind that if I could vote, I'd vote Biden 1000% but I won't pretend he's a good option. He's, again, cutting off one foot vs cutting off both. He is not a good choice, but the only realistic choice that's better than trump right now.



However, if you cut off both feet, you can get prosthetics with built-in additional height. Something you can't do if you still have one attached foot, otherwise you'll lean all the time.


----------



## Randy

So this DOJ antitrust case against Google, is this another blood sacrifice to Trump for anti-conservative bias from big tech?


----------



## spudmunkey

If precedent was set with the Microsoft case(s) years back, the arguments being made make sense, at least according to what tiny bit of information/headlines I've read.


----------



## AxRookie

Hard to tell but they sure are going after Google, Then again the CEO might have made a comment Trump didn't like and that's all it takes...

We'll have to see if Trump Twitter storms on Google to know for sure, That is if he hasn't already started?


----------



## narad

I mean, honestly the size of these giant tech companies is not helping anyone. Tech stagnates a long time and you have to wait many years for a random instagram or tiktok to break through, usually only to be bought by one of the still infinitely bigger companies.

Whether it's Trump or Biden, we really should consider breaking things up a bit.


----------



## broj15

Randy said:


> So this DOJ antitrust case against Google, is this another blood sacrifice to Trump for anti-conservative bias from big tech?



I think the most ironic part is that they're going after Google for an alleged monopoly (fair enough. Google is used by 90% of people in the US). HOWEVER, it was a relatively unregulated free market that allowed for Google to put themselves in thier current position at the top of the mountain, and if I remember any of what I learned from my econ & government courses it's that right leaning politicians loooooove unregulated free market economies that open the door for companies like Google to monopolize. 
Just like how, for a republican (a party built on the principle of state sovereignty) DJT sure does like to be critical of states who's leadership doesn't support his regime to the point of withholding funding if they don't fall in line with whatever he feels is right. Further proof that DJT is a shitty republican and anyone voting for him is doing so for reasons that have nothing to do with policy.


----------



## sleewell

The gop: we need smaller govt that just stays out of our lives with less regulations. Capitalism is the best, if you disagree you are a marxist communist. 



Also the gop: we need the govt to break up big tech companies and control and regulate them. Its not communism bc a failing reality tv show host needs a campaign boost before the election and we blindly agree with everything he says.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I mean, honestly the size of these giant tech companies is not helping anyone. Tech stagnates a long time and you have to wait many years for a random instagram or tiktok to break through, usually only to be bought by one of the still infinitely bigger companies.
> 
> Whether it's Trump or Biden, we really should consider breaking things up a bit.



I feel like I got dog piled in another thread for essentially saying the same thing. 

But yeah, regardless of the specifics of the Microsoft case, the overarching complaint was that they were constantly gobbling up, suffocating and dismantling competition. I personally don't think that's up for debate, I think the only reason companies like Microsoft and Google get to skate by unregulated for long periods of time is because it took that much longer for IT to be considered 'essential' in the ways coal and oil were in the last century. As I said in a previous thread, tech exists in the margins of current antitrust law and it's time for a refresh.

It's funny that the GOP is the party of unregulated capitalism but they were forcing a sale of Tiktok to only a couple of hand picked companies. Now this Google thing. Even before all this, the crowing over how social media choose to police their own platforms.


----------



## Demiurge

In a way, it makes sense. A company too big & powerful that they no longer need to buy politicians must be a real terror.


----------



## nightflameauto

A minor personal note about where we are nationally right now. The pandemic has created situations where schools and businesses needed to develop plans for dealing with the possibility of known outbreaks. Hence, shelter in place policies.

This morning we're under "shelter in place" for all schools and businesses in our locale. Why? Because some nut-job shot up his neighbor's house last night and then ran from the police.

Something about them using shelter in place policies for a situation so far outside the original scope feels very 2020 to me. And somewhat scary. I mean, most of us would be doing the same exact thing at this point of the day regardless, but if that shelter in place rule remains when the doors should be closing this evening, it's going to get very, very dark very, very quickly.

On the actual national stage: Trump and his team are experts at diverting attention. Right when the Democrats and those of us reluctantly pushing for a Democratic win in November should be focused on the final push, they've got the Democratic pundits frothing at the mouth about how disgusting it is to keep bringing up Hunter Biden's somewhat checkered history. I mean, sure, it's a dick move of epic proportions to use the tragic life of a dude that grew up with some rough shit and turned to drugs for comfort and use him as a political cudgel, but falling into the trap of allowing that to dominate the conversation isn't really the right reaction. The right reaction is to give him the stink-eye, then move the conversation in a more positive direction.

Then the whole Google anti-trust thing? I mean, seriously, it's been talked about for years. Why did that have to wait until October 2020? "See, I'm actually doing stuff!" isn't going to work after four years of failure touted as success. The only people impressed by him doing it are those that already were voting for him anyway.

Not that I don't think Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter all need some serious scrutiny. As a techie I get sick to my stomach thinking about how the bigger tech companies have managed to take something that was promising and turned it into a giant ad machine with the bonus of privacy invasion on a scale that would make the old communist regimes cackle with glee. I just feel the timing here is incredibly suspect.


----------



## possumkiller

nightflameauto said:


> Not that I don't think Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter all need some serious scrutiny. As a techie I get sick to my stomach thinking about how the bigger tech companies have managed to take something that was promising and turned it into a giant ad machine with the bonus of privacy invasion on a scale that would make the old communist regimes cackle with glee. I just feel the timing here is incredibly suspect.


Not to mention J. Edgar...


----------



## AxRookie

I stood in line for 5 minutes to vote in person!!!

PS - Here's a tip! bring a frail elderly lady with you to vote and you might just get moved to the front of the line! It's a win, win because you're helping someone that really needs the help and you get to vote quickly!!!


----------



## mbardu

nightflameauto said:


> On the actual national stage: Trump and his team are experts at diverting attention. Right when the Democrats and those of us reluctantly pushing for a Democratic win in November should be focused on the final push, they've got the Democratic pundits frothing at the mouth about how disgusting it is to keep bringing up Hunter Biden's somewhat checkered history. I mean, sure, it's a dick move of epic proportions to use the tragic life of a dude that grew up with some rough shit and turned to drugs for comfort and use him as a political cudgel, but falling into the trap of allowing that to dominate the conversation isn't really the right reaction. The right reaction is to give him the stink-eye, then move the conversation in a more positive direction.



Very few people are bothering with the Hunter Biden story actually.
The right keeps bringing up, sure, but most "regular" media (ie. not The Post, Fox news or Breitbart) have mostly discarded it as the piece of Russian-backed garbage that it is.
The Biden campaign is just just doing what it has been doing forever, meaning trying to sail as smoothly as possible- while minimizing any possible wave or risk of issue that could jeopardize the likely closer-than-reported advantage that they currently have.


----------



## AxRookie

I don't know that it's closer than the polls would suggest because I'm seeing a LOT of rep's and 2016 Trump voters going with Biden and with the huge record-smashing turnout to me that spells big trouble for Rump not to mention he's only making things worse as he keeps attacking all the wrong people even after all the people around his say he should stop, It's almost like he's trying to sabotage his own campaign???


----------



## sleewell

There are tons of trump yard signs all over the state. 

I dont trust polls. Its going to be close.


----------



## Faldoe

AxRookie said:


> I don't know that it's closer than the polls would suggest because I'm seeing a LOT of rep's and 2016 Trump voters going with Biden and with the huge record-smashing turnout to me that spells big trouble for Rump not to mention he's only making things worse as he keeps attacking all the wrong people even after all the people around his say he should stop, It's almost like he's trying to sabotage his own campaign???



He is trying to save face, and his tactics to try and basically insulate himself from the loss have increased distrust in our institutions amongst his base. It also aids in the attempts to undermine general citizen support of the country and it's institutions as whole, which Russia, China, Iran and other countries love. This isn't to say Trump is necessarily intentionally engaging in that but rather it is aiding in other countries' attempts while he does whatever to make it like he just wasn't a good candidate and president that could hang in a substantive debate, about anything.

I highly suggest everyone listen to the recent Sam Harris podcast called "The information apocalypse" which talks about disinformation from other countries as well as within ours, deep fakes, etc. I think it does a good job at highlighting where we are currently in terms of truth, objectivity - that term is "problematic" among the left.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/220-information-apocalypse/


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> huge record-smashing turnout to me that spells big trouble for Rump



Don't be so sure. A former bandmate said that at his local polling place, someone drove by with a trump flag in the parking lot (technically far enough away to still be legal), and the line clapped and whooped and hollered for it.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Don't be so sure. A former bandmate said that at his local polling place, someone drove by with a trump flag in the parking lot (technically far enough away to still be legal), and the line clapped and whooped and hollered for it.


It was just the opposite way around here, not one MAGA hat, Rump tee shirt, bumper sticker, or flag, just a lot of people grumbling how bad everything has gotten today and yesterday when I scouted out the places to vote ...


----------



## spudmunkey

You're also in a state that elected a Democrat governor.


----------



## AxRookie

True and the people here for the most part like the job he's doing here with COVID-19, There is always going to be some "my freedumb, my skydaddy" extremist people everywhere you go because some people just don't see the need for reason and critical thinking and instead embrace dumb chants like "lock her up", "make America great again", or just "superman" because a moron survived COVID-19 thanks the very scientists they mock...


----------



## broj15

AxRookie said:


> True and the people here for the most part like the job he's doing here with COVID-19, There is always going to be some "my freedumb, my skydaddy" extremist people everywhere you go because some people just don't see the need for reason and critical thinking and instead embrace dumb chants like "lock her up", "make America great again", or just "superman" because a moron survived COVID-19 thanks the very scientists they mock...



Aight we all get it. You're ridin' with Biden straight to the Whitehouse and don't expect anything bad to happen along the way. Cool. I just hope you don't end up disappointed by anything that COULD STILL happen.


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, FBI confirmed that Iran and Russia are both trying to interfere. Shocker.


----------



## AxRookie

broj15 said:


> Aight we all get it. You're ridin' with Biden straight to the Whitehouse and don't expect anything bad to happen along the way. Cool. I just hope you don't end up disappointed by anything that COULD STILL happen.


LOL Just an observation, no prediction...


----------



## AxRookie

*Dam I miss this GREAT MAN!*

​


----------



## nightflameauto

Obama is a great speech giver and a great conversationalist. And while he talks a good game, his actual policies left a lot to be desired. He really helped create the situation where executive orders are just accepted as policy that Trump has ridden to extremes to promote policies of horrible precedent.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Obama is a great speech giver and a great conversationalist. And while he talks a good game, his actual policies left a lot to be desired. He really helped create the situation where executive orders are just accepted as policy that Trump has ridden to extremes to promote policies of horrible precedent.



That's a myth. 

Bush2, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter all made more. 

It was conservative media framing of it that turned a fairly common occurrence into something of a scandal. 

Heck, some presidents made orders of magnitude more executive orders. Roosevelt had nearly 4000!


----------



## AxRookie

Obama is great at cutting through the rhetoric and propaganda and laying out the truth so everybody can understand it and recognize it as the truth!

That's why Trump hates him so much!!!

Obama is like the Antidote to Trump's poison...


----------



## nightflameauto

Alright, so I bought into the executive order narrative. My bad.

I'm sorry, I leaned HEAVY into believing in Obama until I saw the way he behaved in office. Again, he talked a good game, but his actual policies were shit. Except for the ACA, which was a massive let-down in its own right, and a bit of a decent line on environmental policy, he was a copy-paste of Bush Jr. with the exception of having the ability to string a sentence together without help. Eloquence doesn't make up for shit policy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Obama was a centrist, not the wild change agent he was sold as to some.

I think he was a good president. Definitely better than who he ran against, both times.


----------



## USMarine75

mbardu said:


> Very few people are bothering with the Hunter Biden story actually.
> The right keeps bringing up, sure, but most "regular" media (ie. not The Post, Fox news or Breitbart) have mostly discarded it as the piece of Russian-backed garbage that it is.
> The Biden campaign is just just doing what it has been doing forever, meaning trying to sail as smoothly as possible- while minimizing any possible wave or risk of issue that could jeopardize the likely closer-than-reported advantage that they currently have.



Fox News is the most watched cable news channel. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/business/media/fox-news-ratings.amp.html


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> Fox News is the most watched cable news channel.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/09/business/media/fox-news-ratings.amp.html



Most watched news-_*entertainment*_ channel as, according to their own legal defense, no reasonable viewer should be expected to take their programing as factual.

Anyway, who watches cable nowadays?
Boomers? Older white men? So yeah, not surprising to see that stat because those / Fox watchers / Trump supporters have a good level of overlap.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Obama was a centrist, not the wild change agent he was sold as to some.
> 
> I think he was a good president. Definitely better than who he ran against, both times.


Oh, I have no doubt he was better than the alternative, but much like now "better than the other guy" isn't the greatest selling point when it comes to this lot. "Won't fuck up as bad as him," is really what we're saying, and it's just depressing that that's always the final choice.

And even with saying all that, Obama was still the best president we've had in a long time. And that's just sad.


----------



## USMarine75

mbardu said:


> Most watched news-_*entertainment*_ channel as, according to their own legal defense, no reasonable viewer should be expected to take their programing as factual.
> 
> Anyway, who watches cable nowadays?
> Boomers? Older white men? So yeah, not surprising to see that stat because those / Fox watchers / Trump supporters have a good level of overlap.



Wow and that kind of naïveté is a exactly how we got Trump in the first place. SMDH...


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> Wow and that kind of naïveté is a exactly how we got Trump in the first place. SMDH...



We got Trump because made up BS + apathy + a feeling that it's won already + a lot of animosity against her + a stooge 3rd party candidate meant very few Dem electors showed up to vote for Hillary 4 years ago relatively speaking. And even with all those factors, she still largely won the popular vote. But thanks to the EC, we all know that doesn't matter.

So yeah, Fox believing Trump supports are plenty- and in a country of voter suppression and non-representative democracy with arbitrary things like the EC, and a cheating incumbent president- there may be enough of them to make Trump win again. But those are different things. Despite being numerous, that hardly means that his supporters and their media constitute a _majority_. They don't.


----------



## USMarine75

mbardu said:


> We got Trump because made up BS + apathy + a feeling that it's won already + a lot of animosity against her + a stooge 3rd party candidate meant very few Dem electors showed up to vote for Hilary 4 years ago relatively speaking. Even with all those factors, she still largely won the popular vote. But thanks to the EC, we all know that doesn't matter.
> 
> So yeah, Fox believing Trump supports are plenty- and in a country of voter suppression and non-representative democracy with arbitrary things like the EC, and a cheating incumbent president- there may be enough of them to make Trump win again. But those are different things. Despite being numerous, that hardly means that his supporters and their media constitute a _majority_. They don't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Oh, I have no doubt he was better than the alternative, but much like now "better than the other guy" isn't the greatest selling point when it comes to this lot. "Won't fuck up as bad as him," is really what we're saying, and it's just depressing that that's always the final choice.
> 
> And even with saying all that, Obama was still the best president we've had in a long time. And that's just sad.



It's unfortunate that the best we can ask for is to not be a monster, but I still think Obama wasn't, objectively, a bad president. 

The goal of any president should be to make the country safer and more prosperous for as many of its people as possible. I think he accomplished that.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's unfortunate that the best we can ask for is to not be a monster, but I still think Obama wasn't, objectively, a bad president.
> 
> The goal of any president should be to make the country safer and more prosperous for as many of its people as possible. I think he accomplished that.



I'd say he accomplished that and a bit more (in spite of a lot of legislative opposition), but to a lot of people (even who benefitted directly from his recovery and ACA) it will never feel like he did. Because reasons. That shall not be spoken of.


----------



## spudmunkey

It's also worth remembering that the bill that ended up being passed, and the plan that exists as "Obamacare" is also the result of a grander picture from the bill's architects, whittled down (sabotaged, in some ways) by Republicans, both on the federal level, as well as state-level with state governors and legislatures limiting their own participation.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> It's also worth remembering that the bill that ended up being passed, and the plan that exists as "Obamacare" is also the result of a grander picture from the bill's architects, whittled down (sabotaged, in some ways) by Republicans, both on the federal level, as well as state-level with state governors and legislatures limiting their own participation.


Fully aware of this, and that when the Democrats had the ability to push with their own power they refused to on the grounds of "reaching across the aisle and building a coalition," which is always their excuse for not accomplishing what they set out to do.

That said, my major beefs with Obama lay in his continued security theater, and his continued push for constant battle in the middle-east, plus the continued existence without review of Gitmo. Add in his continued propping up of the auto industry and you've basically got all the worst parts of Bush Jr. continued through Obama's tenure.

The worst part of this is nobody wanted to talk about any of that even when he was in office. It was like he got elected and suddenly everything wrong with the Bush administration disappeared. I'm not at all interested in watching the same thing happen when Biden takes office. I'd like to see people holding him accountable for failed campaign promises. Unlike what happened with Obama.

People can think I'm falling for the Republican talking points when I say I didn't care for some of Obama's policies, but the truth is I had a much bigger problem with the things nobody wants to talk about when it comes to Obama, not even the Republicans. At least not up to this point. Why would the Republicans bitch about a Democrat continuing their policies?

My life didn't objectively get worse under Obama, and in some ways got better. But I'm a firm believer in pointing out the faults of those in leadership, even when they may be doing OK by me in some aspects. The blind-faith followers of any political figure are how we end up with somebody like Trump in power with half the country swinging from his nuts regardless of how terrible a job he does.

Was Obama a bad president? No. Could he have been better? 100% yes. And it's not that horrible to point that out.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> Obama is great at cutting through the rhetoric and propaganda and laying out the truth so everybody can understand it and recognize it as the truth!
> 
> That's why Trump hates him so much!!!
> 
> Obama is like the Antidote to Trump's poison...



To be unapologetically crude and hyperbolic, trump hates Obama because Obama can form real sentences that make sense... And in Trump's biggoted mind, Obama is a backwoods not-from-here African savage who, again in Trump's mind, should be an idiot.

Probably not true, but it wouldn't surprise me. My brain STILL always hurts every time I hear Trump try to say something meaningful and it sounds like the words of a six year old "my dad works at Nintendo" rebuttal. 

It's scary enough having someone in power who has dangerous ideals... It's even scarier when they have dangerous ideals, can't get their point across, and somehow a great many people still buy into it. It'd be like if Hitler was drooling into a bucket and somehow STILL won over people's hearts. Trump is a tactless moronic turd who has had way too many things handed to him.

Obama has Charisma, whether you like or hate him is irrelevant. Trump is just a fucking meme and that's fun/funny for too many people to support. Oversimplified, and there's way more to it than that, but the people I know who personally support trump are unapologetic memesters who just want to watch the world burn and/or just like that he enables their biggoted world views.

Obama isn't an antidote to Trump's poison, he's merely the well-intentioned friend who can see you have a problem and try to help you fix it, but that's useless if your drug-addicted friend enjoys the shitty feeling of self destruction.


----------



## SpaceDock

Sad part is that to many voters, none of that matters. They support Trump because they think he will get rid of Roe v Wade, will protect the 2nd amendment, or because they have been a Republican for the last 20 years and this is a team sport to them. I know far too many normal, intelligent, kind, and honest Americans who are going to vote for Trump no matter how much they hate him as a person for one of those reasons.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

SpaceDock said:


> Sad part is that to many voters, none of that matters. They support Trump because they think he will get rid of Roe v Wade, will protect the 2nd amendment, or because they have been a Republican for the last 20 years and this is a team sport to them. I know far too many normal, intelligent, kind, and honest Americans who are going to vote for Trump no matter how much they hate him as a person for one of those reasons.



You are correct 100% and it's why we need a more diverse pool to choose from. I'm betting that there are some people who do lean decently left, but they're too scared of losing their guns or something, so they'll vote with that in mind. Vice-versa too. I'm betting there are people who want guns gone and could not care less what they sacrifice to get stricter gun control. These are just two small examples of purple/grey areas and having more candidates to choose from could help alleviate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Señor Voorhees said:


> You are correct 100% and it's why we need a more diverse pool to choose from. I'm betting that there are some people who do lean decently left, but they're too scared of losing their guns or something, so they'll vote with that in mind. Vice-versa too. I'm betting there are people who want guns gone and could not care less what they sacrifice to get stricter gun control. These are just two small examples of purple/grey areas and having more candidates to choose from could help alleviate.



The choices are there (Green, Libertarian, etc.) they just haven't gained any traction after however many decades. 

Our government is just not configured for more than two parties and it's sort of our (the American people's) fault.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Oh, I know the choices are there, I'm just sad that we can't vote how we really feel. There are frequently/always moral compromises we have to make to fit in with red/blue. Nobody votes other than Rep or Dem because they feel like they're throwing their vote away... And for a while, they will be, but failing to vote with your heart will see the vicious cycle repeat.

I get that me ranting about it won't fix anything too, and I don't even know how to begin trying to fix it other than throwing my vote away on a candidate I actually prefer. I know I'm basically just shouting at the wall, and that's fine. It's just good to vent sometimes and even if it might not seem like it, I just about outright agree with most of the opinions shared on this forum. (Even if I say crude things... Sorry @AxRookie ... I love your enthusiasm, but I'm so fucking middling that I get my jimmies rustled when anyone speaks so matter-of-factly on things that aren't set in stone.) It's just frustrating seeing us maintain the status quo and bitching about issues that could be solved, or at least alleviated, if we ALL (not us on this forum, or whatever, but EVERYONE) just realized that very few of us are truly happy with that status quo. 

Perhaps it's childish of me to equate the real world with a video game, but I can't help but think of Vass Montenegro's "definition of insanity" rants throughout Farcry 3. Vass very much feels like the US to me. We're doing the same two things over and over and it never works out... Our solution? Do it again.


----------



## Ralyks

Uhh what the hells going on here? That's not photoshopped.


----------



## mbardu

This has got to be photoshopped


----------



## AxRookie

Really Trump supporters like Trump because many of them have money and they believe Trump's going to protect their money and that's all they are worried about, Money...


----------



## SpaceDock

mbardu said:


> This has got to be photoshopped



nope, they have been seeing it over the last few days. Looks like the effects of really poor circulation.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

To me, early going in this debate, Biden is giving up so much opportunity. He needs to get beyond these things that he's already said 5x. "Folks are looking across the dinner table and that loved one isn't there" Those 'getcha right in the feels' phrases worked once or twice but damn, quit repeating this shit. We know, and we're empathetic but move the fuck on. Biden has the chance to elaborate and say new things but he's not making positive use of his time. And damn, he's got so much ammunition to use against trump and he's not using it. I mean... trump is standing there LYING in real time and Biden's not going after him with precise accurate rebuttals. It's like he's ready with a good reply as trump is speaking but then when it's time to call him out, he just blanks... like he's forgetting what trump just said or he's disoriented. Trump at least 35 minutes into this thing, is stomping on Biden because Biden is letting him.


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I think just letting Trump talk is working for Biden.


----------



## SpaceDock

Yeah, I see Trump is sweating and rambling. Joe is calm but still a bit of a goob.


----------



## AxRookie

Joe's doing great and Trump is being Trump!

Trump is lying his ass off and Joe is answering the questions directly...

Trump... Obama, Obama, Obama...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

We know trump is lying but Joe isn't calling him out on very much and although Biden looks calm and a lot more likeable ( as usual), trump is looking like a stronger contender. Most of what trump says is a lie or out of context or just plain inaccurate but that hasn't mattered to a lot of people anyway. Despite all that we know or assume about trump's ill mental and physical health, he's doing a better job tonight... at least potentially to someone trying to look at this particular debate w/o bias. That's what I saw early on anyway.


----------



## spudmunkey

Watched Borat 2 instead. Big "meh", and the Giuliani scene is definitely overblown, IMHO.


----------



## Randy

Much better Trump than lately. He still lied through his teeth but the bar is so low, not activating militia sleeper cells and yelling uncontrollably was a better look.

It's too little too late, but there might have been Trump voters out there staying home from apathy or dislike of his personality (talked to one at length today) that get enough of a boost from this to show up. Any good will he may have done will likely be undone from another 'lock her up' rally in the next day, though.

Moderating was great, best debate format in several years. She seemed to cut Trump off more that Biden, though hard to track if that was because Trump didn't wrap his thoughts up and Biden did.


----------



## Ralyks

Trump did as well has he could lying through his teeth. I thought Biden did fine. But honestly, I think everyone's made their mind up already and this won't change anything. But good on Joe for at least emphasizing he was going to be the president of the United States, not just red States or blue states. The one thing I'll give Trump was he got Joe on the crime bill.


----------



## SpaceDock

@Randy good point, moderator made Chris Wallace looks like an absolute boob!


----------



## broj15

Just finished the debate and it seemed more like a debate between DJT and the moderator. Surprised that it was Biden that opened the door on "Hunter's" laptop, but it's been his style to be up front about that stuff lately, which has helped him.
Imo Joe did a good job of talking to the ppl at home and trump did a good job of treating the debate like it was a negotiation in the board room.
For me it's seemed like a return to form for both of them: Biden being a centrist/neo lib trying to appeal to everyone by overselling what he can feasibly pull off in 1-2 terms (depending on how cooperative Congress is). Trump was exactly the Trump he was in 2016: a bully and a businessman, and that's exactly why his base loves him. Though Joe leaves him less room for "gotchas" than Hilary did. I hate to say it but, while I don't like what Trump does, he can definitely do it well when he gets an opportunity.

Like everyone else has said, I think everyone's minds have been made up since before the FIRST debate and as the days go on people are just getting more and more entrenched in thier position. We could have the election tomorrow and the results would be the same as they'd be on November 3rd.

Honestly I wish we could just have it tomorrow and get the whole shit show over with. I'm personally tired of worrying about the outcome and the shit that's sure to hit the fan no matter who wins.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> the Giuliani scene is definitely overblown, IMHO.


Really? dang, I was looking forward to seeing that...


----------



## broj15

Can't believe I forgot to mention some of Joe's one liners. "this guy's a dog whistle as big as a fog horn"... I honestly laughed harder at that that Jim Carrey's SNL impersonation of Biden.


----------



## AxRookie

*Trump picked up a new Endorsement!*
​


----------



## sleewell

quaaludes trump > meth trump



is it festivus season already? seems like trump was going hard on the airing of grievances last night. works when you run as a challenger but when you are the guy you are complaining about it kinda backfires.

also.. what the fuck was he doing with is hands all night? looked like he was doing a caricature of himself, badly.


----------



## nightflameauto

Either Trump actually listened to his coaches, or somebody took away his Adderall before the debate. He seemed way calmer than we've seen him be publicly in a long time.

Granted, nearly every word he said was a straight up lie, but that's nothing new.

I do wish either the moderator or Biden would have called out Trump for some of the stupidity. Saying over and over again that Biden makes more money from other countries than anybody was one of the bigger facepalms of the entire thing, yet nobody really said, "what about all your properties all over the world?" as even a start.

Biden didn't really have any huge gotchyas, but he didn't bumble too horribly. I'd say between the two it wasn't really a massive victory for either.

Could we add fact checkers to the debates next go-round? The constant stream of lies gets hard to listen to for those of us that actually educate ourselves on what's happening leading up to an election.

Biden's occasional sarcasm was funny, but will probably irk people. Seems like there were people upset that he got angry last time, while I can't imagine not getting angry with Trump ranting lunacy the way he did last go-round.

All in all, not the dumpster fire of the first debate, but nothing really stood out as amazing either.


----------



## tedtan

sleewell said:


> also.. what the fuck was he doing with is hands all night? looked like he was doing a caricature of himself, badly.



It looked like he was playing air accordion.


----------



## possumkiller

Does it really even matter? Is there anyone that actually bases their decision on these debates?


----------



## MFB

possumkiller said:


> Does it really even matter? Is there anyone that actually bases their decision on these debates?



I believe they're called "undecided voters"?


----------



## nightflameauto

tedtan said:


> It looked like he was playing air accordion.


It honestly looked like he's spent too much time "admiring" Alec Baldwin's impressions of him and decided to steal some of his schtick 'cause it looks better than what he actually does. In his mind, of course.


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> yet nobody really said, "what about all your properties all over the world?" as even a start.



I'm almost positive Biden brought up Trump's hotels, golf courses, etc.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> I'm almost positive Biden brought up Trump's hotels, golf courses, etc.


Now that you mention it, I think I do remember that, but it was a brief flash once while Trump railed for minutes at a time about how much money Biden gets from other countries.

I will say I enjoyed Biden saying Trump doesn't understand who he's running against. That was a funny moment without direct malice.


----------



## possumkiller

MFB said:


> I believe they're called "undecided voters"?


Like what kind of braindead lifeless waste of space do you have to be to be undecided at this point? You're either voting for Biden or you're nazi scum.


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> Like what kind of braindead lifeless waste of space do you have to be to be undecided at this point? You're either voting for Biden or you're nazi scum.



I already voted, but I'm undecided as to whether I want to know how this turns out or to just literally live under a rock for the next four years. Maybe I'll be the next Punxsutawne Phil - "Oh there's Bostjan again, if he gets scared and goes back under his rock, it'll predict another four years of Trump!"


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> That said, my major beefs with Obama lay in his continued security theater, and his continued push for constant battle in the middle-east, plus the continued existence without review of Gitmo. Add in his continued propping up of the auto industry and you've basically got all the worst parts of Bush Jr. continued through Obama's tenure.


I mean, some of these were probably not his fault. Gitmo, it's very easy to say as a candidate "we're going to shut it down." Ok, cool - where are you going to go with all of the prisoners? There was a HUGE amount of pushback to the idea of bringing them to the states, our allies didn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, the countries they came from couldn't be trusted to keep them in prison, and we couldn't just turn them loose. Pulling out of the middle east, yeah, super easy to say, probably even not that hard to do... but the power vacuum that would create would absolutely FUCK our allies in the region, meaning just cutting and running wasn't an option if we ever wanted to have diplomatic relations in the region anyway. And the auto industry, yeah, some of those companies were poorly run, some through mismanagement and some through overreach of UAW anyway (I thought making UAW a major stakeholder of the bailed out firms was a very elegant attempt to try to better align both of their interests, FWIW).... but between direct employees and indirect employees (auto dealer networks, etc), millions of Americans were employed by the auto sector, and simply letting them fail and leaving millions of americans out of work and suddenly losing good middle-class jobs, during a recession when unemployment was already soaring, would have been disasterous. Today the companies are, if not in great shape, then at least somewhat leaner and more stable and are all expected to weather the current recession, and those Americans' jobs are secure. Considering I believe we made money on the auto bailout (I know we did on TARP, I think we ultimately sold shares at a profit here too), I'm ultimately ok with the deision for the federal government to step in, and I'm about as free-market as we get around here.



Señor Voorhees said:


> Oh, I know the choices are there, I'm just sad that we can't vote how we really feel. There are frequently/always moral compromises we have to make to fit in with red/blue. Nobody votes other than Rep or Dem because they feel like they're throwing their vote away... And for a while, they will be, but failing to vote with your heart will see the vicious cycle repeat.


Except, "voting with your heart" is a pretty good way to see the vicious cycle repeat, too, while just ensuring a candidate without majority support gets placed in office *cough*2016*cough*.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I mean, some of these were probably not his fault. Gitmo, it's very easy to say as a candidate "we're going to shut it down." Ok, cool - where are you going to go with all of the prisoners? There was a HUGE amount of pushback to the idea of bringing them to the states, our allies didn't want to touch them with a ten foot pole, the countries they came from couldn't be trusted to keep them in prison, and we couldn't just turn them loose. Pulling out of the middle east, yeah, super easy to say, probably even not that hard to do... but the power vacuum that would create would absolutely FUCK our allies in the region, meaning just cutting and running wasn't an option if we ever wanted to have diplomatic relations in the region anyway. And the auto industry, yeah, some of those companies were poorly run, some through mismanagement and some through overreach of UAW anyway (I thought making UAW a major stakeholder of the bailed out firms was a very elegant attempt to try to better align both of their interests, FWIW).... but between direct employees and indirect employees (auto dealer networks, etc), millions of Americans were employed by the auto sector, and simply letting them fail and leaving millions of americans out of work and suddenly losing good middle-class jobs, during a recession when unemployment was already soaring, would have been disasterous. Today the companies are, if not in great shape, then at least somewhat leaner and more stable and are all expected to weather the current recession, and those Americans' jobs are secure. Considering I believe we made money on the auto bailout (I know we did on TARP, I think we ultimately sold shares at a profit here too), I'm ultimately ok with the deision for the federal government to step in, and I'm about as free-market as we get around here.


I hate to spend too much more time talking about my problems with Obama as every time I do someone seems to think I'm a racist Republican sycophant rather than seeing my point. So I'll just say the ongoing issue of candidates way over-promising on shit they KNOW they can't accomplish and then pretty much turning tail on even pretending those promises were made the moment they're elected is something that's ground my gears since I was of voting age if not before. I know, "it's how things get done," but as can be shown by how utterly backwards we are at literally everything right now, if this is how things get done, maybe we should try an alternative?

Granted, the only alternative at this point that could actually happen is outright rebellion, and that's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for our pampered population. So I guess we just sit here stuck on the ever repeating cycle of Democrat/Republican and nothing else matters.


----------



## mbardu

nightflameauto said:


> I hate to spend too much more time talking about my problems with Obama as every time I do someone seems to think I'm a racist Republican sycophant rather than seeing my point. So I'll just say the ongoing issue of candidates way over-promising on shit they KNOW they can't accomplish and then pretty much turning tail on even pretending those promises were made the moment they're elected is something that's ground my gears since I was of voting age if not before. I know, "it's how things get done," but as can be shown by how utterly backwards we are at literally everything right now, if this is how things get done, maybe we should try an alternative?
> 
> Granted, the only alternative at this point that could actually happen is outright rebellion, and that's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for our pampered population. So I guess we just sit here stuck on the ever repeating cycle of Democrat/Republican and nothing else matters.



♫♫ _ and nothing eeeeeelse matters _ ♫♫


----------



## nightflameauto

You guys should appreciate this. My Hulu horked up mid debate and this screen came up:






Cracked me the hell up.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew, ( re @nightflameauto ) - Let's not pretend that Obama wasn't smart enough to know that closing Gitmo wasn't going to be as simple as wishing the people in it to simply disappear into a mystical land of unicorns and the missing left socks from my laundry. He *knew* that he would never deliver on that promise, and he made the promise anyway. As a fanatic for us doing the right thing in morally charged situations, I had my knickers in a knot over Gitmo from day one. So, when Obama promised to make Gitmo go away, he pretty much had my vote based on that alone. There were other things about him that I liked, but, honestly, I liked some things about McCain, too, and there were plenty of things about both of them that I did not like. Actually, the biggest thing I disliked about McCain's candidacy, by far, was his running mate. I even pulled for McCain back in 2000, before the neo-con takeover of the GOP and before the tea party looked like a bunch of morons. I wasn't a huge fan of Al Gore back then (I'm still not, but I'd take him over Biden), and I thought Bush number two was a weenie, so I voted for Ralph Nader and then had to put up with four years of the USA falling apart at the seams under some of the worst leadership ever, only to be disillusioned by the 2004 election, when Bush, who had led us into disarray and disaster was re-elected by a majority of the popular vote. But I digress.

Obama promised a lot of things. He made good on very few of those promises, and the few promises he did keep, he made tons of concessions on them - often times, to the point where they made things worse, rather than better.

I wanted peace. I wanted the Constitution to be upheld. I wanted due process and less government surveillance and yadda yadda. Instead, I got more gitmo, more wars, weapons run to Mexico by the administration, and whistleblower Ed Snowden getting exiled to Russia. What a let down for anyone with values similar to mine. If you want to debate the morality of any of these with me, feel free, although it's probably OT and I'm sure we've at least touched on the discussion before.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I hate to spend too much more time talking about my problems with Obama as every time I do someone seems to think I'm a racist Republican sycophant rather than seeing my point. So I'll just say the ongoing issue of candidates way over-promising on shit they KNOW they can't accomplish and then pretty much turning tail on even pretending those promises were made the moment they're elected is something that's ground my gears since I was of voting age if not before. I know, "it's how things get done," but as can be shown by how utterly backwards we are at literally everything right now, if this is how things get done, maybe we should try an alternative?
> 
> Granted, the only alternative at this point that could actually happen is outright rebellion, and that's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for our pampered population. So I guess we just sit here stuck on the ever repeating cycle of Democrat/Republican and nothing else matters.


Hey, just to be clear, I absolutely did NOT accuse you of being a "racist Republican sycophant," just said that I think Obama may not have fully appreciated how tricky delivering some of these things was going to be. This is for @bostjan too, for that matter - I think Obama knew closing Gitmo, and getting us out of the Middle East, was going to be hard. I don't think he realized the absolute total clusterfuck of diplomatic clusterfucks it actually ended up being - I suspect he was pretty frustrated about the whole thing, too. 

I hope the auto industry, at a minimum, I made a few points that you at least are open to considering. 

As a broader point, I think it's probably important to consider that, when a candidate is running for president, their platform is what they _want_ to accomplish and is an outline of what their priorities are, rather than a literal depiction of what they expect to do in the next four years. If there's ANY candidate I can think of, aside from Trump, whose suppporters are running afoul of this, it's Bernie Sanders, but unquestionably I think we do that to all candidates; ignore the logistical difficulties (be they diplomatic and international, or political and domestic) of an agenda and assume that what a candidate says they're going to do IS what they're going to do, rather than what they're going to TRY to do. 

I mean, shit, the GOP has been running on "repeal the ACA" for ten years now, you know?


----------



## nightflameauto

While on a certain level I get the auto-industry points you make, Drew, it's a sickening feeling that every time some multi-million/multi-billion dollar industry stumbles, they get direct injection of funding from the government, while if a standard bog issue humanoid, such as ourselves, stumbles, we get told we aren't trying hard enough and we need to go fuck ourselves until we get it right. It all seems ass-backwards to me, but that's the American way. Big money = important. Peon = die in a gutter.

If we had actual financial support for individuals when they hit hard times like a civilized nation, we wouldn't have to run circles around ourselves propping up failing businesses left right and center. The airline industry, the financial industry, the stock market, the auto industry, the ENTERTAINMENT industry (because they're important?) all of them have received some kind of government hand-out when they hit hard times for a brief period, while us individuals repeatedly get told if we don't have money on hand to keep us going for two years or more if we lose a job, well, we're just stupid and deserve the kicking life is going to eventually give us.

It just seems like our priorities are all kinds of out of whack.

I'd love to see an individual stipend for workers laid off/fired during this pandemic with a caveat of using some of it for education while using the rest to survive. That's not undignified, and gives the people receiving it something tangible that can positively motivate them upwards once things start getting back to normal. I know that would send the GOP into an absolutely shit-fit of epic proportions because anything that doesn't funnel money directly upwards is tantamount to killing baby Jesus in the manger, but that seems short-sighted as it keeps landing the country deeper and deeper into dumb-land with less and less spending power in the general population. Which eventually leads to nobody buying what the big industries are selling.

As I've said elsewhere, we're currently in a massive feedback loop of economic beatdowns, and rather than trying something different we just keep doing the same thing and wondering why it's not working.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> I hate to spend too much more time talking about my problems with Obama as every time I do someone seems to think I'm a racist Republican sycophant rather than seeing my point. So I'll just say the ongoing issue of candidates way over-promising on shit they KNOW they can't accomplish and then pretty much turning tail on even pretending those promises were made the moment they're elected is something that's ground my gears since I was of voting age if not before. I know, "it's how things get done," but as can be shown by how utterly backwards we are at literally everything right now, if this is how things get done, maybe we should try an alternative?
> 
> Granted, the only alternative at this point that could actually happen is outright rebellion, and that's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for our pampered population. So I guess we just sit here stuck on the ever repeating cycle of Democrat/Republican and nothing else matters.


You racist Republican sycophant! 


Just kidding.


----------



## broj15

nightflameauto said:


> I hate to spend too much more time talking about my problems with Obama as every time I do someone seems to think I'm a racist Republican sycophant rather than seeing my point. So I'll just say the ongoing issue of candidates way over-promising on shit they KNOW they can't accomplish and then pretty much turning tail on even pretending those promises were made the moment they're elected is something that's ground my gears since I was of voting age if not before. I know, "it's how things get done," but as can be shown by how utterly backwards we are at literally everything right now, if this is how things get done, maybe we should try an alternative?
> 
> Granted, the only alternative at this point that could actually happen is outright rebellion, and that's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for our pampered population. So I guess we just sit here stuck on the ever repeating cycle of Democrat/Republican and nothing else matters.



Hey, hate on Obama all you want. Dude was not the best president by any stretch. I just think that alot of us millennials get nostalgia for the Obama years because it was probably the last time "things were good" for any of us, or it was atleast the last time we remember a "good person" was our president (and good ppl can be shitty presidents. Look at Jimmy Carter). Or you can point to a less than cooperative Congress for a good portion of his 8 years along with inheriting A TON of baggage from the Bush administration. You can chalk it up to alot of things.

In my experience I feel like any self respecting leftist/progressive that's some what well read & capable of critical thought is highly critical of Obama, if no other reason than the foreign policy he enacted in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Under the Obama administration the US military helped carry out more HIGHLY INDISCRIMINATE drone strikes than any other major power in the world. Just look at the Israeli invasion of Gaza in 2014. 2100 people dead over the course of 50 days of conflict. 500 Palestinian children... 500 in 50 days. Obama signed off on that. For a better idea of what I'm talking about specifically look into reading The Drone Eats With Me by Atef Abu Saif. An eyewitness account of a man living in Gaza at the time of the invasion.
Honestly I can relate to worrying about being labeled a a racist (or in my case anti-Semitic) due to my opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or just Israel in general, but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## StevenC

broj15 said:


> Hey, hate on Obama all you want. Dude was not the best president by any stretch.


Not to disregard the rest of your thoughtful post, but who do you (and any other Americans reading) rate as the best president and on what basis?


----------



## zappatton2

StevenC said:


> Not to disregard the rest of your thoughtful post, but who do you (and any other Americans reading) rate as the best president and on what basis?


On the policy side, I _would _say Harrison Ford, but the Pullman presidency _did _defeat the aliens.


----------



## AxRookie

zappatton2 said:


> On the policy side, I _would _say Harrison Ford, but the Pullman presidency _did _defeat the aliens.


That's all and good but Michael Douglas did bed Annette Bening back in her heyday which is quite an accomplishment...

And to be fair the Pullman presidency didn't really defeat the aliens, it was Goldblum along with Smith's help launched from Area 51 (a place that Pullman pres didn't know was real) that defeated them, and only after nearly everything was destroyed along with 3/4 of the world's people!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Not to disregard the rest of your thoughtful post, but who do you (and any other Americans reading) rate as the best president and on what basis?



I get grading on a curve, but it's still not fair. 

I'd say we haven't had a truly great president in at least the last 100 years, we've had some good ones, mostly bad ones, and a couple truly awful ones. 

I'm no Obama revisionist, but placing his foreign "policy" actions alongside stuff like the War On Drugs or War On Terror, it was but a blip on the radar.


----------



## AxRookie

Hey did you hear that a 14-year-old girl came up with a new way to fight COVID-19 that nobody had thought of for a science fair and she only won $25,000 dollars?!?


----------



## Bearitone

nightflameauto said:


> While on a certain level I get the auto-industry points you make, Drew, it's a sickening feeling that every time some multi-million/multi-billion dollar industry stumbles, they get direct injection of funding from the government, while if a standard bog issue humanoid, such as ourselves, stumbles, we get told we aren't trying hard enough and we need to go fuck ourselves until we get it right. It all seems ass-backwards to me, but that's the American way. Big money = important. Peon = die in a gutter.
> 
> If we had actual financial support for individuals when they hit hard times like a civilized nation, we wouldn't have to run circles around ourselves propping up failing businesses left right and center. The airline industry, the financial industry, the stock market, the auto industry, the ENTERTAINMENT industry (because they're important?) all of them have received some kind of government hand-out when they hit hard times for a brief period, while us individuals repeatedly get told if we don't have money on hand to keep us going for two years or more if we lose a job, well, we're just stupid and deserve the kicking life is going to eventually give us.
> 
> It just seems like our priorities are all kinds of out of whack.
> 
> I'd love to see an individual stipend for workers laid off/fired during this pandemic with a caveat of using some of it for education while using the rest to survive. That's not undignified, and gives the people receiving it something tangible that can positively motivate them upwards once things start getting back to normal. I know that would send the GOP into an absolutely shit-fit of epic proportions because anything that doesn't funnel money directly upwards is tantamount to killing baby Jesus in the manger, but that seems short-sighted as it keeps landing the country deeper and deeper into dumb-land with less and less spending power in the general population. Which eventually leads to nobody buying what the big industries are selling.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, we're currently in a massive feedback loop of economic beatdowns, and rather than trying something different we just keep doing the same thing and wondering why it's not working.



Do we not already have welfare?


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


> Hey did you hear that a 14-year-old girl came up with a new way to fight COVID-19 that nobody had thought of for a science fair and she only won $25,000 dollars?!?



Crazy. You win several thousand for shooting protestors. Did she create a GoFundMe? That might be the problem.


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> Crazy. You win several thousand for shooting protestors. Did she create a GoFundMe? That might be the problem.


I can hear it now... "thanks little girl we'll take it from here, here is some money, go buy yourself an economy car"...


----------



## broj15

StevenC said:


> Not to disregard the rest of your thoughtful post, but who do you (and any other Americans reading) rate as the best president and on what basis?


Figured I'd add a disclaimer to give my answer context: if I absolutely had to align with a political ideal it'd be anarcho-primitivism, so this is riddled with personal bias.

Edit and disclaimer 2: I recognize the naivety of anarcho-primitivism, and how in practice, especially in modern society, it simply would not work, and calling myself that is all idealism on my part. In practice I more closely identify with democratic confederalism.

Easy. Theodore Roosevelt Jr.. Conservationist, Populist, helped broker a peace deal that ended the Japanese-Russo war (won the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize for that), loved the people and hated the elite. He broke up trusts that weren't in the best interest of the average citizen and enforced regulation of the railroads, plus his writing on how he felt about the absolute wonder of nature & the great outdoors really resonates with me. This is what lead him to found the national parks department.

Now, all that being said, Teddy Roosevelt was really really terrible to the Native American population, but so was literally every US president. The treatment of native people's since this countries inception has been dubious at best and outright genocide at worst. It's a terrible mistake that was made over 200 years ago and I still don't feel like Native Americans have been given a fair shake, and we really *can't* give them back everything we took from them. They were literally here first and had a respect for the land that can't be matched. Teddy also had the same level of respect for the land, and it's a real shame that he couldn't see eye to eye with them.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## possumkiller




----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 86387


If he lives long enough to vote, I sure his son would appreciate that...

What a coincidence though! nobody I know has even caught COVID-19 and I still voted for Biden!


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> Not to disregard the rest of your thoughtful post, but who do you (and any other Americans reading) rate as the best president and on what basis?



Easily LBJ. Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Immigration Act, Revenue Act, Economic Opportunity Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, created the DOT, Medicare, Head Start, Food Stamps, etc.

And nothing bad. At all. There was nothing bad foreign or domestic. At all.


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> And nothing bad. At all. There was nothing bad foreign or domestic. At all.


Nothing? Not one bad thing?


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> Nothing? Not one bad thing?



Nothing. Crazy, right? Usually there’s at least something like war or riots.


----------



## AxRookie

*Trump is Captain Chaos!*

By the man who knows him best!​


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 86387



What little faith I have in humanity has disintegrated even more.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Someone asked me last week to sum trump up in one word and although "criminal" and "monster" immediately came to mind, I said "failure". And they reacted in a big huff... as if I was some idiot. But that word just repeatedly resonates with me on a very realistic and honest level. He and his administration are a complete fucking failure. I know that's obvious but it's simply heartbreaking to feel so much disgust and hatred at this point in my life. Sorry, just venting.


----------



## AxRookie

The Trump Presidency has been just like the Trump University!
​


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1244731

Putin basically shut Trump down on Hunter Bide doing anything illegal.
Uhh what?


----------



## Randy

Putin is a living, breathing psyop. Who knows what he means, ever.


----------



## sleewell

High Plains Drifter said:


> Someone asked me last week to sum trump up in one word and although "criminal" and "monster" immediately came to mind, I said "failure". And they reacted in a big huff... as if I was some idiot. But that word just repeatedly resonates with me on a very realistic and honest level. He and his administration are a complete fucking failure. I know that's obvious but it's simply heartbreaking to feel so much disgust and hatred at this point in my life. Sorry, just venting.




I'd say con man. Everything about him is a lie meant to trick people into supporting him even when its against their own interests. he's good at selling something that is totally different than what he delivers and then telling people it was the best ever.

Mexico is going to pay for the wall. Us tax payers are paying for it.

I have a great healthcare plan I'll be releasing in 2 weeks

Were going to bring manufacturing jobs back. Foxconn...

The tariffs you are paying are actually good for the economy.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

sleewell said:


> I'd say con man. Everything about him is a lie meant to trick people into supporting him even when its against their own interests. he's good at selling something that is totally different than what he delivers and then telling people it was the best ever.



It happened while my wife and I were standing in line at the polls with a good deal of red t-shirts around us and I wanted to minimize the potential for getting spit on so I was on my best behavior. I've admittedly bought a car or two from con-men... and at least they possessed some degree of charisma that I've never seen in trump. But yeah, I agree... he's definitely a hustler.


----------



## nightflameauto

Bearitone said:


> Do we not already have welfare?


Sure, and bring it up around a staunch GOP supporter and try not to get anything on you. They HATE welfare and think it's a hand-out to lazy people.


Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1244731
> 
> Putin basically shut Trump down on Hunter Bide doing anything illegal.
> Uhh what?


Just wait, this will be spun by the Republicans as proof of collusion. "SEE! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER NOW!"

I'm really happy with Trump's walk-out interview. That's a fantastic look for his capaign.


----------



## Bearitone

nightflameauto said:


> Sure, and bring it up around a staunch GOP supporter and try not to get anything on you. They HATE welfare and think it's a hand-out to lazy people.
> 
> Just wait, this will be spun by the Republicans as proof of collusion. "SEE! THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER NOW!"
> 
> I'm really happy with Trump's walk-out interview. That's a fantastic look for his capaign.


Most reasonable Republicans i know don’t have a problem with welfare. They have a problem with how easily it is abused. I’ve known about 12 people over the span of my life that have collected on welfare or unemployment when they absolutely, without exaggeration, had nothing wrong with them. Nothing keeping them from working. Some of them for years. And most of them fucking BRAG about it. 

It’s fucking disgusting to go work 10 hours a day to find out someone INTENTIONALLY turned down a job offer during the pandemic because “unemployment pays super well right now man haha!”.

We don’t need to give the government or welfare programs more money. We need to remove the lazy leeches ability to steal from those who actually need it.


----------



## Bearitone

We already pay enough taxes. The government already gets enough of our money. The issue is not them not having enough. It is the fact that so much fucking money is stolen or laundered away before any goes back into making the country better (infrastructure, welfare, healthcare, education). THEN it is poorly managed or used inefficiently because government has NO incentive to be efficient.


----------



## Bearitone

Throwing MORE money at these corrupt, inefficient bastards won’t get us anywhere. It is good to care about the needs of the less fortunate. But dont fall for the constant emotional manipulations to give up either more money or more freedom.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We pay very little taxes compared to other OEDC countries, we just have horrible ROI because of privatized healthcare, poor tax mix, and bloated military spending. 

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally


----------



## Bearitone

Good. I don’t think we should pay a fraction of a percent more until we address how much is laundered and stolen and actually arrest the bastards. Then do something to address the absolutely pathetic, wasteful, slow, inefficiency of the government in providing any service to the public.

Then, maybe, consider more taxes.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

You want to know where the money goes? Look at defense. I work in defense. This whole industry is designed to suck money from tax payers. Everything is designed to fail yet appear to be rugged, to be constantly serviced using expensive replacement parts (often at costs that are FAR above a new replacement unit), and forcing long term contracts to upgrade obsolete units/parts for long-term at enormous markups. It cannot be overstated how much more these units for war cost compared to something an engineer could design at home using off the shelf parts. This whole industry is predicated on leeching money from tax payers via old legislature reps who are completely and totally ignorant as to the current state of tech. We are all being robbed blind.


----------



## Bearitone

Cyanide_Anima said:


> You want to know where the money goes? Look at defense. I work in defense. This whole industry is designed to suck money from tax payers. Everything is designed to fail yet appear to be rugged, to be constantly serviced using expensive replacement parts (often at costs that are FAR above a new replacement unit), and forcing long term contracts to upgrade obsolete units/parts for long-term at enormous markups. It cannot be overstated how much more these units for war cost compared to something an engineer could design at home using off the shelf parts. This whole industry is predicated on leeching money from tax payers via old legislature reps who are completely and totally ignorant as to the current state of tech. We are all being robbed blind.



I’m sure there examples like this everywhere. Billions across all government sectors wasted


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> I’m sure there examples like this everywhere. Billions across all government sectors wasted



Nothing comparable like how much is wasted on the defense budget.






Meanwhile...

"Eliminating tuition at all public colleges and universities would cost at least $79 billion a year, according to the most recent Department of Education data, and taxpayers would need to foot the bill."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/business/tuition-free-college.html


----------



## nightflameauto

And there was just a story a couple days ago about how North Dakota, a current COVID hotspot, is using left-over (because they don't want to spend it on COVID remedies or prevention) funding from the CARES act to give grants to oil companies for Fracking.

https://www.inforum.com/news/govern...coronavirus-stimulus-funds-to-fracking-grants

I mean, I get it, it sucks to watch welfare being taken advantage of, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to how shitty our government treats its money. So many bullshit funnels for money that do literally nothing to help the ordinary person, but prop up businesses and millionaires in the name of trickle-down economics. As has been proven for generations now, trickle-down doesn't work. Trickle-up does, but that would require empowering people in the middle and lower classes just a tiny little bit, and we can't have that.


----------



## possumkiller

Cyanide_Anima said:


> You want to know where the money goes? Look at defense. I work in defense. This whole industry is designed to suck money from tax payers. Everything is designed to fail yet appear to be rugged, to be constantly serviced using expensive replacement parts (often at costs that are FAR above a new replacement unit), and forcing long term contracts to upgrade obsolete units/parts for long-term at enormous markups. It cannot be overstated how much more these units for war cost compared to something an engineer could design at home using off the shelf parts. This whole industry is predicated on leeching money from tax payers via old legislature reps who are completely and totally ignorant as to the current state of tech. We are all being robbed blind.


Yeah. The mechanics in my unit always ordered a whole new seat with frame, airbags and everything just to replace the cushion. I asked them why and it turns out buying just the seat cushion cost more than the whole fucking thing. 

We also dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of JP8 all over the ground in Iraq because the unit replacing us already got all their fuel trucks topped off on the way up and ours had to be empty and washed out to go back on the boat. 

When brass got tired of vehicles and helicopters kicking up so much dust, they had us hose down all the roads, landing areas, and motor pools with fuel because it wouldn't evaporate like water and it would hold down the dust for a few days. 

We dumped tons of food that could have fed locals into a pit and burned it.

They shame citizens about pollution and recycling and reusing and not being wasteful. It's the government, mega corporations, and the rich assholes that run it all who need to be shamed. Or just disposed of.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> Nothing comparable like how much is wasted on the defense budget.
> 
> View attachment 86432
> 
> View attachment 86431


I’m not opposed to reducing military spending.

My point was the government gets enough of our fucking money. To find more they need only to look into there own pockets. We have given and continue to give them more than enough.


----------



## possumkiller

Bearitone said:


> Most reasonable Republicans i know don’t have a problem with welfare. They have a problem with how easily it is abused. I’ve known about 12 people over the span of my life that have collected on welfare or unemployment when they absolutely, without exaggeration, had nothing wrong with them. Nothing keeping them from working. Some of them for years. And most of them fucking BRAG about it.
> 
> It’s fucking disgusting to go work 10 hours a day to find out someone INTENTIONALLY turned down a job offer during the pandemic because “unemployment pays super well right now man haha!”.
> 
> We don’t need to give the government or welfare programs more money. We need to remove the lazy leeches ability to steal from those who actually need it.


What is absolutely hilarious to me is the friends I used to have in the army. Two white guys (one is half filipino but he definitely claims to be white). Both conservative republicans. Both complaining about lazy ni**ers leeching off their tax dollars. Both these motherfuckers got medically retired from the army with 100% benefits by pretending something was wrong. One of them just complained about his knee hurting. Kept going back to sick call saying his knee hurt. Nothing showed up in the x-rays but they couldn't prove nothing was wrong. He spent his last three years walking with a cane and doing staff duty. Then medically retired. As soon as he got out he dropped the cane and started setting up other income streams. He was also a date rapist while in the army. 

The other conservative christian republican good ol boy is a pot head that cheats on his wife with prostitutes. He was medically retired by convincing a friendly va doc that he has RA. Now he isn't supposed to be working since he gets paid to sit on his ass but he decided to start his own trucking company. 

If there's one thing I've learned in 37 years, it's the motherfuckers that whine the loudest about lazy minorities leeching tax money that are actually the scumbag leeches.


----------



## Bearitone

possumkiller said:


> What is absolutely hilarious to me is the friends I used to have in the army. Two white guys (one is half filipino but he definitely claims to be white). Both conservative republicans. Both complaining about lazy ni**ers leeching off their tax dollars. Both these motherfuckers got medically retired from the army with 100% benefits by pretending something was wrong. One of them just complained about his knee hurting. Kept going back to sick call saying his knee hurt. Nothing showed up in the x-rays but they couldn't prove nothing was wrong. He spent his last three years walking with a cane and doing staff duty. Then medically retired. As soon as he got out he dropped the cane and started setting up other income streams. He was also a date rapist while in the army.
> 
> The other conservative christian republican good ol boy is a pot head that cheats on his wife with prostitutes. He was medically retired by convincing a friendly va doc that he has RA. Now he isn't supposed to be working since he gets paid to sit on his ass but he decided to start his own trucking company.
> 
> If there's one thing I've learned in 37 years, it's the motherfuckers that whine the loudest about lazy minorities leeching tax money that are actually the scumbag leeches.



So you agree that there are obvious welfare and unemployment leeches basically stealing tax payer dollars and it was SUPER fucking easy for them.

Glad we’re on the same page.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/26/world/republican-party-more-illiberal-study-intl/index.html

The GOP is starting to look a lot like an autocratic party, a large study into political identity has found.

Experts from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden said the US Republican Party had become more illiberal and populist in recent decades and that its recent retreat from democratic norms has left it resembling authoritarian ruling parties like Hungary's Fidesz and Turkey's AKP.

"What we see is that the disrespect of political opponents, the encouragement of violence and also the violation of minority rights ... they have all clearly increased with the Republican Party in recent years, since [President Donald Trump] came in the leadership but also before that," Anna Luehrmann, V-Dem's deputy director and one of the lead authors of the study, told CNN.

The US Democratic party has not shown a similar shift towards illiberalism, according to the study.

Researchers found that Democrats had become more populist and more anti-elitist since 2000, but less so than the Republicans.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/26/world/republican-party-more-illiberal-study-intl/index.html
> 
> The GOP is starting to look a lot like an autocratic party, a large study into political identity has found.
> 
> Experts from the V-Dem Institute at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden said the US Republican Party had become more illiberal and populist in recent decades and that its recent retreat from democratic norms has left it resembling authoritarian ruling parties like Hungary's Fidesz and Turkey's AKP.
> 
> "What we see is that the disrespect of political opponents, the encouragement of violence and also the violation of minority rights ... they have all clearly increased with the Republican Party in recent years, since [President Donald Trump] came in the leadership but also before that," Anna Luehrmann, V-Dem's deputy director and one of the lead authors of the study, told CNN.
> 
> The US Democratic party has not shown a similar shift towards illiberalism, according to the study.
> 
> Researchers found that Democrats had become more populist and more anti-elitist since 2000, but less so than the Republicans.



Not defending republicans on this.

But both sides have displayed disrespect to political opponents. 

The left including Antifa continuously calls for violence against anyone of dissenting opinion calling them fascists and Nazis in the process. “Punch a nazi” “fascism can only be overcome with overwhelming violence” etc...

And please show me what rights minorities (or anyone really) don’t have here in America.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> While on a certain level I get the auto-industry points you make, Drew, it's a sickening feeling that every time some multi-million/multi-billion dollar industry stumbles, they get direct injection of funding from the government, while if a standard bog issue humanoid, such as ourselves, stumbles, we get told we aren't trying hard enough and we need to go fuck ourselves until we get it right. It all seems ass-backwards to me, but that's the American way. Big money = important. Peon = die in a gutter.
> 
> If we had actual financial support for individuals when they hit hard times like a civilized nation, we wouldn't have to run circles around ourselves propping up failing businesses left right and center. The airline industry, the financial industry, the stock market, the auto industry, the ENTERTAINMENT industry (because they're important?) all of them have received some kind of government hand-out when they hit hard times for a brief period, while us individuals repeatedly get told if we don't have money on hand to keep us going for two years or more if we lose a job, well, we're just stupid and deserve the kicking life is going to eventually give us.
> 
> It just seems like our priorities are all kinds of out of whack.
> 
> I'd love to see an individual stipend for workers laid off/fired during this pandemic with a caveat of using some of it for education while using the rest to survive. That's not undignified, and gives the people receiving it something tangible that can positively motivate them upwards once things start getting back to normal. I know that would send the GOP into an absolutely shit-fit of epic proportions because anything that doesn't funnel money directly upwards is tantamount to killing baby Jesus in the manger, but that seems short-sighted as it keeps landing the country deeper and deeper into dumb-land with less and less spending power in the general population. Which eventually leads to nobody buying what the big industries are selling.
> 
> As I've said elsewhere, we're currently in a massive feedback loop of economic beatdowns, and rather than trying something different we just keep doing the same thing and wondering why it's not working.


So, a couple things here. 

"I'd like to see an individual stipend for workers laid off/fired during this pandemic" - we actually got that, with NOP stipulations. Unemployment insurance was topped off by an extra $600/week under the CARES Act, with that being the difference between unemployment benefits and median US income as a weekly salary. It expired after a few months, and then was re-upped (by executive order, for now) to continue at $400 a week, in participating states. The level at which it will continue going forward is one of the major sticking points in negotiations for another stimulus bill, with the Democrats wanting to return it to $600 and the Republicans not wanting to go above $400, out of concern that in some parts of the country this will mean people will make more unemployed than they did employed (and, remember, this is within the context of a global pandemic where we WANT to pay people to stay home). 

"Big money - important. Peon. die in a gutter." Neither the time nor the place but I've argued in this forum for YEARS now that a lot of people see a disconnect between "Wall Street" banking and "Main Street" banking, but had Bank of America failed after taking on Countrywide, and your direct deposit suddenly didn't clear that next payday, that illusory divide would have collapsed in a hurry. But, again, neither here nor there - I'd suggest reframing bailing out the auto industry as less "protecying rich execs" - and keep in mind that there were stringent pay/benefits/bonus restrictions placed on firms' executives during and for a period of several years after receiving federal aid, a model we followed again with the airline industry during Covid - and more the federal government stepping in to ensure that all the auto industry _employees_ wouldn't HAVE to lose their jobs and "die in the gutter." It's very easy to see a bailout as protecting the interests of management, but ask yourself how many Americans would have lost theirt jobs if GM had failed. You bail out the company, so you don't HAVE to bail out millions of Americans. It's a lot easier to ensure Americans don't lose their jobs in the first place because their employers don't fail, than it is to help tens of millions of Americans stay afloat while searching for jobs that probably aren't even there anymore.


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> I’m not opposed to reducing military spending.
> 
> My point was the government gets enough of our fucking money. To find more they need only to look into there own pockets. We have given and continue to give them more than enough.


You realize, I hope, that what you're espousing here is the equivalent of telling Millenials they too can save for retirement if they just stop buying a latte from Starbucks two days a week.

Yes, it's money that could be saved, but the real problem is that they're making a median salary of $35,592 a year, and spending nearly half of that on rent, because the cost of housing has drastically outstripped the increase in median wages. The 1% they're spending on coffee isn't really going to move the needle.

There's a saying in my industry, "picking up nickels in front of a bull-dozer." Seems kind of appropriate here.


----------



## Bearitone

Drew said:


> You realize, I hope, that what you're espousing here is the equivalent of telling Millenials they too can save for retirement if they just stop buying a latte from Starbucks two days a week.
> 
> Yes, it's money that could be saved, but the real problem is that they're making a median salary of $35,592 a year, and spending nearly half of that on rent, because the cost of housing has drastically outstripped the increase in median wages. The 1% they're spending on coffee isn't really going to move the needle.
> 
> There's a saying in my industry, "picking up nickels in front of a bull-dozer." Seems kind of appropriate here.



Not being rude here but i don’t see how what i said is equivalent at all.

Im not asking anyone to make further sacrifice. I’m asking the opposite


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> Not being rude here but i don’t see how what i said is equivalent at all.
> 
> Im not asking anyone to make further sacrifice. I’m asking the opposite


At present, in fiscal year 2019, 8% of the federal budget was safety net spending. Let's say for the sake of discussion that safety net spending is a source of _rampant_ fraud, and that one out of ten recipients aren't entitled to the benefits they receive. The actual percentage is probably far lower - the Atlantic estimates closer to 2% rather than the 10% I'm going with, but let's be conservative here. A 10% fraud rate on 8% of our budget could come out at a potential savings from cracking down on "welfare fraud" of 0.8%. 

Now, my 1% Starbucks latte as an example was one that I literally pulled out of my ass, and if we go with the Atlantic's number you're talking about fraudulent safety net claims closer to 0.2% of federal spending than 0.8%... but, if you think cracking down on welfare fraud is the ticket to a fiscally responsible government and paying down our national debt, then yeah, you're talking about something that accounts for as much federal spending, and will generate as much savings, as a millennial being told to skip that latte twice a week, even if we give you _very_ generous assumptions. 

To put a finer point on it... If you think welfare fraud is the problem here, then you don't understand how and where the federal government spends money. 

That closing point under the 4th bullet there, that while an estimated $11 out of every $10,000 in social safety net spending is estimated to be fraudulent, $1 out of every $6 in taxes owed ($1,667 out of $10,000, to express it in the same basis) is not collected due to tax evasion/fraud, according to the IRS. But sure, it's definitely the poor people fucking over this country.


----------



## Bearitone

Never said poor people were fucking over the country or anything even similar. I don’t know if you’re trying to put words in my mouth or intentionally misrepresent my argument but, it’s not productive.

I’ll look into your sources and respond later


----------



## MFB

Bearitone said:


> So you agree that there are obvious welfare and unemployment leeches basically stealing tax payer dollars and it was SUPER fucking easy for them.
> 
> Glad we’re on the same page.





Bearitone said:


> Never said poor people were fucking over the country or anything even similar. I don’t know if you’re trying to put words in my mouth or intentionally misrepresent my argument but, it’s not productive.



So to quote the man again,



Drew said:


> [...] $11 out of every $10,000 in social safety net spending is estimated to be fraudulent, $1 out of every $6 in taxes owed* ($1,667 out of $10,000, to express it in the same basis) *is not collected due to tax evasion/fraud, according to the IRS.



Bolded for emphasis, welfare fraud - whil yes, it is a problem - isn't the same scale as tax evasion/fraud


----------



## Bearitone

MFB said:


> So to quote the man again,
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded for emphasis, welfare fraud - whil yes, it is a problem - isn't the same scale as tax evasion/fraud


I never said poor people were fucking over the country. I don’t have a problem with using existing tax dollars to help those in need as part of a welfare program.

Im done defending myself on this.


----------



## AxRookie

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, We need to stay focused on the task ahead! There is a week to go and we can't take our eye off the ball! If we are going to save what's left of this country we need to stay focused on defeating the Huge Orange Lie Monster!!!


----------



## spudmunkey

*sigh* Well, then.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927640619/senate-confirms-amy-coney-barrett-to-the-supreme-court


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> *sigh* Well, then.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/10/26/927640619/senate-confirms-amy-coney-barrett-to-the-supreme-court


Welp, you guys are fucked. Have fun with that.


----------



## Randy

Sorry, bearitone!


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> Welp, you guys are fucked. Have fun with that.



I don't think it matters. It's like marijuana -- the popular opinion shifted too strongly and so now states have no choice but to legalize. Abortion is no different. If the courts come down on Roe, it will only create a huge referendum on the judicial system itself. 

There was a time ~15 years ago when you could push some bullshit stop-gap legislation like about registering with some local hospital or needing to jump through X other irrelevant hoops in order to get an abortion and there was really no way to cast nationwide attention to it. These days, those sorts of maneuvers will have a spotlight on them. It'll create more nationwide conflict, but hey, that's nothing new.

Though I want this hypocrisy to follow around this group of republicans forever. 200 years after they're dead, section 3c on their wikipedia pages: when they outright lied about what they were going to do and were all around terrible people with no honor and whose words meant nothing. The hypocrisy bothers me a lot more than actually having her sworn in.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t think that any of us can predict the ramifications of having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court for the next 20 years will do. This is a 6-3 split so it is going to take a lot of movement to ever get the liberal court back. Hope this lesson was learned, elections matter.


----------



## Bearitone

Randy said:


> Sorry, bearitone!
> 
> View attachment 86443


Don’t be sorry. I’m not a trump worshiper.

Also, Joe has confused the literal position he’s running for, and said he was going to beat “Bush” in the election. The dude has the onset of Alzheimer’s and it’s obvious. If gaffes and blunders are the topic at hand Joe loses real fuckin bad.


----------



## Bearitone

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t think that any of us can predict the ramifications of having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court for the next 20 years will do. This is a 6-3 split so it is going to take a lot of movement to ever get the liberal court back. Hope this lesson was learned, elections matter.



Assuming Row v Wade doesn’t get overturned, im happy. It’s time to get rid of A LOT of unconstitutional gun legislation that’s been allowed to stew for decades.


----------



## possumkiller

Bearitone said:


> Assuming Row v Wade doesn’t get overturned, im happy. It’s time to get rid of A LOT of unconstitutional gun legislation that’s been allowed to stew for decades.


Exactly. It's about time time they just did away with the second amendment altogether. Confiscate weapons and make gun ownership an almost impossible to obtain privilege with strict licensing requirements and hard punishment of violations. 

I'm glad we're on the same page.


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> I’m not opposed to reducing military spending.
> 
> My point was the government gets enough of our fucking money. To find more they need only to look into there own pockets. We have given and continue to give them more than enough.



https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-do-us-taxes-compare-internationally


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> It’s time to get rid of A LOT of unconstitutional gun legislation that’s been allowed to stew for decades.



Such as?


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> Not defending republicans on this.
> 
> But both sides have displayed disrespect to political opponents.



But one side FAR more than the other. 



Bearitone said:


> And please show me what rights minorities (or anyone really) don’t have here in America.



Are you seriously arguing that there is no more racism or unfair treatment towards protected classes in the US?


----------



## Hollowway

There are a number of rights minorities don’t have in this country. It’s now legal for a business to discriminate against protected classes based on the business owner’s religion. Even though poor people (largely of color) have the stated right to vote, they do not have the practical right, because the elimination of polling locations in urban areas has resulted in lines that last over 8 hours. Vote by mail doesn’t work because the GOP has placed fake ballot boxes to try to prevent minorities from having their vote counted. Terry stops are done with no probable cause, and almost exclusively on black people. Poor and largely black people are denied a speedy trial, and are left in prison for years before being tried. These are just off the top of my head because bearitone asked. I’m just a regular white middle class suburban guy who doesn’t really watch the news or follow politics, and I already know about all these. I’d bet if I actually did a little research it would be startling how many rights minorities are denied.


----------



## diagrammatiks

narad said:


> I don't think it matters. It's like marijuana -- the popular opinion shifted too strongly and so now states have no choice but to legalize. Abortion is no different. If the courts come down on Roe, it will only create a huge referendum on the judicial system itself.
> 
> There was a time ~15 years ago when you could push some bullshit stop-gap legislation like about registering with some local hospital or needing to jump through X other irrelevant hoops in order to get an abortion and there was really no way to cast nationwide attention to it. These days, those sorts of maneuvers will have a spotlight on them. It'll create more nationwide conflict, but hey, that's nothing new.
> 
> Though I want this hypocrisy to follow around this group of republicans forever. 200 years after they're dead, section 3c on their wikipedia pages: when they outright lied about what they were going to do and were all around terrible people with no honor and whose words meant nothing. The hypocrisy bothers me a lot more than actually having her sworn in.



we're not supposed to use the supreme court for this stuff anyway. we're supposed to use amendments.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, Amy Comey Barret getting nominated has me wondering. How wide of a margin does Joe Biden need to win by to NOT have the court end up deciding the election? Trump and his team have floated for nearly a year now that "in a truly fair and balanced election there is no way that Trump loses." So how big does the margin have to be to deflate that mentality? 60%, 70%, more? Or is it simply not possible to overcome that and the election will be contested regardless of where the final vote tally lies?

I mean, we're a week away and it's entirely possible we end up like we did in 2016, where it's a popular win and an electoral loss for the Democratic ticket. But I'd love to hear people's theories on where they see this one shaking out. 

I personally think if we get to 70% it'd be really tough for Trump's team to push to contest the election, though I think Trump himself will contest the results regardless of the outcome simply because he damn near contested the last election which he technically won through the EC. But in the end, it will take more than just him to climb aboard the contesting train if it's going to end up in the court's lap, and I'm very curious what others think that margin needs to be to get the rest of his team on board.


----------



## sleewell

kavanaugh let the plan out of the bag yesterday. they don't want any votes counted after election day. with the advantage they have on the court now they will approve anything to keep trump in power. 

AOC hit the nail on the head. she basically said dems are pussies and the gop knows they won't play hardball. one side is playing on a field where they will do anything and break any rule and the other side is just whining and complaining about how it's not fair.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> But one side FAR more than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that there is no more racism or unfair treatment towards protected classes in the US?



1. If you don’t count calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist, fascist, nazi, white supremacist, etc... maybe?

2. not the question i asked but, elaborate.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> Such as?



The “assault” weapons ban, California handgun roster, California mag ban, may-issue instead of shall-issue carry (we should just have constitutional carry), hollow points disallowed in several places across the nation, 40mm banned, .50 cal banned in CA and several other states, Nightvision banned in CA if it’s weapon mounted, unregistered silencers are a felony land completely outlawed in a few states, and this doesn’t count the, without exaggeration, literal dozens of anti 2a bills being pushed right now. Which also includes bills against body armor.


----------



## Bearitone

possumkiller said:


> Exactly. It's about time time they just did away with the second amendment altogether. Confiscate weapons and make gun ownership an almost impossible to obtain privilege with strict licensing requirements and hard punishment of violations.
> 
> I'm glad we're on the same page.



Why? What do you hope to accomplish with this? All you’ll do is harm law-abiding citizens and endanger all the other rights you care about.

What cause do you believe in? What is it that you actually care about?


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> The “assault” weapons ban, California handgun roster, California mag ban, may-issue instead of shall-issue carry (we should just have constitutional carry), hollow points disallowed in several places across the nation, 40mm banned, .50 cal banned in CA and several other states, Nightvision banned in CA if it’s weapon mounted, unregistered silencers are a felony land completely outlawed in a few states, and this doesn’t count the, without exaggeration, literal dozens of anti 2a bills being pushed right now. Which also includes bills against body armor.



Couple of genuine questions then... and I mean genuine, trying to determine what specifically you're advocating and why?

So where do you draw the line? What can a civilian own? (e.g. handguns, long guns, any caliber, automatic, flamethrowers, tanks, explosives, etc?)
Do you believe in registering your weapons? Or registering certain weapons? (e.g. not handguns but certain calibers or if fully automatic?)
Do you believe in mandatory waiting periods?
Should prospective owners require a mental health certification from their PCP (or other medical professional)?
Similar to #3, but do you believe in mandatory background checks?
Does a felony (or certain felonies) preclude you from owning firearms?
Do you believe in closing loopholes (e.g. trade shows) that lead to strawman purchases?
Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own body armor of any level? If so, registered or no?
Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own silencers? If so, registered or no?
Feel free to add, just trying to elaborate. I suppose we could make this a separate thread if people care, but I figured since this came up and it's a primary issue ("single-issue") for many voters that vote Republican.


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> And please show me what rights minorities (or anyone really) don’t have here in America.





USMarine75 said:


> Are you seriously arguing that there is no more racism or unfair treatment towards protected classes in the US?





Bearitone said:


> not the question i asked but, elaborate.



Well then what are you saying? Because it sounds like you're saying there is no issue with equality in America? That all protected classes are treated equally under the law both in spirit and in actuality?


----------



## budda

Why do you think *more* guns and gun accessories is the answer? And what question does having more firepower answer?


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone said:


> The “assault” weapons ban, California handgun roster, California mag ban, may-issue instead of shall-issue carry (we should just have constitutional carry), hollow points disallowed in several places across the nation, 40mm banned, .50 cal banned in CA and several other states, Nightvision banned in CA if it’s weapon mounted, unregistered silencers are a felony land completely outlawed in a few states, and this doesn’t count the, without exaggeration, literal dozens of anti 2a bills being pushed right now. Which also includes bills against body armor.





USMarine75 said:


> Couple of genuine questions then... and I mean genuine, trying to determine what specifically you're advocating and why?
> 
> So where do you draw the line? What can a civilian own? (e.g. handguns, long guns, any caliber, automatic, flamethrowers, tanks, explosives, etc?)
> Do you believe in registering your weapons? Or registering certain weapons? (e.g. not handguns but certain calibers or if fully automatic?)
> Do you believe in mandatory waiting periods?
> Should prospective owners require a mental health certification from their PCP (or other medical professional)?
> Similar to #3, but do you believe in mandatory background checks?
> Does a felony (or certain felonies) preclude you from owning firearms?
> Do you believe in closing loopholes (e.g. trade shows) that lead to strawman purchases?
> Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own body armor of any level? If so, registered or no?
> Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own silencers? If so, registered or no?
> Feel free to add, just trying to elaborate. I suppose we could make this a separate thread if people care, but I figured since this came up and it's a primary issue ("single-issue") for many voters that vote Republican.



To tack onto what USMarine75 is saying; how can most of these things be unconstitutional when they were invented well after the second most important thing the founding fathers remembered they forgot about?


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> To tack onto what USMarine75 is saying; how can most of these things be unconstitutional when they were invented well after the second most important thing the founding fathers remembered they forgot about?



Bingo.


----------



## USMarine75

budda said:


> Why do you think *more* guns and gun accessories is the answer? And what question does having more firepower answer?



So he can overthrow a tyrannical government?

Or maybe because Jesus and the Founding Fathers intended it this way? 

Even though the former is silly and the later is likely not even true.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> So he can overthrow a tyrannical government?


A tyrannical government that might rushed through a wildly unqualified and unpopular Supreme Court judge and then immediately take a two week break instead of providing relief from a global pandemic?


----------



## MASS DEFECT

I for one, realize that owning a gun for self defense in the USA is necessary. Not because it is a constitutional right, but because you guys have a crazy gun culture and you let the guns proliferate everywhere to an insane degree that it would be stupid for me, to not get a deterrent to at least give me or my family a fighting chance at least for home invasions or criminals or gun toting racist neighbors.


----------



## diagrammatiks

the fuck you think your guns are going to do against the actual military.


----------



## cwhitey2

Bearitone said:


> The “assault” weapons ban, California handgun roster, California mag ban, may-issue instead of shall-issue carry (we should just have constitutional carry), hollow points disallowed in several places across the nation, 40mm banned, .50 cal banned in CA and several other states, Nightvision banned in CA if it’s weapon mounted, unregistered silencers are a felony land completely outlawed in a few states, and this doesn’t count the, without exaggeration, literal dozens of anti 2a bills being pushed right now. Which also includes bills against body armor.


Sounds like your issue is with California


----------



## bostjan

All farting and dancing aside, though, banning body armor alone is equivalent to the government simply reinforcing the statement that they will kill you if they want to kill you, when they want to kill you, with little inconvenience to them.

The Second Amendment was written with the purpose of establishing an infallible right to self-defense. Obviously, since the advent of weapons of mass destruction, there needs to be a clarification around that, thus the ongoing debate.

But, as much as I believe in the individual right to self-defense, I have a big problem with the GOP. Ask yourself - what has Trump done to preserve individual rights to self-defense? Keep in mind that this is the same Trump who sent government agents to use escalating force against peaceful protesters in several cities, sent secret government police to make arrest against protesters citing laws from the McCarthy era that suspended those accused people's rights. And, from the greater expanse, the GOP is the part of all kinds of surveillance of (yes) the American people which is illegal under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

So, yeah, the demoncrats might not be that much better, but, an average, they are at least a little better, and, at least, less hypocritical about it.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the crazy neighbourhood guy who thinks he's Jimi Hendrix driving around in an armoured tank with live ammo. That'd be guaranteed to hurt innocent people and cause millions of dollars worth of damage. Ideally, I want Jimi to get some help from trained professionals, whether it's local society that cares for him or the government or whatever. Mental health is an individual issue, but you can't really bring up the limitations of the Second Amendment without bringing it up, because that's where we have really dropped the ball. But, then again, think back to Tim McVeigh and how many people he killed. How many of them were killed because guns? 0/168. Would mental health care have helped him? Maybe not, but it might have.

And then, do we want to take away all of the guns? I'm sure there are plenty of people in the USA who would love to see the guns all rounded up and piled on a fire, but I don't think that's really what the center left wants at all. So, characterizing democratic politicians as anti-2A isn't accurate, either, just more GOP rhetoric and hypocrisy.


----------



## fantom

Skimming some of this...



Bearitone said:


> The “assault” weapons ban, California handgun roster, California mag ban, may-issue instead of shall-issue carry (we should just have constitutional carry), hollow points disallowed in several places across the nation, 40mm banned, .50 cal banned in CA and several other states, Nightvision banned in CA if it’s weapon mounted, unregistered silencers are a felony land completely outlawed in a few states, and this doesn’t count the, without exaggeration, literal dozens of anti 2a bills being pushed right now. Which also includes bills against body armor.



Can you explain how the people, 200+ years ago, who wrote the 2nd amendment, could have possibly predicted the technology change hundreds of years after they revolted against British rule using muskets that reloaded on 5+ seconds. Everything you just named didn't exist at the time the 2nd amendment was authored. Electricity was not around. Cars, tvs, radios, refrigeration, etc. And don't forget, the British took *months* to travel by sea to reinforce.



MASS DEFECT said:


> I for one, realize that owning a gun for self defense in the USA is necessary. Not because it is a constitutional right, but because you guys have a crazy gun culture and you let the guns proliferate everywhere to an insane degree that it would be stupid for me, to not get a deterrent to at least give me or my family a fighting chance at least for home invasions or criminals or gun toting racist neighbors.



The 2nd amendment gives you zero protection for using a firearm to defend your family from criminals or neighbors. Its sole purpose is to allow citizens to organize and to defend themselves from the US military. At this time, the military weapons are far more advanced than anything civilians have, so what is a gun actually doing for anyone besides making people afraid of their neighbors (and not the military)?

Believe the NRA all you want, but research doesn't back what they say...

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.​


----------



## MaxOfMetal

See, this is what I was talking about a few pages back. Some folks are just so ride or die for their one big issue (in this case guns) that they're willing to look the other way as far as almost everything else they stand for. They're ready to literally burn the country to the ground over this.


----------



## cwhitey2

MaxOfMetal said:


> See, this is what I was talking about a few pages back. Some folks are just so ride or die for their one big issue (in this case guns) that they're willing to look the other way as far as almost everything else they stand for. They'll ready to literally burn the country to the ground over this.


100% correct and it's sad some of the topics/issues people hold so close to their heart.


----------



## BigViolin

As someone who has been around hunting and guns my whole life...most gun people scare me.

Seems a pretty fine line between actually protecting oneself from an armed threat and acting out punisher fantasies with highly customized ARs.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BigViolin said:


> As someone who has been around hunting and guns my whole life...most gun people scare me.
> 
> Seems a pretty fine line between actually protecting oneself from an armed threat and acting out punisher fantasies with highly customized ARs.



Yeah, it's like some time in the late 90's to mid 00's the creepy dipshit at the range (every range had _that_ guy) that everyone tried not talking to became what folks wanted to be. Social media really amplified it though.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> See, this is what I was talking about a few pages back. Some folks are just so ride or die for their one big issue (in this case guns) that they're willing to look the other way as far as almost everything else they stand for. They're ready to literally burn the country to the ground over this.



The only issue I won't compromise on is dealing with environment issues because I feel that is an existential threat. Things like abortion, guns, pot smoking, prison, death sentence, etc. are all going to be on flux forever. The planet becoming uninhabitable for 10+ billion humans in the next 100 years and forcing 80% of the population to migrate is just not the same.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> The only issue I won't compromise on is dealing with environment issues because I feel that is an existential threat. Things like abortion, guns, pot smoking, prison, death sentence, etc. are all going to be on flux forever. The planet becoming uninhabitable for 10+ billion humans in the next 100 years and forcing 80% of the population to migrate is just not the same.



I can't remember a time where I ever felt like I had the luxury of voting over a single issue.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

fantom said:


> The 2nd amendment gives you zero protection for using a firearm to defend your family from criminals or neighbors. Its sole purpose is to allow citizens to organize and to defend themselves from the US military. At this time, the military weapons are far more advanced than anything civilians have, so what is a gun actually doing for anyone besides making people afraid of their neighbors (and not the military)?
> 
> Believe the NRA all you want, but research doesn't back what they say...
> 
> https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
> Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.​



I'm well aware of the limits. And I am trained to handle firearms as well as my wife being reservists ourselves. And I don't subscribe to the NRA and I think they are gun addicted loons.

Take my comment with a grain of salt. I believe that the American idea of unlimited access and gun ownership as a right is crazy. But also, maybe it's the third world guy in me that would want to even my odds. I lived in a city where gun violence was commonplace and police response time is two hours and here is no different.

I own a gun because I live in the US and recognize the threat around me. I lived in Okinawa for a year and I didn't arm myself with a gun and I didn't walk around with a knife.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> Couple of genuine questions then... and I mean genuine, trying to determine what specifically you're advocating and why?
> 
> So where do you draw the line? What can a civilian own? (e.g. handguns, long guns, any caliber, automatic, flamethrowers, tanks, explosives, etc?)
> Do you believe in registering your weapons? Or registering certain weapons? (e.g. not handguns but certain calibers or if fully automatic?)
> Do you believe in mandatory waiting periods?
> Should prospective owners require a mental health certification from their PCP (or other medical professional)?
> Similar to #3, but do you believe in mandatory background checks?
> Does a felony (or certain felonies) preclude you from owning firearms?
> Do you believe in closing loopholes (e.g. trade shows) that lead to strawman purchases?
> Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own body armor of any level? If so, registered or no?
> Based on above, so you believe civilians should be able to own silencers? If so, registered or no?
> Feel free to add, just trying to elaborate. I suppose we could make this a separate thread if people care, but I figured since this came up and it's a primary issue ("single-issue") for many voters that vote Republican.



First of all, thank you for asking and not attacking. I genuinely appreciate it.

1. I draw the line after automatics. Allow them. We already make citizens pass the FSC or some other variant proving they understand firearms safety. If you are following the 4 rules of firearm safety (which you are expected to do and already demonstrated you understand if you passed the FSC or some other equivalent) there’s nothing keeping you from being just as safe with that firearm than any other. 

2. No registration required. Registration leads to confiscation. If someone wants to register their weapon so it can be retrieved if stolen, go ahead. Not requiring registration does not make firearms easier to lawfully obtain. I’m not saying get rid of background checks. I’m saying get rid of registration.

3. Fuck no on waiting periods. I already proved I’m law abiding, have no history of mental illness, and have no restraining orders or domestic violence charges against me. Why have me wait? So i don’t commit suicide? If I want to kill my self I’ll find another way. Or so I don’t commit an impulsive crime? Ah okay so we’re going to start assuming otherwise completely law abiding citizens “might” commit a crime and punish them by infringing on their rights? Makes no sense.

4. I can’t see how this wouldn’t go wrong very fast. I can’t see how this could ever be implemented impartially. I can’t see how we would ever keep this from being abused by an overreaching government.

If someone has no history of mental illness (which we already check for), Has never been declared a danger to himself or others (which we check for it’s called a 5150), and has
No history of violence, we should not put up more red tape to exercise a right.

5. For guns yes (see violent felons), for ammo, no. See CA for the complete failure of ammo background checks in preventing crime. Thousands of law abiding citizens were denied ammo due to false positives and the ammo background checks haven’t been linked to any drop in gun violence.

6. Yes, violent felonies should keep you from owning a firearm but, only violent felonies.

7. Show me the loophole. Here in CA if you do a PPT at a show you still need to pass a background check, have passed the FSC, AND wait 10 days.

8. You can’t harm anyone with body armor and an insanely low number of crimes have been committed with it. You’d be adding tons of red tape, fees, checks, etc for dammed near nothing. Armor is a nothing burger. Non issue. No reason to regulate it other than you want citizens to be easier to kill.

9. Absolutely. 

They’ve been used in an insanely low number of gun crimes. Wasted tax payer money in enforcing silencer laws while punishing the law-abiding.

Let’s stop punishing and infringing on the rights of the law abiding for what criminals do. Especially in the case of silencers when it’s only a handful of criminals.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think a lot of red states are going to try calling the winner ASAP instead of going through mail in. Some red states have even proposed designating the electors based on the governors choice. We are a few bold moves away from a dictatorship.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> Well then what are you saying? Because it sounds like you're saying there is no issue with equality in America? That all protected classes are treated equally under the law both in spirit and in actuality?



Im asking you to show me the laws, policy, etc... that allow for unfair treatment of anyone based on their race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc... 

(Other than affirmative action)

As far as I knew, the civil rights amendments are suppose to protect and treat us all equally under the law.

I never said there was not inequality or that racism didn’t exist.


----------



## Bearitone

budda said:


> Why do you think *more* guns and gun accessories is the answer? And what question does having more firepower answer?



The answer to what? 
And why do i need to provide an answer for more firepower? No one else has to justify exercising any other right.


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> Im asking you to show me the laws, policy, etc... that allow for unfair treatment of anyone based on their race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc...
> 
> (Other than affirmative action)
> 
> As far as I knew, the civil rights amendments are suppose to protect and treat us all equally under the law.
> 
> I never said there was not inequality or that racism didn’t exist.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ty-anniversary-voting-rights-act-consequences

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113452

https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-...ist-enforcement-in-cities-across-the-country/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...a-9110-3b34ce1d92b1_story.html?outputType=amp


----------



## budda

Bearitone said:


> The answer to what?
> And why do i need to provide an answer for more firepower? No one else has to justify exercising any other right.



The answer is the justification, no?

What does having more firepower solve?


----------



## spudmunkey

Bearitone said:


> Im asking you to show me the laws, policy, etc... that allow for unfair treatment of anyone based on their race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc...
> 
> (Other than affirmative action)
> 
> As far as I knew, the civil rights amendments are suppose to protect and treat us all equally under the law.
> 
> I never said there was not inequality or that racism didn’t exist.



Not to derail that question, but one challenge is that systemic racism can also exist within the parameters of "equal rights" laws, due to implementation.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/12/03/the-growing-racial-disparity-in-prison-time


----------



## ArtDecade

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t think that any of us can predict the ramifications of having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court for the next 20 years will do. This is a 6-3 split so it is going to take a lot of movement to ever get the liberal court back. Hope this lesson was learned, elections matter.



My grand plan if Biden wins:
1. Expand the Courts. If not the Supreme Court, expand every Federal Court so that nothing works its way up.
2. Expand the Senate. Make PR the 51st State.
3. End Republicans.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ArtDecade said:


> My grand plan if Biden wins.
> 1. Expand the Courts. If not the Supreme Court, expand every Federal Court so that nothing works its way up.
> 2. Expand the Senate. Make PR the 51st States.





Especially on the second point.

Puerto Rico and Washington DC deserve statehood.


----------



## Bearitone

fantom said:


> Skimming some of this...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how the people, 200+ years ago, who wrote the 2nd amendment, could have possibly predicted the technology change hundreds of years after they revolted against British rule using muskets that reloaded on 5+ seconds. Everything you just named didn't exist at the time the 2nd amendment was authored. Electricity was not around. Cars, tvs, radios, refrigeration, etc. And don't forget, the British took *months* to travel by sea to reinforce.
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment gives you zero protection for using a firearm to defend your family from criminals or neighbors. Its sole purpose is to allow citizens to organize and to defend themselves from the US military. At this time, the military weapons are far more advanced than anything civilians have, so what is a gun actually doing for anyone besides making people afraid of their neighbors (and not the military)?
> 
> Believe the NRA all you want, but research doesn't back what they say...
> 
> https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
> Hemenway added that there is no good evidence that using a gun in self-defense reduces the likelihood of injury. There is some evidence that having a gun may reduce property loss, but the evidence is equally compelling that having another weapon, such as mace or a baseball bat, will also reduce the likelihood of property loss,” he said.​


Advances in technology don’t change your rights. I can tell by your interpretation you’re a big RGB fan. Your interpretation is not fact. It’s opinion and one that I respectfully disagree with. 

I never mentioned the NRA.

You gave me a link to someone’s interpretation of a study not the actual study and then there are no sources at the bottom of the page. I don’t want to hear someone’s opinion. I want data.


----------



## Bearitone

StevenC said:


> A tyrannical government that might rushed through a wildly unqualified and unpopular Supreme Court judge and then immediately take a two week break instead of providing relief from a global pandemic?



All the more reason to peacefully protest en mass while exercising your right to bear arms. Too bad only red states allow open carry of a rifle though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bearitone said:


> You gave me a link to someone’s interpretation of a study not the actual study and then there are no sources at the bottom of the page. I don’t want to hear someone’s opinion. I want data.



It's sort of a bear to get through, but if you follow the link to the HICRC all the relevant articles say which journal they're published in. I think you have to be a member/subscriber to get direct links.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> So he can overthrow a tyrannical government?
> 
> Or maybe because Jesus and the Founding Fathers intended it this way?
> 
> Even though the former is silly and the later is likely not even true.



More assumptions and insults.
Go tell the tens of thousands of dead in Honk Kong that they don’t need the second amendment. Go tell them “well whadayuh need a AssAUlt Rifle for? What’re u gunna do Fight the GovRnmwnT?”

It doesn’t go from zero to “Navy seals and bombs”. It happens how it did in Hong Kong. It’s naive to think what happened to the people of Hong Kong couldn’t happen here.

An armed population DOES keep the government in check, even today.

People should not fear their government. Government should fear its people. They are our servants and should be reminded of that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bearitone said:


> Too bad only red states allow open carry of a rifle though.



Not really, though it depends on how you define a red/blue state. It's sort of a split, especially depending on if you're talking permissive vs. licensed.


----------



## ArtDecade

Bearitone said:


> An armed population DOES keep the government in check, even today.



You've watched Red Dawn too often. You pose zero threat to the military might (or even the local police) of the United States.


----------



## JSanta

Bearitone said:


> More assumptions and insults.
> Go tell the tens of thousands of dead in Honk Kong that they don’t need the second amendment. Go tell them “well whadayuh need a AssAUlt Rifle for? What’re u gunna do Fight the GovRnmwnT?”
> 
> It doesn’t go from zero to “Navy seals and bombs”. It happens how it did in Hong Kong. It’s naive to think what happened to the people of Hong Kong couldn’t happen here.
> 
> An armed population DOES keep the government in check, even today.
> 
> People should not fear their government. Government should fear its people. They are our servants and should be reminded of that.



I've stated this several times in this thread, but I think it's worth restating. I served as an infantryman, and was a machine gunner. I am highly trained in weapons handling and tactics. No civilian should have access to those kinds of weapons. None.

I think it's a complete logical fallacy that you think gun ownership is keeping our Government in check. Let me know how some loosely (or even less) trained group of individuals is going to prevent a tank from running through your town or how it will defend against drones. The military doesn't have to put one boot on the ground. A missile can be fired from a Destroyer out at sea and level a town. 

The Syrians to this day cannot beat their government. 

I do agree with you that what happened in Hong Kong can happen here, but it turns out that the party that the gun supporters have taken up arms for are the same people eroding their rights.


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> More assumptions and insults.
> Go tell the tens of thousands of dead in Honk Kong that they don’t need the second amendment. Go tell them “well whadayuh need a AssAUlt Rifle for? What’re u gunna do Fight the GovRnmwnT?”
> 
> It doesn’t go from zero to “Navy seals and bombs”. It happens how it did in Hong Kong. It’s naive to think what happened to the people of Hong Kong couldn’t happen here.
> 
> An armed population DOES keep the government in check, even today.
> 
> People should not fear their government. Government should fear its people. They are our servants and should be reminded of that.



Not an assumption or an insult.

The USG spends $700B per year on defense. 

Good luck.


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> I never said poor people were fucking over the country. I don’t have a problem with using existing tax dollars to help those in need as part of a welfare program.
> 
> Im done defending myself on this.


Forgive me a bit of flippancy on this, then. 

The crux of your argument, as I follow it, is that the federal government already takes in plenty of money, so we should focus on making sure it's spent appropriately, and one easy way of cutting some of the fat is cutting down on welfare fraud. Is that more or less accurate? 

Because, what I'm saying in return, is that while that's all well and good, you're talking about a problem that accounts for roughly $11 of every $10,000 in federal spending, and considering there are much, much, much bigger problems out there, as an example tax fraud/avoidance which costs the government $1,667 out of every $10,000, then that's an awfully strange point to say we need to start, as it barely moves the needle in the bigger picture. 

Which brings us back to my original metaphor - no millenial is going to fail to save enough money for retirement because twice a week they spend $5 on a latte that they could have instead saved, and any so-called financial advisor who thinks this is savvy retirement planning advice doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.


----------



## Bearitone

cwhitey2 said:


> Sounds like your issue is with California



California is one the worst offenders and I live there so, yeah, easy to pull examples.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Whenever this comes up, and can't help but think of this:


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> Not an assumption or an insult.
> 
> The USG spends $700B per year on defense.
> 
> Good luck.


I meant the assumption I’m a jesus worshipper.

I’m sure the tens of thousands dead in Hong Kong would love being insulted for standing up to tyranny and wishing they had more fire power in the process.

Guess those Hong Kongians were just a bunch of fools


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> So, Amy Comey Barret getting nominated has me wondering. How wide of a margin does Joe Biden need to win by to NOT have the court end up deciding the election? Trump and his team have floated for nearly a year now that "in a truly fair and balanced election there is no way that Trump loses." So how big does the margin have to be to deflate that mentality? 60%, 70%, more? Or is it simply not possible to overcome that and the election will be contested regardless of where the final vote tally lies?


Well, there are some complications here making an exact comparison tough, but in a fair vote... Clinton won by about 2.1 percentage points in the poppular vote in 2016, which translated into winning enough swing states to matter by about 80,000 votes. Round up for a little bit of a buffer, and tha gets you to a 2.5% margin is _probably_ enough for Biden to overcome Trump's electoral college advantage. 

It's complicated, though, by the fact that we know that there's a partisan split in in-person voting this year. Republicans are more likely to downplay Covid and vote on election day (in passing - Trump's strategy of doing large in person rallies with minimal social distancing in swing states, when most of his voters haven't yet voted while most of Biden's likely have, could very well backfire here) while Democrats are more likely to vote early or by mail. Early voting generally should be included in the election night total in most states, which is a pro for the Biden camp, but in a lot of swing states, Pennsylvania being the most critical, mail-in ballots can't be opened or counted until the morning of the election, which means there might be a lot of democratic votes that won't get counted on election night. Trump will then do anything in his power to stop them from getting counted, if he thinks it's going to be close. 

The Democratic electorate has responded to Trump's attempts to disrupt mail in voting by first disrupting delivery of the mail and second implying it's all fraudulent anyway by shifting to early voting, which WILL get picked up in election night tabulations. I'm not seeing much news on early voting in PA so it may be mail-only, but North Carolina, for example, has had huge amounts of early voting and will be able to report early vote totals the moment the polls close, and is a must win for Trump - I've seen estimates that we'll have 80% of the votes counted by the time the polls close there. 

The other two swing states that are expected to report on time are Arizona and Florida. 538's estimation is Trump needs to win either Arizona, or both Florida and North Carolina, to have any realistic hope at all of hitting a majority in the electoral college (probability of losing jumps to 98% or greater if either outcome goes to Biden, and I think mathematically he is almost guaranteed to lose if all three go to Biden). Biden is up +2.8 points in Arizona, +2.0 in Florida, and +2.4 in North Carolina. So that's another way of thinking about the race - if the race were to tighten 2-2 1/2 points in the week to come, and states to move proportionately, then Trump might be able to pick off Florida and North Carolina and force the votes that will likely decide the Electoral College outcome to be a state like Pennsylvania where Trump will be favored early on but once mail-in voting is fully counted Biden's chances are pretty good, making it the ideal sort of state to contest the outcome of the election by claiming his loss - with no evidence, this blue shift in mail-in voting is pretty easy to foresee - is the result of voter fraud and not popular choice. 

So, 538 has the national race at +9.1 points favoring Biden (RealClearPolitics is a bit tighter, incidentally, NC +1.2 Biden, AZ +2.2 Biden, FL +0.4 Trump), so looking at the headline and assuming no disruption, Trump would need a polling error in the ballpark of +6.6 points to shift the national race to a point where he's likely to have carried enough swing states to win the Electoral College. 

If you assume that given early leads in enough swing states before mail-in voting is counted, he'll declare victory and try to shut down the count of ballots received by states' respective deadlines, though, then the margin where Trump has a map that allows him to execute on that strategy is a lot tighter - maybe a 2 point error, maybe a bit less. 

I will be drinking on election night.


----------



## Bearitone

Again, see Hong Kong. Also never seen Red Dawn


ArtDecade said:


> You've watched Red Dawn too often. You pose zero threat to the military might (or even the local police) of the United States.


----------



## JSanta

Bearitone said:


> Again, see Hong Kong. Also never seen Red Dawn



See Syria. How are the armed civilians holding up against chemical weapons and aircraft?

We can both pick and choose examples that suit our narratives.


----------



## Andromalia

Bearitone said:


> An armed population DOES keep the government in check, even today.



No, it doesn't: Trump is still there.
Think about it: _the main source of misinformation about a global pandemic is the president of the United States of America. _Nobody ever thought of making a movie scenario that was that improbable.
Although I can understand the rationale behind the "we need weapons" argument, the one time it seems justified, you're not using them. You might as well throw them away in this case. That will help with all the children dying of domestic firearms accidents.
https://theconversation.com/the-facts-on-the-us-children-and-teens-killed-by-firearms-118318


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> I meant the assumption I’m a jesus worshipper.
> 
> I’m sure the tens of thousands dead in Hong Kong would love being insulted for standing up to tyranny and wishing they had more fire power in the process.
> 
> Guess those Hong Kongians were just a bunch of fools



My comment had nothing to do with you believing in Jesus... I was actually referencing this:






And if those "Hong Kongians" (AKA Hongkongers) had weapons they would have been wholesale annihilated by the Chinese military.

Why civil resistance works better than armed insurrection:
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> And if those "Hong Kongians" (AKA Hongkongers) had weapons they would have been wholesale annihilated by the Chinese military.



This. Does anyone honestly believe that the Chinese government wouldn't just level parts of HK if they so desired? The fact that they've shown this level of restraint is remarkable to me.


----------



## TedEH

I'm a bit late to this (fast moving) party / thread, but some thoughts I had while catching up:



Bearitone said:


> we’re going to start assuming otherwise completely law abiding citizens “might” commit a crime


I mean, this is how crime works. Every criminal was an otherwise completely law abiding citizen right up to the point where they weren't anymore. There's no such things as just easy black and white "good guys" and "bad guys". Good people do bad things. Crimes of opportunity are a real thing. Everyone who is a criminal was, at one point, not a criminal. 



Bearitone said:


> Im asking you to show me the laws, policy, etc... that allow for unfair treatment of anyone based on their race, sex, color, sexual preference, etc...


This is focused on the wrong thing. Just because the law says something, and you interpret it as fair, doesn't mean that anything is fair in practice. The law doesn't (and can't) make people "equal" if those values don't exist in people to begin with.



Bearitone said:


> No one else has to justify exercising any other right.


Yeah you do. We call things rights for a reason - and since nobody is going to ever agree on what those reasons are, you have to justify them.


----------



## StevenC

Man, imagine if there was another situation where the CCP indiscriminately killed people, but instead of shooting and kidnapping people they ran them over with tanks. I wonder is there an example of that which maybe begins with T and ends with iananmen Square.

Bet those peaceful protesters wish they had assault rifles that day to shoot at a squad of tanks.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Man, imagine if there was another situation where the CCP indiscriminately killed people, but instead of shooting and kidnapping people they ran them over with tanks. I wonder is there an example of that which maybe begins with T and ends with iananmen Square.
> 
> Bet those peaceful protesters wish they had assault rifles that day to shoot at a squad of tanks.



I remember "tank man" in the news. Imagine how brave he must have been to have faced down those tanks armed only with an AR-15 with an extended capacity magazine. Man, imagine if all he had been holding instead were just a couple of grocery bags - I'm sure history would have turned out quite differently. It would have been like if Gandhi had stood up to the British government without using any violence or anything - could you imagine?

As far as Trump, imagine how much support he would have lost if he had publicly promised support of universal background checks, been the one responsible for banning bump stocks, or publicly touted that 2019 had been the record year for federal firearm law prosecutions at 10623 (the first year to top 10k since Bush, another GOP president). But, imagine how much support Trump would gain if he had lifted the Obama-era policy of flagging background checks for firearm purchases based on people who receive social security payments for mental health disabilities.

Of course, every single thing I said in this post was not at all sarcastic in any way.


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone ITT


----------



## fantom

Bearitone said:


> Advances in technology don’t change your rights. I can tell by your interpretation you’re a big RGB fan. Your interpretation is not fact. It’s opinion and one that I respectfully disagree with.
> 
> I never mentioned the NRA.
> 
> You gave me a link to someone’s interpretation of a study not the actual study and then there are no sources at the bottom of the page. I don’t want to hear someone’s opinion. I want data.



Honestly have no idea who RGB is. My "interpretation" is based on experience at work... When people argue about ideals and generalization, they ignore the details and circumstances that matter. The circumstances for the 2nd amendment were a bunch of people oppressed by the British monarchy that wanted to ensure a right to rebel against the monarchs. The 2nd amendment is directly a consequence of authoritarian power that Trump and our current government idolize and mimic. In modern times, the 2nd amendment won't do shit to stop our military. You need missiles, mortars, and aircraft to stand a chance. The modern USA military is an order of magnitude more capable than entire countries. Self organized militias are so far behind it isn't even funny. I don't see how anyone can argue about the 2nd amendment in the context of our current government and not raise that we need it for exactly the current situation in this country, not for our neighbors and crime prevention.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

You are 6-10x (depending on if the gun is loaded) more likely to be murdered during a crime if you have handguns in your house. The evidence does not support that owning guns to defend against neighbors makes you safer. Believe what you want, but maybe try to provide some numbers or evidence to justify your position instead of saying mine aren't good enough?


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> You are 6-10x (depending on if the gun is loaded) more likely to be murdered during a crime if you have handguns in your house. The evidence does not support that owning guns to defend against neighbors makes you safer. Believe what you want, but maybe try to provide some numbers or evidence to justify your position instead of saying mine aren't good enough?



I take exception at that argument, though. One way to look at that statistic is that owning a gun makes you more likely to be murdered. Another way to look at it, though, is that, if you live somewhere you are likely to be murdered, you are more likely to possess a handgun, and, if you live somewhere you are even more likely to be murdered, you are also more likely to keep that handgun loaded.

So, although I probably agree with your conclusion that more guns =/= less crime, for other reasons, I think that the point you made there might be counter-productive to the argument you are making.


----------



## Bearitone

StevenC said:


> Bearitone ITT



Well because i didn’t. I have people on here saying i don’t believe racism exists, insinuating I’m a trump worshipper, saying i hate poor people. And whatever else over the last few pages.

I’m suppose to not address it when someone puts words in my mouth or misrepresents my arguments or states out right lies?

Before we even got to have a real discussion I’m turned into a straw man. I’ve mentioned taxes, unemployment, and guns here. You guys know nothing else of my stances on any other topic or issue. Stop making assumptions to more easily hate someone you disagree with on one thing.


----------



## Necris

I'm still basking in the afterglow of Bearitone reading that a study found the political culture of the GOP is becoming increasingly autocratic and shrugging it off with "well, both parties are disrespectful to their opponents". It's a treat to witness such raw talent.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Bearitone said:


> I meant the assumption I’m a jesus worshipper.
> 
> I’m sure the tens of thousands dead in Hong Kong would love being insulted for standing up to tyranny and wishing they had more fire power in the process.
> 
> Guess those Hong Kongians were just a bunch of fools



tens of thousands dead in Hong Kong. Good one. 

look dude I think what you think is true and news is not true and news.


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> I take exception at that argument, though. One way to look at that statistic is that owning a gun makes you more likely to be murdered. Another way to look at it, though, is that, if you live somewhere you are likely to be murdered, you are more likely to possess a handgun, and, if you live somewhere you are even more likely to be murdered, you are also more likely to keep that handgun loaded.
> 
> So, although I probably agree with your conclusion that more guns =/= less crime, for other reasons, I think that the point you made there might be counter-productive to the argument you are making.



I agree with causation vs correlation argument.


----------



## mongey

Drew said:


> - no millenial is going to fail to save enough money for retirement because twice a week they spend $5 on a latte that they could have instead saved, and any so-called financial advisor who thinks this is savvy retirement planning advice doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.




twice a week? try twice a day for most people in my office .including me most days


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> I take exception at that argument, though. One way to look at that statistic is that owning a gun makes you more likely to be murdered. Another way to look at it, though, is that, if you live somewhere you are likely to be murdered, you are more likely to possess a handgun, and, if you live somewhere you are even more likely to be murdered, you are also more likely to keep that handgun loaded.


One way or another, there's a correlation of some kind here.

Another angle you can choose to come at it from:

Either
a) One of those two things is causal to the other, which means you either have a gun problem or a murder problem, both of which are bad. If it's a gun problem, then take the guns away. If it's a murder problem, then solve the root cause of the murders and the guns become unnecessary. Either way, the solution doesn't involve arming more people.
b) Those things are entirely unrelated. Adding or removing guns don't create or solve any crime, so you can't justify them as a self defence need.

I feel like people like to throw out the idea that multiple interpretations of the gun arguments can be true at the same time. It can simultaneously be true that people feel like they need guns for self defence in some more dangerous parts of the country and that this attitude of anyone being potentially armed keeps some people in check, _and_ that the country generally has an unhealthy obsession with guns that might have contributed to getting stuck in that situation in the first place, _and _that the impact of adding or removing guns from certain situations might have a negligible impact on crime or murders without also addressing the attached social issues, _and _that trying to control for mostly cosmetic elements of guns doesn't do much to solve the "big picture", _and _that there's no need for anyone to have those same cosmetic and convenience features that do little more than fuel the unhealthy relationship people have with their guns, etc etc etc.


----------



## Xaios

mongey said:


> twice a week? try twice a day for most people in my office .including me most days


That's a lot of Starbucks, even for millennial stereotypes. I'm 33, and I'm 4 years older than the average age in my office, yet I only see someone drinking Starbucks once or twice a week out of 30 people.


----------



## iamaom

Xaios said:


> That's a lot of Starbucks, even for millennial stereotypes. I'm 33, and I'm 4 years older than the average age in my office, yet I only see someone drinking Starbucks once or twice a week out of 30 people.


I work in the same building as a starbucks, there are those that don't even have to order or get in line (well the normal line, they still gotta pay) because the baristas know them on sight.


----------



## possumkiller

Fuckin millennials and there damn coffee man...

No wonder the world is going to shit.


----------



## spudmunkey

Worked in an office with three Starbucks within 1 block in three different directions...and Gen-Xers are WAY worse with it than "Millenials" or younger.


----------



## mongey

Xaios said:


> That's a lot of Starbucks, even for millennial stereotypes. I'm 33, and I'm 4 years older than the average age in my office, yet I only see someone drinking Starbucks once or twice a week out of 30 people.



Starbucks ? 

sydney is deeply embedded in coffee snobbery. Starbucks does not get any play here. Our CBD is literally infested with countless small cafes Run by hipsters. 

I’m 46. We all caffeine junkies here. I am property manager for a large charity. In our head office of about 360 People we can fill a 240 l bin a week just of recyclable coffee cup lids.


----------



## AxRookie

WOW, I blinked once and three pages of this flew by!


----------



## Andromalia

bostjan said:


> I take exception at that argument, though. One way to look at that statistic is that owning a gun makes you more likely to be murdered. Another way to look at it, though, is that, if you live somewhere you are likely to be murdered, you are more likely to possess a handgun, and, if you live somewhere you are even more likely to be murdered, you are also more likely to keep that handgun loaded.



Outlaws will always win an escalation war, because, they're outlaws: they don't have to respect rules. Your choice is, since you are going to be outgunned, do you want to have no weapons and be assailed by people with knives, or do you want to have automated ground defenses and be invaded by short range missiles ? 
All that hoarding weapons at home does, is raise the threshold of weaponry the outlaws need to win the engagement... with dozens of side effects: the aforementioned domestic accidents, the police killing people whom they "fear are armed".

It's not like comparison points don't exist: you can look at most european countries and see how they don't have all those issues, while having less crime in general, and certainly waaaaaaaaaaay less homicides.


----------



## possumkiller

Andromalia said:


> Outlaws will always win an escalation war, because, they're outlaws: they don't have to respect rules. Your choice is, since you are going to be outgunned, do you want to have no weapons and be assailed by people with knives, or do you want to have automated ground defenses and be invaded by short range missiles ?
> All that hoarding weapons at home does, is raise the threshold of weaponry the outlaws need to win the engagement... with dozens of side effects: the aforementioned domestic accidents, the police killing people whom they "fear are armed".
> 
> It's not like comparison points don't exist: you can look at most european countries and see how they don't have all those issues, while having less crime in general, and certainly waaaaaaaaaaay less homicides.


Don't try to compare the land of the free to those european communists. There is no comparison.


----------



## sleewell

30 degrees out last night in Nebraska. 

Trump buses people out to his rally. 

No buses for the return trip.

7 hospitalized due to the cold.

That's fucking hilarious.


----------



## bostjan

Andromalia said:


> Outlaws will always win an escalation war, because, they're outlaws: they don't have to respect rules. Your choice is, since you are going to be outgunned, do you want to have no weapons and be assailed by people with knives, or do you want to have automated ground defenses and be invaded by short range missiles ?
> All that hoarding weapons at home does, is raise the threshold of weaponry the outlaws need to win the engagement... with dozens of side effects: the aforementioned domestic accidents, the police killing people whom they "fear are armed".
> 
> It's not like comparison points don't exist: you can look at most european countries and see how they don't have all those issues, while having less crime in general, and certainly waaaaaaaaaaay less homicides.



The criminals don't always win, they just have an advantage. Having a gun during a violent struggle vs. being unarmed is also an advantage.

The Second Amendment in the US Constitution could theoretically be repealed, like the right to individual self defense has been repealed in most of Europe. But, the political process in the US makes that a lot more difficult. If the democrats decided to unarm everyone in the US in a way that does not comply with the US Constitution, then their action would be illegal. But they don't even want to do that!

The US is further to the political "right" (conservative) and also much more libertarian as well as anti-socialist, than probably any other major developed nation. Our "left" is probably more right than France's "moderate," at least in several notable ways.

Anyhow, my point was that Trump doesn't even support the Second Amendment. His record is harder on guns than Obama's. His supporters typically think the Trump policies that limit their gun rights are from Obama or from congress. Trump doesn't even believe in the things they use to justify voting for him, and his executive orders and addresses to congress clearly show that. But, facts be damned when it comes to US politics.


----------



## USMarine75

Bearitone said:


> Advances in technology don’t change your rights. I can tell by your interpretation you’re a big RGB fan. Your interpretation is not fact. It’s opinion and one that I respectfully disagree with.
> 
> I never mentioned the NRA.
> 
> You gave me a link to someone’s interpretation of a study not the actual study and then there are no sources at the bottom of the page. I don’t want to hear someone’s opinion. I want data.



Many of the Founding Fathers, authors of the DOI, and authors of the Constitution never intended for the Constitution to remain permanent, but rather they fashioned it as a living breathing document that could change with the times as needed.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> Many of the Founding Fathers, authors of the DOI, and authors of the Constitution never intended for the Constitution to remain permanent, but rather they fashioned it as a living breathing document that could change with the times as needed.


Literally every "muh founding fathers" argument is dumb because they objectively and demonstrably had no foresight for societal and technological changes.

If they had, they could have seen how massively things like the Senate or Electoral College could become abused. Or they wouldn't have basically founded the constitution on people acting in good faith. Or made some really simple fool-proof method for abolishing and rewriting the constitution without having to jump through the massive hoops that there are for amendments.


----------



## diagrammatiks

StevenC said:


> Literally every "muh founding fathers" argument is dumb because they objectively and demonstrably had no foresight for societal and technological changes.
> 
> If they had, they could have seen how massively things like the Senate or Electoral College could become abused. Or they wouldn't have basically founded the constitution on people acting in good faith. Or made some really simple fool-proof method for abolishing and rewriting the constitution without having to jump through the massive hoops that there are for amendments.



I mean the amendments make sense. they were smart enough to know that they would probably goof, or not be able to think of everything. and there would be some common sense shit that everyone could probably agree on.

they didn't really count on everyone being assholes.


----------



## Xaios

diagrammatiks said:


> they didn't really count on everyone being assholes.


This, but it's George Washington.


----------



## bostjan

So... coming around full circle...

What has Trump done to defend the Second Amendment, anyway?

If the answer is nothing convincing, then the entire argument is moot.


----------



## Bearitone

USMarine75 said:


> My comment had nothing to do with you believing in Jesus... I was actually referencing this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if those "Hong Kongians" (AKA Hongkongers) had weapons they would have been wholesale annihilated by the Chinese military.
> 
> Why civil resistance works better than armed insurrection:
> https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/IS3301_pp007-044_Stephan_Chenoweth.pdf





bostjan said:


> So... coming around full circle...
> 
> What has Trump done to defend the Second Amendment, anyway?
> 
> If the answer is nothing convincing, then the entire argument is moot.



He’s actually hurt the 2nd amendment during his presidency. He’s not even gun advocates’ first choice, just better than Biden in that regard.

@USMarine75 I concede. Citizens could not fight their government. My head was in the clouds on that argument.

I still believe, regardless of that or anyone’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that guns serve a good and lawful purpose and i stand by my original 8 arguments. (On silencers, armor, registration, etc)


----------



## Bearitone

Drew said:


> Forgive me a bit of flippancy on this, then.
> 
> The crux of your argument, as I follow it, is that the federal government already takes in plenty of money, so we should focus on making sure it's spent appropriately, and one easy way of cutting some of the fat is cutting down on welfare fraud. Is that more or less accurate?
> 
> Because, what I'm saying in return, is that while that's all well and good, you're talking about a problem that accounts for roughly $11 of every $10,000 in federal spending, and considering there are much, much, much bigger problems out there, as an example tax fraud/avoidance which costs the government $1,667 out of every $10,000, then that's an awfully strange point to say we need to start, as it barely moves the needle in the bigger picture.
> 
> Which brings us back to my original metaphor - no millenial is going to fail to save enough money for retirement because twice a week they spend $5 on a latte that they could have instead saved, and any so-called financial advisor who thinks this is savvy retirement planning advice doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.



Apologies for getting back to so late, i still need to read up on that 8% stat you linked.

So assuming this is all correct do you think we should first tax the people more to expand on welfare, healthcare, unemployment benefits, education etc,? Or do you think we should redistribute tax money from other sectors first (like military spending for example)?

And what percentage of all taxes paid do you believe is stolen/laundered/wasted by corrupt officials and inefficient (sometimes intentionally so) government branches/sectors/agencies etc before it even gets back to the people or making the country better ?


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone said:


> @USMarine75 I concede. Citizens could not fight their government. My head was in the clouds on that argument.
> 
> I still believe, regardless of that or anyone’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that guns serve a good and lawful purpose and i stand by my original 8 arguments. (On silencers, armor, registration, etc)


So you disagree with the 2nd Amendment. Glad we're all on the same page.

Secondly, what actual lawful purpose does a silencer serve?


----------



## Andromalia

Bearitone said:


> And what percentage of all taxes paid do you believe is stolen/laundered/wasted by corrupt officials and inefficient (sometimes intentionally so) government branches/sectors/agencies etc before it even gets back to the people or making the country better ?



If I compare the end quality of healthcare for poor people in my country and in yours, less than what the private sector is removing from the circuit as bonuses, dividends etc.
The point of the private sector is, what's skimmed by the owners of the capital is lost for the company, so it's inherently less efficient with equal funding.
Greed capitalism is very good for the company owners, not for the companies themselves, who get plundered.


----------



## AxRookie

Even here of all places, Trump is dividing people by spreading lies and failing so miserably as president that even here members are taking sides and fighting with each other!

That's Trump's greatest achievement after four years! For shame on anyone who fights over his propaganda and lies! For shame...


----------



## ArtDecade

AxRookie said:


> Even here of all places, Trump is dividing people by spreading lies and failing so miserably as president that even here members are taking sides and fighting with each other!
> 
> That's Trump's greatest achievement after four years! For shame on anyone who fights over his propaganda and lies! For shame...



First time here? People have been on opposite sides of politics well before Trump.


----------



## Bearitone

StevenC said:


> So you disagree with the 2nd Amendment. Glad we're all on the same page.
> 
> Secondly, what actual lawful purpose does a silencer serve?



Disagree? No.

Jesus, every single thing I say get twisted here.

And please tell me how making a gun quieter should be considered unlawful.

Criminals can already get 80% silencers and complete them by drilling a few holes. You’re hurting the law abiding again.


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone said:


> Disagree? No.
> 
> Jesus, every single thing I say get twisted here.


You either believe a well regulated militia could be effective in the United States today, or you disagree with the 2nd Amendment.

You're allowed to think guns are cool outside of some supposed right, but once you start saying it's an inalienable right, you do have to justify your "_life, liberty and pursuit of happiness_"-ender.

Finally, what possible lawful good does a silencer serve?


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-electoral-college-elector/index.html

“Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she is one of the 538 electors in the Electoral College.“


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Welp, get ready for the right to hate the Electoral College now.


----------



## budda

Why do regular people need silencers on guns not used for hunting? Who are you planning to kill?


----------



## possumkiller

budda said:


> Why do regular people need silencers on guns not used for hunting? Who are you planning to kill?


I get what he is saying. When I was a kid and we used to unload 500 rounds chasing squirrels through the trees in the yard and use the assault rifles for tree trimming, the neighbors would get pretty angry.


----------



## ArtDecade

Bearitone said:


> Criminals can already get 80% silencers and complete them by drilling a few holes. You’re hurting the law abiding again.



"But Mommmmmmm, the criminals get to do it! Why can't I?"

"Because they are criminals, sweetie."


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/hillary-clinton-electoral-college-elector/index.html
> 
> “Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she is one of the 538 electors in the Electoral College.“
> 
> View attachment 86515


Bill was an Elector in 2016


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Welp, get ready for the right to hate the Electoral College now.


Well, they are the masters of hypocrisy.

Do as I say, not as I do, and all that...


----------



## spudmunkey

budda said:


> Why do regular people need silencers on guns not used for hunting? Who are you planning to kill?



Well, I can't speak for gun owners, but I sold my hedge trimmer for one that didn't leave my ears ringing, even though the new one is a worse trimmer. I could see the desire to still be able to use your preferred equipment but with a built in hearing protection upgrade. 

Yes, I know that a "silencer" doesn't mean you don't still need hearing protection, but even good earmuffs can only do so much, and if you can get away with wearing less-robust ones, then it also let's you near more ambient sound, which is also more safe.


----------



## Bearitone

If i have silencers on every fucking gun I own and shoot them all at ranges, or while hunting, or on lawfully defending my life, guess what? I just used silencers lawfully. My silencer was never used in a crime.

Silencers don’t make a gun whisper quiet. The gun is still loud as fuck. They make it just quiet enough that you can use a gun without doing damage to your ears without having to use hearing protection. Beneficial to hunters, people training for sporting purposes, and people either in or training for self defense scenarios (where you won’t have ear protection)

Silencers make ranges safer and quieter. They are a convenience to anyone who owns them.

Silencers are rarely ever used in crimes. By making them illegal you make criminals out of the overwhelming majority of lawful users who just want their guns a little quieter.

Quit buying into James Bond Hollywood propaganda.


----------



## ArtDecade

Bearitone said:


> By making them illegal you make criminals out of the overwhelming majority of lawful users who just want their guns a little quieter.



Wear. Fucking. Earplugs.


----------



## possumkiller

Bearitone said:


> If i have silencers on every fucking gun I own and shoot them all at ranges, or while hunting, or on lawfully defending my life, guess what? I just used silencers lawfully. My silencer was never used in a crime.
> 
> Silencers don’t make a gun whisper quiet. The gun is still loud as fuck. They make it just quiet enough that you can use a gun without doing damage to your ears without having to use hearing protection. Beneficial to hunters, people training for sporting purposes, and people either in or training for self defense scenarios (where you won’t have ear protection)
> 
> Silencers make ranges safer and quieter. They are a convenience to anyone who owns them.
> 
> Silencers are rarely ever used in crimes. By making them illegal you make criminals out of the overwhelming majority of lawful users who just want their guns a little quieter.
> 
> Quit buying into James Bond Hollywood propaganda.


The problem with silencers is that if you want it to actually work, you need to use sub-sonic ammo. Sub-sonic ammo is ok for close range situations like raiding a building in a neighborhood, assassinating someone, or shooting someone inside your house. It would suck ass for hunting because you lose penetration, stopping power, and trajectory with the less powerful ammo.


----------



## Bearitone

ArtDecade said:


> Wear. Fucking. Earplugs.



Why would I compromise my situational awareness with earplugs when i could just use my silencer?


----------



## ArtDecade

Bearitone said:


> Why would I compromise my situational awareness with earplugs when i could just use my silencer?



Because you aren't at war with a target at the range. Look, I hope you are a contrarian 20 year-old and can look back on these threads with a giggle one day - otherwise, you are just a lost cause and we'd all be better to add you to the ignore list.


----------



## AxRookie

budda said:


> Why do regular people need silencers on guns not used for hunting?


Simple, So they don't scare away all the other game in the area...

Who said they never would use their guns for hunting?


----------



## possumkiller

ArtDecade said:


> Wear. Fucking. Earplugs.


It depends though. If I shoot a stupidly overpowered handgun chambered for a rifle caliber that needs a muzzle brake to keep it from flying away when being fired, ear plugs only solve part of the problem. It still feels like being punched in the face when the gun goes off.


----------



## ArtDecade

possumkiller said:


> It depends though. If I shoot a* stupidly* overpowered handgun chambered for a rifle caliber that needs a muzzle brake to keep it from flying away when being fired, ear plugs only solve part of the problem. It still feels like being punched in the face when the gun goes off.



Stupidly overpowered handguns should reward stupidity.


----------



## iamaom

I'd like to add to the conversation that guns arne't just to protect against criminals, but from the police. If racist, power tripping pigs get to have a gun, then I get to have a gun. I'm not a fan of state monopoly on violence.


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone said:


> I just used silencers lawfully. My silencer was never used in a crime.


Hello. I don't care about using them lawfully. This is what you said (emphasis my own):


Bearitone said:


> @USMarine75I still believe, regardless of that or anyone’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that *guns serve a good and lawful purpose* and i stand by my original 8 arguments. (On silencers, armor, registration, etc)


I want to know what good and lawful purpose a silencer serves. I am not counting "making me pointless killing machine more convenient during practicing" because dumb.


----------



## StevenC

iamaom said:


> I'd like to add to the conversation that guns arne't just to protect against criminals, but from the police. If racist, power tripping pigs get to have a gun, then I get to have a gun. I'm not a fan of state monopoly on violence.


This is not a valid defence unfortunately, because in every jurisdiction it is illegal to use a gun against a police officer in any situation.


----------



## JSanta

StevenC said:


> Hello. I don't care about using them lawfully. This is what you said (emphasis my own):
> 
> I want to know what good and lawful purpose a silencer serves. I am not counting "making me pointless killing machine more convenient during practicing" because dumb.



I think the thing you really have to understand is that the gun culture in the States is tightly woven into the fabric of who many people are. It sounds like Bearitone is one of those people. His weapons are an extension of himself. This is not a negative judgement, but simply an observation. Because of his intrinsic belief that he has the right to weapon ownership, there isn't really another side to the discussion for them. No one needs an AR-15. But dammit, it's a right that will not be infringed upon.

I just don't understand why there hasn't been more done to protect innocent people from gun violence. How many more mass casualty events do we need in this country before the Government finally steps in? I get the argument, law abiding citizens don't break the laws, why should they be "punished", but at the end of the day, I haven't seen an argument that says the world wouldn't be a better place without private gun ownership, at least not as freely as we experience in the US. I mean, 82 of 117 mass casualty events were done using legally purchased weapon(s) (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/). 

I have no problem with the second amendment, but I do have a problem with what the gun lobbies and the NRA have done to this country, and that weapons (both legal and illegal) are so easily obtained. Maybe the Government should supply body armor, since they are so keen not to accommodate universal healthcare...


----------



## budda

AxRookie said:


> Simple, So they don't scare away all the other game in the area...
> 
> Who said they never would use their guns for hunting?



It's like you didn't read what you quoted or something.


----------



## Bearitone

ArtDecade said:


> Because you aren't at war with a target at the range. Look, I hope you are a contrarian 20 year-old and can look back on these threads with a giggle one day - otherwise, you are just a lost cause and we'd all be better to add you to the ignore list.





ArtDecade said:


> Because you aren't at war with a target at the range. Look, I hope you are a contrarian 20 year-old and can look back on these threads with a giggle one day - otherwise, you are just a lost cause and we'd all be better to add you to the ignore list.




I err on the side of protecting individual liberties and freedoms. You err on the side legislating away the ones that make you feel uncomfortable.


----------



## sleewell

the markets tanked today. yikes. dow is down like 1800 this week. good thing those rat bastards jammed a scotus judge through and left town with no stimulus.


----------



## budda

Bearitone said:


> I err on the side of protecting individual liberties and freedoms. You err on the side legislating away the ones that make you feel uncomfortable.



Ok but they aren't protected now. We're seeing it at a higher rate than ever before. It's also been established that your government can wipe you off the face of the earth from behind a desk. So what is it that you're really accomplishing?


----------



## USMarine75

iamaom said:


> I'd like to add to the conversation that guns arne't just to protect against criminals, but from the police. If racist, power tripping pigs get to have a gun, then I get to have a gun. I'm not a fan of state monopoly on violence.



Wow we made it really far before someone said something stupid. Please don’t interrupt adults when they’re talking. Now go back to watching PJ Masks and I’ll make you a grilled cheese.


----------



## Bearitone

StevenC said:


> Hello. I don't care about using them lawfully. This is what you said (emphasis my own):
> 
> I want to know what good and lawful purpose a silencer serves. I am not counting "making me pointless killing machine more convenient during practicing" because dumb.



It is not a pointless killing machine. The point IS to kill or neutralize. Either one in self defense and to kill when hunting. Or the purpose can be “fun” if you ever loosen up and try shooting one day.

Also it all goes back to situational awareness and hearing protection. You aren’t going to be reaching for earplugs when your home gets broken into.

I hope none of you ever have your home broken into while you’re in it. Or worse when you and your loved ones are inside.


Watch a home invasion video if you can find one and tell me you wouldn’t want an AR-15 or similar.

And until you’ve shot a gun indoors without hearing protection, I don’t expect you to understand the desire for a silencer.

So again, regardless of your interpretation of the second amendment, guns (and silencers) serve lawful purposes.

I have to say you guys have an odd use of the word “lawful”. If I’m not breaking the law then... what I’m doing is... lawful.

Sorry if hunting, recreation, training, and self defense are “dumb” reasons in your opinion. Doesn’t make them unlawful


----------



## StevenC

Bearitone said:


> It is not a pointless killing machine. The point IS to kill or neutralize. Either one in self defense and to kill when hunting. Or the purpose can be “fun” if you ever loosen up and try shooting one day.
> 
> Also it all goes back to situational awareness and hearing protection. You aren’t going to be reaching for earplugs when your home gets broken into.
> 
> I hope none of you ever have your home broken into while you’re in it. Or worse when you and your loved ones are inside.
> 
> 
> Watch a home invasion video if you can find one and tell me you wouldn’t want an AR-15 or similar.
> 
> And until you’ve shot a gun indoors without hearing protection, I don’t expect you to understand the desire for a silencer.
> 
> So again, regardless of your interpretation of the second amendment, guns (and silencers) serve lawful purposes.
> 
> I have to say you guys have an odd use of the word “lawful”. If I’m not breaking the law then... what I’m doing is... lawful.
> 
> Sorry if the recreation, training, and self defense are “dumb” reasons in your opinion. Doesn’t make them unlawful


To be honest, if the choices in your home invasion fantasy are presumably murder or sore ears, I think I'd be happy enough with the sore ears. But one mustn't wake the children when armed assailants are abound.


----------



## sleewell

gunshots in my neighborhood would have multiple houses around me calling the cops. heck a sheriff lives a few houses down. seems like you would want that attention rather than the silence.


----------



## Bearitone

StevenC said:


> To be honest, if the choices in your home invasion fantasy are presumably murder or sore ears, I think I'd be happy enough with the sore ears. But one mustn't wake the children when armed assailants are abound.



Not a fantasy bud. Home invasions happen as do robberies. Funny enough gun violence is higher in places with stricter gun control laws.


----------



## fantom

JSanta said:


> I get the argument, law abiding citizens don't break the laws, why should they be "punished"





Bearitone said:


> I err on the side of protecting individual liberties and freedoms. You err on the side legislating away the ones that make you feel uncomfortable.



It isn't about punishing people. It's about protecting other people. If you view gun ownership as a liberty that affects you without factoring in how it affects other people who live around you, that is completely fine, but it is 100% the role of our government to protect the people from common threats. The government should represent the peoples' best interests, not individual best interests. Statistics show that guns are a threat to communities. It isn't an issue of making people feel uncomfortable, it is an issue of putting society before oneself. If you want government to not represent people and common good, go back in time a few thousand years before Jericho and let us know if that was better?

Edit: This entire comment can be talking about masks. Sigh


----------



## bostjan

Re: Silencers - Not me, I'll take a *loudener*. (only joking, but I'll come back to this, I promise)

Re: Trump on gun rights - Biden is more likely to promise to outlaw stuff or make it difficult and not act. We already know that most of the stuff Trump said he wouldn't do, that HRC said she would, Trump actually did enact, pertaining to gun control. So, do you want someone who will tell you that they will take your rights away and not do it or someone who says they won't but already did?

Re: HRC on the electoral college. - Meh, not surprised.



StevenC said:


> This is not a valid defence unfortunately, because in every jurisdiction it is illegal to use a gun against a police officer in any situation.



Not in the USA, if you are white, and in a very specific situation, and in the 19th century, and... check out _Plummer v. Indiana_.

It might be worth noting that there was an almost identical case as _Plummer_, but the guy was in his 80's (still in Indiana), and he shot and killed a cop and was still convicted, yet received something like a five year sentence. Anyway, my point isn't serious, just for entertainment purposes, before anyone goes off the rails trying to prove me wrong. 

And back to the broader point in this thread about silencers... I actually knew someone who owned a silencer. A real one. Obviously, I'm not going to say much about it other than it is legal to own with a permit, although I have no idea how you manage to get said permit. But, anyway, although it makes the shots quieter, it is *nothing *_at all_ like in the 007 movies, so get the idea of a whisper quiet gunshot out of your imagination. It's still loud as hell. If you ever actually used one at the range, you'd honestly wonder what all the fuss is about.

Let's face it, the government, for good intentions, bad intentions, or indifferent, doesn't want you to have a means for self defense. Why would they ban body armor? Has anyone ever beaten another person to death with body armor? Of course not, well, not yet. In the USA, when people murder each other, they usually use handguns. Some (>0%) of those people would use whatever else was handy to do the job if the gun wasn't there, and some (>0%) would not even bother to murder anyone without a gun. Fewer guns would result in fewer murders. Not sure how much, but, you're crazy if you think otherwise. Obviously the government will make it illegal to use those guns to resist it. The founding fathers knew this. Anyone with half a brain knows this. But if the government allows people to arm themselves, just in case, it's assuring them (truthfully or otherwise, it's underdetermined) that they are free. And if they take away the individual's right to self defense, then each individual will be left with their only option to rely on government for their defense. That's crazy.

So, the thought provoking part is how to balance an individual's right to self defense with a society's obligation to protect people. More weapons means more murders, yet fewer weapons means more innocent people can be murdered more conveniently (for the murderers). Also, some people may be economically or physically unable to use a weapon. Do those people deserve to be disadvantaged? Also, some people are batshit. Do those people need weapons? All we need is a bunch of armed psychos murdering quadriplegics, right?

Well, in the words of Joe Biden, "come on man!" Again, the democrats (mostly) don't want to disarm all Americans, and the republicans don't want to not disarm any Americans. Neither party is going to do a damned thing to promote the mental health of our society, and neither party is going to do anything about police violence. These are super hot issues that no major national-level candidates left standing have incorporated into their platforms, at least not in their top ten priorities on their respective lists, instead its all about jobs, covid, and health care.

So, I know I typed out a novel just now, but back to basics:

1. Trump wants to limit your access to guns more than it is limited now. 
2. Biden wants to limit your access to guns more than it is limited now.

The issue of Second Amendment rights is a complete wash-out in the presidential election. Arguing about whether you want the punch in the face or the very hard fist tap to the frontal cranial area is stupid. Likewise, arguing Trump vs. Biden over gun control is the same. If this is your #1 issue, vote Jo Jorgenson. She won't take your guns. Honestly. Voting Trump over 2A issues is just flat out dumb.


----------



## spudmunkey

"When Trump calls for poll watches, this is what he wants." Make sure to pay attention from about 0:30 on.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1320148950398038016


----------



## TedEH

JSanta said:


> I think the thing you really have to understand is that the gun culture in the States is tightly woven into the fabric of who many people are. It sounds like Bearitone is one of those people. His weapons are an extension of himself. This is not a negative judgement, but simply an observation.


I'm willing to make that a judgment. Such tight integration between firearms and identity/culture is unhealthy and a problem.



Bearitone said:


> if you ever loosen up and try shooting one day


I've fired guns. They're perfectly reasonable as tools for hunting purposes, and I've no real problem with recreational shooting if done responsibly. I still otherwise disagree with most of your comments about guns so far.



Bearitone said:


> Watch a home invasion video if you can find one and tell me you wouldn’t want an AR-15 or similar.


I wouldn't want anything that's going to result in the death of myself or the invader, or anything that's that's going to prompt an escalation in the encounter. In my understanding, while I'm no expert, home invaders don't want to kill you - but if you present yourself as a risk by pointing a gun at them, suddenly there's a reason for them to feel like they need to defend themselves too.


----------



## budda

Bearitone said:


> Not a fantasy bud. Home invasions happen as do robberies. Funny enough gun violence is higher in places with stricter gun control laws.



Citation needed.


----------



## AxRookie

Rump's in Goodyear AZ losing his mind and taking nonsense, It's like all he cares about is entertaining his dimwitted base???


----------



## Chokey Chicken

Regarding suppressors. They are loud. You still need hearing protection. In all realistic situations they do nothing for the user. Hunting? Leaves crunching upset animals so suppressed firearms are still a joke. (never mind nobody hunts with a pistol so why have legal pistol suppressors? Firing range? No ill effects towards you for using hearing protection vs hearing protection plus suppressor. Burglar? One or two unsuppressed rounds won't kill you.

Suppressors are there to be "cool" for 99.9% of people. I like and own tons of guns, but there's no rational reason to own a suppressor other than "because I want to." I like suppressors but there's no reason not to more strictly regulate them at least. Wouldn't even mind giving mine up, if I was compensated. They're neat, but 1000% unneeded.


----------



## zappatton2

I am curious, from a risk assessment perspective, what poses the greater statistical threat to the safety of a household; the possibility of a violent home invasion, or the mere presence of a firearm?

My suspicions could be wrong, I've had a long work day and am done looking at numbers for the evening, but I am curious.


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> I am curious, from a risk assessment perspective, what poses the greater statistical threat to the safety of a household; the possibility of a violent home invasion, or the mere presence of a firearm?
> 
> My suspicions could be wrong, I've had a long work day and am done looking at numbers for the evening, but I am curious.



Here's where there's a disconnect between two perspectives.

Let's look at something else, that I feel is a valid parallel conversation: self-driving cars. For some people, it doesn't matter if, on paper, self driving cars are 1000x more safe than human drivers. Some people will always see those rare cases where the self-driving car didn't "see" something or made a wrong "choice", as rare as they are, as the reason they would never give up control. If something *were* to happen when they themselves are driving, it's their own fault, and they feel like they are "better" (smarter, more disciplined, etc) than most everyone else, and that their own personal risk is lower than the average.


----------



## AxRookie

The only way to stop a bad guy with a chainsaw is a good guy with a chainsaw!!! lol


----------



## SpaceDock

zappatton2 said:


> I am curious, from a risk assessment perspective, what poses the greater statistical threat to the safety of a household; the possibility of a violent home invasion, or the mere presence of a firearm?
> 
> My suspicions could be wrong, I've had a long work day and am done looking at numbers for the evening, but I am curious.



Owning a gun is much more dangerous to you and your family statistically than not. The likelihood of using a gun to defend yourself is extremely rare when compared to accidental discharge or suicide.

If you want to feel safe and dissuade intruders, get a dog.


----------



## budda

Mike huckabee just tweeted his voter fraud, so we'll see if anything comes of that.


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> Here's where there's a disconnect between two perspectives.
> 
> Let's look at something else, that I feel is a valid parallel conversation: self-driving cars. For some people, it doesn't matter if, on paper, self driving cars are 1000x more safe than human drivers. Some people will always see those rare cases where the self-driving car didn't "see" something or made a wrong "choice", as rare as they are, as the reason they would never give up control. If something *were* to happen when they themselves are driving, it's their own fault, and they feel like they are "better" (smarter, more disciplined, etc) than most everyone else, and that their own personal risk is lower than the average.



https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-are-overconfident-in-their-driving-skills-2018-1

73% of drivers feel they are better than average. It doesn't take a statistics genius to realize people have flawed self assessment. I have no idea if this translates to gun ownership confidence, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that gun violence happens to people that think they are doing better than average. Just look at Kyle Rittenhouse. Dude wouldn't have been involved in gun violence if he didn't try to be a "responsible gun owner".

Edit: just for clarity, people don't agree on what "average" or "responsible" mean. If you assume your beliefs are right, the definitions will skew your behavior. The entire point of this statement is that people have to have the same understanding for subjective matters or their measurements are flawed.


----------



## spudmunkey

budda said:


> Mike huckabee just tweeted his voter fraud, so we'll see if anything comes of that.



Likely not, if Trump himself can't even vote without (at least possibly) breaking the law: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/p...0201023-tetnflz3uzflrjjmnbxt3wn3ji-story.html


----------



## iamaom

USMarine75 said:


> Wow we made it really far before someone said something stupid. Please don’t interrupt adults when they’re talking. Now go back to watching PJ Masks and I’ll make you a grilled cheese.


Explain? There are people in this country who get murdered by police everyday.


----------



## fantom

Is this shit made up?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-hunter-biden-documents-vanish-los-angeles

You have damning evidence against a political rival and you don't make copies of it? Honestly, this shit seems more likely to be a cover-up by Tucker Carlson to save face for having no proof than evidence of Democrats stealing mail.


----------



## AxRookie

Tucker Carlson is shameless when it comes to his bull shit in much the same way Hannity is...


----------



## possumkiller

https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake?language=en


----------



## USMarine75

iamaom said:


> Explain? There are people in this country who get murdered by police everyday.



You going to “defend” yourself against the police? You gonna kill a cop before a cop kills you? When has that ever worked?

I’n all about intelligent dialogue and I quite appreciate @Bearitone even if I disagree. But the idea that having a gun will protect you from bad cops is ludicrous at best and dangerous in practice.


----------



## JSanta

fantom said:


> It isn't about punishing people. It's about protecting other people. If you view gun ownership as a liberty that affects you without factoring in how it affects other people who live around you, that is completely fine, but it is 100% the role of our government to protect the people from common threats. The government should represent the peoples' best interests, not individual best interests. Statistics show that guns are a threat to communities. It isn't an issue of making people feel uncomfortable, it is an issue of putting society before oneself. If you want government to not represent people and common good, go back in time a few thousand years before Jericho and let us know if that was better?
> 
> Edit: This entire comment can be talking about masks. Sigh



I don't think it's fair that you grab one piece of my post and then use it as a piece of your argument regarding what the government should or shouldn't do to protect its citizens. I highlighted an argument lawful gun owners make and have made about legal gun ownership. It's part of who they are, and it's a mentality that everyone that is not a gun person needs to understand. Even though I was called out for this earlier, I'm still not making a judgement about people like this, I'm just calling it out. It exists, we have to deal with the fact that it exists.

If our Government cared about us in a meaningful way, we wouldn't still be talking about universal health care and strict gun laws, because they would already exist. "Individual liberty" has slowly eroded the rights of the populace. To your point, too many of us don't care about anyone else until we need something from them. American exceptionalism has been our countries' pre-existing condition.


----------



## JSanta

Bearitone said:


> Not a fantasy bud. Home invasions happen as do robberies. Funny enough gun violence is higher in places with stricter gun control laws.





budda said:


> Citation needed.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/sta...ms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html
"The relationship between gun laws and firearms deaths is compelling. In states like Alabama,. Alaska and Louisiana, where guns are lightly regulated, the rate of deaths by firearms (per 100,000 people) is more than four times higher than in New York, Connecticut, Hawaii or Massachusetts, which have some of the strictest gun laws in the country."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hest-gun-laws-end-up-with-worst-gun-violence/

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/
"In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the _Journal of General Internal Medicine, _Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates."

I mean, the statistics are readily available for people that actually want to know the truth...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Tell me... How do you even respond to this? Seriously, Is there even a starting point for discussion with these people? 

"Biden’s proposed gun control

The thought of having to put out even more money for each gun, plus more money for each magazine I have, plus pay to have my name and address engraved to each gun as well as have my name on public record as a gun owner is just ridiculous! I already don’t mention that I’m a gun owner to strangers just because I don’t want to deal with it.

Just reading it and hearing about it pisses me off. As a legal gun owner with several guns that I have had a background check for, have a valid carry permit, and have all of the guns stored in a locked gun safe most of the time, it makes me want to ignore the media even more!

I mean come on media! You are supposed to be unbiased, then why does it sound completely left wing democratic? I mean they seem to think that you can have a mental illness and order a gun online with no background check and have it shipped to your house....... yet that is a felony! They also seem to think that you can go to any gun store and ask the person behind the counter which gun is best for a mass shooting..... if you did that the worker would be most likely calling the police.... yet the media seems to think that the store worker would give them a riffle with no background check....

I am a us citizen that was born in this country, to a family that has been in this country for generations, I do not have mental health issues nor have I ever been charged with any crime.

I also am smart enough to realize that guns do not kill people. Yes guns have been used as an instrument to kill people, but they were just that, an instrument! Personally I would like to find a big enough building to fit all of the people that think guns kill people inside of it. Then in the center of it, have loaded machine guns and other guns pointed at people, but make it so that people can not physically get to the guns themselves, and make them see what happens.

Yes I realize a lot of the media crap started when trump was just a potential candidate, but I don’t see that he’s done really anything wrong. I mean he is the same person now that he has always been, an a$hole business man that did what he had to do to beat the polished career sales person....... wait no I mean politician but what’s the difference? Anyways the media has acted like Trump was going to run the country into the ground yet look at what he did? Pre covid, he had the lowest unemployment in decades! I mean come on media? Focus on that and not on what some democrat did that means absolutely nothing. I’ve heard how a lot of people are mad that Trump didn’t shut down the country sooner, but why would he, he was screwed either way! If he shut it down when people wanted him to, people would still be pissed. Personally I think he handled it just fine. For me, covid was just something I heard about on the news about other countries getting it, back then it wasn’t here, I had no other plans of going to another country so why did I care?"


----------



## JSanta

High Plains Drifter said:


> Tell me... How do you even respond to this? Seriously, Is there even a starting point for discussion with these people?
> 
> "Biden’s proposed gun control
> 
> The thought of having to put out even more money for each gun, plus more money for each magazine I have, plus pay to have my name and address engraved to each gun as well as have my name on public record as a gun owner is just ridiculous! I already don’t mention that I’m a gun owner to strangers just because I don’t want to deal with it.
> 
> Just reading it and hearing about it pisses me off. As a legal gun owner with several guns that I have had a background check for, have a valid carry permit, and have all of the guns stored in a locked gun safe most of the time, it makes me want to ignore the media even more!
> 
> I mean come on media! You are supposed to be unbiased, then why does it sound completely left wing democratic? I mean they seem to think that you can have a mental illness and order a gun online with no background check and have it shipped to your house....... yet that is a felony! They also seem to think that you can go to any gun store and ask the person behind the counter which gun is best for a mass shooting..... if you did that the worker would be most likely calling the police.... yet the media seems to think that the store worker would give them a riffle with no background check....
> 
> I am a us citizen that was born in this country, to a family that has been in this country for generations, I do not have mental health issues nor have I ever been charged with any crime.
> 
> I also am smart enough to realize that guns do not kill people. Yes guns have been used as an instrument to kill people, but they were just that, an instrument! Personally I would like to find a big enough building to fit all of the people that think guns kill people inside of it. Then in the center of it, have loaded machine guns and other guns pointed at people, but make it so that people can not physically get to the guns themselves, and make them see what happens.
> 
> Yes I realize a lot of the media crap started when trump was just a potential candidate, but I don’t see that he’s done really anything wrong. I mean he is the same person now that he has always been, an a$hole business man that did what he had to do to beat the polished career sales person....... wait no I mean politician but what’s the difference? Anyways the media has acted like Trump was going to run the country into the ground yet look at what he did? Pre covid, he had the lowest unemployment in decades! I mean come on media? Focus on that and not on what some democrat did that means absolutely nothing. I’ve heard how a lot of people are mad that Trump didn’t shut down the country sooner, but why would he, he was screwed either way! If he shut it down when people wanted him to, people would still be pissed. Personally I think he handled it just fine. For me, covid was just something I heard about on the news about other countries getting it, back then it wasn’t here, I had no other plans of going to another country so why did I care?"



The problem with your thinking is that this is not about you. It's about the greater We. Every time someone is gunned down in the streets, it violates the key tenets of this country to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The same thing for the Coronavirus. Over 220k dead in this country alone; that is not handling the pandemic well by any calculation. Where their rights not as important as someone that refuses to take precautions or is altogether dismissive of the virus?

The lack of guns in other countries does not prevent attacks from happening, but it does decrease by orders of magnitude the possibility for a mass casualty event. If the person in Nice today had a gun, I'm willing to bet more than 2 people would have died. 

Individualism and individual rights are important, but they need to be weighed against the collective. That is an area we fail at as a country.


----------



## Choop

Chokey Chicken said:


> Regarding suppressors. They are loud. You still need hearing protection. In all realistic situations they do nothing for the user. Hunting? Leaves crunching upset animals so suppressed firearms are still a joke. (never mind nobody hunts with a pistol so why have legal pistol suppressors? Firing range? No ill effects towards you for using hearing protection vs hearing protection plus suppressor. Burglar? One or two unsuppressed rounds won't kill you.
> 
> Suppressors are there to be "cool" for 99.9% of people. I like and own tons of guns, but there's no rational reason to own a suppressor other than "because I want to." I like suppressors but there's no reason not to more strictly regulate them at least. Wouldn't even mind giving mine up, if I was compensated. They're neat, but 1000% unneeded.



Not refuting your stance on suppressors being unnecessary, but people do hunt with pistols (usually revolvers, but sometimes semi autos). I'd like to add that when using subsonic ammo, suppressors make firearms incredibly quiet -- but yeah, nobody is going to hunt with subsonic ammo.


----------



## thraxil

High Plains Drifter said:


> For me, covid was just something I heard about on the news about other countries getting it, back then it wasn’t here, I had no other plans of going to another country so why did I care?



It's hard not to read that as "this thing that killed hundreds of thousands of people didn't affect *me* directly, so why would I care"? and that, to me, basically sums up the modern conservative.


----------



## nightflameauto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/28/trump-omaha-supporters-stuck-cold/

Welp, that happened.

And yet again Trump finds a way to one-up himself. Pretty amazing, really.


----------



## sleewell

^ that's by far my favorite trump story recently. going to a superspreader event to hear him whine like a bitch about how everything is so unfair in the middle of pandemic is several degrees of stupid on its own, but then just letting those poor miserable people figure out how to get 4 miles back to their car in the sub freezing temps is so totally trump. he really cares about us and is fighting for us!!

good thing they had obamacare for their hospital visits lol


----------



## narad

High Plains Drifter said:


> I also am smart enough to realize that guns do not kill people. Yes guns have been used as an instrument to kill people, but they were just that, an instrument! Personally I would like to find a big enough building to fit all of the people that think guns kill people inside of it. Then in the center of it, have loaded machine guns and other guns pointed at people, but make it so that people can not physically get to the guns themselves, and make them see what happens.



Your building would need to be 0 square meters big. Smart enough to realize that guns do not kill people, but not smart enough to realize that no one believes that guns alone kill people?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Thank you guys, @thraxil / @JSanta / @narad for the replies. I know that he's doing his best to utilize logic and express his pro-trump argument calmly and respectfully... not the typical rage-induced idiot. But I still feel that any rebuttal would just be too lengthy and go nowhere. It's exhausting to have these discussions anymore so I guess I just need to let it go. I don't think he'll change his perspective anyway.


----------



## vilk

It's easy to see things from the perspective of an ammosexual if you just think about it like this: what if the government made _guitars_ illegal, citing the thousands and thousands of murders and suicides people commit using them... Oh, wait...

OK, but imagine if they made _cars _illegal since over 2/3rds of murders are carried out using cars... Wait, no, that's not right either...


----------



## fantom

High Plains Drifter said:


> I’ve heard how a lot of people are mad that Trump didn’t shut down the country sooner, but why would he, he was screwed either way! If he shut it down when people wanted him to, people would still be pissed. Personally I think he handled it just fine. For me, covid was just something I heard about on the news about other countries getting it, back then it wasn’t here, I had no other plans of going to another country so why did I care?"



Just for some reference point... I had travel plans in late March. I started to worry about them in January, decided to drive 10 hours instead of fly in early February, and decided to cancel my plans by mid February.

I had nowhere near the amount of facts as the White House, but I could tell it was a serious threat before the federal government took action. Since one of the first cases was in the county I work in, I saw local companies start work from home orders before any government action. A few weeks later, I saw my local government respond with shelter in place orders. This was all several weeks before the federal government did anything.

Does that mean Trump made "wrong" decisions? No. Does it mean that Trump failed to take action that I believe would help? Absolutely. I would have preferred to see Trump admit there was a concern, announce that the decision was to let local governments make decisions and the federal government will monitor the situation. Instead, Trump denied there was a problem and started censoring the CDC. By failing to organize at a federal level, he caused states to get into bidding wars over supplies while selling the surplus of the same supplies we needed to China... And he still hasn't fixed the damned supply chain issue.

So when I see the corporations compared to the Trump adminstration, I see a big difference in leadership. The corporations took action to protect their people (wtf, right?) months before the federal government even acknowledged there was a problem.

So ya, my overall reaction to "he didn't do anything wrong" is... I think you meant "he didn't do anything". If you consider that right or wrong is subjective. And the part on closing the borders... I completely agree closing the border to China wouldn't have mattered since most science has already confirmed the virus arrived in the US from Europe, not China. Trump still keeps blaming China and saying that he stopped migration from China when we know damned well he is pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

Also, being pissed at a leader is kind of one of the benefits of being a leader. You can't make everyone happy. You have to make decisions. Trump has shown he doesn't give a shit what people think, but he sure likes to complain he isn't give "fair questions" when it benefits his defense.


----------



## fantom

High Plains Drifter said:


> Trump was going to run the country into the ground yet look at what he did? Pre covid, he had the lowest unemployment in decades! I mean come on media? Focus on that and not on what some democrat did that means absolutely nothing



So regarding unemployment and economy, I had no expectations. I am not a democrat, but I kept hearing "the economy" and "unemployment". So without seeing any policies, just looking at data, I don't see how Trump can take credit for the economy. Links are below, but the trends for both stayed steady for 8 years before Trump took office. So if anything, I would say Trump did nothing and is seeing dividends over time from policy set by either the Obama adminstration or the late W Bush adminstration.

The only thing that I think might be due to a policy that the Trump adminstration passed (ignoring the pandemic) is the poverty level decrease.

I would be curious if people who paid more attention could point to specific policies passed by each adminstration that resulted in those graphs changing direction. But as of now, as a moderate, I don't see how Trump can take credit for the economy or the unemployment numbers precovid. He definitely had responsibility for any post covid numbers (even if it isn't his "fault").

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2020/10/business/us-economy-trump-vs-other-presidents/


----------



## fantom

JSanta said:


> I don't think it's fair that you grab one piece of my post and then use it as a piece of your argument regarding what the government should or shouldn't do to protect its citizens. I highlighted an argument lawful gun owners make and have made about legal gun ownership. It's part of who they are, and it's a mentality that everyone that is not a gun person needs to understand. Even though I was called out for this earlier, I'm still not making a judgement about people like this, I'm just calling it out. It exists, we have to deal with the fact that it exists.
> 
> If our Government cared about us in a meaningful way, we wouldn't still be talking about universal health care and strict gun laws, because they would already exist. "Individual liberty" has slowly eroded the rights of the populace. To your point, too many of us don't care about anyone else until we need something from them. American exceptionalism has been our countries' pre-existing condition.



Sorry I wasn't trying to target you. I was commenting on the concept in isolation more as a response to the other comment. I wasn't trying to imply anything about you.


----------



## sleewell

trump took over a really good economy. it's hard to argue that but trump fans can't admit this bc obviously the economy was horrible when a black democrat was in charge. had trump done nothing at all things would have just kept on increasing obviously until covid hit. 

tax cuts for the wealthy and big corps didn't do much bc those people just save any extra money they get because they already have more than enough so any additional new money doesn't get put back into the economy. big corps just used the money for stock buybacks which don't make the economy any better for the vast majority of people.

trump fans like to say he did a lot for economy bc it gives them a free pass to ignore all the other horrible things he has done.


----------



## JSanta

sleewell said:


> trump took over a really good economy. it's hard to argue that but trump fans can't admit this bc obviously the economy was horrible when a black democrat was in charge. had trump done nothing at all things would have just kept on increasing obviously until covid hit.
> 
> tax cuts for the wealthy and big corps didn't do much bc those people just save any extra money they get because they already have more than enough so any additional new money doesn't get put back into the economy. big corps just used the money for stock buybacks which don't make the economy any better for the vast majority of people.
> 
> trump fans like to say he did a lot for economy bc it gives them a free pass to ignore all the other horrible things he has done.



To be fair, most presidents do this. They take credit for things they didn't do, and assign blame to people that are not responsible. My takeaway regarding taking credit for the economy is more that is shines a light on the fact that most people don't even have a basic understanding of how the economy works.

Take the tariffs on imports for example. I don't think most Americans understand that it's the general consumer footing the bill, not the "adversarial" country. Trump being "tough on China" is really just making American's spend more on goods imported from China (by way of the importing company having to pay more to get the products into the country, not directly paying the tariffs). 

I think that applies to a lot of areas though. A lack of critical thinking skills, and news that has turned into entertainment (both sides), and just a lack of basic foundational education aggregate into a system where people just don't understand. It's like the bible a thousand years ago. Most people couldn't read, so the trusted they clergy. We know how that has gone.


----------



## nightflameauto

JSanta said:


> I think that applies to a lot of areas though. A lack of critical thinking skills, and *news that has turned into entertainment (both sides)*, and just a lack of basic foundational education aggregate into a system where people just don't understand. It's like the bible a thousand years ago. Most people couldn't read, so the trusted they clergy. We know how that has gone.



Just the fact you have to add "both sides" to something pertaining to news is a big tell in and of itself. News, actual news, with real reporting, shouldn't have sides. It should be reports on events, facts, and collected data. But with the move to ratings over quality content, and entertainment over facts, the "news" does have sides. And that's infuriating to anyone with half a brain stem.

Dunno about anywhere else, but South Dakota is having another run on the stores. Paper products, meats, and frozen foods are wiped the hell out. Half our grocery order got canceled due to runs on products. Rumors are floating that people are planning to lock themselves in their homes for two plus weeks after the elections "just to be safe," while other rumors are floating of mass protests if "that guy" wins. "That guy" being entirely dependent on who you talk to.

We owe all of that to our shit news reporting and our lack of true education that helps develop critical thinking rather than regurgitating "facts." I put facts in quotes due to memories of the absolute white-washed rosy view we were taught in school about history. The almost completely fabricated narratives surrounding real historical events were patently absurd for anyone that cared to delve into real history outside of school. But we wouldn't want to scar children with truth. No, no, that might lead to learning history's lessons and not being doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

I realize I'm going on a tangent a bit here, but the truth is there are too many people not willing to analyze any situation beyond the level they get on a program like "Good Morning America" or any of the various Fox News programs. Sure, fine, watch those to see ranting heads, but to take what they say at face value every time without further research leaves everybody dumber and more scared. Which, sadly, seems to be exactly where we are.

I need to stock up on alcohol before election night. No way I'm facing that disaster without some chemical enhancement.


----------



## JSanta

nightflameauto said:


> Just the fact you have to add "both sides" to something pertaining to news is a big tell in and of itself. News, actual news, with real reporting, shouldn't have sides. It should be reports on events, facts, and collected data. But with the move to ratings over quality content, and entertainment over facts, the "news" does have sides. And that's infuriating to anyone with half a brain stem.
> 
> Dunno about anywhere else, but South Dakota is having another run on the stores. Paper products, meats, and frozen foods are wiped the hell out. Half our grocery order got canceled due to runs on products. Rumors are floating that people are planning to lock themselves in their homes for two plus weeks after the elections "just to be safe," while other rumors are floating of mass protests if "that guy" wins. "That guy" being entirely dependent on who you talk to.
> 
> We owe all of that to our shit news reporting and our lack of true education that helps develop critical thinking rather than regurgitating "facts." I put facts in quotes due to memories of the absolute white-washed rosy view we were taught in school about history. The almost completely fabricated narratives surrounding real historical events were patently absurd for anyone that cared to delve into real history outside of school. But we wouldn't want to scar children with truth. No, no, that might lead to learning history's lessons and not being doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
> 
> I realize I'm going on a tangent a bit here, but the truth is there are too many people not willing to analyze any situation beyond the level they get on a program like "Good Morning America" or any of the various Fox News programs. Sure, fine, watch those to see ranting heads, but to take what they say at face value every time without further research leaves everybody dumber and more scared. Which, sadly, seems to be exactly where we are.
> 
> I need to stock up on alcohol before election night. No way I'm facing that disaster without some chemical enhancement.



I can't take credit for this, but I saw this years ago and it's even more true today:

CNN Headline: "Obama drinks Pepsi, what will this mean for Coke stock?" 
Foxnews Headline: "Obama drinks Pepsi, because liberals hate Coke"
BBC Headline: "4 people were injured in a bombing outside Beirut this morning"


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> Dunno about anywhere else, but South Dakota is having another run on the stores.



Both of the Dakotas should be locked down, because they haven't taken anything about this virus seriously.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> Both of the Dakotas should be locked down, because they haven't taken anything about this virus seriously.


I can't disagree with this.

Aside from walking the dogs, we've done literally everything since March via curbside or delivery if possible, and masked up if not. Unfortunately, most of my fellow Dakotans haven't done the same. In fact I get picked on pretty regularly for wearing a mask in public and trying to keep my distance from folks.

Our governor is more than a bit to blame. She literally talks just like Trump when it comes to the virus, and continually says masks don't work. Some businesses have signs up stating masks required, while other have signs up saying masks aren't allowed and you will be escorted out if you wear one. It's freakin' crazy.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/28/trump-omaha-supporters-stuck-cold/
> 
> Welp, that happened.
> 
> And yet again Trump finds a way to one-up himself. Pretty amazing, really.


Trump is literally turning his own supporters "Blue"...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I took a while to absorb these posts and to reflect. Ya know... I remember voting for the first time in '92 and I recall feeling very excited and empowered. And I've never felt any degree of resentment nor negativity towards anyone throughout any election year. I've sometimes argued with those that were voting against my chosen candidate and I've felt passionate about certain issues. But I've never before had the cynical feelings towards anyone that I do this time around. 

Anyway... regarding the guy that I quoted earlier, I've interacted with this dude before and always got along fine with him. But then I read what he said and I simply feel such an instantaneous dislike. I guess it bothers me because I wouldn't typically give two shits who someone votes for nor would it generally affect my feelings about them. I dunno but I've got to try to get a handle on this because I don't think it's healthy. Even my best bud and I haven't spoken much lately. We don't even normally talk politics but I think that he and I both are so divided that it's affecting our friendship now.


----------



## sleewell

have you all heard about this wacko dr performing a large amount hysterectomies on ice detainees who had no knowledge and never gave consent?

this is coming from the pro life party? we are some really fucked up people. 

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/27/ice-irwin-women-hysterectomies-senate/


----------



## budda

If your friend agrees with the candidate who stands to harm more people, and thats why you are growing apart, that wont heal unless they change. And adults rarely change much.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> have you all heard about this wacko dr performing a large amount hysterectomies on ice detainees who had no knowledge and never gave consent?
> 
> this is coming from the pro life party? we are some really fucked up people.
> 
> https://theintercept.com/2020/10/27/ice-irwin-women-hysterectomies-senate/


----------



## sleewell

^ first thing i thought of. 

its beyond disgusting.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm honestly surprised the mass non-consenting hysterectomies weren't being screamed about from the rooftops. I mean, I get that it's just another drop in the bucket, but between the kids being taken from their parents and kept in horrid conditions for months at a time, parents detained indefinitely in shanty towns, and all the other completely unethical things happening at our southern border, I don't think it surprises anybody when we hear they're also performing elective surgery on women en-masse without their consent.

It's super fucked up, and absolutely horrid, and honestly makes me sick to my stomach, but not surprising. We're literally dealing with an administration that sees anyone but the millionaire and up class as nothing more than cattle to be pushed, prodded and poked at will for the entertainment or enrichment of the ruling and rich. And while that's always been somewhat true, this administration has slammed down the accelerator on it like we've never seen before.

I fear what happens no matter the election's eventual outcome. There are real stakes this time, and some people are so reality disassociated that they don't understand what those stakes actually are. This is not going to be a pleasant winter no matter what happens, but the election drama and the aftermath are making "not pleasant" into "potentially destabilizing, possibly annihilating."


----------



## MFB

AxRookie said:


> Trump is literally turning his own supporters "Blue"...



If we're not lucky it won't be long until he "blue"s himself!


----------



## fantom

sleewell said:


> have you all heard about this wacko dr performing a large amount hysterectomies on ice detainees who had no knowledge and never gave consent?
> 
> this is coming from the pro life party? we are some really fucked up people.
> 
> https://theintercept.com/2020/10/27/ice-irwin-women-hysterectomies-senate/



This is literally out of the USSR playbook. They used to use "mental illness" as a catchall to get rid of orphans in the streets and the asylums would perform sterilizations without consent. It should really bother people that the Trump administration is consistently acting like a Soviet power.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020...zations-claimed-at-russian-institution-a71840


----------



## mbardu

High Plains Drifter said:


> I’ve heard how a lot of people are mad that Trump didn’t shut down the country sooner, but why would he, he was screwed either way! If he shut it down when people wanted him to, people would still be pissed. Personally I think he handled it just fine. For me, covid was just something I heard about on the news about other countries getting it, back then it wasn’t here, I had no other plans of going to another country so why did I care?"



Trump's leadership has been abysmal throughout the entire crisis. Including, but not limited to textbook example of what not to do in management positions and crisis situations. Some of his choice actions during the crisis:

Keeping the truth from people while knowing and admitting about the gravity in private
Downplaying risks to "avoid panic"
Lying and lying over and over, promising unrealistic wishful miracles since forever ("those 15 cases will be gone in 10 days" early in the year to "vaccine before the election" to "we're rounding the corner" the day before the highest new case counts ever)
Initially refusing help to cruise ships because he didn't want more cases to be counted in the US case count
Undermining his team and trying to come up with his own random ideas instead of leveraging experts (bleach or sunlight amirite)
Discouraging mask wearing, turning his dumb supporters into antimaskers (took him more than 3 months to wear one himself)
Disrupting individual states and governors' efforts by having them compete against the federal gov
Holding in person rallies and event without social distancing and without masks (omg the stupid rose garden event...)
Fundamentally misunderstanding what testing is about ("_we can ignore social distancing because we've been tested yesterday_" lmao )
Repeatedly encouraging his teams to test less, not more
Extrapolating his own personal experience (while still high on a cocktail of drugs...) to tell everyone that the virus was not that bad. As if everyone had minute-by-minute monitoring from literally 10 doctors and experimental (stem-cell derived btw lol) drugs like the President of the USA
I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch...

We're at probably 300,000 excess deaths right now, unlikely to be below 5/600k come next February (a year in) and he still acts like it's nothing. The curve is now well into its 3rd spike, likely to be the worst through the winter, and Trump is asking the White House website to list "beating Covid" as one of his accomplishments for electoral purposes.

Does this look like he beat Covid?




Imagine instead a president with less stupid ego and more common sense and leadership. Encourage a national mandate nationwide. Let all Americans know, in particular your supporters, that this is serious and that they have to pull together. Encourage a concerted stay-at-home for 2/3 weeks nationwide. Work with (not against) congress to give more aid to Americans who need it the most in order to go through that stay-at-home time (instead of sending random PPP money to majority fraudulent corporate claims). We would be in such a different place today, it boggles the mind.

At some point, if you're not seeing the issues with Trump, you're closing your eyes on purpose.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> View attachment 86548



This looks so much like Eric, it's uncanny













Although I guess ole' Josef was smiling from time to time.


----------



## Necris

fantom said:


> Holyshit. This is literally out of the USSR playbook. They used to use "mental illness" as a catchall to get rid of orphans in the streets and the asylums would perform sterilizations without consent.


 We don't even need to cross the ocean since it's also out of the USA playbook if you do a bit of reading about the Eugenics movement in America and the strong influence it had on the Nazis. 70,000 compulsory sterilizations of the disabled and mentally ill, legal thanks to the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling.

Another thing that never caught media attention recently was Trump describing the September 3rd killing of Michael Rienohl, the self-described Antifa activist who was suspected of killing a far-right Trump supporter in Oregon in August, at the hands of local law enforcement who were deputized as US Marshals. In an interview with fox he described the killing "...US Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you, that's the way it has to be -- there has to be retribution." At one of his rallies earlier this month Trump said: "We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over. We got him. They knew who he was and they didn't want to arrest him and in 15 minutes that ended". So in case you were wondering how he feels about extrajudicial killings now you know and, via the context of the video, you also know how he'd prefer to handle the Portland protests and presumably any others that arise.


----------



## fantom

mbardu said:


> Trump's leadership has been abysmal throughout the entire crisis. Including, but not limited to textbook example of what not to do in management positions and crisis situations. Some of his choice actions during the crisis:
> 
> Keeping the truth from people while knowing and admitting about the gravity in private
> Downplaying risks to "avoid panic"
> Lying and lying over and over, promising unrealistic wishful miracles since forever ("those 15 cases will be gone in 10 days" early in the year to "vaccine before the election" to "we're rounding the corner" the day before the highest new case counts ever)
> Initially refusing help to cruise ships because he didn't want more cases to be counted in the US case count
> Undermining his team and trying to come up with his own random ideas instead of leveraging experts (bleach or sunlight amirite)
> Discouraging mask wearing, turning his dumb supporters into antimaskers (took him more than 3 months to wear one himself)
> Disrupting individual states and governors' efforts by having them compete against the federal gov
> Holding in person rallies and event without social distancing and without masks (omg the stupid rose garden event...)
> Fundamentally misunderstanding what testing is about ("_we can ignore social distancing because we've been tested yesterday_" lmao )
> Repeatedly encouraging his teams to test less, not more
> Extrapolating his own personal experience (while still high on a cocktail of drugs...) to tell everyone that the virus was not that bad. As if everyone had minute-by-minute monitoring from literally 10 doctors and experimental (stem-cell derived btw lol) drugs like the President of the USA
> I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch...
> 
> We're at probably 300,000 excess deaths right now, unlikely to be below 5/600k come next February (a year in) and he still acts like it's nothing. The curve is now well into its 3rd spike, likely to be the worst through the winter, and Trump is asking the White House website to list "beating Covid" as one of his accomplishments for electoral purposes.
> 
> Does this look like he beat Covid?
> 
> View attachment 86550
> 
> 
> Imagine instead a president with less stupid ego and more common sense and leadership. Encourage a national mandate nationwide. Let all Americans know, in particular your supporters, that this is serious and that they have to pull together. Encourage a concerted stay-at-home for 2/3 weeks nationwide. Work with (not against) congress to give more aid to Americans who need it the most in order to go through that stay-at-home time (instead of sending random PPP money to majority fraudulent corporate claims). We would be in such a different place today, it boggles the mind.
> 
> At some point, if you're not seeing the issues with Trump, you're closing your eyes on purpose.



All of this... One exception.

*Work with (not against) congress to give more aid to Americans*​
Trump is only partially at fault. I don't think a single person can make congress work together at this point. McConnel has sabotaged our democracy to give Republicans power for the better part of a decade if not longer. Until senators stop acting like 2 gangs, congress isn't going got get anything long-term accomplished (except the hypocrisy of the supreme court). Every "win" is a short term victory that will just get redone every 2-4 years when the house or presidency flips.
​


----------



## narad

Necris said:


> We don't even need to cross the ocean since it's also out of the USA playbook if you do a bit of reading about the Eugenics movement in America and the strong influence it had on the Nazis. 70,000 compulsory sterilizations of the disabled and mentally ill, legal thanks to the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling.
> 
> Another thing that never caught media attention recently was Trump describing the September 3rd killing of Michael Rienohl, the self-described Antifa activist who was suspected of killing a far-right Trump supporter in Oregon in August, at the hands of local law enforcement who were deputized as US Marshals. In an interview with fox he described the killing "...US Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you, that's the way it has to be -- there has to be retribution." At one of his rallies earlier this month Trump said: "We sent in the US Marshals, took 15 minutes and it was over. We got him. They knew who he was and they didn't want to arrest him and in 15 minutes that ended". So in case you were wondering how he feels about extrajudicial killings now you know and, via the context of the video, you also know how he'd prefer to handle the Portland protests and presumably any others that arise.




It's Trump, you never know. But I think he could have been meaning "They knew who he was, they didn't want to arrest him": they == portland government. When they == the marshalls, then yea, it's like a hit squad.


----------



## mbardu

fantom said:


> All of this... One exception.
> 
> *Work with (not against) congress to give more aid to Americans*​
> Trump is only partially at fault. I don't think a single person can make congress work together at this point. McConnel has sabotaged our democracy to give Republicans power for the better part of a decade if not longer. Until senators stop acting like 2 gangs, congress isn't going got get anything long-term accomplished (except the hypocrisy of the supreme court). Every "win" is a short term victory that will just get redone every 2-4 years when the house or presidency flips.
> ​



He's not _100%_ at fault (Nancy's game and Mitch's obstructionism are not news), but he's been especially shitty throughout this crisis. Leave aside the fact that he's made it clear from the start of his term that he just won't even consider working with congressional democrats, just look at the last round of stimulus decisions. From "the dems are asking too much" to "let's just stop the negotiations altogether, this can wait after the election" to "I'll offer more than even the democrats", this was just plain embarrassing.


----------



## AxRookie

MFB said:


> If we're not lucky it won't be long until he "blue"s himself!


Well, he's already Orange, how close to Blue is that???


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Bearitone said:


> Why would I compromise my situational awareness with earplugs when i could just use my silencer?



Man I actually thought you were making some valid points and keeping your cool with a lot of people throwing trash arguments at you.

But this "compromise my situational awareness" just is too much to take seriously. Like if you had to wear ear plugs because silencers were illegal your rights arent being infringed.

Also you mentioned why no other rights are asked to be justified. And guns get questioned so much because essentially the rest of the world is getting on fine (more or less) without guns, and guns wouldnt fix things for many of the people who arent doing well.

Anyways keep up the good discussions you sometimes seem so reasonable but then throw a curveball.


----------



## AxRookie

Situational awareness is as valid as it gets and is always important to have! and that goes for out it the wild OR anywhere there are people who would try to make a victim of you!

Always be aware of your surroundings at all times!

Don't believe me? check out "Active Self Protection" on youtube or you could end up taking "the room temperature challenge"!

I'm always aware of what's around me at all times!!!


----------



## possumkiller

vilk said:


> It's easy to see things from the perspective of an ammosexual if you just think about it like this: what if the government made _guitars_ illegal, citing the thousands and thousands of murders and suicides people commit using them... Oh, wait...
> 
> OK, but imagine if they made _cars _illegal since over 2/3rds of murders are carried out using cars... Wait, no, that's not right either...


They need to have some sort of sponsored camps where people can send their ammosexual relatives to get cured.

I am living proof that ammosexuality is a choice. I was raised around ammosexuality and naturally became ammosexual myself. I was hoarding guns and ammunition like an addict. I didn't care where or how I got it. Guns were my life. I could only climax by watching Mark Sullivan's _Death at My Feet._ I found myself buying a large caliber .458 Lott safari rifle just in case I ever became wealthy enough to go hunting cape buffalo in Africa. I would do anything or vote for anyone as long as I knew I could continue my life of ammosexuality.

I got with a beautiful european girl over ten years ago and she helped cure me. I haven't had any ammosexual urges since. Now I am not only free from the sinful clutches of Satan's ammosexuality, I no longer approve of that lifestyle and want to be an example of how ammosexuality can be cured with a little willpower and critical thinking.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## AxRookie




----------



## USMarine75

mbardu said:


> This looks so much like Eric, it's uncanny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I guess ole' Josef was smiling from time to time.



As long as you don't compare Donald to Hitler. 

They're not the same. 

Hitler didn't dodge the draft.


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> Well, he's already Orange, how close to Blue is that???


Literally opposite side of the color wheel, so as far away as it's possible for two colors to be. Which somehow seems funny to me given the context. Maybe they should change the Republican color to orange?


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> As long as you don't compare Donald to Hitler.
> 
> They're not the same.
> 
> Hitler didn't dodge the draft.


Jesus. That is true isn't it. Hitler at least fought in the trenches and got gassed with the rest of the grunts.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> As long as you don't compare Donald to Hitler.
> 
> They're not the same.
> 
> Hitler didn't dodge the draft.


----------



## mbardu

Interestingly, same remark as before- looks like they lost the capacity to smile.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I noticed that they were blasting 'Funeral For A Friend' by Elton John at one of trumps rallies this week. A little on the nose but whatever.


----------



## mbardu

High Plains Drifter said:


> I noticed that they were blasting 'Funeral For A Friend' by Elton John at one of trumps rallies this week. A little on the nose but whatever.



Still doesn't top their weird obsession with the village people when they are trying to motivate the "macho" crowd


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


>


To be clear, that's s photoshop.


----------



## SpaceDock

Every time I see a Trump rally on TV they are playing YMCA or an Elton John song, I think Lindsay Graham must be in charge of the music.


----------



## sleewell

they play fortunate son by ccr too. pretty funny since the song is about dodging the draft like trump did. 

ive also heard them play live and let die.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> To be clear, that's s photoshop.


I know, Hitler was an atheist...


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> I know, Hitler was an atheist...



Just wanted to make it clear, because it's so often posted as an example of how much Hitler and Trump are alike, when it isn't a genuine photo anyway.

"Look at how much Frosted Flakes is like BBQ ribs!"

"But...you've poured BBQ sauce all over the cereal."

"Right, but they are so similar."


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The 50-foot-long “Wall of Lies” — which features more than 20,000 “false or misleading” claims made by Trump, and fact-checked by the Washington Post — was tagged with the phrase “Stand Back and Stand By,” according to Radio Free Brooklyn, which built the installation.

The phrase, which references comments Trump made to the far-right group during the first presidential debate, was accompanied by the spray-painted slogan “Vote Trump or Die.” The Proud Boys hadn’t claimed responsibility for the vandalism as of Thursday afternoon.



https://postimages.org/app


----------



## AxRookie

That was Melania's thought process, they just left out the part when she thought "if my husband doesn't get the job he'll be back at home and want to have sex with me, I CAN'T DO THIS! OK THIS CHOICE IS CLEAR!"...

She also just came up with the idea that if she starts wearing a mask he won't try to kiss her...


----------



## bostjan

AxRookie said:


> I know, Hitler was an atheist...



"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." - Adolf Hitler, 1941


----------



## AxRookie

"Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?" - Adolf Hitler, 1939


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Lets lay off the Hitler stuff its the ultimate form of internet hyperbole. Trump is trash Hitler also trash but no need to make comparisons and high five ourselves for being so aware.


----------



## Drew

Bearitone said:


> Apologies for getting back to so late, i still need to read up on that 8% stat you linked.
> 
> So assuming this is all correct do you think we should first tax the people more to expand on welfare, healthcare, unemployment benefits, education etc,? Or do you think we should redistribute tax money from other sectors first (like military spending for example)?
> 
> And what percentage of all taxes paid do you believe is stolen/laundered/wasted by corrupt officials and inefficient (sometimes intentionally so) government branches/sectors/agencies etc before it even gets back to the people or making the country better ?


Well, the crux of my point here, is if we think the federal government is wasteful and inefficient and we could probably close our deficit by addressing some of those inefficiencies, then I think from a simple "going after the low hanging fruit" standpoint, going after something that represents a 17% inefficiency makes a lot more sense as a starting point than going after something that represents about a 0.1% inefficiency. I mean, even if you were 99% ineffective in addressing tax fraud/evasion, you'd still save MORE money than if you were 100% _effective _at addressing welfare fraud.

That's kinda what I'm getting at. It's just an awfully arbitrary thing to worry about because it doesn't really move the needle on government revenue or spending.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> they play fortunate son by ccr too. pretty funny since the song is about dodging the draft like trump did.
> 
> ive also heard them play live and let die.


John Fogerty and Axle Rose are NOT happy about that, either.


----------



## AxRookie

H


Dineley said:


> Lets lay off the Hitler stuff its the ultimate form of internet hyperbole. Trump is trash Hitler also trash but no need to make comparisons and high five ourselves for being so aware.


How PC of you... ;^)

"no need to make comparisons" I think you just did? is this where we high five?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

AxRookie said:


> H
> 
> How PC of you... ;^)
> 
> "no need to make comparisons" I think you just did? is this where we high five?



My point was that by making such extreme comparisons it undermines the many many valid things that you can say about Trump and just creates more of the extreme animosity between people.


----------



## mbardu

Dineley said:


> My point was that by making such extreme comparisons it undermines the many many valid things that you can say about Trump and just creates more of the extreme animosity between people.



I actually agree with that, so I apologize if I added to the fire...I just finally saw who Eric reminded me of and had to share 

I don't think anybody thinks a literal 1-1 comparison with Hitler is fair (at least with 1940's Hitler). And there will never be a 100% comparison either, because as someone posted, at least one of those guys served in the military before sending his people to war  . That said - I think it's better to be vigilant when you see:

white supremacist dog whistles (yeah...sometimes Trump will apologize later...)
forced sterilization at the border (yeah...maybe it's only one rogue doctor, who knows...)
numerous references to his good genes, to the good genes of people he likes and to the bad genes of people he doesn't like

frequent de-humanization of people he doesn't agree with
systematic attack on the press and asking his supporters to believe only him
systematic purge of any oversight in the executive (yeah...it's his right as part of his functions but come on)
numerous calls to ignore election results if they don't favor him, and to refuse a transition (yeah...he's joking, except he's said it tons of times and we know he doesn't joke)
numerous calls to go beyond the 2-term limit for presidents (exactly same as above)
praise of vigilante violence and sending secret unbadged police abducting people (yeah yeah, the people have been released for now)
praise of police violence
use of the military against citizens (for things as critical as a photo-Op...)
creation of an imaginary enemy (antifa) to justify arbitrary surveillance and punishment of citizens
attack on the separation of powers, control of the judiciary (lmao at Barr as the AG and his judiciary picks)
massive rallies full of lies to pump up his supporters (literally inspired by the big H btw since it seems Trump was an avid reader)
We could go on actually...so I guess the comparison with _1930s _Adolf at least is not 100% unwarranted. A couple of coincidences or similarities can happen, but maybe that's more than a few. I don't know, that's all I could think of in 2 minutes.

Or Trump is at least _definitely _floating a bunch of trial balloons to see how far he can push it in that direction.


----------



## AxRookie

Dineley said:


> My point was that by making such extreme comparisons it undermines the many many valid things that you can say about Trump and just creates more of the extreme animosity between people.


That was a much better way of putting it without the thought that we were in some way patting ourselves on the back...


----------



## wankerness

My brother said something the other day that really put things in perspective. It was something like "when Trump was elected, I comforted myself with the thought that he couldn't possibly make that big a difference in my life. Fast forward to now, when I haven't worked in 7 months and I'm reading articles from reputable sources about the chances of an imminent civil war." (He's a musician)

My local facebook town group is full of Trumpers posting tons of pictures of their guns and making vague threats and boasts about what they want to do to "liberals," complaining about how the college kids are going to vote, and constantly lionize that Rittenhouse kid. My parents insist on leaving a BLM sign up in their window cause they don't take the threat of these psychos seriously, so I can just imagine what's going to happen to them if Trump loses.

Brett Kavanaugh just showed his true face with our state and made it clear hundreds of thousands of mostly democratic ballots are not going to be counted. We're living in a true nightmare. I am basically getting ulcers from reading the news now. I can't wait for this to all be over.


----------



## spudmunkey

Skip to about 30 seconds in, if you are in a hurry. This is in Southern California.

https://twitter.com/ajayrochester/status/1320148950398038016?s=20


----------



## SpaceDock

I am so sick of waiting for this to be over, let’s all make sure we vote! I voted last Friday.

post on here if you already voted! Anyone not voting breaks e strings for life!


----------



## mbardu

spudmunkey said:


> Skip to about 30 seconds in, if you are in a hurry. This is in Southern California.
> 
> https://twitter.com/ajayrochester/status/1320148950398038016?s=20



This is disgusting and voter intimidation should put you in jail.

It's Trump supporters though, so nothing will happen since they can _literally _get away with murder, and even get a 1M$ GoFundMe for their troubles.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> I am so sick of waiting for this to be over, let’s all make sure we vote! I voted last Friday.
> 
> post on here if you already voted! Anyone not voting breaks e strings for life!


Voted along with my mother, we got very lucky and the early polling place we went to moved us to the front of the line because my mother is a frail 82-years old but most people won't be as fortunate...

There was no intimidation where we went, not that there would have been anyways because I went with her to make sure of that...


----------



## spudmunkey

OK, so early voting has been around for a while, but "election day" always out-weighed early voting...I genuinely wonder if the current climate will have shifted it so much that election day itself will actually be a slow day for polling places.

My entire time there, there were 5 total voters going in and out. My girlfriend voted today, and she said there were about 10 people in front of her, 10 people behind, and a constant flow going in and out...which is about what we experienced in 2016 on election day.


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> OK, so early voting has been around for a while, but "election day" always out-weighed early voting...I genuinely wonder if the current climate will have shifted it so much that election day itself will actually be a slow day for polling places.
> 
> My entire time there, there were 5 total voters going in and out. My girlfriend voted today, and she said there were about 10 people in front of her, 10 people behind, and a constant flow going in and out...which is about what we experienced in 2016 on election day.


Early voting is smashing records everywhere, In Hawaii, there have been more early votes cast than total votes cast in ALL individual election years since Hawaii became a state!!!

In Texas, early votes have matched total votes cast in 2016 at nearly 10 million votes!!!

It's hard to think that "election day" votes will out-weigh early voting in those states???


----------



## fantom

mbardu said:


> It's Trump supporters though, so nothing will happen since they can _literally _get away with murder, and even get a 1M$ GoFundMe for their troubles.



FWIW, Rittenhouse is in Wisconsin police custody now awaiting a hearing on 2 first degree homicide and 1 attempted intentional homicide charges. Illinois appeals court already ruled that it is not their jurisdiction. Considering his lawyers were arguing that the decision whether to try him or not should be made in Illinois because they think they won't win in Wisconsin, I'd argue he hasn't gotten away with anything just yet.


----------



## mbardu

fantom said:


> FWIW, Rittenhouse is in Wisconsin police custody now awaiting a hearing on 2 first degree homicide and 1 attempted intentional homicide charges. Illinois appeals court already ruled that it is not their jurisdiction. Considering his lawyers were arguing that the decision whether to try him or not should be made in Illinois because they think they won't win in Wisconsin, I'd argue he hasn't gotten away with anything just yet.



Must be nice though.
Was able to go home after the 2 and a half homicides. 
Couple of days later was politely taken for questioning without violence by friendly officers and now his paid-for lawyers are debating semantics.

Contrast that to killing a Trump supporter, you get shot by 15 federal marshals, and the president praises the extrajudicial killing.

I know, I know...that's a bit of hyperbole but eh, coming from the camp of president "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and kill 200 thousand people with no consequences", I guess that's fair ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Wife and I voted last week. My sister and bro in law, their son and daughter, her husband, and four of our close friends have all voted... all for Biden/ Harris.


----------



## mbardu

The Snake chart at 538 is pretty scary. 
I could see Trump carrying Georgia, NC, Florida and Pennsylvania considering how small the margins are.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> Wife and I voted last week. My sister and bro in law, their son and daughter, her husband, and four of our close friends have all voted... all for Biden/ Harris.


Everyone I know with the exception of one person voted for Biden, seven people, and that one person's two friends that I know of spit their votes...



mbardu said:


> The Snake chart at 538 is pretty scary.
> I could see Trump carrying Georgia, NC, Florida and Pennsylvania considering how small the margins are.


Then don't look at that chart... lol I know, that joke is as old as I am...

It's always a good idea to look at all the charts and not just one... ;^)


----------



## Surveyor 777

Wife and I voted last week. Was much more pleasant than standing in line for over an hour (like in 2016).


----------



## fantom

mbardu said:


> Must be nice though.
> Was able to go home after the 2 and a half homicides.
> Couple of days later was politely taken for questioning without violence by friendly officers and now his paid-for lawyers are debating semantics.
> 
> Contrast that to killing a Trump supporter, you get shot by 15 federal marshals, and the president praises the extrajudicial killing.
> 
> I know, I know...that's a bit of hyperbole but eh, coming from the camp of president "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and kill 200 thousand people with no consequences", I guess that's fair ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



I totally agree with you, but you are changing the argument. I was responding to:



mbardu said:


> It's Trump supporters though, so nothing will happen since they can _literally _get away with murder, and even get a 1M$ GoFundMe for their troubles



If you had originally stated that he wasn't executed by police on the spot or beat into a concussion while being peaceful, that would be one thing. But you even emphasized that he is someone who "_literally_ get away with murder". Your emphasis on literally, not mine.


----------



## mbardu

fantom said:


> I totally agree with you, but you are changing the argument. I was responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had originally stated that he wasn't executed by police on the spot or beat into a concussion while being peaceful, that would be one thing. But you even emphasized that he is someone who "_literally_ get away with murder". Your emphasis on literally, not mine.



If that wasn't clear, I was using hyperbole with that "literally", and extending it to how Trump's cronies, allies, supporters tend to not be subject to the same laws in general.
But we'll see, as for Kyle, he's still likely to walk out of there free because of it being judged self defense- in that case it would indeed be literal.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Yeah, he's probably got as good of a chance getting acquitted in Wisconsin as Illinois. The extradition fight was more about grandstanding.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump made fun of Laura Ingraham for not wearing a mask at one of his recent rallies. Kept saying "where's Laura" and then pointed out she was wearing a mask and said, "how PC of you".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Trump made fun of Laura Ingraham for not wearing a mask at one of his recent rallies. Kept saying "where's Laura" and then pointed out she was wearing a mask and said, "how PC of you".



The schadenfreude I get when he dunks on these dipshits is palpable.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> Trump made fun of Laura Ingraham for not wearing a mask at one of his recent rallies. Kept saying "where's Laura" and then pointed out she was wearing a mask and said, "how PC of you".


Rump gets mad anytime anyone isn't full in on his bull shit so like the petulant child he is he has to make fun of them in some way...


----------



## USMarine75

Anyone else see the latest Biden commercial featuring quotes from Gen Mattis and Kelly? 22 former 4+ Star Generals/Admirals support Biden over Trump and quoted the Military Times as saying more active-duty US Servicemembers polled support Biden as well. Meanwhile, Trump keeps touting his support from the military. Although in all fairness Trump never specified whether his military support was from the US. 

I couldn't find that commercial, but I love this Lincoln Project one:


tl;dr you F with Mattis, you lose 200,000 votes.


----------



## USMarine75

“We report them and you know -- doctors get more money, and hospitals get more money. Think of this incentive," Trump said last Saturday. "This country and their reporting systems are really not doing it right."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics/trump-doctors-covid/index.html

Trump finally calling out that scumbag that’s in charge of the Federal government executive branch for his policies.

‘Merica!


----------



## Millul

mbardu said:


> This is disgusting and voter intimidation should put you in jail.
> 
> It's Trump supporters though, so nothing will happen since they can _literally _get away with murder, and even get a 1M$ GoFundMe for their troubles.



Is this kind of s#it legal??? I've never ever seen anything close to this in almost 20 years of voting. That's Belarus level stuff (and, "Latinos for Trump" sounds a lot like mice electing a cat...)


----------



## USMarine75

“Trump hasn’t been this scared of the mail since the Draft.”


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> “We report them and you know -- doctors get more money, and hospitals get more money. Think of this incentive," Trump said last Saturday. "This country and their reporting systems are really not doing it right."
> https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/30/politics/trump-doctors-covid/index.html
> 
> Trump finally calling out that scumbag that’s in charge of the Federal government executive branch for his policies.
> 
> ‘Merica!



Never afraid of calling it like it is.
Like the lack of response from the president of Puerto Rico during hurricanes.
Or the head of the federal government who let California forests (largely federal land) burn.
Or the divisive leader who's causing civil unrest in Biden's America.

That's clearly why we need to elect _him _to the highest office so that things can _finally _be different.


----------



## Kaura

I just can't believe it's been 4 years since the last election. I still remember staying up all night during the election night and went to work the next morning with 1 hour of sleep.


----------



## USMarine75

Meanwhile, 1000+ Americans died in the last 24 hours.


----------



## spudmunkey

He references an Instagram post. I actually went to go look at it and then went to his referenced links.

Basically, he was referencing a chart that had low numbers in the most recent days. The trouble is, that those charts specifically say that they are reflecting incomplete numbers because data is always coming in, and the most recent numbers are the least accurate. So technically there was a chart that showed the information he had… but it would be like calling the final score of a basketball game "the lowest score ever" after the 1st 2 minutes of a game.


----------



## spudmunkey

One of my cousins, starting this morning, has gone post by post through my Facebook account, replying to every single pone of my posts, political or not, (so far hes made it back to about June) with a gif of a dancing cartoon Donald Trump.


----------



## Ralyks

Welp. I voted early today. I used paid time off from work Tuesday to do it then, but hey, now I can have a whole free day to have anxiety!


----------



## Boofchuck

spudmunkey said:


> One of my cousins, starting this morning, has gone post by post through my Facebook account, replying to every single pone of my posts, political or not, (so far hes made it back to about June) with a gif of a dancing cartoon Donald Trump.


Is your cousin my uncle? 
I'm glad I don't use facebook.


----------



## mbardu

Boofchuck said:


> Is your cousin my uncle?
> I'm glad I don't use facebook.



_Hey uncle, it's me your cousin _


----------



## narad

mbardu said:


> _Hey uncle, it's me your cousin _



Demographic checks out.


----------



## wankerness

Millul said:


> Is this kind of s#it legal??? I've never ever seen anything close to this in almost 20 years of voting. That's Belarus level stuff (and, "Latinos for Trump" sounds a lot like mice electing a cat...)



Yes, it's legal now, cause the Republicans threw out the law against it in 2018. It was illegal starting in the early 80s cause Republicans were using it to intimidate minority voters. The more things change...

That said, many states have their own laws that make various degrees of it illegal. But, some states it's completely legal for those fucks to bring their rifles and stand around the polling location and challenge everyone they think looks too liberal. :/ Just in most states, the "challenge" is that they have to bother the actual poll workers to get them to challenge the voter. My suspicion is a lot of them are going to just ignore these morons cause they'll make everything take vastly longer. It could backfire in a major way since Republicans were far more likely to wait till election day than democrats, so if voting gets slowed down in a major way at polling sites, it's probably going to backfire.

That said, they're probably mainly going to go to cities and screw up areas where it's mostly minority voters. People are now freaking out cause Biden's got far lower turnout from black/latino voters than Clinton did, so presumably they were all waiting for election day if they were going to vote, so the mass closures of polling locations combined with intimidation could really cause problems.

PA is a lost cause, the level of GOP fuckery at the court level with absentee ballots probably gives them a 98% chance of going Republican after throwing out hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots. FL sounds like it's kind of a toss-up, but heavily leaning Republican partly thanks to the aforementioned lack of latino support for Biden. I guess Cuban-Americans particularly support Trump over Biden even more than white people do, partly thanks to sustained targeted disinformation campaigns and partly thanks to (what I read in a lengthy article on this subject) a general machismo/"fuck you i got mine" attitude in that culture, and they're the majority of latinos in most areas of that state. TX now has Trump supporters literally crashing their cars into Biden supporters' vehicles with the approval of the local cops, so I don't have high hopes there - election day is probably going to keep most liberals home thanks to the true psychos.


----------



## wankerness

Speaking of GOP fuckery, now Texas republicans are suing to have 117,000 ballots already cast thrown out, because they think they can get a partisan judge who'll accept their BS about the drive-in voting sites being illegitimate.


----------



## mbardu

And those are just the obvious ones that we all hear about. The USA deserves UN poll watchers.


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> Speaking of GOP fuckery, now Texas republicans are suing to have 117,000 ballots already cast thrown out, because they think they can get a partisan judge who'll accept their BS about the drive-in voting sites being illegitimate.



Not to be overly optimistic but the state supreme court already struck down much more thorough and substantiated arguments against drive in polling. This is literally two guys running for state office with a lawsuit saying "it's fraud!" with no substantiation, so it'll be laughed out of court roundly.

As far as the general GOP fuckery with ballots, yes it's happening but I have to see something more focused before I worry much. Things like insufficient polling places or machines in minority districts in 2000, etc. those are the types of things that specifically targets democratic voters. I haven't seen any verification Democrats are disproportionately voting by mail or drive up or dropping their ballots in unlabeled boxes outside of gun stores. Confusing or fraudulent voting methods anecdotally seem to target Trump's window lickers if anything.


----------



## wankerness

That fake ballot box thing in California always seemed like republicans shooting themselves in the foot, never understood any liberal outrage over it. Democrats ARE disproportionately voting by mail, though - I recall here in Wisconsin seeing multiple polls a couple months back (before coronavirus turned into truly epidemic proportions like it is now) that were something like 70% of democrats intended to vote by mail and 80% of republicans intended to vote in person. Stats in the state last I heard were that about half of the absentee ballots sent out had actually been returned, too, which is terrible news considering it's already been officially stated that it's too late to mail them back. I just pray everyone gets the memo about having to put them in a drop box if you want your vote counted.

I returned mine to my local polling place back in September, I'm glad I don't have to go anywhere close to there on election day. Paradoxically, my town's one main polling place is probably one of the most shielded from whack-jobs in the state as it's in the same building as the police department!! I don't see the cops taking too kindly to people waving guns around outside the police station.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> Paradoxically, my town's one main polling place is probably one of the most shielded from whack-jobs in the state as it's in the same building as the police department!! I don't see the cops taking too kindly to people waving guns around outside the police station.



Don't worry, the police have that on lock. 

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...e-mask-accused-of-voter-intimidation-11716895

https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...ll-de-blasio-7521fc24581c0787f4088e9b7e5a14c9


----------



## Randy

Yeah there were a ton of polls saying Dems intended on voting by mail, but that was back when Dems were trying to demonstrate how much they took the virus seriously and also voice support for the post office (while they were under attack). Things have changed since then in a big way, and I think very few Democrats are putting their trust in voting by mail.

Again, I still haven't seen substantiation the bulk of the shenanigans aren't moot or confuse GOP voters just as much or more. I have a feeling the uglier stuff will be Monday or Tuesday, so I'm being cautious but I don't think threatening drive in polling or 9 day late absentee ballots kills this election for Biden unilaterally.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Don't worry, the police have that on lock.
> 
> https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/...e-mask-accused-of-voter-intimidation-11716895
> 
> https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...ll-de-blasio-7521fc24581c0787f4088e9b7e5a14c9



Also the cops pepper spraying people marching to the ballots today.

My biggest concern is intimidation at the polls. I get asked totally random by people who I'm voting for. I sold a washing machine on Craigslist, totally unsolicited the guy says "who you voting for?" I'm like eh idk to avoid an argument "well how can you now know by now? You don't want no socialist do you?" And I get flavors of this same thing everywhere I go lately, literally completely unsolicited.

I know emotions are high and it paints both ways but I'm 100% expecting MAGA hats and loud mouths waiting in line here at a minimum, and I'm sure Trump Carvan pickups with flags circling the place as close as possible. I'll muscle through it but I'm sure a lot of people wont, doubly if they show up and somebody confronts them about that vote.


----------



## spudmunkey

Before I went to vote, I sat down with my sample ballot, and researched every proposition and candidate. I was willing to give every candidate a shot, no matter the party...Every. Single. Republican included a "socialism" rant. Nope.


----------



## AxRookie

I have always leaned Republican all my life before I reg to for this year BUT after four years of the Republican party having a hand in destroying democracy everywhere you look, I registered as a Dem and voted Dem top to bottom!


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Also the cops pepper spraying people marching to the ballots today.
> 
> My biggest concern is intimidation at the polls. I get asked totally random by people who I'm voting for. I sold a washing machine on Craigslist, totally unsolicited the guy says "who you voting for?" I'm like eh idk to avoid an argument "well how can you now know by now? You don't want no socialist do you?" And I get flavors of this same thing everywhere I go lately, literally completely unsolicited.
> 
> I know emotions are high and it paints both ways but I'm 100% expecting MAGA hats and loud mouths waiting in line here at a minimum, and I'm sure Trump Carvan pickups with flags circling the place as close as possible. I'll muscle through it but I'm sure a lot of people wont, doubly if they show up and somebody confronts them about that vote.


I never understood this. Do they follow people into voting booths and look over their shoulders? Why don't liberals and minorities dress up in maga garb and shout the glories of trump while marching down to vote for Biden?


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> I never understood this. Do they follow people into voting booths and look over their shoulders? Why don't liberals and minorities dress up in maga garb and shout the glories of trump while marching down to vote for Biden?



Ah, using the Larry David method. Good idea!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

AxRookie said:


> I have always leaned Republican all my life before I reg to for this year BUT after four years of the Republican party having a hand in destroying democracy everywhere you look, I registered as a Dem and voted Dem top to bottom!




I don't think many people realize that its not just differences of fiscal/social policy at this point. Republicans only platform is to take away as much power from the people as possible so its harder to remove them and they can take more.


----------



## Ralyks

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/biden-prepares-legal-war-against-trump-in-florida.html

So tl;dr Biden already has 4,000 lawyers in Florida ready and waiting and a bunch more nation wide to try and attempt to avoid an Al Gore situation.


----------



## possumkiller

Ralyks said:


> Ah, using the Larry David method. Good idea!


In 96 my mom was telling all the family that she was voting republican just like them. She told me in the car she voted for Clinton.


----------



## SpaceDock

possumkiller said:


> In 96 my mom was telling all the family that she was voting republican just like them. She told me in the car she voted for Clinton.



Lol, same here with my Mom. We were living in Texas back then, so it was a big deal.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump supporting his cult members trying to intimidate, disrupt, or endanger Biden‘s tour bus. Surprised Service didn’t put a few holes in some insurrectionists. 

Seriously though... I grew up and voted conservative most of my life (still love you HW). I have zero hatred of Republicans or conservatives in general. But how the F can anyone support Trump or his cult insurrectionists doing shit like this? Seriously, I’m at the point where I think if you’re a Trump supporter you’re either dumb or a traitor. Prove me wrong.


----------



## ElysianGuitars

The bus incident happened not too far from where I am, and my congressman, Lloyd Doggett, was on that bus. He's been a tremendous congressman, and has helped me with many issues with the VA. He didn't deserve that sort of treatment.


----------



## USMarine75

ElysianGuitars said:


> The bus incident happened not too far from where I am, and my congressman, Lloyd Doggett, was on that bus. He's been a tremendous congressman, and has helped me with many issues with the VA. He didn't deserve that sort of treatment.



No one does. The US isn’t (wasn’t?) some Banana Republic 4 years ago.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Unpopular opinion maybe, but I don't give a flying shit about this kind of behavior. It's normal for ignorant angry douche-bags to act as such. What bothers the ever-loving shit out of me is the lack of orchestration by ANY local/ state/ federal law-enforcement to swiftly diffuse that situation and restore safety on that road. At the very least, the driver of that black truck should be sitting in a fucking jail cell right fucking now! Couldn't law enforcement almost immediately track down that piece of shit? And same with polling places that get ANY reports of intimidation. 

You've got 20 fucking officers armed to the hilt when a black man falls asleep in a drive thru or is having a mental breakdown but for Christ's sake... not a god-damned one to be found when an all out assault is taking place on a democratic Presidential candidate. That bus never should have hit the road without an escort to begin with. Fucking shameful and Fuck You, Texas.


----------



## ExileMetal

USMarine75 said:


> No one does. The US isn’t (wasn’t?) some Banana Republic 4 years ago.



Correct.

I don’t know how many people there are like me, but I went from never voting in 2016 to something of a progressive activist in 2020. I grew up in rural, conservative Indiana. Watching Trump destroy the nation and my friends and families’ minds (and living in Washington with climate change on display) made me realize my mistakes.

Trump and his supporters are not conservatives or the Republican Party I grew up with. They are something else, far, far worse, and the worse part of this election is that we know about them now. Maybe some people will shake it off and ask themselves how they ever fell victim to QAnon or propaganda, but I’m not optimistic. Even if Biden wins in a landslide, I’m not convinced we don’t have a big problem.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/01/us/voter-suppression-jim-crow-blake/index.html

Because it came up earlier if there are racist laws and/or practices.


----------



## Xaios

High Plains Drifter said:


> not a god-damned one to be found when an all out assault is taking place on a democratic Presidential candidate.


Oh, I wouldn't say that's necessarily true. After all, it's entirely possible they were the ones driving the trucks.


----------



## Millul

A contact on FB shared the video of the Trump supporters surrounding Biden's bus near Austin, with the pick up incident - this is what I posted:

"I HATE to admit it, but, the pandemic (mis)management and stuff like this are really making me rethink what I believe the US is about.
America used to be "the good guys", sometimes with very questionable behaviours but at least on the right side of history.
Not so sure about that anymore."

I'm not American, and I've only been to the US twice in my life, but I have American friends, I've had American girlfriends, I worked for an American company for 10 years, and I've always deeply loved the US.
Now, I am starting to distance myzelf more and more, because what I see is frightening - I know it's only the opinion of an European guy, but it is disheartening to see this mess unfold.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Millul said:


> A contact on FB shared the video of the Trump supporters surrounding Biden's bus near Austin, with the pick up incident - this is what I posted:
> 
> "I HATE to admit it, but, the pandemic (mis)management and stuff like this are really making me rethink what I believe the US is about.
> America used to be "the good guys", sometimes with very questionable behaviours but at least on the right side of history.
> Not so sure about that anymore."
> 
> I'm not American, and I've only been to the US twice in my life, but I have American friends, I've had American girlfriends, I worked for an American company for 10 years, and I've always deeply loved the US.
> Now, I am starting to distance myzelf more and more, because what I see is frightening - I know it's only the opinion of an European guy, but it is disheartening to see this mess unfold.



I've said it before and I'll say it again... America is NOT all that you see thru the news and social media but it is what garners the most attention and ad revenue. If you come to my town or any number of smaller towns across the US, you're not going to see this kind of shit. It may be underlying in more areas and communities than I'd like to consider but overall... in most smaller towns, people get along. They live and work side by side and are very kind and helpful towards one another. I've lived in Texas for over 30 years and just to the east of Austin for the past 12 years and I've rarely ever seen things like what we're seeing on the news feeds presently. Sure there are a LOT of assholes and shitty attitudes here but regarding the full-on insanely hateful shit that you see on the screen, I'd say that's generally pretty isolated and far more prevalent around the larger cities. I worked in retail for over ten years and I will say that what I've seen in that environment would be enough for anyone to think just about the worst of human beings in general but again... most of us don't live in fear nor have any issues when going about our day throughout most American communities. It's pretty normal and mundane here for the most part.

Now all of that being said, I do legitimately fear for the future of this country and for the eclectic fabric of minorities that exist everywhere in the US. The political climate has become hotter and nastier than I've ever seen at any point in my life and it's indeed incomprehensibly ugly. And as much as I bemoan trump, the scariest thing isn't him. It's these people ( the racists, homophobes, xenophobes, sexists, and general low-life scum) that are showing their true colors now more than ever before. And that along with all of the individuals who simply refuse to utilize common sense regarding this pandemic, is greatly disheartening to say the least. 

So yeah... this senseless shit-show is going to get worse before ( or tragically "if") it ever gets better but it only makes those of us with humility and humanity even more passionate towards others. I was out last week and I exchanged a great deal of salutations and pleasantries with those around me. It's almost as if the decent people can kind of "read" one another... even with masks on lol. And they're just as solidified in their kindness as those that hate. 

My heart truly breaks for this country as a whole right now but that's largely due to what I see on the news... just like the rest of you across the world spectating. But if you come to my home, or millions upon millions of other homes across America, you will feel the warmth and the hospitality and the love. It exists here just as it does across the world and it's not hard to find. It's just being overshadowed by the great deal of negativity that we're all seeing right now.


----------



## Ralyks

So now the FBI is looking into the Texas Bus Incident of 2020. Fun.


----------



## mbardu

High Plains Drifter said:


> Unpopular opinion maybe, but I don't give a flying shit about this kind of behavior. It's normal for ignorant angry douche-bags to act as such. What bothers the ever-loving shit out of me is the lack of orchestration by ANY local/ state/ federal law-enforcement to swiftly diffuse that situation and restore safety on that road. At the very least, the driver of that black truck should be sitting in a fucking jail cell right fucking now! Couldn't law enforcement almost immediately track down that piece of shit? And same with polling places that get ANY reports of intimidation.
> 
> You've got 20 fucking officers armed to the hilt when a black man falls asleep in a drive thru or is having a mental breakdown but for Christ's sake... not a god-damned one to be found when an all out assault is taking place on a democratic Presidential candidate. That bus never should have hit the road without an escort to begin with. Fucking shameful and Fuck You, Texas.



Plus if social media is to be believed, the driver apparently already tried to run over BLM protesters in the very same truck not too long ago.
Already no consequences then, despite video evidence including his face and plates.
No wonder he gets bolder and bolder.


----------



## mongey

whatever happens at the polls it seems very unlikely all this is not going to result in some terrible situation that will be talked about for a long time to come .


----------



## budda

@High Plains Drifter people can be helpful and polite and still vote for the oppression of many. Thats the kicker.


----------



## fantom

So apparently Trump supporters are blocking major highways in several democratic states. First off, what is the point of trying to advertise Trump in non-swing states at this point? All they are doing is disrupting peoples' lives and making them more pissed off at Trump. Second thing, where the hell is the federal riot police now?


----------



## spudmunkey

$10 says at leat 40% of them made some sort of social media post about how traffic-blocking protestors over the summer "deserved" to get run over.


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> where the hell is the federal riot police now?


----------



## RevDrucifer

wankerness said:


> Yes, it's legal now, cause the Republicans threw out the law against it in 2018. It was illegal starting in the early 80s cause Republicans were using it to intimidate minority voters. The more things change...
> 
> That said, many states have their own laws that make various degrees of it illegal. But, some states it's completely legal for those fucks to bring their rifles and stand around the polling location and challenge everyone they think looks too liberal. :/ Just in most states, the "challenge" is that they have to bother the actual poll workers to get them to challenge the voter. My suspicion is a lot of them are going to just ignore these morons cause they'll make everything take vastly longer. It could backfire in a major way since Republicans were far more likely to wait till election day than democrats, so if voting gets slowed down in a major way at polling sites, it's probably going to backfire.
> 
> That said, they're probably mainly going to go to cities and screw up areas where it's mostly minority voters. People are now freaking out cause Biden's got far lower turnout from black/latino voters than Clinton did, so presumably they were all waiting for election day if they were going to vote, so the mass closures of polling locations combined with intimidation could really cause problems.
> 
> PA is a lost cause, the level of GOP fuckery at the court level with absentee ballots probably gives them a 98% chance of going Republican after throwing out hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots. FL sounds like it's kind of a toss-up, but heavily leaning Republican partly thanks to the aforementioned lack of latino support for Biden. I guess Cuban-Americans particularly support Trump over Biden even more than white people do, partly thanks to sustained targeted disinformation campaigns and partly thanks to (what I read in a lengthy article on this subject) a general machismo/"fuck you i got mine" attitude in that culture, and they're the majority of latinos in most areas of that state. TX now has Trump supporters literally crashing their cars into Biden supporters' vehicles with the approval of the local cops, so I don't have high hopes there - election day is probably going to keep most liberals home thanks to the true psychos.




It’s going to be really interesting to see which way Florida goes. Being in Ft. Lauderdale, I’m seeing a hell of a lot more Biden signs than I am Trump signs, but my wife’s been heading north for work lately and she said it’s Trump country up there, just endless Trump signs. 

Many Cubans here still have plenty of memories of Castro, so if they’re being told that Biden’s a socialist and don’t do their homework, it won’t be hard to sway them towards Trump. I was in Hialeah a few weeks ago, which is mainly Cuban-owned farms and all I saw were Trump signs. 

My boss gave us the day after the election off. I’m not sure his exact reasons yet, I’m looking forward to asking him. I don’t know if it’s because he’s concerned about people freaking out or if it’s to nurse our hangovers. My in-laws are in from Massachusetts, we plan on watching the results while throwing down some cocktails.


----------



## sleewell

trump supporters going full on antifa now. 


pro-tip: law and order is not illegally blocking roads and threatening people with guns.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> trump supporters going full on antifa now.
> 
> 
> pro-tip: law and order is not illegally blocking roads and threatening people with guns.


That shit with the “Trump Train” is the type of behavior usually reserved for children. Anyone ever hear of live and let live? This is a scary time for the US and A. But also a real eye opener to just how much hate, anger, bigotry, and stupidity we possess as a society. These people seem proud of their lack of knowledge and understanding. How is it that people can read the Bible, claim to be religious. But yet have a total lack of understanding as to all the moral codes and ethics that their book is trying to instill in them? Religious indoctrination is dangerous. Spirituality and Religion are not inherently at fault here. Small minds and lack of compassion are. 

At this point I would really like to see Joe Biden win obviously. However, if he doesn’t. I’ll be disappointed. But what the fuck ever at this point. Maybe we need this orange clown to dismantle our country, show us just how shitty we really are as a society. For us to pull our heads out of our asses and finally try to fix some of these problems.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> These people seem proud of their lack of knowledge and understanding. How is it that people can read the Bible, claim to be religious. But yet have a total lack of understanding as to all the moral codes and ethics that their book is trying to instill in them?



Hypocrites... Do as we say, not as we do. And like with most situations, they don't educate themselves nor utilize common sense. This is their time to shine.


----------



## mbardu

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> How is it that people can read the Bible, claim to be religious. But yet have a total lack of understanding as to all the moral codes and ethics that their book is trying to instill in them? Religious indoctrination is dangerous. Spirituality and Religion are not inherently at fault here. Small minds and lack of compassion are.



I'm guessing you're vastly overestimating the number of folks who actually read the bible, let alone would care what it actually says. The bible for this type of Republicans is just an excuse to hate other people and control women. Regardless of actual content, any other book would do, and in fact others book serve the same purpose elsewhere in the world. The world is full of brainwashed terrorists who haven't read the book and just blindly follow their leader


----------



## MASS DEFECT

I find it weird that people are boarding up businesses in preparation of Election Day and the morning after. People are really anxious.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

MASS DEFECT said:


> I find it weird that people are boarding up businesses in preparation of Election Day and the morning after. People are really anxious.


What have we become?


----------



## AxRookie

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> What have we become?


Well, It's more like what has some of us become? and the answer is, unfortunately, mouth breathing, ignorant, Rump supporters...

Only one more day to go!!!

I don't know how much longer I can hold my breath?!?


----------



## Ralyks

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> At this point I would really like to see Joe Biden win obviously. However, if he doesn’t. I’ll be disappointed. But what the fuck ever at this point. Maybe we need this orange clown to dismantle our country, show us just how shitty we really are as a society. For us to pull our heads out of our asses and finally try to fix some of these problems.



See, that's a point people are missing. If we vote Biden, the rest of the world will look at the last 4 years as an abberation. But if we go Trump again, that just shows America is doubling down, and this is who we are now. And the rest of the world will move on without us.


----------



## Xaios

Ralyks said:


> If we vote Biden, the rest of the world will look at the last 4 years as an abberation.


Absolutely not. The rest of the world knows that the conditions which allowed Trump and his ilk to flourish aren't going away overnight. Even if Biden wins, it will take many years for America to regain the international credibilty that Trump threw out the airlock. The attitude America can expect going forward from the rest of the world is "Why should we take you at your word now? You could easily elect a raving lunatic again 4 years from now when your voters return to being the apathetic lemmings that they've traditionally been, and we can't be left holding the bag when you once again abandon all the commitments you've made to your international partners."


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Am I just the one who thinks that if Biden wins, that the Trump fanatics will be even more emboldened to do violent things, Trump will be unleashed in Twitter, and there will be some sort of acceleration to what we currently have?


----------



## spudmunkey

In 2016, the surprise contingent were the "shy" voters that voted for Trump but were secretive about it, even to the polls. 

In 2020, I so want to believe that this time 'round, the "shy", un-polled people are the ones who did vote Trump in 2016, but don't want anyone to know they aren't doing it again this time. It seems like so many more people who voted Trump before have solidified their position and are more open about it...so I'm reeeeeally hoping...just so goddamn exhausted.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Drew

MASS DEFECT said:


> Am I just the one who thinks that if Biden wins, that the Trump fanatics will be even more emboldened to do violent things, Trump will be unleashed in Twitter, and there will be some sort of acceleration to what we currently have?


Especially if, as is being reported, he fully plans to declare victory if at any point in the night he's _leading_ in the polls, rather than waiting for the full count and the states to be formally called.

https://www.axios.com/trump-claim-election-victory-ballots-97eb12b9-5e35-402f-9ea3-0ccfb47f613f.html

I think, regardless of what happens, there will be SOME violence on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. I think, though, that if Trump declares victory prematurely on election night (PA is favored to go to Biden by about 5 points, but it'll take a lot longer to count mail-in ballots than in person so early on in the night and possibly well into Wednesday it'll look like Trump is winning), and then exhorts his supporters to go out in the streets, then yeah, widespread rioting is definitely possible.


----------



## bostjan

Meh, Bush II undid almost as much as Trump in terms of the US's international reputation. If we had been on a popular vote system, Dubya and Trump would have never won anyway. Prior to 2000, any time there was a popular vote winner and a different electoral vote winner in the USA, compromises were made in the name of fairness. In 2000, no concessions were made, and democracy in the USA died for good.

Furthermore, Trump did illegal bullshit in the 2016 election and the GOP-led Senate acquitted him of wrongdoing, so you'd better believe that he has somehow outdone himself this time. So far, everything seems quiet, so I expect whatever surprise he has planned for tomorrow to be a doozy.


----------



## mbardu

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 86626



Ya'll Qaeda in pictures


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Meh, Bush II undid almost as much as Trump in terms of the US's international reputation. If we had been on a popular vote system, Dubya and Trump would have never won anyway. Prior to 2000, any time there was a popular vote winner and a different electoral vote winner in the USA, compromises were made in the name of fairness. In 2000, no concessions were made, and democracy in the USA died for good.
> 
> Furthermore, Trump did illegal bullshit in the 2016 election and the GOP-led Senate acquitted him of wrongdoing, so you'd better believe that he has somehow outdone himself this time. So far, everything seems quiet, so I expect whatever surprise he has planned for tomorrow to be a doozy.


Eh, 538 did an interesting piece on differences between 2000 and 2020 and how public opinion has shifted. They concluded a 2000-style outcome could be way worse now than we got with Bush-Gore. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-contested-2020-election-would-be-way-worse-than-bush-v-gore/

Article is there, but the short version is we're far more entrenched in partisan politics than we are there, and during the 2000 recount/court proceedings, there was kind of an interesting dichotomy where while a plurality of voters thought that not all votes had been correctly counted in Florida, as Gore was arguing, a modest majority thought Gore should concede _anyway_. Right or wrong, there was more belief in the fairness of the process than we have today, and while public opinion was on the side of Gore with the recount, public opinion also thought the results should be allowed to stand. 

I think there's zero chance that we see that pattern emerge again today, regardless of which party wins.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Meh, Bush II undid almost as much as Trump in terms of the US's international reputation. If we had been on a popular vote system, Dubya and Trump would have never won anyway. Prior to 2000, any time there was a popular vote winner and a different electoral vote winner in the USA, compromises were made in the name of fairness. In 2000, no concessions were made, and democracy in the USA died for good.
> 
> Furthermore, Trump did illegal bullshit in the 2016 election and the GOP-led Senate acquitted him of wrongdoing, so you'd better believe that he has somehow outdone himself this time. So far, everything seems quiet, so I expect whatever surprise he has planned for tomorrow to be a doozy.



There is no comparison between W and Trump. W did quite a few terrible things (like the Iraq War) but he also did incredible things like PEPFAR.

Trump is the WORST president in US history. Worse than James Buchanan.


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> Ya'll Qaeda in pictures



I like "Vanilla ISIS."


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> There is no comparison between W and Trump. W did quite a few terrible things (like the Iraq War) but he also did incredible things like PEPFAR.
> 
> Trump is the WORST president in US history. Worse than James Buchanan.



I apologize for my hyperbole in my fit of rage.

He is the 3rd worst president.






(Rankings are 1-44 since Cleveland was president two noncontiguous times)


----------



## mbardu

IQ #44 lmao


----------



## USMarine75

Here, enjoy a good distraction from Trump...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/europe/russia-sausage-king-killed-intl/index.html

*Russia's 'Sausage King' killed with a crossbow in a sauna*
By Mary Ilyushina and Zahra Ullah, CNN


A group of masked assailants killed a Russian businessman dubbed the "Sausage King" with a crossbow at his country residence in the Moscow region, Russia's Investigative Committee and state media reported Monday.

The victim, who owns large meat-processing plants, was in a sauna with his wife when the attack happened, the Investigative Committee said.
The committee did not name the man -- but state media identified him as Vladimir Marugov, citing his ex-wife Tatyana Marugova who confirmed his death.
"Several masked men entered the bathhouse ... tied up the owner of the house and his spouse, and then demanded money," the Investigative Committee's statement said.

Marugov's wife managed to escape through a window and call the police who later found her husband dead at the scene along with the crossbow used to shoot him, investigators said.
The Investigative Committee has launched a criminal investigation into the killing, according to the statement published on its official website.
Late Monday, state-run news agency RIA Novosti reported that one suspect had been detained for questioning.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Here, enjoy a good distraction from Trump...
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/europe/russia-sausage-king-killed-intl/index.html
> 
> *Russia's 'Sausage King' killed with a crossbow in a sauna*
> By Mary Ilyushina and Zahra Ullah, CNN
> 
> 
> A group of masked assailants killed a Russian businessman dubbed the "Sausage King" with a crossbow at his country residence in the Moscow region, Russia's Investigative Committee and state media reported Monday.
> 
> The victim, who owns large meat-processing plants, was in a sauna with his wife when the attack happened, the Investigative Committee said.
> The committee did not name the man -- but state media identified him as Vladimir Marugov, citing his ex-wife Tatyana Marugova who confirmed his death.
> "Several masked men entered the bathhouse ... tied up the owner of the house and his spouse, and then demanded money," the Investigative Committee's statement said.
> 
> Marugov's wife managed to escape through a window and call the police who later found her husband dead at the scene along with the crossbow used to shoot him, investigators said.
> The Investigative Committee has launched a criminal investigation into the killing, according to the statement published on its official website.
> Late Monday, state-run news agency RIA Novosti reported that one suspect had been detained for questioning.


Abe Froman gonna be hiring extra security.


----------



## AxRookie

MASS DEFECT said:


> Am I just the one who thinks that if Biden wins, that the Trump fanatics will be even more emboldened to do violent things, Trump will be unleashed in Twitter, and there will be some sort of acceleration to what we currently have?


So when has Trump ever been restrained on Twitter???

He'll only continue to be the lying ass hole he is with the only difference being far fewer people will pay any attention to his nonsense after he loses...

Maybe after he loses Twitter will find the balls to ban him for inciting violence and being a one-man hate group as they should have long ago!!!


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> So when has Trump ever been restrained on Twitter???
> 
> He'll only continue to be the lying ass hole he is with the only difference being far fewer people will pay any attention to his nonsense after he loses...
> 
> Maybe after he loses Twitter will find the balls to ban him for inciting violence and being a one-man hate group as they should have long ago!!!


His followers won't just disappear overnight. It took years for Bush Junior to fall out of favor with the Republican followers. And Trump's got a much firmer grip on his cultists than Bush Junior ever had.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> His followers won't just disappear overnight. It took years for Bush Junior to fall out of favor with the Republican followers. And Trump's got a much firmer grip on his cultists than Bush Junior ever had.


I didn't say anything about his followers, I said far fewer people will pay any attention to the nonsense he spews because it won't matter anymore once he loses the power of the Whitehouse...

He'll just be another Kim Kardashian or a Rush Lim-bored with a lot of followers and there are tons of those...

The only power they have is to get gullible people to buy crap...


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

MASS DEFECT said:


> Am I just the one who thinks that if Biden wins, that the Trump fanatics will be even more emboldened to do violent things, Trump will be unleashed in Twitter, and there will be some sort of acceleration to what we currently have?


Potentially this could play out, but I’m trying to think positive. Though I have had the same thoughts as you.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> I like "Vanilla ISIS."



I'm fond of Pumpkin SpISIS.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm fond of Pumpkin SpISIS.


I like regular Isis...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Yeah the whole 3 month lame duck period is insane in my mind. Losers should not get the chance to make decisions post vote.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

If you are registered to vote but you haven't done so yet... PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW! Do NOT be intimidated! Go early and do your part to end this reign of filth. You will feel SO much better after you leave the polls. It's liberating and it is your right and your responsibility. If you're registered but you're still on the fence, just do it. Do it do it do it! Stand up and be counted. You deserve to be heard. Please... It's our last chance!

And here you go. I'm not a fan of many female hip-hop artists but I've been jamming to this one for the past two weeks. This song and video should be all the motivation that you need. Please give it a listen if you haven't heard it yet. Do not succumb to voter suppression. Crank it up and let's try to kick this bastard to the curb!


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> If you are registered to vote but you haven't done so yet... PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW! Do NOT be intimidated! Go early and do your part to end this reign of filth. You will feel SO much better after you leave the polls. It's liberating and it is your right and your responsibility. If you're registered but you're still on the fence, just do it. Do it do it do it! Stand up and be counted. You deserve to be heard. Please... It's our last chance!
> 
> And here you go. I'm not a fan of many female hip-hop artists but I've been jamming to this one for the past two weeks. This song and video should be all the motivation that you need. Please give it a listen if you haven't heard it yet. Do not succumb to voter suppression. Crank it up and let's try to kick this bastard to the curb!



HELL YES! LEAVE NO DOUBT! VOTE!


----------



## SpaceDock

Dineley said:


> Yeah the whole 3 month lame duck period is insane in my mind. Losers should not get the chance to make decisions post vote.



It’s going to be like the renter who knows they are being evicted and stops taking out the trash.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> It’s going to be like the renter who knows they are being evicted and stops taking out the trash.



More like actively destroys the house, you mean.
Trump has brought in heaps and heaps of trash rather than taking out any already as it is.


----------



## SpaceDock

He’s already building a second wall around the White House, so at the very least he can’t steal the copper pipes!


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> He’s already building a second wall around the White House, so at the very least he can’t steal the copper pipes!


He's trying to build a fortress to try and keep the people from dragging him out when he loses, He's barricading himself in!

He knows what's about to happen and he's scared shitless... And as always he's only thinking about himself!


----------



## mongey

trump barricades himself in the white house with supporters and is taken out by the army Bin laden style.

Seems a fitting end to the last 4 years ,and a damn good movie plot

More importantly if he loses does my 655 page thread get closed and locked? It's my crowning achievement in forum land.


----------



## Necris

Personally the question for me continues to be "What if he doesn't lose?" rather than "What if he loses and won't leave?" I guess tonight we get to find out which we'll need to actually worry about.


----------



## fantom

So apparently just north of San Fransisco (across the Golden Gate bridge), local news is reporting that counter protestors are shooting trump train trucks with paintball guns. This is escalating...

We really need a leader to tell people to stand down before people get killed. Or I guess the alternative is to congratulate them on twitter... sigh


----------



## possumkiller

mongey said:


> More importantly if he loses does my 655 page thread get closed and locked? It's my crowning achievement in forum land.


No way. This period of american history will be studied for decades like the rise of hitler.


----------



## AxRookie

IT HAS BEGUN! one hour in!

As far as this thread? We'll still need a place to talk about Trump the Rump's crazy tweets...

Like "a million ballots with Trump on them were found dumped on top the great garbage patch in the middle of the ocean!", He hasn't said that but it wouldn't surprise anyone if he did...

Here's another, "SpaceX was caught stuffing a Dragon 5 Rocket with Trump ballots in an attempt to launch them into the sun!", Doesn't that sound like something he'd claim???

Brace yourselves, the crazy claims are coming!!!


----------



## fantom

mbardu said:


> IQ #44 lmao


Honestly, I want to laugh, but I find it more concerning than funny that people are supporting the village idiot to be our leader.


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> No way. This period of american history will be studied for decades like the rise of hitler.


If we're lucky Trump will also commit suicide after he's lost to prevent his prosecution for his crimes against humanity...


----------



## USMarine75

High Plains Drifter said:


> If you are registered to vote but you haven't done so yet... PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW! Do NOT be intimidated! Go early and do your part to end this reign of filth. You will feel SO much better after you leave the polls. It's liberating and it is your right and your responsibility. If you're registered but you're still on the fence, just do it. Do it do it do it! Stand up and be counted. You deserve to be heard. Please... It's our last chance!
> 
> And here you go. I'm not a fan of many female hip-hop artists but I've been jamming to this one for the past two weeks. This song and video should be all the motivation that you need. Please give it a listen if you haven't heard it yet. Do not succumb to voter suppression. Crank it up and let's try to kick this bastard to the curb!




I prefer this anthem / call-to-arms from America's Poet Laureate:


----------



## AxRookie

Because Not Everyone Can Raise Their Polls!
​


----------



## StevenC

High Plains Drifter said:


> If you are registered to vote but you haven't done so yet... PLEASE VOTE TOMORROW! Do NOT be intimidated! Go early and do your part to end this reign of filth. You will feel SO much better after you leave the polls. It's liberating and it is your right and your responsibility. If you're registered but you're still on the fence, just do it. Do it do it do it! Stand up and be counted. You deserve to be heard. Please... It's our last chance!
> 
> And here you go. I'm not a fan of many female hip-hop artists but I've been jamming to this one for the past two weeks. This song and video should be all the motivation that you need. Please give it a listen if you haven't heard it yet. Do not succumb to voter suppression. Crank it up and let's try to kick this bastard to the curb!



Off topic, but Janelle Monae is the best thing to happen to music in the 2010s.


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> So apparently just north of San Fransisco (across the Golden Gate bridge), local news is reporting that counter protestors are shooting trump train trucks with paintball guns. This is escalating...
> 
> We really need a leader to tell people to stand down before people get killed. Or I guess the alternative is to congratulate them on twitter... sigh



this seems like. a super bad idea.

like don't shoot gun wielding maniacs with paintball guns.


----------



## USMarine75

https://thebulwark.com/a-tale-of-three-possible-outcomes/?amp

Fantastic article about how size matters.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Yeah the whole 3 month lame duck period is insane in my mind. Losers should not get the chance to make decisions post vote.



Election night should be held on the stage at the Apollo and the loser should be dragged off with the hook.


----------



## nightflameauto

Necris said:


> Personally the question for me continues to be "What if he doesn't lose?" rather than "What if he loses and won't leave?" I guess tonight we get to find out which we'll need to actually worry about.


Chances of meaningful results tonight are really, really slim. Sadly.



Randy said:


> Election night should be held on the stage at the Apollo and the loser should be dragged off with the hook.


I could get behind this idea.

Last round of polling for my state is showing between 62-65% support for Trump. That's depressing as shit. Not surprising, but man that makes me question what my neighbors are thinking.

Meanwhile, our medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are polling at 55% across the board. While our governor gets on TV and whines about how legalizing it will lead to massive increases in crime and destroy our children. *FACEPALM* Because we have no examples to look to to see what actually happens when it's legalized, right?

I'm scared about what people's reactions are gonna be as results start to be tallied. There's a lot of angry people out there and nobody seems capable of just acting like an adult and accepting reality with our current climate. I'm praying for a massive Biden win so there can't be any question. If we end up with slim margins, this is gonna be a massive debacle.


----------



## gunch

I lucked out my polling place wasn’t that busy and there weren’t any vocal maga chuds to be had


----------



## sleewell

took my youngest son to vote. in and out in 15 mins, would have been shorter but i stood in the longer line and it was for a different precinct.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> Meanwhile, our medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are polling at 55% across the board. While our governor gets on TV and whines about how legalizing it will lead to massive increases in crime and destroy our children. *FACEPALM* Because we have no examples to look to to see what actually happens when it's legalized, right?


Your Governor is apparently a moron. We legalized marijuana in Canada only two years ago, and in that time, usage by kids under 18 has dropped by a full _50%_.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

AxRookie said:


> If we're lucky Trump will also commit suicide after he's lost to prevent his prosecution for his crimes against humanity...


That’s pretty harsh wishing death on him. That doesn’t make you much different than the side you despise.


----------



## budda

USMarine75 said:


> https://thebulwark.com/a-tale-of-three-possible-outcomes/?amp
> 
> Fantastic article about how size matters.



Are we still doing phrasing?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

nightflameauto said:


> I'm scared about what people's reactions are gonna be as results start to be tallied. There's a lot of angry people out there and nobody seems capable of just acting like an adult and accepting reality with our current climate. I'm praying for a massive Biden win so there can't be any question. If we end up with slim margins, this is gonna be a massive debacle.



A couple friends and I discussed this last night and we are all fairly concerned. But my take on this potential situation is that I would rather days, weeks, or even months of unrest/ violence than four more years of trump. But yeah... a decisive and overwhelming win for Biden would certainly be best... not only for Biden supporters but also for the knuckle-dragging cultists to be able to process and subsequently accept. I dunno... we'll see but we definitely aren't going to know what the final numbers are today... maybe not even by tomorrow as some states apparently have up to 3 days ( or more?) to produce their final tally.


----------



## AxRookie

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> That’s pretty harsh wishing death on him. That doesn’t make you much different than the side you despise.


It is what it is...

I only wish death on him if he wins a second term...

In case it isn't obvious this time this is a joke, dark, but still a joke...


----------



## AxRookie

Oops, double post?


----------



## TedEH

Xaios said:


> We legalized marijuana in Canada only two years ago, and in that time, usage by kids under 18 has dropped by a full _50%_.


Has it actually? My experience has been pretty different than that -> All the closeted smokers are now out in the open, and a bunch of people who wouldn't touch the stuff because it was "bad" have been giving it a shot. I actually find it frustratingly difficult to avoid the stuff now - be it the smell or the smokers themselves.


----------



## Demiurge

Xaios said:


> Your Governor is apparently a moron. We legalized marijuana in Canada only two years ago, and in that time, usage by kids under 18 has dropped by a full _50%_.



Ah, nothing makes something unappealing to kids more than seeing normal adults doing it. 

Haven't really seen much negatives here aside from, what I've groused-about before, that the tax revenues are hard to account for beyond jobs for bureaucrats.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> Your Governor is apparently a moron. We legalized marijuana in Canada only two years ago, and in that time, usage by kids under 18 has dropped by a full _50%_.



I'm well aware she's exceedingly stupid. Our city's mayor asked people to please voluntarily wear a mask so that we can remain free while still protecting each other. Next day she puts out a statement about how wearing a mask is the equivalent of giving up all freedoms in the name of the radical left.

Sometimes I really hate living here.

In the states when Colorado legalized we had all sorts of doom and gloom predicted. The only real result is the state makes a lot more in tax revenue, and some of the darker parts of the illegal dealers have sloughed off to other places. I mean, it's not all perfect by any means, but I haven't heard any of the horrible predictions about it coming true.


----------



## Xaios

TedEH said:


> Has it actually? My experience has been pretty different than that -> All the closeted smokers are now out in the open, and a bunch of people who wouldn't touch the stuff because it was "bad" have been giving it a shot. I actually find it frustratingly difficult to avoid the stuff now - be it the smell or the smokers themselves.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-two-year-marijuana-no-increase-use-1.5781423

Use among adults is apparently relatively unchanged, but in the age 15-17 bracket, it's been cut in half.


----------



## ExileMetal

Here is a great Election Day Twitter thread.

https://twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/1323644768807628802?s=20

“The result was to exile GOP from fast-growing metro US: b4 18 election, Rs held 43% of House seats w/more college grads than national average. After, they held 24%. With more suburban losses coming, they could fall to ~20% after today. Ds dominate high-GDP seats

...

Trump lost 87/100 largest counties by combined 15m votes. He's at risk of losing about half of the 13 he won. His deficit will soar in many he already lost. In 16, counties he won accounted for only 1/3 of GDP. That could easily fall below 30% tonight.”

In short, the urban and rural divide is greater than ever. Those with higher education levels and who produce greater value for the nation are rejecting Trump and the GOP at historic levels, while the GOP tries to get greater mileage out of the tiny amount of people and value they represent.


----------



## sleewell

trump to farmers: farm bankruptcies and suicides will soar to an all time high under my watch due to my incredibly stupid tariffs but you will still vote for me because of brown people


farmers: he is the greatest!!!


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> trump to farmers: farm bankruptcies and suicides will soar to an all time high under my watch due to my incredibly stupid tariffs but you will still vote for me because of brown people
> 
> 
> farmers: he is the greatest!!!


Sadly accurate.

They've had "reporters" roaming the local area asking for election feedback. Lots of people saying they voted Trump because of how deeply he cares about people and how well he's taken care of everyone, along with several fear mongers talking about how the country will fall to pieces of Biden's hoped for policies ever took effect. Then I look at the state we're in and wonder what version of reality they've witnessed.


----------



## Drew

So what's everyone watching tonight? 

For me, my canaries in the coal mine: 


Florida - race was probably a tossup, early counting of early/mail-in votes plus a history of being a battlefield state everyone else wishes they could just hurry up and finish counting means that we're likely to have good, essentially complete tallies within a few hours of the polls being closed. A win by more than a point or so by any candidate could be an indicator they're having a good night. 
Texas - shouldn't be a competitive state. Actually is a competitive state this cycle, though one that favors Trump. Should report fairly complete results tonight. Evidence of Biden keeping it legitimately too close to call or outright winning - and with massive early voting, more than 100% of 2016 total votes cast and Harris County alone having 700,000 more votes cast than in 2016, I think this is a possibility - could be another strong indicator for Biden (and an outright win here would essentially end Trump's bid, unless he ran the table on every other swing state)
Pennsylvania - should be a comfortable win for Biden, based on polling, but with early/mail in votes obly begun being counted today ay 7am,when polls close and initial (in person) results come in, it should look like a bloodbath for Biden. Anything resembling a close race, when the polls close and first vote totals are released, would be another good indicator for Biden. 
North Carolina - similar to PA, though _with_ early counting, so they estimate they can report 80% of the vote when polls close. This should look. very good for Biden when it does, then initially tighten as live voting is counted, though possibly move a bit the other way as late ballots (counted through Nov 12 as long as they were postmarked before the election) start coming in. Call it the reverse of PA - if Biden isn't blowing Trump out of the water here in that first release of results, that might be cause for Biden to worry. 
Florida and Texas are the two big indicators for me tonight.


----------



## sleewell

Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio

if biden wins one of these its going to be almost impossible for trump to win. GA would probably be the best bc it also has 2 senate races that have a better chance to go blue if Biden wins the state.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> So what's everyone watching tonight?


I plan on watching ANYTHING other than election coverage until I've drunk enough to be able to face it. AND. . . hoping I pass out before that happens.

In all honesty though, I'll probably watch local coverage for the most part, just to thoroughly pound home how utterly worthless my vote for President is. Though I will watch Florida for certain, and Texas. I've got lots of acquaintances and relatives that live in Texas that are so red they practically weep blood through their skin. Watching them squirm if their state goes blue will be monumentally entertaining after all the years of "TRUMP IS THE BEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO OUR COUNTRY!" rants I've had to tolerate.


----------



## tedtan

USMarine75 said:


> I apologize for my hyperbole in my fit of rage.
> 
> He is the 3rd worst president.
> 
> View attachment 86642
> 
> View attachment 86641
> 
> 
> (Rankings are 1-44 since Cleveland was president two noncontiguous times)



Don’t be too hard on yourself - that ranking is only based on his first year in office. By the time they add in his “accomplishments” in years two through four, he’ll easily be in the bottom spot.


----------



## Demiurge

I probably won't be watching the coverage- maybe check-in here and there. In contrast with 2016 election night (likely preserved in this thread hundreds of pages back), I will be attempting to have a sane person evening. Gonna play some guitar. Gonna pretend that I'll be cooking a nice meal (fried eggplant parm) before deciding to order delivery (probably a carnitas burrito). Gonna watch some X-Files and window-shop tube amps on Reverb. If things are undecided by bed time, I'm going to go to bed. Not gonna drink... too much. Not gonna shitpost on Facebook or tease the 538 guy. 

So, I'll be seeing y'all on here at 3am, trying to get this thread up to 666 pages.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> So what's everyone watching tonight?
> 
> For me, my canaries in the coal mine:
> 
> 
> Florida - race was probably a tossup, early counting of early/mail-in votes plus a history of being a battlefield state everyone else wishes they could just hurry up and finish counting means that we're likely to have good, essentially complete tallies within a few hours of the polls being closed. A win by more than a point or so by any candidate could be an indicator they're having a good night.
> Texas - shouldn't be a competitive state. Actually is a competitive state this cycle, though one that favors Trump. Should report fairly complete results tonight. Evidence of Biden keeping it legitimately too close to call or outright winning - and with massive early voting, more than 100% of 2016 total votes cast and Harris County alone having 700,000 more votes cast than in 2016, I think this is a possibility - could be another strong indicator for Biden (and an outright win here would essentially end Trump's bid, unless he ran the table on every other swing state)
> Pennsylvania - should be a comfortable win for Biden, based on polling, but with early/mail in votes obly begun being counted today ay 7am,when polls close and initial (in person) results come in, it should look like a bloodbath for Biden. Anything resembling a close race, when the polls close and first vote totals are released, would be another good indicator for Biden.
> North Carolina - similar to PA, though _with_ early counting, so they estimate they can report 80% of the vote when polls close. This should look. very good for Biden when it does, then initially tighten as live voting is counted, though possibly move a bit the other way as late ballots (counted through Nov 12 as long as they were postmarked before the election) start coming in. Call it the reverse of PA - if Biden isn't blowing Trump out of the water here in that first release of results, that might be cause for Biden to worry.
> Florida and Texas are the two big indicators for me tonight.



Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida seem to be the biggest indicators, but like you mentioned, I think Texas is in an an interesting place right now. Not only because of the number of voters who voted early (myself included), but we've have a lot of people moving here from the rust belt over the past several years along with a growing Hispanic population, so Texas will likely go blue before too much longer. I don't think it will go blue for Biden this year, but we also have House and Senate seats up for grabs and democratic candidates may end up winning some of those.

Which brings up another issue: for years I've been saying that its a long shot to flip the Senate to democrat control in 2020, but now I'd say its more likely than not. Last I saw, 538 gave 3 out of 4 odds that dems take the senate this year. And if they do, let's hope they take a page out of the GOP playbook and ram through a lot shit that needs to get done.


----------



## StevenC

Things I don't want to do tonight: sit up all night watching news and 538

Things I will do tonight: sit up all night watching news and 538


----------



## AxRookie

ExileMetal said:


> Here is a great Election Day Twitter thread.


There are no good Twitter threads...


----------



## Andromalia

I'm watching the NBC youtube channel, it's amazing how the jingles and presentation make you think you're going to watch the Superbowl instead of an electoral day broadcast.
Btw if you have a better channel to follow the night on (well, it's "US election night" for us europeans) please share.


----------



## StevenC

Andromalia said:


> I'm watching the NBC youtube channel, it's amazing how the jingles and presentation make you think you're going to watch the Superbowl instead of an electoral day broadcast.
> Btw if you have a better channel to follow the night on (well, it's "US election night" for us europeans) please share.


I usually just watch the Beeb


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida seem to be the biggest indicators, but like you mentioned, I think Texas is in an an interesting place right now. Not only because of the number of voters who voted early (myself included), but we've have a lot of people moving here from the rust belt over the past several years along with a growing Hispanic population, so Texas will likely go blue before too much longer. I don't think it will go blue for Biden this year, but we also have House and Senate seats up for grabs and democratic candidates may end up winning some of those.
> 
> Which brings up another issue: for years I've been saying that its a long shot to flip the Senate to democrat control in 2020, but now I'd say its more likely than not. Last I saw, 538 gave 3 out of 4 odds that dems take the senate this year. And if they do, let's hope they take a page out of the GOP playbook and ram through a lot shit that needs to get done.


I don't know what kind of an indicator PA will be though, is my concern - Florida and Texas, I think, will be pretty good early indicators for the state of the OVERALL race just by looking at the outcome, though Florida has its own intricacies with the Cuban Hispanic vote. I think you can make pretty decent projections, though, by looking at the top-line polling numbers, and anything outside of a point in FL or maybe Trump +0 to +2 in Texas, IMO, should be pretty meaningful.

PA and NC are sort of in the secondary tier, where there may be meaningful lessons to draw, but it'd have to be pretty extreme to really know for sure how to interpret results. PA _should_ favor Trump, possibly heavily, early on, while NC should favor Biden. But, HOW heavily? And in the case of PA, it's fairly likely that if the race is at ALL close we won't know the outcome until around the weekend, so I don't know how I should interpret Trump initially opening up a 12 point gap when votes first start coming in, vs a 7 point gap. Vice versa with NC, though they expect to report faster and we might have a good inclination much later in the night.

Meanwhile, I think Florida and Texas will be better snapshots. We'll have answers pretty quickly, and they should be very tight races that should shift mostly based on where votes are coming in from, not when they were cast.

Also, don't get me wrong - I havce pizza dough rising, a fridge full of good beer, and a nice bottle of bourbon. Gotta take the edge off SOMEHOW.


----------



## spudmunkey

Andromalia said:


> I'm watching the NBC youtube channel, it's amazing how the jingles and presentation make you think you're going to watch the Superbowl instead of an electoral day broadcast.
> Btw if you have a better channel to follow the night on (well, it's "US election night" for us europeans) please share.



Nothing matters other than what AP reports, and many outlets are mirroring their model including NPR: proclaiming a result only when it appears definitively that the trailing candidate has no path to victory.


----------



## Xaios

Man, I remember following the election as it was happening 4 years ago. I was one of those who was certain that HRC would take it, but I figured out pretty early on when results started coming back that Trump was going to win. I remember how horrifying that was. For proof:


Xaios said:


> Oooookay, is anyone else starting to freak out yet?



I really hope the same doesn't happen again tonight. All the polling suggests that it won't, and they go out of their way to point out how it's been fixed in the intervening time. I'm still not going to believe it until I see it though.


----------



## budda

AxRookie said:


> There are no good Twitter threads...



Clearly you dont follow Bree Newsome Bass.


----------



## AxRookie

Andromalia said:


> I'm watching the NBC youtube channel, it's amazing how the jingles and presentation make you think you're going to watch the Superbowl instead of an electoral day broadcast.
> Btw if you have a better channel to follow the night on (well, it's "US election night" for us europeans) please share.


I watch every one I can find! I've got 10 shortcuts on my desktop so I can jump around quickly!


----------



## AxRookie

budda said:


> Clearly you dont follow Bree Newsome Bass.


I don't have a Twitter account because I don't trust anything in a tweet just like I don't have a Facebook account because I don't trust anything on Facebook...


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> I don't have a Twitter account because I don't trust anything in a tweet just like I don't have a Facebook account because I don't trust anything on Facebook...




Tweets are a fucking joke. Twitter is just facebook status updates but you're only allowed so few characters which is near impossible to get reasonable points across with. I've tried it, but NEVER understood the appeal when other social media platforms allow for so much more.


----------



## budda

AxRookie said:


> I don't have a Twitter account because I don't trust anything in a tweet just like I don't have a Facebook account because I don't trust anything on Facebook...



Which is hilarious because all or nearly all news outlets use both those platforms


----------



## zappatton2

Xaios said:


> Man, I remember following the election as it was happening 4 years ago. I was one of those who was certain that HRC would take it, but I figured out pretty early on when results started coming back that Trump was going to win. I remember how horrifying that was.


 Yup, I was pretty beside myself at how someone could embody literally all the worst traits of humanity, and garner enough support to actually win. Funny thing is, for all of our predictions of how bad his presidency would be, he's actually been sooooo so much worse.


----------



## bostjan

Our Republican governor just voted for Biden. LOL


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I remember last election I was working nights and we have to watch news at work for anything that may impact the company (security job). Was tough watching it unfold.

Feel like that sort of situation wont happen this year but not holding my breath. Also lol @ this.


----------



## Ralyks

So far Biden got Vermont and Trump got Kentucky


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> So far Biden got Vermont and Trump got Kentucky *and West Virginia*


----------



## Ralyks

Biden got regular Virginia and leading in Florida


----------



## spudmunkey

So far I've been liking Bloomberg's map/tracking, and I believe they are holding to the AP repoeting standard.


----------



## Xaios

Can someone explain, how do they show Biden as winning Virginia when it looks like Trump leads in counted ballots?


----------



## spudmunkey

Xaios said:


> Can someone explain, how do they show Biden as winning Virginia when it looks like Trump leads in counted ballots?


I THINK it's because the counties where there's information he's leading haven't officially close or something...still figuring that out.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

I hate elsction nights... Last election, I went to sleep cuz I hated it and woke up to sadness.


----------



## AxRookie

85 to 55 Biden...... so far..... long ways to go.....


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Always add 55 to Biden's column. That would marginally make you feel better.


----------



## narad

Bloomberg thinks Florida's going to Biden?


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> Bloomberg thinks Florida's going to Biden?


I doubt it... But Texas is interesting?

If Biden gets Ohio it's over and Biden is up 10% at 55% counted...


----------



## diagrammatiks

everyone thinks Florida is going to go to trump?


----------



## spudmunkey

diagrammatiks said:


> everyone thinks Florida is going to go to trump?



Most have for a while. Biden's early lead wasn't wide enough to make up for traditionaly robust R turn-out in the western parts of the state, and Trump's pulling ahead.


----------



## Vyn

AxRookie said:


> I doubt it... But Texas is interesting?
> 
> If Biden gets Ohio it's over and Biden is up 10% at 55% counted...



If Biden wins Texas, that negates Trump winning Florida with change in the back pocket. Biden doesn't have to do too much at that point to win.


----------



## Randy

Would love to go back to not giving a fuck about this guy again


----------



## AxRookie

131 to 94 Biden! and you know Biden will get Wash 12, Org 7, and Ca 55...

Trump has taken the lead in Tx...


----------



## Xaios

Looks like Trump is now leading in Texas. No surprise. Pretty much all the precincts that hadn't reported in while Biden was leading were rural.


----------



## Mathemagician

Florida is doing exactly what I expected it to do. No surprise there.


----------



## Vyn

Trump is now leading Ohio. I think we're in for a wild ride again...


----------



## diagrammatiks

I think the left needs a new set of analysts. 

When trump wins florida we'll pretty much be back in 2016. Which is a far higher chance of trump then what all of the lefty news has been predicating for months.


----------



## Vyn

Ohio would be split down the middle if it wasn't for the presence of alternative left candidates:


----------



## diagrammatiks

some people just want to watch the world burn while their 3rd party candidate doesn't get elected anyway.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> some people just want to watch the world burn while their 3rd party candidate doesn't get elected anyway.






https://thehardtimes.net/culture/vo...556525&utm_medium=social&utm_source=instagram


----------



## Vyn

diagrammatiks said:


> some people just want to watch the world burn while their 3rd party candidate doesn't get elected anyway.



Considering the amount of effort needed to vote in the US, protest voting is fucking stupid. IF you can spend that amount of time trying to vote, you can spend a little more researching and thinking about what the probably outcomes are, and which of the two you support. Urgh.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> Considering the amount of effort needed to vote in the US, protest voting is fucking stupid. IF you can spend that amount of time trying to vote, you can spend a little more researching and thinking about what the probably outcomes are, and which of the two you support. Urgh.



Voting is only hard for _certain people_ in the United States.


----------



## Xaios

Boy, I've sure got a sinking feeling.


----------



## mbardu

Xaios said:


> Boy, I've sure got a sinking feeling.



Official best election predictor since 2016.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> I don't know what kind of an indicator PA will be though, is my concern - Florida and Texas, I think, will be pretty good early indicators for the state of the OVERALL race just by looking at the outcome, though Florida has its own intricacies with the Cuban Hispanic vote. I think you can make pretty decent projections, though, by looking at the top-line polling numbers, and anything outside of a point in FL or maybe Trump +0 to +2 in Texas, IMO, should be pretty meaningful.
> 
> PA and NC are sort of in the secondary tier, where there may be meaningful lessons to draw, but it'd have to be pretty extreme to really know for sure how to interpret results. PA _should_ favor Trump, possibly heavily, early on, while NC should favor Biden. But, HOW heavily? And in the case of PA, it's fairly likely that if the race is at ALL close we won't know the outcome until around the weekend, so I don't know how I should interpret Trump initially opening up a 12 point gap when votes first start coming in, vs a 7 point gap. Vice versa with NC, though they expect to report faster and we might have a good inclination much later in the night.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think Florida and Texas will be better snapshots. We'll have answers pretty quickly, and they should be very tight races that should shift mostly based on where votes are coming in from, not when they were cast.
> 
> Also, don't get me wrong - I havce pizza dough rising, a fridge full of good beer, and a nice bottle of bourbon. Gotta take the edge off SOMEHOW.



Yeah, agreed as indicators.

I was just thinking that OH and PN are must wins for Trump; without those he loses.


----------



## USMarine75

“There is no landslide.”


----------



## StevenC

Well, BBC has played Mitch's speech twice now so I think I'll be going to bed soon.

Sorry.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> Well, BBC has played Mitch's speech twice now so I think I'll be going to bed soon.
> 
> Sorry.



Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham were the two races I wanted to lose as much as I want Trump to lose, but it looks like they’ll both win.

Hopefully we can make up for that by flipping the Senate.


----------



## mongey

Wasnt it always on the cards that trump would be ahead today and mail
Votes would push Biden ?


----------



## mbardu

mongey said:


> Wasnt it always on the cards that trump would be ahead today and mail
> Votes would push Biden ?



What they called red mirage?
It's not super clear to me when they say "x% accounted for" whether or not they're including those or not.


----------



## Vyn

mongey said:


> Wasnt it always on the cards that trump would be ahead today and mail
> Votes would push Biden ?



See I thought that was the case too, however I was under the impression that some states were counting and reporting on postal votes FIRST.


----------



## AxRookie

Vyn said:


> See I thought that was the case too, however I was under the impression that some states were counting and reporting on postal votes FIRST.


Mail-in takes longer because you have to count each manually...


----------



## diagrammatiks

analysts were predicting significant senate and house majorities for democrats.. looks like that ain't happening.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The face of "Are you and mommy done watching this shit yet??"...


----------



## tedtan

High Plains Drifter said:


> The face of "Are you and mommy done watching this shit yet??"...


Yeah, my cats are ready to go to sleep.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think we can all see that this was not the landslide Biden needed to have a clean victory. Even if he pulls out a slight electoral win this is going to be contested.


----------



## mbardu

FoxNews starting to panic after calling Arizona for Biden. Little sigh of relief.


----------



## tedtan

SpaceDock said:


> I think we can all see that this was not the landslide Biden needed to have a clean victory. Even if he pulls out a slight electoral win this is going to be contested.



No, it’s not a landslide. But we still have a number of key states that won’t report full numbers for a while, too (PN, WI, GA, et.).

It sucks, but we have to wait it out.

And hopefully the results are not close enough that legal challenges can change the results.


----------



## spudmunkey

Vyn said:


> See I thought that was the case too, however I was under the impression that some states were counting and reporting on postal votes FIRST.



Some states don't count mail in/absentee ballots until polls _close. _ Some states count them as soon as they start receiving them.


----------



## Necris

nightflameauto said:


> Chances of meaningful results tonight are really, really slim. Sadly.



Yeah, but we can still hold out hope that tonight will be over by the weekend. No word on when 2016 will end, though.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Im ok with a blue majority in the house and senate. Looks like Trump will win as I have suspected.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MASS DEFECT said:


> Im ok with a blue majority in the house and senate. Looks like Trump will win as I have suspected.



Where you seeing this blue senate majority?? Maybe wapo is just wonky but didn't look like its happening from what I was just looking at.


----------



## mbardu

Very funny watching FoxNews right now.
Going after their own internal pollsters for calling Arizona for Biden. Whining that there are still some mail in ballots to be counted into tomorrow so they cannot declare a winner.

The hypocrisy is amazing


----------



## SpaceDock

Damn, this is coming down to mail in ballots from big cities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Trumps calls “stealing the election” and about to speak. Can he really conflate the tally of mail in ballots with voting after “poles” close???


----------



## Xaios

SpaceDock said:


> Can he really conflate the tally of mail in ballots with voting after “poles” close???


He doesn't have to; he's counting on his supporters to do that.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> Damn, this is coming down to mail in ballots from big cities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Trumps calls “stealing the election” and about to speak. Can he really conflate the tally of mail in ballots with voting after “poles” close???



I'm sad he corrected the typo since, but at least twitter is soft-hiding the shitty tweet.


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> He doesn't have to; he's counting on his supporters to do that.



Stand back and stand by.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> Stand back and stand by.


...Goddammit.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> Damn, this is coming down to mail in ballots from big cities of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Trumps calls “stealing the election” and about to speak. Can he really conflate the tally of mail in ballots with voting after “poles” close???



He can, and he will- but he will only do so _where he loses_. He's pretty happy to count all mail-in in votes, plus imaginary ones in Arizona where he's losing.


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> Very funny watching FoxNews right now.
> Going after their own internal pollsters for calling Arizona for Biden. Whining that there are still some mail in ballots to be counted into tomorrow so they cannot declare a winner.
> 
> The hypocrisy is amazing



An amusing collection of screengrabs:
http://imgur.com/gallery/X7GMQBI


----------



## SpaceDock

LMFAO at Van Jones “I’m hurt that the polls got all our hopes up!”


----------



## broj15

Didn't someone once say something about counting your eggs before ya break em or something like that? Oh yeah I think it might've been me & several others a few pages back when we said blind confidence would be our fuckening lol. And some of y'all really believed in the blue wave. You didn't know a soul that wasn't voting for Biden because (gasp) you don't associate with/turn a blind eye to ppl outside the echo chamber.


----------



## diagrammatiks

broj15 said:


> Didn't someone once say something about counting your eggs before ya break em or something like that? Oh yeah I think it might've been me & several others a few pages back when we said blind confidence would be our fuckening lol. And some of y'all really believed in the blue wave. You didn't know a soul that wasn't voting for Biden because (gasp) you don't associate with/turn a blind eye to ppl outside the echo chamber.



I didn’t even read any of the major news analysis until a couple of days ok. I was super surprised how bullish everyone was on biden. Because it seemed they are taking crazy pills.


----------



## narad

broj15 said:


> Didn't someone once say something about counting your eggs before ya break em or something like that? Oh yeah I think it might've been me & several others a few pages back when we said blind confidence would be our fuckening lol. And some of y'all really believed in the blue wave. You didn't know a soul that wasn't voting for Biden because (gasp) you don't associate with/turn a blind eye to ppl outside the echo chamber.



Bunch of stuff that could be unpacked, but like:

a.) I didn't see any confidence in a blue wave in this thread. Just because that outcome was mentioned, or presented as expected, doesn't mean anyone was really putting their faith in it. We were all alive in 2016.

b.) I still don't know a soul that wasn't voting for Biden (except my dad), but that doesn't mean it wasn't completely obvious it was likely to be a very close election and factor down these same lines with basically half the country voting for each guy. If you happened to know some Trump voters, and let that persuade you into thinking he had a chance, that's just sampling bias and not an informed opinion. It doesn't mean it was the wrong conclusion, but you didn't get there in a smart way. Unless you have a very big social network consisting mostly of a number of PA/FL counties...

c.) And I don't think blind confidence is to blame for anything here. Turnout is really high in a lot of areas. It doesn't look like an election where indifference and assumptions played a significant hand (at least, in comparison to a number of other recent elections we could point to).


----------



## SpaceDock

Hopefully the last FU of 2020 that Trump is declaring victory right now.


----------



## spudmunkey

Highest turn out since at least 1972, if not the early 1900s. If I heard right, some counties in California approached 90%. Turnout wasn't to blame.

Weaponizing the "socialism" scare seems to be the right's biggest success. I've heard it countless times, including an interview on the radio today at an exit poll. A public school teacher who doesn't want to live in "a socialist country". Irony much?


----------



## diagrammatiks

Uncle joe forgot to convince the Cubans he wasn’t castro


----------



## spudmunkey

If Biden does win all three states he's leading, AND turns Pennsylvania, he's at 265 or 266 (counted twice, got two different numbers...not bothered enough to count again)...which is still shy of the necessary 270.

Biden is currently leading the national popular vote by ~1.6million.


----------



## USMarine75

TX, OH, and FL? That's tough to overcome.


----------



## AxRookie

Biden pulls ahead in Wisconsin...

And he's gained ground in Georgia and North Carolina to within 1 or 2 points...

And now Biden Will Win 1 Electoral Vote In Nebraska which is the very place Trump left all those people stranded in the freezing cold! lol, That's fitting!


----------



## zappatton2

So I'm waking up to a tight race, and just gonna spill my rambling thoughts at the moment.

If a nation has a leader that locks up children, courts white supremacists, trafficks in destructive conspiracy theories, takes zero steps to deal with a deadly pandemic that lets 200,000 citizens die, villainizes expertise whilst lauding worship of (his) authority, openly encourages continued police brutality of the Black and Hispanic communities and anti-constitutional tactics against legitimate protesters, and actively encourages his brownshirt thugs to "stand by" and take the violent action he's already primed them for, if a leader can do all these things and so, so much more, without a trace of adult dignity, self-awareness, intelligence or basic human empathy, and still stand a really good chance of winning an election, perhaps that nation is already lost.

I'm grieving for both your country as a whole, and the popular majority of good, rational Americans who reject this monstrous, dystopic regime, but may have to be subject to it nonetheless. I would encourage you to move to Canada, but I'm not sure taking sane Americans out of the States and letting it sink into rogue nation status is a good strategy either. Fuck. Just... fuck.


----------



## budda

Canada is just under less scrutiny for our horrific oppression, racism and genocide.


----------



## zappatton2

budda said:


> Canada is just under less scrutiny for our horrific oppression, racism and genocide.


This is true, but at the _very _least, we don't have a government that doubles down on it. I think under the current administration, there is an earnest attempt to address and rectify our systemic shortcomings, and though actual progress on this front is painfully slow, that is at least worth something.


----------



## bostjan

broj15 said:


> Didn't someone once say something about counting your eggs before ya break em or something like that? Oh yeah I think it might've been me & several others a few pages back when we said blind confidence would be our fuckening lol. And some of y'all really believed in the blue wave. You didn't know a soul that wasn't voting for Biden because (gasp) you don't associate with/turn a blind eye to ppl outside the echo chamber.



Naw, a bunch of us were saying that every few pages, then others would slap back with arguments about the popular vote.

It could still change, but, in Michigan, 84% reporting and Trump has a stronger lead than 2016. Pennsylvania is likely not going to count all the mailed ballots, and Trump already declaring victory.


----------



## USMarine75

But... how can you all be mad when you also have this today:



tl:dr Townsend/Hoglan 2020


----------



## Andromalia

bostjan said:


> Pennsylvania is likely not going to count all the mailed ballots



Seriously, the elections were better organised in Ivory Coast than in the USA...


----------



## AxRookie

bostjan said:


> in Michigan, 84% reporting and Trump has a stronger lead than 2016


Not anymore! 49.3% to 49.1% with 90% reporting and Biden is the one moving upwards...


----------



## sleewell

they called AZ for biden so he is at 238.

If he gets NV, WI and MI that would be 270 even without PA. 


lots of the areas still being counted are cities and urban areas where more votes would be for biden. 

sucks about the senate though.


----------



## TedEH

budda said:


> Canada is just under less scrutiny for our horrific oppression, racism and genocide.


Nobody has ever claimed Canada is perfect - comments like this are a diversion from the fact that Trump is a trainwreck and _people are still voting for him_. Sure, we have our own problems, but we don't have a Trump. Trump is next-level stupidity. Seeing that so many people are still in support of this is a huge "lost faith in humanity" moment, IMO.


----------



## Randy

Shut off my phone and went to bed at 11p, glad I didn't miss anything.

I guess if Biden wins enough of these midwestern states and takes the whole thing it was worth it, but overall, this crossover appeal shit was a waste. This map looks too much like 2016 for my liking, with a handful of exceptions. Republican and right leaning Independents are too hardened, and "undecided" centrists vote on the stupidest of qualifiers, so you can't taylor a campaign toward them.


----------



## Kaura

TedEH said:


> Nobody has ever claimed Canada is perfect - comments like this are a diversion from the fact that Trump is a trainwreck and _people are still voting for him_. Sure, we have our own problems, but we don't have a Trump. Trump is next-level stupidity. Seeing that so many people are still in support of this is a huge "lost faith in humanity" moment, IMO.



You guys have Trudeau, though. Even bigger clown than Trump.


----------



## TedEH

I really hope that's sarcasm. I'm no fan of Trudeau in particular, but he's just run-of-the-mill-political-bs kind of bs. He's not let-people-die-during-a-pandemic-over-identity-politics kind of bs.


----------



## Humbuck

Michigan just turned blue.


----------



## AxRookie

Biden takes the lead in Michigan!!! 94% reporting!!!


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Shut off my phone and went to bed at 11p, glad I didn't miss anything.
> 
> I guess if Biden wins enough of these midwestern states and takes the whole thing it was worth it, but overall, this crossover appeal shit was a waste. This map looks too much like 2016 for my liking, with a handful of exceptions. Republican and right leaning Independents are too hardened, and "undecided" centrists vote on the stupidest of qualifiers, so you can't taylor a campaign toward them.


I genuinely wonder if the results would be the same if instead of asking people to pick a president you asked them to define socialism and what a "good" economy is.


----------



## AxRookie

Michigan 49.3% to 49.1% with 94% reporting Biden pulls ahead!!! And Wisconsin Biden has pulled ahead by 49.6% to 48.9 with 95% reporting!!! AND BIDEN IS SLOWLY PULLING AWAY IN BOTH!!! If it holds that's 270 EV!!!

DON'T STOP BELIEVING!!!


----------



## AxRookie

We should listen to trump and stop counting and take the WIN!!!


----------



## Chokey Chicken

He's at 238. MI and WI would give him 26. NV is real early in voting and only off by 8k votes with only 67% reporting. If it was all called now he'd have the bare minimum numbers. Mayhaps it's the pessimist in me, but I'm still very worried.


----------



## AxRookie

Chokey Chicken said:


> He's at 238. MI and WI would give him 26. NV is real early in voting and only off by 8k votes with only 67% reporting. If it was all called now he'd have the bare minimum numbers. Mayhaps it's the pessimist in me, but I'm still very worried.


But Biden has the momentum in all three states and he is very slowly pulling away in all three!

Plus Biden is inching closer in NC with 94% reporting and PA is only at 67% reporting with momentum there as well...

We still have to wait and see, No jinks...


----------



## Chokey Chicken

I get that, but especially Nevada worries me. Biden needs it to end as it is. There's literally zero wiggle room. Fortunately Nevada seems to lean more left and even took Clinton in 2016.

I wish I was even just cautiously optimistic, but I've just got knots in my stomach.


----------



## nightflameauto

Looking at the maps this morning is a depressing reminder of where we are as a country. The only two possibilities that exist in my mind is we have some extremely under-educated voters, or people really, truly seem to believe systemic racism is good, science denial is good, ripping children from their parents and then sending the back to a country they didn't come from after months in cages is good, and fighting experts and ignoring reality is good.

My wife and her siblings were texting like mad last night and suddenly she blew a massive cog and started screaming and carrying on. Apparently they all voted for Trump because they truly and honestly believe that Biden is dangerous and would destroy what's left of us. How anyone paying attention to the previous four years can believe Biden was the dangerous one is beyond me at this point. I do know their dad is an ardent Fox News and Facebook Republican slanted newsfeed person, and they tend to listen to him without researching themselves, but still. It's impossible to not see Trump's deluded rants on TV five times a day. It's impossible to miss how horribly he's bungled this pandemic. Nobody can point to him and say, with pride, "He's doing a good job."

Even if Biden wins, this is going to be a super shitty next four years with Mitch McConnel still in place. That dude is pure obstruction to progress in sorta vaguely human form.

And no matter the presidential outcome, we've still got basically half the country that support the current abomination in the white house. It's just fucking depressing, and I can't understand anyone being excited right now looking at the results. It's looking close enough it's going to turn into a slugfest in court. It's gonna make 2000 look like a toddler fight.


----------



## possumkiller

AxRookie said:


> But Biden has the momentum in all three states and he is very slowly pulling away in all three!
> 
> Plus Biden is inching closer in NC with 94% reporting and PA is only at 67% reporting with momentum there as well...


Momentum? Is that something that is measurable and actually exists? Until he wins, he has nothing. And the fact that it is nowhere near the landslide everyone thought it would be says half of america are racist, fascist, homophobic morons with no sense of decency. That's still a pretty disgusting problem.


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> Momentum? Is that something that is measurable and actually exists? Until he wins, he has nothing. And the fact that it is nowhere near the landslide everyone thought it would be says half of america are racist, fascist, homophobic morons with no sense of decency. That's still a pretty disgusting problem.


They are down to mail-in ballots and those favor Biden... I'm just saying... And praying!


----------



## MFB

If WI/MI/NV don't all go Biden, there's no way he can win. Pennsylvania is in favor of Trump, and there's no way in hell that NC/GA are going for Biden unless the remaining 6% are a big, blue wave.


----------



## AxRookie

*


Joe Biden
Democratic Party*
238

50.1%

69,545,791

*



Donald Trump
Republican Party*
213

48.3%

67,039,309


----------



## AxRookie

MFB said:


> If WI/MI/NV don't all go Biden, there's no way he can win. Pennsylvania is in favor of Trump, and there's no way in hell that NC/GA are going for Biden unless the remaining 6% are a big, blue wave.


Pennsylvania is only 64% reporting and Biden is slowly inching his way closer, it could be days before we know what happens there as they are counting mail-in ballots there... and at 94% reporting in NC Biden is climbing there too as they count mail-in ballots there as well, Biden is 1.3% behind and slowly climbing there...

We'll just have to wait and see???


----------



## sleewell

PA was expected to look like this and it doesn't mean trump will win there. the votes still being counted are mail in votes and votes from urban areas which across the country widely went to biden.

Same in MI. the remaining uncounted votes are mainly from wayne county which is Detroit, not exactly trump country.


I agree with @nightflameauto. its really depressing so many people have no idea what is going on and just trust whatever trump says. i am not sure how you look back on the last 4 years and say he kept his promises and did a good job. did biden spend too much time attacking trump and not enough on his own message? was it even possible to reach those people? if the dems performed this way against some of the worst gop leadership ever it really says a lot about how badly they did imo.


----------



## Randy

Allotment of electoral votes is fucked, but Trump's people know how to put together a map winning in the margins.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> PA was expected to look like this and it doesn't mean trump will win there. the votes still being counted are mail in votes and votes from urban areas which across the country widely went to biden.
> 
> Same in MI. the remaining uncounted votes are mainly from wayne county which is Detroit, not exactly trump country.
> 
> 
> I agree with @nightflameauto. its really depressing so many people have no idea what is going on and just trust whatever trump says. i am not sure how you look back on the last 4 years and say he kept his promises and did a good job. did biden spend too much time attacking trump and not enough on his own message? was it even possible to reach those people? if the dems performed this way against some of the worst gop leadership ever it really says a lot about how badly they did imo.


Well, the fact is it doesn't matter what Rump says or thinks or what his supporters believe...


----------



## mbardu

AxRookie said:


> Well, the fact is it doesn't matter what Rump says or thinks or what his supporters believe...



It will kinda matter when they come shoot Biden or his supporters in the face.


----------



## Randy

Can't live in fear of bullies. The only thing that makes them bullies is attacking people that have done nothing to them. That doesn't preclude said supporters from hitting back.


----------



## possumkiller

I think the worst case scenario is a civil war erupts and the trumpers somehow manage to win. The best case scenario is the civil war breaks out and the trumpers get slaughtered with the rest sent to guantanamo. The reintegration live and let live shit following the last civil war obviously did not work.


----------



## sleewell

Biden just increased his lead in MI with only a 1% increase of the total votes reported. I suspect the same will happen in PA once they start processing the mail in votes. Same in NV, it sounds like las vegas is the main source of remaining uncounted votes.


----------



## budda

zappatton2 said:


> This is true, but at the _very _least, we don't have a government that doubles down on it. I think under the current administration, there is an earnest attempt to address and rectify our systemic shortcomings, and though actual progress on this front is painfully slow, that is at least worth something.



Theres communities with 10+ years on boiled water advisories. Treaty rights are ignored.

Our govt doubles down all the time.


----------



## ArtDecade

sleewell said:


> Biden just increased his lead in MI with only a 1% increase of the total votes reported. *I suspect the same will happen in PA *once they start processing the mail in votes. Same in NV, it sounds like las vegas is the main source of remaining uncounted votes.



Trump is up by 600k, but the 1m+ votes that need to be counted are from Philly and the surrounding burbs, plus some from Pitt. I would guess that a strong 70%+ of those are Biden votes, so that should put him well out front of Trump when it is all counted.


----------



## Sumsar

With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider why some votes count more than others? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?

Or maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> Well, the fact is it doesn't matter what Rump says or thinks or what his supporters believe...


You can say that, but just having nearly half the country support Trump is a meaningful and alarming truth. And it's not like we haven't already seen proof that some of those people are willing to go to violent extremes to express their displeasure with those that disagree with them.

I miss the days when it felt like the possibility of a civil war was somewhere way out in the future. Right now it feels like it could happen at any moment.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Can't live in fear of bullies. The only thing that makes them bullies is attacking people that have done nothing to them. That doesn't preclude said supporters from hitting back.


When I was VERY young I used to go out of my way to avoid the neighborhood bully and then I started to learn how to defend myself and it turns out I was good at it, shortly after, while walking at the park with a friend who also learned with me how to defend himself, we ran into that very bully "Rodney Shanks" who said to me "so you think you're a tough guy now" to which I said "let's find out, bring it" and my friend said "yeah let's see, I won't lift a finger to help my friend" and of course he backed down and after that, he was the one going out of his way to avoid ME!


----------



## sleewell

Sumsar said:


> With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider why some votes count more than others? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?
> 
> Or maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.




we have the electoral college bc if we removed it the gop would never win again and they control the senate so they have no motivation to make the change. 

its a dumb and outdated system that should be tossed.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> You can say that, but just having nearly half the country support Trump is a meaningful and alarming truth. And it's not like we haven't already seen proof that some of those people are willing to go to violent extremes to express their displeasure with those that disagree with them.
> 
> I miss the days when it felt like the possibility of a civil war was somewhere way out in the future. Right now it feels like it could happen at any moment.


Maybe so BUT no matter what they do they won't stop Democracy and the votes will be COUNTED!!! We will not be intimidated!!!

Biden is still slowly pulling away in WI and MI with 95% and 96% reported as the mail-in ballots are being counted!!!


----------



## tedtan

Sumsar said:


> With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider why some votes count more than others? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?
> 
> Or maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.



The electoral college was put in place back in the 1700's to help prevent the uneducated rural voters from electing people who would be bad for the country. In theory, the electoral college would see the issues with the candidate and ignore the people's vote and vote for the better candidate.

Unfortunately, it is working the exact opposite way lately.


----------



## budda

sleewell said:


> we have the electoral college bc if we removed it the gop would never win again and they control the senate so they have no motivation to make the change.
> 
> its a dumb and outdated system that should be tossed.



Reminds me of our first past the post system, which needs to be scrapped.

Hold onto your butts, everyone.


----------



## mbardu

Sumsar said:


> With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider *why some votes count more than others*? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?



Oh boy, should we tell him about the senate?


----------



## Boofchuck

Sumsar said:


> Maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.


I wanted to make a sarcastic joke about how "awful" socialism is but I can't bring my self to do it. As a U.S. citizen, I'm sick of how our entire society has been conditioned to believe that we can't afford to take care of our citizens. That's literally the only damn reason government should exist.
Paternal leave is non-existent, employers keep people below full time so they don't have to provide benefits, the federal minimum wage is not enough to meet the cost of living anywhere in the country, paid time off/vacations /savings are increasingly rare. We're worked into the ground and our basic needs still aren't met. Greatest Country in the World at all the wrong things.

I understand politicians with no dignity accepting corporate money and fucking over their constituents. It's spineless, but it doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is how many people have completely fallen for the bullshit and are actively fucking themselves and everyone around them because they've been deceived into believing that we're not all in this together.


----------



## StevenC

Sumsar said:


> With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider why some votes count more than others? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?
> 
> Or maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.


The electoral college exists because the United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic the people do not vote directly on issues, but have representatives. The electoral college is the representation for the public in choosing the president.

All that is to say: no reason.


----------



## USMarine75

Sumsar said:


> With the 69 mill votes for Biden and 67 mill for Trump, can someone please explain me why you still have that electorial college thing instead of a direct vote? Seems strange and very undemocratic to an outsider why some votes count more than others? As far as I remember both Al Gore and Hillary actually won their elections right? In terms of people that voted on them?
> 
> Or maybe I just don't have enough FREEDOOOOOM! in my life to understand these things, since I live in Denmark which is apparently a very bad socialist nightmare.



We have the oldest (codified) active constitution. There's a reason Thomas Jefferson said it needed to be edited every 19 years.


----------



## Sumsar

sleewell said:


> we have the electoral college bc if we removed it the gop would never win again and they control the senate so they have no motivation to make the change.
> 
> its a dumb and outdated system that should be tossed.



But then wouldn't it be the first thing on the list to change once the dems have majority in both chambers, congress or whatever it is called? Or is it only the gop that has that once in a while? Or do you need like 2/3's of the vote to change the voting system because it is something constitutional?



tedtan said:


> The electoral college was put in place back in the 1700's to help prevent the uneducated rural voters from electing people who would be bad for the country. In theory, the electoral college would see the issues with the candidate and ignore the people's vote and vote for the better candidate.
> 
> Unfortunately, it is working the exact opposite way lately.



Yeah we had a similar thing back in the day, with the change coming in 1901 where we went from the king appointing the goverment (consisting of people elected by popular vote) to the goverment being directly negotiated between the members of parliament, coming from multiple parties. The reason was that the king would not appoint the leader of the farmers party to lead the country since he saw them as uneducated peasants and would rather appoint the conversatives to lead the country even if they did not have the majority of the parliament.

The old farmers party is these days seen as a right wing party in danish politics and usually go into goverment along with the conservative party when those two have the majority, which is fun to think of in hindsigt. And yes our goverments usually consist of members of several parties, with the prime minister usually being the leader of the greater party and then the foreign minister and vice-PM being the leader of the other party. 

I often think of USA as being 1 party away from being a 1 party nation like China, so in that sense you are not so different 



mbardu said:


> Oh boy, should we tell him about the senate?



What the members of senate don't count equally when they vote on stuff?


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> we have the electoral college bc if we removed it the gop would never win again and they control the senate so they have no motivation to make the change.
> 
> its a dumb and outdated system that should be tossed.



That's why Puerto Rico and DC getting statehood should be top priority.


----------



## failsafe

possumkiller said:


> I think the worst case scenario is a civil war erupts and the trumpers somehow manage to win. The best case scenario is the civil war breaks out and the trumpers get slaughtered with the rest sent to guantanamo. The reintegration live and let live shit following the last civil war obviously did not work.


Damn dude...


----------



## mbardu

Sumsar said:


> But then wouldn't it be the first thing on the list to change once the dems have majority in both chambers, congress or whatever it is called? Or is it only the gop that has that once in a while? Or do you need like 2/3's of the vote to change the voting system because it is something constitutional?



Some constitutional changes indeed require 2/3 of the votes, and as mentioned above with the senate remark, that's not going to happen. The senate disproportionately favors Republicans (and it's not even close), and they have obviously no intention of allowing that to change.


----------



## StevenC

Sumsar said:


> But then wouldn't it be the first thing on the list to change once the dems have majority in both chambers, congress or whatever it is called? Or is it only the gop that has that once in a while? Or do you need like 2/3's of the vote to change the voting system because it is something constitutional?


Yes, but this is incredibly difficult. The best way to fix the electoral college is to give Puerto Rico and DC statehood as has been mentioned. It requires bipartisan support to abolish the electoral college and it probably requires an amendment (which may never happen again in the USA unless there is a new constitution).

The only route to defeating the electoral college is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This is an agreement among states to award their electoral college votes to whoever wins the national vote and will come into effect after enough states agree to it that they would always have 270 votes (or whoever many was required at that time).

States are allowed to allocate electoral college votes by whatever means they decide. Most states allocate them based on the state's own popular vote and give them all ie win California, get 55 votes. Nebraska and Maine give votes proportional to the number of votes each candidate gets in the state's own popular vote ie Nebraska is giving 4 to Trump and 1 to Biden. 

Hypothetically, the states can decide on whatever method they want to allocate the votes. As far as I'm aware, assuming it's in their state constitution, the governor of each state could just pick who to give the votes to if they felt so inclined. But that means that states can agree to something like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which once it comes into effect will pick the president every time based on the national vote.

The problem is it's only got support from 196 votes and is pending in another 60. But it's a tricky route to 270 from here.


----------



## mbardu

Sumsar said:


> What the members of senate don't count equally when they vote on stuff?



The senator's votes all count equally, but the tiniest least populated Republican states have the same representation in the senate as huge democrat states (2 senators). So your voice doesn't really count in terms of senate representation if you live in CA or NY (vs someone in WY).


----------



## USMarine75

Well, the idea was to reinforce State's rights. Otherwise, you would have large states like CA deciding everything (note: see Ct Compromise).

Senators were appointed by Governors to represent the will of the States in Congress. That didn't change until the early 1900's when an amendment was passed so that popular vote determined the Senators.

The other reason was that Representatives are ALL elected every 2 years, so they are inclined to bend to the will of the people. Versus Senators that were appointed every 6 years and would be more resilient (i.e. conservative, not bowing to popularism).

tl;dr Reps = represents the people; Senators = represents the state


----------



## AxRookie

In Pennsylvania Rumps lead has shrunk from 600,000 votes to 400,000 votes and the reporting is still only at 64%...

While at the same time Bidens lead in Michigan is still continuing to grow larger with still only 96% reporting...


----------



## sleewell

WI up to 99% reporting. 

crybaby trump wants a recount. boo hoo.


----------



## Louis Cypher

From reading the last few pages of posts on the Electoral College and Senate and thinking on the UKs Electoral system, its pretty obvious that neither democracy, and others around the world are fit for purpose when a populist/single issue government or president is voted in to power. They way the Senate and Electoral College is set up to benefit the Republicans and our system favours the Tories is never gonna change. I wish it would but it needs such a seismic shift in political will....


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> WI up to 99% reporting.
> 
> crybaby trump wants a recount. boo hoo.


It shows it at 95% still???


----------



## StevenC

Louis Cypher said:


> From reading the last few pages of posts on the Electoral College and Senate and thinking on the UKs Electoral system, its pretty obvious that neither democracy, and others around the world are fit for purpose when a populist/single issue government or president is voted in to power. They way the Senate and Electoral College is set up to benefit the Republicans and our system favours the Tories is never gonna change


We need to randomly select people from the population every few years and let them figure it out.


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> We need to randomly select people from the population every few years and let them figure it out.



Either that, or start distributing swords from lakes.


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> WI up to 99% reporting.
> 
> crybaby trump wants a recount. boo hoo.



Expected, and it's within his rights. Margin is within 1%, so a recount is offered by the state's election rules.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> WI up to 99% reporting.
> 
> crybaby trump wants a recount. boo hoo.



I think he only gets an automatic recount (if he requests) if it stays within 1%?


----------



## Ralyks

Put me in the camp of “even if Biden wins, I’m so disillusions that so many people are ok with things the way they are.”


----------



## possumkiller

StevenC said:


> We need to randomly select people from the population every few years and let them figure it out.


It should be like jury duty. Term limits for everyone. No private money allowed in politics at all. Everyone gets the same amount of campaign funds from our taxes. Corruption should be an automatic death penalty. Instead of making it a profitable lifelong business venture, make it something nobody wants to fucking do unless they really care enough about actually bettering the country that they would put their life on the line.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> It should be like jury duty. Term limits for everyone. No private money allowed in politics at all. Everyone gets the same amount of campaign funds from our taxes. Corruption should be an automatic death penalty. Instead of making it a profitable lifelong business venture, make it something nobody wants to fucking do unless they really care enough about actually bettering the country that they would put their life on the line.



Many of the Founding Fathers were for these things. Political life was never meant to be a career... it was meant to be like enlisting to fight a war (or Jury Dury)... you served your country and then went back to your life.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Ralyks said:


> Put me in the camp of “even if Biden wins, I’m so disillusions that so many people are ok with things the way they are.”


That seems to be the most baffling bit from a non US point of view, that after 4 years of seeing what a Trump Presidency has done half the country is happy with it?! News reported here that the states hit hardest by covid with the highest death tolls have all votes Trump, makes no sense, but common sense is the stupidest thing to try and apply to Trump

Having said that, UK can hardly judge, Brexit n all Hahaha


----------



## USMarine75

Louis Cypher said:


> That seems to be the most baffling bit from a non US point of view, that after 4 years of seeing what a Trump Presidency has done half the country is happy with it?! News reported here that the states hit hardest by covid with the highest death tolls have all votes Trump, makes no sense, but common sense is the stupidest thing to try and apply to Trump



A gov't friend of mine once said over a beer that Americans uniquely vote against their best interests. Poor white folks in Alabama vote Republican, hate entitlements (e.g. welfare, free tuition), vote for handouts and lower taxes for the rich, etc. Meanwhile, richer college-educated Dems vote for higher taxes that hurt them (the ~$200k+ tax bracket) and entitlements they don't qualify for (i.e. being taxed for services you cant use).

There was a great documentary done by Pelosi's daughter where she interviewed a resident from Mississippi (IIRC) who wanted to secede. He was anti welfare and handouts. She asks him what he does for work and he says unemployed and on welfare. She then explains that Mississippi couldn't secede because it's a welfare state.


----------



## Louis Cypher

To add to my disbelief above, even tho he is trailing Biden in the popular vote Trump has actually far surpassed the popular vote count he got in 2016! Just amazing and depressing all at the same time!


----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


> Expected, and it's within his rights. Margin is within 1%, so a recount is offered by the state's election rules.


You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause Florida threw a sword at you.


----------



## budda

Worth checking out bree newsome bass' tweets today.


----------



## USMarine75

Louis Cypher said:


> To add to my disbelief above, even tho he is trailing Biden in the popular vote Trump has actually far surpassed the popular vote count he got in 2016! Just amazing and depressing all at the same time!



Right, if nothing else it's a repudiation of all things Dem and a reinforcement of all things Trump. If Trump somehow pulled this off he should double down on everything he did in his first term. But hopefully the numbers hold and Biden pulls this off with 270.


----------



## StevenC

Louis Cypher said:


> Having said that, UK can hardly judge, Brexit n all Hahaha


I'm a firm believer that everybody gets one when it comes to Russian collusion. We both had ours in 2016, anything after that is on you.


----------



## Ralyks

Joe just got Wisconsin


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> It shows it at 95% still???



The map I'm looking at shows WI called for Biden. One step closer to better things.


----------



## diagrammatiks

already saying they will demand a recount.

the senate was a slaughter. 

jeez. 4 years of nothing getting done even if Biden wins.


----------



## Sumsar

possumkiller said:


> It should be like jury duty. Term limits for everyone. No private money allowed in politics at all. Everyone gets the same amount of campaign funds from our taxes. Corruption should be an automatic death penalty. Instead of making it a profitable lifelong business venture, make it something nobody wants to fucking do unless they really care enough about actually bettering the country that they would put their life on the line.



In Denmark most of our shitty politicians (yes they are also shit, pretty much like yours) are also politicians for life and have never worked in the real world, making one wonder how they can act in the interest of people of whom they don't relate to.
We do have a campaing funds for every party, big or small from taxes to try and keep money out of it. Though you can still donate through policital found rasing organizations which suck. Obviously all the right wing parties get the most money, while the left wing parties are supported by various worker unions, but still they have less money to campaign for.. I fail to see how this is not a corrupt system.

There is one party, which by all US standards would be deemed communist, in fact it is a merger of several smaller parties, including the communist party from 30 years ago. That party has a rule that you donate most of your MP salery to the party (called a party tax), which uses is for campaign funding. The MPs are then left with the equivalent amount to the average income in the country. They also have a rule that you can only run for parliament (with support from the party) for 8 years, after that you have to go out into the real world for at least 4 years before you can be voted in as an MP again.
Like communist or not, I think their way of doing it is the way it should be done for all politicians in all countries.

Another downside of your 'majority of votes get all the seats / reps' is that it is almost impossible for new small parties to get into congress. In Denmark we have about 10 parties (they come and go all the time, so I don't have the exact count) with the only rule being that you must get 2% of the total votes to get into parliament, to prevent each member representing their own party. Thus no party ever have the 50% majority, so any law that is passed is always a compromise between at least 3 parties and usually more, and they seem to get a lot more laws passed than you do, because they are not locked into a 2 party system.

Not saying our version is perfect and it probably wouldn't work the same on a scale such as the US, but just for inspiration and reflection.


----------



## spudmunkey

AP has "offially" given Wisconsin to Biden.


----------



## Xaios

Nevada still makes me kinda nervous. It's been several hours since their tally updated, and it's still much too close for comfort.


----------



## nightflameauto

diagrammatiks said:


> already saying they will demand a recount.
> 
> the senate was a slaughter.
> 
> jeez. 4 years of nothing getting done even if Biden wins.


Getting nothing done would be a nice break from the constant stream of bullshit we've watched over the last four years.

Too bad the rhetoric during the next four years if Biden wins will be heartbreakingly horrible.


----------



## musicaldeath

Good luck, America! It is entirely baffling to me to see that so many people still voted for Trump. I work closely with people in Houston and they were very pro-Trump in 2016 but are now all pro-Biden, if only to get rid of Trump. It's funny (in a sick way) to listen to them talk now vs in 2016 when there was no way in hell they would ever vote for the Democrats.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Lot of talk here in the UK today as to why its so close rather than a landslide for Biden has been that Biden just doesnt have that bit of magic or star charisma that someone up against Trump really needed to bring more over to the Democrats side. Is that fair? Would that have worked, would it have been so close if it was someone like Obama or Clinton?


----------



## gunch

nightflameauto said:


> Getting nothing done would be a nice break from the constant stream of bullshit we've watched over the last four years.
> 
> Too bad the rhetoric during the next four years if Biden wins will be heartbreakingly horrible.



You know how stoked I am to possibly not have to read “Trump lashes out at (x)” 30 times a day in the headlines?


----------



## Xaios

Louis Cypher said:


> Would that have worked, would it have been so close if it was someone like Obama or Clinton?


I mean, we kinda know the answer. I don't even know if Obama could have beaten Trump as part of Trump's appeal is basically that he's the anti-Obama, a man with no facade of civility and no pretense of still wanting to serve those who disagree with him. That's why he was so effective at energizing the Republican base. As far as Hillary... well, he already beat her once. 

I mean, I guess if Biden can beat him, Obama might have been able to as well.


gunch said:


> You know how stoked I am to possibly not have to read “Trump lashes out at (x)” 30 times a day in the headlines?


I fully expect it to be like Dave Mustaine grousing about Metallica for the rest of his life.


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> Poor white folks in Alabama vote Republican, hate entitlements (e.g. welfare, free tuition), vote for handouts and lower taxes for the rich, etc. Meanwhile, richer college-educated Dems vote for higher taxes that hurt them (the ~$200k+ tax bracket) and entitlements they don't qualify for (i.e. being taxed for services you cant use).



The former is hoping to one day be rich and take advantage of others, while the latter is caring for others and the greater good even if you don't benefit from it personally.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is literally the capacity for empathy, and Trump is living proof of that.


----------



## Vyn

At least now those of us considering a move to the States in the future know where not to live now...


----------



## mbardu

Vyn said:


> View attachment 86765
> At least now those of us considering a move to the States in the future know where not to live now...



I mean, that's hardly news...has been the same map for a long time.
Also for some reason, just happens to match a bunch of other interesting metrics such as education level, income, GDP per capita etc etc


----------



## sleewell

MI up to 99%. looks like a win for Biden. PA got much closer too with a lot more votes still coming in.


----------



## Demiurge

Louis Cypher said:


> Lot of talk here in the UK today as to why its so close rather than a landslide for Biden has been that Biden just doesnt have that bit of magic or star charisma that someone up against Trump really needed to bring more over to the Democrats side. Is that fair? Would that have worked, would it have been so close if it was someone like Obama or Clinton?



That might be a fair assessment. It seems like a desirable VP is somewhat of a moderate, non-obtrusive character where a president needs to have that "star charisma," for better or for worse. VP's like the rhythm guitarist where the president is the classic frontman, if that makes sense. Biden, I guess the question is if he's frontman material.


----------



## possumkiller

Demiurge said:


> That might be a fair assessment. It seems like a desirable VP is somewhat of a moderate, non-obtrusive character where a president needs to have that "star charisma," for better or for worse. VP's like the rhythm guitarist where the president is the classic frontman, if that makes sense. Biden, I guess the question is if he's frontman material.


But what if the rhythm guitarist is the frontman?


----------



## musicaldeath

possumkiller said:


> But what if the rhythm guitarist is the frontman?



James Hetfield for President? Cause, in the metal world at least, you already sorta have Mustaine... (no hate, just memes...)


----------



## Demiurge

possumkiller said:


> But what if the rhythm guitarist is the frontman?



Yeah, I was thinking more of jumping-around, leg-kicking frontman. Bad analogy on my part.


----------



## StevenC

musicaldeath said:


> James Hetfield for President? Cause, in the metal world at least, you already sorta have Mustaine... (no hate, just memes...)


Running on a platform of speed and odd time signatures, I definitely would have voted for James Hetfield in 1988. But I don't think I would support his reelection bid 4 years later.


----------



## NotDonVito

USMarine75 said:


> Poor white folks in Alabama vote Republican, hate entitlements (e.g. welfare, free tuition), vote for handouts and lower taxes for the rich, etc. Meanwhile, richer college-educated Dems vote for higher taxes that hurt them (the ~$200k+ tax bracket) and entitlements they don't qualify for (i.e. being taxed for services you cant use).


Rich democrats in Alabama? That’s news to me


----------



## Necris

Louis Cypher said:


> Lot of talk here in the UK today as to why its so close rather than a landslide for Biden has been that Biden just doesnt have that bit of magic or star charisma that someone up against Trump really needed to bring more over to the Democrats side. Is that fair? Would that have worked, would it have been so close if it was someone like Obama or Clinton?


So I can only speak for my own experiences but when Biden first announced his run my own assessment of him was that his primary asset was probably his ability to garner votes through sheer name recognition, I didn't want him if I didn't have to have him and I still kind of feel that way.
I voted for him, to be clear, but I don't know anyone within my small circle of friends who was genuinely excited about the prospect of a Biden candidacy or presidency so much as they were desperate to see the end of the Trump presidency and hoping to slow our country's apparent trajectory towards open fascism. Even with that looming threat I still know people who, in the end, couldn't get past Biden's record as a politician or questions of his character, especially not after holding their noses and voting for Clinton in 2016 with nothing to show for it.

It's difficult to say "he's just not exciting to voters" in the face of a nearly certain popular vote win, but from what I've seen he genuinely wasn't, to most people I spoke with he basically represents the establishment and the status quo rather than any material improvement; "nothing will fundamentally change" as he said, and in light of that it feels like the Democrats were banking on enough people looking back longingly to the Obama years to carry them over the line when election day rolled around.
We still don't know if that was a good bet to have made.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> I fully expect it to be like Dave Mustaine grousing about Metallica for the rest of his life.


With the added benefit of Mitch McConnel and the regurgitating heads on the right constantly propping him up until they find their next all-in cult of personality leader.


----------



## sleewell

NBC calls MI for biden.

bunch of trump cult members trying to bum rush a vote counting building in Detroit to stop them from counting votes. that's where we are right now. morons who don't want votes counted. they want a dictator.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Necris said:


> So I can only speak for my own experiences but when Biden first announced his run my own assessment of him was that his primary asset was probably his ability to garner votes through sheer name recognition, I didn't want him if I didn't have to have him and I still kind of feel that way.
> I voted for him, to be clear, but I don't know anyone within my small circle of friends who was genuinely excited about the prospect of a Biden candidacy or presidency so much as they were desperate to see the end of the Trump presidency and hoping to slow our country's apparent trajectory towards open fascism. Even with that looming threat I still know people who, in the end, couldn't get past Biden's record as a politician or questions of his character, especially not after holding their noses and voting for Clinton in 2016 with nothing to show for it.
> 
> It's difficult to say "he's just not exciting to voters" in the face of a nearly certain popular vote win, but from what I've seen he genuinely wasn't, to most people I spoke with he basically represents the establishment and the status quo rather than any material improvement; "nothing will fundamentally change" as he said, and in light of that it feels like the Democrats were banking on enough people looking back longingly to the Obama years to carry them over the line when election day rolled around.
> We still don't know if that was a good bet to have made.


I think that seems to have been the Democrats over arching play was vote for Joe because he's not Trump. Guess like 2016 to a certain extent the policies don't matter its more about voting based on who you don't want rather than in who has thr best policies that directly affect you. Def agree that Biden being seen as an establishment figure works against him in reality.

Edit: If Trump and his supporters behaviour w8th regards to stopping counts was happening in elections in a so called developing country's democracy or as Trump call them, "Sh1tholes", the US and everywhere else would be up in arms. Boris here during PM questions refused to comment on Trumps outrageous comments of fraud, pathetic coz Uk knows Biden is no fan of Brexit and we will struggle with getting a trade deal if he wins.


----------



## xzacx

mbardu said:


> The former is hoping to one day be rich and take advantage of others, while the latter is caring for others and the greater good even if you don't benefit from it personally.
> 
> The difference between Republicans and Democrats is literally the capacity for empathy, and Trump is living proof of that.



Very well put. The latter recognizes that taking care of those less fortunate is in the best interest of society as a whole, and their own long-term best interest.


----------



## Randy

https://twitter.com/hollandcourtney/status/1324096750802513922

I love the desperation. Might switch over to the more expensive booze from here on out.


----------



## Necris

sleewell said:


> NBC calls MI for biden.
> 
> bunch of trump cult members trying to bum rush a vote counting building in Detroit to stop them from counting votes. that's where we are right now. morons who don't want votes counted. they want a dictator.


https://twitter.com/PattersonNBC/status/1324096855735734279
Video of them banging on the glass. There's other video of them being pushed back trying to get in. 
It's a good illustration of the sway Trump and Fox have, as if we needed any more. The Trump campaign announced they were suing to stop the counts in Michigan and Pennsylvania alleging that they they didn't have enough access to observe the ballot count, Fox repeated the claim and a group quickly amasses outside of a polling place in Detroit trying force their way in to stop the count of votes.


----------



## AxRookie

Necris said:


> https://twitter.com/PattersonNBC/status/1324096855735734279
> Video of them banging on the glass. There's other video of them being pushed back trying to get in.
> It's a good illustration of the sway Trump and Fox have, as if we needed any more. The Trump campaign announced they were suing to stop the counts in Michigan and Pennsylvania alleging that they they didn't have enough access to observe the ballot count, Fox repeated the claim and a group quickly amasses outside of a polling place in Detroit trying force their way in to stop the count of votes.


Democracy won't be bullied!!!


----------



## Randy

If these were Dems, the cops would be tear gassing them already.


----------



## Vyn

So am I reading this correctly that the Dems are likely to have the house however the Republicans have the Senate after this election or is it too close to call?


----------



## Ralyks

Vyn said:


> So am I reading this correctly that the Dems are likely to have the house however the Republicans have the Senate after this election or is it too close to call?



Most likely the former


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> So am I reading this correctly that the Dems are likely to have the house however the Republicans have the Senate after this election or is it too close to call?



That's looking accurate. There might be a couple seats shuffling around still, but Congress is going to come out of this mostly unchanged.


----------



## Xaios

I don't think Pennsylvania is going to flip. At 86% reporting, the difference just seems too large to be overcome. It really will just come down to Nevada.


----------



## Ralyks

Xaios said:


> I don't think Pennsylvania is going to flip. At 86% reporting, the difference just seems too large to be overcome. It really will just come down to Nevada.



I've come to this conclusion too but man, sucks for Joe to lose PA after the whole "Wall Street vs Scranton" thing


----------



## Randy

Fuck Pennsylvania. It's insane he ended up being closer in GA and NC.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> I don't think Pennsylvania is going to flip. At 86% reporting, the difference just seems too large to be overcome. It really will just come down to Nevada.


86% of precincts is not 86% of votes, though, especially if precincts are thinking it might take them 5 times longer to count them.

Actually, looking at the AP numbers, there's an ice cube's chance that any (except DC) could flip, if the uncounted ballots are more numerous from unreported precincts and heavily skewed to one side.

The numbers, as they are now, could potentially mean recounts in a few states. Obviously, before there can be a recount, there has to be a completed count. I think they ought to declare the winner when enough votes are in to eliminate the possibility of everyone winning except the winner. It's never been done that way, but it is crazy that we don't do it like that.

Edit: I've been to PA many times. The hundred or so people I know from there are all anti-Trump. I guess those people must know a lot of pro-Trump people in order to be that way. Anyway, PA will probably go red, but we should let the ballot counters finish their job before we say for sure, IMO. It is possible that 3 out of 4 of those mail in ballots are Biden votes, and Biden could win there. Not super likely, but maybe like a 30%+ chance. High enough not to write it off.

Post edit edit: why have the NC results not changed all day? I checked at 6 AM, and now it's almost 6 PM and the numbers are exactly the same. Are they down to only mail ins? If so, that must be a HUGE number of ballots... or else they are waiting to see who will win and fudge it so they are on the winning team. Lol.

As for Biden's likability... is he likable? I mean, if he ran against someone more like Romney or McCain, would he have had a chance? I don't really like or dislike him. Most important to me was that he isn't Trump.


----------



## AxRookie

Xaios said:


> I don't think Pennsylvania is going to flip. At 86% reporting, the difference just seems too large to be overcome. It really will just come down to Nevada.


It's all coming down to my state! And we are counting mail-in ballots and as we all know mail-in have been 78% for Biden!

What do you know, MY VOTE DID MATTER!!!


----------



## Randy

https://twitter.com/salwangeorges/status/1324101336233889795

"SLUGS FOR SALT! SLUGS FOR SALT!"


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> https://twitter.com/salwangeorges/status/1324101336233889795
> 
> "SLUGS FOR SALT! SLUGS FOR SALT!"



From their perspective, they are protesting votes that are fraudulent. Fraudulent why?

From an outsider's perspective, they are slugs for salt- chanting rhythmically for their own voices to be silenced. I think that these people lack the ability to formulate that perspective, though, so they fail to see the irony.

Edit: I just saw Biden is ahead in the popular vote by over 3 million now. It was 2.4 million when I had checked this morning. If the difference is so great with mail in votes, this could turn out to be quite interesting for Democrats. It's likely going to be a 3.5+ million gap in the popular vote, which would end up being historic (historically ridiculous) if Biden ends up losing the electoral college.


----------



## Andromalia

USMarine75 said:


> A gov't friend of mine once said over a beer that Americans uniquely vote against their best interests. Poor white folks in Alabama vote Republican, hate entitlements (e.g. welfare, free tuition), vote for handouts and lower taxes for the rich, etc. Meanwhile, richer college-educated Dems vote for higher taxes that hurt them (the ~$200k+ tax bracket) and entitlements they don't qualify for (i.e. being taxed for services you cant use).



There is, in my eyes, a quality difference between altruism and masochism.

Tax when you're high income isn't painful, it just means you save less. Your standard of living is unaffected. You could double my taxes, it wouldn't change a thing: I can't drive two cars at once.


----------



## bostjan

Andromalia said:


> There is, in my eyes, a quality difference between altruism and masochism.
> 
> Tax when you're high income isn't painful, it just means you save less. Your standard of living is unaffected. You could double my taxes, it wouldn't change a thing: I can't drive two cars at once.


https://images.app.goo.gl/trUK73pW3XVZYMaQ6


----------



## mbardu

Andromalia said:


> There is, in my eyes, a quality difference between altruism and masochism.
> 
> Tax when you're high income isn't painful, it just means you save less. Your standard of living is unaffected. You could double my taxes, it wouldn't change a thing: I can't drive two cars at once.



Counterpoint: we cannot play two guitars at once and yet...


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> From their perspective, they are protesting votes that are fraudulent. Fraudulent why?
> 
> From an outsider's perspective, they are slugs for salt- chanting rhythmically for their own voices to be silenced. I think that these people lack the ability to formulate that perspective, though, so they fail to see the irony.



Also, hey, Biden is leading so what does stopping help their cause? Its desperation, and their tears happen to have quite the intoxicating quality.


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> Counterpoint: we cannot play two guitars at once and yet...


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> If these were Dems, the cops would be tear gassing them already.



If these were dems _and minorities_, the cops would be tear gassing them _with bullets_.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


>



I obviously meant _we _as in _we_ poor human beings reading this forum.
MAB is obviously on another plane of existence, able to play an uncountable infinity of guitars at once- and the only reason we can _only _perceive two at a time (or sometimes four for the enlightened among us) is because our feeble 4-dimensional minds are too weak to comprehend his true might. He's clearly the Cthulu of shred.


----------



## bostjan

I'm not convinced all of those chanting white people aren't just confused. Maybe they think they are at a Red Wings game?

Cthulhu of Shred needs to be someone's album title.

Since my post 10ish minutes ago, Biden is now up by 3.1 million in the popular vote, according to AP. At this rate, I'm going to feel silly saying only 3.5+ an hour from now.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> Also, hey, Biden is leading *so what does stopping help their cause*? Its desperation, and their tears happen to have quite the intoxicating quality.



They're not really the smartest of the bunch...


----------



## Vyn

AP has called MI for Biden


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Vyn said:


> AP has called MI for Biden


We’re almost there!!!


----------



## mbardu

Vyn said:


> AP has called MI for Biden



What a shame that Joe would go all the way to 264 with a strong lead before losing to Donald in the end :'(


----------



## Vyn

mbardu said:


> What a shame that Joe would go all the way to 264 with a strong lead before losing to Donald in the end :'(



It comes down to this:




Biden only needs one of those 4 to win, Trump needs all 4.


----------



## _MonSTeR_

So basically we’re waiting to see if any of the swing states yet to declare a winner will flip the leader on counting of postal votes.

So from figures at the moment it looks like Nevada holds the key to the presidency?


----------



## mbardu

Vyn said:


> It comes down to this:
> 
> View attachment 86772
> 
> 
> Biden only needs one of those 4 to win, Trump needs all 4.



I know it's 1 win vs 4 wins, but the margin in the "winning" state is paper thin while Trump is comfortable in the others.
I know most of the remaining votes are heavily dem-skewed early mail-ins, but the 'losing' states have higher %age of reports already in, and those are the ones Trump plans to contest if required.


----------



## Vyn

_MonSTeR_ said:


> So basically we’re waiting to see if any of the swing states yet to declare a winner will flip the leader on counting of postal votes.
> 
> So from figures at the moment it looks like Nevada holds the key to the presidency?



Yeah, Nevada looks like the path.



mbardu said:


> I know it's 1 win vs 4 wins, but the margin in the "winning" state is paper thin while Trump is comfortable in the others.
> I know most of the remaining votes are heavily dem-skewed early mail-ins, but they have higher %age of reports already in, and those are the ones Trump plans to contest if required.



If Biden doesn't win Nevada, I think we're in for a whole lot of trouble. At least if Biden wins Nevada, it doesn't matter if Trump trys to screw PA out of postals.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> https://twitter.com/salwangeorges/status/1324101336233889795
> 
> "SLUGS FOR SALT! SLUGS FOR SALT!"


Let them chant nonsense, Democracy will not be stopped or intimidated!!!

The poll workers should chant back, "Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass!!!"


----------



## mbardu

Worst part of all this is that the best case scenario now in American politics will be _at best_ hoping for stretches of 2/4 years at a time of maybe less destruction than usual.
Not much hope for any legal or judicial progress (and high probability of steady societal steps backwards) now that it looks like the Republicans have stolen the Senate and SC for the foreseeable future.


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Counterpoint: we cannot play two guitars at once and yet...


I had to add mine...


----------



## AxRookie

GA has tightened up to 47,000 votes... big change!


----------



## Señor Voorhees

AxRookie said:


> It's all coming down to my state! And we are counting mail-in ballots and as we all know mail-in have been 78% for Biden!
> 
> What do you know, MY VOTE DID MATTER!!!



I don't want to count the eggs before they hatch, but I am becoming cautiously optimistic. All Biden needs is Nevada, like you said, and he's in. If Nevada will vote for Hilary, who was way more scummy, I have cautious faith that they'll vote Biden, a more appealing candidate in my eyes. Fingers crossed, but it's almost looking good. Is this me getting my hopes up before they're dashed to the ground? Maybe, but I'm happy that Trump is at least sweating while trying to tell himself his lies. 

I must say that I'm proud that even though I wasn't able to vote, and I live in NC, that at least my county voted Biden. Not ideal, but I'll take it as a bittersweet victory. Raleigh voted blue. (then again to be fair so did most major cities in Right voting states.)

Come on Nevada, do me proud. I already planned on honeymooning to Vegas when I eventually get married to my fiance.


----------



## AxRookie

AxRookie said:


> Let them chant nonsense, Democracy will not be stopped or intimidated!!!
> 
> The poll workers should chant back, "Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass, Kiss My Ass!!!"


OR better yet chant back "We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop!"


----------



## bostjan

AxRookie said:


> OR better yet chant back "We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop!"


Or better still, just ignore them and keep counting the votes with grace and scrutiny.


----------



## Ralyks

What I'm gathering from Nevada, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like they just need to count ballots that were postmarked for the 3rd. If that's a case, I'd imagine those would be mostly Biden votes, no?
Also, apparently Biden had already outperformed Hillary in key areas, and she won Nevada in 2016.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

As an aside, I think it's kind of impressive that with little to no campaigning or political background and generally jackassery Kanye was able to snag 60k votes.

Even more impressive is even despite that, I've heard that Biden beat the record for most votes for a candidate. (could be wrong there, but people to some degree seem to be listening to the "go out and vote" spiel.)

edit: Also funny is seeing the shoe on the other foot. Last election Dems cried foul. This election, Republicans are crying foul. (for way more zany reasons, mind you.) Even if Biden loses, this tickles me in a million ways.


----------



## mbardu

Señor Voorhees said:


> As an aside, I think it's kind of impressive that with little to no campaigning or political background and generally jackassery Kanye was able to snag 60k votes.
> 
> Even more impressive is even despite that, I've heard that Biden beat the record for most votes for a candidate. (could be wrong there, but people to some degree seem to be listening to the "go out and vote" spiel.)
> 
> edit: Also funny is seeing the shoe on the other foot. Last election Dems _*cried foul*_. This election, Republicans are crying foul. (for way more zany reasons, mind you.) Even if Biden loses, this tickles me in a million ways.



Did anyone serious cry foul on the Dem side? Did Hillary say it was an outrage and the end of democratic presidential elections while refusing to accept the results? Did Dem supporters storm polling places to try and stop the count of legitimate votes? I think it would be fair to nuance shock, awe and disappointment from active destruction of the country  . Not even talking about any reason or the "why", but more about the "what" and "how" of it.


----------



## Vyn

^To add to that - the Dems were upset that Clinton won the popular vote but lost the EC which is fair shout, and completely different to the shit that the Republicans are pulling now.


----------



## Señor Voorhees

mbardu said:


> Did anyone serious cry foul on the Dem side? Did Hillary say it was an outrage and the end of democratic presidential elections while refusing to accept the results? Did Dem supporters storm polling places to try and stop the count of legitimate votes? I think it would be fair to nuance shock, awe and disappointment from active destruction of the country  . Not even talking about any reason or the "why", but more about the "what" and "how" of it.




I mean, you're not wrong. But it's just funny that they laughed at us, and now they're facing a similar situation and they're handling in even worse ways. Basically, it's hypocritical to the extreme for them to be pitching a fit when they got at least one chance (through luck,) squandered it, and are now pitching a fit that it's going a similar popular-vote-way but not in their favor (at this moment.) It just makes me laugh at how people love the system when it works for them, and shun it when it doesn't. I'll be tickled pink if Trump loses, just so I can see him throw a bunch of futile fits.

I am scared at what his supporters will do, however, and nothing about them is funny.


----------



## AxRookie

bostjan said:


> Or better still, just ignore them and keep counting the votes with grace and scrutiny.


Of course, that is what is happening and will continue to happen...


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> OR better yet chant back "We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop! We Won't Stop!"



Just crank Queen's "Dont stop me now" on repeat out the windows.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Señor Voorhees said:


> I mean, you're not wrong. But it's just funny that they laughed at us, and now they're facing a similar situation and they're handling in even worse ways. Basically, it's hypocritical to the extreme for them to be pitching a fit when they got at least one chance (through luck,) squandered it, and are now pitching a fit that it's going a similar popular-vote-way but not in their favor (at this moment.) It just makes me laugh at how people love the system when it works for them, and shun it when it doesn't. I'll be tickled pink if Trump loses, just so I can see him throw a bunch of futile fits.
> 
> I am scared at what his supporters will do, however, and nothing about them is funny.



the right believers in Christianity like they believe in Jesus. a convenient excuse. 

imagine if Obama did like 10 percent of the crazy shit trump has pulled.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> What I'm gathering from Nevada, and correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like they just need to count ballots that were postmarked for the 3rd. If that's a case, I'd imagine those would be mostly Biden votes, no?
> Also, apparently Biden had already outperformed Hillary in key areas, and she won Nevada in 2016.



According to 538, Nevada knows who those mail in ballots because they link up to a Democratic mail in vote drive along with voter registration, and they know what way those people registered and when they registered and the mail on ballots are proportional to those. It's been fairly accurate in every other state where they mocked it.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> According to 538, Nevada knows who those mail in ballots because they link up to a Democratic mail in vote drive along with voter registration, and they know what way those people registered and when they registered and the mail on ballots are proportional to those. It's been fairly accurate in every other state where they mocked it.



That sounds to me like Biden probably takes Nevada.


----------



## MFB

Nevada has been at 75% since like noon, what the hell is going on?


----------



## diagrammatiks

there's a better then zero chance that the dems don't even keep control of the house. what is this fuckery.


----------



## Ralyks

So is Arizona not actually called now?


----------



## spudmunkey

nrmnd


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> That sounds to me like Biden probably takes Nevada.



Small snippet but part of the reason why it's expected mail in favors Biden:






Ralyks said:


> So is Arizona not actually called now?



Haven't been following that, I do know earlier they said Arizona mail in voters were actually heavily weighed to favor Trump, so it was a question of if it was enough to close the gap. AP and Fox News threw it to Biden, and that's based on their people on the ground, so the assumption is/was that it's a done deal but nobody else was committing to that yet. Dunno if that changed or reversed.


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> there's a better then zero chance that the dems don't even keep control of the house. what is this fuckery.



Well, so so. Most places projecting they keep it all the way back to this morning. The question is if their majority grows or shrinks, looks neutral but they lost a handful of races they thought they had. Still not enough to flip R though


----------



## AxRookie

Some places are being more cautious after 2016...


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Seems without GA, fuck-face packs it up.

And the irony of trump and his bud DeJoy pulling boxes and dismantling sorting machines... then bitching about how long it's taking to get ballots counted... lol.


----------



## Vyn

So the estimate seems that at 98% counted, there's roughly 100k votes left to count for GA. The counting lately has been approx 70%-80% of the votes favouring Biden, so say 70k votes out of that 100k go to Biden. Currently, Trump is ahead by less than 40k votes.

I think GA goes to Biden. It's going to be fucking close though.


----------



## Necris

MFB said:


> Nevada has been at 75% since like noon, what the hell is going on?


No updates will be given until 9am PST (12pm EST) tomorrow.
https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/nevada-election-results-update-wont-come-until-thursday/



Vyn said:


> So the estimate seems that at 98% counted, there's roughly 100k votes left to count for GA. The counting lately has been approx 70%-80% of the votes favouring Biden, so say 70k votes out of that 100k go to Biden. Currently, Trump is ahead by less than 40k votes.
> 
> I think GA goes to Biden. It's going to be fucking close though.


70,000 against ~40,000 + 30,000 would probably end in a recount.

Briefly ignoring Trumps legal action against a few states and assuming Alaska goes to Trump, with the map AxRookie posted as it is now Biden needs 1 state to wrap things up. Even giving Trump Alaska Trump needs all all 4 contested states to even hit 270, if he got them all he'd finish with 273, if he doesn't get them all he has no path to the presidency, he'd be short at least three votes at the end.

If you go by 538's map the situation only changes if voting counts shift Arizona back to Trump, giving him 228 (including Alaska). In that case Biden would have 253 and would need North Carolina + Nevada, Georgia + Nevada or Pennsylvania alone to cross 270. Mathematically without Pennsylvania Trump would have no path to the presidency at all, with a maximum of 265 if he got Georgia, North Carolina and Nevada. Even with Pennsylvania, to clinch the presidency he would still also need Georgia and Nevada to hit exactly 270. Trump losing Georgia but winning NC would lead us to the nightmare scenario of an Electoral tie 269 to 269 and Trump would likely come out on top in that scenario.


----------



## AxRookie

James Carville is certain Biden will win PA by over 100,000 votes after all the votes are counted and it's certainly trending that way! Quickly, and the percentages bear that out...

As a Las Vegas local, I can tell you Rump won't win Nevada! BUT Georgia is a jump ball...


----------



## mbardu

Georgia still trickling in? And new Arizona drop in a few minutes?
This is not helping my stress levels


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Georgia still trickling in? And new Arizona drop in a few minutes?
> This is not helping my stress levels


Georgia has a lot of mail-in votes left to count and the overall mail-in vote has been over 70% for Biden as most of them left to be counted are from the few large strong-hold dem cities and that's why it's taking a while to count them all, Rumps lead there is now a mear 23,000 votes and is shrinking fast!

Rumps lead in Pennsylvania was over 600,000 24 hours ago and now it's a mear 164,000 and is also shrinking fast and they may have days to go counting!
The overall mail-in vote has been over 70% for Biden there as well as a lot of it left to be counted are from the few large strong-hold dem cities much like Gerogia!

I now will go on the record and predict Biden will take Georgia and Pennsylvania both after all the votes are counted up which could take up to a day for GA to a few days for PA!

I will also concede that it's possible Rump COULD, however unlikely, gain ground on Biden in AZ and win it as mail-in ballots % are skewing slightly for Rump there, that's why you only see a few places give AZ to Biden and the rest are waiting before calling it for Biden...

AND no matter what Rump tries to do or say the counting of votes will not stop!!!

*THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE DONE!!!
AxRookie has spoken! *​


----------



## possumkiller

AxRookie said:


> Georgia has a lot of mail-in votes left to count and the overall mail-in vote has been over 70% for Biden as most of them left to be counted are from the few large strong-hold dem cities and that's why it's taking a while to count them all, Rumps lead there is now a mear 23,000 votes and is shrinking fast!
> 
> Rumps lead in Pennsylvania was over 600,000 24 hours ago and now it's a mear 164,000 and is also shrinking fast and they may have days to go counting!
> The overall mail-in vote has been over 70% for Biden there as well as a lot of it left to be counted are from the few large strong-hold dem cities much like Gerogia!
> 
> I now will go on the record and predict Biden will take Georgia and Pennsylvania both after all the votes are counted up which could take up to a day for GA to a few days for PA!
> 
> I will also concede that it's possible Rump COULD, however unlikely, gain ground on Biden in AZ and win it as mail-in ballots % are skewing slightly for Rump there, that's why you only see a few places give AZ to Biden and the rest are waiting before calling it for Biden...
> 
> AND no matter what Rump tries to do or say the counting of votes will not stop!!!
> 
> *THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WILL BE DONE!!!
> AxRookie has spoken! *​


Don't count your eggs before they hatch.


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> Don't count your eggs before they hatch.


I'm not counting eggs, I'm counting votes! lol

And if I counted eggs after they've hatched wouldn't I be counting chickens??? 

All jokes aside, I'm not making a declaration of winning, I'm just making a prediction based on the known indicators...

In fact in NC Rump's lead is now down to a mear 77,000 votes with only 94% reporting and just under 5,500,000 votes counted so far and his lead there is also shrinking! NC is now in play for Biden...

The numbers tell the tale and they don't look good for Rump at all, Rump sees the numbers and that's why he wants to stop the counting!

BUT THE COUNTING WILL GO ON!!!


----------



## nightlight

Biden has pulled in even more votes than Obama. It's a record.

He still may lose though. I am keeping an eye on the Supreme Court. Three of the judges on it were appointed by Trump.


----------



## AxRookie

nightlight said:


> Biden has pulled in even more votes than Obama. It's a record.
> 
> He still may lose though. I am keeping an eye on the Supreme Court. Three of the judges on it were appointed by Trump.


He has no path to take anything directly to the SC, He just talking nonsense as he does...

The count will go on and all votes will be counted...


----------



## nightlight

AxRookie said:


> He has no path to take anything directly to the SC, He just talking nonsense as he does...



Ah, but nothing makes sense anymore, and I still remember Bush vs Gore, even though it later emerged that Gore might have won. It wad the Supreme Court that stopped the recount in Florida.


----------



## AxRookie

nightlight said:


> Ah, but nothing makes sense anymore, and I still remember Bush vs Gore, even though it later emerged that Gore might have won. It wad the Supreme Court that stopped the recount in Florida.


Do you mean the re-re-recount???


----------



## nightlight

AxRookie said:


> Do you mean the re-re-recount???



What I mean is that if you have a Court that is stacked with loyalists who identify themselves as belonging to your ideology, there is a very high chance of skulduggery at any stage. The justices are people too, and I am sure they will have an incentive for the president to embrace their views on abortion and God knows what else (I am no longer sure of what the Republicans stand for. Would bet my guitar collection there's an abortion or 10 in Trump's past)


----------



## Louis Cypher

USMarine75 said:


> A gov't friend of mine once said over a beer that Americans uniquely vote against their best interests. Poor white folks in Alabama vote Republican, hate entitlements (e.g. welfare, free tuition), vote for handouts and lower taxes for the rich, etc. Meanwhile, richer college-educated Dems vote for higher taxes that hurt them (the ~$200k+ tax bracket) and entitlements they don't qualify for (i.e. being taxed for services you cant use).
> 
> There was a great documentary done by Pelosi's daughter where she interviewed a resident from Mississippi (IIRC) who wanted to secede. He was anti welfare and handouts. She asks him what he does for work and he says unemployed and on welfare. She then explains that Mississippi couldn't secede because it's a welfare state.



Finally remembered the quote in reference to this:
“How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power? Here lies the whole art of Conservative politics in the 20th century.”
― Aneurin Bevan


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-biden-2020-campaign-judith-miller

Worth the read.


----------



## Louis Cypher

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-biden-2020-campaign-judith-miller
> 
> Worth the read.





Judith Miller - Foxnews said:


> There have been many “sad” moments in the campaign, but none more pathetic and outrageous than the president’s effort to delegitimize some of the more than 150 million votes cast by 67% of eligible voters — believed to be the largest turnout in election history, and the American election process itself.



Wow, triple Wow that this is a Foxnews article


----------



## sleewell

Trump in AZ: count all the votes!

Trump in MI, PA and GA: we have to stop counting legitimate votes now!

I'm sure the federal judges overseeing his frivolous lawsuits are like what the fuck is wrong with this moron?


----------



## Musiscience

It seems ironic to me that in a country that prides itself on democracy now has large groups manifesting to stop counting votes. Then again, I am not American so what do I know on US culture  

I do though wish you guys to have a peaceful next 4 years and that the social issues you face gets peacefully solved somehow.


----------



## Demiurge

Musiscience said:


> It seems ironic to me that in a country that prides itself on democracy now has large groups manifesting to stop counting votes. Then again, I am not American so what do I know on US culture



Nah, I think you've got it. We want to say that we have all these feel-good values, but the nanosecond they conflict with our desires, they go out the window.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Alot of the Right Wing press in the UK is claiming that "...many Americans...." believe Kamala Harris is the "...Trojan Horse of the Hard Left..." sneaking in to power in the US, and the amount of support Trump has in the UK going by alot of the usual right wing papers, call in shows and whatever, and obviously the usual Pro Brexit tudthumping ghouls who seem to regulary get air time on UK tv backing his imaginary postal vote fraud claims is staggering. The "footballification" of politics in the US and UK, especially fuelled by the right wing/billionaire owned/Murdoch media, over the last 4 or 5 years is to blame for so much right now


----------



## _MonSTeR_

Louis Cypher said:


> Alot of the Right Wing press in the UK is claiming that "...many Americans...." believe Kamala Harris is the "...Trojan Horse of the Hard Left..." sneaking in to power in the US, and the amount of support Trump has in the UK going by alot of the usual right wing papers, call in shows and whatever, and obviously the usual Pro Brexit tudthumping ghouls who seem to regulary get air time on UK tv backing his imaginary postal vote fraud claims is staggering. The "footballification" of politics in the US and UK, especially fuelled by the right wing/billionaire owned/Murdoch media, over the last 4 or 5 years is to blame for so much right now



yep, I'm not one to consider myself let wing by any means, but the current right wing press and their "_the louder we shout it, the more true it becomes_" attitude is *literally *destroying the the UK and setting the world back years, if not decades


----------



## USMarine75

Louis Cypher said:


> Wow, triple Wow that this is a Foxnews article



Side note... she's the one who was duped by Cheney into reporting (via dubious circular reporting) the yellow cake and enrichment program by Iraq back in 2002.


----------



## Musiscience

_MonSTeR_ said:


> yep, I'm not one to consider myself let wing by any means, but the current right wing press and their "_the louder we shout it, the more true it becomes_" attitude is *literally *destroying the the UK and setting the world back years, if not decades



We do have these far right supporters in Canada too, where facts are not important as the thruth is only determined by how loud you yell it. This is particularly true in the current climate with COVID and economical hardship we experience. I personally don't care much for politics, but I care for science by trade. Not facing facts is always a huge set back for society, no matter the popular polical views. This is what is scaring the hell out of me right now.


----------



## InHiding

Voting is pretty much a front for as long as you have a political system where decisions are bought (and it's legal to do so). Biden = Trump. It doesn't matter at all.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-biden-2020-campaign-judith-miller
> 
> Worth the read.


This is mind blowing coming from Fox News. If they start calling the president out on his shit, all he'll have left is OAN to keep his self-fulfilling echo chamber intact.

There was a genius level edit on the news this morning of the massive "protests" going on in various states outside polling places. One group chanting "stop the vote" while in another state a similar group were chanting "count the votes." Somebody in the editing department put them side-by-side and time aligned the chants. And the ridiculousness of what we're witnessing made me burst into tear inducing laughter.

I mean, seriously, what the hell is this world that both of these can be coming from the same camp based on where in the country you are? There's literally no end to the insanity.

Based on the temper tantrum lawsuits already filed, I expect regardless of the actual results once fully tallied to see some seriously hinky shit going on with the electoral college. If the Trump team manages to fuck that up, things are gonna get a whole lot uglier.


----------



## Ralyks

Any idea where we stand? Because it appears to be "Same place as 12 hours ago"


----------



## sleewell

i think PA will go to biden and even if trump gets every other state, including AZ, it won't be enough. Most of the votes remaining from GA are from atlanta so that could go to biden but he wont need anything else if he gets PA. 

i thought i heard there would be updates around noon and then 7pm.


----------



## Mathemagician

InHiding said:


> Voting is pretty much a front for as long as you have a political system where decisions are bought (and it's legal to do so). Biden = Trump. It doesn't matter at all.



This isn’t true at all. LOW voter turnout and voters being “loyal” to a party or person hurt democracy. 

But voting can resolve the very issues with our system: 

Want to add term limits? Vote in candidates who support it against the pressures from the DNC/RNC. 

Want to get money out of politics? Vote in candidates w/out corporate backing (very difficult due to low #, so have to start with smaller local candidates & build support).

Want to increase economic activity in a region with public transport like high speed rail? Vote in those who support it. 

The system has been streamlined by the players to cheat & stack the deck in their favor and that is 100% wrong, but the voters are the ones allowing it to happen. They vote for senators who sit on hundreds of house bills doing nothing, and then reward them by electing those senators again. -What incentive do the officials have to do anything? They already have party loyalty. 

I personally still can’t believe “lobbying/corporate donations” are legal. Only acceptable option would be for a firm to go before congress and plead their case in a hearing where everything is recorded and can be reviewed by the public/experts. With no donations given to anyone. 

But I have to sit here and worry about this issue while other voters ignore it. Because most people only like big wedge issues, and the GOP like to keep trotting out the same few: treating LGBT poorly, Religion, communism/patriotism, being anti-choice. 40+ years of the same regressive “points”. 

So there’s no room on short ads and tv networks for nuanced discussion. You literally HAVE to vote and vote consistently if you want to see a difference in things anywhere. 

“Voting is a sham” is the exact thing the RNC & DNC benefit from in specific areas. The DNC seeing another potentially split ticket (or progressives just staying home in protest) caused them to add more progressive points to their platform - even if they were dragged kicking and screaming the whole time.


----------



## diagrammatiks

InHiding said:


> Voting is pretty much a front for as long as you have a political system where decisions are bought (and it's legal to do so). Biden = Trump. It doesn't matter at all.



if you think that anything Biden and the dems can do in the next four years is as bad as what trumps already done.

you're dumb as shit dude.


----------



## budda

Musiscience said:


> It seems ironic to me that in a country that prides itself on democracy now has large groups manifesting to stop counting votes. Then again, I am not American so what do I know on US culture
> 
> I do though wish you guys to have a peaceful next 4 years and that the social issues you face gets peacefully solved somehow.



The entire history of the usa isnt peaceful, why would it start now


----------



## Demiurge

nightflameauto said:


> This is mind blowing coming from Fox News. If they start calling the president out on his shit, all he'll have left is OAN to keep his self-fulfilling echo chamber intact.



I've seen the argument that now the GOP technically has what they really need they don't need Trump anymore. They've got the courts; they've got the Senate (probably) who will be able to make the democrats look ineffective, which they'll leverage into midterms. In 2024, if they put up any sane-appearing person, they'll probably take the White House easily. Hell, they can do Trump as dirty as they want, and it's not like his followers are going to change party allegiance over it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Louis Cypher said:


> Alot of the Right Wing press in the UK is claiming that "...many Americans...." believe Kamala Harris is the "...Trojan Horse of the Hard Left..." sneaking in to power in the US, and the amount of support Trump has in the UK going by alot of the usual right wing papers, call in shows and whatever, and obviously the usual Pro Brexit tudthumping ghouls who seem to regulary get air time on UK tv backing his imaginary postal vote fraud claims is staggering. The "footballification" of politics in the US and UK, especially fuelled by the right wing/billionaire owned/Murdoch media, over the last 4 or 5 years is to blame for so much right now


Truth of the matter is Kamala Harris is so far from hard left that she could have been a Republican a few years back. You know, before they lost their collective minds and decided they were a Trump cult.

In an interesting bit of news, sportsbet is paying out on people that bet Biden would win the election.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-will-pay-out-early-on-biden-as-u-s-president

That's millions of dollars being paid out on an outcome that isn't certain. They've been burned before when paying out early, so that's not really an indication of anything other than how crazy sportsbet management is. Just one more cray-cray on the cray-cray pile for 2020.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Ralyks said:


> Any idea where we stand? Because it appears to be "Same place as 12 hours ago"


Obviously I am in the UK but what the normal papers are reporting here is that basically Trump needs to win all 5 remaing states left to call in order to remain President and Alaska is the only nail on Trump win.



nightflameauto said:


> Truth of the matter is Kamala Harris is so far from hard left that she could have been a Republican a few years back. You know, before they lost their collective minds and decided they were a Trump cult


Thats what made me laugh about the UK Press line on her now, compared to whats been previously reported about her time as DA then AG in California! In the UK Right Wing Press the new terror for your average suburban white middle class home counties middleaged/elderly voter to be scared of, on top of Muslims, knife crime, BLM, Extinction Rebellion etc, is "The Hard Left"


----------



## possumkiller

diagrammatiks said:


> if you think that anything Biden and the dems can do in the next four years is as bad as what trumps already done.
> 
> you're dumb as shit dude.


I guess this person is just testing out some excuses of why they were a trump supporter. Kind of like all the nazis after the war that were "just following orders".


----------



## nightflameauto

Louis Cypher said:


> Thats what made me laugh about the UK Press line on her now, compared to whats been previously reported about her time as DA then AG in California! In the UK Right Wing Press the new terror for your average suburban white middle class home counties middleaged/elderly voter to be scared of, on top of Muslims, knife crime, BLM, Extinction Rebellion etc, is "The Hard Left"


In America that's turned into "The Radical Left" now. Radical sounds so much more. . . radical than hard.


----------



## ArtDecade

possumkiller said:


> I guess this person is just testing out some excuses of why they were a trump supporter. Kind of like all the nazis after the war that were "just following orders".



The dude he was responding to is in Finland... Do they have Trump supporters up there? Sucks, because I thought Finns were seeing a decline in alcoholism...


----------



## RevDrucifer

Louis Cypher said:


> Wow, triple Wow that this is a Foxnews article



Over the last year they’ve put some distance between themselves and Trump. Trump’s base considers them to be just another leftist-controlled MSM source. 

I frequent a forum that’s primarily pro-Trump as I get a kick out of the crazier shit they say, but it’s also been a good place to see where the collective Trump supporter heads are at. It’s a conspiracy theory site that somehow was infiltrated by Trumpers in 2015, so it’s become a shadow of it’s former self, but still a great look at how Trumpers feel about everything when they’re left to post their BS without restriction. (AboveTopSecret.com, for the curious, just click on Recent and you’ll see what I’m talking about)


----------



## Mathemagician

Louis Cypher said:


> "The Hard Left"



You can thank the US’s still ongoing red-scare and our media’s global reach for your politics to have begun reflecting US-specific terminology. Especially since a parliament typically has partnerships amongst smaller parties and not the asinine 2 party bullshit we have here. 

Shout out to Australia’s biggest shame and living toxic waste dumped off their coast Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## possumkiller

ArtDecade said:


> The dude he was responding to is in Finland... Do they have Trump supporters up there? Sucks, because I thought Finns were seeing a decline in alcoholism...


Yeah "Finland". Grandfather probably had to move to Argentina or Brazil in 45...


----------



## Boofchuck

InHiding said:


> Voting is pretty much a front for as long as you have a political system where decisions are bought (and it's legal to do so). Biden = Trump. It doesn't matter at all.


Both parties are certainly beholden to corporate interests. Both are failing the American people. But there are still tangible differences between Biden and Trump. The batshit and systematic dismemberment of government and rule of law over last four years would not have happened with somebody like Biden in office. Even if he isn't ideal.


----------



## MFB

I always forget that the guitarist from one of my favorite bands is a well known cartoonist


----------



## Louis Cypher

nightflameauto said:


> In America that's turned into "The Radical Left" now. Radical sounds so much more. . . radical than hard.


Perhaps I am reaching a little but it really seems to me that anything the Far Right/Hard Right hate is now being collected under the banner of Radical Left or Hard left and in reality they are using it as a euphemism for their out right racism/islamaphobia/antisemitisim etc


----------



## Musiscience

budda said:


> The entire history of the usa isnt peaceful, why would it start now



I'm not saying it will, just wishing them the best.


----------



## budda

Musiscience said:


> I'm not saying it will, just wishing them the best.


----------



## diagrammatiks

America basically has no real left in politics anymore.

It's basically what would have been a hardline republican post Reagan.

people that are slightly right of that but still like to smoke weed

people to the right of that

and then bat shit insane rednecks.


----------



## Boofchuck

MFB said:


> I always forget that the guitarist from one of my favorite bands is a well known cartoonist


Please elaborate.


----------



## USMarine75

InHiding said:


> Voting is pretty much a front for as long as you have a political system where decisions are bought (and it's legal to do so). Biden = Trump. It doesn't matter at all.



No. It’s this kind of doom’ngloom, hyperbole, slippery slope rhetoric that is dangerous. “It can’t be changed so why try”.


----------



## fantom

So stupid question, Trump tweets "stop the count", but when he wrote that tweet the current counts would have given Biden exactly 270. Is he just stupid or is he banking on lawsuits and not counts at this point?



Louis Cypher said:


> Wow, triple Wow that this is a Foxnews article



I've actually been really surprised that fox news (the website at least, can't speak for the tv channel) is taking this election seriously and not just spamming bullshit.


----------



## fantom

It would be interesting to know how many "work from home" people who migrated from expensive liberal cities contributed to places like the Midwest, Colorado, Nevada, Atlanta, etc. having more democrats than 2016. It would just make me happy if the poor pandemic management lead to displaced voters actually making a difference.

And if Trump loses, you know the person who gets to tell him will get to forever claim that he or she was the one who said, "You're fired!" There can be only one!


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> In America that's turned into "The Radical Left" now. Radical sounds so much more. . . radical than hard.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> And if Trump loses, you know the person who gets to tell him will get to forever claim that he or she was the one who said, "You're fired!" There can be only one!



It's a shame the best person for the job is a friend of Trumps:


----------



## MFB

Boofchuck said:


> Please elaborate.



Tommy Siegel, who's comic you posted, plays guitar in the band Jukebox the Ghost; a band who I own every album from and played the soundtrack to a large chunk of my late teens/early 20s


----------



## bostjan

There's a nonzero chance for any one or more of 12 states to flip, by my mathematics. There's more chance none of them will at this point than the chance that any will, but the least unlikely at this point are GA (about 1 in 11), NC (about 1 in 12), PA (about 1 in 13) and then AZ (about 1 in 14) and NV (about 1 in 15). Texas still has roughly 1 in 20 chance of flipping from uncounted ballots, but that's already a crazy outside chance.

Basically Trump has as much chance at winning as there is a chance at it snowing in Cuba tomorrow, but that's assuming the rules still matter.

Maybe you guys haven't been paying attention the last four years, but the rules don't matter anymore. You're talking about someone who already declared victory despite not one single news outlet calling the election for him prior. You're talking about someone who is trying to stop and rewind the vote counts in several states while continuing them in other states, without any hiding the fact that the only logic he has to discern which is which is how it benefits him. You're talking about the guy who involved Russia to cheat last time and then tried to extort libel out of Ukrainian leaders, was caught in a transcript doing it, and then got away with it by pressuring his political allies. If anything made any sense at all, he wouldn't have even been here to begin with.


----------



## AxRookie

So many posts I read in this thread make me very sad for the thought that one day all people will be critical thinkers of intellect and reason...


----------



## InHiding

I don't support Trump. I don't really support any psychopathic narratives (which roughly means expansive worldviews like full on science or religion based which again are the same really, but all of this is beyond the scope of this forum).


----------



## diagrammatiks

InHiding said:


> I don't support Trump. I don't really support any psychopathic narratives (which roughly means expansive worldviews like full on science or religion based which again are the same really, but all of this is beyond the scope of this forum).



I'm glad we're in this thread so I can plainly ask...

what the fuck are you talking about dude.


----------



## ArtDecade

diagrammatiks said:


> I'm glad we're in this thread so I can plainly ask...
> 
> what the fuck are you talking about dude.



... don't encourage him.


----------



## sleewell

looks like more votes came in NV and biden's lead increased.


----------



## MFB

sleewell said:


> looks like more votes came in NV and biden's lead increased.



As does Trump's lead in PA unfortunately, full 1.5 points vs. the 1 point lead that Joe has in Nevada


----------



## AxRookie

James Carville: ‘This Is Not Going To Be A Particularly Close Election’

James is looking closely at the numbers...​


----------



## USMarine75

MFB said:


> As does Trump's lead in PA unfortunately, full 1.5 points vs. the 1 point lead that Joe has in Nevada



We must be looking at different sources. Trump is down to a 112k lead reported by Foxnews and 114k reported by cnn. Both show <1% leads.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> We must be looking at different sources. Trump is down to a 112k lead reported by Foxnews and 114k reported by cnn. Both show <1% leads.


This is correct... AND Biden is slowly stretching out his lead in my home state of Nevada...

James Carville knows what he's talking about!


----------



## MFB

Huh, that's odd, the numbers I saw were from the Associated Press; apparently those aren't the most up to date, which isn't fun to discover.


----------



## Drew

Holy fuck I missed a lot.  Work has been slammed an I'm just getting back online for the first time since election night. 

This is over, IMO. There are five states outstanding - AZ, NC, NV, GA, and PA. Trump needs to win four of the five, with one of them being PA, to win this. He won't. 


NC will probably go Trump. 
AZ, I'd give Biden a razor thin edge, but not with any conviction. This should not have been called. The GOP was a well-established mail-in voting operation in AZ, so the assumption elsewhere that mail in votes should favor Biden is probably not a safe assumption - hence the fact Biden's lead has been shrinking as votes are counted. 
NV, honestly, the only reason this hasn't been called is that the more aggressive desks haven't reversed their call on AZ, and if they call NV, then they also have to call the election as this puts Biden at 270, and no one is quite ready to do that. 
GA, this will be razor close. But unlike AZ, we DO know where the ucounted ballots are from. They're all from heavily Democratic areas, and additionally a lot of them are mail-in ballots received before election day, which tilt even more Democratic. Biden needs to win about 63% of the votes outstanding to take GA. He's trending in the low-mid 70s. This looks pretty likely to flip. 
PA, this is maybe the second safest call after NV. Trump's lead is down to 150k or so. There's 6-700k ballots outstanding. They're all from Democratic strongholds, and with the mail-in "blue shift" very well in play here too, they've been coming in 80-85% Biden. And that's before we count provisional ballots, which should continue to favor Dems - a common reason for a ballot being provisional is a mail-in ballot was requested, and if you originally planned on voting by mail, but then when talk of Trump declaring victory thanks to the blue shift started going around you decided to chance it and go to the polls instead and just destroy your mail in ballot... well, you're a provisional ballot. 
Trump will win NC. He might even win AZ, though I'm less sure there. But I see Biden as money good in NV, GA, and PA, so that puts Biden at either 295 or 306 electoral votes, vs Trump at 232 or 243. That's still tight by historical standards, but that's pretty close to the margin Trump won in 2016 (in fact with AZ Biden would have two more votes than Trump did).


----------



## High Plains Drifter

And where is Biden today? He's meeting with COVID19 advisors to get briefing info on the virus that is now infecting 100k lives a day. On a day like this in politics, Biden is acting as a responsible President would. This is who we need and I could care less if he's doing this as publicity or obligatory or sincere. Fact is that he's not tweeting, misinforming, bellyaching, nor otherwise acting like a spoiled brat.

Dear donald, Looks like it may indeed be time to put on your walking shoes and dust off your suitcase, you miserable piece of shit.


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> And where is Biden today? He's meeting with COVID19 advisors to get briefing info on the virus that is now infecting 100k lives a day. On a day like this in politics, Biden is acting as a responsible President would. This is who we need and I could care less if he's doing this as publicity or obligatory or sincere. Fact is that he's not tweeting, misinforming, bellyaching, nor otherwise acting like a spoiled brat.
> 
> Dear donald, Looks like it may indeed be time to put on your walking shoes and dust off your suitcase, you miserable piece of shit.


Meanwhile, Trump is having all his suits to stop the count tossed. Michigan was kind of funny - the judge tossed it saying Trump had no standing, since his campaign WAS able to observe as he asked, and because he had no recourse, since the count has already been finished.  

Meanwhile, I had tacos for lunch.


----------



## Drew

https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html

This is pretty cool - it provides a breakdown of what votes have come in when, and whatthe "hurdle rate" the challenger needs to beat to flip the outcome. The trailing average of how counted votes have come in isnt super usedful on its own because there's some dispersion, particularly in Georgia, as to where votes remain, and it looks like more conservative counties have been reporting today. Still based on this, my ballpark count fo Georgia is dropping from a couple thousand votes' edge to Biden, to a couple hundred. This is INSANELY close. 

PA, on the other hand, looks solid for Biden.


----------



## sleewell

i'm guessing/hoping a few senators will soon call trump and tell him its over. they got everything they wanted from him and actually won their re elections. trump is only doing further damage to the gop with these dumbass lawsuits.


----------



## mbardu

sleewell said:


> i'm guessing/hoping a few senators will soon call trump and tell him its over. they got everything they wanted from him and actually won their re elections. trump is only doing further damage to the gop with these dumbass lawsuits.



Don't misunderstimate  the Trump voters' foolishness. Conservative outlets are doing their best to relay Trump's message that he's won already, and if the GOP can get away with stealing the presidency they will, no questions asked.

There will be 0 political backlash of those frivolous lawsuits. Rather the opposite, because red hats will see it (it will be presented to them as) a fierce fight for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. Yes, you read that right, refusing to count legitimate votes and assaulting polling locations is what counts as democracy now


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> There will be 0 political backlash of those frivolous lawsuits. Rather the opposite, because red hats will see it (it will be presented to them as) a fierce fight for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. Yes, you read that right, refusing to count legitimate votes and assaulting polling locations is what counts as democracy now



Yesterday:


----------



## Rosal76

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, I had tacos for lunch.









You. Are. Terrible. Drew. Just terrible.


----------



## mbardu

spudmunkey said:


> Yesterday:




We want our freedom for the whuuuuuurld


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> We want our freedom for the whuuuuuurld



"What? I'm _wearing_ a mask!"


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Yesterday:



Yep, There's the average Rump supporter, Sad... :^(


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> "What? I'm _wearing_ a mask!"


I have my chin diaper on...

At least he has his priorities straight!

#1 BBQ
#2 BEER
#3 FREEDUMB

Someone should tell him it's not called a "crime family" anymore, now it's the "outfit"...


SIDENOTE - the "outfit" doesn't like to get blasted on the news, count down until that guy gets "whacked"... END SIDENOTE...


----------



## nightflameauto

High Plains Drifter said:


> And where is Biden today? He's meeting with COVID19 advisors to get briefing info on the virus that is now infecting 100k lives a day. On a day like this in politics, Biden is acting as a responsible President would. This is who we need and I could care less if he's doing this as publicity or obligatory or sincere. Fact is that he's not tweeting, misinforming, bellyaching, nor otherwise acting like a spoiled brat.
> 
> Dear donald, Looks like it may indeed be time to put on your walking shoes and dust off your suitcase, you miserable piece of shit.


The one thing I actually like a tiny bit about Biden is he's a coalition builder. Or at least he tries to be. He's never been a dude that's gonna take a stand and die with it regardless of what others say. He'll take his stand, hold it up in front of others, and wait for input.

Now, the reason I only like that a tiny bit is it can cause an absolute bog-down of any progress when you need fast movement on something. Unfortunately, bogged down and doing nothing is a million times better than slamming the accelerator down to the floor with the car in reverse.

AND, in particular with the pandemic going on, this may be a time where having a president that knows when to STFU and let the experts make the decisions via committee could actually be helpful rather than blustering through yet another failed press conference trying to talk over the experts and make them look like fools.


----------



## mbardu

Georgia secretary of state says there are about 47,277 ballots left.
Let's make a conservative estimate there and say 45,000.

Quick back of the envelope calculation gives us:

With a 50/50 split, Biden _loses _by 10,000 votes
With a 60/40 split, Biden _loses _by 1,000 votes
With a 65/35 split, Biden _wins _by 3,500 votes
With a 70/30 split, Biden _wins _by 8,000 votes


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Georgia secretary of state says there are about 47,277 ballots left.
> Let's make a conservative estimate there and say 45,000.
> 
> Quick back of the envelope calculation gives us:
> 
> With a 50/50 split, Biden _loses _by 10,000 votes
> With a 60/40 split, Biden _loses _by 1,000 votes
> With a 65/35 split, Biden _wins _by 3,500 votes
> With a 70/30 split, Biden _wins _by 8,000 votes


Looks like Biden will take GA then...


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> Georgia secretary of state says there are about 47,277 ballots left.
> Let's make a conservative estimate there and say 45,000.
> 
> Quick back of the envelope calculation gives us:
> 
> With a 50/50 split, Biden _loses _by 10,000 votes
> With a 60/40 split, Biden _loses _by 1,000 votes
> With a 65/35 split, Biden _wins _by 3,500 votes
> With a 70/30 split, Biden _wins _by 8,000 votes



....and he's lead the mail in so far with 67+%


----------



## mbardu

GOP pundits on Fox now saying "The left has been saying that Trump is bad for 5 years, so it only makes sense that they would cheat now".

I always find this specific projection quite telling from the Republican side. They cannot even _comprehend _that people could decide to _not cheat_ and go by the rules, because given the chance,_ they will cheat every single time_.


----------



## mbardu

mbardu said:


> Georgia secretary of state says there are about 47,277 ballots left.
> Let's make a conservative estimate there and say 45,000.
> 
> Quick back of the envelope calculation gives us:
> 
> With a 50/50 split, Biden _loses _by 10,000 votes
> With a 60/40 split, Biden _loses _by 1,000 votes
> With a 65/35 split, Biden _wins _by 3,500 votes
> With a 70/30 split, Biden _wins _by 8,000 votes



Similar calculation for PA:

With a 60/40 split, Biden _loses _by 35,000 votes
With a 65/35 split, Biden _wins _by 5,000 votes
With a 70/30 split, Biden _wins _by 25,000 votes


----------



## AxRookie

Rumps lead in GA is down to a mear 9,000+ votes and falling fast...

AND Rumps lead in PA is now only 90,000 votes and is also falling fast with only 88% reported...


----------



## spudmunkey

Genuinely curious: According to the people crying "Biden's trying to steal the election!!", how exactly are they alleging that it's occurring, especially in states with Republican governors, and so many other republican county and city-level position holders?


----------



## mbardu

spudmunkey said:


> Genuinely curious: According to the people crying "Biden's trying to steal the election!!", how exactly are they alleging that it's occurring, especially in states with Republican governors, and so many other republican county and city-level position holders?



Don't look for logic. They're still claiming Trump won the popular vote in 2016, despite a _Republican _commission finding the total opposite and zero fraud.


----------



## Mathemagician

mbardu said:


> GOP pundits on Fox now saying "The left has been saying that Trump is bad for 5 years, so it only makes sense that they would cheat now".
> 
> I always find this specific projection quite telling from the Republican side. They cannot even _comprehend _that people could decide to _not cheat_ and go by the rules, because given the chance,_ they will cheat every single time_.



The truth does not matter, only the messaging does. The elected senators, governors, etc etc do not believe the shit they are saying, they are saying what they need to in order to rally their base. 

That message plays well with their voters so they come out and stoke the flames and help voters entrench themselves in the belief that others are cheating so they’ll come out hard in midterms to “protect freedom”. 

If it works it works. Politics is not math, or science, or economics. 

It’s a game, and the GOP plays to win not to “reach compromises” in good faith, because their voters don’t hold them accountable.


----------



## mbardu

Conservatives now attacking the PA election integrity and specifically the PA SoS because she is unfriendly to Trump on Twitter. O M G the irony.


----------



## bostjan

Reports say we might have an answer Sunday or Monday, unless things go really lopsided or end up in a dead heat.

I know @Drew is confident that Biden will win by a large margin in the electoral college, but, again, we are talking about 2020, when rules are for wimps.

I just heard an interview on NPR with a Trump voter who said that he likes Biden, and hates Trump, but he thinks we are all turning into wussies, basically, so he voted for Trump.

And, friends, that's why we can't have nice things: because illogic beats logic these days.

And we have armed militias trying to stop the vote counters in at least one city. States are claiming that mail in votes were cast and the same people voted in person to double dip, they are saying also that thousands of dead folks voted by mail. Of course, they have all shrugged when asked for any proof.

You can't just go imposing your will without due process, right? Well, tell that to the guy who never believed in due process that didn't benefit him. Or tell it to his Proud Boys.


----------



## AxRookie

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what Rump or his fanatics say or do the count will go on and James Carville will in the end be proven right on the money ‘This Is Not Going To Be A Particularly Close Election’!

Rump is going to spout nonsense at 6:30 PM... 15 minutes from now! lol

I can hardly wait!!! the people around him don't want him to speak!!! lol

BUT we all know Rump can't help himself! lol

A classic Rump moment in T minus 15, 14, 13...


----------



## AxRookie

BOOM!!! he tripled down on his bullshit!!!

Rump translation "If I lose I'm going to blow everything up!!!"


----------



## Ralyks

Bidens down only 3,600 votes in GA right now.


----------



## mbardu

Ralyks said:


> Bidens down only 3,600 votes in GA right now.



I have no more nails to bite


----------



## mbardu

Ralyks said:


> Bidens down only 3,600 votes in GA right now.



And only about 30k ballots left I believe.


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> And only about 30k ballots left I believe.


With 76% of them going to Biden!!!

He's getting GA very soon and run it up from there...

That's half of my prediction with the other half coming in a few days, PA will flip as Rump implodes...


----------



## mongey

well it's looking like you guys are gonna pull it off ....Just .

The world is proud of you ...just 

Hope it doesn't get too ugly from here


----------



## mbardu

mongey said:


> well it's looking like you guys are gonna pull it off ....Just .
> 
> The world is proud of you ...just
> 
> Hope it doesn't get too ugly from here



The world is horrified that 70 million people decided to look at Trump's last 4 years and say "yeah, I'll definitely vote for that"  .


----------



## SpaceDock

Get ready for some riots! I think Trump loses tonight and his followers are gonna flip


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> Get ready for some riots! I think Trump loses tonight and his followers are gonna flip



Pop corn is ready.
I'll make some Covfefe so that I can stay awake and watch the fun on live TV.


----------



## AxRookie

mongey said:


> well it's looking like you guys are gonna pull it off ....Just .
> 
> The world is proud of you ...just
> 
> Hope it doesn't get too ugly from here


Just??? Biden is going to win NV, AZ and he's about to flip GA and he will flip PA in the next few days!!!

That will be huge!!! The blue wave is washing in...

OH and if Rump gets his way it WILL be very ugly! you can count on that, sorry about the pun... ;^)

BUT all of his ugliness won't change the outcome...


----------



## mongey

mbardu said:


> The world is horrified that 70 million people decided to look at Trump's last 4 years and say "yeah, I'll definitely vote for that"  .


well it could be worse. 80 million could've voted for him and he wins .

who wants to bet Trump Jr 2024 becomes a thing?

Interestingly one of our Australian online betting sites ,where you can bet on anything , is already paying out bets on Biden winning.


----------



## mbardu

The funny thing is that the people who called AZ early (Fox/AP) are not going to be able to call NV/GA/PA for Biden now, because if they do they are going out on a limb saying he's elected.


----------



## SpaceDock

mbardu said:


> The funny thing is that the people who called AZ early (Fox/AP) are not going to be able to call NV/GA/PA for Biden now, because if they do they are going out on a limb saying he's elected.



because next state to be called for Biden ends this


----------



## mongey

mbardu said:


> The funny thing is that the people who called AZ early (Fox/AP) are not going to be able to call NV/GA/PA for Biden now, because if they do they are going out on a limb saying he's elected.



yeah , the ensuing chaos from Trumps zombie army when Biden does win is going to make sure they hold off until it is 100% confirmed


----------



## AxRookie

My latest prediction from looking at the numbers is in the end Biden will win with 308 electoral votes...

*AXROOKIE HAS SPOKEN!* 

lol​


----------



## mbardu

AxRookie said:


> My latest prediction from looking at the numbers is in the end Biden will win with 308 electoral votes...
> 
> *AXROOKIE HAS SPOKEN!*
> 
> lol​



See now that's impossible because Trump won 306 in 2016 and he told us it was historic and highest possible and impossible to beat.


----------



## Xaios

AxRookie said:


> My latest prediction from looking at the numbers is in the end Biden will win with 308 electoral votes...
> 
> *AXROOKIE HAS SPOKEN!*
> 
> lol​


I honestly doubt at this point that Biden is going to keep Arizona. 297 seems feasible though.


----------



## Ralyks

mongey said:


> who wants to bet Trump Jr 2024 becomes a thing?



Nah... It's gonna be Ivanka.


----------



## AxRookie

Xaios said:


> I honestly doubt at this point that Biden is going to keep Arizona. 297 seems feasible though.


It's just a prediction but I have to go with James Carville on this as he has been spot on from the beginning...


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> Nah... It's gonna be Ivanka.


I also predict Rump will run again in 4 years... 

Just because of all the mean things that will be said after he loses big, His ego won't allow him to just let it go...


----------



## mbardu

AxRookie said:


> I also predict Rump will run again in 4 years...



Can you run from prison or Russia?


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Can you run from prison or Russia?


He'll mail-in his candidacy! lol


----------



## Señor Voorhees

Wow, PA and GA are ridiculously close, huh? Here's hoping that, with such a strong start, that trump eats a fat hot shit sandwich in the coming days. It's one thing if Somebody wins by one state, but having 2-3 turn on you would be golden right now.


----------



## mongey

AxRookie said:


> I also predict Rump will run again in 4 years...
> 
> Just because of all the mean things that will be said after he loses big, His ego won't allow him to just let it go...



I just read an article predicting that . I didn't know an ex president could run again.


----------



## fantom

mbardu said:


> GOP pundits on Fox now saying "The left has been saying that Trump is bad for 5 years, so it only makes sense that they would cheat now".
> 
> I always find this specific projection quite telling from the Republican side. They cannot even _comprehend _that people could decide to _not cheat_ and go by the rules, because given the chance,_ they will cheat every single time_.



Hey it's only cheating if you get caught. Just ask Melania.


----------



## fantom

mongey said:


> I just read an article predicting that . I didn't know an ex president could run again.



Grover Cleveland?

And if you lived in Florida in 2000, George Bush


----------



## AxRookie

GA is down to 1,400 and about to flip...


----------



## Randy




----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> View attachment 86841
> View attachment 86842



Unless Alabama has a sudden influx of Democrats, I'm not sure who he plans to shoot at. Alligators?


----------



## MASS DEFECT

What are the chances of Biden losing Nevada and/or Arizona?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Here you go. You guys deserve to have a few more laughs right now, so... from a couple disgruntled trump supporters- 
I'm not exactly sure what this dude is referencing when he says "even" but regardless... 

"2016, they showed him down in the polls and showed Hillary winning by a landslide, welp, that wasn’t the case. I don’t understand why anybody would want a pedophile in office. But hey, your vote, your choice."

"The only reason it is even is because of ELECTION FRAUD by the DNC. There is no WAY Bidenus Pervertus is winning Michigan. Not when Traditionally Deep Blue Counties went RED RED RED. 2 counties are being used to STEAL THE ELECTION in Michigan."

I want to tell them that it's okay to simply be wrong but that being delusional is another thing.


----------



## AxRookie

Georgia flips in T minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...


----------



## narad

High Plains Drifter said:


> "The only reason it is even is because of ELECTION FRAUD by the DNC. There is no WAY Bidenus Pervertus is winning Michigan. Not when Traditionally Deep Blue Counties went RED RED RED. 2 counties are being used to STEAL THE ELECTION in Michigan.".



Hermione: No. It's Bidenus Pervertus. Not Pervertuuuus.


----------



## AxRookie

MASS DEFECT said:


> What are the chances of Biden losing Nevada and/or Arizona?


Nevada Biden's lead is very slowly growing and in Arizona Biden's lead is very slowly shrinking...

I predict he keeps both because I've got to go with James on that...


----------



## mbardu

Georgia close but almost counted... Plus i guess guaranteed to be recounted anyway regardless of who it's going for.

Really gonna need PA


----------



## AxRookie

Gees talk about putting a bullet in your own head!

Fired in T minus 10, 9, 8, 7...


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Georgia close but almost counted... Plus i guess guaranteed to be recounted anyway regardless of who it's going for.
> 
> Really gonna need PA


If the margin is more than 1,000 votes a recount will almost certainly do nothing...

No amount of "hanging chads" will change the outcome...

Rump is certain to lose PA, maybe by as soon as tomorrow?


----------



## mbardu

AxRookie said:


> Gees talk about putting a bullet in your own head!
> 
> Fired in T minus 10, 9, 8, 7...



Lmao, it's Alabama bro.
If he wasn't already captain, he would be getting that promotion now.


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Lmao, it's Alabama bro.
> If he wasn't already captain, he would be getting that promotion now.


This is the age of social media, no one is safe!

If that starts "trending" he gone faster than a redneck can yell YE-HA!


----------



## AxRookie

306, 306, 306, 306...


----------



## Randy




----------



## broj15

We all knew he was gonna be a sore loser if/win he loses, bit am I the only one who watches this and all they can think is... he's saying he won but this is the face & words of a man who knows he lost


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

broj15 said:


> We all knew he was gonna be a sore loser if/win he loses, bit am I the only one who watches this and all they can think is... he's saying he won but this is the face & words of a man who knows he lost



At this point I can’t even listen him speak.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

What scares me is Lindsay Graham going on TV saying PA legislature should send its own electors overriding voters. Ohhhhh boy


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> What scares me is Lindsay Graham going on TV saying PA legislature should send its own electors overriding voters. Ohhhhh boy



They're in full panic mode because they were so cocky and bent over for Trump so thoroughly, they know the vindication from a Democratic president will make their lives Hell. Total desperation.


----------



## Randy

Breaking news: Rudy Giuliani has been dispatched to Philadelphia, PA to dispute the election results using a briefcase full of Hunter Biden's dick pics.


----------



## mongey

The weirdest thing is that as an Australian all we really know about Rudy before Trump was that he was mayor of NY When 9/11 happened. A truly terrible thing to deal with , and he seemed to do so with grace. 

how the fuck did he become such a fuck tard and embarrassment to humanity ?


----------



## spudmunkey

mongey said:


> The weirdest thing is that as an Australian all we really know about Rudy before Trump was that he was mayor of NY When 9/11 happened. A truly terrible thing to deal with , and he seemed to do so with grace.
> 
> how the fuck did he become such a fuck tard and embarrassment to humanity ?



He went from "America's Mayor" to "America's Cartoon Villain" for us, too.


----------



## USMarine75

The first 8 minutes is Stephen's raw reaction to Trump's speech.

So, when do the Tribunals begin?


----------



## AxRookie

Gees Stephen, we all knew he'd burn down the White House before he'd admit he's a loser?!? He's prob taking a dump on the resolute desk as I'm typing this!

BUT this Democracy is holding firm under his onslaught of bull shit and it will stay that way!!! AND that knowledge should give everyone strength of will to see this through to its inevitable end with Rump dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming "fraud", "fake news", "I won", and "let me go"...


----------



## nightlight

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHOVwZ8ny87/?igshid=17tfm1nq3o895

At least the election gave us this grindcore song based on a rant by a Trump supporter.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

At least Jimmy more up beat!
"Putin was overheard saying, oh well, you rig some, you lose some" lol
​


----------



## USMarine75

The biggest loser...


----------



## USMarine75

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6207539914001

The sycophancy is palpable with this one.


----------



## Randy

Who would've thought the face of fascism acceptance in the US would be a plaid shirt under a sweater? Okay, most of us did.


----------



## Randy

I love that it's been 4 to 5 years of the stupidest people on Earth led around by the Pied Piper of Glue Sniffing, and it fittingly ends with them losing an election in a way they're too stupid to understand.

In fairness though, 12 years ago this was the same party that campaigned on making it so you could do your tax return on one side of a post card, and against Obamacare because "it had too many pages". Jesus christ, the guy told you to inject bleach into your lungs and that's the one order you couldn't get right?


----------



## Wuuthrad

But wait...

“Angels are being summoned right now...

For Victory...

From Africa...

Dispatched...

Right Now!”


----------



## Wuuthrad

almost forgot- these two gettin rdy:

RUN FO THE HILLS!

https://nypost.com/2020/11/05/vladimir-putin-planning-to-step-down-next-year-report/


----------



## AxRookie

Seth Meyers has a brilliant idea of how to deal with chanting Rump supporters! 
​


----------



## fantom

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/05/tech/steve-bannon-twitter-permanent-suspension/index.html


----------



## Necris

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgq...iple-witnesses-in-gynecologic-surgery-scandal
It's almost like ICE want to hide something.


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> But wait...
> 
> “Angels are being summoned right now...
> 
> For Victory...
> 
> From Africa...
> 
> Dispatched...
> 
> Right Now!”




Saw that on Colbert. She is nuts lol. And what's with the dude walking behind her?


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/05/tech/steve-bannon-twitter-permanent-suspension/index.html


That's going to happen to Rump as soon as he is FIRED!


----------



## spudmunkey

Everyone chanting and posting "Trump 2020!" was right. It's just that it was an expiration date.


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> That's going to happen to Rump as doon as he is FIRED!



Eh, I don't think so. I feel like he wouldn't go so far as to suggest beheading government officials like Bannon did...


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Eh, I don't think so. I feel like he wouldn't go so far as to suggest beheading government officials like Bannon did...


You give him WAY too much credit... lol

I bet he says much worse once he's dragged out of the White House kicking and screaming!

I think the only reason they haven't yet is they were afraid Rump would try to ban Twitter!


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> Everyone chanting and posting "Trump 2020!" was right. It's just that it was an expiration date.


My mom loved that one! lol


----------



## USMarine75

Since this is a guitar forum... lol


----------



## AxRookie

*Pennsylvania election: Philadelphia police probe alleged plot to attack Pa. Convention Center*

**

*Rump is to blame for this sort of thing happening!!! *​


----------



## AxRookie

463 votes to go and Biden flips Georgia!


----------



## spudmunkey

When your two cults start to overlap:

https://twitter.com/anenews/status/1324559175985233921?s=20


----------



## USMarine75

Hannity just asked Sen Cruz if they will have the Republican Electors of PA go against the popular vote and elect Trump instead.


----------



## AxRookie

*BIDEN TAKES THE LEAD IN GEORGIA!!!*


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

*THE BLUE WAVE HAS STARTED CRASHING ON THE SHORES! 

It just took a little longer than expected... 

306!*​


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## Louis Cypher

The kneeling protest post is brilliant but Greta's tweet is pure genius! LOL! 
Some UK press is reporting that Republican's are turning on Trump, guess they are seeing the end of him and preparing the start of the inevitable tsunami of Republicans disowning Trump and claiming they were innocent bystanders and nothing to do with his administration in prep for 2024. Hoping they can do what the Tory party here did last Dec, to convince the country that even tho they are the same party thats been in charge for ten years, they are nothing to do with the previous 10 years and are a fresh start!


----------



## nightlight

Too soon to call Georgia. There are about 10000 absentee ballots to count, and a whole lot of ballots from military personnel overseas. Biden has a razor thin lead.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Could have done with more of this over the last 4 years, News & TV cutting Trump off to state what he is saying is BS


----------



## USMarine75

Louis Cypher said:


> Could have done with more of this over the last 4 years, News & TV cutting Trump off to state what he is saying is BS




Hannity was raging about how the mainstream media was censoring Trump and now whenever he started to talk about voting fraud they cut away. He acted like it was nefarious. But both NBC and CBS explicitly stated they were intentionally not airing his BS lol.


----------



## USMarine75

*Federal judge dismisses Trump request to stop counting Philadelphia ballots*


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fe...request-to-stop-counting-philadelphia-ballots

Another Deep State Obama judge covering up and stealing the election from Trump when we should be investigating Hunters laptop. Oh wait... he’s a Republican conservative judge appointed by George W Bush? But, that doesn’t make sense to my Deep State narrative dammit. Quick.. cut to footage of Benghazi or Hillary’s server ASAP!


----------



## Louis Cypher

LBC's US correspondant a little earlier said something really interesting/scary on the Trump situation, Trump currently has well over 69.5 MILLION popular votes, he has exceeded Obama who was in 1st place forthe highest popular vote count, and is only 2nd as Biden is knocking on the door of 74 million in 1st. If you took a 3rd of them as being "True Believers" thats 20M+ votes Trump could potentially carry in to 2024 to then run again himself (which I didnt know you could do if you had had only 1 term as president), use that 20million base to back Ivanka (that is some kind of unholy hell I never want to witness) or he could take that and back a third party candidate. Basically his point was, even if he does concede peacefully over the coming days, politically Trump is going nowhere and that is not just a massive issue for Biden but also for the Republicans if they decide they want to step back and try to resume normal Republican service in time for 2024! Trump is not gonna be flushed away any time soon was his point


----------



## AxRookie

Biden should make a private to Tump and say "Hey, guess what? everything you said about Hunter's laptop was all true! sorry loser!" and hang up on him...

Jokes aside, Once Rump is out of the White House he'll just be another 911 was an inside job nut...


----------



## Randy

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...p-biden-election-results-n1246707/ncrd1246732



> "No matter what happens in this election, the fight’s out in the open now!" Jones said on video verified by NBC News. "The real fight starts now."


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

nightlight said:


> Too soon to call Georgia. There are about 10000 absentee ballots to count, and a whole lot of ballots from military personnel overseas. Biden has a razor thin lead.


The thing is his lead there will only grow as more votes come in as over the last day or so the votes have all broke 85% Biden's way...

And the same thing is true in PA...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Btw-

Trump losing his home state. 

Biden gonna win PA! 

Says it all right there.


----------



## sleewell

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inte...art-alleged-bombing-of-ballot-counting-center

*Philadelphia police thwart alleged bombing of ballot-counting center*


----------



## AxRookie

*PA JUST FLIPPED TO BLUE!!!
AND BIDEN'S PULLING AWAY!!!
306 here we come!*​


----------



## Ralyks

Fivethirtyeight basically saying Trump has no chance to get PA and would blame no one for calling the election.
This is nerve wracking.


----------



## diagrammatiks

and we're done. 

now just to see how those senate run-offs go. 

Now for months and months of legal bullshit. recounts. court cases. and bullshit.

I truly hope the dems take four years to shore up their base and maybe send prayers to god for some bipartisan support.

Everything trump said about voter fraud is bullshit...but his base believes it. those votes aren't going blue ever.


----------



## Drew

Decision Desk just called PA for Biden. Other desks should follow suit quickly. This one's over.

https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/...4?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

Or, at least, the vting phase is over. Now comes the recounts and legal wrangling, and then we can move on to Trump crying like a baby.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> those votes aren't going blue ever.


As this election proves those votes aren't needed to win anymore! Reason has won the day over lies!!!

Soon I can go back to not having my nose pressed up the TV and I can sit back and relax while watching regular old movies and TV shows like I did 4 years ago...


----------



## sleewell

wonder if trump would run as a republican in 2024 or as an independent? dems would probably love it if he split the gop into 2 parties.

at any rate he is not just going to breeze into the primaries. sounds like he is facing many legal cases which cannot be pardoned away and some should be easily provable.


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> As this election proves those votes aren't needed to win anymore! Reason has won the day over lies!!!



you know we have an election every 4 years right.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> then we can move on to Trump crying like a baby.



He's been crying like a baby for 5 years now. I guess he finally got tired of winning.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I wouldn't dunk on it too much.

If I thought trump was capable of 4d chess...everything recently about voter fraud is the opening salvo for 2024.

I think it's going to have a bigger impact then Obama getting elected.

It's 4 years of angry assholes hating the rigged government.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> you know we have an election every 4 years right.


Yes, and without Rump in contention anymore, I can go back to not giving a dam who wins!


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> Yes, and without Rump in contention anymore, I can go back to not giving a dam who wins!



that's great dude. you're a great civic treasure. truly an asset to democracy.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> I wouldn't dunk on it too much.
> 
> If I thought trump was capable of 4d chess...everything recently about voter fraud is the opening salvo for 2024.
> 
> I think it's going to have a bigger impact then Obama getting elected.
> 
> It's 4 years of angry assholes hating the rigged government.


LOL Rump is no Sheldon Cooper! He's more of a Leonard when it comes to 4D chess, I think this election proves that out...

AND he can't blame his election strategy on someone else as he was at the wheel of his whole re-election campaign!!!


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> that's great dude. you're a great civic treasure. truly an asset to democracy.


The Banana man told you nothing??? must I always say I'm just joking???


----------



## thraxil

Louis Cypher said:


> If you took a 3rd of them as being "True Believers" thats 20M+ votes Trump could potentially carry in to 2024 to then run again himself (which I didnt know you could do if you had had only 1 term as president), use that 20million base to back Ivanka (that is some kind of unholy hell I never want to witness)



Speculation of course, but there's good reason to believe that Trump is clinging so hard to the White House is because he knows there's a reckoning coming once he's out of office and can't control the DOJ, pardon his buddies, and claim immunity. He'll do what he can to block that on his way out, but NY has pending cases and there are bound to be more coming. Very good chance he'll at least be indicted on a few and have some very ugly details come out in court in the next few years. I doubt his family will make it out of that unscathed. At the very least, we know that Jared and Ivanka's security clearances were initially denied and they had to overrule the FBI to allow them to work in the WH. Biden as President will have access to a lot of details and documents on the shady stuff that Trump's been hiding and could freely declassify it if it looks like one of them might run in 2024.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> He's been crying like a baby for 5 years now. I guess he finally got tired of winning.




BTW, Georgia did indeed flip last night and while there will certainly be a recount, I expect that one to stand. And AZ is actually firming up, as we now have some color on where the rest of the ballots are coming from and they should be pretty Democratic. NV, the only reason no one's called this is the more aggressive desks have already called AZ and this would force them to call the election, while AZ was still objectively too close to call.

I just got off a work call halfway through writing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if other desks are following Decision Desk's lead, and NV is being called as well. Looks like we're on track for 306 votes, two more than Trump won in 2016.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> Speculation of course, but there's good reason to believe that Trump is clinging so hard to the White House is because he knows there's a reckoning coming once he's out of office and can't control the DOJ, pardon his buddies, and claim immunity. He'll do what he can to block that on his way out, but NY has pending cases and there are bound to be more coming. Very good chance he'll at least be indicted on a few and have some very ugly details come out in court in the next few years. I doubt his family will make it out of that unscathed. At the very least, we know that Jared and Ivanka's security clearances were initially denied and they had to overrule the FBI to allow them to work in the WH. Biden as President will have access to a lot of details and documents on the shady stuff that Trump's been hiding and could freely declassify it if it looks like one of them might run in 2024.


I think the two most likely outcomes here are Trump goes to jail, likely as a result of state-level prosecution (prosecuting an outgoing president after an electoral loss is a. very slippery slope) or Trump laumches a media empire of his own. 

In either case, that makes for a challenging 2024 bid (if he's not an inmate I could see him trying of course), and I suppose Bloomberg has set the precedent that you can run while still controlling a media empire - he at least had the decency to have Bloomberg as a matter of policy only do news reporting and no opinion reporting during his candidacy, though, and I don't see Trump doing that.


----------



## AxRookie

Any recounts will certainly fail to change anything if the margin is 1000 votes or more...

All of my predictions are coming true! 306 here we come! 
​


----------



## Wuuthrad

AxRookie said:


> As this election proves those votes aren't needed to win anymore! Reason has won the day over lies!!!
> 
> Soon I can go back to not having my nose pressed up the TV and I can sit back and relax while watching regular old movies and TV shows like I did 4 years ago...



IKR! 

I feel like I just took the biggest shit of my entire life!


----------



## ArtDecade

Philly resident here:

World, you are welcome. 
Trump, bad things happen in Philly - to you.
Armed protesters, if want to give us a hard time, fuck around and find out.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, don't EVER wear a Giants jsersey there, trust me.


----------



## ArtDecade

In our defense, no one likes Michael Irving.


----------



## AxRookie

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 86876
> 
> 
> Also, don't EVER wear a Giants jsersey there, trust me.


I've never seen a toddler dress like an adult before?!?

Is he bringing his squirt gun with him to wage this so-called war???

Is his "playbook" actually just a coloring book???

I have sooo many questions about that little boy???


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> I wouldn't dunk on it too much.
> 
> If I thought trump was capable of 4d chess...everything recently about voter fraud is the opening salvo for 2024.
> 
> I think it's going to have a bigger impact then Obama getting elected.
> 
> It's 4 years of angry assholes hating the rigged government.



Dems are well aware what work they still have to do, they basically lost the battle in both houses of congress and Mitch mcconnell will make it almost impossible for Dems to get anything passed for at least the next two years. 

So no, there's a battle brewing that we'll have to deal with basically day one but I think we're justified in celebrating today. Trump, him specifically in name, was the loudest voice to how close we came to fascism and it's not over yet.


----------



## AxRookie

​


----------



## AxRookie

My prediction stands and Biden will hold NV, AZ, GA, and PA and we'll see a Win for Biden of 306...


*AxRookie has Spoken! *​


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


> ​




"Stop the count!" "Stop the count!"


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> "Stop the count!" "Stop the count!"


Please do! Call it for Biden and be done with it!!! lol


----------



## ArtDecade




----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> Please do! Call it for Biden and be done with it!!! lol



Naw... watching trump and his core group and his biased media outlets slowly melt-down is pretty entertaining.


----------



## Demiurge

^Indeed. I need to see the incredibly sore winners of 4 years ago be incredibly sore losers to get the full experience.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> Naw... watching trump and his core group and his biased media outlets slowly melt-down is pretty entertaining.


Tru Dat...

Now if you'll excuse I'm going back to a very sound sleep for a change while all my predictions come true...


----------



## nightflameauto

Necris said:


> https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgq...iple-witnesses-in-gynecologic-surgery-scandal
> It's almost like ICE want to hide something.


This type of shit is ridiculous.

AxRookie, you're exuberance is exhausting. I mean, I'm glad Trump is losing, but I'm beginning to think you need to switch to decaf.

The wrangling and court cases and recounts and bullshit are going to be epically frustrating, even if we know the ultimate outcome.

Now, to switch to a non-national discussion for a moment. We passed medical and recreational marijuana by a not insignificant margin. Our governor, long opposed to anything marijuana or hemp related, put out a statement saying it's the wrong move and will destroy families and cause massive hemorrhaging of the state budget attempting to implement the new agencies required. Then went on to say this is why she's long said that this state needs an adult in charge because the people are simply too dumb to understand what's best for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, ^^^ that's the Republican stance on all things. I just don't understand how anyone can vote for such a condescending shit. And she's always been that way. That was even something she said in her initial campaign.

Back to the national bullshit.

So, I'm watching an interview this morning with a political analyst. He's being asked about Trump's claims and how to have a serious conversation about the potential that they may have a point. The analyst literally laughed and then said, "I don't even understand how you can ask that question. I mean if someone walks up to you and says, 'one plus one equals three,' you don't try to have a serious conversation about the potential they have a point."

It both cracked me up and made me realize how utterly fucked we are as a nation. The people that believe every conspiracy theory, no matter how insane, are driving those of us with a brain stem crazy because we keep getting told they have valid points, even when they clearly don't. How do you calm down an angry and delusional person with facts when they claim those facts are biased?

I am curious where Trump will end up when this all starts shaking out. If he's not imprisoned when the next campaign cycle starts, I look for him to toss himself in as a third party candidate. I don't think even the dick-riders in the Trump camp will cling to him once he's out of office. But then again, I didn't figure anybody would back up his crazy rants about fraud either.

That speech last night was brutal. It's like watching a kid that's been scolded for the same thing repeatedly and they know, deep down, it's all their fault, but they're still going through the motions of justifying whatever they did. The words said "voting fraud," but his mannerisms screamed, "I'm fucked."

I wonder if he won't end up having a real breakdown when it's all said and done?


----------



## mbardu

Soooo...now that Biden is ahead in PA, are we allowed to go chant "STOP THE COUNT!" too? Or are the PA trumpers going to flip to "Count all the votes" like in AZ?


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> AxRookie, you're exuberance is exhausting. I mean, I'm glad Trump is losing, but I'm beginning to think you need to switch to decaf.


Sorry you feel that way BUT I will continue to express myself as I feel fit to do and if that bothers you so much AND you feel the need to single me out, then please, by all means, put me on block if you can't handle me expressing my opinions like everyone else here...

After all, my opinions are rather tame next to A LOT of others here...


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> That speech last night was brutal. It's like watching a kid that's been scolded for the same thing repeatedly and they know, deep down, it's all their fault, but they're still going through the motions of justifying whatever they did. The words said "voting fraud," but his mannerisms screamed, "I'm fucked."



Yeah, he knows he's lost, but that was still the most pathetic thing I've ever seen from an adult. And I'd also argue that the mannerisms on display screamed "LOSER".


----------



## Randy

Sounds like AP is getting ready to call this for Biden, if they haven't already. Haven't been near a TV in the last 5 minutes.


----------



## mbardu

tedtan said:


> Yeah, he knows he's lost, but that was still the most pathetic thing I've ever seen from an adult. And I'd also argue that the mannerisms on display screamed "LOSER".



_"Adult"_


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> Yeah, he knows he's lost, but that was still the most pathetic thing I've ever seen from an adult. And I'd also argue that the mannerisms on display screamed "LOSER".



The real question is if the states that pulled for Trump decide to secede, would we miss them? The answer is no.


----------



## mbardu

_RNC two days ago_: we want results right away, otherwise the election is illegitimate

_RNC two minutes ago_: be patient, we need all results, and need to recount, and we need to look into all that fraud


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> The real question is if the states that pulled for Trump decide to secede, would we miss them? The answer is no.



Red states have decided to secede.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Sounds like AP is getting ready to call this for Biden, if they haven't already. Haven't been near a TV in the last 5 minutes.


They are close but I think they just want some more votes to keep breaking as they have been for a little while longer before they call it?

They will call it once the numbers of the remaining votes show it is very unlikely Rump can come back...


----------



## tedtan

mbardu said:


> _"Adult"_



Well, he's 74, so I'm using the term based on his age. Mentally and emotionally, he's so stunted he's essentially a 7 year old (and that may be generous).


----------



## nightflameauto

AxRookie said:


> Sorry you feel that way BUT I will continue to express myself as I feel fit to do and if that bothers you so much AND you feel the need to single me out, then please, by all means, put me on block if you can't handle me expressing my opinions like everyone else here...
> 
> After all, my opinions are rather tame next to A LOT of others here...


Your opinions themselves are fine, and I'm not trying to police anybody's posting. It just comes across a little over-the-top to me. Multiple posts in a row where every sentence is followed by multiple exclamation points is almost as annoying as the all caps screamers.

Well, not quite that bad.

In all honesty, I was attempting to gently chide you into maybe turning down just a teeny bit. But you do you, bud.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> The real question is if the states that pulled for Trump decide to secede, would we miss them? The answer is no.



states rights states rights states rights.

I'm all for it.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

nightflameauto said:


> It both cracked me up and made me realize how utterly fucked we are as a nation. The people that believe every conspiracy theory, no matter how insane, are driving those of us with a brain stem crazy because we keep getting told they have valid points, even when they clearly don't. How do you calm down an angry and delusional person with facts when they claim those facts are biased?



We've encouraged axrookie to switch to Mt. Dew Zero but I'm not holding my breath. 

We are fucked in many regards as a country but I feel as if we need to keep in mind that these neanderthals didn't just pop up overnight. They've existed for decades. It's simply that for a brief moment recently, they had someone in the White House representing all of their most vile and combustible thoughts ( and then some). I don't see them as any more of a liability then they ever were. They will still walk among us just as they always have but I believe that eventually, their audible and physical tantrums will subside. Disgruntled trump supporters can carry on in threatening, delusional, and nasty ways if they so choose and it's indeed sad how short human's attention spans are ( especially Americans) but maybe there's a positive side to that in instances like this. As long as Facebook exists and as long as they can gather with their fellow knuckle-dragging brethren then they'll likely be content... licking wounds and car batteries. Nothing significant will change for them anyway and just as the 2020 Presidential battle and the pandemic has proven to everyone, it's that you can truly lead a horse to water, yet... no drinky. And as far as trump goes... he was his own worst enemy. It's truly crazy to think of how easy it would've been for him to win re-election... had he just acted a touch less insane. 

Hopefully, some people may reflect and at the very least, accept change... it happens. But for those that can't or won't, they aren't going to greatly affect anything on a large scale so long as penalties prevail. The people have spoken and as many idiots and conspiracy theorists exist out there, so do an equal or greater number of sane and reasonable people. We'll get beyond this... a country that will continue as it always has... plagued with governmental indiscretions and all kinds of social and economic conflicts but moving along nonetheless. The main thing that we needed right now was to have trump taken down. Other challenges, disasters, etc are coming but we took a big step this year to speak up and to at least prove to ourselves and to the global community that some semblance of democracy and decency still exists here in America.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> Your opinions themselves are fine, and I'm not trying to police anybody's posting. It just comes across a little over-the-top to me. Multiple posts in a row where every sentence is followed by multiple exclamation points is almost as annoying as the all caps screamers.
> 
> Well, not quite that bad.
> 
> In all honesty, I was attempting to gently chide you into maybe turning down just a teeny bit. But you do you, bud.


Two posts in a row at most and the all caps have been few and very short compared to the overall total...

No hate...



High Plains Drifter said:


> We've encouraged axrookie to switch to Mt. Dew Zero but I'm not holding my breath.


Me??? as you post a 1000 word post proclaiming we are fucked?!?

Well, Ok...


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> states rights states rights states rights.
> 
> I'm all for it.



Considering most red states gobble up more tax money than they put in, yet they crow about taxes and hold the rest of the country hostage because of their insecurity about women's rights, gay and racial/religious minority rights, etc. Yeah, I'd be more than happy to let them walk. Fuck 'em.


----------



## nightflameauto

I hope the red states don't succeed. I'm in one of them. I'd hate to see the dystopia my neighbors would be creating without some national level coercion here or there to correct course.


----------



## Randy

Imagine Donald Trump, president of the 21st century Confederacy, trying to run an economy without New York, California, the Great Lakes region, etc. and essentially no trading partners besides Russia and North Korea. Have fun during hurricane/tornado season, you fucks!


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> The real question is if the states that pulled for Trump decide to secede, would we miss them? The answer is no.



Honestly, it needs to happen. If the country is too large to represent the best interests of everyone, the right thing to do is split it up. CA, OR, and WA have discussed recession for pretty much the entire time I've been on the west coast. CA has also discussed splitting into smaller states at least 2 different ways in the last 5 years.

The alternative is to limit federal oversight and weaken the powers of federal government. I would be much happier if we treated the federal government like the European Union and less like ancient Rome.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Imagine Donald Trump, president of the 21st century Confederacy, trying to run an economy without New York, California, the Great Lakes region, etc. and essentially no trading partners besides Russia and North Korea. Have fun during hurricane/tornado season, you fucks!


My hope is they are joking about succession?


----------



## Randy

AxRookie said:


> My hope is they are joking about succession?



I haven't heard anyone mention it, but they're all kicking and screaming and refuse to give up on Donald Trump, or accept Democracy and focusing on negotiating, so I'm sure the secession talk will start to bubble up over the next few days.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> I haven't heard anyone mention it, but they're all kicking and screaming and refuse to give up on Donald Trump, or accept Democracy and focusing on negotiating, so I'm sure the secession talk will start to bubble up over the next few days.


The fact is we all need each other now more than ever! A nation truly divided in the real world sense of the word will surely fall!

I mean didn't we already fight the civil war??? did we learn nothing?!? is this what Rump has lead us too?!?


----------



## sleewell

red states need the blue states for $$$. most red states run deficits that get paid by the surpluses paid by CA and NY.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> Honestly, it needs to happen. If the country is too large to represent the best interests of everyone, the right thing to do is split it up. CA, OR, and WA have discussed recession for pretty much the entire time I've been on the west coast. CA has also discussed splitting into smaller states at least 2 different ways in the last 5 years.
> 
> The alternative is to limit federal oversight and weaken the powers of federal government. I would be much happier if we treated the federal government like the European Union and less like ancient Rome.



State sovereignty is alive and well, the news cycle around election time focuses us more on the federal side of things but local elections play a much larger role in our lives day-to-day. There's a reason why New York City and Branson Missouri are to vastly different looking places. Even here in NY, you see wildly different economies and demographics from one town to the next.

The issue as of current was absolutely specific to Donald Trump. I'm not a Constitution fetishist, but the purpose of he document was to be guard rails and he did everything possible to run right over them. Likewise, I stand by the fact the federal government plays a limited role in day-to-day life but when the guy with the highest office indoctrinates people into hate and tells them to take to the streets, you see it spilling over into our communities like you saw with all the violence over the last several months (and may possibly see as a result of this election). He was a dangerous, violence, riot and plague inducing agent and we can talk about the SANE role of a federal government after he's gone. Ideally in fucking jail but that's a different topic.


----------



## AxRookie

I truly believe we will survive the legacy of Rump intact and that the damage he's done is repairable given enough time AND the right people at the wheel...


*AxRookie has spoken!!!*

Sorry nightflameauto, I couldn't help myself... lol​


----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> Two posts in a row at most and the all caps have been few and very short compared to the overall total...
> 
> No hate...
> 
> Me??? as you post a 1000 word post proclaiming we are fucked?!?
> 
> Well, Ok...



Dude... was just razzing... no personal attack. Really didn't expect you to take that so seriously. Apologies.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> State sovereignty is alive and well, the news cycle around election time focuses us more on the federal side of things but local elections play a much larger role in our lives day-to-day. There's a reason why New York City and Branson Missouri are to vastly different looking places. Even here in NY, you see wildly different economies and demographics from one town to the next.
> 
> The issue as of current was absolutely specific to Donald Trump. I'm not a Constitution fetishist, but the purpose of he document was to be guard rails and he did everything possible to run right over them. Likewise, I stand by the fact the federal government plays a limited role in day-to-day life but when the guy with the highest office indoctrinates people into hate and tells them to take to the streets, you see it spilling over into our communities like you saw with all the violence over the last several months (and may possibly see as a result of this election). He was a dangerous, violence, riot and plague inducing agent and we can talk about the SANE role of a federal government after he's gone. Ideally in fucking jail but that's a different topic.



USCIS and federal income taxes are two things that affect a large number of people (or the majority of people) and should be handled at the state level since local opinions vary drastically.

On taxes, I'll be the first to say that the CA tax laws are by far more ridiculous (in a bad way) than federal.

And for anyone who wants to blame immigration on "bad people", you have no idea what you are talking about. It takes 2-3 YEARS to even have the government interview a wife, husband, parent, or child of a US citizen... A sibling is over 5 YEARS just to do the initial interview. Unless you are Trump and lie your way through the process, it is a huge burden on families trying to do it the right way. It is completely ridiculous to me that someone cannot easily take care of their family members without leaving the country until government gets their shit together. And Trump has made this considerably worse by moving USCIS resource to ICE, creating a bigger bottleneck.


----------



## nightflameauto

I keep hearing from acquaintances that any president would have done just as poorly with the pandemic so we have to give Trump a pass on his handling of it. Sorry, nope. That shit doesn't fly at all.

A good president, rather than hosting near daily press conferences where he refuted science and the doctors attempting to speak intelligibly about the pandemic, would have let those doctors speak for themselves. In fact, I could totally see somebody like Biden starting a conference and sitting in the back of the room while the medical exports spoke and then only coming up at the end to reassure people that we're working on it and with the medical community and government in sync we're in the best possible position to conquer this threat.

A good president would have spoken to people as people and helped them understand that locking down for two to three weeks and then softly reopening would be better than never really locking down and letting the virus run rampant for months without anything slowing it down.

A good president wouldn't encourage people to protest over mask mandates and requests for social distancing.

There's so many ways he bungled this when really, all he had to do was be a little restrained, let the doctors take the lead, and not encourage his followers to turn protests into violence. Fuck sake, how anyone is left that could defend him on this is beyond me.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> Dude... was just razzing... no personal attack. Really didn't expect you to take that so seriously. Apologies.


It's all good, We're all friends here just voicing our one-sided opinions... lol

Just razzing ya back... lol


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Dems are well aware what work they still have to do, they basically lost the battle in both houses of congress and Mitch mcconnell will make it almost impossible for Dems to get anything passed for at least the next two years.
> 
> So no, there's a battle brewing that we'll have to deal with basically day one but I think we're justified in celebrating today. Trump, him specifically in name, was the loudest voice to how close we came to fascism and it's not over yet.


Well, maybe. I'm having major 2018 flashbacks here. We lost ground in the House, and I don't expect to make that up, but the strength of the blue wave in 2018 wasn't evident until well after polls closed, so I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. Likewise with Biden's margins - this race felt INCREDIBLY close in the moment, thanks to various red and blue shifts, but when all is said and done PA, AZ, and NV may not be all that close, once the last of the votes are counted, and WA and MI have been called for days. Biden is on track for 306 electoral college votes, more than Trump won in 2016. 

And, while we are (IMO) extremely unlikely to take back the Senate (I don't see Dems taking two runoff elections in GA against what looks like a pretty energized electorate, though without Trump on the ticket it's not impossible), the AP just called AK for the Democratic candidate, so we're on track for a net one seat _gain_ in the Senate. That's less than we'd hoped for, true... But this was a Senate map that really favored the GOP, so the fact that we were even considering retaking the Senate a realistic possibility speaks volumes to how poorly the GOP came into this election. They just managed to stave off a total bloodbath. 

I'm starting to wonder if looking back at this, the narrative may be more of a solid year for Democrats than it's felt living it.


----------



## wankerness

I read all kinds of insane data about Trump voters this go around. Like, 40% of them believed in mask mandates, and of that 40%, 80% of them thought Trump did too (when ALL his behavior has been the exact opposite). People just choose teams and create their own reality bubble to suit it.


----------



## mbardu

So what happens when the electoral college folks from red states vote Trump instead of Biden despite the popular vote in their state? Because we pretty much know rules no longer matter...


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> So what happens when the electoral college folks from red states vote Trump instead of Biden despite the popular vote in their state? Because we pretty much know rules no longer matter...


I don't even want to think about the damage that would do!

That might not be recoverable for generations!

I can hear Putin right now "YES, YES! everything is going according to plan!"...


----------



## wankerness

The states where they have the ability to do that are not the same as the states where it's really close, from what I've heard, so there's practically no chance. I think Biden has this no matter what, but that we're probably screwed on the senate, and by extension, a whole lot of things.

Plus, Trump needs to be banned IMMEDIATELY if we want to avoid widespread right wing terrorism. I absolutely hate how Twitter refuses to do it. Guess they'd be turning off a major source of revenue!


----------



## AxRookie

In my home state of Nevada Biden has pulled out to a 20,000+ vote lead at 49.8%!

Once it hits 50.0 to 50.1% I think the AP will call it! That seems to be their threshold...


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> I keep hearing from acquaintances that any president would have done just as poorly with the pandemic so we have to give Trump a pass on his handling of it. Sorry, nope. That shit doesn't fly at all.



Because South Korea's Moon Jae In is not a white Christian gun enthusiast. And don't get me started on Taiwan's Tsai Ing-wen. Not only is her name impossible to pronounce, she should be in the kitchen and leaving the real work to a man. And New Zealand's Jacinda Ardern... She needs to stick to more Lord of the Rings movies and open up the economy for Hollywood, amirite? /s


----------



## AxRookie

*Just plain sad!*

**

*But not surprising... *​


----------



## AxRookie

I'm very proud of my home state of Nevada!

Part of the late-breaking Blue Wave to wash in!​


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> *Just plain sad!*
> 
> **
> 
> *But not surprising... *​




the cnn guys are just so fucking confused this is the world they have to live in.


----------



## AxRookie

Rump will be in Marolargo crying on Twitter "I'm still the President, I'm still the President, I'm still the President!" with the only place paying any attention to him being Fox Nonsense claiming "a cue that been perpetrated on the White House!"...

Fox Nonsense has now dropped from being laughable to a complete JOKE!


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> the cnn guys are just so fucking confused this is the world they have to live in.




​


----------



## USMarine75

Fox News, specifically Hannity, raging with "tons of evidence" and "eyewitness accounts" about how ALL of the PA votes were counted with NO poll watchers allowed at any site.

Meanwhile, Trump attorney admitted in court they had people in the room, just not close enough.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## USMarine75

Even the Republican Senator from PA has said Trump et al claims of election impropriety are unfounded.


----------



## USMarine75

The late-arriving ballots in PA that Trump is trying to get the Supreme Court to stop and nullify... and that Fox News is sounding the "Democratic Coup" alarm over... are 3000 votes lol.


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> Considering most red states gobble up more tax money than they put in, yet they crow about taxes and hold the rest of the country hostage because of their insecurity about women's rights, gay and racial/religious minority rights, etc. Yeah, I'd be more than happy to let them walk. Fuck 'em.





sleewell said:


> red states need the blue states for $$$. most red states run deficits that get paid by the surpluses paid by CA and NY.



Pretty much this. The sad reality of "socialism" in this country is conservative states that funnel in tax dollars from primarily liberal states while complaining that those states are pushing a socialist agenda.

And the public school system that needs to be opened up at any cost (well, except actually paying teachers a living wage).


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> So what happens when the electoral college folks from red states vote Trump instead of Biden despite the popular vote in their state? Because we pretty much know rules no longer matter...


Not a likely risk, honestly. Both parties select their own slates of electors, and whichever wins, their electors are sent to the Electoral College vote. As I understand, at least. It's more likely that a GOP-leaning party might refuse to certify the election results with Biden winning, which is a whole seerate problem, but it's not a major risk that faithless electors will en masse vote for the wrong candidate.



AxRookie said:


> Rump will be in Marolargo crying on Twitter "I'm still the President, I'm still the President, I'm still the President!" with the only place paying any attention to him being Fox Nonsense claiming "a cue that been perpetrated on the White House!"...
> 
> Fox Nonsense has now dropped from being laughable to a complete JOKE!


Not my business, but calling Trump insulting nicknames sort of takes away from your credibility, you know.


----------



## broj15

AxRookie said:


> I don't even want to think about the damage that would do!
> 
> That might not be recoverable for generations!
> 
> I can hear Putin right now "YES, YES! everything is going according to plan!"...



Uhhhh you do know that Putin has decided to officially step down from his position due to medical concerns at the end of year, right?


----------



## AxRookie

Drew said:


> calling Trump insulting nicknames sort of takes away from your credibility


You're talking about the guy who single-handedly cornered the market on insulting nicknames?!? I think my credibility will be fine in this instance...



broj15 said:


> Uhhhh you do know that Putin has decided to officially step down from his position due to medical concerns at the end of year, right?


Uhhhhh you do know that Putin has put any plans he had into action long ago, right? and that after he "officially step down from his position due to medical concerns" will still have a hand in the "game" so to speak, right? do you really believe he will step down and no one in power will hear from him again???


----------



## Drew

AxRookie said:


> You're talking about the guy who single-handedly cornered the market on insulting nicknames you know? I think my credibility will be fine in this instance...
> 
> Uhhhhh you do know that Putin has put any plans he had into action long ago, right? and that after he "officially step down from his position due to medical concerns" will still have a hand in the "game" so to speak, right? do you really believe he will step down and no one in power will hear from him again???


I've never been much of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" guy. 

I'll believe that on Putin when I see it, frankly, and even then I'll have my doubts.


----------



## AxRookie

Drew said:


> I've never been much of a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" guy.
> 
> I'll believe that on Putin when I see it, frankly, and even then I'll have my doubts.


Nether have I, BUT, in this one instance, I think I'm in the clear...

The thing is with Putin, you will never "see it" but "it" will still be happening none the less, AND of course he will always deny it, just like all of his opponents that die under shady circumstances, Putin is no dummy...

After all, we've all seen how he so masterfully pulled the strings of our former Traitor in Chief?

I mean, God Dam, if Rump didn't stand right next to Putin and say "he says he didn't do it, and I believe him"?!? what the fuck?!?


----------



## bostjan

By my reckoning and the AP data, it is now mathematically impossible for Biden to win NC, despite it being close, he'd have to get something like 65000 of the remaining 55000 ballots to be counted. And it looks like not much else has changed.

Despite this, if you plug all of the probabilities in and chug through the mathematics, Trump has a 0.3% chance of pulling off a win legitimately now, and that's factoring the possibility of recounts turning out his way. That's statistically insignificant.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> By my reckoning and the AP data, it is now mathematically impossible for Biden to win NC, despite it being close, he'd have to get something like 65000 of the remaining 55000 ballots to be counted. And it looks like not much else has changed.
> 
> Despite this, if you plug all of the probabilities in and chug through the mathematics, Trump has a 0.3% chance of pulling off a win legitimately now, and that's factoring the possibility of recounts turning out his way. That's statistically insignificant.



NC has been clear for a while. Most outlets I've been looking at are not even including it in the list of states to watch.
It's mostly FoxNews still showing it on screen so that they still have one "red" state to show in the 'undecided' ones because without it, this morning they only had 4 blue ones now - and it didn't look good to their audience.


----------



## Boofchuck

My wife and I just witnessed a lifted red Ford merge downhill onto the highway from a ramp with a massive "Fuck Trump 2020" flag. It was magical as fuck and I wanted to share the experience with you all haha. I wanted to take a picture but the majestic beast vanished.


----------



## Necris

For at least the next 2 months Fox News' most ardent Trump propagandists (Hannity, Carlson and Ingrahm) will basically be holding the reins dictating whether or not the response of Trump's supporters to Biden's apparent victory in this election becomes more violent. I feel like most here would probably recognize that's very bad news given how they've basically painted themselves into a corner over the past 4 years and their coverage of the election the past few nights has been focused on questioning the legitimacy of the election and continuing to function as mouthpieces for Trump himself.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## wankerness

Fox News is on the verge of becoming a terrorist organization. Anyone see Tucker Carlson foaming at the mouth about how their side has 60-70% of the force (guns) if they take to the streets? I really wish there was some sort of accountability for them and facebook. If anything was ever an argument against free speech, this is it. We're in a really precarious place right now. It's up to the Murdochs to determine whether they put profits over lives. History stops that idea from looking very likely.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> By my reckoning and the AP data, it is now mathematically impossible for Biden to win NC, despite it being close, he'd have to get something like 65000 of the remaining 55000 ballots to be counted. And it looks like not much else has changed.
> 
> Despite this, if you plug all of the probabilities in and chug through the mathematics, Trump has a 0.3% chance of pulling off a win legitimately now, and that's factoring the possibility of recounts turning out his way. That's statistically insignificant.


I'm busy ranting on Facebook that the only reason no one is calling this (aside from Decision Desk) is no one wants to provoke Trump for fear of what he might do, but that's a great point too - I haven't even been paying attention to NC, because it's been pretty abundantly clear for a while that Biden isn't going to win there, either.


----------



## Wuuthrad

wankerness said:


> Fox News is on the verge of becoming a terrorist organization. Anyone see Tucker Carlson foaming at the mouth about how their side has 60-70% of the force (guns) if they take to the streets? I really wish there was some sort of accountability for them and facebook. If anything was ever an argument against free speech, this is it. We're in a really precarious place right now. It's up to the Murdochs to determine whether they put profits over lives. History stops that idea from looking very likely.



It’s the way it’s interpreted. There are limits and precedents. What they’re doing is specifically not protected free speech:

*Freedom of speech does not include the right:*

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
_Schenck v. United States,_ 249 U.S. 47 (1919).


https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does


----------



## AxRookie

Dems to Rump - Hey Rump, We built a wall for you, But it's not where you wanted it and it's BLUE...


----------



## mbardu

Philadelphia counting center apparently temporarily evacuated due to bomb threat.

Terrorists.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

mbardu said:


> Philadelphia counting center apparently temporarily evacuated due to bomb threat.
> 
> Terrorists.



Fuck! That is horrible!


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> Philadelphia counting center apparently temporarily evacuated due to bomb threat.
> 
> Terrorists.


link? 

Are you talking about?

Police in Philadelphia evacuated a shopping mall in the Pennsylvania city over a bomb threat on Friday.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2...lphia-evacuated-after-receiving-bomb-threats/


----------



## mbardu

AxRookie said:


> link?



First hit on GoogleNews is point #4 here:
https://www.theweek.com/5things/948290/biden-pulls-ahead-trump-pennsylvania-georgia


----------



## Ralyks

AxRookie said:


> link?
> 
> Are you talking about?
> 
> Police in Philadelphia evacuated a shopping mall in the Pennsylvania city over a bomb threat on Friday.
> 
> https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2...lphia-evacuated-after-receiving-bomb-threats/



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ion-pennsylvania-vote-count-b1649814.html?amp

It was close enough to the site


----------



## AxRookie

mbardu said:


> First hit on GoogleNews is point #4 here:
> https://www.theweek.com/5things/948290/biden-pulls-ahead-trump-pennsylvania-georgia



Oh, that's the guy I posted about some pages back...

https://www.sevenstring.org/threads...tion-rules-in-op.330576/page-676#post-5201883

Danielle Outlaw confirmed that police arrested two out-of-state men following a tip from the FBI that warned "an individual or a group was traveling to the city from Virginia in a Hummer with the intention of attacking the election location."

And it caused no disruption in the counting...



Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/philadelphia-bomb-threat-us-election-pennsylvania-vote-count-b1649814.html?amp
> 
> It was close enough to the site



And that wasn't at the counting center and it caused no disruption in the counting...

"Evacuations were underway in Philadelphia on Friday afternoon after bomb threats were called into an area close to the Convention Center where ballot counting is taking place.

Philadelphia police said that security in the Fashion District mall received two calls from the same individual saying that a bomb was going to go off.

The mall that borders the convention center was evacuated, _The Philadelphia Inquirer_ reported. Trains in the area were also halted.

K9 units were sweeping the shopping center and said shortly before 3pm that no device had been planted, _Philly Voice _said."


----------



## Randy

Gotta go back on something I said earlier. The fact Bannon, Don Jr., Tucker and Alex Jones were not rounded up and thrown in jail for inciting a riot and advocating violence or outright murder, in the context of the right's cozying up to the police state, is an indication that we are ALREADY living in a fascist country. Trump may or may not have to leave office as a matter of procedure but everything else stays in place.


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Gotta go back on something I said earlier. The fact Bannon, Don Jr., Tucker and Alex Jones were not rounded up and thrown in jail for inciting a riot and advocating violence or outright murder, in the context of the right's cozying up to the police state, is an indication that we are ALREADY living in a fascist country. Trump may or may not have to leave office as a matter of procedure but everything else stays in place.


I believe that more than anything with all those people, it could be argued, they were just "expressing their opinions" and did not directly say people should take action on what they see as "injustice" happening... 

as long as they occasionally throw an "I don't condone violence" in there from time to time... 

or something along those lines...


----------



## Wuuthrad

People ask why are Polls so off? 

Think about it: have they never played poker?

People lie and bluff to send a false impression, then surprise we got you! 

Problem is when you’re always full of hot air and the cards in fact do hit the table! 

As is the case- Trump is a lousy poker player. 

Maybe worse than his lousy attempts at President!


----------



## Wuuthrad

AxRookie said:


> I believe that more than anything with all those people, it could be argued, they were just "expressing their opinions" and did not directly say people should take action on what they see as "injustice" happening... or something along those lines...



In fact I believe this was proven in court- that these are just “entertainment” channels and not news, precisely for that reason. A “free speech” exclusion, which sadly influences people to act out.

Why I only watch PBS and a few other sources like AP and Reuters.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Gotta go back on something I said earlier. The fact Bannon, Don Jr., Tucker and Alex Jones were not rounded up and thrown in jail for inciting a riot and advocating violence or outright murder, in the context of the right's cozying up to the police state, is an indication that we are ALREADY living in a fascist country. Trump may or may not have to leave office as a matter of procedure but everything else stays in place.



This. 

Biden's (possible) victory is pretty hollow compared to what's still out there.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I think it’s also important to remember that there are extremes on both sides that don’t represent the majority opinion. 

This is my main problem with this portrayal by the media and focus as such- we have to look beyond the “polarized” narrative, move forward and work together. 

I really don’t think the country is as polarized as it is said to be. I think Internet and media amplifies the extreme and idiotic elements and gives them more play than they really deserve.

And shout out to all the poll workers who are doing the real hard work, getting the job done for the greater good of all!


----------



## Boofchuck

Randy said:


> Gotta go back on something I said earlier. The fact Bannon, Don Jr., Tucker and Alex Jones were not rounded up and thrown in jail for inciting a riot and advocating violence or outright murder, in the context of the right's cozying up to the police state, is an indication that we are ALREADY living in a fascist country. Trump may or may not have to leave office as a matter of procedure but everything else stays in place.


Yeah, I don't think most of us have realized the extent of how Fascist the U.S. is. The descent from nationalism (masquerading as patriotism) to fascism is insidious. Our excersize of military power all over the world has been Fascist and authoritarian. But now it feels like it's coming home. It is ironic that the "small government" conservatives are such boot licking authority worshipping weirdos.
That photo op in Lafayette Square is incredibly disturbing. The government opened fire on people legally protesting and excersizing their first amendment rights. For a dumbass photo op? All these conservatives obsessed with the 2nd amendment but unwilling to protect the 1st. 

And I say this is a firearm owning federal employee myself. 

Excuse the rant.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> I think it’s also important to remember that there are extremes on both sides that don’t represent the majority opinion.
> 
> This is my main problem with this portrayal by the media and focus as such- we have to look beyond the “polarized” narrative, move forward and work together.
> 
> I really don’t think the country is as polarized as it is said to be. I think Internet and media amplifies the extreme and idiotic elements and gives them more play than they really deserve.
> 
> And shout out to all the poll workers who are doing the real hard work, getting the job done for the greater good of all!



Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit. 

Over 70 million Americans are A-OK with kids in cages and forced hysterectomies. A 9/11 worth of preventable deaths every 72 hours. 

Like, what's the equivalent for liberals? A little more taxes?


----------



## Boofchuck

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit.
> 
> Over 70 million Americans are A-OK with kids in cages and forced hysterectomies. A 9/11 worth of preventable deaths every 72 hours.
> 
> Like, what's the equivalent for liberals? A little more taxes?


Dude, our political discourse is so truncated and right leaning that our idea of "far left" is centrist in pretty much every other industrialized nation.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit.
> 
> Over 70 million Americans are A-OK with kids in cages and forced hysterectomies. A 9/11 worth of preventable deaths every 72 hours.
> 
> Like, what's the equivalent for liberals? A little more taxes?


Is there any way to give a post a double "like"?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Boofchuck said:


> Dude, our political discourse is so truncated and right leaning that our idea of "far left" is centrist in pretty much every other industrialized nation.



This. 

It ain't polarization if we're starting at the equator.


----------



## mongey

Saw reports trump is emailing supporters Asking for donations to support the court battle. That surely must put some of his supporters off


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mongey said:


> Saw reports trump is emailing supporters Asking for donations to support the court battle. That surely must put some of his supporters off



Nah, begging for money is only bad if you're poor or a minority.


----------



## Randy

Super pathetic. I mean the guy was whining even after he won, so I guess we should've known what it would be like when he lost.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Super pathetic. I mean the guy was whining even after he won, so I guess we should've known what it would be like when he lost.



I feel like the worst is yet to come. He had contempt for this country when he was "winning", I can only imagine what it's going to be like now that he's lost. 

I'm sure McConnell is cooking up some bullshit for the lame duck as we speak.


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit.
> 
> Over 70 million Americans are A-OK with kids in cages and forced hysterectomies. A 9/11 worth of preventable deaths every 72 hours.
> 
> Like, what's the equivalent for liberals? A little more taxes?



Say what if Trump sold Maga Masks back in March? 

Woud liberals have lined up? 

Everything going to be OK- Keep drinking the Kool Aid!


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit.
> 
> Over 70 million Americans are A-OK with kids in cages and forced hysterectomies. A 9/11 worth of preventable deaths every 72 hours.
> 
> Like, what's the equivalent for liberals? A little more taxes?



While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on ICE detentions, "more taxes" is severely underselling the issues with left wing cities.

I would say walking through a residential area of a city with 1.5 million dollar condos while avoiding human shit and needles on the sidewalk, mentally ill homeless people, and cars with broken windows and not even considering that it is abnormal... That isn't good either.

If I remember, one street in SF, residents paid out of pocket to put huge boulders on the sidewalk to prevent tent city of homeless on their front doorstep. After a legal case, the city removed the boulders and let the tents back in. The city sided with homeless people encroaching on people's front door step.

Another case an apartment was found near Lake Tahoe (4 hrs away) with hundreds of stolen bikes and 300k in cash, all which were tied back to San Francisco. The SF police didn't even care. The police near Tahoe pretty much busted a criminal organization stealing and fencing stolen property and the city with the victims literally didn't even want to take police reports.

And it is pretty common knowledge that taking the subway will guarantee you will have you wallet and phone stolen. A few weeks ago a group of like 200 kids robbed an entire train in like 3 minutes. Zero police presence, no cameras.

Oh and then the time I walked to my car, parked on a major road, after a concert to find a prostitute taking care of her john on the hood of my car, with people walking by like there was nothing weird about it.

And being cornered by someone masturbating in a public bathroom blocking the door. How is that even remotely acceptable?

Does this really sound like a good situation to you?! People always mention SF is progressive, but I wouldn't recommend anyone move here.

The worst thing to happen to me in a red city so far, someone asked me if I found jesus. I replied that I had parts of him in my freezer. Conversation ended there.



mongey said:


> Saw reports trump is emailing supporters Asking for donations to support the court battle. That surely must put some of his supporters off



I'm sure he will pay them back... /s


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Say what if Trump sold Maga Masks back in March?
> 
> Woud liberals have lined up?
> 
> Everything going to be OK- Keep drinking the Kool Aid!



Are you saying that because Trump's e-store (which is not run by him directly) thought about cashing in on masks in some way means he took covid seriously? 

Honestly asking because your post is barely legible.


----------



## diagrammatiks

fantom said:


> While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on ICE detentions, "more taxes" is severely underselling the issues with left wing cities.
> 
> I would say walking through a residential area of a city with 1.5 million dollar condos while avoiding human shit and needles on the sidewalk, mentally ill homeless people, and cars with broken windows and not even considering that it is abnormal... That isn't good either.
> 
> If I remember, one street in SF, residents paid out of pocket to put huge boulders on the sidewalk to prevent tent city of homeless on their front doorstep. After a legal case, the city removed the boulders and let the tents back in. The city sided with homeless people encroaching on people's front door step.
> 
> Another case an apartment was found near Lake Tahoe (4 hrs away) with hundreds of stolen bikes and 300k in cash, all which were tied back to San Francisco. The SF police didn't even care. The police near Tahoe pretty much busted a criminal organization stealing and fencing stolen property and the city with the victims literally didn't even want to take police reports.
> 
> And it is pretty common knowledge that taking the subway will guarantee you will have you wallet and phone stolen. A few weeks ago a group of like 200 kids robbed an entire train in like 3 minutes. Zero police presence, no cameras.
> 
> Oh and then the time I walked to my car, parked on a major road, after a concert to find a prostitute taking care of her john on the hood of my car, with people walking by like there was nothing weird about it.
> 
> Does this really sound like a good situation to you?! People always mention SF is progressive, but I wouldn't recommend anyone move here.



Sf is just trash tho. Move to Palo alto


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on ICE detentions, "more taxes" is severely underselling the issues with left wing cities.
> 
> I would say walking through a residential area of a city with 1.5 million dollar condos while avoiding human shit and needles on the sidewalk, mentally ill homeless people, and cars with broken windows and not even considering that it is abnormal... That isn't good either.
> 
> If I remember, one street in SF, residents paid out of pocket to put huge boulders on the sidewalk to prevent tent city of homeless on their front doorstep. After a legal case, the city removed the boulders and let the tents back in. The city sided with homeless people encroaching on people's front door step.
> 
> Another case an apartment was found near Lake Tahoe (4 hrs away) with hundreds of stolen bikes and 300k in cash, all which were tied back to San Francisco. The SF police didn't even care. The police near Tahoe pretty much busted a criminal organization stealing and fencing stolen property and the city with the victims literally didn't even want to take police reports.
> 
> And it is pretty common knowledge that taking the subway will guarantee you will have you wallet and phone stolen. A few weeks ago a group of like 200 kids robbed an entire train in like 3 minutes. Zero police presence, no cameras.
> 
> Oh and then the time I walked to my car, parked on a major road, after a concert to find a prostitute taking care of her john on the hood of my car, with people walking by like there was nothing weird about it.
> 
> Does this really sound like a good situation to you?! People always mention SF is progressive, but I wouldn't recommend anyone move here.



What you're describing are the symptoms of privatized healthcare, unfettered capitalism, lack of social safety nets, stagnant wages, the war on sex, the war on drugs, and systemic racism. As "liberal" as SF is, it still exists within the framework of a conservative nation.

Saying that liberals want to turn the country into "insert historically socially liberal city with problems here" is American Conservative Strawman 101. 

We just want clean air and water, healthcare without declaring bankruptcy, and for people to not have to turn to a life of crime. That's it. Oh, and it would be cool if we didn't act shitty to folks because they're a different color or like the same sex and stuff. Less children killed by guns and going hungry wouldn't be so bad either. I know it's a lot to ask, but I guess, short term, it would be cool to not keep children in cages and less of forcing detained immigrant women into having hysterectomies. Doing a bit more about the 9/11 every few days is probably important too. Like I said, I know it's a lot to ask.


----------



## diagrammatiks

And the fact that being able to afford a 1.5m condo barely puts you above the homeless in sf


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like the worst is yet to come. He had contempt for this country when he was "winning", I can only imagine what it's going to be like now that he's lost.


There is no doubt about it, Rump just said he has no plans to ever secede...

The best we can hope for is he gets immediately sent to prison where he's not allowed to use Twitter or the Internet and while he's in there that will give this damaged country at least some time to heal before he is released back into the wild to go yet again on another country killing spree...


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on ICE detentions, "more taxes" is severely underselling the issues with left wing cities.
> 
> I would say walking through a residential area of a city with 1.5 million dollar condos while avoiding human shit and needles on the sidewalk, mentally ill homeless people, and cars with broken windows and not even considering that it is abnormal... That isn't good either.
> 
> If I remember, one street in SF, residents paid out of pocket to put huge boulders on the sidewalk to prevent tent city of homeless on their front doorstep. After a legal case, the city removed the boulders and let the tents back in. The city sided with homeless people encroaching on people's front door step.
> 
> Another case an apartment was found near Lake Tahoe (4 hrs away) with hundreds of stolen bikes and 300k in cash, all which were tied back to San Francisco. The SF police didn't even care. The police near Tahoe pretty much busted a criminal organization stealing and fencing stolen property and the city with the victims literally didn't even want to take police reports.
> 
> And it is pretty common knowledge that taking the subway will guarantee you will have you wallet and phone stolen. A few weeks ago a group of like 200 kids robbed an entire train in like 3 minutes. Zero police presence, no cameras.
> 
> Oh and then the time I walked to my car, parked on a major road, after a concert to find a prostitute taking care of her john on the hood of my car, with people walking by like there was nothing weird about it.
> 
> And being cornered by someone masturbating in a public bathroom blocking the door. How is that even remotely acceptable?
> 
> Does this really sound like a good situation to you?! People always mention SF is progressive, but I wouldn't recommend anyone move here.
> 
> The worst thing to happen to me in a red city so far, someone asked me if I found jesus. I replied that I had parts of him in my freezer. Conversation ended there.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he will pay them back... /s





MaxOfMetal said:


> What you're describing are the symptoms of privatized healthcare, unfettered capitalism, lack of social safety nets, stagnant wages, the war on sex, the war on drugs, and systemic racism. As "liberal" as SF is, it still exists within the framework of a conservative nation.








Vs




More specifically...










tl;dr F’ing democratic run cities...


----------



## diagrammatiks

Fresno. What the hell is going on over there.


----------



## fantom

I don't live in sf. I live on the peninsula. I avoided SF outside of social reasons as much as I could for years.


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Meh, I'm tired of this "both sides" bullshit.




Are you dissing Joni Mitchell? That ain’t cool man... (she is Canadian, but come on!)







MaxOfMetal said:


> Are you saying that because Trump's e-store (which is not run by him directly) thought about cashing in on masks in some way means he took covid seriously?
> 
> Honestly asking because your post is barely legible.



I haven’t had a full nights sleep for a week. But I will say this, paraphrasing Biden:

People on the other side aren’t our enemies, they might be better seen as opponents. There is a common goal.


To that I think govts job is to work for the people and he’s the best option right now.

Re. Covid Trump is out of his league. I mean he’s out his league in about everything. Definitely time for a change imo, even if my own beliefs aren’t entirely represented. But that’s never the case in politics.


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> While I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on ICE detentions, "more taxes" is severely underselling the issues with left wing cities.
> 
> I would say walking through a residential area of a city with 1.5 million dollar condos while avoiding human shit and needles on the sidewalk, mentally ill homeless people, and cars with broken windows and not even considering that it is abnormal... That isn't good either.
> 
> If I remember, one street in SF, residents paid out of pocket to put huge boulders on the sidewalk to prevent tent city of homeless on their front doorstep. After a legal case, the city removed the boulders and let the tents back in. The city sided with homeless people encroaching on people's front door step.
> 
> Another case an apartment was found near Lake Tahoe (4 hrs away) with hundreds of stolen bikes and 300k in cash, all which were tied back to San Francisco. The SF police didn't even care. The police near Tahoe pretty much busted a criminal organization stealing and fencing stolen property and the city with the victims literally didn't even want to take police reports.
> 
> And it is pretty common knowledge that taking the subway will guarantee you will have you wallet and phone stolen. A few weeks ago a group of like 200 kids robbed an entire train in like 3 minutes. Zero police presence, no cameras.
> 
> Oh and then the time I walked to my car, parked on a major road, after a concert to find a prostitute taking care of her john on the hood of my car, with people walking by like there was nothing weird about it.
> 
> And being cornered by someone masturbating in a public bathroom blocking the door. How is that even remotely acceptable?
> 
> Does this really sound like a good situation to you?! People always mention SF is progressive, but I wouldn't recommend anyone move here.
> 
> The worst thing to happen to me in a red city so far, someone asked me if I found jesus. I replied that I had parts of him in my freezer. Conversation ended there.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he will pay them back... /s





MaxOfMetal said:


> What you're describing are the symptoms of privatized healthcare, unfettered capitalism, lack of social safety nets, stagnant wages, the war on sex, the war on drugs, and systemic racism. As "liberal" as SF is, it still exists within the framework of a conservative nation.
> 
> Saying that liberals want to turn the country into "insert historically socially liberal city with problems here" is American Conservative Strawman 101.
> 
> We just want clean air and water, healthcare without declaring bankruptcy, and for people to not have to turn to a life of crime. That's it. Oh, and it would be cool if we didn't act shitty to folks because they're a different color or like the same sex and stuff. Less children killed by guns and going hungry wouldn't be so bad either. I know it's a lot to ask, but I guess, short term, it would be cool to not keep children in cages and less of forcing detained immigrant women into having hysterectomies. Doing a bit more about the 9/11 every few days is probably important too. Like I said, I know it's a lot to ask.






SF just ahead of Savannah, GA and behind Anchorage, AK.

But the fact is, most large urban population centers lean democratic. And homelessness is often an urban large city problem. 

And I agree, Democrats especially need to do a better job with homelessness, especially when place like CA have homelessness trending upwards.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> But I will say this, paraphrasing Biden:
> 
> People on the other side aren’t our enemies, they might be better seen as opponents. There is a common goal.



And I think that's pandering bullshit, completely necessary and understandable pandering bullshit. He's got a hostile senate and a million other fires to put out, so he's needs to be a good politician and try and help the American people. I'm with you there. 

But, I'm not a politician, so I'll call it how I see it: folks who want kids in cages, genocide, and erosion of democracy are the enemy. Now, do I want to destroy that enemy? Nah, I want to give them education and healthcare.


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 86896
> 
> 
> SF just ahead of Savannah, GA and behind Anchorage, AK.



Eugene is like OG headquarters of “Antifa” 

Homeless in Oregon is couchsurfing... 

bongs and dope all day baby! 

stoner doom Mecca lol


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 86896
> 
> 
> SF just ahead of Savannah, GA and behind Anchorage, AK.
> 
> But the fact is, most large urban population centers lean democratic. And homelessness is often an urban large city problem.
> 
> And I agree, Democrats especially need to do a better job with homelessness, especially when place like CA have homelessness trending upwards.



Kinda weird how high it is in Alaska. Never would have thought.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 86896
> 
> 
> SF just ahead of Savannah, GA and behind Anchorage, AK.
> 
> But the fact is, most large urban population centers lean democratic. And homelessness is often an urban large city problem.
> 
> And I agree, Democrats especially need to do a better job with homelessness, especially when place like CA have homelessness trending upwards.



If it isn't clear, Santa Clara / San Jose is part of bay area. I'm not sure why they broke those up but left Oakland with SF.


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> And I think that's pandering bullshit, completely necessary and understandable pandering bullshit. He's got a hostile senate and a million other fires to put out, so he's needs to be a good politician and try and help the American people. I'm with you there.
> 
> But, I'm not a politician, so I'll call it how I see it: folks who want kids in cages, genocide, and erosion of democracy are the enemy. Now, do I want to destroy that enemy? Nah, I want to give them education and healthcare.



I agree lack of Education and health care are the root of many problems, and Universal health care should have been implemented in the 2nd Bill of Rights here as was planned by Roosevelt, but sadly he died.

Thanks to Eleanor we have this in the UN and so many other countries! Long overdue that we have it here.

Why is it we invent all the cool shit and everyone else takes the best and leaves the rest?

I feel like I have a Trump hangover. He’s been filling heads with so much BS I just want him gone already!


----------



## Science_Penguin

mongey said:


> That surely must put some of his supporters off



No, it won't and we should stop pretending there is any chance if that. He could literally Jim Jones half the country right now and we just gotta be okay with the fact that we're gonna be left behind to clean up the mess.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> Kinda weird how high it is in Alaska. Never would have thought.



I'm guessing when you hit rock bottom in Alaska leaving is way harder so you just ride it out. And likely way fewer options/supports out there so easy to fall through the cracks.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> I'm guessing when you hit rock bottom in Alaska leaving is way harder so you just ride it out. And likely way fewer options/supports out there so easy to fall through the cracks.



Doesn't help that in my head I just imagine Alaska as a frozen tundra full of polar bears and sick sweeps.


----------



## spudmunkey

As fun as it might be, jusy seeing "rumo", "libtard", etc...


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/mark-meadows-coronavirus-positive-test/index.html

Cough cough looks like I can't come in to work for the next two weeks sorry kthanksbye.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/mark-meadows-coronavirus-positive-test/index.html
> 
> Cough cough looks like I can't come in to work for the next *two months and* two weeks sorry kthanksbye.



FTFY


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> And I think that's pandering bullshit, completely necessary and understandable pandering bullshit. He's got a hostile senate and a million other fires to put out, so he's needs to be a good politician and try and help the American people. I'm with you there.
> 
> But, I'm not a politician, so I'll call it how I see it: folks who want kids in cages, genocide, and erosion of democracy are the enemy. Now, do I want to destroy that enemy? Nah, I want to give them education and healthcare.


I'm sorry BUT I have to disagree, I truly believe that's who Joe IS, what he believes, and what he wants to do! No bullshit!


----------



## Metropolis

Boofchuck said:


> Dude, our political discourse is so truncated and right leaning that our idea of "far left" is centrist in pretty much every other industrialized nation.



Doesn't really apply to Finland and our socialist welfare state ran by capitalism kind of system. There is almost literal communists who identify themselves as one in the higher decisive positions of government. In this country "far right" is more in the centrist position of the scale, and if there is left then it's really left. Though I can believe that Biden for example is pretty much a centrist in any scale.

But is the orange man out yet  Not until february, I know...


----------



## InHiding




----------



## StevenC

Couldn't get your paper published because it's unscientific? Write a book.

Couldn't get your book published because it's insane? Make a YouTube video.


----------



## Andromalia

Are we there yet ?


----------



## TedEH

AxRookie said:


> I'm sorry BUT I have to disagree, I truly believe that's who Joe IS, what he believes, and what he wants to do! No bullshit!


I always thought politics 101 was to say whatever gets people on your side or accomplishes your goals, not what you actually believe. Don't forget that "No bullshit! He says what he really thinks!" was the big selling point for Trump for a lot of people. Because "he wasn't just a politician, he's a _real person_ with _real opinions_ who isn't afraid to tell it strait."

Don't forget that the job of government is to represent and serve people, not to just be the boss of everyone.


----------



## ArtDecade

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 86896
> 
> But the fact is, most large urban population centers lean democratic. And homelessness is often an urban large city problem.



Homelessness is often the result of mental health and addiction issues. I agree that cities need to do more, but a nationalized health system would do more overall. Treating addictions and mental health issues is expensive - so when looking at budgets, oftentimes cities can't afford anything more than another shelter or food bank. People in rural areas look at the homelessness problem in cities and shrug their shoulders, but not all the homeless people on city streets started in the cities - rather, they ended up there. We really need to figure out a way to solve this as a nation and not just localize it to the metro areas.


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> I always thought politics 101 was to say whatever gets people on your side or accomplishes your goals, not what you actually believe. Don't forget that "No bullshit! He says what he really thinks!" was the big selling point for Trump for a lot of people. Because "he wasn't just a politician, he's a _real person_ with _real opinions_ who isn't afraid to tell it strait."
> 
> Don't forget that the job of government is to represent and serve people, not to just be the boss of everyone.


But as we ALL know now everything coming out of Rump's mouth is a lie, The thing with Rump is he says "I'm not bullshitting you" AS HE"S BULLSHITTING YOU!!!

Biden took the opposite approach, just be yourself and speak from the heart, and people will recognize it as being honest and respond...

Everyone agrees (well anyone who really knows Joe Biden) that Joe Biden is a good and decent man and as honest as they get! Lindsey Graham himself said of Joe Biden "as good a man God ever created" and "the nicest person I think I've ever met in politics." and there's no doubt he's right!

I feel sorry for anyone who can't see that...


----------



## TedEH

AxRookie said:


> Biden took the opposite approach, just be yourself and speak from the heart, and people will recognize it as being honest and respond...


I think it's naive to think that any politician is 100% honest and genuine and trustworthy. No person is. People, just very generally speaking, are self-serving and dishonest unless there's motivation to act otherwise. Everyone lies and tells half-truths and gets things wrong, even the best and most honest of us. It's not about "this guy is honest and this guy is not", it's about intent and how much time is spent talking out of ones ass. Saying someone is more honest and has better intentions than Trump is setting the bar pretty low.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

InHiding said:


>



That was awesome by the way!


----------



## tedtan

I’m watching Faux News just to see how they’re covering the election results and surprisingly, they’re admitting that Biden is likely to win and that the republican law suits attempting to throw out ballots are baseless. And they’re not even knocking Biden.

Granted, this isn’t Hannity, but it’s still better than Faux’s typical coverage.


----------



## nightlight

Regardless of who wins, I think this whole election is a harbinger of a crisis in democracy worldwide.

The US has always been seen as a bastion of democracy. Hell, American leaders have a history of lecturing countries where the election process has been less than steller.

And now you have no less than the President of the United States saying that the democratic process in his own country is fraudulent.

In the last election, there was a hue and cry about Russian election interference.

But what is going to be the complaint this time? Leaders of regimes in Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and others must be laughing.

I'm not. These are already the worst of times, and now even democracy is taking a beating in America.

Even the judges are looking partisan. It's sad. 

What does it mean for the future? I don't know. I just know that the next time some dictator somewhere in the world rigs a vote, the United States will just look hypocritical if it wags its finger.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightlight said:


> Regardless of who wins, I think this whole election is a harbinger of a crisis in democracy worldwide.
> 
> The US has always been seen as a bastion of democracy. Hell, American leaders have a history of lecturing countries where the election process has been less than steller.
> 
> And now you have no less than the President of the United States saying that the democratic process in his own country is fraudulent.
> 
> In the last election, there was a hue and cry about Russian election interference.
> 
> But what is going to be the complaint this time? Leaders of regimes in Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela and others must be laughing.
> 
> I'm not. These are already the worst of times, and now even democracy is taking a beating in America.
> 
> What does it mean for the future? I don't know. I just know that the next time some dictator somewhere in the world rigs a vote, the United States will just look hypocritical if it wags its finger.



None of this is too new, it's just boiled over and the old gentlemens' agreements that kept our country from seeming like a banana republic have eroded.

We had a shot at trying to fix this 20 years ago, but didn't, it coalesced 12 years ago, and here we are.

I don't think we'll see anything get better as long as Mitch McConnell is alive. Biden's (likely) victory will satiate folks long enough for something really terrible in 2024. Things will only get worse until we make it better.


----------



## tedtan

CNN just called Pennsylvania, and the election, for Biden.


----------



## tedtan

So are the other networks.


----------



## SpaceDock

CNN just called it, Biden is President!


----------



## MFB

Politico just updated their website as well, looks like it was PA that finally finished their tallies


----------



## SpaceDock

Omg Van Jones crying like a blubbering baby!! This is too much


----------



## MaxOfMetal

MFB said:


> Politico just updated their website as well, looks like it was PA that finally finished their tallies



Specifically the margin of .5% or greater that means no mandatory recount.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Omg Van Jones crying like a blubbering baby!! This is too much



What's he crying about now?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> What's he crying about now?



How presidential Chris Wallace is calling the election on Fox. Probably.


----------



## Ralyks

AND NEEEEEWWWW


----------



## nightlight

Biden wins! Called by AP and Edison Reseach! Congratulations, America, you did it, man!


----------



## nightlight

MaxOfMetal said:


> None of this is too new, it's just boiled over and the old gentlemens' agreements that kept our country from seeming like a banana republic have eroded.
> 
> We had a shot at trying to fix this 20 years ago, but didn't, it coalesced 12 years ago, and here we are.
> 
> I don't think we'll see anything get better as long as Mitch McConnell is alive. Biden's (likely) victory will satiate folks long enough for something really terrible in 2024. Things will only get worse until we make it better.




Well, I hope at least Covid is brought under control in a hurry. That maniac acts like 200k+ deaths is nothing, and he's singlehandedly responsible for making a bunch of other fools worldwide let people die.


----------



## diagrammatiks

nightlight said:


> Well, I hope at least Covid is brought under control in a hurry. That maniac acts like 200k+ deaths is nothing, and he's singlehandedly responsible for making a bunch of other fools worldwide let people die.



there's couple months until the handover. it's gonna be a rough ride.


----------



## tedtan

AP just called Nevada for Biden, too.


----------



## budda

Its a good time to get involved in your local grassroots organizations.


----------



## InHiding

StevenC said:


> Couldn't get your paper published because it's unscientific? Write a book.
> 
> Couldn't get your book published because it's insane? Make a YouTube video.



Not sure if you are referring to my video but that's a Pulitzer Price-winning journalist


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Feels good to update the thread title.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This is so funny all the right wing people now suddenly saying there are votes still to count and that the media has called the election lmao.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

budda said:


> Its a good time to get involved in your local grassroots organizations.



Especially in Georgia... ASAP!!


----------



## StevenC

InHiding said:


> Not sure if you are referring to my video but that's a Pulitzer Price-winning journalist


Doesn't stop it being 100% platitudes and doublespeak.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Feels good to update the thread title.



Fuckin’ A!

It’s about time.


----------



## Kaura

MaxOfMetal said:


> Feels good to update the thread title.



Feels good in a 6 months or so when you realise that Biden, after all is just a rich old white man and starts the WWIII.


----------



## StevenC

Odds on Trump spending the next 3 months going for Woodrow's golfing record?


----------



## bostjan

Politics in the USA has been broken since day one, but has been completely broken since the lead-up to the civil war. Every two years, we trick ourselves into thinking we can fix something, just to watch it get dismantled the next cycle.



InHiding said:


> Not sure if you are referring to my video but that's a Pulitzer Price-winning journalist



Most of Hedges's controvertial work has been long since his award. That said, I watched the video. It strikes me as hyperbolic. I think there could be another thread to discuss it, since it has only a few connections to this topic, but Hedges's logic in comparing the USA to IS and Nazi Germany and so forth is full of holes, even if some comparison might be justified in other, less extreme ways.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Boofchuck

Holy hell you guys. 

Feels good.


----------



## bostjan

Kaura said:


> Feels good in a 6 months or so when you realise that Biden, after all is just a rich old white man and starts the WWIII.



He's a hell of a lot more level-headed than Trump or HRC. I'll take 10% chance of nuclear annihilation over 20% chance, plus the added benefits of a smarter leader, better international relations, etc., even if my taxes go up.


----------



## budda

Dineley said:


> Especially in Georgia... ASAP!!



Georgia has been doing the work. Same with detroit.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

budda said:


> Georgia has been doing the work. Same with detroit.



Agreed. I just meant senate run offs. Georgia (Stacey Abrams) did awesome grass roots work. Was in no way trying to minimize what they did just hope they can build on it and get the senate.


----------



## dr_game0ver

Congratulation USA, half of your country has a president.


----------



## budda

Dineley said:


> Agreed. I just meant senate run offs. Georgia (Stacey Abrams) did awesome grass roots work. Was in no way trying to minimize what they did just hope they can build on it and get the senate.


----------



## USMarine75

Our long national nightmare is over.

I might come back to the USA.


----------



## mbardu

dr_game0ver said:


> Congratulation USA, half of your country has a president.



Technically both halves have a president. Just not the same president.


----------



## AxRookie

Finally! now everybody can go back to ignoring what Rump says and show the world who we really are with our heads held high!!!

Congrats to President-Elect Joe Biden!!!


----------



## USMarine75

Hillary: "How's my ass taste?"


----------



## USMarine75

Dineley said:


> View attachment 86903








Van Jones: "That's my President"


----------



## SpaceDock

In all seriousness, I really hope that Democrats do not start up on “owning Republicans” or drinking their tears etc. I am hoping we can win with more grace than they had and try to work forward as Americans. I know this is asking a lot.


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


> In all seriousness, I really hope that Democrats do not start up on “owning Republicans” or drinking their tears etc. I am hoping we can win with more grace than they had and try to work forward as Americans. I know this is asking a lot.


Can you "own the cons" just a little?


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> In all seriousness, I really hope that Democrats do not start up on “owning Republicans” or drinking their tears etc. I am hoping we can win with more grace than they had and try to work forward as Americans. I know this is asking a lot.



Nope, I want BOTH sides to sit down, think about how they've acted the last 4 years, and fix this shit. I said when Trump was elected, I'll give him a chance. He blew it. I'm holding Biden and Harris to that same standard. I'm more confident, but still keeping my skepticism. Unless it's because McConnell cockblocks them for at least 2 years.


----------



## Mathemagician

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 86893
> 
> 
> Vs
> 
> View attachment 86895
> 
> 
> More specifically...
> 
> View attachment 86887
> 
> View attachment 86889
> 
> View attachment 86890
> 
> View attachment 86892
> 
> 
> tl;dr F’ing democratic run cities...




How do I save this wonderful post? 



SpaceDock said:


> In all seriousness, I really hope that Democrats do not start up on “owning Republicans” or drinking their tears etc. I am hoping we can win with more grace than they had and try to work forward as Americans. I know this is asking a lot.



I may or may not sing “fuck Donald trump” a few times, but not on holidays. 

More importantly, all my gay homies are excited that their rights might be trampled a bit less now.


----------



## USMarine75

Biden: "As my first act in office, I'ma need to get that back."


----------



## broj15

Ralyks said:


> Nope, I want BOTH sides to sit down, think about how they've acted the last 4 years, and fix this shit. I said when Trump was elected, I'll give him a chance. He blew it. I'm holding Biden and Harris to that same standard. I'm more confident, but still keeping my skepticism. Unless it's because McConnell cockblocks them for at least 2 years.





Spoiler



establishment Dems like Biden & Harris are barley left of center, if even and things will still get worse, just slower than they would under the Trump administration in hopes that no one will realize it



But really though the best I'm hoping for is for the covid situation to improve. it probably won't because covid deniers will be even more entrenched when confronted with whatever new restrictions Biden will implement and it will just create further (mostly lateral) tension within the country. Who knows maybe Joey "my main man" Biden will hook it up with a 2nd stimulus check but that's a long shot.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I think we're just kinda fucked on the Covid thing. The senate is going to be worthless and the deniers/rugged individualists are too entrenched, not to mention how bad it's gotten. At best we might see another short lived block on evictions, maybe a check, but the time to really dig into this mess has mostly passed.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think we're just kinda fucked on the Covid thing. The senate is going to be worthless and the deniers/rugged individualists are too entrenched, not to mention how bad it's gotten. At best we might see another short lived block on evictions, maybe a check, but the time to really dig into this mess has mostly passed.



No, Trump promised this would go away on Nov 4th once Biden was elected.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> In all seriousness, I really hope that Democrats do not start up on “owning Republicans” or drinking their tears etc. I am hoping we can win with more grace than they had and try to work forward as Americans. I know this is asking a lot.



Fuck this, I'm victory lapping those coal rolling, flotilla having, plague breathing knuckle draggers. They're still advocating violence and they're gonna drag this on in the courts as much as possible, they deserve zero grace. I'm drinking Trumptard tears for the next two months at least, probably longer.


----------



## Randy

Things that make us different:

- NOT locking children in cages and taking their parents away
- NOT enabling white supremacist
- NOT advocating vigilante violence and murder
- NOT enabling strongman dictators that murder our troops and allies
- NOT advocating throwing out Democracy by installing a Fascist dictator and ignoring the will of the people

Things that don't fucking matter:

- Grace


----------



## ThePIGI King

Randy said:


> Things that make us different:
> 
> - NOT locking children in cages and taking their parents away
> - NOT enabling white supremacist
> - NOT advocating vigilante violence and murder
> - NOT enabling strongman dictators that murder our troops and allies
> - NOT advocating throwing out Democracy by installing a Fascist dictator and ignoring the will of the people
> 
> Things that don't fucking matter:
> 
> - Grace


You forgot:
YES - They murder babies
YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment
YES - Taxing more heavily
And also
NO - They won't magically fix the race issue.

I'd argue anyone that says they want to take away 2nd Ammendment rights is ignoring the will of the people.


----------



## AxRookie

Rump deserves all the in your face you piece of shit he gets, sooo when does Rump leave the country like he said he would if he lost to Joe???


----------



## Randy

ThePIGI King said:


> You forgot:
> YES - They murder babies
> YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment
> YES - Taxing more heavily
> And also
> NO - They won't magically fix the race issue.
> 
> I'd argue anyone that says they want to take away 2nd Ammendment rights is ignoring the will of the people.



These are exactly the tears I was looking for.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> You forgot:
> YES - They murder babies
> YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment
> YES - Taxing more heavily
> And also
> NO - They won't magically fix the race issue.
> 
> I'd argue anyone that says they want to take away 2nd Ammendment rights is ignoring the will of the people.


Lol


----------



## ThePIGI King

Randy said:


> These are exactly the tears I was looking for.


I'm not all that hot and bothered. I'm just proving a point that neither side is perfect. Biden is my President for a minimum of four years. And while I didn't vote for him, there's worse people than him, and there's better people than him. Same goes for the past four years with Trump.

The thing is, the nation is incredibly divided right now, and I feel like if Biden doesn't approach things in the right manner, it will get worse. Trump certainly didn't help the divison in America at all. And I voted for him twice.

Biden said during his campaign that you have to know what battles and issues you're willing to lose. And I hope he accepts that there are some things he won't be able to do that he promised during his campaign. Because the moment he starts destroying certain things, particularly related to the 2nd Amendment, the nation will divide further, and I guarantee it won't be a good thing.

I hope he can bring the nation closer together, since the Democrats got who they (kind of) wanted. Trump wasn't going to be able to do it, if for no other reason than the hatred many people have for him. But if Biden sidesteps and tries to act on his words to take our ARs, he will be driving a wedge further into this nation. And that could get very dangerous very quickly. Which is the last thing I want for my family, my friends, and my nation.


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> I voted for him twice.


That's all you needed to say.


----------



## USMarine75

ThePIGI King said:


> You forgot:
> YES - They murder babies
> YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment
> YES - Taxing more heavily
> And also
> NO - They won't magically fix the race issue.
> 
> I'd argue anyone that says they want to take away 2nd Ammendment rights is ignoring the will of the people.





Randy said:


> These are exactly the tears I was looking for.









YES - They murder babies - This from the Party that only cares about babies until they're born.
YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment - The Founding Fathers thought so much about it that it wasn't even the first thing they forgot. Also, no.
YES - Taxing more heavily - You own a coal plant? You make $40M a year? Then no.
And also
NO - They won't magically fix the race issue. - No, but NOT having a racist as President is a good start.


----------



## Wuuthrad

ThePIGI King said:


> Because the moment he starts destroying certain things, particularly related to the 2nd Amendment, the nation will divide further, and I guarantee it won't be a good thing.
> 
> I hope he can bring the nation closer together, since the Democrats got who they (kind of) wanted. Trump wasn't going to be able to do it, if for no other reason than the hatred many people have for him. But if Biden sidesteps and tries to act on his words to take our ARs, he will be driving a wedge further into this nation. And that could get very dangerous very quickly.



Lmao... what exactly are you trying to say here?

You jerk off while playing COD?


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> The thing is, the nation is incredibly divided right now, and I feel like if Biden doesn't approach things in the right manner, it will get worse. Trump certainly didn't help the divison in America at all. And I voted for him twice.


Lol


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> Lmao... what exactly are you trying to say here?



Here I plugged it in Google Translate:

"Fuck healthcare.
Fuck education.
Fuck the welfare of others.
Fuck the environment.
Fuck Science.
Fuck societal norms.
Fuck anyone different than me.
Fuck regulating Wall Street and corporations.
Fuck your feelings.
Fuck Equality.
Fuck trying to work with
Fuck your other 2/5ths."


----------



## AxRookie

I wonder if Rump's going to remodel Maralaro in silver?

It would be fitting because just like everything else Rump touches, like this great nation, he tarnishes...

It's now official, Rump is the biggest LOSER in history! RUMP YOUR FIRED!


----------



## Mathemagician

ThePIGI King said:


> You forgot:
> YES - They murder babies
> YES - They hate the 2nd Ammendment
> YES - Taxing more heavily
> And also
> NO - They won't magically fix the race issue.
> 
> I'd argue anyone that says they want to take away 2nd Ammendment rights is ignoring the will of the people.



1) It’s a woman’s choice what happens to HER body. End of Discussion. 

Trump paid for multiple abortions after cheating on his wive(S). So I don’t want to hear the hypocrisy. “The only moral abortion is my abortion” - every conservative male

2) Anecdotally- Roughly 40% of the progressives/lefties I know own guns. It’s the moderate ones that seem be be against it - I don’t claim to understand the sociological aspect in depth. Shootin’ guns is fun bro, I don’t know what else to say. 

3) Taxes that are spent on programs in the service of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Healthy people, with access to education and opportunity MAKE more and thus SPEND more. Pushing economic growth HIGHER.

The cities with the HIGHEST taxation like NY & SF have the highest compensation growth and far more economic growth and opportunity than entire red STATES with almost no taxation beyond federal. 

Taxes aren’t “evil” or “good” they exist to grease the wheels of growth and opportunity creation - like public education, and roads which everyone uses. 


4) Nothing will magically fix the race issue. But having a president that doesn’t dog whistle every racist in the country and try to block various religions and sexualities from even existing is a decent little start. 


Most importantly, I don’t have to “convince” you of anything. I just have to keep educating those who are genuinely nice people but just uninformed.


----------



## Louis Cypher

I have always loved the fact that when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, you apparently can't amend something that's already been amended LOL!


----------



## ThePIGI King

Wuuthrad said:


> Lmao... what exactly are you trying to say here?


I'm saying that I really hope he can work to bring the left and right closer together instead of further apart. I have friends and family that lean far left and some far right. And it almost seems like both sides are living in different realities sometimes because they think so differently. And since Biden is more popular than Trump, I'm saying I hope he can help mend the situation.

I'm also saying, however, that if he follows through with his (and the VP's) threat of buying back/banning AR's, AK's, and magazines of over ten rounds (amongst other things), he will make the division worse, and come closer to starting a civil war.

@USMarine75 - summed up like a true Marine! Just wondering if you had too many crayons before you got online tonight


----------



## Ralyks

This thing about the 2nd amendment is bullshit. Only reason I don't own a gun is because I have a medical marijuana card. And at this point, that might not even matter.


----------



## Wuuthrad

ThePIGI King said:


> I'm saying that I really hope he can work to bring the left and right closer together instead of further apart. I have friends and family that lean far left and some far right. And it almost seems like both sides are living in different realities sometimes because they think so differently. And since Biden is more popular than Trump, I'm saying I hope he can help mend the situation.
> 
> I'm also saying, however, that if he follows through with his (and the VP' threat of buying back/banning AR's, AK's, and magazines of over ten rounds (amongst other things), he will make the division worse, and come closer to starting a civil war.
> 
> @USMarine75 - summed up like a true Marine! Just wondering if you had too many crayons before you got online tonight



well I like hentai myself... but hey man it’s free country! Peace luv and axle grease!


----------



## AxRookie

I can see Rump's new book right now...

Rump
The Art Of The Steal
How The Presidential Election Was Stolen From Me!​It will be a big seller because at least 65,000,000 people will rush out to buy it!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Seriously though what part of “_well-regulated_ Militia,” don’t these people understand?


----------



## Rosal76

Thought some of you guys may get a interest in this. Apparently, there is a picture/footage of a moving truck that was parked in front of the White House last Wednesday (11-4). I wouldn't think it's Trump's belongings because he does not give up easily without a fight. I'm thinking it may be for staff members but who knows...




https://twitter.com/i/status/1324146966234714113


----------



## Wuuthrad

ThePIGI King said:


> I'm saying that I really hope he can work to bring the left and right closer together instead of further apart. I have friends and family that lean far left and some far right. And it almost seems like both sides are living in different realities sometimes because they think so differently. And since Biden is more popular than Trump, I'm saying I hope he can help mend the situation.
> 
> I'm also saying, however, that if he follows through with his (and the VP's) threat of buying back/banning AR's, AK's, and magazines of over ten rounds (amongst other things), he will make the division worse, and come closer to starting a civil war.
> 
> @USMarine75 - summed up like a true Marine! Just wondering if you had too many crayons before you got online tonight



Thing is you either stand up for your rights or you don’t!

You don’t really want to though...

Hot Air-g_un_-Incorporated!


----------



## Randy

ThePIGI King said:


> I'm not all that hot and bothered. I'm just proving a point that neither side is perfect. Biden is my President for a minimum of four years. And while I didn't vote for him, there's worse people than him, and there's better people than him. Same goes for the past four years with Trump.
> 
> The thing is, the nation is incredibly divided right now, and I feel like if Biden doesn't approach things in the right manner, it will get worse. Trump certainly didn't help the divison in America at all. And I voted for him twice.
> 
> Biden said during his campaign that you have to know what battles and issues you're willing to lose. And I hope he accepts that there are some things he won't be able to do that he promised during his campaign. Because the moment he starts destroying certain things, particularly related to the 2nd Amendment, the nation will divide further, and I guarantee it won't be a good thing.
> 
> I hope he can bring the nation closer together, since the Democrats got who they (kind of) wanted. Trump wasn't going to be able to do it, if for no other reason than the hatred many people have for him. But if Biden sidesteps and tries to act on his words to take our ARs, he will be driving a wedge further into this nation. And that could get very dangerous very quickly. Which is the last thing I want for my family, my friends, and my nation.



Biden is as much of a centrist as you're going to find in either party right now, full stop. I get that Republicans would greatly prefer their guy over the other guy, so they're going to fight for their position as strongly as possible, but characterizing Joe Biden as AOC or Mao Ze Dong was a BIG mistake because it was disingenuous. 

Fine if you thought Trump was a moonshot candidate; I personally thought he was a failure at delivering on the Republican agenda, he did a so so job of minding the fort but the loyalty tests and the unnecessary shit that has nothing to do with conservatism (like confederate statues and shit) made him untenable, yet he subjected his own people to constant purity tests. He still is.

Mitch Mcconnell is the biggest roadblock to actually getting the Republicans anything resembling their policy goals over the next 4 years. Negotiating COMMON SENSE 2A reform etc is the aid to blocking bad 2A reform.

Local organization here that manages environmental issues. They're dealing with GE PCB cleanup and the river. GE wanted two high level PCB dumps and one low level one in the Berkshires. Local environmental group wanted a 100% cleanup and no dumps, but that wasn't going to happen and insisting on that was also untenable, so they settled and got GE to agree to one low level dump instead. It's not a moonshot but it's what compromise looks like because the alternative was losing complete. "The best is the enemy of the good" as the old saying goes. 

Biden is the closest Republicans were ever going to get to "the good".


----------



## Boofchuck

Randy said:


> I'm drinking Trumptard tears for the next two months at least, probably longer.


May it nourish you like the tears of a Phoenix on an open wound.


----------



## Randy

Boofchuck said:


> May it nourish you like the tears of a Phoenix on an open wound.



I've lived in the same town my whole life, only one time did the Ku Klux Klan feel emboldened enough to campaign in the middle of downtown in broad daylight and that was in the midst of Donald "good people on both sides", David Duke BFF, 'mexicans are rapists', Muslim ban" Trump as their president. His people refused to hold him accountable for that behavior, and instead excused and enabled him.

I feel zero sorrow for them. The way they bent backward and beat their chest no matter how much the evidence mounted that he was a racist and a hate monger, they deserve to wear him around their neck like an albatross for the rest of their days. We can talk about healing the nation once they repent for that but offering "grace" just because they lost, fuck that, they'd be holding tribunals and beheading their detractors now if he won. Your sympathy belies your common sense.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I've lived in the same town my whole life, only one time did the Ku Klux Klan feel emboldened enough to campaign in the middle of downtown in broad daylight and that was in the midst of Donald "good people on both sides", David Duke BFF, 'mexicans are rapists', Muslim ban" Trump as their president. His people refused to hold him accountable for that behavior, and instead excused and enabled him.
> 
> I feel zero sorrow for them. The way they bent backward and beat their chest no matter how much the evidence mounted that he was a racist and a hate monger, they deserve to wear him around their neck like an albatross for the rest of their days. We can talk about healing the nation once they repent for that but offering "grace" just because they lost, fuck that, they'd be holding tribunals and beheading their detractors now if he won. Your sympathy belies your common sense.



They'll never have either the shame or awareness to realize this, and if they ever do they definitely won't have the humility to admit it.


----------



## Boofchuck

@Randy I totally agree. It was a Harry Potter reference. Phoenix tears heal wounds. I watched it the other night.


----------



## StevenC

Boofchuck said:


> @Randy I totally agree. It was a Harry Potter reference. Phoenix tears heal wounds. I watched it the other night.


And Phoenix, Arizona voted for Biden!


----------



## MFB

Illuminati confirmed!


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54801409

I've been wondering how this plays out with other countries. Heres one article explaining a few possibilities.


----------



## TedEH

I don't get why anyone is talking about a new president magically "healing the divide". No one person is going to be able to change the minds of the tens of millions of people who are convinced that people on the opposite political team "are the problem with everything".

The problem isn't Trump. It was never Trump. He's the symptom, not the cause. Trump would not have mattered if there weren't 62 million people already in your country with the mindset that this was ok. And if you love Trump and hate Biden, then the problem isn't Biden, it's the 74+ million people who had the mindset that _that_ was ok.

At the end of the day, focusing solely on the president in the hopes that whoever sits at the top is the end all to your country's current cultural and political problems is naive and myopic. Don't get me wrong - shit-canning Trump is a step in the right direction, but that still leaves you with whatever other 50% of the country you disagree with now.


----------



## Kaura

Edit: Nevermind, not my election.


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> I don't get why anyone is talking about a new president magically "healing the divide". No one person is going to be able to change the minds of the tens of millions of people who are convinced that people on the opposite political team "are the problem with everything".
> 
> The problem isn't Trump. It was never Trump. He's the symptom, not the cause. Trump would not have mattered if there weren't 62 million people already in your country with the mindset that this was ok. And if you love Trump and hate Biden, then the problem isn't Biden, it's the 74+ million people who had the mindset that _that_ was ok.
> 
> At the end of the day, focusing solely on the president in the hopes that whoever sits at the top is the end all to your country's current cultural and political problems is naive and myopic. Don't get me wrong - shit-canning Trump is a step in the right direction, but that still leaves you with whatever other 50% of the country you disagree with now.


Small steps Ted, Small steps...

Rump had us walking into the dark, dank, woods...

Biden will turn us around to start walking up the path to the shining city on the hill!

Because THAT"S WHO JOE IS!


----------



## TedEH

Small steps, absolutely. But small steps _in the right direction and focused in the right place._


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Biden is the tape that's finally going to be applied to the holes in the boat. We no longer have a captain actively trying to sink this boat so while unprecedented challenges lie ahead, we at the very least will have a captain allowing us to start bailing out the water. We don't know which direction this boat will go... but we're being represented by an actual human being... not a monster. And that feels pretty damned good for the time being. Peace and congratulations be with you all.


----------



## AxRookie

TedEH said:


> Small steps, absolutely. But small steps _in the right direction and focused in the right place._


That's Joe's path!
Make things better for everyone and more and more people will start to follow...


----------



## spudmunkey

The current president lost two popular votes, was impeached by the house, lost more seats in the house to the competing party (in 2018) than ever in the nation's history...

...and yet he still gets 2 months months to dick around, fuck some more shut up, and still somehow ended up with 3 lifetime supreme court picks.


----------



## Randy

TedEH said:


> Small steps, absolutely. But small steps _in the right direction and focused in the right place._



I think that's Joe, and like I've said, that's coming from a two time Bernie Sanders voter.

I stop very very short of endorsing an individual or projecting ideal shit onto them but Joe's reputation is as a consensus builder. 

Half the reason why he was failing the in the Democratic primary was because he had a track record of working with Republicans that were pro-segregation or Dixie-crats including Robert Byrd, who was connected to the KKK.

So if there were anyone on the Democratic ticket in 2020 or even the Republican ticket in 2016 that would have a chance at taking a "focuses" step in the right direction, it would be Biden. Not to say that it'll pan out that way because we're living in a totally different political biosphere than we were 20 years ago, but this is basically your best shot tbh


----------



## spudmunkey

Amusingly, when networks started officially "calling" states (and therefore the presidency) for Biden, Trump was golfing.

Even more amusingly, the press conference Trump announced for his lawyers at Four Seasons...

...was actually Four Seasons Landscaping company, a small landscaping company in an industrial park....next door to an adult book/toy store called "Fantasy Island".


----------



## TedEH

I guess my point was more that now that we've solved the "childish orange man from reality TV who incites racists is the president" problem, the real social problems in the country are not at the level of who is in government, it's at the level of the values held by every-day citizens.


----------



## TedEH

For the record, I'm looking forward to being able to take the US seriously again.


----------



## gunch

Still got my butthole clenched for the great maga chud freak out


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I guess my point was more that now that we've solved the "childish orange man from reality TV who incites racists is the president" problem, the real social problems in the country are not at the level of who is in government, it's at the level of the values held by every-day citizens.



Yes and no. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, and it's not going to be overnight, but progress wins people over better than words and Biden is in a decent position to help with that right now. 

This isn't the country's first rodeo.

But it's okay to celebrate small (if you can call POTUS "small") victories, which it definitely was that, a victory. 

I'd also argue that removing Trump _and his appointees_ is a very, very big deal. Like, getting the gestapo out of CBP/DHS, the fossil fuel lobbyist out of the EPA, and the anti-public school zealot out of the Department of Education is BIG, and will have an immediate impact on everyday citizens.


----------



## spudmunkey

Indeed, jettisoneing Anita Pai and betsy Delos? Yes, please.


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> Indeed, jettisoneing Anita Pai and betsy Delos? Yes, please.


Don't forget his biggest enabler: Barr.


----------



## SpaceDock

gunch said:


> Still got my butthole clenched for the great maga chud freak out



So much this, really worried that it seems so quiet.


----------



## AxRookie

Biden should make Dr. Fauci the new head of the coronavirus task force!


----------



## AxRookie

*THAT'S JOE BIDEN! AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT!*​


----------



## Ralyks

Pretty sure he already confirmed that Fauci is sticking around. As he very well should.


----------



## Wuuthrad

ThePIGI King said:


> Trump... I voted for him twice.



lol- “_CHEATER!_”


----------



## TedEH

I never meant to say don't celebrate the win. But anyway, I made my point.


----------



## ExileMetal

While it’s obvious that Biden won’t fix things over night and the country is extremely divided, one major reason for that is that for or against Trump, he dominated the news cycle for 4 years straight.

Simply returning to a decent human actually fulfilling the presidency and not constantly creating controversy will hopefully cause the wild Trump personality cult to dissolve. I can’t remember such insane devotion to -any- candidate or president in the past. Voting for Biden was the easiest decision of my life, but I’m not going to paint my car with Biden’s name or put 57 Biden flags in my yard. That’s not healthy or sane.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

ExileMetal said:


> While it’s obvious that Biden won’t fix things over night and the country is extremely divided, one major reason for that is that for or against Trump, he dominated the news cycle for 4 years straight.
> 
> Simply returning to a decent human actually fulfilling the presidency and not constantly creating controversy will hopefully cause the wild Trump personality cult to dissolve. I can’t remember such insane devotion to -any- candidate or president in the past. Voting for Biden was the easiest decision of my life, but I’m not going to paint my car with Biden’s name or put 57 Biden flags in my yard. That’s not healthy or sane.



Not even joking, trump's devout supporters remind me of Jim Jones' followers. 

Very well conveyed, thoughts too... agree 100%. Cheers!


----------



## mongey

While The American system is way different to ours I figure it all kinda works out the same in the end. But the one thing I can’t get my head around is how the fuck does the loser get to hang around till January. What good would that ever do ? Give the bitter loser lots of time to wreck havoc?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Not just any Boy... Joey B. and his Dog!


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> They'll never have either the shame or awareness to realize this, and if they ever do they definitely won't have the humility to admit it.





SpaceDock said:


> So much this, really worried that it seems so quiet.



They’re changing their stripes. Some of the ardent Trump supporters I know have tried “mocking trump” a little bit on for size today. I’m waiting until I see them in person but I’m not letting it slide. 

Some of them would have sucked his dick if given half a chance. 

Now everyone wants to pretend to be “cool and woke” like fox news is already aggressively working on to act like they didn’t highlight his every twitch. 

Remember these are people who HATE “losing” so a lot are going to try to act like they were really “moderates/centrists” all along who “just like what he did for the economy that’s all”. 

Fuck grace. Four years of only hearing about their Hypocrite-Christ. 



mongey said:


> While The American system is way different to ours I figure it all kinda works out the same in the end. But the one thing I can’t get my head around is how the fuck does the loser get to hang around till January. What good would that ever do ? Give the bitter loser lots of time to wreck havoc?



Historically the president was a person committed to respectfully carrying out their duties. They are president until their last day in office and act accordingly including attending all briefings and making the various executive level decisions that may come up. 

We’ve never had a mobster tv host who hates his own conservative Christian base and was just there to give tax dollars to his families businesses. 

Like the PPP money that went where it shouldn’t have. Or the tens of thousands spent on his own golf courses when there’s one near the whitehouse. 

Historically it was a reasonable adult in office.


----------



## Randy

If the Trump presidency could be embodied in a single day, it would be today. Biden wins the election while Rudy Giuliani rants obscure conspiracies to a handful of people in a parking lot of a landscaping company (which shares a parking lot with a porn store), Trump is out golfing and taking selfies with fans and Qanon with militia are standing on the steps of the Pennsylvania state house in full LARP gear pepper spraying unarmed women while the cops stand idly by.


----------



## Necris

Genuinely glad Fox themselves decided to clip Laura Ingraham's election night coverage of Trump's 5 rallies, I remember catching this segment live and being floored by it . To say she was laying it on thick would be an understatement. Just absolutely unabashed propaganda.


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> Genuinely glad Fox themselves decided to clip Laura Ingraham's election night coverage of Trump's 5 rallies, I remember catching this segment live and being floored by it . To say she was laying it on thick would be an understatement. Just absolutely unabashed propaganda.




Gotta keep in mind, Fox News shifted from programming around brainwashing/indoctrinating/radicalizing their viewers during Obama, into literally programming based on the fact Donald Trump was probably watching them at any given moment and vomiting affirmations at him directly through the TV screen while everyone else was watching. 

Outside of the context we've been living in, it's actually very very bizarre television.


----------



## USMarine75

Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran:

"However, if you look at the state [the _United States] _are in, it is a spectacle. The President who is currently in office, and who is supposed to organize the elections, is saying that these are the most fraudulent elections in the history of the United States. …And his rival says that Trump is seeking widespread cheating. That's American democracy …That's an example of the ugly visage of liberal democracy inside the United States."


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran:
> 
> "However, if you look at the state [the _United States] _are in, it is a spectacle. The President who is currently in office, and who is supposed to organize the elections, is saying that these are the most fraudulent elections in the history of the United States. …And his rival says that Trump is seeking widespread cheating. That's American democracy …That's an example of the ugly visage of liberal democracy inside the United States."



yeah man. these last four years and this election have been the best argument against democracy there has ever been.

I've tried to explain what's going on to people that ask me here and we're all just more confused as the discussion goes on.


----------



## spudmunkey

spudmunkey said:


> Amusingly, when networks started officially "calling" states (and therefore the presidency) for Biden, Trump was golfing.
> 
> Even more amusingly, the press conference Trump announced for his lawyers at Four Seasons...
> 
> ...was actually Four Seasons Landscaping company, a small landscaping company in an industrial park....next door to an adult book/toy store called "Fantasy Island".




I made a meme!

https://i.imgur.com/vPusV8R.jpg

edit: Damnit, imgur...


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> If the Trump presidency could be embodied in a single day, it would be today. Biden wins the election while Rudy Giuliani rants obscure conspiracies to a handful of people in a parking lot of a landscaping company (which shares a parking lot with a porn store), Trump is out golfing and taking selfies with fans and Qanon with militia are standing on the steps of the Pennsylvania state house in full LARP gear pepper spraying unarmed women while the cops stand idly by.



You can actually distill this down further. The only visual you need is Rudy Giuliani holding a press conference for Donald Trump with no Donald Trump present, outside a landscaping company that has no landscaping.


----------



## Mathemagician

USMarine75 said:


> Supreme Leader Khamenei of Iran:
> 
> "However, if you look at the state [the _United States] _are in, it is a spectacle. The President who is currently in office, and who is supposed to organize the elections, is saying that these are the most fraudulent elections in the history of the United States. …And his rival says that Trump is seeking widespread cheating. That's American democracy …That's an example of the ugly visage of liberal democracy inside the United States."



Chinese media has been using the same messaging to their citizens “look at the increase in Covid deaths, the lawlessness, the protests, that’s democracy”. 

However no matter what the power will eventually transfer over and that will remind the world that no matter what we are a democracy first and foremost.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I never meant to say don't celebrate the win. But anyway, I made my point.


I think everyone is just happy that we are going to have a level-headed union leader for the coming civil war ii.


----------



## Necris

Randy said:


> You can actually distill this down further. The only visual you need is Rudy Giuliani holding a press conference for Donald Trump with no Donald Trump present, outside a landscaping company that has no landscaping.


And insisting that this was always the plan. I wouldn't have ever imagined the end of the Trump presidency could be this funny.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This whole situation is so surreal. Like i cant accept that half a country is the tactical vest full blown conspiracy theory mouth breathers that the most ardent members of trumps cult are. 

Like can we hope that now that the tune is changing these people will adopt a new dance like it just blows my mind how hard people shill for Trump like how it's like their identity to be his supporter like on the same level as people with their pronouns lol.


----------



## AxRookie

I'm just so relieved, Now maybe I can successfully give up smoking, I've been chain-smoking since this election started!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Michael Rapaport with a message for Trump. Warning cocksucker alert.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> Michael Rapaport with a message for Trump. Warning cocksucker alert.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


WOW! and I thought I didn't like Rump!

Not that he doesn't deserve everything he gets!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

AxRookie said:


> WOW! and I thought I didn't like Rump!
> 
> Not that he doesn't deserve everything he gets!



Rapaport with a Normal NYC attitude, in an unusual but welcome circumstance!

Trumps hometown never bought his BS, why would they? He’s a notorious POS!


----------



## AxRookie

Another good thing about Rump losing is News Reporters now feel free to let "fake news" nuts know how they really feel about their bull shit Rump nonsense!

​


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> Michael Rapaport with a message for Trump. Warning cocksucker alert.
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf



Made me think of this:

"Drop your credentials at the guard's desk..."


----------



## sleewell

L O fucking L

The four seasons bwahahaha 

Slate: Trump Team Holds News Conference Outside Drab Landscaping Firm, Next to Adult Book Store.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...l-landscaping-trump-team-news-conference.html


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 86914
> View attachment 86915
> View attachment 86918
> View attachment 86919





​


----------



## USMarine75

Best thing I’ve seen ever.


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## failsafe

sleewell said:


> L O fucking L
> 
> The four seasons bwahahaha
> 
> Slate: Trump Team Holds News Conference Outside Drab Landscaping Firm, Next to Adult Book Store.
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...l-landscaping-trump-team-news-conference.html


It wouldn’t surprise me if the hotel cancelled on him, and, to try to save face, they came up with this silly four seasons landscaping thing.


----------



## spudmunkey

Waldorf Astoria Heating and Cooling, and Ritz-Carlton Bail Bonds both have their fingers crossed right now.


----------



## AxRookie

Land O Lakes Boating is probably thinking "oh shit, we hope Rudy doesn't throw us under the bus!" "we're on shaky ground with people as it is with that butter's mascot"...


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Louis Cypher

This is the sort of image that is regularly shown here in the UK of Trump supporters, and inparticular those who are protesting the election result the last week. Obviously not all 70m who voted Trump are armed QAnon militia lunatics, but certainly in the UK this is the regular image of what the media, especially & ironically the UK Right Wing/Murdoch media, portray as "Trump supporters".....


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Louis Cypher said:


> This is the sort of image that is regularly shown here in the UK of Trump supporters, and inparticular those who are protesting the election result the last week. Obviously not all 70m who voted Trump are armed QAnon militia lunatics, but certainly in the UK this is the regular image of what the media, especially & ironically the UK Right Wing/Murdoch media, portray as "Trump supporters".....



As an American, I can tell you that image is completely false, there are not nearly enough confederate flags or thin blue line banners for that to be a proper representation.


----------



## Louis Cypher

MaxOfMetal said:


> As an American, I can tell you that image is completely false, there are not nearly enough confederate flags or thin blue line banners for that to be a proper representation.


LOL!

Obviously I can only talk as an outsider from the UK, and I know that in all seriousness, these idiots are too big a part of his support but do not reflect ALL his support, but this is the narrative thats being pushed here for some time now, more than likely the hardcore rightwing pro Brexit press flag this in order to deflect public attention from our own lunatic Goverment corruption and Covid response, "Dont look here, ignore here, look over there look how bad the US is and look at what Trump said now!!" Pro Boris media slight of hand. But when too many people get their news from these sorts of papers plus Facebook Twitter etc, this is the image of the US abroad right now. Really hope Biden can change that soon.
Edit: The big worry here politically is that Biden has been quite vocal abotu his dislike of Brexit epecially in regards to its affect on the NI Peace Treaty, Trump was mental enough to back the Torys plan to tear up the peace treaty to get Brexit done, now they are scrabbling to repair the snubs to Biden and the Democrats for the last year or so coz they so desperatly want a US trade deal. Also whats very funny is watching today all the Pro Trump commentators on TV and call shows in hard reverse/UTurn and now backing Biden! LOL!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Louis Cypher said:


> LOL!
> 
> Obviously I can only talk as an outsider from the UK, and I know that in all seriousness, these idiots are too big a part of his support but do not reflect ALL his support, but this is the narrative thats being pushed here for some time now, more than likely the hardcore rightwing pro Brexit press flag this in order to deflect public attention from our own lunatic Goverment corruption and Covid response, "Dont look here, ignore here, look over there look how bad the US is and look at what Trump said now!!" Pro Boris media slight of hand. But when too many people get their news from these sorts of papers plus Facebook Twitter etc, this is the image of the US abroad right now. Really hope Biden can change that soon.
> Edit: The big worry here politically is that Biden has been quite vocal abotu his dislike of Brexit epecially in regards to its affect on the NI Peace Treaty, Trump was mental enough to back the Torys plan to tear up the peace treaty to get Brexit done, now they are scrabbling to repair the snubs to Biden and the Democrats for the last year or so coz they so desperatly want a US trade deal. Also whats very funny is watching today all the Pro Trump commentators on TV and call shows in hard reverse/UTurn and now backing Biden! LOL!



They'll probably get a decent trade deal out of Biden, as we'll be making a bury the hatchet tour of European allies at some point.


----------



## sleewell

The prank calls to the trump voter fraud tip line are hilarious. 

One guy is describing the hamburgular. Asks to speak with Rudy. 

One lady's saying how she tried to vote for trump twice but was turned away by the deep state. 

One guy is saying some guy was coming around selling ballots for tree fiddy


----------



## Randy

So Trump insisting on continuing rallies despite the fact the election is over. Has a Beer Hall Putsch vibe to it.


----------



## Ralyks

Even Melania is telling Don to concede. Maybe so she can finally get away. I'd believe that if I didn't realize she's as bad as him.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> Even Melania is telling Don to concede. Maybe so she can finally get away. I'd believe that if I didn't realize she's as bad as him.



I do not think that Trump is going to concede, or do so in any formal way. I think he's going to continue to lie and rally his base that the process is illegitimate, and build on the distrust that's been his foundation. 

I have no idea what to expect after the Electoral College convenes, or what happens in January. I was relieved when Biden was announced the winner, but having two months before he's supposed to give up the keys, and the current rhetoric, I don't see anything good happening. If anything, I see things getting worse.


----------



## zappatton2

Trump is a lifelong grifter, so you can be sure he'll use this whole debacle to bilk his cult followers of all sorts of cash for his "fight the vote" fundraisers. He'll never concede, because he sees himself making all manner of coin off this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Gotta keep the low information crowd riled up for his 2024 run.


----------



## Drew

ThePIGI King said:


> But if Biden sidesteps and tries to act on his words to take our ARs, he will be driving a wedge further into this nation. And that could get very dangerous very quickly. Which is the last thing I want for my family, my friends, and my nation.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where were these words for the last four years under the Wedge-Driver-In-Cheif? You supported the asshole, if you want to see America unified again, maybe some sort of token acknowledgment of where this division came from is in order. The left can't _force_ this country to unify, if you want a unified nation you're going to have to meet us halfway.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So Trump insisting on continuing rallies despite the fact the election is over. Has a Beer Hall Putsch vibe to it.


How else are you supposed to keep donations coming in, that can be used to pay down the Trump Campaign's debts if they're not used for legal challenges? 

In other news, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper was fired this morning, over Twitter. He was planning on departing, and Trump was planning on removing him, win OR lose, which is the main reason I'm not going to be concerned until I have to be, but this was the guy who famously came out and said that it would be a mistake to use active duty US Troops to quell protests, so naturally I'm paying attention. 

Fauci is reportedly marked, too.


----------



## sleewell

trumpists 2 weeks ago: fuck your feelings

trumpists now: hey you guys are going to have to respect our feelings here and i am not really certain that elections that we lose should have consequences i don't like.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> trumpists 2 weeks ago: fuck your feelings
> 
> trumpists now: hey you guys are going to have to respect our feelings here and i am not really certain that elections that we lose should have consequences i don't like.


*slow clap*


----------



## Aso

Drew said:


> Fauci is reportedly marked, too.


Biden would just hire him for his task force and he'd be back at the same job in two months. Also it would be a good idea to fire him with how popular and trusted he is but Trump is know for his Mensa level intelligence so maybe he will.


----------



## ArtDecade

Trump just fired the Sec of Def.


----------



## Edika

nightlight said:


> The US has always been seen as a bastion of democracy.



I don't disagree with any of your points but I burst out laughing with this statement. The US has been seen as a bastion of democracy only by the US. Nobody else in the world thinks that.

Anyway, it was a close call and honestly I wasn't that optimistic that Biden would win. Still a large number of people voted for Trump, despite all the scandals, abuses of power and collectively dumbing down human intellect. I hope Biden restores some sanity to your country and manages to pull back some the schism Trump has wedged between the opposing parties. That is if Trump doesn't manage to incite a civil war.


----------



## Ralyks

Biden already said he'd bring Fauci back if it came to it


----------



## Vyn

I found myself watching footage of McCain yesterday and fuck I miss him. He was a Republican that actually understood and respected what holding a position in government was about, even if I disagree with a lot of his political views.

Anyway, the point to this was one of the videos was footage of McCain defending Obama during their presidential campaign where some ignorant women said that she was scared of Obama because she thought he was an Arab. McCain's response was to take the microphone and go (paraphrasing here) "No, he's not an Arab. He's a family man who I just happen to disagree with on political issues."

Two points:
- The attitudes that got trump into office in the first place has been simmering for a long time, and will need to be addressed somehow.
- Goddamn I miss proper political discussion where the heat and vigour is directed towards policy, not people/identity politics/personal attacks. I'm a rusted on socialist with rather hard left social views however that doesn't mean I automatically hate every Republican's guts for existing.

Minor rant. Argh. We have a rather large trump supporter base in Australia that includes our prime minister.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> I found myself watching footage of McCain yesterday and fuck I miss him. He was a Republican that actually understood and respected what holding a position in government was about, even if I disagree with a lot of his political views.
> 
> Anyway, the point to this was one of the videos was footage of McCain defending Obama during their presidential campaign where some ignorant women said that she was scared of Obama because she thought he was an Arab. McCain's response was to take the microphone and go (paraphrasing here) "No, he's not an Arab. He's a family man who I just happen to disagree with on political issues."
> 
> Two points:
> - The attitudes that got trump into office in the first place has been simmering for a long time, and will need to be addressed somehow.
> - Goddamn I miss proper political discussion where the heat and vigour is directed towards policy, not people/identity politics/personal attacks. I'm a rusted on socialist with rather hard left social views however that doesn't mean I automatically hate every Republican's guts for existing.
> 
> Minor rant. Argh. We have a rather large trump supporter base in Australia that includes our prime minister.



McCain will always bear the stain of giving Sarah Palin validity. She was the precursor to rampant anti-intellectualism that ushered in Trump.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> McCain will always bear the stain of giving Sarah Palin validity. She was the precursor to rampant anti-intellectualism that ushered in Trump.



Towards the end I believe he came out saying that was a mistake and that he should have selected... Shit, forget the guys name again, was good mates with McCain.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Found a link to this article from 2012 basically pointing out Republicans choosing to walk away from governing to be ultra partisan. 

Seems soooo prophetic 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...IQAxCVUlT_story.html?itid=lk_inline_manual_18


----------



## sleewell

one thing that just occurred to me....

trump is alleging massive voter fraud. obviously its bc he can't admit he lost.

but imagine there was fraud. wouldn't they have also made it so the dems won the senate and didn't lose seats in the house?

we are to believe that the fraud was only committed on the presidential level but the fraudsters still voted for gop senate and house races??? c'mon man!!!


----------



## bostjan

Oh shit, forgot to rig the Senate, too!



MaxOfMetal said:


> McCain will always bear the stain of giving Sarah Palin validity. She was the precursor to rampant anti-intellectualism that ushered in Trump.



I voted for McCain in the primaries prior to the 2000 election. I actually really liked McCain. But Palin was a dealbreaker for me. But... I would argue that the anti-intellectualism started with the neocons and the shift in the Tea Party during Bush II's years. (At least, this current thread of it)


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Oh shit, forgot to rig the Senate, too!
> 
> 
> 
> I voted for McCain in the primaries prior to the 2000 election. I actually really liked McCain. But Palin was a dealbreaker for me. But... I would argue that the anti-intellectualism started with the neocons and the shift in the Tea Party during Bush II's years. (At least, this current thread of it)



I always made the distinction between being an idiot and not exactly proud of it, like Bush2, and full on flaunting ignorance like Palin. 

But I know what you mean.


----------



## StevenC

A very lefty friend of mine is yelling something about Obama and brunch, so I'll considering becoming a conservative.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## narad

Now, THAT did not age well! lolol


----------



## ExileMetal

Mark Esper getting fired is probably the most terrifying thing that’s happened this year. His major source of disagreement was against invoking the Insurrection Act against BLM protests. The logical reaction to this news is to combine that with accusations of election fraud.

I read that he was going to resign already, but we don’t know the reasons for that. I think the best case scenario is that Trump is just firing all the public servants he can on his way out to create maximal headache for Biden. The worst case... is pretty fucking bad.


----------



## mongey

This seems to be descending rapidly into more farce than his presidency. It’s clear at some stage someone is going to have to intervene physically.

a mentally unfit person , living in total denial , is in charge of the country. Surely there are systems in place to address this


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Eh, he'll run off to one of his properties (on our dime, of course) at the last minute and leave Pence to handle his traditional duties in DC at the swearing in.


----------



## ThePIGI King

Drew said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Where were these words for the last four years under the Wedge-Driver-In-Cheif? You supported the asshole, if you want to see America unified again, maybe some sort of token acknowledgment of where this division came from is in order. The left can't _force_ this country to unify, if you want a unified nation you're going to have to meet us halfway.


I'll meet part way, but giving up a Constitutional right isn't an option. It's the 2nd Amendment for a reason.


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> I'll meet part way, but giving up a Constitutional right isn't an option. It's the 2nd Amendment for a reason.


Because they forgot about it?


----------



## possumkiller

ThePIGI King said:


> I'll meet part way, but giving up a Constitutional right isn't an option. It's the 2nd Amendment for a reason.


Until it's amended.


----------



## Necris

mongey said:


> Surely there are systems in place to address this


That's been the mantra for the past 4 years but, so far, no dice.


----------



## spudmunkey

The Four Seasons Landscaping twitter account has been hilarious.


----------



## Mathemagician

spudmunkey said:


> The Four Seasons Landscaping twitter account has been hilarious.



I love how it started out defensive like “we didn’t think it was real please stop sending rude DM’s”

and is now barely a step away from “We run political presentations and speeches for anyone interested, low rates, great natural light, any political party, also we sell merch!” Lmao.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/30/her...-affects-people-earning-less-than-100000.html


Also, this link is for people that say “dEmOcrAtS rAiSe TaXes!”

The “trump tax cuts” were designed to increase the cost of accesses services or cut them altogether for the poorest Americans, and to offer breaks for the wealthiest - those making over $1mm/yr.

The table shows how it breaks down at the lowest income levels (red is negative) and how much more of a “break” high earners get (in black).

It literally fucks those who already have so little.


----------



## spudmunkey

Aww., the Four Seasons twiter account was fake.


----------



## USMarine75

Former President George W. Bush congratulated President-elect Joe Biden in a phone call Sunday and said that, while President Donald Trump has the right to pursue legal challenges and recounts, the 2020 race was "fundamentally fair" and "its outcome is clear."

The gesture by Bush, the only living former Republican president, was a break from his party's outgoing president, Trump, who has so far refused to concede the race.
In the statement, Bush said he had called Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on Sunday.

"Though we have political differences, I know Joe Biden to be a good man, who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country," Bush said. "The President-elect reiterated that while he ran as a Democrat, he will govern for all Americans. I offered him the same thing I offered Presidents Trump and Obama: my prayers for his success, and my pledge to help in any way I can."

Bush also offered congratulations in the statement to Trump "on a hard-fought campaign," nodding to his "extraordinary political achievement" of winning the votes of more than 70 million Americans, the second-most in history behind Biden. "They have spoken, and their voices will continue to be heard through elected Republicans at every level of government," Bush said.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/08/politics/george-w-bush-congratulates-biden/index.html


----------



## sleewell




----------



## zappatton2

I'm enjoying that Fox News is finally countering this administration's insanity, but I wonder if they're self-aware enough to know that they're the Dr. Frankenstein in this scenario?


----------



## possumkiller

zappatton2 said:


> I'm enjoying that Fox News is finally countering this administration's insanity, but I wonder if they're self-aware enough to know that they're the Dr. Frankenstein in this scenario?


They honestly don't give a shit. When he was in charge it was cool to rant and rave along with him. Now that it's clear he lost, it's cool to ignore him. Unless they are facing some kind of legal repercussions for being his propaganda machine for four years and now they want to seem like a credible unbiased source.


----------



## possumkiller

spudmunkey said:


> Aww., the Four Seasons twiter account was fake.


----------



## ArtDecade

^ Its not though. The closest school to the Four Seasons is probably The Moore College of Art and Design and that is about 5 blocks away. The Logan Square area is expensive real estate.


----------



## possumkiller

ArtDecade said:


> ^ Its not though. The closest school to the Four Seasons is probably The Moore College of Art and Design and that is about 5 blocks away. The Logan Square area is expensive real estate.


It's a joke that implies they are paedophiles that aren't allowed within 500 yards of a school. 

Obviously since they haven't been convicted, they can go wherever they want.


----------



## sleewell

The first person to speak after Rudy was a convicted sex offender.


----------



## tedtan

ThePIGI King said:


> I'll meet part way, but giving up a Constitutional right isn't an option. It's the 2nd Amendment for a reason.



Biden isn't proposing to take away guns. The only thing I see in his proposed policy that would be a significant change from the past is requiring assault rifles and magazine over 10 rounds to be registered with the government.

On the surface, I can that triggering the conspiracy theorists, but we already have to register cars, motorcycles, RVs, boats, drones 250+ grams (slightly over 1/2 pound) in weight, so I don't see this as being the issue that I'm sure some will.


----------



## Mathemagician

Fired the secretary of defense then enters an arms deal with UAE a day later.


----------



## bostjan

So, by my figuring, the election is still only 99.9% certain, not 100%, because a few states aren't reporting enough results to make things 100% certain. For example, Arizona is showing a margin of about 15k votes and reports say there are 20k-ish ballots left to count. Could Trump get 90% of those mail-in votes? I'd guess not, but there's no way to know until we count them. Same situations in PA, GA, NV, and even NY and WI (although, I'm not very sure how many ballots are left there).

I know Trump hasn't seized on that because he can't do mathematics, but, sinve there are so many states that have so many ballots yet to count, there is a non-zero (albeit crazy unlikely) chance that one of them could flip or get close. At this point, none are close. GA and AZ are what I'd say are not solid enough to call yet (Biden doesn't need both at this point), but the magins are around 0.4% or so right now. To put into perspective, Michigan was a 0.2% margin in 2016, anout half of what AZ and GA are showing today for 2020.

My point is, if any weird thing happens, Trump will be on the warpath. He's already got AG Barr trying to fake a scandal, which has some federal prosecuters resigning, and he's already making strange moves with the cabinet that might be some attempt at sabotage. The process of removing an insane president might take until mid-January anyway.

We need better vetting of candidates.


----------



## ThePIGI King

tedtan said:


> Biden isn't proposing to take away guns. The only thing I see in his proposed policy that would be a significant change from the past is requiring assault rifles and magazine over 10 rounds to be registered with the government.


Fun fact, ARs simply aren't assault rifles. Here's an article, a couple years old, that can explain: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/def...sault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html

Beyond that, most pistols and rifles have 10+ round magazines. So, what he wants, according to you, is for most gun owners to register the majority of their firearms.

If you look back prior to and during WW2, you will see that Germany also had registraition of firearms, that ultimately led to disarming of people.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...azis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/amp/

The nazis did this as well in Austria. I cannot find it, but there's a video speech of a woman recounting the entire process.

And as for the Biden Administration not wanting to take guns...



Along with:


Seeing as she is the VP, I figured her opinion on the matter is important as well.

And please, if you want to have a discussion about my post, actually read the articles and watch the videos. Don't just get offended and attack the post. I fully understand if you disagree with me, and even Mr. Noir, but if you want to have the discussion, read the links, as I _endured_ Biden's gun control portion of his website prior to this 

EDIT: So I found the long and short version of the Austrian Holocaust survivor I mentioned.
First the long (great listen)


And the part solely about guns:


----------



## sleewell

how is biden going to take away all the guns? obama already did that right? isn't that the same line you lemmings fell for a few short years ago... how dumb are you if you keep falling for the same stupid scare tactic every election?


----------



## ThePIGI King

sleewell said:


> how is biden going to take away all the guns? obama already did that right? isn't that the same line you lemmings fell for a few short years ago... how dumb are you if you keep falling for the same stupid scare tactic every election?


Somebody didn't read and listen


----------



## MFB

ThePIGI King said:


> So, what he wants, according to you, is for most gun owners to register the majority of their firearms.



Oh no, just like a registry of motor vehicles? DISGUSTING!

Some America this is.



> If you look back prior to and during WW2, you will see that Germany also had registraition of firearms, that ultimately led to disarming of people.



What happened to using those guns to stand up to the same tyrannical goverment that might try to take them? Did that wet dream suddenly die when confronted that it might need to come true, or did the realization that that is a terrible idea sink in because they'll crush you without even flinching.


----------



## ArtDecade

ThePIGI King said:


> Somebody didn't read and listen



That's because no one wants to monetize your BS YouTube heroes with clicks.


----------



## vilk

But you guys, the Nazis did it!!!!!!!!! Register large mags??? Next stop is the gas chambers!!!!


----------



## ThePIGI King

MFB said:


> What happened to using those guns to stand up to the same tyrannical goverment that might try to take them? Did that wet dream suddenly die when confronted that it might need to come true, or did the realization that that is a terrible idea sink in because they'll crush you without even flinching.


Now now, lets use our big boy brains for a second, friend. I know that's a foreign idea for some of you, but Daddy's here to help 

The "wet dream" of standing up to the government never died. Also, the idea you have that the people against the government being crushed is a fun one. Here's why:

You likely think that LEO's and the military would get involved in gun confiscation. And they might. Just not most of them. You see, when swearing into both the military and law enforcement, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your president or their political parties agenda. Due to this, if/when a gun confiscation order roles down the chain of command, most of the fine men and women will say no thanks, and go to their homes and loved ones in order to protect their familes and firearms.

Of the people that decide they will partake in confiscation, many of them will be sadly injured or killed by defiant citizens. Which will in turn make the remaining LEO's and service members even less likely to try.

In the event of a civil war, you all seem to think that the government will just reign hatred and fire from the sky with the Air Force and the other branches aviation components, but wait! There's this thing called Rules of Engagement! The likelihood of missles leaving planes and helicopters on the public wouldn't happen (for ROE reasons and the fact that most crewmembers wouldn't fight their war). Tanks? Yea, same thing. Also, the military and LEO's would be greatly outnumbered by now.

Let's not forget that a bunch of dudes with guns have been fighting America and the rest of NATO for a long time. It's called the Middle East. Where the military also has strict ROE. Imagine how much MORE strict it'd be on our own soil?

Now I'm fully aware that on this bored you will all just attack me and these ideas, which is cool. I get that we disagree. I'm glad you all took the time to read this so you could argue, as it's good for y'all to see a different opinion than yours once in a while 

Still waiting on someone to respond to my above post with something intelligent to say...I know someone will actually read/watch so they can not sound like children! I just know at least one of you can take part in an actual discussion/debate!


----------



## ArtDecade

Has anyone gone to loser.com recently?


----------



## StevenC

ThePIGI King said:


> Now now, lets use our big boy brains for a second, friend. I know that's a foreign idea for some of you, but Daddy's here to help
> 
> The "wet dream" of standing up to the government never died. Also, the idea you have that the people against the government being crushed is a fun one. Here's why:
> 
> You likely think that LEO's and the military would get involved in gun confiscation. And they might. Just not most of them. You see, when swearing into both the military and law enforcement, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your president or their political parties agenda. Due to this, if/when a gun confiscation order roles down the chain of command, most of the fine men and women will say no thanks, and go to their homes and loved ones in order to protect their familes and firearms.
> 
> Of the people that decide they will partake in confiscation, many of them will be sadly injured or killed by defiant citizens. Which will in turn make the remaining LEO's and service members even less likely to try.
> 
> In the event of a civil war, you all seem to think that the government will just reign hatred and fire from the sky with the Air Force and the other branches aviation components, but wait! There's this thing called Rules of Engagement! The likelihood of missles leaving planes and helicopters on the public wouldn't happen (for ROE reasons and the fact that most crewmembers wouldn't fight their war). Tanks? Yea, same thing. Also, the military and LEO's would be greatly outnumbered by now.
> 
> Let's not forget that a bunch of dudes with guns have been fighting America and the rest of NATO for a long time. It's called the Middle East. Where the military also has strict ROE. Imagine how much MORE strict it'd be on our own soil?
> 
> Now I'm fully aware that on this bored you will all just attack me and these ideas, which is cool. I get that we disagree. I'm glad you all took the time to read this so you could argue, as it's good for y'all to see a different opinion than yours once in a while
> 
> Still waiting on someone to respond to my above post with something intelligent to say...I know someone will actually read/watch so they can not sound like children! I just know at least one of you can take part in an actual discussion/debate!


That's a great hypothesis, but when being sworn in as president one also swears an oath to uphold the constitution. And look how that went for the guy you voted for twice.


----------



## ThePIGI King

StevenC said:


> That's a great hypothesis, but when being sworn in as president one also swears an oath to uphold the constitution. And look how that went for the guy you voted for twice.


Good point. However, when I saw who he was up against, I voted for the lesser of the evils. Seeing as infringing upon the 2nd like Biden wants to is also not upholding the Constitution, I'd wager every politician is going to degrade a part of it in one way or another. Which is sad.


----------



## ArtDecade

I am not against the 2nd Amendment, but whenever a wacko super-supporter (like Pig up there) starts on a tirade, it makes me reconsider that maybe I should be against it.


----------



## Mathemagician

ThePIGI King said:


> Fun fact, ARs simply aren't assault rifles. Here's an article, a couple years old, that can explain: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/def...sault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html
> 
> Beyond that, most pistols and rifles have 10+ round magazines. So, what he wants, according to you, is for most gun owners to register the majority of their firearms.
> 
> If you look back prior to and during WW2, you will see that Germany also had registraition of firearms, that ultimately led to disarming of people.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...azis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/amp/
> 
> The nazis did this as well in Austria. I cannot find it, but there's a video speech of a woman recounting the entire process.
> 
> And as for the Biden Administration not wanting to take guns...
> 
> 
> 
> Along with:
> 
> 
> Seeing as she is the VP, I figured her opinion on the matter is important as well.
> 
> And please, if you want to have a discussion about my post, actually read the articles and watch the videos. Don't just get offended and attack the post. I fully understand if you disagree with me, and even Mr. Noir, but if you want to have the discussion, read the links, as I _endured_ Biden's gun control portion of his website prior to this
> 
> EDIT: So I found the long and short version of the Austrian Holocaust survivor I mentioned.
> First the long (great listen)
> 
> 
> And the part solely about guns:






ThePIGI King said:


> Now now, lets use our big boy brains for a second, friend. I know that's a foreign idea for some of you, but Daddy's here to help
> 
> The "wet dream" of standing up to the government never died. Also, the idea you have that the people against the government being crushed is a fun one. Here's why:
> 
> You likely think that LEO's and the military would get involved in gun confiscation. And they might. Just not most of them. You see, when swearing into both the military and law enforcement, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your president or their political parties agenda. Due to this, if/when a gun confiscation order roles down the chain of command, most of the fine men and women will say no thanks, and go to their homes and loved ones in order to protect their familes and firearms.
> 
> Of the people that decide they will partake in confiscation, many of them will be sadly injured or killed by defiant citizens. Which will in turn make the remaining LEO's and service members even less likely to try.
> 
> In the event of a civil war, you all seem to think that the government will just reign hatred and fire from the sky with the Air Force and the other branches aviation components, but wait! There's this thing called Rules of Engagement! The likelihood of missles leaving planes and helicopters on the public wouldn't happen (for ROE reasons and the fact that most crewmembers wouldn't fight their war). Tanks? Yea, same thing. Also, the military and LEO's would be greatly outnumbered by now.
> 
> Let's not forget that a bunch of dudes with guns have been fighting America and the rest of NATO for a long time. It's called the Middle East. Where the military also has strict ROE. Imagine how much MORE strict it'd be on our own soil?
> 
> Now I'm fully aware that on this bored you will all just attack me and these ideas, which is cool. I get that we disagree. I'm glad you all took the time to read this so you could argue, as it's good for y'all to see a different opinion than yours once in a while
> 
> Still waiting on someone to respond to my above post with something intelligent to say...I know someone will actually read/watch so they can not sound like children! I just know at least one of you can take part in an actual discussion/debate!





ThePIGI King said:


> Good point. However, when I saw who he was up against, I voted for the lesser of the evils. Seeing as infringing upon the 2nd like Biden wants to is also not upholding the Constitution, I'd wager every politician is going to degrade a part of it in one way or another. Which is sad.



If TRUMP started collecting guns “from the violent protestors” the cops would do it in a heartbeat. Because they are playing “us versus them” and don’t see people as equals.

Damn near every single officer in the country boot-lickingly salivates at the idea of backing Trump as an actual FAN of his with bullshit merch to prove it.

The sheer number of people who are all convinced they are “defending the constitution” are supporting a guy (Trump) who himself has expressed a desire for gun control.

You failed to acknowledge that your die-hard “constitutional defenders” are currently accusing several separate states of election fraud, while the Attorney General acts as the Presidents personal attorney instead of the Country’s attorney, and Mike Pompeo has just announced “we are ready to hand off to another trump presidency.

With zero evidence of ANY wrongdoing, and with 5 cases thrown out of 5 separate state courts in some of the reddest states in the country.

Current Trump fans’ ACTIONS reflect “support of the constitution” the same way Trumps administration “supports transparent financing disclosures.”

Those who share your beliefs make a big stink when they think it’ll help them, and then categorically scream bloody murder when it doesn’t.

How have the sheer number of federal indictments, firings, quitting, self-demotion (yesterday the man who would have headed up the investigation into election fraud demoted himself to not risk his career for a lie), the volume of Military/Ex-military officials, the number of old-school conservatives like President George Bush, all coming out against Trump and his actions both pre-and post election results not registered with any of these zealots yet?

The list of military, government officials, and conservative figureheads who have come out against Trump is a who’s who of powerful and informed people.

Please tell me more about how much you love the constitution after you finish wiping your ass with it.


----------



## Vyn

I will always find it funny when people cling to the second - regardless of how wrong/right their interpretation of it is, it's an _amendment_. Another amendment could be passed to repeal the second and to ban civilian gun ownership entirely (extreme case, the point still stands though). It's currently in the constitution however there's nothing written in the constitution that it can't be changed, there's processes available for it to be changed. The issuea are: getting the country to stop thinking they need weapons to defend themselves from the government (because if the government wanted to have a go, they'd do it without anyone actually having a chance to fight back), getting people to be less cynical about their neighbours "I need a gun incase Bob over the road decides to come in of a night and rape my wife", and also getting them to agree on a level of gun law reform in general. I'm not against farmers, licenced farmers, collectors, enthusiasts, sports men and women and other groups who use/collect guns. The average Joe though doesn't need access high-powered firearms, or firearms in general.


----------



## zappatton2

Frankly, as such a deeply embedded part of the American cultural narrative, I don't think any president ever will be able to introduce rational gun control, at least not as long as this generation is alive. But it is interesting to me the ability people have to turn a blind eye on the abuse of internationally recognized _human _rights by their government, while simultaneously insisting they would defend ("to the death" in some cases) a "right" that currently only exists in the States, Mexico and Guatemala (all credit to Google on that factoid). A lot more free countries with stringent gun control, than fascist dictatorships with same. Godwin's Law, _violated_.


----------



## Choop

ThePIGI King said:


> You likely think that LEO's and the military would get involved in gun confiscation. And they might. Just not most of them. You see, when swearing into both the military and law enforcement, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your president or their political parties agenda. Due to this, if/when a gun confiscation order roles down the chain of command, most of the fine men and women will say no thanks, and go to their homes and loved ones in order to protect their familes and firearms.



How do you know that LEO's and military will defy their orders en masse? I think this is a dangerous assumption to make. If the conditions are right and the justifications can be twisted in the right way, people are capable of doing unthinkable things in the name of duty, or just plain fear. Just look at Nazi Germany. Not even that--look at how much the police escalated the situation in the country months prior with the protesting of police brutality.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

The government already knows everything about you. And you think guns will make one iota of difference?

The Nazis didn't have internet and mass surveillance systems. Any superpower now can take you down without going into a gunfight with you. 

I understand owning guns for sport or family protection, but against a government with acres of supercomputers? No chance.


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> I don't think any president ever will be able to introduce rational gun control, at least not as long as this generation is alive.



I don't see even that happening any time soon. No generation has fetishized their guns like the current. The same way we joke around here about gaudy over-the-top Kiesels, and Skervessen "toilet vomit burst" and 'tumor wood", and people buying 19-string multiscale djent sticks...the exact same thing is going on right now with guns.


----------



## Vyn

This is relevant.


----------



## Rosal76

spudmunkey said:


> The Four Seasons Landscaping twitter account has been hilarious.



Absolutely, unbelievably, incredible how far people will go to further a joke. LOL. 







I cannot believe that people are actually making these. Not the Giuliani action figure but the shirt below.


----------



## Musiscience

Rosal76 said:


> Absolutely, unbelievably, incredible how far people will go to further a joke. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot believe that people are actually making these. Not the Giuliani action figure but the shirt below.



I might actually buy that shirt.


----------



## mongey

You guys and your guns. 

it defies belief to the rest of the world that a tool , solely designed for shooting people like an assault rifle , is even a discussion that it should be registered. Of course it should. 


But yeah. Nazis and Austria.


----------



## Necris

The White House for the next couple months.


----------



## Randy

ThePIGI King said:


> Good point. However, when I saw who he was up against, I voted for the lesser of the evils. Seeing as infringing upon the 2nd like Biden wants to is also not upholding the Constitution, I'd wager every politician is going to degrade a part of it in one way or another. Which is sad.



Hey man, I'm glad things are going good enough for you that you can prioritize your vote based on your hobbies. Some of the rest of us aren't so fortunate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

There's no point in trying to use facts and logic with the kind of folks who bemoan anti-police sentiment from BLM, but base a non-insignificant amount of thier personality around the notion that if police try to regulate thier hobby they won't hesitate to put one between the eyes of thier beloved boy in blue.

Guns as a personality is gross. There's a difference between shooting hobbies as a form of lifestyle and a healthy interest.

I'll keep saying this: I've been firearm adjacent for decades, I live out in the county and keep a rifle in my truck. Twenty five years ago, the attitudes of single-issue gun owners in this country would be ostracized by even the most ardent shooter.

Republicans have been in a position to make all of the ammo-sexuals' dreams come true, but haven't. Why is that? It's because they know folks will vote for them out of fear. They'll just keep playing them for fucking chumps while the big manufacturers (most based outside the US for you nationalists) laugh thier way to the bank.


----------



## Wuuthrad

The world has moved on since the 2nd Amendment.

Why should it be any more important than the other amendments?

Ppl arguing about the Feds don’t seem to understand it’s more about state rights.

Who cares? Y’all are talking shit any way, it’s the definition of weaksauce.

You wouldn’t know civil disobedience or revolt if it hit you in the face.

Just keep fronting with cosplay AR’s...

And please learn from history already!

Threatening something because you might have to conform to the “well regulated” aspect of the 2nd? Not a very compelling argument to say the least.


----------



## JSanta

ThePIGI King said:


> Now now, lets use our big boy brains for a second, friend. I know that's a foreign idea for some of you, but Daddy's here to help
> 
> The "wet dream" of standing up to the government never died. Also, the idea you have that the people against the government being crushed is a fun one. Here's why:
> 
> You likely think that LEO's and the military would get involved in gun confiscation. And they might. Just not most of them. You see, when swearing into both the military and law enforcement, you swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Not your president or their political parties agenda. Due to this, if/when a gun confiscation order roles down the chain of command, most of the fine men and women will say no thanks, and go to their homes and loved ones in order to protect their familes and firearms.
> 
> Of the people that decide they will partake in confiscation, many of them will be sadly injured or killed by defiant citizens. Which will in turn make the remaining LEO's and service members even less likely to try.
> 
> In the event of a civil war, you all seem to think that the government will just reign hatred and fire from the sky with the Air Force and the other branches aviation components, but wait! There's this thing called Rules of Engagement! The likelihood of missles leaving planes and helicopters on the public wouldn't happen (for ROE reasons and the fact that most crewmembers wouldn't fight their war). Tanks? Yea, same thing. Also, the military and LEO's would be greatly outnumbered by now.
> 
> Let's not forget that a bunch of dudes with guns have been fighting America and the rest of NATO for a long time. It's called the Middle East. Where the military also has strict ROE. Imagine how much MORE strict it'd be on our own soil?
> 
> Now I'm fully aware that on this bored you will all just attack me and these ideas, which is cool. I get that we disagree. I'm glad you all took the time to read this so you could argue, as it's good for y'all to see a different opinion than yours once in a while
> 
> Still waiting on someone to respond to my above post with something intelligent to say...I know someone will actually read/watch so they can not sound like children! I just know at least one of you can take part in an actual discussion/debate!



I forget, which branch of the military did you serve in and what rank did you obtain? What is your military history and constitutional law background?

Do you have any peer reviewed literature to support anything you've stated? Please direct us to research and non-biased journalism about what has happened in countries that have cracked down on private gun ownership (and I'm not talking authoritarian regimes; I'm referring to countries that have similar government structures and freedoms).

There is not a lot of evidence to support your position, because it's not rooted in fact. It's your opinion.

Just come out and say that you are a single issue voter, and that you strongly associate who you are as a person with guns. It's not something I understand, but at least own it.


----------



## USMarine75

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

The Federalist Papers: No. 29

*Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788
HAMILTON
*
To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

...


----------



## USMarine75

...

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire''; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

-PUBLIUS (AKA Hamilton)


----------



## narad

JSanta said:


> I forget, which branch of the military did you serve in and what rank did you obtain? What is your military history and constitutional law background?



I may not have "served" in the "military", but I use the phrase situational awareness a lot.


----------



## JSanta

narad said:


> I may not have "served" in the "military", but I use the phrase situational awareness a lot.



You have my Seal of Approval.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I may not have "served" in the "military", but I use the phrase situational awareness a lot.



We've all got your six.


----------



## AxRookie

If Rump's starting now so am I Biden/Harris 2024!!!

We can't ever let that lunatic back in the White House, Just look at what it's taking to get him out!


----------



## tedtan

ThePIGI King said:


> Fun fact, ARs simply aren't assault rifles. Here's an article, a couple years old, that can explain: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/def...sault-weapon-is-a-very-contentious-issue.html
> 
> Beyond that, most pistols and rifles have 10+ round magazines. So, what he wants, according to you, is for most gun owners to register the majority of their firearms.
> 
> If you look back prior to and during WW2, you will see that Germany also had registraition of firearms, that ultimately led to disarming of people.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...azis-used-gun-control-stephen-p-halbrook/amp/
> 
> The nazis did this as well in Austria. I cannot find it, but there's a video speech of a woman recounting the entire process.
> 
> And as for the Biden Administration not wanting to take guns...
> 
> 
> 
> Along with:
> 
> 
> Seeing as she is the VP, I figured her opinion on the matter is important as well.
> 
> And please, if you want to have a discussion about my post, actually read the articles and watch the videos. Don't just get offended and attack the post. I fully understand if you disagree with me, and even Mr. Noir, but if you want to have the discussion, read the links, as I _endured_ Biden's gun control portion of his website prior to this
> 
> EDIT: So I found the long and short version of the Austrian Holocaust survivor I mentioned.
> First the long (great listen)
> 
> 
> And the part solely about guns:




Keep in mind that what Biden is proposing is only what his goals are. He can't unilaterally enact them as law. In order to actually make changes to the second amendment would require:

- 2/3 approval in the US House of Representatives;
- 2/3 approval in the US Senate;
- 3/4 approval of the individual States' congresses; and
- 3/4 of the States' governors signing off on the amendment.

That will be very difficult to achieve no matter who is president.

So without that, Biden is limited to executive orders which are themselves pretty limited in power. For the most part, they are only able to affect the interpretation and enforcement of existing laws, as the creation of new laws is the role of Congress.


----------



## nightflameauto

Jury duty this week so I'll be participating here or there where I can.

I'm having a hard time understanding the celebratory attitude the Democratic folks are spouting right now. Relief? Sure. I feel that. But the literal rah, rah, go team stuff is baffling from people who claimed they're only voting Biden to oust Trump, not because they love Biden.

With Trump's current behavior, the celebration seems even more baffling.

Any way we slice this, the election results tell us that just under fifty percent of the country either support Trump and his policies, or are woefully uninformed and don't care to be. Or both. That's a dangerous undercurrent to have in politics. And four years from now those folks will have forgotten all the rotten shit that Trump put us through, or worse, will pull the usual Republican tactic and blame all of this on Biden/Harris.

I'm seeing a best case scenario right now of there being no transition due to Trump's insistence that he actually won. And with him firing people left and right, Biden and Harris will step into an empty White House with no transition team and have a massive mess that will take months or years to untangle. I mean, even with a transition team it's a mess, but this isn't going to help things along.

I don't even want to speculate on worst case scenarios right now. (See the first episode of the UK show Years and Years where Trump launches the nukes on his way out the door for one possibility. Great show filled with nightmare dystopian possibilities.)

Even if everything went smoothly and Biden and Harris get power and the two runoff elections in Georgia swing Democratic so they can implement some policies, we've got a long, hard, slog ahead of us. At least we won't have the legal president tweeting out racist, sexist, conspiracy theory tweets at all hours of the day and night. Though Trump won't disappear unless it's forced on him.

As Biden himself has said, this is going to be a dark winter. And we should all take his somber message to heart. Celebrate the small victory of the election (barely) swinging the right way, but don't pretend it's all puppies, roses and sunshine ahead of us. The dark and doom is still looming. We just happened to hold up a little flashlight to it for the moment.


----------



## Ralyks

How come every time someone bring ups Trump running again, no one brings up that he has A LOT of legal problems facing him after 12pm on January 20th?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> How come every time someone bring ups Trump running again, no one brings up that he has A LOT of legal problems facing him after 12pm on January 20th?



Because the type of person who takes him seriously thinks those are all "fake news."


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> How come every time someone bring ups Trump running again, no one brings up that he has A LOT of legal problems facing him after 12pm on January 20th?


As an ex president, he might have some degree of practical immunity. It has yet to be seen. I think we might have to pressure the courts to treat him like anybody else, or something. If he gets criminal charges, it'd definitely be some weird stuff for the history books, but he's broken *a lot* of laws, and seems to expect no reprocussions.
----
In other news, the AP just called Alaska, after a handful more votes were processed. I don't count on it flipping, and no one cares, but this makes no mathematical sense whatsoever. They still haven't called NC, where it's mathematically impossible for Biden to win, unless he gets more votes added than there are ballots left to count. It's just annoying.

@nightflameauto I don't think people celebrate based on logic. If Trump won, things would be worse for almost everyone. Trump lost. Politics is a war no one ever wins, so you have to either keep your cool or celebrate minor victories. On my scorecard, Biden is a negative seven. Trump was -76.7. Neither have the integrity nor the platform that is as good as even the average politician, but there is a vast difference between the two nonetheless. I don't think any sane person expected an outcome other than Biden wins or Trump wins.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Jury duty this week so I'll be participating here or there where I can.
> 
> I'm having a hard time understanding the celebratory attitude the Democratic folks are spouting right now. Relief? Sure. I feel that. But the literal rah, rah, go team stuff is baffling from people who claimed they're only voting Biden to oust Trump, not because they love Biden.
> 
> With Trump's current behavior, the celebration seems even more baffling.
> 
> Any way we slice this, the election results tell us that just under fifty percent of the country either support Trump and his policies, or are woefully uninformed and don't care to be. Or both. That's a dangerous undercurrent to have in politics. And four years from now those folks will have forgotten all the rotten shit that Trump put us through, or worse, will pull the usual Republican tactic and blame all of this on Biden/Harris.
> 
> I'm seeing a best case scenario right now of there being no transition due to Trump's insistence that he actually won. And with him firing people left and right, Biden and Harris will step into an empty White House with no transition team and have a massive mess that will take months or years to untangle. I mean, even with a transition team it's a mess, but this isn't going to help things along.
> 
> I don't even want to speculate on worst case scenarios right now. (See the first episode of the UK show Years and Years where Trump launches the nukes on his way out the door for one possibility. Great show filled with nightmare dystopian possibilities.)
> 
> Even if everything went smoothly and Biden and Harris get power and the two runoff elections in Georgia swing Democratic so they can implement some policies, we've got a long, hard, slog ahead of us. At least we won't have the legal president tweeting out racist, sexist, conspiracy theory tweets at all hours of the day and night. Though Trump won't disappear unless it's forced on him.
> 
> As Biden himself has said, this is going to be a dark winter. And we should all take his somber message to heart. Celebrate the small victory of the election (barely) swinging the right way, but don't pretend it's all puppies, roses and sunshine ahead of us. The dark and doom is still looming. We just happened to hold up a little flashlight to it for the moment.



Doom and gloom stuff like this is so droll. I know folks were expecting a lot more, but framing this as a hollow victory is in itself a Republican narrative being pushed by the "both sides" crowd. 

As we should have all learned the last four years there's more to the presidency than just one person leading their party. Think of all the goons appointed to run their agencies into the ground, the Wheelers, Prices, Devoses, Carsons, etc. Think of folks like Bannon and Miller and Kushner who were allowed to run amok with policy. Terrible, woefully inept diplomats like Grennel. All gone. 

Yes, not everything is sunshine and unicorn farts, but we knew that going in.


----------



## InHiding




----------



## bostjan

Ahh, serial conspiracy theorist Jimmy Dore, who is funded by Bashar al Assad and claimed that "The least problematic thing Joe Biden has coming at him is when he hosted a black face affair with a bunch of rich white people," and posted a clip of Joe Biden digitally altered to make him appear as if he was wearing black makeup.

I'm sure you'll understand if I don't touch that video with a ten foot pole.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doom and gloom stuff like this is so droll. I know folks were expecting a lot more, but framing this as a hollow victory is in itself a Republican narrative being pushed by the "both sides" crowd.
> 
> As we should have all learned the last four years there's more to the presidency than just one person leading their party. Think of all the goons appointed to run their agencies into the ground, the Wheelers, Prices, Devoses, Carsons, etc. Think of folks like Bannon and Miller and Kushner who were allowed to run amok with policy. Terrible, woefully inept diplomats like Grennel. All gone.
> 
> Yes, not everything is sunshine and unicorn farts, but we knew that going in.


Whoah, man. Me saying I don't get the rah rah celebrations over it isn't even close to saying it's a hollow victory and pandering to the both sides crowd.

And as for the goons you mention, that's part of that hard slog I mentioned we have in front of us. It's not like Biden can walk into office and flip the switch from suck to not suck day one. We're gonna have a nice long period of, "well, this doesn't suck quite as hard."

I have a tiny bit of relief over Biden winning, but man there's a long way to go before we see that having a positive impact on the country, and the world.


----------



## AxRookie

nightflameauto said:


> Whoah, man. Me saying I don't get the rah rah celebrations over it isn't even close to saying it's a hollow victory and pandering to the both sides crowd.
> 
> And as for the goons you mention, that's part of that hard slog I mentioned we have in front of us. It's not like Biden can walk into office and flip the switch from suck to not suck day one. We're gonna have a nice long period of, "well, this doesn't suck quite as hard."
> 
> I have a tiny bit of relief over Biden winning, but man there's a long way to go before we see that having a positive impact on the country, and the world.


And Rump is doing everything he can to make it harder for Biden and take longer for Biden to make a diff because he's a petty little man!!! I hope he burns in hell!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Whoah, man. Me saying I don't get the rah rah celebrations over it isn't even close to saying it's a hollow victory and pandering to the both sides crowd.
> 
> And as for the goons you mention, that's part of that hard slog I mentioned we have in front of us. It's not like Biden can walk into office and flip the switch from suck to not suck day one. We're gonna have a nice long period of, "well, this doesn't suck quite as hard."
> 
> I have a tiny bit of relief over Biden winning, but man there's a long way to go before we see that having a positive impact on the country, and the world.



I'm much less pessimistic about how quickly a lot of departments and agencies will recover, and I'm rarely optimistic. 

This is America, sucking for a lot of folks is the baseline.


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> As an ex president, he might have some degree of practical immunity. It has yet to be seen. I think we might have to pressure the courts to treat him like anybody else, or something. If he gets criminal charges, it'd definitely be some weird stuff for the history books, but he's broken *a lot* of laws, and seems to expect no reprocussions.



I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have immunities. But the only precedent we really have is Nixon, who got pardoned.


----------



## JSanta

Ralyks said:


> I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have immunities. But the only precedent we really have is Nixon, who got pardoned.



And with pardons in general, only protects the person from federal prosecution. I would have to think that Trump is worried about what's going on in NY.


----------



## Randy

Pardons also can't protect against anything someone was impeached for. Would be worth re-reading what the Dems put in that case.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> They still haven't called NC, where it's mathematically impossible for Biden to win, unless he gets more votes added than there are ballots left to count. It's just annoying.


I soothe myself with the knowledge that this must stick in Trump's craw so hard, that even though the numbers reflect that he has to have won mathematically, they refuse to say ot outright. It's reciprocity for what he's doing to the rest of America.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/donald-trump-lawsuits/index.html

1) Manhattan district attorney's office looking into financial inner workings of the Trump Organization.

2) New York state attorney general examining how Trump valued his assets.

3) Attorneys general of Maryland and Washington, DC, suing over the emoluments clause.

4) E. Jean Carroll's defamation lawsuit.

5) Summer Zervos' defamation lawsuit.

6) Mary Trump's lawsuit.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...commentary/donald-trump-immunity-persecution/

Although Trump still enjoys a certain dose of immunity, this protection will cease when his term ends, affecting not only him but his entire family. According to the Financial Times, the prestigious English newspaper, in the next four years Trump will have to face a debt of almost a billion dollars for his real estate affairs, a considerable sum even for Donald Trump. Also, his children and his son-in-law Jared Kushner are involved in an investigation for dubious business operations.

A possible way out for Trump would be for him to resign the presidency and that once his vice president takes office as president, he forgives him for his crimes under federal jurisdiction. However, this power granted by the Constitution does not extend presidential grace to crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the states of the union.

*What happens between now, after the victory of Joe Biden, and the new president’s takeover on Jan. 20, can have enormous consequences for the future of the United States and the world. No possibility can be ruled out.*


----------



## Louis Cypher

Whats the latest on the Historic sexual assault cases against Trump? There were 6 or 7 wasnt there? If some kind of immunity is granted surely it can't count for those as well if they are still outstanding cases?


----------



## Wuuthrad

nightflameauto said:


> Any way we slice this, the election results tell us that just under fifty percent of the country either support Trump and his policies, or are woefully uninformed and don't care to be.



This narrative is a farce- it’s only nearly 50% of the electorate! There are still 100 mil or thereabouts that don’t even bother voting.

I’ve seen interviews with people who think they’re making a statement by not voting. 

It’s maybe the first time since I’ve been voting (quite a long time, longer than some of you have been alive,) that the electorate was maybe over 50% of eligible voters. 

“The people have spoken” 

BS... many people don’t agree with either party. Then it gets to be a shit show and we’re forced to vote against someone. Hardly a representative democracy!


----------



## Vyn

Wuuthrad said:


> This narrative is a farce- it’s only nearly 50% of the electorate! There are still 100 mil or thereabouts that don’t even bother voting.
> 
> I’ve seen interviews with people who think they’re making a statement by not voting.
> 
> It’s maybe the first time since I’ve been voting (quite a long time, longer than some of you have been alive,) that the electorate was maybe over 50% of eligible voters.
> 
> “The people have spoken”
> 
> BS... many people don’t agree with either party. Then it gets to be a shit show and we’re forced to vote against someone. Hardly a representative democracy!



Counter argument: What is it that 50% of the eligible voting population don't agree with? What issues are not being addressed by either candidate? I see often Americans citing that they aren't voting because there is no one worth voting for, however then when pressed on what it is they don't like about either candidate, they don't have anything more substantial that "I don't like them." I can understand with no agreeing on every policy proposal that each candidate has put up however surely you would vote for the side you disagree with the least just to make sure the side that you REALLY disagree with doesn't get in?

Abstinence as a form of protest vote doesn't work.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Hardly a representative democracy!



On the contrary, it's quite representative of a system where almost half don't even want to participate.

Of course, plenty want to participate, but are barred or otherwise prevented from doing so, though I'm willing to wager that's way less than nearly a half.


----------



## SpaceDock

Most people I know don’t read or watch the news, they only know about stuff from social media feeds. I think for a lot of people they just don’t see any direct affect from politics into their day to day life, which I find totally insane. Last week someone said to me, “I wonder if Trump changed his tune about COVID since getting it?” and I was just


----------



## mongey

you have to really respect how Biden is handling all this. Instead of getting provoked into a war of words he's quietly going about his business and putting his faith in the system.

its pretty classy


----------



## Wuuthrad

Vyn said:


> Counter argument: What is it that 50% of the eligible voting population don't agree with? What issues are not being addressed by either candidate? I see often Americans citing that they aren't voting because there is no one worth voting for, however then when pressed on what it is they don't like about either candidate, they don't have anything more substantial that "I don't like them." I can understand with no agreeing on every policy proposal that each candidate has put up however surely you would vote for the side you disagree with the least just to make sure the side that you REALLY disagree with doesn't get in?
> 
> Abstinence as a form of protest vote doesn't work.



I agree. I think that saying “it doesn’t matter who I vote for” is in a way giving too much power to those who are against your own interests.

Both parties know that people feel this way and use it to their advantage.

I sometimes wonder what direction our government had gone had McCarthy never come along?

-edit-

Who in their “right” mind could ever support a US Prez who supports the leader of Russia over their own US intelligence? smdh...!!!


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> On the contrary, it's quite representative of a system where almost half don't even want to participate.
> 
> Of course, plenty want to participate, but are barred or otherwise prevented from doing so, though I'm willing to wager that's way less than nearly a half.



Well yes that’s accurately describing the system we’re in, but it’s hardly a democracy (govt by the people.)

Trump has misappropriated this and framed it in such a way as to use it to his advantage. Quite the con!

How anyone can be fooled by this is beyond me...


----------



## ExileMetal

To switch a bit more about the President elect, I didn’t know a lot about him heading into the primaries this year. I tend to think of myself as a progressive, so naturally I was more interested in Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and I found UBI to be an interesting and ultimately timely concept that the country should explore more.

When Biden won the primary, I was disappointed. But looking back, I don’t wonder if a lot of that was due to social media effects, news outlets, etc. How the Biden administration will bear out with progressive policies remains to be seen.

One thing that’s become more critical to me is if I believe the person to be of good moral character. Bernie seems to have this for me, as he’s been an outspoken voice on his particular stances for years. But even for him, I don’t have as much insight into the type of man he is fundamentally. As we’ve seen, this is a critical factor for the leader of the nation. 

So, I’ve been watching old interviews of Biden. This particular interview from the Colbert show in 2017 was profound for me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> Well yes that’s accurately describing the system we’re in, but it’s hardly a democracy (govt by the people.)



It's the democracy we've made it to be. 

Saying it's a two party system is no excuse. There are other options, almost 100 million people couldn't think of anyone else to vote for? 

Folks think not participating is punk, akin to going on strike. That's stupid. We're management. These Muppets are our servants, by not participating we're telling them it's okay to do whatever.


----------



## AxRookie

SpaceDock said:


> Most people I know don’t read or watch the news, they only know about stuff from social media feeds. I think for a lot of people they just don’t see any direct affect from politics into their day to day life, which I find totally insane. Last week someone said to me, “I wonder if Trump changed his tune about COVID since getting it?” and I was just


Social media feeds are one of the dumbest places to get information second only to getting it from Donny Rump himself!

At least with social media feeds there's a bit of truth sprinkled in...


----------



## Louis Cypher

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/11/texas-dan-patrick-voter-fraud-reward
Texas politician offers $1m for proof of voter fraud and pushes baseless claims


Guardian UK said:


> An ultra-conservative Texas politician who believes seniors would rather die from Covid-19 than allow the pandemic to harm the economy is pushing another baseless theory, and dangling a million-dollar bounty for proof that Donald Trump is being cheated of victory in the presidential election.
> 
> Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor of the lone star state, says he is offering the money to “incentivize, encourage and reward” citizens who can provide evidence of voter fraud, even though the president beat Joe Biden in Texas by almost 650,000 votes.


----------



## AxRookie

Louis Cypher said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/11/texas-dan-patrick-voter-fraud-reward
> Texas politician offers $1m for proof of voter fraud and pushes baseless claims


Hell, I can offer twice that because no one is going to find any...


----------



## USMarine75

I lol'd when Stephen Colbert referred to them as the President Elect and the President Reject.


----------



## sleewell

Karl Rove says in the wsj that Biden won and none of the challenges will prevail.

A gop senator says biden needs to be getting the presidential daily intelligence briefing by this friday or he will take action.

Trumps lawsuit in Michigan is beyond laughable. No evidence of fraud at all. Will be tossed shortly.

I agree with Cohen. Trump goes to mara lago for Christmas and never goes back to the white house.


----------



## Louis Cypher




----------



## sleewell

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...enses-are-on-the-line-if-they-lie-to-a-judge/

THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.

THE COURT: Are you claiming that there or improper influence upon the elector to these 592 ballots?

MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present. no.




SO WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE WE ACTUALLY DOING HERE THEN?!?


----------



## possumkiller

sleewell said:


> https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...enses-are-on-the-line-if-they-lie-to-a-judge/
> 
> THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
> 
> MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.
> 
> THE COURT: Are you claiming that there or improper influence upon the elector to these 592 ballots?
> 
> MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present. no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE WE ACTUALLY DOING HERE THEN?!?


getting all of his knowingly idiotic cases thrown out of court so he can tell his fans that the world is against him.


----------



## Drew

ExileMetal said:


> When Biden won the primary, I was disappointed. But looking back, I don’t wonder if a lot of that was due to social media effects, news outlets, etc. How the Biden administration will bear out with progressive policies remains to be seen.


Unfortunately, Biden is in a bind not of his own making, and I'm not expecting very much of his agenda to make it into law. The super short high level version (busy day at work, ironically writing up something about this for a talk I'm giving next week) is that with a razor-tight majority in the House making the progressive bloc more powerful, and at best a 50-50 tie in the Senate/more likely a narrow GOP majority, the House (where legislation originates) is going to lean very progressive, whereas the Senate even under optimistic scenarios is going to be depending on Joe Manchin and Mark Warner to pass legislation (and more likely on Mitt Romney and Susan Collins). The House won't pass moderate legislation, the Senate won't pass progressive legislation, and we're back to what Biden can do by executive action.



ThePIGI King said:


> Good point. However, when I saw who he was up against, I voted for the lesser of the evils. Seeing as infringing upon the 2nd like Biden wants to is also not upholding the Constitution, I'd wager every politician is going to degrade a part of it in one way or another. Which is sad.


If Trump actually gave a shit about the Constitution, and didn't see it as just another convenient bit of paper lying around the White House to wipe his ass with, he could start with the bit about a smooth and democratic transfer of power after losing an election.


----------



## Drew

possumkiller said:


> getting all of his knowingly idiotic cases thrown out of court so he can tell his fans that the world is against him.


Also, stalling for time to give the prospect of having the House of Representatives, and not the states, vote on slates of electors, if the official results can't be certified by the states on time. The House of Representatives has a Democratic majority, but voting is done at the state delegation level, and the President-Elect needs the support of 26 states. Right now the GOP represents more states than the Democrats, even if they have fewer representatives overall. 

Note that this is an EXTREMELY unlikely outcome, but it's worth noting that even if Trump were to win every single suit he has pending, he still wouldn't move the vote count enough to overturn the results. This is a stalling tactic, and a tactic to increase uncertainty.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Louis Cypher said:


>



That was GOLD!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I've gotten to the point that I can't even watch the funny trump shit anymore. Just the sound of his voice evokes an unhealthy level of disgust and anger in me.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

High Plains Drifter said:


> I've gotten to the point that I can't even watch the funny trump shit anymore. Just the sound of his voice evokes an unhealthy level of disgust and anger in me.


I been there man. It’ll pass and you’ll be able to enjoy a good laugh, it’s therapeutic.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> I've gotten to the point that I can't even watch the funny trump shit anymore. Just the sound of his voice evokes an unhealthy level of disgust and anger in me.


The one that does that for me Kaly Macaroni!!! 

For the first time in my life, I just want to punch that bitch in her lying face!

Does that make me a bad person???


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> The one that does that for me Kaly Macaroni!!!
> 
> For the first time in my life, I just want to punch that bitch in her lying face!
> 
> Does that make me a bad person???



Alright dude, knock it off. This will be the only warning. You're crossing a line.


----------



## Vyn

AxRookie said:


> The one that does that for me Kaly Macaroni!!!
> 
> For the first time in my life, I just want to punch that bitch in her lying face!
> 
> Does that make me a bad person???



She is a terrible 'journalist' (if you can even call her that), however resorting to physical violence even against idiots is never okay, even if the violence is hypothetical.


----------



## vilk

Nvm


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I been there man. It’ll pass and you’ll be able to enjoy a good laugh, it’s therapeutic.



I laughed at a lot of the social-media generated jabs, compilations, and parodies throughout this year ( the "Karen" meme still makes me smile) but ever since the election, I've had a hard time laughing at anything related to him... original content or otherwise. I think it's just too much of the sound and sight of him being spotlighted and I think that with his willingness or need or whatever to piss all over the people, the electoral process, the administrative transition, the economy, the pandemic, simple decency, etc, etc... I've simply had enough. He doesn't even make me cringe or roll my eyes anymore. Witnessing his destructive behavior now just makes me feel sad and anxious for this country. I realize I'm being a wet blanket here but I can't lie... and the person that he is and the things that he's doing just break my heart. Man, I sound lame lol.. I know.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Alright dude, knock it off. This will be the only warning. You're crossing a line.


I would withdraw it but I can't edit it...


----------



## AxRookie

Vyn said:


> She is a terrible 'journalist' (if you can even call her that), however resorting to physical violence even against idiots is never okay, even if the violence is hypothetical.


I was talking about the press secretary and it was a joke as implied by the intentional mis-spelling of her name...

EDIT - It is NEVER OK TO HIT A WOMAN! just in case everybody didn't know that already...


----------



## Wuuthrad

*People Prank Calling Trump's 'Voter Fraud' Hotline*


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

High Plains Drifter said:


> I laughed at a lot of the social-media generated jabs, compilations, and parodies throughout this year ( the "Karen" meme still makes me smile) but ever since the election, I've had a hard time laughing at anything related to him... original content or otherwise. I think it's just too much of the sound and sight of him being spotlighted and I think that with his willingness or need or whatever to piss all over the people, the electoral process, the administrative transition, the economy, the pandemic, simple decency, etc, etc... I've simply had enough. He doesn't even make me cringe or roll my eyes anymore. Witnessing his destructive behavior now just makes me feel sad and anxious for this country. I realize I'm being a wet blanket here but I can't lie... and the person that he is and the things that he's doing just break my heart. Man, I sound lame lol.. I know.


Naw man. It’s not lame. Trust that in due time it will pass, it’s okay that you feel the way you do.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

They knew all along but still support him:


https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/c...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87062



Interesting... What's the best way to articulate the message from the map on the right? It's been a long day, and I can't seem to put together a streamlined message...each time I try to put together my thoughts, it ends up at 1,000 words... You can't say "if all of these people voted for a 3rd candidate..." because that's not a logical conclusion...


Are there equivalent maps available for previous elections? Yes, there was record turn-out...but there's also record population, too, right? So I don't feel like that's quite so simple. It would be interesting to see how that "didn't vote" group compared to 2016 and 2012's "winner".


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> The one that does that for me Kaly Macaroni!!!
> 
> For the first time in my life, I just want to punch that bitch in her lying face!
> 
> Does that make me a bad person???



gawd. you're such a shitty lefty.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> gawd. you're such a shitty lefty.


Yuk, Yuk Yuk, Hey! I resemble that!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Interesting... What's the best way to articulate the message from the map on the right? It's been a long day, and I can't seem to put together a streamlined message...each time I try to put together my thoughts, it ends up at 1,000 words... You can't say "if all of these people voted for a 3rd candidate..." because that's not a logical conclusion...
> 
> 
> Are there equivalent maps available for previous elections? Yes, there was record turn-out...but there's also record population, too, right? So I don't feel like that's quite so simple. It would be interesting to see how that "didn't vote" group compared to 2016 and 2012's "winner".



The idea is that while those who voted are fairly polarized, there is a significant block of people that don't even care to participate. 

If the candidates available didn't spark an interest in voting, there is the ability to write in pretty much whoever you want. 

Population wise, there was only growth of about 7% between 2010 and 2020. The turnout this year was historic.


----------



## AxRookie

The White House Spokesperson says "That's a question for the White House"??????


----------



## Wuuthrad

spudmunkey said:


> Interesting... What's the best way to articulate the message from the map on the right? It's been a long day, and I can't seem to put together a streamlined message...each time I try to put together my thoughts, it ends up at 1,000 words... You can't say "if all of these people voted for a 3rd candidate..." because that's not a logical conclusion...
> 
> 
> Are there equivalent maps available for previous elections? Yes, there was record turn-out...but there's also record population, too, right? So I don't feel like that's quite so simple. It would be interesting to see how that "didn't vote" group compared to 2016 and 2012's "winner".



One thing I take from this is that half of the people in this country are not supporting Trump. 

You could say the same thing for Biden too, but I’m pretty sure he’s not making that argument. Only Republicans seem to use that false narrative. 

I think the “I didn’t vote” numbers are greater in past elections.


----------



## USMarine75

Two previous DHS Secretaries, Chertoff (Bush) and Napolitano (Obama), have come out against Trump’s refusal to allow the presidential transition of power to occur.

I get there are pro-gun and conservative Republicans on here. Are there any actual Pro-Trumpers? Statistically there has to be since he got 73M votes right?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> Two previous DHS Secretaries, Chertoff (Bush) and Napolitano (Obama), have come out against Trump’s refusal to allow the presidential transition of power to occur.
> 
> I get there are pro-gun and conservative Republicans on here. Are there any actual Pro-Trumpers? Statistically there has to be since he got 73M votes right?



Is it really fair to split hairs at this point? The same anti-logic positions apply to gun-vote and anyone who identifies as "conservative" and votes for a very not actually conservative president.

I just can't imagine a position that someone would vote for Trump would have that wouldn't be batshit crazy at best or horribly racist at worst. 

Not to say I don't see why folks would vote republican, that I get. It's Trumpism I find indefensible at this point.


----------



## AxRookie

*Erstwhile best friend! lol*



*English Burn! lol*​


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Not to say I don't see why folks would vote republican, that I get. It's Trumpism I find indefensible at this point.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Is it really fair to split hairs at this point? The same anti-logic positions apply to gun-vote and anyone who identifies as "conservative" and votes for a very not actually conservative president.
> 
> I just can't imagine a position that someone would vote for Trump would have that wouldn't be batshit crazy at best or horribly racist at worst.
> 
> Not to say I don't see why folks would vote republican, that I get. It's Trumpism I find indefensible at this point.


OR they are mostly uneducated, and or, ignorant (simple folk) people who just believe his lies and feel "their guy" is being unfairly persecuted because he is the only one with the guts to tell them "the truth", There's that and they really love three-word chants because they are simple like them...

And the more people try to tell them he's lying to them the more they see that as just more people (never trumpers) out to get their "guy"...

It's a self-fulfilling dimwitted loop!


----------



## AxRookie

This is what I'm talking about...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> OR they are mostly uneducated, and or, ignorant (simple folk) people who just believe his lies and feel "their guy" is being unfairly persecuted because he is the only one with the guts to tell them "the truth", There's that and they really love three-word chants because they are simple like them...
> 
> And the more people try to tell them he's lying to them the more they see that as just more people (never trumpers) out to get their "guy"...
> 
> It's a self-fulfilling dimwitted loop!



The amount of college educated folks who voted Trump says otherwise.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> The amount of college educated folks who voted Trump says otherwise.


Being studied at a school/college/university, that doesn't mean that one is not ignorant...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> Being educated doesn't preclude being ignorant...



Boxing in Trump voters as knuckle dragging cousin fuckers, while tempting, is inaccurate and misses a big part of Trump's appeal. Not reckoning with the hate, anger, and selfishness is a serious problem.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Boxing in Trump voters as knuckle dragging cousin fuckers


 I never suggested that they are, I said ignorant, BUT I have no doubt that plenty of them are also hateful people...

Ignorance is a paved road to blind hate, anger, and selfishness...

If you need proof of that just look at what Trump voters are doing to Fox News? Fox News dared to suggest Trump wasn't being completely honest with them and now look at the blind hate, anger, and selfishness flow like a raging river! Willful ignorance on full display...


----------



## Choop

AxRookie said:


> If you need proof of that just look at what Trump voters are doing to Fox News? Fox News dared to suggest Trump wasn't being completely honest with them and now look at the blind hate, anger, and selfishness flow like a raging river! Willful ignorance on full display...



Hah that is pretty bad, since Fox has cultivated that attitude with its viewers since day 1.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Boxing in Trump voters as knuckle dragging cousin fuckers, while tempting, is inaccurate and misses a big part of Trump's appeal. Not reckoning with the hate, anger, and selfishness is a serious problem.



I opt to consider racists and sociopaths as knuckle draggers regardless of how learned or well spoken they are.


----------



## AxRookie

*Report: Over 130 Secret Service Officers Either Infected With Covid Or Quarantining Due to Trump Rallies...

*​


----------



## Aso

It's just amazing how dishonest the folks serving the Trump administration are. If we are country of laws, then if they have broken the law in performing their duties they should be prosecuted.

Now along with Pompeo, we have Navarro planning for Trump's second term.


----------



## AxRookie

The country Rump called a "shit hole" is crushing all other countries in coronavirus response!

How did they do it? The number one reason is they ignore people like Rump!​


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> I opt to consider racists and sociopaths as knuckle draggers regardless of how learned or well spoken they are.



hey man. you leave sociopaths out of this. it's not our fault we can't feel. 

racism is learned behavior though. so fuck that.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> racism is learned behavior though. so fuck that.


Does it really matter why racists are racists? Isn't the important part that they are horrible ignorant people???

And with everything going on today why haven't they learn that racism is bad by now???

It seems like they have made a choice to willingly remain ignorant of the fact that they are in the wrong!


----------



## slan

AxRookie said:


> The country Rump called a "shit hole" is crushing all other countries in coronavirus response!
> 
> How did they do it? The number one reason is they ignore people like Rump!​




This is great news and all, but Africa is not a country


----------



## fantom

AxRookie said:


> I never suggested that they are, I said ignorant, BUT I have no doubt that plenty of them are also hateful people...
> 
> Ignorance is a paved road to blind hate, anger, and selfishness...



It is a bit strange that someone accusing people of being ignorant is acting ignorant. I know many Trump voters who are college educated, intelligent, and not racist. None of them are ignorant. I can't extrapolate and say the trend continues, but I think you are just expressing hate for people you don't understand in the same posts that you are saying you don't like them for those exact qualities.

Maybe I am wrong and you have reached out to people and listened, but your justifications give me the impression that you haven't.


----------



## SpaceDock

At what point does Trumps denial of moving forward on the transition become treason?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> At what point does Trumps denial of moving forward on the transition become treason?



Republican senate and DOJ? Never.


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> Does it really matter why racists are racists? Isn't the important part that they are horrible ignorant people???
> 
> And with everything going on today why haven't they learn that racism is bad by now???
> 
> It seems like they have made a choice to willingly remain ignorant of the fact that they are in the wrong!



I mean...I don't even know what to say. 

Honestly, I already think your the left equivalent of a gun toting maga redneck so I'll just humor you.

my mom has two masters degrees, a phd, runs a hedge fund. life-long republican. big ole racist. 

In fact in general people outside of America are actually much much much more racist than Americans...looking at you Japan. The only difference is that they don't really have to deal with their racism everyday. 

You know that zero immigration policy that trump wants. Ya, Japan basically already has that.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Republican senate and DOJ? Never.



He is supposed to be speaking today at 4 ET, I am getting more worried about where we go from here because I think it is becoming more clear that people are choosing party over country.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> He is supposed to be speaking today at 4 ET, I am getting more worried about where we go from here because I think it is becoming more clear that people are choosing party over country.



It was to be expected. The next two months will be Hell, at least. Hopefully by spring we'll have a semi-functional government.


----------



## broj15

diagrammatiks said:


> gawd. you're such a shitty lefty.


Holy shit I'm glad someone else said it. Fr ppl like this are why I stopped explicitly aligning myself with leftists in public spaces. Luke warm political opinions delivered via pure cringe.


----------



## Randy

diagrammatiks said:


> hey man. you leave sociopaths out of this. it's not our fault we can't feel.
> 
> racism is learned behavior though. so fuck that.



Hey you can feel and think whatever you want but don't make it policy that rules everyone else's life. 

I don't care if you have the most toxic, disgusting thoughts or internal dialogue possible, but the minute you decide to make the fact other people cause you to feel inadequate into a call to ruin their lives, you have no valid voice on governance.


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> It is a bit strange that someone accusing people of being ignorant is acting ignorant. I know many Trump voters who are college educated, intelligent, and not racist. None of them are ignorant. I can't extrapolate and say the trend continues, but I think you are just expressing hate for people you don't understand in the same posts that you are saying you don't like them for those exact qualities.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong and you have reached out to people and listened, but your justifications give me the impression that you haven't.



While I understand your point because I also know and work with a lot of people like this, the main point is the tacit approval of racism.

By not immediately distancing oneself from a candidate or leader whose ACTIONS are racist, one is approving of those actions and saying “this isn’t a deal-breaker for me”.

Trump and his ilk can verbally deny being racists all day, but their actions say otherwise. Their welcoming of support from groups like the proud incels, and mocking of other cultures and races while campaigning matters more than simply saying “oh nah, I’m not RACIST, I’m just suffering from economic uncertainty!”

However I would not paint all supporters as “stupid” that’s dangerous and makes it easy to ignore all the toxic policy they are working on and the judges they are appointing.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> While I understand your point because I also know and work with a lot of people like this, the main point is the tacit approval of racism.
> 
> By not immediately distancing oneself from a candidate or leader whose ACTIONS are racist, one is approving of those actions and saying “this isn’t a deal-breaker for me”.
> 
> Trump and his ilk can verbally deny being racists all day, but their actions say otherwise. Their welcoming of support from groups like the proud incels, and mocking of other cultures and races while campaigning matters more than simply saying “oh nah, I’m not RACIST, I’m just suffering from economic uncertainty!”
> 
> However I would not paint all supporters as “stupid” that’s dangerous and makes it easy to ignore all the toxic policy they are working on and the judges they are appointing.



I think you are looking at the actions assuming people view it as racist. In reality, the racist label is being added to the narrative and people will only remember the written policy changes.

One of my good friends, extremely intelligent person and a Republican, view things like China as undercutting American production and economy as a core issue that threatens the country's position in the world. He would rather pay higher prices for American products than outsource more work to China, India, etc. The reason is he wants the overall American trade deficit to improve. He similarly is against NAFTA because he would rather we stop importing good with no tariffs. If anything, the documented supply chain issues with PPE during covid should make this pretty understandable. Do I agree with him? In some ways, but not entirely. We definitely don't agree on how to handle the situation.

Does any of this sound like someone who is racist or enabling xenophobia? No. The guy works with Chinese people and has never once decided to shoot them because the 2nd amendment fueled his pale white ego. Just because Trump is an idiot doesn't mean that people like my friend are against his policy decisions. And that will matter for a longer duration than Trump being an idiot. The Supreme Court "win" should be a fairly obvious reason why intelligent people voted Republican in 2016.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87062


You know, honestly, that's not as bad as I would have expected. Though the geographic concentration is interesting - it's essentially the rust belt and the southwest where you have participation low enough that more people didn't vote than supported either candidate.

Turnout stats aren't available yet because results are still not certified, but this election does look like it's going to be record turnout, and absolute numbers won't just be high due to population growth, so there's that...

Trump's first public address since the race being called against him is tonight at 4, to talk about Project Warp Speed. Anyone else expecting fireworks?


----------



## Aso

Drew said:


> You know, honestly, that's not as bad as I would have expected. Though the geographic concentration is interesting - it's essentially the rust belt and the southwest where you have participation low enough that more people didn't vote than supported either candidate.
> 
> Turnout stats aren't available yet because results are still not certified, but this election does look like it's going to be record turnout, and absolute numbers won't just be high due to population growth, so there's that...
> 
> Trump's first public address since the race being called against him is tonight at 4, to talk about Project Warp Speed. Anyone else expecting fireworks?



So by that map Trump took 3rd place if "Both these candidates suck and I won't vote" was an option.

I expect nothing more than a 5th grade speech the was prepared in the hallway five minutes before it was due.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> None of them are ignorant. I can't extrapolate and say the trend continues, but I think you are just expressing hate for people you don't understand in the same posts that you are saying you don't like them for those exact qualities.
> 
> Maybe I am wrong and you have reached out to people and listened, but your justifications give me the impression that you haven't.


How many are many compared to 72 million??? a handful?

I know there is a small chunk of Trump supporters who are worried about their money but those are not the people I'm talking about and I've already said as much...

And I said most are ignorant, not all, I only know one Trump supporter and he IS a racist AND I don't "hate" him or anyone else! You assume too much! BUT I certainly don't like people who lie right to your face NOT because they supported the Rump!

You're incorrectly assuming I hate ignorant people, I don't! It's the liars I have a big prob with!

Please explain why disliking liars is ignorant??? because it sure seems like a rational response?


----------



## AxRookie

306! Called it!


All my early predictions have "apparently" come to pass...​


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> I think you are looking at the actions assuming people view it as racist. In reality, the racist label is being added to the narrative and people will only remember the written policy changes.
> 
> One of my good friends, extremely intelligent person and a Republican, view things like China as undercutting American production and economy as a core issue that threatens the country's position in the world. He would rather pay higher prices for American products than outsource more work to China, India, etc. The reason is he wants the overall American trade deficit to improve. He similarly is against NAFTA because he would rather we stop importing good with no tariffs. If anything, the documented supply chain issues with PPE during covid should make this pretty understandable. Do I agree with him? In some ways, but not entirely. We definitely don't agree on how to handle the situation.
> 
> Does any of this sound like someone who is racist or enabling xenophobia? No. The guy works with Chinese people and has never once decided to shoot them because the 2nd amendment fueled his pale white ego. Just because Trump is an idiot doesn't mean that people like my friend are against his policy decisions. And that will matter for a longer duration than Trump being an idiot. The Supreme Court "win" should be a fairly obvious reason why intelligent people voted Republican in 2016.



If you’re saying that fundamentalist single-issue voters backed trump to get a fundamentalist single issue unqualified person on the Supreme Court then yes I see why they supported trump.


----------



## AxRookie

These are the kind of lies coming from the Rump White House that makes me mad! I repeat MAD not HATE...


----------



## Xaios

AxRookie said:


> I repeat MAD not HATE...


A wise man once said that "anger leads to hate".


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

I was playing a game called take a drink every time AxRookie uses an exclamation mark. Then I started a gofundme for my kidney dialysis.


----------



## AxRookie

Xaios said:


> A wise man once said that "anger leads to hate".


BUT you can choose not to walk down that road...

And wasn't that Yota that said that? lol "anger leads to hate, hate leads to fear, fear leads to the dark side"...


----------



## AxRookie

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I was playing a game called take a drink every time AxRookie uses an exclamation mark. Then I started a gofundme for my kidney dialysis.


There is a reason punctuation exists, to clarify the meaning of the written word...

An *exclamation mark* is *used* to show when something is surprising or forceful. It helps make the meaning of the sentence clear.

Now drink!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Wuuthrad

AxRookie said:


> These are the kind of lies coming from the Rump White House that makes me mad! I repeat MAD not HATE...




Man I hate that shit!


----------



## AxRookie

Wuuthrad said:


> Man I hate that shit!


Then hang on to your britches!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Max gOfMetal said:


> The amount of college educated folks who voted Trump says otherwise.



This puzzles me like it seemed like the whole platform was "Biden is a communist who will burn cities down" I dont understand how anyone buys that.

My only real hypothesis is that the democrats campaign was very very subdued due to covkd


----------



## Wuuthrad

AxRookie said:


> Then hang on to your britches!




Doesn’t surprise me- grifters gotta grift!


----------



## fantom

AxRookie said:


> You're incorrectly assuming I hate ignorant people, I don't! It's the liars I have a big prob with!
> 
> Please explain why disliking liars is ignorant??? because it sure seems like a rational response?



Going to preface my response... I am genuinely not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to state my observation about a few posts in the last few pages. You can disagree with me or write it off. But consider it some input from a totally random person who has nothing to gain or lose from saying this.

I don't think I said you hate ignorant people. If I did, I didn't mean that. I meant to convey that you are making gross overgeneralizations about the mentality of a large number of people with zero evidence to demonstrate that you are not just stating your opinions as facts. To me, making grand generalizations and assumptions about tens of millions of people without any evidence also seems pretty ignorant. I just thought it was ironic that someone was ignorantly targeting people for being ignorant.

I also don't think I said anything about liars. But since we are on it, you assume that because you hate liars that 40+% of the population is wrong because they don't see a liar and hate him too? There are various reasons that people might support Trump knowing he is a liar, but instead of trying to be sympathetic to issues people have that cause them to support a liar, you are on the offensive and shutting out any possibility of a dialog. At the end of the day, I think most people know Trump is a terrible person and a bully, and they think they need that type of person in charge. What does that say about how those people feel about politics?



AxRookie said:


> OR they are mostly uneducated, and or, ignorant (simple folk) people who just believe his lies and feel "their guy" is being unfairly persecuted because he is the only one with the guts to tell them "the truth", There's that and they really love three-word chants because they are simple like them...
> 
> And the more people try to tell them he's lying to them the more they see that as just more people (never trumpers) out to get their "guy"...
> 
> It's a self-fulfilling dimwitted loop!





AxRookie said:


> Being studied at a school/college/university, that doesn't mean that one is not ignorant...



You pretty much said Trump supporters are simpletons and dimwitted. That they can't tell that Trump is lying. When told that he has a large number of college educated supporters, you pretty much said they are still ignorant and implied the collegiate system in America is not a good signal to identify people who have their shit together. So we should just ignore degrees and rely on your gut instincts?!

I'd say that type of behavior is exactly what you are annoyed at. I won't go as far as calling it lying, but, unless I missed it, you haven't presented any evidence at the scale you are making your claims, which might as well be made up statistics and Tucker Carlson or Hannity level political rants.

I would like to see any evidence that you aren't just shitting all over "ignorant, dimwitted, simpletons" and actually can link your view of tens of millions of people to real surveys and polls.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> Going to preface my response... I am genuinely not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to state my observation about a few posts in the last few pages. You can disagree with me or write it off. But consider it some input from a totally random person who has nothing to gain or lose from saying this.
> 
> I don't think I said you hate ignorant people. If I did, I didn't mean that. I meant to convey that you are making gross overgeneralizations about the mentality of a large number of people with zero evidence to demonstrate that you are not just stating your opinions as facts. To me, making grand generalizations and assumptions about tens of millions of people without any evidence also seems pretty ignorant. I just thought it was ironic that someone was ignorantly targeting people for being ignorant.
> 
> I also don't think I said anything about liars. But since we are on it, you assume that because you hate liars that 40+% of the population is wrong because they don't see a liar and hate him too? There are various reasons that people might support Trump knowing he is a liar, but instead of trying to be sympathetic to issues people have that cause them to support a liar, you are on the offensive and shutting out any possibility of a dialog. At the end of the day, I think most people know Trump is a terrible person and a bully, and they think they need that type of person in charge. What does that say about how those people feel about politics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pretty much said Trump supporters are simpletons and dimwitted. That they can't tell that Trump is lying. When told that he has a large number of college educated supporters, you pretty much said they are still ignorant and implied the collegiate system in America is not a good signal to identify people who have their shit together. So we should just ignore degrees and rely on your gut instincts?!
> 
> I'd say that type of behavior is exactly what you are annoyed at. I won't go as far as calling it lying, but, unless I missed it, you haven't presented any evidence at the scale you are making your claims, which might as well be made up statistics and Tucker Carlson or Hannity level political rants.
> 
> I would like to see any evidence that you aren't just shitting all over "ignorant, dimwitted, simpletons" and actually can link your view of tens of millions of people to real surveys and polls.



Thanks for your opinion...

I'll have more evidence after the "million maga march"... lol

I can hear it now...
Stop the steal
Stop the steal
Stop the steal
Stop the steal...

They might as well be chanting...
We is ignorant
We is ignorant
We is ignorant
We is ignorant
We is ignorant...


----------



## narad

Making fun of Trump voters because they're in this bubble and they have this warped view of the world, while having a warped view of Trump voters shaped by the opposite bubble. That's funny. 

It's true that if you're a white idiot, you probably voted for Trump. But so did white men in general, and with higher education. And still a lot of college-educated white women, which is weird, given his outspoken disdain for all the dogfaces.


----------



## fantom

Even if Trump gets 10k-20k people to the "stop the steal" march, is that really a good representation of who voted for him? He received tens of millions of votes. It is pretty ignorant to assume that the vocal minority represents the whole. It's about the same as Fox News saying democrats want to be socialists because Bernie Sanders has a small set of supporters.


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> Making fun of Trump voters because they're in this bubble and they have this warped view of the world, while having a warped view of Trump voters shaped by the opposite bubble. That's funny.
> 
> It's true that if you're a white idiot, you probably voted for Trump. But so did white men in general, and with higher education. And still a lot of college-educated white women, which is weird, given his outspoken disdain for all the dogfaces.


It's not a "warped view" when they are out marching and chanting nonsense, they are right in your face...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Eh, like I said, I don't think it really matters. Regardless of education level or what not, they all voted for him and sign off on his policies and persona. All of it.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> Even if Trump gets 10k-20k people to the "stop the steal" march, is that really a good representation of who voted for him? He received tens of millions of votes. It is pretty ignorant to assume that the vocal minority represents the whole.


judging by what I've seen so far I'd say yes? what else am I suppose to go by???

I've yet to see a reasonable person with a good reason to support Rump in the news?

I'm certainly not in a "bubble" as I watch Fox News and News Max and many more! AND I have an indent on my forehead from all the facepalms I get from watching it all!


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


> It's not a "warped view" when they are out marching and chanting nonsense, they are right in your face...



That's just the same as when the conservatives post some picture of a bunch of proud to be fat ladies with blue hair and horn rim glasses shouting about toxic masculinity and being eye raped. You're looking at the fringe. Idiotic knuckle-dragging Trump voters is just a stereotype based off of Rig-Talk off-topic.


----------



## fantom

The irony is strong with this one.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Idiotic knuckle-dragging Trump voters is just a stereotype based off of Rig-Talk off-topic.



This is good.


----------



## AxRookie

I prefer to live in the real world...


----------



## USMarine75

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I was playing a game called take a drink every time AxRookie uses an exclamation mark. Then I started a gofundme for my kidney dialysis.



I have AxRookie blocked... Over/under for times he’s called him Rump at 10.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> I have AxRookie blocked... Over/under for times he’s called him Rump at 10.


LOL I mean come on it's right there...









Besides I'm getting Dumple Stilzkin kidney dialysis paid
for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that is if he doesn't become an alcoholic first? lol


----------



## possumkiller

It doesn't matter if Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson voted for trump. Voting for trump is an endorsement of trumpism and what he stands for. If they voted for trump, that would mean they support the bigotry, hate, and ignorance that he stands for.


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> It doesn't matter if Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson voted for trump. Voting for trump is an endorsement of trumpism and what he stands for. If they voted for trump, that would mean they support the bigotry, hate, and ignorance that he stands for.


Just to be clear, neither voted for Trump, they are both men of reason and science...


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/13/politics/pennsylvania-absentee-ballots-trump-campaign/index.html

*Judges rule against Trump campaign in 6 PA cases over absentee ballots*

“Two judges in Pennsylvania on Friday tossed a half dozen court cases the Trump campaign had brought to invalidate thousands of votes around Philadelphia, where voters carried President-elect Joe Biden to a clear win in the battleground state.“

“The Trump campaign had said in court that *it wasn't alleging voting fraud in the cases -- just attempting to enforce the rules*.“
​So their big complaint, and why Rump is holding the election hostage, is that voters didn’t put return addresses on the envelopes... which wasn’t even a requirement.


----------



## AxRookie

USMarine75 said:


> ​So their big complaint, and why Rump is holding the election hostage


Rump is catchy isn't it?!?


----------



## sleewell

Ga called for biden. The election is over. Here come the pardons. He will try to pardon himself and then will resign and have pence do it when he finds out he cant pardon himself. Would be funny if pence initially agreed but then refused but he doesnt have a back bone. 

Trump is going to make a ton of money after if he can limit his court cases to the state level.


----------



## AxRookie

sleewell said:


> Ga called for biden. The election is over. Here come the pardons. He will try to pardon himself and then will resign and have pence do it when he finds out he cant pardon himself. Would be funny if pence initially agreed but then refused but he doesnt have a back bone.
> 
> Trump is going to make a ton of money after if he can limit his court cases to the state level.


The AP is the only one who hasn't called GA yet...


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> Trump is going to make a ton of money after if he can limit his court cases to the state level.



Aren’t the state ones the biggest issue for him?


----------



## sleewell

Ralyks said:


> Aren’t the state ones the biggest issue for him?




The federal cases could be much larger in scope and would require much more time and would be much more expensive to defend. I think NY mainly has him on tax evasion type of charges which he could probably work out a plea deal and pay a fine. Maybe I'm wrong. not sure.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> The federal cases could be much larger in scope and would require much more time and would be much more expensive to defend. I think NY mainly has him on tax evasion type of charges which he could probably work out a plea deal and pay a fine. Maybe I'm wrong. not sure.


Donald "never admit anything" Trump could work out a plea deal?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> The federal cases could be much larger in scope and would require much more time and would be much more expensive to defend. I think NY mainly has him on tax evasion type of charges which he could probably work out a plea deal and pay a fine. Maybe I'm wrong. not sure.



He has over a billion dollars in personal debt maturing or due. He's lived almost entirely off of credit on the auspice he's never been under the radar (see: money laundering) and his creditors have sought "favors" and access. 

Now that he's been heavily investigated by the state and will no longer hold office, there's little reason to not collect.


----------



## wankerness

They really have their knives out for him in Manhattan. I don’t think there’s much chance he’d get a plea deal from them. He’ll probably try and have his supporters murder people involved in the case till they back off, that’s the only way I see him wiggling out of that jam.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that electors have to vote with the popular vote in their states, so there goes the major fear a lot of paranoid liberals had about Trump staying in office. He’s done.

In my state, their lawsuit is trying to throw out 100% of ballots from the three biggest counties because fear of covid wasn’t a good enough reason to send people absentee ballots instead of making them vote in person. Never mind that EVERY county was allowed to do that, they just cartoonishly are trying the only move that would win Trump the state mathematically. It’s pathetic.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

He'll never see a prison cell. Ever. Y'all can forget that idea right now.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, getting Epstein’d is far more likely with all the state secrets he knows and how much of an uncontrollable idiot he is.


----------



## TedEH

fantom said:


> When told that he has a large number of college educated supporters, you pretty much said they are still ignorant and implied the collegiate system in America is not a good signal to identify people who have their shit together.


I'm super late to this part of the party but -
In fairness, level of education on its own really isn't an indication of anything other than that someone got enough money together to pay for some schooling. It _might_ indicate that someone has a good understanding of one particular topic they studied, but that means nothing about politics until that's the particular thing they studied. Lots of highly educated people are in fact ignorant of a lot of things outside of their domains of knowledge. Lots of "uneducated" people are also incredibly bright/smart/well informed.

While I agree that AxRookie's generalizations are kinda ignorant in themselves - so is the idea that you can just assume all "educated people" are smart are will "vote the right way". There's also been a bunch of people saying basically the same thing, but in less "ignorant sounding" terms - saying things like anyone who voted for Trump is clearly a racist shithead, etc.

Overly-generalizing people tends to be a bad idea in the first place, but we're talking about tens of millions of people and trying to group them all into one bucket we can stick a big ol' dismissive label on. It doesn't matter what you've called that bucket, you're still generalizing. And calling them shitheads is just going to make them want to vote against you even more.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, we better compromise and say racism and outright constant rejection of facts isn’t bad.


----------



## possumkiller

TedEH said:


> I'm super late to this part of the party but -
> In fairness, level of education on its own really isn't an indication of anything other than that someone got enough money together to pay for some schooling. It _might_ indicate that someone has a good understanding of one particular topic they studied, but that means nothing about politics until that's the particular thing they studied. Lots of highly educated people are in fact ignorant of a lot of things outside of their domains of knowledge. Lots of "uneducated" people are also incredibly bright/smart/well informed.
> 
> While I agree that AxRookie's generalizations are kinda ignorant in themselves - so is the idea that you can just assume all "educated people" are smart are will "vote the right way". There's also been a bunch of people saying basically the same thing, but in less "ignorant sounding" terms - saying things like anyone who voted for Trump is clearly a racist shithead, etc.
> 
> Overly-generalizing people tends to be a bad idea in the first place, but we're talking about tens of millions of people and trying to group them all into one bucket we can stick a big ol' dismissive label on. It doesn't matter what you've called that bucket, you're still generalizing. And calling them shitheads is just going to make them want to vote against you even more.


Whoa there, Ted. Everyone else may not remember when you let your racism show in the other thread, but Pepperidge Farm remembers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> I'm super late to this part of the party but -
> In fairness, level of education on its own really isn't an indication of anything other than that someone got enough money together to pay for some schooling. It _might_ indicate that someone has a good understanding of one particular topic they studied, but that means nothing about politics until that's the particular thing they studied. Lots of highly educated people are in fact ignorant of a lot of things outside of their domains of knowledge. Lots of "uneducated" people are also incredibly bright/smart/well informed.
> 
> While I agree that AxRookie's generalizations are kinda ignorant in themselves - so is the idea that you can just assume all "educated people" are smart are will "vote the right way". There's also been a bunch of people saying basically the same thing, but in less "ignorant sounding" terms - saying things like anyone who voted for Trump is clearly a racist shithead, etc.
> 
> Overly-generalizing people tends to be a bad idea in the first place, but we're talking about tens of millions of people and trying to group them all into one bucket we can stick a big ol' dismissive label on. It doesn't matter what you've called that bucket, you're still generalizing. And calling them shitheads is just going to make them want to vote against you even more.



The thing is, even if someone who supports Trump isn't themselves a racist or moron or shit head or whatever, they condone Trump's racist, stupid, and shitty behavior, which is a round about way of saying that maybe being fine with all of that is illuminating traces of such in themselves.

Not to go all Godwin's law here, but I'm sure there were some folks in 1930's Germany who just really liked Hitler's views towards animal rights and self determination of the terminally ill, but if they were also okay with other more insidious policies then well, what do we call Hitler supporters?

Again, I have no doubt that most Trump supporters are perfectly normal, well intentioned folks who aren't inherently evil or stupid, but at what point does association with those who are evil and stupid spoil the lot?

This would have been a much better argument prior to 2016, but we have four years of examples now.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

MaxOfMetal said:


> He'll never see a prison cell. Ever. Y'all can forget that idea right now.


I don’t know Max, I told Santa in a very nice letter (a very beautiful, you might say perfect, I say it was perfect) that all I wanted for Christmas was justice with regards to Trump. I’m just saying, it could happen.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

TedEH said:


> I'm super late to this part of the party but -
> In fairness, level of education on its own really isn't an indication of anything other than that someone got enough money together to pay for some schooling. It _might_ indicate that someone has a good understanding of one particular topic they studied, but that means nothing about politics until that's the particular thing they studied. Lots of highly educated people are in fact ignorant of a lot of things outside of their domains of knowledge. Lots of "uneducated" people are also incredibly bright/smart/well informed.
> 
> While I agree that AxRookie's generalizations are kinda ignorant in themselves - so is the idea that you can just assume all "educated people" are smart are will "vote the right way". There's also been a bunch of people saying basically the same thing, but in less "ignorant sounding" terms - saying things like anyone who voted for Trump is clearly a racist shithead, etc.
> 
> Overly-generalizing people tends to be a bad idea in the first place, but we're talking about tens of millions of people and trying to group them all into one bucket we can stick a big ol' dismissive label on. It doesn't matter what you've called that bucket, you're still generalizing. And calling them shitheads is just going to make them want to vote against you even more.


Well said. We need to fight temptations to make those generalizations. The path to a better future is going to need tolerance and not elitism. Because like you said, that just is fuel for the anti intellectual fire. To me that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be calling people out on bigotry, and sexists ideals though. When a person supporting Trump doesn’t think they are giving a green light to those ways of thought. They are wrong, though they might not fully grasp why.


----------



## bostjan

I don't think all Trump voters are/were Trump supporters.

It'd be a pipe dream to see data regarding that, but I'd assert that most Trump voters I personally know hated Trump, but hated him less than Biden.

As discussed earlier, many of these folks were single issue voters. Trying to explain to them that Trump is not pro-life (due to his personal history) or not pro-second-amendment (due to his executive order history, his public instructions to the DoJ, and his speeches in front of congress) is futile, because these folks believe that the Republican Party will save them, even if Trump will not. Eventually, those people might even relent that Trump will do the one thing they are voting against, but Biden will also, and Jorgensen has no chance, therefore they must vote for whoever is the brand representative of the party who usually claims to try to stop the thing that never gets stopped.

It's all too meta to boil down into a 9 second soundbite....

But, then there are those who truly do support Trump .

It's also worth mentioning that my taxes were lower the last three years than ever before. While that has made a positive difference in my life, it doesn't come close to making up for the fact that it's now possible that I could die of a disease that was left to roam rampant by the government, and I'm more likely to be abused by police after our executive leader embraced police brutality and even condoned violence against people who have different ideas. But folks who are fairly mainstream and think covid is just a type of flu will see their tax savings and might vote simply based on that.

Also recall Michael Dukakis vs. George HW Bush. Bush promised lower taxes, Dukakis admitted that the federal budget was buggered without more taxes, and said he'd tax rich corporations. Come November, Bush won in a landslide, most likely due to that single fact. Immediately after taking office, taxes went up to cover the federal budget. People remembered that, which led to the popularity of Ross Perot, which caused Bill Clinton to easily win the next election.

People vote based on how candidates affect their wallet.


----------



## diagrammatiks

MaxOfMetal said:


> The thing is, even if someone who supports Trump isn't themselves a racist or moron or shit head or whatever, they condone Trump's racist, stupid, and shitty behavior, which is a round about way of saying that maybe being fine with all of that is illuminating traces of such in themselves.
> 
> Not to go all Godwin's law here, but I'm sure there were some folks in 1930's Germany who just really liked Hitler's views towards animal rights and self determination of the terminally ill, but if they were also okay with other more insidious policies then well, what do we call Hitler supporters?
> 
> Again, I have no doubt that most Trump supporters are perfectly normal, well intentioned folks who aren't inherently evil or stupid, but at what point does association with those who are evil and stupid spoil the lot?
> 
> This would have been a much better argument prior to 2016, but we have four years of examples now.



some people are just actually evil.


----------



## fantom

TedEH said:


> I'm super late to this part of the party but -
> In fairness, level of education on its own really isn't an indication of anything other than that someone got enough money together to pay for some schooling. It _might_ indicate that someone has a good understanding of one particular topic they studied, but that means nothing about politics until that's the particular thing they studied. Lots of highly educated people are in fact ignorant of a lot of things outside of their domains of knowledge. Lots of "uneducated" people are also incredibly bright/smart/well informed



Tell that to people to HR at a large percentage of companies. Why are they ignoring 2/3 of the population that don't have college degrees when looking at resumes? They keep performance data for decades. They know it pays off to focus on college educated people first.

I think the core issue with a lot of this discussion is that people keep assuming that the outliers (top and bottom 5%) define entire classes of people ignoring that 90% of those people don't share those traits. Yes, there are brilliant people that don't go to college. Yes, there are stupid people with college degrees. Yes there are people who are street smart that dropped out of high school. Yes there are Republicans that would probably have sex with Trump just because they think he is a god.

But when talking about groups of tens of millions of people, we have to look at the averages, not the outliers. I would argue the average college educated person is less ignorant than the average person with just a high school degree. Just like I would argue that the average Republican sees Trump is a bully and liar.

I could be wrong, but I'm really getting tired of people making justifications that because the worst 10% of Republicans are on tv acting stupid, then the average is just as bad. I'm also tired of people defining all democrats as socialist because a small percentage back Bernie Sanders passionately. It's just causing a bigger rift because people feel like they are being attacked for reasons that don't even represent who they are.


----------



## failsafe

USMarine75 said:


> I have AxRookie blocked... Over/under for times he’s called him Rump at 10.


Same


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> It's also worth mentioning that my taxes were lower the last three years than ever before. While that has made a positive difference in my life,
> 
> People vote based on how candidates affect their wallet.




Is it also worth mentioning that those lower taxes were the first phase of a tax structure that is specifically set to break in 2021, and go up to higher then where it was, while continuing to drop for the nation's wealthiest... I my mind, those lower taxes for the middle class were little more than a grift to buy the enough votes in 2020 to win a 2nd term...and then the tax goes back up.


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> Is it also worth mentioning that those lower taxes were the first phase of a tax structure that is specifically set to break in 2021, and go up to higher then where it was, while continuing to drop for the nation's wealthiest... I my mind, those lower taxes for the middle class were little more than a grift to buy the enough votes in 2020 to win a 2nd term...and then the tax goes back up.



Yeah the middle class tax cuts expire next year, but the tax cuts for corporate and ultra-wealthy are permanent.


----------



## Randy

Unsurprisingly


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> Is it also worth mentioning that those lower taxes were the first phase of a tax structure that is specifically set to break in 2021, and go up to higher then where it was, while continuing to drop for the nation's wealthiest... I my mind, those lower taxes for the middle class were little more than a grift to buy the enough votes in 2020 to win a 2nd term...and then the tax goes back up.



Of course. But most people don't understand that.


----------



## AxRookie

failsafe said:


> Same


I'm crushed... lol


----------



## AxRookie

Randy said:


> Unsurprisingly
> 
> View attachment 87108


I posted that some pages back...
https://www.sevenstring.org/threads...tion-rules-in-op.330576/page-700#post-5204816

The "thousands MAGA march" super spreader is off and running!

Lol But they all seem so very educated and well-read, not at all ignorant, of course, this is just a small sliver of the dumber Rump supporters... 

Rump getting his ego stroked at his biggest super spreader yet!

I wonder how many people will die from this one including the police that must work it?


----------



## AxRookie

Cowboy hats with "Stop The Steal" on the back, How fitting...

I suppose they didn't want to throw out all the flags, signs, and MAGA hats after they paid all that money for them?

I guess a lot of them didn't have any money left for masks that could save their lives?

I can hear Rump now "There were millions of people there!, Biggest crowd anyone has ever seen in the history of people!"...

So this is how Truth, Justice, and The American Way is assaulted? To chants of "stop the steal" for a wannabe authoritarian leader coming from within...


----------



## AxRookie

As Rump is golfing...


I've never been more embarrassed about the U.S.A on the world stage as I am today!

I feel like the guy who has a good friend over for thanksgiving dinner and having to explain to him "Oh, that guy ranting conspiracy theories in the other room is just my crazy uncle Billy, he's had too much to drink but he should run out of steam by the end of the night"...

Take note that on the Fox News "ticker" one of the headlines reads "Talking To Goats"???

Fitting...


----------



## wankerness

USMarine75 said:


> Yeah the middle class tax cuts expire next year, but the tax cuts for corporate and ultra-wealthy are permanent.



Yep. Middle class taxes are getting raised and lower class taxes are getting raised bigtime next year under Trump's tax plan, while anyone in the top 1% gets no increase. I have no doubt Mitch Mcconnell will refuse to let Biden pass his tax plan which would make it so lower/middle class people wouldn't see an increase and the 1%ers would, and that the republicans will then screech "LOOK! BIDEN RAISED TAXES ON THE LOWER/MIDDLE CLASS!" VOTE REPUBLICAN 2022 SO WE CAN LOWER YOUR TAXES!!! and then proceed to continue squeezing the underclasses for all they're worth.

This country is beyond f'd and if the Trump supporters continue thinking this is the fault of the democrats there's no way anything is ever going to improve. I wish it was possible to move to Canada if you are over 30 and don't have any advanced degrees.


----------



## AxRookie

wankerness said:


> Yep. Middle class taxes are getting raised and lower class taxes are getting raised bigtime next year under Trump's tax plan, while anyone in the top 1% gets no increase. I have no doubt Mitch Mcconnell will refuse to let Biden pass his tax plan which would make it so lower/middle class people wouldn't see an increase and the 1%ers would, and that the republicans will then screech "LOOK! BIDEN RAISED TAXES ON THE LOWER/MIDDLE CLASS!" VOTE REPUBLICAN 2022 SO WE CAN LOWER YOUR TAXES!!! and then proceed to continue squeezing the underclasses for all they're worth.
> 
> This country is beyond f'd and if the Trump supporters continue thinking this is the fault of the democrats there's no way anything is ever going to improve. I wish it was possible to move to Canada if you are over 30 and don't have any advanced degrees.


I agree only I think we all need to stay and fight tooth a nail for a better tomorrow which could start with two wins in the GA runoffs!

And getting Rump out of the way!

We all need to be shouting from the rooftops ‘Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The Way’


----------



## wankerness

What REALLY needs to be happening immediately is everyone screaming from the rooftops about Trump's tax raises on the lower/middle classes that start in 2021. As is, barely any liberals I know are even aware of it, and if Democrats don't get on top of messaging NOW, before Biden's in office, there's no way the republicans aren't going to lie their asses off and make most of the country believe Biden implemented the increases. If it gets attached to the republicans right now as something they did, there's a chance it can be leveraged against them to get rid of it and put the burden on the Bezos of the country instead.


----------



## AxRookie

wankerness said:


> What REALLY needs to be happening immediately is everyone screaming from the rooftops about Trump's tax raises on the lower/middle classes that start in 2021. As is, barely any liberals I know are even aware of it, and if Democrats don't get on top of messaging NOW, before Biden's in office, there's no way the republicans aren't going to lie their asses off and make most of the country believe Biden implemented the increases. If it gets attached to the republicans right now as something they did, there's a chance it can be leveraged against them to get rid of it and put the burden on the Bezos of the country instead.


Yep, after 4 years of Rump there is A LOT on the to do list that really needs to get done, and the sooner the better!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Just a thought about the vast amount of "Haha... Loser!/ Look at the idiots!" videos and social-media comments. It's a shame that we have an opportunity to take the high road and simply let the sad-sacks cry themselves out but yet continue to mock and ridicule them. What happened to winning graciously? We as a nation, are already divided enough. Our hospitals are becoming maxed-out with covid infections, deaths continue to mount, our national security is in jeopardy every day that the transition is delayed, and our economy is reeling. Celebrate the win but why continue clawing at the low-hanging fruit and taunting the defeated? I support the therapeutic nature of humor but I feel that it gets to a point where it's all just a bit much. trump lost and that's great in and of itself but this country is a mess and continuing to rub salt in the wounds seems completely unnecessary and in bad character at this point.


----------



## AxRookie

High Plains Drifter said:


> Just a thought about the vast amount of "Haha... Loser!/ Look at the idiots!" videos and social-media comments. It's a shame that we have an opportunity to take the high road and simply let the sad-sacks cry themselves out but yet continue to mock and ridicule them. What happened to winning graciously? We as a nation, are already divided enough. Our hospitals are becoming maxed-out with covid infections, deaths continue to mount, our national security is in jeopardy every day that the transition is delayed, and our economy is reeling. Celebrate the win but why continue clawing at the low-hanging fruit and taunting the defeated? I support the therapeutic nature of humor but I feel that it gets to a point where it's all just a bit much. trump lost and that's great in and of itself but this country is a mess and continuing to rub salt in the wounds seems completely unnecessary and in bad character at this point.


I would love to take "the high road" but Rump and his supporters are still refusing to let that happen by continuing to block any movement forwards!

AND that obstruction MUST be called out, Not Ignored!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

High Plains Drifter said:


> Just a thought about the vast amount of "Haha... Loser!/ Look at the idiots!" videos and social-media comments. It's a shame that we have an opportunity to take the high road and simply let the sad-sacks cry themselves out but yet continue to mock and ridicule them. What happened to winning graciously? We as a nation, are already divided enough. Our hospitals are becoming maxed-out with covid infections, deaths continue to mount, our national security is in jeopardy every day that the transition is delayed, and our economy is reeling. Celebrate the win but why continue clawing at the low-hanging fruit and taunting the defeated? I support the therapeutic nature of humor but I feel that it gets to a point where it's all just a bit much. trump lost and that's great in and of itself but this country is a mess and continuing to rub salt in the wounds seems completely unnecessary and in bad character at this point.



We're not really dealing with good faith actors here, so it's hard to keep grinding along with a manufactured sense of superiority with nothing much to show for it at the present.

So I get it. 

It's easy to preach grace and civility, it's a privilege that many of us have. 

But, all the coddling in the world isn't going to unite this country, actually making it better will and in order to do that we just might have to crack some eggs opposed to taking the high road all the way to where we've been the last decade, which has been a spiral to the bottom.


----------



## Necris

High Plains Drifter said:


> It's a shame that we have an opportunity to take the high road and simply let the sad-sacks cry themselves out but yet continue to mock and ridicule them.


Counterpoint: No it's not.
If you think any of the people who actually left their homes for this nonsense give a shit what someone sitting on social media is saying about them you're naive. Internet mockery is the least these people deserve and the people who go out and counter-protest against these lunatics deserve praise, not a bunch of hollywood liberals taking to social media demanding people just ignore them and bemoaning how "we" missed a chance to "take the high road" with this march; which is what's been happening.

There are still a lot of people who seem hellbent on refusing to admit to themselves that when these people organize and then mobilize and are met with no response whatsoever from the people they consider "the left" (anyone they perceive as to the left of them) that the absence of even the mildest of consequences is what actually emboldens them. The "high road" benefits *them* not you. They built this huge base of support while people were spending time ignoring it, making the same bullshit "they just want attention, we need to take the highroad" arguments. If you think these people these people are going to "cry themselves out" please consider for a moment that this march signals the exact opposite, they have no intention of letting go and they're going to continue to organize. The "high road" isn't ceding the streets to a far right mob for a night so they can network and organize further.


----------



## AxRookie

Rand Paul telling coronavirus survivors to throw out their masks and celebrate.

These are the morons that need to be called out!!!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> Rand Paul telling coronavirus survivors to throw out their masks and celebrate.
> 
> These are the morons that need to be called out!!!




Rand Paul isn't a moron, he's a monster.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Rand Paul isn't a moron, he's a monster.


Maybe we can meet in the middle and agree he's a moronic monster?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> Maybe we can meet in the middle and agree he's a moronic monster?



Nah. Those are two different things. But we can both not like him.


----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Nah. Those are two different things. But we can both not like him.


It was worth a try in these divided times...

Being a moron and a monster is not mutually exclusive?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

AxRookie said:


> I would love to take "the high road" but Rump and his supporters are still refusing to let that happen by continuing to block any movement forwards!
> 
> AND that obstruction MUST be called out, Not Ignored!





MaxOfMetal said:


> We're not really dealing with good faith actors here, so it's hard to keep grinding along with a manufactured sense of superiority with nothing much to show for it at the present.
> 
> So I get it.
> 
> It's easy to preach grace and civility, it's a privilege that many of us have.
> 
> But, all the coddling in the world isn't going to unite this country, actually making it better will and in order to do that we just might have to crack some eggs opposed to taking the high road all the way to where we've been the last decade, which has been a spiral to the bottom.





Necris said:


> Counterpoint: No it's not.
> If you think any of the people who actually left their homes for this nonsense give a shit what someone sitting on social media is saying about them you're naive. Is internet mockery a particularly effective form of activism, no, almost certainly not, I'll happily admit that. However, lets be honest, internet mockery is the least these people deserve and the people who go out and counter-protest against these lunatics deserve praise, not a bunch of hollywood liberals taking to social media demanding people just ignore them and bemoaning how "we" missed a chance to "take the high road" with this march; which is what's been happening.
> 
> There are still a lot of people who seem hellbent on refusing to admit to themselves that when these people organize and then mobilize and are met with no response whatsoever from the people they consider "the left" (anyone they perceive as to the left of them) that the absence of even the mildest of consequences is what actually emboldens them. The "high road" benefits *them* not you. They built this huge base of support while people were spending time ignoring it, making the same bullshit "they just want attention, we need to take the highroad" arguments. If you think these people these people are going to "cry themselves out" please consider for a moment that this march signals the exact opposite, they have no intention of letting go and they're going to continue to organize. The "high road" isn't ceding the streets to a far right mob for a night so they can network and organize further.



Really not sure why any of you are equating or inferring what I said to "coddling", "superiority", "ignoring obstruction", or "naive". Noting someone's ridiculous actions/ behavior or pointing out hypocrisy is understandable and completely justified but poking fun repeatedly at people is counterproductive. That's pretty much all that I said. If you feel that it's a ridiculous/ dumb perspective... cool. Have fun with the yuk yuks but I don't think that there's any need to put words in my mouth.


----------



## StevenC

AxRookie said:


> It was worth a try in these divided times...
> 
> Being a moron and a monster is not mutually exclusive?


He's not a moron. He knows what he's saying is stupid and gets people killed. He just doesn't care. Which makes him a monster.


----------



## AxRookie

StevenC said:


> He's not a moron. He knows what he's saying is stupid and gets people killed. He just doesn't care. Which makes him a monster.


I think you're giving him too much credit?

I really think he believes what he's saying, but that's just me...


----------



## fantom

AxRookie said:


> I would love to take "the high road" but Rump and his supporters are still refusing to let that happen by continuing to block any movement forwards!
> 
> AND that obstruction MUST be called out, Not Ignored!



You keep forgetting that Trump is not the problem. McConnell was obstructing Obama before Trump even ran for office. These people have a different world view than you, and neither one is "right" or "better". They are just different. Without learning to live with that, you are just going to be pissed off at half the country your entire life.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> You keep forgetting that Trump is not the problem. McConnell was obstructing Obama before Trump even ran for office. These people have a different world view than you, and neither one is "right" or "better". They are just different. Without learning to live with that, you are just going to be pissed off at half the country your entire life.



I'd argue that there is a "right" and "better" in the context of the health, safety, and prosperity of the American people. Not that either "side" in our two party system has more of a hold on what would be better, as the goals seem to be very different, but it's beyond just having a difference of opinion. 

For instance big vs. small government is something to have an opinion about when weighed. There is no opinion to be had about anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## AxRookie

fantom said:


> You keep forgetting that Trump is not the problem. McConnell was obstructing Obama before Trump even ran for office. These people have a different world view than you, and neither one is "right" or "better". They are just different. Without learning to live with that, you are just going to be pissed off at half the country your entire life.


The obstruction I'm talking about will end Jan 20 at 12:00 BUT it could have ended days ago...


----------



## diagrammatiks

AxRookie said:


> The obstruction I'm talking about will end Jan 20 at 12:00 BUT it could have ended days ago...



Sir do you know how Congress works.


----------



## Mathemagician

fantom said:


> You keep forgetting that Trump is not the problem. McConnell was obstructing Obama before Trump even ran for office. These people have a different world view than you, and neither one is "right" or "better". They are just different. Without learning to live with that, you are just going to be pissed off at half the country your entire life.



The current “right wing” party of the country has over the last 20 years decided that ALL government spending is “a waste” and accordingly when in power they continue to:

1) Break- allowing the school voucher system whereby government dollars can go to school options other than public schools

2) Defund- literally every arts and after school program, constant freezes on teacher pay due to budget cuts, not paying for infrastructure UPGRADES - tech is better than it was 40+ years ago we don’t need repairs we need new types of public transport. But there’s always more budget for a police precinct to have another armored tank in BFE Indiana.

3) Burden with debt- The US Amtrak system and as of the mid 2000’s the USPS system as well which were burdened on purpose to make them “not profitable” to justify privatizing them. The USPS is enshrined in the constitution FFS, but guys claiming to be “constitutionalists” don’t seem to mind. 

The right wing party then POINTS to the very things THEY broke or in the case of McConnell left the bills that would fix them die, and say “see it’s all government waste and doesn’t work so you should just cut it all and get a magical tax cut”.

But as we saw from the most recent Republican tax cut under trump, it’s the poorest people - the 65% of the US that makes $75k or less who will take the kick in the teeth when their measly $200-400/yr tax cut fall off in 2021.

Then guys like Dejoy the current head of USPS gives his old company a massive multimillion dollar contract which is a massive conflict of interest but AG Barr appointed under the right wing administration won’t charge Dejoy and protect against the improper allocation of US taxpayer dollars.

The right wing as it stands breaks down American institutions and then privatizes it by selling it to their own businesses or associates businesses thereby PREVENTING HAVING TO COMPETE WITH THE LESS EXPENSIVE PUBLIC OPTION.

All of the biggest companies support that party for that reason, republicans have promised to cut out any public competition to the private sector, allowing the private sector to offer inferior services at higher prices - see internet access costs and the lack of access in 2020 for many rural Americans.

All while “cutting spending” that will have to be made up by a responsible Democratic administration. That is by design, it allows them to say “see democrats want to raise your taxes!

Which for many people is the only issue they vote on. The real joke is that I’d rather just make 5, 10, 15% more money every year because of awesome economic growth than try to nickel and dime an extra 1% by getting a tax cut.

When people are educated, healthy, and working it creates demand and economic activity.

Right wing policy wants you to fight over scraps of a small pie, whereas most democratic policy wants to invest in things that will make the pie bigger.

The middle ground is “should we give teachers a raise of 4% or 6%” not “should we freeze teachers pay 5+ years if we can get away with it to justify a tax cut?”

It’s “should we budget to have a new high speed rail done in 2 years (more costly) or 3 years (spread it out an extra year). Not “let’s destroy all rail and accept lobbying dollars from the auto industry for our next election.”

Middle ground requires good-faith actors on both sides.


----------



## AxRookie

diagrammatiks said:


> Sir do you know how Congress works.


Sir yes I do...


----------



## StevenC

AxRookie said:


> I think you're giving him too much credit?
> 
> I really think he believes what he's saying, but that's just me...


The man who gets his healthcare from Canada does not believe what he's saying.


----------



## AxRookie

The gang that couldn't sue straight! 


"non-zero number"
"hearsay within hearsay" 

And Rump finally said the words "He Won" and then everything else after was a lie...
Gota play to that base and keep them mindlessly chanting!
SAD...

​


----------



## AxRookie

The conspiracy theory of the 2020 election is here to stay, SAD...
"Trump has created a cancer that's metastasizing"

 

AND he keeps feeding it more and more!
​


----------



## AxRookie




----------



## narad

Damn dude, you're doing like more than half the posts in this thread now.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## narad

Jeez, Chelsea's almost as old as Hillary was when Bill took office. That's blowing my mind.


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> Damn dude, you're doing like more than half the posts in this thread now.


You're kidding, right??? lol I mean you have to be because nobody could be that bad at math??? lol

Anyways...

I've been right about every prediction I've made so far so I'm going to make one more.

I say there is no way Rump OR anyone in his family will attend Biden's inauguration!


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


> You're kidding, right??? lol I mean you have to be because nobody could be that bad at math??? lol



You posted 5 times on this page, this post makes 5 non-you posts on this page (and frankly the posts telling you you're posting as frequently as everyone-else-combined probably shouldn't count towards that).

And check out the previous page. I'm just saying some chill might go a long ways.


----------



## possumkiller

narad said:


> You posted 5 times on this page, this post makes 5 non-you posts on this page (and frankly the posts telling you you're posting as frequently as everyone-else-combined probably shouldn't count towards that).
> 
> And check out the previous page. I'm just saying some chill might go a long ways.


Just put him on ignore.


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> Just put him on ignore.



I do feel it'd be a nice "reaching across the aisle" moment to add one super liberal guy to the one existing super conservative guy I have in my ignore list.


----------



## StevenC

possumkiller said:


> Just put him on ignore.


The problem is you end up with pages with 4 posts on them at a time. I tried this before, but the memes thread became unusable.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AxRookie said:


> You're kidding, right??? lol I mean you have to be because nobody could be that bad at math???



Okay, I've warned you before. If you can't be civil you're gone.

This forum doesn't have auto-merge anymore, so chill out. 

Last warning.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Damn dude, you're doing like more than half the posts in this thread now.



over/under for times he said Rump, double posted, or rapid fire reposted every anti-Trump YouTube video?


----------



## diagrammatiks

completely pissing off people that actually don't disagree with you.

what do we call that?

lipstick liberals.


----------



## nightflameauto

So I'm seeing reports that protesters clashed last night in DC. Somebody got stabbed twenty-seven times. Bunch of arrests.

I'm sad watching what's happening to our country right now. It's maddening that even with some positive news it's laced with violence, rage, reality denial and conspiracies.

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Mathemagician

nightflameauto said:


> So I'm seeing reports that protesters clashed last night in DC. Somebody got stabbed twenty-seven times. Bunch of arrests.
> 
> I'm sad watching what's happening to our country right now. It's maddening that even with some positive news it's laced with violence, rage, reality denial and conspiracies.
> 
> This is why we can't have nice things.



A whole lot of people can’t handle President-Elect Biden winning the presidency over and over for a week straight.


----------



## AxRookie

narad said:


> You posted 5 times on this page, this post makes 5 non-you posts on this page (and frankly the posts telling you you're posting as frequently as everyone-else-combined probably shouldn't count towards that).
> 
> And check out the previous page. I'm just saying some chill might go a long ways.


Well, that's because I was the only person to post on Sunday ALL DAY!

There are pages and pages I didn't post at all!


----------



## AxRookie

possumkiller said:


> Just put him on ignore.


Fine it all your's...


----------



## fantom

diagrammatiks said:


> completely pissing off people that actually don't disagree with you.
> 
> what do we call that?
> 
> lipstick liberals.



This is the sad part. I don't think I've ever seen someone argue so much with people that mostly agree. I know at least 2 people that will respond to, "Ya man, Maiden are pretty good. I listened to them a lot when I was younger". And the response, while pulling down pants to show Iron Maiden underwear, "NO DUDE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, IRON MAIDEN ARE THE ONLY BAND ON THE PLANET WORTH LISTENING TO. I CANT BELIEVE YOU ONLY USED TO LISTEN TO THEM AND DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE GODS. <Insert some ridiculous 20 minute verbal masterbation missing all social cues with ridiculous details about every member of the band that not even the band members remember or care about, like which flavor ice cream they ate in 1994 after a specific inconsequential date, and how that ice cream made the band 100000000000 times better than sex>." I think we can multiply that by at least 5 right now.

No offense to Iron Maiden fans...



AxRookie said:


> Well, that's because I was the only person to post on Sunday ALL DAY!
> 
> There are pages and pages I didn't post at all!



In the words of Andy Dufresne, "How can you be so obtuse?"

I am going back to the ignore button now ...


----------



## Ralyks

What I miss? Even I hit ignore a day or two back.


----------



## Drew

AxRookie said:


> I agree only I think we all need to stay and fight tooth a nail for a better tomorrow which could start with two wins in the GA runoffs!


I mean, let's expectation-set here - Biden is going to have. hard time getting anything done no matter WHO wins in Georgia. 

Right now, of races that have been called, the Democrats have 219 seats in the house. 218 is a majority. they're leading in two more races, and tied in two more. That means te most likely outcomes are probably a 3- to 5-seat majority in Congress, meaning three to five defections are enough to stop a bill from passing. Also worth noting, is that most of those losses are from moderate Democratic seats, meaning the Progressive bloc is proportionately stronger than they were in 2018-2020. This means that if they were to choose to, the Progressive Democrats can pretty much stop any bill from getting out of the House, and if they choose to exercise this power, then the 2020-2022 House legislative agenda will probably be quite a bit more progressive than the 2018 Congress. This isn't a judgement call - in a vacuum, personally, I have no problem with the House tilting more Progressive. 

The problem is, right now, the _best case scenario_ in the Senate is a 50-50 tie with Kamala Harris as the tie-breaking vote. That means to pass anything from the House into law, you need to convince either Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, and Jeanne Shaheen on the left, or Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowskki on the right, or some odd bipartisan group of the above, to support your legislation. How much appetite is Joe Manchin going to have to campaign on his vote for the Green New Deal in the coal-friendly hill towns of West Virginia? Or Mitt Romney on his vote for Medicare for All in business-friendly Salt Lake City? The Senate tends to be more moderate anyway, and with at best a tie, and more likely a 2-seat minority, passing anything remotely progressive is going to be a struggle. 

My bet is Biden will be able to make some meaningful changes to financial and energy regulation via executive action, and should be able to get some sort of infrastructure spending bill through Congress. He might be able yo even get something done on prescription drug costs, or moderate reforms to make the ACA work better - in particular moderate Republicans like Collins and Murkowski who opposed it in 2010 have been willing to support it these days. But something sweeping like Medicare For All or the Green New Deal, that would take a blue wave in 2022. Short of that, we don't have the votes.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’m looking forward to some health care, tax and reefer reform (not that I’m a user but I often wonder how much more chilled out people in the US might be if it was as ubiquitous as alcohol- never mind the ridiculous criminal aspect.)

But what I’ve learned over the years is campaign promises are nothing to hang your hat on so to speak. I’ve been forced into a corner here and voted against one of the most despicable human beings ever to be a public servant, which is a really bad situation to be in when talking about democracy. I blame the “did not vote” crowd more than anything, which in my lifetime has contributed to this sort of unraveling.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Also memes tell a better story imo...


----------



## sleewell




----------



## Louis Cypher

BBC News - Trump's legal battles: How six cases may play out
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54716550


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## AxRookie

MaxOfMetal said:


> Okay, I've warned you before. If you can't be civil you're gone.
> 
> This forum doesn't have auto-merge anymore, so chill out.
> 
> Last warning.


Someone says that my 644 posts are 50% of the 14,000 posts in this thread and I say they are bad at math and you say I'm not being civil in a thread where "*Discourse is allowed and even encouraged" and you give me a "Last warning"???

BAN ME NOW!!!*


----------



## bostjan

So now Dr. Scott Atlas is telling people on Twitter in Michigan to "rise up" to stop Gov. Whitmer. www.politico.com/news/2020/11/16/michigan-governor-scott-scott-atlas-covid-restrictions-436743

Then he denied it.

Just like how he told people to not wear masks, publicly, in writing, then denied it.

So frustrating!


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> Someone says that my 644 posts are 50% of the 14,000 posts in this thread and I say they are bad at math and you say I'm not being civil in a thread where "*Discourse is allowed and even encouraged" and you give me a "Last warning"???
> 
> BAN ME NOW!!!*



You accuse others of being "bad at math" when you're "bad at reading".



narad said:


> Damn dude, *you're doing* like more than half the posts in this thread now.



I assumed he meant "current activity". In COVID terms, think "new cases" and not "cumulative cases".


----------



## AxRookie

spudmunkey said:


> You accuse others of being "bad at math" when you're "bad at reading".


So this is what "civil" looks like?



spudmunkey said:


> I assumed he meant "current activity". In COVID terms, think "new cases" and not "cumulative cases".


And you accuse me of "bad at reading"???

My last post...


----------



## bostjan

Darn, I was enjoying a few of those posts. I was really hoping things could get back to civility.

Mike Huckabee wrote an open letter to Biden, declaring all kinds of voter fraud and citing examples that have already been debunkee by nonpartisan factcheckers. He closes the letter with a Bible verse implying that Biden is evil.

This is why the GOP is going right down the toilet. Facts no longer matter. Elections no longer matter to them.

These phenomena need to be studied and we need some sort of model for this. From my perspective, the GOP is acting insane. From the GOP's perspective, the rest of the world is acting insane. At some point, we need to agree on a set of facts and get on with being a society, or else our society will split into two societies in a very serious way.


----------



## spudmunkey

AxRookie said:


> So this is what "civil" looks like?



It was meant to be a light-hearted jab. Sorry it apparently didn't come across that way.



AxRookie said:


> And you accuse me of "bad at reading"???



Y...yes? "you're doing" and "now" in his post would indicate that he wasn't talking about the total post qty in the thread, nor your total-since-joining post count. He was talking about "what you are doing right now is...". If my girlfriend tells me to take my clothes out of the dryer, she's probably not referring to when I didn't leave clothes in the dryer last month.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> I assumed he meant "current activity". In COVID terms, think "new cases" and not "cumulative cases".



Of course that's exactly what I meant (and said).


----------



## Boofchuck

AxRookie said:


> Someone says that my 644 posts are 50% of the 14,000 posts in this thread and I say they are bad at math and you say I'm not being civil in a thread where "*Discourse is allowed and even encouraged" and you give me a "Last warning"???
> 
> BAN ME NOW!!!*


Dude, chill.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Darn, I was enjoying a few of those posts. I was really hoping things could get back to civility.
> 
> Mike Huckabee wrote an open letter to Biden, declaring all kinds of voter fraud and citing examples that have already been debunkee by nonpartisan factcheckers. He closes the letter with a Bible verse implying that Biden is evil.
> 
> This is why the GOP is going right down the toilet. Facts no longer matter. Elections no longer matter to them.
> 
> These phenomena need to be studied and we need some sort of model for this. From my perspective, the GOP is acting insane. From the GOP's perspective, the rest of the world is acting insane. At some point, we need to agree on a set of facts and get on with being a society, or else our society will split into two societies in a very serious way.



Potentially too late, but we'll see.

If Trump conceded in the traditional fashion, the Republican Party would likely be shifting to strategy with the Senate and what kind of negotiating they want to do to temper Dem House and President, with maybe some 2022 mid term strategizing and early 2024 structuring.

Instead, Trump is keeping this up and he's trying to spin this into convincing half the people in this country to throw out elections all together. Any concern about the march to Fascism has been accelerated.


----------



## narad

AxRookie said:


>




Gotta say, the interpretation in this video is hilaarious. Why wouldn't they just transcribe and caption it?


----------



## AxRookie

Just one more thing that encapsulates how I feel about this year before I go...

But you need to skip to 8:34

​


----------



## Necris




----------



## fantom

So Lindsey Graham amongst others is being accused by the Georgia secretary of state, a Republican, for implying that Georgia should throw out votes....


Props to the Secretary of State for being honorable.
This is probably happening to other states.
Why the hell is Graham even talking to Georgia? He represents South Carolina. He needs to stay the hell out of it.
If Dianne Feinstein even implied that a state like Florida should trash votes, Republicans would be losing their shit.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Darn, I was enjoying a few of those posts. I was really hoping things could get back to civility.



Subscribe to The Late Show with Colbert, Late Night with Seth Meyers, and Last Week Tonight on YouTube. That's 98% of his posts.



bostjan said:


> Mike Huckabee wrote an open letter to Biden, declaring all kinds of voter fraud and citing examples that have already been debunkee by nonpartisan factcheckers. He closes the letter with a Bible verse implying that Biden is evil.
> 
> This is why the GOP is going right down the toilet. Facts no longer matter. Elections no longer matter to them.
> 
> These phenomena need to be studied and we need some sort of model for this. From my perspective, the GOP is acting insane. From the GOP's perspective, the rest of the world is acting insane. At some point, we need to agree on a set of facts and get on with being a society, or else our society will split into two societies in a very serious way.



Trump's sycophants are the worst part of Trumpism. Hitler (yeah I said it) would have been nothing without his inner circle. Likewise, Trump would have been easily checked if not for the likes of Barr, Graham, Nunes, Jeffries, etc. Instead you have Nunes going to the back door of the WH and reporting to Trump, the target of an active criminal/CI investigation, telling him the what was being discussed as the investigation was ongoing. His excuse (on record) was that he was briefing his boss and it was his constitutional obligation. Seriously. The guy is a Congressman and doesn't know that he is in the Legislative Branch and at no point is Trump in his chain of command. Nunes should have been impeached.


----------



## AxRookie

I had to post this! BREAKING NEWS!

Trump gave a concession speech!



LOL​


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2600-uncounted-ballots-found-recount-efforts-georgia

So they've FINALLY uncovered the mail-in voter fraud that stole the election from Trump.

Well, except:

These were uncounted in-person votes
Of the 2600, only 1600 were for Trump, another 800 were for Biden
Most likely not "fraud", this was one worker who didn't do their job properly.
These are all Republican officials in a Republican state.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## MFB

Necris said:


> [...]



Mmmm, steamed ballots


----------



## broj15

Mods can delete if memes are explicitly banned (or a slippery slope to derailing the thread) but this popped up in my feed and i died at "racism 2"


----------



## bostjan

"Bill Nyehilism" 



I mean, some of those are too damned close to reality. Reddit based democracy? I means, we are almost there. Poop economy?! Pepperidge farm remembers 2008. Florida man absolutism - a little too on-the-nose to comment explicitly about that one.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm on board with Florida Man Absolutism, Corndog Meritocracy, Pringles Flavor Tribalism, Magic 8 Ball Totalitarianism, Anarcho-Autism, and Post Nut Determinism.


----------



## broj15

nightflameauto said:


> I'm on board with Florida Man Absolutism, Corndog Meritocracy, Pringles Flavor Tribalism, Magic 8 Ball Totalitarianism, Anarcho-Autism, and Post Nut Determinism.



"At last night's debate for the 2064 US presidential election the nominee for the post nut determinist party surprised no one by busting a nut and displaying much determination. We'll go to our correspondent on the scene in the Democratic Confederation of New Virginia for more details."


----------



## possumkiller

I'm all for Onlyfans-based Capitalism.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Wuuthrad

Pringles flavor tribalism!


----------



## spudmunkey

"Maybe Donald Trump was right all along about water flow and toilets. We've been trying to flush this turd for 14 days and he just won't go down."


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> Pringles flavor tribalism!
> 
> View attachment 87169



The chips are elliptical, yet the container is round. Lots of air space.

What the world needs:


----------



## Wuuthrad

spudmunkey said:


> The chips are elliptical, yet the container is round. Lots of air space.





Fake news!
Doritotalitarianism!!


----------



## Xaios

Wuuthrad said:


> Bake news!


FTFY.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Librarianism making a strong showing despite early vote totals for the Munchies!


----------



## zappatton2

It has occurred to be recently as the ultimate irony that knowledge produces uncertainty; the more you know about any topic, the more you realize how much you have left to discover. So many times over the decades I've reconsidered positions over a better understanding of the topic at hand. Yet ignorance provides such unbending certainty, that it can be held opposed to the visible truth and be so easily weaponized.


----------



## fantom

And the head of cyber security has been fired for pushing back on claims of election fraud.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852354049957888


----------



## StevenC

zappatton2 said:


> It has occurred to be recently as the ultimate irony that knowledge produces uncertainty; the more you know about any topic, the more you realize how much you have left to discover. So many times over the decades I've reconsidered positions over a better understanding of the topic at hand. Yet ignorance provides such unbending certainty, that it can be held opposed to the visible truth and be so easily weaponized.


Nope, not true. Look at maths. The first thing they teach you is number theory, and the first part of number theory is that there are infinite numbers. The second thing they teach you is that there are actually more than infinite numbers so by the time you get to mechanics you're kinda underwhelmed that there's only like a dozen kinds.


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


> And the head of cyber security has been fired for pushing back on claims of election fraud.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1328852354049957888



Hilarious. 

IG is investigating you for fraud, waste, abuse, and crimes? Fire him first. 

Claim the election is rigged and the guy who certifies the election says it wasn't? Fire him.

I'll say it again... nothing wrong with being a Republican, but there's everything wrong if you're supporting this narcissistic edgelord criminal and his sycophantic cabal.


----------



## Rosal76

broj15 said:


>



Top right box. Underwater Nazism.






Unbelievable.


----------



## fantom

USMarine75 said:


> narcissistic edgelord criminal and his sycophantic cabal



Best band name ever


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> It has occurred to be recently as the ultimate irony that knowledge produces uncertainty; the more you know about any topic, the more you realize how much you have left to discover. So many times over the decades I've reconsidered positions over a better understanding of the topic at hand. Yet ignorance provides such unbending certainty, that it can be held opposed to the visible truth and be so easily weaponized.


I've LONG believed that the more certain someone is in their beliefs, the more likely it is they're wrong. As a close corollary, the more important someone _tells_ you they are, the more likely they're wrong.

Anyone who can't at a minimum outline a plausible sounding case where they might be wrong, or at a bare minimum doesn't seem at least kind of peeved that they can't do so, probably is making far too many assumptions to support their views, for any proposition more complex than simple observable fact.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> I've LONG believed that the more certain someone is in their beliefs, the more likely it is they're wrong.



Be careful with that. It's an argument that flat earthers use. "You're only so sure because it's what you were trained to believe, and you're never questioned it!"


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Be careful with that. It's an argument that flat earthers use. "You're only so sure because it's what you were trained to believe, and you're never questioned it!"


Read the second half of that, though - I'd say most flat earthers fall pretty, ahem, flat, based on that second standard


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> I'd say most flat earthers fall pretty, ahem, flat, based on that second standard


You realize they probably consider this a compliment, based on the wording, right?


----------



## nightflameauto

Per this current conversation: It's awfully hard to learn anything new when you truly believe you already know it all.

As somebody that reads theoretical physics and astronomical studies for fun, I'm keenly aware of just how little I actually know. It seems those of us with that stance are becoming either a dying or at the very least hidden breed. Far more common are the shrieking ninnies that think volume is more important than facts.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

The frustrating thing is that both science deniers and accepters use many of the same form of arguments. One side will generally apply the logic correctly, while the deniers will use the logic incorrectly while vehemently exclaiming that the other side is incorrect. You can break down the logic and expose where they make the fallacies but it goes ignored. These people are engaging in sophistry and incompetence. They don't even have the self awareness to begin to discover that their line of argumentation is incorrect. They press on no matter what. Never acknowledging the missteps but will totally call out the other side for the most minor mistake. It's the most frustrating thing. It's why I can no longer have conversations regarding science, philosophy, or politics with conspiratards. It's a complete waste of time to try to go there when we aren't even using language, logic, rationale, or evidence on the same level. I'd rather shave my balls with a rusty mace anymore.


----------



## spudmunkey

Cyanide_Anima said:


> The frustrating thing is that both science deniers and accepters use many of the same form of arguments.



Case in point: Both sides of the mask "debate" use this meme to express their point:


----------



## Wuuthrad

From the personal to the political, it all boils down to this:

_Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others harshly or with callous indifference. They show no guilt or remorse for their behavior._

_Psychopathy, sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy, is traditionally a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits._

_
Most experts believe psychopaths and sociopaths share a similar set of traits. People like this have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too.

*Do They Have a Conscience?*
A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.

A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says.

A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. They may know that taking your money is wrong, and they might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop their behavior.

Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.
_
Also just plain Stupid!

Overall the current and recent political and economic situation in the US has contributed to the erosion of community and a sense of public good. Individualism, competition and education are also at fault. For many, everything has been reduced to slogans and us vs them mentality, which is not healthy for society as a whole.

An argument also can be made that the negativity of these types, or the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” is given to much credit and influence since the advent of social media etc.


----------



## sleewell

This is fucking hilarious. Rudy is batshit crazy.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...liani-pennsylvania-lawsuits-not-coherent.html


----------



## Wuuthrad

sleewell said:


> This is fucking hilarious. Rudy is batshit crazy.
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...liani-pennsylvania-lawsuits-not-coherent.html



It’s been nearly 30 years after all...


----------



## InHiding

Hey Jimmy got Trump to pull out the troops


----------



## spudmunkey

InHiding said:


> Hey Jimmy got Trump to pull out the troops



...while also asking about attacking Iran's nuclear sites.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

This made me chuckle. Also I'm amazed that basically everyone is putting heads in the sand over the nonsense he is trying to pull.


----------



## USMarine75

Dineley said:


> This made me chuckle. Also I'm amazed that basically everyone is putting heads in the sand over the nonsense he is trying to pull.
> View attachment 87221



*Niece Waidhofer*


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> *Niece Waidhofer*



The captions are so good lol


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## sleewell

^ sooooo funny


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> This is fucking hilarious. Rudy is batshit crazy.
> 
> https://slate.com/news-and-politics...liani-pennsylvania-lawsuits-not-coherent.html


Jesus Chrap on a Cracker, the never-ending stream of stupidity is beyond b0rked. I will say the final line had me rolling.

“I’m not quite sure I know what _opacity_ means,” Giuliani said. “It probably means you can see. These are big words, your honor.”

Fucking three year olds know what opacity means. At what point do the judges say Giuliani needs to be taken in for observation? Dude's making Trump himself seem stable by comparison.


----------



## sleewell

yeah its pretty fucked. its not just that he doesn't understand the law and isn't making a legitimate argument.... he doesn't even understand the English language.

and yet given everything trump supporters are still like rudy is doing a great job so lets keep sending him our hard earned money. 

seriously what argument are they even making at this point?!? they aren't arguing fraud in court bc in their own words that would be too hard to prove. so they are just asking the court to arbitrarily toss out enough ballots so that trump wins? that is very strong case you got there guys.


----------



## zappatton2

I suspect in the eyes of the Trumpists, this is Giuliani making his stand against those evil, big-worded elitists. The stupider he looks, the more relatable he becomes to The Base.


----------



## LordCashew

LordIronSpatula said:


> ...But I still wonder if his long game is to head some kind of media organization. He certainly has a rabidly loyal audience that will hang on anything he says without questioning it...





Ralyks said:


> If he's not in jail after he's out of office, he's totally buying OAN.



www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1248147


“Trump has also been talking about a potential media partnership, perhaps with the right-wing news channel OANN or the Newsmax website, a person close to him said.

‘He wants to make money, but more than that he wants attention,’ an ally said.”


----------



## nightflameauto

I like the part of that article where Giuliani almost slips and says the real plan is to try and determine precisely how many votes he needs to get thrown out in order to get Trump the win.

How is this clown show allowed to continue?


----------



## diagrammatiks

how did Rudy fall of the deep end so far.


----------



## Ralyks

diagrammatiks said:


> how did Rudy fall of the deep end so far.



Truth is, he's always been this bad, we just don't look at anything prior to his work in getting NY back on its feet from 9/11 (which, yes, he deserves credit for).


----------



## High Plains Drifter

diagrammatiks said:


> how did Rudy fall of the deep end so far.



He has been for many years.. just that for a long time he never had a high enough platform to so widely broadcast his ignorance. Until this year, the most that people remembered of Rudy was his "leadership" after 9/11. The trump cult thinks highly of him and as brainwashed as they are regarding politics and health, they likely always will. Factual information is inconvenient because it makes people reconsider their convictions and forces them to grow. That's a lot of work for an idiot.


----------



## bostjan

Not sure why there's such a rosy view of Giuliani's handling of 911. He told a lot of flat out lies and pushed blame onto other people.

Edit: anyone remember when he refused to leave office after his term was up? Funny how things throughout history repeat...


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Not sure why there's such a rosy view of Giuliani's handling of 911. He told a lot of flat out lies and pushed blame onto other people.
> 
> Edit: anyone remember when he refused to leave office after his term was up? Funny how things throughout history repeat...


People that actually paid attention at the time remember that, but the vast majority of Americans outside of New York itself constantly heard what a spectacular job he was doing and how nobody else would have been capable of leading the recovery.

Then you dig into the truth of it and see he's just another politician. Lying, blaming and grifting with the best of them.

BUT. . . he could speak publicly at the time without coming across like a complete fringe lunatic. That's not exactly something you can say about him today.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

How much longer before someone who can speak in complete sentences is referred to as someone who "talks like a fag" ? Fuck, how far has the bar fallen in the last 10 years? Rudy and Trump are grifters. They know they sound stupid. They are speaking directly to people who view the world in an overly simplistic way in order to garner support. It's the strategy.


----------



## nightflameauto

Cyanide_Anima said:


> How much longer before someone who can speak in complete sentences is referred to as someone who "talks like a fag" ?


I'd say before the next election cycle at this rate. Idiocracy was far too optimistic about our ability to hold the idiocy at bay.


----------



## mongey

This is getting to a point where surly there needs to be some kind of intervention to remove him. Trump has completely lost his mind and people are dying.


----------



## bostjan

Cyanide_Anima said:


> How much longer before someone who can speak in complete sentences is referred to as someone who "talks like a fag" ? Fuck, how far has the bar fallen in the last 10 years? Rudy and Trump are grifters. They know they sound stupid. They are speaking directly to people who view the world in an overly simplistic way in order to garner support. It's the strategy.



I dunno, I grew up in Detroit in the 80's, and I can think of a half dozen times someone in class was accused of that for exactly the reason you qualified. Many of those same ignorant bullies who treated people like that just grew up to become even bigger ignorant bullies.


----------



## mongey

Just saw some clips of the press conference with Rudy and the legal team. Fuck me. What is going on over there? 
This is tuning into some Bizzaro circus shit.


----------



## bostjan

mongey said:


> Just saw some clips of the press conference with Rudy and the legal team. Fuck me. What is going on over there?
> This is tuning into some Bizzaro circus shit.



So... poll watchers were too far away to identify fraud, ..., therefore... fraud?

Not to mention that thee team had been claiming for weeks now that they had evidence of fraud, and now, they were too far away to see any evidence.

Has he ever won a case before? What sort of logic is this?


----------



## sleewell

his spray on hair dye was running down the side of his face.

the scary thing is I dont think they have any intention to win any case. they want the delay. they want the base to believe the lies. they want their people disenfranchised with what reality is telling them. so far they are achieving all of those goals.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, Georgia called Biden. Again.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

sleewell said:


> his spray on hair dye was running down the side of his face.
> 
> the scary thing is I dont think they have any intention to win any case. they want the delay. they want the base to believe the lies. they want their people disenfranchised with what reality is telling them. so far they are achieving all of those goals.



Agreed conservative media strategy is always just to muddy the waters never present winning facts just yell loudest till people forget there is in fact truth


----------



## Randy

Given, we need to crawl before we can walk muchless run, but this is a perfect example of how there's very real, legitimate concerns with giving the corporatist wing of the party the reins and demonizing the alternatives within the party. How is this any less absurd than the "New Green Deal" flank on the opposite side?

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fb6a4bcc5b695be8300d07f



> Activist Erin Brockovich slammed President-elect Joe Biden in an op-ed for The Guardian on Thursday, criticizing him for tapping a former DuPont consultant to join his Environmental Protection Agency transition board.
> 
> Earlier this month, Biden appointed Michael McCabe to his agency review team at the EPA. McCabe worked for Biden as communications and projects director between 1987 and 1995, and later served as deputy administrator of the EPA during the Clinton administration. He went on to work as a consultant on communication strategy for DuPont, a chemical company that has notably fought regulation of perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8.



This is somehow supposed to be an improvement over Trump's EPA? If this is the game the Democrats are going to play, it's no wonder half the party torched the 2016 election. Hopefully this isn't a preview of the 'to the victor the spoils' attitude going into the next 4 years. We haven't even had the inauguration yet and we've already got our own swamp to drain.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’m not at all surprised. The way it goes.

If I was conspiracy minded I’d say Trump was
put there to expose all the wing-nuts (easy for him to do as he’s one himself) and spark the eventual “safe” return to the middle, same as it ever was... oh well! 

But I’m not... just getting old and tired of this political bullshit. I want a vote that represents my interests, and this doesn’t exist. For that, in a way it is a fraud, at least the way it exists right now. 

Anyway nobody asked what I think so I’ll just meme again:


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87244



I thought it was because he was in the presence/influence of Mr. Shadow?


----------



## broj15

Wuuthrad said:


> I’m not at all surprised. The way it goes.
> 
> If I was conspiracy minded I’d say Trump was
> put there to expose all the wing-nuts (easy for him to do as he’s one himself) and spark the eventual “safe” return to the middle, same as it ever was... oh well!
> 
> But I’m not... just getting old and tired of this political bullshit. I want a vote that represents my interests, and this doesn’t exist. For that, in a way it is a fraud, at least the way it exists right now.
> 
> Anyway nobody asked what I think so I’ll just meme again:
> 
> View attachment 87243




Holy shit this probably one of the funniest things I've ever seen.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Given, we need to crawl before we can walk muchless run, but this is a perfect example of how there's very real, legitimate concerns with giving the corporatist wing of the party the reins and demonizing the alternatives within the party. How is this any more absurd than the "New Green Deal" flank on the opposite side?
> 
> https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fb6a4bcc5b695be8300d07f
> 
> 
> 
> This is somehow supposed to be an improvement over Trump's EPA? If this is the game the Democrats are going to play, it's no wonder half the party torched the 2016 election. Hopefully this isn't a preview of the 'to the victor the spoils' attitude going into the next 4 years. We haven't even had the inauguration yet and we've already got our own swamp to drain.



A consultant? You realize that DuPont has had hundreds of consultants and none of them have any decision-making power, right? Should we cancel anyone who flipped burgers at a fast food chain for minimum wage, too?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Given, we need to crawl before we can walk muchless run, but this is a perfect example of how there's very real, legitimate concerns with giving the corporatist wing of the party the reins and demonizing the alternatives within the party. How is this any more absurd than the "New Green Deal" flank on the opposite side?
> 
> https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fb6a4bcc5b695be8300d07f
> 
> 
> 
> This is somehow supposed to be an improvement over Trump's EPA? If this is the game the Democrats are going to play, it's no wonder half the party torched the 2016 election. Hopefully this isn't a preview of the 'to the victor the spoils' attitude going into the next 4 years. We haven't even had the inauguration yet and we've already got our own swamp to drain.





bostjan said:


> A consultant? You realize that DuPont has had hundreds of consultants and none of them have any decision-making power, right? Should we cancel anyone who flipped burgers at a fast food chain for minimum wage, too?



I don't think I'm ready to grab the pitchforks on McCabe...yet. 

While his work with DuPont doesn't inspire much confidence, his overall career paints a much better picture, which has been, for the time (late 70's onward) fairly progressive.

People change though, so we'll see. From the looks of it, he's just helping with the transition, which makes sense as he's been involved with two in the past, and has stated he has no intentions of trying to get back into government.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Given, we need to crawl before we can walk muchless run, but this is a perfect example of how there's very real, legitimate concerns with giving the corporatist wing of the party the reins and demonizing the alternatives within the party. How is this any more absurd than the "New Green Deal" flank on the opposite side?
> 
> https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fb6a4bcc5b695be8300d07f
> 
> 
> 
> This is somehow supposed to be an improvement over Trump's EPA? If this is the game the Democrats are going to play, it's no wonder half the party torched the 2016 election. Hopefully this isn't a preview of the 'to the victor the spoils' attitude going into the next 4 years. We haven't even had the inauguration yet and we've already got our own swamp to drain.


At least this dude had a history of working alongside the Democratic leaders in the past before his consulting gig.

That said, while this registers just above 'meh' on my concern-o-meter, it is above 'meh.' I really don't want to be as disappointed in Biden's presidency as I was Obama's. I know it's gonna be a slog to accomplish anything at all without at least balancing the Senate, but I don't want it to just be more of the same stupid shit we witnessed in the previous administration just with prettier words around it.

If Biden does end up fucking around with the whole corporate worship crowd and telling the progressives to go piss up a flag pole like what usually happens when a Democrat finally gets into office, it's gonna lead to a whole lot of indifference when it comes to the next Presidential cycle for the Democrats. You can't continue to promise and never deliver and expect people to just go along with it time after time just because you're not "that other guy." I'm sick of having to vote against someone, and never getting the chance to vote for someone.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Eh, the bar is so low right now. Really, as long as they can start tackling the pandemic I'd be fairly happy. 

My stretch goals would be DACA, kids in cages, and Paris Climate Agreement. 

I don't see making any headway really unless the midterms wind up being more kind than the general.


----------



## nightflameauto

Scattered chatter here or there of people asking for another impeachment proceeding. WTF would be the point right now? Trump would be out of office before any impeachment could be completed if things go as they should. And let's be honest, even if they could fast-line it, Mitch McConnel would essentially wipe his ass with it when it was handed off to him while flipping the bird and laughing like a banshee.

I know people are angry and scared, but pushing our non-acting government to do more nothing isn't gonna solve any problems. It'd only stoke more hatred and partisan bullshit. That's the last thing we need right now.


----------



## diagrammatiks

the best thing to do right now would be to win the 2 seats in Georgia. The worst thing to do right now would be just about anything else.


----------



## sleewell

im not sure what to think about those GA senate races, feels like anything could happen. in terms of polling vs the results in the election i think the senate races in general were pretty far off. it looked like both mcconnel and graham were going to be super close, some of the polls had the dem leading by a good amount, and then they were not close at all. i could see gop voters staying home bc they are pissed trump lost or i can seen them coming out to make sure the dems don't have control of the white house and congress. i think the dems are pretty fired up. stacey abrams is doing a great job in GA.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> im not sure what to think about those GA senate races, feels like anything could happen. in terms of polling vs the results in the election i think the senate races in general were pretty far off. it looked like both mcconnel and graham were going to be super close, some of the polls had the dem leading by a good amount, and then they were not close at all. i could see gop voters staying home bc they are pissed trump lost or i can seen them coming out to make sure the dems don't have control of the white house and congress. i think the dems are pretty fired up. stacey abrams is doing a great job in GA.



It’s gonna be the second one. For sure the second.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't think either senate seat will go blue.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think either senate seat will go blue.


I don't think it'll matter if they do, but for what it's worth I agree. We might get lucky and get one of the two, odds are way against two of two, but even if the Democrats do win both seats, if you can't afford to lose Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, or Jeanne Shaheen to preserve your 50+VP majority, you're going to have to limit yourself to pretty moderate legislation. 



Randy said:


> This is somehow supposed to be an improvement over Trump's EPA? If this is the game the Democrats are going to play, it's no wonder half the party torched the 2016 election. Hopefully this isn't a preview of the 'to the victor the spoils' attitude going into the next 4 years. We haven't even had the inauguration yet and we've already got our own swamp to drain.


I'm with @bostjan here. I'm not going to automatically write this guy off simply because he spent a number of years as a DuPont consultant after working for the EPA. For one, I'd want to know what he was consulting _on_, and even big evil companies like Exxon and Insert-Wall-Street-Bank-Name-Here do hire people to help them _comply_ with regulation. I'd also want to know more about his track record at te EPA. The dude very well may suck. He also might be well qualified and with his head in the right place for doing everything he can to protect the environment.


----------



## Wuuthrad

But why vote at all? It’s all RIGGED!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> I don't think it'll matter if they do, but for what it's worth I agree. We might get lucky and get one of the two, odds are way against two of two, but even if the Democrats do win both seats, if you can't afford to lose Joe Manchin, Mark Warner, or Jeanne Shaheen to preserve your 50+VP majority, you're going to have to limit yourself to pretty moderate legislation.
> 
> 
> I'm with @bostjan here. I'm not going to automatically write this guy off simply because he spent a number of years as a DuPont consultant after working for the EPA. For one, I'd want to know what he was consulting _on_, and even big evil companies like Exxon and Insert-Wall-Street-Bank-Name-Here do hire people to help them _comply_ with regulation. I'd also want to know more about his track record at te EPA. The dude very well may suck. He also might be well qualified and with his head in the right place for doing everything he can to protect the environment.



In my mind its mostly about keeping cocaine Mitch from being leader that you need 50 in senate. He will just obstruct all process if we have learned anything from the past.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Earlier this year, during the impeachment trial, the Republican’s reasoning for not throwing Trump out office:

“Let the Voters Decide”

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/senators-who-urged-voters-to-decide-impeachment-won-t-admit-trump-lost-the-election-96339013632


----------



## USMarine75

So I had a "trve patriot" at work try and enlighten me about this:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/u-s-army-didnt-seize-election-servers-in-germany/

"A congressman and conservative news outlets are spreading the baseless claim that the U.S. Army seized an election software company’s server in Frankfurt, Germany, that could supposedly prove there was fraud in the 2020 election. There was no such seizure — and the company doesn’t even have a server in Frankfurt.

But the Army has conducted no such raid, and the company supposedly involved doesn’t have offices in Frankfurt and wouldn’t have had that kind of information.

Still, the falsehood has been spread by Rep. Louie Gohmert, of Texas, and the two conservative TV news outlets recently promoted by President Donald Trump — Newsmax and One America News."


The best part is this made up map:













Anyone else being bombarded by this easily debunked ridiculousness?


----------



## spudmunkey

California is red?  At least make your nonsense believable. This is like those phishing emails where they are using like a 2-generations old company logo, or use bad english.


----------



## narad

It must suck to post things you believe in and have to preface them with "(This is not a joke)"


----------



## spudmunkey

Are that company's voting machines, which aren't connected to the internet BTW, even used in all of the states that show as flipped?


----------



## diagrammatiks

if you can believe that California would flip red...you might as well believe the earth is flat.


----------



## Mathemagician

People look at land maps and ignore population density. Also others just lie. A lot.


----------



## USMarine75

*Talk about just being tone deaf:*
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/thanksgiving-pilgrims-tom-cotton

Regrettably, we haven’t heard much about this year’s anniversary because the Pilgrims have fallen out of fashion in elite circles. Just this week, The New York Times food section published an article that called the Pilgrim story, including the First Thanksgiving, a “myth” and a “caricature.” In place of these so-called “myths,” the liberal newspaper seeks to substitute its own, claiming the history of our nation is an unbroken tale of conflict, oppression and misery.

But that’s a lie about our country and its founders. No matter what the revisionist historians at the Times cook up, the truth about the Pilgrims is more remarkable than any story or holiday special. This Thanksgiving, it’s worth reflecting on why we celebrate the Pilgrims and their living legacy for our nation.

The Wampanoag chief, Massasoit, thus had good reason to form an alliance with the Pilgrims. Squanto introduced him to the settlers and facilitated their peace and mutual-aid treaty, which lasted more than 50 years.

Squanto remained with the Pilgrims, acting, in Bradford’s words, as their interpreter and “a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations.” He instructed them on the cultivation of native crops like corn, squash, and beans. He showed them where to fish and hunt. He guided them on land and sea to new destinations.

And you probably remember learning what happened next. As the Pilgrims recovered and prospered throughout 1621, they received the blessings of a bountiful fall harvest. The Pilgrims invited Massasoit and the Wampanoags to join them in a feast to express their gratitude to their allies and to give thanks to God for His abundant gifts. This meal, of course, was the First Thanksgiving.

*Meanwhile*:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...nd-what-we-should-be-teaching-kids-180973655/

The myth is that friendly Indians, unidentified by tribe, welcome the Pilgrims to America, teach them how to live in this new place, sit down to dinner with them and then disappear. They hand off America to white people so they can create a great nation dedicated to liberty, opportunity and Christianity for the rest of the world to profit. That’s the story—it’s about Native people conceding to colonialism. It’s bloodless and in many ways an extension of the ideology of Manifest Destiny.

Most poignantly, using a shared dinner as a symbol for colonialism really has it backward. No question about it, Wampanoag leader Ousamequin reached out to the English at Plymouth and wanted an alliance with them. But it’s not because he was innately friendly. It’s because his people have been decimated by an epidemic disease, and Ousamequin sees the English as an opportunity to fend off his tribal rebels. That’s not the stuff of Thanksgiving pageants. The Thanksgiving myth doesn’t address the deterioration of this relationship culminating in one of the most horrific colonial Indian wars on record, King Philip’s War, and also doesn’t address Wampanoag survival and adaptation over the centuries, which is why they’re still here, despite the odds.

What’s more, during Reconstruction, that Thanksgiving myth allowed New Englanders to create this idea that bloodless colonialism in their region was the origin of the country, having nothing to do with the Indian Wars and slavery. Americans could feel good about their colonial past without having to confront the really dark characteristics of it.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> the truth about the Pilgrims is more remarkable than any story or holiday special.



I don't know man, one time I even saw one with raisins that could sing and dance.


----------



## Demiurge

spudmunkey said:


> California is red?  At least make your nonsense believable. This is like those phishing emails where they are using like a 2-generations old company logo, or use bad english.



When a divorce (from reality) is acrimonious, why attempt to stay friends?


----------



## SpaceDock

I can’t talk to my use-to-be-rational Republican friends and coworkers about this stuff anymore. Emotions are running so high and they live in a completely different reality. I am increasingly worried about the US as a functional country. I think the only (maybe) path forward is for other GOP leaders to call out the madness and boot DT from their party, shut off his mic. Even then, I wonder if this has all gone too far.


----------



## Randy

https://www.foxnews.com/us/huntington-beach-protest-expected-against-californias-coronavirus-curfew

Breaking curfew, protesting in the street blocking traffic and setting fires but how many people were arrested?


----------



## diagrammatiks

SpaceDock said:


> I can’t talk to my use-to-be-rational Republican friends and coworkers about this stuff anymore. Emotions are running so high and they live in a completely different reality. I am increasingly worried about the US as a functional country. I think the only (maybe) path forward is for other GOP leaders to call out the madness and boot DT from their party, shut off his mic. Even then, I wonder if this has all gone too far.



man if the camel's back hasn't broken already it ain't never breaking.


----------



## Randy

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...overhaul-a-campaign-machine-stuck-in-the-past



> The polling is antiquated. Money is being frittered. Diversity is lacking. And digital outreach lags far behind the times.



Those register at all on anybody's list of problems with the Democratic party?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...overhaul-a-campaign-machine-stuck-in-the-past
> 
> 
> Those register at all on anybody's list of problems with the Democratic party?


I will read article in a moment but I definitely feel democrats idea of diversity is much more tokenism than actually getting in touch with the issues different communities face.

Prime example is how their messaging was way off with latinos in Miami area as well as along Texas border.

Like having different groups involved in leadership is good however it just feels like they are more interested in showing how many not white/straight faces they have in place instead of doing meaningful things. The whole Ice Cube situation was a prime example of this.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> I will read article in a moment but I definitely feel democrats idea of diversity is much more tokenism than actually getting in touch with the issues different communities face.
> 
> Prime example is how their messaging was way off with latinos in Miami area as well as along Texas border.
> 
> Like having different groups involved in leadership is good however it just feels like they are more interested in showing how many not white/straight faces they have in place instead of doing meaningful things. The whole Ice Cube situation was a prime example of this.



I think folks see South Florida Cubans as being a minority and thus feel they'll fall in line with the Dems, but having lived there for twenty years, they're deeply deeply conservative in just about every way. In fact the only other not WASP group I can compare them to are Hesidic Jews in the Northeast. 

They're borderline evangelical (anti-choice, pious, homophobic, etc.), absolutely terrified of anything even approaching socialism, and pretty racist. 

They just fit better with the modern Republican party, and that's not going to change without a couple more generations or a lot of concessions. 

Of course this is generalizing and while a wing of my family is Cuban, they fall within several political affiliations. They're just mostly very conservative, even the younger ones.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/...overhaul-a-campaign-machine-stuck-in-the-past
> 
> 
> 
> Those register at all on anybody's list of problems with the Democratic party?


Polling is fucked across the board, so yeah, but that's not a Democratic problem specifically.

Money being frittered is pretty much what all politics is about at this point so meh.

Diversity is lacking. I mean, the Democrats pay lip service to diversity, but as Dineley said, it's abundantly clear that it's tokenism. Find the diverse people that can act 100% like stogy old white dudes when they aren't on their pet issue and the Democrats will totally accept them. Then slowly morph them into more of the same.

Digital outreach? Not really sure how to even address that. Just because Biden didn't spend every waking moment ranting on Twitter doesn't mean there's no digital outreach in the Democratic party. Granted, they could do better at communicating in the digital realm, but so could literally everyone involved in politics. Muzzle the outspoken shitbirds, put real PR people somewhere in the chain and put your issues in front of eyeballs staring at screens. Doesn't seem that difficult, but I don't really know of anybody that's gotten that right in the political realm.

That said, none of these are the real problem with the Democratic party. The real problem is they're not interested in actual progress, even if they do speak about it on slightly more friendly terms than the Republicans do. The party itself and its leadership seem far more interested in "more of the same" than in making positive change. And I know I'm not the only person that sees it that way. Until they can show that they are willing to go to bat and accomplish some shit when they have the opportunity, that perception will remain.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The problem with the Democratic Party is they've gotten too comfortable being the lesser of two evils.


----------



## cwhitey2

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem with the Democratic Party is they've gotten too comfortable being the lesser of two evils.


As a registered Democrat, I agree.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem with the Democratic Party is they've gotten too comfortable being the lesser of two evils.


Yes. And, as happens with most processes, they don't at all mind skirting right up to the line on what makes them "lesser."

On the topic of the Republican part though, where do they go from here? They've dug in so completely on Trump's conspiracies that they're going to have a hell of a hard time about-facing when he's finally ousted. How do they keep their foaming at the mouth loyalists happy without keeping the rhetoric at a fever pitch? I mean, I realize utter hypocrisy is kinda their thing, but there's enough outrage due to the conspiracies it's not going to be a quick and easy task to refocus their base off the Trump train. Is this the point where we finally see one of the two parties collapse on itself? I'm just having a hard time seeing how they could possibly keep up the fantasy once Trump is out of the White House, and their base is so used to the fantasy that attempting to wean them off of it would be tantamount to attempting to wean fish off of water.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Yes. And, as happens with most processes, they don't at all mind skirting right up to the line on what makes them "lesser."
> 
> On the topic of the Republican part though, where do they go from here? They've dug in so completely on Trump's conspiracies that they're going to have a hell of a hard time about-facing when he's finally ousted. How do they keep their foaming at the mouth loyalists happy without keeping the rhetoric at a fever pitch? I mean, I realize utter hypocrisy is kinda their thing, but there's enough outrage due to the conspiracies it's not going to be a quick and easy task to refocus their base off the Trump train. Is this the point where we finally see one of the two parties collapse on itself? I'm just having a hard time seeing how they could possibly keep up the fantasy once Trump is out of the White House, and their base is so used to the fantasy that attempting to wean them off of it would be tantamount to attempting to wean fish off of water.



Honestly, I think they've come through this almost completely unscathed. 

The unfortunate truth is that many Americans have no problem with the way the GOP has functioned the last decade, some just didn't like Trump, and likely just didn't like his ineffectiveness, to vote for him, but still voted down ballet red. 

See: gains in the House and likely still holding the Senate. 

This election was partly a referendum on the GOP, and fairly loud and clear, they were told "keep up the good work." 

It's going to be very interesting the next few cycles, and by "interesting" I mean absolutely terrifying. 

I don't know, let's see how it goes, but my hopes aren't very high and I have even less faith in this country right now.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Pretty sure that Biden will be a one-term president. Plenty of people that voted for him this election, only did so to try to shut down trump. Add to that the likelihood that republicans will show a very strong presence at the polls in 2024.


----------



## Xaios

High Plains Drifter said:


> Pretty sure that Biden will be a one-term president. Plenty of people that voted for him this election, only did so to try to shut down trump. Add to that the likelihood that republicans will show a very strong presence at the polls in 2024.



I can see the ticket now.

Ivanka 2024.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I think they've come through this almost completely unscathed.
> 
> The unfortunate truth is that many Americans have no problem with the way the GOP has functioned the last decade, some just didn't like Trump, and likely just didn't like his ineffectiveness, to vote for him, but still voted down ballet red.
> 
> See: gains in the House and likely still holding the Senate.
> 
> This election was partly a referendum on the GOP, and fairly loud and clear, they were told "keep up the good work."
> 
> It's going to be very interesting the next few cycles, and by "interesting" I mean absolutely terrifying.
> 
> I don't know, let's see how it goes, but my hopes aren't very high and I have even less faith in this country right now.


I hope you guys get a new constitution soon with some direct democracy so people stop saying "this election was a referendum on ______".


----------



## SpaceDock

Xaios said:


> I can see the ticket now.
> 
> Ivanka 2024.



I have thought about this seriously. I am really hoping that Trump gets put through the grinder on emoluments and another abuses of power in the courts. If we allow him to get off without paying a price for his abuses of power, we are guaranteed a parade of those looking to exploit the office for power.


----------



## spudmunkey

High Plains Drifter said:


> Pretty sure that Biden will be a one-term president.



Biden himself has hinted at exactly that. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't run, with Harris being the sort of incumbent, of sorts, in 2024.


----------



## Randy

Would like to point out Dems saying "We lost because we're not diverse enough!" coming at the same time all the Dems that got their ass kicked the most said it was because of "Defund the Police", which was a racial justice plea. Can't have it both ways, folks.


----------



## sleewell

Trump tells the gsa to start the Biden transition


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> Trump tells the gsa to start the Biden transition



...but still denying he's lost. He's claiming he's just doing it to be the bigger man by allowing transition steps to go on, only because the GSA is taking abuse.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## USMarine75

High Plains Drifter said:


> Pretty sure that Biden will be a one-term president. Plenty of people that voted for him this election, only did so to try to shut down trump. Add to that the likelihood that republicans will show a very strong presence at the polls in 2024.



You thought he would run again at 82 years old?


----------



## nightflameauto

Just a sign of the times I suppose, but how can people that vote Republican while voting for progressive causes line their ideologies up? Case in point, we passed medical and recreational marijuana pretty overwhelmingly in South Dakota in the general election, yet the Republican lead state governments have doubled down on Christie Noem's message that "we need an adult to make our decisions for us," and started lining up lawsuits to prevent it from being implemented because, as one rep stated yesterday, "I don't believe people actually understood what it was they were voting for and it goes against our state constitution as it exists." Uh, yeah dipshit, it's a constitutional amendment. That's kinda what amendments do. "Fix" or "update" something that cuts people the wrong way.

Why do people continue to vote for people that constantly tell them they aren't smart enough to know what's best for them? I mean, clearly they aren't because they keep voting for these arrogant shit heads, but how do they manage to convince themselves it's in their best interests to continue doing so?


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Just a sign of the times I suppose, but how can people that vote Republican while voting for progressive causes line their ideologies up? Case in point, we passed medical and recreational marijuana pretty overwhelmingly in South Dakota in the general election, yet the Republican lead state governments have doubled down on Christie Noem's message that "we need an adult to make our decisions for us," and started lining up lawsuits to prevent it from being implemented because, as one rep stated yesterday, "I don't believe people actually understood what it was they were voting for and it goes against our state constitution as it exists." Uh, yeah dipshit, it's a constitutional amendment. That's kinda what amendments do. "Fix" or "update" something that cuts people the wrong way.
> 
> Why do people continue to vote for people that constantly tell them they aren't smart enough to know what's best for them? I mean, clearly they aren't because they keep voting for these arrogant shit heads, but how do they manage to convince themselves it's in their best interests to continue doing so?



You're right but the common thread is people THINKING they're getting politicans that "let them do whatever they want" by voting one party, not realizing either party is prone to their own form of nannying.

Trump was a nanny, it's just that it was done in a way that most WASPs weren't effected by; such as brown kids in cages, gaslighting violence against people of color, banning Muslims, banning trans people from the military, so on. He let his white kids eat all the candy and ice cream before bed that they wanted.

What they didn't know was that he signed a tax cut plan that structures their taxes to go UP for five consecutive years after leaves office, he packed the courts with justices inclined to take away a woman's rights over her body (including white women), he let a virus run rampant that can and has killed them or their loved ones, so on. Just like the rest of the GOP, he was good at taking away people's rights or taking their money without an actual piece of paper he signed or a press conference with his face on it. Cowardice.

And for people's part, they're too stupid and/or lazy to pay attention or dig in to find out that was the case always. The "Joe the Plumber" paradox I bring up all the time, enabling policies/people that make your life worse because you're too stupid/arrogant to acknowledge they do.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

USMarine75 said:


> You thought he would run again at 82 years old?



His age is an obvious factor as well... although stranger things have happened in Washington this year so I don't necessarily dismiss anything these days. Right now I'm honestly just hoping that he'll remain healthy enough to carry out a full term.


----------



## Demiurge

nightflameauto said:


> as one rep stated yesterday, "I don't believe people actually understood what it was they were voting for and it goes against our state constitution as it exists." Uh, yeah dipshit, it's a constitutional amendment.



That's the hilarious thing. The idea is supposed to be that the people elect leaders to serve & implement the people's will. If an elected official's will runs contrary to the results of a referendum, one of these things has gotta go and it's not the result of the vote.


----------



## Randy

Demiurge said:


> That's the hilarious thing. The idea is supposed to be that the people elect leaders to serve & implement the people's will. If an elected official's will runs contrary to the results of a referendum, one of these things has gotta go and it's not the result of the vote.



You mean like state legislatures being asked to throw out winning party electors or asking courts to throw out entire county election results? Asking for a friend.


----------



## SpaceDock

These Randy Quaid videos on Trump’s Twitter are just devolving into pure madness.


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> These Randy Quaid videos on Trump’s Twitter are just devolving into pure madness.



please link


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Would like to point out Dems saying "We lost because we're not diverse enough!" coming at the same time all the Dems that got their ass kicked the most said it was because of "Defund the Police", which was a racial justice plea. Can't have it both ways, folks.


Trying pretty hard not to make this come across as "I told you so" because that's really not my intent here, but when the "Defund the Police!" movement started to get going and when we first started talking about it here, I was pretty adamant that that was piss-poor messaging because taken at face value it sounds like an attempt to abolish, and narrow the purview of, the police. A lot of the _aims _of "defund the police" are pretty moderate-friendly or at a minimum not moderate-turning-off; rather than spending huge amounts of money punishing crime, we'd be better off focusing on preventing it in the first place through better public mental health problems, tackling homelessness, fighting drug abuse with treatment programs, better after school programs to keep kids off the street, better social safety net programs to give people real economic options, etc, rather than continuing to create a situation that drives a lot of people to crime and then focus on catching and punishing them after the fact. 

"Defund the Police" may have been _intended_ as a racial justice plea, but it sounded a lot like a Molotov-cocktail-throwing plea to middle-of-the-road Americans.


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> please link



https://mobile.twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1327043884082409474


If you want to subject yourself to the horror!


----------



## Randy

It was awful, I'm 90% tankie and I said from day one it was a stupid rallying cry. 

But it's a mistake aligning "Defund the Police" and the progressive wing (the leader of the group, Bernie, said police need MORE funding and training just like Biden and others) and saying "see we lost because of them!". Progressive agenda is/was M4A, New Green Deal, etc. If they wanna blame "socialist" blows for landing, that's totally fair game.

But "Defund the Police", while the specific term had very limited acceptance around the party, DID come from the fact the party was embracing Black Lives Matter and social justice as a platform. Most of the complaints about Dems that lost races were from seats that had flipped in 2018 on the anti-Trump referendum but in otherwise red districts that Trump had won. What Dems underestimated and they're still refusing to recognize is that even a reasonable plea for racial equality in a place like Alabama is a losing strategy. These are bad people. Shithole districts. The problem isn't the verbage, it's the core because these people DO NOT want those things.

So anyway, back to my original complaint, the party arguing they're not diverse enough (which is laughable) is actually the opposite of why people in red districts turned them away.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Trying pretty hard not to make this come across as "I told you so" because that's really not my intent here, but when the "Defund the Police!" movement started to get going and when we first started talking about it here, I was pretty adamant that that was piss-poor messaging because taken at face value it sounds like an attempt to abolish, and narrow the purview of, the police. A lot of the _aims _of "defund the police" are pretty moderate-friendly or at a minimum not moderate-turning-off; rather than spending huge amounts of money punishing crime, we'd be better off focusing on preventing it in the first place through better public mental health problems, tackling homelessness, fighting drug abuse with treatment programs, better after school programs to keep kids off the street, better social safety net programs to give people real economic options, etc, rather than continuing to create a situation that drives a lot of people to crime and then focus on catching and punishing them after the fact.
> 
> "Defund the Police" may have been _intended_ as a racial justice plea, but it sounded a lot like a Molotov-cocktail-throwing plea to middle-of-the-road Americans.


A cynical man would think the verbiage was designed to repulse moderates so that the policies behind the verbiage could never actually be discussed rationally.

Not that I'd ever accuse the Democrats of talking the talk and never, ever intending to walk the walk.

Oh wait. . .


----------



## Necris

Randy said:


> It was awful, I'm 90% tankie and I said from day one it was a stupid rallying cry.
> 
> But it's a mistake aligning "Defund the Police" and the progressive wing (the leader of the group, Bernie, said police need MORE funding and training just like Biden and others) and saying "see we lost because of them!". Progressive agenda is/was M4A, New Green Deal, etc.


The progressive wing of the democratic party is at once both so large that any democratic failure at the polls can be placed squarely at their feet by self described "moderates" and so vanishingly small that "moderates" feel the DNC has no need to make any effort to court Progressives' votes.

The DNC seems to have successfully managed to divest itself of any real responsibility for the outcomes of its own campaigns via blaming the Progressives and it's kind of amazing to behold.


----------



## Vyn

nightflameauto said:


> Not that I'd ever accuse the Democrats of talking the talk and never, ever intending to walk the walk.
> 
> Oh wait. . .



This is kind of a non-statement because it applies to both sides of politics, singling out Democrats for it isn't actually helpful.

At the end of the day, your 'progressives' are really what the rest of the world would call the centre of the spectrum, because both of your major parties are so far right that it's insane.


----------



## bostjan

I dunno, "progressives" themselves, are not monolithic as the pundits would like. Some might not be far from what would be considered moderate. Most seem to be a little left of that, and very few are wanting some insane things that are literally impossible to happen without an unlimited resources cheat code.

I think something like a green new deal is probably not even possible to pass in the next four years without being totally neutered first. Frankly, I'm much more afraid of the potentially frankensteined green new deal than I am of anything about the current situation. It's too easy to remove anything useful but expensive and just leave a bunch of incompatible idealogical declarations and useless regulations that will simply further erode our economy without protecting our environment.


----------



## Xaios

SpaceDock said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/RandyRRQuaid/status/1327043884082409474
> 
> 
> If you want to subject yourself to the horror!


Christ. What is with these "red-pilled" dumbfucks acting like they're the Joker? I mean, I know Randy Quaid himself went pretty nuts years ago, but all of these morons seem to think that acting like an anti-social psychopath with no filter is analogous to being able to "see the matrix" because they're presumably somehow no longer bound by the terrible onus of social mores when in reality they're just assholes who lack any decorum or self-awareness.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> Christ. What is with these "red-pilled" dumbfucks acting like they're the Joker? I mean, I know Randy Quaid himself went pretty nuts years ago, but all of these morons seem to think that acting like an anti-social psychopath with no filter is analogous to being able to "see the matrix" because they're presumably somehow no longer bound by the terrible onus of social mores when in reality they're just assholes who lack any decorum or self-awareness.



You mean the same people who say they hate the government, but then they support overturning elections, and also support the police and military by putting bumper stickers on their car comparing them to the comic book hero that shoots people?


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> the comic book hero that shoots people?



....including several policemen, and in the comics pages has even told police specifically that they should not idolize him because he's no hero, and that they should look up to Captain America, after removing his own logo stucker from their patrol car.


----------



## nightflameauto

Vyn said:


> This is kind of a non-statement because it applies to both sides of politics, singling out Democrats for it isn't actually helpful.
> 
> At the end of the day, your 'progressives' are really what the rest of the world would call the centre of the spectrum, because both of your major parties are so far right that it's insane.


Believe me, I don't hesitate to call Republicans out on their shit either. But using the "but but but the other side" argument is one of the knee-jerk responses to any sort of criticism of "my side" that just doesn't really mean much anymore. I may vote Democrat more often than Republican, but I don't have any problem at all saying I'm sick of both of them and would love a real alternative. Unfortunately, until we get over our obsession with first past the post voting, there will be no alternative. It's just always going to be a lesser of two evils vote.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> It was awful, I'm 90% tankie and I said from day one it was a stupid rallying cry.
> 
> But it's a mistake aligning "Defund the Police" and the progressive wing (the leader of the group, Bernie, said police need MORE funding and training just like Biden and others) and saying "see we lost because of them!". Progressive agenda is/was M4A, New Green Deal, etc. If they wanna blame "socialist" blows for landing, that's totally fair game.
> 
> But "Defund the Police", while the specific term had very limited acceptance around the party, DID come from the fact the party was embracing Black Lives Matter and social justice as a platform. Most of the complaints about Dems that lost races were from seats that had flipped in 2018 on the anti-Trump referendum but in otherwise red districts that Trump had won. What Dems underestimated and they're still refusing to recognize is that even a reasonable plea for racial equality in a place like Alabama is a losing strategy. These are bad people. Shithole districts. The problem isn't the verbage, it's the core because these people DO NOT want those things.
> 
> So anyway, back to my original complaint, the party arguing they're not diverse enough (which is laughable) is actually the opposite of why people in red districts turned them away.


I definitely agree with your last point. 

Your first... I mean, stupid rallying cry, you play with fire, you're going to get burned... but any time you depend on intellectual honesty from the GOP, you're going to get in trouble. Whether or not "Defund the Police" was a progressive rallying cry is tough to say, and the progressive wing of the party is hardly a monolith. Sanders may have supported increased police funding, but as a pro-gun, NRA-supported liberal, Sanders is kind of an anomaly anyway. I'd say it's less controversial that it wasn't an _establishment_ rallying cry, even if the progressive wing may have been a bit less unified here. 

But that certainly didn't stop the GOP from tying "Defund the Police" to progressive/"socialist" Democrats, then using that as a wedge to drive away moderates because "you can't Trust Biden, because he's beholden to evil socialists like AOC who want to defund the police!" It doesn't have to be remotely true to be effective - I don't think Biden is a socialist puppet, and "defund the police" is a cry to reallocate funding and focus on crime prevention rather than abolish police forces (though, with the same people also calling for abolishing ICE, you can kinda see the potential for confusion here). 

One thing I'll say, several weeks out, is that the more time goes on, the more that a Biden win that FELT like it was by a whisker, in the moment, was actually pretty solid, now that the votes have mostly been counted. Why the Democrats underperformed in the House and Senate is something that I think we'll have to spend more time working through here, but it doesn't seem like there was much of a problem at the _top_ of the ticket (and my working theory, until I disprove it or find a better one, is that the results we saw were actually fairly consistent with moderate voters wanting to vote Trump _out_, but not necessarily vote Democrats _in_, so we daw a far weaker down-ballot coattails effect than normal).


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I definitely agree with your last point.
> 
> Your first... I mean, stupid rallying cry, you play with fire, you're going to get burned... but any time you depend on intellectual honesty from the GOP, you're going to get in trouble. Whether or not "Defund the Police" was a progressive rallying cry is tough to say, and the progressive wing of the party is hardly a monolith. Sanders may have supported increased police funding, but as a pro-gun, NRA-supported liberal, Sanders is kind of an anomaly anyway. I'd say it's less controversial that it wasn't an _establishment_ rallying cry, even if the progressive wing may have been a bit less unified here.
> 
> But that certainly didn't stop the GOP from tying "Defund the Police" to progressive/"socialist" Democrats, then using that as a wedge to drive away moderates because "you can't Trust Biden, because he's beholden to evil socialists like AOC who want to defund the police!" It doesn't have to be remotely true to be effective - I don't think Biden is a socialist puppet, and "defund the police" is a cry to reallocate funding and focus on crime prevention rather than abolish police forces (though, with the same people also calling for abolishing ICE, you can kinda see the potential for confusion here).



Right, well the issue as a progressive (which is a position that I think is good for this country and good for this party), is saying "these guys share a party with the socialists so therefore THEY'RE socialists!" was the reason for vulnerable Democrats losses, despite

1.) Not being true

2.) Those two groups of the Democratic Party don't agree on much

So, 3 people out of the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus (the squad) are fairly hardline on "progressive" (I think more liberal than progressive) issues, that's why Dems lost races? I mean that's very close to saying just because you exist, you're losing races for other people in other districts on the other side of the country. Completely lacking introspection. Doug Jones in Alabama somehow lost his race because a person 2000 miles away in a different House of Congress scared people off? That's a scapegoat if I've ever heard one.


----------



## spudmunkey

I suspect a not-insignificant number of people voted right down the party line for every national and local race just based on their feelings for Trump, one way or the other.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> a Biden win that FELT like it was by a whisker, in the moment, was actually pretty solid, now that the votes have mostly been counted



That would be a much more accurate analysis than the post-election night analysis the Democratic Party was passing around.

Here in NYS, my congressional district was super close on election night which prompted an "oh no! Dems are losing ground in the region" panic but after absentee ballots were counted, he actually won by more than he did last time. Same with Biden, they were projecting he lost my county (deep red) worse than Hillary did in 2016 while Trump netted +200 votes from what he has in 2016; the same panic ensued but after the absentee ballots were counted, Biden actually won 3,000 MORE votes in a red county than Hillary won in 2016.

Last one, in my state senate district, the Republican was ahead by 8,000 votes at the end of the night and every news outlet called the race. The beginning of the last week, the absentee ballots etc were all counted and the Democratic won the race. Overcame an 8,000 vote gap in a rural district!

So yeah, I mean, I think they need to do a deeper analysis on these outcomes. It looked like Biden won-ish night of and Dems lost everywhere else, but now it's looking like they actually won significantly in some places. I think so far is sounds like most of the ACTUAL losses were in those 2018 districts they flipped, and I'm sure that's tied to typical voter turnout for Presidential elections vs. mid-terms and having Trump on the ballot, more than it does with some kind of moderate revolt against racial equality or something.

I stand by what I said before, you can't blame Democrats for losing in districts that are, at their core, against Democratic Party principals. All that says to me is at least they're CLOSE enough that you can pick them up in mid-terms, maybe demographically they shift. But deciding you need to make party policy pro-fossil fuels, pro-fracking, pro-big business, etc. just to win those communities that are otherwise red, no, I don't believe that's the case.


----------



## Ralyks

Literally just got a BBC notification that Trump pardoned Flynn.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

So I accidentally posted this in the covid thread. My bad. Let's try this again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-55105934

Anyway, who thinks the US had a hand in this?


----------



## sleewell

Diaper don going full on tantrum at that tiny desk was pretty funny


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> So I accidentally posted this in the covid thread. My bad. Let's try this again.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-55105934
> 
> Anyway, who thinks the US had a hand in this?



That was my first thought!


----------



## Ralyks

Wuuthrad said:


> That was my first thought!



Just think Trump isn't above starting a war on the way out the door and going "Here, Biden. It's your problem now."


----------



## bostjan

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87482


Actually, it'll be the electoral college, not the people.
But why is Lincoln flipping the bird? 

...

I hope we don't forget just how much of a differemce there was in the popular vote. Not to say that the electoral vote will be close, but if PA had gone the other way, the elecroal vote could have been super close and the popular vote still could have been just as huge a difference.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Just think Trump isn't above starting a war on the way out the door and going "Here, Biden. It's your problem now."



Well, if you consider he's launching a 2024 campaign, making as a big a mess as possible makes sense.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> Just think Trump isn't above starting a war on the way out the door and going "Here, Biden. It's your problem now."



Wouldn’t surprise me. Trump being Trump he’ll have to “win” one more...

Best lame duck ever!!!

(By that I mean worse ever!)


----------



## narad

I love that in this day and age we have political articles with titles like this:

"The Kraken: What is it and why has Trump's ex-lawyer released it?"
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145


----------



## Wuuthrad

narad said:


> I love that in this day and age we have political articles with titles like this:
> 
> "The Kraken: What is it and why has Trump's ex-lawyer released it?"
> https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145



I think the Trump legal team may have “released” a little too much Kraken!


----------



## Xaios

Same old crap from them. "Oh, we have evidence that we're going to release _real soon_! *Just you wait!*"

Two weeks from now, they'll be claiming that their dog ate it while being mind controlled by the Deep State.


----------



## sleewell

Tucker said the hunter laptop evidence got lost in the mail. Haha. now they arent talking about it at all. Same thing happened with the migrant caravan with leprosy after the mid terms. People are that dumb. 

Love that trump spent millions to increase bidens lead in wi. Lol


----------



## Rosal76

Xaios said:


> Same old crap from them. "Oh, we have evidence that we're going to release _real soon_! *Just you wait!*"
> 
> Two weeks from now, they'll be claiming that their dog ate it while being mind controlled by the Deep State.



They'll say that Rudy Giuliani was looking at the documents and that the evidence was so extraordinary to him that he started to sweat brown liquid from his head and that his sweat dripped onto the documents and that it ruined it and now it can't be read. And then, they'll say that Democrats rigged the A.C. units (in which those same A.C. units were also made by the same people who made the vote counting machines) to the room that Giuliani was in to make him sweat profusely. Guys in mysterious vans dressed like A.C. repair guys, they'll say. And when the media asks for proof of fake A.C. repair guys, they will say that the same dead people who illegally voted for Biden were the same perpetrators and that they can't be found. And then they'll say that those same, fake A.C. repair guys also sabotaged the White House A.C. units and that the heat caused Trump's desk (that he sat to during his Thanksgiving speech) to shrink. 







Unbelievable.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## possumkiller

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87539


Honestly, I don't really care for that. Seems like the same sort of gloating tweet devoid of any value that came from trump fifty times a day. How about just do something worthwhile and leave the tasteless behaviour to the outgoing administration?


----------



## Wuuthrad

possumkiller said:


> Honestly, I don't really care for that. Seems like the same sort of gloating tweet devoid of any value that came from trump fifty times a day. How about just do something worthwhile and leave the tasteless behaviour to the outgoing administration?



Lol I think it’s funny as hell! 

I’ll be waiting for the Roast... 

You think Trump has the balls to show up? I doubt it!


----------



## zappatton2

Wuuthrad said:


> Lol I think it’s funny as hell!
> 
> I’ll be waiting for the Roast...
> 
> You think Trump has the balls to show up? I doubt it!


He's probably still ruminating over a sharpie scrawled hit-list from the last one.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> Honestly, I don't really care for that. Seems like the same sort of gloating tweet devoid of any value that came from trump fifty times a day. How about just do something worthwhile and leave the tasteless behaviour to the outgoing administration?



I'm gonna keep on gloating, thank you. It was very different when it came from him winning against somebody that essentially did nothing wrong versus Biden winning against a white supremo fascist responsible for death of hundreds of thousands of people. At other times in history, being flayed on facebook would've been replaced by the ol' Benito Mussolini or Muhmar Ghadafi exit.

This "we're better than that, let's move on" crap is exactly why he or a surrogate will spend the next 4 years stoking a civil war unscathed. They should all be held accountable. Their "lock them up rhetoric" against people who committed no crimes should not work as deterrent to prosecuting people who actually did commit crimes.


----------



## BigViolin

...and any Takai take down is fucking legit.


----------



## spudmunkey

IMO, as long as Trump is still actively fighting the election results, he's fair game for immature mockery like this.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> I'm gonna keep on gloating, thank you. It was very different when it came from him winning against somebody that essentially did nothing wrong versus Biden winning against a white supremo fascist responsible for death of hundreds of thousands of people. At other times in history, being flayed on facebook would've been replaced by the ol' Benito Mussolini or Muhmar Ghadafi exit.
> 
> This "we're better than that, let's move on" crap is exactly why he or a surrogate will spend the next 4 years stoking a civil war unscathed. They should all be held accountable. Their "lock them up rhetoric" against people who committed no crimes should not work as deterrent to prosecuting people who actually did commit crimes.


Holding people accountable for their actions and prosecuting criminals can be done quite professionally without use of the same childish tactics of the people being prosecuted. You and every other civilian can and should mock them and shame them. However, it would be nice if the people in positions of authority could act like the adult leaders they are supposed to be. One president acting like a school kid on twitter is more than enough.


----------



## MFB

Since when is George Takei in a position of authority? He's a fucking actor.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wait, does Possum think George Takei was being serious?


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Wait, does Possum think George Takei was being serious?


Was he not quoting Biden? I've seen in the news that he did fracture his foot.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> Was he not quoting Biden? I've seen in the news that he did fracture his foot.



Biden did have a hairline fracture of his foot/ankle, he did not quip that it was due to "kicking Trump's ass." At least if he did, no news organization, even right leaning, has reported it as such.


----------



## bostjan

I'll be relieved when it's all over. I still suspect Trump is going to try to pull another fast one. 

My relatives are ramping up their pro-Trump FB posts this week and it's looking like they expect a hail mary pass to come out of nowhere. They could be wrong, but I'm not counting it out yet.

Or maybe they think the electoral college will somehow be involved in some next-level fuckery and reverse the election. I don't see how that'd be possible, but who knows what is possible anymore or what these people think is fair at this point.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Trump's entire presidency has been meme worthy. It's not hard when you have a group of supporters who are all about chanting and shouting "snowflake" every chance they get, but when they get the actions they were trying to provoke, it's "hey, show some respect." The way I see it, when you're someone who has been directly responsible for over 200,000 some odd deaths and climbing, people deriding you and calling you names is you getting off rather easy. He has completely mishandled this entire situation, has helped to create a much bigger divide than has been witnessed in how long now? Trump lacks leadership skills, critical thinking skills, and he also lacks the ability to remain truly civil and empathetic. These are all the characteristics I would expect of a heel in professional wrestling, and these are not the characteristics you want put on display for the rest of the world in one of the most important leadership positions. Leave it to Biden to remain civil, which unless I'm mistaken, he very much has. A bit of snark here and there from Biden still wouldn't be uncalled for, knowing everything that Trump has been responsible for. So let Biden remain civil but the rest of us who essentially lived under a tyrant with a child-like temper who lacks everything that makes a human being a true human being? Fuck that, get your fill of whatever you feel you need to say.


----------



## sleewell

trump and trump fans need to mocked for many, many years to come. fuck them and the holes they are crawling back into for the embarrassment and devastation they have caused. its not like we can magically go back to life before trump so letting them all off the hook for this wreckage would be insane.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I'll be relieved when it's all over. I still suspect Trump is going to try to pull another fast one.
> 
> My relatives are ramping up their pro-Trump FB posts this week and it's looking like they expect a hail mary pass to come out of nowhere. They could be wrong, but I'm not counting it out yet.
> 
> Or maybe they think the electoral college will somehow be involved in some next-level fuckery and reverse the election. I don't see how that'd be possible, but who knows what is possible anymore or what these people think is fair at this point.



He's banking 100% on SCOTUS, and he's said as much. I'm sure he was further bolstered by their COVID decision, considering they decide 5-4 in favor of all restrictions that crossed their desk when RGB was still alive, then NY's case came infront of them, which was upheld in every lower court decision and they knocked it down.

SCOTUS potentially the most reliably conservative, party line Republican court in the land now which is kinda scary. SCOTUS get to pick and choose what cases they hear, so you can get Republicans or even super gross special interest groups to argue failing legal cases through every court to fast track to SCOTUS and essentially veto congress and the President on everything, it's horrifying.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> He's banking 100% on SCOTUS, and he's said as much. I'm sure he was further bolstered by their COVID decision, considering they decide 5-4 in favor of all restrictions that crossed their desk when RGB was still alive, then NY's case came infront of them, which was upheld in every lower court decision and they knocked it down.
> 
> SCOTUS potentially the most reliably conservative, party line Republican court in the land now which is kinda scary. SCOTUS get to pick and choose what cases they hear, so you can get Republicans or even super gross special interest groups to argue failing legal cases through every court to fast track to SCOTUS and essentially veto congress and the President on everything, it's horrifying.



bUt HeR eMaIlS!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Taking the Piss of the POTUS is my Right! 

It’s number 1 Right! 

If you disagree... well I got news for ya:

WGAF???!!! 

(I’d throw in a Rats ass and a flying fuck too, but I don’t want to go over any lame duck or anyone else’s heads or anything, them having sat the bar so low.) 

Even more serious: I hope Parody, Sarcasm and Lampooning are not our only relief, as others have rightly mentioned!


----------



## Wuuthrad

And one more thing:

FUCK A KOWTOW!

seriously...


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## MASS DEFECT

Time to cash in with some golden (piss) age memorabilia.


----------



## Wuuthrad

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## narad

MASS DEFECT said:


> Time to cash in with some golden (piss) age memorabilia.
> 
> View attachment 87554



Man, and so lazy. They didn't even change the knobs at all. Could have been like whine, lie, boast, and "FAKE NEWS!". Or maybe just four "golf" knobs.


----------



## sleewell

gop senators saying they might not confirm tanden over.... wait for it.... mean tweets aimed at them. 

that is rich. a confirmation hearing reading all of the trump's racist and dumb tweets that they have conveniently ignored will be pretty funny. 

good thing trump is telling all the idiots who follow him that the election is rigged so they will stay home or write his name in for the GA senate runoffs. 

the governor of AZ putting trump's call on ignore was pretty funny too.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

sleewell said:


> gop senators saying they might not confirm tanden over.... wait for it.... mean tweets aimed at them.
> 
> that is rich. a confirmation hearing reading all of the trump's racist and dumb tweets that they have conveniently ignored will be pretty funny.
> 
> good thing trump is telling all the idiots who follow him that the election is rigged so they will stay home or write his name in for the GA senate runoffs.
> 
> the governor of AZ putting trump's call on ignore was pretty funny too.




If he torpedoes Georgia runoff with his nonsense that would just be the ultimate scenario.


----------



## nightflameauto

There was a "man on the street" segment in Georgia on the morning news where they asked some Trump supporters how they were planning on voting in the run-off. More than half of them said they feel like voting is pointless because Trump has told them it's all rigged against them anyway.

If he really does manage to lose Republican support for the run-off, that would be the perfect send-off for his term. One last fail on the way out. See ya, loser!


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Right, well the issue as a progressive (which is a position that I think is good for this country and good for this party), is saying "these guys share a party with the socialists so therefore THEY'RE socialists!" was the reason for vulnerable Democrats losses, despite
> 
> 1.) Not being true
> 
> 2.) Those two groups of the Democratic Party don't agree on much
> 
> So, 3 people out of the entire Democratic Congressional Caucus (the squad) are fairly hardline on "progressive" (I think more liberal than progressive) issues, that's why Dems lost races? I mean that's very close to saying just because you exist, you're losing races for other people in other districts on the other side of the country. Completely lacking introspection. Doug Jones in Alabama somehow lost his race because a person 2000 miles away in a different House of Congress scared people off? That's a scapegoat if I've ever heard one.


So there's a couple issues going on here and in your other post below, and I think I need to clarify a few things before I address them. 

First: 



Randy said:


> I stand by what I said before, you can't blame Democrats for losing in districts that are, at their core, against Democratic Party principals. All that says to me is at least they're CLOSE enough that you can pick them up in mid-terms, maybe demographically they shift. But deciding you need to make party policy pro-fossil fuels, pro-fracking, pro-big business, etc. just to win those communities that are otherwise red, no, I don't believe that's the case.


...I definitely don't want to see the Democratic party go pro-fossil fuels or pro big business. Fracking is more complex, I don't want it outlawed, but I want it stringently regulated - I suppose to the GOP that's the same as being anti-fracking, so let's go with it. Long story short - establishment and progressive Democrats generally share the same policy _goals_, even if they disagree on soutions - they may agree on the need for better, more affordable, healthcare for all, but disagree on whether or not medicare for all or a market solution is the most expedient way to get that done - and I don't think the party should sacrifice core _values_ to win seats. Make enough of those sacrifices and you're no different than the party you're trying to beat. 

So, Point A is preserve those core values at all costs. Maybe prioritize them in your messaging depending on the constituency - talking about fracking regulation isn't going ti play well in rural PA or WV, while fighting for better wages and better healthcare might. 

Point B, though, is that to you and I, "progressive" and "socialist" are not the same thing. That doesn't mean the GOP can't _paint_ them as the same thing, in turn paint "moderate" Democrats as beholden to progressive "socialists," and GOP voters won't go to the polls believing that Doug Jones is part of a political party that's puahing a "socialist" agenda with things like the Green New Deal. It's absolute bullshit - you know that, I know that... but they _don't_, and yes, someone like AOC can provide valuable ammo to use in a race against someone like Doug Jones. This is an OLD political playbook, though in the past it's usually been tying moderates to the "radical Pelosi agenda," and this is just one of the first cycles that the progressive branch of the party is the punching bag. If anything, I'd say, from your standpoint, that maybe that's a _good_ thing - if you guys, and not Pelosi, are the bogeyman the GOP is using to scare good ol' southern boys and girls to vote for the Grand Old Party, it means you're gaining power. 

Long story short - yes, it is literally not fair to tie Doug Jones' Senate race's fate to the words of a junior Representative from New York, a thousand miles away. That doesn't mean it's not still happening, though, and if anything AOC is geographically closer to Jones than Pelosi was.


----------



## sleewell

Barr just said there was no fraud in the election to the extent that it would change the result.

trump melt down in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> Barr just said there was no fraud in the election to the extent that it would change the result.
> 
> trump melt down in 3... 2... 1...


Oh interesting. Wonder who the new AG is going to be? Ivanka as Acting...?


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> Barr just said there was no fraud in the election to the extent that it would change the result.
> 
> trump melt down in 3... 2... 1...



Oh, on Fox he's already said the DOJ and the FBI were in on "fixing" the election. Or...more like he said something like, "or, I dont know, maybe" after mentioning them...so now he's just raining machine gun fire in all directions.


----------



## Wuuthrad

sleewell said:


> Barr just said there was no fraud in the election to the extent that it would change the result.
> 
> trump melt down in 3... 2... 1...



I just lmao: watching BBC- In response to this, Senator Ron Johnson of WI claims that Barr needs to “provide evidence of lack of evidence.”

How the fuck did this guy become a Senator with presumably no knowledge of how the law works in the USA?

Presumption of Innocence?

More like presumption of ignorance!


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...idential-pardon-justice-department/index.html

Uhh what the fuck?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...idential-pardon-justice-department/index.html
> 
> Uhh what the fuck?



Im not surprised! I was just postulating a theory that Trumps presidency was a con to pardon as many crooks and cronies (friends) as possible, etc.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Adam Of Angels

This is a really balanced discussion.


----------



## USMarine75

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is a really balanced discussion.



Fair enough. 

Should we discuss the satanic pedophile Democrats more?


----------



## vilk

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is a really balanced discussion.


Why don't you balance it out for us? Tell us all about how COVID-19 isn't real, how Trump actually won the election (You could even provide some evidence of the lack of the lack of evidence of voter fraud lmao). Sorry, were there any other Republican yelling points right now? I can only seem to remember the retarded ones at the moment.


----------



## USMarine75

Maybe a fair discussion of the 40 people Hillary has killed?

#killary


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Maybe a fair discussion of the 40 people Hillary has killed?
> 
> #killary



She should do a kickstarter. Last time I saw some political killings in the news the kid got like a million dollars, and he only killed 2 people.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I love guns and trade wars!!

I love banning companies and products in the name of national security and then forgetting that I did it!

did I do it right?


----------



## StevenC

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is a really balanced discussion.


What do you want people to talk about in the last 2 months of a lame duck presidency?


----------



## nightflameauto

It's tough to be balanced when the only way that some will accept that the conversation is balanced is to entertain alternate realities where laws, the scientific method and the data being presented actually don't exist or if they do, they're optional to the "alternative facts" of a flat Earth, the pandemic being a completely proven hoax, and massive voter fraud has been proven by a lack of evidence of a lack of evidence. 

It's very difficult to get those two opposing points of view to agree to an intermediary bit of logic that can be understood and believed by "both sides."


----------



## sleewell

i would love to hear from some trump supporters. seems like they have gone into hiding or a safe space like parler. back a couple pages ago someone said they voted trump bc of guns. seems really dumb to me considered everything going on in the world but that is totally up to them. 

can some trump supporters maybe provide some evidence of this mass fraud? are you proud of the way he is acting the last few weeks? does rudy seem all there to you?


----------



## TheBlackBard

What does a balanced discussion look like these days? I think you can have a balanced discussion about gun ownership and the like, but you CANNOT have one about basic human rights, a health crisis, scientific facts, and healthcare. A lot of these issues these days shouldn't even be political. It should not be a talking point in a presidency to take away the rights of people just because they aren't born a certain way. It shouldn't be a talking point in politics as it comes to protecting the world from a pandemic spreading, but both of those things are precisely because we have people on one side who generally are compassionate towards all citizens, regardless of heritage and what have you, and then we have another side who's basically like: "You don't know whether you're a man or woman? ICKY!" and as such continue to try to push legislature to limit the rights of those civilians. That's why these are political issues, because we have a dumbfuck group MAKING them political issues. You won't find balance there when to be a decent human being to other people almost REQUIRES a liberal bias.


----------



## fantom

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is a really balanced discussion.



Reopen the socialist public schooling system so we can complain more about libtards being socialists while having free daycare. /s


----------



## narad

sleewell said:


> i would love to hear from some trump supporters. seems like they have gone into hiding or a safe space like parler. back a couple pages ago someone said they voted trump bc of guns. seems really dumb to me considered everything going on in the world but that is totally up to them.
> 
> can some trump supporters maybe provide some evidence of this mass fraud? are you proud of the way he is acting the last few weeks? does rudy seem all there to you?



They're all on RigTalk honestly thinking the election is going to be overturned. Plenty of "evidence" over there. Things like, Kamala not retiring yet. Or Biden saying he has one of the biggest "voter fraud organizations". It's air-tight.


----------



## Vyn

sleewell said:


> i would love to hear from some trump supporters. seems like they have gone into hiding or a safe space like parler. back a couple pages ago someone said they voted trump bc of guns. seems really dumb to me considered everything going on in the world but that is totally up to them.
> 
> can some trump supporters maybe provide some evidence of this mass fraud? are you proud of the way he is acting the last few weeks? does rudy seem all there to you?



I have been enjoying the irony of Trump/far-right nutters who are the first people to call out others for being 'snowflakes' have all retreated to a safe space so they can air their views. It's fucking gold


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87590



The funny thing about “drain the swamp” is that Trump admitted in an interview- 

“When they put it in there” (campaign speech) “I didn’t even like it, but when I tried it out, people loved it so much we decided to keep it in there ...” 

lmao...


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is a really balanced discussion.



Isn’t it though? Especially when compared to...


----------



## cwhitey2

Vyn said:


> I have been enjoying the irony of Trump/far-right nutters who are the first people to call out others for being 'snowflakes' have all retreated to a safe space so they can air their views. It's fucking gold


This is literally my favorite of this whole shit show. Where I live is relatively conservative and now when politics are brought up they are like "can we have a civil discussion" (if they even want to talk), vs 2 months ago when they were all loud mouths not giving a shit about anyone but themselves. 


All the trump signs were taken down except for a select few, and im going to lie, i have been that asshole libtard pointing that out and poking fun at those idiots.


----------



## SpaceDock

I really think it is frightening how much Trump and his Maga bs has become ingrained in peoples identity. I get that those jerks liked to laugh at the people crying when Hilary lost, but I don’t know anyone who kept their “Im with Her” sign in their yard a day past the election. The inability to move on, the denial of reality, the absolute cult that Trump has inspired is shocking to me because it is not just fringe weirdos, it has seeped into the hearts and minds of so many previously normal people. I don’t know what’s going to happen but this is not getting better and I am appalled that more Republican senators and other leaders are not moving away from Trump. I am starting to fear we will have some much bigger problems come Inauguration Day.


----------



## Vyn

SpaceDock said:


> I really think it is frightening how much Trump and his Maga bs has become ingrained in peoples identity. I get that those jerks liked to laugh at the people crying when Hilary lost, but I don’t know anyone who kept their “Im with Her” sign in their yard a day past the election. The inability to move on, the denial of reality, the absolute cult that Trump has inspired is shocking to me because it is not just fringe weirdos, it has seeped into the hearts and minds of so many previously normal people. I don’t know what’s going to happen but this is not getting better and I am appalled that more Republican senators and other leaders are not moving away from Trump. I am starting to fear we will have some much bigger problems come Inauguration Day.



Am worried about Biden ending up like JFK - there's enough lunatics out there that would try.


----------



## cwhitey2

SpaceDock said:


> I really think it is frightening how much Trump and his Maga bs has become ingrained in peoples identity. I get that those jerks liked to laugh at the people crying when Hilary lost, but I don’t know anyone who kept their “Im with Her” sign in their yard a day past the election. The inability to move on, the denial of reality, the absolute cult that Trump has inspired is shocking to me because it is not just fringe weirdos, it has seeped into the hearts and minds of so many previously normal people. I don’t know what’s going to happen but this is not getting better and I am appalled that more Republican senators and other leaders are not moving away from Trump. I am starting to fear we will have some much bigger problems come Inauguration Day.


This.

My best friend swears it's not over yet (because of evidence) and that im brainwashed by liberal media. Two problems with that...he has yet to provide me 1 freaking remotely relivent source of cheating and I dobtt want the news, i read articles and cone to my own conclusion.

Trump, 100% has cult following where i live and its made me lose a lot of respect for people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I really think it is frightening how much Trump and his Maga bs has become ingrained in peoples identity. I get that those jerks liked to laugh at the people crying when Hilary lost, but I don’t know anyone who kept their “Im with Her” sign in their yard a day past the election. The inability to move on, the denial of reality, the absolute cult that Trump has inspired is shocking to me because it is not just fringe weirdos, it has seeped into the hearts and minds of so many previously normal people. I don’t know what’s going to happen but this is not getting better and I am appalled that more Republican senators and other leaders are not moving away from Trump. I am starting to fear we will have some much bigger problems come Inauguration Day.



Trump was but a vessel for what was already in much of America. 

The quicker folks start coming to terms with that the better.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I would add declaring anti Fascism a form of Terrorism and that Republican calling for someone to be shot!


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Trump was but a vessel for what was already in much of America.
> 
> The quicker folks start coming to terms with that the better.



I do agree with this to a point, but I really think the charisma that Trump has has really pushed this into a very disturbed cult of personality that would not have existed without Trump. Could you have seen this scenario with Rubio or Jeb? No way. I also often contemplate if Trump ran as a Democrat if all this would be happening in reverse.


----------



## cwhitey2

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 87604
> 
> 
> I would add declaring anti Fascism a form of Terrorism and that Republican calling for someone to be shot!


Every Republican i have spoken to doesn't even know what fascism is, so i pull up the definition and it still dosnt click in their brain. 

And i agree with @MaxOfMetal , this was a long time coming.


----------



## SpaceDock

cwhitey2 said:


> This.
> 
> My best friend swears it's not over yet (because of evidence) and that im brainwashed by liberal media. Two problems with that...he has yet to provide me 1 freaking remotely relivent source of cheating and I dobtt want the news, i read articles and cone to my own conclusion.
> 
> Trump, 100% has cult following where i live and its made me lose a lot of respect for people.



You know Gen Flynn with his fresh pardon is advocating for martial law and a military run re-vote. Trump again pushed the re-vote idea today in his 45 minute video rant. I think your friend is right that this is not over, we will just disagree on the reasons.


----------



## cwhitey2

SpaceDock said:


> I do agree with this to a point, but I really think the charisma that Trump has has really pushed this into a very disturbed cult of personality that would not have existed without Trump. Could you have seen this scenario with Rubio or Jeb? No way. I also often contemplate if Trump ran as a Democrat if all this would be happening in reverse.


No way would it be the same if he ran as a democrat. He doesn't share any values i personally have, but i understand what you are saying.


----------



## cwhitey2

SpaceDock said:


> You know Gen Flynn with his fresh pardon is advocating for martial law and a military run re-vote. Trump again pushed the re-vote idea today in his 45 minute video rant. I think your friend is right that this is not over, we will just disagree on the reasons.


 thats exactly what we need, a " military run re-vote"


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Vyn said:


> Am worried about Biden ending up like JFK - there's enough lunatics out there that would try.



Same here. Fear of Harris taking the helm might be one of the only factors that'll keep trump's flying monkeys at bay.


----------



## spudmunkey

Anybody watch his 45 minute Youtube shit-show? Jesus fucking christ, man...


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> I do agree with this to a point, but I really think the charisma that Trump has has really pushed this into a very disturbed cult of personality that would not have existed without Trump. Could you have seen this scenario with Rubio or Jeb? No way. I also often contemplate if Trump ran as a Democrat if all this would be happening in reverse.



That would’ve been a ridiculous debate in 2016- Clinton, Sanders, and Trump going for the Democratic Party?

Can you even imagine how farcical that would have been?


----------



## Randy

Sidney Powell encouraging Republicans in Georgia to boycott the runoff  Gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ahhhh, Let’s all take a moment to rejoice in the holiday spirit:




And with that I propose a toast to the

Grand Old Party!

Those staunch bearers of Morality Truth and the ({?}Christian{?}) American White Way!

The same “Party” that impeached for getting a blow job, whom are now standing behind a pussy grabbing white supremacist wannabe fascist con man grifter!

AmeriKKKa AmeriKKKa...

lmfao...


----------



## bostjan

So was it the "most secure [election] in American history" or no?

If yes, then Trump lost.

If no, Trump's state department dropped the ball, and that buck stops at Trump himself.

So, ... I mean, either way... Trump is screwed, logically.

But, we all know this. The trouble is that Trump doesn't give two shits about logic. He hasn't for decades now. He's trying to pardon his kids pre-emptively, which also stinks of guilt and does nothing good for him. He's going to try to take this nation down with his sinking ship, and he doesn't care what the long-term consequences are. It might be time to prepare for counter-plan-b.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Vyn said:


> Am worried about Biden ending up like JFK - there's enough lunatics out there that would try.




I would be worried too, but with that said, I'd figure if something like that were to happen, it would have happened to Obama.


----------



## USMarine75

I just joined Rig-Talk to see what all the hullabaloo is.


----------



## possumkiller

I was a truck driver for like three years and I have never heard of rig talk.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I do agree with this to a point, but I really think the charisma that Trump has has really pushed this into a very disturbed cult of personality that would not have existed without Trump. Could you have seen this scenario with Rubio or Jeb? No way. I also often contemplate if Trump ran as a Democrat if all this would be happening in reverse.



Trump capitalized on it more than Rubio, Jeb, or really anyone not already on the fringes of the GOP had done before, and because it was already deeply seeded in many Americans at large, it worked. 

It's tough coming to terms with your buddy Bill, uncle Jim, aunt Susan, and even grandma being full of hate, but that's how this happened.

Trump didn't turn over 70 million Americans into this, they already were. He just gave them an outlet they hadn't had before.


----------



## sleewell

That time obama had to pardon himself, his family and all his friends when leaving office after committing "the worst crimes in the history of the country".


Did anyone see rudy try to quiet his star witness yesterday as she was tumbling into the most unhinged tin foil hat rant? Priceless. When you are too crazy for rudy...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

sleewell said:


> That time obama had to pardon himself, his family and all his friends when leaving office after committing "the worst crimes in the history of the country".
> 
> He had to pardon himself for wearing a tan suit.
> Did anyone see rudy try to quiet his star witness yesterday as she was tumbling into the most unhinged tin foil hat rant? Priceless. When you are too crazy for rudy...


----------



## nightflameauto

So, the Republican officials in Georgia are pleading with Trump and his team to stop this nonsense because not only are they receiving death threats, but their family members are as well. Meanwhile, at nearly the same moment, Trump puts out his forty-five minute clearly drug fueled rant of insanity to keep his followers as riled up as possible.

I managed about two minutes of it before I had to shut it off. How people can follow someone this unhinged without seeing it is utterly beyond me.

And anybody that hasn't seen just how out of touch with reality his followers are, I encourage you to go to rig-talk.com, dig into the Off Topic Game of Groans forum. The tagline is literally "abandon all hope ye who enter here," and they aren't kidding. Delusion has its home there. Yikes.


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, the death threats aside, let then self sabotage Georgia. If this gets the Democrats both seats in the run off, I would think people would realize how toxic a 2024 run for Trump would be.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

A balanced discussion would look like not strawmanning either side's position, giving the devil his due when necessary, and understanding that both sides are equally crazy when we fail to do these things and go full on tribal. It's difficult - not for the faint of heart, and most of us shouldn't get involved to begin with.

I am not a Trump supporter. I backed Obama twice, and have always been a Left leaning Centrist. The media has turned everything Trump has ever done or said in the last 4 years into a crisis, when most of it could be dismissed after spending 10 minutes on Google. Why? Primarily because the mainstream media is a slowly-dying medium, and being that they have a 24/7 business model, the only way they'll survive is if they have a disaster to report on 24/7. Trump is easy enough to criticize without exaggerating or outright making shit up about him. If he's right about anything at all, it's that the media is cancer. Do any of us actually disagree? 

If you're behind him, you expect nothing but lies and corruption from the other side, and are unlikely to pay much attention when he's in the wrong. To make the problem worse, being that he's a narcissist and doesn't know how to pick his battles, he pushed back 24/7, often creating an equal amount of sensationalism on the other side. The only way to get back to reasonable discourse is for most people to grow tired of the media machine, and stop paying attention to loud mouths that play into it (yes, Trump is one of those loud mouths).


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Honestly, the death threats aside, let then self sabotage Georgia. If this gets the Democrats both seats in the run off, I would think people would realize how toxic a 2024 run for Trump would be.


I'll be honest, I'm pretty happy to hear a not so small set of Republican talking heads telling their followers to boycott the run-off. If they do manage to get a significant portion of the right to sit out the run-off, it'll leave an absolutely hysterical trail self-defeat that will be one of the most delicious events of the last few years. It may even give us a torn apart Republican party by the time the next presidential election rolls around, or at the very least a heavily divided one.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Luckily, the same thing is likely to happen among Democrats - there's a clear split between the more radical types and the moderates. I say luckily, because we do not want a one party government.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adam Of Angels said:


> Luckily, the same thing is likely to happen among Democrats - there's a clear split between the more radical types and the moderates. I say luckily, because we do not want a one party government.


On this we can wholeheartedly agree.

In a lot of ways we've been stuck with a one party government my entire voting life. The differences between the electable Democrats and the electable Republicans aren't as stark as most would have you believe, and even when Democrats are in power we keep sliding further and further away from taking care of our people and closer and closer to being a full-blown, publicly stated plutocracy.

I wouldn't hate seeing both parties implode and come out the other side with multiple actual different choices. But for now, I'd be plenty fine with watching the Republicans eat themselves after the last four years of divisive and abusive rhetoric and their support of utterly absurd policy positions.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> A balanced discussion would look like not strawmanning either side's position, giving the devil his due when necessary, and understanding that *both sides are equally crazy *when we fail to do these things and go full on tribal. It's difficult - not for the faint of heart, and most of us shouldn't get involved to begin with.



Both sides of what, though.

I'd disagree with how general you argue there. Both sides are not equally crazy on every topic.

"The election was stolen by fraudulent means." - one side sounds crazy if they fail to supply any actual evidence to support that statement, especially after the same people had claimed that the election was to be the most secure in history.

In fact, if you look at the memes, tweets, and posts from the group of people stating the above, pretty much everything they are stating in social media regarding politics is patently false. "Trump reduced the unemployment, Obama increased it" - both presidents had ups and downs, but if you look at averages over time or look at how they left the state of affairs, the trend is clearly the opposite of what they are claiming. "Gas prices will exceed $5/gal within 90 days of Biden taking office" - I suppose time will tell, but there is no coherent reasoning behind the prediction. Etc.

Yes, there are crazy people holding all manner of opinions, but that does not equate, on any level, to all manner of opinions are equally crazy.


----------



## USMarine75

Both sides are not equal.

One side believes the CIA, DOJ, Democrats, Republicans who openly endorsed Trump, Republican Poll Watchers, Republican Judges including ones appointed by Trump, and a dead Hugo Chavez rigged the election for Biden. They also believe Democrats are beta cuck satanic pedophiles lead by Grandma Killary and Harvey Weinstein, paid for by Soros and the Rothschilds (AKA the Jews). They also unequivocally state the other side should be locked up without a trial or shot. They consort with America’s historic enemies and alienate our historic allies. And they call a free press the enemy of the people.

The other side believes in science, responsible gun laws, climate change, equal treatment under the law, and that health care is a right not a privilege.

Does the Left have problems? Absolutely. They’re all about free speech unless they don’t like what you have to say. They’re obsessed with identity politics. They pander to minorities and single issue voters yet never quite deliver. The minority subparty (progressives) believe in controversial economic policies that would be difficult to finance. They can also be pedantic and elitist (“flyover states”). Democrats are terrible at brand messaging whereas Republicans are elite at it. Democrats are terrible at getting on the same page whereas Republicans are elite at it.

But.... Do you not see the difference? One side has a lot of internal and external issues they need to work on. The other side is a populist autocrat that has destroyed what was once thought to be the most robust form of govt ever created. He’s destroyed norms, decency, international relations, and used the office to enrich himself and his family like a 3rd world dictator.

No. One of these kids is not like the other.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^ That's some of the strawmanning I'm referring to.


----------



## USMarine75

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ That's some of the strawmanning I'm referring to.



No. It’s literally not:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


----------



## Xaios

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ That's some of the strawmanning I'm referring to.


You know, I've seen you argue enough to know that you generally approach these kinds of arguments from a position of good faith. However, in this instance, you're going to need to point out _specifically _how these arguments are straw men if you want to get your point across. For example, I have the feeling that this is the statement you're referring to.


> The other side is a populist autocrat that has destroyed what was once thought to be the most robust form of govt ever created. He’s destroyed norms, decency, international relations, and used the office to enrich himself and his family like a 3rd world dictator.


As someone who isn't American, but who also reads a lot of news straight from American sources, I quite frankly agree entirely with this statement. If you're saying this is a strawman argument, it's not that I don't believe you, but I honestly don't see how this statement diverges from the facts about Donald Trump's presidency. If you have a different perspective, then please explain it.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> You know, I've seen you argue enough to know that you generally approach these kinds of arguments from a position of good faith. However, in this instance, you're going to need to point out _specifically _how these arguments are straw men if you want to get your point across. For example, I have the feeling that this is the statement you're referring to.
> 
> As someone who isn't American, but who also reads a lot of news straight from American sources, I quite frankly agree entirely with this statement. If you're saying this is a strawman argument, it's not that I don't believe you, but I honestly don't see how this statement diverges from the facts about Donald Trump's presidency. If you have a different perspective, then please explain it.



And let me be clear... it’s perfectly okay to refute or disagree with things I said. That’s part of political discourse. But it’s thoroughly disingenuous at best to dismiss them as strawman arguments.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> You know, I've seen you argue enough to know that you generally approach these kinds of arguments from a position of good faith. However, in this instance, you're going to need to point out _specifically _how these arguments are straw men if you want to get your point across. For example, I have the feeling that this is the statement you're referring to.


Yeah, this. You beat me to it, man, but I'm not seeing much that I would really consider a straw man in US Marines' post there. Maybe a little bit of hyperbole, but honestly we're at a point where I'd no longer be surprised if Giuliani blamed Chavez, somehow, for Trump's loss. Beyond that...


----------



## TheBlackBard

I'll say it again... how in the hell do you have a balanced conversation with the side of politics in which many bigoted people reside? When you have white nationalists supporting the current farce in the office, how do you expect to really have a conversation with them? Here's the reality: Trump supporters AT THE VERY LEAST are complicit with Trump's views and Trump at the very least is complicit with ideals of bigotry. Even if that person is not actively racist towards others or bigoted towards those of a different sexual preference identity, they are at the very least okay with having a person in office who is okay with not calling off or berating bigots and such. How in the blue fuck do you expect to have a sensible conversation with someone who believes that someone not born as a cis-white male should have less rights and privileges or is okay with someone in office who holds those ideals? You don't. There is no balance there.


----------



## Drew

I guess something that needs to be continuously pointed out here, is that any talk about "both sides" implicitly pre-supposes that both sides are being intellectually honest and are sincerely motivated to find some common ground.

When the subject is "I think we should cut taxes and cut spending" on one side and "I think we should raise taxes and raise spending" on the other, these are legitimate, fair differences, and if both sides are motivated to find common ground, these are parameters within which you can work.

When the subject is "I think black people are human beings, and should have rights," and "I think black people are inferior to white people, and should have no rights," then I'm sorry, any concern for "both sides" is a concession to the side trying to disenfranchise an entire group of people.

Someone who wants all the blacks thrown out of this country to form an aryan state isn't going to be wiling to compromise at throwing only _half_ the blacks out of this country to form a mostly-aryan state, you know?


----------



## TedEH

Maybe the dumb/obvious answer is that if a conversation were to be "balanced", it would not be political. Those things sort of contradict eachother. "Lets talk about politics, but leave all of your opinions and viewpoints and politics out of it."

Edit:
The much better phrasing that immediately came to mind was:
"Get your politics out of my politics!"


----------



## StevenC

Ted's got the right idea. Let's have an apolitical look at some of the issues currently facing the USA.

I'll start with healthcare costs. Many Americans have a hard time affording healthcare costs. How should we solve it?

Well, the two main solutions seem to be private health insurance and some sort of national option. If we look at all the countries with national options, they seem to provide a good standard of care for a reasonable price. If we look at all the countries that do not regulate this sort of thing, they have spiralling care and pharmaceutical costs. Which one should we pick?

Now let's try education. Many Americans have a hard time affording education costs. How should we solve it?

The two main solutions seem to be a private education system and a public education system. If we look at developed nations with for profit education as the preferred choice and expensive college tuition, we see aggressive class discrimination in education standards. If we look at developed countries with public schools that rival private education and free or capped university fees, we see much more mingling from various social classes and more class mobility. Which one should we choose?

Remember when the other guy in the other thread said that political problems have a left leaning bias?


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Btw I don’t GAF about strawmans...

What we all need in life is more- 

WICKERMAN!!!





Recipe: Insert lame ducks and heads of state as needed...


----------



## Xaios




----------



## Adam Of Angels

Drew said:


> I guess something that needs to be continuously pointed out here, is that any talk about "both sides" implicitly pre-supposes that both sides are being intellectually honest and are sincerely motivated to find some common ground.
> 
> When the subject is "I think we should cut taxes and cut spending" on one side and "I think we should raise taxes and raise spending" on the other, these are legitimate, fair differences, and if both sides are motivated to find common ground, these are parameters within which you can work.
> 
> When the subject is "I think black people are human beings, and should have rights," and "I think black people are inferior to white people, and should have no rights," then I'm sorry, any concern for "both sides" is a concession to the side trying to disenfranchise an entire group of people.
> 
> Someone who wants all the blacks thrown out of this country to form an aryan state isn't going to be wiling to compromise at throwing only _half_ the blacks out of this country to form a mostly-aryan state, you know?



I intend to respond to Xaios/UsMarine (by the way, USM, did not mean to outright dismiss/disrespect you, so I apologize for that), but I felt the need to jump in and address Drew's post here a second:

Do you *really* think a substantial number of people on the right think black people are inferior, and want them to leave the country? Do you think Donald Trump feels that way? 

If so, you've identified the actual problem, and it isn't that you're right.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> I intend to respond to Xaios/UsMarine (by the way, USM, did not mean to outright dismiss/disrespect you, so I apologize for that), but I felt the need to jump in and address Drew's post here a second:
> 
> Do you *really* think a substantial number of people on the right think black people are inferior, and want them to leave the country? Do you think Donald Trump feels that way?
> 
> If so, you've identified the actual problem, and it isn't that you're right.


Significant enough for Trump to avoid speaking negatively about white supremicists.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Significant enough for Trump to avoid speaking negatively about white supremicists.



I found a 9 minute compilation video of him very clearly denouncing white supremacists over and over again. Do you want me to share that? I don't like being put in the position of defending him, but I'll share that if you're willing to have your beliefs challenged a bit.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> I found a 9 minute compilation video of him very clearly denouncing white supremacists over and over again. Do you want me to share that? I don't like being put in the position of defending him, but I'll share that if you're willing to have your beliefs challenged a bit.


Sure. But I didn't say he never caved under pressure to do it. I said that he avoided it, which he did, after two days of public statements about "very fine people on both sides," after a protester was murdered by neonazis.


----------



## Vyn

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you *really* think a substantial number of people on the right think black people are inferior, and want them to leave the country?



Yes. Otherwise there wouldn't be a counter-movement to Black Lives Matter.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you *really* think a substantial number of people on the right think black people are inferior, and want them to leave the country? Do you think Donald Trump feels that way?



Absolutely.. the same ones that tell people "I have this black friend and he's a good guy" and "I have no problem with blacks. I work with one... I even gave him a ride home one night". Many are self-proclaimed Christians too... go figure. The things that some people feel and believe deep down in their hearts will never pass their lips in mixed company but yes... it's there, it's real, and they'll at most stand idly by as minority rights are compromised. If you legit don't believe that a significant number of right-wing conservatives ( and nut-job trump supporters as well as trump himself) don't cringe at the thought of having black neighbors or having their taxes going towards any interest that doesn't benefit them, then you may indeed be mistaken.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Sure. But I didn't say he never caved under pressure to do it. I said that he avoided it, which he did, after two days of public statements about "very fine people on both sides," after a protester was murdered by neonazis.



The "very fine people" thing is a completely fabricated media crisis. Perfect example of the BS I'm talking about. And before you feel tempted to write me off as a secret Trump apologist, I don't really care about him - I just don't like seeing everybody being whipped into a hysterical frenzy to the point where people are brawling in the streets. Convincing half the country that the other half are white supremacists and that the President is Hitler apparently has that effect. Again, the media is cancer.

Anyway, I was a bit careless in calling this a 9 minute compilation - it has a bit of "libtards destroyed!!" for dramatic effect that I could do without. But, at least the first half is worth watching:


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> The "very fine people" thing is a completely fabricated media crisis. Perfect example of the BS I'm talking about. And before you feel tempted to write me off as a secret Trump apologist, I don't really care about him - I just don't like seeing everybody being whipped into a hysterical frenzy to the point where people are brawling in the streets. Convincing half the country that the other half are white supremacists and that the President is Hitler apparently has that effect. Again, the media is cancer.
> 
> Anyway, I was a bit careless in calling this a 9 minute compilation - it has a bit of "libtards destroyed!!" for dramatic effect that I could do without. But, at least the first half is worth watching:




Do you consider the Proud Boys to be a white supremacist organization? How about the boogaloos?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Do you consider the Proud Boys to be a white supremacist organization? How about the boogaloos?



Be sure to watch the second half of the "very fine people" clip where he says "and I'm not talking about the white supremacists and the neo nazis." It's in that video I shared.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Be sure to watch the second half of the "very fine people" clip where he says "and I'm not talking about the white supremacists and the neo nazis." It's in that video I shared.



Yes or no question.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Yes or no question.



If I say Yes, were you not going to say that Trump called those groups very fine people? If not, I'm sorry. But if so, then no, he didn't. That's why I answered you in that way.

I legitimately don't know who the boogaloos are.

Proud Boys are a bit more complicated, but they claim to not be racist or bigoted in any way. Their website lists their values, and among them is "anti-racism", along with a bit that says they welcome people of all races and sexual orientation. Also, their leader is black Dominican.


----------



## TedEH

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you *really* think a substantial number of people on the right think black people are inferior, and want them to leave the country?


I'm normally the one in the thread trying to take the naive view that most people are good at heart and maybe just misguided or misinformed or whatever else have you, but even I pretty much immediately answer this question with a yes.

I mean, I can "claim" to not be racist, but if I join a group full of racist people and and align with their principles, then I may not be "all non-white people are inferior" racist, but I'm still "it doesn't bother me that my peers think all non-white people are inferior" racist. There's no need to make a distinction between the two. Both of those categories are bad.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TedEH said:


> I'm normally the one in the thread trying to take the naive view that most people are good at heart and maybe just misguided or misinformed or whatever else have you, but even I pretty much immediately answer this question with a yes.
> 
> I mean, I can "claim" to not be racist, but if I join a group full of racist people and and align with their principles, then I may not be "all non-white people are inferior" racist, but I'm still "it doesn't bother me that my peers think all non-white people are inferior" racist. There's no need to make a distinction between the two. Both of those categories are bad.



Substantiate the claim, if you would.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

To be sure, I'm willing to say that there are racists on the right. I'm also certain there are racists on the left. But neither side is predominantly racist in 2020.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> To be sure, I'm willing to say that there are racists on the right. I'm also certain there are racists on the left. But neither side is predominantly racist in 2020.


While it may be true that there are people who are not racists, a number of Trump's policies tauted during him campaign centered around racism. Like @TedEH said, people might not have been racist enough to focus specifically on those policies, but they were "okay" with them.

It may be a fair point to mention that there are also racist policies coming from Democrats, but I'm not aware of any specifically from Biden/Harris. Are you?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> While it may be true that there are people who are not racists, a number of Trump's policies tauted during him campaign centered around racism. Like @TedEH said, people might not have been racist enough to focus specifically on those policies, but they were "okay" with them.
> 
> It may be a fair point to mention that there are also racist policies coming from Democrats, but I'm not aware of any specifically from Biden/Harris. Are you?



Which of Trump's policies were racist? Might help us see eye to eye if you explain how they were racist as well.

To echo the logic being used in this thread, while I'm not aware of any overtly racist policies on the part of Biden/Harris, they're comfortable with people who are full-blown advocates of Critical Race Theory, and (we're really opening a can of worms here) CRT is straight up racism repackaged, masquerading as a compassionate solution to racism.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> If I say Yes, were you not going to say that Trump called those groups very fine people? If not, I'm sorry. But if so, then no, he didn't. That's why I answered you in that way.
> 
> I legitimately don't know who the boogaloos are.
> 
> Proud Boys are a bit more complicated, but they claim to not be racist or bigoted in any way. Their website lists their values, and among them is "anti-racism", along with a bit that says they welcome people of all races and sexual orientation. Also, their leader is black Dominican.



Okay, so your mantra is just to take everyone at their word then. Got it. That's probably going to be the genesis of all your issues here.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Okay, so your mantra is just to take everyone at their word then. Got it. That's probably going to be the genesis of all your issues here.



They're shitty white supremacists if they advertise themselves as anti-racist and welcoming of everybody right on their website, AND actually welcome everybody regardless of race, AND appoint a black Dominican leader. Doesn't seem like I have much reason to doubt them.

But that's beside the point because Trump denounced them.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Which of Trump's policies were racist? Might help us see eye to eye if you explain how they were racist as well.
> 
> To echo the logic being used in this thread, while I'm not aware of any overtly racist policies on the part of Biden/Harris, they're comfortable with people who are full-blown advocates of Critical Race Theory, and (we're really opening a can of worms here) CRT is straight up racism repackaged, masquerading as a compassionate solution to racism.


As a private individual, refusing to rent apartments and flats to people based on their race.
As a president, refusal to abide by a judge's orders because she was "Mexican" (she was born in Indiana), placing executive orders to ban immigrants from certain nations (because of the context of him saying we needed more Norwegians and fewer people from "shithole countries", despite arguments that there was no basis of race, context is everything). Tweeting "I love hispanics!" as a caption of a photo of him eating a taco bowl is also tonedeaf to the point of negative racial stereotyping.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> They're shitty white supremacists if they advertise themselves as anti-racist and welcoming of everybody right on their website, AND actually welcome everybody regardless of race, AND appoint a black Dominican leader. Doesn't seem like I have much reason to doubt them.
> 
> But that's beside the point because Trump denounced them.



Right so, again, we return to you naively taking people at their word exclusively or just trying to be obtuse for the sake of making everyone else in here look like they're overreacting.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Right so, again, we return to you naively taking people at their word exclusively or just trying to be obtuse for the sake of making everyone else in here look like they're overreacting.



Walk me through this. What's naive or obtuse about believing that a group welcomes men of all races and sexual orientations when they both advertise that they do so on their official website, AND have tons of non-white members, AND a black leader? You're really going to have to explain how that works.

Also, please explain what the point would be if we set this bizarre discrepancy aside.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Walk me through this. What's naive or obtuse about believing that a group welcomes men of all races and sexual orientations when they both advertise that they do so on their official website, AND have tons of non-white members, AND a black leader? You're really going to have to explain how that works.
> 
> Also, please explain what the point would be if we set this bizarre discrepancy aside.



So you just concentrate on Enriquo Tarrio, and leave out Gavin McInnes and Kyle Chapman, or the history of racist/sexist/homophobic language in interviews and on social media by accident, or your research just ends at their wikipedia page or what?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> So you just concentrate on Enriquo Tarrio, and leave out Gavin McInnes and Kyle Chapman, or the history of racist/sexist/homophobic language in interviews and on social media by accident, or your research just ends at their wikipedia page or what?



I don't know a single thing about Kyle Chapman, but I'm fairly familiar with Gavin Minnes - are you saying he's a racist? That would be news to me. He also isn't involved with the group anymore, which matters, of course, whether or not it has any effect on how racist the Proud Boys are or aren't. 

You still haven't explained how them having a diverse set of members, as advertised, is... what - some kind of front, or something? What is it? How am I being obtuse?

And, again, if we set this aside, what was your point going to be?


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Gavin Minnes - are you saying he's a racist?



"Muslims have a problem with inbreeding. They tend to marry their first cousins…and that is a major problem here because when you have mentally damaged inbreds — which not all Muslims are, but a disproportionate number are — and you have a hate book called the Koran…you end up with a perfect recipe for mass murder."

“We brought roads and infrastructure to India and they are still using them as toilets. Our criminals built nice roads in Australia but aboriginals keep using them as a bed. The next time someone b------ about colonization, the correct response is ‘You’re welcome.’”

Those aren't racist quotes to you?


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> And, again, if we set this aside, what was your point going to be?



The more deviations you make from reality, the deeper this hole goes. I need to have a grasp of some cohesion in your logic before we can even get to the original debate.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t care if Trump is “the most not racist person ever” as he likes to say; he is a terrible president, a terrible person, and has been terrible for our country. I wish we could all stop talking about him because I could go the rest of my goddamn life without hearing his name again.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Xaios said:


> View attachment 87634



Are you perchance another one of “them?” 

You dare mock 18the Century Literature referencing ancient Druidic Rites! 

I hereby declare by decree-

What kind of memer are you?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> The "very fine people" thing is a completely fabricated media crisis. Perfect example of the BS I'm talking about. And before you feel tempted to write me off as a secret Trump apologist, I don't really care about him - I just don't like seeing everybody being whipped into a hysterical frenzy to the point where people are brawling in the streets. Convincing half the country that the other half are white supremacists and that the President is Hitler apparently has that effect. Again, the media is cancer.
> 
> Anyway, I was a bit careless in calling this a 9 minute compilation - it has a bit of "libtards destroyed!!" for dramatic effect that I could do without. But, at least the first half is worth watching:




gTFo! You’re reaching pretty hard to find some chains to pull... why is that exactly?

The lame duck POTUS told the Proud Boys directly to “stand back and stand by” because “someone’s got to deal with Antifa” 

(r wing boogaloos started the violence and destruction btw, look it up)

He also said he’s the “best president since Abraham Lincoln” or some shit. And “I’ve done more for black people than any President” 

All this BS from the guy who’s family has been promoting and profiting from redlining for generations.

STFU man. 

the media is not to blame for the criminal actions of many members of government, or reporting on any of their actions! 

That’s such a tired ignorant theory...


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> "Muslims have a problem with inbreeding. They tend to marry their first cousins…and that is a major problem here because when you have mentally damaged inbreds — which not all Muslims are, but a disproportionate number are — and you have a hate book called the Koran…you end up with a perfect recipe for mass murder."
> 
> “We brought roads and infrastructure to India and they are still using them as toilets. Our criminals built nice roads in Australia but aboriginals keep using them as a bed. The next time someone b------ about colonization, the correct response is ‘You’re welcome.’”
> 
> Those aren't racist quotes to you?



They're clearly distasteful and hateful quotes at the very least.

Gavin attacks non-western cultures, and, as far as I can tell, much like the Proud Boys outline in their officially stated values, makes the distinction between culture and race

Islam is a religion, not a race. Maybe that's beside the point, and maybe we can agree his hot take here is bigoted in some way, but as presented, he's talking about a specific culture with (in his opinion) bad ideas and problematic behavior. That's decidedly different than saying they're inherently inferior. If there's additional context that pushes it firmly into racism territory, then I don't have any problem calling it just that. I'm not a fan of Gavin McInnes. I can't imagine thinking what he said here, for what it's worth.

The second bit is more "the west is the best" stuff. Not really about racial differences, but about cultural differences, and as noted earlier, the Proud Boys believe the "West is the Best." You might say that this isn't a real distinction and that I'm being lenient or ignorant to a problematic extent, but coupled with the fact that they do very clearly welcome people of all racial backgrounds into their club, the only thing that matters is that *they* see the distinction between culture and race. Is it stupid and silly? Sure, but it's debatable whether or not it's overtly racist.

But anyway, again, he's no longer part of the group.

Like I said, we're going way around the point. If we set this aside (whether that means I agree with you for the sake of argument, or outright), what does the Proud Boys have to do with this discussion?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> gTFo! You’re reaching pretty hard to find some chains to pull... why is that exactly?
> 
> The lame duck POTUS told the Proud Boys directly to “stand back and stand by” because “someone’s got to deal with Antifa”
> 
> (r wing boogaloos started the violence and destruction btw, look it up)
> 
> He also said he’s the “best president since Abraham Lincoln” or some shit. And “I’ve done more for black people than any President”
> 
> All this BS from the guy who’s family has been promoting and profiting from redlining for generations.
> 
> STFU man.
> 
> the media is not to blame for the criminal actions of many members of government, or reporting on any of their actions!
> 
> That’s such a tired ignorant theory...



Watch the clip of him saying "stand back and stand by." Chris Wallace asks him to tell white supremacists to "stand down" and Trump asks who, specifically, they want him to address. When they suggest the Proud Boys, he says "Proud Boys, sand back and stand by" before quickly going right back to Antifa. He was pretty obviously trying to use Wallace's language, and fucked it up (like he often does). 

If that doesn't satisfy you, there's a clip of him from the very next day being asked what he meant. Without hesitation he said "stand down and let law enforcement do their job. Everybody needs to stand down and stand back while law enforcement does their job - they have to do their job." He went on to say that he doesn't even know who the Proud Boys are. And he probably doesn't, because they're a lame gang.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> what does the Proud Boys have to do with this discussion?


 
Hmmm ....a registered Extremist group also recognized as a Hate group that you seem to be defending for some reason have been supported and encouraged by the POTUS. 

That’s some messed up bullshit!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> Hmmm ....a registered Extremist group also recognized as a Hate group that you seem to be defending for some reason have been supported and encouraged by the POTUS.
> 
> That’s some messed up bullshit!



I in no way defended them. I simply stated what seem to be the facts about them. Fuck them, for all I care.

And they weren't encouraged by the POTUS.

This neatly demonstrates the problem we have in this country.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> Watch the clip of him saying "stand back and stand by." Chris Wallace asks him to tell white supremacists to "stand down" and Trump asks who, specifically, they want him to address. When they suggest the Proud Boys, he says "Proud Boys, sand back and stand by" before quickly going right back to Antifa. He was pretty obviously trying to use Wallace's language, and fucked it up (like he often does).
> 
> If that doesn't satisfy you, there's a clip of him from the very next day being asked what he meant. Without hesitation he said "stand down and let law enforcement do their job. Everybody needs to stand down and stand back while law enforcement does their job - they have to do their job." He went on to say that he doesn't even know who the Proud Boys are. And he probably doesn't, because they're a lame gang.



When exactly did you start believing anything Trump says? 

Was it before or after he said “Wuhan Flu” was going to “disappear like a miracle” this weekend for months on end? 

Or that we should inject bleach? 

I can’t believe I’m even entertaining this nonsense! 

lmao


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> When exactly did you start believing anything Trump says?
> 
> Was it before or after he said “Wuhan Flu” was going to “disappear like a miracle” this weekend for months on end?
> 
> Or that we should inject bleach?
> 
> I can’t believe I’m even entertaining this nonsense!
> 
> lmao



It's not a matter of believing what he says. We're talking about baseless claims made about him. And the truth matters, even if it means clearing his name when you hate him with every fiber of your being.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> And they weren't encouraged by the POTUS.



Well Proud Boys just said the other day we’re not standing by anymore.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> It's not a matter of believing what he says. We're talking about baseless claims made about him. And the truth matters, even if it means clearing his name when you hate him with every fiber of your being.



Do you mean you or you? 

Why would anyone want to clear his name? 

Are you trying to get a job as his lawyer? 

I hear he’s hiring- his current attorneys aren’t doing a very good job of it!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> Well Proud Boys just said the other day we’re not standing by anymore.



I'll take your word for it, but read my reply a few posts up. Trump denounced them and clarified that he wants them to "stand down" and stop getting in the way of law enforcement. He also stated repeatedly that he doesn't even know who the Proud Boys are, so if these idiots want to continue thinking that he was giving them supportive orders, we'll just have to turn it over to law enforcement.


----------



## Mathemagician

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html

Just sharing the link above. When trump says “on both sides” he’s almost always defending horrendous actions. In this case his own where he continued to dig in and say the Central Park 5 were guilty. The same 5 innocent kids who he took out full page ad for and called for the death penalty. 

So I mean, this doesn’t look like it stems from anything other than that gosh-damn racism.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> Do you mean you or you?
> 
> Why would anyone want to clear his name?
> 
> Are you trying to get a job as his lawyer?
> 
> I hear he’s hiring- his current attorneys aren’t doing a very good job of it!



Because the truth matters. Did you skip that part? There's no difference between pushing bullshit about someone you hate, and about someone you love.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> Because the truth matters. Did you skip that part? There's no difference between pushing bullshit about someone you hate, and about someone you love.



bullshit/truth/hate/love...

this is getting spiritual man...

are you a religious type? 

I thought we were talking about politics!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> bullshit/truth/hate/love...
> 
> this is getting spiritual man...
> 
> are you a religious type?
> 
> I thought we were talking about politics!



You're starting to sound like a bot.

Truth especially matters in politics.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're starting to sound like a bot.
> 
> Truth especially matters in politics.


Are you Christian?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Mathemagician said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html
> 
> Just sharing the link above. When trump says “on both sides” he’s almost always defending horrendous actions. In this case his own where he continued to dig in and say the Central Park 5 were guilty. The same 5 innocent kids who he took out full page ad for and called for the death penalty.
> 
> So I mean, this doesn’t look like it stems from anything other than that gosh-damn racism.



I can't stop you from believing that there's a connection between this (attached article) and the Central Park 5 ordeal, but there's no mention of it here.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> They're clearly distasteful and hateful quotes at the very least.
> 
> Gavin attacks non-western cultures, and, as far as I can tell, much like the Proud Boys outline in their officially stated values, makes the distinction between culture and race
> 
> Islam is a religion, not a race. Maybe that's beside the point, and maybe we can agree his hot take here is bigoted in some way, but as presented, he's talking about a specific culture with (in his opinion) bad ideas and problematic behavior. That's decidedly different than saying they're inherently inferior. If there's additional context that pushes it firmly into racism territory, then I don't have any problem calling it just that. I'm not a fan of Gavin McInnes. I can't imagine thinking what he said here, for what it's worth.
> 
> The second bit is more "the west is the best" stuff. Not really about racial differences, but about cultural differences, and as noted earlier, the Proud Boys believe the "West is the Best." You might say that this isn't a real distinction and that I'm being lenient or ignorant to a problematic extent, but coupled with the fact that they do very clearly welcome people of all racial backgrounds into their club, the only thing that matters is that *they* see the distinction between culture and race. Is it stupid and silly? Sure, but it's debatable whether or not it's overtly racist.
> 
> But anyway, again, he's no longer part of the group.
> 
> Like I said, we're going way around the point. If we set this aside (whether that means I agree with you for the sake of argument, or outright), what does the Proud Boys have to do with this discussion?



With all due respect, I kinda get what you're after, where this is about dissecting things to where "A+B implies C" but because they're not explicitly _the same exact thing_, you can't say A+B=C.

You can disparage a religion that's disproportionately of a particular race, you can disparage multiple countries native populations that are also of a particular race or races, you can imply they're culturally backward and the culture you identity with is not, and they share a common appearance in contrast to yours, but that's doesn't EXPLICITLY make you a racist or a white supremacist.

You can get that granular if you want but by your own concessions, it's a distinction without a difference.

So that's what this Trump thing is about? Everything Trump does that disproportionately negatively effects non white communities is entirely about the specifics of that one event, with no cumulative effect because he says "I'm not racist" and he "disavowed" (always after he was pressured to) groups that are racist (but they're not racist, just the the majority of their leadership are on record saying religiously and culturally bigoted things). Cool, super edgy. 

Funny to me that same standard doesn't apply to "straight up racism repackaged" in Critical Race Theory. But you know, double standards and hypocrisy aren't some kind of new concept among Trump supporters, so I guess thanks for coming in here to confirm what we all already knew. You sure showed us all how wrong we are.


----------



## Randy

Also, Indian/Jamaican Kamala Harris? Super supportive of racism. Proud Boys? Not racist because the current leader is Cuban.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> With all due respect, I kinda get what you're after, where this is about dissecting things to where "A+B implies C" but because they're not explicitly _the same exact thing_, you can't say A+B=C.
> 
> You can disparage a religion that's disproportionately of a particular race, you can disparage multiple countries native populations that are also of a particular race or races, you can imply they're culturally backward and the culture you identity with is not, and they share a common appearance in contrast to yours, but that's doesn't EXPLICITLY make you a racist or a white supremacist.
> 
> You can get that granular if you want but by your own concessions, it's a distinction without a difference.
> 
> So that's what this Trump thing is about? Everything Trump does that disproportionately negatively effects non white communities is entirely about the specifics of that one event, with no cumulative effect because he says "I'm not racist" and he "disavowed" (always after he was pressured to) groups that are racist (but they're not racist, just the the majority of their leadership are on record saying religiously and culturally bigoted things). Cool, super edgy.
> 
> Funny to me that same standard doesn't apply to "straight up racism repackaged" in Critical Race Theory. But you know, double standards and hypocrisy aren't some kind of new concept among Trump supporters, so I guess thanks for coming in here to confirm what we all already knew. You sure showed us all how wrong we are.



You stretched everything I said here. Let me restate it such that you can't as easily do so: Proud Boys claim to not care what your racial makeup is as long as you believe that western culture is superior to all others. 

Now, you still haven't tied Proud Boys to Trump in a way that's relevant to the discussion. Still curious about that. But, which policies or moves of his have disproportionately displaced racial minority groups in a way that can't reasonably be attributed to anything other than racism?

And, no double standard here - Critical Race Theory is just plain racism. It elevates racial identity above the individual. All problems of racism spring from that predisposition.

I'll say once again: I'm no Trump supporter. I just don't like the downstream consequences of the mistakes being made here, and neither do you.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Critical Race Theory is just plain racism. It elevates racial identity above the individual. All problems of racism spring from that predisposition.



Ah, a Kanye West-ite. Reverse racism. You're only inferior because you accept people telling you that you need their help. People trying to help you are racist. That's deep.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> : I'm no Trump supporter.



Trump Apologist, my mistake.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> Trump Apologist, my mistake.




If you keep going at him with logic like this we are about 5 posts away from "Trump was just being sarcastic"


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Ah, a Kanye West-ite. Reverse racism. You're only inferior because you accept people telling you that you need their help. People trying to help you are racist. That's deep.



I didn't say any of that, or mean any of that. Do you always just make knee jerk assumptions in discussions, and then assert them condescending? 

What do you know about Critical Race Theory?



Randy said:


> Trump Apologist, my mistake.



You skipped the point, and I'm starting to think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion. I'll restate it: this isn't about Trump - this is about how we, collectively, behave when enough of us buy into the sort of horror you're convinced of. This isn't a game. The facts matter.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> this isn't about Trump - this is about how we, collectively, behave when enough of us buy into the sort of horror you're convinced of. This isn't a game. The facts matter.



I haven't figured out if this is supposed to be a conclusion or a premise. Is there some kind of overarching explanation that goes to this? We're all wrong about what's going on, so what is it and what are we supposed to do about it? So far we have that Donald Trump isn't racist and CRT is. I don't even know if this two things are relevant to this "truth" you're trying to usher us to, but those seem to be the two things you're adamant about. So, go for it, connect the dots, red pill us.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're starting to sound like a bot.
> 
> Truth especially matters in politics.



Truth: I AM A BOT

Prove me wrong...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Imagine having such the urge to be the "true thinker" that you choose "Trump and Proud Boys totally aren't racist, guys" as the hill to die on.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Earlier in this thread, there was the question along the lines of "do you believe everyone who supports Trump is racist?" The answer is "no, but that doesn't stop them with at least being okay with it or in the I-don't-give-a-fuck-he's-your-president-camp." Let's be real here, the only time Trump supporters ever gave a smidgen of a flying fuck off a bridge about foreigners was when they made sure their boy got in office. So let's say for the sake of argument that Russia helped Trump get in office while domestic meddling helped Biden get into office. What that implies is they're perfectly okay with making sure that someone who fits their dangerous ideals MUST be in office AT ALL costs, while the country itself cannot make sure that it rids itself of a tyrant. But wait, I forgot. His supporters claim there was no tampering from Russia, right? So how sure can they be that there was domestic tampering from Dems to get Biden in office? There is literally more fucking evidence of a pandemic happening all around us, and some countries even having beaten it for the most part (even though it's a 'Murican Lib'ral conspurasuh) than the US tampering to make sure Biden gets office. Virus? Nah, that's fake, it's just a cold. A cosmic Jewish zombie that blah blah blah, you know the rest if you've been alive long enough? Perfectly fucking sane.


----------



## narad

Still pretty sure anytime critical race theory enters the discussion, it's because of Jordan Peterson podcasts.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Still pretty sure anytime critical race theory enters the discussion, it's because of Jordan Peterson podcasts.



Ding ding ding


----------



## diagrammatiks

narad said:


> Still pretty sure anytime critical race theory enters the discussion, it's because of Jordan Peterson podcasts.



2 rules of life. Benzos.
Beef.

Win.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Because the truth matters. Did you skip that part? There's no difference between pushing bullshit about someone you hate, and about someone you love.



Well, I, for one, think I get you. I appreciate the exercise of going through this, since these discussions so quickly go from fact to feeling.

But, that said, it seems that there is no serious doubt that the Proud Boys are a dangerous hate group and that Trump egged them on. The idea that his doing so was unintentional is somewhat laughable to many, based on his history of brashness and such, but even if we forget about that: a) you take his comment at face value, and it was a threat, or b) you consider that he might not have meant what he said, but then, with the context of his other statements calling for action against his political opponents, and it's a threat. Either road you go down, you eventually get to the conclusion that he meant that as a threat.

As for Trump's views on race, I think that is also very easily researched and settled. My response to you earlier was buried, but, at least as a private individual, he had been at the heart of racist corporate policies in his casinos and at the heart of racist leasing policies with his real estate. His actions as president did nothing to reverse those ideas, and his rhetoric fell in lock step with his previous actions. Again, if you have the patience to review his history for more than 2-3 minutes, you'll get to solid racism.

That leaves either a) his supporters agree with him or b) his supporters are willing to disagree, but look past that because of other policy agreements. So then, the question is what policy agreements? Abortion? The guy didn't bat an eye when he used covid treatments that were directly made from embryonic stem cells. Gun rights? Trump's administration prosecuted at a rate of Federal gun procedural crimes higher than any other adminstration. Trump also openly encouraged congress to pass more gun regulations. So what, then? More conservative judges on the supreme court?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

We could keep going around this all day. I think my suggestion is simple: there's a real world/political value placed on the idea that Trump is racist, or hateful in some irredeemable way, etc.. That idea took on a life of it's own at some point, and the majority of people holding it hold it without bothering to investigate it. When you look into any of the individual claims being made to substantiate the premise, it begins to fall apart.

That sounds ridiculous to someone who's already convinced, but as somebody who isn't, and who genuinely does not like the guy, I assure you that you don't need him to be either a white supremacist or in league with white supremacists to dislike him enough to vote against him.

Again, the reason why I'm even bothering to make this argument is because the sensationalism around him has made millions of people absolutely rabid, which has, in turn, emboldened his base in the push-back effort, and now we're in a truly dangerous tribal cold war of sorts (which sometimes breaks out into actual violence). I'm calling it as I see it. Being in the hyper minority doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## sleewell

Im sure there are good people on both sides of a klan rally too. lets have a balanced and sane conversation with this person:


----------



## USMarine75

@Adam Of Angels , I appreciate your willingness to debate/argue/espouse your beliefs. Much like conservatives that go on Bill Maher, you’re in the Lion’s Den on here, and it would be easy for you to just flame the majority of members who are obviously not on your side.

I also get why (if you are truly in the middle) you can’t stand either side that’s in their bubble. But where I disagree (maybe I wasn’t clear earlier, which was why you thought I was setting up strawman arguments) - I agree both sides are in an information/news bubble, but one side far more so:


One side believes the president is corrupt and should stand trial; the other espouses locking up his opponents, “traitors” from his own party, and the press. They're openly calling for violence against these people (and then had to issue a blanket statement saying no wait maybe don't).
Dems have been hypocrites about covid (looking at you, Gavin!). But, wlive in one of the only countries that has politicized mask-wearing (thanks largely to him) which is largely to blame for us “winning” at worldwide covid deaths.

I hope you can see these things aren’t equal? Not even close. It’s like my wife slapping me, so I give her a spin kick to the throat with a steel toe boot. I mean there’s good people on both sides, right?


For those of you that don’t understand why almost 75M people voted for Trump, you should hate-watch this movie:




https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08M5CK96V/?tag=sevenstringorg-20

It’s equal parts propaganda and an infomercial for Christianity. But this will show you the depth of what you’re up against and why Trumpism isn’t going anywhere after Jan 20th at noon.


----------



## narad

I don't see why it is above-all important to establish whether Trump is racist or if the groups that he sometimes is coy in distancing himself from are racist. Bottom-line, Trump's administration has been a boon for racists, and all sorts of anti-semitic and xenophobic thought. Would anyone actually disagree with that? The people presumably were always there, but having an administration with a culture of, at best, turning the other cheek when these folks come out of the woodwork, is a big smear on the reputation of the country and the presidency.

Like fine, when backed into a corner he will formally condemn certain racist things, but that's not what I want in a president. The president should be a moral compass, to as much as one can be when making tough decisions.

The other thing about Trump is that, maybe he's not a racist, but he's on the side of history that the racists are on, *and does not apologize for it*. It's 2020, and he doesn't see anything wrong with those Central Park Five ads. You call for the death of five innocent young boys and you don't want to reconsider your position?? Of all the hills to die on! Like a normal, non-racist person (IMO) would probably admit that those ads were the wrong thing to do. But then I guess I am blurring the lines between him being a racist and him being a piece of shit, but either way, this is not presidential.


----------



## possumkiller

Naw guys, it was all a bad dream. Now that he is leaving office, let's just forget about it all and move on with our lives. Stop trying to act like racist, homophobic, xenophobic, religious extremist, white supremacists that rally around the president, administration, and political party that demonstrate the same qualities are bad people. They are our american brothers and sisters so you guys are just going to have to learn to live with them and be tolerant.


----------



## SpaceDock

A Trump apologist saying “truth matters” has to be the most 2020 thing ever.


----------



## TedEH

Adam Of Angels said:


> but I'm fairly familiar with Gavin Minnes - are you saying he's a racist?


I didn't know him by name, but I googled him - and yeah, there's some pretty blatant racist nonsense connected to this guy. If you can't find it, it's because you're actively avoiding it, or denying it. There are quotes from him all over the place talking about things like "white genocide" etc.



Adam Of Angels said:


> Proud Boys claim to not care what your racial makeup is as long as you believe that western culture is superior to all others.


Can we back up and process this one for a second? "It's not your _raaace_ we don't like, it's your _culture_. Totally different, guys." 

You can do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to justify it, but you're still selectively categorizing and devaluing people - which is the core of what racism is - whether you're looking literally at race or tangentially at culture or heritage or beliefs or whatever else you want to use just so you can avoid saying it's about "race".

Re-framing things so that it falls under a different category of discrimination is still discrimination.


----------



## sleewell

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florid...0201111-kp4cr7l5pbdnxguwyb3xq4m63e-story.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/not-n...wants-group-to-fully-embrace-white-supremacy/


yeah i am not sure its just a culture thing or whatever other terrible argument that you want to try to use.


----------



## Randy

Alright, back to our regularly scheduled program of agreeing with eachother on everything.

Wikipedia page for Biden’s new Covid czar scrubbed of politically damaging material


"Jeff Zients, the man President-elect Joe Biden has put in charge of his administration’s response to Covid-19, "fell in love with" the culture at Bain & Co. He later founded his own private equity firm, Portfolio Logic. He joined the board of Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. One chief executive on Obama’s Jobs Council remarked that he thought Zients, then a top Obama aide, was a Republican.

That was the Jeff Zients people read about on Wikipedia. At least, until a few months ago.

At the top of the section about Zients’ role in advocating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which faced left-wing opposition, the firm included Zients’ argument that it was “the most progressive trade agreement there’s ever been.” His amorous quotes about Bain were deleted and replaced with a description of the company as a “management consulting firm that provides advice to public, private, and non-profit organizations.”

They added that Zients left Facebook “over differences with company leadership over governance and its policies around political discourse” although Zients has never said that publicly. The transition team has declined several POLITICO requests for interviews with Zients about why he left Facebook."


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Alright, back to our regularly scheduled program of agreeing with eachother on everything.
> 
> Wikipedia page for Biden’s new Covid czar scrubbed of politically damaging material
> 
> 
> "Jeff Zients, the man President-elect Joe Biden has put in charge of his administration’s response to Covid-19, "fell in love with" the culture at Bain & Co. He later founded his own private equity firm, Portfolio Logic. He joined the board of Facebook after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. One chief executive on Obama’s Jobs Council remarked that he thought Zients, then a top Obama aide, was a Republican.
> 
> That was the Jeff Zients people read about on Wikipedia. At least, until a few months ago.
> 
> At the top of the section about Zients’ role in advocating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which faced left-wing opposition, the firm included Zients’ argument that it was “the most progressive trade agreement there’s ever been.” His amorous quotes about Bain were deleted and replaced with a description of the company as a “management consulting firm that provides advice to public, private, and non-profit organizations.”
> 
> They added that Zients left Facebook “over differences with company leadership over governance and its policies around political discourse” although Zients has never said that publicly. The transition team has declined several POLITICO requests for interviews with Zients about why he left Facebook."


Well, this dude sounds like a fine and upstanding citizen. Way to not hire a bunch of corporatist, vulture capitalist, money grubbers for your team, Biden. Excellent work.

Can I get a sanity check from our Biden cheerleaders on when it's OK to start voicing our disappointment?


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Sidney Powell encouraging Republicans in Georgia to boycott the runoff  Gift that keeps on giving.



Add Lin Woods, esq. (not to be confused with Elle Woods, esq.) to the list also.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/maga-georgia-civil-war-trump-senate-republicans-442776

"At the center of the conflict is pro-Trump trial lawyer Lin Wood. His advocacy for President Donald Trump — and his unsubstantiated claims of election fraud — have been so extreme that he’s now taken to publicly discouraging people from voting for Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, arguing that the runoff elections are already rigged."


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Add Lin Woods, esq. (not to be confused with Elle Woods, esq.) to the list also.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/maga-georgia-civil-war-trump-senate-republicans-442776
> 
> "At the center of the conflict is pro-Trump trial lawyer Lin Wood. His advocacy for President Donald Trump — and his unsubstantiated claims of election fraud — have been so extreme that he’s now taken to publicly discouraging people from voting for Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, arguing that the runoff elections are already rigged."


I can't wait for the runoffs with record low Republican turnout which the Republicans caused by complaining about the elections being pointless because they are already rigged cause the Republicans to say the elections were rigged. It's rigception. It's rigs all the way down.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TedEH said:


> I didn't know him by name, but I googled him - and yeah, there's some pretty blatant racist nonsense connected to this guy. If you can't find it, it's because you're actively avoiding it, or denying it. There are quotes from him all over the place talking about things like "white genocide" etc.
> 
> 
> Can we back up and process this one for a second? "It's not your _raaace_ we don't like, it's your _culture_. Totally different, guys."
> 
> You can do whatever mental gymnastics you want to try to justify it, but you're still selectively categorizing and devaluing people - which is the core of what racism is - whether you're looking literally at race or tangentially at culture or heritage or beliefs or whatever else you want to use just so you can avoid saying it's about "race".
> 
> Re-framing things so that it falls under a different category of discrimination is still discrimination.



I'm not a fan of writing off complex value systems out of hand, so don't mistake my explanation of Proud Boy's perspective for my own.

However, there's a point worth raising here: if you're trying to be reasonable, acknowledge that you (justifiably) have no tolerance for bigotry, which is very much a de facto part of many cultures. If one's culture regularly ostracizes and even murders certain races, gay people, transgender people, disobedient women, people of varying religious backgrounds, people with certain haircuts, people that make certain kinds of music, people that say certain things, or punishes what any rational person deems an arbitrary difference, and this is true by their own admission rather than our assumptions, then I won't exactly think poorly of you for ranking that culture below one that embraces individuality and free expression. We're talking about value systems and ideas here, not natural tendencies that certain races are helplessly bound to, and it's irrational to say that all ideas are equal. Do we disagree on this? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts. It's entirely possible that I'm making a mistake here.

I don't know any Proud Boys (don't want to), and am perfectly comfortable accepting that they allow bad actors with shitty prejudices into their club, and am even willing to accept that they're being intentionally misleading/putting on a subversive face so that they can carry out their racist agenda in secret. But my point was that if they're welcoming all races but rejecting people (not races) with values that are incompatible with theirs, "racist" may not necessarily be an accurate charge.

And again, this is beside the point, because Trump denounced them several times, even though he admitted that he doesn't know who they are (which is probably the more important thing to recognize). We have to assume that he's 100% lying to get around that, and if we're going to do that, there's absolutely no point in having this discussion - we're just operating in bad faith, however we justify it.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not a fan of writing off complex value systems out of hand, so don't mistake my explanation of Proud Boy's perspective for my own.
> 
> However, there's a point worth raising here: if you're trying to be reasonable, acknowledge that you (justifiably) have no tolerance for bigotry, which is very much a de facto part of many cultures. If one's culture regularly ostracizes and even murders certain races, gay people, transgender people, disobedient women, people of varying religious backgrounds, people with certain haircuts, people that make certain kinds of music, people that say certain things, or punishes what any rational person deems an arbitrary difference...



Taking just this piece of what you said alone, that sure sounds a lot like rather common/prevalent culture within the United States. Just saying...

I think it's also disingenuous to take many of the things that Trump has straight up lied about at face value. Take Trump out of the equation. The POTUS not knowing about a domestic terror organization is not plausible. How he says and does things are calculated moves.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

USMarine75 said:


> @Adam Of Angels , I appreciate your willingness to debate/argue/espouse your beliefs. Much like conservatives that go on Bill Maher, you’re in the Lion’s Den on here, and it would be easy for you to just flame the majority of members who are obviously not on your side.
> 
> I also get why (if you are truly in the middle) you can’t stand either side that’s in their bubble. But where I disagree (maybe I wasn’t clear earlier, which was why you thought I was setting up strawman arguments) - I agree both sides are in an information/news bubble, but one side far more so:
> 
> 
> One side believes the president is corrupt and should stand trial; the other espouses locking up his opponents, “traitors” from his own party, and the press. They're openly calling for violence against these people (and then had to issue a blanket statement saying no wait maybe don't).
> Dems have been hypocrites about covid (looking at you, Gavin!). But, wlive in one of the only countries that has politicized mask-wearing (thanks largely to him) which is largely to blame for us “winning” at worldwide covid deaths.
> 
> I hope you can see these things aren’t equal? Not even close. It’s like my wife slapping me, so I give her a spin kick to the throat with a steel toe boot. I mean there’s good people on both sides, right?



The majority of people on the Right do not want anybody to be violent - like most Americans on both sides, they want to live in peace, and for the country to be a safe place for their loved ones. The Right sees Antifa and the more radicalized arms of the BLM movement and assume that the entirety of the Left is behind them, and the Left sees the various militia groups and vocal crazies on the Right and assumes that the entirety of the Right is behind them. 

Similarly, most people on the Right are not full-sale convinced that everybody but Trump is corrupt and that the 2020 election is characterized by widespread, systematic voter fraud - but they are skeptical, distrustful of the establishment, and that's made worse when the question of voter fraud is raised then met with an absolute refusal to investigate on the other side. Where I line up with them is, if there's any doubt, we should put those doubts to rest as much as we possibly can. Like it or not, we all have to live with each other, and we absolutely must make an effort to restore confidence in the system to a greater degree. Afterall, it's not as if the Left hadn't called the integrity of our elections into question for the last 4 years. We *can* squash this drama, at least for the most part, but we have to swallow our pride, set aside our tribal biases, and put all of the cards on the table where everyone can see them. This might surprise you, but I'm hopeful that when Biden gets in there (assuming he does, as is likely), he makes moves toward Unity as promised.

About Covid cases/deaths: The US is not actually leading on a per capita basis, which is the only metric that we should be looking at.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> And again, this is beside the point, because Trump denounced them several times, even though he admitted that he doesn't know who they are (which is probably the more important thing to recognize). We have to assume that he's 100% lying to get around that, and if we're going to do that, there's absolutely no point in having this discussion - we're just operating in bad faith, however we justify it.



I'm less interested in his support of them than I am in their support of him. Why do you think they're so adamant about that? All three significant figures in that group (Tarrio, McInnes, Chapman) all campaigned for Trump, Tarrio in particular was a somewhat official Trump campaign person in 2020.

If we have kinda of chiseled away with the fluff on the group to what their core purpose is collectively and individually, why do they insist that Donald Trump is their guy? That would put Trump's policies under a magnifying glass wouldn't it?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> Taking just this piece of what you said alone, that sure sounds a lot like rather common/prevalent culture within the United States. Just saying...
> 
> I think it's also disingenuous to take many of the things that Trump has straight up lied about at face value. Take Trump out of the equation. The POTUS not knowing about a domestic terror organization is not plausible. How he says and does things are calculated moves.



I'm of the conviction that he has diarrhea of the mouth/has no filter, and one of my main criticisms of him from the get-go is that he isn't calculated enough. 

Proud Boys might be classified as a domestic terrorist group (I don't know), but so far, they're primarily guilty of showing up where Antifa types are rallying and then starting fights. I don't want any of that from either side, but it's not as if they're cooking up plans that would by all means make it to the President's desk. Most people have no idea who the Proud Boys are, or at least didn't at the time he was first confronted about them publicly. We can agree to disagree here, but I think it's perfectly plausible that he either hadn't heard of them, or had forgotten about them on account of not having much reason to remember them. Regardless, he disavowed them in no uncertain terms.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Never argue with an apologist with a Sophist's angle of attack. This is just diluting an ideal like its fucking 100X homeopathy and attacking ideas that virtually nobody outside of the internet holds. The worst form of enlightened centrism. Arguing with that is a waste of time when the person doesn't actually value objective facts and has their own skewed conception of logic. The goal posts will continue to shift, nothing will be answered directly, and the whole intent is to frustrate whom is viewed as opposition. Don't bother, you'll never actually get anywhere with an "I'm not defending Trump/whatever, buuuuut..." type person.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> I'm less interested in his support of them than I am in their support of him. Why do you think they're so adamant about that? All three significant figures in that group (Tarrio, McInnes, Chapman) all campaigned for Trump, Tarrio in particular was a somewhat official Trump campaign person in 2020.
> 
> If we have kinda of chiseled away with the fluff on the group to what their core purpose is collectively and individually, why do they insist that Donald Trump is their guy? That would put Trump's policies under a magnifying glass wouldn't it?



For what it's worth, I know tons of people that not only voted for him, but were REALLY hoping that he won re-election, but simultaneously acknowledge him as a divisive figure with problematic qualities, and wish we had been presented with better candidates. This calls back to South Park's "giant douche vs. a shit sandwich" bit. More to the point, there are a lot of people that think the other side is so dangerous, they felt morally obligated to get behind Trump. 

On the other hand, who you're supported by isn't necessarily indicative of who you are. Richard Spencer endorsed Biden before the election, for example. Granted, that's one guy, but it's doubtful that he's the only person that Biden wouldn't want support from, that indeed voted for him. 

I guess what I'm saying is, maybe there's something to be said about Proud Boys and the like getting behind Trump, but it's also entirely plausible that it doesn't amount to much.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm of the conviction that he has diarrhea of the mouth/has no filter, and one of my main criticisms of him from the get-go is that he isn't calculated enough.
> 
> Proud Boys might be classified as a domestic terrorist group (I don't know), but so far, they're primarily guilty of showing up where Antifa types are rallying and then starting fights. I don't want any of that from either side, but it's not as if they're cooking up plans that would by all means make it to the President's desk. Most people have no idea who the Proud Boys are, or at least didn't at the time he was first confronted about them publicly. We can agree to disagree here, but I think it's perfectly plausible that he either hadn't heard of them, or had forgotten about them on account of not having much reason to remember them. Regardless, he disavowed them in no uncertain terms.



You're making a gross generalization about general knowledge of hate groups by the CiC, which I don't think is appropriate when we are talking about someone that is supposed to have some of the deepest insights into our national security. Especially when his own DHS has labeled white power groups like the proud boys as the biggest terrorism concern domestically.

Recent DHS publication - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf

If it's genuinely willful ignorance on Trump's part (which I don't believe), that speaks to him being that much more unfit for office.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Never argue with an apologist with a Sophist's angle of attack. This is just diluting an ideal like its fucking 100X homeopathy and attacking ideas that virtually nobody outside of the internet holds. The worst form of enlightened centrism. Arguing with that is a waste of time when the person doesn't actually value objective facts and has their own skewed conception of logic. The goal posts will continue to shift, nothing will be answered directly, and the whole intent is to frustrate whom is viewed as opposition. Don't bother, you'll never actually get anywhere with an "I'm not defending Trump/whatever, buuuuut..." type person.



This is an empty criticism - a colorful way of dismissing people that either outright disagree with you, or don't hold a position you can easily take down. I'm open to both criticism and a change of mind. You just said, in so many words, that you are not.


----------



## Randy

Another member of the Trump fan club. What do they like about him so much?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> You're making a gross generalization about general knowledge of hate groups boy the CiC, which I don't think is appropriate when we are talking about someone that is supposed to have some of the deepest insights into our national security. Especially when his own FBI has labeled white power groups like the proud boys as the biggest terrorism concern domestically.
> 
> Recent DHS publication - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2020_10_06_homeland-threat-assessment.pdf
> 
> If it's genuinely willful ignorance on Trump's part (which I don't believe), that speaks to him being that much more unfit for office.



You won't find me giving you a hard time about that last line.

@Randy About David Duke - go back a page or two and watch the video I posted. There's an old video, years and years before 2016, of Trump calling David Duke a bigot and a racist.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> You won't find me giving you a hard time about that last line.
> 
> @Randy About David Duke - go back a page or two and watch the video I posted. There's an old video, years and years before 2016, of Trump calling David Duke a bigot and a racist.



To what extent does it matter what Trump said about Duke when he (and people like him) still align themselves very closely with the Trump agenda?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adam Of Angels said:


> There's an old video, years and years before 2016, of Trump calling David Duke a bigot and a racist.



I don't think that means what you think it means.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think that means what you think it means.



It does, given the context. He wasn't praising him for it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> To what extent does it matter what Trump said about Duke when he (and people like him) still align themselves very closely with the Trump agenda?



What's the Trump agenda?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is an empty criticism - a colorful way of dismissing people that either outright disagree with you, or don't hold a position you can easily take down. I'm open to both criticism and a change of mind. You just said, in so many words, that you are not.



C'mon, Man. There are literally a hundred examples of your Sophistry on full display on this forum, with many folks pointing out how you misrepresent an idea or flat out come up with your own completely disconnected version of an existing idea and attempt to disassemble it without success. You basically try to take apart a car with a lego toolset and people say "hey, that's not the right tool for this job" and you just say "No, look at the tool you are using. It's a #1 philips when you should be using a #2..." but the person you are referring to has a wrench in their hand.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> You won't find me giving you a hard time about that last line.
> 
> @Randy About David Duke - go back a page or two and watch the video I posted. There's an old video, years and years before 2016, of Trump calling David Duke a bigot and a racist.



Right, and again, I said I don't care about his interest in them, I care about their interest in him. Why is white nationalist support so heavily lopsided toward Trump if his policies are completely racially neutral?


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> @Randy About David Duke - go back a page or two and watch the video I posted. There's an old video, years and years before 2016, of Trump calling David Duke a bigot and a racist.



Trump very publicly commented about being troubled by David Duke's attempted entry into politics in the early 1990's. The quote you posted was from 2000.

Knowing that, how, then does Trump make the statement "I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him." in 2016, when running for president? The context was that a reporter asked if he would accept the support of the KKK, neonazis, and people like David Duke.

It doesn't add up, right?

Either Trump has amnesia, or one of the two contrasting sets of statements is false. Which do you believe?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Right, and again, I said I don't care about his interest in them, I care about their interest in him. Why is white nationalist support so heavily lopsided toward Trump if his policies are completely racially neutral?



Which of his policies are good for white nationalism?


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Which of his policies are good for white nationalism?


Off the cuff, banning muslims from entering the country. The KKK and other groups steeped in White Nationalism are very anti-any-religion-that-is-not-protestant-Christianity.

Also, extrajudicial arrests of BLM activists is a pretty big one.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> What's the Trump agenda?



I get that you're being purposefully evasive, but that question feels like a stretch to me.


----------



## TheBlackBard

This honestly feels like answering the typical Trump supporter. Present everything to them, they will find something else to make it seem like Trump isn't a bad guy. I mean, myself, what did it for me was his numerous sexual assault allegations, but I'm sure all, what number is it now? 40? 50? Yeah I'm sure ALL of them are lying...


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Trump very publicly commented about being troubled by David Duke's attempted entry into politics in the early 1990's. The quote you posted was from 2000.
> 
> Knowing that, how, then does Trump make the statement "I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him." in 2016, when running for president? The context was that a reporter asked if he would accept the support of the KKK, neonazis, and people like David Duke.
> 
> It doesn't add up, right?
> 
> Either Trump has amnesia, or one of the two contrasting sets of statements is false. Which do you believe?



He's 70-something years old. Half the time, he's altogether incoherent.


bostjan said:


> Off the cuff, banning muslims from entering the country. The KKK and other groups steeped in White Nationalism are very anti-any-religion-that-is-not-protestant-Christianity.
> 
> Also, extrajudicial arrests of BLM activists is a pretty big one.



There's 50-some majority Muslim countries. The travel ban in question restricted travel from 7, only 5 of which were Muslim majority. Even then, it wasn't a full-stop travel ban - there were exceptions. Do you think those details are meaningless? If so, why?

How many BLM activists that weren't guilty of rioting were arrested by federal officers, for protesting?



JSanta said:


> I get that you're being purposefully evasive, but that question feels like a stretch to me.



I'm not being "purposefully evasive." What is his agenda?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TheBlackBard said:


> This honestly feels like answering the typical Trump supporter. Present everything to them, they will find something else to make it seem like Trump isn't a bad guy. I mean, myself, what did it for me was his numerous sexual assault allegations, but I'm sure all, what number is it now? 40? 50? Yeah I'm sure ALL of them are lying...



No, this is what a discussion looks like. You make a claim, and if I find something in it to be inconsistent with the facts as far as I can tell, I make a counter claim. Show me where I'm wrong specifically and I'll change my position without hesitation.

Can you guys really not wrap your head around somebody contesting a claim about Trump without actually supporting him politically? I have nothing to gain by faking it here.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> No, this is what a discussion looks like. You make a claim, and if I find something in it to be inconsistent with the facts as far as I can tell, I make a counter claim. Show me where I'm wrong specifically and I'll change my position without hesitation.
> 
> Can you guys really not wrap your head around somebody contesting a claim about Trump without actually supporting him politically? I have nothing to gain by faking it here.



I can, but I have yet to see you claim something substantive. Other than willful ignorance on the part of the President, what are you stating? What do YOU think his agenda is?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Once again, I submit that the media drummed most of this stuff up, because they have their agenda (or,, there's some other explanation that I don't quite understand). We wouldn't be talking about almost any of this if not for them. I could care less about Trump's personal success, but when this sort of reporting has such a profound effect on our country, I take issue with it.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> I can, but I have yet to see you claim something substantive. Other than willful ignorance on the part of the President, what are you stating? What do YOU think his agenda is?



I already have. It's been consistently met with general assumptions and skepticism about my motives rather than factual rebuttles.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

And, you brought his agenda up first. It's key to the point you were making. What is his agenda?


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> I get that you're being purposefully evasive, but that question feels like a stretch to me.


Maybe the idea is that Trump's agenda was such a large list of goals that different people could be referring to different things.



TheBlackBard said:


> This honestly feels like answering the typical Trump supporter. Present everything to them, they will find something else to make it seem like Trump isn't a bad guy. I mean, myself, what did it for me was his numerous sexual assault allegations, but I'm sure all, what number is it now? 40? 50? Yeah I'm sure ALL of them are lying...


To Trump's supporters, though, everything against Trump is a liberal conspiracy: the sexual assault allegations (just as they were against Cavanaugh), the impeachment, the election, etc. And "prove that it's not a conspiracy" is just not addressable, so the mindset becomes unfalsifiable. It truly looks like a cult from the outside; however, there are a large enough number of believers that is superscedes cult status.



Adam Of Angels said:


> He's 70-something years old. Half the time, he's altogether incoherent.
> 
> 
> There's 50-some majority Muslim countries. The travel ban in question restricted travel from 7, only 5 of which were Muslim majority. Even then, it wasn't a full-stop travel ban - there were exceptions. Do you think those details are meaningless? If so, why?
> 
> How many BLM activists that weren't guilty of rioting were arrested by federal officers, for protesting?



Thanks for responding. I was beginning to think you had muted me.

So amnesia it is.
I think that if Trump's campaign promise was a muslim ban, and Trump's commentary on his executive order was that it was as good of a muslim ban as he could get, that, in terms of his intent, it was a muslim ban. If it was ineffective due to red tape, that doesn't mean anything for his intent or what he had promised his supporters explicitly.
And we cannot know how many were guilty as long as the arrests continue to be outside of the normal channels of guaranteed due process. If you are arrested extrajudiciously, it's not a problem of whether you did it or not anymore, because the nature of the arrest removes the process of determining guilt. And that is what the problem is, the fact that determining the facts no longer matters.

The amnesia about David Duke would, in a vacuum, maybe be believable, which was why I told everyone to give Trump a chance after he was elected. However, in seeing his other actions, they were more consistent with him being an asshole to him having amnesia about his political opponents of past events. If he had ever forgotten about HRC or Rubio, then it'd make more sense. As it is, that theory just doesn't make sense with any other events.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> And, you brought his agenda up first. It's key to the point you were making. What is his agenda?



Fair enough. Based on the pollicization of scientific fact, his willingness to direct inflammatory language against anyone he either doesn't like or disagrees with, and his embrace of racist rhetoric, I think his only agenda is to drive divisions in this country while enriching and protecting those closest and most loyal to him.

State yours in a sentence. I'm curious how you would boil down what he has done/tried to do the past 4 years.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> Fair enough. Based on the pollicization of scientific fact, his willingness to direct inflammatory language against anyone he either doesn't like or disagrees with, and his embrace of racist rhetoric, I think his only agenda is to drive divisions in this country while enriching and protecting those closest and most loyal to him.
> 
> State yours in a sentence. I'm curious how you would boil down what he has done/tried to do the past 4 years.



We're getting hung up on the "embrace of racist rhetoric" part. Please give me examples that can't be more easily explained as something less malicious.

I'll have you know that I was extremely, extremely vocally against Trump in 2016. Those sentiments never changed, but the contrast between my sentiments, and the allegations thrown at him daily for the last 4 years, has been so stark that I continually find myself in this awkward position of picking apart said allegations. Why? Again, because it's dangerous to have so many people under the impression that the President is Hitler.

His agenda is whatever makes his Presidency look like an overwhelming success. He is *the* narcissistic megalomaniac. Howard Stern put it best, when Trump was initially running. He said "this is the worst job in the world for Donald, because all he wants is everyone's love." Before your eyes roll out of your head, that's a very bad desire for a President to have. It means a massive complex is guaranteed. As expected, he spent the last 4 years on Twitter attacking everybody that framed him as something other than praiseworthy.

So yeah, I think it's obvious he just wants to be Good King President in the history books.


----------



## bostjan

How does one defend this public statement? https://mobile.twitter.com/realdona...swomen-go-back-counties-they-came/1728253001/


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> How does one defend this public statement? https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150381394234941448?ref_url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/14/trump-tells-congresswomen-go-back-counties-they-came/1728253001/



That's just him trying to make people like him, duh.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> We're getting hung up on the "embrace of racist rhetoric" part. Please give me examples that can't be more easily explained as something less malicious.
> 
> I'll have you know that I was extremely, extremely vocally against Trump in 2016. Those sentiments never changed, but the contrast between my sentiments, and the allegations thrown at him daily for the last 4 years, has been so stark that I continually find myself in this awkward position of picking apart said allegations. Why? Again, because it's dangerous to have so many people under the impression that the President is Hitler.
> 
> His agenda is whatever makes his Presidency look like an overwhelming success. He is *the* narcissistic megalomaniac. Howard Stern put it best, when Trump was initially running. He said "this is the worst job in the world for Donald, because all he wants is everyone's love." Before your eyes roll out of your head, that's a very bad desire for a President to have. It means a massive complex is guaranteed. As expected, he spent the last 4 years on Twitter attacking everybody that framed him as something other than praiseworthy.
> 
> So yeah, I think it's obvious he just wants to be Good King President in the history books.



Fairly decent collection of documented evidence of him being racist: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
I mean, in the first debate with Biden, he wouldn't unequivocally white supremacy, it says a lot about him, even if eventually he was pressured into making a statement against it.

I actually agree with your last points, FWIW. I just think that him being a racist, narcissistic asshole, makes it impossible for him to be universally praised. When your buddies are the Viktor Orbans and Jair Bolsonaro of the world, who you keep as company is who you yourself are.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> How does one defend this public statement? https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150381394234941448?ref_url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/14/trump-tells-congresswomen-go-back-counties-they-came/1728253001/



Are there not totally crime infested, corrupt countries? I don't know who/where he's referring to, but I sincerely don't think it's racist or whatever to say that some countries are bad places to be. 

I don't think he should be saying it on Twitter, however. Actually, I don't think the President should be saying anything on Twitter.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

JSanta said:


> Fairly decent collection of documented evidence of him being racist: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history
> I mean, in the first debate with Biden, he wouldn't unequivocally white supremacy, it says a lot about him, even if eventually he was pressured into making a statement against it.
> 
> I actually agree with your last points, FWIW. I just think that him being a racist, narcissistic asshole, makes it impossible for him to be universally praised. When your buddies are the Viktor Orbans and Jair Bolsonaro of the world, who you keep as company is who you yourself are.



Well, we're still pivoting on the presupposition that he's racist.

If I go through the trouble of going down this Vox list and seeing what details I can find from unbiased sources, are you willing to potentially change your mind? Asking ahead of time because Vox isn't exactly an unbiased source.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> That's just him trying to make people like him, duh.



Curious what you thought of his Platinum Plan.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Are there not totally crime infested, corrupt countries? I don't know who/where he's referring to, but I sincerely don't think it's racist or whatever to say that some countries are bad places to be.
> 
> I don't think he should be saying it on Twitter, however. Actually, I don't think the President should be saying anything on Twitter.



He's directing that, ostensibly, at Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, also known as “the Squad.”
AOC was born in New York City.
Omar was born in Somalia.
Pressley was born in Cincinnati.
Tlaib was born in Detroit.

Telling brown people to "go back to the crime infested places from which they came," assuming those places are not the USA, is racist.


----------



## JSanta

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, we're still pivoting on the presupposition that he's racist.
> 
> If I go through the trouble of going down this Vox list and seeing what details I can find from unbiased sources, are you willing to potentially change your mind? Asking ahead of time because Vox isn't exactly an unbiased source.



Vox is not an unbiased source, that much we agree on. The links they have provided as evidence supporting that he is racist or at the very least supports racist policies/practices are not biased. Those are the facts.

Based on those sources of fact, are you willing to believe that he is racist, or at the very least supportive/has embraced racist language/policy?

I mean, do decent people mock disabled people during rallies?

EDIT: Regarding fact, I do recognize that some of the sources are based on what people have heard him say behind closed doors. I trust the NY Times as a credible source of information. I also trust peer reviewed publications and conference papers, because they are the foundations on which we push science and research forward.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Adam Of Angels said:


> No, this is what a discussion looks like. You make a claim, and if I find something in it to be inconsistent with the facts as far as I can tell, I make a counter claim. Show me where I'm wrong specifically and I'll change my position without hesitation.
> 
> Can you guys really not wrap your head around somebody contesting a claim about Trump without actually supporting him politically? I have nothing to gain by faking it here.




When you see buzzards up in the sky, circling something, ready to land, what does that usually mean? The fact of the matter is, there is so much stink coming from Trump himself, that how ANYONE with a functioning brain could possibly make an excuse for him is beyond me. You can take what Trump knows about leadership, decency, and morality, shove it up a gnat's ass and it'd rattle around like a BB in a boxcar. The stink normally comes from something, it doesn't just come out of thin air. The stink isn't a fart from a 70 year old man, it's because that 70 year old man is complicit in the activities of those with no morals, and those who believe that certain groups of people are sub-human based on their skin/sexuality/identity support this monster. When you have David Duke supporting you, clearly something is amiss.


----------



## bostjan

So, to recap:

History of blatant racism pre-presidency (anti-black policies in his casinos and flats, as two examples).
Continued racist public statements (above tweet as one example).
Attempted racist policies (muslim ban example).
Illegal extrajudicial arrests against protesters vocal against institutionalized racism (BLM arrests).

Can we put a bow on the racism thing yet?

If you know those things, which are not just unsubstantiated claims by individuals and are publicly documented, and you stand by the idea that Trump is not racist, then either we have vastly differing definitions of racism or you are simply ignoring the facts for rhetorical gain.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Omar was born in Somalia.


For the sake of clarity, it also bears mentioning that Ilhan Omar was only 12-13 when she moved to the US, which means that most of her substantive education, including regarding matters of civics and government, would have happened there, not in Somalia.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> So, to recap:
> 
> History of blatant racism pre-presidency (anti-black policies in his casinos and flats, as two examples).
> Continued racist public statements (above tweet as one example).
> Attempted racist policies (muslim ban example).
> Illegal extrajudicial arrests against protesters vocal against institutionalized racism (BLM arrests).
> 
> Can we put a bow on the racism thing yet?
> 
> If you know those things, which are not just unsubstantiated claims by individuals and are publicly documented, and you stand by the idea that Trump is not racist, then either we have vastly differing definitions of racism or you are simply ignoring the facts for rhetorical gain.



We're settling on those things all being racist, without a doubt? I haven't really gotten into the other things yet, but again, the Muslim Ban effected 10% or less of the Muslim world, and was a policy derived from a list of places the Obama administration had determined to pose credible threats. I'm not settling on that being obvious proof of racism.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

He only banned some Muslims? Even though he specifically made it known that he was instituting a Muslim ban in order to pander to a specific demographic of his supporters? If he is not a racist this only makes him an even more despicable person. Someone who uses racism and the language of racism in order to further secure his political stranglehold over a party.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> We're settling on those things all being racist, without a doubt? I haven't really gotten into the other things yet, but again, the Muslim Ban effected 10% or less of the Muslim world, and was a policy derived from a list of places the Obama administration had determined to pose credible threats. I'm not settling on that being obvious proof of racism.


Again, Trump had promised a muslim ban during his 2015-2016 campaign. That EO was his follow up.

If a guy in a white hood promised to murder a minority, then got stopped by the police on his way to do the deed, is he not racist?

That's a rather thin blonde Aryan hair to try to split, no?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Cyanide_Anima said:


> He only banned some Muslims? Even though he specifically made it known that he was instituting a Muslim ban in order to pander to a specific demographic of his supporters? If he is not a racist this only makes him an even more despicable person. Someone who uses racism and the language of racism in order to further secure his political stranglehold over a party.



He said he would impose a travel ban from countries where expected terrorists were traveling from. He used a list curated by the Obama Administration, and did not attempt to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

Wouldn't have been my move, but racism isn't the most coherent explanation.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> We're settling on those things all being racist, without a doubt? I haven't really gotten into the other things yet, but again, the Muslim Ban effected 10% or less of the Muslim world, and was a policy derived from a list of places the Obama administration had determined to pose credible threats. I'm not settling on that being obvious proof of racism.


Again, Trump had promised a muslim ban during his 2015-2016 campaign. That EO was his follow up.

If a guy in a white hood promised to murder a minority, then got stopped by the police on his way to do the deed, is he not racist?

That's a rather thin blonde Aryan hair to try to split, no?

Also, even if you ignore one exhibit in the case for being able to split hairs, does that make him not racist? Shall we ignore the other evidence?


----------



## vilk

Nvm


----------



## Adam Of Angels

vilk said:


> Ah-ah-ah!.... He didn't say "I hate n******", therefore not racist at all. Right, Adam?



This isn't a strawman argument at all. Good job.


----------



## bostjan

I think the matter whether Trump is racist or not is settled anyway.

Even if we are willing to split hairs over the most nuanced details ad infinitum, there are still the facts that he refused to rent residences to people based on their race, and refused to employ workers based on their race. He had not publicly repented for either of those, so he's racist.

And everything else, maybe to me, it's blatant enough, but, to other people, it's either not racist enough or only looks mostly like racism, but was actually not racism but stupidity. It doesn't take away from more solid evidence. It does add to other more solid evidence.

So, I'll ask again, can we agree that Trump is racist or not?


----------



## TedEH

Wow, this thread has really moved since I was last here. I'm going to skip a bunch of what I missed (for now) and just respond to the part that was directed at me:



Adam Of Angels said:


> However, there's a point worth raising here: if you're trying to be reasonable, acknowledge that you (justifiably) have no tolerance for bigotry, which is very much a de facto part of many cultures. If one's culture regularly ostracizes and even murders certain races, gay people, transgender people, disobedient women, people of varying religious backgrounds, people with certain haircuts, people that make certain kinds of music, people that say certain things, or punishes what any rational person deems an arbitrary difference, and this is true by their own admission rather than our assumptions, then I won't exactly think poorly of you for ranking that culture below one that embraces individuality and free expression. We're talking about value systems and ideas here, not natural tendencies that certain races are helplessly bound to, and it's irrational to say that all ideas are equal. Do we disagree on this? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts. It's entirely possible that I'm making a mistake here.



I agree with the vague premise that not all ideas are equal (in an "on paper" kind of way), but I disagree with this application of it, and the insinuation that white/western culture is not also riddled with those same problems. I also disagree with the insinuation that a person from a particular culture embodies every part of their culture and history at once. I also disagree that what you've described is the valuation system that best represents groups like the proud boys.

I'm a very naive person at times (as members of this forum can attest), but I think it's beyond naive to think that the Proud Boys have _actually_ united under the premise of championing things like womens rights or LGBT issues, etc.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Adam Of Angels said:


> This isn't a strawman argument at all. Good job.




He's got a point, though.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Curious what you thought of his Platinum Plan.



Why didn't it happen 4 years ago? October 2020 pledge comes across as desperation.


----------



## vilk

Adam Of Angels said:


> This isn't a strawman argument at all. Good job.


Wow, you're quick. I was actually trying to quote bostjan's link to where Trump told 3 brown skinned American born congresswomen to go back to their shithole countries, but I messed it up because I'm on my phone, that's why I deleted my comment.

You keep using the term "straw man" incorrectly. Regardless, my comment was only meant to highlight your absurdly high bar for what should be considered racist. You seem to think one would have to explicitly state that they are racist in order to qualify.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Why didn't it happen 4 years ago? October 2020 pledge comes across as desperation.



Can't you just say that about every policy?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't know who/where he's referring to



That made the news cycle (network, print, online, various places with varied stances) for weeks. If you're saying you never saw the story, but supposedly know what you're talking about at any point in this discussion, you're either arguing in very bad faith or from a position of ignorance.

Or you're full of shit.


----------



## Wuuthrad

He’s definitely full of shit, so full it’s clogging the ear holes, and simultaneously spewing out onto the forum!

It’s like a post holiday sewer break on the LES, a nasty amalgamation of everyones half digested subconscious ancestral Thanksgiving stew, and when it bursts, the stench never really goes away...

The worse it gets, everyone gets stuck trying to clean it up!


----------



## Wuuthrad

MO TRUTH!


----------



## Adam Of Angels

MaxOfMetal said:


> That made the news cycle (network, print, online, various places with varied stances) for weeks. If you're saying you never saw the story, but supposedly know what you're talking about at any point in this discussion, you're either arguing in very bad faith or from a position of ignorance.
> 
> Or you're full of shit.



There was a new "crisis" every single week, if not every day, for 4 years straght. I don't clearly remember all of them. I have a terribly memory to begin with. 

Also, I don't think I'm being rude in this thread. I can't say the same for everybody else. It's a real bummer.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adam Of Angels said:


> There was a new "crisis" every single week, if not every day, for 4 years straght. I don't clearly remember all of them. I have a terribly memory to begin with.
> 
> Also, I don't think I'm being rude in this thread. I can't say the same for everybody else. It's a real bummer.



Well, your premise is that they (various gaffes, crises, etc.) were mostly false or exaggerated, if you don't even remember them, especially the bigger ones (and this was definitely a "big one" in how much coverage it received and how blatant it was), how can you really argue one way or another?

I don't know if I'd call arguing in poor faith "rude" per se, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's part of a friendly exchange.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Fuck Unity. Change doesn’t come from acquiescence. Anyone who apologizes for Trump deserves little respect. 

Trump is actively trying to disenfranchise millions of Black and other Minority voters, only in places where he lost. 

Forget about personally racist beliefs, making excuses for systemic institutional racism is far beyond rude. I’ll be civil - it’s disgusting. 

But I get it:

Proud Boys is an equal opportunity extremist hate group! Lmao


----------



## SpaceDock

I think it’s getting real hard for people to have a polite conversation when your defending someone who actively chooses reality as it fits their narrative while you are actively choosing to remember what fits your narrative. 

Alternative facts, alternative history, I am waiting for my alternative to this god awful president.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

MaxOfMetal said:


> Well, your premise is that they (various gaffes, crises, etc.) were mostly false or exaggerated, if you don't even remember them, especially the bigger ones (and this was definitely a "big one" in how much coverage it received and how blatant it was), how can you really argue one way or another?
> 
> I don't know if I'd call arguing in poor faith "rude" per se, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's part of a friendly exchange.



I'm not arguing in bad faith or "full of shit." 

I remember virtually everything else brought up in this thread. I often take breaks from media and social media, and it's entirely possible that this story broke during one of those periods. I don't know - I'm just not familiar with this story. There's plenty of explanations that don't entail "bad faith" or being "full of shit" - the rudeness is in going straight for the shittiest explanations. 

Anyway, besides the point, but I don't like Ilhan Omar much. She does come off as anti-American. Or, as she would call it, anti-Westernism. But she's punching up, so I guess that's not as bad as Trump saying that Somalia (assuming that's actually who he was referring to) is a bad/dangerous country.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

SpaceDock said:


> I think it’s getting real hard for people to have a polite conversation when your defending someone who actively chooses reality as it fits their narrative while you are actively choosing to remember what fits your narrative.
> 
> Alternative facts, alternative history, I am waiting for my alternative to this god awful president.



I don't remember one story. Go ahead and use that as an excuse to write everything I say off.

And I'm not defending Trump, per se - I'm pointing out that certain claims about him are false or exaggerated. There is a difference. Not a little one, but a clear difference.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm not arguing in bad faith
> 
> I don't like Ilhan Omar much. She does come off as anti-American.
> 
> But she's punching up, so I guess that's not as bad as Trump saying that Somalia (assuming that's actually who he was referring to) is a bad/dangerous country.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

By the way, I haven't been following this post-election drama much, as it seems like there's a hundred dozen claims made every day. Figured I'd wait to see how it shakes out.

But, this should be the make or break moment. If nothing is found, hopefully Trump and co. hush up and walk away with their tails between their legs.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Anyway, besides the point, but I don't like Ilhan Omar much. She does come off as anti-American. Or, as she would call it, anti-Westernism. But she's punching up, so I guess that's not as bad as Trump saying that Somalia (assuming that's actually who he was referring to) is a bad/dangerous country.



Ok. That's your opinion, and that's fine.

But Trump's statement was directed at many people. Identically one was born in another nation. Telling anyone to go back to the hellhole from where they came is just awful, and when that person was born in the USA, but has brown skin, that's just racist, man.

In a discussion about how not racist Trump is, the relevant part of that statement is how absolutely racist it is, not what your personal opinion is of one of the many targets of that statement.


----------



## narad

FWIW, I have a problem with the premise of this thread being that the media is losing money so it comes out with lies and exaggerations, directed at Trump, in order to boost sales or push a narrative. 

If I give Trump props for anything, it's understanding how to use the media to shape the narrative, to emphasize the things he wants to emphasize, and to quickly move past the coverage of events which are the most objectively real and critical of him. I think it's naive to put the blame on the media, like if Trump had just come into office during a period of record media profitability, there wouldn't have been a disproportionate amount of "crises" articles. Trump flooded the media with controversies, made crazy the new normal, and now we have to listen to how the FBI and CIA are part of a massive election fraud scheme, and now that feels pretty normal, too!

So even if we get past Trump's racist leanings, this seems like a faulty foundation for that whole set of arguments.

btw, my favorite Trump racisty leaning thing, is, ~"hey, there's a black presidential candidate! That liar must be from Africa!!"


----------



## vilk

I'm sorry but I cannot watch this video compilation of Trump saying "China" without cracking up.


----------



## SpaceDock

Kinda sad that Trump railing on China is what got so many people fired up, us taking back economic power from them. His trade war screwed over America far more than China. We are buying more of their cheap products than ever. Just a cruel twist of wait that COVID came from China and might be the historical death blow to ending America as the top influence of the last 100 years since WWI.


----------



## diagrammatiks

SpaceDock said:


> Kinda sad that Trump railing on China is what got so many people fired up, us taking back economic power from them. His trade war screwed over America far more than China. We are buying more of their cheap products than ever. Just a cruel twist of wait that COVID came from China and might be the historical death blow to ending America as the top influence of the last 100 years since WWI.



unclear if covid actually came from china.

What's super sad is that he actually tried tried to implement a lot of things these last few months...and then just kinda forgot about them?

ByteDance is literally calling the courts everyday being like hey does anyone know what's going on? are we banned? what's happening guys.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I don’t

*schadenfreude*

very often, but when I do it’s for an

IMPEACHED ONE TERM LOST THE POPULAR VOTE TWICE LAME DUCK PRESIDENT

Starts with a T

and ends with a P!

Heehaw!


----------



## sleewell

The way to combat China would have been to get a coalition of nations to band together to force their hand collectively. Tariffs were probably the worst possible idea and were just a tax placed on every American. The trade gap is worse now. If trump hadn't paid someone to get him through school he might have gotten to the sections where Hoover tried tariffs and failed miserably. 


It's funny that no one really talks about the billions we are now giving to farmers who have been decimated by trumps failed trade war. Kinda smells like socialism to me...


----------



## USMarine75

Trump mocked a handicapped reporter, shit on the US military, disparaged a war hero (McCain), and disparaged the longest serving and respected member of Congress (Dingell). 

He has a long and proven history of racist and xenophobic actions. 

He’s used the office to enrich himself and his family (his current “fundraising” where the majority goes in his pocket, all of his family in govt positions even though they couldn’t obtain clearances without him overriding). 

He’s manufactured false claims and attempted to convince Americans of the validity against all evidence to the contrary - election fraud, Hunter’s laptop, Kenyan Muslim Obama, Harris might not be legitimate, Biden-China, Killary/pizzagate/Q’anon, etc. 

Biden is a creepy old man who sniffed hair and supported (helped draft) the 1994 Crime Bill (which was bilateral 95-4-1 vote). 

One of these is not like the other and no matter how much you attempt to be a Trump apologist will change historical fact. There is NO evidence that holds up in court of any of the allegations of Trump, yet there has been tons of evidence supporting the allegations against Trump. 

Trump was impeached. He was not exonerated. The Muller Report alleged impropriety that should have been followed up on. The Removal Trial by the Senate was a sham. No evidence nor testimony was heard. Republican senators played with fidget spinners. Graham said he had already made up his mind Trump was innocent and refused to even look at the evidence. Devin Nunes, a US Representative on the Intelligence Committee, was running to Trump and briefing him on the investigation as it was happening. He was caught and his excuse was he was “briefing his boss”. Dafuq? His boss is Nancy Pelosi. Trump is not in his chain of command. Pelosi is the highest ranking member of The House. Nunes’ actions were criminal (same as FBI SA John Connolly) and he should have been impeached and removed himself.

No, the Dems and Republicans (I.e. Trump) are not comparable.


----------



## Drew

Adam Of Angels said:


> We're settling on those things all being racist, without a doubt? I haven't really gotten into the other things yet, but again, the Muslim Ban effected 10% or less of the Muslim world, and was a policy derived from a list of places the Obama administration had determined to pose credible threats. I'm not settling on that being obvious proof of racism.


That was his second Muslim ban, which was a more targeted attempt to impose border crossing controls on - if memory serves - five countries, that "just happened" to be Muslim majority, plus one or two countries added symbolically where the actual impact was going to be negligible, while also allowing exemptions for religious minorities fleeing persecution - i.e. the ban only applied if you were whatever the majority religion (cough, Muslim) happened to be in that country. 

This was the compromise proposal that managed to squeak past constitutional review, after the court tossed his initial attempt at just straight up trying to stop Muslims from anywhere from entering the country. The fact that there's a shred of plausible deniability in the second has everything to do with the fact after the courts system tossed his first, he had to water it down enough to make it *appear* to not target a religion.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Drew said:


> That was his second Muslim ban, which was a more targeted attempt to impose border crossing controls on - if memory serves - five countries, that "just happened" to be Muslim majority, plus one or two countries added symbolically where the actual impact was going to be negligible, while also allowing exemptions for religious minorities fleeing persecution - i.e. the ban only applied if you were whatever the majority religion (cough, Muslim) happened to be in that country.
> 
> This was the compromise proposal that managed to squeak past constitutional review, after the court tossed his initial attempt at just straight up trying to stop Muslims from anywhere from entering the country. The fact that there's a shred of plausible deniability in the second has everything to do with the fact after the courts system tossed his first, he had to water it down enough to make it *appear* to not target a religion.



He never attempted to ban entry by all Muslims. That didn't happen, at least as far as any of us can tell. The first ban he imposed effected the 7 countries I mentioned, and was done by Executive Order, so it's not as if he shot higher and the courts gave him the scraps of what he really wanted.

Islam isn't a race of people either. Something like 20% of the global population is Muslim, and is represented by a wide variety of ethnicities. Trump was clearly talking about the problem of radicalization and terrorism coming from a number of countries, and not attempting to target all Muslims. If there was an ongoing problem of radicalized white skin heads entering the country, I have a feeling you wouldn't bat an eye when a politician pumps the breaks on it. If it's a question of violent extremism of any sort, I don't see how this is any different. He used a list of places identified as plausible threats curated by the Obama administration when imposing his travel bans. It's completely disingenuous to conflate all of this with racism, when there's a clear rationale for it.

Again, this wouldn't have been my move, but making it something worse than it really is only causes unnecessary problems.


----------



## TedEH

You're trying really hard to play with semantics to get away from blatant prejudice.

As an outsider, most of the radicalized actions I see happening in the US lately come from "the majority" - from white people, from Christians, from Trump supporters, from groups that I can't think of a word for other than "activists", from police, etc. I can think of zero acts of what I'd call terrorism or radicalization off the top of my head that reached my attention during the last handful of years that I would attribute to minorities or immigrants.


----------



## TheBlackBard

USMarine75 said:


> Trump mocked a handicapped reporter, shit on the US military, disparaged a war hero (McCain), and disparaged the longest serving and respected member of Congress (Dingell).
> 
> He has a long and proven history of racist and xenophobic actions.
> 
> He’s used the office to enrich himself and his family (his current “fundraising” where the majority goes in his pocket, all of his family in govt positions even though they couldn’t obtain clearances without him overriding).
> 
> He’s manufactured false claims and attempted to convince Americans of the validity against all evidence to the contrary - election fraud, Hunter’s laptop, Kenyan Muslim Obama, Harris might not be legitimate, Biden-China, Killary/pizzagate/Q’anon, etc.
> 
> Biden is a creepy old man who sniffed hair and supported (helped draft) the 1994 Crime Bill (which was bilateral 95-4-1 vote).
> 
> One of these is not like the other and no matter how much you attempt to be a Trump apologist will change historical fact. There is NO evidence that holds up in court of any of the allegations of Trump, yet there has been tons of evidence supporting the allegations against Trump.
> 
> Trump was impeached. He was not exonerated. The Muller Report alleged impropriety that should have been followed up on. The Removal Trial by the Senate was a sham. No evidence nor testimony was heard. Republican senators played with fidget spinners. Graham said he had already made up his mind Trump was innocent and refused to even look at the evidence. Devin Nunes, a US Representative on the Intelligence Committee, was running to Trump and briefing him on the investigation as it was happening. He was caught and his excuse was he was “briefing his boss”. Dafuq? His boss is Nancy Pelosi. Trump is not in his chain of command. Pelosi is the highest ranking member of The House. Nunes’ actions were criminal (same as FBI SA John Connolly) and he should have been impeached and removed himself.
> 
> No, the Dems and Republicans (I.e. Trump) are not comparable.




But... but... Trump never outright said he hated black people, though!


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> I think the matter whether Trump is racist or not is settled anyway.
> 
> Even if we are willing to split hairs over the most nuanced details ad infinitum, there are still the facts that he refused to rent residences to people based on their race, and refused to employ workers based on their race. He had not publicly repented for either of those, so he's racist.
> 
> And everything else, maybe to me, it's blatant enough, but, to other people, it's either not racist enough or only looks mostly like racism, but was actually not racism but stupidity. It doesn't take away from more solid evidence. It does add to other more solid evidence.
> 
> So, I'll ask again, can we agree that Trump is racist or not?


 Yet the argument continues.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Here's the thing: if I contest each of the claims being made about Trump, line for line, and include evidence (assuming this is possible, for the sake of argument), then you guys are going to throw up your hands and say that *I'm* doing mental gymnastics - as if you've already ended the debate simply by stating what you and those who agree with you believe to be the facts. As if by having a response to each of your claims, I'm "splitting hairs" or bending over backward. The logic being, you have so many individual claims, that they couldn't possibly all be false - you couldn't possibly have an entire set of twisted claims - and if any number of them are true, the likelihood of any of the others being false plummets to near zero.

Doubtful that you'll outright find this take agreeable, but I think the majority of the responses I've received thus far are indicative enough.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's the thing: if I contest each of the claims being made about Trump, line for line, and include evidence (assuming this is possible, for the sake of argument), then you guys are going to throw up your hands and say that *I'm* doing mental gymnastics - as if you've already ended the debate simply by stating what you and those who agree with you believe to be the facts. As if by having a response to each of your claims, I'm "splitting hairs" or bending over backward. The logic being, you have so many individual claims, that they couldn't possibly all be false - you couldn't possibly have an entire set of twisted claims - and if any number of them are true, the likelihood of any of the others being false plummets to near zero.
> 
> Doubtful that you'll outright find this take agreeable, but I think the majority of the responses I've received thus far are indicative enough.




Ben is that you??


----------



## Jonathan20022

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's the thing: if I contest each of the claims being made about Trump, line for line, and include evidence (assuming this is possible, for the sake of argument), then you guys are going to throw up your hands and say that *I'm* doing mental gymnastics - as if you've already ended the debate simply by stating what you and those who agree with you believe to be the facts. As if by having a response to each of your claims, I'm "splitting hairs" or bending over backward. The logic being, you have so many individual claims, that they couldn't possibly all be false - you couldn't possibly have an entire set of twisted claims - and if any number of them are true, the likelihood of any of the others being false plummets to near zero.
> 
> Doubtful that you'll outright find this take agreeable, but I think the majority of the responses I've received thus far are indicative enough.



It's been an interesting read so far, and I 100% support people being accurate to their claims and pinning Trump for what he actually said/did.

The thing with racism is that it's not a meter that fills before you're considered to be one, all it takes is one instance of it with intent to classify any one individual a racist.

And that's why you're getting the reaction you are, you could 100% go point for point and disprove or even ground the instances. It won't matter, because even a single instance poisons any chance at viewing Trump in a positive light.

The part that I disagree with, is that conveying events accurately =/= a defense of.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Jonathan20022 said:


> It's been an interesting read so far, and I 100% support people being accurate to their claims and pinning Trump for what he actually said/did.
> 
> The thing with racism is that it's not a meter that fills before you're considered to be one, all it takes is one instance of it with intent to classify any one individual a racist.
> 
> And that's why you're getting the reaction you are, you could 100% go point for point and disprove or even ground the instances. It won't matter, because even a single instance poisons any chance at viewing Trump in a positive light.
> 
> The part that I disagree with, is that conveying events accurately =/= a defense of.



The problem, of course, is that if you start with the premise that Trump is a racist, you have no problem assuming an inference given even the faintest scent. A mountain of such inferences doesn't come close to a compelling argument to someone *not* starting with the same premise. It's easy to be wrong, and it seems goofy to me to accuse half the country of being dead wrong, and not realize that you just gave yourself a 50% chance of being right.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Here's the thing: if I contest each of the claims being made about Trump, line for line, and include evidence (assuming this is possible, for the sake of argument), then you guys are going to throw up your hands and say that *I'm* doing mental gymnastics - as if you've already ended the debate simply by stating what you and those who agree with you believe to be the facts. As if by having a response to each of your claims, I'm "splitting hairs" or bending over backward. The logic being, you have so many individual claims, that they couldn't possibly all be false - you couldn't possibly have an entire set of twisted claims - and if any number of them are true, the likelihood of any of the others being false plummets to near zero.
> 
> Doubtful that you'll outright find this take agreeable, but I think the majority of the responses I've received thus far are indicative enough.



Yeah, it's no fun when everyone gangs up.

Maybe if you and I had a one-on-one discussion, one of us might give a little ground to the other. Maybe not.

I think the splitting hairs comments are more because you are arguing a lot of points that maybe Trump's hatefully racist comments were stupid and unintentionally seemed racist, which is honestly a big stretch for most people to accept.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Yeah, it's no fun when everyone gangs up.
> 
> Maybe if you and I had a one-on-one discussion, one of us might give a little ground to the other. Maybe not.
> 
> I think the splitting hairs comments are more because you are arguing a lot of points that maybe Trump's hatefully racist comments were stupid and unintentionally seemed racist, which is honestly a big stretch for most people to accept.



*for most people that are already convinced that Trump is a racist to accept. 

I maintain that we don't need him to be a racist, let alone the monster that the CNN types would lead us to believe, for us to want to replace him with somebody like Joe Biden. I don't think that's a controversial position.


----------



## Wuuthrad

The media is not to blame for Trumps actions. Trump is a sexist bigot, and racist, albeit not by your definition of racist, and for that you need a better education.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Wuuthrad said:


> The media is not to blame for Trumps actions. Trump is a sexist bigot, and racist, albeit not by your definition of racist, and for that you need a better education.



You are *really* good at this. Thank you so much.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t think anyone really knows if Trump is a racist in his own heart, but come on.... quacks like a duck, man.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adam Of Angels said:


> *for most people that are already convinced that Trump is a racist to accept.
> 
> I maintain that we don't need him to be a racist, let alone the monster that the CNN types would lead us to believe, for us to want to replace him with somebody like Joe Biden. I don't think that's a controversial position.



Even if he himself actually is "the least racist" person like he says he is that fact that he will leverage other peoples racial feelings for political purposes is just as bad regardless of his actual beliefs.

Leave any race situations out of the assesment of the guy he is a con man who inherited an economy that was trending up got rich people a tax break and then had 4 years of graft corruption and scandal while dealing with nothing in the country just ripping up regulations which essentially equates to subsidizing companies with future natural resources.

When you take his general incompetence into account you then can no longer write off his racial misadventures as some form of misinterpreted 4d chess that people seem to want to try to do.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> *for most people that are already convinced that Trump is a racist to accept.
> 
> I maintain that we don't need him to be a racist, let alone the monster that the CNN types would lead us to believe, for us to want to replace him with somebody like Joe Biden. I don't think that's a controversial position.



I agree that Trump's racism is not his worst trait.

Trouble is, so many people, looking in the face of those several pieces of evidence pointing to Trump's racism, not only deny the racism, but argue the position that opposes the preponderance of evidence.

That suggests that those people are willing to abandon logic on a whim in order to support their feelings.


----------



## Hollowway

I think issues with Trump, as with many conservative issues, are tied pretty closely to the fact that conservatives seem to want to get their news from Fox and a couple of other sources. Studies have shown flat out that people who watch Fox News are less informed about current events than those who watch no news at all. You can tell when you're arguing with a conservative that falls into this category because they keep coming up with nonsensical arguments against basic human rights, against POC, against equality, against climate change, against sound economic policy, etc. Unfortunately they just can't be argued with, because they cannot fathom how they could be wrong, given that they've rarely been exposed to nuance or actual facts outside of their primary news sources. I've basically just given up arguing with people IRL or online, because there's no amount of sound science or economic study that can convince them that the talking head opinion guy they like isn't giving them accurate information.


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t think anyone really knows if Trump is a racist in his own heart, but come on.... quacks like a duck, man.



We're basically 8+ pages in on whether those sounds were quacks or more of a muffled bark.


----------



## Randy

Btw, super easy to excuse the guy's racism or the fire he stoked when you haven't been the victim of people fired up by it or worse, a victim of his racist policies directly.


----------



## TedEH

Adam Of Angels said:


> you have so many individual claims


There's a very simple explanation for why a whole bunch of small claims add up a single bigger claim: It's called a pattern.
If a person demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that falls in line with what a prejudiced person might do - even if you can find ways to write those individual instances off when considered entirely outside of any context - that's still pretty strong evidence of prejudice.


----------



## TheBlackBard

bostjan said:


> I agree that Trump's racism is not his worst trait.
> 
> Trouble is, so many people, looking in the face of those several pieces of evidence pointing to Trump's racism, not only deny the racism, but argue the position that opposes the preponderance of evidence.
> 
> That suggests that those people are willing to abandon logic on a whim in order to support their feelings.




Which is ironic, given they've spent the last few years referring to those people who use their feelings to have empathy for others and push for legislature to bring us closer to equality as snowflakes.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Okay, let's make a list here:

Racism backed up by several statements/policies.
Sexism backed up by statements.
Sexual assault allegations now in the 40's/50's?
Shady business practices.
Attempting to strip the rights of trans people in certain areas.

At what fucking point do you just throw your arms up and say "why am I even defending this piece of shit?"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TheBlackBard said:


> At what fucking point do you just throw your arms up and say "why am I even defending this piece of shit?"



Because some folks have an axe to grind.


----------



## USMarine75

I think I'm on @Adam Of Angels side on this. 

I don't think Trump is a racist. 

I think he likes the good ones.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TedEH said:


> There's a very simple explanation for why a whole bunch of small claims add up a single bigger claim: It's called a pattern.
> If a person demonstrates a pattern of behaviour that falls in line with what a prejudiced person might do - even if you can find ways to write those individual instances off when considered entirely outside of any context - that's still pretty strong evidence of prejudice.



That's *a* simple explanation. Another is confirmation bias. You can find find confirmation in literally everything a person says or does, without your premise being correct.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Adam Of Angels said:


> That's *a* simple explanation. Another is confirmation bias. You can find find confirmation in literally everything a person says or does, without your premise being correct.




You're absolutely correct. I'm sure all the signs that point to him being a racist are only there because he wants to have a bunch of people on an ERG website argue over whether or not he's actually racist. He's done the things he's done, said the things he's said, affecting the lives of others because... he's not REALLY racist, I mean c'mon! You can even use that with someone like Ted Bundy. Dude had loads of dead bodies hidden away, he'd talked about it in court and in interviews about all the things he's done, but did anyone actually SEE him kill/rape anyone? I think the jury is still out on that one.


----------



## USMarine75

Adam Of Angels said:


> That's *a* simple explanation. Another is confirmation bias. You can find find confirmation in literally everything a person says or does, without your premise being correct.





TheBlackBard said:


> You're absolutely correct. I'm sure all the signs that point to him being a racist are only there because he wants to have a bunch of people on an ERG website argue over whether or not he's actually racist. He's done the things he's done, said the things he's said, affecting the lives of others because... he's not REALLY racist, I mean c'mon! You can even use that with someone like Ted Bundy. Dude had loads of dead bodies hidden away, he'd talked about it in court and in interviews about all the things he's done, but did anyone actually SEE him kill/rape anyone? I think the jury is still out on that one.



Exactly. He's either being a contrarian or a troll at this point. His answers have all been disingenuous at best.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

There's no reason to post any links here but the facts are out there in plain view... biased/ unbiased, confirmed/ unconfirmed, verbatim/ out of context, etc, etc. And there are enough instances whether implied, tongue-in-cheek, or outright... where trump has spoken derogatorily about people of other races and ethnicity's. From verified documentation it is absolutely apparent that trump is prejudice of Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics at the very least. And picking his comments apart to suit a particular narrative is imo akin to defending that intolerance. His motivation for stating the things that he has may be debatable but that is beside the point.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Trump denies being racist says all his favourite rest room attendants are black.


----------



## TedEH

So now the defence against Trump being racist is "it's just a prank, bro?" ....?



Adam Of Angels said:


> That's *a* simple explanation.


Occam's Razor perhaps?


----------



## USMarine75

TedEH said:


> So now the defence against Trump being racist is "it's just a prank, bro?" ....?
> 
> 
> Occam's Razor perhaps?



He was kidding.

Used as an excuse for:

Drinking bleach cures COVID
Shining light inside of you cures COVID
Shooting someone walking down the street and he wouldn't go to jail.
China should hack Hillary to find the missing emails.

What else am I forgetting?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

TedEH said:


> So now the defence against Trump being racist is "it's just a prank, bro?" ....?
> 
> 
> Occam's Razor perhaps?



Occam's Razor points to confirmation bias and political narrative, not Trump being racist with the evidence being 5000 subtle indications that "you can totally see clear as day if you want to!" but not a single overt one.

I'm not being disingenuous. Just like the "very fine people" comment and the "muslim ban" being used for false charges of racism, the incidents being brought up here don't stick. You guys are making leaps to get to your conclusion, while thinking that your logic ought to be obvious to any sane and rational person.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

High Plains Drifter said:


> And there are enough instances whether implied, tongue-in-cheek, or outright... where trump has spoken derogatorily about people of other races and ethnicity's. From verified documentation it is absolutely apparent that trump is prejudice of Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics at the very least. And picking his comments apart to suit a particular narrative is imo akin to defending that intolerance.



Give me some examples of things he has said that are clearly indicative of his prejudice against Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics, that you don't have to stretch or pick apart to fit *your* narrative.

Just want to point out that equating disagreement here with defending intolerance is text book bad faith discourse.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> That's *a* simple explanation. Another is confirmation bias. You can find find confirmation in literally everything a person says or does, without your premise being correct.


Confirmation bias works both ways, so it is a point for neither side in and of itself.

You can't make a convincing argument by dropping one or two rhetorical buzzwords when anyone else has any sort of direct point.

Trump refused to employ workers due solely to their race, and it was documented as such. *Confirmation bias.*

Trump refuses to allow people to rent his properties, solely based on their race. *Occam's razor*

Trump says he refises to abide by the ruling of a judge, solely based on her race. *buzzword*

This is beyond the point of an arhument devolving into absurdity, because there are no defensible points even attempted.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> I agree that Trump's racism is not his worst trait.



I was, rather, trying to say that racism is too harsh a charge, and that we don't have to go that far to criticize and vote him out.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Confirmation bias works both ways, so it is a point for neither side in and of itself.



When there's *no* overt, clear evidence and only mind reading and liberty to draw inferences? That's a more obvious display of confirmation bias than when somebody is skeptical of an as-yet unverified claim.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> When there's *no* overt, clear evidence and only mind reading and liberty to draw inferences? That's a more obvious display of confirmation bias than when somebody is skeptical of an as-yet unverified claim.


But there *is* a *ton* of evidence. Saying over and over again that there is none, and ignoring the evidence that has been brought up again and again is just silly.


----------



## possumkiller

I really don't think it matters one donkey's doo da if he _is_ racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or xenophobic, or a paedophile, or not. His rabbit fan base that actually _are_ all of those things think he is and they are phoning at the mouth with pleasure over the same actions and statements that cause "sane and rational" people to think he is all of those things. He knows he can't just walk through the middle of Harlem wearing a sign that says, "I HATE N*****S!". For all I know, he could have black and brown mistresses and a bunch of mixed kids and secretly loves studying black heritage, but I doubt it. His family history, actions, and words say all that anyone needs to know. If trump hasn't convinced you that he is racist, that is your problem, not ours.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Trump refused to employ workers due solely to their race, and it was documented as such. *Confirmation bias.*
> 
> Trump refuses to allow people to rent his properties, solely based on their race. *Occam's razor*
> 
> Trump says he refises to abide by the ruling of a judge, solely based on her race. *buzzword



Let's stop the round and round. Let's start with these. Do we have undeniable, hard proof for these three claims?


----------



## bostjan

So, is it not racist to instruct your workers to mark a capital letter "C," for "colored" on the housing applications filed by black people and file them separately? Is it not racist to systematically deny those applications?

We have the testimony of the workers of that instruction. If the practice was that of just one or two workers, then the applications recieving those marks would be from just one or two workers.

Also, the reason it seems to go round and round is because you keep ignoring evidence posted.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> So, is it not racist to instruct your workers to mark a capital letter "C," for "colored" on the housing applications filed by black people and file them separately? Is it not racist to systematically deny those applications?
> 
> We have the testimony of the workers of that instruction. If the practice was that of just one or two workers, then the applications recieving those marks would be from just one or two workers.
> 
> Also, the reason it seems to go round and round is because you keep ignoring evidence posted.



Back up, and hold the criticism. Let's put evidence in front of us so there's no question. I promise, sincerely, that I will concede on these claims if we prove them.


----------



## Drew

Adam Of Angels said:


> Back up, and hold the criticism. Let's put evidence in front of us so there's no question. I promise, sincerely, that I will concede on these claims if we prove them.


If you mean the racial bias housing suit, that's a matter of public record:
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/4959...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case

Actual court docs if for some reason you haen't been sleeping well lately:
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf

It was one of the largest (monetary) housing discrimination settlements of its time, but in return for something like $100mm in damages, the Trumps were not required to admit guilt, just take a number of steps towards remediation and pay a (massive, in 1973 dollars) fine.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Back up, and hold the criticism. Let's put evidence in front of us so there's no question. I promise, sincerely, that I will concede on these claims if we prove them.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Vaw3VaP8KTrA5hxIu-rlk7uqr&cshid=1607271045333

You can, of course, find a lot more than this on paper, but this has it all electronically. It's the court's response to Trump's motion to dismiss the case, with the relevant information about the evidence I mentioned.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> So, is it not racist to instruct your workers to mark a capital letter "C," for "colored" on the housing applications filed by black people and file them separately? Is it not racist to systematically deny those applications?
> 
> We have the testimony of the workers of that instruction. If the practice was that of just one or two workers, then the applications recieving those marks would be from just one or two workers.
> 
> Also, the reason it seems to go round and round is because you keep ignoring evidence posted.





Drew said:


> If you mean the racial bias housing suit, that's a matter of public record:
> https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/4959...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case
> 
> Actual court docs if for some reason you haen't been sleeping well lately:
> https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf
> 
> It was one of the largest (monetary) housing discrimination settlements of its time, but in return for something like $100mm in damages, the Trumps were not required to admit guilt, just take a number of steps towards remediation and pay a (massive, in 1973 dollars) fine.



Which becomes a further indictment of Trump on policy and dog whistle rhetoric, because be spent this election cycle gutting fair housing requirements and telling people there were all these "bad people" trying to move into their neighborhoods.

This coming from a person who's already got a history of discriminatory housing practices, he well knows what he's doing. You have to really bend yourself into a pretzel to willfully ignore that.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Drew said:


> If you mean the racial bias housing suit, that's a matter of public record:
> https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/4959...ed-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case
> 
> Actual court docs if for some reason you haen't been sleeping well lately:
> https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0034.pdf
> 
> It was one of the largest (monetary) housing discrimination settlements of its time, but in return for something like $100mm in damages, the Trumps were not required to admit guilt, just take a number of steps towards remediation and pay a (massive, in 1973 dollars) fine.



I'm reading what I can about this. This is beside the point, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see anything about a monetary settlement, such that it was one of the largest at the time - the initial settlement entailed the Trumps making sure that their rental business policies were explicitly welcoming of people of all races, religions, etc.. The $100M you're referring to was actually the amount that Trump countersued the government for, over defamation claims.

But the evidence used to make this housing discrimination case is only made up of a small handful of claims/personal accounts. Nothing in writing to prove that there was any racially predicated discrimination policies, and it's noted that *most* employees who were interviewed said that they were unaware of any instructions to discriminate based on race. The only piece of physical evidence that anybody seems to point to is the practice of writing "C" on denied applications, with the presumption that "C" stands for "colored." However, what's far, far more plausible is that "C" is a grade, indicating a poor credit rating. The Trumps admitted that they were denying welfare recipients, and people choose to consider that as good as evidence that they REALLY meant black people, but that's just another jump.

Is this a smoking gun, in your estimation? Don't just throw your hands up and say I'm being dense or disingenuous for not being willing to accept the above as hard evidence. I'm asking you, do you think this is unequivocally closed to interpretation, and that the claims of a few alone constitute hard evidence?

If I'm missing a piece of evidence, or several, please share them here.


----------



## Randy

The ignore button draws ever closer.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm reading what I can about this. This is beside the point, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't see anything about a monetary settlement, such that it was one of the largest at the time - the initial settlement entailed the Trumps making sure that their rental business policies were explicitly welcoming of people of all races, religions, etc.. The $100M you're referring to was actually the amount that Trump countersued the government for, over defamation claims.
> 
> But the evidence used to make this housing discrimination case is only made up of a small handful of claims/personal accounts. Nothing in writing to prove that there was any racially predicated discrimination policies, and it's noted that *most* employees who were interviewed said that they were unaware of any instructions to discriminate based on race. The only piece of physical evidence that anybody seems to point to is the practice of writing "C" on denied applications, with the presumption that "C" stands for "colored." However, what's far, far more plausible is that "C" is a grade, indicating a poor credit rating. The Trumps admitted that they were denying welfare recipients, and people choose to consider that as good as evidence that they REALLY meant black people, but that's just another jump.
> 
> Is this a smoking gun, in your estimation? Don't just throw your hands up and say I'm being dense or disingenuous for not being willing to accept the above as hard evidence. I'm asking you, do you think this is unequivocally closed to interpretation, and that the claims of a few alone constitute hard evidence?
> 
> If I'm missing a piece of evidence, or several, please share them here.



An employee testified under oath that "C" stood for "colored." If you read the case, you see that there are other testimonies that Trump instructed to not rent to "colored" people. There were no reported marks of "A" for good credit, and there was established. I mean, if you are looking for a murder, you look for a smoking gun. If you are looking for racism, you look for other things, like offensive language, making fun of a person based on things out of their control, or systematic abuse based on skin color, you know, racist things.

Trump never admits anything. That's his game. If your standard is that he has to admit that he's racist, then you would never believe he's racist. If you look at the preponderance of evidence, though, he's a racist.

And, since you asked, frankly, yes, it is extremely dense to think that it is "far, far more plausible" that "C" means credit rating bad, in the face of multiple sworn testimonies of the opposite and no testimony at all that it meant what you just said.


----------



## USMarine75

Y'all feeding a troll.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> An employee testified under oath that "C" stood for "colored." If you read the case, you see that there are other testimonies that Trump instructed to not rent to "colored" people. There were no reported marks of "A" for good credit, and there was established. I mean, if you are looking for a murder, you look for a smoking gun. If you are looking for racism, you look for other things, like offensive language, making fun of a person based on things out of their control, or systematic abuse based on skin color, you know, racist things.
> 
> Trump never admits anything. That's his game. If your standard is that he has to admit that he's racist, then you would never believe he's racist. If you look at the preponderance of evidence, though, he's a racist.
> 
> And, since you asked, frankly, yes, it is extremely dense to think that it is "far, far more plausible" that "C" means credit rating bad, in the face of multiple sworn testimonies of the opposite and no testimony at all that it meant what you just said.



Show me the part where several employees testified that "C" stood for "colored".


----------



## Adam Of Angels

USMarine75 said:


> Y'all feeding a troll.



Seriously, drop it with this stuff. I outright said that I'm willing to completely agree with the assertion, assuming we put hard evidence on the table. I'm not willing to just jump to a conclusion - that may upset you, but whatever.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Just noting that I'm reading through the court files released by the FBI, and there's a whole bunch of statements from employees saying that they were unaware of any racial discrimination in the company's policies. One employee said that he knew of at least three black families that rented from the facility he worked in.

https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Now reading a statement from a former superintendent that was actually fired, but is claiming that he would personally meet with interested parties, and then hand their application to the rental office, but would never give any indication (either in writing, or verbally) of the race of the applicants.


----------



## Randy

Wow too bad you're not the fuckin judge in that case.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> The ignore button draws ever closer.


Already done. I have no idea why people here think it's on them to prove anything to this troll. Evidence is readily available for anyone with the motivation to look. He's either thick as fuck or a trump fan boy trying to get his jollies.


----------



## TheBlackBard

possumkiller said:


> He's either thick as fuck or a trump fan boy trying to get his jollies.




He's probably both.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> Wow too bad you're not the fuckin judge in that case.



Do you know what the judge ruled? Or do you not need to know that in order to make up your mind?

Anyway, I'm trying to have an adult discussion, and find the readily available evidence that possumkiller here is referring to. Feel free to help, if you would.


----------



## Randy

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you know what the judge ruled? Or do you not need to know that in order to make up your mind?
> 
> Anyway, I'm trying to have an adult discussion, and find the readily available evidence that possumkiller here is referring to. Feel free to help, if you would.



In cases like this, the defense routinely makes an effort to get the charges thrown out over and over and over again. It proceeded as far as it did and ended with a settlement because it got close enough to a decision and Trump knew he was going to lose, that happens in civil/criminal cases literally 90% of the time. If there was nothing there it would have been thrown out (ie: Trump's several election fraud cases). But you don't want to see that.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Randy said:


> In cases like this, the defense routinely makes an effort to get the charges thrown out over and over and over again. It proceeded as far as it did and ended with a settlement because it got close enough to a decision and Trump knew he was going to lose, that happens in civil/criminal cases literally 90% of the time. If there was nothing there it would have been thrown out (ie: Trump's several election fraud cases). But you don't want to see that.



Have you read these case files? I just went through about 30 - 40 sworn statements, and all but one said that they never heard of any racially discriminatory policies or practices within the company. Many of these people were actual minority tenants.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Just noting that I'm reading through the court files released by the FBI, and there's a whole bunch of statements from employees saying that they were unaware of any racial discrimination in the company's policies. One employee said that he knew of at least three black families that rented from the facility he worked in.
> 
> https://vault.fbi.gov/trump-management-company


Did you make it to the first document on the list? The one where the doorman testified that he was told by his employer (i.e. Trump Management) to tell black people that the rent was twice as high, so they'd go look elsewhere?

The testimony right after says that Trump told him not to rent to blacks. It's flat out...



> Trump told me not to rent to blacks. He also wanted me to get rid of the blacks that were in the building by telling them cheap housing was available for them at only $500 down payment


Did you make it to through the first umpteen pages where two different people, who were black, testified that they were told that there were no vacancies after showing up in person, after they had been told that there were plenty of vacancies over the phone? Or the part where the FBI tracked down a white person who rented exactly the apartment one of those black people had just previously been told was occupied, before the person who rented it had contacted them?

I mean, you must be reading something different than what you posted. No?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Did you make it to the first document on the list? The one where the doorman testified that he was told by his employer (i.e. Trump Management) to tell black people that the rent was twice as high, so they'd go look elsewhere?
> Did you make it to through the first umpteen pages where two different people, who were black, testified that they were told that there were no vacancies after showing up in person, after they had been told that there were plenty of vacancies over the phone? Or the part where the FBI tracked down a white person who rented exactly the apartment one of those black people had just previously been told was occupied, before the person who rented it had contacted them?
> 
> I mean, you must be reading something different than what you posted. No?



I read those, as well as (at this point) an additional 50 statements saying that they've heard of no such practices. Several of these statements are from actual black tenants, like I said, as well as some from employees tasked with delivering applications to the rental office. They said there is no space on the form for the race of the applicant. There's still a ton of files to read, so maybe they saved all of the good stuff for later. But if you read 50 statements all saying the same thing, and then 3 saying something else, what conclusion are you tempted to draw?


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> I read those, as well as (at this point) an additional 50 statements saying that they've heard of no such practices. Several of these statements are from actual black tenants, like I said, as well as some from employees tasked with delivering applications to the rental office. They said there is no space on the form for the race of the applicant. There's still a ton of files to read, so maybe they saved all of the good stuff for later. But if you read 50 statements all saying the same thing, and then 3 saying something else, what conclusion are you tempted to draw?


Dude, the very first file has exactly the testimony you asked someone else to provide!

How. Are. You. Not. Getting. This?



> Trump told me not to rent to blacks. He also wanted me to get rid of the blacks that were in the building by telling them cheap housing was available for them at only $500 down payment


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Dude, the very first file has exactly the testimony you asked someone else to provide!
> 
> How. Are. You. Not. Getting. This?



I asked you to show me the document with the statement about the "C" marking. Just haven't found that and want to see it.

I already knew people had made claims to the effect of having endured or partaken in discriminatory practices within Trump's company, before I started reading these files. I said that a handful of statements does not amount to unequivocal proof. But I also had no idea that there was 40+ statements denying any knowledge of discrimination. 

Again, if 50 people say that they never heard of any such discrimination, several of them being black tenants, and then 3 people say that they witnessed or experienced discrimination, what are you tempted to conclude?


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> I asked you to show me the document with the statement about the "C" marking. Just haven't found that and want to see it.
> 
> I already knew people had made claims to the effect of having endured or partaken in discriminatory practices within Trump's company, before I started reading these files. I said that a handful of statements does not amount to unequivocal proof. But I also had no idea that there was 40+ statements denying any knowledge of discrimination.
> 
> Again, if 50 people say that they never heard of any such discrimination, several of them being black tenants, and then 3 people say that they witnessed or experienced discrimination, what are you tempted to conclude?


Again, I'm just clicking on the link you shared. Most of it is pretty grainy, but I don't see anywhere yet where there are 50 (black) tennants who never heard of discrimination.
I'm seeing a bunch of testimonies from black people who were clearly bullied (p 5-12), and white people who were clearly not. I'm seeing a door man who testified to federal agents that he was instructed by his employer to send away black people (p 34-37). I'm seeing a rental supervisor (p 37-38) who was instructed by Trump flat out not to rent to blacks.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Do you know what the judge ruled? Or do you not need to know that in order to make up your mind?
> 
> Anyway, I'm trying to have an adult discussion, and find the readily available evidence that possumkiller here is referring to. Feel free to help, if you would.


It was settled out of court (favourable to the plaintiff) before the judge ruled.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> Again, I'm just clicking on the link you shared. Most of it is pretty grainy, but I don't see anywhere yet where there are 50 (black) tennants who never heard of discrimination.
> I'm seeing a bunch of testimonies from black people who were clearly bullied (p 5-12), and white people who were clearly not. I'm seeing a door man who testified to federal agents that he was instructed by his employer to send away black people (p 34-37). I'm seeing a rental supervisor (p 37-38) who was instructed by Trump flat out not to rent to blacks.



Look, I'm reading every single one of these sworn statements one by one, and I'm up to nearly 70 statements. All but 3 so far have said that they know of no discriminatory policies or practices. I didn't say there were 50 black tenants that gave statements, though at this rate, it very well could amount to that, as there's been at least 10 so far. One lady said it was ridiculous for anyone to ask her if there was a racially discriminatory policy seeing as how she lived there, and another said that she directed many of her black friends to apply for apartments at her complex because there were so many black families already living there.

This whole thing is falling apart more and more as I read on.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> It was settled out of court (favourable to the plaintiff) before the judge ruled.



The settlement entailed them clearly stating, in their written policies and advertisements, that people of all races, religions, etc. were welcome. I've seen nothing about any monetary settlements.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Look, I'm reading every single one of these sworn statements one by one, and I'm up to nearly 70 statements. All but 3 so far have said that they know of no discriminatory policies or practices. I didn't say there were 50 black tenants that gave statements, though at this rate, it very well could amount to that, as there's been at least 10 so far. One lady said it was ridiculous for anyone to ask her if there was a racially discriminatory policy seeing as how she lived there, and another said that she directed many of her black friends to apply for apartments at her complex because there were so many black families already living there.
> 
> This whole thing is falling apart more and more as I read on.


The cherry picking here is ridiculous.
You are ignoring the mounds of evidence that disprove your argument.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

bostjan said:


> The cherry picking here is ridiculous.
> You are ignoring the mounds of evidence that disprove your argument.



Dude, Jesus Christ, talk about cherry picking - there's at LEAST 50 statements saying that there's no discriminatory policies, several from black tenants that LIVED there, and you're pointing to 3 statements that say the opposite, and *I'm* cherry picking?

I'm done, guys. You're either trolling or crazy.


----------



## bostjan

Adam Of Angels said:


> Dude, Jesus Christ, talk about cherry picking - there's at LEAST 50 statements saying that there's no discriminatory policies, several from black tenants that LIVED there, and you're pointing to 3 statements that say the opposite, and *I'm* cherry picking?
> 
> I'm done, guys. You're either trolling or crazy.


I read only the first document in the link you posted, and there were no cases there of black people saying that there was no discrimination. I already told you what I read there. If the doorman clearly testified that he was instructed to tell blacks that rent is twice as much, where is evidence counter to that? What's his motive for lying to a federal agent about that?
If the supervisor testified that there was an instruction from Trump not to rent to blacks and to try to get rid of blacks that already lived there, where is the counter evidence? What is the motive to lie to the feds?
If you can send me to a page that has two independent testimonies of black people renting without discrimination, send it, and maybe it'd be worth reconsidering the first two testimonies I read from pages 5-12 of the first pdf. But, if I come across more on the way there, it pretty much counters the idea that it was just some sort of misunderstanding.

So, cite the pages, or else you are blatantly cherry picking. I sited the document and the page numbers and even direct words. And this is your argument that you chose and the source you chose, so it should be easy for you.


----------



## spudmunkey

Is it just me, or is "statements from black people who weren't lied to" a bit like asking getting statements from the women at a party that _weren't _drugged/raped?


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> Is it just me, or is "statements from black people who weren't lied to" a bit like asking getting statements from the women at a party that _weren't _drugged/raped?



I suppose pretty similar.

If Trump Management had had a racist policy, it'd be pertinent to bring up people who, according to the alleged policy, should have been disciminated against, but were not. Still, though, if there's a large enough number of people alleging discrimination, then you look for patterns.

Seriously, though, I urge anyone to read the document that @Adam Of Angels posted. As I said, some of it was illegible to me. Of that which I could clearly read, it was all stuff that paints a negative picture. Even if every word of what I couldn't make out was someone singing Trump's praises as a social justice warrior for equality, considering that 80% of it is legible and highly damning, I don't see how it could equal out neutral.

But, furthermore, if, asking for specific page numbers and file numbers of a text that is being heavily paraphrased to appear contrary to summaries available, and we're talking a bunch of files of scores of pages each, and the response is that I'm unreasonable, I think it's safe to assume that such passages aren't as name-clearing as they were made out to be.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## High Plains Drifter

Adam Of Angels said:


> Give me some examples of things he has said that are clearly indicative of his prejudice against Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics, that you don't have to stretch or pick apart to fit *your* narrative.
> 
> Just want to point out that equating disagreement here with defending intolerance is text book bad faith discourse.



"Laziness is a trait in Blacks”- This was published in the 1991 book "Trumped!"... written by former Trump employee John O’Donnell. Although there has been no verification of the statement outside of the book’s claim, Trump did not dispute the quote when asked about it in 1997.

"These aren’t people. These are animals. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are"- The president made this comment at a 2018 round-table about immigration in California according to White House records. 

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts"- The president tweeted this comment in May in reference to the protests in Minneapolis that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd.

"They should be executed"- Trump made this comment about a group of Black and Latino men wrongly accused of assaulting a white female jogger in 1989 in a news ad that he purchased in 1989. Asked about it again in 2019, he did not apologize for his comments.

"Proud boys: Stand back and stand by"- Trump made this comment during the first 2020 presidential debate in Cleveland, when asked whether he condemns white supremacy although he later condemned white-supremacist groups. 

"China virus"- Trump has repeatedly called COVID-19 the Chinese virus dating back to March.

"Kung flu"- The president first used the phrase to describe COVID-19 in June at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally. 

"Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S."- The president called for this in 2015, one day after Obama’s address from the Oval Office regarding the aftermath of a shooting in California. The shooter was an American citizen, born in the U.S., and his wife was born in Pakistan but was in the U.S. legally, NPR reported.

"Pocahontas"- The president used this slur towards Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren in 2017 during an NRA speech and has repeated it on numerous occasions.

"I have a great relationship with the Blacks"- Trump made this comment during a 2011 appearance on the Talk1300 radio show in New York.


I'm not going to keep digging. Like I said, this information is out there. Some of it is verified, some not but as an American voter, I will never support a man that makes these kinds of comments as well as so many other questionable and inflammatory statements. We at some point must take it upon ourselves to make the call as most racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc people aren't generally going to outright say "Oh, by the way... I hate blacks, homosexuals, etc". My heart and my mind tell me that trump is a bigot and a bully and that he objectifies women. It's not too difficult to connect the dots as he has repeatedly spoken and acted in ways that make me feel that this is true. There are certain things that I dislike about a lot of high-profile people but I don't blindly try to paint anyone into a corner. The proof is in the way that people conduct themselves.


----------



## Randy

Btw, this whole exercise was supposed to be leading us to this grand epiphany why painting Trump as a racist is the ACTUAL problem we're all facing, not the fallout from him actually being one. That explanation has still kinda lagged behind mysteriously.


----------



## TedEH

Adam Of Angels said:


> if 50 people say that they never heard of any such discrimination, several of them being black tenants, and then 3 people say that they witnessed or experienced discrimination, what are you tempted to conclude?


I'd be tempted to conclude that 3 people did witness discrimination, and 50 of them either didn't witness any (because it didn't apply to them), didn't care (because it didn't apply to them), or didn't feel like it was worth whatever confrontation or follow up might come after being honest. There's a stupid number of explanations for why you'd see that ratio.


----------



## TheBlackBard

High Plains Drifter said:


> "Laziness is a trait in Blacks”- This was published in the 1991 book "Trumped!"... written by former Trump employee John O’Donnell. Although there has been no verification of the statement outside of the book’s claim, Trump did not dispute the quote when asked about it in 1997.
> 
> "These aren’t people. These are animals. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are"- The president made this comment at a 2018 round-table about immigration in California according to White House records.
> 
> "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"- The president tweeted this comment in May in reference to the protests in Minneapolis that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd.
> 
> "They should be executed"- Trump made this comment about a group of Black and Latino men wrongly accused of assaulting a white female jogger in 1989 in a news ad that he purchased in 1989. Asked about it again in 2019, he did not apologize for his comments.
> 
> "Proud boys: Stand back and stand by"- Trump made this comment during the first 2020 presidential debate in Cleveland, when asked whether he condemns white supremacy although he later condemned white-supremacist groups.
> 
> "China virus"- Trump has repeatedly called COVID-19 the Chinese virus dating back to March.
> 
> "Kung flu"- The president first used the phrase to describe COVID-19 in June at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, rally.
> 
> "Total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S."- The president called for this in 2015, one day after Obama’s address from the Oval Office regarding the aftermath of a shooting in California. The shooter was an American citizen, born in the U.S., and his wife was born in Pakistan but was in the U.S. legally, NPR reported.
> 
> "Pocahontas"- The president used this slur towards Massachusetts Senator, Elizabeth Warren in 2017 during an NRA speech and has repeated it on numerous occasions.
> 
> "I have a great relationship with the Blacks"- Trump made this comment during a 2011 appearance on the Talk1300 radio show in New York.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to keep digging. Like I said, this information is out there. Some of it is verified, some not but as an American voter, I will never support a man that makes these kinds of comments as well as so many other questionable and inflammatory statements. We at some point must take it upon ourselves to make the call as most racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc people aren't generally going to outright say "Oh, by the way... I hate blacks, homosexuals, etc". My heart and my mind tell me that trump is a bigot and a bully and that he objectifies women. It's not too difficult to connect the dots as he has repeatedly spoken and acted in ways that make me feel that this is true. There are certain things that I dislike about a lot of high-profile people but I don't blindly try to paint anyone into a corner. The proof is in the way that people conduct themselves.




All of that is confirmation bias, clearly. Cherrypicking like a motherfucker. 

/sarcasm


----------



## bostjan

Property Supervisor said:


> Trump told me not to rent to blacks. He also wanted me to get rid of the blacks that were in the building by telling them cheap housing was available for them at only $500 down payment



I mean, that's the worst witness testimony you can ask for, if you're looking for evidence of racism.



Doorman said:


> (Superintendent name redacted) told me that, if a black person came to (the property) and inquired about an apartment for rent, and he, that is, (superintendent name redacted) was not there at the time, that I should tell him that the resnt was twice as much as it really was, in order that he could not afford the apartment.



After two or three consecutive stories about black people being told over the phone that there were apartments available, only to be turned away upon arrival on site (or on sight), and one story of a white person being given an apartment easily, this is classic pattern of systematic racial discrimination.

Seriously, in the first pdf, there is the table of contents, a small number (6 or 7) pages too illegible to read, the stories I mentioned with newspaper ads pasted between them, the other two stories from employees, and the pertinent laws listed for the warrant, that's the whole document. What am I cherry picking?!


----------



## StevenC

This whole argument is silly because the news cycle "Donald Trump is a racist" doesn't exist and Adam's premise it faulty.

Donald Trump is a racist, but the media attention is directed at his policy making being disproportionately disadvantageous to minorities.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> This whole argument is silly because the news cycle "Donald Trump is a racist" doesn't exist and Adam's premise it faulty.
> 
> Donald Trump is a racist, but the media attention is directed at his policy making being disproportionately disadvantageous to minorities.



Indeed. I was a "give Trump a chance" guy and a "what's the worst that can happen" guy as well. 

Likewise, I REALLY hate mainstream media and thought there were times that, for every 1 shitty thing Trump said, there were a half dozen positive to neutral things and the only thing the got coverage were the bad. It's just that... why have the "bad" comments in there in the first place and cumulatively, they started to become more troublesome or the comments themselves became more and more severe, and left less to interpretation.

Eventually, you had the guy in his own words always trying to one up the last shitty thing he said, and it was also dovetailed with a shitty policy. At that point, you can't blame the media for how they framed things like locking brown kids in cages and taking their parents away, banning brown people from coming to this country, cutting visas on brown people, disproportionately targeting black people and defenders of black people for extrajudicial detainment, so on. Those go way beyond being a perception issue.


----------



## USMarine75

Adam Of Angels said:


> Seriously, drop it with this stuff. I outright said that I'm willing to completely agree with the assertion, assuming we put hard evidence on the table. I'm not willing to just jump to a conclusion - that may upset you, but whatever.



So, with your burden of proof requirements Hunter Biden must be a saint. After all, he overcame drug addiction to become a successful businessman.


----------



## USMarine75

High Plains Drifter said:


> "*When the looting starts, the shooting starts*"- The president tweeted this comment in May in reference to the protests in Minneapolis that occurred after the police killing of George Floyd.



It can NOT be stated enough... the president was quoting a well-known racist - who, in an unbelievable twist of irony, was himself quoting an even more well-known racist.

https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/8648...d-when-the-looting-starts-the-shooting-starts

Trump's excuse... "I've heard that phrase for a long time. I don't know where it came from or where it originated," Trump said. "Frankly, it means when there's looting, people get shot and they die. And if you look at what happened last night and the night before, you see that, it's very common. And that's the way that's meant."

Next time I write my work self-evaluation I'm going to title it "Mein Kampf". I can't understand why my Jewish boss would get upset. If he complains I'll just say "I've heard that phrase for a long time. I don't know where it came from or where it originated."

I'm also going to be overtly anti-Semitic to 3 out of 50 Jewish coworkers.


----------



## Millul

You can start with a Jewish co-forumite, I promise I won't be too harsh in my sworn statement!


----------



## USMarine75

Millul said:


> You can start with a Jewish co-forumite, I promise I won't be too harsh in my sworn statement!



Well, can you explicitly show where Hitler was anti-Semitic? Where he specifically in writing authorized the Holocaust?

Asking for a friend (@Adam Of Angels ).


----------



## Millul

USMarine75 said:


> Well, can you explicitly show where Hitler was anti-Semitic? Where he specifically in writing authorized the Holocaust?
> 
> Asking for a friend (@Adam Of Angels ).



Given how this thread has been going on for the last few pages, I guess the German people saying "we were NEVER deported or killed or tortured or exterminated!" would carry more weight than the Nurmberg trials records...?


----------



## USMarine75

Millul said:


> Given how this thread has been going on for the last few pages, I guess the German people saying "we were NEVER deported or killed or tortured or exterminated!" would carry more weight than the Nurmberg trials records...?



^This guy. He gets it.


----------



## Millul

NOW I get it: the guy who came up to me, a couple of weeks back, and told me "Go back to your country!" because he could hear me speaking another language, didn't do it because he's a racist POS - he was genuinely worried about how much I miss Italian food!!!


----------



## nightflameauto

I do find it odd that our new friend here has spent so much time twisting himself into a pretzel defending Trump's policies and actions as explicitly the opposite of what we've all "assumed," when in reality all you have to do is watch a single rally speech or a few minutes of one of his various press conferences to get it straight from the horse's mouth that Trump hates other races, and thinks anybody of another color should "go back to their shithole country." The man can't make more than three or four sentences without saying something disturbing. I mean, he's almost as disturbing publicly as Bolsonaro. 

And anybody trying to claim Bolsonaro isn't a sexist, racist piece of shit has clearly missed . . . well, I guess reality would be what they've missed.


----------



## MFB

"New friend" has been here since I have been if memory serves correctly, you'll just mainly find him wheeling and dealing in the FS section.


----------



## nightflameauto

MFB said:


> "New friend" has been here since I have been if memory serves correctly, you'll just mainly find him wheeling and dealing in the FS section.


I was referring to his participation in this thread, but at least he's been around long enough in general to not outright suspect him of being nothing but a troll.


----------



## gunch

Well a month later and nothing hugely catastrophic hasn't happened yet besides wave 2 of rona, probably _because_ of wave 2 of rona


----------



## USMarine75

MFB said:


> "New friend" has been here since I have been if memory serves correctly, you'll just mainly find him wheeling and dealing in the FS section.



Mostly wheeling. Mostly. 

Not so much dealing.


----------



## Drew

Adam Of Angels said:


> Dude, Jesus Christ, talk about cherry picking - there's at LEAST 50 statements saying that there's no discriminatory policies, several from black tenants that LIVED there, and you're pointing to 3 statements that say the opposite, and *I'm* cherry picking?
> 
> I'm done, guys. You're either trolling or crazy.


I mean, Trump lost, and had to settle. That means that the claim he took race, adversely, into consideration while making rental decisions was held to a _very_ high bar, and the evidence was there to uphold the claim. 

If you want to argue he learned something since 1973, and got over his prejudices, that's a very different thing (though, I think, would also be extremely challenging to do). But you don't lose a $100mm housing discrimination lawsuit unless there's pretty good evidence that you're discriminating.


----------



## USMarine75

Lest we forget... Trump pardoned disgraced former AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who ran a prison system that:

had temperatures up to 136 degrees
made inmates wear pink underwear to demean/humiliate them
forced inmates to work on chain gangs
inmates lived in a tent city in the middle of the Arizona desert he himself called a "concentration camp"
detained people without cause
was accused of racial profiling
court fees cost taxpayers $48M to defend his tactics


----------



## DeathbyDesign

USMarine75 said:


> Lest we forget... Trump pardoned disgraced former AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who ran a prison system that:
> 
> had temperatures up to 136 degrees
> made inmates wear pink underwear to demean/humiliate them
> forced inmates to work on chain gangs
> inmates lived in a tent city in the middle of the Arizona desert he himself called a "concentration camp"
> detained people without cause
> was accused of racial profiling
> court fees cost taxpayers $48M to defend his tactics


Yea Arpaio was a terrible person. I had to spend a night in Tent City for a dumb decision made years ago and it was pretty bad. I went in the winter months which wasn't as terrible but the summer would have been brutal/inhumane. They would just put giant industrial fans at the end of the tents and that was the cooling system for the summer I guess. The sad part is he keeps trying to run for various House or Senate seats every 2 years instead of walking off into the sunset with his pardon. He also tried to get his old job back this election as well. He got around 20-30% of the votes in the primary but lost to a former employee to represent the Republican party and lose against the current sheriff who beat Arpaio 4 years ago.


----------



## Drew

DeathbyDesign said:


> Yea Arpaio was a terrible person. I had to spend a night in Tent City for a dumb decision made years ago and it was pretty bad. I went in the winter months which wasn't as terrible but the summer would have been brutal/inhumane. They would just put giant industrial fans at the end of the tents and that was the cooling system for the summer I guess. The sad part is he keeps trying to run for various House or Senate seats every 2 years instead of walking off into the sunset with his pardon. He also tried to get his old job back this election as well. He got around 20-30% of the votes in the primary but lost to a former employee to represent the Republican party and lose against the current sheriff who beat Arpaio 4 years ago.


If you don't mind talking about this, I'd be curious for a bit more color about your time in Tent City. How you got there is entirely your own business, but things like what the living cnditions were like, what they gave you for protection from the elements, how much privacy you had, access to food and water, etc. 

I can't imagine spending a night in jail was an experience you love looking back at, of course, so if you'd rather not, then absolutely, just say that you'd rather not get into it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Adam Of Angels said:


> You are *really* good at this. Thank you so much.






-edit-

more evidence

https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-central-park-five


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## DeathbyDesign

Drew said:


> If you don't mind talking about this, I'd be curious for a bit more color about your time in Tent City. How you got there is entirely your own business, but things like what the living cnditions were like, what they gave you for protection from the elements, how much privacy you had, access to food and water, etc.
> 
> I can't imagine spending a night in jail was an experience you love looking back at, of course, so if you'd rather not, then absolutely, just say that you'd rather not get into it.


No issues talking about it. I was only there for 24 hours due to a dumb decision on my part. I had a 10 day sentence which was pleaded down to 1 day basically. So the day I went in (which was a Saturday in March), the entire jail was at max capacity. I ended up being in the tents for an hour or so because I was getting out a few hours later (in holding cells the rest of the time). 

Tent City was just that - a bunch of military tents with bunk beds set up in a fenced off area in the desert by the main jail. There were 2 sections - one for short term sentences (10 days or less/work release I believe) and the other for long term but they never mixed with each other. Long term was where you got the pink underwear and sent to the chain gang from my understanding. Privacy was pretty much non existent but most of the people in the area I was in were just people who made bad mistakes and wanted to go home ASAP. They had vending machines (you could bring X amount of change for the machines, anymore than that amount and the jail took it from you) and a bathroom/shower area with small amounts of privacy but nothing more than like a gym locker room. 

Arpaio used to take his donors (aka old rich white people) and parade them around the tent area and show it off like it was a crown jewel from what other people said. It was a learning experience and I wasn't sad when he was voted out in 2016. It puts a smile on me face when I see him taking those losses every couple of years and know that the people of AZ have moved on from him finally.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.statnews.com/2020/12/07/pfizer-moderna-decline-white-house-vaccine-summit/
This is why a president who openly rejects science can potentially cost lives. Imagine if Trump had been re-elected- the vaccine would potentially be in jeopardy, or, at least the more effective versions of it.

I think, under better circumstances, the summit could be a good way to remove speed bumps. For example, the vaccine, currently, needs to be stored in an extremely cold environment. Figuring out how to ship millions of doses of something that needs to be stored at -70° will require coordination between the vaccine manufacturer (z. B. Pfizer), the courier (z.B. FedEx) and the retailer who stocks it (z.B. Walgreens). Getting the decision ma,ers from all three together could be huge.


----------



## StevenC

Man, that's the most dystopian thing I've ever read. Having to get a vaccine for a global pandemic from Walgreens.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Man, that's the most dystopian thing I've ever read. Having to get a vaccine for a global pandemic from Walgreens.


What's so dystopian about the thought, though, is that if it was available in the USA only at hospitals and doctor's offices, a fairly large percentage of Americans wouldn't ever have access to it, because basic health care, like vaccination, in the USA ,is too expensive for many to afford.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> What's so dystopian about the thought, though, is that if it was available in the USA only at hospitals and doctor's offices, a fairly large percentage of Americans wouldn't ever have access to it, because basic health care, like vaccination, in the USA ,is too expensive for many to afford.



Is it too much to ask that it just be injected into my Big Mac?


----------



## SpaceDock

IDK, I barely trust FedEx with ma guitarz.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> Is it too much to ask that it just be injected into my Big Mac?



Is...is that what you call your wedding vegetable? Your family tackle? I'm sure that could be arranged, for an upcharge.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Is...is that what you call your wedding vegetable? Your family tackle? I'm sure that could be arranged, for an upcharge.



Oh no. That's a Whopper.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Oh no. That's a Whopper.



Baconator checking in.


----------



## USMarine75

DeathbyDesign said:


> Yea Arpaio was a terrible person. I had to spend a night in Tent City for a dumb decision made years ago and it was pretty bad. I went in the winter months which wasn't as terrible but the summer would have been brutal/inhumane. They would just put giant industrial fans at the end of the tents and that was the cooling system for the summer I guess. The sad part is he keeps trying to run for various House or Senate seats every 2 years instead of walking off into the sunset with his pardon. He also tried to get his old job back this election as well. He got around 20-30% of the votes in the primary but lost to a former employee to represent the Republican party and lose against the current sheriff who beat Arpaio 4 years ago.



I was always loved this video... he is so bad at public speaking, especially when he can't use prepared talking points and has to think.


----------



## mastapimp

bostjan said:


> What's so dystopian about the thought, though, is that if it was available in the USA only at hospitals and doctor's offices, a fairly large percentage of Americans wouldn't ever have access to it, because basic health care, like vaccination, in the USA ,is too expensive for many to afford.


Walgreens and CVS are at every major intersection in most towns. They also handle shots and often have "minute clinics" for non-specialized doctor visits. A former coworker of mine is a VP at CVS Health and he's already doing logistics on 50 million doses once the vaccines are released. I got my flu-shot at the supermarket pharmacy 2 weeks ago...I don't see how this is all of a sudden a "dystopian scenario" either.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mastapimp said:


> Walgreens and CVS are at every major intersection in most towns. They also handle shots and often have "minute clinics" for non-specialized doctor visits. A former coworker of mine is a VP at CVS Health and he's already doing logistics on 50 million doses once the vaccines are released. I got my flu-shot at the supermarket pharmacy 2 weeks ago...I don't see how this is all of a sudden a "dystopian scenario" either.



I guess the concept that a private c-store chain is an integral part of the American healthcare system is somewhat bonkers to outside observers.

In the rest of the developed world, if you're feeling sick or need medication/vaccines, you go to a doctor at a hospital or similar healthcare facility.

I don't think his comment was meant to disparage Walgreens or CVS, but reflecting how weird that must be to some.


----------



## Millul

What Max said.
There is no "getting a flu-shot at the supermarket pharmacy" in Europe...actually, no "getting a shot" in any pharmacy, to my knowledge.
But I guess, as long as it works, and doesn't make people poor in the process, why not?


----------



## diagrammatiks

mastapimp said:


> Walgreens and CVS are at every major intersection in most towns. They also handle shots and often have "minute clinics" for non-specialized doctor visits. A former coworker of mine is a VP at CVS Health and he's already doing logistics on 50 million doses once the vaccines are released. I got my flu-shot at the supermarket pharmacy 2 weeks ago...I don't see how this is all of a sudden a "dystopian scenario" either.



in america hospitals are too expensive and people get their shots at the combination corner store/bodega/pharmacy.

that's the dystopia.

actually there's a good documentary on how cvs and walgreens made a strategic effort to corner the healthcare and pharmacy market. making a ton of money in the process.


----------



## StevenC

Walgreens is an OK store. 

But I've only ever got injections from doctors and nurses in hospitals and GP clinics. 

The most I trust my pharmacist with is passport photographs.


----------



## thraxil

Millul said:


> What Max said.
> There is no "getting a flu-shot at the supermarket pharmacy" in Europe...actually, no "getting a shot" in any pharmacy, to my knowledge.
> But I guess, as long as it works, and doesn't make people poor in the process, why not?



Pharmacies over here generally offer flu shots. That includes the ones in the supermarket. Although recently when my partner and I went to the Boots (pharmacy) in the local Sainsbury's (supermarket) to get ours, we were told that there was a shortage and only 65+ or other high risk people could get one.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I think the big difference is convenience vs. necessity. Here, folks _need_ these pharmacy and grocery store or even shopping mall clinics as anything else is too expensive or unavailable in thier area.


----------



## nightflameauto

I figure my pharmacist knows enough to fill my prescription for my testicles swelling up like a grapefruit after my vasectomy, I can probably trust her to handle a needle.

I do understand how weird that sounds to countries with actual healthcare, but we're 'mericans. We don't believe in those fancy doctors and shit. That's for the Hollywood elite to get their butt implants and Botox shots.


----------



## Randy

Well, I don't know how stringent pharmacist licensing is on other countries but it's the same as you'd need to be a physician's assistant or dentist in this country, so if anything, it's a little too much schooling for someone to just put pills in a bottle


----------



## bostjan

Pharmacy's also have to pay malpractice insurance and a lot of other licensing fees, just like doctors. It's kind of weird to think about how much crap they go through in the USA to be pharmacists and how little they are rewarded, considering.

More Trump meddling news:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/08/operation-warp-speed-trumps-vaccine-order-443574


article said:


> Now, Pfizer may be unable to supply the U.S. with sufficient vaccines before next June because of subsequent deals with other countries, the Times reported.


This directly after Trump's executive order demanding shipment of the vaccine to US citizens.


----------



## fantom

Isn't saying that pharmacists "just puts pills in a bottle" marginalizing them? I would rather trust a pharmacist to make sure my parents' drugs don't have interactions then the isolated doctors that spend like 10 minutes with them once a year. Also, pharmacists for a lot of people are a walk-in clinic. People ask the pharmacist basic questions about OTC remedies for symptoms as well as how to correctly administer healthcare like wrapping bandages over open wounds. They are trained to answer these questions.


For the supermarket / pharmacy vaccines. It really is about convenience. People don't go to clinics or hospitals. They are afraid of the cost of the medical system. Giving them free vaccines at a familiar place is required if you want the masses to actually show up and get vaccinated. It is more pragmatic than dystopian.


----------



## USMarine75

For the record, in the US pharmacists are doctors of pharmacy (PharmD). They are subject matter experts in pharmaceuticals, more so than medical doctors. 

In clinical settings pharmacists check for appropriate dosing, interactions, pharmacokinetics and dynamics, alternatives, etc. They are also the ones that know the most up to date info regarding meds. Think of it as a checks-and-balances approach since medical doctors often lack this knowledge. We often know the one common drug treatment that is most commonly prescribed, but don’t know all the other analogues that may be a better fit for a given patient. So the pharmacist will come along and adjust accordingly.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> Isn't saying that pharmacists "just puts pills in a bottle" marginalizing them? I would rather trust a pharmacist to make sure my parents' drugs don't have interactions then the isolated doctors that spend like 10 minutes with them once a year. Also, pharmacists for a lot of people are a walk-in clinic. People ask the pharmacist basic questions about OTC remedies for symptoms as well as how to correctly administer healthcare like wrapping bandages over open wounds. They are trained to answer these questions.



That was kinda my point. I believe in Canada the pharmacist can actually write and fill the scripts, right?

Well, anyway, my point was that pharmacists do require significant schooling and medical knowledge, and their role has been significantly watered down. I've know some pharmacists and a few people who worked as assistants/techs and the pharmacist in most of these places doesn't even count pills or fill bottles either, they sign off on things and they give customers 30 sec of counseling and send them on their way. And I don't mean that to diminish their knowledge or abilities, I mean the opposite, that they're capable of more than what they're asked to do in most cases. I get the impression some of the disconnect here is that maybe pharmacists don't jump through the same hoops in some counties that they do here.

The second component, which I think is probably what skeeves people out more is the idea of getting your vaccines from the corner store yeah, I totally get it. I'm sure a significant amount of people will be getting their life saving, pandemic curing vaccine behind a blue curtain in a Walmart somewhere. Unfortunately, it kinda is what it is right now with the US medical system, but I think you have to trust the people making it and the individuals and apparatus more than the setting you're getting it done in. I'm sure there's a lot of vaccines that are given out in parking lots and tent cities across the world over the last 100 years. I don't think we've got much to be ashamed of, even if it is super unideal.


----------



## fantom

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walter-reed-schedule-doctor-who-criticized-trump-actions-to-be-removed/

Looks like there is retaliation against the Doctor that tweeted it is insane for Trump to do his motorcade drive-by for supporters and force quarantining secret service members.


----------



## diagrammatiks

it's not about the pharmacists. It's that cvs Walgreen took a concerted effort to take pharmacies out of hospitals and clinics and attach them to cvs/walgreens so they could control drug prices. But that's kinda a separate point.

The fact that the system is so pragmatic is exactly why it's weird. 

Like wouldn't it be better if your pharmacy was conveniently located at your local hospital. 

I know it's hard for Americans to imagine. It was super hard for me to imagine before moving somewhere else. I think other then the dentist I had been to the hospital a total of maybe 3 or 4 times in my entire life. It's the place you go if you're literally dying or about to have a kid right.

It doesn't really have to be like that.


----------



## Drew

diagrammatiks said:


> it's not about the pharmacists. It's that cvs Walgreen took a concerted effort to take pharmacies out of hospitals and clinics and attach them to cvs/walgreens so they could control drug prices. But that's kinda a separate point.
> 
> The fact that the system is so pragmatic is exactly why it's weird.
> 
> Like wouldn't it be better if your pharmacy was conveniently located at your local hospital.
> 
> I know it's hard for Americans to imagine. It was super hard for me to imagine before moving somewhere else. I think other then the dentist I had been to the hospital a total of maybe 3 or 4 times in my entire life. It's the place you go if you're literally dying or about to have a kid right.
> 
> It doesn't really have to be like that.


Speaking personally, I've definitely seen the shift to move pharmacies into CVS/Wallgreens/Target/Walmart/Etc during my lifetime.... but, it was primarily from stand-alone pharmacies, not hospitals, that I've seen this shift. 

Not much reason for a pharmacy to be in a hospital, either. If you're in a hospital, a doctor can administer pretty much anything you need on the spot without issuing a prescriptiopn. Pharmacies are intended for situations when an individual isn't seeking immediate care but rather is taking a medication over a protracted period of time, and speaking personally it's a lot easier for me to get to a drug store or a CVS/et al in my neighborhood, than to go to the nearest hospital.


----------



## bostjan

diagrammatiks said:


> it's not about the pharmacists. It's that cvs Walgreen took a concerted effort to take pharmacies out of hospitals and clinics and attach them to cvs/walgreens so they could control drug prices. But that's kinda a separate point.
> 
> The fact that the system is so pragmatic is exactly why it's weird.
> 
> Like wouldn't it be better if your pharmacy was conveniently located at your local hospital.
> 
> I know it's hard for Americans to imagine. It was super hard for me to imagine before moving somewhere else. I think other then the dentist I had been to the hospital a total of maybe 3 or 4 times in my entire life. It's the place you go if you're literally dying or about to have a kid right.
> 
> It doesn't really have to be like that.





Drew said:


> Speaking personally, I've definitely seen the shift to move pharmacies into CVS/Wallgreens/Target/Walmart/Etc during my lifetime.... but, it was primarily from stand-alone pharmacies, not hospitals, that I've seen this shift.
> 
> Not much reason for a pharmacy to be in a hospital, either. If you're in a hospital, a doctor can administer pretty much anything you need on the spot without issuing a prescriptiopn. Pharmacies are intended for situations when an individual isn't seeking immediate care but rather is taking a medication over a protracted period of time, and speaking personally it's a lot easier for me to get to a drug store or a CVS/et al in my neighborhood, than to go to the nearest hospital.



I guarantee that the majority of US hospitals have their own pharmacies. People who are not admitted to the hospital nor work at the hospital probably never use them, though.

Whether to flood the hospitals with people waiting for their vaccine or not might be a simple enough decision to agree upon.

The idea of going to a pharmacy for a vaccine, though, is something I never heard about until after 2010, and I will go out on a limb and assume it's a USA thing.

In Europe, the "pharmacy" (or chemist or apothek, etc.) plays a similar but also different role in everyday life. You can go there if you feel ill, and they can do some sort of diagnosis and prescribe medicine and then give you that medicine. In the USA, you can only get very weak medicine without a visit to the doctor, and there isn't any place to go and get a cheap diagnosis.


----------



## mastapimp

diagrammatiks said:


> Like wouldn't it be better if your pharmacy was conveniently located at your local hospital.


No. Key word you used is "conveniently" which is not a hospital for most folks. There's 3 hospitals in the town I live in and about 20 CVS and Walgreens. Convenience is gonna send me to CVS and Walgreens every time I have to pick up a drug. When I had to pick up medicine for my dog every two weeks I "conveniently" made a 5 minute trip to a CVS drive-thru window.


----------



## USMarine75

diagrammatiks said:


> it's not about the pharmacists. It's that cvs Walgreen took a concerted effort to take pharmacies out of hospitals and clinics and attach them to cvs/walgreens so they could control drug prices. But that's kinda a separate point.
> 
> The fact that the system is so pragmatic is exactly why it's weird.
> 
> Like wouldn't it be better if your pharmacy was conveniently located at your local hospital.
> 
> I know it's hard for Americans to imagine. It was super hard for me to imagine before moving somewhere else. I think other then the dentist I had been to the hospital a total of maybe 3 or 4 times in my entire life. It's the place you go if you're literally dying or about to have a kid right.
> 
> It doesn't really have to be like that.



^ This is all terrible and inaccurate.

Drugists and pharmacies have been around for a hundred years. This has always been a thing in the US and many other 1st world countries.

And going to a hospital to get your meds is only practical if you’re getting your meds when getting discharged, or if you live conveniently near the hospital. And many hospitals have a pharmacy so that’s an option. Otherwise there’s a reason why people go to their neighborhood pharmacist.

Also, your neighborhood pharmacist gets to know their frequent fliers. 

And pharmacies don’t control drug prices. They have no say in what they get reimbursed from insurance and they have no say in what they purchase the drug for. They have a markup which isn’t significant except for the really cheap stuff - e.g. hydrochlorothiazide prob costs pennies for 50 pills but will cost a buyer $3-12.


----------



## diagrammatiks

You know how crazy ya'll are being right now.

me: wouldn't it be cool if you imagined a world where you got your meds and shots and stuff at places that also employed various different kinds of medical professionals.

you guys: nah. I prefer to get my meds at a place that sells lottery tickets and novelty desk sized Christmas trees.

well ok.



USMarine75 said:


> ^ This is all terrible and inaccurate.
> 
> Drugists and pharmacies have been around for a hundred years. This has always been a thing in the US and many other 1st world countries.
> 
> And going to a hospital to get your meds is only practical if you’re getting your meds when getting discharged, or if you live conveniently near the hospital. And many hospitals have a pharmacy so that’s an option. Otherwise there’s a reason why people go to their neighborhood pharmacist.
> 
> Also, your neighborhood pharmacist gets to know their frequent fliers.
> 
> And pharmacies don’t control drug prices. They have no say in what they get reimbursed from insurance and they have no say in what they purchase the drug for. They have a markup which isn’t significant except for the really cheap stuff - e.g. hydrochlorothiazide prob costs pennies for 50 pills but will cost a buyer $3-12.




https://www.businessinsider.com/cvs...rmacy-benefit-managers-to-raise-prices-2017-8

well we'll know as soon.


----------



## bostjan

diagrammatiks said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/cvs...rmacy-benefit-managers-to-raise-prices-2017-8
> 
> well we'll know as soon.



The plaintiff in that suit rescinded her allegations and the case was dropped over three years ago because it no longer had any merit.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/legal/law-firm-drops-suit-alleging-cvs-gouged-generic-consumers


----------



## diagrammatiks

bostjan said:


> The plaintiff in that suit rescinded her allegations and the case was dropped over three years ago because it no longer had any merit.
> 
> https://www.fiercepharma.com/legal/law-firm-drops-suit-alleging-cvs-gouged-generic-consumers



refiled in 2020

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6929538-BCBS-Alabama-et-al-vs-CVS.html


----------



## Mathemagician

Man, all this dog-whistling bullshit in regards to racism is the absolute HEIGHT of “privilege”.

The very notion, that one can act a certain way, hold certain beliefs, use offensive language (like disparaging all immigrants repeatedly) and then have apologists demand to not judge the person by their actions but by whatever specific words they may or may not have used is a privilege afforded only to people with power and wealth.

Specifically in this case all of Trump’s name calling, using “Pocahontas” as an insult to Warren, calling Latin American immigrants drug dealers, the Muslim country ban, there is always a racial boogey-man with this guy but then here comes the apologist screeching “well did he use the N-word?! Huh no he didn’t. Did he say “I hate X?” No!”

It’s the people who don’t want to admit their own friends and family are racist when measured by the modern definition and the actions I just listed. They want to believe it’s “just political differences” and that their family/they themselves aren’t “racist” when they repeat the same statements.

No one is ever going to go back to pretending like offensive actions are ok “as long as they don’t use the slur-word”. Racist actions are racist actions. And no one gets more offended by that than a racist that used to be able to fly under the radar.


----------



## TheBlackBard

I'm not going to lie... I have a lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to spending time with some of my family. I still struggle with it, as a matter of fact. Growing up in the South, especially in a red state, well... let's just say it's not been easy coming to grips with the fact that as much as your family loves you and wants to see you succeed, at the very best, they're willing to remain ignorant about social issues.


----------



## Mathemagician

TheBlackBard said:


> I'm not going to lie... I have a lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to spending time with some of my family. I still struggle with it, as a matter of fact. Growing up in the South, especially in a red state, well... let's just say it's not been easily coming to grips with the fact that as much as your family loves you and wants to see you succeed, at the very best, they're willing to remain ignorant about social issues.



I respect the hell out of this honest statement because it sucks to admit. I’m in the same boat and have seen it/lived it first hand. 

So that’s why it bothers me when others run the opposite direction and play “Oh but they didn’t use a slur!” Or another variant of the same mental gymnastics.

Like, I eat dinner with some of these people. They’re still racist. I’m not going to be shy about it because others “feel bad” that their wonderful aunt who taught them how to swim as a kid actually also holds some horrendous views. 

It straight sucks, but lying people about it doesn’t make the reality of it go away. And that’s what they’re essentially saying “let me pretend it’s fine”. Do whatever they want at dinner. But in the real world? No, because it hurts other people.


----------



## Drew

diagrammatiks said:


> You know how crazy ya'll are being right now.
> 
> me: wouldn't it be cool if you imagined a world where you got your meds and shots and stuff at places that also employed various different kinds of medical professionals.
> 
> you guys: nah. I prefer to get my meds at a place that sells lottery tickets and novelty desk sized Christmas trees.
> 
> well ok.


With all due respect, I think you don't understand how the prescription process works in the united states. It's a two part process, with the decision to administer a drug separated from the process of obtaining that particular drug.

A doctor makes a determination that you need a certain drug, what the appropriate dosage should be, for how long, etc. Medical need, dosage, duration, how that interacts with any other medicines you're currently taking, or any risk factors for your demographic group, etc - that's all handled by a medical professional. Any costs beyond your standard office visit copay related to the diagnosis are charged here. 

The process of actually obtaining a drug, though, is handled by a pharmacy. The doctor or his or her office calls in the prescription (increasingly this is all handled via electronic medical records systems rather than with a paper script or a phone call), and the pharmacy handles the delivery of the prescribed quantities to the patient. 

There's a couple advantages to centralizing the drug distribution process, but one of the biggest I'd point to, off the top of my head, is this creates a very clear paper trail, so it's extremely difficult to covertly see four or five doctors and obtain presciptions for prescription opiate painkillers, for example. 

I think you also don't necessarily understand what CVS and Walgreens are - I'll check the next time I'm in one, but while you can buy christmas ornaments there this time of year, I don't recall ever seeing lottery tickets in mine. They have convenience store sections, but they also have large over-the-counter drugstore sections. I'd say a good 70% of the time, when I go into a CVS, it's to buy cough drops or cold meds or ibuprofen or some sort of bandage or some similar product, with the remainder being for borderline things like deodorant or soap/shampoo. It's not like we're sending people to the corner package store to fll their prescriptions. And, it's CERTAINLY not like the guy selling lottery tickets at the corner package store is saying, "here, you need 500mg of vicodin a day, take two of these every 8 hours for the next three weeks."


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, this is still happening.

Myself, I'm one of the lucky ones. My jobs about as stable as anything can be in the current climate, and my expenses won't pile up any more than they usually do. But there are enough folks in my circle that I know of that need something to prop them up that it's scary to think of the current unemployment benefits just lapsing, and the eviction moratorium disappearing.

I wish there was some real solution to washington gridlock, but it appears alive and well with McConnel at the helm.n


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> With all due respect, I think you don't understand how the prescription process works in the united states. It's a two part process, with the decision to administer a drug separated from the process of obtaining that particular drug.
> 
> A doctor makes a determination that you need a certain drug, what the appropriate dosage should be, for how long, etc. Medical need, dosage, duration, how that interacts with any other medicines you're currently taking, or any risk factors for your demographic group, etc - that's all handled by a medical professional. Any costs beyond your standard office visit copay related to the diagnosis are charged here.
> 
> The process of actually obtaining a drug, though, is handled by a pharmacy. The doctor or his or her office calls in the prescription (increasingly this is all handled via electronic medical records systems rather than with a paper script or a phone call), and the pharmacy handles the delivery of the prescribed quantities to the patient.
> 
> There's a couple advantages to centralizing the drug distribution process, but one of the biggest I'd point to, off the top of my head, is this creates a very clear paper trail, so it's extremely difficult to covertly see four or five doctors and obtain presciptions for prescription opiate painkillers, for example.
> 
> I think you also don't necessarily understand what CVS and Walgreens are - I'll check the next time I'm in one, but while you can buy christmas ornaments there this time of year, I don't recall ever seeing lottery tickets in mine. They have convenience store sections, but they also have large over-the-counter drugstore sections. I'd say a good 70% of the time, when I go into a CVS, it's to buy cough drops or cold meds or ibuprofen or some sort of bandage or some similar product, with the remainder being for borderline things like deodorant or soap/shampoo. It's not like we're sending people to the corner package store to fll their prescriptions. And, it's CERTAINLY not like the guy selling lottery tickets at the corner package store is saying, "here, you need 500mg of vicodin a day, take two of these every 8 hours for the next three weeks."


I get like 90% of prescription drugs at a pharmacy like anybody else, but I've never heard of anyone getting a vaccine at a pharmacy in the UK until thraxill in this thread. I live in a small town, but there's probably 6 pharmacies (plus 3ish supermarkets that can only sell paracetamol etc) and at least as many GP practices and 4 or 5 dental practices. I fully expect when getting my COVID vaccine next year to go either to my GP or some dedicated vaccination site if it's something like Pfizer with difficult storage/handling requirements.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> I get like 90% of prescription drugs at a pharmacy like anybody else, but I've never heard of anyone getting a vaccine at a pharmacy in the UK until thraxill in this thread. I live in a small town, but there's probably 6 pharmacies (plus 3ish supermarkets that can only sell paracetamol etc) and at least as many GP practices and 4 or 5 dental practices. I fully expect when getting my COVID vaccine next year to go either to my GP or some dedicated vaccination site if it's something like Pfizer with difficult storage/handling requirements.


I think it depends on the vaccine, honestly. 

I haven't gotten a vaccine for anything other than the seasonal flu in years. The last time I did was almost a decade ago, actually more than a decade ago, before I left for a couple months in India, and that was at an outpatient clinic at a hospital. My seasonal flu vaccine, for the last 5-ish years, has been administered by a nurse - I work for a small company and to make it easier for us all to get flu vaccines we've hired a nurse to come in one morning and anyone who wants one can sign up and get one then. This uear it obviously wasn't an option, so I went to CVS to get a flu shot, where they had either a doctor or a nurse (I didn't ask him) on site to give shots. Prior to my company giving them, I think I did once go to a CVS for a seasonal flu shot, but prior to that I hadn't really bothered - at the time I was in my late 20s, and did't have much interaction at all with high risk people. I still SHOULD have done it, but it was just one more thing. I started getting seasonal flu shots though after my brother's first child was born and it became a little more important. 

But, something like the seasonal flu, where it has to be administered in a fairly narrow window (we haven't tailored it to the expected strains before maybe mid-September of the year, and by November-December we're starting to see cases tick up), and it has to be administered annually... that's not really something you can go to your PCP for sinply becayse they don't have the capacity. I suspect you can get it at a hospital if you want - I know healthcare providers can, I wouldn't be at all surprised if laypeople can as well - and walk in clinics, for sure. 

At the same time, you don't go to your CVS with your 2 year old for his MMR and tetanus vaccinations. You go to your pediatritian. These are one-and-done vaccinations (though come to think of it tetanus might be every 10 years or so, I forget - either way it's extremely infrequent) 

Something like Covid, the hope would be that it's a one-and-done, or at a minimum a once-every-few-years. But, the argument for making it available at places like a CVS is the same as for the common flu - it's extremely time sensitive, we can't have patients waiting until their annual physical, and we need to make it as accessible as possible. I don't think we're going to see childhood vaccinations at CVS type clinics anytime soon - those happen at a set schedule at particular ages, and are easy to plan around annual visits. But I think it makes a LOT of sense to basically allow anyone to walk into a pharmacy and request a Covid vaccine, if we ave them available.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> With all due respect, I think you don't understand how the prescription process works in the united states. It's a two part process, with the decision to administer a drug separated from the process of obtaining that particular drug.
> 
> A doctor makes a determination that you need a certain drug, what the appropriate dosage should be, for how long, etc. Medical need, dosage, duration, how that interacts with any other medicines you're currently taking, or any risk factors for your demographic group, etc - that's all handled by a medical professional. Any costs beyond your standard office visit copay related to the diagnosis are charged here.
> 
> The process of actually obtaining a drug, though, is handled by a pharmacy. The doctor or his or her office calls in the prescription (increasingly this is all handled via electronic medical records systems rather than with a paper script or a phone call), and the pharmacy handles the delivery of the prescribed quantities to the patient.
> 
> There's a couple advantages to centralizing the drug distribution process, but one of the biggest I'd point to, off the top of my head, is this creates a very clear paper trail, so it's extremely difficult to covertly see four or five doctors and obtain presciptions for prescription opiate painkillers, for example.
> 
> I think you also don't necessarily understand what CVS and Walgreens are - I'll check the next time I'm in one, but while you can buy christmas ornaments there this time of year, I don't recall ever seeing lottery tickets in mine. They have convenience store sections, but they also have large over-the-counter drugstore sections. I'd say a good 70% of the time, when I go into a CVS, it's to buy cough drops or cold meds or ibuprofen or some sort of bandage or some similar product, with the remainder being for borderline things like deodorant or soap/shampoo. It's not like we're sending people to the corner package store to fll their prescriptions. And, it's CERTAINLY not like the guy selling lottery tickets at the corner package store is saying, "here, you need 500mg of vicodin a day, take two of these every 8 hours for the next three weeks."



In all fairness, though, the guy selling me my drugs at the Pharmacy counter, 99% of the time, is not the pharmacist, either, it's either a pharmacy technician, which also requires higher education and vocational training (although less than a pharmacist) or a sales clerk who specializes in selling filled prescriptions (I'm not sure what training they require - might be the same as pharm tech, and they at least appear to be quite knowledgeable). And, whoever they are, they will still sell me a pack of gum or an as-seen-on-tv roll of Flextape®.

And, when I lived in Michigan, which was 15 years ago... ugh, you could buy beer or cigarettes from the front counter. I do believe Michigan was one of the latest states to stop selling beer and cigarettes at pharmacies, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was somewhere in the USA where it might still happen that way.

But you are correct that the person at the pharmacy counter, at least anywhere I've seen in the USA, will not sell you cigarettes.


----------



## vilk

You can definitely buy booze and smokes at the Walgreens in IL and IN. Some locations don't have alcohol, but I've never been to a Walgreens with no tobacco products.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> You can definitely buy booze and smokes at the Walgreens in IL and IN. Some locations don't have alcohol, but I've never been to a Walgreens with no tobacco products.


Interesting - CVS stopped selling tobacco in 2014, and it appears that actually led to consumers smoking less in general. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucej...stopped-buying-elsewhere-too/?sh=460b87a5c8f5

Surprised this hasn't led to more pressure on Walgreens to follow suit. It also, incidentally, speaks to why having flu shots accessible at places like CVS is a really good idea, considering this suggests convenience is a VERY important criteria for customers.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> You can definitely buy booze and smokes at the Walgreens in IL and IN. Some locations don't have alcohol, but I've never been to a Walgreens with no tobacco products.


I thought there was some weird law in IN that made it illegal to sell booze anywhere they sold milk - I've never seen it on the books, but many people told me so, and when I lived in IN, I never saw hard alcohol sold anywhere that sold milk, and thought it was weird once it was brought to my attention. I'm pretty sure basically all Walgreens sell milk. Cigarettes makes sense, though. The first thing I saw when I got out of my car when I first went to Indianapolis was a sunburned guy in a white tank top handing a lit cigarette to a little girl, and her taking a drag off of it. Everyplace I worked when I was there was a minority of nonsmokers.


----------



## mongey

so the supreme court backhanded slapped trump down.

good to see


----------



## fantom

More emoluments favors for the evidence bucket.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/08/trump-appoints-kellyanne-conway-chao-443674


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

These lawsuits. FFS. In an epic M Night Shyamalan style twist it is revealed that Republicans were the true snowflakes the whole time. Not even Scooby Doo and the gang would have seen this coming.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> I thought there was some weird law in IN that made it illegal to sell booze anywhere they sold milk - I've never seen it on the books, but many people told me so, and when I lived in IN, I never saw hard alcohol sold anywhere that sold milk, and thought it was weird once it was brought to my attention. I'm pretty sure basically all Walgreens sell milk. Cigarettes makes sense, though. The first thing I saw when I got out of my car when I first went to Indianapolis was a sunburned guy in a white tank top handing a lit cigarette to a little girl, and her taking a drag off of it. Everyplace I worked when I was there was a minority of nonsmokers.


There are weird laws around liquor in Indiana, and it can be sold where there is milk, but not cold. Actually the milk has nothing to do with it; only liquor stores can sell cold beer. There's beer and liquor at the grocery store, but it's never refrigerated. And until very recently you couldn't buy it on Sundays. Except at a bar or restaurant.


----------



## SpaceDock

Cyanide_Anima said:


> These lawsuits. FFS. In an epic M Night Shyamalan style twist it is revealed that Republicans were the true snowflakes the whole time. Not even Scooby Doo and the gang would have seen this coming.



Didnt see Republicans as snowflakes?!? Come on, it’s just like any other bullies, they are selfish insecure and afraid.

I will say that I thought there would be some sulking and maybe some riots but I never thought they would drag on in these insufferable court cases.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> There are weird laws around liquor in Indiana, and it can be sold where there is milk, but not cold. Actually the milk has nothing to do with it; only liquor stores can sell cold beer. There's beer and liquor at the grocery store, but it's never refrigerated. And until very recently you couldn't buy it on Sundays. Except at a bar or restaurant.


Interesting. Have they always sold liquor in grocery stores in IN? I know for a fact that the three stores I frequented in Indianapolis did not, when I lived there, 11-15 years ago. Meijer, Kroger, and I can't remember the other chain, but it was one I haven't seen before or since I was in Indy... wanna say it was Marsh or something like that... they had warm beer and wine but no liquor. Could have been an Indianapolis thing or a county thing or maybe just the times.

Grocery stores in Michigan, though, would have an entire isle of liquor, sometimes in gallon bottles. It was funny when the 24 hour grocery stores would rope off the aisle after 2 AM.

Here in VT, they are weird about it too, which surprised me this far from the Bible belt. You have to buy all liquor from the town liquor store, and every town gets a maximum of one liquor store. In my town, it's even funnier, because our town liquor store is literally a room in the center of the biggest grocery store. But you have to pay for your liquor in that room. There's usually no one there, so you have to ring a bell and sometimes you have to put everything back and leave to go find someone.

My dad's family in KY used to have to drive across the state line to VA in order to buy booze, since they were in a dry county, and either the other Kentucky counties were all dry nearby or something. So, on the weekends, basically everybody was either driving to VA or sending a list with someone going to VA. It seemed weird to me, even as a kid who knew nothing.

I'm convinced that every place in the USA has at least one arbitrarily weird liquor law.


----------



## Randy

Here in NY, no booze sold on Sundays before noon. And we're practically Sodom and Gomorrah.

Edit: Also no liquor in grocery stores. Used to apply to wine as well but they changed it sorta, depending on ABV.


----------



## USMarine75

diagrammatiks said:


> You know how crazy ya'll are being right now.
> 
> me: wouldn't it be cool if you imagined a world where you got your meds and shots and stuff at places that also employed various different kinds of medical professionals.
> 
> you guys: nah. I prefer to get my meds at a place that sells lottery tickets and novelty desk sized Christmas trees.
> 
> well ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/cvs...rmacy-benefit-managers-to-raise-prices-2017-8
> 
> well we'll know as soon.



My wife is a Pharmacist (worked for Walgreens before taking leave so we could move overseas) and I was an MD. We've both seen how much meds cost and how much insurance is billed. There's definitely issued everywhere with our system. But the real issue is with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributers, and insurance companies.

[My apologies I forgot you're not in the US so our system may seem awkward.]


----------



## thraxil

StevenC said:


> I get like 90% of prescription drugs at a pharmacy like anybody else, but I've never heard of anyone getting a vaccine at a pharmacy in the UK until thraxill in this thread.



Maybe just because I'm a weird foreigner and that's how I'm used to doing it? In the US, you'd typically get your standard booster shots (MMR, etc) growing up from your family physician and I've gotten some of the weird ones that I needed for traveling to Asia and Africa from the doctor, but mostly wed'd get the yearly flu shot at a local CVS or Duane Reade. One time I did get one on the side of the street in New York (my roommate's dad was a doctor and stopped in town to get dinner with us; he had some in the trunk of his car and after dinner just pulled them out and stuck us on the side of the street). But I've seen signs advertising flu jabs at the Lloyd's and Boots and even other random small pharmacies here. It still seems far simpler to me to just walk into one of those and get one than to go through all the hassle of getting a GP appointment.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Here in NY, no booze sold on Sundays before noon. And we're practically Sodom and Gomorrah.
> 
> Edit: Also no liquor in grocery stores. Used to apply to wine as well but they changed it sorta, depending on ABV.


In Mass, the first state to legalize same sex marriage, the only state to vote McGovern over Nixon in '72, and I think Biden's 2nd or 3rd largest margin f victory in the nation...


No retail liquor sales before noon on Sundays and, i think coctail service before 11 at bars and restaurants. 
No drink specials, any "happy hour" deals have to either be food, or honored all night.
No liquor sales at grocery stores, unless the location has a liquor distribution license. 
Limit one retail liquor distribution license per company - no franchises, and chain grocery stores can sell liquor, if they purchase a license, at one location in state.
Only one beer and wine distribution licence per company as well - again, chain grocery stores can sell beer and wine at one location in state max. 
Alcohol service stops at 1am in most counties/juristictions, but can go no later than 2am statewid
We may be a bastion of liberal sin, but we're also a Puritan state from way back in the day and it shows.  We did allow to-go beer, wine, and cocktail service in response to the pandemic, at least, though it's pretty heavily regulated and has to be done in sealed containers (pre-mixed cocktails, bottles of beer or wine, growlers).


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> More emoluments favors for the evidence bucket.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/12/08/trump-appoints-kellyanne-conway-chao-443674


For fuck sake, why make all these appointments on your way out?

Regarding the liquor laws and all their weirdness, this is actually something I've studied a bit as at one time I was considering getting a license to run a still to make my own whiskey. Apparently some of the existing laws still on the books in states first were laid down when federal prohibition was put into motion. I know in South Dakota up until a few years ago there were laws about no sales after 2 AM until 7 AM. Those were eventually dropped when some of the big twenty-four hour a day stores started stocking liquor. The other big one that's DEFINITELY from prohibition era rulings is we can't have hard liquor or beer shipped from other states or countries to South Dakota. It used to be all liquor of any percentage, but the upper crust got pissed off they couldn't get wine shipped direct to them and managed to get the law changed to exclude wines. And I know about that directly because my former boss was one of the "community leaders" involved in the bribe. . . er, um, petition to have the law changed.

We're a truly fucked up country when it comes to liquor laws.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election-lawsuit


President Trump on Wednesday touted Texas' suit demanding the U.S. Supreme Court block the Electoral College votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, calling it the "big one."


"We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" Trump wrote on Twitter.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election-lawsuit
> 
> 
> President Trump on Wednesday touted Texas' suit demanding the U.S. Supreme Court block the Electoral College votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, calling it the "big one."
> 
> 
> "We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" Trump wrote on Twitter.


Texas doesn't have standing, and based on the fact that the Supreme Court used a single sentence to unanimously refuse to hear the PA case, I can't see them wanting to touch this one with a ten foot pole either. 

Start making your popcorn, in other words. The Twitter meltdown when they refuse to hear this case and he has to come to terms with the fact that he's played all his cards should be epic.


----------



## diagrammatiks

nightflameauto said:


> For fuck sake, why make all these appointments on your way out?
> 
> Regarding the liquor laws and all their weirdness, this is actually something I've studied a bit as at one time I was considering getting a license to run a still to make my own whiskey. Apparently some of the existing laws still on the books in states first were laid down when federal prohibition was put into motion. I know in South Dakota up until a few years ago there were laws about no sales after 2 AM until 7 AM. Those were eventually dropped when some of the big twenty-four hour a day stores started stocking liquor. The other big one that's DEFINITELY from prohibition era rulings is we can't have hard liquor or beer shipped from other states or countries to South Dakota. It used to be all liquor of any percentage, but the upper crust got pissed off they couldn't get wine shipped direct to them and managed to get the law changed to exclude wines. And I know about that directly because my former boss was one of the "community leaders" involved in the bribe. . . er, um, petition to have the law changed.
> 
> We're a truly fucked up country when it comes to liquor laws.



Rhode island..no booze in any stores other liquor stores.

and you can only buy booze from 10am to 6pm on on sundays. No sales after 10pm any other day.

That was super fun.

also being utterly unprepared to drink overseas. Last call was 2am in cali and new york and 1am in rhode island.

People in china drink until like 5am. by 2am i'm like this feels very unchristian. i'm tired.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-texas-supreme-court-election-lawsuit
> 
> 
> President Trump on Wednesday touted Texas' suit demanding the U.S. Supreme Court block the Electoral College votes of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, calling it the "big one."
> 
> 
> "We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!" Trump wrote on Twitter.


I'm trying to understand how anyone in Texas could think they have a say over other states election process at all. The Supreme Court, even stacked as they are with Republicans, will probably laugh so hard they won't even be able to manage the pimp slap the people attempting the case deserve. In a year of stupid, this ranks in the top three at the very least of stupidest things imaginable.


----------



## sleewell

it sounds like the guy in TX who filed it is currently under investigation and is just doing it to get a pardon from trump. on its face its pure nonsensical twattle that will receive the same response from scotus as yesterdays one sentence denial.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I'm trying to understand how anyone in Texas could think they have a say over other states election process at all. The Supreme Court, even stacked as they are with Republicans, will probably laugh so hard they won't even be able to manage the pimp slap the people attempting the case deserve. In a year of stupid, this ranks in the top three at the very least of stupidest things imaginable.


The other issue is that Texas is appealing directly to the Supreme Court, via original jurisdiction, a vehicle in which states can ask it to hear cases, without first sending them through the lower court, often involving litigation between states. And I say "often" loosely, as this is very rarely used, and even more so with election disputes. There's also the issue that, because what's under dispute is the way the states conducted their elections, Texas waited too long to sue because those elections have already happened, so any reasonable recourse if their suit were somehow successful is already off the table, because voting has already occurred. 

Needless to say, the prognosis is NOT good, lol.


----------



## Xaios

sleewell said:


> it sounds like the guy in TX who filed it is currently under investigation and is just doing it to get a pardon from trump. on its face its pure nonsensical twattle that will receive the same response from scotus as yesterdays one sentence denial.


Please, _please_ tell me that there is recourse to revoke presidential pardons if it can be proven that they were granted as part of a criminal scheme.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> Please, _please_ tell me that there is recourse to revoke presidential pardons if it can be proven that they were granted as part of a criminal scheme.


I doubt this has any prior constitutional law precedent or was a scenario that the founding fathers even took into account, since I don't think anyone ever actually dreamed a criminal would be in the White House and stay there long enough to use presidential powers to help protect himself from prosecution. IF that were ever to happen, the asusmption would be the president would be impeached.

The good news, I guess, is that there's probably no statue or legal passage _preventing_ a presidential pardon from being overturned.

EDIT - reading Wikipedia, as expected the language is pretty generic and doesn't really give any added weight to the idea of a presidential pardon vs any other pardn, so if a pardon CAN be overturned, presidential pardons seem lije they could be as well. 

However, notably, the one federal crime a president can't pardon is cases of impeachment, and as I don't really see how it stipulates that an impeament case be unsettled, it would seem to me that any allegations named and done by Trump associates in the impeachment case back in January _still_ cannot be pardoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder... powers of the,except in Cases of impeachment.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Please, _please_ tell me that there is recourse to revoke presidential pardons if it can be proven that they were granted as part of a criminal scheme.



This guy's videos are generally fairly informative, but I will give the obligatory disclaimer that he most certainly will appear quite biased against conservatives, to many conservatives. But the first few seconds of the video pretty much sums up the situation with presidential pardons and Trump:


----------



## Randy

My opinion is/was a bunch of blanket pardons, not just saving himself and his family but also quid pro quo pardons for anyone else who may potentially testify against him, along with anyone that will help bolster his appeal for more fake campaign fundraising and possible media company venture, such as Kyle Rittenhouse. Not pleasant but that's what you're gonna get.

I think New York is still gonna want his head, and all the moves in Florida are an effort to fight any potential extradition. 100% in the next year I expect to be posting in this thread about Trump being barricaded in Mar A Lago or elsewhere while Desantis or someone else blocks him from being extradited to NYS or similar. Could potentially be another country.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> I think New York is still gonna want his head, and all the moves in Florida are an effort to fight any potential extradition. 100% in the next year I expect to be posting in this thread about Trump being barricaded in Mar A Lago or elsewhere while Desantis or someone else blocks him from being extradited to NYS or similar. Could potentially be another country.


That's pretty much what I imagine happening as well, and it's fucking unreal. It'd be weird for the US to have a former President living in lavish exile like Idi Amin, but there you go.


----------



## bostjan

Meh, it's bad. Actually, it's really bad. But it's not like he went and robbed a bunch of money from everyone he doesn't like and then pardoned himself during his lame duck time. ... oh wait, he's still got almost two months...

So, wild hypothetical here. Do you think the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution thought of the old "assassinate-your-political-rival-then-pardon-your-VP-with-a-blanket-pardon-and-then-resign-and-then-have-your-VP-pardon-you-for-the-assassination ploy"?


----------



## SpaceDock

When is someone going to make a Make the Repubtards Cry flag so I can put that shit on my hybrid. Not even inauguration yet and I am already so sick of listening to these grown ass men whine like brats that they are getting what they want.


----------



## groverj3

I don't think I'll be able to relax until they drag Ol' Orangeface out of the White House on January 20th. Until then I keep thinking that the insanity will end, but it never seems to. I'm low key terrified that one of their insane challenges to the election will be successful because there's a judge that's the same kind of crazy out there somewhere, or a supreme court case goes his way because the Republican appointees there will value party over country.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> Please, _please_ tell me that there is recourse to revoke presidential pardons if it can be proven that they were granted as part of a criminal scheme.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Article II Section 2: "... and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

^That's it in its entirety. Make of it what you will.

I actually think there will be cause to overturn any of his parsons that involve cases tied into his impeachment trial. That last clause does not specify removed, just impeached. And I would think you could argue for including co-conspirators. It will be fun to see where this goes once he is out of office.







Good book that actually talks about stuff like that. And yes, the power of the president to grant pardons is very vague and poorly written like most of the Constitution.

It will make you truly understand how "originalists" are full of shit.



Randy said:


> My opinion is/was a bunch of blanket pardons, not just saving himself and his family but also quid pro quo pardons for anyone else who may potentially testify against him, along with anyone that will help bolster his appeal for more fake campaign fundraising and possible media company venture, such as Kyle Rittenhouse. Not pleasant but that's what you're gonna get.
> 
> I think New York is still gonna want his head, and all the moves in Florida are an effort to fight any potential extradition. 100% in the next year I expect to be posting in this thread about Trump being barricaded in Mar A Lago or elsewhere while Desantis or someone else blocks him from being extradited to NYS or similar. Could potentially be another country.



Sounds like we're in for a real... 'Rump Roast... amirite?


----------



## StevenC

groverj3 said:


> I don't think I'll be able to relax until they drag Ol' Orangeface out of the White House on January 20th. Until then I keep thinking that the insanity will end, but it never seems to. I'm low key terrified that one of their insane challenges to the election will be successful because there's a judge that's the same kind of crazy out there somewhere, or a supreme court case goes his way because the Republican appointees there will value party over country.


You reckon Joe will turn up to the White House after inauguration and be left waiting in the lobby? "Your room will be ready shortly"


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> You reckon Joe will turn up to the White House after inauguration and be left waiting in the lobby? "Your room will be ready shortly"


I see one of two things happening.

1. Trump leaves for his holiday break and just never comes back. He likely barricades himself into one of his properties to avoid the authorities as long as he can.

2. Trump refuses to leave office and the capital police and/or secret service and/or both forcefully remove him the day he's supposed to leave of his own volition.

With his more extreme tendencies, I really don't see the potential for this to be a smooth and peaceful transition with him shaking Joe's hand on the way out or anything. It'll either be skulking away in silence, or full-fledged tantrum level stay-in ending with forceful removal.

I'd love to be proven wrong. Just this one time it'd be great to see him behave like a decent human being, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> I see one of two things happening.
> 
> 1. Trump leaves for his holiday break and just never comes back. He likely barricades himself into one of his properties to avoid the authorities as long as he can.
> 
> 2. Trump refuses to leave office and the capital police and/or secret service and/or both forcefully remove him the day he's supposed to leave of his own volition.
> 
> With his more extreme tendencies, I really don't see the potential for this to be a smooth and peaceful transition with him shaking Joe's hand on the way out or anything. It'll either be skulking away in silence, or full-fledged tantrum level stay-in ending with forceful removal.
> 
> I'd love to be proven wrong. Just this one time it'd be great to see him behave like a decent human being, but I'm not holding my breath.


If I'm Biden I don't want to sleep in the same bedroom Trump just spent 4 years not leaving and watching TV


----------



## SpaceDock

StevenC said:


> If I'm Biden I don't want to sleep in the same bedroom Trump just spent 4 years not leaving and watching TV


----------



## nightflameauto

18 states join Texas's Supreme Count case

That's uh. . . disappointing. Not shocking, but disappointing.

Why do I have a feeling we're in for four years of constant legal challenges to Biden's presidency?


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


>


Oh man... 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/biden-covid-safety-transition-444040


----------



## JSanta

nightflameauto said:


> 18 states join Texas's Supreme Count case
> 
> That's uh. . . disappointing. Not shocking, but disappointing.
> 
> Why do I have a feeling we're in for four years of constant legal challenges to Biden's presidency?



I think these overt challenges to the election will mostly stop. All the GOP is doing is trying to appease their king right now. And while that will still exist, there are enough people that want to be the next GOP Presidential candidate, that we'll see both some fracturing in that party (which honestly already exists), and calls for the election to be given to Trump stopped.

That all being said, unless the Dems with both seats in Georgia, I have zero hope that McConnell will negotiate in good faith. That will strangle Biden more than anything.


----------



## groverj3

StevenC said:


> You reckon Joe will turn up to the White House after inauguration and be left waiting in the lobby? "Your room will be ready shortly"


No, I worry that the courts, which are full of Republican appointees, will eventually buy into the insanity and gift the presidency to Trump because Republicans have gone 100% into authoritarianism and don't really care about voting and democracy.


----------



## sleewell

trump is a troll plain and simple. its obvious he has no desire or interest to actually do the job of president. he just wants all the attention. he wants every news story to be about him.

the faster we just move on and ignore him the better everything will be.

@groverj3 are you a fellow Spartan? class of '05 myself and i still work in E.L. cool to see your avatar.


----------



## Randy

JSanta said:


> I think these overt challenges to the election will mostly stop. All the GOP is doing is trying to appease their king right now. And while that will still exist, there are enough people that want to be the next GOP Presidential candidate, that we'll see both some fracturing in that party (which honestly already exists), and calls for the election to be given to Trump stopped.



My thoughts as well. Every election year, there are always people vying for the top spot. For Trump to claim the 2024 nomination after he just lost an election is just dooming the party and shooting down anybody who might make gains in the next 4 years. Of all the shitty things he did to that party, this may be the shittiest.

I think sleewell is right, with a caveat. It is ego, though also coupled with enriching himself and saving his skin. There's a very good chance he wants all these ongoing legal cases and a supposed 2024 campaign to leach money from and to try to remain relevant enough thinking his election-case stuff will keep him out of confronting his pending criminal/civil cases. It's a stretch but they're trying to swap the "I can't be tried because I'm busy being the president" with "I can't be tried because I'm supposed to be the president and still might be maybe".


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> My thoughts as well. Every election year, there are always people vying for the top spot. For Trump to claim the 2024 nomination after he just lost an election is just dooming the party and shooting down anybody who might make gains in the next 4 years. Of all the shitty things he did to that party, this may be the shittiest.
> 
> I think sleewell is right, with a caveat. It is ego, though also coupled with enriching himself and saving his skin. There's a very good chance he wants all these ongoing legal cases and a supposed 2024 campaign to leach money from and to try to remain relevant enough thinking his election-case stuff will keep him out of confronting his pending criminal/civil cases. It's a stretch but they're trying to swap the "I can't be tried because I'm busy being the president" with "I can't be tried because I'm supposed to be the president and still might be maybe".




Also he keeps fundraising for the PAC he started which basically amounts to a slush fund for him to use with very few limits on its uses. Plus travel/hotels can be deemed political expenses funnel the traffic to his properties (sound familiar) the dude is just an elite level grifter feel so bad for all the people buying it.


----------



## JSanta

Dineley said:


> Also he keeps fundraising for the PAC he started which basically amounts to a slush fund for him to use with very few limits on its uses. Plus travel/hotels can be deemed political expenses funnel the traffic to his properties (sound familiar) the dude is just an elite level grifter feel so bad for all the people buying it.



Every single idiot giving money to him deserves it.


----------



## Randy

Yeah, I'd say I'm less worried about the people losing the money and more concerned with how it's used.

The concern would be how many ways Trump, his allies and everyone else in the Trumpiverse use legal loopholes and these PACs to dodge prosecution while continuing to commit dangerous crimes.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'd say I'm less worried about the people losing the money and more concerned with how it's used.
> 
> The concern would be how many ways Trump, his allies and everyone else in the Trumpiverse use legal loopholes and these PACs to dodge prosecution while continuing to commit dangerous crimes.



I don't disagree with that last part at all. Once his office isn't there to protect him, I am genuinely curious what will happen to him and his inner circle from a legal perspective. Even though I have zero hope for many Biden wins because of the Senate, I am just glad to see someone in the White House that isn't a complete dumpster fire. Hopefully Trump gets banned from Twitter on 21 Jan and the non-radical (both sides) news media tries to mostly ignore him. Unless there are legal charges or he's on trial, I honestly don't care about what he's doing. 

Understandably, him continuing to drum up support and divisions is scary, but I have to have a little hope that middle of the ground Americans that support(ed) him come out of their fever dream soon.


----------



## Randy

It's definitely uncharted territory. 

My glass half full take would be that people will get tired of encouraging him with a promise of "stick with me and in 4 years we'll really give them hell!" My pessimistic take is that the Obama birtherism push lasted his whole 8-years with no real fuel or rational end game, so just chanting "stop the steal" for 4+ years might be enough for people to keep bankrolling this, idk.

My 51% belief says it's a little of both but the bulk of people will get bored with this shit by February, and it'll only be the Alex Jones types that keep chasing this, which will make it easy to tune out.


----------



## spudmunkey

JSanta said:


> Hopefully Trump gets banned from Twitter on 21 Jan and the non-radical (both sides) news media tries to mostly ignore him.



Oh, shit...I didn't even think of that. Without the position, he'd have been banned. I mean...there was a guy who literally just copied and pasted all of Trump's tweets, and he at least had multiple suspensions for violating their TOS.


----------



## bostjan

I know a few avid Trump supporters who still talk about Obama's birth certificate in December of 2020 on a fairly regular basis as if it's a current event. Even if the news blocks all Trump coverage, I don't see these folks ever giving up on the debunked suitcase of ballots angle.


----------



## groverj3

sleewell said:


> trump is a troll plain and simple. its obvious he has no desire or interest to actually do the job of president. he just wants all the attention. he wants every news story to be about him.
> 
> the faster we just move on and ignore him the better everything will be.
> 
> @groverj3 are you a fellow Spartan? class of '05 myself and i still work in E.L. cool to see your avatar.


I am indeed. Graduated from there in 2011. Then spent 7 years melting in the desert for grad school at the University of Arizona, and just moved to Boston in August. What a time to move 3000 miles.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> If I'm Biden I don't want to sleep in the same bedroom Trump just spent 4 years not leaving and watching TV


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> If I'm Biden I don't want to sleep in the same bedroom Trump just spent 4 years not leaving and watching TV



I'm assuming Trump brought in his own bed (something like this) and will take it back when he leaves:


----------



## nightflameauto

So, South Dakota's governor joined the Texas lawsuit. She put out a statement saying something about how just because it's a federal election it doesn't mean states don't have the right to demand other states put stricter restriction on who is allowed to vote. WTF does that even mean?

I'm so sick of the deluded right trying to impose their distorted world view on the rest of us. As the Times said this morning, "Leaders are supposed to be the adults in the room saying, 'look, I know your upset, but this is reality now.' They are not supposed to be fanning the flames with the public."

This is ridiculous. Even when the case gets thrown out, for good reason, this type of thing is more than enough to keep the base convinced the entire system is rigged against them. It makes me sick to my stomach.

BTW, Time magazine straight up trolling Trump with their person of the year may be the funniest big publication move in a long time. There's more than enough reason to think he could have been for all the wrong reasons. Them pulling Biden/Harris jointly has to be stinging him right now.


----------



## Randy

The only marginally believable storyline to go with the lawsuit is that the states in question made last minute changes to the voting system in their state because of COVID-19 and other similar measures made it to SCOTUS with varied rulings (deadlines, delivery date of ballots, etc). The most generous reading of the Texas lawsuit is basically saying SCOTUS did have a say in how states handled ballots if/when those cases reached them and these measures lacked oversight.

Where it loses any traction is the fact that the lawsuit comes after the ballots are cast, counted and certified. There's pretty much no universe where a high court will literally throw out elections results, and doubly absurd that the Texas suit seeks to have the Republican legislatures of those states choose the electors as a solution.

I don't fear this being successful, I do fear the notion this doesn't get thrown out entirely or that the ruling is anything less than unanimous. The idea even one justice could see any validity to this argument would be a very scary precedent.


----------



## bostjan

If the lawsuit proves everything it sets out to prove, *and * gets the results thrown away (which doesn't even follow logic), then the only fair outcome would be to repeat the entire election in those states. I don't see how that would benefit Trump in the long run.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I don't fear this being successful, I do fear the notion this doesn't get thrown out entirely or that the ruling is anything less than unanimous. The idea even one justice could see any validity to this argument would be a very scary precedent.


I'm a little concerned by the number of Republican folks in current elected federal positions that are coming out in support of this nonsense. The states brought up in the lawsuit are seeing an increase in death threats against their election officials and state officials. This type of stoking of the flames isn't something that's just going to go away even *IF* the Supreme Court decides unanimously that the case is the laughing stock it seems to be.

But, to your point, if even one, or gods forbid two justice(s) don't see this as an absolutely meritless case, those stoked flames have the potential to become nuclear level explosive.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Just gotta throw out a massive "Fuck you" to Mitch, Chuck, and the rest of the gang that will allow a potential 14 million Americans to lose their eviction protections at the end of the year. I hope you all choke on your Christmas dinner.


----------



## sleewell

tx made the same changes that they are bitching about other states made, as did a number of other states not named in the lawsuit. they only have an issue with the states that trump lost which proves how dumb and hypocritical the lawsuit is. 

anyone who is an atty who signed off on this lawsuit should have their law license revoked. in normal times they would get punished for filing a lawsuit or going before a judge when they knew what they were saying is based in falsehoods so this should be no different. it sets a bad example moving forward that you can just compromise election integrity for purely political theater.


----------



## Randy

I don't have twitter but someone told me it's being tweeted that SCOTUS rejected the Texas case.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> I don't have twitter but someone told me it's being tweeted that SCOTUS rejected the Texas case.



https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...s-12-11-20/h_0f5210649341a9c63a3fac9a6f1abdae


----------



## SpaceDock




----------



## Randy

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,” the court wrote in its unsigned order.

Translation: NOPE


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'd say I'm less worried about the people losing the money and more concerned with how it's used.
> 
> The concern would be how many ways Trump, his allies and everyone else in the Trumpiverse use legal loopholes and these PACs to dodge prosecution while continuing to commit dangerous crimes.



At this point, he's funneling money to his family and rich loyalists. Whether that means Ivanka's run for political power or his own is kind of irrelevant. I don't see him doing anything criminally intelligent with the money. That's really his big accomplishments



bostjan said:


> If the lawsuit proves everything it sets out to prove, *and * gets the results thrown away (which doesn't even follow logic), then the only fair outcome would be to repeat the entire election in those states. I don't see how that would benefit Trump in the long run.



They have been arguing the whole time for states to appoint loyalist electors to decide against the people. No way they would redo the entire vote.



nightflameauto said:


> I'm a little concerned by the number of Republican folks in current elected federal positions that are coming out in support of this nonsense



it's not like elected officials require credentials. It's a popularity contest by definition. Just imagine your high school prom king being in office. They are supporting this nonsense because if it works they believe they will be in a better position to get what they want from the federal government. It's not like Biden is going to punish states that supported Trump's nonsense.


----------



## fantom

So can we disbar any lawyers that the supreme court keeps saying are not making legal arguments? I feel like anytime an employee wastes the CEOs time by skipping all managers and making a rant that isn't worth the CEO's time, the consequences likely end with said employee losing their job. How is that any different then people whining at the SCOTUS? Take away their legal licenses for clear political bias not based in law.


----------



## Randy

Court is capable of sanctioning lawyers and plaintiffs for frivolous abuse of the system, yes.

Also, hey, am I reading it wrong or did Thomas and Alito say they were willing to hear the case and everyone else said no?


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Court is capable of sanctioning lawyers and plaintiffs for frivolous abuse of the system, yes.
> 
> Also, hey, am I reading it wrong or did Thomas and Alito say they were willing to hear the case and everyone else said no?



Not sure where that is, because I thought when it's unsigned, it means every supreme justice agreed.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Not sure where that is, because I thought when it's unsigned, it means every supreme justice agreed.



"Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ 
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."

I read that as Thomas and Alito saying they believe it's in their jurisdiction to field the complaint. The unsigned part I believe implies it's everyone else?


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> "Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."
> 
> I read that as Thomas and Alito saying they believe it's in their jurisdiction to field the complaint. The unsigned part I believe implies it's everyone else?



That basically says they'd be listening to it...if they really really had to.


----------



## Randy




----------



## fantom

I read it as the two dissenting opinions are saying they would hear the case because they believe there is precedent. They made it clear they don't have an opinion on the outcome or the politics. The cited case is ironically one they denied after hearing it. So not sure that plays into Trump's favor in anyway.


----------



## Randy

Checked in on alt right world. OAN is actually just running a giant advertisement for another MAGA March on Washington this weekend, completely ignoring that SCOTUS just tossed the case. Giuliani on Newsmax saying he's basically glad SCOTUS threw out the case and he intends to somehow continue after this


----------



## SpaceDock

The worst part is that Trump, Giuliani and the clown crew don’t give two shits about losing. All their Maga morons are pumping money into all these fund raisers for them and Giuliani is making 20k a day. All this “Stop the Steal” is just the latest grift and their supporters are too dumb to see it. Really sucks that they are tearing down our norms and destroying our country all in the pursuit of a payday.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> The worst part is that Trump, Giuliani and the clown crew don’t give two shits about losing. All their Maga morons are pumping money into all these fund raisers for them and Giuliani is making 20k a day. All this “Stop the Steal” is just the latest grift and their supporters are too dumb to see it. Really sucks that they are tearing down our norms and destroying our country all in the pursuit of a payday.



Keep in mind, their last grift was the wall fund and at least two of them are in jail for it. Trump potentially not involved but also untouchable from his office at the time.

"Stop the Steal" or MAGA 2024 or whatever this new pyramid scheme is has all the big players and likely no barrier to prosecuting them when they inevitably misuse the funds. What they were doing before was endorsed by the president of the United States, but after January 21st, it's sedition.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Former Trump Homeland Security Official Elizabeth Nuemann, who worked for Trump from 2016-2020: “His Policies are Racist” 

And as one YT commenter said:

“Every American should hear this!” _
_
And anyone else for that matter...
_
_

While it is clear to many what Trump-(rac)ism has emboldened, I want to leave this here as it’s important to understand, remember, and never forget what DJT has been up to. 

Even with this knowledge given to him by his own staff:

_“Federal Intelligence and security agencies say white supremacist extremist pose America’s deadliest domestic terror threat.”_


----------



## sleewell

Sounds like those 2 justices would have heard the case but they did not agree with what they were asking for which was to throw out all the votes in those states and to just hand it to trump so they passed all together.

The system is holding but only bc the people who are attempting the coup are so incompetent. It seems like there are def cracks there where smarter people could have made more progress.


It's a very good thing the election was such a blowout. Had it come down to a small amount of votes in only one state and had trump used better attys he could have stolen it.


----------



## SpaceDock

The two justices comments is that in some circumstances a state can sue another state, there is precedent for that but not concerning elections because the constitution calls out that each state can hold elections any way they like; ie universal mail in in my state, voter id rules in others. 

I do find it frightening that they gave them an inch because of course right wing media is going to spin that into anything they want to help their case. This Supreme Court letter should have been a slam telling them to give up and stop the madness. 

As the weeks go on we are getting closer and closer to a real problem as Trump runs out of legal arrows in his quiver yet the base and previously respectable republicans reinforce his behavior. We are one step closer to a violent coup. Please tell me I am wrong! The reason why Nixon walked away was because republicans didn’t stand for his law breaking. We are dealing with a cult here.


----------



## SpaceDock

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...back-may-call-for-union-of-law-abiding-states

For the love of god, can they not see that Trump is literally tearing our country apart! Can republicans not just suck it up? Srsly biggest bunch of snowflake, sore loser, whiners! “We don’t get our way, taking our ball and going home!” No Trump, secession is the only answer? Any other candidate who lost would be stepping up to say “now chill out guys, I lost, mid terms in two years, let’s get em then.” WTF Republicans!?!


----------



## fantom

SpaceDock said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...back-may-call-for-union-of-law-abiding-states
> 
> For the love of god, can they not see that Trump is literally tearing our country apart! Can republicans not just suck it up? Srsly biggest bunch of snowflake, sore loser, whiners! “We don’t get our way, taking our ball and going home!” No Trump, secession is the only answer? Any other candidate who lost would be stepping up to say “now chill out guys, I lost, mid terms in two years, let’s get em then.” WTF Republicans!?!



Is it really so bad to have 2 countries at this point? If people want to segregate and be ruled by a dictator, why is it our job to protect them and argue about it. Let them do it. Stop sending them federal tax money. Sanction the hell out of them like you would with any other dictator regime. It's pretty much Brexit. Why are people so attached to keeping the country together? What benefit does anyone get from keeping the country in a toxic relationship? Things would be so much easier if people stopped treating the federal government as the primary government and started focus on local community leaders.


----------



## diagrammatiks

ya el5. what's wrong with secession.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Is it really so bad to have 2 countries at this point? If people want to segregate and be ruled by a dictator, why is it our job to protect them and argue about it. Let them do it. Stop sending them federal tax money. Sanction the hell out of them like you would with any other dictator regime. It's pretty much Brexit. Why are people so attached to keeping the country together? What benefit does anyone get from keeping the country in a toxic relationship? Things would be so much easier if people stopped treating the federal government as the primary government and started focus on local community leaders.



The outcome would more than likely lead to a lot of death and suffering, on both sides, so while I'm sure it seems neato on paper, it would not be a good time. For anyone. 

Well, I suppose the worst of the worst would have a blast. Let's not make thier day.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> The outcome would more than likely lead to a lot of death and suffering, on both sides, so while I'm sure it seems neato on paper, it would not be a good time. For anyone.
> 
> Well, I suppose the worst of the worst would have a blast. Let's not make thier day.



Well that's implying we don't just let them go. There's no civil war if you just let them walk.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...back-may-call-for-union-of-law-abiding-states
> 
> For the love of god, can they not see that Trump is literally tearing our country apart! Can republicans not just suck it up? Srsly biggest bunch of snowflake, sore loser, whiners! “We don’t get our way, taking our ball and going home!” No Trump, secession is the only answer? Any other candidate who lost would be stepping up to say “now chill out guys, I lost, mid terms in two years, let’s get em then.” WTF Republicans!?!


When two hands rip something apart, each hand sees the other moving away, even if, when we step back, we see one hand pulling and one hand staying in place. Trump's base sees the change to Biden as pulling away from normalcy, whereas everyone else sees it as an attemp to return to normalcy. When we take a step back and apply some logic, one side of the argument falls apart, but when emotions run super high or super low, logic and introspection are unlikely.

Trump is actually really good at being stubborn. That, when weaponized, has been his primary source of success all along. All he does when attacked, is refuse to cooperate until it blows over or reaches an unfavourable endpoint that is still better for him than it could have been if he had made any concessions.



Randy said:


> Well that's implying we don't just let them go. There's no civil war if you just let them walk.



Umm, but which states? Montana- probably not a big deal, but Texas, where probably just under half of the population would want succession, and it would collapse the economy for both the US and Texas, not a good idea. And what about places like PA, where Trumpers are convinced everyone there wants the same thing, but, in reality, the majority want nothing to do with this nonsense. I don't see how there could be a stable division of the USA into red and blue nations.


----------



## sleewell

i really dont think trump wants that on his hands. he is just using this to raise some money on his way out.

but say it plays out that way. who the fuck would weep over over losing the likes of a MS or MO. fucking leaches. if we just let them leave our collective IQ and GDP would instantly skyrocket. no one would fight to let them leave, we would all be richer for not sending them money every year. bye Felecia!


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Umm, but which states? Montana- probably not a big deal, but Texas, where probably just under half of the population would want succession, and it would collapse the economy for both the US and Texas, not a good idea. And what about places like PA, where Trumpers are convinced everyone there wants the same thing, but, in reality, the majority want nothing to do with this nonsense. I don't see how there could be a stable division of the USA into red and blue nations.



It's not gonna happen, just a thought experiment. A secession would likely need some kind of referendum vote at the state level to pass, I doubt highly any state (even hard right) actually want this enough to pass a vote on it, Texas included. So there's that. Also, I doubt very highly Pennsylvania, which just went to Biden in this race, would all of the sudden support removing itself from the United States.

I'm essentially saying "put your money where your mouth is". I think these guys are way more dangerous hurling bombs over the wall every once in a while and drumming up a grassroots militia campaign vs having to actually make policy out if it. You see tens, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of "stop the steal" people and when it actually had to focus itself into a legal action it was thrown out. These people need to have their ideas taken to their conclusion and then snuffed out


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Well that's implying we don't just let them go. There's no civil war if you just let them walk.



I mean, I get the warm and fuzzies of watching them squirm as they fail to take thier ball elsewhere, it's obviously never going to happen, but IRL there are some legit reasons, outside embarrassment, that this probably should never happen.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> It's not gonna happen, just a thought experiment. A secession would likely need some kind of referendum vote at the state level to pass, I doubt highly any state (even hard right) actually want this enough to pass a vote on it, Texas included. So there's that. Also, I doubt very highly Pennsylvania, which just went to Biden in this race, would all of the sudden support removing itself from the United States.
> 
> I'm essentially saying "put your money where your mouth is". I think these guys are way more dangerous hurling bombs over the wall every once in a while and drumming up a grassroots militia campaign vs having to actually make policy out if it. You see tens, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of "stop the steal" people and when it actually had to focus itself into a legal action it was thrown out. These people need to have their ideas taken to their conclusion and then snuffed out


Yup. If you take all of Trump's supporters, say <75ish million people, out of >200 M American adults, that's, say 35%. Those willing to continue this nonsense about election bullshit are maybe 1/3 of that, at most. While 25 M might seem huge, it's only about 10-12%, and then how many, of those, would be willing to put their lives, families, and livlihoods on the line to make their half-baked political ideas a reality? I'm guessing more than a few people but less than a significant fraction.

Whoever those people are, though... at this point mathematics doesn't matter.

But, as a thought experiment, where are most of the crazy militia people? Well, you have those guys out west who want to take over nature reserves in OR and WA by force, so blue states. You have MI, where the governor kidnapping plot and state capitol takeover hapoened, so a blue state... Do you see where this goes? If two or three of the reddest states work out a peaceful yoo-ess-exit plan, these minutemen-types will be all like "yeehaw, this is the moment, boys!" and start blowing shit up with pipe bombs. Sure they'd eventually lose once the mathematics works out, but I wouldn't want to encourage them without prior containment.

Maybe the FBI, since it's so good at entrapment on civilians, could set up some sort of way for those guys to try to blow up a dummy building or whatever and sort of bait them out so we know which ones are dangerous and which ones are just paranoid.


----------



## SpaceDock

Any one who thinks letting some states walk from the union would end in a massive bloody war and maybe even WW3 isn’t thinking about what it would be like to have such a divide. Sure let a Dakota or two go, but the conservative states are a diving wall between the two liberal coasts. This is what our enemies have been clamoring for since the Cold War.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> "Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:
> In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a
> bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original
> jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore
> grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not
> grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."
> 
> I read that as Thomas and Alito saying they believe it's in their jurisdiction to field the complaint. The unsigned part I believe implies it's everyone else?



I read that as saying that it would be procedurally correct to allow the case to be filed with the Supreme Court since it is a case between states, but that Alito and Thomas wouldn’t actually hear the case, just allow it to be filed.


----------



## bostjan

Funny thing is I remember 2016, when Trump's supporters were having the same conversation about California. Like, meh, let California be its own country then. Nobody wanted that, though. Same thing here. Does any state want to be completely independent?! It's an economic nightmare. State governments tend to be economically driven. I think it's just noise.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Any one who thinks letting some states walk from the union would end in a massive bloody war and maybe even WW3 isn’t thinking about what it would be like to have such a divide. Sure let a Dakota or two go, but the conservative states are a diving wall between the two liberal coasts. This is what our enemies have been clamoring for since the Cold War.



Dunno what to tell you. I said that advocating this stuff is sedition and nobody jumped on it. So we don't want them to take official action to leave but also don't want to stop them from basically inciting riots and revolt, which will likely get someone killed by the time they're done.  Saying "boy I wish they'd knock that off" only gets you so far AKA nowhere


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> I read that as saying that it would be procedurally correct to allow the case to be filed with the Supreme Court since it is a case between states, but that Alito and Thomas wouldn’t actually hear the case, just allow it to be filed.


In other words, they're telling Trump to file his case in the same drawer as all of his rental applications from black people?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Funny thing is I remember 2016, when Trump's supporters were having the same conversation about California. Like, meh, let California be its own country then. Nobody wanted that, though. Same thing here. Does any state want to be completely independent?! It's an economic nightmare. State governments tend to be economically driven. I think it's just noise.



Totally just noise but this is the same as Comet Ping Pong or "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" where they beat the drum with violent rhetoric until someone answers the call. You can't have major political leaders saying for months that the election was stolen by hostile forces that are now going to be put in charge, then advocate states withdraw from the union, and let that stuff go completely unchecked.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Totally just noise but this is the same as Comet Ping Pong or "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" where they beat the drum with violent rhetoric until someone answers the call. You can't have major political leaders saying for months that the election was stolen by hostile forces that are now going to be put in charge, then advocate states withdraw from the union, and let that stuff go completely unchecked.


What's the appropriate sanction as recourse?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> What's the appropriate sanction as recourse?



Haven't read what is done at a state level but individually, it seem to be pretty sufficiently laid out:


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> The outcome would more than likely lead to a lot of death and suffering, on both sides, so while I'm sure it seems neato on paper, it would not be a good time. For anyone.
> 
> Well, I suppose the worst of the worst would have a blast. Let's not make thier day.



Someone is a little pessimistic. I'm sure there are more outcomes then people killing each other over it. I don't see EU bombing the UK the last several years. What is the death count there due to Brexit?



SpaceDock said:


> Any one who thinks letting some states walk from the union would end in a massive bloody war and maybe even WW3 isn’t thinking about what it would be like to have such a divide. Sure let a Dakota or two go, but the conservative states are a diving wall between the two liberal coasts. This is what our enemies have been clamoring for since the Cold War.



Anyone viewing this issue as states in the middle vs states near the coast needs to look at county level maps. This problem is dense cities vs. rural countryside. They have different needs. The map is almost entirely red if you remove major cities from it, even in California.



Randy said:


> It's not gonna happen, just a thought experiment. A secession would likely need some kind of referendum vote at the state level to pass, I doubt highly any state (even hard right) actually want this enough to pass a vote on it, Texas included. So there's that. Also, I doubt very highly Pennsylvania, which just went to Biden in this race, would all of the sudden support removing itself from the United States.



See below



bostjan said:


> Funny thing is I remember 2016, when Trump's supporters were having the same conversation about California. Like, meh, let California be its own country then. Nobody wanted that, though. Same thing here. Does any state want to be completely independent?! It's an economic nightmare. State governments tend to be economically driven. I think it's just noise.



The support for Calexit was actually pretty high in bay area. Most people I know would have voted for it. Pretty much people feel like the federal government takes money and doesn't do anything for the state. The taxes from the state are also so high it feels like we have 2 governments. So who wouldn't want one to go? The main negative is dealing with military personnel and assets. It never made it onto the ballot because I think the political people here didn't think it would work out at the federal level. Or maybe central valley and northern California were not committal. I don't know. Subsequently there was a push to divide California into 5 states, but that was to manipulate senate seats in my mind.


Edit: polls showed 32% supported CalExit. About 50/50 among Democrats and very little support from Republicans. So again, it isn't a blue state, it is blue cities surrounded by red farms. There is no way a state can secede when it's just cities that want to go. For states without major cities that are predominantly rural, they have a chance. I'm not sure what Austin or Houstin would think about Texas secession.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Someone is a little pessimistic. I'm sure there are more outcomes then people killing each other over it. I don't see EU bombing the UK the last several years. What is the death count there due to Brexit?



Brexit is a shitty comparison because 1) it hasn't happened yet, 2) the UK doesn't have hundreds of millions of firearms in civilian hands, and only 1/5th intentional homicide per capita, 3) because of "1" we don't know how the Northern Ireland situation is going to play out. 

As far as a "body count" on Brexit, again _it hasn't happened yet_, but if the economic models are even somewhat accurate there is going to be more poverty which tends to lead to more deaths through multiple causes. 

How about the last time some states tried to succeed?


----------



## diagrammatiks

How about they give them like Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
Then Jeff Bezos pays to relocate everyone.


----------



## groverj3

Good to see the SCOTUS won't see the case.

The sycophantic Republicans still concern me that they're going to cause all sorts of pointless drama when they count the electoral votes.

Re: Deiscussion over Red State secession. Not going to happen. First of all, explicitly illegal, and secondly even if they could (because I guess if you decide to leave a country then assuming nobody wants to start a war over it then you're no longer bound to the previous country's laws) only like two red states by my reckoning have any hope of having a strong enough economy to be self sufficient. That's Texas and Florida. Neither of which are actually as red as we often think, there would be significant people in these two states that wouldn't go along with it. The rest? Yeah, okay Mississippi, Alabama, the Dakotas... Idaho? these places are already among the most proverty-stricken areas of the US and without being a net beneficiary of federal funds their states' economies would collapse. Imagine them joining a coalition of states that don't believe in taxes and a strong federal government. They would be absolutely fucked.

Assuming we get through Jan 6th without too much drama and the electoral votes are officially counted, then we're fine.

However, the past four years, as especially 2020, show us that our system of government is rickety and held together by "norms" much moreso than laws. There needs to be real structural changes like the abolition of the electoral college, term limits in congress, and much much more done. In fact, we need to do away with our winner take all system and move to a more parliamentary system with proportional representation like is common in much of the rest of the world. However, none of this will ever happen so I'm just hoping we can go at least 4 years without giving a single shit about what our president is tweeting.


----------



## Necris

fantom said:


> ...look at county level maps. This problem is dense cities vs. rural countryside. They have different needs. The map is almost entirely red if you remove major cities from it


According to 2015 data 62.7% of the US population lives in cities, so yeah the map is going to look different if you just start removing them. If you broaden your criteria to "urban areas" that porportion increases to 83% of the population. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html
http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet


----------



## fantom

So there are videos surfacing on social media today of Proud Boys getting into fights and altercations with DC police during protests. Whatever happened to Trump preaching law and order?


----------



## fantom

Necris said:


> According to 2015 data 62.7% of the US population lives in cities, so yeah the map is going to look different if you just start removing them. If you broaden your criteria to "urban areas" that porportion increases to 83% of the population. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html
> http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...back-may-call-for-union-of-law-abiding-states

Talk of secession begins.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Necris

fantom said:


> *Map*


Yes, and without taking population into account that looks impressive. Its not as reductive as just painting the entire state one color depending on what candidate they went for, but it's still reductive and skews perspective by ignoring population.
~40% of my state lives in NYC which has a total population of just under 9 million, a larger population than the combined total of a number of midwestern states combined.

I didn't bring up those numbers and links for nothing, even in many of those midwestern states the majority of the population is found in cities.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/te...back-may-call-for-union-of-law-abiding-states
> 
> Talk of secession begins.



Is that what they mean, though? There are all sorts of multi-state agreements. Heck, for elections, there are like 17 states that have agreed to unionize their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. A few more states and it effectively eliminates the electoral college.

I think there are a couple of states that agreed so follow California's lead when it comes to vehicle emissions.

Could that actually be the sort of "union" they mean?

I understand it may be reaching, but I hate to jump to extremes because reality is usually at least a little more rational...


----------



## thraxil

MaxOfMetal said:


> Brexit is a shitty comparison because 1) it hasn't happened yet, 2) the UK doesn't have hundreds of millions of firearms in civilian hands, and only 1/5th intentional homicide per capita, 3) because of "1" we don't know how the Northern Ireland situation is going to play out.
> 
> As far as a "body count" on Brexit, again _it hasn't happened yet_, but if the economic models are even somewhat accurate there is going to be more poverty which tends to lead to more deaths through multiple causes.



I would also add (since the discussion that pulled in Brexit as an example was pointing out that the EU hasn't bombed the UK as a result) that there is now *literally* talk about using Royal Navy gunships to "protect" UK fishing waters: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55286439

It seems to be the usual stupid posturing and not realistic, but it's an uncomfortable step in the direction of bombs. Certainly closer than was really conceivable pre-Brexit.

Give it a few months or years after January 2021 and we'll see how Brexit actually works as a model for whether states seceding would be positive or not. At the moment, it looks like the absolute best case scenario on most aspects will be that a deal is negotiated that preserves the current situation. There's basically nothing that looks like it will be an upside to Brexit.

Even just internally in the UK, Brexit has been harmful for the same reason that US states seceding would be extremely painful internally. Brexit was an extremely close vote and as a result nearly half of the country (or arguably more if the many EU residents that live in the UK had been allowed to vote) feel that they're being dragged along by the other half on a decision that is going to have massive negative effects on their lives. As has been pointed out, "red states" still tend to have cities that are very blue and "blue states" have rural areas that are very red. I also feel like people forget that even in "red" or "blue" areas, it's still not as uniform as we tend to think. My home county in northern Maine is reliably red. In my lifetime, I don't think they've elected a Democrat to *anything*. Politicians on both sides usually don't even bother campaigning because the election outcomes are pretty much predetermined. But when you look at the detailed maps, it's only about 60-65% Republican. That's a solid, reliable "red" majority but it's a far cry from 100%. If you imagine a room with 10 people in it, 6 of them Republican and 4 Democrat, that doesn't *feel* like an overwhelming majority even though it's the same ratio. And most districts in the country aren't even that lopsided. "Red states" seceding from the "blue states" or vice versa would be similar to Brexit on both sides, with a significant portion of the population finding themselves in the "wrong" country.


----------



## Necris

spudmunkey said:


> Is that what they mean, though? There are all sorts of multi-state agreements. Heck, for elections, there are like 17 states that have agreed to unionize their electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote. A few more states and it effectively eliminates the electoral college.
> 
> I think there are a couple of states that agreed so follow California's lead when it comes to vehicle emissions.
> 
> Could that actually be the sort of "union" they mean?
> 
> I understand it may be reaching, but I hate to jump to extremes because reality is usually at least a little more rational...



A voting union sounds more likely to be something other states would get on board with than outright secession so I don't think you're making a crazy stretch, necessarily. The question is though, to what end? A voting union for 2024 doesn't solve their current grievances. If they make a union to "abide by the constitutional election process" or whatever for the next election they haven't solved the issue of how (in their legally unfounded opinions) other states were not abiding by the constitution in the 2020 election, or how those states will handle the 2024 election. Similarly that union won't reverse the results of what they see as an illegitimate election.

In practical terms they're really just being incredibly vague, and, when one takes into consideration how normalized talk of the impossibility of reconciling the alleged worldviews of the two major parties and the imminence of the the next civil war actually is on the political right they're arguably being recklessly vague or even making a thinly veiled threat.

Their only real claim seems to be that by not taking the case the Supreme Court has given them carte blanche to violate the constitution even if doing so brings harm to other states since they feel the states they're targeting did exactly that without any legal consequence or even any inquiry. It would be odd for self-styled law-abiding constitution respecters to take advantage of this "opportunity". We'd have to consider what actions would actually solve their problems with the current election with the hypothetical freedom to go against the constitution.


I don't think they actually have any coherent position, much less the desire to act on it so sit me in the "it's probably just dangerous political theater/noise" camp.


Randy said:


> Totally just noise but this is the same as Comet Ping Pong or "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" where they beat the drum with violent rhetoric until someone answers the call. You can't have major political leaders saying for months that the election was stolen by hostile forces that are now going to be put in charge, then advocate states withdraw from the union, and let that stuff go completely unchecked.


Make stochastic terrorism great again!


----------



## fantom

Necris said:


> Yes, and without taking population into account that looks impressive. Its not as reductive as just painting the entire state one color depending on what candidate they went for, but it's still reductive and skews perspective by ignoring population.
> ~40% of my state lives in NYC which has a total population of just under 9 million, a larger population than the combined total of a number of midwestern states combined.
> 
> I didn't bring up those numbers and links for nothing, even in many of those midwestern states the majority of the population is found in cities.



My point is that you can't easily just draw a border for a new country. Who cares how much is red or blue. The point is that it is intermingled. The only way to draw a reasonable boundary for new countries is to force people who disagree with their local politics to move. If texas or california secedes, I'm pretty sure you have a mass exodus of the minority party in each state.


----------



## Millul

Well, the comparison with Brexit would be pretty weak, as generally the US consider themselves a single Nation ("undivided,..." yeah) while the EU NEVER considered themselves a Nation and never will, and we're talking of cutting what are mainly economical and political ties, not really cultural or hystorical ones - and it's already enough of a mess as it is.


----------



## Necris

fantom said:


> My point is that you can't easily just draw a border for a new country. Who cares how much is red or blue. The point is that it is intermingled. The only way to draw a reasonable boundary for new countries is to force people who disagree with their local politics to move. If texas or california secedes, I'm pretty sure you have a mass exodus of the minority party in each state.


Fair enough. We're basically on the same page then, actually. I just completely misunderstood you.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> In other words, they're telling Trump to file his case in the same drawer as all of his rental applications from black people?



Yeah, basically.


----------



## Ralyks

So we got 4 stabbings and a shooting between the pro-trump rallies in DC and Washington state, and Proud Boys destroy BLM signs, other people's property, and assaulting bystanders.

Lovely.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Ralyks said:


> So we got 4 stabbings and a shooting between the pro-trump rallies in DC and Washington state, and Proud Boys destroy BLM signs, other people's property, and assaulting bystanders.
> 
> Lovely.



no way. Right wing protesters would neeeeeever destroy property.


----------



## USMarine75

fantom said:


>








I've had Republican friends try and use that map to show that the majority of the country votes Republican and that it's unfair elections are beholden to a few Socialist Democratic cities. And then I have to use this map to explain that the Democratic blue areas correlate almost exactly with nearly ALL of the population centers - literally, wherever there are a lot of people. They're trying to argue that the Republicans should win because they dominate in barren wastelands like Wyoming and the Dakotas?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> I've had Republican friends try and use that map to show that the majority of the country votes Republican and that it's unfair elections are beholden to a few Socialist Democratic cities. And then I have to use this map to explain that the Democratic blue areas correlate almost exactly with nearly ALL of the population centers - literally, wherever there are a lot of people. They're trying to argue that the Republicans should win because they dominate in barren wastelands like Wyoming and the Dakotas?




He posted map to say you cant just split the country as much as it feels like it could make sense. No one is saying Republicans should be in charge because of map just more showing how even in the bluest states theres red all over


----------



## USMarine75

Dineley said:


> He posted map to say you cant just split the country as much as it feels like it could make sense. No one is saying Republicans should be in charge because of map just more showing how even in the bluest states theres red all over



I know... sorry I should have been more clear that my comment was just an aside.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> I know... sorry I should have been more clear that my comment was just an aside.



Okay rad my bad


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## nightflameauto

The very fact that we can have a serious discussion about the possibility of secession is kinda a sign of the times. I know where my state would side if it were to come to that, and I seriously DO NOT want to live in Trumpistan.

I still think right now that, for the most part, it's a whole lot of rhetoric and posturing trying to keep the Republican base foaming at the mouth. And all because I couple yahoos up top want to keep raking in "campaign donations" or whatever they're calling it now.

So, the Proud Boys getting violent over the weekend while the sitting lame duck President of the USA eggs them on through twitter is a bit much. But, you know, this is our world now.

And can someone explain to me why some butthurt loser gets to dictate to Jill Biden that she's no longer allowed to preface her name with 'Dr.' just because she's not a medical doctor? Doctorates aren't something that's just handed out for participation. They're a ton of fucking work and anybody that manages to succeed at it should be allowed to use the title.

At least this year gave us one good laugh:


----------



## bostjan

diagrammatiks said:


> no way. Right wing protesters would neeeeeever destroy property.


"LAW AND ORDER!" - except when chaos serves better, evidently.


----------



## USMarine75

State and Federal Lawsuits 1-59
Concurrence between 50 States Secretaries-General
State investigators, many of which are Republicans who voted for Trump, say no fraud occurred.
Your own US AG says no pervasive fraud
DOJ / FBI says no pervasive fraud
Head of the USG dept charged with election security (CISA) says it was the most secure election ever
Conservative 6-3 SCOTUS rules your two cases don't have enough merit to meet the minimum bar to be heard, and 3 of those associate justices you appointed.
Lawyers quit your legal team and no con law lawyers will take up your case
Your lawyers won't allege "fraud" in court, while publicly decrying fraud that occurred
Chris Christie, who helped you prep for debates, even says no fraud occurred.

Trump still alleges this is the most fraudulent election in history. And people believe this to be true.


----------



## failsafe

USMarine75 said:


> State and Federal Lawsuits 1-59
> Concurrence between 50 States Secretaries-General
> State investigators, many of which are Republicans who voted for Trump, say no fraud occurred.
> Your own US AG says no pervasive fraud
> DOJ / FBI says no pervasive fraud
> Head of the USG dept charged with election security (CISA) says it was the most secure election ever
> Conservative 6-3 SCOTUS rules your two cases don't have enough merit to meet the minimum bar to be heard, and 3 of those associate justices you appointed.
> Lawyers quit your legal team and no con law lawyers will take up your case
> Your lawyers won't allege "fraud" in court, while publicly decrying fraud that occurred
> Chris Christie, who helped you prep for debates, even says no fraud occurred.
> Trump still alleges this is the most fraudulent election in history. And people believe this to be true.


ITS A MASSIVE LIBRAL CONSPRISY


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> My point is that you can't easily just draw a border for a new country. Who cares how much is red or blue. The point is that it is intermingled. The only way to draw a reasonable boundary for new countries is to force people who disagree with their local politics to move. If texas or california secedes, I'm pretty sure you have a mass exodus of the minority party in each state.


Congratulations. You're the first person to share that stupid map, and go on to make a non-stupid point. 

There should be trophies for stuff like this.


----------



## Drew

Biden seals the Electoral College win, and William Barr resigned today after clashing with Trump by failing to endorse his wild election conspiracy theories.


----------



## Musiscience

Drew said:


> Biden seals the Electoral College win, and William Barr resigned today after clashing with Trump by failing to endorse his wild election conspiracy theories.



2020 is officially the year during which a lot unsuspected people around you are coming out as conspiracy theorists. It's actually even more fascinating that that many people who knows it's BS go with it because it helps their agenda no matter what. I know integrity is not the strongest suit of most politicians, but this goes way beyond the usual.


----------



## gunch

Barr is stepping down ahahaha


----------



## SpaceDock

Nana nanah nana nanah hey heyay, fuck off! 


Srsly though as much as I love seeing Barr leave, hoping he was not the one in charge of keeping the crazies in check.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Congratulations. You're the first person to share that stupid map, and go on to make a non-stupid point.
> 
> There should be trophies for stuff like this.



I try to limit my sharing stupid points to posts without pictures. Wouldn't want to look 2 stupid (pun intended).


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> Srsly though as much as I love seeing Barr leave, hoping he was not the one in charge of keeping the crazies in check.



That was former Chief of Staff John Kelly’s job.


----------



## spudmunkey

T minus how long before AG Giuliani?


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-democrats-media-mob-information-crisis

I've come around on this. The Dems should say we dont believe in any of it, but on behalf of Republicans everywhere we agree to a bipartisan 2 year unprecedented mega-investigation into Hunter Biden and voter fraud. Let them ring up a $1B bill.

When it comes up empty they can be like hey we told you so but you demanded this. Now please explain to the taxpayers why you wasted their money.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannity-democrats-media-mob-information-crisis
> 
> I've come around on this. The Dems should say we dont believe in any of it, but on behalf of Republicans everywhere we agree to a bipartisan 2 year unprecedented mega-investigation into Hunter Biden and voter fraud. Let them ring up a $1B bill.
> 
> When it comes up empty they can be like hey we told you so but you demanded this. Now please explain to the taxpayers why you wasted their money.


Nah, it'd never get to that point. They'd keep those wheels spinning until they could get somebody else like Trump back in the driver's seat just so they wouldn't have to explain their stupidity. I think entertaining the idiocy at this point would be utterly counter-productive because as long as an investigation into nothing was taking place they'd use it as an excuse to declare Biden's win invalid and refuse to work with him on anything.

Granted, that's pretty much our default state at this point, but there's zero reason to pour gasoline on that dumpster fire.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> Nah, it'd never get to that point. They'd keep those wheels spinning until they could get somebody else like Trump back in the driver's seat just so they wouldn't have to explain their stupidity. Granted, that's pretty much our default state at this point, but there's zero reason to pour gasoline on that dumpster fire.


----------



## sleewell

why cant people just see that this is all just a cash grab plain and simple? the actual legal challenges were not serious, at least just serious enough to keep the donations coming in but not actually to be taken with a grain of salt in court.

trump supporters are dumb as shit. they raised like 170 million since the election. i am 1000% sure they plan to raise even more before inauguration and then it will just turn into a fake re election slush fund to keep the money coming in. 

when people are that fucking stupid they deserve to get milked like the cows that they are.


----------



## cwhitey2

I'm not sure how much national coverage this has been getting, but this is the district I live in.

https://www.syracuse.com/politics/2...-in-undecided-brindisi-tenney-house-race.html


It's been a literal shit show since Tenney said she was going to challenge Brindisi.


----------



## Randy

cwhitey2 said:


> I'm not sure how much national coverage this has been getting, but this is the district I live in.
> 
> https://www.syracuse.com/politics/2...-in-undecided-brindisi-tenney-house-race.html
> 
> 
> It's been a literal shit show since Tenney said she was going to challenge Brindisi.



I'm the next district over and have been following this mess. I was surprised she ran so far up Trump's ass, I know western New York is conservative but I didn't know kissing up to Trump would be a semi-winning strategy in NY in a district with some cities in it.


----------



## cwhitey2

Randy said:


> I'm the next district over and have been following this mess. I was surprised she ran so far up Trump's ass, I know western New York is conservative but I didn't know kissing up to Trump would be a semi-winning strategy in NY in a district with some cities in it.


The 22nd district has a lot of farmers and gun lovers. She knew riding the Dump train would help her. She's a shitty person and a shittier politician. 

The best part was is that Brindisi has actually been doing a fantastic job, Republican can't deny that with any actual facts.

The worst part is....she never once said what she actually do differently while campaigning. ALL she did was a smear campaign. Never once brought up any subjects of any relevance.

They are going to start the recounts today or did yesterday I believe. She has a 12 vote lead. I hope to god she loses.


----------



## Randy

cwhitey2 said:


> The 22nd district has a lot of farmers and gun lovers. She knew riding the Dump train would help her. She's a shitty person and a shittier politician.
> 
> The best part was is that Brindisi has actually been doing a fantastic job, Republican can't deny that with any actual facts.
> 
> The worst part is....she never once said what she actually do differently while campaigning. ALL she did was a smear campaign. Never once brought up any subjects of any relevance.
> 
> They are going to start the recounts today or did yesterday I believe. She has a 12 vote lead. I hope to god she loses.



Yeah because I'm so close to the district, I would get a lot of her ads on local TV. They were all trash.

Stefanik is next district north of me, she was even co-chair of Trump's NYS campaign but her attachment was still muted. Most of her ads didn't mention Trump at all, and she even had one with Obama in it, touting how she helped "make Obamacare better". Her surrogates all spent the whole campaign writing into local paper saying "judge Stefanik on what she's doing for her district, not on whether or not you like Trump". And it's a super rural district, I don't think there's really a major city in the whole place but their focus testing still said that going full Trump wasn't an effective strategy 

That's the main reason why I was surprised by her kinda shit for brains Trump ass kissing campaign.


----------



## cwhitey2

Randy said:


> Yeah because I'm so close to the district, I would get a lot of her ads on local TV. They were all trash.
> 
> Stefanik is next district north of me, she was even co-chair of Trump's NYS campaign but her attachment was still muted. Most of her ads didn't mention Trump at all, and she even had one with Obama in it, touting how she helped "make Obamacare better". Her surrogates all spent the whole campaign writing into local paper saying "judge Stefanik on what she's doing for her district, not on whether or not you like Trump". And it's a super rural district, I don't think there's really a major city in the whole place but their focus testing still said that going full Trump wasn't an effective strategy
> 
> That's the main reason why I was surprised by her kinda shit for brains Trump ass kissing campaign.


oh god....you had to watch those commercials  I stopped watching TV because of her 

She tried to have trump in any video she could, it was pathetic.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Yeah because I'm so close to the district, I would get a lot of her ads on local TV. They were all trash.
> 
> Stefanik is next district north of me, she was even co-chair of Trump's NYS campaign but her attachment was still muted. Most of her ads didn't mention Trump at all, and she even had one with Obama in it, touting how she helped "make Obamacare better". Her surrogates all spent the whole campaign writing into local paper saying "judge Stefanik on what she's doing for her district, not on whether or not you like Trump". And it's a super rural district, I don't think there's really a major city in the whole place but their focus testing still said that going full Trump wasn't an effective strategy
> 
> That's the main reason why I was surprised by her kinda shit for brains Trump ass kissing campaign.


21st District is very rural, but dotted with college towns and rich people's summer homes. It also shared some culture with Vermont, so it's a bit of a wildcard. I think Stefanik was the first Republican elected for that district since 1990-ish.

I think people, in general, like to play this whole us vs. them dynamic. Red team vs. Blue team, if you will. Some folks really fell in love with Trump for various reasons, none of which were based on any sort of logic I could follow, but who am I to decide for them who they like? I think a lot of republicans went along for the ride halfway hoping Trump would be a team player, and when he wasn't, the team itself, not wanting to look stupid, wrapped itself into a pretzel defending him. I hope that the rank and file republicans, deep down, realize that this experiment went wrong. So, whether they outwardly ever admit it or not, my hope is, they might consider trying a different approach than Trump or whatever set of whatever values led to Trump.

Another topic...

Do you think Barr's resignation is going to cause Trump any problems if he runs into challenges from other branches of government when he goes on his planned spree of pardons? Not that I think Barr was crucial for that, but he was a link in the chain that I would expect drives that process. Without an AG, or, with an AG who took the job a month before his/her tenure runs out, there might not be as fierce a defense against people trying to block pardons, if it comes to that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Do you think Barr's resignation is going to cause Trump any problems if he runs into challenges from other branches of government when he goes on his planned spree of pardons? Not that I think Barr was crucial for that, but he was a link in the chain that I would expect drives that process. Without an AG, or, with an AG who took the job a month before his/her tenure runs out, there might not be as fierce a defense against people trying to block pardons, if it comes to that.


I'll admit, this isn't much to go on... but based on his rather fawning resignation letter, and the fact he's been a pretty staunch Trump loyalist (picture the response to the Mueller report in a world where Barr DIDN'T front run it)... I have a hard time believing things will be harder for Trump with Barr out. 

The most plausible interpretation I've heard was that typically a pardon also includes a legal review from the DOJ even if they have no formal power to pardon, and in previous controversial pardons (for instance Iran-Contra, where there was a very real chance GHWB would have been implicated had the investigation continued) the DOJ opinion provided a sheen of nonpartisanship to the process. It's certainly possible that something like a blanket pardon of all ICE officials enforcing Trump's immigration policies or a pardon of Trump's kids, or Trump resigning and Pence pardoning him, would have been a step to far for even Barr... but as I'm writing this, I'm having a hard time convincing myself of this. Maybe this will just be a pretext to do away wiith the DOJ legal review? 

Incidentally, it certainly tracks with everything we know about Trump for him to be way more willing to resign, than to accept he lost, even if the other side did "cheat" in his eyes.


----------



## Vyn

MM has finally acknowledged Biden’s win. I reckon the republicans will start to follow now, MM is about as senior as you can get in GOP ranks


----------



## spudmunkey

Vyn said:


> MM has finally acknowledged Biden’s win. I reckon the republicans will start to follow now, MM is about as senior as you can get in GOP ranks



He had to wait for his boss/daddy (Putin) to do it first.


----------



## nightflameauto

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...en-s-victory-after-electoral-college-n1251250

On a personal note, Thune needs to go fuck himself. You don't spend that many weeks rallying the troops and saying shit about how we need to require blue states to follow the constitution (as if they hadn't) and then suddenly about face and expect everybody to calm down.

On a not so personal note, they bury a troublesome statement in the very last paragraph:


> Johnson is set to hold a hearing on Wednesday in the Homeland Security Committee he chairs to examine “election integrity," featuring witnesses who brought on Trump's lawsuits in swing states.



Fantastic. So it's going to keep right on going.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> picture the response to the Mueller report in a world where Barr DIDN'T front run it.



I'd love to picture a world in which the Mueller report was taken seriously, but, even without Barr, people following Trump already made up their minds, and those who read the report knew Barr was spewing a stream of hot shit anyway. I'm trying to think if there was anyone who would have believed Trump has obstructed justice but had their mind changed because of what Barr said that the report said, and then didn't even bother to read the snippets of the report that clearly said otherwise...

Meh, either way picturing a more rational world was a nice respite for a moment.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Does anybody else see the same twisted irony as myself with the Republican Party casting false claims about the Election and the Electoral College, when that very institution is one of the main reasons they’ve held onto their power for so many years?

And who with any sense couldn’t see the hypocrisy of their lies regarding the Election?


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> Does anybody else see the same twisted irony as myself with the Republican Party casting false claims about the Election and the Electoral College, when that very institution is one of the main reasons they’ve held onto their power for so many years?
> 
> And who with any sense couldn’t see the hypocrisy of their lies regarding the Election?



I think the fact Trump got as many votes as he did is proof of shenanigans. Dems are gonna just take this W (as they should) but if you dig, Trump probably did some detestable shit to get even close.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Randy said:


> I think the fact Trump got as many votes as he did is proof of shenanigans. Dems are gonna just take this W (as they should) but if you dig, Trump probably did some detestable shit to get even close.



Lol it very well could be! It wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Especially when considering the absolute Fact that the GOP has gerrymandered so many districts for so many years, it’s perhaps the tip of the iceberg!

And going back quite a few years- Giuliani and Trump have been rigging elections in NYC for a long time. For example- polling places for elections being advertised at phony addresses by the Republican mayoral candidate himself.

And in cohorts and back pockets with Russian investors (govt) for 30 years or more!

Back in the day when Giuliano purchased former Soviet tanks from Russia during forced military style hostile illegal takeovers of buildings in Manhattan!

And just the other day we’ve had a major Cyber Attack upon the Pentagon and more by Russian agents!

And no word from the White House? Damn...

(Gotta put in the tin hat from time to time- I mean everyone’s doing it right? Gotta see it from their perspective too..)

But this shit ain’t a conspiracy these are real!

I think Trumps like a schoolyard bully who was always surrounded by thugs... he’s never had to fight his own fights! Loved it when Biden called him out in one of the debates like “we could go outside right now... “ and just left it at that shaking his damn head! Lol you know Philly Joe was going to kick his sorry Fat Ass any day of the week!

Trump wanna be bully more like it, his whole election case failure was basically a grift and
a schoolyard classic:

“he who smelt it dealt it!”

lmao GTFO DJT!


----------



## Randy

The grift continues

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/15/politics/trump-2024-run/index.html

"The legal fine print on the donation page, which says Trump is raising money for the US Senate runoff elections in Georgia, shows that 75% of the funds donated up to $5,000 will go to Save America, a new Trump fundraising leadership PAC launched after the election. Save America could become an avenue for Trump to continue funding political operations as he weighs a presidential bid in 2024.

...

The rules on spending by leadership PACs are far more relaxed than those for campaign committees and do not restrict politicians from using donors' funds for personal expenses -- a use forbidden in a presidential campaign account.

So far, it's been a lucrative effort -- the campaign had raised more than $207 million since Election Day"


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> The grift continues
> 
> https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/15/politics/trump-2024-run/index.html
> 
> "The legal fine print on the donation page, which says Trump is raising money for the US Senate runoff elections in Georgia, shows that 75% of the funds donated up to $5,000 will go to Save America, a new Trump fundraising leadership PAC launched after the election. Save America could become an avenue for Trump to continue funding political operations as he weighs a presidential bid in 2024.
> 
> ...
> 
> The rules on spending by leadership PACs are far more relaxed than those for campaign committees and do not restrict politicians from using donors' funds for personal expenses -- a use forbidden in a presidential campaign account.
> 
> So far, it's been a lucrative effort -- the campaign had raised more than $207 million since Election Day"


I say let him at it. Those morons deserve to be robbed of every penny they have. Maybe if trump actually gets imprisoned, they can seize his assets and put that money into social programs.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Biden setting records...he might want to send a “so long it’s been “good” to know ya” card to DJT!

I mean how many times has 1 man won the Presidency?

And Scranton Joe’s up to like 30 times now?

No way that’s ever gonna be taken down!


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/us/politics/cdc-trump.html

*‘Like a Hand Grasping’: Trump Appointees Describe the Crushing of the C.D.C.*


----------



## Wuuthrad

-edit- 

double post

Did Trump and co. find some family playing Resident Evil or some shit, join in and think it would be a good way to run the govt?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Wuuthrad said:


> Lol it very well could be! It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
> 
> Especially when considering the absolute Fact that the GOP has gerrymandered so many districts for so many years, it’s perhaps the tip of the iceberg!
> 
> And going back quite a few years- Giuliani and Trump have been rigging elections in NYC for a long time. For example- polling places for elections being advertised at phony addresses by the Republican mayoral candidate himself.



Gerrymandering is life for Republicans. Check out the Houston map. Highlighted is Dan Crenshaw's district. Lol unreal.



Also for some laughs


----------



## USMarine75

The big three changes that need to happen to fix the American political system:

Term limits
Money out of politics (lobbying, PACs, donations)
Ban gerrymandering
The Founding Fathers feared all three and opined about it in the Federalist Papers. As late as Eisenhower, Presidents spoke of the negative influence of banks, businesses, and the military on the government.

I'm not sure getting rid of the Electoral College or making Senators per capita (instead of 2 per state) is a solution. Both were designed to empower State's rights and the equal sovereignty of our 50 states. And having two houses of Congress makes sense - one that represents the people (equal votes per person) and one that represents the will of the States (equal votes per State). I just don't understand why we allow people to vote for their Senators. The Governor or legislature should be able to select who should lobby Congress on behalf of their State. They should either be truly co-equal (they are not right now) or perhaps have the House be the senior body. Where I agree with many conservatives is that California, Florida, Texas, and NY shouldn't govern the entire country just because they have the largest populations. NY should have no more say than RI. However, that has to be counterbalanced by the equal will of the people.

FWIW... the best book I've read about this is:


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> The big three changes that need to happen to fix the American political system:
> 
> Term limits
> Money out of politics (lobbying, PACs, donations)
> Ban gerrymandering
> The Founding Fathers feared all three and opined about it in the Federalist Papers. As late as Eisenhower, Presidents spoke of the negative influence of banks, businesses, and the military on the government.
> 
> I'm not sure getting rid of the Electoral College or making Senators per capita (instead of 2 per state) is a solution. Both were designed to empower State's rights and the equal sovereignty of our 50 states. And having two houses of Congress makes sense - one that represents the people (equal votes per person) and one that represents the will of the States (equal votes per State). I just don't understand why we allow people to vote for their Senators. The Governor or legislature should be able to select who should lobby Congress on behalf of their State. They should either be truly co-equal (they are not right now) or perhaps have the House be the senior body. Where I agree with many conservatives is that California, Florida, Texas, and NY shouldn't govern the entire country just because they have the largest populations. NY should have no more say than RI. However, that has to be counterbalanced by the equal will of the people.
> 
> FWIW... the best book I've read about this is:



While I agree with most of what you're saying, I have to ask the question: How do we implement any changes so long as the people that would need to make the changes are the ones in charge? I mean, ending jerrymandering while Mitch McConnel and his puppets. . . er, I mean colleagues avoid doing even the simplest of things. Implement term limits on people that are life-time politicians and self-same people need to implement those limits? Get money out of politics when the people getting the money shoveled into their pockets need to implement the laws that would get the money out of politics?

The only real solution is removing lifetime politicians from power so real change can be implemented. But how do we do that without violence? I'm asking that seriously as it's clear as day that our current "you can always vote them out" system just lands us right back in the same spot as newcomers to the field begin to get a taste for the money machine by the time they reach a federal level position where they can make real change.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> While I agree with most of what you're saying, I have to ask the question: How do we implement any changes so long as the people that would need to make the changes are the ones in charge? I mean, ending jerrymandering while Mitch McConnel and his puppets. . . er, I mean colleagues avoid doing even the simplest of things. Implement term limits on people that are life-time politicians and self-same people need to implement those limits? Get money out of politics when the people getting the money shoveled into their pockets need to implement the laws that would get the money out of politics?
> 
> The only real solution is removing lifetime politicians from power so real change can be implemented. But how do we do that without violence? I'm asking that seriously as it's clear as day that our current "you can always vote them out" system just lands us right back in the same spot as newcomers to the field begin to get a taste for the money machine by the time they reach a federal level position where they can make real change.



Absolutely agree. How do you get career politicians to vote against careerism? How do you get politicians that are enriching themselves to vote against enriching themselves?

Sigh.


----------



## bostjan

I don't really agree with the suggestion of having elected state governments vote on senators rather than the people, but everything else, yes.

The #1 problem facing democracy is that the average person is, well, stupid, to be frank. People fall for cons all of the time. Evidently, this applies to voters as much if not more than anything else. But, until AI takes over the planet, democracy is the best model we have. And in the USA, there are at least a handful of requirements to stop Boaty McBoatface from somehow winning a national election.

And, really, term limits, banning PAC's, and banning gerrymandering are hurdles, but the crooks will always find work-arounds. We still have to try to stop them. I'm not saying you guys are saying those are the only fixes needed, but it's worth stressing that those are not the only fixes needed.


----------



## sleewell

did anyone see Jrs motel 6 video?


holy shit cocaine. fuck yes. keep sending that guy money.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> did anyone see Jrs motel 6 video?
> 
> 
> holy shit cocaine. fuck yes. keep sending that guy money.



Link?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'd love to picture a world in which the Mueller report was taken seriously, but, even without Barr, people following Trump already made up their minds, and those who read the report knew Barr was spewing a stream of hot shit anyway. I'm trying to think if there was anyone who would have believed Trump has obstructed justice but had their mind changed because of what Barr said that the report said, and then didn't even bother to read the snippets of the report that clearly said otherwise...
> 
> Meh, either way picturing a more rational world was a nice respite for a moment.


I mean, it sets a frame and plays into confirmation bias - if you want to believe this was a "witch hunt," then once you have a DOJ official prominately saying "there was no collusion and no obstruction," it's that much easier to tune out facts that are inconvenient to your world view. As a timely example, the 2000 election basically ended when Florida was called for W, since from that moment onwards he was the presumed winner and however good his case was Gore was the one challenging the outcome. I think this kind of stuff DOES impact people's thinking, at least on the margins. 



Randy said:


> The grift continues
> 
> https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/15/politics/trump-2024-run/index.html
> 
> "The legal fine print on the donation page, which says Trump is raising money for the US Senate runoff elections in Georgia, shows that 75% of the funds donated up to $5,000 will go to Save America, a new Trump fundraising leadership PAC launched after the election. Save America could become an avenue for Trump to continue funding political operations as he weighs a presidential bid in 2024.
> 
> ...
> 
> The rules on spending by leadership PACs are far more relaxed than those for campaign committees and do not restrict politicians from using donors' funds for personal expenses -- a use forbidden in a presidential campaign account.
> 
> So far, it's been a lucrative effort -- the campaign had raised more than $207 million since Election Day"


Honestly, I don't hate this. That's $207 million that otherwise might be running Republican ads in Georgia.


----------



## Randy

We'll see.

I might be overstating the obvious but considering Biden won Georgia and Senate seats are a statewide race, I'm feeling better about this than the polls would seem to reflect. Doubly because Trump seems to have turned the old dynamic, where Republicans disproportionately turned out for smaller elections and now they seem to only show up if Trump is on the ticket. Further bolstered by his shit for brains surrogates that spent weeks and now a month+ echoing that voting is useless because its rigged.

If there's a chance they lose Georgia, it's an avalanche of self inflicted wounds that got them there. Thankfully.

What I'm more concerned with is what kind of "Stop the Steal" type campaign they can mount over the next 4 years that will have the very real likelihood of leading to violence.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't think we have a snowball's chance in Hell in Georgia.

I'm of the opinion that Republicans were just sick of Trump's bullshit and thus gave Biden a shot, or didn't participate. I think Loeffler and Perdue, while absolutely ghouls in their own rights, are less toxic to rank and file GOP voters.

Not to mention, I'm sure there's going to be a bunch of actual voter suppression shenanigans, this is Brian Kemp's Georgia afterall.


----------



## Randy

Also true.


----------



## nightflameauto

I think the only possibility we have of turning the Georgia runoffs is if enough of the Republican voter base in state heard the whinging and crying from officials saying to protest by not voting because it doesn't matter anyway.

I still see that as an outside shot, as most people can't pay attention to politics for long enough to have heard all that after the votes were cast in November.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, it sets a frame and plays into confirmation bias - if you want to believe this was a "witch hunt," then once you have a DOJ official prominately saying "there was no collusion and no obstruction," it's that much easier to tune out facts that are inconvenient to your world view. As a timely example, the 2000 election basically ended when Florida was called for W, since from that moment onwards he was the presumed winner and however good his case was Gore was the one challenging the outcome. I think this kind of stuff DOES impact people's thinking, at least on the margins.


Yes, but, after the recount in Florida in 2000 was done, Gore was ultimately ahead by 900 votes, right? And, in 2020, after the Georgia recount, Biden was still ahead. So, is it a) there's a pattern that presupposes results based on early trends or b) there's a pattern that favours republicans unfairly in elections?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> We'll see.
> 
> I might be overstating the obvious but considering Biden won Georgia and Senate seats are a statewide race, I'm feeling better about this than the polls would seem to reflect. Doubly because Trump seems to have turned the old dynamic, where Republicans disproportionately turned out for smaller elections and now they seem to only show up if Trump is on the ticket. Further bolstered by his shit for brains surrogates that spent weeks and now a month+ echoing that voting is useless because its rigged.
> 
> If there's a chance they lose Georgia, it's an avalanche of self inflicted wounds that got them there. Thankfully.
> 
> What I'm more concerned with is what kind of "Stop the Steal" type campaign they can mount over the next 4 years that will have the very real likelihood of leading to violence.


The other thing that gives me some hope is that the Dems are currently leading by 1-1.5 points in the polling we do have, and Georgia's polling actually ended up being pretty good in the regular election.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Dineley said:


> Gerrymandering is life for Republicans. Check out the Houston map. Highlighted is Dan Crenshaw's district. Lol unreal.
> View attachment 87960
> 
> 
> Also for some laughs
> View attachment 87961




Looking at these districting maps, and having seen others, I can’t help but wonder if there’s a direct relationship between them and the last 100 years or more of red-lighting in the real estate industry, perpetrated by the Feds, as some kind of long term plan


----------



## mastapimp

Randy said:


> Link?


I looked this up and there's 2 videos out there. One looks real and the other is a rather shitty deep fake. Don Jr still comes across like an idiot in both. The "coked out" version probably isn't real with some of the tell-tale signs in the facial characteristics, blurriness, eyes. Sassy Justice did a much better job with these kind of videos.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## mastapimp

spudmunkey said:


>



Yeah, that's the fake one haha....painted on eyes, no blinking, horrendous focus. They mostly matched the room for the orginal:


----------



## spudmunkey

...


mastapimp said:


> Yeah, that's the fake one haha....painted on eyes, no blinking, horrendous focus. They mostly matched the room for the orginal:




If it's indeed fake, I'll admit that I think it's the first 'deepfake' that's "got" me...and I follow 4-5 deepfake artists on IG and feel like I've got a pretty good eye for spottijng them...but this doesn't seem like one...just a shitty compressed download/upload. But, again, I'll admit defeat if it's indeed fake.


----------



## spudmunkey

Here's a less compressed version:
https://t.co/nMw73L1eYu


----------



## mastapimp

spudmunkey said:


> ...
> 
> 
> If it's indeed fake, I'll admit that I think it's the first 'deepfake' that's "got" me...and I follow 4-5 deepfake artists on IG, and this doesn't seem like one...just a shitty compressed download/upload. But, again, I'll admit defeat if it's indeed fake.


I implore you to watch it on a PC monitor at full screen and focus on only the eyes. This is what happens when you try to create something based off of a single image. There's warping at a few points that should be obvious.


----------



## spudmunkey

mastapimp said:


> I implore you to watch it on a PC monitor at full screen and focus on only the eyes. This is what happens when you try to create something based off of a single image. There's warping at a few points that should be obvious.



I'm watching it on a 27", 1440p 144hz monitor.  In the 2nd link I posted you see much less of the floating eyes, which is a very common side-effect of aggressive video compression. The twitter link I proviced, you can see much more movement of the actual eyes. He's reading off of notes/cue cards, not at the camera, so they'll always look a little "off".


----------



## mastapimp

spudmunkey said:


> I'm watching it on a 27", 1440p 144hz monitor.  In the 2nd link I posted you see much less of the floating eyes, which is a very common side-effect of aggressive video compression. The twitter link I proviced, you can see much more movement of the actual eyes. He's reading off of notes/cue cards, not at the camera, so they'll always look a little "off".


I actually noticed half a blink in that video you posted. Maybe I was fooled...will have to see how others weigh in on it


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> I don't really agree with the suggestion of having elected state governments vote on senators rather than the people, but everything else, yes.



FWIW That's how it used to be until the 17th Amendment that changed it to election by the people.


----------



## Millul

Something that always puzzles me is how people can staunchly oppose changeing something that...is by definition a change! An amendment is a change to the original text...(just a general, unrelated post)


----------



## nightflameauto

Millul said:


> Something that always puzzles me is how people can staunchly oppose changeing something that...is by definition a change! An amendment is a change to the original text...(just a general, unrelated post)


Because it was changed by people long ago, and clearly those people are better than us just by the fact that they came before us.

I mean, people long ago had to know more about what we need than we do in the moment.

Yeah, I'm trying to say that with a straight face, but it's not working very well for me.


----------



## Wuuthrad

nightflameauto said:


> Because it was changed by people long ago, and clearly those people are better than us just by the fact that they came before us.
> 
> I mean, people long ago had to know more about what we need than we do in the moment.
> 
> Yeah, I'm trying to say that with a straight face, but it's not working very well for me.



Nah man clearly they were all a bunch of highly enlightened almost god like figures, all of them 20 something radicals ,except one, and proper Slave owners at that! I mean who doesn’t love a good old boy AMIR?

All those Declarations and Rights were so all- inclusive! Even more-so to the Men who enacted them! 

As it should be, as the good book says.

Why did anyone ever invite anyone else to the party? And the 2nd Amendment never needed change, why add any other of the those weak ones.


----------



## InHiding

Trump is a narcissist, Obama is an even worse one. The fact that you people worship that monster just because he talks the talk is funny (and also proof why regular idiots like you shouldn't be able to vote).


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## USMarine75

InHiding said:


> Trump is a narcissist, Obama is an even worse one. The fact that you people worship that monster just because he talks the talk is funny (and also proof why regular idiots like you shouldn't be able to vote).


----------



## sleewell

that russian cyber attack sounds pretty bad. happened while trump was out golfing and holding rallies during a pandemic. pretty embarrassing how many ways a person can fail their country.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> that russian cyber attack sounds pretty bad. happened while trump was out golfing and holding rallies during a pandemic. pretty embarrassing how many ways a person can fail their country.



_"The federal data breach occurred over the course of at least 8 or 9 months during the final year of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Throughout this time the White House lacked a cybersecurity coordinator, Trump having eliminated the post itself in 2018. When the breach was discovered, the U.S. also lacked a Senate-confirmed Director of CISA, the nation's top cybersecurity official, responsible for coordinating incident response. (The incumbent, Chris Krebs, had been fired by Trump on 18 November 2020.) Also at that time, the DHS, which manages CISA, lacked a Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary, General Counsel, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis, and Undersecretary for Management; and Trump had recently forced out the Deputy Director of CISA."_


----------



## bostjan

InHiding said:


> Trump is a narcissist, Obama is an even worse one. The fact that you people worship that monster just because he talks the talk is funny (and also proof why regular idiots like you shouldn't be able to vote).


You think Obama's bad? Whaddabout Joseph Stalin! What an asshole, eh? Crazy how the Soviets let him take control like that!

You think Stalin's bad? Whaddabout Adolf Hitler! Guy was so lame he took himself out after all of the shit he started!

You think Hitler was bad? Whaddabout Atilla! So much genocide and then the nerd dies of a friggin nosebleed.

...ad infinitum


----------



## sleewell

MaxOfMetal said:


> _"The federal data breach occurred over the course of at least 8 or 9 months during the final year of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Throughout this time the White House lacked a cybersecurity coordinator, Trump having eliminated the post itself in 2018. When the breach was discovered, the U.S. also lacked a Senate-confirmed Director of CISA, the nation's top cybersecurity official, responsible for coordinating incident response. (The incumbent, Chris Krebs, had been fired by Trump on 18 November 2020.) Also at that time, the DHS, which manages CISA, lacked a Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary, General Counsel, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis, and Undersecretary for Management; and Trump had recently forced out the Deputy Director of CISA."_




complete and utter dereliction of duty on top of dereliction of duty regarding our disastrous response to covid. our country needed a president and we got a note from a doctor saying that he still had bone spurs. 

the most significant cyber attack in our history. trump has not even responded. he is literally putin's cum dumpster.

just like the rest of his life he was handed the country on a silver platter with an excellent economy and is leaving with everything in shambles, however unlike his life we can't just BK out of this mess or get another few hundred million from his daddy.


----------



## possumkiller

Seems more like those positions were left open on purpose and hoping it just looks like incompetence.


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> just like the rest of his life he was handed the country on a silver platter with an excellent economy and is leaving with everything in shambles, however unlike his life we can't just BK out of this mess or get another few hundred million from his daddy.


The sad thing about this is the way the Republicans will be able to use our current shit-show to smear Biden as he steps into it. In four years, they'll have themselves and their base convinced Biden was the cause of all the damage that we'll be getting the fallout of once he's in charge.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> The sad thing about this is the way the Republicans will be able to use our current shit-show to smear Biden as he steps into it. In four years, they'll have themselves and their base convinced Biden was the cause of all the damage that we'll be getting the fallout of once he's in charge.


You're not wrong. They basically blame Obama for 9/11 at this point.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> You're not wrong. They basically blame Obama for 9/11 at this point.


Get yer talkin' points straight. 9/11 was fallout from the Clinton era. Obama caused the 2007 market crash.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> You think Obama's bad? Whaddabout Joseph Stalin! What an asshole, eh? Crazy how the Soviets let him take control like that!
> 
> You think Stalin's bad? Whaddabout Adolf Hitler! Guy was so lame he took himself out after all of the shit he started!
> 
> You think Hitler was bad? Whaddabout Atilla! So much genocide and then the nerd dies of a friggin nosebleed.
> 
> ...ad infinitum



I was actually waiting to see who comes after Atilla TBQH


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I was actually waiting to see who comes after Atilla TBQH


That meteor that took out the dinosaurs was a real asshole. Not only did it kill off all the bigger life forms, it also landed so hard it obliterated itself. Talk about stupid.


----------



## Drew

InHiding said:


> Trump is a narcissist, Obama is an even worse one. The fact that you people worship that monster just because he talks the talk is funny (and also proof why regular idiots like you shouldn't be able to vote).


Oh jeez, I wish you had posted this back in October, now that you've opened my eyes I'm really having second thoughts about my vote for Obama!


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Oh jeez, I wish you had posted this back in October, now that you've opened my eyes I'm really having second thoughts about my vote for Obama!


Obviously you didn't get the memo, we were all supposed to vote for Hunter Biden!


----------



## sleewell

it's also hilarious that tucker has spent the week focusing on and insulting jill biden. i mean she is not the intellectual power house of say a bikini model who entered the country illegally or anything but we can still get super pissed off about her doctorate amirite?


----------



## BigViolin

"Extraordinary Ability"

...to gold dig.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Obviously you didn't get the memo, we were all supposed to vote for Hunter Biden!


Well _fuck_. If you can't trust George Soros to tell you who to vote for, what IS this world coming to??


----------



## Ralyks

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.


----------



## MFB

Kodos? Gross, I bet you also bought your kid Lee Carvello's Putting Challenge for Christmas too!


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.


"Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate." "Go ahead, throw your vote away!"


----------



## Xaios

Ralyks said:


> Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.


The Executioner?


----------



## Ralyks

MFB said:


> Kodos? Gross, I bet you also bought your kid Lee Carvello's Putting Challenge for Christmas too!



Well maybe if he wasn't such a punk this year, he would have gotten Bonestorm instead!

Anyway, what were we doing? Oh yeah, ignoring the troll who had the cajones to call us all losers that shouldn't vote because of Obama, despite the fact that They presented no actual argument or reason, and also, were all aware of the shit Obama pulled if he actually looked back on some of the pages on this thread, but no, they resorted to acting like a tool....

.... Anyway, you know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.


----------



## SpaceDock

Something that not too many people have noticed is that votes for the Libertarian candidate was enough to bridge Trumps loss in several states. That 3rd party curse just changed sides this time around.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Something that not too many people have noticed is that votes for the Libertarian candidate was enough to bridge Trumps loss in several states. That 3rd party curse just changed sides this time around.


Oh, absolutely. And unlike 2016, where the 3rd party candidate pulling the most votes was a Green Party candidate who primarily drew from the left, you can be pretty sure that whoever voted for the woman running as a Libertarian otherwise would have been a pretty reliable Republican vote.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Oh, absolutely. And unlike 2016, where the 3rd party candidate pulling the most votes was a Green Party candidate who primarily drew from the left, you can be pretty sure that whoever voted for the woman running as a Libertarian otherwise would have been a pretty reliable Republican vote.


Uhh, Stein got less than 1/3 of the votes Johnson did. 2016 was a banner year for Libertarians, in terms of the popular vote.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Uhh, Stein got less than 1/3 of the votes Johnson did. 2016 was a banner year for Libertarians, in terms of the popular vote.


Yeah but Stein still pulled enough votes to swing the difference in the rust belt. It's possible - maybe even probable - that Johnson was pulling Republican votes away from Trump as well, but I think with Johnson you could make a stronger case that had he not been running, some of those votes would have gone back to Trump, but some would have gone to Clinton from Republicans looking to some alternative to Trump (I worked with a LOT of Johnson voters. A few were legitimate libertarians; most couldn't stomach Trump and Johnson was more palatable than Clinton). Jill Stein, I'd confidently say that the number of voters that would have voted for Trump had she not run would have been minuscule. 

2020, meanwhile, was a referendum on Trump. I feel a lot more confident saying anyone who voted for a Libertarian in 2020 probably WAS a libertarian - which, I'd say, also explains the sharp drop in Libertarian support in 2020 vs 2016.


----------



## Wuuthrad

InHiding said:


> Trump is a narcissist, Obama is an even worse one. The fact that you people worship that monster just because he talks the talk is funny (and also proof why regular idiots like you shouldn't be able to vote).






How much do you really like riding jockstraps tho?


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> How much do you really like riding jockstraps tho?


I kind of feel like the trolls haven't figured out it's no longer 2017 and no one really gives a shit anymore, we've all kind of moved on.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> _"The federal data breach occurred over the course of at least 8 or 9 months during the final year of the Presidency of Donald Trump. Throughout this time the White House lacked a cybersecurity coordinator, Trump having eliminated the post itself in 2018. When the breach was discovered, the U.S. also lacked a Senate-confirmed Director of CISA, the nation's top cybersecurity official, responsible for coordinating incident response. (The incumbent, Chris Krebs, had been fired by Trump on 18 November 2020.) Also at that time, the DHS, which manages CISA, lacked a Senate-confirmed Secretary, Deputy Secretary, General Counsel, Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis, and Undersecretary for Management; and Trump had recently forced out the Deputy Director of CISA."_



Just curious, what is this source of this quote? Would like to read the entire article of there is one.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm watching The Reagans right now (slowly, as it is difficult to stomach the sheer ugliness of Reagan-era Republican ideology), but I can really see Trump as the almost logical conclusion when, for decades, hate, fear and ignorance were exploited to advance power and wealth. I think the reason modern Americans can't trust their federal government as anything other than a tool to further advance corporate and wealthy private interests really lays at the feet of the Reagan administration hijacking government for that purpose.

I do hope if anything that Trump has shone such a hideous light on GOP politics that the generations coming up now might finally see it for what it is and perhaps force the party to moderate somewhat. One can hope.


----------



## TheBlackBard

I voted Libertarian this year as a choice for myself and how I truly felt about the election (and because I consider myself to be a Libertarian). I hate Trump, I really don't like Biden, but at the same time, I'd FAR rather have Biden than Trump. I absolutely knew that my vote wouldn't mean much in the long run, so I just made that choice for myself. Now having said all this... yeah Biden has his rough edges but I do believe that he'll be a far more effective leader, and he seems to care about the people a hell of a lot more than Trump does. So if at the end of the four years, he's done a good job, stood by the people, assuming he runs again, I'll hand my vote to him next time.


----------



## Wuuthrad

TheBlackBard said:


> I voted Libertarian this year as a choice for myself and how I truly felt about the election (and because I consider myself to be a Libertarian). I hate Trump, I really don't like Biden, but at the same time, I'd FAR rather have Biden than Trump. I absolutely knew that my vote wouldn't mean much in the long run, so I just made that choice for myself. Now having said all this... yeah Biden has his rough edges but I do believe that he'll be a far more effective leader, and he seems to care about the people a hell of a lot more than Trump does. So if at the end of the four years, he's done a good job, stood by the people, assuming he runs again, I'll hand my vote to him next time.



Dude, I seriously wish that every eligible voter in the US did exactly what you described, and simply vote their beliefs. Thanks for sharing! 

It seems so simple yet so far off!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> Just curious, what is this source of this quote? Would like to read the entire article of there is one.



It's just scraped from Wiki. I was ready to post a longer quote from one of the source articles, but this was just shorter and sweeter.

Here are the relavent sources:


Kaplan, Fred (December 15, 2020). "Trump Has Been Whining About Fake Fraud—and Ignoring a Real Cybersecurity Crisis". Slate. Archived from the original on December 16, 2020. Retrieved December 16,2020.
*^* Perlroth, Nicole; Sanger, David E. (May 16, 2018). "White House Eliminates Cybersecurity Coordinator Role (Published 2018)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 13, 2020. Retrieved December 16,2020.
^ *a* *b* Brandom, Russell (December 14, 2020). "Trump's chaos made America a sitting duck for cyberattacks". The Verge. Archived from the original on December 15, 2020. Retrieved December 17, 2020.
^ *a* *b* "Russian government hackers behind breach at US treasury and commerce departments". The Independent. December 13, 2020. Archived from the original on December 13, 2020. Retrieved December 14,2020.
*^* Nakashima, Ellen; Miroff, Nick (November 17, 2020). "Trump fires top DHS official who refuted his claims that the election was rigged". The Washington Post. Archivedfrom the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
*^* Bowden, John (December 13, 2020). "Hackers backed by foreign government breach Treasury, Commerce departments: reports". The Hill. Archived from the original on December 15, 2020. Retrieved December 15, 2020.
*^* Cobb, Adrienne (December 15, 2020). "Forensic News Roundup: Russia hacks U.S. government, Trump silent". Forensic News. Archived from the original on December 18, 2020. Retrieved December 17, 2020.
*^* "Leadership". Department of Homeland Security. September 7, 2006. Archived from the original on December 16, 2020. Retrieved December 17, 2020.
*^* Miller, Maggie (November 12, 2020). "Senior DHS cybersecurity official to step down at end of week". The Hill. Archived from the original on November 28, 2020. Retrieved December 17, 2020.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Hmm I wonder why he says this?

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ct-of-government-hack-in-first-public-remarks

The Russians didn’t do this hack, but someone obviously hacked the voting machines!

(Never mind that it was mail in votes ffs!)


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah but Stein still pulled enough votes to swing the difference in the rust belt. It's possible - maybe even probable - that Johnson was pulling Republican votes away from Trump as well, but I think with Johnson you could make a stronger case that had he not been running, some of those votes would have gone back to Trump, but some would have gone to Clinton from Republicans looking to some alternative to Trump (I worked with a LOT of Johnson voters. A few were legitimate libertarians; most couldn't stomach Trump and Johnson was more palatable than Clinton). Jill Stein, I'd confidently say that the number of voters that would have voted for Trump had she not run would have been minuscule.
> 
> 2020, meanwhile, was a referendum on Trump. I feel a lot more confident saying anyone who voted for a Libertarian in 2020 probably WAS a libertarian - which, I'd say, also explains the sharp drop in Libertarian support in 2020 vs 2016.



I know it's all speculation, but I highly doubt any significant proportion of voters were anyone who loved Trump but voted for Johnson because they just loved Johnson so much more. Same regarding Jill Stein/HRC.

I don't think Biden is that great of a leader, but he most likely won because anyone outside of the Trump cult started to realize how much of a dumpsterfire the last four years have been and why.

At this point, though, I suggest we all just breathe a sigh of relief that we're at least out of the fire, even if we might be back in the frying pan for now.


----------



## TheBlackBard

bostjan said:


> I know it's all speculation, but I highly doubt any significant proportion of voters were anyone who loved Trump but voted for Johnson because they just loved Johnson so much more. Same regarding Jill Stein/HRC.
> 
> I don't think Biden is that great of a leader, but he most likely won because anyone outside of the Trump cult started to realize how much of a dumpsterfire the last four years have been and why.
> 
> At this point, though, I suggest we all just breathe a sigh of relief that we're at least out of the fire, even if we might be back in the frying pan for now.




Thing about it is, when you've had what we've had for the last four years, even a not so great leader seems like a godsend in comparison, especially when hopefully now other countries won't want to constantly talk about how we should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I often feel like the greatest way to get a glimpse of what your country looks like is to look at it from the perspective of outsiders. Other countries, and residents of those countries had "good job, America" style posts on Twitter and Reddit when Biden won. Now maybe that's just me putting too much stock into what other people think, maybe that falls under anecdotal evidence given that it's my own personal experience, but I will say that many, and I don't just mean the residents here in America, feel a lot better about our new President than they have about the... whatever the fuck we've had. Maybe it's because we're going from dogshit to unsalted chitlins for dinner, I don't know.


----------



## nightflameauto

As a computer dude, I'm finding Trump's reaction to the massive hack of several departments within the government to be par for the course. Everyone with any actual knowledge is seeing Russian ties to the hacks and acknowledging this is a level 1 fuckup. Trump, after spending the last four years gutting the positions that oversaw cyber security in the government and either not replacing them at all or shoving in people that have no business even touching a computer, let alone overseeing network security says "everything's under complete control." And then pointing the finger at China.

Trump and reality aren't exactly on good terms.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> As a computer dude, I'm finding Trump's reaction to the massive hack of several departments within the government to be par for the course. Everyone with any actual knowledge is seeing Russian ties to the hacks and acknowledging this is a level 1 fuckup. Trump, after spending the last four years gutting the positions that oversaw cyber security in the government and either not replacing them at all or shoving in people that have no business even touching a computer, let alone overseeing network security says "everything's under complete control." And then pointing the finger at China.
> 
> Trump and reality aren't exactly on good terms.


You don't say.  

His MO is basically if something is a problem, pretend it isn't, and hope no one notices. I don't have a handle on the scope of this one, exactly, but from what I understand, it's widespread enough and has gone on long enough that it may be very difficult to even detect WHERE Russians have successfully infiltrated systems, much less remove them. That's pretty bad.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> You don't say.
> 
> His MO is basically if something is a problem, pretend it isn't, and hope no one notices. I don't have a handle on the scope of this one, exactly, but from what I understand, it's widespread enough and has gone on long enough that it may be very difficult to even detect WHERE Russians have successfully infiltrated systems, much less remove them. That's pretty bad.


More news came out about it in techie circles over the weekend and today. There were apparently two separate nation states launching two separate attacks through a certain control package of software. Those attacks allowed them administrative access to deploy more background processes so that even when the originally corrupted software is pulled from the system, they still have full access to the affected systems.

One nation state is definitely Russian in origin. And as far as anyone can see, the other nation state was working in a coordinated fashion with Russia, as this attack didn't just affect the US government systems, but several government and non-government systems around the world. But. . . and here's the tell. . . not one single system in Russia was overrun with the secondary attack as far as anyone can tell. Which means they may have hit themselves with the initial vulnerability in the deployment of phase one, but didn't use phase one to deploy phase two on their own systems.

Since phase two requires actual interaction by the hackers, it's not difficult to see the fingerprints of the Russians. Or this is the greatest false flag operation in cyber security history and it's being used to tar Russia as cyber criminals.

Either way, some security experts in the company that deployed the software that ended up being phase one are in for a hell of an investigation. For those curious, start googling Solorwinds hack. Here's a nice starter story for a summary of the clusterfuck that we currently find ourselves in.

https://www.wired.com/story/russia-solarwinds-hack-roundup/


----------



## USMarine75

Best title ever.


----------



## Randy

Welp, hate to admit it but turns out Trump was right. There were people registering as dead folks so the they could vote...


----------



## metallicity

Rigged election, massive voter fraud.
Yep
There's no way Trump received 74,223,744 legal votes, it has to be much less than that.


----------



## USMarine75

Utah Governor - “it was just a conversation”. 

Translation - “he’s just kidding” or “you’re taking him too literally”. 

Actual - Trump and his sycophantic inner circle asked DHS and US Military about feasibility of declaring martial law to overturn election.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Trump re. his Presidency:

“I was only joking”

IRL we’ve been getting more home delivery this year for a number of obvious reasons.

Strange I noticed a payment denied on Amazon same day as hack, which was rectified overnight, and scheduled Saturday delivery was all messed up and rerouted.

Makes me wonder how far the hack went?

Strange times..


----------



## USMarine75

Here’s an off topic heartwarming story to get you through the slow moving coup...




You’re welcome!


----------



## nightflameauto

Wuuthrad said:


> Trump re. his Presidency:
> 
> “I was only joking”
> 
> IRL we’ve been getting more home delivery this year for a number of obvious reasons.
> 
> Strange I noticed a payment denied on Amazon same day as hack, which was rectified overnight, and scheduled Saturday delivery was all messed up and rerouted.
> 
> Makes me wonder how far the hack went?
> 
> Strange times..


The hack has affected a LOT of US businesses, and several scattered other businesses around the world. That management software that the hack stemmed from is used by a TON of internet backend systems and a lot of high profile businesses as well as government system used it.

It's literally one of the most massive hacks of all time. And I have a feeling we're going to be learning details about it for months, if not years. This morning I saw in the news it had infiltrated the treasure department's supposed secure internal emails. Based on the other info circling the tech crowd, there exists the distinct possibility that not one single federal government run computer that's networked hasn't been hit somehow by the hack. Hmm. Maybe the director of cyber security was a position that did need filled?


----------



## bostjan

New game plan guys!

https://fox8.com/news/trump-house-lawmakers-plot-effort-to-block-biden-win/

My bet is on Devin Nunes or Doug Collins objecting to the votes, causing a slight delay, and congress voting to uphold the votes. Ultimately this will cause mild harm to the GOP.


----------



## nightflameauto

It's hard to believe there are still Republican players in the house and the senate that are so self destructive they'd be willing to protest the count, but this has been a strange election cycle.


----------



## Mathemagician

They don’t want to lose the cult vote. They do not feel they can win in their states without them.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> They don’t want to lose the cult vote. They do not feel they can win in their states without them.



Correct. Also, some chances Trump self destructs over the next 4 years and they're hoping to fill the void in 2024.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Correct. Also, some chances Trump self destructs over the next 4 years and they're hoping to fill the void in 2024.



Trump showing some significant signs of dementia in 2015-2016, by 2024, he'll be 77 or 78 years old, and I highly doubt he'll be in as good mental shape as he is now, so the odds of him self destructing in some way are pretty yooge. However, the odds of his followers desperately trying to glue his humpty-dumpty mind back together to push another shot might be non-negligible.

Whatever the case, though, I think Trump is over. If Trumpism is going to continue in any viable way, there'll have to be a passing of the proverbial torch before or during 2024. I think the likely output of that will be some other nutty loudmouth getting a pat on the back from Trump, and going on to be a serious contender in the 2024 election. If Biden refuses to run for re-election as he's indicated, then it will likely be Harris vs. whoever-that-is.

With recent news stories about how Trump is shouting that Pence has stabbed him in the back, the likely candidate might be one of the kids or in-laws, or maybe a very close inside supporter, or a new face, but I doubt it will be Pence or a cabinet member either. I dunno, though, I'm speculating quite a bit.


----------



## Drew

I think Trump will run, dementia or no, if he's at all able. Basically, if he's alive, out of jail, and his followers haven't turned on him for some reason, he's running in 2024. His ego won't permit him to step down and make way for, say, Ivanka.

I'm not sure how thew GOP will respond to a candidate Constitutionally limited to a single term, however, and I think that dynamic may be an interesting one to watch.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Trump showing some significant signs of dementia in 2015-2016, by 2024, he'll be 77 or 78 years old, and I highly doubt he'll be in as good mental shape as he is now, so the odds of him self destructing in some way are pretty yooge. However, the odds of his followers desperately trying to glue his humpty-dumpty mind back together to push another shot might be non-negligible.
> 
> Whatever the case, though, I think Trump is over. If Trumpism is going to continue in any viable way, there'll have to be a passing of the proverbial torch before or during 2024. I think the likely output of that will be some other nutty loudmouth getting a pat on the back from Trump, and going on to be a serious contender in the 2024 election. If Biden refuses to run for re-election as he's indicated, then it will likely be Harris vs. whoever-that-is.
> 
> With recent news stories about how Trump is shouting that Pence has stabbed him in the back, the likely candidate might be one of the kids or in-laws, or maybe a very close inside supporter, or a new face, but I doubt it will be Pence or a cabinet member either. I dunno, though, I'm speculating quite a bit.





Drew said:


> I think Trump will run, dementia or no, if he's at all able. Basically, if he's alive, out of jail, and his followers haven't turned on him for some reason, he's running in 2024. His ego won't permit him to step down and make way for, say, Ivanka.
> 
> I'm not sure how thew GOP will respond to a candidate Constitutionally limited to a single term, however, and I think that dynamic may be an interesting one to watch.



Rubio, The Zodiac Killer and others already climbing over eachother to try and get that torch. My guess is that they're hoping a year or two out, Trump is in jail, irrelevant or something else and they're trying to posture themselves as a "spiritual successor".

I know local dunce Elise Stefanik already making the rounds on Newsmax more than Fox News lately, so they're all trying their hand at tapping into his "outsider" conservative appeal. The question is how close they can fly to the sun (Trump) before they fall back to Earth.

I'm 50% that it's "a Trump" or 50% it's Kirkland brand Trump.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I'm 50% that it's "a Trump" or 50% it's Kirkland brand Trump.


That's pretty close to my gut feeling on "dead or in jail," to be fair.


----------



## bostjan

I seriously doubt Trump will end up in actual jail. And I have doubts that he'd end up in something like a house arrest. With how rabid his followers are and how unprecedented it would be to jail a former US president, he'll either weasel his way out of whatever trouble awaits him or he'll incite his followers to cause significant enough problems to discourage any real sanctions against him anyway.

I might be surprised, though.

Dead by 2024, though, that's a real possibility. Even though his parents both lived to be quite old, I don't think his siblings have had the same luck. Trump's own weird theory against exercise and proper diet might not help his chances, either...

Anyway, I'm too worried about 2021 to even give half a turd about 2024 at the moment. 

This whole last four years of absolute insanity along with the election conspiracy theory nonsense has me seriously worried about an uptick in domestic terrorism over the next 10-12 months.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Trump refusing to sign Covid Bill.


----------



## spudmunkey

One of the men Trump pardoned:


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> One of the men Trump pardoned:
> View attachment 88197


Disgusting.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Trump refusing to sign Covid Bill.



Good. Fuck that bill.

I would have loved to have seen McConnell's face when he watched that Twitter video. 

Also, fuck Chuck Schumer too. Imagine being so unaware of your surroundings that you make Nancy Pelosi seem cunning.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> Good. Fuck that bill.
> 
> I would have loved to have seen McConnell's face when he watched that Twitter video.
> 
> Also, fuck Chuck Schumer too. Imagine being so unaware of your surroundings that you make Nancy Pelosi seem cunning.



Haven't kept up with the contents of the bill other than a cash payment to most Americans for economic stimulus (we did something similar here in Australia when the GFC hit, people on social welfare got a $950AUD payment, was one of the measures that helped us dodge a recession then). I'm guessing there's some particular nastiness in there that hasn't been widely covered?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Vyn said:


> Haven't kept up with the contents of the bill other than a cash payment to most Americans for economic stimulus (we did something similar here in Australia when the GFC hit, people on social welfare got a $950AUD payment, was one of the measures that helped us dodge a recession then). I'm guessing there's some particular nastiness in there that hasn't been widely covered?



The money going to people is only $600 and its loaded with a ridiculous amount of special interest tax breaks and stuff. Basically a slap in the face.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Vyn said:


> Haven't kept up with the contents of the bill other than a cash payment to most Americans for economic stimulus (we did something similar here in Australia when the GFC hit, people on social welfare got a $950AUD payment, was one of the measures that helped us dodge a recession then). I'm guessing there's some particular nastiness in there that hasn't been widely covered?



it's literally just a pork barrel bill.

Like why does a stimulus bill need to extend jail times for illegal streaming? because America.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

There's plenty of potential "good" in the bill, and perhaps if I was staring down the barrel of impending eviction I'd have different feelings about it overall.


----------



## sleewell

A 6000 page bill they gave them 6 hours to read before voting. Loaded with irrelevant pork barrel spending. Its embarrassing for both sides. 


Interesting development with trump sitting out the negotiating and then demanding changes at the end. Is he trying to sabotage the senate runoffs?


All presidents have some controversial pardons. Problem with trump is that all of his are controversial or they involve investigations into himself. He found a loophole in the system and dangles a pardon in front of people so they dont incriminate him.


----------



## nightflameauto

Vyn said:


> Haven't kept up with the contents of the bill other than a cash payment to most Americans for economic stimulus (we did something similar here in Australia when the GFC hit, people on social welfare got a $950AUD payment, was one of the measures that helped us dodge a recession then). I'm guessing there's some particular nastiness in there that hasn't been widely covered?





diagrammatiks said:


> it's literally just a pork barrel bill.
> 
> Like why does a stimulus bill need to extend jail times for illegal streaming? because America.


Yeah, changing illegal streaming to a federal offense with far stiffer penalties being tied in to COVID relief is one of the dumbest add-ons a bill has seen in recent years. There's plenty of other truly disgusting shit attached to it as well. I don't have the patience to read all of the available info (seriously, six THOUSAND pages of bullshit), but the little I did read was a cringe fest.

That type of garbage should be laid bare for the public to scrutinize so we can openly mock our elected officials for their betrayal of the public trust in the name of their special interests. And this is another case where you can't point the finger at one party. Their both full of absolute bullshit when it comes to this.

As much as I hate to side with Trump on literally anything, because it makes me feel like I need to shower ten times to get the stink off, but he's right on this one. As much as some people need relief, and need it fast, they drug their feet for nine fucking months to come to an "agreement" and only managed to do it by covertly attaching so much pork to it that it could keep a family of six fed for a century and still have some left over.

God damn do I hate our government's absolute refusal to do anything right by the people. Heads should roll over this, but they won't. I imagine at some point in the next day or two this will turn into yet another piranha level feeding frenzy over Trump being an asshole, and everybody will forget that the bill is a steaming pile of shit that's been sprinkled with a modicum of what's actually needed over the top.

I'm just baffled why this sort of thing has become the norm. Name a bill something pretty to get the public snowed, then attach all sorts of special interest shit to it before trying to run it through. It's frustrating as all hell and a recipe for absolute gridlock in lawmaking. As we've seen time and again.


----------



## sleewell

i agree with trump now, the checks should be bigger than $600. isn't Canada doing $2k per month?

funny thing though, the white house was pushing for smaller or even no checks for several months leading up to the election when the dems were requesting $1200. seems like if he took this position back then he could have gotten a deal done and it probably would have helped him in the election. it's just strange.


----------



## bostjan

sleewell said:


> A 6000 page bill they gave them 6 hours to read before voting. Loaded with irrelevant pork barrel spending. Its embarrassing for both sides.
> 
> 
> Interesting development with trump sitting out the negotiating and then demanding changes at the end. Is he trying to sabotage the senate runoffs?
> 
> 
> All presidents have some controversial pardons. Problem with trump is that all of his are controversial or they involve investigations into himself. He found a loophole in the system and dangles a pardon in front of people so they dont incriminate him.



For comparison, though, Dubya's most controversial pardon was to Isaac Toussie, for fraud. The controversy was because there was a Justice Department guideline that presidential pardons not be granted until five years have passed since the end of the person's sentence, and it had only been four years. Bush actually reversed the pardon the next day because of that.

Obama had a number of unprecedented pardons. On of Obama's most controversial pardon was General James Cartwright, who received a pardon before he had even been sentenced. Another was Chelsea Manning, who was serving 35 years for espionage, and ended up in trouble with the law again not long after her sentence was commuted.

None of those, at least in my opinion, are anywhere near the level of controversy of pardoning your own co-conspirators.  But, then again, who didn't see this coming?! We're talking about the guy who couldn't wait to try to pardon himself- but he can't, because he hasn't been indicted for anything federal (yet).

Regarding stimulus/relief bill: If they'd simply write a no-nonsense Bill giving people some minimal survival weekly income, I don't think it would pass here, because Republicans. I don't think it'd be enough, either. Basically, there is no middle ground between Dems and Republicans, and that's why this nation is such a shitshow. IF the Democrats controlled everything without opposition, there'd still probably not be any effective relief, and there'd be even more pork barrel garbage in that bill, and we all know that if Republicans controlled everything, there'd be no relief for private individuals at all. So...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

After near four years Pelosi and Schumer haven't figured out that Trump is incredibly vain, especially when it comes to money. The guy is so insecure.

It took less than 24 hours for the mere mention of how "small" the checks were going to be for Trump to immediately call for more money.

Money is one of the few things he understands. More = better, especially when you can brag about it.

The Dems should have been talking about how only a "real man, with real money" would be able to provide $$$$ for the people, for months.


----------



## SpaceDock

While I think the 600 bucks was a joke and that yes the bill is filled with more pork than a bacon factory, I absolutely despise that Trump blamed all the pork and low individual payments on “socialist Democrats” which is such a dishonest claim. Many of the pork programs were republican wish list items and most Republican senators didn’t even want a round of individual payments. I just can’t stand how horribly disingenuous and partisan Trump can be.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> While I think the 600 bucks was a joke and that yes the bill is filled with more pork than a bacon factory, I absolutely despise that Trump blamed all the pork and low individual payments on “socialist Democrats” which is such a dishonest claim. Many of the pork programs were republican wish list items and most Republican senators didn’t even want a round of individual payments. I just can’t stand how horribly disingenuous and partisan Trump can be.



The ol' "the other side did it" is a feature, not a bug, of our system. 

To Pelosi's credit, the first thing she did was throw it right back at the GOP. Saying she was ready to cut $2k checks TODAY.



spudmunkey said:


> One of the men Trump pardoned:
> View attachment 88197



lAw & oRdEr


----------



## Drew

Dineley said:


> The money going to people is only $600 and its loaded with a ridiculous amount of special interest tax breaks and stuff. Basically a slap in the face.





SpaceDock said:


> While I think the 600 bucks was a joke and that yes the bill is filled with more pork than a bacon factory, I absolutely despise that Trump blamed all the pork and low individual payments on “socialist Democrats” which is such a dishonest claim. Many of the pork programs were republican wish list items and most Republican senators didn’t even want a round of individual payments. I just can’t stand how horribly disingenuous and partisan Trump can be.


Though, let's be fair. 

1) The "pork" that's getting a lot of heat is, almost without exception, all part of the continuing resolution to continue funding the government past the 28th at current levels, rather than new provisions. That's also the bulk of the 6,000 pages. This isn't new content, this is merely "roll forward our last budget, for a few more weeks, while we sort out a new one," and most of the attacks on these grounds are (probably intentionally) missing this distinction. 

2) the $600 checks are _stimulus _checks. They're not intended to compensate Americans for lost jobs or wages during the pandemic, they're intended to boost Americans' disposable income during a time when consumer demand is faltering, so consumers will go out and spend money and boost businesses and help keep people who currently _have_ jobs, in those jobs. That's why they're going to everyone who made $75k or less as an individual, or $150k or less as a family, in 2019, a cutoff well above the median salary in this country, and one with no connection at all to _current_ need. There ARE provisions in this bill intended to help Americans that have been disadvantaged by the pandemic - the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance is the biggest, and will provide anyone collecting unemployment due to the pandemic an extra $300/week for another 11 weeks, or all in $3,300 over roughly the next three months. That coupled with the $600 stimulus check means the average American who lost their job as a result of this pandemic will receive $3,900 as an individual, or $7,800 as a working family of two, over the next three months, _in addition to regular unemployment benefits_, thanks to this bill. 

There's a lot of misunderstanding about what the various portions of the bill are doing, and a lot of that is being intentionally fostered, it seems. Don't get me wrong, I think we probably need to extend PUA for longer than 11 weeks, and the program would be more effective if there was more certainty tied to it, and additionally any direct aid to cities and states has largely been carved out of this, which I think was also a mistake. But, anyone who's telling you this "only gives $600 to Americans who are struggling to make ends meet because of this pandemic" doesn't really have a full picture of all of the different parts of the bill.


----------



## bostjan

What if all of this talk about Trump asking his lawyers if he can pardon himself is just him needing to use the little president's room during all of his meetings with his lawyers, not about legal immunity?


----------



## Randy

Tbh, the ultimate sign Trump is gone is the return to the ol' normal of jamming bills full of pork to get everyone to vote on it. It's actually kind of relieving.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> What if all of this talk about Trump asking his lawyers if he can pardon himself is just him needing to use the little president's room during all of his meetings with his lawyers, not about legal immunity?


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> What if all of this talk about Trump asking his lawyers if he can pardon himself is just him needing to use the little president's room during all of his meetings with his lawyers, not about legal immunity?


First, Trump would never be polite enough to excuse himself and second, after spending so much time with Kim Jong-un, I don't think Trump will ever admit to doing that again.


----------



## Ralyks

26 new pardons just announced, including Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Charles Kushner.

Yep, he still sucks.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


>


Delete this. Dolly is a wonderful woman and this only degrades her.


----------



## ImNotAhab

spudmunkey said:


> One of the men Trump pardoned:
> View attachment 88197





Ralyks said:


> 26 new pardons just announced, including Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Charles Kushner.
> 
> Yep, he still sucks.



It's getting harder and harder to watch movies where America is the good guy.


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> 2) the $600 checks are _stimulus _checks. They're not intended to compensate Americans for lost jobs or wages during the pandemic, they're intended to boost Americans' disposable income during a time when consumer demand is faltering, so consumers will go out and spend money and boost businesses and help keep people who currently _have_ jobs, in those jobs. That's why they're going to everyone who made $75k or less as an individual, or $150k or less as a family, in 2019, a cutoff well above the median salary in this country, and one with no connection at all to _current_ need. There ARE provisions in this bill intended to help Americans that have been disadvantaged by the pandemic - the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance is the biggest, and will provide anyone collecting unemployment due to the pandemic an extra $300/week for another 11 weeks, or all in $3,300 over roughly the next three months. That coupled with the $600 stimulus check means the average American who lost their job as a result of this pandemic will receive $3,900 as an individual, or $7,800 as a working family of two, over the next three months, _in addition to regular unemployment benefits_, thanks to this bill.



This. If people are having trouble feeding their families or paying rent, they should be asking for extensions to unemployment benefits or, better yet, more government spending on public infrastructure projects. Complaining stimulus checks aren't enough to pay for lack of a job or doesn't help with student debt is conflating the purpose of these stipends.


----------



## groverj3

ImNotAhab said:


> It's getting harder and harder to watch movies where America is the good guy.


Welcome to Earth.

This country is a real dumpster fire right now.

Wake me up on January 21st. If we're all still alive, I'm ready for a boring piece of white bread president and ready complain he isn't leftist enough for me. I'll take that universe over this one.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> This. If people are having trouble feeding their families or paying rent, they should be asking for extensions to unemployment benefits or, better yet, more government spending on public infrastructure projects. Complaining stimulus checks aren't enough to pay for lack of a job or doesn't help with student debt is conflating the purpose of these stipends.


Furthermore, threatening to veto the whole bill because the $600 stimulus check, which again _is intended to stimulate consumer spending to help businesses_ isn't big enough while pretending to "want to help Americans," and in doing so killing the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Benefits that were also passed with the bill to bring the level of unemployment benefits up to the median income in large parts of the country, and killing things like aid to the airline industry that was conditioned on them bringing back furloughed employees, which they had promised to do before, well, today, after news broke that this was passing, is straight up destructive to American families. 

The sheer number of memes fixating on the $600 checks, but ignoring the rest of the bill, that _actually _helped Americans struggling to make ends meet, which (this shouldn't matter but it does) is mostly coming from people I know in my facebook feed who aren't laid off and are still working normal hours, is mind-boggling to me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Unemployment benefits are great and all, but have you navigated getting those benefits before? I know anecdotes and all that, but I know folks who are still dealing with trying to get proper benefits after months of losing thier primary income. The states are just overwhelmed by this. 

Call the direct cash payments whatever you want, but for a not insignificant amount of Americans, it's a long needed lifeline.


----------



## gunch

MaxOfMetal said:


> Unemployment benefits are great and all, but have you navigated getting those benefits before? I know anecdotes and all that, but I know folks who are still dealing with trying to get proper benefits after months of losing thier primary income. The states are just overwhelmed by this.
> 
> Call the direct cash payments whatever you want, but for a not insignificant amount of Americans, it's a long needed lifeline.



As shitty as this year was and how working poor I am, I am super glad and thankful that I got what unemployment I was able to get and while it sucked at the time to go back to work in May I still had a job to go back to. I know others aren't so lucky.


----------



## TheBlackBard

MaxOfMetal said:


> Unemployment benefits are great and all, but have you navigated getting those benefits before? I know anecdotes and all that, but I know folks who are still dealing with trying to get proper benefits after months of losing thier primary income. The states are just overwhelmed by this.
> 
> Call the direct cash payments whatever you want, but for a not insignificant amount of Americans, it's a long needed lifeline.




Correct. There are still people in my area who haven't gotten their first stimulus check and have either been denied their unemployment to which they requested under the same conditions as other people who were laid off from my job (temporarily) or are still waiting for the money to come.


----------



## Drew

The Pandemic unemployment benefits have also been expired for a few months now. But, while it's hardly been impimented perfectly, I think it's important here to judge the various parts of the bill based on their intended purpose. These $600 checks aren't supposed to totally replace lost wages for anyone not working because of Covid, and it's kind of insane to argue that they should. Likewise, a lot of the attention is going to the pandemic stimulus checks, and Trump is threatening to veto the whole bill becase of them, but theres a TON of direct support to help people out of work and bring people back INTO work, and looking at this bill as simply a way to give every American making less than $75k a $600 check to pay rent with misses, well, MOST of the bill. 

Americans out of work are eligibile to receive a total of $3,300 over the next three months, on top of regular unemployment benefits, plus the $600 stimulus check if they previously made less than $75k. Saying the government is giving out of work Americans $600 is a lie; in most cases, that number is $3,900, plus whatever they were _already _getting in unemployment benefits.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> The Pandemic unemployment benefits have also been expired for a few months now. But, while it's hardly been impimented perfectly, I think it's important here to judge the various parts of the bill based on their intended purpose. These $600 checks aren't supposed to totally replace lost wages for anyone not working because of Covid, and it's kind of insane to argue that they should. Likewise, a lot of the attention is going to the pandemic stimulus checks, and Trump is threatening to veto the whole bill becase of them, but theres a TON of direct support to help people out of work and bring people back INTO work, and looking at this bill as simply a way to give every American making less than $75k a $600 check to pay rent with misses, well, MOST of the bill.
> 
> Americans out of work are eligibile to receive a total of $3,300 over the next three months, on top of regular unemployment benefits, plus the $600 stimulus check if they previously made less than $75k. Saying the government is giving out of work Americans $600 is a lie; in most cases, that number is $3,900, plus whatever they were _already _getting in unemployment benefits.



I think people are stuck in the 600 because like others have said the process of getting Unemployment benefits is not fool proof. Also the previous increased benefits lapsed months ago so people have been living on scraps so while the stimulus money is indeed "stimulus" it feels like not much after so much inaction as people got more and more overwhelmed and while PPP loans went to Republican mega donors sketchy loan companies and Kushner family companies and such. 

So I think the memes and such are just that the GOP folks all decry "socialism" while writing essentially blank checks too companies and pinch pennies when help for actual people in need.


----------



## bostjan

If unemployment, which is supposed to keep people from dying of starvation, is so broken, then why are they wasting their time on a stimulus anyway?


----------



## Boofchuck

@MaxOfMetal Thanks for mentioning that. I was fortunate enough to have enough to get by when I was laid off from my seasonal job with the Feds this summer. I had everything necessary for unemployment compensation, including a federal form that effectively guarantees it. I had to fight tooth and nail for it. It required tons of documentation and literally over 200 phone calls and it took over three months for approval. That's unsustainable for a lot of people.


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> If unemployment, which is supposed to keep people from dying of starvation, is so broken, then why are they wasting their time on a stimulus anyway?



To keep businesses that are barely open from closing. Wasn't this already covered?

In reality, the money is just going to Amazon and Apple shareholders.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> To keep businesses that are barely open from closing. Wasn't this already covered?
> 
> In reality, the money is just going to Amazon and Apple shareholders.


Yeah, except Apple is probably set to lose half of their customers if things don't turn around soon.


----------



## spudmunkey

Boofchuck said:


> @MaxOfMetal Thanks for mentioning that. I was fortunate enough to have enough to get by when I was laid off from my seasonal job with the Feds this summer. I had everything necessary for unemployment compensation, including a federal form that effectively guarantees it. I had to fight tooth and nail for it. It required tons of documentation and literally over 200 phone calls and it took over three months for approval. That's unsustainable for a lot of people.



I got laid off in August, and still haven't been successful yet. Thankfully my better half just had reduced salary, and I have savings of about 10 months salary. She was able to get the income supplement program funds early on, though, pretty easily. Her employer had to set that up, or something, though, so some of that process was already done.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Lighten the mood a touch. Merry Christmas all.


----------



## spudmunkey

Has *anyone* been able articulate any sort of actual defense/explanation* for the pardon of the Blackwater murderers?

(*beyond just "it looks bad for Betsy DaVos for her family to have had murderers under their employ", with maybe a dash of "but they killed brown people" worship thrown in?)


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> Yeah, except Apple is probably set to lose half of their customers if things don't turn around soon.



Half? Do you think their market is just US people without jobs?

Their customers already have shown they are willing to forsake rent and food to replace their 11 month old phone from last year. My guess is they probably shut down retail stores in USA due to the supply chain issue in India right now and really didn't care about about the pandemic.


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> Has *anyone* been able articulate any sort of actual defense/explanation* for the pardon of the Blackwater murderers?
> 
> (*beyond just "it looks bad for Betsy DaVos for her family to have had murderers under their employ", with maybe a dash of "but they killed brown people" worship thrown in?)



So I just read what Kushner was pardoned for... What the hell... Why would a president even care to intervene in a case that the person plead guilty and asked not to be pardoned... Was this really Trump? Seems more likely that Ivanka/Jared are responsible for this decision, which seems like using the executive office for personal favors.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> which seems like using the executive office for personal favors.



I mean.... Have you seen the last 4 years?


----------



## groverj3

spudmunkey said:


> Has *anyone* been able articulate any sort of actual defense/explanation* for the pardon of the Blackwater murderers?
> 
> (*beyond just "it looks bad for Betsy DaVos for her family to have had murderers under their employ", with maybe a dash of "but they killed brown people" worship thrown in?)


The answer is that it's a personal favor for the DeVos family.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Ralyks

Welp, Trump signed the bill.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Ralyks said:


> Welp, Trump signed the bill.




So now they have to vote on it yeah or? I apologize if it's a dumb question.


----------



## Ralyks

TheBlackBard said:


> So now they have to vote on it yeah or? I apologize if it's a dumb question.



They already voted on it. Today I guess it's a separate deal for $2000 stimulus per adult and $600 per kid. Friends mentioned something about him possibly signing it then using the Impoundment Control Act to change the bill to how he wanted it?


----------



## sleewell

Woo hoo $3600 for us.


----------



## Xaios

On one hand, yeah, this stimulus is something a lot of Americans need right now, but it just feels like, with how the US has mishandled the pandemic so far, this is just...

...nuking the hurricane. 

Also, yet another attempt to deflect from a recent major scandal, the pardoning of actual war criminals.


----------



## possumkiller

Xaios said:


> Also, yet another attempt to deflect from a recent major scandal, the pardoning of actual war criminals.


It's not like the US really punishes it's own war criminals anyway. How long did the murderers that massacred civilians at My Lai actually spend in jail?


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> It's not like the US really punishes it's own war criminals anyway. How long did the murderers that massacred civilians at My Lai actually spend in jail?



Well, if war criminals know how to make rockets and bombs we give them citizenship and jobs.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> Well, if war criminals know how to make rockets and bombs we give them citizenship and jobs.


Hey! Werner von Braun was an apolitical pacifist whose designs were co-opted for evil.

The man just wanted to see the moon.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Hey! Werner von Braun was an apolitical pacifist whose designs were co-opted for evil.
> 
> The man just wanted to see the moon.



Almost 2000 people in Operation Paperclip and none were Nazis. Hmm.....


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Almost 2000 people in Operation Paperclip and none were Nazis. Hmm.....


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> Hey! Werner von Braun was an apolitical pacifist whose designs were co-opted for evil.
> 
> *The man just wanted to see the moon.*



And put a Nazi flag on it. 

Boomgoesthenazidynamite


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ru...-march-as-criticism-of-health-official-builds

Rubio trying to be first in line to get them 75M Trump/deplorable votes.


----------



## Mathemagician

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ru...-march-as-criticism-of-health-official-builds
> 
> Rubio trying to be first in line to get them 75M Trump/deplorable votes.



People have been “quoting” this since the second time the directives changed. Remember the bar to lie to people is low, as long as they can offer a morsel to cling to their cult remains fat & happy in the knowledge of their superiority. 

Fauci is going to work under Biden? They pivot and target him now, and that’s another knock against the incoming administration. 

The cult won’t even remember he’s served under 6 presidents including Reagan, or that Bush awarded him the Medal of Freedom. 

Remember, to the cult members changing one’s mind/growing due to new information is seen as a weakness.


----------



## USMarine75

Glad to see the Trve Patriot GOP finally owning those libtards...

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/louie-gohmert-mike-pence-lawsuit/index.html

(PS apologies in advance for posting a Chris Cilliza article)


----------



## nightflameauto

It's truly funny to me that the only documented cases of voter fraud I've seen actual proof of were both Republicans voting for other people. One person voting for Trump himself, then trying to vote for a recently deceased relative. And another voting for Trump himself, then attempting to vote for his Democrat registered son with the same name for Trump.

Man, I sure hope Tom Brady's company is able to take advantage of further PPP payments with the newly passed relief bill. It'd be a shame if he had to tap into his personal millions to pay some business expenses for his questionable supplement supplying company.


----------



## bostjan

Just remember that we still have almost a month of these shenanigans to look forward to, assuming he doesn't suddenly find a foothold somewhere and delay leaving office.


----------



## Ralyks

So according to Mnuchin, direct deposits for the 600 bucks could arrive as early as... Now.


----------



## sleewell

Well I got some money but not what I was expecting. its 600 per person if you are married and 600 per kid right? Thought I saw 150k combined income limit for married couple which we are under.

Should be fun calling the IRS fml lolololol


----------



## Randy

I thought the 600 per child got tabled or capped but idk cause it was revised so many damn times


----------



## Ralyks

I'm pretty sure it was 600 up to 3 kids? I'm gonna be a bit annoyed if I'm not getting 1200.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## nightflameauto

So, Dusty Johnson was on the news this morning proclaiming that *IF* we approved the $2,000 stimulus checks, the amount of money it would cost would allow the government to pay every out of work adult American $50,000 to reeducate and get back on the job, *OR* give a tax free year to 90% of working Americans. Something like 457 billion.

And while I get that's a lot of money, him throwing that idea out there makes me wonder, why don't we offer a program for out of work Americans where percentages have to break down for handouts on education/vocational training, another percentage on essentials? It wouldn't even have to be the 50K Dusty's talking about. I'm sure there are plenty of out of work folks that could get a 10K boost to get them into an apprenticeship somewhere while keeping them in their homes and keeping them fed.

I know, that's not how America works. Gotta keep the corporate interests fed. Fuck the people that need help.


----------



## BigViolin

They have a pretty good idea how much to feed us plow mules to keep the dirt turned.


----------



## SpaceDock

nightflameauto said:


> So, Dusty Johnson was on the news this morning proclaiming that *IF* we approved the $2,000 stimulus checks, the amount of money it would cost would allow the government to pay every out of work adult American $50,000 to reeducate and get back on the job, *OR* give a tax free year to 90% of working Americans. Something like 457 billion.
> 
> And while I get that's a lot of money, him throwing that idea out there makes me wonder, why don't we offer a program for out of work Americans where percentages have to break down for handouts on education/vocational training, another percentage on essentials? It wouldn't even have to be the 50K Dusty's talking about. I'm sure there are plenty of out of work folks that could get a 10K boost to get them into an apprenticeship somewhere while keeping them in their homes and keeping them fed.
> 
> I know, that's not how America works. Gotta keep the corporate interests fed. Fuck the people that need help.



There were some programs like this that the Obama admin tried to do but it ended up getting railed by Republicans. The most famous of these were the Coding for Coal Miners that tried to help people transition out of those jobs and into future jobs, I think most of us remember how that turned out.


----------



## USMarine75

Great. Trump broke the Legal Eagle.


----------



## groverj3

We're a laughingstock, but hey, at least I've got $600 more in my bank account as of today to make it all better.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Great. Trump broke the Legal Eagle.



He's been broken since Trump's Bible photo op/riot police shit show.


----------



## Ralyks

Can the UN even do anything about it?


----------



## groverj3

Ralyks said:


> Can the UN even do anything about it?


Not sure what you're referring to, but it doesn't really matter because the answer would always be "no."


----------



## Ralyks

groverj3 said:


> Not sure what you're referring to, but it doesn't really matter because the answer would always be "no."



Sorry, I thought it was referenced above. The UN is stating Trump broke international law with the Blackwater pardons.


----------



## groverj3

Ralyks said:


> Sorry, I thought it was referenced above. The UN is stating Trump broke international law with the Blackwater pardons.


Big oof, but yeah, that sounds about right.


----------



## Necris

I could be wrong, but considering the US is one of the five permanent members of the UN and therefore holds the special power to veto anything resembling an actual consequence (i.e. sanctions) the UN saying "you broke the law" effectively is the punishment for the Blackwater pardons.


----------



## broj15

*certain* GOP members keep saying that giving everyone $2k would cost too much, meanwhile Tucker Carlson is out here spitting out talking points that Bernie Sanders has been putting out there for years (actually kinda sick for a fox news pundit). 

https://mobile.twitter.com/breaktheblue/status/1337974847104806914?s=21

Yeah, this clip is a few weeks old and Tucker did go on to decry socialism & champion capitalism literally right after this, but it has me wondering a few things:
1. Does Tucker know what the differences are between capitalism & communism / the right vs. left dichotomy
2. Is his drinking problem starting to get out of hand
3. Is Tucker Carlson secretly a nazbol?


----------



## nightflameauto

Senator Josh Hawley has publicly stated he will be disputing/protesting the election results during the confirmation process in January. It seems like a non-calculated, extremely stupid move when even Mitch McConnel told the GOP Senators to stand down. It could trigger a long debate for the Senate and force the other Republicans to pick a side in a dispute that either supports reality, or the falsified fantasy of widespread systemic fraud that Trump claims. And something tells me the majority of the Republican senators don't want to have to go on record with either claim, as they want plausible deniability when they come up for reelection.

While in the end it won't freakin' matter to the end result, and Biden will be confirmed, it will certainly be entertaining watching the GOP squirm and attempt to stop itself from imploding.


----------



## bostjan

Anyone know if there is any consequence at all of the one lawsuit Trump's campaign won? Something about some sort of deadline being extended for people to submit their IDs or something. I kind of lost it in the avalanche of information from the 70+ other lawsuits he lost.

As far as the UN goes, I don't see them putting Trump on trial like he's Slobodan Milošević, and I don't see them punishing the US for something an ex- or very soon-to-be ex-president has done.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Anyone know if there is any consequence at all of the one lawsuit Trump's campaign won? Something about some sort of deadline being extended for people to submit their IDs or something. I kind of lost it in the avalanche of information from the 70+ other lawsuits he lost.
> 
> As far as the UN goes, I don't see them putting Trump on trial like he's Slobodan Milošević, and I don't see them punishing the US for something an ex- or very soon-to-be ex-president has done.


I think even the lawsuit that he won only impacted a relatively minor amount of votes, and doesn't change the electoral college outcome at all. That's the funniest part of all these lawsuits. Even if they won every single one of them, he'd still lose both the popular and the EC votes. It's just a whole lot of noise about nothing.


----------



## USMarine75

http://www.edition.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics/electoral-college-house-republicans/index.html

Every single one of the Republicans that were elected in this election from one of the contested states should be thrown out of Congress for fraud, misconduct, and insurrection. 

You are literally claiming this election was fraudulent... but only for Biden... and not you. Even though you were on the same ticket.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> Anyone know if there is any consequence at all of the one lawsuit Trump's campaign won? Something about some sort of deadline being extended for people to submit their IDs or something. I kind of lost it in the avalanche of information from the 70+ other lawsuits he lost.



The complaint: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7739/file-10379.pdf?cb=935544
The order: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7739/file-10440.pdf?cb=aa5ec4

As far as I can tell, absentee/mail in ballots that required additional proof of identification were being separated out while they waited the required six days after the election for that proof to be submitted. PA extended the deadline to allow that proof to be submitted for a few more days. The complaint basically says "if you didn't get that proof by the original date, you're not allowed to count those ballots" and invalidated the extension. The court upheld that. But it sounds like it was a very small number of ballots that were at issue and since they were never counted in the first place, the ruling didn't change any of the already reported results.


----------



## tedtan

Hawley and the other republicans contesting the electoral college vote don’t actually believe they will have any effect on the election results.

They’ll be up for re-election in 2022 or 2024 and are scared of losing the Trump supporters. All their BS is just pandering to Trump’s base to try to help their own political careers.




USMarine75 said:


> Every single one of the Republicans that were elected in this election from one of the contested states should be thrown out of Congress for fraud, misconduct, and insurrection.



Agreed.

Even though I doubt they believe any of the BS they spout, they’re still creating problems and need to be held accountable for them.


----------



## Randy

It's also totally outta touch. Yeah, Trump garnered a lot of support but the "Stop the Steal" thing is just hangover from 4 years of Trumpism. I think a year from now, after a comparatively competent and quiet administration, I don't think "WE'RE BRINGING TRUMP BACK WOO! THROW OUT ALL ELECTION RESULTS!" is going to be a winning platform countrywide.


----------



## tedtan

Yeah, a lot of people are predicting that Trump will maintain influence in the Republican Party, even becoming a “king maker”, but I don’t see it.

He’ll still spout nonsense in looney far right media like qanon and breitbart, but I really think his influence will wane over the coming year or two.


----------



## USMarine75

tedtan said:


> Yeah, a lot of people are predicting that Trump will maintain influence in the Republican Party, even becoming a “king maker”, but I don’t see it.
> 
> He’ll still spout nonsense in looney far right media like qanon and breitbart, but I really think his influence will wane over the coming year or two.



Its a self-licking ice cream cone. The Republican officials will pretend to remain loyal to the Trump brand as long as the voters do. The minute his numbers start to drop you’ll see the likes of Lyndsay “Oh Me Oh My” Graham, Ted “You’re Correct Sir My Wife is Indeed Ugly” Cruz, and Marco “I’m a Real Boy” Rubio denounce him.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> Yeah, a lot of people are predicting that Trump will maintain influence in the Republican Party, even becoming a “king maker”, but I don’t see it.
> 
> He’ll still spout nonsense in looney far right media like qanon and breitbart, but I really think his influence will wane over the coming year or two.



Tbh, I haven't see any indication his endorsement carries much weight. Republicans lost more special elections than they won while he was in office and lost a record number of seats in 2018.

Trumps endorsement, at a time, helped you in your primary. Likewise, running "against" Trump as a Republican was a kiss of death. But nothing about the last 4 years indicates kissing up to Trump wins you general elections in districts where you weren't gonna win it without him. It's a strategy that's legit 4 years behind the times.


----------



## Ralyks

So uhh.... Are we going to address Trumps called to the Georgia Secretary of State? Because that definitely seems like something with legal ramifications that Trump will still somehow slip out of.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am not shocked by anything that Trump does anymore, but I am still supremely disappointed with the GOP in their allowing this to happen. They should have moved on right after Trump lost but instead have chosen to humor his supporters the same way they humored Trump with his birther nonsense. GOP is dead, they are Qanon now.


----------



## Xaios

SpaceDock said:


> GOP is dead, they are Qanon now.


I believe the term is "Q Cucks Clan".


----------



## groverj3

Ralyks said:


> So uhh.... Are we going to address Trumps called to the Georgia Secretary of State? Because that definitely seems like something with legal ramifications that Trump will still somehow slip out of.


This is the kind of stuff that most of the time the leader of a country would be pressured to resign over. However, it's Republicans and this kind of behavior is a feature rather than a bug at this point.


----------



## groverj3

SpaceDock said:


> I am not shocked by anything that Trump does anymore, but I am still supremely disappointed with the GOP in their allowing this to happen. They should have moved on right after Trump lost but instead have chosen to humor his supporters the same way they humored Trump with his birther nonsense. GOP is dead, they are Qanon now.


I'm completely unsurprised that the Rs are either humoring him or buying into it. "Taking the moral high ground" isn't really a thing with them. Also, this kind of anti-democratic manuevering is the inevitable result of all of that party's direction over the past 50 years.


----------



## USMarine75

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/03/...-defense-secretaries-public-letter/index.html

If you supported Trump in 2016 that was your preference.

If you support Trump now you are part of a coup.

Sometimes, it really is a dichotomy.


----------



## bostjan

The GOP is basically whoever dislikes liberals, though. So, with that in mind, I don't think the GOP will go away unless someone comes along and says something different from what the Democratic Party is saying, who also distances themselves from the GOP.

No matter what they do, the Democratic Party will never ever ever be able to pull in those people.

If Trump refuses to leave office this month, the GOP will likely fracture, falter, regroup, repair, and then be back on track for debauchery and sin in 2024.


----------



## nightflameauto

The parts of that phone call we've been allowed to hear are pretty damning. The problem is that, since it's been cut up, Trump's team will be able to babble about how out of context it is and how we're missing the crucial parts of the conversation blah blah blah. If this were a real country instead of a clown car masquerading as a super power, that type of shit wouldn't be tolerated. But, as others have said, this is par for the course when it comes to the GOP.

Trump also put out a statement that he hopes our governor, who has basically had her lips attached to his hindquarters for the past four years, runs against incumbent Thune, who he labels a RINO since Thune decided to say the election is over rather than stand with Trump. Thune's about as Republican as they come based on his past actions. Breaking with Trump doesn't change that. Granted, Trump has himself convinced he *IS* the Republican party.

Gonna be interesting seeing if he can manage to maintain any level of power within the party once he's out of office. Will his cultists be able to hold onto his coattails going forward or will they have to detach and approach reality again?


----------



## fantom

groverj3 said:


> I'm completely unsurprised that the Rs are either humoring him or buying into it. "Taking the moral high ground" isn't really a thing with them. Also, this kind of anti-democratic manuevering is the inevitable result of all of that party's direction over the past 50 years.



Generalize much? Many Republicans are standing up to him. Look at Mitt Romney of all people doing it right now. Also, the Georgia Secretary of State is getting death threats over this. The 10 former defense secretaries that wrote an open letter condemning this coup attempt contain many Republicans. Or what about all of the judges, many whom were appointed by Trump, fighting it? I think we can argue corrupt politicians exist, but don't lump all Republicans into the problem.



nightflameauto said:


> The parts of that phone call we've been allowed to hear are pretty damning. The problem is that, since it's been cut up, Trump's team will be able to babble about how out of context it is and how we're missing the crucial parts of the conversation blah blah blah. If this were a real country instead of a clown car masquerading as a super power, that type of shit wouldn't be tolerated. But, as others have said, this is par for the course when it comes to the GOP.



The entire transcript is leaked. No one can argue it being cut up. Trump ranted for like 45 minutes while the Secretary of State repeatedly told Trump that his numbers were incorrect, that they think their results were accurate, and that he wouldn't do anything without lawyers involved since he was bound to follow the law.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html


----------



## sleewell

he sounds like a desperate weakling who is really freaked about losing immunity from prosecution in 16 days. when he rambles incoherently you can just hear the abject fear in his voice. so used to people cowering before him and now they aren't; he doesn't know how to respond to them telling him no.


this is the start of the really crazy stuff he is going to try to pull as power slips from his fingers. he is going to pardon himself and his entire shithouse family. he will incite violence.


----------



## USMarine75

Well Trump was technically right... there is election interference.


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> Generalize much? Many Republicans are standing up to him. Look at Mitt Romney of all people doing it right now. Also, the Georgia Secretary of State is getting death threats over this. The 10 former defense secretaries that wrote an open letter condemning this coup attempt contain many Republicans. Or what about all of the judges, many whom were appointed by Trump, fighting it? I think we can argue corrupt politicians exist, but don't lump all Republicans into the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> The entire transcript is leaked. No one can argue it being cut up. Trump ranted for like 45 minutes while the Secretary of State repeatedly told Trump that his numbers were incorrect, that they think their results were accurate, and that he wouldn't do anything without lawyers involved since he was bound to follow the law.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/03/politics/trump-brad-raffensperger-phone-call-transcript/index.html


Sweet. I wasn't aware the entire thing was available.

Should be interesting to see if we get any legal action taken over this one.


----------



## bostjan

I don't see anything illegal in the phone call. Embarrassing for Trump, definitely - illegal, not really.

The call with Ukraine in 2019, though, very illegal IMO, and Trump skated easily out of that one. I wouldn't mind seeing some punishments for that still, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I don't see anything illegal in the phone call. Embarrassing for Trump, definitely - illegal, not really.
> 
> The call with Ukraine in 2019, though, very illegal IMO, and Trump skated easily out of that one. I wouldn't mind seeing some punishments for that still, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.


I suppose it wouldn't be illegal unless the election results were changed after the call. But there should be something in even asking for the results to be changed. I know, probably not any specific law, but there's definitely an ethics breach. Granted, Trump's entire presidency has felt like a series of ethics breaches, so I suppose this ranks pretty low on the scale.


----------



## Sumsar

Anyone with a somewhat functioning democratic system:






Yeah I know the guy probably has his fat ass 2 inches from the 'launch all the nukes on the entire world, including the US, if I can't have it, noone can' - button, but still it is fascinating to watch.

Btw is his plan still to step down one day before time so that Pence can pardon him whatever he did as president?
And otherwise will he have to be present at the inauguration day for Biden, and will that even be held with the current situation in mind?


----------



## groverj3

As far as I can tell, Republicans who've stood up to Trump in the past 4 years are in the extreme minority. So much so that they're irrelevant on the large scale.

I'm glad that the GA secretary of state and governor have stood up to him, to avoid the situation there getting even more out of hand. However, they were directly, and personally, attacked by Trump to cause them to publicly break with him.

I recall McCain didn't like Trump, but he didn't actually *DO* anything about it. Who else? Romney? Does he actually have any power in that party anymore? It seems like the neoliberal faction have lost any power they had and either were replaced by, or joined, the authoritarian pseudo-fascist wing of the party over the past 6 or so years, going back to Obama's time in office.

Hell, Ted Cruz and Trump hated each other and did nothing but trade insults. Now they're besties. Same with Lindsey Graham. The party is morally bankrupt.


----------



## groverj3

Sumsar said:


> Btw is his plan still to step down one day before time so that Pence can pardon him whatever he did as president?
> And otherwise will he have to be present at the inauguration day for Biden, and will that even be held with the current situation in mind?



Plans? Trump? I laughed. He does whatever his fragile ego tells him, and what he synthesizes from the people around telling him bonkers far right nonsense. I wouldn't rule out something like that.

He won't be at Biden's inauguration. You can bet on it. The inauguration will happen, it just won't have many people there. I can't wait to see the media still letting ol' Orangeface get air time, and his inevitable comment about the size of Biden's inauguration crowd being smaller than his own.


----------



## bostjan

Bets on whether Trump brags about how many more people were at his inauguration than at Biden's?

But yeah, I don't think Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, et al. were sitting around, writing the Constitution, pondering what laws needed to be written in case an orange-skinned megalomaniac who speaks in half-thoughts and cocaine-fueled-riddles decided to make 45 minutes of vague threats toward election officials during a phone call over the state's presidential election results. I really can't blame them for missing that opportunity. But it just further goes to show how the US's federal political system is held together by duct tape, chewing gum, and naïve optimism.


----------



## Ralyks

Addressing the legal aspect, he potential could could have opened himself to violating federal and state statues for soliciting of election fraud....... But, alas, probably nothing will come of it.

Edit: well, there we go.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252732


----------



## Xaios

groverj3 said:


> I recall McCain didn't like Trump, but he didn't actually *DO* anything about it.


As I recall, McCain is one of the few Republicans who we can definitively say did do something against Trump, when he returned to the senate less than two weeks after having brain surgery in order to nuke Trump's plans to repeal the ACA.

I don't disagree on any of the rest that you mentioned, though. Romney positioned himself as a sort of voice of reason, but didn't take a stand when it mattered, towing the party line in confirming the new supreme court justice.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Addressing the legal aspect, he potential could could have opened himself to violating federal and state statues for soliciting of election fraud....... But, alas, probably nothing will come of it.
> 
> Edit: well, there we go.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252732


Even though I know, deep down, this will ultimately amount to a fart in a stiff wind, it's still a nice sign that SOMEBODY'S willing to find the line in the sand on this one. Even if it will ultimately just be another big show and more hot air, at least it's being brought up.


----------



## fantom

Sumsar said:


> Btw is his plan still to step down one day before time so that Pence can pardon him whatever he did as president?



I actually don't think it's a given that Pence would pardon him. If it happened, I wouldn't be surprised, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he said no after Trump stepped down. Pence has been trying to stay out of this debacle. He has skated by, giving Trump the spotlight and lurking. He isn't making active decisions or actions that bring attention to him, and when people called on him to do so, he tried to deflect.



Xaios said:


> . Romney positioned himself as a sort of voice of reason, but didn't take a stand when it mattered, towing the party line in confirming the new supreme court justice.



This is a completely different topic. Confirming judges had nothing to do with Trump being unethical. He was just the person who had to put it in writing. The bullshit tactics were McConnell. And you can't blame a Republican for voting once the vote is called if they want the pick to get through because they think it is in the best interest of the people they represent. I don't agree with any of it, but I wouldn't consider anything with judges to be worth calling Republicans, aside from McConnell, unethical.


----------



## fantom

Ralyks said:


> Addressing the legal aspect, he potential could could have opened himself to violating federal and state statues for soliciting of election fraud....... But, alas, probably nothing will come of it.
> 
> Edit: well, there we go.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252732



The bigger concern I have is that they repeatedly asked for unredacted voter information, which is protected by law. At some point in the call, they assumed that the Secretary of State agreed to give the information over, which the Secretary of State had to say something like, "no, I didn't agree to that". They also asked for the Secretary of State to deputize the campaign members to get around the laws. I think that is enough for criminal conspiracy.

If Facebook or Google gave information like what posts or videos were watched by which individuals to a political party, I'm pretty sure someone would end up in jail. I don't see how it was even ok for Trump to ask for private citizen voter records.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Bets on whether Trump brags about how many more people were at his inauguration than at Biden's?



100% the plan


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Bets on whether Trump brags about how many more people were at his inauguration than at Biden's?



He's repeatedly claimed, even in this recorded phone call, that he simply can't believe that the fact that Biden had smaller turnout at rallies, that he could still possibly win the election.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> I don't see anything illegal in the phone call. Embarrassing for Trump, definitely - illegal, not really.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...4/law-trump-call-georgia-vote/?outputType=amp


*Did Trump break the law in his call to Georgia’s secretary of state? Some lawyers say yes.*


----------



## USMarine75

groverj3 said:


> I recall McCain didn't like Trump, but he didn't actually *DO* anything about it.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 88600



Still voted with the guy over 80% of the time, and in most cases just chose not to vote unless he was going to be a possible tie breaker. 

McCain is a sympathetic figure and probably one of the last mainstream GOP members to not be an abject monster, but there were plenty of "thumbs down" moments he chose to skip out on.


----------



## nightflameauto

Now one of my states critters in office, Dusty Johnson, is trying to get enough support to amend the constitution to only allow nine supreme court justices and he's been all over TV locally proclaiming that we absolutely must prevent the Democrats from stacking the courts. Jesus jumped up christ is that some double-standard bullshit after the last two administrations where literally every attempt at putting justices in place during Obama's time were blocked and then the shoe-horned in every possible justice they could during Trump's time. I can't believe the Republicans can live with themselves with how slimy they are. Everything they do just screams hypocritical douchebag.


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/04/law-trump-call-georgia-vote/?outputType=amp
> 
> 
> *Did Trump break the law in his call to Georgia’s secretary of state? Some lawyers say yes.*



I disagree with Holder's interpretation. If you read the actual law he mentions, it's about faking ballots. Not really what's going on here. The other, much more vaguely cited in the article to "some lawyers" might be a little less of a stretch, but I see no outcome of that sticking.


----------



## sleewell

i just wanna see some old fat maga fucks get worked over by the national guard. 


there should be a real debate if the members of congress backing this coup attempt should be unseated. they certainly should never be allowed to practice law ever again.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, the Georgia runoffs are today. fivethirtyeight's numbers are suggestion a two point lead for the Democratic candidates, but their polling for the presidential election were off by almost exactly those same two points. So the theory goes this is a neck-and-neck race right now and nobody's got any solid footing to make a predictive claim on the outcome.

Frankly, that's better news than I expected at this point. I figured it would be a slam dunk for the Republicans, but thanks to Trump and his clingers, there's been a whole lot of, "just don't vote, it's all rigged against us anyway" built up to keep the base that's paying attention at home. Fingers crossed the Democrats may actually have a chance here.


----------



## groverj3

MaxOfMetal said:


> Still voted with the guy over 80% of the time, and in most cases just chose not to vote unless he was going to be a possible tie breaker.
> 
> McCain is a sympathetic figure and probably one of the last mainstream GOP members to not be an abject monster, but there were plenty of "thumbs down" moments he chose to skip out on.


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> So, the Georgia runoffs are today. fivethirtyeight's numbers are suggestion a two point lead for the Democratic candidates, but their polling for the presidential election were off by almost exactly those same two points. So the theory goes this is a neck-and-neck race right now and nobody's got any solid footing to make a predictive claim on the outcome.
> 
> Frankly, that's better news than I expected at this point. I figured it would be a slam dunk for the Republicans, but thanks to Trump and his clingers, there's been a whole lot of, "just don't vote, it's all rigged against us anyway" built up to keep the base that's paying attention at home. Fingers crossed the Democrats may actually have a chance here.



Plus early voting numbers have been big, and bigger turnout for Latino voters.

But for some reason I feel like Democrats only win one of the seats. But I'm remaining optimistic.


----------



## fantom

So as of today, 24 Republican Senators have stated they will not contest the electoral results. Only 13 have said they will. 14 have not commented. Those last 27 can get all the grief in the world, but let's take a moment to acknowledge that half of the Republican Senators are already against what is unfolding before we bash all of the Republicans like they are clones of Ted Cruz.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/senate-gop-electoral-college-challenge-455104


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> So as of today, 24 Republican Senators have stated they will not contest the electoral results. Only 13 have said they will. 14 have not commented. Those last 27 can get all the grief in the world, but let's take a moment to acknowledge that half of the Republican Senators are already against what is unfolding before we bash all of the Republicans like they are clones of Ted Cruz.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/05/senate-gop-electoral-college-challenge-455104



There's low bars, and then there's this.

The fact that over 50% of Republican senators are A-OK with this is appalling and an indictment on the party as a whole. That's not a small sub-caucus or fringe, but the majority.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Those 14 that haven't commented will most likely side with the 13. They'll shy away from any media. Quietly cast their vote against and then avoid any questions afterwards. That's kind of the M.O. 

I think it's time for those who don't support what Trump is doing to split and form a new party. I don't think they could stay with the Trump supporters and maintain any kind of dignity if they're concerned with that at all. At some point people have to take a real stand against what Trump and his supporters are doing. ( I would hope anyway)

Then again, I'm not a republican and I wish they'd all lose their seats for enabling all this in the first place by not removing Trump when the House impeached him. 

..whew ok no more political posts for me on this forum. /vent over


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's low bars, and then there's this.
> 
> The fact that over 50% of Republican senators are A-OK with this is appalling and an indictment on the party as a whole. That's not a small sub-caucus or fringe, but the majority.





thebeesknees22 said:


> Those 14 that haven't commented will most likely side with the 13. They'll shy away from any media. Quietly cast their vote against and then avoid any questions afterwards. That's kind of the M.O.
> 
> I think it's time for those who don't support what Trump is doing to split and form a new party. I don't think they could stay with the Trump supporters and maintain any kind of dignity if they're concerned with that at all. At some point people have to take a real stand against what Trump and his supporters are doing. ( I would hope anyway)
> 
> Then again, I'm not a republican and I wish they'd all lose their seats for enabling all this in the first place by not removing Trump when the House impeached him.
> 
> ..whew ok no more political posts for me on this forum. /vent over


We'll see tomorrow. Either way, it won't change Biden's win.


----------



## fantom

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's low bars, and then there's this.
> 
> The fact that over 50% of Republican senators are A-OK with this is appalling and an indictment on the party as a whole. That's not a small sub-caucus or fringe, but the majority.



It's 13 (maybe 27) people trying to appeal to Trump's base, which is probably a few million out of a hundred million. I think there are just as many crazy progressives as there are crazy conservatives. Being in the middle feels like getting sandwiched by 2 extremes that can't compromise or see the positives on the other side. All I did was say, "hey look, the other side is not all bad". Until people start viewing others with differing opinions with respect, this country will never get better.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> It's 13 (maybe 27) people trying to appeal to Trump's base, which is probably a few million out of a hundred million. I think there are just as many crazy progressives as there are crazy conservatives. Being in the middle feels like getting sandwiched by 2 extremes that can't compromise or see the positives on the other side. All I did was say, "hey look, the other side is not all bad". Until people start viewing others with differing opinions with respect, this country will never get better.



I mean, I understand why they're doing it. They want to remain in power. 

Being "in the middle" doesn't mean you have some profound view of compromise. If you look up centrist politics it's not especially about finding some sort of middle ground. 

A majority of the upper house of one of the two major political parties in this country is more than happy to sell out democracy. No "whataboutism" aimed at "crazy progressives" can take that back.

What's the progressive equivalent? Healthcare? Environment? 

Subverting democracy isn't a political football and even if this attempted coup fails the blowback will be felt for generations.


----------



## Randy

Numbers are looking pretty interesting as of right now...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> Numbers are looking pretty interesting as of right now...



Warnock is winner for sure. I've seen some outlets declare Ossoff as well but not majority.


----------



## Ralyks

Most of the remaining votes from Ossoff-Perdue look to be from blue areas, and he still has the lead. Some places are already writing articles that the Democrats took back the Senate.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/politics/pennsylvania-state-senate-gop/index.html

It begins.


----------



## sleewell

So trump started his term with gop control of both the house and senate. Only got tax cuts passed his entire term and appointed judges; both could have been done by any republican. The debt and deficit have increased by factors never seen before. Healthcare is worse. American tax payers are paying for a very small but expensive and ineffective section of wall. The situation with Iran is way worse. No change to North Korea's nukes. 

He is leaving in disgrace after one term and the dems have the white house, senate and house. The gop is a fractured parody of itself with many members believing qanon levels of stupidity. 

Our country is far worse off today than four years ago but he did not manage to completely destroy us. Seems like another instance where the gop leaves a huge mess for the dems to clean up.


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> So trump started his term with gop control of both the house and senate. Only got tax cuts passed his entire term and appointed judges; both could have been done by any republican. The debt and deficit have increased by factors never seen before. Healthcare is worse. American tax payers are paying for a very small but expensive and ineffective section of wall. The situation with Iran is way worse. No change to North Korea's nukes.
> 
> He is leaving in disgrace after one term and the dems have the white house, senate and house. The gop is a fractured parody of itself with many members believing qanon levels of stupidity.
> 
> Our country is far worse off today than four years ago but he did not manage to completely destroy us. Seems like another instance where the gop leaves a huge mess for the dems to clean up.



like at this point if you think he did a good job...you're just an idiot. 

also the trade war and covid made the dollar weaker compared to the rmb then it has been in years. 

Jesus Christ. biden fix this please.


----------



## cwhitey2

spudmunkey said:


> He's repeatedly claimed, even in this recorded phone call, that he simply can't believe that the fact that Biden had smaller turnout at rallies, that he could still possibly win the election.


Sadly he doesn't actually know how voting works. 

I don't know anyone who actually goes to rally's, but I certainly know who they voted for 

He (Trump) could campaign for the next 20 years and there is no fucking way I would vote for him.


----------



## Randy

I'm just putting it out there, considering how many olive branches I put out there to moderate Republicans, if I'm the Democratic Party and this one holds up, I rain fucking hell down on the Republican Party for that they've done and what they're doing right now


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/politics/pennsylvania-state-senate-gop/index.html
> 
> It begins.


For those who don't want to click the link, to summarize, the GOP-controlled PA State Senate refused to swear in an elected Democratic Senator, leaving the 45th State District with an empty seat. The rationale for this was because of an ongoing lawsuit between the Senator-elect and his Republican opponent.

This is the dress rehearsal for what we can expect to see at the federal level- maybe with the President, maybe in the Senate, who knows.

There's absolutely no way to see this other than as a coup.


----------



## nightflameauto

That Pennsylvania situation is some dire shit. The problem seems to be rooted in something I've long said. Democrats are too soft to go up against what the Republicans have become. The Democratic Lt. Governor in charge of the ceremony should have pitched a bitch similar to what the Republican senators were doing and stood his damned ground. Instead, he tucked tail and walked away from a situation that holds absolutely zero legal precedent.

This type of shenanigans makes me queasy. The fact they're being allowed to get by with it, even in the short term, is setting a horrible precedent. The Republican party has become completely unhinged. I honestly don't care that there may be some well intentioned Republicans in office, they still allow this shit to go down and refuse to stand up and say "no" when something this asinine happens. They're completely complicit and the lot of them should be booted from their seats at the very least, and if they're breaking the law they should be charged and tried.


----------



## Randy

https://mobile.twitter.com/therecount/status/1346848087218810882?s=21

"Trial by combat". Lock these fucking guys up already.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/therecount/status/1346848087218810882?s=21
> 
> "Trial by combat". Lock these fucking guys up already.


WTF?

You know, there is a fairly small but rabid group that's been saying all Democrats sitting in office should be marched into the street and shot for crimes against the country. I guess that rabidness is finally trickling up to the top.

Though somewhere in the back of my mind I now have an image of Trump and Biden hobbling up to the steel cage preparing for battle. Something tells me that'd be the most boring wrestling match of all time.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump losing his shit right now live on Fox.

Still talking about Hillary. “Where’s Hillary?!” 

“Joe gave a billion dollars to Ukraine to get rid of the prosecutor.”

“Hunter got millions from the mayor of Moscow’s wife.”

“Brian Kemp says he was an offensive lineman. Weighs 130 lbs. Must have been a small team.”

“You know I used to be friends with Oprah. I don’t think we’re friends any more.”

“The Supreme Court rules against me because it’s good for them in the social circuit.”


----------



## USMarine75

Biden is going to nominate Merrick Garland for AG. Good for him. Dude got totally F’d in the A by Moscow Mitch and team.


----------



## Riffer

Insane that this many people show up to cheer a shitty sore loser. I remember when there were protests a few years ago (I forget off the top of my head the event that spurred them) during the middle of the work week and all these conservative right wing assholes were saying "don't these libtards have jobs to be at". Well don't these fuckwads have jobs to be at! Get back to work you schmucks! Piss off already.


----------



## USMarine75

Trump legitimately believes he got 538 electoral votes.


----------



## cwhitey2

Randy said:


> https://mobile.twitter.com/therecount/status/1346848087218810882?s=21
> 
> "Trial by combat". Lock these fucking guys up already.


The best part:
Rudy Giuliani says "I'm willing to stake my reputation” 

Bro...your reputation is fucking trash. You are a pathetic dumpster fire that can't be put out...just like your boss.


----------



## Randy

So they've breached the capitol building now. When does the shooting start?


----------



## sleewell

Randy said:


> So they've breached the capitol building now. When does the shooting start?




hopefully soon. if they were black or brown it already would have started. 

these morons are the law and order people right?


ted cruz up there acting a total fool. his "evidence" is polling. that's like citing Wikipedia on a term paper. he should be removed from congress and disbarred.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> So they've breached the capitol building now. When does the shooting start?


Can't be far off at this point. The only question that really remains is who fires the first shot. Pretty sure we know who will fire the last.


----------



## Randy

So I guess we can throw out all those theories about Pence pardoning Trump?


----------



## JSanta

My previous military unit is probably suiting up in their riot gear to head down to support the Capital Police. 

The breech of the Capital Building is nothing short of a coup attempt by Trump and his supporters. Sad day for this country.

Every single lawmaker that supported Trump and his rhetoric need to be held accountable for this.


----------



## thebeesknees22

https://twitter.com/jim_newell/status/1346899789347233796

from the capitol

Greaaaat. Notice no cops are doing anything. If this was BLM the bullets and teargas would have been flying


----------



## nightflameauto

Good lord, Trump instigated it and the ran back to the White House to hide while his supporters toss themselves at the capitol. I'm alternating between sad, horrified and fascinated by what's happening. I feel like however this ends up going, things will not be the same after this.


----------



## Drew

Let's call this what it is - this is a coup. Armed militia groups have overrun the capital, taken the Senate chamber and are currently in an armed standoff at the House door. Never thought I'd live to see the Confederate Flag carried by an armed militia in the capital building. Fuck everything Trump stands for. 



Randy said:


> So I guess we can throw out all those theories about Pence pardoning Trump?


I'd say that's a safe bet. I'd say the odds of Trump getting prosecuted after his term ends just got a LOT higher.


----------



## StevenC

Is this how you get GOP support for repealing the 2nd?


----------



## JSanta

StevenC said:


> Is this how you get GOP support for repealing the 2nd?



Listening to ABC News right now, and a Representative from Florida still supports standing against formalizing the election of Biden as the next President. 

So no, I don't think this will change much of anything, sadly. 

I cannot believe that I have lived to see a coup attempt in my own country. The waving of extremist flags and armed civilians breeching the Capital building. Unreal.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

The country as we know it is done for. The left is so concerned with civility and using their words and conforming their ideals to reality. The democrats have no spine and believe that the right would not come to do the very thing that these right wingers have railed against for the last 15 years. The far right doesn't care about any of that reality stuff. They are about forcing their will upon the world. To use absolute force. To rework words so that they can pretend authoritarianism doesn't apply to their ideals and that kindness, concession, and civility are all weaknesses. They've reshaped how they use language carefully. They are unified almost completely as one mind. They are unwavering and will concede nothing. They will win in the end. It's just a matter of time. We're simply delaying the inevitable.


----------



## DiezelMonster

I just turned on the news, What the Sweet Fuck is going on?!?!

Is this for real a COUP?


----------



## sleewell

i think we will be fine. these are the 1% of the wackiest nutjobs and i really don't think they represent everyone who voted for trump. 

the gop will be fractured for quite a while which will really hurt their chances winning elections. 

as many people are in that big picture above it would still be very easy for our military to quickly restore order and dispatch of them all.


----------



## DiezelMonster

sleewell said:


> i think we will be fine. these are the 1% of the wackiest nutjobs and i really don't think they represent everyone who voted for trump.
> 
> the gop will be fractured for quite a while which will really hurt their chances winning elections.
> 
> as many people are in that big picture above it would still be very easy for our military to quickly restore order and dispatch of them all.




Then where the hell are they???


----------



## vilk

sleewell said:


> i think we will be fine. these are the 1% of the wackiest nutjobs and i really don't think they represent everyone who voted for trump.
> 
> the gop will be fractured for quite a while which will really hurt their chances winning elections.
> 
> as many people are in that big picture above it would still be very easy for our military to quickly restore order and dispatch of them all.


But Trump is in charge of the military. This is like if Hitler had done the Beer Hall Putsch in 1937


----------



## High Plains Drifter

JSanta said:


> I cannot believe that I have lived to see a coup attempt in my own country. The waving of extremist flags and armed civilians breeching the Capital building. Unreal.



Same. I'm actually sick to my stomach and weeping internally for this country. 

donald trump needs to be imprisoned for the rest of his miserable life but sadly, the hate and division across this country is stronger than it has ever been before.


----------



## ElysianGuitars

Very dark day.


----------



## nightflameauto

Two people have been shot, and the rumors are already starting to circulate that it's actually antifa folks dressed up as Trump supporters inciting the violence, while holding dixieland flags.

This is insanity of the highest order. While I live in the middle of the country and may not see any massive effects from this outright for a while, the chances the US remains intact seem to be dwindling by the moment right now. Even if the military strikes, this level of coup attempt will ripple across the nation for a long time to come.


----------



## sleewell

ok, for fun, lets play this out.

these morons make a mess in the capitol. they get arrested or they leave. highly unlikely they stay in there forever.

does that mean trump gets a 2nd term? no.

what does this solve or change? nothing.

why do you guys think this will be the end of the country?


----------



## Zhysick

nightflameauto said:


> Two people have been shot, and the rumors are already starting to circulate that it's actually antifa folks dressed up as Trump supporters inciting the violence, while holding dixieland flags.



That doesn't make any sense: antifas/anti-Trump/whatever have already won because Trump has to leave the White House... why should they risk their lifes if they have already won?

Makes no sense... Maybe the logic there is different, I don't know...


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Shoeless_jose

listening to CNN on sirius radio while driving fuck makes me want to cry like Van Jones


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> ok, for fun, lets play this out.
> 
> these morons make a mess in the capitol. they get arrested or they leave. highly unlikely they stay in there forever.
> 
> does that mean trump gets a 2nd term? no.
> 
> what does this solve or change? nothing.
> 
> why do you guys think this will be the end of the country?


There are already groups of folks saying this won't go away when they stop the current riot. People in other states promising to carry out similar acts in their state capitols. While the country may not be completely dismantled by this, it's not going to be the same as it was. Once Biden is in office (and that's definitely going to happen, regardless) we're going to have a big enough segment of the country truly believing he's illegitimate and with a blueprint of how to demonstrate against that supposed illegitimacy that it's going to leave scars.

This isn't a "cute drama" situation. It's an actual coup attempt that, even when (not if) it fails, will leave damage that lasts at least as long as any of us will be around. This type of thing doesn't get quieter just because you stop the first round of lunatics. This is just the beginning.


----------



## Necris

Cyanide_Anima said:


> The left is so concerned with civility and using their words and conforming their ideals to reality. The democrats have no spine and believe that the right would not come to do the very thing that these right wingers have railed against for the last 15 years. The far right doesn't care about any of that reality stuff. They are about forcing their will upon the world. To use absolute force. To rework words so that they can pretend authoritarianism doesn't apply to their ideals and that kindness, concession, and civility are all weaknesses. They've reshaped how they use language carefully. They are unified almost completely as one mind. They are unwavering and will concede nothing. They will win in the end. It's just a matter of time. We're simply delaying the inevitable.


I take issue only with you placing this at the feet of the left and not the garden variety liberals who consider themselves to be a part of the "enlightened" center, who insist that we must "Resist" Trump and the ideas he embodies but are quick to yell at and condescend to the actual left about the need for non-violence and the primacy of optics above all when they deem certain actions too extreme. Otherwise, yeah. On the best days Democrats wander left towards the actual center, lose their nerve and negotiate themselves back to the right, they've no doubt helped to facilitate this, but I don't feel in any way that they hold the majority of the blame.




sleewell said:


> ok, for fun, lets play this out.
> 
> these morons make a mess in the capitol. they get arrested or they leave. highly unlikely they stay in there forever.
> 
> does that mean trump gets a 2nd term? no.
> 
> what does this solve or change? nothing.
> 
> why do you guys think this will be the end of the country?


That's a classic coup, take the capital, the houses etc. eventually the military will have to make a choice on which side to support.
If the military has to remove these people by force it could all be over tomorrow, OR you could kick off a country wide insurgency.


----------



## nightflameauto

Zhysick said:


> That doesn't make any sense: antifas/anti-Trump/whatever have already won because Trump has to leave the White House... why should they risk their lifes if they have already won?
> 
> Makes no sense... Maybe the logic there is different, I don't know...


The rumors are coming from right-leaning people that are part of the protests but not directly involved in the capitol storming. Of course they're claiming it's "those other guys." I can't see how antifa would be involved at all. Why risk your life to fake your enemy being an idiot when they're more than happy to prove that all on their own?

It's just more proof that reality and Trump support don't really see eye to eye.


----------



## Millul

This is unreal


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## bostjan

Never thought I'd live to see this in the USA. 

US Capitol burning. People storming in to interrupt the election process being shot, pipe bombs everywhere...

This was a (poorly) coordinated event. This wasn't completely haphazard.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Some police are taking selfies with the rioters instead of doing their job

https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1346920198461419520?s=20


----------



## iamaom

sleewell said:


> why do you guys think this will be the end of the country?


Less than a year a go BLM protestors were being teargassed and beaten by police for the high crime of not wanting to be teargassed and beaten by police. People flying the confederate flag (a flag of seditious traitors who fought for slavery) storm the capital with weapons and home made bombs during a congressional meeting, and now police officers and members of the government are encouraging it (see above post). I don't think the US is going to suddenly dissolve USSR style, but this is another 9/11 style watershed moment. Between mass shootings on a yearly basis, the Oregon standoff with Bundy, one of the most powerful men of the free world fucking up an international viral outbreak, and this, I'm not sure how you can carry on and act like life is normal and alright.


----------



## gunch

damn I was hoping I was wrong about them having a freakout


----------



## USMarine75

Biden on tv trying to quell the insurrection being lead by Trump. This didn’t just happen. Trump whipped them to a frenzy at a rally and unleashed them upon the Capitol. Trump is not indirectly responsible - he is directly responsible for fomenting insurrection by domestic terrorists.

Trump could be on TV doing the same but no of course why he was the one who incited this insurrection.

Giuliani said they would engage in “trial by combat”.

Meanwhile, Ivanka calling them Patriots.


----------



## thebeesknees22

yeah Trump put out a video stoking the fire even though he told people to go home. He spent more time talking about how the election was "stolen" from him than trying to calm people down and getting them to leave.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Biden on tv trying to quell the insurrection being lead by Trump. This didn’t just happen. Trump whipped them to a frenzy at a rally and unleashed them upon the Capitol. Trump is not indirectly responsible - he is directly responsible and leading insurrection by domestic terrorists.
> 
> Trump could be on TV doing the same but no of course why he was the one who incited this insurrection.
> 
> Giuliani said they would engage in “trial by combat”.
> 
> Meanwhile, Ivanka calling them Patriots.


Oh, he just released a video tweet. 

Basically, "you've robbed, but go home...but you've been robbed, and the election was fraudulent."


----------



## bostjan

This is what happens when we export all of our Democracy to the middle east, I guess.

So, I'm guessing congress's certification of the presidential vote is postponed, which maybe what these fools wanted. Was it worth it?


----------



## Thaeon

This is going to get normal people, uninvolved in any of this killed if not handled properly.


----------



## Drew

Just gonna throw it out there, for all those dumbass Trump trolls we've spent the last four years arguing with, if you want to know why we all had such a big problem with your by Trump and what the big deal was with him being in office, well, it was this. This is what we were afraid of all along. 

Trump incited this violent protest, his supporters have seized control of the Capital building, and Trump is peaced the fuck out. He finally released a video statement, an hour and a half after the barriers fell, and most of it was talking about how the election was stolen from him, before he finally conclded by asking his supporters to go home. 

I'm hoping Pence rounds up enough people to invoke the 25th Amendment overnight.


----------



## Xaios

Anyone else remember a bunch of Republicans stating emphatically the day after the election that they would accept the results peacefully and without incident, in supposedly stark contrast to those raving, treasonous BLM protesters?


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> Oh, he just released a video tweet.
> 
> Basically, "you've robbed, but go home...but you've been robbed, and the election was fraudulent."



Just saw it. He spent more time talking about the rigged election (pouring more fuel on the fire) than trying to quell the insurrection. 



bostjan said:


> This is what happens when we export all of our Democracy to the middle east, I guess.



Huh?


----------



## fantom

iamaom said:


> Less than a year a go BLM protestors were being teargassed and beaten by police for the high crime of not wanting to be teargassed and beaten by police. People flying the confederate flag (a flag of seditious traitors who fought for slavery) storm the capital with weapons and home made bombs during a congressional meeting, and now police officers and members of the government are encouraging it (see above post). I don't think the US is going to suddenly dissolve USSR style, but this is another 9/11 style watershed moment. Between mass shootings on a yearly basis, the Oregon standoff with Bundy, one of the most powerful men of the free world fucking up an international viral outbreak, and this, I'm not sure how you can carry on and act like life is normal and alright.



This is all I wanted to say. What happened to the party promoting law and order? Sigh.



Drew said:


> I'm hoping Pence rounds up enough people to invoke the 25th Amendment overnight



If only we could be so lucky.


----------



## JSanta

Both Georgia seats flipped Blue

https://apnews.com/article/Georgia-election-results-4b82ba7ee3cc74d33e68daadaee2cbf3


----------



## bostjan

You know, when we didn't find al Queda nor WMD, we were there so that places like Iraq could have American-style democracy. Evidently, we exported too much of our democracy and freedom overseas, and started running out, so now we're going to have to be a third world country. [/sarcasm]


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> Huh?


He means USA has been bringing so much democracy to the middle east that they've run out


----------



## sleewell

pence needs to invoke the 25th.


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> He means USA has been bringing so much democracy to the middle east that they've run out



Ah lol


----------



## USMarine75

Imagine how this would have gone down if the insurrectionists were allowed to carry weapons?


----------



## bostjan

CNN now reporting that the pipe bombs were real and two of them were safely detonated by bomb squad(s).

So, to recap. Peaceful protesters for BLM last year were arrested and/or shot, but rednecks storm the Capitol with guns and bombs, injuring police, and no one is arrested?

"Law and order," as Trump demanded, am I right?


----------



## Xaios

sleewell said:


> pence needs to invoke the 25th.


Do you think the majority of Trump's cabinet would agree to sign on to that?


----------



## gunch

Xaios said:


> Do you think the majority of Trump's cabinet would agree to sign on to that?



What's even left of it


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Do you think the majority of Trump's cabinet would agree to sign on to that?


That's the question that the people at the higher levels of government need to be asking. I suppose it'd be a surprise either way: side with Trump and side with a coup that is probably doomed to fail horribly, or side against Trump and ... umm, well, I'm not sure how to make that sound negative.


----------



## Musiscience

This is getting so abhorrent, and what's wrong so evident by North American standards, that just pointing it out feels condescending. But at the same time, it's really not since so many don't seem to understand and raise weapons against democracy on the basis of baseless conspiracy theories. It's starting to rub off on a part of the population even in Canada. There are more and more Trump fans here, mostly poorly educated folks who have racist and conspirational fantasies. They see Trump as a role model and some kind of savior. I can't talk for the USA, but around my parts, it's very clear that the education system has failed during the last few decades and we are seeing the results of that. 

TL;DR: wtf direction are we heading in.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Just gonna throw it out there, for all those dumbass Trump trolls we've spent the last four years arguing with, if you want to know why we all had such a big problem with your by Trump and what the big deal was with him being in office, well, it was this. This is what we were afraid of all along.
> 
> Trump incited this violent protest, his supporters have seized control of the Capital building, and Trump is peaced the fuck out. He finally released a video statement, an hour and a half after the barriers fell, and most of it was talking about how the election was stolen from him, before he finally conclded by asking his supporters to go home.
> 
> I'm hoping Pence rounds up enough people to invoke the 25th Amendment overnight.



This. This right here is exactly what we were afraid of.



sleewell said:


> pence needs to invoke the 25th.



Yes. Also, I wonder what Pence will look back and think of his time supporting Trump.


----------



## Zhysick

Musiscience said:


> This is getting so abhorrent, and what's wrong so evident by North American standards, that just pointing it out feels condescending. But at the same time, it's really not since so many don't seem to understand and raise weapons against democracy on the basis of baseless conspiracy theories. It's starting to rub off on a part of the population even in Canada. There are more and more Trump fans here, mostly poorly educated folks who have racist and conspirational fantasies. They see Trump as a role model and some kind of savior. I can't talk for the USA, but around my parts, it's very clear that the education system has failed during the last few decades and we are seeing the results of that.
> 
> TL;DR: wtf direction are we heading in.



That's... that's actually scary. Well, if you want to know what's going to happen look USA, look UK, look Spain... here in Spain we are one election away to happen (this kind of riot)


----------



## thebeesknees22

Musiscience said:


> This is getting so abhorrent, and what's wrong so evident by North American standards, that just pointing it out feels condescending. But at the same time, it's really not since so many don't seem to understand and raise weapons against democracy on the basis of baseless conspiracy theories. It's starting to rub off on a part of the population even in Canada. There are more and more Trump fans here, mostly poorly educated folks who have racist and conspirational fantasies. They see Trump as a role model and some kind of savior. I can't talk for the USA, but around my parts, it's very clear that the education system has failed during the last few decades and we are seeing the results of that.
> 
> TL;DR: wtf direction are we heading in.



Dude, I was shocked. Literally shocked at how many Trump supporters there are in Canada. It makes me wonder what kind of bizarro world I've woken up to


----------



## Vyn

Hope you guys get through this mess, and I hope every single fucking protestor in this is caught and has the book thrown at them, all the way up the food chain to Donald fucking Trump himself.


----------



## Vyn

Double post but fuck it - media here is reporting that he protestors have destroyed media equipment from American outlets. I don't know if it's just them being angry mob or intentionally trying to silence news/messages getting out. Either way it's fucking insane.


----------



## Musiscience

thebeesknees22 said:


> Dude, I was shocked. Literally shocked at how many Trump supporters there are in Canada. It makes me wonder what kind of bizarro world I've woken up to



That feeling is relatable, what the hell is happening with people over here idolizing Trump.


----------



## ImNotAhab

So black people asking not to be killed is worthy of the riot police, white people storming government buildings is what? Tolerated Patriotism?


----------



## groverj3

ImNotAhab said:


> So black people asking not to be killed is worthy of the riot police, white people storming government buildings is what? Tolerated Patriotism?


Yeah, this is #merica.


----------



## Necris

Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin was being interviewed over the phone on NBC and was asked about whether there was "irresponsible rhetoric" that lead to this and immediately answered "there's been irresponsible rhetoric on both sides" and went on to state he "has a hard time believing" the people who stormed the capitol are "true Trump supporters".


----------



## groverj3

Vyn said:


> Double post but fuck it - media here is reporting that he protestors have destroyed media equipment from American outlets. I don't know if it's just them being angry mob or intentionally trying to silence news/messages getting out. Either way it's fucking insane.



I'm sure that's a part of it.



Vyn said:


> Hope you guys get through this mess, and I hope every single fucking protestor in this is caught and has the book thrown at them, all the way up the food chain to Donald fucking Trump himself.



I'm not a big fan of police, but everyone who broke into the building should be arrested. It should be pretty easy, as they were taking fucking selfies there.

And here I thought 2021 might be better than 2020. I guess it can only go up from here? (Knock on wood)


----------



## Xaios

Necris said:


> Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin was being interviewed over the phone on NBC and was asked about whether there was "irresponsible rhetoric" that lead to this and immediately answered "there's been irresponsible rhetoric on both sides" and went on to state he "has a hard time believing" the people who stormed the capitol are "true Trump supporters".


Oh, this guy?


----------



## groverj3

Necris said:


> Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin was being interviewed over the phone on NBC and was asked about whether there was "irresponsible rhetoric" that lead to this and immediately answered "there's been irresponsible rhetoric on both sides" and went on to state he "has a hard time believing" the people who stormed the capitol are "true Trump supporters".


I heard that. What a fucking joke. Bootlicker.


----------



## StevenC

Unpopular opinion, but I don't think it's wrong to become a police officer to shoot people. It is wrong, though, if you don't shoot people indiscriminately.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

sleewell said:


> pence needs to invoke the 25th.



Except the cabinet is all hack loyalists installed in acting capacity not confirmed competent who would vote properly


----------



## Zhysick

Necris said:


> Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin was being interviewed over the phone on NBC and was asked about whether there was "irresponsible rhetoric" that lead to this and immediately answered "there's been irresponsible rhetoric on both sides" and went on to state he "has a hard time believing" the people who stormed the capitol are "true Trump supporters".



One from the Trump-side saying that this wasn't because anything that Trump said or have done and that those people aren't related to Trump... yeah, I buy that the same way I am going to buy a Vik headless...


----------



## Thaeon

Dineley said:


> Except the cabinet is all hack loyalists installed in acting capacity not confirmed competent who would vote properly



I forget who, but someone is already drawing up another impeachment. It won’t oust him, but if they can finish it after he’s out of office he at least can’t get re-elected.


----------



## groverj3

Thaeon said:


> I forget who, but someone is already drawing up another impeachment. It won’t oust him, but if they can finish it after he’s out of office he at least can’t get re-elected.


At least two different congresspeople are.


----------



## ImNotAhab

Yeah but remember that time Obama wore a tan suit?


----------



## Randy

Would like to point out this was the "protect our monuments" guy, who pretty much let his people smash up the centerpiece of American Democracy. Don't let them touch that Robert E Lee statue tho!


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> Republican Representative Markwayne Mullin was being interviewed over the phone on NBC and was asked about whether there was "irresponsible rhetoric" that lead to this and immediately answered "there's been irresponsible rhetoric on both sides" and went on to state he "has a hard time believing" the people who stormed the capitol are "true Trump supporters".



There's some kind of sycophanty there but I'd imagine there's also some literal Stockholm Syndrome going on. Knowing that these people can crash through the door of Congress at any second, this is their coping mechanism they'll be left alone.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I hope Kyle Rittenhouse is on his way to help protect businesses.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Randy said:


> Would like to point out this was the "protect our monuments" guy, pretty which to let his people smash up the centerpiece of American Democracy. Don't let them touch that Robert E Lee statue tho!



But I mean... He's mentally unstable. Every decision that he's made ( at least into the latter part of last year) has been only about garnering admiration from anyone that might become his core support group. No reasoning, no direction, no long-term game plan... Only existing to validate himself and to protect himself from reality. I think that this now is all just the icing on the fruitcake for him... "They destroyed me so I'm gonna destroy them haha". We all knew that he was going to burn it all down if he didn't get his way.


----------



## BenjaminW

Ok so I don't normally view or comment on the politics sub-forum mainly because I'm not 18 yet and can't vote (duh) nor do I actually really like to talk politics on a guitar forum, but I figured I need somewhere good to put this since I wanna get it off my chest: 

I decided after two months or so of going back and forth that I'm no longer a Trump supporter. Not gonna give you guys like a full history or whatever of how I became a Trump supporter and the whole 9 yards, but I'll go ahead and share what made me post this. 

Once the media started declaring Biden to be the winner, I figured I'm much better off accepting it and moving on with my life rather than sitting around saying "#NotMyPresident" and stuff like that (basically not wanting to accept the results) because I felt it was stupid then and it's stupid now to act that way. Anyways, I started to think that Trump is better off conceding because as you can obviously tell, it's embarrassing for the country and for people like me who felt being a good sport essentially would be better. I don't mean to sound like I'm better than other Trump supporters because I'm willing to accept/move on from the election, it's just honestly how I feel and I feel like there's nothing wrong with that. Fast forward to today, my whole feeling was that if this day went to shit, it was gonna be the final straw for me and it obviously was. Ultimately, I was a little reluctant to admit that it was time for me to get off the Trump train, but I knew it was gonna happen eventually. 

Sorry if my post here is a little random, just wanted to spew my thoughts out somewhere.


----------



## Randy

BenjaminW said:


> Ok so I don't normally view or comment on the politics sub-forum mainly because I'm not 18 yet and can't vote (duh) nor do I actually really like to talk politics on a guitar forum, but I figured I need somewhere good to put this since I wanna get it off my chest:
> 
> I decided after two months or so of going back and forth that I'm no longer a Trump supporter. Not gonna give you guys like a full history or whatever of how I became a Trump supporter and the whole 9 yards, but I'll go ahead and share what made me post this.
> 
> Once the media started declaring Biden to be the winner, I figured I'm much better off accepting it and moving on with my life rather than sitting around saying "#NotMyPresident" and stuff like that (basically not wanting to accept the results) because I felt it was stupid then and it's stupid now to act that way. Anyways, I started to think that Trump is better off conceding because as you can obviously tell, it's embarrassing for the country and for people like me who felt being a good sport essentially would be better. I don't mean to sound like I'm better than other Trump supporters because I'm willing to accept/move on from the election, it's just honestly how I feel and I feel like there's nothing wrong with that. Fast forward to today, my whole feeling was that if this day went to shit, it was gonna be the final straw for me and it obviously was. Ultimately, I was a little reluctant to admit that it was time for me to get off the Trump train, but I knew it was gonna happen eventually.
> 
> Sorry if my post here is a little random, just wanted to spew my thoughts out somewhere.



This country is a better place with at least two parties in play to keep the other in check, but the loyalty tests from Trump have made the Republican Party untenable. I would like to see them exorcise the idol worshippers and come back as a genuine conservative (ie: small government, fiscal conservative) party on the other end but they've got a serious purge to do to get there.


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> Would like to point out this was the "protect our monuments" guy, pretty which to let his people smash up the centerpiece of American Democracy. Don't let them touch that Robert E Lee statue tho!



Also worth pointing out this was a violent invasion of the US capital to stop the constitutional counting of the vote for federal office, carried out by people waving the flag of Confederacy. We gotta stop calling this anything resembling a protest this WAS sedition.


----------



## groverj3

Randy said:


> Also worth pointing out this was a violent invasion of the US capital to stop the constitutional counting of the vote for federal office, carried out by people waving the flag of Confederacy. We gotta stop calling this anything resembling a protest this WAS sedition.


Agreed. Anyone who broke into the capitol should be arrested. Start there. Then, continue by voting on impeachment immediately tonight and tomorrow. Then, work to disband right wing militias around the country due to their participation in this.

Can't they use that act, RICO, to charge far right militias as criminal enterprises? Like with other organized crime? I'm not a lawyer.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> This country is a better place with at least two parties in play to keep the other in check, but the loyalty tests from Trump have made the Republican Party untenable. I would like to see them exorcise the idol worshippers and come back as a genuine conservative (ie: small government, fiscal conservative) party on the other end but they've got a serious purge to do to get there.


There was definitely a charm to me about Trump back in 2015 in that he shook up the political landscape by not being some career politician who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So that along with growing up in a conservative family, it was a great opportunity for me to really get interested in politics and what not. 2020 definitely became a loyalty test for me and as I mentioned before, I was totally reluctant to admit that my days as a Trump guy were over. 

In regards to idol worshippers, I follow Fox News on Instagram and the comment section is exactly like how you'd imagine: Just full of these people who I swear worshipped Trump more than they did like Jesus or something. It's crazy.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## groverj3

Xaios said:


> Oh, this guy?
> 
> View attachment 88661


This guy is talking literally right now about how he still needs to object to the states that Trump lost.

What a shitbag.


----------



## Randy

BenjaminW said:


> There was definitely a charm to me about Trump back in 2015 in that he shook up the political landscape by not being some career politician who wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So that along with growing up in a conservative family, it was a great opportunity for me to really get interested in politics and what not. 2020 definitely became a loyalty test for me and as I mentioned before, I was totally reluctant to admit that my days as a Trump guy were over.
> 
> In regards to idol worshippers, I follow Fox News on Instagram and the comment section is exactly like how you'd imagine: Just full of these people who I swear worshipped Trump more than they did like Jesus or something. It's crazy.



Outsider is cool. Fun fact, my dad is the biggest Trump hater I know but he actually grew up in the same neighborhood as him at the same time, knew a lot of the same people and he actually wrote a letter to him saying he should run for president back in the mid-70s 

Trump's old MO was that that he would go in to setting where the government kept tripping over their own feet, and he'd get the project done faster, better, and under budget. The Wollman Skating Rink is one of the items that comes up a lot.

So I mean, I get it. A lot of it was in his brand for a long time, but that's not the guy that ran for office and it's definitely not the guy he is in 2020.


----------



## groverj3

It only took far right militias storming the Capitol at the president's request to finally get him banned for 12 hours on twitter.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> So I mean, I get it. A lot of it was in his brand for a long time, but that's not the guy that ran for office and it's definitely not the guy he is in 2020.


I agree. If you watch Trump interviews from the 80s, it's so different hearing him talk then versus now and I've definitely asked myself where the hell this has been? It does feel ironic for me though to say that one of the things that was appealing to me about Trump is something I'll criticize him for.


----------



## mongey

What do you even say ? Everyone saw
It coming and knows exactly what it is.

to see kkk flags waving on the steps was definitely chilling. 


Hope everyone stays safe


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Randy

Did not age well.


----------



## LordCashew

BenjaminW said:


> ...people who I swear worshipped Trump more than they did like Jesus or something. It's crazy.


I mean to a lot of conservative evangelicals, the two are mutually inclusive. You have guys like John MacArthur saying that if you are a Christian, you _must _vote for Trump, and televangelists saying that whether or not you support Trump is a litmus test for your salvation. I've even talked with some folks who tell me that because God cannot allow the Satanic pedophile cabal known as the Democratic Party to usher us into the New World Order, there would be a literal enactment of the book of Revelation to end the world if Biden got elected. Apparently those early Christian apocalyptic writings were really about US politics, that's how important we are. 

I'm sure this sounds like a super fringe minority but I've been shocked by how many seemingly otherwise sane religious conservatives are into (or very sympathetic to) this stuff.


----------



## TheBlackBard

LordIronSpatula said:


> I mean to a lot of conservative evangelicals, the two are mutually inclusive. You have guys like John MacArthur saying that if you are a Christian, you _must _vote for Trump, and televangelists saying that whether or not you support Trump is a litmus test for your salvation. I've even talked with some folks who tell me that because God cannot allow the Satanic pedophile cabal known as the Democratic Party to usher us into the New World Order, there would be a literal enactment of the book of Revelation to end the world if Biden got elected. Apparently those early Christian apocalyptic writings were really about US politics, that's how important we are.
> 
> I'm sure this sounds like a super fringe minority but I've been shocked by how many seemingly otherwise sane religious conservatives are into (or very sympathetic to) this stuff.




I think something was posted awhile back in here, some sort of picture, but basically it was the idea that if Jesus were here today, he'd get called a snowflake, liberal, and all kinds of shit.


----------



## SpaceDock

I just want to say that it is never too late for Republicans to seek redemption. Turn the page, ditch Trump, move on. I don’t know why in our culture we have a problem with people who change their minds. I call that personal evolution. It’s never too late.


----------



## TheBlackBard

SpaceDock said:


> I just want to say that it is never too late for Republicans to seek redemption. Turn the page, ditch Trump, move on. I don’t know why in our culture we have a problem with people who change their minds. I call that personal evolution. It’s never too late.



Well... thing is, it really seems like society, at least if you view social media, has moved towards this "if you've ever done anything wrong in your life, fuck you forever, you shouldn't be allowed to work or support your family." Now that might not be the viewpoint of the average person, but given the impact that social media has on the psyche and expectations of citizens, it's not hard to see why changing one's mind seems like a futile action. I mean, you can change it for yourself, sure, but if the shitty person you were has been documented, they're yelling for you to be deplatformed, boycotted, cancelled, silenced, and everything else. And then there's the very human response to that which basically sits as: "what the fuck, I'm trying to do better, yet these people still look at me as a piece of shit, why even bother?" Now truly, the ones who show conviction in their change won't give a shit what anyone else thinks, but a person is more likely to actually change if they have support instead of strife. As someone who grew up in a conservative environment, and someone who regrets things that I have said and done, bet your ass I would not want the first half of my life published for everyone to see, regardless of the fact that I've done a complete 180 from where I used to be as a teenager.


----------



## spudmunkey

January 2017 vs January 2021


----------



## sirbuh

iced earth's jon schaffer was there - 

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/i...aphed-among-trump-supporters-at-capitol-hill/


----------



## Necris

Randy said:


> There's some kind of sycophanty there but I'd imagine there's also some literal Stockholm Syndrome going on. Knowing that these people can crash through the door of Congress at any second, this is their coping mechanism they'll be left alone.


Maybe sycophancy is at play, maybe for a few coping with fear is a factor as well, but I can't help but feel that "concede nothing and you'll be rewarded for it" has been the main takeaway from the last 4 years for a good number of Republicans even if that flies in the face of the reality we're living in.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> I just want to say that it is never too late for Republicans to seek redemption. Turn the page, ditch Trump, move on. I don’t know why in our culture we have a problem with people who change their minds. I call that personal evolution. It’s never too late.



IMO, I can see why it's not that simply. Just flipping a switch would mean that for at least a large portion of the time, they were going against their own convictions and were lying to everyone about their actual feelings/thoughts. Being completely disingenuous. Two-faced. These people aren't just now realizing anything.


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> Maybe sycophancy is at play, maybe for a few coping with fear is a factor as well, but I can't help but feel that "concede nothing and you'll be rewarded for it" has been the main takeaway from the last 4 years for a good number of Republicans even if that flies in the face of the reality we're living in.



You're right, and I think some of the people there are totally soulless but laying on the ground while a hoard bangs at the door and someone shot dead feet away from you would shake most people, even slime.


----------



## mastapimp

sirbuh said:


> iced earth's jon schaffer was there -
> 
> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/i...aphed-among-trump-supporters-at-capitol-hill/



Yeah, there's another picture of him looking a little less civil here: https://metalinjection.net/politics...il&utm_term=0_d168e48712-796526a4f3-100195797

Wonder if he retweeted this:


----------



## philkilla

So is this the epilogue for 2020 or the outgoing presidency?


----------



## Xaios

sirbuh said:


> iced earth's jon schaffer was there -
> 
> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/i...aphed-among-trump-supporters-at-capitol-hill/


Zero surprise on that one. The guy has always been an Alex Jones-type whackadoodle.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Xaios said:


> Zero surprise on that one. The guy has always been an Alex Jones-type whackadoodle.


yyyyep. Coming from a diehard Iced Earth fan, dude's basically a more well-spoken Dave Mustaine.

What's even crazier to me is that Stu Block was egging it on too, but seemed like he pulled down his posts when it got too heated.


----------



## groverj3

sirbuh said:


> iced earth's jon schaffer was there -
> 
> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/i...aphed-among-trump-supporters-at-capitol-hill/


Color me unsurprised that someone who once appeared on Infowars showed up.


----------



## groverj3

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> yyyyep. Coming from a diehard Iced Earth fan, dude's basically a more well-spoken Dave Mustaine.
> 
> What's even crazier to me is that Stu was egging it on too, but seemed like he pulled down his posts when it got too heated.


100%

He's just as crazy, just uses bigger words. Sad. I like a lot of both bands' stuff.


----------



## Randy

https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968?s=21


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968?s=21



i saw that and the cops doing selfies in the building. there’s a lot of questions to be answered about how all this went down.


----------



## Xaios

That's one department that's gonna get defunded AF.


----------



## Vyn

Word coming out that most of those who breached the Capitol have been identified, quite a few confirmed neo-nazi's in there. Anyone got any sources for this, I'm trying to hunt without much success.


----------



## SpaceDock

Just check out Camp Auschwitz on Twitter


----------



## Aso

Vyn said:


> Word coming out that most of those who breached the Capitol have been identified, quite a few confirmed neo-nazi's in there. Anyone got any sources for this, I'm trying to hunt without much success.



The ADL blog lists several spotting s of extremists in the crowds today.

https://www.adl.org/blog/extremists-engage-in-political-violence-during-pro-trump-rallies


----------



## Vyn

SpaceDock said:


> Just check out Camp Auschwitz on Twitter





Aso said:


> The ADL blog lists several spotting s of extremists in the crowds today.
> 
> https://www.adl.org/blog/extremists-engage-in-political-violence-during-pro-trump-rallies



Read the link and looked it up on twitter. Jesus fucking christ. Actual Nazis. Fucking hell.


----------



## Wuuthrad

these blackrobe birdshit hillwillaims need a good ol fashion’ beard scalping!

fucking cornbred conky wannabee grandragon goobers

gtfo you fishbelly flourbags

gdam offbeat mullethead muppetfuckers 

YOURE A DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE!


----------



## mongey

Vyn said:


> Word coming out that most of those who breached the Capitol have been identified, quite a few confirmed neo-nazi's in there. Anyone got any sources for this, I'm trying to hunt without much success.



I few green kkk flags in the crowd while watching the coverage.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Achshully this mo on point:


----------



## spudmunkey

Aged like fine milk...


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> i saw that and the cops doing selfies in the building. there’s a lot of questions to be answered about how all this went down.



Q: Why did it take so long for the cops to show up?
A: They had to go home and change first.


----------



## spudmunkey

mongey said:


> I few green kkk flags in the crowd while watching the coverage.



Any pics? I've looked through all I could find, and all I could find are the typical "blue line", "don't tread on me" and that one with Trump on the tank with a 15-striped flag.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Fact is, Trump got high on his own supply!

I ain’t even jokin- 1980s Dust and then some...


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

“When will they ever learn? When will they EVER Learn?”




https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## Wuuthrad

“We Shall Overcome”



“Who’s Side Are You On?”

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comme...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## Wuuthrad

Multiple choice:

Why did it take the Po-Po so long to show up at Capitol Hill?

1)They had to go home and change

2)They couldn’t beat the crowd


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mastapimp

This who crew can just fuck off...maybe they'll ask themselves if the memes were worth it while they're serving time. They'll be a laughing stock a lot longer than they'll be considered patriots.


----------



## mongey

spudmunkey said:


> Any pics? I've looked through all I could find, and all I could find are the typical "blue line", "don't tread on me" and that one with Trump on the tank with a 15-striped flag.


No pic. The cnn footage of the people on the stairs there were. Couple clearly visible. The green one with the black kkk. I googled it to make sure that’s what it was.


----------



## USMarine75

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> yyyyep. Coming from a diehard Iced Earth fan, dude's basically a more well-spoken Dave Mustaine.
> 
> What's even crazier to me is that Stu Block was egging it on too, but seemed like he pulled down his posts when it got too heated.



Nice story, tell it to Reader's Digest.


----------



## USMarine75

Omg this video was hilarious and sad at the same time.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## iamaom

mongey said:


> No pic. The cnn footage of the people on the stairs there were. Couple clearly visible. The green one with the black kkk. I googled it to make sure that’s what it was.


Are you referring to the Kekistan flag? It's may not be the KKK, but it is right ring quasi-racist nonsense from 4chan.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mongey

iamaom said:


> Are you referring to the Kekistan flag? It's may not be the KKK, but it is right ring quasi-racist nonsense from 4chan.


Yeah your right. I just re googled I saw far right , white supremacy, and a bunch of k’s and figured it was kkk


----------



## Metropolis




----------



## Vyn

We got there in the end, result certified. Fuck. What a day.


----------



## Necris

Vyn said:


> We got there in the end, result certified. Fuck. What a day.


Dawn of the 1448th Day
-13 Days Remain-


----------



## spudmunkey

Stephen Colbert mentioned a fascinating observation that I didn't realize until I he mentioned it: In Trump's "rally" speech earlier in the day, he kept repeating "we will walk down Pennsylvania Avenue" and "we will go to the capitol", and even said "and I'll be with you"...

...and then he was chauffeured back to the white house, where he watched it on TV.


----------



## possumkiller

Well I'm glad it's finally happening. The decent side of humanity really needed a wake-up call to how dangerous these shitheads are. They will just keep getting away with more and more until people finally grow a spine and punish these motherfuckers. It's pretty obvious that it was a planned attack just like Michigan.


----------



## lurè




----------



## thraxil

OK, so what happens when Trump pardons them all for any federal crimes that they have committed?


----------



## sleewell

Banned from social media for inciting domestic terrorism and a coup against our country. 


Still has the nuclear codes.


----------



## FearComplex

It must have been thrilling for Jon Schaffer to perform in front of an excited crowd for the first time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## cwhitey2

I'm reading my local news' comment section about this whole shit show and EVERY Trumpican believes ANTIFA is to blame for any and all violence


----------



## Louis Cypher

cwhitey2 said:


> I'm reading my local news' comment section about this whole shit show and EVERY Trumpican believes ANTIFA is to blame for any and all violence



Was literally about to post that too, few of Trumps usual UK based supporters have said it was ANTIFA/BLM dressed up as Trump supporters who instigated/incited this and are to blame!?!


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Captain Butterscotch

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 88685



hey, this version is fake. Here’s the real one.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Hilarious and at the same time pretty terrifying in light of yesterday


----------



## Thaeon

This is the shit that happens in Banana Republics... Its surreal.


----------



## Louis Cypher

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/trump-washington-dc-enablers



Lawrence Douglas: Professor of law Amherst College Massachusetts said:


> ......Cruz is already positioning himself as Trump 2.0; as a smoother, more intelligent and articulate demagogue. Trump lies in gross profusion; Cruz dresses his lies in the mantle of reasoned argument..........
> 
> ....It appears that Wednesday’s violence has shocked some congressional Republicans into rethinking the wisdom of this particular exercise in constitutional brinkmanship. But whether any real lessons have been learned remains to be seen. We are not Germany in 1933. But we may be Munich, 1923. On 8 November of that year, a couple of thousand Nazis staged a failed putsch to topple the Weimar Republic. Ten years later the same insurrectionists seized power in Germany – through electoral means.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, not only do we have video proof the police took down barricades and encouraged folks to approach the capitol, AND video and pics of police in and around the capitol taking selfies with the rioters/insurrectionists, we also have reports that Trump delayed sending in the National Guard intentionally. Then, when it was first reported, we hear that Mike Pence had to be the one to finally approve the order to send them in. That was later amended to "Trump was encouraged by aids and staff to give the order after a long delay."

And now the sycophants among the Republican party are starting to make public statements about how they've finally had enough of Trump. Where was that backbone over the last four years as he's been developing his base into a rabid mob of easily lead dogs? I'm glad some of them are finally saying the right thing, but it's a bit difficult to swallow coming from some of the chief ass-kissers that allowed Trump carte blanche over the last four years do destroy, defame and essentially shit all over American norms and procedures.

This shit is surreal. I mean, anybody watching it develop knew it was coming if Trump lost, but that doesn't make watching it happen any easier.


----------



## Ralyks

Mick Mulvaney just resigned.


----------



## groverj3

I'm honestly surprised Dave Mustaine didn't make an appearance.


----------



## StevenC

groverj3 said:


> I'm honestly surprised Dave Mustaine didn't make an appearance.


Leave Dave alone. He's cleaned up his act, or at least stopped talking about politics. 

Dude wears a mask and everything.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> Mick Mulvaney just resigned.


I feel like I speak on behalf of everyone from Northern Ireland when I say "TIL he was the Envoy for Northern Ireland".


----------



## sleewell

honestly if you are resigning now i still think you are fucked as a person and will forever have to live with the shame and dishonor you have caused this country.

Charlottesville was not enough. Kids in cages, family separation was not enough. Helsinki was not enough. Impeachment was not enough. Bounties on our troops was not enough. Embracing the proud boys was not enough. There are so many other examples were you should have realized you were in a cult. you made excuses for him for 5 years. you made the decision to look the other way.

trying to save face now is not going to work for me and it should not get these pieces of shit a free pass.

they aligned with trump to get something from him. they got it and now want to feign some fake moral high ground... get the fuck out of here.


----------



## nightflameauto

Lot of denial in the Republican and Trump Supporter ranks this morning. Lots of folks I work with that have been ardent Trumpers are completely convinced that the violence was entirely perpetrated by people that were absolutely NOT Trump supporters. They seem to be divided on who it actually was. Some are saying antifa, some are saying anarchists (because anarchists are so well known for being organized), some are saying hired actors made to look Trump look bad, and some just don't know, but they can't accept that Trump supporters would behave badly.

Wonder if reality will ever set in for these folks?


----------



## possumkiller

nightflameauto said:


> Wonder if reality will ever set in for these folks?


You should ask Germany how long it took for reality to set in for all the former nazis and holocaust deniers.


----------



## nightflameauto

possumkiller said:


> You should ask Germany how long it took for reality to set in for all the former nazis and holocaust deniers.


As sad as I am you're stating this point, it's been circling in my brain for the past few years already. I have a feeling someone, somewhere, will see Trump, his time in office, and yesterday's events as a blueprint. And that someone may be a bit more charismatic and well spoken and gather an even larger slate of worshippers to carry out his or her bidding.

I hope and pray that something stops that from happening, but have a distinct impression it may be inevitable.


----------



## Ralyks

Trump banned from Facebook "indefinitely"


----------



## thebeesknees22

I'll be damn. FB actually did it. Color me surprised. Zuckerberg actually did the right thing for once.


----------



## Science_Penguin

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88692



Holy shit, that was real??


----------



## thebeesknees22

Honestly. FB and zuckerberg are just trying to protect themselves from being legislated into oblivion. He's not actually doing the right thing because it's the right thing. 

but yeah it seems to be real.


----------



## sleewell

social media is doing more to protect the country than our govt. trump is still in charge. 


also worth nothing that the head of the dept of defense, the head of the dept of justice and the head of homeland security are all in acting roles. none of them have been senate confirmed. if tested would they be loyal to him or our country? it already looks like the head of the capitol police chose trump over our country.


----------



## nightflameauto

If the social media companies gave a fuck about our country they would have shut Trump down when he started spouting lies with intent to incite violence several years ago. They waited until the violence erupted in the capitol and they could face real consequences for allowing his rhetoric to go relatively unchecked over the last several years. You think Congress won't regroup and try to find blame literally ANYWHERE they can? If they can find things on Twitter or Facebook (especially Facebook) directly linked to the violent taking of the Capitol building, they'll throw everything at them they can.

The shit that the American people have gone through over the past year plus several other incidents over the preceding years finally hit home for our wonderful government officials. Now will be the time when they start to give a shit about the impact of social media and rhetoric spewing assholes that use it to create these mobs of moronic violence.

Am I glad there's finally a ban in place on Trump? Sure. Am I going to praise Zuckerberg's empire for it? Absolutely not. This is a CYA move, and nothing more.


----------



## bostjan

Science_Penguin said:


> Holy shit, that was real??


By all appearances, it seems so.

I mean, what have we learned from Trump's presidency?

1. It's perfectly legal for a sitting president to extort another world leader into starting false rumours against his political rivals, using congressional funds as leverage.
2. It's perfectly legal for a presidential candidate to use a foreign government to spy on another candidate.
3. It's not illegal to incite a riot in the actual Capitol building, although, evidently, it actually does manage to make congress a bit cross at you.

Who would have known these things if we never tested them?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Still cant get over his speech. 

"You are all special we love you"


----------



## groverj3

People wanted for breaking into the Capitol. Check page 15 for what looks a helluva lot like Schaffer of Iced Earth. (edit: it is him, confirmed)

https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/POIs of Interest_1.7.21.pdf

Hope he enjoys his prison time.


----------



## TheBlackBard

groverj3 said:


> People wanted for breaking into the Capitol. Check page 15 for what looks a helluva lot like Schaffer of Iced Earth. (edit: it is him, confirmed)
> 
> https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/POIs of Interest_1.7.21.pdf
> 
> Hope he enjoys his prison time.


 
Does it make me petty if I attempt to identify him by making a long distance call just to spite that fucking psycho?


----------



## groverj3

TheBlackBard said:


> Does it make me petty if I attempt to identify him by making a long distance call just to spite that fucking psycho?


I already texted their tip line, though I think he's pretty much fucked. As he's recognizable and there are already music news websites that have identified him.


----------



## Randy

groverj3 said:


> People wanted for breaking into the Capitol. Check page 15 for what looks a helluva lot like Schaffer of Iced Earth. (edit: it is him, confirmed)
> 
> https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/POIs of Interest_1.7.21.pdf
> 
> Hope he enjoys his prison time.



Already confirmed, as he gave an interview outside and said who he is and where he's from.

Related, anybody brought up the potential for mass pardons?


----------



## groverj3

Randy said:


> Already confirmed, as he gave an interview outside and said who he is and where he's from.
> 
> Related, anybody brought up the potential for mass pardons?


I knew that, but this means that the police are actually looking for him for an arrest.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Already confirmed, as he gave an interview outside and said who he is and where he's from.
> 
> Related, anybody brought up the potential for mass pardons?



I have nothing to base this on, but I would imagine that Trump doing that would result in immediate use of the 25th Amendment. 

Part of me hopes to see that used regardless, but I doubt it will happen.


----------



## nightflameauto

Reading around "conservative" leaning forums, they're using the video of the police opening the barricades as proof that the entire thing wasn't violent, while still arguing that the violence was entirely antifa/BLM. Sometimes within the same sentence. How those folks manage to remember to breathe with that much brain power going into conflicting logic loops I'll never understand.nnn

It's sounding like there may be some actual possibility of the 25th being invoked. Apparently talks are underway among cabinet members, and several Republican officials are encouraging it.

I wonder how insane the Trump family will behave if that actually happens?


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> It's sounding like there may be some actual possibility of the 25th being invoked. Apparently talks are underway among cabinet members, and several Republican officials are encouraging it.


I've seen pretty good confirmation (inside sources who would know) that these conversations are or were happening, and the fact that Pence and not Trump was involved in the discussions to call up the National Guard is a pretty strong tell that, at a minimum, Trump is being sidelined to the greatest extent they can by his own administration. I don't know if we'll get as far as invoking the 25th, but I'm pretty sure no one's going to let Trump do anything if they can. 

I'm still worried for the next two weeks. After last night, Trump is no longer constrained by a fight to overturn the election or the ongoing court cases to force the states to change their counts, and by any attempt to preserve public opinion. He's literally got nothing left to lose, and the president still has a LOT of unilateral executive power. I suspect that his Cabinet is going to try to keep him on a tight leash just with the threat of the 25th, but they may actually have to invoke it. 

We already know that his advisors talked him down from launching a nuclear strike on Iran after the election, in part by suggesting his generals might not follow the order if he gave it. I think that's about where the bar is here.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/status/1346920924310867968?s=21


Only thing I'll say about this that has me questioning the interpreetation that the cops were in on it...

The police stationed at the capitol have openly admitted that once they realized how badly they were outnumbered, they made the decision to focus on protecting people rather than trying to hold the building, and protecting and evacuating Congress. At the end of this video, you see a guy in a brown sweatshirt walk past the person filming, from behind, waving them forward, and then at the very end, it turns to the right where you see another cluster of protesters carrying American flags. 

This definitely could be the cops being complicit. But I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that this is the cops realizing they'd been flanked to the right, and falling back.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Pelosi said they're moving towards impeachment, and Schumer/Pelosi are both pushing for the 25th amendment. She's speaking now, still talking.


----------



## nightflameauto

thebeesknees22 said:


> Pelosi said they're moving towards impeachment, and Schumer/Pelosi are both pushing for the 25th amendment. She's speaking now, still talking.


Do we suppose McConnel will be more open to it this go 'round? Seems like he's actually had enough of Trump based on his current comments. Is there even a chance he'd actually get removed via impeachment and then blocked from ever holding a federal position again?


----------



## JSanta

nightflameauto said:


> Do we suppose McConnel will be more open to it this go 'round? Seems like he's actually had enough of Trump based on his current comments. Is there even a chance he'd actually get removed via impeachment and then blocked from ever holding a federal position again?



With McConnell's wife becoming the first cabinet level member to resign in protest, it might be a possibility. I honestly don't see it happening. The GOP has done nothing but lip service (at best) the past 24 hours.


----------



## nightflameauto

JSanta said:


> With McConnell's wife becoming the first cabinet level member to resign in protest, it might be a possibility. I honestly don't see it happening. The GOP has done nothing but lip service (at best) the past 24 hours.


Speaking of which, dunno if anyone else saw it, but watching Lindsey Graham laughing at himself as he turned from Trump was a sickening spectacle.


----------



## BenjaminW

JSanta said:


> With McConnell's wife becoming the first cabinet level member to resign in protest, it might be a possibility. I honestly don't see it happening. The GOP has done nothing but lip service (at best) the past 24 hours.


Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.

I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.


----------



## StevenC




----------



## StevenC

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.


He literally incited a riot yesterday that stormed the Capitol.


----------



## Vyn

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.



Impeachment would mean stopping him from running in 2024 which IMO is actually worth doing. Round 2 of Trump after what's gone down is a genuine nightmare.


----------



## thebeesknees22

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.



If they do follow through, they could bar him from ever holding office again. 

Also they 100% have to send a message loud and clear to the rest of the country and the world that insurrection will not be tolerated. Think of how many groups out there have just seen what took place and now feel empowered to do the same. This will have ripple effects everywhere (which is why you see so many countries speaking out against what happened right now). If the US capitol can be overrun so easily then whatever country group X Y and Z are in should be so much easier right?

The hammer has to drop and drop hard on Trump and all those who enabled this to take place to send a message loud and clear, and they know it. That's why McConnell and some republicans MIiiiiight go along with it. That's still a big IF though. I'm not sure enough of them have the guts to do it.


----------



## Thaeon

nightflameauto said:


> Do we suppose McConnel will be more open to it this go 'round? Seems like he's actually had enough of Trump based on his current comments. Is there even a chance he'd actually get removed via impeachment and then blocked from ever holding a federal position again?



My honest opinion is that McConnell is attempting to set himself up as the 2024 GOP candidate. It would be in his interest to that affect, if he was agreeable to impeachment.


----------



## JSanta

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.



If the president is not held accountable for this actions to the most severe extent of the law, the behavior he has championed and supported over the last 4+ years will be viewed by his supporters as right and justified.


----------



## StevenC

JSanta said:


> If the president is not held accountable for this actions to the most severe extent of the law, the behavior he has championed and supported over the last 4+ years will be viewed by his supporters as right and justified.


Exactly. 

The extent of Executive power is almost entirely defined by precedent. And next week we'll be testing if he can shoot a person on 5th Avenue and get away with it.


----------



## BenjaminW

Vyn said:


> Impeachment would mean stopping him from running in 2024 which IMO is actually worth doing. Round 2 of Trump after what's gone down is a genuine nightmare.


If anything, there's too much writing on the wall for why Trump running again is a downright bad idea and he's basically been ostracized by the GOP as well.


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> If anything, there's too much writing on the wall for why Trump running again is a downright bad idea and he's basically been ostracized by the GOP as well.


You don't think that the Rs will just conveniently forget about all of this if it becomes clear that falling in line behind him in 2024 is their best chance to win back power?

He should be impeached to remove that possibility.


----------



## nightflameauto

Vyn said:


> Impeachment would mean stopping him from running in 2024 which IMO is actually worth doing. Round 2 of Trump after what's gone down is a genuine nightmare.


That'd be a very important component of it. That, combined with showing the country that it's *NOT* OK to promote violence and insurrection. If we just let it slide it'll happen again.


Thaeon said:


> My honest opinion is that McConnell is attempting to set himself up as the 2024 GOP candidate. It would be in his interest to that affect, if he was agreeable to impeachment.


That's genuinely horrifying.


----------



## BenjaminW

groverj3 said:


> You don't think that the Rs will just conveniently forget about all of this if it becomes clear that falling in line behind him in 2024 is their best chance to win back power?
> 
> He should be impeached to remove that possibility.


They're absolutely going to have to find someone new because there's no way in hell they'd have Trump be their nominee in 2024, even if it's their best chance at winning back power. It's gonna look extremely bad on them and will squash any chance of winning in 2024.

Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if he tries to pull a Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 type scheme where he tries to create his own 3rd party to run under. But this is only if he doesn't get impeached.


----------



## StevenC

BenjaminW said:


> They're absolutely going to have to find someone new because there's no way in hell they'd have Trump be their nominee in 2024, even if it's their best chance at winning back power. It's gonna look extremely bad on them and will squash any chance of winning in 2024.
> 
> Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if he tries to pull a Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 type scheme where he tries to create his own 3rd party to run under. But this is only if he doesn't get impeached.


They were happy running a defeated Nixon a second time.

But if Trump is alive enough in 2024 he will run independently.


----------



## sleewell

so trump's base really thought the military was going to swoop in and back their revolution. that is bonkers.



this is the woman who died yesterday:

"When do we start winning?" Babbitt quote-tweeted and responded, "Jan 6, 2021," with an American flag and hang-five emoji.

so. much. winning.

"Nothing will stop us," she responded. "They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hoursâ€¦.dark to light!"

well that bullet in your neck seemed to have stopped you. you died for trump, great work.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> They were happy running a defeated Nixon a second time.
> 
> But if Trump is alive enough in 2024 he will run independently.


You know, in theory I like the idea of Trump running independently in 2024 for the simple reason it could split the Republican voter base or even confuse it enough that most of them just don't vote. But, that's only a theory and I don't think it's worth the risk. He seemed unelectable before, and now he has a much more rabid and loyal following in the voting public.


----------



## philkilla

sleewell said:


> so trump's base really thought the military was going to swoop in and back their revolution. that is bonkers.



Plot twist, we don't roll like that.


----------



## groverj3

nightflameauto said:


> You know, in theory I like the idea of Trump running independently in 2024 for the simple reason it could split the Republican voter base or even confuse it enough that most of them just don't vote. But, that's only a theory and I don't think it's worth the risk. He seemed unelectable before, and now he has a much more rabid and loyal following in the voting public.


Not worth the risk. Throw Trump in prison for financial crimes and sedition.

Let someone else split the Republican voters.


----------



## sleewell

trump is telling aides he is going to pardon himself.


----------



## groverj3

sleewell said:


> trump is telling aides he is going to pardon himself.


Sounds like an admission of guilt to me.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> trump is telling aides he is going to pardon himself.



Dems best off impeaching him asap or not showing their hand on what kinda charges they're after, as to not telegraph what he can pardon himself on.


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> trump is telling aides he is going to pardon himself.


I'm not sure that's actually legal. Though it will be entertaining watching him declare himself pardoned like a homeless person talking to themselves in the park.

"I'm pardoned. For everything. For all the things. For those great things that nobody else recognized and everybody tried to take away from me. I'm pardoned. This is the best, most legal, most valid pardon of all time. All the pardons are mine now. All of them." And then muttering as he looks around for validation and everybody's looking away in embarrassment.

In all seriousness, if he does pardon himself and the rest of our government lets it fly, it's game over. There will be more like him even if he doesn't ever run again. And they'll probably have a more strategically well thought out game plan.


----------



## Bodes

Someone just posted this to the Iced Earth FB page after someone suggested he should rename his band.


----------



## Drew

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.


Couple reasons I can point to off the top of my head.

1) He literally just instigated a coup, when he couldn't overturn the results of a democratic election. Regardless of how long it shorten his term, the symbolic act of having punished him for his crimes, and having that in the historical record, matters.
2) impeachment or invoking the 25th would bar him from ever holding office again, and he's likely to run in 2024. 
3) Trump is unhinged. He may be president for two more weeks, but there's a tremendous amount he can do with executive privilege, including the power to pardon and the power to launch nuclear attacks or declare war. He clearly isn't concerned with how history will judge him, after yesterday's stunt. He's a clear and present danger to this country. 

Last time around, Pelosi was staunch about not supporting impeachment, until enough Democrats came out for impeachment that it was clear it would pass the House. Say what you will about her, but she is an _extremely_ experiened politician. If she's saying she'll impeach if the Cabinet doesn't act, I'd take her at face value. 

The Senate is a wildcard, but Mitch was _pissed_ last night. If he wanted to, there's no reason they couldn't draw up rules of impeachment going straight to the final vote to convict and skipping a trial - ironically, exactly what we were afraid he would do last year - and it wouldn't take many Republicans to break ranks to remove Trump. Romney is a high probability to break, I'd say, which with the AZ special election Romney alone would make it a 50-50 vote, sending it to Pence as a tiebreaker, and I rather think Pence would vote to convict after yesterday, especially if in turn that briefly made him the 46th President of the United States.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Couple reasons I can point to off the top of my head.
> 
> 1) He literally just instigated a coup, when he couldn't overturn the results of a democratic election. Regardless of how long it shorten his term, the symbolic act of having punished him for his crimes, and having that in the historical record, matters.
> 2) impeachment or invoking the 25th would bar him from ever holding office again, and he's likely to run in 2024.
> 3) Trump is unhinged. He may be president for two more weeks, but there's a tremendous amount he can do with executive privilege, including the power to pardon and the power to launch nuclear attacks or declare war. He clearly isn't concerned with how history will judge him, after yesterday's stunt. He's a clear and present danger to this country.
> 
> Last time around, Pelosi was staunch about not supporting impeachment, until enough Democrats came out for impeachment that it was clear it would pass the House. Say what you will about her, but she is an _extremely_ experiened politician. If she's saying she'll impeach if the Cabinet doesn't act, I'd take her at face value.
> 
> The Senate is a wildcard, but Mitch was _pissed_ last night. If he wanted to, there's no reason they couldn't draw up rules of impeachment going straight to the final vote to convict and skipping a trial - ironically, exactly what we were afraid he would do last year - and it wouldn't take many Republicans to break ranks to remove Trump. Romney is a high probability to break, I'd say, which with the AZ special election Romney alone would make it a 50-50 vote, sending it to Pence as a tiebreaker, and I rather think Pence would vote to convict after yesterday, especially if in turn that briefly made him the 46th President of the United States.


 Removing the president requires 67 votes, not 50, though. I highly doubt they'd get 67 Senators to go along with that plan in such a quick timeline.

Incidentally, invoking the 24th Amendment also requires 67 Senators. I'm assuming Trump will not willingly admit he is unfit. The process would take 4 days or so to even get to the Senate, I think. So, the odds of any of this working are fairly slim, albeit non-zero, at the moment.


----------



## Thaeon

I think the 25th is the most likely course of action.


----------



## groverj3

bostjan said:


> Removing the president requires 67 votes, not 50, though. I highly doubt they'd get 67 Senators to go along with that plan in such a quick timeline.
> 
> Incidentally, invoking the 24th Amendment also requires 67 Senators. I'm assuming Trump will not willingly admit he is unfit. The process would take 4 days or so to even get to the Senate, I think. So, the odds of any of this working are fairly slim, albeit non-zero, at the moment.


In the 25th amendment situation I'd imagine they could drag their feet on this and keep him sidelined for the next two weeks at a minimum.


----------



## groverj3

Bodes said:


> Someone just posted this to the Iced Earth FB page after someone suggested he should rename his band.
> View attachment 88712


Didn't he kick their singer out after Night of the Stormrider because he made jokes about Jewish people while they visited a concentration camp during a tour in Germany?

The irony.

The dude has been unhinged for a while. I'm pretty sure that Stu Block and Tim Owens also traffic in far right circles. Welp. I feel good about not listening to anything new they make now. Assuming he doesn't go to prison. Which he should.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Removing the president requires 67 votes, not 50, though. I highly doubt they'd get 67 Senators to go along with that plan in such a quick timeline.
> 
> Incidentally, invoking the 24th Amendment also requires 67 Senators. I'm assuming Trump will not willingly admit he is unfit. The process would take 4 days or so to even get to the Senate, I think. So, the odds of any of this working are fairly slim, albeit non-zero, at the moment.


Can't the 25th be invoked with just the majority of the Cabinet, though? It can ALSO go through Congress, but I thought that was a simple majority as well. 

Actually, reading this: 



> *Section 4*
> Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
> 
> Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.


Interesting thing here is if the President doesn't go along with it, it WOULD take a 2/3 majority, of both the House and the Senate. However, it's very open to interpretation that arguably the President wouldn't assume power again until _after_ the vote, which deliberations have to start 48 hours after the President determines he is fit to serve, but do not have to conclude for 21 days after that. So, even if Trump fought back, arguably they could run out the clock on him if Pelosi just kept deliberations going until inauguration. 

Anyway, moot point - Pence has said he won't invoke the 25th. That means impeachment, and Pelosi has already said she's going through with it if the Cabinet won't.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> the power to launch nuclear attacks or declare war.



I was waiting for someone to bring this point up as a reason to get him out ASAP


----------



## Ralyks

A capital officer died from yesterday's events.

That's right, the Blue Lives Matter folk killed on of their own.

Edit: To further that, I'll just copy and paste what my friend pointed out: "One of the Capitol police has died from the injuries he suffered yesterday. That means that a federal officer was murdered in the commission of a felony. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY PERSON THAT TRIED TO RAID THE CAPITOL BUILDING IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH SENTENCE."

And 

"A death that occurs during the commission of a felony, under any circumstance, is considered a murder. All parties involved in the commission of said felony are considered as being involved in and guilty of the murder."


----------



## spudmunkey

https://twitter.com/i/status/1347053742521262082


----------



## fantom

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I don't see the point in rushing out a full impeachment trial and/or invoking the 25th Amendment right now because there's less than 2 weeks until Inauguration Day and it seems pointless to me to have Pence be in charge for at most a few days or so, and then inaugurate Biden.
> 
> I get it's to get Trump out earlier, but I just don't see anything coming out of it in that regard.



As everyone else said, the situation needs to be taken seriously. Make an example out of him and prevent him from holding office again. He is lucky they aren't talking about filing treason charges.



BenjaminW said:


> Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if he tries to pull a Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 type scheme where he tries to create his own 3rd party to run under. But this is only if he doesn't get impeached



I hope he does. If 4% extremist vote for an independant, the GOP will likely lose even more tthan they did the last 2 elections force them to get their shit together.



sleewell said:


> this is the woman who died yesterday:
> 
> "When do we start winning?" Babbitt quote-tweeted and responded, "Jan 6, 2021," with an American flag and hang-five emoji.
> 
> so. much. winning.
> 
> "Nothing will stop us," she responded. "They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hoursâ€¦.dark to light!"
> 
> well that bullet in your neck seemed to have stopped you. you died for trump, great work.



She is dead..no reason to insult her at this point.


sleewell said:


> trump is telling aides he is going to pardon himself.



He probably just farted and said, "pardon me". At least that is the spin we will get.


----------



## possumkiller

Idk. After something like this, I expected an army of federal agents rounding up these people in cuffs. So far all I see is a lot of toothless rhetoric from the left. I like AOC but seriously, tweeting strong words to Ted Cruz is absolutely worthless and more annoying than inspiring. The time for trying to talk to these people has long passed.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I've heard from some people that at least 50 people have been arrested already.


----------



## Randy

Dunno about the arrests but 50 substantial charges tied to specific actors yes, and a capital murder charge hanging out there related to the police officer who died.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> Idk. After something like this, I expected an army of federal agents rounding up these people in cuffs. So far all I see is a lot of toothless rhetoric from the left. I like AOC but seriously, tweeting strong words to Ted Cruz is absolutely worthless and more annoying than inspiring. The time for trying to talk to these people has long passed.



It is. Congress in to much of a rush to make this about their petty infighting when this has going way beyond that.

Trump is planning on pardoning himself and anyone else he can think of, I think the best strategy is if you aren't going to actually roast the guy now, hold onto what you've got. You're gonna have both houses and the presidency in less than two weeks. You wag your finger at him now with no path to a resolution, you're taking away a lot of the ammunition you're going to have (and need) when you finally have the power to do something.


----------



## diagrammatiks

remember when pardons were used for like wrongfully accused deathrow inmates and turkeys. pepperridge farm remembers


----------



## fantom

At this point it seems his cabinet would rather resign than invoke the 25th amendment. Evey person who is resigning is still afraid to stand up to him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

fantom said:


> At this point it seems his cabinet would rather resign than invoke the 25th amendment. Evey person who is resigning is still afraid to stand up to him.



This was their easy-out in the 11th.


----------



## spudmunkey

They are only resigning now, because they were waiting to see if Wednesday was going to work.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> They are only resigning now, because they were waiting to see if Wednesday was going to work.



Agreed, I believe 100% this was an attempted coup that was executed based on months of planning and deliberate moves (pardoning Stone and Flynn, Stop the Steal campaign, firing and forced resignation of DoD, DoJ, DoHS officials).

They knew the event was culminating in the certification of the state results by Congress and that there would be a movement from within to throw out the results. They staged a rally outside where for two days, all of Trump's allies and Trump himself whipped people up into a frenzy and told them were to direct the anger, when and that he'd even be joining them there.

He also had the ability and the authority to put additional security in place and he didn't, it looked like a skeleton crew guarding the capitol while the only security were seemingly protecting the President's rally down the road (likely from counter protestors).

The goal was to invade Congress and force a physical confrontation to throw out the results of the election, or to throw enough confusion and fear into it that they would delay the certification while Trump and his Putsch found another way to undermine the results. You have Giuliani on tape first saying it was gonna be trial by combat, then calling around to Republican senators while everyone was hiding under their desks, strong arming them into signing complaints on up to 10 states to get them thrown out

There's a complete timeline out there.

So yeah, this was absolutely a for real coup that was simply stopped thanks to the security in the deepest core of the Capitol building. If they didn't hold that line (including the barricade where that woman was shot), giving Congresspeople the opportunity to escape, they actually might have won.

All these resignations and Trump's too little too late statement about smoothing the transition and calming the their rhetoric is literally the nazis in the stand at the Nuremberg trial claiming oh I didn't see any of that, I didn't know that was going on, I was just following orders, so on.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Agreed, I believe 100% this was an attempted coup that was executed based on months of planning and deliberate moves (pardoning Stone and Flynn, Stop the Steal campaign, firing and forced resignation of DoD, DoJ, DoHS officials).
> 
> They knew the event was culminating in the certification of the state results by Congress and that there would be a movement from within to throw out the results. They staged a rally outside where for two days, all of Trump's allies and Trump himself whipped people up into a frenzy and told them were to direct the anger, when and that he'd even be joining them there.
> 
> He also had the ability and the authority to put additional security in place and he didn't, it looked like a skeleton crew guarding the capitol while the only security were seemingly protecting the President's rally down the road (likely from counter protestors).
> 
> The goal was to invade Congress and force a physical confrontation to throw out the results of the election, or to throw enough confusion and fear into it that they would delay the certification while Trump and his Putsch found another way to undermine the results. You have Giuliani on tape first saying it was gonna be trial by combat, then calling around to Republican senators while everyone was hiding under their desks, strong arming them into signing complaints on up to 10 states to get them thrown out
> 
> There's a complete timeline out there.
> 
> So yeah, this was absolutely a for real coup that was simply stopped thanks to the security in the deepest core of the Capitol building. If they didn't hold that line (including the barricade where that woman was shot), giving Congresspeople the opportunity to escape, they actually might have won.
> 
> All these resignations and Trump's too little too late statement about smoothing the transition and calming the their rhetoric is literally the nazis in the stand at the Nuremberg trial claiming oh I didn't see any of that, I didn't know that was going on, I was just following orders, so on.


True. 

The people gave the presidency, house, and senate to the left. They damn well better prosecute every one of these fucks to the fullest extent. If any of these people get away with it, it will not only send a message to other extremists in the country that this is doable, it will send that message around the world.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> True.
> 
> The people gave the presidency, house, and senate to the left. They damn well better prosecute every one of these fucks to the fullest extent. If any of these people get away with it, it will not only send a message to other extremists in the country that this is doable, it will send that message around the world.



Tbh, I'm not a doom and gloom person but this was just the first shot across the bow from this coup.

Honestly, I'm not expecting to make any friends saying this but the Biden administration needs to be heavy handed at this. This might invoke fears of NK or China or Russia or Iran, but these places where they organize and recruit, like Parler and the Chans (and even Facebook) need to be busted up, along with the hate groups that are feeding this stuff like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Qanon, etc. This is exactly like al qaeda and ISIS online radicalizing and recruitment tools.

This shit started 4 or 5 years ago during the college campus speech debate, where people like Milo, and Richard Spencer were doing speaking tours where they would spew hate and foment violence against POC, LGBT, etc. When hate speech and neo nazism got a pass because it was being done behind a podium, in a suit and people in the US had a conundrum over what the 1st amendment really means, it was a total freefall since then.

Fast forward to this summer, cities and states on lockdown as a plague ravaged this country and Trump's people or he himself "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" "RISE UP" etc. Armed "protest" first in the parks and then literally in the halls of state houses where legislators were working and voting. Plans and threats from militias to arrest government officials and try them on mock tribunals (sounds a lot like isis again!), and passive support from the President once again. 

It needs to end, these people need to go to jail, the whole apparatus that's feeding this needs to be dismantled and the guidelines for what's 1st amendment speech and what's organizing an insurrection need to be drawn CLEARLY.

If you don't like the government you have, vote them out. Criticize the policy, criticize the legislation. They made this whole thing about saving the world from pedophile cults at all levels, to the point that voting isn't good enough because they steal your votes... well then what action are they prescribing? This shit was so self fulfilling and you could see it from a mile away. It's gotta end.

The way we're going right now, the same thing will happen again a year from now but this time they'll be armed and come in shooting. 

Look at this event, it was actually people with exposed faces, live streaming to their thousands of followers as they broke into the capitol, threatened, attacked and vandalized the place based on their conspiracies. And then when they got in trouble the same people are saying oh no I didn't do anything wrong, it was antifa and the pedophile cults etc that I was coming to Washington to defeat in the first place. They're allowed to perpetually keep refueling themselves.


----------



## JSanta

Randy said:


> Tbh, I'm not a doom and gloom person but this was just the first shot across the bow from this coup.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not expecting to make any friends saying this but the Biden administration needs to be heavy handed at this. This might invoke fears of NK or China or Russia or Iran, but these places where they organize and recruit, like Parler and the Chans (and even Facebook) need to be busted up, along with the hate groups that are feeding this stuff like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Qanon, etc. This is exactly like al qaeda and ISIS online radicalizing and recruitment tools.
> 
> This shit started 4 or 5 years ago during the college campus speech debate, where people like Milo, and Richard Spencer were doing speaking tours where they would spew hate and foment violence against POC, LGBT, etc. When hate speech and neo nazism got a pass because it was being done behind a podium, in a suit and people in the US had a conundrum over what the 1st amendment really means, it was a total freefall since then.
> 
> Fast forward to this summer, cities and states on lockdown as a plague ravaged this country and Trump's people or he himself "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" "RISE UP" etc. Armed "protest" first in the parks and then literally in the halls of state houses where legislators were working and voting. Plans and threats from militias to arrest government officials and try them on mock tribunals (sounds a lot like isis again!), and passive support from the President once again.
> 
> It needs to end, these people need to go to jail, the whole apparatus that's feeding this needs to be dismantled and the guidelines for what's 1st amendment speech and what's organizing an insurrection need to be drawn CLEARLY.
> 
> If you don't like the government you have, vote them out. Criticize the policy, criticize the legislation. They made this whole thing about saving the world from pedophile cults at all levels, to the point that voting isn't good enough because they steal your votes... well then what action are they prescribing? This shit was so self fulfilling and you could see it from a mile away. It's gotta end.
> 
> The way we're going right now, the same thing will happen again a year from now but this time they'll be armed and come in shooting.
> 
> Look at this event, it was actually people with exposed faces, live streaming to their thousands of followers as they broke into the capitol, threatened, attacked and vandalized the place based on their conspiracies. And then when they got in trouble the same people are saying oh no I didn't do anything wrong, it was antifa and the pedophile cults etc that I was coming to Washington to defeat in the first place. They're allowed to perpetually keep refueling themselves.



And I think we need to be very up front and honest about an additional reality. Had the protesters been majority black and brown people, the capital would have been covered in blood. The white supremacists and terrorists need to be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. 

It starts with holding the president accountable, and then hammering each and every individual that has participated and been complicit. Numerous enablers in Congress, Cabinet Members, and political appointees own what happened. Graham warned that Trump would destroy us (he meant the GOP, but it's obviously a more broad we now), and he fanned the flames, along with Cruz and McConnell. I'm not sure what steps Biden can or will take, but at the very least, formal censure and condemnation is needed, IMO.


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Tbh, I'm not a doom and gloom person but this was just the first shot across the bow from this coup.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not expecting to make any friends saying this but the Biden administration needs to be heavy handed at this. This might invoke fears of NK or China or Russia or Iran, but these places where they organize and recruit, like Parler and the Chans (and even Facebook) need to be busted up, along with the hate groups that are feeding this stuff like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Qanon, etc. This is exactly like al qaeda and ISIS online radicalizing and recruitment tools.
> 
> This shit started 4 or 5 years ago during the college campus speech debate, where people like Milo, and Richard Spencer were doing speaking tours where they would spew hate and foment violence against POC, LGBT, etc. When hate speech and neo nazism got a pass because it was being done behind a podium, in a suit and people in the US had a conundrum over what the 1st amendment really means, it was a total freefall since then.
> 
> Fast forward to this summer, cities and states on lockdown as a plague ravaged this country and Trump's people or he himself "LIBERATE MICHIGAN" "RISE UP" etc. Armed "protest" first in the parks and then literally in the halls of state houses where legislators were working and voting. Plans and threats from militias to arrest government officials and try them on mock tribunals (sounds a lot like isis again!), and passive support from the President once again.
> 
> It needs to end, these people need to go to jail, the whole apparatus that's feeding this needs to be dismantled and the guidelines for what's 1st amendment speech and what's organizing an insurrection need to be drawn CLEARLY.
> 
> If you don't like the government you have, vote them out. Criticize the policy, criticize the legislation. They made this whole thing about saving the world from pedophile cults at all levels, to the point that voting isn't good enough because they steal your votes... well then what action are they prescribing? This shit was so self fulfilling and you could see it from a mile away. It's gotta end.
> 
> The way we're going right now, the same thing will happen again a year from now but this time they'll be armed and come in shooting.
> 
> Look at this event, it was actually people with exposed faces, live streaming to their thousands of followers as they broke into the capitol, threatened, attacked and vandalized the place based on their conspiracies. And then when they got in trouble the same people are saying oh no I didn't do anything wrong, it was antifa and the pedophile cults etc that I was coming to Washington to defeat in the first place. They're allowed to perpetually keep refueling themselves.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> My honest opinion is that McConnell is attempting to set himself up as the 2024 GOP candidate. It would be in his interest to that affect, if he was agreeable to impeachment.



He’d be 82 at the time of his inauguration.


----------



## Musiscience

Randy said:


> All these resignations and Trump's too little too late statement about smoothing the transition and calming the their rhetoric is literally the nazis in the stand at the Nuremberg trial claiming oh I didn't see any of that, I didn't know that was going on, I was just following orders, so on.


+1 

If this was my country, I'd push for an independent committee similar to Nuremberg to review this whole term and situation and give recommendations for new ethical guidelines/laws/etc. on presidential behavior and fitness. Just to make sure something like that doesn't happen again so easily and powers are not abused. Otherwise it's too easy for someone else to try and repeat the same scheme over and over. Like many said, half of a country certainly won't change in just 4 years.

It's insane that a simple basic role in clinical research requires proof of training, previous experience and education that must be shown on inspection. Even just data transcription. Yet a President having the power to initiate wars and mess up the lives of so many peoples, both inside and outside his own country, can be anybody as long as your not clinically mentally impaired. Sure, it's with an intent of "anybody can run" fairness, but can ultimately lead to, well, this. 

P.S. : I know basically nothing about law, even less US, so maybe this is currently going on? I don't know.


----------



## groverj3

Musiscience said:


> +1
> 
> If this was my country, I'd push for an independent committee similar to Nuremberg to review this whole term and situation and give recommendations for new ethical guidelines/laws/etc. on presidential behavior and fitness. Just to make sure something like that doesn't happen again so easily and powers are not abused. Otherwise it's too easy for someone else to try and repeat the same scheme over and over. Like many said, half of a country certainly won't change in just 4 years.
> 
> It's insane that a simple basic role in clinical research requires proof of training, previous experience and education that must be shown on inspection. Even just data transcription. Yet a President having the power to initiate wars and mess up the lives of so many peoples, both inside and outside his own country, can be anybody as long as your not clinically mentally impaired. Sure, it's with an intent of "anybody can run" fairness, but can ultimately lead to, well, this.
> 
> P.S. : I know basically nothing about law, even less US, so maybe this is currently going on? I don't know.


None of this will happen because the Republicans are mostly fascists at this point, but good thinks there.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> He’d be 82 at the time of his inauguration.




Stranger things have happened. Trump was elected and held the White House for four years.


----------



## possumkiller

Idk maybe the left wasn't just sitting on their thumbs and being spineless the whole time. Maybe they were patiently waiting for this shit to inevitably unfold so that they would have enough support to take action. We all keep saying how this shit was obviously going to happen for anyone that had been paying attention. I am sure it was just as obvious to them as it was to us.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Musiscience said:


> +1
> 
> If this was my country, I'd push for an independent committee similar to Nuremberg to review this whole term and situation and give recommendations for new ethical guidelines/laws/etc. on presidential behavior and fitness. Just to make sure something like that doesn't happen again so easily and powers are not abused. Otherwise it's too easy for someone else to try and repeat the same scheme over and over. Like many said, half of a country certainly won't change in just 4 years.
> 
> It's insane that a simple basic role in clinical research requires proof of training, previous experience and education that must be shown on inspection. Even just data transcription. Yet a President having the power to initiate wars and mess up the lives of so many peoples, both inside and outside his own country, can be anybody as long as your not clinically mentally impaired. Sure, it's with an intent of "anybody can run" fairness, but can ultimately lead to, well, this.
> 
> P.S. : I know basically nothing about law, even less US, so maybe this is currently going on? I don't know.



ya this will never happen. because independent commission basically means nothing in America. and for this to happen you actually need the other side to mostly agree. and this will never ever happen in America again.


----------



## Musiscience

diagrammatiks said:


> ya this will never happen. because independent commission basically means nothing in America. and for this to happen you actually need the other side to mostly agree. and this will never ever happen in America again.



That's sad to hear. We still get these committees happening in Canada about corruption and the likes, but they don't have much impact in the long run usually. It's discouraging.


----------



## bostjan

I still think somebody must have at least loosely organized this thing. There were charter busses bringing people from all over the USA. I know it was an important even being the counting of electoral votes with congressional approval, but they didn't storm the electoral college whilst they were counting votes, and they didn't wait for Biden's inauguration to go, so I suspect one or more "leaders" were behind this craziness. The lady who got shot and the Jon Schaffer's and Buffalo Man's and derpy-looking cable guy are obviously not the "masterminds" behind this.


----------



## possumkiller

The thing is this is what happens when uneducated morons try to overthrow the government. When people that are actually intelligent, organized, prepared and well funded try it, it will be much worse.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Musiscience said:


> That's sad to hear. We still get these committees happening in Canada about corruption and the likes, but they don't have much impact in the long run usually. It's discouraging.



I mean it's basically like you got 10 people. and 5 of the people say to the other 5 people hi we need all 10 of us to agree that you lot are fucking idiots. but it's gotta be an unanimous vote.


----------



## sleewell

my old boss told me yesterday with a straight face he thought antifa was to blame for storming the capitol. i laughed right in his face, wasn't trying to intentionally to be mean, it just came out because of how ludicrous it sounded. he was saying one person in the crowd had a twitter feed hating on trump so of course with mob mentality he convinced them all to treason. i rolled my eyes and changed the topic but i did say something about law and order and about the need to protect federal buildings previously being a hot button issue. 


then i asked him if he thought qanon was crazy or if they had any believable points like lizard people or every dem being a pedo. isn't it funny how trump supporters talk? they always preface their statements with something fairly reasonable, then you wait for the 'but" or "however" or whatever they use to transition to the talking points they just read...

he basically said he might believe q. he had a friend who was way into it. but in his mind they keep promising to release evidence but then never do so he has grown skeptical. 


pretty fucking nuts. i used to work for this person for about 5 years and i never really picked up on these levels of crazy and detachment from reality.


----------



## nightflameauto

Musiscience said:


> +1
> 
> If this was my country, I'd push for an independent committee similar to Nuremberg to review this whole term and situation and give recommendations for new ethical guidelines/laws/etc. on presidential behavior and fitness. Just to make sure something like that doesn't happen again so easily and powers are not abused. Otherwise it's too easy for someone else to try and repeat the same scheme over and over. Like many said, half of a country certainly won't change in just 4 years.
> 
> It's insane that a simple basic role in clinical research requires proof of training, previous experience and education that must be shown on inspection. Even just data transcription. Yet a President having the power to initiate wars and mess up the lives of so many peoples, both inside and outside his own country, can be anybody as long as your not clinically mentally impaired. Sure, it's with an intent of "anybody can run" fairness, but can ultimately lead to, well, this.
> 
> P.S. : I know basically nothing about law, even less US, so maybe this is currently going on? I don't know.


None of this is happening, and it won't. Because the Republicans are repugnant, despicable people that are attempting to extricate themselves from the bullshit they've been propagating for the last four to five years (or longer in some cases) and the Democrats are desperately scrambling to find ways to turn this into another finger wag over how racist the Republicans and their supporters are rather than actually coming up with a plan that addresses it.

What's killing me with all the cabinet resignations and the Congress critters on the right is they're all talking the talk now, but none of the are actually willing to do anything about it. I keep seeing stuff like our illustrious education secretary saying, "It's clear that the President wishes to use the rest of his time in office to damage the country," while resigning. What fucking good does that do anybody? I get it, it's tough to stand up to a bully individually, but if you all actually believe the words dropping out of your pie-holes, stand together and take the fucker down.

God damned spineless pieces of shit. Sorry if that's harsh, but our country is basically in a tailspin and everybody's waiving their hands around and spouting rhetoric while doing absolutely fuck-all. While our government is used to running at glacial speed, they need to step up and kick their asses into gear. Who knows what Trump may do in his remaining days.

Does anyone know if there are laws concerning secret service/capitol police restraining the President if he presents a clear danger to the country?


----------



## Rock4ever

Dude was part of the group that stormed the capitol

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/ic...the-us-capitol-building-during-pro-trump-riot

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/p...ths-jon-schaffer-for-unrest-related-offenses/

Edit- Oops. 2nd link added


----------



## sleewell

he is a traitor and should be treated as such.


----------



## 70Seven

So is the FBI looking for everyone that was there, or did Jon do something "violent" to deserve a FBI wanted list...

EDIT, Hold up.. Article doesn't say he's wanted by the FBI, at all..

2ND Edit, after second article is posted. So he's a "person of interest" by the DC police, still not wanted by the FBI. 

Not defending him, shame on all who were there..


----------



## manu80

don't know if i'm more shocked by that capitol riot or by seeing almost no masks...well... hardcores Trump supporters so no real suprise here but man......


----------



## Musiscience

diagrammatiks said:


> I mean it's basically like you got 10 people. and 5 of the people say to the other 5 people hi we need all 10 of us to agree that you lot are fucking idiots. but it's gotta be an unanimous vote.



That's really not what I meant. It's not about changing people's mentality and vote, but putting guidelines and recommendations into place aimed at people in power limiting corruption and malpractice. The political disagreement is the reason why these expert groups need to be independent, so it doesn't explicitly benefit a party, but is meant to give general recommendations simply protect the country from situations like the Trump ordeal.


----------



## gunch

And if you think the dumb and crazy is over just remember, the sort of people that were in D.C. are your coworkers, neighbors, even the family you live with. 

They will not change their minds or see reason. They will double down and become more and more violent. 

All I know is that I need the _fuck _out of Ohio.


----------



## oldbulllee

good for america that these people were a bunch of idiots as far as i can tell. so it was just a petty, little cue. the proffesionaly done ones( all around the world, a lot of time carried out by/ for/ under american interest) result in quite a bit more than media network outrage.
not much fatalities, that's good.


----------



## possumkiller

gunch said:


> And if you think the dumb and crazy is over just remember, the sort of people that were in D.C. are your coworkers, neighbors, even the family you live with.
> 
> They will not change their minds or see reason. They will double down and become more and more violent.
> 
> All I know is that I need the _fuck _out of Ohio.


This. I've already cut off contact from most of my family months ago because I couldn't take their stupidity anymore. The only person left in my family that isn't a shithead is my 90 year old grandmother.


----------



## Lorcan Ward

“This is the most anyone has ever talked about Iced Earth” 

disclaimer: I like them and have seen them live, just thought this was hilarious.



manu80 said:


> don't know if i'm more shocked by that capitol riot or by seeing almost no masks...well... hardcores Trump supporters so no real suprise here but man......



Yep no surprise there’s an overlap and most of those man don’t look like healthy at all putting them at high risk. 

To American users here. What will happen to these guys? Surely that’s a hefty prison sentence.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

gunch said:


> And if you think the dumb and crazy is over just remember, the sort of people that were in D.C. are your coworkers, neighbors, even the family you live with.
> 
> They will not change their minds or see reason. They will double down and become more and more violent.
> 
> All I know is that I need the _fuck _out of Ohio.



Something else that I thought about yesterday as these terrorists began getting identified, was the damage that they've now inflicted upon their families. I can't even wrap my head around that level of instability and lack of intelligence... to make a decision that might very well dramatically affect the well-being of their families. I have to figure that most of them have jobs, responsibilities, and children. Like "Okay wife and kids... Daddy's gonna go commit some federal crimes and potentially be killed or imprisoned... Don't wait up!". How in the world can someone do that to the people that they supposedly love and care about? That's an insane level of hatred and stupidity. I realize that petty criminals make these kinds of poor decisions every day but to see this on such a large scale and so brazenly is hard to digest.


----------



## wankerness

I saw this image yesterday and didn't realize it was actually a guy from the band. Now it's so much better!


----------



## bostjan

One of the individuals who broke into the Capitol is a State Representative in West Virginia (Derrick Evans). A State Senator from Pennsylvania was reportedly there as well, and arranged for one of the charter busses full of protesters, but claims that he left the scene as things started to become violent.

If these charter busses were booked by members of state legislatures, I'd guess that whoever organized this mess is someone close to the government or the GOP.  I still say that whoever it is needs to become the focus of the punishment. If you jail the goons but let the person indoctrinating them run free, that person will just spawn more goons.


----------



## Werecow




----------



## oldbulllee

High Plains Drifter said:


> Something else that I thought about yesterday as these terrorists began getting identified, was the damage that they've now inflicted upon their families. I can't even wrap my head around that level of instability and lack of intelligence... to make a decision that might very well dramatically affect the well-being of their families. I have to figure that most of them have jobs, responsibilities, and children. Like "Okay wife and kids... Daddy's gonna go commit some federal crimes and potentially be killed or imprisoned... Don't wait up!". How in the world can someone do that to the people that they supposedly love and care about? That's an insane level of hatred and stupidity. I realize that petty criminals make these kinds of poor decisions every day but to see this on such a large scale and so brazenly is hard to digest.


you dont get it. they are the martyrs here, in case it goes bad for them.


----------



## Frostbite

Useless fucking cunts, all of them


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> Stranger things have happened. Trump was elected and held the White House for four years.



Trump was 70 at that time. Huge difference.


----------



## Thaeon

High Plains Drifter said:


> Something else that I thought about yesterday as these terrorists began getting identified, was the damage that they've now inflicted upon their families. I can't even wrap my head around that level of instability and lack of intelligence... to make a decision that might very well dramatically affect the well-being of their families. I have to figure that most of them have jobs, responsibilities, and children. Like "Okay wife and kids... Daddy's gonna go commit some federal crimes and potentially be killed or imprisoned... Don't wait up!". How in the world can someone do that to the people that they supposedly love and care about? That's an insane level of hatred and stupidity. I realize that petty criminals make these kinds of poor decisions every day but to see this on such a large scale and so brazenly is hard to digest.



If they believe that there needs to be a revolution and there is more of a threat to their families if they don't involve themselves in a little direct anarchy, it might be worth the risk. Regardless of how false what they believe is, they believe it. If there is sufficient fear, a person can be manipulated into doing just about anything.



oldbulllee said:


> you dont get it. they are the martyrs here, in case it goes bad for them.



I think whether or not they are martyred remains to be seen. There will certainly be attempts to make them appear that way and a small number of people will believe it. But I still believe that this sort of radical right stuff is more isolated than say, the BLM movement (not a radical movement in my opinion, I'm just using it as an example of numbers). I don't for a minute think that even half of republicans are willing to be this psycho to get their way.


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Trump was 70 at that time. Huge difference.



I don't mean Trump's age. I mean the fact that Trump was elected at all is stranger than McConnell being elected at 82.


----------



## fantom

diagrammatiks said:


> ya this will never happen. because independent commission basically means nothing in America. and for this to happen you actually need the other side to mostly agree. and this will never ever happen in America again.



The "independent" committee here is congress or his cabinet (impeachment vs 25th amendment). As far as crimes, the independent committee is the court and jurors. Trump has wasted his presidency saying the court can't do anything to a sitting president and he is trying to pardon himself so the can't to anything to him as a citizen afterwards. It really comes to congress and his cabinet taking action.


----------



## akinari

They'll all be too short of breath to run away from anybody in like 5 days anyway, shouldn't be a big deal


----------



## Exit Existence

I'm honestly not surprised lol


----------



## nickgray

What a dumbass.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> I don't mean Trump's age. I mean the fact that Trump was elected at all is stranger than McConnell being elected at 82.



Well yeah that we can definitely agree on


----------



## lurè

"Something wicked this way comes"

Yup, it's the FBI


----------



## bostjan

I didn't even know Iced Earth was political. They were supposed to be working on their comeback album right now anyway. I'm guessing that's either cancelled or delayed.

I actually had a few of their CD's (and Demons and Wizards) and jammed to those a lot in my 20's.

And I'm not going to excuse what Jon Schaffer did, since it was bad and wrong, but it's not like he tried to order a hit on somebody (As I Lay Dying or AC/DC) or did horrifying kid stuff (Lostprophets).

Being part of a riot is violence, which I do not condone at all, but it could be violence by association. I'll just try to ignore the fact that this happened and assume that he might just be a bonehead instead of assuming the worst, that he's a nazi or white supremicist or whatever. It'll probably all come out eventually, though.


----------



## Ericjutsu

bostjan said:


> I didn't even know Iced Earth was political. They were supposed to be working on their comeback album right now anyway. I'm guessing that's either cancelled or delayed.
> 
> I actually had a few of their CD's (and Demons and Wizards) and jammed to those a lot in my 20's.
> 
> And I'm not going to excuse what Jon Schaffer did, since it was bad and wrong, but it's not like he tried to order a hit on somebody (Emmure or AC/DC) or did horrifying kid stuff (Lostprophets).
> 
> Being part of a riot is violence, which I do not condone at all, but it could be violence by association. I'll just try to ignore the fact that this happened and assume that he might just be a bonehead instead of assuming the worst, that he's a nazi or white supremicist or whatever. It'll probably all come out eventually, though.


yeah, other musicians have done worse things that people ignore. Didn't the lead singer of As I Lay Dying try to order a hit on his wife?


----------



## JSanta

Ericjutsu said:


> yeah, other musicians have done worse things that people ignore. Didn't the lead singer of As I Lay Dying try to order a hit on his wife?



You mean ignored in that Tim Lambesis spent two years in prison? Or how the singer of LostProphets was incarcerated for at least 14 years? When people break the law, or participate in an armed insurrection, they need to be punished. If this idiot from Iced Earth is found guilty, he deserves whatever punishment is given.

We can go back historically, and a lot of famous musicians and actors were basically able to get away with everything. Times are different now, thankfully.


----------



## bostjan

Ericjutsu said:


> yeah, other musicians have done worse things that people ignore. Didn't the lead singer of As I Lay Dying try to order a hit on his wife?


Yeah, I got my controversies confused. It was Tim Lambesis or however your spell it who solicited murder.


----------



## X1X

I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity since I got an Iced Earth video recommended to me by youtube just now. I don't remember ever listening to them...


----------



## groverj3

Hope he enjoys writing his next album with his band mates scatting riffs in short snippets through a prison phone.

Dude literally broke into the capitol during an armed insurrection. Throw him in prison so he can do his Infowars shit there.

I'll never buy another Iced Earth album. They were one of my favorite bands when I was getting into music, but I'm not separating the art from his actions here. Just can't do it. This isn't like Dave Mustaine just saying crazy shit and being an asshole. Schaffer literally participated in an armed uprising where people died.

Good riddance. He can rot in prison.


----------



## bostjan

X1X said:


> I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity since I got an Iced Earth video recommended to me by youtube just now. I don't remember ever listening to them...


Probably true.
I'd say G'n'R would have never covered a Charles Manson song had Manson never solicited/committed murder. Although, covering that song probably didn't have much of a positive impact on Axl's career.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

X1X said:


> I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity since I got an Iced Earth video recommended to me by youtube just now. I don't remember ever listening to them...



Most bad publicity doesn't involve a coup nor your bandleader being a person of interest. 

Also before anyone else brings up Stu


----------



## groverj3

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Most bad publicity doesn't involve a coup nor your bandleader being a person of interest.
> 
> Also before anyone else brings up Stu


Welp, I guess Canadians aren't immune from fascist thinking.

Tim Owens also has unfortunate opinions.


----------



## Necris

gunch said:


> And if you think the dumb and crazy is over just remember, the sort of people that were in D.C. are your coworkers, neighbors, even the family you live with.
> 
> They will not change their minds or see reason. They will double down and become more and more violent.


I saw an op-ed declaring "Trump's spell seems to have broken" and I'm wondering why some people are committed to interpreting the storming of the capitol, and other capitol buildings around the country as the last gasp of this movement.

In no uncertain terms a portion of Trump's base have radicalized, some during his time in office, some prior to his time in office, and they're ripe for recruitment by far-right extremist groups. One major problem post-Trump is the question of how to deradicalize these people in the midst of ongoing messaging about "the culture war" and the existential threat to America that Democrats and anyone to the left of the Republican party pose. If even 0.25% of Trump's voters have radicalized to the degree that the people who stormed the capital did that's a pool of nearly more than 100,000 people upon whom the hard work has already been mostly done. 

Obviously not all of these people, or even the majority, will actually become actively involved in terrorism or much beyond idiotic facebook ranting, but there's still a genuine problem we're facing going forward, and it's arguably one whose potential outcomes worsen significantly if real consequences fail to materialize for what happened at the capitol.


----------



## mmr007

This has to be fake news. Tucker Carlson is saying it is Antifa pretending to be Iced Earth pretending to be Trump supporters


----------



## Celtic Frosted Flakes

Depending on what Jon Schaffer did and how active he was inside the Capitol building he could face 20 years in prison

https://fortune.com/2021/01/07/trump-capitol-rioters-prison/


----------



## sonoftheoldnorth

The hours close at hand
We'll make our final stand
Justice shall be done
Nowhere to run

True evil broods in you
You're just a brainwashed fool
The coward close that hides
Spewing forth his lies

Revenge is not justice
It's the reckoning
This time it's for blood
Don't tread on me


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

groverj3 said:


> Welp, I guess Canadians aren't immune from fascist thinking.
> 
> Tim Owens also has unfortunate opinions.



Canada has their own problems from what I can tell. Plus the fact that Jon's apparently gotten crazier and crazier and probably badgered on Stu.

Ripper posted on instagram he claims that he never talked politics with Jon, and I'm calling bullshit.


----------



## groverj3

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Canada has their own problems from what I can tell. Plus the fact that Jon's apparently gotten crazier and crazier and probably badgered on Stu.
> 
> Ripper recently did an interview and he claims that he never talked politics with Jon, and I'm calling bullshit.


90% of the first album he was on with the band was all 'MERICA! It seems unlikely.


----------



## groverj3

Shouldn't take long. They already arrested the guy who took the selfie in Pelosi's office.

He's probably hiding out with his Oathkeeper LARP buddies.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

mmr007 said:


> This has to be fake news. Tucker Carlson is saying it is Antifa pretending to be Iced Earth pretending to be Trump supporters



Not surprising. Just like when the MSM except Fox covered for Antifa and BLM burning down cities for half a year.
"Oh heavens no, our riot mostly peaceful, your riot bad."

It's all so tiresome, man. I thought we evolved past the point of breaking shit to try and make change.
When the coverage was coming out I was like "Well, at least they aren't hurting anyone," but apparently they hit a security guard with a fire extinguisher, and he died today soooooo....that's a whole ass murder. Disgraceful.



groverj3 said:


> Shouldn't take long. They already arrested the guy who took the selfie in Pelosi's office.
> 
> He's probably hiding out with his Oathkeeper LARP buddies.



lol imagine being the guy that swiped her hard drive. 
Good god man I would _*not*_ want that kind of heat.

In general though, how dumb do you have to be to do something like this as a public figure?


----------



## Thaeon

Necris said:


> I saw an op-ed declaring "Trump's spell seems to have broken" and I'm wondering why some people are committed to interpreting the storming of the capitol, and other capitol buildings around the country as the last gasp of this movement.
> 
> In no uncertain terms a portion of Trump's base have radicalized, some during his time in office, some prior to his time in office, and they're ripe for recruitment by far-right extremist groups. One major problem post-Trump is the question of how to deradicalize these people in the midst of ongoing messaging about "the culture war" and the existential threat to America that Democrats and anyone to the left of the Republican party pose. If even 0.25% of Trump's voters have radicalized to the degree that the people who stormed the capital did that's a pool of nearly more than 100,000 people upon whom the hard work has already been mostly done.
> 
> Obviously not all of these people, or even the majority, will actually become actively involved in terrorism or much beyond idiotic facebook ranting, but there's still a genuine problem we're facing going forward, and it's arguably one whose potential outcomes worsen significantly if real consequences fail to materialize for what happened at the capitol.



You make a pretty grave point here.

I often talk to my conservative parents about this sort of thing. Both of them are of the mind set that conservatism is moderate and correct. I ask them if there are two sides in opposition, how is one of them moderate? They think that democrats goal is to literally destroy the US. To actively harm it through malicious intent. I have to remind them, that the people on the other side feel the same about them and their views. That no one wins when we see democrat or republican individuals as enemies. I'm a liberal, and somehow I get a pass. Well, apply that thinking to everyone else like me on the liberal side of the argument who believe just as fervently as they do that they are doing what is best for their country, and love their country every bit as much as they do.


----------



## Exit Existence

Schaffer released a solo project called Sons of Liberty which was "concept album about corrupt world leaders holding the rest of the world in slavery".
He's definitely always been a hardcore libertarian and conspiracy theorist at the very least

Interview from 2010 about his Sons of Liberty band
https://sleazeroxx.com/interviews/jon-schaffer-interview/


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Exit Existence said:


> Schaffer released a solo project called Sons of Liberty which was "concept album about corrupt world leaders holding the rest of the world in slavery".
> He's definitely always been a hardcore libertarian and conspiracy theorist at the very least
> 
> Interview from 2010 about his Sons of Liberty band
> https://sleazeroxx.com/interviews/jon-schaffer-interview/



He leaned more libertarian, but got self-admittedly more outright conservative and more of a Alex Jones conspiracy nut as time went on.


----------



## Exit Existence

Yea he loves Alex Jones, from another interview:
" Alex Jones is always on the front lines with this stuff. He was out in front of, I think, the Federal Reserve building, yelling “the answer to 1984 is 1776!”. I was like “YES!!! This is kick ass, I have to use that!”. He’s a true patriot. He drives people crazy because they cannot pigeon-hole him. When the Republicans are in power he’s called a left-wing lunatic, when the Democrats are in power he’s a right-wing extremist. They just hate it. He’s an American, he believes in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and they can’t stand it because he hates both parties as they are both criminals and it drives them nuts"


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## ArtDecade

Such a rebel.


----------



## Ralyks

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88737



Nope, can't argue with any of this.


----------



## Thaeon

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88737



Where is the lie though?


----------



## bostjan

Well, if you are talking about Iran thinking America is weak and needs to be destroyed, or Russia thinking America is not in a place of moral exceptionalism to lead the free world, then, well, this hasn't been news since 1979.

If we are talking about how life from now on will be looking over our shoulders on the lookout for killer terrorist rednecks, then I guess we've forgotten about David Koresh, Tim McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolf, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc...

This isn't news, this isn't a change in lifestyle, this is just America, the land of whacknuts and whacknuts with guns... and whacknuts with pipe bombs because they were too crazy to legally obtain a firearm.


----------



## GunpointMetal

Still can't believe there was a time when looking like that wasn't the hokiest shit ever.


----------



## Rock4ever

bostjan said:


> I didn't even know Iced Earth was political. They were supposed to be working on their comeback album right now anyway. I'm guessing that's either cancelled or delayed.
> 
> I actually had a few of their CD's (and Demons and Wizards) and jammed to those a lot in my 20's.
> 
> And I'm not going to excuse what Jon Schaffer did, since it was bad and wrong, but it's not like he tried to order a hit on somebody (As I Lay Dying or AC/DC) or did horrifying kid stuff (Lostprophets).
> 
> Being part of a riot is violence, which I do not condone at all, but it could be violence by association. I'll just try to ignore the fact that this happened and assume that he might just be a bonehead instead of assuming the worst, that he's a nazi or white supremicist or whatever. It'll probably all come out eventually, though.



I don't know about the entire band, but Schaffer is. Early into the great recession he formed the Sons of Liberty project. The released album was highly critic all- of government, the banking industry and other things.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Man, I thought he always had good right-hand picking technique but I guess it was alt-right-hand picking technique the whole time...

/lame joke.

Your poor country.


----------



## dr_game0ver

He is even included in the Lego box set.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Rock4ever said:


> I don't know about the entire band, but Schaffer is. Early into the great recession he formed the Sons of Liberty project. The released album was highly critic all- of government, the banking industry and other things.


Ripper definitely got more right-leaning after being in Iced Earth. Stu seems to be on the same track.


----------



## ArtDecade

Where is Elizabeth from Knoxville?


----------



## bostjan

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Ripper definitely got more right-leaning after being in Iced Earth. Stu seems to be on the same track.


So it's contagious?!


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Honestly, I'm not expecting to make any friends saying this but the Biden administration needs to be heavy handed at this. This might invoke fears of NK or China or Russia or Iran, but these places where they organize and recruit, like Parler and the Chans (and even Facebook) need to be busted up, along with the hate groups that are feeding this stuff like the Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Qanon, etc. This is exactly like al qaeda and ISIS online radicalizing and recruitment tools.


I mean, not only did Trump botch his coup (I agree with you, didn't fully appreciate the importance of the DoD shakeup at the time, though in part that was because there was so much else to watch at once), he also basically handed Biden his own head on a silver platter. 

Biden has reasons to not want to be seen as prosecuting the opposition, sure. But, he no longer _has_ to. All Biden has to do is call for a congressional inquiry into how a "mob of insurgents" was able to get into the Capitol, which is a pretty reasonable and necessary thing for Congress to support, considering they were the ones put at risk by this series of failures. 

And, it's not hard to follow the breadcrumbs. Trump held a rally an hour before the vote count, in front of the White House. Giuliani called for "trial by combat" to prove Trump had won. Trump told them they had to fight for him, and to march on the Capitol. The Capitol, guarded by federal police that ultimately report to Trump, was woefully underprepared, despite some symbolic perimeters that were put up. When the perimeter was breached, calls for the National Guard to come in were turned down by Trump-appointed acting DoD officials for about 90 minutes, before _Pence_ finally ordered them in. The Capitol fell into militant hands for the first time since 1814, and the violence did manage to stop the count for about 8 hours, but a more organized force probably could have done a lot worse - held members of Congress hostage or summarily executed them, had they not been mostly evacuated before the building fell. 

Trump absolutely whipped up a crowd and sent them to the US Capitol as a final attempt to hold onto power. An investigation into how the Capitol's defenses failed will make this clear as day. 

This is a pretty sobering read: 
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1



> "The supporters, many dressed in military attire and waving revolutionary-style flags, then storm the building where the federal law-enforcement agencies controlled by the current president do not establish a security cordon, and the protesters quickly overwhelm the last line of police.
> 
> "The president then makes a public statement to the supporters attacking the Capitol that he loves them but doesn't really tell them to stop," the official said. "*Today I am briefing my government that we believe with a reasonable level of certainty that Donald Trump attempted a coup that failed when the system did not buckle."*
> 
> "I can't believe this happened."


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

bostjan said:


> So it's contagious?!



Jon seems like the kind of guy to shove his beliefs down your throat. 

He also threatened to not tour Europe back when This Glorious Burden was released because it got lambasted for being in poor taste due to the timing of the release and the material.


----------



## BenjaminW

Thaeon said:


> I have to remind them, that the people on the other side feel the same about them and their views. That no one wins when we see democrat or republican individuals as enemies.


Pretty much stresses the importance of compromise/unity/etc right here.

I know politics has always been a very divisive, but the last few years have really gone to show how truly divisive it can be IMO.


----------



## ArtDecade

I hope Jon looks good in orange jumpsuits.


----------



## nightflameauto

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88737



Thing is, it's not so much a new age as it's just a steady progression of things that have been happening for nearly as long as I've been alive. Yeah, OK, full-blown coup attempt is an easy place to stick the pin and say, "It all started here," but for those paying attention it's been building up to this for a long, long time. A not insignificant portion of the public are fed up with our government. I consider myself a part of that camp, but I don't have any easy answers as to what the solution needs to be.

Unfortunately, a segment of that portion of the public that are fed up are also either undereducated or easily swayed by ideologues and conspiracies into believing things that don't seem to bare any semblance to the reality that's actually around them. And once you start to slide down that rabbit hole, it's a fast trip into . . . what we witnessed in Washington this week.

My real question is, what's the solution? I mean, how do we educate people to filter information based on evidence, facts, and/or reality? To them, at this point, those of us seeking to have a rational conversation based on facts, merit, and intelligent discourse are raving fucking lunatics because we DON'T believe the election was stolen from Trump. How do you cross that divide in a calm and rational manner? I don't even know how to do that with my father-in-law and my dad at this point. Don't even know where to start when you start thinking about the larger group.

What's truly sad is the folks I know that are in that camp didn't start life as uneducated. My dad's college educated, and a CPA that recently retired from a company he was a founding member of that's been massively successful. Yet, somehow, he's been sucked into some of this. And you can't have a rational conversation with him about it without him starting to spew vitriol about the Democrats being a secret cult for blah blah blah. It's just impossible to have that conversation in a rational way when it immediately spins into that nonsense. I just check my brain out and let him spew to avoid turning into the opposite but equal insane person.

How do we fix the divide at this point? Or is the answer that we don't and we're just waiting for the inevitable civil war?


----------



## bostjan

How do you fix crazy? With meds? Maybe this sounds insane as well, but, maybe, perhaps, just a possibility, that Americans are so off-the-wall insane because they stopped taking their medicine back when pharmaceutical prices in the USA started getting out-of-hand. Maybe we can't just blame pharma for that, either, since the average American's income isn't what it used to be when we were more productive, which leads us back to why Trump got elected in the first place...


----------



## BenjaminW

nightflameauto said:


> Unfortunately, a segment of that portion of the public that are fed up are also either undereducated or easily swayed by ideologues and conspiracies into believing things that don't seem to bare any semblance to the reality that's actually around them. And once you start to slide down that rabbit hole, it's a fast trip into . . . what we witnessed in Washington this week.
> 
> My real question is, what's the solution? I mean, how do we educate people to filter information based on evidence, facts, and/or reality? To them, at this point, those of us seeking to have a rational conversation based on facts, merit, and intelligent discourse are raving fucking lunatics because we DON'T believe the election was stolen from Trump. How do you cross that divide in a calm and rational manner? I don't even know how to do that with my father-in-law and my dad at this point. Don't even know where to start when you start thinking about the larger group.
> 
> What's truly sad is the folks I know that are in that camp didn't start life as uneducated. My dad's college educated, and a CPA that recently retired from a company he was a founding member of that's been massively successful. Yet, somehow, he's been sucked into some of this. And you can't have a rational conversation with him about it without him starting to spew vitriol about the Democrats being a secret cult for blah blah blah. It's just impossible to have that conversation in a rational way when it immediately spins into that nonsense. I just check my brain out and let him spew to avoid turning into the opposite but equal insane person.
> 
> How do we fix the divide at this point? Or is the answer that we don't and we're just waiting for the inevitable civil war?


I'd mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I'll mention it here again:

I follow Fox News on Instagram, and the comment section on posts is full of the raving lunatics you bring up. I mean I used to be a Trump supporter up until recently, and had no problem with it because it was full of people who share similar/the same views as me. But I just got to this point where I started to question what I was reading in the comments, and all it really is more than anything is just a nice little hotbed for Trump supporters who are 10000x more loyal to him than I ever was and basically gobble everything up there as Gospel. It's just crazy and almost even toxic honestly.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

oldbulllee said:


> you dont get it. they are the martyrs here, in case it goes bad for them.



I get it. But that doesn't remove my astonishment at their lack of any rationale. That's what I was getting at with my post.


----------



## StevenC

So there are currently 5 deaths from this terrorist attack:

Female terrorist shot by CP
Male terrorist who accidentally tasered himself to death while stealing painting
Male terrorist falling from scaffolding while trying to access Capitol
Female terrorist trampled to death while holding "Don't Tread On Me" flag
And CPD officer who died from injuries from terrorists.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> How do you fix crazy? With meds? Maybe this sounds insane as well, but, maybe, perhaps, just a possibility, that Americans are so off-the-wall insane because they stopped taking their medicine back when pharmaceutical prices in the USA started getting out-of-hand. Maybe we can't just blame pharma for that, either, since the average American's income isn't what it used to be when we were more productive, which leads us back to why Trump got elected in the first place...


In all honesty, the wreckless prescription of psychotropics in America may have lead to some of this. I get that some people do need a little chemical tweak to keep things in line, but it seems like there's way more prescribed than what's needed. My mom's ended up in the mental institutions several times over her life due to prescription psychotropic use (which leads to abuse in some cases with her and others). I could easily see somebody that gets to the mental state of believing the trekkers are coming to kill us all and we need to stand perfectly on the judgement board to avoid being decimated by the kill ray could read some of these loony conspiracies and buy in whole-heartedly. And yes, that's one of the stories she told me one time when I went to visit her there.

Though I won't discount the possibility those that truly need the meds to stay rational could be losing access due to cost and insurance fuckery and those folks would be just as likely to end up in the mental state my mom gets herself to from time to time. I'd say the folks in the ward with her were fairly evenly balanced between those that needed meds and refused to take them, and those that didn't need as much as they took, along with a smattering of those that had temporary behavioral issues for non chemical reasons. Some of them had some wonderful stories as well.

The story up-thread about security failures probably being planned isn't really a shocker. There were enough levels of failure that a full investigation will likely lead to some heads rolling, either figuratively or literally, depending on what charges they decide to levy in the end. I wouldn't doubt that some involved will be tried for treason, as it's clear their intentions were to tear down a staple of the United States institutional procedures. And despite Trump's insistence otherwise, treason is acts against the country, not acts against Donald Trump.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Female terrorist trampled to death while holding "Don't Tread On Me" flag


Is that really how she died? I mean, it's horrible either way. I won't say anything else about that...


StevenC said:


> And CPD officer who died from injuries from terrorists.


I had read reports that he died from a stroke.


----------



## Thaeon

StevenC said:


> So there are currently 5 deaths from this terrorist attack:
> 
> Female terrorist shot by CP
> Male terrorist who accidentally tasered himself to death while stealing painting
> Male terrorist falling from scaffolding while trying to access Capitol
> Female terrorist trampled to death while holding "Don't Tread On Me" flag
> And CPD officer who died from injuries from terrorists.



So what you’re saying is we’ll be handing out a few Darwin Awards?

BTW: I heard that guy tazed himself in the nuts.


----------



## BenjaminW

Thaeon said:


> BTW: I heard that guy tazed himself in the nuts.


Pretty _nutty_ way to die if you ask me.

In all seriousness though, how the hell does that even happen?


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Is that really how she died? I mean, it's horrible either way. I won't say anything else about that...
> 
> I had read reports that he died from a stroke.


I can't confirm the validity of the websites reporting the news, NY Post for example, but seemingly so. Roseanne Boyland.

BBC is saying injuries from riot was the cause of death for the CPD officer.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> How do we fix the divide at this point? Or is the answer that we don't and we're just waiting for the inevitable civil war?


High level, these are the problems I see we have to address: 

1) Our political system encorages extremism. Incumbents usually are at far more risk in the primaries than in the general elections. This promotes idealogical purity. 
2) It has become _extremely_ easy to filter news sources to the degree that you only see information and editorial content that fits into your worldview. In an echo chamber, you can be lied to and have no way to even become aware what you're hearing from literally all around you is a lie. 
3) Economic conditions are not atrocious... but bad enough that a large part of this country can look around and feel like their lives _haven't_ gotten better in the last ten years, and want answers. This feeds 1) and 2).


----------



## bostjan

Thaeon said:


> So what you’re saying is we’ll be handing out a few Darwin Awards?
> 
> BTW: I heard that guy tazed himself in the nuts.


Ok, just saw the reports:

Ashli Babbitt, a QAnnon conspiracy theorist, shot in the neck and bled out.
Kevin Greeson, after posting on social media about using gun violence to overthrow congress, tasered himself accidentally in the testicles and had a heart attack.
Benjamin Phillips, founder of Trumparoo, died of a stroke.
Roseanne Boyland, project Veritas activist and anti-vaxxer, was crushed to death after several large men stepped on her.

The officer who was killed was struck with a fire extinguisher and suffered a stroke. Some video of other officers suffering crushing injuries are now being posted.

But the people rioting were all "antifa," right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But the people rioting were all "antifa," right?


It's a well-known fact that Project Veritas is a false-flag antifa operation that only went after Planned Parenthood to make it _look_ like they weren't liberal.


----------



## thraxil

StevenC said:


> I can't confirm the validity of the websites reporting the news, NY Post for example, but seemingly so. Roseanne Boyland.



Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical about those funny/ironic details like the guy tazing himself or the woman being trampled with a "don't tread on me flag". Those really stink of the kind of rumour that spreads rapidly online because people want it to be true. And since this whole thing was largely driven by BS conspiracy theories and rumours spread online, I think we all ought to be a little careful about not contributing to that problem.


----------



## Thaeon

thraxil said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical about those funny/ironic details like the guy tazing himself or the woman being trampled with a "don't tread on me flag". Those really stink of the kind of rumour that spreads rapidly online because people want it to be true. And since this whole thing was largely driven by BS conspiracy theories and rumours spread online, I think we all ought to be a little careful about not contributing to that problem.



I mean, the Darwin Awards are well deserved for those involved in the coup regardless. What did they think was gonna happen?

I said that I heard that he tazed himself in the nuts. I can neither confirm nor deny that. If this is verified though, I may or may not be the asshole that laughs about it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Thaeon said:


> I mean, the Darwin Awards are well deserved for those involved in the coup regardless. What did they think was gonna happen?
> 
> I said that I heard that he tazed himself in the nuts. I can neither confirm nor deny that. If this is verified though, I may or may not be the asshole that laughs about it.


Seeing as how this entire past year played out like a poorly written dark comedy, I could see it happening. I would be interested in knowing exactly HOW you pull that off, but if he did, man, what a beautifully fitting exclamation point on that whole endeavor.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

bostjan said:


> So it's contagious?!



**insert "always has been" meme**


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> Seeing as how this entire past year played out like a poorly written dark comedy, I could see it happening. I would be interested in knowing exactly HOW you pull that off, but if he did, man, what a beautifully fitting exclamation point on that whole endeavor.


I could reasonably believe someone trying to steal a painting from the Capitol would stick the taser in a trouser pocket and accidentally actuate it. As much as I understand these guys are passionate about playing dress up and make believe soldier, as a child I readily holstered toy guns in pockets instead of more appropriate locations.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> But the people rioting were all "antifa," right?



Which is hilarious considering these are pretty much all known alt-right personalities that have attended several pro-Trump events and have blogs/sites/channels with their face all over it.

It's not like these are masked banditos lighting fire to buildings under the cover of night, the fuckin guy wore a fuckin buffalo headdress and stood in the middle of everything, and the other one did a photo op with his feet on Nancy Pelosis desk and another with a picture stealing the goddamn podium.

The two things at play here are the total inability to take even the slightest responsibility and twisting this into another example of self sustaining evidence of false flag/cointel/deep state undermining. That, and basically boomers saying "look! Obviously they're antifa, look at how there a bunch of unkempt, raucous millennials!" basically trying to disown the entire alt-right movement that put Trump in the White House in the first place.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Trump has been banned from twitter permanently.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Which is hilarious considering these are pretty much all known alt-right personalities that have attended several pro-Trump events and have blogs/sites/channels with their face all over it.
> 
> It's not like these are masked banditos lighting fire to buildings under the cover of night, the fuckin guy wore a fuckin buffalo headdress and stood in the middle of everything, and the other one did a photo op with his feet on Nancy Pelosis desk and another with a picture stealing the goddamn podium.
> 
> The two things at play here are the total inability to take even the slightest responsibility and twisting this into another example of self sustaining evidence of false flag/cointel/deep state undermining. That, and basically boomers saying "look! Obviously they're antifa, look at how there a bunch of unkempt, raucous millennials!" basically trying to disown the entire alt-right movement that put Trump in the White House in the first place.



Yet nearly every last boomer spouting said distancing nonsense would cheer at a Richard Spencer rally.


----------



## bostjan

It's the "No True Trump Supporter" fallacy.

Examples: "He's not a Trump supporter, he's antifa!" "_But he was waiving around a Trump 2020 flag while he was publicly urinating on Pelosi's office door!_" "Well, no 'true' Trump supporter would have done that in public, so, obviously, antifa!"

"He's not a Trump supporter, he's a liberal!" "_But he has been a registered Republican for decades, worked with both the Bush and Romney campaigns, and was chosen personally by Trump for that position after working with Trump during the 2016 election!_" "Well, no 'true' Trump supporter would have ever worked with Romney, so, liberal."


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...ook&utm_medium=news_tab&utm_content=algorithm

And here are the articles of impeachment.

Also, the medication thing.... I'm not saying legalizing marijuana would help things...... But I'm not NOT saying that....


----------



## fantom

Holy shit the FBI arrested and charged Derrick Evans. There is hope.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/derrick-evans-arrested-west-virginia-federal-charges-capitol-riot/


----------



## groverj3

Donald's off Twitter finally:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/tech/trump-twitter-ban/index.html


----------



## Randy

4 years too late, Jack.


----------



## Zhysick

But... has it been confirmed it's him? I mean, in the pic it really looks like him but... 

I follow(ed) Stu Block on Facebook but he is not condemning what happened... that's not a right move.

Well, it's right but not right.

You know what I mean...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Zhysick said:


> But... has it been confirmed it's him? I mean, in the pic it really looks like him but...
> 
> I follow(ed) Stu Block on Facebook but he is not condemning what happened... that's not a right move.
> 
> Well, it's right but not right.
> 
> You know what I mean...



Stu confirmed it was him. There's no way they didn't know beforehand.


----------



## Randy

Hmmm totally non violent, non seditious visit to the Capitol while Congress was in session certifying the election results. That's why you smashed in windows and broke into the Senate chambers carrying zip cuffs


----------



## Randy

It's stupid, I'm done trying to reason with this bullshit. In 5,000 years of civilization I've never seen this idea of trying to person by person explain away an attempted violent overthrow of the government.


----------



## SpaceDock

IDK you guys, kinda worried that taking away Trumps mouthpiece over the weekend might be what makes him go totally nuts. Hopefully they already told the nuclear football guy not to take any commands!


----------



## Zhysick

Oh, so it's confirmed it was Jon... ok, that's shit.

I mean, I knew he has political ideas that I didn't like but that is one thing and another is attacking the democracy.

Shit.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Roseanne Boyland, project Veritas activist and anti-vaxxer, was crushed to death after several large men trod on her.


FTFY.


----------



## NotDonVito

I thought Stu was Canadian.. or at least his old band was from Canada.. now I want to go listen to Into Eternity


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> It's stupid, I'm done trying to reason with this bullshit. In 5,000 years of civilization I've never seen this idea of trying to person by person explain away an attempted violent overthrow of the government.


It's so mind-numbing. Like I hate thinking or talking about it, but in a way you can't stop yourself from thinking/talking about it cause it's so insane.


SpaceDock said:


> IDK you guys, kinda worried that taking away Trumps mouthpiece over the weekend might be what makes him go totally nuts. Hopefully they already told the nuclear football guy not to take any commands!


I'm a little curious/worried what's gonna happen for Trump post-presidency. Either he's gonna figure out that constantly running your mouth is gonna fuel the flames to his reputation, or he's just gonna continue being himself.


----------



## Zhysick

NotDonVito said:


> I thought Stu was Canadian.. or at least his old band was from Canada.. now I want to go listen to Into Eternity



He is Canadian


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> Holy shit the FBI arrested and charged Derrick Evans. There is hope.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/derrick-evans-arrested-west-virginia-federal-charges-capitol-riot/



"Pfsh, you mean the liberal-headed FBI, full of people who hate Trump?" - racist uncle Leroy


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

NotDonVito said:


> I thought Stu was Canadian.. or at least his old band was from Canada.. now I want to go listen to Into Eternity



He is. In fact he said he's in Canada while all this is going on.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/j...is-deeply-shocked-by-violence-at-u-s-capitol/

Wow, Hansi pulled no punches. Good on him.



Spoiler



Nah they gave a generic ass statement and didn't even mention Jon


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> IDK you guys, kinda worried that taking away Trumps mouthpiece over the weekend might be what makes him go totally nuts. Hopefully they already told the nuclear football guy not to take any commands!



Ah shit...what was the code... think think... man woman man? ...no, no... man person camera tv? ...ddammit


----------



## Zhysick

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/j...is-deeply-shocked-by-violence-at-u-s-capitol/
> 
> Wow, Hansi pulled no punches. Good on him.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Nah they gave a generic ass statement and didn't even mention Jon



I didn't realised your "spoiler" button and I was reading the blabbermouth shitty note like 10 times looking for his statement  I think is time to go to bed (1:42 am here right now and it was a long day at work...)


----------



## Wuuthrad

To me it’s part of the natural cycle of life in America. We’ve certainly been here before!

People often say “this is not who we are,” yet when that bubble bursts I sincerely hope the result is a clearer view, and a subsequent lifting of the veil.


A little historical precedent, from the NYT:

_The Capitol Police force is charged solely with protecting the Capitol and surrounding grounds.

Over the course of two centuries, the force has evolved, its mission shifting and growing with the nature of the threats to the institution.

An event that had one of the most profound impacts on the force played out on March 1, 1954, when Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire from the visitor’s gallery on lawmakers below, wounding five. Shortly afterward, the police were issued weapons for the first time.

Exactly 17 years later, on March 1, 1971, an explosion ripped through a ground-floor restroom in the Senate wing. The Weather Underground, a militant left-wing group that carried out a series of bombings in the late 1960s and 1970s, took responsibility. The incident led to the requirement of checking all visitors for weapons and explosives.

The first recorded death of a member of the force was in 1984, when Sgt. Christopher Eney, 37, was killed during a training exercise.

The last time a Capitol Police officer was killed in the line of duty was in the summer of 1998, when Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John Gibson were fatally shot by Russell Eugene Weston Jr., a man tormented by visions of an oppressive federal government.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/...apitol-dies.html?referringSource=articleShare
_

To me there’s almost a bit of simple math: The end result of all this division is reduction of numbers, and a marginalization or sort of distillation of ideologies that might otherwise affect some institutional change, but because of the intensity and resultant fear of the actions of a few fringe elements, the majority is content with a regression to the mean or average.

We can hope otherwise as the vote results certainly show a substantial shift, and let us not forget the more important historical precedent set on Tuesday in Georgia, when compared to the “staged” coup attempt!


----------



## MASS DEFECT

No surprise there. Dude has been cosplaying General Lee, writing about Gettysburg and the Confederates etc. Now he is full on Sandra Araya. 

When the eagle criiiiiieeeees! F this guy.


----------



## Stealth7

How awkward would it be if Matt Barlow arrests him? lol


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Stealth7 said:


> How awkward would it be if Matt Barlow arrests him? lol



"Oh hey Matt! You're ready to record more music? Maybe something for easter? ...Matt? Why are you carrying zip ties?"


----------



## Randy

Video surfaces of Oregon GOP Rep holding state Capitol door open for protestors

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/533460-video-surfaces-of-orgeon-gop-rep-holding-capitol-door-open-for


----------



## spudmunkey

I can't wait for his new social media app, Trump Media..because you know that's what it'll be called. How much do you think the monthly fee will be?


----------



## Randy

He's gonna keep daring Republicans to 25th or impeach him. He just keeps cranking the vise on them.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## oldbulllee

High Plains Drifter said:


> I get it. But that doesn't remove my astonishment at their lack of any rationale. That's what I was getting at with my post.


martyrs in the sense: here, my beloved ones, i'm off to DC to do this thing for all of you. if i fall in the field of battle thing are going south for all of us.


----------



## ImNotAhab

I love that on the 51st second of the 59th minute of the 11th hour, Social Media platforms decide Trump has driven enough traffic to their garbage and they suddenly find a conscience and remove his accounts. 

Same with certain people in in his administration suddenly deciding the line has been crossed just now, and not in four years of scorched and salted earth.

Absolute parasitic smegma farmers.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mastapimp

sleewell said:


> my old boss told me yesterday with a straight face he thought antifa was to blame for storming the capitol.


Please tell me your old boss ran the Tilt-o-whirl at the traveling carnival.


----------



## BenjaminW

In regards the whole Antifa being the ones breaking into the Capitol and not Trump supporters, I can't imagine there'd be that many Antifa people who would be willing to disguise themselves in MAGA gear and break into the Capitol.


----------



## Science_Penguin

BenjaminW said:


> In regards the whole Antifa being the ones breaking into the Capitol and not Trump supporters, I can't imagine there'd be that many Antifa people who would be willing to disguise themselves in MAGA gear and break into the Capitol.



Can I just say that just makes me friggin sick?

You got all these "Rebel" confederate flag-wanking, Civil War Participation Trophy-loving types always going on and on about how they need to uphold the 2nd Amendment in the event they need to overthrow the tyrranical government, a day which they are apparently looking forward to with glee, and yet the moment it looks like it could be the beginning of Civil War 2, they go right back to playing the "law abiding citizen," and acting like the people doing what they've been saying they want to do for years now are just leftist double-agents trying to give them bad PR!

"Rebels" my ass!


----------



## BenjaminW

Science_Penguin said:


> Can I just say that just makes me friggin sick?
> 
> You got all these "Rebel" confederate flag-wanking, Civil War Participation Trophy-loving types always going on and on about how they need to uphold the 2nd Amendment in the event they need to overthrow the tyrranical government, a day which they are apparently looking forward to with glee, and yet the moment it looks like it could be the beginning of Civil War 2, they go right back to playing the "law abiding citizen," and acting like the people doing what they've been saying they want to do for years now are just leftist double-agents trying to give them bad PR!
> 
> "Rebels" my ass!


Never been crazy about the whole Confederate shtick, never will be. All they’re doing is arguing a lost cause that’s been around since 1865.


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> Never been crazy about the whole Confederate shtick, never will be. All they’re doing is arguing a lost cause that’s been around since 1865.


They lost that war about owning people. Confederate flags are participation trophies for racists, fascists, and losers.


----------



## groverj3

I'm geniunely surprised we haven't heard anything about him getting picked up by the authorities yet. They already arrested several people today. I'm sure he won't be far behind as he's actually a recognizable figure and I'm sure someone knows where he lives.

Then again, judging by his whole "oathkeeper" schtick, he's probably hiding out with those losers now and armed waiting to have their Alamo at some guy named Chet's trailer in the woods of southern Indiana.


----------



## spudmunkey

Things that lasted longer then The Confederacy: RuPaul's Drag Race


----------



## manu80

Double post my bad


----------



## manu80

Triple post sorry


----------



## Winspear

Zhysick said:


> I follow(ed) Stu Block on Facebook but he is not condemning what happened... that's not a right move.


See page 1 bottom


----------



## spudmunkey

http://www.TwitterTotalLandscaping.com


----------



## High Plains Drifter




----------



## possumkiller




----------



## Zhysick

Winspear said:


> See page 1 bottom


 
That's why I say he is not condemning what's happened, or is my understanding wrong? 

"and where in my statement would you get that impression?" that answer to "are you condemning what happened today?" make me understand that he is not condemning what happened. Maybe I got it wrong...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

]


----------



## Ericjutsu

JSanta said:


> You mean ignored in that Tim Lambesis spent two years in prison? Or how the singer of LostProphets was incarcerated for at least 14 years? When people break the law, or participate in an armed insurrection, they need to be punished. If this idiot from Iced Earth is found guilty, he deserves whatever punishment is given.
> 
> We can go back historically, and a lot of famous musicians and actors were basically able to get away with everything. Times are different now, thankfully.


not saying he shouldn't be punished if found guilty.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## diagrammatiks

Zhysick said:


> That's why I say he is not condemning what's happened, or is my understanding wrong?
> 
> "and where in my statement would you get that impression?" that answer to "are you condemning what happened today?" make me understand that he is not condemning what happened. Maybe I got it wrong...



i wonder in what way this woman thinks moving to norway will improve her situation.

like where can anyone move that will let them be more batshit insane.


----------



## Zhysick

Randy said:


> Hmmm totally non violent, non seditious visit to the Capitol while Congress was in session certifying the election results. That's why you smashed in windows and broke into the Senate chambers carrying zip cuffs



Is that a weapon M4A1 kinda thing on the flag of his cap? What does that belong to?


----------



## Zhysick

diagrammatiks said:


> i wonder in what way this woman thinks moving to norway will improve her situation.
> 
> like where can anyone move that will let them be more batshit insane.



Well, I would very much prefer living in Norway than in USA for pretty obvious reasons. First one is that Trump is not the president of Norway


----------



## diagrammatiks

Zhysick said:


> Well, I would very much prefer living in Norway than in USA for pretty obvious reasons. First one is that Trump is not the president of Norway



i'm just thinking like...liberals can really flee to any other country and be pretty ok.
what other country would allow the alt right to be so batshit insane. definitely not norway.


----------



## Triple-J

Alt-right folk pine for Norway because they often see Norway, sweden etc as imaginary utopias of whiteness and viking/nordic culture has been hijacked by them in recent years. 

BTW Tommy Vext has apparently quit Bad Wolves now so...if Schaffer doesn't go to jail maybe they can start a new band with Alex Jones on drums?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Triple-J said:


> Alt-right folk pine for Norway because they often see Norway, sweden etc as imaginary utopias of whiteness and viking/nordic culture has been hijacked by them in recent years.
> 
> BTW Tommy Vext has apparently quit Bad Wolves now so...if Schaffer doesn't go to jail maybe they can start a new band with Alex Jones on drums?



I'm guessing Doc finally got on Vext's dumbass. That and IIRC Vext was accused of abuse a month ago.


----------



## Zhysick

diagrammatiks said:


> i'm just thinking like...liberals can really flee to any other country and be pretty ok.
> what other country would allow the alt right to be so batshit insane. definitely not norway.



I just thought that if she wants to flee is because she doesn't agree with he coup. Language barrier I guess as I understood the opposite.

And he alt-right is very happy in almost every country in Europe for the last 6 or 7 years...


----------



## Spicypickles

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88776


This is a class A joke.


----------



## odibrom

Zhysick said:


> (...)
> 
> And he alt-right is very happy in almost every country in Europe for the last 6 or 7 years...



... unfortunately... the Mediterranean migrant crises a few years ago boosted their visibility and their numbers...

But we Europeans should look inside, because this is only a mirror of everyone's stupidity. Give them the motifs and energy and we'll see the same in German, Itally, France, UK and so on...


----------



## technomancer

At least some of these wingnuts have outed themselves so my money can go elsewhere... can't financially support anyone that thinks storming the capitol to stop the conclusion of an election is in any way acceptable. Then again he was already on the do not support list after his stupidity about the pandemic.


----------



## Randy

Looks like the girl that was trampled WAS carrying a 'Don't Tread On Me" flag

https://www.rawstory.com/rosanne-boyland-capitol/


----------



## odibrom

technomancer said:


> At least some of these wingnuts have outed themselves so my money can go elsewhere... can't financially support anyone that thinks storming the capitol to stop the conclusion of an election is in any way acceptable. Then again he was already on the do not support list after his stupidity about the pandemic.
> 
> Sadly a bunch of guys who I like musically have fallen into the "I can't financially support this clown" camp. The irony being that I really am not a liberal and honestly think both extremes are pretty much nuts.



The Yin Yang symbol that represents the harmony of opposites speaks about the extremes being "the same", that's why there is a white dot in the big black and a black dot in the big white. Either political extremes resolve in dictatorships, so none is good.

Regarding those musicians who fell out of your train, can you name some...?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

odibrom said:


> Regarding those musicians who fell out of your train, can you name some...?



I'm gonna throw in John Sykes for apparently being another conspiracy loon (5G, covid, Bill Gates, etc).


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Looks like the girl that was trampled WAS carrying a 'Don't Tread On Me" flag
> 
> https://www.rawstory.com/rosanne-boyland-capitol/


That was one of the sites I found reporting it, but have never heard of Raw Story before so wasn't sure about them.


----------



## ChrisRushing

odibrom said:


> The Yin Yang symbol that represents the harmony of opposites speaks about the extremes being "the same", that's why there is a white dot in the big black and a black dot in the big white. Either political extremes resolve in dictatorships, so none is good.
> 
> Regarding those musicians who fell out of your train, can you name some...?




Same concept with the "Horseshoe Theory" ....far left and the far right are much closer together than the people closer to the "center". I never cared for Iced Earth anyways but this isn't surprising at all. There are people with these views everywhere in all walks of life. They have just been feeling a lot more bold the last four years. 
As much as I love Pantera...some of their imagery and the things Phil has said/done through the years have been less than stellar in my opinion.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> That was one of the sites I found reporting it, but have never heard of Raw Story before so wasn't sure about them.



It's a tabloid but generally just aggregating stories from other larger places anyway, not much a place manufacturing stories like Breitbart or something.

Anyway, there are pretty high res pics that show her


----------



## technomancer

odibrom said:


> The Yin Yang symbol that represents the harmony of opposites speaks about the extremes being "the same", that's why there is a white dot in the big black and a black dot in the big white. Either political extremes resolve in dictatorships, so none is good.
> 
> Regarding those musicians who fell out of your train, can you name some...?



_content deleted due to early senility _

I just wish people would smarten up and realize that if your concept of what is going on involves a vast conspiracy of people with opposing ideologies working together you are more than likely off base. Or a conspiracy involving most of the medical professionals on the planet etc etc etc. Claiming there is "incontrovertible evidence" over and over and over without actually presenting any actual evidence doesn't cut it.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I'm gonna throw in John Sykes for apparently being another conspiracy loon (5G, covid, Bill Gates, etc).



Sykes' last song was cringe conspiracy stuff, but unless the new album (assuming there ever is one) is full of it I can give that a pass as just a song about something without feeling like he's going around promoting that crap. You can write songs about stuff without it being your ideology, for example I don't think Scar Symmetry actually thinks evil lizard people are running the world but they do have an album about it.


----------



## oldbulllee

i'm almost nostalgic about all this... but then, i get nostalgic when remembering the bombing. but im going on a tangent here.
damn. you know.... you people over there lost a touch with reality a little bit. it is not an exclusive of shitty countries like my own, to get its institutions broken down, and then ltiterally burnt down.


----------



## oldbulllee

i can't think of a non offensive way to put it, so fuck it: why are so meny of these protesters unsightly? as in ugly?


----------



## philkilla

oldbulllee said:


> i can't think of a non offensive way to put it, so fuck it: why are so meny of these protesters unsightly? as in ugly?



Probably inbreeding.


----------



## oldbulllee

odibrom said:


> ... unfortunately... the Mediterranean migrant crises a few years ago boosted their visibility and their numbers...
> 
> But we Europeans should look inside, because this is only a mirror of everyone's stupidity. Give them the motifs and energy and we'll see the same in German, Itally, France, UK and so on...


this. in serbia for example, there was always a relatively large number of right leaning people, and in the past decade their numbers have increased.both the extremists, and the more " moderate" ones. and a shit ton of people who silently aprove, as it ALWAYS goes in hand with the patriotism bullshit.
i was sick of them then, am sick of it now. 
nothing to be done, as far as i can see.
the best thing for serbians would be what so meny of them have already figured out a long time ago. go someplace else. get at least a bit better standard of living, if not much healthier social environment. 
fuck man, tesla had to run away back then.
nowdays, i think the best thing to do for all of us that don't pass blood cell count for patriotic stamp, is to emigrate to iceland. leave serbia chok full of serbians with all capital letters. like in a slogan Serbia to SERBIANS.
oh, fuck off.


----------



## oldbulllee

i didn't want to write that.


----------



## Thaeon

oldbulllee said:


> i can't think of a non offensive way to put it, so fuck it: why are so meny of these protesters unsightly? as in ugly?




There are a lot of reason why I think this happens in the US, and none of them are very nice. I’m sure that in a lot of cases this isn’t true. On the average, I’m sure they were very average looking people. But I think that it often serves bias or rates to find the loudest hillbilly in the group to interview or photograph. America as a country is preoccupied with the surface value of things.


----------



## mmr007

The bad news is the wing nuts will be back on the 17th and the 20th and will be heavily armed. The good news in all of this is since many Rs in congress don't have a backbone and cant see that supporting this behavior is wrong, R money donors ARE finally getting a backbone and are threatening to cut off campaign funds to Rs who dont support impeachment

As far as musicians go I'm going to have to think long and hard on that one with regard to continued support Phil in particular as mentioned above. Politics in music don't matter to me (to a point) because I don't pay attention to lyrics. Although I am liberal I don't listen to RATM because they are... I actually don't agree with some of their politics (and honestly at this point I can't stand their music anymore either so I digress...)However I could never listen to a band no matter how awesome their music was if it preached or glorified a white supremacist ideology or alt right point of view or their members seemed actively intent on overthrowing our government during their free time between albums. I always defended being a huge fan of Hanneman because I loved Slayer's music (except the songs written by King then I hated Slayer's music) and justified the Nazi songs and imagery as being...nazi chic...not glorifying a message of nazis but using the evil they represent in the same way bands use imagery and lyrics about satan and demons. To shock and horrify. It is the ultimate scary boogeyman. But the devil is made up...nazis aren't and I have to go contemplate if wearing my slayer shirts or hoodies in public say something about me I that is obscene and not congruent with being a decent human being. Thanks to this fucker.....



I used to have a sticker kind of like that on my Hanneman guitar (not exactly the same but that sweatshirt is meant to reference a nazi totenkopf SS skull) because it was part of the Hanneman sticker set he had on his ESP. It bothered me at the time but again I justified as just making my guitar true to my hero just like you couldn't leave the period correct quarter off your EVH striped tribute.


(Not mine but I bought that same sticker set)


I still don't think Angel of Death glorifies nazis any more than dead skin mask glorifies pealing the skin off girls and using their limbs to make furniture like Ed Gein did, but I think right now is the time to focus more on being a decent American, being decent to each other, and be a good global citizen. I may have to seriously revisit my support of one of my favorite riff writers. It is time for this death cult to end. I'm gonna go listen to some 90's euro techno and then do something about the kids on my lawn again....


----------



## groverj3

oldbulllee said:


> i can't think of a non offensive way to put it, so fuck it: why are so meny of these protesters unsightly? as in ugly?


Also, a lot of them are lower on the socioeconomic ladder and without accessible healthcare, sufficient nutrition, and if you abuse alcohol, smoke, etc. you can start looking pretty bad.


----------



## oldbulllee

Thaeon said:


> There are a lot of reason why I think this happens in the US, and none of them are very nice. I’m sure that in a lot of cases this isn’t true. On the average, I’m sure they were very average looking people. But I think that it often serves bias or rates to find the loudest hillbilly in the group to interview or photograph. America as a country is preoccupied with the surface value of things.


i see what you mean... not that i look any better, TBH


----------



## oldbulllee

and another thing, entirely unrelated, i notice that what goes by " antifa" in US, is a bit different than around here. though, truth being told, when you draw some sort of a bottom line on it, it is a joke. a potentialy violent, destructive and deadly joke. i don't NECESSARILY disapprove of violent, destructive and even deadly part, but when it's acomplishing nothing but being BAD....
damn. 
sorry for the rant.


----------



## StevenC

oldbulllee said:


> i can't think of a non offensive way to put it, so fuck it: why are so meny of these protesters unsightly? as in ugly?


There is a tendency for radical groups to self-select less advantaged people.

Good looking, well off people don't need to search the bowels of the internet to reconcile their problems with the world because they have fewer problems. Wealthy people don't believe in lizard people, scientists don't believe the pharmaceutical industry is perpetuating disease and people with historical understanding don't think the EU is a Nazi plot.

Basement dwelling internet creatures are the target audience for misogynist, radical right groups. It can't be social ineptitude or the poor personal hygiene; it must be the liberals.

Not to say that society hasn't failed these people as well, that's definitely a concern. But while you can bring a horse to water, you can't make them drink.


----------



## Zhysick

odibrom said:


> ... unfortunately... the Mediterranean migrant crises a few years ago boosted their visibility and their numbers...
> 
> But we Europeans should look inside, because this is only a mirror of everyone's stupidity. Give them the motifs and energy and we'll see the same in German, Itally, France, UK and so on...



Yes, the migran crysis (that is still ongoing, at least here in Spain, this past 2020 the irregular immigration in the Canary Islands increased to a 512% compared to 2019) is fuel for their nazi declarations. Hungary and Poland denying any LTBGI rights, in Spain the dictator died en 1975 and they are still rising the fist shouting that "this would have never happened with Franco" (yeah, the dictacor could have stopped a global pandemic, the problem is that we have now a left-sided government so all is their fault), that Franco that was best buddy of Hitler and Mussolini... yeah, Europe is fucked up with the power the alt-right is gaining also.

These are not good times to be around...

Let's all go to New Zeland!


----------



## Thaeon

oldbulllee said:


> and another thing, entirely unrelated, i notice that what goes by " antifa" in US, is a bit different than around here. though, truth being told, when you draw some sort of a bottom line on it, it is a joke. a potentialy violent, destructive and deadly joke. i don't NECESSARILY disapprove of violent, destructive and even deadly part, but when it's acomplishing nothing but being BAD....
> damn.
> sorry for the rant.



Most people not in echo chambers in the US understand that Antifa means anyone who is against fascism. Anything that has a label though becomes an easy target for fear mongering and misinformation when people blindly trust news outlets because they echo their own bias.


----------



## possumkiller

oldbulllee said:


> i see what you mean... not that i look any better, TBH


Don't worry. Apparently trump was pretty disappointed in their looks as well. He thought they made his coup look too low class.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

mmr007 said:


> The bad news is the wing nuts will be back on the 17th and the 20th and will be heavily armed. The good news in all of this is since many Rs in congress don't have a backbone and cant see that supporting this behavior is wrong, R money donors ARE finally getting a backbone and are threatening to cut off campaign funds to Rs who dont support impeachment
> 
> As far as musicians go I'm going to have to think long and hard on that one with regard to continued support Phil in particular as mentioned above. Politics in music don't matter to me (to a point) because I don't pay attention to lyrics. Although I am liberal I don't listen to RATM because they are... I actually don't agree with some of their politics (and honestly at this point I can't stand their music anymore either so I digress...)However I could never listen to a band no matter how awesome their music was if it preached or glorified a white supremacist ideology or alt right point of view or their members seemed actively intent on overthrowing our government during their free time between albums. I always defended being a huge fan of Hanneman because I loved Slayer's music (except the songs written by King then I hated Slayer's music) and justified the Nazi songs and imagery as being...nazi chic...not glorifying a message of nazis but using the evil they represent in the same way bands use imagery and lyrics about satan and demons. To shock and horrify. It is the ultimate scary boogeyman. But the devil is made up...nazis aren't and I have to go contemplate if wearing my slayer shirts or hoodies in public say something about me I that is obscene and not congruent with being a decent human being. Thanks to this fucker.....
> 
> View attachment 88781
> 
> I used to have a sticker kind of like that on my Hanneman guitar (not exactly the same but that sweatshirt is meant to reference a nazi totenkopf SS skull) because it was part of the Hanneman sticker set he had on his ESP. It bothered me at the time but again I justified as just making my guitar true to my hero just like you couldn't leave the period correct quarter off your EVH striped tribute.
> View attachment 88783
> 
> (Not mine but I bought that same sticker set)
> 
> 
> I still don't think Angel of Death glorifies nazis any more than dead skin mask glorifies pealing the skin off girls and using their limbs to make furniture like Ed Gein did, but I think right now is the time to focus more on being a decent American, being decent to each other, and be a good global citizen. I may have to seriously revisit my support of one of my favorite riff writers. It is time for this death cult to end. I'm gonna go listen to some 90's euro techno and then do something about the kids on my lawn again....



Tom Araya is a Covidiot, Conspiracy nut and Parler Trumper now, though. Kinda soured me on listening to Slayer. When I listen to it now, couldnt help to think the singer is an idiot.


----------



## lurè

It's so sad to see european politics turning against irregular immigration when europeans hobby for the last 5 centuries has been colonizing and exploiting every country they could put their feet on.


----------



## lurè

MASS DEFECT said:


> Tom Araya is a Covidiot, Conspiracy nut and Parler Trumper now, though. Kinda soured me on listening to Slayer. When I listen to it now, couldnt help to think the singer is an idiot.



We all knew Slayer were garbage but that's next level.


----------



## Werecow

MASS DEFECT said:


> Tom Araya is a Covidiot, Conspiracy nut and Parler Trumper now, though. Kinda soured me on listening to Slayer. When I listen to it now, couldnt help to think the singer is an idiot.



That's genuinely upsetting. I've seen a few interviews with him over the years and he seemed pretty clued up, even if not straying from the subject of music for long 
Kerry's wife talked on instagram a while ago about them both breaking contact with idiots not taking the virus seriously. I wonder if she meant him.

I think i'll go watch a Devin Townsend interview to lighten my mood.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

IIRC Araya also shared some shitty homophobic conversion therapy memes too. Dude went off the fucking deep end.


----------



## odibrom

lurè said:


> It's so sad to see european politics turning against irregular immigration when europeans hobby for the last 5 centuries has been colonizing and exploiting every country they could put their feet on.



Hence the need for us to look inside. People who colonized North America were simple bastards that had no where to go on their home lands, they were bandits, convicted criminals who applied for colonization in order to escape the bullshit their own countries were. Lets think about it, if you had no where to die on your home land and someone offers you the opportunity to colonize some foreign region on the planet with the promise of freedom and a piece of land, wouldn't you go? Once there they fought for their "properties" and since they were better equipped with killing instruments from afar, which weren't available anywhere else in the world besides Europe, we can all see how this ends, no respect for natives nor their wild life...

Lets all try to look inside and focus on being good humans. How can we help others? Being here* is a start...

* - here in the sevenstring.org web forum sharing infos and ideas and learning from all over the globe and the universe. Yes, I know some of you are aliens...


----------



## MFB

It wouldn't have surprised me if as a cop (former?), Matt was also like a full on Thin Blue Line-er. Might not be as full on crazy as the rest of them, but it's definitely not a good look to wear.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

technomancer said:


> Actually editing my post and pulling him out, just went back and double checked and I'm not seeing the covidiot comments from him I remembered which means I was the one being dumb on that one



Matt always seemed pretty more quiet, private, and level-headed, so I was absolutely shocked when I saw that.


----------



## mmr007

MASS DEFECT said:


> Tom Araya is a Covidiot, Conspiracy nut and Parler Trumper now, though. Kinda soured me on listening to Slayer. When I listen to it now, couldnt help to think the singer is an idiot.


Is he seriously? That is....depressing. I had a feeling that it was more than not wanting to tour that was causing tension in the band. I remember there was a story a couple years ago the band got mad that Araya reposted some Trump-like tweet on the band site but I didnt know he lost his effing mind


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The band (sans Jon) put out a joint statement.






https://www.facebook.com/stublockofficial/posts/248052963356413


----------



## Werecow

mmr007 said:


> Is he seriously? That is....depressing. I had a feeling that it was more than not wanting to tour that was causing tension in the band. I remember there was a story a couple years ago the band got mad that Araya reposted some Trump-like tweet on the band site but I didnt know he lost his effing mind



A few years ago i read a Gary Holt interview from when he was in Slayer, and he said he couldn't talk politics in the band. I didn't know much about Gary, and throught from that interview he was right-wing and Slayer were left (judging from Tom's interviews i'd seen).

I've learnt since that Kerry is left, so Gary must have been talking solely about tension with Tom.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Werecow said:


> A few years ago i read a Gary Holt interview from when he was in Slayer, and he said he couldn't talk politics in the band. I didn't know much about Gary, and throught from that interview he was right-wing and Slayer were left (judging from Tom's interviews i'd seen).
> I've learnt since that Kerry is left, so Gary must have been talking solely about tension with Tom.



Gary fucking hates trump, but he's politically all over the place.


----------



## Werecow

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Gary fucking hates trump, but he's politically all over the place.



Even that caused tension with Tom then apparently.


----------



## død

Triple-J said:


> Alt-right folk pine for Norway because they often see Norway, sweden etc as imaginary utopias of whiteness and viking/nordic culture has been hijacked by them in recent years.


They have, and it sucks. I’m not particularily interested in my heritage/viking culture in general, but it still annoys me to no end that literal nazis are appropriating parts of my culture to suit ther propaganda. The Vikings traded with basically every known culture at the time, including the Ottomans, I find it hard to believe that their beliefs coinceded much with the cretins that stormed Capitol Hill this week. Trying to argue that point with them is pointless, tho, as it requires actually reading up on the stuff, and we all know how good these guys are at that. 

Them thinking that they would have a good time in a social-democracy where most guns are banned and the church has an even smaller place in peoples lives than what they’re currently used to is pretty lulzy, however. I’d tell them to come over, but we really do have enough fascists here as it is.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Very funny as always but he does make a good point about the Trump twitter ban


----------



## Thaeon

Louis Cypher said:


> Very funny as always but he does make a good point about the Trump twitter ban




He absolutely should have been banned sooner. And probably not permanently. It does hide the conversation away in the dark.


----------



## Xaios

Thaeon said:


> He absolutely should have been banned sooner. And probably not permanently. It does hide the conversation away in the dark.


I'd argue that the *real* shit was already happening in the dark. I also take issue with some of his arguments, such as that the ban allows his supporters to cry censorship. His supporters were already crying censorship, and have a well established pattern of crying censorship even in the presence of no censorship because, in their view, even arguing against them was analogous to censorship. Hell, the fact of their crying censorship despite evidence to the contrary is part of what allowed this insanity to spread, because their crying about censorship _was_ so visible. I just think that everything he's decried as a likely outcome either has already happened, or would have happened regardless. The only thing that might have actually changed is that maybe the timeline has been advanced.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Thaeon

Xaios said:


> I'd argue that the *real* shit was already happening in the dark. I also take issue with some of his arguments, such as that the ban allows his supporters to cry censorship. His supporters were already crying censorship, and have a well established pattern of crying censorship even in the presence of no censorship because, in their view, even arguing against them was analogous to censorship. Hell, the fact of their crying censorship despite evidence to the contrary is part of what allowed this insanity to spread, because their crying about censorship _was_ so visible. I just think that everything he's decried as a likely outcome either has already happened, or would have happened regardless. The only thing that might have actually changed is that maybe the timeline has been advanced.



Also good points. I don’t think that Twitter banning him, on whatever timeline, making things any worse. The MO of his supporters is to cry foul any time something they don’t like something and misinterpret any law they can support their perspective.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> There is a tendency for radical groups to self-select less advantaged people.
> 
> Good looking, well off people don't need to search the bowels of the internet to reconcile their problems with the world because they have fewer problems. Wealthy people don't believe in lizard people, scientists don't believe the pharmaceutical industry is perpetuating disease and people with historical understanding don't think the EU is a Nazi plot.
> 
> Basement dwelling internet creatures are the target audience for misogynist, radical right groups. It can't be social ineptitude or the poor personal hygiene; it must be the liberals.
> 
> Not to say that society hasn't failed these people as well, that's definitely a concern. But while you can bring a horse to water, you can't make them drink.



But why are the horses always so fat?


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> But why are the horses always so fat?


You can't make them drink, but they'll eat basically anything.


----------



## Xaios

StevenC said:


> You can't make them drink, but they'll eat basically anything.


You're not wrong.


----------



## Ralyks

It's like no one has ever been banned on a social media platform for less before....


----------



## philkilla

Ralyks said:


> It's like no one has ever been banned on a social media platform for less before....



Hmmmmmmmm


----------



## Rock4ever

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> The band (sans Jon) put out a joint statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/stublockofficial/posts/248052963356413



TL;DR It's Jon's band....wtf you want me to say!?


----------



## broj15

Here's my thoughts on all that's going on right now. Probably a little controversial, maybe considered a hot take, and maybe leaning towards the conspiracy theory side of things, but here we go

Capitol Hill protest/riot/"insurrection"/"attempted coup":
Where to begin with this one.... Let's start with the presence of LEO, or lack there of, or more specifically the lack of LEO presence when compared to what we saw at the Capitol building this past summer during the BLM demonstrations. Now, let's go ahead and get the obvious reason out of the way: racism. Yes, we all know that LEO treats people of color VERY differently than they treat white people. Now that that's out of the way, let's get into the more nuanced reason(s). Of course it should go without saying that there is a very strong leftist sentiment that goes with the BLM/racial justice movement. It always has. It's the part of Martin Luther King Jr.'s rhetoric that doesn't get brought up on MLK day or during black history month and there's a reason for that. There's a reason there's a stronger response from the federal govt. towards leftists than there is to a bunch of people (I won't even call them working class because what working class person can afford to travel across the country in the middle of the work week) that openly support the capitalist systems in place, despite those systems NOT being in their best interest. Leftists are a threat to the status quo. Those people that entered the Capitol building, despite their anti government rhetoric, patriotic posturing, and misguided fanaticism for a failed business man turned failed politician (who knowingly sold them out btw) do NOT pose a real threat to the capitalist systems in this country, and it seems like the only people who don't realize this is them. I mean, they got in the building and were so surprised that they actually did it that the vast majority of them didn't know what the fuck to do with themselves so they started taking selfies, going live on social media, and grabbing a "souvenir" or two. That wasn't an attempted coup, or an insurrection, and I'd barely call it a riot if it weren't for the fact that 5 people died. To me it seemed more like a tailgating party that got too out of hand.
Now - and here's where we get into conspiracy theory territory - I'd wager that there was a lack of police presence/a delayed response because all of that was SUPPOSED to happen. The whole thing was fed-bait from the beginning. Why? To justify introducing that new "anti domestic terrorism" bill that's been getting tossed around the past few days, aka the Patriot Act pt. 2 (but this time it's cool cuz the Dems are gonna pass it and we have a #girlboss in the white house). That won't just affect right wing extremists. That will affect EVERY political group or movement that poses a threat to the flawed systems in this country, and - if I had to wager - far left groups will bear the brunt of that. They essentially tricked a bunch of dumb fanatics into commiting a false flag on thier own country (without them even knowing it) so they could use them as a scapegoat to crack down on political dissent of any kind. And for the record I am absolutely not defending those people or what they did this past week. They all decided to stake so much on a guy - a fucking politician no less - who doesn't give two shits about them (other than what they do for his fragile ego) and he sold them up the creek, probably knowingly, and they paid for that.
This might all seem very radical and probably isn't a very popular viewpoint, but alot of this is coming from the frustration of seeing alot of my "woke leftist friends" who were screaming ACAB all summer long not seeing the nuance/missing the bigger picture and siding with the feds because "orange man bad".

Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about Trump getting deplatformed: Good. Fuck 'em. He's a piece of shit. Always has been and probably always will be. All the tech companies that are a part of this are privately owned and operate within a free market economy which means they can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. If they think banning DJT will put more money in their pocket then whatever. Business is business & this is a capitalist society. I think what's most disturbing about it, is that social media has become such an integral part of the American political landscape & the daily lives of the average American that there's been more real conversations about imposing government regulations on social media companies than there has been about government regulations on stuff like, oh I don't know, health care, drug companies, shitty land Lords/the lack of renter's rights, climate change, how every utility company in this country has a monopoly in their respective service area, etc., etc.. apparently something as trivial as social media is a more important issue than the shit that people need to sustain life like food, adequate shelter, and medical care.

So yeah, I don't expect many to agree with some of these points, but that's my take on the situations that we're seeing play out right now. Shits ugly.


----------



## Carl Kolchak

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Not surprising. Just like when the MSM except Fox covered for Antifa and BLM burning down cities for half a year.
> "Oh heavens no, our riot mostly peaceful, your riot bad."
> 
> It's all so tiresome, man. I thought we evolved past the point of breaking shit to try and make change.
> When the coverage was coming out I was like "Well, at least they aren't hurting anyone," but apparently they hit a security guard with a fire extinguisher, and he died today soooooo....that's a whole ass murder. Disgraceful.
> 
> 
> 
> lol imagine being the guy that swiped her hard drive.
> Good god man I would _*not*_ want that kind of heat.
> 
> In general though, how dumb do you have to be to do something like this as a public figure?



You seem to forget that the crowds heckled Zarathustra when he tried to warn of the oncoming extinction event that was to heralded by the appearance of the Last Men.

The great mistake is to believe that there exists anything resembling a Right or Left. All this so-called polical extremism is manufactured, promoted, and maintained by the same people and for the same ends. As a world power, the US is in a state of terminal decline. The only way its "investors" can keep things running now is through a strategy of tension. Forget COVID. Controlled opposition is the new norm. And so for every new provocation the feds will enact some emergency degree granting them more power to stave off the inevitable for another day. Eventually a point will be reached where the feds will outnumber the prols, and then the system will turn on itself. Good riddance at that point.


----------



## Zhysick

Bipartidism is the best way to control the masses and it needs to end. You tell your supporters that your neighbour, if it's not your friend, it's your enemy.

Having a different belief is not acceptable in a bipartidist system. It's dangerous. That's why the government works so hard to keep it


----------



## Metropolis

lurè said:


> It's so sad to see european politics turning against irregular immigration when europeans hobby for the last 5 centuries has been colonizing and exploiting every country they could put their feet on.



Comparing those two things is a stretch. Conquering new lands and oppressing citizens of those was definetly not just a white european priviledge if you look at back history. Globally in general colonization had it's pros and cons.


----------



## Veldar

^ Doesn't matter what historical examples you can compare colonisation to, we're living under the effects of the last one and the power structures it'screated.


----------



## SpaceDock

Republicans screaming that we have a right to post on social media but not a right to have health care.

Hilarious that Trump got booted from all normal platforms, so all the Republicans flee to Parler only for Bezos to turn off their servers. Where they gonna go now? Some 8kun or dark web forum where they belong?


----------



## technomancer

jco5055 said:


> A quick glance at his twitter/instagram seems to suggest he's liberal/I see a post calling anti-maskers idiots, but I don't see anything extreme from him.



Damn I am batting 1000... must be getting senile. I would swear I read articles where he was downplaying the pandemic anti-vaccine etc but now on googling I am not seeing it  Going to just delete that post and associated because clearly I was out to lunch. Hope you don't mind I edited your post as well to remove the name since I was categorically wrong.

Now I need to go research and see who the hell I was thinking of because there were 1 or 2 singers in the scheafer pandemic is a hoax blah blah camp


----------



## narad

SpaceDock said:


> Republicans screaming that we have a right to post on social media but not a right to have health care.
> 
> Hilarious that Trump got booted from all normal platforms, so all the Republicans flee to Parler only for Bezos to turn off their servers. Where they gonna go now? Some 8kun or dark web forum where they belong?



Rig-talk...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

technomancer said:


> Damn I am batting 1000... must be getting senile. I would swear I read articles where he was downplaying the pandemic anti-vaccine etc but now on googling I am not seeing it  Going to just delete that post and associated because clearly I was out to lunch. Hope you don't mind I edited your post as well to remove the name since I was categorically wrong.
> 
> Now I need to go research and see who the hell I was thinking of because there were 1 or 2 singers in the scheafer pandemic is a hoax blah blah camp



I know for sure that Corabi was saying dumb shit about it around the beginning. But he started to change his opinion (I guess some actual research played a part) and now he's being sensible about it.


----------



## sleewell

One guy died while trying to steal a painting. tased himself in the nuts repeatedly which caused a heart attack. A true patriot.


Imagine for a second it were Democrats who stormed the Capitol resulting in 5 deaths and Obama or Biden were the president. would the gop be saying that we shouldnt impeach because it would divide the country and we should not punish him so we can heal? 

I think we need an impeachment vote in both the house and senate just to see who is on team USA and who is on team coup.

When did we start letting the people who committed crimes against our country get to say they shouldnt be punished bc it would divide us? I feel like a coup attempt is more divisive than the punishment from it but I'm pretty dumb I guess.


----------



## thraxil

sleewell said:


> Imagine for a second it were Democrats who stormed the Capitol resulting in 5 deaths and Obama or Biden were the president. would the gop be saying that we shouldnt impeach because it would divide the country and we should not punish him so we can heal?



If it were Obama, they wouldn't be calling for impeachment. They'd be calling for public execution.


----------



## technomancer

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I know for sure that Corabi was saying dumb shit about it around the beginning. But he started to change his opinion (I guess some actual research played a part) and now he's being sensible about it.



Yeah definitely not Corabi I am thinking of. I'll chase it down at some point in the next couple days when I get a chance. Now to play some guitar and do some work on the SL67 build I have in progress


----------



## bostjan

Anyone seen Arnold's video about the insurrection? Some pretty strong language against Trump.


----------



## youngthrasher9

This is crazy. My buddy actually made a joke saying that one of the guys in the pictures looked like Jon, the morning after the riot.


----------



## bostjan

Saw Fricker posted a video about Jon. I cringed as a pressed play, but Glenn actually had a pretty respectable opinion about everything.

One thing I heard a lot (I've never personally met Jon nor even seen him in person before) is that people who have met him pretty much all say that he's a pretty calm and collected guy. Must be one of those personality things you don't notice until you really know someone, or else maybe he somehow got swept up by all of this.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://metalinjection.net/politics...il&utm_term=0_d168e48712-a93f4cbc46-100417190

Reminder that Phil Labonte is... weird as well.


----------



## Werecow

bostjan said:


> I cringed as a pressed play



That's my standard reaction when pressing play on any Fricker video. He's one of those youtubers i can hardly ever watch, but for some reason i can't unsubscribe from either. Maybe if he stopped shouting so much i'd watch more.

Oh, and his thumbnails nearly always look like he's in the middle of taking a diffcult shit to me


----------



## spudmunkey

My cousin's wife is probably one of the crazier of the bunch. 

Posted today with "FUCK YEAH!!!":


----------



## MFB

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://metalinjection.net/politics...il&utm_term=0_d168e48712-a93f4cbc46-100417190
> 
> Reminder that Phil Labonte is... weird as well.



Considering the Gadsden flag "JOIN OR DIE" tattoo prominently shown on his arm here, can't say I'm surprised he's in-line with being entirely off the charts crazy like the rest of them for this shit

also, can someone tell me what the fuck the point of tank tops like these are? I've seen a lot of frontmen sport them, and it's like, are you trying to meet the bare minimum of a shirt to still receive service?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

MFB said:


> Considering the Gadsden flag "JOIN OR DIE" tattoo prominently shown on his arm here, can't say I'm surprised he's in-line with being entirely off the charts crazy like the rest of them for this shit
> 
> also, can someone tell me what the fuck the point of tank tops like these are? I've seen a lot of frontmen sport them, and it's like, are you trying to meet the bare minimum of a shirt to still receive service?


Phil and Tommy Vext were two guys I was suspect about the passed couple of years. Glad to see my suspicions were confirmed.


----------



## Chanson

MFB said:


> Considering the Gadsden flag "JOIN OR DIE" tattoo prominently shown on his arm here, can't say I'm surprised he's in-line with being entirely off the charts crazy like the rest of them for this shit
> 
> also, can someone tell me what the fuck the point of tank tops like these are? I've seen a lot of frontmen sport them, and it's like, are you trying to meet the bare minimum of a shirt to still receive service?



I think those shirts were traditionally worn by big body builer dudes who have massive lats who can't really fit into a normal cut tank top. This guy...clearly isn't that. Obviously just another thing he has fooled himself into believing!


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://metalinjection.net/politics...il&utm_term=0_d168e48712-a93f4cbc46-100417190
> 
> Reminder that Phil Labonte is... weird as well.



When they played a gig here in Clifton Park some years ago, he was drunk... not like, passed out slurring his speech drunk but you know, a little sloppy.

Anyway, midway into the set he starts calling out this chick bartender that I guess he was chatting up before their set and she had shut him down. So he's like "hey babe can you bring me up a beer?" kinda thing from up on the stage and everyone's laughing because it comes across as part of the show. And she humors him for a minute, and then he's pretty much now asking her to hang out after the set and she stops playing along, and he gets aggro and starts calling her names "fuckin' bitch" etc WHILE HE'S STILL ON STAGE MID SET. It was unreal.

Also, not to go there because I'm not a big dude either but Labonte has total Napoleon complex. Wiki says he's 5'7" but he looks even shorter than that in person.


----------



## Randy

Chanson said:


> I think those shirts were traditionally worn by big body builer dudes who have massive lats who can't really fit into a normal cut tank top. This guy...clearly isn't that. Obviously just another thing he has fooled himself into believing!



That and I always remember wrestlers wearing them, even not particularly "big" dudes like the Hardy brothers.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Calling out that Phil is the height of the average male is kind of silly considering the host of bad PR he's had over the years  The dudes been a hateful, bigoted, unashamed asshole for a decade and he's as bad as Chris Brown (Trapt).

https://www.theprp.com/2017/01/23/news/remains-phil-labonte-using-homophobic-slurs-social-media/


----------



## wakjob

Seems like the authorities have identified quite a few Antifa and other online left-wing people in that protest. One of them might be related to that Pelosi woman.


----------



## Alex79

Werecow said:


> That's genuinely upsetting. I've seen a few interviews with him over the years and he seemed pretty clued up, even if not straying from the subject of music for long
> Kerry's wife talked on instagram a while ago about them both breaking contact with idiots not taking the virus seriously. I wonder if she meant him.
> 
> I think i'll go watch a Devin Townsend interview to lighten my mood.



There’s an interview on YouTube by a kid (that interviews lots of metal people) where Araya gives a rather clear impression that he and Kerry don’t really work together (or talk) and how much he misses Jeff. It must have been taken during the Repentless tour.

It all starts to make more sense now.


----------



## mmr007

Well now I’m curious how this Phil Anselmo thing is gonna work. There are numerous videos of him giving the nazi salute and he seems kinda right wing. Slayer breaks up because of tom and completely reconvenes as a new band but with Phil?


----------



## Randy

Jonathan20022 said:


> Calling out that Phil is the height of the average male is kind of silly considering the host of bad PR he's had over the years  The dudes been a hateful, bigoted, unashamed asshole for a decade and he's as bad as Chris Brown (Trapt).
> 
> https://www.theprp.com/2017/01/23/news/remains-phil-labonte-using-homophobic-slurs-social-media/



Hey like I said, I'm a short guy too. He just fulfills the stereotype of the guy constantly overcompensating with rage. A bartender shutting you down is apolitical, but even still, he handled it with the same rage that he does online against "teh libz". Dude is perpetually butthurt.


----------



## Carl Kolchak

mmr007 said:


> Well now I’m curious how this Phil Anselmo thing is gonna work. There are numerous videos of him giving the nazi salute and he seems kinda right wing. Slayer breaks up because of tom and completely reconvenes as a new band but with Phil?


Am giving the nazi salute to this post right now.


----------



## nickgray

MFB said:


> also, can someone tell me what the fuck the point of tank tops like these are?



It's from when you never grow up from being an edgy teenager 

I had a friend like that who mentally never grew up beyond 16-17, the whole tough guy thing, booze, being an asshole with zero responsibilities, angst and edginess, he just continued with all this shit into his mid-20s when I cut ties with him completely. He also had a thing for tank tops and walking like a tough guy, despite being skinny af 

Frankly, the whole thread is about people who never manage to grow up and develop some sense of responsibility and critical thinking, that's where this whole shit stems from if you ask me.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> My cousin's wife is probably one of the crazier of the bunch.
> 
> Posted today with "FUCK YEAH!!!":
> View attachment 88805



Did anyone point out it was still technically Trump's government in there?


----------



## StevenC

wakjob said:


> Seems like the authorities have identified quite a few Antifa and other online left-wing people in that protest. One of them might be related to that Pelosi woman.


[citation needed]


----------



## Dayn

StevenC said:


> [citation needed]


I think the username answers that question.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

bostjan said:


> Saw Fricker posted a video about Jon. I cringed as a pressed play, but Glenn actually had a pretty respectable opinion about everything.
> 
> One thing I heard a lot (I've never personally met Jon nor even seen him in person before) is that people who have met him pretty much all say that he's a pretty calm and collected guy. Must be one of those personality things you don't notice until you really know someone, or else maybe he somehow got swept up by all of this.



I ended up getting halfway into the video and he tries to defend Jon by saying "I mean we all make dumb decisions once in awhile".

The problem is that I don't think most normal people don't try to join a planned mob of insurrectionists that had the intent to capture (or even kill) people trying to start the transfer of power away from their cult leader. Jon's an Alex Jones dude and has been seen in pro-Trump rallies, so there's a massive chance he's in, or knew about, the circles that were planning out this coup. He's making it sound like Jon waltz in the crowd while on a random visit to DC.


----------



## wakjob

StevenC said:


> [citation needed]



First saw it on the front page of the New York Post.

"But the final analysis, a RIOT is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?" -- MLK

Make no mistake about it, we are in the last days of Empire.


----------



## StevenC

wakjob said:


> First saw it on the front page of the New York Post.
> 
> "But the final analysis, a RIOT is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear?" -- MLK
> 
> Make no mistake about it, we are in the last days of Empire.


So no citation just hearsay? Every reputable source is saying that's utter nonsense as recently as yesterday. FBI says there's no evidence of antifa being connected even at all.

There's a bunch of talking heads saying it's antifa without any evidence, and a bunch of evidence that it was known far right folks involved. There are plenty of widely known and vocal figures from one group identified, and self-identified, very publicly while none from the other.

Case in point, Jon Schaffer was there but weirdly Tom Morello wasn't.

It doesn't matter who said a quote, it's not evidence of anything. It's an especially dumb quote when the US just had it's largest voter turnout and those rioting lost, a bunch of red states flipped and the Republicans were in charge and still supressing blue voters.

But also, why would a group that just won their elections start a riot? What possible sense does that make?

I'll repeat [citation needed].


----------



## Necris

broj15 said:


> The whole thing was fed-bait from the beginning. Why? To justify introducing that new "anti domestic terrorism" bill that's been getting tossed around the past few days, aka the Patriot Act pt. 2 (but this time it's cool cuz the Dems are gonna pass it and we have a #girlboss in the white house). That won't just affect right wing extremists. That will affect EVERY political group or movement that poses a threat to the flawed systems in this country, and - if I had to wager - far left groups will bear the brunt of that.


I'd argue this doesn't even need to be a conspiracy for this to be the most likely outcome. Increased police powers, surveillance, etc are bound to be coming. Liberals, Democrats, whatever, in their haste to feel like something is being done about the threat that's now been made visible to some of them for the first time, are going to endorse giving the state a broad new array of tools to close in on wherever they deem "radical" and suppress and dismantle anything resembling an actual left wing movement.

Meanwhile the Far-Right terror threat will grow largely unimpeded. Left-Wing activists will continue to do the actual hard work, collecting info, uncovering new threats and making them known only to be largely ignored.

The FBI and police will continue as normal, propagating far right sentiment within their own ranks, and likely occasionally investigating the aftermath of a far-right terror attack as they spend most of their energy wasting money trying to find a way to dissolve the left.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Washington Times ran with the story that a company named XRVision correctly identified the rioters as "members" of Antifa. 

...Which later had to be corrected because XRVision threatened to sue them, because they never said anything of the fact.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facial-recognition-antifa-washington-times-false



> “XRVision didn’t generate any composites or detection imagery for the Washington Times nor for a ‘retired military officer’ and did not authorize them to make any such representations,” the company said in its statement. “The image analysis that we performed were distributed to a handful of individuals for their private consumption and not for publication. XRVision takes pride in its technology's precision and deems the Washington Times publication as outright false, misleading, and defamatory."


----------



## wakjob

Like I said, it was a glancing scan of whatever is on the headlines of news feeds.
Over it. Not my fight.

Gave over $1,000 to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign run.
Signed the #forcethevote petition to get a medicare for all floor vote in the senate.
I think it disgusting that my country is the only fist world nation that didn't give its people a monthly UBI while putting them outta work.

I refuse to be attached or labeled to either side of the ridiculous social/political divide.
I also refuse to buy into the radical ideologies that push this crap. 
Whether it be woke diversity/inclusivity eat the rich, or ...whatever it is that the right pushes these day IDK cuz I don't follow.

Things are coming to a head here in the states, and the signals from history are clear.

Might I ask, why does a guitar playing chap from Ireland have interest in U.S. policy?


----------



## StevenC

https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/known...pro-trump-to-infiltrate-capitol-riot-sources/

I assume this is the article spoken, which includes 0 evidence of anything compared to the FBI website full of photographs of identified people, such as known right wing nutjob John Schaffer.


----------



## StevenC

wakjob said:


> Like I said, it was a glancing scan of whatever is on the headlines of news feeds.
> Over it. Not my fight.
> 
> Gave over $1,000 to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign run.
> Signed the #forcethevote petition to get a medicare for all floor vote in the senate.
> I think it disgusting that my country is the only fist world nation that didn't give its people a monthly UBI while putting them outta work.
> 
> I refuse to be attached or labeled to either side of the ridiculous social/political divide.
> I also refuse to buy into the radical ideologies that push this crap.
> Whether it be woke diversity/inclusivity eat the rich, or ...whatever it is that the right pushes these day IDK cuz I don't follow.
> 
> Things are coming to a head here in the states, and the signals from history are clear.
> 
> Might I ask, why does a guitar playing chap from Ireland have interest in U.S. policy?


The important thing is not to make claims without backing them up. You made claims and I asked because I'd only seen things to the contrary. I don't want to make any assumptions or criticisms of your political positions, just of your irresponsible spread of misinformation.

The reason a guitar playing chap from Ireland might have an interest in US politics could range from anything like having plenty of dear friends and family living there, to the US is the most powerful nation and your politics affects the rest of the world in dramatic ways. For a more direct reason, maybe you should read the Good Friday Agreement.


----------



## wakjob

StevenC said:


> The important thing is not to make claims without backing them up. You made claims and I asked because I'd only seen things to the contrary. I don't want to make any assumptions or criticisms of your political positions, just of your irresponsible spread of misinformation.
> 
> The reason a guitar playing chap from Ireland might have an interest in US politics could range from anything like having plenty of dear friends and family living there, to the US is the most powerful nation and your politics affects the rest of the world in dramatic ways. For a more direct reason, maybe you should read the Good Friday Agreement.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

To think we thought that Gibson buying Mesa Boogie was going to be the most insane story of the week.


----------



## Ralyks

Canada, can we come in yet? Please?


----------



## odibrom

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> To think we thought that Gibson buying Mesa Boogie was going to be the most insane story of the week.



At this moment, that's peanuts...


----------



## thebeesknees22

Lol no, you need to stay down there to keep the crazies from taking over.


----------



## possumkiller

Why do people keep calling a coup attempt by domestic terrorists a riot or insurrection by rioters?

Are we already pretending it wasn't as bad as it was? I mean sure, we like to have a laugh at how stupid they look fumbling around killing themselves and not having a clue what they're doing. However, the clear intent was to take hostages and make public executions. Just because whatever right wing extremist authorities chose vanilla isis to try it this time, doesn't mean they won't be better prepared and more capable next time.


----------



## Celtic Frosted Flakes

possumkiller said:


> Why do people keep calling a coup attempt by domestic terrorists a riot or insurrection by rioters?
> 
> Are we already pretending it wasn't as bad as it was? I mean sure, we like to have a laugh at how stupid they look fumbling around killing themselves and not having a clue what they're doing. However, the clear intent was to take hostages and make public executions. Just because whatever right wing extremist authorities chose vanilla isis to try it this time, doesn't mean they won't be better prepared and more capable next time.



This.

Why would somebody bring zip ties into the Capitol building if not to take hostages?



I'm not saying they were going to make public executions, but I have no doubt they were going to take hostages with the zip ties.

The guy in the picture, Eric Gavelek Munchel, is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the *Counterterrorism Section* of the DOJ’s National Security Division. This was not just some random Trump supporter peacefully entering the Capitol Building.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/two-men-charged-connection-events-us-capitol


----------



## thraxil

Celtic Frosted Flakes said:


> I'm not saying they were going to make public executions, but I have no doubt they were going to take hostages with the zip ties.



Small point, but I wish the media would stop saying "zip ties". Those are flex cuffs. That dude didn't have them because he was planning to tidy up some wiring at the Capitol.


----------



## Lemonbaby

Celtic Frosted Flakes said:


> This.
> 
> View attachment 88819


Saw that one! "Tenet" - great movie!


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Did anyone point out it was still technically Trump's government in there?



Yes. Basically, "the army was there to prevent the new government from stealing the election".


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## thraxil

thraxil said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical about those funny/ironic details like the guy tazing himself or the woman being trampled with a "don't tread on me flag". Those really stink of the kind of rumour that spreads rapidly online because people want it to be true. And since this whole thing was largely driven by BS conspiracy theories and rumours spread online, I think we all ought to be a little careful about not contributing to that problem.



See, this is what I mean: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-riot-taser-death/


----------



## spudmunkey

If i understand correctly, though, the "tread" sign is at least partially sort of true...she may not have had the flag at the time of the incident that killed her, but there are photographs of her at at least some recent event, with that flag.


----------



## bostjan

ABC news this morning mentioned that Trump is preparing to pardon himself and that some people (they didn't say whom) at Trump's own DOJ see Trump pardoning himself as basically an admission of guilt and that a President can never self-pardon without consequences.

If that's true, and if it's a large enough portion of government thinking this way, it could paint Trump into a corner where his only choices are to be prosecuted or to resign and hope Pence still goes along with his plan despite the past week's events.


----------



## sleewell

thraxil said:


> See, this is what I mean: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/capitol-riot-taser-death/




I dont really care either way but the evidence that it's not true is only the statement from his wife? Would she have any reason to lie?

Snopes loses credibility for me in this instance.


----------



## bostjan

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I ended up getting halfway into the video and he tries to defend Jon by saying "I mean we all make dumb decisions once in awhile".
> 
> The problem is that I don't think most normal people don't try to join a planned mob of insurrectionists that had the intent to capture (or even kill) people trying to start the transfer of power away from their cult leader. Jon's an Alex Jones dude and has been seen in pro-Trump rallies, so there's a massive chance he's in, or knew about, the circles that were planning out this coup. He's making it sound like Jon waltz in the crowd while on a random visit to DC.



So you watched half of the video and concluded it gives Jon a pass? If that's your takeaway, the only reasonable explanation is you only watched one sentance in the middle of the video, failed to recognize the sarcasm, and then came to ss.o to post about it. I'm not a fan of Fricker, but nowhere did he give the impression Jon gets a pass.

Anyway. I guess it's been aparent for at least a few years that Jon was an idiot, and I was oblivious to that, between having not cared about Iced Earth since circa 2010 and not watching/listening to whatever stupid shows Jon has been on to spout his idiocy. But now I am aware.

----------------

Regarding the other topic of antifa playing a role in this, anyone suggesting that without evidence can STFU. If someone is suggesting that a far left group would be motivated to do anything that would prevent Trump from losing power, which was the objective of storming the Capitol, then that person needs some sort of evidence to back that, or else that is an outright stupid thing to say, being devoid of any logical coherence.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

bostjan said:


> So you watched half of the video and concluded it gives Jon a pass? If that's your takeaway, the only reasonable explanation is you only watched one sentance in the middle of the video, failed to recognize the sarcasm, and then came to ss.o to post about it. I'm not a fan of Fricker, but nowhere did he give the impression Jon gets a pass.


I actually watched up to the part where he was talking about "I'm canadian the election doesn't concern me" and about Internet echo chambers. And this wasn't aimed at you what the fuck  you're the one that posted about it so ofc I'm gonna quite you. its more about metal heads I've seen trying to be all "oh we need to give them a pass it's just different options we just need to all agree that we all love metal". His conclusion came off as "nobody's perfect, need to hear both side, echo chambers" etc etc. Like he didn't want to say too much because he actually liked Jon. Which tends to be what Glenn does.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> I dont really care either way but the evidence that it's not true is only the statement from his wife? Would she have any reason to lie?
> 
> Snopes loses credibility for me in this instance.



Doesn’t effective journalism require two independent sources?


----------



## Lorcan Ward

Hansi Kursh(Blind Guardian, Demons & Wizards) posted this on behalf of Blind Guardian:



> On the occasion of the assault upon the United States Capitol
> 
> We are deeply shocked and our thoughts are with the relatives of the deceased. We expressly distance ourselves from any kind of violence irrespective if applied against institutions or persons. The incidents will be thoroughly investigated and the responsibles will be brought to justice. We ask for your understanding that in view of the hourly news situation we will not make any further comments at present.



Thats got to be tough for him. After 15 years they made a comeback with a new album that was well received.


----------



## sleewell

well i just reread it. it sounds like they corroborated her statement with another reporter who was there. 

i was wrong. so many damn pop ups and ads it makes it hard to read.


----------



## mmr007

The guy with the zip tie hand cuffs is a retired lt colonel.


----------



## bostjan

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I actually watched up to the part where he was talking about "I'm canadian the election doesn't concern me" and about Internet echo chambers. And this wasn't aimed at you what the fuck  you're the one that posted about it so ofc I'm gonna quite you. its more about metal heads I've seen trying to be all "oh we need to give them a pass it's just different options we just need to all agree that we all love metal". His conclusion came off as "nobody's perfect, need to hear both side, echo chambers" etc etc. Like he didn't want to say too much because he actually liked Jon. Which tends to be what Glenn does.



Yeah, I guess if anyone was expecting him to do the typical Glenn Fricker rant on Jon, they'd be quite let down by that video.

It's a big deal. The people who broke into the Capitol committed a very serious felony. Not sure if it's treason or sedition or murder (by association; obviously at least one of them did actively participate in a murder) or whatever. The only way Jon is not going to be looking at prison time from this is if he gets a pardon or manages a hat trick at legal weaseling.

I didn't see where Fricker gave Jon a pass, but maybe comments like "WTF Jon?" come off a little at odds with the severity of the situation. The preface of the video, to me, seemed like Glenn saying he didn't want to get involved in politics on his channel, especially US politics, and watching it for the second time, I don't feel that was a misconception. 

Jon will get his chance to tell his side of the story. Probably no one cares except whoever ends up on the jury, but it _is_ true about internet echo chambers contributing to this level of extremism. Since he hasn't even been arraigned, AFIAK, there's still a lot developing, so I'm not sure his side of the story is that important until there's something for him to answer, specifically.


----------



## Ralyks

https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/riote...ays-and-offices-during-mobbing-of-us-capitol/

So that's... Gross.


----------



## bostjan

I guess the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

"He died after tasing himself," as far as I can tell, hasn't been linked to any statements made by people who were there when he died. The area which was claimed to be tasered, seems to me, to likely be a fabrication.

But also, the claims that he didn't have any sort of weapon on him might deserve a fair amount of skepticism, considering this is a guy who had publicly supported taking the Capitol by force and had publicly advocated gun violence as a means for political change.

It could be that he tasered himself in the leg and the rumor mill took over, or it could be someone making a joke about someone tasering himself in the balls and other people taking it as a serious claim.

Either way, the list of important things for officials to investigate is 1. what are this group's next plans 2. where are the people wanted for questioning, and 3. how do we keep things safe as the transfer of power continues?



Ralyks said:


> https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/riote...ays-and-offices-during-mobbing-of-us-capitol/
> 
> So that's... Gross.



MAGA - Make America Graffiti'd-with-shit Again


----------



## Asphyxia

Hopefully the Biden admin gets some no nonsense zip tie regulations in place.
Weapons of mass destruction have no business on our streets.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm torn this morning between feeling bad for people with mental issues that are getting swept up in this, and wanting to stop them before they start causing harm to others or themselves like the folks that stormed the capitol last week.

We've got a dude at work that's getting so wrapped up in it he's . . . let's say unpleasant to be around. It's getting to the point where we're a little freaked out by him, frankly. We're thinking HR may need to do something about it. He never struck me as unbalanced before now, but I know he's had a stressful year outside of politics, so if he got wrapped up in the capitol shenanigans, it could be pushing him over the edge.

I will say, the Republican lawmakers putting out statements over the weekend calling on Democrats to cease speaking of the possibility of a second impeachment because it's continuing the Democrats' trend of dividing the country need to STFU. Right, because the Democrats are exclusively the cause of the divisions in our country.

Fuck me, the hypocrisy is choking.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

nightflameauto said:


> I'm torn this morning between feeling bad for people with mental issues that are getting swept up in this, and wanting to stop them before they start causing harm to others or themselves like the folks that stormed the capitol last week.
> 
> We've got a dude at work that's getting so wrapped up in it he's . . . let's say unpleasant to be around. It's getting to the point where we're a little freaked out by him, frankly. We're thinking HR may need to do something about it. He never struck me as unbalanced before now, but I know he's had a stressful year outside of politics, so if he got wrapped up in the capitol shenanigans, it could be pushing him over the edge.
> 
> I will say, the Republican lawmakers putting out statements over the weekend calling on Democrats to cease speaking of the possibility of a second impeachment because it's continuing the Democrats' trend of dividing the country need to STFU. Right, because the Democrats are exclusively the cause of the divisions in our country.
> 
> Fuck me, the hypocrisy is choking.



Yes, these conspiracy theories are causing a lot of harm to the people of this country. They've crossed a line from being mostly harmless to now being the catalyst to the beginning of murder and insurrection on a larger scale. They're taking advantage of passionate people who are lost. They have no place to use their energy productively so they pour it into these ideals. They find a community of people like themselves who all share a common belief. 

They're now killing themselves and each other over fascism masquerading as patriotism. Even the cop was a Trump supporter and Q Anon follower to a degree. They killed one of their own. This is an out of control conspiracy theory. Probably the most dangerous one to ever take hold in this country. It's going to cost a lot more. It's too big and too out of control.


----------



## Randy




----------



## nightflameauto

Stripe is going to stop processing payments for the Trump campaign.


----------



## budda

Ralyks said:


> Canada, can we come in yet? Please?



Things arent great here, but they dont command headlines as well. We gotta sort our shit out too.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> View attachment 88839



I've overheard at least one person today who is trying to plan to go to DC for the inauguration, and this guy is well-known locally as a sort of loose cannon conspiracy theory guy. If that sort of talk is going on out in public in one of the bluest states in the union, then I can't imagine that there won't be some sort of shit show at the inauguration.


----------



## groverj3

At this point, I think the only safe way forward is not to have any kind of public ceremony for the inauguration at all and basically put the whole city under lockdown for the week.


----------



## JimF

Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.


----------



## bostjan

JimF said:


> Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
> If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
> Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.


I don't know about DC, but some places have actual bounty hunters who are civilians allowed to detain people and bring them to the police. Frankly, I think that it's silly to have Joe Schmo tracking down dangerous criminals with flex cuffs and a taser, but I guess this is the USA.


----------



## odibrom

bostjan said:


> (...) internet echo chambers (...)



That's a cool name for something music related, either a pedal (delay kind I guess), a band (atmospheric probably) or something else like a song name...?

Sorry for the off topic, carry on...


----------



## StevenC

JimF said:


> Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
> If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
> Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.


Zombies. You might need to cuff some zombies. Like the end of Sean of the Dead.


----------



## bostjan

Now there are reports from USA Today that, when congress people were tucked away safely, somebody in the bunker had covid, so now basically the entire US congress has potentially been exposed to the virus. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ths-new-years-day-chicago-schools/6609727002/ (bullet point #2)

If a legislator dies of covid now, the entire crew of insurrectionists could be looking at even more charges.


----------



## JimF

bostjan said:


> I don't know about DC, but some places have actual bounty hunters who are civilians allowed to detain people and bring them to the police. Frankly, I think that it's silly to have Joe Schmo tracking down dangerous criminals with flex cuffs and a taser, but I guess this is the USA.



Fair enough, that makes sense. I'd totally forgotten that was a thing.


----------



## bostjan

JimF said:


> Fair enough, that makes sense. I'd totally forgotten that was a thing.


It probably shouldn't be, but you never know when Billy the Kid might return, or there might be a zombie apocalypse, or maybe moron insurrection, out here in the wild wild west.


----------



## groverj3

I'm sure I'm not the only one but, with all this going down, it's incredibly hard to focus on work or do much of anything productive while we wait for the 20th and what fresh insanity will occur between now and then.


----------



## BenjaminW

groverj3 said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one but, with all this going down, it's incredibly hard to focus on work or do much of anything productive while we wait for the 20th and what fresh insanity will occur between now and then.


I can see Trump giving a farewell address, but that's really it from him now that his Twitter's gone. Wouldn't be a terrible idea to grab some popcorn for that.


----------



## odibrom

bostjan said:


> It probably shouldn't be, but you never know when Billy the Kid might return, or there might be a *zombie *(...)* insurrection*, out here in the wild wild west.



Now it makes sense...


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

bostjan said:


> Regarding the other topic of antifa playing a role in this, anyone suggesting that without evidence can STFU. If someone is suggesting that a far left group would be motivated to do anything that would prevent Trump from losing power, which was the objective of storming the Capitol, then that person needs some sort of evidence to back that, or else that is an outright stupid thing to say, being devoid of any logical coherence.



I'm pretty sure the point is obviously that it'd be some kind of false flag operation.
A far left group would definitely not want to keep Trump in power- but they _*absolutely*_ would cream their pants at the opportunity to generate this level of negative press for the other side. It only takes one person to change a peaceful protest into something hysteria-worthy if you play your cards right.

*I am not saying that's what happened.* This isn't the first time I've seen people make these types of accusations and I think they're ridiculous every time- I don't think many people at all would be willing to become political martyrs in this fashion. 



JimF said:


> Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
> If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
> Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.



Apparently, from what I've seen, this guy didn't show up with them. He took them from a security guard.
*Not saying that's any better. I am not trying to defend these people.* Just answering a question.


----------



## diagrammatiks

JimF said:


> Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
> If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
> Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.



he thought he was going to a sex party.


----------



## JimF

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Apparently, from what I've seen, this guy didn't show up with them. He took them from a security guard.
> *Not saying that's any better. I am not trying to defend these people.* Just answering a question.





diagrammatiks said:


> he thought he was going to a sex party.



Both valid answers, thank you!


----------



## odibrom

Ordacleaphobia said:


> (...) but they _*absolutely*_ would cream their pants at the opportunity to generate this level of negative press for the other side. It only takes one person to change a peaceful protest into something hysteria-worthy if you play your cards right.
> (...)



This has been the US foreign policy regarding OIL selling countries not wanting to sell OIL with DOLLAR currency, since they did the Petrol backed Dollar thing... _so they say..._


----------



## Demiurge

groverj3 said:


> I'm sure I'm not the only one but, with all this going down, it's incredibly hard to focus on work or do much of anything productive while we wait for the 20th and what fresh insanity will occur between now and then.



I understand the feeling. During this time, work has been both the center of stress and a reliever of it, though. When there's shit going down that's outside of my control, I try to work on the things that I can control, even if it's stuff I don't particularly like doing.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

I'm still pissed Dave brockie died. He would have had a fucking field day verbally ripping Jon a new one.


----------



## bostjan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm pretty sure the point is obviously that it'd be some kind of false flag operation.
> A far left group would definitely not want to keep Trump in power- but they _*absolutely*_ would cream their pants at the opportunity to generate this level of negative press for the other side. It only takes one person to change a peaceful protest into something hysteria-worthy if you play your cards right.
> 
> *I am not saying that's what happened.* This isn't the first time I've seen people make these types of accusations and I think they're ridiculous every time- I don't think many people at all would be willing to become political martyrs in this fashion.



The crazy thing about that argument is that after thinking about it for 1 second, you find yourself (general you, i.e. "anyone") needing to ask "at what point does an antifa person become a QAnon person?" If the "mole" infiltrates to the point where they will go on their opponent's secret social sites, gain their trust and gain access to the travel down to DC on their bus, attend Trump's speech, then go to storm the capital- all so that they can what, egg on the other idiots in the crowd to do stupid stuff they were already doing? It's not like either of these groups have their shit together, nor are smart enough to play 4D chess. The people coming up with these theories might as well say that the dog is actually being quiet and the cat learned how to bark and throw its voice.

These are rhetorical questions. Not expecting you to answer, since you aren't even on board with the conspiracy theories anyway.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I guess the impeachment ain't happening?


----------



## bostjan

diagrammatiks said:


> I guess the impeachment ain't happening?


As of 45 minutes ago, it was still happening. McConnel is refusing to start the impeachment trial until after Biden is inaugurated, and 1/3 of the GOP Senators would need to vote guilty, so there's basically no way anything will shake out of this, but we might be surprised.

Likely, it's a move by Pelosi to try to discourage Trump from encouraging more bullshit before the 20th.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

bostjan said:


> The crazy thing about that argument is that after thinking about it for 1 second, you find yourself (general you, i.e. "anyone") needing to ask "at what point does an antifa person become a QAnon person?" If the "mole" infiltrates to the point where they will go on their opponent's secret social sites, gain their trust and gain access to the travel down to DC on their bus, attend Trump's speech, then go to storm the capital- all so that they can what, egg on the other idiots in the crowd to do stupid stuff they were already doing? It's not like either of these groups have their shit together, nor are smart enough to play 4D chess. The people coming up with these theories might as well say that the dog is actually being quiet and the cat learned how to bark and throw its voice.
> 
> These are rhetorical questions. Not expecting you to answer, since you aren't even on board with the conspiracy theories anyway.



Well, buying into them is one thing, but talking about conspiracy theories is always a good time 
I don't think they'd need to go full blown sting-op though; it's not like they're carding people- you don't need to flex your Trump cred to march. It's a mass of people, anyone can just hop in. That's the problem with crowds and why tons of protests include some degree of destruction.

So, the idea would be that if I were so inclined, I could grab myself a MAGA hat and some facepaint, hop into the mob, and nobody would realistically be able to tell that I was a fish out of water. Then, once I get inside, all I need to do is start smashing shit, and all of a sudden, it's everyone's problem and they're all responsible.

It wouldn't be difficult to do at all- it'd just take some cast-iron balls. You'd have to be down to play chicken with *the feds* just to make the other guys look bad. That's why it's ridiculous. I'd imagine if you were the type that would be down to take that risk, you'd also be the type that'd be down to send out a letterbomb or something (like those nutjubs in Michigan that wanted to kidnap the governor) and I'd imagine they'd just do that instead.


----------



## possumkiller

bostjan said:


> McConnel is refusing to start the impeachment trial until after Biden is inaugurated.


He's still holding out hope the million militia march will work in their favor.


----------



## mastapimp

mmr007 said:


> The guy with the zip tie hand cuffs is a retired lt colonel.


There were 2 zip cuff dudes...the Lt. Colonel claims he picked them up off the floor and was going to keep them safe until he could hand them to a capitol police officer, in case they needed help...hahaha
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahh...izen-sleuths-idd-them-online/?sh=1d451bb5771b


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://twitter.com/BRENOGrounded/status/1348710343418249221


----------



## nightflameauto

My understanding is that Trump has switched to posting on GAB, and GAB has seen a pretty huge influx of users. So, I imagine it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media starts following GAB to get Trump quotes to keep the fires stoked.

It's nice to see McConnel can still go full obstructionist, even when the country is practically tearing itself apart around him. At least he's consistent.


----------



## BenjaminW

bostjan said:


> As of 45 minutes ago, it was still happening. McConnel is refusing to start the impeachment trial until after Biden is inaugurated, and 1/3 of the GOP Senators would need to vote guilty, so there's basically no way anything will shake out of this, but we might be surprised.
> 
> Likely, it's a move by Pelosi to try to discourage Trump from encouraging more bullshit before the 20th.


Honestly I think the better move is to go with using the 25th Amendment because I just don't see a way how you can get a full impeachment in 10 days or less. I looked at how long previous impeachments took, and they all took over a month or more. There's probably some way to make it extremely short, but I'm no legal expert.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

So uh... Did Stu quietly leave Iced Earth? Seems like he's removing all of his references to being in the band


----------



## akinari

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://twitter.com/BRENOGrounded/status/1348710343418249221



GLHDZUFKVLUZ;OIRULWIG;Eo


----------



## mastapimp

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So, the idea would be that if I were so inclined, I could grab myself a MAGA hat and some facepaint, hop into the mob, and nobody would realistically be able to tell that I was a fish out of water. Then, once I get inside, all I need to do is start smashing shit, and all of a sudden, it's everyone's problem and they're all responsible.



Just remember to wait for your "trial by combat" cue before you go running in. Fucking ridiculous.



HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://twitter.com/BRENOGrounded/status/1348710343418249221


That was great!


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> View attachment 88839



If that's really, that's horrifying.



groverj3 said:


> At this point, I think the only safe way forward is not to have any kind of public ceremony for the inauguration at all and basically put the whole city under lockdown for the week.



I think having a public ceremony is just inviting another trash fire.


----------



## bostjan

BenjaminW said:


> Honestly I think the better move is to go with using the 25th Amendment because I just don't see a way how you can get a full impeachment in 10 days or less. I looked at how long previous impeachments took, and they all took over a month or more. There's probably some way to make it extremely short, but I'm no legal expert.



Well, it looks like they haven't given up on that, either, in spite of the fact that it won't work. To get the process started, you'd need Pence and whatever's left of the Cabinet to get on board. Even if that happens, which it won't, Trump only has to send a letter contesting it and it basically ends up being impeachment anyway.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> If that's really, that's horrifying..



From my friend that lurks in the Chans, so even if it isn't, it's being circulated which is enough to get them to show up.


----------



## BenjaminW

bostjan said:


> Well, it looks like they haven't given up on that, either, in spite of the fact that it won't work. To get the process started, you'd need Pence and whatever's left of the Cabinet to get on board. Even if that happens, which it won't, Trump only has to send a letter contesting it and it basically ends up being impeachment anyway.


I think ultimately at this point it's probably better off to just wait out 10 days, but that's obviously a little risky to do since you never know what Trump's up to next.


----------



## possumkiller

So what if impeachment lasts months? It's not about removing him from office. He will be gone in less than two weeks whether he's impeached or not. If he's impeached and convicted, he is barred from public office, gets no pension, security detail, travel allowance, or briefings on classified information which he would sell to anyone buying.


----------



## bostjan

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Well, buying into them is one thing, but talking about conspiracy theories is always a good time
> I don't think they'd need to go full blown sting-op though; it's not like they're carding people- you don't need to flex your Trump cred to march. It's a mass of people, anyone can just hop in. That's the problem with crowds and why tons of protests include some degree of destruction.
> 
> So, the idea would be that if I were so inclined, I could grab myself a MAGA hat and some facepaint, hop into the mob, and nobody would realistically be able to tell that I was a fish out of water. Then, once I get inside, all I need to do is start smashing shit, and all of a sudden, it's everyone's problem and they're all responsible.
> 
> It wouldn't be difficult to do at all- it'd just take some cast-iron balls. You'd have to be down to play chicken with *the feds* just to make the other guys look bad. That's why it's ridiculous. I'd imagine if you were the type that would be down to take that risk, you'd also be the type that'd be down to send out a letterbomb or something (like those nutjubs in Michigan that wanted to kidnap the governor) and I'd imagine they'd just do that instead.



Well, you'd still have to know where to be and when to be there. So, I guess if you had some vague idea, just sit around staring into space until an angry mob comes by wearing MAGA hats, but, obviously, you'd be conspicuous before anything went down in that case, drawing attention to yourself by skulking around. Or else you're left with the option I outlined.

Also, if you ran in there rampaging everything, and no one else was so predisposed, you'd likely get yourself shot, and wouldn't that be a stupid waste of your own time and life?

I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Nobody dedicated to antifa is leading the crusade against the election by counterexample. It'd be the stupidest way to die, and even if you were 100% successful, there's a fair degree of uncertainty that the coup might actually work and then you were a part of it. *Nobody who marauded into the Capitol was antifa.*


----------



## Zhysick

Ordacleaphobia said:


> So, the idea would be that if I were so inclined, I could grab myself a MAGA hat and some facepaint, hop into the mob, and nobody would realistically be able to tell that I was a fish out of water. Then, once I get inside, all I need to do is start smashing shit, and all of a sudden, it's everyone's problem and they're all responsible.



And why would you risk your life to do that it there is already one giving that "trial by combat" statement and he President yelling hat you have to right, the elections were stolen and you I'll all go down the avenue to he Capitol?

I mean, they were already "smashing shit"as you would do dressed as an alt-right subhuman...


----------



## mmr007

ANTIFA was definitely not present. They are busy planning their protests against the very existence of Olive Garden


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> ANTIFA was definitely not present. They are busy planning their protests against the very existence of Olive Garden


LOL Just saw on Snopes that, no, Olive Garden did _not_ revoke Sean Hannity's neverending pasta pass.


----------



## Randy

How about the fact the four galaxy brains that died there were all confirmed MAGAts?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Randy said:


> How about the fact the four galaxy brains that died there were all confirmed MAGAts?



but some woman on Parler confirmed the woman that got shot was actually an antifa plant and in this essay i will expla


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> How about the fact the four galaxy brains that died there were all confirmed MAGAts?


Well, it's way beyond that, because the FBI has identified, what, 15-16 other people who made it into the Capitol, and they are all likewise QAnon, Proud Boys, etc., all linked to the alt-right. At some point in time, it's safe to assume, all of the people who had broken into the Capitol will be identified, seeing as how, they were not only filming themselves and their comrades, but they are on the hundreds of security cameras placed inside the Capitol just in case someone comes in who does not belong there, and, as an added bonus, maybe only 3 or 4 of these geniuses were wearing masks.

So, at this point, there is no evidence any of them were antifa, and odds are that if even one of them was antifa, we would have likely identified them by now. By the end of this week, it is very likely that we'll be able to say with 100% confidence whether one of them was antifa or not.

And again, if one of them was antifa, he'd not only be super-big-brain to be able to mastermind his way into the inner circle of the group, but also be stupid enough to follow through with the world's dumbest plan to manipulate a bunch of people into doing what they already had posted publicly that they planned to do for weeks and wind up being ultimately arrested and possibly executed for capital murder and treason.


----------



## mmr007

The future will be scary... This is what you get when you tell one idiot hillbilly his fucking cows can't keep eating for free on federal land....


Imagine what will happen January 20th when these same types realize their "guy" can't keep eating KFC for free in the white house.

Amazing that Cliven Bundy and his crew (weirdo militias) are the first to wave the American flag despite not recognizing the federal government or federal authority.
There is such a failure to recognize hypocrisy on their part. Waving American flags as they try to overthrow the American government. BTW the federal government backed down to this American ISIS Nevada chapter and Cliven's welfare cows get to keep eating for free. It is little wonder these groups feel emboldened. Ever since Ruby Ridge they have had a violence boner itch in search of a scratch.

Driving around Orange County California I can't tell you how many times I see big lifted trucks with full size AR15 stickers on their vehicle with 2nd amendment quotes and captions like "come and try and take my (insert weapon type)" but then ALSO have stickers of American flags with quotes that say America: Love it or leave it. So no first amendment right to complain about American government but reserve the second amendment right to overthrow it? Ok.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Well, it's way beyond that, because the FBI has identified, what, 15-16 other people who made it into the Capitol, and they are all likewise QAnon, Proud Boys, etc., all linked to the alt-right. At some point in time, it's safe to assume, all of the people who had broken into the Capitol will be identified, seeing as how, they were not only filming themselves and their comrades, but they are on the hundreds of security cameras placed inside the Capitol just in case someone comes in who does not belong there, and, as an added bonus, maybe only 3 or 4 of these geniuses were wearing masks.
> 
> So, at this point, there is no evidence any of them were antifa, and odds are that if even one of them was antifa, we would have likely identified them by now. By the end of this week, it is very likely that we'll be able to say with 100% confidence whether one of them was antifa or not.
> 
> And again, if one of them was antifa, he'd not only be super-big-brain to be able to mastermind his way into the inner circle of the group, but also be stupid enough to follow through with the world's dumbest plan to manipulate a bunch of people into doing what they already had posted publicly that they planned to do for weeks and wind up being ultimately arrested and possibly executed for capital murder and treason.



It's a silly game to play, and it's one the Trump crowd use often. They've essentially distilled down the argument until even one left-of-center person in a crowd of 3000 people proves their point or, even worse, one person you CAN'T prove isn't left-of-center proves their point.

We've gotta stop trying to engage these people on their terms, I'm sure a big portion of the people even making those claims were there themselves doing the window smashing and assaulting the police. They're scapegoating, in several cases, to escape prosecution or further consolidate influence. This is page right out of Hitler and the Reichstag Fire.

My father in law called the day after, spent the first half of the conversation saying it was antifa. Spent the second half of the conversation saying Dems were trying to impeach Trump or get him with the 25th amendment because Republicans sent "special forces" in during the siege to steal Nancy Pelosi's laptop.

So you're dealing with the idea that two 180 degrees different intentioned entities both executed this invasion of the capitol at the same time, and the fact it trips zero cognitive triggers in their minds. These are the people that say Sandy Hook didn't happen, 9/11 didn't happen, so on. It's split 95% by retirees and stay at home moms looking to make the time they waste to home appear productive, and 5% by the criminals and grifters benefitting from it. There's no intellectual honesty there, so just let it be.


----------



## Zhysick

So are we already in 1984 and those people are doublethinking?


----------



## Dayn

Zhysick said:


> So are we already in 1984 and those people are doublethinking?


Always has been.


----------



## bostjan

I don't just ignoring these folks will make them go away. Or are you suggesting combating illogic with something other than logic?

It's been slipping away for decades. When GW Bush won election with a minority of the popular vote, there should have been some sort of a compromise, like there was back in 18-whatever when Rutherford Hayes was elected. The fact that there was nothing, just winner-take-all, set us up for 2016. 2016 cause a lot of things to slip out of their proper place. Now a candidate could bully their way into the presidency and face no negative consequences, even with one of the worst approval rating ever and one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote of a winning candidate ever... where does that leave us? It leaves us with these troglodytes thinking that they can just bully any situation into any outcome. How do you fix that without causing a war?  I don't know for you that it's possible. But, once they start bullying and getting their way, you have to stop them from getting their way, which causes them to bully harder, until either they back down, leaving the next generation inspired to do the same thing, or until things come to a head - with skirmishes or war or whatever. And then we see where the military lands on the playing field and go from there, I guess.


----------



## bostjan

FBI memo warns of insurrections in all 50 states planned by right-wing groups: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...nforcement-across-u-s-possible-armed-n1253750


----------



## Zhysick

Oh, by the way, Stu Block wrote in Facebook that it was a misunderstanding, he read "condone" instead of "condemn" because the heat of he moment and the huge amoun of messages some of them full of hate. So he basically said he is not on the same side of Jon but he opposite like he rest of the band I guess considering the band (minus Jon) public statement.


----------



## Nicki

possumkiller said:


> So what if impeachment lasts months? It's not about removing him from office. He will be gone in less than two weeks whether he's impeached or not. If he's impeached and convicted, he is barred from public office, gets no pension, security detail, travel allowance, *or briefings on classified information which he would sell to anyone buying*.


A.K.A Russia.

You're 100% correct, though. It's not about removing him from office. It's about protecting the future of the US' national security. The impeachment itself can happen very quickly, in a matter of 2 or 3 days. It's the Senate trial that will take a while the second time around.

The impeachment, and delaying the trial for the first 100 days of Biden's term ensures that Trump won't be able to do exactly what you're describing, out of revenge or because he's just an unhinged individual. Quite frankly, this is one of those situations where impeachment could physically defend the rights and freedoms of all Americans.



budda said:


> Things arent great here, but they dont command headlines as well. We gotta sort our shit out too.



Worst we have right now is Ontario politicians who got caught travelling outside of the country during lockdown, spiking COVID case #s (probably because people ignored the indoor limit on social gatherings over the holidays), and a Prime Minister who has no fucking clue what he's doing.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I don't just ignoring these folks will make them go away. Or are you suggesting combating illogic with something other than logic?
> 
> It's been slipping away for decades. When GW Bush won election with a minority of the popular vote, there should have been some sort of a compromise, like there was back in 18-whatever when Rutherford Hayes was elected. The fact that there was nothing, just winner-take-all, set us up for 2016. 2016 cause a lot of things to slip out of their proper place. Now a candidate could bully their way into the presidency and face no negative consequences, even with one of the worst approval rating ever and one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote of a winning candidate ever... where does that leave us? It leaves us with these troglodytes thinking that they can just bully any situation into any outcome. How do you fix that without causing a war?  I don't know for you that it's possible. But, once they start bullying and getting their way, you have to stop them from getting their way, which causes them to bully harder, until either they back down, leaving the next generation inspired to do the same thing, or until things come to a head - with skirmishes or war or whatever. And then we see where the military lands on the playing field and go from there, I guess.



I meant accept that they're knowingly lying and proceed accordingly. Explaining to them why their conspiracy theory doesn't add up does not disarm them, so I'm saying assume that they KNOW their theory doesnt add up and they're feigning ignorance to impede prosecution.


----------



## Dayn

Randy said:


> I meant accept that they're knowingly lying and proceed accordingly. Explaining to them why their conspiracy theory doesn't add up does not disarm them, so I'm saying assume that they KNOW their theory doesnt add up and they're feigning ignorance to impede prosecution.


It's also quite telling that these people like to trot out that "facts and discussion" are how you resolve things in a democracy whilst willingly ignoring facts and refusing to discuss in an attempt to end democracy. These twits can't be let to set the agenda and method for discussion.


----------



## budda

If that's all you know about, I guess so.

I know about the boil water advisories for over a decade, nestle taking our clean water for pennies on the dollar (and we are moving closer to water not being a human right), and the systemic racism of the country in general and how that's not being covered.


----------



## groverj3

bostjan said:


> FBI memo warns of insurrections in all 50 states planned by right-wing groups: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...nforcement-across-u-s-possible-armed-n1253750


They mention a specific group. So, which far right militia group do we have our money on?


----------



## nightflameauto

JimF said:


> Is there any non-nefarious reason why a member of the general public would have flexicuffs? Do security guards or rent-a-cops have any powers of detainment?
> If you were a mercenery/secret agent/Impossible Mission Agent surely you'd have some sort of trade-only supplier for this stuff? You'd flash your blackwater membership card and until then they wouldn't be able to sell to you?
> Seriously though, the issue isn't the flexicuffs, its the context. Although I'm not sure in what context a member of the public having flexicuffs isn't shady as fuck.





diagrammatiks said:


> he thought he was going to a sex party.


DING! The wife and I have heavy steel handcuffs too. What possible reason could we have to own those if not for nefarious purposes. Why, for _VERY_ nefarious purposes, of course. 

It's sad watching so many in our wheelhouse go down these paths. I'm not a huge Iced Earth fan, but it still sucks seeing this. Maybe it's time we as a country start addressing our mental health issues, and start getting concerned about real education again, rather than patting people on the back for showing up? Educated people don't end up buying in to every conspiracy theory and lie without evidence unless they've had some sort of mental issue causing their critical thinking centers to shut off or get twisted into a near religious form of hero or viewpoint worship.

It's just sad and frustrating.


----------



## KailM

If you can catch about 100 red fire ants that live in the southwestern desert and also about 100 of those large black ants that live there and drop them into the same jar, not much will happen...until you shake the jar vigorously and dump them out on the ground. The red ants will attack the black ants, and the black ants will attack the red ants; until they devastate each other.

The thing is, the red ants think the enemy is the black ants and the black ants think the enemy is the red ants; and all those ants put together never do figure out that the real enemy is the guy* who shook the jar.

*Google, Facebook, Twitter, the media, etc.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

bostjan said:


> Well, you'd still have to know where to be and when to be there. So, I guess if you had some vague idea, just sit around staring into space until an angry mob comes by wearing MAGA hats, but, obviously, you'd be conspicuous before anything went down in that case, drawing attention to yourself by skulking around. Or else you're left with the option I outlined.



I'm assuming if you're willing to face federal time with 99.9% certainty for 'the cause' then you're likely a part of your own activist group, which tend to keep tabs on other activist groups. That's where all your counter-protests come from. Remember, we aren't talking about ordinary healthy people because ordinary healthy people wouldn't do something like this. You'd have to be some kind of schizo to come up with the idea to go do some false-flag destruction _in the nation's capital_, so I wouldn't expect it to be a far leap to assume this hypothetical person would be absolutely obsessed with the culture war and would live and breathe this stuff.


> Also, if you ran in there rampaging everything, and no one else was so predisposed, you'd likely get yourself shot, and wouldn't that be a stupid waste of your own time and life?



Yup.


> I don't buy it. Not for a minute.



Me either.


> Nobody dedicated to antifa is leading the crusade against the election by counterexample. It'd be the stupidest way to die, and even if you were 100% successful, there's a fair degree of uncertainty that the coup might actually work and then you were a part of it. *Nobody who marauded into the Capitol was antifa.*



[x]Strongly Agree.


Zhysick said:


> And why would you risk your life to do that it there is already one giving that "trial by combat" statement and he President yelling hat you have to right, the elections were stolen and you I'll all go down the avenue to he Capitol?
> 
> I mean, they were already "smashing shit"as you would do dressed as an alt-right subhuman...



Mate, I'm not saying that's what happened. *I am not claiming that Antifa was involved in any way. **I do not think they were.* I'm just doing my best to explain the theory, because I can see how people came up with it.


----------



## Randy

Ordacleaphobia said:


> *I am not claiming that Antifa was involved in any way. **I do not think they were.* I'm just doing my best to explain the theory, because I can see how people came up with it.



They came up with it to shield themselves from responsibility and to give themselves a pass to keep doing what they've been doing. That's about it. I appreciate the effort but we don't need to theorize on their thought process, because they'll gladly offer it up.


----------



## Zhysick

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I'm assuming if you're willing to face federal time with 99.9% certainty for 'the cause' then you're likely a part of your own activist group, which tend to keep tabs on other activist groups. That's where all your counter-protests come from. Remember, we aren't talking about ordinary healthy people because ordinary healthy people wouldn't do something like this. You'd have to be some kind of schizo to come up with the idea to go do some false-flag destruction _in the nation's capital_, so I wouldn't expect it to be a far leap to assume this hypothetical person would be absolutely obsessed with the culture war and would live and breathe this stuff.
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> 
> Me either.
> 
> 
> [x]Strongly Agree.
> 
> 
> Mate, I'm not saying that's what happened. *I am not claiming that Antifa was involved in any way. **I do not think they were.* I'm just doing my best to explain the theory, because I can see how people came up with it.



I know what you mean, I just debunk that simple idea with another simple one. I know "them" won't realise or think they are wrong. Well,they won't even think...


----------



## InfinityCollision

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Mate, I'm not saying that's what happened. *I am not claiming that Antifa was involved in any way. **I do not think they were.* I'm just doing my best to explain the theory, because I can see how people came up with it.


I guarantee you've put more thought into this than any of the people who initially floated the idea that it was an antifa false-flag op.



bostjan said:


> I don't just ignoring these folks will make them go away. Or are you suggesting combating illogic with something other than logic?


Expecting facts and logic to carry the day against post-truth political ideology after it's already taken root just legitimizes it by giving it something substantial to stand alongside. This also allows its proponents to spread other ideas to further muddy the water - like the horseshoe theory someone referenced earlier, which is (oversimplifications and dubious evidence aside) commonly pushed from the right for the purpose of pacifying centrists and keeping them in place.

The "marketplace of ideas" doesn't work.

You deal with harmful ideas the same way you deal with a harmful virus: quarantine (deplatform) those who would spread them, manage transmission vectors to reduce the average spread from any individual, and inoculate (educate; civics courses, critical thinking skills, etc) the broader population to reduce transmission. That politicians, media, tech, etc frequently shy away from such practices or even work against them is telling, and points to deeper issues often obscured by this sort of dialogue.


----------



## wakjob

Patriotism seems to be a moving target these days.
These poor idiots don't know what to do, or how to act out properly in a broken system.

Assange, Manning, Snowden, Kiriakou, ect... Are whistleblowers hero's or villians?

Was there election fraud? Absolutely.
Was it enough to sway an election? Absolutely NOT.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

InfinityCollision said:


> I guarantee you've put more thought into this than any of the people who initially floated the idea that it was an antifa false-flag op.



Because I evaluated if a claim was plausible or not? Give me a break.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The scariest part of where we're at now is that there is absolutely no way to avoid the violence that's going to happen. There is one way... to give up our democracy, to allow trump to keep serving as president, to send Biden and Harris home and simply surrender our country to the terrorists. Obviously that can't and won't happen but how things are going to be handled doesn't matter regarding the looming violence. There's a shit ton of these delusional assholes and whether you impeach him, evoke the 25th, or allow his term to play out... these terrorists are going to rise up and go into full-on rage mode. This is truly frightening to me.


----------



## InfinityCollision

Not knocking you, just pointing out that "blame antifa" has been a kneejerk response in those circles for months now and that plausibility doesn't really factor into the what or why.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

InfinityCollision said:


> Not knocking you, just pointing out that "blame antifa" has been a kneejerk response in those circles for months now and that plausibility doesn't really factor into the what or why.


IIRC even the FBI said that Antifa wasn't involved.


----------



## BenjaminW

High Plains Drifter said:


> There's a shit ton of these delusional assholes and whether you impeach him, evoke the 25th, or allow his term to play out... these terrorists are going to rise up and go into full-on rage mode. This is truly frightening to me.


Not sure how many friends I'm gonna make here with this, but to me what I saw on the 6th, I feel like it's a mixture of Trump supporters venting out their anger/frustration and a classic case of when someone is getting bullied by someone, that the person getting bullied is gonna one day fight back.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

bostjan said:


> As of 45 minutes ago, it was still happening. McConnel is refusing to start the impeachment trial until after Biden is inaugurated, and 1/3 of the GOP Senators would need to vote guilty, so there's basically no way anything will shake out of this, but we might be surprised.
> 
> Likely, it's a move by Pelosi to try to discourage Trump from encouraging more bullshit before the 20th.




One thing I will say Mcconnel is an enormous douche BUT the schedule for the senate has been set already till the 20th. To even convene to discuss impeachment would require all members to vote yes to hearing the matter. ZERO chance of that happening with or without obstruction master Cocaine Mitch


----------



## Shoeless_jose

BenjaminW said:


> Not sure how many friends I'm gonna make here with this, but to me what I saw on the 6th, I feel like it's a mixture of Trump supporters venting out their anger/frustration and a classic case of when someone is getting bullied by someone, that the person getting bullied is gonna one day fight back.



What is the bullying though?? There was no election fraud... so is losing an election bullying?? it's been over 2 months that these people and Trump are living in an alternate reality. There aren't people in Biden hats wandering the country being assholes to Trump folk. Any victimization is entirely imagined


----------



## Shoeless_jose

budda said:


> If that's all you know about, I guess so.
> 
> I know about the boil water advisories for over a decade, nestle taking our clean water for pennies on the dollar (and we are moving closer to water not being a human right), and the systemic racism of the country in general and how that's not being covered.



Agreed. Also most of our national news is extremely right wing constantly talking about Trudeau selling us out to the "new world order" and "socialist cabals" We are luckily less armed and slightly better educated but have big populist rhetoric


----------



## Randy




----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> View attachment 88871



Wait wait all organic??? Maybe he really is leftist lol


----------



## Thorshammer1980

So, if Jon would have been filmed raiding a Footlocker with BLM wearing a "Fuck Trump" shirt, he'd be cool then, eh?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Thorshammer1980 said:


> So, if Jon would have been filmed raiding a Footlocker with BLM wearing a "Fuck Trump" shirt, he'd be cool then, eh?



Considering Jon's crew also consisted of actual neo nazis and fuckjobs that were looking to capture and/or possibly harm/kill people...

...yes, significantly yes. Stealing shoes is significantly "cooler".


----------



## BenjaminW

Dineley said:


> What is the bullying though?? There was no election fraud... so is losing an election bullying?? it's been over 2 months that these people and Trump are living in an alternate reality. There aren't people in Biden hats wandering the country being assholes to Trump folk. Any victimization is entirely imagined


Maxine Waters' comments back in 2018 are what stand out to me the most. 

Sorry in advance if this comes off as a straw man from me, but I will say though that trying to find articles/videos of what I'd said earlier was tricker than what I originally anticipated, but I ultimately feel like I'd rather give you one example that I thought stood out to me the most rather than link you a dozen articles and videos that aren't 100% relevant.


----------



## Splenetic

Yeah, cause fucking foot locker is a historically significant foundation site and the backbone of your political system, right? Jesus fuck, this logic diarrhea is just mind baffling.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

Alright. Thanks for the clarification.

Leftwing riots cool. Rightwing riots not cool.

You can riot for 6 months straight as long as you're not an "actual neo-nazi".

Just wanted to make sure.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Duh, The bullying is, as always, from their fearless and godlike leader Trump! 

They are going through Stockholm syndrome! 

Who else is going to whip them up into a frenzy while simultaneously reaming them?

They are lashing out at whatever he points at, because they want more Don Daddy, MORE! 

No one has ever made such insignificant loser lives mean so much, until he so effortlessly Made Their ‘Merica Great, Again!


----------



## Splenetic

That you took _that _away from this exchange just further reinforces the point. 

"For god, country....and foot locker!"


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Splenetic said:


> That you took _that _away from this exchange just further reinforces the point.
> 
> "For god, country....and foot locker!"



Stealing shoes is just as significant as kidnapping human beings.


----------



## Splenetic

Zipties to restrain people, shoelaces, what's the difference???


----------



## Mboogie7

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Alright. Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Leftwing riots cool. Rightwing riots not cool.
> 
> You can riot for 6 months straight as long as you're not an "actual neo-nazi".
> 
> Just wanted to make sure.



Last time I checked, foot locker wasn’t the very foundation that the USA was built on. Rioting and looting suck, yeah, but rioting and breaking into the fucking capitol because you can’t accept the election results is treason. That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated whatsoever.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> Wait wait all organic??? Maybe he really is leftist lol



That was the joke I was thinking, then I mentioned it to a friend of mine that said his family are MAGA and they're also all organic people because of GMO conspiracies. So there's overlap.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

Splenetic said:


> Yeah, cause fucking foot locker is a historically significant foundation site and the backbone of your political system, right? Jesus fuck, this logic diarrhea is just mind baffling.



BLM occupied and destroyed police stations, city blocks, and damaged federal building. Killed more people and hurt more police officers. But, here you all are. Defending it because what happened in DC were Trump supporters, or claimed to be. Its just laughable.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

Mboogie7 said:


> Last time I checked, foot locker wasn’t the very foundation that the USA was built on. Rioting and looting suck, yeah, but rioting and breaking into the fucking capitol because you can’t accept the election results is treason. That kind of behavior cannot be tolerated whatsoever.



Please. Democrats have spent the last for years trying to overturn 2016. Trump on his way out the door and they are still acting like lunatics.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> That was the joke I was thinking, then I mentioned it to a friend of mine that said his family are MAGA and they're also all organic people because of GMO conspiracies. So there's overlap.


This is amazing lol


----------



## mmr007

I think we are getting carried away with all this rhetoric about rioting and treason. Killing capitol police and invading the capitol building and hunting for the vice president and house speaker in order to execute them because free and fair elections didnt go the way Trump supporters hoped is not as big a deal as we are making it out to be. Let us remember that taking a knee before the start of a football game is the true enemy of democracy and the founding principles of this nation.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> That was the joke I was thinking, then I mentioned it to a friend of mine that said his family are MAGA and they're also all organic people because of GMO conspiracies. So there's overlap.


I always wanted to do a GMO and organic taste test to see how different they are, but then I figured that I’ve probably had GMO food without knowing it was a GMO, and thus my idea I thought was cool went down the drain.


----------



## Mboogie7

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Please. Democrats have spent the last for years trying to overturn 2016. Trump on his way out the door and they are still acting like lunatics.



Four* and the logic behind your argument (I’m assuming that’s what you’re making here) is flawed. What happened last week was T R E A S O N.


----------



## mmr007

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Please. Democrats have spent the last for years trying to overturn 2016. Trump on his way out the door and they are still acting like lunatics.


What specific actions did democrats take to overturn the election? Yes they did argue that someone who lost the popular vote hy 3 million votes exposes a flaw in the electoral college and they were legitimately concerned that Trump is beholden to Putin but when did they try and undo the election?


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> I always wanted to do a GMO and organic taste test to see how different they are, but then I figured that I’ve probably had GMO food without knowing it was a GMO, and thus my idea I thought was cool went down the drain.


I'm a biologist and worked in plant genetics for my PhD. Organics can be GMOs. But you also shouldn't care because they're fine to eat. You've definitely eaten GMOs.

Also, all domesticated crops are "genetically modified" through selective breeding. So, basically, GMO fear is people not understanding science. Inserting a gene from one species into another results in the gene functioning the same way it did in the original species, or making the predicted protein/whatever. The fact that we know how genetics works means that we know exactly what products a gene will make when inserted into an organism.

The more you know, haha.


----------



## groverj3

Randy said:


> That was the joke I was thinking, then I mentioned it to a friend of mine that said his family are MAGA and they're also all organic people because of GMO conspiracies. So there's overlap.


Anti-GMO sentiment definitely has overlap on both the left and right for some similar but also different reasons. Some leftists I know don't like that they're patented and this is an economic issue. Or, they don't like that they aren't "natural" (as opposed to selective breeding changing lots of genes, rather than transgenic plants having just a single or few genes specifically altered).

Right wingers seem to dislike GMOs mostly because they're more anti-intellectual and "how dare those elitist scientists change God's food." There is some crunchiness there in the libertarian crowd though objecting to it being "unnatural" as well.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorshammer1980 said:


> So, if Jon would have been filmed raiding a Footlocker with BLM wearing a "Fuck Trump" shirt, he'd be cool then, eh?



100 percent less treasonous


----------



## groverj3

For a second there I was able to ignore the dumpster fire to teach a science lesson. Thanks, guys!


----------



## InfinityCollision

Unironically equating staging a would-be coup, attempting to kidnap and overthrow elected officials, etc because of losing a (legitimate) democratic election and social conventions against saying the quiet part louder to people responding to centuries of systematic oppression and injustice is a great example of what I was talking about re: dealing with post-truth ideologies.

Especially when a substantial portion of the violence at protests in the past year was driven by right-wing instigators and/or unrelated opportunists, as documented by both police and the FBI. Likewise how there is a stark, well-documented difference in how police forces handle protests based on the ideologies represented, and how this creates an escalating cycle of violence against left-leaning protests like the BLM movement (which are overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 90% - but the peaceful ones don't reach mainstream media). Decoupling cause from effect when talking about what violence has occurred just drives the point home further.

If facts and logic were enough, I wouldn't even need to point this out - I could just point to any half-decent US history book. Even whitewashed as those are, it'd make the point for me.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

I feel like I'm talking to a CNN panel here. Fuck.....


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Alright. Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Leftwing riots cool. Rightwing riots not cool.
> 
> You can riot for 6 months straight as long as you're not an "actual neo-nazi".
> 
> Just wanted to make sure.



sure fuck

riots protesting systematic police brutality and racism cool

riots protesting a legal election. not cool. literally the uncoolest thing you can do

and ya you can get away with a lot if you aren't an actual neo nazi

because you aren't A FUCKING NAZI

fuck it dude is this shit hard to understand.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorshammer1980 said:


> I feel like I'm talking to a CNN panel here. Fuck.....



oh you mean like a panel of college educated people instead of your usual redneck backyard discussion?

sorry.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

diagrammatiks said:


> oh you mean like a panel of college educated people instead of your usual redneck backyard discussion?
> 
> sorry.



So now you're assuming the color of my neck?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

The world's a bit different when you aren't in a Parler/Facebook right wing echo chamber.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

groverj3 said:


> For a second there I was able to ignore the dumpster fire to teach a science lessons. Thanks, guys!



I love when all the higher educated folks land in threads. I consider myself fairly intelligent but it's cool getting to see and converse with people who end up being experts on particular topics.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

diagrammatiks said:


> sure fuck
> 
> riots protesting systematic police brutality and racism cool
> 
> riots protesting a legal election. not cool. literally the uncoolest thing you can do
> 
> and ya you can get away with a lot if you aren't an actual neo nazi
> 
> because you aren't A FUCKING NAZI
> 
> fuck it dude is this shit hard to understand.



Nazism died in 1945. But there are still plenty of Communists. Communists everywhere.


----------



## BenjaminW

groverj3 said:


> Anti-GMO sentiment definitely has overlap on both the left and right for some similar but also different reasons. Some leftists I know don't like that they're patented and this is an economic issue. Or, they don't like that they aren't "natural" (as opposed to selective breeding changing lots of genes, rather than transgenic plants having just a single or few genes specifically altered).
> 
> Right wingers seem to dislike GMOs mostly because they're more anti-intellectual and "how dare those elitist scientists change God's food." There is some crunchiness there in the libertarian crowd though objecting to it being "unnatural" as well.


I don’t consider myself to be some food freak or whatever who will throw a fit if the food I’m eating isn’t organic or not, but I do remember finding the concept of GMOs really off putting since I’d always assumed that food was always just grown naturally without any fancy added to them. 

And now I go back to staying warm by the dumpster fire.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> The world's a bit different when you aren't in a Parler/Facebook right wing echo chamber.



I don't have a Parler or a FB. Sorry, if you wanted to be friends.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorshammer1980 said:


> So now you're assuming the color of my neck?



it sure as hell ain't actually red.

no i'm assuming the color of your intelligence.


----------



## mmr007

Thorshammer1980 said:


> I feel like I'm talking to a CNN panel here. Fuck.....


And I feel like I stumbled into stormfront.org


----------



## Thorshammer1980

diagrammatiks said:


> it sure as hell ain't actually red.
> 
> no i'm assuming the color of your intelligence.



But I'm not a pretentious liberal like you? Ok. Interesting.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

mmr007 said:


> And I feel like I stumbled into stormfront.org



Never been there. Should I check it out?


----------



## diagrammatiks

BenjaminW said:


> I don’t consider myself to be some food freak or whatever who will throw a fit if the food I’m eating isn’t organic or not, but I do remember finding the concept of GMOs really off putting since I’d always assumed that food was always just grown naturally without any fancy added to them.
> 
> And now I go back to staying warm by the dumpster fire.



there is basically nothing that you eat that isn't gmo'd

non gmo'd plant varieties basically wouldn't be able to grow the way we actually grow food now.

maybe maybe home gardens and shit. but that is enough to feed like 20 people.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorshammer1980 said:


> But I'm not a pretentious liberal like you? Ok. Interesting.


oh boo fucking hoo the liberals.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

Listen I wasn't trolling. You guys are pushing me that way though. Both sides are terrible. The government doesn't represent anyone but donors and foreign interests. We're all pawns and debt slaves being milked to death. 

I just couldn't stop rolling my eyes at some of the comments.....jez....Now can we talk about music again?


----------



## mmr007

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Never been there. Should I check it out?


up to you.... I think 90% of their members are called thorshammer (insert random birthdate)


----------



## BenjaminW

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Nazism died in 1945. But there are still plenty of Communists. Communists everywhere.


I mean the ideology isn’t dead, but there hasn’t been anybody in power that has been a Nazi since 1945 AFAIK.


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> I don’t consider myself to be some food freak or whatever who will throw a fit if the food I’m eating isn’t organic or not, but I do remember finding the concept of GMOs really off putting since I’d always assumed that food was always just grown naturally without any fancy added to them.
> 
> And now I go back to staying warm by the dumpster fire.


"Organic" is pretty meaningless. They just use less efficient production methods, have lower yields, can still be GMO anyway, and use _different_ pesticides and herbicides.

I'd love to understand better what people find off-putting about GMO crops, but it's way off topic for this thread.


----------



## groverj3

Dineley said:


> I love when all the higher educated folks land in threads. I consider myself fairly intelligent but it's cool getting to see and converse with people who end up being experts on particular topics.


Aw shucks. It's rare that my incredibly narrow knowledge into the world of plant genomics comes in handy around these parts 

Formal education level only means so much. You can be perfectly intelligent without a degree, and plenty of people I know with PhDs are insufferable pricks and stunningly stupid when it comes to a great many things.


----------



## BenjaminW

groverj3 said:


> "Organic" is pretty meaningless. They just use less efficient production methods, have lower yields, can still be GMO anyway, and use _different_ pesticides and herbicides.
> 
> I'd love to understand better what people find off-putting about GMO crops, but it's way off topic for this thread.


I’m tempted to start a thread, but I have no clue how much traction it would get.


----------



## Thorshammer1980

mmr007 said:


> up to you.... I think 90% of their members are called thorshammer (insert random birthdate)



If I were of Aztec ancestry my screen name would be HuitzilopochtliGodofwar1980. But, I'm white. Sorry for being white, guy!


----------



## Splenetic

mmr007 said:


> up to you.... I think 90% of their members are called thorshammer (insert random birthdate)



On that tip, look up "Thor's hammer - A fate worse than death"....just the album cover, no need to investigate far to get the gist.

I'm sure he's just very _connected to his nordic roots_ though.


----------



## mmr007

Splenetic said:


> On that tip, look up "Thor's hammer - A fate worse than death"....just the album cover, no need to investigate far to get the gist.



I looked it up. Now the FBI is knocking at my door. Thanks a lot. JK


----------



## failsafe

I keep reading stories about these traitor congressmen who are losing big time donors; Comcast, AT&T, etc. I guess maybe I’m naive, but I really didn’t realize that these massive corporations were funding individual campaigns. How the fuck is this even legal? What are they “buying”?


----------



## groverj3

I'm no fan of the establishment centrist Democrats because they're Republican-lite, but equivocating "left wing riots" over people getting murdered by police and people literally storming the capitol trying to overturn the results of an election is ridiculous, and you know it.

This isn't a "both sides are bad" thing. Only one side broke into the capitol building with guns.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Speaking from personal experience, a big progenitor of GMO, Monsanto, ruins biodiversity for one thing, and runs small organic farms out of business, cutting of their heads and legs, by both suing them for using their GMO seed without buying it after it drifts downwind and hence killing their organic certifaction.


I know this because I worked in a farm many years ago down the road that was not organic. I’m not claiming to be an expert or anything just sharing my experience, as I haven’t really formulated a strong opinion one way or the other. 

Also when you breed food for shelf life it can destroy flavor and nutrients. But on the other side without GMO medicine would be far behind where it is today. 

So GMO foods are banned in most of EU I think? I know labeling is mandatory many places, and in the US. I think a lot may have to do with a foreign entity trying to monopolize and destroy agricultural industry. And subsidies. And factory vs family farms.

Also who wants Rat genes in a Tomato ffs? Eww...

I think it is much more complicated issue than simply are GMOs good or bad! Certainly on a base level they may be good to help end starvation etc and grow crops in barren areas.

But as it pertains to this issue, I think many people who are against big Govt, akin to GMO, have grown fond of Donald Trump for the exact wrong reasons, and only his catch phrases and rhetoric resonate rather than his actual policy, which is about as far from the truth as GMO grapes in France!


----------



## SpaceDock

failsafe said:


> I keep reading stories about these traitor congressmen who are losing big time donors; Comcast, AT&T, etc. I guess maybe I’m naive, but I really didn’t realize that these massive corporations were funding individual campaigns. How the fuck is this even legal? What are they “buying”?



They are buying influence. Check out “corporations as people” and “citizens united.” Conservatives fought for the ability for corporations and unions to donate and influence federal politics back in the day.


----------



## Wuuthrad

failsafe said:


> I keep reading stories about these traitor congressmen who are losing big time donors; Comcast, AT&T, etc. I guess maybe I’m naive, but I really didn’t realize that these massive corporations were funding individual campaigns. How the fuck is this even legal? What are they “buying”?



Lobbying. And Citizens United, whereby the GOV decided that Corporations are People too, and that they have the same right to “Free Speech” (i.e. buying politicians, because money {campaign contributions} is speech!) 

WTAF right? Thanks Republicans!


----------



## KailM

Thorshammer1980 said:


> Or you could ask me about it directly instead of being a passive-aggressive pussy about it.



Some assholes in this thread, for sure.

This is why our country is in the shape it’s in, and what led to the ridiculous event at the capitol.

Those of you on the left: Do you think you can just keep insulting the right, labeling them as wing nuts and conspiracy theorists, racists, etc — and not expect any repercussions for it? How long do you expect people to take that from every angle, as they have from the elitist left for the past four years?

The hypocrisy, double-standards, and narrative-tweaking that is standard now is insufferable.

Both sides included, though the left has the media by the balls (or is it the other way around?).


How about some decency and respect for a change? Some of you have seriously stepped out of line.


----------



## spudmunkey

BenjaminW said:


> I always wanted to do a GMO and organic taste test to see how different they are, but then I figured that I’ve probably had GMO food without knowing it was a GMO, and thus my idea I thought was cool went down the drain.



I worked in the produce dept of a grocery store for just under years, and have a lot of farmers in the family (or, at least I did...most have died/retired). IMO, there's no GMO taste difference across the board, because not all GMO's are doing the same things. In one crop, it's meant to extend their shelf life, or help them be more durable (both from physical damage and also to temperature) for transit, or to help them be resistant to a herbicide/pesticide in the fields. Or to reduce seeds, or to save a species from an invasive fungus, etc. My grandpa used to be a Tracy Seed salesman in the 60s (I just googled that for I think the first time ever, and see they are still around with the same logo). At this link, it a list of their cord seeds available, with a chart showing herbicide tolerances: Tracy Seeds, LLC - Corn Products I see there is also an ear-height data point. I wonder if that has to do with differences in harvesting machinery...some might perform more efficiently/less waste with higher or lower ears on the stalk...interesting...

Sometimes it's to increase yield, and that could come at the expense of flavor. Other times, the flavor is the target of the GMO. Sometimes it's both. The commodity-type of tomatoes, for years, have gotten worse and worse as farms breed varietals so that they last longer on the shelf, at the expense of flavor. This is why these cheaper tomatoes are also much more pale-colored than a) they used to be, or b) "heirloom" varieties. However, recently some companies have figured out how to get the color/flavor back (at least to some extent) without hurting their shelf life too much. But every company patents their designs and seeds, so not everything is available everywhere. In the past 20 years or so (before that, too, but much more in these recent years) you may have seen apple or grape varieties with (TM) names. They've selectively bred or crossbred those plants to make a bespoke and patented variety, with a trademarked name. For example, the Honeycrisp apple was created/patented by the University of Minnesota, and it expired back in 2008. It wasn't until that expiration that you started to see other orchards growing it and getting it into more stores, and in bottled juices from Tree Top and Trader Joe's.

With organic, if you taste a difference, it's not always going to be to the organic fruit's benefit. That said, sometimes, organic can mean that the production facility is taking a wholistic approach, and only growing certain things that don't kill the soil or can survive in their environment without too much watering and fertilizer, combined with responsible water management, rotating crops with lower-profit crops year-to-year that replenish nutrients in the soil like clover for animal feed, etc....but even with all of that, it doesn't necessarily mean that the fruit or vegetable is actually going to taste any better.

I was working in the grocery store when we FIRST started selling organic produce, in the mid 90s. This was rural Wisconsin. I had a woman who said she just loved buying organic things like the mushrooms, because she thought she didn't have to wash anything because there weren't any pesticides. It didn't occur to her than someone with a runny nose may have picked her vegetables, that they were shit on by birds while the open-top trailer was parked at a fueling station, or that someone used a cart that had cases of raw chicken that may have leaked a little on it before, to transport cases of produce in the store...never mind the fact that they were still being grown in dirt....


----------



## BenjaminW

KailM said:


> Some assholes in this thread, for sure.
> 
> This is why our country is in the shape it’s in, and what led to the ridiculous event at the capitol.
> 
> Those of you on the left: Do you think you can just keep insulting the right, labeling them as wing nuts and conspiracy theorists, racists, etc — and not expect any repercussions for it? How long do you expect people to take that from every angle, as they have from the elitist left for the past four years?
> 
> The hypocrisy, double-standards, and narrative-tweaking that is standard now is insufferable.
> 
> Both sides included, though the left has the media by the balls (or is it the other way around?).
> 
> 
> How about some decency and respect for a change? Some of you have seriously stepped out of line.


Say what you will about Trump, but his arrival onto the political stage has allowed the crazy/toxic political people to emerge from both sides and that kind of reaction has definitely made politics a more divisive and polarizing subject than it already has been.

Not saying people on here are bad, but it just goes to show how this kind of climate allows for this kind of nature if that makes sense.


----------



## KailM

BenjaminW said:


> Say what you will about Trump, but his arrival onto the political stage has allowed the crazy/toxic political people to emerge from both sides and that kind of reaction has definitely made politics a more divisive and polarizing subject than it already has been.
> 
> Not saying people on here are bad, but it just goes to show how this kind of climate allows for this kind of nature if that makes sense.



Oh, I’m not excusing Trump. But I have a problem with him getting all the blame for this sorry state of affairs.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Re. GMO and Organics, the effect of pesticides and herbicides should not be overlooked, both for environmental and dietary effects. 

Glyphosate for example has been banned in 38 countries! 

Trump, as does Hilary, both make lots of cash off Monsanto, who manufactures glyphosate.


----------



## groverj3

KailM said:


> Some assholes in this thread, for sure.
> 
> This is why our country is in the shape it’s in, and what led to the ridiculous event at the capitol.
> 
> Those of you on the left: Do you think you can just keep insulting the right, labeling them as wing nuts and conspiracy theorists, racists, etc — and not expect any repercussions for it? How long do you expect people to take that from every angle, as they have from the elitist left for the past four years?
> 
> The hypocrisy, double-standards, and narrative-tweaking that is standard now is insufferable.
> 
> Both sides included, though the left has the media by the balls (or is it the other way around?).
> 
> 
> How about some decency and respect for a change? Some of you have seriously stepped out of line.



It's one thing to have conservative ideals on the financial system, or about social policy, and something else entirely to think that there is a super secret pedophile ring run out of a pizzeria with ties to the Democratic party, or to openly espouse fascist ideology.

I can disagree, respect, and debate with the people on the right. However, the most extreme far right faction lives in a different universe that rejects even the notion of using *facts* and *logic* in order to make decisions at all. Their conspiracy theories and gut reactions are supposed to be treated as equal to actually knowing things.

Your argument is basically "make fun of the right and they'll shoot you." Which makes my point for me. The far right is dangerous and shouldn't be humored. The Republicans have been playing with fire for a long time and that's why we are where we are.

The *real* left in the US is pathetically small. The Democrats are centrists for the most part, and that they're seen as as far left as the extreme Republicans are far right really speaks volumes about where things are politically in the country.

I'll give you your critique of the Dems as elitist though. It's not sexy to support organized labor anymore, and their need for big $ donors means they're beholden to supporting causes that make things worse for people lower on the socioeconomic ladder when it comes to labor policy. This is a problem, and those same people are exactly who fascist ideology appeals to when no viable party wants to take up their cause with real solutions. Instead you get fascists giving people easy answers harnessing hate for power.


----------



## Masoo2

KailM said:


> Some assholes in this thread, for sure.
> 
> This is why our country is in the shape it’s in, and what led to the ridiculous event at the capitol.
> 
> Those of you on the left: Do you think you can just keep insulting the right, labeling them as wing nuts and conspiracy theorists, racists, etc — and not expect any repercussions for it? How long do you expect people to take that from every angle, as they have from the elitist left for the past four years?



When your party fosters hate, promotes violence and extremism, does nothing to attack the vast amount of white supremacists, xenophobes, terrorists, conspiracy theorists, and other hateful delusional people that are unable to function in a democratic society who reside within the group, of course we're gonna keep insulting them lmao. There is no "decency and respect" given towards those who threaten to destroy our democratic system and threaten/act out violence towards those within our population, especially racial/sexual/religious minorities who are already disadvantaged due to the system and have no means of fighting back in any significant legal capacity. When your party is favored by groups like the Proud Boys, Atomwaffen, KKK, 3%s, The Base, Oathkeepers, Aryan Brotherhood, etc and does little-nothing to distance itself from those groups, maybe you should revaluate what the values of the party truly are. Hint hint: it's not "small government" or "personal freedom" or "patriotism" or any other meaningless phrase that has no real political grounding anymore.

That's why I'm so strongly against Trumpism and the rise of the populist authoritarian xenophobic right. _*They kill.*_ Yeah sure, the American left is known for protesting and has demonstrated such over the past year, _but they don't kill. _And as we've seen in Poland, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, and Serbia, the rise of these groups in power leads to mass censorship (not "oh no facebook won't let me post about killing people wahhhh" but mass purges of privately-owned media in favor of state-run broadcast agencies, mass arrest and killing of journalists, gestapo-like arrests of individuals who try to speak or post anything that goes against the authoritarian regime), removal of rights for minorities (ethnic, sexual, religious, etc), economic downfall, drastic increases in militarization of the police combined with far-reaching brutality, state-sponsored domestic terrorism, etc all under the guise of so called populist leaders who create hate through artificial targeting of an "other" as the enemy to "defeat" and constant shifting of goalposts to the point where everyone and everything is the enemy.

It's not like the US is some kind of heaven on Earth (see: Battle of Blair Mountain, Battle of Athens, Colorado Coal Wars, Tulsa Massacre, Confederacy, slavery, extermination of the native population, being founded by religious extremists, etc), but the fact that it's even within the realm of thought to compare the actions of Trump and what future the country could possibly be to these authoritarian regimes is frightening and the exact reason why we need to take such a strong stand against the rise of the far right and neo-fascism.

I encourage anyone to go out and look into the rather accessible reports regarding domestic terrorism by the research teams and think tanks dedicated to the subject. It's eye opening how much death right wing extremists have caused in the past few years within the US alone. When the DHS, FBI, and Intelligence Community call white supremacy/ethnonationalism/""western chauvinism"" (dogwhistle) the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland, maybe it's worth considering these groups, actors, and beliefs a genuine terrorist threat and attack them as such. Though of course it doesn't help that there is a fundamental flaw in the framework of legally charging for terrorism in the US as it's a charge designed to be attributed to foreign actors, not domestic. Here's a good one to start: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

I'd also encourage anyone here university age or considering going for a graduate degree to look into programs on peace, conflict, development, refugees, terrorism, radicalization, etc. It's an ever-growing ever-relevant field that our current times necessitates more subject matter experts in.

/rant

Gotta be honest it took reading this thread for me to realize that Iced Earth is American, I always thought they were from somewhere in Europe. Now that I think about it, any power metal/speed metal I hear (especially those with names referencing winter and Earth-like topics) is automatically assumed to be from Europe.

EDIT: Canadians in here, don't think you're safe from fascism either. We all know what Alberta and British Columbia are like once you leave the cities, and there is a frightening amount of video footage out there from groups like Atomwaffen conducting cross-border militia training in the Pacific Northwest. These idiots, violent neo-nazi idiots, really didn't thMake sure not to forget a Canadian was arrested as part of the FBI sting on The Base a few months back. For some fun, _translate The Base into Arabic_.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

You both pretty much covered what I wanted to say down to a T. The right didn't want to do anything about this extremism. If anything, they embraced it. Trump emboldened this side of the party to be even more aggressive. So you expect left-wingers to just sit back and take it like they did for years? Fuck no. Don't turn into wusses just because right-wingers are finally getting well-earned retaliation. You expect freedom to do anything you want without any consequences. I'm tired of seeing my fellow minority and queer friends get shat on by them and not facing any repercussions.

And if well-earned pushback is what made these guys do what they did (spoiler: it wasn't. It was them wanting their god-king to stay in power. Trying to bypass a fair, constitutional election by AT LEAST interrupting a vote, and AT WORST kidnapping/killing elected officials), then they're more snowflakes than the "snowflakes" they make fun of.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Does anyone get the sneaking suspicion that there is some fucked up shit going on with so many of Trumps staff resigning- like are we even safe as a nation?

Even Belichick turned him down!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ichick-nfl-trump-medal-patriots-b1785781.html


----------



## Splenetic

I'm just sitting back now and liking these posts cause Masoo2 and groverj3 just saved my ass from getting a potential banhammer strike. I'd have been far less decent and respectful afterall. Both of you guys covered this shit beautifully.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Splenetic said:


> I'm just sitting back now and liking these posts cause Masoo2 and groverj3 just saved my ass from getting a potential banhammer strike. I'd have been far less decent and respectful afterall. Both of you guys covered this shit beautifully.



Careful, you might try end up having another riot start if you get TOO inflammatory.


----------



## BenjaminW

Wuuthrad said:


> Even Belichick turned him down!
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ichick-nfl-trump-medal-patriots-b1785781.html


Damnit Belichick, why you gotta keep getting yourself involved with people who’ve made accusations of cheating.

WYA Goodell? 

Trump has made it clear for his preference for a _deflated _count of votes, just in the same way Tom Brady has a preference for a deflated pressure in the footballs he throws. 

/s of course. I don’t actually blame Belichick for turning it down, but I wouldn’t be shocked if he accepts it sometime down the road.


----------



## BenjaminW

Splenetic said:


> I'm just sitting back now and liking these posts cause Masoo2 and groverj3 just saved my ass from getting a potential banhammer strike. I'd have been far less decent and respectful afterall. Both of you guys covered this shit beautifully.


Yeah this is why I haven’t super crazy about the political threads on here because it’s very easy to get yourself into trouble over something you say or do in here. 

Then again, I started warming up to this and the US thread and here I am.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

BenjaminW said:


> Yeah this is why I haven’t super crazy about the political threads on here because it’s very easy to get yourself into trouble over something you say or do in here.
> 
> Then again, I started warming up to this and the US thread and here I am.



I'm an absolutely ass debater, so I really don't talk much about politics either. But sometimes you see stuff that just rustles your jimmies.


----------



## Masoo2

Splenetic said:


> I'm just sitting back now and liking these posts cause Masoo2 and groverj3 just saved my ass from getting a potential banhammer strike. I'd have been far less decent and respectful afterall. Both of you guys covered this shit beautifully.


I normally try to steer clear from political threads on here but this is just a topic that gets me so riled up because of how directly it impacts my own life and those of my peers and friends and family and fellow citizens that I just had to give my generic response that I've used elsewhere on the topic. It's something I feel really strongly about, especially the education part but also in how strongly this type of development can impact our own personal beliefs on all sides.

For example, I never thought I'd start questioning my unwavering absolute support for the second amendment, but this presidency and how it has brought forward much of what was pushed aside during the 90s/00s has made me start to change my mind a bit. Actually kind of pains me a bit because for the longest time I was a super vocal advocate and worked with local organizations promoting gun rights to the extreme (talking repealing Hughes/NFA extreme), but that was due to existing in a bubble where violence was simply a non-starter. Then we saw the Bundy incident go down, and that started make me question things a little bit. Then there was the whole prepper phase and seeing extremist religious movements like World Peace and Unification Sanctuary that literally worshipped their rifles made me really step back. And now we're in the times where militant terrorist groups have attempted to kidnap governors, raid capitols with IEDs, and kill innocent people simply for disagreeing with them, it's an issue that I can no longer in good faith support.

Damn shame too because I always wanted to have a set of NODs and some transferables for the inevitable grandkids decades down the line to play around with, they're as fun as plugging into a full stack at max volume. But fun means nothing when there are thousands out there willing to use those same tools of "fun" to harm others and destroy the country from within.

So yeah. Again, I encourage ANYONE going to university or planning on grad school to study these topics and go into working or researching within the peace and conflict field. Or hell, just watch some free online courses or lectures offered by the countless peace and conflict organizations out there. Make it a goal to attend an online panel discussion once every week or two. Get involved in your local Rotary or Civitan club. Reach out to a friend who you haven't heard from in a while. Volunteer at your local library. Every little thing makes a big difference in combating hate and fostering peace and communal development.


----------



## BenjaminW

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> I'm an absolutely ass debater, so I really don't talk much about politics either. But sometimes you see stuff that just rustles your jimmies.


Same here. I'm pretty shy in real life, so I can't debate/talk politics to save my life, but I've come to the conclusion that because I'm on a computer, I have all the time in the world to formulate the perfect statement with all the facts and logic (yes, unironically) to own my opponent. However, I just end up rustling jimmies more than anything. 

I will say though that I always get some kind of dread or wave of anxiety when I see someone quoted what I said in a political thread because I get so worried that I rustled someone's jimmies. But I mean, I like to think I'm able enough to respond, it's just gonna suck because I can't talk politics or debate to save my life. But hey, I'm just some dude on a guitar forum with a mouth, so it's all good.


----------



## mastapimp

Thorshammer1980 said:


> I don't have a Parler or a FB. Sorry, if you wanted to be friends.


You do have Facebook.


----------



## Splenetic

@Masoo2 

Well, I completely feel you regarding the second amendment and how things changed. My whole family is kind of a product of ....guns. My mom and dad met at a shooting range where he was her teacher. Dad was a target shooter, mom was a target shooter, brother was one too. Half of what I remember from my childhood before my dad died, was on various gun ranges.

I even understand the notion that civvies should be able to have guns, and yes even in context of holding off a tyranny. I was in a civil war, in a city under full siege for just under two years where one side was dramatically outgunned for several years. It is NOT a good position to be in. 

......buuuuuuuuut, I'm still center-left, and I completely understand and agree with what you're saying in terms of what it was and what it's turned into. I don't even have full on-the-ground context because I'm in Canada, but it's pretty easy and clear to see the downward spiral from just about anywhere. Culminated into this clusterfuck of a situation now .... I just hope things wind down somehow, they really need to. Any kind of (ridiculous) civil war would just weaken the country, and with the way China and Russia have been acting in the last bunch of years under their regimes, either side "winning" would highly compromise your, and our security. There wouldn't even be a winner, not for long anyway. Boogaloo type morons just don't seem to understand how advantageous this scenario would be to USA's real opponents.


----------



## Splenetic

....and then there's the fact that we all just typed up all of this shit....that it's gotten to this point...because of fucking Trump.....of all people. That's just....what the fucking fuck. I need some Advil.


----------



## Masoo2

Splenetic said:


> @Masoo2
> 
> Well, I completely feel you regarding the second amendment and how things changed. My whole family is kind of a product of ....guns. My mom and dad met at a shooting range where he was her teacher. Dad was a target shooter, mom was a target shooter, brother was one too. Half of what I remember from my childhood before my dad died, was on various gun ranges.
> 
> I even understand the notion that civvies should be able to have guns, and yes even in context of holding off a tyranny. I was in a civil war, in a city under full siege for just under two years where one side was dramatically outgunned for several years. It is NOT a good position to be in.
> 
> ......buuuuuuuuut, I'm still center-left, and I completely understand and agree with what you're saying in terms of what it was and what it's turned into. I don't even have full on-the-ground context because I'm in Canada, but it's pretty easy and clear to see the downward spiral from just about anywhere. Culminated into this clusterfuck of a situation now .... I just hope things wind down somehow, they really need to. Any kind of (ridiculous) civil war would just weaken the country, and with the way China and Russia have been acting in the last bunch of years under their regimes, either side "winning" would highly compromise your, and our security. There wouldn't even be a winner, not for long anyway. Boogaloo type morons just don't seem to understand how advantageous this scenario would be to USA's real opponents.


Raised the same way, the gun range was where me and my dad bonded. Shooting and shooting sports are just stupid fun man, if you haven't yet I highly recommend trying to find some way to get behind a few machine guns or run a set of good night vision goggles, it's crazy fun. And again I too completely understand the notion of being able to own them in the context of holding off bloodshed or in self-defense in the outbreak of civil conflict, which is where part of my problem arises as I both wish the US was in such a place where guns weren't _needed_ yet understand that reality at the moment is much more volatile than any ideal scenario so to advocate against ownership would go against the interest of those I love the most. Not to mention that you can't just up and get rid of the 300 million+ guns circulating in the US.

It's all too complicated haha.

Not to take this too far off topic (like it wasn't from the start) but Canada has a really interesting relationship with firearms. The Oka Crisis in particular is a standout event for me, given that large amounts of arms (primarily Norinco AKs and SKSs) flowed from the US into Canada due to the Mohawk land extending across the border. Also interesting is the fact that the only legal AKs in the country, certain Finnish Valmets, were exempt from restrictions due to being given to indigenous groups as hunting rifles. Really weird stuff that complicates Canadian firearms ownership as much if not more than American.

Then you have groups like the aforementioned Atomwaffen doing cross-border training who are stupid enough to include Canadian domestic market firearms (both ones completely domestic like the WK-180C and ones just more common north of the border like VZ-58s and XCRs) in their propaganda videos even though no location-identifying information was given in the videos. But maybe that's the point, you know? Everything is a signal, and showcasing Canadian market firearms works as a signal to fellow Canadian neo-nazis and boogaloo-types who may be interested in joining these types of violent terrorist groups.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## InfinityCollision

KailM said:


> Some assholes in this thread, for sure.
> 
> This is why our country is in the shape it’s in, and what led to the ridiculous event at the capitol.
> 
> Those of you on the left: Do you think you can just keep insulting the right, labeling them as wing nuts and conspiracy theorists, racists, etc — and not expect any repercussions for it? How long do you expect people to take that from every angle, as they have from the elitist left for the past four years?
> 
> The hypocrisy, double-standards, and narrative-tweaking that is standard now is insufferable.
> 
> Both sides included, though the left has the media by the balls (or is it the other way around?).
> 
> 
> How about some decency and respect for a change? Some of you have seriously stepped out of line.


Calling this a matter of "repercussions" is a nonsensical justification used to elevate right-wing platforms at the expense of any and all that disagree. This is part of decades-long trends in conservative politics, not something new, and much of it goes even farther back.

We're talking about people who want a great many people in my life - friends, family, neighbors, coworkers - marginalized or dead for things beyond their control, and are evidently open to subverting democracy along the way. Why would I sugarcoat that or offer it respect? Rather, it's imperative that intolerant ideologies are not given undue tolerance or regarded passively... because when they are, _that_ is how we arrive at the present day.

If racist people have a problem with being called racist, perhaps they should stop being racist. They, at least, have a choice in the matter.

(There's plenty of racist Democrats too, don't get me wrong. They're often more circumspect about it, but it's still a problem.)

The notion that mainstream media in the US is _leftist_ is also pretty laughable, considering that left-wing politics are about the only thing they won't give a platform. Too few people realize that even the most left-leaning people in Congress are barely left of center. Biden is center-right, as was Obama; both are to the _right_ of some famous Republican politicians of the 50s and 60s on several major policy items. Also quick to disregard how much free airtime MSM as a whole gave Trump, the Tea Party, how hard they worked against Sanders during the primary, etc. US MSM is complicit in the current political climate and at most covers the span of center to right-wing; it's no friend to those on the left.


----------



## diagrammatiks

InfinityCollision said:


> Calling this a matter of "repercussions" is a nonsensical justification used to elevate right-wing platforms at the expense of any and all that disagree. This is part of decades-long trends in conservative politics, not something new, and much of it goes even farther back.
> 
> We're talking about people who want a great many people in my life - friends, family, neighbors, coworkers - marginalized or dead for things beyond their control, and are evidently open to subverting democracy along the way. Why would I sugarcoat that or offer it respect? Rather, it's imperative that intolerant ideologies are not given undue tolerance or regarded passively... because when they are, _that_ is how we arrive at the present day.
> 
> If racist people have a problem with being called racist, perhaps they should stop being racist. They, at least, have a choice in the matter.
> 
> (There's plenty of racist Democrats too, don't get me wrong. They're often more circumspect about it, but it's still a problem.)
> 
> The notion that mainstream media in the US is _leftist_ is also pretty laughable, considering that left-wing politics are about the only thing they won't give a platform. Too few people realize that even the most left-leaning people in Congress are barely left of center. Biden is center-right, as was Obama; both are to the _right_ of some famous Republican politicians of the 50s and 60s on several major policy items. Also quick to disregard how much free airtime MSM as a whole gave Trump, the Tea Party, how hard they worked against Sanders during the primary, etc. US MSM is complicit in the current political climate and at most covers the span of center to right-wing; it's no friend to those on the left.



saying the truth isn't labeling last time i checked.


----------



## thraxil

groverj3 said:


> Anti-GMO sentiment definitely has overlap on both the left and right for some similar but also different reasons. Some leftists I know don't like that they're patented and this is an economic issue. Or, they don't like that they aren't "natural" (as opposed to selective breeding changing lots of genes, rather than transgenic plants having just a single or few genes specifically altered).
> 
> Right wingers seem to dislike GMOs mostly because they're more anti-intellectual and "how dare those elitist scientists change God's food." There is some crunchiness there in the libertarian crowd though objecting to it being "unnatural" as well.



The overlap at the extremes goes back quite a ways. My parents were "back to the land" hippies in the 60's and 70's and my early childhood was spent living in a log cabin with no electricity or running water that they built themselves miles from the nearest neighbors or roads in rural Maine. They were very left-wing and most of their friends were, but at the same time they were doing their thing, there was a "homesteading" movement that was similar but was dominated more by fundamentalist Christians who wanted to raise their children away from the evils of secular society. That community had a large subset of white supremacists who also wanted to do their own thing isolated from evil multiculturalism. You don't have to look too hard to find veins of far right ideologies in environmentalist groups. There's a common idealization of nature and "old ways" of doing things and a sense that normal modern society is headed in the wrong direction. They come to it from very different directions but end up in some of the same places.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

It's the year 2021 and were calling the media leftists. Probably the biggest media mogul inn the world is a right winger.


----------



## thraxil

Oh, and here's a great paper that covers more of why so many Nazis are environmentalists: https://www.researchgate.net/public...the_Nazi_Party_and_its_Historical_Antecedents


----------



## possumkiller

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> It's the year 2021 and were calling the media leftists. Probably the biggest media mogul inn the world is a right winger.


----------



## StevenC

Wuuthrad said:


> Re. GMO and Organics, the effect of pesticides and herbicides should not be overlooked, both for environmental and dietary effects.
> 
> Glyphosate for example has been banned in 38 countries!
> 
> Trump, as does Hilary, both make lots of cash off Monsanto, who manufactures glyphosate.


Glyphosate causing cancer is massively overblown and there is still no significant evidence of it.


----------



## Randy

Whoever said anti-GMO and modern conservatism overlap because of anti-intellectualism hit the nail on the head. Big scary words and things that take work to learn make brain hurt.


----------



## Nicki

budda said:


> If that's all you know about, I guess so.
> 
> I know about the boil water advisories for over a decade, nestle taking our clean water for pennies on the dollar (and we are moving closer to water not being a human right), and the systemic racism of the country in general and how that's not being covered.



Covered under the "Prime minister has no fucking clue what he's doing" part


----------



## possumkiller

Randy said:


> Whoever said anti-GMO and modern conservatism overlap because of anti-intellectualism hit the nail on the head. Big scary words and things that take work to learn make brain hurt.


Exactly. I never planned on using my GI Bill until my european commie wife forced me to. Education is definitely one of the major factors that got me away from being a racist 2a redneck conspiracy theory spewing douchebag like the rest of my old friends and family.


----------



## Carl Kolchak

Masoo2 said:


> Then you have groups like the aforementioned Atomwaffen doing cross-border training who are stupid enough to include Canadian domestic market firearms (both ones completely domestic like the WK-180C and ones just more common north of the border like VZ-58s and XCRs) in their propaganda videos even though no location-identifying information was given in the videos. But maybe that's the point, you know? Everything is a signal, and showcasing Canadian market firearms works as a signal to fellow Canadian neo-nazis and boogaloo-types who may be interested in joining these types of violent terrorist groups.



Friendly heads up, I'll be ripping you a new asshole a little later.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/...9044&user_id=4ada0afe10360df4c7bdbf3fb9fc5e9b

Sheldon Adelson is dead. I'm never the one to find happiness when someone dies but...


----------



## p0ke

Can we just cut all the politics bullshit already and just go back to calling Jon Schaffer an idiot? Pretty please?


----------



## budda

Nicki said:


> Covered under the "Prime minister has no fucking clue what he's doing" part



Not really. That's super vague and not useful for being informed


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/...9044&user_id=4ada0afe10360df4c7bdbf3fb9fc5e9b
> 
> Sheldon Adelson is dead. I'm never the one to find happiness when someone dies but...


----------



## USMarine75

Might already have been posted by AxRookie but this shows why putting this all behind us and moving on is not the right path IMO.


----------



## nightflameauto

RE: GMO
GMO as it exists is just an extension of what we've been doing as long as we've been tending crops rather than being hunter-gatherers. I've been reading a history of humans book (think, from apes to sapiens forward) and apparently we started manipulating crops as soon as we started planting by choosing to plant from the seeds that we liked best last year/season. Modern GMO may allow us to manipulate things well past what we did back then, but it's still just another way of making crops more to our "liking," for various definitions of liking.



failsafe said:


> I keep reading stories about these traitor congressmen who are losing big time donors; Comcast, AT&T, etc. I guess maybe I’m naive, but I really didn’t realize that these massive corporations were funding individual campaigns. How the fuck is this even legal? What are they “buying”?



Lobbying. It's sickening and ridiculous, but our politicians have long been bought and paid for. They're just blatantly open about it now.

So, the Republicans have long practiced the politics of fear, but some of the statements in the past couple days have taken that to a new level. They're not quite coming right out and saying it, but the essential message boils down to telling Democrats, "you now have proof that if you don't give us our way, there are real consequences. There will be more attacks if you take any action against us."

The problem with that message is, there's going to be more attacks even if they DON'T take any actions against them. It's already stitched into the fabric of the country. Taking no actions to create consequences for the ridiculousness just means it'll continue indefinitely.

And that is no way forward.


----------



## Zhysick

Ten pages was asking too much before anyone coming here to say that any non-right-sided is communist. Typical fascist argument: if you are not "right" you are communist.

Ok, I will stop here as I am not looking for a ban, also English is not my first language so I prefer to read than to argue this important things but I am surprised how similar is the US to Spain regarding this political situation. It would be funny if this wasn't something to really worry about.


I am surprised there are no more recognizable faces from the metal scene there, I guess they just didn't get the chance to go to DC. I wouldn't be surprised if Phil Anselmo were pictured...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

nightflameauto said:


> RE: GMO
> GMO as it exists is just an extension of what we've been doing as long as we've been tending crops rather than being hunter-gatherers. I've been reading a history of humans book (think, from apes to sapiens forward) and apparently we started manipulating crops as soon as we started planting by choosing to plant from the seeds that we liked best last year/season. Modern GMO may allow us to manipulate things well past what we did back then, but it's still just another way of making crops more to our "liking," for various definitions of liking.
> 
> 
> 
> Lobbying. It's sickening and ridiculous, but our politicians have long been bought and paid for. They're just blatantly open about it now.
> 
> So, the Republicans have long practiced the politics of fear, but some of the statements in the past couple days have taken that to a new level. They're not quite coming right out and saying it, but the essential message boils down to telling Democrats, "you now have proof that if you don't give us our way, there are real consequences. There will be more attacks if you take any action against us."
> 
> The problem with that message is, there's going to be more attacks even if they DON'T take any actions against them. It's already stitched into the fabric of the country. Taking no actions to create consequences for the ridiculousness just means it'll continue indefinitely.
> 
> And that is no way forward.




Yeah the moral high ground only goes so far


----------



## Randy

p0ke said:


> Can we just cut all the politics bullshit already and just go back to calling Jon Schaffer an idiot? Pretty please?



This thread stays here until this story evolves or reaches some conclusion. 

It was inevitable that it was going to bleed over into politics. I'll kindly point people over to the main thread on this matter if they want to argue politics, but until there's some finality on the events this thread was started for, it stays put and so far no rules have been broken to sufficiently necessitate closing or moving it.


----------



## sleewell

starting to feel that most trump supporters might deserve more sympathy than anger. not the ones that stormed the capitol; they all should be punished severely. but really think about what happened here.

the mega donors and big corps made all this possible and they knew he was using hate from the beginning. trumpism basically prayed upon people's hatred of the other really as a false flag for a huge transfer of wealth to the 1% and big corps. the lower and middle class trump supporter got nothing from the tax cuts and deregulations. big donors were all well aware of the deal they were signing with the devil and went ahead with it for purely financial gains. the tax cuts and deregulations REALLY helped them and now they are going to attempt to feign this fake moral outrage for the damage they have caused and how they have whipped up these dangerous racists to commit violence. obviously the racists are not innocent in all this but as far as the messaging which has caused them all to think this way it really starts at the top and they all went along with it. 

the average lower and middle class trump supporter truly got swindled and as a country we are all way worse off because of it. their lives are worse off. they were sick of normal politicians and were promised many things that never happened. they were told it was fine for a huge corp like amazon to pay no taxes but the real problem was the brown family who just wanted the American dream. 

the average mega donor got everything from this last 4 years. they should not get let of the hook for pausing donations with 8 days left to go. 

anger is not going to get a trumpist to see the light even though that is what we probably feel. they are angry so when anger meets anger its not going to end well. sympathy followed by the facts about who swindled them might not work either... i dunno... i am just at a loss right now.


----------



## ArtDecade

Thorshammer1980 said:


> But, I'm white. Sorry for being white, guy!



Frank Zappa once said: “Hey, you know something people? I'm not black, but there's a whole lots a times
I wish I could say I'm not white.”

Artdecade once said: "Hey, you know something people? Thorshammer1980 is a racist."


----------



## nightflameauto

To sleewell's point, I do feel bad for the average joe Trump supporter in certain ways. I mean, the Republican party has long relied on a huge base of people that vote against their own interests for a variety of reasons, but Trump and his administration have taken that to such an extreme that it's gone beyond issues to full-fledged riot inducing psychosis.

I may have mentioned before my mother has a history of mental illness. Well, I'm seeing signs of that in the Trump supporters I personally know. And a lot of it has been prompted by Trump himself, along with folks not being able to accept that they played a part in setting into motion the events that lead to the attack of the capitol. Just this week we had a top level manager have a mental breakdown, send a massive email to the entire company about Trump declaring martial law, then start marching the hallways screaming at people to lose their masks and get ready because "today's the day." This dude's been a colleague that I've worked very closely with for years and he's never shown any sign of mental degradation until the last couple weeks.

I've also seen video of people flying to DC standing up mid flight, ripping off their masks and screaming at the other people on the plane to stand up and fight or the country will be stolen from them. Multiple people. That's not rational behavior, and it's all been prompted by Trump's continued lies.

So I do have some level of sympathy towards these folks, but I also have a level of anger mixed in with it because they seem completely unaware that they are essentially tearing us apart.

How do you confront angry people that have completely disconnected from reality? You can't talk rationally with them because their rationality is gone. All they have now is rhetoric and made up persecution. You can't fight that with logic or facts. I don't know that there's anything that can be done to stop where we're clearly headed. I just. . . don't see things getting better before they get much, much worse.


----------



## Randy

Didn't see the Thorshammer posts till now. Okay correction, some rules have been broken.


----------



## bostjan

Stu Block has backtracked his comments from the other day, saying he misread "condemning" as "condoning," so what he meant to say was that he doesn't condone the violence, not that he doesn't condemn it.

https://loudwire.com/iced-earth-stu-block-celebrated-riot-capitol-jon-schaffer/

Also, the rest of the band has issued a more concrete statement: https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/9509428/iced-earth-capitol-assault-statement

Sorry if these were already posted. I didn't see them, and frankly, I'm too nervous to go back and read the last two pages.


----------



## schaefertribe

A- Why is political BS being posted here, on a guitar/music specific site?

B- Jon, awesome guitarist as he is, plays 6 strings, again why here?

C- Sad to find out so many 7 string musicians immediately hoped on the mainstream narrative!

I guess I’m not surprised now, since Slayer Tshirts are fashionably worn by dooshbag celebrities, that the metal community is done thinking for itself and ready to be sheepish followers of complete bullsheet!

Didn’t see your comments for the last 8 months as actual riots went on!

Wow, you’re right, what an assault, an insurrection, a riot in DC...with no “assault” weapons, no fires, no planning or strategy, where the cops let em walk in and break glass! Yeah, very violent!!!

Since we’re doing politics here now, where’s the effing outrage over a fake election? We all just found out that this constitutional republic is a facking illusion, but where’s the outrage? Nothing...

Not surprised I guess, if you’re such a mindless sheep that you still believe masks are doing any good...


----------



## akinari

I know I might get pilloried for this, but both sides of the aisle have used the idea of "protecting our democracy" to advance their own agendas.






Let me make it clear: my take on the situation is that nobody who is truly patriotic would ever walk a confederate naval jack into a federal building, let alone attempt a coup. These are dangerous, disturbed, radicalized people who must be taken for such. They have also been victimized by a poisonous narrative, and this is something that has happened throughout history on both the left and right. 

I don't like Donald Trump or the people he has appointed. I'm saddened and frightened by his radical supporters endangering people who don't want what they want. I'm also saddened and frightened by them being endangered by people who don't want what they want. I've seen a lot of whataboutist arguments on both sides since the 6th, and my takeaway has been that it's sad when Americans hurt other Americans. Period.

Everybody wants it their way, 100%, all or nothing... and until people can learn to cooperate and agree more apolitically, (some, not all) people in positions of power will continue to profit and benefit off of the manipulation of groups of people with the "us versus them" mentality. It's time to stop acting like Senate and House floors are football fields. It's been going on for too long, and it just keeps getting more and more volatile. My greatest hope for the incoming administration at the moment is that they do what they can to ease tensions and encourage cooperation between all people. Not just politicians, but everyone. The political unrest and pandemic have created a really frightening powder keg of a situation that desperately needs to be phased out for the greater good of everyone.


----------



## mmr007

Despite being an atheist most of my closest friends are evangelical or practicing ardent Catholics. Despite being liberal I am friends with many conservatives....some who have been Trump supporters. Despite the fact that I effing loathe Trump I maintained these friendships and associations and we could always be civil with each other...me with them...them with me. Until now... because this argument is not about significant policy disagreements. It is about slavish devotion to a man who exhibits no qualities other than to personally display and encourage others to display the worst traits in a human. 

What we saw January 6 was the equivalent of breaking into a house in the LA foothills, stabbing a pregnant woman to death and writing "Healter (sic) Skelter" in human blood on the walls to incite a race war from which "the family" will emerge as the new world leaders. You can't sit back and endorse that and say that you're just along for the positive parts like making music with the beach boys. You have to realize that continued support for this man and this behavior is WRONG. You have to be able to walk away from this otherwise you are what we all claim you are...unamerican.

We are all flawed. There is no perfect solution to our problems that equally benefit all or even most but support for this man is not a support for policies you agree with. It is support for the overthrow of our country. I was a military intelligence officer (I never served in combat) and my father is a retired Lt colonel who served 3 years in Vietnam and we were both equally offended when Trump called those who served suckers and losers. But I would never use that argument against Trump supporters. Agree to disagree and if that statement by the president doesn't offend you...well ok. You have that right. You don't have a right to support what happened last Wednesday. Shame on the members of Iced Earth and anyone else who does.


----------



## LordCashew

sleewell said:


> the average lower and middle class trump supporter truly got swindled and as a country we are all way worse off because of it. their lives are worse off. they were sick of normal politicians and were promised many things that never happened. they were told it was fine for a huge corp like amazon to pay no taxes but the real problem was the brown family who just wanted the American dream.



Crazy thing is, the fact that they didn't receive what they were promised will be blamed on immigrants or liberals, and they will actually be even more rabid and loyal than if the false promises were fulfilled. The swindle is a spiral.


----------



## oldbulllee

man....i was on a break from december 31. today i went to work.... the shit i am hearing from people...
the conspiracy theory reality tv. i can't even begin to write the geopolitical analysis of a dozen construction workeres.
batshit.


----------



## akinari

schaefertribe said:


> A- Why is political BS being posted here, on a guitar/music specific site?


Because a musician was involved in an attempted coup against the United States government.



schaefertribe said:


> B- Jon, awesome guitarist as he is, plays 6 strings, again why here?









schaefertribe said:


> C- Sad to find out so many 7 string musicians immediately hoped on the mainstream narrative!


I know. Here I was thinking that Ibanez was giving away free political science degrees with the purchase of every Gio 7 string. What a shame.



schaefertribe said:


> I guess I’m not surprised now, since Slayer Tshirts are fashionably worn by dooshbag celebrities, that the metal community is done thinking for itself and ready to be sheepish followers of complete bullsheet!


I was never aware of the metal community being a political party, but what does the first part of this statement have to do with the rest of your argument? Anybody can wear any shirt they want and I don't think that has any affect on metal or people that listen to it... apart from them getting upset that somebody railed against the sacred specificity of their taste in music. 



schaefertribe said:


> Didn’t see your comments for the last 8 months as actual riots went on! Wow, you’re right, what an assault, an insurrection, a riot in DC...with no “assault” weapons, no fires, no planning or strategy, where the cops let em walk in and break glass! Yeah, very violent!!!


People died as a result. Are you going to argue that people dying is somehow less violent when you want it to be?



schaefertribe said:


> Since we’re doing politics here now, where’s the effing outrage over a fake election? We all just found out that this constitutional republic is a facking illusion, but where’s the outrage? Nothing...


If the election was "fake," why are so many people butthurt about it? Several citations needed here.



schaefertribe said:


> Not surprised I guess, if you’re such a mindless sheep that you still believe masks are doing any good...


Would you rather have someone spray diarrhea directly at your face with, or without their underwear on? Simple question.


----------



## oldbulllee

broj15 said:


> Here's my thoughts on all that's going on right now. Probably a little controversial, maybe considered a hot take, and maybe leaning towards the conspiracy theory side of things, but here we go
> 
> Capitol Hill protest/riot/"insurrection"/"attempted coup":
> Where to begin with this one.... Let's start with the presence of LEO, or lack there of, or more specifically the lack of LEO presence when compared to what we saw at the Capitol building this past summer during the BLM demonstrations. Now, let's go ahead and get the obvious reason out of the way: racism. Yes, we all know that LEO treats people of color VERY differently than they treat white people. Now that that's out of the way, let's get into the more nuanced reason(s). Of course it should go without saying that there is a very strong leftist sentiment that goes with the BLM/racial justice movement. It always has. It's the part of Martin Luther King Jr.'s rhetoric that doesn't get brought up on MLK day or during black history month and there's a reason for that. There's a reason there's a stronger response from the federal govt. towards leftists than there is to a bunch of people (I won't even call them working class because what working class person can afford to travel across the country in the middle of the work week) that openly support the capitalist systems in place, despite those systems NOT being in their best interest. Leftists are a threat to the status quo. Those people that entered the Capitol building, despite their anti government rhetoric, patriotic posturing, and misguided fanaticism for a failed business man turned failed politician (who knowingly sold them out btw) do NOT pose a real threat to the capitalist systems in this country, and it seems like the only people who don't realize this is them. I mean, they got in the building and were so surprised that they actually did it that the vast majority of them didn't know what the fuck to do with themselves so they started taking selfies, going live on social media, and grabbing a "souvenir" or two. That wasn't an attempted coup, or an insurrection, and I'd barely call it a riot if it weren't for the fact that 5 people died. To me it seemed more like a tailgating party that got too out of hand.
> Now - and here's where we get into conspiracy theory territory - I'd wager that there was a lack of police presence/a delayed response because all of that was SUPPOSED to happen. The whole thing was fed-bait from the beginning. Why? To justify introducing that new "anti domestic terrorism" bill that's been getting tossed around the past few days, aka the Patriot Act pt. 2 (but this time it's cool cuz the Dems are gonna pass it and we have a #girlboss in the white house). That won't just affect right wing extremists. That will affect EVERY political group or movement that poses a threat to the flawed systems in this country, and - if I had to wager - far left groups will bear the brunt of that. They essentially tricked a bunch of dumb fanatics into commiting a false flag on thier own country (without them even knowing it) so they could use them as a scapegoat to crack down on political dissent of any kind. And for the record I am absolutely not defending those people or what they did this past week. They all decided to stake so much on a guy - a fucking politician no less - who doesn't give two shits about them (other than what they do for his fragile ego) and he sold them up the creek, probably knowingly, and they paid for that.
> This might all seem very radical and probably isn't a very popular viewpoint, but alot of this is coming from the frustration of seeing alot of my "woke leftist friends" who were screaming ACAB all summer long not seeing the nuance/missing the bigger picture and siding with the feds because "orange man bad".
> 
> Now that that's out of the way, let's talk about Trump getting deplatformed: Good. Fuck 'em. He's a piece of shit. Always has been and probably always will be. All the tech companies that are a part of this are privately owned and operate within a free market economy which means they can do whatever they want for whatever reason they want. If they think banning DJT will put more money in their pocket then whatever. Business is business & this is a capitalist society. I think what's most disturbing about it, is that social media has become such an integral part of the American political landscape & the daily lives of the average American that there's been more real conversations about imposing government regulations on social media companies than there has been about government regulations on stuff like, oh I don't know, health care, drug companies, shitty land Lords/the lack of renter's rights, climate change, how every utility company in this country has a monopoly in their respective service area, etc., etc.. apparently something as trivial as social media is a more important issue than the shit that people need to sustain life like food, adequate shelter, and medical care.
> 
> So yeah, I don't expect many to agree with some of these points, but that's my take on the situations that we're seeing play out right now. Shits ugly.


i fear that you are correct. and, that being the case in the US, a lot of other places will follow. where i live, it's got to a point that you can't even reason anymore. not a clean person in the system to be found. and outside the system pretty much the same. all the people raging against the fucking machine in serbia, would gladly do the same if they just had the chance. ok, maybe not all. 90 percent.


----------



## Randy

Aaaaand locked because this couldn't stay alive without "why are we talking about politics?". Everyone is free to discuss this in P&CE. Any relevant updates on this subject will be posted here as they're made available.


----------



## oldbulllee

StevenC said:


> There is a tendency for radical groups to self-select less advantaged people.
> 
> Good looking, well off people don't need to search the bowels of the internet to reconcile their problems with the world because they have fewer problems. Wealthy people don't believe in lizard people, scientists don't believe the pharmaceutical industry is perpetuating disease and people with historical understanding don't think the EU is a Nazi plot.
> 
> Basement dwelling internet creatures are the target audience for misogynist, radical right groups. It can't be social ineptitude or the poor personal hygiene; it must be the liberals.
> 
> Not to say that society hasn't failed these people as well, that's definitely a concern. But while you can bring a horse to water, you can't make them drink.


yes, that is correct. i should have thought it through before posting. with just a bit of effort, a sane, logical person would made the same conclusion you did.


----------



## Drew

groverj3 said:


> "Organic" is pretty meaningless. They just use less efficient production methods, have lower yields, can still be GMO anyway, and use _different_ pesticides and herbicides.
> 
> I'd love to understand better what people find off-putting about GMO crops, but it's way off topic for this thread.


Off topic perhaps, but what's your take on locally sourced, small farm rather than industrial agriculture, "closed loop" type operations? Thinking of the model espoused in Bill McKibbon's "Deep Economy," where, for example massive amounts of pigshit aren't a problem for pork production the way they were in the last couple hurricanes, because rather than an industrial operation raising hundreds of thousands of pigs and producing more pigshit than they know what to do with, small farms are raising dozens of pigs, and also raising fruits and vegetables and grains and whatnot, and rather than being an undesirable byproduct, pig waste becomes fertilizer for a lot of the other crops, and in turn a lot of the other crop waste can become food for the pigs, etc. Focus on efficiency with respect to minimizing _waste_ relative to output, rather than the industrial model of maximizing output relative to input.


----------



## groverj3

Drew said:


> Off topic perhaps, but what's your take on locally sourced, small farm rather than industrial agriculture, "closed loop" type operations? Thinking of the model espoused in Bill McKibbon's "Deep Economy," where, for example massive amounts of pigshit aren't a problem for pork production the way they were in the last couple hurricanes, because rather than an industrial operation raising hundreds of thousands of pigs and producing more pigshit than they know what to do with, small farms are raising dozens of pigs, and also raising fruits and vegetables and grains and whatnot, and rather than being an undesirable byproduct, pig waste becomes fertilizer for a lot of the other crops, and in turn a lot of the other crop waste can become food for the pigs, etc. Focus on efficiency with respect to minimizing _waste_ relative to output, rather than the industrial model of maximizing output relative to input.


I should make it clear that situations like this aren't a bad thing. That stuff can be good economically, especially locally. Independent farmers have had a tougher and tougher time staying in operation and profitable.

I think this is all well and good, but that kind of situation isn't feeding the ever growing mass of humanity at scale.

Improving yield and efficiency of production, and minimizing waste, at scale is what's needed globally. However, I fully support small scale, sustainable, ag endeavors. That's kind of a luxury though, and due to the smaller yield prices for produce cultivated in this way are usually higher.

Edit: I realize now that you weren't specifically referring to small scale. If sustainable and efficient closed loop practices can be scaled up then yes, that's exactly what we need. I think though, this kind of production also depends on advances in genetic modifications, herbicides, and pesticides in order to make it relevant at scale. But yes, I agree!


----------



## groverj3

This is the most I've talked about this in months. Since May I've had a "real job" and now I'm like... a (mediocre) software/data engineer mixed with a project manager, and for cancer data. I actually mostly send email and attend video meetings with my webcam off.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## groverj3

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 88900


I'll believe it when he gets his party to vote to remove him.


----------



## USMarine75

groverj3 said:


> I'll believe it when he gets his party to vote to remove him.



Him even hinting at the possibility gave me a 50-percenter.


----------



## spudmunkey

groverj3 said:


> I'll believe it when he gets his party to vote to remove him.


Or shit, at this point, even to allow a vote, and even if it fails.


----------



## Randy

Merged this with the schaffer thread. Some decent content in there I didn't want people to miss out on by it floating off the front page. Welcome weirdos!


----------



## groverj3

Republicans Liz Cheney and John Katko both will vote for impeachment.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## Ralyks

schaefertribe said:


> A- Why is political BS being posted here, on a guitar/music specific site?
> 
> B- Jon, awesome guitarist as he is, plays 6 strings, again why here?
> 
> C- Sad to find out so many 7 string musicians immediately hoped on the mainstream narrative!
> 
> I guess I’m not surprised now, since Slayer Tshirts are fashionably worn by dooshbag celebrities, that the metal community is done thinking for itself and ready to be sheepish followers of complete bullsheet!
> 
> Didn’t see your comments for the last 8 months as actual riots went on!
> 
> Wow, you’re right, what an assault, an insurrection, a riot in DC...with no “assault” weapons, no fires, no planning or strategy, where the cops let em walk in and break glass! Yeah, very violent!!!
> 
> Since we’re doing politics here now, where’s the effing outrage over a fake election? We all just found out that this constitutional republic is a facking illusion, but where’s the outrage? Nothing...
> 
> Not surprised I guess, if you’re such a mindless sheep that you still believe masks are doing any good...



You have two posts on this forum. And this thread has been here forever. And there are guitarists here that have never even owned a 7 strings.

Dude, don't like the thread, you don't have to post here.

Also, people died, including a cop, and there was feces all over the place. The BLM protests didn't even have a dead cop and literal shit all over the place, and I didn't condone the destruction of property for that either.


----------



## USMarine75

schaefertribe said:


> A- Why is political BS being posted here, on a guitar/music specific site?
> 
> B- Jon, awesome guitarist as he is, plays 6 strings, again why here?
> 
> C- Sad to find out so many 7 string musicians immediately hoped on the mainstream narrative!
> 
> I guess I’m not surprised now, since Slayer Tshirts are fashionably worn by dooshbag celebrities, that the metal community is done thinking for itself and ready to be sheepish followers of complete bullsheet!
> 
> Didn’t see your comments for the last 8 months as actual riots went on!
> 
> Wow, you’re right, what an assault, an insurrection, a riot in DC...with no “assault” weapons, no fires, no planning or strategy, where the cops let em walk in and break glass! Yeah, very violent!!!
> 
> Since we’re doing politics here now, where’s the effing outrage over a fake election? We all just found out that this constitutional republic is a facking illusion, but where’s the outrage? Nothing...
> 
> Not surprised I guess, if you’re such a mindless sheep that you still believe masks are doing any good...



Hi, Brad!

Love your videos but stick with amp repair. 

#kthanksbye


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

For the record; that dude posted that when we had the stand-alone Jon Schaffer thread in the General Music section, before Randy merged them.

It's still a fucking dumbass post, but still.

Oh also, Mr. Pelosi Desk Guy faces up to 10 years in prison now. They found a stun gun on him in the pictures.

https://twitter.com/travisbubenik/status/1349118528658538499?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1349118528658538499|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=


----------



## Thaeon

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> For the record; that dude posted that when we had the stand-alone Jon Schaffer thread in the General Music section, before Randy merged them.
> 
> It's still a fucking dumbass post, but still.
> 
> Oh also, Mr. Pelosi Desk Guy faces up to 10 years in prison now. They found a stun gun on him in the pictures.
> 
> https://twitter.com/travisbubenik/status/1349118528658538499?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1349118528658538499|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=



But no one was armed or intended any violence...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Thaeon said:


> But no one was armed or intended any violence...



When we said "hang Mike Pence" we were being sarcastic!


----------



## spudmunkey

Dineley said:


> When we said "hang Mike Pence" we were being sarcastic!


No, they mean "hang up on Mike Pence", like, on the phone, because he keeps calling everyone to remind them that their car's extended warranty is about to expire. They were really pissed.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

spudmunkey said:


> No, they mean "hang up on Mike Pence", like, on the phone, because he keeps calling everyone to remind them that their car's extended warranty is about to expire. They were really pissed.



I was saying that....


----------



## Thaeon

JFC, I’m in the right place.


----------



## Carl Kolchak

Masoo2 said:


> When your party fosters hate, promotes violence and extremism, does nothing to attack the vast amount of white supremacists, xenophobes, terrorists, conspiracy theorists, and other hateful delusional people that are unable to function in a democratic society who reside within the group, of course we're gonna keep insulting them lmao. There is no "decency and respect" given towards those who threaten to destroy our democratic system and threaten/act out violence towards those within our population, especially racial/sexual/religious minorities who are already disadvantaged due to the system and have no means of fighting back in any significant legal capacity. When your party is favored by groups like the Proud Boys, Atomwaffen, KKK, 3%s, The Base, Oathkeepers, Aryan Brotherhood, etc and does little-nothing to distance itself from those groups, maybe you should revaluate what the values of the party truly are. Hint hint: it's not "small government" or "personal freedom" or "patriotism" or any other meaningless phrase that has no real political grounding anymore.
> 
> That's why I'm so strongly against Trumpism and the rise of the populist authoritarian xenophobic right. _*They kill.*_ Yeah sure, the American left is known for protesting and has demonstrated such over the past year, _but they don't kill. _And as we've seen in Poland, Hungary, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, and Serbia, the rise of these groups in power leads to mass censorship (not "oh no facebook won't let me post about killing people wahhhh" but mass purges of privately-owned media in favor of state-run broadcast agencies, mass arrest and killing of journalists, gestapo-like arrests of individuals who try to speak or post anything that goes against the authoritarian regime), removal of rights for minorities (ethnic, sexual, religious, etc), economic downfall, drastic increases in militarization of the police combined with far-reaching brutality, state-sponsored domestic terrorism, etc all under the guise of so called populist leaders who create hate through artificial targeting of an "other" as the enemy to "defeat" and constant shifting of goalposts to the point where everyone and everything is the enemy.
> 
> It's not like the US is some kind of heaven on Earth (see: Battle of Blair Mountain, Battle of Athens, Colorado Coal Wars, Tulsa Massacre, Confederacy, slavery, extermination of the native population, being founded by religious extremists, etc), but the fact that it's even within the realm of thought to compare the actions of Trump and what future the country could possibly be to these authoritarian regimes is frightening and the exact reason why we need to take such a strong stand against the rise of the far right and neo-fascism.
> 
> I encourage anyone to go out and look into the rather accessible reports regarding domestic terrorism by the research teams and think tanks dedicated to the subject. It's eye opening how much death right wing extremists have caused in the past few years within the US alone. When the DHS, FBI, and Intelligence Community call white supremacy/ethnonationalism/""western chauvinism"" (dogwhistle) the most persistent and lethal threat in the homeland, maybe it's worth considering these groups, actors, and beliefs a genuine terrorist threat and attack them as such. Though of course it doesn't help that there is a fundamental flaw in the framework of legally charging for terrorism in the US as it's a charge designed to be attributed to foreign actors, not domestic. Here's a good one to start: https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states
> 
> I'd also encourage anyone here university age or considering going for a graduate degree to look into programs on peace, conflict, development, refugees, terrorism, radicalization, etc. It's an ever-growing ever-relevant field that our current times necessitates more subject matter experts in.
> 
> /rant
> 
> Gotta be honest it took reading this thread for me to realize that Iced Earth is American, I always thought they were from somewhere in Europe. Now that I think about it, any power metal/speed metal I hear (especially those with names referencing winter and Earth-like topics) is automatically assumed to be from Europe.
> 
> EDIT: Canadians in here, don't think you're safe from fascism either. We all know what Alberta and British Columbia are like once you leave the cities, and there is a frightening amount of video footage out there from groups like Atomwaffen conducting cross-border militia training in the Pacific Northwest. These idiots, violent neo-nazi idiots, really didn't thMake sure not to forget a Canadian was arrested as part of the FBI sting on The Base a few months back. For some fun, _translate The Base into Arabic_.



First of all the US is not a democracy, it's a representative republic, at least in theory it's supposed to be. In practical application it turns out it's nothing but a plutocratic oligarchy, so fuck it. 

And while I'm at it....

Fuck minorities, cops, politicians, the media, voters, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Europeans, Canadians, race-traitors, boomers, homos, drunks, junkies, materialists, and, of course, you.

As for Trump, he was nothing but a four year place-holder to keep gullible Whites in line long enough to install a Biden. So no Fourth Reich. No fundamentalist theocracies. No walls. No mass deportations. No second terms. All his supporters got were his empty promises, and of course Trump Heights. 

And you want to talk Eastern Europe?!? How many millions did the Judeo-Bolsheviks kill? But the Soviets never would have been able to murder all those millions if it wasn't for the support they recieved from the good ole US of A. Because without an Uncle Joe there never could have been a cold war, could there? And without a cold war no way to rationalize the military industrial complex. Ooops. Sorry. Arsenal of Democracy, that is.

No Capitalism without Communism, and no Communism without Capitalism. 

Red terror? Black terror? Neither exists, as Sanguinetti exposed much to the embarrassment of the democratic West back in the 70s. Only through a continued strategy of tension, that is through the use of state-directed terror on a civilain population for the purpose of shifting political opinion, can the system maintain the illusion that it is anything other than what it is, the coldest of all cold monsters. And yet we are to believe that internet chat groups pose the single greatest threat to our American way of life. From useful to useless idiots...

America's a country of Winstons tripping over their collected feet to be first into Room 101.


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> When we said "hang Mike Pence" we were being sarcastic!



They meant, like, pictures of him on the wall. They had to tour the entire capitol building to decide where to put it.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Wuuthrad

StevenC said:


> Glyphosate causing cancer is massively overblown and there is still no significant evidence of it.



Says Monsanto...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> View attachment 88910
> View attachment 88911



Woooooooow


----------



## Wuuthrad

I wanna understand the Trump supporters- I’ve still not received a cogent answer to my months old question why support him? 

Maybe I could better get into the mindset of Trumpism if I start buttering my toast with Glyphosate, boiling my pasta in DDT and showering with Napalm?


----------



## StevenC

Wuuthrad said:


> Says Monsanto...


Says all the science up to this point. When you make the claim that something causes cancer, you have to support that claim.

The only report that found glyphosate to maybe cause cancer, from the IARC, is steeped in scandal and bias.


----------



## Wuuthrad

StevenC said:


> Says all the science up to this point. When you make the claim that something causes cancer, you have to support that claim.
> 
> The only report that found glyphosate to maybe cause cancer, from the IARC, is steeped in scandal and bias.




As is Monsanto...


----------



## Randy

What do Mexicans know about science anyway?


----------



## BenjaminW

Wuuthrad said:


> I wanna understand the Trump supporters- I’ve still not received a cogent answer to my months old question why support him?
> 
> Maybe I could better get into the mindset of Trumpism if I start buttering my toast with Glyphosate, boiling my pasta in DDT and showering with Napalm?


Do you want an answer from a current or former Trump supporter, or do you not care?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Carl Kolchak said:


> so fuck it.
> 
> And while I'm at it....
> 
> Fuck minorities, cops, politicians, the media, voters, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Europeans, Canadians, race-traitors, boomers, homos, drunks, junkies, materialists, and, of course, you.
> 
> .



so, you get laid lots huh?


----------



## Wuuthrad

BenjaminW said:


> Do you want an answer from a current or former Trump supporter, or do you not care?


 
Yes I’d be happy to hear from either, Cheers!


----------



## StevenC

Wuuthrad said:


> As is Monsanto...


So do you have any proof of glyphosate causing cancer or is this just some circular nonsense?

If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that that's not how science or authorisation works. USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, WHO, EU have all found glyphosate to not be a carcinogen. IARC, the only pro-cancer report, edited the non-carcinogenic findings out of their report.

A really simple test for whether something is bad science is to look at what Greenpeace thinks and then be on the opposite side. I'm struggling to think of an example where that doesn't work.


----------



## Wuuthrad

StevenC said:


> So do you have any proof of glyphosate causing cancer or is this just some circular nonsense?
> 
> If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that that's not how science or authorisation works. USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, WHO, EU have all found glyphosate to not be a carcinogen. IARC, the only pro-cancer report, edited the non-carcinogenic findings out of their report.
> 
> A really simple test for whether something is bad science is to look at what Greenpeace thinks and then be on the opposite side. I'm struggling to think of an example where that doesn't work.



Nah I’m just thinkin bout that movie

“I luv the smell of Napalm in the Morning!”


----------



## Wuuthrad

KailM said:


> Some assholes in this thread, for sure.





You got that right, dumass!


----------



## KailM

Wuuthrad said:


> You got that right, dumass!



If you’re going to call me that, you should probably learn how to spell it.


----------



## Randy

No name calling, previous offenders have already been reported, I don't want to add anyone else to the list


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Randy said:


> No name calling, previous offenders have already been reported, I don't want to add anyone else to the list



Can I call Mike Pence a pussy at least?

https://twitter.com/AlexThomp/status/1349163194191908868

Cuz he's totally a pussy.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I suspect there might be some “fallout” from the social media purge. So here’s a PSA for everybody, myself included!


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Can I call Mike Pence a pussy at least?
> 
> https://twitter.com/AlexThomp/status/1349163194191908868
> 
> Cuz he's totally a pussy.



And you know what Trump does to pussies


----------



## Wuuthrad

KailM said:


> If you’re going to call me that, you should probably learn how to spell it.



Sorry dude my bad....

Dumas 

Ah, lips that say one thing, while the heart thinks another,
Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo


----------



## Randy

Trump Supporters: Don't piss us off or we're coming for you!

Also Trump Supporters: Georgia Man Arrested in Pro-Trump Capitol Riot Dies by Suicide


----------



## diagrammatiks

Randy said:


> Trump Supporters: Don't piss us off or we're coming for you!
> 
> Also Trump Supporters: Georgia Man Arrested in Pro-Trump Capitol Riot Dies by Suicide



lol pantifa. that's pretty funny


----------



## BenjaminW

Wuuthrad said:


> Yes I’d be happy to hear from either, Cheers!


Ask and you shall receive (ex, btw)! 

So being an 11/12 year old in 2015 (I know I'm young as hell, but I like to think I don't act like it), politics was something I was never really into, but Fox News was always on whether it was in the car or on TV, so I'd see stuff there and then overhear my parents talking about politics whether it was to each other or with others. So that was really my introduction to politics as a whole, and I pretty much just went along with being a Republican since I obviously grew up in a conservative family.

I think what was so interesting about a candidate like Trump to me was that he was like a breath of fresh air in that he wasn't a career politician like almost everyone running against him and who came before him, and someone who wasn't afraid to speak his mind (as much as it got him in trouble then and now, and was part of why I had to get off the Trump train). Plus, I felt drawn towards the MAGA slogan because the ideas of wanting to create new jobs/bring jobs back from overseas and bolster the economy, increasing and improving border security particularly on the US/Mexico border, ending the conflict in the Middle East/Afghanistan, and the America First policy all were appealing to me because I'd rather support someone who actively made a point about wanting to improve America rather than come off as an all talk, no action candidate so to speak. I will say though on a side note that about Russia that I was pretty optimistic about basically getting friendly with Russia because I'd seen it as an excellent way to shake off some of those tensions that may have been there since the Cold War, and I naturally felt like it's better to make peace with your enemies rather than be in a position where you're at the brink of war or always having some kind of strong tension between the two nations.

So in short/TL;DR: Was never into politics that much especially given how old I was at the time, and that kind of populist agenda really was appealing to me. 

I can't think of anything else to say, but hopefully this is sufficient enough of an answer for you.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

One thing that is completely pissing me off is this deflection/red herring of this "unprecedented attack on free speech" bullshit that conservatives are bringing up again and again. Every conservative friend I know refuse to acknowledge Trump's role in DC. They're simply repeating the same lines about censorship and their first amendment rights. They are simply lying that they don't know the difference between the privilege of using Twitter or Amazon's AWS vs government censorship. 

It's even more maddening when they simply state "This isn't about Trump. This is about our rights" When it's brought up that Trump was banned for incitement. These people are cancerous, mindless drones. They have no opinions of their own. simply regurgitating what Trump, FOX, and AwakenwithJP say as if it's something meaningful. Get me the fuck out of this country of morons.


----------



## TedEH

BenjaminW said:


> Ask and you shall receive (ex, btw)!


I think your age grants you some room to be naive, but a lot of Trump supporters should have known better.



BenjaminW said:


> he was like a breath of fresh air in that he wasn't a career politician like almost everyone


In other words, he was just plainly unqualified.



BenjaminW said:


> and someone who wasn't afraid to speak his mind


In other words, he had no restraint.



BenjaminW said:


> create new jobs/bring jobs back


Which every politician, ever, promises in some form or another.



BenjaminW said:


> border security





BenjaminW said:


> America First


Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans? Why not acknowledge that supporting a larger community is beneficial to everyone - at every scale. You support your family. You support your town. You support your state. You support your country. Why does it stop there? Why not support your continent? Why not support the world as a whole?


----------



## Ralyks

TedEH said:


> Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans? Why not acknowledge that supporting a larger community is beneficial to everyone - at every scale. You support your family. You support your town. You support your state. You support your country. Why does it stop there? Why not support your continent? Why not support the world as a whole?



A lot of us are asking the same question. I personally find both Canada and Mexico to be pretty cool, and also, this planet would be a lot cooler if the nation's helped each other out.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans?



The idea is that non-white non-English speaking foreigners are dangerous (they're not, relative to citizens of similar socioeconomic conditions), they steal "our" jobs (they process our food in slaughterhouses and farms for slave wages), bring drugs (thanks to our draconian War On Drugs), and are a drain on resources (not true, they tend to work more, and pay taxes). 

They're a convenient scapegoat.


----------



## groverj3

TedEH said:


> Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans?


Honestly, a lot of it is racism. Or racism thinly veiled as other things (fear of taking jobs, committing crimes, etc. all things demonstrably proven false, but try reasoning with someone who rejects that reason is a thing you should aspire to).

The irony is, most people who are super concerned about the border with Mexico live nowhere near it. I lived in Tucson, AZ, which is like an hour from the Mexican border. It was fine. I mean, the Southwest has its fair share of issues, like water, and the fact that human beings shouldn't live there, but it's not some kind of warzone like people seem to think. I lived in a city of over 1M people (metro area) down there, and we had bitchin Mexican food.


----------



## Randy

Most of the "America First" people I know have never been to another country, and have barely ever left their state. There's a big world out there.


----------



## Wuuthrad

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29H2WF


----------



## MaxOfMetal

groverj3 said:


> Honestly, a lot of it is racism. Or racism thinly veiled as other things (fear of taking jobs, committing crimes, etc. all things demonstrably proven false, but try reasoning with someone who rejects that reason is a thing you should aspire to).
> 
> The irony is, most people who are super concerned about the border with Mexico live nowhere near it. I lived in Tucson, AZ, which is like an hour from the Mexican border. It was fine. I mean, the Southwest has its fair share of issues, like water, and the fact that human beings shouldn't live there, but it's not some kind of warzone like people seem to think. I lived in a city of over 1M people (metro area) down there, and we had bitchin Mexican food.



I lived in Peoria and worked in Chandler, and can confirm.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Not Luxembourg! A Bridge too far man, seriously. Piss of Luxembourg? It’s over Donald!


----------



## BenjaminW

TedEH said:


> I think your age grants you some room to be naive, but a lot of Trump supporters should have known better.


Yeah. At least I was honest about how I old was and how much politics played a role in my life until then because I feel like being honest about it is a whole lot better than having someone on here think I'm some adult out of college who just happens to be really gullible or whatever. 


TedEH said:


> In other words, he was just plainly unqualified.


I already knew that he had no prior experience in politics, but I still stubbornly held onto the idea that changing it up was a good idea. 


TedEH said:


> In other words, he had no restraint.


Yeah. The one thing I can say for certain is that unrestrainedness he had ultimately doomed him from the start.


TedEH said:


> Which every politician, ever, promises in some form or another.


Yeah. I mean as great as those ideas sound, it's definitely a very vanilla idea when it comes to campaign promises because as you say, every politician has promised this in some way. 


TedEH said:


> Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans? Why not acknowledge that supporting a larger community is beneficial to everyone - at every scale. You support your family. You support your town. You support your state. You support your country. Why does it stop there? Why not support your continent? Why not support the world as a whole?


I am having some trouble with trying to properly respond to your question about obsession with borders mainly because I'm trying to not ruffle some feathers here. However, I'll give you Homeland Security's overview on border security.

As for "what's wrong with Mexicans?", I don't blame you for asking that question, but it's one of those questions that someone answering it such as myself has to be really careful with responding because if I say the wrong thing, it's not going to end well. With that being said, I genuinely don't have any problems with Mexican people or anyone that isn't white and if I did have any problems, I pretty much would not be welcome here or even anywhere at all. Sorry in advance if my response here sounds really robotic because as I mentioned, I wanted to be as careful as I could with my response because of how heavy this topic can be.

In regards to your last point about supporting my continent or the world as a whole, I feel like I have a weird stance on foreign policy as I think about it now because I'm not opposed to supporting my continent or the world around me, but at the same time I consider myself to be an isolationist.


----------



## spudmunkey

Apologies if this was already posted:


----------



## mastapimp

BenjaminW said:


> Yeah. At least I was honest about how I old was and how much politics played a role in my life until then because I feel like being honest about it is a whole lot better than having someone on here think I'm some adult out of college who just happens to be really gullible or whatever.
> 
> I already knew that he had no prior experience in politics, but I still stubbornly held onto the idea that changing it up was a good idea.



Here's the thing...when you're 11 or 12, politics shouldn't even be on your radar. You're impressionable and you're going to go along with whatever you hear on the radio/TV/commentary from your parents. 

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and back then Donald Trump was more or less a rich guy that bankrupted everything he touched at some point. He started to appeal to more and more people when he dumbed down his audience with reality tv (the apprentice) and brought in more audience from the next lowest IQ-suck by appearing on wrestling shows and beauty pageants. He shed the image of the guy that couldn't sell steaks, water, or run casinos, and was passed off as some genius businessman through scripted television disguised as real work. My dad's played golf with a real exec that was a "guest boardroom member" on the apprentice and he laughed off the show and Trump's on-set behavior. I had a hard time believing the story about his team of 3 hairdressers attending to his hair every 10 minutes until his tax documents were leaked and he had a 75K business expense write-off for just that, hairdressers. The point I knew he had a shot of winning was when I was having Thanksgiving dinner with my sister-in-law's family and they were so tickled by Trump's appearance on Jimmy Fallon where he got his hair tussled and they said "isn't he great? he's just like us"... Yes, he may pass off and share their conspiracies like the bullshit twitter war with Obama and his birth certificate, but his lifestyle is about as far away as possible from lower-middle class rural America. 

My point is...with what I knew and observed through 30 years of seeing Trump, I could never see him succeeding as president. However, if I was 11 or 12 and saw him show up on WWE and get body slammed by the Rock, I'd think he's pretty cool...way cooler than some crusty old man or woman that's running against him. That's the problem with a guy like him...everything is image and it's all manipulated to have people believe he's an extraordinary person.


----------



## BenjaminW

mastapimp said:


> Here's the thing...when you're 11 or 12, politics shouldn't even be on your radar. You're impressionable and you're going to go along with whatever you hear on the radio/TV/commentary from your parents.
> 
> I grew up in the 80s and 90s and back then Donald Trump was more or less a rich guy that bankrupted everything he touched at some point. He started to appeal to more and more people when he dumbed down his audience with reality tv (the apprentice) and brought in more audience from the next lowest IQ-suck by appearing on wrestling shows and beauty pageants. He shed the image of the guy that couldn't sell steaks, water, or run casinos, and was passed off as some genius businessman through scripted television disguised as real work. My dad's played golf with a real exec that was a "guest boardroom member" on the apprentice and he laughed off the show and Trump's on-set behavior. I had a hard time believing the story about his team of 3 hairdressers attending to his hair every 10 minutes until his tax documents were leaked and he had a 75K business expense write-off for just that, hairdressers. The point I knew he had a shot of winning was when I was having Thanksgiving dinner with my sister-in-law's family and they were so tickled by Trump's appearance on Jimmy Fallon where he got his hair tussled and they said "isn't he great? he's just like us"... Yes, he may pass off and share their conspiracies like the bullshit twitter war with Obama and his birth certificate, but his lifestyle is about as far away as possible from lower-middle class rural America.
> 
> My point is...with what I knew and observed through 30 years of seeing Trump, I could never see him succeeding as president. However, if I was 11 or 12 and saw him show up on WWE and get body slammed by the Rock, I'd think he's pretty cool...way cooler than some crusty old man or woman that's running against him. That's the problem with a guy like him...everything is image and it's all manipulated to have people believe he's an extraordinary person.


As I’ve gotten older, I definitely understand the importance of thinking for yourself and coming up with your own opinions, instead of _always _going with what your parents or a political party think and say.

I’ve seen a few clips of Trump in interviews back from the 80s, and he seems so different in that when you hear him speak, he speaks in like full sentences and what not. So to me it will strike me as something good about him because of how he acted in old interviews, but in reality all it’s doing is hiding the image of a rich guy with an ego and mouth the size of Manhattan.

I’ve never been a WWE fan, but I thought it was interesting/cool to see him do that. Now I’m stuck here imagining a bald Trump. Ewwwwwww.


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> I wanna understand the Trump supporters- I’ve still not received a cogent answer to my months old question why support him?
> 
> Maybe I could better get into the mindset of Trumpism if I start buttering my toast with Glyphosate, boiling my pasta in DDT and showering with Napalm?



I answered it in a lengthy post buried above lol. Im not a Trump supporter, but I know some and I've debated them enough to know their talking points. I also watch and read sources on both sides of the issues before I make up my own mind.

Also, watch the movie Life After Trump that just came out. It is a religious indoctrination video but it sure makes the point lol. (Or I can summarize if you're allergic)

You are naive and a prisoner of your demographic or locality if you can't see or understand his popularity especially on certain issues (like with single issue voters).


----------



## sleewell

Pence is that person in an abusive relationship who swears it wont keep happening. Plenty of people are offering him options to get out but he thinks this time is different and that deep down trump really loves him but we just dont see it. 

Trump literally sent people to kill him and a few days later he just takes him back like nothing happened. Pence gets up from being thrown under the bus by trump and is like please daddy do it again. 

I cant imagine he has any political career after this. Spent 4 years destroying his reputation to go down in history as the biggest cock holster ever.


----------



## thraxil

And... https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rosanne-boyland-trampled-flag/


----------



## Musiscience

USMarine75 said:


> (Or I can summarize if you're allergic



Please do. Anaphylaxis is never far for me when it comes to religion and far right idiocy.


----------



## Ralyks

Just gonna leave this here...


----------



## StevenC

BenjaminW said:


> I am having some trouble with trying to properly respond to your question about obsession with borders mainly because I'm trying to not ruffle some feathers here. However, I'll give you Homeland Security's overview on border security.
> 
> As for "what's wrong with Mexicans?", I don't blame you for asking that question, but it's one of those questions that someone answering it such as myself has to be really careful with responding because if I say the wrong thing, it's not going to end well. With that being said, I genuinely don't have any problems with Mexican people or anyone that isn't white and if I did have any problems, I pretty much would not be welcome here or even anywhere at all. Sorry in advance if my response here sounds really robotic because as I mentioned, I wanted to be as careful as I could with my response because of how heavy this topic can be.
> 
> In regards to your last point about supporting my continent or the world as a whole, I feel like I have a weird stance on foreign policy as I think about it now because I'm not opposed to supporting my continent or the world around me, but at the same time I consider myself to be an isolationist.


I feel like I've seen a substantial part of your country. I've driven across half of it, been to about 20 states or so.

You've listed your location as San Francisco, is this where you're from? The reason I ask is because I can't imagine how anyone living in San Francisco could possibly think a wall would stop immigration. Any part of the South or East where you've got a significant amount of Latin immigration I guess I can see it, but I've never seen so many Asian people outside of Asia as I saw in San Francisco and I really don't see what route they're taking that a wall gets in the way.


----------



## bostjan

Many many people, including me, have explained in reasonable detail why the wall wouldn't work. We explained until blue in the mouth how Mexico would never ever pay for it. But the Trump people kept insisting that their logic was better, and they got their wall now. The data, unsurprisingly, shows how the wall is not working at all, and also it is clear that Mexico never paid a penny.

Many many people explained in detail how Trump's presidency would only divide Americans even further. They were correct about that, too.

Many many people explained how Trump would try to steal the election, and even provided some evidence, Trump's election shenanigans was investigated by a Republican investigator from the Republican-led FBI under a republican administration and determined that Trump had illegally obstructed the investigation such that it could not be completed, and provided a report with tons of evidence to support that. Then Trump tried to get a foreign leader to spread false rumours about his main political rival in the upcoming election by withholding funds that weren't the President's to withhold, and did it with a ton of witnesses present, then even admitted to it. The people making predictions (some of them) had warned Trump's supporters might get violent if Trump didn't STFU with all of the wacked-out conspiracy theories (which have zero evidence in support of them), and bingo, we have violence from Trump supporters.

When will people start to listen to the ones who have been correct so many times about Trump and his policies?

Never. The answer is never, because logic can never defeat emotions. Something needs to appeal to people's emotions in order to supersede their illogical conclusions to support their emotionally-driven antics.


----------



## USMarine75

Musiscience said:


> Please do. Anaphylaxis is never far for me when it comes to religion and far right idiocy.



Basically there is no perfect person except for Jesus. So God works with what he has which is imperfect people. So God chose an imperfect person in Trump to act through. 



Tl;dr religion


----------



## nightflameauto

Anyone else find it depressing that even the Republicans that, just two days ago, were swearing up and down that impeachment is the wrong path and will only cause more division in the country are suddenly about facing now that massive corporate fund providers are pulling the plug? Kind of an "in your fucking faces" sign of who/what the Republican party power players really give a fuck about. Will of the people? Fuck that. Ethics? Say what now? Money? OH SHIT! BETTER STEP UP!

As for why some people are so obsessed over border security? It's partly inherent racism being passed generation to generation and partly Republican politics of fear policies and rhetoric that helps keep that racism watered and fertilized generation to generation when we as a society would probably be able to temper outright racist policies if we didn't constantly play the game of "took eer jerbs!" and have people spouting off about how Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers.


----------



## USMarine75

Watching live feed of impeachment hearing on CNN. 

Why is it that liberals / Democrats/ Leftists always have to sound like they've never been around or fired a weapon? CNN anchor says he can't believe National Guard has been issued automatic weapons to defend the Capitol. Jesus man they're their issued weapons its not like they were issued laser cats. 

And all these people excited about how a couple Republican Representatives are voting to impeach when its 1/10 who voted for obstruction and are unindicted co-conspirators of the president.


----------



## TedEH

BenjaminW said:


> As for "what's wrong with Mexicans?", I don't blame you for asking that question, but it's one of those questions that someone answering it such as myself has to be really careful with responding because if I say the wrong thing, it's not going to end well.


I think the fact that you have to respond in that way should be enough reason for you to pause and reconsider your stance on the subject. It doesn't mean you're wrong per-se, but it also might mean you're wrong. The only "problem" with any out-group is usually just that they're the out-group. I'm not a very worldly person, but I've travelled at least around the country I'm in, and I've spoken to (I think) a reasonable number of people from other places, worked with people from other countries, other nationalities, etc. - and while some other cultures are strange to me, they're still people. They wake up and do the best they can with the day like everyone else. I've worked with people from Mexico, from Cuba, from Japan, from the US and Canada, from Australia, there's this one really cool guy from Brazil, I've got friends who are natives, etc. They're all people. They're more similar than they are different and anyone who tells you otherwise generally either has an agenda or is just needlessly afraid of "other".


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Ralyks said:


> Just gonna leave this here...





could you ad tiny bit of context so I know if I should even bother watching??


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> I lived in Peoria and worked in Chandler, and can confirm.



Yeah, most people down here in San Antonio, and even Laredo on the border don't care. And we all stand to be the most affected by it.



USMarine75 said:


> Watching live feed of impeachment hearing on CNN.
> 
> Why is it that liberals / Democrats/ Leftists always have to sound like they've never been around or fired a weapon? CNN anchor says he can't believe National Guard has been issued automatic weapons to defend the Capitol. Jesus man they're their issued weapons its not like they were issued laser cats.
> 
> And all these people excited about how a couple Republican Representatives are voting to impeach when its 1/10 who voted for obstruction and are unindicted co-conspirators of the president.



An M4 is standard issue, is it not? As is the SAW?


----------



## possumkiller

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, most people down here in San Antonio, and even Laredo on the border don't care. And we all stand to be the most affected by it.
> 
> 
> 
> An M4 is standard issue, is it not? As is the SAW?


It's national guard. They aren't going to be decked out like Delta. These guys are the weekend warriors. Not even regular army. They do get issued the same gear as regular army though. M9, M4, M249, M240, M2, Mk19 are all the standard small arms.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, most people down here in San Antonio, and even Laredo on the border don't care. And we all stand to be the most affected by it.
> 
> 
> 
> An M4 is standard issue, is it not? As is the SAW?



Exactly. As long as they are authorized to carry then they will have their uniform issue weapons. All troops will have a rifle and designated ones will have squad automatic weapons (SAW).


----------



## Thaeon

Dineley said:


> could you ad tiny bit of context so I know if I should even bother watching??



Its honestly worth watching, and more than a little entertaining.


----------



## USMarine75

Oklahoma Rep Tom Cole wants to take this slow, set up a complete investigation, and in the meantime censure the president. 

Meanwhile Rep Chu of CA said she was hiding on the other side of the door of domestic terrorists that wanted to kidnap or kill her and others, including the VP for whom they constructed a hangman's gallows outside, all stirred to a frenzy by the President 1.5 miles away at his rally. Therefore she says he is too dangerous to remain in place until the 20th. 

Square those two views lol.


----------



## Thaeon

possumkiller said:


> It's national guard. They aren't going to be decked out like Delta. These guys are the weekend warriors. Not even regular army. They do get issued the same gear as regular army though. M9, M4, M249, M240, M2, Mk19 are all the standard small arms.



No of course not. If you need special forces we're probably in a little deeper than some political cultists, trying to organize a soft coup.


----------



## USMarine75

That second to last sentence summarizes it all.


----------



## Randy

Y'all feeling safe yet?


----------



## BenjaminW

StevenC said:


> You've listed your location as San Francisco, is this where you're from? The reason I ask is because I can't imagine how anyone living in San Francisco could possibly think a wall would stop immigration. Any part of the South or East where you've got a significant amount of Latin immigration I guess I can see it, but I've never seen so many Asian people outside of Asia as I saw in San Francisco and I really don't see what route they're taking that a wall gets in the way.


I’m not actually in San Francisco itself, but I live in the SF Bay Area. I have SF as my location because it’s the closest major city to me and I’m not going to put the town I actually live in as my location (for what I feel like are obvious reasons). Someone said earlier in the thread that the people who want the wall the most aren’t near the border at all, and I think for me, the idea of a wall sounded great, but at the same time is a pretty “medieval


TedEH said:


> I think the fact that you have to respond in that way should be enough reason for you to pause and reconsider your stance on the subject. It doesn't mean you're wrong per-se, but it also might mean you're wrong.


Yeah I’m much better at talking about guitars/music than I am about politics, so I feel like I should probably quit digging myself a deeper hole while I’m at it.


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Oklahoma Rep Tom Cole wants to take this slow, set up a complete investigation, and in the meantime censure the president.
> 
> Meanwhile Rep Chu of CA said she was hiding on the other side of the door of domestic terrorists that wanted to kidnap or kill her and others, including the VP for whom they constructed a hangman's gallows outside, all stirred to a frenzy by the President 1.5 miles away at his rally. Therefore she says he is too dangerous to remain in place until the 20th.
> 
> Square those two views lol.



Any opinion from any politician from Oklahoma should be taken with a grain of salt. I lived there for over 30 years. Oklahoma City is still largely very segregated. The fact that an Oklahoma GOP representative is willing to even consider a censure of some sort is telling. Normally they'd be wedged squarely up Trump's ass.


----------



## Thaeon

BenjaminW said:


> I’m not actually in San Francisco itself, but I live in the SF Bay Area. I have SF as my location because it’s the closest major city to me and I’m not going to put the town I actually live in as my location (for what I feel like are obvious reasons). Someone said earlier in the thread that the people who want the wall the most aren’t near the border at all, and I think for me, the idea of a wall sounded great, but at the same time is a pretty “medieval
> 
> Yeah I’m much better at talking about guitars/music than I am about politics, so I feel like I should probably quit digging myself a deeper hole while I’m at it.



If you're open minded and can accept criticism, you'll find this group willing to accept you. There are a few very right wing people here. We all criticize and help each other refine our thoughts here generally. Just be generally repectful and have some familiarity with logical fallacies. Those will take you pretty far around here.


----------



## USMarine75

Rep Steny Hoyer just killing it. He may be friends with Tom Cole but he just slapped him so hard his momma felt it.


----------



## oldbulllee

TedEH said:


> I think your age grants you some room to be naive, but a lot of Trump supporters should have known better.
> 
> 
> In other words, he was just plainly unqualified.
> 
> 
> In other words, he had no restraint.
> 
> 
> Which every politician, ever, promises in some form or another.
> 
> 
> 
> Legitimate question - as a Canadian, I don't understand why Americans are so caught up with borders. What's wrong with Mexicans? Why not acknowledge that supporting a larger community is beneficial to everyone - at every scale. You support your family. You support your town. You support your state. You support your country. Why does it stop there? Why not support your continent? Why not support the world as a whole?


hell, why not all of us homo sapiens living in peace and harmony?
well, because.


----------



## BenjaminW

Thaeon said:


> If you're open minded and can accept criticism, you'll find this group willing to accept you. There are a few very right wing people here. We all criticize and help each other refine our thoughts here generally. Just be generally repectful and have some familiarity with logical fallacies. Those will take you pretty far around here.


Yeah. I used to actually hate this thread for a long time because I thought it was nothing but "orange man bad" x1000 and thought I'd get chased out of here for being a Trump supporter. Thankfully, that hasn't happened and I never thought I'd actually be active in this thread because you guys have all been reasonable with me. 

I do wanna get back to spending more time outside of this thread when I'm on this site though. Not that talking with you guys is bad, I just don't wanna be where I am now where I'm only talking about politics on here instead of about guitars and music since I enjoy that more than I do politics. Plus, I don't wanna feel like I'm giving myself an easy opportunity to get myself banned or into trouble with someone on here. But hey, it's a great learning opportunity being on here.


----------



## Thaeon

BenjaminW said:


> Yeah. I used to actually hate this thread for a long time because I thought it was nothing but "orange man bad" x1000 and thought I'd get chased out of here for being a Trump supporter. Thankfully, that hasn't happened and I never thought I'd actually be active in this thread because you guys have all been reasonable with me.
> 
> I do wanna get back to spending more time outside of this thread when I'm on this site though. Not that talking with you guys is bad, I just don't wanna be where I am now where I'm only talking about politics on here instead of about guitars and music since I enjoy that more than I do politics. Plus, I don't wanna feel like I'm giving myself an easy opportunity to get myself banned or into trouble with someone on here. But hey, it's a great learning opportunity being on here.



You have been shitty to no one. LOL I don't believe that would be a danger for you. We get heated all the time. About politics AND guitars. Look at some of the Kiesel threads in here. Oof. To my knowledge, usage of the ban hammer is actually pretty rare around here.


----------



## USMarine75

Rep Jason Smith (terrible public speaker) just said some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Made an "impassioned speech" about how "a woman lost her life right on the other side of those doors people!" Yes, a domestic terrorist, you a-hole! Wtf is wrong with these people?


----------



## BenjaminW

Thaeon said:


> We get heated all the time. About politics AND guitars. Look at some of the Kiesel threads in here. Oof.


I wish I could relate because I don't any Kiesels. Damn Gibsons and Fenders...


----------



## diagrammatiks

2a guys here's your chance.


----------



## tedtan

USMarine75 said:


> Basically there is no perfect person except for Jesus. So God works with what he has which is imperfect people. So God chose an imperfect person in Trump to act through.
> 
> 
> 
> Tl;dr religion



In that scenario, he must have gone pretty far out of his way in order to find the most imperfect specimen possible.


----------



## USMarine75

BenjaminW said:


> Yeah. I used to actually hate this thread for a long time because I thought it was nothing but "orange man bad" x1000 and thought I'd get chased out of here for being a Trump supporter. Thankfully, that hasn't happened and I never thought I'd actually be active in this thread because you guys have all been reasonable with me.
> 
> I do wanna get back to spending more time outside of this thread when I'm on this site though. Not that talking with you guys is bad, I just don't wanna be where I am now where I'm only talking about politics on here instead of about guitars and music since I enjoy that more than I do politics. Plus, I don't wanna feel like I'm giving myself an easy opportunity to get myself banned or into trouble with someone on here. But hey, it's a great learning opportunity being on here.



It's always good to hear the other side out even if you dont agree. It helps you hone your beliefs and reevaluate them as needed. It can be educational. Plus it can be fun. 

And when you've had your fill move on to the FS and gear threads.


----------



## ResistentialAssultSquadron

Deer gubmint...


----------



## USMarine75

Jared Kushner recommended against Trump getting on fringe social media sites like Gab, used by other extremists that also get banned from mainstream sites like Twitter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/technology/533919-fringe-social-networks-boosted-after-mob-attack?amp


----------



## LordCashew

tedtan said:


> In that scenario, he must have gone pretty far out of his way in order to find the most imperfect specimen possible.


The line I hear is that "Trump is like King David of the Old Testament, who committed adultery and even murder but was still a man after God's own heart." Cool, he can do whatever he wants and we should still support him because he's God's chosen. Makes sense to model the modern US after the narrative of ancient Israel, right? Especially given it predated Christianity?


----------



## Demiurge

Having to tell the in-laws to stay off of Parler... I can relate.


----------



## Drew

groverj3 said:


> I should make it clear that situations like this aren't a bad thing. That stuff can be good economically, especially locally. Independent farmers have had a tougher and tougher time staying in operation and profitable.
> 
> I think this is all well and good, but that kind of situation isn't feeding the ever growing mass of humanity at scale.
> 
> Improving yield and efficiency of production, and minimizing waste, at scale is what's needed globally. However, I fully support small scale, sustainable, ag endeavors. That's kind of a luxury though, and due to the smaller yield prices for produce cultivated in this way are usually higher.
> 
> Edit: I realize now that you weren't specifically referring to small scale. If sustainable and efficient closed loop practices can be scaled up then yes, that's exactly what we need. I think though, this kind of production also depends on advances in genetic modifications, herbicides, and pesticides in order to make it relevant at scale. But yes, I agree!


That's where it gets tricky. McKibbon is definitely thinking small scale, and - provided we have a _lot _more farmers - this is probably something that COULD be done, though it would likely mean meat becomes more expensive and we have to eat less of it. 

OF course, it might be possible to move it to more of an industrial scale, but that's where you start running into problems - he cites the example of a farm where the chicken coop was on wheels and could be moved around onto fallow fields, where it would fertilize the soil and the chickens would eat pests that would otherwise be killed with pesticides. That works when you have a managable number of chickens relative to the size of the field(s), but would become toxic to the fields pretty quickly as the number of chickens was scaled up. Maybe some sort of alernative where chicken waste was collected and sold to a fertilizer company, for example, could work, but then you lose the natural pest control synergy of the chickens eating bugs. 

Idunno. Industrial food production comes with a lot of problems that don't exist at the smaller level, but one of the things McKibbon doesn't really address in that book is the fairly finite amount of arable land we have even here in America. Most of this country is a desert, and even the irrigation efforts used to support rather concentrated industrial farming operations are having some pretty serious side-effects, already. Some of that is policy (our practice of heavily subsidizing water that's then used to produce low nutritional value, high water consumption, heavily subsidized crops like corn and alfalfa is kind of insane, from an economic standpoint) but some of that is just it's extremely challenging to produce enough food for, what, 8 billion people, on what viable farmland we have. 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Oklahoma Rep Tom Cole wants to take this slow, set up a complete investigation, and in the meantime censure the president.
> 
> Meanwhile Rep Chu of CA said she was hiding on the other side of the door of domestic terrorists that wanted to kidnap or kill her and others, including the VP for whom they constructed a hangman's gallows outside, all stirred to a frenzy by the President 1.5 miles away at his rally. Therefore she says he is too dangerous to remain in place until the 20th.
> 
> Square those two views lol.


Oooh, can I play?

View #2 is based on a desire to not die, and to hold the person who almost violated that desire responsible for their actions.
View #1 is based on a desire to stall and hope everyone forgets about this before anything can actually happen.

McConnell is reportedly seriously weighing a vote to convict, and plans on never speaking to Trump again, as he also has a desire to not die, as it happens, and crude but working gallows are not compatible with this desire. I don't know if enough Senators will follow suit, but the impeachment itself will be bipartisan, and at a minimum more Republicans will vote to convict than they did this time last year when we last impeached Trump for trying to fuck with the integrity of an election. McConnell might even implement that 2004 emergency session measure to hold the trial before the 20th, though that's far less certain.

What's pretty certain, by this point, is Trump will become not just the third American president to be impeached, but the first American president to be impeached _twice. _So there's that.


----------



## USMarine75

Rep Mo Brooks... "my words about going down to the Capitol and kicking ass are being taken out of context."


----------



## SpaceDock

Gotta love republicans saying we need to move on and heal after spending like 6 years hammering HRC on Benghazi.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 88953
> View attachment 88954


Yeah, this is potentially huge. 

One thing you're seeing increasingly in coverage of this coup attempt and political aftermath is, a lot is still unknown, but a week after the attacks, a lot IS known by the Feds, including the fact the FBI fully expected this to become a war zone well in advance of the 6th, and yet no preparation was done at all for what happened - this was NOT a surprise. Cheney and McConnell may be - almost certainly are - pissed that Trump's little stunt almost got them killed, and that's probably part of their motivations here... but a larger part of it too is probably political self-survival, and the knowledge that a LOT more is going to come out, almost certainly extending all the way to the top, and they want to front run this for pure damage control reasons, to ensure they still have a Republican party to represent in 2022.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Gotta love republicans saying we need to move on and heal after spending like 6 years hammering HRC on Benghazi.


What, now is the time to "move on and heal, and bring the country together, for the good of the country," but a week ago when you were all straight up lying about electoral fraud to try to stop the electoral votes from being certified, that _wasn't_ the time?


----------



## SpaceDock

It’s nuts because republicans are always changing rules or exploiting them to get what they want and it seems like democrats always cave and don’t know how or are unwilling to game the system like that. I just don’t think that playing an honest game is working for Democrats anymore and having that moral high ground is useless.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We need to move on and heal...after every treasonous son of a bitch is prosecuted.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> That's where it gets tricky. McKibbon is definitely thinking small scale, and - provided we have a _lot _more farmers - this is probably something that COULD be done, though it would likely mean meat becomes more expensive and we have to eat less of it.
> 
> OF course, it might be possible to move it to more of an industrial scale, but that's where you start running into problems - he cites the example of a farm where the chicken coop was on wheels and could be moved around onto fallow fields, where it would fertilize the soil and the chickens would eat pests that would otherwise be killed with pesticides. That works when you have a managable number of chickens relative to the size of the field(s), but would become toxic to the fields pretty quickly as the number of chickens was scaled up. Maybe some sort of alernative where chicken waste was collected and sold to a fertilizer company, for example, could work, but then you lose the natural pest control synergy of the chickens eating bugs.
> 
> Idunno. Industrial food production comes with a lot of problems that don't exist at the smaller level, but one of the things McKibbon doesn't really address in that book is the fairly finite amount of arable land we have even here in America. Most of this country is a desert, and even the irrigation efforts used to support rather concentrated industrial farming operations are having some pretty serious side-effects, already. Some of that is policy (our practice of heavily subsidizing water that's then used to produce low nutritional value, high water consumption, heavily subsidized crops like corn and alfalfa is kind of insane, from an economic standpoint) but some of that is just it's extremely challenging to produce enough food for, what, 8 billion people, on what viable farmland we have.
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


Just as a fun aside, do some research on vertical farming. It's mostly been used thus far to run hydroponic leafy greens, but there are some researchers attempting to pair them with smaller farm animals to provide nutrients for grain crops, broccoli and root crops (potatoes, carrots, etc.). Not a ton of progress on that front yet, and we may see lab grown meats jump in production before they get to production levels that could be sustainable, but it's at least an interesting concept.



Drew said:


> Yeah, this is potentially huge.
> 
> One thing you're seeing increasingly in coverage of this coup attempt and political aftermath is, a lot is still unknown, but a week after the attacks, a lot IS known by the Feds, including the fact the FBI fully expected this to become a war zone well in advance of the 6th, and yet no preparation was done at all for what happened - this was NOT a surprise. Cheney and McConnell may be - almost certainly are - pissed that Trump's little stunt almost got them killed, and that's probably part of their motivations here... but a larger part of it too is probably political self-survival, and the knowledge that a LOT more is going to come out, almost certainly extending all the way to the top, and they want to front run this for pure damage control reasons, to ensure they still have a Republican party to represent in 2022.



I find it utterly ridiculous that we didn't hear any of these people outside of Romney and the usual suspects saying anything about holding Trump and his cronies accountable until the major financial contributors started pulling rank. I have a feeling that's got a ton more to do with their about-face than any possible political fallout.



Drew said:


> What, now is the time to "move on and heal, and bring the country together, for the good of the country," but a week ago when you were all straight up lying about electoral fraud to try to stop the electoral votes from being certified, that _wasn't_ the time?



That's one of the more aggravating parts of this whole situation. Even Trump is babbling (where he's allowed to) that the move to impeach and the moves being made to hold people accountable for what happened on the 6th is creating division in the country and driving anger. Or, maybe, JUST MAYBE, you could shut your mouth for a couple minutes and stop fanning the flames?


----------



## Randy

Oh shit they called in X-Force


----------



## ResistentialAssultSquadron

Shit, politics is war. Once everyone starts unifying in political beliefs, that's when the Mooninites swoop down and take over.


----------



## USMarine75

Tom McClintock, Andy Biggs, and Jim Jordans are special kinds of human shit. They didnt argue for patience they argued Trump did nothing wrong and that this is another impeachment hoax by the radical left.


----------



## Randy

Jim Jordan is a pro at ignoring crimes that go on right infront of him.


----------



## USMarine75

Please add Gohmert to that human shitpile list.


----------



## nightflameauto

Apparently some of them are also trying to argue that antifa is responsible for the coup attempt, despite all evidence pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Fantastic.

I hope at some point these fucks are held accountable for their inability to grasp reality and their continued rhetoric that does nothing but keep their followers riled up about perceived slights.


----------



## USMarine75

Some Republicans like Sweater Kittens (dont remember her name but shes new and the only thing me and the wife remember are her fantastic puffs). Where was I? Oh yeah some like her are at least reasonable even if they disagree. But these special ones are deplorable and irredeemable.

Add Debbie Lesko to the list.


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Tom McClintock, Andy Biggs, and Jim Jordans are special kinds of human shit. They didnt argue for patience they argued Trump did nothing wrong and that this is another impeachment hoax by the radical left.



I guess that makes Mitch McConnell the Radical Left now?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

nightflameauto said:


> Apparently some of them are also trying to argue that antifa is responsible for the coup attempt, despite all evidence pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Fantastic.
> 
> I hope at some point these fucks are held accountable for their inability to grasp reality and their continued rhetoric that does nothing but keep their followers riled up about perceived slights.



They won't be. They're going to ramp up the insanity. These people are past triple downing. They're past quadruple downing. They've constructed their own reality and expand upon it each day. They have their own sets of facts, their own rules of logic, their own methods of reason. It's not a battle reason can win when the political opposition can not agree as to what the facts are or even what is and isn't logical.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> I guess that makes Mitch McConnell the Radical Left now?



Right? These special shits are calling on Liz Cheney to resign?! Fucking hard right daughter of Dick, Liz Cheney? Get properly fucked.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## USMarine75

Fucking Matt Gaetz.


----------



## Thaeon

Cyanide_Anima said:


> They won't be. They're going to ramp up the insanity. These people are past triple downing. They're past quadruple downing. They've constructed their own reality and expand upon it each day. They have their own sets of facts, their own rules of logic, their own methods of reason. It's not a battle reason can win when the political opposition can not agree as to what the facts are or even what is and isn't logical.



So what you're saying is that these people have allowed themselves to be strung along and mislead so completely, that they now register in the DSM5 as having a mental illness that needs professional treatment. Just trying to get the right of it.



possumkiller said:


> View attachment 88961



There's no might be to it.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## fantom

And the house has enough votes. Trump is the first president to be impeached twice. At least he is winning at something.

Also reports are that he is concerned that damage to his brand might bankrupt him. His advisors are trying to explain to him that the damage to the country should be higher importance. What a successful businessman! Running a country and his private inheritance into the ground at the same time.


----------



## ResistentialAssultSquadron

If Trump wants to rally supporters he should use his Grindr account.


----------



## USMarine75

Doug LaMalfa is another supreme shitbag.

To do my part in the Fairness Doctrine...

How is Debbie Wasserman Schultz on the House Oversight Committee?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> Fucking Matt Gaetz.



Quoted for emphasis


----------



## USMarine75

William DeWolfe said:


> If Trump wants to rally supporters he should use his Grindr account.



Grindr does work well as a texting platform. 

So I've heard.


----------



## nightflameauto

232 - 197 with 4 no-shows/non-voters. 

Trump's second impeachment is set to go.

I wonder if the Senate Republicans that are talking a big game will actually follow through on it when they reconvene?


----------



## USMarine75

The new winner...

Barry Moore.

Had to ask his staff how many times a president has been impeached?

Here's your answer big boy.

It doesn't fucking matter.

But you should have already known the answer, you illiberal unintelligent fuck. My 11 year old called him out when he said that lol.


----------



## USMarine75

I can't take this anymore I need to take a break and go buy a guitar dammit.


----------



## thraxil

nightflameauto said:


> Just as a fun aside, do some research on vertical farming. It's mostly been used thus far to run hydroponic leafy greens, but there are some researchers attempting to pair them with smaller farm animals to provide nutrients for grain crops, broccoli and root crops (potatoes, carrots, etc.).



Not to get *too* far off topic, but you really don't even need to go all the way to vertical farming to see how food production could scale a lot further than it is currently at.

The US is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. Do you know who's second? Russia? China? Canada? Brazil? Nope. It's the Netherlands. A country the size of New Jersey and one of the most densely populated countries in the world and not even located anywhere with a particulalrly great climate (though they do have plenty of water). If you've driven across the Netherlands though, you might know how they do it. Just lots of absolutely massive greenhouses. Miles and miles of them along the highway. They've invested a lot in improved farming technology and techniques and the result is very, very dense food production capabiliites. This Nat Geo article explains it more and has some stunning pictures if you've never seen them in person: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/


----------



## nightflameauto

thraxil said:


> Not to get *too* far off topic, but you really don't even need to go all the way to vertical farming to see how food production could scale a lot further than it is currently at.
> 
> The US is the largest agricultural exporter in the world. Do you know who's second? Russia? China? Canada? Brazil? Nope. It's the Netherlands. A country the size of New Jersey and one of the most densely populated countries in the world and not even located anywhere with a particulalrly great climate (though they do have plenty of water). If you've driven across the Netherlands though, you might know how they do it. Just lots of absolutely massive greenhouses. Miles and miles of them along the highway. They've invested a lot in improved farming technology and techniques and the result is very, very dense food production capabiliites. This Nat Geo article explains it more and has some stunning pictures if you've never seen them in person: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/09/holland-agriculture-sustainable-farming/


Only available for subscribers. 

I do some business with a couple pepper places that own massive fields full of greenhouses because they can't get consistent growing seasons anymore with the weather patterns shifting. They've found that they're getting better yields now than they used to get even when the weather was favorable. The main difference is being able to maintain a more consistent heat and humidity profile.

I know we won't see most small-time farmers doing anything like that soon, but most small-time farmers have been pushed out of farming with more leaving every year, or at the very least shifting to hobby farming while having standard jobs to pay the bills. I know my uncle says he's been making more money renting out the land to one of the big farm businesses in the area than he ever made when farming it himself. And those big places can afford to do things he never could to increase yields.


----------



## groverj3

History made, impeachment part 2, electric boogaloo.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

It's too bad the senate loves being tea-bagged by a tyrannical man-child.


----------



## Randy

Cyanide_Anima said:


> It's too bad the senate loves being tea-bagged by a tyrannical man-child.



I'll split into three groups.

1.) Republicans trying to be Trump 2.0
2.) Republicans who are moderate but scared to death of his base
3.) Republicans that actually still have principals


----------



## sleewell

None of them have principle. They would vote to convict if they saw it as a way distance from him in a politically beneficial way. Mitch wants the senate back and everything he does is aimed at that goal.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I wonder why people aren’t emphasizing the point that impeachment could, should it result in conviction, remove any POTUS’ 200k yearly benefit (doesn’t a FLOTUS get some too?) and 1 million (!!!) annual travel budget???!!! As well secret service protection...


----------



## Thaeon

Surprised the GOP doesn’t want to impeach everyone at the end of their term to minimize government spending.


----------



## BenjaminW

groverj3 said:


> History made, impeachment part 2, electric boogaloo.


Quick, start mining the salt! We gotta turn this all into a profit, and we’ll be millionaires! Make that billionaires if he gets convicted.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> Mitch wants the senate back and everything he does is aimed at that goal.



This. McConnell never wanted to be president, he wanted to be Senate majority leader. First, Trump cost him that in Georgia. Then the very next day, put McConnell in a situation that threatened his life with the insurrection. THAT'S why McConnell is turning on Trump. He lost his precious.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Trump has once again proved his status as POSPOTUS- he sat and watched Capitol Police being murdered on TV and did fuck all, for days!


----------



## Wuuthrad

I don’t know if it’s at all possible to find comic relief, but it is truly a sad irony (to say the least) that we’ve all witnessed:


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Rep Mo Brooks... "my words about going down to the Capitol and kicking ass are being taken out of context."



Rep Mo Brooks: I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. And I've got plenty of bubblegum left and I'm in room 104B closet please send capitol officers.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1349312406804025345?s=20


----------



## nightflameauto

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eachment-marjorie-taylor-greene-b1787055.html



> Newly elected Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has said she would be filing articles of impeachment against incoming president, Joe Biden, on his first day at the Oval Office for alleged “abuse of power.”



Jesus fucking Christ. The unhinged detachment from reality will continue, apparently.


----------



## sleewell

what does rudy start saying when trump wont take his calls and stops paying him?


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> what does rudy start saying when trump wont take his calls and stops paying him?



Hopefully nothing and he just goes away.


----------



## Thaeon

nightflameauto said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eachment-marjorie-taylor-greene-b1787055.html
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus fucking Christ. The unhinged detachment from reality will continue, apparently.



How does one abuse power one doesn't yet have? I haven't read the article, but I'm assuming (yes I know) that its based on taking power via fraudulent election? I'm going to go read it now. May edit later.

Edit: Jesus Fucking Christ, its not. Its not even rationally viable. She's as dangerous as Trump. Unhinged is the correct word.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> How does one abuse power one doesn't yet have? I haven't read the article, but I'm assuming (yes I know) that its based on taking power via fraudulent election? I'm going to go read it now. May edit later.



Her and Bohbert both are gonna get really bored really fast. They literally just came to Congress to gaslight far-right politics, which is easy on the backend of a contentious election but a year or two into signing legislation to change the name of post offices and shit, they'll probably prefer to be back home profiting as Qanon influencers or whatever.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Her and Bohbert both are gonna get really bored really fast. They literally just came to Congress to gaslight far-right politics, which is easy on the backend of a contentious election but a year or two into signing legislation to change the name of post offices and shit, they'll probably prefer to be back home profiting as Qanon influencers or whatever.



In the mean time, I'm thinking about all of the public funds they're going to waste stirring the pot.


----------



## nightflameauto

Thaeon said:


> How does one abuse power one doesn't yet have? I haven't read the article, but I'm assuming (yes I know) that its based on taking power via fraudulent election? I'm going to go read it now. May edit later.
> 
> Edit: Jesus Fucking Christ, its not. Its not even rationally viable. She's as dangerous as Trump. Unhinged is the correct word.


Seeing a Qanon true believer take office is just so off-putting to me. I mean, I get there's a segment of the public that truly are that stupid, but I never thought it would be a big enough majority to make this a viable campaign strategy.

To Randy's point, them not really being able to do anything significant to help along their co-conspirators in the Qanon community due to the majority of their fellow congressional folks containing the crazy, they'll get real bored. Hopefully they slink back home and disappear into the crazy web game.


----------



## Thaeon

One can hope. But that doesn't stop them from costing their home states and the federal government a lot of money in the process.


----------



## nightflameauto

Thaeon said:


> One can hope. But that doesn't stop them from costing their home states and the federal government a lot of money in the process.


While this is true, it's hard for me to view the way our Congress acts in general as anything other than a massive waste of time and money. Every once in a great while they do something that's generally helpful, but most of the time it's just circle-jerking along party lines while wagging their finger at _those other people_. So someone of a slightly different shade of crazy/stupid wasting money in Congress doesn't concern me as much as what policies they'll attempt to foist into the other members of their party, and how many of that party will be stupid/crazy enough to soak up the lunacy.


----------



## Thaeon

nightflameauto said:


> While this is true, it's hard for me to view the way our Congress acts in general as anything other than a massive waste of time and money. Every once in a great while they do something that's generally helpful, but most of the time it's just circle-jerking along party lines while wagging their finger at _those other people_. So someone of a slightly different shade of crazy/stupid wasting money in Congress doesn't concern me as much as what policies they'll attempt to foist into the other members of their party, and how many of that party will be stupid/crazy enough to soak up the lunacy.



I honestly can't argue with any of that.


----------



## BenjaminW

nightflameauto said:


> Seeing a Qanon true believer take office is just so off-putting to me. I mean, I get there's a segment of the public that truly are that stupid, but I never thought it would be a big enough majority to make this a viable campaign strategy.
> 
> To Randy's point, them not really being able to do anything significant to help along their co-conspirators in the Qanon community due to the majority of their fellow congressional folks containing the crazy, they'll get real bored. Hopefully they slink back home and disappear into the crazy web game.


This kinda ties into the conspiracy thread, but Q is just a classic case of how the hell do you have the time to read about this and believe all of it?


----------



## Thaeon

BenjaminW said:


> This kinda ties into the conspiracy thread, but Q is just a classic case of how the hell do you have the time to read about this and believe all of it?



I think you can just truncate that to read about all of it. It takes literally no effort at all to buy into it. In fact, I think most people buying in are not doing their due diligence to research it effectively.


----------



## spudmunkey

I read a good point that Boeburt (or however it's spelled) is House rep, not a sensor. The odds of winning a local district election with such nonsense is much easier than winning a state-wide office like the senate. So there's that...

This tickled me yesterday:


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> This. McConnell never wanted to be president, he wanted to be Senate majority leader. First, Trump cost him that in Georgia. Then the very next day, put McConnell in a situation that threatened his life with the insurrection. THAT'S why McConnell is turning on Trump. He lost his precious.


I'll ony nitpick and reverse the order - that I think McConnell cares about not being hung more than he cares about no longer being Majority Leader, and the coup probably pushed him over the edge more than the downgrade.



Randy said:


> Her and Bohbert both are gonna get really bored really fast. They literally just came to Congress to gaslight far-right politics, which is easy on the backend of a contentious election but a year or two into signing legislation to change the name of post offices and shit, they'll probably prefer to be back home profiting as Qanon influencers or whatever.


There's a no-insignificant chance they fall REALLY far afoul of something before they can get bored - if Greene really was live-blogging Pelosi's location for the nutjobs overrunning the capitol so they could find her and hang her, and if as alleged she was the one giving the organizers a behind the scenes tour the day before so they could build a plan of attack, I don't think she'll keep her job for long.


----------



## BigViolin

Does anyone else really miss Hunter S. Thompson right now?


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 89038



ahahahah


----------



## Drew

BigViolin said:


> Does anyone else really miss Hunter S. Thompson right now?


Pretty much always.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://twitter.com/happyroadkill/status/1349827830457229312/photo/1


----------



## Wuuthrad

So Congress men and women have been giving illegal tours of the Capitol building, which has been locked down since March, and are currently under investigation for this potential planning of the coup:

https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/mounting-evidence-of-gop-reps-aiding-capitol-invasion/

Former U.S. Navy helicopter pilot, attorney, and former federal prosecutor, N.J. Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill calls for investigation into Capitol tours on Jan 5th that have apparently helped the rioters-


----------



## Wuuthrad

Facebook is responsible for creating the Alt-Right:


----------



## Ralyks

BigViolin said:


> Does anyone else really miss Hunter S. Thompson right now?



Have you seen my signature in my posts?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands




----------



## Musiscience

Wuuthrad said:


> Facebook is responsible for creating the Alt-Right:




Interesting video. In my opinion it's a large almagamation of many factors, but social media algorithms did have a critical role to play in facilitating and accelerating radicalisation. They allowed the creation of echo chambers including millions of members that thrived on disinformation and distorted ideas and beliefs.

But most of these people were probably already from social groups where the narative was leaning on the right. In Québec, most of these far right Trump/Q Anon/Anti-mask leaders were already well known past members from racist groups meant to protect the culture from immigrants. The baseline ideas were already there, they just found an opportune situation in the pandemic and social media to incite those who held similar beliefs, but didn't care enough with their previously busy life, to tip over and take action. The loss of a sense of purpose is one hell of an existential hole to fill for some people.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm surprised nobody's piped in yet about Biden's announcements yesterday. Whole lot of money being tossed around in there. An additional $1400 per person, plus huge funding bills to get vaccinations rolling out faster and schools reopened across the country.

I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a ton of conservative freak-outs in the next few days.


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

Perhaps they can take some of that money from the absurdly large military budget and use it for a crisis on our own turf for once.


----------



## nightflameauto

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Perhaps they can take some of that money from the absurdly large military budget and use it for a crisis on our own turf for once.


Wouldn't that be something? I mean, I know it would never fly no matter who is in charge, but it'd be nice to think it could.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's hard to get excited when the senate is so split. 

You just know Joe Manchin is going to ruin it for everyone.


----------



## Demiurge

nightflameauto said:


> I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a ton of conservative freak-outs in the next few days.



I miss the quaint old days of this just meaning a long line of bowtied doofi will be getting mad on Tucker Carlson's show, but now- who knows.


----------



## thebeesknees22

They only freak out when they're the ones not spending it. They let a lot of infrastructure and departments decay and fall behind too so all that has to be built back up now.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Cyanide_Anima said:


> Perhaps they can take some of that money from the absurdly large military budget and use it for a crisis on our own turf for once.



“Defense” budget is for foreign lands, right? 
(best defense is a good offense) 
“Homeland” security, yet not on home turf...
(January 6 2021)


----------



## spudmunkey

Demiurge said:


> I miss the quaint old days of this just meaning a long line of bowtied doofi will be getting mad on Tucker Carlson's show, but now- who knows.



My mom's already been responding to every posted "how are we going to pay for Biden's plan" post she can find with "from our pockets, I suppose".


----------



## USMarine75

"Call your congressman and feel free, you can lightly threaten them and say, you know what, if you don’t start supporting election integrity, I’m coming after you, Madison Cawthorn is coming after you, everybody’s coming after you," Cawthorn said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cawthorn-fires-back-dems-pressure-pelosi-expel


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> "Call your congressman and feel free, you can lightly threaten them and say, you know what, if you don’t start supporting election integrity, I’m coming after you, Madison Cawthorn is coming after you, everybody’s coming after you," Cawthorn said.
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cawthorn-fires-back-dems-pressure-pelosi-expel



Thats the little turd who said “let’s move on and heal” about the Trump impeachment while he sells “cry more lib” tshirts on his website.


----------



## SpaceDock

spudmunkey said:


> My mom's already been responding to every posted "how are we going to pay for Biden's plan" post she can find with "from our pockets, I suppose".



There’s a saying that you gotta spend money to make money and when a stimulus is actually investing in the country, it can be profitable vs just bailing out corporations (bush) or thinking cutting taxes means corporations will invest (Trump). 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/15/bid...funds-from-asia-china-to-the-us-jpmorgan.html


----------



## USMarine75

Lauren Boebert
Josh Hawley
Andy Biggs
Paul Gosar
Mo Brooks

Just making a list of Congressional traitors*


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> Lauren Boebert
> Josh Hawley
> Andy Biggs
> Paul Gosar
> Mo Brooks
> 
> Just making a list of Congressional traitors*




Maybe we should listen to what their Dear Leader thought about it: “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now”


----------



## TedEH

Musiscience said:


> In Québec, most of these far right Trump/Q Anon/Anti-mask leaders were already well known past members from racist groups meant to protect the culture from immigrants.


Not going to lie, as an anglophone in Quebec, I feel some uncomfortable parallels at times between the talking points of Quebecers "protecting their culture" and some of the Trump-etc takes on things.


----------



## BenjaminW

Just saw this on my Instagram feed and was curious to see what you guys think of this.


----------



## Mathemagician

TedEH said:


> Not going to lie, as an anglophone in Quebec, I feel some uncomfortable parallels at times between the talking points of Quebecers "protecting their culture" and some of the Trump-etc takes on things.



Ted, I don’t know anything about Q-nadians. But, if they start having “purity tests” of people’s loyalty to the “cause/party/group” and start down a hard us/them path, then it might be a similar issue to worry about. 

It’s 100% ok to be proud of ones country. I think America is dope as FUCK. But it’s another to start trying to say who is and isn’t a “real” American. If the group tries to take ownership of the country like a team sport that’s a bad path.


----------



## Mathemagician

BenjaminW said:


> View attachment 89096
> 
> Just saw this on my Instagram feed and was curious to see what you guys think of this.



The line about “financial fraud” is the most important one and it’s buried. 

NY has the political climate AND funding to pursue financial crimes and money laundering. 

They likely feel Texas will allow them more cover and less oversight for their money laundering which has come up in several investigations.


----------



## SpaceDock

BenjaminW said:


> View attachment 89096
> 
> Just saw this on my Instagram feed and was curious to see what you guys think of this.



I like their framing their CEO spending all their money and putting them 64 mill in debt as being a problem with New York.


----------



## BenjaminW

Mathemagician said:


> They likely feel Texas will allow them more cover and less oversight for their money laundering which has come up in several investigations.


As the saying goes, everything’s bigger in Texas so they have themselves a bigger blanket to launder under.


----------



## Musiscience

TedEH said:


> Not going to lie, as an anglophone in Quebec, I feel some uncomfortable parallels at times between the talking points of Quebecers "protecting their culture" and some of the Trump-etc takes on things.



Some of them are, definitely, and that's coming from a French Canadian. If you take far-right groups members such as "La Meute" (thankfully gone), the parallel is so easy to do because past members are literally manifesting to support Trump. However there are some of us who just want to keep their culture and language while remaining very welcoming. It's possible to keep some cultural traditions and heritage but not become an insane person about it, but some simply don't see it that way.


----------



## TedEH

Mathemagician said:


> Ted, I don’t know anything about Q-nadians. But, if they start having “purity tests” of people’s loyalty to the “cause/party/group” and start down a hard us/them path, then it might be a similar issue to worry about.
> 
> It’s 100% ok to be proud of ones country. I think America is dope as FUCK. But it’s another to start trying to say who is and isn’t a “real” American. If the group tries to take ownership of the country like a team sport that’s a bad path.


Not to derail this too far into the "Canada Political Discussion" thread - but the basic idea is that there's a lot of "French/Quebec culture is at risk" sentiment and the laws/policies to go with it. Things like how you're not allowed to put up signs in English unless it's also in French, and the French needs to be a certain percent bigger than the English. If you order food, the menu is not allowed to be printed with another language taking prominence on the document. Certain products sold in Quebec are not allowed to use any other language unless a French version is available. If you're an anglophone and want your kids to go to school in English you have to jump through hoops to prove that you yourself completed your own education in Quebec and in English, or you're just not allowed - either go to a French school or get out (I think this part has changed since I last looked at it). Some services operate in both languages, but most don't if they're not legally required to.

I've gotten into arguments that this sends a clear message that some don't want us to be here. Some people very much believe that I don't belong here and would rather I just move to Ontario. The counter argument is "it's totally nothing to do with that, we're just trying to protect our culture!" Dude, I was born here, I'm a part of this culture. Anglophones are a part of Quebec culture, whether they like it or not. It doesn't help that some Ontarians kind of pull the same thing in reverse and treat Quebecers like some kind of immigrants that come over and make demands and steal your jobs, etc.



Mathemagician said:


> It’s 100% ok to be proud of ones country. I think America is dope as FUCK. But it’s another to start trying to say who is and isn’t a “real” American.


It's exactly this, but replace America with Quebec. I really like it here. And the vast majority of people I interact with here are great. But despite never living anywhere else, it's very common to not feel welcome here.

Edit to keep this contained to one post so that I don't further derail the thread:


Musiscience said:


> However there are some of us who just want to keep their culture and language while remaining very welcoming.


I've always got the impression that Montreal is lot more welcoming to anglophones than other places. If I was going to move, I feel like I'd be aiming for Montreal (because it's pretty welcoming/reasonable) or just leave Quebec entirely.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> The line about “financial fraud” is the most important one and it’s buried.
> 
> NY has the political climate AND funding to pursue financial crimes and money laundering.
> 
> They likely feel Texas will allow them more cover and less oversight for their money laundering which has come up in several investigations.



Texas getting increasingly liberal, also. Lots of people and companies ditching LA for Texas. I wouldn't expect that place to stay NRA friendly for that long.


----------



## Mathemagician

Randy said:


> Texas getting increasingly liberal, also. Lots of people and companies ditching LA for Texas. I wouldn't expect that place to stay NRA friendly for that long.



Shhhh, don’t tell the farmland, unincorporated empty land, and ultra low population rural towns that think votes are allocated evenly per square mile.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Texas getting increasingly liberal, also. Lots of people and companies ditching LA for Texas. I wouldn't expect that place to stay NRA friendly for that long.



DFW, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio are all blue already.


----------



## Randy

Thaeon said:


> DFW, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio are all blue already.



That's what I hear, yeah. Beto put up a pretty good fight, and Biden polled ahead there for a bit too. The move won't do much to slow their extinction.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> Texas getting increasingly liberal, also. Lots of people and companies ditching LA for Texas. I wouldn't expect that place to stay NRA friendly for that long.


Well. Guess I’ll start punching the air.


----------



## thebeesknees22

TedEH said:


> Not going to lie, as an anglophone in Quebec, I feel some uncomfortable parallels at times between the talking points of Quebecers "protecting their culture" and some of the Trump-etc takes on things.



Yeeeep. MTL here: I pretty much just don't talk to anyone here in QC anymore outside of work. I've gotten the stink eye on more than one occasion from my lack of français. House hunting's been fun. I had one realtor basically give me that look of "get out" but she didn't come out and say it. She just shook her head as I was leaving.

Living in QC as an anglophone has definitely given me a new perspective on things. I now know what it's like to not feel very welcome where I live.

Being an immigrant, even though it's just moving from the US to Canada's also given me a different perspective as well. It's pretty difficult to pack up and move to a new country so I have a new respect for those that do it.

Montreal is more welcoming than other parts of QC.....in certain areas. But the divisiveness is still quite strong here. If it weren't for my complete dislike of Vancouver (and the fact that even the boonies are ridiculously expensive in BC), I would probably just move back there. ...if my job wasn't tied to provincial tax breaks I would just pop over to Ontario. (or move back to Missouri and try to offset some of those crazy republicans that have taken over) lol


----------



## SpaceDock

BenjaminW said:


> Well. Guess I’ll start punching the air.



jeez! I think you need a few more quotes in your sig, man!


----------



## BenjaminW

SpaceDock said:


> jeez! I think you need a few more quotes in your sig, man!


You know, I was waiting for someone to say something about that.

I will now add this to my beautiful pile of quotes because mine are great. Best ones you’ve ever seen. A billion times better than Trump’s Twitter. 

But seriously, I might swap all my quotes out for your highly negative comment about my beautiful collection.


----------



## SpaceDock




----------



## Wuuthrad

Sad but true...




I ain’t got much else right now, so here’s a poem: 

_Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light._

https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ebert-and-husband-have-racked-up-arrests/amp/



She tweeted "today is 1776" hours before the insurrection. She was absolutely in on it. 

She's crazy and a traitor... but I still would.


----------



## Randy

Mace > Boebert tho


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Mace > Boebert tho


----------



## BenjaminW

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ebert-and-husband-have-racked-up-arrests/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> She tweeted "today is 1776" hours before the insurrection. She was absolutely in on it.
> 
> She's crazy and a traitor... but I still would.



Made me think of this:


----------



## USMarine75

BenjaminW said:


> Made me think of this:




My favorite technique with people like Alex Jones is to start talking softer and softer until they have to stop yelling and say "what?... what did you say?". Works every time. Btw I love that he admitted in court during his child custody case that's hes just playing a character like WWE yet some sheeple still listen to him seriously lol. 

Tl;dr Gay frogs!


----------



## BenjaminW

USMarine75 said:


> My favorite technique with people like Alex Jones is to start talking softer and softer until they have to stop yelling and say "what?... what did you say?". Works every time. Btw I love that he admitted in court during his child custody case that's hes just playing a character like WWE yet some sheeple still listen to him seriously lol.
> 
> Tl;dr Gay frogs!


----------



## thebeesknees22

USMarine75 said:


> My favorite technique with people like Alex Jones is to start talking softer and softer until they have to stop yelling and say "what?... what did you say?"...!



Genius. I'll have to remember that one.


----------



## kleinenenten

thebeesknees22 said:


> Yeeeep. MTL here: I pretty much just don't talk to anyone here in QC anymore outside of work. I've gotten the stink eye on more than one occasion from my lack of français. House hunting's been fun. I had one realtor basically give me that look of "get out" but she didn't come out and say it. She just shook her head as I was leaving.
> 
> Living in QC as an anglophone has definitely given me a new perspective on things. I now know what it's like to not feel very welcome where I live.
> 
> Being an immigrant, even though it's just moving from the US to Canada's also given me a different perspective as well. It's pretty difficult to pack up and move to a new country so I have a new respect for those that do it.
> 
> Montreal is more welcoming than other parts of QC.....in certain areas. But the divisiveness is still quite strong here. If it weren't for my complete dislike of Vancouver (and the fact that even the boonies are ridiculously expensive in BC), I would probably just move back there. ...if my job wasn't tied to provincial tax breaks I would just pop over to Ontario. (or move back to Missouri and try to offset some of those crazy republicans that have taken over) lol


Missouri? Where from? I'm about 30 miles west of STL. While most people I know here are open-minded (and generally lean left), there are definitely plenty of conservatives as well. I just want people to actually sit down and talk. Honestly, both have good arguments for things (as long as you're not asking one of the "extreme" right or left people), but none of it matters if they can't function together. Gridlock gets us nowhere.

I'm an odd duck politically. I typically act conservative, but very much believe liberal. Part of my issue is that conservativism seems to be very much about "can'ts" - can't do this, that, or the other... But liberal is more about what you can do. And liberal allows me to practice my typically conservative lifestyle, and anyone else to practice whatever they want as long as it isn't harmful to others. I feel many conservative ideas would simply shut down those who choose to live differently. Not okay with me.


----------



## sleewell

What being conservative used to mean and whatever it is today are two very different things.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/16/...9517&user_id=4ada0afe10360df4c7bdbf3fb9fc5e9b

*Capitol Police arrested a man with an ‘unauthorized’ inauguration credential and a gun at a security checkpoint.*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...ic-ron-klain-4b1bf78136b2b12392dcc16a7e4aad7f

I'm actually pretty excited to see what all is done.


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...ebert-and-husband-have-racked-up-arrests/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> She tweeted "today is 1776" hours before the insurrection. She was absolutely in on it.
> 
> She's crazy and a traitor... but I still would.




heck yeah- fuck the cray away!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kya9ub/proud_boys_intended_to_kill_mike_pence_and_nancy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89127
> 
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/c...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf



They were just kidding.

Lame Stream Media always taking murderers too seriously.


----------



## Randy

MAGAts already using the level of protection surrounding inauguration as proof Biden didn't win. "If you were voted for by the people, why do you need to be protected from them?" It's gonna be an ugly four years.


----------



## narad

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89126



Kinda funny but ugh, "the native American woman I know"? If you want to make the joke just make the joke.


----------



## LordCashew

Randy said:


> MAGAts already using the level of protection surrounding inauguration as proof Biden didn't win. "If you were voted for by the people, why do you need to be protected from them?" It's gonna be an ugly four years.



So it follows that if Trump is the legitimate winner as they maintain, from now on we can forego wasting taxpayer money on his security detail, right?


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

I see my conservative friends sharing an image that says Sean Spicer 'verified' that there will be a false flag attack by the deep state/antifa at the inauguration and that Patriots™ should stay away and not attend. There are several ways to interpret this. It's clearly bullshit. But, I think it's possible that something nefarious is planned by MAGA Q-tards and they want to have plausible deniability since they spread a message ahead of time that states "Hey, *wink wink* we told them to not go *wink wink*, it was totally the Soros funded BLM Librul ANTIFUHS who were wearing those red hats and trump flags as capes who did the violences." On one hand I'm worried about potential violence. On the other hand I'm like "Yeah, stay home you stupid fucks."


----------



## BenjaminW

Cyanide_Anima said:


> I see my conservative friends sharing an image that says Sean Spicer 'verified' that there will be a false flag attack by the deep state/antifa at the inauguration and that Patriots™ should stay away and not attend. There are several ways to interpret this. It's clearly bullshit. But, I think it's possible that something nefarious is planned by MAGA Q-tards and they want to have plausible deniability since they spread a message ahead of time that states "Hey, *wink wink* we told them to not go *wink wink*, it was totally the Soros funded BLM Librul ANTIFUHS who were wearing those red hats and trump flags as capes who did the violences." On one hand I'm worried about potential violence. On the other hand I'm like "Yeah, stay home you stupid fucks."


I still can’t understand why Antifa is being blamed for storming the Capitol. There’s no way in hell that that many Antifa people would willingly dress up in MAGA attire and protest an election they know Trump lost.


----------



## bostjan

Just found out Jon Schaffer had been doing a Kickstarter campain for a book. The comments on the site are off the rails.


----------



## BenjaminW

bostjan said:


> Just found out Jon Schaffer had been doing a Kickstarter campain for a book. The comments on the site are off the rails.


----------



## Zhysick

bostjan said:


> Just found out Jon Schaffer had been doing a Kickstarter campain for a book. The comments on the site are off the rails.



Not many comments asking for refunds and LOTS of them saying that "this only deepens my love for you Jon"... wow... I mean, I knew he was not exactly "progressive" in the politics department but I storming the Capitol is a differnt thing... and... well, whatever, I am not even surprised than many of his fans admire him even more now after what happened. I am just not one of those...

Anyway. I am watching closely what is going to happen on Wednesday. Hoping for nothing but expecting the worse...


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Just found out Jon Schaffer had been doing a Kickstarter campain for a book. The comments on the site are off the rails.



Is that dude Caden really Jon lol.


----------



## Thaeon

bostjan said:


> Just found out Jon Schaffer had been doing a Kickstarter campain for a book. The comments on the site are off the rails.



The irony of of the comment complaining about people just wanting handouts on a Kickstarter...


----------



## Cyanide_Anima

BenjaminW said:


> I still can’t understand why Antifa is being blamed for storming the Capitol. There’s no way in hell that that many Antifa people would willingly dress up in MAGA attire and protest an election they know Trump lost.



Yeah, it's absurd. They just want to believe that it is true because yet another conspiracy against them 'confirms' that the deep state libtards only seek to make Trump, MAGAs, and Q-Anons look stupid and portray them as traitorous terrorist scum. As if those people aren't completely capable of doing all of those things on their own without help.


----------



## BenjaminW

Ok so going to back to the whole Jon Schaffer thing again, will any of you continue to listen to Iced Earth/be fans of them or have you guys pretty much just moved on from them entirely? Figured I'd ask here instead of make a thread elsewhere on the forum.


----------



## TedEH

That same discussion happens every time someone well known does something stupid or otherwise gets "cancelled" or what have you -> refraining from listening to one band because a member did something egregious doesn't solve the country's political woes. Can't fault someone for not wanting to support them anymore, but also can't fault anyone who just listens to the music anyway 'cause it's a non-conversation in the grand scheme.


----------



## BenjaminW

TedEH said:


> That same discussion happens every time someone well known does something stupid or otherwise gets "cancelled" or what have you -> refraining from listening to one band because a member did something egregious doesn't solve the country's political woes. Can't fault someone for not wanting to support them anymore, but also can't fault anyone who just listens to the music anyway 'cause it's a non-conversation in the grand scheme.


Yeah. I started liking Dystopia and didn't wanna feel like I was getting into them right when people would start not liking them, y'know?


----------



## Ralyks

BenjaminW said:


> Ok so going to back to the whole Jon Schaffer thing again, will any of you continue to listen to Iced Earth/be fans of them or have you guys pretty much just moved on from them entirely? Figured I'd ask here instead of make a thread elsewhere on the forum.



That haven't done much for me since Dark Saga and that's the only record I feel like I would go back to. I had my time with them, it ran out, I haven't felt a need to go back to them in a long while, I'm fine if I don't hear them again.


----------



## MFB

BenjaminW said:


> Ok so going to back to the whole Jon Schaffer thing again, will any of you continue to listen to Iced Earth/be fans of them or have you guys pretty much just moved on from them entirely? Figured I'd ask here instead of make a thread elsewhere on the forum.



I'll continue to the same albums I previously listened to by them, which is up to and including The Glorious Burden; but any new stuff won't see a cent from me.

Those were done when he was entirely/somewhat sensible, but now he's just as indoctrinated as the rest of them.


----------



## Zhysick

Looks like Schaffer has been arrested. He turned himself into the police.

https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-n...n-schaffer-arrested-for-role-in-capitol-riot/

I don't know about the veracity of that website though...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Zhysick said:


> Looks like Schaffer has been arrested. He turned himself into the police.
> 
> https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-n...n-schaffer-arrested-for-role-in-capitol-riot/
> 
> I don't know about the veracity of that website though...



Local news affiliate, so probably legit. 

I asked a mod to re-open the old thread, but in retrospect lets keep that shitshow closed.


----------



## Ralyks

It's on Blabbermouth. Also according to that article:

"The *FBI* Indianapolis Field Office released the following statement regarding *Schaffer*'s arrest: "*Jon Schaffer*, Columbus, IN, has been arrested in connection to Jan 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol. *Schaffer* faces 6 charges including engaging in an act of physical violence in a Capitol building. *Schaffer* was allegedly among rioters who sprayed Capitol police with 'bear spray.'"

Welp, he's boned.


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Local news affiliate, so probably legit.
> 
> I asked a mod to re-open the old thread, but in retrospect lets keep that shitshow closed.



I merged it with this one. It was impossible to keep it apolitical.


----------



## Randy

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iced-earths-jon-schaffer-arrested-for-role-in-capitol-riot/


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Randy said:


> I merged it with this one. It was impossible to keep it apolitical.



Yeah that, and it was becoming a mess near the end.


----------



## Randy

Not to be overly optimistic about it but the Shaffer interview was actually pretty interesting. He's an Alex Jones guy, and mostly consistent about Trump's 'outsider' appeal, which is reflected further in the "hang Pence" crowd. A lot of the more articulate among Trump supporters like the fact he's counter to everyone, frequently within his own party.

Try as they might, I don't think Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Hawley are going to successfully drum up their "outsider" cred the same way Trump could as an independently wealthy TV star that previously held no public office and had people chase him down to give him money, rather than the other way around (like Cruz et al have done over their career). He also had enough autonomy he could take positions that would be entirely unsustainable by anyone else (such as calling Mexicans rapists, etc).

You can't just take Random GOPer of the Week and drop them into the same spot and get the same reaction. Boebert and Taylor Greene trying their damnedest but they're also trying to appeal to a misogynistic party that see them as just stupid chicks that repeat their stupidity.

So there's some chance losing Trump decentralizes this movement. Without having the POTUS to hide behind, a lot of these groups are just another extremist club on the FBI watchlist rather than guests of the president.


----------



## BenjaminW

Randy said:


> So there's some chance losing Trump decentralizes this movement. Without having the POTUS to hide behind, a lot of these groups are just another extremist club on the FBI watchlist rather than guests of the president.


I read that Rand Paul said about a 1/3 of Republicans would leave the GOP if Republican Senators back Trump's impeachment. And as you say, that sect of the GOP won't have Trump to hide behind now that he's leaving office. 

I'm very curious to see how they go about 2024 and whether or not they find someone new in the GOP or attempt to create a third party. I think the former is the most likely, but I also have a feeling that they'd have enough people who will rally to make a third party.


----------



## Randy

Trump a very unique case of someone with absolutely no scruples that will say literally anything, and successfully capture people that are 180 degrees opposite from eachother without second guessing the fact people people they DON'T like also follow him.

The love of Trump is because a lot of people can see him as a lot of different things. The fact he's the face of breaking up the pedophile ring when he's literally one of .000001% of people who was friends with Jeffrey Epstein is a perfect example. 

As long as Trump said one thing that you like, that other people made you feel stupid for believing, you'll ride with him no matter what he says. Even if he says that same thing is stupid in the next breath, it doesn't matter. Commons sense goes right out the window.

So yeah, there will be disaffected GOPers that turned to the party for Trump, that will see through the copycats. Dunno if they'll establish their own party per se. I think there's a lot of people that are opinionated and have opinions on politics but aren't inherently political. In that sense, a lot of people will revert back to "they're all crooks" standing on the sidelines once again. I don't think you can expect the 2020-type turnout again unless something unexpected occurs. If it's just Cruz or someone like that, it'll be a meh race with 30-40% voter turnout like we're used to.


----------



## InfinityCollision

The kids are attempting to establishing a new political dynasty, nevermind whoever else might jump to the foreground in four, eight, twelve years. Maybe the fringe groups sit tight for a while, but they're not actually going anywhere. Neither are their enablers, nor the faces of leadership they'll organize behind. Eventually someone will inherit the mantle. We're nowhere near the end of this road, and nobody in power wants to do anything about it so onwards we go.

GOP split is possible, though the resulting three-party circus couldn't last long under the US political/voting system. The likely long-term outcome with or without a split is dragging US politics further rightward.

Kushner is also still running amok, and everyone who could seems studiously disinclined towards doing anything about that.


----------



## MetalGravy

I clicked on a thread called 
_*Jon Schaffer (ICED EARTH) arrested, charges include assaulting police,*_
How did this become about Biden/Harris?


----------



## Randy

MetalGravy said:


> I clicked on a thread called
> _*Jon Schaffer (ICED EARTH) arrested, charges include assaulting police,*_
> How did this become about Biden/Harris?



Because the previous Schaffer thread became overrun with complaints about discussing politics in the music subforum, so they now redirect to the political subforum.


----------



## TheBlackBard

BenjaminW said:


> Ok so going to back to the whole Jon Schaffer thing again, will any of you continue to listen to Iced Earth/be fans of them or have you guys pretty much just moved on from them entirely? Figured I'd ask here instead of make a thread elsewhere on the forum.




Honestly and truly, I never stop enjoying entertainment by someone just because they're a shitty person, whether before or after the fact. That might not be fairly popular around here, but given that much of my life is built on exploitation of people in other countries, given the clothing I wear, the technology I use, and the fact that I go on Twitch which has connections to Amazon, I can't really afford to say "hey, fuck this guy, but I'll buy his stuff, but not this other person."


----------



## Wuuthrad

“White Privilege on Display @ Capitol Hill”

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFrea...urce=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf


----------



## USMarine75

Just saw there are 5x more troops in DC now than Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks Trump. You kept your promise about bringing the troops home from wars overseas... and brought them here for a domestic war you started instead. 

#promisesmadepromiseskept


----------



## JimF

I suppose he didn't explicitly he was bringing them home for a vacation...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Ralyks said:


> It's on Blabbermouth. Also according to that article:
> 
> "The *FBI* Indianapolis Field Office released the following statement regarding *Schaffer*'s arrest: "*Jon Schaffer*, Columbus, IN, has been arrested in connection to Jan 6 incident at the U.S. Capitol. *Schaffer* faces 6 charges including engaging in an act of physical violence in a Capitol building. *Schaffer* was allegedly among rioters who sprayed Capitol police with 'bear spray.'"
> 
> Welp, he's boned.



Adding to that... Apparently they found more pictures of him, and he was holding bear mace. 

I'm not smart about survival gear, but from what I've heard that shit is dangerous as fuuuuck.


----------



## Ralyks

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Adding to that... Apparently they found more pictures of him, and he was holding bear mace.
> 
> I'm not smart about survival gear, but from what I've heard that shit is dangerous as fuuuuck.



Yup.
https://assets.blabbermouth.net/media/jonschafferbearspray_638.jpg


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> Ok so going to back to the whole Jon Schaffer thing again, will any of you continue to listen to Iced Earth/be fans of them or have you guys pretty much just moved on from them entirely? Figured I'd ask here instead of make a thread elsewhere on the forum.



I'm done. I draw the line somewhere between a guy just having wacky beliefs and joining and armed mob in which some had intent to kill.


----------



## groverj3

BenjaminW said:


> I read that Rand Paul said about a 1/3 of Republicans would leave the GOP if Republican Senators back Trump's impeachment. And as you say, that sect of the GOP won't have Trump to hide behind now that he's leaving office.
> 
> I'm very curious to see how they go about 2024 and whether or not they find someone new in the GOP or attempt to create a third party. I think the former is the most likely, but I also have a feeling that they'd have enough people who will rally to make a third party.


Our winner take all political system can only ever support two parties. If the GOP blows up then they, or their further right wing counterpart party, will never win another national election. Or at least not until several years pass and one of those parties absorbs the other in the name of being able to win elections again. That would essentially just recreate the Republican party again.

It's a pretty well-known feature of winner take all election systems that they tend toward two party systems. In order to have more viable parties we'd have to have large scale reforms that would make both parties less powerful.


----------



## bostjan

Jon faces 6 charges, huh? He could go away for a long time, but I have a feeling that he'll probably only do a little bit of time for this. I was unaware that he had been spraying police with bear spray until these arrest reports came out, though. That's pretty damned awful. Imagine trying to cull a huge angry mob that wants to assassinate the #2 and #3 in line for head of government, and these people are armed with all sorts of improvised deadly weapons, and some asshat sprays you in the eyes with bear spray. You can't see what's going on, you are in intense pain, and yet you still have to hold the line.

If Jon doesn't have a really good explanation for that sort of behaviour (along the lines of it wasn't him or whatever), I'd say that whatever punishment he gets will probably be too lenient.

On the other topic of the two party system and the problems with the GOP factioning off, I can say that I deeply disbelieve that will play a role. The GOP, at the moment, is really a catch all for anyone who disagrees with the Democratic party, and I don't see that changing. Personally, I disagree with the Democratic party on a number of issues, agree with them on other issues, but I really dislike the GOP because their issue stances have been mostly garbage for decades now, and I get the impression that many of my peers who do tend to vote for GOP candidates only do so to protest the establishment.

That's really why you get a lot of single issue voters aligning with the GOP. If there were more line-item issues presented to voters, then the GOP would probably shrink to 1/3 or maybe even 1/4 of the size, as those single-issue voters might not bother aligning with a party that protects their one interest (even if they are horrible at executing it), and sucks at everything else.

My mind was truly boggled by Trump's popularity with the single-issue people, though, because, well, he really tended to take stances more akin or further beyond what the DNC's stances are over these specific issues, rather than stances with the typical GOP rhetoric. 

For example, Trump's administration prosecuted more procedural firearms crimes than any previous administration. How can he be so pro-2A if he's cracking down on people not having their permit or whatever? Also, gun control tightened over the past 4 years. What's up with that? 

Abortion? The guy who cracked down on abortion also uses stem cells from human embryos on himself to recover from covid faster.

Obamacare? The guy who promised to dismantle Obamacare somehow managed to usher in an era where the programs are bigger than ever.

From a detached perspective on these, you just have to shrug your shoulders  and make a goofy expression  because Trump's policies are really just all over the place, and the only really consistent thing is that the actual policies are *not* pursuant to the goals he advertises.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## Randy

Spending some time thinking about this today.

These people are petulant, impatient, spoiled children. Not even in the "I'm not happy with election so I'm gonna pretend it didn't happen" sense. In the "I'm going to hold my breath or kick and scream until I get what I want" way.

Even if you think the election was stolen, storming the capitol and putting your feet on Stenye Hoyer's desk isn't the way you change it. Look at the Progressives after Bernie lost in 2016. They bitched, they moaned but they also mobilized and found ways to get representation in the winning caucus, as well as mounting campaigns for lower offices to seek policy thereafter.

Trumpublicans are shooting themselves in the foot or maybe the head with the flaccid revolt, it'll just invalidate them rather than get the results they want. Shaffer says he likes Trump because he hates globalism and foreign wars (like Republicans are infamous for supporting), well now anything resembling Trump policy and representatives are going to be purged because they're considered a terror organization. Just stupid. Take the L, work on your caucus and see what kind of power you have over the next 2 years. The violence is going to make it really easy for the Dems and the rest of the Republican Party to purge you completely.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Spending some time thinking about this today.
> 
> These people are petulant, impatient, spoiled children. Not even in the "I'm not happy with election so I'm gonna pretend it didn't happen" sense. In the "I'm going to hold my breath or kick and scream until I get what I want" way.
> 
> Even if you think the election was stolen, storming the capitol and putting your feet on Stenye Hoyer's desk isn't the way you change it. Look at the Progressives after Bernie lost in 2016. They bitched, they moaned but they also mobilized and found ways to get representation in the winning caucus, as well as mounting campaigns for lower offices to seek policy thereafter.
> 
> Trumpublicans are shooting themselves in the foot or maybe the head with the flaccid revolt, it'll just invalidate them rather than get the results they want. Shaffer says he likes Trump because he hates globalism and foreign wars (like Republicans are infamous for supporting), well now anything resembling Trump policy and representatives are going to be purged because they're considered a terror organization. Just stupid. Take the L, work on your caucus and see what kind of power you have over the next 2 years. The violence is going to make it really easy for the Dems and the rest of the Republican Party to purge you completely.



That's not really how that side works, though. Trump made a big splash because he was specifically unwilling to compromise with anybody. When he couldn't get a "deal" to go how he liked, he'd just walk away from the table. So, those supporters of his, they don't want to compromise with the winner of the election, and that's by their very own creed. The only way for them to get what they want is to continue living in their own fantasies, honestly, since most of what Trump had been working on was already proven to be just a sugar high for the economy and a whole lot of just ignoring things like disease, starvation, homelessness, and pollution, under the diseased thought process that ignoring those things makes them not exist. The huge surprise out of all of that is that it basically took 3 years and a global pandemic to get to the point where there was any sort of weakening of Trump's own base in light of the fact that there was bold proof that Trump's tactics mostly just didn't work in real life.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> That's not really how that side works, though. Trump made a big splash because he was specifically unwilling to compromise with anybody. When he couldn't get a "deal" to go how he liked, he'd just walk away from the table. So, those supporters of his, they don't want to compromise with the winner of the election, and that's by their very own creed. The only way for them to get what they want is to continue living in their own fantasies, honestly, since most of what Trump had been working on was already proven to be just a sugar high for the economy and a whole lot of just ignoring things like disease, starvation, homelessness, and pollution, under the diseased thought process that ignoring those things makes them not exist. The huge surprise out of all of that is that it basically took 3 years and a global pandemic to get to the point where there was any sort of weakening of Trump's own base in light of the fact that there was bold proof that Trump's tactics mostly just didn't work in real life.



True.

They're the "Flex Belt" of political movements. "What do you mean it doesn't work? This $49.99 is supposed to buy me the rock hard abs people get from years of dieting and exercise"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Friend sent this to me, had to share.


----------



## Necris

I wonder if the Q motto "Where We Go One, We Go All" includes prison.


----------



## Xaios

Necris said:


> I wonder if the Q motto "Where We Go One, We Go All" includes prison.


We can only hope.


----------



## Vostre Roy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Friend sent this to me, had to share.
> 
> View attachment 89165



I can't help but imagine a north american (USA or Canada) and a North Korean talkin about how oppressed they are:

NA: Man I'm telling you, we are getting oppressed by our government, I know how you feel. How oppressed are you?

NK: Well, we can't have access to the world internet, we have the risk to be sent to imposed labor if we don't follow our leader's rules, we don't have the possibility to have an opposition party to the one in power and we have to worship the leader in a God-Like way, what about you?

NA: They want us to wear a mask during a world pandemic, privately own social media can ban us if we don't follow the rule we agreed upon joining and they don't want to overturn an election based on facts that no one are showing. We're the same right?

NK: .... fuck off dude


----------



## mastapimp

sleewell said:


>


These Ralph memes are killing it. Here's my favorite:


----------



## Wuuthrad

Btw happy MLK day to the forum. It’s really surprising to me that the country has revealed what it has these past couple years.

This is still meaningful to me, and I appreciate the way it’s quoted here:




My privilege has given me an education understanding and sympathetic view of the teachings of MLK that I wish more people had!

https://www.pbs.org/video/martin-luther-king-jr-celebration-concert-5h320d/


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Wuuthrad said:


> Btw happy MLK day to the forum. It’s really surprising to me that the country has revealed what it has these past couple years.
> 
> This is still meaningful to me, and I appreciate the way it’s quoted here:
> 
> View attachment 89179
> 
> 
> My privilege has given me an education understanding and sympathetic view of the teachings of MLK that I wish more people had!
> 
> https://www.pbs.org/video/martin-luther-king-jr-celebration-concert-5h320d/



MLK is the biggest example of how easy it is to "sanitize" and whitewash someone while they're dead. Can't wait to see how these guys see Colin kaepernick in several decades.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> Friend sent this to me, had to share.
> 
> View attachment 89165



The only actual tyranny and oppression I see here is Marriage.


----------



## USMarine75

Ahh... today is a great day to be mostly white. Amirite? Feeling a... power... derived from my whiteness... a "white power" if you will. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa.../1776-report-historians-trump/?outputType=amp

*‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians*



(Above said in jest)


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> Ahh... today is a great day to be mostly white. Amirite? Feeling a... power... derived from my whiteness... a "white power" if you will.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/19/1776-report-historians-trump/?outputType=amp
> 
> *‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians*
> 
> 
> 
> (Above said in jest)




where are all the trumps not a racist dudes.

I just want some fun watching people explain this.


----------



## Thaeon

diagrammatiks said:


> where are all the trumps not a racist dudes.
> 
> I just want some fun watching people explain this.


----------



## bostjan

> Historical revisionism that tramples honest scholarship and historical truth, shames Americans by highlighting only the sins of their ancestors, and teaches claims of systemic racism that can only be eliminated by more discrimination, is an ideology intended to manipulate opinions more than educate minds.



also



> Like modern-day proponents of identity politics, Calhoun believed that achieving unity through rational deliberation and political compromise was impossible; majority groups would only use the political process to oppress minority groups.


Referring to John C Calhoun, who was a staunch proponent of slavery, you know, the most egregious example of a minority group being systematically oppressed by a majority group.


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Ahh... today is a great day to be mostly white. Amirite? Feeling a... power... derived from my whiteness... a "white power" if you will.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/19/1776-report-historians-trump/?outputType=amp
> 
> *‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians*
> 
> 
> 
> (Above said in jest)




Just watched the video. Wow. There's no spin to this. You're either on the correct side or that side.


----------



## Millul

That's really f%cked up!
I hope Biden will be able to "clean the house" and to steer American politics back towards decency, but it will take A TON of effort.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Probably already mentioned somewhere here but Presidential pardons in the most innocent and simplistic sense seem completely ludicrous... And for a President facing impeachment to have that discretionary power... absolutely fucking insane.


----------



## bostjan

High Plains Drifter said:


> Probably already mentioned somewhere here but Presidential pardons in the most innocent and simplistic sense seem completely ludicrous... And for a President facing impeachment to have that discretionary power... absolutely fucking insane.


Not so crazy under normal circumstances. The president is the chief executive officer of the USA.

Frankly, the fact that our president is certifiably insane (i.e., out of touch with reality, not willing to understand fact in lieu of emotions, etc.) is what is completely ludicrous, or more literally ridiculous.


----------



## nightflameauto

That 1776 report shit is fucking scary. Is this really the world we live in? Are we really that fundamentally broken? WTF?


----------



## sleewell

nightflameauto said:


> That 1776 report shit is fucking scary. Is this really the world we live in? Are we really that fundamentally broken? WTF?




stephen miller needs a hug and then the gallows. this country took in his immigrant relatives, gave him everything, and then he somehow turns around and shits all over everything we stand for. 


for real... i need someone to explain their grievances. someone like him has everything except happiness. its hard for me to imagine hating people who come here with nothing and will take any job to give their kids a better life but somehow he has made a career out of exactly that.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Following up the Jon Schaffer news; looked like Century Media dropped both Iced Earth AND Demons and Wizards. Like, Thanos snapped that shit out of existence. 

https://loudwire.com/iced-earth-demons-wizards-removed-century-media-online-roster/

"Century Media seems to have scrubbed all traces of the two bands, both of which include Schaffer as a founding member. Iced Earth and Demons & Wizards can not be found on the label’s current artists list, nor on Century Media’s roster of former artists. Merch from both acts is also no longer available via the Century Media webstore."

Not sure about Iced Earth (will eventually get some zombiefied version of the band if Jon makes it free), but I'm guessing Demons and Wizards is done for.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Lot of truth in this, especially in regards to Trump completely fcuking up remaining as leader of the Republicans and his own re-election bid in 2024 by not going quietly


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> Ahh... today is a great day to be mostly white. Amirite? Feeling a... power... derived from my whiteness... a "white power" if you will.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/01/19/1776-report-historians-trump/?outputType=amp
> 
> *‘A hack job,’ ‘outright lies’: Trump commission’s ‘1776 Report’ outrages historians*
> 
> 
> 
> (Above said in jest)




Brought to you by the same party who brought you this...



I normally loathe reaction vids and would never repost but this is spot on.

PragerU is some North Korean style 1984 historical re-education shit.


----------



## Zhysick

Trump now: economy, economy, economy, economy, economy, economy...

Yes twat, you better not speak about lifes, families, etc... talk only about what cares to you: money.


----------



## thebeesknees22

ugh.. there was a youtube link popup on my youtube homepage with his speech and I reported it for harmful content. ...didn't even watch it. I just couldn't help myself.


----------



## groverj3

Zhysick said:


> Trump now: economy, economy, economy, economy, economy, economy...
> 
> Yes twat, you better not speak about lifes, families, etc... talk only about what cares to you: money.


Never mind that the actual economy is in the shitter and it's his fault for not taking the pandemic seriously. He got to inherit a recovering economy from Obama and proceeded to destroy it in a truly unprecedented way.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Work has sent out an e-mail today saying that no one is to be wearing/displaying political propaganda. Quite a few people are pissed (I live in the South), but it's funny to me how there were really only about 20 people in 1,500 that even bothered displaying any throughout the election/capitol hill incident.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

bostjan said:


> Not so crazy under normal circumstances. The president is the chief executive officer of the USA.
> 
> Frankly, the fact that our president is certifiably insane (i.e., out of touch with reality, not willing to understand fact in lieu of emotions, etc.) is what is completely ludicrous, or more literally ridiculous.



Regardless of trump, Presidential pardons open the door for questionable and self-serving actions by any president. And I do realize that a pardon can be utilized in a morally conscious way but for any one person that is not even qualified as a judicial representative, pardons seem potentially quite contentious. At the very least, issuing pardons should be an automatic no-go for a president facing impeachment.


----------



## Zhysick

groverj3 said:


> Never mind that the actual economy is in the shitter and it's his fault for not taking the pandemic seriously. He got to inherit a recovering economy from Obama and proceeded to destroy it in a truly unprecedented way.



Oh yeah, I know, he was talking shit and basically lies, but when a president talks only about money and nothing more... well, what could anyone expect from him? He is just a salesman...


----------



## mastapimp

So the My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell, is pissed cause big retail chains are pulling his product in response to his non-stop conspiracies on election fraud. 

My favorite part of this story https://www.yahoo.com/news/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-says-154410134.html:

"In his email to NBC News, Lindell said: "All the evidence against Dominion is before the Supreme Court. ... China and others used the machines to corrupt our election! Here is one page of the proof."

The email did not include an attachment. When asked if he had mistakenly omitted it, Lindell sent another email with an empty attachment and a third with screenshots of illegible text."


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

mastapimp said:


> So the My Pillow guy, Mike Lindell, is pissed cause big retail chains are pulling his product in response to his non-stop conspiracies on election fraud.
> 
> My favorite part of this story https://www.yahoo.com/news/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-says-154410134.html:
> 
> "In his email to NBC News, Lindell said: "All the evidence against Dominion is before the Supreme Court. ... China and others used the machines to corrupt our election! Here is one page of the proof."
> 
> The email did not include an attachment. When asked if he had mistakenly omitted it, Lindell sent another email with an empty attachment and a third with screenshots of illegible text."



Can't wait for the 4th email that's just a link to C:\User\Mike_Lindell\Documents


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Brought to you by the same party who brought you this...
> 
> 
> 
> I normally loathe reaction vids and would never repost but this is spot on.
> 
> PragerU is some North Korean style 1984 historical re-education shit.




JFC...

I knew I hated PragerU before... Did no one honestly watch the video before posting it or are those claims really not considered to be as awful as they are.

Most of that video was confirmation of why the statue should have come down.


----------



## USMarine75

Thaeon said:


> JFC...
> 
> I knew I hated PragerU before... Did no one honestly watch the video before posting it or are those claims really not considered to be as awful as they are.
> 
> Most of that video was confirmation of why the statue should have come down.



Me and my 11 year old were in tears. He's a huge history nerd too and he was like dad why are they listing all of the bad things he did as reasons for a statue.

PragerU's other videos are almost as bad. There's one "refuting" that Dems and GOP switched places over time so they're arguing the modern Dems are the party of racism and GOP is party of Lincoln and emancipation. Best part is they got a Black female professor to legitimize the garbage. It's like listening to a Jew talk about Hitler making the trains run on time. Or a white person defending Vanilla Ice and zubaz.


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Me and my 11 year old were in tears. He's a huge history nerd too and he was like dad why are they listing all of the bad things he did as reasons for a statue.
> 
> PragerU's other videos are almost as bad. There's one "refuting" that Dems and GOP switched places over time so they're arguing the modern Dems are the party of racism and GOP is party of Lincoln and emancipation. Best part is they got a Black female professor to legitimize the garbage. It's like listening to a Jew talk about Hitler making the trains run on time. Or a white person defending Vanilla Ice and zubaz.



They’re in the willing to say anything to make the greedy money grabbing of the GOP corporate apologist politician look good category of media. I’m clearly not saying that because it’s my opinion. They prove it all the time to anyone paying attention. But this... This is like saying that Hitler deserves a statue in Germany because he crushed a Jewish rebellion.


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> It's like listening to a Jew talk about Hitler making the trains run on time.



Hand Stephen Miller a mic...


----------



## SpaceDock

Word on the street is that Trump is going to pardon Joe Exotic, the Tiger King.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Word on the street is that Trump is going to pardon Joe Exotic, the Tiger King.



I mean how long was Lambesis in there anyway?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> Hand Stephen Miller a mic...



I can just imagine Trump doing it.

" And if you look back on Germany at that time he built many many many trains! It was tremendous. And you know the fake news history will tell you they were bad! but lots of people tell me "We loved the trains!"


----------



## USMarine75

Dineley said:


> I can just imagine Trump doing it.
> 
> " And if you look back on Germany at that time he built many many many trains! It was tremendous. And you know the fake news history will tell you they were bad! but lots of people tell me "We loved the trains!"



PragerU - "The Jews were better off in the Camps."


----------



## zappatton2

USMarine75 said:


> Or a white person defending Vanilla Ice and zubaz.


Can't help but think this could have all been avoided if we'd just stop, collaborate and _listen_.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

zappatton2 said:


> Can't help but think this could have all been avoided if we'd just stop, collaborate and _listen_.



Oh man!!!!!!!


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> Can't help but think this could have all been avoided if we'd just stop, collaborate and _listen_.



Don't forget, though:
Vanilla Ice performs to largely maskless crowd at Donald Trump's New Year's Eve party (nme.com)


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> PragerU - "The Jews were better off in the Camps."



I legit know someone who thinks PragerU is non biased information.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I legit know someone who thinks PragerU is non biased information.



Good sir, you know an idiot.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Good sir, you know an idiot.



It’s sad because she is actually a very smart young engineer, just totally brainwashed by crazy right wing media.


----------



## Thomas Mims

MaxOfMetal said:


> Good sir, you know an idiot.


In fairness the PragerU videos are extremely hard to analyze throughly at least to their average joe. And unfortunately in 2021 most people are not critical thinkers.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> It’s sad because she is actually a very smart young engineer, just totally brainwashed by crazy right wing media.



Knowledge vs. Wisdom 

Or just a terrible person acting in bad faith.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> It’s sad because she is actually a very smart young engineer, just totally brainwashed by crazy right wing media.



I mean, not knowing "crushing a slave rebellion" is considered a negative thing in the context of US history and why General Lee's statute is being removed from places is an objectively stupid line of thought. Like, an absolute lack of deduction.

The three loudest Trumpets in my orbit are a college professor (American history, no less!) and two nuclear scientists. Smart is not the appropriate word to describe them.


----------



## possumkiller

Has anyone made a trump montage to Symphony of Destruction yet?


----------



## spudmunkey

possumkiller said:


> Has anyone made a trump montage to Symphony of Destruction yet?



No, but I found this. That's more words than Fahrenheit 451 or The Great Gatsby...but just insults.


----------



## Wuuthrad

I’m posting this because I have a theory that at least a few parts of the culture of Trumpism is based on some amalgamation of this following tweet, and also generations of domestic abuse, as witnessed in the following video shared today by Kelly Anne Conway’s daughter, Claudia Conway. I feel sad for her and anyone who has gone through this. My sympathy does not extend to adults who perpetuate this cycle of abuse however.






Spoiler: This is difficult to watch, it stars verbally and ends physically



https://mobile.twitter.com/defnoodles/status/1351670572439138305



At one point Conway screams “You’re lucky I’m pro-life” at her daughter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> No, but I found this. That's more words than Fahrenheit 451 or The Great Gatsby...but just insults.
> View attachment 89213



That's roughly your average 175 to 200 page novel. Many "classic" works from the 19th and 20th centuries fall in that range. Let that sink in.


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's roughly your average 175 to 200 page novel. Many "classic" works from the 19th and 20th centuries fall in that range. Let that sink in.



Hah jokes on you. No one has time to let anything sink in because they only read headlines!

Can’t process and reflect on what you never understood to begin with.


----------



## Wuuthrad

My last post was a bit heavy, so I’d like to share some Band/Album Names or Song Name Ideas. In the spirit of “Nazi Punks Fuck Off!”

*Traitortots 

Traitriots

Talibangelicals

Vanilla ISIS

Yeehawdists 

Y’all Queda 

Koup Klutz Klan 

Methamphetamarines 
*
Feel free to add to the list!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

"Pumpkin Sp-ISIS"

Is a personal favorite of mine.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

JFKFC


----------



## possumkiller

So are any of these dickweeds actually going to show up for their big inauguration attack?


----------



## sleewell

Bannon helped organize the coup and got a pardon. 

I'm sure lil Wayne and the other rappers had a good, non bribery, reason to get a pardon. 

If it really was 2 million a piece trump just made a good haul on his way out. Wonder if the pardons will stick if they can prove the cash payments?


----------



## thraxil

sleewell said:


> I'm sure lil Wayne and the other rappers had a good, non bribery, reason to get a pardon.



Those are probably the only ones that didn't have some kind of direct quid pro quo. Trump just really wants famous people to like him.


----------



## narad

thraxil said:


> Those are probably the only ones that didn't have some kind of direct quid pro quo. Trump just really wants famous people to like him.



I think he's just trying to court a tiny chunk of black voters by pardoning high-profile "representatives of black culture". ~Sure, all the KKK attend my events, but look -- I pardoned Lil Wayne. Who's racist now?


----------



## diagrammatiks

narad said:


> I think he's just trying to court a tiny chunk of black voters by pardoning high-profile "representatives of black culture". ~Sure, all the KKK attend my events, but look -- I pardoned Lil Wayne. Who's racist now?



Executed more mentally ill people then any other president. But at least not racist.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

And it ends on YMCA.... I'm dying lol


----------



## High Plains Drifter

HE'S GONE!!! Good riddance, you bloated piece of garbage!


----------



## bostjan

High Plains Drifter said:


> Regardless of trump, Presidential pardons open the door for questionable and self-serving actions by any president. And I do realize that a pardon can be utilized in a morally conscious way but for any one person that is not even qualified as a judicial representative, pardons seem potentially quite contentious. At the very least, issuing pardons should be an automatic no-go for a president facing impeachment.


I'd argue that 90% of presidential powers are subject to abuse by morally reprehensible people. Many have potentially more severe consequences than pardons.

Puzzling to me that Trump pardoned Kwame Kilpatrick. People with connections to Detroit might recall him as the former mayor who allegedly ordered a police officer to murder a young woman who was set to testify against him about an inappropriate party the mayor held at his home, which might have been unknowingly funded by tax payers. That's not why he was jailed, though... but anyway, Kilpatrock is as Democrat as they come... so much for draining the swamp, eh?


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Gotta get in that last serving of shade


----------



## narad

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Gotta get in that last serving of shade
> 
> View attachment 89236



She's throwin' so much shade she's gonna solve global warming.


----------



## Science_Penguin

possumkiller said:


> So are any of these dickweeds actually going to show up for their big inauguration attack?



I'm predicting there's gonna be a couple dumb enough to try... But the threat they pose will be so minimal they'll be thwarted without the National Guard spending a single round.


----------



## nightflameauto

Watching Trump leave the White House for the final time as President this morning, I began to reflect on the last four years and some of the time directly before he became president.

I thought, when he was running, that:
A) My vote doesn't matter. Largely, this was and still is true in the sense that my vote wouldn't have swung my state, and we do not have proportional electoral college votes so it wouldn't have even registered as a protest vote, though through several beratings by my wife I've been assured that not voting is never the answer. Though, to be honest, I couldn't have voted for Hillary in good conscience either, so it still would have been a throwaway as far as she's concerned.

B) Trump would erode our foreign relationships, though his most egregious attempts to destroy American norms to line his own pockets would be curtailed by congress for the most part. I was not, at all, aware how quickly the GOP would fall in line. I learned a valuable lesson there. While I'd always known our federal politicians were corruptible, I had no idea how fast they would run towards that corruption, nor how far they would let that corruption carry them. Some of them right up to full-blown insurrection against the very ideals they supposedly swear an oath to uphold.

Listening to Trump's speech as he says goodbye, his typical snipes at anyone he can, his typical lies about how wonderful his administration has been, but there was a brief moment of pause as he said, "Have a nice life, everyone." That's the type of thing you hear when leaving your school buds for the last time, or when somebody's planning on checking out. Then I remembered, this is Trump. He's winging it and has no idea WTF he's talking about. And then a promise we'll all see him again real soon.

Fuck sake, I hope it's in court being drug out by his ear to serve consecutive sentences for his string of crimes that would leave somebody like Nixon going, "Um, bro, maybe hold it back a touch?"

I will say, at least the dude wished the next administration well, even if he still couldn't bring himself to say their names out loud.

There was an interview with Chris Christie where he finally started saying true truths about how the people around Trump all knew that there was no possible way to get him to face reality if it wasn't what he wanted it to be. "The man only hears what he wants to hear, and everyone around him knows that." So, while one-on-one Trump would sometimes see that he truly had lost, in Christie's words, "Everything in his life has taught him that if he just keeps saying it, it eventually comes true. Nothing prepared him for a situation he couldn't control."

As much as I despise Chris Christie in general, it was nice to hear some of what we all figured was happening behind the scenes actually was happening.

I hope the inauguration runs smoothly and Biden and Harris can hit the ground running as they've promised. I also hope our congress, both House and Senate, can find a way to start cooperating or at the very least stay out of the way of those trying to make significant headway forward.

I've seen some demands that the Democrats, while they are in charge, abolish the fillibuster. Anyone think they'd ever actually do it? I personally would love to see it, as I think it's simply a tool of obstruction and congress has more than enough tools in that particular kit, but is there even a smidgeon of hope for it to fly?

I would hope so. Lord knows after the last four years, stranger things have happened.


----------



## thraxil

Science_Penguin said:


> I'm predicting there's gonna be a couple dumb enough to try... But the threat they pose will be so minimal they'll be thwarted without the National Guard spending a single round.



Naw. They're a bunch of cowards that only get emboldened when they outnumber the cops ten to one.


----------



## Demiurge

^That's probable; courage-of-convictions aside, instilling the fear that they _might_ do something can be effective enough.


----------



## bostjan

Most of those pardons were pretty much standard last day faire, but a couple, like Bannon stand out hinting deep corruption and others (Kilpatrick) just seem weird. Also, Trump's last order of business was to lift the ban on lobbyists, so, no doubt he plans to lobby. This is just exactly the crap that proves that people who thought Trump would fight corruption were 100% flat out wrong, though, so, I guess half of the people can now say "I told you so." Not that it'd make any difference even if facts mattered anymore. But whatever, he's done.

Not sure if I can breathe a sigh of relief yet, though. People are angry about Trump- either that he was there or that he is now gone. I'm personally suspicious about Biden. Trump's cult followers will be moving on to whatever else now... it's at least the end of this dreaded era, but that doesn't indicate what the next era will be like. I guess we all get to decide...


----------



## Demiurge

So, Garth Brooks came out to sing "Amazing Grace". He did not pull down his mask to reveal a jet-black soul patch and did not attempt to citizens-arrest Joe Biden as Chris Gaines. I'm starting to think that this QAnon stuff is bunk.


----------



## sleewell

trump just spent the last 2 months saying Detroit was one of the most corrupt cities and we should throw out all their votes. then he pardons a democrat from that city that who actually was corrupt and nothing about his trial or conviction was abnormal or deserving of a pardon. if you are a trump supporter i really would like to hear your explanation on how that makes any sense and why you would support it. 


i also would love to be in some of the Q chat rooms right now. what is the excuse this time? when is the next deadline? freaking hilarious.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

sleewell said:


> t
> i also would love to be in some of the Q chat rooms right now. what is the excuse this time? when is the next deadline? freaking hilarious.


https://twitter.com/JessReports/status/1351948727259336704
https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1351940246641012737
https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1351945274730668034
Not taking it very well.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/t...ite-house-tenure-was-long-national-nightmare/

Shit, I've been idolizing the wrong rhythm guitarist.


----------



## nightflameauto

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/t...ite-house-tenure-was-long-national-nightmare/
> 
> Shit, I've been idolizing the wrong rhythm guitarist.


OMG, the comments there. Lord.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

nightflameauto said:


> OMG, the comments there. Lord.



Usually the comments tend to be anti-Trump, but I stilll avoid BM comments like the plague. It's surprisingly got worse ever since they made FB mandatory to comment.


----------



## possumkiller

So when are they starting all the investigations into trump and all his people?


----------



## BenjaminW

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Usually the comments tend to be anti-Trump, but I stilll avoid BM comments like the plague. It's surprisingly got worse ever since they made FB mandatory to comment.


It's Facebook. What do you expect?

In regards to other comment sections, my good friends over at Fox News' Instagram have been foaming at the mouth all day. I'm not a Biden guy or anything, but I feel like I can at least live with him being President unlike these kinds of people who are just gonna bitch and moan about it nonstop.


----------



## mmr007

possumkiller said:


> So when are they starting all the investigations into trump and all his people?



Hopefully as soon as Preet Bharara and Col Vindman free up their schedule to lead the charge


----------



## spudmunkey

Gravy Seals


----------



## Wuuthrad

*Cheetos Banditos *


----------



## sleewell




----------



## Thaeon

thraxil said:


> Naw. They're a bunch of cowards that only get emboldened when they outnumber the cops ten to one.



Highly doubt any of these idiots will go full Thermopylae.


----------



## spudmunkey

That's one of the most hopeful things I've read in a long while...


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


>



https://politics.theonion.com/qanon...tm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_source=facebook


----------



## Wuuthrad

Barely dressed for the occasion, this familiar lonely looking gentleman shivers and wonders:

“I could have been a contender...I could’ve been somebody?”


----------



## Wuuthrad

BRANDO 2024!


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> https://twitter.com/JessReports/status/1351948727259336704
> https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1351940246641012737
> https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1351945274730668034
> Not taking it very well.



I never thought I could ever rejoice in the misery of others as much as the last couple months have taught me. This is delicious.


----------



## Riffer




----------



## Thaeon

mmr007 said:


> Hopefully as soon as Preet Bharara and Col Vindman free up their schedule to lead the charge



If I were either of them, my schedule would have already been cleared as of Biden winning last month.



Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89257
> 
> 
> Barely dressed for the occasion, this familiar lonely looking gentleman shivers and wonders:
> 
> “I could have been a contender...I could’ve been somebody?”



If nothing else, because of this dude, there are ideas in the public consciousness that never would have gotten any ground to stand on. Now they aren't just being considered, there's a whole group of people who lean left that are demanding their being canonized.



Randy said:


> I never thought I could ever rejoice in the misery of others as much as the last couple months have taught me. This is delicious.



I'm right there with you. What did you expect. Most people who buy into that stuff, know that its not real and participate in the delusion because it makes sense of their preference of worldview. Which says a lot about who some of these people are.


----------



## mongey

Shame he didn’t pardon tiger king. Would’ve been a fitting bed to this whole circus.

sure many of the rioters we also sure they would be pardoned. Hopefully they ,all all these other groups who attached themselves to trump see him for what he is. Just a pathological liar who will say anything ,and use anyone in the name of his own selfish agenda.


----------



## thebeesknees22

mongey said:


> ...
> sure many of the rioters we also sure they would be pardoned. ...



These are not smart people. They're so blinded by hatred for liberals they couldn't even see how Trump doesn't give one iota about them. They were so sure they could get away with anything when they stormed the capitol though... it's so ...crazy... I hope they wake up and chill out, but I have low hopes for that.


----------



## Randy

thebeesknees22 said:


> These are not smart people. They're so blinded by hatred for liberals they couldn't even see how Trump doesn't give one iota about them. They were so sure they could get away with anything when they stormed the capitol though... it's so ...crazy... I hope they wake up and chill out, but I have low hopes for that.



They can wake up and learn to chill in their fuckin jail cell. GMO meals and all.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Man I'm already seeing people local to me saying stuff like "If you own a small business, better start praying to god you stay afloat the next 4 years."

As if we haven't lost numerous, numerous small/family businesses the passed year due to Trump's botched Covid response. And I can tell you the small business I work at sure as fuck didn't prosper under Trump's admin.


----------



## mmr007

I watched the normalcy of a real press conference with press secretary Jen Psaki. I felt like Tom Hanks at the end of Castaway when he saw a glass of ice water....amazing what we take for granted until we can't get it at all. Then I cried in relief.


----------



## spudmunkey

Riffer said:


> View attachment 89262
> View attachment 89263


----------



## Randy

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> Man I'm already seeing people local to me saying stuff like "If you own a small business, better start praying to god you stay afloat the next 4 years."
> 
> As if we haven't lost numerous, numerous small/family businesses the passed year due to Trump's botched Covid response. And I can tell you the small business I work at sure as fuck didn't prosper under Trump's admin.



I honestly do.not.care.anymore. This is the same vanilla shit they say every time a Democrat wins office or any time they win a majority in Congress.

I'm actually relieved that those are the stakes we're playing for at this point. Republicans whining about taxes and regulations. I'd say that beats civil war, anarchy in all major cities and the plague ravaging all four corners of this country while the President does literally nothing but pour more gasoline. I might even go back to talking about guitar on here at this point.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ball is in your court y'all.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> I might even go back to talking about guitar on here at this point.


John "Randy" Schaffer


----------



## USMarine75

Please take 3 minutes out of your day to watch this.

This is everything that was wrong with Trump. The lack of courtesy, civility, country before self, etc.


----------



## philkilla

I'm glad he's out. Not a big fan of Biden, but fuck me I'm glad trump is gone.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 89285
> 
> 
> Ball is in your court y'all.



I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle was "too scared" to pass laws.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle was "too scared" to pass laws.



I think it's more of a fear of damaging future political prospects or upsetting the status quo. 

I don't think Schumer thinks scary progressive bills are hiding under his bed waiting to nip at his ankles. Or he does.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think it's more of a fear of damaging future political prospects or upsetting the status quo.
> 
> I don't think Schumer thinks scary progressive bills are hiding under his bed waiting to nip at his ankles. Or he does.



But I feel like if you're too scared to pass laws that would get you voted out, you are in some way acknowledging that passing the laws would be against the will of the people you represent, and therefore, imo, valid political behavior. The country has to work on a local level to give representatives the confidence in their constituents that is necessary to make those kinds of laws.

Of course, you want people to basically also guide the country in the best direction regardless of localized sentiment, but I actually don't feel bad about them prioritizing re-election. Only catering to special interest groups for bribes and other quid-pro-pro-y things.


----------



## sleewell

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 89285
> 
> 
> Ball is in your court y'all.




Fully agree. The only wild card is manchin but they gotta get shit done either way.

Trump had the same for 2 years with bigger majorities and only managed a tax plan geared towards the richest that has exploded the deficit. If dems cant do more they've got no leg to stand on.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> But I feel like if you're too scared to pass laws that would get you voted out, you are in some way acknowledging that passing the laws would be against the will of the people you represent, and therefore, imo, valid political behavior. The country has to work on a local level to give representatives the confidence in their constituents that is necessary to make those kinds of laws.
> 
> Of course, you want people to basically also guide the country in the best direction regardless of localized sentiment, but I actually don't feel bad about them prioritizing re-election. Only catering to special interest groups for bribes and other quid-pro-pro-y things.



I'd argue that it's special interests that get them elected and who they typically serve vs. the will and wellbeing of thier constituents.

I think the chief fear isn't of being voted out by the people, but being primaried or smeared/attacked at the behest of large donors/PACs.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd argue that it's special interests that get them elected and who they typically serve vs. the will and wellbeing of thier constituents.
> 
> I think the chief fear isn't of being voted out by the people, but being primaried or smeared/attacked at the behest of large donors/PACs.



Yea, I guess that's a fair point. Scared of special interest groups I can believe.


----------



## Randy

I'm totally content with not discussing Trump ever again (sans when they throw him in prison) but one thing that's become super apparent are the number of people who kissed his ass just to get themselves or others out of jail. Lil Wayne is an obvious one, but Brian Urlacher and Judge Jeanine others.

Also hilarious are the sycophantic people who ACTUALLY liked the guy in ernest, and he didn't give them any pardons, like the Qanon groupies and the Proud Boys. Hitched your wagon to a real winner there. Maybe next time you've got enough money to lobby for your freedom.


----------



## sleewell

listened to right wing talk radio on the way to work. pretty horrifying but not surprising. they are already slamming biden's plan on immigration. already slamming his plans for the military. said his speech yesterday was terrible. they are still pushing the voter fraud claims and actually said if so many people voted for biden why could they only get 1000 people to his inauguration? obviously no mentions of covid or the coup attempt. there was no message of giving him a chance or even that he actually won fairly.

i'm getting really uneasy with all this happy go lucky unity talk from the dems. clinton tried that and failed. obama tried it and failed. they are still talking about unifying with people who have no interest in reciprocating and frankly with people who can't even live in reality. its the classic democrats being pussies that i fear is going to happen again. when the gop win they only attempt to ram their agenda through and give no fucks about the left. when dems win they talk unity and about what can we pass that the right will like. its bullshit.

when the right gets in charge they make a complete mess and leave things in shambles for the incoming democratic administration and then they blame them not fixing it fast enough and block them from trying.

imo this is not yet a time for unity. we have been through 4 years of fuck your feelings and trampling on the constitution. its not time to extend the olive branch to a side that has no intention of taking it and to sweep everything under the rug like it didn't happen. i would like to deal with the people who are still on team coup and the messaging behind it.

conflicts don't resolve by giving everyone a pass. tough conversations need to be had even if feelings get hurt. things will get worse if we just act like nothing happened.


----------



## mmr007

I watched a few minutes of Tucker last night as he conflated the Biden war on white supremacy and domestic terrorism as a war on whites in general. I find it odd there are "humans" like him that you can literally only listen to for a few minutes before you start having physical reactions like rash and upset stomach.

Here's the thing...this will be over very soon. Not every crazy nut job but all the Trumpism will so hear me out.... Russia recently hack over 250 major companies and government institutions including even the pentagon, state department and homeland security. Years ago Russia hacked the DNC. But IMMEDIATELY the RNC announced they were not hacked as the security on their servers is too good but offered no proof. I guarantee you russians hacked the RNC and made certain republicans useful idiots based on what they found....blackmail. You think a three time divorced mayor of new york with major financial problems who got punked by Borat into taking off his pants hasn't been spied on by russian operatives (Guiliani isn't scared of Trump voters as he has been running for office). No he is scared of his issues being revealed by someone named Ivan if Trump isn't fully supported. And same with Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and others who swore that electing Trump would end the party and now can't kiss his ass fast enough. Because of his voters? The blue wave of 2018 showed republicans there was more to fear from moderates than crazies.

We know Trump is beholden to Russia, we know that russian money has been flowing into the NRA and then into republican politician pockets. Russia owns many republicans like Nunes and McCarthy. We've all heard the audio talking about it. That's why so many prominent republicans retired from office almost immediately after 2016. They don't want to be anywhere near this stage when the curtain comes down. Manafort running the Trump campaign in 2016? A pro russia platform that republicans adopt without dissent? (other than Romney)Republicans refusing to force Trump's hand on russian/taliban bounties on our troops?

Trust me we are going to learn in short order that the rot runs deep....that the party we thought we knew as the republican party has been infiltrated by traitors whose behavior this last few years can only be described as acting under duress...and not because they are scared of Trump voters. Don't tell me Liz Cheney has more balls than these guys. It's just Russia doesn't have anything on her.


----------



## nightflameauto

I hear murmurs now that Trump is out of office and didn't pardon his coup attempters that Qanon circles are referring to him as weak and ineffective. Four years of Trump being god-like and now he's weak. That's some funny shit.

While I'd like to see those holding office that actually stoked the flames of and during the coup attempt held accountable, the somewhat moderate, less-insane, or even self-preservation seeking Republicans right now may be a little more willing to play ball than they have in the past just to disassociate with Trump if nothing else. And while I don't think that should give them a free pass for all the assistance and falling all over themselves to praise him over the last four years, even when his rhetoric was clearly leading to violence, at least there's the tiniest little seed of possibility we'll see some cooperation. And I haven't seen that seed exist in nearly any form since long before I was voting age.

So, while I can't claim I'm super hopeful or anything of the sort, I can say there's a cautious optimism that we'll see some form of progress in the next few weeks to months. How much progress likely depends on how willing the Republicans are to let a few of their zanier brothers and sisters fall on their swords for the greater good. If they decide to rally behind the nut-bars calling for a Biden impeachment already, forget it. But something tells me McConnel's not going to be that stupid, and whether we like it or not he still pulls a lot of strings on that side of the aisle.

I still feel a huge sense of relief to know I'm not going to wake up every single morning to another story of the President embarrassing himself twenty times while I was in bed, mostly by tweeting stupidities that most teenagers are smart enough to avoid. As much as I'm not a Biden fan, it is nice to know he can at least behave like a civilized human being. That's a stark difference.

Seeing the past presidents be respectful and offering kind words kind of drives that whole point home even further. What a relief.


----------



## USMarine75

Giuliani defending his use of the term "trial by combat" which incited insurrection


----------



## mmr007

CNN just released this photo of Biden's first day at the office yesterday


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 89299
> 
> 
> Giuliani defending his use of the term "trial by combat" which incited insurrection


Can we make the orange man fly now, mom?

Seriously, is Giuliani even a human being anymore? He seems more cartoon character by the day.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 89299
> 
> 
> Giuliani defending his use of the term "trial by combat" which incited insurrection



Uh....so since Trump can't overthrow the government by himself he hires an angry mob to do it...and Giuliani thinks this excuse helps his case?


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> Please take 3 minutes out of your day to watch this.
> 
> This is everything that was wrong with Trump. The lack of courtesy, civility, country before self, etc.




The country needs to see those three guys together right now, supporting the president. 

That said, I would also like to see them in a buddy comedy together.

Back to the political shit show. I think a lot of Republican congress people will either double down on the insanity. Some have already tried. Others will want to distance themselves from Trump. Working with the Dems in the House and Senate will look good to the majority of the country. Those that feel they are weak or are fringe enough, I hope they're so disillusioned that they leave the GOP. Start their own party. Become independent. Whatever. They'll get lots of attention (which is really what they want), and weaken the GOP in the process. Its a win for anyone who thinks this country has gone too far conservative and fascist.


----------



## MFB

I would very much like to see this "very famous documentary" about a fictitious medieval England


----------



## possumkiller

MFB said:


> I would very much like to see this "very famous documentary" about a fictitious medieval England


Wasn't it called Lord of the Throne or Game of Rings or some shit?


----------



## nightflameauto

possumkiller said:


> Wasn't it called Lord of the Throne or Game of Rings or some shit?


I believe it was Lame of Bones.


----------



## mmr007

They got a copy of the letter Trump left for Biden


----------



## zappatton2

mmr007 said:


> They got a copy of the letter Trump left for Biden
> 
> View attachment 89304


I know this is a joke... but I also kinda don't..


----------



## nightflameauto

zappatton2 said:


> I know this is a joke... but I also kinda don't..


Reality has looped itself. We no longer know if the joke is the joke, if reality is the joke, if the joke is reality, or if reality even exists outside of parody. The Onion's stories started to be tamer than what we saw in real life, and suddenly the comedians no longer had to write jokes. They could just stand on stage reciting newspaper articles as they were more bizarre than anything they could make up.

The whole of it makes my head hurt.


----------



## Wuuthrad

zappatton2 said:


> I know this is a joke... but I also kinda don't..



Biden said the letter was “generous” but wouldn’t discuss it further, and seemed to suggest he’d do so only when talking to Trump.

I wonder exactly how “generous?“ Biden did use that word twice, in a very brief description.

I can imagine a conspiracy re. the size of the check (maybe even blank!) he’s writing for clemency! lol


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Shoeless_jose

Thaeon said:


> The country needs to see those three guys together right now, supporting the president.
> 
> That said, I would also like to see them in a buddy comedy together.
> 
> Back to the political shit show. I think a lot of Republican congress people will either double down on the insanity. Some have already tried. Others will want to distance themselves from Trump. Working with the Dems in the House and Senate will look good to the majority of the country. Those that feel they are weak or are fringe enough, I hope they're so disillusioned that they leave the GOP. Start their own party. Become independent. Whatever. They'll get lots of attention (which is really what they want), and weaken the GOP in the process. Its a win for anyone who thinks this country has gone too far conservative and fascist.




Buddy comedy you say?? 




the worst is seeing right wing stuff now chirping Biden for hugging Obama (while masked) as it broke social distancing. Saying people werent wearing masks properly and that he has fallen short of his first day vaccination goals.


----------



## Thaeon

Dineley said:


> Buddy comedy you say??
> 
> View attachment 89317
> 
> 
> the worst is seeing right wing stuff now chirping Biden for hugging Obama (while masked) as it broke social distancing. Saying people werent wearing masks properly and that he has fallen short of his first day vaccination goals.



I was thinking weekly sitcom where they all live in the same house. But that works.

In reference to your last bit there, I can’t roll my eyes hard enough.


----------



## USMarine75

FOX News heads exploding


----------



## Randy

*LIVE UPDATES: Anti-Biden Antifa protesters take to the streets in Portland, Seattle overnight*

Fox with absolute no idea how they want to cover this story. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? We hate the police now?


----------



## spudmunkey

Right? "The democracts are going to take away all of your


mmr007 said:


> They got a copy of the letter Trump left for Biden
> 
> View attachment 89304



Pfsh, we all know Trump couldn't operate a printer.


----------



## BenjaminW

USMarine75 said:


> FOX News heads exploding



I mean in Chris’s defense, I didn’t think Biden’s speech was bad either. 

In addition, do they not know Chris is a registered Democrat? Not that I think that’s bad, I couldn’t care any less what his affiliation is, but I feel like it shouldn’t be a shocker to them considering that he’s been there for as long as I can remember. Plus they’ve had people like Alan Colmes and Donna Brazille on there who obviously were/are Democrats. 

Again, I don’t feel like that they should be shocked they’ve had Democrats on Fox News before.


----------



## mmr007

spudmunkey said:


> Right? "The democracts are going to take away all of your
> 
> 
> Pfsh, we all know Trump couldn't operate a printer.


ok that one was funnier


----------



## MaxOfMetal

BenjaminW said:


> I mean in Chris’s defense, I didn’t think Biden’s speech was bad either.
> 
> In addition, do they not know Chris is a registered Democrat? Not that I think that’s bad, I couldn’t care any less what his affiliation is, but I feel like it shouldn’t be a shocker to them considering that he’s been there for as long as I can remember. Plus they’ve had people like Alan Colmes and Donna Brazille on there who obviously were/are Democrats.
> 
> Again, I don’t feel like that they should be shocked they’ve had Democrats on Fox News before.



All registering with a party does is give you access to a primary ballot of that party, it doesn't really signal anyone's particular political lean.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t get the Antifa people attacking DNC buildings now, they don’t seem to be affiliated with any political party or even really stand for anything, just destruction. I think they are only labeled Antifa because Fox wanted to align them with Democrats.


----------



## Thaeon

spudmunkey said:


> Right? "The democracts are going to take away all of your
> 
> 
> Pfsh, we all know Trump couldn't operate a printer.



I’m not convince he has the ability to operate a pen.


----------



## BenjaminW

MaxOfMetal said:


> All registering with a party does is give you access to a primary ballot of that party, it doesn't really signal anyone's particular political lean.


True.


----------



## spudmunkey

Thaeon said:


> I’m not convince he has the ability to operate a pen.



Sharpies are the crayons of the ink world...


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t get the Antifa people attacking DNC buildings now, they don’t seem to be affiliated with any political party or even really stand for anything, just destruction. I think they are only labeled Antifa because Fox wanted to align them with Democrats.



They’re black bloc anarchists most likely in PDX, and you’re correct that the media uses the Anitifa label here incorrectly as they often do for many different wrong reasons.

I mean being pro democracy is being against facism, I’m pretty sure I don’t have to explain that to you or most everyone on this forum. I’m surprised this wasn’t explained more in the last year.

I guess the media needs an enemy!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## sleewell

imagine being this fucking stupid


----------



## TedEH

sleewell said:


> imagine being this fucking stupid


It reads to me like someone trolling just to see who bites.


----------



## Demiurge

It's breathtaking to see the dumbest Tom Clancy novel being written in real time on the internet.


----------



## Thaeon

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89331



He doesn't even look out of place. Apparently Bernie goes hard.


----------



## USMarine75

Apropos song by a band called Angelus Apatrida, which is apparently Spanish for Testament.


----------



## LordCashew

sleewell said:


> imagine being this fucking stupid


How the hell would you pre-record that inauguration without anyone noticing the people or noise? And when? I’m sure there’s some super-convoluted “obvious” explanation on tap, of course...

Can’t wait to see what they say when there’s no election in March.


----------



## sleewell

that's the beef alex jones has with Q. obviously not that they make up insanely dumb shit bc that's exactly what he does too, but that they actually put deadlines on their conspiracy theories.


----------



## LordCashew

sleewell said:


> that's the beef alex jones has with Q. obviously not that they make up insanely dumb shit bc that's exactly what he does too, but that they actually put deadlines on their conspiracy theories.


As usual, he's right. Saying "all frogs will be gay by January 2021" would have been a really bad strategic move. Imagine the demoralization of his followers when they see heterosexual frogs mating...


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> imagine being this fucking stupid



I drove by a huge sign that said Trump March 2021 yesterday. Is that what that meant?


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> I drove by a huge sign that said Trump March 2021 yesterday. Is that what that meant?


Probably. Those people also believe that the somehow-not-dead-for-20-years JFK Jr will suddenly emerge from the shadows to serve as his VP as well.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> Probably. Those people also believe that the somehow-not-dead-for-20-years JFK Jr will suddenly emerge from the shadows to serve as his VP as well.



I just YouTubed Juan O'Savin. Wtf? 



And Roseanne has become an old crazy lady with an addled brain that needs psych meds.


----------



## Randy




----------



## sleewell

step #2: move out of mom's house, after getting out of jail of course.


----------



## Randy

I mean, look, being a musician a lot of my life I can relate to being unfairly maligned based on your appearance or whatever but tell me being a white guy showing up to the capitol (and various public events over the last year) with no shirt on and wearing a buffalo headdress, shouting conspiracy bullshit through a megaphone doesn't scream "person with no job, leaching off of family".

There's a local woman that ran for Congress as a MAGA candidate (and lost  ), she sells real estate part time but she's basically a "Rose all day" stay at home mom with kids that are old enough they don't require anymore raising. *She* was at the Jan. 6th capitol riot, but her husband wasn't because he was busy, you know, working to fund her stupid hobby.


----------



## BenjaminW

USMarine75 said:


> I just YouTubed Juan O'Savin. Wtf?
> 
> 
> 
> And Roseanne has become an old crazy lady with an addled brain that needs psych meds.



His hand being the only thing in frame reminds me of this


----------



## groverj3

All this unity talk sounds well and good, but you know that the other side gives exactly zero shits about it and will do nothing but obstruct for the next 4+ years.

If the Dems have some balls they'll ram all the legislation through they can, build support for a more progressive platform by providing policies with a tangible positive impact on the people, and make it politically toxic for Rs to support taking away single payer healthcare, free education, etc. However, they'll probably tend toward the middle and appease those who have no desire to play fairly anyway.

However, it's nice not to wonder what the next insane tweet from the POTUS account will be.


----------



## Randy

LordIronSpatula said:


> How the hell would you pre-record that inauguration without anyone noticing the people or noise? And when? I’m sure there’s some super-convoluted “obvious” explanation on tap, of course...
> 
> Can’t wait to see what they say when there’s no election in March.



"The REAL election is in..." whatever whatever


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> View attachment 89337



Yeah, I'm going to call bullshit. Easy out taking the sympathy route. His tattoos say otherwise. The one on top near his heart is a Valknut. Its northern european and often used by white supremecists. He was just looking for the excuse.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7mxja/new-acting-fcc-chief-jessica-rosenworcel-supports-restoring-net-neutrality


----------



## possumkiller

I still do not understand why there are no qualifications for becoming a politician. These people are in control of our country and our lives. They have the power to start wars. Yet the only requirement is to win a popularity contest. People should have to really compete for political seats. They should have to prove that they were the top of the class best of the best. They should have complete background checks, interviews of friends and family, psychiatric evaluations, academic tests. Trying to become a politician should be like trying to become an astronaut. If any dumbass hillbilly can go to congress to represent me, then I may as well represent myself.


----------



## Edika

possumkiller said:


> I still do not understand why there are no qualifications for becoming a politician. These people are in control of our country and our lives. They have the power to start wars. Yet the only requirement is to win a popularity contest. People should have to really compete for political seats. They should have to prove that they were the top of the class best of the best. They should have complete background checks, interviews of friends and family, psychiatric evaluations, academic tests. Trying to become a politician should be like trying to become an astronaut. If any dumbass hillbilly can go to congress to represent me, then I may as well represent myself.



The thing though, in a democracy everybody has the right to be involved in politics and run for whatever public office they want to. In modern democracies there are limiting factors, in my home country you need to be over a certain age, not have a criminal record and in some of the goverment positions you need to have a higher education degree. In theory at least because in practice and the idiots that are elected I doubt they have finished secondary education.

The premise is not incorrect but in current times it is a popularity contest. Whoever has the more money and backing for the campaigns gets elected. For example, since both parties in your country have performed miserably over the years one would thing people would try other parties. But the way elections are done it ends up a two party system. Most countries it ends up like this without the restrictions you have about third parties.


----------



## mastapimp

possumkiller said:


> I still do not understand why there are no qualifications for becoming a politician.


"Haters gonna hate" - Stubbs the Cat, Mayor of Talkeetna, Alaska


----------



## StevenC

possumkiller said:


> I still do not understand why there are no qualifications for becoming a politician. These people are in control of our country and our lives. They have the power to start wars. Yet the only requirement is to win a popularity contest. People should have to really compete for political seats. They should have to prove that they were the top of the class best of the best. They should have complete background checks, interviews of friends and family, psychiatric evaluations, academic tests. Trying to become a politician should be like trying to become an astronaut. If any dumbass hillbilly can go to congress to represent me, then I may as well represent myself.


As Edika said, it's for the same reason politicians have such good job benefits. It's to level the playing field so we can get representation from all walks of life. If a politician's current wealth status prohibits them from travelling to Washington then they can't serve as a politician, so they need to be compensated enough. 

By the same token, the smartest person on the planet could be a high school drop out. The most empathetic person could be a single mother living in benefits. The most diplomatic person could work in a bar somewhere.

And as we know from how biased any test imposed on voting would be, any test on eligibility would be also. Republicans already aggressively target democracy with gerrymandering so why wouldn't they design tests where the answers are wrong so a Democrat couldn't serve?

Democracy has many flaws and this is one of them, but it also is much better than the alternative.


----------



## zappatton2

Speaking of gerrymandering, I think the States could go a long way to at least improving representation by taking the power to determine electoral boundaries out of the hands of political actors. I know the Republicans would fight this tooth and nail (since it seems to disproportional benefit them), and I don't know that it would bridge any divides, since Republican voters tend to ascribe liberal motive to _everything_, but I think ensuring proper representation needs to be a priority for this administration.

I Canada, the basic means (copied from electionsanddemocracy.ca) for setting boundaries is; 
"An independent electoral boundaries commission is created for each province, for a total of 10 commissions. The commissions use demographic data from Statistics Canada and spatial data from Natural Resources Canada to determine if the boundaries need to be changed."


----------



## groverj3

zappatton2 said:


> Speaking of gerrymandering, I think the States could go a long way to at least improving representation by taking the power to determine electoral boundaries out of the hands of political actors. I know the Republicans would fight this tooth and nail (since it seems to disproportional benefit them), and I don't know that it would bridge any divides, since Republican voters tend to ascribe liberal motive to _everything_, but I think ensuring proper representation needs to be a priority for this administration.
> 
> I Canada, the basic means (copied from electionsanddemocracy.ca) for setting boundaries is;
> "An independent electoral boundaries commission is created for each province, for a total of 10 commissions. The commissions use demographic data from Statistics Canada and spatial data from Natural Resources Canada to determine if the boundaries need to be changed."


Agreed.

Gerrymandering has been ruled on by various courts in different states, to differing results. Overturning some districts and upholding others. It's a real crapshoot.


----------



## Xaios

I'd say that laws should be brought on the books to help eliminate gerrymandering by mandating that the geometric shape of districts must be limited to a maximum number of angles, but then some (*cough*Republicans*cough*) would likely proclaim that basic geometry is discriminatory.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Xaios said:


> I'd say that laws should be brought on the books to help eliminate gerrymandering by mandating that the geometric shape of districts must be limited to a maximum number of angles, but then some (*cough*Republicans*cough*) would likely proclaim that basic geometry is discriminatory.




But my rights!!!!


----------



## spudmunkey

So, I read an interesting comment from someone who said a C-shaped district was shaped like that to combine two mainly-hispanic neighborhoods to their own district, giving them the majority in their district, rather than being the minority in 2 districts. I hadn't actually thought about any benefits, because of the visceral distaste of the bizarre shapes.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> So, I read an interesting comment from someone who said a C-shaped district was shaped like that to combine two mainly-hispanic neighborhoods to their own district, giving them the majority in their district, rather than being the minority in 2 districts. I hadn't actually thought about any benefits, because of the visceral distaste of the bizarre shapes.



But assuming people will vote a certain way by race and altering districts because of it is fucked. and also seems so sketchy now assuming they trend blue dems win 1 district with big numbers instead of having a shot at 2 disteicts


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/23/politics/arizona-gop-censure-mccain-flake-ducey/index.html

Censured for disloyalty and leftism


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/24/investing/us-china-foreign-direct-investment/index.html

But Trump and his Party of Insurrection told us Trump's economy was the best in history.


----------



## mmr007

The kids in the Simpsons grew up to be Qanon...literally


----------



## spudmunkey

Today's family Facebook fun: "Biden doesn't know what he's signing, and told to sign it anyway. Clearly he's in diminished capacity and just a pen-signing puppet".


----------



## possumkiller

spudmunkey said:


> Today's family Facebook fun: "Biden doesn't know what he's signing, and told to sign it anyway. Clearly he's in diminished capacity and just a pen-signing puppet".


Can you even sign a pen tho?


----------



## narad

possumkiller said:


> Can you even sign a pen tho?



Solving the debt crisis one collectable pen at a time...


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> I just YouTubed Juan O'Savin. Wtf?
> 
> 
> 
> And Roseanne has become an old crazy lady with an addled brain that needs psych meds.




Become? I thought that's what she was (minus the old) back in the eighties when she was starting to become popular. I mean, maybe it was questionable before she dumped her long-term husband for Tom Arnold, started building that (still not finished) massive mansion in bumfuck Iowa, then left him faster than he could say the word masturbate to Dr. Ruth on live television. After that though? Pure nutso.

(Apologies to bumfuck Iowa. The reason I feel comfortable saying it is I farmed there at the time and drove past that shell of a mansion many times during its original construction and eventual rotting periods.)



possumkiller said:


> I still do not understand why there are no qualifications for becoming a politician. These people are in control of our country and our lives. They have the power to start wars. Yet the only requirement is to win a popularity contest. People should have to really compete for political seats. They should have to prove that they were the top of the class best of the best. They should have complete background checks, interviews of friends and family, psychiatric evaluations, academic tests. Trying to become a politician should be like trying to become an astronaut. If any dumbass hillbilly can go to congress to represent me, then I may as well represent myself.


While I think there should be *SOME* form of qualifications, I think your concept of merit tests go too far and would definitely be leveraged by some political actor to favor their own side.

I'd be satisfied with a first-rung test that tests whether or not the person running believes completely asinine conspiracy theory bullshit as factual and facts as something to be argued against because it hurts their feelings. Just filter out the worst of the worst. And keep the questions and answers public to watch the butthurt flow.

Now, I'm hearing an awful lot of cheerleading over the past few days over Biden's endless stream of executive orders with not much critical thought being lent to it at all. Sure, sure, using executive actions to overturn the most egregious policies of the previous administration is all well and good right at the moment, but Trump did what his side considered the same thing and the left was gnashing teeth and whining incessantly about it. Now, I know that the executive order powers exist because Congress in general is a cesspool of nothing that absolutely refuses to let anything move forward, but there has to be a better way than allowing a single person this much power.

Is there any hope that executive power will be curtailed in this administration, or are we forever doomed to have massive swings back and forth on major policies as each new administration frantically scrambles to wipe away the "stain" of the previous administration?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see some of what Biden's signing and pushing through right now as most Trump era orders were levels of bullshit beyond anything I wanted to see, but shouldn't we keep a somewhat critical eye on it? Power beyond power in the hands of the individual in the oval office doesn't seem like the best idea even with "the right person" in there. And if you think it should only be curtailed when "the wrong person" is there, you need to remember that almost half the country currently thinks it is the wrong person right now.


----------



## sleewell




----------



## bostjan

You can't have a bunch of qualifications on members of elected government and still have a democracy.

Hear me out, please, but the problem with America is not the GOP and not Trump, but the problem is "We, the people." Bush (and it's no secret) eroded away at our public education system. My mom had joked at the time that he was doing such to bring up a new generation of republicans, but, well... turns out that the joke was on our country. Even though regional and federal standardized test scores have increased steadily since the 1960's, internationally administered test scores that compare US education to other nations have dropped dramatically over the same time frame, and parental confidence in US public schools has dropped fro 60% to 29% approval.

Obama didn't make education one of his major goals, and we all just saw first hand what Trump and DeVos did most recently.

If our average US citizen is incapable of critical thinking, then democracy will self destruct. Pure and simple. And it's baked into our culture as Americans now. Anyone who speaks like Trump is "sincere" and relatable. People who are well spoken are "fake and lame." In the 80's, it was just expected, at my school, that kids who tried to excel academically would get beat up. Even the pnes who were good at sports, but fairly smart, were subject to shunning by the other jocks, simply for trying to maximize their education.

That's what has been the undoing of the nation. Yes, Trump had some highly educated supporters. But, the way voting turns out is based on how average Joe votes. Plus, most of the smarter people were scacred of Trump... but anyway, all you or I can do is try to be as responsible as possible and hope it rubs off on others around us.


----------



## narad

Rig-talk political section got shut down. Brace yourselves for trolls.


----------



## nightflameauto

narad said:


> Rig-talk political section got shut down. Brace yourselves for trolls.


That place was a cesspool. I don't think the average political troller over there will be capable of surviving past post one here. Openly calling for mass murder of all members of a political party isn't exactly civil conversation, yet that was pretty common there. I'm actually surprised it lasted as long as it did.


----------



## Xaios

As tempting as it is to blast the place, let's all bear in mind that discussing the drama of other forums is pretty much an unofficial rule here.

Not gonna lie, I had to stop myself too.


----------



## bostjan

Forum rule 27, actually...


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Forum rule 27, actually...


Indeed, I stand corrected.


----------



## Thaeon

bostjan said:


> Forum rule 27, actually...



Honestly, we don't have a lot of issues here. I don't see a lot of moderators having to moderate much. We argue about stuff, but its not often that I see people getting completely out of control. Even when a rule is violated, people seem pretty relaxed about it. Warn the offender and move on. But I also don't think this forum in particular attracts a lot of those people. I could be wrong though. I don't read every thread.

I certainly hope that the RT community does not migrate for their political discussions.


----------



## nightflameauto

I certainly didn't mean to attack the overall rig-talk forum, where I am an active participant from time to time, but their game of groans subforum was frighteningly, dizzyingly horrifying. To be completely fair, they were smart enough to segregate those folks into their own little area of the board. The only negative that provoked was that it left them unsupervised. And we all know what happens when certain personality types are left to feed off each other.

I just don't see the crossover appeal for those types when they look at this board. Sure, the mods here would have a day of activity swatting flies, and then we'd be back to normal.


----------



## Thaeon

Yeah, I see a couple edge lord posts firing off with very little fanfare and an immediate ban.


----------



## Xaios

I think the local rule about posting about outside-SSO drama is a remnant from another time. Bashing SSO was once a popular sport on other forums (some dumbass who got banned even bought "sevenstringsucks.com" or something like that at one point and had a website literally dedicated to hating this place), and so the rule was instituted to keep inter-forum rivalry from finding a way to fester here and contributing to a vicious circle of mudslinging between all the various forums. I didn't even know it was an actual numbered rule, but I knew it was definitely a rule that was enforced. Regardless, that kind of thing is less prevalent now than it used to be, so apparently it worked.


----------



## Thaeon

Xaios said:


> I think the local rule about posting about outside-SSO drama is a remnant from another time. Bashing SSO was once a popular sport on other forums (some dumbass who got banned even bought "sevenstringsucks.com" or something like that at one point and had a website literally dedicated to hating this place), and so the rule was instituted to keep inter-forum rivalry from finding a way to fester here and contributing to a vicious circle of mudslinging between all the various forums. I didn't even know it was an actual numbered rule, but I knew it was definitely a rule that was enforced. Regardless, that kind of thing is less prevalent now than it used to be, so apparently it worked.



This place gets heated enough at times. But no one is being outright disrespectful generally. I remember when there was a lot of forum rivalry happening. Maybe the a lot of use got old...


----------



## Randy

I'm willing to pause the other-forum rule for a moment to ask the question, what finally got it shut down?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I'm willing to pause the other-forum rule for a moment to ask the question, what finally got it shut down?


As far as anybody can tell, the constant stream of complaints from the people participating to the mods eventually got to be too much for them to keep up with. That seems to be the publicly stated reason, and based on the skimming I did in there from time to time, I'd believe it. There was some serious levels of WTF happening in there towards the end of it.

There's also some chatter that it was having an overall negative impact on forum participation. That's also believable as I've participated far less frequently since seeing the open calls for beheading party leaders repeated on a nearly daily basis. It's tough to post in the musical side of the forum when you know some of the folks responding to you are also going to be saying things like that.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> I think the local rule about posting about outside-SSO drama is a remnant from another time. Bashing SSO was once a popular sport on other forums (some dumbass who got banned even bought "sevenstringsucks.com" or something like that at one point and had a website literally dedicated to hating this place), and so the rule was instituted to keep inter-forum rivalry from finding a way to fester here and contributing to a vicious circle of mudslinging between all the various forums. I didn't even know it was an actual numbered rule, but I knew it was definitely a rule that was enforced. Regardless, that kind of thing is less prevalent now than it used to be, so apparently it worked.



This is mostly correct. There was a bad trend of people getting banned here and going somewhere else to bitch, or getting banned there and coming here to bitch. And that would spin off into an avalanche of people joining just to talk shit and go back and it was just a mess. 

The community works when people have incentives to follow the rules so that they can participate here. When people come here and don't give a shit about contributing here, it's like a wall of trolls, and then they get banned and go back to the other side and say "see look how awful that place is!" and then you get wave #2, etc.

It's a little different now because forum activities in general have dropped way off most places, it just doesn't have the same dynamic. Most people here or "other" places are the same core people and only one or two new guys that end up one place or the other, so I think all the forums are kind of a known commodity to one another.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> As far as anybody can tell, the constant stream of complaints from the people participating to the mods eventually got to be too much for them to keep up with. That seems to be the publicly stated reason, and based on the skimming I did in there from time to time, I'd believe it. There was some serious levels of WTF happening in there towards the end of it.
> 
> There's also some chatter that it was having an overall negative impact on forum participation. That's also believable as I've participated far less frequently since seeing the open calls for beheading party leaders repeated on a nearly daily basis. It's tough to post in the musical side of the forum when you know some of the folks responding to you are also going to be saying things like that.



So basically the MAGAts snowflaked out because the last couple months didn't pan out the way they wanted it to? Sounds about right.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> I'm willing to pause the other-forum rule for a moment to ask the question, what finally got it shut down?



I don't know exactly, but I was shocked at the number of posts that outright asked for a specific politician to be hung or shot. Regardless of if you're a crazy, you have to be an idiot to put that stuff on the internet. And from an ISP pov, whether that was a concern for Rigtalk, it was definitely going to be at some point.

For the best. I knew I shouldn't be posting in that section, but I went to see what Trump supporters' reactions would be to the loss. Naturally pure denial, leading to conspiracy theories and talk of secession and military coupes was not what I was expecting. Still, I haven't behaved in such a childish manner since I was 14.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I don't know exactly, but I was shocked at the number of posts that outright asked for a specific politician to be hung or shot. Regardless of if you're a crazy, you have to be an idiot to put that stuff on the internet. And from an ISP pov, whether that was a concern for Rigtalk, it was definitely going to be at some point.
> 
> For the best. I knew I shouldn't be posting in that section, but I went to see what Trump supporters' reactions would be to the loss. Naturally pure denial, leading to conspiracy theories and talk of secession and military coupes was not what I was expecting. Still, I haven't behaved in such a childish manner since I was 14.



FYI, I've had multiple left-of-center people banned on here for wishing violence on Trump and others. I've got my own personal feelings about a lot of stuff, I'm a lefty but that's just not stuff legally that you can accept having on your servers. It's an enormous liability.

Also, Rig Talk is the official board for a couple decent sized brands right? I don't know if that kind of extremist shit or really any significant political discussion should be going on in the same forum someone like Diezel is discussing product launches and customer service. It's amazing it lasted as long as it did really.


----------



## Ralyks

Remember that dude that was banned for saying his ancestors were pioneers? That was fun.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> FYI, I've had multiple left-of-center people banned on here for wishing violence on Trump and others. I've got my own personal feelings about a lot of stuff, I'm a lefty but that's just not stuff legally that you can accept having on your servers. It's an enormous liability.
> 
> Also, Rig Talk is the official board for a couple decent sized brands right? I don't know if that kind of extremist shit or really any significant political discussion should be going on in the same forum someone like Diezel is discussing product launches and customer service. It's amazing it lasted as long as it did really.



I'm not sure how much those brands swing by there anymore, and those that do aren't exclusive much. I guess it's still the only place you're going to get a straight Peter Diezel reply, but the Leo Diezel person that does most of it now also was here (and got heckled a ton). You're not actually going to get any Engl or Bogner support there, etc. 

(Also lol at those guys now doing the same shit _in the very thread _announcing that there will be no more political discussion. This is why I imagine there'll be some new SSO accounts this week)


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Remember that dude that was banned for saying his ancestors were pioneers? That was fun.



You mean the guy that complained about foreigners coming here, and when it was pointed out he was also the descendent of immigrants, he said Native Americans were savages living in crude structures along riverbanks and had no culture or concept of property? Yeah charming guy.


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> I'm not sure how much those brands swing by there anymore, and those that do aren't exclusive much. I guess it's still the only place you're going to get a straight Peter Diezel reply, but the Leo Diezel person that does most of it now also was here (and got heckled a ton). You're not actually going to get any Engl or Bogner support there, etc.
> 
> (Also lol at those guys now doing the same shit _in the very thread _announcing that there will be no more political discussion. This is why I imagine there'll be some new SSO accounts this week)



I guess we'll see. Alex nerfed most of our mod abilities but we can still one click ban newbies.


----------



## TheBlackBard

So maybe this is just me, but I've had a chance to evaluate Biden a few days in office while also gathering on my own thoughts about the state of the country and... maybe I'm misguided, but I'm definitely breathing a bit easier than I have for the past four years.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

TheBlackBard said:


> So maybe this is just me, but I've had a chance to evaluate Biden a few days in office while also gathering on my own thoughts about the state of the country and... maybe I'm misguided, but I'm definitely breathing a bit easier than I have for the past four years.


It’s not just you. I’ve spoken with countless people, many feel less anxiety and stress with him gone.


----------



## spudmunkey

Same. And even the things I don't agree with, are things that at first glance don't seem to be blatantly in place to benefit him or his family, personally.


And then on the other side of the fence, are much of my family:
"Where are the tranny soldiers going to shower?" and "Am I going to have to pay for their drugs, therapy and surgery?"
"Less than 24 hours, and Biden already killed 50,000 jobs" (pipeline permit revocation)
"Here we go, starting shit in Iraq again..."
*after sharing an unflattering photo of the new secretary of health, who is trans* "This is what happens when you bow to diversity...is this really the best person for the job?" despite years of relevant experience at the state level, and a history of virtually unanimous bi-partisan support.


----------



## fantom

bostjan said:


> You can't have a bunch of qualifications on members of elected government and still have a democracy.
> 
> Hear me out, please, but the problem with America is not the GOP and not Trump, but the problem is "We, the people." Bush (and it's no secret) eroded away at our public education system. My mom had joked at the time that he was doing such to bring up a new generation of republicans, but, well... turns out that the joke was on our country. Even though regional and federal standardized test scores have increased steadily since the 1960's, internationally administered test scores that compare US education to other nations have dropped dramatically over the same time frame, and parental confidence in US public schools has dropped fro 60% to 29% approval.
> 
> Obama didn't make education one of his major goals, and we all just saw first hand what Trump and DeVos did most recently.
> 
> If our average US citizen is incapable of critical thinking, then democracy will self destruct. Pure and simple. And it's baked into our culture as Americans now. Anyone who speaks like Trump is "sincere" and relatable. People who are well spoken are "fake and lame." In the 80's, it was just expected, at my school, that kids who tried to excel academically would get beat up. Even the pnes who were good at sports, but fairly smart, were subject to shunning by the other jocks, simply for trying to maximize their education.
> 
> That's what has been the undoing of the nation. Yes, Trump had some highly educated supporters. But, the way voting turns out is based on how average Joe votes. Plus, most of the smarter people were scacred of Trump... but anyway, all you or I can do is try to be as responsible as possible and hope it rubs off on others around us.



Well if it is anything like Idiocracy, at least we will get the massive guitar ensemble for the death match arena.



Randy said:


> I'm willing to pause the other-forum rule for a moment to ask the question, what finally got it shut down?



Speculative. At least one thread someone implied reporting users to the FBI. No idea if they actually did that. Can imagine mods don't want to see that post.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> You can't have a bunch of qualifications on members of elected government and still have a democracy.
> 
> Hear me out, please, but the problem with America is not the GOP and not Trump, but the problem is "We, the people." Bush (and it's no secret) eroded away at our public education system. My mom had joked at the time that he was doing such to bring up a new generation of republicans, but, well... turns out that the joke was on our country. Even though regional and federal standardized test scores have increased steadily since the 1960's, internationally administered test scores that compare US education to other nations have dropped dramatically over the same time frame, and parental confidence in US public schools has dropped fro 60% to 29% approval.
> 
> Obama didn't make education one of his major goals, and we all just saw first hand what Trump and DeVos did most recently.
> 
> If our average US citizen is incapable of critical thinking, then democracy will self destruct. Pure and simple. And it's baked into our culture as Americans now. Anyone who speaks like Trump is "sincere" and relatable. People who are well spoken are "fake and lame." In the 80's, it was just expected, at my school, that kids who tried to excel academically would get beat up. Even the pnes who were good at sports, but fairly smart, were subject to shunning by the other jocks, simply for trying to maximize their education.
> 
> That's what has been the undoing of the nation. Yes, Trump had some highly educated supporters. But, the way voting turns out is based on how average Joe votes. Plus, most of the smarter people were scacred of Trump... but anyway, all you or I can do is try to be as responsible as possible and hope it rubs off on others around us.



I don't think it is even that complicated. Nor do I think it's planned.

Everybody is wired to think mostly in a short-term manner. It takes great self-discipline to put off reward today in exchange for greater reward in the future. This has always been the case for human beings. But 24/7 news, internet news, and now social media, has made us even worse than only wanting short-term, immediate results. Along with that is decreased attention spans, and social media rewarding short and sassy remarks. Therefore we are at a point where any sort of nuance is becoming impossible. Add into that a feedback mechanism where your (no matter how dumb/wrong) opinion can be rewarded with likes, comments and extended sharing and you get your few minutes of fame. 

Any sort of long-form discussion, debate, equal consideration of points etc is actively discouraged in 2021. There's no place for it on TV. You might have some "debate", but it's still just point scoring and usually a moderator who is just trying to make either/both of them look back. There's no place for it really allowed on social media - especially when supporters of X and supporters of Y will form their own bubbles and not interact anyway. And if they do interact, it's by popularity contest of who can make the most retweetable one liner. 

So I don't think "critical thinking" has really become worse. It's just that it's harder to actually access quality information which fairly looks at different points of view. One side just writes off the other and doesn't want to tell their audience any uncomfortable truths. NYT subscribers will attack the NYT if they publish anything which reflects Trump in a good light. And the right wing news aren't going to say anything positive about Biden, Hillary, Obama etc, are they.

Finally, there are no shortage of experts and people in authority positions who have been repeatedly wrong, and subsequently hurt the credibility of experts as a whole. If they said "we don't know" and they were more honest about limitations of evidence and understanding, people would trust them more. But usually, messages are delivered with little humility or acknowledgement of limitations. You can't blame people for then distrusting "experts". Obviously the biomedical research field has had extra attention due to covid, but you can apply this statement to more or less anything, including economics, social sciences etc. So again, that's not a population being stupid. It's a population which has learned basically not to trust anything because it has proven to be not credible many times.


----------



## bostjan

fantom said:


> Well if it is anything like Idiocracy, at least we will get the massive guitar ensemble for the death match arena.



If I'm sentenced to be rehabilitated, it might as well sound cool while it happens. 



Flappydoodle said:


> I don't think it is even that complicated. Nor do I think it's planned.



Oh, it's not complicated at all. I've been sick and tired of Bush Jr. getting a pass on stupid policies over the excuse of "he didn't know what he was doing" for decades now. I'm guessing you are younger than me. People my age who went to universities all saw the same thing. Tremendous cuts to federal education. I went to university and had a pretty small scholarship; I paid for the 95%+ that wasn't covered by working nights and weekends. I know it sounds ridiculous nowadays, but college in the USA didn't used to be that expensive until Bush Jr., and it was because of federal subsidies. The idea was that former administrations wanted the future to look brighter, so they installed subsidies that made it possible for middle class Americans to study at the university. Bush Jr. took an action to stop that precedent. Now it's nearly impossible to go to college unless your parents pay for it, so a lot fewer people are taking that path. Also, wages were better for college-age-types of jobs compared to inflation then than they are now, but that's another story...

My point is that there was a huge stimulus in the form of federal subsidies for university education and Bush Jr. took a direct and meaningful action to squelch that. He might not have done it for the sole reason of dumbing down America, but there's no way that no one in his administration was aware that it would have such an effect, and whether the effect intentionally or unintentionally bolstered the GOP, well, the effect of bolstering the GOP took place.



Flappydoodle said:


> Everybody is wired to think mostly in a short-term manner. It takes great self-discipline to put off reward today in exchange for greater reward in the future. This has always been the case for human beings. But 24/7 news, internet news, and now social media, has made us even worse than only wanting short-term, immediate results. Along with that is decreased attention spans, and social media rewarding short and sassy remarks. Therefore we are at a point where any sort of nuance is becoming impossible. Add into that a feedback mechanism where your (no matter how dumb/wrong) opinion can be rewarded with likes, comments and extended sharing and you get your few minutes of fame.



Good point; however, everybody is born wired that way, but is intended to learn otherwise by the time they come of age as an adult. The internet is partly to blame for it, but also the way we set up education in the USA is just as much a part of it as the internet.



Flappydoodle said:


> Any sort of long-form discussion, debate, equal consideration of points etc is actively discouraged in 2021. There's no place for it on TV. You might have some "debate", but it's still just point scoring and usually a moderator who is just trying to make either/both of them look back. There's no place for it really allowed on social media - especially when supporters of X and supporters of Y will form their own bubbles and not interact anyway. And if they do interact, it's by popularity contest of who can make the most retweetable one liner.



There is still cerebralism in 2021, although it has been dying a slow death since, well, 2000 or thereabouts. Look at films from 2000 versus films from 2019, or whenever films last were really a "thing," and you see that there are smart films and dumb films from each era; but if you compare the popularity of the good films versus the bad films from the two eras, that's where you start to see a difference.



Flappydoodle said:


> So I don't think "critical thinking" has really become worse. It's just that it's harder to actually access quality information which fairly looks at different points of view. One side just writes off the other and doesn't want to tell their audience any uncomfortable truths. NYT subscribers will attack the NYT if they publish anything which reflects Trump in a good light. And the right wing news aren't going to say anything positive about Biden, Hillary, Obama etc, are they.



I couldn't disagree more. With the power of the internet at your fingertips, accessing good information is a thousand times easier than it used to be. Accessing bad information/misinformation/disinformation is also much easier, which is where critical thinking comes into play. If we had better critical thinking skills as a society, then ease of access to disinformation wouldn't be _worse_ than ease of access to good information; but, unfortunately, this is not the case, and to an extreme extent, leading me to believe that critical thinking is just not out there in the wild anymore. People selecting which information they accept based on prejudice instead of critical thought just reinforces that.



Flappydoodle said:


> Finally, there are no shortage of experts and people in authority positions who have been repeatedly wrong, and subsequently hurt the credibility of experts as a whole. If they said "we don't know" and they were more honest about limitations of evidence and understanding, people would trust them more. But usually, messages are delivered with little humility or acknowledgement of limitations. You can't blame people for then distrusting "experts". Obviously the biomedical research field has had extra attention due to covid, but you can apply this statement to more or less anything, including economics, social sciences etc. So again, that's not a population being stupid. It's a population which has learned basically not to trust anything because it has proven to be not credible many times.



Again, apply critical thinking. Are experts wrong sometimes? Sure. Are conspiracy theories and bonkers rabid tin hat Alex-Jones-types correct more often than experts? Fuck no. So it defies logic to trust the latter over the former.

I mean, you have some great points, but I'm not sure how those points don't suggest that the root cause of our social problems is poor education.

I mean, what do you think is the foundation of the problem?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> FYI, I've had multiple left-of-center people banned on here for wishing violence on Trump and others. I've got my own personal feelings about a lot of stuff, I'm a lefty but that's just not stuff legally that you can accept having on your servers. It's an enormous liability.
> 
> Also, Rig Talk is the official board for a couple decent sized brands right? I don't know if that kind of extremist shit or really any significant political discussion should be going on in the same forum someone like Diezel is discussing product launches and customer service. It's amazing it lasted as long as it did really.


One reason they claim they shut down the political forum was the number of brands that had stated they no longer feel comfortable using the board as a resource towards discourse due to the crude nature of the political talk. I really think, had the folks going full-blown dipshit curtailed their incessant calls for hanging, beheading or shooting of political figures they disagreed with they may have been able to keep circle-jerking over Trump's political corpse. But, that seemed to be their main MO since sometime early last year.

To step away from the rig-talk drama for a moment:
How many of us are downright disgusted with the current Republican calls to drop the impeachment trial because Trump's already out of office? For me, and I'm sure many others, the whole point is to get to the debate/decision over whether he is allowed to hold public office ever again. I want that rug pulled HARD out from under him, regardless of where the several financial and criminal cases end up taking him in the coming years. If he holds out hope he could run again, whether it be for president or any other public office, we're weaker as a whole. Someone openly calling for insurrection, and encouraging an attack on the capitol building during what should be a normal ceremonial transfer of power should *NOT* be allowed to even have the hope of holding further public office. Ever. And anyone on any area of the political spectrum that thinks otherwise needs to do some serious soul searching about whether they actually want to be part of a democratic republic at all.

There are many things that are debatable in American politics. This should not be one of those things. The senators calling for dismissal of the impeachment case need to be questioned rigorously by their fellow Republican senators. At least by those that still have a bit of integrity and haven't fully climbed aboard the Trump worship train.

You would think the entire party would be breathing a sigh of relief and jumping at the opportunity to cleanse themselves of his stain. I guess some can't see the forest for all the trees when it comes to Trump. It's a sad state of affairs.


----------



## mmr007

This book perfectly encapsulates the problems in the US today, politically and economically. Why we are so programmed to vote against our interests etc, why we turn against each other instead of those that are really preventing our progress, why the middle class was targeted for destruction....if you don't get a chance to read it, at least google it and get the wiki cliff notes version


----------



## Shoeless_jose

nightflameauto said:


> One reason they claim they shut down the political forum was the number of brands that had stated they no longer feel comfortable using the board as a resource towards discourse due to the crude nature of the political talk. I really think, had the folks going full-blown dipshit curtailed their incessant calls for hanging, beheading or shooting of political figures they disagreed with they may have been able to keep circle-jerking over Trump's political corpse. But, that seemed to be their main MO since sometime early last year.
> 
> To step away from the rig-talk drama for a moment:
> How many of us are downright disgusted with the current Republican calls to drop the impeachment trial because Trump's already out of office? For me, and I'm sure many others, the whole point is to get to the debate/decision over whether he is allowed to hold public office ever again. I want that rug pulled HARD out from under him, regardless of where the several financial and criminal cases end up taking him in the coming years. If he holds out hope he could run again, whether it be for president or any other public office, we're weaker as a whole. Someone openly calling for insurrection, and encouraging an attack on the capitol building during what should be a normal ceremonial transfer of power should *NOT* be allowed to even have the hope of holding further public office. Ever. And anyone on any area of the political spectrum that thinks otherwise needs to do some serious soul searching about whether they actually want to be part of a democratic republic at all.
> 
> There are many things that are debatable in American politics. This should not be one of those things. The senators calling for dismissal of the impeachment case need to be questioned rigorously by their fellow Republican senators. At least by those that still have a bit of integrity and haven't fully climbed aboard the Trump worship train.
> 
> You would think the entire party would be breathing a sigh of relief and jumping at the opportunity to cleanse themselves of his stain. I guess some can't see the forest for all the trees when it comes to Trump. It's a sad state of affairs.




yeah its disgusting like convict him and end it who cares if the guy who cant hold office endorses a primary opponent against you. clearly the republican base isnt enough to win elections so stop cowing to them.


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> How many of us are downright disgusted with the current Republican calls to drop the impeachment trial because Trump's already out of office?



I'm more disgusted by the implication that Republicans could retroactively impeach former Democrat presidents if they regain majority in the future. I realize it was worded as a hypothetical, but it seeds the thoughts. To me, it is a scare tactic to try to "get even" and serves no purpose outside of eroding the government relations even further.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-impeachment-trump-past-democratic-presidents


----------



## Randy

Dineley said:


> yeah its disgusting like convict him and end it who cares if the guy who cant hold office endorses a primary opponent against you. clearly the republican base isnt enough to win elections so stop cowing to them.



They lost Georgia. Both presidency and both Senate seats. In the special election just after Trump won in 2016, a Democrat won statewide office in Alabama for Christ's sake. Look at these swing states Biden won, Pennsylvania and Arizona both for example that both have Republican state legislatures.

Moral of the story is that Trump is too polarizing a figure even within their own party. He might be able to tip the balance in a primary but he absolutely will kamikaze the party in a general election. It's political malfeasance to keep strategizing around how you satisfy him or his extremist followers.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> One reason they claim they shut down the political forum was the number of brands that had stated they no longer feel comfortable using the board as a resource towards discourse due to the crude nature of the political talk. I really think, had the folks going full-blown dipshit curtailed their incessant calls for hanging, beheading or shooting of political figures they disagreed with they may have been able to keep circle-jerking over Trump's political corpse. But, that seemed to be their main MO since sometime early last year.



Totally an alt right strategy. If we can't have things our way, let's shut the whole thing down. If you remember, we had a couple of alt right members here at the same time last year that were batshit crazy arguing racist and homophobic rhetoric and when the moderation couldn't keep up with them, they were like "well you shouldn't even have politics here really" because they don't like the idea of their bad idea being exposed. They want to come in, drop a bomb with all their absolutely non-starter rhetoric and then get the page closed if they can't win the debate. Like I said above, total kamikaze tactic


----------



## MaxOfMetal

RE: Impeachment do/don't

America deserves it's day in court. No hypothetical outcome is above that.


----------



## bostjan

What precedent does it set if Trump's impeachment gets dismissed by the Senate? It'd basically be congress certifying that the president can get away with anything as long as the repercussions are delayed for a few months/couple years. The last impeachment essentially removed the checks and balances congress had over the president to begin with, so it'd basically just be unlimited unilateral power for the president if this plays out.


----------



## sleewell

you guys are kinda funny tbh.

acting surprised that the right hates everything biden is doing.

anyone remember the lefts reaction to everyday of the last 4 years? did you really think they were going to welcome him with open arms and embrace everything he was going to do?


----------



## mmr007

sleewell said:


> you guys are kinda funny tbh.
> 
> acting surprised that the right hates everything biden is doing.
> 
> anyone remember the lefts reaction to everyday of the last 4 years? did you really think they were going to welcome him with open arms and embrace everything he was going to do?


Because every single day Trump put Russia and Putin above our troops and our CIA. The minute Biden does that I PROMISE I will complain about Biden.


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell, that seems a non-starter. I don't see anyone surprised the Republicans are being obstructionists as per usual. We're not happy about it, but I see zero surprise from anyone.



fantom said:


> I'm more disgusted by the implication that Republicans could retroactively impeach former Democrat presidents if they regain majority in the future. I realize it was worded as a hypothetical, but it seeds the thoughts. To me, it is a scare tactic to try to "get even" and serves no purpose outside of eroding the government relations even further.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-impeachment-trump-past-democratic-presidents


So, I guess they've given up the pretense of rational thought and decency altogether. They start throwing around those type of threats it says to me they don't understand the situation or they're just blatantly playing the Republican strategy to the nth degree. When we don't get our way, threaten and apply beatings until we do.

Which goes hand-in-hand with them railing against Biden's proposal that we try to mend fences and find good compromises to make progress. The Republican response has fairly unilaterally been, "Do everything we want or you're clearly not trying to mend fences or find compromises."

The arguments over the filibuster are already getting stupid. Should be an entertainingly stupid few months while we watch how the Democrats handle actually having power. I hope they have the guts to NOT sit on their hands while crying about how the Republicans don't love them, but history doesn't show us much evidence they'll find their spines this time around. I'd love to be wrong about that.


----------



## Xaios




----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## fantom

Flappydoodle said:


> Finally, there are no shortage of experts and people in authority positions who have been repeatedly wrong, and subsequently hurt the credibility of experts as a whole. If they said "we don't know" and they were more honest about limitations of evidence and understanding, people would trust them more. But usually, messages are delivered with little humility or acknowledgement of limitations. You can't blame people for then distrusting "experts". Obviously the biomedical research field has had extra attention due to covid, but you can apply this statement to more or less anything, including economics, social sciences etc. So again, that's not a population being stupid. It's a population which has learned basically not to trust anything because it has proven to be not credible many times.



I want to push back a little here. Are people listening to what the experts said or are they listening through a filter like a cnn or fox news reporter? If people think Sean Hannity is an expert or presenting an honest view of expert opinion on their behalf, we run into the current situation.

I see experts that are afraid to commit to an answer due to uncertainty of a complex situation. I see experts openly admitting they have no idea what is going on and that information is disorganized and not centrally available. They were calling for centralized organization instead of a chaotic free for all. Then I see politicians making infeasible claims and attacking other politicians and experts for being wrong.

If anything, the pandemic is an example of me gaining trust in experts. The politicians are taking actions that experts don't agree with. But everyone is pissed off at the actions taken by politicians. The statements written by my county's health officer have been open, honest, and to the point. He has consistently made the situation clear about the stance of the county (usually contradicting policies being passed but not enforced).

As an example, many experts have emphasized the playgrounds need to stay open for kids. The health officer pushed to reopen parks and playgrounds. Politicians keep closing playgrounds. People blame experts for the actions taken by politicians.

Another example, experts are stating that at best we will vaccinate enough of the population to fully reopen by early 2022. They think it will likely take until end of Fall 2022. Politicians are acting like it can happen this Spring or Summer and causing issues woth people fighting over vaccination priority.


----------



## spudmunkey

Biden to make steps to eliminate the private prison industry, at least on the federal level. I'm exhausted trying to defend so many "left wing" policies to people who are knee-jerk against them because of who proposes it, but I feel like this is an easy one to stand up for.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Biden to make steps to eliminate the private prison industry, at least on the federal level. I'm exhausted trying to defend so many "left wing" policies to people who are knee-jerk against them because of who proposes it, but I feel like this is an easy one to stand up for.


I wish him luck on this one. I'd love to see the private prison industry wiped out, but it's gonna be a long, tough row to hoe with how utterly entrenched it is at the moment.


----------



## Vyn

Why the fuck prisons were privatised in the first place is insane. Have to find the source for it, however I believe I read/watched somewhere that incarceration rates INCREASED when the industry was privatised which is just bonkers.


----------



## spudmunkey

Vyn said:


> Why the fuck prisons were privatised in the first place is insane. Have to find the source for it, however I believe I read/watched somewhere that incarceration rates INCREASED when the industry was privatised which is just bonkers.



Apparently some private prisons have contracts with the states that say that if the state doesn't provide them with a quota of prisoners, there are penalties the state has to pay.


----------



## nightflameauto

Vyn said:


> Why the fuck prisons were privatised in the first place is insane. Have to find the source for it, however I believe I read/watched somewhere that incarceration rates INCREASED when the industry was privatised which is just bonkers.


Incarceration did increase as prisons were privatized. And the privatization of prisons was tied intimately with the war on drugs. It was all sort of one big clusterfuck of profit above all else and damn the consequences.

Super dry reading, but a good overview.

A relevant quote:
"From 2000 to 2016 the number of people housed in private prisons increased five times faster than the total prison population. Over a similar timeframe, the proportion of people detained in private immigration facilities increased by 442 percent."

So yeah, we got that going for us.


----------



## Vyn

Only 5 GOP Senators voted to go ahead with the Impeachment trial along with all 50 Democrat senators. McConnell votes to not go to trial.

Looks like this is dead in the water if this is an accurate indication of the final vote. Is actually really sad, I thought that more GOP senators would finally grow a spine.


----------



## Thaeon

narad said:


> I'm not sure how much those brands swing by there anymore, and those that do aren't exclusive much. I guess it's still the only place you're going to get a straight Peter Diezel reply, but the Leo Diezel person that does most of it now also was here (and got heckled a ton). You're not actually going to get any Engl or Bogner support there, etc.
> 
> (Also lol at those guys now doing the same shit _in the very thread _announcing that there will be no more political discussion. This is why I imagine there'll be some new SSO accounts this week)



Most of them have Facebook Forums now. I'm friends with both Peter Stapfer and Peter Diezel on Facebook. They respond regularly. Peter Stapfer actually added me after I posted about buying my Herbert.



Flappydoodle said:


> So I don't think "critical thinking" has really become worse. It's just that it's harder to actually access quality information which fairly looks at different points of view. One side just writes off the other and doesn't want to tell their audience any uncomfortable truths. NYT subscribers will attack the NYT if they publish anything which reflects Trump in a good light. And the right wing news aren't going to say anything positive about Biden, Hillary, Obama etc, are they.



I believe that the net result is the same because people don't know how to internet. A lot of actual baby boomers and older Gen X literally don't understand that on the web, you can't trust it until you verify it.



bostjan said:


> I couldn't disagree more. With the power of the internet at your fingertips, accessing good information is a thousand times easier than it used to be. Accessing bad information/misinformation/disinformation is also much easier, which is where critical thinking comes into play. If we had better critical thinking skills as a society, then ease of access to disinformation wouldn't be _worse_ than ease of access to good information; but, unfortunately, this is not the case, and to an extreme extent, leading me to believe that critical thinking is just not out there in the wild anymore. People selecting which information they accept based on prejudice instead of critical thought just reinforces that.
> 
> Again, apply critical thinking. Are experts wrong sometimes? Sure. Are conspiracy theories and bonkers rabid tin hat Alex-Jones-types correct more often than experts? Fuck no. So it defies logic to trust the latter over the former.
> 
> I mean, you have some great points, but I'm not sure how those points don't suggest that the root cause of our social problems is poor education.
> 
> I mean, what do you think is the foundation of the problem?



I think its partly a critical thinking issue and partly an ignorance thing. Like I was saying above, older generations don't understand that you have to work to identify the BS on the web, unlike the grocery store where you know the rags next to the register are complete bullshit.


----------



## SpaceDock

Vyn said:


> Only 5 GOP Senators voted to go ahead with the Impeachment trial along with all 50 Democrat senators. McConnell votes to not go to trial.
> 
> Looks like this is dead in the water if this is an accurate indication of the final vote. Is actually really sad, I thought that more GOP senators would finally grow a spine.



Part of me can understand why they still back Trump, you remember the video of Graham getting harassed in the airport? That’s why. It’s not Trump or anything but them fearing the frothing at the mouth mob that is ready to shred these guys....and they did it to themselves by not regulating Trump years ago.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> Only 5 GOP Senators voted to go ahead with the Impeachment trial along with all 50 Democrat senators. McConnell votes to not go to trial.
> 
> Looks like this is dead in the water if this is an accurate indication of the final vote. Is actually really sad, I thought that more GOP senators would finally grow a spine.



This was just a vote on the legality. 

The actual trial will be much harder to ignore. Not that I think they get a conviction, they won't, but it'll put a lot more heat on. Get ready for Paul, Cruz, and Hawley.


----------



## Vyn

MaxOfMetal said:


> This was just a vote on the legality.
> 
> The actual trial will be much harder to ignore. Not that I think they get a conviction, they won't, but it'll put a lot more heat on. Get ready for Paul, Cruz, and Hawley.



By extension though - if a Senator votes against the legality of the trial, surely that means they will vote against conviction in the final vote on the basis that they believe the trial was illegal in the first place?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Vyn said:


> By extension though - if a Senator votes against the legality of the trial, surely that means they will vote against conviction in the final vote on the basis that they believe the trial was illegal in the first place?



Yes and no.

Just correcting on what was/wasn't voted for today.


----------



## philkilla

Vyn said:


> Why the fuck prisons were privatised in the first place is insane. Have to find the source for it, however I believe I read/watched somewhere that incarceration rates INCREASED when the industry was privatised which is just bonkers.



Lobbying and kickbacks friend.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

So watched Cuomo today for first time since Biden has beem in. He still goes pretty hard questioning the Biden people on stuff. Was worried CNN would have no teeth on this administration.


----------



## sleewell

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I wish him luck on this one. I'd love to see the private prison industry wiped out, but it's gonna be a long, tough row to hoe with how utterly entrenched it is at the moment.


I mean, on one hand, this is a done deal. Biden absolutely has the authority to order the DOJ to stop using private prisons, and while he might not be able to terminate current contracts easily (he might, for all I know), he certainly can direct the DOJ to not renew them as they expire. 

On the other, this could just as easily be reversed by executive order by the next Republican president, so lasting change here would require legislation, not an EO. And, federal private prisons are a fraction of the total (predominately state) private prison system, which Biden can't - at least, not in any Constitutionally binding sense - address via executive order. 

Still, it's clearly the right thing to do, and I'm glad to see he's done it.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> This was just a vote on the legality.
> 
> The actual trial will be much harder to ignore. Not that I think they get a conviction, they won't, but it'll put a lot more heat on. Get ready for Paul, Cruz, and Hawley.


Yeah, but the problem here is that by Roberts not officiating and by a nearly party-line vote on whether or not it was even Consttutional to try a former president (and there's strong legal precedent that it is, so this whole vote was a farce), the GOP will now be able to instead talk about optics of the trial, that the whole thing is an unconstitutional witch hunt and is being overseen by a partisan actor, rather than the merits of the case, namely that there's pretty good evidence that Trump IS guilty of actively encouraging sedition. 

Expect the GOP's defense to be on this - the trial is rigged, should never have happened - and to do everything they can to NOT talk about the events of 1/6. Doing that will provide enough cover for Senators on the fence to vote not to convict. About the only way I see Trump getting convicted now is if McConnell decides to stick his neck out and whip votes to do him in, in return for what Trump did to McConnell and McConnell's party, and it's no coicindence that McConnell looks like a turtle.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I mean, on one hand, this is a done deal. Biden absolutely has the authority to order the DOJ to stop using private prisons, and while he might not be able to terminate current contracts easily (he might, for all I know), he certainly can direct the DOJ to not renew them as they expire.
> 
> On the other, this could just as easily be reversed by executive order by the next Republican president, so lasting change here would require legislation, not an EO. And, federal private prisons are a fraction of the total (predominately state) private prison system, which Biden can't - at least, not in any Constitutionally binding sense - address via executive order.
> 
> Still, it's clearly the right thing to do, and I'm glad to see he's done it.


Yes, to a point. I want the private prison industry gone and anything leading to that is a positive step.

However, I do get the heebies about how many things happen by executive order instead of through legislation. I mean, I get it, obstructionists are a real bitch, but every executive order is just one vote cycle away from being replaced by the next guy. As we have seen and are seeing now.

And should executive orders really be thrown around so casually? When the next Republican gets elected in and starts tossing EOs around like crazy, what leg do the Democrats have to stand on when attempting to stem the tide? The reliance on the EO process just leaves me with an empty feeling, and makes our whole process seem unstable and beholden to whoever the winner is for four year cycles without any checks or balances.

And I'm saying that now because if I can't call out the one I voted for, I have zero reason to call out the next one that gets elected I didn't vote for.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> hmmmmmmmmmmmm...



Yeah, a band mate posted about all the 'censorship' happening saying he was against censorship in all forms, and I corrected him in that the first amendment didn't cover private organizations, only protects you from the government censoring you. He angrily asked that I stop adding my political insight to his political posts then said he needed to reevaluate being in the band because I was so openly political. Second time he's gotten upset and halted progress of the project to evaluate his desire to continue in the project. After discussing that and his sharing of COVID with the entire band, we fired him.


----------



## BigViolin

I probably enjoyed his firing a little too much.


----------



## Thaeon

BigViolin said:


> I probably enjoyed his firing a little too much.



 Me too.


----------



## Xaios

Thaeon said:


> After discussing that and his sharing of COVID with the entire band, we fired him.


I hope you worded it like this:

"You are fired. Given that, in a sense, we are revoking your access to this musical project as a platform for your views, feel free to interpret your firing as a form of censorship. However, as this project is not a government organization by any metric, we maintain the right to not give a shit and censor you in this manner anyway."


----------



## LordCashew

Thaeon said:


> a band mate posted about all the 'censorship' happening saying he was against censorship in all forms...
> 
> He angrily asked that I stop adding my political insight to his political posts...



I'm guessing he missed the irony there...


----------



## Xaios

@Drew sooooooo, what's your take on this whole WSB/Gamestop shenanigans? Is what we're seeing ultimately a blip on the radar? Or does this represent a force for potentially major change in how investing and the stock market function?

EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see that there was a dedicated thread for this topic.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-why-are-federal-troops-still-in-washington

This is truly one of the worst inflamatory propaganda pieces full of blatant mistruths I've ever read. The Dems need to give up on working with this party until they crawl back to the table. They won't because they're a bunch of disjointed pussies... but they need to finally grow a pair and at least act the part.


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-why-are-federal-troops-still-in-washington
> 
> This is truly one of the worst inflamatory propaganda pieces full of blatant mistruths I've ever read. The Dems need to give up on working with this party until they crawl back to the table. They won't because they're a bunch of disjointed pussies... but they need to finally grow a pair and at least act the part.



i mean fuck it 2024 is going to be a shit show no matter what. just grow a pair already.


----------



## mmr007

Thanks to Fox News coddling insane people we have gone...in a very short time to elected officials who...


Believes black transgenders are overthrowing the US and light bulbs kill our pets
to...


Belives in witchcraft and "death panels"
to...


Believes Pelosi and Clinton wear the skin of children and mass shooting are staged hoaxes

When Reagan emptied out the insane asylums he meant for those people to stay on the street, not move into rightwing government. And yet here we are...all thanks to this mother effer.....



I'd say ship the effer back to Australia but my relatives say they don't want him there either


----------



## Thaeon

Xaios said:


> I hope you worded it like this:
> 
> "You are fired. Given that, in a sense, we are revoking your access to this musical project as a platform for your views, feel free to interpret your firing as a form of censorship. However, as this project is not a government organization by any metric, we maintain the right to not give a shit and censor you in this manner anyway."



Wish I would have thought of this at the time. I did try to be super diplomatic about it, wished him well, and complemented his musicianship. He said no hard feelings and then blocked and unfriended me on all social media. Then told the drummer than I had his number if I ever wanted to bury the hatchet. Nah dude.



LordIronSpatula said:


> I'm guessing he missed the irony there...



When pointed out to him, he just got more mad and prompted the "I need to re evaluate" tantrum.


----------



## Millul

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-why-are-federal-troops-still-in-washington
> 
> This is truly one of the worst inflamatory propaganda pieces full of blatant mistruths I've ever read. The Dems need to give up on working with this party until they crawl back to the table. They won't because they're a bunch of disjointed pussies... but they need to finally grow a pair and at least act the part.



Just read the article, WTF?!?!? Talk about looking at things from "different perspectives"...


----------



## TedEH

I wonder if political writers get exhausted after all the mental gymnastics it takes to come up with such bad takes.


----------



## mmr007

I like how the more crazy and violent shit that comes out that this Marjorie Taylor Greene has said in the recent past, the more republicans dig in and say that she said those things before she took office so they don't matter. I agree. It doesn't matter. The crazy shit you say before you hold public office is irrelevant.

Oh....somebody was telling me about a book called mein kampf by Adolf Hitler. Anyone know what that's about? They made it sound like it was important.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> @Drew sooooooo, what's your take on this whole WSB/Gamestop shenanigans? Is what we're seeing ultimately a blip on the radar? Or does this represent a force for potentially major change in how investing and the stock market function?
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind, didn't see that there was a dedicated thread for this topic.


Gone into it at length over in the other thread, but I think what started off as an attempt to force, successfully, a short squeeze, has morphed into a momentum/bubble trade driven by small retail investors, and a whole lot of "main street" investors are going to lose a lot of money when the price comes crashing down again. 

I mean, if shorting Gamestop at $20 was an attractive trade, long/short managers must be salivating at the prospect of doing it at $325, if all of r/wsb is doing their damnedest to push the price up and all they can do is hold it steady, no?


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> I mean, if shorting Gamestop at $20 was an attractive trade, long/short managers must be salivating at the prospect of doing it at $325, if all of r/wsb is doing their damnedest to push the price up and all they can do is hold it steady, no?


I ask this because I don't know particularly much about stocks and shorts and trading in general, but given that the price of that stock is practically guaranteed to come down given that they can't seem to push it higher than mid-300s, wouldn't there only be a pretty marginal amount of money to be made shorting it, as banks (or whoever the hell you buy shorts from) wouldn't offer particularly favorable terms for such an obvious prediction?


----------



## USMarine75

One side believes in universal healthcare and free state tuition. 

The other side believes in baby-eating pedophiles and Jewish space lasers.

Yeah, there's good people on both sides.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Any of you guys and gals read the news about the Proud Boys leader being an FBI informant?


----------



## possumkiller

Wuuthrad said:


> Any of you guys and gals read the news about the Proud Boys leader being an FBI informant?


It's a common occurrence. They had plants in the black panthers as well.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> One side believes in universal healthcare and free state tuition.
> 
> The other side believes in baby-eating pedophiles and Jewish space lasers.
> 
> Yeah, there's good people on both sides.


----------



## Wuuthrad

possumkiller said:


> It's a common occurrence. They had plants in the black panthers as well.



Oh man the BP story is something else!

Dude... what about Don the Mole?!?!

I might not have enough tin foil...


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89623



I mean...yes?

Or is she doing that "accidentally saying the quiet part loud" thing again?


----------



## Wuuthrad

SMDH! 




https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-cultivating-trump-asset-40-years-says-ex-kgb-spy-2021-1


----------



## narad

Cultivated, like on a petri dish?


----------



## groverj3

narad said:


> Cultivated, like on a petri dish?


I think you're looking for the word "cultured," just a bacteria or virus.

He was at his most "cultured" when he had COVID.


----------



## BigViolin

narad said:


> Cultivated, like on a petri dish?



They found the best medium was a mixture of spray tan, rancid McDonald's fry oil and crumbled Funyuns.


----------



## Randy

Joe Manchin apparently mad The Vice President of the United States didn't ask his permission to be interviewed on local TV. What party is this guy in again?

Manchin 'couldn't believe' seeing Harris's West Virginia TV interview


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Joe Manchin apparently mad The Vice President of the United States didn't ask his permission to be interviewed on local TV. What party is this guy in again?
> 
> Manchin 'couldn't believe' seeing Harris's West Virginia TV interview



Ugh, he just can't wait to wreck everything.


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Joe Manchin apparently mad The Vice President of the United States didn't ask his permission to be interviewed on local TV. What party is this guy in again?
> 
> Manchin 'couldn't believe' seeing Harris's West Virginia TV interview



Sounds like he's just mad she put his state on blast.


----------



## Ralyks

Since we rolled the John Schaffer thread into here, Hansi Kursch quit Demons & Wizards.


----------



## SpaceDock

Any bets on how many Executive Orders Biden is goin to sign this year? I think we are at 42 and I heard there is another round coming!


----------



## MFB

Ralyks said:


> Since we rolled the John Schaffer thread into here, Hansi Kursch quit Demons & Wizards.



If you were him, wouldn't you? I haven't spun D3 much, but I'll be damned if _Touched By the Crimson King_ isn't in my top 15 of all time.


----------



## groverj3

MFB said:


> If you were him, wouldn't you? I haven't spun D3 much, but I'll be damned if _Touched By the Crimson King_ isn't in my top 15 of all time.


Yeah, I mean, even if he didn't disagree with Jon (and if I can make some very broad generalizations about how far right movements are viewed by most in Germany I'm going to guess he personally wants nothing to do with Jon's shitshow) whomever is managing him probably would've told him to pull that plug anyway.

Jon will be lucky to ever play a gig again, even if he doesn't even up in prison somehow. Personally, I think he sees prison time, and good riddance.


----------



## groverj3

MaxOfMetal said:


> Ugh, he just can't wait to wreck everything.


Trying to hoodwink the Trump voters in his state into reelecting him next time around. There's going to be a lot of hedging by vulnerable Dems over the next few years.


----------



## nightflameauto

Mitch McConnel seems to actually be digging in his heels over the conspiracy lunacy, but Greene seems nonplussed and is absolutely refusing to back down. Could we be seeing the beginnings of the cracks in the Republican party that could lead to a split? Or is this just foundational jousting for position?


----------



## Thaeon

nightflameauto said:


> Mitch McConnel seems to actually be digging in his heels over the conspiracy lunacy, but Greene seems nonplussed and is absolutely refusing to back down. Could we be seeing the beginnings of the cracks in the Republican party that could lead to a split? Or is this just foundational jousting for position?



I hope its cracks. I'll settle for them actually jousting though. Watching either attempt to hold a lance up would be entertaining.


----------



## JSanta

I really hope we're seeing cracks in the GOP in a way that would result in a third party that. While I don't want to legitimize a political party built on conspiracy and hate, it might be the reckoning the GOP needs. 

To be fair, I could see the Democrats fracturing at some point in the future; the GOP of the Bush years and Obama Democrats being centrist, and whatever the hell the GOP is today and the progressive wing becoming their own party. I like the idea of a government that has to form coalitions in order to lead. The idea of "third parties" needs to be thrown away, with a model like there is in Canada where there are five major parties (I am including Bloc Québécois because they have federal representation).


----------



## Thaeon

JSanta said:


> I really hope we're seeing cracks in the GOP in a way that would result in a third party that. While I don't want to legitimize a political party built on conspiracy and hate, it might be the reckoning the GOP needs.
> 
> To be fair, I could see the Democrats fracturing at some point in the future; the GOP of the Bush years and Obama Democrats being centrist, and whatever the hell the GOP is today and the progressive wing becoming their own party. I like the idea of a government that has to form coalitions in order to lead. The idea of "third parties" needs to be thrown away, with a model like there is in Canada where there are five major parties (I am including Bloc Québécois because they have federal representation).



Both parties fracturing would be a good thing honestly. If power were divided evenly into four smaller groups, politics would be a little more issues focused and less about party lines, even if the parties remain that way. Probability says that there would be more diverse choices, and a greater variance of results.


----------



## tedtan

SpaceDock said:


> Any bets on how many Executive Orders Biden is goin to sign this year? I think we are at 42 and I heard there is another round coming!



Number of executive orders of recent presidents:

Bill Clinton: 364
George W. Bush: 291
Barack Obama: 276
Donald Trump: 220

Granted, those numbers are over their full term in office, but this shows that executive orders are nothing new, nor are they something that only Biden is using.


----------



## SpaceDock

Thanks for the numbers @tedtan I think that executive orders are the norm nowadays, but is it normal to do so many right away? I know it is normal to do them once gridlock sets in. Maybe Biden knows there is no point in waiting?


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> Thanks for the numbers @tedtan I think that executive orders are the norm nowadays, but is it normal to do so many right away? I know it is normal to do them once gridlock sets in. Maybe Biden knows there is no point in waiting?






FWIW, FDR signed 3700+ during his term... although that was... rough times, nationally and globally.


----------



## TedEH

Does the number of executive orders really matter? I feel like the important detail is the content of those orders.


----------



## mmr007

Live by the sword....die by the sword (or have your executive orders die by the sword). The reason Biden has so many EO's is not because that's how he governs but it was seen as an immediate necessity to undo SO many Trump executive orders that were harmful to a great number of americans.....such as eliminating federal grant money to schools in so called sanctuary cities, eliminating regulation enforcement, travel bans just based on the predominant religion of the original country, revoking previous orders that companies cannot get federal contracts if they have a history of violating employee civil rights laws in the workplace and the list goes on.....


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Mitch McConnell seems to actually be digging in his heels over the conspiracy lunacy, but Greene seems nonplussed and is absolutely refusing to back down. Could we be seeing the beginnings of the cracks in the Republican party that could lead to a split? Or is this just foundational jousting for position?


I mean, cracks in the GOP have been evident for a LONG time, since at least as far back as the Tea Party, where there suddenly was an aggressive, vaguely white-nationalist populist wing of intra-party insurgents. They just never had to really deal with that under Obama because the one thing traditional and Tea Party conservatives could agree on was, and I quote, "ensuring Obama is a one-term president," and then blocking him when that failed. The 2016 primary was probably more of a faction power struggle than we realized at the time, largely because no one knew what to even make of Trump, but once in office the Tea Party aligned GOP, rebranded MAGA, had definitely come to the forefront and the traditional conservative party made an increasingly uneasy peace with them. 

The real question now is with 2020 increasingly looking like a rebuke to the MAGA moment - the Dems held the House, and took the White House and Senate - how the traditional conservative wing of the party is going to respond to that, and of the several early litmus tests we'e going to see, Greene appears a lot lower stakes than, say, impeaching Trump and barring him from. 2024 run. 

That's not to say the establishment/progressive divide in the Democratic party doesn't bear watching, too, but so far Biden seems to be doing a decent job navigating it. His cabinet is on the whole fairly moderate, though the unprecedented minority composition seems to have quelled revolt - or at least made them pick other battles - from the progressive caucus. And, it was symbolically important that his first meeting with members of Congress was with the GOP, not his own party, with former Senate colleagues of his. But, on the whole, his initial round of executive orders has been very rapid and unexpectedly progressive (ordering the Defense Department to include climate impact risk in their risk assessments for one should have a substantial impact), and his decision to try to pass his proposed $1.9T stimulus plan via reconciliation is quite a bit bolder than I'd have expected of him - I don't think it'll succeed, some of the components are very likely to fall afoul of parliamentary rules, but I think for the progressive caucus it's important that he's trying.


----------



## spudmunkey

What a shit show. I want to look away, but i've watched it 3 times now.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1356724249201938433


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I mean, cracks in the GOP have been evident for a LONG time, since at least as far back as the Tea Party, where there suddenly was an aggressive, vaguely white-nationalist populist wing of intra-party insurgents. They just never had to really deal with that under Obama because the one thing traditional and Tea Party conservatives could agree on was, and I quote, "ensuring Obama is a one-term president," and then blocking him when that failed. The 2016 primary was probably more of a faction power struggle than we realized at the time, largely because no one knew what to even make of Trump, but once in office the Tea Party aligned GOP, rebranded MAGA, had definitely come to the forefront and the traditional conservative party made an increasingly uneasy peace with them.
> 
> The real question now is with 2020 increasingly looking like a rebuke to the MAGA moment - the Dems held the House, and took the White House and Senate - how the traditional conservative wing of the party is going to respond to that, and of the several early litmus tests we'e going to see, Greene appears a lot lower stakes than, say, impeaching Trump and barring him from. 2024 run.
> 
> That's not to say the establishment/progressive divide in the Democratic party doesn't bear watching, too, but so far Biden seems to be doing a decent job navigating it. His cabinet is on the whole fairly moderate, though the unprecedented minority composition seems to have quelled revolt - or at least made them pick other battles - from the progressive caucus. And, it was symbolically important that his first meeting with members of Congress was with the GOP, not his own party, with former Senate colleagues of his. But, on the whole, his initial round of executive orders has been very rapid and unexpectedly progressive (ordering the Defense Department to include climate impact risk in their risk assessments for one should have a substantial impact), and his decision to try to pass his proposed $1.9T stimulus plan via reconciliation is quite a bit bolder than I'd have expected of him - I don't think it'll succeed, some of the components are very likely to fall afoul of parliamentary rules, but I think for the progressive caucus it's important that he's trying.


I've actually been fairly surprised he's making any attempt at trying rather than sweeping it all away in the usual Democrat way of saying, "gotta reach across the aisle, bro! Gotta build that coalition, bro! Gotta mend relations, bro!" He's actually putting on a really good show, at the very least, of holding his ground.

That said, the stimulus/relief bill is going to be a real test. Somehow, I don't see his initial proposal making it. Time will tell, I suppose.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Just gonna leave this here for any of you that are bored. It's kind of entertaining... in that insane way.

https://www.axios.com/trump-oval-of...ell-a8e1e466-2e42-42d0-9cf1-26eb267f8723.html


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I've actually been fairly surprised he's making any attempt at trying rather than sweeping it all away in the usual Democrat way of saying, "gotta reach across the aisle, bro! Gotta build that coalition, bro! Gotta mend relations, bro!" He's actually putting on a really good show, at the very least, of holding his ground.
> 
> That said, the stimulus/relief bill is going to be a real test. Somehow, I don't see his initial proposal making it. Time will tell, I suppose.


I mean, he's pretty clearly trying. The right is just going to accuse him of being under the sway of the progressive caucus - I hope the progressive caucus at least appreciates the attempt. 

I agree with you on the stimulus package, though I expect it to look a lot like Biden's than the GOP $600B counteroffer. Stuff like the $15 minimum wage probably doesn't have enough Senate support, but state and local aid, continuing PUA, and some sort of check between $1200 and $1400 is a pretty good bet.


----------



## Ralyks

I feel like if the stimulus does get bipartisan support, it will be in the 1 to 1.2 trillion range, probably with lowering the threshold for direct payments that will still be $1400, and maybe not the $15 minimum wage.

I just don't get the opposition to state and local funding when it's pretty much more Red States that need it more anyway...


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> I just don't get the opposition to state and local funding when it's pretty much more Red States that need it more anyway...



Their perspective: because government's too big, and this shouldn't be on the federal government anyway.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> What a shit show. I want to look away, but i've watched it 3 times now.
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1356724249201938433



The funny thing about that being the fact he's on to talk about cancel culture, but they won't let him tell them what he was cancelled for. He was censored during an anti-censorship panel.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Does the number of executive orders really matter? I feel like the important detail is the content of those orders.



This. 

Heck, four of the orders so far deal exclusively with trying to fix the child separation nightmare.

That's not really an issue that needs to be legislated, the court pretty much called it on that one. The Trump administration just sort of ignored it.


----------



## InfinityCollision

JSanta said:


> The idea of "third parties" needs to be thrown away, with a model like there is in Canada where there are five major parties (I am including Bloc Québécois because they have federal representation).


That's not some model Canada's political orgs drew up intentionally, it's a consequence of their voting system and campaign policies. Even then, it (like most such systems in the West) functionally has two major parties. Smaller parties participating in coalitions act much the same way different wings of the US parties do.



Drew said:


> I mean, cracks in the GOP have been evident for a LONG time, since at least as far back as the Tea Party, where there suddenly was an aggressive, vaguely white-nationalist populist wing of intra-party insurgents.


"suddenly"?


----------



## JSanta

InfinityCollision said:


> That's not some model Canada's political orgs drew up intentionally, it's a consequence of their voting system and campaign policies. Even then, it (like most such systems in the West) functionally has two major parties. Smaller parties participating in coalitions act much the same way different wings of the US parties do.



I didn't state that the Canadian system was designed that way, but I still stand by my point. Even though there are similarities between a few of the parties, unless one of them has a majority, either a minority or coalition government has to be formed (the former of which is the current system). I'm Canadian, I vote in the elections, I have at least a cursory understanding of the parliamentary system of Government, and the role of the parties that are not Liberal or Conservative. The parties in Canada being distinct entities is important, and they play roles that move beyond pragmatism (which I'd gladly argue is what the "wings" of either party in the States do). And I definitely don't think the Canadian system is as broken as what we have in the States.


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> Live by the sword....die by the sword (or have your executive orders die by the sword). The reason Biden has so many EO's is not because that's how he governs but it was seen as an immediate necessity to undo SO many Trump executive orders that were harmful to a great number of americans.....such as eliminating federal grant money to schools in so called sanctuary cities, eliminating regulation enforcement, travel bans just based on the predominant religion of the original country, revoking previous orders that companies cannot get federal contracts if they have a history of violating employee civil rights laws in the workplace and the list goes on.....



I get the want to undo and make changes quickly, the annoying part is EO's seem like they're the new status quo when a new president takes over.


----------



## sleewell

i think Biden should make a compromise on the covid bill if he can get them somewhere in the middle of where each side is now and then immediately use reconciliation on something else. if he uses it now that will basically be the only thing he gets done before the midterms.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> I feel like if the stimulus does get bipartisan support, it will be in the 1 to 1.2 trillion range, probably with lowering the threshold for direct payments that will still be $1400, and maybe not the $15 minimum wage.
> 
> I just don't get the opposition to state and local funding when it's pretty much more Red States that need it more anyway...


I don't want to make you second guess yourself or anything (  ) but that was Goldman's revised forecast when the GA senate seats flipped, around the $1.2T range.

I agree on minimum wage, but I think Biden is scoring points with the left for even trying.

As far as red states... There's a growing divide between red state Congressional representatives, who are opposed, and red state governors, who are starting to publicly calling for them to support Biden on this, because they know they need the help and unlike their federal representatives, are directly responsible for what happens in their states without more support. That trend is worth watching.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.newsweek.com/rachel-mad...mpeachment-defense-gives-gop-catch-22-1566353

I found this amusing. So basically Tl;Dr the GOP either can keep arguing the election was fraud and Trump is still president, therefore he CAN be tried for impeachment by their own definition, or they have to admit Trump lost and face his and his supporters wrath.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> https://www.newsweek.com/rachel-mad...mpeachment-defense-gives-gop-catch-22-1566353
> 
> I found this amusing. So basically Tl;Dr the GOP either can keep arguing the election was fraud and Trump is still president, therefore he CAN be tried for impeachment by their own definition, or they have to admit Trump lost and face his and his supporters wrath.


I know exactly 0 Republicans who will listen to anything Maddow says... But that's awesome, and not wrong.


----------



## Thaeon

Ralyks said:


> https://www.newsweek.com/rachel-mad...mpeachment-defense-gives-gop-catch-22-1566353
> 
> I found this amusing. So basically Tl;Dr the GOP either can keep arguing the election was fraud and Trump is still president, therefore he CAN be tried for impeachment by their own definition, or they have to admit Trump lost and face his and his supporters wrath.



Most entertaining and satisfying thing I’ve heard all month.


----------



## SpaceDock

Trump lawyer that was spreading illegal voter claims about Georgia being investigated for voting illegally in Georgia. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/02/9634...n-wood-under-investigation-for-illegal-voting


----------



## MaxOfMetal

r/nottheonion


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Trump lawyer that was spreading illegal voter claims about Georgia being investigated for voting illegally in Georgia.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2021/02/02/9634...n-wood-under-investigation-for-illegal-voting


Oh fuck, really?


----------



## StevenC

"Look how easy it is to vote illegally, I do it all the time"


----------



## Xaios

SpaceDock said:


> Trump lawyer that was spreading illegal voter claims about Georgia being investigated for voting illegally in Georgia.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2021/02/02/9634...n-wood-under-investigation-for-illegal-voting


That's one way to prove voting irregularity.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> That's one way to prove voting irregularity.


You know, the funny thing is, there's actually a pretty strong argument that Trump's vote in Florida was illegal, as well. 

It was brought up earlier in this thread, I believe, but his voter registration, after initially being rejected for listing the White House as his primary residence, listed Mar-a-Lago as his primary residence, when he registered to vote in Florida. All well and good... except, one of the terms of the legal agreement for development when he converted Mar-a-Lago into a private club was no member could reside there more than something like 20 nights in a single year, and no member, Trump included, could declare it his primary residence. So, if Mar-a-lago was not legally able to be his primary residence in Florida, then his voter application was invalid, and his subsequent voting (by mail, ironically) in the Presidential election was fraudulent, since he had failed to demonstrate residency in his voter application. 

I don't think the odds are high that anyone will go after him for this for 2020, but it certainly would be an interesting way to challenge his participation in subsequent elections...


----------



## mastapimp

Drew said:


> All well and good... except, one of the terms of the legal agreement for development when he converted Mar-a-Lago into a private club was no member could reside there more than something like 20 nights in a single year, and no member, Trump included, could declare it his primary residence. So, if Mar-a-lago was not legally able to be his primary residence in Florida


About the Mar-a-Lago terms, I was reading an article this morning about the demolition of his helipad as it goes against county rules and at the end they mentioned the residency issue you brought up:

"But some area residents had argued that the former president was not entitled to make the club his residence due to a 1993 “special exception use” permit that allowed him to convert the property into a for-profit social club.

Those rules allowed only 10 guest accommodations, with no one staying longer than a week and not more than three times a year
However, a memo by town attorney John C. Randolph obtained by The Washington Post says local regulations allow employees to reside at such properties.

Trump, as president of the company that owns the club, is considered an employee.

Trump had also promised town officials via his attorney in 1993 that he wouldn’t live there ― but Randolph said that vow is not in the actual agreement and therefore isn’t enforceable"


----------



## bostjan

Argh, the lack of logic is so frustrating.

The entire thought that a president with a higher disapproval rating than approval rating, who was polling at 45ish% losing an election *must* be some sort of voter fraud, is just stupid. That's right, stupid, because it willfully ignores facts to make an argument that is baseless.

But this is coming from the same party that elected a woman who loudly screamed that Pelosi needs to be killed (her words did not indicate a trial or investigation, only punishment) for treason, based on her lack of support for Trump's policies when he was president, yet the same woman files an article of impeachment for Biden with no rationale given except that she doesn't like people who disagree with her politics. Like, by her own logic, she should be punished severely, yet, when facing much lighter punishment than dictated by her logic, she is being oppressed? WTF! And this is someone who was democratically elected. *This* is why democraies tend to fail. People are extremely smart creatures, yet, when you get a large enough group of them voting on something, they prove to be the stupidest beings in the universe.


----------



## nightflameauto

How the hell did Greene get elected? Is it just "team player" voters that had no idea how batshit she is?

I find it extremely funny, yet extremely sad, that "behind closed doors" she was willing to apologize, but out in the open all she'll say is that she is a different person now and regrets some words that she spoke, but won't apologize for them. It's ESPECIALLY stupid that some of the things that have her in hot water just freakin' happened. Sure, they stripped her of her ability to sit on committees, but she's still in office. Why would we let somebody that's so clearly either unhinged, or doing a great job of pretending to be unhinged stay in any form of public office?

She's one of the more out there symptoms of the current disease infecting the GOP, and even so the Republican political players refuse to really deal with her other than sometimes saying something to the cameras that sounds stern but has no teeth at all. What an embarassment.


----------



## tedtan

SpaceDock said:


> Thanks for the numbers @tedtan I think that executive orders are the norm nowadays, but is it normal to do so many right away? I know it is normal to do them once gridlock sets in. Maybe Biden knows there is no point in waiting?



I mentioned the number of executive orders simply because many right wingers are complaining that Biden is governing by executive order like an authoritarian dictator rather than running issues through congress so they can be debated and legislated "properly".

In Biden's case, Trump did a lot of stupid things like separating children from their families at the border, pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement (the climate accord) and the World Health Organization, and tons more, so most of Biden's executive order so far merely undo a lot of the stupidity that Trump enacted.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> How the hell did Greene get elected? Is it just "team player" voters that had no idea how batshit she is?
> 
> I find it extremely funny, yet extremely sad, that "behind closed doors" she was willing to apologize, but out in the open all she'll say is that she is a different person now and regrets some words that she spoke, but won't apologize for them. It's ESPECIALLY stupid that some of the things that have her in hot water just freakin' happened. Sure, they stripped her of her ability to sit on committees, but she's still in office. Why would we let somebody that's so clearly either unhinged, or doing a great job of pretending to be unhinged stay in any form of public office?
> 
> She's one of the more out there symptoms of the current disease infecting the GOP, and even so the Republican political players refuse to really deal with her other than sometimes saying something to the cameras that sounds stern but has no teeth at all. What an embarassment.



Georgia's 14th is one of, top ten, most reliably Republican districts in the country, they could run a...well...a MTG and still win an overwhelming majority no problem.


----------



## Drew

mastapimp said:


> About the Mar-a-Lago terms, I was reading an article this morning about the demolition of his helipad as it goes against county rules and at the end they mentioned the residency issue you brought up:
> 
> "But some area residents had argued that the former president was not entitled to make the club his residence due to a 1993 “special exception use” permit that allowed him to convert the property into a for-profit social club.
> 
> Those rules allowed only 10 guest accommodations, with no one staying longer than a week and not more than three times a year
> However, a memo by town attorney John C. Randolph obtained by The Washington Post says local regulations allow employees to reside at such properties.
> 
> Trump, as president of the company that owns the club, is considered an employee.
> 
> Trump had also promised town officials via his attorney in 1993 that he wouldn’t live there ― but Randolph said that vow is not in the actual agreement and therefore isn’t enforceable"


Interesting. Not making that part of the agreement seems like a massive fuck-up on the part of the city.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> Argh, the lack of logic is so frustrating.
> 
> The entire thought that a president with a higher disapproval rating than approval rating, who was polling at 45ish% losing an election *must* be some sort of voter fraud, is just stupid. That's right, stupid, because it willfully ignores facts to make an argument that is baseless.



You don't understand.
All polls that show Trump unpopular are FAKE NEWS. Only the polls that showed him being popular are real!
Same as votes. All those 80 million votes for Biden are obviously fake. Only the votes for Trump are real!
That's why we need to stop the count where Trump is winning, because obviously only illegal votes for Biden remain to be counted there, but at the same time count all votes where all those illegal Biden votes have been dropped in secret briefcases overnight - so that the legitimate (and obviously more numerous) Trump votes can show the true will of the people.


----------



## Randy

Yeah but Trump's rallys were always full of people and I saw a video of Biden talking to an empty parking lot once.


----------



## philkilla

Why are you guys still talking about Trump??


----------



## mmr007

philkilla said:


> Why are you guys still talking about Trump??



Because just 3 weeks ago he inspired an armed insurrection against the governemnt so he could seize power and has yet to face the consequences. It seems relevent and topical


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> Because just 3 weeks ago he inspired an armed insurrection against the governemnt so he could seize power and has yet to face the consequences. It seems relevent and topical


You know, and I say this not without a little bit of happiness, I don't have the _faintest_ idea what Trump's done since he boarded a plane to Florida. Or, I guess, rather, since he stepped off the plane in Florida. I haven't heard a _thing_. I assume he's in Florida, but that's just a guess. 

It's kind of refreshing. Though, I understand the prosecution plans on calling him to testify in his impeachment trial, which should be interesting. I guess in past lawsuits he's testified very carefully and with way less bombast than his public persona, but the fact his testimony will likely be televised (if he testifies) will put him in a little bit of a bind. His lawyers were careful never to allege fraud when they were testifying on the record, but Trump himself obviously can't do that.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> You know, and I say this not without a little bit of happiness, I don't have the _faintest_ idea what Trump's done since he boarded a plane to Florida. Or, I guess, rather, since he stepped off the plane in Florida. I haven't heard a _thing_. I assume he's in Florida, but that's just a guess.
> 
> It's kind of refreshing. Though, I understand the prosecution plans on calling him to testify in his impeachment trial, which should be interesting. I guess in past lawsuits he's testified very carefully and with way less bombast than his public persona, but the fact his testimony will likely be televised (if he testifies) will put him in a little bit of a bind. His lawyers were careful never to allege fraud when they were testifying on the record, but Trump himself obviously can't do that.



If he backpeddles and says there was no fraud in his testimony, he'll alienate his base. He's in a bit of a checkmate here. He can alienate his base, and risk the outcome of a future election, or tow that line in court. Neither will work out well for him in the long run, unless his ace in the hole has never been a second term for him, but to set up a legacy presidency.


----------



## Xaios

As I recall, one of the biggest problems during the Trump's first impeachment trial was that material witnesses were basically given sanction to ignore subpoenas by claiming everything under the sun fell under the purview of Presidential Privilege, and shielded from the consequences of doing so by Trump and his Republican-controlled senate. Now that the Democrats control both aforementioned branches of government, they can make it crystal clear to all those involved that there will be significant consequences for pulling that crap again this time around.


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> Because just 3 weeks ago he inspired an armed insurrection against the governemnt so he could seize power and has yet to face the consequences. It seems relevent and topical



Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.


----------



## USMarine75

philkilla said:


> Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.


----------



## mmr007

philkilla said:


> Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.


Thats really only an argument you can use about fixating on an ex-girlfriend. I dont think it applies to this type of thing. Anyway everything lives rent free in my head. If I knew how to charge for it I would have retired long ago


----------



## spudmunkey

philkilla said:


> Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.



He's also being touted as still a driving force in the GOP, so much so that a leader of the party still travelled to have meetings with him in Florida after the inauguration, and members of his party still publicly defend the belief that the current president is illegitimate.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Some folks in 2020: Fucking Obama and Hillary! 

Same folks in 2021: Jeez, still going on about Trump?


----------



## philkilla

spudmunkey said:


> He's also being touted as still a driving force in the GOP, so much so that a leader of the party still travelled to have meetings with him in Florida after the inauguration, and members of his party still publicly defend the belief that the current president is illegitimate.



By his party do you mean the GOP, the new concept "patriot" party, or both? Right now it's more like wheel of fortune.


----------



## USMarine75

philkilla said:


> By his party do you mean the GOP, the new concept "patriot" party, or both? Right now it's more like wheel of fortune.



GOP.

The party that had 147 House Members vote not to impeach.

The party that had 45 Senators vote the Senate trial is unconstitutional, even though it is demonstrably and clearly not.

The party that wants to censure or remove Ben Sasse, Liz Cheney, former Senator Jeff Flake.... and not Boebert (traitor and co-conspirator) and MTG.

The party that isn't removing a member that both directly and indirectly threatened the lives of fellow Congress members. Did I mention she's an antisemite? And harassed a school shooting survivor while also claiming school shootings and 9/11 were fake. And she molested a cardboard cutout of Trump during a campaign event.

The party that wants to move on and stop with the partisan bickering that the Democrats are doing, but meanwhile they perpetuated fraudulent claims of election fraud for months which incited insurrection and caused the first non-peaceful transition of power in 260 years.

The party that's trying to pass a law in AZ where the state legislature can choose the presidential candidate and not the people.

The party of spineless, hypocrytical, lying, sycophants like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Lydsey Oh Me Oh My Graham. 

Yeah. That party.


----------



## USMarine75

philkilla said:


> By his party do you mean the GOP, the new concept "patriot" party, or both? Right now it's more like wheel of fortune.



If I wasnt clear... this party:

“There’s …there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [California Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … [laughter] … swear to God.” - Kevin McCarthy, 2016

"The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters." - Kevin McCarthy, Jan 13, 2021




"United and ready to win in '22," - Kevin McCarthy, Jan 27, 2021


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

The truth can be brutal. How quick the finger was pointed, but then when the tables are turned. Errr my free speech!!! I’m being singled out! It’s not fair!


----------



## spudmunkey

Anybody watch any of _Absolute Proof_?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> Anybody watch any of _Absolute Proof_?


 It has been removed from YouTube. But the clips make it seem like a pretty legit comedy.


----------



## spudmunkey

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> It has been removed from YouTube. But the clips make it seem like a pretty legit comedy.



I can't wait for some of the breakdowns by someone like Some More News, John Oliver, or Colbert.


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.



You need some help with that 1 bedroom Studio? 

Size matters!


----------



## diagrammatiks

philkilla said:


> Fair enough I guess, but you're just giving him free real estate in your mind.



brought to you by the people that believe the brain has limited real estate.


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> Why are you guys still talking about Trump??



Here ya go doodles, does this swell your lumps?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Not gonna lie, Hilary is clearly everyones GILF! I mean come on boys!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Wuuthrad said:


> Not gonna lie, Hilary is clearly everyones GILF! I mean come on boys!
> 
> View attachment 89881




bUt My UnClE sHoWeD mE a YoUtUbE vIdEo!!!!!


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> You need some help with that 1 bedroom Studio?
> 
> Size matters!





diagrammatiks said:


> brought to you by the people that believe the brain has limited real estate.



The insults are unnecessary. Fine if you guys disagree but he's being civil, you don't need to go there.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> The insults are unnecessary. Fine if you guys disagree but he's being civil, you don't need to go there.



I was honestly about to DM you about this; I get it if dudes don't like me based on opinions from another thread, but I'm still a human being. I'd gladly treat anyone here with courtesy and respect in person, despite what you may think.

The reason I even asked the question is because I peruse this thread fairly often to get a different perspective on the POTUS and our current administration; I'd hoped a month after the grand disgus had left there'd be more constructive discussions about where we're headed, vs where we've been.


----------



## diagrammatiks

philkilla said:


> I was honestly about to DM you about this; I get it if dudes don't like me based on opinions from another thread, but I'm still a human being. I'd gladly treat anyone here with courtesy and respect in person, despite what you may think.
> 
> The reason I even asked the question is because I peruse this thread fairly often to get a different perspective on the POTUS and our current administration; I'd hoped a month after the grand disgus had left there'd be more constructive discussions about where we're headed, vs where we've been.



Sorry for my flippancy. My comment wasn't directed at you but rather the inanity of that concept. 

As far as constructive criticism my feeling is that...

some people did a crime and this ain't over until they're all prosecuted. Trump is one of those people.


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> Not gonna lie, Hilary is clearly everyones GILF! I mean come on boys!
> 
> View attachment 89881



Well not everything in the National Enquirer was fake....


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

USMarine75 said:


> Well not everything in the National Enquirer was fake....
> 
> View attachment 89890


Woah woah woah. Your confusing the Weekly World News for the National Enquirer. Big difference. Didn’t you ever see so I married an ax murderer? WWN is the news, National Enquirer is trash filled with lies!!!


----------



## TheBlackBard

philkilla said:


> I was honestly about to DM you about this; I get it if dudes don't like me based on opinions from another thread, but I'm still a human being. I'd gladly treat anyone here with courtesy and respect in person, despite what you may think.
> 
> The reason I even asked the question is because I peruse this thread fairly often to get a different perspective on the POTUS and our current administration; I'd hoped a month after the grand disgus had left there'd be more constructive discussions about where we're headed, vs where we've been.



Here's the thing: You said, "you're still giving him free real estate in your head" or something to that effect. The reason people feel so strongly about this particular fuckwad, is because he has helped to cultivate and essentially be complicit in creating one of the greatest divides among citizens that this country has seen in a LONG time. Under this man's watch, we have a pandemic that ran rampant when it didn't have to and we could have taken better measures under someone with far superior leadership skills, one of the most violent showings we've had in a LONG time because some (okay most) of his followers can't handle the truth, and he put other countries on alarm because of his abrasive behaviors. Chalking up one's emotions to free real estate, IMO, is lackadaisical and it diminishes, minimalizes, and implicitly distorts the facts about the effects he had. The man is gone, but the damage is still here and FAR from being cleaned up and healed. Please be more mindful in the future, especially about something THAT serious. Trump, as a person, is a joke, but his "presidency" was a VERY dangerous punchline.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

TheBlackBard said:


> Here's the thing: You said, "you're still giving him free real estate in your head" or something to that effect. The reason people feel so strongly about this particular fuckwad, is because he has helped to cultivate and essentially be complicit in creating one of the greatest divides among citizens that this country has seen in a LONG time. Under this man's watch, we have a pandemic that ran rampant when it didn't have to and we could have taken better measures under someone with far superior leadership skills, one of the most violent showings we've had in a LONG time because some (okay most) of his followers can't handle the truth, and he put other countries on alarm because of his abrasive behaviors. Chalking up one's emotions to free real estate, IMO, is lackadaisical and it diminishes, minimalizes, and implicitly distorts the facts about the effects he had. The man is gone, but the damage is still here and FAR from being cleaned up and healed. Please be more mindful in the future, especially about something THAT serious. Trump, as a person, is a joke, but his "presidency" was a VERY dangerous punchline.


Well said. 
We have a ways to go. But progress is being made.


----------



## mmr007

TheBlackBard said:


> Here's the thing: You said, "you're still giving him free real estate in your head" or something to that effect. The reason people feel so strongly about this particular fuckwad, is because he has helped to cultivate and essentially be complicit in creating one of the greatest divides among citizens that this country has seen in a LONG time. Under this man's watch, we have a pandemic that ran rampant when it didn't have to and we could have taken better measures under someone with far superior leadership skills, one of the most violent showings we've had in a LONG time because some (okay most) of his followers can't handle the truth, and he put other countries on alarm because of his abrasive behaviors. Chalking up one's emotions to free real estate, IMO, is lackadaisical and it diminishes, minimalizes, and implicitly distorts the facts about the effects he had. The man is gone, but the damage is still here and FAR from being cleaned up and healed. Please be more mindful in the future, especially about something THAT serious. Trump, as a person, is a joke, but his "presidency" was a VERY dangerous punchline.


----------



## Ralyks

TheBlackBard said:


> Here's the thing: You said, "you're still giving him free real estate in your head" or something to that effect. The reason people feel so strongly about this particular fuckwad, is because he has helped to cultivate and essentially be complicit in creating one of the greatest divides among citizens that this country has seen in a LONG time. Under this man's watch, we have a pandemic that ran rampant when it didn't have to and we could have taken better measures under someone with far superior leadership skills, one of the most violent showings we've had in a LONG time because some (okay most) of his followers can't handle the truth, and he put other countries on alarm because of his abrasive behaviors. Chalking up one's emotions to free real estate, IMO, is lackadaisical and it diminishes, minimalizes, and implicitly distorts the facts about the effects he had. The man is gone, but the damage is still here and FAR from being cleaned up and healed. Please be more mindful in the future, especially about something THAT serious. Trump, as a person, is a joke, but his "presidency" was a VERY dangerous punchline.



So much this.


----------



## USMarine75

The problem is the Republican Party is masterful at staying on brand and adhering to talking points and party line. (The Dems are terrible at this)

The current party line is that the Republican Party wants to get back to doing what 'Mericans put them in office to do and stop with all this partisan bickering caused by the Democrats. 

That couldn't be a more disingenuous point of view.


----------



## USMarine75

Thank god we can finally put the nightmare of the January 6 Insurrection and what lead up to it behind us.

We've finally punished those responsible and can move on.

Representative Liz Cheney was censured.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Thank god we can finally put the nightmare of the January 6 Insurrection and what lead up to it behind us.
> 
> We've finally punished those responsible and can move on.
> 
> Representative Liz Cheney was censured.



I'm still hoping that a crushing financial hit to Powell, Giuliani, and Fox isn't out of the question.


----------



## Wuuthrad

philkilla said:


> I was honestly about to DM you about this; I get it if dudes don't like me based on opinions from another thread, but I'm still a human being. I'd gladly treat anyone here with courtesy and respect in person, despite what you may think.
> 
> The reason I even asked the question is because I peruse this thread fairly often to get a different perspective on the POTUS and our current administration; I'd hoped a month after the grand disgus had left there'd be more constructive discussions about where we're headed, vs where we've been.



Now that it’s been brought it up, the cliche used about free real estate in the mind regards to the subject at hand is asinine, and frankly it’s an insult to the intelligence. 

“If you can’t take the heat” I guess.

Sounds like a typical R Wing playbook- play the victim after being on the assault.


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> Now that it’s been brought it up, the cliche used about free real estate in the mind regards to the subject at hand is asinine, and frankly it’s an insult to the intelligence.
> 
> “If you can’t take the heat” I guess.
> 
> Sounds like a typical R Wing playbook- play the victim after being on the assault.



Hey, stop with the cancel culture, bro.

Think of poor Matt Gaetz and how he's been canceled. Dude has had to be on FOX, OAN, Newsmax, Youtube, and in several newspapers _every single day _just to get out the word of how he's being canceled.

Poor Lou Dobbs! The Libtards over at Fox just cancelled him too. All just because he made them liable in a $2.7B lawsuit.


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> Hey, stop with the cancel culture, bro.
> 
> Think of poor Matt Gaetz and how he's been canceled. Dude has had to be on FOX, OAN, Newsmax, Youtube, and in several newspapers _every single day _just to get out the word of how he's being canceled.
> 
> Poor Lou Dobbs! The Libtards over at Fox just cancelled him too. All just because he made them liable in a $2.7B lawsuit.



Oh the outrage...!

Such a terrible injustice all this censorship of these poor conservatives who can’t stop yammering on and on about it as though they won’t have any marketplace for all their inbred hate speech and racism! Horrible!


----------



## groverj3

USMarine75 said:


> The problem is the Republican Party is masterful at staying on brand and adhering to talking points and party line. (The Dems are terrible at this)
> 
> The current party line is that the Republican Party wants to get back to doing what 'Mericans put them in office to do and stop with all this partisan bickering caused by the Democrats.
> 
> That couldn't be a more disingenuous point of view.


Yep. The Republicans don't give a single shit about ideological purity. The only only thing they care about is winning elections, or attempting to engage in shady shit to undermine elections, against Democrats. They will say literally anything to do this.

"We can't punish Trump and Trumpists because that will further drive us all apart!" Ignoring of course that their role in creating the division.

Democrats, and the left, play games like "I can't support _*that*_ Democrat, because my #1 issue isn't their #1 issue." Republicans just (largely) vote Republican, or for anyone not a Democrat. Any justification of their ideology seems post-hoc. Especially when Democrats are in power their only position is to be obstructionist and contrarian. If a Democrat proposes something that a Republican proposed before them, most Republicans would oppose it solely because a Democrat brought it to the floor of the house or Senate.


----------



## USMarine75

Here, enjoy the fawning over this garbage no-talent hack spouting nonsensical cliched phrases the host masturbates over as spitting truth and fire. 

Just when I thought the worst thing about Pitbull was his lyrics and flow lol.


----------



## mmr007

Just since the election, Republicans in almost every state legislature they control have introduced bills to restrict voting rights because...well if you don't have a platform other than "Trump: Love it or leave it" then you have to stop people from voting period. This has always been a thing and only getting worse. In some states it has been acceptable (for years) to use your NRA membership card as ID to vote but your college ID card is NOT acceptable....why? Because R's know most members of the NRA are repubs also and most college students are statiscally speaking...liberal. Therefore your ID and your vote sucks.


----------



## fantom

philkilla said:


> Why are you guys still talking about Trump??





philkilla said:


> I was honestly about to DM you about this; I get it if dudes don't like me based on opinions from another thread, but I'm still a human being. I'd gladly treat anyone here with courtesy and respect in person, despite what you may think.
> 
> The reason I even asked the question is because I peruse this thread fairly often to get a different perspective on the POTUS and our current administration; I'd hoped a month after the grand disgus had left there'd be more constructive discussions about where we're headed, vs where we've been.



Just based on the fact that Trump was still going on and on about Obama within the last year, pretty sure 3 weeks is not long enough.


----------



## USMarine75

Just to pile on...

Haven't Trump and his sycophants been talking about how the election was fraudulent...

Since 2016?


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> Just to pile on...
> 
> Haven't Trump and his sycophants been talking about how the election was fraudulent...
> 
> Since 2016?



Election fraud has been perpetrated by Republicans for how long now?

Gerrymandering and everything else have been going on for much longer than that..

Its plain as day to anyone who does some research, and apparently the Supreme Court won’t do anything about it.

I would say that’s where the “rig” is, and it’s mostly a R wing thing.


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Just to pile on...
> 
> Haven't Trump and his sycophants been talking about how the election was fraudulent...
> 
> Since 2016?


Trump totally won the popular vote, if it wasn't for those 3,000,000 illegals in California, though. /s


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> Trump totally won the popular vote, if it wasn't for those 3,000,000 illegals in California, though. /s



My fav was a coworker showing me the "real electoral college map" from 2020 with Trump getting 406 votes, including... 55 from California .


----------



## Thaeon

USMarine75 said:


> My fav was a coworker showing me the "real electoral college map" from 2020 with Trump getting 406 votes, including... 55 from California .



I don't even think there's a weird, backwards, parallel universe where Trump could win California. That's like disobeying the laws of physics or something.


----------



## nightflameauto

Wuuthrad said:


> Not gonna lie, Hilary is clearly everyones GILF! I mean come on boys!
> 
> View attachment 89881


I always thought there was something a little off about Chelsea. 

I heard an interesting sound-byte over the weekend that I think applies to the current discussion re: the political parties. The Democrats act like they are scared to DEATH of being accused of doing anything that makes them look like a political party. Anything that even hints at them being a political party makes somebody publicly question the party's direction. Meanwhile the Republicans cling to the party as if it were the meaning of life.

I do think there's something stirring in the Republican party that they need to be very careful with though. They have a chance here, if they're willing to take it, to extract the party from Trump control for the foreseeable future with the impeachment trial. If they take that chance, they may take a temporary hit in the next election cycle, but ultimately they'd be stronger going forward. If they don't take that chance, they'll get strong turnout in 22 and 24, but the problem will be they'll be ultimately beholden to Trump and his family. And we've seen what happens when they're beholden to that family. I can't imagine, no matter what they say publicly, that the old movers really love being fully beholden to Trump. Though, to be fair, some of them don't seem to have any real integrity to begin with, so maybe it isn't something they care about one way or another.

Watch the country burn and shrug over it so long as they stay in power and keep getting that lobbying money.

Man, I'd love to hear a logically consistent argument from a Republican supporter about why Trump is a positive influence on the party and the country. There's a little to be said for Wall Street's well being before the pandemic, and even during, but outside of that? I think the bad outweighs the good by a large measure. Even pre-pandemic we were watching years of positive moves on environmental issues, class issues, equality issues fade or outright be destroyed by his policies. And while a lot of Republican supporters shrug at that, it's not without consequence. As anybody with a couple brain cells focused on observation over the past couple years could tell you.

I hope a few Republicans find their backbone during the trial. If we have another straight party line decision, it'll be depressing as hell.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I just want to know why they think clinging to the person who lost them the Presidency, Senate, and House is a winning strategy moving forward.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just want to know why they think clinging to the person who lost them the Presidency, Senate, and House is a winning strategy moving forward.



74M voted. 

Rubio, Hawley, Pompeo, Graham, and the Son of JFKs Killer with an Ugly Wife all positioning themselves for a piece of that pie in 2024.


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> 74M voted.
> 
> Rubio, Hawley, Pompeo, Graham, and the Son of JFKs Killer with an Ugly Wife all positioning themselves for a piece of that pie in 2024.



Exactly. This ONLY stops once Trump is toxic enough to the GOP to lose state and local races. Right now, it appears that Trumpism is here to stay.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> Man, I'd love to hear a logically consistent argument from a Republican supporter about why Trump is a positive influence on the party and the country. There's a little to be said for Wall Street's well being before the pandemic, and even during, but outside of that? I think the bad outweighs the good by a large measure. Even pre-pandemic we were watching years of positive moves on environmental issues, class issues, equality issues fade or outright be destroyed by his policies. And while a lot of Republican supporters shrug at that, it's not without consequence. As anybody with a couple brain cells focused on observation over the past couple years could tell you.



I posted about 50 reasons plus a link to a documentary about 50 pages back in response to this exact same question.

But to summarize:

Promises Made, Promises Kept (90:10) - tax cuts for the middle class (Fake News saying they expire and the cuts for the rich are permanent), bringing jobs back to 'merica, punishing American buyers I mean the Chinese with tariffs, conservative judges, repealing regulations, etc. (Again doesnt matter if these are true just whether they are believer to be true)
Only god and Jesus are perfect, man is fallible. Therefore, god can only work with what he has. (Excuse for why such a flawed man as Trump is there savior)
3 Associate Justices on Supreme Court and 200 federal judges - the path to overturning Roe v Wade which is THE single issue voter issue (and possible gay marriage rights as well).
Wall Street did well, which means the rich and those with investments did well. Mainstreet America is convinced those are valid metrics of how they are doing (even when they dont own stocks or have investments), because much of middle America still believes in trickle down economics (giving money to job creators drives the economy).
Most importantly, he "sees them". Obummer and the Clinton Crime Family said they cared about them but didn't. All they cared about were getting rich, murdering people on Killary's list, the Gays, their liberal Hollywood Friends, etc. They dont care about "people like you and me" (AKA white people from Flyover States).
Tl;dr The right has been using the same playbook created by the likes of Roger Ales as they did in the 80s. Ignoring, or pretending "those people" dont have what they perceive as valid views and grievances, is politically and socially perilous. To quote the famous American poet - "I dont agree, but I understand".


----------



## USMarine75

And to restate an additional point, the left sucks at brand messaging.

Conservatives came up with a plan to tax the middle class and give it to the rich, and called it Trickle Down Economics. Yay, my boss will give me a raise and new jobs will be created! (He surely won't buy himself a corporate jet and give himself a Christmas bonus while keeping my wages stagnant for 20 years). Yet it's nothing more than redistribution of wealth and socialism for the rich. The same with the military and the military-industrial complex. Conservatives call it rebuilding the nation's defense after the dems destroyed it (when in reality they did no such thing). Who doesnt want a strong military so we can fight them over there before we have to fight them over here! This is just redistributing wealth and socialism for corporations. It is by very definition not capitalism. But the Republicans have convinced us it's good. Democrats want to cut the defense budget so they must hate the military and America (Tucker and Hannity confirmed this for me so its a fact, Sheeple!)

Meanwhile, dumbass Bernie Sanders says hes a proud Socialist when hes really not (Even Liz Warren said hells no I'm a capitalist when asked, even though she believes in much of the same stuff). Socialism in the minds of many, including many recent immigrants from Latin America and former Soviet countries, is equated with the horrors and crimes of Dictatorships and former Communist countries.

Meanwhile, "socialist" programs are extremely popular in the US - Medicare, Medicaid, social security, WIC, universal health care, etc.

But dumbass Democrats like Bernie use the term Socialism and scare away an entire voting base (in case you were wondering why so many Latinos voted for Trump). Just like when Beato said "hell yeah were coming for your guns". Anybody heard from him lately? Another dumbass with terrible brand messaging. Even though 90% of Americans want common sense gun laws, Dems found a way to ruin that too. At least they stopped calling it "Gun Control" (you know who came for your guns... Hitler!)

Again, Dems... terrible at brand messaging.

And dont even get me started about how Dems eat their own. Meanwhile Liz Cheney stepped out of lockstep to criticize her own publicly and she gone in 2022. All 10 of those RINOs will be primaried and at least 8 will be gone. Meanwhile one of your strongest voices in Al Franken was booted for air squeezing boobs on a USO flight. And his strongest critics were his own party. Way to own them Cons, dummies.

Tl;dr to quote my departed Dad - "the Dems could fuck up a free blowjob". (And he marched with MLK.)


----------



## mmr007

There are many others like this now but this one sticks out for a reason. This picture is about 10 years old I think...maybe a little less. It is a picture of a cake realistically looking like a python. I remember when I first saw it many years ago and how shocked and saddened I was because at the time you could comment in the comments section. There were about 14,000+ comments already by the time I saw it. There were some saying how cool and beautiful the cake was. But almost immediately someone commented on how that snake looks identical to the snake in the white house...Obama.

As I scrolled through *almost every comment* was hatred and vitriol hurled back and forth about Obama and Clinton and socialism and Bush and Palin and war.

It is a picture of a cake, and while some of the comments I assume, looking back, were russian bots, it was clear then that we hate each other. We are so different in how we see the world and it has been this way for quite a while and I fear it is going to be a long time before we get out of this mess and nothing that happens with the upcoming impeachment trial is going to address it one way or the other.

We can't even agree on how fucking cool a cake is.

As others have said before, Trump was a disaster but is only the most visible symptom of what ails us. He showed us we can be an internet troll 24/7, not just on the internet.


----------



## Randy

Hey, so that Bruce Springsteen commercial was kinda fucking stupid.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> If he backpeddles and says there was no fraud in his testimony, he'll alienate his base. He's in a bit of a checkmate here. He can alienate his base, and risk the outcome of a future election, or tow that line in court. Neither will work out well for him in the long run, unless his ace in the hole has never been a second term for him, but to set up a legacy presidency.


While this is all very clearly true, the logical consequence of this is Trump will refuse to testify without a subpoena, and will fight a subpoena all the way up to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Demiurge

Randy said:


> Hey, so that Bruce Springsteen commercial was kinda fucking stupid.



It's certainly a half-measure. Having all factions of the country come together and say, "aw, this fucking guy again!" can only unite us so much.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> While this is all very clearly true, the logical consequence of this is Trump will refuse to testify without a subpoena, and will fight a subpoena all the way up to the Supreme Court.



I don’t doubt that for a bit. He’ll try to limit what questions can be asked of him as much as possible as well. He’s not the president anymore though so we’ll see what the courts are willing to put up with. Allowing someone not in office dictate how shit is going down sets a really poor precedent and weakens the perceived power of the Supreme Court.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 89969


I was just making this point the other day. Manson got a considerable sentence for his role.


----------



## bostjan

Well, Manson did kill that one guy.

But anyway, 67 Senators - does anyone here really think that there is any icecube's chance in hell that 67 Senators will vote to convict?

Assume 48 democrats all vote to convict, assume 2 independents both vote to convict. Now where are the 17 republicans who will vote to convict?

Let's assume the House plays their best hand and subpoena's Trump and somehow manages to wrangle him in to testify. His attorneys ask him if he incited a riot and he says "no." Say the House's questions don't get successfully corralled by Trump's attorneys, and they get a smoking gun of whatever sort (which odds are already slim we make it to this "worst position for Trump"). What are the odds, even with Trump at the biggest disadvantage possible, that 17 GOP Senators will vote to convict? Zero, essentially.

On the other hand, what are the odds this will backfire and Trump will somehow get fewer than 50 votes to convict? Slim, but highly plausible. If the vote comes out 49-51, or even 48-52; expect Trump's base to get all fired up again. I'd put the odds of that at 15-20% maybe. But the most likely outcome is that nothing concrete happens.


----------



## Randy

Should've gone straight for 14th Amendment, which would be a clean simple majority vote.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Should've gone straight for 14th Amendment, which would be a clean simple majority vote.


I don't think that's how that works. Trump would have to be convicted by the courts, then disqualification would be automatic unless he was requalified for office by a 2/3rds vote of both houses. I never heard of any situation where a former president would be tried in congress for a criminal act and then need a majority of lawmakers to convict.


----------



## mmr007

If you haven't watched this video presented at the opening of the argument on impeachment today. Please do. There is nothing else to say. There is no argument. There is no alternate facts. There is no rebuttal. There is no "yeah but...". There is no "what about"ism. There is no need to do anything but convict Trump and abandone once and for trumpism and all the evil it represents.

Even tho we have all seen disturbing images this is 13 minutes of clarity you are unlikely to experience again


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> If you haven't watched this video presented at the opening of the argument on impeachment today. Please do. There is nothing else to say. There is no argument. There is no alternate facts. There is no rebuttal. There is no "yeah but...". There is no "what about"ism. There is no need to do anything but convict Trump and abandone once and for trumpism and all the evil it represents.
> 
> Even tho we have all seen disturbing images this is 13 minutes of clarity you are unlikely to experience again



thank you for posting will be watching when back on wifi. I was reading some live updates several Republicans wouldn't even watch the footage just fiddled with papers. unreal


----------



## SpaceDock

mmr007 said:


> If you haven't watched this video presented at the opening of the argument on impeachment today. Please do. There is nothing else to say. There is no argument. There is no alternate facts. There is no rebuttal. There is no "yeah but...". There is no "what about"ism. There is no need to do anything but convict Trump and abandone once and for trumpism and all the evil it represents.
> 
> Even tho we have all seen disturbing images this is 13 minutes of clarity you are unlikely to experience again




That was insane! I don’t know how anyone can argue this goes unpunished.


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> That was insane! I don’t know how anyone can argue this goes unpunished.



44/100 argue this goes unpunished. Including McConnell.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CLFk6PfJOHf/?igshid=htsk3q26hh7h

Attorney Bruce Castor... not the sharpest spoon in the drawer.

(Dont know how to embed IG links sorry)


----------



## sleewell

lol trumps atty is a complete and utter disaster. He said the voters voted trump out which goes against everything trump said to gin up the violence. He is like the lawyer on its always sunny who is constantly focused on the size of everyone's hands.

Can you imagine giving money to trump for weeks after the election bc he was telling you the election was stolen only to have his own atty now say the voters voted trump out legitimately? Can those morons even connect those dots?


----------



## USMarine75

Best comment I saw was a tweet saying Trump's first attorney Castor looked like the attorney that shows up when your real attorney is stuck in traffic. 

Also, Rep Rankin cried because his son died and he thought his daughter and son-in-law might die. Attorney Schoen cried because of a Longfellow poem? And who are the snowflakes?


----------



## spudmunkey

sleewell said:


> lol trumps atty is a complete and utter disaster. He said the voters voted trump out which goes against everything trump said to gin up the violence. He is like the lawyer on its always sunny who is constantly focused on the size of everyone's hands.
> 
> Can you imagine giving money to trump for weeks after the election bc he was telling you the election was stolen only to have his own atty now say the voters voted trump out legitimately? Can those morons even connect those dots?



In court, none of his lawers actually provided any evidence of fraud, did they? Only trying to question states' processes?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> In court, none of his lawers actually provided any evidence of fraud, did they? Only trying to question states' processes?



They introduced a bunch of "double hearsay", but nothing that withstood scrutiny.


----------



## USMarine75

spudmunkey said:


> In court, none of his lawers actually provided any evidence of fraud, did they? Only trying to question states' processes?



Giuliani was specifically asked by a judge in one of the hearings if he was alleging fraud and he said no.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

mmr007 said:


> If you haven't watched this video presented at the opening of the argument on impeachment today. Please do. There is nothing else to say. There is no argument. There is no alternate facts. There is no rebuttal. There is no "yeah but...". There is no "what about"ism. There is no need to do anything but convict Trump and abandone once and for trumpism and all the evil it represents.
> 
> Even tho we have all seen disturbing images this is 13 minutes of clarity you are unlikely to experience again



I watched this earlier today, it shook me to the core. If there isn’t any justice here than it sets a very grim precedent. Please, please, do the right thing.


----------



## BenjaminW

SpaceDock said:


> That was insane! I don’t know how anyone can argue this goes unpunished.


It's crazy. I went out to my kitchen a few minutes to get something to eat while I was doing some homework, and my parents were out there watching Fox News and the people on Fox seemed like they were downplaying the whole situation. I've said it before here, but I'll say it again: That whole day is what made me actually quit being a Trump supporter. The Trump "wing/side" of the GOP has done nothing but alienate me and probably plenty of other people who are in the same position as me since then IMO.

This isn't the second coming of Jesus's crucifixion, this is nowhere near that. Trump fucked up, and he knows that, and now he's gotta pay the price for it. He's not some martyr or whatever for the GOP or for America.


sleewell said:


> lol trumps atty is a complete and utter disaster. He said the voters voted trump out which goes against everything trump said to gin up the violence. He is like the lawyer on its always sunny who is constantly focused on the size of everyone's hands.
> 
> Can you imagine giving money to trump for weeks after the election bc he was telling you the election was stolen only to have his own atty now say the voters voted trump out legitimately? Can those morons even connect those dots?


Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. If you wanna win the next election, you just gotta figure out what went wrong when you lost, and do something good about it so that you can come back stronger. If it means ridding the toxic side of the GOP of Trump and whoever supports him still, then so be it. In my opinion, the GOP's not gonna win next election if they do nothing but complain about this one.


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


>



Damn. That was absolute madness.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## nightflameauto

Trump's attorney stammering his way through . . . whatever the hell that was is gonna make the Republicans voting not to convict look even dumber. That was horrendous.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Best comment I saw was a tweet saying Trump's first attorney Castor looked like the attorney that shows up when your real attorney is stuck in traffic.






CNN anchor just stated that Trump was represented by Lionel Hutz........almost peed


----------



## MFB

Lionel Hutz? I heard he works on contingency!


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But anyway, 67 Senators - does anyone here really think that there is any icecube's chance in hell that 67 Senators will vote to convict?
> 
> Assume 48 democrats all vote to convict, assume 2 independents both vote to convict. Now where are the 17 republicans who will vote to convict?


Ice cube's chance in hell? Yeah. I don't think it's especially likely, but if I had to put odds pn it I'd say we're in the 20-30% range. Couple reasons. 

1) Trump's defense has been abysmal. Even the GOP was turned off after the first day of proceedings. Meanwhile, the prosecution has been VERY good. I watched the events unfold live that afternoon, but even I was taken aback by just how violent the footage inside the capital or on the front lines of the brricades before they fell was, and remember, the persuadable Republican senators were the intended target of this agression. 

2) It seems like splitting hairs... but the vote on whether or not the proceedings are constitutional isn't the vote on whether or not Trump is guilty. McConnell himself was one of the 44 Republicans to vote the proceedings was unconstitutional, but has since reitarated that this is a "vote of conscience" for his caucus (read: McConnell isn't going to try to pressure anyone to vote against conviction), that you can view the proceedings as flawed and unconstitutional but still with a clear conscience vote to convict, and that he himself may very well do just that. If McConnell becomes the 57th vote to convict, is it possible that this gives his caucus enough cover to drum up another 10 votes, or at least a couple abstentions that lower the supermajorty threshold? I mean, not especially likwely... but I'd hardly rule it out. 

Meanwhile, criminal investigations are ongoing into the rioters who are already arrested, and if more evidence of a conspiracy extending all the way up to the white house emerges, that could tip the scales a little too.


----------



## mastapimp

MFB said:


> Lionel Hutz? I heard he works on contingency!


No, money down!


----------



## bostjan

@Drew: most betting sites are putting the spread at between 5-8%, which is much higher than I anticipated, in spite of the fact that McConnel seems uninvested and how bad the defense has been. Either way, I think they need to get Trump to testify. If he does, the odds of conviction will increase 1.5-2 × so, maybe 15% instead of 7%. 

The odds won't matter once the event collapses into a measured outcome. As we saw in 2016, odds of an outcome being nonzero mean that the unexpected oitcome is possible.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The odds won't matter once the event collapses into a measured outcome. As we saw in 2016, odds of an outcome being nonzero mean that the unexpected oitcome is possible.


I mean, nerd to nerd, this is the nerdiest way I've ever heard someone say "stay positive, anything can happen!"  But I agree. IMO, sub-10% is too low, because, well, because of a lot of things, but one of the biggest is that I think there's likely to be a good amount of serial correlation here, and if a couple Republicans start breaking ranks, a whole BUNCH of them will break ranks. And I think the odds of a few defections are way higher than that. Hell, McConnell himself, maybe coinflip is strong, but one-in-three probably isn't - he desperately wants to put some space between the GOP and Trump.


----------



## sleewell

would be a more accurate analogy if the cops also wouldn't arrest him while he was in the bank too but still appropriate.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Btw...


----------



## mmr007

Wuuthrad said:


> Btw...
> 
> View attachment 90059


Everyone knows runes tell you where Smaug and the gold is....


----------



## mmr007

I LOVE...LOVE how impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett pointed out 20 years ago 44 BRAVE americans on flight 93 sacrificed their LIVES by purposely crashing that plane in a field to save the capitol. 44. The same number of senators who lack ANY level of courage to protect the capitol. They don't have to sacrifice their lives...they just need to stand up to Trump and they are too scared. 44 cowardly men and women unfit to serve in our senate


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t think they are going to convict tRump, but I still can’t believe these GOP senators can be okay with what happened. Do they really believe that their lives would have been spared? This is all just so far beyond the pale. I thought tRump himself was bad, we are setting the stage for a real dictatorship.


----------



## nightflameauto

What's baffling to me is the internal logic spaghetti these GOP folks have to be going through to arrive at the conclusion that not convicting is in their best interest. Are they really so scared of Trump that they'll give him a free pass to continue dominating their lives even after he essentially developed so much hatred among his followers over the course of the last few years that they were storming the capital and ready to kill those that weren't giving them their way? Really?

I do think there's a minor, miniscule chance we could see them change their minds as this goes on. With McConnel signaling he's not completely opposed to convicting, it could sway some others towards reality. If he begins to indicate he's convinced conviction is the right move, even without pushing others into it, I could see at least enough to get the conviction through turning. I realize that's a mighty big if though.


----------



## mbardu

nightflameauto said:


> What's baffling to me is the internal logic spaghetti these GOP folks have to be going through to arrive at the conclusion that not convicting is in their best interest. Are they really so scared of Trump that they'll give him a free pass to continue dominating their lives even after he essentially developed so much hatred among his followers over the course of the last few years that they were storming the capital and ready to kill those that weren't giving them their way? Really?
> 
> I do think there's a minor, miniscule chance we could see them change their minds as this goes on. With McConnel signaling he's not completely opposed to convicting, it could sway some others towards reality. If he begins to indicate he's convinced conviction is the right move, even without pushing others into it, I could see at least enough to get the conviction through turning. I realize that's a mighty big if though.



The electoral base of Republicans is now white-supremacy-happy illiterates. Trump is their current god emperor. Turn on him and those senators lose their job. Stay the course and they're re-elected. Additionally, remember the shameful Republican senators' day trip to Russia (of all places) on the 4th of July (of all days) a little while back? They are compromised/blackmailed with no way out.

So they have both the carrot and the stick to support Trump (specifically) today and the destruction of America (in general). Trump is just the flavor of the moment, but it was the same thing for tea party and will be the same thing for the next trend.


----------



## USMarine75

Wow, after watching that I can't imagine it won't be 100-0 in favor of removal.

That said... it will be 55-45.


----------



## USMarine75

(Former Republican Representative... who must also have fantastic hair?)


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> That was insane! I don’t know how anyone can argue this goes unpunished.


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 90082



What a turd that Gaez is. Hard time telling whether he's _worst _turd or if that title is still on Nunes. But still pretty sizeable turd.


----------



## mmr007

mbardu said:


> What a turd that Gaez is. Hard time telling whether he's _worst _turd or if that title is still on Nunes. But still pretty sizeable turd.


It's time to replace the unanswerable question of "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" with "Who is the worst turd ever....Nunes or Gaetz?

That can be argued for centuries.


----------



## sleewell

wow so trump found out from tuberville that pence was being moved and was in danger and then fired off a tweet condemning him for not overturning the election which people mid coup read and kept trying to find and kill him. class act. 



hopefully this is true, probably not, but one can hope:


----------



## nightflameauto

And, meantime, while the circus in Washington continues, Noem's goons have blocked legalized recreational marijuana for the foreseeable future, and they're attempting to put a one year roadblock in front of legalized medical. "Because we need time to review what people voted on." Which admittedly, is better than what she had been saying, which was "People don't understand what they voted for and need an adult to steer them back to the correct answer."

Republicans really, truly hate giving people what they want.


----------



## Drew

By the way, since I haven't seen it discussed here, Trump turned down the request to testify and with the Democrats wrapping up the prosecution today, it seems rather unlikely that they're going to attempt to subpoena him to force his testimony. 

A pity, but not at all surprising.


----------



## mbardu

sleewell said:


> wow so trump found out from tuberville that pence was being moved and was in danger and then fired off a tweet condemning him for not overturning the election which people mid coup read and kept trying to find and kill him. class act.
> 
> 
> 
> hopefully this is true, probably not, but one can hope:



Yeah no, I think Trump approval among Republicans was still in the 80% recently despite the capitol insurrection. "Half your voters" is way optimistic there. Plus, talking about those 80%, anyone who supported him for 4 years through all the BS he did is pretty much irredeemable. They won't change their minds now or they would have done so already.

As a result, the choice for Republican senators (since they don't have a conscience and will care only about their electoral prospects) is pretty clear. Same thing, they won't grow a spine now or do the right thing now. If it were to happen, they would have done the right thing already.


----------



## sleewell

mbardu said:


> Yeah no, I think Trump approval among Republicans was still in the 80% recently despite the capitol insurrection. "Half your voters" is way optimistic there. Plus, talking about those 80%, anyone who supported him for 4 years through all the BS he did is pretty much irredeemable. They won't change their minds.
> As a result, the choice for Republican senators (since they don't have a conscience and will care only about their electoral prospects) is pretty clear.




totally agree with you but i'm hearing more of this type of activity each day which would be very interesting. actual republicans cant be in same party as trump, greene and qanon. 

https://news.trust.org/item/20210211013256-gp1g4


----------



## mbardu

sleewell said:


> totally agree with you but i'm hearing more of this type of activity each day which would be very interesting. actual republicans cant be in same party as trump, greene and qanon.
> 
> https://news.trust.org/item/20210211013256-gp1g4



On the other hand, we've had those news and rumors throughout the last 4/5 years too. Recently the Lincoln project comes to mind. The opposition to Trump in the Republican party (to the point of mockery) was also obvious even in 2015/2016. And everything in between, but it never amounts to anything. Every single one of those treacherous weasels falls in line at the end. Cruz, Graham etc all become bootlickers. Nothing came out of it.

I'd like to hope for an alternative too, and I have in the past, but realistically speaking, not gonna happen.
And the reason is simple at the end of the day. 40% of the country literally lacks empathy and education. They _want _to elect a gross misogynist white supremacist to the white house, because that's what they identify with. I mean, I've given people benefit of the doubt in the past, but after 5 years of not only accepting, but celebrating this BS? Plus, seeing how somewhat "decent" people like McCain/Romney failed where a gross populist succeeded without even trying? 35/40% is beyond hope.
So with that in mind, on one hand the 55% of people who have voted democrats historically are not going to magically switch to "white conservatism-light, this time with slightly less obvious bigotry". And on the other hand, the 40% of cult followers will absolutely hate those new traitors (or old RINO whatever you want to call it) with absolute passion due to their treason. After all, apostates are always the most hated. So this leaves pretty much 0 electoral room for an alternative.


----------



## mmr007

So...I'm a police officer. A homocide detective. (Not in real life mind you I just play one on guitar related forums) and I live in a beautiful little neighborhood in a state such as....oh let's say S. Carolina, Texas or Missouri. Anywho...for months I start falsely telling all my neighbors that one of their own down the block is a child molester and murderer. Everyone knows it. As a homocide detective I have been trying to hold him accountable for his crimes against children, including the disappearance of a little girl in a neighborhood two towns over who was later found raped and dismembered. That guy did it. Everyone in the department knows it but he and his lawyers are so slippery. It's only a matter of time before you don't have a neighborhood anymore. Anywho again...I call my neighbors together to tell them that this guy is getting ready to rape and murder again, the clock is ticking...one of your children will be next unless you fight and take matters into your own hands.
That night my neighbors storm that house and beat that innocent man to death. If you notice I NEVER actually told them specifically to break into his house. I certainly hope that Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley will jump through the same mental logic hoops to defend my free speech rights.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> Which admittedly, is better than what she had been saying, which was "People don't understand what they voted for and need an adult to steer them back to the correct answer."


I'm not saying she's right, but I'll be the first person to say that this sentiment isn't always wrong, especially when it comes to referenda.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Republican senators meeting with Trump's defense team to go over a plan. Excellent job as impartial jurors. Fucking traitors and scum bags. Unreal.

Sorry for not posting link to story just at a loss for understanding


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It was always going to be like this.


----------



## spudmunkey

A "not guilty" vote gives Biden/Harris carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want with no repercussions, in January 2025.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> A "not guilty" vote gives Biden/Harris carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want with no repercussions, in January 2025.



If the Dems hold the senate...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> It was always going to be like this.



Just the fact they don't even pretend is whats astounding.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Just the fact they don't even pretend is whats astounding.



Nothing is surprising, and it's only going to get worse.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> If the Dems hold the senate...


Why? The Republicans don't hold it now.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Why? The Republicans don't hold it now.



Accountability is tied directly to whom has control of the House and Senate, is what I'm getting at.


----------



## SpaceDock

IDK if it is real or not, but I am hearing a lot about how Trump people hate the Republicans for not supporting Trump enough and traditional Republicans are fleeing the party they see as drifting into Qanon madness. I just keep hoping that the Republican Party died with Sarah Palin and Trump was just the last violent convulsions as the rigor mortise sets in.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> IDK if it is real or not, but I am hearing a lot about how Trump people hate the Republicans for not supporting Trump enough and traditional Republicans are fleeing the party they see as drifting into Qanon madness. I just keep hoping that the Republican Party died with Sarah Palin and Trump was just the last violent convulsions as the rigor mortise sets in.



It's all bluster. 

The folks angry at "non-Trump" Republicans will still vote red, and those who are "leaving" the Republican Party aren't jumping right to the Democrats. It's just more splintered than usual, but will come together to make sure that the Democrats don't win. Much like how we get a blue win sometimes, even though the party has been split for awhile. 

Big headlines of "Thousands of Republicans Leave Party" just means like <1% switched thier _completely non-binding_ party registration. 

The upcoming 2022 election is shaping up to be brutal and I'm not optimistic.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's all bluster.
> 
> The folks angry at "non-Trump" Republicans will still vote red, and those who are "leaving" the Republican Party aren't jumping right to the Democrats. It's just more splintered than usual, but will come together to make sure that the Democrats don't win. Much like how we get a blue win sometimes, even though the party has been split for awhile.
> 
> Big headlines of "Thousands of Republicans Leave Party" just means like <1% switched thier _completely non-binding_ party registration.
> 
> The upcoming 2022 election is shaping up to be brutal and I'm not optimistic.



Everyone who "has had enough" is either a retired nobody or instead of actually fighting for something that matters just announces they are resigning and does nothing to stop shit.


----------



## BenjaminW

SpaceDock said:


> IDK if it is real or not, but I am hearing a lot about how Trump people hate the Republicans for not supporting Trump enough and traditional Republicans are fleeing the party they see as drifting into Qanon madness. I just keep hoping that the Republican Party died with Sarah Palin and Trump was just the last violent convulsions as the rigor mortise sets in.


It’s interesting because I feel like Trump was really successful at mobilizing/uniting practically the entire Republican Party behind him, yet once he leaves office, all of that basically went to shit once he lost the election because now he straight up divided the party over the course of 3-4 months since the election for the shenanigans he’s pulled.


----------



## USMarine75

*Gaetz tells Kinzinger to 'bring it' as GOP feud heats up*

*Twitter spat illustrates the divide in Republican Party between Trump supporters and critics*


GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, one of former President Trump’s top supporters in the House, is trading fire on Twitter with Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of Trump’s biggest critics among House Republicans.

The spat began on Wednesday when Gaetz tweeted for Kinzinger to "bring it" after the congressman from Illinois specifically mentioned Gaetz as a potential target of his newly formed political action committee, which will challenge Republican lawmakers who continue to embrace Trump.

Pointing to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by right-wing extremists and other Trump supporters to unsuccessfully disrupt congressional certification of Joe Biden's Electoral College victory over Trump, Kinzinger said earlier this month in a video announcing his new "Country First" PAC that "this is no time for silence. Not after the last month. Not after the last few years. Someone needs to tell the truth."

Kinzinger, who was one of only 10 House Republicans to vote last month to impeach Trump, said this week that his PAC would specifically target House Republicans who have promoted Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

"You look at people like Matt Gaetz, who know better," Kinzinger told the Washington Post.

Responding to Kinzinger, an Air Force veteran and current lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard who served two tours of duty in the Iraq war, Gaetz tweeted, "Adam is a patriot who fought for America from Northwest Florida. We will always appreciate & honor his service."

"Now, he wants to target my America First politics, referencing me by name. My response: F--king bring it," Gaetz emphasized.

*https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-tells-kinzinger-to-bring-it-as-gop-feud-heats-up*


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I take offense at the notion that Matt Gaetz knows _anything_.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> I take offense at the notion that Matt Gaetz knows _anything_.



Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?
> 
> View attachment 90109



Nunes had a lead start, but Matt is certainly scoring points everyday in the biggest turd challenge.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/impeachment-sketches-day-three/index.html

Well, this made me sick...






Sens. John Boozman, R-Ark., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, during day three of the Senate impeachment trial.





Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., during day three of the Senate impeachment trial.





Sen. Tex Cruz, R-Texas, in a room next to the Senate chamber during day three of the impeachment trial.





Empty desks in the Senate chamber during day three of the impeachment trial, February 11, 2021.


Then I saw this...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/index.html


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?
> 
> View attachment 90109



Max Headroom


----------



## bostjan

It seems we often forget that the GOP is only monolithic in the sense that it is the alternative to the Democratic Party now, and has been that way since around 2008. The only thing that would undo it would be another party that is also *not the democrats* that offered some sort of coherent political strategy. Since the GOP base is dwindling, I doubt such a thing will happen without whatever party opposes democrats not condemning extreme margin groups like white supremicists, anarchists, eugenicists, etc.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> I'm not saying she's right, but I'll be the first person to say that this sentiment isn't always wrong, especially when it comes to referenda.


While I get that in some cases, her primary objective is NOT allowing marijuana into the state. She's said from the get-go that she truly believes if we legalize marijuana it will increase crime, increase children abusing drugs of all types, and make more people leave the work force and just sit around stoned all day. That's her entire mentality when it comes to weed.

And these amendments were extremely straightforward. Legal medical. Legal recreational. With a time period laid out to set up the agencies in charge of regulation.


USMarine75 said:


> Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?
> 
> View attachment 90109


Huh. I wasn't aware Stefan Salvatore went into politics.

Gotta say, I'm not even a little shocked at certain Republicans meeting with Trump's defense team. What a shit-show.


----------



## bostjan

What, it's not totally normal for defense lawyers to meet with jurors behind closed doors in the midst of a trial?

GOP (in the fakest Aussie accent possible)- "No rules, just roight."


----------



## mbardu

Interesting. Haley already breaking with Trump.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...eaks-with-trump-we-shouldnt-have-followed-him

Thought it would come at some point, but surprised somewhat to see it so explicitly and so early. Starting a (doomed) conservative presidential run already  ?


----------



## mmr007

"I only *regret* that I *have but one life* to lose for my country"- Nathan Hale




"I only regret that I have but one asinine frivolous excuse to which I can illogically hang my claim of no responsibility by Trump for causing a violent insurrection which almost overthrew our government so that I may ignore the evidence in this impeachment trial so that I may, in four years, tap into that deep well of racist hatred we cultivated together in order to survive a primary so that I may fulfill my own political ambition of finally becoming president of the these disunited states....oops freudian slip, I meant united states of america." - Ted Cruz


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?
> 
> View attachment 90109


I can't stop laughing at the joke from Seth Meyers said that Matt Gaetz looks like someone tried to make Tom Cruise out of Legos


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

If you haven’t watched the Vice documentary “The Search for Q” I would recommend it. Interesting stuff. This Q stuff is bonkers, and people still believe it. If you have watched it, I’d love to hear people’s thoughts on it.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> I can't stop laughing at the joke from Seth Meyers said that Matt Gaetz looks like someone tried to make Tom Cruise out of Legos



Didn't he say something about how he didn't have legos so he had to use Duplos instead?


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> Wait... you're questioning the guy who doesn't even know what to do with his hands in a photo?
> 
> View attachment 90109





Randy said:


> Max Headroom


Naw dawg. He's a Spider-man villain crossbreed.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> Yeah no, I think Trump approval among Republicans was still in the 80% recently despite the capitol insurrection. "Half your voters" is way optimistic there. Plus, talking about those 80%, anyone who supported him for 4 years through all the BS he did is pretty much irredeemable. They won't change their minds now or they would have done so already.


While this is true, I'd note that this represents about a 10-point drop for Trump, and beyond that most of the movement was in Republican voters who formerly "strongly approved" of Trump, and the offsetting uptick was mostly in "strongly disapprove" Republican voters. 




https://morningconsult.com/2021/01/19/trump-approval-senate-impeachment-conviction-polling/

Given how sticky political attitudes are in this country, that's actually a pretty big shift. Beyond that, there's a modest but perceptible decrease in approval for the Republican party correlating with the insurrection: 





https://news.gallup.com/poll/329561/gop-image-slides-giving-democrats-strong-advantage.aspx

Considering politics in America is basically a team sport, with the same sort of loyalty to party we see to the Sox up here (fuck New York), it's kind of amazing that there WAS a reaction to the attack, and I wouldn't discount it just because it's seemingly modest. One of the points 538 made in a recent team chat was that it's hard to see Biden being so aggressive at the start of his term and going so big on his stimulus plan and including so many Democratic and progressive priorities, and spending so little time trying to establish a mandate, had the attack on the 6th not occurred, and I think they're probably right. It basically immediately established the GOP as a party that wasn't really one that COULD be worked with in a democratic framework, doubly so when they failed to really turn on Trump in any perceptible manner, and gave the moderate Democrats a lot of cover.


----------



## USMarine75

Jamie Raskin should be Kamala's VP choice for 2024 when she runs.


----------



## USMarine75

https://twitter.com/randazzotweets/status/1360113944547889156?s=12

This is the best thing I've read this year.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

USMarine75 said:


> https://twitter.com/randazzotweets/status/1360113944547889156?s=12
> 
> This is the best thing I've read this year.



As a longtime wrestling fan, that was a complete mindfuck to read, whether it was true or not.


----------



## SpaceDock

GOP senators vote to extend the trial with witnesses. The tide might be turning.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

SpaceDock said:


> GOP senators vote to extend the trial with witnesses. The tide might be turning.


 Yusss. I remain hopeful. After paying close attention the first two days I didn’t think much would come of it. Please let me be wrong.


----------



## thebeesknees22

McConnell said he's voting to acquit. If he is then they all will except for the 5-6 that voted for the trial in the first place.


----------



## USMarine75

The best part of the trial has been the yucks from Trump's attorney Van der Veen. And from Jamie Raskin slapping him down. 

Today's "they're all gonna laugh at you" outburst was the best: I think he initially thought the Senators were laughing with him and not at him, then realized the reality and tried to admonish them. Then someone woke Patrick Leahy up and he read a card from the Senate Parliamentarian for them to be polite and resumed his nap. 

I predict Schoen does quit, leaving Meandering Castor and THEYRE TURNING THE FROGS GAY Van der Veen.


----------



## Ralyks

They're calling witnesses? And Graham was in favor?! What a twist!


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> They're calling witnesses? And Graham was in favor?! What a twist!


Jaime Berrerea Beutler, one of the GOP Representatives who voted to convict, who was responsible for the story about Trump's conversation with McCarthy while the Capitol had fallen to insurgents, where Trump finally concluded "well, I guess these people like me more than you do," and McCarthy lost his shit at Trump. 

Turns out she first went public with this story back on 1/12, and has been telling everyone who'd listen this was why she was voring to impeach Trump, but somehow no one really paid her any attention until just now. 

Whether or not this is enough to make McConnell backtrack and pick off a few more Republicans with him, TBD.


----------



## spudmunkey

They aren't taking witnesses. The defense said, "well, if they get one, I'm taking 100", and they settled in admitting the one woman's statement into the record, but no testifying.


----------



## fantom

Can you imagine if I was a on trial for a crime. And the jury members were victims of the crime who were more afraid of losing their jobs than doing what was right. And they already made up their mind before the trial started. And my lawyers hung out with the jury before they made their statements. And no witnesses were called because people didn't want to deal with my lawyers overloading them with more work. I suspect it would not only be a mistrial, but the lawyers would be disbarred if not reprimanded.

There is no way Trump is going to be convicted here. The system is far too broken. I don't even know why impeachment exists in this country if Trump can get away with 2 impeachable offenses because partisan politics were more important than "law and order".

I would be fine with Trump being acquired if the people making the decision were actually thinking about what is right and not so biased that it came down to parties bickering at each other in public.


----------



## BenjaminW

57-43 gents.

I guess the question(s) we're asking now is what's next or what now do we do?


----------



## SpaceDock




----------



## mmr007

I will just refer (and defer) to the famous cover from 4 and 1/2 years ago....it held true. Nothing else to say.


----------



## sleewell

Dems cave on a truly grand scale, affirming everyone's beliefs that they are pussies. Why even vote on witnesses just to backtrack on it a few minutes later. 

Biden uses reconciliation for covid bill. gets nothing done beyond that. The gop takes back the house, possibly senate in the midterms. What a waste. The dems are pathetic.


----------



## soul_lip_mike

Will there be a third attempt or can we finally move on?


----------



## Wuuthrad

soul_lip_mike said:


> Will there be a third attempt or can we finally move on?



“bruh” we on a over 30 year McConnell power trip hangover... go edumacate yer self


----------



## sleewell

As a party of law and order I think we should move on. No charges for the cop killers. No repercussions for the coup attempt. No charges for beating a cop with the American flag. This was a great day for our country and more elections should end in even more violent and cry baby esque fashion. It's not like we didnt lose over 60 cases in court while presenting no evidence of fraud. Let's just make this a standing event every time you lose and are butthurt. Move on and just let us act like complete pieces of shit. We are entitled to act this way because we are white and have feelings we are losing this country. 

The best way to stop crimes is to just act like they didnt happen right? Law and order.


----------



## fantom

To be honest, the reason Republicans get away with this is because Democrats don't have the balls to go protest in DC right now. Biden could easily ask people who disagree to come to DC and no one could stop him anymore.


----------



## mmr007

If you haven't seen it...you should watch it. Now just give the guy with the briefcase a slightly more russian accent and give Tom Cruise a congressional pin for his suit and the warning was to always look out for Trump's interest, not the firm's. That is why you have 43 republican senators (some anyway) who voted to acquit and carried this guy's water for years...why they adopted a pro russia plateform, why they didn't vote to impeach the second they found out trump ignored the fact russia was paying the taliban to kill american soldiers.

Russians have been watched Trump and Giuliani for 30+ years. You don't think they haven't been watching other key leaders in our government? Russians hacked the DNC and 100s of companies and government institutions like the pentagon but could hack the RNC? Yeah ok. We know that russians have been paying R's through the NRA for years because well...they admitted it on hidden microphone. The truth will come out. This much I am sure of. Don't tell me its because senators (who represent a whole state not one wacko lil district) are scared of Trump voters. The most rabid anti-Trumpers became the most ardent sycophants LONG before they were either scared of Trump voters or sought to curry favor with them because it seemed politically advantages. Again, the truth will come out.


----------



## fantom

mmr007 said:


> If you haven't seen it...you should watch it. Now just give the guy with the briefcase a slightly more russian accent and give Tom Cruise a congressional pin for his suit and the warning was to always look out for Trump's interest, not the firm's. That is why you have 43 republican senators (some anyway) who voted to acquit and carried this guy's water for years...why they adopted a pro russia plateform, why they didn't vote to impeach the second they found out trump ignored the fact russia was paying the taliban to kill american soldiers.
> 
> Russians have been watched Trump and Giuliani for 30+ years. You don't think they haven't been watching other key leaders in our government? Russians hacked the DNC and 100s of companies and government institutions like the pentagon but could hack the RNC? Yeah ok. We know that russians have been paying R's through the NRA for years because well...they admitted it on hidden microphone. The truth will come out. This much I am sure of. Don't tell me its because senators (who represent a whole state not one wacko lil district) are scared of Trump voters. The most rabid anti-Trumpers became the most ardent sycophants LONG before they were either scared of Trump voters or sought to curry favor with them because it seemed politically advantages. Again, the truth will come out.




Not trying to be offensive, but this rambling sounds like the left wing version of QAnon. I don't think 53 senators voted because how Russia wants them to vote. They voted that way because there are 27+ states with populations that back Trump. They are pandering to Americans. Can we not start the conspiracy train?


----------



## mmr007

fantom said:


> Not trying to be offensive, but this rambling sounds like the left wing version of QAnon. I don't think 53 senators voted because how Russia wants them to vote. They voted that way because there are 27+ states with populations that back Trump. They are pandering to Americans. Can we not start the conspiracy train?





Maria Buttina
Beginning in 2011, she worked as an assistant for Aleksandr Torshin, a former member of the Federation Council, a member of Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, and a deputy governor of the Central Bank of Russia.[4] In this role, she worked to infiltrate conservative groups in the US, including the National Rifle Association, as part of an effort to promote Russian interests in the 2016 United States presidential election.[4][5][6] The Senate Intelligence Committee later concluded that she attempted to persuade the Trump campaign to establish a secret communications back channel with Russia.[7]

Fact. Russian money has been pouring into the NRA and then RNC for years. 
Fact. Trump is scared of Putin and yet only banks with a bank that launders money for Russian mobsters
Fact. Republicans are scared of crossing Trump even though under him they lost the white house, the house and the senate and an armed insurrection threatens their future funding. You may completely disagree with my assertion and I may ultimately be wrong but EVERYONE in Trump's orbit from Manafort to General Flynn to Devin Nunes has ties to Russia. Why would there not be Russian influence in other parts of our government? Because...that sounds just too crazy to you?


----------



## philkilla

sleewell said:


> Dems cave on a truly grand scale, affirming everyone's beliefs that they are pussies. Why even vote on witnesses just to backtrack on it a few minutes later.
> 
> Biden uses reconciliation for covid bill. gets nothing done beyond that. The gop takes back the house, possibly senate in the midterms. What a waste. The dems are pathetic.





fantom said:


> To be honest, the reason Republicans get away with this is because Democrats don't have the balls to go protest in DC right now. Biden could easily ask people who disagree to come to DC and no one could stop him anymore.



Sorry bro, too cold outside.


----------



## SpaceDock

I believe we can all agree we knew this was going to be the outcome. It was a damned if you do and damned if you don’t on both sides. Dems can’t convict because of the 2/3rds bar and yet they have to try to impeach. Republicans can’t convict for fear of being primaried. The defense did not win this. Trump did not win. We all lost. McConnell said that Trump is guilty and needs criminal charges. Those saying this is vindication for Trump are fooling themselves. Sadly, I think people will sit in their media bubbles telling themselves whatever they want regardless of the facts. 

For the love of god VOTE in 2022!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## soul_lip_mike

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90155


Trump murdered somebody?


----------



## USMarine75

Here's the feel good story of the day...

http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/qanon...olyamorous-tantric-sex-guru-gym-manager/27817

*QANON CONGRESSWOMAN MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE REPORTEDLY CHEATED ON HUSBAND WITH POLYAMOROUS TANTRIC SEX GURU & GYM MANAGER*

*

*


----------



## SpaceDock

I wouldnt bang her with a borrowed


----------



## MFB

Didn't know she was into fucking dudes that look like Zangief, but for her level of stupid she probably thinks he's one of M. Bison's top commanders


----------



## Wuuthrad

soul_lip_mike said:


> Trump murdered somebody?



Do you even read?


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Shoeless_jose

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90167



Yo Mike Pence would have invoked the 25th amendment in a heartbeat if Trump sent a blow job his way


----------



## soul_lip_mike

Wuuthrad said:


> Do you even read?



who did trump murder?


----------



## spudmunkey

soul_lip_mike said:


> who did trump murder?



a) many would say at least 5 people who died at the hands (or due to the action) of people who acted upon his direction, and his inaction.
b) If you want to be pedantic, nobody, just as Charles Manson didn't. But the post you replied to didn't say he did. It just says he showed he COULD and get away with it.


----------



## soul_lip_mike

spudmunkey said:


> a) many would say at least 5 people who died at the hands (or due to the action) of people who acted upon his direction, and his inaction.
> b) If you want to be pedantic, nobody, just as Charles Manson didn't. But the post you replied to didn't say he did. It just says he showed he COULD and get away with it.



The post I replied to implied trump murdered someone and didn’t lose any support. Donald trump hasn’t murdered anyone or even been accused of it. Twitter hot takes are so hyperbolic. I say that as someone who thinks Trump is a giant dick and am glad he’s gone.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ffs man, considering everything, Trump could use a bit of twitstomp! Just sayin...


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Dude of course we can’t just “move on-“ there’s a bunch of wing nuts that support illegal activity by the POTUS, both outside and inside the govt!


----------



## spudmunkey

soul_lip_mike said:


> The post I replied to implied trump murdered someone and didn’t lose any support.



It didn't imply that at all. It simply said that he learned he COULD.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> It didn't imply that at all. It simply said that he learned he COULD.



Agreed it was a slight hyperbole but common sense would indicate it just meant the dude is teflon


----------



## nightflameauto

McConnel's speech right after the vote makes me wonder WTF is going on in his head. If he's absolutely guilty, I don't care how much of a butt kisser you are, you should have convicted. The Republican argument that impeachment is only about sitting presidents is absolute bullshit. Now they've left the door open for him to run again. And by the sounds of it, Trump's already working out how to "rebuild the Republican party" so it better suits him.

The only possible positive is the chatter that even McConnel would like to see Trump tried criminally for what happened. That could be a fun ride of stupidity before he walks away scott free again due to some technicality.


----------



## SpaceDock

I agree, I think Mitch just made 2022 real bad for both sides and he could have had a clean break from Trump. Now his speech is going to be played in commercials and every debate. The republicans will have to again side with or against Trump and the madness continues.


----------



## sleewell

mitch: i had the option to hold the trial while he was still president. i decided not to. i am also using that as the reason to let him get away with it. but i do have some stern words that make me look like an even bigger spineless hypocrite.


----------



## thebeesknees22

nightflameauto said:


> McConnel's speech right after the vote makes me wonder WTF is going on in his head. If he's absolutely guilty, I don't care how much of a butt kisser you are, you should have convicted. The Republican argument that impeachment is only about sitting presidents is absolute bullshit. Now they've left the door open for him to run again. And by the sounds of it, Trump's already working out how to "rebuild the Republican party" so it better suits him.
> 
> The only possible positive is the chatter that even McConnel would like to see Trump tried criminally for what happened. That could be a fun ride of stupidity before he walks away scott free again due to some technicality.




Mtich's head: "I am the republican party. I can easily oust trump anytime I want and everyone will bend to my will. I won't do anything that would be on record to go against the republican party as I AM!!! the republican party." *evil laugh

Also.. I've never seen McConnell do a good deed unless he personally stands to gain from it. Him quitting trump is no gain for himself as he sees it, but he's wrong. he's losing control of his party. And he'll soon find himself ousted at some point as the extreme crazies take over more and more.


----------



## Ralyks

Quick side note, since the Jon Schaffer thread got put into here, but Stu Block and Luke Appleton quit Iced Earth.

Anyway, Lindsay Graham said they'd have to impeachment Kamala Harris if the Republicans take back the House, and Lara Trump (or as he said, "Laura") is the future of the GOP and can win a Senate seat in NC easily in 2022.........


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Quick side note, since the Jon Schaffer thread got put into here, but Stu Block and Luke Appleton quit Iced Earth.
> 
> Anyway, Lindsay Graham said *they'd have to impeachment Kamala Harris* if the Republicans take back the House, and Lara Trump (or as he said, "Laura") is the future of the GOP and can win a Senate seat in NC easily in 2022.........


I'd be curious what they'd be impeaching her for. I mean, I get they like to spew bullshit, but you kinda need an actual impeachable offense to launch impeachment.

Granted, thinking Lara Trump is gonna jump into a senate seat is kinda out there, but crazier things have happened.


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> I'd be curious what they'd be impeaching her for. I mean, I get they like to spew bullshit, but you kinda need an actual impeachable offense to launch impeachment.



Supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
No, seriously, that's what he said.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Supporting the Minnesota Freedom Fund.
> No, seriously, that's what he said.



Somehow I think we passed through the bizarro zone and slipped right into the ludicrous zone.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> McConnel's speech right after the vote makes me wonder WTF is going on in his head. If he's absolutely guilty, I don't care how much of a butt kisser you are, you should have convicted. The Republican argument that impeachment is only about sitting presidents is absolute bullshit. Now they've left the door open for him to run again. And by the sounds of it, Trump's already working out how to "rebuild the Republican party" so it better suits him.
> 
> The only possible positive is the chatter that even McConnel would like to see Trump tried criminally for what happened. That could be a fun ride of stupidity before he walks away scott free again due to some technicality.


Yeah, I suppose in some ways it does make a kind of political sense, but it's still just extreely problematic. 

McConnell's stance was that Trump was clearly guilty, but it was unconstitutional to impeach someone who was no longer in office. Except, 
1) That's not even true - there's precedent for impeaching someone after they're already out of office, in the federal Judiciary, ad the constitution covers impeaching the President and the judiciary in the same sentence. 
2) The reason Trump was being tried after he left office, was because McConnell refused to take up the case until after Biden was sworn in, and 
3) McConnell himself was saying he hadn't _decided_ how he was going to vote in the days before the trial, which makes his black-and-white stance that it was unconstitutional kind of unfathomable. 

So, he's basically pulling a Comey. "Trump did all these awful things on the 6th, he was so irresponsible, he should be ashamed of himself! Oh, also, we're not going to convict him." My suspicion is that his change of heart was as simple as he came to terms with the fact that as much as HE wants to create some space between the GOP brand and Trump, Republican voters are still loyal to him, so he can't afford to piss them off. 

...yet he kind of just did.  

Trump being charged with criminal wrongdoing, as appears increasingly likely in Georgia, is the perfect solution for McConnell - Trump goes to jail, can't run, and McConnell doesn't have to be the one who's done it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Yeah, I suppose in some ways it does make a kind of political sense, but it's still just extreely problematic.
> 
> McConnell's stance was that Trump was clearly guilty, but it was unconstitutional to impeach someone who was no longer in office. Except,
> 1) That's not even true - there's precedent for impeaching someone after they're already out of office, in the federal Judiciary, ad the constitution covers impeaching the President and the judiciary in the same sentence.
> 2) The reason Trump was being tried after he left office, was because McConnell refused to take up the case until after Biden was sworn in, and
> 3) McConnell himself was saying he hadn't _decided_ how he was going to vote in the days before the trial, which makes his black-and-white stance that it was unconstitutional kind of unfathomable.
> 
> So, he's basically pulling a Comey. "Trump did all these awful things on the 6th, he was so irresponsible, he should be ashamed of himself! Oh, also, we're not going to convict him." My suspicion is that his change of heart was as simple as he came to terms with the fact that as much as HE wants to create some space between the GOP brand and Trump, Republican voters are still loyal to him, so he can't afford to piss them off.
> 
> ...yet he kind of just did.
> 
> Trump being charged with criminal wrongdoing, as appears increasingly likely in Georgia, is the perfect solution for McConnell - Trump goes to jail, can't run, and McConnell doesn't have to be the one who's done it.


With the way the Republican voters cling to rhetoric at this point, I'd assume he'll be directly to blame if Trump goes to jail. They'll replay his speech six times a day until the general voter base is convinced he directly caused the criminal prosecution.

It's going to be really interesting to see how this plays out. Horrifying, but interesting.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90226



Pretty sure this falls under how the Red States are against giving states and local government funding when they are the ones who probably need it more.


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90226



And it's so weird that the president approved it, without threatening to hold back the federal assistance if they didn't cooperate politically, even though the state tried to sue to overturn elections in other states the president won. It's like...is he even TRYING to president?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> Pretty sure this falls under how the Red States are against giving states and local government funding when they are the ones who probably need it more.



And the Blue States provide the funds with more Tax Revenue!


----------



## fantom

Not sure why everyone doesn't see what McConnell is doing. Trump supporters will never vote democrat at this point. It is a simple choice, will acquitting Trump retain more votes for Rs in the 2022 and 2024 elections than it loses? He is betting that retaining those votes is necessary, and he is probably right. The "just right of center" voters can easily be convinced if, within the next 2 years, anything comes up that he can "blame the democrats", even if is a policy passed during the Trump administration (such as federal income tax).

Dude knows the game. He is one of the people that make it necessary to put term limits on congress.


----------



## groverj3

fantom said:


> Not sure why everyone doesn't see what McConnell is doing. Trump supporters will never vote democrat at this point. It is a simple choice, will acquitting Trump retain more votes for Rs in the 2022 and 2024 elections than it loses? He is betting that retaining those votes is necessary, and he is probably right. The "just right of center" voters can easily be convinced if, within the next 2 years, anything comes up that he can "blame the democrats", even if is a policy passed during the Trump administration (such as federal income tax).
> 
> Dude knows the game. He is one of the people that make it necessary to put term limits on congress.


They will most certainly play the game where they blame the Democrats for the economic recovery from COVID being "too slow." The same way they painted Obama's economic recovery from the financial crisis as such, even though it wasn't especially slow, and it was a still a fucking recovery.

People are stupid, and will buy into his logic. Then again, those people were 100% voting Republican anyway.

I just really hope some progress is made on gerrymandering. Without gerrymandering the hell out of all the districts Republicans would never win a presidential election again unless they purge the extremists from their party.


----------



## sleewell

What a fucking asshat. Fake tough guy says let's succeed from the union but also please federal govt send us some money when it snows!!!

Pull yourself up by your own boot straps, buy a snow plow with some salt and handle your business. We get that much snow several times a year and you never hear about us asking for a federal bail out.


----------



## thraxil

sleewell said:


> Pull yourself up by your own boot straps, buy a snow plow with some salt and handle your business. We get that much snow several times a year and you never hear about us asking for a federal bail out.



My dad was Town Manager for the small town in Maine where I grew up for a while. At one point a bunch of "Tea Party" candidates got elected to the Town Council. They promptly voted to drastically cut funding for snow plows. Then, as soon as winter came, inevitably, they were the first ones calling up and complaining loudly when *their* roads weren't immediately plowed. Of course, then on the next election cycle, they all campaigned on the argument that the town government couldn't do basic things like plowing the roads so you should elect Tea Partiers who will cut the budget and lower taxes.


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> Not sure why everyone doesn't see what McConnell is doing. Trump supporters will never vote democrat at this point. It is a simple choice, will acquitting Trump retain more votes for Rs in the 2022 and 2024 elections than it loses? He is betting that retaining those votes is necessary, and he is probably right. The "just right of center" voters can easily be convinced if, within the next 2 years, anything comes up that he can "blame the democrats", even if is a policy passed during the Trump administration (such as federal income tax).
> 
> Dude knows the game. He is one of the people that make it necessary to put term limits on congress.


The only question I have is why he voted to acquit and then gave the smack-down speech that's going to leave anybody paying attention with a serious case of whiplash. It's like he couldn't contain his outrage completely, and comes off more than a touch disingenuous.


groverj3 said:


> *They will most certainly play the game where they blame the Democrats for the economic recovery from COVID being "too slow."* The same way they painted Obama's economic recovery from the financial crisis as such, even though it wasn't especially slow, and it was a still a fucking recovery.
> 
> People are stupid, and will buy into his logic. Then again, those people were 100% voting Republican anyway.
> 
> I just really hope some progress is made on gerrymandering. Without gerrymandering the hell out of all the districts Republicans would never win a presidential election again unless they purge the extremists from their party.


Dude, you're way off base here. By the time Biden leaves office they'll have half their followers believing COVID happened entirely on Biden's watch, and if he'd just prepared us better we wouldn't have done so horribly with it.

I wish I was being hyperbolic.

Anybody else getting hounded by people they know about the 'big doings' on March 4th? The latest Q story is a doozy. I mean, since it hasn't happened at any of the other predicted times, I guess March 4th has historical precedence. I still find it hard to believe there are people that truly trust Trump will march into Washington, execute all Democrats, and be inaugurated into the presidency again. I wonder what the next crack based theory will be when it doesn't come to pass.

P.S. Unrelated, entirely, but my father in law needs to get off the internet for a day or two. Eesh.


----------



## groverj3

nightflameauto said:


> dude, you're way off base here. By the time Biden leaves office they'll have half their followers believing COVID happened entirely on Biden's watch, and if he'd just prepared us better we wouldn't have done so horribly with it.
> 
> I wish I was being hyperbolic.


Good point, I underestimated the Republicans reality denial in favor of their pre-Trumpism goalpost shifting strategy. Today's GOP doesn't even try justifying their stupidity because their voters likewise reject the entire concept of logical reasoning being a thing to aspire to.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

groverj3 said:


> Good point, I underestimated the Republicans reality denial in favor of their pre-Trumpism goalpost shifting strategy. Today's GOP doesn't even try justifying their stupidity because their voters likewise reject the entire concept of logical reasoning being a thing to aspire to.


You only have to smarter than the people your trying to trick.


----------



## sleewell

so ivanka and jerrod made 640 million while working in the white house.


is there any sane human being who could legitimately argue that was all done on the up and up while they were holding official white house positions and that it is also remotely similar to whatever fake scandal they were peddling about hunter's laptop?? its like comparing a mountain to a mole hill except the mountain is confirmed via certified govt disclosures and the mole hill is debunked conspiracy theories peddled by alex jones and sean hannity.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

sleewell said:


> so ivanka and jerrod made 640 million while working in the white house.
> 
> 
> is there any sane human being who could legitimately argue that was all done on the up and up while they were holding official white house positions and that it is also remotely similar to whatever fake scandal they were peddling about hunter's laptop?? its like comparing a mountain to a mole hill except the mountain is confirmed via certified govt disclosures and the mole hill is debunked conspiracy theories peddled by alex jones and sean hannity.


I sure hope the entire family gets investigated. There’s so many red flags, obviously they’re all engaged in some shady stuff.


----------



## nightflameauto

The Trump family has shown us how much of our expected norms in politics are really just agreed upon terms and not legally binding. Perhaps, if we weren't in the midst of one of the larger shit-shows in the history of the US, we should consider addressing some of the legal loopholes that exist for any president with the lack of integrity necessary to not tear down every ounce of ethical behavior in the name of profit. I'm not saying all past presidents were paragons of virtue, but Trump flat out didn't even pretend to give a shit about putting on a good face. He was literally, "Fuck you, this shit is mine," right from day one.

I hope he is locked away by the next election cycle, though I have small faith anyone will actually bother prosecuting him. The guy and his corrupt family seem to be teflon. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Not sure why everyone doesn't see what McConnell is doing. Trump supporters will never vote democrat at this point. It is a simple choice, will acquitting Trump retain more votes for Rs in the 2022 and 2024 elections than it loses? He is betting that retaining those votes is necessary, and he is probably right. The "just right of center" voters can easily be convinced if, within the next 2 years, anything comes up that he can "blame the democrats", even if is a policy passed during the Trump administration (such as federal income tax).
> 
> Dude knows the game. He is one of the people that make it necessary to put term limits on congress.


Well, the problem with this read, is if he wanted to double down on holding onto the Trump base, then coming out and saying, right after the vote, that he had no doubt that Trump was to blame for the January 6th rally and that he would have convicted him if he could would have been _stupid_. 

He didn't vote to convict because he knew there would be huge political consequences for his coalition if they did so, true. However, he's clearly hedging like mad, and I think is hoping that in two years' time the Trump base will have moved on. It's not a _great_ strategy, but it's probably the best he's got even if the most likely outcome is he lets down pretty much everyone and looks like a hypocrite.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm just wondering how the January 6th insurrectionists feel about being cast as "false-flag actors"? I mean, I get that the movement as a whole has trouble with the concept of reality, but what happens when you find yourself being framed as a Liberal lie? Maybe Iced Earth is an Antifa band after all?


----------



## Edika

"O'er the laaaand of the freeeeeeee, and the hooooooome of theeeeeeee braaaaaaaaave"...


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> What a fucking asshat. Fake tough guy says let's succeed from the union but also please federal govt send us some money when it snows!!!
> 
> Pull yourself up by your own boot straps, buy a snow plow with some salt and handle your business. We get that much snow several times a year and you never hear about us asking for a federal bail out.



That was all unpreparedness. Plain and simple. Coming from a guy who hasn't had power for the last day or so in 15 degree F weather. CPS has a long history in Texas of favoring profits over providing quality service. We have issues with power being provided during the summer because they don't want to spend the money on equipment, and the summer months are a KNOW QUANTITY. Fuck the peasants and their power. Fuck the people who have medical equipment in their homes that requires power to keep them alive. There's a way to profit from this!



zappatton2 said:


> I'm just wondering how the January 6th insurrectionists feel about being cast as "false-flag actors"? I mean, I get that the movement as a whole has trouble with the concept of reality, but what happens when you find yourself being framed as a Liberal lie? Maybe Iced Earth is an Antifa band after all?



They'll sell the lie because it is a means to their ends.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/16/9683...iani-and-2-far-right-groups-over-capitol-riot


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I'm just wondering how the January 6th insurrectionists feel about being cast as "false-flag actors"? I mean, I get that the movement as a whole has trouble with the concept of reality, but what happens when you find yourself being framed as a Liberal lie? Maybe Iced Earth is an Antifa band after all?


They're pissed, as it happens. I've seen a few news stories where insurgents were quoted as being pretty upset they were being called antifa agents.


----------



## SpaceDock

Trump just released blistering statement attacking McConnell. Serves him right for letting Trump off the hook. Now any republicans not falling inline are gonna get blasted.


----------



## nightflameauto

SpaceDock said:


> Trump just released blistering statement attacking McConnell. Serves him right for letting Trump off the hook. Now any republicans not falling inline are gonna get blasted.


McConnell had to know this would be one of the results of his diatribe. Maybe the dude's sick of the game and just wanted to throw down the gauntlet once and for all. Let Trump blast him, and see if people will line up to defend him, or stand with Trump.

I have a sneaking suspicion at this point this is not going to work out in McConnell's favor. The cult is too deeply entrenched.


----------



## Ralyks

You mean we're finally going to get rid of McConnell?! Finally, Trump's shit talking is doing some good!


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> Dude, you're way off base here. By the time Biden leaves office they'll have half their followers believing COVID happened entirely on Biden's watch, and if he'd just prepared us better we wouldn't have done so horribly with it.



Already happened. Not even 48 hrs after the inauguration, I saw several references to Biden having higher COVID deaths per day than Trump. Let that sink in, Trump-ets literally tried to justify that people, who got sick while Trump was in office and subsequently died on Biden's first day, were evidence that Trump did better than Biden at managing COVID. Even if they were not related, the sample size of 1 day is comical.



nightflameauto said:


> The only question I have is why he voted to acquit and then gave the smack-down speech that's going to leave anybody paying attention with a serious case of whiplash. It's like he couldn't contain his outrage completely, and comes off more than a touch disingenuous.



People won't remember the speech as much as the acquittal. I don't remember any of the crap that politicians said 4 years ago. 


SpaceDock said:


> Trump just released blistering statement attacking McConnell. Serves him right for letting Trump off the hook. Now any republicans not falling inline are gonna get blasted.



Is it finally time to bust out the popcorn?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> You mean we're finally going to get rid of McConnell?! Finally, Trump's shit talking is doing some good!



Believe it not, things can get worse.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Believe it not, things can get worse.



Just wait for the day we have an MJT as the majority leader in the senate.


----------



## SpaceDock

Its sad that McConnell was actually someone who understands our government and it’s rules. I hate his agenda and some of the things he has done, but really all the lame stream republicans getting replaced with Boeberts, Jordans, and Cruz’s could be a much worse scenario because I don’t think those people would give a shit if they plunged us into full civil war.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Believe it not, things can get worse.



FUCK!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Politics is nothing if not a game of resources and distribution, most often supported by military action, and this is the truth right here:




https://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/bill-gates-rich-countries-should-eating-synthetic-beef


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## sleewell

tx gop blaming the green new deal for their own failures to govern their state properly. pro tip: that is not even a law yet and you have been ransacking your own power grid to save some money for years.

lol at blaming wind power. every other cold location in the world still has wind power working. figure it out and stop asking for federal help when only a few weeks back you wanted to leave this country.


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> lol at blaming wind power. *every other cold location in the world still has wind power working*. figure it out and stop asking for federal help when only a few weeks back you wanted to leave this country.


The bolded is not actually true. Our area has had to shut down wind turbines in the overnight hours several times over the last week due to it being so cold that the extremities of the carbon and metal structures would shatter during movement. The heating elements built in keep the central pivot points warm, but can't keep the tower itself warm. Turns out at -20 and below, it just can't keep chugging. Our area is considering rolling blackouts if people don't cut consumption during peak hours due to this.

Fuck me, I'm tired of cold.

So, with Trump's lambasting of McConnell and the rank and file seemingly falling right in line behind Trump, how long before McConnell's tossed out on his ass and replaced with somebody like Cruz? What a shit-show.


----------



## sleewell

nightflameauto said:


> The bolded is not actually true. Our area has had to shut down wind turbines in the overnight hours several times over the last week due to it being so cold that the extremities of the carbon and metal structures would shatter during movement. The heating elements built in keep the central pivot points warm, but can't keep the tower itself warm. Turns out at -20 and below, it just can't keep chugging. Our area is considering rolling blackouts if people don't cut consumption during peak hours due to this.




bro they have wind turbines in the artic. granted i am not saying they need the same ones in TX but the argument is a false flag meant to distract people from the real failure of the state and local governments.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottc...ze-de-icing-and-carbon-fiber/?sh=466f80c21f59

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-how-to-keep-turbines-spinning-in-icy-weather

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/ener...es/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> bro they have wind turbines in the artic. granted i am not saying they need the same ones in TX but the argument is a false flag meant to distract people from the real failure of the state and local governments.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottc...ze-de-icing-and-carbon-fiber/?sh=466f80c21f59
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-how-to-keep-turbines-spinning-in-icy-weather
> 
> https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/ener...es/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321


Sure, the ones in the arctic are built to withstand those temps. But the thing is, *WE* in South Dakota, don't have turbines designed to withstand extended periods of twenty below. Why would we expect Texas to, when they haven't seen those temperatures on a regular basis in the history of the state?

I get it's fun to shit down the back of Republican states when they fuck up, but could we at least keep it somewhat in the realm of reality? Nobody in the universe expected Texas to have a cold/snow streak like this. You don't spend money on shit you don't expect to ever use. They'd have been slaughtered had they built wind turbines in Texas to withstand arctic temperatures for wasting taxpayer dollars. If we have this weather pattern come around again next year, they'll probably be slaughtered for not doing it.

Don't get me wrong, the Texas legislature has made plenty of stupid mistakes. And power grids country wide are fragile right now because they're designed based on maximizing profits for minimum expenditure. Which is pretty much a systemic issue we see over and over again even outside the power grid. Maybe we need to focus infrastructure projects on longevity and outlying possibilities rather than maximizing profits and minimizing expense? You say that to the wrong person and they'll think you're completely nuts. Unfortunately, most of our decision makers are those types and we end up in shit sandwich situations like this.


----------



## bostjan

sleewell said:


> bro they have wind turbines in the artic. granted i am not saying they need the same ones in TX but the argument is a false flag meant to distract people from the real failure of the state and local governments.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottc...ze-de-icing-and-carbon-fiber/?sh=466f80c21f59
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-how-to-keep-turbines-spinning-in-icy-weather
> 
> https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/ener...es/wind-energy/wind-energy-cold-climates/7321


All politics aside, all three of those links are clear that wind turbines can work in arctic temperatures *if a number of preparations are done beforehand*. I doubt anyone thought it'd be prudent to build in heaters and de-icing equipment to wind farms in Texas to deal with -20° temperatures. Likewise, I doubt our tubines here in Northern Vermont are designed to withstand a tsunami. I don't blame Texas for lack of preparation in this case.

That said, the Texas government is still behaving like a bunch of hypocrites and the other criticism is well deserved.


----------



## thraxil

Well, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, who operate the grid, failures in natural gas, coal and nuclear energy systems were responsible for nearly twice as many outages as renewables.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...sely-blame-renewables-for-texas-storm-outages

So it sounds like they just can't/haven't designed any of their power systems to cope with the current cold.


----------



## BenjaminW

Lol mad cause broke party lines and went with what he thought was a right choice.

Also, the lionization of Trump within the GOP or at least within the part of the GOP that is still loyal to him is insane. I didn't know he magically grew wings and a halo once he ran for President and was President.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> McConnell had to know this would be one of the results of his diatribe. Maybe the dude's sick of the game and just wanted to throw down the gauntlet once and for all. Let Trump blast him, and see if people will line up to defend him, or stand with Trump.
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion at this point this is not going to work out in McConnell's favor. The cult is too deeply entrenched.


Idunno, I don't know if I'd bet against McConnell here. Trump's abilities as a king-maker haven't really been all that hot. Generally, he endorsed candidates already expected to win, and the times he endorsed a pro-Trump underdog against a moderate.... the moderate generally won. 

McConnell is a very powerful senator who has stayed in power through a number of swings in the national environment, and the fact that anyone who unseats him will be responsible for Kentucky going from having the most senior Republican in the Senate, to the least, is a pretty strong reason to stick with him over an incumbent.


----------



## mmr007

https://www.insider.com/texas-storm-mayor-resigns-said-peoples-fault-if-they-freeze-2021-2

you can't make this shit up......


----------



## mmr007

Just know that while we and other americans are focused on "the noise" republicans are making...they are also quietly changing the rules at the state level (not getting attention) making it so picking of judges is gerrymandered, and convening of grand juries can't be done by district attorneys in liberal areas *for voter fraud cases only* (I'm simplifying here but you get the point), changing voter laws (again) and the next thing you know we will wake up in 2022 and the silent coup at the state level will have accomplished what the noisey one on January 6th couldn't.


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> https://www.insider.com/texas-storm-mayor-resigns-said-peoples-fault-if-they-freeze-2021-2
> 
> you can't make this shit up......


I wish I could say I was surprised by this. Sadly, this is the state of our political discourse and it's only going to get worse.

I do have to wonder what he thinks his job and the job of government officials actually is outside of collecting a pay check and telling people what to do and how to live. Apparently there's no responsibility assigned to government officials.

I felt angry for about thirty seconds about it, and then I realized it's just more of the same. The GOP is so full of hate and vitriol it's pushed out all reason, compassion and decency. How disappointing.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I wish I could say I was surprised by this. Sadly, this is the state of our political discourse and it's only going to get worse.
> 
> I do have to wonder what he thinks his job and the job of government officials actually is outside of collecting a pay check and telling people what to do and how to live. Apparently there's no responsibility assigned to government officials.
> 
> I felt angry for about thirty seconds about it, and then I realized it's just more of the same. The GOP is so full of hate and vitriol it's pushed out all reason, compassion and decency. How disappointing.


He reportedly resigned today. I haven't independently verified that.


----------



## USMarine75

Rush Limbaugh is dead.

I dont usually celebrate in anyone's death, even someone as disgusting and deplorable as him. 

So.


----------



## mmr007

The goal of the republican party has been to prove to people that government is ineffective and therefore should be eliminated (other than the pentagon). Ever since Reagan uttered the "humorous" phrase about the scariest words ever being "I'm here from the government and I'm here to help" they have steadfastly eliminated services and then offered tax cuts to the rich and corporations and then cried that there isn't sufficient tax revenue to provide services so more government cuts are needed.

My understanding is that Texas was warned years ago to weatherproof their energy deliver grid and refused. And now apparently thats the democrats fault as well.

I will also say that in response to questions about the new Gojira video in another (nonpolitical) thread...if I was to psychoanalyze that video I would say a middle age white guy being threatening to and chasing down mostly young people (including black kids in hoodies...not subtle) in the shadow of an extinct elephant (a now dead and decripit shell of what it was republican party) is the most likely answer from a kinda liberal band that no doubt has not been a fan of American right wing politics the last few years


----------



## SpaceDock

I hope Rush finds more peace in death than he had in life. I can’t imagine being filled with rage like that can be a good way to live.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, we all knew the shiny wasn't gonna stay on Cuomo for long, but his fall is proceeding far more rapidly than I expected.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/cuomo-ron-kim-nursing-home/index.html

None of that sounds good.


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> Rush Limbaugh is dead.
> 
> I dont usually celebrate in anyone's death, even someone as disgusting and deplorable as him.
> 
> So.



I apologize for what I said earlier.

Fuck this cracker-ass cracker.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Well, we all knew the shiny wasn't gonna stay on Cuomo for long, but his fall is proceeding far more rapidly than I expected.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/politics/cuomo-ron-kim-nursing-home/index.html
> 
> None of that sounds good.



As a lifelong New Yorker, I hate that guy.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBhAC&usg=AOvVaw1WC0q-oBZctMqAkPwTyIUr


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

USMarine75 said:


> I apologize for what I said earlier.
> 
> Fuck this cracker-ass cracker.



I know it’s difficult to find empathy for people like Rush that spread so much hate and bigotry. But we should still strive to turn the other cheek, Rush was not a good person. But death is nothing I wish on my worst enemy. And I’ve had some very very bad things happen to me directly caused by other peoples malice. I know you have too, based on what you’ve shared on the forum. I wish you the best and I always enjoy reading your posts. RIP Rush. I hope you’re able to find the peace in death that escaped you in life. 
The point I’m struggling to make here is that it takes more of our energy to hold a grudge and not let things go, than it is to forgive and forget. In these trying times I wish all of us to lighten our burdens as much as we can.


----------



## USMarine75

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I know it’s difficult to find empathy for people like Rush that spread so much hate and bigotry. But we should still strive to turn the other cheek, Rush was not a good person. But death is nothing I wish on my worst enemy. And I’ve had some very very bad things happen to me directly caused by other peoples malice. I know you have too, based on what you’ve shared on the forum. I wish you the best and I always enjoy reading your posts. RIP Rush. I hope you’re able to find the peace in death that escaped you in life.
> The point I’m struggling to make here is that it takes more of our energy to hold a grudge and not let things go, than it is to forgive and forget. In these trying times I wish all of us to lighten our burdens as much as we can.



Yeah, I usually chastise people that say the same things I said for the very same reasons. But man does Rush challenge my beliefs lol.


----------



## mmr007

This was my first (and constant) reaction when I first heard of his long cancer. It can be argued it is not healthy to wish ill on someone who is dying or rejoice that they are dead...but if the only people who mourn your death are those who revel in bigotry and hate then...sorry. Good riddance.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I think the Rush Limbaugh death stuff isn't all that terrible like he was also old it's not like it was an untimely tragedy. was a miserable hateful prick who smoked died of cancer at a very late age in life.

While I wont go out of my way to mock the situation it's really not a moment of grief. Reminds me of this old Onion piece.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Xaios

BenjaminW said:


> View attachment 90300
> 
> Lol mad cause broke party lines and went with what he thought was a right choice.
> 
> Also, the lionization of Trump within the GOP or at least within the part of the GOP that is still loyal to him is insane. I didn't know he magically grew wings and a halo once he ran for President and was President.


GOP voters just love losers. The Confederacy, Nazis, and now Trump. All great big losers, all loved by the GOP base.


----------



## Ralyks

No shit.


----------



## diagrammatiks

has Ted Cruz been possessed. did he find real Jesus?


----------



## mbardu

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I know it’s difficult to find empathy for people like Rush that spread so much hate and bigotry. But we should still strive to turn the other cheek, Rush was not a good person. But death is nothing I wish on my worst enemy. And I’ve had some very very bad things happen to me directly caused by other peoples malice. I know you have too, based on what you’ve shared on the forum. I wish you the best and I always enjoy reading your posts. RIP Rush. I hope you’re able to find the peace in death that escaped you in life.
> The point I’m struggling to make here is that it takes more of our energy to hold a grudge and not let things go, than it is to forgive and forget. In these trying times I wish all of us to lighten our burdens as much as we can.



I agree with you in general and in principle, but this is the same argument of "absolute tolerance" that leads to the typical example of "you should even be accepting of neo-nazis and their beliefs". If you tolerate intolerance, you're not necessarily serving the greater good. Neither pragmatically, nor morally.

I don't think Rush needs to find "peace" in the afterlife. Like many people in his camp and many Republican voters that sadly support them, I'm 99% sure he suffered from the typical and literally clinical sociopathic trait of having no capacity for empathy. It's not even rare, there's like 30% of the population in that situation.
So while you and I try to identify with others and understand his circumstances in particular, he only thought of himself. That's why he doesn't need to "find peace". I truly believe that framing it that way is people with empathy projecting their own bias onto people without. Which is the normal thing to do when you're not a sociopath! But I'm pretty sure Rush was at peace and happy with all his $$$s and cult following. Reveling in his hate rather than suffering from it. So I don't necessarily feel bad for him on that front.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> has Ted Cruz been possessed. did he find real Jesus?



He's just keeping a low profile while on vacation.

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/2/17/2016734/-While-Texas-Freezes-Ted-Cruz-Vacays-in-Cancun


----------



## Wuuthrad

Simply put- taxation without representation and institutional racism, to name a couple.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> As a lifelong New Yorker, I hate that guy.


As someone who has watched Cuomo from afar, I'm not exactly a fan either. There was a moment where it looked like he was handling the pandemic better than most government officials, but it turns out some of that was smoke and mirrors. Not exactly a huge shock, but it feels like something's been put back to right finding out about it so I no longer have to have that icky feeling of thinking he's done something right.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> As someone who has watched Cuomo from afar, I'm not exactly a fan either. There was a moment where it looked like he was handling the pandemic better than most government officials, but it turns out some of that was smoke and mirrors. Not exactly a huge shock, but it feels like something's been put back to right finding out about it so I no longer have to have that icky feeling of thinking he's done something right.


This basically perfectly describes my feelings about Doug Ford. For quite a while, he seemed to be taking the pandemic seriously. Then he remembered that he's Doug Ford and Ontario's pandemic response did a big ole' faceplant.

Still, it _is_ nice to have some continuity again, a steadfast pillar in a sea of uncertainty.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> As someone who has watched Cuomo from afar, I'm not exactly a fan either. There was a moment where it looked like he was handling the pandemic better than most government officials, but it turns out some of that was smoke and mirrors. Not exactly a huge shock, but it feels like something's been put back to right finding out about it so I no longer have to have that icky feeling of thinking he's done something right.



Honestly, his initial response was very good. It bit SF and NYC exclusively at first, and it was like an atomic bomb. There was only so much he could do with the initial event with population density and lack of any protocols to employ immediately, but the response was good. 

Getting the hospital bed capacity cranked up, doing the tailored shutdowns and the mask mandate honestly made the best of a bad situation and likely saved a ton of lives. 

Pretty much all the stuff you can point to Cuomo doing "wrong" was when he was lax. All of us in NY know Cuomo is a corporatist clown, he's beholden to the mega unions and special interests, and he's got a tremendous ego. So when it looked like the federal government wasn't gonna bail NY out financially, when it looked like his friends and the lobbyist interests were standing to lose a lot of money, he reversed course and started arbitrarily deciding what was open and not based on cherry picked recommendations or out of thin air. 

It should trigger a million alarms when Cuomo said for months that he wasn't going to let nursing home turn away COVID positive residents because "that was the CDC guideline" when he was all vocally refusing to do tons of things being sent to him by the federal government because of his distrust of the Trump administration. But sending Covid positive people into understaffed facilities into a population with a 90% mortality rate from exposure was supposed to make sense? 

And the main crux of this scandal shouldn't be that he lied/delayed releasing those numbers. It's that they specifically held off any deaths that happened from a person in a nursing home that was rushed to a hospital and died. Which is pertinent because that wasn't some impossible to tally number, they knew it was happening in real time but they refused to change the policy so they allowed it to go on to the tune of probably losing another 8000+ lives they could have saved. But he was to arrogant to confront the optics of reversing policy.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> This basically perfectly describes my feelings about Doug Ford. For quite a while, he seemed to be taking the pandemic seriously. Then he remembered that he's Doug Ford and Ontario's pandemic response did a big ole' faceplant.
> 
> Still, it _is_ nice to have some continuity again, a steadfast pillar in a sea of uncertainty.



The main thing people should take away in NY's case is that Cuomo's brand early on was that he was the guy that was super strict and willing to close everything, mandate masks, etc. And that was actually the approach that worked.

It just turned out he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and arbitrarily started loosening restrictions in places where they should've stayed but his handlers didn't like them.

We still get his daily emails and they have been touting decreases for several weeks despite numbers actually going up in certain pockets. It actually really pisses me off when you get a sunny email from the Cuomo admin that includes deaths and intubation as an after thought or always includes "with preexisting medical conditions" attached to it to lighten the severity.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Rush Limbaugh is dead.
> 
> I dont usually celebrate in anyone's death, even someone as disgusting and deplorable as him.
> 
> So.


----------



## USMarine75

I wonder if Texans believe in Climate Change now? Then again, it's only an issue if you can't afford to fly to Cancun. 

Jim, you have anything to add?


----------



## SpaceDock

Sadly repubtards are saying, “it’s so cold, what happened to global warming libz?” It’s all over the Fox News comments


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> Sadly repubtards are saying, “it’s so cold, what happened to global warming libz?” It’s all over the Fox News comments



Obligatory "You know that's not what global warming means, right?" Goddammit Fox.


----------



## mbardu

Ralyks said:


> Obligatory "You know that's not what global warming means, right?" Goddammit Fox.



That's a bit on the scientists fault. "Global-warming-on-average-with-extreme-weather-in-both-directions" should never have been shortened to just "global warning".
A good chunk of the right hardly understands nuance so that's lost on them, and for those that do - they usually don't need a lot of ammo to be disingenuous, and with the "gLoBaL wArMiNg FaKe NeWs ItS cOlD" they're basically set until the end of times. Which should be fairly soon at the current pace!

"Climate change" is much better but it's too late now.


----------



## SpaceDock

When I talk to Republicans at work, I call it “Global Storming” because it normally gets a chuckle but we all agree that shit it getting weird out there and global warming/climate change brand has been associated with dem libz.


----------



## TheBlackBard




----------



## nightflameauto

So, Ted Cruz. Poor guy's having to defend himself about taking his family on vacation during the worst crisis his state has faced in years. Poor baby.

I found it particularly amusing when he was on the news this morning whining about how, "people are screaming online at me. I think that's a really sad statement about where we are right now. I mean, I don't do that to people."

Not exactly sure how he says that with a straight face. At least it's nice to see the country united in something. I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political divide that's aware of the situation that sides with Cruz. Freaking 'erebody's ready to rip him to shreds.


----------



## mbardu

nightflameauto said:


> So, Ted Cruz. Poor guy's having to defend himself about taking his family on vacation during the worst crisis his state has faced in years. Poor baby.
> 
> I found it particularly amusing when he was on the news this morning whining about how, "people are screaming online at me. I think that's a really sad statement about where we are right now. I mean, I don't do that to people."
> 
> Not exactly sure how he says that with a straight face. At least it's nice to see the country united in something. I haven't talked to a single person on either side of the political divide that's aware of the situation that sides with Cruz. Freaking 'erebody's ready to rip him to shreds.



Oh no, clearly he would _never do such a thing online.




_
I guess he's not used to people being aggressive online. 
After all, he's Canadian, and that's a place where people are usually seen as nicer and more well-mannered.


----------



## zappatton2

mbardu said:


> After all, he's Canadian, and that's a place where people are usually seen as nicer and more well-mannered.


Hey, we're _all _assholes on the internet 

Also, not sure if real, but worth a lol;


----------



## mbardu

zappatton2 said:


> Hey, we're _all _assholes on the internet
> 
> Also, not sure if real, but worth a lol;
> View attachment 90397



Not real, sadly.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> We're _all *hosers*_ on the internet, eh?
> 
> Also, not sure if real, but worth a lol;
> View attachment 90397


FTFY LOL I'm joking, no one talks like that.

Also que "If the Earth is warming up, why are my feet cold?" crowd. I've already heard at least 2 people at work unironically talking about how the arctic blast in Texas/Georgia disproves "global warming."


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> FTFY LOL I'm joking, no one talks like that.


Eh, Bob and Doug McKenzie would like a word, ya hoser.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Eh, Bob and Doug McKenzie would like a word, ya hoser.


Take off!


----------



## Bentaycanada

So it took just 10 posts the get my thread looking for non-liberals closed on here. It took only 9 posts, for a member to scream “canceled them!” from being triggered.

Holy sh*t, talk about an echo chamber of ignorance!


----------



## SpaceDock

Bentaycanada said:


> So it took just 10 posts the get my thread looking for non-liberals closed on here. It took only 9 posts, for a member to scream “canceled them!” from being triggered.
> 
> Holy sh*t, talk about an echo chamber of ignorance!



I think it was the “liberalspoogeking” trash that got ya buddy, not that people aren’t willing to have a conversation.


----------



## Bentaycanada

SpaceDock said:


> I think it was the “liberalspoogeking” trash that got ya buddy, not that people aren’t willing to have a conversation.



I politely asked liberals to stay out, and he just couldn’t help himself. So what was I supposed to do?


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I politely asked liberals to stay out, and he just couldn’t help himself. So what was I supposed to do?



Well sorry to burst your bubble, but your endeavor was doomed from the start. if you're not open to discussion, then there's little point in opening a discussion thread - which is why I suspect it was closed.

If you want to discuss politics, the politics topic is open, and I'm sure everyone will be willing to answer with respect and in good faith. Absolutely willing to debate if you have arguments to your cause. On the other hand, if you want a safe space echo chamber, I'm sure the OAN comments or thedonald.win are still open.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Well sorry to burst your bubble, but your endeavor was doomed from the start. if you're not open to discussion, then there's little point in opening a discussion thread - which is why I suspect it was closed.
> 
> If you want to discuss politics, the politics topic is open, and I'm sure everyone will be willing to answer with respect and in good faith. Absolutely willing to debate if you have arguments to your cause. On the other hand, if you want a safe space echo chamber, I'm sure the OAN comments or thedonald.win are still open.



That didn’t take much! We’re already at “he’s not a liberal, so he must be MAGA or QAnon”. *shrugs*


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> That didn’t take much! We’re already at “he’s not a liberal, so he must be MAGA or QAnon”. *shrugs*



Didn't say anything of the sort or any personal attack. Just listing options. Those are just examples of places which systematically censor liberal-speak if you don't want to look at it. Even in places like "r/rconservative" sometimes there's the occasional liberal thoughts (as in people saying Covid is a real thing and maybe the Republicans shouldn't have encouraged insurrection as blatantly) "sneaking in" when they don't censor fast enough 

Again, I guarantee 100% that reasonable and respectful conservative speech (like any speech) is allowed and encouraged in the politics thread if you're open to that. But I'm not sure SSO is a safe space for *_conservatives_*.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bentaycanada said:


> liberal liberal liberal liberal Liberal





Bentaycanada said:


> Liberal





Bentaycanada said:


> liberal liberals





Bentaycanada said:


> liberals





Bentaycanada said:


> liberals





Bentaycanada said:


> liberal


----------



## narad

He's just using it liberally...


----------



## mmr007

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the characterization of gloabal warming and it morphing into global climate change and extreme weather. I think that has diluted the argument. It may be a successful strategy in the long run but it misses the urgency of the matter. I for one, even as a liberal, don't care if there is extreme weather or prolonged fire seasons...I mean I do but even having lived most of my life in California my sympathy has its limits. California is a desert. It doesn't have the water resources or climate to support 40 million people who want their lawn to look like they live in Bali. When we talk about climate change we again, dilute the impending doom of the fact...

...the ice caps are melting! Like...away. And as they get smaller and smaller there is less and less huge blankets of white stuff to reflect the sun's heat. The oceans getting warmer is what matters. It is killing off coral and plankton and guess what....over 70% of the earths oxygen comes from plankton....not trees in the rainforest. That is all that matters

Anyway, sorry but it has bothered me for sometime that people say well we had 5 major hurricanes this summer and last year we only had 4 and so...global climate change = extreme weather....fire season lasted 2 months longer than last year so climate change = extreme weather. These things are true but are really insignificant and detract from the truly concerning spectre on the horizon. I think we need to stick to global warming...not global extreme weather


----------



## Bentaycanada

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 90417



OK, I’ll stop. That’s just wrong.


----------



## BlackSG91

Bentaycanada said:


> OK, I’ll stop. That’s just wrong.












;>)/


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## diagrammatiks

Bentaycanada said:


> So it took just 10 posts the get my thread looking for non-liberals closed on here. It took only 9 posts, for a member to scream “canceled them!” from being triggered.
> 
> Holy sh*t, talk about an echo chamber of ignorance!



oarler is back bro


----------



## Bentaycanada

diagrammatiks said:


> oarler is back bro



I don’t know what that is. Again, not some QAnon, 2nd time now, was literally asking for more centre right members, to get their opinions on questions.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Bentaycanada said:


> I don’t know what that is. Again, not some QAnon, 2nd time now, was literally asking for more centre right members, to get their opinions on questions.



is that what you think you did in your op?


----------



## Xaios

Bentaycanada said:


> I politely asked liberals to stay out


Oh really? Let's see.


Bentaycanada said:


> It'd be nice to read some posts without liberal spooge all over it.


Wow, such politeness. I admire your restraint, that must have been difficult.

Let's look at another.


Bentaycanada said:


> Why are no liberal media outlets reporting on the Andrew Cuomo nursing home deaths cover up?


This literally took 10 seconds to find:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...-nursing-homes-covid-deaths-jones-pkg-vpx.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/17/opinions/cuomo-covid-nursing-home-deaths-rodgers/index.html


Bentaycanada said:


> So what was I supposed to do?


You could have engaged constructively, and, insofar as might have been possible, attempt to refute his points. Instead, you wrote...


Bentaycanada said:


> #liberalspoogeking - please go away! Come on, where are my NOT liberals?


Anyways, let's take a gander at another gem.


Bentaycanada said:


> Holy sh*t, talk about an echo chamber of ignorance!


That's rich, coming from the person who started a thread with a "No Liberals Allowed" sign.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Talk about conservative politics then? I’d like to hear some serious rational talk.


----------



## Wuuthrad

mmr007 said:


> I'm going to respectfully disagree with the characterization of gloabal warming and it morphing into global climate change and extreme weather. I think that has diluted the argument. It may be a successful strategy in the long run but it misses the urgency of the matter. I for one, even as a liberal, don't care if there is extreme weather or prolonged fire seasons...I mean I do but even having lived most of my life in California my sympathy has its limits. California is a desert. It doesn't have the water resources or climate to support 40 million people who want their lawn to look like they live in Bali. When we talk about climate change we again, dilute the impending doom of the fact...
> 
> ...the ice caps are melting! Like...away. And as they get smaller and smaller there is less and less huge blankets of white stuff to reflect the sun's heat. The oceans getting warmer is what matters. It is killing off coral and plankton and guess what....over 70% of the earths oxygen comes from plankton....not trees in the rainforest. That is all that matters
> 
> Anyway, sorry but it has bothered me for sometime that people say well we had 5 major hurricanes this summer and last year we only had 4 and so...global climate change = extreme weather....fire season lasted 2 months longer than last year so climate change = extreme weather. These things are true but are really insignificant and detract from the truly concerning spectre on the horizon. I think we need to stick to global warming...not global extreme weather



Then at some point we entire a new ice age!

Yeah Bwoi!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Random thought:

Imagine defining your political ideology as being against big gov, and then taking the word of some bs talking grifter as the absolute truth above all else as though he’s some kind of rebel King worthy of human sacrifice or some shit...

Still shaking my damn head!


----------



## Mathemagician

*sniff* 

Guys I got called a liberal spooge king. 

Whatever that is, lmao. 

Anyways, I commented asking why they tried to start a “safe space” by throwing preemptive insults. 

And I got more insults. It’s like dude was expecting to be some sort of hero fighting off haters. And when people commented politely he just stuck to his game plan of “random insults first, talk later”. 

Like, call me a “liberal” all you want but I consistently make good points about the topics I choose to discuss. 

And I also don’t tell people to talk to the hand & whine that they aren’t allowed to also participate. 

There’s one politics thread, you don’t need to fish for an echo chamber for yourself. 

Wish you nothing but the best homie, but you have to know how cartoonish your post was. Kind of hard to not assume you were just trolling.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mathemagician said:


> liberal spooge king



That's user title material.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Mathemagician said:


> Wish you nothing but the best homie, but you have to know how cartoonish your post was. Kind of hard to not assume you were just trolling.



hE wAs bEiNg SaRcAsTiC


----------



## BlackSG91

Bentaycanada said:


> I don’t know what that is. Again, not some QAnon, 2nd time now, was literally asking for more centre right members, to get their opinions on questions.



He or she meant 'Parler'...you know the online echo-chamber forum that got taken down for a while due to inciting right-wing rhetoric and members declared 'Civil War' and also the deadly insurrection on January 6th, 2021. Well it's back up and good news...your cult of personality leader McDonald O.J. Trump will be joining up and you can fraternize with him and other white-nationalists to plan another failed coup on the government in order to protect your ever-so-precious white-privileges. Say hello to Karen for me.


;>)/


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Mathemagician said:


> Guys I got called a liberal spooge king.



Thats what she said! Isn’t there a pill for that?


----------



## narad

Mathemagician said:


> *sniff*
> 
> Guys I got called a liberal spooge king.
> 
> Whatever that is, lmao.



It's a group of liberal spooges whose tails have become entangled.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> It's a group of liberal spooges whose tails have become entangled.



You're thinking democRATS.


----------



## zappatton2

Has anyone thought of "*Demon*crat" yet? That ought'a win a measured, good faith debate on the fiscal quarter budget.


----------



## Mathemagician

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/feb/19/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-calls-for-full-investigat/

Sharing this link about progressives calling for insight into the nursing homes. 

I think an issue is that some news networks that the “dog with a bone” approach. They choose a single headline and hammer it home for weeks. This makes it seem to viewers like it’s the single most important thing in the world. 

In reality there are hundreds of “the single most important thing in the world” so the news stations keep reporting on all the different things going on. While other stations sit on the same handful of issues for weeks. It can lead to some very different perceptions/world views over time.


----------



## TedEH

Why are people always asking "where are the non-liberals?" They aren't hard to find - they've become the new vegans: proudly announcing themselves everywhere they go.

Seriously though, there's plenty of varied viewpoints around here if you look for 'em.


----------



## Wuuthrad

TedEH said:


> Why are people always asking "where are the non-liberals?" They aren't hard to find - they've become the new vegans: proudly announcing themselves everywhere they go.
> 
> Seriously though, there's plenty of varied viewpoints around here if you look for 'em.



I’m still wondering why someone like Biden 
is even called a liberal he’s pretty conservative! 

Also never defined myself by any political slogans, except I might say I’m independent from time to time.

I’m genuinely interested in some rational conservative ideology that isn’t part of the Democratic Party, but it’s not that easy to find!

I can find a lot more fun making fun of the hypocrisy of the Republican Party, its almost a necessity as it’s become so twisted and perverse, it’s like a catharsis of sorts to take the mind off of how fucked up shit really is.


----------



## thebeesknees22

In the eyes of Republicans all Democrats are liberal when really the party varies quite a lot in it's views. The only point of the Republican party now is to just do the opposite of what anyone in the Democrat party says or does. 

...which... leaves Republicans with very few options on what to stand for... hence they've become the party that stands for nothing, does nothing, and cares for nothing...because that's the only option left when you put yourself in a position where you automatically do the opposite of what the other side does.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Things are just skewed so far to the right in this country that you have to be damn near fascist to decry anything as overly "liberal". Move the majority of leadership in the Democratic Party to almost any other western democracy and you'd have just-to-the-right centrists. 

Progressive views on climate change, healthcare, and the purpose of the state are the norm just about everywhere but here. 

So when someone assumes they're "center right" when just trying to further fascist-driven naritives of media distrust and collusion and kick shins over party identity, you can pretty much assume they either have an axe to grind, are being disingenuous, and/or have no idea what they're actually talking about.


----------



## mmr007

thebeesknees22 said:


> In the eyes of Republicans all Democrats are liberal when really the party varies quite a lot in it's views. The only point of the Republican party now is to just do the opposite of what anyone in the Democrat party says or does.
> 
> ...which... leaves Republicans with very few options on what to stand for... hence they've become the party that stands for nothing, does nothing, and cares for nothing...because that's the only option left when you put yourself in a position where you automatically do the opposite of what the other side does.



It was a while back they did some studies and polling about the average republican voter and what they want to see their elected officials do for them and they couldn't come up with policy objectives that helped them. They just wanted the republican officials to make democrats mad because in their mind it meant that they were actually accomplishing something good....so if re-allowing banned pesticides on fruits pissed off libtards then republican voters were for it.

Anyway, enough posting on this thread for today. I have to improve the fencing downstairs...one of the free range children in the basement of my pizza parlor almost escaped and boy would they have a story to tell. Most of the children are chained up making covid masks until Biden and AOC are done milking this fake virus pandemic to appease Tom Hanks. Once that is over they'll make good slave labor for making replacement parts for the jewish space laser cannons...so much to do. So liitle time


----------



## BlackSG91

The Retrumplicans new motto or mantra is not to vote your conscience or to do the right thing...just drink the Kool-Aid and follow party lines according to Washington County PA GOP chair David Ball.




;>)/


----------



## mbardu




----------



## mbardu

Additionally, if you think that those democrats are doing it only to make the Repubs you support look bad, then:

What does it say about you that you are incapable of even imagining other human beings capable of empathy and positive thoughts & actions?
What does it say about the Republicans you support if people supporting others makes them look bad?


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Xaios

Ted Cruz is just living his fantasy of one day being Vice President. In particular, the one from The Day After Tomorrow.


----------



## mastapimp

In case anyone forgot that Ron DeSantis is a fucking tool: Ron DeSantis on Rush Limbaugh: Governor will order flags flown at half-staff to honor controversial radio host (msn.com)


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90477
> View attachment 90478
> View attachment 90479


It’s like the dog when it’s misbehaving ! “Go on and git to yer crate!”


----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...ow-he-owes-dollar16752/ar-BB1dRHYQ?li=BBnb7Kz

FREE MARKET BABY!!!!!! Capitalism Rules!!!!! Regulations Suck!!!!!

$16,000 for one week of electricity


----------



## thebeesknees22

Fuuuuuuuu......that's insane.

*ted cruz books another vacation


----------



## mbardu

thebeesknees22 said:


> Fuuuuuuuu......that's insane.
> 
> *ted cruz books another vacation



No he's currently busy tweeting pictures of himself loading a single car with one pack of water bottles in a random undisclosed absolutely empty parking lot with nobody around.

What a Saint.


----------



## thebeesknees22

lol I saw that

what a joke...


----------



## mbardu

thebeesknees22 said:


> lol I saw that
> 
> what a joke...



_Totally_ not staged. How can people believe that BS, seriously...


----------



## Wuuthrad

mmr007 said:


> Capitalism Rules!!!!!



Like a Mighty Sledgehammer forged from Human Bones, coiled in repose, waiting to Crush Any and All it’s Detractors! 



mmr007 said:


> Regulations Suck



-the Lifeblood of the Ruling Vampires!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mbardu

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90504



If only. Right now they're blaming windmills so not quite  ...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> If only. Right now they're blaming windmills so not quite  ...



There's a Don Quixote joke in there somewhere.


----------



## spudmunkey

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a Don Quixote joke in there somewhere.



That's definitely already been the subject of several quality memes.


----------



## MFB

MaxOfMetal said:


> There's a Don Quixote joke in there somewhere.



Careful now, with a name like Quixote they'd love nothing more than to also blame an immigrant for their problems as much as the windmills


----------



## sleewell

did you guys see that biden had his goons go door to door this weekend to round up all the guns?

it was exactly how the right predicted. he is coming for all the guns and will take them all. pretty crazy i mean they said it would happen when obama was elected but i guess they got it right this time. 





hahahahahahaha people are so fucking stupid.


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> did you guys see that biden had his goons go door to door this weekend to round up all the guns?
> 
> it was exactly how the right predicted. he is coming for all the guns and will take them all. pretty crazy i mean they said it would happen when obama was elected but i guess they got it right this time.
> 
> Wayne LaPierre loved the Obama presidency. Most guns and ammo ever sold and the most NRA memberships. (Although who knows, because Trump's call to war night have set a new record?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahahahaha people are so fucking stupid.


----------



## diagrammatiks

shit dude you don't even need guns to take over the government. 

you just need like a few hundred angry dudes, bear mace, and some zip ties.


----------



## SpaceDock

French revolutionaries didn’t need guns, not sure why anyone thinks guns are required for “armed insurrection.”


----------



## MaxOfMetal

diagrammatiks said:


> you just need like a few hundred angry white dudes, bear mace, and some zip ties.



FTFY


----------



## USMarine75

diagrammatiks said:


> shit dude you don't even need guns to take over the government.
> 
> you just need like a few hundred angry dudes, bear mace, and some zip ties.





MaxOfMetal said:


> FTFY



... and one useful idiot.


----------



## Bentaycanada

Couldn't respond to the bevy of responses because too many snowflakes cried to the admins. *slow clap*

I'd take DeSantos over Cuomo or Newsome any day. Florida didn't destroy their own economy, whilst hiding literal bodies in the closet, while their sycophant media covered for them.

Also, stop gaslighting with Texas. New York and CNN are openly complicit in hiding 9.000 nursing home deaths, and somehow Texas is the news story. Yeah, sure thing pal!

Lastly, you've gotta love the ridiculous closure of the Keystone Pipeline, just to then push the Taliban pipeline again, it's like we've jumped back to 2001. Standard operating procedure for any America hating Dem, kill off American jobs, move those jobs to foreign shitty country, call anyone who disagrees a "waaacist".

Just remember, Joe's VP called him a "waacist" and a "waapist" on live TV, then the senile old bat offered her a job. Are we taking bets when Joe will step down, and the real president Harris will be confirmed?

Yes, that's a play on Kamala's pathetic "fweedom" story she's lifted from MLK Jr. Scumbag.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## thraxil

Supreme Court finally rules that the Manhattan DA can subpoena Trump's tax returns:

https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-trump-taxes-bd5e2384-8403-4ca0-89a0-feab1992be5c.html


----------



## diagrammatiks

Bentaycanada said:


> Couldn't respond to the bevy of responses because too many snowflakes cried to the admins. *slow clap*
> 
> I'd take DeSantos over Cuomo or Newsome any day. Florida didn't destroy their own economy, whilst hiding literal bodies in the closet, while their sycophant media covered for them.
> 
> Also, stop gaslighting with Texas. New York and CNN are openly complicit in hiding 9.000 nursing home deaths, and somehow Texas is the news story. Yeah, sure thing pal!
> 
> Lastly, you've gotta love the ridiculous closure of the Keystone Pipeline, just to then push the Taliban pipeline again, it's like we've jumped back to 2001. Standard operating procedure for any America hating Dem, kill off American jobs, move those jobs to foreign shitty country, call anyone who disagrees a "waaacist".
> 
> Just remember, Joe's VP called him a "waacist" and a "waapist" on live TV, then the senile old bat offered her a job. Are we taking bets when Joe will step down, and the real president Harris will be confirmed?
> 
> Yes, that's a play on Kamala's pathetic "fweedom" story she's lifted from MLK Jr. Scumbag.



those are certainly words.


----------



## sleewell

the gop cares about covid deaths now???

man that would have been helpful a year ago.


----------



## mastapimp

diagrammatiks said:


> those are certainly words.


Nobody tell him that Max and Igor hate Trump.


----------



## BigViolin

Lol at the average Joes bouncing on the dick of big oil.


----------



## bostjan

Bentaycanada said:


> Also, stop gaslighting with Texas. New York and CNN are openly complicit in hiding 9.000 nursing home deaths, and somehow Texas is the news story. Yeah, sure thing pal!


Can't do any gaslighting in Texas right now, the gas pipelines are all frozen.

I understand that you are nervous that this regieme of democrats will not be held responsible for their misdeeds. I have the same fears. Mainly because the last regime freely raized hell and faced zero consequences until the election. It was a very dangerous precedent to set.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mastapimp said:


> Nobody tell him that Max and Igor hate Trump.



Third time now, I'm not a Trumper. Are you a socialist race-baiting Commie? I doubt it. 



bostjan said:


> Can't do any gaslighting in Texas right now, the gas pipelines are all frozen.
> 
> I understand that you are nervous that this regieme of democrats will not be held responsible for their misdeeds. I have the same fears. Mainly because the last regime freely raized hell and faced zero consequences until the election. It was a very dangerous precedent to set.



I think that's miles better than I could put it. The fallout of 2020 on the last admin was massive, and did they deserve it? Sure! However, we need to see a standard that applies to both sides, and with the mainstream media pearl necklacing everything Biden/Harris say or do, then that's not going to happen. 

That was some good humour about Texas, I just fail to see how Ted Cruz making a terrible mistake for 1 day, and paying for it almost instantly is even comparable Cuomo doing CNN Prime Time with his brother for months on end, writing a bestselling book, and being awarded an Emmy, all while he hid 9K deaths of his residents that he was largely responsible for.


----------



## vilk

You might claim that you're not a Trumper, but your behavior on this forum is absolutely indistinguishable from one.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I think that's miles better than I could put it. The fallout of 2020 on the last admin was massive, and did they deserve it? Sure! However, we need to see a standard that applies to both sides, and with the mainstream media pearl necklacing everything Biden/Harris say or do, then that's not going to happen.



hahahahahahaha   

Rules and standards applying equally to Republicans and Democrats, seriously? 

Like, no accountability for attack on US soil on the capitol with 5 deaths, but millions and thousands of hours for Ben Gazi?

Like, Al Franken resigning for alleged bad taste jokes vs the GOP supporting people like Roy Moore without a second thought?

Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump?

Like, destroying the budget and exploding the deficit like never before with tax cuts for the rich, begging for stimulus checks, but crying about the deficit the moment democrats come in power?

Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it?

Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church?

Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet?

Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over?

Jeeeez, would be nice if _any_ standard at all applied to Republicans/Conservatives... that would be a start , let alone the same standards applying to democrats.

PS: if you're here trying to build a strawman as if people were supporting Cuomo, that's too bad. You won't see "liberals" defending shitty democrats like their life depended on it - that's really more of a conservative thing.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> That was some good humour about Texas, I just fail to see how Ted Cruz making a terrible mistake for 1 day, and paying for it almost instantly is even comparable Cuomo doing CNN Prime Time with his brother for months on end, writing a bestselling book, and being awarded an Emmy, all while he hid 9K deaths of his residents that he was largely responsible for.



Cuomo was shit and if it was as bad as they say, he should face consequences. When it comes to that, liberals will not be supporting him.

Trump was orders of magnitudes worse. He denied the epidemic for months. Lied and said it would go away quickly since day one. He turned Covid and mask-wearing into a political macho game which his 40% of cult-followers took at heart, and that's directly responsible for now the 500 thousand deaths in the US. I'm not here to play whataboutism agaqinst Trump specifically, but just to ask, how did "his side" take it? Well conservatives in majority still support him, and Republicans in majority still voted for him. Half the conservatives apparently would happily join a Trump party if he were to create one. Talk about a cult.

The contrast is pretty stark. Seriously, what standards if any apply to conservatives? When have they held one of their own accountable for shit?


----------



## mastapimp

Bentaycanada said:


> Third time now, I'm not a Trumper. Are you a socialist race-baiting Commie? I doubt it.





vilk said:


> You might claim that you're not a Trumper, but your behavior on this forum is absolutely indistinguishable from one.


I checked out his facebook page, and I actually believe that he's not a trumper. Some overlap with the thin blue line stuff, but he does have great taste in horror movies. I had him pegged wrong, i'm sorry.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Cuomo was shit and if it was as bad as they say, he should face consequences. When it comes to that, liberals will not be supporting him.
> 
> Trump was orders of magnitudes worse. He denied the epidemic for months. Lied and said it would go away quickly since day one. He turned Covid and mask-wearing into a political macho game which his 40% of cult-followers took at heart, and that's directly responsible for now the 500 thousand deaths in the US. And how did "his side" take it? Conservatives in majority still support him, and Republicans in majority still voted for him.
> 
> The contrast is pretty stark. Seriously, what standards if any apply to conservatives? When have they held one of their own accountable for shit?



There's a lot there in 2 posts worth, but once again, I'm not defending Trump. You need to get past that. You won't find me defending Trump especially in regards to COVID. The difference is everyone and their dog was aware of Trump's failings, and why? because everyone covered it! Unlike anything on Dems, be it Hunter Biden, Cuomo, Newsome, BLM "not riots"..... nothing but full on covering up by the media for their candidate. Hence the term "gaslighting".

Also, I fail to see how 5 people dying as a result of Jan 6th (as the only intentional death was a MAGA supporter who was shot), is in any way comparable to the 19 deaths committed by BLM rioters over the course of 8 months, and never reported on.
What was Fredo's line? "Since when do protests have to be peaceful?!!!". Nice one Fredo.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> There's a lot there in 2 posts worth, but once again, I'm not defending Trump. You need to get past that. You won't find me defending Trump especially in regards to COVID. The difference is everyone and their dog was aware of Trump's failings, and why? because everyone covered it! Unlike anything on Dems, be it Hunter Biden, Cuomo, Newsome, BLM "not riots"..... nothing but full on covering up by the media for their candidate. Hence the term "gaslighting".



You're not very clear what you support or don't support and I didn't pin that on you. However it's clear the large majority of conservatives and republicans do support Trump. You must be a rare conservative I guess, and by all means, do feel free to voice your proposals.



Bentaycanada said:


> Also, I fail to see how 5 people dying as a result of Jan 6th (as the only intentional death was a MAGA supporter who was shot), is in any way comparable to the 19 deaths committed by BLM rioters over the course of 8 months, and never reported on.
> What was Fredo's line? "Since when do protests have to be peaceful?!!!". Nice one Fredo.



Oh, yeah literal sedition, assaulting the Capitol, the literal heart of US democracy, in order to try to overturn the constitutional process .... that's definitely like looting a Kmart, am I right? Did anyone on the left say the looting didn't happen btw? Or that it was a proud Boys false flag (like conservatives are blaming the Capitol on the mythical "antifa")? Did Biden say the looters were beautiful people he loved very much? I don't think so, and if you watch anything that's not FOXNews/OANN/NewsMax, you'd see he denounced violence every single time. Have you seen anyone on the left celebrate any one of those 19 (don't know where you get that number but OK) looting-related deaths by the way? Because the conservatives also by and large support people like Kyle Rittenhouse, who largely caused those deaths. Even going as far as paying his bond for him to go sign autographs in bars for killing liberals.

Anyway, yeah I put a lot of examples above. Glad to see you didn't even try to counter anything. No reply on any of the double standards, and quite happily deciding to move the goalposts - so after all, I guess you're still fairly typical as far as conservatives go at the end of the day


----------



## mmr007

I am getting tired of this constant false equivalency between Trump encouraging his rioters to do ONE THING ONLY and that was overtake the capital to stop the certification of the election results and democrat leaders who did not support looting and death but did support the very understandable and necessary goals of BLM. I wasn't glued to the news but did I miss Bernie Sanders tweeting in way that encouraged violent protestors to kill so they don't lose their country? Even if NOBODY died in either case, they are not the same thing. Get off that false narrative. And the reason that the media didn't cover the so called "antifa" antics of the left during the summer of protests is because the actions of the cops were so much worse. We saw video of cops running over protestors. We saw cops teargasssing peaceful protestors for no reason. We saw unmarked law enforcement with no ID grab people off the streets and throw them without arrest or miranda into unmarked vans. That was scarier.

And I'm sorry if the protests during the summer weren't peaceful but they were justified...as far as the anger. Republicans got butt hurt when any athlete knelt during the national anthem because that somehow disrepected a flag (that was clearly meant to beat police with to stop the steal) and said that that level of protest is too disgraceful so it rings a little hollow when apparently no level of protest is allowed because it all makes you cry. Republicans bitched and moaned incessantly about peaceful protest. Pence showed up to a game and marched out (preplanned) just to gripe about kneeling to bring attention to violence against blacks....and btw the whole fucking world prosted as well demanding that America please get its shit together.

Stop the what aboutism.


----------



## mmr007

mbardu said:


> hahahahahahaha
> 
> Rules and standards applying equally to Republicans and Democrats, seriously?
> 
> Like, no accountability for attack on US soil on the capitol with 5 deaths, but millions and thousands of hours for Ben Gazi?
> 
> Like, Al Franken resigning for alleged bad taste jokes vs the GOP supporting people like Roy Moore without a second thought?
> 
> Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump?
> 
> Like, destroying the budget and exploding the deficit like never before with tax cuts for the rich, begging for stimulus checks, but crying about the deficit the moment democrats come in power?
> 
> Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it?
> 
> Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church?
> 
> Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet?
> 
> Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over?
> 
> Jeeeez, would be nice if _any_ standard at all applied to Republicans/Conservatives... that would be a start , let alone the same standards applying to democrats.
> 
> PS: if you're here trying to build a strawman as if people were supporting Cuomo, that's too bad. You won't see "liberals" defending shitty democrats like their life depended on it - that's really more of a conservative thing.



This should be the introductory paragraph on every document...ever, moving forward....related or not. If you are applying for a driver's license this should be on the top of the application...if you are ordering vitamins online this should be in the checkout description, if you are applying for an auto loan this .....


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> You're not very clear what you support or don't support and I didn't pin that on you. However it's clear the large majority of conservatives and republicans do support Trump. You must be a rare conservative I guess, and by all means, do feel free to voice your proposals.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah literal sedition, assaulting the Capitol, the literal heart of US democracy, in order to try to overturn the constitutional process .... that's definitely like looting a Kmart, am I right? Did anyone on the left say the looting didn't happen btw? Or that it was a proud Boys false flag (like conservatives are blaming the Capitol on the mythical "antifa")? Did Biden say the looters were beautiful people he loved very much? I don't think so, and if you watch anything that's not FOXNews/OANN/NewsMax, you'd see he denounced violence every single time. Have you seen anyone on the left celebrate any one of those 19 (don't know where you get that number but OK) looting-related deaths by the way? Because the conservatives also by and large support people like Kyle Rittenhouse, who largely caused those deaths. Even going as far as paying his bond for him to go sign autographs in bars for killing liberals.
> 
> Anyway, yeah I put a lot of examples above. Glad to see you didn't even try to counter anything. No reply on any of the double standards, and quite happily deciding to move the goalposts - so after all, I guess you're still fairly typical as far as conservatives go at the end of the day



I will answer your points, I’m simply stating there’s a lot there, and I will get to them.

Also stop doing the conspiracy thing, we’re not all Trumpers, Proud Boys or QAnon. It’s beyond boring!

How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people out of 70+ million are really a problem. Not to mention they have all been arrested and charged. Unlike the 8 months of burning, looting and murdering, where the current VP tweeted ways to bail out rapists and criminals. Which was pushed to the extreme by your media zealots. Did you see the same from R? Nope. So stop.

Lastly, you need to stop using terms like “double standard”, “move the goalposts”. You don’t have the credentials to use them. Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you. It’s called actions have consequences, you’ll learn.


----------



## vilk

Bentaycanada said:


> How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people



Now ask: How many Nazis were at the Beer Hall Putsch?

Yeah, 2000 people.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bentaycanada said:


> Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you.



Minimizing the police officers killed, maimed, beaten, and intimidated at the Captial siege makes your Blue Lives Matter shtick seem pretty disingenuous.


----------



## TedEH

Bentaycanada said:


> You don’t have the credentials to use them.


Wait, credentials? And what are your own credentials? (Outside of having a colourful vocabulary to use against people on the internet)


----------



## mmr007

Bentaycanada said:


> I will answer your points, I’m simply stating there’s a lot there, and I will get to them.
> 
> Also stop doing the conspiracy thing, we’re not all Trumpers, Proud Boys or QAnon. It’s beyond boring!
> 
> How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people out of 70+ million are really a problem. Not to mention they have all been arrested and charged. Unlike the 8 months of burning, looting and murdering, where the current VP tweeted ways to bail out rapists and criminals. Which was pushed to the extreme by your media zealots. Did you see the same from R? Nope. So stop.
> 
> Lastly, you need to stop using terms like “double standard”, “move the goalposts”. You don’t have the credentials to use them. Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you. It’s called actions have consequences, you’ll learn.



Ok...let me ask then...what do you want? I'm not asking in a condescending tone but genuine. What do you want, both in this thread and in your politics? You say you don't support Trump or Qanon but you seemingly despise liberals and got upset when they showed up in the now closed thread. So again, I ask, what do you want?

Pick an issue or two, not related to Trump, that you beileve that your views are being drowned out by liberals and liberal media and you would like your voice heard in the guitar community. I would gladly have a nonargumentative conversation with you (I may disagree but I will try to avoid argumentation). What do you know, that you wish we knew with your level of understanding that we can discuss?


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I will answer your points, I’m simply stating there’s a lot there, and I will get to them.
> 
> Also stop doing the conspiracy thing, we’re not all Trumpers, Proud Boys or QAnon. It’s beyond boring!
> 
> How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people out of 70+ million are really a problem. Not to mention they have all been arrested and charged.



During a pandemic, very difficult to travel, people struggling economically - yet finding 2000 people fanatic enough to not go to work, fly to DC and actually go in and attack the Capitol is actually pretty shocking. And that's assuming it was only 2000, but let's say it was. All arrested you say? Most of them have clearly _*not*_ been arrested and charged, so first of all that's a blatant lie. But even those charged have been released on bail, traveling to Mexico on vacation (a theme with conservatives!) or those who have not been bailed out are in fancy jail with organic food. Such harsh treatment!



Bentaycanada said:


> Unlike the 8 months of burning, looting and murdering, where the current VP tweeted ways to bail out rapists and criminals. Which was pushed to the extreme by your media zealots. Did you see the same from R? Nope. So stop.
> 
> Lastly, you need to stop using terms like “double standard”, “move the goalposts”. You don’t have the credentials to use them. Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you. It’s called actions have consequences, you’ll learn.



Nobody serious on the left said "yeah, violence and destruction is just fine". You won't find examples of it. Fake news on OANN or NewsMax doesn't count. Cherrypicking somone saying "I understand their anger" does not equate to the narrative that leaders on the left would supposedly say that "people have the right to loot and destroy" or other BS. That's just 100% made up.

As for bailing out criminals, not that I need to even debate it because it's just false (again you won't find someone serious saying "let's bail out all those rapists, yeah, that will show those conservatives!", so at best you're grossly deforming the truth). But if there was a debate, anyone with 2 neurons would have a way harder time justifying why Kyle is out there enjoying life and signing autographs after going to start shit and killing 2 and a half people, vs a bunch of demonstrators or even rioters who did some property damage.


----------



## zappatton2

I would like to again point out that there were also nation-wide BLM protests up here in Canada, without incidents of violence or looting. BLM was never the problem. The problem was the positively insane over-reaction by a deeply militarized police force and the usual self-styled "militia" types that show up whenever there are civil rights to be beaten down, which created an environment of violence and chaos that opportunists were able to use as a cover for looting and vandalism.

The end goal of BLM has always been to treat the lives of black citizens with the same regard as white ones, to train police on de-escalation practices, and to reallocate public resources from police budgets to social services that are better equipped to deal with mental health and addiction issues (what defunding the police means, BTW, not to cease the existence of a police force altogether).


----------



## BlackSG91

Bentaycanada said:


> There's a lot there in 2 posts worth, but once again, I'm not defending Trump. You need to get past that. You won't find me defending Trump especially in regards to COVID. The difference is everyone and their dog was aware of Trump's failings, and why? because everyone covered it! Unlike anything on Dems, be it Hunter Biden, Cuomo, Newsome, BLM "not riots"..... nothing but full on covering up by the media for their candidate. Hence the term "gaslighting".
> 
> Also, I fail to see how 5 people dying as a result of Jan 6th (as the only intentional death was a MAGA supporter who was shot), is in any way comparable to the 19 deaths committed by BLM rioters over the course of 8 months, and never reported on.
> What was Fredo's line? "Since when do protests have to be peaceful?!!!". Nice one Fredo.



You fail to see how January 6th is comparable to BLM riots? I'll have to say one thing...black people have far more reason to be angry then pumped up white-privileged MoFos who don't know how good they have it. Donny boy fed the great big lie to sooth white middle-aged men's and women's egos because they were taught when they grew up that they were the most important and most special people on this planet and when Trump lost the election white people lost their minds. I guess you can say that a Trumpie is the ultimate SNOWFLAKE!








;>)/


----------



## mbardu

zappatton2 said:


> I would like to again point out that there were also nation-wide BLM protests up here in Canada, without incidents of violence or looting.



And conversely, to add to that, looting is not limited to BLM either. Very often, when there are larger groups of people around, you will find a bunch of shitty agitators or looters in the mix trying to benefit from the confusion. Same with sporting celebrations or holidays or whatever. That's what "mostly peaceful" means by the way. 



zappatton2 said:


> BLM was never the problem. The problem was the positively insane over-reaction by a deeply militarized police force* and the usual self-styled "militia" types that show up whenever there are civil rights to be beaten down, which created an environment of violence and chaos* that opportunists were able to use as a cover for looting and vandalism.
> 
> The end goal of BLM has always been to treat the lives of black citizens with the same regard as white ones, to train police on de-escalation practices, and to reallocate public resources from police budgets to social services that are better equipped to deal with mental health and addiction issues (what defunding the police means, BTW, not to cease the existence of a police force altogether).



Not but you see, if you're white and go to start shit in pseudo-tactical gear with an itchy trigger finger, then (as _*everyone *_would have predicted) you end up killing people, you're a hero! As long as you killed liberals or black people of course. Now, if you're a liberal or black with a gun though, you should seriously go to jail. If you're not murdered by police on the spot instead (as is tradition) of course.

The logic on some people...


----------



## Bentaycanada

zappatton2 said:


> I would like to again point out that there were also nation-wide BLM protests up here in Canada, without incidents of violence or looting. BLM was never the problem. The problem was the positively insane over-reaction by a deeply militarized police force and the usual self-styled "militia" types that show up whenever there are civil rights to be beaten down, which created an environment of violence and chaos that opportunists were able to use as a cover for looting and vandalism.
> 
> The end goal of BLM has always been to treat the lives of black citizens with the same regard as white ones, to train police on de-escalation practices, and to reallocate public resources from police budgets to social services that are better equipped to deal with mental health and addiction issues (what defunding the police means, BTW, not to cease the existence of a police force altogether).



Literally complete gibberish. Go on their site and read. Please.


----------



## Bentaycanada

I like that 7 people have replied today, how do you expect 1 person to answer all those posts? Because, you don't really want them to answer. You just hate that someone isn't agreeing with you. Stop calling conspiracy theories, and gaslighting on the Capitol incident. 1 day of bullsh*t will never be comparable to 8 months of actual burning, looting and murdering nationwide.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Never mind.


----------



## zappatton2

Bentaycanada said:


> Literally complete gibberish. Go on their site and read. Please.


Okay, I went to the BLM website after your hearty recommendation. Are we looking at the same thing? Not certain I'm seeing anything particularly nefarious.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> hahahahahahaha
> 
> Rules and standards applying equally to Republicans and Democrats, seriously?
> 
> Like, no accountability for attack on US soil on the capitol with 5 deaths, but millions and thousands of hours for Ben Gazi?
> 
> Like, Al Franken resigning for alleged bad taste jokes vs the GOP supporting people like Roy Moore without a second thought?
> 
> Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump?
> 
> Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it?
> 
> Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church?
> 
> Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet?
> 
> Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over?
> 
> Jeeeez, would be nice if _any_ standard at all applied to Republicans/Conservatives... that would be a start , let alone the same standards applying to democrats.
> 
> PS: if you're here trying to build a strawman as if people were supporting Cuomo, that's too bad. You won't see "liberals" defending shitty democrats like their life depended on it - that's really more of a conservative thing.



I am going to answer these!

Like, no accountability for attack on US soil on the capitol with 5 deaths, but millions and thousands of hours for Ben Gazi? - There was a historical 2nd impeachment. Hilary should be been fired for Bengazigate, but she wasn't so?

Like, Al Franken resigning for alleged bad taste jokes vs the GOP supporting people like Roy Moore without a second thought? - I don't know what he said, so I can't say. Roy Moore was gross, and the first example of the post-Trump win elections. I'm glad he lost. 

Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump? - Sounds like your issue is with the law, Dem's didn't have the votes before, and Reps did this time. Plus she's a fantastic judge. God knows we don't need more liberal activists pretending to be judges on the supreme court. 

Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it? - Holding China accountable in trade is going to be the fight going forward, especially with their rise as a super power. That said, Trump's plan was pretty awful. 

Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church? - *shrugs* you could be describing all most anyone according to liberal opinion. 

Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet? - Again, your Trump fascination is dull and tired. 

Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over? - No idea what this is about. Cruz maybe? Who cares? 

There you go, all answered for you. Happy?


----------



## Bentaycanada

zappatton2 said:


> Okay, I went to the BLM website after your hearty recommendation. Are we looking at the same thing? Not certain I'm seeing anything particularly nefarious.



Then it's official, you cant read. Look at their "demands" section. Like they're in a position to demand anything! Don't make me laugh! Also they need to take MLK Jr off their site, they're the polar opposite of him and everyone that struggled alongside him.

That has, without a doubt, been one of the most nauseating parts of 2020. This false ideas that anyone today is fighting the fight of the civil rights era. What a load of sh*t. If that's what people believe today, then never has there been a more privileged society so willing to feel oppressed. *yawn*


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I am going to answer these!
> 
> Like, no accountability for attack on US soil on the capitol with 5 deaths, but millions and thousands of hours for Ben Gazi? - There was a historical 2nd impeachment. Hilary should be been fired for Bengazigate, but she wasn't so?
> 
> Like, Al Franken resigning for alleged bad taste jokes vs the GOP supporting people like Roy Moore without a second thought? - I don't know what he said, so I can't say. Roy Moore was gross, and the first example of the post-Trump win elections. I'm glad he lost.
> 
> Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump? - Sounds like your issue is with the law, Dem's didn't have the votes before, and Reps did this time. Plus she's a fantastic judge. God knows we don't need more liberal activists pretending to be judges on the supreme court.
> 
> Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it? - Holding China accountable in trade is going to be the fight going forward, especially with their rise as a super power. That said, Trump's plan was pretty awful.
> 
> Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church? - *shrugs* you could be describing all most anyone according to liberal opinion.
> 
> Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet? - Again, your Trump fascination is dull and tired.
> 
> Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over? - No idea what this is about. Cruz maybe? Who cares?
> 
> There you go, all answered for you. Happy?


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


>



Great, and that's why you and the rest of the mob are so triggered. How dare you have a different opinion on anything!!!!!!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

TedEH said:


> Wait, credentials? And what are your own credentials? (Outside of having a colourful vocabulary to use against people on the internet)



Stop marginalizing vocabularies of colour!!


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Great, and that's why you and the rest of the mob are so triggered. How dare you have a different opinion on anything!!!!!!



Literally every single thing you said is wrong or ironically, the very definition of triggered, so what else do you expect


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Literally every single thing you said is wrong or ironically, the very definition of triggered, so what else do you expect



Again, all you're doing is a self fulfilling prophecy. Why did it take 7 people to reply? Because you're triggered, and you hate anyone that disagrees with you. You can use all the putdowns you want, conspiracy nonsense, and talk about Trump for the next 4 years, which you undoubtedly will. It's in your nature to push out anything that's no in line with your wokeness. *pukes*


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Again, all you're doing is a self fulfilling prophecy. Why did it take 7 people to reply? Because you're triggered, and you hate anyone that disagrees with you. You can use all the putdowns you want, conspiracy nonsense, and talk about Trump for the next 4 years, which you undoubtedly will. It's in your nature to push out anything that's no in line with your wokeness. *pukes*



Triggered ... pot, meet the keetle!

Like I have asked you before, same as another poster, if you have an actual conservative argument to present, I'm sure you can get a respectful discussion going.
But you are not even attempting, because there are no real arguments in what you're saying. Only pseudo contrarian "I'm not like the others" and guttural liberal hate.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I like that 7 people have replied today, how do you expect 1 person to answer all those posts? Because, you don't really want them to answer.



Check the "Kiesel never again post", you'll see one person can _totally _answer 7 others when that person has actual arguments


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Triggered ... pot, meet the keetle!
> 
> Like I have asked you before, same as another poster, if you have an actual conservative argument to present, I'm sure you can get a respectful discussion going.
> But you are not even attempting, because there are no real arguments in what you're saying. Only pseudo contrarian "I'm not like the others" and guttural liberal hate.



Actually what's funny is you've proven why there needed to be my OP in the first place. Nearly a dozen of you haven't stopped keyboard warrior-ing since. You're so threatened by the idea that I don't agree with you, you are wrong, and you're not special. 

I brought up several subjects, and answered all your questions.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Check the "Kiesel never again post", you'll see one person can _totally _answer 7 others when that person has actual arguments



So you're saying "don't post if you don't adopt group-think". How very woke of you! *claps*

Here's a question - when is Joe ever going to do a press conference? Is he awake or even alive?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Bentaycanada said:


> So you're saying "don't post if you don't adopt group-think". How very woke of you! *claps*



I think he's saying if someone has actual points to make besides just saying the other side is wrong they can reply to the points being discussed not just simply muddy the waters with rhetoric.


----------



## mmr007

so to reiterate...pick one or two policy or society issues you feel passioante about and with which you believe the left is being unreasonable in their approach to those issues. Then lets discuss.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Actually what's funny is you've proven why there needed to be my OP in the first place. Nearly a dozen of you haven't stopped keyboard warrior-ing since. You're so threatened by the idea that I don't agree with you, you are wrong, and you're not special.
> 
> I brought up several subjects, and answered all your questions.



Again, if you're looking for a conservative safe space (as per your OP), there are plenty of those online. It's just not this. It's extremely funny to me how you don't see the irony of saying "you guys are threatened by other ideas" while being the one wishing for a place with only conservatives where you don't have to hear and suffer from the mean "liberal talk" 

Again, happy to have an actual discussion with someone who doesn't have the same point of view. That's how you grow (not by ignoring them and wishing for a safe space discussion thread...), but I'm yet to see you try to attempt that?

Your "replies" above for example? Not a single one addresses the single point I was making. That Republicans don't hold themselves to any standard. You're just moving the goalposts or talking about unrelated things because you have no argument.

That's your call, but then you don't get to pretend you're trying in good faith.



Bentaycanada said:


> So you're saying "don't post if you don't adopt group-think". How very woke of you! *claps*



I'm saying none of that. I'm saying _quite literally_, that in posts like the one I mentioned, I'm routinely debating 7 other people, I'm being attacked as a shill, and as long as I have arguments, it doesn't prevent me from presenting my point of view. Being in the minority or in the majority doesn't make you right or wrong. Having argumented respectful points does.


----------



## Bentaycanada

Dineley said:


> I think he's saying if someone has actual points to make besides just saying the other side is wrong they can reply to the points being discussed not just simply muddy the waters with rhetoric.



Hmmmm, I've been called an idiot, a racist, a white supremacist, a nazi, a Trumper, QAnon, told i'm wrong (constantly?), and belittled from the start, but I'm the one "muddying waters"?

Also, @mbardu is clearly a voice of authority here. Whatever you do, don't disagree, or he'll just verbal vomit everywhere, but apparently he disagrees with me that Roy Moore is gross. So well done!


----------



## zappatton2

Bentaycanada said:


> Then it's official, you cant read. Look at their "demands" section. Like they're in a position to demand anything! Don't make me laugh! Also they need to take MLK Jr off their site, they're the polar opposite of him and everyone that struggled alongside him.


The civil rights movement of the 60's was just as vilified then as BLM is now. And none of those demands are unreasonable, and absolutely find spirit in the struggle of MLK.



Bentaycanada said:


> That has, without a doubt, been one of the most nauseating parts of 2020. This false ideas that anyone today is fighting the fight of the civil rights era. What a load of sh*t. If that's what people believe today, then never has there been a more privileged society so willing to feel oppressed. *yawn*


 We can at least agree on this much. I see a lot of conservatives claiming to be "victims" every time they say something that can be easily discredited with facts, and people around them don't take them seriously.

Forever, the right has claimed that education, journalism, basically anything designed to "show your work" when drawing conclusions, is inherently liberal (you yourself characterized "fact-checkers" as liberal), and the fact that their talking points don't get equal access to same institutions, or that there are sometimes personal or professional consequences for aggressively spewing ignorance, as signs that their free speech and civil rights are under attack. It is bizarre to think that saying unserious things demands serious regard.


----------



## mmr007

Bentaycanada said:


> Hmmmm, I've been called an idiot, a racist, a white supremacist, a nazi, a Trumper, QAnon, told i'm wrong (constantly?), and belittled from the start, but I'm the one "muddying waters"?
> 
> Also, @mbardu is clearly a voice of authority here. Whatever you do, don't disagree, or he'll just verbal vomit everywhere.


 You set quite the aggressive tone in the original thread and let it carry over. Mbardu is not the voice of authority but seems to be the voice of reason and cogent argument so I like the posts. Again, I ask you instead of picking an online fight, present your case for some policy difference you are sure we have and lets discuss. I am open to all points of view as others here are too if presented properly


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Also, @mbardu is clearly a voice of authority here. Whatever you do, don't disagree, or he'll just verbal vomit everywhere.



Quite the opposite. The fact that most of the time, most people tend to disagree *strongly * with me around here should tell you that maybe us agreeing on some things _now _means you should maybe be a bit open minded and think about how you're coming across.

And like I and many people have now asked you, if you want to pick one topic for open minded good faith conservative discussion, go ahead. I'm sure you'd be surprised how not black-and-white the discussion can be.


----------



## Bentaycanada

zappatton2 said:


> The civil rights movement of the 60's was just as vilified then as BLM is now. And none of those demands are unreasonable, and absolutely find spirit in the struggle of MLK.
> 
> We can at least agree on this much. I see a lot of conservatives claiming to be "victims" every time they say something that can be easily discredited with facts, and people around them don't take them seriously.
> 
> Forever, the right has claimed that education, journalism, basically anything designed to "show your work" when drawing conclusions, is inherently liberal (you yourself characterized "fact-checkers" as liberal), and the fact that their talking points don't get equal access to same institutions, or that there are sometimes personal or professional consequences for aggressively spewing ignorance, as signs that their free speech and civil rights are under attack. It is bizarre to think that saying unserious things demands serious regard.



"*I have a dream* that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - MLK Jr

BLM believes in identity politics and "intersectionality" wherein you are only defined by you're immutable characteristics. Hence, the polar opposite of the civil rights movement.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> "*I have a dream* that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - MLK Jr
> 
> BLM believes in "intersectionality" wherein you are only defined by you're immutable characteristics. Hence, the polar opposite of the civil rights movement.



BLM pushes some things too far, and a lot of affirmative-action-like policies in the US are pure BS. You should be judged on merit, not based on skin color.

However, today in America:

POCs every day _are _negatively judged based on the color of their skin throughout all layers of society. Most visibly by law enforcement and the justice system, but pretty much everywhere from education to employment to housing.
As a never-ending cycle due to the above, entire communities never _get to be judged _on their merits, ever, because they are kept down in a systemic way from birth to their deathbed.
So even though there's some wrong in what some people do on behalf of BLM (as usual, there's always problems in large groups of people), you can understand why a large portion of the population is pissed.

Give everyone actual equality of opportunity (less discrimination, more childcare and education) and equality of treatment (maybe don't have cops murder unarmed black men while letting white armed double murderers go back home to sleep in their bed one state away), people would be waaaaayyyyy less pissed off.


----------



## mmr007

Ok so when people say Black Lives Matter, many on the right (Giuliani included) state incorrectly that the motto is meant to identify a uniqueness in african americans that needs to be observed, some sort of special treatment because we don't have say....asian lives matter, white lives matter etc..... But none of those races are KILLED for no reason during routine traffic stops and what not. What they are stating is their lives matter AS MUCH AS OURS. Not more...and certainly not less so we must stop seeing black death by cop as a statistic that is part of daily life.


----------



## mmr007

Also, it is important to note that EVERY organization has undesirables in it. Does BLM have some bad eggs who may be vocal but don't speak for the overall goals of the organization? Yes, but even a prestigious organization that has total control over its members like the US armed forces has had murderers, terrorists and thugs in its ranks (Tim McVeigh Maj Hasan etc...) but that does not mean you should point to the US Armed forces and say that because they are imperfect and don't have perfect members that the whole organization should be thought of as a shit organization.

Same thing with Slayer...because they've always had Kerry King people say the whole band is shit, but that too is an unfair characterization of the contributions of the rest of the band/ JK BLM is no different. They are a diverse coalition trying to achieve one purpose...don't shoot unarmed black people and don't throw black athletes out of the NFL when they call you out on your callousness towards human life and dignity


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> BLM pushes some things too far, and a lot of affirmative-action-like policies in the US are pure BS. You should be judged on merit, not based on skin color.
> 
> However, today in America:
> 
> POCs every day _are _negatively judged based on the color of their skin throughout all layers of society. Most visibly by law enforcement, but pretty much everywhere from education to housing.
> As a never-ending cycle due to the above, entire communities never _get to be judged _on their merits, ever because they are kept down in a systematic way from birth to their deathbed.
> So even though there's some wrong in what some people do on behalf of BLM (as usual, there's always problems in large groups of people), you can understand why a large portion of the population is pissed.
> 
> Give everyone actual equality of opportunity (less discrimination, more childcare and education) and equality of treatment (maybe don't have cops murder unarmed black men while letting white armed double murderers go back home to sleep in their bed one state away), people would be waaaaayyyyy less pissed off.



Those statements are opinion, not fact. I'm a twice immigrant and have been called many names, and told to go back to my own country on numerous occasions. I don't blame that on any of my host countries. I've lived in the US on at least 3 periods on a J2 visa. There are always going to be bigots, racists, homophobes etc.... They are as common as a good neighbour. However, I do not believe that POC's are put upon at any rate by Western society. Many of the disparities we are told are because of "systemic racism" are just as easily explained through wealth disparity.


----------



## mmr007

Bentaycanada said:


> Those statements are opinion, not fact. I'm a twice immigrant and have been called many names, and told to go back to my own country on numerous occasions. I don't blame that on any of my host countries. I've lived in the US on at least 3 periods on a J2 visa. There are always going to be bigots, racists, homophobes etc.... They are as common as a good neighbour. However, I do not believe that POC's are put upon at any rate by Western society. Many of the disparities we are told are because of "systemic racism" are just as easily explained through wealth disparity.


 What you stated is also an opinion...your belief about systemic racism vs wealth disparity...and I am not attacking you. This is good. We all have opinions and based on our different experiences can learn from one another.

Let me tell you a short story...bear with me. Growing up in southern california my best friend was black. During the summer we lived at each others houses for weeks at a time. I grew up in affluent beach community El Segundo, my friend grew up a stones throw from the Watts towers. When my friend and I rode to the beach on our bikes nieghbors in MY town shouted the N word at my friend because El Segundo famously did not like black people in town. This was not southern mississippi in the '60s this was southern california in the '80s. I was so embarrased as this happened several times. My friend also told me a story about how LAPD was looking for a robbery suspect in his neighborhood and kicked down his door and kicked his mom in the head fracturing her skull and landing her in the hospital. All of my friends in El Segundo were white and none had a story of ESPD kicking their mom in the head and breaking her skull. That doesn't happen to moms in beach communities. Is my story proof of anything? Yes...my experience and more importantly my friend's experience shape what we are and how we view the world and it is different from how you may view it and we will fight to do what we believe will fix it.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Those statements are opinion, not fact. I'm a twice immigrant and have been called many names, and told to go back to my own country on numerous occasions. I don't blame that on any of my host countries. I've lived in the US on at least 3 periods on a J2 visa. There are always going to be bigots, racists, homophobes etc.... They are as common as a good neighbour. However, I do not believe that POC's are put upon at any rate by Western society. Many of the disparities we are told are because of "systemic racism" are just a easily explained through wealth disparity.



What you say is interesting, because I'm also an immigrant into the US! Here's my experience. I have white skin, and will look Caucasian when clean shaven and hair cut short. But let that slide a week and with a beard and I look "middle eastern" now. Even with just a week of difference I can feel the difference of treatment. And that's living in a *very *liberal part of the country. Going on a roadtrip to places like Idaho I was literally insulted out in the open for no reason, I can't even imagine what the South must be like  . I also arrived in the US at about the same time as an acquaintance of mine, who has way darker skin. They feel that treatment on a regular basis and don't have the luxury that I have to just shave that away.
Other anecdote: I was an immigrant to Asia before, two different countries, and come from Europe originally. Never seen anything close to the US.

But I don't even need to rely only on anecdotes or subjective things at the end of the day, because you're making the point of wealth/disparity. You know what, despite the point that even that argument hardly covers the whole picture (check all those reports/videos/anecdotes/stats of, controlling for other factors, POCs having worse service at high end places / lower estimates when appraising their houses / less success in job interviews etc etc) - where do you think wealth disparity come from in the first place? Segregation is not far from us, and since then, socioeconomic mobility has shrinked like crazy in the US. It doesn't impact only POCs of course, but if your grandparents were segregated against, discriminated against, denied opportunities, you are very unlikely to come out on top today, after a few generations. And that's through no fault of their own, the experience of many people who relate to BLM.

Give everyone actual equality of opportunity and equality of treatment and we'll see!


----------



## StevenC

Bentaycanada said:


> Many of the disparities we are told are because of "systemic racism" are just as easily explained through wealth disparity.


Oh, I get it now. You're being facetious.


----------



## TedEH

Bentaycanada said:


> *shrugs* you could be describing all most anyone according to liberal opinion.


I feel like you need some spend some time pondering the meaning of "strawman". Everything you keep saying about "liberals" is this constructed boogey-man made of up talking points and cherry picked extremes that people use to justify less-than-popular (to be nice about it) takes. I'm far from the most "liberal" person in the world (by what you probably think of as a liberal), and I've got a good number of "unpopular takes" of my own, but at some point you gatta step back and realize that there's a shit ton of stawmen being built up all over the internet in the last decade - and it's insanely easy to mischaracterize a whole group of people, or exaggerate the extremes, or be convinced by someone elses bad takes.



Bentaycanada said:


> So you're saying "don't post if you don't adopt group-think". How very woke of you! *claps*


Dude, you're the one getting frustrated with opposing viewpoints. Everyone else here is doing exactly what you asked: discussing what you bring to the table. Nobody told you to stop posting. In fact, people constantly say they encourage diverse viewpoints.


----------



## Mathemagician

Bentaycanada said:


> I will answer your points, I’m simply stating there’s a lot there, and I will get to them.
> 
> Also stop doing the conspiracy thing, we’re not all Trumpers, Proud Boys or QAnon. It’s beyond boring!
> 
> How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people out of 70+ million are really a problem. Not to mention they have all been arrested and charged. Unlike the 8 months of burning, looting and murdering, where the current VP tweeted ways to bail out rapists and criminals. Which was pushed to the extreme by your media zealots. Did you see the same from R? Nope. So stop.
> 
> Lastly, you need to stop using terms like “double standard”, “move the goalposts”. You don’t have the credentials to use them. Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you. It’s called actions have consequences, you’ll learn.



There was a cop beaten with an American flag. By Americans branding themselves as “patriots”. Meanwhile every single person has friends or family who were absolutely cheering for protests and for fighting “the libs”.

The “libs” being an ambiguous blob of people who want, Medicare expanded, a minimum wage that can pay for an apartment and groceries, and idk a functioning middle class?

Economic growth is built on consumerism, and people need to be healthy and have discretionary income in order to consume.



mmr007 said:


> Ok...let me ask then...what do you want? I'm not asking in a condescending tone but genuine. What do you want, both in this thread and in your politics? You say you don't support Trump or Qanon but you seemingly despise liberals and got upset when they showed up in the now closed thread. So again, I ask, what do you want?
> 
> Pick an issue or two, not related to Trump, that you beileve that your views are being drowned out by liberals and liberal media and you would like your voice heard in the guitar community. I would gladly have a nonargumentative conversation with you (I may disagree but I will try to avoid argumentation). What do you know, that you wish we knew with your level of understanding that we can discuss?



Traditional small government, low taxes, limited international interference conservatives don’t go online to insult people. They typically have businesses to run. So you’re never going to hear an angry person online espouse any actual old-school conservative values.

It’s mostly just extreme fundamentalism and jingoism. At lost of “us versus them”. Where “them” is anyone who says improvements can be made.



Bentaycanada said:


> Like, no picking a supreme court justice the last presidential year if it's a Democrat's year, but rushing it through if it's Trump? - Sounds like your issue is with the law, Dem's didn't have the votes before, and Reps did this time. Plus she's a fantastic judge. God knows we don't need more liberal activists pretending to be judges on the supreme court.
> 
> 
> Like, subsidizing big farmers at the cost of taxpayer money because of a crisis the president's ego created, but refusing any support to the economy for "socialism" reasons as soon as it's liberals asking for it? - Holding China accountable in trade is going to be the fight going forward, especially with their rise as a super power. That said, Trump's plan was pretty awful.
> 
> Like worshiping a twice-divorced, proud adulterer, charity-defrauder, 7-sins incarnate fraudster as the savior of Christian values while shitting on a devout catholic who respects his fellow human and never misses church? - *shrugs* you could be describing all most anyone according to liberal opinion.
> 
> Like saying for a year that Covid is a nothingburger and will go away (if not a hoax altogether), or that it will be gone the moment Biden is there, but turning around to complain that it's now a terrible tragedy and that Biden has not fixed it yet? - Again, your Trump fascination is dull and tired.
> 
> Like wanting to secede from the union, pretending that federal assistance is unfair and goes to subsidize liberals (demonstrably false), but then going straight to the Feds for more aid (while you're already the biggest recipient of federal funds in the first place) when your state literally freezes over? - No idea what this is about. Cruz maybe? Who cares?
> 
> There you go, all answered for you. Happy?



1) By what metric is she a “good judge”? Other than this entire country being great because of all the progressive growth it’s been built on. Not having a monarchy and letting citizens vote was WILDLY progressive (even if it wasn’t everyone - yet).

How is having a fundamentalist inherently “better” than a moderate conservative, a moderate progressive, or a progressive candidate?

Like what is the metric? “Liberal activism” makes America great. People being able to move here and build a life is inherently progressive.

2) You are correct on the issue of the United States having to better plan around a China that has zero intention of anything less than becoming the worlds reserve currency. And trumps “plan” wasn’t a plan. It was just showboating for votes.

3) You know your response is in bad faith. You have seen the cult-like fervor with which people genuinely believe they are “fighting” for the prior president.

Meanwhile most moderates have no problem saying “Fuck Biden/Cuomo/anyone else”. They ain’t my friends. If they don’t pass good policy they won’t get another vote.

Still better than a worse option though.

4) You really like pretending to be “too cool” for anything that you can’t defend.

Do you really want someone like WuTangMan to link every single quote/tweet/news clip of a wide gamut of conservatives all downplaying the virus right up until they could skip the line for vaccines?


It is not and was never “just trump”

5) No need to talk about Cruz’s moderately embarrassing trip when we can talk about him being a vocal supporter of repeatedly disproven claims of voter fraud. That lead to 6 Americans dying unnecessarily.



Bentaycanada said:


> Then it's official, you cant read. Look at their "demands" section. Like they're in a position to demand anything! Don't make me laugh! Also they need to take MLK Jr off their site, they're the polar opposite of him and everyone that struggled alongside him.
> 
> That has, without a doubt, been one of the most nauseating parts of 2020. This false ideas that anyone today is fighting the fight of the civil rights era. What a load of sh*t. If that's what people believe today, then never has there been a more privileged society so willing to feel oppressed. *yawn*



With zero sarcasm or anger, I can somewhat understand why some people refuse to accept that there are deeper underlying systemic issues. Because it’s not like your life was all roses and you never had to work yourself. So it “feels” bad when someone insinuates that you had privilege. Especially if you grew up broke AF too.

Honestly, if you’ve never seen or experienced the very different “lived experience” of minorities in this country then I can understand why someone telling you that the ramifications of 250 years of slavery, followed by 90 years of segregation still create a very different day-to-day experience. Even for two broke people from the same neighborhood.

I mean up until the 70’s women couldn’t even open a bank account by themselves.

Ignoring the long lasting effects of things like redlining, the defunding of all community activities and schools which help keep kids out of trouble is something a person has to do willingly. Because yes they affect everyone negatively, but they have consistently been shown to disproportionately affect minorities worse.

13% of the population is black, but 38% of prisoners are black. That statistic makes ZERO sense in a world where “everything is the same/equal”.



Bentaycanada said:


> Hmmmm, I've been called an idiot, a racist, a white supremacist, a nazi, a Trumper, QAnon, told i'm wrong (constantly?), and belittled from the start, but I'm the one "muddying waters"?
> 
> Also, @mbardu is clearly a voice of authority here. Whatever you do, don't disagree, or he'll just verbal vomit everywhere, but apparently he disagrees with me that Roy Moore is gross. So well done!



I was going to say something snarky but I am genuinely trying to respond to your comments with polite answers to prompt discussion, not arguments.

You keep trying to sell a story of “getting ganged up on”. But there’s tons of conservatives on this forum and a bunch have likely blocked me.

But you’re the only one saying you’re mad about XYZ while trying to get people to only discuss the axe you want to grind.


----------



## mbardu

StevenC said:


> Oh, I get it now. You're being facetious.





This is just missing the "_despite making up only 13% of the population_" copypasta


----------



## Bentaycanada

Once again *broken record* how do I answer 5 posts in less than 5 mins?


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Once again *broken record* how do I answer 5 posts in less than 5 mins?



I believe in you. You can do it. I'm sending you all my "Kiesel Never Again" energy


----------



## USMarine75

You could siege the Capitol with the army of Strawmen @Bentaycanada has summoned.


----------



## TedEH

Bentaycanada said:


> Once again *broken record* how do I answer 5 posts in less than 5 mins?


Nobody is expecting you to address every nitpick. It doesn't matter if you answer every little thing, if whatever you do come up with ends up being reasonable. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> What you say is interesting, because I'm also an immigrant into the US! Here's my experience. I have white skin, and will look Caucasian when clean shaven and hair cut short. But let that slide a week and with a beard and I look "middle eastern" now. Even with just a week of difference I can feel the difference of treatment. And that's living in a *very *liberal part of the country. Going on a roadtrip to places like Idaho I was literally insulted out in the open for no reason, I can't even imagine what the South must be like  . I also arrived in the US at about the same time as an acquaintance of mine, who has way darker skin. They feel that treatment on a regular basis and don't have the luxury that I have to just shave that away.
> Other anecdote: I was an immigrant to Asia before, two different countries, and come from Europe originally. Never seen anything close to the US.
> 
> But I don't even need to rely only on anecdotes or subjective things at the end of the day, because you're making the point of wealth/disparity. You know what, despite the point that even that argument hardly covers the whole picture (check all those reports/videos/anecdotes/stats of, controlling for other factors, POCs having worse service at high end places / lower estimates when appraising their houses / less success in job interviews etc etc) - where do you think wealth disparity come from in the first place? Segregation is not far from us, and since then, socioeconomic mobility has shrinked like crazy in the US. It doesn't impact only POCs of course, but if your grandparents were segregated against, discriminated against, denied opportunities, you are very unlikely to come out on top today, after a few generations. And that's through no fault of their own, the experience of many people who relate to BLM.
> 
> Give everyone actual equality of opportunity and equality of treatment and we'll see!



Yeah, everyone has a story. Great. Next. 

The second part is leftist nonsense. You have no connection to any of the events that came before you, stop trying to make yourself sound oppressed. My mother fled a civil war at age 13, does that give me the right to say I'm oppressed because of what she went through? No, she went through it. Only she had that experience. Not me, not my dad, not my brother, not my sister. So when you have 15-35 year olds today pretending they were affected by past oppression that they were never present for, it's a joke. A pathetic joke.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Yeah, everyone has a story. Great. Next.
> 
> The second part is leftist nonsense. You have no connection to any of the events that came before you, stop trying to make yourself sound oppressed. My mother fled a civil war at age 13, does that give me the right to say I'm oppressed because of what she went through? No, she went through it. Only she had that experience. Not me, not my dad, not my brother, not my sister. So when you have 15-35 year olds today pretending they were affected by past oppression that they were never present for, it's a joke. A pathetic joke.



Dude, you are the one who brings up the immigrant anecdote to make a point, yet someone replies with anecdote and you reject it? How is that good faith?

Especially to follow up with "here's my anecdote about my mother" and _now _anecdote is a valid point again? Which is it? Are you actually trying?


----------



## USMarine75

I'd genuinely like to hear @Bentaycanada 's thoughts on the Holocaust and Jewish Bolshevism.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Dude, you are the one who brings up the immigrant anecdote to make a point, yet someone replies with anecdote and you reject it? How is that good faith?
> 
> Especially to follow up with "here's my anecdote about my mother" and _now _anecdote is a valid point again? Which is it? Are you actually trying?



Then you're missing the point. The anecdotes don't matter. Everyone and anyone can claim any number of wrong doings, but not when they're weren't even alive? So someone called me a bad name? Does that mean Canada is racist? Nope. that dude was a douche. Why would I put that on Canadian society? There's a reason anecdotes are not used as evidence.


----------



## StevenC

Did you know Biden is selling our children's organs to zoos for meat and going into people's houses at night to wreck up the place?


----------



## USMarine75

Bentaycanada said:


> Then you're missing the point. The anecdotes don't matter. Everyone and anyone can claim any number of wrong doings, but not when they're weren't even alive?



So, places like the Legacy (Lynching) Museum or the Holocaust Museum shouldn't exist, since the decendents of those people should like, get over it, man?


----------



## mmr007

I give up....seriously. You don't want a conversation you just wanna do this.....


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Bentaycanada said:


> So when you have 15-35 year olds today pretending they were affected by past oppression that they were never present for, it's a joke. A pathetic joke.



That's sort of the point, shadows of past horrors are still very present in modern society. 

I'm not sure why that's a difficult pill to swallow. Children raised in poverty don't have as good of outcomes as those raised in relative wealth. That's a direct link, and doesn't go away, not with meager change generation over generation. 

If you think your mother's trauma didn't in some way affect your life, statically, you're very lucky. 

If you have some time, look up what living with veterans of WWI and WWII was like. Those men and women went through Hell, and that had a major impact on the children they raised, and still does in some ways. Now consider that chattel slavery was many, many times worse than that. 

That doesn't even bring up systemic issues like Red Lining, studies done that show that having non-historically white European names get filtered out of school and job applications at higher rates, and harsher judgements against people of color. 

Just some food for thought. If you need help with links, let me know there's a bunch of information out there, it can be pretty dry at times.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> Then you're missing the point. The anecdotes don't matter. Everyone and anyone can claim any number of wrong doings, but not when they're weren't even alive? So someone called me a bad name? Does that mean Canada is racist? Nope. that dude was a douche. Why would I put that on Canadian society? There's a reason anecdotes are not used as evidence.



Say your grandpa was unlucky to be born black. He was segregated against, and although he worked hard all his life, like your grandma, he didn't leave much to your father. They were working so hard that they didn't have much time to help with his education either, and the teacher at his school didn't pay much attention to him because of the color of his skin, so he didn't get a great education there either. But your dad did his best and worked hard all his life, like your mom. They weren't able to spend much time with you on things like reading or extracurricular activities or whatever, but they did their best. Either because of discrimination still there today, or because you cannot afford it, you won't go to college. You may work hard, but your circumstances are difficult from the start. Oh and that's assuming your dad didn't get shot in the back for being black and "threatening" by the way.

Now say you're born white to a wealthy family and contrast that compounded over a few generations. Stay at home mom, networking & connections, paid-for higher-education, no job discrimination. Maybe with a family safety net you even start a successful business and become independently wealthy? Bonus: you're still white so the cops won't even shoot at you. Congratulations you won at life!

Geez I wonder why there's inequality...that must not be related at all!
You can work hard and still end up screwed if the game is rigged.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> I give up....seriously. You don't want a conversation you just wanna do this.....




This, except he's the protester, and it's just mean liberal hippies driving by in their Tesla making 0 noise so he's even more pissed that they're not even smoking him with a big 'Murican truck.


----------



## Bentaycanada

mbardu said:


> Say your grandpa was unlucky to be born black. He was segregated against, and although he worked hard all his life, like your grandma, he didn't leave much to your father. They were working so hard that they didn't have much time to help with his education either, and the teacher at his school didn't pay much attention to him because of the color of his skin, so he didn't get a great education there either. But your dad did his best and worked hard all his life, like your mom. They weren't able to spend much time with you on things like reading or extracurricular activities or whatever, but they did their best. Either because of discrimination still there today, or because you cannot afford it, you won't go to college. You may work hard, but your circumstances are difficult from the start. Oh and that's assuming your dad didn't get shot in the back for being black and "threatening" by the way.
> 
> Now say you're born white to a wealthy family and contrast that compounded over a few generations. Stay at home mom, networking & connections, paid-for higher-education, no job discrimination. Maybe with a family safety net you even start a successful business and become independently wealthy? Bonus: you're still white so the cops won't even shoot at you. Congratulations you won at life!
> 
> Geez I wonder why there's inequality...that must not be related at all!
> You can work hard and still end up screwed if the game is rigged.



I don’t disagree with most of that, but I’d argue that the inequalities are more to do with wealth disparity than racism in the system. I refuse to believe that there was no forward momentum between 1968-2020. 

Especially, including the first black president, who should have helped unify a country, instead he used his time to promote lies, like cops are racist, America is racist and republicans are racist. Which are not true.


----------



## USMarine75

^ This occurred just 100 years ago. Our grandparents and/or their parents lived through this era in America. The most horrific part of this photo is not the body of the young man who was torured and burned alive. The horror is the town folk posing and smiling for the photo. Parents would bring their children. This wasnt hidden. This wasnt unpopular. This was America... 40 years _after_ Slavery was ended.

*This is America just 50 years ago:*





*
This is America now:*










@Bentaycanada can you honestly not see how these are all interconnected? How the American prison system, which houses more Blacks than were slaves in 1850, which is the largest penal system on earth, is the continuation of systematic racism through modern day slavery?

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


----------



## Bentaycanada

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 90538
> 
> View attachment 90544
> 
> 
> ^ This occurred just 100 years ago. Our grandparents and/or their parents lived through this era in America. The most horrific part of this photo is not the body of the young man who was torured and burned alive. The horror is the town folk posing and smiling for the photo. Parents would bring their children. This wasnt hidden. This wasnt unpopular. This was America... 40 years _after_ Slavery was ended.
> 
> *This is America just 50 years ago:*
> 
> View attachment 90549
> 
> View attachment 90548
> 
> *
> This is America now:*
> 
> View attachment 90539
> 
> View attachment 90541
> View attachment 90542
> View attachment 90545
> View attachment 90546
> View attachment 90547
> 
> 
> @Bentaycanada can you honestly not see how these are all interconnected? How the American prison system, which houses more Blacks than were slaves in 1850, which is the largest penal system on earth, is the continuation of systematic racism through modern day slavery?
> 
> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."



I’ll have to go through those and their sources, but in short, no I don’t see things the same way as you. Never have, never will.


----------



## mbardu

Bentaycanada said:


> I don’t disagree with most of that, but I’d argue that the inequalities are more to do with wealth disparity than racism in the system. I refuse to believe that there was no forward momentum between 1968-2020.
> 
> Especially, including the first black president, who should have helped unify a country, instead he used his time to promote lies, like cops are racist, America is racist and republicans are racist. Which are not true.



I don't understand what you're saying. If you're not disagreeing with that, then your point makes no sense. Wealth disparity and systemic racism are deeply intertwined. Even if all racism stopped in 1968 (we all know it didn't and we all know it's still around _today_), it's not like there's been generations and generations for things to equalize. And as long as racism is still a thing, it will remain unfair for generations after, unless something is done about it (for equality of treatment and of opportunity).

Not even getting into why conservatives still need to keep bringing up the Clintons and Obama .... but what's your problem with Obama exactly? Did he do something against white people? I even doubt he would have said cops are racist. He used that term _extremely _sparingly. What's your source on that?

Weren't conservatives the ones dividing the nation for 8 years with legislative blocks, made up scandals and birther BS (once again lacking _any _standard and honesty considering that they're supporting Canadian Ted Cruz)?


----------



## USMarine75

Bentaycanada said:


> I’ll have to go through those and their sources, but in short, no I don’t see things the same way as you. Never have, never will.



Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6?amp


----------



## spudmunkey

Bentaycanada said:


> .
> Especially, including the first black president, who should have helped unify a country, instead he used his time to promote lies, like cops are racist, America is racist and republicans are racist. Which are not true.



All cops? No. An alarmingly disproportionate representation within law enforcement? Yes.

"In 2017, the FBI reported that white supremacists posed a “persistent threat of lethal violence” that has produced more fatalities than any other category of domestic terrorists since 2000. Alarmingly, internal FBI policy documents have also warned agents assigned to domestic terrorism cases that the white supremacist and anti-government militia groups they investigate often have “active links” to law enforcement officials."

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...m-white-supremacy-and-far-right-militancy-law


----------



## BlackSG91

Bentaycanada said:


> Those statements are opinion, not fact. I'm a twice immigrant and have been called many names, and told to go back to my own country on numerous occasions. I don't blame that on any of my host countries. I've lived in the US on at least 3 periods on a J2 visa. There are always going to be bigots, racists, homophobes etc.... They are as common as a good neighbour. However, I do not believe that POC's are put upon at any rate by Western society. Many of the disparities we are told are because of "systemic racism" are just as easily explained through wealth disparity.



So you are an immigrant? From where...Norway? I don't actually see you being an immigrant from a shit-hole country that is filled with 'Brown' people.


;>)/


----------



## narad

C'mon guys. There's no systemic racism. It's nothing that can't be explained by a wealth, education, opportunity, and housing disparity.


----------



## TedEH

Bentaycanada said:


> Yeah, everyone has a story. Great. Next.


You're not exactly going to win over people with that kind of attitude. Even if you were entirely right, being dismissive is exactly how to convince zero people to listen to you.


Bentaycanada said:


> So someone called me a bad name? Does that mean Canada is racist?


If the insult came from a Canadian, and was demonstrably emblematic of an unhealthy view of other cultures, then yes. I say that as a Quebecer. "Canada is not racist" is not an accurate or complete assessment.



Bentaycanada said:


> There's a reason anecdotes are not used as evidence.


In what context? 'Cause anecdotes are used as evidence all the time.



Bentaycanada said:


> wealth disparity


Legit question: Where do you think wealth disparity comes from?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Legit question: Where do you think wealth disparity comes from?


----------



## TedEH

Ok, maybe a semi-legit question.


----------



## BlackSG91

Bentaycanada said:


> So you're saying "don't post if you don't adopt group-think". How very woke of you! *claps*
> 
> Here's a question - when is Joe ever going to do a press conference? Is he awake or even alive?



I bet Joe has done a press conference but someone like you doesn't watch the 'Fake News' has probably missed it since your only news sources are probably OANN and NewsMax....'Real News'. So is Joe awake or even alive...are you implying that he is sleepy...'Sleepy Joe'? I'd rather have someone who is a bit sleepy but carries loads of compassion and empathy towards others and makes at least an effort compared to 4 years of Dementia Donald who is a sociopath, a narcissist, a seditionist & all of the above who spent most of his presidency playing golf and sending angry tweets with his tiny little hands. He truly never did his job as president and he was never held accountable by most Retrumplicans who just enabled him with a blind eye. They let him get away with literally murder which was the January 6th. insurrection and his Covid response during all of 2020 where he said the virus will magically disappear! Who thinks like that...a little kid thinks that way. They stick their fingers in their ears and start singing while ignoring voices of reason.

You mentioned you are not a Trump supporter. I personally think you are full of shit. Your thread that got locked down proves it...I've read the whole thread. You sound like Lindsay Graham who condemns Trump from time to time but then soon after he has his chapped lips puckered right onto Donny's fat ass. I'll have to say that an earthworm has more spine than Lindsay or Cancun Cruz.


;>)/


----------



## Wuuthrad

Bentaycanada said:


> I will answer your points, I’m simply stating there’s a lot there, and I will get to them.
> 
> Also stop doing the conspiracy thing, we’re not all Trumpers, Proud Boys or QAnon. It’s beyond boring!
> 
> How many people were at the Capitol? 2000? Yeah, 2000 people out of 70+ million are really a problem. Not to mention they have all been arrested and charged. Unlike the 8 months of burning, looting and murdering, where the current VP tweeted ways to bail out rapists and criminals. Which was pushed to the extreme by your media zealots. Did you see the same from R? Nope. So stop.
> 
> Lastly, you need to stop using terms like “double standard”, “move the goalposts”. You don’t have the credentials to use them. Kind of like if you were for “Defund the police”, 911 should be cut off for you. It’s called actions have consequences, you’ll learn.



Are you from Canada? If so why don’t you stop riding our jock? It might give you some peace of mind, other than the kind you get gettin a rise out of us neighbors. Canada sure breeds a peculiar sort of troll, I know quote a few personally!


----------



## Xaios

Also from Canada. The racists coming out of the woodwork in the wake of Trump has proven that racism is alive and well, such as the anti-mask rally that devolved into a tiki-torch march (a well-established white supremacist trope) just a few days ago. Hell, even if Trump never happened, Canada has a long, storied, and very much still-being-written history of institutional racism against First Nations, not to mention the long-standing acrimony between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

If you lived in Canada and didn't notice the racism all around, you were either in a very privileged position or simply wilfully ignorant.


----------



## diagrammatiks

God is this still happening.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Yikes...part of my heritage follows a path through Canada, many moons ago.

The saying was-

How long before mestiz babies were born after the first Colonists arrived? 9 months!

I guess my fond recollections of peaceful loving times aren’t always enough! It’s like a battle to be this way, in harmony!

WTF people? Guys like Trump, they want us to hate each other! FFS...


----------



## nightflameauto

Bentaycanada said:


> I’ll have to go through those and their sources, but in short, *no I don’t see things the same way as you. Never have, never will.*


The bolded pretty much clears up any misconception we may have that you're interested in a legitimate dialog. You want to be able to say what you want to say without dispute and anyone that expresses a different opinion you see as some form of attack, even when the person is attempting to engage in an honest and open conversation. That track just doesn't endear people to your cause.

As one of the dudes attempting to engage with you in your other thread, where you came off as somewhat hostile to the mere idea that someone didn't agree with you, you're not doing yourself any favors with the angry diatribes and violent reactions to folks as you label everything you disagree with liberal lies. Some of things that you are either blatantly making up or just taking from a republican talking point list somewhere, aren't helping either.

I would really like to see you say something about what you believe that isn't just some form of, "no, you're wrong," wrapped in insults.

I'm particularly curious how you came to the conclusion that because there is wealth disparity racism holds no merit as a current problem. Having seen it out in the open many times from the time I was a kid up to recently, and actually studying enough of the statistical proof of systemic racism in the states, I have a real hard time understanding how anyone could come to the conclusion that racism is no longer an issue. I mean, I've had several white friends that want to ignore the issue since it doesn't have a direct negative impact on them, but none of them believe it to be a solved problem.


----------



## bostjan

More chatter about Trump trying to set up a presidential bid for 2024. I really wonder what conservative voters will think of Trump 3 years from now.

A year and a half from now, we'll see if the democrats lose their majority in the Senate, which will indicate that the GOP can still wrestele back power. If not, I don't think Trump will ever be able to reclaim widespread relevance in US politics. If, what I think is more likely, the GOP retakes the Senate in the 2022 midterms, and Biden decides not to run for re-election in 2024, things will again be precarious enough for Trump to regain momentum.

Because of all of this likely future nonsense, there's going to be a lot of perpetually heated political rhetoric coming from highly opinionated people.

Or, who knows, maybe Trump will have a heart attack or get Russian pissing disease and, without any other would-be leaders as bold as him, Sarah Palin will make a failed attempt at a comeback, and run against Harris.


----------



## mbardu




----------



## SpaceDock

Holy crap, Cruz just called Jan 6 a “terrorist attack” in senate hearing.


----------



## diagrammatiks

SpaceDock said:


> Holy crap, Cruz just called Jan 6 a “terrorist attack” in senate hearing.



Ted Cruz scared and confused.


----------



## mbardu

diagrammatiks said:


> Ted Cruz scared and confused.












_even looks like him_


----------



## Drew

Bentaycanada said:


> Especially, including the first black president, who should have helped unify a country, instead he used his time to promote lies, like cops are racist, America is racist and republicans are racist. Which are not true.


Just curious, were you paying attention during the last five or so years?


----------



## BlackSG91

Xaios said:


> Also from Canada. The racists coming out of the woodwork in the wake of Trump has proven that racism is alive and well, such as the anti-mask rally that devolved into a tiki-torch march (a well-established white supremacist trope) just a few days ago. Hell, even if Trump never happened, Canada has a long, storied, and very much still-being-written history of institutional racism against First Nations, not to mention the long-standing acrimony between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
> 
> If you lived in Canada and didn't notice the racism all around, you were either in a very privileged position or simply wilfully ignorant.



I'm from Canada and I've seen white nationalism rise here. Especially from Alberta where the Yellow Vest movement started out and worked it's way to Ontario. A couple of years ago they were staging protests downtown every weekend and I read their signs and it occurred to me this is the Canadian MAGA. One day I purchased a carton of eggs and had the privilege of tossing the eggs across the street into the yellow vest protestors. I'll have to say that most or all of them were not too happy or pleased.







;>)/


----------



## Mathemagician

Bentaycanada said:


> I’ll have to go through those and their sources, but in short, no I don’t see things the same way as you. *Never have, never will.*



If you are willing to ignore data that can clearly paint a clear and direct line for the treatment of a minority group from one “era” to another, by flat out denying the generally accepted academic research on the subject then you are not interested in a discussion or conversation.

You’re openly admitting that you want to insult people with bad-faith discussion, insults, and whataboutism.

“I’ll have to read those, but I already disagree with all of it. I’ve made up my mind beforehand.”


----------



## mbardu

Mathemagician said:


> If you are willing to ignore data that can clearly paint a clear and direct line for the treatment of a minority group from one “era” to another, by flat out denying the generally accepted academic research on the subject then you are not interested in a discussion or conversation.
> 
> You’re openly admitting that you want to insult people with bad-faith discussion, insults, and whataboutism.
> 
> “I’ll have to read those, but I already disagree with all of it. I’ve made up my mind beforehand.”



Well in fairness, he _did say_ he was a conservative.


----------



## bostjan

In logic, that used to be called the "no true Scotsman fallacy," but maybe we should now call it the "liberal source fallacy."

No true Scotsman fallacy example:

No Scotsman would ever drink coffee.
Connor over there is from Scotland and he's drinking coffee.
Well, then, obviously Connor is no _true_ Scotsman.

Liberal source fallacy example:

Actually, gay marriage doesn't effect straight marriage in any way.
You have no source for that!
Actually, I have a few articles here...
Those are all _liberal_ sources! You don't have any non-liberal sources that say that!
Actually, these are peer reviewed and have nothing to do with politics...
Ahh, but they say something that I don't agree with, therefore, they are _liberal_ sources!

I've been hearing this exchange (not exact, but pretty darned close) over and over again at work, online, etc. It's the same logical fallacy. They can't go after the source's credibility, nor the point presented, so they concoct this paradox where you think something, then you are right, because you disregard any and all evidence that goes against your point in order to support your point. It's the dumbest thing ever to anyone who discovered how logic works more than fifteen minutes ago, but logic is just more liberally-oriented evidence to these people.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> In logic, that used to be called the "no true Scotsman fallacy," but maybe we should now call it the "liberal source fallacy."
> 
> No true Scotsman fallacy example:
> 
> No Scotsman would ever drink coffee.
> Connor over there is from Scotland and he's drinking coffee.
> Well, then, obviously Connor is no _true_ Scotsman.
> 
> Liberal source fallacy example:
> 
> Actually, gay marriage doesn't effect straight marriage in any way.
> You have no source for that!
> Actually, I have a few articles here...
> Those are all _liberal_ sources! You don't have any non-liberal sources that say that!
> Actually, these are peer reviewed and have nothing to do with politics...
> Ahh, but they say something that I don't agree with, therefore, they are _liberal_ sources!
> 
> I've been hearing this exchange (not exact, but pretty darned close) over and over again at work, online, etc. It's the same logical fallacy. They can't go after the source's credibility, nor the point presented, so they concoct this paradox where you think something, then you are right, because you disregard any and all evidence that goes against your point in order to support your point. It's the dumbest thing ever to anyone who discovered how logic works more than fifteen minutes ago, but logic is just more liberally-oriented evidence to these people.


I've said it before and I'll likely be saying it again, but reality has a liberal bias. And it's becoming more biased the more these conservative folks hunker down in their beliefs and scream "liberal" at anything they don't already agree with. No amount of hand waiving will make reality disappear, but by golly their gonna give it their best shot.


----------



## Wuuthrad

bostjan said:


> In logic, that used to be called the "no true Scotsman fallacy," but maybe we should now call it the "liberal source fallacy."
> 
> No true Scotsman fallacy example:
> 
> No Scotsman would ever drink coffee.
> Connor over there is from Scotland and he's drinking coffee.
> Well, then, obviously Connor is no _true_ Scotsman.
> 
> Liberal source fallacy example:
> 
> Actually, gay marriage doesn't effect straight marriage in any way.
> You have no source for that!
> Actually, I have a few articles here...
> Those are all _liberal_ sources! You don't have any non-liberal sources that say that!
> Actually, these are peer reviewed and have nothing to do with politics...
> Ahh, but they say something that I don't agree with, therefore, they are _liberal_ sources!
> 
> I've been hearing this exchange (not exact, but pretty darned close) over and over again at work, online, etc. It's the same logical fallacy. They can't go after the source's credibility, nor the point presented, so they concoct this paradox where you think something, then you are right, because you disregard any and all evidence that goes against your point in order to support your point. It's the dumbest thing ever to anyone who discovered how logic works more than fifteen minutes ago, but logic is just more liberally-oriented evidence to these people.



I think you’re possibly giving people like this too much credit!

It seems like an “us vs them” mentality, “good vs bad” or “black vs white” duality, which pervades our society, and is beaten into the heads of people at an early age and continuously throughout life.

Far easier to grasp on to such nonsense, as it takes little effort, especially for people with no real capacity or interest in critical thinking.


----------



## bostjan

Wuuthrad said:


> I think you’re possibly giving people like this too much credit!
> 
> It seems like an “us vs them” mentality, “good vs bad” or “black vs white” duality, which pervades our society, and is beaten into the heads of people at an early age and continuously throughout life.
> 
> Far easier to grasp on to such nonsense, as it takes little effort, especially for people with no real capacity or interest in critical thinking.


Well, I didn't even read your post to see if you agreed with me or not, or what point you made, but I watched a 2 minute Dennis Prager infographic video, so I don't have to.


----------



## Thaeon

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90587



Lately I've been wondering if this is intentional...


----------



## mmr007

mbardu said:


> View attachment 90573


Kindly wonder no more......asked and answered. And the answer isn't pretty.

You know they always say hate the sin...not the sinner but I find that so hard to adhere to now. Trumpism has possibly revealed to me that some people just aren't worth liking just because of their politics and maybe their particular faults (which we all have faults) are irredeemable.

Just reflecting on how modern day republicans...thanks to Trump saying its ok to show your true colors...enjoy cruelty...they enjoy kicking sand in others faces to mask their own insecurities...OWNING libs....wtf does that even mean? Why is it a goal to make a fellow human feel bad about who and what they are as a person....crushing their identity?

In the past four years we have seen (among a billion other injuries to our country I won't go into)....

The caging of children? As a policy? How awful it must be to be a child seperated COMPLETELY from your parent and vice versa..in a strange country and have no idea if you will ever see your parent again.

Making fun of a war hero? By someone who avoided the draft five times? Hypocrisy? And later mocks dead soldiers as suckers and losers and the republican party and its base can't confront its own cruelty it displays with that attitude? Mocking Gold Star families in the same way you used to troll Rosie O'Donnell?

Making fun of physically disabled? I'm not demading perfect political correctness (when I was young I laughed at Helen Keller jokes) but to not use cleverness but instead just mock the actual physical condition of the person as the sole basis for an applause line from a crowd?

Constantly making us afraid an "other" would move into our neighborhood? Nonstop fear mongering of OTHER Americans! Talking about people of color moving into a neighborhood the same way you used to warn about alligators in the sewers?! The only thing moving into a neighborhood that should cause alarm is, ironically, someone wearing a MAGA cap.

Our society really seems to have broken down...very little civility. But it isn't Trump's fault. He merely exposed the fault lines. He stood up and told racist misongynistic jokes and instead of walking out of the club, half of America stayed for the entire show, but tickets for night two and then went outside and beat the shit outta everyone who didn't get it.

And on top of ALL THAT.....policies that don't even work and only further divide our within our nation...and divide us from the rest of the world. Ted Cruz applauds us leaving the Paris Climate Accords under Trump and laments us returning under Biden stating he (Cruz) cares more about Pittsburgh than Paris.....fuck you....you don't even care about Texas you oaf....you left them freezing to death with $16,000 electric bills while your republican cohorts echoed the same saying Texans would rather freeze than let a fellow American tell them how to winterize their grid....

Republicans (trumpites same thing now) are the only ones who read "Lord of the Flies" and said "oh look...an instruction manuel"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Well, I didn't even read your post to see if you agreed with me or not, or what point you made, but I watched a 2 minute Dennis Prager infographic video, so I don't have to.


----------



## USMarine75

Republicans and their cancel culture.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mbardu

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 90606



Literally, and unironically - this is Republican party leadership.
They would 100% decrease the wages of their constituents at every turn if left with the opportunity.


----------



## mmr007




----------



## Wuuthrad

GOP is actively working to suppress voting. Nothing new here!


----------



## Thaeon

mbardu said:


> Literally, and unironically - this is Republican party leadership.
> They would 100% decrease the wages of their constituents at every turn if left with the opportunity.



They wouldn't just reduce them. They'd undo the Legislation for minimum wage and let people pay whatever they want to pay based on the unregulated market. And they actually think this is a good idea that will work...


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> I think you’re possibly giving people like this too much credit!
> 
> It seems like an “us vs them” mentality, “good vs bad” or “black vs white” duality, which pervades our society, and is beaten into the heads of people at an early age and continuously throughout life.
> 
> Far easier to grasp on to such nonsense, as it takes little effort, especially for people with no real capacity or interest in critical thinking.


Well, the point of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is that it's subconscious, rather than an intentional rhetorical strategy of argument. Or, I mean, I guess it could be done intentionally, but it doesn't HAVE to be done intentionally to still be a perfect example of the fallacy. 

It's just a method of filtering input data for decision making. We all do it (filter, not the scotsman fallacy), either consciously or unconsciously, and given the infinite amount of data in the world, we pretty much HAVE to in order to maker decisions. That filtering becomes problemtic, though, when it stops being used to narrow down the universe to the most _pertinent_ data to base decisions on, and becomes a way of eliminating all but _supporting_ data. 

At the end of the day this is just a form of confirmation bias, tuning out sources that disagree with your views and relying on sources that support the conclusions you either want to, or already have, made... it's just a very overt way of providing reasons for that filter.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> They wouldn't just reduce them. They'd undo the Legislation for minimum wage and let people pay whatever they want to pay based on the unregulated market. And they actually think this is a good idea that will work...


Neither here nor there, and I'd definitely not advocate this... but I've wondered for a while now if a "minimum wage" law has a distorting impact on the market, not keeping wages higher than they would be in a market, but keeping them arbitrarily _low_ by removing negotiation from the equation when hiring so called "unskilled" positions. 

The federal minimum wage is $7.75 - if you worked in a state without a higher state minimum wage, and applied for a job that you _knew_ was minimum wage, how many people would try to negotiate their wage in that scenario? And how many who did, would actually get hired at all, much less at the higher rate? I kind of wonder if corporate interests actually benefit from a federal minimum wage, despite all their protestations to the contrary. 

Indexed to productivity growth, the minimum wage would have bee something like $32 today, which actually WOULD be a comfortable living wage, about $64k for a wage earner working 40 hours a week, and a 250-day/50 week business calendar a year. Anyone making _less_ than that today has a right to feel like economic growth is passing them by.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Neither here nor there, and I'd definitely not advocate this... but I've wondered for a while now if a "minimum wage" law has a distorting impact on the market, not keeping wages higher than they would be in a market, but keeping them arbitrarily _low_ by removing negotiation from the equation when hiring so called "unskilled" positions.
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.75 - if you worked in a state without a higher state minimum wage, and applied for a job that you _knew_ was minimum wage, how many people would try to negotiate their wage in that scenario? And how many who did, would actually get hired at all, much less at the higher rate? I kind of wonder if corporate interests actually benefit from a federal minimum wage, despite all their protestations to the contrary.
> 
> Indexed to productivity growth, the minimum wage would have bee something like $32 today, which actually WOULD be a comfortable living wage, about $64k for a wage earner working 40 hours a week, and a 250-day/50 week business calendar a year. Anyone making _less_ than that today has a right to feel like economic growth is passing them by.



The problem is, there will always be folks who need that absolute minimum, or think they do, and would undercut those looking to negotiate for a higher wage. 

Hiring unskilled is more about finding bodies, bodies that will show up when scheduled and won't be so bad they cost more than they're perceived to be worth. It doesn't matter if you're the best box flipper in the world, if there are a dozen guys willing to make less so they get the position, they will.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> The problem is, there will always be folks who need that absolute minimum, or think they do, and would undercut those looking to negotiate for a higher wage.
> 
> Hiring unskilled is more about finding bodies, bodies that will show up when scheduled and won't be so bad they cost more than they're perceived to be worth. It doesn't matter if you're the best box flipper in the world, if there are a dozen guys willing to make less so they get the position, they will.


I'm honestly not sure, and that's the main reason I'd never want to test this in real life. My gut tells me how this would play out would be HIGHLY sensitive to the economic cycle, and the, let's call it marginal effective minimum wage, or the lowest wage offered and accepted by a worker a that point in time, would plummet during recessions, when lots of workers were competing for few jobs, and spike during periods of tight labor markets, when lots of companies were competing for a very tight labor pool. 

Totally thinking out loud here, btw, but in that framework, a minimum wage seems like it's more likely to _stabilize_ the lower end of the labor market, where workers tend to be less specialized and accordingly labor tends to be a lot more fluid in responding to demand, and in turn having a minimum wage at all probably does a lot to help businesses plan for labor needs, not by putting a floor on how low they can offer (or, only in part by that), but also by helping depress volatility to the upside, too, to a certain extent. 

Either way, $7.75 is an insult.


----------



## nightflameauto

To Drew's point, in our area the labor market is fairly tight already, and we have Amazon and Schwans planning on building huge facilities here in the coming years. Our legislated minimum wage is $9.10/hour. But, since the Amazon announcement, a lot of places are starting people at $15/hour because that's the pay Amazon is offering for new applicants in the warehouse. Where I work bumped everybody's wage in order to make our starting wage in the plant $15 so that we can retain our employees.

That said, we've had times where large employers closed where minimums dropped right back to the legal limit. When Gateway left Sioux Falls, there was a HUGE pool of workers looking for jobs at all levels. I think without that minimum wage on the books, we'd have probably seen starting pay drop down to near nothing just because businesses could get by with it. I'm not sure exactly how low it would be, but there's zero doubt in my mind it would have been below what the minimum was on the books at the time.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Neither here nor there, and I'd definitely not advocate this... but I've wondered for a while now if a "minimum wage" law has a distorting impact on the market, not keeping wages higher than they would be in a market, but keeping them arbitrarily _low_ by removing negotiation from the equation when hiring so called "unskilled" positions.
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.75 - if you worked in a state without a higher state minimum wage, and applied for a job that you _knew_ was minimum wage, how many people would try to negotiate their wage in that scenario? And how many who did, would actually get hired at all, much less at the higher rate? I kind of wonder if corporate interests actually benefit from a federal minimum wage, despite all their protestations to the contrary.
> 
> Indexed to productivity growth, the minimum wage would have bee something like $32 today, which actually WOULD be a comfortable living wage, about $64k for a wage earner working 40 hours a week, and a 250-day/50 week business calendar a year. Anyone making _less_ than that today has a right to feel like economic growth is passing them by.



Most won't because they're looking for a minimum wage job out of need. Often desperation. If you're an adult and making minimum wage, you're there because you're not in a place where you can afford to be picky and lose an opportunity. Anything is better than nothing at all. No one is negotiating there. Cocky teens who live with their parents might. But the reality is, the margins on those jobs are so thin that even a minor increase is going to put you near the cap of an entry level position. Again, I have to wonder if a lot of this is by design. We seem to be slowly purging the idea of negotiation from the culture. At least at the consumer level, and its becoming a thing executives do in board rooms exclusively. Outside of a courtroom anyway. But we're still only seeing people with power being given the opportunity to exercise the skill. Its been my observation, that we're seeking the efficiency of the assembly line in all areas of life. Including quality of life. But that's not a quality life. A thing that seems more and more guaranteed to those with money and power, at the expense of those without either.


----------



## bostjan

My first paycheck-type job paid me about twice what the minimum wage was at the time. Adjustied for inflation, and based on overtime etc., it paid me the same or slightly more than my current salaried job pays. That's not progress, yet my current job requires an MS and 10ish years of job experience etc.

Any time I took a job at minimum wage, I had negotiated ways to make more very quickly. Still, that first unskilled job I had while I was in high school was the only unskilled job I've ever had and it paid very well. I even had a job once that started at minimum wage (but pay rates very quickly increased with seniority) that required all sorts of tools and qualifications and even had a high rate of on-the-job deaths from accidents, and people with the qualifications were lined up for months to work there.

I don't understand economics in the job market. It seems like there are all kinds of crazy people willing to do pretty much anything for pretty much any pay. Often times, I've seen employers break the rules and not even worry that much about it, because the penalties for getting caught were cheaper than following the rules anyway.

Will increasing the minimum wage drive up inflation? Probably not, but it could affect certain costs of certain goods and services for sure, which might give a strong impression of inflation. Maybe the minimum wage shouldn't just be a stupid number, but instead, a calculation based on cost of living. Like, whatever the cost of living is in the area, the minimum wage should be 2x that or whatever, based off of a 40 hour workweek, but then you'd still have your rule benders and breakers and ultimately nothing much would change.


----------



## sleewell

i honestly don't care about the minimum wage at all. kinda seems like a lower priority / distraction issue tbh. i started working at 14 and i don't think i have ever made min wage. i drive past a mcdonalds everyday that is advertising 11.5 an hour on their sign, i think aldi starts out at 14 or 15 an hour for entry level positions. every single job should not be meant to support a family or meant to be where you stay forever.


----------



## Mathemagician

Thaeon said:


> Lately I've been wondering if this is intentional...



It has always been intentional. Look up “starving the beast”. It’s essentially about purposefully defunding programs so that they cannot work well, can’t support demand and otherwise look “bad”. Then the elected officials use it as justification to privatize that function and who gets the contract but companies that donate to their campaigns, and their friends companies of which they are invested. Then another previously taxpayer funded public service becomes and expensive POS you still have to pay for. 

And the promised “tax break”? You used to only pay about $6/yr in taxes for that service. 1) You didn’t get the full $6 back & 2) WTF are going to do with that $6 that’s better than funding hot meals for students/filling potholes on major roads/winterizing your power grid so people don’t suffer?



Drew said:


> Neither here nor there, and I'd definitely not advocate this... but I've wondered for a while now if a "minimum wage" law has a distorting impact on the market, not keeping wages higher than they would be in a market, but keeping them arbitrarily _low_ by removing negotiation from the equation when hiring so called "unskilled" positions.
> 
> The federal minimum wage is $7.75 - if you worked in a state without a higher state minimum wage, and applied for a job that you _knew_ was minimum wage, how many people would try to negotiate their wage in that scenario? And how many who did, would actually get hired at all, much less at the higher rate? I kind of wonder if corporate interests actually benefit from a federal minimum wage, despite all their protestations to the contrary.
> 
> Indexed to productivity growth, the minimum wage would have bee something like $32 today, which actually WOULD be a comfortable living wage, about $64k for a wage earner working 40 hours a week, and a 250-day/50 week business calendar a year. Anyone making _less_ than that today has a right to feel like economic growth is passing them by.



I’ve been mentioning that anything below a $20 minimum wage is absolute trash in terms of offering a standard of living forever and a day. 

Lots of people still want to argue about how in some podunk town of 1,000 that $20 is “crazy”. 

If your $8 burger becomes $12 then that’s fine. Because it used to cost over 1 hours worth of labor, and now costs 0.8 hours worth of labor. It’s a net positive! The company makes more and the employee keeps more after eating lunch. 

I mean are Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, etc not around? Because the banks all start at $20/hr for the lowest bank teller job. And they aren’t going under. 

A significant number of people have a misunderstanding of economics to the point where they truly believe that wages going up push prices higher. 

But as the US has shown prices go up no matter what. 

Instead of realizing a $15 minimum wage would “trickle up” and push employers to pay them more as well, they get jealous that someone flipping burgers might be able to pay rent and buy a giant bag of rice at the asian grocery store, and pay for their medicine. 

Everyone argument against is “I make $22 and that’s “not fair” that someone else can make $15.”

Bro go demand $27 now damn. Like you’re missing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> i honestly don't care about the minimum wage at all. kinda seems like a lower priority / distraction issue tbh. i started working at 14 and i don't think i have ever made min wage. i drive past a mcdonalds everyday that is advertising 11.5 an hour on their sign, i think aldi starts out at 14 or 15 an hour for entry level positions. every single job should not be meant to support a family or meant to be where you stay forever.



Fantastic so you agree that since $15 isn’t anything to write home about that it should be very simple to just update the legal minimum to $15.

If “it doesn’t matter” and should just be left alone, then it can also be argued that it “doesn’t matter” and the numbers should be updated.

And in what city can $15 support a family?

I mean actual middle class life support a family:
Homeownership, stay at home spouse, 1-2 kids, annual vacation, medical coverage for everyone, hobbies/sports/after school activities. Because even if both people make $15 they won’t hit all those marks. 

Middle class doesn’t start until about $60-80k in this country. Excluding NY/SF/LA/etc.

$15/hr is not “middle class”. It’s simply “not destitute”. Most people making $15/hr still have roommates and are looking for that next better job.

Ive literally never made minimum wage. I’ve always had some sort of sales/bonus component to my comp. It still isn’t hard to see that there should be some sort of floor on how badly a person should have to choose between medicine and food. Which is what $7.75/hr does to anyone still making that.


----------



## sleewell

like i said i really dont care one way or the other but it certainly is becoming a stupid distraction issue. i think its dumb to put it in a covid relief bill. is there any other unrelated pork or pet projects we can hide in there??

if it is that important each state should take up the issue and let voters decide. saying people should make the same at a bank vs fast food kinda sounds like communism to me. the candidates and skills required for each job would be interchangeable at all.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> like i said i really dont care one way or the other but it certainly is becoming a stupid distraction issue. i think its dumb to put it in a covid relief bill. is there any other unrelated pork or pet projects we can hide in there??
> 
> if it is that important each state should take up the issue and let voters decide. saying people should make the same at a bank vs fast food kinda sounds like communism to me. the candidates and skills required for each job would be interchangeable at all.



Communism is the government telling you what you will earn. And what you are allowed to spend it on. And setting the price that things cost. All while controlling the supply of production.

Mandating a minimum wage allows a person to plan a baseline budget and to not need 2 jobs in order to just pay for food, shelter, and for some medicine. If they want to earn more they are free to go get a second job/look for a better one.

The minimum wage does not act as a cap on earnings potential, it does not control costs of production, nor does it prevent a citizen from blowing it all on GME and losing their apartment when rent comes due.

Attaching minimum wage to inflation is overdue by 15 years. And is being fought by elected officials whose own constituents support the increase.

Conflating an issue that would be a massive economic shot in the arm due to the increase in consumer spending that would occur from a hike in the minimum to “useless pork” is disingenuous.

Just because people used to have it worse doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve the baseline when we can.

What effect on your life does letting poor people have things do? $15 is barely enough for necessities/needs not wants.

So I agree, by getting this out of the way NOW, we won’t be distracted by it later.

As anyone who has ever cooked can attest cooking food and ensuring that it’s prepared correctly and doesn’t make people sick is “more skilled” than processing bank deposits. Desk job =/= Magically more difficult. 

If the bank job has a higher earnings ceiling then good deal!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I wouldn't call something that could significantly impact the lives of nearly half the American workforce "pork" or a "distraction" or a "pet project".

The fact of the matter is, poverty breeds most social problems, be it inequality, substance abuse, infant mortality, domestic violence, early mortality, property crime, and violent crime.

You work on poverty, and make no mistake, people making <$15 without real benefits are in poverty, you work to aid those larger societal problems.

Is raising the federal minimum wage a panacea? Not at all, but it's something.


----------



## TedEH

sleewell said:


> every single job should not be meant to support a family or meant to be where you stay forever.


I kinda get the thinking here, but at the same time I also get the thinking of "well then, what IS it meant for? What purpose does employment serve if not to provide for the employee?"



Mathemagician said:


> And in what city can $15 support a family?





Mathemagician said:


> Homeownership, stay at home spouse, 1-2 kids, annual vacation, medical coverage for everyone, hobbies/sports/after school activities. Because even if both people make $15 they won’t hit all those marks.


That's a lifestyle that even a lot of "reasonably well off" people can't make. I've got a "great job" and I can't buy a house. It's not a reasonable ask IMO that min wage support all of the above. I do agree that it's reasonable that a person should be able to support themselves on a full time job, but supporting yourself and supporting a family is two very different things.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t really understand how anyone is getting paid minimum wage. I was paid above minimum when I was 14 years old. Even when I worked fast food, it was never at minimum wage.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t really understand how anyone is getting paid minimum wage. I was paid above minimum when I was 14 years old. Even when I worked fast food, it was never at minimum wage.


My first job, I was employed at min wage when mon wage was increased, and it took 8 weeks to get the increase. My 2nd job was $0.50 more then min wage, because the store across the street paid mon wage, but gave more vacation time, so it was a toss-up. My 3rd job was min wage. My 2nd and 3rd jobs were held at the same time. I carried I've that 4rd job to my 4th which was $2 over min wage, because it was the overnight-shift premium, and we were locked in the building for 10 hours.


----------



## TedEH

I assume it's different by region, but I've always assumed most entry-level work around here is minimum wage or not far from it. Any fast food, some tiny cafes, temp- jobs (the kind of stuff you get through those agencies), call centers, etc etc etc - all make basically nothing.


----------



## Thaeon

sleewell said:


> i honestly don't care about the minimum wage at all. kinda seems like a lower priority / distraction issue tbh. i started working at 14 and i don't think i have ever made min wage. i drive past a mcdonalds everyday that is advertising 11.5 an hour on their sign, i think aldi starts out at 14 or 15 an hour for entry level positions. every single job should not be meant to support a family or meant to be where you stay forever.



These are isolated instances. Most people start their employment in fast food or some sort of unskilled manual labor.



sleewell said:


> like i said i really dont care one way or the other but it certainly is becoming a stupid distraction issue. i think its dumb to put it in a covid relief bill. is there any other unrelated pork or pet projects we can hide in there??
> 
> if it is that important each state should take up the issue and let voters decide. saying people should make the same at a bank vs fast food kinda sounds like communism to me. the candidates and skills required for each job would be interchangeable at all.



The states already do decide this. And some states, like Oklahoma set their minimum wage at the federal minimum wage and won't budge at all unless the federal wage is increased. Consequently, education is underfunded and poverty is rampant in that state.



SpaceDock said:


> I don’t really understand how anyone is getting paid minimum wage. I was paid above minimum when I was 14 years old. Even when I worked fast food, it was never at minimum wage.



Depends on the state you're in. Colorado where you live adjust their minimum wage each year by inflation. Currently set at 12.32/hr. Likely, you've never made federal minimum because cost of living and inflation in Colorado have determined that you'd never see that. Here in Texas, minimum wage is still $7.25/hr just like Oklahoma. Cost of living in Denver is only 2% higher than in Dallas. Minimum wage in Denver is 41.2% higher. Tell me again how this is okay?


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Most won't because they're looking for a minimum wage job out of need. Often desperation. If you're an adult and making minimum wage, you're there because you're not in a place where you can afford to be picky and lose an opportunity. Anything is better than nothing at all. No one is negotiating there. Cocky teens who live with their parents might. But the reality is, the margins on those jobs are so thin that even a minor increase is going to put you near the cap of an entry level position. Again, I have to wonder if a lot of this is by design. We seem to be slowly purging the idea of negotiation from the culture. At least at the consumer level, and its becoming a thing executives do in board rooms exclusively. Outside of a courtroom anyway. But we're still only seeing people with power being given the opportunity to exercise the skill. Its been my observation, that we're seeking the efficiency of the assembly line in all areas of life. Including quality of life. But that's not a quality life. A thing that seems more and more guaranteed to those with money and power, at the expense of those without either.


Again, I'm not arguing that we should actually go ahead and abolish the minimum wage. But, this line:



Thaeon said:


> Most won't because they're looking for a minimum wage job out of need.


...still implies there IS such a thing as a minimum wage job. They're looking for a job paying the lowest allowable wages out of need. Imagine a world where there IS no floor to what wages should be, though, and that literally every hiring decision is one where what the salary is going to be is something that has to be negotiated between the employer and employee, and that not every single job requiring broadly the same skillset is paying exactly the same salary.

Per the follow up post to that one, my suspicion is in a world without a federally-mandated minimum wage, where we didn't have "minimum wage jobs" and wages were what the market would bear, what we'd probably see is a lot more volatility around the wages paid to call-it-unspecialized-not-unskilled labor tied to the business cycle and how tight the labor market was, but at least in certain scenarios I'd expect wages to _increase_ without the government's involvement in wage setting.

All of this is purely academic, though, because I think that kind of volatility would be hell on unspecialized labor, and that's the real problem that a minimum wage should be trying to solve.



sleewell said:


> every single job should not be meant to support a family or meant to be where you stay forever.


I mean, the correllary of this argument, is that there ARE jobs that someone should be able to work full-time, and still not be able to support themselves. I have a REAL hard time arguing that this is a reasonable and desirable outcome.


----------



## Thaeon

Also, I live in San Antonio. I'm making $20/hr. If I weren't paying child support, I'd BARELY be able to cover all of my bills. As it stands, I don't have insurance and have cardiovascular issues because of my stress levels over time. I have bad eyes, and haven't been able to see a dentist for most of my adult life. Because I just can't fucking afford it. And I'm 40, been in my field for 10 years, have certifications, some that have to be maintained, and I have to pay out of pocket for sometimes because companies don't want to be out the money if you don't pass. When you figure in that 50% of all marriages fail, and how many of those marriages have kids? If you're the man, regardless of the situation, you're almost never going to end up as the primary home for the kids. Which means you're paying the support. Around 25% of your income after taxes. Do the math. $20/hr is BARELY livable in most places, and completely untenable in others.


----------



## bostjan

Without the minimum wage, there would likely be a few big companies that would do some evil things. It'd ultimately work itself out, and likely strengthen the overall job economy in the end, but, likely, the process of dumping the minimum wage would be painful for some people. I could see some manufacturing co panies requiring unpaid labour for some sort of "probationary period," too, which could be really icky.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Again, I'm not arguing that we should actually go ahead and abolish the minimum wage. But, this line:
> 
> 
> ...still implies there IS such a thing as a minimum wage job. They're looking for a job paying the lowest allowable wages out of need. Imagine a world where there IS no floor to what wages should be, though, and that literally every hiring decision is one where what the salary is going to be is something that has to be negotiated between the employer and employee, and that not every single job requiring broadly the same skillset is paying exactly the same salary.
> 
> Per the follow up post to that one, my suspicion is in a world without a federally-mandated minimum wage, where we didn't have "minimum wage jobs" and wages were what the market would bear, what we'd probably see is a lot more volatility around the wages paid to call-it-unspecialized-not-unskilled labor tied to the business cycle and how tight the labor market was, but at least in certain scenarios I'd expect wages to _increase_ without the government's involvement in wage setting.
> 
> All of this is purely academic, though, because I think that kind of volatility would be hell on unspecialized labor, and that's the real problem that a minimum wage should be trying to solve.
> 
> 
> I mean, the correllary of this argument, is that there ARE jobs that someone should be able to work full-time, and still not be able to support themselves. I have a REAL hard time arguing that this is a reasonable and desirable outcome.



Sure, but I think that that volatility in labor demand and higher pay in times of need would lead to higher unemployment in times of lesser demand for labor, where now, the stability in wage means that more people might be able to keep their jobs on a more permanent basis. There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking about it. When your system is based on profit, those who are in need of capital for survival (labor) will always be in the service of those who don't need the capital for survival.


----------



## Mathemagician

TedEH said:


> I kinda get the thinking here, but at the same time I also get the thinking of "well then, what IS it meant for? What purpose does employment serve if not to provide for the employee?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lifestyle that even a lot of "reasonably well off" people can't make. I've got a "great job" and I can't buy a house. It's not a reasonable ask IMO that min wage support all of the above. I do agree that it's reasonable that a person should be able to support themselves on a full time job, but supporting yourself and supporting a family is two very different things.



I really appreciate you looking for clarity Ted. So for me to clarify: I was NOT saying that a minimum wage job should be able to hit those marks. $15 will not ever hit that. It’s not the 60’s/70’s anymore. 

Mister Sleewell used the phrase “not ever job is meant to support a family”. And I was confirming that $15 would not support a family. So therefore his concern was unfounded. 

Sleewell perhaps unconsciously was making a straw man argument that “raising the lowest wages will make people rich”. $15/hr is still right about poverty line. Gets a bit better than “broke AF” with roommates and if you can commute in from further away to reduce COL some more. But it’s still broke AF, they can just now support themselves: Food/Shelter/Medicine as needed.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Without the minimum wage, there would likely be a few big companies that would do some evil things. It'd ultimately work itself out, and likely strengthen the overall job economy in the end, but, likely, the process of dumping the minimum wage would be painful for some people. I could see some manufacturing co panies requiring unpaid labour for some sort of "probationary period," too, which could be really icky.


With how rampant greed is in the corporate world, if the minimum wage were to be abolished outright today, there's likely a large chunk of the business world that would assume they can drop their lower rungs through the floor and pay them peanuts to live. If you think the higher ups in your company don't look every once in a while with envy at the Indonesian base pay, you'd be wrong. BTW, Indonesian base pay is currently around 0.00031 United States Dollar. That'd get some CFO's so chubbed out they'd pop their buttons.

Now, if we were in a society that cared about people more than money, that'd be a different issue. But we don't, and we won't, because money is god and people are shit.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> When your system is based on profit, those who are in need of capital for survival (labor) will always be in the service of those who don't need the capital for survival.


Sure. And vice versa, of course.

I think my broader point here though is that I don't think it's safe to assume, _across the board_, that a minimum wage increases the cost of labor. I think in a labor market with no minimum wage, marginal wages would be pretty volatile, but I do have to wonder if so-called "minimum wage jobs" would on average pay a fair amount _more_ than $7.75 an hour, if companies had to compete for "minimum wage" labor rather than pay the mandated going rate.

Put another way... I kind of suspect the current (arbitrarily _low_) minimum wage is actually _depressing_ the cost of labor in America.

(again, this is all _highly_ academic, and I think the safest answer here is to increase the minimum wage to something akin to a living wage, as honestly whatever that does to the marginal cost of labor in the united states and however that distorts it, up or down, I think the richest nation in the world should be able to afford a social contract guaranteeing anyone working full time a high enough wage to feed and clothe themselves and keep a roof over their head. I'm just academically interested in what what's basically price-fixing in a given segment does to the labor market, within and without that segment))


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Sure. And vice versa, of course.
> 
> I think my broader point here though is that I don't think it's safe to assume, _across the board_, that a minimum wage increases the cost of labor. I think in a labor market with no minimum wage, marginal wages would be pretty volatile, but I do have to wonder if so-called "minimum wage jobs" would on average pay a fair amount _more_ than $7.75 an hour, if companies had to compete for "minimum wage" labor rather than pay the mandated going rate.
> 
> Put another way... I kind of suspect the current (arbitrarily _low_) minimum wage is actually _depressing_ the cost of labor in America.
> 
> (again, this is all _highly_ academic, and I think the safest answer here is to increase the minimum wage to something akin to a living wage, as honestly whatever that does to the marginal cost of labor in the united states and however that distorts it, up or down, I think the richest nation in the world should be able to afford a social contract guaranteeing anyone working full time a high enough wage to feed and clothe themselves and keep a roof over their head. I'm just academically interested in what what's basically price-fixing in a given segment does to the labor market, within and without that segment))



Oh, totally agree. I would be interested in seeing the resulting science from asking those questions. But tend to agree, that as the wealthiest nation in the world should be able to guarantee that its work force has a decent quality of life. Its in its own best interest I think. You'd want to care for and maintain any mechanical means of production. Why not the biological means of production?


----------



## Ralyks

Mathemagician said:


> I mean are Chase Bank, Wells Fargo, etc not around? Because the banks all start at $20/hr for the lowest bank teller job. And they aren’t going under.



I work for one of the bigger banks (which I normally don't advertise because, well, their reputation still isn't great, and I'll leave it at that). My area raised our company minimum wage to $18, but some areas are still $15, and then places like LA and NYC are $20. But the way they mapped out who gets what minimum wage is, well, questionable. Also, hiring isn't great because of having to cut a lot of our assets over the next few years, plus the asset cap placed because of the controversy from a few years back. We also started eliminating positions and most hiring right now is intern only. And even then, I was able to apply for another promotion almost a year ago, but there has been nothing available that I allegedly qualify for despite what's based on what's on my resume (almost 9 years banking experience, an accounting degree, and some outside-banking management experience).


----------



## bostjan

Thaeon said:


> You'd want to care for and maintain any mechanical means of production. Why not the biological means of production?



Because there are hundreds of millions of people waiting to replace each other, and options are more limited with machinery. 

Because medical expenses in the USA are far more expensive than machinery. 

Because most employers can't wait to replace their workers with automation or AI anyway. 

Take your pick, I guess.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

bostjan said:


> Because there are hundreds of millions of people waiting to replace each other, and options are more limited with machinery.
> 
> Because medical expenses in the USA are far more expensive than machinery.
> 
> Because most employers can't wait to replace their workers with automation or AI anyway.
> 
> Take your pick, I guess.




And then goodbye world when AI decides they want to unionize.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> every single job should not be meant to support


Why not?


----------



## Thaeon

bostjan said:


> Because there are hundreds of millions of people waiting to replace each other, and options are more limited with machinery.
> 
> Because medical expenses in the USA are far more expensive than machinery.
> 
> Because most employers can't wait to replace their workers with automation or AI anyway.
> 
> Take your pick, I guess.



Its pretty disgusting when inanimate objects are valued more than the conscious people who operate them.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> Sure. And vice versa, of course.
> 
> I think my broader point here though is that I don't think it's safe to assume, _across the board_, that a minimum wage increases the cost of labor. I think in a labor market with no minimum wage, marginal wages would be pretty volatile, but I do have to wonder if so-called "minimum wage jobs" would on average pay a fair amount _more_ than $7.75 an hour, if companies had to compete for "minimum wage" labor rather than pay the mandated going rate.
> 
> Put another way... I kind of suspect the current (arbitrarily _low_) minimum wage is actually _depressing_ the cost of labor in America.



In theory, if demand (companies needs) for labor is higher than the pool of available applicants, then wages increase until a fair-value equilibrium is reached, solely on the basis of offer and demand. If the fair value today was already much higher than 15$ in most places, then that would indicate that demand for labor is very high, and supply is limited. Setting the federal minimum to 15$ then would have no effect.
But that's not the case. Supply _is _higher than demand. Minimum wages are under 15$ in many places. Not even taking into account the human reason for the glut on supply (most people _have _to be in the job market because people have to always have a job to survive and have benefits if they're lucky), wages are low, and hardly increasing. And by some margin. So I don't know if 15$ increase is _the _solution, but without some form of change, the job market is never going to organically see increases in wages in the US. Recent history has at least shown us as much, and there's no incentive for corporates to pay more for labor when they have an infinite supply at a cheap price.

The worst part of it all is that all attempts at increasing minimum wages, reducing wage disparity, supporting lower-income earners, have shown time and time again that those always have a tremendous positive effect on society as a whole. Not only because of societal effects as Max argued, but even in terms of the economy. Having people able to buy your stuff is actually pretty central to a capitalist economy based on growth!
Yet, the right doesn't want to do it because of...reasons. It's not even pure greed because the economy runs better when people can afford stuff and companies make more money. So it's not even the urge to have a bigger piece of the metaphorical cake for themselves. No, it's just because of the primal urge for others _not to have any cake at all_, even if the whole cake is bigger and everyone-them included would get more. Just want to keep the small cake to themselves and see others starve.


----------



## USMarine75

I think we should get rid of all this govt over-regulation and leave it up to corporations to take care of people. Because if I've learned anything, it's that corporations care. After all, corporations are people too.


----------



## SpaceDock

The biggest argument out there against a higher min wage is that it will hurt small businesses and I can agree with this to some extent. In my opinion, we should have a federal minimum corporate wage. Small businesses under 10 employees (not at single site BS like some of them try to do but all employees) would make sense to me. I think everyone would agree that it is giant multi billion dollar corps that are the one stiffing their employees that are the issue, not you local privately owned diner or landscape company.


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> I think we should get rid of all this govt over-regulation and leave it up to corporations to take care of people. Because if I've learned anything, it's that corporations care. After all, corporations are people too.



Yep. Corporations are the source of American greatness. From 7$/hour Walmart workers surviving on food stamps to 17,000$ electricity bill, 500$ saline bags and 20k$/year college.
They've truly made this country great in the last generation


----------



## mmr007

Actually the most important thing for small businesses is to get rid of the employee based healthcare system we have. It is asanine and we should not have a trillion dollar industry that profits off our health anyway but that argument aside...I used to work for a small business ~150 employees in 3 states back in 2001. I was initially given permission to hire 10 more employees which would almost double the size of my office call center staff who made about $14.00 an hour, again... back in 2001...so twenty years ago and health care costs have only increased since then. But the decision by the SVP was vetoed because of healthcare costs to the company made it not viable to hire 10 freaking people. Ten jobs not created because of the cost of not paying them...but insuring them. Another job I was at recently had 600 employees and the employer contribution to healthcare nearly kept us in the red. Each year the company wrote a check for $9.95 million just for employer coverage portion of healthcare....just under 10 million a year of company profits going to a healthcare system that denies claims at every opportunity

You want lower unemployment...you want higher wages?...get healthcare out of the employer's responsibility as it doesn't belong there anyway


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> The biggest argument out there against a higher min wage is that it will hurt small businesses and I can agree with this to some extent. In my opinion, we should have a federal minimum corporate wage. Small businesses under 10 employees (not at single site BS like some of them try to do but all employees) would make sense to me. I think everyone would agree that it is giant multi billion dollar corps that are the one stiffing their employees that are the issue, not you local privately owned diner or landscape company.



Does that mean that people working for small businesses should learn to survive with less because the company is small...?

I'd say minimum wage for everyone, small or large business, but however, severely review the corporate tax situation. Small businesses typically pay their taxes while big corporates incorporate in the Cayman or Ireland to dodge paying their fair share. Switch it around to put a bigger (100% fair) burden on large corporates and lighter weight on small business owners, and then they'll be able to pay minimum wages no problem.
But of course this is not going to happen because small business owners don't own any congressmen.


----------



## Jonathan20022

SpaceDock said:


> The biggest argument out there against a higher min wage is that it will hurt small businesses and I can agree with this to some extent. In my opinion, we should have a federal minimum corporate wage. Small businesses under 10 employees (not at single site BS like some of them try to do but all employees) would make sense to me. I think everyone would agree that it is giant multi billion dollar corps that are the one stiffing their employees that are the issue, not you local privately owned diner or landscape company.



In terms of cost I think you're way out of whack, I've worked several jobs over the course of the last decade and a half across multiple states and varying business sizes. The only time I've personally ever made anything close to minimum wage at the time, was when I bagged groceries (8.75) part time during high school. Even when I worked contracts for sizeable corporations I was compensated very fairly in accordance to the market, and treated incredibly well when my performance was noticed by management.

I've asked this question so many times in these talking points, and who is making minimum wage into their 20's and onwards? Even if you lose your job and have to "start over", is fast food your first stop? It could be, but do you stop looking for better employment elsewhere while you maintain cashflow there?

Because otherwise, why are working adults who should have developed a skillset still making minimum wage? Is this demographic real, or are we defending a non-existent focus group?

The last time I jumped into the discussion surrounding minimum wage was to question people's idea of what "living wage" even means. Consider looking through this tool to account for aggregate living costs, yes it generalizes based on single person, families with 1 worker, families with 2 workers, all segmented by 0 - 3 children. It won't cover niche cases, but it's not meant to.

Living Wage Calculator (mit.edu)


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Jonathan20022 said:


> In terms of cost I think you're way out of whack, I've worked several jobs over the course of the last decade and a half across multiple states and varying business sizes. The only time I've personally ever made anything close to minimum wage at the time, was when I bagged groceries (8.75) part time during high school. Even when I worked contracts for sizeable corporations I was compensated very fairly in accordance to the market, and treated incredibly well when my performance was noticed by management.
> 
> I've asked this question so many times in these talking points, and who is making minimum wage into their 20's and onwards? Even if you lose your job and have to "start over", is fast food your first stop? It could be, but do you stop looking for better employment elsewhere while you maintain cashflow there?
> 
> Because otherwise, why are working adults who should have developed a skillset still making minimum wage? Is this demographic real, or are we defending a non-existent focus group?
> 
> The last time I jumped into the discussion surrounding minimum wage was to question people's idea of what "living wage" even means. Consider looking through this tool to account for aggregate living costs, yes it generalizes based on single person, families with 1 worker, families with 2 workers, all segmented by 0 - 3 children. It won't cover niche cases, but it's not meant to.
> 
> Living Wage Calculator (mit.edu)




I will bite.

i took journalism at community college got diploma. However due to family reasons and the state of the industry there were no viable opportunities in my market and moving not realistic. Worked in an auto shop, pallet manufacturing, security ect. Got to mid level management in security and manufacturing as well as fast food while in school. But still have no real certification or specific item on my resume that would put me into many jobs that are much above minimum wage.

I'm aware this is in part due to my choices in schooling and having a child ect. But at some point you may just take the minimum wage job if not having luck with the jobs making slightly more that are more in your wheel house.

I'm in Ontario minimum here is 14.25 I'm luckily making decent hourly right now but had a job where the good paying contract fell through and they were paying minimum to security guards who have to complete a course and renew license every 2 years. So sometimes you end up back at the bottom unexpectedly and the bottom needs to be somewhere you can support yourself from even if its just for a short time.


----------



## SpaceDock

@Jonathan20022 My brother in law wound up as minimum wage. He was retired army, got a job as a coder for Google and worked there about 7 years until being laid off around the Great Recession time. He tried to get lots of jobs but he was always overqualified or didn’t have the exact experience. After running out the unemployment he worked at McDonald’s and Panera bread for a while before finally finding another coding job. Their family went from having him make 6 figures to min wage for a little more than three years then right back up to 6 figures.


----------



## Jonathan20022

I realize that the hardships you guys detailed are very real, and at any point I'm not trying to diminish the efforts of your friends and family.

The landscape is definitely very different from the Great Recession, and I want to make it clear that taking the minimum wage job if you have to is a perfectly fine starting point. But I'd have a hard time justifying being there for longer than a few weeks, I'd be on the job hunt immediately.

I did have my degree and job history to help me, but even with the cost of moving I wasn't hung and dry making my state's minimum ($10) from the get go. I contacted every recruiter in town, and looked for jobs and sent out my resume to businesses until someone bit. 

I told the recruiters I needed to at the very least make 12 an hour to at a bare minimum and that I'd be moving to a job in my industry at first opportunity. And they got me boxing medical supplies for $14 an hour in a warehouse, which lasted me a few weeks before I heard back from a few of those resumes I sent out and performed interviews and such.

There are plenty of jobs and resources to help just about anyone get a job, I had qualifications to get the job after the packing job I mentioned. But they took anyone who was capable of some light lifting and manual labor with zero notice to help them pack orders. There were countless jobs with non-existent, low requirements for hiring available and offered to me higher than minimum wage. Granted this was in 2017, but two of the recruiting firms operate in my previous state and have close to 200 call center jobs and several thousand contract based jobs where they classify low hire requirements.

Also I would highly consider talking to some willing recruitment firms in regards to job history, skillsets, and your resume. Certifications are certainly important for specific jobs in different industries, but you can sell yourself with skills you've developed. Talking to people about my resume helped me quite a bit, and even looking at prior experience from a different perspective made me see skills I hadn't considered.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> You want lower unemployment...you want higher wages?...get healthcare out of the employer's responsibility as it doesn't belong there anyway



lmao no  . What better way to ensure wage-servitude for life than to tie medical care or literally survival to employment? You think people in charge would gut that golden goose?

This is America baby


----------



## Wuuthrad

Jonathan20022 said:


> I realize that the hardships you guys detailed are very real, and at any point I'm not trying to diminish the efforts of your friends and family.
> 
> The landscape is definitely very different from the Great Recession, and I want to make it clear that taking the minimum wage job if you have to is a perfectly fine starting point. But I'd have a hard time justifying being there for longer than a few weeks, I'd be on the job hunt immediately.
> 
> I did have my degree and job history to help me, but even with the cost of moving I wasn't hung and dry making my state's minimum ($10) from the get go. I contacted every recruiter in town, and looked for jobs and sent out my resume to businesses until someone bit.
> 
> I told the recruiters I needed to at the very least make 12 an hour to at a bare minimum and that I'd be moving to a job in my industry at first opportunity. And they got me boxing medical supplies for $14 an hour in a warehouse, which lasted me a few weeks before I heard back from a few of those resumes I sent out and performed interviews and such.
> 
> There are plenty of jobs and resources to help just about anyone get a job, I had qualifications to get the job after the packing job I mentioned. But they took anyone who was capable of some light lifting and manual labor with zero notice to help them pack orders. There were countless jobs with non-existent, low requirements for hiring available and offered to me higher than minimum wage. Granted this was in 2017, but two of the recruiting firms operate in my previous state and have close to 200 call center jobs and several thousand contract based jobs where they classify low hire requirements.
> 
> Also I would highly consider talking to some willing recruitment firms in regards to job history, skillsets, and your resume. Certifications are certainly important for specific jobs in different industries, but you can sell yourself with skills you've developed. Talking to people about my resume helped me quite a bit, and even looking at prior experience from a different perspective made me see skills I hadn't considered.




SSrg...AKA

Jonathan20022s job coaching seminar 

I thought this was a politics thread? lol 

explain me this? You’re a pub-lican right? 




You’re seemingly of the mindset that 

“I did it therefore anyone can” which is false on so many levels. Maybe you’re not ?


----------



## zappatton2

Wouldn't raising minimum wage actually provide a boon for the economy, since money tends to move more fluidly through it (rather than being locked up in offshore assets)? I would think if anything, it could be a real boost to a flagging economy, in a bottom-up sort of way. I say this as someone with questionable experience or knowledge of economics, and am open to being thoroughly schooled by expertise.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Wuuthrad said:


> SSrg...AKA
> 
> Jonathan20022s job coaching seminar
> 
> I thought this was a politics thread? lol
> 
> explain me this? You’re a pub-lican right?
> 
> View attachment 90662
> 
> 
> You’re seemingly of the mindset that
> 
> “I did it therefore anyone can” which is false on so many levels. Maybe you’re not ?
> 
> View attachment 90663



Why are you assuming party stances, is this part of your script?

I'm sure some people get a kick out of your screencaps, but if you meant to join in on any meaningful discourse, like most of your posts that was a hit and a miss.

If your point is to farm likes on a guitar forum, you're passing with flying colors though. Maybe we should make a political meme thread so you we can separate the huge blocks of screenshots from some back and forth.

And I'll bite on your single question, are you denying that there are above minimum wage opportunities available in most if not all metropolitan dense zones, even if I have to pull a sample size right now from job repositories at the tail end of an economy halting pandemic? Because if so, there's no more paths on that conversation tree broheim and you're blissfully ignorant for denying it.

If you wanted a reply to your screencaps, that first one is extremely problematic and innacurate on both fronts. And your second one illustrates how expensive healthcare is in the states, yeah agreed and?


----------



## mbardu

zappatton2 said:


> Wouldn't raising minimum wage actually provide a boon for the economy, since money tends to move more fluidly through it (rather than being locked up in offshore assets)? I would think if anything, it could be a real boost to a flagging economy, in a bottom-up sort of way. I say this as someone with questionable experience or knowledge of economics, and am open to being thoroughly schooled by expertise.



This would not bring back offshore assets in and of itself, but it would certainly boost the economy. 
Unlike "trickle down" which has been proven to never "work" (as in, it _does _work for the desired effect of making the rich richer), this bottom up approach is shown to actually benefit the economy as a whole.


----------



## SpaceDock

Wait a minute, so you guys aren’t into andrenochrome?


----------



## TedEH

Jonathan20022 said:


> who is making minimum wage into their 20's and onwards?


Lots of people have answered this one already. It sounds to me like you've been very lucky to stay out of the kinds of jobs that take people who don't have many options. The kinds of jobs that basically hire anyone with a pulse because it's more about bodies in chairs than performance. The kinds of jobs to which you are a number and not a person.



Jonathan20022 said:


> But I'd have a hard time justifying being there for longer than a few weeks, I'd be on the job hunt immediately.


I used to work in these outsourcing call centres, and it was basically 200+ people in the building at any given time who would have preferred to be anywhere else if they thought they had the option. People with no real employable skill sets, people with poor language skills, people who have struggled to keep up with how most of the valuable roles in the area require some technical skill, people who are entry level and haven't built up the basic work ethic that would get them through an interview anywhere else, single parents sometimes, maybe people who have lost someone they were dependant on and suddenly needed to work, people who needed anything else to build up hours because their other shift-work jobs weren't cutting it, sometimes people with mild but functional metal illness whose social skills are lacking, etc. You meet a lot of people in some very dire circumstances in jobs like that.

There are so many things that can make finding and maintaining jobs very difficult. And the people who are struggling might be easy to forget if you don't see them regularly - but it's hard to forget the experience when you've spent so much time in that environment. And it's demoralizing. You know where you are when you're there.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Jonathan20022 said:


> Why are you assuming party stances, is this part of your script?
> 
> I'm sure some people get a kick out of your screencaps, but if you meant to join in on any meaningful discourse, like most of your posts that was a hit and a miss.
> 
> If your point is to farm likes on a guitar forum, you're passing with flying colors though. Maybe we should make a political meme thread so you we can separate the huge blocks of screenshots from some back and forth.
> 
> And I'll bite on your single question, are you denying that there are above minimum wage opportunities available in most if not all metropolitan dense zones, even if I have to pull a sample size right now from job repositories at the tail end of an economy halting pandemic? Because if so, there's no more paths on that conversation tree broheim and you're blissfully ignorant for denying it.
> 
> If you wanted a reply to your screencaps, that first one is extremely problematic and innacurate on both fronts. And your second one illustrates how expensive healthcare is in the states, yeah agreed and?



im just posting for shits and giggles thanks for adding to my count!


----------



## Wuuthrad

So what do you guys think about NASA landing on Mars?

I think it’s BS. Money spent on space exploration would be better spent on social safety nets, or cultural centers where kids could go learn how to play in Metal Bands like they do in Norway for free.


----------



## Jonathan20022

TedEH said:


> Lots of people have answered this one already. It sounds to me like you've been very lucky to stay out of the kinds of jobs that take people who don't have many options. The kinds of jobs that basically hire anyone with a pulse because it's more about bodies in chairs than performance. The kinds of jobs to which you are a number and not a person.
> 
> 
> I used to work in these outsourcing call centres, and it was basically 200+ people in the building at any given time who would have preferred to be anywhere else if they thought they had the option. People with no real employable skill sets, people with poor language skills, people who have struggled to keep up with how most of the valuable roles in the area require some technical skill, people who are entry level and haven't built up the basic work ethic that would get them through an interview anywhere else, single parents sometimes, maybe people who have lost someone they were dependant on and suddenly needed to work, people who needed anything else to build up hours because their other shift-work jobs weren't cutting it, sometimes people with mild but functional metal illness whose social skills are lacking, etc. You meet a lot of people in some very dire circumstances in jobs like that.
> 
> There are so many things that can make finding and maintaining jobs very difficult. And the people who are struggling might be easy to forget if you don't see them regularly - but it's hard to forget the experience when you've spent so much time in that environment. And it's demoralizing. You know where you are when you're there.



I didn't forget, because I've put myself in positions where I need to work jobs that I just* had to* work because I have bills to pay.

I'm not just sitting here telling forum-goers that there's a better way because it seemed to work for me. I've worked in a Call Center before and plenty of other jobs that I wouldn't find favorable, and some that I loved over the years that I didn't even expect to.

I don't believe that to be a particular response to my comments above, there's very few jobs where you sit and perform your duties and you don't at the very least walk away with some way of iterating a few positive traits and skills you took from your time there.

It doesn't deny that there are vulnerable people who definitely do need help to find work and in general realize their own worth. But there's a big difference in my statement there, and what I think you took from it. I'm pointing out that there are an insane amount of resources that can assist you in a way where your default if you ever get caught in a tight spot isn't the bottom of the ladder. I'm not above flipping burgers, but if you think I'm not reaching out to my peers, connections, and others before/while I start working at the local fast food joint then I'm not sure what to say. I don't think anybody should feel like they should be stuck at a job like that for very long.

I guess at the end of the day, I'm not against raising the minimum wage never was. I just fail to see the minimum wage worker who has truly, completely, exhausted all resources and possibilities to not work at the job with the lowest payrate. If you're truly in a position where job hunting and successfully landing a job that compensates you more than minimum wage, I can empathize. But just keeping them there at a living wage isn't much of a life either, they'd still need to utilize all of the available resources for them to take steps upwards and onwards.



Wuuthrad said:


> im just posting for shits and giggles thanks for adding to my count!



 Cheers mang.


----------



## Wuuthrad

It’s hard for people to get out of the ghetto though it really is, and that’s by design. I believe all people should have a living wage even for shit jobs! We don’t all have the luxury (or privilege) of loving our work- more often than not, work doesn’t give a fuck about us at the end of the day!


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> So what do you guys think about NASA landing on Mars?
> 
> I think it’s BS. Money spent on space exploration would be better spent on social safety nets, or cultural centers where kids could go learn how to play in Metal Bands like they do in Norway for free.



I personally think NASA should keep their funding, and the money that could be better spent on social safety nets, or etc should come from the Defense budget.


----------



## SpaceDock

Wuuthrad said:


> So what do you guys think about NASA landing on Mars?
> 
> I think it’s BS. Money spent on space exploration would be better spent on social safety nets, or cultural centers where kids could go learn how to play in Metal Bands like they do in Norway for free.



NASA isn’t *really* about all the space stuff. It is actually a giant set of experimental technologies being put through the ultimate test as well as a funnel for many of the smartest Americans to get them into other civil/military/governmental roles. Space is just a really badass excuse


----------



## USMarine75

SpaceDock said:


> NASA isn’t *really* about all the space stuff. It is actually a giant set of experimental technologies being put through the ultimate test as well as a funnel for many of the smartest Americans to get them into other civil/military/governmental roles. Space is just a really badass excuse



By NASA you mean the stage in AZ where they filmed the moon landing?


----------



## fantom

spudmunkey said:


> I personally think NASA should keep their funding, and the money that could be better spent on social safety nets, or etc should come from the Defense budget.



A lot of government spending on NASA and military branches goes into R&D for things not related to their role at all. The way that research funding works, large chunks end up in contractor or university budgets.

Who else is willing to pay a graduate student $12/hr for 3 years to produce absolutely nothing of value to society so they can get real jobs making websites that host conspiracy theories and pictures of artificially generated kittens?

The military similarly employs a lot of young people who otherwise have no idea what they are doing with their lives. It is pretty much people volunteering to take part in free housing, free meals, free travel, education stipends, etc. It's almost like funding the military is an experiment in socialism that ends with people needing socialism after they leave and end up homeless.


----------



## Mathemagician

Jonathan20022 said:


> I realize that the hardships you guys detailed are very real, and at any point I'm not trying to diminish the efforts of your friends and family.
> 
> The landscape is definitely very different from the Great Recession, and I want to make it clear that taking the minimum wage job if you have to is a perfectly fine starting point. But I'd have a hard time justifying being there for longer than a few weeks, I'd be on the job hunt immediately.
> 
> I did have my degree and job history to help me, but even with the cost of moving I wasn't hung and dry making my state's minimum ($10) from the get go. I contacted every recruiter in town, and looked for jobs and sent out my resume to businesses until someone bit.
> 
> I told the recruiters I needed to at the very least make 12 an hour to at a bare minimum and that I'd be moving to a job in my industry at first opportunity. And they got me boxing medical supplies for $14 an hour in a warehouse, which lasted me a few weeks before I heard back from a few of those resumes I sent out and performed interviews and such.
> 
> There are plenty of jobs and resources to help just about anyone get a job, I had qualifications to get the job after the packing job I mentioned. But they took anyone who was capable of some light lifting and manual labor with zero notice to help them pack orders. There were countless jobs with non-existent, low requirements for hiring available and offered to me higher than minimum wage. Granted this was in 2017, but two of the recruiting firms operate in my previous state and have close to 200 call center jobs and several thousand contract based jobs where they classify low hire requirements.
> 
> Also I would highly consider talking to some willing recruitment firms in regards to job history, skillsets, and your resume. Certifications are certainly important for specific jobs in different industries, but you can sell yourself with skills you've developed. Talking to people about my resume helped me quite a bit, and even looking at prior experience from a different perspective made me see skills I hadn't considered.



John, if you need to work 50+ hrs a week, or realistically 2+ minimum wage jobs because a single one refuses to give you enough hours to qualify for medical benefits then you don’t have time to job hunt effectively. Not that you can’t period, but that it’s going to be in efficient. 

Even a previously skilled person can’t go for a networking lunch with someone because that $4 coffee x2 and snacks comes out of money one doesn’t have and missing shifts where they need that garbage $8/hr. 

Also man, some people WILL be minimum wage workers forever. That’s just life. Society is a bell curve, but the bottom doesn’t have to be legal slavery. 

Like if it’s ok to pay people $8 anywhere then why is it not ok to pay them $15 so their lives are slightly less shit? 

In San Francisco no one is paying only $8/hr. So the new minimum doesn’t matter. But even in BFE anywhere $8/hr is no longer enough to fully cover the basics. 

So we create more tax-payer subsidized programs that are expensive to run and raise everyone’s taxes? Like how the Walmart workers on government assistance spend all that taxpayer help right back at Walmart? So the company “legally” underpays their employees, then they apply for taxpayer funded assistance, then the company double dips and gets THAT money as well, because they have undercut any other retail business in the area. 

It’s not the poor persons fault they get trapped in the negative loop, if it’s designed to work that way. 

A lot of people will get out of that/never end up there. But someone has to work stocking the shelves. And when machines replace those jobs, we’re going to have a bigger problem on our hands that will involve some form of UBI as part of the resolution. 

Increasing wages is not about “being nice” it’s the lowest cost economic solution to effects of systemic poverty.


----------



## groverj3

Mathemagician said:


> John, if you need to work 50+ hrs a week, or realistically 2+ minimum wage jobs because a single one refuses to give you enough hours to qualify for medical benefits then you don’t have time to job hunt effectively. Not that you can’t period, but that it’s going to be in efficient.
> 
> Even a previously skilled person can’t go for a networking lunch with someone because that $4 coffee x2 and snacks comes out of money one doesn’t have and missing shifts where they need that garbage $8/hr.
> 
> Also man, some people WILL be minimum wage workers forever. That’s just life. Society is a bell curve, but the bottom doesn’t have to be legal slavery.
> 
> Like if it’s ok to pay people $8 anywhere then why is it not ok to pay them $15 so their lives are slightly less shit?
> 
> In San Francisco no one is paying only $8/hr. So the new minimum doesn’t matter. But even in BFE anywhere $8/hr is no longer enough to fully cover the basics.
> 
> So we create more tax-payer subsidized programs that are expensive to run and raise everyone’s taxes? Like how the Walmart workers on government assistance spend all that taxpayer help right back at Walmart? So the company “legally” underpays their employees, then they apply for taxpayer funded assistance, then the company double dips and gets THAT money as well, because they have undercut any other retail business in the area.
> 
> It’s not the poor persons fault they get trapped in the negative loop, if it’s designed to work that way.
> 
> A lot of people will get out of that/never end up there. But someone has to work stocking the shelves. And when machines replace those jobs, we’re going to have a bigger problem on our hands that will involve some form of UBI as part of the resolution.
> 
> Increasing wages is not about “being nice” it’s the lowest cost economic solution to effects of systemic poverty.


Preach!


----------



## groverj3

fantom said:


> Who else is willing to pay a graduate student $12/hr for 3 years to produce absolutely nothing of value to society...


Hey now. I have recently resembled that remark.

Except it was more like $27k a year for 5 years and free tuition. Woe is me.

...now I answer emails and have video meetings all day where I share my vague opinions about using rented computing power from Amazon to do cancer research.

Without a doubt the work I did in grad school was more important . But, like, the efficiency of the free market and all that jazz. 100% more wasted time at my "real job" than there ever was in academia.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Again, nearly half of all the workforce in this country makes <$15. Half. Tens of millions of people. Stop acting like folks stuck at the bottom, or near it, is an edge case, because it's not.


----------



## groverj3

USMarine75 said:


> By NASA you mean the stage in AZ where they filmed the moon landing?



It might be believable, but Arizona is more of a stand-in for Mars than the Moon.

But wait... black and white... Those sly devils.


----------



## fantom

Mathemagician said:


> John, if you need to work 50+ hrs a week, or realistically 2+ minimum wage jobs because a single one refuses to give you enough hours to qualify for medical benefits then you don’t have time to job hunt effectively. Not that you can’t period, but that it’s going to be in efficient.
> 
> Even a previously skilled person can’t go for a networking lunch with someone because that $4 coffee x2 and snacks comes out of money one doesn’t have and missing shifts where they need that garbage $8/hr.
> 
> Also man, some people WILL be minimum wage workers forever. That’s just life. Society is a bell curve, but the bottom doesn’t have to be legal slavery.
> 
> Like if it’s ok to pay people $8 anywhere then why is it not ok to pay them $15 so their lives are slightly less shit?
> 
> In San Francisco no one is paying only $8/hr. So the new minimum doesn’t matter. But even in BFE anywhere $8/hr is no longer enough to fully cover the basics.
> 
> So we create more tax-payer subsidized programs that are expensive to run and raise everyone’s taxes? Like how the Walmart workers on government assistance spend all that taxpayer help right back at Walmart? So the company “legally” underpays their employees, then they apply for taxpayer funded assistance, then the company double dips and gets THAT money as well, because they have undercut any other retail business in the area.
> 
> It’s not the poor persons fault they get trapped in the negative loop, if it’s designed to work that way.
> 
> A lot of people will get out of that/never end up there. But someone has to work stocking the shelves. And when machines replace those jobs, we’re going to have a bigger problem on our hands that will involve some form of UBI as part of the resolution.
> 
> Increasing wages is not about “being nice” it’s the lowest cost economic solution to effects of systemic poverty.



As the Amazon thread pointed out... During a recession, CEOs at online companies earned hundreds of billions of dollars while many americans were losing their jobs... When their employees tried to organize and demand better treatment and working conditions, they were fired.

The problem with this country is people still believe trickle down economics is effective even though all evidence shows it has severely destroyed the working class for half a century.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, nearly half of all the workforce in this country makes <$15. Half. Tens of millions of people. Stop acting like folks stuck at the bottom, or near it, is an edge case, because it's not.



I feel like it's a mix of "there aren't many people in that situation" (which is easily disproven) and "if they're there, maybe they're not really trying" (which is just as wrong).

On the latter, sometimes this is linked to the typical psychological bias of thinking that *you *worked hard to get where you are, so everything is thanks to you and you didn't have to rely on luck or support. And in turn, maybe people who don't succeed as well must be doing something wrong, and either are not really trying or not deserving to do better.
Except most successful people didn't end up successful by sheer force of will alone. And plenty of hard working decent people end up in shitty situations. Circumstances and luck and support always play a role. You can work as hard as you want, but if like keeps kicking you in the teeth, it's possible to get stuck for a loooong time through no fault of your own.


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, nearly half of all the workforce in this country makes <$15. Half. Tens of millions of people. Stop acting like folks stuck at the bottom, or near it, is an edge case, because it's not.



Math is for spooge lords.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Mathemagician said:


> John, if you need to work 50+ hrs a week, or realistically 2+ minimum wage jobs because a single one refuses to give you enough hours to qualify for medical benefits then you don’t have time to job hunt effectively. Not that you can’t period, but that it’s going to be in efficient.
> 
> Even a previously skilled person can’t go for a networking lunch with someone because that $4 coffee x2 and snacks comes out of money one doesn’t have and missing shifts where they need that garbage $8/hr.
> 
> Also man, some people WILL be minimum wage workers forever. That’s just life. Society is a bell curve, but the bottom doesn’t have to be legal slavery.
> 
> Like if it’s ok to pay people $8 anywhere then why is it not ok to pay them $15 so their lives are slightly less shit?
> 
> In San Francisco no one is paying only $8/hr. So the new minimum doesn’t matter. But even in BFE anywhere $8/hr is no longer enough to fully cover the basics.
> 
> So we create more tax-payer subsidized programs that are expensive to run and raise everyone’s taxes? Like how the Walmart workers on government assistance spend all that taxpayer help right back at Walmart? So the company “legally” underpays their employees, then they apply for taxpayer funded assistance, then the company double dips and gets THAT money as well, because they have undercut any other retail business in the area.
> 
> It’s not the poor persons fault they get trapped in the negative loop, if it’s designed to work that way.
> 
> A lot of people will get out of that/never end up there. But someone has to work stocking the shelves. And when machines replace those jobs, we’re going to have a bigger problem on our hands that will involve some form of UBI as part of the resolution.
> 
> Increasing wages is not about “being nice” it’s the lowest cost economic solution to effects of systemic poverty.



Just to point something out in my last few comments, and also to re-align the point of my original comment.



Jonathan20022 said:


> I guess at the end of the day, *I'm not against raising the minimum wage never was*. I just fail to see the minimum wage worker who has truly, completely, exhausted all resources and possibilities to not work at the job with the lowest payrate. If you're truly in a position where job hunting and successfully landing a job that compensates you more than minimum wage, I can empathize. But just keeping them there at a living wage isn't much of a life either, they'd still need to utilize all of the available resources for them to take steps upwards and onwards.



Increasing the Federal Minimum wage isn't a friction point, I'll point out my original comment in my reply to Max below. But I'll retort to your first assertion that there isn't enough time in the day to set aside for improving your livelihood in the form of job hunting, the process is easier than ever and sending out resumes and applying to 5 jobs a night shouldn't take you 3 hours into the evening. I've gone to a single networking event that felt like a complete waste of time, and that nothing ever came out of it in terms of results.

You don't need a networking lunch hour with a $30 budget to get a better job, you need some effort and willingness to even try. I think it's grossly misrepresented as an impossibility to further yourself in life with actions that genuinely just require some of your time and effort.

I also don't agree that there are people by design who will be stuck in dead end jobs for the rest of their lives, that's just as horrible as paying someone in the current system minimum wage. And it's a false reality either way, your cost of living only goes up with time, as do your responsibilities. You might see a janitor at a high school work there for a long while, but they're usually supported and compensated far more fairly than the rotating door at the burger flipping station. It's actually contradictory to me that you feel people should be elevated just to the floating line but work those miserable entry level jobs for their entire lives because there has to be cogs in the system.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, nearly half of all the workforce in this country makes <$15. Half. Tens of millions of people. Stop acting like folks stuck at the bottom, or near it, is an edge case, because it's not.



I'm not entirely certain this geared is towards me, because this comment has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> I'm not entirely certain this geared is towards me, because this comment has nothing to do with anything I was talking about.



It has very much to do with the idea that someone just needs to find a better job. Can half the workforce just find something better? 

There is a finite supply of "better" and even fewer "good" paying jobs. So it's not about folks not trying to find anything better, it's a supply issue. 

We're already subsidizing shitty wages, both directly and indirectly. 

Like I've already said, raising the minimum is not a cure-all. But it is a good step forward, if for little more than putting forth the notion that every job deserves a level of dignity beyond starvation wages. It seems that's a concept lost in translation.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> It has very much to do with the idea that someone just needs to find a better job. Can half the workforce just find something better?
> 
> There is a finite supply of "better" and even fewer "good" paying jobs. So it's not about folks not trying to find anything better, it's a supply issue.
> 
> We're already subsidizing shitty wages, both directly and indirectly.
> 
> Like I've already said, raising the minimum is not a cure-all. But it is a good step forward, if for little more than putting forth the notion that every job deserves a level of dignity beyond starvation wages. It seems that's a concept lost in translation.



I agree as mentioned above, leveling the field by matching the minimum wage with a region's living wage makes it so people have a base standard of living. 

I'm just opposed to definitive terms being used in regards to progress, like I mentioned $16 an hour for the rest of your life isn't enough to keep up with your passive increase in cost of living (Medical Expenses, Emergencies, Family, Children). I'm not being naive and saying every fast food worker is going to end up becoming a shift manager, it's just logical to leverage what you learn and improve on to move onto better opportunities at SOME point.

But like I mentioned, my original point is if the demographic of 20 y/o+ still making minimum wage is a real group or not. I'm not talking about Andy working his first job ever because he was lucky enough to not have to in his teens, I'm talking a person who has held the same/multiple jobs still making minimum wage.


----------



## spudmunkey

I was talking with my mom about min wage this afternoon. (I think she's FINALLY seeing that many of the opinions from the "left" are not "evil", just a different priority. She admitted to feeling "duped" by the election fraud allegations, and I think that opened her eyes a bit. I like to think I at least give her some things to think about, even if she still disagrees in the end...that's really all I can ask of anyone, right?)

Anyway, in that discussion, I found out my aunt, who just lost her husband/my uncle in September (not COVID), just got a min wage job. She used to work for his company. When he died, there was no one to take it on, and no buyer for the company. She's now working at a factory that makes heated nacho cheese pumps full time, then part-time tending bar at a bowling alley that just re-opened a few weeks back, and also cleans houses on the weekends. That last one isn't minimum wage...because it's under-the-table cash. Where she's tending bar, she's technically getting paid less than minimum wage. In Wisconsin, they can pay you as little as $2.33 an hour, as long as your tips bring you up to $7.25. If not, the employer has to make up that difference.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> I agree as mentioned above, leveling the field by matching the minimum wage with a region's living wage makes it so people have a base standard of living.
> 
> I'm just opposed to definitive terms being used in regards to progress, like I mentioned $16 an hour for the rest of your life isn't enough to keep up with your passive increase in cost of living (Medical Expenses, Emergencies, Family, Children). I'm not being naive and saying every fast food worker is going to end up becoming a shift manager, it's just logical to leverage what you learn and improve on to move onto better opportunities at SOME point.
> 
> But like I mentioned, my original point is if the demographic of 20 y/o+ still making minimum wage is a real group or not. I'm not talking about Andy working his first job ever because he was lucky enough to not have to in his teens, I'm talking a person who has held the same/multiple jobs still making minimum wage.



It's hard to track that directly, as BLS doesn't really have the data aggregated as such, but if the median age of the workforce is ~41, and somewhere around 45% are making <$15 an hour, I don't think it's a big stretch to assume there is a large contingent of workers above 25 years old who haven't been able to land significantly better employment. 

Anecdotally, I deal with the hiring of people for unskilled and semi-skilled labor between $15/hr and $40/hr and have for about a decade now, working in a union representative capacity who works with temp agencies and HR. I've probably seen hundreds, if not thousands of work and pay histories, and there are many who are aged into thier late 20's up into thier 40's who haven't seen more than $12/hr. Speaking with those in similar roles in other parts of the country, that doesn't seem to be unique.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

In relation to amount of people on bad wages when I drove from Canada to Florida there was hundreds of towns that werent much more than the image below. Opportunity isnt always there


----------



## TedEH

Jonathan20022 said:


> you need some effort and willingness to even try.


And an employable skillset, and social skills, and "the right attitude", and the knowledge/skills of how to job search (no, it's not a given), and be lucky enough to not have some unfair disadvantage that gets your resumes thrown out before being looked at ("non-white" sounding name, etc), and have the right connections, and live within an area where those opportunities exist or be able to get to them, and have the time/energy/money to spend on this, etc. - and remember that you're competing with about half of the population for the same thing.

Don't get me wrong - there are people who fail at job searching because they either don't know how or don't care enough to do it right - there's an element of personal failure for some cases, but that's not a fair assessment of everyone who isn't financially well off.



Jonathan20022 said:


> It's actually contradictory to me that you feel people should be elevated just to the floating line but work those miserable entry level jobs for their entire lives because there has to be cogs in the system.


Nobody is saying that people "should be stuck in bad jobs" or wants people to be stuck at the bottom - but it's an inevitability that has to be taken into account. There will always be a bottom, and there will always be people at that bottom - the goal is not to eliminate the bottom (because that's impossible) but to ensure that those who inevitably end up there don't have to suffer unnecessarily.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> In theory, if demand (companies needs) for labor is higher than the pool of available applicants, then wages increase until a fair-value equilibrium is reached, solely on the basis of offer and demand. If the fair value today was already much higher than 15$ in most places, then that would indicate that demand for labor is very high, and supply is limited. Setting the federal minimum to 15$ then would have no effect.
> But that's not the case. Supply _is _higher than demand. Minimum wages are under 15$ in many places. Not even taking into account the human reason for the glut on supply (most people _have _to be in the job market because people have to always have a job to survive and have benefits if they're lucky), wages are low, and hardly increasing. And by some margin. So I don't know if 15$ increase is _the _solution, but without some form of change, the job market is never going to organically see increases in wages in the US. Recent history has at least shown us as much, and there's no incentive for corporates to pay more for labor when they have an infinite supply at a cheap price.


Well, except price setting takes market equiliberum out of it, no? I mean, in some ways, it's as simple as we're not talking about "jobs," we're talking about "minimum wage jobs." They're a whole separate class, which we as a society have accepted that supply and demand doesn't impact wages. That's a pretty fundamental change.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> The biggest argument out there against a higher min wage is that it will hurt small businesses and I can agree with this to some extent. In my opinion, we should have a federal minimum corporate wage. Small businesses under 10 employees (not at single site BS like some of them try to do but all employees) would make sense to me. I think everyone would agree that it is giant multi billion dollar corps that are the one stiffing their employees that are the issue, not you local privately owned diner or landscape company.


The problem with this is those smaller companies would immediately lose all their employees to Walmart, Burger King, or Home Depot, where they could make $15/hr instead of $7.75. Once you move the fixed price for, what, 60-70% of minimum wage jobs in America, by creating a two-tiered system, the second tier is going to have to follow suit regardless. 



mmr007 said:


> Actually the most important thing for small businesses is to get rid of the employee based healthcare system we have. It is asanine and we should not have a trillion dollar industry that profits off our health anyway but that argument aside...I used to work for a small business ~150 employees in 3 states back in 2001. I was initially given permission to hire 10 more employees which would almost double the size of my office call center staff who made about $14.00 an hour, again... back in 2001...so twenty years ago and health care costs have only increased since then. But the decision by the SVP was vetoed because of healthcare costs to the company made it not viable to hire 10 freaking people. Ten jobs not created because of the cost of not paying them...but insuring them. Another job I was at recently had 600 employees and the employer contribution to healthcare nearly kept us in the red. Each year the company wrote a check for $9.95 million just for employer coverage portion of healthcare....just under 10 million a year of company profits going to a healthcare system that denies claims at every opportunity
> 
> You want lower unemployment...you want higher wages?...get healthcare out of the employer's responsibility as it doesn't belong there anyway


Bingo.


----------



## thraxil

I'd be OK with getting rid of the minimum wage if we had universal basic income....


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> Well, except price setting takes market equiliberum out of it, no? I mean, in some ways, it's as simple as we're not talking about "jobs," we're talking about "minimum wage jobs." They're a whole separate class, which we as a society have accepted that supply and demand doesn't impact wages. That's a pretty fundamental change.



You're making exactly my point. We have seen that waiting for an equilibrium without price setting doesn't work in America, because wages are still low and stagnating. 
So price setting (minimum wage) is clearly not perfect, but it would have the mechanical effect to pull the wages higher. An effect that the market on its own has now clearly demonstrated it's not going to do on its own.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> You're making exactly my point. We have seen that waiting for an equilibrium without price setting doesn't work in America, because wages are still low and stagnating.
> So price setting (minimum wage) is clearly not perfect, but it would have the mechanical effect to pull the wages higher. An effect that the market on its own has now clearly demonstrated it's not going to do on its own.


Not really - my point was there are also situations where it can pull the price _lower_, which is the opposite of your point.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> Not really - my point was there are also situations where it can pull the price _lower_, which is the opposite of your point.



I see what you're trying to say, but still don't see an argument for it.

How is minimum wage at risk of lowering overall wages? I have heard some "feel" arguments such as "qualified work wages are going to go down because of it" or "it reduces competition between business to offer better wages", but to me none pass the smell test. The former doesn't hold if you realize that wages being equal, people would just take easier the "easier"/less qualified jobs - while the latter falls apart because it was never the point in the first place. Companies are already not competing to offer better wages in that category. Otherwise we wouldn't be having that conversation.


----------



## Ralyks

New York got Trumps financial and tax documents on Monday.
It finally happened. It feels weird saying that.


----------



## Thaeon

spudmunkey said:


> I personally think NASA should keep their funding, and the money that could be better spent on social safety nets, or etc should come from the Defense budget.



Yes. We overspend here. However, as stated previously, there is a lot of R&D that spills over into the private sector that helps people a great deal.



mbardu said:


> I feel like it's a mix of "there aren't many people in that situation" (which is easily disproven) and "if they're there, maybe they're not really trying" (which is just as wrong).
> 
> On the latter, sometimes this is linked to the typical psychological bias of thinking that *you *worked hard to get where you are, so everything is thanks to you and you didn't have to rely on luck or support. And in turn, maybe people who don't succeed as well must be doing something wrong, and either are not really trying or not deserving to do better.
> Except most successful people didn't end up successful by sheer force of will alone. And plenty of hard working decent people end up in shitty situations. Circumstances and luck and support always play a role. You can work as hard as you want, but if like keeps kicking you in the teeth, it's possible to get stuck for a loooong time through no fault of your own.



We're also assuming that people DO stay at this level for a whole life. Not that some of the workforce in these jobs are retirees who need something extra because their pension or whatever isn't enough to maintain their quality of life. Some people are making decent money, but life circumstance change. Divorce is a big deal in this country, and alimony and child support can literally force you to maintain your ex's standard of living at the expense of your own.



Dineley said:


> In relation to amount of people on bad wages when I drove from Canada to Florida there was hundreds of towns that werent much more than the image below. Opportunity isnt always there
> View attachment 90673



Lets not forget that around half of the country's population lives in the small inbetween places where there is little opportunity.



mbardu said:


> I see what you're trying to say, but still don't see an argument for it.
> 
> How is minimum wage at risk of lowering overall wages? I have heard some "feel" arguments such as "qualified work wages are going to go down because of it" or "it reduces competition between business to offer better wages", but to me none pass the smell test. The former doesn't hold if you realize that wages being equal, people would just take easier the "easier"/less qualified jobs - while the latter falls apart because it was never the point in the first place. Companies are already not competing to offer better wages in that category. Otherwise we wouldn't be having that conversation.



Because it sets a floor and allows business to not accept new workers at a wage higher than that to start out in order to save money on new talent. If you start at the lowest common denominator, a lower salary in your next position looks better than it would otherwise. Business seeks profit, and will cut margins where it can legally. This sets a legal standard for where you start people. Then there's the lobbying and such to keep it low. Wages WOULD fluctuate without a minimum. But on average would probably be higher. It would also probably help keep fields like law and medicine from becoming oversaturated. If there's no demand for lawyers, then lawyers aren't going to be able to continue to charge crazy amounts for their services. Wages fluctuate a little currently anyway though as markets get flooded. Here in San Antonio, there are too many people in IT infrastructure. So much so, that its not uncommon to get offered a Tier II support job at $12/hr. Tier III at $20. Tier II should be $20. III should start around $30. Here I am doing a SYSTEMS ADMIN job for $20/hr. The ones that DO pay well here are Unicorn jobs. Raise the minimum, and slowly, that will work its way up to middle class jobs making closer to what they should strengthening the middle class again.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> I see what you're trying to say, but still don't see an argument for it.
> 
> How is minimum wage at risk of lowering overall wages? I have heard some "feel" arguments such as "qualified work wages are going to go down because of it" or "it reduces competition between business to offer better wages", but to me none pass the smell test. The former doesn't hold if you realize that wages being equal, people would just take easier the "easier"/less qualified jobs - while the latter falls apart because it was never the point in the first place. Companies are already not competing to offer better wages in that category. Otherwise we wouldn't be having that conversation.


I mean, we've established you have no interest in wanting to debate something to improve your, and others', understanding of the issue or subject, but have a reputation here for arguing just to argue.

But, per a quick google search, BLS estimates 1.7 million workers in the US work minimum wage jobs. That means there are 1.7 million jobs in this country where, if you apply, you're told up front that the wage is going to be the federally-set minimum. Put another way, that's 1.7 million jobs in this country that have wages NOT set by market forces, but by mandate.

That federally mandated rate hasn't come close to keeping up with either the rate of inflation, or the rate of productivity growth in this country, which should be a pretty clear sign that it's too low, not from mere (!!) concern for human beings working so-called "minimum wage jobs" but because it strongly implies that the value contribution from labor has grown at a rate faster than the "floor" price of labor. Yet, there _being_ a mandated minimum wage gives employers a pretty good reason to keep that wage anchored rather than to try to figure out what the market rate is and adjust wages to find the equiliberum point. Basically, it takes all those 1.7 million jobs, and mandates that they have the exact same wage, so there's pretty clearly at least _less_ pressure on companies from a price discovery standpoint. Considering, you know, there's no price discovery - wages are $7.75, end of story.

Then there's the fact that large employers like Amazon and Walmart already HAVE abandoned the minimum wage, and moved to a $15 starting position, with no ill effect - if companies can pay more than double the federally regulated minimum and not have their profitability impacted (worth noting here is Walmart estimated that their costs on labor actually _dropped_ when they moved to $15, because turnover fell and they spent less money on hiring and training entry level staff than they spent on higher wages - basically, that minimum wage was a below-market rate, and they were paying higher frictional costs elsewhere for it than they would have been if they'd just redirected that capital to pay salary in the first place) then that strongly implies they were paying a below-market rate previously.

I'm not saying a below-market minimum wage results in lower wages in _all_ situations - again, in a recession, you'd expect the marginal cost of labor to plummet as supply radically exceeds demand - but pretty much any time you engage in price setting in an economy, you're creating economic inefficiency and economic losses, and it's kind of naive to think those losses are ONLY happening to businesses. On the measure I think a minimum is worth these frictional costs, but you can minimize them somewhat if the deviation between the mandated wage and what labor is actually _worth_ is relatively small, and it should be pretty clear to anyone with both a brain and a heart that labor is worth more than $7.75 an hour, and if there's anything in this world that can't be done economically for anything more than $7.75 an hour, then we probably don't need it.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> I mean, we've established you have no interest in wanting to debate something to improve your, and others', understanding of the issue or subject, but have a reputation here for arguing just to argue.
> 
> But, per a quick google search, BLS estimates 1.7 million workers in the US work minimum wage jobs. That means there are 1.7 million jobs in this country where, if you apply, you're told up front that the wage is going to be the federally-set minimum. Put another way, that's 1.7 million jobs in this country that have wages NOT set by market forces, but by mandate.
> 
> That federally mandated rate hasn't come close to keeping up with either the rate of inflation, or the rate of productivity growth in this country, which should be a pretty clear sign that it's too low, not from mere (!!) concern for human beings working so-called "minimum wage jobs" but because it strongly implies that the value contribution from labor has grown at a rate faster than the "floor" price of labor. Yet, there _being_ a mandated minimum wage gives employers a pretty good reason to keep that wage anchored rather than to try to figure out what the market rate is and adjust wages to find the equiliberum point. Basically, it takes all those 1.7 million jobs, and mandates that they have the exact same wage, so there's pretty clearly at least _less_ pressure on companies from a price discovery standpoint. Considering, you know, there's no price discovery - wages are $7.75, end of story.
> 
> Then there's the fact that large employers like Amazon and Walmart already HAVE abandoned the minimum wage, and moved to a $15 starting position, with no ill effect - if companies can pay more than double the federally regulated minimum and not have their profitability impacted (worth noting here is Walmart estimated that their costs on labor actually _dropped_ when they moved to $15, because turnover fell and they spent less money on hiring and training entry level staff than they spent on higher wages - basically, that minimum wage was a below-market rate, and they were paying higher frictional costs elsewhere for it than they would have been if they'd just redirected that capital to pay salary in the first place) then that strongly implies they were paying a below-market rate previously.
> 
> I'm not saying a below-market minimum wage results in lower wages in _all_ situations - again, in a recession, you'd expect the marginal cost of labor to plummet as supply radically exceeds demand - but pretty much any time you engage in price setting in an economy, you're creating economic inefficiency and economic losses, and it's kind of naive to think those losses are ONLY happening to businesses. On the measure I think a minimum is worth these frictional costs, but you can minimize them somewhat if the deviation between the mandated wage and what labor is actually _worth_ is relatively small, and it should be pretty clear to anyone with both a brain and a heart that labor is worth more than $7.75 an hour, and if there's anything in this world that can't be done economically for anything more than $7.75 an hour, then we probably don't need it.



Not sure why you're being so aggressive and where I have not been open to debate but whatever.

At least you're saying first that the current minimum wage is too low (which I've said from the start). At least we can agree on that 
But then on one hand you're saying saying that the companies are mandated to the 7.75$ today, so a minimum prevents them from offering more, but then quoting the example of Amazon, which offers more despite the existence of a minimum. So which is it?

Your initial point in response to my post was "a better mandated minimum wage _can _lower actual wages" (not saying in _all cases_, obviously nothing will apply in all cases...) and I'm still not seeing how you're showing that. A 15$ minimum would not pull wages lower for all those 7.75$ employers, because they would literally have to double the pay by definition - while the Amazons would not lower wages either because they are already above the 15$ proposed minimum. So who would see those decreases in wages?
Apart from thought experiment, I don't see a downside to increasing the federal minimum.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> Not sure why you're being so aggressive and where I have not been open to debate but whatever.
> 
> At least you're saying first that the current minimum wage is too low (which I've said from the start). At least we can agree on that
> But then on one hand you're saying saying that the companies are mandated to the 7.75$ today, so a minimum prevents them from offering more, but then quoting the example of Amazon, which offers more despite the existence of a minimum. So which is it?
> 
> Your initial point in response to my post was "a better mandated minimum wage _can _lower actual wages" (not saying in _all cases_, obviously nothing will apply in all cases...) and I'm still not seeing how you're showing that. A 15$ minimum would not pull wages lower for all those 7.75$ employers, because they would literally have to double the pay by definition - while the Amazons would not lower wages either because they are already above the 15$ proposed minimum. So who would see those decreases in wages?
> Apart from thought experiment, I don't see a downside to increasing the federal minimum.


I've said from the very start that I'm in favor of a higher federal minimim. 

A federal minimum doesn't prevent companies from offering more. It gives them a pretty good default reason NOT to though, and in turn does away with price discovery at the lower tier of the wage pool. Thaeon got the point I was making pretty quickly, maybe go back and re-read the exchange between he and I.


----------



## Thaeon

mbardu said:


> Not sure why you're being so aggressive and where I have not been open to debate but whatever.
> 
> At least you're saying first that the current minimum wage is too low (which I've said from the start). At least we can agree on that
> But then on one hand you're saying saying that the companies are mandated to the 7.75$ today, so a minimum prevents them from offering more, but then quoting the example of Amazon, which offers more despite the existence of a minimum. So which is it?
> 
> Your initial point in response to my post was "a better mandated minimum wage _can _lower actual wages" (not saying in _all cases_, obviously nothing will apply in all cases...) and I'm still not seeing how you're showing that. A 15$ minimum would not pull wages lower for all those 7.75$ employers, because they would literally have to double the pay by definition - while the Amazons would not lower wages either because they are already above the 15$ proposed minimum. So who would see those decreases in wages?
> Apart from thought experiment, I don't see a downside to increasing the federal minimum.



@Drew isn't being aggressive. He's passionate about this stuff and has some really well thought and well researched positions. IIRC, his work means he has to keep this stuff in front of him a fair amount. I've been on the opposite side of arguments with him before. My observation is that he's always respectful unless the other person makes it clear that they're just attacking and unwilling to be reasonable. 

To be clear here. I think most of what has been discussed on this last series of posts is HIGHLY speculative on everyone's part. I don't see Drew as saying what will happen. Just one of the more probable outcomes. And I think that he is in support of upping the minimum. Just making the observation that there might be some unforeseen consequences. I do agree that business likes to take advantage of a minimum wage, and would love to use one to drive labor prices through the floor. Its what is best for the bottom line.


----------



## Mathemagician

Some issues I see with that viewpoint about price discovery at the lower end is that it assumes symmetric information and that humans will all act as rational machines who can wait out not having food/shelter while they wait for employers to capitulate and glacially raise their offerings to meet the “desired” median.

1) Assumes employers don’t hire market research consultants/do their own market research to see just how low they can go. Which we know they do. So they arguably “know” the minimum possible wage they can get away with whether the employees do or don’t. That’s why In & Out starts around $15-17 in most locations. They can’t pay less but they would if they could (west coast). But McDonald’s can pay as little as $11 in some places. $11 is still garbage, but McDonald’s has bet that they can’t find anything “better” around so they control all the negotiating leverage.

2) It assumes that people don’t have kids and bills to pay. If all the jobs pay $11 and they need $15, then they will just work for $11 because they need to, eliminating any chance of prices moving higher. The supply outstrips “demand” enough.


----------



## Mathemagician

So separately, while I understand a company being ruthless in keeping labor costs down, because people are 100% just a labor expense - I’ve been there even in my very technical “good” career.

I always kind of feel bad about how regular people then make the mental quantum leap that “well if SOMEONE is desperate enough to take it then it’s good enough”.

Yes, academically if the “free market” were actually free that might hold up. But there is near zero competition between employers. For the first time since the Great Recession ~15 years ago the labor pool is starting to dry up and wages are getting pushed higher and some industries are having absolute meltdowns that healthy men/women (adults not children) in their 20’s won’t break their backs in a warehouse for $14/hr like they did in 2013. Now it’s $16-17/hr and they’re furious that a less backbreaking job will drain labor further at $15/hr. Yeah good, pay the warehouse guy $22-25/hr. Then you have good leverage for your mid level admin job that currently pays $25/hr to bump you up to $30+.

$60k is way too hard to reach currently, for how little it buys you.

That’s a working class job and deserves a working class wage. I analyze economic data all day and sit on calls with better analysts than me walking me through projections. The media/political driven fear of a bump in wages isn’t even a blip in the conversation. These companies are 100% going to be fine with minimum wage going up and it’s now assumed and baked into valuations that it’s going to happen. By the smart money/institutional investors that is. Retail will “sell in fear” as soon as it gets passed creating a buying opportunity for institutional investors. Again.

People will buy into trickle down economics, but ignore the immediate effects of trickle up economic activity.


----------



## bostjan

There are multiple ways to look at the jobs market. I think it is necessary to look at things multiple ways to be successful.

From a cold and calculated standpoint, nothing is guaranteed, there are too many people and not enough jobs, so it's an economy that favours employers.

It totally sucks that people can't make enough to make ends meet working at McDonald's or Mobil or Call Centers R Us. Conservatives will say that those jobs are intended for yound adults and preadult teens, and, they are not wrong, but they are neglecting the fact that there aren't enough jobs, so adults have ro compete for those jobs with teens. The situation is bad. Who needs to fix it?

Well, generally, less regulation could lead to a more open market, so, ultimately, things will work out to balance favour, but the transition would be a mess. But I don't even know if bumping up the minimum wage will even be a good enough answer in 2021... and I doubt it will be by 2050. Eventually, there will just be too many people and not enoigh cool stuff to do to justify a good job for everyone.

Here we are in 2021, coronavirus spreading like wildfire due to global overpopulation, wildfire spreading like umm wildfire due to climate change that ultimately is due to overpopulation. Famine and megaswarms and shit from natural resource overtaxing from global overpopulation.... unfortunately the answer to all of this is for there to be fewer people. And no one wants to think about that.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Some issues I see with that viewpoint about price discovery at the lower end is that it assumes symmetric information and that humans will all act as rational machines who can wait out not having food/shelter while they wait for employers to capitulate and glacially raise their offerings to meet the “desired” median.
> 
> 1) Assumes employers don’t hire market research consultants/do their own market research to see just how low they can go. Which we know they do. So they arguably “know” the minimum possible wage they can get away with whether the employees do or don’t. That’s why In & Out starts around $15-17 in most locations. They can’t pay less but they would if they could (west coast). But McDonald’s can pay as little as $11 in some places. $11 is still garbage, but McDonald’s has bet that they can’t find anything “better” around so they control all the negotiating leverage.
> 
> 2) It assumes that people don’t have kids and bills to pay. If all the jobs pay $11 and they need $15, then they will just work for $11 because they need to, eliminating any chance of prices moving higher. The supply outstrips “demand” enough.


I mean, you kinda get into this in your second post with the zero competition between employers - a minimum wage is inherently anticompetitive, because it fixes and standardizes the offer side of the equation, and puts more pressure on the side of labor if they're asking for more than being offered.

Again, I'm not in favor of abolishing a minimum wage, I'm in favor of increasing it, and doing so pretty substantially. I think what I'm saying here is a rather fascinating academic question, but in the real world the stakes are too high to try this unless you had extremely high confidence that you were right (and even then I would imagine wages would be tied extremely closely to the business cycle, and that volatility alone would potentially be reason alone not to abolish a minimum).

But, we have a class of jobs we call "minimum wage jobs," with little clarity in what a minimum wage job _is_, aside from one where the company hiring is only willing to pay a fixed wage. We have 1.7 million of these jobs, roughly 2% of the workforce, and the federal government sets the salary rate for them. You're right that people with expenses to pay will take a minimum wage if that's the best on offer, and that keeps wages down... but that's a HUGE section of the market where employers aren't really competing for wages. They're price-givers, not price-takers.

Again, through the filter of a minimum wage that's pretty clearly way out of whack with the actual value of labor... Maybe the better way to frame what I'm trying to say is this; if we have an economy where the "floor" for wages is fixed by the government, and that floor isn't indexed to inflation or productivity in any way, then as that floor effectively falls lower and lower whether measured in terms of either productivity or inflation, then it's gotta have _some_ effect on pulling down the price of labor, certainly for minimum wage jobs, probably more broadly.

Or to try to put it even more succulently - the very existence of a "floor" price in the labor markets has an impact on competitive behavior and negotiation, even if it's as simple as allowing a company to justify making a really shitty hourly offer, by shoving the Overton window WAY the fuck down.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> @Drew isn't being aggressive. He's passionate about this stuff and has some really well thought and well researched positions. IIRC, his work means he has to keep this stuff in front of him a fair amount. I've been on the opposite side of arguments with him before. My observation is that he's always respectful unless the other person makes it clear that they're just attacking and unwilling to be reasonable.


Thanks, but don't bother - that's part of his argumentative style, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of "being aggressive."


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> I mean, you kinda get into this in your second post with the zero competition between employers - a minimum wage is inherently anticompetitive, because it fixes and standardizes the offer side of the equation, and puts more pressure on the side of labor if they're asking for more than being offered.
> 
> Again, I'm not in favor of abolishing a minimum wage, I'm in favor of increasing it, and doing so pretty substantially. I think what I'm saying here is a rather fascinating academic question, but in the real world the stakes are too high to try this unless you had extremely high confidence that you were right (and even then I would imagine wages would be tied extremely closely to the business cycle, and that volatility alone would potentially be reason alone not to abolish a minimum).
> 
> But, we have a class of jobs we call "minimum wage jobs," with little clarity in what a minimum wage job _is_, aside from one where the company hiring is only willing to pay a fixed wage. We have 1.7 million of these jobs, roughly 2% of the workforce, and the federal government sets the salary rate for them. You're right that people with expenses to pay will take a minimum wage if that's the best on offer, and that keeps wages down... but that's a HUGE section of the market where employers aren't really competing for wages. They're price-givers, not price-takers.
> 
> Again, through the filter of a minimum wage that's pretty clearly way out of whack with the actual value of labor... Maybe the better way to frame what I'm trying to say is this; if we have an economy where the "floor" for wages is fixed by the government, and that floor isn't indexed to inflation or productivity in any way, then as that floor effectively falls lower and lower whether measured in terms of either productivity or inflation, then it's gotta have _some_ effect on pulling down the price of labor, certainly for minimum wage jobs, probably more broadly.
> 
> Or to try to put it even more succulently - the very existence of a "floor" price in the labor markets has an impact on competitive behavior and negotiation, even if it's as simple as allowing a company to justify making a really shitty hourly offer, by shoving the Overton window WAY the fuck down.



1) No worries I know you’re not claiming to get rid of the minimum as an answer. I get your thought experiment. 

2) Agree that when it doesn’t rise its a loss of buying power for the consumer. The minimum not only has to be raised “this time” but indexed to inflation. Then part of that second issues resolved itself. Any raise below 2% annually is a net pay cut. I have literally argued with mgmt about raises and subtracted 2% from the number they gave me. Because I can. Other people don’t have leverage and eat annual sub 2% raises and lose money every year. 

The big problem? Politicians would lose a VALUABLE wedge issue to run on. How can they make vague promises about the middle class and small business once we’ve adjusted to a roughly 2% baseline pay bump. IE even if you’re garbage and do the bare minimum, if the company isn’t willing to fire you over it then you shouldn’t actually lose money annually. 

3) I love it when you put things succulently


----------



## Shoeless_jose

yeah the thought experiment and points @Drew make are all awesome totally opened my eyes its a shame its all held back by human scumminess. 

also saw a meme that reminded me of how this thread got a few pages back


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> Thanks, but don't bother - that's part of his argumentative style, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of "being aggressive."



If your "_I mean, we've established you have no interest in wanting to debate something to improve your, and others', understanding of the issue or subject, but have a reputation here for arguing just to argue._" wasn't meant to be aggressive or a personal attack then I guess you may have mistyped, because it certainly looked that way.

Anyway, we have established that a good minimum wage would be a net positive, 15$ would be a good start, and you do have a good point for calling one thing out explicitly- it needs to be indexed to inflation, otherwise it's moot (that's kinda implied by it being a "good" wage - it needs to "stay" good).

On top of that though, saying "it may hypothetically have some negative side effects and push down other wages" is fine as a discussion point, but again, I'm yet to see any argument supporting that in practice. On the contrary, we know for a fact that a 15$ minimum would increase wages in many areas (starting with literally all the wages stuck at 7.75$). Even if we didn't adjust for inflation _for a while_, that would already be a significant boon - not only to those jobs, but to the others which compete with minimum wage. We also know for a fact that many companies are already compensating above and beyond that anyway (you quoted examples yourself). So I see no reason to believe that there would be any significant negative effect on wages that are already far from the minimum.

Put another way, the argument of "some companies would use a low minimal wage to avoid offering better" is fine on its own, but those companies/jobs are precisely the ones which won't have any _choice in the matter _since they'll have to match the (ideally inflation indexed) mandated 15$, effectively doubling the wages they pay. Whereas the other companies, the ones already offering significantly more than minimum wage; not only are they not using minimum wage, by definition - but they would start to feel the competitive pressure of now _any _labor being worth at least the higher federal minimum - so would not be able to pay lower.

Maybe it would happen, and I'd be happy to think through a concrete case if you have one - but otherwise that sounds to me like one purely theoretical argument to dilute or tamper the benefits of 15$ - and that's what I don't think is useful.


----------



## fantom

Thaeon said:


> Lets not forget that around half of the country's population lives in the small inbetween places where there is little opportunity



This may be an unpopular opinion...

If you live in a place with no opportunity, you move. Nothing forces people to live in a small town with no opportunity. People choose to stay.

All of these "immigrants" are doing exactly that. They recognize there is better opportunity elsewhere and they take control of their livelihoods instead of complaining about minimum wage and abortion. I have far more sympathy for people stuck at the border due to idiotic immigration policies.


Also, this was already mentioned, but minimum wage should not set at the federal level, it should be set at the county level to adjust for cost of living. $15 is not worth applying for the job in San Francisco. If the county sets a stupid low amount, you guessed it... You move to a better place.


----------



## mbardu

Mathemagician said:


> Some issues I see with that viewpoint about price discovery at the lower end is that it assumes symmetric information and that humans will all act as rational machines who can wait out not having food/shelter while they wait for employers to capitulate and glacially raise their offerings to meet the “desired” median.
> 
> 1) Assumes employers don’t hire market research consultants/do their own market research to see just how low they can go. Which we know they do. So they arguably “know” the minimum possible wage they can get away with whether the employees do or don’t. That’s why In & Out starts around $15-17 in most locations. They can’t pay less but they would if they could (west coast). But McDonald’s can pay as little as $11 in some places. $11 is still garbage, but McDonald’s has bet that they can’t find anything “better” around so they control all the negotiating leverage.
> 
> 2) It assumes that people don’t have kids and bills to pay. If all the jobs pay $11 and they need $15, then they will just work for $11 because they need to, eliminating any chance of prices moving higher. The supply outstrips “demand” enough.



Exactly. Essentially, there is no real price discovery at the low end of wages. It's stuck at the minimum, and people who have no other choice take those jobs.
I glossed over actual price discovery because at that end of the spectrum, it's so bad that we don't even need that argument to say that regulation would have an immediate and clear effect in increasing wages. By definition.

Where there is price discovery, wages are already above that 15$ in general, so increasing the federal minimum would not have an impact there.
I think the question "but could it have a negative effect on other wages?" is a fair one to ask, but I don't think it's really something to be concerned with.
It looks to me that where it _could_ have a second-level/derivative detrimental impact is precisely for jobs and wages that are close to minimum today, so the jump from 7 to 15 on those would more than make up for it, and for quite some time, even with inflation.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> I've said from the very start that I'm in favor of a higher federal minimim.
> 
> A federal minimum doesn't prevent companies from offering more. It gives them a pretty good default reason NOT to though, *and in turn does away with price discovery at the lower tier of the wage pool*. Thaeon got the point I was making pretty quickly, maybe go back and re-read the exchange between he and I.



That's the thing. It would not remove price discovery at the lower tier of the wage pool...because there is already no price discovery. It's stuck at 7.75$.

It wouldn't add any _more _incentives to companies to offer less either... because they're already offering as little as they can.

15$ is substantial in comparison with that, and the examples of companies that you keep quoting as negatively impacting the workers by ignoring price discovery...are precisely the companies who will be forced to pay more because the minimum wage would go to 15$. Reason to do it or not, it will have no bearing there. They will have no say in it and will have to pay 15$.

So no downside.


----------



## mmr007

Our tax dollars at work....I now believe that the federal minimum wage should be $7.75...at least for freshman congressmen(women) from Georgia....is putting up shitty signs in the hallway how bills get made? Did I miss that part on schoolhouse rock?

Kinda ironic that this ...woman(?) looks like a cross between John Cena and something that is possibly on the female spectrum but not quite defined as such.


----------



## SpaceDock

She is a disgusting adulterous whore who I hope is judged harshly by her god for passing judgment on others while breaking the rules of her own faith.


----------



## Mathemagician

Ok so for those that don’t know who Mr. Price is, he is the gentleman who instituted a $70k/yr minimum wage. Got called a socialist by certain talking heads, crazy by financial media. 

Here is an article about the decision and it’s effects:

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201511/paul-keegan/does-more-pay-mean-more-growth.html

And here is one about his firm bringing the $70k minimum to their Idaho office. For anyone convinced it only happened because of Seattle. 

https://www.fastcompany.com/9047792...-its-70000-minimum-wage-from-seattle-to-idaho


And yes, in the article it says that people complained. “It’s not fair, I had to work more to earn that much” But the company still did way better after the wage hikes. 

All price did was get these people onto the bottom rung of a middle class life. The rest is on them.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

Well, hate to make the minimum wage talk seem like it doesn't matter right now, but looks like the Senate can't vote.on it in th stimulus bill anyway:

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/25/970637190/senate-cant-vote-on-15-minimum-wage-parliamentarian-rules

Honestly, I hope this just means they get the Covid bill done and over with now and the minimum wage issue can be addressed separately.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 90700
> 
> 
> Our tax dollars at work....I now believe that the federal minimum wage should be $7.75...at least for freshman congressmen(women) from Georgia....is putting up shitty signs in the hallway how bills get made? Did I miss that part on schoolhouse rock?





"Trust the science"





"No, wait...not _that_ science"








"STOP IT! I meant _real_ science"








"Ooh, baby...that's what I'm talking about..."


----------



## Wuuthrad

Republicans- get bent, you DON’T represent!


----------



## BlackSG91

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 90700
> 
> 
> Our tax dollars at work....I now believe that the federal minimum wage should be $7.75...at least for freshman congressmen(women) from Georgia....is putting up shitty signs in the hallway how bills get made? Did I miss that part on schoolhouse rock?
> 
> Kinda ironic that this ...woman(?) looks like a cross between John Cena and something that is possibly on the female spectrum but not quite defined as such.



Marjorie is ferociously famous worldwide and now she is part of the new 'Karen' doll collection (batteries not included). With the likes courtroom 'Karen' & taser 'Karen'...she is insurrection 'Karen'.







;>)/


----------



## nightflameauto

So, Biden has studiously not spoken about Trump. I think a large portion of us are pretty happy with that.

So CPAC is taking place and Trump is set to give a big speech (with my Governor Noem *PUKE* in support). The expectation is he'll focus on Biden's supposed many failings and how the election was stolen from him. And the press is already beginning to stir the pot and say that Biden needs to strike back, and hard, because they want more viewership and clicks. Keeping Trump is the cycle is literally how they keep business flowing, so of course they want Biden to focus on him.

I find it hilarious that Biden just keeps moving without addressing the elephant that was shoved out of the room. Hopefully he can keep that going.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> So, Biden has studiously not spoken about Trump. I think a large portion of us are pretty happy with that.
> 
> So CPAC is taking place and Trump is set to give a big speech (with my Governor Noem *PUKE* in support). The expectation is he'll focus on Biden's supposed many failings and how the election was stolen from him. And the press is already beginning to stir the pot and say that Biden needs to strike back, and hard, because they want more viewership and clicks. Keeping Trump is the cycle is literally how they keep business flowing, so of course they want Biden to focus on him.
> 
> I find it hilarious that Biden just keeps moving without addressing the elephant that was shoved out of the room. Hopefully he can keep that going.



If there's anything we've learned the last five years, it's that the media has failed us spectacularly.


----------



## mmr007

nightflameauto said:


> I find it hilarious that Biden just keeps moving without addressing _*the elephant that was shoved out of the room*_. Hopefully he can keep that going.



I find that comment hilarious. Bravo


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> I find that comment hilarious. Bravo


*BOWS*

I do what I can with the limited intelligence I was gifted with.


----------



## Mathemagician

All he needs to do is announce a shiny executive order midway through the speech. Something that helps a bunch of people, isn’t partisan, you know quality news. It’s a twist on the classic playbook because it would be an announcement of something that helps citizens, versus a new threat via Twitter.


----------



## mmr007

https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780

So take this article with a grain of salt because everyone knows the Wall Street Journal is a liberal rag pushing socialist propoganda but apparently since deregulation Texans have paid $28 BILLION more in electrical costs than if they had stayed in a regulated market....and their electrical grid doesn't work in weather so apparently they get the worst of both worlds.


----------



## fantom

Just going to mention that MTG is not just a Karen, she is a woman version of Trump who cares more about getting attention than working with people. Welcome to the new political norm.


----------



## bostjan

Just read CBS news's article on why the minimum wage hike will never pass ( cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-covid-relief-bill-senate-parliamentarian/ ). They state that every bill requires a 60-40 vote to pass. That oversimplifies, but I think I get their point, that the threat of filibuster means that it'll never get to a vote, but filibusters don't always work. Can't they try? Worst case there is a filibuster, so then the democrats try other stuff. Eventually, Lindsey Graham will get sick of reading the phonebook, and the Senate can get back to work. Either that, or you teach the American people the valuable lesson that their elected representatives don't give half a shit about them, and say that as loud as they can. Because the 15$ minimum wage even has popular support in many red states. The GOP needs to be forced into the task of having to choose their battles whilst the Democrats have the control, otherwise, there's no point in having control.

Back in the 1950's, there was a filibuster over the Civil Rights Act, and they didn't have a way to obtain cloture, so Senators slept in the Senate floor and just waited for the southern senators to run out of hot air, then they voted and the bill passed.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-...billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780
> 
> So take this article with a grain of salt because everyone knows the Wall Street Journal is a liberal rag pushing socialist propoganda but apparently since deregulation Texans have paid $28 BILLION more in electrical costs than if they had stayed in a regulated market....and their electrical grid doesn't work in weather so apparently they get the worst of both worlds.



Worst of both worlds? 
They get record corporate profits for their overlords, what are you talking about?!?


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> Just read CBS news's article on why the minimum wage hike will never pass ( cbsnews.com/news/minimum-wage-covid-relief-bill-senate-parliamentarian/ ). They state that every bill requires a 60-40 vote to pass. That oversimplifies, but I think I get their point, that the threat of filibuster means that it'll never get to a vote, but filibusters don't always work. Can't they try? Worst case there is a filibuster, so then the democrats try other stuff. Eventually, Lindsey Graham will get sick of reading the phonebook, and the Senate can get back to work. Either that, or you teach the American people the valuable lesson that their elected representatives don't give half a shit about them, and say that as loud as they can. Because the 15$ minimum wage even *has popular support in many red states*. The GOP needs to be forced into the task of having to choose their battles whilst the Democrats have the control, otherwise, there's no point in having control.
> 
> Back in the 1950's, there was a filibuster over the Civil Rights Act, and they didn't have a way to obtain cloture, so Senators slept in the Senate floor and just waited for the southern senators to run out of hot air, then they voted and the bill passed.



The 15$ has support _in theory_ in many red states, but I guarantee this flips the minute the Democrats are actually trying to make it happen for real.
Just like Medicare/Medicaid is overwhelmingly loved, but people are against government in healthcare when proposed by democrats.

Democrats could try to give republican voters _anything_ and everyone would still be screaming bloody murder.
Just imagine (not that they would _try_), just imagine- they could try to give them _healthcare _or _better wages_, and they won't even want to touch it because of _librul _hate.


----------



## mbardu

Wuuthrad said:


> Republicans- get bent, you DON’T represent!
> 
> View attachment 90717



See now that's just plain unfair because Republicans do represent a large (and I mean _overwhelming _large) majority of empty land, for profit pastors, polluting industries and corporate billionaires. Don't they count? Don't forget, corporations are people too!

Damn _liberals _and their _numbers _trying to say that representatives should actually represent _people_. Such nonsense...


----------



## mmr007

Texas residents ....customers of electricity paid 28 billion more under de-regulation than they otherwise would have...and their electricity doesn't work when there is weather. They got the worst of both worlds....they got no benefit from what Rick Perry did.


----------



## mbardu

mmr007 said:


> Texas residents ....customers of electricity paid 28 billion more under de-regulation than they otherwise would have...and their electricity doesn't work when there is weather. They got the worst of both worlds....they got no benefit from what Rick Perry did.



Yes my reply was clearly a joke, but sorry if I didn't make that clear.
Of course deregulation is going to go to the pockets of corporate owners at the expense of customers and society as a whole.
This turn of events surprises literally noone


----------



## nightflameauto

mbardu said:


> Yes my reply was clearly a joke, but sorry if I didn't make that clear.
> Of course deregulation is going to go to the pockets of corporate owners at the expense of customers and society as a whole.
> This turn of events surprises literally noone


But...but...free markets! Deregulation! Corporate Citizenship! 

*COUGH*
Crap.
*COUGH*
Choked on it.


----------



## Mathemagician

I mean in a conversation with a friend they scoffed repeatedly at “liberals” while discussing a family member being on medical disability/Medicare/govt assistance due to a long term health issue and their concern over the person losing aid. 

That’s a progressive system that exists because “letting people die” wasn’t deemed ok by progressives.

Everyday people like the policies, but they are too busy trying to win “us versus them” and miss the points entirely.

People not dying and having dignity and access to shelter/food/medicine is an agreeable goal. Unless the other “team” says it.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> If there's anything we've learned the last five years, it's that the media has failed us spectacularly.



While I know media is fairly partisan and more profit driven there was a tonne of incredible investigative journalism that took place over Trump's term that just had ended up having zero real world effects due to echo chambers, the "fake news" brigade and the trash Republican elected officials who turned a blind eye to everything.

Besides sort of legitimizing Trump with airtime originally what do you think media did wrong or could do better? Just truly curious your take on it all


----------



## nightflameauto

Dineley said:


> While I know media is fairly partisan and more profit driven there was a tonne of incredible investigative journalism that took place over Trump's term that just had ended up having zero real world effects due to echo chambers, the "fake news" brigade and the trash Republican elected officials who turned a blind eye to everything.
> 
> Besides sort of legitimizing Trump with airtime originally what do you think media did wrong or could do better? Just truly curious your take on it all


For a start it would be nice to see reporting without sensationalist editorializing again. I know I'm twenty years out of touch with that comment, but I miss dudes like Walter Cronkite. I'm just old enough to remember some very serious stories coming from him, and it was always straight up "this is what happened, here's the details." Now they may start there, but before they're done they'll give at least five minutes of why it's such a tragedy, and more than likely try to wrap themselves into the story so that they can seem to be far more important than they actually are.

It would also be nice if we could get elected officials to stop behaving like completely braindead psycho-phants (intentional misspelling). Mitch McConnel, despite his strong rebuke to Trump, publicly stated this week he absolutely would fully support Donald Trump if he's nominated for 2024. How you reconcile those two stances in the same person is utterly beyond me. Worse, Republican supporters seem completely OK with it because "GO TEAM!"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> While I know media is fairly partisan and more profit driven there was a tonne of incredible investigative journalism that took place over Trump's term that just had ended up having zero real world effects due to echo chambers, the "fake news" brigade and the trash Republican elected officials who turned a blind eye to everything.
> 
> Besides sort of legitimizing Trump with airtime originally what do you think media did wrong or could do better? Just truly curious your take on it all



I just feel like a lot of seriousness and severity of the failings of our system was dulled by the constant need to play both sides. Not to mention the platforming of Trump, his surrogates, and pushers of the "Big Lie" narrative. 

Right now, they're cutting Psaki's briefings because they're not pushing ratings, meanwhile they'd prop up Spicer or Sanders on every screen lying through thier teeth unencumbered.

The white house press corps choosing to go to cocktail parties and insider luncheons instead of holding anyone accountable was especially disappointing. 

That's just off the top of my head. I'll have to dig more into Press Run to get the juices going.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just feel like a lot of seriousness and severity of the failings of our system was dulled by the constant need to play both sides. Not to mention the platforming of Trump, his surrogates, and pushers of the "Big Lie" narrative.
> 
> Right now, they're cutting Psaki's briefings because they're not pushing ratings, meanwhile they'd prop up Spicer or Sanders on every screen lying through thier teeth unencumbered.
> 
> The white house press corps choosing to go to cocktail parties and insider luncheons instead of holding anyone accountable was especially disappointing.
> 
> That's just off the top of my head. I'll have to dig more into Press Run to get the juices going.



Totally valid I get you. Like the whole give both views of a story thing isn't valid when one side is totally untrue.

And giving air time to Matt Gaetz and some of the other Republican operatives they would constantly put on was ridiculous. I havent had as much time to watch news lately but its a shame they are cutting Psaki's briefings. Pathetic really.

And totally unrelated but she's a total sleeper up there with the AT&T girl lol.


----------



## philkilla

Maybe I will get that 4th deployment I wanted after all..

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-syria-strike-exclusive-int-idUSKBN2AP337


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Eventually, Lindsey Graham will get sick of reading the phonebook, and the Senate can get back to work.



Just getting Lindsey Graham to read is kind of a victory in its own right.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## SpaceDock

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 90700
> 
> 
> Our tax dollars at work....I now believe that the federal minimum wage should be $7.75...at least for freshman congressmen(women) from Georgia....is putting up shitty signs in the hallway how bills get made? Did I miss that part on schoolhouse rock?
> 
> Kinda ironic that this ...woman(?) looks like a cross between John Cena and something that is possibly on the female spectrum but not quite defined as such.



Male and female bird?! It’s science!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photo-dual-gender-cardinal/


----------



## BlackSG91

On this upcoming Thursday, March 4th, 2021...Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated & sworn in as the 19th president of the United States. This is all according to the sovereign citizen movement. A law enacted in 1871 secretly turned the U.S. into a corporation and did away with the American government. It is also believed that FDR sold out U.S. citizens in 1933 when he ended the gold standard and replaced it by offering citizens as collateral to a group of shadowy foreign investors. That fact that 1933 was also the year when inaugurations were changed from March 4th to January 20th. Also on March 4th, 1789 in New York city the first Congress of the United States meets putting the U.S. constitution into effect and the U.S. Bill of Rights is written and proposed to Congress.




;>)/


----------



## USMarine75

I'm staying in southern VA right now and there are "Trump March 4th" flags everywhere.




Everywhere!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Shoeless_jose

thoughts on this?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I want to believe it's a coincidence, but how bad is it that I have any doubts at all?

Seems like a shitty stage design. Did they need to make it that shape for any particular reason? Are there any other stages that shape? 

A significant amount of people who watch this shit don't even know the difference between the various red/white/blue flag emojis, would they catch onto this? 

I just don't know.


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> I'm staying in southern VA right now and there are "Trump March 4th" flags everywhere.
> 
> View attachment 90782
> 
> 
> Everywhere!



That is just nuts! Where I am at people reluctantly took down Trump signs months ago.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> That is just nuts! Where I am at people reluctantly took down Trump signs months ago.



No changes out here. Not a single Trump 2020 sign taken down, just more poorly made, hand painted crazy bullshit about "God and Country" and "#StopTheSteal". Nothing about 3/4 yet. Yet.


----------



## Randy

Pft, we've still got Trump 2016 signs up around here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Pft, we've still got Trump 2016 signs up around here.



Most of those have been long since vandalized out here.


----------



## Ralyks

Sounds like Senate Democrats are shelving minimum wage all together for now, I guess so they can just get the bill through and figure it out later.

Honestly, probably the right move. Should focus on getting us in a position to try and get the jobs we lost back first.


----------



## sleewell

probably going to get flamed, again, but i think 1.9 trillion is a bit much at the current time given the size of the previous two covid bills and where we are now. cases are way down, vaccine shots per day is increasing. he would be smarter to take a deal they can pass with gop support even if its a much less amount and then use reconciliation for something else. the way this is playing out and how long its taking this covid bill will be his only accomplishment before the midterms. would be easy to say i took the covid deal we could get and then i also did this other great thing, instead all he will have is this bloated covid bill they are passing with no gop support as covid is kinda winding down. target a covid bill to help those who need it most and then get something else done. an infrastructure bill would put a lot of people to work and is badly needed.


----------



## nightflameauto

@sleewell, while I don't disagree entirely with you, I'm having a hard time imagining any form of bill coming from the Democratic side of the aisle that would get support in the Republican side. In fact, I'd be willing to bet real money that the Democrats could draft an entire bill out of Republican scripted talking points and the Republicans would still vote against it at this point. It's become their entire platform. "Democrats for, we're against."


----------



## sleewell

counter point: have the dems made any attempt to signal that they would come down off the 1.9 trillion figure? takes 2 to tango. last i heard i thought there was some gop form of a covid bill around the 500 or 600 billion amount, i thought a few of them spent like a day or two up at the white house talking to biden about it but then nothing came of it. that's a ton of money if used properly. if the dems would try to meet them somewhere in the middle of those two numbers they might get something. something like 800-900 billion which could help a lot of people and then they still have reconciliation to get something else done. 

i hear what you are saying, sounds like most of the gop is like that but when the dems are doing the same thing just saying saying its 1.9 trillion or nothing it kinda comes off in the same fashion. if I was biden I wouldn't want a covid bill to be the only thing I accomplished before the mid terms. can you imagine getting an infrastructure bill passed?? that would be historic. how many infrastructure weeks did trump have but he got nothing done. the campaign ads would write themselves.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

sleewell said:


> counter point: have the dems made any attempt to signal that they would come down off the 1.9 trillion figure? takes 2 to tango. last i heard i thought there was some gop form of a covid bill around the 500 or 600 billion amount, i thought a few of them spent like a day or two up at the white house talking to biden about it but then nothing came of it. that's a ton of money if used properly. if the dems would try to meet them somewhere in the middle of those two numbers they might get something. something like 800-900 billion which could help a lot of people and then they still have reconciliation to get something else done.
> 
> i hear what you are saying, sounds like most of the gop is like that but when the dems are doing the same thing just saying saying its 1.9 trillion or nothing it kinda comes off in the same fashion. if I was biden I wouldn't want a covid bill to be the only thing I accomplished before the mid terms. can you imagine getting an infrastructure bill passed?? that would be historic. how many infrastructure weeks did trump have but he got nothing done. the campaign ads would write themselves.



It could have been $3.50 and the GOP would say it's too expensive and try to block it.


----------



## thraxil

Nicolas Sarkozy was just found guilty of corruption and sentenced to three years (two of it suspended). France isn't the US, but it's a nice reminder that ex-presidents can go to jail.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> It could have been $3.50 and the GOP would say it's too expensive and try to block it.



That's when we realized the bill was actually a giant crustacean from the paleolithic era


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> That's when we realized the bill was actually giant crustacean from the paleolithic era



It was certainly bloated and long overdue.


----------



## bostjan

This is going pretty much how I predicted. The dems have 3 out of 4 of the control points of the federal government, and are afraid of filibusters and the SCotUS resisting their progress. If this was the GOP, they'd just keep pushong as hard as they could until they got somewhere, but the dems are just too afraid to try.

Meanwhile, Trump already has his 2024 campaign strategy nailed down and just demonstrated that he still has over 50% of the conservative vote, in spite of his abhorrent behaviour after the election.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> This is going pretty much how I predicted. The dems have 3 out of 4 of the control points of the federal government, and are afraid of filibusters and the SCotUS resisting their progress. If this was the GOP, they'd just keep pushong as hard as they could until they got somewhere, but the dems are just too afraid to try.
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump already has his 2024 campaign strategy nailed down and just demonstrated that he still has *over 50% of the conservative vote*, in spite of his abhorrent behaviour after the election.



hahahahahahahahaha 

If there was a redo of the presidential election tomorrow he'd still get* 99%* of the conservative vote and the votes he got this time around.

We keep thinking conservatives will see his true colors and stop supporting him, but that's just not what's happening here. They saw his true colors during the primaries, and through the access Hollywood stuff, and they loved him even more. They saw the 4 years of hatred while literally making the USA the laughing stock of the world, and they love him even more.

On election matters, like on all matters before, his support is not there _in spite of his abhorrent behaviour_. His support is there _*because *_of his abhorrent behavior. It's a feature not a bug. They literally want to see hatred and intolerance and bullying and lies and white supremacy and descent into fascism. That's what they're voting for


----------



## mmr007

If it works for the GOP maybe Dems should give it a try....embracing abhorrent behavior. Cuomo should just come out and say..."hell yeah I grabbed an unsolicited kiss...I would have grabbed her by the pussy but I'm only a governor...not like president or something"

Nevermind Dems can't even embrace what they stand for let alone to pretend to embrace what they don't.....stuck with feckless decency


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> This is going pretty much how I predicted. The dems have 3 out of 4 of the control points of the federal government, and are afraid of filibusters and the SCotUS resisting their progress. If this was the GOP, they'd just keep pushong as hard as they could until they got somewhere, but the dems are just too afraid to try.



Slow march to 2010 all over again. When the Dems, for 2 years, kept saying that the Republican minority were tying their hands and the voters quickly resolved that Dems were either lying or weak and handed control over to the Republicans.

Looking spineless loses you races even more handily than, idk, whatever you'd call what the Republicans have been doing.


----------



## Mathemagician

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ces-mcconnell-to-filibuster-his-own-proposal/

@sleewell

Like when McConnell filibustered his OWN proposal, when democrats agreed with him?

By preventing it from going to a vote he was able to prevent GOP officials from having their votes go on the record against resolving the debt ceiling issue. Preventing any republicans from being held accountable and allowing the GOP to keep pushing a narrative blaming the Dems. 

What exactly in the last 8+ years makes an average person think that the GOP even wants to have discussion and debate points in good faith?


----------



## Mathemagician

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...unger-fears-rise-as-food-prices-soar-globally

Food prices surging in emerging markets and projections show its spreading to the west and we should expect it to accelerate in the near/intermediate term. 

So without wages rising, prices still go up. 

Math & economics doesn’t care about politics.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think that is interesting because we see all the stats showing USA doing so poorly with Covid relative to our population, but it wager that it is just horribly under reported in other countries. Why else would we be seeing the supply problems?


----------



## Mathemagician

The estimates for access to the vaccine for developing countries in many cases doesn’t show them getting access until well into 2022 or later. Hopefully the ramping up of global production brings that down. But early projections did not paint a good picture.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> This is going pretty much how I predicted. The dems have 3 out of 4 of the control points of the federal government, and are afraid of filibusters and the SCotUS resisting their progress. If this was the GOP, they'd just keep pushong as hard as they could until they got somewhere, but the dems are just too afraid to try.





Randy said:


> Slow march to 2010 all over again. When the Dems, for 2 years, kept saying that the Republican minority were tying their hands and the voters quickly resolved that Dems were either lying or weak and handed control over to the Republicans.
> 
> Looking spineless loses you races even more handily than, idk, whatever you'd call what the Republicans have been doing.


At this point it's not spinelessness. The Democrats just had four years of being beaten over the head with aggressive egregiousness. If they don't take that lesson and use it against the Republicans in an equally aggressive manner there's a super simple explanation. They don't actually want to accomplish any of the things they espouse. Pushing the agendas they campaign on would upset their donors. And they aren't smart enough to realize that the donors will dry up once they're booted from office for being incompetent and weak.

I would love to see the Democrats push just a tiny bit against the Republicans, but this cycle has been repeating my entire adult life. Republicans have power, they push and push and push. Democrats have power, they throw up their hands and go, "We can't do anything. Those big bullies in the minority are preventing progress."

The Republicans will do what they do. Maybe the Democrats can start doing more than paying lip service to those who elected them to office while wringing their hands over how mean the Republicans are?

I have little faith they will, but it'd be nice to see.


----------



## mmr007

nightflameauto said:


> Republicans have power, they push and push and push. Democrats have power, they throw up their hands and go, "We can't do anything. Those big bullies in the minority are preventing progress."
> 
> The Republicans will do what they do. Maybe the Democrats can start doing more than paying lip service to those who elected them to office while wringing their hands over how mean the Republicans are?



I think that is literally the new circle of life speech


----------



## sleewell

pretty accurate headline:

*Trump Got Vaccinated Secretly, Because Otherwise He Might Have Helped the Country*


----------



## bostjan

Mathemagician said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...unger-fears-rise-as-food-prices-soar-globally
> 
> Food prices surging in emerging markets and projections show its spreading to the west and we should expect it to accelerate in the near/intermediate term.
> 
> So without wages rising, prices still go up.
> 
> Math & economics doesn’t care about politics.


Thus my proposal earlier. While they have the chance, the Dems need to redefine a federal minimum wage that updates automatically based on cost of living, and it needs to be regional (for exaple, living in AK is always going to be more expensive than middle America).

If they up it to some constant $C/hr, inflation will nullify the meaning of that in a matter of years regardless. If it's defined as a variable $x/hr, and x is some function of food costs, water bills, residence costs, and electricity/heating, calculated every year or quarterly or whatever, then we don't have to go through this crap every ten years when inflation outruns political progress.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> This is going pretty much how I predicted. The dems have 3 out of 4 of the control points of the federal government, and are afraid of filibusters and the SCotUS resisting their progress. If this was the GOP, they'd just keep pushong as hard as they could until they got somewhere, but the dems are just too afraid to try.


To be fair, the Democrats and the Republicans have different problems when it comes to governing. 

The GOP's stance is still Reagan's quip that "the scariest sentence in the English language is 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help.'" They're the party of the government that governs the least, governs the best. IF they can blow up government conventions and weaken the power of checks and balances, and more to the point weaken faith in government institutions, by running _over_ those government institutions, then so much the better. 

The Democrats, meanwhile, are the party that believes the government CAN be a source of good, and can improve people's lives. It's sort of hard to argue that in one breath, while in the other doing away with the filibuster, throwing the Senate parliamentarian out the window, and stacking the courts if the judiciary doesn't agree with them. The Democrats as a party are kind of obligated to work within the constraints of democracy, because their whole reason for existing is that the government can _work. 
_
With that in mind... I don't think it's fair to criticize the Democrats because they're not willing to scrap democratic norms like the Republicans. They're _not_ Republicans.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> To be fair, the Democrats and the Republicans have different problems when it comes to governing.
> 
> The GOP's stance is still Reagan's quip that "the scariest sentence in the English language is 'I'm with the government, and I'm here to help.'" They're the party of the government that governs the least, governs the best. IF they can blow up government conventions and weaken the power of checks and balances, and more to the point weaken faith in government institutions, by running _over_ those government institutions, then so much the better.
> 
> The Democrats, meanwhile, are the party that believes the government CAN be a source of good, and can improve people's lives. It's sort of hard to argue that in one breath, while in the other doing away with the filibuster, throwing the Senate parliamentarian out the window, and stacking the courts if the judiciary doesn't agree with them. The Democrats as a party are kind of obligated to work within the constraints of democracy, because their whole reason for existing is that the government can _work.
> _
> With that in mind... I don't think it's fair to criticize the Democrats because they're not willing to scrap democratic norms like the Republicans. They're _not_ Republicans.


I think it's not only fair, but logically necessary, to criticize them for promising something to get elected, and then putting up the weakest-sauce fight to actually get it done when the time comes.

Democratic norms? Like what? Not trying to push legislation, because some senator from West Virginia//N/S Carolina might filibuster it? I'm sorry, but filibuster is supposed to be an e-stop in the process, not a way to make your routine vote count as 4/3 as much as it should. If they have good legislation, and can't break the filibuster, wait it out and push it through. If the republicans try to filibuster everything, it'll at least teach them a lesson in how stupid that routine is. They're like the kid playing the fighting game that just picks that one character to spam that one move. We all know it's annoying, but someone needs to play him and break his combo to teach him that spamming the same move is not as useful as just plain old good strategy.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## nightflameauto

@Drew, 
that seems to be a very idealized version of what the Democrats pretend to be. Meanwhile, those of us thinking they should make an attempt to follow through on campaign promises, even if it's like, you know, really hard and stuff, get sick of watching them turn tail at the *SLIGHTEST* opposition. There's a difference between trying to uphold democratic norms and being giant fucking pussies. Somehow, I don't think the majority of the Democrat power players get that difference.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> There's a difference between trying to uphold democratic norms and being giant fucking pussies.



Is there though? 

I think the GOP has thrown things so out of whack that democracy just seems so quaint.


----------



## Ralyks

Well, good luck to any of you that may be in Texas.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Ralyks said:


> Well, good luck to any of you that may be in Texas.



They need people back to work so they can pay their hydro bill.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Ralyks

Good luck to Mississippi too it seems.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Well, good luck to any of you that may be in Texas.





Ralyks said:


> Good luck to Mississippi too it seems.



It's the same thing Desantis did last year when he selectively decided to ignore health experts because he wanted the spring break cash. 

We're transitioning into the time of year the southern states start to warm up early and they don't want to lose out on any tourism dollars, so one-by-one they're all going to be pushing "come visit my state where it's like Covid never existed, yee haw!" or whatever. They know there's no medical or scientific reasoning behind what they're doing.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Ralyks said:


> Well, good luck to any of you that may be in Texas.



Fuck Gov Abbott and fuck the GOP. My wife wants her first dose like you can't imagine.. 48+ hrs a week with tourists pouring in from all across the state.. She's wearing three masks and her nose and cheek bones are fucking raw.


----------



## Thaeon

High Plains Drifter said:


> Fuck Gov Abbott and fuck the GOP. My wife wants her first dose like you can't imagine.. 48+ hrs a week with tourists pouring in from all across the state.. She's wearing three masks and her nose and cheek bones are fucking raw.



Abbott is a moron. There's some okay stuff about living in Texas, and you probably live in the best part, the politics is probably the worst part.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Being a politician in Texas seems like the best job ever. You get a big paycheck to do nothing. Don't even have to lift a finger. Just shrug and say not my problem. Sit back and enjoy the monies flowing in. lol


----------



## Thaeon

thebeesknees22 said:


> Being a politician in Texas seems like the best job ever. You get a big paycheck to do nothing. Don't even have to lift a finger. Just shrug and say not my problem. Sit back and enjoy the kick backs flowing in. lol



FTFY


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Is there though?
> 
> I think the GOP has thrown things so out of whack that democracy just seems so quaint.


Sadly, you do have a point.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like the threshold for stimulus check phase-out is now 80k for single, 160k for couples. I think that's reasonable. I think between this, the transit budget part being cut, and the minimum wage being removed, I can see this going to Bidens desk early next week, being optimistic.


----------



## Drew

Well, I clearly disagree with a number of you on the function of government.  If you're not interested in the arguing-from-principles take, though, I think the will-it-build-bridges argument is still pretty compelling - the Democrats _don't have the votes _to overrule the parliamentarian or do away with the filibuster, because they hold a 50-50+1 majority and a number of Democrats, Manchin most vocally but he's hardly alone, are opposed to doing both. Wishing it otherwise doesn't change that. 



Ralyks said:


> Looks like the threshold for stimulus check phase-out is now 80k for single, 160k for couples. I think that's reasonable. I think between this, the transit budget part being cut, and the minimum wage being removed, I can see this going to Bidens desk early next week, being optimistic.


The democrats have an incredibly narrow road to walk here, but I'd say it's still pretty likely - though, I'd say that the most likely outcomes are it passes this week to early next, or the whole thing falls apart. The Dems are trying to get this signed into law before pandemic unemployment benefits expire on the 14th, so that's a pretty strong incentive to get this over the goal line if there's any way they can, and if they start running into hurdles that begin to delay that process, well, anything that's a big enough hurdle to delay the bill and jeopardize that deadline is probably big enough to kill it too.


----------



## USMarine75

So Cuomo's defense of kissing his staffers against their will is "well I kiss all my staffers"?


----------



## SpaceDock

Am I the only one who thinks these Cuomo accusations are kinda weak? I mean putting your hand on the small of a ladies back at a party and asking if you could kiss her? Asking if ladies want to play strip poker? Man, they would lock me up for how I was before settling down!


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> Am I the only one who thinks these Cuomo accusations are kinda weak? I mean putting your hand on the small of a ladies back at a party and asking if you could kiss her? Asking if ladies want to play strip poker? Man, they would lock me up for how I was before settling down!



The timing seems really suspect. And yeah, some random accusations. Plus they showed other pictures at the wedding from one of the accuses that showed, yeah, there just kind of how he is. He's not my favorite person but considering how he led NY in the pandemic before the nursing home thing, I want to see where the investigations lead.


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> Am I the only one who thinks these Cuomo accusations are kinda weak? I mean putting your hand on the small of a ladies back at a party and asking if you could kiss her? Asking if ladies want to play strip poker? Man, they would lock me up for how I was before settling down!



Its Bullshit man!

If I Was A Rich Man, yadayada yadayada ladidadi DADA do...

Seriusly if I was rich (sorry to disappoint anyone) I can make a pretty safe bet a lot of the girls I was with would be telling a few stories... (of a different nature) 

It is the Court of Pub(l)ic Opinion after all...

And once they’ve found you guilty it’s a win for these scumbags who make this shit up as a distraction to what’s really going on! 

I mean let’s not forget the POTUS incited mob violence and walked... he’s above the law! Any other citizen would do far worse! 

BTW who gives a fuck? Trump got support for his BS!


----------



## High Plains Drifter




----------



## sleewell

so what time today is trump taking back the presidency??


----------



## nightflameauto

The Cuomo thing may just be a convenient way for the Democrats to purge him. Granted, thus far the excuse that, "I do that with everybody" is pretty fucking weak. I mean, if I grabbed every girl's ass I saw I'd expect to get in some shit for it and I wouldn't think a good defense would be too say I do it all the time. I get that these dudes grew up in a different time, but maybe it's not cool to kiss everybody you see? Unless you're French. Then it's just disgusting, rather than creepy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> The Cuomo thing may just be a convenient way for the Democrats to purge him. Granted, thus far the excuse that, "I do that with everybody" is pretty fucking weak. I mean, if I grabbed every girl's ass I saw I'd expect to get in some shit for it and I wouldn't think a good defense would be too say I do it all the time. I get that these dudes grew up in a different time, but maybe it's not cool to kiss everybody you see? Unless you're French. Then it's just disgusting, rather than creepy.



Cuomo is to covid what Giuliani was to 9/11. They "stepped up" (in quotes because the more you look the more it becomes a well manicured narrative vs. reality) during a terrible time and were able to sell thier brand to folks not as well acquainted with how they were prior. 

He made a lot of enemies within the state and it's institutions, so I'm not surprised few are coming to help and even less surprised that he thinks he can wave this off with such shitty excuses.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> The Cuomo thing may just be a convenient way for the Democrats to purge him. Granted, thus far the excuse that, "I do that with everybody" is pretty fucking weak. I mean, if I grabbed every girl's ass I saw I'd expect to get in some shit for it and I wouldn't think a good defense would be too say I do it all the time. I get that these dudes grew up in a different time, but maybe it's not cool to kiss everybody you see? Unless you're French. Then it's just disgusting, rather than creepy.



Especially after eating snails!


----------



## Andromalia

Hey, I'm reading.


----------



## thraxil

sleewell said:


> so what time today is trump taking back the presidency??



I watched some Q-anon videos the other day because it's pretty hilarious. They were already making some kind of very contorted argument that Trump actually has until March 20th, so maybe nothing will happen on the 4th. I'm sure that as the 20th approaches, there will be a new date selected in the near future. I also learned that Trump didn't take power on inauguration day because the Deep State had some kind of (unspecified, of course) "dead man's switch" set up that would do something terrible and Trump and their side only discovered it right before the inauguration so they delayed the takeover until they could remove it. Anyway, that's what passes for "facts" and "reasoning" in the Q-reality.


----------



## Shoeless_jose




----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cuomo is to covid what Giuliani was to 9/11. They "stepped up" (in quotes because the more you look the more it becomes a well manicured narrative vs. reality) during a terrible time and were able to sell thier brand to folks not as well acquainted with how they were prior.
> 
> He made a lot of enemies within the state and it's institutions, so I'm not surprised few are coming to help and even less surprised that he thinks he can wave this off with such shitty excuses.


Yeah, the new yorkers I've talked with - liberals, worth noting - have been pretty consistent in saying that no one actually _liked_ Cuomo, but they thought he generally did a fairly good job responding to Covid. He might have been an asshole, but he was an asshole doing the right things, in sharp contrast to the asshole doing the _wrong_ things at the federal level. 

Of course, the nursing home allegations, and worse, his attempts to cover up the allegations of a coverup, severely hurt that narrative and that impression, and - IMO - are a _very_ big deal. 

The sexual misconduct allegations, I haven't seen or heard enough to really have a firm opinion... but what I _have_ seen and heard paints him as being a bit of a creep and at least unknowingly taking some advantage of a position of power, but also at least understanding and respecting consent even if he was making people extremely uncomfortable in doing so. They should definitely be investigated... but thus far, his trying to cover up the extend of fatalities in nursing homes his policies had led to is the scandal that has the bigger impact of whether or not he's fit for office.


----------



## zappatton2

Hmm, fortunately most of my friends/family on FB are not of the "post crazy shit" variety, but I do have one friend who's been all about conspiracies since the 90's, and he's sharing posts saying that both Biden and Hillary have been dead for years and the people purporting to be them are in fact replicant imposters. So if ever there was a moment for Kang and Kodos to drop the big reveal, I would say now is as good as any.


----------



## vilk

If he really sexually assaulted some folks then I bet he'd do pretty well on a Republican ticket. They love that shit.


----------



## mmr007

It's not R's that I upset with today but the Dems...can someone please explain to me what the governor of Nevada is trying to do by encouraging Google and Facebook to form their own little autonomous zones....little self governing independent city states within the state of Nevada?

https://apnews.com/article/legislat...vada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0

what is the upside of this asinine plan? How much are we going to keep giving in to busniess that we need to play ball on their terms or they'll just take the ball and go home?


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> It's not R's that I upset with today but the Dems...can someone please explain to me what the governor of Nevada is trying to do by encouraging Google and Facebook to form their own little autonomous zones....little self governing independent city states within the state of Nevada?
> 
> https://apnews.com/article/legislat...vada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0
> 
> what is the upside of this asinine plan? How much are we going to keep giving in to busniess that we need to play ball on their terms or they'll just take the ball and go home?



Maybe those corporations can invade the Republic of Molossia.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Maybe those corporations can invade the Republic of Molossia.


Should be easy enough...population of one....until the guitoligist gets wind of it and emigrates there doubling the population...or is it immigrate? Not sure which word applies if you're still in the US


----------



## mmr007

The currency is tied to the value of Pillbury cookie dough? How does one person's mental illness get a wikipedia page? No wonder my kids were told never to use it for research.


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> It's not R's that I upset with today but the Dems...can someone please explain to me what the governor of Nevada is trying to do by encouraging Google and Facebook to form their own little autonomous zones....little self governing independent city states within the state of Nevada?
> 
> https://apnews.com/article/legislat...vada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0
> 
> what is the upside of this asinine plan? How much are we going to keep giving in to busniess that we need to play ball on their terms or they'll just take the ball and go home?


Oh good, because company towns have always worked out so well in the past.

I follow a number of tech sites and there's been a lot of chatter among the big boys (Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple) of forming their own cities/counties that act as independent entities with their own police, their own schools, their own infrastructure. And more and more states are talking seriously with them about how to allow it legally. Knowing how shit tech companies are from inside knowledge (I worked for Gateway during the glory years and have friends in several of the current big players), I find the entire situation terrifying. Add on how utterly dystopian the typical company town was for the working class in the past, and layer on the surveillance techniques the big tech players love with all their hearts, and this shit is more frightening to me than the possibility of nuclear war, mass extinction from human made climate change, and COVID all rolled together.

But our government will be willing to bend over backwards and let it happen, because they are first and foremost, all about that sweet, sweet kickback money. Fuck the people they're supposed to represent. Let them fend for themselves.


----------



## Wuuthrad

nightflameauto said:


> I get that these dudes grew up in a different time, but maybe it's not cool to kiss everybody you see? Unless you're French. Then it's just disgusting, rather than creepy.



Oolalala...


Watch it man I resemble that remark!



Zoot alors!


----------



## Wuuthrad

thraxil said:


> I watched some Q-anon videos the other day because it's pretty hilarious. They were already making some kind of very contorted argument that Trump actually has until March 20th, so maybe nothing will happen on the 4th. I'm sure that as the 20th approaches, there will be a new date selected in the near future. I also learned that Trump didn't take power on inauguration day because the Deep State had some kind of (unspecified, of course) "dead man's switch" set up that would do something terrible and Trump and their side only discovered it right before the inauguration so they delayed the takeover until they could remove it. Anyway, that's what passes for "facts" and "reasoning" in the Q-reality.



Does anyone remember 4chan like 20 years ago? I mean ffs who didn’t know that place was full of BS? Crazy how ppl started to take it seriously and then it became some psyops cyber warfare crap!


----------



## SpaceDock

mmr007 said:


> It's not R's that I upset with today but the Dems...can someone please explain to me what the governor of Nevada is trying to do by encouraging Google and Facebook to form their own little autonomous zones....little self governing independent city states within the state of Nevada?
> 
> https://apnews.com/article/legislat...vada-economy-2fa79128a7bf41073c1e9102e8a0e5f0
> 
> what is the upside of this asinine plan? How much are we going to keep giving in to busniess that we need to play ball on their terms or they'll just take the ball and go home?



I figure he knows no one else wants the land.


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> Maybe those corporations can invade the Republic of Molossia.


Evidently the micronation is still at war with East Germany. If Facebook invades, it could claim it was in support of the East Germany government. (A small island off of Cuba was donated by Fidel Castro to East Germany, but when Germany reunified, Cuba refused to acknowledge German ownership of it after a hurricane destroyed a statue of an East German politician on the island, which somehow means that East Germany still might exist on the island).


----------



## mmr007

I never thought I would bump into something that makes Qanon look sane...They may not know who's in charge of the country but at least they know what country they are in....god I just typed the word Qanon...I need a shower


----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...in-covid-relief-grants/ar-BB1efq8i?li=BBnb7Kz

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/9735...personal-errands-family-business-inspector-sa

whew....I can go back to being pissed at R's instead of D's again. That ws a rough spell there for a second. Amazing how easy it is for politicians to use the government to bail out their family and then blast us lowly taxpayers about the virtue of self reliance and no handouts.

And Ms. McConnell had the nerve to retain her financial interest in a major road building company and everytime she and Trump mentioned "infrastructure week" (but nothing happened) the value of the stock she held went up.....nothing to see hear....pay attention to the old fart in NY who wants to kiss a staffer. More interesting.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, to see yet more proof of what a conniving, lying, corrupt idiot my Governor (Noem) is. Just completely shocked.


----------



## Ralyks

I feel bad for the clerk's that are being forced to read the covid bill. Also, fuck Ron Johnson.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Also, fuck Ron Johnson.



As a Wisconsinite, yes, fuck Ron Johnson.


----------



## BlackSG91

BlackSG91 said:


> On this upcoming Thursday, March 4th, 2021...Donald J. Trump will be inaugurated & sworn in as the 19th president of the United States. This is all according to the sovereign citizen movement. A law enacted in 1871 secretly turned the U.S. into a corporation and did away with the American government. It is also believed that FDR sold out U.S. citizens in 1933 when he ended the gold standard and replaced it by offering citizens as collateral to a group of shadowy foreign investors. That fact that 1933 was also the year when inaugurations were changed from March 4th to January 20th. Also on March 4th, 1789 in New York city the first Congress of the United States meets putting the U.S. constitution into effect and the U.S. Bill of Rights is written and proposed to Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;>)/




I guess nobody has yet marched forth to install Donald as 19th President of the U.S.A...but don't worry...there is always March 20th which is the next BIGGY!








;>)/


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> Oh good, because company towns have always worked out so well in the past.


I believe a Facebook/Google company town would look something like this:


----------



## sleewell

Dems seem to have outplayed GOP on the Covid delay. After the all-night reading, @ChrisVanHollen simply got up, proposed shortening the debate from 20 hours to 3 and no Republican including @RonJohnsonWI was around to contest. In the end, the dramatic Bill reading delayed nothing


aka ron johnson is a dumbass


----------



## thebeesknees22

lol that's hilarious.


----------



## Ralyks

sleewell said:


> Dems seem to have outplayed GOP on the Covid delay. After the all-night reading, @ChrisVanHollen simply got up, proposed shortening the debate from 20 hours to 3 and no Republican including @RonJohnsonWI was around to contest. In the end, the dramatic Bill reading delayed nothing
> 
> 
> aka ron johnson is a dumbass



Oh my God that's great.


----------



## nightflameauto

sleewell said:


> Dems seem to have outplayed GOP on the Covid delay. After the all-night reading, @ChrisVanHollen simply got up, proposed shortening the debate from 20 hours to 3 and no Republican including @RonJohnsonWI was around to contest. In the end, the dramatic Bill reading delayed nothing
> 
> 
> aka ron johnson is a dumbass


Technically, it sounds like the GOP outplayed themselves. Literally. Which makes it especially priceless.


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> Technically, it sounds like the GOP outplayed themselves. Literally. Which makes it especially priceless.


----------



## Ralyks

Welp, the bill passed the Senate. Your move again, House.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 91144


Speaking of important issues. DJ Khaled. There's a dude that needs to piss off on home. Can we make that a top priority of the Biden administration? Let Khaled do whatever he wants, but keep it out of public view/earshot?


----------



## Ralyks

nightflameauto said:


> Speaking of important issues. DJ Khaled. There's a dude that needs to piss off on home. Can we make that a top priority of the Biden administration? Let Khaled do whatever he wants, but keep it out of public view/earshot?



I don't care for him outside of memes. I just can't help that he has good memes.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/k...alize-insulting-police/ar-BB1epBna?li=BBnb7Kz

All right Kentucky....you do you. Cops bust into your residence and shoot up the place and kill an innocent woman? Not illegal. Say something that hurts a cops feelings? Go to jail. Do not pass go...go directly to jail because...well cops should have to govern their feelings while holding deadly weapons. If you taunt a cop he/she should not be held accountable for how they react


----------



## bostjan

The bill provides for mistdemeanor charges for making rude gestures or unnecessary noise. Better not fart too loud if you live in KY, because you'll be looking at 90 days in jail if you do it within earshot of a police officer, if the bill passes.


----------



## nightflameauto

That proposed law is horrifying. For multiple reasons that most here probably get.


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/k...alize-insulting-police/ar-BB1epBna?li=BBnb7Kz
> 
> All right Kentucky....you do you. Cops bust into your residence and shoot up the place and kill an innocent woman? Not illegal. Say something that hurts a cops feelings? Go to jail. Do not pass go...go directly to jail because...well cops should have to govern their feelings while holding deadly weapons. If you taunt a cop he/she should not be held accountable for how they react



Cause and effect after a year of mostly peaceful protests.


----------



## SpaceDock

That bill looks extreme. I think most of us can recognize that this is going to give cops the ability to arrest anyone without any real evidence, just the claim that the cop was being provoked. That is like being arrested because the cop says the smell weed or beer without having to prove the possession. Not like I was going to Kentucky anytime soon, but certainly not going now.


----------



## Wuuthrad

SpaceDock said:


> That bill looks extreme. I think most of us can recognize that this is going to give cops the ability to arrest anyone without any real evidence, just the claim that the cop was being provoked. That is like being arrested because the cop says the smell weed or beer without having to prove the possession. Not like I was going to Kentucky anytime soon, but certainly not going now.



Cops already do this it’s called “disorderly conduct” and “resisting arrest.”


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mmr007

I'm not gay...and yet I'm madly in love with another man


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> Cause and effect after a year of mostly peaceful protests.



People protest that their rights are being trampled. So a new law is passed trampling more rights.


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> I'm not gay...and yet I'm madly in love with another man




People just really need to stop wearing masks out of heavy/stiff fashionable fabric, with thin elastic straps that wear/stretch-out over time, even over the course of a few hours.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I swear right after Jan 6th it seemed like the country might actually turn a corner and move forward properly but took basically no time for Republicans to just like deny it all happened and just obstruct and lie more, its actually tragic how they are acting.


----------



## Ralyks

Speaking of January 6th and going back to Jon Schaffer for a moment, from MetalSucks:

"Attorneys acting on behalf of Iced Earth founder Jon Schaffer have filed a motion to dismiss all charges leveled against him for his role in the U.S. Capitol riots on January 6, claiming “no indictment or information has been filed within the time limit required.”

Official court documents obtained by _MetalSucks_show that Schaffer (through his attorneys), citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), known as The Speedy Trial Act, claims that the government has failed to file an Information or an Indictment within 30 days of Schaffer’s arrest (by February 18, 2021). The motion specifies that “The Government has not filed either an Information or Indictment and the Complaint must be dismissed.”"

Does he actually have legal standing here?

Also, congratulations to Merrick Garland for FINALLY getting a confirmation.


----------



## mmr007

Ralyks said:


> Also, congratulations to Merrick Garland for FINALLY getting a confirmation.



Wouldn't it be the biggest f**k you if Garland gets to now open a federal investigation into crooked McConnell and his criminal (former) transportation secretary wife.....


----------



## Wuuthrad

Ralyks said:


> Speaking of January 6th and going back to Jon Schaffer for a moment, from MetalSucks:
> 
> "Attorneys acting on behalf of Iced Earth founder Jon Schaffer have filed a motion to dismiss all charges leveled against him for his role in the U.S. Capitol riots on January 6, claiming “no indictment or information has been filed within the time limit required.”
> 
> Official court documents obtained by _MetalSucks_show that Schaffer (through his attorneys), citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), known as The Speedy Trial Act, claims that the government has failed to file an Information or an Indictment within 30 days of Schaffer’s arrest (by February 18, 2021). The motion specifies that “The Government has not filed either an Information or Indictment and the Complaint must be dismissed.”"
> 
> Does he actually have legal standing here?
> 
> Also, congratulations to Merrick Garland for FINALLY getting a confirmation.



Re. legal standing: Fuck if I know! 

Sounds like lawyers grasping at straws, knowing full well they will probably lose if they go to trial. 

Cheers to Garland! What a name, dude sounds “Super-Hero” Judicial!


----------



## SpaceDock

This is just so pathetic 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...terhead-pleading-for-credit-for-covid-vaccine


----------



## mmr007

I had to check 3 times to make sure the source of that article wasnt The Onion


----------



## SpaceDock

mmr007 said:


> I had to check 3 times to make sure the source of that article wasnt The Onion



I had to find it on a few other reputable news sites before believing it was real as well. Just final cringe after four long years of cringe.


----------



## Thaeon

SpaceDock said:


> I had to find it on a few other reputable news sites before believing it was real as well. Just final cringe after four long years of cringe.



Sadly, I doubt that's the final cringe.


----------



## nightflameauto

That's just sad. So sad I can't even come up with anything else to say about it.


----------



## mmr007




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## MaxOfMetal

That's gotta be satire. Right? Right?!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's gotta be satire. Right? Right?!



Seems he's from Huntington beach which seemed to be the smart ones protesting Covid all year so likely real sadly.


----------



## Wuuthrad

MaxOfMetal said:


> That's gotta be satire. Right? Right?!



Unintentionally I’m afraid!

More of a twisted Irony from the party of “states rights” or whatever...


----------



## Randy

"The third-term Democratic governor, a leading critic of former President Donald Trump’s pandemic response, evoked the Republican president in defending himself against “cancel culture.”

“I’m not going to resign,” Cuomo said during an afternoon phone call with reporters. “I did not do what has been alleged. Period.”

He added: “People know the difference between playing politics, bowing to cancel culture and the truth.”

- Donald J. Cuomo


----------



## mmr007

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/11/military-tucker-carlson-female-troops-comments-475315

Hopefully Tucker finally stepped on his tiny dick bad enough that sponsors will leave his show for good this time...oh god I'm a pathetic optimist.

Never ceases to amaze me that people who never served a day in the military are always the loudest about their ideas how the military should be and bitch about it to others who also never served a day in the military but fetishize it when they shoot cans in their backyard on weekends they aren't doing state imposed community service along the freeway.

Cuz you know....the Israeli IDF are a bunch of losers and pussies with all those women in their ranks...when was the last time the Israeli ever won a battle thanks to the women in high heels slowing down the men in manly boots all the while refusing to say "Merry Christmas" due to pressure from the liberal war on Christmas...ok no more coffee me

Shouldn't Tucker stay in his lane and bitch about not being able to stream "Song of the South" on Disney+ ....isn't that what his audience is about...... watching him froth at the mouth on their tv while they sit there with their pants around their ankles and a bottle of lube as they read the Dr. Seuss books they raced out to buy?


----------



## SpaceDock

Ralyks said:


> Speaking of January 6th and going back to Jon Schaffer for a moment, from MetalSucks:
> 
> "Attorneys acting on behalf of Iced Earth founder Jon Schaffer have filed a motion to dismiss all charges leveled against him for his role in the U.S. Capitol riots on January 6, claiming “no indictment or information has been filed within the time limit required.”
> 
> Official court documents obtained by _MetalSucks_show that Schaffer (through his attorneys), citing 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), known as The Speedy Trial Act, claims that the government has failed to file an Information or an Indictment within 30 days of Schaffer’s arrest (by February 18, 2021). The motion specifies that “The Government has not filed either an Information or Indictment and the Complaint must be dismissed.”"
> 
> Does he actually have legal standing here?
> 
> Also, congratulations to Merrick Garland for FINALLY getting a confirmation.



I saw this brought up in a second news story. Due to COVID many trials and justice system functions have been delayed and not a “get out of jail free” card they can play. For these capital rioters, this is one of the largest investigations the FBI has ever done and nearing 400 people and counting. These fools should be grateful we don’t just line them up because we have clear video/pics of their treasonous activities.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I'm honestly lost on the Cuomo thing tried to do some research.

So initial scandal was if someone from a nursing home died in hospital they didn't count it as a nursing home death?? And then there was a bunch of trying to hide the fact numbers were off??

And then in no way to minimize the other alllegations but he like asked personal questions and said he had a crush on some one and mentioned strip poker?? There was apparently an unwanted kiss on the lips which is kind of fucked but like it seeems more like he is just cringe than some predator.

Like forgive me if I am missing key facts in either situation it seems like since the Dems made Al Franken go down for his thing they now are just purity purging anyone who has a whiff of poor taste behaviour. 

Again like maybe I am tone deaf and the world really is like drawing a firm line on anything perceived slight but seriously???


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> I'm honestly lost on the Cuomo thing tried to do some research.
> 
> So initial scandal was if someone from a nursing home died in hospital they didn't count it as a nursing home death?? And then there was a bunch of trying to hide the fact numbers were off??
> 
> And then in no way to minimize the other alllegations but he like asked personal questions and said he had a crush on some one and mentioned strip poker?? There was apparently an unwanted kiss on the lips which is kind of fucked but like it seeems more like he is just cringe than some predator.
> 
> Like forgive me if I am missing key facts in either situation it seems like since the Dems made Al Franken go down for his thing they now are just purity purging anyone who has a whiff of poor taste behaviour.
> 
> Again like maybe I am tone deaf and the world really is like drawing a firm line on anything perceived slight but seriously???



Cuomo has been mired in controversy for years.

Nursing Home Scandal:

Cuomo lead an effort to effectively "hide" COVID19 positive or suspected to be positive folks in group homes. This lead to thousands of additional infections. His administration then hid this from the public and further political and legal scrutiny. The goal was to basically cook the books on infection rates to make his response to the pandemic seem better.

Sexual Abuse Allegations:

Seven women have come forward with allegations anywhere from inappropriate comments up to an including being propositioned for sex, to unwarranted bodily contact. In at least one case Cuomo admitted fault, swept everything under the rug, and his whole administration took some bullshit sexual harassment course.

What happened to Al Franken was "cancel culture" bullshit. This is not that.


----------



## SpaceDock

Dems self sacrificing again for the purity test passing that appeals to no one outside of Twitter. 

All the legitimate claims have been tame PG moves from what I have seen as well.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Dems self sacrificing again for the purity test passing that appeals to no one outside of Twitter.
> 
> All the legitimate claims have been tame PG moves from what I have seen as well.



Part of what separates us from the sycophants in the GOP is holding our own accountable. 

Cuomo isn't some hero of the left worth protecting at all costs. He's a scummy politician who has a history of using his office to advance his own best interests vs. those of his constituents.

I know it's easy to be jaded by that, but that makes it even more important.


----------



## SpaceDock

I just don’t think what I have seen really rises to the level of demanding he step down. The latest allegations of the groping would, but most news sources still saying that is not newsworthy. This is what internal investigations are for, not the the court of public opinion. I think it is a bit weak for Dems to be folding to allegations without going through the investigations I would want for myself if accused of groping someone. The other allegations of kissing a hand and suggestive “would you date me” is laughable. Just my opinion.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I just don’t think what I have seen really rises to the level of demanding he step down.



The nursing home scandal is enough. The sex stuff came up because someone at the top of the party leadership wants to force him out before he drags the rest of the party down but the actual fatal thing he did is the nursing home stuff, full stop.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> The nursing home scandal is enough. The sex stuff came up because someone at the top of the party leadership wants to force him out before he drags the rest of the party down but the actual fatal thing he did is the nursing home stuff, full stop.



This I can agree with. If they did the investigation into the nursing home stuff and impeached him if there was good evidence of his actions, do it! I don’t get why that isn’t what is happening. Seems like lame BS to push this into the territory it’s in now which makes me think nursing home wasn’t a slam dunk.


----------



## Jonathan20022

I don't care to police people's attempts to flirt with someone they're interested in, but some of the accusations are beyond just PG. Forcing someone into a kiss and actually making contact on the lips is beyond just "kind of fucked". You're literally either surprising them in a split second move, or for some reason ignoring refusal and pushing yourself into their face. Same with the groping, there's no scenario where that plays out without any malice in mind 

I will concede that most of it is just failed attempts at awkward flirting, but sweeping it all under the rug and labeling it as purity testing is pretty dismissive.


----------



## SpaceDock

Groping allegations still not really fleshed out, but that should be an immediate removal if legit: https://apnews.com/article/dozens-d...-resignation-71adbd6f2420a4dc71856428f3663857


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cuomo has been mired in controversy for years.
> 
> Nursing Home Scandal:
> 
> Cuomo lead an effort to effectively "hide" COVID19 positive or suspected to be positive folks in group homes. This lead to thousands of additional infections. His administration then hid this from the public and further political and legal scrutiny. The goal was to basically cook the books on infection rates to make his response to the pandemic seem better.
> 
> Sexual Abuse Allegations:
> 
> Seven women have come forward with allegations anywhere from inappropriate comments up to an including being propositioned for sex, to unwarranted bodily contact. In at least one case Cuomo admitted fault, swept everything under the rug, and his whole administration took some bullshit sexual harassment course.
> 
> What happened to Al Franken was "cancel culture" bullshit. This is not that.



Okay thanks for the more detailed run down was trying to look through Washington Post summary to see what the deal was and even that was low on details. 

He definitely seems like a creeper and a barely competent governor but just the bits and pieces of what I had heard just made his sexual abuse seem more like Michael Scott like type shit than like #metoo type stuff but hey he made his bed. and if its multiple times and been called out on it already he should learn


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Everyone keeps focusing on the sexy stuff and ignores the nursing home bit, which is much more terrible in scope and actually cost people thier lives. 

I know it was a GOP talking point for awhile, and I'm sure the dulled the impact, but it seems the more information that comes out the worse it looks.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> This I can agree with. If they did the investigation into the nursing home stuff and impeached him if there was good evidence of his actions, do it! I don’t get why that isn’t what is happening. Seems like lame BS to push this into the territory it’s in now which makes me think nursing home wasn’t a slam dunk.



They are in the process of impeaching him actually.

You're talking about two different things. There's whether or not he did anything wrong, and whether or not there's political fallout for it weighed against the political fallout if they remove him. Those are separate issues. See: the Republicans like McConnell agreeing that Trump was responsible the capitol riot and still not voting to convict.

The issue is whether or not the Democratic body politic can and will vote to remove Cuomo knowing that is might open up holes that will lose them their majorities or whether or not Cuomo loyalists will make them pay for it. A lot of them are also Cuomo loyalists themselves. He could be guilt as sin in the nursing home thing AND he could've raped a woman in broad daylight, whether or not the party moves to remove him is actually a separate thing. That's unforuntately how politics work.

FWIW, the Congress people (both Dems) that cover Albany as well as the state level representatives that cover the same territory all said he should resign. As of right now, day by day it's reaching almost entirely Cuomo versus literally everyone. That's why him saying it's "cancel culture" is notable... he's basically backed himself into Trump territory of isolation.

He absolutely is guilty of the nursing home thing,the AG's report is comprehensive and already lays the whole thing out, there is no pending investigation that supercedes what that one concluded; that his administration knowingly underreported deaths by close to 10,000 people and the fact they refused to fess up to that left the policy intact that likely ended up killing a few thousand more people. That's a much bigger deal than him touching a girls face and asking for a kiss.

My point earlier was that they know Cuomo won't take the knife and he'll probably march his way right into trying to run for another term or sitting on the governorship and handing abunch of seats over to the Republicans. So someone decided to open the floodgates to make staying in office untenable and I'm inclined to believe it's with good reason at this point.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Everyone keeps focusing on the sexy stuff and ignores the nursing home bit, which is much more terrible in scope and actually cost people thier lives.
> 
> I know it was a GOP talking point for awhile, and I'm sure the dulled the impact, but it seems the more information that comes out the worse it looks.



I speak of this as a person living in NY that had two relatives die in a nursing home over the last year, so I've been following this long before it was a story. I defended Cuomo early on but it crept very quickly into muzzling any issues going on in the nursing homes so he could ride this BS wave of popularity on his COVID response into the White House or who knows where.


----------



## Randy

Been in the shop all day so I'm just getting caught up. Seeing now that Gillibrand and Schumer both say Cuomo needs to resign. The guy is in Gahdafi territory


----------



## fantom

Randy said:


> They are in the process of impeaching him actually.
> 
> You're talking about two different things. There's whether or not he did anything wrong, and whether or not there's political fallout for it weighed against the political fallout if they remove him. Those are separate issues. See: the Republicans like McConnell agreeing that Trump was responsible the capitol riot and still not voting to convict.
> 
> The issue is whether or not the Democratic body politic can and will vote to remove Cuomo knowing that is might open up holes that will lose them their majorities or whether or not Cuomo loyalists will make them pay for it. A lot of them are also Cuomo loyalists themselves. He could be guilt as sin in the nursing home thing AND he could've raped a woman in broad daylight, whether or not the party moves to remove him is actually a separate thing. That's unforuntately how politics work.
> 
> FWIW, the Congress people (both Dems) that cover Albany as well as the state level representatives that cover the same territory all said he should resign. As of right now, day by day it's reaching almost entirely Cuomo versus literally everyone. That's why him saying it's "cancel culture" is notable... he's basically backed himself into Trump territory of isolation.
> 
> He absolutely is guilty of the nursing home thing,the AG's report is comprehensive and already lays the whole thing out, there is no pending investigation that supercedes what that one concluded; that his administration knowingly underreported deaths by close to 10,000 people and the fact they refused to fess up to that left the policy intact that likely ended up killing a few thousand more people. That's a much bigger deal than him touching a girls face and asking for a kiss.
> 
> My point earlier was that they know Cuomo won't take the knife and he'll probably march his way right into trying to run for another term or sitting on the governorship and handing abunch of seats over to the Republicans. So someone decided to open the floodgates to make staying in office untenable and I'm inclined to believe it's with good reason at this point.



Does Cuomo even have loyalists? With Trump, it was pretty easy to see the blast radius included many possible Senate seats flipping. Does anyone actually give a crap of Cuomo is removed from office? Worst case maybe people in NY care, but I have not heard a single person defending him at this point. If Trump was backed into a corner, Cuomo is stuck in concrete and sinking to the bottom of Mariana Trench.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> Worst case maybe people in NY care



We don't.


----------



## USMarine75

Unpopular guy does bad things and now has no one to stand up for him when he needs it. 

Dude wrote a book about leadership during the pandemic during the pandemic. To quote Anthony Hopkins in Legends of the Fall... "Fuck him".


----------



## diagrammatiks

ya no one cares. republicans are happy for the chance to flip the seat.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

diagrammatiks said:


> ya no one cares. republicans are happy for the chance to flip the seat.



Is upstate a fair bit more conservative that they have a chance state wide?


----------



## sleewell

Wonder if flipping the gov seat has anything to do with pardoning trump for the state crimes that are imminent?

Pretty quick turnaround for a party from grab her by the pussy being ok, where dozens if not hundreds of women made similar acqusations against trump that were all ignored.

In terms of the nursing home deaths lets remember that this was happening when the GOP's stance was that this was all the flu and was only being covered to make trump look bad. They didnt want to close anything or change any part if life due to covid. Now they want to Monday morning quarterback for political gain like no one can remember what they all were saying even a year ago.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I still feel the nursing home thing is a bit overblown like yeah the original decision made in March of 2020 was maybe not the smartest. And although counting deaths in hospitals not as nursing home deaths is slightly dubious. the deaths were still reported and the policy was changed already anyway it wasnt some targeted purge of nursing home residents and denying it happened. 

fuck the nursing home my grandma died in in ontario let no visitors in for months and still ended up with over 60% infected just from staff in and outs and such so like nursing home deaths were very hard to control but yeah who knows. red state governors who just pretended there was no covid get no scrutiny and a guy who tried to manage it but made wrong call gets rail roaded. although i guess all the secrecy after the fact makes it hard to just call it a mistake made in good faith.


----------



## Ralyks

Is there a chance the Gov seat flips to GOP? Most people I talk to feel like NY is too left leaning for that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> red state governors who just pretended there was no covid get no scrutiny and a guy who tried to manage it but made wrong call gets rail roaded.



It stings, but that's how it should be. No one should get a pass because they're on the "right team" or just not on the "wrong team."

Given Cuomo's actions and track record, what we know so far, nothing leads me to believe he's being "rail roaded".


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> It stings, but that's how it should be. No one should get a pass because they're on the "right team" or just not on the "wrong team."
> 
> Given Cuomo's actions and track record, what we know so far, nothing leads me to believe he's being "rail roaded".



Yeah sorry I only meant if you compare to DeSantis, Noem or Abbot just funny that the one who actually tried to take action is the one under the gun... but yes track record and actions after the fact are damning. Railroaded was wrong term for sure.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## BlackSG91

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91510



Mitch looks more like a raw chicken thigh with googly eyes attached.


;>)/


----------



## Wuuthrad

BlackSG91 said:


> Mitch looks more like a raw chicken thigh with googly eyes attached.
> 
> 
> ;>)/



Defo “Chicken” ! (You are what you eat!) lol


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## BlackSG91

Donald Jong Trump?








;>)/


----------



## vilk

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91510



I'd say this is perfect for r/therightcantmeme if it weren't for the subject. You could change the picture on the left to AOC, post it on r/conservative and get 100K upvotes right now.

The reason that Mitch Mcconnell, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un are evil pieces of shit has nothing to do with how they look.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

vilk said:


> I'd say this is perfect for r/therightcantmeme if it weren't for the subject. You could change the picture on the left to AOC, post it on r/conservative and get 100K upvotes right now.
> 
> The reason that Mitch Mcconnell, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un are evil pieces of shit has nothing to do with how they look.




I agree I feel some of the memes coming out lately just like make me shake my head. I know I'm guilty of politics memeing myself but I usually try to keep it somewhat clever at least in my mind but some are just nonsense low hanging fruit.

and now heres a meme I found/loved in line with a couple others already posted.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Dineley said:


> I agree I feel some of the memes coming out lately just like make me shake my head. I know I'm guilty of politics memeing myself but I usually try to keep it somewhat clever at least in my mind but some are just nonsense low hanging fruit.
> 
> and now heres a meme I found/loved in line with a couple others already posted.
> View attachment 91517






vilk said:


> I'd say this is perfect for r/therightcantmeme if it weren't for the subject. You could change the picture on the left to AOC, post it on r/conservative and get 100K upvotes right now.
> 
> The reason that Mitch Mcconnell, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong Un are evil pieces of shit has nothing to do with how they look.




But I lol’d!


----------



## Wuuthrad

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...irst-major-tax-hike-in-almost-30-years-report


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91527
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...irst-major-tax-hike-in-almost-30-years-report



Cue folks making <$50k a year freaking out that large corporations and those making over $1M a year will have to pay closer to thier share.


----------



## USMarine75

Meanwhile on Fox they've had constant coverage of the "Border Crisis" due to "Biden's Open Border Agenda".

"Why wont Biden call border surge a crisis?"

The party of "Dr Seuss has been cancelled" and "They/Their/Them Potato Head" is collectively losing their shit.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Cue folks making <$50k a year freaking out that large corporations and those making over $1M a year will have to pay closer to thier share.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Meanwhile on Fox they've had constant coverage of the "Border Crisis" due to "Biden's Open Border Agenda".
> 
> "Why wont Biden call border surge a crisis?"
> 
> The party of "Dr Seuss has been cancelled" and "They/Their/Them Potato Head" is collectively losing their shit.



I was reading a report about the border situation this morning where they were saying Biden's team is attempting to put out the word that now is not the time so please don't make the journey to the border with the expectation that you'll just fly right in, but the message doesn't seem to be sticking at all. What nobody seems to mention, not this report or any other report I've read or seen, is that there were years of GOP rhetoric saying if the Democrats got the presidency, it would immediately make all borders wide open and invite in anyone and everyone that could make it there. So is the current situation Biden's fault, or the fault of four years of rhetoric echoing around the world that Democrats = open borders?

I think that's at least worth considering.

On the Tucker Carlson thing, Jon Oliver actually had a halfway decent rant about it this week where he went through Tucker's history and how he slowly morphed his way from outright racist and sexist rhetoric to being very careful the way he worded things while still sending the same message. It'd be nice to think that his tirade stating China's military is getting stronger and more masculine while the US's military is getting weaker and more feminine would cause some sponsors to ponder their support, but that's sadly not the world we live in. At most he'll see a drop for a week or so and then right back to it.

Apparently there's rumblings that Fox would like to push him into running for President at some point in the coming years. I would say that'd be a hoot, but we've already seen the Republican base is willing to accept absolute dumpster fire level trash as a candidate so long as they constantly prattle on about how white, male america is being oppressed. And if there's anything Tucker's good at, it's that nonsense.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> I was reading a report about the border situation this morning where they were saying Biden's team is attempting to put out the word that now is not the time so please don't make the journey to the border with the expectation that you'll just fly right in, but the message doesn't seem to be sticking at all. What nobody seems to mention, not this report or any other report I've read or seen, is that there were years of GOP rhetoric saying if the Democrats got the presidency, it would immediately make all borders wide open and invite in anyone and everyone that could make it there. So is the current situation Biden's fault, or the fault of four years of rhetoric echoing around the world that Democrats = open borders?
> 
> I think that's at least worth considering.
> 
> On the Tucker Carlson thing, Jon Oliver actually had a halfway decent rant about it this week where he went through Tucker's history and how he slowly morphed his way from outright racist and sexist rhetoric to being very careful the way he worded things while still sending the same message. It'd be nice to think that his tirade stating China's military is getting stronger and more masculine while the US's military is getting weaker and more feminine would cause some sponsors to ponder their support, but that's sadly not the world we live in. At most he'll see a drop for a week or so and then right back to it.
> 
> Apparently there's rumblings that Fox would like to push him into running for President at some point in the coming years. I would say that'd be a hoot, but we've already seen the Republican base is willing to accept absolute dumpster fire level trash as a candidate so long as they constantly prattle on about how white, male america is being oppressed. And if there's anything Tucker's good at, it's that nonsense.



Even worse is that Ted Cruz wants to invite Tucker Carlson to the Senate so they can clear up the current issue. WTF? Werent they just complaining that the people had sent them there to do work not waste time with the Impeachment Hearing? Yet now they want to waste time exonerating an infotainment "reporter" on the Senate floor?

BTW this is the best thing I've seen regarding Tucker:


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Cue folks making <$50k a year freaking out that large corporations and those making over $1M a year will have to pay closer to thier share.


Though, an economist I read made an observation that hadn't occured to me - Biden's plan of raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, half the difference that Trump cut it, superficially seems pretty modest, but ignores the fact that the US tax cuts had a triggered effect on most of the rest of the developed word, who cut taxes to follow suit, so if we went up to 28%, only two developed market economies, Germany at 29.65% and Japan at 29.74%, would have a higher tax rate than the US, and I've long been a believer that corporate tax rates matter more at a relative basis than they do at an absolute one. I think it's going to be a struggle for Biden to get tax increases in at all, given the Democrats' current narrow grip on congress (though, FWIW, there's sort of a "success effect" if you will that might be in play here, where the fact they've been pretty effective at executing Biden's agenda thus far may make it marginally more likely that they can continue to add incremental wins simply because things seem to be going in the right direction), but if they do maybe some sort of a phased approach, say going to 25% in 2022, then 28% in 2024 or something, might be easier to sell, and give the rest of the world time to consider raising their own corporate taxes in line with ours (it's not like no other nation in the world could use the money).


----------



## mmr007

"You're on CNN! The lead in to my show is puppets making crank phone calls!"-Jon Stewart 

17 years ago Tucker was on CNN, still a major tool, ....it is so interesting to see Jon Stewart 17 years ago look at Tucker and say "You are ruining America."


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> Even worse is that Ted Cruz wants to invite Tucker Carlson to the Senate so they can clear up the current issue. WTF? Werent they just complaining that the people had sent them there to do work not waste time with the Impeachment Hearing? Yet now they want to waste time exonerating an infotainment "reporter" on the Senate floor?
> 
> BTW this is the best thing I've seen regarding Tucker:




"Tucker was on fire like a cross on a black family's lawn" lmao


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> "You're on CNN! The lead in to my show is puppets making crank phone calls!"-Jon Stewart
> 
> 17 years ago Tucker was on CNN, still a major tool, ....it is so interesting to see Jon Stewart 17 years ago look at Tucker and say "You are ruining America."



I haven't seen this clip in _years_.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> I haven't seen this clip in _years_.



Me and my boss were just talking about this a couple days ago... how it ended Tucker's career for awhile. 

Tucker showed up to a battle of wits with Jon Stewart unarmed.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

nightflameauto said:


> I was reading a report about the border situation this morning where they were saying Biden's team is attempting to put out the word that now is not the time so please don't make the journey to the border with the expectation that you'll just fly right in, but the message doesn't seem to be sticking at all. What nobody seems to mention, not this report or any other report I've read or seen, is that there were years of GOP rhetoric saying if the Democrats got the presidency, it would immediately make all borders wide open and invite in anyone and everyone that could make it there. So is the current situation Biden's fault, or the fault of four years of rhetoric echoing around the world that Democrats = open borders?
> 
> I think that's at least worth considering.



I never followed this closely... really didn't follow much of trump's presidency before 2020 but at least from my very limited perspective I felt like most everything that the trump admin talked about became just a lot of BS with no real game plans nor follow-thru. I felt like he/ they would say just about anything to put on a show or an act... and to just make themselves look good to conservatives. Just look at the sad joke that was the border wall. Although I never followed along, I didn't ever feel that anything was really getting done to actually address or solve any social nor economic issues in the US. It appeared to me that the trump admin was simply putting on appearances to appease the middle/ lower class and that possibly there were other things taking place out of the public eye... foreign interest issues, corporate benefit issues, etc, etc. I felt as if there were things happening that for one reason or another were being kept secret and/ or that the average American was being mislead about. Then 2020 hit... No need to even say anything about that although it definitely strengthened my skepticism about the administration in general while adding a whole host of new things that were obviously deceptive and not in the interest of American lives. 

So with all of that I think that the Biden Administration is so far having to dig deeper and deeper into the tangled-up clog of mismanaged policies in order to start making sense of all the fucked up shit that was done so that they can begin to make repairs. I don't envy those that have been left with the complete mess that trump, his administration, and the GOP allowed to happen over those four years. .


----------



## nightflameauto

High Plains Drifter said:


> I never followed this closely... really didn't follow much of trump's presidency before 2020 but at least from my very limited perspective I felt like most everything that the trump admin talked about became just a lot of BS with no real game plans nor follow-thru. I felt like he/ they would say just about anything to put on a show or an act... and to just make themselves look good to conservatives. Just look at the sad joke that was the border wall. Although I never followed along, I didn't ever feel that anything was really getting done to actually address or solve any social nor economic issues in the US. It appeared to me that the trump admin was simply putting on appearances to appease the middle/ lower class and that possibly there were other things taking place out of the public eye... foreign interest issues, corporate benefit issues, etc, etc. I felt as if there were things happening that for one reason or another were being kept secret and/ or that the average American was being mislead about. Then 2020 hit... No need to even say anything about that although it definitely strengthened my skepticism about the administration in general while adding a whole host of new things that were obviously deceptive and not in the interest of American lives.
> 
> So with all of that I think that the Biden Administration is so far having to dig deeper and deeper into the tangled-up clog of mismanaged policies in order to start making sense of all the fucked up shit that was done so that they can begin to make repairs. I don't envy those that have been left with the complete mess that trump, his administration, and the GOP allowed to happen over those four years. .


Yeah, you're not wrong on any count. And just so we're clear, I don't think Trump or his team were making an intelligent guess as to the outcome of their public whining about open borders under Democrats. It's just another bit of bullshit that lead to a negative outcome for us.

With no transition to speak of, and either no cooperation in some cases, or cooperation with people that were clearly not well informed on their supposed tasks within the team, the Biden administration has a ridiculous amount of scrambling to do to even try to make sense of where we were when they stepped into power.


----------



## philkilla

Green screening the president? Next level stuff here:


----------



## Shoeless_jose

philkilla said:


> Green screening the president? Next level stuff here:





??? feeel like comment and video dont match


----------



## SpaceDock

Ah yes, the moment republicans realize Biden hasn’t been gaffing like they dreamed and instead need to resort to fake videos to get their propaganda.


----------



## philkilla

Dineley said:


> ??? feeel like comment and video dont match



Looks like his hands were clipping over the microphones.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Me and my boss were just talking about this a couple days ago... how it ended Tucker's career for awhile.
> 
> Tucker showed up to a battle of wits with Jon Stewart unarmed.


Begala ddn't come out looking great either, but Carlson fucked up, in part by simply being a smarmy asshole, and in part by going right on the attack and trying to make it personal. Stewart's responding to a question about how can he ask Crossfire to hold themselves to a higher standard when he himself didn't ask Kerry any harder questions when he got an interview with "My show follows a program about puppets making crank calls. You're a _news_ program" was pretty fucking brutal.  

That said, nothing will ever compare to Stephen Colbert's press corps dinner. Colbert absolutely _crucifying_ Bush in front of an audience ("Now, lots of people have been saying that this administration is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. _People!_ This administration is _soaring_! If anything, they're rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg!") and W. sitting there, clearly feeling uncomfortable, but just taking it, is about the epitome of what American democracy and freedom of the press stands for. Can you picture Trump doing that? It's no coincidence that he cancelled this event for most of his presidency.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Looks like his hands were clipping over the microphones.




2 minutes of Googling is all anything takes these days and you didn't even do that?


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> 2 minutes of Googling is all anything takes these days and you didn't even do that?



I have a strong suspicion that first video is some whacked out right wing "news" site that I really don't want in my youtube algorithm. What sort of fake scandal am I missing?


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> I have a strong suspicion that first video is some whacked out right wing "news" site that I really don't want in my youtube algorithm. What sort of fake scandal am I missing?


It seems to be actual Bloomberg. It's just an optical illusion due to a larger than people are expecting dead cat microphone and some digital artefacting.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Begala ddn't come out looking great either, but Carlson fucked up, in part by simply being a smarmy asshole, and in part by going right on the attack and trying to make it personal. Stewart's responding to a question about how can he ask Crossfire to hold themselves to a higher standard when he himself didn't ask Kerry any harder questions when he got an interview with "My show follows a program about puppets making crank calls. You're a _news_ program" was pretty fucking brutal.
> 
> That said, nothing will ever compare to Stephen Colbert's press corps dinner. Colbert absolutely _crucifying_ Bush in front of an audience ("Now, lots of people have been saying that this administration is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. _People!_ This administration is _soaring_! If anything, they're rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg!") and W. sitting there, clearly feeling uncomfortable, but just taking it, is about the epitome of what American democracy and freedom of the press stands for. Can you picture Trump doing that? It's no coincidence that he cancelled this event for most of his presidency.



Have you seen the video of Obama crucifying Trump during the Correspondent's dinner? I watched a PBS doc that surmised that was the moment Trump decided not only was he going to become president, but he would take it from Obama.


----------



## JSanta

USMarine75 said:


> Have you seen the video of Obama crucifying Trump during the Correspondent's dinner? I watched a PBS doc that surmised that was the moment Trump decided not only was he going to become president, but he would take it from Obama.



There was also that moment from the Kimmel Mean Tweets bit where Obama read one of Trump's tweets about being the worst President ever, to which he responded, at least he was President. That didn't age well (and I think that was during the election cycle).


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Have you seen the video of Obama crucifying Trump during the Correspondent's dinner? I watched a PBS doc that surmised that was the moment Trump decided not only was he going to become president, but he would take it from Obama.


I haven't seen that, but I'd heard about that. 



JSanta said:


> There was also that moment from the Kimmel Mean Tweets bit where Obama read one of Trump's tweets about being the worst President ever, to which he responded, at least he was President. That didn't age well (and I think that was during the election cycle).


Oof.  Well, take your pick - "At least more people thought I was a good president than a bad one," "at least I won a second term," or "at least I didn't lose and then throw a failed insurrection at the Capitol trying to overturn the results."


----------



## USMarine75

JSanta said:


> There was also that moment from the Kimmel Mean Tweets bit where Obama read one of Trump's tweets about being the worst President ever, to which he responded, at least he was President. That didn't age well (and I think that was during the election cycle).



Haha yeah I just saw that again the other day and thought the same thing... oops.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> I have a strong suspicion that first video is some whacked out right wing "news" site that I really don't want in my youtube algorithm. What sort of fake scandal am I missing?



Come on daddy drew, you know my favorite pass time is surreptitiously getting stuff into your algorithm.


----------



## mastapimp

Drew said:


> I have a strong suspicion that first video is some whacked out right wing "news" site that I really don't want in my youtube algorithm. What sort of fake scandal am I missing?


Right clicking on the video title and opening link in private mode is the easiest way around this.


----------



## spudmunkey

mastapimp said:


> Right clicking on the video title and opening link in private mode is the easiest way around this.


You can also open your YouTube history and remove individual videos from it. I've found it to be pretty effective.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> You can also open your YouTube history and remove individual videos from it. I've found it to be pretty effective.


Didn't know that, i'll have to give it a look. Last thing I want is a whole bunch of Project Veritas videos showing up in my suggested video feed.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Didn't know that, i'll have to give it a look. Last thing I want is a whole bunch of Project Veritas videos showing up in my suggested video feed.


I spent 2 months doing a deep-dive in alaskan chainsaw milling, and outdoor lumber drying. My entire feed had shifted to almost entirely chainsaw, milling, and small engine videos. Once the job was done, I spent about 20 mins clearing out the history one video and a time, and after one refresh, it's mostly back to...er..."normal"...if that's what one would call it.


----------



## SpaceDock

I have had “pause watch history” and “pause search history” turned on for years.


----------



## Wuuthrad

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...t-election-intelligence-community-report.html


----------



## vilk

Duhhhhhh but also, as if Republicans would even care. Anything is fair to stop the godless libs from making America socialist.


----------



## nightflameauto

The only real question surrounding whether Trump is a Russian asset or not (duh, even the Republican lead investigation found that he is) is whether he KNEW, personally, that he was a Russian asset. The dude's a walking cloud of disconnection from reality. It's entirely possible he was lead into being an asset by somebody paying him a compliment and then making a subtle suggestion.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

Not sure if this was posted already. BLM land is our public land in the US, and Trump was trying to lease it on the fast track. Not good!

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-cancels-oil-gas-leases-sage-grouse-lands-69288079


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91759
> 
> 
> Not sure if this was posted already. BLM land is our public land in the US, and Trump was trying to lease it on the fast track. Not good!
> 
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-cancels-oil-gas-leases-sage-grouse-lands-69288079




This was over a year ago. not sure if ruling held i cant be bothered to look up more rn


----------



## groverj3

nightflameauto said:


> The only real question surrounding whether Trump is a Russian asset or not (duh, even the Republican lead investigation found that he is) is whether he KNEW, personally, that he was a Russian asset. The dude's a walking cloud of disconnection from reality. It's entirely possible he was lead into being an asset by somebody paying him a compliment and then making a subtle suggestion.


I'm going to assume that a man who's literally never talked in a complete sentence probably was unaware he was being played, and if presented with evidence that he was after the fact would never admit to being wrong.

He's also orange.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Randy

Colorado is Boebert's state, right? No good guy with a gun to take down that guy who was shooting up the grocery store?


----------



## mmr007

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91807
> View attachment 91808
> View attachment 91809
> View attachment 91810


I WANT that effing shirt


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> Colorado is Boebert's state, right? No good guy with a gun to take down that guy who was shooting up the grocery store?



Boulder is like the hippy center of Colorado. I went to high school there. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone being so violent in a place like that. Boebert is from the other side of the mountains, we call it the western slope and that is very different culturally.


----------



## Wuuthrad

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...-conspiracy-theories-were-statements-of-fact/


----------



## nightflameauto

Today, Joe Biden celebrates the anniversary of the affordable care act. Some folks remember it fondly, I remember it as the next in a long line of steps that eventually made health insurance untenable for me and my wife. Bravo affordable care act. You made health insurance nearly triple in costs over an eleven year period while wages rise slower than inflation. Nice work. Well titled.

Apparently, Joe's also dropping consideration for a government based plan for those that wanted to opt in. So much for giving a fuck about the health of the people. Gotta keep them insurance costs sky fucking high.

Will we ever get to a point where we start treating healthcare as a necessity rather than a nice luxury for elected officials and those with deep pockets? I get the sense that's a big fat resounding no for those with the power to make that change legally. I mean, what the fuck do they care?  They and their families are covered by the tax payers. The rest of us should just work harder if we want healthcare.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Today, Joe Biden celebrates the anniversary of the affordable care act. Some folks remember it fondly, I remember it as the next in a long line of steps that eventually made health insurance untenable for me and my wife. Bravo affordable care act. You made health insurance nearly triple in costs over an eleven year period while wages rise slower than inflation. Nice work. Well titled.
> 
> Apparently, Joe's also dropping consideration for a government based plan for those that wanted to opt in. So much for giving a fuck about the health of the people. Gotta keep them insurance costs sky fucking high.
> 
> Will we ever get to a point where we start treating healthcare as a necessity rather than a nice luxury for elected officials and those with deep pockets? I get the sense that's a big fat resounding no for those with the power to make that change legally. I mean, what the fuck do they care? They and their families are covered by the tax payers. The rest of us should just work harder if we want healthcare.



Healthcare will never get better as long as we keep electing right wingers or what this country calls liberals.


----------



## mmr007

nightflameauto said:


> Today, Joe Biden celebrates the anniversary of the affordable care act. Some folks remember it fondly, I remember it as the next in a long line of steps that eventually made health insurance untenable for me and my wife. Bravo affordable care act. You made health insurance nearly triple in costs over an eleven year period while wages rise slower than inflation. Nice work. Well titled.
> 
> Apparently, Joe's also dropping consideration for a government based plan for those that wanted to opt in. So much for giving a fuck about the health of the people. Gotta keep them insurance costs sky fucking high.
> 
> Will we ever get to a point where we start treating healthcare as a necessity rather than a nice luxury for elected officials and those with deep pockets? I get the sense that's a big fat resounding no for those with the power to make that change legally. I mean, what the fuck do they care? They and their families are covered by the tax payers. The rest of us should just work harder if we want healthcare.



When the ACA passed, the next day my health insurance premiums through my work went from $230 a month for me and my kids to $870 a month and my annual deductible went from $1500 per person to $12,000 per person and the insurance company liability limit was capped at 60% meaning I had to pay out $12,000 out of my own pocket, per person, each year in medical expenses before insurance would kick in and help.... and if I had a major health issue for me or one of my kids that resulted in say...$200,000 in hospital bills (very easy to do)...the most the insurance cmpany would cover is $108,000 ($120,000 minus $12,000) and I would have to cover the rest. How the fuck is that insurance? I and other americans like me should sleep better knowing I was kicked out of my house and made homeless over a $100,000 medical bill I cant pay instead of the full $200,000 I also don't have?

I don't remember who posted it but it is true...the US is a ponzi scheme with a police and a military.

Btw....the gun related mass murders keep piling up....maybe it's time for democrats to make good on the republicans' promise that they will take your guns and FINALLY do something about this shit....because the rest of the world (except Russia who funded the NRA) is laughing at us and our gun obsession.


----------



## diagrammatiks

nightflameauto said:


> Today, Joe Biden celebrates the anniversary of the affordable care act. Some folks remember it fondly, I remember it as the next in a long line of steps that eventually made health insurance untenable for me and my wife. Bravo affordable care act. You made health insurance nearly triple in costs over an eleven year period while wages rise slower than inflation. Nice work. Well titled.
> 
> Apparently, Joe's also dropping consideration for a government based plan for those that wanted to opt in. So much for giving a fuck about the health of the people. Gotta keep them insurance costs sky fucking high.
> 
> Will we ever get to a point where we start treating healthcare as a necessity rather than a nice luxury for elected officials and those with deep pockets? I get the sense that's a big fat resounding no for those with the power to make that change legally. I mean, what the fuck do they care? They and their families are covered by the tax payers. The rest of us should just work harder if we want healthcare.



I didn't even realize that you could go to the hospital for non immediately life-threatening illnesses until I moved to china.

got an x-ray of my thumb cuz it was hurting. cost 45 bucks.

recently rewatched all of house - m.d. as an adult the most astonishing part is how all those people weren't completely bankrupted by all those lengthy hospital stays and procedures.

yay america.


----------



## StevenC

diagrammatiks said:


> I didn't even realize that you could go to the hospital for non immediately life-threatening illnesses until I moved to china.
> 
> got an x-ray of my thumb cuz it was hurting. cost 45 bucks.
> 
> recently rewatched all of house - m.d. as an adult the most astonishing part is how all those people weren't completely bankrupted by all those lengthy hospital stays and procedures.
> 
> yay america.


On the other hand it feels like they were talking about insurance constantly on Scrubs.


----------



## USMarine75

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 91816
> 
> 
> https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electi...-conspiracy-theories-were-statements-of-fact/



The Tucker Defense. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Healthcare will never get better as long as we keep electing right wingers or what this country calls liberals.



So the family and I are addicted to channels like RealLifeLore and Simon Whistler's YouTube vids... We watched one that showed the world's happiest and safest places... most of the top 10 was Scandanavia. Like 8/10 countries were the terrible socialist countries FOX News always rails against, saying do you want to be like XYZ?! Yes, Tucker. Yes.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> When the ACA passed, the next day my health insurance premiums through my work went from $230 a month for me and my kids to $870 a month and my annual deductible went from $1500 per person to $12,000 per person and the insurance company liability limit was capped at 60% meaning I had to pay out $12,000 out of my own pocket, per person, each year in medical expenses before insurance would kick in and help.... and if I had a major health issue for me or one of my kids that resulted in say...$200,000 in hospital bills (very easy to do)...the most the insurance cmpany would cover is $108,000 ($120,000 minus $12,000) and I would have to cover the rest. How the fuck is that insurance? I and other americans like me should sleep better knowing I was kicked out of my house and made homeless over a $100,000 medical bill I cant pay instead of the full $200,000 I also don't have?
> 
> I don't remember who posted it but it is true...the US is a ponzi scheme with a police and a military.
> 
> Btw....the gun related mass murders keep piling up....maybe it's time for democrats to make good on the republicans' promise that they will take your guns and FINALLY do something about this shit....because the rest of the world (except Russia who funded the NRA) is laughing at us and our gun obsession.



I find this insane. I'm from Canada so don't really know the ins and outs of the ACA... But I'm assuming the bill doesn't call for coverages to change. Like is the costs that were put on you not just insurance companies making changes to improve their bottom line? Or what caused this dramatic shift in cost/coverage?

Open to answers from anyone with insight.


----------



## mmr007

Dineley said:


> I find this insane. I'm from Canada so don't really know the ins and outs of the ACA... But I'm assuming the bill doesn't call for coverages to change. Like is the costs that were put on you not just insurance companies making changes to improve their bottom line? Or what caused this dramatic shift in cost/coverage?
> 
> Open to answers from anyone with insight.



We actually got a letter from our company explaining the health insurance company's position and reasoning is that with a pending mandate for covering pre-existing conditions yadda yadda that rates would be affected and that those costs would be passed on to the company we worked for who would in turn pass those costs onto us.

Again the only reason we have a term like "pre-existing condition" is because we have this arcane and assinine system of having your health insurance tied to your employer so if you switch jobs and get new health care coverage any issues you had in the past were not covered with your new job and new insurance. It's BS and here is why it is A SCAM

As stated my insurance rates almost quadrupled and I was effectively uninsured (on paper only did I have insurance) and I literally could not afford health insurance anymore so I went and got different insurance on my own for my kids but no insurance for me because I couldn't afford it.

Fast forward to one day my youngest daughter and I are both sick and both go to a doc in a box type clinic. We both got the same exact care...examination and chest xray...turns out we both had a case of pneumonia.

I did not have insurance. I paid the cash patient price of $130. My daughter got the SAME EXACT care from the same place and the "deductible" I paid was $270. So I asked why don't I just tell you my daughter doesn't have insurance and pay $130 for her also and they said it was too late to do that but I knew moving forward I have no incentive to use her insurance and pay towards the deductible for doctors visits because its cheaper just to be a cash patient for all non life threatening emergencies. Ponzi scheme.


----------



## nightflameauto

Dineley said:


> I find this insane. I'm from Canada so don't really know the ins and outs of the ACA... But I'm assuming the bill doesn't call for coverages to change. Like is the costs that were put on you not just insurance companies making changes to improve their bottom line? Or what caused this dramatic shift in cost/coverage?
> 
> Open to answers from anyone with insight.


There's multiple reasons insurance price skyrocketed after the ironically named "affordable care act." Instead of turning into a way to make healthcare overall more affordable, the act actually incentivized insurance companies to raise rates as much as they possibly could. The blank check effect. Of course, no one in the insurance executive wings thought about the fact they were pricing out a large segment of lower and middle class folks from buying insurance at all. But implementing a fine for anyone not carrying insurance made the insurance companies believe, with all their cold, black hearts, that they could charge whatever the hell they wanted, and people had to pay it.

Our company insurance not only skyrocketed that very year, but they also implemented all sorts of weirdly invasive bullshit programs where you have to track calories, exercise, drinking, smoking, and basically fine-tooth-comb your entire life to prove that you're worthy of being insured, or get dinged an additional fee for each box you failed to tick. The hoops eventually bogged down enough people that most folks below the executive level here that don't have kids to worry about just gave up. Those with kids are on a constant treadmill of bringing in the family to get their bi-monthly screenings and check-ups. Which wouldn't be horrible if not for the fact that any check-up that flags you failed something means an increase in your monthly bill.

It's seriously fucked up, and the number of dipshits in the middle class that, to this day, blame this shit on doctor's salaries demonstrates fully why they were able to get by with it. Nobody's paying attention to the real problem. Doctors are to blame. *FACEPALM*


----------



## mmr007

Ok Biden....still feel you can reach across the aisle and work with these people?


----------



## thraxil

thraxil said:


> I watched some Q-anon videos the other day because it's pretty hilarious. They were already making some kind of very contorted argument that Trump actually has until March 20th, so maybe nothing will happen on the 4th. I'm sure that as the 20th approaches, there will be a new date selected in the near future.



Well, March 4th came and went and now March 20th has passed. I haven't had time to dig lately. Does anyone know what the current alternate reality explanation is for how Trump is actually the real President? Has Q moved on all the way to Lizard People yet?


----------



## diagrammatiks

mmr007 said:


> Ok Biden....still feel you can reach across the aisle and work with these people?




i mean clearly no.


----------



## Thaeon

SpaceDock said:


> Boulder is like the hippy center of Colorado. I went to high school there. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone being so violent in a place like that. Boebert is from the other side of the mountains, we call it the western slope and that is very different culturally.



Boulder is the Austin of Colorado. I love it there.


----------



## Randy




----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> View attachment 91889


Funny, I just heard this morning that Trump put out a statement saying that the capitol rioters posed "no real threat" to anyone. Which is one hell of a statement about a group of people chanting "hang Mike Pence" and trying to track down other members of congress to beat up, hold hostage, or outright kill.


----------



## sleewell

wonder if the family of the capitol police officer who was killed feel like the rioters posed no threat.


----------



## Randy

sleewell said:


> wonder if the family of the capitol police officer who was killed feel like the rioters posed no threat.



I thought that video of the riot cop having his mask wrenched off his face while he was pinned behind a door by 1,000 people, screaming for his life with blood pouring out of his mouth was super non threatening.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-access-to-capitol-grounds-for-good-friday

It's not _your_ house, asshats.

Everyone knows it's Run's house.


----------



## sleewell

qanon: hey there are sex offenders in congress!!!

doj: yes. his name is matt gaetz

qanon: witch hunt!


----------



## mmr007

sleewell said:


> qanon: hey there are sex offenders in congress!!!
> 
> doj: yes. his name is matt gaetz
> 
> qanon: witch hunt!


Now we know why Matt Gaetz was so eager to fly to Oklahoma to hold a rally against Liz Cheney. It’s perfect opportunity to take little girls across state lines


----------



## StevenC

Matt Gaetz was the only no vote on a 2017 human trafficking bill.


----------



## mmr007

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/31/joel-greenberg-matt-gaetz-investigations/

BTW have any of you guys been following the INSANE story of the seminole county tax collector tied to Gaetz that started this investigation? I have never encountered a non-mafia person who was this corrupt


----------



## Thaeon

mmr007 said:


> Now we know why Matt Gaetz was so eager to fly to Oklahoma to hold a rally against Liz Cheney. It’s perfect opportunity to take little girls across state lines



Super relevant. Human trafficking is a serious issue in Oklahoma.


----------



## devastone

SpaceDock said:


> Boulder is like the hippy center of Colorado. I went to high school there. It’s hard for me to imagine anyone being so violent in a place like that. Boebert is from the other side of the mountains, we call it the western slope and that is very different culturally.





Thaeon said:


> Boulder is the Austin of Colorado. I love it there.



Boulder was "hippy" and fun 20+ years when I moved here, now it is just overcrowded, expensive, and way more yuppy (is that still a word?) than hippy. I live in Boulder county, but can't remember the last time I willingly went to Boulder.


----------



## Xaios

devastone said:


> Boulder was "hippy" and fun 20+ years when I moved here, now it is just overcrowded, expensive, and way more yuppy (is that still a word?) than hippy. I live in Boulder county, but can't remember the last time I willingly went to Boulder.


So it's really the Williamsburg of Colorado?


----------



## USMarine75

Anyone else watching Into the Storm about 8chan and Qanon?


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Anyone else watching Into the Storm about 8chan and Qanon?


Yeah. It's a crazy trail of stupid that brought us to January 6th.


----------



## SpaceDock

USMarine75 said:


> Anyone else watching Into the Storm about 8chan and Qanon?



Good show so far. Seems to me that Q was just a way to lure republican conspiracy people to 8chan since it was not profitable. I think that’s where the next two episodes will lead us, we’ll find out.


----------



## SpaceDock

devastone said:


> Boulder was "hippy" and fun 20+ years when I moved here, now it is just overcrowded, expensive, and way more yuppy (is that still a word?) than hippy. I live in Boulder county, but can't remember the last time I willingly went to Boulder.



Ha yeah, I went to school there 20 years ago, don’t go back really ever.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

USMarine75 said:


> Anyone else watching Into the Storm about 8chan and Qanon?


What’s it on? I watched the Vice three parter of the same subject. That Michael Flynn is a greasy turd.


----------



## USMarine75

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> What’s it on? I watched the Vice three parter of the same subject. That Michael Flynn is a greasy turd.



I think its HBO? Check out Cyberflix on Firestick it has jt.


----------



## zappatton2

Aww, not Graves too 
https://www.metalsucks.net/2021/03/...UZyguf02-ArUbfvwozNjbIef-MgOYLWoeZkTZGcEU31So


----------



## Thaeon

devastone said:


> Boulder was "hippy" and fun 20+ years when I moved here, now it is just overcrowded, expensive, and way more yuppy (is that still a word?) than hippy. I live in Boulder county, but can't remember the last time I willingly went to Boulder.



Mmhmm... Its the Austin of Colorado.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

zappatton2 said:


> Aww, not Graves too
> https://www.metalsucks.net/2021/03/...UZyguf02-ArUbfvwozNjbIef-MgOYLWoeZkTZGcEU31So



Yeah, dude is a shithead. 

I couldn't care less about that ass clown from Iced Earth, but this one hurt.


----------



## devastone

SpaceDock said:


> Ha yeah, I went to school there 20 years ago, don’t go back really ever.



I was up in Windsor at Christmas, nice area but the sprawl is coming your way! Pretty soon "Denver Metro" will be CO Springs to Ft Collins.


----------



## devastone

Xaios said:


> So it's really the Williamsburg of Colorado?



Don't know, been a long time since I was in Williamsburg, but I think genericide is happening everywhere.


----------



## Wuuthrad

devastone said:


> Don't know, been a long time since I was in Williamsburg, but I think genericide is happening everywhere.



True dat! I do need a Kleenex (to wipe all the tears) and an Aspirin (for all the headaches) when I see all the JEEP SUVs driven by soccer moms flooding the hood lately...!

Speaking of which:


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92114


Word is GOP leadership is even quietly admitting that his days in Congress are numbered.


----------



## mmr007

yeah apparently it was a GOP commandment for a long time...if you value your political career dont EVER get caught in a photo-op with Gaetz or be close enough to him that you can be seen in the same photograph due to the fact it was well known he was a drug user and showed pics of girls he fucked all around congress...and if one of those was the 17 year you can add possesion and trafficking of child porn to the statuatory rape charge we all assume is pending


----------



## philkilla

I'd always assumed the televangelist look was just the cherry on top with that guy.

His weird recent tweets were very similar to the cryptic video Kevin Spacey made a year or so back too..


----------



## sleewell

Haha the trump campaign duped people into recurring gifts when they thought they were doing one time donations. That's hilarious. You had to read through pages of fine print and uncheck two boxes or the donations kept pulling until the account was negative. that is great.


----------



## StevenC

Nevermind. That was a really tasteless joke.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> yeah apparently it was a GOP commandment for a long time...if you value your political career dont EVER get caught in a photo-op with Gaetz or be close enough to him that you can be seen in the same photograph due to the fact it was well known he was a drug user and showed pics of girls he fucked all around congress...and if one of those was the 17 year you can add possesion and trafficking of child porn to the statuatory rape charge we all assume is pending



I have friends that work there and yeah even staffers avoid him like he's contagious. Apparently some of the senior Republicans including a recently retired one made it clear he needed to be primaried for the good of the party.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Millul

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92140



No, you can't.


----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...cts-house-inquiry-says/ar-BB1fibtJ?li=BBnb7Kz

we're going to be hearing about shit like this for years....republicans have totally figured out how to make America their own personal ATM again


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

mmr007 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...cts-house-inquiry-says/ar-BB1fibtJ?li=BBnb7Kz
> 
> we're going to be hearing about shit like this for years....republicans have totally figured out how to make America their own personal ATM again


Surely that’s fake news, this was clearly Trump draining the swamp and not him skinny dipping in it.


----------



## mmr007

"I’ve decided to 'identify' as Chinese. Coke will like me, Delta will agree with my 'values' and I’ll probably get shoes from Nike & tickets to @MLB games. Ain’t America great?" Huckabee wrote.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-issues-racist-tweet-mlb-backlash/7082664002/

Dude......seriously? You're a pastor? Fuck it I don't feel guilty for my guitar...at least my heart and head are always in the right place.


----------



## Wuuthrad

mmr007 said:


> "I’ve decided to 'identify' as Chinese. Coke will like me, Delta will agree with my 'values' and I’ll probably get shoes from Nike & tickets to @MLB games. Ain’t America great?" Huckabee wrote.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-issues-racist-tweet-mlb-backlash/7082664002/
> 
> Dude......seriously? You're a pastor? Fuck it I don't feel guilty for my guitar...at least my heart and head are always in the right place.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## mmr007

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92178


Sometimes I like to think I'm funny...and then someone like a Jeremy Newberger comes along with gems like that quote and reminds me to stay in the shallow end of the pool


----------



## Wuuthrad

mmr007 said:


> Sometimes I like to think I'm funny...and then someone like a Jeremy Newberger comes along with gems like that quote and reminds me to stay in the shallow end of the pool





you’ve defo got me beat, I just curate this stuff!


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> Sometimes I like to think I'm funny...and then someone like a Jeremy Newberger comes along with gems like that quote and reminds me to stay in the shallow end of the pool



Not at all man. Punching back against the racist delusional right wing that has a total disconnect from society isn't speaking truth to power or being clever sadly all we can do is sometimes laugh because of how sad it is that so many people out right refuse to see it for what it is.

And like whats the point of being a smart ass on a post like that. Nobody who agreed with him already will change their mind and all the woke blue check marks will just pat themselves on the back for the zinger.

Hate to sound so bitter and cynical just to me like snarky tweets at politicians is part of the problem it just cheapens any discourse or discussion. Everyone needs to stop thinking they're Patton Oswalt, and Patton Oswalt needs to just stop.


----------



## nightflameauto

So Into the Storm ended on a downer. Not that a story about the origins of Qanon was gonna be happy go lucky in the end, but what a nothing-burger. At least there were a couple laughs along the way. The whirlwind of the lives surrounding 8Chan/8Kun is sorta interesting on its own, but the Qanon stuff is just baffling when it comes right down to it. There's so many actors purposefully polluting the info trail it's impossible to know for sure, yet based on the documentary almost impossible to *NOT* know at least one of the trails of breadcrumbs.

Definitely an interesting, if maddening, look into the other side of the Q divide. The delusion runs deep, and so much of it seems to have been intentionally set up as nothing more than a joke that got carried away. Lord, what a world we live in.


----------



## SpaceDock

I enjoyed it, definitely not as exciting as it would have been if Q was bannon or flynn.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> So Into the Storm ended on a downer. Not that a story about the origins of Qanon was gonna be happy go lucky in the end, but what a nothing-burger. At least there were a couple laughs along the way. The whirlwind of the lives surrounding 8Chan/8Kun is sorta interesting on its own, but the Qanon stuff is just baffling when it comes right down to it. There's so many actors purposefully polluting the info trail it's impossible to know for sure, yet based on the documentary almost impossible to *NOT* know at least one of the trails of breadcrumbs.
> 
> Definitely an interesting, if maddening, look into the other side of the Q divide. The delusion runs deep, and so much of it seems to have been intentionally set up as nothing more than a joke that got carried away. Lord, what a world we live in.





SpaceDock said:


> I enjoyed it, definitely not as exciting as it would have been if Q was bannon or flynn.



Them both laughing during the final video call was pretty damning though. (Intentionally vague so as not to spoil the ending)


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Them both laughing during the final video call was pretty damning though. (Intentionally vague so as not to spoil the ending)


"Not as Q though." BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What a cray-cray ride.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think that it’s just like everything else in America nowadays, one giant grift. Q wasn’t about anything except making money and they got damn close to helping burn down our country, all over a shitty website, just consider that.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

The whole Q thing is crazy. I hope there’s consequences for the pieces of excrement that are responsible for misleading so many. “Where we go one, we go all.” Yeah, they all goin’ crazy. You wanna come too?


----------



## USMarine75

Speaking of crazy... Brad the Dragon Lord Guitologist posted a wacky try-hard one today. Apparently it's the first time he's seen a voluntary demographic survey. 



(Posted here because Marcella decided to troll/derail the last one.)


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> Speaking of crazy... Brad the Dragon Lord Guitologist posted a wacky try-hard one today. Apparently it's the first time he's seen a voluntary demographic survey.
> 
> 
> 
> (Posted here because Marcella decided to troll/derail the last one.)




Any particular reason we care about this youtube wing nut more than the others?


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/pro-t...cked-capitol-s-race-n1263216?icid=msd_topgrid

"But by far the most interesting characteristic common to the insurrectionists’ backgrounds has to do with changes in their local demographics: Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.

The people alleged by authorities to have taken the law into their hands on Jan. 6 typically hail from places where non-White populations are growing fastest,” Pape wrote. That’s a wildly fascinating — and terrifying — conclusion to draw."


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92283



So you know how Wolverine's claws make a "SNIKT" sound? Now imagine Ted's sound.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> So you know how Wolverine's claws make a "SNIKT" sound? Now imagine Ted's sound.



I mean it's obviously a Ren & Stimpy-esque deflating fart noise, right?


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Ralyks

So I keep seeing articles saying the US economy is about to take off in a way not seen in quite some time. @Drew or anyone else with knowledge in the field, safe to assume that's the case, or what is the "there's more to it than that"?


----------



## mbardu

Ralyks said:


> So I keep seeing articles saying the US economy is about to take off in a way not seen in quite some time. @Drew or anyone else with knowledge in the field, safe to assume that's the case, or what is the "there's more to it than that"?



The "economy" is about to take off like it usually does. Already has to some extent. Productivity increases, but profits are ever more concentrated in the pockets of the few.
The S&P and Real Estate are going parabolic, but for most people, things are not going any better.
Add to that inflation (everything from commodities to food prices- all in the context of a falling dollar); it's looking pretty good for billionaires - but not great for everyone else.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## SpaceDock

Jim Jordan flipping out on Fauci is comedy gold! What a moron.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> Jim Jordan flipping out on Fauci is comedy gold! What a moron.


Never don't call him "Gym".


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## vilk

I actually haven't seen him. For all I know he did leave the country.


----------



## Randy

vilk said:


> I actually haven't seen him. For all I know he did leave the country.



Glad I'm not the only one who hasn't seen his face or heard his voice in almost 3 months


----------



## spudmunkey

He showed up to a campaign event for Sarah Huckabee Sanders's gubernatorial run.


----------



## JSanta

First of the Capitol terrorists pleads guilty. Guess who?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/politics/oath-keepers-capitol-guilty-plea-schaffer/index.html


----------



## thebeesknees22

SpaceDock said:


> Jim Jordan flipping out on Fauci is comedy gold! What a moron.



Jim Jordan is doing his darndest to make a run for the Dumbest Congressman award. He has some stiff competition so that's saying something, but man is he an idiot. Just listening to him run his mouth gives me a headache.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> I actually haven't seen him. For all I know he did leave the country.


He went to Florida. So, sort of...?


----------



## nightflameauto

So I go hunting for what's up with Jim Jordan and this is the first article I come across. This headline literally had me laughing out loud in my cubicle.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/jim-jordan-anthony-fauci-hearing


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> So I go hunting for what's up with Jim Jordan and this is the first article I come across. This headline literally had me laughing out loud in my cubicle.
> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/jim-jordan-anthony-fauci-hearing


Vanity Fair has been pulling no punches with their headlines these days.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Vanity Fair has been pulling no punches with their headlines these days.


The mental image alone.


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-...tol-insurrectionist-to-rat-out-fellow-rioters


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-...tol-insurrectionist-to-rat-out-fellow-rioters
> 
> View attachment 92512




Guess he will be switching to bass.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## possumkiller

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.thedailybeast.com/oath-...tol-insurrectionist-to-rat-out-fellow-rioters
> 
> View attachment 92512


HAHAHAHA JFC this guy is such a bitch. Now he's not only alienated all of his reasonable human fans, he's pissed off all of his white supremacist friends as well.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Trump told the cult they are allowed the vaccine. Wonder what leverage they have on him lol.


----------



## Mathemagician

possumkiller said:


> HAHAHAHA JFC this guy is such a bitch. Now he's not only alienated all of his reasonable human fans, he's pissed off all of his white supremacist friends as well.



Perfectly balanced.


----------



## fantom

possumkiller said:


> HAHAHAHA JFC this guy is such a bitch. Now he's not only alienated all of his reasonable human fans, he's pissed off all of his white supremacist friends as well.


Not sure how someone in witness protection plans on playing any shows. Guess he has accepted that he ruined his career too.


----------



## sleewell

cant even imagine going to jail and ruining my career for trump's big lie. living with that for the rest of your life must be difficult if you are able to see it.


----------



## Rosal76

sleewell said:


> cant even imagine going to jail and ruining my career for trump's big lie. living with that for the rest of your life must be difficult if you are able to see it.



+1.

Jon Schaffer is a member of a group called, Oath Keepers.

First to plead guilty, talk to the F.B.I and turn on his fellow Oath Keeper associates.


----------



## Edika

I guess it's better to never set foot on a stage again than be in a federal prison for 10+ years. But oh the hypocrisy and his commitment to the "cause" lol! I guess this is what happens when cosplay suddenly has real world consequences.


----------



## zappatton2

Edika said:


> I guess it's better to never set foot on a stage again than be in a federal prison for 10+ years. But oh the hypocrisy and his commitment to the "cause" lol! I guess this is what happens when cosplay suddenly has real world consequences.


It's interesting to me, after watching that Q documentary, how so much of this seems tied into this concept of "gamer culture", which I didn't even know was a thing. I speak with zero authority here, I don't think I've played a video game since the Commodore 64 days, aside from the occasional "table Pac-Man" at some hipster dive, but the doc seemed to tie this concept of everything being kind of a game, with a disconnect from real-world consequences for people's actions.

I can't say that ties into what goes on in the heads of those insurrectionists, or every random 8chan active shooter, but I do wonder if this notion that people can craft their own realities devoid of real-world evidence ties into how much people can customize their own virtual world.

For those way more connected than myself (so, literally everybody), feel free to tear me to shreds for my ignorance, I thought it was an interesting idea, but I welcome being schooled on the matter out of genuine curiosity.

*Edit* and to add to this, obviously much of the reactionary right is driven by old-school bigots and anti-science blowhards, same as it ever was, I just wonder why all these young people are being attracted to it. I generally associate youth with more progressive ideas (which, for youth overall, is likely still the case).


----------



## Rosal76

zappatton2 said:


> but the doc seemed to tie this concept of everything being kind of a game, with a disconnect from real-world consequences for people's actions.



I can't speak for every Republican but I can speak with 100% certainly that two of my friends, who I have known for 26 years, are exactly like that. My friend and his wife, who are die hard Trump supporters, have played many, many, many stupid games (aka life choices that might have dire consequences) and have equally won many stupid prizes. The worst prize that they got led to the death of their daughter who passed away in 2010. When science has proven something for generations, why would anyone disagree? They have very, very poor common sense, critical thinking skills and instinct for what just seems wrong. The guy, my friend, is like, "I lost all of my teeth because I smoked cigarettes and weed my whole life, I have to wear dentures, we're in debt because the dentures are expensive (it depends on how much work is required), and now I have phenumonia. Oh, and btw, I still enjoy smoking cigarettes and smoking weed". I'm like, "bruh, did the weed you smoke make you forget common sense???" And let me be clear. That's just one stupid game that he/they played that earned them a stupid prize. There is a list. I was not surprised one single bit that neither of them took the Coronavirus seriously. But going back to the game thing and real world consequences, their reckless life choices were greatly enforced by Trump's reckless behavior towards science and among other things. Both do not believe in science and both like to make up their own rules if it fits their narrative.


----------



## TedEH

zappatton2 said:


> "gamer culture"


Some people take their tiny slice of the world, their communities, their hobbies, and their self-image etc VERY seriously. Gaming communities have a huuuuuuuuuge sense of self-identity and get very defensive if you threaten that image. One of the "big deals" during gamer-gate was the suggestion that the gamer-identity was eroding on the basis of games becoming basically ubiquitous in culture much like movies - but this was a huge insult to the "_true gamers_" who felt like they were being told their identity was invalid. When people are in that frame of mind, they're primed to be drawn into "culture wars" and conspiracies and general bad-takes - since everyone's already out to get them anyway, amrite. Those pesky feminists and leftists and people who vote for the wrong guy and steal our votes etc trying to take a mans guns/culture/religion/video games away from him.


----------



## Mathemagician

Read a very interesting article about how Q sucks people in via being a social game. The “ drops” of “cryptic” info is set up like an augmented reality puzzle. 

people “work together” discussing online and in person what it could mean. Then something vaguely resembling the vague comment happens and everyone gets hyped because it’s “proven” then on to the next one. However often there is info that leads to nothing because it was just random nonsense to begin with. But they all take it to be a red herring and not “proof that it’s random shit”. 

if you are already predisposed to hard line views and harbor a distrust of authority, it plays into a persons desperate desire to be “right” and feel superior to those who disagree with their anti-science nonsense. 

When global peer reviewed research doesn’t back your pre-established beliefs, here is a cryptic social puzzle game for those smart enough to “seek the truth”. 

It’s totally a game.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

zappatton2 said:


> I just wonder why all these young people are being attracted to it. I generally associate youth with more progressive ideas (which, for youth overall, is likely still the case).



I figured out that I leaned right before I could vote.
As a younger conservative who knows many, many other younger conservatives, I can't speak for all; but my own direct experience was the same as many of the others that I know: GamerGate.

I never gave a _shit_ about politics until that whole thing kicked off, because I had always assumed all politicians are corrupt, in it for themselves, screw the working man, [Insert Rise Against lyric], you know, all that- so why bother, right?
But what I didn't ever expect was the media corruption, and having that wall break was an incredible revelation.

Honestly, I didn't even really care too much about GamerGate either. I was made aware of the whole thing almost immediately as it started happening- and I thought it was a hilarious case of people dumping too much of their personal life online. Then it started to snowball, and we find out that the 'gaming press' is corrupt as all hell. Okay; cool, I don't really care because I never read any of that trash to begin with, but it's still kind of whack that they're all this corrupt and nobody seems to have a problem with it.

Then the slander started.

All of a sudden, once GG started gaining traction and it got people's attention, big voices started to step in and completely obfuscate the message.
All of a sudden, now the whole movement was supposedly about keeping women out of gaming? LGBT people are ruining the man-o-sphere? We're all going to start collectively shitting on everyone that supported this hashtag with the goal of exposing nepotism? What the fuck?
That's when #NotYourShield was born, which was almost immediately forgotten because it got totally buried.
As that whole thing kept rolling, the rabbit hole just got deeper, and everyone tripled down on their bullshit.
All of a sudden _Zoey Quinn_ and _Anita Sarkisian_ are speaking to the fucking U.N.? Why? No repercussions for any of the people that got exposed- _*everybody*_ has their back?!?!

And you read the press, you see what they're saying about the whole thing, and it's all stuff that's not true. It's all lies and cherry-picked screenshots from schizo freaks that you can find in any movement anywhere, being used as a broad brush to paint _anybody even remotely connected to that hashtag_. People who _didn't even know what was going on_ are now being attacked for things they didn't say by people who don't even understand what the movement was about.

I listened to the people that were waist-deep in the whole thing, and then listened to what the media was telling people they were saying, and it was all just straight up lies. They _*never said*_ what these outlets are saying they said.
So now, as a logical person, I have to wonder- what else are they lying about?

So...I started paying attention. I started following political channels. I started reading the news. I started checking sources. And I started to notice the trend that the media is incredibly dishonest about almost everything, and it wasn't the bias or the fact-twisting that upset me so much as it was the duplicity; these outlets claim to be _*unbiased*_, _*just the facts*_, _*the most trusted name in news*_- and it's all _*bullshit*_.

I was working the overnight shift at a hotel at the time, so I had _*hours*_ of free time every single day with nothing to do but dig into the stories that were playing on CNN in the lobby. And I quickly found out that the media carries an awful lot of water for the left. It didn't help that this was during peak campaign / election season for 2016 either, so media misinformation was in maximum overdrive. There was a lot of fake news pushed about Trump and a lot of interference being played for Clinton.

I dunno, man. I don't want to keep you here all night, but it felt like as a straight white man who enjoyed playing video games as a teenager, the left didn't want me. And once I started to check into them, I started to not really want them either.
Which is a shame, because liberal principles are pretty appealing. I think that's why you see so many people in that younger demographic these days that find themselves socially liberal but fiscally conservative. The left has their head in the right place, but the things they say always come off as half-cocked, blatant pandering or agenda-pushing, and unrealistic with easily foreseeable consequences. That's not to say the right is perfect, far from it. There's a lot of that on the right side too. I just find them to be a bit more moderate and realistic on things with better-vetted ideas.

The media (...and twitter) likes to perpetuate this ridiculous notion that all right-leaning individuals are mustache-twirling villains that meet up at the local KKK rally to routinely discuss how we plan to oppress all non-whites, perpetuate racism, tax the poor, and repeal women's rights. It obviously isn't true, but it's so pervasive, so insistent, and so inescapable that it bleeds into the general populace. A lot of folks just believe what people tell them at face value. It's why I stopped posting in this thread (I promise, people _will_ mock me for this post), even despite all of the left-leaning folks here (seriously, there's a lot of you guys that I loved to talk to) that knew I was just a guy that disagreed with them on a few things and would listen to reason if you had something to show me.


----------



## spudmunkey

Edika said:


> I guess it's better to never set foot on a stage again than be in a federal prison for 10+ years. But oh the hypocrisy and his commitment to the "cause" lol! I guess this is what happens when cosplay suddenly has real world consequences.



People literally thought they would storm the capital, prevent the confirmation of the election results, perhaps rough up a few "enemy" politicians, secure a 2nd term for Donald Trump...and then fly home the next day.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

So maybe fitting with some of these recent comments... I lost my best friend recently ( who incidentally has been a heavy gamer at times although idk if that's here nor there) and I feel strongly that some or all of the reason that he ghosted me was due to the past year and the whole trumper-zombie thing. Last year with covid, we barely hung out at all... And I think that he subsequently was shacked up with his trump-supporting parents for so long that he became more formally brainwashed than ever before. I mean... regardless of all the good times that we had over the past 10+ yrs hanging out and sharing lots of the same interests and hobbies, we rarely talked politics and whenever we did, I could tell that he was typically misinformed or very biased and like everything angered him a bit.

It became more and more obvious over the years that he was becoming a lot like his dad. But it's not like I ever just talked shit about trump or conservatives to him so idk. There were a couple times that I mentioned that I didn't agree with the way that trump was handling things like covid, economic and social issues, etc and when I spoke of anything political, he seemed instantly aggravated... body language/ demeanor but we'd always quickly move the topic to something else. He never wanted to actually talk about any of it nor present any factual counter-arguments besides registering some occasional nonsense about liberals and that was fine with me. But I really began to feel at some point last year that he had this attitude that there was no other side... like you were either "for trump" or you were a piece of shit. He seemingly had no ability nor desire to differentiate between conservative/ moderate/ liberal viewpoints and although he obviously wasn't the most educated guy and had some social hangups, that stuff never bothered me as far as friendship goes. 

But just a couple months ago he dropped out of touch completely. No txts/ nothing. Whatever... I accept it and I'm not going to have some super awkward convo with him regarding any of this. I can apologize to someone but I won't stroke someone's misinformed mind so that we can play together. Fuck that and as much as he was like a brother to me, good riddance I guess.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

High Plains Drifter said:


> But just a couple months ago he dropped out of touch completely. No txts/ nothing. Whatever... I accept it and I'm not going to have some super awkward convo with him regarding any of this. I can apologize to someone but I won't stroke someone's misinformed mind so that we can play together. Fuck that and as much as he was like a brother to me, good riddance I guess.



That's sad, man. Hope there was more to it.
Sounds like a sign of the times, though- and it's just getting worse. Things have gotten so polarized lately that I will dead-ass walk out of a conversation with people I'm not familiar with if it gets political now. The 'angst' of the general population seems to just be through the roof and honestly I don't know how long (or what) it's going to take to rein it back in.

I'm seeing some of the same thing in my own family, too.
All of the crazy shit from the last year has started to really toss my parents down a rabbit hole and I'm concerned they're going to turn into Qtards here soon.
On the other hand, my grandparents were always democrats, but in the last year or so they've really hunkered down on that camp. I'll go out of my way to actively avoid engaging in anything political with them and they won't quit harping about stuff until they start an argument. I love those boomer fucks more than life itself but it's starting to get really hard to talk with them because every time I do, they'll just keep picking until I engage. Never used to be a problem, never used to come up at all.

Crazy times for sure.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> 'gaming press' is corrupt as all hell


Legitimate question: how is gaming press particularly corrupt? All of the criticism I see pointed at "the games media" is really pointed at Kotaku in particular, which is a very left-leaning blog, so of course that's where you're going to get your left-leaning slants on things. And why are they somehow representative of all of "the left media"?

Is it because of the one or two reviewers who got outed for having relationships with indie developers whose games they reviewed? Is that really worth getting into a big political pissing contest over?

Is it because game companies supposedly buy review scores? I work for game companies - sometimes the big ones - and it happens a lot less than I think people would like you to believe. The more egregious problem is how the industry churns and chews through people who have bonuses and careers and prestige and things dangled in front of them like carrots on a stick, to have it taken away because metacritic gave them 79% and their contract said it had to be 80, or because a game didn't make enough money to keep you employed to make another one. But again, are video game review scores worth a big political uprising?

Is it because some game companies sometimes don't deliver what's promised? That's not the media's fault, that's the publisher's fault. 

Is it because of Anita Sarkesian being mad that women are sometimes represented poorly in media? A) She's not really wrong, even if she delivers the message in a more antagonistic way than she needs to, and B) again, why is that such a big deal?

What - talking about uncomfortable things make you feel unwelcome in that space? I mean, lets not kid ourselves, games have been doing that to non-white people and women basically since there have been video games. So yeah, it's swinging in the other direction right now. Sure, it's annoying - but is it worth voting for Trump over?

I mean we can talk about "the liberal media" all you want, but what's the alternative? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? The bunch of fundamentalist snake-oil-salesman-run "independently researched" websites people keep posting about how the fact that we cut down trees is proof of the deep-state for some reason? I'll take "over-correcting a bit far in the progressive direction" any day compared to scare-mongerers who don't have two brain cells to rub together telling people that a deadly virus is fake because rich computer man wants to inject you with 5G mind control nanobots.

They're fucking video games. Whoooooooo caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares. Don't base your political world view on video game drama.


----------



## diagrammatiks

TedEH said:


> Legitimate question: how is gaming press particularly corrupt? All of the criticism I see pointed at "the games media" is really pointed at Kotaku in particular, which is a very left-leaning blog, so of course that's where you're going to get your left-leaning slants on things. And why are they somehow representative of all of "the left media"?
> 
> Is it because of the one or two reviewers who got outed for having relationships with indie developers whose games they reviewed? Is that really worth getting into a big political pissing contest over?
> 
> Is it because game companies supposedly buy review scores? I work for game companies - sometimes the big ones - and it happens a lot less than I think people would like you to believe. The more egregious problem is how the industry churns and chews through people who have bonuses and careers and prestige and things dangled in front of them like carrots on a stick, to have it taken away because metacritic gave them 79% and their contract said it had to be 80, or because a game didn't make enough money to keep you employed to make another one. But again, are video game review scores worth a big political uprising?
> 
> Is it because some game companies sometimes don't deliver what's promised? That's not the media's fault, that's the publisher's fault.
> 
> Is it because of Anita Sarkesian being mad that women are sometimes represented poorly in media? A) She's not really wrong, even if she delivers the message in a more antagonistic way than she needs to, and B) again, why is that such a big deal?
> 
> What - talking about uncomfortable things make you feel unwelcome in that space? I mean, lets not kid ourselves, games have been doing that to non-white people and women basically since there have been video games. So yeah, it's swinging in the other direction right now. Sure, it's annoying - but is it worth voting for Trump over?
> 
> I mean we can talk about "the liberal media" all you want, but what's the alternative? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? The bunch of fundamentalist snake-oil-salesman-run "independently researched" websites people keep posting about how the fact that we cut down trees is proof of the deep-state for some reason? I'll take "over-correcting a bit far in the progressive direction" any day compared to scare-mongerers who don't have two brain cells to rub together telling people that a deadly virus is fake because rich computer man wants to inject you with 5G mind control nanobots.
> 
> They're fucking video games. Whoooooooo caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares. Don't base your political world view on video game drama.



you put it more better than I ever would have.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

TedEH said:


> Legitimate question: how is gaming press particularly corrupt? All of the criticism I see pointed at "the games media" is really pointed at Kotaku in particular, which is a very left-leaning blog, so of course that's where you're going to get your left-leaning slants on things. And why are they somehow representative of all of "the left media"?
> 
> Is it because of the one or two reviewers who got outed for having relationships with indie developers whose games they reviewed? Is that really worth getting into a big political pissing contest over?
> 
> Is it because game companies supposedly buy review scores? I work for game companies - sometimes the big ones - and it happens a lot less than I think people would like you to believe. The more egregious problem is how the industry churns and chews through people who have bonuses and careers and prestige and things dangled in front of them like carrots on a stick, to have it taken away because metacritic gave them 79% and their contract said it had to be 80, or because a game didn't make enough money to keep you employed to make another one. But again, are video game review scores worth a big political uprising?
> 
> Is it because some game companies sometimes don't deliver what's promised? That's not the media's fault, that's the publisher's fault.
> 
> Is it because of Anita Sarkesian being mad that women are sometimes represented poorly in media? A) She's not really wrong, even if she delivers the message in a more antagonistic way than she needs to, and B) again, why is that such a big deal?
> 
> What - talking about uncomfortable things make you feel unwelcome in that space? I mean, lets not kid ourselves, games have been doing that to non-white people and women basically since there have been video games. So yeah, it's swinging in the other direction right now. Sure, it's annoying - but is it worth voting for Trump over?
> 
> I mean we can talk about "the liberal media" all you want, but what's the alternative? Tucker Carlson? Alex Jones? The bunch of fundamentalist snake-oil-salesman-run "independently researched" websites people keep posting about how the fact that we cut down trees is proof of the deep-state for some reason? I'll take "over-correcting a bit far in the progressive direction" any day compared to scare-mongerers who don't have two brain cells to rub together telling people that a deadly virus is fake because rich computer man wants to inject you with 5G mind control nanobots.
> 
> They're fucking video games. Whoooooooo caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaares. Don't base your political world view on video game drama.



Come on man, did you read the post?
I never said the games media is representative of all left wing media, I never said GG's drama should have spilled into politics, my point wasn't about the corruption that GG unveiled, I never said Anita informed my political opinions, I never said conservative media was any better, I never said GG shaped my opinions, I never voted for Trump, and I never said the whole kerfluffle mattered in the first place.

Dude, I even said I thought it was stupid.

_The whole point was that GG made me pay attention. _And the more I paid attention, the more I found myself drawn away from the left.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You didn't hear what I said, you heard what you expected.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Funny talk about gaming culture. Not haha but curiously so...

I have it on good authority from a close friend that the defense department budgeted 200 million dollars for Playstation and Xbox consoles in order to infiltrate various networks...

Who knows whats really going on anymore?

I just wanna play guitar to a chorus of nymphs! Is that even allowed nowadays?


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Xaios




----------



## Xaios

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92680


I was thinking "Not the _entire_ dress code, he doesn't have any body piercings."

Then I realized, stigmata still technically counts as body piercing.


----------



## Xaios

Ordacleaphobia said:


> _The whole point was that GG made me pay attention. _And the more I paid attention, the more I found myself drawn away from the left.


Funny how it works. GamerGate was absolutely a major catalyst for pushing me away from the right. Was the response of a lot of the media overblown and hypocritical? Yeah, sure. But what really, _truly_ disgusted me was the response to that I saw from gamers themselves, including people I knew personally. The level of overt sexism that seemed to just start seeping out of every pore of the culture that I was identified with myself was shocking. The most shameful part though was when I realized that, honestly, it had always been there. I also stopped playing Magic: The Gathering for exactly the same reason, when I was at a game night and some of the people that I'd been playing with for years made comments about a girl playing at that event that I simply couldn't abide. Honestly, I find it difficult to describe how dirty I felt hearing it at the time.

Say what you will about the power of the media, but I've seen the rot in Gamer culture first-hand, and I had to walk away.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Xaios said:


> Funny how it works. GamerGate was absolutely a major catalyst for pushing me away from the right. Was the response of a lot of the media overblown and hypocritical? Yeah, sure. But what really, _truly_ disgusted me was the response to that I saw from gamers themselves, including people I knew personally. The level of overt sexism that seemed to just start seeping out of every pore of the culture that I was identified with myself was shocking. The most shameful part though was when I realized that, honestly, it had always been there. I also stopped playing Magic: The Gathering for exactly the same reason, when I was at a game night and some of the people that I'd been playing with for years made comments about a girl playing at that event that I simply couldn't abide. Honestly, I find it difficult to describe how dirty I felt hearing it at the time.
> 
> Say what you will about the power of the media, but I've seen the rot in Gamer culture first-hand, and I had to walk away.



and then gamers just all become vtuber simps and everything was all right again with the world.

seriously what the fuck happened.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Wuuthrad

From The Farce-Lord of all Farces (the guy who said Female-ists ffs:




He defo gots a chubby! 

https://www.axios.com/george-bush-c...ump-dc1a84db-f690-45af-9a5a-0098669cd371.html


----------



## zappatton2

Man, I honestly didn't know a _thing _about GamerGate until that documentary. I feel so old and in the way, lol.

Anyway, seems to me print media is still relatively decent in the States, as far as journalistic standards go. I know here in Canada, I subscribe to the Globe & Mail paper, and while those on the right accuse G&M of being "leftist", outside of the editorial pages they're pretty apolitical. And perhaps most importantly, when they do get a fact in a story wrong, _they print retractions_. Quality journalism is self-correcting.

I really can't state that enough, because the websites that my Conservative friends get their news from barely qualify as journalism; they mostly exist to agitate their base, and they always either get their facts dead wrong, or present them alongside a narrative so you can only draw one conclusion from what you're reading, without taking a moment to explore the details or nuance of the situation.

And when I ask my friends if they've ever printed retractions, they look at me like I have a second head; like admitting a mistake is weakness, and beside, they're _never _wrong, and if it's indisputable that they are, then "what the _really _meant is..."


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Ordacleaphobia said:


> That's sad, man. Hope there was more to it.
> Sounds like a sign of the times, though- and it's just getting worse. Things have gotten so polarized lately that I will dead-ass walk out of a conversation with people I'm not familiar with if it gets political now. The 'angst' of the general population seems to just be through the roof and honestly I don't know how long (or what) it's going to take to rein it back in.
> 
> I'm seeing some of the same thing in my own family, too.
> All of the crazy shit from the last year has started to really toss my parents down a rabbit hole and I'm concerned they're going to turn into Qtards here soon.
> On the other hand, my grandparents were always democrats, but in the last year or so they've really hunkered down on that camp. I'll go out of my way to actively avoid engaging in anything political with them and they won't quit harping about stuff until they start an argument. I love those boomer fucks more than life itself but it's starting to get really hard to talk with them because every time I do, they'll just keep picking until I engage. Never used to be a problem, never used to come up at all.
> 
> Crazy times for sure.



Thanks, man. I've come to terms with it now and I'm so used to pain and loss at this point in my life that I can just shrug and throw this latest one on the pile. And honestly, as well as we got along and as many great times as we'd had, I can't see being buds with someone that I have to walk on eggshells with nor do I feel inclined to be around someone that is not only supportive of trump and extreme right ideals, but that also has almost no real-world experience.... rather being spoon-fed their beliefs. I've been exposed to a lot of shit in my life and I tend to follow my conscience and common sense... not trends, conspiracy theories, nor hype. If you wanna chose a failed mentally compromised ex-president as your idol, that's cool but I'm going to have a hard time taking you seriously if you do.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Come on man, did you read the post?





Ordacleaphobia said:


> The whole point was that GG made me pay attention


No, I read the post, and I think your response to me illustrates the point pretty well. It made you pay attention to _what_ exactly? To the details you would have preferred to focus on compared to what people say is actually going on in a given context? That's not corruption in the news, that's bias coming into reading it. It could just as easily be said that you didn't _start_ paying attention, you _stopped. _

Again -> What corruption exactly? GG illustrates that people are willing to latch onto the one or two details that "prove" their point, while ignoring all of the context around it. There's all of maybe 3-4 instances of people from a single website committing the crime of having personal lives and opinions, but somehow this is emblematic of "corruption in the whole of games media" enough to stir people into doing some really shitty things to other people over entertainment. Nevermind the thousands who work in the industry - no, it's those 3 people who represent them all. Corruption of the highest order!

And if you question it, you get no answers. This will be twice I've asked what you mean by corruption, and I'm sure you'll have no answer that justifies that heaps of crap throws onto the small handful of people who dared to critique the "gamer identity". Shouting "aha! you're all corrupted" doesn't actually demonstrate any wrongdoing.

It's a perfect analogue for other conservative or farther-right views into the news. Find the tiny handful of non-representative details that sound egregious in a vacuum and out of context but have nothing to do with anything, and shout them from the rooftops as proof that the whole damn system is out of line.

The question is simple: What corruption did you find, and what exactly are you paying attention to now that you weren't before?
Even if you ignore the corruption part - you said yourself the "point" is that you now "pay attention".... to what?


----------



## TedEH

Look, I'm with you in terms of thinking there's too much painting of anyone who's not left leaning as mustach-twirling cartoon villains (even if sometimes it's made far too easy), and I think some of the progressive swing right now goes a little far. I've got tons of opinions. But what you're talking about is just the right-wing version of wokeness. Everyone claims they've had their eyes open and they _see the truth everyone else is denying_. It's dumb when the left does it, it's equally dumb when the right does it.


----------



## Drew

@Wuuthrad , it's not that I don't sometimes or even often enjoy the memes, but do you think you could maybe post them a little _smaller_ than that? On my laptop, those things are nearly full screen wide and the better part of two screens tall, so every time you post it takes some scrolling to even see WTF you posted.


----------



## Demiurge

I don't mean to offend, but if the realization that access journalism existed happened only recently- via events in an industry that has been product-consumption-driven for its entire lifetime- the claim of novel outrage or political radicalization almost beggars belief. Gaming? Come on. People remember those phonebook-thick EGMs- half the pages were ads. Ads for things covered in the magazine. Never wondered what would happen if the shit from bigger ad-buyers got totally trounced in the articles or reviews? The internet never made anything free for either side, so what is the expectation?

I'm not saying that it's right, but it's more about influence & money than it is about politics. The same outlets decried as liberal today were the same ones parroting bullshit about yellowcake uranium and mobile WMD labs so their reporters got the real good embedded spots going into Iraq.


----------



## mastapimp

Xaios said:


> Honestly, I find it difficult to describe how dirty I felt hearing it at the time.
> 
> Say what you will about the power of the media, but I've seen the rot in Gamer culture first-hand, and I had to walk away.



When I was in college I went to E3 a few years in a row (I believe 2002-2004) as press for an online game review website and it was the first time I'd seen the gaming industry firsthand. It was the ultimate boys club. 95% white males in their 20s to 40s, with the exceptions being your celebrity endorser/sponsor or the ever-present "booth babe." I had a blast, but there were definitely times that that I felt kinda dirty being there...standing next to guys trying to get upskirt photos of the promotional models, people taking their photo with every costumed woman on site, lots of requests for hugs, etc.... 

Several years later I was reminiscing about the trip with a few other gamer friends and one mentioned that the booth babes were no more and he'd never be going to another E3. The driving force for this guy to go to the event was always to stand next to a hot chick.


----------



## Drew

I'd love to get preachy about gaming.... but the cycling world is pretty bad too. This year has been sort of a come-to-jesus moment for coverage of women's racing after one of the senior management over at Patagonia started a crowdsourcing campaign to raise money to make the women's prize money at the early-season-opener Strade Bianche equal to men's (the winner of the men's race gets EUR16,000, women's race about EUR2,300), followed immediately by a fairly tone-deaf national womens' day post by UCI praising female racers... while continuing to offer them a pittance of the prize money as men, and while continuing to box them out of most of the high profile men's events (2020 should have been the first year women raced Paris-Roubaix along with the men, in part due to an awesome marketing spot from Specialzied when they rolled out their updated 2020 Roubaix model in 2019, but the Toure de France still only offers a one- or two-day event for women, despite a few womens' teams pointedly riding the course after the men passed through each day of the stage race, and in a couple instances putting up better times on some of the iconic climbs than the men's peloton). Despite lots of chauvanistic "oh women only get less prize money because fewer people care" backlash, when cycling media started making serious investments in coverage teams for womens' racing this year in response to the Strade Bianche fiasco it's been pretty warmly received, and despite the smaller payout and fewer laps of the couse, the Amsdel Gold one-day classic attracted more viewers in its native Denmark for the women's race, than for the men's.

Pretty much everything is a boy's club, and we are probably all complicity in that in some way or another. The most egregious example - World Tour stage races atill feature "podium girls" to pose with the winners, kiss them on the cheek, etc. Someone at UCI, when there was a growing backlash against this tradition, thought the right answer was "podium boys" for the womens' races, which was abandoned _quickly _when that only fueled the backlash. 

All of this, I'd note, is in a sport that most Budweiser-drinking football-loving Americans would call a "sissy" sport because it's popular in Europe and because of all the lycra (and to any football fan who agrees, I'll challenge you to finish a FTP test and get back to me ), and _even then_ it's a sport with its share of toxic masculinity and rampant sexism.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Xaios said:


> Funny how it works. GamerGate was absolutely a major catalyst for pushing me away from the right. Was the response of a lot of the media overblown and hypocritical? Yeah, sure. But what really, _truly_ disgusted me was the response to that I saw from gamers themselves, including people I knew personally. The level of overt sexism that seemed to just start seeping out of every pore of the culture that I was identified with myself was shocking. The most shameful part though was when I realized that, honestly, it had always been there. I also stopped playing Magic: The Gathering for exactly the same reason, when I was at a game night and some of the people that I'd been playing with for years made comments about a girl playing at that event that I simply couldn't abide. Honestly, I find it difficult to describe how dirty I felt hearing it at the time.
> 
> Say what you will about the power of the media, but I've seen the rot in Gamer culture first-hand, and I had to walk away.



That sucks, man- and you're right; a lot of that definitely is there and for sure always was. I know that exact feeling you're talking about.
But there's an incredible amount of people that aren't, and I clung to that. So rather than change who I was to avoid it, I wanted to just 'not be like that,' and treat people in those spaces properly. Something something 'be the change you want to see in the world.'



TedEH said:


> No, I read the post, and I think your response to me illustrates the point pretty well. It made you pay attention to _what_ exactly? To the details you would have preferred to focus on compared to what people say is actually going on in a given context? That's not corruption in the news, that's bias coming into reading it. It could just as easily be said that you didn't _start_ paying attention, you _stopped._



Boi look at all these _assumptions_.
Pay attention to _the news_, to _current events_, to _political issues currently happening_. I don't know why you're assuming that means I'm just looking for confirmation bias- I want to be able to feel confident in what I'm saying. In order for that to happen, you need to know both that what you're saying is right _*and*_ that what you're arguing against is wrong; just having one leaves you wide open.

I like Steven Crowder, but that certainly doesn't mean I can just take what he says at face value. I'd look like a fool, because a lot of the sources he cites are very cherry-picked and one-sided and don't paint the full picture. The guy is cartoonishly conservative. Doesn't mean he's wrong all the time. Just means I definitely have to check his work. It's the same for every program out there. How in the world is this attitude indicative of 'not paying attention'?



> Again -> What corruption exactly? GG illustrates that people are willing to latch onto the one or two details that "prove" their point, while ignoring all of the context around it. There's all of maybe 3-4 instances of people from a single website committing the crime of having personal lives and opinions, but somehow this is emblematic of "corruption in the whole of games media" enough to stir people into doing some really shitty things to other people over entertainment. Nevermind the thousands who work in the industry - no, it's those 3 people who represent them all. Corruption of the highest order!



It really does, because you're acting like it's 3 or 4 instances of a couple people from a single website that didn't even act out of line. That doesn't even cover the people involved in _*just the Zoey*_ controversy. What about the whole industry-spanning secret mailing list, where multiple journalists from multiple publications would coordinate stories? That's kind of a bigger deal than some loser giving a game a good review because the dev fucked him, right?
What about all of the personnel at all of these publications that held the water for these guys? All the self-professed journalists that couldn't give a shit about full disclosure or journalistic integrity? The fact that nobody involved faced consequences speaks volumes to the office culture at these outlets.



> And if you question it, you get no answers. This will be twice I've asked what you mean by corruption, and I'm sure you'll have no answer that justifies that heaps of crap throws onto the small handful of people who dared to critique the "gamer identity". Shouting "aha! you're all corrupted" doesn't actually demonstrate any wrongdoing.



Because that's not what we're talking about, dude.
The guy asked why young people are picking up the conservative mantle and I gave him a personal anecdote reflecting what I've seen. So because I answered his question, and in doing so referenced an almost decade-old hashtag, now you expect me to write up a full exposé about said hashtag? Explain everything about it?
It's been years dude, do you think I still have my sources on hand? For a _gaming hashtag_?
Remember this?


> It made you pay attention to _what_ exactly? To the details you would have preferred to focus on compared to what people say is actually going on in a given context?


That's what you're doing. GG made people think. Why is irrelevant. I can tell you made your mind up about what GG contained and what it was about years ago (we probably all did), and now you want me to die on a hill trying to convince you otherwise. That's not what I'm here for. Even if I wanted to, I'm not equipped to have a proper discussion with you about it, I highly doubt you are either, and you're saying that...what? Because of this, my outlook on life isn't valid now?
I like you Ted and you make a lot of good points so if there's one here I'm just not seeing, please explain like I'm 5.



> It's a perfect analogue for other conservative or farther-right views into the news. Find the tiny handful of non-representative details that sound egregious in a vacuum and out of context but have nothing to do with anything, and shout them from the rooftops as proof that the whole damn system is out of line.



Do you realize how easily I could make this same argument about the left? This is like saying 'I like X politician because Y politician lies!' Yes, political ideologues are polarizing shit-stirrers that are exacerbating the tension right now, no, nobody likes that except for other political ideologues. We know.



> But what you're talking about is just the right-wing version of wokeness. Everyone claims they've had their eyes open and they _see the truth everyone else is denying_. It's dumb when the left does it, it's equally dumb when the right does it.



Woooooah woah woah woah, lets not get carried away here. Checking sources is wokeness? Checking sources is along the same lines as fringe conspiracy-style 'Barack Obama is a reptile' level lunacy? I must not be catching this right.

In case what I said comes off as conspiracy theory style flat-earther level 'make your own truth' bullshit- no. That's not what I'm saying.
The tl;dr was that GG made me realize you can't believe everything you see in the news. And as a result, I started to fact check any claim I saw that sounded outlandish or 'too good to be true' for any active narrative, and discovered that yes, you absolutely, _on average_, can't trust the news. This did not mean since the news is mostly liberal that all conservative opinions are now automatically correct, because Fox is also definitely full of shit. I did not wake up one day and go "wtf I love the right now." Now that I was forced to look at the raw facts and draw my own conclusions, I found that the folks that typically also tended to draw those same conclusions tended to be conservative. Some folks can look at the same data and draw a liberal conclusion- more power to them. Those are the guys I love talking to. However useless of a metric it is, my political compass puts me perfectly in the center, nudged down about a half of a point towards libertarianism.

My point is that when people realize they need to actually check people's work to get to the unbiased facts and numbers, they're forced to make up their own mind about that data. The meme is that conservatives tend to be old, and I think that's because most young people don't care enough to look at the ground floor of these issues enough to form their own opinions, so they default to what they see in headlines. No, this doesn't mean I'm saying the right-wing perspective is 'the truth' and "if only the poor deluded lefties could see it," I'm not an idiot. Moreso that the left-wing perspective tends to be the default perspective, so your pool of potential conservatives are people that give enough of a shit about the political issues to pay enough attention to them to assess all of the data and draw their own reasonable conclusions. Some will lean left, some will lean right- but most of those people traditionally aren't 20something, because they're out living their lives and don't really care yet. This is 100% _*my opinion, no prooferino*_.

Extending that opinion, I also think that would explain why the folks that fall outside of that umbrella are so easy to dunk on.
Autopilot conservatives are even more cringe than autopilot lefties because the dumb shit that comes out of their mouths is so easily identified as unresearched and regurgitated, because you're either talking about older folks that are treating Fox like the gospel, or younger folks that read something stupid on /pol/ and instantly believe it hook, line, and sinker.

Goddamn, guys- I'm sorry; I talk a lot.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> please explain like I'm 5.


Ok lets!



Ordacleaphobia said:


> What about the whole industry-spanning secret mailing list, where multiple journalists from multiple publications would coordinate stories?


Not worthy of death and rape threats.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> some loser giving a game a good review because the dev fucked him, right?


Not worthy of death and rape threats.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> What about all of the personnel at all of these publications that held the water for these guys?


Not worthy of death and rape threats.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> All the self-professed journalists that couldn't give a shit about full disclosure or journalistic integrity?


Not worthy of death and rape threats.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> The fact that nobody involved faced consequences speaks volumes to the office culture at these outlets.


The consequences need to fit the crime. It's a game blog. Nobody cares. There were no "consequences" because nothing happened that was worthy of consequences. It's a blog about entertainment products. They were already inundated with death and rape threats - some of them were forced out of their homes - it left a significant mark on how games journalism is handled. Is that not consequence enough? I can only type "not worthy of death and rape threats" so many times.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> It really does, because you're acting like it's 3 or 4 instances of a couple people from a single website that didn't even act out of line.


I never said they never do wrong. I said it doesn't matter, because it's video game journalism. What's being questioned is not your desire to look into things, it's how you prioritize what you find.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Do you realize how easily I could make this same argument about the left?


I disagree with you on this point. Everyone takes things out of context at times, but the right makes an art out of it. You mentioned Crowder -> that's what that guy _does_. He takes topics at face value and in a vacuum and gets confrontational about them. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. Sometimes he's "technically right" but in a way that doesn't matter because the context negates the value of his correctness - but what matters is that _he was right_. He won. He showed those dumb libs what was what.

People like him _are playing the very culture war game they claim is being orchestrated by everyone else._


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

TedEH said:


> Not worthy of death and rape threats.



Oh I see. This is one of those 'someone said a mean thing so everything the person they said that to did and everything that everyone else said doesn't matter' things.
Of course I don't think this type of behavior is justified and the soft implication that I do is frankly extremely insulting. Are you going to pretend that these freaks aren't a part of every movement ever? If none of that counts as corruption because some people went too far, does the BLM crowd not have a leg to stand on because some of them have advocated killing off white people? Of course not, don't be ridiculous.



> The consequences need to fit the crime. It's a game blog. Nobody cares. There were no "consequences" because nothing happened that was worthy of consequences. It's a blog about entertainment products. They were already inundated with death and rape threats - some of them were forced out of their homes - it left a significant mark on how games journalism is handled. Is that not consequence enough? I can only type "not worthy of death and rape threats" so many times.



Okay, Brianna Wu was _not_ forced out of her home, lets not even go down that road.
And clearly somebody does- you seem to care quite a bit. It's not a blog. And it's a publication about entertainment products _*designed to sell you those entertainment products* _more often than not based off of a review that most reasonable people would assume is unbiased, and if it was, that they would disclose any conflicts of interest. 

I didn't want to see anybody get fired, I didn't want to see anything dramatic. Like I said- thought the whole thing was primarily a hilarious shitshow. But I was quite surprised there was no acknowledgement that that isn't the correct way to do business and a shift toward proper disclosure- because if I pulled that kind of thing my ass would be in the unemployment line. If that's the 'significant mark' you're talking about, cool.



> I never said they never do wrong. I said it doesn't matter, because it's video game journalism. What's being questioned is not your desire to look into things, it's how you prioritize what you find.



Meaning what, exactly? What am I prioritizing incorrectly in my findings? What findings were we even talking about?
Because I'm pretty sure the question was:


> There's all of maybe 3-4 instances of people from a single website committing the crime of having personal lives and opinions


ohwaitwaitwait my bad


> It made you pay attention to _what_ exactly? To the details you would have preferred to focus on compared to what people say is actually going on in a given context? [...] Again -> What corruption exactly? GG illustrates that people are willing to latch onto the one or two details that "prove" their point, while ignoring all of the context around it.



Do you see my confusion here? I don't see why you seem to _prefer to focus_ on GG and it's events. I'd rather not _latch onto one or two details_ about the movement and have that whole argument again for the upteenth time, that horse is _*beyond*_ dead. The _context around_ my post was that recently there have been current events that provoke a younger demographic to start caring more about what's going on in the world, and that typically causes people to get more politically involved and, for lack of a better term, 'pick a side.' Ick. Genres.



> I disagree with you on this point. Everyone takes things out of context at times, but the right makes an art out of it. You mentioned Crowder -> that's what that guy _does_. He takes topics at face value and in a vacuum and gets confrontational about them. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. Sometimes he's "technically right" but in a way that doesn't matter because the context negates the value of his correctness - but what matters is that _he was right_. He won. He showed those dumb libs what was what.
> 
> People like him _are playing the very culture war game they claim is being orchestrated by everyone else._



...which is why, exactly like I said, you can't take the things he says at face value.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/23/politics/bumble-capitol-riot-robert-chapman/index.html

The Justice Department has charged a Capitol rioter who was turned in by someone he matched with on the dating app Bumble, after he bragged about his exploits on January 6.

According to court documents, one week after the attack, Robert Chapman of New York told one of his Bumble matches that "I did storm the Capitol" and said that he "made it all the way into Statuary Hall." He also claimed that he was interviewed by members of the media.

The other Bumble user replied, "we are not a match."

According to screenshots in court filings, Chapman also posted to Facebook before the January 6 insurrection that he was traveling to the "District of Criminality," referring to Washington, DC. And on the day of the attack, he allegedly posted,* "I'M F---IN INSIDE THE CRAPITOL."*




My takeaways...1. if you matched with that guy then you need to reconsider everything about your life choices. 2. I'm Fing inside the Crapitol needs to be the official motto of the Insurrection.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Oh I see. This is one of those 'someone said a mean thing so everything the person they said that to did and everything that everyone else said doesn't matter' things.


It wasn't a singular mean thing said in a one instance, it was a whole wave of death and rape threats and bomb threats and doxxings, etc that made up the majority of the "discourse". This is 3-4 people who made some mistakes, then thousands of people who dogpiled onto them and are still defending that behaviour to this day. Journalism, as a field, is inherently susceptible to bias - there are appropriate ways to discuss that fact. The way gamergaters decided to do so was not the appropriate way.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> And clearly somebody does- you seem to care quite a bit. It's not a blog. And it's a publication about entertainment products _*designed to sell you those entertainment products* _more often than not based off of a review that most reasonable people would assume is unbiased, and if it was, that they would disclose any conflicts of interest.


It's a distinction with no difference. The point is that none of it is important enough to fit whatever alleged punishment seems to be warranted for it. And all of it is weirdly pinpointed at a handful of women/progressives at one publication when you could look literally anywhere and find equally or more egregious instances of bias in media. Sure, media is part of the marketing machine. We all know that. So what?



Ordacleaphobia said:


> Are you going to pretend that these freaks aren't a part of every movement ever?


No, but I'm not going to pretend that "these freaks" exist in the same proportions in every movement either. GamerGate was 90% harassment and 10% "about ethics in games journalism" - it was not "a few bad actors". The bad actors dominated the conversation.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> seem to _prefer to focus_ on GG and it's events


I focus on it mostly because it was both mentioned by you as some kind of turning point for realizing that people don't always tell the truth or something like that, but also because the Q documentary called it out - drawing comparison between something like the behaviour of gamergaters and the behaviour of qanon followers.

And to be honest - I see a parallel there.


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/23/politics/bumble-capitol-riot-robert-chapman/index.html
> 
> The Justice Department has charged a Capitol rioter who was turned in by someone he matched with on the dating app Bumble, after he bragged about his exploits on January 6.
> 
> According to court documents, one week after the attack, Robert Chapman of New York told one of his Bumble matches that "I did storm the Capitol" and said that he "made it all the way into Statuary Hall." He also claimed that he was interviewed by members of the media.
> 
> The other Bumble user replied, "we are not a match."
> 
> According to screenshots in court filings, Chapman also posted to Facebook before the January 6 insurrection that he was traveling to the "District of Criminality," referring to Washington, DC. And on the day of the attack, he allegedly posted,* "I'M F---IN INSIDE THE CRAPITOL."*
> 
> View attachment 92722
> 
> 
> My takeaways...1. if you matched with that guy then you need to reconsider everything about your life choices. 2. I'm Fing inside the Crapitol needs to be the official motto of the Insurrection.



oh come on. there's someone for everyone. When I see that picture all I can think is that there is an aging roller derby queen waiting to meet her prince.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

TedEH said:


> It wasn't a singular mean thing said in a one instance, it was a whole wave of death and rape threats and bomb threats and doxxings, etc that made up the majority of the "discourse". This is 3-4 people who made some mistakes, then thousands of people who dogpiled onto them and are still defending that behaviour to this day. Journalism, as a field, is inherently susceptible to bias - there are appropriate ways to discuss that fact. The way gamergaters decided to do so was not the appropriate way.



This is completely disingenuous and a bad faith argument. I think we're done.



> It's a distinction with no difference. The point is that none of it is important enough to fit whatever alleged punishment seems to be warranted for it. And all of it is weirdly pinpointed at a handful of women/progressives at one publication when you could look literally anywhere and find equally or more egregious instances of bias in media. Sure, media is part of the marketing machine. We all know that. So what?



They're journalists. The call was for them to follow journalism standards. Standards involve disclosing a conflict of interest.
The fact that you still think it was pinpointed at women in particular despite the journalists in question being male shows that you never really looked into the movement, ignored NotYourShield, bought into the media narrative, and had no interest in what the movement was actually about.



> No, but I'm not going to pretend that "these freaks" exist in the same proportions in every movement either. GamerGate was 90% harassment and 10% "about ethics in games journalism" - it was not "a few bad actors". The bad actors dominated the conversation.



Show me your fucking source.


----------



## TedEH

I mean, search for GamerGate and find a source that DOESN'T focus on harassment. The wikipedia article on it is almost entirely about it - there's > 200 sources at the bottom of that page if you want to take your pick.


----------



## TedEH

Look, I'm not saying that journalism shouldn't be held accountable for the content they put out there, or for disclosing potential conflicts of interests etc., because I do believe those things. But I don't think the way to make that point is thousands of people threatening to rape you if you make a mistake. Nor do I think that video games are the right avenue to have that conversation in the first place. Nobody is hurt if you _bought a video game you didn't like because the review was biased_. People absolutely get hurt if someone like Crowder or Carlson convince people that other cultures are below them, or that they should vote in ways that take rights away from people, etc.

If you want to make an argument for ethics in journalism, point it at the people who do things like incite riots, or demonstrate how to use talking points to hide otherwise blatant racism, or people who fear-monger against "others", or people who make arguments to be "technically right" despite the repercussions.

(Edited to make this a separate post, since there was a like already, and I didn't want to make it look like they had liked the post-edit version since it was much longer. I'm being very ethical with my writing, see?)

Another edit:

But anyway, you're right - we're kinda beating the corpse of a horse that's been dead for years, so I'm fine agreeing to disagree on the GG thing. I think I generally get where you're coming from, and yeah, I can't fault you for being critical. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly the leftest of lefties out there either - I sometimes land on the unpopular sides of conversations, so I get it.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> My takeaways...1. if you matched with that guy then you need to reconsider everything about your life choices. 2. I'm Fing inside the Crapitol needs to be the official motto of the Insurrection.


I think I heard the other half of the story. If I remember correctly, this Bumble user was posing as a conservative, matching with Trump supporters, feigning interest, and when men would send her pictures of them posing inside the Capitol building, turn them over along with names and cities of residence to the FBI hotline, and then unmatching. It was actually pretty ingenious.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ordacleaphobia said:


> And it's a publication about entertainment products _*designed to sell you those entertainment products* _
> 
> more often than not based off of a review that most reasonable people would assume is unbiased



Those things just aren't compatible.

I think a reasonable person would know there's a vested interest behind the review and thus would take it with a grain of salt.

It seems a lot of the folks who had an epiphany about how journalism works within the framework of capitalism via GamerGate just completely over-correct as far as processing how bias works in journalism.

Bias does exist, it's how that bias runs in relation to fact that determines whether it's a good or bad faith take.

I grew up in and around the guitar scene in the 90's, back then it was pretty much common knowledge that artist quotes and blurbs in magazines about gear was mostly bullshit made to sell to whomever was naive enough to believe it...or just wanted to believe it, because it was just guitars it was harmless. No one was SWAT'ing EVH's house because obviously his Kramers were built of balsa. 

I think it's great to be skeptical about the news media. But, I think there's a fine line between healthy skepticism and a toxic antagonism that tends to permeate in spaces typically full of aggrieved, white men, such as video games, American shooting sports, contemporary pseudo-conservatism, etc.

If you want to be really angry about bias in news, take a look at what SBG is doing to consolidate local news affiliates and configure programming to benefit thier management's political ends. Now that might be deserving of some vitriol vs. video games.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Those things just aren't compatible.
> 
> I think a reasonable person would know there's a vested interest behind the review and thus would take it with a grain of salt.


Well, and maybe this is what you're getting at anyway....

..but it's also hard to on one hand hold the belief that gamer media reviews are expected to be unbiased and if instead game companies are basically bribing them for good reviews, that's something _deeply_ problematic...

...but at the same time, to hold the view that "mainstream media" is selling you a very carefully packaged liberal worldview, and if you don't ask your own questions and do your own research, you're being hopelessly naive because no one should take what the "mainstream media" says at face value...

...well, I mean, that takes some real solid doublespeak to hold both opinions at once. Like, we have a fair expectation for video game reviews to be totally unbiased, but no expectation at all for news coverage to be totally unbiased?


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> I'd love to get preachy about gaming.... but the cycling world is pretty bad too. This year has been sort of a come-to-jesus moment for coverage of women's racing after one of the senior management over at Patagonia started a crowdsourcing campaign to raise money to make the women's prize money at the early-season-opener Strade Bianche equal to men's (the winner of the men's race gets EUR16,000, women's race about EUR2,300), followed immediately by a fairly tone-deaf national womens' day post by UCI praising female racers... while continuing to offer them a pittance of the prize money as men, and while continuing to box them out of most of the high profile men's events (2020 should have been the first year women raced Paris-Roubaix along with the men, in part due to an awesome marketing spot from Specialzied when they rolled out their updated 2020 Roubaix model in 2019, but the Toure de France still only offers a one- or two-day event for women, despite a few womens' teams pointedly riding the course after the men passed through each day of the stage race, and in a couple instances putting up better times on some of the iconic climbs than the men's peloton). Despite lots of chauvanistic "oh women only get less prize money because fewer people care" backlash, when cycling media started making serious investments in coverage teams for womens' racing this year in response to the Strade Bianche fiasco it's been pretty warmly received, and despite the smaller payout and fewer laps of the couse, the Amsdel Gold one-day classic attracted more viewers in its native Denmark for the women's race, than for the men's.
> 
> Pretty much everything is a boy's club, and we are probably all complicity in that in some way or another. The most egregious example - World Tour stage races atill feature "podium girls" to pose with the winners, kiss them on the cheek, etc. Someone at UCI, when there was a growing backlash against this tradition, thought the right answer was "podium boys" for the womens' races, which was abandoned _quickly _when that only fueled the backlash.
> 
> All of this, I'd note, is in a sport that most Budweiser-drinking football-loving Americans would call a "sissy" sport because it's popular in Europe and because of all the lycra (and to any football fan who agrees, I'll challenge you to finish a FTP test and get back to me ), and _even then_ it's a sport with its share of toxic masculinity and rampant sexism.



The US women’s teams are repeat world champions and girls everywhere dream of coming here to play for them/look up to them.

The men’s team has repeatedly failed to qualify for the World Cup. Like can’t even get in.

The women make a fraction of the men despite placing better and bringing more attention to the sport.

The footage from last years WNBA games showed the women’s “gym” was like 10 yoga mats and a single rack of dumbbells. The men’s was a fully equipped rogue equipment owner’s wet dream of power rack after power rack, not even talking about payouts.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> I'd love to get preachy about gaming.... but the cycling world is pretty bad too. This year has been sort of a come-to-jesus moment for coverage of women's racing after one of the senior management over at Patagonia started a crowdsourcing campaign to raise money to make the women's prize money at the early-season-opener Strade Bianche equal to men's (the winner of the men's race gets EUR16,000, women's race about EUR2,300), followed immediately by a fairly tone-deaf national womens' day post by UCI praising female racers... while continuing to offer them a pittance of the prize money as men, and while continuing to box them out of most of the high profile men's events (2020 should have been the first year women raced Paris-Roubaix along with the men, in part due to an awesome marketing spot from Specialzied when they rolled out their updated 2020 Roubaix model in 2019, but the Toure de France still only offers a one- or two-day event for women, despite a few womens' teams pointedly riding the course after the men passed through each day of the stage race, and in a couple instances putting up better times on some of the iconic climbs than the men's peloton). Despite lots of chauvanistic "oh women only get less prize money because fewer people care" backlash, when cycling media started making serious investments in coverage teams for womens' racing this year in response to the Strade Bianche fiasco it's been pretty warmly received, and despite the smaller payout and fewer laps of the couse, the Amsdel Gold one-day classic attracted more viewers in its native Denmark for the women's race, than for the men's.
> 
> Pretty much everything is a boy's club, and we are probably all complicity in that in some way or another. The most egregious example - World Tour stage races atill feature "podium girls" to pose with the winners, kiss them on the cheek, etc. Someone at UCI, when there was a growing backlash against this tradition, thought the right answer was "podium boys" for the womens' races, which was abandoned _quickly _when that only fueled the backlash.
> 
> All of this, I'd note, is in a sport that most Budweiser-drinking football-loving Americans would call a "sissy" sport because it's popular in Europe and because of all the lycra (and to any football fan who agrees, I'll challenge you to finish a FTP test and get back to me ), and _even then_ it's a sport with its share of toxic masculinity and rampant sexism.


F1 tried that a few years ago replacing grid girls (models that hold the driver's number in front of their spot on the grid for 20 minutes) with grid guys, completely missing the mark. Then a few races later scrapped the model concept altogether and let local kids enter to do it. Now in the past two years with COVID they've gotten rid of that too, and nothing of value has been lost.

People actually argued that getting rid of grid girls would be putting women out of work, instead of focusing on the women in the paddock running teams.


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> People actually argued that getting rid of grid girls would be putting women out of work, instead of focusing on the women in the paddock running teams.



I can't remember where I read it, and I had to triple check to make sure it wasn't satire when I first read it... When Playboy said they were going to stop including nude photography, I found an article claiming that it was taking away career opportunities for young women, and how they'll _have_ to turn to "pornography" instead.  I wish I could find it, because it was do ridiculous I'd love to re-live reading it again.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

@TedEH, I'm sorry dude- I don't mean to snap at you. It's just quite a sore subject for me because it's been years, and I still can't even remotely bring it up without catching some kind of insinuation that I'm some kind of deranged sexist or that I think any female involved in gaming should be brought out back and shot. Those are the people that write that Wikipedia article. The press that wrote about the movement were not the people in the movement, and were the same people that made the claims that I saw were false first-hand- so of course that's all they're going to say now.
It's the same thing with all the political stuff in general these days, I can't speak my opinion on anything counter to the left-wing position without there always being someone there ready to directly or indirectly call me a racist, a sexist, anything-phobic, I loathe the lower class (despite being one of them), or am just cruel and mean spirited in general. I'm sure this blurb is going to get met with a lot of eye-rolling, but I'm telling you, it's the truth and it wears on you.

So...my bad. It's all given me a pretty short fuse and I lost my temper a bit.



MaxOfMetal said:


> If you want to be really angry about bias in news,



I really don't, it's exhausting. 



Drew said:


> ...but at the same time, to hold the view that "mainstream media" is selling you a very carefully packaged liberal worldview, and if you don't ask your own questions and do your own research, you're being hopelessly naive because no one should take what the "mainstream media" says at face value...
> 
> ...well, I mean, that takes some real solid doublespeak to hold both opinions at once. Like, we have a fair expectation for video game reviews to be totally unbiased, but no expectation at all for news coverage to be totally unbiased?



Does it, though? For starters, you're comparing the 'before' and 'after' perspective, but would you argue that most 'mainstream media' outlets aside from Fox don't skew left? It doesn't need to be an active thing, I never said 'hopelessly naive' and it doesn't need to be a 'very carefully packaged liberal worldview,' so long as there's a bend in one direction, hell, even just a tendency to cover stories that slightly favor that direction. I don't think it's so illogical to believe that that's likely going to be where someone who's primarily informed via those sources will end up.

I suppose you're right though, because I wouldn't have expected a substantial bias from a hobby / passion based outlet like this since everyone's there because they're into it. They love the subject matter. Sure there's probably going to be some kind of bias to the author's preferred platform / publisher, but that's a whole other beast compared to the deep-running ideology you encounter reporting on anything on the political divide. Obviously now I realize that _because_ these publications aren't anywhere near as important and are more niche that it's pretty easy for money or favors to get tied up into things and not be seen, but even still, I'd expect anything blatant like that to be disclosed.

My favorite example and in my opinion the gold standard for this is any financial newsletter. I'm actually pretty sure the SEC has regulation about this. If you pull up the Motley Fool and read about why they think buying WXYZ is a good or bad idea, they will have a small disclaimer noting whether or not they have a position in WXYZ. That's all they were asking for. Review the game by all means, we don't even care if you got it for free- just _tell us_, and if this lands on your desk while you're sleeping with the person who made it, maybe hand this one off to one of the other writers. What you run into with traditional media tends to be a bit different from this, and more ideological in nature- not often a clear cut provable conflict of interest.


----------



## USMarine75

Ordacleaphobia said:


> This is completely disingenuous and a bad faith argument. I think we're done.



I think we were all done when you said you're trusted news source was Steven Crowder.


----------



## SpaceDock

I recently learned that Steven Crowder was the voice of Brain on Arthur. It makes sense that this dipshit grew up as child playing a character like this and now as an adult feels like he has to prove that he is smarter than everyone and has it all figured out.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

USMarine75 said:


> I think we were all done when you said you're trusted news source was Steven Crowder.



You're fuckin' with me, right?


> I like Steven Crowder, but that certainly doesn't mean I can just take what he says at face value. I'd look like a fool, because a lot of the sources he cites are very cherry-picked and one-sided and don't paint the full picture. The guy is cartoonishly conservative.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> @TedEH, I'm sorry dude- I don't mean to snap at you. It's just quite a sore subject for me because it's been years, and I still can't even remotely bring it up without catching some kind of insinuation that I'm some kind of deranged sexist or that I think any female involved in gaming should be brought out back and shot.


For the record, I don't think those things. What I do think is that gamergaters, the ones acting in good faith regarding ethics, are generally blissfully unaware of how they've been played into a dumb identity politics game. We can debate it forever, but it doesn't matter. I'm equally someone who rolls their eyes when progressive politics gets unceremoniously shoe-horned into a something to make a point, or someone tells me to "check my privilege" because being white and strait means I don't get to have an opinion about things, and gets exhausted with how everything feels like it's getting inescapably political. But those are not that big a deal.

At the core of it, I think several things are true simultaneously: 
- Journalism, including game journalism, is imperfect and biased and there's room to improve that. 
- A subsection of the gaming community got super vitriolic when their "gamer" identity felt threatened years ago, and there are echos of that sentiment still around.
- A lot of media has gotten a lot more progressive in the last decade or two, whether you think that's a good or bad thing. I personally think it's in a counter-swing compared to how very not-progressive things have been in the past.
- Games and tech and so many other things have always historically been a boys club, and while we're getting away from that, it's not a process that can happen over night, and not one that can happen without missteps, some overcompensating, maybe some collateral damage in terms of male egos, etc.
- Stephen Crowder is not a reliable news source. He's extremely biased, incredibly good at cherry-picking data, and is one of the best at playing people at identity politics games. He also aggressively ignores the context or consequences of the things he says, because in that world it's more important to win arguments than to be a positive force in the world. He's very convincing.


----------



## USMarine75

Ordacleaphobia said:


> You're fuckin' with me, right?



My bad!

I think we were all done when you said you like Steven Crowder.


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> My bad!
> 
> I think we were all done when you said you like Steven Crowder.


Dude, back off. When you sound like a bigger dick than someone who likes Steven Crowder, it's time to maybe tone it down. He's at least debating in good faith, either return the favor or take a breather.


----------



## Jonathan20022

TedEH said:


> Look, I'm not saying that journalism shouldn't be held accountable for the content they put out there, or for disclosing potential conflicts of interests etc., because I do believe those things. But I don't think the way to make that point is thousands of people threatening to rape you if you make a mistake. Nor do I think that video games are the right avenue to have that conversation in the first place. Nobody is hurt if you _bought a video game you didn't like because the review was biased_. People absolutely get hurt if someone like Crowder or Carlson convince people that other cultures are below them, or that they should vote in ways that take rights away from people, etc.
> 
> If you want to make an argument for ethics in journalism, point it at the people who do things like incite riots, or demonstrate how to use talking points to hide otherwise blatant racism, or people who fear-monger against "others", or people who make arguments to be "technically right" despite the repercussions.
> 
> (Edited to make this a separate post, since there was a like already, and I didn't want to make it look like they had liked the post-edit version since it was much longer. I'm being very ethical with my writing, see?)
> 
> Another edit:
> 
> But anyway, you're right - we're kinda beating the corpse of a horse that's been dead for years, so I'm fine agreeing to disagree on the GG thing. I think I generally get where you're coming from, and yeah, I can't fault you for being critical. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly the leftest of lefties out there either - I sometimes land on the unpopular sides of conversations, so I get it.



As a lurker, genuinely.

Why are you bringing up widely accepted to be *abhorrent* behavior that I'd argue most people here agree is just that, inexcusably abhorrent. And on the same route, play down the importance of the industry you seem to take part in by the way of your career, by constantly responding with "who cares about journalism in this industry", "who's hurt by bad reporting? your $60 on a new game? boo hoo!".

It's questionable if you're even approaching him with the intent to debate, when your back and forth contain obvious statements like "*death and rape threats bad*". We're all on the same page, he's making a point that questioning media was rooted in a movement that hit close home to him back in the day, as it did for many people for better or for worse.

I agree with your general point here about gaming placing pretty low on the totem pole of life, and it does. But let's be real here, very few actually fact check their content on either side and to pretend most do is a grandstanding facade. I'm fortunately not one of those people who go on reddit and brag about having a day job where they can sit and browse/argue on forums while getting paid, so what little I do get to absorb in the way of news actually comes from live discussions on streaming sites. It's staggering how many of the personalities on the face of the online political sphere know barely anything about their own standpoints alone is insane when they get challenged on it.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> @Wuuthrad , it's not that I don't sometimes or even often enjoy the memes, but do you think you could maybe post them a little _smaller_ than that? On my laptop, those things are nearly full screen wide and the better part of two screens tall, so every time you post it takes some scrolling to even see WTF you posted.




Damn for real? That sucks! 

Looks just fine on iPhone, weird...


----------



## Wuuthrad

@Drew

How bout these?


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92736



"The next time you struggle to figure out which bills to pay, you can't fill your gas tank, or run out of money to buy meals for the next few days, rest easy knowing the DOW hit record highs, so the economy is doing great!"


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> @Wuuthrad , it's not that I don't sometimes or even often enjoy the memes, but do you think you could maybe post them a little _smaller_ than that? On my laptop, those things are nearly full screen wide and the better part of two screens tall, so every time you post it takes some scrolling to even see WTF you posted.



I noticed over in the "Memes" thread that if I screenshot something on my phone somewhere like Instagram and post it to forum as an attachment, the resulting image is enormous when I go look at the page later on my desktop since the phone screen resolution/image size is so high. Thumbnail is too small, and full-size is too large for things like that. It woul dbe great if there was a way to do, like, a "medium" where it's displayed at, say, no larger than 1000 pixels in any dimension, or something. Or, allow you to click-and-drag re-size an image when it's attached, like I know some versions of XenForo can when you paste in image into the text box...


----------



## TedEH

Jonathan20022 said:


> Why are you bringing up widely accepted to be *abhorrent* behavior that I'd argue most people here agree is just that, inexcusably abhorrent. And on the same route, play down the importance of the industry you seem to take part in by the way of your career, by constantly responding with "who cares about journalism in this industry", "who's hurt by bad reporting? your $60 on a new game? boo hoo!".


I mean you answered the question for me:


Jonathan20022 said:


> I agree with your general point here about gaming placing pretty low on the totem pole of life, and it does.



There's nothing more to it than that. How or why is that any different than doing the opposite and downplaying the agreed-to-be-abhorrent behaviour to instead be mad that video game opinions might be biased? That's my whole point -> the discussion about the abhorrent behaviour and the parallels you can draw from that into current events is the important part of the conversation, not video game review scores.



Jonathan20022 said:


> questioning media was rooted in a movement that hit close home to him back in the day, as it did for many people for better or for worse



I mean, do we not see the parallel here? How better to motivate someone to join your political cause, your online movement, your twitter mob, etc etc., than by tying it to something that hits close to home? "Game journalists are bad because they're all corrupt and want to take your trve gamer identity away." "The liberal media is bad because they want to take your religion away." "Obama is bad because he's going to take your guns away." "Trans people are bad because they're going to take your safe bathroom spaces away." "Feminists are bad because they're going to take our jobs by affirmative action instead of _really _earning it like we did." "Immigrants are bad because they're going to take away our culture." "Anglophones are bad because they're going to destroy French-Quebec culture."

All of these things are playing off of some sense of ownership or identity that people have in order to convince you of a bad take. Is this not essentially what "culture/identity wars" are?



Jonathan20022 said:


> It's questionable if you're even approaching him with the intent to debate


I'm not trying to "debate", I'm trying to make observations and get clarifications - and throwing my own two cents in. If I'm going to fully understand how GG somehow leads someone to be more politically interested, or drives them into a more conservative world-view - how do I do that without asking what about GG led you down that path?

And I think this style of playing into people's values that "hit close to home" is a huge element of how something like qanon or people like Trump or Crowder or Carlson operate. I mean, that's a large part of what politics is, isn't it? Am I wrong to observe that the conservative side seems to be better at playing people at that game? And that something like GamerGate might be evidence of that?


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> Dude, back off. When you sound like a bigger dick than someone who likes Steven Crowder, it's time to maybe tone it down. He's at least debating in good faith, either return the favor or take a breather.



Are you familiar with Crowder?

Pick someone you consider to be a vile reprehensible person who espouses horrific things. Then someone says I dont trust MSM, but yeah... I like that guy.

You may think he's arguing in good faith but I do not. Hard pass. More than happy to take a breather. 

No angst towards @Ordacleaphobia . Sorry if it came across that way. But if you're getting your facts from Crowder, Tucker, or Rush (RIH) there can be no earnest debate.


----------



## TedEH

I can get the appeal of someone like Crowder. It's very easy to go down the rabbit hole of vaguely conservative "influencers". Guys like him, like Jordan Peterson, maybe you could include Ben Shapiro, etc., your standard "intellectual dark web" types -> they are _very good_ at debate, at being convincing, about CRUSHING their opponents with FACTS and LOGIC in ways that feel good if you happen to fall on their side of a particular subject. A big part of their appeal is that they do the whole "hitting close to home thing", but also they tend to be _technically right_ about at least some things, sometimes - or at the very least can semantically present an argument to sound correct even if it's only a valid view in certain contexts for framings.

Edit: In other words, they're good at debate and conversation in all the ways I am not, hah.


----------



## USMarine75

TedEH said:


> I can get the appeal of someone like Crowder. It's very easy to go down the rabbit hole of vaguely conservative "influencers". Guys like him, like Jordan Peterson, maybe you could include Ben Shapiro, etc., your standard "intellectual dark web" types -> they are _very good_ at debate, at being convincing, about CRUSHING their opponents with FACTS and LOGIC in ways that feel good if you happen to fall on their side of a particular subject. A big part of their appeal is that they do the whole "hitting close to home thing", but also they tend to be _technically right_ about at least some things, sometimes - or at the very least can semantically present an argument to sound correct even if it's only a valid view in certain contexts for framings.



Exactly. 

Ben Shapiro is incredibly skilled at debating. He's actually held up as the example of how you dont have to be right to win debates (winning an argument has very little to do with having the "correct opinion").

The problem is people get caught up in who won instead of who was right.


----------



## TedEH

I don't know that people like that don't actually believe actually believe the things they say, but it's hard to tell the difference. Are they playing a game, or do they really believe their talking points? I don't know. I get the impression that someone like Jordan Peterson for example probably genuinely believes at least some of the things he says, but he seems to operate in his own little world of abstractions where anything can represent anything else. And it's not like these people are stupid - far from it - I think they're incredibly smart people who have just managed to frame their worlds in particular ways and have gotten very practiced at defending that framing.

Edit: When I say I don't think they're stupid, I'm talking about Peterson and Crowder. Trump and Carlson on the other hand, I genuinely think are stupid. Unfortunately, one can be stupid but convincing at the same time.


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> Are you familiar with Crowder?
> 
> Pick someone you consider to be a vile reprehensible person who espouses horrific things. Then someone says I dont trust MSM, but yeah... I like that guy.


I am entirely aware of what a massively reprehensible shithead Steven Crowder is, so when I say that you managed to come across as a bigger dick than someone who professes to be a fan of Crowder's, I want you to grasp my full meaning.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> I am entirely aware of what a massively reprehensible shithead Steven Crowder is, so when I say that you managed to come across as a bigger dick than someone who professes to be a fan of Crowder's, I want you to grasp my full meaning.



Can I get that in a plaque for my wall?


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> @Drew
> 
> How bout these?
> 
> View attachment 92736
> View attachment 92737


Still pretty big, and I'm on a 29" iMac.  

Maybe try signing in from a normal computer and see what they look like. We used to have an auto-resize script running here, but I think it went away when the new forum software was installed.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> Does it, though? For starters, you're comparing the 'before' and 'after' perspective, but would you argue that most 'mainstream media' outlets aside from Fox don't skew left? It doesn't need to be an active thing, I never said 'hopelessly naive' and it doesn't need to be a 'very carefully packaged liberal worldview,' so long as there's a bend in one direction, hell, even just a tendency to cover stories that slightly favor that direction. I don't think it's so illogical to believe that that's likely going to be where someone who's primarily informed via those sources will end up.


This is an extremely complex question, to be fair. I do think it's a matter of degrees. 

To start, I think we need to be fair and note that there's a difference between Fox News, their genuine news reporting, and Fox opinion shows like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. I'll get to Fox News with the rest of the news media, but these shows are _not_ news programs, they're editorial programming and hard right prophaganda with a very specific agenda to sell. The problem is, much of conservative America either doesn't get this or doesn't care, and takes Tucker Carlson at face value as a trusted news source. Tucker Carlson has all the integrity of a used car salesman. That's a problem. 

When you get out of that to actual news programming... I think Fox News for the most part is factually accurate (not for nothing, they were the first network to call the election _against_ Trump, although that's been sort of a new thing since they were also famously the network that called Florida for Bush in 2000 and were responsible for the narrative being Gore had lost and was challenging the result. I think this has been an evolving thing for them). Where I'm less comfortable with them though is there's some partisan filtering on what they _will_ cover. The news programming was less guilty about this than Ingraham and Carlson, but if you'll remember when various members of the police were testifying to Congress about the January 6th insurgency, pretty much every media company in America was covering their testimony about how this was premeditated, the police had advanced intel but were asked to stand down, rioters were armed and were specifically looking for Pelosi and Pence, etc etc etc... and Fox was up in arms about Dr. Seuss being "cancelled" because the Seuss family decided of their own volition to stop publishing four books that contained cartoons that, to be fair, were pretty fucking racist. 

I'm not saying there isn't _some_ filtering elsewhere in the media, but for exmple, when Trump and Fox were trying to drum up a scandal around Hunter Biden, Fox was running it as top news, and while CNN wasn't, they also weren't entirely ignoring the story. I think there's a little more newsroom control on the right than elsewhere. 

As far as "mainstream media" being left-leaning... that's sort of complex and there's two ways I can see that they could be accused of being left-leaning: 

1) mainstream media has a specific liberal agenda, and exerts significant newsroom control over which stories they run and how they present them. 
2) mainstream media is primarily run, and staffed, by relatively well off upper-middle and upper-class Americans living in large coastal cities, skews heavily white, and a lot of the "editorial" aspects of what stories should be covered and how they should be covered are informed by thesew implicit biases. 

I don't think 1 is happening in any meaningful degree, at least in network news, outside of editorial/opinion programming (see: Rachael Maddow). If nothing else, look at The Washington Post's coverage of Amazon, which is rather unflinching and its not like Bezos doesn't have every reason to want flattering coverage coming out of their newsroom, you know? 

Two, I think, is much closer to the heart of the matter. The "mainstream media" doesn't have a liberal agenda, they don't create faux stories to drum up partisan outrage, they don't lie to you to score political points... but they DO tend to report on stories that white upper middle class urban people will care about, which imparts some subtle bias in their coverage. For the most part conservative pearl-clutching about the "liberal mainstream media" is a combination of sour grapes and self-justification for their own explicitly partisan alternatives (part of Fox's reason for existing is predicated on the "mainstream" media really being far-left so they're a necessary counterbalance), but I think there's some subtle structural stuff in play here that in all likelihood is entirely unconscious. 

It's also kind of an interesting framework to think about the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" thing, which I'd argue "fiscally conservative" has become completely meaningless these days, and the fact that the "establishment" left has become a lot more business-friendly in the last couple decades. I'd say that was more the media's doing than the Democratic party, and in turn it can be traced to the media's generally non-random socioeconomic makeup. 

But, wrapping all of this up... I think the right wing media is more overtly partisan than everyone else, both in their heavy reliance on editorial content over their news desk, and what seems to be a little more control over the newsroom (though there are signs of life there), whereas the "mainstream" media seems to be less bound in this way... but I think there are also some structural biases in the makeup of network media newsrooms that do give it a subtly left-leaning focus.

This is a pretty good and related read, incidentally: 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...out-political-reporting-while-covering-trump/


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Still pretty big, and I'm on a 29" iMac.
> 
> Maybe try signing in from a normal computer and see what they look like. We used to have an auto-resize script running here, but I think it went away when the new forum software was installed.



Resizing scripting is different. It's basically scale to fit width, and only resizes if it's significantly above a certain size. There's a sweet spot where the images are too small to be resized but somehow bigger than the resized images.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> Still pretty big, and I'm on a 29" iMac.
> 
> Maybe try signing in from a normal computer and see what they look like. We used to have an auto-resize script running here, but I think it went away when the new forum software was installed.



Well I guess size does matter! 

I can't be bothered to use my iMac surfing online (try to keep it music production only, and use iPhone for forums.)

Anyway, thanks for the heads up! Ignoring me is always an option too. It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest should anyone choose to do so! I can still read as much as I like regardless...


----------



## Jonathan20022

TedEH said:


> There's nothing more to it than that. How or why is that any different than doing the opposite and downplaying the agreed-to-be-abhorrent behaviour to instead be mad that video game opinions might be biased? That's my whole point -> the discussion about the abhorrent behaviour and the parallels you can draw from that into current events is the important part of the conversation, not video game review scores.



This is a pretty unfair way to guide the conversation, like Drew pointed out if bribery for misleading positive reviews are still prevalent, then they're still problematic. No one is making the connection here that the popular figures tied to Gamer Gate deserved the public hate mob due to their problematic transactions with individuals that can make or break public perception of your product.

No one's downplaying it, no one deserves death/rape threats. Especially because the fucks who go around sending people those messages know they can do it with little repercussions, and all the effectiveness of mentally destroying their target. And that's my point, you're bringing up horrible actions absolutely no one downplayed or even accepted as an appropriate response to the issues presented by GamerGate, who are you even talking to that did that?



TedEH said:


> I mean, do we not see the parallel here? How better to motivate someone to join your political cause, your online movement, your twitter mob, etc etc., than by tying it to something that hits close to home? "Game journalists are bad because they're all corrupt and want to take your trve gamer identity away." "The liberal media is bad because they want to take your religion away." "Obama is bad because he's going to take your guns away." "Trans people are bad because they're going to take your safe bathroom spaces away." "Feminists are bad because they're going to take our jobs by affirmative action instead of _really _earning it like we did." "Immigrants are bad because they're going to take away our culture." "Anglophones are bad because they're going to destroy French-Quebec culture."
> 
> All of these things are playing off of some sense of ownership or identity that people have in order to convince you of a bad take. Is this not essentially what "culture/identity wars" are?



Yet his conclusion was to approach news with a healthy amount of skepticism, not take everything from certain outlets at face value. You're arguing that people are enticed to join movements recruited from newly politicized sectors of their lives, to then become complete drones who react to headlines then parrot them?

Yeah unfortunately there's a large group of society that is right wing, believes some of the stuff you posted and will take it at face value. Is that a shock to anyone? They were always going to do that, but there's a great place to focus your distaste for that, the reporting entities making those headlines and feeding the extremism in the first place. I don't see your link that someone realizes that gaming industry reporting is inherently corrupt, therefore the logical path those people walk is slowly more into QAnon conspiracy bullshit? I don't want to diminish you if you personally know someone who went down that road, but you need to approach your messaging a tad bit more charitably than that.



TedEH said:


> I'm not trying to "debate", I'm trying to make observations and get clarifications - and throwing my own two cents in. If I'm going to fully understand how GG somehow leads someone to be more politically interested, or drives them into a more conservative world-view - how do I do that without asking what about GG led you down that path?



You can do it without leading the conversation with a carrot on a stick hoping the horse is hungry, this is someone you've apparently had discourse with before. Should be blatantly obvious when you're in a conversation with a conspiracy nut?


----------



## Wuuthrad

Hmm... political memes vs. wall of text off topic arguments about...??? WTF are you guys on about anyway? lol


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


> But, wrapping all of this up... I think the right wing media is more overtly partisan than everyone else, both in their heavy reliance on editorial content over their news desk, and what seems to be a little more control over the newsroom (though there are signs of life there), whereas the "mainstream" media seems to be less bound in this way... but I think there are also some structural biases in the makeup of network media newsrooms that do give it a subtly left-leaning focus.



This was an excellent summary overall. I just want to add that to much of the world, the US mainstream media (and the Democratic party, really) is arguably more center-right than left-leaning. It tends to be extremely supportive of large corporate interests and, as Drew points out, upper middle class white viewpoints. The NYT and BBC were both instrumental in manufacturing consent for the US and UK invading Iraq. The fact that it's considered left-leaning speaks more to how far the US right wing and Fox News have shifted the Overton window than to their biases.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

thraxil said:


> This was an excellent summary overall. I just want to add that to much of the world, the US mainstream media (and the Democratic party, really) is arguably more center-right than left-leaning. It tends to be extremely supportive of large corporate interests and, as Drew points out, upper middle class white viewpoints. The NYT and BBC were both instrumental in manufacturing consent for the US and UK invading Iraq. The fact that it's considered left-leaning speaks more to how far the US right wing and Fox News have shifted the Overton window than to their biases.




Totally agree with this. I remember all US media seemed fully bought in on Iraq like the Daily Show was constantly roasting CNN and MSNBC for shilling for the Bush admin.


----------



## TedEH

Jonathan20022 said:


> You're arguing that people are enticed to join movements recruited from newly politicized sectors of their lives, to then become complete drones who react to headlines then parrot them?


I mean, the phrasing is a bit exaggerated, but are you arguing that this _doesn't_ happen? 'Cause it does. Do you not see people parroting off "make America great again?" "Where we go one we go all?" "It's about ethics in games journalism"? "Facts don't care about your feelings" and "go clean your room"?



Jonathan20022 said:


> Yeah unfortunately there's a large group of society that is right wing, believes some of the stuff you posted and will take it at face value. Is that a shock to anyone? They were always going to do that, but there's a great place to focus your distaste for that, the reporting entities making those headlines and feeding the extremism in the first place.


You mean get mad at people like Crowder and Carlson, like I've been saying the whole time? Yeah, I'm on board with that.



Jonathan20022 said:


> I don't see your link that someone realizes that gaming industry reporting is inherently corrupt, therefore the logical path those people walk is slowly more into QAnon conspiracy bullshit? I don't want to diminish you if you personally know someone who went down that road, but you need to approach your messaging a tad bit more charitably than that.


The link is that the whole thing was a dumb played out culture war thing, just like qanon is. In both cases, there's a re-framing of which details are important in the conversation, a stated strong desire to find "the truth", and a lot of otherwise probably-well-meaning people taking part in something the ends up ultimately being destructive (and sometimes denying or downplaying that anything negative happened at all, cause "that's totally not the point, man").

Lets take Ordacleaphobia out of the context of anything I'm saying, because you're right - it's generally unfair to point anything I'm saying at him. If he's more politically aware now, regardless of how he got there, then cool. All good. End of that part of the conversation.

That being said - I see a parallel between GamerGate and QAnon:

I'm not convinced that the GG movement came out of want to make journalism better, I fully believe that (at the very least the more aggressive parts of it) were largely motivated by the apparent threat to the validity of the "gamer identity" -> as threatened by feminism/lgbt, by left-leaning media like Kotaku, as threatened by examinations like Sarkesians.

And the parallel:

I think that qanon/capital riots are largely motivated by a threat to their "patriotic identity" -> as threatened by feminism/lgbt, by left-leaning media of which you can take your pick since it's supposedly all of them, as threatened by examinations like you'd see in "liberal colleges", etc.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Anyway, thanks for the heads up! Ignoring me is always an option too. It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest should anyone choose to do so! I can still read as much as I like regardless...


But you also occasionally write interesting posts!  I'll just continue to scroll past and ignore the memes, I guess. By the way, thanks, @Randy for the color.



Jonathan20022 said:


> This is a pretty unfair way to guide the conversation, like Drew pointed out if bribery for misleading positive reviews are still prevalent, then they're still problematic.


Since my name got pulled into this... Let me just make it explicitly clear that just because I think it's problematic, doesn't mean I support the reaction. I think Ted's basically right here, it's problematic, but there's a ton of ways to handle problematic situations that fall short of rape and death threats, and while I _fully_ concede that this wasn't the _universal_ reaction to GamerGate, I do think it's undeniable that misogyny was pretty widespread in a _lot_ of the responses. Just because it didn't often go as far as the more extreme rape/death threats, doesn't mean it was at all appropriate.



TedEH said:


> I'm not convinced that the GG movement came out of want to make journalism better, I fully believe that (at the very least the more aggressive parts of it) were largely motivated by the apparent threat to the validity of the "gamer identity" -> as threatened by feminism/lgbt, by left-leaning media like Kotaku, as threatened by examinations like Sarkesians.


To this I'd expand on and note that one of the most pervasive forms of misogyny coming out of the fact was the implicit belief that no "real" gamer had an X chromosome, so "gamer identity" first and foremost meant you were a dude.

@thraxil - zero argument. I only didn't go down that road because, well, one I think there's enough fertile material to talk about alleged "liberal bias" in media without even taking that step back to the global perspective, and two, well... Just because the Democratic party might be center-right if it were dropped into Brussels, doesn't automatically mean there's something _wrong_ with America - there's a lot of ways we differ from a lot of the rest of the world, some of them arguably bad, but some of them arguably good. I'm not sure just how "liberal" an American liberal is is something worth getting that worked up about, because - and let me be clear, I'm not arguing this - you could just as easily argue that the rest of the world's "liberal" positions are off the chats fucking stark raving mad zealots.  Weight political orientation by GDP rather than land mass or number of countries or something, and there even begins to be a little bit too that.  I'm being a bit flip here, but I do think it's not fair to assume that American liberals SHOULD share exactly the same policy positions as Norwegian ones.


----------



## Ordacleaphobia

Drew said:


> Two, I think, is much closer to the heart of the matter. The "mainstream media" doesn't have a liberal agenda, they don't create faux stories to drum up partisan outrage, they don't lie to you to score political points... but they DO tend to report on stories that white upper middle class urban people will care about, which imparts some subtle bias in their coverage. For the most part conservative pearl-clutching about the "liberal mainstream media" is a combination of sour grapes and self-justification for their own explicitly partisan alternatives (part of Fox's reason for existing is predicated on the "mainstream" media really being far-left so they're a necessary counterbalance), but I think there's some subtle structural stuff in play here that in all likelihood is entirely unconscious.



_Generally speaking_, I agree with this. I don't really think your outlined 'option 1' is generally the primary factor contributing to the perceived spin on network news. I generally don't think there many truly bad actors in this sphere period honestly- just a lot of people thinking they're doing the right thing and either disagreeing with each other over what the right thing is, or on how to accomplish it.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy though where if I have similar priorities and ideals to those reflected on a specific network, and I happened to want to work in a newsroom, that's likely the program I'm going to try and get involved with- further cementing the direction of said network. Mostly unconscious, yes- but still pushes the programming over time one direction or the other.

I do also agree that media on the right side of the isle tends to be more reactionary, likely due to the aforementioned heavier reliance on editorial programming. 



> It's also kind of an interesting framework to think about the "fiscally conservative/socially liberal" thing, which I'd argue "fiscally conservative" has become completely meaningless these days, and the fact that the "establishment" left has become a lot more business-friendly in the last couple decades. I'd say that was more the media's doing than the Democratic party, and in turn it can be traced to the media's generally non-random socioeconomic makeup.



It's all kind of a mess, and the 'party lines' these days seem to be a bit more esoteric when it comes to the actual issues. Even social issues are a bit more blurred than they were in decades prior.

In the same way that the left has started to court the financial sector, the right has also moved a lot on social issues. So while I wouldn't argue that the label is _completely_ meaningless, the lines definitely are starting to blur. Like I mentioned before, I test _*exactly*_ in the middle of the left/right on the compass, despite the whole political atmosphere making me _feel_ like I belong on the right. Kind of just feels like genre arguments. 



Jonathan20022 said:


> You can do it without leading the conversation with a carrot on a stick hoping the horse is hungry, this is someone you've apparently had discourse with before. Should be blatantly obvious when you're in a conversation with a conspiracy nut?



Trying my hardest to drop this topic but in fairness, it's tough to really know someone's true colors if you only know them through a messageboard. I could believe some really crazy shit and just keep it under wraps until I decide today is the day I'm going to let SSO know about the pizza hut cabal that sauces their pies with child blood to retain their youth and prolong their mystical powers.



TedEH said:


> I'm not convinced that the GG movement came out of want to make journalism better, I fully believe that (at the very least the more aggressive parts of it) were largely motivated by the apparent threat to the validity of the "gamer identity" -> as threatened by feminism/lgbt, by left-leaning media like Kotaku, as threatened by examinations like Sarkesians.
> 
> And the parallel:
> 
> I think that qanon/capital riots are largely motivated by a threat to their "patriotic identity" -> as threatened by feminism/lgbt, by left-leaning media of which you can take your pick since it's supposedly all of them, as threatened by examinations like you'd see in "liberal colleges", etc.



I think this might be one of the factors in why we just totally missed each other on this topic.
I can't speak for the q / capital guys because I've never really run in those circles or really paid enough attention to them to suss out what's going through their minds, but the "gamer identity" thing was more about that specific _phrase_ than it was about the actual 'identity'. 

That whole thing happened once the conflicts of interest were exposed. Then, that big mailing list I mentioned a while back, got together and decided that to discredit all of these buttmad gamerbois, who to be fair were for sure taking the whole thing too seriously, they were all going to publish an article about how the _gamer identity_ was dead, and how it was 'gamers' themselves that managed to kill it through some pretty vague, generalized character assassination. Then they did. I don't remember which publications were involved, but I know it was quite a few outlets that all published essentially the same article on the same day all making the same point mostly even using the same verbage.

And _that_ was where the upset came from- not from the fact that 'gamers are over,' from the fact that these people decided to huddle up and discredit their accusers rather than 'face the music,' and _*I know*_, lol; the whole thing was stupid- I even felt silly just typing that. Why they didn't just say "Yeah, we slipped up. We try not to do that. We'll try harder in the future. Thanks." I'll _never know, _the whole thing would have blown over. I can only assume the only reason why GG snowballed so hard was because both sides were too stubborn to cave because yeah; the stakes were...._*so*_ low.

But- I can see how, through the lens of somebody that wasn't 'in the trenches,' the takeaway could easily be that these people were mad because of the attack on their identity; especially because that played well into the previous narrative about how GG was supposedly about keeping women and other marginalized groups out of gaming.


----------



## Drew

Ordacleaphobia said:


> It's all kind of a mess, and the 'party lines' these days seem to be a bit more esoteric when it comes to the actual issues. Even social issues are a bit more blurred than they were in decades prior.
> 
> In the same way that the left has started to court the financial sector, the right has also moved a lot on social issues. So while I wouldn't argue that the label is _completely_ meaningless, the lines definitely are starting to blur. Like I mentioned before, I test _*exactly*_ in the middle of the left/right on the compass, despite the whole political atmosphere making me _feel_ like I belong on the right. Kind of just feels like genre arguments.


To be fair, I was thinking even more simply than that.

"Fiscally conservative but socially liberal" means you're cool with gay people getting married, but want a balanced budget? Show me a single conservative who's made an honest attempt to balance the budget in the last 100 years. 

Conservative fiscal policies these days are mostly "we should cut taxes and tax cuts will pay for themselves" which weirdly never happens, and is kind of funny to keep in mind with the right's fondness for arguing that we need to think of the government's budget like a house budget whenever it comes time to evaluate a spending proposal. What, and the fastest way to balance my household budget is to ask my boss for a pay cut?  

If we want to try to call it something else, like, saying someone is for liberal social policies and a balanced budget sure, but the only presidents in recent memory who have either balanced a budget or reduced deficits are all Democrats, so I don't trust conservatives with the economy either.


----------



## TedEH

Ordacleaphobia said:


> I test _*exactly*_ in the middle of the left/right on the compass, despite the whole political atmosphere making me _feel_ like I belong on the right.


Of all the things we kinda don't see eye to eye about, I definitely relate to this one at times. 



Ordacleaphobia said:


> an article about how the _gamer identity_ was dead


I remember reading this article, or at least some variation of the article, and in a vacuum I remember it being a great article - because I kinda agree with the premise, that the gamer identity was/is dying and that it's a good thing. I should go back and find it again, maybe I'd see it differently today than I did then.



Ordacleaphobia said:


> through the lens of somebody that wasn't 'in the trenches,'


I'm a bit curious what you mean by things like this, because you keep phrasing things as if to suggest you _were_ "in the trenches", whatever that means.

At the same time, we could argue about it forever but I don't think either of us will change our perspective, and we've each made our points clearly enough - I was ready to nitpick things on the GG wiki, about the Gamers-are-dead articles, about the premise of the whole thing, but at the end of the day it's dumb he-said she-said bickering at this point. If at the end of the day, you're more politically aware, then all the power to you, as they say.


----------



## bostjan

It used to be that the democrats and the republicans were not really that different from one another. Now we're at a point where the democrats represent a certain set of values and the republicans, essentially, represent the opposition to that set of values.

I actually really like people like Shapiro and Crowder for what they do, insomuch as they represent a face of conservativism that wants to open a dialogue. Since the modern conservative movement is essentially just the movement of questioning mainstream ideas, I think that we need at least a handful of people like them to keep things in check. That being said, I certainly do not agree with either of them on every issue, nor do I disagree with them on every issue. I'd probably enjoy debating with Crowder, at least a little bit. Shapiro, on the other hand, well, I'd much rather debate him in writing than in person, since he can be a bit of a jerk, and I'm not sure if I'd trigger him somehow.

Anyway, if we argue with people about what's best for the country, the exercise helps us understand the nuances of what we actually want versus what we can actually accomplish, which is pretty important. You want to be able to defend your ideas, and, if those ideas never come under attack, they tend to slowly drift away from sanity. I know for a fact that there are plenty of people with absolutely insane ideas on both ends of the political spectrum. For four years, one of them was our chief! But now that things are back to "normal", it'll be time for people like Shapiro and Crowder to do their thing and make sure Biden's ideas get criticized when necessary.


----------



## Jonathan20022

Drew said:


> Since my name got pulled into this... Let me just make it explicitly clear that just because I think it's problematic, doesn't mean I support the reaction. I think Ted's basically right here, it's problematic, but there's a ton of ways to handle problematic situations that fall short of rape and death threats, and while I _fully_ concede that this wasn't the _universal_ reaction to GamerGate, I do think it's undeniable that misogyny was pretty widespread in a _lot_ of the responses. Just because it didn't often go as far as the more extreme rape/death threats, doesn't mean it was at all appropriate.
> 
> To this I'd expand on and note that one of the most pervasive forms of misogyny coming out of the fact was the implicit belief that no "real" gamer had an X chromosome, so "gamer identity" first and foremost meant you were a dude.



Right, and I think I represented your position just as you outlined it. My point is that there isn't a single participating person in this discussion that thinks rape and death threats are an appropriate response to neither this or anything ever. I thought it was problematic that he was cornering Ordacleaphobia in his back and forth as if he was trying to deny those things happened, or that the individuals involved somehow deserved it? That's where their discussion felt like it was going.

To put it into perspective, that is still very much prevalent. Girls still receive negativity to this day in the gaming sphere that's pretty indefensible.

I think Drew and Ordacleaphobia said all there needs left to be said about the GG topic. Wanting to drop the topic I will too, we're all on the same page as far as I can see.



Drew said:


> To be fair, I was thinking even more simply than that.
> 
> "Fiscally conservative but socially liberal" means you're cool with gay people getting married, but want a balanced budget? Show me a single conservative who's made an honest attempt to balance the budget in the last 100 years.
> 
> Conservative fiscal policies these days are mostly "we should cut taxes and tax cuts will pay for themselves" which weirdly never happens, and is kind of funny to keep in mind with the right's fondness for arguing that we need to think of the government's budget like a house budget whenever it comes time to evaluate a spending proposal. What, and the fastest way to balance my household budget is to ask my boss for a pay cut?
> 
> If we want to try to call it something else, like, saying someone is for liberal social policies and a balanced budget sure, but the only presidents in recent memory who have either balanced a budget or reduced deficits are all Democrats, so I don't trust conservatives with the economy either.



I'm still learning quite a bit about politics as a whole, but from the discussions I've been listening to and absorbing from. The rise of people basically being socially liberal and financially conservative (in the Twitch/Youtube spheres) seems to be a need to detach themselves from what seems to be a massive socialist movement growing there.


----------



## TedEH

I'm certainly not trying to corner anyone - if you take Ordacleaphobia out of the conversation, the whole GG thing was brought up by the Q documentary, because while I don't think they say it outright, I think they spotted a parallel, or at least a shared origin, given that (as far as I'm aware) both movements have connections to the number-chan websites.

I'll drop the subject there, if people don't like the topic or how it's going. If anyone really wants to convince me I've got the whole thing wrong, we can make a new thread to argue it out, or you can DM or if nobody cares than nobody cares and we can go back to arguing about something else.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Now we're at a point where the democrats represent a certain set of values and the republicans, essentially, represent the opposition to that set of values.


And, for emphasis, not the _opposite set of values_, so much as literally _opposition_ to the Democrats' set. It's barely even a platform. 



Jonathan20022 said:


> Right, and I think I represented your position just as you outlined it. My point is that there isn't a single participating person in this discussion that thinks rape and death threats are an appropriate response to neither this or anything ever. I thought it was problematic that he was cornering Ordacleaphobia in his back and forth as if he was trying to deny those things happened, or that the individuals involved somehow deserved it? That's where their discussion felt like it was going.


In this thread, sure. In the broader GamerGate controversy? That was 100% happening, and even the more _moderate_ voices were extremely misogynistic. It seems like maybe an arbitrary distinction to you, maybe, and I'm not saying people _here_ are, but misogeny is pretty clearly a feature, not a bug, of the whole GamerGate backlash. 



Jonathan20022 said:


> I'm still learning quite a bit about politics as a whole, but from the discussions I've been listening to and absorbing from. The rise of people basically being socially liberal and financially conservative (in the Twitch/Youtube spheres) seems to be a need to detach themselves from what seems to be a massive socialist movement growing there.


As you open with, you're still learning a lot about politics as a whole. There's no new "rise" of "fiscally conservative/socially liberal," that's been a popular position to claim for coastal elites for decades now who want to at least feign a certain amount of free thinking and independence. Hell, 20 years ago, I'd probably have said the same. If anything I think you've got the cart before the horse here, and the fact it seems like everyone I know under 30 is a socialist these days is because they see all these "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" people and feel like not only have they not done jack shit to help them, but furthermore that there's an economic element to a lot of so called "social" issues, and we're not going to do much against police brutality against Black Americans until they're allowed to have the same economic opportunities as White America, so that they're not getting arrested for selling black market cigarettes to help make ends meet and getting choked to death when they are. 

I don't agree with them... but it's not like I can entirely blame them, either.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92823
> View attachment 92824


Unrelated, but those were a little smaller than recent posts, and both were great.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Ruh-roh... 

https://nypost.com/2021/04/28/federal-agents-raid-rudy-giulianis-nyc-apartment/

"Federal authorities in Manhattan raided the Upper East Side apartment of Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday as part of a criminal probe into the former mayor’s dealings in Ukraine, a report said.

The investigators confiscated Giuliani’s electronic devices as part of a search warrant, the New York Times reported, citing sources. 

A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment on the reported raid. A call to Giuliani’s cellphone went straight to voicemail Wednesday afternoon. 

The search warrant is an escalation in the feds’ probe of the former mayor, who is being investigated over whether he illegally lobbied former President Donald Trump on behalf of officials and oligarchs in Ukraine, the Times reported."


----------



## nightflameauto

High Plains Drifter said:


> Ruh-roh...
> 
> https://nypost.com/2021/04/28/federal-agents-raid-rudy-giulianis-nyc-apartment/
> 
> "Federal authorities in Manhattan raided the Upper East Side apartment of Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday as part of a criminal probe into the former mayor’s dealings in Ukraine, a report said.
> 
> The investigators confiscated Giuliani’s electronic devices as part of a search warrant, the New York Times reported, citing sources.
> 
> A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment on the reported raid. A call to Giuliani’s cellphone went straight to voicemail Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> The search warrant is an escalation in the feds’ probe of the former mayor, who is being investigated over whether he illegally lobbied former President Donald Trump on behalf of officials and oligarchs in Ukraine, the Times reported."


I'm certain this is quite the inappropriate response to this, but my gut is telling me this is worthy of a big hearty, LOL.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> I'm certain this is quite the inappropriate response to this, but my gut is telling me this is worthy of a big hearty, LOL.


Please, allow me.

Ha. Hahaha. _Muahaha, _*HAHAHAHA!* *BWAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHA!!!*


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 92847


I would say vampires aren't that stupid, but then I saw "What We Do in the Shadows." He'd fit right in.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> Unrelated, but those were a little smaller than recent posts, and both were great.



Lol I was going to say exact same thing.


----------



## Wuuthrad

People still use computers?

I swear I’ll try to remember the resize image app, since apparently this place is _stuck in the past_- text walls, tube amps, 2 party system... lol

@Drew

I appreciate your comment about being occasionally interesting; it’s far more than can be said for a lot of things nowadays!


----------



## USMarine75

High Plains Drifter said:


> Ruh-roh...
> 
> https://nypost.com/2021/04/28/federal-agents-raid-rudy-giulianis-nyc-apartment/
> 
> "Federal authorities in Manhattan raided the Upper East Side apartment of Rudy Giuliani on Wednesday as part of a criminal probe into the former mayor’s dealings in Ukraine, a report said.
> 
> The investigators confiscated Giuliani’s electronic devices as part of a search warrant, the New York Times reported, citing sources.
> 
> A spokesperson for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York declined to comment on the reported raid. A call to Giuliani’s cellphone went straight to voicemail Wednesday afternoon.
> 
> The search warrant is an escalation in the feds’ probe of the former mayor, who is being investigated over whether he illegally lobbied former President Donald Trump on behalf of officials and oligarchs in Ukraine, the Times reported."



Did they find Hunter Biden's laptop? 

Remember when that was a thing?


----------



## spudmunkey

USMarine75 said:


> Did they find Hunter Biden's laptop?
> 
> Remember when that was a thing?


Family on FB is saying this is Biden trying to steal and hide all of the Hunter Biden evidence.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## thraxil

So the thing with the Rudy apartment warrant is that there were news stories at least back to 2019 that they were trying to get warrants to seize his phones/equipment and were probably blocked by the whole "you can't investigate a sitting President" thing which extended to the President's lawyer (at least enough that a federal judge wouldn't issue a search warrant). In the meantime, it's not exactly been secret that they have ramped the investigation back up recently, subpoening other lawyers that worked with Guiliani, etc. Anyone who wasn't a complete moron and actually had any incriminating evidence would've taken advantage of the intervening period to clean up and dispose of that incriminating evidence. This is Rudy though, so all bets are off. And to get a search warrant issued, especially one for a lawyer's office/devices, investigators had to have shown a grand jury and federal judge both that they had some amount of evidence that there was a crime committed *and* that there is additional evidence likely to be turned up by the warrant. In other words, that they have good reason to believe that he *still* had incriminating documents/files in his possession.


----------



## sleewell

tim scott last night: the county is a mess after 4 years of gop leadership... why hasnt biden fixed everything in 100 days???


----------



## Ralyks

I was actually going to ask, where do you all think we sit at 100 days? I'd say I'm fairly good with Biden so far. Far from perfect, but he's gotten shit done and I don't hear from/about him 23 1/2 hours a day.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'd say I'm happy overall, but we'll see how it goes. It's far too early and there's way too much going on and just the relief of 45 being gone, so it's hard to say. 

The only thing I haven't been thrilled about is immigration/border policy, but that's a tough nut to crack, and even more so with such a narrow senate margin.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd say I'm happy overall, but we'll see how it goes. It's far too early and there's way too much going on and just the relief of 45 being gone, so it's hard to say.
> 
> The only thing I haven't been thrilled about is immigration/border policy, but that's a tough nut to crack, and even more so with such a narrow senate margin.


One of the more charitable critical reads I've seen (which I think makes a lot of sense) is the Biden team came in with a lot of fairly concrete policy plans on foreign policy, environmental policy, (especially) pandemic response, a VERY expansive take on infastructure (he's basically seeking to singlehandedly reverse the gradual move to smaller, more limited government since at least the Reagan days), etc etc etc... but they didn't really have a good handle on how they wanted to handle immigration and border control, so they've basically been winging it and reversing course whenever they seem to be out of step with public opinion (the initial preservation of the Trump-era immigration caps, which they quickly backpedaled on when his base objected, for example). 

Nate Cohen at the NY Times made a pretty salient point recently - for the most part the progressive left see him as sort of a second FDR (there are exceptions of course, but generally they've been happy), while from the right, most of the attacks have centered on him being a "failed revolutionary," aka a moderated. That suggests he's doing a fairly good job bridging the "establishment" and "progressive" wings of the party. And, he's the first president in some time, I guess, to have a failed Congressional nomination (one nominee stepped down, but even then did so immediately and without a protracted fight), and I never in a million years thought his $1.9T stimulus package would come through Congress at essentially the same size he wanted. I thought he had the makings of a decent president, especially in comparison to his immediate predecessor, but so far I think he's done pretty well, and is certainly benefitting from overseeing some real economic strength, even if only partly of his doing (Q1 GDP was extremely strong, stronger than the headline implies, in part due to the $600 stimulus checks hitting in late December and early January, but also in part due to the $1400 starting to impact consumer demand in March, and likely continuing into April). 

Overall, I'd say he's off to a decent start and hasn't fucked up his first 100 days.


----------



## nightflameauto

Overall at 100 days I feel relief that we don't have a sitting president spending more time spitting vitriol on twitter and golfing than attempting to do his job.

Do I love everything that's happened? No.

The border situation is a nightmare, but one that's understandable at the moment. I think it's stupid that people truly believed in the supposed open border Democrats enough to let it turn into what it's turned into, but here we are. How that's dealt with going forward will be interesting to see. Right now it seems like nobody really knows WTF to do, and that's somewhat understandable. Though the situation is clearly not getting better on its own, so something will need done.

Biden's plans seem like they would be at least somewhat tenable if not for the current Republican party having a strict "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!" policy on anything that originates with the Democrats. I noticed some of them actually managed to swallow their pride long enough to applaud Biden's jobs plan, though everything I've heard afterward is that they absolutely refuse to budge, if they have their way, on raising taxes on the high rollers. They continue to propagate the theory that taxing those in the upper 1-5% will immediately make all jobs disappear into the ether.

There are some things in Biden's policy I'm not fond of. Flat out fuck his stupid health initiative. It still lands us in a position where we can't afford insurance and even if we could it wouldn't cover our expenses until we were 15k+ in the hole for the year. I'd like to see real health reform, but he's made it perfectly clear that his idea of health reform is to continue to protect the private insurance companies that are essentially bleeding us dry, sometimes literally, just to squeeze every penny they can out of people before killing them off because life is worth less than the almighty dollar. Nobody seems to get that we need real change here outside of the extreme fridge of the Democratic party that are seen as complete lunatics for daring to think we need real healthcare reform.

And fuck Biden for saying "healthcare is a right" in his speech last night. If he believed that he'd put some effort into lowering rates down to reality for those of us not raking in the cash hand over fist. Apparently the whole single payer option / medicare for all who want it thing just got lost in the usual shuffle of politics.

That said, I'm still overall relieved. At least it's not a continuous stream of shit-show after shit-show day after day after hour after hour. Just business as usual with a little more lip service to happy-happy/joy-joy thoughts. I mean, I at least have the option of pretending we're not completely fucked in all ways right now. Haven't been able to say that in nearly five or six years, so it's a net positive.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> The border situation is a nightmare, but one that's understandable at the moment. I think it's stupid that people truly believed in the supposed open border Democrats enough to let it turn into what it's turned into, but here we are. How that's dealt with going forward will be interesting to see. Right now it seems like nobody really knows WTF to do, and that's somewhat understandable. Though the situation is clearly not getting better on its own, so something will need done.


Yeah, that's an aspect that can't be disentangled from this discussion - the number of people turning up at the border requesting asylum _surged_ after Trump left office, precisely because they thought they had a better chance of getting an asylum request approved in what by all appearance should be a more welcoming administration. Trump, probably with some justification, made a lot about the impact of harsh rhetoric on _illegal_ immigration, but the 800 pound gorilla in the room was he was also seeking to discourage _legal_ immigration and asylum at the Mexican border, it probably had an even more discouraging effect there, and what the Biden administration is now dealing with is a backlog who thought for the last four years they had no chance of being accepted, but now they do. On top of a pandemic, it's a proper mess.


----------



## spudmunkey

Didn't you guys hear that he went golfing last Sunday? I think it's a pretty clear sign that to be a GREAT president, he has to copy Trump. /s


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> Right now it seems like nobody really knows WTF to do, and that's somewhat understandable. Though the situation is clearly not getting better on its own, so something will need done.



One anecdotal insight: My family has friends who own a campground in SE Wisconsin. It's often rented out to organizations/non-profits for at-risk or special-needs kids. They have lots of lodging and facilities (not just a plot of land with RV hook-ups). DHSS reached out to them as a part of a big-scope project to find overflow capacity for unaccompanied children, and families with children seeking refugee status, while they are building up more permanent facilities. (Yes, kids are supposed to be out of CBP custody within 72 hours, but they are transferred to DHSS custody after that...it's not that everything's all sorted and figured out). That makes it clear to me that they are genuinely thinking "outside the box" and willing to throw money at the issue where it's needed to try to make SOME progress wherever they can.

Unfortunately, those family "friends" said they were not willing to provide their facilities for use to DHSS for "the mexican kids", because "that's Nancy Pelosi's problem."


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Unfortunately, those family "friends" said they were not willing to provide their facilities for use to DHSS for "the mexican kids", because "that's Nancy Pelosi's problem."


Go team.


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## vilk

Wuuthrad said:


> View attachment 92975



There are some churches that are money grabs, but I bet that most of them actually do more charity and help the poor in more ways than most other organizations. I'm not religious (probably closer to anti-religious) but in the small town I am from, most pastors and priests lived pretty meagerly, and churches are where people who can't afford them go to get free coats in the winter.

I'd say, for now, we just stick with cutting military and taxing the ultra-wealthy. Then, once we've built non-secular fully funded community centers, let's tax churches.


----------



## sleewell

Tax the mega churches. If you have staff wearing shoes that cost $5k or who have multiple private jets, you can pay some dang taxes.


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> Tax the mega churches. If you have staff wearing shoes that cost $5k or who have multiple private jets, you can pay some dang taxes.



if you tax mega churches prs will go out of business.


----------



## StevenC

diagrammatiks said:


> if you tax mega churches prs will go out of business.


Strymon too.


----------



## Xaios

diagrammatiks said:


> if you tax mega churches prs will go out of business.





StevenC said:


> Strymon too.


Nah, even in megachurches, the worship pastors are the only paid musicians, and they're only playing either an acoustic or a 335.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Xaios said:


> Nah, even in megachurches, the worship pastors are the only paid musicians, and they're only playing either an acoustic or a 335.



then how come every person in the prs owner's group is playing at church.


----------



## StevenC

diagrammatiks said:


> then how come every person in the prs owner's group is playing at church.


And TGP has a thread for pedalboards and a thread for pedalboards that I only recently discovered wasn't aimed at emulating Steve Vai?


----------



## Xaios

diagrammatiks said:


> then how come every person in the prs owner's group is playing at church.


They're all just old nu-metal guitarists.


----------



## USMarine75

BREAKING NEWS

*Verizon will sell Yahoo and AOL for $5 billion, giving up on its digital-media ambitions in the face of competition from Google and Facebook.*

Political related... anyone think this is a good idea? Biden needs to have Liz Warren crush the FB and Google monopolies harder than TR et al crushed Standard Oil (which worked out for JD Rockefeller because it actually made him richer).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

USMarine75 said:


> BREAKING NEWS
> 
> *Verizon will sell Yahoo and AOL for $5 billion, giving up on its digital-media ambitions in the face of competition from Google and Facebook.*
> 
> Political related... anyone think this is a good idea? Biden needs to have Liz Warren crush the FB and Google monopolies harder than TR et al crushed Standard Oil (which worked out for JD Rockefeller because it actually made him richer).



Google and Facebook should have been broken up years ago, but we keep electing folks that can barely change the clock on thier microwave.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Google and Facebook should have been broken up years ago, but we keep electing folks that can barely change the clock on thier microwave.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Whatever happened to banning tiktok

trump was doing it for the wrong reasons.

but it's absolutely the right thing to do.


----------



## USMarine75

diagrammatiks said:


> Whatever happened to banning tiktok
> 
> trump was doing it for the wrong reasons.
> 
> but it's absolutely the right thing to do.



Will it get rid of Jeris Johnson because yes.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> There are some churches that are money grabs, but I bet that most of them actually do more charity and help the poor in more ways than most other organizations. I'm not religious (probably closer to anti-religious) but in the small town I am from, most pastors and priests lived pretty meagerly, and churches are where people who can't afford them go to get free coats in the winter.
> 
> I'd say, for now, we just stick with cutting military and taxing the ultra-wealthy. Then, once we've built non-secular fully funded community centers, let's tax churches.


Eh, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not smaller churches do good charitable work. I think it's a pretty simple question - we as a nation have seperation of church and state, and giving preferential tax status to churches, even if we do to all denominations, is implicitly providing a tax benefit to practitioners of all stripes over atheists. Any church who wants to set up a true charitable nonprofit and go through the usual filing process is welcome to do so, but in the meantime, taking churches but not taxing other non-nonprofit organizations is a double standard. 



diagrammatiks said:


> then how come every person in the prs owner's group is playing at church.


Have you ever traveled through the Bible Belt? America is getting more secular, but there are huge parts of the country where church is the focal point of local social lives. 



diagrammatiks said:


> Whatever happened to banning tiktok
> 
> trump was doing it for the wrong reasons.
> 
> but it's absolutely the right thing to do.


Microsoft agreed to buy them, and then Trump got sidetracked by losing an election and forgot about them.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Drew said:


> Eh, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not smaller churches do good charitable work. I think it's a pretty simple question - we as a nation have seperation of church and state, and giving preferential tax status to churches, even if we do to all denominations, is implicitly providing a tax benefit to practitioners of all stripes over atheists. Any church who wants to set up a true charitable nonprofit and go through the usual filing process is welcome to do so, but in the meantime, taking churches but not taxing other non-nonprofit organizations is a double standard.
> 
> 
> Have you ever traveled through the Bible Belt? America is getting more secular, but there are huge parts of the country where church is the focal point of local social lives.
> 
> 
> Microsoft agreed to buy them, and then Trump got sidetracked by losing an election and forgot about them.



dain-it drew. the joke isn't that there are a lot of churches. the joke is that if a person has 5 prs's and a pedal board full of strymon there's a 80 percent chance of guessing what they do.


----------



## spudmunkey

I don't think PRS has any higher-representation in worship groups. Heck, the Kiesel group has a bunch of church-players. And Helix. And Kemper. And Fender.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It was just a joke.


----------



## Xaios

For the record, I've been one of those guys with a PRS playing worship music. Granted, mine is a Custom 24 SE 7 and not a full-blown American PRS, and it played backup to my RG1527.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> Google and Facebook should have been broken up years ago, but we keep electing folks that can barely change the clock on thier microwave.


I feel like you are always spelling their wrong but it looks wrong no matter how I spell it so I'm not sure.



Drew said:


> Have you ever traveled through the Bible Belt? America is getting more secular, but there are huge parts of the country where church is the focal point of local social lives.



I was a truck driver for a few years. I can tell you that there is no such thing as the Bible Belt. As soon as you leave the city limits of any decent sized city anywhere in America, you are in the Bible Belt. In Florida, Wisconsin, California, New York. Anywhere.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> I feel like you are always spelling their wrong but it looks wrong no matter how I spell it so I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> I was a truck driver for a few years. I can tell you that there is no such thing as the Bible Belt. As soon as you leave the city limits of any decent sized city anywhere in America, you are in the Bible Belt. In Florida, Wisconsin, California, New York. Anywhere.



At least I don't just use "there" for everything. 

Good catch, weird (had to double check that one) how autocorrect misses that one sometimes.


----------



## Drew

diagrammatiks said:


> dain-it drew. the joke isn't that there are a lot of churches. the joke is that if a person has 5 prs's and a pedal board full of strymon there's a 80 percent chance of guessing what they do.


And my joke was if a person is a musician in America, there's an 80% chance they play in a church. 



possumkiller said:


> I was a truck driver for a few years. I can tell you that there is no such thing as the Bible Belt. As soon as you leave the city limits of any decent sized city anywhere in America, you are in the Bible Belt. In Florida, Wisconsin, California, New York. Anywhere.



Cities... those godless liberal heathen hellholes, amirite!?


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> I was a truck driver for a few years. I can tell you that there is no such thing as the Bible Belt. As soon as you leave the city limits of any decent sized city anywhere in America, you are in the Bible Belt. In Florida, Wisconsin, California, New York. Anywhere.



Yeah, the next town over from me (just West of Albany) has a giant sign as you're entering "VISIT OUR CHURCHES!"


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Yeah, the next town over from me (just West of Albany) has a giant sign as you're entering "VISIT OUR CHURCHES!"


----------



## Wuuthrad




----------



## sleewell

Biden needs to end the federal unemployment bump like yesterday if he doesn't want to keep getting those disappointing jobs numbers. get some people up off the sofa and out responding to all the help wanted signs i see everywhere.


----------



## StevenC

sleewell said:


> Biden needs to end the federal unemployment bump like yesterday if he doesn't want to keep getting those disappointing jobs numbers. get some people up off the sofa and out responding to all the help wanted signs i see everywhere.


Sounds like the real solution is increasing minimum wage.


----------



## Demiurge

^I agree with this but would understand if it's not enough. People might be less excited about returning to work at jobs that could very well be obliterated again if there's another outbreak & lockdown in the future.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> Biden needs to end the federal unemployment bump like yesterday if he doesn't want to keep getting those disappointing jobs numbers. get some people up off the sofa and out responding to all the help wanted signs i see everywhere.



Lmao. Less than $15/hr for a terrible job where people who don’t respect you can treat you like garbage and the customers don’t have to wear masks/many Americans are saying they refuse to get vaccinated putting people with co-morbidities and health issues at risk. 

The latest #’s show that the highest % of Covid deaths by industry is is restaurants/fast food. The rest follow the “low pay/high manual labor” pattern as well. 

It’s a free market. If people won’t work for what you’re paying then pay more. 7.75/hr = $1200/mo. That’s the poverty line # the government arrived at. 

No one is getting off their ass to work 40+ hrs a week split across two jobs. Because no single job will give them 40 hrs /week as that would require providing health insurance. 

Americans told everyone that shitty fast food jobs were for teenagers to work part time and not for adults to even kinda bootstrap. 

So the market responded accordingly. I’m very glad that banks and national chains are trying to get “ahead” of the legislation by raising wages. 

Businesses are not entitled to slave labor. Just because you legally are allowed to offer nothing does NOT mean people are required to accept it. So they’re staying home. Think of it as an impromptu labor strike for higher wages and benefits. 

Higher wages equate to higher spending which creates economic activity. 

Lower wages incentivizes people to exit the workforce. 

Pay people more. Not a single investment analyst is worried about companies being able to afford it. A jump in median labor expense does not alter growth/earnings projections even a bit. 

Every time I check this thread there is someone completely misunderstanding that free market economics is DEMAND driven and not supply driven along with outright ignoring the velocity of money. 

Almost 600k dead, disproportionately from low paying labor jobs. “Why won’t people starve to be here while we try to automate their job away?”


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> Biden needs to end the federal unemployment bump like yesterday if he doesn't want to keep getting those disappointing jobs numbers. get some people up off the sofa and out responding to all the help wanted signs i see everywhere.


You've GOTTA shut off the conservative media, man. It's doing things to you. 

I was on a conference call with a well-respected economist today who raised a good point - a lot of the job openings that are going unfilled here, are already at wages that should render federal unemployment pandemic benefits irrelevant. He thinks the bigger issue has probably been relocation - pointing to an easy example in New York, high end restaurants in the state are struggling to hire wait staff, even at what are levels essentially not available anywhere else in the country. And, in conversations with a lot of restauranteurs in the city, one of the issues theu're dealing with is Broadway is still shut down, so many of the actors and actresses (and stage crews and photographers and musicians and sound techs etc etc etc) who would normally be in New York City for the theaters and working in bars and restaurants either between gigs or to pick up extra money, are just gone, because they have no reason to BE in New York. Cutting pandemic benefits won't change that.

Meanwhile, large national construction firms are doing ok since most of them have existing long term take-or-pay contracts for lumber, but with the price of lumber up 5-fold since last April, smaller construction firms are seeing a substantial drop in demand simply because their input costs, which are generally passed through in quotes, are so much higher. That won't change until lumber prices fall, which probably won't be before the summer (perhaps earlier if the Biden administration reverses Trump's Canadian lumber tariffs, but there's been no talk of that yet). That translates into either layoffs, or a lack of hiring new jobs, in the construction sector.

And, one thing I always check with each weekly unemployment claims report, is the _reasons_ states note in the optional comments section, noting where job losses have been - the last few have noted an increasing number of job losses in transportation and warehousing, which makes a lot of sense considering the huge drop in inventories we've seen in the Q1 GDP report, as the US has generally reopened, while most of the rest of the world, where a lot of the inputs we need for goods made here come from and where a lot of the goods we buy are made anyway, has not. Chip supply is another similar limiting factor - we import finished chips or components, and often from countries that are still being ravaged by Covid, and are struggling to get enough chips to meed industrial demand. The auto industry is running at 70% or so capacity right now, well below cyclical norms, not because there aren't enough people who want to buy cars, but because manufacturers can't get their hands on enough parts to meed demand. Running well below capacity means layoffs and cut hours in the auto industry - worth noting here is leisure and hospitality as a sector actually had a pretty good quarter, with maybe 360,000 new jobs added, meaning roughly 100,000 job _losses_ occurred, on net, in other sectors.

One final thing I'd note, is that the BLS labor noted as part of the survey results that 9.4 million Americans had reported working fewer/no hours in the survey period due to the pandemic causing employers to either go out of business or cut hours, which is a LOT of people... but that was also down 2mm from the prior period's 11.4mm. That points to two possible explanations, to me - one, that we're seeing an economy with a TON of labor churn, with people moving from pandemic impacted jobs to ones that have not been impacted, and that while there weren't a lot of net new jobs created, there was a ton of hiring of people who had been previously employed... or two, to perhaps a greater extend than we realized at the time, employers responded to the pandemic by cutting hours rather than positions, hoping to keep people on payroll (in part possibly due to programs like PPP, and possibly due to optimism that they could just ride this out), but reduce hours to spread the impact over a larger number of people, than making a couple layoffs and keeping everyone else at full time. If so, then the headline employment numbers probably _understated_ the severity of the recession, but in turn are understating the rate of recovery now. My bet is it's probably a mix of both of these.

In either event, I don't buy the "benefits are keeping people from applying to jobs" argument for the simple fact that the labor force (defined as people currently employed or actively seeking work) as a percent of the total population ticked up from 61.5 to 61.7%, growth of about 450,000 workers, during a period where employment only grew by 266,000 people. More people _started _looking for work than were hired, so it doesn't seem like, broadly speaking, the total number of people looking for work is the limiting factor in growth right now. It's a product of demand for labor being geographically out of alignment with supply of labor, of input shortages leading to job losses, and - I suspect - unusually high labor churn.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Almost 600k dead, disproportionately from low paying labor jobs. “Why won’t people starve to be here while we try to automate their job away?”


I may have mentioned this earlier in this thread... but one sobering observation about the Q1 GDP report is, we've rebounded to the point where we're still 0.87% below the all-time GDP peak, in 12/31/2019, but GDP is now positive year-over-year and about 0.5% higher than it was in 3/31/2020. Yet, we've managed all that production with a whopping 8.5 million _fewer_ workers today on 3/31/2021 than we did in 3/31/2020. 

People talk about higher wages somehow incentivizing companies to invest in technology to replace minimum wage jobs. The pandemic already did that, when they needed to figure out how to stay open while minimizing human contact. At this point, continue to argue that a higher minimum wage will somehow depress employment is just kind of cruel and nonsensical.


----------



## TedEH

Drew said:


> Whole lotta stuff


Yeah, but then you can't call people lazy, and that's no fun.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Yeah, but then you can't call people lazy, and that's no fun.


I suppose, in my pursuit of whether or not a statement was _accurate_, I lost track of whether or not it made someone _feel good_.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> You've GOTTA shut off the conservative media, man. It's doing things to you.
> 
> I was on a conference call with a well-respected economist today who raised a good point - a lot of the job openings that are going unfilled here, are already at wages that should render federal unemployment pandemic benefits irrelevant. He thinks the bigger issue has probably been relocation - pointing to an easy example in New York, high end restaurants in the state are struggling to hire wait staff, even at what are levels essentially not available anywhere else in the country. And, in conversations with a lot of restauranteurs in the city, one of the issues theu're dealing with is Broadway is still shut down, so many of the actors and actresses (and stage crews and photographers and musicians and sound techs etc etc etc) who would normally be in New York City for the theaters and working in bars and restaurants either between gigs or to pick up extra money, are just gone, because they have no reason to BE in New York. Cutting pandemic benefits won't change that.
> 
> Meanwhile, large national construction firms are doing ok since most of them have existing long term take-or-pay contracts for lumber, but with the price of lumber up 5-fold since last April, smaller construction firms are seeing a substantial drop in demand simply because their input costs, which are generally passed through in quotes, are so much higher. That won't change until lumber prices fall, which probably won't be before the summer (perhaps earlier if the Biden administration reverses Trump's Canadian lumber tariffs, but there's been no talk of that yet). That translates into either layoffs, or a lack of hiring new jobs, in the construction sector.
> 
> And, one thing I always check with each weekly unemployment claims report, is the _reasons_ states note in the optional comments section, noting where job losses have been - the last few have noted an increasing number of job losses in transportation and warehousing, which makes a lot of sense considering the huge drop in inventories we've seen in the Q1 GDP report, as the US has generally reopened, while most of the rest of the world, where a lot of the inputs we need for goods made here come from and where a lot of the goods we buy are made anyway, has not. Chip supply is another similar limiting factor - we import finished chips or components, and often from countries that are still being ravaged by Covid, and are struggling to get enough chips to meed industrial demand. The auto industry is running at 70% or so capacity right now, well below cyclical norms, not because there aren't enough people who want to buy cars, but because manufacturers can't get their hands on enough parts to meed demand. Running well below capacity means layoffs and cut hours in the auto industry - worth noting here is leisure and hospitality as a sector actually had a pretty good quarter, with maybe 360,000 new jobs added, meaning roughly 100,000 job _losses_ occurred, on net, in other sectors.
> 
> One final thing I'd note, is that the BLS labor noted as part of the survey results that 9.4 million Americans had reported working fewer/no hours in the survey period due to the pandemic causing employers to either go out of business or cut hours, which is a LOT of people... but that was also down 2mm from the prior period's 11.4mm. That points to two possible explanations, to me - one, that we're seeing an economy with a TON of labor churn, with people moving from pandemic impacted jobs to ones that have not been impacted, and that while there weren't a lot of net new jobs created, there was a ton of hiring of people who had been previously employed... or two, to perhaps a greater extend than we realized at the time, employers responded to the pandemic by cutting hours rather than positions, hoping to keep people on payroll (in part possibly due to programs like PPP, and possibly due to optimism that they could just ride this out), but reduce hours to spread the impact over a larger number of people, than making a couple layoffs and keeping everyone else at full time. If so, then the headline employment numbers probably _understated_ the severity of the recession, but in turn are understating the rate of recovery now. My bet is it's probably a mix of both of these.
> 
> In either event, I don't buy the "benefits are keeping people from applying to jobs" argument for the simple fact that the labor force (defined as people currently employed or actively seeking work) as a percent of the total population ticked up from 61.5 to 61.7%, growth of about 450,000 workers, during a period where employment only grew by 266,000 people. More people _started _looking for work than were hired, so it doesn't seem like, broadly speaking, the total number of people looking for work is the limiting factor in growth right now. It's a product of demand for labor being geographically out of alignment with supply of labor, of input shortages leading to job losses, and - I suspect - unusually high labor churn.



I enjoy when you post man, because you love all the boring uninteresting numbers as much as I do.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> I enjoy when you post man, because you love all the boring uninteresting numbers as much as I do.


 Sadly, I take that as a compliment, and feelings mutual. 

Idunno, though... Being briefly - only briefly - serious, the economy is an EXTREMELY complicated thing, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just showing their lack of understanding. Is it probable that some people are choosing to stay home because of PUA benefits? Yeah, I'm sure, and early on, that was the _point _of PUA, when the economy was basically powered off this time last year. Today, though... while I'm sure some people are deciding it makes more sense to stay home and collect expanded unemployment, I think that number is a very small percent of the 8.5 million lost jobs that haven't come back yet, and most of the people who are out of work and collecting unemployment are facing a demand mismatch, where they're either in the wrong georgaphical area, or have the wrong skillset, for the work that's wanted... and even then, with the amount of fixed business investment that's occured in the last 12 months, some of them are likely not _needed_ these days.

I wouldn't be shocked if UBI becomes something more seriously talked about in the next couple years, if coming into 2024 there's evidence that the economy seems to be close to full employment, but several million fewer Americans are employed. Though, who knows. American ingenuity is something I'll never bet against.

EDIT - I'll be curious to see how programs in a few states that provide a bonus after four weeks of starting a new job go - even in equiliberum they should lead to *some* gains, but if in practice these gains prove modest, well... there probably isn't a labor willingness issue, you know?


----------



## Mathemagician

There is a reason Yang was 1-note about UBI. It will be required in a world where businesses are no longer regulated well.

Historically Anti-trust laws exist to prevent “too big to fail” and anti competitive corporate behavior.

Over the last 50 or so years now the US had absconded that responsibility owed to its citizens and consumers. So in general companies will just get bigger while also needing fewer people due to automation. At a certain point you’re going to have to increase benefits to your aging populations and it has to come from somewhere : Taxes.

But much like “Medicare for all” is just taking our existing system and making it easier and cheaper for all citizens, a UBI is inherently not political. Everyone gets it. If you need it spend it, if you don’t you invest it or what have you.

For example: Lab grown meat reduces needs for farmers and their farmhands. (Lowest wages) Automation reduces needs for warehouse workers (slightly less terrible wages), and self driving autos reduces needs for drivers across multiple industries (working class wages).

All of those are blue-collar jobs. Some pay poorly others pay middle-class wages.

Meanwhile after 2008 when the big banks all merged one bank had almost 300k employees. Due to using attrition as a release valve they are down to about 210k jobs now. And decreasing. That is a goal. Tons of “good office jobs” are simply not being replaced. (Working class to middle class wages).

There is a very real discussion that has to start happening this decade because this affects people regardless of which “team” they think they vote for.

Like you said, it’s not easy-peazy because if all the relevant economic levers:
- Globalization opening borders to bring in younger demographics who ramp up demand and create economic growth
- The ongoing domestic restructuring to a service based economy in the west versus manufacturing oriented emerging economies and relevant trade negotiations
- Strength of emerging countries legal systems to promote international investment vs. political/legal risk
- Relevant domestic infrastructure development to increase access to opportunities, accepting that things like internet access or high speed transit between major hubs creates opportunities and is a worthwhile investment in a countries future

Anyone saying that everything is “easy” is trying to sell you something. But anyone saying “we can’t/shouldn’t do anything and things should stay the way they are” is either dumb/blind or both.

Anything worth working on takes effort.


----------



## Mathemagician

Aaaaaaand chipotle just announced they’re rising to an average of $15/hr by June. 

God I love competition. 

I’m a big fan of the free market, for people. If a “business” cannot survive without paying people enough to live and not be mocked, then the “business” is not viable and should fail. 

A business idea is not entitled to succeed. It has to succeed in the marketplace. 

They also offer a partial tuition reimbursement program. Another great perk others will have to compete with. 

The more “stuff” people get, the better everyone’s life gets. Rising tide lifts all ships and all that jazz. 

*chefs kiss*


----------



## Wuuthrad

Mathemagician said:


> Aaaaaaand chipotle just announced they’re rising to an average of $15/hr by June.
> 
> God I love competition.
> 
> I’m a big fan of the free market, for people. If a “business” cannot survive without paying people enough to live and not be mocked, then the “business” is not viable and should fail.
> 
> A business idea is not entitled to succeed. It has to succeed in the marketplace.
> 
> They also offer a partial tuition reimbursement program. Another great perk others will have to compete with.
> 
> The more “stuff” people get, the better everyone’s life gets. Rising tide lifts all ships and all that jazz.
> 
> *chefs kiss*



Clearly, fast food chains are the answer!


----------



## spudmunkey

Wuuthrad said:


> Clearly, fast food chains are the answer!


That is, until the Restaurant Wars...


----------



## sleewell

lol a "free market" being propped up by an almost endless supply of printed money from uncle sam. That's hilarious and totally sustainable.


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> lol a "free market" being propped up by an almost endless supply of printed money from uncle sam. That's hilarious and totally sustainable.



without that there would be no industry in michigan anymore. 
printing money only bad when it goes to poors imarite


----------



## sleewell

diagrammatiks said:


> without that there would be no industry in michigan anymore.
> printing money only bad when it goes to poors imarite




well since being wrong isn't really a concern for you maybe go back 30-40 pages were multiple times i condemned the trump tax cuts as a huge giveaway for the ultra wealthy funded entirely by printing money. it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess. if you guys really think the federal govt giving every person who is unemployed an extra $600 a week on top of what the state provides is sustainable and makes good for good policy i would respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on but please just don't call it a free market. 



the echo chamber is always right. we will always be better off within the protection and safety of the echo chamber. even when we are wrong the other members of the echo chamber will still support us and will help run off any dissenting opinions with childish insults and false accusations.


----------



## Mathemagician

sleewell said:


> lol a "free market" being propped up by an almost endless supply of printed money from uncle sam. That's hilarious and totally sustainable.



This has gone on since 2009 at least. And had Quantitative Easing not occurred in 2009 the fallout from the failure of the largest banks in the country and the lack of cash flowing through the economy would have lead to a years-long depression, not just the recession that occurred.

The prior 30 years of deregulation meant firms were “too big to fail” so the policy game had to change.

Printing money was also what the prior administration ran on. And even tried to bully the Fed on when they attempted to hike rates by reducing purchasing.

Following in our footsteps and implementing their own Quantitative Easing was what helped pushed the UK and EU out of their respective recessions. The Bank of Japan followed a much more conservative “not quite QE” series of policy measures and had a slower recovery out of the bottom.



sleewell said:


> well since being wrong isn't really a concern for you maybe go back 30-40 pages were multiple times i condemned the trump tax cuts as a huge giveaway for the ultra wealthy funded entirely by printing money. it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess. if you guys really think the federal govt giving every person who is unemployed an extra $600 a week on top of what the state provides is sustainable and makes good for good policy i would respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on but please just don't call it a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> the echo chamber is always right. we will always be better off within the protection and safety of the echo chamber. even when we are wrong the other members of the echo chamber will still support us and will help run off any dissenting opinions with childish insults and false accusations.



I personally have ZERO interest in anyone’s “opinion”. Economics is not about opinions. It’s math and statistics.

One cannot say “just get rid of unemployment insurance then people will be forced to take starvation level jobs!” and be taken seriously.

In a discussion I do not and will never care what catchy sound byte makes someone “feel good”. In this case it is incorrect and does not capture the nuance of shifting demographics of a labor market that is demanding more than a 10 year old wage + no benefits.

One can’t make bad-faith statements then claim it’s “other people” in an echo chamber, it’s disingenuous and clearly shows an inability to defend an unsound “belief”.

Math doesn’t care about feelings.

Henry Ford literally “overpaid” his factory employees and gave them weekends off so they would have “free time” and buy the product he was selling. This both boosted demand for cars and got him the best employees. And the employees enjoyed a boost in quality of life relative to other factory jobs.


----------



## diagrammatiks

sleewell said:


> well since being wrong isn't really a concern for you maybe go back 30-40 pages were multiple times i condemned the trump tax cuts as a huge giveaway for the ultra wealthy funded entirely by printing money. it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess. if you guys really think the federal govt giving every person who is unemployed an extra $600 a week on top of what the state provides is sustainable and makes good for good policy i would respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on but please just don't call it a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> the echo chamber is always right. we will always be better off within the protection and safety of the echo chamber. even when we are wrong the other members of the echo chamber will still support us and will help run off any dissenting opinions with childish insults and false accusations.



where do you think that money goes. do you think the people eat directly?


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> You've GOTTA shut off the conservative media, man. It's doing things to you.
> 
> I was on a conference call with a well-respected economist today who raised a good point - a lot of the job openings that are going unfilled here, are already at wages that should render federal unemployment pandemic benefits irrelevant. He thinks the bigger issue has probably been relocation - pointing to an easy example in New York, high end restaurants in the state are struggling to hire wait staff, even at what are levels essentially not available anywhere else in the country. And, in conversations with a lot of restauranteurs in the city, one of the issues theu're dealing with is Broadway is still shut down, so many of the actors and actresses (and stage crews and photographers and musicians and sound techs etc etc etc) who would normally be in New York City for the theaters and working in bars and restaurants either between gigs or to pick up extra money, are just gone, because they have no reason to BE in New York. Cutting pandemic benefits won't change that.
> 
> Meanwhile, large national construction firms are doing ok since most of them have existing long term take-or-pay contracts for lumber, but with the price of lumber up 5-fold since last April, smaller construction firms are seeing a substantial drop in demand simply because their input costs, which are generally passed through in quotes, are so much higher. That won't change until lumber prices fall, which probably won't be before the summer (perhaps earlier if the Biden administration reverses Trump's Canadian lumber tariffs, but there's been no talk of that yet). That translates into either layoffs, or a lack of hiring new jobs, in the construction sector.
> 
> And, one thing I always check with each weekly unemployment claims report, is the _reasons_ states note in the optional comments section, noting where job losses have been - the last few have noted an increasing number of job losses in transportation and warehousing, which makes a lot of sense considering the huge drop in inventories we've seen in the Q1 GDP report, as the US has generally reopened, while most of the rest of the world, where a lot of the inputs we need for goods made here come from and where a lot of the goods we buy are made anyway, has not. Chip supply is another similar limiting factor - we import finished chips or components, and often from countries that are still being ravaged by Covid, and are struggling to get enough chips to meed industrial demand. The auto industry is running at 70% or so capacity right now, well below cyclical norms, not because there aren't enough people who want to buy cars, but because manufacturers can't get their hands on enough parts to meed demand. Running well below capacity means layoffs and cut hours in the auto industry - worth noting here is leisure and hospitality as a sector actually had a pretty good quarter, with maybe 360,000 new jobs added, meaning roughly 100,000 job _losses_ occurred, on net, in other sectors.
> 
> One final thing I'd note, is that the BLS labor noted as part of the survey results that 9.4 million Americans had reported working fewer/no hours in the survey period due to the pandemic causing employers to either go out of business or cut hours, which is a LOT of people... but that was also down 2mm from the prior period's 11.4mm. That points to two possible explanations, to me - one, that we're seeing an economy with a TON of labor churn, with people moving from pandemic impacted jobs to ones that have not been impacted, and that while there weren't a lot of net new jobs created, there was a ton of hiring of people who had been previously employed... or two, to perhaps a greater extend than we realized at the time, employers responded to the pandemic by cutting hours rather than positions, hoping to keep people on payroll (in part possibly due to programs like PPP, and possibly due to optimism that they could just ride this out), but reduce hours to spread the impact over a larger number of people, than making a couple layoffs and keeping everyone else at full time. If so, then the headline employment numbers probably _understated_ the severity of the recession, but in turn are understating the rate of recovery now. My bet is it's probably a mix of both of these.
> 
> In either event, I don't buy the "benefits are keeping people from applying to jobs" argument for the simple fact that the labor force (defined as people currently employed or actively seeking work) as a percent of the total population ticked up from 61.5 to 61.7%, growth of about 450,000 workers, during a period where employment only grew by 266,000 people. More people _started _looking for work than were hired, so it doesn't seem like, broadly speaking, the total number of people looking for work is the limiting factor in growth right now. It's a product of demand for labor being geographically out of alignment with supply of labor, of input shortages leading to job losses, and - I suspect - unusually high labor churn.



Pop quiz, hotshot. 

I put a downpayment on a house to be built last weekend. Estimated build time is 12 months (~May 2022). We can only lock the rate 210 days out from closing and it will cost us a $12-13k fee. 30 year rate is sub 3% right now. We'd be protected if the rate goes up or if they are lower at time of closing. I've read many predictions that rates could hover around 3-3.5% for the next 12 months. Notably, if the Fed increases purchases of long-term bonds that will have a downward influence on rates, which could either keep rates from rising or push them lower. But if the economy makes a strong recovery, rates could increase.

What do you do? Pay the fee for peace of mind in case the supposedly non-housing-bubble bursts and rates hit 6% like they did in 2009? (It's only $12k and if we pull that out of our deposit it won't make a difference when amortized over 30 years anyways.)

(Sorry to hijack @Wuuthrad 's meme thread )


----------



## USMarine75

sleewell said:


> well since being wrong isn't really a concern for you maybe go back 30-40 pages were multiple times i condemned the trump tax cuts as a huge giveaway for the ultra wealthy funded entirely by printing money. it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess. if you guys really think the federal govt giving every person who is unemployed an extra $600 a week on top of what the state provides is sustainable and makes good for good policy i would respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on but please just don't call it a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> even when we are wrong the other members of the echo chamber will still support us and will help run off any dissenting opinions with childish insults and false accusations.



Hey. Don't insult us like that.


We prefer Hall Reverb to Echo, thank you very much.




Mathemagician said:


> Henry Ford literally “overpaid” his factory employees and gave them weekends off so they would have “free time” and buy the product he was selling. This both boosted demand for cars and got him the best employees. And the employees enjoyed a boost in quality of life relative to other factory jobs.



He also printed free books for them too. Helluva guy.


----------



## Mathemagician

USMarine75 said:


> Hey. Don't insult us like that.
> 
> 
> We prefer Hall Reverb to Echo, thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also printed free books for them too. Helluva guy.



I am 100% aware Ford was an anti-Semite, and it makes him a garbage person. Everyone makes sure to drive that fact home because it’s awful and proves “business leaders” aren’t infallible heroes. 

Also paying people more did help create the middle class. Not going to lie about this either.


----------



## USMarine75

Mathemagician said:


> I am 100% aware Ford was an anti-Semite, and it makes him a garbage person. Everyone makes sure to drive that fact home because it’s awful and proves “business leaders” aren’t infallible heroes.
> 
> Also paying people more did help create the middle class. Not going to lie about this either.



Not just _an _anti-semite. He was _the _anti-semite. 

Hitler had a picture of him on his wall.

(and totally agree)


----------



## diagrammatiks

Mathemagician said:


> I am 100% aware Ford was an anti-Semite, and it makes him a garbage person. Everyone makes sure to drive that fact home because it’s awful and proves “business leaders” aren’t infallible heroes.
> 
> Also paying people more did help create the middle class. Not going to lie about this either.



so do we think bill gates got divorced because melinda opposed his microchipping plan or because he wanted more nookie


----------



## USMarine75

diagrammatiks said:


> so do we think bill gates got divorced because melinda opposed his microchipping plan or because he wanted more nookie






You already know what I think.


----------



## TedEH

You mean to say Bill already knows what you think.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Pop quiz, hotshot.
> 
> I put a downpayment on a house to be built last weekend. Estimated build time is 12 months (~May 2022). We can only lock the rate 210 days out from closing and it will cost us a $12-13k fee. 30 year rate is sub 3% right now. We'd be protected if the rate goes up or if they are lower at time of closing. I've read many predictions that rates could hover around 3-3.5% for the next 12 months. Notably, if the Fed increases purchases of long-term bonds that will have a downward influence on rates, which could either keep rates from rising or push them lower. But if the economy makes a strong recovery, rates could increase.
> 
> What do you do? Pay the fee for peace of mind in case the supposedly non-housing-bubble bursts and rates hit 6% like they did in 2009? (It's only $12k and if we pull that out of our deposit it won't make a difference when amortized over 30 years anyways.)
> 
> (Sorry to hijack @Wuuthrad 's meme thread )


Love the opening.  

I mean, this is a risk/return problem, at the end of the day, right? Do you pay the rate lock fee out of pocket, or can it be rolled into the loan balance? And is that rate lock fee inclusive of all _other_ closing costs, or are there others involved? My suspicion is you can roll it into the loan and amortize it over the life of the mortgage, and if so, your lender can probably give you two quotes - one at today's rates if you were to take the loan out now, and one at today's rates if you were to lock them and roll that into the loan, either as a rate with that fee treated as additional interest, or as a monthly payment. You could probably work this out in excel, but it would also involve things like the loan balance, etc, which I'm not going to ask, given the fact we're two near-strangers talking over the internet. 

Long story short - if you can get an "equivalent" rate which incorporates the added fee as part of the rate, then it becomes a little easier to make some decisions here. If your expectation is in 12 months mortage rates will be in the 3-3.5% range and your equivalent rate is something like 3.25%, that's basically taking an agnostic view on where rates fall within that range, is consistent with that outcome, and takes the risk of an unexpected spike in rates off the table. If it's more like 4.5%, then, well, you're running some risk, but you'd come out ahead of the consensus forecast. That's one way to look at it. 

The other is, you're about to borrow for 30 years, and for much of the last 30, rates have been well _above_ 3.5%. In 10 years time, if you lock this rate in and rates actually are lower when you close, meaning you're paying higher interest than you might otherwise have... are you really going to feel too badly about having a, say, effective 3.25% rate on your mortgage, when you _could _have had a 2.95%? We're in a period of abnormally low rates, and my brother is currently in the middle of a refinance/home equity withdrawal for some renovations and going through some of the same questions albiet with much less lag here, and my advice to him was I wouldn't feel badly about taking money out to redo his kitchen, given, well, partly that the liability he's taking out will match nicely with the asset he's creating with it in terms of lifespan, but mostly because it's doubtful over the next twenty years he'll have too many more opportunities to borrow at these levels. 

But, short version, treat this as a NPV/discount rate thing, if you can roll it into the loan payment then calculate an effective rate that would equate that as additional interest on the loan (like, figure out what your payment would be with that extra money rolled into the loan amount, then back into a rate that would get you to that payment given the principal value of the loan _without_ that extra fee, and that higher rate is your equivalent rate) and see how that compares to your rate expectations. If you have to pay out of pocket up front, it becomes a slightly more complex NPV calculation but I guess you could figure out what your payment would be without the rate lock, today, would be, then net the fee against the proceeds of the loan and calclate your rate as the rate necessary to set this lower netted-down influx of cash equal to the ongoing monthly payments of the loan _without_ the fee, at today's yields, and you can at least get a look at the "cost" of the rate lock over time that way. 

All that said - without knowing the loan balance, that seems a little high, though of course you're looking at locking for a MUCH longer period of time than the, like 30-90 days I did when I was closing. Might not hurt to shop around a little just in case though. 

But, tl;dr version - best way to get a sense of this is to figure out the best way to adjust your mortgage rate to incorporate these added costs as interests, and then evaluate that "adjusted" rate both in absolute terms ("Am I comfortable paying this rate?") and in relative terms ("is the premium I'm paying over today's market rates reasonable, and is the adjusted rate lower than where I expect rates to be in one year's time?")

FWIW, I DO think inflation fears are overblown, and that rates aren't likely to go shooting up substantially... but that's not the same as saying it's impossible. My own personal risk tolerance, with these sorts of sums of money, is fairly conservative, and from a purely tactical standpoint, while it's bounced back a bit after the last jobs report miss, it's lower than it was two months ago.


----------



## Drew

sleewell said:


> lol a "free market" being propped up by an almost endless supply of printed money from uncle sam. That's hilarious and totally sustainable.


Idunno, the private sector definitely needed some government support coming into the pandemic, but it looks like that export was pretty effective and we're coming out the other side now, with private companies doing rather well. And, if we can borrow for 10yrs at, at present, 1.6% in nominal terms, and both inflation expectations and real GDP growth expectations are greater than 1.6%, then it's kind of a no brainer to be borrowing right now.



sleewell said:


> it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess.


Would LOVE to know what I made up about you.


----------



## Jonathan20022

sleewell said:


> well since being wrong isn't really a concern for you maybe go back 30-40 pages were multiple times i condemned the trump tax cuts as a huge giveaway for the ultra wealthy funded entirely by printing money. it also doesn't seem to be a concern for Drew who just makes up stuff about me in the covid thread, but that goes with the territory i guess. if you guys really think the federal govt giving every person who is unemployed an extra $600 a week on top of what the state provides is sustainable and makes good for good policy i would respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on but please just don't call it a free market.
> 
> 
> 
> the echo chamber is always right. we will always be better off within the protection and safety of the echo chamber. even when we are wrong the other members of the echo chamber will still support us and will help run off any dissenting opinions with childish insults and false accusations.



He just invalidated your perspective of "the lazy poors better get back to their regular jobs and stop causing our industries to fail". And your only retort is about some back and forth that you *clearly *didn't read a lick of, or *completely *misinterpreted in a different thread entirely.

A lot of people lost their jobs at the start of this, I was out of work for 3 weeks and luckily I was able to find work extremely quick afterwards. Unlike you, the unlucky (but lucky enough to be sensible) don't feel safe returning to easily volatile jobs that put them at risk, and they shouldn't feel forced to do so if they are being compensated to survive.

Lay off the social media and whatever you're observing brother, you need a hardline reality check and need to realize that whatever demographic you're being exposed to online "living it up" on unemployment is a very specific set of voices from a small microcosm.

If you want to actually discuss anything instead of parrot echo chamber and that you're being targeted everyone will be here for ya


----------



## Drew

Also, another thought to toss out to the group. 

I was on a call with a different economist this morning, whose take I don't find as persuasive, but while he acknowledges this is a spectrum more than an either/or, he does think higher PUA benefits are discouraging labor from returning to the workforce. Again, I don't know if I agree, entirely. But, he thinks one of the things this is doing, is pushing up the _market_ cost of labor, pointing to Chipotle as an example, and IMO that's clearly happening, just maybe not because people are choosing to stay home and collect unemployment so much as geographical/skill mismatches, and hiring being depressed in some sectors for reasons unrelated to the supply of labor. But, going with it, he worries that if wages do start to broadly increase, and increases in wages tend to be pretty sticky, then even when PUA eventually expires, the cost of labor may remain elevated relative to pre-pandemic costs, and this could challenge the Fed's belief that inflation is transitory. 

There's a few things I disagree with in this read, and this guy himself notes that its likely millions of the 8.5 million jobs we're still below pre-pandemic peaks will _never_ come back, thanks to heavy investments in automation and structural changes in the economy, which is another reason to question this a little. But, let's go with it, for a moment, and take it at 100% face value. 

Ok? Now, let's take it backwards. Median middle class income in this country has been stagnent for decades. The minimum wage has been flat nationally since, what, the 90s? And, wait for it.... this has been a period of persistent abnormally low inflation, well below long term averages, and the Fed has struggled to keep inflation at its now-official 2% target that they've unofficially been targeting forever. During this period, income inequality has grown signiicantly in the states as wages and other income to the wealthiest Americans has continued to grow rapidly. Economists are a little at a loss about why inflation has been as low as it is, but generally site "productivity gains." 

I'm just saying... even if PUA _could_ become inflationary by raising the marginal cost of labor, maybe that isn't the worst thing. If nothing else, if "productivity gains" have kept inflation low, well, middle class earnings haven't kept pace with productivity, either, and maybe a little bit more inflation (like, 3%, fading to 2%, is a "inflationary" outcome, which is pretty much what the Fed says they want to do anyway) wouldn't be the worst thing, if it helped increase the _real_ earnings of middle class Americans after a lengthy period of stagnation.


----------



## wankerness

diagrammatiks said:


> so do we think bill gates got divorced because melinda opposed his microchipping plan or because he wanted more nookie



Considering she's done multiple interviews where she talks about Bill's connection to Epstein, sounds like more the latter.  Oh well. Bill's still a net force for good thanks ot all the billions he's spent on medicine.

This discussion with people freaking out about how restaurants and other shit garbage jobs that pay minimum wage are getting screwed by unemployment actually resulting in a livable wage temporarily is pathetic. It almost always features many shifting the focus to "oh those poor people at the head of the company that are already making 500x more than any of their employees who work much harder than them are, they might only make 250x more than them if they actually raised their wages to the point where someone could actually afford frickin health insurance in this country." 

My problem with the raising of wages to counteract is unfortunately that it privileges the Applebees and such of the country, and would drive the local restaurants straight out of business. Since those huge soulless corporations can actually afford to take money away from their bureaucrats and shift it towards the employees, AS THEY SHOULD, but mom and pop places tend to be running on the thinnest of margins to be able to compete price-wise against the big chains and absolutely do not have the spare funds to raise wages to compete against the likes of Chipotle unless they're a very specialized place in a very rich area.

So, basically, everything sucks. Either everything has to continue to horribly exploit and underpay workers and keep them wallowing in poverty and unable to afford health insurance or childcare, or we have to make corporations pay reasonable wages to their employees and do even more work putting local businesses out of business. 

(Or we could get universal healthcare and government-sponsored childcare like most of the left wants so people could actually live off lower wages, but we know that will never happen since the country is run by corporate democrats and even-worse republicans)


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> So, basically, everything sucks. Either everything has to continue to horribly exploit and underpay workers and keep them wallowing in poverty and unable to afford health insurance or childcare, or we have to make corporations pay reasonable wages to their employees and do even more work putting local businesses out of business.


If it makes you feel any better, employment growth in leisure and hospitality was actually pretty GOOD in April, with nearly 360,000 or so new jobs created, and of that more than half, 187,000, were in food and drink establishments. The employment picture is _super_ complex right now, but one thing it seems pretty safe to say is restaurants and bars are hiring more than, well, definitionally considering hiring here was larger than the total new jobs number, the rest of the economy put together.


----------



## Wuuthrad

USMarine75 said:


> (Sorry to hijack @Wuuthrad 's meme thread )



Dont be wack jack memelord is back!

Never fear for Wuuthrad is here!


----------



## Wuuthrad

How are restaurants going to help- they part of the problem! 

We waste like almost half the food produced in this country! 

Service schmervice!


----------



## diagrammatiks

Wuuthrad said:


> How are restaurants going to help- they part of the problem!
> 
> We waste like almost half the food produced in this country!
> 
> Service schmervice!
> 
> View attachment 93301



because us farms are the biggest socialized government subsidy welfare program almost in the entire world. but we'll never hear sleepwell or the conservatives complaining about that.


----------



## possumkiller

I seriously don't see how there could possibly be a shortage of workers. Where are all the robots and automation? Where the fuck are all the illegal Mexicans to take these jobs???


----------



## diagrammatiks

possumkiller said:


> I seriously don't see how there could possibly be a shortage of workers. Where are all the robots and automation? Where the fuck are all the illegal Mexicans to take these jobs???



1.25 and tips. not even a robot wants that job.


----------



## possumkiller

diagrammatiks said:


> 1.25 and tips. not even a robot wants that job.


But what about the Mexicans?? They will work for anything as long as they get to take American jobs!


----------



## USMarine75

Rep Cheney officially ousted. 

I wish Biden would give her a cabinet position just to say F you to the GOP. I think there's still a few unfilled Deputy positions.



possumkiller said:


> But what about the Mexicans?? They will work for anything as long as they get to take American jobs!



I lived on/near the US/Mexico border for 5 years (thanks Marine Corps!). No American wants the jobs that migrant workers are willing to do. Low pay, unpaid overtime, no benefits, harsh environment, etc. As an example, Yuma AZ produces 70% of America's lettuce (at least it did in early 2000s). Without migrant workers you'd pay $10/head of lettuce. Bottom line, most countries have a lower caste / indentured workers / modern day slaves. We're no different. Just ask Trump who rails against "those people", yet employs them illegally at Marilago.

tl;dr they took our jerbs


----------



## Randy

Wuuthrad said:


> How are restaurants going to help- they part of the problem!



Restaurants are part of the problem. They were breeding ground for the virus from the beginning and they were #1 worst offender when it came to lack of compliance and rushing for relaxing safety protocols because they were clamoring for the most business they could pack in.


----------



## diagrammatiks

diagrammatiks said:


> because us farms are the biggest socialized government subsidy welfare program almost in the entire world. but we'll never hear sleepwell or the conservatives complaining about that.



I feel like this requires some explanation for those that don't know

"The USDA estimates *farmers* will receive $24.3 billion in coronavirus payments this year, along with $5.9 billion in Payroll Protection Program loans, which will be forgiven in most cases; $3.7 billion in trade war payments; and $10 billion or so in traditional *farm subsidies *and land stewardship payments."

BEZOS? lend a hand?


----------



## possumkiller

USMarine75 said:


> I lived on/near the US/Mexico border for 5 years (thanks Marine Corps!). No American wants the jobs that migrant workers are willing to do. Low pay, unpaid overtime, no benefits, harsh environment, etc. As an example, Yuma AZ produces 70% of America's lettuce (at least it did in early 2000s). Without migrant workers you'd pay $10/head of lettuce. Bottom line, most countries have a lower caste / indentured workers / modern day slaves. We're no different. Just ask Trump who rails against "those people", yet employs them illegally at Marilago.
> 
> tl;dr they took our jerbs


Trust me I know. I spent a summer picking cherry tomatoes in Alabama with Mexicans working for a farmer friend of my stepdad. I almost died. They don't take breaks. They work from sun up to sun down.


----------



## USMarine75

possumkiller said:


> Trust me I know. I spent a summer picking cherry tomatoes in Alabama with Mexicans working for a farmer friend of my stepdad. I almost died. They don't take breaks. They work from sun up to sun down.



Yup. 

People hate on "illegals" when, if you have literally any issues, you should be blaming the employers (which never seem to catch any hate).

Bottom line there is NO illegal immigration crisis in the US. If you believe that you live in a FOX/Newsmax bubble.


----------



## thebeesknees22

USMarine75 said:


> Rep Cheney officially ousted.
> 
> I wish Biden would give her a cabinet position just to say F you to the GOP. I think there's still a few unfilled Deputy positions.




That would be a bit dangerous since she's still a hardlined Republican. The only thing she didn't do that's core Republican right now is support Trump. Giving her a cabinet position would be a bit like putting a poisonous snake in the garden. lol 

In other words she might get rid of some vermin, but there's a good chance she'll bite biden too.


----------



## USMarine75

thebeesknees22 said:


> That would be a bit dangerous since she's still a hardlined Republican. The only thing she didn't do that's core Republican right now is support Trump. Giving her a cabinet position would be a bit like putting a poisonous snake in the garden. lol
> 
> In other words she might get rid of some vermin, but there's a good chance she'll bite biden too.



There's plenty of positions, especially as a Deputy, U/S, or A/S where she doesnt have much independent power. (gotta love bureaucracy )

Especially where she might realize she will be primaried and will eventually lose her seat anyways, so she might as well start looking for her next job lol.

And then Biden can say hey I'm reaching across the aisle look I have Republicans like her in my administration. Hell, I'd love to see her, Kitzinger, and Kasich all in the administration.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> There's plenty of positions, especially as a Deputy, U/S, or A/S where she doesnt have much independent power. (gotta love bureaucracy )
> 
> Especially where she might realize she will be primaried and will eventually lose her seat anyways, so she might as well start looking for her next job lol.
> 
> And then Biden can say hey I'm reaching across the aisle look I have Republicans like her in my administration. Hell, I'd love to see her, Kitzinger, and Kasich all in the administration.


The problem with that list bit there is that the Republican core will see it as a further betrayal of their "ideals" hiring on Republicans that don't toe the line on Trump.

I'm really, REALLY looking forward to seeing what happens when the Republican party finally fractures. The Trump worship is so fully ingrained in enough of them that I don't think the reasonable ones that are left will be able to tolerate being in league with them. We don't hear much from the reasonable ones at this point as they tend to get drowned out in the sea of whining idiots, but they do still exist. I just saw something on one of the talking head shows about a coalition of one hundred Republican office holders across the states are beginning talks on how to start their own separate political party. As close as the voting lines are most of the time, it's not gonna take too large of a minority peeling away from the Republican core to effectively kill their agenda for years to come.

And I will be tee-heeing as I watch it happen.


----------



## Rosal76

Randy said:


> Restaurants are part of the problem. They were breeding ground for the virus from the beginning and they were #1 worst offender when it came to lack of compliance and rushing for relaxing safety protocols because they were clamoring for the most business they could pack in.



+1.

There's a pool hall here that I have been going to since the early 1990's. It's a main hangout spot for me and my friends. I have not been up there since February of 2020 and I still haven't been up there because I believe the Covid19 is real. I asked a friend (through gmail) who also goes up there if the the pool hall was still in business because I know a lot of business' were getting hurt/going out of business from the shutdowns and whatnot. Turns out, the owner of the pool hall, who is hardcore Republican did not believe the Covid19 and kept the pool hall open.

He, his girlfriend (who is also a employee) another employee and I think my friend said 17 people caught the Covid19 while being up there. Though it is possible they could have gotten the virus somewhere else other than the pool hall, but who knows.







Don't get me wrong, though. The owners have always been very cool to me and I'm glad they've recovered. It's not enough for me to point at them and say, "told ya so" but is enough for me to look at them and smirk like Dr. Fauci.


----------



## nightflameauto

Rosal76 said:


> +1.
> 
> There's a pool hall here that I have been going to since the early 1990's. It's a main hangout spot for me and my friends. I have not been up there since February of 2020 and I still haven't been up there because I believe the Covid19 is real. I asked a friend (through gmail) who also goes up there if the the pool hall was still in business because I know a lot of business' were getting hurt/going out of business from the shutdowns and whatnot. Turns out, the owner of the pool hall, who is hardcore Republican did not believe the Covid19 and kept the pool hall open.
> 
> He, his girlfriend (who is also a employee) another employee and I think my friend said 17 people caught the Covid19 while being up there. Though it is possible they could have gotten the virus somewhere else other than the pool hall, but who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, though. The owners have always been very cool to me and I'm glad they've recovered. It's not enough for me to point at them and say, "told ya so" but is enough for me to look at them and smirk like Dr. Fauci.


The number of times a day I go between the Fauci smirk and the Fauci facepalm over people's behavior when it comes to COVID should be enough to put me in a neck brace.


----------



## Randy

Rosal76 said:


> +1.
> 
> There's a pool hall here that I have been going to since the early 1990's. It's a main hangout spot for me and my friends. I have not been up there since February of 2020 and I still haven't been up there because I believe the Covid19 is real. I asked a friend (through gmail) who also goes up there if the the pool hall was still in business because I know a lot of business' were getting hurt/going out of business from the shutdowns and whatnot. Turns out, the owner of the pool hall, who is hardcore Republican did not believe the Covid19 and kept the pool hall open.
> 
> He, his girlfriend (who is also a employee) another employee and I think my friend said 17 people caught the Covid19 while being up there. Though it is possible they could have gotten the virus somewhere else other than the pool hall, but who knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, though. The owners have always been very cool to me and I'm glad they've recovered. It's not enough for me to point at them and say, "told ya so" but is enough for me to look at them and smirk like Dr. Fauci.



I live in the country, worked in the city M-F for 16 years here. So it was very common for me to go to restaurants or bars once or even twice a day every day over the period of time. I know every eatery within 10 miles of my office and you could predict from a mile away which places would be fine and which places were gonna be an issue.

It's like clockwork, the totally reasonable respectable type places stuck with strict compliance throughout, did take out only, then outdoor dining, then indoor with full protocols (no mask at seat only, small groups, reduced seating) and they all rebounded the fastest or never lost much business and retained pretty much all their wait staff.

On the opposite side you had the bars and nightclubs or generally shitty dive diners etc that were totally non compliant from the beginning or skirted the rules. Like when the governor passed rule you had to have food with drinks, they were the places selling $1 invisible sandwiches and bullshit to get around it. THOSE were the places where 1.) every week there was a PSA that people at that place may have come in contact with COVID poz case 2.) Place had to close for days/week because staff came down with virus 3.) Place was paused because of flagrant skipping of rules 4.) Waitstaff were quitting and chosing to take the unemployment rather than take the risk and also have hours cut or not come in to work for weeks because of shutdown for bad management 5.) Collected PPP money and used it to pay themselves instead of comp workers for missing hours or risky conditions 6.) Are now complaining they can't get enough people to staff the restaurant because of unemployment


----------



## Randy

Two pizza places in my town, I may have mentioned before, when the mask mandate went into effect none of the staff wore them and both places I went in with mask and they either shamed me or encouraged me to take it off. Haven't been back to either in a year.

Likewise, two places I didn't go to much before were very strict compliance with COVID protocols (mask requirement, distancing, sanitizing surfaces) I started going to regularly.

Fast forward to now, the two places that gave me issues are the ones closed two or three days a week, compliant places are open 7 days a week and always busy. Two places in particular closed the indoor entirely and you have to pickup your stuff from a window in the parking lot, and they still had lines 10 people long standing outside in 10 degree weather and snow to buy their food.

The employment shortage goes a LONG way away from unemployment and salaries.


----------



## Wuuthrad

possumkiller said:


> Trust me I know. I spent a summer picking cherry tomatoes in Alabama with Mexicans working for a farmer friend of my stepdad. I almost died. They don't take breaks. They work from sun up to sun down.



Also worked a summer job in the 90’s on a farm (in the Northeast.) Was decent money at the time, piecework, but after working a few summers, the owner had to replace the crew and hire Jamaican workers who worked for an hourly wage- 5$ an hour! His explanation was the price of the same goods in China was undercutting his profits and he could no longer afford to pay by piece, after doing so for more than 30 years...

Yay globablisation! ???


----------



## spudmunkey

7


Wuuthrad said:


> Also worked a summer job in the 90’s on a farm (in the Northeast.) Was decent money at the time, piecework, but after working a few summers, the owner had to replace the crew and hire Jamaican workers who worked for an hourly wage- 5$ an hour! His explanation was the price of the same goods in China was undercutting his profits and he could no longer afford to pay by piece, after doing so for more than 30 years...
> 
> Yay globablisation! ???



Fun fact: even going by the last month of the last year of the 90s for inflation calculation, that $5 is still higher than today's minimum wage by almost 10%.


----------



## Wuuthrad

spudmunkey said:


> 7
> 
> 
> Fun fact: even going by the last month of the last year of the 90s for inflation calculation, that $5 is still higher than today's minimum wage by almost 10%.




ffs! I was getting near 15-20$ an hour, depending on how much we had to smoke and drink the night before... ahh the “good old days!” Nah not really- backbreaking work!

anyway back on point! lol 

this guy was a notorious scumbag even back then:


----------



## nightflameauto

Oh good. Finally the GOP is doing something about those pesky 'fact checkers' that attempt to downplay disinformation. Thank goodness. We can't have facts getting in the way of. . . whatever the hell it is they're spouting at any given moment.


----------



## TedEH

That's officially the dumbest thing I've read today. And I read some dumb things.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Also worked a summer job in the 90’s on a farm (in the Northeast.) Was decent money at the time, piecework, but after working a few summers, the owner had to replace the crew and hire Jamaican workers who worked for an hourly wage- 5$ an hour! His explanation was the price of the same goods in China was undercutting his profits and he could no longer afford to pay by piece, after doing so for more than 30 years...
> 
> Yay globablisation! ???


To be fair, it's possible/fairly likely that the farm owner was either misinformed/didn't understand what had happened, or was just lying to you.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> Oh good. Finally the GOP is doing something about those pesky 'fact checkers' that attempt to downplay disinformation. Thank goodness. We can't have facts getting in the way of. . . whatever the hell it is they're spouting at any given moment.


I was going to say there must be something in the water in Michigan but then I remembered there is and got sad.


----------



## diagrammatiks

nightflameauto said:


> Oh good. Finally the GOP is doing something about those pesky 'fact checkers' that attempt to downplay disinformation. Thank goodness. We can't have facts getting in the way of. . . whatever the hell it is they're spouting at any given moment.



like you can be a mealy mouthed unreality spouting part time sex trafficking republican and say whatever you want. 
But if anyone wants to fact check you they have to be part of a long standing clandestine line of fact checkers trained from birth for the job. 

makes sense.


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> To be fair, it's possible/fairly likely that the farm owner was either misinformed/didn't understand what had happened, or was just lying to you.



Why are you suggestion this? His profits were going down because of imports, and he couldn't keep paying workers by piece, as he’d done for over 30 years. This was right around the beginning of Free Trade, albeit a few years after. 

We all sat by the fire one night and he explained everything and was rather sad about it! The guy and his wife were pretty straight shooters, always were. Your comment is weird dude!


----------



## Wuuthrad

“GRAND OLD PARTY!” Fo realz! 




https://www.thedailybeast.com/rep-m...megan-zalonka-escort-who-had-no-show-govt-job


----------



## Randy

Re: "Get a job lazy bums"

https://apnews.com/article/pandemic...lth-business-434fc29d69d9422b487a4f9c6eaa4249


----------



## wannabguitarist

Wuuthrad said:


> Why are you suggestion this? His profits were going down because of imports, and he couldn't keep paying workers by piece, as he’d done for over 30 years. This was right around the beginning of Free Trade, albeit a few years after.
> 
> We all sat by the fire one night and he explained everything and was rather sad about it! The guy and his wife were pretty straight shooters, always were. Your comment is weird dude!



I don't think it's that weird. Based on your anecdote he switched from paying by piece (dunno how that works out to hourly wages) to what looks like slightly the average wage of farm workers between 1989 and 1998: https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/word-etc/dec_2000_labor.htm

You said you were getting the equivalent of $15-20hr. Based on the information provided I'd be quicker to guess prices were cut to stay competitive with other local farms that were probably paying closer to that average wage of $5-$6 through that 10 year period. If you're paying your workers 300% more than your competitors you're gonna have a hard time maintaining profitability assuming all other costs are similar. Most of the adverse effects (on workers at least) of increased trade with China seemed to materialize after China's entry into the WTO 2001. Additionally, I believe up until recently US agriculture has generally run a _positive_ trade balance globally up until very recently.

Also I've worked with far too many small business owners that don't know why they're losing revenue and are quick to blame something outside of their own operational choices, but maybe that's just made me very jaded


----------



## Mathemagician

BofA announced a $25 minimum wage by 2025. Obviously that’s not just banking centers but back office/support jobs too. Nice to see baby steps going forward.


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/19...eing-investigated-in-a-criminal-capacity.html

Trump's NY investigation went from "civil" to "criminal"


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> Why are you suggestion this? His profits were going down because of imports, and he couldn't keep paying workers by piece, as he’d done for over 30 years. This was right around the beginning of Free Trade, albeit a few years after.
> 
> We all sat by the fire one night and he explained everything and was rather sad about it! The guy and his wife were pretty straight shooters, always were. Your comment is weird dude!


I mean, there isn't a ton of detail to go of in this story...

...but you were working for a farmer in the northeast, which presumably means you were doing agricultural work. Fruits and vegetables aren't especially high value goods on a weight/volume basis, and with or without tariffs transportation costs are going to be a significant part of selling price. There's also the fact that the Chinese environment isn't especially comparable to New England, and that China is a substantial net importer of agricultural goods thanks to its huge population. And, of course, the fact that 90s free trade means NAFTA, which was a North American trage group that China wasn't part of.

Again, maybe there's some details I'm missing, but there's a lot of things that don't add up. We generally export a lot more agricultural goods to china than we import, tariffs are relatively small compared to transportation costs for perishables, and we were lowering tariffs with Canada and Mexico, more so than China, at that time. There's a lot of reasons that make it hard to believe that it was competition from China that was causing a farm in New England to seek cheaper labor.

EDIT - I'm also not saying he was being *intentionally* dishonest - there were a lot of news stories talking about a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico, competition on cheap imports from a globalizing China was a concern in other sectors, and he may have simply conflated these - farmers don't generally need to have an in depth understanding of geopolitics and trade policy - and seen the market price falling fot, well, any number of reasons, possibly including competition from mexico, favorable growing conditions causing a supply glut and depressing prices, a pullback in government support, whatever - and interpreted it as "competition from China is hurting my business." That doesn't make him intentionally dishonest, just mistaken.


----------



## fantom

In the midst of a few counties demanding election audits to find evidence of voter fraud... Guess who wrote this on his blog?

"There is nothing more corrupt than an investigation that is in desperate search of a crime."

Trump, the gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## Ralyks

fantom said:


> "There is nothing more corrupt than an investigation that is in desperate search of a crime."



In the words of the late, great Robin Williams “Um, Mr. President, in the dictionary under ‘redundant’, it says ‘See: redundant’?”


----------



## vilk

Ralyks said:


> In the words of the late, great Robin Williams “Um, Mr. President, in the dictionary under ‘redundant’, it says ‘See: redundant’?”


 love Robin, but that quote doesn't make sense in the context of the other quote (which is in bad faith / is a pseudo-lie). Investigations are usually launched on account of a specific _happening_ (the crime). Yes, investigators tail _suspects_ potentially involved in the _ specific event_ (crime for which a police report was filed), but they can't (legally) just pick on people they decide are shady without evidence of connection to a specific criminal happening. (Though of course we know this happens all the time and more or less accept it).

Trump is obviously guilty of many specific crimes. But out of context, it is kinda correct to say that an investigation without a crime seems outwardly witch-hunty.

Don't mistake what I said. I believe that Donald Trump is a criminal guilty of treason (among other crimes), and personally I think he ought to be publicly executed.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> love Robin, but that quote doesn't make sense in the context of the other quote (which is in bad faith / is a pseudo-lie). Investigations are usually launched on account of a specific _happening_ (the crime). Yes, investigators tail _suspects_ potentially involved in the _ specific event_ (crime for which a police report was filed).
> 
> Trump is obviously guilty of many specific crimes. But out of context, it is kinda correct to say that an investigation without a crime seems outwardly witch-hunty.
> 
> Don't mistake what I said. I believe that Donald Trump is a criminal guilty of treason, and personally I think he should be publicly executed.



White collar crime doesn't quite look like that though. Usually what happens is an anomaly is called out, by either a whistleblower on the inside or by regulators on the outside. From there an investigation is launched to determine whether it's civil, criminal, or nothing. 

The Trump Organization (not the person) was caught in what _looks to be_ shady tax filings. The State is investigating those irregularities and in the course it seems that would could have been an oops, might have been done outside the law. 

Using your original analogy, if a guy walks by a police officer holding a knife covered in blood, shouldn't the officer follow-up?

The whole "well, what's the charges?" line the MAGAts are taking is completely in bad faith, as 1) we know why the organization is being investigated, and 2) the State doesn't have to broadcast what charges they might be bringing in the near future. It's all meant to distract.

Where the real sensationalism is taking place is that it's fairly likely that Trump, the person, is far enough removed from those who did the deed so isn't in any peril.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> Using your original analogy, if a guy walks by a police officer holding a knife covered in blood, shouldn't the officer follow-up?


 if it's just some dude? He can ask what's up. And when the guy says he's an actor on an indie horror set, the cop should (legally) have to let it go. But in this case, the guy with the bloody knife is a convicted murderer out on parole.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> if it's just some dude? He can ask what's up. And when the guy says he's an actor on an indie horror set, the cop should (legally) have to let it go. But in this case, the guy with the bloody knife is a convicted murderer out on parole.



No analogy is perfect, but either way, nothing about what is happening with the State of New York and the Trump Organization is out of ordinary, at least from what we've seen, and it's especially not "witch-hunty". It's literally right in the article. 

A witch hunt implies that what's being done is in bad faith for the sole purpose of persecution. So if they just decided to go after them because they can, that would be a witch hunt, when in this case they have evidence of possible fraud.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> No analogy is perfect, but either way, nothing about what is happening with the State of New York and the Trump Organization is out of ordinary, at least from what we've seen, and it's especially not "witch-hunty". It's literally right in the article.
> 
> A witch hunt implies that what's being done is in bad faith for the sole purpose of persecution. So if they just decided to go after them because they can, that would be a witch hunt, when in this case they have evidence of possible fraud.


Yo dude I already said that


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> Yo dude I already said that



Missed your original edit.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> Missed your original edit.


Lol I'm sorry I always think of more things after


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> I mean, there isn't a ton of detail to go of in this story...
> 
> ...but you were working for a farmer in the northeast, which presumably means you were doing agricultural work. Fruits and vegetables aren't especially high value goods on a weight/volume basis, and with or without tariffs transportation costs are going to be a significant part of selling price. There's also the fact that the Chinese environment isn't especially comparable to New England, and that China is a substantial net importer of agricultural goods thanks to its huge population. And, of course, the fact that 90s free trade means NAFTA, which was a North American trage group that China wasn't part of.
> 
> Again, maybe there's some details I'm missing, but there's a lot of things that don't add up. We generally export a lot more agricultural goods to china than we import, tariffs are relatively small compared to transportation costs for perishables, and we were lowering tariffs with Canada and Mexico, more so than China, at that time. There's a lot of reasons that make it hard to believe that it was competition from China that was causing a farm in New England to seek cheaper labor.
> 
> EDIT - I'm also not saying he was being *intentionally* dishonest - there were a lot of news stories talking about a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico, competition on cheap imports from a globalizing China was a concern in other sectors, and he may have simply conflated these - farmers don't generally need to have an in depth understanding of geopolitics and trade policy - and seen the market price falling fot, well, any number of reasons, possibly including competition from mexico, favorable growing conditions causing a supply glut and depressing prices, a pullback in government support, whatever - and interpreted it as "competition from China is hurting my business." That doesn't make him intentionally dishonest, just mistaken.





Yadayada... 

Street knowledge vs Book knowledge...

Whatever dude. Plain and simple you're mistaken!

I don't really care though, its not worth time arguing with you about this! 

Peace!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Anyway who cares about American workers losing jobs to immigrants and the value of American produce not competing with imports? “Non issue”, right?

I mean its all about the stock market anyway right?

Lets just remember why the two party system works so well with this classic! lol




Tell me this isn't down to politics- we don't have decent commuter rail and every road is still mostly single occupant SUV or Trucks! Merica!


----------



## Wuuthrad

Drew said:


> I mean, there isn't a ton of detail to go of in this story...
> 
> ...but you were working for a farmer in the northeast, which presumably means you were doing agricultural work. Fruits and vegetables aren't especially high value goods on a weight/volume basis, and with or without tariffs transportation costs are going to be a significant part of selling price. There's also the fact that the Chinese environment isn't especially comparable to New England, and that China is a substantial net importer of agricultural goods thanks to its huge population. And, of course, the fact that 90s free trade means NAFTA, which was a North American trage group that China wasn't part of.
> 
> Again, maybe there's some details I'm missing, but there's a lot of things that don't add up. We generally export a lot more agricultural goods to china than we import, tariffs are relatively small compared to transportation costs for perishables, and we were lowering tariffs with Canada and Mexico, more so than China, at that time. There's a lot of reasons that make it hard to believe that it was competition from China that was causing a farm in New England to seek cheaper labor.
> 
> EDIT - I'm also not saying he was being *intentionally* dishonest - there were a lot of news stories talking about a "giant sucking sound" of jobs fleeing to Mexico, competition on cheap imports from a globalizing China was a concern in other sectors, and he may have simply conflated these - farmers don't generally need to have an in depth understanding of geopolitics and trade policy - and seen the market price falling fot, well, any number of reasons, possibly including competition from mexico, favorable growing conditions causing a supply glut and depressing prices, a pullback in government support, whatever - and interpreted it as "competition from China is hurting my business." That doesn't make him intentionally dishonest, just mistaken.



You know what? I had a second thought- I was mistaken after all!

After insulting the intelligence of myself and my ex-boss, who happened to a be good friend of mine, and calling him a liar, 

You can KISS MY ASS!


----------



## TedEH

Wuuthrad said:


> calling him a liar


That's not at all what he did. All he said was that the story didn't seem likely to him, given there wasn't a lot of detail to go off of, and gave some reasons for why he thought that. Lots of honest people misunderstand or misinterpret things and then spread those misunderstandings to people all the time. It's not lying and I don't think anyone meant to call your friend a liar. I'm sure your friend entirely believed what he said, as well as Drew believes what he says, regardless of which of them is correct.

I hate to say it, but basically everyone functions that way about things that go over their heads or that they're missing details about. They'll simplify it or rationalize it in some way they _can _understand, and that just becomes the canonical truth for them.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Wuuthrad said:


> Tell me this isn't down to politics- we don't have decent commuter rail and every road is still mostly single occupant SUV or Trucks! Merica!



If roads were guns we'd have the best. These things cost $10-15m and it costs $30k+ every time they fire it.

Watch your yearly salary vaporized three to five times over!


Things like this make it especially hilarious to me that anyone thinks they're going to resist the government with a bushmaster from wal mart. That ship sailed.


----------



## Drew

Wuuthrad said:


> You know what? I had a second thought- I was mistaken after all!
> 
> After insulting the intelligence of myself and my ex-boss, who happened to a be good friend of mine, and calling him a liar,
> 
> You can KISS MY ASS!


Yeah, I'm not calling your old boss a liar, nor am I attacking you personally here. I think he might have been mistaken about what was driving commodity price action, is all, since China was not a major competitor for New England grown fruits and vegetables in the 90s.

But, could you maybe provide a little more detail here? It might help me better understand what exactly was going on, and it's entirely possible I AM wrong. What exactly were the goods you were being paid piecework to produce in a farm in the northeast, where your boss told you he was being undercut from China? I'm making two assumptions, either of which could be wrong - that by a farm in the northeast you mean northeast US and in turn New England or thereabouts, and that if it was a farm, you were probably harvesting fruits or vegetables of some sorts, and not doing any manufacturing. I think I've been pretty clear about those assumptions and you haven't questioned either yet, but now would be a good time to point that out if either is wrong.

I also definitely haven't questioned either your or your old boss's intelligence, and I think I'm being a _little_ bit more civil here than you are.


----------



## 73647k

this can be removed


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...-jury-in-trump-investigation-report-says.html

Shits (possibly) about to go down.


----------



## thebeesknees22

he can still run for office if convicted once he gets out though...... lol  *sadface


----------



## Xaios

thebeesknees22 said:


> he can still run for office if convicted once he gets out though...... lol  *sadface


Maybe so, but if they absolutely nail him to the wall, he might never get out.

Wishful thinking, I know, but it's something.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> Maybe so, but if they absolutely nail him to the wall, he might never get out.
> 
> Wishful thinking, I know, but it's something.


I also wonder if a successful criminal conviction by a "blue" state might make him MORE appealing to red states.  "If New York, those commie liberal scum, are after me, then you KNOW I'm out there fighting for red blooded (white) Americans like you!!"


----------



## thebeesknees22

The pessimist in me doesn't think it will make it past the grand jury to even have a trial. 90% sure there will be some major witness tampering.


----------



## Drew

For those of you not following this, the Biden Administration has dropped from 21% to 15% in their bid to adopt a worldwide global minimum corporate income tax, but it's increasingly becoming a matter of "at what level" rather than "if," and at 15% it's as low as/lower than the rate anywhere in the G7, which bodes pretty well for getting the G7 on board with the plan to implement a global minimum corporate income tax, which in turn means the EU is highly likely to follow. 

Getting something like that adopted globally would be huge in stopping the race to the bottom for corporate tax rates, and tax inversions.


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> I also wonder if a successful criminal conviction by a "blue" state might make him MORE appealing to red states.  "If New York, those commie liberal scum, are after me, then you KNOW I'm out there fighting for red blooded (white) Americans like you!!"



Meanwhile, he'd hardly be anything without us in NY.


----------



## wannabguitarist

Wuuthrad said:


> Anyway who cares about American workers losing jobs to immigrants and the value of American produce not competing with imports? “Non issue”, right?



Why do you hate the global poor?


----------



## Ralyks

So much for the January 6th commission


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Ralyks said:


> So much for the January 6th commission




So fucked eh?


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> So much for the January 6th commission



My crystal ball says Jan 6th won't be our last look at seditious defectors anyway.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

We pretty much knew that repub-fuckwits would make sure to sweep this under the rug. But to me what's far more concerning are the actions being taken in some states ( likely more to come) to manipulate and suppress voter's rights.


----------



## spudmunkey

The "the legislature can (more-easily, anyway) override election results" trend is frightening.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> My crystal ball says Jan 6th won't be our last look at seditious defectors anyway.



Michael Flynn says hold my beer.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/31/politics/michael-flynn-qanon/index.html


----------



## nightflameauto

The Republican party has so fully immersed themselves in the idea that they'll never be appealing again to a large enough segment of society that the only way forward is voter suppression and overt action to overturn rightful election results. I mean, their platform over the past decade and change has basically been, "no, opposed" without any real ideals to call their own. Now they've added, "fuck the will of the people" as an official, rather than an incidental, stance. Truly, forward thinkers.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> The Republican party has so fully immersed themselves in the idea that they'll never be appealing again to a large enough segment of society that the only way forward is voter suppression and overt action to overturn rightful election results. I mean, their platform over the past decade and change has basically been, "no, opposed" without any real ideals to call their own. Now they've added, "fuck the will of the people" as an official, rather than an incidental, stance. Truly, forward thinkers.



The platform is basically 100% corporate handjobs behind the scenes and 100% nationalist handjobs in the public at this point.


----------



## wankerness

High Plains Drifter said:


> We pretty much knew that repub-fuckwits would make sure to sweep this under the rug. But to me what's far more concerning are the actions being taken in some states ( likely more to come) to manipulate and suppress voter's rights.



Voter suppression is nothing compared to the rules in Florida that were passed where the legislature can functionally just disagree with an election result and name a different winner. Not sure what other states are going to pass that. But, considering some swing states (IE Wisconsin) are heavily, heavily gerrymandered and thus the state legislatures are completely republican while statewide elections tend democratic, things are not looking good for anyone that doesn't want a non-elected Republican emperor in the future.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

wankerness said:


> Voter suppression is nothing compared to the rules in Florida that were passed where the legislature can functionally just disagree with an election result and name a different winner. Not sure what other states are going to pass that. But, considering some swing states (IE Wisconsin) are heavily, heavily gerrymandered and thus the state legislatures are completely republican while statewide elections tend democratic, things are not looking good for anyone that doesn't want a non-elected Republican emperor in the future.



Indeed, this is absolutely concerning. And I'm afraid that our democracy is in jeopardy of complete dissolve at this point. I don't think that the popular vote nor mid-term elections will be able to save it. The idiocy of right-wing republican voters and the maliciousness of those representatives will all but put a nail into the coffin in 2024 unless something major happens to create fairness and restore some semblance of integrity in Washington.


----------



## nightflameauto

High Plains Drifter said:


> Indeed, this is absolutely concerning. And I'm afraid that our democracy is in jeopardy of complete dissolve at this point. I don't think that the popular vote nor mid-term elections will be able to save it. The idiocy of right-wing republican voters and the maliciousness of those representatives will all but put a nail into the coffin in 2024 unless something major happens to create fairness and restore some semblance of integrity in Washington.


The only chance that happens . . . in Washington or State houses, is either a nuke, or summary executions for people that flaunt their desire to destroy democracy in the name of their own power. Frankly, I don't see either as a viable possibility outside of super slim chances somebody in the mid-east or asia gets ahold of a weapon we aren't aware they're capable of getting to the states as of yet. Even if they managed to wipe out congress completely, the states would scurry to fill it back up with sycophants so fast we'd never know the difference other than a whole string of horrible country songs and a whole lot of political and security theater.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, this morning I was reading up on our current "progress" with Biden's infrastructure bill. In a play straight out of the Democrat play book, he's given concessions bringing the bill down to 1 billion from 2.3 billion to the Republicans, and is considering dropping his demand that corporations currently paying zero federal taxes be billed at 15% instead as another concession. End result?

Republicans, who have to this point gotten almost every demand they've asked for except dropping the 15% corporate tax requirement so far have said, "Fuck you. I'm not voting for this."

Democrats, who were largely in support of the original proposal save the usual outliers are beginning to back away slowly while saying, "I can't in good conscience vote for something that I know is less than we really need."

Pretty much exactly what we expected. Though it's a relief to not have a daily (or twice daily) headline about some sort of tweeted nonsense from the POTUS, it's rather disheartening that we're still watching the same dramedy play out on the business end of the process.

Democrats: "Hey, here's an idea."
Republicans: "No. Maybe if you did this. . ."
Democrats: "OK, we did the thing you asked for. How 'bout now?"
Republicans: "No. Maybe if you did this additional thing."
Democrats: "OK, we'll do that too so long as we can keep . . . ."
Republicans: "No. You need to get rid of that thing you just said."
Democrats: "???"
Republicans: "Democrats do nothing. Except higher taxes for no reason."
Democrats: *HANGS HEAD AND CRIES*

Meanwhile, those of us dumb enough to support either of them just sit here shaking our heads wondering what the fucking point is.

Gee, I wonder why so much of the possible voting public is disengaged most of the time?

On the bright side, Pence came out and publicly stated he doesn't see eye to eye with Trump on January 6th. Can't wait to see his career ended by that one. No way the current Republican party lets somebody get by with that shit.

Granted, in the same breath he said we need to stop focusing on that and concentrate on stopping Biden's "radical progressive agenda."

Because fixing fucking infrastructure is god damn radical progressivism. WTF?


----------



## possumkiller

It's alright. Civil War II will fix it.


----------



## spudmunkey

The republicans did the same thing to the Jan 6 committee. They got everything they asked for, and then still voted "no".


----------



## diagrammatiks

nightflameauto said:


> So, this morning I was reading up on our current "progress" with Biden's infrastructure bill. In a play straight out of the Democrat play book, he's given concessions bringing the bill down to 1 billion from 2.3 billion to the Republicans, and is considering dropping his demand that corporations currently paying zero federal taxes be billed at 15% instead as another concession. End result?
> 
> Republicans, who have to this point gotten almost every demand they've asked for except dropping the 15% corporate tax requirement so far have said, "Fuck you. I'm not voting for this."
> 
> Democrats, who were largely in support of the original proposal save the usual outliers are beginning to back away slowly while saying, "I can't in good conscience vote for something that I know is less than we really need."
> 
> Pretty much exactly what we expected. Though it's a relief to not have a daily (or twice daily) headline about some sort of tweeted nonsense from the POTUS, it's rather disheartening that we're still watching the same dramedy play out on the business end of the process.
> 
> Democrats: "Hey, here's an idea."
> Republicans: "No. Maybe if you did this. . ."
> Democrats: "OK, we did the thing you asked for. How 'bout now?"
> Republicans: "No. Maybe if you did this additional thing."
> Democrats: "OK, we'll do that too so long as we can keep . . . ."
> Republicans: "No. You need to get rid of that thing you just said."
> Democrats: "???"
> Republicans: "Democrats do nothing. Except higher taxes for no reason."
> Democrats: *HANGS HEAD AND CRIES*
> 
> Meanwhile, those of us dumb enough to support either of them just sit here shaking our heads wondering what the fucking point is.
> 
> Gee, I wonder why so much of the possible voting public is disengaged most of the time?
> 
> On the bright side, Pence came out and publicly stated he doesn't see eye to eye with Trump on January 6th. Can't wait to see his career ended by that one. No way the current Republican party lets somebody get by with that shit.
> 
> Granted, in the same breath he said we need to stop focusing on that and concentrate on stopping Biden's "radical progressive agenda."
> 
> Because fixing fucking infrastructure is god damn radical progressivism. WTF?



dems could only fuck this up. 
Getting trumped out of office depended on the voters and they came through. getting shit done actually depends on the politicians and the dems are just shit.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Some of the democrats aren't really dem's though like Manchin. Dem's don't have a clear cut majority because at least 2 Dem senators seem to be voting more with republicans than their own party. 

Without those 2 votes being solid then things will get water down...................... So basically come next election there needs to big a bigger majority for democrats to negate those few that are voting more with republicans.


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> On the bright side, Pence came out and publicly stated he doesn't see eye to eye with Trump on January 6th. Can't wait to see his career ended by that one. No way the current Republican party lets somebody get by with that shit.



People broke into his place of work chanting for him to be hung. You really think his career wasn't already down the toilet before he made that statement?


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> People broke into his place of work chanting for him to be hung. You really think his career wasn't already down the toilet before he made that statement?


They have the attention spans of fruit flies. Had he started praising Trump's every fart again, he'd be golden. THAT'S the Republican agenda right now.


----------



## USMarine75

Joe Manchin


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Joe Manchin


A blank slate? Seems appropriate.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> A blank slate? Seems appropriate.



Joe Manchin 




(Second try)


----------



## nightflameauto

Manchin's biggest problem is that he's far more interested in being reelected than he is in accomplishing anything. Granted, that's near universal, but he's in a particularly _interesting_ position in that he has to supposedly hold Republican ideals while ostensibly being a Democrat. So he props his ass in the seat and declares his every action bi-partisan while, in all reality, doing fuck-all so as to avoid the look of doing something any of his constituents would disagree with on principal.

Sadly, he's not alone in putting electability far above accomplishment, but that's the joy of the American system. Accomplishments and goals mean absolutely shit if they don't align with the next election cycle and/or campaign.


----------



## USMarine75

Any Libertarians/Republicans in here want to explain why this is a good thing? Perhaps "Trickle Down Economics"? That Jeff Bezos should save as much money in taxes as possible so he can pass that down to his happy workers? Or the Walmart family? That way they definitely won't have a substantial portion of their workers also on government assistance (AKA your taxes subsidize Walmart employees income so the owning family doesnt have to).








BREAKING NEWS

*The 25 richest Americans paid little to no federal income taxes for years, according to I.R.S. filings obtained by ProPublica.*
Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:16 PM EST

An analysis by the news organization ProPublica showed that billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk benefited from vagaries in the tax code between 2014 and 2018.


----------



## nightflameauto

The argument I always hear is that if we dare to tax one penny of a rich person's money they'll move away and take their ball with them. And all us poor people will be left to fend for ourselves. Then our little red wagons would be fixed but good because we can't possibly survive without the Musks and Bezoses to look up to and keep our economy moving by not paying a fucking dime in taxes.


----------



## Randy




----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> View attachment 94478



Refugees and immigration are both legal. Illegal immigration isn't.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Refugees and immigration are both legal. Illegal immigration isn't.



You have to get here first (unless you're wealthy and/or well connected), which is difficult if you're just "turned back". That's why those posts are contradictory.

Whatever, it's not worth having the immigration debate again. Some folks think other people are deserving of human dignity...and some don't. Not going to change anyone's mind.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Refugees and immigration are both legal. Illegal immigration isn't.



You're taking her bait in choice of changing verbiage.

"Refugee and immigrant" were terms applied to people fleeing places like Guatemala because of drought, political violence, etc. The idea was that you escape out of desperation and you're processed at the border. "Come to our border and you'll be turned back" =/= "cross our border and you'll be deported". The rhetoric has shifted to discourage what they were openly encouraging before.


----------



## Jonathan20022

MaxOfMetal said:


> You have to get here first (unless you're wealthy and/or well connected), which is difficult if you're just "turned back". That's why those posts are contradictory.
> 
> Whatever, it's not worth having the immigration debate again. Some folks think other people are deserving of human dignity...and some don't. Not going to change anyone's mind.



What should be offered then, maybe Embassy application/approval processes in their home countries? Also is anyone actually shocked at Kamala's stances here?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Jonathan20022 said:


> What should be offered then, maybe Embassy application/approval processes in their home countries? Also is anyone actually shocked at Kamala's stances here?



The whole concept behind refugee/asylum status is that it's too dangerous to stay in your home country, whether due to collapsed government, paramilitary activity, or state sanctioned violence.

We already have a system in place, it's just been sabotaged by years of political and ideological malfeasance, be it by reducing the number of judges and clerical staff, making it more difficult to represent those applying, or privatizing thier care to corporations who should not be in charge of peoples' welfare.


----------



## possumkiller

MaxOfMetal said:


> The whole concept behind refugee/asylum status is that it's too dangerous to stay in your home country, whether due to collapsed government, paramilitary activity, or state sanctioned violence.
> 
> We already have a system in place, it's just been sabotaged by years of political and ideological malfeasance, be it by reducing the number of judges and clerical staff, making it more difficult to represent those applying, or privatizing thier care to corporations who should not be in charge of peoples' welfare.


But don't we already have state sanctioned violence against non-whites? Is our state sanctioned violence better than their state sanctioned violence?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> But don't we already have state sanctioned violence against non-whites? Is our state sanctioned violence better than their state sanctioned violence?



So what you're saying is that folks should be trying to gain asylum abroad? 

Sounds like a Sacha Cohen bit.


----------



## vilk

If we took some of the money we spend on ICE stormtroopers and "walls" and put it towards hiring USCIS workers and lowering the cost (over a thousand USD... That's a lot of pesos) to simply _apply_ for a green card (for a single person), the issue of mass illegal immigration would all but disappear.

As our system stands, for a family to immigrate to the USA costs on average several thousands of dollars and takes _years_. And you might still get rejected without any explanation. That's a lot of time and money to gamble.

It's my hypothesis that our system is designed to encourage illegal immigration so that we can take advantage of illegal labor.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> It's my hypothesis that our system is designed to encourage illegal immigration



Damn right it is.


----------



## nightflameauto

vilk said:


> If we took some of the money we spend on ICE stormtroopers and "walls" and put it towards hiring USCIS workers and lowering the cost (over a thousand USD... That's a lot of pesos) to simply _apply_ for a green card (for a single person), the issue of mass illegal immigration would all but disappear.
> 
> As our system stands, for a family to immigrate to the USA costs on average several thousands of dollars and takes _years_. And you might still get rejected without any explanation. That's a lot of time and money to gamble.
> 
> It's my hypothesis that our system is designed to encourage illegal immigration so that we can take advantage of illegal labor.


Yes. And the added bonus is that "officials" can put on a big show about being tough on "illegal" immigration (which they've done everything they possibly can to encourage) and create massive piles of suffering among those our society would really prefer to take advantage of for cheap labor.

That's a political win-win if I ever saw one.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/14/politics/china-nuclear-reactor-leak-us-monitoring/index.html

Stop me if you've heard this one before...


----------



## Ralyks

So McConnell has flat out said if he becomes Majoirty aleader again after 2022, he'd block Biden naming a SCOTUS. I have a feeling theres going to be pressure on Breyer to retire sooner than later.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> So McConnell has flat out said if he becomes Majorty leader again after 2022, he'd block Biden naming a SCOTUS. I have a feeling theres going to be pressure on Breyer to retire sooner than later.



To be clear, he said specifically during the election 2024 election year. But still. Pile of shit in a turtle-shaped, half-deflated balloon, he is.


----------



## Ralyks

spudmunkey said:


> To be clear, he said specifically during the election 2024 election year. But still. Pile of shit in a turtle-shaped, half-deflated balloon, he is.



He said he Wouldn't rule out blocking in 2023 either.


----------



## thebeesknees22

If McConnell has the power to block anything democrats do he will do it, and he will do it until the day he dies. If there's one thing he lives for it's the power to control.


----------



## BlackMastodon

The SCOTUS thing absolutely blows my mind with how brazen republicans were with ramming Amy Coney Barrett in so close to the election. And shame on the democrats for letting them pull that shit both in 2016 and 2020.


----------



## diagrammatiks

pile of chicken shit dems. they could have blocked that nomination. easily.


----------



## nightflameauto

The Republicans have one rule. Fuck everything the Democrats stand for.

The Democrats have one rule. Never stop the Republicans from doing anything because that would appear to not be cooperative. Must kowtow to the people trying to destroy them. It's the only way.

I hope every election cycle to see a Democrat with a backbone, but have yet to see it. Republicans aren't going to change their ways because the Democrats keep trying to compromise. I suspect more seriously with every passing year the Democrats do this "reaching across the aisle" bullshit specifically to prevent themselves from accomplishing any of their stated policies. I'd love to see a Democrat run government push some policies through while they have a chance, if only to stem the tide of Republican bullshit for a brief moment, but that seems to be way outside their wheelhouse. Much better to sit on their hands and whine about the lack of cooperation even when they have every possible advantage.

I wonder if there will ever be a viable alternative to the two parties by name, one party by practice approach we have now? It's pretty ridiculous how flagrantly both parties ignore the will of the people. It seems now the best we can hope for is our politicians not foaming at the mouth as they fail to do anything positive. Even that seems a stretch for some.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> The Republicans have one rule. Fuck everything the Democrats stand for.
> 
> The Democrats have one rule. Never stop the Republicans from doing anything because that would appear to not be cooperative. Must kowtow to the people trying to destroy them. It's the only way.


To be fair, I think the problem is a bit more nuanced than that. 

The GOP is absolutely the "we stand against whatever the Democrats are for" party. This works for them because it's far easier to rally support against something than it is to rally support _for_ something. 

The Democrats have a platform... but they also have a "big tent" coalition. That can make governing tricky when, as is the case now, they have razor thin margins of control in the House and Senate. Right now both the moderate and progressive wings of the party easily have enough votes to stop any bill coming out of the House unless it also has GOP support - which we've established, it won't - and ANY Senator can stop a bill from having even simple majority support in the Senate to pass through reconciliation, much less the 60-vote majority needed to withstand a filibuster. 

And, right now, the Democrats actually are in control, if barely, of both chambers. In the Trump era, in 2016-2018 the GOP controlled both the House AND the Senate (and, thankfully, the GOP couldn't get out of their own way and merely managed to pass a tax bill, by an incredibly narrow margin), and in 2019-2020 the Democrats took back the House, and were able to shut down most legislative avenues to the Trump agenda (and not for nothing, let's pause and reflect on the proper ass-kicking Pelosi gave Trump in the government shutdown, where the final compromise bill passed was quite a bit more favorable to the Democrats than their _initial_ offer was, after Trump totally caved when the air traffic controllers went on strike over lack of pay), but didn't control the Senate so it wasn't like they could send anything to Trump's desk for a signature, either. 

It's been a long time now since _either_ party has had enough of a majority in the Senate to do more than narrowly pass policy agenda bills by reconciliation. I'd argue the Democrats have a better track record here than the Republicans. The GOP got a tax cut, and tried but ultimately couldn't repeal the ACA or secure funding for Trump's boondoggle of a border wall- the Dems got national health care, and a major stimulus bill essentially matching what the Biden Administration had set out to do as an opening negotiation position. I'm not sure how good the odds are for an infrastructure bill so it wouldn't shock me if the Dems have to chalk up a failure there - proposals that can get through the Senate are too modest for the House, and through the House are too expansive for the Senate, so there's an insanely narrow path to a compromise bill and I'm not sure Pelosi can bring the progressives in line behind it or Schumer the moderates in line behind it. But, so far, the Democrats record of actually passing shit is a fair bit better than the Republicans.


----------



## bostjan

All of these gridlocks in congress actually do accomplish a lot. They tend to get more people polarized politically, they tend to reduce the popular opinion of congress, and they tend to make the nation overall less stable.

During Trump's first impeachment, the worst thing that could have happened would have been if between 51-66 senators had voted to convict Trump, which would have left Trump in office and also sent the message that the nation generally believed he should have been ousted. There would have been measures to censure, but the GOP would have likely moved against those and the whole thing would have just eroded public trust.

Even with things playing out a 2nd or 3rd worst scenario- all of the shenanigans with Trump threatening to fire up a crowd that would overthrow the government, then immediately afterward firing up a crowd that tried to overthrow the government, resulting in his second impeachment, which also acquitted him... The whole thing just highlights the tremendous cracks in the foundations of our government to ourselves and to our enemies alike- but we, mostly, aren't even paying attention, or else we forget and move on. I don't think our enemies will be so quick to forget what happened this year.

I don't know how it can be fixed at this point in time. I believe it's simply too late to un-stupid everything. We don't want an authoritarian government, but the American people are sort of painting themselves into that corner right now.


----------



## JSanta

I can't recommend this read enough: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/


----------



## bostjan

JSanta said:


> I can't recommend this read enough: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/



All four of those worldviews are both correct and incorrect. LOL

That pretty much breaks down the stereotypical American groups in a nutshell, but I doubt you'll find too many people who fall cleanly into any one of those buckets IRL. Oddly enough, though, that's the best model I've seen for explaining how people have voted for leaders the past fifty years in the USA. People who don't fit those ideological stereotypes still vote based on them, because "I don't want to waste my vote."

But the choices we are given are not satisfactory. American politics has been so much like two brands vying for a monopoly.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> All four of those worldviews are both correct and incorrect. LOL
> 
> That pretty much breaks down the stereotypical American groups in a nutshell, but I doubt you'll find too many people who fall cleanly into any one of those buckets IRL. Oddly enough, though, that's the best model I've seen for explaining how people have voted for leaders the past fifty years in the USA. People who don't fit those ideological stereotypes still vote based on them, because "I don't want to waste my vote."
> 
> But the choices we are given are not satisfactory. American politics has been so much like two brands vying for a monopoly.



I have similar thoughts. I have yet to see any other publication that accurately presents what I've experienced; and conversely, many of the people I interact with very neatly fall into those buckets. Again, it's not all homogenous, but I think the shoe(s) mostly fits.


----------



## wankerness

JSanta said:


> I can't recommend this read enough: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/07/george-packer-four-americas/619012/



Yeah, most of this is obvious to anyone that pays attention to actual news and reads any degree of discourse from the different political spectrums. Unfortunately, it seems to be a completely unfixable gap between these four main worldviews. I agree with the author that it doesn't seem likely to spiral into anything beyond "cold civil war," but I don't see things getting any better without some serious upheaval.


----------



## Randy

Good article about the nuts-and-bolts of the employment shortages

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/21/retail-workers-quitting-jobs/


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Randy said:


> Good article about the nuts-and-bolts of the employment shortages
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/21/retail-workers-quitting-jobs/


I’m quitting my job September and going to get a degree.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I’m quitting my job September and going to get a degree.



I resigned from my first "adult job" (ie has insurance pto etc) after the first summer of lockdown to do the same. Go get that magic piece of paper!


----------



## USMarine75

Former presidential candidate, billionaire, computer innovator... Oh yeah I forgot murdering rapist... John McAfee died today.

Celebrate by watching this:
Gringo: The Dangerous Life of John McAfee https://g.co/kgs/nrGvLn


----------



## spudmunkey

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I’m quitting my job September and going to get a degree.



I was laid off in Septerber and let go in February. I'll be 42 in July, and starting my first post-high-school education on August 16th.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

wheresthefbomb said:


> I resigned from my first "adult job" (ie has insurance pto etc) after the first summer of lockdown to do the same. Go get that magic piece of paper!


Yeah buddy! Congratulations, it’s a good feeling. 


spudmunkey said:


> I was laid off in Septerber and let go in February. I'll be 42 in July, and starting my first post-high-school education on August 16th.


I’ll be turning 39 in November, it’s never too late. I’m so bored at work it’ll be good to use my brain again. I too am starting my first post HS education. Go Spud!!! You made the right choice.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

USMarine75 said:


> Former presidential candidate, billionaire, computer innovator... Oh yeah I forgot murdering rapist... John McAfee died today.
> 
> Celebrate by watching this:
> Gringo: The Dangerous Life of John McAfee https://g.co/kgs/nrGvLn


It’s on NetFlix if anyone wants to watch.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 94903


The Onion isn't even satire anymore. I mean, the only satirical part of it is that we've already made our choice. Authoritarian Oligarchy is already here. We're just going through the motions of cleaning up those pesky democratic drapes that used to decorate the republic and keep the people thinking they have a voice.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.quora.com/If-voter-frau...d-or-laws-passed-all-go-away-or-stay-in-place

^ this is statistically significant portion of the country people. Something like 70% of GOP (GQP?) believe in some form of this shite.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Aww... looks like poor Rudy won't be spewing out any more mouth poo for a while. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/24/rud...law-in-new-york-due-to-trump-statements-.html


----------



## thebeesknees22

HA!! 

I lol'd for real. It's about time tbh


----------



## diagrammatiks

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.quora.com/If-voter-frau...d-or-laws-passed-all-go-away-or-stay-in-place
> 
> ^ this is statistically significant portion of the country people. Something like 70% of GOP (GQP?) believe in some form of this shite.



quota is trash on earth.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Good article about the nuts-and-bolts of the employment shortages
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/21/retail-workers-quitting-jobs/


I generally agree with this take - the high quit rate and high turnover is a good thing. An economist I read who I think generally is pretty good (and don't get me wrong, I read plenty I usually disagree with too, as a check against my own views) has been arguing that during the pandemic the most essential employees were the first ones to return to work, after being furloughed or temporarily laid off but not fired, and the high quit rate we're seeing, during a period of high labor demand, is those same most-skilled workers leaving for higher pay and better opportunities, now that they think it's reasonably safe to do so.


----------



## Drew

Drew said:


> It's been a long time now since _either_ party has had enough of a majority in the Senate to do more than narrowly pass policy agenda bills by reconciliation. I'd argue the Democrats have a better track record here than the Republicans. The GOP got a tax cut, and tried but ultimately couldn't repeal the ACA or secure funding for Trump's boondoggle of a border wall- the Dems got national health care, and a major stimulus bill essentially matching what the Biden Administration had set out to do as an opening negotiation position. I'm not sure how good the odds are for an infrastructure bill so it wouldn't shock me if the Dems have to chalk up a failure there - proposals that can get through the Senate are too modest for the House, and through the House are too expansive for the Senate, so there's an insanely narrow path to a compromise bill and I'm not sure Pelosi can bring the progressives in line behind it or Schumer the moderates in line behind it. But, so far, the Democrats record of actually passing shit is a fair bit better than the Republicans.


I'm not gonna act like I called it or anything, because I'm just as surprised as any of you I'm sure, but as of yesterday afternoon, we have a bipartisan infrastructure deal that seems pretty likely to pass. 

It's smaller and hits fewer Democratic priorities than the House or Biden wanted, and both Pelosi and Biden are making it clear that they want to see this passed WITH a "human infrastructure" Democrat-backed bill passed via reconciliation, but knowing that this is a condition and still supporting it has me thinking Manchin and Sinema are both prepared to back the reconciliation bill as well. The New York Times made the observation, which I think is pretty good and worth repeating, that right or wrong now, Biden is in a position where he can claim the bipartisanship mantle (and he did work pretty aggressively trying to get the GOP to come to the table here), which probably puts him in a stronger negotiating position, and with more political capital to spend, when it comes to pushing the second half of his infrastructure platform, which almost certaily WILL have to pass via reconciliation on a party-line vote. 

I'm not putting my cart before the horse here - a concerted effort from the GOP could absolutely kill this bipartisan vote as they need to pick off an additional 5 Republican votes to get it through a filibuster, and I wouldn't put it past McConnell to filibuster a deal his own party was instrumental in passing to force the Democrats to take this up via reconciliation, delaying/making the human infrastructure bill harder to pass via reconciliation as well (or forcing the Democrats to combine the two into a single bill, allowing the GOP to cry foul and blame Biden for scuttling the deal). 

But, even if the human infrastructure bill falls apart, if Biden gets this through, that would be two very big, and unexpected, wins in his first year in office, which would make him one of the more _effective _presidents in recent memory.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

NY prosecutors say that criminal charges against the trump organization could be filed as soon as next week. Let's hope that they chew thru the fat and go right for the jugular of the head fuckwit. 

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-yor...0210625-rije2nswabhexbktyc2syl2fe4-story.html


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm not gonna act like I called it or anything, because I'm just as surprised as any of you I'm sure, but as of yesterday afternoon, we have a bipartisan infrastructure deal that seems pretty likely to pass.
> 
> It's smaller and hits fewer Democratic priorities than the House or Biden wanted, and both Pelosi and Biden are making it clear that they want to see this passed WITH a "human infrastructure" Democrat-backed bill passed via reconciliation, but knowing that this is a condition and still supporting it has me thinking Manchin and Sinema are both prepared to back the reconciliation bill as well. The New York Times made the observation, which I think is pretty good and worth repeating, that right or wrong now, Biden is in a position where he can claim the bipartisanship mantle (and he did work pretty aggressively trying to get the GOP to come to the table here), which probably puts him in a stronger negotiating position, and with more political capital to spend, when it comes to pushing the second half of his infrastructure platform, which almost certaily WILL have to pass via reconciliation on a party-line vote.
> 
> I'm not putting my cart before the horse here - a concerted effort from the GOP could absolutely kill this bipartisan vote as they need to pick off an additional 5 Republican votes to get it through a filibuster, and I wouldn't put it past McConnell to filibuster a deal his own party was instrumental in passing to force the Democrats to take this up via reconciliation, delaying/making the human infrastructure bill harder to pass via reconciliation as well (or forcing the Democrats to combine the two into a single bill, allowing the GOP to cry foul and blame Biden for scuttling the deal).
> 
> But, even if the human infrastructure bill falls apart, if Biden gets this through, that would be two very big, and unexpected, wins in his first year in office, which would make him one of the more _effective _presidents in recent memory.



Not targeted specifically at this bill, but something I'm learning from NYS Dems having super majority in both houses and the Governor's office.

I have been, and to a decreasiing extent, in favor of checks-and-balance via balanced party influence in governance. One of the things I'm learning from Dems holding control of all major leadership positions in NYS and their majorities only expanding is that the checks and balances are still in there via the different sects of the party. Even if they're all Dems, they still represent different constituencies. There's also the Republicans in the minority with no hope of making any decisions on the direction of the legislature, so they are forced to compromise and negotiate to the center. It's honestly been working surprisingly well.

I bring that up because, there's a very real chance the Republicans going to the way extreme and bending at the knee for the Cult of Trump have damaged their national aspirations for the foreseeable future; doubly if something like the DC statehood push comes to fruition. It happens in a lot of Democracies where there's a semi-permanent majority/minority party makeup and it still doesn't become all 100% of what the majority party wants unabated. There will always be different caucuses within a party and with common interests with other parties that will reach consensus. That's currently a bit of what's happening in Israel.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I have been, and to a decreasiing extent, in favor of checks-and-balance via balanced party influence in governance. One of the things I'm learning from Dems holding control of all major leadership positions in NYS and their majorities only expanding is that the checks and balances are still in there via the different sects of the party. Even if they're all Dems, they still represent different constituencies. There's also the Republicans in the minority with no hope of making any decisions on the direction of the legislature, so they are forced to compromise and negotiate to the center. It's honestly been working surprisingly well.


Excellent, excellent, excellent post.

I just wish the progressive minority would realize this and become a little more pragmatic when it comes to evaluating what the Biden administration wants to do vs what they actually can pass into law. And, naturally, if that minority becomes a majority, I expect to be held to that same standard if I find myself more on the establishment side than the progressive side (which to be perfect honest I'm not sure I do, I'm progressive in aspiration but establishment in assessing what we can actually pass and I don't want perfect to be the enemy of better).

In other news, McConnell is making noise like he may try to torpedo this deal, pre-emptively condemning Pelosi and Schumer for even considering trying to take this up alongside a "wasteful tax-and-spend Socialist Green New Deal" or some such word salad, bill like the human infrastructure side of the proposal. He needs to hold his coalition together, as it would take 5 additional republican votes to pass this over an attempted filibuster... but even then, I do kind of wonder if Manchin and Sinema would be more willing to modify the terms of the filibuster to pass a bill where there was clear bipartisan support, if short of a filibuster proof majority.


----------



## bostjan

McConnell is probably the most to blame for the nonsense of the past 4+ years.

Remember Trump's promises of setting term limits for Senators, and how that got totally dropped like a hot potato as soon as Trump took office?

Not that any of the career politicians from either side of the aisle wanted that to take hold, but I can't help but to think that McConnell's support of Trump later in the game had a lot to do with the selective amnesia around Trump's promises about congressional reforms.


----------



## spudmunkey

I'm currently spending the week back in rural Wisconsin with my family.

The hot topics:
"All the kids shows and Disney are starting to teach kids to be gay" (note: not "teach kids that it's OK", but teaching them TO be)

"The government needs to stop handing out free money and people need to get the hell back to work, cuz nobody can get enough staff to stay open"

"Georgia's new election laws are no different than anybody else's"

And:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/national-archives-rotunda-structural-racism-gop-criticism


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> McConnell is probably the most to blame for the nonsense of the past 4+ years.
> 
> Remember Trump's promises of setting term limits for Senators, and how that got totally dropped like a hot potato as soon as Trump took office?
> 
> Not that any of the career politicians from either side of the aisle wanted that to take hold, but I can't help but to think that McConnell's support of Trump later in the game had a lot to do with the selective amnesia around Trump's promises about congressional reforms.



I think it was as simple as Trump helped him get three conservatives onto the Supreme Court (though, I read a great Bloomberg piece yesterday about how in practice Kavanaugh and Barrett were actually voting pretty moderate, especially when it came to situations where taking a conservative princpled stand would make the Court look bad/out of step with American cultural norms, most notably when Alito writing a minority opinion accused the curt of copping out on the Nicholas Gilbert excessive force decision, returning it to the lower court for reconsideration after the lower court had found that the police had not used excessive force when six restrained him in cuffs and leg bands face down for 15 minutes while he claimed he couldn't breath, until he died. The unsigned majority decision never actually explicitly reversed the decision, or told them it was wrong, just that they hadn't appropriately assessed the constitutionality of the restraint used, and in doing so set no judicial precedent, just saved the Court from potentially having to uphold a decision supporting police brutality. It's a weird development, but possibly in part because of the highly contentious and political nature by which both were seated on the court, both Justices seem very concerned with the Court's perception and appearance. Gorsuch, alas, seems to have nu such qualms, but the three have joined also-very-Court-reputation-focused Roberts as an unexpectedly moderate voting bloc. I'll take it. 

But, I don't think any Senator, Republican OR Democrat, was going to support that, and I doubt Trump even remembers talking much about term limits, since he put exactly zero effort into bringing that forward, I don't believe he even mentioned it once in office, his anti-lobbyist reforms were a joke after similar talk, and it's not like he ever hesitated to fuck over McConnell whenever he saw personal advantage in doing so.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I think it was as simple as Trump helped him get three conservatives onto the Supreme Court (though, I read a great Bloomberg piece yesterday about how in practice Kavanaugh and Barrett were actually voting pretty moderate, especially when it came to situations where taking a conservative princpled stand would make the Court look bad/out of step with American cultural norms, most notably when Alito writing a minority opinion accused the curt of copping out on the Nicholas Gilbert excessive force decision, returning it to the lower court for reconsideration after the lower court had found that the police had not used excessive force when six restrained him in cuffs and leg bands face down for 15 minutes while he claimed he couldn't breath, until he died. The unsigned majority decision never actually explicitly reversed the decision, or told them it was wrong, just that they hadn't appropriately assessed the constitutionality of the restraint used, and in doing so set no judicial precedent, just saved the Court from potentially having to uphold a decision supporting police brutality. It's a weird development, but possibly in part because of the highly contentious and political nature by which both were seated on the court, both Justices seem very concerned with the Court's perception and appearance. Gorsuch, alas, seems to have nu such qualms, but the three have joined also-very-Court-reputation-focused Roberts as an unexpectedly moderate voting bloc. I'll take it.
> 
> But, I don't think any Senator, Republican OR Democrat, was going to support that, and I doubt Trump even remembers talking much about term limits, since he put exactly zero effort into bringing that forward, I don't believe he even mentioned it once in office, his anti-lobbyist reforms were a joke after similar talk, and it's not like he ever hesitated to fuck over McConnell whenever he saw personal advantage in doing so.



Trump certainly did screw over McConnell, but what did McConnell do in return?


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Trump certainly did screw over McConnell, but what did McConnell do in return?


He spent a couple moments impotently shaking a fist in Trump's general direction and then immediately about-faced when it became obvious he had the opportunity to rid the Republican party of the cancer that is Trump. Had he done anything outside of being a direct lapdog at every opportunity, we wouldn't be wondering if Trump was running again in 2024.

McConnel may not be the root of all evil, but he's definitely the god damned standard bearer for the evils of Washington. And worst? He seems proud of it. Obstructionist at every possible opportunity, and when not being directly obstructionist he'll be bragging, on air, about his next big obstructionist move.

That man(?) is as close as I've ever seen in real life to unadulterated evil incarnate. Don't get me wrong, Trump caused massive damage to our country through his actions and inaction, but most of his motivation boiled down to ego and a complete lack of empathy. That's at least something you can sorta wrap your head around, even if you wouldn't behave that way yourself. McConnel's deal is so far removed from anything resembling human motivation it's impossible to quantify outside of a big rubber stamp that just says "NO!"

Doesn't matter the subject. Doesn't matter the question or even if it is a question. He'll say, "NO!" And he'll mean it.


----------



## fantom

Not sure if this was mentioned yet... Giuliani just lost his law license in NY for repeatedly ignoring his oath as a lawyer with respect to representing Trump and election fraud claims. Good on NY. They even went as far to revoke his license before the hearing instead of as a result of a hearing due to risk of public harm.

Can we please start banning crappy propaganda "news" anchors and opinionists too?



bostjan said:


> Trump certainly did screw over McConnell, but what did McConnell do in return?



Screwed over the rest of America.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, the Republicans absolutely and unequivocally stated that they would NOT participate in a bi-partisan committee to investigate the attack on the capital on January 6th. So now that the Democrats are attempting to set up their own committee, the Republican stance is that any committee comprised primarily of Democrats would be inherently partisan and therefore any findings would be suspect.

Why don't they just come right out and say, "We do not want to investigate the attack on the capital and any attempt to do so will be met with full resistance." I mean, some of these folks had their lives threatened, and their stance is a firm "nope" to investigating it. At what point will the American people stop voting these worthless, lying, amoral, non-stand-taking supposed people into office? I have to think there's a line they could cross that would be enough, but it never seems to happen.

I can't imagine having my life and place of employment put in danger, then noping out when asked if I want it investigated so firmly that I actually start getting angry about the mere implication that something untoward happened. WTF?


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> I can't imagine having my life and place of employment put in danger, then noping out when asked if I want it investigated so firmly that I actually start getting angry about the mere implication that something untoward happened. WTF?



Because they were complicit.


----------



## diagrammatiks

Ya you definitely wouldn't want that investigation if it would reveal that you were complicit. 

but you can't just come out and say we don't believe in an investigation...because they have to have some above room iq voters that are like wait what.


----------



## nightflameauto

Oh, and speaking of nasty Republican tactics, Noem is sending the National Guard to the Mexican border because, and I quote, "Biden and his team cannot keep the American people safe and secure."

Then, this morning it comes out that this deployment of the National Guard is "privately funded and is not being funded by the state or local governments." Funny, I wasn't aware that the National Guard were available for hire for private citizens. 

Can I hire them to come strong-arm my neighbors into STFU over the 4th so my dogs don't have to be miserable all weekend?


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Oh, and speaking of nasty Republican tactics, Noem is sending the National Guard to the Mexican border because, and I quote, "Biden and his team cannot keep the American people safe and secure."
> 
> Then, this morning it comes out that this deployment of the National Guard is "privately funded and is not being funded by the state or local governments." Funny, I wasn't aware that the National Guard were available for hire for private citizens.
> 
> Can I hire them to come strong-arm my neighbors into STFU over the 4th so my dogs don't have to be miserable all weekend?



Are we positive it's the National Guard and not the Gravy Seals?


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> So, the Republicans absolutely and unequivocally stated that they would NOT participate in a bi-partisan committee to investigate the attack on the capital on January 6th. So now that the Democrats are attempting to set up their own committee, the Republican stance is that any committee comprised primarily of Democrats would be inherently partisan and therefore any findings would be suspect.


Unless there's breaking news that I missed, this isn't true. 

The GOP blocked the creation of an _outside commission_, true. However, Pelosi is moving ahead with the creation of a select committee, with subpoena powers. This sounds like inside baseball, and to a degree it is... but an outside commission would be something like the 9/11 commission, whereas a select committee is something like Benghazi. 

Membership on the committee will be comprised of 13 members, 8 named by Pelosi and 5 by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Pelosi has indicated she plans on making one of her eight a republican, so partisan membership will likely be 7 Democrats to 6 Republicans, unless McCarthy throws a curveball too. Most likely, those 6 Republicans will be five hell-bent on stonewalling the investigation or building a case that it was antifa, and not Trump supporters, who seized the capitol. But, the pick of someone like Liz Cheney (who is being rumored to be under consideration)would result in a lot of "seven Democrats and one Republican" votes, and would give the appearance of bipartisanship to a type of body that often - fairly - is accused of partisanhip. It's actually a pretty savvy move on Pelosi's part, I think. 



bostjan said:


> Trump certainly did screw over McConnell, but what did McConnell do in return?


Seat three conservative justices as well as an unprecedented number of lower court conservatives, remove the individual mandate penalty and come within a vote of repealing the ACA altogether, passed a sweeping tax cut, and generally advanced a lot of his own traditional Republican priorities, while otherwise ignoring and/or distancing himself from Trump - I think they hadn't met face to face in six months to a year even BEFORE the January 6th riots. Trump may have been the political equivalent of a rabid dog, but McConnell was certainly tactical about milking as much good as he could have out of the situation before finally stepping in to put the dog down.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Unless there's breaking news that I missed, this isn't true.
> 
> The GOP blocked the creation of an _outside commission_, true. However, Pelosi is moving ahead with the creation of a select committee, with subpoena powers. This sounds like inside baseball, and to a degree it is... but an outside commission would be something like the 9/11 commission, whereas a select committee is something like Benghazi.
> 
> Membership on the committee will be comprised of 13 members, 8 named by Pelosi and 5 by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Pelosi has indicated she plans on making one of her eight a republican, so partisan membership will likely be 7 Democrats to 6 Republicans, unless McCarthy throws a curveball too. Most likely, those 6 Republicans will be five hell-bent on stonewalling the investigation or building a case that it was antifa, and not Trump supporters, who seized the capitol. But, the pick of someone like Liz Cheney (who is being rumored to be under consideration)would result in a lot of "seven Democrats and one Republican" votes, and would give the appearance of bipartisanship to a type of body that often - fairly - is accused of partisanhip. It's actually a pretty savvy move on Pelosi's part, I think.
> 
> 
> Seat three conservative justices as well as an unprecedented number of lower court conservatives, remove the individual mandate penalty and come within a vote of repealing the ACA altogether, passed a sweeping tax cut, and generally advanced a lot of his own traditional Republican priorities, while otherwise ignoring and/or distancing himself from Trump - I think they hadn't met face to face in six months to a year even BEFORE the January 6th riots. Trump may have been the political equivalent of a rabid dog, but McConnell was certainly tactical about milking as much good as he could have out of the situation before finally stepping in to put the dog down.


So I mixed up the word committee and commission, but the bottom line is, there were Republican statements this morning saying they absolutely do not want a committee "formed by a Democrat" investigating it as it *WILL* be partisan. Regardless of the details, this is their statement in the face of the fact that it can't completely escape investigation.


----------



## Ralyks

Not sure if this is the place for this, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just overturned Bill Cosbys conviction.

What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> Trump may have been the political equivalent of a rabid dog


If we're talking about Mitch milking Trump, then I'd say the more appropriate analogue for the latter is a mad cow.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Not sure if this is the place for this, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just overturned Bill Cosbys conviction.
> 
> What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck.


Dear 2021,
You're no 2020, but damn if you aren't trying.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, Donald Rumsfeld ded.


----------



## USMarine75

Ralyks said:


> Also, Donald Rumsfeld ded.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Seat three conservative justices as well as an unprecedented number of lower court conservatives, remove the individual mandate penalty and come within a vote of repealing the ACA altogether, passed a sweeping tax cut, and generally advanced a lot of his own traditional Republican priorities, while otherwise ignoring and/or distancing himself from Trump - I think they hadn't met face to face in six months to a year even BEFORE the January 6th riots. Trump may have been the political equivalent of a rabid dog, but McConnell was certainly tactical about milking as much good as he could have out of the situation before finally stepping in to put the dog down.



The way I see it, though, none of the stuff McConnell did was intended to push/pull with Trump, though. Maybe I'm not looking through it with GOP eyes...



Ralyks said:


> Not sure if this is the place for this, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court just overturned Bill Cosbys conviction.
> 
> What, and I cannot stress this enough, the fuck.



Huh. So, well, I'm sure there's an entire discussion to be had about the Fifth Amendment and prosecutor responsibilities, but... I mean... to cut to the chase, if you have money, you can get away with pretty much anything- that's my takeaway from that.


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> At what point will the American people stop voting these worthless, lying, amoral, non-stand-taking supposed people into office? I have to think there's a line they could cross that would be enough, but it never seems to happen.



Why do you assume that morality or honor are traits that get people elected? People care about one thing, what is good for them. If they think that a corrupt, immoral, adulterous molester will benefit them better than an decent, reasonable person, they will vote for the former. If you still don't get that after Trump, you need to seriously reconsider your view of the world.



nightflameauto said:


> I can't imagine having my life and place of employment put in danger, then noping out when asked if I want it investigated so firmly that I actually start getting angry about the mere implication that something untoward happened. WTF?



Do you think a risk 1 day of their lives is worth risking their careers and reelection? They are very clearly more interested in keeping their position than taking action to go against what their voters want.

How many people outside of politics look the other way regularly to try to keep good terms with their community and keep their livelihood?People do this kind of crap every day. Just look at complacent cops (BLM) or the entertainment industry (metoo) for more examples. Even the energy industry has blindly turned their head screwing over the planet for 50+ years for personal gain.

I'm really not trying to target you specifically, I just think the attitude of "why would anyone vote for this" shows a lack of experience actually listening to the people who are voting for this. Or maybe just being too much of an idealist to realize how the real world functions.


----------



## nightflameauto

I tend to be somewhere between idealist and realist, which means both of those extremes see me as an utter nutter.

To be completely fair, I don't think voting for either of the major parties on the national level is a net good for anyone outside the ultra-rich that get a return on investment from them. Most of us are just voting for those that we think will hurt us less or at least less directly. Those that go to the polls gleeful over getting to choose between a beating with a cat of nine tails or a beating with a whip baffle me just as much as the idea that "I will pwn them" is somehow a viable platform. It doesn't make sense to me on a fundamental level.

The argument, "that's just how the world works" is a great conversation stopper though. It leaves zero room for a continued conversation, so I guess I'm just tossing words into the virtual paper shredder here.


----------



## r33per

Ralyks said:


> Also, Donald Rumsfeld ded.


Well, I guess the inevitably of this was a Known Known...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The Axiomatic Wisdom of Donald Rumsfeld, Philosopher 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns


----------



## Ralyks

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...p-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg.amp.html

Weisselberg surrendered and is suppose to appear in court today. Shit looks like it might actually be going down.


----------



## Randy

Elise Stefanik says she supports police. Her votes suggest otherwise.

"Consider what Stefanik (or somebody who works for her) tweeted on Monday: "America is facing a #CrimeCrisis due to the failed Far Left policies of Joe Biden & radical Dems. Defunding the police hurts every community!"

And on Tuesday: "Dems’ mantra 'Defund the Police' was one of their top policy & messaging points in 2020 ... GOP has always supported increasing funding for police!"

The National Association of Police Officers says Stefanik voted with its legislative priorities just 57 percent of the time during the 116th Congress. That's the lowest percentage among New York's House of Representatives delegation — and notably lower than the percentages from Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (71 percent), Antonio Delgado (86 percent) and Paul Tonko (86 percent).

NAPO is not a liberal group, mind you. The organization, a coalition of police unions that is based in Virginia and claims to represent 241,000 police officers, endorsed Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election."


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...p-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg.amp.html
> 
> Weisselberg surrendered and is suppose to appear in court today. Shit looks like it might actually be going down.


As much as I wanna grab the popcorn and watch this, I have a feeling it's just gonna be another round of associates getting pegged for Trump & Family's shenanigans while the Trumps skate off shrugging their shoulders like they had no idea any of this ever happened.


----------



## Crungy

It's a always a possibility with people this greasy... They've come this far, I'm sure their evil genius had some sort of exit strategy.


----------



## Crungy

Not to be a total pessimist in my last post... I have hope there will be some justice coming, piping hot steamy justice.


----------



## fantom

nightflameauto said:


> I tend to be somewhere between idealist and realist, which means both of those extremes see me as an utter nutter.
> 
> To be completely fair, I don't think voting for either of the major parties on the national level is a net good for anyone outside the ultra-rich that get a return on investment from them. Most of us are just voting for those that we think will hurt us less or at least less directly. Those that go to the polls gleeful over getting to choose between a beating with a cat of nine tails or a beating with a whip baffle me just as much as the idea that "I will pwn them" is somehow a viable platform. It doesn't make sense to me on a fundamental level.
> 
> The argument, "that's just how the world works" is a great conversation stopper though. It leaves zero room for a continued conversation, so I guess I'm just tossing words into the virtual paper shredder here.



Definitely not trying to shutdown the conversation. As a country, we've know about the risk of a 2 party system for centuries. People do tend to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We are so far gone that almost half of the country legitimately thought Biden was worse for them than Trump. 35% are adamant about it.

As mentioned, most politicians are rich and just want power and influence. Self-selection of candidates is part of the problem. People who want to be politicians, especially for decades, are not good for society. We would probably be better off if we treated elections the same way we do jury duty. Randomly pick several candidates for each post and interview them, keeping the better candidate, and send them to elections. Relieve them when their time is done (and make a very hard deadline on their time expiring, none of this career politician bs). But that isn't realistic.


----------



## fantom

Crungy said:


> Not to be a total pessimist in my last post... I have hope there will be some justice coming, piping hot steamy justice.


Even if Trump serves no time in a plea, if he becomes a felon, he cannot run for election. If they can manage to get Ivanka tagged too, it will at least prevent the Trumps from screwing over the system in the next decade, which is a far better win than Trump going to jail.


----------



## Crungy

That's the kind of justice I'm looking for.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drove past my childhood home. Two "TRUMP IS THE REAL PRESIDENT" flags on the front porch. Broke my heart.


----------



## Crungy

That's what most of my neighbors are like. Stop the steal, fuck Biden, trump 2024... It's tiring.


----------



## Randy

Local police continue to act like third world, right wing militias

Some Missouri police cut ties with ATF as feds assess impact of new gun law

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article252489118.html


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> So I mixed up the word committee and commission, but the bottom line is, there were Republican statements this morning saying they absolutely do not want a committee "formed by a Democrat" investigating it as it *WILL* be partisan. Regardless of the details, this is their statement in the face of the fact that it can't completely escape investigation.


I mean, where I was going here is, the GOP will be participating, whether they like it or not. 

It's just five of them will be bomb-throwing anarchists trying to tear down the committee, and the sixth will want an honest to god investigation and will piss the other five off.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Huh. So, well, I'm sure there's an entire discussion to be had about the Fifth Amendment and prosecutor responsibilities, but... I mean... to cut to the chase, if you have money, you can get away with pretty much anything- that's my takeaway from that.


My first reaction was I fully expected this to be appealed to the SC and overturned again, but when I started reading the gist of the discussion... the court has a point. 

tl;dr - Cosby was compelled to testify on the grounds that he could not be prosecuted for his alleged crimes, so therefore he had no constitutional right not to be compelled to self-incriminate. Then, after his forced testimony, his testimony was used to try him for those same crimes. I think it's less "if you have money you can get away with anything," though a less rich man would have had a hard time appealing as far as he did, and more "prosecutors will bend and break the law to get a conviction because no one stops them," but the upshot is this probably WAS a mistrial. 

Of course, I'm pretty sure that compelled testimony can still be used against him in a _civil_ suit...


----------



## nightflameauto

fantom said:


> Definitely not trying to shutdown the conversation. As a country, we've know about the risk of a 2 party system for centuries. People do tend to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. We are so far gone that almost half of the country legitimately thought Biden was worse for them than Trump. 35% are adamant about it.
> 
> As mentioned, most politicians are rich and just want power and influence. Self-selection of candidates is part of the problem. People who want to be politicians, especially for decades, are not good for society. We would probably be better off if we treated elections the same way we do jury duty. Randomly pick several candidates for each post and interview them, keeping the better candidate, and send them to elections. Relieve them when their time is done (and make a very hard deadline on their time expiring, none of this career politician bs). But that isn't realistic.


So we're mostly in agreement.

I do wish the concept of the career politician would go away, but that ship, much like the hope for the two party system to disappear, has long since sailed.


Drew said:


> I mean, where I was going here is, the GOP will be participating, whether they like it or not.
> 
> It's just five of them will be bomb-throwing anarchists trying to tear down the committee, and the sixth will want an honest to god investigation and will piss the other five off.


Ah, par for the course then.

In other news, New York's mayoral primary seems to be an utter disaster. If not for the fact that their entire system of election officials are barely functional at the best of times, you'd almost think it was an intentional fubar just to make it seem like ranked choice is a failure. Too bad we have plenty of examples of it working perfectly fine in other cities and states.

Can you imagine the fear in the majority of political assbags if we had national ranked choice elections and primaries? No more lesser of two evils. Then it could be like, lesser of five evils or something. At least it'd be nuanced.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> In other news, New York's mayoral primary seems to be an utter disaster. If not for the fact that their entire system of election officials are barely functional at the best of times, you'd almost think it was an intentional fubar just to make it seem like ranked choice is a failure. Too bad we have plenty of examples of it working perfectly fine in other cities and states.
> 
> Can you imagine the fear in the majority of political assbags if we had national ranked choice elections and primaries? No more lesser of two evils. Then it could be like, lesser of five evils or something. At least it'd be nuanced.


I mostly don't believe it's an intentional FUBAR because NYC has the population of many entire _states_ so there's a lot that could go wrong here. I don't think ranked-choice is a silver bullet or anything, but I DID support it ub Mass when it was on the ballot last year.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I mostly don't believe it's an intentional FUBAR because NYC has the population of many entire _states_ so there's a lot that could go wrong here. I don't think ranked-choice is a silver bullet or anything, but I DID support it ub Mass when it was on the ballot last year.


It's more than just a population issue though. There was an article somewhere I read this morning talking about how the entire state's election system is set up as a massive failure.

Ah, here we go:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/briefing/new-york-mayors-race-board-of-elections.html

So it sounds like this wasn't so much an intentional fubar as a long-standing "fubar gonna fubar" situation that finally had a chance to show the world it's best face.

It'll still be a fun thing critics can whip out to demonstrate their bias when ranked choice gets mentioned for the next several years. It'll just be fun to point out the places where it is working and watch the tailspin arguments over population density and such.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

You can tell being a career politician is a huge grift when they gladly do it into their 80s because it's just as easy as retirement and they get benefits travel expense and a salary to just pal around with lobbyists and be obtuse at hearings.


----------



## Drew

By the way, if anyone else is paying attention, Liz Cheney accepted a nomination as one of Pelosi's 8 to the panel, to Republican outrage, ensuring that whoever else McCarthy names, this panel will enjoy bipartisan support. 

Elsewhere, the Trump Organization and the Organization's CFO were charged with tax fraud stretching back at least 15 years, by the Manhattan DA. They pleaded not guilty, so this will be going to trial.


----------



## nightflameauto

Liz Cheney being nominated to Pelosi's panel will be more fuel to the current Republican fire of "Cheney is not one of us." Especially since it's pretty apparent she does not agree with the Republican party's current stance on the January 6th "incident."


----------



## Ralyks

"The Manhattan district attorney’s office alleges the scheme went on for 15 years, and has charged the Trump Organization and CFO Allen Weisselberg with criminal tax fraud, falsifying business records, grand larceny, and scheming to defraud the government."

That's some heavy shit.


----------



## mlp187

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I’m quitting my job September and going to get a degree.


Fuck yeah, I did this @ age 30, actually I was laid off, but similar idea. Do it man. Hopefully it’s not too costly.


----------



## mlp187

spudmunkey said:


> I was laid off in Septerber and let go in February. I'll be 42 in July, and starting my first post-high-school education on August 16th.


Good for you for taking that step! best of luck!


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Potential jail time for Weisselberg cause evading tax on $1.17 mil is kinda a big deal... maybe a big enough deal at this point to force him to reconsider flipping.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Liz Cheney being nominated to Pelosi's panel will be more fuel to the current Republican fire of "Cheney is not one of us." Especially since it's pretty apparent she does not agree with the Republican party's current stance on the January 6th "incident."


Against which, I would counter she's also the daughter of a former Republican Vice President widely considered the most powerful Vice President in American history, and has been a member of every Republican presidential administration since Nixon, up to Trump, with the exception of the Reagan years, at which point he was a Republican Representative. She has her father's full support, and it's hard to imagine a more "establishment" Republican pedigree here.

If the House GOP wants to say "Cheney is not one of us," then they're saying they're not themselves Republicans. That might work in the short term, even.


----------



## possumkiller




----------



## MaxOfMetal

possumkiller said:


> View attachment 95104



My favs:


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Against which, I would counter she's also the daughter of a former Republican Vice President widely considered the most powerful Vice President in American history, and has been a member of every Republican presidential administration since Nixon, up to Trump, with the exception of the Reagan years, at which point he was a Republican Representative. She has her father's full support, and it's hard to imagine a more "establishment" Republican pedigree here.
> 
> If the House GOP wants to say "Cheney is not one of us," then they're saying they're not themselves Republicans. That might work in the short term, even.


Can't disagree with any of this. Though, truth be told, the Republican party today doesn't much resemble the Republican party of twenty years ago, hell, it barely resembles the Republican party of ten years ago.

I don't really know where their slide into weirdness is going to end. I keep thinking, "surely this is the moment where the majority of them wake up from the fog of ever increasing crazy," and yet they keep ploughing forward with it. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to remain a singular political party or if the less insane among them split off to do their own thing in the coming years. I can't imagine the majority of voters are thrilled with the current direction, but then again a few years back I wouldn't have imagined four years of Trump as President. So clearly I don't have my finger on the pulse of the average citizen.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I don't really know where their slide into weirdness is going to end. I keep thinking, "surely this is the moment where the majority of them wake up from the fog of ever increasing crazy," and yet they keep ploughing forward with it. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to remain a singular political party or if the less insane among them split off to do their own thing in the coming years. I can't imagine the majority of voters are thrilled with the current direction, but then again a few years back I wouldn't have imagined four years of Trump as President. So clearly I don't have my finger on the pulse of the average citizen.


Just spitballing, there's a few ways I see this going down:


The GOP continues to become the xenophobic populist party of Trump. Becomes a squarely minority party, manages to stay somewhat relevant due to the split between urban and rural areas, but struggles to hold onto 50% of the Senate nonetheless as the slide speeds the transition of blue states into purple ones
The GOP continues to slide to Trump in the short term, but a "come to Jesus" moment so severe that even they can't stomach him, occurs between now and 2024 with respect to Trump specifically - major criminal indictments of Trump and his organization with evidence strong enough that even Fox and OAN cut losses, actual evidence of collusion with Russia emerging, whatever; Trump leaves a vacuum; someone else fills it, direction the party takes depends on who fills that vacuum.
variation on the above; Trump dies. Vacuum, power struggle, future of the party depends on if it's a Trumpier Trump, or a moderate.
Variation #2 on the above - the come-to-jesus monent isn't about Trump specificlly, but the 2022 midterms become a national referendum on the Trump-brand of Republicanism, moderate Republicans do ok but Trump loyalists get shellacked, and rather than losing seats in the House and Senate as expected, Democrats put up sizable majorities. This causes a major rethinking of direction on the part of the GOP, doubly so as the Democrats, not being stupid, quickly pass substantial voting rights legislation, undoing some of the structural advantages the GOP has been busy trying to build.
the party does indeed split, between a Trump faction and an establishment faction. Long term, the US Constitution is in equiliberum with a two party government, so one of these two factions will be defeated, but the struggle will result in a cycle or two of solid democratic control, and, hopefully, voting rights reform.
On the other side of the coin... the Democrats, not the Republicans, implode, when Sanders decides to primary Biden, win or lose splitting the Democratic vote and giving Trump an easy win in 2024. The GOP decides to look at 2020 as an aberration, doubles down on the xenophobic populist direction, and the Democrats are the party that has to do some soul searching and unification, as the party unites under Trump
Reverse of above - Biden runs uncontested, Trump runs but loses, runs as an independent in the general. cue havok, though it;s hard to see him getting a majority of the votes aggainst both a sitting Democrat, _and_ an establishment, party-backed Republican. Probably gets over the 5% threshold to secure federal financing in future elections, giving us a Trump-aligned "One America" party or whatever he was toying of calling his party, dividing the GOP vote for at least a few cycles before one party is absorbed or eliminated by the other.
Just the tip of the iceberg, though, really...


----------



## BigViolin

So? It really is a dystopian nightmare. 

Hope everyone has a safe and happy long weekend.


----------



## diagrammatiks

BigViolin said:


> So? It really is a dystopian nightmare.
> 
> Hope everyone has a safe and happy long weekend.



don't melt


----------



## bostjan

The GOP being the party of "I don't like the majority party" is far less likely to splinter into factions.

The Democratic Party, seemingly being the party of losing a game of poker when being dealt a royal flush, is really difficult to predict, but, @Drew, I think that's a pretty good list of possibilities.

As far as Cosby goes, I see what you are saying. If I testified in a civil case under the promise of immunity from prosecution, and then was prosecuted, I'd have a problem with that. The trouble is 1. we *all* know that such promises are common from prosecutors and are broken as a general rule, and 2. anyone with an average amount of wealth would not have anywhere near the financial means to turn that around.

Thus my statement.

Also, prosecutors have no moral ground to make such promises. In this case, you are talking about one of the two most violent crimes that exist. Throwing justice away in order for a civil suit win is beyond a normal amount of scummy. If I were naïve, I'd say maybe this ought to teach prospectors a lesson, but yeah, no.


----------



## fantom

https://www.theonion.com/supreme-court-waits-in-line-for-hours-before-voting-to-1847211846


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The GOP being the party of "I don't like the majority party" is far less likely to splinter into factions.
> 
> The Democratic Party, seemingly being the party of losing a game of poker when being dealt a royal flush, is really difficult to predict, but, @Drew, I think that's a pretty good list of possibilities.


I think that's the crux of the difference between the two parties, really, more than anything else platform-wise. 

The GOP is the "I'm opposed to whatever Democrats are for" party. The Democrats, poor fools, actually try to have a platform. 

This makes the GOP much more suited to being a minority opposition party, as it's much easier to run on "repeal the ACA! Stop those Democratic Socialists!" than it is to run on a platform of green infrastructure, supporting voting rights, international re-engagement, fighting climate change, supporting abortion rights, etc etc etc. Even if every single Democrat was for everything the Biden Administration is for - and we're not a monolithic bloc - there are going to be differences in priorities, and Biden is catching flack now from the progressive wing because we're working with the GOP to get brick-and-mortar infrastructure done on a bipartisan basis, and the progressive left wants him to overturn the filibuster and shove through climate change legislation on a party-line vote. That's far more likely to fracture a party than something as non-controversial as "Democrats bad! Republicans Good!" 

The only thing that makes me not willing to completely write off GOP implosion scenarios is, every now and then, an effective opposition minority party opposes the majority effectively enough to win elections, and the Trump Administration, from a Congressional standpoint, was a great example of what happens if you run without a platform and win, and suddenly have to govern for four years. You can only not get jack shit done so many times in a row before voters start to get a bit jaded. Especially with, near as I an tell, the Trump wing really aligning with the "loyalty to Trump, and against the Democrats" wing, there's a risk that a, oh, Paul Ryan type figure could pop up with some sort of a New Conservative Deal blueprint that could actually be campaigned on, and suddenly there's some real turmoil in the GOP over the direction the party should go in. 

The flip side of course is, at least in the short term, the pressure is definitely on the Democrats a bit more to actually accomplish shit, since they're the party campaigning on the shit they're going to accomplish, rather than the shit they're going to stop from happening.

As a Democrat - the scenario I worry about the most is after an ok-or-better, not abysmal, possibly pretty good 2-3 years, we enter primary season and Biden is sitting in the high 40/low 50s approval range.... and Sanders launches a primary challenge anyway, citing things like the lack of a Green New Deal or a Voting Rights bill being passed as reasons we need a different Democrat in the White House. And don't get me wrong, I want a voting rights bill too, but we can't do that via reconciliation, you know? But, with Trump still potentially able to run and wildly popular with one wing of the party, the margin for error is _exceedingly_ small and a primary challenge from a popular factional candidate would be a mess no matter WHO won the primary.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> The only thing that makes me not willing to completely write off GOP implosion scenarios is, every now and then, an effective opposition minority party opposes the majority effectively enough to win elections, and the Trump Administration, from a Congressional standpoint, was a great example of what happens if you run without a platform and win, and suddenly have to govern for four years. You can only not get jack shit done so many times in a row before voters start to get a bit jaded. Especially with, near as I an tell, the Trump wing really aligning with the "loyalty to Trump, and against the Democrats" wing, there's a risk that a, oh, Paul Ryan type figure could pop up with some sort of a New Conservative Deal blueprint that could actually be campaigned on, and suddenly there's some real turmoil in the GOP over the direction the party should go in.



In a non-bizarro world, this would make sense, but I think we're past that.

After 4 years of jack shit and scandals, there were _more _people willing (I should say enthusiastic) to vote for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Trump voters don't care about their party doing jack shit. They love it. The opposite of jaded. As for smarter splinter figures causing turmoil? They're all systematically being shutdown in favor of dear leader, and everyone falls in line at the end of the day. It is truly a cult of personality for the 35% of voters who control the country.


----------



## Drew

mbardu said:


> In a non-bizarro world, this would make sense, but I think we're past that.
> 
> After 4 years of jack shit and scandals, there were _more _people willing (I should say enthusiastic) to vote for Trump in 2020 than in 2016. Trump voters don't care about their party doing jack shit. They love it. The opposite of jaded. As for smarter splinter figures causing turmoil? They're all systematically being shutdown in favor of dear leader, and everyone falls in line at the end of the day. It is truly a cult of personality for the 35% of voters who control the country.


tl;dr - I'm not QUITE there. At some point, I do trust that a couple cycles of campaigning on "stop the Democrats" and then not doing anything once in power, and in fact at least on one occasion making things far, far, far worse (ahem, covid), will _eventuall_y weigh on the GOP. But I think we've got 2024, possibly 2028, and maybe even 2032 to contend with first. 

I also think that the reaction function of the Republican _media_ more so than voters is the one to watch. You give them a Liz Warren "I've got a plan for that!" Republican, and if they fall in line then all bets are off.


----------



## Ralyks

For some reason, I can’t see Bernie trying to run again…. But Trump became President, so the fuck do I know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Randy

Knowingly insane




https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...el-Flynn-pose-bizarre-path-Trump-diagram.html


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> tl;dr - I'm not QUITE there. At some point, I do trust that a couple cycles of campaigning on "stop the Democrats" and then not doing anything once in power, and in fact at least on one occasion making things far, far, far worse (ahem, covid), will _eventuall_y weigh on the GOP. But I think we've got 2024, possibly 2028, and maybe even 2032 to contend with first.
> 
> I also think that the reaction function of the Republican _media_ more so than voters is the one to watch. You give them a Liz Warren "I've got a plan for that!" Republican, and if they fall in line then all bets are off.



I mean, you're kidding yourself if you think GOP voters will stay home if the candidate is Kamala Harris just because she's center left and not some whacky commie. C'mon you know better than that.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Knowingly insane
> 
> View attachment 95337
> 
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...el-Flynn-pose-bizarre-path-Trump-diagram.html


I knew it! It was Pepe Sylvia all along!


----------



## zappatton2

spudmunkey said:


> I knew it! It was Pepe Sylvia all along!


Don't forget Carol in HR. Caaarol, Caaarol!


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> Knowingly insane
> 
> View attachment 95337
> 
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...el-Flynn-pose-bizarre-path-Trump-diagram.html


In college physics, we were allowed to make equation sheets for exams, but we could only use one sheet of paper and it had to be handwritten. For our final, I went all out, writing everything in half-line size, and I still managed to fill both sides of the page. I still have that equation sheet, because it's a work of art that took me 6 hours of concentrated effort to make, and it helped me tie for the highest mark on the exam in that class.

This madness absolutely gives my equation sheet a run for its money for pure data density.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> In college physics, we were allowed to make equation sheets for exams, but we could only use one sheet of paper and it had to be handwritten. For our final, I went all out, writing everything in half-line size, and I still managed to fill both sides of the page. I still have that equation sheet, because it's a work of art that took me 6 hours of concentrated effort to make, and it helped me tie for the highest mark on the exam in that class.
> 
> This madness absolutely gives my equation sheet a run for its money for pure data density.


Well, maybe density. I think calling it "data" is giving undue credit.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> Well, maybe density. I think calling it "data" is giving undue credit.


I actually downgraded from calling it information to data before I made that post, because I thought calling it information was being too generous.


----------



## USMarine75

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/08/michael-avenatti-receives-30-month-prison-sentence/

Michael Avenatti's fall from grace is complete. (remember when he was considered a DNC hopeful?)


----------



## mbardu

USMarine75 said:


> https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/08/michael-avenatti-receives-30-month-prison-sentence/
> 
> Michael Avenatti's fall from grace is complete. (remember when he was considered a DNC hopeful?)



Too bad he's a Democrat and not a Republican.
A conviction for extortion or fraud usually fast-tracks you up the food chain in GOP land. 
It's like a badge of "honor" (yuck I already regret putting GOP and honor in the same paragraph).


----------



## Randy

USMarine75 said:


> https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/07/08/michael-avenatti-receives-30-month-prison-sentence/
> 
> Michael Avenatti's fall from grace is complete. (remember when he was considered a DNC hopeful?)



That's not that bad considering. When they projected him getting convicted on all charges and running consecutively, he was gonna be there for like 50 years.


----------



## USMarine75

"You cannot ever say anything supportive of Adolf Hitler. You just can't."


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I mean, you're kidding yourself if you think GOP voters will stay home if the candidate is Kamala Harris just because she's center left and not some whacky commie. C'mon you know better than that.


For the most part, yes.

But, it doesn't take much, at the margins. Georgia went blue by a few thousand votes, you know? Arizona, maybe 10,000, and PA, maybe 80,000. If GOP turnout drops 1% because the party isn't as hyper-motivated to stop a center-left democrat as it is to stop someone who makes Sanders look like Reagan, that could have pretty big consequences for an electoral map. 

If nothing else, the margin between 2016 (D +2.1) and 2020 (D +4.4) isn't THAT big, but that was the difference between a R +77 and D +74 electoral college margin, R +14.3% and D +13.8% in the EC, a 28 percentage point swing in the electoral college on a 2.3 percentage point swing in the popular vote. This is NOT a linear relationship.

My point was more the reverse, though - what the GOP would do if they had a non-Trump candidate who actually had a platform to campaign ON, and something they in turn had to vote FOR, would be very interesting t see.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

USMarine75 said:


> "You cannot ever say anything supportive of Adolf Hitler. You just can't."



Okay, first, don't take this the wrong way, I have great depths of empathy for drug addicts and feel strongly that we should be addressing their issues as a public health crisis rather than crimes, and that passing judgement on them for their suffering is inappropriate. Okay then, story time.

One time I went back to a midwest town that I'd lived in for a couple years with my partner at the time who was from there. We went and visited an old pal of hers, who had another friend over. We found out during the course of this visit that the "other friend" had started using methamphetamine and though I didn't know them before, my partner assured me afterward that they were clearly addled by the stuff. 

This "other friend" started saying really weird stuff that in hindsight was obliquely nazi memelord stuff. Eventually they showed me a meme that had the two pieces of a swastika separated and said something like "name a better couple." I still didn't get it and asked them to explain, at which point they immediately jumped into a diatribe about the supposed benefits of national socialism, prefaced almost WORD FOR WORD with both "Hitler did a lot of good things" and "you can't say anything supportive of Hitler."

It was an awful experience, and ended our friendly visit on the spot. What struck me about all of this is that obviously these talking points are coming from somewhere, and whatever gross shit that poor kid was reading online is obviously making its way across Donald's ipad as well.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/opinions/rachel-nichols-espn-zakaria/index.html

This is one of the reasons why half the country hates liberals. Rachel Nichols never said or implied anything about Maria Taylor. She is the senior basketball sideline reporter and was bumped. She went on to slam ESPN's record when it comes to diversity and inclusion. Her only disparaging remark was (paraphrasing) that's fine if you want to do the right thing but don't punish her (Nichols) in the process. 

And of course Nichols fell all over herself apologizing. And she's prob going to go on an apology tour. F that. GQP never apologizes. They are the Eagles Fangs of politics. They dont apologize, when confronted they double down.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/opinions/rachel-nichols-espn-zakaria/index.html
> 
> This is one of the reasons why half the country hates liberals. Rachel Nichols never said or implied anything about Maria Taylor. She is the senior basketball sideline reporter and was bumped. She went on to slam ESPN's record when it comes to diversity and inclusion. Her only disparaging remark was (paraphrasing) that's fine if you want to do the right thing but don't punish her (Nichols) in the process.
> 
> And of course Nichols fell all over herself apologizing. And she's prob going to go on an apology tour. F that. GQP never apologizes. They are the Eagles Fangs of politics. They dont apologize, when confronted they double down.




Death by circular firing squad. Because imperfect people cannot be allies. Like that quack congresswoman in Georgia is comparing vaccines to the holocaust again and no reaction from anybody while the left tears itself apart over nonsense.


----------



## StevenC

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/09/opinions/rachel-nichols-espn-zakaria/index.html
> 
> This is one of the reasons why half the country hates liberals. Rachel Nichols never said or implied anything about Maria Taylor. She is the senior basketball sideline reporter and was bumped. She went on to slam ESPN's record when it comes to diversity and inclusion. Her only disparaging remark was (paraphrasing) that's fine if you want to do the right thing but don't punish her (Nichols) in the process.
> 
> And of course Nichols fell all over herself apologizing. And she's prob going to go on an apology tour. F that. GQP never apologizes. They are the Eagles Fangs of politics. They dont apologize, when confronted they double down.


This is an entirely manufactured controversy, though. It all happened a day or two after ESPN talking heads were complaining about the NBA Finals matchup being unappealing for their ratings, during the last few games of the Conference Finals they weren't broadcasting after the one they did have finished and they had space to fill. I 100% believe Nichols took the fall/hit to get ESPN/NBA in headlines leading up to a Finals ESPN has no idea how to advertise.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

StevenC said:


> This is an entirely manufactured controversy, though. It all happened a day or two after ESPN talking heads were complaining about the NBA Finals matchup being unappealing for their ratings, during the last few games of the Conference Finals they weren't broadcasting after the one they did have finished and they had space to fill. I 100% believe Nichols took the fall/hit to get ESPN/NBA in headlines leading up to a Finals ESPN has no idea how to advertise.



I have also heard Taylor is in contract negotiations after having turned down a fairly sizeable offer pre covid that is now not on the table anymore. So may have been leaked by her camp to try and force some leverage.


----------



## USMarine75

Dineley said:


> Death by circular firing squad. Because imperfect people cannot be allies. Like that quack congresswoman in Georgia is comparing vaccines to the holocaust again and no reaction from anybody while the left tears itself apart over nonsense.



Exactly. 

It's like how Lin Manuel Miranda had to go on an apology tour because the Hispanics weren't dark enough in his recent movie. 

Or when Al Franken had to disappear because he made an inappropriate gesture while on a GSO tour. And the number one person calling for his resignation was a fellow democrat - Kirsten Gillibrand.


----------



## nightflameauto

Democrats tend to like to create martyrs out of their allies. It makes them feel more woke, more special, and more "diversity aware" to publicly shame their friends and allies.

Meanwhile, Republicans staunchly support dipshits like Marjorie Taylor Greene because, fuck it, in for a penny, in for a pound. Even if the pound literally translates to stupid, bigoted, conspiracy level lunacy.

And we get the extreme privilege of having to choose between these two stellar groups of reprehensible idiots come election time. What a mess.


----------



## bostjan

Small nit pick, but I don't think the GOP is "staunchly" supportive of MTG as much as they are "cautiously" supportive of her. They have, on at least two occasions, officially said that they didn't agree with her, but refused to take even the smallest token of disciplinary action against her.

I don't think any of that has any bearing on the overall point, however. If any democrat had said anything half as crazy as she's said, they'd have been booted.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> I don't think any of that has any bearing on the overall point, however. If any democrat had said *anything half as crazy as she's said*, they'd have been booted.



The funny thing is that many on the right would consider anything out of AOC's mouth (_maybe we need a lot more fairness in our society, and we shouldn't let the planet burn_) crazier than what MJT or LB spew on a regular basis.


----------



## nightflameauto

mbardu said:


> The funny thing is that many on the right would consider anything out of AOC's mouth (_maybe we need a lot more fairness in our society, and we shouldn't let the planet burn_) crazier than what MJT or LB spew on a regular basis.


Being decent to our fellow humans is un-American, anti-capitalist, commie scum level talk. /GOP

I used to love listening to our old marketing director spend hour after hour screaming about AOC being completely insane. It's great for morale to have that kind of chatter around the office.


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> The funny thing is that many on the right would consider anything out of AOC's mouth (_maybe we need a lot more fairness in our society, and we shouldn't let the planet burn_) crazier than what MJT or LB spew on a regular basis.


AOC got off to a rough start and sort of made herself look like an idiot on social media when she was first elected. Now that she's earned some experience, she's a lot more composed, but the GOP still acts like she's just a random brainless TikTok'er who got elected. I think Omar gets just as much hate and has said some really simply profound things, but all the GOP sees is a woman with a hijab, so they are afraid of her.

The sad thing to me is that the GOP could still be the party of "nope" toward everything the Democratic party asks, without being idiots about it, and maybe a fair share of them are, but then there's Boebert and MTG and others saying just the most idiotic things, taking up all of the headlines.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> without being idiots about it



Bu...bu...but...being an idiot is like half the point.
The entire reason Trump got elected.
This way the voters can _relate_.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

They cheered about not reaching vaccination goal at CPAC. This is just absurd and pathetic


----------



## nightflameauto

Dineley said:


> They cheered about not reaching vaccination goal at CPAC. This is just absurd and pathetic


That last sentence can be used to sum up most of what I've heard of CPAC. Granted, I don't go out of my way to follow obvious trash takes, so I'm sure I'm only hearing the cream of the crap that came out of it, but still. It's a big enough amount of crap I'm having a hard time imagining they had time to fit in anything important or relevant to reality.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> They cheered about not reaching vaccination goal at CPAC. This is just absurd and pathetic



"Pro Life"


----------



## thebeesknees22

Dineley said:


> They cheered about not reaching vaccination goal at CPAC. This is just absurd and pathetic



They'll cheer at anything so long as the democrats don't accomplish a goal. ....even at their own expense.


----------



## Crungy

Had to


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> Had to
> View attachment 95519


#ThanksObama !


----------



## nightflameauto

Crungy said:


> Had to
> View attachment 95519


You need to add some Democrats standing at the side saying this doesn't seem like a good idea before hand to really fit reality.


----------



## Ralyks

Anyone else seeing this shit going on in Texas?


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Anyone else seeing this shit going on in Texas?


You talkin' about the Democrats who fled the state to postpone the vote on the voter suppression bill and the fact they're being threatened with arrest when they return?

Yeah, this is only going to escalate. I hope it doesn't get as bad as I think it might, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to how far the Republicans will go to get their way at this point. I hope I'm wrong and it stops with fantasy bullshit being spewed to the media, but we all saw what happened when the fantasy got real on January 6th. I hope we aren't preparing to watch the next phase of this garbage.


----------



## Ralyks

Shame they didn't arrest Cruz for fleeing when HE was needed in Texas.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> You talkin' about the Democrats who fled the state to postpone the vote on the voter suppression bill and the fact they're being threatened with arrest when they return?
> 
> Yeah, this is only going to escalate. I hope it doesn't get as bad as I think it might, but there doesn't seem to be a limit to how far the Republicans will go to get their way at this point. I hope I'm wrong and it stops with fantasy bullshit being spewed to the media, but we all saw what happened when the fantasy got real on January 6th. I hope we aren't preparing to watch the next phase of this garbage.


So the Texas state GOP managed to eke a quorum and passed the law.


----------



## nightflameauto

Trying to search but don't know what keywords to hunt for at the moment. Are the Democrats still going to get arrested when they come back home, or is it all gonna be a big nothingburger since the Republicans got their way without them?


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Trying to search but don't know what keywords to hunt for at the moment. Are the Democrats still going to get arrested when they come back home, or is it all gonna be a big nothingburger since the Republicans got their way without them?


The governor of Texas publicly stated that they should be arrested...



Gov. Abbot said:


> As soon as they come back in the state of Texas, they will be arrested, they will be cabined inside the Texas Capitol until they get their job done.



Will it happen? IDK - maybe... probably not. Who knows?

In other wacko GOP news, MTG made the following statement:



Rep. Greene said:


> 5,946 reported deaths after taking the #COVID19 vaccine. The vaccine is NOT FDA approved. 33,631,656 Americans SURVIVED covid. But Biden & the Dems are coming to your front door to force you to take the vax, schools say your healthy kids need it, and you still think your free?



Not one word of that is legitimate. Let's break it down:

5946 reported deaths after taking the covid vaccine - technically true. 5946 of the 160 million people who took the covid vaccine died, but not because of the covid vaccine. Fewer than 40 people have died as a result of taking the vaccine.

"The vaccine is NOT FDA approved" - it is approved for emergency use, but not fully approved. That's still a sort of approved, though, so technically false.

"33,631,656 Americans SURVIVED covid" - also false. That's the total number of cases, not the total amount recovered, which is around half of that number (just over 16 million), so this statement is patently false.

"Biden & the Dems are coming to your front door to force you to take the vax" - No, they are not. This is a pants-on-fire-style lie.

"schools say your healthy kids need it" - School vaccination requirements are actually set by the states, not by the federal government, and not a single state (yet) requires a covid vaccine.

"and you still think your free?" - you're*

This is why we can't have truths, folks.


----------



## Ralyks

The only reason I don't think Texas Democrats go to jail is because money. Simple as that.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> because money


Achievement unlocked: "Understanding Global Politics" 

The GOP gets a majority half of the time in the federal government, even though they haven't attracted a majority of the votes from the voting public for over a decade. It's because they have roughly the same amount of money as the democrats.


----------



## possumkiller

nightflameauto said:


> Are the Democrats still going to get arrested when they come back home, or is it all gonna be a big nothingburger since the Republicans got their way without them?


Idk, I mean none of the politicians who incited an insurrection were arrested so I don't think it works that way. Not until the Republicans get a bigger hold over the country so they can start arresting liberals, minorities, LGBT, immigrants, educated people, and putting them in the ovens.


----------



## USMarine75

Nothing to see here.


----------



## Thorsday

possumkiller said:


> Idk... Not until the Republicans get a bigger hold over the country so they can start arresting liberals, minorities, LGBT, immigrants, educated people, and putting them in the ovens.



That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding. Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Thorsday said:


> That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding. Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...




Lol classic liberal no health care child card unions workers rights parental rights pro police pro big business anti environmental. All those liberal priorities


----------



## diagrammatiks

Thorsday said:


> That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding. Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...



you use words. But the way you are using them makes you sound like an idiot.


----------



## Xaios

Thorsday said:


> Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians...


_Please_. Republicans are all about that nanny state when it comes to enforcing their brand of morality. War on drugs? Republicans. Outlawing women's reproductive rights? Republicans.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Thorsday said:


> Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...



File under, "things that would be awesome if they were true." 

Anywhere else in the world, our "leftist" neoliberal candidates would be centrist at best, most being actually right-wing. Our choices are right and righter. Sanders and Warren are the best we've got and they're pathetic as leftists go. 



Thorsday said:


> That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian.



Literally only in the United States does libertarian _not_ mean left-anarchist.


----------



## mbardu

wheresthefbomb said:


> File under, "things that would be awesome if they were true."
> 
> Anywhere else in the world, our "leftist" neoliberal candidates would be centrist at best, most being actually right-wing. Our choices are right and righter. Sanders and Warren are the best we've got and they're pathetic as leftists go.



Sanders is alright. Warren is meeeeh, but that would still be an improvement over what we have right now.
But yeah, nobody, absolutely _nobody with a brain _thinks the US is anything but far right. Even some of the countries that have very _very _"conservative/right/religious" mindsets in places like Europe still see human life as kinda valuable over corporate lobbies, and pretty much all other developed countries see it as normal to have stuff like social safety nets and healthcare


----------



## thraxil

So... there's this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-show-putins-plot-to-put-trump-in-white-house

My gut reaction is that it's *too* perfect. As much as we know that Russia pulled a bunch of shady stuff in the 2016 election supporting Trump and probably a lot lines up with what's in these documents, it just seems too convenient and perfectly in line with what people like me are inclined to believe, along with the fact that it alludes to kompromat but doesn't actually include it, so I'm having to stay skeptical.


----------



## vilk

Thorsday said:


> Many are RHINOs


----------



## StevenC

Thorsday said:


> That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding. Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...


I love when people just out themselves like this. Basically holding up a sign saying "Put me on your ignore list".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> I love when people just out themselves like this. Basically holding up a sign saying "Put me on your ignore list".



For real. I mean, it's pretty obvious that this is copy and paste level bullshit from some right wing Facebook group, but could you imagine someone looking at the current parties and thinking that shit? 

So the Republicans are "libertarian" now, even while restricting the right to vote, free speech, body autonomy, etc? And the centrist, corporatist Democrats are "Marxist"? Meanwhile the completely deadlocked hyper-partisan Congress is actually full of fake-Republicans kowtowing to Democrats? Like, who makes this shit up? Who falls for it? 

It would be funnier if it was The Onion.


----------



## BigViolin

Eventually all the crazy ends up in this thread.


----------



## diagrammatiks

I was very happy when the Marxist Democrats nationalized the power companies during the great Texas black out.


----------



## CovertSovietBear

diagrammatiks said:


> I was very happy when the Marxist Democrats nationalized the power companies during the great Texas black out.



In complete awe of your signature. It's like a trailer for a movie but with the ending spoiled. 10/10 would click again.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

mbardu said:


> Sanders is alright. Warren is meeeeh, but that would still be an improvement over what we have right now



Oh for sure, and I'm not an actual Marxist (further left if anything...) but given the options I'd give one a shot at this point. *Was secretly hoping Kamala was an actual secret Marxist the whole time*


----------



## USMarine75

Thorsday said:


> That statement makes you come off deranged. Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian. I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding. Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...



This sounds like someone who doesn't really grasp any of the nuance of politics trying to explain politics. Well that and it's entirely wrong.



Thorsday said:


> Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal...



What is liberal about _modern _Republican beliefs? For that matter, what is _classical _Republican about modern Republican beliefs?

Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and GWB would all likely be Center Left by today's modern GOP. Big spending, open trade agreements, raising taxes, expansive Gov't projects, new Gov't agencies, increasing power of Gov't agencies, increasing international agreements and pacts, etc. Nixon recognized China, created the EPA and ATF, and oversaw the greatest expansion of the fed gov't up to that time. GWB created PEPFAR, one of the greatest humanitarian projects in US history. Obama once called GHWB one of the most underrated presidents in US history, especially for his foreign policy.



Thorsday said:


> Modern Republican beliefs are basically Classical Liberal... Libertarian.



Libertarianism is a unicorn. Never seen in the wild. There are no, and have never been, any successful Libertarian governments.

Remember when Rand Paul was a Libertarian? Because he doesn't. True Libertarians want no forms of Gov't ID, no federal oversight or agencies where local/state ones exist, no business oversight, etc. You want to see what Libertarianism looks like? Watch the Guitologist whine about how companies are allowed to get away with corporate crime, while also espousing Libertarianism. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest.

tl;dr Libertarians are just too pussy to call themselves Anarchists.



Thorsday said:


> I'm not speaking for all Rep. Politicians... Many are RHINOs who waffle in the midst of Democrats' bidding.



The term is RINO, not RHINO. They are called that because they are [guffaw] Republicans In Name Only [guffaw]. RINO is the "new beta male cuck". Or is it the new "ok boomer". Or "Libtard", "Dimocrat", "DemonRat"? Dammit, I can't keep up.

RINO's are the GQP's term for Republicans that aren't Trump sycophants. Trump attempted a coup and failed... because he's Shitty Hitler. He's Shitler. Fact not opinion.



Thorsday said:


> Dem. Politicians are basically Marxists these days...



Hilarious. And all cookies are oreos. This is the sheer buffoonery of your belief system. Even "Crazy Liz Warren" is a Capitalist - her own words - "I love Capitalism".

Let's talk GOP vs DEM. Who is the "craziest", "whacko", "loon" on the left? AOC? What is the craziest thing she believes? She wants free healthcare? She wants expensive infrastructure? She wants free college? She wants equality in the legal system and policing? She believes in CRT? She believes in masks and vaccines? Is it higher corporate taxes and taxes on the 1%? is it getting lobbying money out of politics? Is it... the Green New Deal? (cue Darth Vader's theme music).

The GOP? You have Lauren Boebert (Qanon), Margorie Green Taylor (Qanon, Jewish Space Lasers and so much more), Jim Inhoff (snowball is proof Climate Change doesnt exist), Ted Cruz (Cancun Cruz, Trump called his wife ugly and that his dad killed JFK), Steve King (White Nationalist / Body has a way of shutting rape down), Todd Akin (Mr Legitimate Rape), Louie Gohmert (Capitol Riot was Dem False Flag), Jim Jordan (I didnt See Nothing), Kevin McCarthy (Trump is at fault no he's not), David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler (criminals), Mitch McConnell (Could there be a more dishonest partisan politician?), Mike Flynn (Traitor), etc. Your party has been hijacked by a megalomaniac narcissist authoritarian who attempted a failed coup, is still trying to reignite the coup, supports neo-nazis and white nationalists, destroyed international relations with our closest allies, and attempted to realign us with fellow authoritarians (Erdogan, Kim, Putin, MBS, etc). He literally acted out the dictator playbook by threatening to arrest reporters and political enemies, as well as dismantling the checks and balances of the US gov't.

Basically samesies.


----------



## mbardu




----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> Libertarianism is a unicorn. Never seen in the wild. There are no, and have never been, any successful Libertarian governments.
> 
> Remember when Rand Paul was a Libertarian? Because he doesn't. True Libertarians want no forms of Gov't ID, no federal oversight or agencies where local/state ones exist, no business oversight, etc. You want to see what Libertarianism looks like? Watch the Guitologist whine about how companies are allowed to get away with corporate crime, while also espousing Libertarianism. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest.
> 
> tl;dr Libertarians are just too pussy to call themselves Anarchists.



Rand Paul or Ron Paul?! Rand Paul never ran as a Libertarian and, as far as I can tell, never, during his political career, espoused the term to describe himself. Ron Paul, OTOH, ran as a Libertarian, only after failing to secure a Republican nomination. He registered as a Republican once again after George Bush won the election.

The general idea of classical libertarianism is that individual rights extend exactly as far to the point where they intersect with any other individual's rights, with the government there only to enforce the protection of that sort of honeycomb structure of individual rights. The concept, of course, reaches much further than the limitations of the Libertarian Party of the US, and the philosophy shaped the early USA, the UK, and other nations (Portugal, Uruguay, etc.) as they formed their governments.

The Libertarian Party is an actual joke nowadays, but you mostly hit the nail on the head with their platform - free trade, small federal government, etc., but the government ID thing is not a very defined plank in the platform. They are also largely for decriminalizing drugs (which has influenced modern laws) and are mostly pro-choice, and very staunchly pro separation of church and state. This is an important distinction between the Libertarians and the Republicans, since the GOP's last shred of a platform that has any independent substance to it is that they are definitely pro-life.

I have some friends who used to be Libertarian and went full-on Anarchist since, stating the same quasi-argument you made. I disagree, since I believe that without some form of government to keep people from taking other people's shit, people who have the resources to subjugate other people will do just that.

I agree that you never see anyone running as a Libertarian getting elected in a high-profile federal election. It simply doesn't happen, because the two parties that hold the power have gotten quite skillful at politics, which includes making darn sure no one can horn into their gig. Johnson, who ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 2012 and 2016, was governor of New Mexico, as a Republican, and Weld, who was Johnson's running mate, was governor of Massachusetts, as a Republican. Neither of them, however, ever ran on platforms that were definitively Republican.

But it's the same shit with the Green Party. You never see them win any elections, yet their platform has still had a huge influence on the Democratic Party. For some people, it's an option to say "Hey, I feel strongly enough about this one/two/three issues, that I cannot vote for either of these two asshats running major party campaigns, so, instead, I'm going to vote for this other asshat, who has no realistic chance of winning, just so you know that you are on the wrong track." In theory, if enough people jump on that bandwagon, a third party candidate would be elected, but, more realistically, the threat of losing votes to a platform that caters more to the people's voice keeps the two major parties adapting so they can wriggle a little more power away from their competition.

In my case, I don't think any of these options are half as good as we are told- the GOP is full of hypocritical old greedy Bond villains, and the Democrats are primarily just sycophants who tell people what they want to hear in order to obtain power, then abandon that plan to cater to their own self interests. The third party folks have a lot of extremists trying to make a point or gain a little fringe of attention. Meanwhile, the people who are good natural leaders who could actually do something for us are too busy staying out of politics because, well, politics have just become too damned toxic.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Rand Paul or Ron Paul?! Rand Paul never ran as a Libertarian and, as far as I can tell, never, during his political career, espoused the term to describe himself. Ron Paul, OTOH, ran as a Libertarian, only after failing to secure a Republican nomination. He registered as a Republican once again after George Bush won the election.
> 
> The general idea of classical libertarianism is that individual rights extend exactly as far to the point where they intersect with any other individual's rights, with the government there only to enforce the protection of that sort of honeycomb structure of individual rights. The concept, of course, reaches much further than the limitations of the Libertarian Party of the US, and the philosophy shaped the early USA, the UK, and other nations (Portugal, Uruguay, etc.) as they formed their governments.
> 
> The Libertarian Party is an actual joke nowadays, but you mostly hit the nail on the head with their platform - free trade, small federal government, etc., but the government ID thing is not a very defined plank in the platform. They are also largely for decriminalizing drugs (which has influenced modern laws) and are mostly pro-choice, and very staunchly pro separation of church and state. This is an important distinction between the Libertarians and the Republicans, since the GOP's last shred of a platform that has any independent substance to it is that they are definitely pro-life.
> 
> I have some friends who used to be Libertarian and went full-on Anarchist since, stating the same quasi-argument you made. I disagree, since I believe that without some form of government to keep people from taking other people's shit, people who have the resources to subjugate other people will do just that.
> 
> I agree that you never see anyone running as a Libertarian getting elected in a high-profile federal election. It simply doesn't happen, because the two parties that hold the power have gotten quite skillful at politics, which includes making darn sure no one can horn into their gig. Johnson, who ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 2012 and 2016, was governor of New Mexico, as a Republican, and Weld, who was Johnson's running mate, was governor of Massachusetts, as a Republican. Neither of them, however, ever ran on platforms that were definitively Republican.
> 
> But it's the same shit with the Green Party. You never see them win any elections, yet their platform has still had a huge influence on the Democratic Party. For some people, it's an option to say "Hey, I feel strongly enough about this one/two/three issues, that I cannot vote for either of these two asshats running major party campaigns, so, instead, I'm going to vote for this other asshat, who has no realistic chance of winning, just so you know that you are on the wrong track." In theory, if enough people jump on that bandwagon, a third party candidate would be elected, but, more realistically, the threat of losing votes to a platform that caters more to the people's voice keeps the two major parties adapting so they can wriggle a little more power away from their competition.
> 
> In my case, I don't think any of these options are half as good as we are told- the GOP is full of hypocritical old greedy Bond villains, and the Democrats are primarily just sycophants who tell people what they want to hear in order to obtain power, then abandon that plan to cater to their own self interests. The third party folks have a lot of extremists trying to make a point or gain a little fringe of attention. Meanwhile, the people who are good natural leaders who could actually do something for us are too busy staying out of politics because, well, politics have just become too damned toxic.



He's referred to himself as a Libertarian Conservative before and he was an inaugural Tea Party member. 

For our foreign SSO members... "The Tea Party movement has been described as a popular constitutional movement composed of a mixture of libertarian, right-wing populist, and conservative activism."

So, let me amend my statement by saying when I said Libertarian I meant to say douchebag.


----------



## Thorsday

I specifically referred to people who vote Republican, being Libertarians/Classical Liberals.

We're all frogs in a pot of water being brought to a boil, slowly.


----------



## Randy

Libertarianism is a farce. There's not enough substance there to be a party or even a movement, it's a vague ideological posture at best and even that's questionable. I use that when I talk to conservatives out in the real world all the time. "I don't like rules, I don't like red tape, I think regular folks pay too much in taxes, etc etc" That doesn't make you a, like, keenly astute political person, every fucking person thinks that.

That's like saying "I'm in the Peace Party because I don't like war" yeah well most people don't like being blown the fuck up either.

You can be Libertarian to a point (like, until the local terpentine factory starts pouring their leftovers into your reservoir) just like you can be peaceful to a point (like when your town becomes overrun by pillaging, blood thirsty, rapacious marauders). But that doesn't make a political party. A political party is about the 10% of things you try to do because they're your principals, and then the 90% of shit you HAVE to do whether you like it or not.

Libertarianism can't stand on it's own because it's such a vague ideology with little application to everyday life besides "I like to be left alone". It stands counter to the concept of governance if used as a guiding principal. "My political belief is that this thing I'm running shouldn't exist and nobody should be running it"


----------



## SpaceDock

Thorsday said:


> I specifically referred to people who vote Republican, being Libertarians/Classical Liberals.
> 
> We're all frogs in a pot of water being brought to a boil, slowly.



I know a few “libertarians” and they are all just repubs that don’t want to spend any time defending repub legislators but tow the line for every single-voter-issue repubs have been schilling for the last 20 years and will down ballot repub every time. It’s just a casual excuse to not accept any liability for the shit show they helped create.


----------



## Thorsday

SpaceDock said:


> I know a few “libertarians” and they are all just repubs that don’t want to spend any time defending repub legislators but tow the line for every single-voter-issue repubs have been schilling for the last 20 years and will down ballot repub every time. It’s just a casual excuse to not accept any liability for the shit show they helped create.



You say it as if anyone that votes Republican is responsible for the actions of the lying public (self)servants. 

I'm so weary of ordinary citizens hating on eachother so easily. Good distraction.


----------



## StevenC

Thorsday said:


> You say it as if anyone that votes Republican is responsible for the actions of the lying public (self)servants.


That's almost exactly what it means to participate in a democracy.


----------



## diagrammatiks

StevenC said:


> That's almost exactly what it means to participate in a democracy.



especially when you keep voting for the same people.


----------



## possumkiller

Thorsday said:


> You say it as if anyone that votes Republican is responsible for the actions of the lying public (self)servants.
> 
> I'm so weary of ordinary citizens hating on eachother so easily. Good distraction.


Do you think schools should be required to teach about sexual sexual dimorphism?


----------



## Thorsday

possumkiller said:


> Do you think schools should be required to teach about sexual sexual dimorphism?



/ˈsekSH(əw)əl dīˈmôrfizəm/ _noun_
ZOOLOGY

distinct difference in size or appearance between the sexes of an animal in addition to difference between the sexual organs themselves.

Hot monkey love, possumkiller... Don't put a quarter in me... This thread is not about the public education system. 

Who here actually voted for Biden/Harris?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Thorsday said:


> You say it as if anyone that votes Republican is responsible for the actions of the lying public (self)servants.
> 
> I'm so weary of ordinary citizens hating on eachother so easily. Good distraction.



You literally entered this discussion with an ad hominem, or are you not responsible for that either?


----------



## SpaceDock

I voted for Biden, no regrets considering the alternative. IMO politics is not about ever loving a candidate, it’s about making a choice about the options available to you. Biden has been doing better than I thought he would have so far. I am not really feeling Harris though. Kinda hoping she doesn’t do a presidential run.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

SpaceDock said:


> I voted for Biden, no regrets considering the alternative. IMO politics is not about ever loving a candidate, it’s about making a choice about the options available to you. Biden has been doing better than I thought he would have so far. I am not really feeling Harris though. Kinda hoping she doesn’t do a presidential run.




Just curious what were you expecting out of her that she is not delivering. VP seems like a mostly do nothing role anyways.


----------



## SpaceDock

Dineley said:


> Just curious what were you expecting out of her that she is not delivering. VP seems like a mostly do nothing role anyways.



Honestly just don’t like her, kinda always thought she was a bit smug in her expressions and I don’t think her policy ideas or positions are as well thought out as they should be for someone as high up as that. Don’t expect anyone to agree with me, just my own opinion.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

SpaceDock said:


> Honestly just don’t like her, kinda always thought she was a bit smug in her expressions and I don’t think her policy ideas or positions are as well thought out as they should be for someone as high up as that. Don’t expect anyone to agree with me, just my own opinion.




No no all good was more just curious. I think how flat she fell in primaries sort of speaks to what you are saying


----------



## thebeesknees22

There were a lot of people that weren't thrilled with Harris being the VP pick. There were rumors of tons of drama in her camp during her brief presidential run too.

I think she has a lot to learn in the political world before she's ready to go for the big job. Right now she's nowhere near ready. 

and @SpaceDock - she definitely came across as smug and arrogant during her presidential run. She's toned that back a lot which is good, but she still needs to work on her public image.


----------



## Ralyks

I honestly forget Harris is VP sometimes.


----------



## Demiurge

Considering the ego it must take to strive for the position of commander-in-chief, I can't imagine there not being drama when the VP is, plainly, the failed rival of the president. Nominations don't magically quash within-the-party squabbles and [gestures lazily at the Democratic party].


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I voted for Biden, no regrets considering the alternative. IMO politics is not about ever loving a candidate, it’s about making a choice about the options available to you. Biden has been doing better than I thought he would have so far. I am not really feeling Harris though. Kinda hoping she doesn’t do a presidential run.



Gonna be suicide for this party IMO.


----------



## Crungy

@USMarine75 thank you for your last two paragraphs. It's so stupid to hear people attempt to demonize the left, and for what? Because they stand for things that are actually decent and important to people, like their rights?

That's what I don't get about anyone that voted/supported/still has a boner for trump. How could anyone think he was doing anything to help anyone but himself and his cronies? (like my new neighbors that just moved in and put up a Trump 2020 sign)


----------



## zappatton2

Crungy said:


> @USMarine75 thank you for your last two paragraphs. It's so stupid to hear people attempt to demonize the left, and for what? Because they stand for things that are actually decent and important to people, like their rights?
> 
> That's what I don't get about anyone that voted/supported/still has a boner for trump. How could anyone think he was doing anything to help anyone but himself and his cronies? (like my new neighbors that just moved in and put up a Trump 2020 sign)


Exactly! I mean, the Dems are hardly a left-wing party, but they at least campaign on just principles that benefit the majority of Americans (even if they only occasionally follow through). But it is just bizarre to me that such a huge contingent of people can look at what Trump has done to the States, the normalization of autocracy, the open attacks on democracy, facts and science, the racist characterization of swaths of people, I mean, just the caging of children torn from their parents for the crime of escaping mortal danger was beyond evil.

And then, when people forcefully react against bigotry, ignorance and hate, it's all about "those democrats, hating us for being conservative, how intolerant!" It just, it makes the mind reel trying to get a handle on that sort of thought process, it's so frikkin' baffling.


----------



## Rosal76

zappatton2 said:


> It just, it makes the mind reel trying to get a handle on that sort of thought process, it's so frikkin' baffling.



It is very, very, very baffling.

So..., a few weeks ago, me and one of my co-workers are riding down the street together looking for a place to eat. My co-worker is a die hard Trump supporter. MAGA hat wearing, Trump sign on his lawn, stop the steal believing, and all that. The area we are at has many homeless people standing on the sidewalks, close to stop lights/stop signs holding cardboard signs/money cups asking for help/money. If I'm stopped and a homeless person is nearby, I always give money. And as usual, if someone is riding with me, I always hear, "you know he's/she's just gonna buy alcohol and/or drugs with the money you gave them right?". And I tell whoever is with me, "dude, I don't give a shit if he buys a porn magazine with the money I gave him and starts masturbating on the street in front of everybody. If that's what helps him, so be it. I did my part to help someone.". And so, we're at the stop light and there's a homeless person nearby. I take $3 from my wallet, roll down my window and motion the guy that I'm gonna give the money to him. He gets the money, says, "God bless you" and we ride off. Like clockwork, the co-worker I'm with says, "you know he's gonna buy alcohol and/or drugs with that money right?" So I ask him, "hey, that red hat you own that says MAGA. What does that stand for again?" He says, "Make America great again". I'm like, "DUDE!!! You own a f__king hat that stands for "Make America great again" but you have a problem with me giving money to a fellow American standing on the street who needs money for whatever he needs to make it through the day??? Does making America great again for you exclude giving homeless people money??? What is that shit all about?" So then he says, "Well, him (homeless guy) spending the money on drugs won't help him in any way". Then I'm like, "Dude! You smoke weed and now you're talking shit about other people doing drugs?". Our conversation was a lot longer than what I typed but man, he just kept digging himself deeper and deeper with his replies.

Like what we both agree on, very, very baffling their ways of thinking.


----------



## Crungy

@Rosal76 gotta love that "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality.


----------



## Randy

Capitalism, fuck yeah


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I don't know what Van Jones is doing to warrant that, but Jose Andres is a fucking LEGEND. 

Fuck Bezos, but I'm down with WCK getting a payday. It's a shame it's giving him good press.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know what Van Jones is doing to warrant that, but Jose Andres is a fucking LEGEND.
> 
> Fuck Bezos, but I'm down with WCK getting a payday. It's a shame it's giving him good press.


Van Jones has also been responsible for mic drop moments in the last two elections during the broadcast about race relations in America. Dude's head is screwed on straight. 

Odd enough headline so I decided to google: 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/i...on-award-for-leaders-who-aim-high-11626806557

Turns out, he's donating money that the "recipients" can direct to charities of their choosing. So, he didn't give the two of them $100 million each; he basically told them each, "Hey, I'm going to donate $100mm in your name, you just tell me where." 

I mean, his ex-wife is still carrying the team in charitable donations, but this is nothing to criticize him for.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Van Jones has also been responsible for mic drop moments in the last two elections during the broadcast about race relations in America. Dude's head is screwed on straight.
> 
> Odd enough headline so I decided to google:
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/i...on-award-for-leaders-who-aim-high-11626806557
> 
> Turns out, he's donating money that the "recipients" can direct to charities of their choosing. So, he didn't give the two of them $100 million each; he basically told them each, "Hey, I'm going to donate $100mm in your name, you just tell me where."
> 
> I mean, his ex-wife is still carrying the team in charitable donations, but this is nothing to criticize him for.



I think the criticism is in him bestowing a couple hundred million as some righteous gesture while avoiding who knows how much in taxes and spending billions on an interstellar dick measuring contest with other billionaires. 

Like, why not just pay his fair share of taxes? Oh, right, this is about optics.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the criticism is in him bestowing a couple hundred million as some righteous gesture while avoiding who knows how much in taxes and spending billions on an interstellar dick measuring contest with other billionaires.
> 
> Like, why not just pay his fair share of taxes? Oh, right, this is about optics.


Though to be fair that's a separate issue. A couple actually. 

*Amazon should pay taxes. They should, and do, but not often, because they don't often post an operating profit. The only consistently profit generating part of their business is actually Amazon AWS, their cloud business - the US retail operations have only started to be consistently profitable in the last couple years, and international I think is still operating at a loss. The issue, essentially, is that the company is investing at a fast enough rate that items that can be expensed in real time or are amortizing over a fixed life are larger than the narrow operating margins, so from a tax standpoint they're operating at a loss, even if they're generally cashflow positive. This isn't "fancy accounting tricks" or something, this is pretty standard for a "growth" company, Amazon just hasn't slowed down yet. 
*Jeff Bezos should pay taxes. He does - this article, IMO, comes to the wrong conclusion, but he paid $973mm on $4.22b in income, for an effective tax rate of about 23%. ProPublica instead comes to a 0.98% "true tax rate" because his wealth increased $99 billion, but considering most of Bezos' wealth is wrapped up in Amazon stock, most of that increase is in the form of unrealized gains - just like any other American, those gains are untaxed until they're realized, and at that point they're taxed at whatever the difference between sale price and cost basis (which for Bezos will be VERY low) is. That just doesn't happen until the stock is actually sold, and those unrealized gains are realized. ProPublica's analysis here is IMO pretty deceptive. 

I think the two better questions that these two lines of thought point to are: 

1) Is Amazon engaging in anti-competitive behavior, if as a ~20 year old company they're still more often than not posting operating losses for their main operating segment? 
2) The effective 23% tax rate Bezos is paying is actually pretty close to average for the top 1% of income earners in this country, which makes Bezos' tax rate squarely average. Anbd, well, isn't that kind of low, and shouldn't the tax rate itself be moved up? 

But, Bezos paid more in taxes last year than you and I will, combined, over a hundred lifetimes. Amazon pays little to no taxes, but Amazon isn't Bezos, and the company's effective tax rate is actually the thing I find the least concerning about their operations, all things considered.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Van Jones has also been responsible for mic drop moments in the last two elections during the broadcast about race relations in America. Dude's head is screwed on straight.
> 
> Odd enough headline so I decided to google:
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/i...on-award-for-leaders-who-aim-high-11626806557
> 
> Turns out, he's donating money that the "recipients" can direct to charities of their choosing. So, he didn't give the two of them $100 million each; he basically told them each, "Hey, I'm going to donate $100mm in your name, you just tell me where."
> 
> I mean, his ex-wife is still carrying the team in charitable donations, but this is nothing to criticize him for.



That's a very interesting interpretation of:

"Bezos said that Jones and Andres were free to do "what they want" with the money.

"They can give it all to their own charity," Bezos said at a press conference after his trip to space. "Or they can share the wealth. It is up to them."


----------



## Randy

Super gross that the identity of this party is arguing with eachother over what's proper distribution of money from one rich person to another rich person. Yuck I need a shower.


----------



## Randy

*You crack me up’: Marjorie Taylor Greene laughs off question about children dying of Covid*
*When a reporter pointed out that children and thin people have died of Covid-19, the Georgia Republican laughed demonstratively*


----------



## thebeesknees22

She also accused Fauci of inventing Covid with Wuhan in that same new conference...............................
............
Which is also what Rand Paul was trying to do in that last hearing.

..........
These people are so stupid it makes my head hurt.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

thebeesknees22 said:


> She also accused Fauci of inventing Covid with Wuhan in that same new conference...............................
> ............
> Which is also what Rand Paul was trying to do in that last hearing.
> 
> ..........
> These people are so stupid it makes my head hurt.


It’s the type of situation that hurts to try and understand but you just can’t look the other way and ignore it because it’s just so absurd.


----------



## possumkiller

I don't know why it is so difficult to understand these politicians and their insane claims. It is all in the fascist playbook.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Though to be fair that's a separate issue. A couple actually.
> 
> *Amazon should pay taxes. They should, and do, but not often, because they don't often post an operating profit. The only consistently profit generating part of their business is actually Amazon AWS, their cloud business - the US retail operations have only started to be consistently profitable in the last couple years, and international I think is still operating at a loss. The issue, essentially, is that the company is investing at a fast enough rate that items that can be expensed in real time or are amortizing over a fixed life are larger than the narrow operating margins, so from a tax standpoint they're operating at a loss, even if they're generally cashflow positive. This isn't "fancy accounting tricks" or something, this is pretty standard for a "growth" company, Amazon just hasn't slowed down yet.
> *Jeff Bezos should pay taxes. He does - this article, IMO, comes to the wrong conclusion, but he paid $973mm on $4.22b in income, for an effective tax rate of about 23%. ProPublica instead comes to a 0.98% "true tax rate" because his wealth increased $99 billion, but considering most of Bezos' wealth is wrapped up in Amazon stock, most of that increase is in the form of unrealized gains - just like any other American, those gains are untaxed until they're realized, and at that point they're taxed at whatever the difference between sale price and cost basis (which for Bezos will be VERY low) is. That just doesn't happen until the stock is actually sold, and those unrealized gains are realized. ProPublica's analysis here is IMO pretty deceptive.
> 
> I think the two better questions that these two lines of thought point to are:
> 
> 1) Is Amazon engaging in anti-competitive behavior, if as a ~20 year old company they're still more often than not posting operating losses for their main operating segment?
> 2) The effective 23% tax rate Bezos is paying is actually pretty close to average for the top 1% of income earners in this country, which makes Bezos' tax rate squarely average. Anbd, well, isn't that kind of low, and shouldn't the tax rate itself be moved up?
> 
> But, Bezos paid more in taxes last year than you and I will, combined, over a hundred lifetimes. Amazon pays little to no taxes, but Amazon isn't Bezos, and the company's effective tax rate is actually the thing I find the least concerning about their operations, all things considered.



Nah, it's one issue: unfettered capitalism/horrible governance has allowed Bezos to become richer than _literally everyone else_, mostly at the expense of the most vulnerable, and folks acting like he's doing us all a favor by handing out crumbs is grotesque.


----------



## thebeesknees22

How about that moment when Bezos told his employees that they paid for his space trip? Talk about lack of self awareness......... a Billionaire...telling low wage workers they paid for his stuff.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thebeesknees22 said:


> How about that moment when Bezos told his employees that they paid for his space trip? Talk about lack of self awareness......... a Billionaire...telling low wage workers they paid for his stuff.



It wasn't lack of self awareness or inability to read the room, the dude was gloating.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

thebeesknees22 said:


> How about that moment when Bezos told his employees that they paid for his space trip? Talk about lack of self awareness......... a Billionaire...telling low wage workers they paid for his stuff.


That was pretty damn insulting, the man is completely out of touch with reality. His build his empire off of others suffering.


----------



## thebeesknees22

ha right? what an ass

@MaxOfMetal lol hilarious. I need to save that one.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, this is going about as well as expected:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-rejects-republican-jim-jordan-jan-committee/story?id=78971239

As much as I don't like Pelosi on some issues, she wasn't at all in the wrong here. Why would you put two outspoken supporters of the insurrectionists into the commission being put together to investigate the insurrection?

The Republicans behave like such children sometimes. If they can't stack the deck against the Democrats they just flat out refuse to play the game at all. And our congress once again proves its complete lack of ability to operate effectively.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thebeesknees22 said:


> ha right? what an ass
> 
> @MaxOfMetal lol hilarious. I need to save that one.



Right? 

We printed off a bunch at work and put them in all the break/team rooms.


----------



## Randy

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> That was pretty damn insulting, the man is completely out of touch with reality. His build his empire off of others suffering.



The rocket should've disembarked directly onto the gallows.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> The rocket should've disembarked directly onto the gallows.



Now Randy, that's no way to talk about a God-man who paid more in taxes last year than you and I will, combined, over a hundred lifetimes.


----------



## spudmunkey

thebeesknees22 said:


> How about that moment when Bezos told his employees that they paid for his space trip? Talk about lack of self awareness......... a Billionaire...telling low wage workers they paid for his stuff.



Right? Even just different wording would have put a much softer edge on it...something like "You all helped make this happen" or something. Not that it changes the message, but jeez...literally using the phrased "you paid for this" is just...ugh...even though it's true.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Right? Even just different wording would have put a much softer edge on it...something like "You all helped make this happen" or something. Not that it changes the message, but jeez...literally using the phrased "you paid for this" is just...ugh...even though it's true.


People at that level don't even try to pretend to remember what it's like in the trenches.

I had a buddy that worked for one of the biggest grocery distribution centers in the area. He said they had a visit from the head office one week and the company president gave a speech where he told a story about how a pig serves a specific purpose in life. And if the pig does what's expected of him, he'll go off to slaughter and become sustenance for others while providing profit for the farmer who raised him. And then at the end of the story he starts telling them all to strive to be like the pig in the story. Then asked them all to chant "BE A PIG!" at the top of their lungs. (While they all look around at each other horrified.)

Apparently nobody in the management group was smart enough or brave enough to tell the dude it's probably not a great idea to ask your employees to strive to get slaughtered for your profit.

I'm not sure what the dollar amount is where people become so disconnected from humanity that things like that seem proper to them, but I know I'll never reach that level.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

nightflameauto said:


> People at that level don't even try to pretend to remember what it's like in the trenches.
> 
> I had a buddy that worked for one of the biggest grocery distribution centers in the area. He said they had a visit from the head office one week and the company president gave a speech where he told a story about how a pig serves a specific purpose in life. And if the pig does what's expected of him, he'll go off to slaughter and become sustenance for others while providing profit for the farmer who raised him. And then at the end of the story he starts telling them all to strive to be like the pig in the story. Then asked them all to chant "BE A PIG!" at the top of their lungs. (While they all look around at each other horrified.)
> 
> Apparently nobody in the management group was smart enough or brave enough to tell the dude it's probably not a great idea to ask your employees to strive to get slaughtered for your profit.
> 
> I'm not sure what the dollar amount is where people become so disconnected from humanity that things like that seem proper to them, but I know I'll never reach that level.


Holy crap. That’s so cringey. If I was in that room I don’t know if I would have the self control to not blurt something telling that bastard to go fork himself for such a disgusting story. That pisses me off just hearing it. My blood would’ve been boiling.


----------



## spudmunkey

Man...my "grocery/pig/public disconnect" experiences are way funnier.

[non sequitur] I used to work for Piggly Wiggly. Our small local chain of 4 family-owned stores were celebrating their yearly "Customer Days" promotional sales event. To market this sale, they had the mascot (cleverly named Mr. Pig, an anthropomorphic pig dressed as a butcher) do a dance for a commercial. They called the dance "The Pig". They told us do "do The Pig" when the stores opened in the morning for this event. They even printed up t-shirts with their "Shop The Pig" slogan/logo altered to say "Do The Pig". They saw nothing wrong with the plan to give away shirts that say "Do The Pig", to every giggling teenager that walked in, nor making 60-year-old cashiers do a "meme" dance for customers, for barely more than minumim wage. This was the mid 90s. [/non sequitur]


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> Man...my "grocery/pig/public disconnect" experiences are way funnier.
> 
> [non sequitur] I used to work for Piggly Wiggly. Our small local chain of 4 family-owned stores were celebrating their yearly "Customer Days" promotional sales event. To market this sale, they had the mascot (cleverly named Mr. Pig, an anthropomorphic pig dressed as a butcher) do a dance for a commercial. They called the dance "The Pig". They told us do "do The Pig" when the stores opened in the morning for this event. They even printed up t-shirts with their "Shop The Pig" slogan/logo altered to say "Do The Pig". They saw nothing wrong with the plan to give away shirts that say "Do The Pig", to every giggling teenager that walked in, nor making 60-year-old cashiers do a "meme" dance for customers, for barely more than minumim wage. This was the mid 90s. [/non sequitur]


So uh you just gonna leave us hanging? I need to see the pig dance.


----------



## Crungy

PIG DANCE PIG DANCE PIG DANCE


----------



## spudmunkey

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> So uh you just gonna leave us hanging? I need to see the pig dance.


I unfortunately don't remember the dance. I actually had to do it again the town's "(insert town name here) Days Parade". It was a small town and couldn't get enough people to attend their July 4th events, so they stopped doing it, and instead had their own town party in August.

I had to do the dance, wearing the Mr. Pig outfit, that our store would occasionally rent out from the Piggly Wiggly corporation HQ.

So I had to walk behind the "float" (a tractor with a poster advertising the store on each side, crepe paper streamers and ballons, for about 1.3 miles, in midwestern summer. I feel sorry whoever had to wear this after me. Even after the (assumed) cleaning...

This is indeed me in said outfit: a pig dressed as a butcher.






During the parade, a little girl walked up to me for a hug. I bent over to hug her. This was before I had been wearing the suit long enough to really fine-tune my special awareness of the suit. I had bent over enough to where the head suddenly slid forward, and ended up giving her a head butt with my heavy fiberglass head. She ran back to her mom, looking like she was about to cry.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Randy said:


> The rocket should've disembarked directly onto the gallows.



If we accomplish nothing else in my lifetime, I hope humanity comes together to build an international space program with the singular goal of launching Jeff Bezos, Leon Skum, and Joe Rogaine into the sun.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> I unfortunately don't remember the dance. I actually had to do it again the town's "(insert town name here) Days Parade". It was a small town and couldn't get enough people to attend their July 4th events, so they stopped doing it, and instead had their own town party in August.
> 
> I had to do the dance, wearing the Mr. Pig outfit, that our store would occasionally rent out from the Piggly Wiggly corporation HQ.
> 
> So I had to walk behind the "float" (a tractor with a poster advertising the store on each side, crepe paper streamers and ballons, for about 1.3 miles, in midwestern summer. I feel sorry whoever had to wear this after me. Even after the (assumed) cleaning...
> 
> This is indeed me in said outfit: a pig dressed as a butcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> During the parade, a little girl walked up to me for a hug. I bent over to hug her. This was before I had been wearing the suit long enough to really fine-tune my special awareness of the suit. I had bent over enough to where the head suddenly slid forward, and ended up giving her a head butt with my heavy fiberglass head. She ran back to her mom, looking like she was about to cry.


That’s a funny story, you’re awesome Spud.


----------



## vilk




----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Well, this is going about as well as expected:
> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-rejects-republican-jim-jordan-jan-committee/story?id=78971239
> 
> As much as I don't like Pelosi on some issues, she wasn't at all in the wrong here. Why would you put two outspoken supporters of the insurrectionists into the commission being put together to investigate the insurrection?
> 
> The Republicans behave like such children sometimes. If they can't stack the deck against the Democrats they just flat out refuse to play the game at all. And our congress once again proves its complete lack of ability to operate effectively.


...especially considering Jim Jordan is very much a person of interest in the Jan 6th riot investigation and its aftermath.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Though to be fair that's a separate issue. A couple actually.
> 
> *Amazon should pay taxes. They should, and do, but not often, because they don't often post an operating profit. The only consistently profit generating part of their business is actually Amazon AWS, their cloud business - the US retail operations have only started to be consistently profitable in the last couple years, and international I think is still operating at a loss. The issue, essentially, is that the company is investing at a fast enough rate that items that can be expensed in real time or are amortizing over a fixed life are larger than the narrow operating margins, so from a tax standpoint they're operating at a loss, even if they're generally cashflow positive. This isn't "fancy accounting tricks" or something, this is pretty standard for a "growth" company, Amazon just hasn't slowed down yet.
> *Jeff Bezos should pay taxes. He does - this article, IMO, comes to the wrong conclusion, but he paid $973mm on $4.22b in income, for an effective tax rate of about 23%. ProPublica instead comes to a 0.98% "true tax rate" because his wealth increased $99 billion, but considering most of Bezos' wealth is wrapped up in Amazon stock, most of that increase is in the form of unrealized gains - just like any other American, those gains are untaxed until they're realized, and at that point they're taxed at whatever the difference between sale price and cost basis (which for Bezos will be VERY low) is. That just doesn't happen until the stock is actually sold, and those unrealized gains are realized. ProPublica's analysis here is IMO pretty deceptive.
> 
> I think the two better questions that these two lines of thought point to are:
> 
> 1) Is Amazon engaging in anti-competitive behavior, if as a ~20 year old company they're still more often than not posting operating losses for their main operating segment?
> 2) The effective 23% tax rate Bezos is paying is actually pretty close to average for the top 1% of income earners in this country, which makes Bezos' tax rate squarely average. Anbd, well, isn't that kind of low, and shouldn't the tax rate itself be moved up?
> 
> But, Bezos paid more in taxes last year than you and I will, combined, over a hundred lifetimes. Amazon pays little to no taxes, but Amazon isn't Bezos, and the company's effective tax rate is actually the thing I find the least concerning about their operations, all things considered.



What they should REALLY do is flip the regressive tax on the self employed.

Make THAT cowboy-hat clown in his richard rocket pay a % off everything he makes for social security crap and cap it to no tax BELOW 100k or whatever it is instead of the crazy no tax AFTER a ceiling nonsense


----------



## bostjan

Amazon has a 58:1 executive-to-worker pay ratio. That's $1.7M/yr for the executive and $29k/yr for everyone else. The thing is, that if you work at Amazon, you are still making higher pay than you would working at Walmart and making only $23k/yr with a 983:1 executive-to-worker pay ratio. Don't like that, work at (insert average unskilled job here) and make, on average $27k/yr, still $2k/year less than working for the lizard man.

So yeah, Bezos is an evil comic book villain looking billionaire, but he still pays his workers just enough to actually pressure the average worker's wages up. If you took Bezos out of the equation and replaced him with another upper-class twit of the year, things would maybe get better, but almost certainly get worse. Why? Because, for all of Bezos's greed and mistreatment of his workers, he's still substantially better than most others like him. He's merely at the center of attention because he's been so successful.

How do we make things better? Maybe Bezos should accept only 100k/yr and pass the other 1.6M onto his employees, so the 800 000 of them can average $31/year instead. As great as that would be (I'm all for him giving away his money ), honestly, then people would merely complain that they only make $31/year.

I think all of the true garbage Amazon's employees have to deal with is coming from poor middle management. How much would it cost Amazon, as a whole, to allow their employees to have a bathroom every 5 minutes of walking distance from each other instead of forcing them to urinate into bottles, because it takes 10 minutes or more to walk to the bathroom from certain work areas (and then 10 minutes back > 15 minutes they get to be away)? How much would it cost Amazon to give their employees access to PT or give them a 5 minute break to stretch in addition to their bathroom breaks? These little things for the company are actually big things for workers.

IDK, it's just as much a cultural thing as it has to do with the government. In fact, if the government squeezes Amazon for more taxes, they'll just tighten the vice they have on their employee's nuts to see if a few more pennies get saved. OTOH, if we, as a society, decide that we don't like it, we have the power, collectively, to tell the company to shape up or else we stop buying their cheap shit and buy slightly more expensive shit elsewhere instead.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> OTOH, if we, as a society, decide that we don't like it, we have the power, collectively, to tell the company to shape up or else we stop buying their cheap shit and buy slightly more expensive shit elsewhere instead.


I tend to think that a very hypothetical power that we don't realistically have much of. Nobody _likes_ what the Walmarts and Amazons of the world are doing, but we certainly _do_ like the benefit of easy access to cheap stuff. As long as a significant number of people benefit from it and don't come into direct contact with the consequences, I doubt enough people are willing to give up the lifestyle it affords us.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> I tend to think that a very hypothetical power that we don't realistically have much of. Nobody _likes_ what the Walmarts and Amazons of the world are doing, but we certainly _do_ like the benefit of easy access to cheap stuff. As long as a significant number of people benefit from it and don't come into direct contact with the consequences, I doubt enough people are willing to give up the lifestyle it affords us.


What's hypothetical about it? $1 spent there is one vote. There's nothing Walmart is selling that both a) the people who buy it there cannot afford to buy elsewhere and b) are necessary for self support.

It's a matter of economics. If their business practices piss off people enough to drive away 50% of their revenue, they will be forced to adjust their tactics.

Maybe it's just frustrating that they are beloved by enough big spenders that your $1/vote and my $1/vote aren't a even drop in the bucket for them. I guarantee that everyone else's $1/vote, collectively, does matter to them, though. And if people are just, on average, too apathetic to adjust their behaviour, then, maybe you and I are in the minority- it won't stop me from trying to get others to see the light, but it might result in ultimately nothing, just like my life in general.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

bostjan said:


> Amazon has a 58:1 executive-to-worker pay ratio. That's $1.7M/yr for the executive and $29k/yr for everyone else. The thing is, that if you work at Amazon, you are still making higher pay than you would working at Walmart and making only $23k/yr with a 983:1 executive-to-worker pay ratio. Don't like that, work at (insert average unskilled job here) and make, on average $27k/yr, still $2k/year less than working for the lizard man.
> 
> So yeah, Bezos is an evil comic book villain looking billionaire, but he still pays his workers just enough to actually pressure the average worker's wages up. If you took Bezos out of the equation and replaced him with another upper-class twit of the year, things would maybe get better, but almost certainly get worse. Why? Because, for all of Bezos's greed and mistreatment of his workers, he's still substantially better than most others like him. He's merely at the center of attention because he's been so successful.
> 
> How do we make things better? Maybe Bezos should accept only 100k/yr and pass the other 1.6M onto his employees, so the 800 000 of them can average $31/year instead. As great as that would be (I'm all for him giving away his money ), honestly, then people would merely complain that they only make $31/year.
> 
> I think all of the true garbage Amazon's employees have to deal with is coming from poor middle management. How much would it cost Amazon, as a whole, to allow their employees to have a bathroom every 5 minutes of walking distance from each other instead of forcing them to urinate into bottles, because it takes 10 minutes or more to walk to the bathroom from certain work areas (and then 10 minutes back > 15 minutes they get to be away)? How much would it cost Amazon to give their employees access to PT or give them a 5 minute break to stretch in addition to their bathroom breaks? These little things for the company are actually big things for workers.
> 
> IDK, it's just as much a cultural thing as it has to do with the government. In fact, if the government squeezes Amazon for more taxes, they'll just tighten the vice they have on their employee's nuts to see if a few more pennies get saved. OTOH, if we, as a society, decide that we don't like it, we have the power, collectively, to tell the company to shape up or else we stop buying their cheap shit and buy slightly more expensive shit elsewhere instead.




I agree with most of what you are saying but Amazon tries to grind every useable molecule from their people which is why they need to pay more.

I found myself out of work so applied at new distribution center in my area. The "night shift" at this place was like 330AM untill 2am. Like how is that a shift to make someone work and it's obvious they are doing this as at 3am on most night shifts is where people hit the wall a little. So they are trying to get that tiny advantage out of peoples circadian cycle.

I ended up finding something better and didn't take offer but if they are doing stuff like that I can only imagine that mentality is at every level.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> What's hypothetical about it? $1 spent there is one vote. There's nothing Walmart is selling that both a) the people who buy it there cannot afford to buy elsewhere and b) are necessary for self support.


I want to agree with you on principle, but I don't think it's true. Consider that a lot of people get by via getting things as cheap as possible, which is often Walmart. Need a shirt and only have $5? Walmart. Shoes? Walmart. Cheapest place for certain types of groceries? Walmart. Small-ish town/city and down have many alternatives? You're goin' to Walmart. And what are the alternatives? What box store _doesn't_ have some kind of shady detail we'd rather not think about? Fancier clothing stores are just as likely to source their wares in exploitative ways, and in my experience aren't _that much_ better to their own employees. Most tech stuff comes from all the same places. Food, I can't speak for because I don't know the details, but I assume all those pipelines are basically the same - most places I know that sell groceries sell a lot of the same brands.

And when you can't find it at Walmart, where do you go? Amazon. Because the alternative is to either pay more for something produced locally, if it exists, which it might not, and if you can afford it, which not everyone can, or travel for it, which might not be worth it for the product you want or need.


----------



## bostjan

So what are people buying at Walmart, generally speaking? Anyone have the statistics? Is it Kraft Dinner or is it toys and cheap plastic stuff that just ends up in the garbage? The Walmart closest to me doesn't even sell actual groceries - just twinkies and chips and stuff like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if Walmart's biggest item to attract shoppers is real food, why doesn't every Walmart sell real food?

You have a point, though, about alternatives. Going to Piggly Wiggly or whatever massive grocery chain is likely just as bad.


----------



## TedEH

I don't have stats, and I don't know what it's like in other places, but a walmart here is basically the generic general box store, so all of the above. Cheap toys? Walmart. Cheap clothes? Walmart. Consumer electronics? Walmart. Groceries? Walmart. It's basically offline Amazon.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> So what are people buying at Walmart, generally speaking? Anyone have the statistics? Is it Kraft Dinner or is it toys and cheap plastic stuff that just ends up in the garbage? The Walmart closest to me doesn't even sell actual groceries - just twinkies and chips and stuff like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but, if Walmart's biggest item to attract shoppers is real food, why doesn't every Walmart sell real food?
> 
> You have a point, though, about alternatives. Going to Piggly Wiggly or whatever massive grocery chain is likely just as bad.



Quick and dirty Googling is showing that WalMart is the largest grocer (2.5x their nearest competitor, Kroger), by market share, in the United States, and of their 2020 revenue, grocery sales made up ~56%.


----------



## Crungy

I would assume many mass produced consumer goods have "dirt" on them via worker exploitation or harm/strain to the environment. Is there a such thing as an ethically sourced and produced cell phone? Is it even possible at a price consumers would want to pay? 

Speaking of Walmart and food: the Walmart near me (20 mins away) has better produce than the local grocery store (5 mins away) does 90% of the time. The local store is more expensive on almost all items, no surprise. We save some gas going to the local store but in general our money goes farther driving farther to Walmart.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Voting with your dollar seems to me on par with that old saying about how the greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing humans he didn't exist.

The thing about "voting with your dollar" is that spending your money anywhere else is still supporting the same economic system that so many of these issues are rooted in. Even mom & pop are still part of capitalism, though there's a separate argument to be made for at least keeping money in local economies.

Voting with your dollar ultimately fails as a means for change because it fails to address the systemic issues causing the desire to "vote" for something different in the first place, and in my very-cynical-opinion, that is exactly by design. 

Not only that, but subscribing to "vote with your dollar" actually economically disadvantages you. Standing on principle in financial/consumer matters is an ironically privileged position only available to those with substantial means in the first place. 

In this way, the narrative of voting with your dollar reminds me of the narrative of individual responsibility for climate change. The idea that recycling cans or banning plastic bags is even a drop in the ocean compared to the carbon footprint of the US military-industrial complex would be hilarious if it weren't fuel for an unending chain of existential crises. 

This also reminds me of when Occupy was going on and all these bozos would say things like "oh gee all these anticapitalist protestors are using smart phones made by _corporations_." The reality is that every choice buys into capitalism. Boycott one thing to buy another. Point me to the nearest anarcho-syndicalist grocery cooperative with connections to decentralized autonomous networks of communally owned tech manufacturers and I'll be the first in line.


----------



## TedEH

I met someone once who thought they were making a big statement and "sticking it to the man" by not having a bank account. Instead they cashed their cheques every week through a Money Mart, as if that was better somehow.


----------



## possumkiller

I don't get the big deal with the billionaire "space race". Like what is the point? So far space x is the only one that did anything useful like transporting shit to actual space. These other two dickheads are just doing shit that was already done in the 50s and early 60s. I thought that if they were going to be exploiting everyone they would at least do something pioneering and groundbreaking. I'd rather give all those billions to NASA. At least they would do something more worthwhile with it.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> I don't get the big deal with the billionaire "space race". Like what is the point? So far space x is the only one that did anything useful like transporting shit to actual space. These other two dickheads are just doing shit that was already done in the 50s and early 60s. I thought that if they were going to be exploiting everyone they would at least do something pioneering and groundbreaking. I'd rather give all those billions to NASA. At least they would do something more worthwhile with it.



Just that they're doing it with private money, instead of the public purse. Which tends to dry up in any given country once they get a few propaganda wins, decent ballistic missiles, local-sourced spy and comsats, and their own domestic take on GPS (collectively arguably being the entire point of the massive expenditures).

Governments are actually quite practical and conservative when it comes to space tech. Compare and contrast to a bunch of jumped-up geeks with money to burn and no remaining goals except chasing childhood dreams.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> What's hypothetical about it? $1 spent there is one vote. There's nothing Walmart is selling that both a) the people who buy it there cannot afford to buy elsewhere and b) are necessary for self support.
> 
> It's a matter of economics. If their business practices piss off people enough to drive away 50% of their revenue, they will be forced to adjust their tactics.
> 
> Maybe it's just frustrating that they are beloved by enough big spenders that your $1/vote and my $1/vote aren't a even drop in the bucket for them. I guarantee that everyone else's $1/vote, collectively, does matter to them, though. And if people are just, on average, too apathetic to adjust their behaviour, then, maybe you and I are in the minority- it won't stop me from trying to get others to see the light, but it might result in ultimately nothing, just like my life in general.


I've been very diligently not giving Disney any of my money for several years now because they're a garbage company seemingly intent on ruining the entertainment industry, but it hasn't changed anything.


----------



## Randy

possumkiller said:


> I don't get the big deal with the billionaire "space race". Like what is the point? So far space x is the only one that did anything useful like transporting shit to actual space. These other two dickheads are just doing shit that was already done in the 50s and early 60s. I thought that if they were going to be exploiting everyone they would at least do something pioneering and groundbreaking. I'd rather give all those billions to NASA. At least they would do something more worthwhile with it.



Space tourism.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Space tourism.


In Branson and Bezo's cases, close to space tourism.

I like that money is being invested in space vehicles, but those two seem particularly daft in their approach. Like, at this point, neither is really working towards the space tourism industry, as neither is even close to approaching an orbital trajectory where there could be a "space motel" (for lack of a better term). It's a joyride really high in the atmosphere, but still too far down to even wave at the ISS.

The only one with tangible goals, as fantastical as they sound, is Musk. Making humans a multi-planetary species has been his stated goal since before the first of his rockets was even designed. And while we're a long ways away from that goal, he's leaps and bounds further than anybody else and I see zero signs he's slowing down anytime soon.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think all of the true garbage Amazon's employees have to deal with is coming from poor middle management. How much would it cost Amazon, as a whole, to allow their employees to have a bathroom every 5 minutes of walking distance from each other instead of forcing them to urinate into bottles, because it takes 10 minutes or more to walk to the bathroom from certain work areas (and then 10 minutes back > 15 minutes they get to be away)? How much would it cost Amazon to give their employees access to PT or give them a 5 minute break to stretch in addition to their bathroom breaks? These little things for the company are actually big things for workers.


What gives me some more comfort with this too, is evidently there's a lot of _fear _of getting fired over all the optimization/tracking stuff they do with warehouse/distribution employees, including stuff like minimum prescribed walking paces... but there's very little signs that it happens with any more frequency than with any other, less data-dependent, warehouse job. It seems like the fact they _can _measure real-time performance metrics is being used as a stick, more so than any actual application of that data. Sure, it's possible this goes all the way up to the top, but it sounds like distribution center level management is perfectly content to use data to build a culture of fear. Which, frankly, is kind of creepy. 

But, your point that an average Amazon employee is quite a bit better off than an average Walmart employee is definitely true. I know a few Amazon employees who are quite proud to work there, so it's not like the whole thing is a soul-consuming profit machine.



Adieu said:


> What they should REALLY do is flip the regressive tax on the self employed.
> 
> Make THAT cowboy-hat clown in his richard rocket pay a % off everything he makes for social security crap and cap it to no tax BELOW 100k or whatever it is instead of the crazy no tax AFTER a ceiling nonsense


I mean, kind of a lot to unpack here.  But high level I agree - Social security taxes are capped, because benefits are capped. The theory is you shouldn't be made to pay into a system at such a rate that you know there's no possible way you could ever benefit in kind to your own contributions, and while yes I get that this is an insurance system so it kind of depends on at least some people paying in more than they get back, that's a play on longevity and the amount of time you'll continue to withdraw from the system being unknown, than it is on earning power vs benefits being tied to your earnings up to a point, but only up to a point. The way it's designed, in theory, it should always be possible for your forgeone wages during your career to be exceeded by your benefits in retirement.

In _theory_ I get all that and the cap makes sense. In practice? I don't think it would be the worst thing if someone making a couple million a year was contributing into social security to a degree where even if they lived to 200 they'd never come close to receiving benefits that could exceed what they put in during their career. You could make an argument against in terms of fairness, sure... except, by the time you're making that kind of money, pretty quickly your investment income in retirement is going to trump your social security benefits, and having retirees better able to go out and spend and consume should have a stimulative effect to the economy, especially with an aging workforce, so it's not like it's a complete wash. 

But, like, lots of moving parts.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Just that they're doing it with private money, instead of the public purse. Which tends to dry up in any given country once they get a few propaganda wins, decent ballistic missiles, local-sourced spy and comsats, and their own domestic take on GPS (collectively arguably being the entire point of the massive expenditures).
> 
> Governments are actually quite practical and conservative when it comes to space tech. Compare and contrast to a bunch of jumped-up geeks with money to burn and no remaining goals except chasing childhood dreams.


I mean, also, not for nothing this is a pretty clear contradiction to Reagan's "the scariest nine words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." We're making a huge deal about Bezos and Branson doing something that a number of governments did _sixty years before_. That's the kind of handicap working under the constraint of "not being a government" is.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I know a few Amazon employees who are quite proud to work there, so it's not like the whole thing is a soul-consuming profit machine.


Not sure if sarcasm.

I think it's a complex issue, and I think "the grass is always greener" trope applies here. I think human beings like complaining. I think most jobs for monstrously large corporations are probably soul-sucking daily torture and exploitation in general. I also think that if people hate their job, they ought to find other ones. I love my job, personally. I'd love it more if they paid me better or if my insurance was better, or even if my coworkers were a little more motivated, etc., but I get to do pretty much exactly what I like to do. I think that anyone who can do a thing that they enjoy doing that can be productive or creative could potentially make money doing it.

Most of us here are guitarists. I used to make good money playing guitar. I loved doing what I did. There were a lot of things I didn't like so much about it, like drunks puking on my pedal board or being three feet away from a fight with $5k worth of equipment I had to protect, or driving home from a bad Detroit neighbourhood at 4 AM. But I loved it overall, nonetheless. With bars not being a thing and touring bands making a fraction of what they used to make, and also becoming an old man, I really couldn't do that anymore...

I don't think anybody in kindergarten tells their teacher they want to grow up to be a warehouse logistics control specialist making $29k/year and having to pee in an empty bottle because the bathroom is too far away, all whilst their supervisor holds their schwantz for them and tells them that they have to process 15% more packages or else get fired. But then again this is the internet age and there seems to be a weird fetish for everything, so who knows...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> But, your point that an average Amazon employee is quite a bit better off than an average Walmart employee is definitely true. I know a few Amazon employees who are quite proud to work there, so it's not like the whole thing is a soul-consuming profit machine.



Crazy high turnover and significant injury rates for hourly fulfillment workers says otherwise. 

Sure, they might make a bit more than a Walmart floor worker...but just for the year they work there and before they get hurt.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not sure if sarcasm.


A bit of both.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> I also think that if people hate their job, they ought to find other ones.


So much easier said than done though, of course. Both because, I would assume, better paying jobs are fewer and more competitive to get into, but also because people might not think it's an option for them, whether it really is or not.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> So much easier said than done though, of course. Both because, I would assume, better paying jobs are fewer and more competitive to get into, but also because people might not think it's an option for them, whether it really is or not.


Sure, but what else can you do as a worker? We have things worse than the boomers did, but better than pretty much every generation before them. Working for a sucky employer sucks, but that's the reality we face and at least we still have the choice to terminate whenever.

I once worked for a place in Indiana that did testing at construction sites. $8/hr, my benefits were cancelled w/o notice, on call 24/7, dangerous work (2 workers killed and 3 seriously injured in the 12 months I worked there, out of <100 employees) no guaranteed minimum hours and also no maximum. It sucked. But everytime someone quit (or was killed/injured) they had no problem replacing them almost instantly, somehow.


----------



## Crungy

Damn, I'm hoping that wasn't in recent years for that pay/danger ratio. That is insane and good for you getting the fuck out of there!


----------



## nightflameauto

Not directly political, but since there's a massive, thick yellow blanket covering the land outside this morning I decided to peek at the national wildfire map. 

https://www.fireweatheravalanche.org/fire/

I suddenly feel like that dog in the cartoon where everything around him is burning and his sipping his coffee saying, "this is fine." That is SERIOUSLY messed up. 

And the strange thing is that it doesn't seem like it's getting that much attention. We get brief mentions on the local news that we should avoid being outside due to air quality because of "those wildfires" and that's about all I'm hearing about it. Seems like most summers we hear reports of wildfires every time they pop up. Is it just so much right now that the entire country has become desensitized to it?

I know there's not much politicians can do about it other than continue to bicker about climate change, but this seems unprecedented and extreme to me and feels like something that should at least be addressed somehow.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Not directly political, but since there's a massive, thick yellow blanket covering the land outside this morning I decided to peek at the national wildfire map.
> 
> https://www.fireweatheravalanche.org/fire/
> 
> I suddenly feel like that dog in the cartoon where everything around him is burning and his sipping his coffee saying, "this is fine." That is SERIOUSLY messed up.
> 
> And the strange thing is that it doesn't seem like it's getting that much attention. We get brief mentions on the local news that we should avoid being outside due to air quality because of "those wildfires" and that's about all I'm hearing about it. Seems like most summers we hear reports of wildfires every time they pop up. Is it just so much right now that the entire country has become desensitized to it?
> 
> I know there's not much politicians can do about it other than continue to bicker about climate change, but this seems unprecedented and extreme to me and feels like something that should at least be addressed somehow.



Yeah, I'm all the way in the East Coast and twice last week I came outside to "fog" that later found out was haze/smoke from wildfires 3,000 miles away. Never seen anything like that in my entire life, it was surreal. With that and all the flooding, I gotta think this is like an all time bad year for the environment.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'm all the way in the East Coast and twice last week I came outside to "fog" that later found out was haze/smoke from wildfires 3,000 miles away. Never seen anything like that in my entire life, it was surreal. With that and all the flooding, I gotta think this is like an all time bad year for the environment.


On two separate occasions this week, it's been bad enough that not only could I see visible haze when I walked outside, but I could smell smoke in the air before I even noticed the haze (there's a tree directly in front of my porch so it takes a few steps before I have a view up or down the street). That's only happened on one occasion before I can recall, several years ago during a stretch of particularly bad wildfires out west, and even that time I don't recall really being able to smell smoke in the air. 

Meanwhile, while the west is burning because we're in the 22nd year of an unprecedented and worsening drought, Germany and India are counting bodies after massive flooding destroyed parts of cities and towns. Yeah, something's not right, and the Republican "climate change is a hoax" thing is getting increasingly hard to jive with reality.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

nightflameauto said:


> Not directly political, but since there's a massive, thick yellow blanket covering the land outside this morning I decided to peek at the national wildfire map.
> 
> https://www.fireweatheravalanche.org/fire/
> 
> I suddenly feel like that dog in the cartoon where everything around him is burning and his sipping his coffee saying, "this is fine." That is SERIOUSLY messed up.
> 
> And the strange thing is that it doesn't seem like it's getting that much attention. We get brief mentions on the local news that we should avoid being outside due to air quality because of "those wildfires" and that's about all I'm hearing about it. Seems like most summers we hear reports of wildfires every time they pop up. Is it just so much right now that the entire country has become desensitized to it?
> 
> I know there's not much politicians can do about it other than continue to bicker about climate change, but this seems unprecedented and extreme to me and feels like something that should at least be addressed somehow.



Really hope that everyone close to any of these fires, stays safe and regains some peace of mind asap. So much widespread devastation. 

Yeah... "News" is only about what keeps viewership high. The condo collapse is a good example... 24/ 7 for weeks then absolutely nothing. Sadly, a good deal of desensitization too it seems.


----------



## BigViolin

I live in an area where the street lights coming on at 2 PM is a way too common occurrence. Getting socked in with smoke for weeks on end every year is pretty damn demoralizing. Worst is when you realize how fast a fire can eat and destroy. Low humidity, high wind fires can eat a home in minutes. That shit is beyond description.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The fires are real. I live in interior AK, it's wildfire season every summer but it's been super bad in recent years. 

A couple weeks ago I went for my usual morning run in what I thought was haze, turns out it was smoke. I was sick for two days.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> View attachment 96279


Eh, as they say, three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. The Dems were about a dozen votes shy in the House, and some of those holdouts were saying they were against trying to hold a vote because they didn't have the ten Republican votes in the Senate needed to pass this there. 

There's plenty of blame to go around - moderate Democratic holdouts, for sure, Biden for only trying to get this through Congress over the last two or three days, and I suppose you could argue Pelosi for not forcing a vote and making the moderates in her caucus come out against it publicly, though considering she needs to hold them together in order to get the two infrastructure bills through with a four-vote majority I'm not sure now's the time to fan tensions within her caucus... but certainly, united Republican opposition to extending the moratorium at a time Covid cases are surging in at least parts of the country is a pretty big issue, too.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Eh, as they say, three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. The Dems were about a dozen votes shy in the House, and some of those holdouts were saying they were against trying to hold a vote because they didn't have the ten Republican votes in the Senate needed to pass this there.
> 
> There's plenty of blame to go around - moderate Democratic holdouts, for sure, Biden for only trying to get this through Congress over the last two or three days, and I suppose you could argue Pelosi for not forcing a vote and making the moderates in her caucus come out against it publicly, though considering she needs to hold them together in order to get the two infrastructure bills through with a four-vote majority I'm not sure now's the time to fan tensions within her caucus... but certainly, united Republican opposition to extending the moratorium at a time Covid cases are surging in at least parts of the country is a pretty big issue, too.



Ah, a worthy concession. At least they'll have a fresh new overpass to sleep under.


----------



## bostjan

The air quality here in NE VT has been at a record low. Tons of smoke from out west. I had only ever seen something like this once in the past ~12 years, and that was when there was a huge forest fire just a few minutes away from me, and that smoke only lasted a few days, not a couple weeks like this.

The entire bit with the eviction moratorium is just a bunch of finger-pointing. Pelosi has said that it should be the Executive Branch's responsibility to extend it, even though the SCotUS already issued an opinion that only Congress has the authority to do so. It's simple, politically- whoever votes to extend the moratorium is providing the ammo for the other side to say that the government's response to covid was substandard.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> https://www.fireweatheravalanche.org/fire/



It took me way too long to realize that the blue and purple must be clouds/rain, and not fires, because I think I'd remember hearing about that much of the ocean being on fire.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Ah, a worthy concession. At least they'll have a fresh new overpass to sleep under.


I mean, you're aware as well as I am that the "physical infrastructure" bill is coming out of the Senate, and the one Pelosi will have to worry about keeping her caucus together on is the much-larger "human infrastructure" bill, which moderates are already pretty uncomfortable with and only has any hope at all of passing the Senate through reconciliation, and even _then_ I think the odds are probably against it.


----------



## Randy

Meh. If you're not a teenager or a family with kids what's in it for you?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Meh. If you're not a teenager or a family with kids what's in it for you?


The constant and consistent reminder that you don't matter. At all. To anybody.

And I say that as somebody that's not a teenager and doesn't have kids. I'm well aware of my irrelevance.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> The constant and consistent reminder that you don't matter. At all. To anybody.
> 
> And I say that as somebody that's not a teenager and doesn't have kids. I'm well aware of my irrelevance.



I get that quite often. 

PUA about to dry up despite my business not fully rebounding from COVID. Have applied to every employment paycheck assistance program, disaster recovery and 'rebuild' program and have been shot down because we weren't profitable enough or been in business long enough. They passed one in NYS that was more lax on requirements except it was exclusive to female and minority owned businesses, and because I'm the only minority in my company (and have a minority stake), we didn't qualify.

Nothing more fun than working 40+ hours a week on a business you sank two years of your life into, you're still in significant debt over, being rejected for any assistance to help it back off the ground but I'm being spammed with "UE is running out, come to this food packing plant job fair" emails instead.

Yeah, I'm reminded quite often how much I don't matter.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I get that quite often.
> 
> PUA about to dry up despite my business not fully rebounding from COVID. Have applied to every employment paycheck assistance program, disaster recovery and 'rebuild' program and have been shot down because we weren't profitable enough or been in business long enough. They passed one in NYS that was more lax on requirements except it was exclusive to female and minority owned businesses, and because I'm the only minority in my company (and have a minority stake), we didn't qualify.
> 
> Nothing more fun than working 40+ hours a week on a business you sank two years of your life into, you're still in significant debt over, being rejected for any assistance to help it back off the ground but I'm being spammed with "UE is running out, come to this food packing plant job fair" emails instead.
> 
> Yeah, I'm reminded quite often how much I don't matter.



I've been in a similar financial situation before. It sucked, but eventually things got better. I know you are smart and resourceful, so you'll pull through. Not that me saying this makes it any easier for you, I know, but hopefully it's worth a penny of good will.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'm reminded quite often how much I don't matter.


Sorry, man. That sucks.

I was lucky in that my job situation has been stable throughout the pandemic situation, but on top of not being the correct age and not having kids to tap myself into the next cycle of consumerism to where I become vaguely relevant again, I'm well past the point where I or my wife matter. Even as a blip on the ballot we're pretty irrelevant.

Add on to that we're straight, white, middle aged and pretty much unexceptional in every way, yeah, we've got the full package of societal "go away, your time is well over", so I totally feel for ya, man.


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t exactly understand why we need the eviction moratorium. If you are unemployed, aren’t you getting lots of extra unemployment for the last year plus a bunch of stimulus? If you are employed, don’t you have money coming in and also got stimulus? If you are underemployed, this is more of a long term problem that a moratorium wouldn’t help? Also if you haven’t been paying you bills, shouldn’t you have even more money piled up? I honestly don’t understand the situation this is for?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I've been in a similar financial situation before. It sucked, but eventually things got better. I know you are smart and resourceful, so you'll pull through. Not that me saying this makes it any easier for you, I know, but hopefully it's worth a penny of good will.



Much appreciated, means a lot believe me. I won't get into the whole thing but my backup plan is drawing on some of my old gig work to stay afloat if things don't level off by Sept. Thankfully I'm frugal so I've been saving and have a shared income situation for my household that will at least keep us with a roof over our head while we figure things out. 



nightflameauto said:


> Sorry, man. That sucks.
> 
> I was lucky in that my job situation has been stable throughout the pandemic situation, but on top of not being the correct age and not having kids to tap myself into the next cycle of consumerism to where I become vaguely relevant again, I'm well past the point where I or my wife matter. Even as a blip on the ballot we're pretty irrelevant.
> 
> Add on to that we're straight, white, middle aged and pretty much unexceptional in every way, yeah, we've got the full package of societal "go away, your time is well over", so I totally feel for ya, man.



Yep, I'm a few years younger than you but otherwise living situation is the same and that's the kinda feedback I get quite often.

For most people that follow me on the P&CE, they know I gripe with both parties all the time and primarily because people falling into "donut holes" is way too common. This pandemic thing is the first time I've had to directly gripe and lobby on behalf of myself and my living situation but for as long as I've been involved in politics (or I think I'd say "policy"), I've always known people who were getting royally screwed by their own party. 



SpaceDock said:


> I don’t exactly understand why we need the eviction moratorium. If you are unemployed, aren’t you getting lots of extra unemployment for the last year plus a bunch of stimulus? If you are employed, don’t you have money coming in and also got stimulus? If you are underemployed, this is more of a long term problem that a moratorium wouldn’t help? Also if you haven’t been paying you bills, shouldn’t you have even more money piled up? I honestly don’t understand the situation this is for?



I can't speak to the eviction part but I will say the "lots of extra unemployment" thing (including my base rate benefits) was a whopping $20,000 a year. Woo! That's not a whole lot of rainy day money.

Also "underemployment" is likely the bigger culprit here, and a lot of the people arguing that the eviction reversal is heartless are coming from the fact there are still a lot of pandemic stricken industries. I know a shit ton of waitresses and bartenders that kept their job throughout the pandemic as "essential" but had hours cut and their tips zeroed. I don't think the last year and certainly today were the suitable times to address this "long term" problem while still trying to survive.

Which brings me to the third item... When the fuck did this party abandon empathy? I'm remembering that guy earlier who wanted Trump gone at all costs for the last two years and then Biden got a ho hum jobs report and he said it was time to kick everyone off UE. 

Jesus Christ how fast this party abandons their principals for wins. The pro gay/trans/minority stuff is all lip service, when the going gets tough, Dems go straight for the bootstraps argument too. Gross.


----------



## Adieu

Principal was the old fart that made your scholastic existence miserable.

Principles are something else entirely.


----------



## Ralyks

Giuliani is apparently almost broke and ready to go to jail. Trump won't pay him.
I can not WAIT to see that plea deal.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Ralyks said:


> Giuliani is apparently almost broke and ready to go to jail. Trump won't pay him.
> I can not WAIT to see that plea deal.



I'm kinda surprised he hasn't already flipped given how Trump's stiffed him for so long now.


----------



## mbardu

thebeesknees22 said:


> I'm kinda surprised he hasn't already flipped given how Trump's stiffed him for so long now.





Ralyks said:


> Giuliani is apparently almost broke and ready to go to jail. Trump won't pay him.
> I can not WAIT to see that plea deal.


----------



## Crungy

Do you think Giuliani knew if he was involved with Trump he might not ever get paid?


----------



## Randy

Did Giuliani know Trump is a deadbeat that frequently skips paying people for their services? Yes. 

Is Giuliani a delusional dumbfuck? Also yes.


----------



## nightflameauto

The fall of Giuliani is one of the most satisfying of the modern age. I honestly think the only thing that can/will top it is if we see a true and brutal fall for Trump himself.


----------



## thraxil

nightflameauto said:


> The fall of Giuliani is one of the most satisfying of the modern age. I honestly think the only thing that can/will top it is if we see a true and brutal fall for Trump himself.



Roger Stone was the one that I really wanted to see go down. He's been a shameless criminal since Watergate and is individually, personally responsibe for more of what's wrong with US politics than almost anyone I can think of (except maybe Mitch McConnell).

I lived in NYC when Guiliani was mayor so I have no love for him, but his situation seems like some combination of mental illness and alcoholism. I can *almost* feel sorry for him.


----------



## Adieu

Ahh, these wonderfully inclusive and politically correct days when "wanton asshattery" is ALMOST eligible for a medical exemption


----------



## Crungy

Holy shit think if Trump gets charged and uses that excuse: "It wasn't me, it was my mental illness"


----------



## CovertSovietBear

Ralyks said:


> Giuliani is apparently almost broke and ready to go to jail. Trump won't pay him.
> I can not WAIT to see that plea deal.


Cue Carlson, Hannity, Ingraham and Shapiro for non-sensical explanations and numerous surprised Pikachu faces about the incoming situation.


----------



## nightflameauto

Crungy said:


> Holy shit think if Trump gets charged and uses that excuse: "It wasn't me, it was my mental illness"


While I'm quite certain that he could be diagnosed with several legitimate mental disorders, and who amongst us couldn't be, I don't know that that completely exonerates him. I mean, most of the legally questionable things he did stem from him being an arrogant self-centered prick with a complete lack of empathy or compassion. All of that is a personal choice at his age, regardless of your upbringing or what level of mental illness you bring to the table. I've met people with diagnosed psychological issues that aren't near the asshole he is. Being an asshole is a choice, not a mental disorder in and of itself.


----------



## Adieu

Crungy said:


> Holy shit think if Trump gets charged and uses that excuse: "It wasn't me, it was my mental illness"



"I'm a certifiable idiot, it's not my fault these morons voted for me"


----------



## bostjan

Trump's far too prideful to admit that he has a mental disorder.

If you guys are thinking this latest round of sleaze is going to stick to Trump, you're just setting yourselves up for disappointment. Even if they somehow convicted him of a number of felonies, he's far too rich, white, and powerful to go to jail. Even if he somehow goes to jail, you can be sure he'll somehow slip out of there.

Most likely, though, he'll stonewall and deny everything, and since he's insulated himself so well with a seemingly endless cushion of minions, nothing will trace back to him with a clear enough culpability to have any direct consequences for him.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Trump's far too prideful to admit that he has a mental disorder.
> 
> If you guys are thinking this latest round of sleaze is going to stick to Trump, you're just setting yourselves up for disappointment. Even if they somehow convicted him of a number of felonies, he's far too rich, white, and powerful to go to jail. Even if he somehow goes to jail, you can be sure he'll somehow slip out of there.
> 
> Most likely, though, he'll stonewall and deny everything, and since he's insulated himself so well with a seemingly endless cushion of minions, nothing will trace back to him with a clear enough culpability to have any direct consequences for him.


Truthfully, though, he's not near as rich as he'd like everyone to believe. Oh sure, after the presidency and his "campaign donations" and "legal donations" and such he's got a little bank, but there are a number of people that, were they to set their sights on him, could swat him without batting an eye and make it all just disappear in a puff of smoke.

Not that I think that will happen. Nor do I think you're wrong. His one true talent is an ability to keep himself properly lubricated and slippery as a wet weasel when it comes time to face the consequences from his actions. As much as I'd love to see him run out of KY and getting stuck in one of his own messes, I don't have a lot of faith it'll ever happen.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Truthfully, though, he's not near as rich as he'd like everyone to believe. Oh sure, after the presidency and his "campaign donations" and "legal donations" and such he's got a little bank, but there are a number of people that, were they to set their sights on him, could swat him without batting an eye and make it all just disappear in a puff of smoke.
> 
> Not that I think that will happen. Nor do I think you're wrong. His one true talent is an ability to keep himself properly lubricated and slippery as a wet weasel when it comes time to face the consequences from his actions. As much as I'd love to see him run out of KY and getting stuck in one of his own messes, I don't have a lot of faith it'll ever happen.



That's also in the news lately. That >$100M USD dollars that he collected to overturn the election... he spent less than $10M USD dollars trying to overturn the election and the rest went into the pockets of his associates.

Trump himself might be numerically broke, but don't think for a second that he doesn't have billions of dollars worth of favours people think that they owe him.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> If you guys are thinking this latest round of sleaze is going to stick to Trump, you're just setting yourselves up for disappointment. Even if they somehow convicted him of a number of felonies, he's far too rich, white, and powerful to go to jail. Even if he somehow goes to jail, you can be sure he'll somehow slip out of there.


Tell that to Epstein.


----------



## Drew

Semi-relatedly, Cuomo looks like he's in a bit of a tight space right now. If there's substance to these allegations, and the AG seems pretty sure there is, then he's on his way out.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Which brings me to the third item... When the fuck did this party abandon empathy? I'm remembering that guy earlier who wanted Trump gone at all costs for the last two years and then Biden got a ho hum jobs report and he said it was time to kick everyone off UE.


To be honest, I agree with you here, too, and god knows we disagree about plenty of things.  

Two main reasons. One, because helping people through a crisis, WHATEVER the reasons keeping them off payrolls, is the right thing to do. 

And two, because despite this "the labor market is SO tight, there aren't enough workers!" narrative, I'm not actually sure there's much truth to that. People love to point to the JOLTS job openings number of 9.2 million open jobs as proof that there's huge labor demand, compared to the ~5mm fewer people with jobs today than the pre-pandemic peak, and that it should be pretty easy to absorb those 5mm people, if only they wanted to work. Except, the glaring issue with this line of reasoning is, the baseline level of job openings in America isn't 0. It averaged about 7.2mm jobs in the months leading into February of 2020 and our peak pre-pandemic employment number, which makes that a pretty good estimation of what the "typical" level of job turnover is in a healthy economy. That then implies that we have about 2 million _excess_ jobs, compared to 5 million excess workers, and in turn labor demand, outside of a few pandemic impacted industries, is actually kind of weak right now. 

Republican states have been cutting benefits to "encourage people to get back to work," and it's honestly still a little too early to see if that's had much o an impact, but the early signs are not encouraging - there's been some decline of people collecting unemployment, but not really a comparable increase in people in the workforce. 

Though, to be fair, PUA was extended through September, wasn't it?


----------



## Crungy

Adieu said:


> "I'm a certifiable idiot, it's not my fault these morons voted for me"



That's the kind of grifitng I'm talking about!


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> [Trump's] far too rich, white, and powerful to go to jail. Even if he somehow goes to jail, you can be sure he'll somehow slip out of there.





Drew said:


> Tell that to Epstein.


Epstein is less white, rich, and powerful than Trump. People like Trump probably don't consider people of Jewish descent to be white, or at least, people like Trump's father didn't.
Also, rich and powerful has a lot more to do with who your dad was than how much money you have in your bank account. People like Bill Gates will always be considered lower upper class, because they are self-made, whereas people like Trump are from rich and powerful families, and thus, have birthright. IIRC, Epstein was a public school teacher and his dad was like a gardener or something.
What I'm getting at is that, in spite of Epstein's material excess, he's the sort of guy who get's knocked off by the contract killer hired by the guy who has old money. Trump is more like the guy who has old money.

You look at Harvey Weinstein, and it's the same thing - he was a self-made entertainment mogul. I don't think he came from any life-determining amount of money. He gets made into an example, because he doesn't have the "birthright."

I probably sound like a crazy person, but these sorts of effects are pretty well out in the open- it's definitely no secret that self-made wealth offers a lower social status than blood wealth.


----------



## Adieu

So basically.... old money HAS family mobster connections, while new money relies on the idiot sons of old money for their mobster hookups


----------



## Ralyks

Drew said:


> Semi-relatedly, Cuomo looks like he's in a bit of a tight space right now. If there's substance to these allegations, and the AG seems pretty sure there is, then he's on his way out.



Oh yeah. Even Biden is calling him to resign. What's sad is, if he doesn't get criminally charged or forced out, he'll run again and still have a good chance of winning.
That said, I'm not jumping to this guys defense just because there's a D next to his name. I gave Trump and others on the right shit for basically the similar stuff. But dudes almost Don levels of Teflon and it's weird.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Not sure if Cuomo is just trying to be like Trump and deny deny deny but like even if he says he was just being a weirldy touchy guy no intent beyond that just bow out gracefully


----------



## Crungy

Dineley said:


> Not sure if Cuomo is just trying to be like Trump and deny deny deny but like even if he says he was just being a weirldy touchy guy no intent beyond that just bow out gracefully



Best thing he could do is that and own up to it. Have some tact and be humble, unlike what we have seen from Trump and any of his minions.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> People like Bill Gates will always be considered lower upper class, because they are self-made, whereas people like Trump are from rich and powerful families, and thus, have birthright.


When you dig down though, this is just a goldmine. Trump's so-called "birthright" is the result of a fortune amassed by a man, his grandfather, who opened _a brothel_, because nothing says "dignity and manifest destiny of the gentry" like a owning a whorehouse.

Of course, nothing says "true to actual historical precedent of how the gentry actually spent their time and money" like owning a whorehouse either.


----------



## Adieu

Xaios said:


> When you dig down though, this is just a goldmine. Trump's so-called "birthright" is the result of a fortune amassed by a man, his grandfather, who opened _a brothel_, because nothing says "dignity and manifest destiny of the gentry" like a owning a whorehouse.
> 
> Of course, nothing says "true to actual historical precedent of how the gentry actually spent their time and money" like owning a whorehouse either.



And anyone with half a brain will realize that "Trump" is a recent underworld street name, not a Scottish (or whatever) surname

Guess his great-grandfather was a professional card cheat


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> To be honest, I agree with you here, too, and god knows we disagree about plenty of things.
> 
> Two main reasons. One, because helping people through a crisis, WHATEVER the reasons keeping them off payrolls, is the right thing to do.
> 
> And two, because despite this "the labor market is SO tight, there aren't enough workers!" narrative, I'm not actually sure there's much truth to that. People love to point to the JOLTS job openings number of 9.2 million open jobs as proof that there's huge labor demand, compared to the ~5mm fewer people with jobs today than the pre-pandemic peak, and that it should be pretty easy to absorb those 5mm people, if only they wanted to work. Except, the glaring issue with this line of reasoning is, the baseline level of job openings in America isn't 0. It averaged about 7.2mm jobs in the months leading into February of 2020 and our peak pre-pandemic employment number, which makes that a pretty good estimation of what the "typical" level of job turnover is in a healthy economy. That then implies that we have about 2 million _excess_ jobs, compared to 5 million excess workers, and in turn labor demand, outside of a few pandemic impacted industries, is actually kind of weak right now.
> 
> Republican states have been cutting benefits to "encourage people to get back to work," and it's honestly still a little too early to see if that's had much o an impact, but the early signs are not encouraging - there's been some decline of people collecting unemployment, but not really a comparable increase in people in the workforce.
> 
> Though, to be fair, PUA was extended through September, wasn't it?



While I'm on my bitch-fest, I'll also add that I filed my taxes on March and still haven't gotten my refund.


----------



## nightflameauto

Cuomo's interview after being asked by Biden to step down was one of the creepier things I've seen from him and that's saying something. "I'm that way with everybody" isn't an excuse for groping people. God damn.

As much as I hate watching Democrats tear themselves apart every time on of their own has the tiniest accusation of impropriety, this fuckers gots ta go. If he had any self awareness about it and was somewhat human in his response I *MIGHT* feel differently about it. As it is, he's gone the way most of the Republicans go when accused of impropriety. "Fuck yeah I did it. I do it to everybody. Your mom's next!" It's just being completely deaf to the actual situation.

The creepiest part was him justifying when he was groping and asking all sorts of sexual questions of someone he knew had been molested previously. "Yes, I asked her questions I wouldn't ask of everyone. I really thought I could help her." WTF dude? This would be like Dahmer saying, "Of course I ate them. Humans are delicious!" as a defense.

Get.
The.
Fuck.
Out.

Not that I was ever his biggest supporter, but jeezus, what a tone deaf asshole.


----------



## bostjan

Looks like, while Congress and the White House were bickering about evictions, the CDC stuck its own neck out: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-announce-new-eviction-moratorium-new-york-times-2021-08-03/ although it's a far cry from what people were requesting, at least it's something.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Looks like, while Congress and the White House were bickering about evictions, the CDC stuck its own neck out: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-announce-new-eviction-moratorium-new-york-times-2021-08-03/ although it's a far cry from what people were requesting, at least it's something.


On one hand, this won't stick, as the Supreme Court made it clear in the last decision on the eviction stay that while they would allow it to continue, only Congress had the power to stay evictions. The CDC is not Congress. 

On the other, trying to start evictions right now in contradiction to this order will immediately result in a lawsuit, which will have to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, which takes time. And, I suspect that the Supreme Court, especially with Roberts and his clear desire to have the Court remain well respected in public opinion, will likely slow-roll the case and be in no hurry to issue a decision. I don't think anyone on the court, possibly excepting Thomas and Alito, will really want to be known as the justice(s) who ordered people to start being thrown our of their houses in a pandemic, so if this doesn't make it to the docket before mid-late 2022, I wouldn't be shocked.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Oh yeah. Even Biden is calling him to resign. What's sad is, if he doesn't get criminally charged or forced out, he'll run again and still have a good chance of winning.
> That said, I'm not jumping to this guys defense just because there's a D next to his name. I gave Trump and others on the right shit for basically the similar stuff. But dudes almost Don levels of Teflon and it's weird.


As I've gleaned from conversations with New Yorkers, here and elsewhere, no one ever really necessarily liked Cuomo, who they saw as mostly banking on his father's legacy, but he won some support for his comparatively excellent response to Covid-19, albeit benefitting from an awfully low bar at the federal level. That's been tarnished somewhat with the nursing home scandal, even if he was mostly cleared in the end, but I also suspect New Yorkers would be fairly quick to kick him to the curb for cause. The only poll I've seen so far has 59% of New Yorkers saying he should step down, but this is so close to the AG report that that number could easily go up OR down, depending on how well the news had spread and how strong the immediate reaction was. 

I'd say prominent Democrats like, well, the President and Speaker of the House turning against him isn't a great sign for him finishing his term. Any word on Schumer's position?


----------



## Ralyks

Pretty sure Schumer wants Cuomo gone too. I feel like he put out a joint statement with Gilibrand.


----------



## BigViolin

Good god he has to go, but who is waiting in the wings?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I really don't get it like dude can still say he feels he didnt mean to harass anyone and also step down. Like even if you feel you are right learn to read the room


----------



## Randy

BigViolin said:


> Good god he has to go, but who is waiting in the wings?



Kathy Houchel (his Lt. Governor) is generally well liked and obviously a woman in the position where a misogynistic sex abuser was before will be considered an easy win. Who runs in his place I have no idea.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Kathy Houchel (his Lt. Governor) is generally well liked and obviously a woman in the position where a misogynistic sex answer was before will be considered an easy win. Who runs in his place I have no idea.



My money on who runs in his place is Houchel or Letitia James. Yes, the AG that investigated Cuomo probably has a strong chance to take his job too.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> My money on who runs in his place is Houchel or Letitia James. Yes, the AG that investigated Cuomo probably has a strong chance to take his job too.



He did the same thing to Spitzer, which is what makes all his hand wringing over Tish James so stupid.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> He did the same thing to Spitzer, which is what makes all his hand wringing over Tish James so stupid.



For the record, I’d be cool with James as governor here.
What I find funny is a bunch of my republican friends posting on Facebook celebrating Cuomo possibly being gone so, and it’s like, dude, another Democrat is going to come in. That’s just how NY is.


----------



## spudmunkey

Yes. And?


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> View attachment 96350
> 
> 
> Yes. And?



Probably looking for a new client


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> Probably looking for a new client



I mean, apparently Rudy is broke…. Although didn’t he get suspended from practicing in NY?


----------



## Crungy

Maybe he can do some consultation? Like the greasy criminal shit he does.


----------



## Louis Cypher




----------



## TedEH

I dunno where to post this, but it's vaguely political, so here it is:
I signed into a slack channel to find a message that just reads (not verbatim): "Sorry, I posted a meme that I thought was funny (from r/conservativememes), but it turned out to be incredibly offensive and insensitive. I deleted it, and apologize."

Me, being naive, thinking it can't be that bad, visit the sub to see if I can guess which meme he posted. Sweet jebus, that place is such a black hole of bad takes. I dunno that I have much of a point to make by posting this but uuuuh.... yeh, that was a thing. Yikes.


----------



## Randy

Yeaaaah some people think this forum is a liberal echo chamber/safe space. They haven't seen what lies in the deep dark depths of FB groups and subreddits.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> I dunno where to post this, but it's vaguely political, so here it is:
> I signed into a slack channel to find a message that just reads (not verbatim): "Sorry, I posted a meme that I thought was funny (from r/conservativememes), but it turned out to be incredibly offensive and insensitive. I deleted it, and apologize."
> 
> Me, being naive, thinking it can't be that bad, visit the sub to see if I can guess which meme he posted. Sweet jebus, that place is such a black hole of bad takes. I dunno that I have much of a point to make by posting this but uuuuh.... yeh, that was a thing. Yikes.



Conservatives can't meme. Might as well have a r/vulcanhumor sub.


----------



## TedEH

Part of me would like to stay naive and still think that being conservative doesn't have to mean being _that_ conservative. I'm also not sure why I was surprised that very-online-and-very-political people wouldn't speak almost entirely in caricatures. I guess I trolled myself this time.


----------



## Crungy

The dregs of society really like to make it known they know how to use the internet.


----------



## zappatton2

I will say this. My parents are conservative, we disagree on virtually everything, but they're actually moderate. They still subscribe to that "trickle-down" nonsense, but they take coherent positions. It should also be mentioned that they have virtually no engagement with the internet, and can't understand how anyone could be crazy enough to follow Trump, or see conspiracy in public health orders.


----------



## StevenC

TedEH said:


> I dunno where to post this, but it's vaguely political, so here it is:
> I signed into a slack channel to find a message that just reads (not verbatim): "Sorry, I posted a meme that I thought was funny (from r/conservativememes), but it turned out to be incredibly offensive and insensitive. I deleted it, and apologize."
> 
> Me, being naive, thinking it can't be that bad, visit the sub to see if I can guess which meme he posted. Sweet jebus, that place is such a black hole of bad takes. I dunno that I have much of a point to make by posting this but uuuuh.... yeh, that was a thing. Yikes.


But did you find the meme?


----------



## TedEH

I honestly still have no idea what the original post was. Knowing the guy who shared it, I can't imagine he meant anything by it - he's not generally outspoken about much except sports, so I assume he saw some clever phrasing (maybe about the Olympics or something?) without realizing some context or where it came from, went "lol funny may-may", shared it, took some flak, realized what he did, and backtracked immediately.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Yeaaaah some people think this forum is a liberal echo chamber/safe space. They haven't seen what lies in the deep dark depths of FB groups and subreddits.


Please. You and I argue WAY too much for this to be an echo chamber.


----------



## TedEH

There's got a be a joke in there about recording an impulse of this echo chamber to use later in another project.


----------



## TedEH

Nevermind, I found it.


----------



## bostjan

More like "the cone of silence" from Get Smart than an echo chamber, since usually when we all end up arguing, it's just because we misunderstood what each other were saying in the first place.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Randy said:


> Yeaaaah some people think this forum is a liberal echo chamber/safe space. They haven't seen what lies in the deep dark depths of FB groups and subreddits.



For anyone who thinks SS.org is "too far left," I cordially invite you to come over for tea sometime and I'll tell you about why we should kill all the bosses and landlords.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> For anyone who thinks SS.org is "too far left," I cordially invite you to come over for tea sometime and I'll tell you about why we should kill all the bosses and landlords.


----------



## Ralyks

I mean, many of us lean left (I'm somewhere between moderate and progressive), but I don't think many of us are totally anti-conservative.

Unless you're a shmuck who says your ancestors were pioneers.


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Unless you're a shmuck who says your ancestors were pioneers.



...which kind?


----------



## Ralyks

Adieu said:


> ...which kind?
> 
> View attachment 96461
> View attachment 96462



I mean, personally I am a sizable chunk of Russian descent...


----------



## mbardu

wheresthefbomb said:


> For anyone who thinks SS.org is "too far left," I cordially invite you to come over for tea sometime and I'll tell you about why we should kill all the bosses and landlords.



Where I come from we say "We should hang the last capitalist-king with the entrails of the last priest"


----------



## Adieu

mbardu said:


> Where I come from we say "We should hang the last capitalist-king with the entrails of the last priest"



...Pyongyang?

Not that I don't sympathize


----------



## mbardu

Adieu said:


> ...Pyongyang?
> 
> Not that I don't sympathize



you have been banned from /r/pyongyang

but also you have been made a moderator of /r/pyongyang


----------



## thraxil

mbardu said:


> Where I come from we say "We should hang the last capitalist-king with the entrails of the last priest"



FWIW, that's a variation on the old Diderot quote "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." (https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot)

Apparently though, that's a pretty rough translation from the original French (which was part of his poem, “Les Éleuthéromanes”):

Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
Au défaut d'un cordon pour étrangler les rois.

which would more directly be translated like

And its hands would weave the entrails of the priest,
For the lack of a cord with which to strangle kings.

(not my translation, but looks reasonable to me based on my couple years of high school French).


----------



## mbardu

thraxil said:


> FWIW, that's a variation on the old Diderot quote "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." (https://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot)
> 
> Apparently though, that's a pretty rough translation from the original French (which was part of his poem, “Les Éleuthéromanes”):
> 
> Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
> Au défaut d'un cordon pour étrangler les rois.
> 
> which would more directly be translated like
> 
> And its hands would weave the entrails of the priest,
> For the lack of a cord with which to strangle kings.
> 
> (not my translation, but looks reasonable to me based on my couple years of high school French).



There are actually a number of more or less apocryphal variations on that theme....a lot humorous, but most get the idea through 
It's French indeed and the translation above is not bad


----------



## Drew

Drew said:


> On one hand, this won't stick, as the Supreme Court made it clear in the last decision on the eviction stay that while they would allow it to continue, only Congress had the power to stay evictions. The CDC is not Congress.
> 
> On the other, trying to start evictions right now in contradiction to this order will immediately result in a lawsuit, which will have to be appealed up to the Supreme Court, which takes time. And, I suspect that the Supreme Court, especially with Roberts and his clear desire to have the Court remain well respected in public opinion, will likely slow-roll the case and be in no hurry to issue a decision. I don't think anyone on the court, possibly excepting Thomas and Alito, will really want to be known as the justice(s) who ordered people to start being thrown our of their houses in a pandemic, so if this doesn't make it to the docket before mid-late 2022, I wouldn't be shocked.


I'm increasingly thinking I might be wrong here, for what it's worth. Or, at least, a couple economists I've heard from recently whose opinions I take seriously think the appeals should be over within a couple weeks, and the SC will just punt this back down saying "of course it's unconstitutional, we already ruled on this," in an unsigned opinion.

I don't love that... but Congress timed the expiration for when they knew they would be out of session, weren't exactly unaware of the SC's decision, and had every opportunity to take it back up. In the long run, a moratorium on evictions would have to end at SOME point, barring total communist revolution and the banning of private ownership of property which clearly isn't going to happen, so I think there's an element of just getting this over with here.

Another big, and unexpected, factor was the (notoriously conservative) Washington Post's board editorial, tl;dr - "we applaud the goal here and applaud the President for trying to do the right thing, but even trying to do the right thing is not a good reason to cast aside the Constitution."


----------



## bostjan

What's with understaffing everywhere?

About half of the restaurants around here have been shuttering the past 2-3 weeks, claiming that they can't find any workers. I've even heard complaints that a few of the factories near the area are in some moderate amounts of trouble due to understaffing. Yet, aside from two people who recently retired (previously planned), everyone I personally know who was employed prior to the pandemic is employed. So where are all of the missing workers?


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> What's with understaffing everywhere?
> 
> About half of the restaurants around here have been shuttering the past 2-3 weeks, claiming that they can't find any workers. I've even heard complaints that a few of the factories near the area are in some moderate amounts of trouble due to understaffing. Yet, aside from two people who recently retired (previously planned), everyone I personally know who was employed prior to the pandemic is employed. So where are all of the missing workers?



Them workers must be where all them IC chips, cars, and lumber are hiding.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Them workers must be where all them IC chips, cars, and lumber are hiding.


Chip supply has a lot to do with south pacific covid rates and pandemic containment measures impacting production, coupled with transportation backlogs in part due to covid creating delays at ports, and on-again/off-again hotspots causing supply chains to be rerouted almost in real time tyring to find places where you can safely bring goods into the country (for example, with Delta flaring in California, there's a lot more demand to bring goods in through the east coast... but obviously it's going to take some time to get a tanker from San Francisco to the Atlantic), with a bit of a backlog also caused by the Suez Canal grounding stopping global tanker movement for the better part of a week. Cars are a direct byproduct of a lack of chip supply, and manufacturers are filling up huge fields with cars finished just waiting to have a few chips installed. Lumber was partly due to Trump's tarriff war making Canadian lumber much more expensive, then Covid closing mills and cutting operations, though with mills back online that should continue to fall. There are a LOT of interrelated things going on here.  



bostjan said:


> What's with understaffing everywhere?
> 
> About half of the restaurants around here have been shuttering the past 2-3 weeks, claiming that they can't find any workers. I've even heard complaints that a few of the factories near the area are in some moderate amounts of trouble due to understaffing. Yet, aside from two people who recently retired (previously planned), everyone I personally know who was employed prior to the pandemic is employed. So where are all of the missing workers?


It's a good question, and I don't think there are universal answers, and it's going to vary a lot region by region. 

But, I think geographic relocation is a bigger issue than it's getting credit for, especially with part time and "gig economy" workers. An easy example is the impact closing Broadway had on New York City - part of the reason New York is struggling with restaurant/service industry staff levels is there were a lot of people who were employed in various capacities on Broadway or trying to land jobs there - actors, stagehands, sound techs, musicians, costume and set designers, you name it - who were also waiting tables or working service jobs to make ends meet. With all of their "primary" jobs gone, they had no reason to stay in New York, so closing broadway alone pulled tens to hundreds of thousands of potential service industry workers out of the city. 

I think - with unemployment benefits more generous than usual, and stimulus payments providing extra flexibility - we're also seeing the impact of a lot of people who previously were working jobs they didn't see as long term careers simply to keep a roof over their head and put food on the table, suddenly having the financial flexibility to spend all the time they used to working to begin training for a career change, taking online classes, starting their own businesses, etc. Even in cases where they didn't change _during_ the pandemic, the quit rate has been extremely elevated for the last few months so I think as worker demand increased, we've seen a lot of jobs going to the sort of "essential" workers who were brought back first, and people who were already employed have made up the preponderance of new hires in the last few months. The quit rate has started to return to more normal levels, which should be a good sign for staffing levels - the same level of gross job creation should begin to result in a larger net job creation. 

Finally, I hate to sound like a neoconservative... but last week's exceptionally strong employment report does provide _some_ evidence that at least some workers who had been collecting expanded pandemic unemployment assistance benefits were being much more selective about taking jobs, and now that those have begun to phase out, they're starting to return to the workforce. Where I'd differ from the conservative read, I guess, is I think it was probably a good thing we've been "paying people to sit out of the workforce" in the middle of a pandemic, but the half-percentage-point fall in the unemployment rate in a month after a large number of states had ended enhanced benefits probably wasn't a coincidence. 

There were also some workforce composition changes - the number of people staying home for family care rose a bit during the pandemic too, which is also having an impact here. I don't think it's any one thing, though, so much as a whole bunch of little things all adding up.


----------



## bostjan

I suppose this is what the food service industry gets for paying its workers $2.13/hour (seriously, that's the minimum wage rate for wait staff).

I know of other somewhat shady stuff that goes on in other industries to keep people from earning a decent wage, and it does seem like those sorts of workplaces, at least around here, are the ones hardest hit by the understaffing trend.

It wouldn't surprise me much, though, if some news investigation reporter uncovered some warehouse in middle america full of plywood, cars, computer chip, and minimum wage workers.

Our local grocery store here, pre-pandemic, had transitioned to being open 24 hours. As soon as the pandemic started to really hit, they cut their hours back to what they were before, the reason given being so that they could disinfect everything daily, then, revising that to say that they couldn't manage to stay fully staffed overnight. Weirdly, their entire night shift staff was still on, but had been moved to cover day shift (many of them were vocally unhappy about having to adjust their hours on someone else's terms). 

I do sort of get a gut feeling that a lot of restaurants were propped up by some sort of government assistance that just recently started running out, and that might be why they had been open off-and-on until this past week or three.

Even before the word covid was uttered around these parts, it was really difficult to get people to work here. Government assistance programs in VT add up to quite a decent package if you are unemployed and can take advantage of all of them. Much better, financially, than making $11.75 for 20 hours/week and no benefits, at least for people with kids. That's $235/week. If you do the math for a single parent family of three getting rent covered by the government ($1500/month value), groceries covered (~$200/wk value) plus electricity, water, heat, etc. ... It'd be financially irresponsible to work instead of not work.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I suppose this is what the food service industry gets for paying its workers $2.13/hour (seriously, that's the minimum wage rate for wait staff).


Two observations - one, if the end result of these shortages is wages start coming up, in the long run that's not a bad thing.

And two, an economist I was on a call with earlier today theorized something that stuck with me - the past 30 years, a bit more really but pretty much ever since the 70s/early 80s when Volker finally got on top of double digit inflation, the Fed has been _very_ aggressive to move to raise short term rates, in turn raising the cost of credit and in turn slow growth, to stamp down on any sign of inflation in the economy. One of the byproducts of this, he suspects has been that this has had a disproportionate impact on the cost of wages, and that the return on labor has in turn badly lagged the return on capital (this is objectively true, that wages have been stagnant in real terms for years while equity markets have been off to the races).

If true, and I think he's probably right, then Fed Chair Jerome Powell is on the right track by pledging to keep rates low until we're at full employment, even if that means allowing the economy to run a little hot and inflation to temporarily overshoot (which is not what we're seeing now - this is a combination of base effects skewing year over year numbers, and mostly-pandemic-related-bottlenecks), and that the fact we ARE seeing lower wage job wages increase faster than higher wage ones right now due to service industry labor shortages is a promising sign. But, I thought the observation that a fairly hawkish Fed policy may have been a significant factor to growing income inequality in this country - not sole, but at least significant - was interesting, and certainly fits what I've seen.

In any event, restaurant labor shortages mean that it's probably more important than ever to tip your servers well, since they're probably all insanely overworked, stressed out, and routinely getting chewed out by asshole patrons who don't care that restaurants are understaffed.


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> For anyone who thinks SS.org is "too far left," I cordially invite you to come over for tea sometime and I'll tell you about why we should kill all the bosses and landlords.


I probably should sometime, given that we've known each other for, what, 16 years?

Good God, PV was a long time ago.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

One big problem restaurants are having is that the business model generally doesn't allow them to compete with wage increases at fast food chains. I work at a "high end" (for here) restaurant that can't keep dishwashers or bussers around because every fast food joint in town pays $15/hr starting (not to mention basically every other job, period). We are a 20 minute drive out of town, which means if they aren't starting _above_ that, they aren't hiring anyone who isn't local and that pool is pretty much tapped out already. 

They're hemorrhaging staff and the ones they have left are almost universally fed up and looking for outs. I'll be trimming cannabis for work by the end of the month.

One of the three nicer restaurants in our area had its doors closed last week due to staffing issues, but the word on the street is they're done for. Another higher end place in town is in a similar boat, and those are just the ones I know of.

I spoke to a business owner last night who is fairly convinced the low wage business model for restaurants is over, and the staffing shortages and closures certainly seem to bear that out. Karen is going to have to find a new way to pay for her mansion.


----------



## Ralyks

Holy fuck Cuomo resigned


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Holy fuck Cuomo resigned


Did he do it? I just heard that he promised to resign in the next two weeks.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

He actually resigned... Just saw his "teary-eyed" goodbye. Effective in 14 days. But yeah.. done deal. 

See ya, you miserable sexist piece of shit. I feel sorry for your daughters.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, to be honest, I don't know how many options he had. He was never well liked in New York, and prominent state and national Democrats had turned on him. I believe one of the 11 women is pressing charges, but I may be conflating the Governor of New York with the Duke of York here. I do know that the county DA whose juristiction he was in had requested the NY AG turn over her findings to them for possible criminal persecution, likely in the case of the woman where there was evidence of reprisals, since that should be fairly easy to try. I think he was toast and his only hope was to hold on long enough for something else to happen to distract attention, and then try to ride it out from them. And, if his best hope was something like another Covid wave as Delta spirals out of control.... just get out, you know? 

Meanwhile, the Senate passed the first infrastructure bill. I know this board tilts progressive, and fuck bigger picture so do I, so I know most of you care way more about the second, larger "human infrastructure" bill than this roads and bridges bill, but we are SO badly behind on infrastructure investment in this country, and with most of the funding directed to projects that probably will not begin until the medium term, this will be some much needed stimulus hitting the economy and creating a LOT of quality blue collar jobs right around the time the initial growth spurt from the reopening is fading.


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, the Senate passed the first infrastructure bill. I know this board tilts progressive, and fuck bigger picture so do I, so I know most of you care way more about the second, larger "human infrastructure" bill than this roads and bridges bill, *but we are SO badly behind on infrastructure investment in this country,* and with most of the funding directed to projects that probably will not begin until the medium term, this will be some much needed stimulus hitting the economy and creating a LOT of quality blue collar jobs right around the time the initial growth spurt from the reopening is fading.



As a fellow Bostonian, and one who needs a new front tire because of a pothole to boot, you're not wrong


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Meanwhile, the Senate passed the first infrastructure bill. I know this board tilts progressive, and fuck bigger picture so do I, so I know most of you care way more about the second, larger "human infrastructure" bill than this roads and bridges bill, but we are SO badly behind on infrastructure investment in this country, and with most of the funding directed to projects that probably will not begin until the medium term, this will be some much needed stimulus hitting the economy and creating a LOT of quality blue collar jobs right around the time the initial growth spurt from the reopening is fading.



All of my RW family is poo-poo-ing the investment by bringing up the "shovel-ready jobs" missteps.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, this is interesting. Oregon's Governor signed a bill into law that drops the requirement that high school graduates are able to do math and read. Maybe we should just stop pretending that public education is actual education and just treat it as a day care.

I feel bad for the kids. The only good thing I got out of school was learning to read and do math so that I could go explore the world and teach myself the shit they refuse to teach in school. Like actual history, not the white-washed nonsense they try to cram down your throat. Or anthropology. Or herpetology. Or aquatic botany. Or whatever else interests me. You take away reading and math and you've just hamstrung an entire generation if they aren't naturally curious enough to teach themselves.

There's stories about it everywhere, so hunt down your favorite newshole for the whole story. It's both baffling and ignorantly entertaining.


----------



## Crungy

Plus (assumption here) cuts to arts programs, unless that really turned around. I remembered hearing about so much of that getting cut years after getting out of high school. It really saddens me because that's what kept me in school. If I had gone to a school with no music program I probably would have dropped out.


----------



## Ralyks

Crungy said:


> Plus (assumption here) cuts to arts programs, unless that really turned around. I remembered hearing about so much of that getting cut years after getting out of high school. It really saddens me because that's what kept me in school. If I had gone to a school with no music program I probably would have dropped out.



Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Ralyks said:


> Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.



oof that's rough. I sometimes forget how good I had it growing up. Music was huge in my school. Literally half of the high school was in band. I can't imagine not that as a kid. It seems like it would be a bleak childhood


----------



## Crungy

Ralyks said:


> Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.



I'm sorry to hear, that has to be heartbreaking.


----------



## narad

nightflameauto said:


> Well, this is interesting. Oregon's Governor signed a bill into law that drops the requirement that high school graduates are able to do math and read. Maybe we should just stop pretending that public education is actual education and just treat it as a day care.



It's just outward facing policy stuff -- you write as if they're not going to teach it and just have a bunch of free periods...


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.



You mean they finally stopped shoving ridiculously overpriced mandatory "electives" (your choice of advanced basket weaving etc.) down the throats of poor debt-laden youths who just want to learn marketable skills ASAP?


...shocking


----------



## zappatton2

It's weird to me that high schools in the States are so eager to drop the arts while they treat high school sports like it's the Olympics.

I mean, I do think schools should have athletics programs, but why would something that encourages creativity and expression (whilst enhancing brain function in children, it should be mentioned) get shunned so completely, while something that focuses only on adversarial competition squeezes every last penny from countless school boards?

I answered my own question, didn't I?


----------



## narad

zappatton2 said:


> It's weird to me that high schools in the States are so eager to drop the arts while they treat high school sports like it's the Olympics.
> 
> I mean, I do think schools should have athletics programs, but why would something that encourages creativity and expression (whilst enhancing brain function in children, it should be mentioned) get shunned so completely, while something that focuses only on adversarial competition squeezes every last penny from countless school boards?
> 
> I answered my own question, didn't I?



Been watching too much "Friday Night Lights"?


----------



## CovertSovietBear

zappatton2 said:


> It's weird to me that high schools in the States are so eager to drop the arts while they treat high school sports like it's the Olympics.


Funding in my high school was always routed to sports, whether it would be for renovations, new equipment, etc. but hey you want a loaner trumpet or saxaphone? Too bad, we have two of them that are 15 years old and only one works. All of our stands would squeak and wobble plus a myriad of other things


----------



## CovertSovietBear

Adieu said:


> You mean they finally stopped shoving ridiculously overpriced mandatory "electives" (your choice of advanced basket weaving etc.) down the throats of poor debt-laden youths who just want to learn marketable skills ASAP?
> 
> 
> ...shocking


That was the worst part of going through university. Yeah it's nice to have these electives and other offerings but don't make me take them. I would've rather taken all my core science classes in clusters rather than take Ancient Mythology 1/2. Not saying they're not interesting, but a lot less time/money would've been consumed if all of my actual classes that benefited my career were the ones prioritized.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.


No disrespect intended, but I always thought that colleges that taught music would require an advanced degree.

I taught STEM courses at a university, at community colleges, and at technical colleges, and the only one that did not explicitly require an advanced degree, ironically, was the university. I know music education is a totally different set of expectations. Incidentally, I also was a substitute teacher for a middle school band class for a few weeks, and the school administration didn't care at all that my educational background had nothing to do with music (I did study music at the university for one year, but switched my major and didn't take any more music classes).

But I've also had former band mates who had Masters in Music Education, and the discussions we had led me to believe it was pretty much a requirement to even get your foot in the door with any sort of career in adult education.


----------



## Ralyks

bostjan said:


> No disrespect intended, but I always thought that colleges that taught music would require an advanced degree.
> 
> I taught STEM courses at a university, at community colleges, and at technical colleges, and the only one that did not explicitly require an advanced degree, ironically, was the university. I know music education is a totally different set of expectations. Incidentally, I also was a substitute teacher for a middle school band class for a few weeks, and the school administration didn't care at all that my educational background had nothing to do with music (I did study music at the university for one year, but switched my major and didn't take any more music classes).
> 
> But I've also had former band mates who had Masters in Music Education, and the discussions we had led me to believe it was pretty much a requirement to even get your foot in the door with any sort of career in adult education.



The original intent was to go all the way to Doctorate in Music Composition. Then the Muaic Education sounded like the more sensible route.


----------



## LordCashew

Ralyks said:


> Trust me, I got my bachelors in Music Theory and Composition, as well as Contemporary Music Studies, so I could teach in a college. When that seemed impossible, I started my Masters in Music Education. Then the jobs dropped like flies, and here I am studying Accounting now. I still think I’m mentally trying to recover from that as a Music writer and performer, but the feeling when I see music programs are dropping left and right, it's deflating.



I had a similar journey. I started out in Music Performance, but a couple years in realized I'd gotten too late of a start and had too many adult obligations to be competitive in that field as a professional. So I switched to Music Education halfway though my undergrad. Jobs in that field were good here pre-COVID and everyone was getting job placements before finishing their credentials or immediately after. I had doubts about the sustainability of that and ended up finishing out my Performance concentration as well as the Education side, then instead of credentialing I went straight into a Master's of Music Performance and started teaching in a studio. When COVID hit I was really glad I'd changed my trajectory, haha.



bostjan said:


> But I've also had former band mates who had Masters in Music Education, and the discussions we had led me to believe it was pretty much a requirement to even get your foot in the door with any sort of career in adult education.



Here in California a Master's is usually the bare minimum, but apparently most people competing for college/university adjunct positions have doctorates now. A decade ago I remember several of my teachers finishing up their doctorates as I was in their classes or ensembles, but now a doctorate is basically a de facto requirement for many of those positions.


----------



## Mathemagician

Randy said:


> Yeaaaah some people think this forum is a liberal echo chamber/safe space. They haven't seen what lies in the deep dark depths of FB groups and subreddits.





Drew said:


> Please. You and I argue WAY too much for this to be an echo chamber.



I mean, I got called a “Liberal Spooge King” by someone who wanted to create a “conservative safe space” thread. 

Meanwhile I just understand that a society functioning on perpetual consumption requires people to have enough excess money that they can continue consuming. 

Lots of people want to bootlick the companies that horrendously under-pay them. 

They worry about the burger flipper who might make $15/hr instead of the fact that they should be making $35/hr not $20 anymore. 

Can’t make everyone grow a spine and demand more for their families. So they instead “count other people’s money”. 



bostjan said:


> What's with understaffing everywhere?
> 
> About half of the restaurants around here have been shuttering the past 2-3 weeks, claiming that they can't find any workers. I've even heard complaints that a few of the factories near the area are in some moderate amounts of trouble due to understaffing. Yet, aside from two people who recently retired (previously planned), everyone I personally know who was employed prior to the pandemic is employed. So where are all of the missing workers?



Not really worth working for sub $15 anywhere in the country. That’s only $30k/yr. Most places offering $15+ don’t have this issue. 

And no $12-13 isn’t close enough. It’s enough to get someone to take the job for 3 months until they can jump to one paying $15+. 

Because that’s capitalism.


----------



## bostjan

Mathemagician said:


> Not really worth working for sub $15 anywhere in the country. That’s only $30k/yr. Most places offering $15+ don’t have this issue.
> 
> And no $12-13 isn’t close enough. It’s enough to get someone to take the job for 3 months until they can jump to one paying $15+.
> 
> Because that’s capitalism.


That's the thing, though. $15/hr is $30k/yr if you average more than 38hrs/wk. I know the drill with a lot of employers. If they have to give benefits at, say 36 hours, they'll keep some of their employees scheduled for 35 hours.

I'd say $30k/yr, in the average or cheaper places to live in the USA, is just barely enough to rent a sleazy apartment, eat out of a can, drive an entry-level car, and maybe get either Netflix or a gym membership. In the nicer cities, it's not even enough salary to live in a box and eat garbage.

A couple of decades ago, the economy was much kinder to workers. You could get a pension, you were pretty much guaranteed decent health coverage if you worked full time, the average pay-to-cost-of-living ratio for career-oriented jobs was enough to buy a house and start a family. Now we have the situation where pensions are almost unheard of outside of government jobs, health coverage might mean they give you a savings account that you can put your own money in, and even with a 4-year degree in a technical skill you could be making just barely enough to support yourself and half a kid.

I think everyone likes to find the source to blame and point at whatever model our economy is built upon (capitalism) or whatever political party holds the power, or such other things. But, objectively, is any of that stuff different from what it was when times were significantly better for the average American? If not, then there's very likely another root cause.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think everyone likes to find the source to blame and point at whatever model our economy is built upon (capitalism)...


Apologies for nit-picking a bit, but a lot of the times progressives and particularly Gen Z progressives are attacking "capitalism," what they're really attacking is "American Capitalism," and I think it's just a point worth making that there's a lot of oddities to American life that extend _well_ beyond we use market price-setting as a means of resource allocation, and I think a lot of the "evils of capitalism" have a lot more to do with conventions in America than they do with the economic system as a whole.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Apologies for nit-picking a bit, but a lot of the times progressives and particularly Gen Z progressives are attacking "capitalism," what they're really attacking is "American Capitalism," and I think it's just a point worth making that there's a lot of oddities to American life that extend _well_ beyond we use market price-setting as a means of resource allocation, and I think a lot of the "evils of capitalism" have a lot more to do with conventions in America than they do with the economic system as a whole.


This is really just reframing the point though. American issues, which also extend well beyond its borders, often comes down to a lack, or underfunding, of socialised programs. Or to put it another way, too much capitalism.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Apologies for nit-picking a bit, but a lot of the times progressives and particularly Gen Z progressives are attacking "capitalism," what they're really attacking is "American Capitalism," and I think it's just a point worth making that there's a lot of oddities to American life that extend _well_ beyond we use market price-setting as a means of resource allocation, and I think a lot of the "evils of capitalism" have a lot more to do with conventions in America than they do with the economic system as a whole.



That's a fair point. I'm sure the trendsetters are all thinking that way, but I'm not sure whether or not the average TikTok/Twitter political debater is making any distinction there.

In the USA, we certainly don't have just "capitalism." We have tons of social programs, especially since FDR, which are definitely pieces of socialism, on their own.

I guess it sort of all plays along with the point I was trying to get at earlier, that, at the end of the day, when people are not doing as well as their parents were at the same age, they look at whatever things are easier to change, so the blame falls on the economic system or the political system or whatever; when, in reality, the reason why the economy is less supportive of the middle class is usually pretty nuanced and has a lot to do with things that are more difficult to control.

In the mean time, whether people turn to more radical left-wing politicians or more radical right-wing politicians, or especially whatever the heck Trump was, it doesn't ever bring about the change as expected.

For example, the "Make America Great Again" slogan along with the sad stories of how Bill the foundry worker is laid off and Farmer Frank can't make ends meet growing corn anymore. It all implied that Trump was going to magically wave his finger and "fix" the economy.

In reality, though, we would never be able to both a) bolster our manufacturing sector to increase production enough to compete with China and southeast Asia and b) not turn our nation into a giant heap of toxic waste.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> In reality, though, we would never be able to both a) bolster our manufacturing sector to increase production enough to compete with China and southeast Asia and b) not turn our nation into a giant heap of toxic waste.


Almost makes you wonder if China's end game is to build such vast wealth by extracting all their mineral wealth and turning their own country into a sludge heap, knowing their competitors won't have the stomach to do the same, while exporting their own culture so that, when the time comes that they can't be resisted anymore, they can abandon the polluted mainland en masse and take power wherever they've already got a foothold.

I doubt that's the conscious end game given that China is also a country that prides itself great in its history and heritage, one that it would be extremely reluctant to abandon, but I'd also bet money that it was discussed as a possibility.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Almost makes you wonder if China's end game is to build such vast wealth by extracting all their mineral wealth and turning their own country into a sludge heap, knowing their competitors won't have the stomach to do the same, while exporting their own culture so that, when the time comes that they can't be resisted anymore, they can abandon the polluted mainland en masse and take power wherever they've already got a foothold.
> 
> I doubt that's the conscious end game given that China is also a country that prides itself great in its history and heritage, one that it would be extremely reluctant to abandon, but I'd also bet money that it was discussed as a possibility.



I don't think China is really aware of what it's doing to itself. We are talking about the same country that ordered its people to smelt pig iron in their fireplaces/hearths under penalty of imprisonment, hard labour, or death- completely clueless to the fact that it's impossible. We're also talking about the nation that lost a war against pigeons. 

China isn't even alone in that, though. Mexico City has brown air. I've been to some pretty polluted places, but none of them had air that had a permanent tint. The city is also sinking surprisingly rapidly due to all of the underground water being extracted so much more quickly than it can be naturally replenished.

It's not like any of us humans really grasp how severe the damage is that we are doing to the environment when we are actually doing it.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> when, in reality, the reason why the economy is less supportive of the middle class is usually pretty nuanced and has a lot to do with things that are more difficult to control.



It's not very nuanced or complicated.

Why is because deformed capitalism (some profit-driven entities now bigger than many countries) now controls government and media, whereas in the past, even if "control" would have been a big word, government and media would have at least kept them in check. With that gone, it exerts always more and more power with a singular imperative: profit of the few and concentration of capital. General welfare of the less fortunate, success of the Middle class (and survival of the human race in the face of climate change) - all that is counterproductive to that goal.

Who allows this to happen is those who think only about their own welfare rather than that of others, including their own children. In a word : boomers


----------



## TedEH

I had a whole rant typed up but it made me sad, so I'm not going to post it, instead I offer just the punchline:

Maybe I'm just getting burnt out from deluge of shittiness that has been the last couple of years, but our societal problems are not "capitalism bad" and "boomers bad" as far as I can tell - it's that almost all people are shitty to eachother regardless of context.


----------



## thraxil

Is Trump president again yet? Mike Lindell said that he'd be reinstated on August 13th. So any minute now, right?


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> It's not very nuanced or complicated.
> 
> Why is because deformed capitalism (some profit-driven entities now bigger than many countries) now controls government and media, whereas in the past, even if "control" would have been a big word, government and media would have at least kept them in check. With that gone, it exerts always more and more power with a singular imperative: profit of the few and concentration of capital. General welfare of the less fortunate, success of the Middle class (and survival of the human race in the face of climate change) - all that is counterproductive to that goal.
> 
> Who allows this to happen is those who think only about their own welfare rather than that of others, including their own children. In a word : boomers


Media has always been privately owned and operated in the USA, it's just that the mediascape has changed so much, and every time it changes, smaller businesses get swallowed up by bigger ones. Private businesses have pretty much always had their hand up the government's ass, but it's just that that hand keeps getting bigger and less concerned about detection.

Henry Ford knew that the rise of a middle class with more spare time would equate to more profits for his corporation. Henry Ford is long dead now. Jeff Bezos is basically the modern-day equivalent, though, and he would prefer his employees to work around the clock and piss in a bottle instead of taking time to walk to the bathroom to piss in a toilet. But that's not all there is to the shift in culture. The problem isn't that corporations want more profit, the problem is that corporations are run by people who don't understand how to make the maximum profit. If Bezos had his way, Amazon would swallow the world, and then we would all be working for him for nothing, but then there'd be no one left with the money to buy anything, so there would be no profit.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Media has always been privately owned and operated in the USA, it's just that the mediascape has changed so much, and every time it changes, smaller businesses get swallowed up by bigger ones. Private businesses have pretty much always had their hand up the government's ass, but it's just that that hand keeps getting bigger and less concerned about detection.
> 
> Henry Ford knew that the rise of a middle class with more spare time would equate to more profits for his corporation. Henry Ford is long dead now. Jeff Bezos is basically the modern-day equivalent, though, and he would prefer his employees to work around the clock and piss in a bottle instead of taking time to walk to the bathroom to piss in a toilet. But that's not all there is to the shift in culture. The problem isn't that corporations want more profit, the problem is that corporations are run by people who don't understand how to make the maximum profit. If Bezos had his way, Amazon would swallow the world, and then we would all be working for him for nothing, but then there'd be no one left with the money to buy anything, so there would be no profit.


This all happens because people like Bezos are all about feeding the immediate greed. What makes me the most *RIGHT NOW* (or at least this fiscal quarter) is far more important than sustainability, larger potential profits later, or anything involving looking to the future. I mean, I'm sure the dude thinks about the future, but the actions of the business are 100% about maximum profit NOW. Fuck the future, fuck the people working here, and fuck the planet. PROFIT!


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> Media has always been privately owned and operated in the USA, it's just that the mediascape has changed so much, and every time it changes, smaller businesses get swallowed up by bigger ones. Private businesses have pretty much always had their hand up the government's ass, but it's just that that hand keeps getting bigger and less concerned about detection.



100% my point.
There wasn't a flip of a discrete on/off switch. It just keeps getting more insidious over time, and there's a positive (well..._negative_) feedback loop that means the stronger it is, the more it allows itself to become stronger and more insidious.



bostjan said:


> Henry Ford knew that the rise of a middle class with more spare time would equate to more profits for his corporation. Henry Ford is long dead now. Jeff Bezos is basically the modern-day equivalent, though, and he would prefer his employees to work around the clock and piss in a bottle instead of taking time to walk to the bathroom to piss in a toilet. But that's not all there is to the shift in culture. The problem isn't that corporations want more profit, the problem is that corporations are run by people who don't understand how to make the maximum profit. If Bezos had his way, Amazon would swallow the world, and then we would all be working for him for nothing, but then there'd be no one left with the money to buy anything, so there would be no profit.



Ford and Bezos were both as successful as can be _within their own environments_. Almost optimal.
Ford did what he did to maximize (profit + goodwill) by going with his approach in his environment at the time. Maybe contribute to the middle class a bit more to get a broader overall customer pool, in a context where this was also valued by government/media. Probably the right approach _then_.

Bezos (or Gates, Zuck etc for that matter) have _also _been maximizing (profits + goodwill) by going with their own approach adapted to_ today's _deformed environment. Today, because of where we are, they are just able to squeeze that much more from individuals due to gains in productivity and little to no oversight, and they_ don't have to care _about an American middle class. They don't even _need _goodwill anymore; but if they feel like it they can just go ahead and buy goodwill with change money whenever they want anyway. Just look at Gates.
And that's the "right" approach as of today, with today's environment and incentives. It is a bit strange to argue those guys are not being optimally successful. I'd argue the opposite, they're more successful and more powerful than Ford or than most industry barons of yore. They literally have control on a _global _scale. Gates, without any formal medical training, can go and experiment as he pleases on an entire continent with no government oversight. Bezos can have the US government subsidize his space adventures using taxpayer money. WTF is that if not absolute control  .

Maybe if one day in a hypothetical scenario, say for example Amazon were to grow to one or more orders of magnitude bigger, it could be a paradigm shift and yeah - they'd need to revisit the approach for sure.
But we're not there yet. They are still year after year able to pocket a bigger and bigger portion of individuals' productivity and wealth. There's still a lot of disparity too, globally or locally. _Some people_ still have families, own their houses and cars, and are able to travel, have fun etc. Boomers are even able to _retire_. So there's still a bunch to squeeze until everyone is working 2 jobs and has to rent their small shared flat with 2 roommates in a cycle of medical and educational indebted servitude. Unheard of two generations ago, now an actual reality for what? 30% of the younger generation? But those would still be rookie numbers - the next generation could do even better! Better hurry though, there's only like 1 or 2 generations left


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> 100% my point.
> There wasn't a flip of a discrete on/off switch. It just keeps getting more insidious over time, and there's a positive (well..._negative_) feedback loop that means the stronger it is, the more it allows itself to become stronger and more insidious.
> 
> 
> 
> Ford and Bezos were both as successful as can be _within their own environments_. Almost optimal.
> Ford did what he did to maximize (profit + goodwill) by going with his approach in his environment at the time. Maybe contribute to the middle class a bit more to get a broader overall customer pool, in a context where this was also valued by government/media. Probably the right approach _then_.
> 
> Bezos (or Gates, Zuck etc for that matter) have _also _been maximizing (profits + goodwill) by going with their own approach adapted to_ today's _deformed environment. Today, because of where we are, they are just able to squeeze that much more from individuals due to gains in productivity and little to no oversight, and they_ don't have to care _about an American middle class. They don't even _need _goodwill anymore; but if they feel like it they can just go ahead and buy goodwill with change money whenever they want anyway. Just look at Gates.
> And that's the "right" approach as of today, with today's environment and incentives. It is a bit strange to argue those guys are not being optimally successful. I'd argue the opposite, they're more successful and more powerful than Ford or than most industry barons of yore. They literally have control on a _global _scale. Gates, without any formal medical training can go and experiment as he pleases on an entire continent wwith no government oversight. Bezos can have the US government subsidize his space adventures. WTF is that if not absolute control  .
> 
> Maybe if one day in a hypothetical scenario, say for example Amazon were to grow to one or more orders of magnitude bigger, it could be a paradigm shift and yeah - they'd need to revisit the approach for sure.
> But we're not there yet. They are still year after year able to pocket a bigger and bigger portion of individuals' productivity and wealth. There's still a lot of disparity too, globally or locally. _Some people_ still have families, own their houses and cars, and are able to travel, have fun etc. Boomers are even able to _retire_. So there's still a bunch to squeeze until everyone is working 2 jobs and has to rent their small shared flat with 2 roommates in a cycle of medical and educational indebted servitude. Unheard of two generations ago, now an actual reality for 30% of the younger generation ... but those are still rookie numbers - the next generation could do even better! Better hurry though, there's only like 1 or 2 generations left


I'm not convinced Henry Ford did what he did for his workers simply out of goodwill. Let's not forget that the man was a fan of Adolf Hitler, anti-Semitism and all.

He gave his workers an extra weekend day off and made an 8 hour workday standard, and lobbied to get other corporations to follow suit, not so his employees would be happy, but so that they would buy more cars.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> I'm not convinced Henry Ford did what he did for his workers simply out of goodwill. Let's not forget that the man was a fan of Adolf Hitler, anti-Semitism and all.
> 
> He gave his workers an extra weekend day off and made an 8 hour workday standard, and lobbied to get other corporations to follow suit, not so his employees would be happy, but so that they would buy more cars.



He was big, but he wasn't THAT big

His business would have been relatively unaffected if (all other factors like performance and motivation aside) NONE of his workers EVER bought one of his cars


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> I'm not convinced Henry Ford did what he did for his workers simply out of goodwill. Let's not forget that the man was a fan of Adolf Hitler, anti-Semitism and all.
> 
> He gave his workers an extra weekend day off and made an 8 hour workday standard, and lobbied to get other corporations to follow suit, not so his employees would be happy, but so that they would buy more cars.



Goodwill doesn't always mean altruistic and that's not what I meant. There's just always a little bit of "goodwill" in the equation. So that government lets you do your stuff. So that people buy your stuff. Because you still live in the same world as other human beings.
Interestingly, all 3 of those arguments are way weaker today... Billionaires can do whatever they want and governments don't care, people are pretty much _forced _to buy from one billionaire or another anyway, and billionaires hardly live in the same world as us anymore . Plus being able to literally buy goodwill for peanuts...

But yeah, Ford did it _mostly _for profit, just like Bezos & Co.
The environment we live in just keeps getting more perverse over time.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Mexico City has brown air. I've been to some pretty polluted places, but none of them had air that had a permanent tint. The city is also sinking surprisingly rapidly due to all of the underground water being extracted so much more quickly than it can be naturally replenished.


I can - probably - confirm the sinking, as I've read that too, but at least back in 2019 the air quality in Mexico City was actually pretty normal - I wasn't sure what to expect, visiting for the first time, but it was a pretty amazing city. I suppose to be fair I was mostly in the middle class and wealthy areas. Much of India, on the other hand, spending two months there back in 2008, I thought I probably took ten years off my life from the air.  The only time I ever got a sunburn was the day I went out into the Deccan Traps for the day, high enough to get above the smog layer.

This is all wildly off topic, of course, but Mexico is a place I'd love to spend more time.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I can - probably - confirm the sinking, as I've read that too, but at least back in 2019 the air quality in Mexico City was actually pretty normal - I wasn't sure what to expect, visiting for the first time, but it was a pretty amazing city. I suppose to be fair I was mostly in the middle class and wealthy areas. Much of India, on the other hand, spending two months there back in 2008, I thought I probably took ten years off my life from the air.  The only time I ever got a sunburn was the day I went out into the Deccan Traps for the day, high enough to get above the smog layer.
> 
> This is all wildly off topic, of course, but Mexico is a place I'd love to spend more time.


https://www.iqair.com/world-air-quality-ranking (the results are live, but, at the moment I copied the link, Mexico City's USAQI is 138, which is not good, but definitely a vast improvement over what it was in the early 1990's and even in the 2000's. The long-term health effects of air pollution are still the eighth most common cause of death in Mexico. It's probably markedly worse in India.

At least in China, the prevailing winds usually blow the pollution out to sea.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> At least in China, the prevailing winds usually blow the pollution out to sea.



_Japan has entered the chat_


----------



## fantom

Legitimate question... Taliban are taking over Afghanistan. Let's assume these are more or less accurate reports.

People are already pointing the fingers at Biden. But wasn't the withdrawal of US Troops due to actions set in motion by Trump after he lost the election? Did I miss something? How is NYT and Fox News in alignment and throwing Biden under the bus for actions done by Trump?


----------



## Adieu

It's all Dubya's fault anyway


----------



## spudmunkey

The parade of stupid has lapped itself. Her, again?


----------



## Drew

fantom said:


> Legitimate question... Taliban are taking over Afghanistan. Let's assume these are more or less accurate reports.
> 
> People are already pointing the fingers at Biden. But wasn't the withdrawal of US Troops due to actions set in motion by Trump after he lost the election? Did I miss something? How is NYT and Fox News in alignment and throwing Biden under the bus for actions done by Trump?


Mostly... though, Biden could have reversed the deal Trump struck with the Taliban. So, technically, Fox is throwing Biden under the bus for something they applauded Trump for doing, which is par for the course for Fox.  

In other news, the eviction moratorium survived its first appeal in Washington - I still don't think it will survive the Supreme Court review, though I do wonder how aggressively they'll take up the case, but the district justice argued (correctly, I think), that just because Kavanaugh noted, in his opinion, that he was upholding the moratorium in June only because it was slated to expire, and he believed Congressional action would be necessary to extend it, doesn't mean the lower courts can use that case is a precedent for overturning it when the CDC extended it, because the lower courts can't assume that Kavanaugh's prior yes vote will _automatically _now be a no, and accordingly the Court's 5-4 decision extending it stands until they take up the case again.


----------



## mbardu

fantom said:


> Legitimate question... Taliban are taking over Afghanistan. Let's assume these are more or less accurate reports.
> 
> People are already pointing the fingers at Biden. But wasn't the withdrawal of US Troops due to actions set in motion by Trump after he lost the election? Did I miss something? How is NYT and Fox News in alignment and throwing Biden under the bus for actions done by Trump?



"The buck stops here."
Once in charge, it becomes your responsibility. There was so much of buck-passing under Trump, and so much attack on the press by right-wing claiming they were biased when they reported that it would be dumb for outlets like NYT or WaPo to act differently. Or should we cut Biden slack because he's Biden?

I'm not saying Biden should or could have done things differently, because I have no idea for a better solution; but he's Commander in Chief so what happens on his watch is his to bear. We shouldn't lower ourselves to the level of Fox & Co who are still blaming Obama for everything that's wrong in the world.


----------



## bostjan

No matter how long we planned on staying there, the Taliban was going to take over as soon as we left.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> No matter how long we planned on staying there, the Taliban was going to take over as soon as we left.



Also true. If you have to blame someone, then at least blame whoever sent us there, not Trump.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> Also true. If you have to blame someone, then at least blame whoever sent us there, not Trump.



Everyone. Everyone sent us there. The 2001 AUMF got damn near a unanimous vote of yay.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Everyone. Everyone sent us there. The 2001 AUMF got damn near a unanimous vote of yay.


There were *a lot* of people in my personal circle who were opposed to it at the time. The 2001 AUMF was a blank check, though, so, even as awful as that was, Bush was still the guy who ordered the attack on Afghanistan, specifically. Congress just handed him the authorization to do whatever he thought was necessary at the time.

And wasn't it just literally one "no" vote out of both houses?


----------



## SpaceDock

Watching some guy from the Pentagon saying the Taliban takeover is happening faster than expected because there isn’t any resistance from the Afghan government. That even though the Afghans have more troops, better weapons, and an Air Force they are laying down and not stopping the advancement. Seems like twenty years of us trying to build this up was one giant waste of money.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> Watching some guy from the Pentagon saying the Taliban takeover is happening faster than expected because there isn’t any resistance from the Afghan government. That even though the Afghans have more troops, better weapons, and an Air Force they are laying down and not stopping the advancement. Seems like twenty years of us trying to build this up was one giant waste of money *and* *lives*.



An additional point, bold added for emphasis ^


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> There were *a lot* of people in my personal circle who were opposed to it at the time. The 2001 AUMF was a blank check, though, so, even as awful as that was, Bush was still the guy who ordered the attack on Afghanistan, specifically. Congress just handed him the authorization to do whatever he thought was necessary at the time.
> 
> And wasn't it just literally one "no" vote out of both houses?



Yep, a single "nay" in the house. There were a few who didn't vote, but were present, but there was only one official "no" in all of congress. 

Barbara Lee, for the record.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> Watching some guy from the Pentagon saying the Taliban takeover is happening faster than expected because there isn’t any resistance from the Afghan government. That even though the Afghans have more troops, better weapons, and an Air Force they are laying down and not stopping the advancement. Seems like twenty years of us trying to build this up was one giant waste of money.


I've been waiting so long to tell someone "I told you so" about this that half the people I argued with about it died.

Now the problem is that the Taliban is about to have control over more troops, better weapons, and an Air Force, which they will immediately use against whomever happens to come near them next. If I lived in Pakistan or Iran right now, I'd be... well, I'd be living in Pakistan or Iran, so I'd probably have even worse things to worry about.


----------



## SpaceDock

spudmunkey said:


> An additional point, bold added for emphasis ^


You are right and I regret not adding that. 

I think this really proves that while we think that our motives are noble, changing a culture is sometimes impossible even when that culture is horrible by our standards.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> You are right and I regret not adding that.
> 
> I think this really proves that while we think that our motives are noble, changing a culture is sometimes impossible even when that culture is horrible by our standards.



Who exactly thought the US motives and going to change the culture in Afghanistan was _noble _tho? Certainly not the rest of the world.
Just the usual human bias of "We *have* to do *something*" in the face of the unknown + usual American militaro-industrialist imperialism.

IDK, I was not in the US then, but from the outside looking in, I don't remember much nobility to the cause ever.
Why would we even go and "change cultures" anyway...should Europe invade the US because the here culture of ever-increasing inequality is harming our populace? Or because the terroristic climate change denial is making the planet uninhabitable?


----------



## SpaceDock

mbardu said:


> Who exactly thought the US motives and going to change the culture in Afghanistan was _noble _tho?



Bush era republicans.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> Bush era republicans.



Just like WMD BS. 
Nobody of consequence in the Bush Admin _thought _the cause was true or noble.
They just _said _it because we needed an excuse.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> I've been waiting so long to tell someone "I told you so" about this that half the people I argued with about it died.
> 
> Now the problem is that the Taliban is about to have control over more troops, better weapons, and an Air Force, which they will immediately use against whomever happens to come near them next. If I lived in Pakistan or Iran right now, I'd be... well, I'd be living in Pakistan or Iran, so I'd probably have even worse things to worry about.



Except the Taliban is pretty much Pakistani Intelligence's pet vassal and aren't daft enough to pick a fight with Iran


It's the other (ex-Soviet) 'stans that are about to experience fun fun fun times


----------



## LordCashew

mbardu said:


> should Europe invade the US because the here culture of ever-increasing inequality is harming our populace?


I for one welcome our European overlords.


----------



## possumkiller

I actually respect Biden for taking one for the team and just ripping off the band-aid. This would be the result no matter how long we stayed there. It was either this or commit to a permanent presence. I only wish they would have got their weapons and equipment out of there or at least destroyed it all instead of just leaving it all for them to pick up.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think it sucks that the Afghans don’t seem to want to defend their own country. Also, not like any other country is willing to step in for us to pass the baton to. Hopefully this will be a lesson that we stay out of nation building.


----------



## philkilla

SpaceDock said:


> I think it sucks that the Afghans don’t seem to want to defend their own country. Also, not like any other country is willing to step in for us to pass the baton to. Hopefully this will be a lesson that we stay out of nation building.



It's not that they don't want to, but many are inept, stubborn, and extremely stupid.

Of the 26 months I spent there, 9 of which working directly to train hundreds of ANA soldiers there was only a few true believers that had the drive go defend their country.

The colossal waste of time and lives for this shit show has all of us in the force bummed out.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I think it sucks that the Afghans don’t seem to want to defend their own country. Also, not like any other country is willing to step in for us to pass the baton to. Hopefully this will be a lesson that we stay out of nation building.



I think there's some room for a distinction here... It would be probably a different thing if these were foreign invaders, but instead this is political minority assuming control of the state by force. 

If it were just invaders, it would be more explicit that it's a hostile takeover, then the incentive and path to stop them would be clearer (both from inside and outside). Instead, these are their fellow countrymen with a different plan for how to govern the place, they've yielded some political power that's given them legitimacy over time. I'm sure there is a percentage of the country that are not Taliban but either sympathize with, related to or indifferent toward.

The fact it took so little time for the country to be overrun tells me the dam was being held artificially by the US, but the interest or will to keep it that way did NOT exist at the local level. The US could've pulled out after a year, or a hundred years and the outcome was going to be the same. The political will was not there to stop this.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> I think there's some room for a distinction here... It would be probably a different thing if these were foreign invaders, but instead this is political minority assuming control of the state by force.
> 
> If it were just invaders, it would be more explicit that it's a hostile takeover, then the incentive and path to stop them would be clearer (both from inside and outside). Instead, these are their fellow countrymen with a different plan for how to govern the place, they've yielded some political power that's given them legitimacy over time. I'm sure there is a percentage of the country that are not Taliban but either sympathize with, related to or indifferent toward.
> 
> The fact it took so little time for the country to be overrun tells me the dam was being held artificially by the US, but the interest or will to keep it that way did NOT exist at the local level. The US could've pulled out after a year, or a hundred years and the outcome was going to be the same. The political will was not there to stop this.



A lot of it is still also that even after 20 years, many people in Afghanistan do not see themselves as part of a "country of Afghanistan". And I bet that includes members of the surrendering army. So we don't even necessarily look at the situation through a prism that makes sense when we try to apply our "country vs invader" thinking.

What a waste...


----------



## possumkiller

I guess to elaborate on my previous point is that no president wanted to be the one that recreated the fall of Saigon in Afghanistan. That is one of the main reasons Obama wouldn't do it. It was an unwinnable war and just as soon as we pull out it will be like we were never there (apart from all the expensive goodies and dead civilians we left behind). So any president would definitely not want to take the heat from all sides for pulling out. The right wants the war to never end. The left is going to (rightfully so) cry over the mess we leave behind and the people we fucked over who are all about to be killed for helping us. It's a huge shit sandwich and Biden knows he's old and not likely to win or live through another term and he just said fuck it I'll take the heat because someone has to do it. 

As far as the people we trained laying down for the Taliban, it was almost the same in Vietnam. Most of the people who had the will and discipline to fight were on the other side.


----------



## Crungy

Interesting 

https://gizmodo.com/gop-quietly-scrubs-webpage-detailing-trumps-historic-pe-1847492947


----------



## bostjan

So, even though the US withdrew from Afghanistan, there are still NATO troops there...

Anyway, probably surprising no one, but Pakistan's Prime Minister has vocalized support of the Taliban's return and now Pakistan is the first nation to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2021) diplomatically.

China and Iran are making plans to follow suit.


----------



## spudmunkey

Crungy said:


> Interesting
> 
> https://gizmodo.com/gop-quietly-scrubs-webpage-detailing-trumps-historic-pe-1847492947



It also doesn't mention his administration's "we'll release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for a 3-month cease-fire" agreement.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> So, even though the US withdrew from Afghanistan, there are still NATO troops there...
> 
> Anyway, probably surprising no one, but Pakistan's Prime Minister has vocalized support of the Taliban's return and now Pakistan is the first nation to recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (2021) diplomatically.
> 
> China and Iran are making plans to follow suit.



China sees business opportunities and a regime that won't gripe about it locking up ethnic minorities in concentration, er, "reconditioning" camps. Hell, they'll probably even applaud it since Uyghurs aren't "the right kind" of Muslims.

Iran sees a chance to build its power base in the region.

The only sensible thing to do - for the last 50 years, sadly - is not to be involved in this mess in the first place.


----------



## Ralyks

Man, impeachment and 25th amendment comments flying all over the place on social media.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> Man, impeachment and 25th amendment comments flying all over the place on social media.



Yeah, but by ghouls like Rick Fucking Scott.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, but by ghouls like Rick Fucking Scott.



And MTG claiming to draft up articles of impeachment.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> And MTG claiming to draft up articles of impeachment.


Again? Does she think if she does it enough times she'll get a free car wash?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Again? Does she think if she does it enough times she'll get a free car wash?



For real. Hasn't this been her mantra for like 8 months now? *yawn*


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t see what Biden could have done differently, hindsight is always 20/20. To me we should have peaced out long ago and any further investment would have been wasted.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t see what Biden could have done differently, hindsight is always 20/20. To me we should have peaced out long ago and any further investment would have been wasted.



The GOP (and some Dems) wanted their money-printing forever war.


----------



## eaeolian

Ralyks said:


> Man, impeachment and 25th amendment comments flying all over the place on social media.



They literally have nothing, because this was negotiated under Trump, by Pompeo. Plus, they need all the distraction they can get from the fact the GOP line on COVID is causing a third spike in cases driven by...all the red states.


----------



## eaeolian

Ralyks said:


> And MTG claiming to draft up articles of impeachment.


Literally no one in Washington takes Propaganda Barbie seriously.


----------



## thebeesknees22

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t see what Biden could have done differently, hindsight is always 20/20. To me we should have peaced out long ago and any further investment would have been wasted.



It was always going to end this way. Honestly given that the taliban hasn't gone in guns blazing (yet) while troops and people were leaving is the most realistic best possible outcome.


----------



## Ralyks

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t see what Biden could have done differently, hindsight is always 20/20. To me we should have peaced out long ago and any further investment would have been wasted.



Should have been out by the time Dubya was out of office.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Should have been out by the time Dubya was out of office.


----------



## Crungy

Sounds like time to tap section 3 of the14th amendment for all of the trump bootlickers like MTG and Boebert.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm sure the rabble rouser segment of the GOP, which appears to be nearly all of them at times, are chomping at the bit to throw articles of impeachment on Biden due to the double-whammy on Trump. The entire party runs of tit-for-tat attacks with the additional platform stance of "fuck you" being the entire reason they exist. It'd just be nice if they attached themselves to reality just enough to wait for Biden to actually fuck something up.

Or they could lap themselves and throw articles Trump's way (even with him out of office) since this was his plan being carried out. Now THAT would be humorous.


----------



## Crungy

It's comical too how the gop/trump supporters say "this wouldn't have happened if trump was president!"

I'm sure a lot of shit that wouldn't have happened if trump WASN'T president: a bad "deal" with the Taliban that is happening now (deal being the key word, trump is the last person who should have had a hand in that), an insurrection on our own soil, enflaming of riots after George Floyd's death, claiming a totally legitimate presidential election was "stolen", etc


----------



## Crungy

To my previous post, I can't say that if trump wasn't president that what is currently happening in Afghanistan would not have happened. I recognize, and I believe the rest of the world does as well, that this was likely inevitable. I feel that a less troubling outcome could have been brokered by almost ANY other president.


----------



## bostjan

So, lemme get this straight.

MTG is drafting articles of impeachment for the mishandling of the troop withdrawal out of Afghanistan that Trump agreed to do with the Taliban? ...but she wants to impeach Biden over it?

I'm sure it'll be referred to some committee in the House, who will just shrug it off.


----------



## Crungy

Where it will be filed along with her other complaints


----------



## bostjan

I mean, if you want to go after Biden, there are other ways to go about doing it.

Did the Tara Reade thing ever get sorted out? What about the seven other women who came forward to accuse Biden of inappropriate behaviour? Were any of those investigated? Naw, let's go after him for the Hunter Biden thing that *was* investigated or whatever he inherited from Trump, because the GOP can't be bothered to try to use actual logic.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/03/trumps-latest-move-on-afghanistan-is-a-repeat-of-obamas.html


----------



## Ralyks

wheresthefbomb said:


> https://www.rand.org/blog/2019/03/trumps-latest-move-on-afghanistan-is-a-repeat-of-obamas.html


----------



## bostjan

George Bush said:


> Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.


People thought he misspoke.


----------



## mmr007

The solution is soooooo simple. The military doesn't want anything other than an all volunteer force....and that is fine and during normal times it should be. It makes it a more professional and manageable force....but we have a draft for a reason. So here is the new law that needs to get passed asap-

Invade whatever fucking country you want Republicans and Democrats. Vote to authorize whatever force you feel is necessary to "protect" the american way of life...but you have 6 months to get every single pair of american boots off the foreign soil or the draft immediately goes into effect. Then the politicians know that if they don't have an exit plan they will IMMEDIATELY get voted out of office and replaced by someone who will make an exit plan priority one. Having pressure that matters...(because dead soldiers and trillions wasted has no affect on them) of losing your job thanks to pissed off voters who will spend their Sunday's on patrol in Afghanistan or Somalia et al instead of spending their Sunday's watching football and bitching that players won't stand for the flag they love so much (yawn)...then...then we will see change in American occupation strategy or lack their of.

We stumbled and bumbled into the Afghan war because almost every politician was too scared to seem unamerican...but that was because the only sacrifice we knew was having to put on a flag lapel pin so we didn't get called out for not caring about the soldiers. That doesn't cut it.


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> The solution is soooooo simple. The military doesn't want anything other than an all volunteer force....and that is fine and during normal times it should be. It makes it a more professional and manageable force....but we have a draft for a reason. So here is the new law that needs to get passed asap-
> 
> Invade whatever fucking country you want Republicans and Democrats. Vote to authorize whatever force you feel is necessary to "protect" the american way of life...but you have 6 months to get every single pair of american boots off the foreign soil or the draft immediately goes into effect. Then the politicians know that if they don't have an exit plan they will IMMEDIATELY get voted out of office and replaced by someone who will make an exit plan priority one. Having pressure that matters...(because dead soldiers and trillions wasted has no affect on them) of losing your job thanks to pissed off voters who will spend their Sunday's on patrol in Afghanistan or Somalia et al instead of spending their Sunday's watching football and bitching that players won't stand for the flag they love so much (yawn)...then...then we will see change in American occupation strategy or lack their of.
> 
> We stumbled and bumbled into the Afghan war because almost every politician was too scared to seem unamerican...but that was because the only sacrifice we knew was having to put on a flag lapel pin so we didn't get called out for not caring about the soldiers. That doesn't cut it.


As much as I like this type of concept on the whole, it's kinda screaming into a gale force wind. There is zero, repeat: ZERO chance that ANY of the assholes in charge will ever create a law that holds them personally responsible for their decisions in such a direct way. They don't want to be held to any sort of standard other than whatever keeps them in office. Laying a trap for themselves that they absolutely 100% know they wouldn't be able to avoid just isn't something in their nature. If it was we'd already have reasonable laws on the books holding them accountable for the myriad dysfunctional decisions they make every year. And turnover in Washington would be WAAAAAAAAAAAY higher as a result.


----------



## mmr007

I totally agree with you. Because of the way Washington “works” the solution is simultaneously simple and yet impossible


----------



## JSanta

Don't forget that neither Iraq or Afghanistan were wars in the sense that they were approved by Congress. So even a law like that would be predicated on things being done the "right" way. The last time the US declared war was in 1942: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm


----------



## thraxil

mmr007 said:


> Invade whatever fucking country you want Republicans and Democrats. Vote to authorize whatever force you feel is necessary to "protect" the american way of life...but you have 6 months to get every single pair of american boots off the foreign soil or the draft immediately goes into effect. Then the politicians know that if they don't have an exit plan they will IMMEDIATELY get voted out of office and replaced by someone who will make an exit plan priority one.



Unfortunately, that would also mean that whoever you invade just adopts a strategy of "wait six months, the American pigdogs will leave". An invader that you know isn't fully committed is easier to deal with than one that might be willing to occupy you for 20 years.


----------



## Adieu

JSanta said:


> Don't forget that neither Iraq or Afghanistan were wars in the sense that they were approved by Congress. So even a law like that would be predicated on things being done the "right" way. The last time the US declared war was in 1942: https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm



Vietnam sure had a lot of conscription for a non-existent war


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> Unfortunately, that would also mean that whoever you invade just adopts a strategy of "wait six months, the American pigdogs will leave". An invader that you know isn't fully committed is easier to deal with than one that might be willing to occupy you for 20 years.



Perhaps that's a feature and not a bug. 

Maybe it'd be better if inter-generational quagmires are off the table.


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> Vietnam sure had a lot of conscription for a non-existent war



"The last draft call was on December 7, 1972, and the authority to induct expired on June 30, 1973. The date of the last drawing for the lottery was on March 12, 1975. Registration with the Selective Service System was suspended on April 1, 1975, and registrant processing was suspended on January 27, 1976." https://www.sss.gov/history-and-records/vietnam-lotteries/ 

"Conscription during the 1960s took place under the legal authority of the peacetime draft, because the United States never formally declared war on North Vietnam. Legal authority for a peacetime draft came from the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, signed by President Franklin Roosevelt in order to mobilize American civilian-soldiers in anticipation of entry into World War II. During the Korean War, the Selective Service began the policy of granting deferments to college students with an academic ranking in the top half of their class. Between 1954-1964, from the end of the Korean War until the escalation in Vietnam, the “peacetime” draft inducted more than 1.4 million American men, an average of more than 120,000 per year. As part of their Cold War mission, many state universities required ROTC training by male students, although campus protests caused administrators to begin repealing mandatory ROTC in the late 1950s and early 1960s." http://michiganintheworld.history.l...draft_protests/the-military-draft-during-the-


----------



## mmr007

The simple fact is we should not be invading countries and occupying them to make them the way that we would like them to be (a stable democracy with mcdonalds on every corner) we should only do it because it is a necessity for our survival or for international stability and if that is the case then we should be able to sell the necessity of drafting our populace to ensure that happens if you can’t do it then it’s not as important as you think it is. GTFO in 6 months be or B pay the potential political fallout


----------



## mmr007

For the last 20 years the war in Afghanistan was a little more than white noise slowly fading out to a faint tinitus that we didn’t pay attention to until periodically someone mentions “hey remember Afghanistan wer’re still there.” We have political leaders that are gonna lose their jobs over mask mandates one way or the other….just imagine how more responsible nation building will be if we have an army uniform mandate. Americans dont sacrifice thats not our thing so it is time to stop overburdening our military. Im sorry but if you served more than 2 tours in iraq or afghanistan your country and your leadership failed you….and bankrupted a nation doing so


----------



## JSanta

mmr007 said:


> The simple fact is we should not be invading countries and occupying them to make them the way that we would like them to be (a stable democracy with mcdonalds on every corner) we should only do it because it is a necessity for our survival or for international stability and if that is the case then we should be able to sell the necessity of drafting our populace to ensure that happens if you can’t do it then it’s not as important as you think it is. GTFO in 6 months be or B pay the potential political fallout



Much like term limits, I just don't see anything like this happening. 

I buried at least a dozen of my friends in Arlington, I want to see us stop fighting completely pointless wars. But if there are people getting rich off my buddies getting blown up, it will continue to happen.


----------



## bostjan

Bin Laden's manifesto after 911 stated that he wanted to bankrupt the USA by drawing us into multiple endless wars that we could never win. The fact that he's been dead for ten years, and we are just now withdrawing from one of the two major occupations that resulted directly from 911 means that he accomplished his objective.

The most frightening part of all of this, to me, was the fact that we played right into his plan knowing full well that we were playing right into his plan and we were happy about it (from our government's perspective).

But then again, when has the USA not been involved in a war? Bin Laden attacked us in retribution for our occupation in Saudi Arabia, our involvement in the Lebanese war, and for the fuel we added to the fire that was the Somali war. If he provoked us, why not continue fighting in Islamic countries to further piss him off, right? But no one seems to care that, for every year that we fight one of these wars, we make a thousand more bin Ladens.

The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 is perhaps one of the quickest wars in modern times. They were prepared for this, they were organized, they were funded. We need to finish our withdrawal and brace ourselves for more terrorist attacks in the next coming years.


----------



## possumkiller

Did I just find MTG's onlyfans?


----------



## Crungy

She does have that look about her...


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> Did I just find MTG's onlyfans?
> View attachment 96937



I think that's a man tho


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> I think that's a man tho


Marjorie Taylor Green IS a man tho. I keep telling you guys she's actually John Cena in a wig and makeup cosplaying as a female mental patient


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

possumkiller said:


> Did I just find MTG's onlyfans?
> View attachment 96937


Have you seen the arms on her? I don’t understand people calling her Barbie, to me she’s about as unattractive as it gets.


----------



## mmr007

I've never been able to get to the arms...I'm already in the bathroom throwing up after scanning just the top half of her face.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Hate to pile on someone over something as silly as looks as I'm no George Clooney but she certainly does just look not right.


----------



## Randy

From the depths of the uncanny valley


----------



## Ralyks

mmr007 said:


> Marjorie Taylor Green IS a man tho. I keep telling you guys she's actually John Cena in a wig and makeup cosplaying as a female mental patient



I will not have you besmirch the god goddamn name of John Cena like that. MTG probably doesn’t even know what the Make a Wish Foundation is. Or charity in general.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> I mean, if you want to go after Biden, there are other ways to go about doing it.
> 
> Did the Tara Reade thing ever get sorted out? What about the seven other women who came forward to accuse Biden of inappropriate behaviour? Were any of those investigated? Naw, let's go after him for the Hunter Biden thing that *was* investigated or whatever he inherited from Trump, because the GOP can't be bothered to try to use actual logic.



The Tara Reade thing died, basically for lack of evidence. That was the lynchpin for the whole "inappropriate behavior" line, which disappeared after the election, just as predicted.


----------



## eaeolian

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Have you seen the arms on her? I don’t understand people calling her Barbie, to me she’s about as unattractive as it gets.



It's more in the "blonde bimbo" way, rather than in the "attractive piece of plastic" way it's used on 9mm Barbie.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

eaeolian said:


> 9mm Barbie.



That Boebert though...if I was ten years younger and 20 times more crazy she'd have a 15 minute rant in my lifted truck on my YouTube for sure.


----------



## bostjan

eaeolian said:


> The Tara Reade thing died, basically for lack of evidence. That was the lynchpin for the whole "inappropriate behavior" line, which disappeared after the election, just as predicted.



Lack of evidence is pretty standard in cases such as that, though. It's not like there were hundreds of security cameras in all of the hallways in 1993. I've personally known people who went to jail and had their careers cancelled over similar allegations with even less corroboration than Reade had. I'm not, by any means, saying that Biden did anything. How would I know one way or the other? 

But, anyway (my point was), to republicans, the Hunter Biden thing and the Afghanistan thing, for some reason, are so much more appealing than the fact that more than half a dozen women accused Biden of various forms of sexual assault and none of it ever went beyond Biden saying "No, I didn't." You could say that it's because no matter the level of truth in the accusations, Trump certainly had done worse, but the same thing goes for Afghanistan, since it was Trump's idea and his administration's plan that all Biden did was let it happen. You could also point at the fact that Trump appointed his own family to the highest positions of government and state that it's the perfect example of the nepotism that people are desperately trying to establish (through little or contrary evidence) between Joe and Hunter Biden.

I guess it all just goes to highlight how insane partisan politics has gotten. The GOP is criticizing their neighbour's house for having some peeling paint when their own house is on fire and sinking into a swamp. What's more is that they aren't even concerned about the broken window on the house with the peeling paint.


----------



## Drew

I was on vacation last week, and I can't be bothered to weed through this thread trying to find actual content. Anything I missed?


----------



## BlackMastodon

Is anyone really surprised that Republicans don't care about sexual misconduct or the harassment of women?


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> I was on vacation last week, and I can't be bothered to weed through this thread trying to find actual content. Anything I missed?



Mostly just Max wanting to violate 9mm Barbie.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

eaeolian said:


> Mostly just Max wanting to violate 9mm Barbie.



I know who I am, and I'm not proud of it.

I just don't look good in white wraparound shades, so I don't have a chance.


----------



## Drew

Btw, getting caught up on a week's worth of econonimc releases, and re-reading some commentaryy dating back to the Senate budget outline needed to pass the human capital infrastructure bill via reconciiation...

The Dems failed to get a debt ceiling hike into the budget bill. 46 Senate republicans, meanwhile, signed a statement during those proceedings saying they wouldn't agree to raise the debt ceiling. 

Reading between the lines, while this _could_ merely be posturing and laying out an opening negotiating position, it also looks a lot like McConnell is getting ready for a showdown with Biden over spending bills that he was able to pass, in some cases with bipartisan support, but McConnell is going to try to not let him fund. This could bring us closer to sovereign default than even Boehner did under Obama.


----------



## eaeolian

I would dearly love to go back to 1995 and strangle Gingrich.


----------



## SpaceDock

eaeolian said:


> I would dearly love to go back to 1995 and strangle Gingrich.



This right here. I believe in 100 years history books will start the chapter on the fall of America with Newt.


----------



## Ralyks

Does anyone else in NY remember that we have a new governor?


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> Does anyone else in NY remember that we have a new governor?



Haven't noticed much yet but changes are coming, I'm sure. Politically they're from the same position relative to center but being a western NY (which is super red country) is very different than a NYC legacy member like Cuomo.


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> Haven't noticed much yet but changes are coming, I'm sure. Politically they're from the same position relative to center but being a western NY (which is super red country) is very different than a NYC legacy member like Cuomo.



Having lived a total of 2 years in Buffalo, yeah, Houchul was lucky to have a house seat where she ran. That said, I’ve heard pretty positive things about her from people in the area, and some of my sons family on that side have met her a few times. I will say, she was pretty quick to mandate masks in schools today.


----------



## mbardu

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...s-president-you-didnt-see-crisis-after-crisis

Wow.
Being able to say that kind of stuff with a straight face is absolutely next level.
Her moral compass is certainly broken beyond repair, but she's god mad skills.

No tell, she must be really good at poker.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...s-president-you-didnt-see-crisis-after-crisis
> 
> Wow.
> Being able to say that kind of stuff with a straight face is absolutely next level.
> Her moral compass is certainly broken beyond repair, but she's god mad skills.
> 
> No tell, she must be really good at poker.



That's the thing, to a not-insignificant amount of Americans things like the pandemic, two impeachments, children in cages, mass deportations, and an attempted coup are various levels of hoax and nothing burgers.


----------



## eaeolian

mbardu said:


> https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...s-president-you-didnt-see-crisis-after-crisis
> 
> Wow.
> Being able to say that kind of stuff with a straight face is absolutely next level.
> Her moral compass is certainly broken beyond repair, but she's god mad skills.
> 
> No tell, she must be really good at poker.



She gets paid to lie. You think it's a rare talent, until you live in the DC area.


----------



## ArtDecade

Looks like the suicide bombers finally made it to the airport gates in Kabul. This is going from horrible to horrifying.


----------



## philkilla

It's hard to share a thought about what's going on at HKIA without getting emotional.

With stuff like this though:

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2...XPW0q3ON1_f_U6pm4OXXa-2DWoMoyx1RFW1ffcoOO5AbU

It's hard to imagine how something like this could've happened.

Another bang up job by the Biden administration.


----------



## nightflameauto

philkilla said:


> It's hard to share a thought about what's going on at HKIA without getting emotional.
> 
> With stuff like this though:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2...XPW0q3ON1_f_U6pm4OXXa-2DWoMoyx1RFW1ffcoOO5AbU
> 
> It's hard to imagine how something like this could've happened.
> 
> Another bang up job by the Biden administration.


Wow. This whole Afghanistan situation was going to be a mess no matter what, but holy ever loving crap we didn't have to go out of our way to make it worse. So many missteps.


----------



## philkilla

nightflameauto said:


> Wow. This whole Afghanistan situation was going to be a mess no matter what, but holy ever loving crap we didn't have to go out of our way to make it worse. So many missteps.




Yes.

No hacks on them finally pulling the plug to get everyone out....but fuck me learn to listen to advisor's in regards to planning and execution.


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


> It's hard to share a thought about what's going on at HKIA without getting emotional.
> 
> With stuff like this though:
> 
> https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2...XPW0q3ON1_f_U6pm4OXXa-2DWoMoyx1RFW1ffcoOO5AbU
> 
> It's hard to imagine how something like this could've happened.
> 
> Another bang up job by the Biden administration.



Biden is denying knowledge of this. If someone in his administration did it, then that would be a pretty serious controversey. I know there are some pretty inept people in government, but that level of stupidity (maybe malice) needs to be punished. The article says "congressional" officials, though. I wonder if we will find out who? That seems like none of congress's authority either way.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I don't hate on Biden... Thank god that trump is gone. But I don't buy it. I think that he knew and simply wasn't prepared to act. I believe that he had no comprehensive game plan to deal with all of this. I don't think that he took threats seriously and instead just wanted to put all the effort behind an attempt to get everyone out by the Aug 31st deadline. Maybe he was getting an overabundance of conflicting info from his intel/ advisors but regardless, I think he simply failed on this one.


----------



## vilk

.


----------



## IwantTacos

all he had to do was forgive student loan debt.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Biden is denying knowledge of this. If someone in his administration did it, then that would be a pretty serious controversey. I know there are some pretty inept people in government, but that level of stupidity (maybe malice) needs to be punished. The article says "congressional" officials, though. I wonder if we will find out who? That seems like none of congress's authority either way.


Yeah, this is setting off warning bells here too - I'd love to see some additional confirmation.



IwantTacos said:


> all he had to do was forgive student loan debt.


This, without some sort of going-forward fix to address the increasingly unaffordable cost of college education, is a waste of time and money, and would just put us back in the same situation we're in today in another ten years. It's not nearly as easy as waiving a magic wand. Don't get me wrong, if we can address long-term affordability, I think the next step IS to look at some sort of debt forgiveness, as student debt is absolutely fucking up the household formation rate and impinging first-time homebuyers.... but we gotta fix the cart, before we can worry about whether it goes before or after the horse.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, this is setting off warning bells here too - I'd love to see some additional confirmation.


So, according to the initial report, the list was given to the Talban by three people consisting of congressmen and military officials. On August 24th, Peter Meijer [R - MI] and Seth Moulton [D - MA] flew to Afghanistan, upsetting the DoD and Congress. Both of them are veterans. Meijer served in the Army and fought in Iraq. Moulton was a decorated officer in the Marines. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moulton was the guy who received donations from republican party PAC's during one of the election cycles a few years ago, despite being a democrat.

I don't think these guys would have done this specifically to sabotage the efforts by the military to withdraw, but, could there be a chance that they were involved out of negligence or simply an abysmal lack of logic? Could it have been another congressperson instead of them? I know it's circumstantial, but at this point, it'd be a pretty damned weird coincidence if neither of these two were involved in the list given to the taliban.

If it does turn out to be them, can they be removed for incompetence?


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> S
> 
> If it does turn out to be them, can they be removed for incompetence?



If it's them, it should go much further than that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moulton was the guy who received donations from republican party PAC's during one of the election cycles a few years ago, despite being a democrat.


It's more complicated than that - Moulton's a local guy, young, but well liked, and while he ran as an unabashed liberal but on his military record, and used that in part to launch attacks on Trump as a draft dodger, he DID get a surprising amount of bipartisan support. I knew some Republicans who supported him, and I think a lot of it was just local - people knew him and his family, and figured even if he was a liberal, he was a young man with his head screwed on straight and was the kind of guy they wanted in Congress regardless of party. 

He emerged as a possible challenger to Pelosi but IIRC his opposition was more from the left, that we needed younger, fresher faced leadership. And he's become a Biden critic, based on his stated motivations for this trip, but I don't have a great handle on why exactly yet. Definitely pro-military and feeling like Biden is selling out the armed forces here (I disagree), but I don't know if it goes beyond that. 

But, if Moulton and Meijer were the two who on their own volition gave the Taliban a list of Americans and Afhghans with green cards to expedite the withdrawal, however good their intentions may have been, that's a pretty drastic step and if they went rogue in doing so, yeah, there should be consequences. 

Complicating matters, the suicide bombings yesterday WEREN'T carried out by the Taliban - they were carried out by a group called ISIS-Khorasan, representing ISIS's Afghan and Pakistan forces, who considers both the US (for obvious reasons) AND the Taliban (for selling out by negotiating to a withdrawal with the US) enemies. They're basically trying to throw gasoline on a shouldering fire here, and counting - probably correctly - on the average US citizen not being able to tell the difference between one suicide bomber and the next, and worsening the public response to this pull out. 

It's an EXTREMELY complicated picture.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> But, if Moulton and Meijer were the two who on their own volition gave the Taliban a list of Americans and Afhghans with green cards to expedite the withdrawal, however good their intentions may have been, that's a pretty drastic step and if they went rogue in doing so, yeah, there should be consequences.


I agree to the point that I will be extremely disappointed in our government when this inevitably gets swept under the rug and forgotten after the next big news story.



Drew said:


> It's an EXTREMELY complicated picture.


Well, sure, anything is if it's dug into enough. But it isn't in this case. Nobody was suggesting that the list given to the Taliban had anything to do with the attacks at the airport yesterday, and I'm not convinced that ISIS even could operate in Afghanistan without at least some Taliban support anyway. The S in ISIS stands for Syria, right? And the distance from Kabul to Damascus is like the distance from Los Angeles to Panama City (Panama, not the one in Florida), so it's not like there's any geographical proximity.

But drawing back to a high level:
1. Somebody, reported to be one or two congressmen and one or two top ranking military officials, gave the Taliban a list of names of Americans citizens and green card holders in Afghanistan.
2. The media is now heavily criticizing Biden for the above report.
3. Those two congressmen, who _just happen_ to be highly critical of Biden, _just happened_ to have flown to Afghanistan, _just before_ the list was handed over.
4. There are no other US congressmen in Afghanistan this week on record.

Now, I'm no Chief Inspector Clouseau, but I _think_ I can sort of piece things together here... I mean, if you read in the paper, two days after I posted about how I really needed money, that there were reports of someone named Bostjan going around robbing banks in Vermont with a microtonal guitar and a squawking parrot on his shoulder... wouldn't you suspect...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I agree to the point that I will be extremely disappointed in our government when this inevitably gets swept under the rug and forgotten after the next big news story.
> 
> 
> Well, sure, anything is if it's dug into enough. But it isn't in this case. Nobody was suggesting that the list given to the Taliban had anything to do with the attacks at the airport yesterday, and I'm not convinced that ISIS even could operate in Afghanistan without at least some Taliban support anyway. The S in ISIS stands for Syria, right? And the distance from Kabul to Damascus is like the distance from Los Angeles to Panama City (Panama, not the one in Florida), so it's not like there's any geographical proximity.
> 
> But drawing back to a high level:
> 1. Somebody, reported to be one or two congressmen and one or two top ranking military officials, gave the Taliban a list of names of Americans citizens and green card holders in Afghanistan.
> 2. The media is now heavily criticizing Biden for the above report.
> 3. Those two congressmen, who _just happen_ to be highly critical of Biden, _just happened_ to have flown to Afghanistan, _just before_ the list was handed over.
> 4. There are no other US congressmen in Afghanistan this week on record.
> 
> Now, I'm no Chief Inspector Clouseau, but I _think_ I can sort of piece things together here... I mean, if you read in the paper, two days after I posted about how I really needed money, that there were reports of someone named Bostjan going around robbing banks in Vermont with a microtonal guitar and a squawking parrot on his shoulder... wouldn't you suspect...


I think all of this is plausible. I DO just want to clarify that my two comments above were mostly unrelated - that I provided some background on why Moulton was getting donations from Republicans and why I didn't think it was because he was some sort of closet GOP/RINO. And then, separately, I just wanted to make the point that what's going on in Kabul right now is (at least) a three party conflict, and not two.

EDIT - rereading that, the shifting of gears before the final paragraph was probably a lot clearer to me, than it would be to anyone reading it.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I think all of this is plausible. I DO just want to clarify that my two comments above were mostly unrelated - that I provided some background on why Moulton was getting donations from Republicans and why I didn't think it was because he was some sort of closet GOP/RINO. And then, separately, I just wanted to make the point that what's going on in Kabul right now is (at least) a three party conflict, and not two.
> 
> EDIT - rereading that, the shifting of gears before the final paragraph was probably a lot clearer to me, than it would be to anyone reading it.


Would a closet RINO be a DINO?


----------



## Drew

I ALMOST went there. 

US Intelligence assessment released today, and let's all note that anything on a Friday afternoon they're hoping will get buried, tha basically was inconclusive and said it's going to stay that way as long as China continues to stonewall the inquiry. Four elements of the community with a low level of confidence supported the infected animal transmission theory, one with moderate confidence the lab leak theory. No further information I've seen, but even a "moderate" level of confidence in intelligence speak is still basically just slightly more likely than not.

They do assess that SARS-Cov-2 was not a biological weapon, and - to be fair, with a low level of confidence - all assess that it was not genetically engineered.


----------



## Andromalia

eaeolian said:


> She gets paid to lie. You think it's a rare talent, until you live in the DC area.


Or you work in Customer Service.


----------



## nightflameauto

While I know this isn't a shocking revelation, the Republicans are twisting themselves into knots over the attack in Afghanistan. I heard one speech, by one individual, where he alternated between saying Biden should leave office after negotiating with the Taliban, then in the very next sentence praised Trump for negotiating with the Taliban. If they could organize themselves and stay on message, they'd be a scary powerful force right now. Luckily they're a loose collection of fools and double-speaking morons so all we get is "Democrat = debbil, Republican, no matter how repugnant = angel, even for the same actions."

There is a murmur of invoking the 25th. Sorry dumbasses. You wouldn't invoke the 25th for any one of the hundreds of Trump blunders. Pretty sure even you're ardent followers would raise an eyebrow at trying to invoke the 25th with your only line of reasoning being, "someone not in our force attacked our people." Might need just a teeny bit more than that to swing even Manchin and Sinema to your side on this one.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> While I know this isn't a shocking revelation, the Republicans are twisting themselves into knots over the attack in Afghanistan. I heard one speech, by one individual, where he alternated between saying Biden should leave office after negotiating with the Taliban, then in the very next sentence praised Trump for negotiating with the Taliban. If they could organize themselves and stay on message, they'd be a scary powerful force right now. Luckily they're a loose collection of fools and double-speaking morons so all we get is "Democrat = debbil, Republican, no matter how repugnant = angel, even for the same actions."
> 
> There is a murmur of invoking the 25th. Sorry dumbasses. You wouldn't invoke the 25th for any one of the hundreds of Trump blunders. Pretty sure even you're ardent followers would raise an eyebrow at trying to invoke the 25th with your only line of reasoning being, "someone not in our force attacked our people." Might need just a teeny bit more than that to swing even Manchin and Sinema to your side on this one.


There's no danger of that, though - one of the side-effects of your official platform being "we're against whatever the Democrats are for," is that it makes it awfully hard to remain internally consistent.  

Interestingly, the Taliban is reportedly hoping to maintain civil relations, and potentially have diplomatic recognition, from the US, now that we're out. I'm not sure what to make of that, but the picture of ISIS-K launching suicide attacks targeting both the US AND the Taliban, the former for being white devils, the latter for selling out Islam, and a Taliban looking to engage diplomatically, is, well... unexpected. I'm not sure what to make of it.


----------



## eaeolian

What you make of it is that the picture there is nowhere near as black and white as the U.S. media would like to project it as being.

That ISIS would disagree with the Taliban was pretty much a given, though.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> There's no danger of that, though - one of the side-effects of your official platform being "we're against whatever the Democrats are for," is that it makes it awfully hard to remain internally consistent.
> 
> Interestingly, the Taliban is reportedly hoping to maintain civil relations, and potentially have diplomatic recognition, from the US, now that we're out. I'm not sure what to make of that, but the picture of ISIS-K launching suicide attacks targeting both the US AND the Taliban, the former for being white devils, the latter for selling out Islam, and a Taliban looking to engage diplomatically, is, well... unexpected. I'm not sure what to make of it.


Enemy of my enemy is my . . . hmmm, let's see, I know there's a word for it.

But yeah, I get a case of the heebees when I think of diplomatic relations with the Taliban. It's a step to somewhere, but I'm not sure it's the somewhere we want to be heading. Guess time will tell.


----------



## bostjan

The Taliban, for all it's millions of flaws, is an organization with realistic goals.

ISIS-K is probably the dumbest thing ever. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria - Khorasan Province. The goal is to bring about the end times, and murder as many people as possible. Both of those goals are juxtaposed to Islam at the fundamental level. Islam means submission to God. Trying to force the end times outside of the will of God or murdering innocent people are both most harshly condemned in Islam. So ISIS is not Islamic by any stretch. A state is an organized governmental structure with defined borders. ISIS understands nothing of governance and nothing of borders, therefore is not a state. Khorasan is nowhere near Iraq and Syria, let alone part of is, and also it's not a province of Afghanistan. So ISIS-K is neither I nor S nor I nor S nor K.

At any rate, and regardless of how little effort they put into their name, they are a truly destructive force.

Still no news stories from mainstream media with any new information about this so-called "kill list" of Americans. Whatever they were talking about with bus manifests or whatever doesn't fit the original characterization at all.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Enemy of my enemy is my . . . hmmm, let's see, I know there's a word for it.
> 
> But yeah, I get a case of the heebees when I think of diplomatic relations with the Taliban. It's a step to somewhere, but I'm not sure it's the somewhere we want to be heading. Guess time will tell.


Yeah, idunno. 

There are two directions it could go that I can see. The "good" outcome is, as they;'re getting disowned by extremists and looking to engage diplomatically, maybe they really have moderated and they'll end up unifying Afghanistan under a stable, if still pretty fucking religiously conservative, government, and diplomatic recognition could be conditioned on some internal reforms further moderating their platform and bringing them into the international community as a bona-fide political party, and nation. Honestly, this wouldn't be such an awful outcome - not great, not remotely so, but about the best we can salvage, probably. 

The "bad" direction is the Cold War all over again. 

Time will tell, I guess.


----------



## bostjan

Keep in mind that the Taliban is very friendly with Pakistan and very antagonistic toward India. Also keep in mind that both of those have nuclear weapons. Could be exactly like the start of a miniature Cold War.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Keep in mind that the Taliban is very friendly with Pakistan and very antagonistic toward India. Also keep in mind that both of those have nuclear weapons. Could be exactly like the start of a miniature Cold War.


I was thinking more cozying up to bin Laden to help beat back the Russians, but yeh, that's an angle worth watching too.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I was thinking more cozying up to bin Laden to help beat back the Russians, but yeh, that's an angle worth watching too.


For what it's worth (probably nothing), I don't think the shenanigans in the 70's and 80's in Afghanistan involved the US cozying up to bin Laden so much as it did bin Laden and the USA cozying up to the same guys, the remnants of whom are probably the ones who are running Afghanistan at the moment.

But in that region, we have had a really bad track record of cozying up to people that ended up being particularly bad for their own people, so we might as well have been involved with the devil himself.


----------



## Drew

That's probably a fair assessment, @bostjan.

I'll say this, though - I think Biden ultimately was right to pull out of Afghanistan, and the bloodshed we're seeing from the withdrawal has to be weighed against the bloodshed that would have occured under any othe rhypothetical stay-or-go option he could have had, and this may very well be one of the least-worst outcomes. But, for a guy who I saw as having a low bar to clear coming into office, and then I've gone on record a couple times now saying he's been unexpectedly effective and has really surprised me... this has been a bit of a black mark, as it seems like at least SOME of the options open to him should have been a bit better, both for the US, for the Afghans left behind, and for US allies who also wanted us to pull out a little more slowly to give them more time to react, as well.


----------



## mmr007

So....the US of ol' A bungles a withdrawal of its few remaining forces and civilian staff from Afghanistan after 20 years of incompetent prosecution of said war and Biden is getting pilloried for not being more prepared? More prepared after Trump and his Russian sympathizers ransacked and depleted our state department, ran our intelligence services into the ground and chased out all non-loyalists from every foreign service agency that mattered? Sorry but the "deep state" as Trump called it was a collection of the very people responsible for an orderly withdrawal and the intelligence gathering necessary for doing it. We all know Vindman's name because of the impeachment trial but there are thousands just like him that were either chased out of military/civil service or left because the inmates already over-ran the asylum.

Our government is broken. It will take decades to undo the hollowing out that Trump and Pompeo and the other criminal termites did to eat away at our institutions. Until then count on many more fuck ups.


----------



## estabon37

mmr007 said:


> So....the US of ol' A bungles a withdrawal of its few remaining forces and civilian staff from Afghanistan after 20 years of incompetent prosecution of said war and Biden is getting pilloried for not being more prepared? More prepared after Trump and his Russian sympathizers ransacked and depleted our state department, ran our intelligence services into the ground and chased out all non-loyalists from every foreign service agency that mattered? Sorry but the "deep state" as Trump called it was a collection of the very people responsible for an orderly withdrawal and the intelligence gathering necessary for doing it. We all know Vindman's name because of the impeachment trial but there are thousands just like him that were either chased out of military/civil service or left because the inmates already over-ran the asylum.
> 
> Our government is broken. It will take decades to undo the hollowing out that Trump and Pompeo and the other criminal termites did to eat away at our institutions. Until then count on many more fuck ups.



I'm pretty sure there's still plenty of time and space for the US to keep harming Afghanistan. I'll say up front that I'm not fully up to speed with the conditions of the withdrawal, but all the reports I've seen have been about withdrawing people. But hasn't a lot of the military engagement over there happened through drones? Including just 2-3 days ago? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08...slamic-state-planner-in-afghanistan/100415290

And as weirdly drone-happy as the Obama administration was (and one might assume the Biden administration might continue to be), we didn't hear much about the fact that Trump actually massively increased the amount of drone strikes in that corner of the world. We didn't hear about it because the Trump administration scrapped the requirement to report its occurrence: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

Again, what I'm implying here is pure conjecture. We don't know if the US will use drones ... the way they've been using drones for around 15 years. Those last two articles I linked were admittedly published by organisations that are seen by many as as big leftie commie organisations. I suppose I should be fair and balanced. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pentagon-launch-drone-strikes-afghanistan-kirby

US troops might no longer be in Afghanistan. That doesn't necessarily mean that US military influence is now absent in that country. Time will tell.


----------



## Xaios

estabon37 said:


> We didn't hear about it because the Trump administration scrapped the requirement to report its occurrence


Nothing better than governments who tout successes over previous administrations by doing nothing but changing reporting requirements. Reminds me of how, years ago, when the Conservative Party came into power into Saskatchewan, they later celebrated how wait times for surgeries were significantly down under their watch. As it turned out, actual wait times weren't down, they'd simply changed the definition of what constituted wait time, published an ad fellating themselves and called it a day.


----------



## bostjan

There are military drones with ranges over 20000 km. I'm sure that the possibility of a drone strike in Afghanistan is just as real now as it was last year.



Xaios said:


> Nothing better than governments who tout successes over previous administrations by doing nothing but changing reporting requirements. Reminds me of how, years ago, when the Conservative Party came into power into Saskatchewan, they later celebrated how wait times for surgeries were significantly down under their watch. As it turned out, actual wait times weren't down, they'd simply changed the definition of what constituted wait time, published an ad fellating themselves and called it a day.



Yup. Remember when Trump very publicly said that he wanted to stop reporting covid numbers. At the time, every other nation on earth was reporting their numbers except North Korea. I don't know about the rest of my fellow Americans, but IMHO, the fewer categories my government solely shares with North Korea, the better.


----------



## spudmunkey

"You know there are those that say you can test too much," Trump told "Axios on HBO" host Jonathan Swan in an interview set to air on Monday night. "You do know that?"

"Who says that?" Swan asked.

"Oh, just read the manuals," the president replied. "Read the books."

"Manuals?" Swan pressed. "What manuals."

"Read the books, read the books," Trump repeated.


----------



## nightflameauto

The number of times Trump stated, as if it were a miraculous cure all, "If we just stopped testing the numbers wouldn't be so high," is staggering. Like, if we didn't know the numbers that would somehow change the outcome? Why anyone in power would say something like that and NOT get how stupid they sounded after the third of fourth time I'll never be able to understand. Well, scratch that, I understand it. Egomaniac that refuses to listen to aids and advisors because he assumes he's the ultimate authority in all things? Check.


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> "You know there are those that say you can test too much," Trump told "Axios on HBO" host Jonathan Swan in an interview set to air on Monday night. "You do know that?"
> 
> "Who says that?" Swan asked.
> 
> "Oh, just read the manuals," the president replied. "Read the books."
> 
> "Manuals?" Swan pressed. "What manuals."
> 
> "Read the books, read the books," Trump repeated.


"dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!!1"


----------



## Ralyks




----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> View attachment 97329


The sharpest decline was after bin Laden was killed. Ok guys, new plan, are you listening? What if we kill bin Laden again?

On a more serious note, though, I'm against the idea of any more soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. If we're out now, then the best strategy, moving forward, is to stay out. If anyone in Washington starts talking about needing to go back I hope someone slaps them.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> The sharpest decline was after bin Laden was killed. Ok guys, new plan, are you listening? What if we kill bin Laden again?
> 
> On a more serious note, though, I'm against the idea of any more soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. If we're out now, then the best strategy, moving forward, is to stay out. If anyone in Washington starts talking about needing to go back I hope someone slaps them.


They'll probably stick with drones and bombs at least for the foreseeable future. 'Cause there's not going to be any political capital in going back, no matter how much teeth gnashing there is over pulling out right now. Plus, there's nothing our government loves more than killing civilians by the truckload in the middle east. Oh, wait, I mean "carefully targeting strategic targets with precision and deadly accuracy," then accidentally taking out bystanders in the process.

As long as we can keep buying supplies from the big military suppliers we should be fine without a physical presence there. If the money train dries up for them, all bets are off. We'll get lobbied right back in. Gotta keep those profit margins high.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> On a more serious note, though, I'm against the idea of any more soldiers being killed in Afghanistan. If we're out now, then the best strategy, moving forward, is to stay out. If anyone in Washington starts talking about needing to go back I hope someone slaps them.


I'm not opposed to a Predator strike or even an in-and-out tactical strike, but now that we're finally out, I think the bar to moving forces back in for more than an hour or two at a time is *incredibly* high.


----------



## bostjan

Interesting site about US drone strikes: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war

I'm thinking that's probably not comprehensive, though. There have to have been drone strikes in Iraq, and I'd be shocked if there were not any in Syria. I'd bet there are other countries as well.


----------



## nightflameauto

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/31/mccarthy-january-6-threaten-phone-records-requests-508166

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Crungy

What a fucking corn cob. I guess issues of national security aren't too big of a deal when you're complicit and are meant to be swept under the rug?


----------



## Drew

For anyone following the $3.5T human infrastructure bill negotiations, one suggested floated by an economist I read as an area of compromise that I think bears watching is getting the size of the package down to a level Manchin can live with, while keeping programs at a level both Sanders and AOC will support in their respective chambers, by not cutting the size or number of the programs but instead by cutting the _length of time_ and that an eventual compromise bill might get down to $1.5-2T over 10 years by phasing programs out after 5 years, not 10. It's an interesting line of thought.


----------



## bostjan

I heard that Anonymous hacked the Epik servers (home of Infowars, 8chan, Parler, and several alt-right online groups). Maybe nothing will come of that, but one can dream of extremists getting some sort of karma.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> For anyone following the $3.5T human infrastructure bill negotiations, one suggested floated by an economist I read as an area of compromise that I think bears watching is getting the size of the package down to a level Manchin can live with, while keeping programs at a level both Sanders and AOC will support in their respective chambers, by not cutting the size or number of the programs but instead by cutting the _length of time_ and that an eventual compromise bill might get down to $1.5-2T over 10 years by phasing programs out after 5 years, not 10. It's an interesting line of thought.


What would really get them over the line is cutting programs back to 12 months at a time with a review process in place that, if they don't act at all, renews them for another 12 months. That'd lower the price tag considerably, and with as difficult as it is to get any form of action out of congress, would de-facto keep the programs going forever without the Dems and Republicans agreeing to kill them.

You know, I started writing that as a joke and now that I put it down it actually seems like it might be a good idea.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> What would really get them over the line is cutting programs back to 12 months at a time with a review process in place that, if they don't act at all, renews them for another 12 months. That'd lower the price tag considerably, and with as difficult as it is to get any form of action out of congress, would de-facto keep the programs going forever without the Dems and Republicans agreeing to kill them.
> 
> You know, I started writing that as a joke and now that I put it down it actually seems like it might be a good idea.


My gut reaction was this sort of reverse-sequester, while super appealing in theory, wouldn't work given the constraint of trying to get the nominal price tag down, since I'd have to think the de-facto assumption would have to be whatever happens given inaction, i.e. the programs WOULD be renewed, and you'd get the same price tag as if they were in place for the full ten years. 

So it's an interesting idea, but one that (I suspect) doesn't actually help get this across as a compromise that can pass. 

Maybe, though, having them time out after 5 years, but putting a provision in that they can be extended with a simple majority vote? Not sure if that would stand up to parliamentarian scrutiny.


----------



## bostjan

IDK. We're at a point in time where a significant number of legislators simply will not compromise with the other side, even on issues they don't particularly deem important. What none of those ideologues seem to recognize, though, is that their behaviour puts representative democracy in jeopardy at the fundamental level.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> IDK. We're at a point in time where a significant number of legislators simply will not compromise with the other side, even on issues they don't particularly deem important. What none of those ideologues seem to recognize, though, is that their behaviour puts representative democracy in jeopardy at the fundamental level.


Nothing to add, just "yup."


----------



## spudmunkey

An unconfirmed leak, but...

Supposedly Cyber Ninjas (a company headed by supporters of The Big Lie), who have never worked on an election before, and were funded by the GOP and trump donors, found with their audit that started in April that was supposed to take 2 weeks, found that not only did Biden actually win, but by a 360-vote wider margin than the official tally. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/lea...qf9jtaxz8KMtZwvfutCKUEjLt03GtjooMLWGr8Mlj54Ko


----------



## CovertSovietBear

spudmunkey said:


> An unconfirmed leak, but...
> 
> Supposedly Cyber Ninjas (a company headed by supporters of The Big Lie), who have never worked on an election before, and were funded by the GOP and trump donors, found with their audit that started in April that was supposed to take 2 weeks, found that not only did Biden actually win, but by a 360-vote wider margin than the official tally.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/lea...qf9jtaxz8KMtZwvfutCKUEjLt03GtjooMLWGr8Mlj54Ko


Next Cucker Tarlson opinion segment: "They're all part of the deep state, we need a REAL audit folks".


----------



## Crungy

I'm sure him or the other trump bootlickers will be spouting nonsense like that any second now.

Can Bezos or Musk get trump on one of their flights and "lose" him in space? That'd be great.


----------



## spudmunkey

"Cyber Ninjas is a Soros-funded arm of ANTIFA" - OAN later today, probably.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Crungy said:


> I'm sure him or the other trump bootlickers will be spouting nonsense like that any second now.
> 
> Can Bezos or Musk get trump on one of their flights and "lose" him in space? That'd be great.


----------



## Crungy

You're goddamn right we can


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


>


Knowing our luck, Trump would discover an interstellar alien race, become their leader, and then invade Earth.


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

bostjan said:


> Knowing our luck, Trump would discover an interstellar alien race, become their leader, and then invade Earth.


That sounds like a science fiction movie waiting to be made.


----------



## LordCashew

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> That sounds like a science fiction movie waiting to be made.


A sequel to "FDR: American Badass."


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Crungy said:


> Can Bezos or Musk get trump on one of their flights and "lose" him in space? That'd be great.



Let's shoot all three of them into the sun. Call that a threefer'.


----------



## Crungy

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> That sounds like a science fiction movie waiting to be made.



Goddamn it!


----------



## Crungy

Add Paul Gosar to the lost in space trip. From a Newsweek article:

"My suggestion is that we actually have some hearings and look over this batch and set a new election for Biden and Trump before the end of the year" 

TO THE FUCKING MOON WITH THIS ONE


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Crungy said:


> Add Paul Gosar to the lost in space trip. From a Newsweek article:
> 
> "My suggestion is that we actually have some hearings and look over this batch and set a new election for Biden and Trump before the end of the year"
> 
> TO THE FUCKING MOON WITH THIS ONE


He’s a real piece of shit, just using all the conspiracy theories and preying on peoples fears that have no basis in reality.


----------



## nightflameauto

So it currently sounds like Biden's big bill is being gutted in favor of the biggest lobbies. Rumor has it they're dropping the drug price parts because, clearly, campaign funds are more important. And they're scaling back the taxes on those making over 400k a year because, apparently, Democrats can't do anything popular. Oh, and they're considering dropping the medicare changes that would loop in vision and dental.

The whole debt ceiling thing is looming on the horizon as well. And McConnel's crew of obstructionist bullshitters are sitting there laughing and pointing.

Anybody in any other country, what's it like to have effective government? I'd be really curious to know.


----------



## thebeesknees22

None of that is surprising though. There was no way it wasn't going to get gutted when you have a broad party like the Democrats are. On one side you have the AOC's and on the other you have the Manchin's. 

The only way for them to really go big is to pick up more seats with less conservative democrats so they have a clear majority with those who actually want to pass a big package. They just don't have the numbers right now.

The debt ceiling is just a manufactured leftover deal that was made to make isolationists happy back in WWI. There's really no reason for it, and it's more/less just becoming a self inflicted festering wound.


Anywho, people forget that democrats are a much more diverse party than republicans. They don't all jump when someone at the top tells them to, and it's not a cult like republicans are. If the majority of the country wants a big bill then they have to vote more people in that will do it. Which means more progressives need to win.

It's just a numbers game in the end.


----------



## nightflameauto

thebeesknees22 said:


> None of that is surprising though. There was no way it wasn't going to get gutted when you have a broad party like the Democrats are. On one side you have the AOC's and on the other you have the Manchin's.
> 
> The only way for them to really go big is to pick up more seats with less conservative democrats so they have a clear majority with those who actually want to pass a big package. They just don't have the numbers right now.
> 
> The debt ceiling is just a manufactured leftover deal that was made to make isolationists happy back in WWI. There's really no reason for it, and it's more/less just becoming a self inflicted festering wound.
> 
> 
> Anywho, people forget that democrats are a much more diverse party than republicans. They don't all jump when someone at the top tells them to, and it's not a cult like republicans are. If the majority of the country wants a big bill then they have to vote more people in that will do it. Which means more progressives need to win.
> 
> It's just a numbers game in the end.


While you're not wrong in any way, shape, or form, what we see happen time and again when the Democrats bungle their chance is, rather than more progressive candidates getting the nod next go 'round, the pendulum swings back to the Republicans. I mean, as much as I'd like to think that won't happen after the events of the last administration and the transition period, I don't have any faith at ALL in our current electorate to not flip-flop right into another four years of somebody just as despicable as the previous white house occupant, but more intelligent and cunning, and hand the reigns back to the Mitch McConnel or his corpse with a massive sweeping Republican majority. They'll have forgotten what we as a country went through by the mid-terms and just see this pile of nothing that the Democrats are refusing to do anything about.

So while it is a numbers game, it's also a perception game. And the Republicans being so monolithic in the public's perception is appealing to a certain demographic, sadly. The Democrats being a self-fulfilled roadblock to progress is also extremely unappealing even to those of us that lean left.

Maybe we need an actual progressive party in play. The current two choices are batshit insane and lumberingly dense.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> Anywho, people forget that democrats are a much more diverse party than republicans.


They're not, though. There are all kinds of republicans. The only thing that unites the republicans at the moment is wanting to oust the democrats. Just as you have your AOC and your Manchin, you have the GOP umbrella covering the KKK, Neonazis, fiscal conservatives, Tea Party, Infowars, conservative Christians, Conservative Jews, Cuban-Americans, and now also crystal healing anti-vax'ers.



nightflameauto said:


> Maybe we need an actual progressive party in play. The current two choices are batshit insane and lumberingly dense.


Taking the two-party system and throwing it in the rubbish bin is one of the biggest steps in fixing the US federal government, but that step alone won't do it. In fact, if the Democratic Party fractured into two halves, it'd basically simply ensure republican control of everything for the next 8 years or so. The even bigger problem is the fact that the US government is so intertwined with big US businesses that nothing can ever happen without a nod from at least one massive industry. It's not as evil of an arrangement as it sounds, but it's still a huge problem for stuff like health care reform or even education.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> The even bigger problem is the fact that the US government is so intertwined with big US businesses that nothing can ever happen without a nod from at least one massive industry. It's not as evil of an arrangement as it sounds, but it's still a huge problem for stuff like health care reform or even education.


On the contrary, it's EXACTLY as evil as it sounds. Just because we've been trained to accept it as "the normal situation" doesn't mean it's not evil. It is, quite literally in some cases, killing our country.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> While you're not wrong in any way, shape, or form, what we see happen time and again when the Democrats bungle their chance is, rather than more progressive candidates getting the nod next go 'round, the pendulum swings back to the Republicans.
> 
> The Democrats being a self-fulfilled roadblock to progress is also extremely unappealing even to those of us that lean left.



I guess where the root of my disagreement lies is over what kind of a "chance" the Democrats really have here.

Joe Manchin is, realistically, about the most liberal candidate who can hope to win West Virginia, and if he ever loses his seat, his state is red enough that the Democrats are not likely to be able to take it back. Kyrsten Sinema meanwhile was the first Democrat to win a seat in Arizona since the 70s and while Mark Kelly gives me hope that if she were to lose we could still take the seat, at the time the fact she won was a huge milestone, and she was very likely as liberal as we could have hoped to win in the 2018 election. She may very well get primaried, but that won't happen before 2024.

So, with a 50-50 split in the Senate, the most progressive bill we can possibly pass into law is one that two Senators who won their seats with a normally Republican electorate will support, and even then it has to be either via reconciliation, or with the Democrats rolling the dice, eliminating the filibuster, and hoping thaty doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.

With a sizable house majority, even that might still work... but the Dems can give up 3 votes at most in the House, and the House progressive caucus is bigger than three.

So, your path to legislation is "what's the most moderate bill the House Progressives will support, and is that more progressive than the most progressive bill Democrats at legitimate risk of losing their seats to the GOP will support?" And, the _hope_ is those two bills form a Venn diagram and there's a possible middle road there, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned that they're non overlapping circles and the House Progressives will vote down a badly-needed infrastructure bill that hits a LOT of their priorities tomorrow, because the Senate hasn't, well, one passed their $3.5T Build Back Better Act, or 2) yet managed to find a compromise that their most moderate members can go back to their constituents with and have some hope of not being tarred and feathered. Manchin's position is particularly precarious, as there's a lot of coal jobs in West Virginia that will be at jeopardy given some of the green energy initiatives in the BBBA, his duty is first and foremost to his constituents, and voters tend not to like it when you make them lose their jobs.

So, I guess where I disagree with you, is... Biden's $3.5T proposal was going to be _exceptionally_ hard to pass, and was wquite possibly impossible. Even trying was a concession to the progressive wing of his party, and I don't think I'd call it a bungled chance - if I went out and tried to walk on water, and lo and behold sank, I don't think too many people would say, "well, that Drew guy really bungled walking on water." IT would be "stupid idiot tried to do something that was impossible, serves him right!"

As far as the path forward... the only observation I can make here is progressives look at a failed bill and think, "well, they clearly should have been more progressive, to try to energize the progressive left!" and moderates think "well, they clearly should have dialed it back a little and compromised, to try to win over swing voters," and I'm not going to say either side is necessarily right (simply because I'm not convinced there IS a way foreward here), but I will note that both of these two attitudes are essentially self-serving and essentially the same - both want politicians to try to appear to people like _them_, to the exclusion of people that they disagree with, and think appealing to those other people would be a mistake. and I think the reality is far more nuanced than that, and needs to recognize the cold and brutal reality that this IS a numbers game.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I guess where the root of my disagreement lies is over what kind of a "chance" the Democrats really have here.
> 
> Joe Manchin is, realistically, about the most liberal candidate who can hope to win West Virginia, and if he ever loses his seat, his state is red enough that the Democrats are not likely to be able to take it back. Kyrsten Sinema meanwhile was the first Democrat to win a seat in Arizona since the 70s and while Mark Kelly gives me hope that if she were to lose we could still take the seat, at the time the fact she won was a huge milestone, and she was very likely as liberal as we could have hoped to win in the 2018 election. She may very well get primaried, but that won't happen before 2024.
> 
> So, with a 50-50 split in the Senate, the most progressive bill we can possibly pass into law is one that two Senators who won their seats with a normally Republican electorate will support, and even then it has to be either via reconciliation, or with the Democrats rolling the dice, eliminating the filibuster, and hoping thaty doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.
> 
> With a sizable house majority, even that might still work... but the Dems can give up 3 votes at most in the House, and the House progressive caucus is bigger than three.
> 
> So, your path to legislation is "what's the most moderate bill the House Progressives will support, and is that more progressive than the most progressive bill Democrats at legitimate risk of losing their seats to the GOP will support?" And, the _hope_ is those two bills form a Venn diagram and there's a possible middle road there, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned that they're non overlapping circles and the House Progressives will vote down a badly-needed infrastructure bill that hits a LOT of their priorities tomorrow, because the Senate hasn't, well, one passed their $3.5T Build Back Better Act, or 2) yet managed to find a compromise that their most moderate members can go back to their constituents with and have some hope of not being tarred and feathered. Manchin's position is particularly precarious, as there's a lot of coal jobs in West Virginia that will be at jeopardy given some of the green energy initiatives in the BBBA, his duty is first and foremost to his constituents, and voters tend not to like it when you make them lose their jobs.
> 
> So, I guess where I disagree with you, is... Biden's $3.5T proposal was going to be _exceptionally_ hard to pass, and was wquite possibly impossible. Even trying was a concession to the progressive wing of his party, and I don't think I'd call it a bungled chance - if I went out and tried to walk on water, and lo and behold sank, I don't think too many people would say, "well, that Drew guy really bungled walking on water." IT would be "stupid idiot tried to do something that was impossible, serves him right!"
> 
> As far as the path forward... the only observation I can make here is progressives look at a failed bill and think, "well, they clearly should have been more progressive, to try to energize the progressive left!" and moderates think "well, they clearly should have dialed it back a little and compromised, to try to win over swing voters," and I'm not going to say either side is necessarily right (simply because I'm not convinced there IS a way foreward here), but I will note that both of these two attitudes are essentially self-serving and essentially the same - both want politicians to try to appear to people like _them_, to the exclusion of people that they disagree with, and think appealing to those other people would be a mistake. and I think the reality is far more nuanced than that, and needs to recognize the cold and brutal reality that this IS a numbers game.


Let me preface this by saying I totally understand that you are 100% a numbers dude, so I get where you're coming from. That said:

The only thing I'm going to point out here is that all of the things they're discussing dropping from the bill are widely popular with Americans. Period. Not 'progressives.' Not 'conservatives.' Not 'centrists." All Americans.

If congress can't pass legislation that's popular among their entire electorate, WTF are they bothering to go to work for?

They're going to work to get fat stacks of cash shoved in their pockets while thumbing their nose at the people that hired them.

So, yeah, it's a numbers game. But it's also a perception game. How anyone will spin this completely death-spiral the entire congress is in now as a positive will be real fun to watch, but utterly stupid in its repetitiveness.

For big chunks of my life I completely stop paying attention to politics for this very reason. Nothing we do, nothing we say, matters. All that matters is the lobbyists. I think I'm about to go back to stopping paying attention. It's depressing as shit how utterly ineffective our entire apparatus is.

On the bright side, South Dakota's (my state) governor got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. Again. Not exactly sure all the details but it sounds like bribery with tax dollars to get her daughter a license to be a residential appraiser after she was turned down on the first pass. Another government official taking big swings at the ethics fairy.


----------



## Randy

I have no idea why a road and bridges bill is supposed to be Biden's signature piece of legislation, tbqh. Weird hill to die on.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> The only thing I'm going to point out here is that all of the things they're discussing dropping from the bill are widely popular with Americans. Period. Not 'progressives.' Not 'conservatives.' Not 'centrists." All Americans.
> 
> If congress can't pass legislation that's popular among their entire electorate, WTF are they bothering to go to work for?


That's the tricky thing though. 

Remember the ACA debate? Every individual part of the bill was really fairly popular. Expanding Medicare polled well. Health care exchanges polled well. collective bargaining on prescription drug prices polled well. Even an individual mandate and a tax penalty for not taking out insurance initially polled well, until the GOP began to focus on this with their resistance. Pretty much every single part of the bill enjoyed broad popular support. 

That didn't stop the whole collection of parts bundled together as the ACA being so politically divisive that trying to pass it cost Obama his congressional majority and the GOP managed to do the unthinkable and flip Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, here in Massachusetts, a state whose own healthcare plan the ACA was based on and was locally quite popular. 

IT doesn't ultimately matter that the invidividual parts of the BBBA are mostly things that enjoy some bipartisan support. Two reasons for this, and the wonkier reason, which still matters, is there are parts that DON'T enjoy broad popular support, notably the size of the bill and some of the climate change oriented stuff. But the more visceral reason has nothing to do with the individual peices, or Dems not having the guts to force it through, or lobbyists - it's the Republican _voters_ are more opposed to whatever Democrats are for, than they are for things that in some cases they might otherwise embrace if it was being presented in a Republican plan. 

I'm not sure where exactly you should place the blame here, maybe Fox News and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, maybe Trump's decision to throw any pretext of platform out the window in 2020, maybe McConnell vowing to make Obama a one-term president in 2009, maybe Karl Rove and Breitbart and that hitman style of politics... but the Republican Party's sole unifying belief today is that they're against whatever the Democrats are for, and that instinct in the electorate is strong enough to make them oppose things they might otherwise be on board with. Popular approval of a particular measure is irrelevant.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I have no idea why a road and bridges bill is supposed to be Biden's signature piece of legislation, tbqh. Weird hill to die on.


I'll hazard two guesses. One really, I guess, since they're closely related. 

Infrastructure is _in theory_ something that should enjoy broad bipartisan support, and for the last couple administrations, with partisan tensions sky-high, it's been flagged as an area where maybe there could be some room for compromise, since both sides want to get it done, and American infrastructure BADLY needs investment (I know none of us have spent much time out of the country lately, but America's roads and bridges are in _rough_ shape compared to much of the world's). It was flagged as a possible area Trump could work with the Democrats as well, too, especially given Trump's love of building things and sticking his name on them, and honestly had he not been so fixated on his stupid wall he probably could have gotten something done here too. Obama at least got something through Congress with the Build America program, but it was a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. 

So, infrastructure is sort of a bipartisan white whale - in theory it should be doable, but all recent attempts have died when it came time to get into the nitty gritty - what's in scope, what isn't, how it's being paid fr, how big, etc. 

Biden's entire MO as a candidate, meanwhile, is he's a guy who spent, what, 40 years in Congress, working both sides of the aisle and building consensus and _getting things done_. The elusive bipartisan infrastructure bill that everyone talks about but no one manages to actually negotiate, then, is sort of the perfect way to demonstrate his case that someone with experience working across the aisle to get things done was what this country needed in 2020. If he IS a consensus builder, it's the perfect test case. 

I've been expecting him to make a big push for an infrastructure deal since about five seconds after I heard the news Buttigieg was his Secretary of Transportation. He even got the hard infrastructure bill out of the Senate, and it would be a shame to see it die at the hands of house progressives considering how elusive this deal has been and how badly it's needed.


----------



## bostjan

Democrats: Let's fix the roads.  And... also climate change is a thing.
Republicans: No.

I mean, congress gonna congress.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Democrats: Let's fix the roads.  And... also climate change is a thing.
> Republicans: No.
> 
> I mean, congress gonna congress.


Right?  I'm just impressed there was bipartisan support for the original hard infrastructure bill. I'm no longer really confident it'll pass because I think the House progressives mean it when they say they're going to vote it down unless the Senate has already passed their human infrastructure bill, as written, which is a shame - I think it's increasingly clear there aren't the votes to get a $3.5T bill out of the Senate, and as it stands with the GOP blocking attempts to pass a debt ceiling increase by role call (which would allow it to pass with 50 votes, allowing the GOP to wash their hands of the increase but not cause a default) much of the negotiating time is going to likely needed to reopen the reconciliation budget bill and then be used to get a debt ceiling increase in as part of that, which is going to be _tiiiiiiiight_ to get through by the 18th.


----------



## Randy

I guess the thing I'm missing is that we have more jobs than people already. And union construction workers already have reliable guaranteed work, benefits, etc. So the "human infrastructure" stuff I've seen so far are like, "opportunities" for people that already have them, or enhanced benefits for people who already have them (sick leave, pre-K, etc).

The climate change component is what, the government investing in green infrastructure so they can give it away to the companies who are capable of doing it on their own and haven't?

Idk, I still don't get who this is for. The whole thing comes across as a shitty handout to big-D Democratic lobbies.


----------



## vilk

bostjan said:


> Democrats: Let's-
> Republicans: No.


ftfy


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I guess the thing I'm missing is that we have more jobs than people already. And union construction workers already have reliable guaranteed work, benefits, etc. So the "human infrastructure" stuff I've seen so far are like, "opportunities" for people that already have them, or enhanced benefits for people who already have them (sick leave, pre-K, etc).
> 
> The climate change component is what, the government investing in green infrastructure so they can give it away to the companies who are capable of doing it on their own and haven't?
> 
> Idk, I still don't get who this is for. The whole thing comes across as a shitty handout to big-D Democratic lobbies.


I have seen growing criticism towards the left - establishment and progressive alike - that there's been shockingly little effort to sell Americans on why we NEED this bill passed, and instead it's been mostly about political football. It's kind of odd, for sure. 

The physical infrastructure bill is badly needed. The BBB bill, eh, a lot of it is probably Really Good Stuff To Do, but - perhaps in part because the contents are still SO much in flux as we try to find an acceptable bill for establishment and progressive Democrats alike - there hasn't been much detail yet.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> I have no idea why a road and bridges bill is supposed to be Biden's signature piece of legislation, tbqh. Weird hill to die on.



Smart hill to die on.

Roads and bridges last a lot longer than the flavor of the week. And don't get gutted or rewritten or distorted beyond all recognition like, say, Obamacare. Or an utterly incomplete wall that's allegedly getting scavenged for free construction materials.

I'd rather be remembered for a bridge than a pointless and dysfunctional tax on lower-middle and middle income earners or a wall that don't wall.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Smart hill to die on.
> 
> Roads and bridges last a lot longer than the flavor of the week. And don't get gutted or rewritten or distorted beyond all recognition like, say, Obamacare. Or an utterly incomplete wall that's allegedly getting scavenged for free construction materials.
> 
> I'd rather be remembered for a bridge than a pointless and dysfunctional tax on lower-middle and middle income earners or a wall that don't wall.


Ahh, I see you have not yet been introduced to US politics, where anything and everything gets gutted and rewritten and distorted beyond all recognition like Obamacare.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Ahh, I see you have not yet been introduced to US politics, where anything and everything gets gutted and rewritten and distorted beyond all recognition like Obamacare.



Don't we still praise Ike for the interstates? Or at least the old fossils still do... Biden remembers, he was freaking THERE.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Don't we still praise Ike for the interstates? Or at least the old fossils still do... Biden remembers, he was freaking THERE.


Yes, but that was ~70 years ago. Since then the government has shut down nine times and had over four million lay-offs, simply because congress couldn't agree to pay federal employees.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Don't we still praise Ike for the interstates? Or at least the old fossils still do... Biden remembers, he was freaking THERE.


That one's complex, and benefits from being 70 years in the past where a narrative is pretty well in place. 

Yes, Ike gets praised for the _foresight_ to build a network of federal highways connecting American cities and states... but that network also cemented America to a personal, car-based mode of transportation and away from any sort of public transportation infrastructure, and Eisenhower's reasoning was that in case of a land war in America, those interstates could be used as emergency runways, and would be much more resilient in the face of enemy bombing than a railway would, where one well placed explosion could take a railway out while a highway could be quickly diverted just to the left or right and the flow of supplies to the battlefield would only be interrupted for a day or two tops. 

You can see how well THAT line of thinking aged.


----------



## thebeesknees22

One thing to take away from this is: we have a president and 98% of dems that want to push this through. They just fell short by a couple of votes in the senate. If people want a big upgrade in infrastructure for real then they need to gain a couple more seats in the senate. Then it's a done deal. 

Not saying it's easy to do that, but it's not that far off either. 

So you can look at it half glass empty if you want "boo hoo they didn't get it passed", or look at it half full and see that it wasn't that far away from becoming a reality if it weren't for Manchin and Sinema. Gain 2 more seats with more progressive minded people and suddenly it's a reality.

Also get rid of the debt ceiling and those shutdowns won't be happening anymore. As stated before that's nothing more than a manufactured self inflicted wound. It's basically just approving to pay for things that were already approved to spend. The debt ceiling itself is just dumb dumb.


----------



## spudmunkey

thebeesknees22 said:


> So you can look at it half glass empty if you want "boo hoo they didn't get it passed", or look at it half full and see that it wasn't that far away from becoming a reality if it weren't for Manchin and Sinema. Gain 2 more seats with more progressive minded people and suddenly it's a reality.



That assumes though that there won't be two more D who'd "switch sides" on issues like this to gain some sort of personal notoriety for themselves or their constituents. Notice that it's usually juuuust enough to tilt the scales beyond what could be overcome with "tiebreaker" rules that'd favor the one side.


----------



## thebeesknees22

spudmunkey said:


> That assumes though that there won't be two more D who'd "switch sides" on issues like this to gain some sort of personal notoriety for themselves or their constituents. Notice that it's usually juuuust enough to tilt the scales beyond what could be overcome with "tiebreaker" rules that'd favor the one side.



lol now you're being glass half empty again! haha


----------



## spudmunkey

thebeesknees22 said:


> lol now you're being glass half empty again! haha



If the glass were smaller (I don't know what the metaphorical equivalent would be for this...term limits, maybe?) the cup could be runneth over.


----------



## thebeesknees22

hahaha


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> That assumes though that there won't be two more D who'd "switch sides" on issues like this to gain some sort of personal notoriety for themselves or their constituents. Notice that it's usually juuuust enough to tilt the scales beyond what could be overcome with "tiebreaker" rules that'd favor the one side.


Eh... Let's be honest. It's fucking naiveté of the highest order for anyone to believe that with a 50-50 tie and the VP tiebreaker in the Senate, and a 3-vote majority in the House, Biden was going to be able to pass anything _close_ to the platform he ran on, and the fact he's managed to do anything at all is fucking mind-bending. If he had a 60-40 majority in the Senate and a 45-vote majority in the House and we were still struggling to pass some sort of watered down compromise legislation maybe then some criticism would be warranted, but Biden has the slimmest majority hold on Congress in modern history, if not ever, and with a GOP hell-bent on stone-walling him at every turn it's kind of amazing he can tie his shoes without getting filibustered. 

If you want the Green New Deal or substantive voting rights legislation, don't blame Biden - blame voters who neutered him by not giving him large-enough majorities in Congress to pass a postage stamp.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> That one's complex, and benefits from being 70 years in the past where a narrative is pretty well in place.
> 
> Yes, Ike gets praised for the _foresight_ to build a network of federal highways connecting American cities and states... but that network also cemented America to a personal, car-based mode of transportation and away from any sort of public transportation infrastructure, and Eisenhower's reasoning was that in case of a land war in America, those interstates could be used as emergency runways, and would be much more resilient in the face of enemy bombing than a railway would, where one well placed explosion could take a railway out while a highway could be quickly diverted just to the left or right and the flow of supplies to the battlefield would only be interrupted for a day or two tops.
> 
> You can see how well THAT line of thinking aged.


So you're saying the Nazis won after all?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Eh... Let's be honest. It's fucking naiveté of the highest order for anyone to believe that with a 50-50 tie and the VP tiebreaker in the Senate, and a 3-vote majority in the House, Biden was going to be able to pass anything _close_ to the platform he ran on, and the fact he's managed to do anything at all is fucking mind-bending. If he had a 60-40 majority in the Senate and a 45-vote majority in the House and we were still struggling to pass some sort of watered down compromise legislation maybe then some criticism would be warranted, but Biden has the slimmest majority hold on Congress in modern history, if not ever, and with a GOP hell-bent on stone-walling him at every turn it's kind of amazing he can tie his shoes without getting filibustered.
> 
> If you want the Green New Deal or substantive voting rights legislation, don't blame Biden - blame voters who neutered him by not giving him large-enough majorities in Congress to pass a postage stamp.


Hold up.

Did Biden ever say his campaign promises were contingient on totally unrealistic congressional demographics? If no, then he's still culpable for making BS promises.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> Hold up.
> 
> Did Biden ever say his campaign promises were contingient on totally unrealistic congressional demographics? If no, then he's still culpable for making BS promises.



I mean... every promise anyone makes is a BS promise until it becomes real. /shrug

The main thing is to try.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Yes, but that was ~70 years ago. Since then the government has shut down nine times and had over four million lay-offs, simply because congress couldn't agree to pay federal employees.



Exactly

Yet we still remember the interstates and Ike while having long lost count of government shutdowns.

And most people never even pretended to give a damn about government employees getting laid off.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> I mean... every promise anyone makes is a BS promise until it becomes real. /shrug
> 
> The main thing is to try.


Hard disagree.

Making a promise that if people support you, you will do something they want, then saying it's too hard once you get the support you need, when you had every reason to know how hard it would be, you are a putz.

If anything, the government being swung to Biden's party in all compartments means he has fewer roadblocks than reasonable to expect.

I know every presidential candidate does it, but that doesn't mean it's okay, it means the political machine is broken.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> Hard disagree.
> 
> Making a promise that if people support you, you will do something they want, then saying it's too hard once you get the support you need, when you had every reason to know how hard it would be, you are a putz.
> 
> If anything, the government being swung to Biden's party in all compartments means he has fewer roadblocks than reasonable to expect.
> 
> I know every presidential candidate does it, but that doesn't mean it's okay, it means the political machine is broken.



It's ok if you hard disagree. I too disagree with you haha

also biden clearly doesn't have the support he needs yet. lol


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> It's ok if you hard disagree. I too disagree with you haha
> 
> also biden clearly doesn't have the support he needs yet. lol



If the tables were turned and we had Trump as president and both houses of congress were 60% democrat, Trump would still do whatever the hell executive orders served his own personal interest and wouldn't care how much or how little support he had from congress. So I don't want to hear that Biden, even though he has both houses of congress, doesn't have _enough_ of a majority to do something as simple as repair broken bridges on federal property. It's the most stupidly simple thing for the government to agree on, but the democrats just _have _to back-door in some shit that they know will piss off republicans, and they do it because they (probably correctly) assume that the republicans will do everything in their power to keep the democrats from looking good for getting anything done. But, still, none of this would matter if Biden would simply take the "do first and apologize later" attitude toward getting shit done.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> the "do first and apologize later" attitude toward getting shit done.



If the last decade and a half didn't convince you how bad of an idea that is, I don't know what will. 

Listen, I'm bummed about shit not getting done either, but if we force shit through with zero buy-in, it's just going to get overturned or gutted or turned into a political albatross for the next two or three administrations while we still have crumbling infrastructure, hungry kids, and shitty healthcare.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> If the last decade and a half didn't convince you how bad of an idea that is, I don't know what will.
> 
> Listen, I'm bummed about shit not getting done either, but if we force shit through with zero buy-in, it's just going to get overturned or gutted or turned into a political albatross for the next two or three administrations while we still have crumbling infrastructure, hungry kids, and shitty healthcare.



Let it be overturned, then, and see if the bridges that get fixed in between now and 2028 or whenever the SCotUS rules get torn down by the justices themselves. If that happens, let the fallout land on whomever is responsible for making the decision.

You can't point at your predecessor's bad decisions and use that to justify not making decisions at all!

I'm sort of beside myself that we are having this discussion at all here. I would think we'd collectively be insightful enough to understand that failure to act is worse than simple activities that help the community. I would have thought that we'd also understand that taking the anti-initiative to do nothing is ineffective at teaching the republicans any sort of lesson (and what is that lesson even supposed to be?).

If Biden fixes the interstates and then gets impeached for that, with democrats controlling the Senate, how is that going to shake out?

The bad idea wasn't Trump getting shit done, it was the direction he was taking us. Now that we're there, the worst possible idea is to do nothing and just sit here and mire in the mess he made. Following the logic of "executive power is bad" yields the solution of "dissolve the executive branch" not "leaders should not take the initiative."


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Hold up.
> 
> Did Biden ever say his campaign promises were contingient on totally unrealistic congressional demographics? If no, then he's still culpable for making BS promises.


During a presidential election, you have little to no idea what your Congress is going to look like come January 20th. Right off the bat, I think a platform has to be interpreted at least in SOME form as an expression of what you WANT to do, rather than what you believe with a high degree of confidence you can deliver, because a third of the Senate and all of the House is an unknown during the entire election.

Beyond that, using 538 because they're a pretty reasonable, well reputed, and oft-discussed projection, the median projection was 51.5 Democratic seats in the Senate with the mode at 51, and 52 the second most likely outcome by a hair. In the House, the Democrats were forecast to win about 239 seats, a buffer of about 21.

These are by no means error proof margins, but the - I would argue - best estimation we had available to us on election night was Biden could afford one, maybe two defections in the Senate, and as many as 21 in the House, before a bill was in serious jeopardy of not passing.

Instead, Biden has a buffer of zero in the Senate, and 3 in the House.

So, yeah, I'd say that severely cramps the expectations of what CAN be passed into law, based on what the best estimation of what _COULD_ have bee passed into law when voters went to the polls. Margin of control matters, and Biden's is almost nonexistent.



bostjan said:


> If the tables were turned and we had Trump as president and both houses of congress were 60% democrat, Trump would still do whatever the hell executive orders served his own personal interest and wouldn't care how much or how little support he had from congress.


Trump's executive order track record wasn't... _great_, though, is the thing. 

Dreamers? Courts tossed that one. Build the Wall? Fell through too. AWNR drilling? Failed in the courts. Dakota Access Pipeline? Blocked by the courts. I suppose there's a couple I'm forgetting, but if you look at his major executive order policy moves, most were not upheld, and if you look at his major campaign pledges, most were not delivered, the few that were either generally went through the conventional channels (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress, via reconciliation, by a sliver, whereas the ACA repeal did not), or were things he could do by changing guidance to federal officials he'd appointed heading up existing departments. 

I have no real reason to expect Biden's executive orders to fare any better - the one I can think of off the top of my head, the eviction moratorium he tried to extend by executive order, DID fail in the courts.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> So you're saying the Nazis won after all?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> During a presidential election, you have little to no idea what your Congress is going to look like come January 20th. Right off the bat, I think a platform has to be interpreted at least in SOME form as an expression of what you WANT to do, rather than what you believe with a high degree of confidence you can deliver, because a third of the Senate and all of the House is an unknown during the entire election.
> 
> Beyond that, using 538 because they're a pretty reasonable, well reputed, and oft-discussed projection, the median projection was 51.5 Democratic seats in the Senate with the mode at 51, and 52 the second most likely outcome by a hair. In the House, the Democrats were forecast to win about 239 seats, a buffer of about 21.
> 
> These are by no means error proof margins, but the - I would argue - best estimation we had available to us on election night was Biden could afford one, maybe two defections in the Senate, and as many as 21 in the House, before a bill was in serious jeopardy of not passing.
> 
> Instead, Biden has a buffer of zero in the Senate, and 3 in the House.
> 
> So, yeah, I'd say that severely cramps the expectations of what CAN be passed into law, based on what the best estimation of what _COULD_ have bee passed into law when voters went to the polls. Margin of control matters, and Biden's is almost nonexistent.
> 
> 
> Trump's executive order track record wasn't... _great_, though, is the thing.
> 
> Dreamers? Courts tossed that one. Build the Wall? Fell through too. AWNR drilling? Failed in the courts. Dakota Access Pipeline? Blocked by the courts. I suppose there's a couple I'm forgetting, but if you look at his major executive order policy moves, most were not upheld, and if you look at his major campaign pledges, most were not delivered, the few that were either generally went through the conventional channels (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed Congress, via reconciliation, by a sliver, whereas the ACA repeal did not), or were things he could do by changing guidance to federal officials he'd appointed heading up existing departments.
> 
> I have no real reason to expect Biden's executive orders to fare any better - the one I can think of off the top of my head, the eviction moratorium he tried to extend by executive order, DID fail in the courts.


Biden still has both houses. Enough not being enough is a perpetual excuse and it makes no sense.

I don't expect an executive order to fix the roads to withstand the courts either. But Trump built a large portion of his wall whilst the courts were fighting with him. We didn't need a wall. Biden could pull the same trick to fix the roads and, by the time the courts order him to stop, we would have some of the roads fixed, which we *do *need. Democrats and republicans both agree that we need the roads repaired.

I know politicians make excuses all of the time, but no one wants excuses.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Biden still has both houses.



Tell that to Manchin, Sinema, and the filibuster. 

This was one of the nightmare scenarios. The Dems "won", but the margin is too narrow and the centrists too entrenched for anything to really get done without executive orders.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I dug deep to find this occult 'muh roads' meme for you all.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

That's good.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Tell that to Manchin, Sinema, and the filibuster.
> 
> This was one of the nightmare scenarios. The Dems "won", but the margin is too narrow and the centrists too entrenched for anything to really get done without executive orders.


Two things:

1. The reason the Bill failed, specifically, was because the democrats couldn't help but add some language to it about climate change and healthcare. That alone sunk it.

2. If it's going to take an executive action and a court battle to fix the roads, then do the executive order and get ready for a court battle. Actually, maybe the republicans won't even bother (I wouldn't count on it) since the executive orders probably will be more focused. Hey, Trump set the precedent that the president can just go ahead and start building stuff, so let's do it.

On a broader note, this is why we need bills to go on a line-item vote, or, better yet, don't add unrelated shit to your legislation.

Biden's supposedly in control of the Democratic Party now, so I still put it on him to get these idiot congresspeople in line. Sure it's not him writing the bill, but it's his promise and his idea, and these are his supposed allies mucking it up, so it's time to meet with them and explain why their behaviour is out of line.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Biden still has both houses. Enough not being enough is a perpetual excuse and it makes no sense.
> 
> I don't expect an executive order to fix the roads to withstand the courts either. But Trump built a large portion of his wall whilst the courts were fighting with him. We didn't need a wall. Biden could pull the same trick to fix the roads and, by the time the courts order him to stop, we would have some of the roads fixed, which we *do *need. Democrats and republicans both agree that we need the roads repaired.
> 
> I know politicians make excuses all of the time, but no one wants excuses.


Biden _technically_ controls both Houses, but doing anything with that control depends on the Senate Democrats voting as an undivided bloc despite some pretty massive political differences between the most liberal and most moderate member of that caucus. Even Trump, for all your talk of his ramming things through with no regard to precedent or legality, couldn't make that work consistently and he had two extra votes over Biden. And the House, again, three defections out of a caucus of 221... There are 271 Democrats in Congress and a mere defection of three of them in one chamber or one of them in the other is enough to kill a legislative agenda. If you don't think that matters when it comes to passing legislation, I don't know what to tell you. 

Trump also built 452 miles of wall as president, and only 80 of them were new, on a border that's a couple thousand miles long: 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46748492 

He didn't do jack shit, really. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> Tell that to Manchin, Sinema, and the filibuster.
> 
> This was one of the nightmare scenarios. The Dems "won", but the margin is too narrow and the centrists too entrenched for anything to really get done without executive orders.


This. And now Biden is being blamed for not delivering, when realistically it's unclear how he COULD have. Honestly, I feel a little bad for the guy, and I supported him with low expectations as Generic Democratic Candidate.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Biden _technically_ controls both Houses, but doing anything with that control depends on the Senate Democrats voting as an undivided bloc despite some pretty massive political differences between the most liberal and most moderate member of that caucus. Even Trump, for all your talk of his ramming things through with no regard to precedent or legality, couldn't make that work consistently and he had two extra votes over Biden. And the House, again, three defections out of a caucus of 221... There are 271 Democrats in Congress and a mere defection of three of them in one chamber or one of them in the other is enough to kill a legislative agenda. If you don't think that matters when it comes to passing legislation, I don't know what to tell you.
> 
> Trump also built 452 miles of wall as president, and only 80 of them were new, on a border that's a couple thousand miles long:
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46748492
> 
> He didn't do jack shit, really.
> 
> 
> This. And now Biden is being blamed for not delivering, when realistically it's unclear how he COULD have. Honestly, I feel a little bad for the guy, and I supported him with low expectations as Generic Democratic Candidate.



At the end of the day the only thing that matters is that what needed to get done didn't get done. What matters is what was promised is not delivered.


----------



## bostjan

Let me put it this way:

1. The police in several cities are killing innocent people and facing no consequences.
2. The government is so ineffectual that it can't even manage the infrastructure anymore.
3. The excuse given for broken promises is that the individual granted power by the people didn't get enough power, despite being granted the most power available to any person on the planet.

Put those three things together and it sounds like the government is no longer holding up their end of the social agreement between themselves and their people. That's scary.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> At the end of the day the only thing that matters is that what needed to get done didn't get done. What matters is what was promised is not delivered.





bostjan said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> 1. The police in several cities are killing innocent people and facing no consequences.
> 2. The government is so ineffectual that it can't even manage the infrastructure anymore.
> 3. The excuse given for broken promises is that the individual granted power by the people didn't get enough power, despite being granted the most power available to any person on the planet.
> 
> Put those three things together and it sounds like the government is no longer holding up their end of the social agreement between themselves and their people. That's scary.



I'd put it rather a different way -

We have a representative government. We don't pass laws ourselves, we choose representatives who go to Washington for us and try to pass laws that they believe their constituents want to see passed. Representatives generally are aligned with one of two primary parties, with a handful of independent expectations, but there's a pretty wide range of views within those two umbrellas.

The challenge is, while each representative goes to Washington with a list of things they _want_ to pass to represent their constituents, they need to operate within a very rigid framework of checks and balances, with Congress acting as a check against the Executive Branch, the Judiciary Branch acting as a check on both, and within Congress the slower-turning-over Senate acting as a check against the more mercurial House.

So, to pass anything into law, representatives need to band together to form a group representing, at a _minimum_, a simple majority, and in a number of scenarios (notably almost anything the Senate does) a supermajority. If even the best intentioned representatives, doing what they truly believe are in their constituents' best interests, can't get enough support to pass those laws, then the laws don't pass.

When you talk about point 3 there, no one is saying we have to give the government _more_ power than it already has. Rather, arguably, the government is doing exactly what it was intended to do - a large number of Democrats have some very well-intentioned laws they want to pass that are very likely in the best interest of their constituents... but unless they can produce a majority in both chambers of Congress (and even THEN it's taking the Senate through some budgetary loopholes to get by with a simple majority and not a 60-vote supermajority) then the bill will never make it to Biden's deask to sign, and the only think Biden can do about it is negotiate his ass off with the House and Senate and try to come up with a compromise that WILL ensure there's majority support for the bill.

Again, I don't want to pick on Manchin... but he's coming from a very red state, and one very dependent on the coal industry. If he's representing a constituency that's leery about the size of government spending and worried that more green legislation is going to cost West Virginia a whole lot of jobs - which he is - then arguably he's doing his job, and Joe Biden might not like it and I might not like it, but you can't very well ask a representative to vote against the wishes of the constituents he represents, while simultaneously decrying government power overreach.

Long story short - if you want Biden to pass the Build Back Better Act, then he needs 50 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. He doesn't have those, and there's very little Biden himself can do to change that, beyond try to figure out what he DOES have the votes to pass.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'd put it rather a different way -



Good explanation. I have some comments...



Drew said:


> We have a representative government. We don't pass laws ourselves, we choose representatives who go to Washington for us and try to pass laws that they believe their constituents want to see passed.



Of course. One caveat I'll bring up below.



Drew said:


> Representatives generally are aligned with one of two primary parties, with a handful of independent expectations, but there's a pretty wide range of views within those two umbrellas.



This is true. It wasn't always that way and there's no legal reason it has to be this way. The idea of having political parties is supposed to be to avoid a mess exactly like this mess we're in right now, though.



Drew said:


> mercurial



"Mercurial" is a pretty good descriptor.



Drew said:


> When you talk about point 3 there, no one is saying we have to give the government _more_ power than it already has. Rather, arguably, the government is doing exactly what it was intended to do - a large number of Democrats have some very well-intentioned laws they want to pass that are very likely in the best interest of their constituents... but unless they can produce a majority in both chambers of Congress (and even THEN it's taking the Senate through some budgetary loopholes to get by with a simple majority and not a 60-vote supermajority) then the bill will never make it to Biden's deask to sign, and the only think Biden can do about it is negotiate his ass off with the House and Senate and try to come up with a compromise that WILL ensure there's majority support for the bill.



Sure, or just write an EO and flip the Senate the bird when things don't go his way, then fight it in court, which is what was tested under Trump. You'll never get 60 votes in the Senate until the republicans fade into obscurity, which isn't happening soon.



Drew said:


> Again, I don't want to pick on Manchin... but he's coming from a very red state, and one very dependent on the coal industry. If he's representing a constituency that's leery about the size of government spending and worried that more green legislation is going to cost West Virginia a whole lot of jobs - which he is - then arguably he's doing his job, and Joe Biden might not like it and I might not like it, but you can't very well ask a representative to vote against the wishes of the constituents he represents, while simultaneously decrying government power overreach.



That's one guy. And if improving the infrastructure doesn't help move coal out of the state, then this would be a strong point, but alas not. Why Manchin is pulling support is because the stupid bill became bloated with climate change stuff that _does_ hurt the coal industry. 

But why was it added to an infrastructure bill?



Drew said:


> Long story short - if you want Biden to pass the Build Back Better Act, then he needs 50 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House. He doesn't have those, and there's very little Biden himself can do to change that, beyond try to figure out what he DOES have the votes to pass.



This is ultimately about Biden fixing the decaying infrastructure. Which both democrats and most republicans want. Part of the problem is that the bill has been distorted into something more than that. Maybe the bill dies, or maybe it gets rewritten in a way that it will pass, but Biden needs to start cracking skulls in order to make that happen, because the split in the democratic party between those that want an infrastructure bill and those that want to add a bunch of stuff that will lose moderates and essentially poison the bill are both essentially reporting to Biden as the chief Democrat.

Now, as far as legislation goes, it is the legislative branch's duty to write the laws. But, whose responsibility is it to fix the roads and bridges? The lawmakers? Or is this an issue of executing the laws that already exist and bumping into budget issues? Ok, so then it's not really anything to do with your first few paragraphs about general high-level American civics, it's about how congress is unable to effectively budget anything, even stuff that they agree on, because everybody gets distracted from the issue at hand and starts arguing about climate change.

Now, it pains me greatly to realize that half of our upper house most likely doesn't believe climate change is real right in the face of a pile of evidence for it, but this is all beside the point.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Sure, or just write an EO and flip the Senate the bird when things don't go his way, then fight it in court, which is what was tested under Trump. You'll never get 60 votes in the Senate until the republicans fade into obscurity, which isn't happening soon.
> 
> That's one guy. And if improving the infrastructure doesn't help move coal out of the state, then this would be a strong point, but alas not. Why Manchin is pulling support is because the stupid bill became bloated with climate change stuff that _does_ hurt the coal industry.
> 
> But why was it added to an infrastructure bill?


Again, though, Trump lost most of the major policy fights involving executive orders. He doesn't really have much to show for it - it's not like he signed an executive order to build his border wall and now we have one, he went through other channels over the course of his presidency and built a whopping 80 miles of wall.

Re: Manchin - Manchin DID support the "hard infrastructure" bill, and was instrumental to the bipartisan compromise to get a bill together. That bill is increasingly likely to die in the House, though, because House progressives are saying they'll vote against it, unless the Senate passes their seperate $3.5T Build Back Better Act, which is the bill Manchin (and Sinema) are saying they can't support in their current form.

So, the "roads and bridges" infrastructure bill, which we desperately need, doesn't have much at all to do with climate change legislation or family tax credits or the like and is all focused on, well, building infrastructure, with the most "progressive" and non traditional part of it being building high speed internet infrastructure for parts of the country without it. But, the House progressives are tying its fate to their more progressive BBB Act, saying they won't pass one without the other, because to do so would be "giving up leverage," with it unclear if they mean over the GOP or over moderate Democrats. And that's why we're in this mess we are in. We have an actual honest-to-god bipartisan compromise Infrastructure bill, but it won't pass the House unless the Senate passes a much larger, more progressive bill that honestly there don't seem to be enough votes to pass the Senate.

It's kind of, as @MaxOfMetal called it, Biden's nightmare scenario, where he wins, but the House has the slimmest of all possible majorities and progressives are calling the shots, the Senate has the slimmest of all possible majorities and moderates are calling the shots, and the Venn diagram of what can pass both the House and the Senate are two non-overlapping circles. It's not like the GOP is going to come swooping in and hand Biden an assist, you know?


EDIT - that's too long winded, perhaps, so the short version is a gentle reminder that there are TWO infrastructure bills, a Senate bipartisan compromise "hard infrastructure" bill focused on roads and bridges a around $550B, and a several-times-larger House "human infrastructure" bill spanning a whole slew of progressive priorities at around $3.5T, and Manchin is for the former but not the latter, but the House won't pass the former until the Senate passes the latter, and neither Manchin nor The Squad seem likely to blink here.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> I dug deep to find this occult 'muh roads' meme for you all.



I guess education was on the Z axis, cuz the creator can't label axes for sh!t


----------



## Andromalia

Drew said:


> Again, I don't want to pick on Manchin... but he's coming from a very red state, and one very dependent on the coal industry. If he's representing a constituency that's leery about the size of government spending and worried that more green legislation is going to cost West Virginia a whole lot of jobs - which he is - then arguably he's doing his job



I know this is opening a can of worms, but servicing your constituents doesn't mean you have to do what they want.

-Your constituents can be stupid. You're not helping if you push that stupidity up the parliament stairs for everybody to notice. Removing all pollution guidelines from cars might be what they want so they can drive 700bhp hummers, but it's not good for them.

-Your constituents can be manipulated and the desires they express are actually counter-intuitive, as in, "sending back all the mexicans will give white people more jobs". As if.

-COnstituents have a tendency to ignore long term repercussions, if they can even imagine them in the case of the uneducated. What's the maintenance cost of that wall already ? 

TLDR: people do not vote for what they need or want, they vote for what they believe they need or want, or what they were told is good for them without checking.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Andromalia said:


> I know this is opening a can of worms, but servicing your constituents doesn't mean you have to do what they want.
> 
> -Your constituents can be stupid. You're not helping if you push that stupidity up the parliament stairs for everybody to notice. Removing all pollution guidelines from cars might be what they want so they can drive 700bhp hummers, but it's not good for them.
> 
> -Your constituents can be manipulated and the desires they express are actually counter-intuitive, as in, "sending back all the mexicans will give white people more jobs". As if.
> 
> -COnstituents have a tendency to ignore long term repercussions, if they can even imagine them in the case of the uneducated. What's the maintenance cost of that wall already ?
> 
> TLDR: people do not vote for what they need or want, they vote for what they believe they need or want, or what they were told is good for them without checking.



This is America, we have the _freedom_ to be wrong as fuck about everything.


----------



## mmr007

So why can't Biden use those immense powers granted him in the Constitution? You know the ones Trump was always claiming he had? Some are so immense we've never heard of them, but Trump had them? Use one of those powers on Manchin and make everything better for me..... right now!!!!!

The problem is (well #742 of 765,987 problems facing us) we give too much credit and blame to the president for what is happening in our lives and our country. The president is NOT king. Biden gets blame for one thing...being naive enough to think he could work with modern day republican aka Russian operatives who are praying for civil war. You know what I need to not read this thread...I'm gonna go find a fresh tone wood argument thread...way less irritating.


----------



## Adieu

Russian operatives? You're giving them too much credit. More like the Russian's marks.

Half of those rubes are spending half their time getting their minds echochambered by fake twitter etc. followers acting under instruction to send them their daily dose of orchestrated QAnon, racial strife, and irrational nonsense about their guns and conspiracies to prohibit their favorite dead rabbi


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. The reason the Bill failed, specifically, was because the democrats couldn't help but add some language to it about climate change and healthcare. That alone sunk it.


By the way, missed this earlier, but you may be conflating the two bills: 

1) The "hard infrastructure" bill passed the Senate. It contans no climate change and healthcare provisions. 
2) the "human infrastructure" Builsd Back Better Act hasn't passed either chamber, probably has the votes to pass the House, but not the Senate. The intent from day one was to pass infrastructure as its own bipartisan compromise, then use reconciliation to pass the more progressive parts of the Democratic agenda in an omnibus spending bill only nominally related to infrastructure. 

The hard infrastructure bill is out of the Senate but the House is refusing to vote for it until after the Senate passes their reconcilation bill. The reconciliation bill hasn't failed, yet, but faces a steep uphill battle and will likely have to shrink and evolve somewhat to get through the house. 

You probably already know this and are referring to this as a singular bill since the House wants to bundle them and pass them at the same time... but there ARE two seperate bills, and nothing about climate change or health care sank the first one.


----------



## Drew

Andromalia said:


> I know this is opening a can of worms, but servicing your constituents doesn't mean you have to do what they want.
> 
> -Your constituents can be stupid. You're not helping if you push that stupidity up the parliament stairs for everybody to notice. Removing all pollution guidelines from cars might be what they want so they can drive 700bhp hummers, but it's not good for them.
> 
> -Your constituents can be manipulated and the desires they express are actually counter-intuitive, as in, "sending back all the mexicans will give white people more jobs". As if.
> 
> -COnstituents have a tendency to ignore long term repercussions, if they can even imagine them in the case of the uneducated. What's the maintenance cost of that wall already ?
> 
> TLDR: people do not vote for what they need or want, they vote for what they believe they need or want, or what they were told is good for them without checking.


This is technically true, and theoretically, I agree...

...but if you pass legislation that costs a whole bunch of your constituents their jobs, raising unemployment, lowering median household income, and increasing poverty in the state you represent, and it's a bill your constituents didn't want you to support.... you can be pretty sure you're being voted out of office, and the Democrats will go from having a moderate Democrat to a conservative Republican as the Senator from West Virginia. That doesn't help _anybody._


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> By the way, missed this earlier, but you may be conflating the two bills:
> 
> 1) The "hard infrastructure" bill passed the Senate. It contans no climate change and healthcare provisions.
> 2) the "human infrastructure" Builsd Back Better Act hasn't passed either chamber, probably has the votes to pass the House, but not the Senate. The intent from day one was to pass infrastructure as its own bipartisan compromise, then use reconciliation to pass the more progressive parts of the Democratic agenda in an omnibus spending bill only nominally related to infrastructure.
> 
> The hard infrastructure bill is out of the Senate but the House is refusing to vote for it until after the Senate passes their reconcilation bill. The reconciliation bill hasn't failed, yet, but faces a steep uphill battle and will likely have to shrink and evolve somewhat to get through the house.
> 
> You probably already know this and are referring to this as a singular bill since the House wants to bundle them and pass them at the same time... but there ARE two seperate bills, and nothing about climate change or health care sank the first one.



Nope, the Hard Infrastructure Bill has climate change language in it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

It did pass in the Senate, though, so now we just wait to see if it passes in the house. The (yet to be written) human infrastructure bill is another story altogether.


----------



## Drew

By the way, a few quick-hits on the debt ceiling debate, for those who have heard about it but don't really get what's going on. 

*Background*

The US Government has a "debt ceiling," or a congressionally-authorized maximum amount of debt the Treasury is able to borrow by selling bonds. This is loosely like your credit card limit, though I do get leery about "household finance" metaphors applied to the government. But, in short, the Treasury can issue debt up to this (arbitrary, legislatively set) limit, but not a penny beyond that. 
This is NOT the same as a spending limit - Congress determines the total government spending in any given year through their budget, and any additional spending bills (like the stimulus bills of 2020 and 2021) that they might pass along the way. There is no cap on congressional spending, just a cap on how much debt the Treasury can issue to actually pay for congressional spending bills. As the government has worked in a deficit (spending more than they take in) every year since the Clinton administration, the Treasury needs to issue debt to pay for bills that Congress has passed.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there needs to be a debt ceiling - this dates back to WWII where, rather than continue to vote to allow each Treasuty issuance during a period of extremely high wartime spending and borrowing, Congress hit upon the operational solution of saying "listen, you guys don't need to ask us to approve every bond you issue, you're good to go up until you hit this level, and if you do we can vote to raise it again. 
Typically this is done without issue - the last debt ceiling increase was in 2019, passed by Mitch McConnell under the Trump presidency. However, because it's poorly udnerstood that this isn't a spending cap, it's a borrowing cap that needs to be raised to allow the government to pay for bills it has already voted to spend money on, it's become a popular Republican political tactic to raise a fight about the debt ceiling and paint it as a crusade against wasteful government spending, when a Democrat is in the White House (again, it passed easily in 2019). Democrats have tended not to follow suit, probably less out of altruism and more because the Democratic party is generally a believer that government can be a force for good, while the GOP still positions themselves as a small government party. 
As the government has worked in a deficit (spending more than they take in) every year since the Clinton administration, the Treasury needs to issue debt to pay for bills that Congress has passed. Because of this, if the debt ceiling is reached and the goverment is still working under a budget with a deficit, the government will have to stop paying it's bills, and as interest service on debt is one of them, this will lead to the US Government defaulting on it's debt obligations, which are "backed by the full faith and credit of the US goverment." A near miss in the Obama administration led to the first ever credit downgrade of the US government, from an AAA risk-free credit rating, to AA+, by S&P, on the basis that they were considering political disfunction enough of a risk that a default WAS possible. 

*What's Happening Today*

We are fast approaching the debt ceiling - Treasurty Secretary Janet Yellen estimated in testimony last week that the Treasuty could continue to make payments through Oct 18th. She'd previously refused to commit to a date, believing that negotiations would run right up to that deadline if she gave them one; it's believed she backtracked because she was starting to believe the negotiations would run _through_ that date, if she didn't draw a line in the sand. 
One of the reasns for that is Mitch McConnel. McConnell is positioning his party as not wanting to vote to increase the debt ceiling to curtail government spending, and saying the Democrats have to do it on their own. That's false in two ways - one, because the debt ceiling isn't actually a spending cap so this is actually a question of whether or not we pay for things we've actually spent. And second, he's actively blocking them from doing it on their own - last week the Democrats moved to raise the debt ceiling in the Senate with a simple roll-call vote, where it could be raised by simple majority, with all 50 Democrats raising the limit without government suppport (aka, what McConnell claims he wants). The GOP blocked this, which would have been a. very easy way for McConnell to preserve his stated goal of making the Democrats own the debt ceiling increase, while ensuring we didn't risk default. 
McConnell appears to be doing this in protest of the Democrats' planned reconciliation infrastructure bill (which may not even have the votes to begin with). With a role call vote out, one of the few remaining ways the Democrats can raise the debt ceiling with only 50 votes is to reopen their budget bill now heading towards reconciliation, add a debt ceiling increase, and pass it again. However, this is procedurally very difficult to do, and it's unclear if the Democrats have enough time to actually do so, and pass something by the 18th. 
McConnell's plan, therefore, seems to be to absorb all the bandwidth the Democrats could be using to compromise on an instrastructure bill, and force them to use that frantically trying to amend their budget to get a debt ceiling increase in, and pass that by reconciliation. This is theoretically possible, but would mean that if a budget isn't passed by the 18th, then the US Treasury will default. 

Basically, this is a mess, and it's one almost entirely being created by Mitch McConnell.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Nope, the Hard Infrastructure Bill has climate change language in it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684
> 
> It did pass in the Senate, though, so now we just wait to see if it passes in the house. The (yet to be written) human infrastructure bill is another story altogether.


Ok, but that didn't fail because of climate change language, is my point. It passed the Senate with 19 Republican votes, including McConnell himself, and it only hasn't passed the House yet because they don't think it's going nearly far _enough_. The fact it had climate change and healthcare components didn't sink it.


----------



## Drew

Bloomberg News is reporting that the Biden administration has stopped pushing the Senate moderates to back down and support the $3.5T infrastructure bill, and has transitioned to pushing the House progressives to accept a smaller bill.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Bloomberg News is reporting that the Biden administration has stopped pushing the Senate moderates to back down and support the $3.5T infrastructure bill, and has transitioned to pushing the House progressives to accept a smaller bill.


----------



## thebeesknees22

At the end of the day biden will do what he has to to get the debt ceiling taken care of. He doesn't have a choice tbh. 

There's really nothing he can do with Manchin and Sinema blocking everything. I think it's still 50/50 on any infrastructure bill at all passing. Manchin will probably go for the smaller bill, but I don't know about sinema. She seems to want to block anything and everything. I'm not really sure what her game is. She doesn't make clear what she wants other than to obstruct. 

At the end of the day progressives will have to give in, because they know they can't allow the US to go into default. Manchin knows that can't happen too so he'll settle on the smaller bill. Sinema though..... I dunno. She seems kinda crazy tbh.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thebeesknees22 said:


> At the end of the day biden will do what he has to to get the debt ceiling taken care of. He doesn't have a choice tbh.
> 
> There's really nothing he can do with Manchin and Sinema blocking everything. I think it's still 50/50 on any infrastructure bill at all passing. Manchin will probably go for the smaller bill, but I don't know about sinema. She seems to want to block anything and everything. I'm not really sure what her game is. She doesn't make clear what she wants other than to obstruct.
> 
> At the end of the day progressives will have to give in, because they know they can't allow the US to go into default. Manchin knows that can't happen too so he'll settle on the smaller bill. Sinema though..... I dunno. She seems kinda crazy tbh.



The smaller bill has already cleared the Senate, Manchin and Sinema are out of play in this case.


----------



## bostjan

I think a few pundits were pretty loud about saying it wouldn't pass the Senate. But it did. Now there are a few loudly saying it will never pass in the house, due to some statements made by progressives that possibly are already past their expiry date. As for the competing House Bill, as far as I can tell, no one ever bothered to start writing it, so I don't see how it's a consideration. If the bill had been written before this week, I would have agreed with the pundits, but at this point, it looks like the smaller bill is fairly likely to pass the House and go on to Biden's desk. In that case, Biden would be an idiot not to sign it. If Bernie and AOC and a few others manage to write the bigger bill in the next 2-3 days, it could still derail the smaller one, but, even then, nothing's a sure thing. It'd probably be wise to piggyback the bigger bill on top of the smaller one, since the bigger one has zero chance of passing in the Senate at the moment. I think progressives have to understand that if they crash the infrastructure by holding out like they said they would, then it'll be a public relations nightmare for everyone.


----------



## thebeesknees22

MaxOfMetal said:


> The smaller bill has already cleared the Senate, Manchin and Sinema are out of play in this case.



ohhh i missed that news. Thanks 60-80hr work weeks. ha


----------



## Drew

I think there's some confusion over what's in play here, so as a quick recap;


When it became apparent a large infrastructure bill would not get bipartisan support in the Senate, the Democrats took a two tiered approach - pass a bipartisan "hard infrastructure" bill with broad Senate support (all Democrats, plus 18 or 19 Republicans, including McConnell), but also continue work on a larger "human infrastructure" bill they would attempt to pass via reconciliation, with 50 Democratic votes plus Harris.
From day one, House progressives said they would only take up the Senate bill at the same time as their "human infrastructure" bill, once that had passed the Senate.
Manchin and Sinema, Senate moderates, have said they won't support a $3.5T human infrastructure bill, even though they voted for the "shell" budget including up to $3.5T in spending over 10 years for human infrastructure.
So where we are now is the Senate has passed a more traditional infrastructure bill with $550b in new spending for bridges, roads, railways, clean power, and high speed internet. The House could send it to Biden's desk by voting for it today, but ~100 or so House progressives say they'll vote it down until the Senate also passes their Build Back Better Act (which is still being negotiated) and sends them the two bills to vote for at once.

The $550B bill is not currently being negotiated, but sitting in a sort of limbo. Biden spent the last month or so, since the hard infrastructure bill passed, trying to convince Manchin and Sinema to get on board with the $3.5T human infrastructure bill, but was unable to do so. He's now trying to get the House to instead pare the bill down, perhaps in the $1.5-2T range, which is closer to a size where (I believe - one has floated a number, the other hans't) Manchin at least has said he could support it.

This larger human infrastructure bill is the one that's still very much in flux, while the smaller hard infrastructure bill is sort of sitting on ice at the moment. Manchin and Sinema are still in play to the degree that their tolerance for the size of the human infratructure bill will have a very direct impact on the willingness of House progressives to support the already-passed $550b bipartisan infrastructure bill.



bostjan said:


> If the bill had been written before this week, I would have agreed with the pundits, but at this point, it looks like the smaller bill is fairly likely to pass the House and go on to Biden's desk.


This REALLY depends on the progressive wing of the House Democratic coalition. If even three of them decide to draw a line in the sand and stick at $3.5T, then this bipartisan bill is going to die. And, honestly, while Biden so far has lobbied the moderates and not the progressives, I could see a few of them digging in. Sanders in particular.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm just gonna leave this right here:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...nant-governor-national-guard-southern-border/


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I'm just gonna leave this right here:
> https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...nant-governor-national-guard-southern-border/


Wow.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Wow.


It's kinda nice when they turn the crazy on themselves for a change.


----------



## Drew

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats appear to be about to accept a compromise offer from McConnell that would raise the debt ceiling long enough to fund the government at least through December. This would allow them enough time to pass an increase as part of a reconciliation bill, which McConnell clearly would rather they do than either ask his coalition not to fillibuster a roll call vote allowing the Dems to raise it with just 50 votes, or admit that he doesn't have firm enough control of his coalition to ensure that some members won't stop the Democrats from doing this even if he tells them not to.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> I'm just gonna leave this right here:
> https://www.esquire.com/news-politi...nant-governor-national-guard-southern-border/



Dammit.

Idaho used to be such a pleasant place.


----------



## Randy

Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin intervened to block Ivanka Trump's appointment to the World Bank: report


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin intervened to block Ivanka Trump's appointment to the World Bank: report


Jesus wept.

Our dystopian hellscape was *this* close to being just that much worse.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin intervened to block Ivanka Trump's appointment to the World Bank: report



Just saw this, but that's scary.


----------



## mbardu

tedtan said:


> Just saw this, but that's scary.





Randy said:


> Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin intervened to block Ivanka Trump's appointment to the World Bank: report





nightflameauto said:


> Jesus wept.
> 
> Our dystopian hellscape was *this* close to being just that much worse.



Why the hate? Her dad said unequivocally that he thought she was "very good with the numbers". Isn't that qualification enough?!!


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> Why the hate? Her dad said unequivocally that he thought she was "very good with the numbers". Isn't that qualification enough?!!


Seems like an appropriate time to dust off this old gem:


----------



## gunch

Things are getting worse than last year and all because the Dems are being 3 Stooges while the GOP watches. The only good thing is that you don't see That Orange Bastard in every news headline, maybe a decent 30% versus 100%

Wishing McTurtle, Sinema and Manchin a very pee their pants and stub their toe


----------



## spudmunkey

mbardu said:


> Why the hate? Her dad said unequivocally that he thought she was "very good with the numbers". Isn't that qualification enough?!!



Would probably have even been worse than...


----------



## BlackMastodon

Posting a reply here since I don't want to turn the movies thread into a political conversation about America's history of failed colonization in the late 20th/early 21st centuries (apologies if this pulls you into the PC&E thread against your will, possum) 



possumkiller said:


> I was looking on youtube for some Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom II documentary and stumbled across this. It was made contemporary during the time of the war and released the year before the fall of Saigon. I have no idea how I never heard of this film. It is really great if you are into the history of our wars and how fucked up they are. It is crazy how Iraq and Afghanistan were literally Vietnam sequels with the same script.
> 
> This one really focuses on the self-righteous militarism as a religion that makes up so much of American culture. I look at the parades and the speeches at schools and remember my childhood being similar. Singing about fighting in god's army when I was a small child in Sunday school. Being divided into teams of us vs them in every facet of life from sports to math competitions. Boy scouts. ROTC. I used to watch every war movie and documentary I could get my hands on. I collected Desert Storm trading cards in elementary school. I was raised and trained to be a killer of the enemies of the American way of life. Somehow, when I finally got to Iraq for my chance to kill some towel-headed haji terrorists, I couldn't find the monsters I was supposed to be looking for and only found other humans. Then little by little, I began to find the reality I was raised and trained to believe in and defend did not actually exist and that I was used as a pawn to make rich people richer.



I'm curious about the American education system. Did they have y'all read Generals Die in Bed in high school? 

Slight background: Growing up in Canada (border city, so we're pretty indoctrinated to American politics), one of my best friends wanted so badly to be in the army when he got older. His step brother was in the military and did a couple of tours in Afghanistan by 2005 (battling PTSD ever since and I remember stories about him already being a violent person before then), his older brother was in the Reserves since he was 16, he was in Cadets when he was around 13 and also planned on joining the Reserves. Me being a year younger than him and thinking "I like video games about war, I want to shoot guns!" also wanted to follow him and join the military. When I told my mom about this when I was 12, she took it very well and gently, but firmly, steered me the hell away from that idea. I thought whatever, I have a few years before I can join anyway so we'll see. Fast forward to 10th grade history and we're learning about the horrors of trench warfare in WW1 and General Die in Bed was our assigned reading. 

That book was enough for me to be rid of any desire I had to join the military, and as I got older and read more about military industrial complex and their predatory recruitment processes (targeting low-income folks with minimal edication/prospects, propoganda, etc.), I saw how messed up the whole system was. I'm glad I read it and my parents put their foot down.

Nothing against veterans, if anything I feel sorry for them for being deceived into fighting other peoples' wars and having to pay the price. The recent video of the veteran demanding an apology from George W at some award ceremony comes to mind.


----------



## bostjan

BlackMastodon said:


> Posting a reply here since I don't want to turn the movies thread into a political conversation about America's history of failed colonization in the late 20th/early 21st centuries (apologies if this pulls you into the PC&E thread against your will, possum)
> 
> 
> I'm curious about the American education system. Did they have y'all read Generals Die in Bed in high school?



I only went to public school in the USA for one year. It was 1985. I was in kindergarten. I was bullied every day. When I asked an adult for help, the teacher labeled me a "tattle" and I was punished academically. It all built up to me being stabbed in the abdomen (by a second grader) before my parents pulled me out of school. That's certainly not everyone's US public school experience, but that's one example of what it was like. Most probably had it better, but I'm sure some had it worse.

In private school, my education was about 10% Bible study, 10% ethics and worldviews (based on religious doctrine), and the remainder was, seemingly, whatever was the minimum required to give us a diploma after 12-13 years. We were behind the public school system in things like mathematics and science. I had a really good English teacher in 12th grade. Before that, our English teachers spent most of the time in class teaching us basic grammar like what is a gerund, what is the difference between simple past tense and past perfect tense, and stuff like that. That's not to say it was detailed, either, since a bunch of loud students in the class slowed the lesson plans down to basically a standstill. So, we essentially had one year of actual reading literature, and that was stuff like "Julias Ceasar" by Shakespeare (the play) and excerpts from classics like "Moby Dick" and "The Pearl." One kid in my graduating class was functionally illiterate, even, and still graduated. I'm not sure exactly what the situation was like in public schools, but there was a statistic in Detroit (that's where I lived when I was in primary school) for how many high school graduates were illiterate, and the number was greater than 10% every year.

When you see Jay Leno or whoever walking down the streets of New York or Los Angeles stopping completely random people and asking them who the Vice President of the USA is and they clearly have no idea, I'm sure that's real. I'm also sure that there are quite a few people who are less entertaining, but I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear that one in three Americans don't know the governor of the state they live in, nor that half of all Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, despite the longest war in American history taking place there up until this very year.



BlackMastodon said:


> Slight background: Growing up in Canada (border city, so we're pretty indoctrinated to American politics), one of my best friends wanted so badly to be in the army when he got older. His step brother was in the military and did a couple of tours in Afghanistan by 2005 (battling PTSD ever since and I remember stories about him already being a violent person before then), his older brother was in the Reserves since he was 16, he was in Cadets when he was around 13 and also planned on joining the Reserves. Me being a year younger than him and thinking "I like video games about war, I want to shoot guns!" also wanted to follow him and join the military. When I told my mom about this when I was 12, she took it very well and gently, but firmly, steered me the hell away from that idea. I thought whatever, I have a few years before I can join anyway so we'll see.



Interesting. When I was around 12, I also wanted to join JROTC or something and be ready to fight for my country. Then, a year later, my eldest cousin (who was much much older than me and fought in Korea) had MPs arrest him at his home, beat him up, and drag him down to Kentucky and thrown in jail for desertion. My cousin had his discharge papers in his house, but was never allowed to present them to the MPs. He was also visibly old enough at the time that anyone with half a brain should have had one look at him and realized that he was not recently active duty or looked at their paperwork long enough to have realized that the Korean conflict happened decades earlier. My dad was able to drive down to Kentucky and get him out of jail with his discharge papers, but, IDK, the whole thing left enough of an impression on me that I figured out right away that a) the military is kind of fucked up and b) no one I knew who had been in the military ever talked about when they were in the military, so the military might be way more fucked up than I had previously ever considered. Now, in retrospect, I firmly believe I was correct. You've got too many people who had violent tendencies and nothing else to do but join up after high school. Sure, most of those guys are probably the sharpest, most talented and skilled guys, but it doesn't matter, because all it takes is one person to piss in the punchbowl to ruin the party, and I'm convinced that every unit has at least one punchpisser.



BlackMastodon said:


> Fast forward to 10th grade history and we're learning about the horrors of trench warfare in WW1 and General Die in Bed was our assigned reading.



I've read a few books about WWI and never heard of this book until now.



BlackMastodon said:


> That book was enough for me to be rid of any desire I had to join the military, and as I got older and read more about military industrial complex and their predatory recruitment processes (targeting low-income folks with minimal edication/prospects, propoganda, etc.), I saw how messed up the whole system was. I'm glad I read it and my parents put their foot down.
> 
> Nothing against veterans, if anything I feel sorry for them for being deceived into fighting other peoples' wars and having to pay the price. The recent video of the veteran demanding an apology from George W at some award ceremony comes to mind.



Ever heard of Smedley Butler? The guy won not one, but two Congressional Medals of Honor. He fought in WWI, the Mexican Revolution, the US-Philipine War, and the Banana Wars. Basically, he fought in WWI and all of the wars before that the USA was involved in that no one learns about in the US public school system, (assuming they even learn about WWI). After WWI, he continued his military career, and, at one point, was court-martialed for bad-mouthing Mussolini, which forced him into retirement. Once he was free from military employment, he become the most outspoken individual against the military and the US government's war mongering. He exposed a plot by a far-right group to overthrow the US government (sound familiar?), which the media claimed was completely made up. The US government later confirmed it was all true. He wrote a book explaining the US government's nefarious reasons and poor behaviour of the Banana Wars. Shortly after his book was published, he suddenly fell ill, complaining of stomach pain, and died at 58 as the most decorated soldier in US history (at the time).

His book exposed that the US military was involved in war for profit, as simple as that. Now, in 2021, we know beyond any reasonable level of doubt that the Banana Wars were wars for profit. But, prior to the Vietnam War, they were generally thought of as necessary. Of course the profit is not going at all to the soldiers risking their lives and limbs every minute of the war, the profits are made by big businesses. In the Banana Wars, it was Chiquita and Dole (no joke there, they were seriously the companies who profited and even took over several governments directly) and in the Iraq War, we have very strong reasons to suspect that Blackwater and Haliburton were profiteering from the conflict. And we all know that the information is pretty much all out there, and there ought to be tons of outrage over it, but I think we've gotten to the point now where we're so desensitized to it that simply no one cares.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 98523


By the way since we're still on this page, I think it's worth noting that if Biden was just then _changing_ to encouraging progressives to accept a smaller deal, that means he spent the month before pushing the _moderates_ to accept a larger deal and eventually gave up when it was clear it wasn't going to work. I think the mock shock here is a little out of place, since I think coming from that perspective it's much more shocking that the Biden Administration put as much work into getting the larger progressive deal done in the first place. 

Also, timely NY Times article guest written by a few professors who have studied this, which I'm sharing naturally because it supports what I've been saying all along.  Single-party governments actually have a rather _bad_ track record of executing on electoral priorities, in part because the filibuster is a pretty good check against single party rule, but primarily because electoral coalitions are not uniform and in practice because it's awfully hard to craft a policy that _all_ wings of a coalition will support. The odds were highly against the Biden administration passing the $3.5T human infrastructure bill in the first place, and painting this as a personal failure of the Biden Administration is kind of missing the point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/13/opinion/democrats-control-congress.html

This dates back way before Biden: 



NY Times Article said:


> Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clinton’s first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers.
> 
> What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill in a two-year session. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; there’s no precedent for enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success — for both electoral and policy reasons.
> 
> Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But it’s much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare: They will have outdone all their recent predecessors who had single-party control of national government.


----------



## bostjan

@Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.

Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> @Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.
> 
> Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?



I agree that this sucks, but it's been the case so long that I don't think any living person has a reason to expect anything else in actual practice.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> @Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.
> 
> Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?


"How does anything ever get done?"
"That's the beauty of the system. It doesn't!" --The Distinguished Gentleman

And that's not a new movie.

I hold your frustration as well. It's equally frustrating that there are so many people defending the complete inability to get anything done as a feature and something we should expect of our current clusterfuck of a government. We should EXPECT broken campaign promises. We should EXPECT nothing to happen. And we should DEFINITELY expect all politicians to lie through the teeth.

I mean, what are we? A bunch of babies expecting people in government to behave like adults like all us plebes are expected to? Come on, man. Be realistic. /sarcasm


----------



## BlackMastodon

bostjan said:


> I only went to public school in the USA for one year. It was 1985. I was in kindergarten. I was bullied every day. When I asked an adult for help, the teacher labeled me a "tattle" and I was punished academically. It all built up to me being stabbed in the abdomen (by a second grader) before my parents pulled me out of school. That's certainly not everyone's US public school experience, but that's one example of what it was like. Most probably had it better, but I'm sure some had it worse.
> 
> In private school, my education was about 10% Bible study, 10% ethics and worldviews (based on religious doctrine), and the remainder was, seemingly, whatever was the minimum required to give us a diploma after 12-13 years. We were behind the public school system in things like mathematics and science. I had a really good English teacher in 12th grade. Before that, our English teachers spent most of the time in class teaching us basic grammar like what is a gerund, what is the difference between simple past tense and past perfect tense, and stuff like that. That's not to say it was detailed, either, since a bunch of loud students in the class slowed the lesson plans down to basically a standstill. So, we essentially had one year of actual reading literature, and that was stuff like "Julias Ceasar" by Shakespeare (the play) and excerpts from classics like "Moby Dick" and "The Pearl." One kid in my graduating class was functionally illiterate, even, and still graduated. I'm not sure exactly what the situation was like in public schools, but there was a statistic in Detroit (that's where I lived when I was in primary school) for how many high school graduates were illiterate, and the number was greater than 10% every year.
> 
> When you see Jay Leno or whoever walking down the streets of New York or Los Angeles stopping completely random people and asking them who the Vice President of the USA is and they clearly have no idea, I'm sure that's real. I'm also sure that there are quite a few people who are less entertaining, but I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear that one in three Americans don't know the governor of the state they live in, nor that half of all Americans can't find Afghanistan on a map, despite the longest war in American history taking place there up until this very year.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. When I was around 12, I also wanted to join JROTC or something and be ready to fight for my country. Then, a year later, my eldest cousin (who was much much older than me and fought in Korea) had MPs arrest him at his home, beat him up, and drag him down to Kentucky and thrown in jail for desertion. My cousin had his discharge papers in his house, but was never allowed to present them to the MPs. He was also visibly old enough at the time that anyone with half a brain should have had one look at him and realized that he was not recently active duty or looked at their paperwork long enough to have realized that the Korean conflict happened decades earlier. My dad was able to drive down to Kentucky and get him out of jail with his discharge papers, but, IDK, the whole thing left enough of an impression on me that I figured out right away that a) the military is kind of fucked up and b) no one I knew who had been in the military ever talked about when they were in the military, so the military might be way more fucked up than I had previously ever considered. Now, in retrospect, I firmly believe I was correct. You've got too many people who had violent tendencies and nothing else to do but join up after high school. Sure, most of those guys are probably the sharpest, most talented and skilled guys, but it doesn't matter, because all it takes is one person to piss in the punchbowl to ruin the party, and I'm convinced that every unit has at least one punchpisser.
> 
> 
> 
> I've read a few books about WWI and never heard of this book until now.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of Smedley Butler? The guy won not one, but two Congressional Medals of Honor. He fought in WWI, the Mexican Revolution, the US-Philipine War, and the Banana Wars. Basically, he fought in WWI and all of the wars before that the USA was involved in that no one learns about in the US public school system, (assuming they even learn about WWI). After WWI, he continued his military career, and, at one point, was court-martialed for bad-mouthing Mussolini, which forced him into retirement. Once he was free from military employment, he become the most outspoken individual against the military and the US government's war mongering. He exposed a plot by a far-right group to overthrow the US government (sound familiar?), which the media claimed was completely made up. The US government later confirmed it was all true. He wrote a book explaining the US government's nefarious reasons and poor behaviour of the Banana Wars. Shortly after his book was published, he suddenly fell ill, complaining of stomach pain, and died at 58 as the most decorated soldier in US history (at the time).
> 
> His book exposed that the US military was involved in war for profit, as simple as that. Now, in 2021, we know beyond any reasonable level of doubt that the Banana Wars were wars for profit. But, prior to the Vietnam War, they were generally thought of as necessary. Of course the profit is not going at all to the soldiers risking their lives and limbs every minute of the war, the profits are made by big businesses. In the Banana Wars, it was Chiquita and Dole (no joke there, they were seriously the companies who profited and even took over several governments directly) and in the Iraq War, we have very strong reasons to suspect that Blackwater and Haliburton were profiteering from the conflict. And we all know that the information is pretty much all out there, and there ought to be tons of outrage over it, but I think we've gotten to the point now where we're so desensitized to it that simply no one cares.


Great response and write up. I guess my question wasn't specifically for that book, but more so general anti-war teachings in US schools. 

After looking it up again, turns out Generals Die in Bed is by a Canadian author and based on his account of being in WW1. 

Also that's fucking crazy that you got stabbed in second grade and I grew up across a river from you only a few years later. Everyone that lived in Windsor in the 70s and 80s said Detroit was fucking scary at that time, I can see why.


----------



## Adieu

Basic grammar? What the hell is this gerund you refer to?


----------



## gunch

The -ing form of a verb that acts as a noun


----------



## Adieu

Ah... F-ing gerunds


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> @Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.
> 
> Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?


I'm not going to say this is a blank check excuse... But Biden had fairly plausible cause to reasonably expect to have a bigger majority in the House and Senate than he did, based on the projections available to him. The most likely outcomes were a majority of 51-52 in the Senate (plus the VP as a tiebreaker) and I forget exactly but I'd posted it a few pages back, something like 21-25 votes in the House.

And, if he had 52 Senators, Manchin and Sinema could vote against the $3.5T bill and Harris could still cast the tiebreaking vote to get it through the Senate via reconciliation, and we would have likely passed a bill into law a couple weeks ago. I mean, margins here pretty clearly matter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It just sucks because we were so victory-drunk that night. We were like "we fucking did it!", but really, we fucking didn't. Yeah, the letters looked like a victory, but it was somewhat hollow. We didn't really get the majority we thought we did at first and it fucking stings. 

Even with a record number of votes. Even with a theoretical majority it just didn't work IRL. 

I sort of saw it coming knowing what a dick bag Manchin is, and it looks like Sinema is a dipshit too. Which isn't exactly shocking, but man, we thought we did it. 

It's taken till now for that to dawn on a lot of folks.


----------



## gunch

My biggest fear now is that if the GOP tries and succeeds to ratfuck their way to an even stronger minority autocracy through state and municipal governments nobody is going to really stop them.

Ghouls. Awful human beings.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

gunch said:


> My biggest fear now is that if the GOP tries and succeeds to ratfuck their way to an even stronger minority autocracy through state and municipal governments nobody is going to really stop them.
> 
> Ghouls. Awful human beings.



Nah, big fear is the coup succeeding next time.


----------



## gunch

Either scenario is big bad


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> I only went to public school in the USA for one year. It was 1985. I was in kindergarten. I was bullied every day. When I asked an adult for help, the teacher labeled me a "tattle" and I was punished academically. It all built up to me being stabbed in the abdomen (by a second grader) before my parents pulled me out of school.


Dude...


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> @Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.
> 
> Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?


It's because the American system of government is dumb as hell. 

In parliamentary systems the party leaders get up and ask you to vote for their party and their party's policies. In the USA most people don't understand how convoluted legislating is, so instead a presidential candidate can't succinctly explain the inherent caveats of campaign promises.

You have to win a strong majority in two houses, enough to overcome extremeties of the party rebelling, which is convoluted enough before you start talking about speakers, tiebreaks, vetos and filibusters. But since none of that is popularly understood, the only messaging that can be broadcast is simplified promises from only 2 candidates of literally hundreds of elections.


----------



## Adieu

...and that one guy's main source of legal authority without overstepping is the VETO, of all things.


----------



## BlackMastodon

As a Canadian I've been hearing about the filibuster for years not but still don't fully understand it. Is it just the opposition talking over the people trying to pass a bill and holding "the floor" hostage until the timer runs out so they can say "lool, guess we're out of time and the votes didn't pass, better luck next time"?


----------



## thebeesknees22

It's basically like Gandalf telling the Balrog "you shall not pass!" 

The rules used to be that you had to actually physically be on the floor and talk until the time ran out. ...which meant standing there talking all day with no breaks literally. No bathroom break. No food break. You gotta talk till the clock runs out. 

Now they can just say they want to filibuster and it's done. Which is kinda stupid. imho it should take some work to actually do a filibuster instead of being like hitting a button like it is now. At least that way if a party really really wants to do a filibuster then they would think it through before putting themselves though that. 

Having a filibuster isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's been used to block terrible legislation in the past. The problem is that it's way too easy to use it now.


----------



## bostjan

Gerunds like f-ing around.


BlackMastodon said:


> As a Canadian I've been hearing about the filibuster for years not but still don't fully understand it. Is it just the opposition talking over the people trying to pass a bill and holding "the floor" hostage until the timer runs out so they can say "lool, guess we're out of time and the votes didn't pass, better luck next time"?


Basically. There's some nuance to it, but that's 100% of the essence of it.

It's basically not even a Senate rule, but rather a loophole in Senate rules, but since both parties (and independents as well) have used the loophole routinely, no one wants to plug it.


----------



## nightflameauto

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...exas-solve-its-notorious-power-grid-problems/

EDIT: Whoops. Didn't realize that was a delayed paywall.
https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bi...ld-use-bitcoin-to-solve-its-power-grid-issues

There's variations on this story all over the place.

At this point I'm not sure if he's legally mentally incapacitated, or just so tuned into kickback culture that he's hedging his bets as the miners take off in Texas he'll get plenty of $$$$ from them.

Guarantee you not one single bitcoin miner shuts down if there's a power crunch until the whole grid collapses. Greedy assholes are greedy assholes. They don't tend to be team players.


----------



## bostjan

Cruz is a nut and a moron.

However, this issue is consistent with whatever tea party general philosophy he has. The libertarians have always been attracted to BTC as a way to buck the government out of their personal transactions and whatnot. If you recall the connection between libertarianism and drug legalization as well as the connect between BTC and drug deals, then you might be able to bridge the gap and see why libertarianism is loosely connected to BTC.

Personally, I say "good." Why? Because, honestly, the government doesn't need to be all up in people's personal finances. Tax the corporations. Personal income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax to relieve the debt from the Civil War, and then it came back again to relieve the debt from WWI and never went away. Well, WWI ended over a hundred years ago, so, isn't it weird that we are still paying for it?! And the war on drugs was the stupidest thing since the Vietnam War, so, I'm not condoning drug use, by any means, but if people do drugs, it means they need help, not punishment. The use of BTC to purchase drugs is morally bad, but the use of BTC in general is okay with me.

Anyway, I seldom agree with Cruz, and, in this case, even though I like BTC, Cruz is once again wrong in his line of thinking. Bitcoin mining uses a ton of electricity (duh), and, it uses a ton of silicon chips. If you want to be successful doing it, you need the fastest processors and the cheapest electricity. So, during one of the worst IC shortages in history and a power grid crisis, this plan makes about as much sense as using a .44 magnum to relieve a headache.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Anyway, I seldom agree with Cruz, and, in this case, even though I like BTC, Cruz is once again wrong in his line of thinking. Bitcoin mining uses a ton of electricity (duh), and, it uses a ton of silicon chips. If you want to be successful doing it, you need the fastest processors and the cheapest electricity. So, during one of the worst IC shortages in history and a power grid crisis, this plan makes about as much sense as using a .44 magnum to relieve a headache.


Yeah, I wasn't arguing philosophically for or against Bitcoin in general. I mess with it like I mess with $20 here or there at a casino. I've made a few hundred bucks by following the trends with it and other crypto but would never sink real money in it.

That said, your last paragraph there was my argument. As a techie hearing that Bitcoin mining will solve an energy crisis is so antithetical to reality that I can't even really cook up a decent analogy myself. Though that comment you have there is a pretty decent one.

The current chip shortage, where we can't even get enough silicon popping to keep auto-dealers stocked, and forget about the hard horsepower driven shit that the miners use. It's almost impossible to buy new generation GPUs and ICUs and has been for the better part of the last couple years due to BTC mining.

I'd love to see him get roasted over this stupidity, but he always seems to weasel his way out of his bullshit.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> I'd love to see him get roasted over this stupidity, but he always seems to weasel his way out of his bullshit.


Political armor. Every republican has it. The only weapon that defeats it is being publicly considered a RINO, but, ironically, the more batshit you are, the less likely that will ever happen.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It just sucks because we were so victory-drunk that night. We were like "we fucking did it!", but really, we fucking didn't. Yeah, the letters looked like a victory, but it was somewhat hollow. We didn't really get the majority we thought we did at first and it fucking stings.
> 
> Even with a record number of votes. Even with a theoretical majority it just didn't work IRL.
> 
> I sort of saw it coming knowing what a dick bag Manchin is, and it looks like Sinema is a dipshit too. Which isn't exactly shocking, but man, we thought we did it.
> 
> It's taken till now for that to dawn on a lot of folks.


I don't know what night you were thinking of, but when I went to bed on election night, it looked like Biden would _probably _pull it out but it was far from decided and Trump was clearly going to do everything he could to block that outcome, and the House and Senate both were very much in play. In the following days and weeks Congress and the presidential vote both drifted a bit bluer and came in at least somewhat close to projections (presidential vote in particular), but I remember it being unclear if Biden would win, much less have control of Congress, even though if I had to bet I would have said he'd probably pull off all three. 

All that said - one of the many things I do at work is write our macro commentary, and my big election takeaway in our monthly peice and in client calls for the next month or two was that however progressive Biden's agenda was, it was bound by whatever Manchin would support with a 50-vote Senate majority, and the progressive caucus in the House was going to cause him a lot of trouble if he tried to moderate any. Sinema was actually kind of a surprise as she was much more progressive within AZ before, but honestly I've been surprised Biden has been able to do as much as he _has _with the Congress he was given - I was sure the initial stimulus bill would shrink, but it passed more or less as he proposed, at least with respect to size (a minimum wage hike wasn't going to survice parliamentarian scrutiny for reconcilliation anyway).


----------



## Shoeless_jose

bostjan said:


> @Drew , I agree that the statement is true. Where I feel there is a problem is that it doesn't excuse breaking a promise. If you said "I will get X, Y, and Z done if I am elected," then you get elected, and then say "Well, I'm not going to get X nor Y done, and maybe only half of Z because opposition is a thing that exists," then c'mon man, that's a weak sauce excuse, and it's even more lame when you got the majority control in the house AND the senate.
> 
> Let me put it another way, what realistic scenario would allow a president to do anything?



A touch of hubris for Mancin and Sinema realizing 80 million voted for Biden so maybe realize you aren't the main character in DC.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

nightflameauto said:


> https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...exas-solve-its-notorious-power-grid-problems/
> 
> EDIT: Whoops. Didn't realize that was a delayed paywall.
> https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bi...ld-use-bitcoin-to-solve-its-power-grid-issues
> 
> There's variations on this story all over the place.
> 
> At this point I'm not sure if he's legally mentally incapacitated, or just so tuned into kickback culture that he's hedging his bets as the miners take off in Texas he'll get plenty of $$$$ from them.
> 
> Guarantee you not one single bitcoin miner shuts down if there's a power crunch until the whole grid collapses. Greedy assholes are greedy assholes. They don't tend to be team players.




Funny thing. I read about this a few months back. The power companies. PAY THE CRYPTO MINERS for downtime when they need them to shut off, either that or grossly subsidize the rates at other times. It's disgusting.


----------



## IwantTacos

nightflameauto said:


> https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...exas-solve-its-notorious-power-grid-problems/
> 
> EDIT: Whoops. Didn't realize that was a delayed paywall.
> https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bi...ld-use-bitcoin-to-solve-its-power-grid-issues
> 
> There's variations on this story all over the place.
> 
> At this point I'm not sure if he's legally mentally incapacitated, or just so tuned into kickback culture that he's hedging his bets as the miners take off in Texas he'll get plenty of $$$$ from them.
> 
> Guarantee you not one single bitcoin miner shuts down if there's a power crunch until the whole grid collapses. Greedy assholes are greedy assholes. They don't tend to be team players.



y the fuck would anyone with a brain mine in Texas


----------



## bostjan

IwantTacos said:


> y the fuck would anyone with a brain mine in Texas


It's the perfect place. It's not like the power ever goes out there. They don't really have problems with hurricanes or tornadoes or mass shootings or George Strait's exes...

Oh wait...


----------



## IwantTacos

bostjan said:


> It's the perfect place. It's not like the power ever goes out there. They don't really have problems with hurricanes or tornadoes or mass shootings or George Strait's exes...
> 
> Oh wait...



Americans see a hot desert - 

this seems like a great place to do everything.


----------



## Drew

Dineley said:


> A touch of hubris for Mancin and Sinema realizing 80 million voted for Biden so maybe realize you aren't the main character in DC.


Eh, yes, but Biden ran to represent all of America, and all of America voted for him. Manchin and Sinema ran to represent West Virginia and Arizona, respectively, and only their states voted to elect them. They're not answerable to all of America - they're answerable to their direct constituents, and without actually going and checking, I'd be reasonably comfortable wagering that Sinema's margin in Arizona, as a percentage of the electorate (to normalize for off-Presidential vs Presidential cycles) was bigger than Biden's ultra-slim margin there (hell, probably her nominal margin too for that matter), and considering Biden _lost_ West Virginia, by nearly 40 percentage points, Manchin's margin there was quite a bit stronger. 

Sinema's situation is interesting because she won a cycle before the election at a time when Democrats didn't win in AZ, and in 2020 another Democrat who's more reliably liberal than she is also carried the Senate seat. I think she's plausibly at risk of being primaried in 2024 from the left. Manchin, though, is almost certainly as liberal as we're going to get out of West Virginia, and frankly the most remarkable thing is he hasn't lost to a Republican given how red his state is, and not how centrist he is. When he loses, it's going to be a LONG time before we see another Democratic Senator from West Virginia.


----------



## Drew

In other news, it's looking reasonably good for a $1.5-2T compromise on the Build Back Better Act to clear the Senate. TBD if the House progressive caucus accepts it, of course, but if they don't, it's very likely the best package that can pass the Senate with 50+1 votes, so that would likely kill both infrastructure bills.


----------



## nightflameauto

The thing I can't wrap my mind around with Sinema is the fact she can't articulate . . . well, shit, anything. When asked direct questions her answers are either attempts at humor or complete deflections.

"What do you want?"

"Well, right now I want coffee."

"Where are you at with $bill."

"Well, right now I'm by the elevator."

I mean, for fuck sake, if you're going to obstruct your party's platform, at least have a platform of your own you can speak to. At this point she is coming across like a less articulate Mitch McConnel. At least he pretends he has reasons for his obstruction.


----------



## Xaios

Yup.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...xit-plan-biden-infrastructure-deal-exclusive/


----------



## thebeesknees22

well tell him don't let the door hit him on the way out.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Xaios said:


> Yup.
> 
> https://www.motherjones.com/politic...xit-plan-biden-infrastructure-deal-exclusive/




Lol become an independent? Like if he can't get what he wants from within the party not sure what extra leverage he think he will have. What a clown.


----------



## nightflameauto

Dineley said:


> Lol become an independent? Like if he can't get what he wants from within the party not sure what extra leverage he think he will have. What a clown.


Some might argue that Marchin is attempting to do the will of his constituents, but this smacks of a cry for attention, which nine times out of ten he and Sinema both seem to be all about. "PAY ATTENTION TO ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

LOL, no. Go away. Have fun with your "independence" you prick.


----------



## bostjan

I guess the job of the Senator is to represent the interests of the State. Obviously West Virginia would not benefit from the Federal Government paying through expensive programs to create more jobs, ensure that workers have health coverage, crumbling roads get fixed, or that low income families pay less in taxes at the expense of big corporations.

_Obviously_, West Virginia doesn't have unemployed people, occupational hazards, dangerous mountain roads, or poor people. ...So, I mean, he's merely representing the _best interests_ of the people he was elected to serve. Right?


----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ong-its-time-to-move-on/ar-AAPNkrC?li=BBnb7Kz

Bitch are you really this effing dumb?!

Yes because after the beer haul putsch it was time to move on...nothing that funny little man from Austria would do later could come back to haunt civilization as we know it. Well we have our own funny little man from...New York I think who won't let the election go....but *we* have to? There should be no consequences for TRYING to over throw democracy....only if you are successful....but then it's too late. After all I don't hear anything negative going on with regards to further erosion of democracy so lets stay singularly focused on the price of gas. That is the problem with republicans. When it's convenient to their messaging they forget the concept of multitasking. I wish I knew this was a thing back in college. When I was taking 18 units a semester *and* raising a child I should have just told my professors to get off my back about thesis papers..I have to remain singularly focused on the price of gas and baby food and asking me to think about what they are teaching is a distraction that no human can endure. I promise as soon as fluctuations in gas and food prices is no longer a thing (isn't that the essence of FREE MARKET?) I will get busy on the other trifling matters.

Oh and fuck Manchin and Sinema


----------



## bostjan

WTF does she even mean by "time to move on?" Like, just forget about the fact that her party's leader influenced a crowd to break into the Capitol and try to kidnap/murder government leaders and actually succeeded in causing a handful of deaths, including a police officer?!


----------



## nightflameauto

Republicans gonna Republican. "Sure we tried to overthrow a legal election by violence. But you know, that happens. Let's move on."


----------



## bostjan

The Freedom to Vote Act failed. Err, well, the vote was 50/50, but Schumer changed his vote from yea to nay to avoid a filibuster.

The bill was aimed at outlawing gerrymandering, restricting campaign finance, and guaranteeing mail-in voting, among other things.


----------



## mbardu

nightflameauto said:


> Republicans gonna Republican. "Sure we tried to overthrow a legal election by violence. But you know, that happens. Let's move on."





bostjan said:


> WTF does she even mean by "time to move on?" Like, just forget about the fact that her party's leader influenced a crowd to break into the Capitol and try to kidnap/murder government leaders and actually succeeded in causing a handful of deaths, including a police officer?!



Yep that's exactly what she means. Just a _little _bit of seditious treason, whoops. Nothing to see here.
And the right is actively asking for more of that in 2024.


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> Yep that's exactly what she means. Just a _little _bit of seditious treason, whoops. Nothing to see here.
> And the right is actively asking for more of that in 2024.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ugh. Y'all are overreacting. Those gallows weren't technically fully-functional. /s


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I guess the job of the Senator is to represent the interests of the State. Obviously West Virginia would not benefit from the Federal Government paying through expensive programs to create more jobs, ensure that workers have health coverage, crumbling roads get fixed, or that low income families pay less in taxes at the expense of big corporations.
> 
> _Obviously_, West Virginia doesn't have unemployed people, occupational hazards, dangerous mountain roads, or poor people. ...So, I mean, he's merely representing the _best interests_ of the people he was elected to serve. Right?


The economy in West Virginia is also _heavily_ reliant on coal, and WV produces most of the coal used in the US. A major infrastructure bill moving the US away from coal would absolutely gut mining employment in the state. 

I definitely agree that maybe an element of pulling-the-band-aid-off should come into play here... but Manchin's next up for re-election in 2024, so supporting a bill now that would cause widespread primary and secondary job losses in his state is a huge gamble that in the next 2.5 years those workers could be retrained and rehired in other industries and would look back at losing the job they did for the last fifteen years as a _good_ thing, and not the source of a huge identity crisis. I don't know if I can fault his position here, and honestly if getting a green energy deal through the Senate requires the yes vote of a Senator from one of the top coal producing states in this country, well... you gotta wonder just how feasible passing that bill ever was in the first place. 

Simply, we don't have the votes. It sucks, but we don't.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The economy in West Virginia is also _heavily_ reliant on coal, and WV produces most of the coal used in the US. A major infrastructure bill moving the US away from coal would absolutely gut mining employment in the state.
> 
> I definitely agree that maybe an element of pulling-the-band-aid-off should come into play here... but Manchin's next up for re-election in 2024, so supporting a bill now that would cause widespread primary and secondary job losses in his state is a huge gamble that in the next 2.5 years those workers could be retrained and rehired in other industries and would look back at losing the job they did for the last fifteen years as a _good_ thing, and not the source of a huge identity crisis. I don't know if I can fault his position here, and honestly if getting a green energy deal through the Senate requires the yes vote of a Senator from one of the top coal producing states in this country, well... you gotta wonder just how feasible passing that bill ever was in the first place.
> 
> Simply, we don't have the votes. It sucks, but we don't.


But it wouldn't gut the coal industry, in fact: https://eda.gov/arpa/build-back-better/faq/#19


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But it wouldn't gut the coal industry, in fact: https://eda.gov/arpa/build-back-better/faq/#19


But it WOULD lead to coal job losses. That's undeniable if we're trying to move off coal - if we want less of it, then we want fewer miners and companies mining.

There's funding available to retrain former coal workers into more sustainable fields, yes, and money to support them as they transition - you'll note that the language here is all about "supporting coal communitieS" and not "protecting coal jobs." But, like I said, that's a gamble that all parties involve would feel that they were better off than they were, by mid-24 when Manchin is running for re-election. And that's, right or wrong, clearly a gamble he's not comfortable making.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> But it WOULD lead to coal job losses. That's undeniable if we're trying to move off coal - if we want less of it, then we want fewer miners and companies mining.
> 
> There's funding available to retrain former coal workers into more sustainable fields, yes, and money to support them as they transition - you'll note that the language here is all about "supporting coal communitieS" and not "protecting coal jobs." But, like I said, that's a gamble that all parties involve would feel that they were better off than they were, by mid-24 when Manchin is running for re-election. And that's, right or wrong, clearly a gamble he's not comfortable making.



On that point, I totally agree.

But- here's the double gambit: A1) Reject the bill and the coal industry falls apart anyway, due either to other restrictions or to drop in demand, and then the coal industry *is* gutted, B1) Reject the bill and the coal industry booms- MAGA! A2) Accept the bill and the coal industry falls apart either due to the move toward clean energy or whatever, and you have a $300M USD cushion to repurpose those resources, or B2) Accept the bill and the coal industry booms, then you have a booming coal industry and $300M earmarked dollars that probably get embezzled.

There is no language in the BBBP that directly threatens the coal industry. It's just about shifting our energy production to more sustainable sources, which, really, we are kind of doing anyway. Sure, the coal industry might see the bigger investment in renewable energy as a direct threat, but, it's not like this bill screws over people in West Virginia in some way.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> On that point, I totally agree.
> 
> But- here's the double gambit: A1) Reject the bill and the coal industry falls apart anyway, due either to other restrictions or to drop in demand, and then the coal industry *is* gutted, B1) Reject the bill and the coal industry booms- MAGA! A2) Accept the bill and the coal industry falls apart either due to the move toward clean energy or whatever, and you have a $300M USD cushion to repurpose those resources, or B2) Accept the bill and the coal industry booms, then you have a booming coal industry and $300M earmarked dollars that probably get embezzled.
> 
> There is no language in the BBBP that directly threatens the coal industry. It's just about shifting our energy production to more sustainable sources, which, really, we are kind of doing anyway. Sure, the coal industry might see the bigger investment in renewable energy as a direct threat, but, it's not like this bill screws over people in West Virginia in some way.



I think all of that is fine on paper and in theory.
But at the end of the day, the actual scenarios and their outcomes may not matter at all and you're making it more complex that it needs to be.

Most likely scenario is just that Manchin is just working to give _the appearance_ that he's in his coal-people voters' camp (while pleasing his donors), and he believes that what he's doing works best for his reelection (or otherwise his personal fortunes). Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it. Doesn't matter if the effect is good/not good for the industry and the electorate. Doesn't matter if the industry dies and coal workers are out of jobs without options. As long as the appearance gets him reelected because he will have been the guy who "stood up" for his constituents. And it'll work. People voting against their own interests because of appearances is far from new or unique .


----------



## bostjan

mbardu said:


> I think all of that is fine on paper and in theory.
> But at the end of the day, the actual scenarios and their outcomes may not matter at all and you're making it more complex that it needs to be.
> 
> Most likely scenario is just that Manchin is just working to give _the appearance_ that he's in his coal-people voters' camp (while pleasing his donors), and he believes that what he's doing works best for his reelection (or otherwise his personal fortunes). Otherwise he wouldn't be doing it. Doesn't matter if the effect is good/not good for the industry and the electorate. Doesn't matter if the industry dies and coal workers are out of jobs without options. As long as the appearance gets him reelected because he will have been the guy who "stood up" for his constituents. And it'll work. People voting against their own interests because of appearances is far from new or unique .





bostjan said:


> I guess the job of the Senator is to represent the interests of the State. Obviously West Virginia would not benefit from the Federal Government paying through expensive programs to create more jobs, ensure that workers have health coverage, crumbling roads get fixed, or that low income families pay less in taxes at the expense of big corporations.
> 
> _Obviously_, West Virginia doesn't have unemployed people, occupational hazards, dangerous mountain roads, or poor people. ...So, I mean, he's merely representing the _best interests_ of the people he was elected to serve. Right?


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> I guess the job of the Senator is to represent the interests of the State. Obviously West Virginia would not benefit from the Federal Government paying through expensive programs to create more jobs, ensure that workers have health coverage, crumbling roads get fixed, or that low income families pay less in taxes at the expense of big corporations.
> 
> _Obviously_, West Virginia doesn't have unemployed people, occupational hazards, dangerous mountain roads, or poor people. ...So, I mean, he's merely representing the _best interests_ of the people he was elected to serve. Right?



You're preaching to the choir here- and I think we all agree that _in theory _the job of the Senator (or any political figure for that matter) _should _be to do what's actually best for their constituents. But if you're cynical (or I should say realistic) about it, their number one selfish priority is frequently not to do their job, but to keep their job. And the two things often don't align.


----------



## wankerness

Manchin isn't running again, it's been established many times this is it for him. He's just looking out for his family's short-term future (obviously not long-term, cause he stridently opposes any attempts at mitigating climate change). He's just appeasing lobbyists to collect payments, keeping his extremely large coal investments humming along (he's got big investments in coal, collecting $500,000 a year from them), and also looking out for his corrupt-as-hell daughter's interests (she is in the hierarchy of that company that's been price-gouging with insulin). The idea this is just to appease his constituents is bullshit. It's pure corruption.

https://www.businessinsider.com/sen...illion-year-coal-stocks-climate-crisis-2021-9

That said, he's still better than Sinema cause at least you can predict what he's going to do and he'll say what he wants.

Pretty funny that these two assholes can be pointed at directly as primary causes of the US's failure to transition to nuclear/wind/solar before it's too late. Well, unless hell freezes over and the democrats increase their majority in 2022 to the point where they can overrule them and something on climate change actually gets passed.

Speaking of, here's an interesting article on the self-defeating idiocy of continuing to rely on fossil fuels:

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/10/20/...renewables-warn-french-government-scientists/

TLDR; basically the amount of energy required to extract oil is rising exponentially, it's expected to hit a breaking point in the next 15-20 years, and that, not green energy investments, is what's going to soon destroy the industry. They calculate that by 2050 fully half of all energy produced by oil will be necessary just to get that oil out of the ground. If continued dependence on fossil fuels continues, it will eventually result in the economy contracting since so much of the energy is having to be re-funneled back into the acquisition of that energy, while if there's more investment in nuclear and whatnot, capitalism will have a much easier time continuing cause it can continue going into sectors other than energy acquisition.


----------



## bostjan

So, they are saying 2034 or 2035. I remember many many years ago, I was at the university, and we had a speaker who was talking about exactly this, and he was saying that oil prices would be skyrocketing around 2030 due to the same line of reasoning.

Pretty crazy that the estimate only changed by 4-5 years after all this time.

You mention nuclear, but that's also a non-renewable, and also takes a lot of energy to enrich fuel to a useable state, although it's an under-utilized non-renewable, meaning that we could use it for a long time without running out of fuel.

Actually, in some sense, no resource is sustainable. The Sun will eventually run out of fuel and swell into a giant and burn everything we know. Even if we escape to another world, the universe will eventually cool into a cold, barren, disordered soup of waste.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> So, they are saying 2034 or 2035. I remember many many years ago, I was at the university, and we had a speaker who was talking about exactly this, and he was saying that oil prices would be skyrocketing around 2030 due to the same line of reasoning.
> 
> Pretty crazy that the estimate only changed by 4-5 years after all this time.
> 
> You mention nuclear, but that's also a non-renewable, and also takes a lot of energy to enrich fuel to a useable state, although it's an under-utilized non-renewable, meaning that we could use it for a long time without running out of fuel.
> 
> Actually, in some sense, no resource is sustainable. The Sun will eventually run out of fuel and swell into a giant and burn everything we know. Even if we escape to another world, the universe will eventually cool into a cold, barren, disordered soup of waste.



Nuclear fuel is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. There's enough on the planet to support reactors for hundreds, if not thousands, of years just using current extraction tech, and you can get it out of the ocean itself. And most importantly, it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. Barring some miraculous discovery with fusion in the next few years, it's a necessary step in any transitions away from fossil fuels that don't also involve a big contraction of the world economy/shift away from capitalism (that will never happen, the oligarchy here would let society collapse first).


----------



## ArtDecade

Republicans since Jan 6.






Also, the House voted to hold Bannon in contempt.


----------



## mbardu

wankerness said:


> Nuclear fuel is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. There's enough on the planet to support reactors for hundreds, if not thousands, of years just using current extraction tech, and you can get it out of the ocean itself. And most importantly, it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. Barring some miraculous discovery with fusion in the next few years, it's a necessary step in any transitions away from fossil fuels that don't also involve a big contraction of the world economy/shift away from capitalism (that will never happen, the oligarchy here would let society collapse first).



Cold fusion is only 15 years away, right guys?
Right?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

bostjan said:


> I guess the job of the Senator is to represent the interests of the State. Obviously West Virginia would not benefit from the Federal Government paying through expensive programs to create more jobs, ensure that workers have health coverage, crumbling roads get fixed, or that low income families pay less in taxes at the expense of big corporations.
> 
> _Obviously_, West Virginia doesn't have unemployed people, occupational hazards, dangerous mountain roads, or poor people. ...So, I mean, he's merely representing the _best interests_ of the people he was elected to serve. Right?



Yeah that one company that donates heavily to him will clearly help all the people of his state with their huge amount of issues and will be an industry that will stand the test of time and not become obsolete soon at all.


----------



## wankerness

mbardu said:


> Cold fusion is only 15 years away, right guys?
> Right?



Yeah. I used to be really heavy into energy development news back in college ~2004. Viable fusion was 10-15 years away, according to "industry buzz." The ITER reactor was only 5 years from starting up. 

Those are still the advertised timelines, 17 years later.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> Nuclear fuel is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. There's enough on the planet to support reactors for hundreds, if not thousands, of years just using current extraction tech, and you can get it out of the ocean itself. And most importantly, it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. Barring some miraculous discovery with fusion in the next few years, it's a necessary step in any transitions away from fossil fuels that don't also involve a big contraction of the world economy/shift away from capitalism (that will never happen, the oligarchy here would let society collapse first).



Well, hmm, sort of but not really agree.

Nuclear fuel doesn't exist naturally.

You find uranium ore, then you have to process the uranium out of it. Which is expensive, like processing iron out of iron ore.

Then the uranium is still worthless, though, because it's 99.3% U-238, and most of the other 0.7% is what you need to power the reactor, so you have to process it in a way that is extremely expensive in order to get it up to the point where it is "fuel."

Still, you get more energy back from the fuel, over time, if used properly, than it cost you to get the resource, like, by a factor of over a thousand...

As for how much uranium there is on Earth.... I also disagree. Phys.org also disagrees. Uranium is exceptionally rare. There is probably tens or hundreds of millions of tons of it in the Earth's insides, but there is no practical way to get it out. So we're stuck with whatever is either on the surface or just below the surface. But, since Uranium is so heavy, the vast majority of it that ever existed on Earth sunk down before the Earth cooled, leaving very little on the surface. Maybe a volcano coughs up a little extra from time to time, or a giant ultraheavy meteor crashes some into the Earth, but those sources are very small, even over geologic time spans.

So, as I said, it's an under-utilized power source, but if we start scaling it up to the point where it provides a substantial percentage of the world's energy, it's not going to last much longer than our oil reserves.

And, plus, people were saying a hundred years ago, that the world's oil reserves would last for thousands of years. At that time, no one imagined that we'd be using anywhere near this much energy, ever.


----------



## mbardu

wankerness said:


> Yeah. I used to be really heavy into energy development news back in college ~2004. Viable fusion was 10-15 years away, according to "industry buzz." The ITER reactor was only 5 years from starting up.
> 
> Those are still the advertised timelines, 17 years later.



I also stopped following closely a long time ago, but at least the EU roadmaps I had heard of were not targeting commercial energy production before 2045/2050.
This way we can space out our disappointments by 30 years each time rather than by 15 years.

And hey, in the meantime the ITER videos on Youtube are pretty dope at least!


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Well, hmm, sort of but not really agree.
> 
> Nuclear fuel doesn't exist naturally.
> 
> You find uranium ore, then you have to process the uranium out of it. Which is expensive, like processing iron out of iron ore.
> 
> Then the uranium is still worthless, though, because it's 99.3% U-238, and most of the other 0.7% is what you need to power the reactor, so you have to process it in a way that is extremely expensive in order to get it up to the point where it is "fuel."
> 
> Still, you get more energy back from the fuel, over time, if used properly, than it cost you to get the resource, like, by a factor of over a thousand...
> 
> As for how much uranium there is on Earth.... I also disagree. Phys.org also disagrees. Uranium is exceptionally rare. There is probably tens or hundreds of millions of tons of it in the Earth's insides, but there is no practical way to get it out. So we're stuck with whatever is either on the surface or just below the surface. But, since Uranium is so heavy, the vast majority of it that ever existed on Earth sunk down before the Earth cooled, leaving very little on the surface. Maybe a volcano coughs up a little extra from time to time, or a giant ultraheavy meteor crashes some into the Earth, but those sources are very small, even over geologic time spans.
> 
> So, as I said, it's an under-utilized power source, but if we start scaling it up to the point where it provides a substantial percentage of the world's energy, it's not going to last much longer than our oil reserves.
> 
> And, plus, people were saying a hundred years ago, that the world's oil reserves would last for thousands of years. At that time, no one imagined that we'd be using anywhere near this much energy, ever.



https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.a...mated that there is,ores, which must be mined.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Even if we escape to another world, the universe will eventually cool into a cold, barren, disordered soup of waste.


While that's the most likely scenario, it's not the only one currently making its way through the theoretical sciences.

See the book "The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking)" by Katie Mack for a deep dive into the possible ways we could eventually cease to exist. It's a surprisingly fun read considering what the subject matter is. Plus it's a nice break from the mind-numbing levels of stupid surrounding us and helps put all of it into perspective looking at the bigger picture for a few hours.

Sorry for the aside, but this is one of my favorite subjects. Focusing on the end of the universe is fun. Yeah, I'm dark.


----------



## spudmunkey

Kurzgesagt has a couple of fun videos about the end of the universe. No idea how accurate they are to actual "science" and current theories, but they are at least interesting things to think about, and narrated/animated in a fun/intersting way.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514#:~:text=It's estimated that there is,ores, which must be mined.


That's overly optimistic. It sounds an awful lot like results were from a lab simulation. The material doesn't seperate uranium from other heavy metals. 3 months of simulation for 5g of unenriched uranium means less than one gram of fuel, once it's enriched. Driving a boat around for 3 months for that small amount of fuel is probably worse for the environment than digging it up anyway.



nightflameauto said:


> While that's the most likely scenario, it's not the only one currently making its way through the theoretical sciences.
> 
> See the book "The End of Everything (Astrophysically Speaking)" by Katie Mack for a deep dive into the possible ways we could eventually cease to exist. It's a surprisingly fun read considering what the subject matter is. Plus it's a nice break from the mind-numbing levels of stupid surrounding us and helps put all of it into perspective looking at the bigger picture for a few hours.
> 
> Sorry for the aside, but this is one of my favorite subjects. Focusing on the end of the universe is fun. Yeah, I'm dark.





Katie Mack said:


> In the meantime, we'll continue on, making new pathc through the woods to see what we might find hiding there. Someday, deep in the unknown wilderness of the distant future, the Sun will expand, the Earth will die, and the cosmos itself will come to an end. In the meantime, we have the entire universe to explore, pushing our creativity to its limits to find new ways of knowing our cosmic home. We can learn and create extraordinary things, and we can share them with each other. And as long as we are thinking creatures, we will never stop asking: "What comes next?”


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> Kurzgesagt has a couple of fun videos about the end of the universe. No idea how accurate they are to actual "science" and current theories, but they are at least interesting things to think about, and narrated/animated in a fun/intersting way.


Isaac Arthur as well. A lot of his videos delve into Fermi Paradox stuff, but this the one that introduced me to his channel:


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Manchin isn't running again, it's been established many times this is it for him.


That was back when he WASN'T arguably the most powerful Senator in America. He's been backpedaling like mad lately, I'm expecting him to give it at least one more term.



bostjan said:


> But- here's the double gambit: A1) Reject the bill and the coal industry falls apart anyway, due either to other restrictions or to drop in demand, and then the coal industry *is* gutted, B1) Reject the bill and the coal industry booms- MAGA! A2) Accept the bill and the coal industry falls apart either due to the move toward clean energy or whatever, and you have a $300M USD cushion to repurpose those resources, or B2) Accept the bill and the coal industry booms, then you have a booming coal industry and $300M earmarked dollars that probably get embezzled.


Though, I think you need to not just consider outcomes, but how those outcomes are perceived.

A1 would be a scenario where people would lose their jobs, but wouldn't blame Manchin for it since "he fought to protect us from those stupid Democrats who don't care about us." It's not a great outcome for WV, but it's not a bad one for Manchin at all since he's demonstrated his loyalty to his state over his party.
B1 would carry all the positives from A1, but with the plus that the West Virginia economy is booming, and Manchin would be a VERY popular man back home.
A2 was kind of the scenario I outlined - a whole bunch of people would blame Manchin for losing their jobs that had been a core part of their identiy for ten or twenty years, and putting them on government-sponsored retraining programs to become solar panel techs or something. It's the hardest one to ballpark - there will be some huge initial resentment towards Manchin for the job losses, but over a long enough timeline if they did turn into better careers and Manchin could successfully claim ownership for that, he COULD recover. It's a gamble though.
B2 would be basically the industry still succeeding in spite of what is perceived as Manchin supporting Democratic efforts to kill it. That sounds like a recipe for spite to me, similar to the "deplorables" reaction, and I don't think it would be a good outcome for Manchin.

I mean, at the end of the day, people tend to identify with their jobs to a surprisingly strong degree, and losing a job because the industry is becoming less relevant is kind of an existential crisis. Meanwhile, people tend to be embarrassed to get "government handouts" and don't like to identify as the recipient of government largesse, however well-intentioned. When you get right down to it, the coal industry in West Virginia is just another flavor of "identity politics," and I think looking at it as purely transactional - "we took away this job, but look at this new and very different job we're going to give you training so you can do!" - really misses the fact that this is largely about how people see themselves and see their worth, and a lot of coal miners are fiercely _proud_ to be coal miners and do something dirty, dangerous, and difficult that "Washington elites" don't approve of.

I guess also worth keepiing in mind here is there probably are scenarios we can envision here that could lead Manchin to, if not switch parties and become a Republican, at least leave the Democratic party and become an independent, which would be disasterous for Biden's agenda since he would suddenly have a 49-50-1 _minority_ in the Senate. I don't think that's likely, but if there's enough pressure on Manchin to bow to the party line and bear the electoral consequences, well, it's a remote but definitely nonzero possibility.


----------



## bostjan

There are about 13000 people working for the coal industry in WV.

Compare that with 230k people working in the solar power industry nationwide, or 1.8M people in WV total.

I don't know if defending the coal industry is as relevant as anyone's making it out to be. It's more like a relic of the past at this point. China's coal industry is way more active than the USA's.

But, from an optics-only standpoint, you are 100% right. People are going to see this guy as the hero who stood up to the big evil government to protect the little meek coal industry and save people's jobs. To hell with climate change, because it's "not real," or the fact that most of the coal that was cheap to dig up was already dug up decades ago. ...or that none of this ultimately matters, because the coal industry is drying up and has been drying up with and without any government interference for ages.

But, then again, why am I bothering to try to convince anyone here? Preaching to the choir in a way, right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But, then again, why am I bothering to try to convince anyone here? Preaching to the choir in a way, right?


I mean, I'd nit-pick that once you start including secondary jobs that depend on primary coal jobs that number rises a fair amount, but you're absolutely right - if I were in Manchin's shoes I'd be voting for a green energy bill too, even if I'd probably be out a job in 2024.  But, I mean, I'm a Massachusetts liberal, not a West Virginia liberal, so he and I have very different worldviews. 

Sinema is the one I really don't understand, to be fair. Manchin was always going to be opposed to large, expensive, sweeping progressive bills, especially ones that hurt coal employment. But she was a progressive before she came to washington. I just read that six veterans on her advisory circle just quit because they think she's not paying enough attention to her constituents and instead is bowing to lobbyists and donors. WTF??


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> Sinema is the one I really don't understand, to be fair.



Welcome to the club. And my understanding is that the "club" is everyone who doesn't live between her ears.


----------



## /wrists

It's crazy that people think changing administration will have a direct affect of policy or impact on daily life. The whole system is rigged to make one believe that they have control or some say, when that's completely nonsense.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> It's crazy that people think changing administration will have a direct affect of policy or impact on daily life. The whole system is rigged to make one believe that they have control or some say, when that's completely nonsense.


Eh, passing laws is tough, for sure. But there are a LOT of ways that an administration change can impact people's lives and experiences. 

My brother works for an environmental nonprofit focused on landscape scale conservation efforts, and while Trump was, ahem, not great, if you were into that sort of thing, he had pretty low expectations for seeing much change in his day to day experience when the Biden Administration took over. To his shock, it was _night and day_ different. BLM staffers started reaching out, money that had previously been locked in baurocratic red tape started flowing, and within a couple of weeks the incoming administration was working with him to get a conference going this year to try to push their efforts a bit further. Conservation is kind of a layup example - I mean, just look at Woods and Waters and Bear's Ears - but where the administration chooses to direct their attention and place their priorities can have a HUGE impact on how a department can begin to interact with the nonprofit and public sector.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

evade said:


> It's crazy that people think changing administration will have a direct affect of policy or impact on daily life. The whole system is rigged to make one believe that they have control or some say, when that's completely nonsense.



Although no party is ever totally going to go all in to help the average person if the Democrats had been able to just do these two bills and like voting rights they already would have been making huge progress for the country even with the other broken promises. It's not quite as dire as it seems. And think about it. Imagine all the MAGA folks who are doing all in their power to stop policies that would help them... Like yeah politicians will never fix it all or be 100% altruistic but it does seem like they are trying and like close to half the country would rather "own the libs" than improve their life.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

evade said:


> It's crazy that people think changing administration will have a direct affect of policy or impact on daily life. The whole system is rigged to make one believe that they have control or some say, when that's completely nonsense.



I don't disagree, I'm also totally okay with voting for democrats based solely on their being on average slightly-less-evil noeliberals than their opposition. A friend refers to it as "pick your enemy's fighter," a position I can fully endorse.


----------



## bostjan

Trump is rumoured to be starting his own social media website. Any predictions?


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Trump is rumoured to be starting his own social media website. Any predictions?


Again?


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Trump is rumoured to be starting his own social media website. Any predictions?


I was just reading a tech article about it. They've already stated publicly that any form of criticism of Trump or the TRUTH platform that they're launching will result in criminal prosecution to the full extent of the law. And they're trying to trademark the terms "TRUTH" "POST TRUTH" and "RETRUTH."

My prediction is a cess pool of idiocy to make Facebook look like a pillar of virtue, with a nice and heavy dressing of trolling fools trying to trigger the snowflake brigade every chance they possibly can.

That is, if they can keep the stupid site running. They did a test run for a small smattering of users and had to take it back down almost immediately. So, hey, Trump's still got "the touch." Unlike Midas, everything he touches turns to shit.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Again?


The rumours are old, but the site has yet to launch.


nightflameauto said:


> I was just reading a tech article about it. They've already stated publicly that any form of criticism of Trump or the TRUTH platform that they're launching will result in criminal prosecution to the full extent of the law. And they're trying to trademark the terms "TRUTH" "POST TRUTH" and "RETRUTH."
> 
> My prediction is a cess pool of idiocy to make Facebook look like a pillar of virtue, with a nice and heavy dressing of trolling fools trying to trigger the snowflake brigade every chance they possibly can.
> 
> That is, if they can keep the stupid site running. They did a test run for a small smattering of users and had to take it back down almost immediately. So, hey, Trump's still got "the touch." Unlike Midas, everything he touches turns to shit.


Maybe facebook will become tolerable again?

How dafuq are they going to prosecute people for verbal criticism, when that's the extent of the substance they offer? 

Best case scenario, the thing ends up stabilizing and simply further divides Americans into Trump and anti-Trump camps, unwilling to partake in meaningful debate with each other. Worst case is Jan 6th on a nationwide scale.


----------



## Crungy

There have been fake accounts for Chevrolet and other brands on there that are not the actual businesses. I think most companies would be wise to stay away from that sinking ship of shit.

How do they not expect this new social media of "truth" to not turn into Parler again?


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> There have been fake accounts for Chevrolet and other brands on there that are not the actual businesses. I think most companies would be wise to stay away from that sinking ship of shit.
> 
> How do they not expect this new social media of "truth" to not turn into Parler again?


Well, you are talking about the same group of people who saw the 2020 election not go their way, so, they keep having these recounts, and, every time there's a recount, it comes back worse for them, and every time election fraud is uncovered, it was some scheme that benefitted them, yet they keep demanding recounts and investigations anyway. You're talking about a group of people who continuously revise the date that Trump will "take over" again and again, yet those dates come and go and Trump does nothing, and they just keep pushing the date back. You're talking about a group of people who drank fish tank cleaner when Trump, who has no medical expertise whatsoever, said something about HCQ curing covid. Some people actually died from poisoning, yet, when Trump tweets something about Ivermectin, and these same groups are out there taking industrial quantities of horse dewormer.

So, I don't think learning from mistakes is really on the agenda as much as continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting better results each time than ever before.


----------



## nightflameauto

Literally the only possible positive that could come from this TRUTH platform is that it pulls all the nuthuggers off of other social media altogether. Though I have this sinking feeling it won't work out so well when they accidentally disagree with Trump since he changes his story so often and get booted for it.


----------



## spudmunkey

It'll just be an echo chamber that most will tire of with no "snowflakes" to troll. And eventually, all user data will be leaked because nearly every hacker in the *world* will be targeting it, so it's simply a matter of time.

But what was leaked so far, is a website built on a stolen (not-licenced) platform, the website violates its host's TOS, it's so un-secure randos found it, and were able to make @DonaldTrump and @SteveBannon accounts before they caught on and used the DonaldTrump account to post an image of a pig defecating on its own enormous testicles, and their reasons for banning users includes making fun of them, and USING EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION. SAD!


----------



## TedEH

nightflameauto said:


> the only possible positive that could come from this TRUTH platform is that it pulls all the nuthuggers off of other social media altogether


This seems like a really bad outcome to me. Instead of having one or two big open shitshows for social platforms, you'd now have segregated echo-chamber-y hubs of polarized antagonistic groups each poised to go to war against eachother.

You want radicalization? That's how you get radicalization.


----------



## nightflameauto

TedEH said:


> This seems like a really bad outcome to me. Instead of having one or two big open shitshows for social platforms, you'd now have segregated echo-chamber-y hubs of polarized antagonistic groups each poised to go to war against eachother.
> 
> You want radicalization? That's how you get radicalization.


We've already got radicalization. I don't know that there's a turn-around from that.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> We've already got radicalization. I don't know that there's a turn-around from that.


People leading up to WWI: "The world has become too radicalized!"
People leading up to WWII: "Hold my beer hall putsch..."
(It can always get worse)


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> People leading up to WWI: "The world has become too radicalized!"
> People leading up to WWII: "Hold my beer hall putsch..."
> (It can always get worse)


I don't know why but I'm suddenly reminded of the quote you hear every once in a while that's loosely "I don't know what will trigger world war III, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and rocks."


----------



## wankerness

I think I'm going to make a serious attempt to move to Canada once my girlfriend is finished with school. Things are not going to improve in this country anytime soon - the last nails in the coffin were just provided by Manchin and Sinema. If we want to have a family it seems like it's not going to be financially feasible in the US anymore with the complete lack of any social net, paid leave, healthcare, etcetcetc to say nothing of the death spiral our healthcare system is in right now with doctors/nurses getting burnt out and quitting like crazy while portions of money going to "ADMINISTRATORS" keeps increasing. If we somehow inherit a few million bucks maybe we'll stick around, seems like the only way you can have kids today other than living in poverty. Childcare per year seems to cost more than most less than six figure salaries making both parents working pointless, and supporting a family on one salary is not feasible for most jobs.


----------



## thebeesknees22

wankerness said:


> I think I'm going to make a serious attempt to move to Canada once my girlfriend is finished with school. Things are not going to improve in this country anytime soon. If we want to have a family it seems like it's not going to be financially feasible in the US anymore with the complete lack of any social net, paid leave, healthcare, etcetcetc to say nothing of the death spiral our healthcare system is in right now with doctors/nurses getting burnt out and quitting like crazy while portions of money going to "ADMINISTRATORS" keeps increasing. If we somehow inherit a few million bucks maybe we'll stick around, seems like the only way you can have kids today other than living in poverty. Childcare per year seems to cost more than most less than six figure salaries making both parents working pointless, and supporting a family on one salary is not feasible for most jobs.



uhhhhh............ I hate to say it, but Canada is kinda suuuper expensive. The housing cost...oh man the housing costs are just unreal, and they're going up up up all the time....

...The cost of groceries...and well everything costs more. Higher taxes and the exchange rate, and import duties.. etc.. 

Sure the US has problems. Canada has it's own issues too. Plus it's not as easy to get into Canada as it may seem. You'll have to get a work permit. Either through a company or through NAFTA...er... what's it called now? USMCA?

Anywho to raise kids in a good chunk of Canada and to be able to retire I feel like you need a six figure job minimum. I don't know how else people do it here tbh... I have a good job and I'm living like I'm in college trying to save enough to catch up to the rising housing costs and I can never seem to get there... 

Oh and we have anti-vaccine trump people here too (yes literal trump supported are in Canada....it's weird...don't ask me how or why lol). 

BC just fired around 4000 nurses for refusing to get vaccinated and QC is going to have to fire about that many if they follow through with their mandate. The healthcare system here is stretched thin too. Same problems. Same issues with Covid. Same crazies. Just a smaller scale...

Anywho, research a lot before moving to another country. There's a lot to it. And it's a bit of a PAITA if you want things to be easy. If you ask me, unless you just want an adventure stay in the US and stay away from the crazies, and keep trying to push for people to be voted in that will push the country in the direction you want it to go in. 

Pretty much every country right now is facing the same issues with the rising cost of living. It's skyrocketing pretty much everywhere. (and the super rich are getting super richer-er everywhere while everyone else is seeing their living standards drop fast)


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> People leading up to WWI: "The world has become too radicalized!"
> People leading up to WWII: "Hold my beer hall putsch..."
> (It can always get worse)




...Crusades 2.0?


----------



## Xaios

wankerness said:


> I think I'm going to make a serious attempt to move to Canada once my girlfriend is finished with school. Things are not going to improve in this country anytime soon - the last nails in the coffin were just provided by Manchin and Sinema. If we want to have a family it seems like it's not going to be financially feasible in the US anymore with the complete lack of any social net, paid leave, healthcare, etcetcetc to say nothing of the death spiral our healthcare system is in right now with doctors/nurses getting burnt out and quitting like crazy while portions of money going to "ADMINISTRATORS" keeps increasing. If we somehow inherit a few million bucks maybe we'll stick around, seems like the only way you can have kids today other than living in poverty. Childcare per year seems to cost more than most less than six figure salaries making both parents working pointless, and supporting a family on one salary is not feasible for most jobs.





thebeesknees22 said:


> uhhhhh............ I hate to say it, but Canada is kinda suuuper expensive. The housing cost...oh man the housing costs are just unreal, and they're going up up up all the time....


This. The cost of living (especially housing) has increased dramatically the past few years. Now, the advantage is that social systems are still better funded than they are in the US. If you moved to Canada, you could basically expect that you wouldn't have as much disposable income as living in the US, but that you also wouldn't be bankrupted by the cost of healthcare should that ever be an issue.

Unfortunately the rash of anti-intellectualism in the US has bled north as well. Pro-Trump and anti-mask demonstrations have become more and more common, which is just... mind-blowing (except for Alberta, no surprise there). Plus, we've also really had our own sort of "unmasking" over the past couple years where we've come to realize that racism in Canada is still a way bigger problem than we thought or were willing to admit.


Adieu said:


> ...Crusades 2.0?


I mean, that's basically the War on Terror.


----------



## thebeesknees22

@Xaios - yep, well said.


----------



## wankerness

Xaios said:


> This. The cost of living (especially housing) has increased dramatically the past few years. Now, the advantage is that social systems are still better funded than they are in the US. If you moved to Canada, you could basically expect that you wouldn't have as much disposable income as living in the US, but that you also wouldn't be bankrupted by the cost of healthcare should that ever be an issue.
> 
> Unfortunately the rash of anti-intellectualism in the US has bled north as well. Pro-Trump and anti-mask demonstrations have become more and more common, which is just... mind-blowing (except for Alberta, no surprise there). Plus, we've also really had our own sort of "unmasking" over the past couple years where we've come to realize that racism in Canada is still a way bigger problem than we thought or were willing to admit.
> 
> I mean, that's basically the War on Terror.



Yeah, I get that the cost of living is higher up there. And I definitely am familiar with how hard immigration likely would be thanks to their pretty restrictive policies on giving out work permits. But, it's to the point where you can't buy a house in the US, either. Even in bumfuck WI where I live the housing market has practically doubled in cost over the last few years, putting home ownership out of range of much of the middle class, and the economic forecast is not looking like this is a temporary spike, especially considering the government refuses to do anything to help and now mega-corporations are buying up houses to rent them out. I'd rather rent in Canada and have actual social nets that would allow you to have a kid than live in the US where it's impossible unless you either have a ton of relatives to help out (how most manage around here, but not an option for us since we both have small families) or are loaded, or both of you have a job with amazing benefits that's not at risk of getting them slashed randomly as the cost of healthcare continues to spiral. 

Everything's so damn insecure here. It's mentally exhausting. And the slow-motion slide back into indefinite Trumpism is ultra-depressing. Like, we have these two shitbirds in the senate that are going to completely ensure nothing good ever is passed by the democrats, which is going to make Biden's approval rating continue to go even lower, which is going to completely guarantee a blow-out victory by the Republicans in 2022. History suggests that would happen regardless cause there's almost always a shift in control of the senate and congress in midterms cause voters are dipshits who only vote when they're mad about something and the republicans always stay mad, but things are especially dire right now with all the voting suppression, partisan supreme court decisions and gerrymandering going on right now that ensure any Republican takeover is going to last until there's some kind of cataclysmic event in this country. It's scary as hell and I really don't feel having kids is a responsible decision if you live in the US with the current outlook. 

I certainly don't expect Canadians to be substantially smarter or less conservative on average - what I do expect is that their social nets are appreciated by both parties enough that there's no chance of them being removed, and the safeguards on their government are a lot stronger than ours have proven to be in terms of general sanity levels and it working in favor of the people. I'm sure it would be like that in the US if they ever actually got implemented, but unless there's an actual revolution that will never happen with how corrupt our government is.

This is partly motivated by a libertarian dick i know who recently moved to Canada specifically because he couldn't even fathom affording a kid in the US (he was some kind of engineering office worker so it was probably easier for him than it would be for me as an IT grunt). If even the libertarians even think the US is completely rigged against them, you know things are awful.


----------



## mbardu

Xaios said:


> This. The cost of living (especially housing) has increased dramatically the past few years. Now, the advantage is that social systems are still better funded than they are in the US. If you moved to Canada, you could basically expect that you wouldn't have as much disposable income as living in the US, but that you also wouldn't be bankrupted by the cost of healthcare should that ever be an issue.
> 
> Unfortunately the rash of anti-intellectualism in the US has bled north as well. Pro-Trump and anti-mask demonstrations have become more and more common, which is just... mind-blowing (except for Alberta, no surprise there). Plus, we've also really had our own sort of "unmasking" over the past couple years where we've come to realize that racism in Canada is still a way bigger problem than we thought or were willing to admit.
> 
> I mean, that's basically the War on Terror.



What we traditionally see as the "Western" world is looking bleak.

We don't even have to talk about the US.
Canada going the route of the southern neighbor > yep.
Same for the UK, will only be accelerated by Brexit.
Same tendencies getting more and more prevalent in the rest of the commonwealth as well, every time the right is in power.
Western Europe, same. France culling its social safety nets a little more each year after being a global example - and others taking a cue from it.
Only the European nordics and maybe NZ seem to be a little bit on the safe side for now...but how long?
Everywhere the same conservative-capitalist-driven-billionaire-feeding drive has become the same and it's just going at different pace towards the same inevitable goal.
Despite the obvious lag effects for those metrics, we can _already _see quality of life and life expectancy effects of the direction we're going in and it's not going to get better as the Earth keeps being set more and more on fire.

But don't worry, not all hope is lost.
I know a surefire way to easily be able to live a good middle-class lifestyle and have a few happy kids on one salary with your retirement at 60.
Just figure out a way to be born a boomer, and you'll be all set!


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> If even the libertarians even think the US is completely rigged against them, you know things are awful.


That used to be the defining trait.

Have you ever checked house prices in Canada? I mean, I thought it was a joke the first time I looked for a house in Ontario, and it was like literally a million dollars for a nondescript two bedroom bungalow. The same house where I grew up would cost something like $40-50k.

On the other hand, you could get a decent house in, z.B., Hungary for $75k and then your cost of living is only like 20-30% of what it is in the USA, but then there are no job opportunities, really. If you could work from home and live abroad and stick with IT, making US salary and paying Eastern Europe cost of living, you could be able to save up to eventually move to Canada in 10 years or so.


----------



## Xaios

mbardu said:


> Just figure out a way to be born a boomer, and you'll be all set!


This is the real reason behind The Matrix. "The Earth is a scorched hellscape destroyed by the hubris of previous generations, so just stick me in a pod and feed me the mental stimulus of how life once was while using me as a battery, because at this point it's the best I can hope for."

Hey, I just got an idea for a great new VR game...


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Hey, I just got an idea for a great new VR game...


...and that's how it all started


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> ...and that's how it all started


----------



## thebeesknees22

Xaios said:


>




Plug me in. I can have hair again. lol


----------



## bostjan

Haha, just saw almost the same discussion going on in the meta/facebook thread. Maybe the actual matrix would be the solution to covid, too, so maybe we should crosspost there, too, to try to break up the huge argument going on.


----------



## mbardu

Xaios said:


> Hey, I just got an idea for a great new VR game...








Simpsons....errrhm I mean _R&M_ did it.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Trump is rumoured to be starting his own social media website. Any predictions?


Just like his own news platform, which never got off the ground, or his blog to speak directly to his supporters after getting de-platformed, wich he lost interest in after 11 posts and shut down, or his re-election campaign, which he hasn't yet bothered to file for? 

Frankly, I don't think he has the attention span.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Xaios said:


> This is the real reason behind The Matrix. "The Earth is a scorched hellscape destroyed by the hubris of previous generations, so just stick me in a pod and feed me the mental stimulus of how life once was while using me as a battery, because at this point it's the best I can hope for."
> 
> Hey, I just got an idea for a great new VR game...


I thought that's what the metaverse is?


----------



## Mathemagician

Curious of thoughts on the $20+ minimum wages and companies being incentivized into paying more across the board, as 2020-2021 proves that the prices of things continue to rise whether raises are happening or not.


----------



## Adieu

Welcome to the inflation death spiral.

My thought is: America needs to control rents/house prices and insurance/medical costs ASAP (and by control I mean achieve a 3x drop within a year). $15 minimum wages SEEM perfectly good for actually buying crap... but the problem is poorer people DON'T actually spend money on things, unless it is the second or even third breadwinner's paycheck in a household.

Bills leave poor people with little to no purchasing power left on their paychecks.

The problem of course is that the "haves" are invested in the idea of their real estate as a recession- and even inflation-proof forever asset that will never devalue.

One solution could be a heavy-handed federal ban on local building height limits and other red tape NIMBY bs for residential construction.

Maybe a federal project for high rise affordable housing with 200-400 sq ft. mini-units targeted at singles, young working couples, and poor retirees could also work. "Dorm"-sized affordable housing might also not scare the crap out of McMansion owners so much, since per-foot price isn't nearly as important as cost of entry to get ANYTHING.

Perhaps also a "buy from government, sell only back to government" model could also work for affordable housing with price controls. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were an option.


----------



## USMarine75

The first real test is this Tuesday. VA Governors race. Reporting shows Youngkin (R) is up 8%. 

He’s a Trumpian and during a rally they had a flag from the Jan 6 Coup/Insurrection they brought up on stage to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to. 

Unfortunately he’s up against the flawed former Governor. 

The GOP really figured out how to take control of the country even though they are a minority party with unpopular ideas - state governments, lifetime or 15-year federal judge appointments, etc. 



Xaios said:


>



Ergo…


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> Welcome to the inflation death spiral.
> 
> My thought is: America needs to control rents/house prices and insurance/medical costs ASAP (and by control I mean achieve a 3x drop within a year). $15 minimum wages SEEM perfectly good for actually buying crap... but the problem is poorer people DON'T actually spend money on things, unless it is the second or even third breadwinner's paycheck in a household.
> 
> Bills leave poor people with little to no purchasing power left on their paychecks.
> 
> The problem of course is that the "haves" are invested in the idea of their real estate as a recession- and even inflation-proof forever asset that will never devalue.
> 
> One solution could be a heavy-handed federal ban on local building height limits and other red tape NIMBY bs for residential construction.
> 
> Maybe a federal project for high rise affordable housing with 200-400 sq ft. mini-units targeted at singles, young working couples, and poor retirees could also work. "Dorm"-sized affordable housing might also not scare the crap out of McMansion owners so much, since per-foot price isn't nearly as important as cost of entry to get ANYTHING.
> 
> Perhaps also a "buy from government, sell only back to government" model could also work for affordable housing with price controls. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were an option.


If people would just move out of cities they'd fare much better.

You can walk into any number of jobs where I live and start at $20+ an hour. You can also buy a modest home on an acre of land for under $100k.

Unplug from the matrix and go back to the real world.

Your plan sounds like a dystopian future novel.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> If people would just move out of cities they'd fare much better.
> 
> You can walk into any number of jobs where I live and start at $20+ an hour. You can also buy a modest home on an acre of land for under $100k.
> 
> Unplug from the matrix and go back to the real world.
> 
> Your plan sounds like a dystopian future novel.



Under 100k? Where? Oklahoma?

And what's so dystopian about wanting the OPTION to get a room-sized mini-apartment in a high rise? Plenty of other countries dealt with uncontrollable home prices that way, both in the past and today.

There's even places where they make PROFITS off building crappy high rise $15k starter homes. Today. There was a Russian YouTuber who made an "expose" about the crappiness of such housing and half the comments were like "you're an idiot, please build one in my city, I'll buy it tomorrow".


----------



## thebeesknees22

Adieu said:


> Under 100k? Where? Oklahoma?
> 
> And what's so dystopian about wanting the OPTION to get a room-sized mini-apartment in a high rise? ....



It's dystopian because we can't crank our amps and scream our heads off in an apartment in a high rise lol


----------



## Adieu

thebeesknees22 said:


> It's dystopian because we can't crank our amps and scream our heads off in an apartment in a high rise lol



Are you willing to work an extra 15 years of your prime to have a home you can be loud in?


----------



## thebeesknees22

Adieu said:


> Are you willing to work an extra 15 years of your prime to have a home you can be loud in?



ha yeah. But I'm kinda crazy like that


----------



## IwantTacos

thebeesknees22 said:


> It's dystopian because we can't crank our amps and scream our heads off in an apartment in a high rise lol



eh. this is a thing that is completely possible


----------



## StevenC

thebeesknees22 said:


> It's dystopian because we can't crank our amps and scream our heads off in an apartment in a high rise lol


But for less than half a month's rent you can buy a Fryette attenuator to crank your amp without disturbing the neighbours!


----------



## thebeesknees22

StevenC said:


> But for less than half a month's rent you can buy a Fryette attenuator to crank your amp without disturbing the neighbours!




haha but i need to feel it pushing that air! Otherwise I'd just go digital. 

(i actually do go the attenuator route in my apartment. I have an old rivera rock crusher) It's fine. Me singing belting it out like chris cornell in my apartment though.....ehrrrmmm..... Not so fine haha


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> Under 100k? Where? Oklahoma?
> 
> And what's so dystopian about wanting the OPTION to get a room-sized mini-apartment in a high rise? Plenty of other countries dealt with uncontrollable home prices that way, both in the past and today.
> 
> There's even places where they make PROFITS off building crappy high rise $15k starter homes. Today. There was a Russian YouTuber who made an "expose" about the crappiness of such housing and half the comments were like "you're an idiot, please build one in my city, I'll buy it tomorrow".


What's wrong with Oklahoma?

I'm pretty sure a few acres away from a city would have you hooked. Imagine being able to have what amounts to a small music festival anytime you want, right in your backyard.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> What's wrong with Oklahoma?
> 
> I'm pretty sure a few acres away from a city would have you hooked. Imagine being able to have what amounts to a small music festival anytime you want, right in your backyard.



Idk, the Okies?

I imagine the place is chock-full of gun-toting racists... prolly got tornadoes, too


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> Idk, the Okies?
> 
> I imagine the place is chock-full of gun-toting racists... prolly got tornadoes, too


How much crime in America is committed by rural racists with guns vs inner city gun violence.


----------



## StevenC

donniekak said:


> What's wrong with Oklahoma?
> 
> I'm pretty sure a few acres away from a city would have you hooked. Imagine being able to have what amounts to a small music festival anytime you want, right in your backyard.


I've been to Oklahoma and it sucks.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> How much crime in America is committed by rural racists with guns vs inner city gun violence.



Nobody knows.

They got space to bury bodies out of sight.


----------



## donniekak

StevenC said:


> I've been to Oklahoma and it sucks.


I've lived in top metro areas of the USA, and rural areas. 
The act of cashing out and moving to a rural area allowed me to basically retire at 40.

It takes less money to fund everything I do, including travel to "better" places per year than my rent was in any city.


Not to mention I have a shop on my property with all the tools from my old business that I don't even have to lock. I leave the keys in my car. For me it's refreshing to not have to deal with the hive and the problems it creates.

I won't lie though, the convenience of the city was amazing. But for me it got to be not worth all the other growing problems of city life.


----------



## TedEH

Adieu said:


> Are you willing to work an extra 15 years of your prime to have a home you can be loud in?


Why else is anyone working if not to afford the means to live out the things they'd like to do? I'd absolutely work more and spend more for a home I could play loud music in. That's actually a huge factor in why I stay in the apartment I do have -> I can get away with more noise here than in a lot of places.


----------



## Adieu

TedEH said:


> Why else is anyone working if not to afford the means to live out the things they'd like to do? I'd absolutely work more and spend more for a home I could play loud music in. That's actually a huge factor in why I stay in the apartment I do have -> I can get away with more noise here than in a lot of places.



Lack of other obvious choices?

But if you're putting half a mil more into housing than you have to, that's one to three extra decades of working to pay off debt for most decently-paid people.


----------



## TedEH

The question wasn't "do you have the choice", it was "would you be willing to put in extra work for this", to which my answer is unironically yes.


----------



## Adieu

I wouldn't


----------



## TedEH

Fantastic. Glad we worked that one out.


----------



## TheBlackBard

I'm sorry to tell you this, but if you think that all Oklahoma has are gun-toting racists, you're a bit ignorant. There ARE some people like that, but it's not nearly as bad as you think it is. Most of the people by themselves in the South (I live in Arkansas) are nothing like you described. As a matter of fact, many of them are quite pleasant and hospitable, many of them who'd pull you out of a ditch in the winter after you slid off the road, or give you the shirt of their back if you needed it. Yes, many do have guns, not nearly as many racists as you'd think and most that are don't shout those views out in daylight if they're not on the Internet, so you'd likely never know. As far as guns go, I mean... they worship the safety aspect of firearms more than they fear going to Hell, and you can tell that in their mannerisms.


----------



## Adieu

Ahh

The Yemen of the Americas


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> Ahh
> 
> The Yemen of the Americas


That would be Chicago.


----------



## thebeesknees22

donniekak said:


> That would be Chicago.



St Louis no? 

My original home state of Missourah has 2 cities in the top 10 again for murders whooop! Winning again!

Strangely enough KC, MO didn't make the top 20 in overall violent crime, but Springfield, MO is #11 so far for 2021. (depending on which website you look at)

I think it's safe to say Missourah is easily the most dangerous state. ....but what can you expect from a state that was once known as the Outlaw state eh?

I joke, but it's kinda true.


----------



## StevenC

I'd live in Chicago 100 times out of 100 over Oklahoma. The best thing about Oklahoma is from Canada.


----------



## donniekak

thebeesknees22 said:


> St Louis no?
> 
> My original home state of Missourah has 2 cities in the top 10 again for murders whooop! Winning again!
> 
> Strangely enough KC, MO didn't make the top 20 in overall violent crime, but Springfield, MO is #11 so far for 2021. (depending on which website you look at)
> 
> I think it's safe to say Missourah is easily the most dangerous state. ....but what can you expect from a state that was once known as the Outlaw state eh?
> 
> I joke, but it's kinda true.


It's not a north south thing. All of our major cities have much higher crime than rural areas. 

For all the lawlessness in places like San Fran there are almost crime free rural areas in the same state.


----------



## Adieu

Prolly because beating on yer womens and raping yer daughters is more of a G-d-given-right kind of thing in those parts?


----------



## fantom

Not to be mean, but you come off sounding like you have no real world experience living in different places or having a career (not a job, a career).



Adieu said:


> Welcome to the inflation death spiral.
> 
> My thought is: America needs to control rents/house prices and insurance/medical costs ASAP (and by control I mean achieve a 3x drop within a year). $15 minimum wages SEEM perfectly good for actually buying crap... but the problem is poorer people DON'T actually spend money on things, unless it is the second or even third breadwinner's paycheck in a household.
> 
> Bills leave poor people with little to no purchasing power left on their paychecks.
> 
> The problem of course is that the "haves" are invested in the idea of their real estate as a recession- and even inflation-proof forever asset that will never devalue.



The shipping backlogs and American consumerism increasing the last year kind of show Americans are buying dumb crap all the time and not just spending money on bills. Just look at iphone, PS5, guitar, etc. sales.

I agree that investors trying to profit on housing during a Nationwide housing shortage is messed up, but this isn't a recent thing. It's been going on for decades.



Adieu said:


> One solution could be a heavy-handed federal ban on local building height limits and other red tape NIMBY bs for residential construction.
> 
> Maybe a federal project for high rise affordable housing with 200-400 sq ft. mini-units targeted at singles, young working couples, and poor retirees could also work. "Dorm"-sized affordable housing might also not scare the crap out of McMansion owners so much, since per-foot price isn't nearly as important as cost of entry to get ANYTHING.
> 
> Perhaps also a "buy from government, sell only back to government" model could also work for affordable housing with price controls. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were an option.



Just no to all of this. The last time the federal government decided they knew how to deal with housing issues, we had one of the larger recessions in the last 50 years. The result, we stopped building more housing at appropriate rates, which led directly to the lack of housing you see right now.

Furthermore, the federal government has no authority (and shouldn't) to control building codes, zoning, or other smaller government decisions. Even if you personally don't agree, the constitution is pretty clear about granting rights to the states that weren't explicit. Housing is not a federal issue. We need people to give a shit about their local government making good decisions. That includes building enough housing for their population.

As far as NIMBYs, you are effectively claiming the cost of entry is too high for you so you want someone who already owns property to sacrifice their nest egg to subsidize your ability to buy a house? How is that fair? Ya I agree the valuation heavily favors people who bought decades ago, but how does this effect the people that dumped their life saving into buying an overvalued house in the last 5-10 years? You want to put all of them into underwater property?

I hate the NIMBY attitude and many policies that passed, but I would never ask anyone to devalue their own property to subsidize others. I would ask them to cash out and make more supply available, but they need somewhere to go?!



Adieu said:


> Are you willing to work an extra 15 years of your prime to have a home you can be loud in?



An extra 15 years? If you only aspire to work part time or minimum wage, maybe?

I'd say housing is pretty attainable with 2 adults if they live in a region that matches their income level. Ya, you won't buy a place in SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston, or DC, but you can definitely afford a place with 80k/year income ($20/hr for 2 fulltime adults).



Adieu said:


> Idk, the Okies?
> 
> I imagine the place is chock-full of gun-toting racists... prolly got tornadoes, too



wow biased much? I've lived in a few different places, and I can say I see more crime and violence in major democratic cities than rural Republican areas. And you telling me that other cities don't have natural disasters?





Adieu said:


> Under 100k? Where? Oklahoma
> 
> And what's so dystopian about wanting the OPTION to get a room-sized mini-apartment in a high rise? Plenty of other countries dealt with uncontrollable home prices that way, both in the past and today



You can buy livable property (bigger than 200-400 sqft) just outside Orlando. Hell, you can probably buy a 3000 sqft house for $200k. You can also buy livable property in central valley, CA or near Atlanta. I'm not an expert by any means, but it sounds to me like you have some unrealistic expectations about where someone should live vs where someone can afford to live.

As far as 200-400 sqft microhouses, want the option? You literally just said plenty of other countries do this. You *have* an option to move to one of the places. Just because you won't consider doesn't mean it isn't there. You might need to deal with immigration, but it is there. You also have the option to save up and buy land for some microhouses. You have no right to live in an overcrowded city. Cost is literally the controlling mechanism for that.


IMO, it sounds like you think you have some right to live anywhere you want the way you want to without having to pay for your requirements. That just isn't reality.


----------



## thebeesknees22

donniekak said:


> It's not a north south thing. All of our major cities have much higher crime than rural areas.
> 
> For all the lawlessness in places like San Fran there are almost crime free rural areas in the same state.



true true. Missouri does have quite a lot of crime though in the rural areas. aka the Ozarks. (that's where I'm from) 
There are a surprisingly decent number of people that I grew up with in my small town of 600 people that have served time. Theft, drugs, ....murder. yeah.... you name it. (some are kinda horrific but I'm not posting it here)

There are good people there too of course as there are anywhere.

It didn't get really bad in MO until meth became a huge problem.... and meth is bad bad...bad bad in the rural areas of southern MO.


----------



## donniekak

thebeesknees22 said:


> true true. Missouri does have quite a lot of crime though in the rural areas. aka the Ozarks. (that's where I'm from)
> There are a surprisingly decent number of people that I grew up with in my small town of 600 people that have served time. Theft, drugs, ....murder. yeah.... you name it. (some are kinda horrific but I'm not posting it here)
> 
> There are good people there too of course as there are anywhere.
> 
> It didn't get really bad in MO until meth became a huge problem.... and meth is bad bad...bad bad in the rural areas of southern MO.


Same here. The huge oil and gas boom in my area brought an army of tweakers willing to work 30 16 hour shifts a month.

It's not much of a problem in rural areas, but the small towns in my area have seen a Jump in tweaker related crime.


It's a very true thing that criminals shy away from houses in the middle of nowhere to victimize. They may not survive the ordeal.


----------



## thebeesknees22

donniekak said:


> Same here. The huge oil and gas boom in my area brought an army of tweakers willing to work 30 16 hour shifts a month.
> 
> It's not much of a problem in rural areas, but the small towns in my area have seen a Jump in tweaker related crime.
> 
> 
> It's a very true thing that criminals shy away from houses in the middle of nowhere to victimize. They may not survive the ordeal.




ooof that sucks.... I don't wish that kind of problem on anyone. It's like a cancer you can't get rid of.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Adieu said:


> Prolly because beating on yer womens and raping yer daughters is more of a G-d-given-right kind of thing in those parts?




Except for the fact that even accusations of either is quite often enough to have police hauling off a man for doing that. Your lack of experience of living in a rural area and instead going off of stereotypes is showing. You could find cases where the law is ignored, but they're not exclusive to rural areas. If you honestly think that shit doesn't happen in cities too, I don't know what to tell you. You live in Moscow. Is the stereotype that Russians are nothing more than vodka swilling drunkards that rely on toxic masculinity to compensate for their penis sizes true? How many Russians are Muslim fundamentalists? I'm asking because we know how many people of that faith really feel about women's rights and they're not so different from Christian fundamentalists.


----------



## donniekak

thebeesknees22 said:


> ooof that sucks.... I don't wish that kind of problem on anyone. It's like a cancer you can't get rid of.


Yeah, the opiate crisis was slow moving zombies, meth produces 28 days later types.

And because the pharma/med industry found a way to get rich off of broke addicts, they don't have much hope for things to get better.


----------



## Adieu

Yes

I *DO* happen to prefer a world where your nest-egg burns and I benefit from it.

Instead of the other way around. Which is what inflation for the property-less is.




fantom said:


> Not to be mean, but you come off sounding like you have no real world experience living in different places or having a career (not a job, a career).
> 
> 
> 
> The shipping backlogs and American consumerism increasing the last year kind of show Americans are buying dumb crap all the time and not just spending money on bills. Just look at iphone, PS5, guitar, etc. sales.
> 
> I agree that investors trying to profit on housing during a Nationwide housing shortage is messed up, but this isn't a recent thing. It's been going on for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Just no to all of this. The last time the federal government decided they knew how to deal with housing issues, we had one of the larger recessions in the last 50 years. The result, we stopped building more housing at appropriate rates, which led directly to the lack of housing you see right now.
> 
> Furthermore, the federal government has no authority (and shouldn't) to control building codes, zoning, or other smaller government decisions. Even if you personally don't agree, the constitution is pretty clear about granting rights to the states that weren't explicit. Housing is not a federal issue. We need people to give a shit about their local government making good decisions. That includes building enough housing for their population.
> 
> As far as NIMBYs, you are effectively claiming the cost of entry is too high for you so you want someone who already owns property to sacrifice their nest egg to subsidize your ability to buy a house? How is that fair? Ya I agree the valuation heavily favors people who bought decades ago, but how does this effect the people that dumped their life saving into buying an overvalued house in the last 5-10 years? You want to put all of them into underwater property?
> 
> I hate the NIMBY attitude and many policies that passed, but I would never ask anyone to devalue their own property to subsidize others. I would ask them to cash out and make more supply available, but they need somewhere to go?!
> 
> 
> 
> An extra 15 years? If you only aspire to work part time or minimum wage, maybe?
> 
> I'd say housing is pretty attainable with 2 adults if they live in a region that matches their income level. Ya, you won't buy a place in SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston, or DC, but you can definitely afford a place with 80k/year income ($20/hr for 2 fulltime adults).
> 
> 
> 
> wow biased much? I've lived in a few different places, and I can say I see more crime and violence in major democratic cities than rural Republican areas. And you telling me that other cities don't have natural disasters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can buy livable property (bigger than 200-400 sqft) just outside Orlando. Hell, you can probably buy a 3000 sqft house for $200k. You can also buy livable property in central valley, CA or near Atlanta. I'm not an expert by any means, but it sounds to me like you have some unrealistic expectations about where someone should live vs where someone can afford to live.
> 
> As far as 200-400 sqft microhouses, want the option? You literally just said plenty of other countries do this. You *have* an option to move to one of the places. Just because you won't consider doesn't mean it isn't there. You might need to deal with immigration, but it is there. You also have the option to save up and buy land for some microhouses. You have no right to live in an overcrowded city. Cost is literally the controlling mechanism for that.
> 
> 
> IMO, it sounds like you think you have some right to live anywhere you want the way you want to without having to pay for your requirements. That just isn't reality.


----------



## Adieu

TheBlackBard said:


> Except for the fact that even accusations of either is quite often enough to have police hauling off a man for doing that. Your lack of experience of living in a rural area and instead going off of stereotypes is showing. You could find cases where the law is ignored, but they're not exclusive to rural areas. If you honestly think that shit doesn't happen in cities too, I don't know what to tell you. You live in Moscow. Is the stereotype that Russians are nothing more than vodka swilling drunkards that rely on toxic masculinity to compensate for their penis sizes true? How many Russians are Muslim fundamentalists? I'm asking because we know how many people of that faith really feel about women's rights and they're not so different from Christian fundamentalists.



No, I'm *from* Moscow.

Also, exactly "zero" Russians are Muslim fundamentalists. Because we actually have two quite distinct words, one for the ethnic group and the other for the country, and as the bigots who control the both of them will tell you, "those" aren't "our people" (in the ethnic case they would be mostly right, in the national just being their bigoted usual selves).

Now Christian fundamentalism, *insert local equivalent of "yeehaw"* G-d bless the Czar!

If only they could afford pickups and had somebody design kit as iconic as the MAGA hat and Qanon merch, you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from the Murican strain.

They even managed to decriminalize domestic violence. It's a 70 dollar fine now. Yee-haw...


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> Yes
> 
> I *DO* happen to prefer a world where your nest-egg burns and I benefit from it.
> 
> Instead of the other way around. Which is what inflation for the property-less is.



My nest egg? I was broke and living paycheck to paycheck until I was at least 30 years old (which is less than 10 years ago). I found opportunities and bettered myself. My family couldn't afford to help me. And I definitely didn't blame people who owned houses for me being broke.


----------



## Adieu

The problem is that the value of a middlingly expensive US house has almost NOTHING to do with its materials, land, or even curb appeal (that usually sums up to 100-200 grand in total at most, and often far far less).

The main component of the price is the red tape keeping people from building sh!t in that area.

People don't own expensive houses, they own expensive "Authorizations to Reside in the Neighborhood" (with a cheapo popsicle stick and drywall building thrown in)


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> The problem is that the value of a middlingly expensive US house has almost NOTHING to do with its materials, land, or even curb appeal (that usually sums up to 100-200 grand in total at most, and often far far less).
> 
> The main component of the price is the red tape keeping people from building sh!t in that area.
> 
> People don't own expensive houses, they own expensive "Authorizations to Reside in the Neighborhood" (with a cheapo popsicle stick and drywall building thrown in)


That's exactly why I didn't buy when I lived in phoenix. The $500,000 homes were made out of popsicle sticks, chicken wire, and spitballs.

The sub 200k I spent where I live currently bought a rural lot with a medium sized updated home in a good school district. 

I'm currently eying an 80 arcre plot for even less cash.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> No, I'm *from* Moscow.
> 
> Also, exactly "zero" Russians are Muslim fundamentalists. Because we actually have two quite distinct words, one for the ethnic group and the other for the country, and as the bigots who control the both of them will tell you, "those" aren't "our people" (in the ethnic case they would be mostly right, in the national just being their bigoted usual selves).
> 
> Now Christian fundamentalism, *insert local equivalent of "yeehaw"* G-d bless the Czar!
> 
> If only they could afford pickups and had somebody design kit as iconic as the MAGA hat and Qanon merch, you wouldn't be able to distinguish them from the Murican strain.
> 
> They even managed to decriminalize domestic violence. It's a 70 dollar fine now. Yee-haw...



Ethnic Russians versus political Russians is a pretty crazy topic. When I was there, it seemed like a pretty widespread belief that Chechens were not Russians, yet God forbid the same people Russians have no interest in claiming be politically independent.

Russia and America, for all of the starkly contrasting differences, have shockingly a lot in common. The bydlo or whatever you call them are pretty similar to the rednecks we have in the USA, always kludging together engineering solutions out of garbage, seemingly fearless when it comes to personal safety, sometime loud and obnoxious, although other times keeping to themselves... there are plenty of people who embrace the national stereotype with complete abandon to aesthetics of any other sort. Crime is bad, police are corrupt, the nation is huge and the government is very powerful, and a lot of people pine for the days of the cold war as if it was a great time, even though both Russians and Americans were actually scared at the time of being obliterated by each other. Just like your average American speaks only English, your average Russian speaks only Russian.

As for domestic violence in Russia, the 30,000 rub. fine is only if someone is convicted. The police basically won't even bother, though, so I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that most domestic abuse goes totally unpunished by law. Even if the case goes to court, "the victim was mouthing off" seems to be legally precedented as a valid defense.


----------



## USMarine75

Tomorrow is the day in VA. Youngkin appears up 8 points. Dem voters appear both disillusioned (buyer’s remorse) with the results of 2020 combined with a lack of overall enthusiasm which might affect voter turnout.

The Youngkin et al ads are overwhelmingly more convincing to those seeking affirmation of what they already want to believe. They’ve been targeting those disaffected Dems. Lots of “I’m a lifelong Dem who voted for Biden, but not so fast my friend” testimonials.

I predict the GOP sweeps every ballot.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Tomorrow is the day in VA. Youngkin appears up 8 points. Dem voters appear both disillusioned (buyer’s remorse) with the results of 2020 combined with a lack of overall enthusiasm which might affect voter turnout.
> 
> The Youngkin et al ads are overwhelmingly more convincing to those seeking affirmation of what they already want to believe. They’ve been targeting those disaffected Dems. Lots of “I’m a lifelong Dem who voted for Biden, but not so fast my friend” testimonials.
> 
> I predict the GOP sweeps every ballot.


There does appear to be some late GOP movement as we've approached election day, but Youngkin up 8 points is an outlier poll. 538 polling average is Youngkin up about a point, not a great baseline for the Democrats, but nowhere near a GOP landslide. and there's some considerable dispersion within the polling. That +8 was a Fox poll, based on likely voters, but they also released their registered voter weighted poll and had him +1, which means they're modeling a hefty turnout advantage. the last several polls have ranged from McAuliffe +4 to Youngkin +2 so there's some variability here.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> There does appear to be some late GOP movement as we've approached election day, but Youngkin up 8 points is an outlier poll. 538 polling average is Youngkin up about a point, not a great baseline for the Democrats, but nowhere near a GOP landslide. and there's some considerable dispersion within the polling. That +8 was a Fox poll, based on likely voters, but they also released their registered voter weighted poll and had him +1, which means they're modeling a hefty turnout advantage. the last several polls have ranged from McAuliffe +4 to Youngkin +2 so there's some variability here.



Ah good. I’m literally surrounded by Trumpists in this part of VA. Black flags everywhere. And they’re not Henry Rollins fans.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Ah good. I’m literally surrounded by Trumpists in this part of VA. Black flags everywhere. And they’re not Henry Rollins fans.


They must be bigger fans of sonic youth then....


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> And they’re not Henry Rollins fans.


More's the pity. 

It IS shaping up to be a nailbiter though.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Perhaps also a "buy from government, sell only back to government" model could also work for affordable housing with price controls. I'd buy one tomorrow if it were an option.


I'm going to ignore most of your post because, well, I don't have the time to get into it, save for this - housing supply is absolutely a driver of price, but not in the way you think of it as - the city I live in, for example, is I believe the most densely populated city in New England, so it's not like we don't have enough houses because existing homeowners are blocking the development of land that's sitting idle that could otherwise be more homes. There are things that could be done to _help_ with supply, and increasing the proportion of multifamily units over single-family and 2-4 family housing would definitely help and is something I would support (and, honestly, is already happening), but it's not going to cause prices to fall to a third of what they are today. Nor, IMO, would that be a good outcome, even if it were possible, since you would bankrupt people like me who would suddenly find themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars underwater on a home, and you would trade one group of people struggling to make ends meet for another. That's a zero sum game. 

The bit I quoted, though - I'm aware of a few such programs, with the City of Cambridge being a great example, that function along that premise. They have a very generous affordable home loan program for low-income first time home buyers, and any homes bought via this program will have to be sold as essentially price-controlled; buyers are allowed to essentially earn the rate of inflation for every year they own the home, and with prior approval can recoup the amount of certain improvement expenses made during the time they own it, but when they sell it has to be to someone borrowing from the same program. The extent I know about this program is that it exists, and I can't really say how it's functioned in the market, but if it's something you're curious about I'm SURE they have plenty of information they've made available. 

But this is a rare example of an affordability program where I actually see some potential for it to work. For the most part all I ever see is talk about rental price controls (every single candidate in our Mayoral election is touting their support of rental price controls, even though they're not actually legal in Massachusetts) even though that's a pretty sure-fire way to take supply off the market, making the supply of affordable housing even worse. 

Idunno. I mean, yeah, affordability is a supply issue with demand eclipsing supply... but it's not like this is being artificially created to benefit existing homeowners. Especially in urban areas, the challenge is it's not always easy to _find _space to develop more housing.


----------



## Ralyks

Someone explain to me what the fuck Manchins issue is like I'm 5 years old.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Someone explain to me what the fuck Manchins issue is like I'm 5 years old.


He's a politician. If he demands that the bill cost half as much in order for him to vote for it, and the cut the price to half, he, being a politician, has no concern over what he said five minutes ago, and will demand it be half as big again.

Manchin is a democrat from a very conservative area, and he is the margin of error democrats have in the Senate over Republicans, so he's in a position to play this however he likes.


----------



## thebeesknees22

I'd be surprised if a deal is passed at all. 

But people that are frustrated by this clown show of Manchin's should at least acknowledge that they have a president and allllmost all the votes they need in the senate to push though the agenda they want to see done. Come midterms next year they just need to flip a couple more seats in the senate to less...conservative leaning people. 

It's not easy though, and unfortunately Dem voters tend to give up quickly when things don't go their way. Hopefully they keep up motivation to get out, and vote come next round of elections.

Manchin and Sinema are what they are. There's no changing either one of them. The only thing to do is to win more seats.


----------



## bostjan

I wouldn't count on the midterms swinging anything more toward the democratic party. This whole ordeal just fires up conservatives and disenfranchises liberals, so the power dynamic will likely swing back the other way in the Senate, then it'll be 2 years of stalemates and government shutdowns.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> I wouldn't count on the midterms swinging anything more toward the democratic party. This whole ordeal just fires up conservatives and disenfranchises liberals, so the power dynamic will likely swing back the other way in the Senate, then it'll be 2 years of stalemates and government shutdowns.



No I'm not counting on it. But that's all there is to do at this point. 

Progressives and... well... 95% of democrats just don't have the votes to push through what they want. That much is clear. 

Unfortunately like I said, dems tend to give up quick. I don't expect them to actually get out and keep pushing to win more seats. They'll just sit on their couches and mope. It's dumb. So dumb...


----------



## spudmunkey

California recently put in place a ban on zoning restrictions on things like duplexes.


Ralyks said:


> Someone explain to me what the fuck Manchins issue is like I'm 5 years old.



"I need more time to review it. But also, we need to vote on it now. And it costs too much, nobody will spoon-feed me how it won't increase the deficit, so I'm going to vote 'no' no matter what, anyway."


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Ethnic Russians versus political Russians is a pretty crazy topic. When I was there, it seemed like a pretty widespread belief that Chechens were not Russians, yet God forbid the same people Russians have no interest in claiming be politically independent.
> 
> Russia and America, for all of the starkly contrasting differences, have shockingly a lot in common. The bydlo or whatever you call them are pretty similar to the rednecks we have in the USA, always kludging together engineering solutions out of garbage, seemingly fearless when it comes to personal safety, sometime loud and obnoxious, although other times keeping to themselves... there are plenty of people who embrace the national stereotype with complete abandon to aesthetics of any other sort. Crime is bad, police are corrupt, the nation is huge and the government is very powerful, and a lot of people pine for the days of the cold war as if it was a great time, even though both Russians and Americans were actually scared at the time of being obliterated by each other. Just like your average American speaks only English, your average Russian speaks only Russian.
> 
> As for domestic violence in Russia, the 30,000 rub. fine is only if someone is convicted. The police basically won't even bother, though, so I don't think anyone would be surprised to find out that most domestic abuse goes totally unpunished by law. Even if the case goes to court, "the victim was mouthing off" seems to be legally precedented as a valid defense.



Chechens are Rossiyane, aka Citizens of Rossiyskaya Federation = Rossiya

They are not Russkiye aka people of "Russian" ethnicitiy

Rossiyskaya Federatsiya =/= Russkaya Federatsiya (ain't no such thing).

That country name just doesn't share a root word with the language/ethnic group. Btw, neighboring Belarus does.


----------



## donniekak

Ralyks said:


> Someone explain to me what the fuck Manchins issue is like I'm 5 years old.


He's owned by fossil fuel and big pharma.


----------



## Ralyks

donniekak said:


> He's owned by fossil fuel and big pharma.



Ok, the fossil fuel thing I knew. Big pharma doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Adieu

Wait, that asshole is in our pocket? Shit... embarrassing much?


----------



## spudmunkey

His daughter was also CEO of a company that increased the price of EpiPen by ~460%. His daughter's company was the 2nd biggest donor in his 2016 election campaign.


----------



## fantom

Adieu said:


> The problem is that the value of a middlingly expensive US house has almost NOTHING to do with its materials, land, or even curb appeal (that usually sums up to 100-200 grand in total at most, and often far far less).
> 
> The main component of the price is the red tape keeping people from building sh!t in that area.
> 
> People don't own expensive houses, they own expensive "Authorizations to Reside in the Neighborhood" (with a cheapo popsicle stick and drywall building thrown in)



It depends on where the house is. In most cases over something like $300k-400k, the land significantly influences the price. Rural areas like Oklahoma or Florida are cheaper because the land and cost.of development is cheaper.

I'd argue that permit and zoning issues are pretty low on the list of things driving up prices. Expensive places are overcrowded. People own the land you want built on. Even if they gave away land and rezoning happened overnight, there is no labor available to build enough housing to knock down prices over the next decade.

You really sound like you just don't know the reality of the world and want to rant at people for inconveniencing you (hint, they aren't. You are doing it to yourself). You preach everything isn't fair and you should be given whatever you want because you want it. That doesn't scale to everyone else too. it works for a 6 year old playing a card game with their parents, but not adults. The people getting what you want are playing by the established rules and outcompeting with you. Either learn the game or preach for people to give you what you want for free. I wouldn't hold my breath on the latter strategy.


----------



## Adieu

Land only affects your prices because your single-family dwelling is taking up a lot that can fit a 100-apartment high rise

Also, nobody gives much of a damn about contractors with those, because the skillset is different and most of that stuff is factory-premanufactured panels.


----------



## Randy

fantom said:


> It depends on where the house is. In most cases over something like $300k-400k, the land significantly influences the price. Rural areas like Oklahoma or Florida are cheaper because the land and cost.of development is cheaper.
> 
> I'd argue that permit and zoning issues are pretty low on the list of things driving up prices. Expensive places are overcrowded. People own the land you want built on. Even if they gave away land and rezoning happened overnight, there is no labor available to build enough housing to knock down prices over the next decade.
> 
> You really sound like you just don't know the reality of the world and want to rant at people for inconveniencing you (hint, they aren't. You are doing it to yourself). You preach everything isn't fair and you should be given whatever you want because you want it. That doesn't scale to everyone else too. it works for a 6 year old playing a card game with their parents, but not adults. The people getting what you want are playing by the established rules and outcompeting with you. Either learn the game or preach for people to give you what you want for free. I wouldn't hold my breath on the latter strategy.



Affordable housing isn't 'pie in the sky'.

Tons of blighted and zombie properties that sit until they "need" to be steamrolled and replaced with unaffordable housing (apartments and condos) or commercial.

Locally, lots of houses that just need mild fixes, very affordably priced on auction or REO but "cash only" so the only people who can buy them are developers or scumbag landlords that do little to no work but still gouge people for $1000/mo. to live in the building they'll make their money back on in less than a year.


Lending practices for homes also incredibly predatory. You pay more than twice the cost of the house in financing by the time you're done. When I bought my house, my credit was high but my income was low, I actually got better terms buying my house with an unsecured loan than I would have with a traditional mortgage where they'd have the freakin' house as collateral.

I could go on. It's too damn expensive to buy a house and it's not just competition or supply and demand, there's a mountain of obstructions in the way that exist only for the little guy, not for everyone else and are only there to make his life harder, it has zero to do with fairness.


----------



## BMFan30

Lets go Brandon!


----------



## spudmunkey

Y...you know you can just say "Fuck Joe Biden", right? And that many people here will agree with you, at least some of the time?


----------



## IwantTacos

Adieu said:


> Land only affects your prices because your single-family dwelling is taking up a lot that can fit a 100-apartment high rise
> 
> Also, nobody gives much of a damn about contractors with those, because the skillset is different and most of that stuff is factory-premanufactured panels.




I am a big supporter of replacing all buildings with high rises.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Y...you know you can just say "Fuck Joe Biden", right? And that many people here will agree with you, at least some of the time?


I'd be in about 30-45% of the time on that sentiment, and I voted for the old chode.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Chechens are Rossiyane, aka Citizens of Rossiyskaya Federation = Rossiya
> 
> They are not Russkiye aka people of "Russian" ethnicitiy
> 
> Rossiyskaya Federatsiya =/= Russkaya Federatsiya (ain't no such thing).
> 
> That country name just doesn't share a root word with the language/ethnic group. Btw, neighboring Belarus does.


Also maybe worth noting that Chechnya is considered a republic with limited autonomy.

Also also the capital of Chechnya, "Grozny," sounds like the Russian word for fearsome.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Also maybe worth noting that Chechnya is considered a republic with limited autonomy.
> 
> Also also the capital of Chechnya, "Grozny," sounds like the Russian word for fearsome.



Not really

Because:
1) the Russian Federation (which really really isn't a federation at all) has a literal crapton of "Republics", from Tatarstan that actually manages to hold a veneer of autonomy to places like Saha that nobody knows exist

2) its Republican leader prefers it when his minions call him Emir, which actually makes more realistic sense... the place is pretty much a personal feudal vassal state controlled by one man who kisses Putin's ring

3) Grozny used to be Fortress Groznaya, a military encampment built to subjugate the region


----------



## ArtDecade

Adieu said:


> Saha that nobody knows exist



United knows. And United loves!


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Land only affects your prices because your single-family dwelling is taking up a lot that can fit a 100-apartment high rise
> 
> Also, nobody gives much of a damn about contractors with those, because the skillset is different and most of that stuff is factory-premanufactured panels.


Ok, since you kind of ignored my much longer post about this... Like, be honest with yourself for a second. There's _probably _some middle ground between "houses should cost a third of what they do, and to get there we need to level blocks of single-family housing to build 100-apartment high rises" and where we are today. You're not arguing for realistic solutions or realistic policies, and I'd suggest that even if we did start bulldozing blocks of single-family houses to build high rises, it would STILL be tough to do that and provide apartments large enough to even plausibly hold, say, family of four, and get the price down to your "a third of what housing costs now" target.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I could go on. It's too damn expensive to buy a house and it's not just competition or supply and demand, there's a mountain of obstructions in the way that exist only for the little guy, not for everyone else and are only there to make his life harder, it has zero to do with fairness.


Somewhat ironically, a lot of these obstacles are a direct byproduct of the great recession and the housing collapse, where all you needed to get a jumbo loan on a house was a pulse and a signature, and a lot of borrowers got hosed when they took out loans they couldn't realistically have hoped to pay, in part because mortgage agents were telling them it was ok. 

The pendulum has swung a bit too far in the other direction since then... but I'd also say that part of the problem is the fact that we view home ownership as something kind of sacred in America, and as "the middle class ticket to wealth" which is one of those claims that rests on some really, really faulty analysis. 

Honestly, the best thing that could happen to housing markets is for telecommuting to become a little more widespread, so it takes some of the housing pressure off the "commuting distance to the cities" markets. 

But, like most things in America, I don't think this is a "housing costs too much" problem so much as it is a "most Americans make too little" one.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Ok, since you kind of ignored my much longer post about this... Like, be honest with yourself for a second. There's _probably _some middle ground between "houses should cost a third of what they do, and to get there we need to level blocks of single-family housing to build 100-apartment high rises" and where we are today. You're not arguing for realistic solutions or realistic policies, and I'd suggest that even if we did start bulldozing blocks of single-family houses to build high rises, it would STILL be tough to do that and provide apartments large enough to even plausibly hold, say, family of four, and get the price down to your "a third of what housing costs now" target.



I mean, @Adieu hails from Moscow, the city that Stalin banned single family homes in and was rebuilt and largely re-engineered in the 1930's, at a fairly low cost, to accommodate mass-produced blocks of flats to house an awful lot of people. So, it is realistic in the sense that it really happened before; however 1930's Stalinist Moscow is not at all anything like 2020's Boston, so I highly doubt that any plan similar to the Moscow Master Plan would ever be realistic in the USA, but IDK, maybe someplace like Minneapolis would be down to try something like that in a few years, if things keep going poorly for urban dwellers there?


----------



## Adieu

I lived for years in apartment buildings with 480 apartments (8 separate entrances/stairwells per building, 1st floor commercial, 15 floors times 4 apartments residential) and mostly liked it

The footprint of that building is about the same as a suburban cul-de-sac.

Having lived in both, the levels of obnoxious noise and disturbances from next door....are ACTUALLY FAR HIGHER IN CALIFORNIAN SUBURBIA.

Leafblowers, man. Can we shoot them on sight already???


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, @Adieu hails from Moscow, the city that Stalin banned single family homes in and was rebuilt and largely re-engineered in the 1930's, at a fairly low cost, to accommodate mass-produced blocks of flats to house an awful lot of people. So, it is realistic in the sense that it really happened before; however 1930's Stalinist Moscow is not at all anything like 2020's Boston, so I highly doubt that any plan similar to the Moscow Master Plan would ever be realistic in the USA, but IDK, maybe someplace like Minneapolis would be down to try something like that in a few years, if things keep going poorly for urban dwellers there?


Honestly, fair point... but if you think of any of the plaes where this "let's tear down single family housing and build mass apartment complexes" thing could actually work, well... Detroit was the first place that came to mind, and it's not like they have an affordability problem, you know? Most of the places where you COULD do this, are places suffering from urban blight and decay, and places where thew problem isn't housing supply, it's housing demand.



Adieu said:


> Leafblowers, man. Can we shoot them on sight already???


100% on board with this.


----------



## Drew

One quick note on the election in Virginia and I'm not going to make a TON of this, but if I was an analyst on Youngkin's campaign this would be something I'd take as a promising sign...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/virginia/?ex_cid=rrpromo

If you look at recent polling data, while there IS a lot of dispersion and IMO no clear favorite... for the _most _part, most of McAuliffe's stronger results come in simple head-to-head matchups, while polls that also included Blanding tended to favor Youngkin modestly. Since Blanding is on the ballot today, that's obviously a problem for McAuliffe... although, if I were in _his_ shoes, I might take comfort from the fact that no one expects Blanding to win, that this IS expected to be a razor-close election, and there's a difference between supporting an out-of-the-money longshot in an opinion poll vs at the ballot, and when voters are forced to choose between the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning in polling, it appears Blanding's support is going to McAuliffe. 

So, high level, my read is a lot of the outcome is going to depend on how tactical Blanding voters are willing to be, and how many of them view supporting the headline candidate they seem to see as more aligned with the progressive Libertarian vs voting their conscience even if it means putting a Trump-aligned conservative into the governorship. I'm not sure how to handicap that, save that it likely WILL be close.


----------



## bostjan

I also hate leaf blowers. #1 they aren't necessary. You can rake or just run your mower over the leaves, or, hell, if you are only going to blow them into your neighbour's yard and then your neighbour is just going to blow them back into your yard, you might as well just leave them there and let the damned wind blow them away. #2 they are even less necessary at 6:45 AM on a Saturday morning, which is when I hear them 99% of the time I hear them.

The problem with Detroit is that not many people want to live there. There are a few highrise apartments near downtown and those are super-duper expensive. There are houses within a few hundred feet of those expensive apartments that have a total home cost less than one month's rent at the apartment, which is weird.

But there are a few reasons why no one wants to live in Detroit. City taxes are high, and the city also imposes income tax that residents have to pay on top of state and federal income tax. Crime is not just high, but stupidly high. Anytime the numbers go down, it's most likely just not being reported. Of the crime in the area, arson is particularly high, so, good luck keeping your property from getting ruined if you have any in the city. Also riots. I'm not just talking about the 60's. There were riots after 911, there have been riots any time a major team wins, etc. It doesn't get much coverage, because no one cares if a crowd smashes a bunch of windows in buildings they are just going to burn down in a week anyway.

But also, it's not the 80's anymore, and the city is better than it was before.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Leafblowers, man. Can we shoot them on sight already???


I'm mostly on board with this with minor exceptions. Example:

There's a neighborhood kid that, a couple years back, would buy leaf blowers because it was the cheapest engine he could easily afford multiples of. So, I see him in the driveway with a leafblower, a skateboard, and a bunch of metal parts. Two days later he's on that skateboard, the leafblower permanently attached to the skateboard like a rudder, and believe it or not, using it like a jet to push him down the road. He had the biggest dumbass grin as he comes sailing past me.

Fast forward to last summer and he's mounting four of the fucking things on a bicycle.

You want to take that type of shit away from that kid? He's likely to be inventing some new vehicle type in twenty years.

Anybody using them for the advertised purpose early in the morning, I'll get the damned posse ready. But this kid gets a clap on the back at worst.


----------



## Adieu

YES.

Screw the little bastard. 

Also, even doing drugs to fight boredom sounds somewhat safer than whatever you just described.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Fast forward to last summer and he's mounting four of the fucking things on a bicycle.


A 2-stroke gas leafblower emits about as much pollution as 300 full size cars. His bicycle, formerly a hydrocarbon-free means of transportation, just became the polluter equivalent of a fleet of 1200 cars, thanks to this hack. 

_Yes,_ I want him to learn to pedal the damned thing himself.


----------



## Xaios

Adieu said:


> Leafblowers, man. Can we shoot them on sight already???





Drew said:


> 100% on board with this.





bostjan said:


> I also hate leaf blowers.





nightflameauto said:


> I'm mostly on board with this with minor exceptions.


Just follow the Steve Lukather method for leaf blower rebuke:


----------



## donniekak

Drew said:


> A 2-stroke gas leafblower emits about as much pollution as 300 full size cars. His bicycle, formerly a hydrocarbon-free means of transportation, just became the polluter equivalent of a fleet of 1200 cars, thanks to this hack.
> 
> _Yes,_ I want him to learn to pedal the damned thing himself.


I've ran sniffers on just about everything that runs, and I have no idea where you got this info.

A typic car burns more fuel, producing more combustion byproducts at idle, than most small equipment does at full throttle.

I have spent a whole career developing racing engines with specific output up to 700hp/liter. I know how internal combustion engines work on every level.


----------



## donniekak

The Arizona epa is on a big ban leaf blower kick, not because of engine pollution, but because the blowers kick up dust particulates into the air.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> I've ran sniffers on just about everything that runs, and I have no idea where you got this info.
> 
> A typic car burns more fuel, producing more combustion byproducts at idle, than most small equipment does at full throttle.
> 
> I have spent a whole career developing racing engines with specific output up to 700hp/liter. I know how internal combustion engines work on every level.



It emits unburned fuel vapors (don't say it ain't so, you can SMELL it a block away) and has no emissions controls whatsoever


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> The Arizona epa is on a big ban leaf blower kick, not because of engine pollution, but because the blowers kick up dust particulates into the air.



This too.

Leafblower landscaping day is the day I am sick as a dog every damn week unless I remember to button up the house completely for half the day


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> It emits unburned fuel vapors (don't say it ain't so, you can SMELL it a block away) and has no emissions controls whatsoever


The new stihl equipment engines have electronic fueling with closed loop operation. A 50cc engine burning anywhere near stoich isn't putting out much of anything.

You used to be right though. It's not the oil mix that causes issues, it's blowing half your charge out the exhaust.


----------



## Drew

donniekak said:


> I've ran sniffers on just about everything that runs, and I have no idea where you got this info.
> 
> A typic car burns more fuel, producing more combustion byproducts at idle, than most small equipment does at full throttle.
> 
> I have spent a whole career developing racing engines with specific output up to 700hp/liter. I know how internal combustion engines work on every level.


https://sustainability.wustl.edu/rethinking-lawn-equipment-2/

Ton of similar hits on google. I was actually going off memory from a different article I saw on... The Times, maybe, not long ago arguing there was nothing at all redeeming about leaf blowers and their annoyance was the least of the issues, but it's not exactly something I made up.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> The new stihl equipment engines have electronic fueling with closed loop operation. A 50cc engine burning anywhere near stoich isn't putting out much of anything.
> 
> You used to be right though. It's not the oil mix that causes issues, it's blowing half your charge out the exhaust.



When and where have you seen the local association's undocumented minions using NEW leafblowers?


----------



## donniekak

Adieu said:


> When and where have you seen the local association's undocumented minions using NEW leafblowers?


Now that's a good point.


Maybe the equipment lobby will hook up with some eco friendly congressperson and write up a bill demanding all illegals be given a new stihl leaf blower with green technology as they cross the border.


Just for the record, I worked in the tree industry in Arizona for years. The illegals were as a group some of the hardest working people I've ever seen.


----------



## Adieu

But their equipment (or, rather, probably the association's) is some gnarly prehistoric shite that clearly violates city ordinances.


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> Tomorrow is the day in VA. Youngkin appears up 8 points. Dem voters appear both disillusioned (buyer’s remorse) with the results of 2020 combined with a lack of overall enthusiasm which might affect voter turnout.
> 
> The Youngkin et al ads are overwhelmingly more convincing to those seeking affirmation of what they already want to believe. They’ve been targeting those disaffected Dems. Lots of “I’m a lifelong Dem who voted for Biden, but not so fast my friend” testimonials.
> 
> I predict the GOP sweeps every ballot.


----------



## USMarine75

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 99608



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/02/us/elections/results-virginia.html


----------



## donniekak

I've never seen a more clear cut policy/agenda rejection than what happened in Virginia.


Socialists not only believe they own your money, but they think they own your kids too. What's happening in schools, and the dispute between the power of the state vs parents rights fueled that election.


----------



## Adieu

donniekak said:


> I've never seen a more clear cut policy/agenda rejection than what happened in Virginia.
> 
> 
> Socialists not only believe they own your money, but they think they own your kids too. What's happening in schools, and the dispute between the power of the state vs parents rights fueled that election.



Nope

Virgina is just a backwater redneck state that borders the capital. During a crisis.

It has every reason, sane or inane, to telegraph resentment to Washington. Doesn't actually mean anything (except they wanna be richer, have no crises, and not be the rednecks across the tracks).


----------



## thebeesknees22

The margin of victory wasn't all that big. It wasn't exactly a mass rejection. ~1.5% 

My 2 cents: like I said earlier in the thread, democrat voters give up easily. They're frustrated with manchin and sinema and things not getting through the senate so a good number of democrat leaning voters just say F it and don't vote. 

Had the big spending package passed, I think this election would have had a different outcome.


----------



## donniekak

Biden won that state by double digits a year ago to the day. It's a double digit reversal of a long term trend in less than a year.

When you tell people it's none of their business what you teach their children, anyone with a spine rejects you as an authoritarian.


----------



## bostjan

donniekak said:


> Biden won that state by double digits a year ago to the day. It's a double digit reversal of a long term trend in less than a year.
> 
> When you tell people it's none of their business what you teach their children, anyone with a spine rejects you as an authoritarian.



With all of the negative stuff directed toward Trump, a bowl of rancid milk could have beaten him in 2020 in some places.

The policy differences at the state and local levels affect people on a different level, so you can't really compare local elections to federal-level ones too much (like both biases in the media kept doing leading up to the VA gubernatorial election).

Also, whoever is in charge is going to bear the brunt of whatever is going wrong. The more people get more dissatisfied with the government (as opposed to the typical apathy), the more likely people will be to get out to vote against incumbents.

But whatever the case, Republicans always do a much better job voting in midterm elections, and democrats almost always do a better job voting during presidential elections, so the senate is going to swing to the GOP in the midterms and there's not really anything anyone can do to stop it, except maybe democrats (if they can get their act together, which they can't so, not really an exception, I guess).

And, at the end of the day, neither party is any good at governance, so we are boned either way.


----------



## donniekak

What happened was people saw on the ground implementation of the big national policy ideas of the far left on a local level. They could not be lied to about what they were seeing with their own eyes, so they rejected it.


Unless the dems run as fast as they can from the ideas pushed by what was the fringe of their party 4-5 years ago, they're going to be crushed.

From the viewpoint pushed by the current party platform, conservative Democrats of 5 years ago are now far right extremists. 

The policy of "accept 100% of our ideas or fuck off" doesn't exactly grow your party.


----------



## nightflameauto

donniekak said:


> What happened was people saw on the ground implementation of the big national policy ideas of the far left on a local level. They could not be lied to about what they were seeing with their own eyes, so they rejected it.
> 
> 
> Unless the dems run as fast as they can from the ideas pushed by what was the fringe of their party 4-5 years ago, they're going to be crushed.
> 
> From the viewpoint pushed by the current party platform, conservative Democrats of 5 years ago are now far right extremists.
> 
> The policy of "accept 100% of our ideas or fuck off" doesn't exactly grow your party.


Yet the actual policies that Biden & Co are trying to prioritize are highly popular based on polling data. Just the fact they can't get off their asses and implement any of them is pissing off their base.

As for the "accept 100%" comment, I think you'll find that's starting to become the leadership's favorite tactic regardless of who has the power. It helps demonize "the others" and helps distract from the fact there's literally an empty air bubble in place of policy (Republicans) or a complete inability to do fuck-all (Democrats) despite being able to talk a big game on policy.


----------



## IwantTacos

Teaching kids racism exists sure is a hootenanny


----------



## thebeesknees22

nightflameauto said:


> Yet the actual policies that Biden & Co are trying to prioritize are highly popular based on polling data. Just the fact they can't get off their asses and implement any of them is pissing off their base.
> 
> As for the "accept 100%" comment, I think you'll find that's starting to become the leadership's favorite tactic regardless of who has the power. It helps demonize "the others" and helps distract from the fact there's literally an empty air bubble in place of policy (Republicans) or a complete inability to do fuck-all (Democrats) despite being able to talk a big game on policy.




well, it's 2 people in particular that are blocking everything. The party as a whole is almost in unison on wanting to pass Biden's agenda. You just have 2 people saying no, and dem voters throw up their hands and quit instead of continuing to push to get more like minded politicians in power. 

It's dumb dumb like I've said before. No one wants to play the long game. No one has the guts to stick it out.


----------



## nightflameauto

thebeesknees22 said:


> well, it's 2 people in particular that are blocking everything. The party as a whole is almost in unison on wanting to pass Biden's agenda. You just have 2 people saying no, and dem voters throw up their hands and quit instead of continuing to push to get more like minded politicians in power.
> 
> It's dumb dumb like I've said before. No one wants to play the long game. No one has the guts to stick it out.


While I'm with you technically, the Democrats ALWAYS have hold outs when they are in power preventing them from doing what they promised. And Democratic voters aren't religious in their adherence to the party, so yeah. When they watch the douchebags they elected flounder around like a bunch of lost children once in power, they get frustrated and turn-tail.

Meanwhile, the Republican players don't even bother promising anything anymore, and their voters tend towards frantic adherence to the party at all costs. And I do mean all costs. Even if it burns the country down in the process.


----------



## thebeesknees22

nightflameauto said:


> ...
> Meanwhile, the Republican players don't even bother promising anything anymore, and their voters tend towards frantic adherence to the party at all costs. And I do mean all costs. Even if it burns the country down in the process.



yeah that's the sad part. That's why things will continue to degrade over time, and turn to shit.


----------



## donniekak

IwantTacos said:


> Teaching kids racism exists sure is a hootenanny


That's not the problem. Telling kids that if they believe in meritocracy they themselves are racist, is a problem.


----------



## donniekak

nightflameauto said:


> Yet the actual policies that Biden & Co are trying to prioritize are highly popular based on polling data. Just the fact they can't get off their asses and implement any of them is pissing off their base.
> 
> As for the "accept 100%" comment, I think you'll find that's starting to become the leadership's favorite tactic regardless of who has the power. It helps demonize "the others" and helps distract from the fact there's literally an empty air bubble in place of policy (Republicans) or a complete inability to do fuck-all (Democrats) despite being able to talk a big game on policy.


The parts of the new bill that everyone agrees on, like letting Medicare negotiate drug costs somehow are the parts that need cut.

Meanwhile our country is running like shit, and our president is campaigning for a guy that says you have no control of what we teach your kids.


----------



## bostjan

I don't know what, exactly, is being taught in schools. I know the right has a strong belief that the school systems don't want parents to know, and there seems to be some evidence to actually support that, at least in some districts.

Anyone thinking that Manchin is the only/the prime example democrat with big pharma pulling their strings is also ostensibly incorrect. It's a huge lobby, bigger than any other, spending well over $200M a year on lobbying. That's almost half a million dollars per year per legislator (total # of senators and rep's). Let that sink in.


----------



## Drew

donniekak said:


> Just for the record, I worked in the tree industry in Arizona for years. The illegals were as a group some of the hardest working people I've ever seen.


I've been to Arizona. Don't lie to me. You guys don't _have_ trees. 



donniekak said:


> I've never seen a more clear cut policy/agenda rejection than what happened in Virginia.
> 
> 
> Socialists not only believe they own your money, but they think they own your kids too. What's happening in schools, and the dispute between the power of the state vs parents rights fueled that election.


I'd be VERY careful of what lessons you take from this election.

The Virginia governorship, in ten of the last eleven elections, has gone to the party that does not hold the Presidency. You could know not a thing about the candidates, the platforms, the issues of the election, the polling, and the national climate, and if you had to make an otherwise-educated guess, a Republican winning in 2021 after a Democrat won the presidency in 2020 would be a pretty good base case.

The GOP is, at least this early on, settling on a narrative that this was about teaching "critical race theory," aka the belief that systems built by white people, have tended to favor white people. That's a questionable explanation for a number of reasons - one, critical race theory wasn't really taught in K-12 in Virginia in the first place, and two, the book that became kind of a - forgive the expression but it sort of fits here for a couple reasons - lynchpin of Youngkin's close, Toni Morrison's "Beloved," isn't exactly a CRT meta-text or something, and has been taught at the high school and college level for decades. If the GOP thinks they can make critical wedge theory a wedge issue, then either they failed to do so in Virginia, or instead used it as a dog whistle for their brand of identity politics instead.

And, as someone pointed out, the outcome of this race was razor-close... while the Democrats were running a candidate that wasn't especially well loved the last time he was governor. Beyond that, I'd point out that the aspects of the Biden agenda that have been passed into law - more pandemic stimulus, so far, and I'd say within a hair's breath of the first infrastructure bill we've seen since Obama - have actually been fairly popular.

If you have never seen a more clear cut policy/agenda rejection, I'd remind you of Georgia going blue in 2020 after four years of Trump, which is something that in a neutral environment should NEVER happen. 

As far as 2022, nothing about last night really changes my priors - that due to let's-call-them-macro-political cyclical factors, the Democrats are going to have an uphill battle. IF anything, some of the downside scenarios - a blowout in Virginia, or Trump explicitly backing and having his endorsement warmly accepted by candidates who then went on to win by unexpected margins - are now off the table, so I'd say some tail risk is now off the table, looking to the midterms.


----------



## donniekak

The part of critical race theory about racism trickling down through a power structure created by whites isn't denied by people that actually think. It's the part about subverting culture, destroying American institutions, destroying the family, and being "trained marxists", that are hard to digest.


----------



## StevenC

donniekak said:


> Meanwhile our country is running like shit, and our president is campaigning for a guy that says you have no control of what we teach your kids.


Your country has a terrible public education systems compared to other developed countries because backcountry idiots think they know better than teachers and vote for people who won't fund education. I literally have never met anyone outside of the USA who was homeschooled, because the rest of us have a functioning education system.

You should not be in charge of what is taught to your kids as fact. This is how cults are created. Educators and educational researchers should be in charge of setting curricula. Sharing expertise is how you educate people, not hiding it.


----------



## Drew

donniekak said:


> Meanwhile our country is running like shit, and our president is campaigning for a guy that says you have no control of what we teach your kids.



This is worth honing in on specifically, actually. 

Again, the question here was whether or not a student could be assigned Toni Morrison's " Beloved." Which, I get the discomfort - it's a horrifying book in many ways. I read it in college, and came away with the distinct feeling that it didn't matter whether or not i liked the book or not, because the book didn't particularly care what I thought - it was that elemental, for lack of a better word. It's pretty fucking raw. 

But, Virginia schools allow parents to request exemptions for their students, if they don't want them to have to read something. If this parent had simply not wanted her child to be exposed to what's really a pretty violent, brutal, and horrifying book, she could easily have requested that her child not read it. and that would be the end of it. 

That's not what she did, however. She demanded the book not be taught, period, and that it be removed from the curriculum, so NO students would read it. The issue isn't whether a parent can control what their kid is taught, the issue was whether one parent could control what ALL kids are taught, and that's a very different issue. 

If you've never read Beloved, well... like I said, my feelings about the book are fairly complex, but it's an insanely powerful novel, and it certainly left a mark.


----------



## Drew

donniekak said:


> The part of critical race theory about racism trickling down through a power structure created by whites isn't denied by people that actually think. It's the part about subverting culture, destroying American institutions, destroying the family, and being "trained marxists", that are hard to digest.


Except, none of this is part of "critical race theory," at least outside of Fox News coverage...?

Hell, I'll elaborate, having had a few more minutes to think and digest after, frankly, being a little surprised by this.

This is just "Black Lives Matter" all over again.

"Black Lives Matter," as told by Fox News, Breitbart, and One America, is an organization whose leaders are all socialist Marxists, who are hell bent on destroying the nuclear family and taking down American institutions with it. It's a destructive and revolutionary ethos, and is un-American and must be stopped. The similarities between the description of BLM, and the description of CRT, is actually kind of shockingly familiar once you get to some of those externalities, which I think is something worth keeping in mind here when it comes to evaluating for outside spin.

The problem with this, well, problems, really, are so deep that its actually physically hard to describe how many things are wrong with this belief, but the biggest is that BLM isn't an organization, does't have leaders, and is a decentralized political movement rooted in the simple belief that lives of Black Americans are just as valuable as lives of White Americans, so maybe it would be cool if we could stop killing them so much.

I'm sure some people who support the teaching of critical race theory, just as who believe Black Lives Matter, are probably Marxists (though I have no clue what a "trained Marxist" is. There are probably some who also don't really support the traditional mother-father nuclear family structure, and I'd be shocked if at least a few of them don't have a bone to pick with some American institution or other.

But, that's a FAR cry from a universal, homogenous belief in ALL of those things. Like, I live in Boston, and we have some crazy sports fans. I remember a couple years ago someone killed a guy in a Yankees hat by driving a car into him outside a bar. Is it fair to say all Sox fans are homicidal drivers and guilty of murder? Hardly. We think those guys are nuts too.

You can believe that the existance of structural factors promoting racial inequity in this country, and that existence should be taught, without yourself being a Marxist, even if someone else somewere out there believes those same structural factors should be taught, and is. I imagine there's a few red-headed supporters of CRT, too, and no one is saying all CRT advocates are gingers who have no souls, so what's the difference here?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Is it fair to say all Sox fans are homicidal drivers ...?



Have you seen your drivers?!


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Except, none of this is part of "critical race theory," at least outside of Fox News coverage...?
> 
> Hell, I'll elaborate, having had a few more minutes to think and digest after, frankly, being a little surprised by this.
> 
> This is just "Black Lives Matter" all over again.
> 
> "Black Lives Matter," as told by Fox News, Breitbart, and One America, is an organization whose leaders are all socialist Marxists, who are hell bent on destroying the nuclear family and taking down American institutions with it. It's a destructive and revolutionary ethos, and is un-American and must be stopped. The similarities between the description of BLM, and the description of CRT, is actually kind of shockingly familiar once you get to some of those externalities, which I think is something worth keeping in mind here when it comes to evaluating for outside spin.
> 
> The problem with this, well, problems, really, are so deep that its actually physically hard to describe how many things are wrong with this belief, but the biggest is that BLM isn't an organization, does't have leaders, and is a decentralized political movement rooted in the simple belief that lives of Black Americans are just as valuable as lives of White Americans, so maybe it would be cool if we could stop killing them so much.
> 
> I'm sure some people who support the teaching of critical race theory, just as who believe Black Lives Matter, are probably Marxists (though I have no clue what a "trained Marxist" is. There are probably some who also don't really support the traditional mother-father nuclear family structure, and I'd be shocked if at least a few of them don't have a bone to pick with some American institution or other.
> 
> But, that's a FAR cry from a universal, homogenous belief in ALL of those things. Like, I live in Boston, and we have some crazy sports fans. I remember a couple years ago someone killed a guy in a Yankees hat by driving a car into him outside a bar. Is it fair to say all Sox fans are homicidal drivers and guilty of murder? Hardly. We think those guys are nuts too.
> 
> You can believe that the existance of structural factors promoting racial inequity in this country, and that existence should be taught, without yourself being a Marxist, even if someone else somewere out there believes those same structural factors should be taught, and is. I imagine there's a few red-headed supporters of CRT, too, and no one is saying all CRT advocates are gingers who have no souls, so what's the difference here?


I liked this before the edit and want to say I still like it.


bostjan said:


> Have you seen your drivers?!


Boston is one of the most confusing places I've ever been to in a car and am so glad not to have had to do any of the driving there.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> I liked this before the edit and want to say I still like it.
> 
> Boston is one of the most confusing places I've ever been to in a car and am so glad not to have had to do any of the driving there.



Boston and Philly were clearly laid out while drunk.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Have you seen your drivers?!


...._fuck. _ 

ok, ok, ok, let's focus on the not all BLM and CRT advocates being redheads, you assholes.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> Boston and Philly were clearly laid out while drunk.


----------



## StevenC

ArtDecade said:


> Boston and Philly were clearly laid out while drunk.





Drew said:


>


I distinctly remember driving through a suburban area in Boston that had alternating blocks of one way streets, so every block you'd have to zig-zag between roads just to go straight.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


>


That Boston pic reminds me so much of the town I grew up in, just on a much larger scale. That town was built around a whole string of lakes so they had no choice but to do some screwy things with roads, but the kicker was every few miles the main corridor roads would switch directions on weird angles so you'd end up with loops and corners and all sorts of shit that didn't have any parallel roads. It was a tiny little place, I think 10K when I was growing up, and you could drop somebody from a huge city in the middle of it and they'd be lost for days without some form of help.

There's a difference between a "city planner" and a "city designer" that's trying to make pretty patterns on the paper they do their layouts on. Mom used to bitch up a storm about some of the oddball intersections to our neighbor lady. 'Til one day after a truly brutally epic rant about a particularly horrible intersection that still, to this day, sucks ass, that neighbor lady says, "My husband designed that intersection." LOL.


----------



## Drew

I mean, ya'll have to appreciate the fact that Boston city streets were never _designed_, we just sort of built a city up around old carriage paths and whatnot that wound around hills and obstacles and natural shit that's long gone. 

Also, that's down in the Roxbury/Hyde Park/Jamaica Plain area which IS kind of a mess of twisty roads. A lot of Boston, particularly the parts of Back Bay that were land-filled swampland, and the actual downtown area, are pretty normal grids for the most part, it's just basically everything is a one-way street because everything used to be narrow roads designed for horses and carriages.


----------



## bostjan

I remember one time ages ago, I got lost in Monroe, Michigan (a small industrial city southwest of Detroit) and ended up on a one-way dead end street. I'm sure the statute of limitations for driving the wrong way on a one-way street is long passed, but WTF were the city planners thinking with that one?!

Anyway, I guess this brings us full circle back to @Adieu 's suggestion of Stalinizing our American cities by simply bulldozing everything regardless of who lives there and rebuilding it better. But, in order to do that, we'd need congress to pass a budget conducive to building back our infrastructure better... do you see what I did there, do ya?

IDK, though. Here in North America, we seem to have a problem when it comes to city planning. Even when you look at places where the roads are all new, like Calgary, or Las Vegas, things aren't really very well thought out. These cities kept expanding, and infrastructure was just added to keep up with sprawl. Long term plans don't really apply to us.

If you gave road construction contractors a trillion dollars to fix the interstates and bridges, they'd probably just embezzle $999.99B and spend $10M reinforcing a few overpasses with some sort of material that washed away with the next rain. As much as this bill could be neat, the more I think about it, the more I tend to think it'll just end up being a trainwreck (sad pun  ).

And that's not something to do with corrupted congressmen or how bad Biden is or any of that, it's just the overall ineffectiveness of the federal government, due to the vast amount of scope and the convoluted bureaucracy for corruption to hide in.


----------



## Adieu

No one says bulldoze. Just rip off the red tape and make it possible.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I remember one time ages ago, I got lost in Monroe, Michigan (a small industrial city southwest of Detroit) and ended up on a one-way dead end street. I'm sure the statute of limitations for driving the wrong way on a one-way street is long passed, but WTF were the city planners thinking with that one?!


Were you perhaps visiting Steven Wright?


----------



## spudmunkey

Wasn't Boston laid-out by just paving over paths cows had worn into the landscape?


----------



## StevenC

My town is about 25 years older than Boston in rural Ireland and is based on basically a grid.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Wasn't Boston laid-out by just paving over paths cows had worn into the landscape?


While that may not be EXACTLY accurate, that's probably close enough to the truth to not matter.


----------



## thraxil

Drew said:


>



Come visit London sometime. London Taxi Drivers have had to grow enlarged Hippocampi to deal with the mess: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memory/ I've lived here six years now and I still get lost walking to the grocery store.

That said, I remember being in Syracuse back in the pre Google Maps days (Hellfest 2003) and my friends and I could see a bar on the other side of the highway from our hotel that we wanted to go get a drink at. Probably a few hundred yards away as the crow flies. Somehow it took us almost 40 minutes to figure out how to actually drive there. No matter which turn or exit you took, it shot you off in a totally different direction for a few miles before you had any opportunity to turn around.


----------



## Drew

So, thinking more about VA, now that I've had some time to diigest. 

I've seen two prevailing arguments on why the GOP won (though again this should have been the base case, and if anything they only outperformed modestly). First, Youngkin ran as "Trump-y without Trump." The second is "education-as-a-dog-whistle-for-race" is an effective strategy for 2022 and 2024. I don't think these are bad outcomes for the Democrats - one, "Trump without Trump" gets REAL hard if he's running at the top of the ticket, and quickly becomes a quagmire for the right. Two, I don't think trying to do the same things that failed with Black Lives Matter with Critical Race Theory is going to end any differently. If the GOP wins in 2022, it's because the American people really hate their government, no matter who is in power, and always wants to vote out one group of bozos for another group of bozos. 

On the left, it's a bit more complicated but they seem to be coalescing around a belief that with supply chain disruptions pushing inflation and covid still impacting daily life, that they're going to lose unless they can improve quality of life here. IMO, I think this would be a GOOD takeaway, and the best thing Biden can do to win in 2024 is innoculate the developing world so our supply chains straighten out. I also think the Build Back Better Act just got incrementally easier and more likely to pass as a direct result of this, as moderatyes probably just got a little less worried about applying too much stimulus too fast. 

The midterms are still likely to flip the House and Senate in 2022, nothing about Tuesday night made that less likely... but, I also don't think it made it MORE likely, despite what political commentators are saying, and so far it looks like Democrats are taking better lessons from their loss than Republicans are from their win.


----------



## USMarine75

Boston, like London, is a city where the streets accommodate the buildings. Both could benefit from a Haussman style renovation.



StevenC said:


> My town is about 25 years older than Boston in rural Ireland and is based on basically a grid.



Anyone else ever been to Nouakchott? I read a description that called it “the major model of Bedouin urban planning gone wrong”.


----------



## mbardu




----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Boston, like London, is a city where the streets accommodate the buildings. Both could benefit from a Haussman style renovation.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else ever been to Nouakchott? I read a description that called it “the major model of Bedouin urban planning gone wrong”.
> 
> View attachment 99663
> 
> View attachment 99664



This looks a lot more organized than most places


----------



## Drew

...just the way it sort of has grids jammed into each other at odd angles, though. 

...which reminds me a bit of Boston, come to think of it.  

Elsewhere, there's a growing sense in the markets that the Democrats HAVE concluded the best thing they can do for 2022, after Tuesday, is do whatever they can to get the economy back on track, and the first step towards that is getting this infrastructure bill passed, however they have to. So, expect things to speed up here - perhaps as early as next week.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Drew said:


> ...
> Elsewhere, there's a growing sense in the markets .....



oh man, my stocks and investments have been on fire for the last month after that drop in October. It's awesome I must say. The last few days have been kinda crazy.


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> oh man, my stocks and investments have been on fire for the last month after that drop in October. It's awesome I must say. The last few days have been kinda crazy.


Really more September than October, but since the low on 10/4 the S&P is up about 9%, not bad for 30 days.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> Really more September than October, but since the low on 10/4 the S&P is up about 9%, not bad for 30 days.



more importantly are mortgage rates going to be going up any time soon? We can’t lock in for another 2 months.


----------



## thebeesknees22

That's a good question @USMarine75 . It'll happen at some point. It's just a matter of when. Hope you get yours locked in before that happens.


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> Anyone else ever been to Nouakchott?


WTF would I be doing there? Isn't Mauritania the last nation on Earth to pass a law to ban slavery (which, according to almost all accounts still happens there). I don't know how much you were paid to go there, but I bet it wouldn't be near enough to get my butt anywhere near such a place.

As far as urban planning, though, it looks similar to some other places I've seen. I guess examples of how _not_ to lay out a city are bountiful all around the world.

//

So now congressional leaders are pushing to vote for the BBBP in spite of Manchin. I'm not sure what the expectation is.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> So now congressional leaders are pushing to vote for the BBBP in spite of Manchin. I'm not sure what the expectation is.


I'm sure the expectation is the same as it always is. Lots of hot air exchanged and fuck-all for results.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> more importantly are mortgage rates going to be going up any time soon? We can’t lock in for another 2 months.


My personal view is they're more likely to drift down than up and the 1.65% or so the tenyear treasury hit a couple days ago is likely to be a near term high. I'm expectiong the Fed to pivot to push back on growing market expectations they'll begin hiking the Fed Funds Rate in mid-22, and try to reset expectations back into 2023, simply because - with the sky-high household savings rate of the last year or so and US households tucking away an estimated 2.6 trillion in excess savings over that time, I'm pretty sure the current surge in consumer demand isn't being driven by easy access to credit and loose monetary conditions, and the Fed will be in no hurry to hike simply because they're well aware itr won't _do_ anything. 

Headline year-over-year inflation will remain sky high for a while to come, but that's mostly as very low pandemic-era readings drop out every month. Monthly rates have declined pretty significantly, and if you annualize the last core PCE reading of around 0.21%, you come out at about 2.5%, right in the middle of the Fed's target range. Inflation is slowing. That should take some pressure off the Treasury curve, too.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So now congressional leaders are pushing to vote for the BBBP in spite of Manchin. I'm not sure what the expectation is.


The Democrats are increasingly taking the view that Virginia and Jersey were driven by a view that the Biden Administration and Democrats in general need to be doing more to boost the economy and put Delta behind us than they are, and the best way to get that done is to pass their infrastructure plans. I think Manchin is going to fold and the BBBA is fairly likely to pass, possibly as early as next week.


----------



## thebeesknees22

mmm... I don't see Manchin on anything, but maybe I'm being pessimistic.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The Democrats are increasingly taking the view that Virginia and Jersey were driven by a view that the Biden Administration and Democrats in general need to be doing more to boost the economy and put Delta behind us than they are, and the best way to get that done is to pass their infrastructure plans. I think Manchin is going to fold and the BBBA is fairly likely to pass, possibly as early as next week.



Looking like a big ol' no on Manchin for now. He said he hasn't read the HoR version of the bill but it won't even be the framework the Senate bill goes off of. The guy is a fuckin monster.


----------



## USMarine75

Typical liberals violating his constitutional rights by canceling him. Is this what President Hamilton wrote the Declaration of Independence for? So some libs could take away his 1st Amendment right that guarandamntees his right to freedom from persecution by the Rothschild-owned EvilCorp that is CNN - and that’s C for UnConstitutional. Not a Coincidence is it? Manifest Destiny, sheeple!


----------



## mmr007

I thought it was backlash from the lame ass man bun but your assertions something more nefarious is afoot has me intrigued. Let me consult Q on this.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> Let me consult Q on this.



What if he was hiding right in front of us this whole time? 

Oops I meant, who is hiding in front of us at all times for $1000?


----------



## spudmunkey

"Aaron didn't get the Jeopardy job, but in the end, he still became a host." (explanation of the joke: this all started when he tested positive for COVID)


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/politics/cnn-poll-biden-job-approval/index.html

I love how the question is - will this hurt him if he tries to run again in 2024? No, the fact that he’ll be the same age as Jimmy Carter will. (And that he’s somehow less popular with his own party.) 

What do I care. I’m gonna vote for JFK Jr anyways.


----------



## Adieu

Oh right, that dude's back now?

Kinda impressive how the dead idiot son of America's worst dead President is somehow of interest to anyone


----------



## mmr007

spudmunkey said:


> "Aaron didn't get the Jeopardy job, but in the end, he still became a host." (explanation of the joke: this all started when he tested positive for COVID)


I still don't get the joke. Hold on...lemme turn my country music down and re-read it slowly....


----------



## mmr007

It sucks that Biden thought he had a mandate and his brand was what we were thirsting for. He was a plumber called upon to help flush a clogged turd down the drain....but you don't need the plumber hanging around for the next four years. Go away now. I've accepted that in 3 years Putin will be back in the white house....in the meantime let me at least go indoors without a mask


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Oh right, that dude's back now?
> 
> Kinda impressive how the dead idiot son of America's worst dead President is somehow of interest to anyone



America’s worst president? By what ranking? RT?


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> America’s worst president? By what ranking? RT?


Maybe it means worst at being dead and not worst president who is now dead. Maybe it makes more sense that way


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> Maybe it means worst at being dead and not worst president who is now dead. Maybe it makes more sense that way



Mind. Blown.


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


> Maybe it means worst at being dead and not worst president who is now dead. Maybe it makes more sense that way


I mean, that definitely tracks. If he's really alive, then he certainly sucks at being dead.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> I mean, that definitely tracks. If he's really alive, then he certainly sucks at being dead.



Hey. Anything’s possible. Remember. This movie was actually made… 



https://www.imdb.com/video/vi397326873


----------



## Xaios

USMarine75 said:


> Hey. Anything’s possible. Remember. This movie was actually made…
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/video/vi397326873



Man, I remember watching the Cinema Snob review of this when it came out. Absolutely fucking hilarious.


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> Hey. Anything’s possible. Remember. This movie was actually made…
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/video/vi397326873



A) I did not know this existed.
B) I now feel the human race has reached peak stupidity. 

I'm ready for my exit.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> Man, I remember watching the Cinema Snob review of this when it came out. Absolutely fucking hilarious.



Haha were you the one that mentioned Cinema Snob in another thread? I had this already queued up on YouTube for me and the wife to watch tonight!


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> America’s worst president? By what ranking? RT?



Amphetamine-addled philandering playboy heir with a penchant for nuclear brinksmanship and cult of personality crap... yeah, greatness indeed.

And plus, Trump's not dead yet. Worst DEAD president.


----------



## TedEH

USMarine75 said:


> This movie was actually made…


Well, that trailer was a minute and forty seconds I'll never get back.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Hey. Anything’s possible. Remember. This movie was actually made…
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/video/vi397326873


----------



## mmr007

TedEH said:


> Well, that trailer was a minute and forty seconds I'll never get back.


Maybe pray harder and you will


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Amphetamine-addled philandering playboy heir with a penchant for nuclear brinksmanship and cult of personality crap... yeah, greatness indeed.
> 
> And plus, Trump's not dead yet. Worst DEAD president.


Worse than Buchanan or Johnson or even Warren G. Harding? 

I'm no fan of JFK's policies. He's a big part of the reason for Vietnam and, sure, the Cuban missile crisis was handled very poorly and could have had eternal consequences, but at least he didn't "meh, whatever" his way through the presidency like Grant or paint us into a corner with the only conclusion possible being the American Civil War.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Worse than Buchanan or Johnson or even Warren G. Harding?
> 
> I'm no fan of JFK's policies. He's a big part of the reason for Vietnam and, sure, the Cuban missile crisis was handled very poorly and could have had eternal consequences, but at least he didn't "meh, whatever" his way through the presidency like Grant or paint us into a corner with the only conclusion possible being the American Civil War.


Um....sorry but the Grant presidency was incredibly successful in many areas and you CANNOT understate how difficult reconstruction was but he formed the DOJ and used federal powers to enforce civil rights, decimate the KKK and the only scandals were hyper-focused on by racist democrats who hated that slavery ended. Today these scandals would be considered a slow Tuesday in Washington


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> Amphetamine-addled philandering playboy heir with a penchant for nuclear brinksmanship and cult of personality crap... yeah, greatness indeed.
> 
> And plus, Trump's not dead yet. Worst DEAD president.


so what...everyone was on amphetamines back then. This wasn't long after they took cocaine out of cola and heroin was legal but you needed a prescription for aspirin and cigarettes soothed your t zone according to doctors. And every guy is a playboy if the option is available. The number of women we sleep with each year is based solely on the number of women who say yes. 38.8% of all people know that. I don't know that there was a cult of personality around him when he was alive. He was catholic at a time when that was not cool with many Americans. The cult started after his assassination. I think there was more hoopla around his wife cuz people thought she was hot and stylish (if you're into chicks whose eyes are so far apart they look like a porpoise)


----------



## USMarine75

JFK was not a reason for Vietnam actually. He famously resisted his entire Cabinet including the JCS who all tried to ambush him in a meeting to get him to invade Vietnam. He assented to military advisors only, since we were already diplomatically propping up the southern govt. But he decided no combat infantry would be authorized to their anger. There’s a great doc about it I just can’t remember the name (I’ll post if I remember).

Also, @Adieu F off with your incorrect dumbassery. JFK was addicted to painkillers (This. Is. The painkiller! Sorry…) and a cocktail of other ingredients (including amphetamines) from his doctor. This was because he suffered from Addisons and also almost died during his boat crash when he broke his spine. He was in a lifetime of incredible pain. At one point in his early 30s they called in a priest to the hospital because they expected he would die. It’s also surmised the reason he couldn’t duck in the limo to avoid a second (or third) shot is because he was wearing a back brace because of the pain he was in. Dude spent more time on crutches than FDR. Seriously. Read a book.


----------



## mmr007

yeah...sorry. Vietnam as we know it happened because McNamara thought he knew what he was doing and Johnson thought he did too.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> (if you're into chicks whose eyes are so far apart they look like a porpoise)


----------



## ArtDecade

USMarine75 said:


> Also, @Adieu F off with your incorrect dumbassery. JFK was addicted to painkillers (This. Is. The painkiller! Sorry…) and a cocktail of other ingredients (including amphetamines) from his doctor. This was because he suffered from Addisons and also almost died during his boat crash when he broke his spine. He was in a lifetime of incredible pain. At one point in his early 30s they called in a priest to the hospital because they expected he would die. It’s also surmised the reason he couldn’t duck in the limo to avoid a second (or third) shot is because he was wearing a back brace because of the pain he was in. Seriously. Read a book.



My guess is that the Soviets have a different view of JFK. None of what @Adieu says is accurate, but maybe the Russians haven't updated their Soviet-era history books yet.


----------



## mmr007

ArtDecade said:


> My guess is that the Soviets have a different view of JFK. None of what @Adieu says is accurate, but maybe the Russians haven't updated their Soviet-era history books yet.


Careful....soviet era history books are being approved by a Texas school board near you


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> yeah...sorry. Vietnam as we know it happened because McNamara thought he knew what he was doing and Johnson thought he did too.



Literally the first thing the JCS and SecDef did was go to LBJ and flip JFKs decision about Vietnam. 

This wasn’t even the first time the military plotted against him. In 62 after the Berlin Wall went up JFK ordered that no troops or tanks be near the wall to appear like we would attack over this. He wanted no military act of aggression and told SecDef and JCS this. Meanwhile some a-hole 2-star who was commanding the troops in W Germany decided to do the opposite and move all his tanks right up to the wall. The Russians saw this as an act of aggression and prepared for WWIII. JFK called the General and cussed him out and ordered him to remove the troops/tanks. There’s a recording of this conversation and the event is just one of many times the military actively worked against him. To the point where 7 Days in May was written about what many thought was the possibility of a military coup against the Kennedys. 

http://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/john-f-kennedys-warning-republic


----------



## ArtDecade

mmr007 said:


> Careful....soviet era history books are being approved by a Texas school board near you


----------



## USMarine75

Found it…

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205541/

This examines 6 scenarios where JFK avoided war during his presidency to answer the virtual question - would JFK have avoided or entered war with Vietnam had he lived.


----------



## mmr007

Sorry...I am still pissed about the whole Grant thing. You know most boys in middle school get their first erection cuz a girl accidently brushed up against their arm...I got mine because my history teacher was teaching me about this guy....






Not only the greatest general of the civil war but the greatest american general there ever was......not just my opinion but General Petraeus' opinion too.

His accomplishment following the CIVIL FUCKING WAR that decimated one half of the country that took up arms against the other is amazing


----------



## mmr007

And Grant avoided war with Spain


----------



## Adieu

ArtDecade said:


> My guess is that the Soviets have a different view of JFK. None of what @Adieu says is accurate, but maybe the Russians haven't updated their Soviet-era history books yet.



Nah, this is all from US sources

The Soviets were just confused and presumably very relieved after somebody remedied the problem


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Found it…
> 
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205541/
> 
> This examines 6 scenarios where JFK avoided war during his presidency to answer the virtual question - would JFK have avoided or entered war with Vietnam had he lived.


I need to watch that. It looks good. And while I rail against the Vietnam War...I gotta be honest and say there has always been something about an F4 Phantom launching from an aircraft carrier that causes a chubby quicker than popping little blue pills in whorehouse


----------



## Adieu

Why do you keep talking about your alleged virility? Has this recently been an issue for you???


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> Why do you keep talking about your alleged virility? Has this recently been an issue for you???


I make everything an issue for me...it's one of my many issues


----------



## ArtDecade

Adieu said:


> Why do you keep talking about your alleged virility? Has this recently been an issue for you???



It is not alleged. If you could bottle his sweat, he's got the power to heal you, never fear!


----------



## mmr007

ArtDecade said:


> It is not alleged. If you could bottle his sweat, he's got the power to heal you, never fear!


----------



## StevenC

If I've learned anything from the trolls that come to this forum, it's that the Vietnam War was actually started by some bishop.


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> Um....sorry but the Grant presidency was incredibly successful in many areas and you CANNOT understate how difficult reconstruction was but he formed the DOJ and used federal powers to enforce civil rights, decimate the KKK and the only scandals were hyper-focused on by racist democrats who hated that slavery ended. Today these scandals would be considered a slow Tuesday in Washington


Grant was super honest and had good policies, but most of his policies backfired because he was too trusting and allowed his subordinates to lead the most corrupt executive branch in US history, which was why the reconstruction was so ineffective. It was those failures that led to the depression of the 19th century and many opportunities were missed that could have squelched the lost cause mythology that perpetuated problems with civil rights in the south to this day. I'd challenge you to find any qualified historian who deemed his presidency an overall success.


mmr007 said:


> yeah...sorry. Vietnam as we know it happened because McNamara thought he knew what he was doing and Johnson thought he did too.


The Vietnam war was a continuation of the breakdown of diplomacy between Vietnam and France from the fallout of WWII. The US was basically not involved in it until JFK's administration. *McNamera was appointed by JFK*, not LBJ. I have no idea why there's this strongly held general belief that Vietnam was LBJ's doing. He just went along with executing the plans that were already made by JFK's administration.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> If I've learned anything from the trolls that come to this forum, it's that the Vietnam War was actually started by some bishop.



The Vietnam War? You mean Spelly's War?


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Grant was super honest and had good policies, but most of his policies backfired because he was too trusting and allowed his subordinates to lead the most corrupt executive branch in US history, which was why the reconstruction was so ineffective. It was those failures that led to the depression of the 19th century and many opportunities were missed that could have squelched the lost cause mythology that perpetuated problems with civil rights in the south to this day. I'd challenge you to find any qualified historian who deemed his presidency an overall success.
> 
> The Vietnam war was a continuation of the breakdown of diplomacy between Vietnam and France from the fallout of WWII. The US was basically not involved in it until JFK's administration. *McNamera was appointed by JFK*, not LBJ. I have no idea why there's this strongly held general belief that Vietnam was LBJ's doing. He just went along with executing the plans that were already made by JFK's administration.



Here is my problem with both statements. First with respect to Grant. His administration was riddled with graft and kickbacks (not by him) but again this took place when the primary focus was putting a country back together after four years of brother killing brother. Look at the aftermath of the Iraq invasion and all the scandals that took place on both the US and Iraq side as people sought to profit from a decimated country. And Grant was held in poor esteem historically because shit rags like the New York Sun ran articles that became his legacy and just became accepted canon and repeated ad nauseum but historians ARE looking at Grant and realizing he was not a poor president and doesn't belong near the bottom. Sorry but Grant's job was harder than Lincoln's and if Grant hadn't been such a good general Lincoln, our greatest president ever, would have been voted out of office.

McNamara WAS appointed by JFK but it was LBJ (who I otherwise admire for his civil rights) who bought into McNamara's idiotic analytics which boiled the war effort down to daily kill count. For that....both LBJ and McNamara own ALL the responsibility and there is NO evidence that Johnson was executing Kennedy's war plan. Where is that evidence?


----------



## bostjan

bostjan said:


> Grant was super honest and had good policies, but most of his policies backfired because he was too trusting and allowed his subordinates to lead the most corrupt executive branch in US history, which was why the reconstruction was so ineffective. It was those failures that led to the depression of the 19th century and many opportunities were missed that could have squelched the lost cause mythology that perpetuated problems with civil rights in the south to this day. I'd challenge you to find any qualified historian who deemed his presidency an overall success.
> 
> The Vietnam war was a continuation of the breakdown of diplomacy between Vietnam and France from the fallout of WWII. The US was basically not involved in it until JFK's administration. *McNamera was appointed by JFK*, not LBJ. I have no idea why there's this strongly held general belief that Vietnam was LBJ's doing. He just went along with executing the plans that were already made by JFK's administration.



For the same reason, you cannot rank Obama as the #1 best president. He promised free health care for all, closing Gitmo, improved civil rights, reversing the Bush-era policies that hurt the USA, etc., but then did none of those things in reality. We had rose-coloured glasses when he was elected, because he advertised such great changes, but ultimately, there are strong arguments that he was largely ineffective in what he wanted to do and reversed several of his goals 180° as soon as he had the power to affect those changes due to lack of effective foresight. You can't blame all of that on his circumstances, either. Sure, stupidity is easier to forgive than malice, but if we forgive someone's sins, it doesn't make them great.

Grant was a super effective military leader, when he was sober, at least. But, arguably Franklin Pierce was also a successful military leader, and was also a shit president. Andrew Johnson is universally considered one of the three worst presidents in US history, and he was a general as well. If you look at who are generally considered the worst presidents and which presidents were generals, you see the same list with the exceptions of Washington and Eisenhower being good presidents and Trump, Harding, and Hoover being not-generals.

Was Grant a good guy? Sure, I obviously never met him, but I believe he was a decent guy. Was he a good president? No. In spite of his proven leadership abilities and good intentions, he grew apathetic about the corruption of his subordinates and became disillusioned with his own goals, so he unintentionally led the USA into one of the darkest periods of its history, worse than the Great Depression economically and worse than Watergate in terms of political corruption. As such a proven leader, he had no excuse.

As for Kennedy, he escalated the Vietnam War. Period. Maybe he would have de-escalated the war had he not been killed, but, it never happened. Good intentions assumed from rumours.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> For the same reason, you cannot rank Obama as the #1 best president. He promised free health care for all, closing Gitmo, improved civil rights, reversing the Bush-era policies that hurt the USA, etc., but then did none of those things in reality. We had rose-coloured glasses when he was elected, because he advertised such great changes, but ultimately, there are strong arguments that he was largely ineffective in what he wanted to do and reversed several of his goals 180° as soon as he had the power to affect those changes due to lack of effective foresight. You can't blame all of that on his circumstances, either. Sure, stupidity is easier to forgive than malice, but if we forgive someone's sins, it doesn't make them great.
> 
> Grant was a super effective military leader, when he was sober, at least. But, arguably Franklin Pierce was also a successful military leader, and was also a shit president. Andrew Johnson is universally considered one of the three worst presidents in US history, and he was a general as well. If you look at who are generally considered the worst presidents and which presidents were generals, you see the same list with the exceptions of Washington and Eisenhower being good presidents and Trump, Harding, and Hoover being not-generals.
> 
> Was Grant a good guy? Sure, I obviously never met him, but I believe he was a decent guy. Was he a good president? No. In spite of his proven leadership abilities and good intentions, he grew apathetic about the corruption of his subordinates and became disillusioned with his own goals, so he unintentionally led the USA into one of the darkest periods of its history, worse than the Great Depression economically and worse than Watergate in terms of political corruption. As such a proven leader, he had no excuse.
> 
> As for Kennedy, he escalated the Vietnam War. Period. Maybe he would have de-escalated the war had he not been killed, but, it never happened. Good intentions assumed from rumours.



OK so Grant was burdened with an economic crises born by the fact that Lincoln threw tons of paper money IOU's into the economy to fund the civil war that Grant won and when it came time to pay back the US couldn't do it so Grant resisted a Germany-like inflation and held firm in a way that yes...caused a crises but also helped the US recover stronger than ever with the interest rate and national debt significantly reduced. We can argue all day (I'd rather not) about which fiscal policy is best (I'm not well enough equipped to argue that) but again, my point is that tired tropes about Grant are just that....tired tropes and many historians are recognizing that shit talking Grant's legacy is a hobby of the ill informed


----------



## Drew

Wait, we're really having a conversation here on whether US Grant or JFK were any good as presidents? 

JFK's legacy is complicated, sure, and (IMO) his administration's landmark accomplishment, the Civil Rights Act, wouldn't have gotten over the line without LBJ. But I can think of a few other presidents who have more blood on their hands than JFK does for his role in Vietnam - Andrew Jackson's record on native american relations comes to mind here, for one. And then William Henry Harrison may not have killed anyone (arguably other than himself) in his, what, 90 days in the White House, but he also has a lot less to his name by way of accomplishments - certainly the stupidest american presidency, or at least before #45.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Wait, we're really having a conversation here on whether US Grant or JFK were any good as presidents?


We've officially given up trying to talk about the current state of politics. It's a shit-show of nothing and broken promises.

Let's talk about the shit-shows of the past using whatever biases we were taught! Surely that'll be better!


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> OK so Grant was burdened with an economic crises born by the fact that Lincoln threw tons of paper money IOU's into the economy to fund the civil war that Grant won and when it came time to pay back the US couldn't do it so Grant resisted a Germany-like inflation and held firm in a way that yes...caused a crises but also helped the US recover stronger than ever with the interest rate and national debt significantly reduced. We can argue all day (I'd rather not) about which fiscal policy is best (I'm not well enough equipped to argue that) but again, my point is that tired tropes about Grant are just that....tired tropes and many historians are recognizing that shit talking Grant's legacy is a hobby of the ill informed



Which historians said that? Political experts contemporary with Grant were pretty universally negative about the administration, and I don't know of a single historian who ever rated his presidency better than mediocre, and even those "mediocre" ratings are pretty rare and hotly debated.

What are you trying to say, exactly? That Grant was a good president, that historians generally consider Grant a good president, or that you personally think Grant was a good president? Because, if it's just the last of those three, I certainly won't disagree. Otherwise, a dozen of the worst executive branch scandals prior to the Nixon administration suggest that you are mistaken about the first and published historical critical papers discount the second.

Maybe you have been reading a bunch of biographies by biased authors? I know those are a thing. But any account of Grant's presidency that fails to mention the Black Friday Scandal, the Tweed Ring or the Safe Burglary Frame Up of 1876 and Grant's involvement in assisting the people responsible for covering those up, frankly, is lying by omission.



Drew said:


> Wait, we're really having a conversation here on whether US Grant or JFK were any good as presidents?
> 
> JFK's legacy is complicated, sure, and (IMO) his administration's landmark accomplishment, the Civil Rights Act, wouldn't have gotten over the line without LBJ. But I can think of a few other presidents who have more blood on their hands than JFK does for his role in Vietnam - Andrew Jackson's record on native american relations comes to mind here, for one. And then William Henry Harrison may not have killed anyone (arguably other than himself) in his, what, 90 days in the White House, but he also has a lot less to his name by way of accomplishments - certainly the stupidest american presidency, or at least before #45.



I thought it was more like a month. It was @Adieu who said JFK was the worst president. I questioned it by throwing out a few names, including, but certainly not limited to Grant. Apparently there are at least 2-3 people here who learned in their history classes that Grant fixed the economy, crushed the racists, and solved all of the civil rights issues that we definitely didn't have to wrestle with in the south for the next 100+ years, as well as gets historians erotically aroused (?!).


----------



## Adieu

Idk man, Ulysses sounds a hell of a lot more impressive than frikkin John. Just by default.


----------



## mmr007

https://www.historynet.com/three-recent-books-redeem-ulysses-grant.htm

These are just some of the books and the book tours accompanying them have brought out other scholars who have conceded that Grant bashing is low lying fruit and his accomplishments deserve further attention. Was he a great president? No one is arguing that but given what he had to work with....the assassination of Lincoln and putting the country back together after it killed over 600,000 of its own citizens over the issue of slavery.....Maybe we should cut him some slack. Obama got credit for holding the country together after GM declared bankruptcy. I just think some perspective is in order for Grant.

That said I just spent my 1000th post arguing about Ulysses S Grant on a forum for 7 string guitars when I was saving this occasion to say how much I hate headless guitars. Now my day is ruined. Damnit!


----------



## bostjan

Sort of a discrepancy between 


mmr007 said:


> shit talking Grant's legacy is a hobby of the ill informed


and


mmr007 said:


> Grant bashing is low lying fruit


in that the latter acknowledges that Grant was a bad president and simply states that talking about how bad it was is counter-productive, whereas the former statement implies that the condescension towards his administration is based on false pretenses.

And no one is forcing you to continue attacking my position that the Grant administration was an example of a bad presidency (in comparison to the Kennedy administration). I made the claim, and you refuted it by saying that "the Grant presidency was incredibly successful in many areas." 

As for the books highlighted in the article, I've only read one of them (the first one), and it's actually exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned biographies that omit tons and tons of negative stuff to try to make a book more likeable.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Sort of a discrepancy between
> 
> and
> 
> in that the latter acknowledges that Grant was a bad president and simply states that talking about how bad it was is counter-productive, whereas the former statement implies that the condescension towards his administration is based on false pretenses.
> 
> And no one is forcing you to continue attacking my position that the Grant administration was an example of a bad presidency (in comparison to the Kennedy administration). I made the claim, and you refuted it by saying that "the Grant presidency was incredibly successful in many areas."
> 
> As for the books highlighted in the article, I've only read one of them (the first one), and it's actually exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned biographies that omit tons and tons of negative stuff to try to make a book more likeable.



I don't see an inconsistency between those two statements. I contend that bashing Grant is low lying fruit because it is generally based parroting long held convention that was not challenged by facts and a re-examining of those facts. Hence "ill informed" and "low lying fruit" are too me, intellectually consistent arguments.

No...no one is forcing me to argue about Grant with you. No one is forcing anyone to do anything on this forum. Just know that even when I am being serious, I am not serious. Never take me that seriously....seriously. Anyway I gotta go and clean up the mess I made in my civil war re-enactment group chat where I was bashing Jeff Keisel and everyone is getting confused.


----------



## bostjan

But is this the right thread for a NWGHSEbCD? (New Warren G. Harding Signature Eb Cornet Day?)


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Idk man, Ulysses sounds a hell of a lot more impressive than frikkin John. Just by default.


Eh, Kennedy wasn't a great human being, sure, but I don't know if I fully agree. You mentioned something about nuclear brinksmanship - one of the quiet and less well known parts of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that US intelligence was intercepting Soviet and Cuban communications, so when Kennedy started racheting up pressure on the Soviets and engaging in "brinksmanship" as you put it, it was because we were privy to their internal communications, knew that they were freaking the fuck out, and that they would fold if pressed. That didn't come out for _decades_ afterwards and even still isn't a big part of the popular historical record here, and probably needs to be taken into account - if you really hate JFK you could argue that there was nothing great in winning a poker game when you could see your opponent's cards and knew you had the better hand, but from the outside if no one knew that and thought you were bluffing recklessly and just got lucky, well, it was a lot more calculated than that.


----------



## Adieu

I still see the lack of typical American belligerence lashing out in any and all directions after his death 911-style as definitive proof that anyone who was anyone in Washington collectively sighed in relief and thanked their deity of choice that whoever had him whacked did it


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> But is this the right thread for a NWGHSEbCD? (New Warren G. Harding Signature Eb Cornet Day?)


Seems more like a TGP type of thing but if its posted here and has pics I'll give it a look see


----------



## bostjan

Who was the better president?
A) Richard Nixon






B) Bill Clinton




or 
C) Woodrow Wilson


----------



## Drew

NOW you're getting tricky, @bostjan 

Nixon, minus the whole breaking the law and espionage thing, was a fairly effective president - excellent foreign policy record, normalized relations with China which clearly was prescient, but the Chinese were terrified of him as a negotiator so it wasn't like he got walked over doing so. A Republican, but gave us the EPA, the Clean Air Act, and came pretty close to getting a universal healthcare proposal out of washington. Aside from Watergate, ran a pretty damned good re-election campaign, and the irony of the whole thing was there was erally no reason to be spying on the Democrats in the first place because the whole election was just a bloodbath for them. 

Clinton, as a liberal who started becoming politically aware in the late 90s, is ovbviously someone I have positive biases around, and the whole impeachment thing was stupid and something even the GOP came to regret, feeling like they'd overplayed their hand. And, at the time, was seen as the model of a new way forward for Democrats after they'd been irrelevant nationally for quite a few cycles, and the fact that the Democrats ARE relevant today may be a direct product of that. But there's no denying that his move to the middle on welfare and crime had some disasterous consequences, and while he's beloved on the left for balancing the budget and - rightfully - robbing the GOP of a lot of their fiscal cred, he no doubt benefitted from a very, very, very positive market environment, which blew up not long after W took office. 

Wilson I actually know quite a bit less about than I should, but you DO have to wonder how things would have played out had he gotten his League of Nations off the ground and if he could have averted the Second World War. Likewise, the heavy war reparations that came in Versailles were not part of his original 14 points. 

I guess I'll take Wilson by default, as I think Clinton's reputation should be a little more nuanced than it is, for the worse, and Nixon's a little more nuanced than it is, for the better, but because of that I can't really bring myself to pick either.


----------



## Adieu

Don't tell me...was it Dick?


----------



## bostjan

That's a lot of good political information, @Drew , but I was referring solely to musical ability


----------



## mmr007

Ok as much as I hate to admit it being a moderate flaming liberal (hard to explain)...I have to give it to Nixon. Watergate was inexcusable as was his pettiness and abuse of the executive powers to satisfy that pettiness....but forming EPA, SALT 1, taxes on the rich, ending Vietnam war, lowering inflation, detente with China.....hard to argue

Wilson was an idiot and Clinton was a republican in sheep's clothing. Clinton's selection of Les Aspin as Sec Def and support of the repeal of Glass-Steagall knock him down a few pegs. Also he was an idiot for lying about a blow job...that's something to brag about


----------



## Xaios

US Political Discussion: Grant/Kennedy Edition (Rules in OP)


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> The Vietnam war was a continuation of the breakdown of diplomacy between Vietnam and France from the fallout of WWII. The US was basically not involved in it until JFK's administration. *McNamera was appointed by JFK*, not LBJ. I have no idea why there's this strongly held general belief that Vietnam was LBJ's doing. He just went along with executing the plans that were already made by JFK's administration.



All completely inaccurate. McNamara himself recalls JFK ordering him in Oct to plan for the withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam by 1965. This is backed up by WH recordings and documents.

http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam

Also, the US was “involved” since Truman.

https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation

As I said before… there is ample documentation that the JCS and SecDef plotted against JFK to overwhelm him and convince him to enter Vietnam. He did not. While he regrettably allowed MACV, advisors, trainers, lend-lease of equipment, and intel, he specifically stated no combat troops would be sent and no American would engage the enemy directly. This only changed after JFK’s death.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> Ok as much as I hate to admit it being a moderate flaming liberal (hard to explain)...I have to give it to Nixon. Watergate was inexcusable as was his pettiness and abuse of the executive powers to satisfy that pettiness....but forming EPA, SALT 1, taxes on the rich, ending Vietnam war, lowering inflation, detente with China.....hard to argue
> 
> Wilson was an idiot and Clinton was a republican in sheep's clothing. Clinton's selection of Les Aspin as Sec Def and support of the repeal of Glass-Steagall knock him down a few pegs. Also he was an idiot for lying about a blow job...that's something to brag about



It’s almost like humans exist on a spectrum and aren’t 1s or 0s  

Everyone thinks historical figures are either Jesus or Hitler, but the truth is they lie somewhere in between. Some closer to Hitler than others *cough Trump *cough. 

Take Wilson. He was the architect of the UN, NATO, WHO, etc with his League of Nations. He won WWI. Many Americans used to think he should be on Mt Rushmore. 

He was also a rabid racist. The KKK was all but disappeared until his presidency and under him they had a resurgence. Under his administration all Black federal employees were relieved of their positions. A congress of Black leaders came to the WH to ask for their jobs back and he chased them out with a stick. He also authored the foreword of Birth of a Nation and screened the movie at the WH. 

People are complicated.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> It’s almost like humans exist on a spectrum and aren’t 1s or 0s
> 
> Everyone thinks historical figures are either Jesus or Hitler, but the truth is they lie somewhere in between. Some closer to Hitler than others *cough Trump *cough.
> 
> Take Wilson. He was the architect of the UN, NATO, WHO, etc with his League of Nations. He won WWI. Many Americans used to think he should be on Mt Rushmore.
> 
> He was also a rabid racist. The KKK was all but disappeared until his presidency and under him they had a resurgence. Under his administration all Black federal employees were relieved of their positions. A congress of Black leaders came to the WH to ask for their jobs back and he chased them out with a stick. He also authored the foreword of Birth of a Nation and screened the movie at the WH.
> 
> People are complicated.


Agreed...except for the insinuation [cough] that Trump is anything like Hitler [cough]. Hitler was not besties with Russian dictators, Hitler actually served in the military, Hitler's infrastructure week actually happened, and unlike Trump once Hitler realized he lost he did the only sensible thing and killed himself rather than continue to lie about the outcome of WW2. Also...even though he helped murder his own children Goebbels was still more likeable than Stephen Miller to kids in general


----------



## mmr007

Xaios said:


> US Political Discussion: Grant/Kennedy Edition (Rules in OP)


I seriously cannot stop chuckling about this post and my own absurdity


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> All completely inaccurate. McNamara himself recalls JFK ordering him in Oct to plan for the withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam by 1965. This is backed up by WH recordings and documents.
> 
> http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
> 
> Also, the US was “involved” since Truman.
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/us-presidents-vietnam-war-escalation
> 
> As I said before… there is ample documentation that the JCS and SecDef plotted against JFK to overwhelm him and convince him to enter Vietnam. He did not. While he regrettably allowed MACV, advisors, trainers, lend-lease of equipment, and intel, he specifically stated no combat troops would be sent and no American would engage the enemy directly. This only changed after JFK’s death.



You're contradicted by the source you posted.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> You're contradicted by the source you posted.



Nope. Read the whole article. It discusses how contrarians like Chomsky disagree without proof. But in the end McNamara (one of the prime architects of the war) himself said he was told by JFK in Oct to remove some troops by end of year and then full withdrawal by ‘75 iirc. This was backed up by NARA documentation and other sources. 

The fact is, and it’s a fact, JFK was opposed to what he saw as a proxy war with Russia in Vietnam. Just as he was against a similar proxy war in Germany. He was fairly consistent in this. 

Also read the LBJ bio by Caro. LBJ was haunted by his decision to go full on in Vietnam. Once he was too deep into the “war” he became obsessed with not being the first US President to lose a war. At the end Caro tells the story of a broken and gaunt LBJ wandering the halls and kitchen of the WH at 2am because he was so distraught and felt so betrayed by his advisors. The reality of the chants of the protestors outside the WH (“hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today”) were also driving him mad. In the end that is why he chose not to seek nor accept the nomination of his party for the usually inevitable 2nd term. 

Vietnam is the great inescapable stain on otherwise what could have been one of the great US Presidencies. 

History is just not as simple as you want it to be. No 1s and 0s here.


----------



## mmr007

USMarine75 said:


> Nope. Read the whole article. It discusses how contrarians like Chomsky disagree without proof. But in the end McNamara (one of the prime architects of the war) himself said he was told by JFK in Oct to remove some troops by end of year and then full withdrawal by ‘75 iirc. This was backed up by NARA documentation and other sources.
> 
> The fact is, and it’s a fact, JFK was opposed to what he saw as a proxy war with Russia in Vietnam. Just as he was against a similar proxy war in Germany. He was fairly consistent in this.
> 
> Also read the LBJ bio by Caro. LBJ was haunted by his decision to go full on in Vietnam. Once he was too deep into the “war” he became obsessed with not being the first US President to lose a war. At the end Caro tells the story of a broken and gaunt LBJ wandering the halls and kitchen of the WH at 2am because he was so distraught and felt so betrayed by his advisors. The reality of the chants of the protestors outside the WH (“hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today”) were also driving him mad. In the end that is why he chose not to seek nor accept the nomination of his party for the usually inevitable 2nd term.
> 
> Vietnam is the great inescapable stain on otherwise what could have been one of the great US Presidencies.
> 
> History is just not as simple as you want it to be. No 1s and 0s here.


Have you ever seen the HBO movie path to war?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> That's a lot of good political information, @Drew , but I was referring solely to musical ability


 Clinton, then. The instrument pics didn't post for some reason when I saw this originally.

Didn't know Wilson was such a rabid racist, and I probably should have. That complicates things. 



Adieu said:


> I still see the lack of typical American belligerence lashing out in any and all directions after his death 911-style as definitive proof that anyone who was anyone in Washington collectively sighed in relief and thanked their deity of choice that whoever had him whacked did it



@Adieu - there was pretty widespread national mourning after the death of JFK, in many ways the Civil Rights Act was eased along as a tribute to his memory, post-9/11-style "let's get the guys that did this" furor was largely quieted when the guy who was believed to have shot him was himself assasinated not long after being taken into custody... and even THEN, fifty years later, there's such a huge industry of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories that I think you can say pretty safely if the alleged gunman was NOT Kennedy's killer, the only reason we haven't had a 9/11-style reaction to his death is no one can quite agree who the guilty party IS.  All in, I completely disagree, and that's before we even talk about how the political environment in 1963 is so different than it is today. 

Shit, Kennedy was killed in November 1963, and by 1964 we had his face on the half dollar. I can't disagree with you strongly enough.


----------



## Drew

Drew said:


> The Democrats are increasingly taking the view that Virginia and Jersey were driven by a view that the Biden Administration and Democrats in general need to be doing more to boost the economy and put Delta behind us than they are, and the best way to get that done is to pass their infrastructure plans. I think Manchin is going to fold and the BBBA is fairly likely to pass, possibly as early as next week.


This is getting complicated by today's CPI report. Inflation is up again, and Manchin is starting to dig his heels back in about more spending during a period of high inflation, making it a little more complicated how this will play out (since the negotiation is essentially done at this point, he's basically threatening to block a bill he saw as acceptable a few days ago, which makes me think he really does think inflation is a reason to hold off on this bill). 

For what it's worth... most of the headline 0.9% monthly number was driven by energy prices, which are up on high Chinese demand and limited prpduction upside coming out of OPEC+, which is another way to say "factors not influenced by a US spending bill." Beyond that, a good chunk of it is reopening-sensitive sectors, notably new and used cars beginning to climb again, and retail demand that suggests consumers may be starting holiday shopping earlier for fear of supply chain related issues delaying delivery for the holidays, which front-loading demand is by nature transient and will result in relative weakness in a month or two. Most of this report is not someting Manchin should have any concern about. 

What DOES bear watching, though, are the shelter costs within the report - owner's equivalent rent and rental costs both rose 0.4% month over month, which are pretty big moves by historical standards for this component, and this component is something like a third of CPI (PCE has a lower weighting for shelter costs, which is one of the reasons it's been a bit quieter lately). That's something to monitor... but not something to freak out about just yet, and I continue to think most of this inflationary pressure is going to dissipate in coming months as a lot of the factors that pushed it up in the first place cntinue to improve. 

Still, there's a real chance Manchin might torpedo the BBBA now, though at least the first infrastructure bill passed. 

Which, incidently, the GOP is threatening to strip committee assignments from House Republicans who voted to pass it. A number of members took part in what grew into an open, armed insurrection against the US, and that's cool, but daring to vote for a bill written by a Democrat calls for strict censure. Gotcha.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> Have you ever seen the HBO movie path to war?



No I’ll have to google. If there’s a Cinema Snob episode I’m in.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> at least the first infrastructure bill passed.



Little (read: zero) consolation. The physical infrastructure bill is worthless to the average American without the BBB to go with it.

Say what you want, a week ago you blamed the Squad for holding up the process because they insisted both bills pass in tandem. They specifically insisted that because Manchin and the Blue Dogs could wiggle their way out of BBB if it wasn't tethered to the infrastructure bill, they had it wrestled away from them and, lo and behold, Manchin says 'well, second thought on that..." after he gets the first bill his way. Huh, fancy that.

Inflation is a piss poor excuse for not passing it. The Biden admin is tackling inflation like a PR problem, when it's a REAL problem for average Americans. Cost of gas, cost of home heating, cost of having a roof over your head. Average people are bearing the brunt of the inflation, and the BBB is the part of this whole thing made as a safety net for average people. 

Saying "the middle class is having a hard time taking care of their daily responsibilities and still paying their bills, so let's not pass this thing that takes the burden off of them" makes zero sense unless you're a lobbyist puppet scumbag like Manchin and his enablers.


----------



## CanserDYI

mmr007 said:


> Agreed...except for the insinuation [cough] that Trump is anything like Hitler [cough]. Hitler was not besties with Russian dictators, Hitler actually served in the military, Hitler's infrastructure week actually happened, and unlike Trump once Hitler realized he lost he did the only sensible thing and killed himself rather than continue to lie about the outcome of WW2. Also...even though he helped murder his own children Goebbels was still more likeable than Stephen Miller to kids in general


Ohhh man the thought of a trump suicide gets me randy. Say it again.


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> All completely inaccurate.


Ok, let's break it down point by point, since you allege that all claims I made in the quoted post were false, and there are only a few of them...



bostjan said:


> The Vietnam war was a continuation of the breakdown of diplomacy between Vietnam and France from the fallout of WWII.


Prior to WWII, Vietnam was part of French Indochina. Since Japan was Axis and France was Allied (until it was overtaken by Germany), Japan attacked Vietnam early in the war. Ho Chi Minh was a military leader in WWII fighting the Japanese with support from the USA and USSR. France offered no support. When Japan was overthrown in Vietnam ciirca 1945, the French tried to claim that Vietnam was still French territory, but the Vietnamese weren't having it, due to France's lack of support during the war, which led to the First Indochina War in 1946. Bao Dai, who was France's choice for head of state was actually a Japanese puppet during WWII. That war ended in the mid 1950's with French defeat. Rather than giving up, though, the Europeans agreed to partition Vietnam into north and south, and N Vietnam simply continued attacking the French in the south, without any peace in between the first and second Indochina wars. The Second Indochina War is the war known as the Vietnam War in the USA. All of this is common knowledge, and if you don't know it, you can look up any of these things in any reputable encyclopedia or news archive.



bostjan said:


> The US was basically not involved in it until JFK's administration.


Again, anyone who was there at the time has common knowledge of this. Revisionists can go eat a bag. Kennedy's strong moves during the cold war involved bolstering the US military with escalating conflict against all USSR proxies, including Vietnam. Eisenhower only sent 900 Americans to Vietnam. Kennedy sent 16000. The troop surge was intended to get the USA involved to overthrow the communist regime with a deadline of before Christmas of 1963. Kennedy was assassinated November 22, just over a month before the deadline for US victory. Again, these facts are all common knowledge having been not that long ago, you can look any and/or all of it up.
*


bostjan said:



McNamera was appointed by JFK

Click to expand...

*


bostjan said:


> , not LBJ.


Pretty simple. Again, common knowledge, and I've suggested nothing here that isn't easily looked up in any encyclopedia.



bostjan said:


> I have no idea why there's this strongly held general belief that Vietnam was LBJ's doing.


I assume you are not contradicting the statement of my disbelief, but rather implying that it ought to be obvious why Vietnam _was _LBJ's doing. I'll allow that as an exercise for you to prove, if you so desire. Unless, if it is the former, and then I suppose I have nothing to say but that you would be being ridiculous.



bostjan said:


> He just went along with executing the plans that were already made by JFK's administration.


JFK had only ordered a troop withdrawal of 1000 (out of the 16000 he sent), which was to take place after the Christmas deadline (which he expected to be the end of the war). LBJ reversed that decision, but that decision was based on input from Kennedy's cabinet, and no change in direction from how the cabinet advised Kennedy. The continued escalation that followed was based on how poorly the war effort went, and was again based on the cabinet. Not to defend LBJ, since I think he made idiotic decisions, but the domino theory and the focus on Vietnam in the first place as a proxy for the cold war was all stuff Kennedy's administration came up with, not Johnson's personal beliefs. Maybe there's some contention over that claim, unlike the other claims I made, but you decided to disagree with everything I said instead of just that one bit on information.


----------



## bostjan

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/tru...rom-jan-6-capitol-riot-probe-in-congress.html

Trump is trying to block an information request for records from the White House detailing Trump's re-election plan.

Is this just more Trump obstructionism or does he have something worth trying to hide?


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/tru...rom-jan-6-capitol-riot-probe-in-congress.html
> 
> Trump is trying to block an information request for records from the White House detailing Trump's re-election plan.
> 
> Is this just more Trump obstructionism or does he have something worth trying to hide?


My guess would be from HIS perspective, the first is true. Though it will probably turn out that both are true.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/tru...rom-jan-6-capitol-riot-probe-in-congress.html
> 
> Trump is trying to block an information request for records from the White House detailing Trump's re-election plan.
> 
> Is this just more Trump obstructionism or does he have something worth trying to hide?



Maybe he's just trying to remind the media that he's still around?


----------



## Randy

Maybe my socialist is showing but Biden grappling with inflation stacked on massive energy price bump effecting gas while people are getting back to work and home heating while winter is setting in, says there's nothing he can do about those prices. Great time for a direct to public stimulus (as opposed to bond purchasing), but they're backed into a corner between their obsession with jobs numbers and trying to suffocate unvaccinated workers opting out of work.

Party of the working class?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Love how we are going to go through all this again endless appeals and the info doesn't get out till it's no longer relevant or useful. 

The dude definitely knows how to just use the court system to circumvent any inconveniences.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Little (read: zero) consolation. The physical infrastructure bill is worthless to the average American without the BBB to go with it.
> 
> Say what you want, a week ago you blamed the Squad for holding up the process because they insisted both bills pass in tandem. They specifically insisted that because Manchin and the Blue Dogs could wiggle their way out of BBB if it wasn't tethered to the infrastructure bill, they had it wrestled away from them and, lo and behold, Manchin says 'well, second thought on that..." after he gets the first bill his way. Huh, fancy that.



Kind of disagree with the first point, definitely disagree on the second.

The first - if you pass a $1.2B infrastructure bill with half of that being new money to be spent building things, then right off the bat someone is going to have to build those roads and bridges, creating a wave of new blue collar jobs. And, while I don't want to run through it point by point, the section funding high speed internet infrastructure to fill in the gaps so high speed internet will be aware coast to coast is HUGE - it won't impact the cities, but rural Americans will be getting broadband access for the first time (my parents are a great example here - it's been a few years since they moved but their old place was capped at something like 1mbps, and that was the fastest plan they could get from any service provided simply because the infrastructure wasn't there.

Second - one, the Squad _didn't _compromise. Thirteen republicans decided that this bill was worth passing (rather, 12 decided it was worth passing, the thirteenth voted for it to try to diminish the influence of progressive Democrats by passing something they didn't want in what's kind of an odd fit of pique) which was enough to get it over the line over progressive holdouts. And, you could try to argue "yes, but he would have found some other reason to oppose it," but I don't know if I agree with that - Manchin has been complaining about inflation for some time now, wrongly I'd say (either because he doesn't understand what's driving it, or because he does and thinks his constituents don't, and knows saying "we need to do more to fight inflation because it's a tax on working americans!" will play well in West Virginia), but this CPI print WAS a huge surprise and caused some pretty aggressive repricing of interest rate futures (which are watched closely to suss out the market's expectations of the future path of the Fed Funds Rate, which in theory the Fed would rise if it believes runaway inflation was becoming a risk) when the report broke. I think if instead of a 0.9% month over month/6.2% year over year headline number we'd gotten something like the expected 0.5% or a slight downside miss to 0.4%, I don't think Manchin would be kicking up a fuss right now. I'm still not sure, when push comes to shove, he won't fall in line and vote for this anyway, if the CBO projections come out broadly backing the White House estimations, but I'm pretty sure if inflation had missed to the downside the Manchin wouldn't be saying a word about this.


----------



## Randy

Meh, unionized civil construction workers aren't the group hurting right now. 

You can do all the mind reading and excuse making you want. One passed, one hasn't.


----------



## bostjan

Just heard that Trump interview from back in March where he tacitly agreed with the "hang Mike Pence" chants. The reporter writing the article seemed to suggest that Pence could run against Trump in the primaries and seemed to suggest that somehow it might steal some of Trump's thunder. I guess some people out there still don't realize that just about anyone voting for Pence in a primary is going to vote for Trump in the general election if Biden or Harris run, or probably any other democrat.

I dunno if I should feel bad for Pence or not, though. Not even his closest allies seem to care at all whether he meets a violent end or not. I'm trying to imagine any other modern president being so flippant about the wellbeing of his vice-president.

And, in other news, the Januray 6th congressional commission has issued 35 subpoenas to Trump's camp, and only one person bothered to show up. Meadows was threatened with contempt of congress if he didn't show up and, well, no one knows where he was when he was supposed to testify today. I guess it's just the continuation of that game where Trump's answer to everything is "what if I (we) don't," and the answer being "  " You better bet if someone like you or me noshowed on a congressional subpoena, we'd be locked up without a second thought.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Meh, unionized civil construction workers aren't the group hurting right now.
> 
> You can do all the mind reading and excuse making you want. One passed, one hasn't.



To add to this, all the building trades folks are already working and it's going to take half a decade to push more through the proper training if we start right now. Even then, pre-apprenticeships are a hot commodity usually going to family of existing journeymen. 

Anyone willing and able to travel to "dig ditches", the stuff that you don't need extensive training for, is also already in a hard hat. 

Not everyone can live that life. Simply building things is not a cure-all.


----------



## mmr007

Feeling bad for Mike Pence is like feeling bad for Herman Goering just because Hitler turned on him.


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> Feeling bad for Mike Pence is like feeling bad for Herman Goering just because Hitler turned on him.


I mean, I didn't say I feel bad for Pence, only that I don't know how to feel.

I don't think Göring is *at all* sympathetic at the end of his life, but, at one point in his life, he was at least a well renowned flying ace. Then, he fell in love with a woman who was one of Hitler's first followers, got shot in the dick, became addicted to drugs, and went mental (like literally in a straightjacket). And that was all in one year. His life could have ended up completely differently if he had married a nice Jewish girl instead (the Göring family was not Jewish, but they had many family friends who were prior to the rise of the Nazi party). I still think he deserved what he got in the end, but I do admit that I feel some semblance of sympathy for him just around the moment right before he turned evil. But then again, most accounts of him were that he was kind of a prick even as a little kid, so fuck it.

I'd say something about the comparison being a little too far, but every time from 2016-2020 that I had the thought that maybe people were exaggerating comparisons between Trump and Hitler, Trump would either blatantly extort political favours from foreign leaders, or tear gas protesters so that he could get a photo op of himself holding a Bible upside down in front of a church, or start a riot and propel it toward the capitol while he went to hide in a bunker. What a cartoon villain!

Trump has turned on basically everyone close to him, which makes it all the more puzzling why certain people are so quick to line up to grovel before him to be next.


----------



## mmr007

For me its easy…if Pence is as religious as he pretends to be he had no business being Trumps running mate and vice president. Moral people should not be judgmental of others they dont need in their life while simultaneously courting immoral people because maybe they can get an advantage from it. Did I wish to see Pence hanged? No I dont wish that on anyone as I am opposed to the death penalty but I hope an angry death dealing mob scared him back to his senses.


----------



## Randy

Party of the working class


----------



## Adieu

Granny Nancy seriously needs to get her one-way ticket to Florida already.

The woman is slowly and visibly losing it, which is doing her cause ZERO favors.


----------



## mmr007

That woman is half the reason we are in the pickle we are in. She was so averse to politically taking a stand on Trump's bullshit instead just waiting on the sidelines hoping that the Mueller Report would rescue her and when it didn't she finally tepidly stepped in too little too late and his anti-democratic tantrums had become normalized.

And don't say you pray for the president...even if you actually did (which nobody believes). You can't say he is a threat to the foundation of our country and then say you pray for him. Get the female equivalent of balls and take a true stand. And then step aside hypocrite.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, Pelosi was neat at first during Trump, but I'm over here.
That said, no thanks on AOC trying to take her spot.


----------



## USMarine75

mmr007 said:


> For me its easy…if Pence is as religious as he pretends to be he had no business being Trumps running mate and vice president. Moral people should not be judgmental of others they dont need in their life while simultaneously courting immoral people because maybe they can get an advantage from it. Did I wish to see Pence hanged? No I dont wish that on anyone as I am opposed to the death penalty but I hope an angry death dealing mob scared him back to his senses.



You need to watch this then. Religious nuts (i.e. people) love this guy.


----------



## mmr007

I love how the phrase "May God bless America" morphed into "God clearly does bless America" as if this became God's favorite place after we pushed native americans out of Florida and Mexicans out of California (albeit temporarily since Polk didn't have the foresight to build a wall). It is just fucking gross...this nationalism crap. I don't know if I can watch that documentary movie because 45 seconds into 2:21 minute clip I was already breaking out in a rash and suffering breathing problems


----------



## mmr007

God bless America....just kindly recalibrate your understanding of bless

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...e-god-will-forgive-them/ar-AAQF40l?li=BBnb7Kz


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/politics/kamala-harris-frustrating-start-vice-president/index.html

“Sue, did the President call?”

“No, Ma’am”.


----------



## thebeesknees22

So she's doing the typical role of vice president where they aren't in the spotlight. Go figure

I always thought she was a bad choice for VP when she had so much drama out of her campaign during her presidential run. 

I know biden wanted a diverse ticket, but damn. She was unpopular with pretty much everyone across the board on both sides of the aisle. I've yet to meet a person in real life that supported harris.


----------



## nightflameauto

That picture of Pelosi up-thread reminded me of a comedy skit where she says she likes to smile in a mirror while shoving thumbtacks into her leg so she's sure she can keep a smile through all the political bullshit she gets hurled at her. That's the smile she has in that picture. While her eyes are screaming, "what the fuck is this shit?" she's smiling.

I think there was a brief moment somewhere during Trump's term where I didn't loathe her as bottom feeding scum. Can't say I ever remember thinking fondly of her.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Pelosi is only viewable as human compared to actual reptilians in the hard-line GOP. On her own she's the prototypical just-left-of-right corporatist go with the flow Dem that has signified the ethos of "hey, it's either us (the lesser evil) or them (evil evil)."

Only in the post Bush2 world could she thrive. 

I still think she was shitty choice for speaker, but it could have been worse. 

Heck, it's worth it just to rankle the hyper-anti-Pelosi right having her as high up in the order of succession.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Heck, it's worth it just to rankle the hyper-anti-Pelosi right having her as high up in the order of succession.


That's her main redeeming quality at the moment. The way the GOP goes full-fledged apoplectic the second she opens her yapper is pretty fun to watch.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> That's her main redeeming quality at the moment. The way the GOP goes full-fledged apoplectic the second she opens her yapper is pretty fun to watch.



This must be the rush they feel when they burn their 15 year old Nikes to own us libs.


----------



## USMarine75

MaxOfMetal said:


> Pelosi is only viewable as human compared to actual reptilians in the hard-line GOP. On her own she's the prototypical just-left-of-right corporatist go with the flow Dem that has signified the ethos of "hey, it's either us (the lesser evil) or them (evil evil)."
> 
> Only in the post Bush2 world could she thrive.
> 
> I still think she was shitty choice for speaker, but it could have been worse.
> 
> Heck, it's worth it just to rankle the hyper-anti-Pelosi right having her as high up in the order of succession.



It should have been Steny Hoyer. But he was prob smart enough not to want the job.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Meh, unionized civil construction workers aren't the group hurting right now.
> 
> You can do all the mind reading and excuse making you want. One passed, one hasn't.


Yeah, but again, it's not that the Squad finally agreed to compromise with Manchin and then he immediately turned around and fucked them, which considering they DIDN'T vote for this bill and it passed because enough Republicans thought it made sense to pass that they voted for it, means that that's a reading we DO have to explicitly take off the table. Zero mind reading or excuse making, it passed with bipartisan support in both the House AND Senate, over progressive objections.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Yeah, but again, it's not that the Squad finally agreed to compromise with Manchin and then he immediately turned around and fucked them, which considering they DIDN'T vote for this bill and it passed because enough Republicans thought it made sense to pass that they voted for it, means that that's a reading we DO have to explicitly take off the table. Zero mind reading or excuse making, it passed with bipartisan support in both the House AND Senate, over progressive objections.



Progressive opposition was mostly symbolic, I think you follow the news enough to have heard of they were the swing votes on it passing, they were going to vote in favor.

Anyway hey, so did they pass BBB yet?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Progressive opposition was mostly symbolic, I think you follow the news enough to have heard of they were the swing votes on it passing, they were going to vote in favor.
> 
> Anyway hey, so did they pass BBB yet?


They were still holding out, though, were saying in interviews they wouldn't vote to pass the bill unless the Senate voted on their bill, and in any event _didn't_ vote to pass it when the vote came up, so if I'm not allowed to read minds, neither are you. Whatever their reasons for voting down the bipartisan compromise may be, and whether their votes would have changed if there weren't enough Republicans to pass it into law without their votes, is something we can't know.

Last I heard, we're still waiting for the CBO to finish scoring the bill, which was the precondition for moderates supporting it, that the CBO broadly supported the White House's own figures. It's possible I missed their report, though a Bloomberg and New York Times search turned up nothing so I'm thinking probably not, but if it came out and I missed it by all means point me to their findings.


----------



## Drew

Update on the CBO report, they expect to release their analysis on the agriculture and financial services portions of the bill tonight, but the remainder likely not before Friday, meaning the earliest we're likely to see a vote is next week.


----------



## Randy

And when they inevitably rate it low (which they always do), Manchin in the clear to vote it down because he warned them his decision was gonna be 100% based on that?


----------



## Randy

Can't find if there was an updated CBO report on the infrastructure bill but lawmakers said it was gonna be totally funded and CBO said it would be $250B+ added to the debt. Didn't stop them from passing it tho.


----------



## mmr007

Analysts predict that Trump would beat Biden in 2024 by double digits due to inflation, debt and perception of incompetence. Time to get that man and his cronies in jail or we’re all gonna have to learn russian not to yell incantations at ipads but because under Putin it will be our national official language. And we all know what Flynn will allow as our one official religion. Between now and election day Repubs are gonna hammer home the idea we’ve mortgaged our future to pay for woke idealism.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> And when they inevitably rate it low (which they always do), Manchin in the clear to vote it down because he warned them his decision was gonna be 100% based on that?


The House moderates are waiting on CBO scoring. Manchin isn't even in the picture yet. 

I mean, there's one thing I'm trying to understand about your angle of attack here, and maybe you could help me here - there's this implicit undercurrent to your posting that there was some sort of deal between Manchin and the progressives that now that they supported the Senate compromise bill, he was going to support the House BBBA. One, the progressives _didn't_ support the Senate bill, a number of them did but the coalition split and the bill only passed with moderate GOP support. And two, can you point to somewhere where Manchin said he was going to support the BBBA in return for progressive support for the bipartisan bill? 

You're talking about this like Manchin is backtracking after giving his word, in return for the progressive caucus supporting the bipartisan bill, and near as I can tell neither of those things happened.


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> Analysts predict that Trump would beat Biden in 2024 by double digits due to inflation, debt and perception of incompetence. Time to get that man and his cronies in jail or we’re all gonna have to learn russian not to yell incantations at ipads but because under Putin it will be our national official language. And we all know what Flynn will allow as our one official religion. Between now and election day Repubs are gonna hammer home the idea we’ve mortgaged our future to pay for woke idealism.



Well damn

I've already lived under Putin's rule and I didn't much care for it (understatement)


----------



## SpaceDock

mmr007 said:


> Analysts predict that Trump would beat Biden in 2024 by double digits due to inflation, debt and perception of incompetence. Time to get that man and his cronies in jail or we’re all gonna have to learn russian not to yell incantations at ipads but because under Putin it will be our national official language. And we all know what Flynn will allow as our one official religion. Between now and election day Repubs are gonna hammer home the idea we’ve mortgaged our future to pay for woke idealism.



For one thing, three years is a long time in politics. What was happening in 2018, lol! I also thought that Biden said he would never do second term. I am thinking it will be Buttigieg or Swalwell.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> The House moderates are waiting on CBO scoring. Manchin isn't even in the picture yet.
> 
> I mean, there's one thing I'm trying to understand about your angle of attack here, and maybe you could help me here - there's this implicit undercurrent to your posting that there was some sort of deal between Manchin and the progressives that now that they supported the Senate compromise bill, he was going to support the House BBBA. One, the progressives _didn't_ support the Senate bill, a number of them did but the coalition split and the bill only passed with moderate GOP support. And two, can you point to somewhere where Manchin said he was going to support the BBBA in return for progressive support for the bipartisan bill?
> 
> You're talking about this like Manchin is backtracking after giving his word, in return for the progressive caucus supporting the bipartisan bill, and near as I can tell neither of those things happened.



Wrong, the WH and Congressional leadership are in the middle and this was a negotiation with them and the holdouts on either side. Manchin never promised anything to the progressives or vice versa, both were courted by leadership and asked what they needed for their support. 

At some point leadership discontinued trying to negotiate with the progressives (though I do believe there was a discussion of if infrastructure had enough votes to pass when it did or some of the Ps were willing to break off) and took the vote on infrastructure anyway, but they're still courting Manchin on the BBB and willing to compromise. A lot, so far.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Wrong, the WH and Congressional leadership are in the middle and this was a negotiation with them and the holdouts on either side. Manchin never promised anything to the progressives or vice versa, both were courted by leadership and asked what they needed for their support.
> 
> At some point leadership discontinued trying to negotiate with the progressives (though I do believe there was a discussion of if infrastructure had enough votes to pass when it did or some of the Ps were willing to break off) and took the vote on infrastructure anyway, but they're still courting Manchin on the BBB and willing to compromise. A lot, so far.


Ok, sure, but this framing you've been presenting here - that the progressives did their part to get the bipartisan deal passed, so Manchin is now double crossing them by holding out from committing to support the BBBA - isn't really accurate, right? The White House has been trying to broker a deal here for months now, but it's not like they succeeded. Instead, Pelosi went ahead with the bipartisan bill since it was clear there were enough crossover votes to pass, but it's hard to accuse her, or the White House, of scuttling some deal and "robbing progressives of their bargaining power" - their interpretation, not mine - when after nearly four months of this, and with a debt ceiling crisis looming again, no actual bargain had materialized and the majority of the progressive caucus still decided the bipartisan bill war worth passing anyway, even with the BBBA's fate uncertain.

Again, what confuses me here is Manchin's position has actually been pretty _consistent_ here, so something like this:


Randy said:


> and, lo and behold, Manchin says 'well, second thought on that..." after he gets the first bill his way. Huh, fancy that.


...where you're suggesting this was a _change_ on Manchin's part is confusing to me. I disagree with his reasons and his interpretation, but Manchin has been complaining about inflation, and the possible impact on inflation of a large spending bill, all along. You give him the highest CPI print since 1990, and what did you think he was going to do, _stop_ complaining about inflation? 

I'm legitimately confused, man - I'm trying to see how this is Manchin betraying the progressives or weaseling out of some sort of deal using inflation as an excuse. Passing the Build Back Better Act was always going to be _insanely_ hard with a moderate-dominated 50-50+tiebreaker majority in the Senate and a progressive-dominated four vote majority in the House, and I still think it's probably more likely than not a bill will pass in some form before everything's said and done, but, like, none of the fact that it's damned near impossible to find a middle ground between what AOC will accept and what Joe Manchin will accept is at all surprising, so I guess I'm just confused by the outrage at Manchin where his position hasn't really budged since the start.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Ok, sure, but this framing you've been presenting here - that the progressives did their part to get the bipartisan deal passed, so Manchin is now double crossing them by holding out from committing to support the BBBA - isn't really accurate, right? The White House has been trying to broker a deal here for months now, but it's not like they succeeded. Instead, Pelosi went ahead with the bipartisan bill since it was clear there were enough crossover votes to pass, but it's hard to accuse her, or the White House, of scuttling some deal and "robbing progressives of their bargaining power" - their interpretation, not mine - when after nearly four months of this, and with a debt ceiling crisis looming again, no actual bargain had materialized and the majority of the progressive caucus still decided the bipartisan bill war worth passing anyway, even with the BBBA's fate uncertain.
> 
> Again, what confuses me here is Manchin's position has actually been pretty _consistent_ here, so something like this:
> 
> ...where you're suggesting this was a _change_ on Manchin's part is confusing to me. I disagree with his reasons and his interpretation, but Manchin has been complaining about inflation, and the possible impact on inflation of a large spending bill, all along. You give him the highest CPI print since 1990, and what did you think he was going to do, _stop_ complaining about inflation?
> 
> I'm legitimately confused, man - I'm trying to see how this is Manchin betraying the progressives or weaseling out of some sort of deal using inflation as an excuse. Passing the Build Back Better Act was always going to be _insanely_ hard with a moderate-dominated 50-50+tiebreaker majority in the Senate and a progressive-dominated four vote majority in the House, and I still think it's probably more likely than not a bill will pass in some form before everything's said and done, but, like, none of the fact that it's damned near impossible to find a middle ground between what AOC will accept and what Joe Manchin will accept is at all surprising, so I guess I'm just confused by the outrage at Manchin where his position hasn't really budged since the start.



You're the one that said he signaled he'd vote for it and then the "inflation number was higher than expected" and he pumped the brakes. That kinda sounds like "changing" position on things? Not sure where you're getting it from that the Manchin flip flop was totally dreamed up by me.


----------



## Randy

Also, again, the CBO said the infrastructure bill adds another $250b to the debt. What about Manchin is "consistent" about voting in favor of an infrastructure bill with 1/4 trillion added to the deficit but he's been "consistent" about concerns about the deficit?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You're the one that said he signaled he'd vote for it and then the "inflation number was higher than expected" and he pumped the brakes. That kinda sounds like "changing" position on things? Not sure where you're getting it from that the Manchin flip flop was totally dreamed up by me.


That was my interpretation of his position and not, to the best of my knowledge, anything he actually _said_, though. His public fretting about the size of the bill had quieted considerably, and after the outcome in Virginia my read was that he was going to shut up and fall in line behind the bill. That WOULD have been a change, and IMO one I would have liked to see... but then the CPI print spooked him evidently and he started bitching about inflation again. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer - that was 100% my reading between the lines, and nothing he actively said.

Certainly, there was no agreement where he would support the BBBA and the progressives would support the bipartisan bill, so again my point here is, when you're pointedly asking why the BBBA hasn't passed when the bipartisan bill is now law, and insinuating Manchin is somehow to blame... well, you could just as easily argue that when push came to shove, the Squad couldn't hold the progressive caucus together well enough to block a bill with bipartisan support. Pick your poison, I guess.



Randy said:


> Also, again, the CBO said the infrastructure bill adds another $250b to the debt. What about Manchin is "consistent" about voting in favor of an infrastructure bill with 1/4 trillion added to the deficit but he's been "consistent" about concerns about the deficit?


Again, I absolutely could be wrong here, and may have even misspoke earlier, but it was the _House_ moderates, not Manchin, who have been waiting for the CBO report before making a final decision. I think it's a requirement before the Senate can take it up as part of a reconciliation package anyway, but in either event that's moot because it hasn't cleared the House.


----------



## nightflameauto

SpaceDock said:


> For one thing, three years is a long time in politics. What was happening in 2018, lol! I also thought that Biden said he would never do second term. I am thinking it will be Buttigieg or Swalwell.


Since he won, he started hinting at actually trying to run next go-round. I think that would be a huge mistake both for him and the party, but what the heck do us peons know?


----------



## Randy

Haven't found Manchin explicitly invoking the CBO but...



> Decrying “budget gimmicks” in the bill, the West Virginia Democrat said the full price tag could be double the advertised cost if the proposed programs were extended.
> 
> “That is why we must allow time for complete transparency and analysis on the impact of changes to our tax code and energy and climate policies to ensure that our country is well-positioned to remain the superpower of the world,” Manchin said at a news conference.
> 
> ...
> 
> “What I see are shell games, budget gimmicks that make the real cost of the so-called $1.75 trillion bill estimated to be almost twice that amount, if the full time has run out,” he said. “This is a recipe for economic crisis.”
> 
> Part of the problem with estimating the cost is that the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t issued a formal “score” of the measure’s deficit impact, which is difficult without knowing what the final package will look like.



https://www.rollcall.com/2021/11/01/manchin-not-ready-to-back-1-75t-budget-package/

So there you have it. Manchin not saying BBBA is dead on arrival, he has a hard limit and he wants to make sure the price-tag is the actual price-tag, which he's saying in the context of a pending CBO score. There's zero logical gaps in assuming Manchin means he's waiting for the CBO report.

Per the article, it was a $3.5T bill that ended up at $1.75T and his limit is $1.5T. I guess I'll agree he hasn't "changed" his position in the sense that he's been a tight ass that doesn't want to spend any money on socially beneficial programs (like negotiating drug prices for seniors, any climate control stuff) as long as they get in the way of lobbyist money, but I'm not sure that's a relevant distinction.


----------



## mmr007

Can someone please explain why JFK and JFK Jr coming back from the dead is good for Trump and what Qanon followers get out of believing that shit? Also how many dates when X Y or Z is supposed to take place does Q have to get wrong before the mouth breathers go away?


----------



## Randy

mmr007 said:


> Can someone please explain why JFK and JFK Jr coming back from the dead is good for Trump and what Qanon followers get out of believing that shit? Also how many dates when X Y or Z is supposed to take place does Q have to get wrong before the mouth breathers go away?



One of the more bizarre things to come out of the Trump/Q era were the multiple interviews Roseanne did with "JFK Jr." filmed in POV.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Haven't found Manchin explicitly invoking the CBO but...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.rollcall.com/2021/11/01/manchin-not-ready-to-back-1-75t-budget-package/
> 
> So there you have it. Manchin not saying BBBA is dead on arrival, he has a hard limit and he wants to make sure the price-tag is the actual price-tag, which he's saying in the context of a pending CBO score. There's zero logical gaps in assuming Manchin means he's waiting for the CBO report.
> 
> Per the article, it was a $3.5T bill that ended up at $1.75T and his limit is $1.5T. I guess I'll agree he hasn't "changed" his position in the sense that he's been a tight ass that doesn't want to spend any money on socially beneficial programs (like negotiating drug prices for seniors, any climate control stuff) as long as they get in the way of lobbyist money, but I'm not sure that's a relevant distinction.


Thanks - I actually _did_ miss this article. Though, again, IIRC a CBO score validating the cost of the bill is a requirement for reconciliation, so it's not like he's really saying anything new here, just a pretty costless way of looking more principled. 

Either way, the point I keep coming back to is that a $3.5 billion bill was not going to make it through the Senate, and we've known that since the results of the 2020 election were known. This is just the messy process of finding out if there exists a bill small enough to get through the Senate but large enough to get through the House.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Since he won, he started hinting at actually trying to run next go-round. I think that would be a huge mistake both for him and the party, but what the heck do us peons know?


I don't think I've ever actually seen Biden explicitly state he only plans to serve one term. I've seen a LOT of people speculate that he only plans to serve one term, and at times I've leaned that way myself, but what Biden's actual intent was is a slightly different story. 

FWIW, the incumbency carries a lot of advantages. Things don't look great now, and I don't expect his approval numbers to bounce back to where they were, but IMO presidential approval matters less now than it has at any time given high polarization. Remember that Trump really didn't lose by all that much, despite a hugely negative approval gap. Inflation and Delta are big stories now, but looking at the experience in the Southeast, we'll perobably have a pretty messy winter but covid will begin to burn itself out, and supply chain issues ARE improving. I'm expecting inflation to start falling again - retail spending is probably abnormally high right now as people are front-loading holiday shopping for fear presents won't arrive in time, and I've seen some pretty credible estimates that the average American family's excess savings, assuming they'e not currently working, should last another two months or so before they're down to their usual level of savings, which should help ease labor shortages (as too will an improving covid picture). All in, it's not TOO hard to picture a 2022 where the covid situation is turning around, there's a job boom, inflation drops back down to trendline, and economic growth is strong but not overheated, which wouldn't be a bad macro environment for the midterms but would at least give Biden a good base to build from coming into 2024.


----------



## bostjan

Biden has repeatedly not answered the question about running for re-election.

The whole belief of the single-term promise comes down to a handful of quotes repeated heavily in the media (especially right-leaning media) attributed to "Biden's campaign aides." And, IIRC, only one of those said anything direct about Biden telling them (whoever they are) that he wasn't planning on running in 2024 - the rest were about how old Biden is and how old he will be by 2029 or whatever. Not to discount the logic behind them, but I think it's a pretty aggressive stretch to go from an un-named campaign worker telling Fox News that Biden is kind of old to Biden promising the American people he won't run for re-election.

First we have to all survive until 2024 without being invaded by extraterrestrial aliens or being wiped out by the next plague or famine from Krakatoa blotting out the sun or the next round of locusts and potato blight or North Korea finally mobilizing a nuclear attack or whatever. At the rate things are going, I'm not even thinking about the 2024 election yet.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> First we have to all survive until 2024 without being invaded by extraterrestrial aliens or being wiped out by the next plague or famine from Krakatoa blotting out the sun or the next round of locusts and potato blight or North Korea finally mobilizing a nuclear attack or whatever. At the rate things are going, I'm not even thinking about the 2024 election yet.


I'm more of the belief that humanity will stick it's collective heads so far up our collective rear that we'll essentially become a black hole that's too small to stay stable and will radiate away from the earth in a matter of seconds.

Think how good THAT will be for the environment.

Rectal Cranial Inversion Black Hole. Now there's a song name.


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boebert-swalwell-chinese-spy-scandal-sleeping-enemy


----------



## nightflameauto

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/boebert-swalwell-chinese-spy-scandal-sleeping-enemy


So sleeping with someone who you may or may not know is a spy is the equivalent, or no, much worse, than creating a cartoon depicting you killing one of your colleagues? Is that the argument?

WTF?


----------



## Adieu

Ooh, a dumb and dumber contest?


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Ooh, a dumb and dumber contest?


A dumb and dumber contest where we all lose.

I'm looking forward to the day where our congress starts throwing down like the Korean Parliament. I'd love to see Pelosi and McConnel taking punches from one another. It's only a question of which one's brittle old bones break first.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> I'm more of the belief that humanity will stick it's collective heads so far up our collective rear that we'll essentially become a black hole that's too small to stay stable and will radiate away from the earth in a matter of seconds.
> 
> Think how good THAT will be for the environment.
> 
> Rectal Cranial Inversion Black Hole. Now there's a song name.


Saving the Earth to damn the universe. Sounds about right for our species' track record of logic.



nightflameauto said:


> A dumb and dumber contest where we all lose.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the day where our congress starts throwing down like the Korean Parliament. I'd love to see Pelosi and McConnel taking punches from one another. It's only a question of which one's brittle old bones break first.



If we just had term limits in both houses, this wouldn't have become as much an issue. Note that congressional term limits was a huge plank in Trump's 2016 platform, and that he made no attempt to enact anything after he was elected. But I'd be willing to be that it'll be a part of one of the next GOP presidential candidates' platforms. It's actually a great idea. Being a part of Congress is supposed to be a civil service and a sacrifice of one's time for the betterment of society, but the average congressperson gets paid $175k/yr in salary, plus $40k/yr in benefits and they get to retain their outside careers. Lobbyists also pay an average of $6.5M per congressperson, at least $500k/yr of which goes into congressional pockets. So, it's a pretty big sacrifice for someone to not leave their personal career, and accept $715k/yr from their government position. It's such a big mystery why no one ever wants to retire from civil service at that level, especially when a congressional pension pays $150k/yr after you leave office.


----------



## USMarine75

nightflameauto said:


> So sleeping with someone who you may or may not know is a spy is the equivalent, or no, much worse, than creating a cartoon depicting you killing one of your colleagues? Is that the argument?
> 
> WTF?



Right?

Swalwell was cleared by both DOJ and OIG of any knowing/willful wrongdoing.

Does anyone work somewhere, where if you threatened to kill a coworker there would be no ramifications? Asking for a Congressman looking for a new job.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, it's a pretty big sacrifice for someone to not leave their personal career, and accept $715k/yr from their government position. It's such a big mystery why no one ever wants to retire from civil service at that level, especially when a congressional pension pays $150k/yr after you leave office.


The problem with this, though, is if you start to substantially lower congressional pay, we quickly run into a point where only the rich can _afford_ to run for Congress. AOC was a bartender before she won her seat, which for what it's worth is a better paying gig than many would expect and as a hobbyist mixologist myself a pretty respectable thing to do if you're any good at it, but if she was offered $50k a year to not just work a near-full-time job, but also maintain a permanent residence in her district in NYC, as well as a temporary one in Washington, DC, she wouldn't be representing New York right now. 

I've honestly never actually wondered this... but, honestly, odds are pretty good she had at least one roommate while running for her House seat, and may still have a roommate back in NYC simply because $175k doesn't go as far in New York City as you might think, and it's not like she's home a lot.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Does anyone work somewhere, where if you threatened to kill a coworker there would be no ramifications? Asking for a Congressman looking for a new job.



Seems like something pretty regular in construction, trucking, or any uniformed service (except maybe USPS... otoh, never mind)


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The problem with this, though, is if you start to substantially lower congressional pay, we quickly run into a point where only the rich can _afford_ to run for Congress. AOC was a bartender before she won her seat, which for what it's worth is a better paying gig than many would expect and as a hobbyist mixologist myself a pretty respectable thing to do if you're any good at it, but if she was offered $50k a year to not just work a near-full-time job, but also maintain a permanent residence in her district in NYC, as well as a temporary one in Washington, DC, she wouldn't be representing New York right now.
> 
> I've honestly never actually wondered this... but, honestly, odds are pretty good she had at least one roommate while running for her House seat, and may still have a roommate back in NYC simply because $175k doesn't go as far in New York City as you might think, and it's not like she's home a lot.



Where did I say to lower congressional pay?

Anyway, if I was making $715k/yr and only $175k/yr of that was from salary, how effective would it be toward discouraging me from that career if you cut off my salary and let me continue to earn my "bonuses?"

Term limits. Maybe 8 years in the House and maybe 12 in the Senate.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Where did I say to lower congressional pay?
> 
> Anyway, if I was making $715k/yr and only $175k/yr of that was from salary, how effective would it be toward discouraging me from that career if you cut off my salary and let me continue to earn my "bonuses?"
> 
> Term limits. Maybe 8 years in the House and maybe 12 in the Senate.



I'm going to have to take a lot more money from Lobbyists in only 8 years then damn.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Where did I say to lower congressional pay?
> 
> Anyway, if I was making $715k/yr and only $175k/yr of that was from salary, how effective would it be toward discouraging me from that career if you cut off my salary and let me continue to earn my "bonuses?"
> 
> Term limits. Maybe 8 years in the House and maybe 12 in the Senate.


I thought your point was we were creating too strong an incentive for people to stay in washington indefinitely. I just think it needs to be balanced carefully, against not making it so unappealing that only people who don't need the money will run for Congress. 

I've never really understood how term limits were supposed to make representatives more representative of the will of the people - for one, districts are so heavily gerrymandered that pretty extreme partisans probably DO represent the people who are electing them pretty well. A term limit won't make representatives more willing to compromise, I'd think.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> Term limits. Maybe 8 years in the House and maybe 12 in the Senate.



I'd like max years at 6 for the House, 8 for the President, and 12 for the Senate. One can only serve in the House or the Senate, not both, and a forced public retirement after the presidency.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I've never really understood how term limits were supposed to make representatives more representative of the will of the people - for one, districts are so heavily gerrymandered that pretty extreme partisans probably DO represent the people who are electing them pretty well. A term limit won't make representatives more willing to compromise, I'd think.


Because so many people vote for whoever the incumbent is without giving a damn.

Do you disagree with any of these points?

Term limits bring new people into elected offices
Incumbents have a significant advantage in election
Re-election campaigns cause elected officials to step away from their duties in order to maintain their position
Term limits would reduce the number of re-election campaigns
There is also some information to suggest that elected officials begin to lose touch with their supporters after some time, and may become more susceptible to corruption over time.

The counter arguments would be that our elected officials would be less experienced, therefore the government might become weakened as the old guard moves out of Washington. Maybe I am biased to think less of this argument since I'm not much a fan of any of the old guard, but it is a valid point. I just don't think it's more valid than the arguments for term limits.


----------



## Adieu

How about an UP or OUT law?

Rank all local and national offices and force people to compete for the next level job or f off each time


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> How about an UP or OUT law?
> 
> Rank all local and national offices and force people to compete for the next level job or f off each time


Then the president would always be 100 years old. 

IDK, maybe term limits is not the way to go, but it seems to me like it'd solve at least part of the problem. When I think of gerrymandering and corrupt lobbyists meeting with even more corrupt politicians, I generally picture a bunch of old people trying to maintain power far beyond the relevance and freshness of their ideas. Maybe if you banned gerrymandering and lobbying, the term limits would practically impose themselves. I'm all for banning gerrymandering and lobbying too.


----------



## Adieu

No, I'm not saying MAKE anyone ONLY move up from the bottom, just prohibit staying or lateral moves

You know the old law, whatsitsname, saying that everyone gets promoted one step/rank past the absolute limits of their ability?

I'm saying FIRE EVERYONE who's anyone in leadership. Every election cycle. By default. Make em move up or move out. At least that would limit the damage one person can do.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Term limits for all branches need to be looked at especially with how old people get now. 

Your numbers for house and Senate seem good.

Supreme Court should be 15 years. Would likely make it less of a "push through craziest person we can" situation if you knew appointments come up more often


----------



## Adieu

Why not 1 year? Or a larger pool with lots drawn for cases?

Seriously, the idea that we have BIOGRAPHIES of judges and an industry of people predicting their votes shows just how bent and biased the system is. 

Nobody even PRETENDS that they are impartial or have no agendas


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> There is also some information to suggest that elected officials begin to lose touch with their supporters after some time, and may become more susceptible to corruption over time.


That, IMO, would be the best reason to look at term limits. 

But, I guess the way I look at it is, the way we elect government officials has some baked in biases, and with most districts reliably Democratic or reliably Republican, most elected officials aren't worried about competition in the general election, they're worried about running against a more partisan challenger, and their number one motivation is ensuring someone from their own party doesn't feel like they're vulnerable to challenge from the partisan flank. In this environment, I'm not convinced that forcing candidates to retire more frequently and running this iterative primary process more often wold necessarily be a good thing - you could argue by taking the incumbent out it gives the district an opportunity to have an open debate on HOW partisan they want to be, but I think more likely the result is going to be like, well, like the way Covid is ripping through unvaccinated populations - each iteration gives us one more chance to see it evolve into something worse. 

And that's before accounting for things like Manchin, for all his flaws, would never win re-election in Virginia if he ran today as a newcomer, and we'd be facing a much-more-permanent Senate Republican majority. Though you could say injecting my own partisan preferences here is a bias that shouldn't be part of any decision making process. 

I think there's no silver bullet here, and that a lot of things have to change to make our political system more workable. But, I don't think term limits would be where I would _start_. Banning gerrymandering and instead turning districting over to a nonpartisan unelected commission, with some controls inn place to ensure they're truly nonpartisan, I think would be the most immediately impactful thing we could do. There would still be pockets of uncompetitive districts, but there would be a lot more truly competitive races where the election wasn't being won in the primary. In turn, this would substantially narrow the partisan divide between representatives in Congress, and while you and I would both rather we just make everything more liberal, at least this would get us a government that could _function_, which would be an important first step. 

THEN we can talk about term limits.


----------



## Drew

Update on the CBO score - it came out last night. The headline was not great but not awful - an estimated ~1.6B in spending with ~1.3B in offsetting revenue, leaving a deficit of ~$350B over ten years.

However - the White House's estimates were more in the ~120B deficit range, so it wasn't like there was any realistic expectation that this be purely deficit neutral, even amongst the moderates who were waiting to see if the CBO would back the White House's numbers. And, due to CBO procedural rules, they do not include aspects of the bill like higher tax revenue from increased IRS audit funding both as a deterrent and for identifying more cases of tax fraud. In their footnotes they did include some estimations on the effect here, which per their estimates would close the deficit from ~#350B to $160B, which is only $40B off the White House's estimate, a rounding error on a $1.6B bill.

Minority Leader McCartney is, well, not actually filibustering the bill at the moment since he can't in the house, but spoke from I think 8:30 last night until 5 in the morning today decrying this bill as the single most wasteful thing ever to run up the deficit in this country. He seems to have a painfully short memory and have forgotten about the significantly larger budget impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which had a far smaller impact on growth and mostly brought us a lot of corporate foreign earning repatriation being used to fund stock buybacks. 

But, all in, the CBO estimate misses the White House estimate by about $40B, which shouldn't be nearly enough to derail this, if the votes existed in the first place.

EDIT - tellingly, the WSJ editorial this morning attacking the BBBA ias focused not on the CBO estimates per se, but the fact that the _five_ year estimate is a deficit of $750B, and arguing that provisions that are written in to be sunset after that to bring it down to $160B in ten might not get sunset - reading between the lines, they don't think the bill as written can be blocked with the CBO estimates over the full ten years, either.


----------



## bostjan

It's 2021, no one is nonpartisan. If anyone thinks they are nonpartisan, they are apparently doubly partisan, since they will be called a nazi by democrats and a commie by republicans for not falling in line.

Having term limits would change the way partisanism works. Maybe not necessarily for the better or for the worse, but you wouldn't have as much power hoarding, because there'd be no point in placing power with any particular individual for safe keeping.

Gerrymandering is particularly bad. I think everyone understands that it's immoral, but those responsible for doing it justify it because their party needs more power in order to seize long-term power, which they see as ultimately justifiable. Lobbying, to me, is even worse, because it's buying votes with money from corporations, not (typically) individuals. If a corporation wants to affect a political change, they ought to be strategizing an approach to convince voters to support whatever policies the corporation likes. If a corporation offers a lot of good jobs and does something for the community that the community values, then I see no problem with that approach fundamentally. But going directly to a representative and saying, "Hey, here's $40M USD. You're going to vote to ban gay marriage." is just all-around immoral. It purposefully circumvents the democratic process and takes advantage of the weaknesses built into representative democracy for the sake of things that have nothing to do with society's values. And, I would argue that term limits would combat that approach, because lobbyists would no longer be able to establish long-term business relationships with long-term legislators.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> stuff, truncated to make this shorter


Eh, I don't think term limits would do what you say they will, and for the goals you have, I think tackling lobbying more directly is the better way to get there. 

And you don't seem think fixing gerrymandering would have as large an effect as I do. 

But, that's fine. I'm willing to try both, and I suspect you are too, lol. I just think if we _only_ put term limits in place, you're going to be disappointed by the outcome. I honestly believe the main reason term limits get suggested as often as they do is Americans _really_ hate their politicians.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Eh, I don't think term limits would do what you say they will, and for the goals you have, I think tackling lobbying more directly is the better way to get there.
> 
> And you don't seem think fixing gerrymandering would have as large an effect as I do.
> 
> But, that's fine. I'm willing to try both, and I suspect you are too, lol. I just think if we _only_ put term limits in place, you're going to be disappointed by the outcome. I honestly believe the main reason term limits get suggested as often as they do is Americans _really_ hate their politicians.


Lobbying depends on cultivating personal relationships over many years. 
https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/relationship-market-how-modern-lobbying-gets-done

Term limits would really put a damper on the effectiveness of lobbying.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Update on the CBO score - it came out last night. The headline was not great but not awful - an estimated ~1.6B in spending with ~1.3B in offsetting revenue, leaving a deficit of ~$350B over ten years.
> 
> However - the White House's estimates were more in the ~120B deficit range, so it wasn't like there was any realistic expectation that this be purely deficit neutral, even amongst the moderates who were waiting to see if the CBO would back the White House's numbers. And, due to CBO procedural rules, they do not include aspects of the bill like higher tax revenue from increased IRS audit funding both as a deterrent and for identifying more cases of tax fraud. In their footnotes they did include some estimations on the effect here, which per their estimates would close the deficit from ~#350B to $160B, which is only $40B off the White House's estimate, a rounding error on a $1.6B bill.
> 
> Minority Leader McCartney is, well, not actually filibustering the bill at the moment since he can't in the house, but spoke from I think 8:30 last night until 5 in the morning today decrying this bill as the single most wasteful thing ever to run up the deficit in this country. He seems to have a painfully short memory and have forgotten about the significantly larger budget impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which had a far smaller impact on growth and mostly brought us a lot of corporate foreign earning repatriation being used to fund stock buybacks.
> 
> But, all in, the CBO estimate misses the White House estimate by about $40B, which shouldn't be nearly enough to derail this, if the votes existed in the first place.
> 
> EDIT - tellingly, the WSJ editorial this morning attacking the BBBA ias focused not on the CBO estimates per se, but the fact that the _five_ year estimate is a deficit of $750B, and arguing that provisions that are written in to be sunset after that to bring it down to $160B in ten might not get sunset - reading between the lines, they don't think the bill as written can be blocked with the CBO estimates over the full ten years, either.



What are your thoughts on the BBBA itself?


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> What are your thoughts on the BBBA itself?


Eh, mixed. Lots of good things we're trying to do in it - universal pre-K, significant climate change investment, etc - though I wasn't happy to see universal maternity leave (and I believe paternity was kicked around at some point, too) end up on the cutting room floor. Given what I do for a living we've been watching the SALT deduction process pretty carefully (it indirectly changes some of the dynamics in the municipal bond market) and speaking personally I'm of the mindset that allowing individuals to deduct state and local taxes from their federal taxes helps encourage state and local governments to take a more active role in supporting American families (not for nothing, it's almost always the blue states who have higher state and local taxes and provide a lot more services themselves, while it's almost always the red states that tend to let their residents fend for themselves and depend on the federal government, to keep local taxes down for their wealthiest residents) but I also understand that that view is hardly universal. I wouldn't have minded seeing higher federal income tax brackets and more progressive taxation used to pay for more of this bill, as well. 

The fact inflation has come to take such a large role in this debate is, to me, pretty dumb - it looks like a lot of the factors driving inflation right now are 1) still predominately pandemic related, and 2) driven largely by factors outside of the US, notably the supply chain issues in areas still badly impacted by Covid and the dynamics of the energy market. 

So, flawed bill, though clearly still worth passing vs the alternative of not passing, and possibly the best we realistically could have gotten out of both chambers of Congress. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that while you might disagree a bit on the second part, we're closer to seeing eye to eye on the first?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Lobbying depends on cultivating personal relationships over many years.
> https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/relationship-market-how-modern-lobbying-gets-done
> 
> Term limits would really put a damper on the effectiveness of lobbying.


That's a reasonably compelling argument.


----------



## USMarine75

https://tuckercarlson.com/blown-away-the-people-vs-wind-power/

This exists.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 100311
> 
> 
> https://tuckercarlson.com/blown-away-the-people-vs-wind-power/
> 
> This exists.
> 
> View attachment 100312



Is it a fun watch if you approach it as comedy?


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Is it a fun watch if you approach it as comedy?



Haven’t watched it yet. I like to throw all my different meds in a bowl and then grab a handful first before watching the world’s most punchable face.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Haven’t watched it yet. I like to throw all my different meds in a bowl and then grab a handful first before watching the world’s most punchable face.



Just make sure it's not a mix of sedatives, laxatives, and richard pills


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Just make sure it's not a mix of sedatives, laxatives, and richard pills



That’s the only way I know.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> That’s the only way I know.



Waking up surprised, in soiled pants, with a raging boner at Tucker Carlson?


----------



## mbardu

Adieu said:


> Waking up surprised, in soiled pants, with a raging boner at Tucker Carlson?



He didn't ask to be judged


----------



## zappatton2

I traditionally subscribed to the idea of always trying to understand all sides of any particular argument, but Carlson is basically a Fox algorithm designed to generate random rage nonsense to see what sticks and galvanizes their mob. You can't counter ideas that don't have a single foot in good-faith positions, and I personally have little interest in spending a second torturing my _soul_ viewing his verbal bile.


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> Just make sure it's not a mix of sedatives, laxatives, and richard pills


You say that like its a bad thing.....


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html


----------



## USMarine75

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-f-kennedy-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci-bookstores/

Discuss.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 100353
> 
> 
> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-f-kennedy-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci-bookstores/
> 
> Discuss.



Which side is this guy on? He looks pretty dodgy

Oh wait never mind this is 100% Q in the flesh


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 100353
> 
> 
> https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/robert-f-kennedy-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci-bookstores/
> 
> Discuss.


Wow, I didn't know Fauci invented the flu to sell vaccines. He must be really old. Also, there is no Zika vaccine.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Which side is this guy on? He looks pretty dodgy
> 
> Oh wait never mind this is 100% Q in the flesh


It's not quite that simple... RFK was a reasonably vanilla center-left scion of one of the most famous political families in America... but, was a raging anti-vax vaxhole for _decades_ before covid and before being anti-vax became a right-wing thing. "Vaccines cause autism" and the like. The anti-vax movement is holding their nose and accepting the right because it's bringing them mainstream, and the right is accepting liberal anti-vaxxers and anti-vax arguments because it gives them a sheen of bipartisanship and respectability. 

So, he's an idiot, basically, but one getting and enjoying a lot of new free press.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Wow, I didn't know Fauci invented the flu to sell vaccines. He must be really old. Also, there is no Zika vaccine.


Oh, you didn't hear? Fauci single-handedly created the bubonic plague in the lab and then built a time traveling set of microcapsules to release it in medieval europe.

We're pretty sure he's also the real reason the dinosaurs went extinct, but he's particularly tricky at hiding the evidence on that one. We'll get him eventually though.


----------



## bostjan

Why is there so much hatred on the right for Fauci anyway? He was appointed to the Covid Task Force by Trump, and before that was appointed chief of NIAID by Reagan.

I just gotta love how these conspiracy theories place all the importance in the universe on mankind. A new virus, oh, must be man-made, because viruses are definitely not ever a natural thing. Oh there's no proof, we'll just appropriate a series of buzz words and that'll convince everyone.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Why is there so much hatred on the right for Fauci anyway? He was appointed to the Covid Task Force by Trump, and before that was appointed chief of NIAID by Reagan.


Something something Deep State something something Soros something something Killary.

I don't know where it came from, but it's ridiculous. I had to cut ties with a couple former friends when they started posting images equating Fauci to Mengele. It was pretty sickening.


----------



## USMarine75

As mentioned… but RFK Jr has been a massive A-HOLE anti-Vaxxer for a very long time. Which is sad because I’m a huge fan of RFK and I think he could have been one of the best US Presidents had he lived. 

RFK Jr is in the same garbage can as Kary Mullis, Fred Singer, Christine Maggiore, Nate Mendel (Foo Fighters), Luc Montagnier, Michael Levitt, etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Why is there so much hatred on the right for Fauci anyway? He was appointed to the Covid Task Force by Trump, and before that was appointed chief of NIAID by Reagan.
> 
> I just gotta love how these conspiracy theories place all the importance in the universe on mankind. A new virus, oh, must be man-made, because viruses are definitely not ever a natural thing. Oh there's no proof, we'll just appropriate a series of buzz words and that'll convince everyone.



Because it was easy for Newsmax/OAN/Fox to villify him.


----------



## nightflameauto

Fauci's vilification is predicated on two main ingredients:
1) He said things the right didn't like. Unacceptable.

2) As a scientifically oriented individual who studies situations, allows what he learns to change his opinion when it should change to fit the new evidence, then states the change in his opinion out loud for others to scrutinize, he triggers a LOT of people on the right that think changing your mind based on new evidence, whatever the topic, is is exactly the same thing as saying you're gonna start raping your neighbor's three year old while hailing satan with a bottle of virgin blood as your sipper while you do it.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because it was easy for Newsmax/OAN/Fox to villify him.


Yes, but is it any easier for them to vilify him versus literally anyone else? It seems like it does not matter who they vilify nor why in any way.

I guess that's the point, though, none of it has to make any sense. While freaking out about cancel culture, let us also go after our own golden boy as a scapegoat for whatever we have a poor understand of, and it won't wreck our credibility because we never did anything other than simply pretend to have any in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Yes, but is it any easier for them to vilify him versus literally anyone else? It seems like it does not matter who they vilify nor why in any way.
> 
> I guess that's the point, though, none of it has to make any sense. While freaking out about cancel culture, let us also go after our own golden boy as a scapegoat for whatever we have a poor understand of, and it won't wreck our credibility because we never did anything other than simply pretend to have any in the first place.



He was in the right place at the right time saying the right things in the right way to be vilified by the right. 

Sort of like the opposite of Birx, who kept a lower profile, especially when she disagreed with the White House.


----------



## USMarine75

“I Alone Can Fix This” covers the origin of Fauci hatred by the right. Trump couldn’t stand that Fauci “was more famous than him” at the moment - he was jealous he was seeing him doing interviews everywhere he looked. He also didn’t like that Fauci, Birx , and Azar refused his order to take their masks off during pressers. He was told by Azar not to vilify Fauci because it would cause vaccine hesitancy and mistrust of USG but he did it anyway. Others in Trump’s circle also believed he was deflecting from his mismanagement of the pandemic and trying to blame someone else when it didn’t go away by April as he promised.

This all just happened to coincide with the inanity of the anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy nutjobs. Just like the resurgence of the KKK under Wilson this gave a prominent national voice to those that mistrust the USG.


----------



## Adieu

Xaios said:


> Something something Deep State something something Soros something something Killary.
> 
> I don't know where it came from, but it's ridiculous. I had to cut ties with a couple former friends when they started posting images equating Fauci to Mengele. It was pretty sickening.



I wonder if they're aware that Soros was the phantom supervillain of choice of Soviet and post-Soviet commie/authoritarian/kleptocrat propagandists?


----------



## bostjan

Just read some interesting historical speculation this morning about the Bushes. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the Bushes, some of which I was not aware of before.

George HW Bush's dad, Prescott Bush was rumoured to have been a big part of the effort to overturn the 1932 election, and then covered up the conspiracy. The actual conspiracy is legitimate, meaning that there is a ton of real evidence that there was a conspiracy to overthrow FDR in 1933, but Bush's involvement is sketchy at best. Then, George Sr., on this day in 1963, had always reported that he didn't recall where he was that day, but evidence shows that he was in Dallas Texas. So what - not like anything historic happened in Dallas Texas on 22 November 1963, right? It's just weird that everyone on Earth has a story of where they were when they heard the news that day, except GHWB. 

Oh well, no good enough evidence to take any of this for anything more than just a weird historical set of coincidences. It's a small world when it comes to multimillionaire political powerhouse families.


----------



## Adieu

Are you saying the Bushes killed the Kennedys?

Sh!t don't tell me I'm going to have to turn into a Bush fan now


----------



## bostjan

Well, the conspiracy theories connected Bushes to FDR, JFK, and, of course, 911. Not sure which family has more attached conspiracy theories, Kennedys or Bushes.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Well, the conspiracy theories connected Bushes to FDR, JFK, and, of course, 911. Not sure which family has more attached conspiracy theories, Kennedys or Bushes.


----------



## zappatton2

I dunno, there seems a real fixation on the right to gravitate toward "cult of personality" with everything. Fauci becomes the face of the vaccine, so they have a focal point for the vitriol, and an assumption that anyone to the left of them deifies these people, rather than listens to the information they have based exclusive on their expertise/credentials in the specific matter they're discussing.

Hell, Al Gore wasn't even a scientist, but he became their whipping boy for climate change, with the presumption that they could say climate change was a lie by saying Al Gore was an ass. I (as someone who falls on the progressive side on most issues) was already well aware of that, not sure how it counters the science though.

Anyway, that RFK jr. book, I'm sure the _sources _section is a laugh-riot.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Just read some interesting historical speculation this morning about the Bushes. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about the Bushes, some of which I was not aware of before.
> 
> George HW Bush's dad, Prescott Bush was rumoured to have been a big part of the effort to overturn the 1932 election, and then covered up the conspiracy. The actual conspiracy is legitimate, meaning that there is a ton of real evidence that there was a conspiracy to overthrow FDR in 1933, but Bush's involvement is sketchy at best. Then, George Sr., on this day in 1963, had always reported that he didn't recall where he was that day, but evidence shows that he was in Dallas Texas. So what - not like anything historic happened in Dallas Texas on 22 November 1963, right? It's just weird that everyone on Earth has a story of where they were when they heard the news that day, except GHWB.
> 
> Oh well, no good enough evidence to take any of this for anything more than just a weird historical set of coincidences. It's a small world when it comes to multimillionaire political powerhouse families.






If you haven’t had a chance read Family of Secrets. Amazing book that discusses all this. There is a questionable photo of Poppy (GHWB) in Dallas that day too. Plus an awkward letter to the family from Barbara and an awkward work memo form GHWB.




Nixon was also in Dallas that day speaking at a Coca Cola seminar. Coca Cola at that time was a known front/cover for CIA Officers overseas. Nixon was speaking at one of two venues available which left only one venue for JFK to speak at. One venue that had only one possible route with an obvious choke point at Dealey Plaza. It’s one of the reasons why the press knew the exact route and published it ahead of time making it easy for a motivated and crazy person to plan an attack.

Anyways, it’s crazy that Nixon, JFK, LBJ, and GHWB were all in Dallas that day. LBJ appointed Gerald Ford to the Warren Commission. So that’s 5 US Presidents connected to the assassination. Coincidence? Likely. But interesting nonetheless.

https://medium.com/@Anthony_Bergen/waking-up-in-dallas-a134b0764c36


----------



## Adieu

Oh please

Every taxi driver, hotel employee, cop, hooker, etc. in any non-capital city knows when and where major figures bringing major disruption will appear.

It's not something that can be hidden (unless they choose the Hollywood hoodie and shades anonymous in public look and take public transport or something)


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Oh please
> 
> Every taxi driver, hotel employee, cop, hooker, etc. in any non-capital city knows when and where major figures bringing major disruption will appear.
> 
> It's not something that can be hidden (unless they choose the Hollywood hoodie and shades anonymous in public look and take public transport or something)



No. 

They don't know the specific route a motorcade will take. They also try to leave venue announcements to the last minute when possible. Once only one venue was available, the newspaper was able to publish the route, because there was only one route with an obvious chokepoint.

It's one of the reasons Amb Stevens was placed in danger is that his schedule (times and locations) was released to the public in advance of his travel to Benghazi.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Why is there so much hatred on the right for Fauci anyway? He was appointed to the Covid Task Force by Trump, and before that was appointed chief of NIAID by Reagan.



Doesn't matter. He advocated (yes, not right away, let's not nitpick) mask wearing, social distancing, supported shutdowns, advocated vaccination, was quick to point out that "remedies" like chlorocline and ivermectin didn't work, etc. Basically, all of the ways the right thought their "liberties" were being jeopardized, he supported. It doesn't matter who appointed him, he was advocating for science and telling us we needed to take Covid-19 seriously at a time when the Trump Administration wanted to paint it as a liberal attempt to discredit him and only a problem for the coastal cities. 

Funny story about ivermectin - I follow The Economist on IG, and they posted a summary of a medical study today. 

Turns out, ivermectin _does_ help improve covid outcomes. 

....but, before the handful of right-wing or conspiracy theory minded members here go on a victory parade, it only does so in countries with a high incidence of intestinal parasites (India, Bangladesh, and Columbia, I believe, were three examples from the infographic), and seems to help mostly by killing parasites and improving baseline health, or basically by removing one potential risk factor.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> No.
> 
> They don't know the specific route a motorcade will take. They also try to leave venue announcements to the last minute when possible. Once only one venue was available, the newspaper was able to publish the route, because there was only one route with an obvious chokepoint.
> 
> It's one of the reasons Amb Stevens was placed in danger is that his schedule (times and locations) was released to the public in advance of his travel to Benghazi.



Who-Stevens? Benwhat? And why do we care?


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Who-Stevens? Benwhat? And why do we care?



Because he was a US Ambassador that was murdered along with another State Dept employee and two USG contractors while in performance of their duties overseas.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> Because he was a US Ambassador that was murdered along with another State Dept employee and two USG contractors while in performance of their duties overseas.



Duuude... we got 6 figure casualties from "milder flu", ain't nobody got time nor pity for 2 gubmint suits and 2 mercs


PS full disclosure: natural Chaotic Neutrals like myself never cared about 1-digit body counts of suits and mercs even before the current sh!tshow


----------



## USMarine75

Adieu said:


> Duuude... we got 6 figure casualties from "milder flu", ain't nobody got time nor pity for 2 gubmint suits and 2 mercs



Duuude... you're an a-hole with witless commentary and absolutely no value added to this forum. Just a terrible human. I won't miss you... tell Putin I said hi.


----------



## USMarine75




----------



## StevenC

US libraries report spike in organised attempts to ban books in schools | Books | The Guardian


----------



## Randy

Weekly jobless claims post stunning decline to 199,000, the lowest level since 1969

No idea how this dovetails with all the worker shortages.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Weekly jobless claims post stunning decline to 199,000, the lowest level since 1969
> 
> No idea how this dovetails with all the worker shortages.



Easy.

People hit their term limit for unemployment insurance and became uncompensated unemployed

Who nobody fcking counts, because 'Murica


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Easy.
> 
> People hit their term limit for unemployment insurance and became uncompensated unemployed
> 
> Who nobody fcking counts, because 'Murica


Nope, these are initial claims. Fewer people are filing initial claims for unemployment than at any time since November 15th, 1969. Though, as a caveat, seasonal adjustments are a bit weird this year (the holiday shopping season is moving forward due to supply chain fears) so there's likely some noise here.

Here's the release, if you're curious. It also does go on to cite continuing claims data, and while we don't count "unemployed people no longer able to collect unemployment" directly - extremely difficult to do - we do count the size of the workforce, and the number of "discouraged workers" who would like to work but can't find anything on a sampling basis.

https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf

BLS data is really pretty good.

That's pretty consistent with an extremely tight job market, though with the savings rate just starting to return to historical norms in the last month, with most of that (somewhat unusually - go Dems) NOT clustered in the top quintile of income earners but the bottom 4/5ths, Americans who are choosing to stay out of the workforce are probably able to meet basic spending needs through year end, so one plausible expectation here is for the workforce participation rate to start rising, and labor conditions to start loosening, around the start of 2022.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Nope, these are initial claims. Fewer people are filing initial claims for unemployment than at any time since November 15th, 1969. Though, as a caveat, seasonal adjustments are a bit weird this year (the holiday shopping season is moving forward due to supply chain fears) so there's likely some noise here.
> 
> Here's the release, if you're curious. It also does go on to cite continuing claims data, and while we don't count "unemployed people no longer able to collect unemployment" directly - extremely difficult to do - we do count the size of the workforce, and the number of "discouraged workers" who would like to work but can't find anything on a sampling basis.
> 
> https://www.dol.gov/ui/data.pdf
> 
> BLS data is really pretty good.
> 
> That's pretty consistent with an extremely tight job market, though with the savings rate just starting to return to historical norms in the last month, with most of that (somewhat unusually - go Dems) NOT clustered in the top quintile of income earners but the bottom 4/5ths, Americans who are choosing to stay out of the workforce are probably able to meet basic spending needs through year end, so one plausible expectation here is for the workforce participation rate to start rising, and labor conditions to start loosening, around the start of 2022.



But you can't file a NEW claim if you already timed out of your PREVIOUS claim...and still haven't had another job since


----------



## Adieu

Is there a trend for false flag political ad campaining or something today?

I'm being bombarded by obnoxious Katie Porter cult of personality promoting ads. Constantly. Unless I missed something, it's not even election season, so what the hell???

I mean, theoretically, I've liked and supported her... but dammit, subconsciously, I am seriously starting to HATE her now. What gives???


----------



## spudmunkey

I feel like qe've crossed a point to where there's no longer a "campaign season". Every day is, and you hope something goes viral and sticks in people's mind's for a year or two.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> But you can't file a NEW claim if you already timed out of your PREVIOUS claim...and still haven't had another job since


Yes, but you also can't file a NEW claim, while receiving an EXISTING claim. And the enhanced pandemic unemployment benefits ended months ago, and themselves were extensions of the usual eligibility period.

I think there's room to push back on the last new claims number as being unduly influenced by seasonal adjustments and what's likely to be a WEIRD holiday shopping season. But I'm very confident that the issue here isn't people just happened to time out of unemployment insurance last week and were no longer eligible.

It's not a part of this survey, but the Unemployment Report includes a lot of the data you're looking for, that you say 'Murica doesn't track:

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

As of 10/31, 7.4 million Americans are "unemployed," meaning they don't have a job and are looking for one, vs a long term pre-pandemic average of 5.7 million, which is considered typical for routine labor market churn in a healthy economy. Long-term unemployed, aka longer than unemployment benefits, is currently 2.3 million, up 1.2 million from February 2020, but has fallen considerably in recent months. The "Supplemental Household Survey" that was started during Covid to add some color to the data, cites 3.8 million Americans not working because of Covid, which improved significantly month over month from 5.0 million prior month, and 1.3 million people were prevented from looking for work due to the pandemic. This is down from 1.6mm prior period, and has fallen pretty significantly in the last several months.

You don't have to like the American government, sure. But BLS is really a great source of data about the state of the US labor force, and it's pretty awesome, if you're a data nerd, that this stuff is just published publicly every month, and that it's free to access via FRED, the St. Louis Federal Reserve data portal.


----------



## donniekak

Drew said:


> Doesn't matter. He advocated (yes, not right away, let's not nitpick) mask wearing, social distancing, supported shutdowns, advocated vaccination, was quick to point out that "remedies" like chlorocline and ivermectin didn't work, etc. Basically, all of the ways the right thought their "liberties" were being jeopardized, he supported. It doesn't matter who appointed him, he was advocating for science and telling us we needed to take Covid-19 seriously at a time when the Trump Administration wanted to paint it as a liberal attempt to discredit him and only a problem for the coastal cities.
> 
> Funny story about ivermectin - I follow The Economist on IG, and they posted a summary of a medical study today.
> 
> Turns out, ivermectin _does_ help improve covid outcomes.
> 
> ....but, before the handful of right-wing or conspiracy theory minded members here go on a victory parade, it only does so in countries with a high incidence of intestinal parasites (India, Bangladesh, and Columbia, I believe, were three examples from the infographic), and seems to help mostly by killing parasites and improving baseline health, or basically by removing one potential risk factor.


Once a public health official admits to lying to steer policy, they lose credibility with people. 

I know as many Democrats against lockdowns and mandates as republican. The split isn't left vs right, it's authoritarian vs non authoritarian.


----------



## Drew

donniekak said:


> Once a public health official admits to lying to steer policy, they lose credibility with people.
> 
> I know as many Democrats against lockdowns and mandates as republican. The split isn't left vs right, it's authoritarian vs non authoritarian.


Lying?

TBH, most of the Democrats I know against mask mandates have pretty consistently argued, "we did our part, socially distanced and got vaccinated, why should _we_ be punished because those asshole Republicans refuse to take this seriously?" I'm not sure I buy that this is somehow an anti-authoritarian stance; most of them think unvaccinated people should still be required to wear masks, not dine indoors, etc etc etc, and vaccinated people should be given more privileges in return for their greater personal responsibility.


----------



## donniekak

Drew said:


> Lying?
> 
> TBH, most of the Democrats I know against mask mandates have pretty consistently argued, "we did our part, socially distanced and got vaccinated, why should _we_ be punished because those asshole Republicans refuse to take this seriously?" I'm not sure I buy that this is somehow an anti-authoritarian stance; most of them think unvaccinated people should still be required to wear masks, not dine indoors, etc etc etc, and vaccinated people should be given more privileges in return for their greater personal responsibility.


He first said masks weren't effective. Later he revealed that was said to prevent a run on masks, not because it was true.

That's the definition of lying.


----------



## Adieu

Hey guys, aren't we experiencing what appears to be the start of a stock market crash?

It's not catastrophic (yet), but appears to be shockingly inclusive across the board




How is this not a hot topic?


----------



## narad

Crash or correction?


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Crash or correction?



At this point, a predictable correction to match reasonable early in the pandemic predictions based on actual economic consequences would constitute a HUUUGE fckn crash


----------



## wannabguitarist

What makes you think that's the start of a crash? As of right now we're .79% over the last 5 days and 2.09% over the last month. That's nothing


----------



## Adieu

wannabguitarist said:


> What makes you think that's the start of a crash? As of right now we're .79% over the last 5 days and 2.09% over the last month. That's nothing



Never mind, possibly a false alarm, stuff went up instead of nosediving

What made me think so was the across-the-board nature of the fall for all major stocks


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Hey guys, aren't we experiencing what appears to be the start of a stock market crash?
> 
> It's not catastrophic (yet), but appears to be shockingly inclusive across the board
> 
> View attachment 100766
> 
> 
> How is this not a hot topic?


iMO, that's not really "inclusive" - most of those are tech companies, which are highly sensitive to interest rates in that they in part determine how much future earnings (which are a huge part of growth-oriented tech valuations) should be discounted, and there was a huge 10bps move upwards in the 10yr Treasury curve yesterday. Starbucks was basically flat on the day, and Ford, well, the whole auto industry is at the mercy of microchip shortages and this was likely driven by omicron more than anything else. 

In either event we're rebounding sharply today. I DO think the market is a bit too rosy colored at the moment, but that's not the same as calling for a 20-30% crash.


----------



## Drew

Quick update on Build Back Better Act - at congressional (bipartisan I think, but I haven't checked, I do know this is a concern of moderate Democrats) request the CBO is producing an alternate scoring on this bill, but under the assumptions that various spending provisions that are intended to be phased out after a certain number of calendar years are instead NOT phased out - moderates are concerned this is masking the scope of the BBBA's spending, and that once passed into law they'll be hard not to extend. This is expected to increase the cost of the bill from $1.3T to around $5T, and if those estimates are correct, it'll be quite a bit harder to rally moderate Democrat support for the bill in it's current form - outlays will need to shrink, or taxes will have to come up, to make it ccloser to revenue neutral under what they consider more politically realistic scenarios. 

This is a roundabout way of saying this bill is unlikely to pass before 12/15, when the Federal government hits the debt cap again which was supposed to be resolved via a reconciliation bill.


----------



## Randy

Surprised there's not more talk about Trump Media and their new CEO Devin Nunes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Surprised there's not more talk about Trump Media and their new CEO Devin Nunes.



The new company worth $1.5 billion or something hilarious?


----------



## Randy

People are laughing at Trump’s new company


----------



## Adieu

Nah you know what? I stand by my expectations of hyperinflation and/or stock market crash (one or both - either the dollar goes full zollar while the stock market doesn't move much, or the dollar stays after the latest juml but stocks nosedive)

Rationale? My local AFFORDABLE grocery store just put out an ad with $12.99/lb NY steaks and $3.49 pineapples as WEEKLY SPECIAL prices.

When this year's cheap store sale special price is last year's premium baller store regular price, that's what we call major frikkin inflation. Seriously oligopolized industries like tech gadgetry or automobiles or things that we are used to claiming are detached from inflation like house prices or the S&P500 can mask or absorb currency fluctuations for a while, but classic indicators like groceries and fuel are suggesting we're screwed.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Surprised there's not more talk about Trump Media and their new CEO Devin Nunes.


Not much to talk about. Sycophant's are lining up to kiss ass, and every single thing I hear about the "company" makes it sound like a toddler got an idea and they're determined to see it through, no matter how laughable the adults in the room think it is.

I see another rousing success in Trump's future. And by that I mean it'll go the same way as most of Trump's business dealings. Flatline of nothing to complete failure, maybe with a couple funny moments of non-self-awareness for good measure along the way.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Not much to talk about. Sycophant's are lining up to kiss ass, and every single thing I hear about the "company" makes it sound like a toddler got an idea and they're determined to see it through, no matter how laughable the adults in the room think it is.
> 
> I see another rousing success in Trump's future. And by that I mean it'll go the same way as most of Trump's business dealings. Flatline of nothing to complete failure, maybe with a couple funny moments of non-self-awareness for good measure along the way.



You left out the part where he is the only one that walks away with money and everyone else gets stiffed.


----------



## bostjan

Well, I've done deep market research, and I've painstakingly calculated that Trump's new company is projected to earn $number million USD in just the first length of time! Guys, that is adjective! You need to get your part of the body on board with this adjective opportunity now, or else you might miss out on noun! Act now and you could get your first and last initials on an org chart!


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> You left out the part where he is the only way that walks away with money and everyone else gets stiffed.


It's a Trump organization, that part is already implied.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> Surprised there's not more talk about Trump Media and their new CEO Devin Nunes.



I already get all my insurrection news from Frank.


----------



## IwantTacos

Adieu said:


> Nah you know what? I stand by my expectations of hyperinflation and/or stock market crash (one or both - either the dollar goes full zollar while the stock market doesn't move much, or the dollar stays after the latest juml but stocks nosedive)
> 
> Rationale? My local AFFORDABLE grocery store just put out an ad with $12.99/lb NY steaks and $3.49 pineapples as WEEKLY SPECIAL prices.
> 
> When this year's cheap store sale special price is last year's premium baller store regular price, that's what we call major frikkin inflation. Seriously oligopolized industries like tech gadgetry or automobiles or things that we are used to claiming are detached from inflation like house prices or the S&P500 can mask or absorb currency fluctuations for a while, but classic indicators like groceries and fuel are suggesting we're screwed.



please fix inflation soon. this shit is not funny. apple and google does all their transactions in dollars...so when you need to shift that back into local currency we're losing 10 percent gross revenue. stahp it.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Nah you know what? I stand by my expectations of hyperinflation and/or stock market crash (one or both - either the dollar goes full zollar while the stock market doesn't move much, or the dollar stays after the latest juml but stocks nosedive)
> 
> Rationale? My local AFFORDABLE grocery store just put out an ad with $12.99/lb NY steaks and $3.49 pineapples as WEEKLY SPECIAL prices.
> 
> When this year's cheap store sale special price is last year's premium baller store regular price, that's what we call major frikkin inflation. Seriously oligopolized industries like tech gadgetry or automobiles or things that we are used to claiming are detached from inflation like house prices or the S&P500 can mask or absorb currency fluctuations for a while, but classic indicators like groceries and fuel are suggesting we're screwed.


Plenty of room for divergent opinions here, go right ahead.  

TBH I don't think we're heading towards an imminent 30% correction, but I DO think the stock market is overvalued and a 10% drop at least once some point before the winter is over wouldn't shock me. 

Inflation, well, the headline CPI number will rise some more one way or another as lower prior periods drop out of the trailing 12 month... but I DO think we're past the worst. Commodity prices have been sliding for a while, energy prices are way off on the US's coordinated reserve release with basically the rest of the world, the Baltic Dry shipping index is way off its October peak and PMI surveys suggest backlogs are bad but improving, and I don't think the labor market is nearly as tight as conventional wisdom says it is. 

Latter point is worth looking at in more depth - the last BLS employment report showed weak job growth of only 210k new jobs, which inflation hawks are touting as signs that there's no slack in the labor market. Except, the details don't jive. We saw employment growth of only 210k... but unemployment (not continuing claims, but people considered unemployed, not working but looking for a job) dropped 550k, while the workforce (the total of employment and those considered unemployed, regardless of whether they were receiving unemployment insurance) grew 600k. Continuing claims did drop ab out 250k, more closely in line with the job gain, but... for unemployment to drop 550k, either those unemployed workers had to have found jobs, or they had to stop looking and say they hadn't looked for a job in the last four weeks. If that were true, they would become what are called "discouraged workers," workers who theoretically would like a job, but have given up looking because they don't think they can find one. Discouraged workers are not part of the total workforce, so for this to happen, the workforce would have had to drop about 550k. Instead, it _rose_ nearly 600k. It's possible that 550k unemployed workers dropped out of the workforce but nearly 1.1mm discouraged workers started looking again... though even that I'd argue isn't consistent with a "tight" workforce with no labor supply... but, more likely, I think, is that the establishment survey is wrong, the 210k increase is just an unusually large sampling error, and the unofficial parallel "household survey" which showed growth of about 1.1mm new jobs, is actually more accurate, and we're going to see a pretty sizable upwards revision to the November BLS survey of 210k. 

That, if I'm right, will blow some pretty big holes in the "the labor force is tight, a wage price spiral is imminent" inflation argument. And while the Fed dropped "transient" from their vocabulary this month fue to the fact the period of higher inflation (and, for that matter, the pandemic itself) is going on longer than they expected in early spring, they have a very technical definition for "transient" inflation, basically "not related to a wage price spiral," and Powell made it clear that he's bowing to colloquial usage here, but that the factors driving inflation are still almost entirely pandemic related.


----------



## Drew

IwantTacos said:


> please fix inflation soon. this shit is not funny. apple and google does all their transactions in dollars...so when you need to shift that back into local currency we're losing 10 percent gross revenue. stahp it.


How long is it taking you to convert? Inflation is the degradation of the value of a dollar over time, and will be negligible for transactions of only a few days.


----------



## IwantTacos

Drew said:


> How long is it taking you to convert? Inflation is the degradation of the value of a dollar over time, and will be negligible for transactions of only a few days.







We have to transfer either monthly or quarterly depending on earnings. Come on strong dollar.


----------



## USMarine75

Any word on mortgage rates rising?


----------



## Drew

IwantTacos said:


> *big chart*
> We have to transfer either monthly or quarterly depending on earnings. Come on strong dollar.


That's not inflation, that's the FX rate. Inflation is *A* factor influencing FX rates, but only one of many, and only indirectly inasmuch as expected inflation is one component of the prevailing interest rates that are used as an interest rate differential to price out one currenty in terms of another. It's _very _complicated and even I'd have to pull out the CFA Level 2 readings on this stuff to walk you through it (which I'm not going to do, sorry ) since it's not something I spend much time thinking about, but the short of it it isn't current inflation that would weaken a dollar, it's expeted inflation... and that's partly offset by expected Federal Reserve interest rate hikes, which the market now considers more likely in 2022 than not (I disagree, but neither here nor there). 

Anyway, again this isn't something I spend much time following, but the commentary I'm scanning says this is more of a demand-driven strengthening of the renminbi against a basket of global currencies than it is a weakening of the dollar, and the PBOC's tolerance for further strengthening is going to be the main limit going forward... though, Evergrande's default this morning seems like it caused it to snap back a bit, so that could reverse on its own here.


----------



## StevenC

Can we go back to the days of 2 USD = 1 GBP so the money I save on gear can pay for my holiday again?


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> Can we go back to the days of 2 USD = 1 GBP so the money I save on gear can pay for my holiday again?


Take that up with Boris Johnson, I'm afraid.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> Can we go back to the days of 2 USD = 1 GBP so the money I save on gear can pay for my holiday again?



No. That will drive up the price of Weetabix here in the States. And it is impossible to get Weet-Bix here.


----------



## USMarine75

wait what?


----------



## Randy

I haven't heard about it (though in fairness, I'm 3 hours from the city).

We did have a slate of voting rights propositions on the slate during the November election that included some things like same day voter registration, and all of them got defeated. I get the impression this is a response to that.


----------



## spudmunkey

The way I understand it, it's basically for permanent residents, etc, and for local city elections and school board elections. it's worth noting that all permanent residents are "tax residents". Many of them have children in schools, and are paying taxes for schools. They have to file tax returns, and the US can even (in some cases) tax your worldwide income, not just what you've earned in the US. No state allows any non-citizens to vote for governors, and are not able to vote in any federal elections.


----------



## Xaios

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...urn-election-results-jan-6-committee-1269532/

To no one's surprise.


----------



## Adieu

USMarine75 said:


> View attachment 100939
> 
> 
> wait what?



Local elections, why the hell not?

The birthplace of "no taxation without representation" and "supremacy of local government rights" literally CANNOT have anything non-hypocritical to say against this


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...urn-election-results-jan-6-committee-1269532/
> 
> To no one's surprise.


I want to see this powerpoint, especially if Trey Parker and Matt Stone do an animated version of underpants gnomes presenting it.

Phase One: Storm the Capitol!
Phase Two: ????
Phase Three: Remain president.


----------



## USMarine75

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-are-laughing-at-trumps-new-company-214853729.html

This story had me in tears 

"We will surely raise ?$ with ?M subscribers. I was personally guaranteed this by Dave M. in Marketing"


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> The way I understand it, it's basically for permanent residents, etc, and for local city elections and school board elections. it's worth noting that all permanent residents are "tax residents". Many of them have children in schools, and are paying taxes for schools. They have to file tax returns, and the US can even (in some cases) tax your worldwide income, not just what you've earned in the US. No state allows any non-citizens to vote for governors, and are not able to vote in any federal elections.


Yeah, I don't have any major problem with this - legal longterm residents are still bound by the same local laws as everyone else, New York City is allowed to decide how their own local laws are administrated, and this gives people who may not be American citizens but are living here on long term green cards to vote in elections that impact their lives on a local level. Cool.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Supreme Court rules in favor of restrictive Texas abortion law https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics/texas-abortion-law-scotus/index.html 

I've never done it this way before but my wife and I will be voting straight blue in next yrs mid-terms. I may not like or agree with all dems but at this point I'll do anything I can to slow down the conservative right. So sick of what's happening to this country.


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> Supreme Court rules in favor of restrictive Texas abortion law https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics/texas-abortion-law-scotus/index.html
> 
> I've never done it this way before but my wife and I will be voting straight blue in next yrs mid-terms. I may not like or agree with all dems but at this point I'll do anything I can to slow down the conservative right. So sick of what's happening to this country.


To be fair, they're allowing the law to stand while allowing suits trying to repeal the law to go forward. While on one hand that's hardly a great outcome, it's a far cry from their ruling the law was unconstitutional, and the article is right that technically it IS a narrow victory for abortion providers, as the law was written and structured to try to ensure that the Supreme Court would determine that there was no basis for suits to go forward since no one had standing to sue the government (by placing most of enforcement into the hands of private citizens, for example). The Court stopped short of doing that, but didn't go far enough to allow providers to reopen, and potentially expose themselves to private suits, while the case is appealed. 

In practice, though, that's all splitting hairs - access to abortion is actually something that has fairly broad bipartisan appeal with voters, but has become a major culture war issue for Republican legislators, so we're gettiing increasingly restrictive state abortion laws sent up to the Supreme Court hoping they can chip away at abortion protections, so Republicans can claim they're throwing a bone to their evangelical supporters. Considering there's no way in fuck evangelicals should have lined up to support someone like Trump, a philanderer, tax cheat, and god-knows-how-many-times-divorcee, it's an increasingly desperate attempt to hold that coalition together and sadly it seems to be working.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-are-laughing-at-trumps-new-company-214853729.html
> 
> This story had me in tears
> 
> "We will surely raise ?$ with ?M subscribers. I was personally guaranteed this by Dave M. in Marketing"


I love the reasonable-sounding supposition that Trump's media company, and unless I'm mistaken there's no clear talk of what kind of media they'd be _producing_, could command a monthly sbscription price point closer to Netflix's than Disney+'s due to how passionate his supporters are. Yes, I'm sure right out of the gate Team Trump will have something better than the Star Wars and Frozen franchises to keep viewers engrossed for hours a day and months on end.


----------



## BigViolin

Nope, just another short-med term grift.


----------



## SpaceDock

I am thinking the Supreme Court ruling was a bit of a deferral and kinda let both sides both win and lose.


----------



## mmr007

Soooooo...when (not if) Russia invades Ukraine anyone here in favor of US or NATO intervention? And I don't mean sanctions. I know how Tucker Carlson feels about the issue...that we should embrace our future lord and master Putin's aggression in eastern Europe...but how do we feel about it?


----------



## mmr007

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...r-sells-assault-weapons/ar-AARITx3?li=BBnb7Kz

good


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...r-sells-assault-weapons/ar-AARITx3?li=BBnb7Kz
> 
> good



Meh

Ain't nothing he can do to live down his former choice of wife


----------



## USMarine75

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chris-wallace-departure-fox-news-channel

That comments section tho. The hate is strong. Not one positive one in the first 100 I read.


----------



## Adieu

Wrong thread


----------



## Randy




----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> View attachment 101042



Meanwhile… back in the real world:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/03/biden-media-coverage-worse-trump-favorable/


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i...r-sells-assault-weapons/ar-AARITx3?li=BBnb7Kz
> 
> good


Honestly, I've been waiting to see a blue state government do just that, to up the pressure a little on the Supreme Court. I don't know how far it'll matter, since it does appear a majority of the court is not comfortable with the fact that the law as written is a very direct attempt to circumvent existing Supreme Court decisions, but reminding them that there are very real consequences to opening that door is probably not a bad idea. 

That said - based on the reaction to the Mississippi 15-week ban, it looks like the Texas law will be struck down based on the mechanism, and not the outcome.


----------



## SpaceDock

These Mark Meadows text messages are crazy. I am honestly starting to think if the Jan 6 commission can’t get convictions, we are really doomed. Repubs can just say they won in the future and no one will stop them.


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> These Mark Meadows text messages are crazy. I am honestly starting to think if the Jan 6 commission can’t get convictions, we are really doomed. Repubs can just say they won in the future and no one will stop them.



My favorite thing about these is Don Jr. texting Meadows to tell his dad to speak up, seemingly instead of him directly, like he doesn't have his dad's number.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> My favorite thing about these is Don Jr. texting Meadows to tell his dad to speak up, seemingly instead of him directly, like he doesn't have his dad's number.


I love when political commentators start going off the rails about how junior just wants his dad to play ball with him, or take him fishing, or have a conversation with him, but he can't get his attention because all of his attention is focused inwards.

If our officials don't get something done with the Jan 6th commission before the midterms, I'd say the sheen of democracy we hold up in front of people's eyes is gonna be gone.


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> My favorite thing about these is Don Jr. texting Meadows to tell his dad to speak up, seemingly instead of him directly, like he doesn't have his dad's number.


Either that or that Don Sr. is a puppet or something.

"Hey Mark, please tell my dad to knock that shit off!" just really rings the WTF lobe of my brain, because, like, if Don. Jr. was a sad little neglected kid, you'd think that'd be worded more delicately. Maybe the simplest explanation is that, as a non-lizard-person, I simply can't understand the way he interacts with others.

Regardless of all of that, I'm not sure what picture these texts paint for us. Did we learn new information? The fact of the matter is that 90% of Trump's supporters believe that Trump won, and literally nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Remember that we had the Secretary of State of Georgia release a phone call in which Trump threatened him to "find" just enough Trump votes to win or else face criminal charges. It's not just testimony, but a recorded phone conversation, and yet, nearly a year later, Trump walks scot-free. Sure the text messages are bad, but they are nowhere near as damning as the evidence that's already out there.


----------



## profwoot

The media really do have a strong bias toward the importance of secret information, perhaps because that's what took down Nixon. But everything needed to understand Trump has always been available. Even the powerpoint presentation is just an organized version of what we've known all along they were doing. I guess it demonstrates their motives in an obvious way, but were their motives ever in doubt? We're long past waiting for the revelation that finally nails Trump; we're just waiting for those in power to prosecute the case that was made on day one.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Either that or that Don Sr. is a puppet or something.
> 
> "Hey Mark, please tell my dad to knock that shit off!" just really rings the WTF lobe of my brain, because, like, if Don. Jr. was a sad little neglected kid, you'd think that'd be worded more delicately. Maybe the simplest explanation is that, as a non-lizard-person, I simply can't understand the way he interacts with others.
> 
> Regardless of all of that, I'm not sure what picture these texts paint for us. Did we learn new information? The fact of the matter is that 90% of Trump's supporters believe that Trump won, and literally nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Remember that we had the Secretary of State of Georgia release a phone call in which Trump threatened him to "find" just enough Trump votes to win or else face criminal charges. It's not just testimony, but a recorded phone conversation, and yet, nearly a year later, Trump walks scot-free. Sure the text messages are bad, but they are nowhere near as damning as the evidence that's already out there.



A part of this investigation is: did Donald Trump break any laws, and could he be legally responsible in any way for what happened? If so many people were telling him HE needs to take control of the angy mob, does that make it provable that his inaction influenced what happened? But that's more of a side quest. This commission is simply tasked with investigating what lead to the riot, and what happened during. Some of his most loyal acolytes shouting at him via text massage to call off his dogs says a lot. Whether that's "enough" or not remains to be seen.

But I think so many are reveling in it not because it's some nail-in-the-coffin on Trump, but because of what it proves about Fox News's hosts. "He's ruining his legacy!" "This is hurting all of us" and "Someone is going to get killed" all coming from people who, immediately, out the other side of their mouths, "Covert agitators/Antifa/peaceful tourists", yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> A part of this investigation is: did Donald Trump break any laws, and could he be legally responsible in any way for what happened? If so many people were telling him HE needs to take control of the angy mob, does that make it provable that his inaction influenced what happened? But that's more of a side quest. This commission is simply tasked with investigating what lead to the riot, and what happened during. Some of his most loyal acolytes shouting at him via text massage to call off his dogs says a lot. Whether that's "enough" or not remains to be seen.
> 
> But I think so many are reveling in it not because it's some nail-in-the-coffin on Trump, but because of what it proves about Fox News's hosts. "He's ruining his legacy!" "This is hurting all of us" and "Someone is going to get killed" all coming from people who, immediately, out the other side of their mouths, "Covert agitators/Antifa/peaceful tourists", yadda yadda yadda.



I mean, if I were under investigation, I'd be more way more nervous about the tape recording of me threatening government officials unless they fabricated evidence to cover up fraud than I would be about text messages from my close associates to each other about how I ought to knock off the shitty behaviour, unless there was some sort of "smocking gun" or "covfefe" in them.

Take a look at it from the perspective of Trump's supporters. Let's assume for a moment that you _really truly_ believe that the election was rigged. Does that serve as any sort of excuse for threatening the Secretary of State of Georgia to either make up votes or else? No way. If you thought that there was election fraud, you report what you know to the election officials and that's it. If you feel the need to call the Secretary of State of each state where you lost, for whatever reason, you tell them that you know what they did and they'll face justice, not "make votes for me magically appear out of thin air or else your career is over." On the other hand, if you _really truly_ believe that Trump had no intention of inciting a riot, then a text message from DJTJr to Meadows asking him to ask dad to knock that shit off doesn't really convincingly prove anything. Add in the fact that you are willing to go through the mental gymnastics required above to defend Trump and you've essentially got nothing.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Regardless of all of that, I'm not sure what picture these texts paint for us. Did we learn new information? The fact of the matter is that 90% of Trump's supporters believe that Trump won, and literally nothing will ever convince them otherwise. Remember that we had the Secretary of State of Georgia release a phone call in which Trump threatened him to "find" just enough Trump votes to win or else face criminal charges. It's not just testimony, but a recorded phone conversation, and yet, nearly a year later, Trump walks scot-free. Sure the text messages are bad, but they are nowhere near as damning as the evidence that's already out there.


Too early to say for sure, but I do feel like this is the beginning of a change in the current here, for Trump, and January 6th.

I don't think they're necessarily any worse evidence than the Georgian call you point to - not even close. I think what they are, though, as increasingly names are starting to come out in conjunction with increasingly desperate texts sent to Meadows asking him to get Trump to stop this, it's going to put subsequrnt prominent public supporters of "the Big Lie" in a really awkward spot. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingram are all backpedaling a bit now, as they'd publically supported Trump for the past year and have continued to slag off on this as a partisan witch hunt, but now there's evidence that in the moment they thought it was a very big deal and Trump was doing irrepairable damage to his legacy. Ingram in particular I'm paraphrasing one of her texts there, and within 6 hours she was back to blaming "antifa" and saying this was a partisan hatchet job over a peaceful protest.

I think as prominent Republicans get identified as having been the ones who sent some of the texts begging for help, it's going to get increasingly hard to argue this was a "nothingburger," and that their temporal statements freaking the fuck out about what was going on are going to lead to a grudging recognition that this inquiry needs to be seen through.

So, as evidence, they don't move the needle. But what they are is a look behind the Republican facade and evidence that whatever they might be saying _now_, in the moment this was every bit as big a constitutional crisis as the committee now investigating it says. It's legitimizing the investigation.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Too early to say for sure, but I do feel like this is the beginning of a change in the current here, for Trump, and January 6th.
> 
> I don't think they're necessarily any worse evidence than the Georgian call you point to - not even close. I think what they are, though, as increasingly names are starting to come out in conjunction with increasingly desperate texts sent to Meadows asking him to get Trump to stop this, it's going to put subsequrnt prominent public supporters of "the Big Lie" in a really awkward spot. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingram are all backpedaling a bit now, as they'd publically supported Trump for the past year and have continued to slag off on this as a partisan witch hunt, but now there's evidence that in the moment they thought it was a very big deal and Trump was doing irrepairable damage to his legacy. Ingram in particular I'm paraphrasing one of her texts there, and within 6 hours she was back to blaming "antifa" and saying this was a partisan hatchet job over a peaceful protest.
> 
> I think as prominent Republicans get identified as having been the ones who sent some of the texts begging for help, it's going to get increasingly hard to argue this was a "nothingburger," and that their temporal statements freaking the fuck out about what was going on are going to lead to a grudging recognition that this inquiry needs to be seen through.
> 
> So, as evidence, they don't move the needle. But what they are is a look behind the Republican facade and evidence that whatever they might be saying _now_, in the moment this was every bit as big a constitutional crisis as the committee now investigating it says. It's legitimizing the investigation.


I agree. But, on the other hand, I have to wonder how necessary the investigation is, not from the standpoint of what they'll turn up, but from the standpoint of what'll shake out. In terms of the news cycle, it was an eternity ago, but it wasn't that many years ago that we had the Mueller report say that there was Russian collusion and that Trump had personally obstructed the investigation, and Republican officials at the time strutted around trying to figure out how to quote that to make it equate to the exact opposite of that. We had Trump recorded on tape extorting political favours from Ukraine by withholding congressional funds that he was no longer legally allowed to withhold, and it was enough to impeach him but then that went nowhere. After Jan 6th, in a Hail Mary, he was impeached a second time, but that went nowhere as well.

I think that expecting there to be justice in this case, where the wrongdoer is a rich and powerful white dude with bizarre mind-control powers over his political sycophants, would be setting ourselves up to fail.

If you are just sitting back, reading these texts and saying "hmm, interesting," then I'm right there with you.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Too early to say for sure, but I do feel like this is the beginning of a change in the current here, for Trump, and January 6th.
> 
> I don't think they're necessarily any worse evidence than the Georgian call you point to - not even close. I think what they are, though, as increasingly names are starting to come out in conjunction with increasingly desperate texts sent to Meadows asking him to get Trump to stop this, it's going to put subsequrnt prominent public supporters of "the Big Lie" in a really awkward spot. Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingram are all backpedaling a bit now, as they'd publically supported Trump for the past year and have continued to slag off on this as a partisan witch hunt, but now there's evidence that in the moment they thought it was a very big deal and Trump was doing irrepairable damage to his legacy. Ingram in particular I'm paraphrasing one of her texts there, and within 6 hours she was back to blaming "antifa" and saying this was a partisan hatchet job over a peaceful protest.
> 
> I think as prominent Republicans get identified as having been the ones who sent some of the texts begging for help, it's going to get increasingly hard to argue this was a "nothingburger," and that their temporal statements freaking the fuck out about what was going on are going to lead to a grudging recognition that this inquiry needs to be seen through.
> 
> So, as evidence, they don't move the needle. But what they are is a look behind the Republican facade and evidence that whatever they might be saying _now_, in the moment this was every bit as big a constitutional crisis as the committee now investigating it says. It's legitimizing the investigation.


As bostjan says, thinking that this will lead to anything other than more denial and peacocking over antifa lead hatchet jobs on Trump and his ilk is just going to lead to massive disappointment. There's a zero percent chance this will convince anyone that isn't already convinced that this really was a big deal that isn't already convinced. Most Trump supporters, something like well over 60%, truly still 100% believe that the election was flat out stolen. You won't convince them of anything they don't want to believe.

Trump could probably come right out and SAY that he was in the wrong, and the usual suspects would spend the entire next month saying that he was mind controlled by Pelosi and Clinton's child-sex-pizza-gate-ring to do it.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Trump could probably come right out and SAY that he was in the wrong, and the usual suspects would spend the entire next month saying that he was mind controlled by Pelosi and Clinton's child-sex-pizza-gate-ring to do it.


Where I kinda disagree here is we now have contemporaneous evidence that whatever they're saying _now_, they felt very differently on 1/6/21. Laura Ingram in particular is in an awkward position, and not for nothing most of her response so far is attacking Liz Cheney over what she's categorizing as an invasion of privacy, rather than addressing the actual content. 

I think the real test will be when texts are traced to sitting Republicans.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> I think the real test will be when texts are traced to sitting Republicans.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been keeping names of government workers out when they've quoted other texts, using "one legislator wrote..." sort of language. I wonder why that is...


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but they've been keeping names of government workers out when they've quoted other texts, using "one legislator wrote..." sort of language. I wonder why that is...


Because all Republicans are pure as the driven snow and are, by divine right, completely perfect. So when they write "one legislator wrote" they can always publicly say it must have been those other guys.

While it is nice to see public confirmation of what we knew was going down behind the scenes, they're built entire careers on conning people into not believing truths that are slamming them in the face. I just don't see this ending any differently.


----------



## spudmunkey

Other texts just released*:
"I can't wait to plead the fifth about this." - Roger Stone

"Can you ask my dad to send me $15?” - Donald Trump Jr
"If Don gets $15, then I get $15." - Eric Trump
"Dad plz reply so I know they didn’t cut your head off PLEASE DAD." - Barron Trump
"Dad, my lawyer has advised me to tell you to call off the rioters, so this text is proof that I did that." - Ivanka Trump

"Your xHamster login code is 230189. Don’t share." - 78150

"We cool?" - Mike Pence

“You guys are doing great. I think we’re really selling this on our end too!” - Nancy Pelosi
"All going great! Lmk which office you want me to take a shit in next." - QAnon Shaman
"Are you sure that if I bum-rush the Speaker’s Lobby I won’t be shot and killed?" - Ashli Babbitt

"Ooops meant that sexy pic for AFTER we win " - Lauren Boebert

"Why haven’t Democrats called on the president’s rioters to stand down more forcefully?" - Chuck Todd

"I cannot be killed. I am invincible!" - Ashli Babbitt

*by The Onion


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Because all Republicans are pure as the driven snow and are, by divine right, completely perfect. So when they write "one legislator wrote" they can always publicly say it must have been those other guys.
> 
> While it is nice to see public confirmation of what we knew was going down behind the scenes, they're built entire careers on conning people into not believing truths that are slamming them in the face. I just don't see this ending any differently.


So far, yes - a lot of this material is still technically confidential and can't be released unredacted. But there's a subtle increase in pressure on Republicans here that I think bears keeping an eye on.


----------



## Drew

In other words, Biden appears to be pivoting to a voting rights bill, with the implicit message that he thinks getting a voting rights bill compromise through the Senate is going to be easier than getting Manchin on board with the BBBA. 

Honestly, if I could pick just one bill for the Biden administration to pass, it would be a voting rights protection act, anyway, so I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


>


Well that's just _what happens_ when you throw an egg at a field goal post.


----------



## IwantTacos

Randy said:


>



I mean if this administration can get one thing done.....


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


>



Why are you throwing an egg at a statue of a padded pitchfork under the full moon?

Satanic ritual?


----------



## Randy

IwantTacos said:


> I mean if this administration can get one thing done.....



That'll be their slogan going into 2024 "We got one thing done!". Not much at stake, not much to complain about, that should do the trick.


----------



## Randy




----------



## IwantTacos

Randy said:


> View attachment 101166



like honestly the 2 choices right now are idiots and pure evil. 

this is fine.


----------



## Adieu

IwantTacos said:


> like honestly the 2 choices right now are idiots and pure evil.
> 
> this is fine.



And absolutely everyone agrees, with the minor difference on which side is which


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> In other words, Biden appears to be pivoting to a voting rights bill, with the implicit message that he thinks getting a voting rights bill compromise through the Senate is going to be easier than getting Manchin on board with the BBBA.
> 
> Honestly, if I could pick just one bill for the Biden administration to pass, it would be a voting rights protection act, anyway, so I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.



Yeah protecting the most basic act of a democratic republic would be pretty sick. 



Randy said:


> View attachment 101166



The irony is that many elected officials disagree with this stance and they themselves are very quick to check that they are only invested in diversified funds/not individual names.


----------



## bostjan

Not that I'd want to go back to the dumpster fire that was the last administration, but my confidence in Biden getting anything done is at or below noise level right now. Basically all of Biden's campaign promises have stalled, and you *know* that this stuff is going to all get swept out to sea in the next midterm, because "oh no, the GOP took over the Senate and now we can't do anything.

Here's the list, in case we all forgot what we were promised a year ago:

$15 federal minimum wage, delivered ASAP
Public health insurance option
Cap housing costs at 1/3 of people's income via Section 8
Ban "assault weapons"
Exit the middle east ASAP
The AFP - free college and free childcare/preschool/pre-preschool for everyone in the USA
End for-profit prisons ASAP
Ban SuperPACs
etc.

Where are we at now?

Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr
No hope in sight for a public federal health insurance for everyone
We pulled out of Afghanistan, but we're still literally everywhere else
AFP and BBBA are languishing and will likely continue to do so
...
The covid vaccine roll-outs were a big win, so there's that, I guess, even though it ultimately wasn't enough to achieve the implied ultimate effect of kicking covid's ass. The USA is still #1 for the spread of covid and still #1 for total deaths. So I guess we won the battle, but the battle was of far less strategic importance than they thought it'd be. And before anyone tries to dismiss it as "no one would have known," check out the bostjan vs. nearly everyone else argument in the covid thread from last year.

Most of the little victories for Biden have been stuff that is pretty low effort, but I admit that it all adds up. Rejoining the Paris accords, rejoining WHO, reversing the Muslim bans and military bans on LGBTQ+... that's great stuff, and if Trump had been re-elected, we'd still be spiraling without any controls, instead of sailing deliberately toward the Scylla (pandemic crisis) and Charybdis (climate change crisis). But I'd also argue that any candidate outside of the GOP would have done the same without having to do any real political work; heck, I could have written a few letters and rescinded a bunch of EO's if I were president and I have no idea how to manage any public office higher than junior PTO member.

In spite of all of my complaints, though, I'll take it. Biden kind of sucks, and maybe he'll wake up one day and mistake the nuclear football for his Mr. Coffee and obliterate us all, but at least he's not eager to do it just to show off to other world leaders or maybe his own daughter that he wants to impress how big our nuclear arsenal is.


----------



## Adieu

At least he's not Trump.

I'm pretty sure that was the main campaign slogan.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> Not that I'd want to go back to the dumpster fire that was the last administration, but my confidence in Biden getting anything done is at or below noise level right now. Basically all of Biden's campaign promises have stalled, and you *know* that this stuff is going to all get swept out to sea in the next midterm, because "oh no, the GOP took over the Senate and now we can't do anything.
> 
> Here's the list, in case we all forgot what we were promised a year ago:
> 
> $15 federal minimum wage, delivered ASAP
> Public health insurance option
> Cap housing costs at 1/3 of people's income via Section 8
> Ban "assault weapons"
> Exit the middle east ASAP
> The AFP - free college and free childcare/preschool/pre-preschool for everyone in the USA
> End for-profit prisons ASAP
> Ban SuperPACs
> etc.
> 
> Where are we at now?
> 
> Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr
> No hope in sight for a public federal health insurance for everyone
> We pulled out of Afghanistan, but we're still literally everywhere else
> AFP and BBBA are languishing and will likely continue to do so
> ...
> The covid vaccine roll-outs were a big win, so there's that, I guess, even though it ultimately wasn't enough to achieve the implied ultimate effect of kicking covid's ass. The USA is still #1 for the spread of covid and still #1 for total deaths. So I guess we won the battle, but the battle was of far less strategic importance than they thought it'd be. And before anyone tries to dismiss it as "no one would have known," check out the bostjan vs. nearly everyone else argument in the covid thread from last year.
> 
> Most of the little victories for Biden have been stuff that is pretty low effort, but I admit that it all adds up. Rejoining the Paris accords, rejoining WHO, reversing the Muslim bans and military bans on LGBTQ+... that's great stuff, and if Trump had been re-elected, we'd still be spiraling without any controls, instead of sailing deliberately toward the Scylla (pandemic crisis) and Charybdis (climate change crisis). But I'd also argue that any candidate outside of the GOP would have done the same without having to do any real political work; heck, I could have written a few letters and rescinded a bunch of EO's if I were president and I have no idea how to manage any public office higher than junior PTO member.
> 
> In spite of all of my complaints, though, I'll take it. Biden kind of sucks, and maybe he'll wake up one day and mistake the nuclear football for his Mr. Coffee and obliterate us all, but at least he's not eager to do it just to show off to other world leaders or maybe his own daughter that he wants to impress how big our nuclear arsenal is.



Why we can't have nice things. See Below:


----------



## CanserDYI

Randy said:


> View attachment 101166


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> View attachment 101168


Hmm. I think this is some really dishonest journalism in that article. It's really interesting for sure, but I have a huge problem with the way this was presented...

I clicked the link to their source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx

The biggest glaring thing is that the source material categorizes people into three buckets, politically: conservative, moderate, and liberal. There is no "moderate democrat" category, yet this is how the article specifically states the group. According to the source material, nearly half of those interviewed identified their political party leaning as "independent" and nearly half of those marked "moderate" as their leaning. This is pretty coarse data, so it doesn't disprove the thesis that the Independent put forward, but it doesn't support it to nearly the level that they let on. As for the actual six questions they used as examples, I couldn't find those anywhere in the source data, so maybe it's behind some sort of paywall, but I'm willing to bet, based on the lack of veracity in the other data presented, that these were likely cherry-picked from dozens of questions in order to make a good headline.

But the thing that rubs me the most wrong about the article is that stupid font they used. Who puts a horizontal line through the center of a capital letter J?! No one I know. It looks like it says "Foe Biden." C'mon, man!


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> Hmm. I think this is some really dishonest journalism in that article. It's really interesting for sure, but I have a huge problem with the way this was presented...
> 
> I clicked the link to their source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/275792/remained-center-right-ideologically-2019.aspx
> 
> The biggest glaring thing is that the source material categorizes people into three buckets, politically: conservative, moderate, and liberal. There is no "moderate democrat" category, yet this is how the article specifically states the group. According to the source material, nearly half of those interviewed identified their political party leaning as "independent" and nearly half of those marked "moderate" as their leaning. This is pretty coarse data, so it doesn't disprove the thesis that the Independent put forward, but it doesn't support it to nearly the level that they let on. As for the actual six questions they used as examples, I couldn't find those anywhere in the source data, so maybe it's behind some sort of paywall, but I'm willing to bet, based on the lack of veracity in the other data presented, that these were likely cherry-picked from dozens of questions in order to make a good headline.
> 
> But the thing that rubs me the most wrong about the article is that stupid font they used. Who puts a horizontal line through the center of a capital letter J?! No one I know. It looks like it says "Foe Biden." C'mon, man!


I'll agree, although I didnt actually read that specific article, just saw the meme and as a staunch leftist and anticapitalist, I chuckled as I've been saying this for years. 

On the note about the line through the capital J, personally in this font I would also use a line through it, as my capital T resembles this, and I personally would have read it as "Toe Biden". I don't know who I'd be more afraid of, Toe Biden or Foe Biden.


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> Toe Biden








...I'm sorry


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> ...I'm sorry


You confirmed my fears. I'm not sure I wont dream about this tonight.


----------



## narad

CanserDYI said:


> You confirmed my fears. I'm not sure I wont dream about this tonight.



Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie Sandals.

(In Japan accents this pun is flawless)


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> ...I'm sorry



This looks like a 00's Conan O'Brien character. Voiced by Robert Smigel of course.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> ...I'm sorry


That's OK. I didn't need lunch today anyway.


----------



## USMarine75

Randy said:


> This looks like a 00's Conan O'Brien character. Voiced by Robert Smigel of course.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The covid vaccine roll-outs were a big win, so there's that, I guess, even though it ultimately wasn't enough to achieve the implied ultimate effect of kicking covid's ass. The USA is still #1 for the spread of covid and still #1 for total deaths. So I guess we won the battle, but the battle was of far less strategic importance than they thought it'd be. And before anyone tries to dismiss it as "no one would have known," check out the bostjan vs. nearly everyone else argument in the covid thread from last year.
> 
> Most of the little victories for Biden have been stuff that is pretty low effort, but I admit that it all adds up. Rejoining the Paris accords, rejoining WHO, reversing the Muslim bans and military bans on LGBTQ+... that's great stuff, and if Trump had been re-elected, we'd still be spiraling without any controls, instead of sailing deliberately toward the Scylla (pandemic crisis) and Charybdis (climate change crisis). But I'd also argue that any candidate outside of the GOP would have done the same without having to do any real political work; heck, I could have written a few letters and rescinded a bunch of EO's if I were president and I have no idea how to manage any public office higher than junior PTO member.


First paragraph - eh, there's a grey area there, and I was actually, randomly, remembering that last night while drifting off to sleep - I don't think either of us was entirely right, but not for the reasons we suspected at the time. Covid protection from a prior case or a vaccine DOES last longer, considerably so, than the 2-3 months you hazarded based on studies on antibody decay, and breakthrough infections are more common now (and will be even more so under omicron) but still very scarce compared to infections in unvaccinated individuals with no prior infection. On the other hand, I didn't really fully understand how hard it was going to be to get the US to the 75-80% vaccination rate estimated to be needed for herd immunity to begin to really stamp out community spread (we're still at fuckin' 60% for christ's sake), nor did I really account for how quickly variants that offered some ability to break through at a material rate would arise. 

So, in some ways, I'd say you were wrong, but ended up being right anyway, and I was right, but ended up being wrong anyway.  

On the second... I'm not going to go back and try to find my post to quote it, but early in, say by early-mid summer, my impression was the Biden administration was _unusually_ successful, and despite a few high profile setbacks I'm not sure I'd entirely reject that today. Early into his term, he got the stimulus bill he wanted, in the size he wanted, passed, when pretty much every political or economic commentator I read (and myself included) expected him to come down from 1.8T to 900B-1.2T. Yes, he didn't get a minimum wage hike included in that, but that was blocked by the Senate Parliamentarian as not meeting rules of reconciliation, and he got almost everything else passed. He also passed the first major infrastructure bill since the Build America program early in the Obama years, and the largest infrustructure bill ever passed, despite a 4-vote margin in the house and a 50-50+VP in the Senate. As you note, we rejoined the WHO and the Paris Climate accords, he rolled back the privatization of something like a million acres of public lands that Trump jad decided to sell off from the national parks to oil and gas interests, the Keystone XL pipeline is now dead, and while Biden can't throw out Trump's Supreme Court picks the Justice Department is now active again in both prosecuting the wrongs of the last administration, and working to support progressive priorities of both the Biden administration and congress. 

You can list the things he _didn't_ do that he campaigned on trying to do... but remember that his predecessor ran on banning Muslims, building a wall on the southern border and making Mexico pay for it, repealing the ACA and replacing it with "something better," and paying down the entirety of the US national debt, and accomplished exactly none of these things. Obama, meanwhile, passed the ACA and the Build America program, but doesn't have too many other legislative wins that survived the Trump era and both of those were passed in the first half of his first term when he had large legislative majorities. 

I think the fundamental issue here is it's hard to do much of ANYTHING with Washington as polarized as it is, but that not withstanding Biden seems to be doing a little better than average. Which may not be much... but it also isn't nothing.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I think the fundamental issue here is it's hard to do much of ANYTHING with Washington as polarized as it is, but that not withstanding Biden seems to be doing a little better than average. Which may not be much... but it also isn't nothing.



Which does not sound like a winning slogan going into 2022 and eventually 2024.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> First paragraph - eh, there's a grey area there, and I was actually, randomly, remembering that last night while drifting off to sleep - I don't think either of us was entirely right, but not for the reasons we suspected at the time. Covid protection from a prior case or a vaccine DOES last longer, considerably so, than the 2-3 months you hazarded based on studies on antibody decay, and breakthrough infections are more common now (and will be even more so under omicron) but still very scarce compared to infections in unvaccinated individuals with no prior infection. On the other hand, I didn't really fully understand how hard it was going to be to get the US to the 75-80% vaccination rate estimated to be needed for herd immunity to begin to really stamp out community spread (we're still at fuckin' 60% for christ's sake), nor did I really account for how quickly variants that offered some ability to break through at a material rate would arise.
> 
> So, in some ways, I'd say you were wrong, but ended up being right anyway, and I was right, but ended up being wrong anyway.



All I said was worst case might be a matter of months, rather than years, based on what little we knew at the time. That's still the case based on what we know at this time. Also in my defense, I had brought up without prompting that the mRNA vaccine technology, in theory, should work better. Also, as a side bar, this might be interesting to point out that this was also the first study on reinfection with SARS, which just goes to show how long it generally takes for this sort of data on reinfection takes to surface. I don't think anything I had stated in that argument was contradicted by any evidence we've seen so far. Maybe things I said were misinterpreted, like Al Gore inventing the internet, or whatever. When I said that immunity against covid was not robust, we see both scientific evidence from labs around the world and practical empirical evidence from pandemic statistics that strongly support that statement.

But my original point was that herd immunity (whether or not there was a vaccine) was not a valid concept for SARS-CoV-2, and the reinfection debate that spurred off of that was just over one of a few supporting points to explain why herd immunity would not stop the pandemic.

However, now that we know that reinfection is far less deadly, I think we'll end up eventually to a point where people just ignore the virus- it'll be another seasonal flu, essentially. But we still have no idea about the long-term effects of the virus or what weird mutations are potentially still developing. It's probably fine, but my point is that if there are any surprise whammies, we're not going to know what they are maybe for years still.



Drew said:


> You can list the things he _didn't_ do that he campaigned on trying to do... but remember that his predecessor ran on banning Muslims, building a wall on the southern border and making Mexico pay for it, repealing the ACA and replacing it with "something better," and paying down the entirety of the US national debt, and accomplished exactly none of these things. Obama, meanwhile, passed the ACA and the Build America program, but doesn't have too many other legislative wins that survived the Trump era and both of those were passed in the first half of his first term when he had large legislative majorities.


Obama was a disappointment, too. My biggest single issue was the stupid handling of the War on Terror, which Obama made several specific promises of reform that he dropped like a hot potato as soon as they proved to be as difficult as any reasonable person would have expected them to be. The ACA that passed was the worst monkey's-paw-style twist on that promise (health care for all Americans, except everyone has to pay for it themselves out of pocket). Trump's "wins" were all monkey's-paw style wishes, too (very few of which I wanted anyway). Banning Muslims equated to banning immigrants from majority-Muslim countries and calling it a win, only to have the courts play volleyball with the EO. Disbanding the EPA wound up being decreasing the size of the EPA by a significant amount. Building a huge impenetrable wall on the Mexican border and having Mexico pay for it ended up being building a small modest wall across some borders and having New Mexico pay for a small fraction of it. Banning lobbyists for life ended up being banning lobbyists for life, except, oh wait, as a last act, reneg, haha jokes on you guys flex and villain laugh as he is dragged away. No vacation days while in office ended up being, well, I'll take a vacation, but call it any synonym for vacation that precisely means vacation but won't be technically a vacation, wink wink. Make America Great Again meant bringing back manufacturing jobs and then when that didn't happen, well, America is great again because I'm president haha, kiss self in the mirror. 
I could go on and on, but I think that's basically how I felt Trump's entire presidency went. Where Obama said I'll do X, then did X* (*X, but also a bunch of bullshit no one wanted in order to compromise) or failed to do X and either said, "well, X ended up being harder than we anticipated" or "we tried, but failed to do X;" Trump promised X, gave everyone lower case t and told us all to squint and tilt our heads 45° until t looked like X.
Biden, well Biden is definitely closer to the Obama strategy, where things were promised that were obviously near-impossible, and we are maybe going to get a couple of things that people wanted when they voted for him. My expectation level for him was to just undo the Trump stuff as much as reasonably expectable, and he's definitely been doing just that. The XL pipeline, for example, was actually one of Trump's campaign promises that he struggled to get done in time and Biden was quick enough to mitigate much of the damage just by simply not being Trump and being elected.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Which does not sound like a winning slogan going into 2022 and eventually 2024.


No, but it's at least a realistic assessment of the situation, vs what the Republicans/probably Trump if he lives that long are going to say. 

@bostjan - again, I don't want to rehash the entire debate, but my point at the time was antibody decay alone wasn't reason to argue herd immunity was impossible, given the relative scarcity of breakthrough infections prior to the availability of the vaccine implied that _something_ was offering lingering protection against reinfection longer than the 2-3 months antibody decay was implying. Which is well-settled medical fact today. As it turns out, that doesn't matter, because Americans are too stubborn to get vaccinated so we don't even have the opportunity to see if herd immunity for at least _a period of time_ would be enough to return Covid back to the point where we wre doing discrete contact tracing rather than fighting rampant community spread. Which is insanely frustrating. 

But, let's look past Obama - W probably had one of the better track records of getting shit done in the modern era, but he had control of Congress, and healthy majorities, for all but the last two years of his presidency, where the Democrats largely shut him down. Clinton, I was pretty young back then, but from what I recall and understand he started with comfortable democratic majorities, lost them quickly, and then most of his legislative accomplishments are today derided as examples of the Democratic party being Republicans in all but name by the progressive left, so we're talking about a Democrat passing fairly conservative legislation - welfare reforms, tough-on-drugs criminal justice reform, that kind of stuff. 

I don't know if there's been a president in the modern era who's really been able to pass what he wanted, outside of W during the period of time when we were reacting to 9/11 and when Republicans had healthy margins of control in both chambers of congress, until the final two years of his term. Given what he has to work with, I'm surprised Biden has been able to do as much as he has.


----------



## Drew

I'm reading that as Democrats are pivoting to voting rights, changes to the filibuster are potentially on the table, including at a minimum requiring a "talking filibuster" to block legislation, if not fully doing away with it, and Manchin is at least open to discussing it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I'm reading that as Democrats are pivoting to voting rights, changes to the filibuster are potentially on the table, including at a minimum requiring a "talking filibuster" to block legislation, if not fully doing away with it, and Manchin is at least open to discussing it.


Well, at the very least I'm glad the Democrats are at least discussing voting rights, as it's patently clear that the entire Republican party is gearing itself up to obliterate voting rights, or outright change elections if they don't like the result in several states right now. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for the our national elections to have some sort of federal oversight?


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Well, at the very least I'm glad the Democrats are at least discussing voting rights, as it's patently clear that the entire Republican party is gearing itself up to obliterate voting rights, or outright change elections if they don't like the result in several states right now. Maybe, just maybe, it's time for the our national elections to have some sort of federal oversight?


They tried to get a few pretty sensible, common-sense compromise bills through the Senate, but Republicans basically took the stance that any compromise Democrats were _for_, they were going to be _against_, and the hope was it could be done on a bipartisan basis to at least symbolically show broad support. Now that the BBBA is getting pushed out into 2022, there's some time to pick this up now and I don't know how you could pass a voting law through reconciliation but maybe they could find some way to try. If not, well, if Manchin and Sinema are willing to consider weaking the filibuster for voting laws, that's a possibility at least for a 50-50 vote.


----------



## SpaceDock

Everyone crapping on Joe not making their dreams come true, but they did pass the largest infrastructure package in generations which is so badly needed after getting the can kicked down the road for decades. Srsly Trumps only legislative accomplishment was a giant tax cut for rich people that expires for all of us in only a few years now. It’s not perfect but don’t let that get in the way of better. I worry all this people crying about not getting their student loans paid for are going to hand our country back to the Repubs. Good luck with that.


----------



## iamaom

SpaceDock said:


> but they did pass the largest infrastructure package in generations


Factoring inflation and the US budget going up every year, it would have been hard not to. The bill is also not near enough in terms of money or scope, and it's another bait and switch to privatize even more public services: https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/infrastructure-bill-may-boost-asset-recycling.


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> Everyone crapping on Joe not making their dreams come true, but they did pass the largest infrastructure package in generations which is so badly needed after getting the can kicked down the road for decades. Srsly Trumps only legislative accomplishment was a giant tax cut for rich people that expires for all of us in only a few years now. It’s not perfect but don’t let that get in the way of better. I worry all this people crying about not getting their student loans paid for are going to hand our country back to the Repubs. Good luck with that.



You're conflating frustrations on principals against strategy.

Just like you're essentially arguing, "Biden is closer to policy these people would want than Trump" so they should just cave and vote for him without argument, those same people are much more likely to vote for Biden than getting Republicans to vote for him, so there's no reason to chart a path that boxes them out either. It's a two way street.

Anyway, it doesn't need to be a "free college" giveaway or whatever. Dems still didn't learn the lesson of why Trump won the first time. Obama was much much better at messaging appeal to the middle class and disenchanted blue collar workers hugging either side of the center based on their pain and how to draw them in.

I live in a rural, red district that's been solid red for over a decade (and used to be included in Elise Stefaniks territory). We got a black Democrat that won here last time around and won re-election, because he held a lot of town halls in areas that really didn't like him, took the slings and arrows from all the insults/attacks and still said "okay fine but what's wrong and what can I do to help?" and he helped them anyway.

You get your easy party line votes, you get a handful of people from the other side that vote for you because they recognize what you did, but you also disarm a lot of your critics. It was very hard to get a grip on a wedge issue to fit on a lawn sign to run against the guy. Someone tells you "don't vote for Delgado, he's a city thug wants to take your guns" but you know that he helped get subsidies that saved your farm or helped pay your medical bills when you had cancer. Makes it hard to get a party line hate grip on a dude.

The problem Biden faces is that there are policies that help center right voters (along with everyone else) that are potential crossover voters or at least won't viciously come out and campaign against him, but his BLOCKED against going that by Republicans (and some Democrats) beholden to special interests that TELL their voters what they should want/need rather than listening to them. Lots of dirt poor Republicans deriding "socialism" when 1.) It's not 2.) It's policy that will help them. You won't win all of those people but giving up on policy that helps main street because you can only pass policy that satisfies wall street is a mistake.

What helps Joe Biden more, winning 1% of Republican congressmen or winning 1% of Republican voters? Because right now he's conceding to the former when it's very likely at the expense of the latter (along with people from the left too).


----------



## SpaceDock

I am literally saying that most presidents get one big piece of legislation and Joes could have been worse. If this isn’t seen as a win, Repubs take over the country at the mid terms and most likely the next presidency because Dems pass nothing after mid terms. I don’t like it any more than any of you.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Don't blame me, I voted for Bernie Sandals.
> 
> (In Japan accents this pun is flawless)


This is US Political Discussion, you foreigners don't get a say


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> I am literally saying that most presidents get one big piece of legislation and Joes could have been worse. If this isn’t seen as a win, Repubs take over the country at the mid terms and most likely the next presidency because Dems pass nothing after mid terms. I don’t like it any more than any of you.



That's fair, I'm just saying it's not necessarily an effective strategy if they think they can spend their resources _convincing_ Democrats it's a bigger win than they think it is. They've had what, 4 or 5 months to market it while they were fighting to get it passed? 

99% of people "experiencing" the infrastructure bill in action will be the people driving in stop/start, single lane traffic over the next few years. Maybe at the tail end of that they say "huh, this roads a lot smoother than it used to be"?

That's compared to something like Obamacare where their experience was getting affordable health insurance for themselves or their kids, and being able to go to the doctor for the first time in years without worrying they were going to get a bill for thousands of dollars.

I know Biden's hands are tied but I haven't seen a pitch on infrastructure or this voting rights bill that make the results "real" for average people.


----------



## SpaceDock

Randy said:


> That's fair, I'm just saying it's not necessarily an effective strategy if they think they can spend their resources _convincing_ Democrats it's a bigger win than they think it is. They've had what, 4 or 5 months to market it while they were fighting to get it passed?
> 
> 99% of people "experiencing" the infrastructure bill in action will be the people driving in stop/start, single lane traffic over the next few years. Maybe at the tail end of that they say "huh, this roads a lot smoother than it used to be"?
> 
> That's compared to something like Obamacare where their experience was getting affordable health insurance for themselves or their kids, and being able to go to the doctor for the first time in years without worrying they were going to get a bill for thousands of dollars.
> 
> I know Biden's hands are tied but I haven't seen a pitch on infrastructure or this voting rights bill that make the results "real" for average people.



Yeah, their marketing department should be fired. They just need to run an ad that says “My children aren’t in the Administration” or “I will transfer power after my term!” Ha ha. 

Sadly even something like Obamacare that gave real direct results for so many people was not enough to save Obama at the first midterm because people didn’t think it was the change they voted for. I remember people saying, “he let me down because he didn’t do anything to change my life, derp derp.” Then it was six years of being stonewalled and that was enough for Americans to think Trump could do better.


----------



## Randy

Obamacare was one of those things I complained about at the time, mostly because of the individual mandate (which was a provision that ironically needed to be there to satisfy moderates) but long term it proved to be the necessary thing. Also, if you don't live in a shithole state, the state-level marketplaces offered combination state and fed subsidized plans that expanded coverage and dropped costs all over the place, it just took time to mature to that point.

Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about midterms because it always swings that way. Republicans are dying breed so by the numbers we will some day see a generational shift that will make them irrelevant at the federal level (unless they change completely) but I doubt we're there yet.


----------



## nightflameauto

Fuck Obamacare right up the ass with a huge rubber dick.

Pre-Obamacare I could afford insurance for me and my wife. Post-Obamacare I can't. I mean, I could, if I didn't feel like eating or keeping a roof over my head.

I know it helped people on the lowest end of the money machine and people with pre-existing conditions, but the rest of it was a HUGE win for the insurance industry, and a massive fuck you to the middle and upper-middle class.

About today: Biden's biggest issue, really the biggest issue the Democrats in general face, is that the Republican rage machine generates a lot more press than the Democrats sitting on their lips whining about messaging while not really having a message. Even hard-dem leaning pundits are saying that the Democrats have a messaging problem, in that they have none. When you're staunchest supporters can't figure out what your message is? You gots a prollem.


----------



## Adieu

Yeah seriously, insurance that covers much of anything more than a checkbox on an IRS form costs $5-6k / year for a single 30-something who hasn't used ANY medical services except the freeforall covid vax since his 20s.

There are countries with halfdecent free medical services whose GDP per person is around that number.

Obamacare was a MASSIVE fckn betrayal. It took that tool Donald and the gun-toting tinfoil hattery of the last several years to make me sort of swing back left.


----------



## Adieu

The PROPER leftie way to do this is to put most or all of state medical school students on free tuition in exchange for civil service contract after graduation for some number of years schemes, then make treatment at said facilities not require anything except waiting in line, and let the damn private market play at premium alternative services all it wants.

They'll be lobbying for the right to serve the public service's overflow patients for 1/5th their current rates in no time.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Yeah seriously, insurance that covers much of anything more than a checkbox on an IRS form costs $5-6k / year for a single 30-something who hasn't used ANY medical services except the freeforall covid vax since his 20s.
> 
> There are countries with halfdecent free medical services whose GDP per person is around that number.
> 
> Obamacare was a MASSIVE fckn betrayal. It took that tool Donald and the gun-toting tinfoil hattery of the last several years to make me sort of swing back left.


My wife and I checked the exchanges this month and if we signed up for insurance through the government programs right now our minimum, absolute shit coverage with huge deductibles would be 12k. If we did absolutely nothing, and never went to the clinic. If we actually needed medical services, we'd be on the hook for several thousand more before we hit the deductible.

12k a year is not reasonable for health insurance that doesn't actually cover your expenses if you need it. It's fucking robbery.


----------



## bostjan

Remember when it was promised that insurance rates would be super low if there was a mandate?

Anyway, the infrastructure bill still has a good possibility of paving the way to bad legacy. What if everyone puts up with the single lane of traffic only to have the roads/bridges/sewers worked on by the mob or whatever corrupt group, who mixes salt in the cement and makes bridge beams out of pot metal in order to embezzle money? I've seen exactly that on smaller-scale government infrastructure boosts. Since there is bound to be a lack of oversight as the scope goes out of control big, I'm sure it'll be a matter of time before people are wondering WTF happened to the infrastructure somewhere or other. I'm pretty convinced that every big bill from here until the end of the US government will have what I've been calling a "monkey's paw." Something is promised, people think "wow, sounds great," but then the reality sinks in and the end result has some consequence no one considered that eclipses whatever good was accomplished. Like if there was a master chef who made fantastic culinary creations, which tasted delicious, but then the waiter garnishes it by placing a small dog turd on top of each meal. That's where we've been since Obama and it's where we seem to continue to be going. Maybe Trump's very general rhetoric of disassembling as much of the government as possible and then throwing away all of the broken nonsense and trying to start again. The problem, of course, was that the really fundamental things that are broken can never be fixed, so we are just mired in.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> My wife and I checked the exchanges this month and if we signed up for insurance through the government programs right now our minimum, absolute shit coverage with huge deductibles would be 12k. If we did absolutely nothing, and never went to the clinic. If we actually needed medical services, we'd be on the hook for several thousand more before we hit the deductible.
> 
> 12k a year is not reasonable for health insurance that doesn't actually cover your expenses if you need it. It's fucking robbery.


My employer has been struggling with private insurance companies to find something that they can afford that actually covers anything. Now that insurance is mandated, insurance companies can charge whatever they want and no one can do anything, and with no government oversight, it's essentially a license to rob people. This is exactly the fear I had voiced way back when this stuff was developing out of Washington; it just took a little longer for it to happen than I thought it might. If we had had term limits, the lobbyists from the insurance companies wouldn't have had the ability to dictate how the legislation was written, and things would have turned out differently (who knows if better or worse, though). But that's why we need term limits for federal congress. Otherwise, the middle class will simply continue being taken advantage by the wealthy. ...and the wealthy will get so accustomed to doing it that they won't even realize that it's happening.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Remember when it was promised that insurance rates would be super low if there was a mandate?


The mandate still technically exists, but didn't the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduce the tax penalty in the mandate to $0? I.e. - in practice, the mandate has been gone for the last two years?


----------



## Randy

Randy said:


> if you don't live in a shithole state


No idea where any of y'all live but this was a pertinent qualifier.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> The mandate still technically exists, but didn't the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduce the tax penalty in the mandate to $0? I.e. - in practice, the mandate has been gone for the last two years?



Nope it's back afaik


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The mandate still technically exists, but didn't the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduce the tax penalty in the mandate to $0? I.e. - in practice, the mandate has been gone for the last two years?


It's up to the individual states.

In Mass, it's $0, same in VT, but in other states it can be $700.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> It's up to the individual states.
> 
> In Mass, it's $0, same in VT, but in other states it can be $700.


But the _federal_ penalty was cut in the TCJA, correct? 

It's $0 in Mass because we till have our own state-run program that the ACA was modeled on, with state-level penalties. The program works just fine here.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Nope it's back afaik


https://www.verywellhealth.com/obamacare-penalty-for-being-uninsured-4132434

Had to check this myself - the federal penalty is gone, but a few states implemented their own, and as I said MA already had a tax penalty for not carrying insurance.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> But the _federal_ penalty was cut in the TCJA, correct?
> 
> It's $0 in Mass because we till have our own state-run program that the ACA was modeled on, with state-level penalties. The program works just fine here.


Yes, since FY2018 or 2019, I think. This coincides with the last knee in health insurance costs, but if many states held onto their penalties, I'm not sure how much the two can be confidently linked.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yes, since FY2018 or 2019, I think. This coincides with the last knee in health insurance costs, but if many states held onto their penalties, I'm not sure how much the two can be confidently linked.


Based on the article I shared above which was updated about a week ago, we have MA whose penalty was never repealed, plus three states and the District of Columbia who subsequently passed their own. 

A lot else has happened since the start of 2019, not the least of which a global health crisis, so I'm not gonna say correlation is causation... but it was certainly an _attempt_ to gut the ACA by removing the incentive for healthy people to take out insurance and thereby diversify the risk pool, causing premiums to rise, and if that's what you're seeing, well...


----------



## bostjan

Ok, this is getting a bit of a deep dive considering the common-knowledge-ness of the point, but:





https://www.fastcompany.com/4047046...ing-insurance-premiums-over-the-last-18-years
Health insurance premium increase did _*not*_ slow, on average, after passage of the ACA in 2010.

Also, a ton of information here: https://www.kff.org/report-section/ehbs-2019-section-1-cost-of-health-insurance/

Health insurance premiums have increased almost 2x the rate of inflation, and deductibles almost 5x the rate of inflation since the passage of the ACA.

The situation with health care expenses has obviously not gotten any better for low income Americans who went from having no health insurance to having health insurance that doesn't cover anything until they hit a deductible that is a multiple of their take home yearly pay. They went from not being able to afford something to having to pay for the thing they already could not afford and having it not do anything in return to now once again not being able to afford it, but having it be that much more out of reach now than it was before. And for workers in the middle class, it means that they are paying more money for the thing they had before and not being able to use it anymore.

Who benefitted from the ACA? Insurance companies.


----------



## Adieu

Well, the name itself was kinda a dead giveaway

If something is advertised as "affordable," be wary. "Care"? Unless they mean a euphemism for personal hygiene asscrack wipes, be very very wary.

Combined? RUN.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Ok, this is getting a bit of a deep dive considering the common-knowledge-ness of the point, but:


Me, resist a deep dive?  

I want to do some digging of my own, but the problem with looking at average family premiums is, well, there are two I can think of off the top of my head: 

1) The ACA also included minimum coverage requirements, so there are both pure inflation, and composition, factors in play here. Which, to be fair, you might argue is exactly the point, and while that's a separate debate about whether or not it was a good thing that the mandate also forced Americans who were taking out bare bones plans to upgrade to plans that offered actual coverage, but it still makes a pure premium comparison challenging. A fairer metric here would be to first start by normalizing the data to focus on plans that meet, but do not exceed, ACA minimum coverage criteria.
2) This data appears to be based on a survey of employer sponsored plans. A lot of the focus of the ACA however was on giving workers an alternative to employer sponsored plans via state-run exchanges, and for lower income workers, also subsidizing (in some cases, large) parts of those plans, which an employer-provided average premium survey would ignore. 

Trying to wrap up at work for the night here, but those are the first two thoughts that come to mind.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Adieu

Who needs The Onion when we got reality?


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Adieu said:


> Who needs The Onion when we got reality?


Hard to tell them apart at this point.


----------



## vilk

Adieu said:


> Who needs The Onion when we got reality?


I had to do a double take at the CNN logo because it reads so much like Onion that I can't even really believe that it isn't.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> View attachment 101235
> View attachment 101236


What kind of a dumb-ass question was that?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Me, resist a deep dive?
> 
> I want to do some digging of my own, but the problem with looking at average family premiums is, well, there are two I can think of off the top of my head:
> 
> 1) The ACA also included minimum coverage requirements, so there are both pure inflation, and composition, factors in play here. Which, to be fair, you might argue is exactly the point, and while that's a separate debate about whether or not it was a good thing that the mandate also forced Americans who were taking out bare bones plans to upgrade to plans that offered actual coverage, but it still makes a pure premium comparison challenging. A fairer metric here would be to first start by normalizing the data to focus on plans that meet, but do not exceed, ACA minimum coverage criteria.
> 2) This data appears to be based on a survey of employer sponsored plans. A lot of the focus of the ACA however was on giving workers an alternative to employer sponsored plans via state-run exchanges, and for lower income workers, also subsidizing (in some cases, large) parts of those plans, which an employer-provided average premium survey would ignore.
> 
> Trying to wrap up at work for the night here, but those are the first two thoughts that come to mind.



Taking a step back, the entire point of insurance is to stash money away collectively among a group of people in case something expensive, but unlikely, happens, such that the group can cover the expense of the unlucky person.

Health insurance has reached a point where it doesn't even come close to serving that function. It's too expensive, the deductibles are sky high, and even then, they do everything they can to avoid paying a claim. I say fuck it. I'm better off putting away some of my money in a mattress.

Affordable Care Act ought to mean what its name implies. However, if you look at the increase in premiums, they had a sharp knee up during Bush II and have continued increasing unfettered since then, regardless of the ACA. You can't see any change for better or worse in the rate of change coinciding with the ACA. What you do see is that deductibles took a very sharp increase in their rate of change coinciding with the drop of the mandates. But, even before that, those were on the rise disproportionately from inflation prior to the ACA and after the ACA. So, ultimately, since the passage of the ACA, health care in general has become less affordable to the average American. 

I guess history will tell how it all sorts out, but it doesn't look to me like the ACA was a win for anybody other than insurance companies. And this is coming from someone who was literally on the verge of declaring bankruptcy after an unexpected medical bill during Bush II. The situation I had found myself in would not have been mitigated by the ACA, though. Maybe there is someone somewhere out there who could say otherwise from their own experience.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I guess history will tell how it all sorts out, but it doesn't look to me like the ACA was a win for anybody other than insurance companies. And this is coming from someone who was literally on the verge of declaring bankruptcy after an unexpected medical bill during Bush II. The situation I had found myself in would not have been mitigated by the ACA, though. Maybe there is someone somewhere out there who could say otherwise from their own experience.


I know one person, ONE, in real life that was helped by the ACA in that they had preexisting conditions that had kept them off of insurance for decades prior. Literally every other person I've spoken with about it thinks it was a gift to the insurance companies and either feel it made zero difference to the slide away from affordability, or helped accelerate it. I'm sort of in the middle. I think it was going to happen regardless, but there's every possibility that the carte-blanch government mandated "must buy insurance" shit that was there originally gave the insurance companies even more incentive to stop giving a fuck about appearing to be trying to serve the needs of those they steal from.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I guess history will tell how it all sorts out, but it doesn't look to me like the ACA was a win for anybody other than insurance companies. And this is coming from someone who was literally on the verge of declaring bankruptcy after an unexpected medical bill during Bush II. The situation I had found myself in would not have been mitigated by the ACA, though. Maybe there is someone somewhere out there who could say otherwise from their own experience.


I don't _fully_ agree, but it's also hard to deny that when Trump announced he was going to try to repeal the ACA, health insurer stocks fell, and when he failed, they rallied. 

I also concede my experience is different in Massachusetts, where our plan seems to have worked pretty well at the state level, before it was used as the basis of the ACA.


----------



## narad

It's not like health insurers where out there rallying for ACA. Maybe the ultimate implementation had enough concessions that insurers found effective ways of exploiting it, so in retrospect they like it (I don't know much about how it ultimately played out), but I remember all the insurer backlash there when the bill was first being pitched around.


----------



## Randy

Mark me down as someone who couldn't afford health insurance before and could after the ACA.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> What kind of a dumb-ass question was that?



The kind of question asked by the person hosting the show you went on trying to appeal to "that" demographic. A dumb question with an equally dumb answer weighs a lot heavier on the VPOTUS than it does some random radio show host.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> It's not like health insurers where out there rallying for ACA. Maybe the ultimate implementation had enough concessions that insurers found effective ways of exploiting it, so in retrospect they like it (I don't know much about how it ultimately played out), but I remember all the insurer backlash there when the bill was first being pitched around.



A conspiracy theorist might suspect that nearly ALL our political lobbies now run false flags as their main activity

ACA = power grab by supposedly dissatisfied health insurance companies
Anti-vaxx conspiracies = far left plot to make the right go extinct
Minor's rights to self-identify gender = far right plot to sterilize the children of the left

Etc.


----------



## zappatton2

Adieu said:


> A conspiracy theorist might suspect that nearly ALL our political lobbies now run false flags as their main activity
> 
> ACA = power grab by supposedly dissatisfied health insurance companies
> Anti-vaxx conspiracies = far left plot to make the right go extinct
> Minor's rights to self-identify gender = far right plot to sterilize the children of the left
> 
> Etc.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> A conspiracy theorist might suspect that nearly ALL our political lobbies now run false flags as their main activity
> 
> ACA = power grab by supposedly dissatisfied health insurance companies
> Anti-vaxx conspiracies = far left plot to make the right go extinct
> Minor's rights to self-identify gender = far right plot to sterilize the children of the left
> 
> Etc.


I just think God's a really shitty hack author that doesn't bother doing any editing.


----------



## Drew

Looks like Manchin's very public killing off of the BBBA _was_ a negotiating tactic, and we're now looking at a $1.75T bill with no child tax credit, but fully-funded childcare funding for the next ten years.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Looks like Manchin's very public killing off of the BBBA _was_ a negotiating tactic, and we're now looking at a $1.75T bill with no child tax credit, but fully-funded childcare funding for the next ten years.



Good. The parents use that credit to buy drugs - according to Joe Manchin.


----------



## spudmunkey

I don't disagree with one of his points: people who make over $200k could be disqualified for the credit and I wouldn't lose sleep over it.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> Good. The parents use that credit to buy drugs - according to Joe Manchin.


If they're waiting until they file their taxes in April to buy drugs, withdrawal is WAY less severe than I would have imagined.  

This is a way more complex topic than I can do justice in two sentences, but... He's not wrong to be focused on the fact that by sunsetting a lot of the parts of the BBBA, under the assumption they'll become too popular to repeal, we're understating the "true" cost of this bill significantly and it's not likely at all to be revenue neutral over ten years. Personally I think the answer there is to just raise taxes enough to compensate and introduce a few more tiers of progressive taxation - I mean, the GOP loves to wax poetic about the golden era of the "moral majority" in 1950s America, and how there was a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, but somehow they always seem to forget the top marginal tax rate was north of 70% during this time. WEIRD.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> I don't disagree with one of his points: people who make over $200k could be disqualified for the credit and I wouldn't lose sleep over it.


I'm not sure if I think the federal government should be int he business of incentivizing us to breed, and if it's too expensive for most Americans to raise children today, I think the answer is to increase the earning power of average Americans, not decrease the taxes those with children pay. My two cents.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I'm not sure if I think the federal government should be int he business of incentivizing us to breed, and if it's too expensive for most Americans to raise children today, I think the answer is to increase the earning power of average Americans, not decrease the taxes those with children pay. My two cents.



Biden wearing his Irish Catholic-ness on his sleeve.


----------



## Ralyks

Mark me as someone who the ACA benefited. And my son that I raise alone.


----------



## Adieu

Also we were racist and mysogynistic as hell, so it was a lot easier to supply chickens to the few pots and garages that we actually cared to count and then bask in their surveyed satisfaction with life



Drew said:


> Personally I think the answer there is to just raise taxes enough to compensate and introduce a few more tiers of progressive taxation - I mean, the GOP loves to wax poetic about the golden era of the "moral majority" in 1950s America, and how there was a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, but somehow they always seem to forget the top marginal tax rate was north of 70% during this time. WEIRD.


----------



## iamaom

bostjan said:


> but it doesn't look to me like the ACA was a win for anybody other than insurance companies


I'm probably a bit younger (late 20's) than others on this board, the ACA did let me stay on my parents insurance til 25 which was a huge help financially as I was working minimum wage jobs until just a few years ago. It also got rid of pre-existing conditions which insurance through employers haven't brought back even though the Mandate doesn't exist anymore. If the ACA is ever 100% repealed (without a replacement) a lot of young people with health issues who've never had traditional private insurance will be thrust into a world were they can never be able to get covered.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> It's not like health insurers where out there rallying for ACA. Maybe the ultimate implementation had enough concessions that insurers found effective ways of exploiting it, so in retrospect they like it (I don't know much about how it ultimately played out), but I remember all the insurer backlash there when the bill was first being pitched around.



It's all part of the shell game.

If they and their shills were honest about how much they loved it, no way in hell would it have made it into law without the collective political suicide of all its proponents.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> It's all part of the shell game.
> 
> If they and their shills were honest about how much they loved it, no way in hell would it have made it into law without the collective political suicide of all its proponents.



That's a level of conspiracy I'm not willing to believe.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> That's a level of conspiracy I'm not willing to believe.



Wait... you're unwilling to believe a cartel of a grand total of like, what, FIVE or so companies standing to earn TRILLIONS in the long run would quietly agree to pretend they hate regulation that forces 330 million people to become their customers for life?

Because, what, that would be mildly dishonest?


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Wait... you're unwilling to believe a cartel of a grand total of like, what, FIVE or so companies standing to earn TRILLIONS in the long run would quietly agree to pretend they hate regulation that forces 330 million people to become their customers for life?
> 
> Because, what, that would be mildly dishonest?



Yea, because subterfuge is hard enough when it's one person. When it's an entire company of people, in different branches of the company, of people coming in and out of a company, it doesn't make much sense to have hundreds of people all on board with this thing while everyone else in these companies is supposed to be oblivious. That's just within a company, let alone some multi-corporation cabal. And when logically a tightly executed ACA is intended to put pressure on insurers and reduce prices, you don't need to go digging for more complex explanations when there are simpler ones readily apparent to all. That's hallmark conspiracy. "Oh, I saw a stick in a lake... but... it was also possibly a dinosaur??"


----------



## Adieu

Oh please

Somebody circulates a "government is about to pass a horrid bill that will hurt us, wah-wah-wah, woe is us" memo & done.

No special subterfuge necessary.

It's not like the branch office receptionist or security guard's opinion on the ACA is gonna impact the course of closed door lobbying negotiations

It just looks better for everyone involved if the lower ranks are creating a fuss like they really hate it


----------



## narad

Yea, and the higher-ups at the NRA are super pro gun control. Nothing is what it seems. Wake up, sheeple!


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Yea, and the higher-ups at the NRA are super pro gun control. Nothing is what it seems. Wake up, sheeple!



Not entirely, but they're certainly very much against blanket legalization and deregulation

They'd simply cease to exist if the gun lobby had no reason to continue

People wanna eat well. It's sorta like how prosecutors and police would be horrified if crime went away entirely and for good.

The job of "fighting for ..." is often highly contingent on NEVER WINNING.


----------



## USMarine75

If you belong to TPA or support MTG you’re a white nationalist or neo-Nazi. Fo sho. 



narad said:


> Yea, and the higher-ups at the NRA are super pro gun control. Nothing is what it seems. Wake up, sheeple!



Well. The NRA loved Obama. They donated more money to his funds than McCain or Romney. They demonized him and sold more memberships, guns, and ammo than ever before.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> Well. The NRA loved Obama. They donated more money to his funds than McCain or Romney. They demonized him and sold more memberships, guns, and ammo than ever before.



Sure, but you can't hoard insurance plans for some future time when they've been regulated. There's not a lot of mystery here: under ACA, everyone has to buy insurance. Insurers like that. Under ACA, there is the ultimate goal of reducing healthcare costs and insurance premiums. Insurers don't like that. If you can have all of column A and none of column B, ACA is better than no ACA as far as the health industry is concerned.


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> Sure, but you can't hoard insurance plans for some future time when they've been regulated. There's not a lot of mystery here: under ACA, everyone has to buy insurance. Insurers like that. Under ACA, there is the ultimate goal of reducing healthcare costs and insurance premiums. Insurers don't like that. If you can have all of column A and none of column B, ACA is better than no ACA as far as the health industry is concerned.



Oh I’m an ACA fan. I’m a MA guy… I liked it when it was Romney-care too. It’s literally better than nothing. But Matt Taibbi tells a great story about the grift and what it took to get it passed in the House. IIRC they sent Biden to beg Pelosi to get behind it because even the Dems were like F this gutted turd. It did become a handout to insurance companies. A lot of the best parts and consumer protections were removed. Which is why it’s become state dependent as to just how great the benefits are.

Additionally, the GOP repealed federal insurance company regulations. So now States have total regulation of their insurance companies and in some cases there’s little to no regulation actually occurring. Thanks, party of the Ford-tough, Mike Rowe inspired, working man!


----------



## zappatton2

I admit this isn't a well-versed opinion on my part, there's infinite intricacies with the US system I can't begin to comprehend, but from where I'm standing, so many elements of American health care would be better served by cutting private insurers out of the game completely, and just introducing direct public single-payor insurance.

I'm not against roles for the private sector in the delivery of some services/health care equipment, but any time the US tries to expand affordable health care to the people, private insurance makes a hash of the whole thing. Again, I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the specifics could give me a better-informed smackdown, but I've had to rely on a good measure on health care all my life, with lifesaving surgeries and treatments etc., and even the idea of paying expensive premiums for life-saving measures just seems inconceivable. I'll just stick to paying my taxes.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Biden wearing his Irish Catholic-ness on his sleeve.


For sure, but I think it also goes a bit beyond that - giving money to "families" is one of those things that's awfully hard to oppose, while "cutting taxes for people who could potentially be rich" is pretty taboo on the left these days.  

Politics is weird, man.


----------



## Randy




----------



## ArtDecade

Randy said:


> View attachment 101327



Well, I guess it is still better than not having a puppy.


----------



## nightflameauto

zappatton2 said:


> I admit this isn't a well-versed opinion on my part, there's infinite intricacies with the US system I can't begin to comprehend, but from where I'm standing, so many elements of American health care would be better served by cutting private insurers out of the game completely, and just introducing direct public single-payor insurance.
> 
> I'm not against roles for the private sector in the delivery of some services/health care equipment, but any time the US tries to expand affordable health care to the people, private insurance makes a hash of the whole thing. Again, I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the specifics could give me a better-informed smackdown, but I've had to rely on a good measure on health care all my life, with lifesaving surgeries and treatments etc., and even the idea of paying expensive premiums for life-saving measures just seems inconceivable. I'll just stick to paying my taxes.


Looking from a general overview, you're pretty spot on. People, when actually analyzing the situation and not just knee-jerking into whatever their political "team" is rooting for, would probably prefer a public single-payer system, or at least having the *OPTION* of having that available and letting people make their own choice on it. But it won't happen because it would cut into profits for an industry that has MASSIVE resources to lobby politicians into voting against protecting the people that hired them.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Looking from a general overview, you're pretty spot on. People, when actually analyzing the situation and not just knee-jerking into whatever their political "team" is rooting for, would probably prefer a public single-payer system, or at least having the *OPTION* of having that available and letting people make their own choice on it. But it won't happen because it would cut into profits for an industry that has MASSIVE resources to lobby politicians into voting against protecting the people that hired them.



I didn't see people sending back those socialist stimulus checks en masse.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I didn't see people sending back those socialist stimulus checks en masse.


Not sure what that has to do with the discussion about healthcare and insurance in the US, but OK?


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Not sure what that has to do with the discussion about healthcare and insurance in the US, but OK?



That people are willing to silence their political biases when it directly benefits them (see also: medicare and social security). 

Talking about expanding access to healthcare = rejection. 

Actually enacting it = acceptance.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> That people are willing to silence their political biases when it directly benefits them (see also: medicare and social security).
> 
> Talking about expanding access to healthcare = rejection.
> 
> Actually enacting it = acceptance.


But we won't get to enacting it when it comes to healthcare.

I feel like my brain just isn't grasping what you're going for here or something. Maybe I need more caffeine?


----------



## AMOS

USMarine75 said:


> Oh I’m an ACA fan. I’m a MA guy… I liked it when it was Romney-care too. It’s literally better than nothing. But Matt Taibbi tells a great story about the grift and what it took to get it passed in the House. IIRC they sent Biden to beg Pelosi to get behind it because even the Dems were like F this gutted turd. It did become a handout to insurance companies. A lot of the best parts and consumer protections were removed. Which is why it’s become state dependent as to just how great the benefits are.


The monthly premium for my ACA went up $500 and they had no explanation for me as to why. Gee what a great system! The system under Romney was much much better than that crap that's out there now. I was forced to take a crappy program with high copay's and RX fees. While all the lazy people get free MassHealth


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> But we won't get to enacting it when it comes to healthcare.
> 
> I feel like my brain just isn't grasping what you're going for here or something. Maybe I need more caffeine?



He is saying Americans (My Edit: Republicans) will take a free check because it benefits them but will vote argue against universal healthcare because it benefits someone else.


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> He is saying Americans (My Edit: Republicans) will take a free check because it benefits them but will vote argue against universal healthcare because it benefits someone else.


I'll always be against it unless everyone is required to pay into it. Including unions and corporations. Otherwise it's too expensive to get a good program.


----------



## ArtDecade

Leaviathan said:


> I'll always be against it unless everyone is required to pay into it. Including unions and corporations. Otherwise it's too expensive to get a good program.



To be fair, we already do pay for it in taxes but we use that money to prop up defense contracts rather than provide education and health.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Oh please
> 
> Somebody circulates a "government is about to pass a horrid bill that will hurt us, wah-wah-wah, woe is us" memo & done.
> 
> No special subterfuge necessary.
> 
> It's not like the branch office receptionist or security guard's opinion on the ACA is gonna impact the course of closed door lobbying negotiations
> 
> It just looks better for everyone involved if the lower ranks are creating a fuss like they really hate it


I mean, I'm not in the "The ACA is just a giant handout to the insurance industry" camp by any means, but it wasn't exactly a secret that the entire health insurance lobbying wing was converging on Washington to try to water down the provisions that would hurt insurers the most, while ensuring the ones that would help them the most would remain. That doesn't take a coverup at all.



Randy said:


> That people are willing to silence their political biases when it directly benefits them (see also: medicare and social security).
> 
> Talking about expanding access to healthcare = rejection.
> 
> Actually enacting it = acceptance.


Not taking a side here for or against... but that would seem to suggest that the way forward here is to convince Americans that single-payer would benefit them. It's only socialism when it helps _someone else_, right? Gallup hasn't done much on how single-payer polls since the Sanders campaign imploded, but in mid-2019 their own polling and a survey of other prominent polls suggested support for single-payer was mixed at best.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mixed-views-healthcare-healthcare-reform.aspx

I personally think going with a public option might be easier - in theory, it should eventually drive for-profit companies out of business, and would initially ease a lot of Americans' discomfort with doing away with private insurance. But either way, if I were either an elected official or an advocacy group and wanted to push single-payer, I'd start by trying to actually convince Americans they really _would_ be better under this model, which at present a majority of Americans would _probably_ disagree with (I'd be interested to see how the pandemic changes that).


----------



## Adieu

It's America. You can't just go and tell an industry that milks 18% of GDP to go take a hike.

Think of those poor poor rich people won't you?

Plus it's not just astronomically rich people. The twisted US pension system basically uses the haves to enforce any and all status quos against the poor and the young because everyone else is a damn investor and has a huge conflict of interest.



zappatton2 said:


> I admit this isn't a well-versed opinion on my part, there's infinite intricacies with the US system I can't begin to comprehend, but from where I'm standing, so many elements of American health care would be better served by cutting private insurers out of the game completely, and just introducing direct public single-payor insurance.
> 
> I'm not against roles for the private sector in the delivery of some services/health care equipment, but any time the US tries to expand affordable health care to the people, private insurance makes a hash of the whole thing. Again, I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the specifics could give me a better-informed smackdown, but I've had to rely on a good measure on health care all my life, with lifesaving surgeries and treatments etc., and even the idea of paying expensive premiums for life-saving measures just seems inconceivable. I'll just stick to paying my taxes.


----------



## Randy

Leaviathan said:


> everyone is required to pay into it. Including unions and corporations. Otherwise it's too expensive to get a good program.



Agreed. Insurance by design is a pool where everyone pays in and the cost is spread out among the group. The bigger the group, the more reasonable the cost. We're all getting the same pills and going to the same docs, there's no reason why there should be 50 different ways we calculate what the same band aids cost when we get there.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> I mean, I'm not in the "The ACA is just a giant handout to the insurance industry" camp by any means, but it wasn't exactly a secret that the entire health insurance lobbying wing was converging on Washington to try to water down the provisions that would hurt insurers the most, while ensuring the ones that would help them the most would remain. That doesn't take a coverup at all.
> 
> 
> Not taking a side here for or against... but that would seem to suggest that the way forward here is to convince Americans that single-payer would benefit them. It's only socialism when it helps _someone else_, right? Gallup hasn't done much on how single-payer polls since the Sanders campaign imploded, but in mid-2019 their own polling and a survey of other prominent polls suggested support for single-payer was mixed at best.
> 
> https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mixed-views-healthcare-healthcare-reform.aspx
> 
> I personally think going with a public option might be easier - in theory, it should eventually drive for-profit companies out of business, and would initially ease a lot of Americans' discomfort with doing away with private insurance. But either way, if I were either an elected official or an advocacy group and wanted to push single-payer, I'd start by trying to actually convince Americans they really _would_ be better under this model, which at present a majority of Americans would _probably_ disagree with (I'd be interested to see how the pandemic changes that).



That's just partisan democrat infighting garbage.

Single payer isn't popular because the term is poisoned. In practice, it would have full support. I don't see anybody crying because they didn't get a bill/receipt for the Covid vax.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Agreed. Insurance by design is a pool where everyone pays in and the cost is spread out among the group. The bigger the group, the more reasonable the cost. We're all getting the same pills and going to the same docs, there's no reason why there should be 50 different ways we calculate what the same band aids cost when we get there.


I wonder if there's a way to streamline this system


----------



## AMOS

Randy said:


> Agreed. Insurance by design is a pool where everyone pays in and the cost is spread out among the group. The bigger the group, the more reasonable the cost. We're all getting the same pills and going to the same docs, there's no reason why there should be 50 different ways we calculate what the same band aids cost when we get there.



Yup, we don't need Socialism in order to get affordable healthcare, we just need larger groups paying into it.


----------



## Randy

Leaviathan said:


> Yup, we don't need Socialism in order to get affordable healthcare, we just need larger groups paying into it.



Potato, potahto.

Socialism is a blanket term for overreach of the government sharing/controlling services.

We've got public roads, military, police, fire department, etc etc. Those things fall within the commons, meaning things that everyone needs or at least are necessary for society to function and are impractical for individuals to pay for out of pocket. It would cost you your life savings to pay just to have the road paved to get from your neighbors house to yours.

When you start talking about socialism, you're talking about the government controlling things that aren't necessary or practical for them to manage. The government doesn't need to own the blue jeans factory for you to afford them. The government doesn't need to subsidize your big screen television to make it affordable, nor is it essential either.

So that brings you to healthcare. Does it fall within something you can realistically be expected to afford yourself or not? Considering insurance is essential or you're paying thousands to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, and insurance is pooling money to spread cost among a group of people, I'd say your answer is no you cannot afford to pay for healthcare 100% on your own. Imagine paying for full cost of a hip placement or cancer treatment out of your pocket at asking price.

My friend was in a catastrophic car accident when he was in high school and despite being on his parents health insurance, the cost of his treatment was $500k+ and mind you that's AFTER whatever insurance paid.

So I don't think it warrants throwing around "socialism" if we're talking about simply spreading out healthcare costs across the largest possible group so that everyone gets the best price. We're essentially doing the same thing already with private insurance, employer sponsored programs, Medicare, medicaid etc but they're these smaller pools that spread the costs less and have less negotiating power. Way less efficient.


----------



## AMOS

Randy said:


> Potato, potahto.
> 
> Socialism is a blanket term for overreach of the government sharing/controlling services.
> 
> We've got public roads, military, police, fire department, etc etc. Those things fall within the commons, meaning things that everyone needs or at least are necessary for society to function and are impractical for individuals to pay for out of pocket. It would cost you your life savings to pay just to have the road paved to get from your neighbors house to yours.
> 
> When you start talking about socialism, you're talking about the government controlling things that aren't necessary or practical for them to manage. The government doesn't need to own the blue jeans factory for you to afford them. The government doesn't need to subsidize your big screen television to make it affordable, nor is it essential either.
> 
> So that brings you to healthcare. Does it fall within something you can realistically be expected to afford yourself or not? Considering insurance is essential or you're paying thousands to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for treatment, and insurance is pooling money to spread cost among a group of people, I'd say your answer is no you cannot afford to pay for healthcare 100% on your own. Imagine paying for full cost of a hip placement or cancer treatment out of your pocket at asking price.
> 
> My friend was in a catastrophic car accident when he was in high school and despite being on his parents health insurance, the cost of his treatment was $500k+ and mind you that's AFTER whatever insurance paid.
> 
> So I don't think it warrants throwing around "socialism" if we're talking about simply spreading out healthcare costs across the largest possible group so that everyone gets the best price. We're essentially doing the same thing already with private insurance, employer sponsored programs, Medicare, medicaid etc but they're these smaller pools that spread the costs less and have less negotiating power. Way less efficient.


It can be done without raising taxes that's all I'm saying


----------



## ArtDecade

Leaviathan said:


> It can be done without raising taxes that's all I'm saying



If your taxes created a fair and equitable society, I don't think you'd mind paying them. Right now our money is soaked up like a sponge and transferred to the wealthy. Taxes aren't the problem - it is how they are used.


----------



## Adieu

Indeed

And if you look closely at your medical bills, stuff doesn't ACTUALLY cost what they invoice.

A typical fully covered surgery's paperwork looks something like this:
Invoice: ~$30k
Paid by insurance: ~$7k
Deductible: something or other


....and then there's $20+k of difference that somehow, magically, nobody wants from you OR your insurance.

Because the list price is just for when they try to collect it from a sucker. Insurance settles everything at a fraction of the "cost", just like how it doesn't pay $170 for a blister of generic Indian antibiotics that retail for $5 in for-profit entirely unsubsidized pharmacies in places like Mexico, Thailand, or Russia. It's all fraud, smoke, and mirrors.


----------



## zappatton2

Well, I'm in so-called "Marxist Canada", and my tax burden isn't actually any worse (from what I've managed to look into, at my bracket, it might actually be better) than in the States. But I know that my taxes overall tend to go to public services that benefit everyone (rather than an abundance of private entities siphoning off those dollars to private interests), and have no issue paying them (I've actually argued that the Federal sales tax should be boosted to the level it was prior to the Harper Conservatives lowering it to 5%).

It means (speaking _very _broadly) that overall, I can know that we all have equal access to quality public education and a decent social safety net (hence, generally better social mobility, lower crime rates and more civic investment), which directly benefits me, even if I was at the highest tax bracket. And at the end of the day, with health care funded largely through the tax base, we end up paying _profoundly _less on health care than the average American citizen, and while no system is perfect, the Republican horror stories of Canadians facing massive waiting periods for life-saving procedures are complete BS in a triage system (anecdotal cases and our current COVID situation notwithstanding).


----------



## AMOS

Why is Denmark the most heavily medicated country in the world when their tax dollars cover all their needs? Just wondering..


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Leaviathan said:


> Why is Denmark the most heavily medicated country in the world when their tax dollars cover all their needs? Just wondering..



The United States is. They just don't report to OECD directly because of political (lobbying) reasons.

https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-largest-antidepressant-drug-users-2016-2


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> It can be done without raising taxes that's all I'm saying


What percentage of your salary goes to health insurance? Under a national health system, it will be a smaller percentage.

Only Americans complain about taxes because you don't get anything for them.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Only Americans complain about taxes because you don't get anything for them.



Freedom. That's our don't-have-a-queen tax.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> What percentage of your salary goes to health insurance? Under a national health system, it will be a smaller percentage.
> 
> Only Americans complain about taxes because you don't get anything for them.


Look how long it's taking our government to decide that the money they collect to repair roads and fixed bridges maybe should be used to repair roads and fix bridges. It's ridiculous.

Probably about time for us to start another war to get the plebes more into spending on military industrial mass money vacuums. Hmm. Let's see. Bomb Iraq or wait for the Ukraine thing to explode?


----------



## USMarine75

Every time I see someone use the word socialism to describe government services I know what follows is a FOX News talking point. 

If you think Liz Warren is a socialist you literally have no idea what socialism is. Or you’re a liar. Or both. 

Same people that think healthcare for all is a privilege and not a right also believe in corporate and military welfare.

Same people that claim to be libertarians (no such thing, you’re just a weak-wannabe-Anarchist) are mostly unwitting corportocracy shills. Go watch the Libertarian Guitologist cry about unfair corporations run amuck. Someone should do something! It’s hilarious.


----------



## Adieu

Seriously, America has no lefties except Sanders

Dems today = center right
Republicans = populist far right


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> What percentage of your salary goes to health insurance? Under a national health system, it will be a smaller percentage.
> 
> Only Americans complain about taxes because you don't get anything for them.


This is true


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Seriously, America has no lefties except Sanders
> 
> Dems today = center right
> Republicans = populist far right


The Squad are very progressive, their voting base would have to be as well.


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> This is true


Yeah, you don't hate socialism. You hate capitalist corruption.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Yeah, you don't hate socialism. You hate capitalist corruption.


Socialism has never worked, but I don't like corruption regardless of it's roots. I'd be open to compassionate capitalism along the lines of the Nordic states, but they need to leave the Bill of Rights alone.


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> Socialism has never worked


Aren't you a veteran?


----------



## ArtDecade

Leaviathan said:


> Socialism has never worked, but I don't like corruption regardless of it's roots. I'd be open to compassionate capitalism along the lines of the Nordic states, but they need to leave the Bill of Rights alone.



Compassionate capitalism is bullshit. It doesn't exist. Scandinavian countries are welfare states that function as they should.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Aren't you a veteran?


Yes and it doesn't benefit me at all. I might as well be an illegal alien


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> Compassionate capitalism is bullshit. It doesn't exist. Scandinavian countries are welfare states that function as they should.


That's what they call it


----------



## Adieu

Leaviathan said:


> Yes and it doesn't benefit me at all. I might as well be an illegal alien



Glad to hear it.

For a country that has a salaried military and hasn't been in a conflict legally classified as a war in many decades, I for one say we waste far too much money on "veteran" benefits. And overglorify them unreasonably for no reason.

Veterans of what? People who guarded a fence in Kansas or cooked slop for people who guarded a fence in Kansas ain't veterans of anything.

And if you WERE in a conflict and feel entitled to some compensation for actual shedding of blood for your country, then.... pressure those clowns in Washington to admit that the wars they fight are wars, and to compensate you better than the glorified security guards.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Glad to hear it.
> 
> For a country that has a salaried military and hasn't been in a conflict legally classified as a war in many decades, I for one say we waste far too much money on "veteran" benefits. And overglorify them unreasonably for no reason.
> 
> Veterans of what? People who guarded a fence in Kansas or cooked slop for people who guarded a fence in Kansas ain't veterans of anything.
> 
> And if you WERE in a conflict and feel entitled to some compensation for actual shedding of blood for your country, then.... pressure those clowns in Washington to admit that the wars they fight are wars, and to compensate you better than the glorified security guards.



This post fits really well with the Trump avatar.


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> Yes and it doesn't benefit me at all. I might as well be an illegal alien


So you had a state sponsored job but don't believe state sponsored jobs should be a thing?


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> This post fits really well with the Trump avatar.



Zoom in on the hat text.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Zoom in on the hat text.



I just mean that disparaging the military (while being a draft-dodger) is a very in-character move for Trump.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> So you had a state sponsored job but don't believe state sponsored jobs should be a thing?


I think Federal unions rape the taxpayers, the military deserves at least what they get. I don't believe I said state sponsored jobs shouldn't be a thing, but I do think it's not the govt's job to coddle the population. Work for what you want. I see these people living in state sponsored housing while driving around $60,000 SUV's, is that right? Having a system like this with no oversight?


----------



## IwantTacos

Leaviathan said:


> I think Federal unions rape the taxpayers, the military deserves at least what they get. I don't believe I said state sponsored jobs shouldn't be a thing, but I do think it's not the govt's job to coddle the population. Work for what you want. I see these people living in state sponsored housing while driving around $60,000 SUV's, is that right? Having a system like this with no oversight?


So you see millions of these type of people?


----------



## Adieu

Maybe they're Uber drivers? It's a thing.

I used to do the luxury segments in a used $13k Lincoln Navigator while being broke AF, technically living at my mom's, and in practice spending most nights sleeping in the back of my truck parked in a loading zone spot (legal before 7 or 9 AM iirc) at the edge of the airport queue geofence at LAX (by the local homeless encampment, until those guys got evicted).

Most of my airport buddies leased their apparent bling for an eye-watering $600/week with like 300k on the odometer.

Then I got fckn fired, either because somebody decided to scam a fare via bogus complaint, or maybe because they caught on to the "cheating" of lining up before the crack of dawn in one of the few legitimately geofenced areas that weren't in the official airport lot cops kicked us out of for the 2:00 AM - 5:30 AM window for no apparent reason.

Nobody would explain. Although I do occasionally collect yet another class action check for a grand or so every year.

...not everybody in a nice-looking truck is living the dream or mooching benefits.


----------



## USMarine75

ArtDecade said:


> He is saying Americans (My Edit: Republicans) will take a free check because it benefits them but will vote argue against universal healthcare because it benefits someone else.



That’s how GA elected to Dem Senators. The GOP voters sold their souls for $1400 checks.



Leaviathan said:


> I think Federal unions rape the taxpayers, the military deserves at least what they get. I don't believe I said state sponsored jobs shouldn't be a thing, but I do think it's not the govt's job to coddle the population. Work for what you want. I see these people living in state sponsored housing while driving around $60,000 SUV's, is that right? Having a system like this with no oversight?



The “Welfare Queen” zombie trope is played out. 

“Those people*” will also just use the money to buy drugs and iPhones.

*The Blacks


----------



## USMarine75

narad said:


> I just mean that disparaging the military (while being a draft-dodger) is a very in-character move for Trump.



Well, they are “losers” and “suckers”. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...aba4b8-f053-11ea-9279-45d6bdfe145f_story.html


----------



## CanserDYI

Man I have to stay out of this/these threads. I really respect a lot of you guys until I come into the politics/covid threads.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> That's just partisan democrat infighting garbage.
> 
> Single payer isn't popular because the term is poisoned. In practice, it would have full support. I don't see anybody crying because they didn't get a bill/receipt for the Covid vax.


But, I mean, the crux of my point here is, if we want to get single payer passed, maybe it's time to try to sell voters that single payer is a good thing. We're certainly not going to pass it when it's an idea that doesn't have majority support from the voting public, you know? Until voters actually WANT single payer, complaining the Democrats are ineffective because they won't pass it is a waste of time.


----------



## Drew

Leaviathan said:


> Socialism has never worked, but I don't like corruption regardless of it's roots. I'd be open to compassionate capitalism along the lines of the Nordic states, but they need to leave the Bill of Rights alone.


One could just as easily argue that capitalism hasn't worked, either, for the same reason - corruption. And I say that as the token board capitalist.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> But, I mean, the crux of my point here is, if we want to get single payer passed, maybe it's time to try to sell voters that single payer is a good thing. We're certainly not going to pass it when it's an idea that doesn't have majority support from the voting public, you know? Until voters actually WANT single payer, complaining the Democrats are ineffective because they won't pass it is a waste of time.



My point is that we did things like stimulus checks direct to the bulk of Americans (multiple times), boosted to near-living wage unemployment for over a year (essentially UBI) and no cost testing/vaccinations and some treatment with no questions asked as a result of this pandemic. 

All of those are bits and pieces of socialist platform but they were not labeled that because it was just "what you gotta do when you're in the midst of a crisis". Single payer or really any kind of expanded benefits get "poo poo'd" because the same people who are pitching it are the ones who act pained trying to undertake it, and they make it sound like such a slog.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> My point is that we did things like stimulus checks direct to the bulk of Americans (multiple times), boosted to near-living wage unemployment for over a year (essentially UBI) and no cost testing/vaccinations and some treatment with no questions asked as a result of this pandemic.
> 
> All of those are bits and pieces of socialist platform but they were not labeled that because it was just "what you gotta do when you're in the midst of a crisis". Single payer or really any kind of expanded benefits get "poo poo'd" because the same people who are pitching it are the ones who act pained trying to undertake it, and they make it sound like such a slog.


...and my point was, that probably wouldn't be happening if public opinion polling suggested 75% of Americans, and 93% of Democrats, wanted single payer healthcare. 

What do you expect the Democrats to do, exactly, try to pass something that a majority of Americans, and depending on which polls you trust likely even a majority of Democrats, actively don't want? Representative democracy depends on the self-interest of representatives keeping them in line with the desires of the electorate, and right now, it looks like the fact we don't have a single-payer healthcare system is pretty much the will of the people.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> ...and my point was, that probably wouldn't be happening if public opinion polling suggested 75% of Americans, and 93% of Democrats, wanted single payer healthcare.
> 
> What do you expect the Democrats to do, exactly, try to pass something that a majority of Americans, and depending on which polls you trust likely even a majority of Democrats, actively don't want? Representative democracy depends on the self-interest of representatives keeping them in line with the desires of the electorate, and right now, it looks like the fact we don't have a single-payer healthcare system is pretty much the will of the people.



And I said like four posts ago because it was failed marketing because the term itself is poisoned and most people who are being asked what they think about it are going after all the negative attachments to the words rather than the policy itself.


----------



## Randy

Imagine instead of "how do you like single payer healthcare?" you framed it as "how did you like not having to pay for your covid vaccine? Would you support getting your general healthcare the same way, no bill and no insurance necessary?".

If you asked people if they supported stimulus checks prior to actually sending them out you probably would've had a similar hurr durr socialists not in my country reaction, versus doing it and then asking people how they felt about it. People are generally too stupid to digest what you mean when you ask them what they think of "single payer" as an actual term. They probably thing THEY'RE the single payer. Lol


----------



## SpaceDock

Go figure the ass who said “LGB” to Biden on the Christmas call and claimed he wasn’t a “Trumper” goes on Steve Bannons podcast in a MAGA hat saying Trump is his president and the election was “100% stolen.”


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Imagine instead of "how do you like single payer healthcare?" you framed it as "how did you like not having to pay for your covid vaccine? Would you support getting your general healthcare the same way, no bill and no insurance necessary?".



This is why polls are full of shit. You can get whatever answer you want to whatever question you ask simply by phrasing the question(s) in a way that yields that answer.


----------



## Randy

tedtan said:


> This is why polls are full of shit. You can get whatever answer you want to whatever question you ask simply by phrasing the question(s) in a way that yields that answer.



Agreed which is kind of my point, though I was exaggerating it to force a positive response. 

The reverse is also true, like asking a loaded question that recipient does not have suitable information to formulate an intelligent response to.

"Do you support single payer healthcare?" Okay... 

1.) Who pays for it?
2.) Are my taxes going up?
3.) Are there still copays or fees?
4.) Can I still go to my current doctor?
5.) Will there still be quality care?
6.) Will I still be seen if there's an emergency or will the system be overwhelmed?

So on and so on. You ask a person an open ended question with no context and with loaded wonky terminology they're either unfamiliar with or have already been trained to have a negative response to. 

It's an awful term in the first place. "Single payer", has the explicit stink of costing money attached to it from the get go. Compare that to "public option" viscerally as far as word choice. Would you rather talk about "options" or talk about "paying"?

My point was just, you know, strip the prejudice out of the pitch and focus on outcomes instead. The list of shit people don't realize they're in favor of just because of how it's been presented to them is a very long one.


----------



## Randy

People don't want free healthcare! They want the option between paying a private company directly or paying the government directly for healthcare! Make that make sense to me for any reason other than people have no goddamn idea what they're being offered.


----------



## Adieu

In truth, the "can I keep my doctor" bugbear is probably about access to controlled substances, since much of the middle class uses their doctors as their bougie drug dealers

Otherwise, you usually wouldn't give a damn, because if they're doing their job right, you aren't seeing much of them and thus wouldn't know it, and if you ARE seeing a lot of them, it is most likely because they suck at their job

Also, if you and your doc aren't both filthy rich, it wouldn't matter if they got an offer to be "voluntarily" nationalized, because it's not like they'd just suddenly decide to piss off to practice in Dubai. Well, maybe 5% would and another 5% would go super expensive elite private local practice for cash only or private insurance, but the other 90% would suck it up and comply with the new order, because they ain't got any other options.


----------



## thraxil

Adieu said:


> In truth, the "can I keep my doctor" bugbear is probably about access to controlled substances, since much of the middle class uses their doctors as their bougie drug dealers



For some, I'm sure. From what I've seen from years of watching my partner who was eventually diagnosed with a fairly rare condition (EDS) but went through a lot of doctors before that, doctors (especially in the US) have a tendency to not listen to their patients. Every time she had a new doctor, it would be a long, physically and emotionally painful and expensive process of getting the doctor to actually listen to her. She'd describe symptoms and they'd want to try treatment X. She'd tell them that her last doctor already tried X and it didn't work. They'd insist on doing it anyway. Months later, they'd repeat with Y and then Z all with completely predictable results. Eventually, the doctor would figure out that she was telling the truth and they'd get to what actually worked. Then she'd change jobs or move or something and have to start over with a new doctor. If your issues aren't completely trivial and common, developing that relationship and understanding with a doctor is really important and it's clear to my why some people get really stressed at the thought that they could lose that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

thraxil said:


> For some, I'm sure. From what I've seen from years of watching my partner who was eventually diagnosed with a fairly rare condition (EDS) but went through a lot of doctors before that, doctors (especially in the US) have a tendency to not listen to their patients. Every time she had a new doctor, it would be a long, physically and emotionally painful and expensive process of getting the doctor to actually listen to her. She'd describe symptoms and they'd want to try treatment X. She'd tell them that her last doctor already tried X and it didn't work. They'd insist on doing it anyway. Months later, they'd repeat with Y and then Z all with completely predictable results. Eventually, the doctor would figure out that she was telling the truth and they'd get to what actually worked. Then she'd change jobs or move or something and have to start over with a new doctor. If your issues aren't completely trivial and common, developing that relationship and understanding with a doctor is really important and it's clear to my why some people get really stressed at the thought that they could lose that.



So much this. 

If you're otherwise healthy, yeah, go to whatever PCP is most convenient, but if you have anything more complex than the common cold, a good doctor is literally a life saver, and definitely a money and time saver.

You can typically tell someone hasn't had to navigate the healthcare apparatus if they assume all doctors are equal or one-size-fits-most.

Just like not all plumbers, or luthiers, or mechanics, or chefs are the same, there are huge disparities in the skill and service of doctors in this country.


----------



## USMarine75

Dems are terrible at brand messaging. 

Nearly all parts of the BBB bill are extremely popular amongst voters on both sides of the aisle yet they can't get it passed.


----------



## bostjan

Where I live, there used to be one strip mall where you could see a doctor in town. A lot of small towns are the same way. If you limit the options of doctors people can see, it leaves some without the ability to actually see a doctor. If there was public transportation _and_ workplaces were willing to be flexible about workers taking time off to go two towns over to see a doctor, the problem would be mitigated, but honestly, there's no chance of getting all three.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> So much this.
> 
> If you're otherwise healthy, yeah, go to whatever PCP is most convenient, but if you have anything more complex than the common cold, a good doctor is literally a life saver, and definitely a money and time saver.
> 
> You can typically tell someone hasn't had to navigate the healthcare apparatus if they assume all doctors are equal or one-size-fits-most.
> 
> Just like not all plumbers, or luthiers, or mechanics, or chefs are the same, there are huge disparities in the skill and service of doctors in this country.



But this is EXACTLY why they shouldn't cost you anything and shouldn't earn much of anything.

They're literally gleefully holding you people hostage with your own insurance policies.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Imagine instead of "how do you like single payer healthcare?" you framed it as "how did you like not having to pay for your covid vaccine? Would you support getting your general healthcare the same way, no bill and no insurance necessary?".
> 
> If you asked people if they supported stimulus checks prior to actually sending them out you probably would've had a similar hurr durr socialists not in my country reaction, versus doing it and then asking people how they felt about it. People are generally too stupid to digest what you mean when you ask them what they think of "single payer" as an actual term. They probably thing THEY'RE the single payer. Lol


...and this is where we start to get into agreement, I think. 

There's no sense in looking to the Democrats to shove through single-payer now, because the majority of voters don't want it. With an already stacked deck against them coming into the midterms, it's suicide, even if they had the votes, which they don't. 

The better option, IMO, is trying to reframe the debate with an eye to one day in the future where it's a concept that _does _have strong majority support, and in the meantime see what we can still pass that a majority of people do want.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Dems are terrible at brand messaging.
> 
> Nearly all parts of the BBB bill are extremely popular amongst voters on both sides of the aisle yet they can't get it passed.


I'm not sure who to blame for this, but one of the big problems is there isn't really much general awareness of what the Build Back Better Act IS, aside from "the progressive 'human infrastructure' counterpart to the more moderate physical infrastructure bill." 

I'm not sure if the Democrats themselves are to blame for this - I haven't seen much attempt on the part of party leadership, Biden, OR the progressives to call attention to the various parts of the bill, though to be fair negotiations have been so in flux that for a large chunk of time there it's been "we're gonna do something, and it's gonna be progressive," I guess. But, it's been less unstable for the last few months, so at some point coupling the effort to drum up support from Sinema and Manchin with an effort to drum up popular support - doubly so since it would have ratcheted up the pressure on Sinema and Manchin - would have made some sense. 

I generally find these sorts of explanations fall afoul of Occam's razor, but I suppose it's technically possible that there also was a concerted effort on the part of the media to focus on the debate (contentious, therefore controversial) and not the contents (which allegedly are broadly popular), on the right because they wanted Biden's agenda to fail and on the left because the media tends to be more establishment than progressive. I don't think this is likely, but I suppose we can't rule it out. 

All that said - I follow this stuff pretty closely, and even I'm pretty murky on what was in the bill Manchin shot down, and what he's now negotiating for. Given the media coverage and congressional focus on this bill, that's... surprising.


----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


> Agreed which is kind of my point, though I was exaggerating it to force a positive response.
> 
> The reverse is also true, like asking a loaded question that recipient does not have suitable information to formulate an intelligent response to.
> 
> "Do you support single payer healthcare?" Okay...
> 
> 1.) Who pays for it?
> 2.) Are my taxes going up?
> 3.) Are there still copays or fees?
> 4.) Can I still go to my current doctor?
> 5.) Will there still be quality care?
> 6.) Will I still be seen if there's an emergency or will the system be overwhelmed?
> 
> So on and so on. You ask a person an open ended question with no context and with loaded wonky terminology they're either unfamiliar with or have already been trained to have a negative response to.
> 
> It's an awful term in the first place. "Single payer", has the explicit stink of costing money attached to it from the get go. Compare that to "public option" viscerally as far as word choice. Would you rather talk about "options" or talk about "paying"?
> 
> My point was just, you know, strip the prejudice out of the pitch and focus on outcomes instead. The list of shit people don't realize they're in favor of just because of how it's been presented to them is a very long one.



Yeah, agreed. I was just doing a bit of tangential ranting as this is a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Yeah, agreed. I was just doing a bit of tangential ranting as this is a pet peeve of mine.


Push polling is a lot more common in the partisan polling world or in candidate internal polls than it is with well-established polling firms - Gallup for example isn't an agency I would expect to find asking leading questions or phrasing the question in such a way as to suggest an answer, though there can be some unconscious biases that are awfully hard to correct for. 

But, for something like asking how Americans feel towards "single-payer healthcare," if the use of the phrase single-payer is a problem, that's a well-established enough phrase used by both supporters and opponents that if it's eliciting a negative reaction that likely says something about how the question has been framed in society, rather than in the poll, and the poll is probably still capturing useful information. If that makes any sense.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Push polling is a lot more common in the partisan polling world or in candidate internal polls than it is with well-established polling firms - Gallup for example isn't an agency I would expect to find asking leading questions or phrasing the question in such a way as to suggest an answer, though there can be some unconscious biases that are awfully hard to correct for.



I’m not an expert, but I have studied survey/poll design enough to be concerned about that bias, though. Plus, I don’t think the average Joe on the street understand the difference between a Gallup poll and a Fox News poll, especially a Fox News poll that plays into their biases.




Drew said:


> But, for something like asking how Americans feel towards "single-payer healthcare," if the use of the phrase single-payer is a problem, that's a well-established enough phrase used by both supporters and opponents that if it's eliciting a negative reaction that likely says something about how the question has been framed in society, rather than in the poll, and the poll is probably still capturing useful information. If that makes any sense.



I’ve seen quite a few commercials on TV lately (the office has been closed for the holidays so I’ve had the TV on in the background) from pharmaceutical lobbyists implying that single payer will prevent people from having access to needed medications, will cause delays due to doctor shortages, and similar issues often attributed to Canadian (and other countries’) healthcare systems, though they fail to mention that those issues, when they do actually occur, are caused by right wing budget cuts, often with the intent to bring in for profit insurance coverage and higher healthcare costs. I don’t recall whether or not the term “single payer” was used in any of the ads, but there is definitely a lot of misinformation being pushed on this topic by the obvious sources, so I question whether that same Joe I mentioned above has a realistic understanding of what single payer actually is. For example, how many people have you heard say that they hate Obamacare, but then don’t want to lose their health coverage over a preexisting condition or something similar. The single payer issue is similar - it needs to be broken down into, and sold to the public in terms of, benefits to the public rather than features because people buy benefits, not features.


----------



## iamaom

USMarine75 said:


> Dems are terrible at brand messaging.
> 
> Nearly all parts of the BBB bill are extremely popular amongst voters on both sides of the aisle yet they can't get it passed.


They are, but I'm not sure if that's the issue. In my experience a lot of people really vote based on Identity than on any rational political stance, and will only view media that reinforces that Identity. The average republican voter identifies with "conservative values" as much as a gay person does their homosexuality. It's absurd but it's true. It's not the Dems messaging that matters as much as OAN/FOXs' counter messaging. A bill that has a D on it is a no-go for 1/3 the population regardless of its content.


----------



## vilk

Whether it be single payer or a public option, making hospitals non-profit, maybe we could capture the interest of the """center""" if we call it "1st world health care" and point out that nearly all the countries that don't have it are all "shithole" countries. 

We could say something like "save America from being becoming another shithole country that can't compete with the 1st world in terms of quality of life" and use their own ignorant nationalism as a tool.

Idk that's the best I got.


----------



## StevenC

vilk said:


> Whether it be single payer or a public option, making hospitals non-profit, maybe we could capture the interest of the """center""" if we call it "1st world health care" and point out that nearly all the countries that don't have it are all "shithole" countries.
> 
> We could say something like "save America from being becoming another shithole country that can't compete with the 1st world in terms of quality of life" and use their own ignorant nationalism as a tool.
> 
> Idk that's the best I got.


Make America a leader or at least competitive in literally anything positive again


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Make America a leader or at least competitive in literally anything positive again



What about positive covid tests?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> What about positive covid cases?



I don't know narad, I'm going to have to see some science and data. I expect at least six links and two graphs.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know narad, I'm going to have to see some science and data. I expect at least six links and two graphs.



No worries, I've already cancelled everything I planned to do today because this is important stuff.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> No worries, I've already cancelled everything I planned to do today because this is important stuff.



You better, because if you don't I'll write 15 paragraphs berating you for not doing science right.


----------



## spudmunkey

vilk said:


> Whether it be single payer or a public option, making hospitals non-profit, maybe we could capture the interest of the """center""" if we call it "1st world health care" and point out that nearly all the countries that don't have it are all "shithole" countries.
> 
> We could say something like "save America from being becoming another shithole country that can't compete with the 1st world in terms of quality of life" and use their own ignorant nationalism as a tool.
> 
> Idk that's the best I got.



"Quality of life" sounds like something those sissy leftists Globalists would say.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I don’t recall whether or not the term “single payer” was used in any of the ads, but there is definitely a lot of misinformation being pushed on this topic by the obvious sources, so I question whether that same Joe I mentioned above has a realistic understanding of what single payer actually is. For example, how many people have you heard say that they hate Obamacare, but then don’t want to lose their health coverage over a preexisting condition or something similar. The single payer issue is similar - it needs to be broken down into, and sold to the public in terms of, benefits to the public rather than features because people buy benefits, not features.


Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at - there's no sense progressives lamenting or lambasting the rest of the establishment Democrats for not passing single payer when it's broadly unpopular. If we want single payer, step one is to MAKE it popular, and that means fighting a war of public perception. 

Even little things like RIGHT NOW lots of people don't have access to health care under "multi payer" models, even WITH insurance, needs to be a bigger part of the conversation.


----------



## Drew

vilk said:


> Whether it be single payer or a public option, making hospitals non-profit, maybe we could capture the interest of the """center""" if we call it "1st world health care" and point out that nearly all the countries that don't have it are all "shithole" countries.
> 
> We could say something like "save America from being becoming another shithole country that can't compete with the 1st world in terms of quality of life" and use their own ignorant nationalism as a tool.
> 
> Idk that's the best I got.


It's not the worst, honestly. If we're the greatest country in the world, then we abso-fucking-LUTELY should be able to provide all Americans the best quality health care in the world, instead of... *checks notes* last, by a longshot, amongst the 11th highest income countries in the world.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think Biden made the best speech of his career today. Too bad it falls on deaf ears for the Republicans deniers. We are more fucked today than we were 1 year ago. 

Any republicans want to try to defend Jan 6th?


----------



## Randy

There is no defending it, hence why they've accused the FBI, antifa, etc etc of perpetrating it.

FWIW, GOP currently the party of "pft, that's them not me" which is why they don't mind getting on line to be next to get on the ventilator after the last guy. The bulk of the Jan 6th agitators probably learned at least some part of their lesson after they got thrown in jail, but I'm sure there's another three, four, five waves of numbskulls that would do the same damn thing again.


----------



## BenjaminW

Lmaoooooo

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/588562-gaetz-on-jan-6-were-ashamed-of-nothing


----------



## Randy

My man desperate for those Qbucks


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Felt such hope after January 6th like they finally pulled the curtain back on Oz. Yet that clearly didn't become the tipping point back to semi sanity instead just more voter suppression and gerrymandering and Democrats deciding to sit on their hands while maps get rigged against them for at least a decade.


----------



## thraxil

Randy said:


> There is no defending it, hence why they've accused the FBI, antifa, etc etc of perpetrating it.



The whole "antifa did it" conspiracy is my favourite. If it's true, the right wing really ought to be terrified of antifa even more than they already are. Antifa managed to plan and pull off a massive public spectacle with thousands of people very convincingly disguised as Trump supporters. Then with literally hundreds of people (so far) arrested and charged and starting to be sentenced, not a single one of them has turned out to be Antifa. They must have successfully framed or duped hundreds of right wingers, Proud Boys, etc. and are getting them to take the fall for all of it. Now *that's* some 4-dimensional chess. Antifa must be the most competent organization the world has ever seen to pull that off. Frankly, any organization that has their shit together that well, I think we ought to just *let* run the country.


----------



## StevenC

Ted Cruz walks back Jan. 6 'terrorist' remark in heated exchange with Tucker Carlson - POLITICO

Teddy said the quiet bit loud


----------



## cwhitey2

BenjaminW said:


> Lmaoooooo
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/house/588562-gaetz-on-jan-6-were-ashamed-of-nothing


...and he was probably the first one to look for a hiding spot...


----------



## Crungy

StevenC said:


> Ted Cruz walks back Jan. 6 'terrorist' remark in heated exchange with Tucker Carlson - POLITICO
> 
> Teddy said the quiet bit loud



What a bunch of whipped cunts.... Basically arguing who loves daddy trump more and Carlson defending those that attacked the Capitol. Hang them all.


----------



## SpaceDock

As I go through the conservative sites and commentators it seems like “not as big of a deal as BLM or other tragedy” is their main talking point. Stupid a holes like Shapiro putting out death numbers for comparison as if the amount of people who died on Jan 6th or the dollar amount of damage is why this was important. That’s like saying we shouldnt remember or be influenced by JFKs assassination because only one dude was killed.


----------



## Drew

Dineley said:


> Felt such hope after January 6th like they finally pulled the curtain back on Oz. Yet that clearly didn't become the tipping point back to semi sanity instead just more voter suppression and gerrymandering and Democrats deciding to sit on their hands while maps get rigged against them for at least a decade.


Keep an eye on this space - the Democrats (and at least nominally nonpartisan groups like the ALCU) are challenging the handful of most egregious maps (Ohio, North Carolina), and in a lot of other states Republicans have chosen to primarily try to shore up existing seats rather than take new ones (Texas). The districting process could have been a LOT worse for Democrats than it's thus far been. Admittedly, considering the GOP aready has a strong geographic advantage in the House and Senate solely because of the rural/urban divide between the two parties, a neutral to slightly positive outcome for the Democrats here is one that still preserves a Republican advantage, but it's better than I would have expected after last November.


----------



## Randy

Fwiw, NY legislature trying like Hell to get Elise Stefanik gerrymandered out so there's a silver lining.


----------



## AMOS

SpaceDock said:


> I think Biden made the best speech of his career today. Too bad it falls on deaf ears for the Republicans deniers. We are more fucked today than we were 1 year ago.
> 
> Any republicans want to try to defend Jan 6th?


I'm not a Republican, but that was not an Insurrection. Even the left leaning FBI admitted that.


----------



## Adieu

Leaviathan said:


> I'm not a Republican, but that was not an Insurrection. Even the left leaning FBI admitted that.



That's nonsense.

Even in leftie countries, the security services are always fringe right (by local standards).


----------



## AMOS

The FBI said it was not an Insurrection but obviously whatever you say overrides that correct?


----------



## AMOS

The article will be easy to find where they said it did not meet the definition of insurrection


----------



## narad

Leaviathan said:


> The article will be easy to find where they said it did not meet the definition of insurrection



Not to second guess the findings of the FBI, but we all have brains, and we all have access to dictionaries.

Insurrection:
"a violent uprising against an authority or government."

Was it violent? Yes, people died.
Was it against the government? Yes, the purpose of at least some of the participants was to disrupt the session of government, in an effort to prevent the transfer of power (authority) to the newly elected president.

I find it really hard to argue that it doesn't fit that definition.


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> The article will be easy to find where they said it did not meet the definition of insurrection


Yes, this is what the FBI said. That to be an insurrection it had to be organised. So since they found that the rioters were mostly acting as individuals to achieve their collective goal, that means it wasn't an insurrection.

They did find that it was a large group of people with the same goal of overthrowing the government however. But as you say, since they weren't one large organisation the FBI says it wasn't an organised uprising.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

That good old left wing organization we call the FBI.


----------



## USMarine75

Leaviathan said:


> The FBI said it was not an Insurrection but obviously whatever you say overrides that correct?



FWIW...

The FBI doesn't say anything. They investigate and make a recommendation to the DOJ and US Attorney. It is the DOJ and/or US Attorney that make a determination of whether a crime occurred and if it is a chargeable offense.

Moreover, terms like insurrection, sedition, conspiracy riot, coup etc. all have specific legal definitions. Just because it doesn't meet a specific legal definition doesn't necessarily lessen the impact of the crime.


----------



## ArtDecade

Leaviathan said:


> I'm not a Republican,



Good thing. They can be terrible.



Leaviathan said:


> but that was not an Insurrection.



Weird call, because it totally was.



Leaviathan said:


> Even the left leaning FBI admitted that.



Oh, I got it. You are QAnon. They are actually more terrible.


----------



## bostjan

If you lean far enough to the right, everyone else looks like they are leaning to the left.


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> Good thing. They can be terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> Weird call, because it totally was.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I got it. You are QAnon. They are actually more terrible.


Resurrection is the leftist narrative for the 2022 and 2024 elections. It doesn't hold much weight with intelligent people but they'll cling to it like a rag doll because it's all they have. Plan on losing miserably in both. You have no idea what I am, so it's possible I don't fit into your narrow minded narrative. Wouldn't that suck not being able to draw from your pre-determined list of answers because the question never comes? Liberals hate that, they spend hours rehearsing them and their keyboard commando ego's need an outlet.


----------



## AMOS

USMarine75 said:


> FWIW...
> 
> The FBI doesn't say anything. They investigate and make a recommendation to the DOJ and US Attorney. It is the DOJ and/or US Attorney that make a determination of whether a crime occurred and if it is a chargeable offense.
> 
> Moreover, terms like insurrection, sedition, conspiracy riot, coup etc. all have specific legal definitions. Just because it doesn't meet a specific legal definition doesn't necessarily lessen the impact of the crime.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ


----------



## bostjan

Leaviathan said:


> Resurrection is the leftist narrative for the 2022 and 2024 elections.


Who are they resurrecting? FDR? 


Leaviathan said:


> It doesn't hold much weight with intelligent people but they'll cling to it like a rag doll because it's all they have. Plan on losing miserably in both.


Who? Democrats? Communists? Huh?


Leaviathan said:


> You have no idea what I am, so it's possible I don't fit into your narrow minded narrative. Wouldn't that suck not being able to draw from your pre-determined list of answers because the question never comes? Liberals hate that, they spend hours rehearsing them and their keyboard commando ego's need an outlet.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> If you lean far enough to the right, everyone else looks like they are leaning to the left.




Also if you lean far enough right you eventually fall over lol


----------



## ArtDecade

Leaviathan said:


> Resurrection is the leftist narrative for the 2022 and 2024 elections. It doesn't hold much weight with intelligent people but they'll cling to it like a rag doll because it's all they have. Plan on losing miserably in both. You have no idea what I am, so it's possible I don't fit into your narrow minded narrative. Wouldn't that suck not being able to draw from your pre-determined list of answers because the question never comes? Liberals hate that, they spend hours rehearsing them and their keyboard commando ego's need an outlet.



I'm trying to unpack this, but maybe you could just type something more sensibly - if still idiotic and wrong. You know - just for fun. Just remember, you started this by calling the FBI a left learning organization which has never been the truth or even a narrative until Trump said it. You are going full QAnon.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> Also if you lean far enough right you eventually fall over lol


If you really lean too far to the right, you'll swing upside-down and be back on the far left anyway.


----------



## Mathemagician

Leaviathan said:


> Resurrection is the leftist narrative for the 2022 and 2024 elections. It doesn't hold much weight with intelligent people but they'll cling to it like a rag doll because it's all they have. Plan on losing miserably in both. You have no idea what I am, so it's possible I don't fit into your narrow minded narrative. Wouldn't that suck not being able to draw from your pre-determined list of answers because the question never comes? Liberals hate that, they spend hours rehearsing them and their keyboard commando ego's need an outlet.



I don’t know, this reads like someone refusing to fully admit their views on a subject as they know their views don’t sit well with people outside their bubble. 

Like when some guys say they are vaguely libertarian instead of super hardcore conservative when trying to get laid.



bostjan said:


> If you really lean too far to the right, you'll swing upside-down and be back on the far left anyway.



This is actually really true. It’s not a “left right” spectrum as a line. It’s a circle. There’s two ways to get to fascism. Ironically nobody on the fascist side can see it even when it’s explained in detail.

Because fascists inherently disregard everything that doesn’t back their view. No scientific method for them.


----------



## nightflameauto

Leaviathan said:


> Resurrection is the leftist narrative for the 2022 and 2024 elections. It doesn't hold much weight with intelligent people but they'll cling to it like a rag doll because it's all they have. Plan on losing miserably in both. You have no idea what I am, so it's possible I don't fit into your narrow minded narrative. Wouldn't that suck not being able to draw from your pre-determined list of answers because the question never comes? Liberals hate that, they spend hours rehearsing them and their keyboard commando ego's need an outlet.


If it barks like a duck, the water falls off its whiskers in the pale moonlight.

DAMMIT! YOU BROKE MY GIBBERISH TRANSLATOR!


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> I don’t know, this reads like someone refusing to fully admit their views on a subject as they know their views don’t sit well with people outside their bubble.
> 
> Like when some guys say they are vaguely libertarian instead of super hardcore conservative when trying to get laid.
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually really true. It’s not a “left right” spectrum as a line. It’s a circle. There’s two ways to get to fascism. Ironically nobody on the fascist side can see it even when it’s explained in detail.
> 
> Because fascists inherently disregard everything that doesn’t back their view. No scientific method for them.


Yes, Antifa are a prime example. Thank you for clarifying this.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> If it barks like a duck, the water falls off its whiskers in the pale moonlight.
> 
> DAMMIT! YOU BROKE MY GIBBERISH TRANSLATOR!


I think you hit the nail right on the eggs in one omlet.


----------



## Mathemagician

Leaviathan said:


> Yes, Antifa are a prime example. Thank you for clarifying this.



Ah yes the “antifa did it” distraction. 

So much evidence for that considering we’re now a year in and all the FBI arrests show that people involved in the Jan 6 insurrection were all people who’d been sucked in by far-right wing rhetoric. 

Tons of social media posts, support for right wing groups and causes, etc. turned in by family and friends who had further evidence of their involvement. 

So much for it being “antifa in disguise”. 

To the credit of those who wanted that to be true, it would have made for a great story. And I guess that’s why so many keep repeating it. Because if “enough people say it” then they can pretend it’s true.


----------



## TedEH

Funny how a dumb semantic thing is enough to say there's "no evidence" of an insurrection that there's tons of public footage of, but there's so much willingness to throw antifa under the bus without any actual evidence.


----------



## ArtDecade

America is the home of the Anti-fascist. 
_Antifa_ is right-wing nonsense that gets brought up whenever they need a boogie man to avoid dealing with facts.


----------



## bostjan

Man, if only there had been a historical example of when there was a group of a few hundred people who were anti-anti-fascist (pro-facists), who would have had enough with those "November Criminals" and would take to the streets in protest, clashing with the police, declaring that the government was deposed and putting a loud-mouthed leader in charge of the new government. Then the loudmouthed leader could suggest a bunch of untrue conspiracy theories and demand that the nation expel all of the "foreigners," pull out of treaties, and promise to bring back the good old days.

Hmm, I can't think of a particularly good example of when anything like that ever happened before, hmm, or imagine how that would have turned out for the world in that scenario. I mean, not like that particular sort of event would have kicked off a world-wide war or the worst genocide ever, or any of those sorts of things.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> or the worst genocide ever


----------



## IwantTacos

Leaviathan said:


> I'm not a Republican, but that was not an Insurrection. Even the left leaning FBI admitted that.



so the republicans are too far left for you is what you're saying.


----------



## narad

We gotta add a new square to SSO political bingo for "Funny you just assume I'm republican because I call government agencies leftist and say all you dems are gonna lose hard in the midterms". Why does this trope recur here over and over again?


----------



## ArtDecade

IwantTacos said:


> so the republicans are too far left for you is what you're saying.



I think they call them RINOs. Side note: Can you imagine calling someone like Mitch or Mitt a RINO? Strange times.


----------



## StevenC

Leaviathan said:


> Yes, Antifa are a prime example. Thank you for clarifying this.


You're arguing that Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection based on what the FBI said, which was that it wasn't organised.

But now you're saying Antifa is an example of something and it just sounds like you don't know what organised means.


----------



## USMarine75

Leaviathan said:


> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/ar-AANxOuQ



Exactly what I said above. Thank you for posting an article that proves my point for me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/oath-keepers-jan-6-weapons-cache-527359

Apparently you seem incapable of understanding nuance - that history is more than dichotomous ones and zeroes. “If it ain’t insurrection it ain’t nothing” is not an accurate representation, no matter how much you keep repeating yourself. Was it insurrection, likely not by the legal definition. But it is sedition.

I do so enjoy debating constitutional law with you.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> You're arguing that Jan 6th wasn't an insurrection based on what the FBI said, which was that it wasn't organised.
> 
> But now you're saying Antifa is an example of something and it just sounds like you don't know what organised means.



It is easier to pad yourself in straw-man arguments than admit that you somehow ended up in a cult. His brain is in survival mode - there is no more nuance or rational thought.


----------



## USMarine75

bostjan said:


> Man, if only there had been a historical example of when there was a group of a few hundred people who were anti-anti-fascist (pro-facists), who would have had enough with those "November Criminals" and would take to the streets in protest, clashing with the police, declaring that the government was deposed and putting a loud-mouthed leader in charge of the new government. Then the loudmouthed leader could suggest a bunch of untrue conspiracy theories and demand that the nation expel all of the "foreigners," pull out of treaties, and promise to bring back the good old days.
> 
> Hmm, I can't think of a particularly good example of when anything like that ever happened before, hmm, or imagine how that would have turned out for the world in that scenario. I mean, not like that particular sort of event would have kicked off a world-wide war or the worst genocide ever, or any of those sorts of things.



Standby for Leviathan to post an article from the FBI calling it a Holocaust not a Genocide. 

TLDR he’s a *****, an alt-right troll, a “Libertarian” (aka pussy anarchist), or some combination of the 3.


----------



## StevenC

Remember when Leviathan said Nordic countries weren't socialist, but "compassionate capitalist"?


----------



## nightflameauto

Ya know, it's been years at this point and I still can't wrap my head around the idea that there are people in America that truly believe being anti-fascist is the worst crime against humanity you can possibly commit. WTF world?


----------



## bostjan

USMarine75 said:


> https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/oath-keepers-jan-6-weapons-cache-527359





article said:


> weapons stockpile Oath Keepers had assembled at a Comfort Inn


Wow. Umm. Yeah, no, just wow.


----------



## USMarine75

StevenC said:


> Remember when Leviathan said Nordic countries weren't socialist, but "compassionate capitalist"?



These are the same people that think authoritarian regimes that say they are “socialist” are actually socialist. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/venezu...the-fake-socialism-debated-in-u-s-11549465200


----------



## bostjan

Capitalism is the economic system where private individuals own the means of production.

Socialism is the economic system where public society owns the means of production.

The way it usually goes with bad capitalism, is that the private individual(s) who own(s) the means of production become increasingly involved in the government in order to preserve their wealth. Eventually the strongest of those asserts dominant influence over the government and becomes a despot.

The way it usually goes with bad socialism, is that a private individual who gains power and influence through the government decides that he/she _is_ the government and becomes a despot.

So, ultimately, a broken and corrupted capitalist economy and a broken and corrupted socialist economy are essentially the same thing. Kind of like comparing a broken and corrupted smartphone with an ashtray.


----------



## Crungy

nightflameauto said:


> Ya know, it's been years at this point and I still can't wrap my head around the idea that there are people in America that truly believe being anti-fascist is the worst crime against humanity you can possibly commit. WTF world?



It's the usual do as I say not as I do right wing hypocrisy. It's okay if a bunch of armed trumpies gather up anywhere but if any group of POC are somewhere armed it's undoubtedly something nefarious.


----------



## CanserDYI

Most forms of socialism/communism that have been employed in history have been fascism painted red.


----------



## zappatton2

Most modern, self-professed "socialists" (and I include myself here) are not pining for the return of Soviet autocracy, but rather, a capitalist economy that is counter-balanced by strong regulation, progressive taxation and strong investment in civil society, through a robust social safety net, education, health care, arts & culture, etc. 

It's always weird when my sister (who lives in Norway) comes home for Christmas with her Swedish boyfriend, and he is thoroughly confused by my Dad and uncles with their "all taxes are bad" mantra, because he actually sees the social return on the high taxes he pays. But here in North America, everything is reduced to catch phrases and bumper stickers, without so much as an attempt to actually understand what one is talking about.

Also, can we just retire this notion that there's some radical organization called Antifa that is the equal and opposite side to the sort of disinformed, violent extremism that has become standard amongst the American right. It is literally divorced from observable reality, outside of Tucker Carlson's fever-dream Two-Minute Hate sessions.


----------



## USMarine75

CanserDYI said:


> Most forms of socialism/communism that have been employed in history have been fascism painted red.



Exactly. Venezuela or the USSR were no more socialist than Middle Ages fiefdom / serfdom or modern North Korea.


----------



## ArtDecade

zappatton2 said:


> Also, can we just retire this notion that there's some radical organization called Antifa that is the equal and opposite side to the sort of disinformed, violent extremism that has become standard amongst the American right. It is literally divorced from observable reality, outside of Tucker Carlson's fever-dream Two-Minute Hate sessions.



Your membership in Antifa dissolves the day you graduate college or your punk band gets signed to a major label.


----------



## SpaceDock

Leaviathan said:


> I'm not a Republican, but that was not an Insurrection. Even the left leaning FBI admitted that.



Call it what you will. It was violent flailing of madmen trying to stop the certification, maybe even kill members of the government. They wanted to do whatever to have Trump hold power even if they were working without a plan to do so. This is something right wingers can’t admit.


----------



## Crungy

They did want to hang Pence, they were ready to kill for daddy trump.


----------



## ArtDecade

Crungy said:


> They did want to hang Pence, they were ready to kill for daddy trump.



I heard on QTv/OAR that it was Antifa child-molesters that incited these God-fearing Trump supporters into their heinous acts of sedition, but they are hard to identify because Soros used a special space ray that took over 5G towers and downloaded facial recognition software into all the cameras within 10 miles of the Capitol that disguised them. F#cking lizard people, man.


----------



## Crungy

I heard it makes the frickin frogs gay too!


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> I heard it makes the frickin frogs gay too!


Do
Do hacks
Do hacks make (repeat)

Do
Do hacks
Do hacks make
Do hacks make
Do hacks make gay frogs?
Do hacks make gay frogs?
Do hacks make gay frogs?
And IHOP nixed gay socks.


----------



## USMarine75

Try not to get angry challenge. 

(*Except for Leaviathan… he’ll post something from the FBI saying the real racists are… The Blacks.)


----------



## nightflameauto

So, we gonna chat about the Ukraine shit? Or are we all just resigned that bad shit's gonna go down and the US will stand there with our collective thumb up our ass while shaking a finger in their general direction?

I dunno. That whole sitch strikes me as a possible trigger for a much larger conflict. I wouldn't say world war, but definitely something involving more than just the players on the board today.


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> So, we gonna chat about the Ukraine shit? Or are we all just resigned that bad shit's gonna go down and the US will stand there with our collective thumb up our ass while shaking a finger in their general direction?
> 
> I dunno. That whole sitch strikes me as a possible trigger for a much larger conflict. I wouldn't say world war, but definitely something involving more than just the players on the board today.



The US will sanction and sell guns for pennies on the dollar to the Ukrainians. Anything else would signal the end of times.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ArtDecade said:


> The US will sanction and sell guns for pennies on the dollar to the Ukrainians. Anything else would signal the end of times.



This. 

The MIC is already drooling.


----------



## Adieu

Crungy said:


> I heard it makes the frickin frogs gay too!



Well 3G and wifi's arrival DID make cockroaches vanish everywhere they are heavily used so....maybe?


----------



## Adieu

ArtDecade said:


> The US will sanction and sell guns for pennies on the dollar to the Ukrainians. Anything else would signal the end of times.



I do wish the Ukrainian security services would sack up and assassinate Putin already.

Without that one bald angry gnome, everything would stabilize on its own.


----------



## bostjan

The only reason Putin hasn't reassembled the USSR by now is because Russia is doing so much better than most of the other former SSR's (except the Baltic states).

Kazakhstan just got their internet back after the government somehow decided that the people there would only realize that their government was a dumpster fire if foreigners told them so.

Belarus is being run by a guy who is basically the Great Value version of Putin, except also the Great Value version of the Pringles man.

And, although Georgia (the country) is now 80% more corruption-free*, their HDI is still considerably lower than Russia's.

*compared to the leading brand of Caucasus nations.


----------



## Adieu

The 'stans shouldn't be counted.

They are sadly backward classic ex-colonies (actually surprisingly literate, covered by medical services, etc., but still very much ex-colonies).


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> The US will sanction and sell guns for pennies on the dollar to the Ukrainians. Anything else would signal the end of times.


On the one hand, with the way things have been the past few years, I could totally see the end times coming.

On the other hand, I feel like I'm full up with end times for the moment.


----------



## ArtDecade

Putin can't imagine a world without Putin and will likely light us all up on his death bed anyhow.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> And, although Georgia (the country) is now 80% more corruption-free*, their HDI is still considerably lower than Russia's.
> 
> *compared to the leading brand of Caucasus nations.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> Putin can't imagine a world without Putin and will likely light us all up on his death bed anyhow.


While I could see him doing this, I always imagined Putin won't have a death-bed scenario. He'll just be in the middle of plotting some scheme and his brain will go, "That's enough," and he'll die of an aneurism.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> While I could see him doing this, I always imagined Putin won't have a death-bed scenario. He'll just be in the middle of plotting some scheme and his brain will go, "That's enough," and he'll die of an aneurism.



Otoh, maybe he's already dead.

The guy's been hiding in bunkers for years and his public addresses are hella weird and suspected to be compilations cut from other public addresses.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> While I could see him doing this, I always imagined Putin won't have a death-bed scenario. He'll just be in the middle of plotting some scheme and his brain will go, "That's enough," and he'll die of an aneurism.


Naw, pretty sure there's a backup copy of his brain on the Kremlin cloud server. Chances are that life under virtual Putin will be essentially identical to life under biological Putin, so we may never even know when that transition occurs (or has it already?).


----------



## Crungy

Maybe it's a Mr House situation


----------



## bostjan

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/...icials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html

Wow, if that's true...

EDIT: Sorry for the vague post.

CNN is saying that they have connected Rudy Giuliani to a conspiracy to actively defraud the election, by swapping legitimate electors with fraudulent ones. If that's true, it would basically torpedo all of Trump's camp's claims of election fraud by Biden, since, well, that there would be the worst case of direct election fraud in US history. But it's CNN, so I'm not sure how many people will take this seriously.


----------



## JSanta

bostjan said:


> https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/...icials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html
> 
> Wow, if that's true...
> 
> EDIT: Sorry for the vague post.
> 
> CNN is saying that they have connected Rudy Giuliani to a conspiracy to actively defraud the election, by swapping legitimate electors with fraudulent ones. If that's true, it would basically torpedo all of Trump's camp's claims of election fraud by Biden, since, well, that there would be the worst case of direct election fraud in US history. But it's CNN, so I'm not sure how many people will take this seriously.



Reuters posted it as well (attributed to CNN), so that lends some credence to a level of truthfulness in the article.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...ersaw-2020-fake-electors-plan-cnn-2022-01-20/


----------



## ArtDecade

JSanta said:


> Reuters posted it as well (attributed to CNN), so that lends some credence to a level of truthfulness in the article.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...ersaw-2020-fake-electors-plan-cnn-2022-01-20/



I am starting to see it widely reported as well.


----------



## thebeesknees22

I've been reading about the fake electoral votes for quite a while. I can't say I'm surprised Giuliani could possibly be the one behind it, and/or the fall guy for it. 

The real question is if Garland will actually do anything about it or just sit on this thumbs.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> I've been reading about the fake electoral votes for quite a while. I can't say I'm surprised Giuliani could possibly be the one behind it, and/or the fall guy for it.
> 
> The real question is if Garland will actually do anything about it or just sit on this thumbs.


That's the big question.

If the allegations of CNN are true, then Giuliani would have committed not only fraud, but treason. But, seeing as how he was the mayor of NYC during 911, many consider him to be a national treasure. I could see this going to either extreme. Or, since CNN is the one reporting this and other news outlets are reporting that CNN is reporting it instead of just reporting it, maybe everyone just shrugs and agrees that Giuliani probably did the deeds, but something reasonable doubt not guilty something, and it ends up being another really juicy nothingburger like everything else that Trump and his crew have managed to slip out of.

I mean, the president's attorney directly interfering with the president's re-election is one of those things that I would have been shocked by pre-2016, but I don't even think it's the third most shocking thing about the Trump administration.


----------



## USMarine75

Anyone want to still argue it was just trespassing or a tour gone wrong?


----------



## thebeesknees22

USMarine75 said:


> Anyone want to still argue it was just trespassing or a tour gone wrong?




It was a coup attempt. Plain and simple. And they will try again.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> But, seeing as how he was the mayor of NYC during 911, many consider him to be a national treasure. I could see this going to either extreme. Or, since CNN is the one reporting this and other news outlets are reporting that CNN is reporting it instead of just reporting it, maybe everyone just shrugs and agrees that Giuliani probably did the deeds, but something reasonable doubt not guilty something, and it ends up being another really juicy nothingburger like everything else that Trump and his crew have managed to slip out of.
> 
> I mean, the president's attorney directly interfering with the president's re-election is one of those things that I would have been shocked by pre-2016, but I don't even think it's the third most shocking thing about the Trump administration.



I for one don't see how being a mayor of a city that got hit by terrorists is any sort of achievement.

True, the aerial nature of the attack mostly exonerates him from being held responsible (for security issues, that is; whether or not the aftermath was handled correctly is a separate question), but where's the achievement???

Are they saying they handled the evacuation perfectly? That can't be right can it?

PS also, I'm fairly certain he believes 9-11 is the best thing that ever happened to him, so...


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> I for one don't see how being a mayor of a city that got hit by terrorists is any sort of achievement.
> 
> True, the aerial nature of the attack mostly exonerates him from being held responsible (for security issues, that is; whether or not the aftermath was handled correctly is a separate question), but where's the achievement???
> 
> Are they saying they handled the evacuation perfectly? That can't be right can it?
> 
> PS also, I'm fairly certain he believes 9-11 is the best thing that ever happened to him, so...



I remember 9-11 very clearly, almost like it didn't happen 20 years ago. Rudy was the rock of NYC, and handled himself with class and dignity when everything happened. There wasn't any politics around his response or some false flag/conspiracy BS that has plagued _mainstream _conservative ideology for the past 10 years. What he has turned into is not what he was during that time in NY. Even his appearance on SNL is vivid in my memory. He acted like a leader.


----------



## Adieu

Yeah, NOT seeing it.

Not a poor city, disaster very flashy but ultimately not all that destructive relative to the sheer size of NYC, no real role to fill for the mayor except to talk to media. Besides, due to the aerial nature of the attack, he didn't need to go into CYA mode to shift blame since air defense isn't up to him.

Yeah ok stuff got fixed better than Beirut, but NYC is a hell of a lot richer than Lebanon.

I see zero achievement on Rudy's part. Unless you mean "NOT making an ass of himself" (back then) is a stunning feat for the guy?


----------



## Adieu

It's pretty damn easy to look real good if you know that:

1. You have practically endless resources to tap for damage control since you just became a national cause of the world's richest nation

2. You cannot be blamed for anything in any way

3. Everything will naturally get better with or without you.

Smile for camera, say reassuring things, bask in limelight, dream of presidential ambitions!

It's any politician's wet dream!


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> It's pretty damn easy to look real good if you know that:
> 
> 1. You have practically endless resources to tap for damage control since you just became a national cause of the world's richest nation
> 
> 2. You cannot be blamed for anything in any way
> 
> 3. Everything will naturally get better with or without you.
> 
> Smile for camera, say reassuring things, bask in limelight, dream of presidential ambitions!
> 
> It's any politician's wet dream!



I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Look at many of the most recent catastrophes in the States over the past 5 years. Trump handled many fundamentally life-altering once-in-a-lifetime events with the grace of a caveman's club. The bar IS low, and even fundamentally acting as someone with compassion as a base-line has been lost on so many people in political leadership positions. Rudy stepped up to the plate and handled the situation with compassion and class. That is what a leader does, they have to act as the figurehead of positivity and being the voice of reason and grace, and he did those things. 

I mean honestly, what do you expect a mayor to do after a terrorist attack? Being a leader doesn't preclude a person from being in a relatively fortunate position, and being able to leverage those resources to help. Being in a visible political leadership position isn't necessarily about the doing part, but facilitating healing and help. During one of the natural disasters during the Trump administration, he politicized the response by saying something to the effect about withholding federal funds because the people in charge had criticized him. Same fundamental resources and similar situation(s) as 9/11 and instead of acting like a leader, he acted like a petulant child. For me, that is the distinction. It's unfortunate that Rudy has turned into another Trump.


----------



## Adieu

Because that was free points. Couldn't be blamed for not preventing it, couldn't be held accountable for not preparing for it, could and did become famous off it.

All blame naturally gravitates to military and intelligence (which they successfully deflected into jingoist Islamophobic hysteria), all credit to local authorities on the ground.

For stuff like natural disasters and covid, where you CAN catch blame, the reaction is totally different. That's just human nature.


----------



## USMarine75

JSanta said:


> I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Look at many of the most recent catastrophes in the States over the past 5 years. Trump handled many fundamentally life-altering once-in-a-lifetime events with the grace of a caveman's club. The bar IS low, and even fundamentally acting as someone with compassion as a base-line has been lost on so many people in political leadership positions. Rudy stepped up to the plate and handled the situation with compassion and class. That is what a leader does, they have to act as the figurehead of positivity and being the voice of reason and grace, and he did those things.
> 
> I mean honestly, what do you expect a mayor to do after a terrorist attack? Being a leader doesn't preclude a person from being in a relatively fortunate position, and being able to leverage those resources to help. Being in a visible political leadership position isn't necessarily about the doing part, but facilitating healing and help. During one of the natural disasters during the Trump administration, he politicized the response by saying something to the effect about withholding federal funds because the people in charge had criticized him. Same fundamental resources and similar situation(s) as 9/11 and instead of acting like a leader, he acted like a petulant child. For me, that is the distinction. It's unfortunate that Rudy has turned into another Trump.



Trump not paying an employee or contractor once again may work out to his advantage. 

By not paying Rudy it may allow him to stick to the argument that he was merely a private US citizen and not acting as an agent of the US government. That was one of the reasons why Flynn was doomed. He was employed by the US government, but he was also acting as a foreign agent, and lied about it on both his clearance paperwork and criminal interview.


----------



## thraxil

JSanta said:


> I remember 9-11 very clearly, almost like it didn't happen 20 years ago. Rudy was the rock of NYC, and handled himself with class and dignity when everything happened. There wasn't any politics around his response or some false flag/conspiracy BS that has plagued _mainstream _conservative ideology for the past 10 years. What he has turned into is not what he was during that time in NY. Even his appearance on SNL is vivid in my memory. He acted like a leader.



I lived in NYC from 1999 to 2014. I was there on 9-11 and afterwards.

Giuliani was good at putting himself in front of a camera and acting important. Otherwise, he was pretty much useless or actively harmful.

* He was the one who put the NYC Office of Emergency Management inside the WTC even though everyone knew (since the bombings in '93) that the WTC were likely future terrorist targets.
* Since he clearly didn't learn from that, at the beginning of the 9-11 attack, he set up a response headquarters to coordinate the departments basically directly beneath the towers. That, of course, then had to be evacuated once things started to collapse.
* firefighters and first responders mostly didn't have working radios because he had accepted a no-bid contract for radios earlier in the year that mostly turned out to be defective.
* he spent years claiming that he spent as much time at Ground Zero as any of the first responders or cleanup workers. Eventually it came out that he only spent like 20-something hours there and most of those were photo ops.
* locally, he got a ton of criticism for not getting proper protective equipment to responders, reopening things while there were still unsafe levels of air pollution/asbestos/etc., and then blocking efforts to get proper health care and/or treatment for the first responders that got sick and died as a result (though, to be fair, that's continued with subsequent mayors; he was just the first to screw them over).

I know a lot of the rest of the country viewed him as a hero for some reason, but New Yorkers at the time generally hated him.


----------



## USMarine75

thraxil said:


> I lived in NYC from 1999 to 2014. I was there on 9-11 and afterwards.
> 
> Giuliani was good at putting himself in front of a camera and acting important. Otherwise, he was pretty much useless or actively harmful.
> 
> * He was the one who put the NYC Office of Emergency Management inside the WTC even though everyone knew (since the bombings in '93) that the WTC were likely future terrorist targets.
> * Since he clearly didn't learn from that, at the beginning of the 9-11 attack, he set up a response headquarters to coordinate the departments basically directly beneath the towers. That, of course, then had to be evacuated once things started to collapse.
> * firefighters and first responders mostly didn't have working radios because he had accepted a no-bid contract for radios earlier in the year that mostly turned out to be defective.
> * he spent years claiming that he spent as much time at Ground Zero as any of the first responders or cleanup workers. Eventually it came out that he only spent like 20-something hours there and most of those were photo ops.
> * locally, he got a ton of criticism for not getting proper protective equipment to responders, reopening things while there were still unsafe levels of air pollution/asbestos/etc., and then blocking efforts to get proper health care and/or treatment for the first responders that got sick and died as a result (though, to be fair, that's continued with subsequent mayors; he was just the first to screw them over).
> 
> I know a lot of the rest of the country viewed him as a hero for some reason, but New Yorkers at the time generally hated him.



Exactly this! Well said.

And for anyone else wondering… just ask NYFD, NYPD, Port Authority, and Jon Stewart what they think of Mayor Rudy.


----------



## Xaios

JSanta said:


> There wasn't any politics around his response or some false flag/conspiracy BS that has plagued _mainstream _conservative ideology for the past 10 years.


What? Man, I remember people on the internet yelling about how the CIA did it as soon as it happened. As in, like, _the same day_.


----------



## Adieu

Xaios said:


> What? Man, I remember people on the internet yelling about how the CIA did it as soon as it happened. As in, like, _the same day_.



I think he means Rudy didn't lead the march of morons.

Then again, it WAS a Republican-run CIA back then...


----------



## JSanta

Adieu said:


> I think he means Rudy didn't lead the march of morons.
> 
> Then again, it WAS a Republican-run CIA back then...



That is what I meant. No perfect action happened during and after the attack. But at the very least Rudy wasn't standing at the podium talking about how the lizard people had created a false-flag event to get the US into a war in Afghanistan. Whether or not he now believes that to be the case is something else entirely.


----------



## USMarine75

Xaios said:


> What? Man, I remember people on the internet yelling about how the CIA did it as soon as it happened. As in, like, _the same day_.



It was like the next day there were reports of "the Dancing Jews" and "Muslims celebrating everywhere".

None of that actually happened, but this did:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rump-tallest-building-manhattan-b1901790.html


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> I for one don't see how being a mayor of a city that got hit by terrorists is any sort of achievement.
> 
> True, the aerial nature of the attack mostly exonerates him from being held responsible (for security issues, that is; whether or not the aftermath was handled correctly is a separate question), but where's the achievement???
> 
> Are they saying they handled the evacuation perfectly? That can't be right can it?
> 
> PS also, I'm fairly certain he believes 9-11 is the best thing that ever happened to him, so...


"Many consider him to be a national treasure" is a pretty low bar here in the USA, though.

Look at GWB's response to the tragedy and consider that's what got him re-elected.



USMarine75 said:


> It was like the next day there were reports of "the Dancing Jews" and "Muslims celebrating everywhere".
> 
> None of that actually happened, but this did:
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rump-tallest-building-manhattan-b1901790.html



Those reports of Muslims celebrating in the streets directly led to some people in my hometown of Detroit being assaulted for having bronze skin. Just picture the scenario. You live in Iraq. As a minority Chaldean, you are persecuted to the point where you fear for the lives of your self and you family, so you sacrifice all material possessions you have and make the risky trek over the ocean to the USA, where you are told people are treated equally. Being destitute, you end up in Detroit, or the metro area, which has the largest Chaldean population in the world, but is also basically a shitty place to live, what with lead-laced water, extremely high crime, pollution, and some of the worst urban decay in the world. Then, 911 happens, perpetrated by people with the same extreme ideas that caused you to flee your home, and, as a result of some insane fake newscasts, you and your family are beaten by strangers.

And the sentiment never really got any better with time.

Then you have the guy who celebrated the disaster, because it meant that his properties in NYC were about to be worth more capital, or so he thought. This same guy would go on to become president, elected partially because he promised to deport people like you (in this scenario) back to the region you fled 20 years before. And that same region is now even more radicalized due to the USA's involvement with waging war there. I think anyone with an ounce of empathy should feel uncomfortable letting all of that sink in.


----------



## Randy




----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> I see zero achievement on Rudy's part. Unless you mean "NOT making an ass of himself" (back then) is a stunning feat for the guy?



By today’s standards, that would be a big accomplishment for Rudy.


----------



## narad

USMarine75 said:


> None of that actually happened, but this did:
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rump-tallest-building-manhattan-b1901790.html



Holy shit. Like I needed any more ammunition to berate my dad with for voting for him.

EDIT: And it turned out he wasn't even factually accurate with that claim. Classic Trump.


----------



## USMarine75

Biden: “That’s a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch”.

Public: “Outrageous! He should apologize!

Narrator: [It was in regards to Peter Doocey]

Public: “Fair enough. Carry on.”


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Biden: “That’s a great asset. More inflation. What a stupid son of a bitch”.
> 
> Public: “Outrageous! He should apologize!
> 
> Narrator: [It was in regards to Peter Doocey]
> 
> Public: “Fair enough. Carry on.”


He also DID apologize.


----------



## USMarine75

Drew said:


> He also DID apologize.



Because he's a p***y.


----------



## Drew

USMarine75 said:


> Because he's a p***y.


 Eh, it was the right thing to do, but, like, he's pretty objectively not wrong. "No, high inflation is an asset, you stupid son of a bitch."


----------



## possumkiller

I haven't been in this thread in a long time since we "won" with Biden. What's up with Russia invading Ukraine and starting another world war? Is that shit real or is it just more classic American fear mongering going through withdrawals after a whole six months without war?


----------



## spudmunkey

My Russian friend (who's lived here for 25 years but has family back home in Russia and has family in Georgia (the former Soviet republic) is scared shitless.


----------



## Adieu

possumkiller said:


> I haven't been in this thread in a long time since we "won" with Biden. What's up with Russia invading Ukraine and starting another world war? Is that shit real or is it just more classic American fear mongering going through withdrawals after a whole six months without war?



Russia is signaling it SO hard it MIGHT just be a scam negotiating tactic to bargain against sanctions and get Nord Stream 2 running... but who knows with that bunker-bound idgit dwarf dictator, who has very low real support, by some accounts may be dying, and was recently sighted giving a speech in body armor. And not the thin kind either.

Most of the hysteria is in Russia, not USA or Ukraine. Russian state media have been hate-mongering in overdrive.

If you're in Eastern Europe, you should probably be at least mildly concerned.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

In Russian TV, the headline is different. USA and NATO puppets will attack Russia soon.


----------



## thebeesknees22

With the world so pent up with covid frustrations, everyone seems geared up for a fight as a whole if nothing more than to vent all those frustrations. 

I'd almost put money on things going down before March. 

If Russia does invade though then time for Europe and the US to either put up or shut up so to speak. If they let Russia take over Ukraine or part of it like they did with Georgia then that's a clear sign Putin can take whatever he wants whenever he wants. That doesn't fly imho

I'm not like pro war, but when push comes to shove...well.... gotta stand your ground. imho


----------



## bostjan

MASS DEFECT said:


> In Russian TV, the headline is different. USA and NATO puppets will attack Russia soon.


Yeah, but in Russia everything is backwards, I mean, for example, that television watches _you._



possumkiller said:


> I haven't been in this thread in a long time since we "won" with Biden. What's up with Russia invading Ukraine and starting another world war? Is that shit real or is it just more classic American fear mongering going through withdrawals after a whole six months without war?



Russia already invaded Ukraine, what 7 years ago. It's an ongoing war. Things cooled down a little bit when everyone was distracted by covid, but the war never ended. The Russian army is bigger than the Ukrainian army, but Russia is kind of like the USA, in that they always have multiple wars going on and also have a bad track record when it comes to invading other countries.



thebeesknees22 said:


> I'd almost put money on things going down before March.



It's looking more like whatever might happen will start to happen in the next few days.



thebeesknees22 said:


> If Russia does invade though then time for Europe and the US to either put up or shut up so to speak. If they let Russia take over Ukraine or part of it like they did with Georgia then that's a clear sign Putin can take whatever he wants whenever he wants. That doesn't fly imho



This whole thing is very messy. The Crimea, which was annexed by Russia during the last round of this fight, is actually majority Russian ethnically. Maybe only 1/4 people who live there are ethnically Ukrainian. That doesn't mean that those people all want to be part of Russia, though, but it at least was looking like they really didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Messy.

This new territorial dispute is over a region that is majority Ukrainian, ethnically, but, again, it doesn't mean that those people want to be part of Ukraine. The fact that the region is devastated by both war and the pandemic makes the spread of misinformation too easy. Basically, there was a cease-fire, but Russia continued pressuring the region to be part of Russia by issuing Russian passports to people there and basically holding them to Russian domestic laws. Anyway, whatever claim Russia had over the Crimea doesn't really seem to hold elsewhere, yet I'll let you guess how much Russia seems to care about that.


----------



## Crungy

It would be nice if this happened more often than things being dragged out again and again

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/26/judge-eastman-speed-documents-00002653


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Yeah, but in Russia everything is backwards, I mean, for example, that television watches _you._
> 
> 
> 
> Russia already invaded Ukraine, what 7 years ago. It's an ongoing war. Things cooled down a little bit when everyone was distracted by covid, but the war never ended. The Russian army is bigger than the Ukrainian army, but Russia is kind of like the USA, in that they always have multiple wars going on and also have a bad track record when it comes to invading other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> It's looking more like whatever might happen will start to happen in the next few days.
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing is very messy. The Crimea, which was annexed by Russia during the last round of this fight, is actually majority Russian ethnically. Maybe only 1/4 people who live there are ethnically Ukrainian. That doesn't mean that those people all want to be part of Russia, though, but it at least was looking like they really didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Messy.
> 
> This new territorial dispute is over a region that is majority Ukrainian, ethnically, but, again, it doesn't mean that those people want to be part of Ukraine. The fact that the region is devastated by both war and the pandemic makes the spread of misinformation too easy. Basically, there was a cease-fire, but Russia continued pressuring the region to be part of Russia by issuing Russian passports to people there and basically holding them to Russian domestic laws. Anyway, whatever claim Russia had over the Crimea doesn't really seem to hold elsewhere, yet I'll let you guess how much Russia seems to care about that.



Ethnicity means less than you might think

Russia is only "land of the Russians" in foreign languages. The country name in the Russian language is unrelated to the ethnicity and language name (Rossiya country, Russkij language/ethnic group).

Furthermore, there's a literal crapton of Ukrainians in Russia, including in government.

Putin's ruling party literally has MPs named Zelenski and Yushenko.

For further confusion, "south Russian" dialects are widely perceived as "Ukrainian" by most other Russian speakers.

...anyway, it's more complicated than it looks. Hell, it could turn into parts of Russia wanting to secede INTO Ukraine if some of the BS in Russia today continues.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Ethnicity means less than you might think
> 
> Russia is only "land of the Russians" in foreign languages. The country name in the Russian language is unrelated to the ethnicity and language name (Rossiya country, Russkij language/ethnic group).
> 
> Furthermore, there's a literal crapton of Ukrainians in Russia, including in government.
> 
> Putin's ruling party literally has MPs named Zelenski and Yushenko.
> 
> For further confusion, "south Russian" dialects are widely perceived as "Ukrainian" by most other Russian speakers.
> 
> ...anyway, it's more complicated than it looks. Hell, it could turn into parts of Russia wanting to secede INTO Ukraine if some of the BS in Russia today continues.


Thus my inline disclaimer.

It's really a sort of opposite version of the same thing in the USA. Some of our most nationalistic people have darker skin. In Russia, at least to someone from a diverse city like me, everyone appears visually to be the same basic genetic makeup. But yes, 100% national identity and ethnic makeup are only very loosely related.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Thus my inline disclaimer.
> 
> It's really a sort of opposite version of the same thing in the USA. Some of our most nationalistic people have darker skin. In Russia, at least to someone from a diverse city like me, everyone appears visually to be the same basic genetic makeup. But yes, 100% national identity and ethnic makeup are only very loosely related.



Oh hell no

Russia as in the Russian Federation has a HUGE visible minority of so-called "Caucasians" (=people of Middle Eastern appearance) who don't blend, a similarly huge minority of Ukrainians who DO blend, and a large minority of Asians who somewhat-blend.

Ukraine itself is far far more racially and culturally homogeneous than Russia.

That's what makes this so odd. The country that's trying to make a play for Eastern Ukrainian hearts and minds (and failing miserably) is more known for being home to routine forced "video apologies to Mr. Kadyrov, Acadmician of Natural Sciences, Padishah of Chechnya" than it is for being a comfortable place to be at ease speaking Russian (for which purpose Eastern Ukraine is perfectly chill)


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Russia as in the Russian Federation has a HUGE visible minority of so-called "Caucasians" (=people of Middle Eastern appearance) who don't blend, a similarly huge minority of Ukrainians who DO blend, and a large minority of Asians who somewhat-blend.


You mean white russians, Jackie?


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> You mean white russians, Jackie?



No, that's Belarus.

Like, literally.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> No, that's Belarus.
> 
> Like, literally.



This joke. 

Your head. 

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/8b77067b-53a5-4ff9-b341-1356e29b0013


----------



## Randy




----------



## narad

Is she a disaster? I'm not sure she even exists.


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Is she a disaster? I'm not sure she even exists.



Yeah srsly, what ever happened to that lady?


----------



## Demiurge

After the last administration, I've completely lost sense of what the appropriate amount of public exposure for an elected official should be.


----------



## bostjan

I actually agree that identity politics is toxic.

I don't know why people who lean right seem to hate Harris so much, though. Maybe because she is literally the deciding vote for virtually every Senate bill now that the Senate is divided 50/50 and every vote is along party lines? That sounds more like a Senate problem to me, but I tend to parse information in ways no one else likes.


----------



## zappatton2

Have vice presidents ever been standout figures in any presidency? I mean, I remember when Dan Quale was literally famous for being stupid (before idiocy became so fashionable). I'd have a much easier time ascribing his white maleness to how a man that dumb could rise to a position of vice-president. I'm not gonna, but it would be easier.


----------



## IwantTacos

Randy said:


> View attachment 102601



anti abortion whitey isn’t an identity apparently.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I actually agree that identity politics is toxic.
> 
> I don't know why people who lean right seem to hate Harris so much, though. Maybe because she is literally the deciding vote for virtually every Senate bill now that the Senate is divided 50/50 and every vote is along party lines? That sounds more like a Senate problem to me, but I tend to parse information in ways no one else likes.


I think right leaners hate Harris because she's basically what they were before they dipped their toes into the cray-cray and somehow let it infect their entire bodies.

Either that, or she's female (*GASP*) and black (*DOUBLE GASP*).


----------



## Crungy

My money is on female while being black.


----------



## Xaios

zappatton2 said:


> Have vice presidents ever been standout figures in any presidency?


I'd say Cheney was pretty visible during the Bush presidency, especially during his first term. Also, while my memory from this time period is hazy, wasn't Gore also fairly visible during the Clinton years?


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> Is she a disaster? I'm not sure she even exists.



All I think of when I hear her name


----------



## zappatton2

Xaios said:


> I'd say Cheney was pretty visible during the Bush presidency, especially during his first term. Also, while my memory from this time period is hazy, wasn't Gore also fairly visible during the Clinton years?


Oh, I'll give you Cheney for sure. I tend to ascribe many of the more sinister elements of the Bush Jr. tenure to Cheney's machinations. Bush never seemed quite clever enough to really know what was going on (my subjective take, anyway).


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> Have vice presidents ever been standout figures in any presidency? I mean, I remember when Dan Quale was literally famous for being stupid (before idiocy became so fashionable). I'd have a much easier time ascribing his white maleness to how a man that dumb could rise to a position of vice-president. I'm not gonna, but it would be easier.



I can't think of any VP who ever really stood much in the spotlight, at least during my lifetime. Usually they just did the debate and sometimes did a bunch of behind-the-scenes stuff (especially Cheney). Quayle was a disaster literally from day one of being chosen for the ticket. He couldn't seem to formulate a sentence without either fumbling or putting his foot in his mouth. He joined the Indiana National Guard to get out of the Vietnam draft, got admitted to law school despite being a D student, and set up an intervention to Jonestown and then didn't go and his colleagues were murdered by a cult as a result. Yet, somehow, his addition to the Bush ticket coincided with a bump in poll numbers. Maybe people looked at him and thought, hey, that dipshit is a fuckup just like me, and liked that. Or maybe I'm being too hard on the guy - it's not like he's been involved in any shady scandals involving Northern Ireland by leveraging his position as a former VP to mislead people into believing they'd get political favours from him, or like he is currently being investigated by the SEC and the FBI for shady business deals or anything like that, right?



nightflameauto said:


> Either that, or she's female (*GASP*) and black (*DOUBLE GASP*).





Crungy said:


> My money is on female while being black.


IDK, tons of conservatives loved (probably still do) Sarah Palin, who happens to be female, or Dr. Herman Cain, who happened to be black. Some conservatives even liked Condoleezza Rice, who happened to be black and female, although maybe they don't care for her anymore. Conservatives tend to hate Biden, who happens to be both male and white. Maybe some people are okay to them as long as they agree on politics, and if they disagree, then everything else faces scrutiny, fair or unfair.

Honestly, I feel a little creeped out that Biden is declaring that his SCJ nominee is going to be black and female. It makes it seem like he's trying to score political points. Just nominate someone who's black and female (if that's what you're going for) and don't tell everyone about it weeks (months?) before the nomination will be public expecting everyone to line up for high-fives. It cheapens what might be a historic moment.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Honestly, I feel a little creeped out that Biden is declaring that his SCJ nominee is going to be black and female. It makes it seem like he's trying to score political points. Just nominate someone who's black and female (if that's what you're going for) and don't tell everyone about it weeks (months?) before the nomination will be public expecting everyone to line up for high-fives. It cheapens what might be a historic moment.


Yeah, the way Biden pre-announces categories really detracts from the achievements of the person he eventually nominates. Just like when he swore the vice he chose would be female before saying who it was going to be. Like, in a certain way you've just declared that we had to choose by category because you couldn't find someone that measured up on their own merits without meeting these specific box ticks.

I totally get why he's doing it because it panders to the loudest voices in the room, but it totally detracts from the actual result.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Or maybe I'm being too hard on the guy - it's not like he's been involved in any shady scandals involving Northern Ireland by leveraging his position as a former VP to mislead people into believing they'd get political favours from him, or like he is currently being investigated by the SEC and the FBI for shady business deals or anything like that, right?


Damn, this feels like way further in the past than 2016.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> I actually agree that identity politics is toxic.
> 
> I don't know why people who lean right seem to hate Harris so much, though. Maybe because she is literally the deciding vote for virtually every Senate bill now that the Senate is divided 50/50 and every vote is along party lines? That sounds more like a Senate problem to me, but I tend to parse information in ways no one else likes.



I suspect it has far more to do with the "not barefoot, not pregnant, not working as a domestic servant" thing

It's an affront to their "way of life."


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Damn, this feels like way further in the past than 2016.


There's been a lot happening in the USA political news cycle since then.



Adieu said:


> I suspect it has far more to do with the "not barefoot, not pregnant, not working as a domestic servant" thing
> 
> It's an affront to their "way of life."


Harris is married with adult children. Incidentally, Rice, who was a conservative favourite personality, has never been married nor had children, IIRC.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> There's been a lot happening in the USA political news cycle since then.
> 
> 
> Harris is married with adult children. Incidentally, Rice, who was a conservative favourite personality, has never been married nor had children, IIRC.


Yeah, but it was all over the news here for a long time. It's a small place here, and the degrees of separation are small too. Sort of forget it was an international scandal.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Harris is married with adult children.



Not the point and also don't mind the details


----------



## spudmunkey

https://www.rawstory.com/rudy-giuliani-2656538440/


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.rawstory.com/rudy-giuliani-2656538440/
> 
> View attachment 102747


Of course Jenny McCarthy don’t care, she’s a fuggin’ dummy.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

spudmunkey said:


> https://www.rawstory.com/rudy-giuliani-2656538440/
> 
> View attachment 102747




This simulation has clearly gotten a virus


----------



## nightflameauto

Wow. And I thought the Palin reveal was spicy. Fucking Fox.


----------



## Crungy

I was going to ask how the fuck they thought having Giuliani on a show like that would be a good idea but then again it's Fox.


----------



## bostjan

So much for the show being kept spoiler free by intense security. 

Nicole Scherzinger was a big Ron Paul supporter, so it's not a huge surprise.

The two male judges on the show, I honestly have no idea what their political beliefs are. Ken Jeong was a practicing doctor even when he was filming the Hangover, and he strikes me as a smart guy who plays zany characters for the laughs and does it pretty well. 

I guess if you were a staunch enough Democrat, you should love Giuliani, since he's possibly been the most destructive force behind the GOP in the past couple years. 

I guess if Giuliani was going to do the show, now would be the time, in case he winds up in prison with no one to pardon him. And that's looking more and more possible an outcome every new news cycle.


----------



## Crungy

I do wonder if it was a move to show Giuliani is "a normal fun guy" vs insane person.



bostjan said:


> I guess if you were a staunch enough Democrat, you should love Giuliani, since he's possibly been the most destructive force behind the GOP in the past couple years.



That's a good way of looking at him lmao


----------



## bostjan

Host: Who's behind the mask of "Two-headed Dragon?"
Crowd: Take it off! Take it off!
Host: It's North Korean Supreme Leader and expert lube factory inspector Kim Jong-un and legendary oscar-and-seven-time-tony-award-winning producer Harvey Weinstein.
_Reaction shot of crowd with woman's head literally exploding._


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> So much for the show being kept spoiler free by intense security.
> 
> Nicole Scherzinger was a big Ron Paul supporter, so it's not a huge surprise.
> 
> The two male judges on the show, I honestly have no idea what their political beliefs are. Ken Jeong was a practicing doctor even when he was filming the Hangover, and he strikes me as a smart guy who plays zany characters for the laughs and does it pretty well.
> 
> I guess if you were a staunch enough Democrat, you should love Giuliani, since he's possibly been the most destructive force behind the GOP in the past couple years.
> 
> I guess if Giuliani was going to do the show, now would be the time, in case he winds up in prison with no one to pardon him. And that's looking more and more possible an outcome every new news cycle.


Ken Jeong is a really smart guy and relatively left leaning. He and Joel McHale did a good podcast for a few weeks at the start of the pandemic where he would do half an hour on interpreting the emerging science.

Nicole Scherzinger is literally the devil as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Host: Who's behind the mask of "Two-headed Dragon?"
> Crowd: Take it off! Take it off!
> Host: It's North Korean Supreme Leader and expert lube factory inspector Kim Jong-un and legendary oscar-and-seven-time-tony-award-winning producer Harvey Weinstein.
> _Reaction shot of crowd with woman's head literally exploding._


Nicole and Jenny instantly run to the stage and throw themselves at the men.

Those two are like satan and stupid had babies.


----------



## Crungy

Is Jenny McCarthy still anti vaccine? That would pair well with Giuliani and the Fox network.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Nicole and Jenny instantly run to the stage and throw themselves at the men.
> 
> Those two are like satan and stupid had babies.


Tune in next week and see how those chicks react when "Frayed Knot" is revelated to be the BTK.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Tune in next week and see how those chicks react when "Frayed Knot" is revelated to be the BTK.


I think the American public is *ALMOST* ready for The Masked Singer: Serial Killer Edition. Maybe after one more election cycle?


----------



## Crungy

If trump runs and wins I'd say we cemented Idiocracy levels of stupidity. Though I'd rather have Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho as president.

They'll have to change all meetings of congress and official business into WWE matches as well.


----------



## nightflameauto

Crungy said:


> If trump runs and wins I'd say we cemented Idiocracy levels of stupidity. Though I'd rather have Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho as president.
> 
> They'll have to change all meetings of congress and official business into WWE matches as well.


Frankly, I've been hoping to see some of the long-termers in steel cage matches for most of my politically aware years. McConnel and Pelosi coming at each other with steel chairs? I'm buying that PPV.


----------



## Randy

Crungy said:


> Is Jenny McCarthy still anti vaccine? That would pair well with Giuliani and the Fox network.



I believe she was at one of those crazy RFK Jr antivax rallies recently.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> So much for the show being kept spoiler free by intense security.
> 
> Nicole Scherzinger was a big Ron Paul supporter, so it's not a huge surprise.
> 
> The two male judges on the show, I honestly have no idea what their political beliefs are. Ken Jeong was a practicing doctor even when he was filming the Hangover, and he strikes me as a smart guy who plays zany characters for the laughs and does it pretty well.
> 
> I guess if you were a staunch enough Democrat, you should love Giuliani, since he's possibly been the most destructive force behind the GOP in the past couple years.
> 
> I guess if Giuliani was going to do the show, now would be the time, in case he winds up in prison with no one to pardon him. And that's looking more and more possible an outcome every new news cycle.



I appreciate having principals even if you're hosting a show like that, but walking off in protest is less effective than staying there and picking the guy apart while you have the opportunity.


----------



## AMOS

Randy said:


> View attachment 102601


She's one of the few that gets it.


----------



## MFB

StevenC said:


> Nicole Scherzinger is literally the devil as far as I'm concerned.



They warned me Satan would be attractive, but I didn't realize they meant THAT attractive; that body don't quit.


----------



## narad

Leaviathan said:


> .



Nice sig for a guitar forum.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Nice sig for a guitar forum.



Remember, they're not conservative, _they think for themselves©_.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> Remember, they're not conservative, _they think for themselves©_.



Yea, I mean, you don't have to be conservative to hate liberals, but going out of your way to try to annoy liberals on the internet definitely sounds like it's in the "conservative starter kit" to me. It's not like this is how Noam Chomsky or other actual independent thinkers are spending their days, it's just how rigtalk OT refugees spend theirs.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Yea, I mean, you don't have to be conservative to hate liberals, but going out of your way to try to annoy liberals on the internet definitely sounds like it's in the "conservative starter kit" to me. It's not like this is how Noam Chomsky or other actual independent thinkers are spending their days, it's just how rigtalk OT refugees spend theirs.


And you're 100% sure Chomsky isn't on rigtalk?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> And you're 100% sure Chomsky isn't on rigtalk?



I mean of course he is, but I've never seen him in the off-topic section.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> Yea, I mean, you don't have to be conservative to hate liberals, but going out of your way to try to annoy liberals on the internet definitely sounds like it's in the "conservative starter kit" to me. It's not like this is how Noam Chomsky or other actual independent thinkers are spending their days, it's just how rigtalk OT refugees spend theirs.





StevenC said:


> And you're 100% sure Chomsky isn't on rigtalk?



You guys should see the old man fights him and Zizek have. Doesn't paint either of them in a very sympathetic light. He'd fit right in on rigtalk.

Also, this interview is 11/10


----------



## bostjan

Remington is settling with the families of the Sandy Hook victims for $73M, the maximum amount their insurers could pay. There's also a public information component to the settlement to be forthcoming, i.e., Remington will release some documents pertaining to their marketing prior to the shooting.









Families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with Remington


The elementary school shooting left 20 students and six adults dead. The settlement is thought to be first of its kind, awarding major damages against a U.S. gun manufacturer based on a mass shooting.




www.npr.org





This is absolutely unprecedented in the USA. Obviously no amount of money will take away anyone's pain, but this sends a clear and bold message - I guess make of that message what you will.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Remington is settling with the families of the Sandy Hook victims for $73M, the maximum amount their insurers could pay. There's also a public information component to the settlement to be forthcoming, i.e., Remington will release some documents pertaining to their marketing prior to the shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Families of Sandy Hook victims reach $73 million settlement with Remington
> 
> 
> The elementary school shooting left 20 students and six adults dead. The settlement is thought to be first of its kind, awarding major damages against a U.S. gun manufacturer based on a mass shooting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely unprecedented in the USA. Obviously no amount of money will take away anyone's pain, but this sends a clear and bold message - I guess make of that message what you will.



This is indeed unprecedented. Interested to see what these internal documents reveal about their marketing. I didn't realize they'd already filed for bankruptcy once.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> This is indeed unprecedented. Interested to see what these internal documents reveal about their marketing. I didn't realize they'd already filed for bankruptcy once.


Twice, at least recently. 2018 and again in 2020.

When I was a kid/teen/young adult, Remington was synonymous with rifles and rifle ammunition.

It's kind of weird how all of the companies that seemed eternal back then are falling apart at the seams since the 2010's: GM, GE, Remington, RadioShack, ToysRUs, Sears, Payless, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Crungy

Yep, bankrupt and now owned by Vista Outdoors if I recall correctly. It said their insurers are paying it, so I take that as Vista does not have to put any money into that?


----------



## spudmunkey

Crungy said:


> Yep, bankrupt and now owned by Vista Outdoors if I recall correctly. It said their insurers are paying it, so I take that as Vista does not have to put any money into that?


I imagine their premiums may go up a bit.


----------



## bostjan

So, how much do you want to bet that rifle ammo prices skyrocket because of this? And also, in case anyone takes that to mean that rifle ammo might be a good investment, let me clarify by saying that if rifle ammo prices skyrocket, it'll be due to the increased insurance and liability cost rather than the valuation of the ammo, although that'll go hand-in-hand. In other words, don't plan on buying and drop shipping ammo unless you potentially want to get your ass sued off. Might be better to invest in prosthetic asses if we conclude that line of thinking.


----------



## Crungy

They've already been really high but have been coming down a bit on some, nearing half what it was a year ago or more. Not sure what Remington would do, at current prices they're probably selling a boat load of it.


----------



## LordCashew

bostjan said:


> Might be better to invest in prosthetic asses


May I be so bold as to suggest this be inscribed on your gravestone?


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Might be better to invest in prosthetic asses if we conclude that line of thinking.


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> So, how much do you want to bet that rifle ammo prices skyrocket because of this? .


But how will me and cousin brother Cletus afford protect our sister wives from kommunism and non albinos??


----------



## CapinCripes

I think we should talk more about how the alt-right music "scene" is radicalizing some people into some really out there views. I know a few people who went off the deep end into the alt right after listening to the likes of Struggle Jennings Adam Calhoun and Tom macdonald.


----------



## Crungy

What about Aaron Lewis of Staind? He's been doing Merica country and embraced by the right. I used to like Staind, but I can't support that stain any more. 









Staind Singer Aaron Lewis Angers Left with Conservative-Themed Song, Record Label Refuses to Cancel Him | The Daily Wire







www.dailywire.com


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> Twice, at least recently. 2018 and again in 2020.
> 
> When I was a kid/teen/young adult, Remington was synonymous with rifles and rifle ammunition.
> 
> It's kind of weird how all of the companies that seemed eternal back then are falling apart at the seams since the 2010's: GM, GE, Remington, RadioShack, ToysRUs, Sears, Payless, etc. etc. etc.



Possibly because they went max profit instead of actual solid business growth, and aren't in a position to compete now? That's certainly what happened with GE. I remember when Jack Welch was a genius, before people figured out he was hollowing out GE's talent and abilities so badly...


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> What about Aaron Lewis of Staind? He's been doing Merica country and embraced by the right. I used to like Staind, but I can't support that stain any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staind Singer Aaron Lewis Angers Left with Conservative-Themed Song, Record Label Refuses to Cancel Him | The Daily Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailywire.com


Is he "alt-"right, though, or just plain old conservative?

I didn't know he was from Vermont until just recently.

I guess it's up to you who you decide to support as a musician, but, barring any sort of absolute weirdness, I'd prefer not to worry that much about which presidential candidate each artist supported or whatever. Did Aaron Lewis say or do something right-leaning other than saying he voted for Trump or that he likes hunting or whatever?

If not, lumping him into the same category as Jon Schaffer or Ted Nugent might be a bit much. Or, if he's done something incredibly hateful, then fuck that guy.



eaeolian said:


> Possibly because they went max profit instead of actual solid business growth, and aren't in a position to compete now? That's certainly what happened with GE. I remember when Jack Welch was a genius, before people figured out he was hollowing out GE's talent and abilities so badly...



That's kind of been the en vogue business treatment these days. I've seen it a lot, at least. Now that we are over two decades into a new century, maybe it is time to say goodbye to a lot of the older companies that don't make sense anymore.


----------



## Crungy

bostjan said:


> If not, lumping him into the same category as Jon Schaffer or Ted Nugent might be a bit much. Or, if he's done something incredibly hateful, then fuck that guy.


I agree and don't think he's done anything, it's just his manner of speaking like a brainwashed trump supporter that deeply irks me. I think it also pisses me off because I used to really like Staind, and now he's parroting the usual right wing garbage.


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> I agree and don't think he's done anything, it's just his manner of speaking like a brainwashed trump supporter that deeply irks me. I think it also pisses me off because I used to really like Staind, and now he's parroting the usual right wing garbage.


Gotcha.

I mean, it probably doesn't make you feel better, but I was a big James Brown fan for years. I grew up watching kids shows hosted by Bill Cosby. I went to half a dozen Aerosmith concerts in the 90's. James Brown ended up being a rapist and woman beater. Bill Cosby ended up being a rapist. Steven Tyler came forward in 2011 as a child predator in his memoirs. I think that if being a Staind fan when their lead singer ended up being a Trump supporter ends up being the ickiest you feel about something you once enjoyed, your life should be pretty much a cakewalk.


----------



## Crungy

Totally agree. It's a first world "problem" for sure. Speaking of bad singers that reminds me of the singer from the Lostprophets turning out to be a disgusting excuse of a person.


----------



## CapinCripes

Crungy said:


> What about Aaron Lewis of Staind? He's been doing Merica country and embraced by the right. I used to like Staind, but I can't support that stain any more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Staind Singer Aaron Lewis Angers Left with Conservative-Themed Song, Record Label Refuses to Cancel Him | The Daily Wire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailywire.com


I mean yeah he's a conservative but I'm more talking about people like struggle Jennings with literal save our kids/qanon songs, Tom McDonald who racebaits with songs like straight white male and whiteboy and is trying to become alt right slim shady, and finally Adam Calhoun who is one of those "patriots" with his own race baiting problems on top of massive doses of homophobia who recently put out a video stating that the problem with America is that weak people get to have opinions instead of being beaten for saying the wrong thing. You know pleasant people like that. They aren't what you would call mainstream but Tom macdonald was on fox news on at least one occasion and has 2.9 million subscribers, struggle Jennings who is Waylon Jennings step grandson and Adam Calhoun who gained some clout from collaborating with a certain hick hop rapper and His latest Collab with Tom McDonald. And I've heard their songs being played out of people's cars since I've moved to semi rural Arkansas.


----------



## Crungy

Ahh okay, and I wasn't familiar at all with any of them.


----------



## CapinCripes

Crungy said:


> Ahh okay, and I wasn't familiar at all with any of them.


Yeah kind of a niche thing that's mostly here in the south but it's a bit unnerving that all three have charted on multiple occasions despite being very into the whole alt right thing. I know a few people who started just listening to their music who were fairly normal and then their personal politics and opinions shifted down the rabbit hole.


----------



## ArtDecade

CapinCripes said:


> I've moved to semi rural Arkansas.



Move out of semi rural Arkansas.


----------



## CapinCripes

ArtDecade said:


> Move out of semi rural Arkansas.


I mean to be fair yeah it should be obvious that rural southern areas would be more conservative... But I'm not talking conservative. I'm talking pants shitting insanity that makes ted Nugent look tame. And I'm also not talking the majority just a growing concerning minority. I lived in literal liberal utopia in silicon valley half my life and if you take away the politics the people here are a million times more chill and caring than the people there. The issue is that there is a cancer growing in rural America and if we continue to ignore it it will metastisize just as it did on Jan 6th. I don't have the solution but I definitely see the problem.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CapinCripes said:


> I think we should talk more about how the alt-right music "scene" is radicalizing some people into some really out there views. I know a few people who went off the deep end into the alt right after listening to the likes of Struggle Jennings Adam Calhoun and Tom macdonald.



I agree, and I think that this is a place that we have the potential to actually make some kind of difference in the overall trajectory of our society as performers. I can't remember either of the bands now, but I often recall the situation in the last 5ish years wherein in a black metal band with white supremacist leanings was being de-platformed by other artist refusing to play shows with them on their EU tour. The other band in question was getting some flack for not canceling their tour dates with the WS band. They made a public statement in which they essentially made the argument that if all of the non-white-supremacist bands drop off of every show that features a WS band, it gives white supremacists an echo chamber to recruit from without any opposing messages whatsoever.

It's well established that white supremacist and fascist organizations prey on the young and disaffected. These are the exact kind of people that are going to be going to these concerts, and if nobody tells them there's another way to think about the world, they're not going to know any better.

To be clear, I think both approaches here are valid and even necessary and complementary. It is necessary to de-platform people whose messages center around hate. It is also necessary to make sure that they're not being given an absolutely uncontested echo chamber from which to recruit. This parallels some of the ideas of race traitor theory, namely that the best (and very possibly, the only) thing that whites can do about white supremacy is to organize other whites against it. Because once again if we as white male performers aren't giving other disaffected white men an alternative message, nobody else is going to, or at least not one they're likely to hear.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> I mean, it probably doesn't make you feel better, but I was a big James Brown fan for years. I grew up watching kids shows hosted by Bill Cosby. I went to half a dozen Aerosmith concerts in the 90's. James Brown ended up being a rapist and woman beater. Bill Cosby ended up being a rapist. Steven Tyler came forward in 2011 as a child predator in his memoirs. I think that if being a Staind fan when their lead singer ended up being a Trump supporter ends up being the ickiest you feel about something you once enjoyed, your life should be pretty much a cakewalk.



Yeah, between the Trump era and covid-adjacent conspiracies, a lot of formerly-beloved celebrities have managed to disappoint lately. We've grown numb to it.

"At least he's not a murderer or a rapist" is such a low bar, though


----------



## Drew

CapinCripes said:


> mean to be fair yeah it should be obvious that rural southern areas would be more conservative...


Flagging this, not because I disagree with your conclusion exactly, but... 

..._why_ should rural areas (it's not just the south, it's nation-wide) be more conservative than metropolitan ones? It's become such an ingrained part of our political landscape that we just take it for granted now, but I think it's worth keeping in mind. A part of the country where farming is a huge part of the local economy, for example, should have a predisposition to be more worried about climate change than people who live in major metropilitan areas, for example, because if Iowa becomes drought-stricken a whole sector is going to be destroyed, but if Boston becomes drought stricken we're still going to be a finance hub. Maybe a bad example since coastal flooding is going tobe more of an issue here than Iowa, but you kind of see where I'm going. 

I've heard it argued that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals is, and I'm trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible, liberals tend to be motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of others while conservatives tend to believe that self-interest and an economy that rewards those who help themselves leads to better outcomes for all. If that's approximately true, then it kind of makes sense that a living situation where you HAVE to live in close proximity to others makes you more concerned for the wellfare of others in that you see it up close and personal and see how it can impact your own life, while a rural environment highlights the benefits and mutes the cost of the sort of "rugged individualism" that conservativism promotes. But that's just a theory, and it's one that you could fairly say is ging to have innate appeal to liberals. 

But, it's such an assumption in American political thought these days, that it's probably worth explicitly pointing it out just to try to not take it for granted.


----------



## Drew

eaeolian said:


> Possibly because they went max profit instead of actual solid business growth, and aren't in a position to compete now? That's certainly what happened with GE. I remember when Jack Welch was a genius, before people figured out he was hollowing out GE's talent and abilities so badly...


To be fair, I always thought the fault there laid more with Jeff Immelt, and a bunch f poorly thought out aquisitions and heavy expansion of GE Capital under his watch, than with Welch, who was more the traditional conglomorate "diversify and seek organic growth across a number of industries" type. There's no denying the conglomorate is going out of fashion, though - it'll be really interesting to see what happens to Berkshire Hathaway when Buffett eventually is no longer at the helm.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> Flagging this, not because I disagree with your conclusion exactly, but...
> 
> ..._why_ should rural areas (it's not just the south, it's nation-wide) be more conservative than metropolitan ones? It's become such an ingrained part of our political landscape that we just take it for granted now, but I think it's worth keeping in mind. A part of the country where farming is a huge part of the local economy, for example, should have a predisposition to be more worried about climate change than people who live in major metropilitan areas, for example, because if Iowa becomes drought-stricken a whole sector is going to be destroyed, but if Boston becomes drought stricken we're still going to be a finance hub. Maybe a bad example since coastal flooding is going tobe more of an issue here than Iowa, but you kind of see where I'm going.
> 
> I've heard it argued that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals is, and I'm trying to phrase this as neutrally as possible, liberals tend to be motivated by a concern for the wellbeing of others while conservatives tend to believe that self-interest and an economy that rewards those who help themselves leads to better outcomes for all. If that's approximately true, then it kind of makes sense that a living situation where you HAVE to live in close proximity to others makes you more concerned for the wellfare of others in that you see it up close and personal and see how it can impact your own life, while a rural environment highlights the benefits and mutes the cost of the sort of "rugged individualism" that conservativism promotes. But that's just a theory, and it's one that you could fairly say is ging to have innate appeal to liberals.
> 
> But, it's such an assumption in American political thought these days, that it's probably worth explicitly pointing it out just to try to not take it for granted.


I'll just speak anecdotally here, but I always lived in the city. As such, I've had plenty of first-hand exposure with people of all ethnicities, sexualities, religions, etc., but when I visit my relatives who all live in rural or smaller communities, they'll often paint these groups with an ominous brush, which I can only conclude as a lack of exposure. At my wedding, a lot of that family came into direct contact with a lot of people outside their box, and more than one of them (or more precisely, _two_ of them) admitted to me years later that they appreciated being able to relate to people they previously were rather ignorant about.

Additionally, again anecdotal, but I think a lot of rural work is work done at the individual level, or in smaller teams, that is seen through by the same folks from start to finish. There is a lot of focus on self-sufficiency in all aspects of life, rather than interdependent specialization.

A lot of work done in the city is reliant on the work done around you. It's much more specialized. So I do a few things for my job, but I get that work at a certain stage, and I pass it along at a later stage. How I work communally is more important than my individual focus.

I did read an article that examined the differences in Conservative and Liberal-minded ways of thinking, it seems perhaps already set to the conclusion of "liberal good, conservative bad", so take it with a grain of salt, but I also wonder, if a Conservative read the same thing, if they would see the traits ascribed to Conservatives as a net positive; https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/...y-liberal-hearts-bleed-and-conservatives-dont


----------



## tedtan

I don’t think a conservative would disagree with that article, though they may take issue with being labeled fearful.


----------



## zappatton2

tedtan said:


> I don’t think a conservative would disagree with that article, though they may take issue with being labeled fearful.


I have no doubt of that, though one thing I found interesting about anti-vaxxers take of things is that the rest of us, by getting vaccinated, wearing masks and supporting mandates, are living in fear. 

The thing is, I don't do any of it out of fear for myself. My thing is, I can't bear the idea that I could be asymptomatic, spread it, and be responsible for someone else getting sick and dying, even if I don't know that person. That is what drives my thought process, but it never seems to occur to folks who seem to project their own motives.


----------



## tedtan

Agreed.

Too many people think of it as “their freedom” or “their rights”, but completely miss *their obligation* to others.


----------



## TedEH

I don't know that it's entirely wrong to attribute some of the following of measures to fear. When my dad 'caught the 'rona, he already had a preexisting lung ailment, so that hospitalized him for months, and we were maybe 80% certain he wasn't coming home. We got lucky. But he's still vulnerable, and so are my remaining grandparents. My sister works in a long-term care facility and was absolutely terrified while watching them drop like flies before the vaccines were a thing. Of course there's an element of fear. My problem with the rhetoric is the idea that fear is unhealthy or immoral or something. You're _supposed_ to be afraid of something that can kill you or the people around you. Fear has a valid purpose. It signals danger. And the 'rona has been a legitimate danger to many.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I don’t think a conservative would disagree with that article, though they may take issue with being labeled fearful.


Would you say they're... _afraid _of being labeled fearful?


----------



## tedtan

You could certainly it that way.


----------



## possumkiller

The amount of Americans that are simping for Putin is seriously gross. My wife wants to run back to the US if shit kicks off here but I honestly am having to think long and hard about it which is sad.


----------



## thebeesknees22

possumkiller said:


> The amount of Americans that are simping for Putin is seriously gross. My wife wants to run back to the US if shit kicks off here but I honestly am having to think long and hard about it which is sad.


It's pretty disgusting. I don't know anyone IRL that is, but the Trump cult is foaming at the mouth the suck Putin's d***. 

Reagan and Bush Sr. must be rolling in their graves to see what's become of their party given how anti-russian they were.


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> The amount of Americans that are simping for Putin is seriously gross. My wife wants to run back to the US if shit kicks off here but I honestly am having to think long and hard about it which is sad.


Who is simping for Putin? Tucker Carlson or something?

If I lived in Poland or Romania right now, I'd probably be trying to figure out how to get as far away from there as possible. It's probably nothing, but my gut tells me that Putin is considering those as one of his potential next moves. Yeah, the US is a mess right now, but if the Russian army does something dumb in Pripyat, I don't want to be downwind, if you know what I mean.

For example: a poll shows that half of the Russian people blame NATO for the Ukraine war, and only 4% see Russia itself as the aggressor. To Putin, domestic issues are more important than international policies. So, either he will follow the people's opinion or the people's opinions foreshadow his plans, either way, Putin has to be considering a full scale confrontation with NATO as a potential outcome. Maybe he hopes it won't be so, but look at the drills the Russian military has been running the last few years - they clearly, at the very least, want the rest of the world to know that they are prepared for nuclear war. Even if the plan is simply to hit NATO missile sites with surgical strikes, do you trust that Russia's missiles held together with duct tape and navigating using computers that still run off of magnetic tape and nixie tubes?

I truly, truly hope I'm blowing this out of proportion, but I really have a bad feeling about the intentions of this.


----------



## possumkiller

bostjan said:


> Who is simping for Putin? Tucker Carlson or something?
> 
> If I lived in Poland or Romania right now, I'd probably be trying to figure out how to get as far away from there as possible. It's probably nothing, but my gut tells me that Putin is considering those as one of his potential next moves. Yeah, the US is a mess right now, but if the Russian army does something dumb in Pripyat, I don't want to be downwind, if you know what I mean.
> 
> For example: a poll shows that half of the Russian people blame NATO for the Ukraine war, and only 4% see Russia itself as the aggressor. To Putin, domestic issues are more important than international policies. So, either he will follow the people's opinion or the people's opinions foreshadow his plans, either way, Putin has to be considering a full scale confrontation with NATO as a potential outcome. Maybe he hopes it won't be so, but look at the drills the Russian military has been running the last few years - they clearly, at the very least, want the rest of the world to know that they are prepared for nuclear war. Even if the plan is simply to hit NATO missile sites with surgical strikes, do you trust that Russia's missiles held together with duct tape and navigating using computers that still run off of magnetic tape and nixie tubes?
> 
> I truly, truly hope I'm blowing this out of proportion, but I really have a bad feeling about the intentions of this.


If it comes down to nukes, it doesn't matter if we're here or there. We will all be fucked.


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> If it comes down to nukes, it doesn't matter if we're here or there. We will all be fucked.


Depends which nukes they have time to launch before the other team's nukes hit, I guess, as to whether it's a hot or cold death, but that's still true.


----------



## possumkiller

bostjan said:


> Depends which nukes they have time to launch before the other team's nukes hit, I guess, as to whether it's a hot or cold death, but that's still true.


I still like to think that most Russians would not like a new world war or nuclear war. And that the officers who are part of the process of being able to launch have some sense as well. My wife doesn't believe me but I keep trying to tell her that one person does not have a red button that automatically launches all the nukes at once. The president gives the order but there are several steps that go through a chain of personnel before the weapons are armed and launched. I like to think that somewhere in that chain are a few people who are willing to risk their lives to ensure the world doesn't come to an end.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> For example: a poll shows that half of the Russian people blame NATO for the Ukraine war, and only 4% see Russia itself as the aggressor. To Putin, domestic issues are more important than international policies. So, either he will follow the people's opinion or the people's opinions foreshadow his plans, either way, Putin has to be considering a full scale confrontation with NATO as a potential outcome.



Given that Putin controls the Russian media, its most likely that he is controlling the people’s opinions to suit his own ends.

Given that, I wouldn’t out it past him to come after current NATO countries that used to be part of the USSR (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) and maybe even Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic or Moldova.


----------



## bostjan

possumkiller said:


> I still like to think that most Russians would not like a new world war or nuclear war. And that the officers who are part of the process of being able to launch have some sense as well. My wife doesn't believe me but I keep trying to tell her that one person does not have a red button that automatically launches all the nukes at once. The president gives the order but there are several steps that go through a chain of personnel before the weapons are armed and launched. I like to think that somewhere in that chain are a few people who are willing to risk their lives to ensure the world doesn't come to an end.


It's happened a couple of times. Vasily Arkhipov was the one officer who voted against a nuclear retaliation against a US naval attack on his submarine. If it had been another officer there, the sub would have likely launched nukes and Robert McNamara later indicated that Kennedy and his cabinet would have likely authorized a nuclear counter-strike, since the entire event just happened to occur during the Cuban Missile crisis, when tension was at an all-time high between the US and USSR. One vote potentially ended the end of the world.

In another incident, radar indicated that the US had launched ICBMs over the north pole toward the USSR, and officer Stanislav Petrov disobeyed the order to launch a counter-strike. The ICBM turned out to be strange clouds and no one was obliterated that day. The entire incident lasted 23 minutes. We can say "yeah, nobody would have really been hotheaded enough to have initiated a launch," but from the other example above I think we can't be at all sure.


----------



## Adieu

Petrov didn't defy orders to launch, he made a judgment call that a small number of suspicious contacts that, by the standing instructions, should be considered "incoming ICBMs" were highly unlikely to be any such thing...and probably not worth reporting up the chain to people possibly less qualified to realize that, who might make irreparable mistakes based on this data.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Given that Putin controls the Russian media, its most likely that he is controlling the people’s opinions to suit his own ends.
> 
> Given that, I wouldn’t out it past him to come after current NATO countries that used to be part of the USSR (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) and maybe even Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic or Moldova.


Slovenia had nothing at all to do with the USSR since like 1948. If Putin doesn't say that out loud, though, I don't think it matters.

"Maybe even Poland" - I sure hope he doesn't go after Poland; however... Poland has been invaded by Russia many times before, it borders Russia, it borders Ukraine, and it is a big NATO strategic site. Polish elections are also skewing toward the right-wing party the PiS, which falls right in line with the crap Putin's been saying about his justification for invading Ukraine.


----------



## Adieu

Holy sh!t




And next to nothing at the 99 cent store next door costs anywhere near a buck anymore.


----------



## Crungy

Damn where's that?


----------



## Randy

Crungy said:


> Damn where's that?


Based on the trees and the disproportionately high price and where Extra Miles operate, I'm gonna guess SoCal.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Adieu said:


> Holy sh!t
> 
> View attachment 103844
> 
> 
> And next to nothing at the 99 cent store costs anywhere near a buck anymore.



Welcome to Canadian prices!


----------



## Adieu

Crungy said:


> Damn where's that?



Costa Mesa, CA (Orange County, ~40 mi from Los Angeles)

Thank fck for Ethanol.

PS on a separate note, diesel there cost $1.70 six years ago. Up 3x. Damn.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Costa Mesa, CA (Orange County, ~40 mi from Los Angeles)
> 
> Thank fck for Ethanol.
> 
> PS on a separate note, diesel there cost $1.70 six years ago. Up 3x. Damn.



The E85 is still a worse deal depending on the car you drive. 

But it's SoCal, get a motorcycle.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> The E85 is still a worse deal depending on the car you drive.
> 
> But it's SoCal, get a motorcycle.



5.4 L triton V8. No it's not, Ford FlexFuel engines run better on E85 than they do on petrol of any octane.


----------



## CapinCripes

thebeesknees22 said:


> It's pretty disgusting. I don't know anyone IRL that is, but the Trump cult is foaming at the mouth the suck Putin's d***.
> 
> Reagan and Bush Sr. must be rolling in their graves to see what's become of their party given how anti-russian they were.


We found the real deep state. Guarantee the fbi file on Tucker Carlson is real juicy.


----------



## CovertSovietBear

Adieu said:


> Holy sh!t
> 
> View attachment 103844
> 
> 
> And next to nothing at the 99 cent store next door costs anywhere near a buck anymore.


I've seen up to $5.80 premium gas in San Francisco itself and around high traffic areas. Right now I've paid anywhere from $4.25-4.75/gallon. Missing my $2.25 Colorado gas I used to pay in school


----------



## Crungy

I see on gasprices.aaa.com the national average for regular gas is 3.610. I paid 3.49 this morning, so I'm thankful for that but sorry to hear it's that high in your area and others on the coasts. 

Crazy to think the national average a year ago was 2.71.


----------



## Randy

Cheapest gas I recall seeing in my lifetime was ~2000-2001 which was .89 a gallon


----------



## Crungy

I was going to mention it in my last post and did not, but around 1998/99 I paid 75 cents one summer. I don't think it lasted long but I reminded me of my dad saying gas being 25 cents when he was a late teen. I figured I'd never see gasoline under a dollar by the time I started driving.


----------



## LordCashew

Randy said:


> Cheapest gas I recall seeing in my lifetime was ~2000-2001 which was .89 a gallon


I worked at a gas station in CA in 2003. At one point prices increased significantly from where they were to about $1.70, and tons of people complained about it to me as if I could do something about it. One guy, probably a contractor or landscaper, came in to fill up his pickup and was on the verge of tears as he told me I was going to put him out of business.

I wonder how he's doing now...


----------



## bostjan

Cue the "thanks Obama!" guys with the gas prices.

The USA is the #1 fuel producer in the world, but since we are also by far the #1 fuel consumer, consuming 3x as much as we produce, all of this geopolitical stuff still destabilizes prices here.

Maybe this is a sign that the USA is considering setting aside a bunch of oil to send to the eurozone, or maybe folks in California are just greedy and take any excuse to gauge prices?

Meanwhile, Trump won CPAC by 30 points. Of course, Ted Cruz won in 2016, with Rubio coming in second, so I guess it ultimately means nothing.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> Depends which nukes they have time to launch before the other team's nukes hit, I guess, as to whether it's a hot or cold death, but that's still true.



You really think 90% of the US Boomer fleet isn't in the North Sea or off Vladivostok right now? If there's a launch against NATO's silos, that's it, full retaliation from the US. Bye bye world.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> Cue the "thanks Obama!" guys with the gas prices.
> 
> The USA is the #1 fuel producer in the world, but since we are also by far the #1 fuel consumer, consuming 3x as much as we produce, all of this geopolitical stuff still destabilizes prices here.
> 
> Maybe this is a sign that the USA is considering setting aside a bunch of oil to send to the eurozone, or maybe folks in California are just greedy and take any excuse to gauge prices?
> 
> Meanwhile, Trump won CPAC by 30 points. Of course, Ted Cruz won in 2016, with Rubio coming in second, so I guess it ultimately means nothing.


We were a net exporter when Obama left office, weren't we? I'd like to see a source for that 3x what we produce number. It hardly matters, anyway, though - all of this started with producers playing catch-up games with price vs. production, and I expect to see record profits for the oil companies yet again.


----------



## bostjan

eaeolian said:


> We were a net exporter when Obama left office, weren't we? I'd like to see a source for that 3x what we produce number. It hardly matters, anyway, though - all of this started with producers playing catch-up games with price vs. production, and I expect to see record profits for the oil companies yet again.


No, you're right. I hadn't checked the data for a while, it's only twice as much, not three times as much.

The reports from Bloomberg that the USA was a net oil exporter during Obama was really fishy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

eaeolian said:


> You really think 90% of the US Boomer fleet isn't in the North Sea or off Vladivostok right now? If there's a launch against NATO's silos, that's it, full retaliation from the US. Bye bye world.



I would have thought the majority of our boomer fleet was at home drooling over CPAC.


----------



## eaeolian

MaxOfMetal said:


> I would have thought the majority of our boomer fleet was at home drooling over CPAC.


Well played.


----------



## Demiurge

bostjan said:


> Cue the "thanks Obama!" guys with the gas prices.



I just got back from the gas station where some True Patriot stuck a little sticker of Biden pointing & saying "I did this" next to each price screen on each pump. There's just no coming back from this IMO.


----------



## Adieu

Demiurge said:


> I just got back from the gas station where some True Patriot stuck a little sticker of Biden pointing & saying "I did this" next to each price screen on each pump. There's just no coming back from this IMO.



Sure there is.

Grandpa Joe can just go "look at Putin. Oh and remember Trump?" and kick back and bask in the popular appreciation

And we'll be like "Hellyeah! We lucked out and pulled a totally sane AND mellow grandpa~ jackpot!"


----------



## eaeolian

Demiurge said:


> I just got back from the gas station where some True Patriot stuck a little sticker of Biden pointing & saying "I did this" next to each price screen on each pump. There's just no coming back from this IMO.



Those have been all over the place around here. I suspect it's one guy with a lot of time on his hands.


----------



## spudmunkey

eaeolian said:


> Those have been all over the place around here. I suspect it's one guy with a lot of time on his hands.


I remember seeing a video of someone last summer where they saw someone doing it at one gas station, and then followed them to two more. So it seems like it's "an army" out there doing it, but it was just one dude hitting up every gas station in the area.


----------



## Crungy

That shit irks me... Or seeing infowars stickers on gas pumps. Fucking idiots. 

I've been thinking I should have some stickers made that say "I'm anti-American" to slap on vehicles with trump stickers.


----------



## eaeolian

spudmunkey said:


> I remember seeing a video of someone last summer where they saw someone doing it at one gas station, and then followed them to two more. So it seems like it's "an army" out there doing it, but it was just one dude hitting up every gas station in the area.


Astroturfing strikes again!


----------



## SpaceDock

I don’t get why Democrats can’t win any arguments even when they are clearly in the right. There should be a Trump sticker next to all those high gas prices because Trump literally negotiated that OPEC cut oil prices early in the pandemic and when everything roared back to life they still haven’t opened up production again. 









Special Report: Trump told Saudi: Cut oil supply or lose U.S. military support - sources


By Timothy Gardner, Steve Holland, Dmitry Zhdannikov and Rania El Gamal




www.reuters.com


----------



## SpaceDock

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t get why Democrats can’t win any arguments even when they are clearly in the right. There should be a Trump sticker next to all those high gas prices because Trump literally negotiated that OPEC cut oil prices early in the pandemic and when everything roared back to life they still haven’t opened up production again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Report: Trump told Saudi: Cut oil supply or lose U.S. military support - sources
> 
> 
> By Timothy Gardner, Steve Holland, Dmitry Zhdannikov and Rania El Gamal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


Derp, meant OPEC cut production leading to the higher prices. The Trump admin did this at the time to save US oil producers but now they just keep cashing the checks.


----------



## nightflameauto

SOTU: The Ukraine bits were good. Everything else was literally a repetition of the promises Biden made on the campaign trail and has been completely and utterly ineffectual in trying to get done. Not that we expected him to be able to do much, but lowering drug prices (never gonna happen in the states), lowering insurance rates, which are at an all-time high if you're middle class and steadily climbing by what my HR peeps are telling me, and infrastructure that maybe, kinda, sorta is happening now? It's all empty pandering.

I'm not gonna say he's entirely to blame for being inneffectual. Congress is a pool of fucking molasses. But the bottom line is, maybe stop making huge promises you absolutely know, 100%, that you can't keep. Empty words is empty words, fucker. And I say that as somebody that voted for the man.

I expect the right to have an orgy of stupid over his lip-slips here or there. That Iranian slip especially.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> SOTU: The Ukraine bits were good. Everything else was literally a repetition of the promises Biden made on the campaign trail and has been completely and utterly ineffectual in trying to get done. Not that we expected him to be able to do much, but lowering drug prices (never gonna happen in the states), lowering insurance rates, which are at an all-time high if you're middle class and steadily climbing by what my HR peeps are telling me, and infrastructure that maybe, kinda, sorta is happening now? It's all empty pandering.
> 
> I'm not gonna say he's entirely to blame for being inneffectual. Congress is a pool of fucking molasses. But the bottom line is, maybe stop making huge promises you absolutely know, 100%, that you can't keep. Empty words is empty words, fucker. And I say that as somebody that voted for the man.
> 
> I expect the right to have an orgy of stupid over his lip-slips here or there. That Iranian slip especially.



I don't think there's anything wrong with laying out policy goals, even if they're something of a moonshot. 

I know civics in this country is pretty much dead, but I think most understand that the POTUS isn't God Emperor, and that any change is going to be difficult, especially anything meaningful. 

By laying out objectives it throws responsibility to the opposition to either buy-in on the auspice of helping their constituents, or object based on ideology. 

The challenge for the Biden and the Dems is trying to convince voters at large that the changes they want to effect are "good" and thus worth voting for long term. That's partially been the problem of the "left". They're terrible at messaging and branding.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with laying out policy goals, even if they're something of a moonshot.
> 
> I know civics in this country is pretty much dead, but I think most understand that the POTUS isn't God Emperor, and that any change is going to be difficult, especially anything meaningful.
> 
> By laying out objectives it throws responsibility to the opposition to either buy-in on the auspice of helping their constituents, or object based on ideology.
> 
> The challenge for the Biden and the Dems is trying to convince voters at large that the changes they want to effect are "good" and thus worth voting for long term. That's partially been the problem of the "left". They're terrible at messaging and branding.


I agree. I think a big problem is they've been spouting the same promises for over a generation now and none of it ever actually happens. Branding and messaging are one thing, but the public, even a public as stupid and seemingly comatose as most of America, is only going to listen to the same lies repeated so long before they stop being believers.

I absolutely despise the Republican Party and their actions over the past decade or more, but the Democrats really aren't inspiring either. The message that Biden gave last night came across to me like, "And I really mean it this time! *WINK*WINK*" It's just hollow pandering.

And let's be honest, the opposition won't buy in or object in a meaningful way. They'll just start spouting nonsense. I don't know if anybody else tried to listen to the rebuttal last night, but it was literally a laundry list of Republican talking points that said absolutely ZERO about what Biden said. Not a thing. That's the Republican stance when Democrats speek. Fingers in ears "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU."

We need a meaningful third party. Or multiple other parties. This back and forth do-nothing shit is killing us slowly.


----------



## bostjan

Sounded more like Uranian than Iranian to me. I'm surprised I haven't seen tons of jokes about missiles shooting at Uranus as a result. Oh well. Next time, do better, right-wing meme generators...

At the moment, I'm still fully willing to accept whatever doesn't sound like it going to destroy the country. I'm not a fan of Biden, but I'm not ready to take back my vote based on a few odd facial expressions and a bunch of oratorial fumbling.

Defunding the police versus funding the police. It sounds like something I can nod my head at, but this is where we really need action rather than just palaver. I've said it before, but the police departments are the hands and feet of the executive branch. Obama was great at telling us about great ideas to fix the problem and then taking exactly zero of the steps to put anything in motion, and Biden appears to be taking the same path. I know governance is difficult, but when we really need someone to step up and do better, it seems like the best we can expect is some verbal encouragement to slowly steer things in the right direction. Meanwhile, though, our urban police forces are still interacting with civilians with disproportionate amounts of force, our prisons are still overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, and people leaving prison are still the furthest thing from rehabilitated that they could possibly be under government's range of control of the situation. It's simply a failed system from top to bottom, and I'm afraid that it's simply going to be too costly and too complicated for anyone to fully commit to dismantling and reconstructing better.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> I agree. I think a big problem is they've been spouting the same promises for over a generation now and none of it ever actually happens. Branding and messaging are one thing, but the public, even a public as stupid and seemingly comatose as most of America, is only going to listen to the same lies repeated so long before they stop being believers.
> 
> I absolutely despise the Republican Party and their actions over the past decade or more, but the Democrats really aren't inspiring either. The message that Biden gave last night came across to me like, "And I really mean it this time! *WINK*WINK*" It's just hollow pandering.
> 
> And let's be honest, the opposition won't buy in or object in a meaningful way. They'll just start spouting nonsense. I don't know if anybody else tried to listen to the rebuttal last night, but it was literally a laundry list of Republican talking points that said absolutely ZERO about what Biden said. Not a thing. That's the Republican stance when Democrats speek. Fingers in ears "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU."
> 
> We need a meaningful third party. Or multiple other parties. This back and forth do-nothing shit is killing us slowly.



A viable third party is about as far fetched as anything Biden has promised, and who is to say said third party would be any good. The closest we have to that at the moment is the possibility of having a far right/facist "Trump Party" and the far right, yet not as far right "Respectable Republican" party of shitheels who just happened to be never-Trumpers. 

The Green Party is a joke as long as it keeps running wackos like Stein, even though on the face I like their platform, and Libertarians are just just GOP-Lite at the moment. 

But yeah, the whole "lesser evil" thing can only take a party so far.


----------



## bostjan

Ideally, we should just not have parties. I guess that won't work, though, as long as political parties are not explicitly disallowed. It also means that elections by popular vote would become a mess at the national level unless major reforms are put in place.

Calling the Green party or Libertarian party insane is fair, but when you look at who has been running in the major parties, insanity isn't a third party thing; it's just the way politicians are these days. Do you think Jorgensen is more insane than Trump! Was Johnson or Stein more insane than Trump! Out of those four, who was the least insane?

As much as I'd prefer that we have more sensible candidates, I see no indication of a guarantee from any third party, nor any major party, that sensibility will even be a consideration in the near future.

Realistically, if a third party candidate were to somehow win the presidency, I wouldn't expect anything at all to get done for four years, but I do believe that the long-term result of such an outcome would be a net positive. You see, the trouble with the political parties is that they operate on the fringes of the law. They have all sorts of special statuses, and they make all sorts of shady decisions and yet they get little to no oversight from the people. And ultimately, if the USA moved to a three-party system instead of a two-party system, there is no reason at all that the situation would be any different, other than maybe 33% more options in some national elections. If the entire idea of an n-party system was eliminated, then maybe things could improve permanently, but it would be a lot of work, and no one wants to put in that kind of sacrifice.

In spite of all of this, I will stick to my principles, and refuse to affiliate with any political party. In local and state elections, we get Republicans who are better than their Democratic rivals often times, and I do see a number of third-party candidates that seem like a good choice. Federal elections (president, senator, representative) not so much.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Ideally, we should just not have parties. I guess that won't work, though, as long as political parties are not explicitly disallowed. It also means that elections by popular vote would become a mess at the national level unless major reforms are put in place.
> 
> Calling the Green party or Libertarian party insane is fair, but when you look at who has been running in the major parties, insanity isn't a third party thing; it's just the way politicians are these days. Do you think Jorgensen is more insane than Trump! Was Johnson or Stein more insane than Trump! Out of those four, who was the least insane?
> 
> As much as I'd prefer that we have more sensible candidates, I see no indication of a guarantee from any third party, nor any major party, that sensibility will even be a consideration in the near future.
> 
> Realistically, if a third party candidate were to somehow win the presidency, I wouldn't expect anything at all to get done for four years, but I do believe that the long-term result of such an outcome would be a net positive. You see, the trouble with the political parties is that they operate on the fringes of the law. They have all sorts of special statuses, and they make all sorts of shady decisions and yet they get little to no oversight from the people. And ultimately, if the USA moved to a three-party system instead of a two-party system, there is no reason at all that the situation would be any different, other than maybe 33% more options in some national elections. If the entire idea of an n-party system was eliminated, then maybe things could improve permanently, but it would be a lot of work, and no one wants to put in that kind of sacrifice.
> 
> In spite of all of this, I will stick to my principles, and refuse to affiliate with any political party. In local and state elections, we get Republicans who are better than their Democratic rivals often times, and I do see a number of third-party candidates that seem like a good choice. Federal elections (president, senator, representative) not so much.



Exactly, I don't see salvation in a third or fourth or fifth party. The party system itself is part of the problem.


----------



## nightflameauto

While I agree adding another party wouldn't be an insta-fix, anything different than what we have now, which is just two sides of the same coin pretending to hate each other publicly while being semi-besties behind the scenes, would be at least an incremental improvement.

Our system in the states is so broken right now, there's no bandaid that will put it back to right. It'd just be nice to think somebody at the national level gives even the tiniest little bitty bit of a fuck about anybody but themselves. They're far too busy lining their pockets to do their damned jobs.


----------



## eaeolian

nightflameauto said:


> While I agree adding another party wouldn't be an insta-fix, anything different than what we have now, which is just two sides of the same coin pretending to hate each other publicly while being semi-besties behind the scenes, would be at least an incremental improvement.
> 
> Our system in the states is so broken right now, there's no bandaid that will put it back to right. It'd just be nice to think somebody at the national level gives even the tiniest little bitty bit of a fuck about anybody but themselves. They're far too busy lining their pockets to do their damned jobs.


This gets bandied about a lot, but no one wants to do the hard work of building it from the ground up. It's easier (and cheaper) to influence one of the existing parties.


----------



## Randy

Two parties can work with a more robust primary system and entirely eliminating "official party endorsements" from the equation, let the people decide who the party is and who the party "wants". 

Those are things that can actually be accomplished without rebooting the entire political system in this country and would have an impact but they have to be done in earnest, no lip service.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Two parties can work with a more robust primary system and entirely eliminating "official party endorsements" from the equation, let the people decide who the party is and who the party "wants".
> 
> Those are things that can actually be accomplished without rebooting the entire political system in this country and would have an impact but they have to be done in earnest, no lip service.


Ranked choice from the primary all the way through would be a nice start. But there's no way the decision makers want that to happen. We'd actually have the possibility of letting our voices be heard if they did that.


----------



## eaeolian

nightflameauto said:


> Ranked choice from the primary all the way through would be a nice start. But there's no way the decision makers want that to happen. We'd actually have the possibility of letting our voices be heard if they did that.


It is actually possible to effect change at the state level, but it takes organization and public outrage.


----------



## nightflameauto

eaeolian said:


> It is actually possible to effect change at the state level, but it takes organization and public outrage.


It also takes getting people on the two major teams to stop being outraged at each other long enough to cooperate for a moment. I don't really see that happening.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Two parties can work with a more robust primary system and entirely eliminating "official party endorsements" from the equation, let the people decide who the party is and who the party "wants".
> 
> Those are things that can actually be accomplished without rebooting the entire political system in this country and would have an impact but they have to be done in earnest, no lip service.


In theory, okay.

In practice, though, any time you give someone power without a prebuilt plan to take that power away, it's going to be a rough time taking that power away.

How many people in the USA even know who is the Chairperson of either major political party or the process by which those people obtain that position, let alone what powers those people have within their parties?

I'm not going to quote bioterrorist Rajneesh, but I'll paraphrase one of his most memed quotes that Democracy is when the government is controlled by the people, but the people as a group, act like idiots.

Or take the famous example of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for lunch. It sounds dumb, so you have to have a framework around any form of government to make sure things do slip into high-gear stupidity.

In the USA, we have a Constitution that is pretty flawed, but damn, if it isn't way less flawed than the stupidity of the actual government. So I don't think I could ever trust the government we have right at this moment to remove the framework that's in the Constitution. And we all know for sure that nothing anyone says right now is going to get a supermajority in both houses to agree with it, no matter what it is. So, if we want to make small corrections, we have to try to apply pressure by exercising our rights and wait. I think that, the older I get, though, the more I see that the strategy of waiting for the government to get smarter just doesn't work. It's like the government is governed itself by the laws of thermodynamics, where the government cannot achieve any more order within itself without some sort of compelling outside force, and, furthermore, that the government left to its own devices will simply gravitate further and further away from what benefits its people over time.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> In theory, okay.
> 
> In practice, though, any time you give someone power without a prebuilt plan to take that power away, it's going to be a rough time taking that power away.
> 
> How many people in the USA even know who is the Chairperson of either major political party or the process by which those people obtain that position, let alone what powers those people have within their parties?
> 
> I'm not going to quote bioterrorist Rajneesh, but I'll paraphrase one of his most memed quotes that Democracy is when the government is controlled by the people, but the people as a group, act like idiots.
> 
> Or take the famous example of two wolves and a sheep voting for what to eat for lunch. It sounds dumb, so you have to have a framework around any form of government to make sure things do slip into high-gear stupidity.
> 
> In the USA, we have a Constitution that is pretty flawed, but damn, if it isn't way less flawed than the stupidity of the actual government. So I don't think I could ever trust the government we have right at this moment to remove the framework that's in the Constitution. And we all know for sure that nothing anyone says right now is going to get a supermajority in both houses to agree with it, no matter what it is. So, if we want to make small corrections, we have to try to apply pressure by exercising our rights and wait. I think that, the older I get, though, the more I see that the strategy of waiting for the government to get smarter just doesn't work. It's like the government is governed itself by the laws of thermodynamics, where the government cannot achieve any more order within itself without some sort of compelling outside force, and, furthermore, that the government left to its own devices will simply gravitate further and further away from what benefits its people over time.



I think democracy works at most levels, it's just that at the *national* level there's to many conflicting interests that pure democracy is the third or fourth consideration before the two official choices make it on the ballot.

I used to be heavily involved in local politics and it's very common to see parties and office flip from inside (and outside). I live in a small town in a small county and it's VERY common for people to run for office unopposed, sometimes for decades. I've been approached on multiple occasions in the grocery store by someone saying the local board/council/supervisor's job was open with nobody running for it and I'd be one form away from being handed the job.

I briefly was involved in the Party at the county level and participation was so low, people would show up to their first party meeting, fill out one form and they've got a position on the committee. I was at a meeting one time and there were enough openings that the majority of the committee were all people who showed up to that one meeting and signed up not even knowing it was going on. You could bring your wife, your mom and dad, your brother and sister and you're now 2/3rds of the entire Democratic committee that gets to decide endorsements or even PICK people for major positions. We had two city council seats in a major city come up in the middle of the term and the replacements were picked by the Party and those are significant decision making positions that have a direct path to bigger positions (mayor, state legislature, congressman).

And like I said, I've watched these parties flip in a single meeting just because of how many of someone's friends they got to show up, and those things turned into political appointments for 10+ years.

I don't think it would be good for the parties if such kneejerk changes happened at the federal level, but there should be a path to changing the party from within absolutely. And that's not a lot to ask, actually. The progressive arm of the Dem party is the antithesis of the establishment body in a lot of substantive ways, and they've grown their footprint within the party from the inside out. It can be done but it should be easier.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> I don’t get why Democrats can’t win any arguments even when they are clearly in the right. There should be a Trump sticker next to all those high gas prices because Trump literally negotiated that OPEC cut oil prices early in the pandemic and when everything roared back to life they still haven’t opened up production again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Special Report: Trump told Saudi: Cut oil supply or lose U.S. military support - sources
> 
> 
> By Timothy Gardner, Steve Holland, Dmitry Zhdannikov and Rania El Gamal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


That pre-supposes the average American understands economics to know why prices are up. Obama could have negotiated that OPEC supply cut, and most Americans would still have blamed Trump for the increase if he were in office when it happened. 

Honestly, Trump is a pretty savvy charlatan, but one of the things I'm still a little dumbfounded he did, that I think probably hurt him more than is widely realized, was the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Yes, it lowered taxes for most Americans, particularly those who didn't live in blue states with high state and local taxes where the SALT cap hurt more than it did (by design) in red states. But, because it also raised the threshold at which point it made sense to itemize pretty significantly, most Americans may have paid lower taxes, but got lower _refunds_ than they had in prior years as well. And no one remembers how much they paid in taxes last year, but I bet every single one of you remember roughly what your refund check was. 

I don't want to beat the point into the ground, but American behavior makes a lot more sense if you focus on the immediate financial trigger as an impetus, and not the bigger, more nuanced picture, you know?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> That pre-supposes the average American understands economics to know why prices are up. Obama could have negotiated that OPEC supply cut, and most Americans would still have blamed Trump for the increase if he were in office when it happened.
> 
> Honestly, Trump is a pretty savvy charlatan, but one of the things I'm still a little dumbfounded he did, that I think probably hurt him more than is widely realized, was the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Yes, it lowered taxes for most Americans, particularly those who didn't live in blue states with high state and local taxes where the SALT cap hurt more than it did (by design) in red states. But, because it also raised the threshold at which point it made sense to itemize pretty significantly, most Americans may have paid lower taxes, but got lower _refunds_ than they had in prior years as well. And no one remembers how much they paid in taxes last year, but I bet every single one of you remember roughly what your refund check was.
> 
> I don't want to beat the point into the ground, but American behavior makes a lot more sense if you focus on the immediate financial trigger as an impetus, and not the bigger, more nuanced picture, you know?


Trying to follow the mindset of a group of people who voted for Trump, in order to "stick it to" the politicians for selling their votes to businessmen, might be a little logically futile.

The American people have done a lot of really dumb things, which was kind of my point above. Individually, people seem smart, but get a group of more than 20 or so people, and you suddenly have a mob, which behaves in ways that anyone with half a mind instantly recognizes as self-destructive. Democracy is great, but congress voted for the Iraq War based on the WMD claim, even as the UN inspectors who had just been in Iraq 2 months prior said that, without a doubt, Iraq had no nuclear program. Even after it became clear that the executive administration had manipulated intelligence to falsely convince people that Iraq had a nuclear program, the American people re-elected that administration by a majority popular vote.

People make mistakes, and groups of people tend to make groups of mistakes, often even after they are left with no option but to acknowledge that the path they started down was a mistake...

But here we are at a point where one political party in particular, and one of the mainstream ones, not one of the weird boot-on-head ones, is willing to openly embrace disproven misinformation to justify its future decisions in order to save face for its past blunders. There's no love for Nixon, because when he was caught doing illegal stuff, he took responsibility. When Trump gets caught doing illegal stuff, his allies and even his casual followers will deny any wrongdoing and just stick to the story no matter how ridiculous it looks around the facts.


----------



## TimmyPage

bostjan said:


> There's no love for Nixon, because when he was caught doing illegal stuff, he took responsibility. When Trump gets caught doing illegal stuff, his allies and even his casual followers will deny any wrongdoing and just stick to the story no matter how ridiculous it looks around the facts.


It's interesting bringing up Nixon in this discussion too, because it was that event that lead Roger Ailes to create Fox News.

He wanted to create a "conservative alternative" to the news (i.e., a propaganda network) to ensure that what happened to Nixon could never happen to another conservative leader. Looking at how Trump seems to have gotten away scot-free, I'd say that Ailes succeeded.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


>




What the actual ef?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


>



Next time some Fox News mainliner starts spouting off about Joe's stuttering, this shit's getting shoved down their throat.


----------



## Randy

A reminder that she's the love child of her mother and first cousin.


----------



## Crungy

She is such a fucking cunt, my God. Her and Marjorie. Send those fucks to the moon.


----------



## Crungy

Randy said:


> A reminder that she's the love child of her mother and first cousin.


Whaaaaat?


----------



## nightflameauto

Crungy said:


> She is such a fucking cunt, my God. Her and Marjorie. Send those fucks to the moon.


Not far enough. We may have a population on the moon at some point. I'd hate for those folks to be stuck with the two thundercunts even as corpses.


----------



## Xaios

Crungy said:


> Whaaaaat?


Her campaign song really should be the Deliverance banjo theme.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> Her campaign song really should be the Deliverance banjo theme.


Reminds me:
Why is reverse cowgirl banned in Alabama?

Cause you never turn your back on family. ba-dum, tish!


----------



## Crungy

I had no idea about her weird upbringing.... Also the moon trip for those two was meant to be without oxygen. I assumed it was implied, my bad!


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Damn Prince John strikes again!!!


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


>



I'm gonna have to go ahead and call this a "failed talking point."


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> A reminder that she's the love child of her mother and first cousin.


And married the guy who exposed himself to her teenage friends (and possibly her) at a bowling alley.

And whose restaurant gave a few dozen food poisoning from an unlicensed pop-up at a Rodeo, from improperly handling pork, according to the county health "outbreak report".

I know a lot of people shit on her because she only recently got her GED, but I see that as a *good* thing, and wouldn't want someone on "my" side to be ridiculed for similar...because there's so much more to hater her for.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> And married the guy who exposed himself to her teenage friends (and possibly her) at a bowling alley.
> 
> And whose restaurant gave a few dozen food poisoning from an unlicensed pop-up at a Rodeo, from improperly handling pork, according to the county health "outbreak report".
> 
> I know a lot of people shit on her because she only recently got her GED, but I see that as a *good* thing, and wouldn't want someone on "my" side to be ridiculed for similar...because there's so much more to hater her for.


I'm with ya on that count. When somebody does something positive, even if it's late in life? Cool.

It's not like there's a shortage of other shit to complain about.


----------



## tedtan

Now Russia has cut off power to Chernobyl which prevents the water that circulates to cool the rods from actually being able to circulate. It’s supposedly safe for 2/3 weeks, but could still overheat and go back into meltdown again.

EDIT: Reuters is reporting that it may have been damaged in a firefight rather than cut by Russia.


----------



## thebeesknees22

tedtan said:


> Now Russia has cut off power to Chernobyl which prevents the water that circulates to cool the rods from actually being able to circulate. It’s supposedly safe for 2/3 weeks, but could still overheat and go back into meltdown again.


-_______-

they really are trying their damndest to make Ukraine into a nuclear wasteland between then and shooting at the other one.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Now Russia has cut off power to Chernobyl which prevents the water that circulates to cool the rods from actually being able to circulate. It’s supposedly safe for 2/3 weeks, but could still overheat and go back into meltdown again.


Boy, we really are making everything go back to the way it was during the Soviet era, now with another Chernobyl disaster!

Maybe this is the "special" part of the special military operation. The "operation" part will come when, years from now, anyone who was near Ukraine, especially those in the Russian army, has to get their tumor removed. 

How many people out there are predicting that this is how the international community comes to intervene?

Seriously, if you start blowing radioactive fallout all over Europe, how are other countries _*not*_ going to get involved?!


----------



## tedtan

Meant to post that in the Will Russia Invade thread, but yeah, this cold be bad. Or the reason other countries get involved. Or both.


----------



## AMOS

TimmyPage said:


> It's interesting bringing up Nixon in this discussion too, because it was that event that lead Roger Ailes to create Fox News.
> 
> He wanted to create a "conservative alternative" to the news (i.e., a propaganda network) to ensure that what happened to Nixon could never happen to another conservative leader. Looking at how Trump seems to have gotten away scot-free, I'd say that Ailes succeeded.


Before Fox News, everything out there was biased towards the left, Brokaw, Jennings and Rather all admitted that. Stories like the Solyndra scandal were given the absolute minimum air time because they didn't want the American people to know that Obama just screwed over the tax payers. That's just the tip of the iceberg. And yes, Fox is as biased as the rest of them, but it makes sense that they should be. Balance of power.


----------



## JSanta

AMOS said:


> Before Fox News, everything out there was biased towards the left, Brokaw, Jennings and Rather all admitted that. Stories like the Solyndra scandal were given the absolute minimum air time because they didn't want the American people to know that Obama just screwed over the tax payers. That's just the tip of the iceberg. And yes, Fox is as biased as the rest of them, but it makes sense that they should be. Balance of power.



That's not what a balance of power is. The fact that there are "news" stations that are purely left or right propaganda is the real issue. As soon as the Reagan administration stripped away the fairness doctrine, there hasn't been a such thing as "balanced" in the MSM. It's all biased propaganda BS that serves the purpose of dividing people.


----------



## AMOS

JSanta said:


> That's not what a balance of power is. The fact that there are "news" stations that are purely left or right propaganda is the real issue. As soon as the Reagan administration stripped away the fairness doctrine, there hasn't been a such thing as "balanced" in the MSM. It's all biased propaganda BS that serves the purpose of dividing people.


True, for those that choose to watch it. For 90% of the people I'd say the division is working. But since we DO have biased network and cable news, there needs to be a balance, as opposed to the bias being one sided.


----------



## AMOS

This is a good article on the Fairness Doctrine, doesn't sound like it was fair after all..


https://www.cato.org/blog/internet-regulation-fairness


----------



## spudmunkey

AMOS said:


> This is a good article on the Fairness Doctrine, doesn't sound like it was fair after all..
> 
> 
> https://www.cato.org/blog/internet-regulation-fairness


And in fairness, it's worth noting that Cato Institute's original name was Charles Koch Foundation, and its primary mission is "less government regulation".


----------



## ArtDecade




----------



## tedtan

Keep in mind that Fox has been sued over statements their talking heads have made and their defense, in court, was, and I’m paraphrasing, that “this is obvious hyperbole and exaggeration, no one would believe this is, in fact, actually true even though we said it is on air”.

That’s not balance, it’s pandering to delusional people lacking the critical thinking skills to differentiate reality from fiction. I don’t mean to insult their entire viewership; I’m sure some of them take Fox’s reporting with a grain of salt. But the January 6th folks, Breitbart, OAN, etc. certainly prove that a portion of the right wing, and Fox’s viewership, is actually delusional enough to believe Fox’s BS.


----------



## AMOS

tedtan said:


> Keep in mind that Fox has been sued over statements their talking heads have made and their defense, in court, was, and I’m paraphrasing, that “this is obvious hyperbole and exaggeration, no one would believe this is, in fact, actually true even though we said it is on air”.
> 
> That’s not balance, it’s pandering to delusional people lacking the critical thinking skills to differentiate reality from fiction. I don’t mean to insult their entire viewership; I’m sure some of them take Fox’s reporting with a grain of salt. But the January 6th folks, Breitbart, OAN, etc. certainly prove that a portion of the right wing, and Fox’s viewership, is actually delusional enough to believe Fox’s BS.


Don't forget there's plenty of delusional people that believe everything they hear on MSNBC or CNN, it works both ways dude.


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> Don't forget there's plenty of delusional people that believe everything they hear on MSNBC or CNN, it works both ways dude.


I agree that you have to take their editorial content with a grain or two of salt. And I’ll admit that there are right leaning media sources that don’t show much bias (The Wall Street Journal as one example).

The key difference is that CNN and MSNBC don’t invent their own facts like Fox, and when they do get something factually incorrect they retract it whereas Fox either ignores their mistake or continues reporting it as if it were true.

Here is a pic I took of the media bias chart from Ad Fontes Media. Note how much further to the right and further down Fox is that CNN is to the left.


----------



## iamaom

tedtan said:


> Here is a pic


As much as I hate horsehose theory it blows my mind how some far-left subcultures like Chapo are somehow against the Ukraine defending themselves and quasi-pro-Putin just to stick it to the libs and NATO.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> I agree that you have to take their editorial content with a grain or two of salt. And I’ll admit that there are right leaning media sources that don’t show much bias (The Wall Street Journal as one example).
> 
> The key difference is that CNN and MSNBC don’t invent their own facts like Fox, and when they do get something factually incorrect they retract it whereas Fox either ignores their mistake or continues reporting it as if it were true.
> 
> Here is a pic I took of the media bias chart from Ad Fontes Media. Note how much further to the right and further down Fox is that CNN is to the left.
> 
> View attachment 104338



These fools forgot The Economist, how can anyone take them seriously after that?


----------



## ArtDecade

Adieu said:


> These fools forgot The Economist, how can anyone take them seriously after that?



It is just buried a bit....


----------



## Adieu

ArtDecade said:


> It is just buried a bit....
> 
> 
> View attachment 104380



Less reliable than CBS and ABC? Like, American ABC? Whaaaat?


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Don't forget there's plenty of delusional people that believe everything they hear on MSNBC or CNN, it works both ways dude.


TBH, the degree to which "the mainstream media is biased," particularly by the sort of people who are fond about abbreviating it MSM, is maybe a bit overstated. 

"Mainstream" news sources like the New York Times and CNN and the Washington Post are generally pretty factually accurate, largely because they have to be - running stories they know to be factually inaccurate exposes them to libel lawsuits, and "mainstream" news sources tend to be pretty well funded so if you can prove in a court of law that The New York Times ran a story about you that they know, or increasingly, should have known, was inaccurate, there's a lot of money to be made suing them. Small grassroot blog or podcast style news sources meanwhile, it's going to cost more than you can recoup to sue, so it's hard to justiofry more than a cease and desist order, and accordingly indie news can afford to take chances with journallistic integrity - I'm not saying "lie," just maybe hold themselves to a somewhat lower journalistic standard - that an established company like the Times and the Wall Street Journal can't afford to take. @tedtan's comment on the other page is kind of telling here - Fox is as close to a "mainstream" source as you get on the right, and when they have been sued, they've tried to take the same defense Alex Jones did at Infowars - "I'm just an entertainer, no one could have possibly believed what I said." And, even there, the Fox news reporting desk isn't _that_ bad and is generally pretty technially accurate, it's their editorial desk that's batshit crazy, it's just that _most_ content at Fox ends up being editorial. 

That's kind of a sqgue into one of the two ways I'd say mayube they are a little biased though - the Fox news desk - and, in different directions, the Times and CNN news desks - are maybe "biased" a little in the editorial filter they applyt while choosing what stories they choose to run. A buddy was talking about this earlier today, when for kicks he logged onto Fox. CNN was talking about Russian convoys continuing their advance in Ukraine. Fox's headline story was about a "spat" between Kamala Harris and a Polish diplomat about US fighter jets. IMO Fox is probably the most heavy handed of the "established" news desks in this respect - I also remember when the Mueller investigation broke pretty much every news service was running the appiontment of a special prosecutor as their top news story, and Fox was running some fluff peice about something the Trump administration had done that they were favorable toward, and buried that story. The Comey Letter, meanwhile, made ALL of their headline stories. 

The other way is a little more subtle - national journalists, left AND right leaning, tend to be located in major urban areas, and in particular political journalists tend to be in the Beltway. There's a little bit of this "beltway consensus" that journalists tend to assume is widespread - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro business but also pro same sex marriage, etc etc etc, that, because this is a pretty common view in THEIR circles, they tend to assume is widespread, even thoiiugh it probably isn't. This gives a lot of "establishment" media a, well, more "establishment" bent than it might otherwise have, particularly in editorial content but to a lesser extenty also present in the "editorial filter" used to determine what stories to run. The upshot is "mainstream media" is probably a bit more moderate than tyypical for Americans on either side of the political divide, and tends to be too quick to see potential for a moderate consensus that isn't really there. 

But for the most part, most accusations that "the MSM is biased" are driven by the media reporting factually accurate stories that are inconvenient to the right, with a secondary impact being, well, it's just good marketing if you're a startup independent online news source being run on a shoestring budget and desperate for ad revenue, to convince your viewers that "those other guys" are all lying to you, and "we're the only ones you can trust," to ensure a captive audience.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> TBH, the degree to which "the mainstream media is biased," particularly by the sort of people who are fond about abbreviating it MSM, is maybe a bit overstated.
> 
> "Mainstream" news sources like the New York Times and CNN and the Washington Post are generally pretty factually accurate, largely because they have to be - running stories they know to be factually inaccurate exposes them to libel lawsuits, and "mainstream" news sources tend to be pretty well funded so if you can prove in a court of law that The New York Times ran a story about you that they know, or increasingly, should have known, was inaccurate, there's a lot of money to be made suing them. Small grassroot blog or podcast style news sources meanwhile, it's going to cost more than you can recoup to sue, so it's hard to justiofry more than a cease and desist order, and accordingly indie news can afford to take chances with journallistic integrity - I'm not saying "lie," just maybe hold themselves to a somewhat lower journalistic standard - that an established company like the Times and the Wall Street Journal can't afford to take. @tedtan's comment on the other page is kind of telling here - Fox is as close to a "mainstream" source as you get on the right, and when they have been sued, they've tried to take the same defense Alex Jones did at Infowars - "I'm just an entertainer, no one could have possibly believed what I said." And, even there, the Fox news reporting desk isn't _that_ bad and is generally pretty technially accurate, it's their editorial desk that's batshit crazy, it's just that _most_ content at Fox ends up being editorial.
> 
> That's kind of a sqgue into one of the two ways I'd say mayube they are a little biased though - the Fox news desk - and, in different directions, the Times and CNN news desks - are maybe "biased" a little in the editorial filter they applyt while choosing what stories they choose to run. A buddy was talking about this earlier today, when for kicks he logged onto Fox. CNN was talking about Russian convoys continuing their advance in Ukraine. Fox's headline story was about a "spat" between Kamala Harris and a Polish diplomat about US fighter jets. IMO Fox is probably the most heavy handed of the "established" news desks in this respect - I also remember when the Mueller investigation broke pretty much every news service was running the appiontment of a special prosecutor as their top news story, and Fox was running some fluff peice about something the Trump administration had done that they were favorable toward, and buried that story. The Comey Letter, meanwhile, made ALL of their headline stories.
> 
> The other way is a little more subtle - national journalists, left AND right leaning, tend to be located in major urban areas, and in particular political journalists tend to be in the Beltway. There's a little bit of this "beltway consensus" that journalists tend to assume is widespread - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro business but also pro same sex marriage, etc etc etc, that, because this is a pretty common view in THEIR circles, they tend to assume is widespread, even thoiiugh it probably isn't. This gives a lot of "establishment" media a, well, more "establishment" bent than it might otherwise have, particularly in editorial content but to a lesser extenty also present in the "editorial filter" used to determine what stories to run. The upshot is "mainstream media" is probably a bit more moderate than tyypical for Americans on either side of the political divide, and tends to be too quick to see potential for a moderate consensus that isn't really there.
> 
> But for the most part, most accusations that "the MSM is biased" are driven by the media reporting factually accurate stories that are inconvenient to the right, with a secondary impact being, well, it's just good marketing if you're a startup independent online news source being run on a shoestring budget and desperate for ad revenue, to convince your viewers that "those other guys" are all lying to you, and "we're the only ones you can trust," to ensure a captive audience.



Bro, careful, *that* much dash usage could get you outed as a Russian


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Drew said:


> TBH, the degree to which "the mainstream media is biased," particularly by the sort of people who are fond about abbreviating it MSM, is maybe a bit overstated.
> 
> "Mainstream" news sources like the New York Times and CNN and the Washington Post are generally pretty factually accurate, largely because they have to be - running stories they know to be factually inaccurate exposes them to libel lawsuits, and "mainstream" news sources tend to be pretty well funded so if you can prove in a court of law that The New York Times ran a story about you that they know, or increasingly, should have known, was inaccurate, there's a lot of money to be made suing them. Small grassroot blog or podcast style news sources meanwhile, it's going to cost more than you can recoup to sue, so it's hard to justiofry more than a cease and desist order, and accordingly indie news can afford to take chances with journallistic integrity - I'm not saying "lie," just maybe hold themselves to a somewhat lower journalistic standard - that an established company like the Times and the Wall Street Journal can't afford to take. @tedtan's comment on the other page is kind of telling here - Fox is as close to a "mainstream" source as you get on the right, and when they have been sued, they've tried to take the same defense Alex Jones did at Infowars - "I'm just an entertainer, no one could have possibly believed what I said." And, even there, the Fox news reporting desk isn't _that_ bad and is generally pretty technially accurate, it's their editorial desk that's batshit crazy, it's just that _most_ content at Fox ends up being editorial.
> 
> That's kind of a sqgue into one of the two ways I'd say mayube they are a little biased though - the Fox news desk - and, in different directions, the Times and CNN news desks - are maybe "biased" a little in the editorial filter they applyt while choosing what stories they choose to run. A buddy was talking about this earlier today, when for kicks he logged onto Fox. CNN was talking about Russian convoys continuing their advance in Ukraine. Fox's headline story was about a "spat" between Kamala Harris and a Polish diplomat about US fighter jets. IMO Fox is probably the most heavy handed of the "established" news desks in this respect - I also remember when the Mueller investigation broke pretty much every news service was running the appiontment of a special prosecutor as their top news story, and Fox was running some fluff peice about something the Trump administration had done that they were favorable toward, and buried that story. The Comey Letter, meanwhile, made ALL of their headline stories.
> 
> The other way is a little more subtle - national journalists, left AND right leaning, tend to be located in major urban areas, and in particular political journalists tend to be in the Beltway. There's a little bit of this "beltway consensus" that journalists tend to assume is widespread - socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro business but also pro same sex marriage, etc etc etc, that, because this is a pretty common view in THEIR circles, they tend to assume is widespread, even thoiiugh it probably isn't. This gives a lot of "establishment" media a, well, more "establishment" bent than it might otherwise have, particularly in editorial content but to a lesser extenty also present in the "editorial filter" used to determine what stories to run. The upshot is "mainstream media" is probably a bit more moderate than tyypical for Americans on either side of the political divide, and tends to be too quick to see potential for a moderate consensus that isn't really there.
> 
> But for the most part, most accusations that "the MSM is biased" are driven by the media reporting factually accurate stories that are inconvenient to the right, with a secondary impact being, well, it's just good marketing if you're a startup independent online news source being run on a shoestring budget and desperate for ad revenue, to convince your viewers that "those other guys" are all lying to you, and "we're the only ones you can trust," to ensure a captive audience.



Top notch post.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Randy




----------



## spudmunkey

To clarify: "would absolutely get involved in 2024 primary fight to defeat trump...in 2026, when his next book is due."


----------



## narad

Randy said:


>




Who's right?


----------



## SpaceDock

Srs question, I was always taught inflation was controlled by the Fed who are independent of the government. Why do we blame the current administration for inflation when the Fed is responsible for the interest rates which are the primary controller of inflation?


----------



## profwoot

SpaceDock said:


> Srs question, I was always taught inflation was controlled by the Fed who are independent of the government. Why do we blame the current administration for inflation when the Fed is responsible for the interest rates which are the primary controller of inflation?


Because americans are simple and think the president is responsible for literally everything that happens in the world (or find it useful to frame it thus for propagandizing the simpletons).


----------



## StevenC

SpaceDock said:


> Srs question, I was always taught inflation was controlled by the Fed who are independent of the government. Why do we blame the current administration for inflation when the Fed is responsible for the interest rates which are the primary controller of inflation?


I don't know, but will take a stab at it. I'm sure Drew will show up to give the right answer shortly.

I would guess because there are two factors to inflation. Inflation is really just supply and demand. The Fed adjusts interests rates to reduce the amount of money in the system. This increases the value of a dollar by decreasing the supply. However if there is, for example, a chip shortage in a marketplace where every product requires chips the price of a chip is going to increase because people still need chips. So if last year a chip cost $0.10 and now costs $0.11 the price has gone up 10% and devalued the dollar relative to that chip.

I believe the purpose of the Federal Reserve is to use interest rates in reaction to, or anticipation of, inflation to keep things from getting out of hand.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Regardless of cause, the Biden administration's "so what" attitude towards the millions of Americans who are taking the brunt of this is pretty shitty.


----------



## IwantTacos

dems had one job. Prevent trump 2.0. One job. One job.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I don't see any way in hell that ANY democrat will take the presidency in 2024. And not that Joe will run again, but 100% he is done after this term... absolutely no question that he's done. And unless something miraculous happens to curb inflation and stabilize the economy ( and even then) I simply do not see that democrats stand a chance... not AOC, not Newsom, not Bernie, etc, etc. Still a lot of time till then but I just don't see it happening at this point.


----------



## Adieu

High Plains Drifter said:


> I don't see any way in hell that ANY democrat will take the presidency in 2024. And not that Joe will run again, but 100% he is done after this term... absolutely no question that he's done. And unless something miraculous happens to curb inflation and stabilize the economy ( and even then) I simply do not see that democrats stand a chance... not AOC, not Newsom, not Bernie, etc, etc. Still a lot of time till then but I just don't see it happening at this point.



Well...maybe if he sent a SEAL team to murder Putin. Successfully.


----------



## Randy

High Plains Drifter said:


> I don't see any way in hell that ANY democrat will take the presidency in 2024. And not that Joe will run again, but 100% he is done after this term... absolutely no question that he's done. And unless something miraculous happens to curb inflation and stabilize the economy ( and even then) I simply do not see that democrats stand a chance... not AOC, not Newsom, not Bernie, etc, etc. Still a lot of time till then but I just don't see it happening at this point.


Not going to reference any specific names here but (speaking as someone who's worked on political campaigns a number of times), I've long held that the key to winning is pitching voters on your vision of a better life for them. 

Biden was maybe the most successful reactionary-type campaign I've ever seen, which is testament at how bad a president Trump was and how much he wore people out on his brand.

The reason a Dem isn't going to win in 2024 is that they need to be out there today pitching their vision of a better America, but that would be a direct attack on sitting president in their own party and they'd lose half the party because of that alone. 9 out of 10 chance the Dem candidate in 2024 is going to be promotion from within, which means their campaign is going to have to be built on rewriting history to try and shift perception of stuff people know is not true. You don't win votes on "things are better than you think they are".


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> Not going to reference any specific names here but (speaking as someone who's worked on political campaigns a number of times), I've long held that the key to winning is pitching voters on your vision of a better life for them.
> 
> Biden was maybe the most successful reactionary-type campaign I've ever seen, which is testament at how bad a president Trump was and how much he wore people out on his brand.
> 
> The reason a Dem isn't going to win in 2024 is that they need to be out there today pitching their vision of a better America, but that would be a direct attack on sitting president in their own party and they'd lose half the party because of that alone. 9 out of 10 chance the Dem candidate in 2024 is going to be promotion from within, which means their campaign is going to have to be built on rewriting history to try and shift perception of stuff people know is not true. You don't win votes on "things are better than you think they are".



Idk

The Republican party has done fairly well on the "let's preserve the status quo for religious white people" platform

All you need is a good solid boogeyman to sell the status quo as a tough-to-reach dream

Btw, I'm pretty sure the midget currently blowing stuff up in Europe works just fine... true, I'm hoping he won't live that long, but surely there's a way to spin that regardless


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Adieu said:


> Well...maybe if he sent a SEAL team to murder Putin. Successfully.



But what I see ( and disclaimer... it's just a tiny slice of the day to day in my little neck of the woods) is that there are a lot of Americans that simply do not care about Russia, about Ukraine, about potential chemical or nuclear warfare, about death and destruction outside of the US. We saw so much of this mentality throughout the trump presidency and throughout the pandemic. So many people only care about things that [they perceive] are directly and immediately affecting them. Anything else that happens in this world... is all "lalala I can't hear it/ I can't see it... it doesn't affect me". I don't like that this is what I see but it is. I think that dems are done.


----------



## SpaceDock

MaxOfMetal said:


> Regardless of cause, the Biden administration's "so what" attitude towards the millions of Americans who are taking the brunt of this is pretty shitty.


Tell me what they should be doing. I see a lot of what’s happening as a result of the larger capitalist system. In my own company we had 4.5% growth but a target of 6% so the stock didn’t do as well so the response is to raise all prices 12%. I think we are seeing a lot of this, company wants more money not because they aren’t doing well but because they always need more and the free market says charge what you can until the market won’t pay it.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Idk
> 
> The Republican party has done fairly well on the "let's preserve the status quo for religious white people" platform
> 
> All you need is a good solid boogeyman to sell the status quo as a tough-to-reach dream
> 
> Btw, I'm pretty sure the midget currently blowing stuff up in Europe works just fine... true, I'm hoping he won't live that long, but surely there's a way to spin that regardless


"Make America Great Again" was still technically a visionary statement. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden's campaigns were both principally "I'm not Donald Trump"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> Tell me what they should be doing. I see a lot of what’s happening as a result of the larger capitalist system. In my own company we had 4.5% growth but a target of 6% so the stock didn’t do as well so the response is to raise all prices 12%. I think we are seeing a lot of this, company wants more money not because they aren’t doing well but because they always need more and the free market says charge what you can until the market won’t pay it.



A larger system _that they're currently somewhat in charge of. _


----------



## Adieu

High Plains Drifter said:


> But what I see ( and disclaimer... it's just a tiny slice of the day to day in my little neck of the woods) is that there are a lot of Americans that simply do not care about Russia, about Ukraine, about potential chemical or nuclear warfare, about death and destruction outside of the US. We saw so much of this mentality throughout the trump presidency and throughout the pandemic. So many people only care about things that [they perceive] are directly and immediately affecting them. Anything else that happens in this world... is all "lalala I can't hear it/ I can't see it... it doesn't affect me". I don't like that this is what I see but it is. I think that dems are done.



That's why I said SEAL team.

America loves to watch America unilaterally kick somebody's distant azz on television.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Randy said:


> Not going to reference any specific names here but (speaking as someone who's worked on political campaigns a number of times), I've long held that the key to winning is pitching voters on your vision of a better life for them.
> 
> Biden was maybe the most successful reactionary-type campaign I've ever seen, which is testament at how bad a president Trump was and how much he wore people out on his brand.
> 
> The reason a Dem isn't going to win in 2024 is that they need to be out there today pitching their vision of a better America, but that would be a direct attack on sitting president in their own party and they'd lose half the party because of that alone. 9 out of 10 chance the Dem candidate in 2024 is going to be promotion from within, which means their campaign is going to have to be built on rewriting history to try and shift perception of stuff people know is not true. You don't win votes on "things are better than you think they are".



You're not wrong. I voted for Biden primarily out of fear of another trump term. I never felt that Joe had much of any substance and I certainly didn't feel that he was up to the challenge of trying to salvage much of anything that trump had destroyed... including the hatred that trump gleefully incited and/ or enabled. I once ignorantly felt that we'd get over this pandemic and that it would be seen as a victory for Biden but even that wound up as another politicized division in the US. Now with inflation taking center stage... dems is cooked... regardless of how anything plays out on the world stage.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> That's why I said SEAL team.
> 
> America loves to watch America unilaterally kick somebody's distant azz on television.


We need American Gladiators back in the air. Then that angst can be satiated and we don't need it played out in a military conflict.


----------



## nightflameauto

I think Biden is demonstrating a staid principal that all politicians have in the last few days. When the going gets tough, they tell everybody else to hunker down and embrace the pain, while they eat caviar and sip champagne with their major donors.

I said it when I voted for him as a protest against Trump and his "principals" and I'm sure I'll say it many more times, but Fuck Joe Biden. And both major political parties for that matter. Neither of them offers anything more than platitudes to the American public, and all any of us can do is vote for the lesser of the two evils next time they give us a chance.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Srs question, I was always taught inflation was controlled by the Fed who are independent of the government. Why do we blame the current administration for inflation when the Fed is responsible for the interest rates which are the primary controller of inflation?


Good question. 

It's not entirely fair to say inflation is "controlled" by the Fed, since that suggests a degree of control that they (IMO) don't have over it. But, they are independent, and they have two primary objectives - manage the monetary supply with an eye on promoting 1) price stability (read: low, predictable inflation, in practice a 2% target), and 2) maxinum employment. 

Keeping this short since I'm at the end of my lunch break, but I can point to at least three things causing inflation right now. 

1) pent-up consumer demand after the pandemic, fueled in part by record-high fiscal stimulus in the form of those $2k checks and enhanced pandemic unemployment benefits, and augmented by unusually high savings rates during the pandemic. Consumers had a LOT of cash to spend, and had much ability to spend it for a while. This was the initial reason the Fed expected "transitory" (which has a very specific definition in Fed-speak, basically any inflation that ISN'T a wage-price spiral) inflation. 
2) Supply chain issues keeping output below where it would otherwise be. This was supposed to end fairly quickly and by late summer we should have been returning to normal output... except, then the pandemic didn't actually end, and we got delta and omicron. This depressed demand, particularly for services, to a certain extent (though that in turn boosted goods demand higher than it night have otherwise been, since there was so little services spending going on), but also kept supply chain issues in place far longer than anyone expected. That, however, would be turning the corner right about now, if it wasn't for...
3) War in Ukraine. Russia is responsible for something like 11% of the world's oil production, so right off the bat we have a surge in oil prices as supply is constrained. They're also one of the top producers of wheat in the world (between Russia and Ukraine, 20% of the world's wheat supply), aluminum, and a few other major commodities (I want to say either Russia or Ukraine is a major nickel producer as well, as I know that market has been a mess). So, take large chunks of global supply in a lot of critical commodities, and prices jump. How long this goes on will depend on how long war goes on, and what thre aftermath looks like. 

The first source, honestly, if you want to attack politicians for anything related to inflation, it's here. Fiscal stimulus is AWFULLY hard to get right, so it's tough to be too critical, but the Trump and Biden administrations weren't too targeted in their direct transfer payments. I think the right may have overblown the argument that the fact in certain cases people were able to make more money staying home and collecting PUA benefits than going to work resulted in the labor force shrinking - I mean, in some ways, that was a desired outcome, in a pandemic - but one side effect of that was people suddenly had a lot more money coming in than they were used to, and with not much to spend it on, a lot of that was put aside in savings accounts and, when the economy started to reopen, turned into a rush of consumer spending. Retail sales, in nominal terms, tracks rather tighhtly with the inflation rate in the second half of the year, and that's not a coincidence. 

The second source, we simply failed to beat Covid. It evolved faster than we could stamp it out. Biden declared victory too early, yeah, and that's embarrassing... but Delta and omicron were going to appen anyway. The Fed projected "transitory" inflation ending quickly after the end of the pandemic. the part they got wrong, IMO, wasnt the "transitory" part, it was the pandemic ending part. 

The third, well, that's on Putin. Worse, it's a supply shock, and supply shocks are by their bery nature stagflationary - prices rise to a fresh equiliberum on a reduced supply, with means prices rise (inflation) while output falls. Best case we get a slowdown in growth and causes 1 and 2 abate on their own (as they were expected to) and war-relates inflation remains higher but core inflation (ex food and energy) returns back towards the Fed's 2% target. Worst case, growth slows enough that we tip into recession. 

But to answer your question literally, we blame the current administrtion for inflation because no one likes inflation, and the GOP thinks they can use inflation as a wedge issue to convince voters to vote the Democrats out, and are just hoping that inflation gets back down to normal levels right around the time they get to Washington. Otherwise, they'll keep blaming the Democrats for the inflation they too can't do much about, and hope voters' memories are that long.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The reason a Dem isn't going to win in 2024 is that they need to be out there today pitching their vision of a better America, but that would be a direct attack on sitting president in their own party and they'd lose half the party because of that alone. 9 out of 10 chance the Dem candidate in 2024 is going to be promotion from within, which means their campaign is going to have to be built on rewriting history to try and shift perception of stuff people know is not true. You don't win votes on "things are better than you think they are".


There's a very narrow path forward I think here, though I suspect in practive it's too narrow to be useful. 

Run on the belief that the Democrats' platform is a bunch of good policy ideas that would help working Americans, but that they haven't been able to pass anything because they're stymied at every turn by Republicans, who want to sell out honest, hardworking Americans for corporate profit. 

It's not entirely true - the GOP doesn't want to sell out hardworking americans for corporate greed, they just want to block the Democrats so they can call them a do-nothing party and get elected. And the first part is at least more complex than I'm giving it credit for - the progressive wing would argue the problem isn't the GOP, it's moderates like Manchin not getting on board wiht the Biden administration (though you're well aware that I disagree and think if we had a 52 or 53 vote Senate majority and a margin of 15-20 votes in the House, in line with pre-election forecasts, no one would really give a shit about what Manchin wants). But, running a campain on how these policies would make American lives better, and how the GOP has been busy blocking those policies to support some bogeyman of the left - corporations, rich people, arguably even Putin here, since Trump can't stop praising the guy - and you have at least a narrow path to walk. 

Also, the redistricting process has been way less awful for the left than I'd have expected coming in - never say never. Margins of control aren't gonna get much bigger, though, i'm afraid, even if they do somehow pull it off.


----------



## neurosis

Drew said:


> There's a very narrow path forward I think here, though I suspect in practive it's too narrow to be useful.
> 
> Run on the belief that the Democrats' platform is a bunch of good policy ideas that would help working Americans, but that they haven't been able to pass anything because they're stymied at every turn by Republicans, who want to sell out honest, hardworking Americans for corporate profit.
> 
> It's not entirely true - the GOP doesn't want to sell out hardworking americans for corporate greed, they just want to block the Democrats so they can call them a do-nothing party and get elected. And the first part is at least more complex than I'm giving it credit for - the progressive wing would argue the problem isn't the GOP, it's moderates like Manchin not getting on board wiht the Biden administration (though you're well aware that I disagree and think if we had a 52 or 53 vote Senate majority and a margin of 15-20 votes in the House, in line with pre-election forecasts, no one would really give a shit about what Manchin wants). But, running a campain on how these policies would make American lives better, and how the GOP has been busy blocking those policies to support some bogeyman of the left - corporations, rich people, arguably even Putin here, since Trump can't stop praising the guy - and you have at least a narrow path to walk.
> 
> Also, the redistricting process has been way less awful for the left than I'd have expected coming in - never say never. Margins of control aren't gonna get much bigger, though, i'm afraid, even if they do somehow pull it off.



I am not fluent in American politics as an immigrant. The way I perceive it though is that Republicans are making leaps in conquering the position that they are for the worker and the family while Democrats are diluted egomaniacs "who want to sell out honest, hardworking Americans" for their own benefit.

I think people greatly underestimate the impact the last election had on the overall perspective people have on politics. Trump endorsing the Republican Party as an outsider shifted the perception voters had of it from exclusively conservative value oriented to a more vague definition of what truth and law mean. It is complicated to articulate but the Republican Party works hard to establish opinions as truth (notice it's not about facts but rather belief and conviction) while the democrats are painted as erratic, unproductive, indecisive spendthrifts.

Both parties speak of division. What's interesting is to look at the winning platforms and draw the line to the overall sentiment in the public. In my opinion democrats are out of touch and don't connect. Republicans know to connect with the most simple emotional spectrum even if they're deceitful.

If you look at the platform slogans/messaging (that I remember) you can see a pattern. he platforms that win convince Americans of their greatness and have a wider mass appeal. In my opinion the big loss of the Hillary campaign was how self involved it was that even the stupid slogan emphasized "being with her" vs. being for America. Sorry I can't explain it more articulately but that's my overall impression. The democrats need to establish that they are for America and will work their ass off with a little trust. Anything that prioritizes what is perceived as niche goals or shakes the cultural war tree is going to set them back. And I am specifically talking election, not what I personally believe should very much be priorities that actually have a positive effect in the society we live in.

Clinton

Putting People First
Building a Bridge to the 21st Century

Bush

Real Plans for Real People
Yes, America Can!

Obama

Yes We Can!
Forward


Trump

Make America Great Again

Biden

Build Back Better

Notice how all these slogans implicitly appeal to the sentiment of being American. it leaves enough room for interpretation to identify. And they all share an Americans first focus, they just get at it in different ways. They all relay how voting for them will have a positive effect and unite.


----------



## Drew

neurosis said:


> I think people greatly underestimate the impact the last election had on the overall perspective people have on politics. Trump endorsing the Republican Party as an outsider shifted the perception voters had of it from exclusively conservative value oriented to a more vague definition of what truth and law mean. It is complicated to articulate but the Republican Party works hard to establish opinions as truth (notice it's not about facts but rather belief and conviction) while the democrats are painted as erratic, unproductive, indecisive spendthrifts.


Lots of great points here, and I agree with a LOT of what you have to say. And, I think you're correctly gleaning a lot of what Randy was talking about with the "let's make life better" theme of messaging being pretty succesful at the national level.

For the part quoted abo ve, though... I'd argue it was more Trump as an outsider hijacking the Republican party, than endorsing it - he represented a very clear demarcation between what it meant to be a Republican at the national level before 2016 and, while it's still ongoing, after 2016. The party became more white, more xenophobic, more nationalist, and more protectionist.

I'd also say maybe your characterization is backwards - that its less about establishing opinions as truth, and more about establishing truth is just an opinion. Trump's single greatest political contribution may be weaponizing "fake news" as not literally fake stories being run by Russian troll farms, but rather as a way of dismissing any news story that he just found inconvenient and didn't want to have to address, and implicitly with that the belief that "truth" was just a matter of opinion and not objective, concrete fact.

Otherwise, I'd say your grasp on American politics might be better than most. 

EDIT - I guess I'll also note that "Make America Great Again" had some pretty clear editorial filtering going on about who America should be made great _for_, though as you point out that left lots of room for interpretation on he part of whoever heard it.


----------



## bostjan

neurosis said:


> Clinton
> 
> Putting People First
> Building a Bridge to the 21st Century
> 
> Bush
> 
> Real Plans for Real People
> Yes, America Can!
> 
> Obama
> 
> Yes We Can!
> Forward
> 
> 
> Trump
> 
> Make America Great Again
> 
> Biden
> 
> Build Back Better


A lot of unfortunate irony in these.

Clinton "Putting people first" also had the administration that burned the women and children (possibly hostages) at Waco, TX, in order to catch a cult leader they didn't like.

Bush "real plans for real people" had the administration that oversaw two extended wars that were fought for fake reasons whilst a bunch of rich guys skimmed money off of the government contracts from it.

Obama "yes we can" ran the administration that promised closing gitmo and undoing a lot of the injustices Bush started, and also fix the health care crisis, only to make the excuse that the administration couldn't do that and it wasn't his fault.

Trump "make America great again" had the administration that ushered in the the covid crisis through poor planning, and was rife with election tampering, extortion, and corruption.

Biden "build back better" looks like he's about to enjoy a presidential term full of international diplomatic crises and economic stagnation. I guess we'll see how the infrastructure turns out, but, based on the track record of mottos turning out to look sarcastic in hindsight, I'm not feeling great about this one.


----------



## Adieu

American presidents aren't exactly known for excellence

Perhaps their country managing to chug along and succeed despite their flagrant mediocrity is one of the bigger testaments to the American nation


----------



## neurosis

Drew said:


> [...]
> 
> I'd also say maybe your characterization is backwards - that its less about establishing opinions as truth, and more about establishing truth is just an opinion.
> 
> [...]
> 
> EDIT - I guess I'll also note that "Make America Great Again" had some pretty clear editorial filtering going on about who America should be made great _for_, though as you point out that left lots of room for interpretation on he part of whoever heard it.


That's exactly how I meant it. I just switch out the order in which statements are compared in English. I think it's a flaw of translation. 

Totally agree that they had a very specific idea of who that America includes but as a standalone, for people standing by or not questioning the depth of the discourse it clearly worked. And for those critics of the Democratic Party and angry at the establishment, too.


----------



## neurosis

Adieu said:


> American presidents aren't exactly known for excellence
> 
> Perhaps their country managing to chug along and succeed despite their flagrant mediocrity is one of the bigger testaments to the American nation



I mean America is huge and people that care have no option other than to grind. There's no solid social guarantee to fall back on. I admire that and how easily people here get excited about ideas or plans.

That said, I feel we're in a particularly difficult era for any developed nation. I think there's a disconnect with the past. A trivialization of sorts and politicians are a product of their time. They have a narrow focus, tend to worry more about their image than the consensus they are supposed to achieve, etc... It also doesn't help that corporations have so much control over how information is distributed worldwide. People are more gullible because education is underfunded... It's all a big big mess at the moment. No wonder it's all reduced to stickers, slogans and outrage.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Biden "build back better" looks like he's about to enjoy a presidential term full of international diplomatic crises and economic stagnation. I guess we'll see how the infrastructure turns out, but, based on the track record of mottos turning out to look sarcastic in hindsight, I'm not feeling great about this one.


I was young during Waco, but I always kinda thought Koresh lit that fire? 

As far as Biden... It's going to get overshadowed by war, inflation, and the lingering Covid pandemic, but his physical infrastructure WAS pretty good, and considering the lifetime of a lot of these projects wasn't likely to be inflationary in the short to medium term (even though the right will say that it was). It was a necessary bill, and the sort of "potential bipartisan compromise" that should have been a slam dunk but had plagued the last several administrations and with the benefit of hindsight will probably be the highwater mark of the Biden administration, when early on it was looking like he was going to be an unexpectedly effective president, before his coalition imploded because the margins he had were just too narrow.


----------



## Drew

neurosis said:


> That's exactly how I meant it. I just switch out the order in which statements are compared in English. I think it's a flaw of translation.
> 
> Totally agree that they had a very specific idea of who that America includes but as a standalone, for people standing by or not questioning the depth of the discourse it clearly worked. And for those critics of the Democratic Party and angry at the establishment, too.


In that case, I'd say your grasp of American politics, at least at the "from 10,000 feet" level, is likely better than most Americans.  Excellent couple posts.


----------



## nightflameauto

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but anybody surprised by the fact that New York basically gave up their investigation and prosecution of Trump & his cohorts?

Yeah. Me neither.


----------



## spudmunkey

If I understand right, the lead prosecutors quit because their boss wanted to pull back, not because of lack of evidence, but lack of confidence that a former president could even be tried. Am I misunderstanding the situation?


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> If I understand right, the lead prosecutors quit because their boss wanted to pull back, not because of lack of evidence, but lack of confidence that a former president could even be tried. Am I misunderstanding the situation?


That's pretty much what I'd heard. New boss came in, said, "nope, peace out," the prosecutors working the case were pissed about it because they felt they had a strong case, but when the boss speaks, you're stuck doing what you're told.

So, I guess it really is true. Even if you just convince people you have the right amount of money, even if you don't actually have the money, you are above the law completely.

Pretty awesome display of the American "justice" system.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I was young during Waco, but I always kinda thought Koresh lit that fire?
> 
> As far as Biden... It's going to get overshadowed by war, inflation, and the lingering Covid pandemic, but his physical infrastructure WAS pretty good, and considering the lifetime of a lot of these projects wasn't likely to be inflationary in the short to medium term (even though the right will say that it was). It was a necessary bill, and the sort of "potential bipartisan compromise" that should have been a slam dunk but had plagued the last several administrations and with the benefit of hindsight will probably be the highwater mark of the Biden administration, when early on it was looking like he was going to be an unexpectedly effective president, before his coalition imploded because the margins he had were just too narrow.


That's what the official report said. There are several things in that same report, though, directly contradicted by live video aired on CNN at the time, for example, the report said that the Davidians opened fire first, but it's well known that the ATF shot the Davians dogs and then fired at the front door of the compound before the Davidians opened fire. Also, the three placed marked as where the fire started were exactly where the tanks had punched through the walls of the compound. That makes no sense to me. Think about it for one second, and then tell me that these guys, in a huge compound, would go right up to a tank that was smashing through a wall spraying (supposedly) tear gas, and then douse that area with accelerant, and then light it on fire right there in front of the tank. Live video on CNN showed flames appearing to shooting right out of those tanks, which the government stated was an optical illusion. Maybe it was, and maybe those people who were violently defending their families were also the ones who lit the fires and then rushed down into a bunker to slowly die of smoke inhalation despite having tons of illegal weapons and ammunition. I'd not say there isn't a reasonable doubt, but as far as a preponderance of the evidence shows, I think those people were killed by the government, probably as a result of someone loading the wrong sort of canister in the tank, and then the government covered it up.

As for Biden, I wish him the best, partly because I have no personal ill will toward him, but mainly because my destiny hinges on his success as leader. I know the president's handling of a pandemic is a complex and nuanced topic, but I am quite certain that he's done a better job than Trump in that regard. However, Biden has made some mistakes as well, maybe some of which should have been relatively easy to have avoided. Having the world on the brink of WWIII probably isn't a good look, and, most likely, we will still be on the brink of WWIII 2.5 years from now, unless Putin decides the Earth isn't radioactive enough already or if someone manages to replace him with someone far less confrontational (in the Ukraine thread, many have suggested that things would get better if Putin's head just miraculously grew extra holes in it, but I'd argue that, in the event of a Putin assassination, someone just as bad would likely end up taking over before the army would even have a chance to head back to Russia). I don't _think_ that either of those are super likely, though, so, Biden's going to have a pretty nasty uphill battle for 2024. Plus, we still have midterms here to worry about, and the results of those will likely drag down the momentum of Biden's administration.

I suppose my greatest worry about 2024, is that we get another Trump/Biden election, except both of them will be four years older and less appealing (more unappealing?) than they were in 2020. Then 2028, and some sort of Trump shenanigans about how term limits don't apply to him because _insert_nonsequitor_here_, and then we will have another Trump/Biden with public opinion swaying back and forth just enough to keep this stupid divisiveness and skullduggery going indefinitely.


----------



## Drew

@bostjan - again, I don't know the case well enough to have an informed opinion here, just that regardless of whether it was legit and this is a crazy conspiracy theory, or if this WAS a coverup, I was just surprised to hear it, as my understanding was always this was intentional self-immolation. Something to read about, I guess. 

I don't think you can blame Biden for war in Ukraine - there wasn't much he could have done differently to avert that. I do think, after a string of initial successes, thinks kind of fizzled out and the Biden Administration delivered less than I'd hoped, but at the same time, with a 4 vote margin in the House and a tie in the Senate, it's a goddamned miracle he did as much as he did, I suppose. If that's either damning him with faint praise, or maybe more aptly praising him with faint damnation, so be it, though.


----------



## nightflameauto

I know Esquire isn't the most esteemed magazine, but this is a fun little reminder of just how far down the rabbit hole we've gone in this country.









Joe Manchin Is a Walking, Talking Advertisement for the Real Consequences of <i>Citizens United</i>


The senator told oil and gas executives that politicians are there to be sublet for their needs.




esquire.com


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> That's what the official report said. There are several things in that same report, though, directly contradicted by live video aired on CNN at the time, for example, the report said that the Davidians opened fire first, but it's well known that the ATF shot the Davians dogs and then fired at the front door of the compound before the Davidians opened fire. Also, the three placed marked as where the fire started were exactly where the tanks had punched through the walls of the compound. That makes no sense to me. Think about it for one second, and then tell me that these guys, in a huge compound, would go right up to a tank that was smashing through a wall spraying (supposedly) tear gas, and then douse that area with accelerant, and then light it on fire right there in front of the tank. Live video on CNN showed flames appearing to shooting right out of those tanks, which the government stated was an optical illusion. Maybe it was, and maybe those people who were violently defending their families were also the ones who lit the fires and then rushed down into a bunker to slowly die of smoke inhalation despite having tons of illegal weapons and ammunition. I'd not say there isn't a reasonable doubt, but as far as a preponderance of the evidence shows, I think those people were killed by the government, probably as a result of someone loading the wrong sort of canister in the tank, and then the government covered it up.
> 
> As for Biden, I wish him the best, partly because I have no personal ill will toward him, but mainly because my destiny hinges on his success as leader. I know the president's handling of a pandemic is a complex and nuanced topic, but I am quite certain that he's done a better job than Trump in that regard. However, Biden has made some mistakes as well, maybe some of which should have been relatively easy to have avoided. Having the world on the brink of WWIII probably isn't a good look, and, most likely, we will still be on the brink of WWIII 2.5 years from now, unless Putin decides the Earth isn't radioactive enough already or if someone manages to replace him with someone far less confrontational (in the Ukraine thread, many have suggested that things would get better if Putin's head just miraculously grew extra holes in it, but I'd argue that, in the event of a Putin assassination, someone just as bad would likely end up taking over before the army would even have a chance to head back to Russia). I don't _think_ that either of those are super likely, though, so, Biden's going to have a pretty nasty uphill battle for 2024. Plus, we still have midterms here to worry about, and the results of those will likely drag down the momentum of Biden's administration.
> 
> I suppose my greatest worry about 2024, is that we get another Trump/Biden election, except both of them will be four years older and less appealing (more unappealing?) than they were in 2020. Then 2028, and some sort of Trump shenanigans about how term limits don't apply to him because _insert_nonsequitor_here_, and then we will have another Trump/Biden with public opinion swaying back and forth just enough to keep this stupid divisiveness and skullduggery going indefinitely.



The US Govt has a fairly rich history of using force on domestic groups it deems unsavory. The Ludlow Massacre and Move Bombing for example weren't covered up so much as buried, you can go read about them but they're not common subjects in history classes. These were both critical moments in labor and race struggles, respectively, substantially diminished in potency by having been largely forgotten.

Also, ever tried googling for examples of US govt using force within its own borders? I hadn't until today but unless you know exactly what you're looking for it's not easy to find.


----------



## Crungy

Is there anything out there that hasn't been obscured or totally buried?


----------



## Crungy

Just saw this, how ironic 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/18/politics/mark-meadows-trump-aide-voter-north-carolina/index.html


----------



## Drew

Crungy said:


> Just saw this, how ironic
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/18/politics/mark-meadows-trump-aide-voter-north-carolina/index.html


I think all parties involved have just kind of agreed to, well, look the other way... but Trump got caught doing the same thing. 

When he was elected, he changed his address from New York City (Trump Tower, most likely, but don't quote me on that) to Mar a Lago, and registered as a Florida voter. Voted absentee in Florida in 2020, as well. 

Except, he's not allowed to claim Mar A Lago as a permanent address. Per the terms of his purchase agreement and agreements with the city of Palm Beach, Mar A Lago is a private club owned by the Trump corporation, not a private residence, and no member, including Trump, can claim it as their full time address. In return, Palm Beach gave Trump a discounted property tax rate. 



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-trouble-with-trump-registering-mar-a-lago-as-his-voter-address/2020/05/15/138994de-95f0-11ea-87a3-22d324235636_story.html



We've all just kind of glossed over the fact that the former President who claimed he only lost because of widespread voter fraud, _himself _committed voter fraud.


----------



## Xaios

Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic State


Musician, who visited White House in 2017 with Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin, said I’m like, ‘Am I supposed to be in on this shit?’




www.theguardian.com





Jesus Christ.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> Kid Rock says Donald Trump sought his advice on North Korea and Islamic State
> 
> 
> Musician, who visited White House in 2017 with Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin, said I’m like, ‘Am I supposed to be in on this shit?’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ.



So many WTF moments throughout this article. 

"So a pedophile, a nationalist buttrocker, and Sarah Palin stroll into the oval office...."


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> So many WTF moments throughout this article.
> 
> "So a pedophile, a nationalist buttrocker, and Sarah Palin stroll into the oval office...."


It honestly reads like something from The Onion.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> So many WTF moments throughout this article.
> 
> "So a pedophile, a nationalist buttrocker, and Sarah Palin stroll into the oval office...."



Well, the man SAYS he's an ordained minister.

Maybe Trump was confused and jealous other foreign heads of state always talking this or that with their clique of ministers, while America ain't got any...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Adieu said:


> Well, the man SAYS he's an ordained minister.
> 
> Maybe Trump was confused and jealous other foreign heads of state always talking this or that with their clique of ministers, while America ain't got any...



I'm an ordained minister. Cost me $35 through the Universal Life Church of California. if I'd known they were handing invites out like that....


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'm an ordained minister. Cost me $35 through the Universal Life Church of California. if I'd known they were handing invites out like that....


Congratulations, you have something in common with Kid Rock.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> It honestly reads like something from The Onion.


At this point about 75% of every article I read comes off like something the Onion would have put out ten years ago. Gotta admit though, Nuge, Kid Rock, Palin and Trump talking about foreign policy is pegging my WTF meter in the red. Holy Green Gables of Fuck. Yes, capitalized because it's just that fucky.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> Congratulations, you have something in common with Kid Rock.



We've spent time at the same dive bar in Bowling Green, OH, too. I never saw him but he was known to visit the bar I worked at there every once in a while, Howard's Club H.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'm an ordained minister. Cost me $35 through the Universal Life Church of California. if I'd known they were handing invites out like that....


Here in VT, I believe it is free and takes 10 minutes, but I haven't done it, so I can't say for certain.

Actually, nix that, I'm officially ordained now. It took 30 seconds and cost $15.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Here in VT, I believe it is free and takes 10 minutes, but I haven't done it, so I can't say for certain.
> 
> Actually, nix that, I'm officially ordained now. It took 30 seconds and cost $15.



Be aware you also have to file individual paperwork, sometimes with a fee, for any county or borough you want to perform marriages in.

Other than that you're off to the races! I haven't looked seriously into establishing a tax haven- I mean church yet, and that's a big YET.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> Be aware you also have to file individual paperwork, sometimes with a fee, for any county or borough you want to perform marriages in.
> 
> Other than that you're off to the races! I haven't looked seriously into establishing a tax haven- I mean church yet, and that's a big YET.


Yeah, I'm ostensibly not licensed to perform a marriage, but I guess I might as well head over to the county clerk to see what they need. The Vermont state website and the state ordinances make it look like you maybe don't even need to be ordained to officiate a wedding, unless it's a religious wedding, but now I'm curious. I might just keep the certificate in a drawer and randomly call myself Reverend Bostjan and leave it at that.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I'm ostensibly not licensed to perform a marriage, but I guess I might as well head over to the county clerk to see what they need. The Vermont state website and the state ordinances make it look like you maybe don't even need to be ordained to officiate a wedding, unless it's a religious wedding, but now I'm curious. I might just keep the certificate in a drawer and randomly call myself Reverend Bostjan and leave it at that.



Some or maybe all states allow regular people to be marriage commissioners on a temporary basis. In Alaska I believe it's limited to three times in your life. 

I originally got mine along with a friend's because we had a drone group together at the time called Drone Church. We almost got to live in an actual church back in Ohio, too. Dang rental agencies. We haven't played in years but the dream of Drone (Actual) Church lives on.


----------



## bostjan

Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?


----------



## tedtan

I haven’t noticed anything here, but in Texas, there is not a whole lot of political differences in most of the state. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin tend to be blue and everywhere else is red.


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?


Everyone thinks they're right, what could go wrong?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

bostjan said:


> Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?


I'm just a hair outside of Austin proper in an area that's a fairly good mix of red and blue. And I have to say that I can't walk 20 steps without someone feeling the need to unload their political opinions to me/ at me. Maybe surprising ( or not) that 9X out of 10, it's some middle-age or older conservative vomiting forth some conspiracy idea, misinformation, or blatantly ignorant societal/ political view. 

I apologize @bostjan for the rambling here since I know you didn't ask for THIS much input but just off the top of my head: 

A/C Repair Dude- Comes out and charges me for his time to replace a faulty control board that he himself installed only a week prior. I respectfully argue that I shouldn't be charged. He then goes on a weirdly inappropriate rant about how "they" (?) found 11,000 votes for trump in Virginia. Because of course, your stupidity and hatred should understandably be levied at me due to me thinking that you should have installed the correct part in my home's heating/ cooling system. Um... okay, I guess. 

Random Grocery Shopper Dude- As I'm unloading my basket onto the conveyor yesterday, old guy in a cowboy hat starts throwing the "agitated crazy eyes" at my food and then goes on some verbal rampage about how his dog eats better than he does and that it's just going to get worse. So I cordially ( and ignorantly) engage him by parroting my disdain of the higher prices and such. But whoops!... I think that was the "atta boy" that he was looking for. Because then he starts spewing forth this shit about "the goddamn liberals coming across the border to vote democrat" and on and on. Yeah... I shoulda known this wasn't ever about Kibbles-n-Chunks. It was about him wanting to find validation of his bigoted hatred and misguided disgust. Fuck... I just wanted some mint chocolate chip ice-cream and sandwich fixin's. 

I dunno. It just amazes me... the hate, the anger, and the ignorance. I don't seem to get approached much... if at all, by people wanting to say nice things or positive things. It always seems like it's some disgruntled conservative nut-case wanting to recruit me onto some magical choo-choo train of dementia. And I have plenty more instances than this, These were just a couple examples. It happens every few days... occasionally multiple times a day.


----------



## Demiurge

I particularly enjoy knowing the least possible about the politics of the people around me, but perhaps this is just some misguided way some seek connection to those around them. Trade a few political shibboleths to know that someone is their 'kind of people' and feel validated.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?



I still drive by an effigy of Obama hanging from a tree on my way to work. 

Some places are just perpetually nasty.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?


I'll avoid names to as to stay off any lists, but I was in a store the other day and the shop owner invoked lining s o m e o n e w h o h o l d s h i g h o f f i c e against a wall and s******* them between the eyes for being a "traitor"


----------



## spudmunkey

Our local post office closed last week. People in line flipping the fuck out on the last day, even though the whole post office was plastered with announcements since last year. One guy shouting about "liberal pedophiles" somehow caused the closure, and another guy trying to start a "Let's go Brandon!" clapping chant as he walked to his car, shouting towards other people who were talking up towards the entrance. One woman was convinced this the the Democrats way of making it harder for her to get her Social Security money, which she said was stolen by Nancy Pelosi, and was pissed that "they call an 'entitlement' now".

The actual cause of the closure: the landlord of the property (the San Francisco airport) decided not to renew the USPS's lease on the building.


----------



## tedtan

High Plains Drifter said:


> I'm just a hair outside of Austin proper in an area that's a fairly good mix of red and blue. And I have to say that I can't walk 20 steps without someone feeling the need to unload their political opinions to me/ at me. Maybe surprising ( or not) that 9X out of 10, it's some middle-age or older conservative vomiting forth some conspiracy idea, misinformation, or blatantly ignorant societal/ political view.
> 
> I apologize @bostjan for the rambling here since I know you didn't ask for THIS much input but just off the top of my head:
> 
> A/C Repair Dude- Comes out and charges me for his time to replace a faulty control board that he himself installed only a week prior. I respectfully argue that I shouldn't be charged. He then goes on a weirdly inappropriate rant about how "they" (?) found 11,000 votes for trump in Virginia. Because of course, your stupidity and hatred should understandably be levied at me due to me thinking that you should have installed the correct part in my home's heating/ cooling system. Um... okay, I guess.
> 
> Random Grocery Shopper Dude- As I'm unloading my basket onto the conveyor yesterday, old guy in a cowboy hat starts throwing the "agitated crazy eyes" at my food and then goes on some verbal rampage about how his dog eats better than he does and that it's just going to get worse. So I cordially ( and ignorantly) engage him by parroting my disdain of the higher prices and such. But whoops!... I think that was the "atta boy" that he was looking for. Because then he starts spewing forth this shit about "the goddamn liberals coming across the border to vote democrat" and on and on. Yeah... I shoulda known this wasn't ever about Kibbles-n-Chunks. It was about him wanting to find validation of his bigoted hatred and misguided disgust. Fuck... I just wanted some mint chocolate chip ice-cream and sandwich fixin's.
> 
> I dunno. It just amazes me... the hate, the anger, and the ignorance. I don't seem to get approached much... if at all, by people wanting to say nice things or positive things. It always seems like it's some disgruntled conservative nut-case wanting to recruit me onto some magical choo-choo train of dementia. And I have plenty more instances than this, These were just a couple examples. It happens every few days... occasionally multiple times a day.


I think that’s just a normal conversation starter in the redder parts of Texas.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

tedtan said:


> I think that’s just a normal conversation starter in the redder parts of Texas.


I'm afraid that you're correct. I think that they're becoming more and more agitated due to a shift in the demographic over recent years... and especially since Bide took office.


----------



## narad

High Plains Drifter said:


> throwing the "agitated crazy eyes" at my food and then goes on some verbal rampage about how his dog eats better than he does



Seems like there's an easy solution if you're envious of your dog's food.


----------



## bostjan

I know this sounds unbelievable. There's another forum (much smaller than this one, but still active every day) I've been on for over a decade. There was a staff change a couple years ago and one of the new mods is vocally conservative. Not a big deal, but there's another user there who is vocally liberal who keeps getting banned. Maybe that guy deserves it, maybe not, I don't know the circumstances. Well, the other day, in the OT subforums, someone made some really disgusting (and detailed) accusations about the guy. I reported the post that made the accusations hoping mods would just delete it as it was a clear violations of Terms of Use. I was repremanded by the new mod for reporting it, and the guy who was the focus of the disgusting accusations was banned, and the post was not deleted. An older mod reinstated the banned guy and deleted the offensive posts, including my reprimand, then the new mod started publicly complaining about the other older mod in a way that came off to me as completely insane. That other forum used to be a cool place, but this totally insane series of events has me giving up on it.

This weekend, on the way to band practice, I saw at least twice as many political flags as last weekend. They are mostly "Let's Go Brandon," "Trump 2024," "Fuck Biden," but also new flags "Black Lives Matter," "Biden 2020," and someone just painted a fresh mural on the side of their house with a bunch of political statements. It's as if there's a presidential election coming up.

Two guys I work with have been habitually trying to get one of the bosses to agree with their political opinions by continually bringing them up and prompting him to agree. The guy's boss is reluctant to vocally agree or disagree. The prompting for agreement detail is new as of the last week. We have been told before by HR to keep political discussion out of the workplace, but since covid, HR hasn't been around. Still, things have been really ramping up the past week.

Maybe it's three unrelated things happening coincidentally, but all three strike me as totally nuts just days apart. Or maybe people's focus is finally off of covid, so it defaults back to politics?


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Man, there's been a lot of crappy stuff going on around me over people's differences in political opinions. Any one else noticed things getting notably nastier in the past week or so?


Yes.

At work it's been almost tolerable, but out in public I've been getting random comments from people. Grocery store lines have been the worst, but even at the gas pump I had somebody on the other side of the pump just start babbling at me about how Biden's making us all broke. Nobody's ever so much as waved hello to me at that gas station before.

I dunno, man. Something's in the air.

I do enjoy the reports of the coke fueled orgies in DC. 'Cause that's the group you'd expect it from.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Yes.
> 
> At work it's been almost tolerable, but out in public I've been getting random comments from people. Grocery store lines have been the worst, but even at the gas pump I had somebody on the other side of the pump just start babbling at me about how Biden's making us all broke. Nobody's ever so much as waved hello to me at that gas station before.
> 
> I dunno, man. Something's in the air.
> 
> I do enjoy the reports of the coke fueled orgies in DC. 'Cause that's the group you'd expect it from.


I dunno, I could get two 2 L bottles of coke about $0.50 than a gallon of gasoline. No wonder DC is turning to coke as an alternative fuel. 

I'm going to make a long-term investment and bury a bunch of moss under my property. With any luck, in about 20 million years, there should be petroleum oil there.

I'm old enough to remember all of the hard-line conservatives promising super-cheap gas prices after invading Iraq. That never really happened quite like that, but maybe prices were kept artificially low for a long time as an effect. It should mean nothing, but it concerns me that, in the event that Trump _does_ take office again, he may end up invading Venezuela or something. And before anyone gets too cozy thinking that the USA would never invade another nation in the new world just to get cheap commodities, maybe they should research where the term "banana republic" comes from.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> This weekend, on the way to band practice, I saw at least twice as many political flags as last weekend. They are mostly "Let's Go Brandon," "Trump 2024," "Fuck Biden," but also new flags "Black Lives Matter," "Biden 2020," and someone just painted a fresh mural on the side of their house with a bunch of political statements. It's as if there's a presidential election coming up.
> 
> Two guys I work with have been habitually trying to get one of the bosses to agree with their political opinions by continually bringing them up and prompting him to agree. The guy's boss is reluctant to vocally agree or disagree. The prompting for agreement detail is new as of the last week. We have been told before by HR to keep political discussion out of the workplace, but since covid, HR hasn't been around. Still, things have been really ramping up the past week.


I definitely see these things around me on a regular basis, it’s just that its not new. It’s been this way as far back as I can remember here.

I mean, I remember people here talking about moving from Texas to the UK to get away from those damn “libruhls” when Obama won his first term. Do they not know that the UK, on the whole, is further left than Obama?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I don't hear it as much at my current job in a public school, mostly just the occasional vaguely-liberal sentiment, but when I was a pot farmer it was a whole different story. Stoners are fucking stupid. It was all guns this, globalists that, declassified UFOs, false flags, chinese biolab covid etc etc etc

It must be said that I am also a fairly outspoken person, and while I won't be the one to start the shit at work, if someone is going to bring in some nasty smelly baggage and expose me to it while I'm a captive audience trying to do my stupid job, I'm going to do my best to make them feel so stupid and uncomfortable they never do that around me again. 

I'd rather talk about the weather, or just go "uh huh" while someone talks about sports, or talk about fucking nothing and work in silence. "Pithy" political dialogue is _NOT_ why I go to work.


----------



## Mathemagician

Man, I just hope that everyone got big ass fucking raises this year. Because as we have seen, inflation just marches on regardless of where wages are minimum or otherwise. 

Everyone deserves to be able to afford to live if they work, so here’s hoping I see less people complaining about others making $40k/yr now that that is nearly the new minimum wage which due to basic inflation it absolutely should be. 

So yeah, not a cranky post, just putting out some positive vibes.


----------



## Demiurge

Mathemagician said:


> Man, I just hope that everyone got big ass fucking raises this year. Because as we have seen, inflation just marches on regardless of where wages are minimum or otherwise.


At our yearly "town hall meeting," our CEO remarked on inflation increasing our cost of doing business and, accordingly, we should not expect good raises any time soon.

Ah, the cost of everything is going up, but thankfully for him the cost of labor stays the same. 

This was, of course, followed by announcement that several higher-ups- including directors of departments whose underperformance had specifically inspired our new strategic initiatives- were receiving promotions.


----------



## Mathemagician

I am super sorry to hear that. You know the game plan right? Interview with any of the other places willing to offer 15-40% more for talent due to tight market conditions. (Your market permitting). 

I hate how common that is at firms, but walking is the only thing that works. 

*more positive future job vibes*


----------



## Demiurge

Thank you. I ended up getting an eensy-teensy raise, but nowhere near commensurate with the 25% more I've been working, so I'll be hitting the road soon.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I'm ostensibly not licensed to perform a marriage, but I guess I might as well head over to the county clerk to see what they need. The Vermont state website and the state ordinances make it look like you maybe don't even need to be ordained to officiate a wedding, unless it's a religious wedding, but now I'm curious. I might just keep the certificate in a drawer and randomly call myself Reverend Bostjan and leave it at that.


By the way, as a man preparing to get married in Vermont, this tangent had actually been quite helpful, so thank you.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> By the way, as a man preparing to get married in Vermont, this tangent had actually been quite helpful, so thank you.


Congratulations! Let me know if you ever need an atheist vicar.  Or, if you need me to walk you through the process, I'd be happy to do so.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Congratulations! Let me know if you ever need an atheist vicar.  Or, if you need me to walk you through the process, I'd be happy to do so.


 We've got an offiiciant locked up, but if we have some trouble with the permiting I'll let you know!


----------



## nightflameauto

Hey guys, turns out this whole climate change thing is hard, so even though we campaigned on it, and made lots of promises, we're just gonna go ahead and completely about face on it without saying much to our constituents.

*GOLF CLAP*


----------



## bostjan

Anybody know why Trump is such a fan of Dr. Oz?


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Anybody know why Trump is such a fan of Dr. Oz?


Trump can always appreciate a good grifter.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Trump can always appreciate a good grifter.


Honour amongst con artists?!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> Hey guys, turns out this whole climate change thing is hard, so even though we campaigned on it, and made lots of promises, we're just gonna go ahead and completely about face on it without saying much to our constituents.
> 
> *GOLF CLAP*



This is not a surprise to anyone who lives in an oil state. Our state politicians fall over themselves in a bipartisan race to suck as much of BP's stainless steel, miles long, crude-spewing dick as possible, and then when they're finished the cobble together a state budget out of whatever dribbled onto their ties.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Hey guys, turns out this whole climate change thing is hard, so even though we campaigned on it, and made lots of promises, we're just gonna go ahead and completely about face on it without saying much to our constituents.
> 
> *GOLF CLAP*


One more piece of evidence that after going all in on the progressive agenda early on and having it implode in the Senate, Biden is tacking back towards the center and giving a moderate agenda a try. Given the massive impact surging energy prices are having on inflation - roughly half of yesterday's CPI number, as I recall - and how that's impacting Americans - 84% have cut back on spending due to inflation according to a survey I ran across yesterday - it's kind of not surprising.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Or, he could have tried framing preventing the end of civilization as not a partisan issue. 

That's the failure of the Dems, they're so reluctant to change the messaging. They're so shitty at it that, at this point, it's pretty obvious that they're not acting in good faith...much like the GOP.

That's what's going to lose them the midterms, when they stop seeming so different than the other side. 

Look at gas prices. Why are folks shitting themselves over an extra dollar? Because they're fucking broke and no one is trying to help them. 

Remember Trump Bucks? I don't remember anyone returning them, and folks fucking loved them. Where are the Biden Bucks? Yeah, that's right, we sent it abroad for the summer. 

This entire presidency thus far has been a master class in why folks are so reluctant to vote Dem.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Or, he could have tried framing preventing the end of civilization as not a partisan issue.


The real problem with modern politics is that everybody wound so tight that literally EVERYTHING is a partisan issue. But, when the dems drop the facade publicly and show the entire universe that, yes, actually, their policies are EXACTLY the same as the republicans, despite the constant rhetoric otherwise? Well, it kinda makes me feel even shittier for tossing them a vote. Not that the Republicans have much to offer either, but at least they aren't two faced about their agenda these days. They'll flat out tell you, "Fuck you, and fuck your families. We hate you unless you got the money to buy our attention. Deal with it."


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> Or, he could have tried framing preventing the end of civilization as not a partisan issue.
> 
> That's the failure of the Dems, they're so reluctant to change the messaging. They're so shitty at it that, at this point, it's pretty obvious that they're not acting in good faith...much like the GOP.
> 
> That's what's going to lose them the midterms, when they stop seeming so different than the other side.
> 
> Look at gas prices. Why are folks shitting themselves over an extra dollar? Because they're fucking broke and no one is trying to help them.
> 
> Remember Trump Bucks? I don't remember anyone returning them, and folks fucking loved them. Where are the Biden Bucks? Yeah, that's right, we sent it abroad for the summer.
> 
> This entire presidency thus far has been a master class in why folks are so reluctant to vote Dem.


That's a cart before the horse problem though. 

It's extremely hard, and politically suicidal, to pass unpopular legislation. Shit, it's hard enough to pass _popular_ legislation, but the first step to passing something as wide-reaching as the Green New Deal or the Build Back Better act, is to win the court of public opinion and make it a very popular bill, and _then_ you can try to rally the votes behind it. Even then it's often challenging because an _objective_ may be popular, but the means of _implementing_ it may not be. 

tl;dr - I don't think it's fair to blame the Democrats for not passing the Green New Deal, when these policies weren't even popular enough with voters to send a majority of the _Democratic caucus_ to Washington who supported the Green New Deal. It's straightforward electoral calculus - if you want something like that or the BBBA passed, we need to get more people to support it so we elect more representatives who want to pass it. 

And for the record I'm guardedly in favor of both bills and would want to see both passed. I just also realize it's not a realistic thing to believe will happen, today.


----------



## AMOS

nightflameauto said:


> Hey guys, turns out this whole climate change thing is hard, so even though we campaigned on it, and made lots of promises, we're just gonna go ahead and completely about face on it without saying much to our constituents.
> 
> *GOLF CLAP*


What's it say? (in one paragraph or less) I don't subscribe to anything anymore, it leads to too much spam email


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> The real problem with modern politics is that everybody wound so tight that literally EVERYTHING is a partisan issue. But, when the dems drop the facade publicly and show the entire universe that, yes, actually, their policies are EXACTLY the same as the republicans, despite the constant rhetoric otherwise? Well, it kinda makes me feel even shittier for tossing them a vote. Not that the Republicans have much to offer either, but at least they aren't two faced about their agenda these days. They'll flat out tell you, "Fuck you, and fuck your families. We hate you unless you got the money to buy our attention. Deal with it."



If it makes you feel any better, I abstained from voting for years for this exact reason and the last time around I felt like I had a moral imperative simply to vote for not-Trump. I still felt icky about it, but I did it, and will very probably continue to even though I respect all forms of ballot participation including conscientious abstention.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> That's a cart before the horse problem though.
> 
> It's extremely hard, and politically suicidal, to pass unpopular legislation. Shit, it's hard enough to pass _popular_ legislation, but the first step to passing something as wide-reaching as the Green New Deal or the Build Back Better act, is to win the court of public opinion and make it a very popular bill, and _then_ you can try to rally the votes behind it. Even then it's often challenging because an _objective_ may be popular, but the means of _implementing_ it may not be.
> 
> tl;dr - I don't think it's fair to blame the Democrats for not passing the Green New Deal, when these policies weren't even popular enough with voters to send a majority of the _Democratic caucus_ to Washington who supported the Green New Deal. It's straightforward electoral calculus - if you want something like that or the BBBA passed, we need to get more people to support it so we elect more representatives who want to pass it.
> 
> And for the record I'm guardedly in favor of both bills and would want to see both passed. I just also realize it's not a realistic thing to believe will happen, today.


The Green New Deal seemed a pipe dream at best, and I don't get that horribly upset about it not really going very far. I do get upset about the complete about face and literally saying, "WE NEED MORE OIL NOT LESS!" every few seconds when people aren't paying attention.

Also, there may be a reason some legislation never gains traction with the public. Because Democrats suck ass at messaging about even the things they treat as important. Something that was meant as nothing more than a publicity stunt during the election cycle, like the Green New Deal? They won't even waste a token effort on messaging around that.


AMOS said:


> What's it say? (in one paragraph or less) I don't subscribe to anything anymore, it leads to too much spam email


It's pretty much a big write-up on how much the Democrats are pushing for more and more oil drilling at this point. Russia is the excuse at the moment, but something tells me any number of triggers would have been used as the excuse before the election cycle starts to pitch back towards the mid-terms hard.


----------



## AMOS

nightflameauto said:


> The Green New Deal seemed a pipe dream at best, and I don't get that horribly upset about it not really going very far. I do get upset about the complete about face and literally saying, "WE NEED MORE OIL NOT LESS!" every few seconds when people aren't paying attention.
> 
> Also, there may be a reason some legislation never gains traction with the public. Because Democrats suck ass at messaging about even the things they treat as important. Something that was meant as nothing more than a publicity stunt during the election cycle, like the Green New Deal? They won't even waste a token effort on messaging around that.
> 
> It's pretty much a big write-up on how much the Democrats are pushing for more and more oil drilling at this point. Russia is the excuse at the moment, but something tells me any number of triggers would have been used as the excuse before the election cycle starts to pitch back towards the mid-terms hard.


Did you expect the Dems to be honest? No party ever sticks to campaign promises, whether it's the left or right they lie to get your votes. Since we gained our independence it's been a never ending cycle of bullshit. Give the Libertarians or Constitution Party a chance, anyone besides who normally gets elected.


----------



## TimmyPage

AMOS said:


> Since we gained our independence it's been a never ending cycle of bullshit...



I think I've found the root of the problem here, guys. Looks like it's time to pack it up and give it all back to the Queen.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> That's a cart before the horse problem though.
> 
> It's extremely hard, and politically suicidal, to pass unpopular legislation. Shit, it's hard enough to pass _popular_ legislation, but the first step to passing something as wide-reaching as the Green New Deal or the Build Back Better act, is to win the court of public opinion and make it a very popular bill, and _then_ you can try to rally the votes behind it. Even then it's often challenging because an _objective_ may be popular, but the means of _implementing_ it may not be.
> 
> tl;dr - I don't think it's fair to blame the Democrats for not passing the Green New Deal, when these policies weren't even popular enough with voters to send a majority of the _Democratic caucus_ to Washington who supported the Green New Deal. It's straightforward electoral calculus - if you want something like that or the BBBA passed, we need to get more people to support it so we elect more representatives who want to pass it.
> 
> And for the record I'm guardedly in favor of both bills and would want to see both passed. I just also realize it's not a realistic thing to believe will happen, today.



I just think it's bullshit that instead of considering why some more progressive items aren't getting traction they just go "welp, I guess no one wants this" and swerve right. 

There's no introspection. 

Like I said, they're shit when it comes to messaging and unfortunately it seems like that's by design. 

Biden is so focused on being the "Anti-Trump" that they can't see the forest for the trees. Diving hardcore into centrism isn't going to win them any votes, and it's definitely not going to make this country any better for the greater majority of the people.


----------



## vilk

I wonder if it's even possible to sway a voter anymore. Like, think of any person you've seen, met, or even heard of that has voted for Trump twice and ask yourself if there's a non-zero chance that they would vote for Biden. I feel the answer is no, there is no possibilty to steal a voter from R to D—for the next election, that is. Trump or GOP policy/rhetoric might convince someone to stay home and not vote, but there is absolutely no chance that Joe Biden can convince a two-time Trump voter to now vote democrat.


----------



## estin

what is your guys view on theatre? er... low budget theatre for that matter?


----------



## zappatton2

The Democrats are about as progressive as most right-wing parties in other liberal democracies, and I get the whole apathy angle, but were I American, sometimes the lesser evil can be less evil by a tangible margin. 

I'm thinking of State legislation popping up everywhere, criminalizing women's access to reproductive rights, drafting open-ended legislation that effectively outlaws even the mention that gay people exist in primary schools, or declaring open season on voting rights for people who are simply "too ethnic" or "too Democrat". 

I would have thought the repeated attempts at subverting democratic institutions and _caging flippin' children_ would have been enough.

The Democrats 100% suck, but they aren't gaming to throw the system to while nationalists and fascistic theocrats.


----------



## AMOS

The White Nationalists thing is a farce, but nationalism exists. IMO it's all about Patriotism and secure borders, it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist. Nationalism exists in most countries. "White" is thrown in there by the media. Yeah there's some White Supremacists out there but it's not the biggest national threat like Biden claims it is. The biggest national threat is open borders, no one else does it and for good reason!


----------



## AMOS

TimmyPage said:


> I think I've found the root of the problem here, guys. Looks like it's time to pack it up and give it all back to the Queen.


The early days after splitting everything was okay, agenda's is what ruined us.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> The White Nationalists thing is a farce, but nationalism exists. IMO it's all about Patriotism and secure borders, it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist. Nationalism exists in most countries. "White" is thrown in there by the media. Yeah there's some White Supremacists out there but it's not the biggest national threat like Biden claims it is. The biggest national threat is open borders, no one else does it and for good reason!


I can't tell which is more wrong between your post and your sig


----------



## JSanta

AMOS said:


> The White Nationalists thing is a farce, but nationalism exists. IMO it's all about Patriotism and secure borders, it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist. Nationalism exists in most countries. "White" is thrown in there by the media. Yeah there's some White Supremacists out there but it's not the biggest national threat like Biden claims it is. The biggest national threat is open borders, no one else does it and for good reason!



The Director of the FBI has called White Nationalism one of our greatest domestic terrorism threats.

"In quantifying the scale of the FBI’s work, Wray said the number of domestic terrorism investigations has increased from around 1,000 when he became director in 2017 to roughly 1,400 at the end of last year to about 2,000 now. The number of arrests of white supremacists and other racially motivated extremists has almost tripled, he said."









FBI chief warns violent 'domestic terrorism' growing in US


WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Christopher Wray bluntly labeled the January riot at the U.S. Capitol as “domestic terrorism” Tuesday and warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism that law enforcement is scrambling to confront through thousands of investigations...




apnews.com


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> I can't tell which is more wrong between your post and your sig


All of my black friends have the same views as me, what's wrong to you isn't wrong to us.


----------



## AMOS

JSanta said:


> The Director of the FBI has called White Nationalism one of our greatest domestic terrorism threats.
> 
> "In quantifying the scale of the FBI’s work, Wray said the number of domestic terrorism investigations has increased from around 1,000 when he became director in 2017 to roughly 1,400 at the end of last year to about 2,000 now. The number of arrests of white supremacists and other racially motivated extremists has almost tripled, he said."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI chief warns violent 'domestic terrorism' growing in US
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Christopher Wray bluntly labeled the January riot at the U.S. Capitol as “domestic terrorism” Tuesday and warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism that law enforcement is scrambling to confront through thousands of investigations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com


The Director of the FBI is a leftist twit.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> The Director of the FBI is a leftist twit.


L
O
L


----------



## AMOS

What is Frank James? The black man that set out to kill a bunch of white people on a subway? Is he and people that think like him black nationalists? Or just criminals. I think it all depends on your personal narrative


----------



## JSanta

AMOS said:


> The Director of the FBI is a leftist twit.


 That was appointed by a white nationalist president. I don't think your argument holds much water.



AMOS said:


> What is Frank James? The black man that set out to kill a bunch of white people on a subway? Is he and people that think like him black nationalists? Or just criminals. I think it all depends on your personal narrative



That's a strawman at best. This country does not have an endemic "black nationalism terrorist" threat in the same way that we do with white nationalists. Black nationalism defined under the writings of MLK Jr. are a direct reflection of the racism they've experienced. MLK Jr. was also fundamentally against the idea of of Black americans rejecting American society, which is fundamentally at odds with the way that white hate groups operate. 

If the prosecutors decide to pursue hate crime charges on Frank James, but it appears that more correctly, they are charging him with some form of terrorism.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist


Nationalism is just racism in different clothing.

What's important isn't the focus on skin colour, it's the general mindset of everything needing to be [us] vs [them]. It's the implication that your own interests (whether you qualify that with your Race or your Nation or your Party, whatever), must be enforced or protected to the detriment and/or exclusion of others. You can argue semantics to try to get around it, but as soon as you've painted yourself as being on the Right Team, against Their Agenda, you're basically in the same general bucket.

Phrasing it as "we need to protect our borders" is a cop-out. All that means is that you think everything outside of your own (borders? nation? state? race? political team?) is a threat (which it usually isn't), and gives you an out to not be introspective about your own problems. America's problems (I'll wrap Canada into that - so North America's problems) are mostly inside of America. It's internal. The vast majority of the threats to a country, IMO, come from within the country, and nationalism is a deflection - a defence mechanism, not from outside threats, but from the need to acknowledge internal flaws.


----------



## Flappydoodle

AMOS said:


> Did you expect the Dems to be honest? No party ever sticks to campaign promises, whether it's the left or right they lie to get your votes. Since we gained our independence it's been a never ending cycle of bullshit. Give the Libertarians or Constitution Party a chance, anyone besides who normally gets elected.


Well I think that's the case even if you WANT to live up to your promises

Trump tried damned hard to build a wall and couldn't

I'm sure Biden is trying hard on his promises too

Presidents aren't kings, yet they always campaign as if they are. In reality, if a majority of other politicians don't agree with you, you're not going to do shit.


----------



## nightflameauto

AMOS said:


> Did you expect the Dems to be honest? No party ever sticks to campaign promises, whether it's the left or right they lie to get your votes. Since we gained our independence it's been a never ending cycle of bullshit. Give the Libertarians or Constitution Party a chance, anyone besides who normally gets elected.


No, no one expected the Democrats to be honest. What we didn't expect was a public about-face on the issues that got them voted into office in the first place. "Turns out, doing what we promised is difficult. So, we're going to do the absolute opposite instead."

That shit rankles. And voting third party in this last cycle absolutely was NOT a choice. At least not at the national level. Hand the election to Trump on a platter? No thanks. We played that movie to its end once already.


zappatton2 said:


> The Democrats are about as progressive as most right-wing parties in other liberal democracies, and I get the whole apathy angle, but were I American, sometimes the lesser evil can be less evil by a tangible margin.
> 
> I'm thinking of State legislation popping up everywhere, criminalizing women's access to reproductive rights, drafting open-ended legislation that effectively outlaws even the mention that gay people exist in primary schools, or declaring open season on voting rights for people who are simply "too ethnic" or "too Democrat".
> 
> I would have thought the repeated attempts at subverting democratic institutions and _caging flippin' children_ would have been enough.
> 
> The Democrats 100% suck, but they aren't gaming to throw the system to while nationalists and fascistic theocrats.


Yet. Give them ten years or so and the only difference between the two majors will be which particular white nationalist groups they're backing. The slow but inevitable move of our political process towards right-wing fascism is seeming more inevitable every day. While the Democrats are still sometimes putting on a game-face of statesmanship, deep down their the same vermin in different clothing. They work for their bribers / lobbyists. We're just the plebes they use to get the job.


----------



## thraxil

TedEH said:


> What's important isn't the focus on skin colour, it's the general mindset of everything needing to be [us] vs [them]



Yep. I've lived in four different countries on three different continents and spent a lot of my life travelling for weeks or months at a time to dozens of countries on every continent (except Australia and Antarctica). The idea that people are somehow inherently "different" or deserve any more or less in life than someone else just because of which side of an imaginary line they or their parents were born on just seems absurd to me. It would be impractical for us to just tear down all national borders tomorrow, and I'm not advocating that, but I simply can't understand the mindset that sees all of that inequality, violence, and arbitrary restriction with the current system and thinks that it's a good thing and that we should do more of that.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

White nationalism is very real and very much on the rise, these kinds of movements historically prey on young, disenfranchised men, especially during times of economic hardship. Right now, the situation is ideal for massive recruitment. Modern Amerikan white nationalism has its roots in, among other places, the Asatru religious movement, which was used as a cover to get White nationalist literature into prisons under the guise of "religious freedom." Now you have a bunch of Thoraboos with no clue normalizing Asatru because ViKiNgS aRe cOoL, a very convenient PR campaign.

Interestingly, ethnic nationalism has been one of the few truly effective strategies for language preservation in previously-colonized areas. Basque country in Spain is an excellent example of this. This isn't an argument _for_ nationalism, necessarily, just an interesting case point in the intersection of nationalism and colonialism.

edit: Also, that "closed border" stuff is a white nationalist dogwhistle talking point, I'm not saying you're one, but I am saying you might want to be wary of whose attention you garner making statements like that. i've known a lot of these dudes, relatively speaking, over the years. They love to talk in code and beat around stuff like that.


----------



## profwoot

The war in Ukraine is a good example of this. Nobody can tell the difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian, and many Ukrainians _are_ Russian, and yet the biggest war since WW2 is once again ethnonationalist in nature. 

Us vs Them is the most comfortable situation for the human brain, so the less a group encourages use of the rational mind, the more likely the group is to become an animalistic cult of generic belonging. That's certainly what the republican party is, what any religion is, most any sportsball team fanbase, you get the idea. It's not exactly rare, so it's not some wild accusation to notice when a group is being racist/ethnonationalist or otherwise mindlessly supremacist based on whatever in-group/out-group shibboleths they happen to have settled on.


----------



## bostjan

Wow, this thread is active again!


vilk said:


> I wonder if it's even possible to sway a voter anymore. Like, think of any person you've seen, met, or even heard of that has voted for Trump twice and ask yourself if there's a non-zero chance that they would vote for Biden. I feel the answer is no, there is no possibilty to steal a voter from R to D—for the next election, that is. Trump or GOP policy/rhetoric might convince someone to stay home and not vote, but there is absolutely no chance that Joe Biden can convince a two-time Trump voter to now vote democrat.


Some voters can be swayed. There exist out there people who voted for Trump once, then got sick of his bullshit and voted for someone else next time around. I never voted for Trump, nor did I vote for Hilary Clinton, but I sure as hell voted for Biden in order to do what little I could to try to pop the pus-filled pimple in the white house.

I know we all know about the red voters and the blue voters, since those people are pretty sure to make certain everybody knows their political leaning, but there is a "silent majority" if you pardon the Nixon-era terminology hijack, of purple voters and green party voters and yellow libertarian voters, who aren't quick to proselytize, but still get out there to vote when it's important to them.


zappatton2 said:


> The Democrats 100% suck


It's a cycle that never ends. The GOP achieves a majority, they suck, so, since they suck so bad, people vote out the GOP and vote in the Dems, but then the Dems suck, and since they suck so bad, people vote out the Dems and vote in the GOP, but they suck, so...

That's how Obama won in 2008. He said he was making a stand for big changes, and that he wasn't like the other democrats. He was young, so we assumed he wasn't spoiled by party politics and so forth. For the most part, I think that he had the intention of being genuine. But once he was elected, he quickly realized that the GOP wasn't at all interested in his efforts to achieve compromise and that the Dems were all about talking the talk but didn't care to actually act. He got re-elected, because he seemed to genuinely care about trying to achieve his goals, even if he stood no chance of actually achieving them, but mostly because this is the USA and we always vote for the incumbent president unless they screw up really really hard and/or Ross Perot runs.

The Trump comes along in 2016 and says he's making a stand for big changes and that he's not like other republicans. He was old, but had zero political experience, and at least verbally claimed (over and over) that he wasn't spoiled by party politics and so forth. For the most part, I think that he believed the words that he was saying, but not the message that those words spelled out when strung together. Once he was elected, he leaned so heavy in partisanship and corruption that the four years that followed were a continuous blur of scandals. He did not get re-elected, because he ultimately achieved the opposite of what he promised to do, aside for some major tax cuts for the middle class, but also mostly because he screwed up really really hard (even though Ross Perot didn't run).



AMOS said:


> The White Nationalists thing is a farce, but nationalism exists. IMO it's all about Patriotism and secure borders, it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist. Nationalism exists in most countries. "White" is thrown in there by the media. Yeah there's some White Supremacists out there but it's not the biggest national threat like Biden claims it is. The biggest national threat is open borders, no one else does it and for good reason!



I actually sort of agree with you. What I agree with is the idea that "white nationalism" isn't the nation-wide movement that certain media outlets would lead a viewer to believe.

There are organizations like the KKK and neo-Nazis and neo-Tribalists and even some neo-Third-Positionists that swing around some clout in certain local governments, maybe even two or three state governments. But I don't think those guys really have much of a voice in national politics. Those are groups that believe in white supremacy. I think "white nationalism" has a necessary connection to white separatism, though, which I don't think is really an idea incorporated into any group with any say in any political stage in the USA, aside from white supremacist groups. But calling white supremacists "white nationalists" is far too kind to them. And calling people who have racial biases "white nationalists" seems deliberately misleading.

In terms of the border, I think similarly, there really aren't any major groups calling for outright open borders, but it's another thing that certain media outlets are just being willfully and reductively misleading about.

The takeaway from all of this is that there do exist small groups who have some very toxic ideas, and that there are two large groups who disagree about how to solve certain problems, and that major media outlets love dividing everyone into two groups (for the ratings) that lump the ideas of the most idiotic and toxic people in with the entire group of people who disagrees with us about anything. - The simplest solution to this is to stop fucking watching Fox News or MSNBC. 



JSanta said:


> The Director of the FBI has called White Nationalism one of our greatest domestic terrorism threats.
> 
> "In quantifying the scale of the FBI’s work, Wray said the number of domestic terrorism investigations has increased from around 1,000 when he became director in 2017 to roughly 1,400 at the end of last year to about 2,000 now. The number of arrests of white supremacists and other racially motivated extremists has almost tripled, he said."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FBI chief warns violent 'domestic terrorism' growing in US
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) — FBI Director Christopher Wray bluntly labeled the January riot at the U.S. Capitol as “domestic terrorism” Tuesday and warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism that law enforcement is scrambling to confront through thousands of investigations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apnews.com



Time to be careful.

The article you linked to has literally zero mentions of "white nationalism."
Like I am saying, "white supremacist" is not equal to "white nationalist." A white supremacist is a racist who believes that white is a race, and that whoever the people are who are in that race are culturally superior to anyone who is not. A white nationalist is someone who believes that white is a race, and that whoever the people are who are in that race should be governed as a nation exclusive to people who are not in that race.

Both of them are shit ideas, and they are not mutually exclusive, but I don't think that they are the same idea. It'd be kind of like pointing at a Nazi running a concentration camp and calling them a German nationalist rather than a genocidal maniac. Whilst it might be a pretty tame assumption that they are a German nationalist, given the circumstances, it's not necessarily true from the circumstances and it's also a far blunter terminology than appropriate.

So, pointing at domestic terrorists and calling them "white nationalists" is kind of the same scenario. You have people who likely do, but possibly don't, believe in the philosophy which you are using to label them, but you are making that assumption as some sort of strange euphemism for what better describes them as a piece of shit.

Are we trying to talk about the rise of white supremacy and call it "white nationalism" as some sort of neologism or re-definition of an existing term? If so, why? Why not just refer to it as "white supremacy?" Is that too aggressive? Too aggressive to describe a movement that marginalizes a group of people based on skin colour through the use of violence and intimidation by using a term that points out the core focus of that philosophy?

If so, that's weird and I'm against it. 



AMOS said:


> What is Frank James? The black man that set out to kill a bunch of white people on a subway? Is he and people that think like him black nationalists? Or just criminals. I think it all depends on your personal narrative



What about Chewbacca? The 8' tall Wookie who wants to live on Endor with 2' tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! The defence rests.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Like I am saying, "white supremacist" is not equal to "white nationalist." A white supremacist is a racist who believes that white is a race, and that whoever the people are who are in that race are culturally superior to anyone who is not. A white nationalist is someone who believes that white is a race, and that whoever the people are who are in that race should be governed as a nation exclusive to people who are not in that race.
> 
> Both of them are shit ideas, and they are not mutually exclusive, but I don't think that they are the same idea. It'd be kind of like pointing at a Nazi running a concentration camp and calling them a German nationalist rather than a genocidal maniac. Whilst it might be a pretty tame assumption that they are a German nationalist, given the circumstances, it's not necessarily true from the circumstances and it's also a far blunter terminology than appropriate.


While white supremacy and white nationalism are not the same idea, if we were to draw a Venn diagram, I’m pretty sure that the white supremacist circle would be 100% inside the white nationalist circle. I‘d say its safe to say that all white supremacists are white nationalists, but not all white nationalists are white supremacists. Though I suspect that most white nationalists are also white supremacists, too.


----------



## Drew

TimmyPage said:


> I think I've found the root of the problem here, guys. Looks like it's time to pack it up and give it all back to the Queen.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I just think it's bullshit that instead of considering why some more progressive items aren't getting traction they just go "welp, I guess no one wants this" and swerve right.
> 
> There's no introspection.
> 
> Like I said, they're shit when it comes to messaging and unfortunately it seems like that's by design.
> 
> Biden is so focused on being the "Anti-Trump" that they can't see the forest for the trees. Diving hardcore into centrism isn't going to win them any votes, and it's definitely not going to make this country any better for the greater majority of the people.


Here's the thing, though - that clearly takes time to shift public opinion (if it can even be done at all, as someone pointed out), so, what do you do in the meantime?

No one elects people because they want to see them fail to pass all these really great things that would have really improved people's lives. They expect them to, if they can't succeed at their original goals, at least find SOME way to make incremental improvement, and if they don't then they'll vote them out and let someone else try.

As far as the "we need to drill more," there's some nuance there that we're glossing over here - the Biden administration is pointing out that oil companies are sitting on a lot of approved federal well permits that they're not currently using, and if we actually went ahead and drilled some of those already-approved wells, the supply increase would at least have SOME impact on current high prices. That's clearly not a long term fix, but right now prices are a short term problem.

But, the introspection you're talking about, and the change in messaging that will follow, needs to be happening in the background to prepare for the 2022 and 2024 elections. It's seperate and apart from the fact that Biden needs to govern _right now_.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> While white supremacy and white nationalism are not the same idea, if we were to draw a Venn diagram, I’m pretty sure that the white supremacist circle would be 100% inside the white nationalist circle. I‘d say its safe to say that all white supremacists are white nationalists, but not all white nationalists are white supremacists. Though I suspect that most white nationalists are also white supremacists, too.


I guess fair point that we're combining these two, but if you want to generalize a step back and talk about _racism_...

...well, I'd argue it's no coincidence that Trump was fixated on fortifying the 1,954-mile long US-Mexico border, where there were _brown_ people on the other side, but not the 5,525 mile US-Canada border, where only white people with funny accents were on the other side.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Drew said:


> Here's the thing, though - that clearly takes time to shift public opinion (if it can even be done at all, as someone pointed out), so, what do you do in the meantime?



It takes a heck of a lot longer if they're not even trying.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> While white supremacy and white nationalism are not the same idea, if we were to draw a Venn diagram, I’m pretty sure that the white supremacist circle would be 100% inside the white nationalist circle. I‘d say its safe to say that all white supremacists are white nationalists, but not all white nationalists are white supremacists. Though I suspect that most white nationalists are also white supremacists, too.


I don't see why it necessarily would be 100%.

Again: 
White nationalism is defined by the idea that "whites" should be segregated into a separate nation from other races.
White supremacy is defined by the idea that "whites" are culturally superior to other races.

Someone who is white nationalist but not white supremacist might believe that "whites" cause problems and should be shipped off to an island somewhere.

Someone who is white supremacist but not white nationalist might believe that "whites" should be given preferential treatment but live in the same nation with other races in something like a racist caste system.

White nationalism, is, technically, not toned down white supremacy. There is no toned down white supremacy, actually. You either believe that there is a race of people deemed "white" and that they are better than everyone else or you think that's bullshit. I guess someone could hypothetically be agnostic about it, as if they don't really believe it but also don't disbelieve it, but it's a pretty dramatic philosophy, so I don't see that really being a practical position.

In reality, everybody has their own philosophy about other people. Many of those philosophies contain some notion of "race." Some do not. In the USA, the concept of race is heavily reinforced, because, when you fill out a form for the government, for a school, at a doctor's office, etc., it asks you your race.

Race is a fucked concept. I'll use myself as an example: I was born in Detroit, Michigan. My mom and dad were both born in the USA. My mom's mom was from Slovenia. The woman I knew as my great grandmother, who died when I was a teenager, was Roma, and her husband was Slovenian. My mom's dad was born either in Canada or the USA. His mom was Canadian and his dad was from Germany. My dad's family was from Kentucky. My dad's dad's great-great grandmother was from Nigeria. What the hell does that make me? It seems silly to mark "Black" or "Asian" based on being 1/64th Nigerian or even 1/8th Roma. But it raises a couple of questions: 1. If someone was 100% Romani, what would they even be supposed to mark on the form? 2. At what point to you just mark "mixed?" 3. What if I'm adopted? For that matter, what if my parent or grandparent was adopted? For example, I took a DNA test, and it didn't show any Roma genetics. Maybe my great grandmother wasn't Romani or maybe my grandmother wasn't her biological daughter, or maybe the people doing the DNA analysis don't 100% understand what Roma means, exactly. Maybe there are other explanations, and none of these are necessarily mutually exclusive. 4. Who the fuck gives a shit about any of this anyway?

Anyway, if you can manage to bullshit some sort of concept out of "race" in the first place, you still have to take some pretty crazy steps to end up at a place of racist philosophy, being the belief that people are valued as a function of parentage. What's crazy is how prevalent this concept is in so many different cultures. Whether it's the KKK trying to intimidate "non-whites," or it's the Turks trying to eliminate the Armenians, or the Nazis perpetrating the holocaust against the Jews and others, or the Hutus and the Tutsis in Central Africa fighting each other merely because of these labels, it's the same basic concept of "person A is worth more than person B due to parentage." This is weird to most sane people who understand that genetics and environment make you who you are, not one or the other.

Sorry I'm off on this tangent.

But there's so much to unpack here to get into any discussion about racism. I also feel it's necessary to mention that racial stereotypes are not necessarily racist and racists do not necessarily believe in racial stereotypes, although, the latter half of that statement is probably true in North America anyway. But when we hear any uncomfortable stereotype, we tend to think "racism" automatically, which isn't really the case most of the time.

Then things get much stickier when people bring up generalizations, which are easy to reinforce with statistics, but also easy to weaponize to drive racism, or, often, neither. I guess my point is that not every edgy statement is a sin and not every sin is equally egregious.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> Nationalism is just racism in different clothing.
> 
> What's important isn't the focus on skin colour, it's the general mindset of everything needing to be [us] vs [them]. It's the implication that your own interests (whether you qualify that with your Race or your Nation or your Party, whatever), must be enforced or protected to the detriment and/or exclusion of others. You can argue semantics to try to get around it, but as soon as you've painted yourself as being on the Right Team, against Their Agenda, you're basically in the same general bucket.
> 
> Phrasing it as "we need to protect our borders" is a cop-out. All that means is that you think everything outside of your own (borders? nation? state? race? political team?) is a threat (which it usually isn't), and gives you an out to not be introspective about your own problems. America's problems (I'll wrap Canada into that - so North America's problems) are mostly inside of America. It's internal. The vast majority of the threats to a country, IMO, come from within the country, and nationalism is a deflection - a defence mechanism, not from outside threats, but from the need to acknowledge internal flaws.


That's what the lefties want you to believe, and you believed. But stop guessing what's in other people minds.

The liberal left wants every shooter to be white, as stated in the wikileaks emails after that Muslim shot a bunch of people in San Bernardino. The facts are, blacks and latino's kill more people in a day than white people do in a year, but you don't want to face the facts about gang violence.








Clinton Staffers Joke About San Bernadino Shooter, Leaked Emails Show


WikiLeaks releases email between Clinton campaign chairman and spokesperson joking about identity of shooter who killed 14 people




www.thewrap.com


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> It takes a heck of a lot longer if they're not even trying.


Ok, but again, consider the Democratic party ISN'T a homogenous body that all shares the same views and objectives, for better or worse. Rather, it's a party of centrist moderates, left wing progressives, a range in between, and then a handful of independents who caucus with them. In some ways that's like the national left-right spectrum as well, with Democrats to the left and Republicans on the right of the US political spectrum. 

I wouldn't expect the Republican party to, well, intentionally at least, advocate for Democratic priorities. I'd expect them to advocate their own. Similarly, I wouldn't expect centrist Democrats to be out there advocating progressive Democrat priorities. 

So, I guess my question is, if you don't see Democrats of any stripe advocating for progressive priorities, then why are the progressives asleep on the job?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> White nationalism is defined by the idea that "whites" should be segregated into a separate nation from other races.
> White supremacy is defined by the idea that "whites" are culturally superior to other races.



Can you really have the former without believing the later?


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> That's what the lefties want you to believe, and you believed. But stop guessing what's in other people minds.
> 
> The liberal left wants every shooter to be white, as stated in the wikileaks emails after that Muslim shot a bunch of people in San Bernardino. The facts are, blacks and latino's kill more people in a day than white people do in a year, but you don't want to face the facts about gang violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Staffers Joke About San Bernadino Shooter, Leaked Emails Show
> 
> 
> WikiLeaks releases email between Clinton campaign chairman and spokesperson joking about identity of shooter who killed 14 people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thewrap.com


I mean, let's look at some numbers here.

The US is 57.8% white, 18.7% hispanic, and 12.4% black. You're going to tell me with a straight face that two groups representing a combined 31.1% of the country, kill 365x as many people as a demographic group that represents about 60% of the country, and in turn the per capita killing-people rate is nearly 750x higher for black and latino Americans than white americans?

That's an awfully_ weird _way to prove Republicans being racist is a liberal conspiracy, but sure, I'm willing to hear you out.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Can you really have the former without believing the later?


Potentially.

My point is that we already have a suitable word for these people, and it seems like we are afraid to offend them by calling them the term that refers to what they believe. If a person is at a Nazi rally, they are a white supremacist. Maybe they are also a white nationalist, maybe not, who knows, because that's not the belief that is causing them to do the thing that they are doing that people are talking about.


----------



## AMOS

Stalin starved almost 4 million Ukrainians to death because there were rumblings of Nationalism in Ukraine at the time, so Stalin squashed that idea by killing as many as possible. By most of your self generated definitions on here, Stalin starved to death almost 4 million racists. There's a difference between Patriotism and Racism that some of you don't want to see. It goes against the liberal narrative. I'm not even a Trump supporter but I've already been branded as a racist. Just because I want secure borders.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> I mean, let's look at some numbers here.
> 
> The US is 57.8% white, 18.7% hispanic, and 12.4% black. You're going to tell me with a straight face that two groups representing a combined 31.1% of the country, kill 365x as many people as a demographic group that represents about 60% of the country, and in turn the per capita killing-people rate is nearly 750x higher for black and latino Americans than white americans?
> 
> That's an awfully_ weird _way to prove Republicans being racist is a liberal conspiracy, but sure, I'm willing to hear you out.


According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" *3.0%* in cases where the race was known. Among homicide victims in 2019 where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Potentially.
> 
> My point is that we already have a suitable word for these people, and it seems like we are afraid to offend them by calling them the term that refers to what they believe. If a person is at a Nazi rally, they are a white supremacist. Maybe they are also a white nationalist, maybe not, who knows, because that's not the belief that is causing them to do the thing that they are doing that people are talking about.



I mean, the term itself was first used in white supremacist circles to help sanitize their image, so you're right there. 

It just seems that a white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist is an extreme edge case. 

The SPLC has been studying these groups and ideologies for decades and pretty much uses these terms interchangeably. It's hard to really argue with that sort of breadth of data and experience.


----------



## AMOS

More than half the deaths committed by 12% of the population? There's no conspiracy here


----------



## CanserDYI

Did we ever stop to think that crime isn't a black/white race thing? Maybe its a poor/rich thing? And maybe us white folk put too many non white families into poor lifestyles? Its funny how the statistics line up to show that most violent crime is done by black and latino folks, but no one wants to look at the history of why they are where they are? I live in whitesville, Whitestate and guess who does the robbing and stealing here? Poor white people.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> The liberal left wants every shooter to be white, as stated in the wikileaks emails after that Muslim shot a bunch of people in San Bernardino. The facts are, blacks and latino's kill more people in a day than white people do in a year, but you don't want to face the facts about gang violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton Staffers Joke About San Bernadino Shooter, Leaked Emails Show
> 
> 
> WikiLeaks releases email between Clinton campaign chairman and spokesperson joking about identity of shooter who killed 14 people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thewrap.com


That's a fairly broad statement based off of one example. More accurately: one person associated with the liberal left was weirdly upset by the fact that the shooter wasn't white. Trust me when I say that the same sort of extreme generalization could be used against any group of political thought to make any disgusting point. But it's a dramatic overgeneralization and it doesn't really work that way.

The other part of your statement is obviously hyperbole. And even if "blacks" are convicted or charged or arrested or whatever for more violent crimes than "whites," it does not necessarily mean that they commit more of those crimes. An alternate explanation might be that they aren't as good at getting away with it. Or they might both commit more violent crime and be worse at getting away with it, who knows? All I know is that our legal system is quite obviously bonkers and in dire need of heavy reforms.



AMOS said:


> Stalin starved almost 4 million Ukrainians to death because there were rumblings of Nationalism in Ukraine at the time, so Stalin squashed that idea by killing as many as possible. By most of your self generated definitions on here, Stalin starved to death almost 4 million racists. There's a difference between Patriotism and Racism that some of you don't want to see. It goes against the liberal narrative. I'm not even a Trump supporter but I've already been branded as a racist. Just because I want secure borders.



The Holodomor was a horrible event. It's somewhat complex, though. There was a lot of anti-Soviet sentiment in Ukraine leading up to it, but the same could have been said for anywhere in the USSR. Stalin was not a racist, though. I don't believe that for a second. He was absolutely monstrous to his own homeland and just about every group of people who identified themselves by any standout characteristic other than being soviet.

I'm not sure who called you racist or why, but I agree that US immigration policy needs to be one area with better government control.



MaxOfMetal said:


> I mean, the term itself was first used in white supremacist circles to help sanitize their image, so you're right there.
> 
> It just seems that a white nationalist who isn't a white supremacist is an extreme edge case.
> 
> The SPLC has been studying these groups and ideologies for decades and pretty much uses these terms interchangeably. It's hard to really argue with that sort of breadth of data and experience.



Yes, and yes.

Have you ever been aware of me before?  I can argue with pretty much anything. In this case, I don't see the point in using the terms interchangeably. It dulls the point being made, provides a layer of façade over a nasty philosophy, and also gives more ammunition to the people who argue on behalf of the nasty ideas. I felt I had to make a case for my stance. 



CanserDYI said:


> Did we ever stop to think that crime isn't a black/white race thing? Maybe its a poor/rich thing? And maybe us white folk put too many non white families into poor lifestyles? Its funny how the statistics line up to show that most violent crime is done by black and latino folks, but no one wants to look at the history of why they are where they are? I live in whitesville, Whitestate and guess who does the robbing and stealing here? Poor white people.



A lot of people think about that often times. I'd go so far as to argue that crime isn't based at all on genetics. Crime is based on environment - and not just economic means but proper cultural installation of values. Rich people steal a lot. Maybe they aren't as violent because they can steal more freely without consequences. Maybe poor people are more prone to violence because they do not have as many means to steal without violence, or are more prone to have witnessed unpunished violence between other people.

Maybe statistics would even show a correlation between genetics and crime, but I would bet that the link between the two is nothing like a direct "genetics causes crime" sort of thing, but maybe genetics is correlated to a litany of other factors, some of which become correlated with crime under certain circumstances, or, more likely, that people with certain genetics are placed by society into certain environments that are correlated to crime. In that case, the culture of society is the engine that does the actions that cause the correlation.

But this is all very abstract.

Meanwhile, a Congolese man named Patrick Lyoya was pinned down to the ground and shot in the back of the head by a police officer in Michigan during a traffic stop over his license plate not matching his car.


----------



## Mathemagician

Systems and policies like red-lining lead to decades of putting a bunch of people of similar race together and having decades of systems that made it tougher for them to improve their situation than their counterparts means that when crimes do occur it’s more often going to be in poorer communities. And when those in poorer communities tend to be predominantly minorities both the perpetrators and victims are more likely to be minorities.

It’s easy to sell a narrative when one ignores the decades of systemic issues that lead to those outcomes.

Hell, we have a system where schools are funded by LOCAL tax dollars. So even education in this country is unequal. Poor areas with lower income have less funding. And schools that do poorly on standardized tests will receive less funding in future years which creates a negative feedback loop of under funding and poor performance. Again making it harder for one to “bootstrap” their way out of a difficult situation.

There’s no need to call people names when it just takes some time to start peeling back the onion on “shit that makes it easy to sell a fake narrative”.

The black on black crime dog whistle being a common refrain.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> Meanwhile, a Congolese man named Patrick Lyoya was pinned down to the ground and shot in the back of the head by a police officer in Michigan during a traffic stop over his license plate not matching his car.



Since we're talking about data and stats, it's probably worth mentioning that we have absolutely no idea how many people are killed by police. None. All the self reporting numbers turn out to be bullshit under base scrutiny, and the more that researchers dig the more they find, and that's just when the reports, and sometimes witnesses, don't magically disintegrate into the ether.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> According to the FBI, African-Americans accounted for 55.9% of all homicide offenders in 2019, with whites 41.1%, and "Other" *3.0%* in cases where the race was known. Among homicide victims in 2019 where the race was known, 54.7% were black or African-American, 42.3% were white, and 3.1% were of other races.


Let's set aside prosecutor bias for a moment here and take these statistics at face value. 

How does that translate to black and hispanic Americans killing more than 365 times more people than white Americans?


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Since we're talking about data and stats, it's probably worth mentioning that we have absolutely no idea how many people are killed by police. None. All the self reporting numbers turn out to be bullshit under base scrutiny, and the more that researchers dig the more they find, and that's just when the reports, and sometimes witnesses, don't magically disintegrate into the ether.


Well, we have _some_ idea, and it's not good news.

We obviously have a huge problem, though, if we can conclude that more than half are unreported.

I wonder how the police in Michigan are going to try to explain this last one, since it happened on film, since the man who was shot was physically pinned at the time, and since the guy was hit execution style. Queue the raging thin blue line people echoing the refrain "well, he shouldn't have tried to run away." He was unarmed and on foot. Call for backup or something. Pretty much any alternative is better than the way it played out.

This whole situation hits a little close for me. Between the ages of 8 and 22, the police in the Detroit area shot a three people I knew personally on separate occasions.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Let's set aside prosecutor bias for a moment here and take these statistics at face value.
> 
> How does that translate to black and hispanic Americans killing more than 365 times more people than white Americans?


Did I say 365?


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> Did I say 365?



I think he took you literally.



AMOS said:


> The facts are, blacks and latino's kill more people in a day than white people do in a year, but you don't want to face the facts about gang violence.


----------



## StevenC

CanserDYI said:


> Did we ever stop to think that crime isn't a black/white race thing? Maybe its a poor/rich thing? And maybe us white folk put too many non white families into poor lifestyles? Its funny how the statistics line up to show that most violent crime is done by black and latino folks, but no one wants to look at the history of why they are where they are? I live in whitesville, Whitestate and guess who does the robbing and stealing here? Poor white people.


Yes, everyone who isn't a racist or doesn't have a racist agenda knows this. AMOS is one of those, or the third also very common group: not paying attention.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I don't see why it necessarily would be 100%.
> 
> Again:
> White nationalism is defined by the idea that "whites" should be segregated into a separate nation from other races.
> White supremacy is defined by the idea that "whites" are culturally superior to other races.
> 
> Someone who is white nationalist but not white supremacist might believe that "whites" cause problems and should be shipped off to an island somewhere.
> 
> Someone who is white supremacist but not white nationalist might believe that "whites" should be given preferential treatment but live in the same nation with other races in something like a racist caste system.


I don’t disagree in theory. In practice, however, all the white supremacists I’ve ever met (and that’s not a small number here in Texas, and, more generally, the rest of the South) want whites to ”be segregated into a separate nation from other races” by way of “sending those damn _______ back where they came from”.

Also, a group that believes that ”’whites’ cause problems and should be shipped off to an island somewhere” are generally not going to be identified, or self identify, as white nationalists. They are more likely to be Native American nationalists or African American nationalists, or whatever their race/nationality first and foremost, and identify and be identified as such, and white nationalists, by your definition, only as a secondary or tertiary descriptor.


----------



## Flappydoodle

vilk said:


> I wonder if it's even possible to sway a voter anymore. Like, think of any person you've seen, met, or even heard of that has voted for Trump twice and ask yourself if there's a non-zero chance that they would vote for Biden. I feel the answer is no, there is no possibilty to steal a voter from R to D—for the next election, that is. Trump or GOP policy/rhetoric might convince someone to stay home and not vote, but there is absolutely no chance that Joe Biden can convince a two-time Trump voter to now vote democrat.



I don't agree with this actually. Plenty of sensible people voted for Trump too because they liked many of his policies. I think the foaming-at-the-mouth people get all the media attention. But end of the day, lots of very ordinary and boring people voted for him. I think they can be swayed if the Democrats weren't as bad as people said. It obviously needs some luck on the Dem's behalf. If the economy crashes or there's any major crisis, they'll take the blame.



AMOS said:


> The White Nationalists thing is a farce, but nationalism exists. IMO it's all about Patriotism and secure borders, it doesn't automatically make you racist because you're a Nationalist. Nationalism exists in most countries. "White" is thrown in there by the media. Yeah there's some White Supremacists out there but it's not the biggest national threat like Biden claims it is. The biggest national threat is open borders, no one else does it and for good reason!



I agree. What's quite funny is how actually racist so many other countries are and yet it's the west which takes all the shit for it. You look at Japan, Korea, China - all have extremely strict border controls and extremely harsh penalties for violating them. They're also all racist AF and I would call them nationalist too. You can be born in Japan, speak Japanese, but if your dad is white then you're still treated as a foreigner. Across most of Asia, including India, cross-racial/cultural marriage is massively frowned upon. The official line of China is that Han Chinese are superior. Shit dude, even traveling SE Asia Vietnam, Thailand, Laos etc all have super strict immigration laws. It's mind-boggling that the USA is somehow supposed to just accept that people can come in whenever and wherever and it's fine.



wheresthefbomb said:


> Interestingly, ethnic nationalism has been one of the few truly effective strategies for language preservation in previously-colonized areas. Basque country in Spain is an excellent example of this. This isn't an argument _for_ nationalism, necessarily, just an interesting case point in the intersection of nationalism and colonialism.
> 
> edit: Also, that "closed border" stuff is a white nationalist dogwhistle talking point, I'm not saying you're one, but I am saying you might want to be wary of whose attention you garner making statements like that. i've known a lot of these dudes, relatively speaking, over the years. They love to talk in code and beat around stuff like that.


I honestly don't see how it's a dogswhistle. It just feels like common sense that a country should have borders and laws that are respected. I really can't think of any country that has amnesty for illegal immigrants etc in the way that the US does. 


Drew said:


> I guess fair point that we're combining these two, but if you want to generalize a step back and talk about _racism_...
> 
> ...well, I'd argue it's no coincidence that Trump was fixated on fortifying the 1,954-mile long US-Mexico border, where there were _brown_ people on the other side, but not the 5,525 mile US-Canada border, where only white people with funny accents were on the other side.



Are there any problems from the Canadian border? I genuinely do not know. But the US-Mexico border has cartels, people trafficking and sex trafficking, drug smuggling, weapon smuggling, kidnapping, and people of all sorts of nationalities and varieties of skin pigmentation coming over. There are Ukranians crossing the Mexico-US border, albeit mostly legally (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/13/1092...ved-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-by-the-thousands)

I would also posit that it's less about skin tone and more about Mexico being poor, corrupt and the border operations being relatively easy and very profitable.


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> I agree. What's quite funny is how actually racist so many other countries are and yet it's the west which takes all the shit for it. You look at Japan, Korea, China - all have extremely strict border controls and extremely harsh penalties for violating them. They're also all racist AF and I would call them nationalist too. You can be born in Japan, speak Japanese, but if your dad is white then you're still treated as a foreigner. Across most of Asia, including India, cross-racial/cultural marriage is massively frowned upon. The official line of China is that Han Chinese are superior. Shit dude, even traveling SE Asia Vietnam, Thailand, Laos etc all have super strict immigration laws. It's mind-boggling that the USA is somehow supposed to just accept that people can come in whenever and wherever and it's fine.


"Other countries are racist too, that means terrorism isn't real"

"Non-whites are bad too, what's wrong with neo-nazis?" 

Do you think before you type?


----------



## AMOS

The bottom line is racism exists, but I fear more is being created because so many get preferential treatment over the mainstream. And of course no one can speak their minds without being labeled as racist when you're really just stating facts, it drives me nuts. I don't think any one country is more racist then another, it's the media that drives it, it's the media that divides us. Too many buy into it, that's the real problem.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> The bottom line is racism exists, but I fear more is being created because so many get preferential treatment over the mainstream. And of course no one can speak their minds without being labeled as racist when you're really just stating facts, it drives me nuts. I don't think any one country is more racist then another, it's the media that drives it, it's the media that divides us. Too many buy into it, that's the real problem.


No, I'm pretty sure it's capitalism.


----------



## profwoot

Every country is racist, but the USA is the most diverse and the racism is tearing us apart. Japanese folks hating Chinese folks is less of an issue when so few Chinese folks live in Japan. It's not the media tearing us apart, it's the racists (and the fascists, but I repeat myself). Especially now that fewer and fewer people even interact with mainstream media, it's madness to assign them special blame.

You know how half the country is basically insane now? Vaccine microchips, JFK Jr, masks don't work, gay folks are pedos, etc.? Being racist is exactly like that. It's something for stupid people to use to scapegoat the ills of society so they don't have to deal with reality. More recently, "race realism" is the idea that racism is good, actually, because the "facts" tell us that black people are inferior. As long as you are very selective about which facts you acknowledge, e.g., make sure you completely ignore the myriad factors leading to their current plight in America. 

How about this: Don't be racist. Even if you don't yet understand exactly why all the smart and informed people shun racism, it's just a far better way to live. Plus you won't have to deal with constantly being called racist, which racists seem to hate for some reason.


----------



## nightflameauto

profwoot said:


> How about this: Don't be racist. Even if you don't yet understand exactly why all the smart and informed people shun racism, it's just a far better way to live. Plus you won't have to deal with constantly being called racist, which racists seem to hate for some reason.


Less hate in general would be a good thing. Right now we as a society are so hell-bent on finding ways to hate each other that you practically see fist-fights break out over cookie preferences between friends. It's fucking ridiculous.

Racism is simply focused hate. And while sometimes it stems from playing the blame game for something that, ultimately, the racist should have addressed in themselves, it's still giving an end result of hate.

Hatred festers inside us and causes so many more problems for us if we let it take root. And I'm talking just on the individual level. It's no wonder our country seems to be busting apart at the seams when there's so much hatred running through everything from politics to entertainment to schooling and public policy. It's ridiculous.


----------



## StevenC

Also, for what it's worth, a lot of the tension in Asia isn't racism, it's a history of wars. For a more familiar example, the Irish don't hate the English because of genetics, it's from centuries of tyranny and oppression. 

Now I know for white Americans who have no cultural history they acknowledge compared to the rest of the world, the concept of centuries of oppression or war is incredibly alien, and it might be easy to equate historic grievances with racism. But this would be an incomplete understanding of the world.


----------



## TedEH

profwoot said:


> You know how half the country is basically insane now?


I maintain the theory that half of everyone have always been insane, the only thing that's changed is how easy it is to tell the difference.
I mean, it happens with everything - you start recording something and go "oh wow, look at this [amazing observation], that must be something new!" when in fact that new thing has always been happening, and may even be in decline, we just didn't look at it every day.
Ignorance is bliss and all that.


----------



## TedEH

Also, what does "other countries are racist too" have to do with anything?
This isn't the "lets pick which country is the most racist" thread, it's specifically targeted at American politics, so _of course_ the focus is going to be on America's issues.
You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of political talking points being deflections so that nobody has to introspect.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> No, I'm pretty sure it's capitalism.


I'll take it over Communism or Socialism, but it would be nice if they cracked down on the monopolies and greed.


----------



## Flappydoodle

StevenC said:


> "Other countries are racist too, that means terrorism isn't real"
> 
> "Non-whites are bad too, what's wrong with neo-nazis?"
> 
> Do you think before you type?


But I didn’t say either of those things that you quoted. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems, or you hallucinated something.


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> But I didn’t say either of those things that you quoted. Maybe you have reading comprehension problems, or you hallucinated something.


In my English classes we were taught about a thing called subtext, and reading comprehension questions would ask about it. So maybe you have a writing problem if people are getting "racist sympathiser" as the takeaway.


----------



## Flappydoodle

StevenC said:


> In my English classes we were taught about a thing called subtext, and reading comprehension questions would ask about it. So maybe you have a writing problem if people are getting "racist sympathiser" as the takeaway.


If you're seeing things which aren't there, that's on you, not me.

And the "racist" label is thrown around far too loosely nowadays that it really has zero impact any more.


----------



## IwantTacos

I’m 1000 percent in support of just sending white people back where they came from. They’d be so happy.


----------



## Adieu

IwantTacos said:


> I’m 1000 percent in support of just sending white people back where they came from. They’d be so happy.



I don't think Iraq and Africa want them there


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> If you're seeing things which aren't there, that's on you, not me.
> 
> And the "racist" label is thrown around far too loosely nowadays that it really has zero impact any more.


Look my guy, if you're not capable of understanding what you wrote about racism, in the context of a discussion about whether white supremacy exists/is bad, makes you sound sympathetic towards those positions then you need more than a writing class. 

Phrases like "how actually racist [others] are".


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Did I say 365?


"Hispanic and Black Americans kill as many in one day as white Americans kill in one year" is, mathematically, exactly equivalent to saying Black and Hispanic Americans kill 365x as many people as white Americans. 

So, well, yeah. You did.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> If you're seeing things which aren't there, that's on you, not me.
> 
> And the "racist" label is thrown around far too loosely nowadays that it really has zero impact any more.


Forgive a bit of stating the obvious here, but your failing to see a subtext doesn't prove it doesn't exist. It proves you may be unaware of it, at best, but it's pretty irrelevant for "proving" if it exists or not. 

I mean, a big part of the _point_ of a subtext is it's _not_ the obvious clear superficial point. It's the one hidden underneath the superficial text.


----------



## spudmunkey

If subliminal messages were so common, how come _I've _never seen one?


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> If subliminal messages were so common, how come _I've _never seen one?


 

Just maybe the reason you've never seen an elephant in a palm tree isn't because they don't climb palm trees, it's because _they're really good at hiding_.


----------



## TedEH

Drew said:


> elephant





Drew said:


> it's because _they're really good at hiding_


Wait - is this why people keep telling me there's one in the room with us?


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Wait - is this why people keep telling me there's one in the room with us?


 Touche!


----------



## bostjan

So much a tapestry of metaphors here...

But yeah, let's call the white supremacists "white supremacists" so that we don't inadvertently whitewash their behaviour, or maybe send all of the "white nationalists" some place remote and let them form their own colony instead of being our perpetual white elephant.


----------



## ArtDecade

This thread... FFS.


----------



## IwantTacos

Adieu said:


> I don't think Iraq and Africa want them there


There’s plenty of room in the Sahara. Hardly even any one there.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> Forgive a bit of stating the obvious here, but your failing to see a subtext doesn't prove it doesn't exist. It proves you may be unaware of it, at best, but it's pretty irrelevant for "proving" if it exists or not.
> 
> I mean, a big part of the _point_ of a subtext is it's _not_ the obvious clear superficial point. It's the one hidden underneath the superficial text.



I'm quite well aware of the alleged subtext which he is seeing (hallucinating). But advocating for border controls simply does not equate to racism or white supremacy. To equate them is drawing a totally false association in the first place. Neither does pointing out that many/most countries are nationalist - often explicitly so. 

What he is trying to do is no more than a simple smear tactic which is becoming pretty dated and ineffectual. Putting things in literal quote marks which I didn't say is a lame tactic. Throwing about "racist" at everything you disagree with is stupid. And if we need to get personal, I'm sure my non-white wife and bi-racial children would agree that I'm the worst racist ever.


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> Putting things in literal quote marks which I didn't say is a lame tactic.


Hey now, where did I do that?


----------



## WarMachine

Anyone see this? (start at 0:04)


I get the feeling Joe just got finished with his first playthrough of Silent Hill 3


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

WarMachine said:


> Anyone see this? (start at 0:04)
> 
> 
> I get the feeling Joe just got finished with his first playthrough of Silent Hill 3



I get it that people are extremely critical of Biden, same as they were with Trump. But I just can’t stand the way politics are covered in our Country. He’s 79 for shits sake, I could care less if he has a ‘handler’, if the people poo pooing this think Trump didn’t have people trying to steer him around; they’re wrong. Things are never going to get better here until we stop treating politics like sports. This us and them attitude is perfect because it keeps us so distracted and pissed off and stuck with these (mostly) ineffectual clowns who don’t give two shits about you or I.


----------



## WarMachine

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I get it that people are extremely critical of Biden, same as they were with Trump. But I just can’t stand the way politics are covered in our Country. He’s 79 for shits sake, I could care less if he has a ‘handler’, if the people poo pooing this think Trump didn’t have people trying to steer him around; they’re wrong. Things are never going to get better here until we stop treating politics like sports. This us and them attitude is perfect because it keeps us so distracted and pissed off and stuck with these (mostly) ineffectual clowns who don’t give two shits about you or I.


No argument here at all dude, i saw that video and that's the first place my mind went lol.


----------



## thraxil

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> I get it that people are extremely critical of Biden, same as they were with Trump. But I just can’t stand the way politics are covered in our Country. He’s 79 for shits sake, I could care less if he has a ‘handler’



I'm a few decades younger than Biden and I wish I had a "handler". Some days it takes me three or four tries to get out the door in the morning without forgetting something that I need.


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> I'm quite well aware of the alleged subtext which he is seeing (hallucinating). But advocating for border controls simply does not equate to racism or white supremacy. To equate them is drawing a totally false association in the first place. Neither does pointing out that many/most countries are nationalist - often explicitly so.
> 
> What he is trying to do is no more than a simple smear tactic which is becoming pretty dated and ineffectual. Putting things in literal quote marks which I didn't say is a lame tactic. Throwing about "racist" at everything you disagree with is stupid. And if we need to get personal, I'm sure my non-white wife and bi-racial children would agree that I'm the worst racist ever.


So, let's unpack this a little.

Advocating for border controls is not _itself_ proof of racism. It's not even technically speaking a necessary precondition, I suppose, though I think it gets tough to advocate for ethno-nationalism without some advocacy for who can come or go.

What - to me - gets a little more concerning is when border control starts to get selective. Taking Donald Trump as a handy recent example, his fixation on building a wall along the border of a country with a majority latinx population, while almost entirely ignoring the much larger border of the country with a majority white population, is suspicious. His resisance to allowing immigration from majority-black and -latinx "shithole countries" like African nations, Haiti, and El Salvador, but wanting to promote immigration from "nice" countries like majority-white Norway is also suspicious. So too was his campaign promise to ban Muslims from coming into the States, which after a couple iterations eventually became a ban on travel from five Muslim-majority countries, coupled with an exemption for non-Muslims fleeing religious persecution. All together, this is a collection of policies that makes it a lot harder to come to the United States if you're black or brown than if you're white. Even that, technically speaking, doesn't _prove_ Trump was a racist shitbag... but plenty of racist shitbag ethno-nationalist groups in the US saw him as a kindred spirit, and it's at a minimum grounds for concern.

Having a non-white wife and bi-racial kids doesn't disprove racism either - it's a variation of "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" and beyond that it's certainly both possible to be racist to some groups and not others, and also that, say, the experience of an Asian woman with racism is going to be very different than an Asian man, as an example. Race and identity are extremely complex, and being married to, say, a Filipino woman doesn't prevent you from exhibiting racist attitudes towards Mexicans, or Hatians, or Chinese men.

I mean, if this was in the context of a conversation about trying to secure the _Canadian_ border, this might be a very different conversation, you know?


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> This thread... FFS.


This thread got _awesome_, and if you don't want to talk about elephants, I've also got an 800-pound gorilla here in the room at might be just your size!


----------



## profwoot

Drew said:


> So, let's unpack this a little.
> 
> Advocating for border controls is not _itself_ proof of racism. It's not even technically speaking a necessary precondition, I suppose, though I think it gets tough to advocate for ethno-nationalism without some advocacy for who can come or go.
> 
> What - to me - gets a little more concerning is when border control starts to get selective. Taking Donald Trump as a handy recent example, his fixation on building a wall along the border of a country with a majority latinx population, while almost entirely ignoring the much larger border of the country with a majority white population, is suspicious. His resisance to allowing immigration from majority-black and -latinx "shithole countries" like African nations, Haiti, and El Salvador, but wanting to promote immigration from "nice" countries like majority-white Norway is also suspicious. So too was his campaign promise to ban Muslims from coming into the States, which after a couple iterations eventually became a ban on travel from five Muslim-majority countries, coupled with an exemption for non-Muslims fleeing religious persecution. All together, this is a collection of policies that makes it a lot harder to come to the United States if you're black or brown than if you're white. Even that, technically speaking, doesn't _prove_ Trump was a racist shitbag... but plenty of racist shitbag ethno-nationalist groups in the US saw him as a kindred spirit, and it's at a minimum grounds for concern.
> 
> Having a non-white wife and bi-racial kids doesn't disprove racism either - it's a variation of "I'm not racist, I have black friends!" and beyond that it's certainly both possible to be racist to some groups and not others, and also that, say, the experience of an Asian woman with racism is going to be very different than an Asian man, as an example. Race and identity are extremely complex, and being married to, say, a Filipino woman doesn't prevent you from exhibiting racist attitudes towards Mexicans, or Hatians, or Chinese men.
> 
> I mean, if this was in the context of a conversation about trying to secure the _Canadian_ border, this might be a very different conversation, you know?


Furthermore, the context was FD commiserating in reply to an overtly racist post. If the subtext wasn't intended, that's on him.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> while almost entirely ignoring the much larger border of the country with a majority white population


Don't worry, we got it covered, buddy!


----------



## SpaceDock

WarMachine said:


> Anyone see this? (start at 0:04)
> 
> 
> I get the feeling Joe just got finished with his first playthrough of Silent Hill 3



Reminds me of the same drivel from when Obama was at the White House, right wing outlets blasted out a ton of out of context edits that made Joe look confused to push their narrative and flood social media with “he’s lost it.” Days later people see the full context. This is just propaganda.


----------



## bostjan

zappatton2 said:


> Don't worry, we got it covered, buddy!
> View attachment 106486


I'm not your buddy, guy!


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> Reminds me of the same drivel from when Obama was at the White House, right wing outlets blasted out a ton of out of context edits that made Joe look confused to push their narrative and flood social media with “he’s lost it.” Days later people see the full context. This is just propaganda.


I mean, yes, it is propaganda, but it's kind of on point, still. Same as the videos of Trump getting confused and walking past the car he was supposed to get into or whatever. These guys are both pretty old and not 100% with it anymore. Everyone has their off days, but, then again, not everyone is trying to be president of the USA. It's not only an important right to be able to criticize our leaders, but, I feel it's important to not end up with these bizarre cults like we have with Putin, like we have with Trump, etc. Biden is honestly not that great of a leader. He's never been. He's always been a bit of a ditz. But he's not trying to repress our religious freedoms, our freedom of speech, nor encouraging the police (who report to him as part of the executive branch) to bash people's heads in when they disagree with his agenda. So, as much as I'm not a huge fan of Biden, I'm not about to "take back" voting for him. He's only sort of bad, and still 3 orders of magnitude better than the mainstream alternative.

The whole "what has this country become?!" outrage, though, is histrionic. FDR hid the fact that he was in a wheelchair. Wilson hid the fact that he had a stroke. Reagan lost his mind before he left office. None of this is the least bit new, and none of it ought to be at all shocking to anyone who knows enough about American presidential history to write more than four sentences about it.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I'm not your buddy, guy!


Well I’m not your guy, buddy!


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> I mean, yes, it is propaganda, but it's kind of on point, still. Same as the videos of Trump getting confused and walking past the car he was supposed to get into or whatever. These guys are both pretty old and not 100% with it anymore. Everyone has their off days, but, then again, not everyone is trying to be president of the USA. It's not only an important right to be able to criticize our leaders, but, I feel it's important to not end up with these bizarre cults like we have with Putin, like we have with Trump, etc. Biden is honestly not that great of a leader. He's never been. He's always been a bit of a ditz. But he's not trying to repress our religious freedoms, our freedom of speech, nor encouraging the police (who report to him as part of the executive branch) to bash people's heads in when they disagree with his agenda. So, as much as I'm not a huge fan of Biden, I'm not about to "take back" voting for him. He's only sort of bad, and still 3 orders of magnitude better than the mainstream alternative.
> 
> The whole "what has this country become?!" outrage, though, is histrionic. FDR hid the fact that he was in a wheelchair. Wilson hid the fact that he had a stroke. Reagan lost his mind before he left office. None of this is the least bit new, and none of it ought to be at all shocking to anyone who knows enough about American presidential history to write more than four sentences about it.



You know, I'm also going to guess that most of the time they're just fucking tired. 

They're only human, and they're probably getting woken up all the time at night. I also doubt they sleep great with all the stress of the job. It must be exhausting, and you have cameras on you and people watching you constantly. It's easy to be distracted and walk past a door. Same for speaking (especially when campaigning) - you're talking all the time. Enough hours of video footage and someone is gonna splice together a bunch of clips of you messing up.


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> You know, I'm also going to guess that most of the time they're just fucking tired.
> 
> They're only human, and they're probably getting woken up all the time at night. I also doubt they sleep great with all the stress of the job. It must be exhausting, and you have cameras on you and people watching you constantly. It's easy to be distracted and walk past a door. Same for speaking (especially when campaigning) - you're talking all the time. Enough hours of video footage and someone is gonna splice together a bunch of clips of you messing up.


Agreed.

But there is "oops I started rambling about Afghanistan" tired and then there is "if this is the nuclear football, where is my Mr. Coffee" tired. The older these presidents get, the more supervision they need to keep that fine line from getting too blurry. But, like I was alluding to before, age is definitely not everything. When the choice is between a mumbling incoherent old guy and another mumbling incoherent old guy who has a penchant for world domination and a complete disregard for the rules, I'll choose the less apocalyptic choice, even if he's a little less coherent. But, either way, we are likely in for a very rough four years.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But there is "oops I started rambling about Afghanistan" tired and then there is "if this is the nuclear football, where is my Mr. Coffee" tired. The older these presidents get, the more supervision they need to keep that fine line from getting too blurry. But, like I was alluding to before, age is definitely not everything. When the choice is between a mumbling incoherent old guy and another mumbling incoherent old guy who has a penchant for world domination and a complete disregard for the rules, I'll choose the less apocalyptic choice, even if he's a little less coherent. But, either way, we are likely in for a very rough four years.


Yeah, for sure.

I'm fine with an age limit of 75, and having yearly cognitive function tests. The constitution has a minimum age limit, so I don't see why there can't be a maximum age limit. There are very few people on better form at 75 than they were at 50 and that's only fair to recognise IMO.


----------



## Mathemagician

I’d want to see it at 65. Straight up major gap in connection to society when people are that close to retirement age.


----------



## nightflameauto

I would like to see the political process in the states, especially when it comes to higher federal offices, include a set of tests with publicly accessible results. These tests should absolutely include, but not necessarily be limited to:

A) Cognition. Yeah, maybe the first to go through it will be intelligent enough to feel insulted, but then again we have Trump bragging about it. So who knows?

B) General knowledge. As in book smarts. Math, general english, basic science, some history. Nothing deep diving. Just the idea that they at least have enough intelligence to speak with a high school or college educated person and not be completely and utterly outclassed in every way, shape, and form save hyperbolic babbling.

C) Social issues. And no, this is not a "do you agree with me" test that I'm talking about. More a general, fact-based, questionnaire on the issues that actually matter to the majority of voters. Any pop-culture shit need not apply.

And I think each of those tests should have a bare minimum qualification level. I mean, it's clear our current process leaves the door open to any old kodger with a buck to spend or a cadre of friends or businesses as sponsors to spend for them. Let's make the entrance exam be something other than, "I want power."


----------



## Flappydoodle

nightflameauto said:


> I would like to see the political process in the states, especially when it comes to higher federal offices, include a set of tests with publicly accessible results. These tests should absolutely include, but not necessarily be limited to:
> 
> A) Cognition. Yeah, maybe the first to go through it will be intelligent enough to feel insulted, but then again we have Trump bragging about it. So who knows?
> 
> B) General knowledge. As in book smarts. Math, general english, basic science, some history. Nothing deep diving. Just the idea that they at least have enough intelligence to speak with a high school or college educated person and not be completely and utterly outclassed in every way, shape, and form save hyperbolic babbling.
> 
> C) Social issues. And no, this is not a "do you agree with me" test that I'm talking about. More a general, fact-based, questionnaire on the issues that actually matter to the majority of voters. Any pop-culture shit need not apply.
> 
> And I think each of those tests should have a bare minimum qualification level. I mean, it's clear our current process leaves the door open to any old kodger with a buck to spend or a cadre of friends or businesses as sponsors to spend for them. Let's make the entrance exam be something other than, "I want power."


I think it's impossible for any of that to be administered in a fair or unbiased way. Especially social issues.

For example, many years ago in the UK there was outrage when a prime minister didn't know the price of a bottle of milk or a loaf of bread. So they simply added that into the daily/weekly briefing for the PM. Just another meaningless tidbit of information which you can learn for a quiz. It's of no functional value.

Cognition is one thing because it's a validated medical test where you get a score and you can see changes over time. It's also unbiased. To that extent it's like a blood test, and it's serving as a biomarker of your brain function.

All you really need for a president is somebody:

1. who can make decisions based on evidence presented (since they can't be an expert at everything from economics, farming, health, defence etc)

2. who has good motivations (i.e. isn't corrupt or trying to benefit themselves only)

3., whose brain is not mashed potato (this is where the age limit makes some sense)


----------



## Flappydoodle

Mathemagician said:


> I’d want to see it at 65. Straight up major gap in connection to society when people are that close to retirement age.



I'd argue that it's also when you've accumulated a working life worth of knowledge. A well-maintained 65 year old will be still very healthy and mentally sharp for another decade at least.

75 seems fair to me, since you'd finish a first term around 80, which is around average life expectancy. But really, the most important thing is function and not the calendar age.


----------



## Mathemagician

I partially agree, and think that term limits are an optimal compromise. Because IMO by 65, the “disconnect” from younger generations really begins to show, along with how things are currently working/done. 

It’s the “disconnected boomer” problem. Some older will get that things have changed, while others hyper-fixate on maintaining a status quo that doesn’t exist anymore. 

Ex: By that age someone with a career may still be there mentally and making great money in the private sector. But they may have been in senior/exec roles for so long that they have no real idea what their policies are going to do to others. And they are likely to refuse to understand that things have changed.

IE: “If I at 18 got a job and supported a family by flipping burgers, then so can you.” 
“Stop buying avocado toast”. 
“No I don’t care that median home prices appreciated at a rate far outpacing wages for the last 25+ years.” 
“How can people struggle making $15/hr? That’s insanely good money!”

A more important first step would be mandatory term limits on every political position to make it much harder for people to become/stay career politicians. Thankfully term limits as a concept gets pretty bi-partisan support from actual voters. However no elected officials would want to implement it so it gets ignored as a topic. 

If the goal is slightly younger representation (more people who are pre-retirement age) then we need to have mechanisms to prevent people from just parking in a senior position for decades where they are far enough in their lives so as to be insulated/disconnected from the effects of the policies they are being bribed/lobbied to pass. 

Politics shouldn’t be just a few wealthy American’s retirement hobby.


----------



## bostjan

I did everything the boomers said to do. I used to go around the neighbourhood pulling weeds and cutting grass/raking leaves/shoveling snow/washing cars for the busy adults. I worked really hard in school and got very good grades. I dual enrolled in college whilst I was still in primary (elementary) school. Every summer, I had a job. I saved the vast majority of my money. After secondary school, any given semester, I was enrolled at least the minimum for full-time, and working at least two part-time jobs. After grad school, when I couldn't find full time employment related to my degree, I took part-time career-oriented jobs and worked full time doing construction. But, by the time I was 30 years old, I was really burnt out. I had stayed so busy that I never saw my family. I had wasted so much time saying yes to everything that my career was a mess. And, by spending every waking hour either commuting or working, my health was quickly deteriorating. Everything I had been told was only a partial truth, which meant is was mostly lie. All of that time I spent saving up money was a waste once I had medical bills and my full-time employer screwed me out of my insurance coverage. 

The American Dream is dead. The USA is a caste system. The people in charge are the worst of the worst, and everyone knows it. Trump promised term limits and harsh anti-corruption reforms, and then tried to install himself as dictator-for-life and proceeded to lead the most corrupt administration since the Civil War Reconstruction era. Trump was not an anomaly, he was a calculated experiment to see how much shit people would put up with, and, simultaneously, a distraction. Notice how few people paid any attention at all to the term limits and anti-corruption reform promises once Trump was in office? Washington has divided us into red team and blue team, and they have now proven to themselves that, as long as they keep the two teams pitted against each other, they can distract public attention off of anything. Seriously, Trump made Watergate look like child's play, and he fully dodged any direct consequences. It wasn't his bribes and extortions that got him to lose re-election, it was covid. If it hadn't been for covid, I think Trump would still be president. For that matter, Biden could mumble incoherently at every press conference from now until Nov 2024, and all he'll have to do to win is allow the GOP to nominate Trump (or someone equally as bad) and avoid any highly negative press from his own base. Probably the best way to do that is to keep blue team focused on Trump, who's still in the news cycle constantly despite having lost public relevance.

I hate to be the crazy guy in the tin-foil hat shouting "they want you to do this," but they (the politicians and lobbyists) want you to turn your attention away from what they are doing and, instead, check out what Johnny Depp is up to, or what about that zany Elon Musk? Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is ruling that Alabama can continue to use an electoral map that is not only gerrymandered, but flat out illegal. That's right, they ruled that the map was illegal (unanimously), but also ruled that, despite being illegal, it can be continually be used (5-4 decision). Georgia is following a similar path, but now the appeals have stopped, as the Equal Rights advocates are too puzzled to figure out how to form an effective argument.

Imagine if there was a criminal case, where a court decided that someone stole money from someone else, and reassured everyone that stealing was illegal, but, a) not only determined that the thief could keep the money that was stolen, but also b) gave the thief an explicit go-ahead mandate to keep stealing. If you were a victim in that case, you'd be stupid to not have the thought cross your mind to just steal it back. But, if you play for the opposite colour team as the people running the court, you _know full well _that it's not going to work the same way for you.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> I did everything the boomers said to do. I used to go around the neighbourhood pulling weeds and cutting grass/raking leaves/shoveling snow/washing cars for the busy adults. I worked really hard in school and got very good grades. I dual enrolled in college whilst I was still in primary (elementary) school. Every summer, I had a job. I saved the vast majority of my money. After secondary school, any given semester, I was enrolled at least the minimum for full-time, and working at least two part-time jobs. After grad school, when I couldn't find full time employment related to my degree, I took part-time career-oriented jobs and worked full time doing construction. But, by the time I was 30 years old, I was really burnt out. I had stayed so busy that I never saw my family. I had wasted so much time saying yes to everything that my career was a mess. And, by spending every waking hour either commuting or working, my health was quickly deteriorating. Everything I had been told was only a partial truth, which meant is was mostly lie. All of that time I spent saving up money was a waste once I had medical bills and my full-time employer screwed me out of my insurance coverage.
> 
> The American Dream is dead. The USA is a caste system. The people in charge are the worst of the worst, and everyone knows it. Trump promised term limits and harsh anti-corruption reforms, and then tried to install himself as dictator-for-life and proceeded to lead the most corrupt administration since the Civil War Reconstruction era. Trump was not an anomaly, he was a calculated experiment to see how much shit people would put up with, and, simultaneously, a distraction. Notice how few people paid any attention at all to the term limits and anti-corruption reform promises once Trump was in office? Washington has divided us into red team and blue team, and they have now proven to themselves that, as long as they keep the two teams pitted against each other, they can distract public attention off of anything. Seriously, Trump made Watergate look like child's play, and he fully dodged any direct consequences. It wasn't his bribes and extortions that got him to lose re-election, it was covid. If it hadn't been for covid, I think Trump would still be president. For that matter, Biden could mumble incoherently at every press conference from now until Nov 2024, and all he'll have to do to win is allow the GOP to nominate Trump (or someone equally as bad) and avoid any highly negative press from his own base. Probably the best way to do that is to keep blue team focused on Trump, who's still in the news cycle constantly despite having lost public relevance.
> 
> I hate to be the crazy guy in the tin-foil hat shouting "they want you to do this," but they (the politicians and lobbyists) want you to turn your attention away from what they are doing and, instead, check out what Johnny Depp is up to, or what about that zany Elon Musk? Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is ruling that Alabama can continue to use an electoral map that is not only gerrymandered, but flat out illegal. That's right, they ruled that the map was illegal (unanimously), but also ruled that, despite being illegal, it can be continually be used (5-4 decision). Georgia is following a similar path, but now the appeals have stopped, as the Equal Rights advocates are too puzzled to figure out how to form an effective argument.
> 
> Imagine if there was a criminal case, where a court decided that someone stole money from someone else, and reassured everyone that stealing was illegal, but, a) not only determined that the thief could keep the money that was stolen, but also b) gave the thief an explicit go-ahead mandate to keep stealing. If you were a victim in that case, you'd be stupid to not have the thought cross your mind to just steal it back. But, if you play for the opposite colour team as the people running the court, you _know full well _that it's not going to work the same way for you.



May I ask if you have any idea if there are other personal factors, besides RIP American Dream, that derailed your seemingly perfectly-orchestrated life plan?

Illegal discrimination like race/ethnicity? Semi-legal discrimination, e.g. "looks too young"? Personal choices like being too casual or having a face tat? Etc.

Low/no-value education that does not deliver the respect it advertised?

Or did you just get bad advice and study yourself into a dying industry entirely dominated by incumbent dinosaurs?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The American Dream is dead. The USA is a caste system.


The closest it ever came to working, if you ignore some of the patriarchal and racial issues in play and the way that selectively favored SOME Americans over others, was the post-war Baby Boomer generation, where you had a demographic productivity boom coupled with a post war industrial boom and the start of the American global hegemony, widespread corporate pension defined benefit plans shifting retirement burdens on to employers and off employees (that eventually nearly crippled a lot of the major employers of the era - Ford, GM, GE, etc), globalization causing costs to fall and quality of life to improve over time, the start of the information age, and a generally favorable market environment. A lot of things went right, and a lot of things were aligned to support workers at that time that have since changed. 

I'm reasonably optimistic I'll be able to retire one day, between of a lot of luck, and working hard with the good breaks I got (and here I'd go back farther than some lucky connections I made at the right time to move on to better career opportunities, all the way back to the fact I was born an American, two an upper middle class white family, one that valued education and helped me go to an excellent school, a white, straight, majority religious-upbringing man who was good enough looking to be liked but not so good looking no one took him seriously, at a time where early in my career just being a white man gave me a leg up over most other demographic groups, etc etc etc - all of these factors are things that were entirely outside of my control but undoubtedly helped). But, I worry a LOT that my experience is atypical, and that both my generation and the generation before us are going to either have to work long past retirement age because they have no other choice, or that the state is going to have to step in somehow and radically rethink our social safety nets, which will have large economic costs but are also kind of pretty clearly the right thing to do. 

But yeah, I've worried for rather a long time that the American Dream of a house with a white picket fence and a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway didn't really exist and was a mirage created by a very specific set of circumstances.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> May I ask if you have any idea if there are other personal factors, besides RIP American Dream, that derailed your seemingly perfectly-orchestrated life plan?
> 
> Illegal discrimination like race/ethnicity? Semi-legal discrimination, e.g. "looks too young"? Personal choices like being too casual or having a face tat? Etc.
> 
> Low/no-value education that does not deliver the respect it advertised?
> 
> Or did you just get bad advice and study yourself into a dying industry entirely dominated by incumbent dinosaurs?


Of course. Life is complex. But I don't know exactly what went wrong.

No face tattoos. I've always looked older than my age. Despite the name I typically go by with friends, my legal name is very white-sounding. Maybe I look ethnic, but, if so, it's generically white-ish or non-descript. I have a Masters in Physics. During my academic career, I published a bunch of papers in distinguished academic journals, interned with NIST, worked with NOL on really cool stuff, interned with Delphi developing sensors for self-driving cars and published a paper about those sensors. But Delphi went belly up the day after I officially started working there, and none of their competitors were interested in hiring the guy who worked there officially for one day, regardless of what I had worked on. Interest in self-driving cars had the bottom fall out of it around that time, and, by the time interest came back up, positions were already filled with more senior people. NIST was only taking people who had already been professors and getting put out of work by Bush's cutbacks on higher education. Meanwhile, I went into a role as an adjunct faculty member, since they still needed to teach classes, but couldn't afford to pay full time benefits. The pay was pretty good, but, not having a Ph. D., I knew my days in academia would be numbered, and with schooling getting more expensive and financial avenues for higher education getting rolled back down, I wasn't about to start a 2+ year endeavour on doing a dissertation. Having undergraduate qualifications in Chemistry and Mathematics got me a few opportunities, but honestly, unless you are in the pharma industry or a government job, chemists and mathematicians make far less than what most people think.

I didn't get into a super-prestigious university. I went to state school and I got very high marks. I feel like I made the most of what I could out of my time there and took advantage of career counselling whenever it was available. I did ton's of independent study work. I said yes to every academically-oriented extracurricular that was offered - because boomers told me that was the best way to go. "Don't go to Princeton or MIT, go to state school and work nights at the Post Office and just work as hard as possible." Well, here I am. State school masters degree in a STEM field, two internships, tons of cognate experience, 3.7 GPA, top one percentile in my standardized tests, and the best-paying job I had in my life for more than one full week was sorting mail second shift at the US post office warehouse (adjusting for inflation - I'm not going to say it was bad pay, but it wasn't what I was led to expect as a salary being an industrial scientist).

In my experience, everywhere I worked, you had two types of people. It didn't matter what their skills or work ethics were like. You have the people who get paid a lot, and you have the people who get paid a little. You know what the dividing factor most often is? It's generational. Baby boomers and older gen x people doing exactly the same jobs as younger gen x or millennials, even where the older person switched careers and has less relevant experience, get paid more. Some times 3x more. I'm not sure the exact reasons why, but there are a lot more millennials and younger gen x who were convinced to go into technical careers or just generally get degrees at all. But, in a totally free market, why would anyone hire a guy in his late 50's or early 60's and pay him $150k/yr to do the same job that a guy in his 30's is just as qualified, if not more, to do, and you can get away with paying the young guy only $50k/yr? That's an honest question. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I've seen it first hand at multiple workplaces.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> But yeah, I've worried for rather a long time that the American Dream of a house with a white picket fence and a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway didn't really exist and was a mirage created by a very specific set of circumstances.


I think I'm currently at the point where, despite being fully employed in a job most people would be jealous to have, that it's sinking in that I cannot afford to own a car. I moved to VT with not one, but two cars. I currently have one car and it's been broken for just barely shy of three months. Since I still owe so much on that one, I can't afford to buy another, and I'm dangerously close to not being able to afford to keep trying to repair that one. I'm being told that it'll be fine as soon as the supply chain is better, but the more I read about the supply chain, the more strongly I'm convinced that it'll never be anything like it was before. It'll get better, undoubtedly, but it's not like cars are going to be significantly cheaper to obtain and maintain a year from now. I basically have until winter to figure something out permanent-ish, so it definitely won't get sorted soon enough in my case.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I think I'm currently at the point where, despite being fully employed in a job most people would be jealous to have, that it's sinking in that I cannot afford to own a car. I moved to VT with not one, but two cars. I currently have one car and it's been broken for just barely shy of three months. Since I still owe so much on that one, I can't afford to buy another, and I'm dangerously close to not being able to afford to keep trying to repair that one. I'm being told that it'll be fine as soon as the supply chain is better, but the more I read about the supply chain, the more strongly I'm convinced that it'll never be anything like it was before. It'll get better, undoubtedly, but it's not like cars are going to be significantly cheaper to obtain and maintain a year from now. I basically have until winter to figure something out permanent-ish, so it definitely won't get sorted soon enough in my case.


The situation with cars is insane right now, but I do think there's a point where the pendulum will swing back in the other direction and we'll find ourselves in a position of over-supply, not under. But yeah, I'm still driving an ancient Toyota Camry and am not looking forward to the day I finally have to replace it.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> The situation with cars is insane right now, but I do think there's a point where the pendulum will swing back in the other direction and we'll find ourselves in a position of over-supply, not under. But yeah, I'm still driving an ancient Toyota Camry and am not looking forward to the day I finally have to replace it.


My old vehicle, a 99 Dodge Intrepid, was coming to its EOL in the early-middle of last year, so that's when I started seriously looking at replacing it. At that point, the price gouging on used vehicles was in full swing, but the local dealerships not only somehow still had stock of new vehicles but also weren't upcharging the hell out of them, so I jumped on that. Now I drive a brand new '21 Honda CR-V, and I'm worried that if it conks out on me and the culprit is something electronic, it'll take forever to get fixed because they'll be allocating every microchip they can get their hands on to new vehicle production and leave those of us who are waiting on servicing to starve.

EDIT: Sheesh. Between the two of them, the local Honda and Toyota dealerships have a grand total of *4* new vehicles on the lot, and only *3* used.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> I think I'm currently at the point where, despite being fully employed in a job most people would be jealous to have, that it's sinking in that I cannot afford to own a car. I moved to VT with not one, but two cars. I currently have one car and it's been broken for just barely shy of three months. Since I still owe so much on that one, I can't afford to buy another, and I'm dangerously close to not being able to afford to keep trying to repair that one. I'm being told that it'll be fine as soon as the supply chain is better, but the more I read about the supply chain, the more strongly I'm convinced that it'll never be anything like it was before. It'll get better, undoubtedly, but it's not like cars are going to be significantly cheaper to obtain and maintain a year from now. I basically have until winter to figure something out permanent-ish, so it definitely won't get sorted soon enough in my case.



Yikes

Buy government surplus


----------



## StevenC

Xaios said:


> My old vehicle, a 99 Dodge Intrepid, was coming to its EOL in the early-middle of last year, so that's when I started seriously looking at replacing it. At that point, the price gouging on used vehicles was in full swing, but the local dealerships not only somehow still had stock of new vehicles but also weren't upcharging the hell out of them, so I jumped on that. Now I drive a brand new '21 Honda CR-V, and I'm worried that if it conks out on me and the culprit is something electronic, it'll take forever to get fixed because they'll be allocating every microchip they can get their hands on to new vehicle production and leave those of us who are waiting on servicing to starve.
> 
> EDIT: Sheesh. Between the two of them, the local Honda and Toyota dealerships have a grand total of *4* new vehicles on the lot, and only *3* used.


I hear the all new CR-V has quality floor mats and plenty of storage to go antiquing.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Yikes
> 
> Buy government surplus


I've actually been looking for something like this for the past 40ish days. Only once did anything come up, and it was in PA and was gone before I could find a way to get there.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> My old vehicle, a 99 Dodge Intrepid, was coming to its EOL in the early-middle of last year, so that's when I started seriously looking at replacing it. At that point, the price gouging on used vehicles was in full swing, but the local dealerships not only somehow still had stock of new vehicles but also weren't upcharging the hell out of them, so I jumped on that. Now I drive a brand new '21 Honda CR-V, and I'm worried that if it conks out on me and the culprit is something electronic, it'll take forever to get fixed because they'll be allocating every microchip they can get their hands on to new vehicle production and leave those of us who are waiting on servicing to starve.
> 
> EDIT: Sheesh. Between the two of them, the local Honda and Toyota dealerships have a grand total of *4* new vehicles on the lot, and only *3* used.



I bought a new (to me) 2019 vehicle last year as well. I was fortunate to get it when I did considering shortages and used price gouging, and I definitely need it to get to work, but I have a hard time feeling lucky struggling to make the payments. I did what I had to do and I'm glad it was there but definitely not the choice I would have preferred to make.


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> I bought a new (to me) 2019 vehicle last year as well. I was fortunate to get it when I did considering shortages and used price gouging, and I definitely need it to get to work, but I have a hard time feeling lucky struggling to make the payments. I did what I had to do and I'm glad it was there but definitely not the choice I would have preferred to make.


Yeah, it's certainly not fun having the payments, especially being on a 5 year financing contract. I would have gone used if I could, basically something around the same age as yours was what I was shooting for, but the market was just ballistic and has only gotten worse. Inevitably, at the point I needed a new vehicle, a _brand_ new vehicle just made more sense, given that it has a warranty (I still shelled out for an extended warranty that runs a little longer than my financing term, for peace of mind), as well as the fact that interest rates were dirt cheap.

I did the math and to get the same vehicle now with the same financing term length at 2022 pricing and the current interest rate would cost me over $5k more. That at least makes it a little easier to swallow in the fullness of time. That and the fact that the raises I've gotten since buying it actually pay for the vehicle by themselves. Honestly, looking back at the past year, I've actually been _pretty damn fortunate_ compared to a lot of people, even if homeownership still seems like a total pipe dream.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> I did the math and to get the same vehicle now with the same financing term length at 2022 pricing and the current interest rate would cost me over $5k more. That at least makes it a little easier to swallow in the fullness of time. That and the fact that the raises I've gotten since buying it actually pay for the vehicle by themselves. Honestly, looking back at the past year, I've actually been _pretty damn fortunate_ compared to a lot of people, even if homeownership still seems like a total pipe dream.



I hadn't done the math but did suspect this, and am very glad to hear it is the case. I also went for the extended warranty, a welcome change from repeatedly swapping my own alternator at subzero temperatures. Now I just have to get more cash flowing in.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> EDIT: Sheesh. Between the two of them, the local Honda and Toyota dealerships have a grand total of *4* new vehicles on the lot, and only *3* used.


Thats ludicrous.  

My Camry is still running pretty well (in part because I never drive anywhere - half the reason I haven't replaced it, lol) so I've likely got some time, but I just hope I have enough so the supply/demand imbalance rights itself a little. I just hate the idea of overpaying THAT badly for something I don't really give a shit about, you know?


----------



## Crungy

Speaking of Toyota... One of my staff members told me the Toyota dealer they stopped at would only sell you a car if you had one to trade in, no exceptions.


----------



## eaeolian

My Audi dealer only has like two loaners because they sold all of last year's and didn't get enough base-level midline cars to use for loaners this year. Every *new* car they had was over $85,000, and they had like fifteen used cars left. That was their daily volume in 2020.

So I didn't get a loaner.


----------



## Drew

Surprise GDP contraction today, -1.4% vs expectations of +1.0%. 

Details are a bit better - the bull case is this was mostly due to the Q4 inventory buildup borrowing growth from Q1 into Q4, and the trade gap widening as US demand exceeded global demand, as we recovered faster from the pandemic (and, to an extgent, we burnned through omicron faster and had cases drop as it was just getting going in Europe. Final Sales to Domestic Purchasers actually strengthened quarter over quarter, 1.7% to 2.6%, and this is probably a better metric for underlying demand, and in turn what our economy can produce in the long run. Beyond this, while the Core PCE deflator was still elevated, it came in at 5.2%, comfortably below expectations. Business investment was very strong, as well, and government spending will pick up in Q2 in part due to heightened military spending due to Urkaine.

The bear case is that consumer demand did show signs of weakening over the quarter, with consumer spending coming in at an annualized 2.7%, and while there isn't a monthly breakdown out yet, word on the street is that was mostly due to a strong January. We're not likely to dip into recession just yet, growth _should_ strengthen in Q2 based on everthing I've seen, but I'm still worried about a growth slowdown in the second half of the year, and the Fed will have a hard time following through on their planned pace of short term interest rate increases (which, to be fair, are already so well priced into the market tthat they're already likely having a tightening effect). 

Still, I expected this report to be weak, but not negative.


----------



## bostjan

Referring to BLM protesters in DC:



The Donald said:


> Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?











Former Pentagon chief Mark Esper says Trump wanted to shoot protesters


"Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?"




www.axios.com





I'm sure none of these investigations ongoing into Trump in New York, Georgia, and wherever else, will result in any sort of palpable punishment, but I just really hope this guy doesn't hold public office again.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Referring to BLM protesters in DC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former Pentagon chief Mark Esper says Trump wanted to shoot protesters
> 
> 
> "Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.axios.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure none of these investigations ongoing into Trump in New York, Georgia, and wherever else, will result in any sort of palpable punishment, but I just really hope this guy doesn't hold public office again.


FWIW it does sound like Georgia has some legs - very experienced prosecutor fresh off defeating the Atlanta Teacher's Union in a criminal investigation, a state law prohibiting solicitation of electoral fraud, and some really compelling audience. Trump only has a few options at his disposal, but arguing he didn't knowingly solicit fraud because he legitimately believed he won is tough given all the internal memos admitting that they were well aware that most accusations of fraud are groundless, and it's hard to argue he's immune from prosecution for actions taken while he's president, considering this is a _state_ law he broke, not federal, and while I don't believe this has ever been tested, the fact he can pardon federal crimes but not state ones suggests he's not immune from state jurisdiction.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> Surprise GDP contraction today, -1.4% vs expectations of +1.0%.
> 
> Details are a bit better - the bull case is this was mostly due to the Q4 inventory buildup borrowing growth from Q1 into Q4, and the trade gap widening as US demand exceeded global demand, as we recovered faster from the pandemic (and, to an extgent, we burnned through omicron faster and had cases drop as it was just getting going in Europe. Final Sales to Domestic Purchasers actually strengthened quarter over quarter, 1.7% to 2.6%, and this is probably a better metric for underlying demand, and in turn what our economy can produce in the long run. Beyond this, while the Core PCE deflator was still elevated, it came in at 5.2%, comfortably below expectations. Business investment was very strong, as well, and government spending will pick up in Q2 in part due to heightened military spending due to Urkaine.
> 
> The bear case is that consumer demand did show signs of weakening over the quarter, with consumer spending coming in at an annualized 2.7%, and while there isn't a monthly breakdown out yet, word on the street is that was mostly due to a strong January. We're not likely to dip into recession just yet, growth _should_ strengthen in Q2 based on everthing I've seen, but I'm still worried about a growth slowdown in the second half of the year, and the Fed will have a hard time following through on their planned pace of short term interest rate increases (which, to be fair, are already so well priced into the market tthat they're already likely having a tightening effect).
> 
> Still, I expected this report to be weak, but not negative.



Reports that supply chain issues from China may worsen as they deal with this latest wave hitting the country and continue further lockdowns trying to get it under control. Not “new” per se just a consistent ongoing headwind that leads to tighter supply and inflationary pressure.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> FWIW it does sound like Georgia has some legs



Can't you just shoot them or something?


----------



## Xaios

So yeah, the American Supreme Court is overturning Roe vs Wade. The Republican Party's accession of Trump has now born its intended vile fruit.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Xaios said:


> So yeah, the American Supreme Court is overturning Roe vs Wade. The Republican Party's accession of Trump has now born its intended vile fruit.



Fuckin yikes. Not even sue what else to say right now.


----------



## eaeolian

Xaios said:


> So yeah, the American Supreme Court is overturning Roe vs Wade. The Republican Party's accession of Trump has now born its intended vile fruit.


Maybe. Alito may just be talking out his ass.


----------



## thebeesknees22

wheresthefbomb said:


> Fuckin yikes. Not even sue what else to say right now.


This is what happens when you let the republican taliban gain power.


----------



## neurosis

Voila! The strength of checks and balances...

This will definitely make America look retrograde* to the Western world. It's not like you oppose abortion. You _were in favor _but are now going to rectify. Sadly, not something any of these people holding power care for I'm afraid. 

*Please check me if in the English language this doesn't mean _backwards-antiquated_ and doesn't imply _limitation of rights_ in this context.


----------



## Xaios

Susan Collins sure looks like the idiot that _she very much is_ for buying Kavanaugh's supposed assurances that he wouldn't work to overturn it in return for voting to confirm him as a supreme court justice. She must have been the only person on the face of the earth that bought such a blatantly transparent lie.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Reports that supply chain issues from China may worsen as they deal with this latest wave hitting the country and continue further lockdowns trying to get it under control. Not “new” per se just a consistent ongoing headwind that leads to tighter supply and inflationary pressure.


On one hand shipping backlogs are bad enough that it'll be a little while before we really start to see the inflationary impacts of this, and in the short run there are some deflationary effects working through the economy first (with 40%+ of China's economy in at least rolling shutdowns, gas, oil, and commodity prices are off), but yeah, this is another supply shock that's likely to trigger another wave of inflation, just as the impact of Ukraine is fading, itself just as the impacts of omicron and delta were fading, which in turn were just as the "post-pandemic" demand boom was settling back down. 

There's a lot of inflationary narratives getting kicked around right now - "the Fed fucked up," and "too much stimulus" being the two most politically popular in the US, but those are both (IMO) a bit too simple to explain all the other cascading impacts.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> Susan Collins sure looks like the idiot that _she very much is_ for buying Kavanaugh's supposed assurances that he wouldn't work to overturn it in return for voting to confirm him as a supreme court justice. She must have been the only person on the face of the earth that bought such a blatantly transparent lie.


While I don't disagree, technically any of the sitting judges who said they considered Roe vs Wade "settled law" during their confirmation hearings perjured themselves, not that it'll matter.


----------



## bostjan

I'm a little surprised by this decision. I figured it might be a 4-4 deadlock, but Roberts must have decided to break his previous tradition, making it 5-3, meaning that, even with Jackson, it'd be 5-4 in favour of overturning.

But, far more surprising, is the fact that an opinion paper leaked out, probably weeks before it is to be published.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> While I don't disagree, technically any of the sitting judges who said they considered Roe vs Wade "settled law" during their confirmation hearings perjured themselves, not that it'll matter.


What happens when the highest judiciary authority in the land is corrupt? Pretty much this.




EDIT: Plus, while I'm only assuming the specific wording "settled law" was used, does that wording carry any bound legal definition? If not, they could easily talked themselves out of a perjury charge by saying "By settled law, I meant that it was settled in my mind to be illegitimate, and I planned to repeal it at earliest opportunity. Naah nah na boo boo!"


----------



## wankerness

Here in Wisconsin, we still have a law from 1849 making abortion very illegal on the books. It was rendered null by Roe V Wade, but it was never actually repealed and will take effect again as soon as the Supreme Court overturns this. Our unbelievable third-world gerrymandering has ensured that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell the state legislature will repeal that law before the next redistributing in ten years. This state is just screwed. Mississippi of the North. I think we’re going to move to Minnesota over this just in case we have an accident.

It’s too bad, we have aging parents here and a lot of friends, but it’s just not worth her losing her rights.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

neurosis said:


> Voila! The strength of checks and balances...
> 
> This will definitely make America look retrograde* to the Western world. It's not like you oppose abortion. You _were in favor _but are now going to rectify. Sadly, not something any of these people holding power care for I'm afraid.
> 
> *Please check me if in the English language this doesn't mean _backwards-antiquated_ and doesn't imply _limitation of rights_ in this context.



Retrograde means you shitty behavior is Mercury's fault.

Okay but seriously, brief googling yields many results that could reasonably be interpreted to fit here, including the usage meaning "a degenerate person."


----------



## neurosis

wheresthefbomb said:


> Retrograde means you shitty behavior is Mercury's fault.
> 
> Okay but seriously, brief googling yields many results that could reasonably be interpreted to fit here, including the usage meaning "a degenerate person."



I seriously had to google the first sentence. But now that I understand that I must say I think my humor is likely more ruled by the moon cycles. 

I did check the definition before posting but sometimes things don't translate literally and different cultures may use similar words or the same word in slightly different ways. Some definitions are more common use or dominant so I wasn't entirely sure. Of all the possible meanings what I was clearly trying to establish is that this is a huge step back. I don't understand how limiting people's freedoms can be an expression thereof. Live and let live.


----------



## Glades

Repealing Roe v Wade does not ban abortion. It puts it back to the states. Our founding fathers didn’t expect every aspect of our daily lives to be decided and managed on a federal level. The people of each state can decide democratically what is best for themselves.
I recommend everyone to read Alito’s opinion. It is a well-crafted document that makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how one may feel about the issue of abortion, from a purely constitutional level, Alito is right.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Repealing Roe v Wade does not ban abortion. It puts it back to the states. Our founding fathers didn’t expect every aspect of our daily lives to be decided and managed on a federal level. The people of each state can decide democratically what is best for themselves.
> I recommend everyone to read Alito’s opinion. It is a well-crafted document that makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how one may feel about the issue of abortion, from a purely constitutional level, Alito is right.


To quote Dennis Miller back before he lost his freakin' mind, "The state can't pave fuckin' roads, OK?"

Honestly, I don't think the fed or the state government should control every aspect of our lives. Why we insist on infringing on freedoms in the name of "freedom," especially the party that claims they're for small government will never make sense to me. Small government, unless you disagree with me, then cram large, heavy handed government straight up your ass!


----------



## tedtan

The Republican Party hasn’t actually cared about small government or fiscal conservatism since before Ronald Regan was president in the 80s. Since then they pander to the Christian right, the second amendment folks, the anti-abortion folks, etc. in order to cobble together a disparate electorate. And, unfortunately, that tactic has been effective for them.


----------



## Crungy

I believe @Drew mentioned it pages back about Newt Gingrich being the loud mouthpiece of the party as well, which really amplified everything you mentioned.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Repealing Roe v Wade does not ban abortion. It puts it back to the states. Our founding fathers didn’t expect every aspect of our daily lives to be decided and managed on a federal level. The people of each state can decide democratically what is best for themselves.
> I recommend everyone to read Alito’s opinion. It is a well-crafted document that makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how one may feel about the issue of abortion, from a purely constitutional level, Alito is right.


Repealing Roe V Wade removes freedoms. 

Which is very much against whatever fictional opinions you ascribe to 200+ year old corpses.


----------



## neurosis

The last two comments mirror how I feel about the issue. There's no freedom without choices. 

Sadly I would add that your typical center democrats aren't going to rush to fight this. And if they do I think it will be for political gain/clout rather than conviction that this should be a fundamental right for the people.


----------



## zappatton2

Republicans are basically what you get when a segment of voters stop asking what government can do for the people, and start demanding a government that actively hurts all the "_those people_" they don't like. It seems like every time "state rights" are invoked, it's to purposely sidestep civil rights to stick it to all those women and gays and immigrants and refugees and scientists and educators, etc., etc.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

zappatton2 said:


> Republicans are basically what you get when a segment of voters stop asking what government can do for the people, and start demanding a government that actively hurts all the "_those people_" they don't like. It seems like every time "state rights" are invoked, it's to purposely sidestep civil rights to stick it to all those women and gays and immigrants and refugees and scientists and educators, etc., etc.



This whole "state's rights" thing is such a cop-out to me. It was the first thing that turned me off of Ron Paul back 2012 before I knew he hung out with Stormfront. Whenever anyone invokes state's rights, all I hear is that they know their idea wouldn't pass scrutiny on a national stage so they want to put it to smaller, more disparate groups, some of whom they suppose will have a large enough majority of like-minded individuals to actually ban abortion or whatever.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Repealing Roe v Wade does not ban abortion. It puts it back to the states. Our founding fathers didn’t expect every aspect of our daily lives to be decided and managed on a federal level. The people of each state can decide democratically what is best for themselves.
> I recommend everyone to read Alito’s opinion. It is a well-crafted document that makes a lot of sense. Regardless of how one may feel about the issue of abortion, from a purely constitutional level, Alito is right.


This is... not very accurate. Couple of reasons. 

One, constitutional literalism, the belief that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted based on the founding father's intent in writing it, is NOT a mainstream doctrine and is itself an extremely conservative interpretation of constitutional law. 

Two, the Supreme Court doesn't merely interpret the Constitution, and decide a case based on the letter of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments. It is also bound to consider prior judicial precedent, including its own past decisions. Roe vs. Wade is one of those decisions, and opines that US citizens also have a reasonable expectation to a right to privacy, and that banning abortions violates the right to privacy between themselves and their doctor when seeking medical treatment. 

So, Alito is wrong in his decision, because prior cases have established that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution embedded in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and that abortion falls within the purview of this right. Tossing out a prior decision that every justice in the court has described as "settled law" is not something the judiciary has the ability to do on its own, absent some act o Congress, and beyond abortion, is a blow to every American's rights to privacy and is something we should ALL be very concerned about.

If it was as simple as there being no right to abortion in the Constitution, as Alito argues, it wouldn't be a 98 page document. The lady doth protest too much.


----------



## bostjan

The trouble with the US Consitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, is that every political group wants to cherry pick some parts to enforce literally and other parts to interpret gingerly, based on their political agendas. I'm sure I'm not immune from the same characteristic, actually.

IIRC, the published decision in _Roe_ cited not only the 14th Amendment, but the preamble of the constitution itself, arguing that the right to "liberty" was tantamount to the protection of privacy, since, well, I think most philosophers agree that personal privacy is a foundational part of personal liberty.

I could see how Alito might come to a similar conclusion to overturn _Roe_ based on arguments for when life starts or at least the fact that there could be such arguments, but, even that is sticky, because, according to every other legal reference, the first significant step in an individual's personhood is birth.

Me, I personally don't even like thinking about this topic - it makes me feel icky, but I think that the court is potentially going to make a big mistake if this is the opinion that is published.


----------



## AMOS

nightflameauto said:


> To quote Dennis Miller back before he lost his freakin' mind, "The state can't pave fuckin' roads, OK?"
> 
> Honestly, I don't think the fed or the state government should control every aspect of our lives. Why we insist on infringing on freedoms in the name of "freedom," especially the party that claims they're for small government will never make sense to me. Small government, unless you disagree with me, then cram large, heavy handed government straight up your ass!


Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.


----------



## AMOS

zappatton2 said:


> Republicans are basically what you get when a segment of voters stop asking what government can do for the people, and start demanding a government that actively hurts all the "_those people_" they don't like. It seems like every time "state rights" are invoked, it's to purposely sidestep civil rights to stick it to all those women and gays and immigrants and refugees and scientists and educators, etc., etc.


I agree, blue states do it with the 2nd Amendment all the time.


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.


What constitutes a living being? That is the crux of the argument.




AMOS said:


> I agree, blue states do it with the 2nd Amendment all the time.


I have, and enjoy shooting, guns. But a literal interpretation of the second amendment allows State run militias, not individual ownership of firearms. We law abiding gun owners benefit from a lenient interpretation of the original wording set forth by the founding fathers.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.


Forced births aren't freedom

Using someone's body against their will isn't freedom


----------



## zappatton2

AMOS said:


> I agree, blue states do it with the 2nd Amendment all the time.


In what way does "gun ownership" outweigh one's right to their own bodies, as far as civil rights go? In particular since plenty of free, open liberal democracies with better public services, representation and opportunities at social mobility, do _not _regard lethally weaponizing yourself against your neighbour as a right of any kind, with no subsequent loss of freedom.

Choice is about understanding that one of the most important rights we all have, is the right of autonomy over our own bodies, and for women, that inextricably includes reproductive choice.

Pretending to care about fetuses was always a smokescreen for some to control women's bodies and reproductive capacities, while maintaining open hostility to and fear of female sexual agency. And sadly, the reactionaries are getting better at chipping decades of progress away in the States.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> Forced births aren't freedom
> 
> Using someone's body against their will isn't freedom


And it’s not just forced births. The republicans only care about the baby until its born; there is no real social safety net here in the US to help support it or its parents after its born, so these unwanted babies often end up causing, or at least contributing to, their parents’ poverty and grow up impoverished themselves.

Having said that, all the research I’ve seen indicates that laws against abortion don’t actually stop or reduce abortions, they result in more dangerous, illegal abortions instead (and those with the money to travel simply travel somewhere abortion is legal).


----------



## profwoot

I read the first half or so of the opinion, and Alito is basically correct, given what he deems relevant and what he chooses to ignore. Because we stopped amending the constitution, and for the most part stopped making federal laws to address the most important issues, relying on case law was the only thing keeping us afloat. If you can just choose to throw all that out willy-nilly, then we're left only with an outdated document from which it is silly to try to squeeze guidance, relegating our nation to be governed via what amounts to scriptural interpretation, i.e., it says what you want it to say. Which can probably still work as long it's capable, serious, and well-intentioned people doing the interpretation. So


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The timing of this is so good I bet Alito leaked it himself.


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.



So you must be vegetarian? Are we going to stop the cattle industry when Roe v. Wade is overturned?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.



*stares in American intervention in Middle East*

Killing people for the notion of freedom is probably the most American thing ever.


----------



## tedtan

profwoot said:


> …If you can just choose to throw all that out willy-nilly…


The thing is that they Are not supposed to throw it out, they are to consider it prior to rendering a ruling. That’s why it is called case law rather than just a precedent - it is actual law based on prior rulings.


----------



## SpaceDock

The problem is that America was meant to be built on compromise that would build a more perfect union but nowadays people are hardliners on one side or the other. States already chose to allow limits on abortion access, some states only get 6 weeks and others full term. This is just never good enough so a holes push the limits hoping to get some partisan win which never happens but only serves to further rile and divide.


----------



## Adieu

So.... what are the chances Putin paid somebody or somebodies off to open this can of worms NOW?


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> So.... what are the chances Putin paid somebody or somebodies off to open this can of worms NOW?


Basically 0. This is approximately when it was expected to happen, based on how 2016-2020 went. This has been the Republican agenda for longer than Putin has had any power.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> I have, and enjoy shooting, guns. But a literal interpretation of the second amendment allows State run militias, not individual ownership of firearms. We law abiding gun owners benefit from a lenient interpretation of the original wording set forth by the founding fathers.


Beyond that, a constitutional literalist/"founding fathers' intent" interpretation of the 2nd amendment would allow us to own blunderbusses as members of a state-run militia, rather than AR15s.  

Even the NRA only has half the 2nd amendment engraved in the facade of their building, chopping off the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." part and only engraving the second half. That right there should say enough about how much they're spinning the interpretation of the amendment s written.


----------



## CanserDYI

Oh boy AMOS is back??


----------



## Drew

profwoot said:


> I read the first half or so of the opinion, and Alito is basically correct, given what he deems relevant a*nd what he chooses to ignore*. Because we stopped amending the constitution, and for the most part stopped making federal laws to address the most important issues, relying on case law was the only thing keeping us afloat. If you can just choose to throw all that out willy-nilly, then we're left only with an outdated document from which it is silly to try to squeeze guidance, relegating our nation to be governed via what amounts to scriptural interpretation, i.e., it says what you want it to say. Which can probably still work as long it's capable, serious, and well-intentioned people doing the interpretation. So


Emphasis mine. It's a great argument, provided you only include the relevant bits he includes and ignore everything else. It's a radical and unconstitutional reversal on the part of the Court, however, if you consider the full document and prior judicial interpretation.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> I agree, blue states do it with the 2nd Amendment all the time.


Fucking when LOL like WHEN have "blue states" ever taken your guns? We just want to make it harder for Johnny McMurderface to get something that can wipe life out in an instant.


----------



## /wrists

In case anyone has been living under a rock...

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 

What are your thoughts? 

Making popcorn.


----------



## thebeesknees22

That's a draft. They haven't officially voted to overturn it yet, but they will.


It's a damn mess is what it is. The current supreme court majority is a clown show. Completely unfit to be in their positions. 

Give it 2-4 more years and the Republican Taliban will be in full swing going after same sex marriage, contraception, privacy rights, and everything else under the sun that was considered progress in the last 100 years. 


....hold onto yer socks... It's gonna get bumpy.



How's that for thoughts?


----------



## StevenC

evade said:


> In case anyone has been living under a rock...


We're already talking about this in the thread titled US Politics, on case you were living under a rock.


----------



## spudmunkey

When it was originally decided, even those who voted for it said that it was shaky ground and likely wouldn't hold up to a stronger argument. The other branches of the government had nearly 50 years to codify it, and didn't. I'm surprised it took this long, frankly, even though I disagree with the outcome.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

This is going to be a disaster from a healthcare perspective. Lack of access to the ability to get a safe abortion does not prevent abortions from happening. All this will do is drive people towards back alley abortions and cause much more harm than good . Expect to see many more women dying from hackjob abortions and inappropriate drugs to induce miscarriage. 



WHO has a really good piece on this from a few years ago: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion

This is a major fucking public health issue in a country where the maternal mortality rate and other metrics are already worse than other "first world" countries. 

The worst part about the dipshits pushing this kind of agenda, is they never offer any viable alternatives to limit abortions such as MUCH better sex education and easier access to prophylactics/plan B. You don't want people aborting then you damn well better make it a non-issue by making it extremely easy to prevent pregnancy in the first place.


----------



## budda

Short version is there is a lot wrong going on with it being tabled.


----------



## AMOS

Why don't they amend it instead and just ban late term abortion? If someone doesn't want a kid why wait until they get into late term territory to figure it out?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's hard to argue from a position of trying to "save babies" when we have an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba and over 12 million food insecure children. 

It is what it is: a regression in over half a century of progress for the freedom of women. 

Pregnancy, and children, have historically been a tool used by abusive and controlling men to trap women in "traditional" roles. 

P.S. Moving this to the proper thread.


----------



## Crungy

MaxOfMetal said:


> It's hard to argue from a position of trying to "save babies" when we have an infant mortality rate worse than Cuba and over 12 million food insecure children.
> 
> It is what it is: a regression in over half a century of progress for the freedom of women.
> 
> Pregnancy, and children, have historically been a tool used by abusive and controlling men to trap women in "traditional" roles.
> 
> P.S. Moving this to the proper thread.


I don't want to like your post but I completely agree because it's the unfortunate truth. It's not about preservation of life whatsoever. If it were, there would be focus on your first point: taking care of those that are already here. 

Instead, idiots get their "heartstrings" tugged because Jesus and save the babies


----------



## narad

I'm in no position really to guess what would happen, but I think we can't necessarily view this through like the lens of the 1960s, i.e., back-alley abortions / intentional harm, etc. I'm imagining this galvanizing the pro-choice groups in establishing transportation corridors for women for moving them into neighboring states with more liberal legislation, having the procedures there, moving them back. That and probably more push for distribution of day-after variety pills (which can actually be like multi-week-after pills these days).

Then I'm imagining maybe extensions to Texas-style legislation where assisting women to leave the state to have an abortion faces charges, or lawsuits with money given to random citizens who raise the suits. Then new legal restrictions on day-after type pills / things you can do yourself.

Either way, I think it's really going to make the notion of a red state / blue state more concrete, which is a huge setback. We think that way at voting time, but I don't personally think we think that way on a day-to-day basis.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> Killing living beings in the name of freedom isn't freedom, it's called killing living beings.



I have no idea what this comment is about, as the bible literally teaches how to give an abortion. And it says that a person is a person when they take their first breath.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Why don't they amend it instead and just ban late term abortion? If someone doesn't want a kid why wait until they get into late term territory to figure it out?


Except that is a fictional scenario. People getting late term abortions 99% of the time absolutely have decided to have a baby. They then find out that they child they've been planning for is going to have some serious health issues or the pregnancy will have life threatening complications, and are faced with an incredibly difficult decision. 

Late term abortions are 100% about healthcare and 0% about convenience. No one is "putting off" the decision that late. 


narad said:


> I'm in no position really to guess what would happen, but I think we can't necessarily view this through like the lens of the 1960s, i.e., back-alley abortions / intentional harm, etc. I'm imagining this galvanizing the pro-choice groups in establishing transportation corridors for women for moving them into neighboring states with more liberal legislation, having the procedures there, moving them back. That and probably more push for distribution of day-after variety pills (which can actually be like multi-week-after pills these days).
> 
> Then I'm imagining maybe extensions to Texas-style legislation where assisting women to leave the state to have an abortion faces charges, or lawsuits with money given to random citizens who raise the suits. Then new legal restrictions on day-after type pills / things you can do yourself.
> 
> Either way, I think it's really going to make the notion of a red state / blue state more concrete, which is a huge setback. We think that way at voting time, but I don't personally think we think that way on a day-to-day basis.


Northern Ireland is a good case study for abortion rights and underground practices, because abortion was only decriminalised in 2019 and we still have barely and services available. 

Women, to this day, still have to fly or get the ferry to the UK to get treatment; or get arrested trying to obtain abortion drugs; or throw themselves down stairs to induce an abortion. Women with unviable pregnancies here still get told to fly to England, book a hotel, and pay for their medical emergency*.

*that maybe doesn't sound like a big deal in America, but it is here


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> I have no idea what this comment is about, as the bible literally teaches how to give an abortion. And it says that a person is a person when they take their first breath.


Modern scientists have a different story


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Modern scientists have a different story


No they don't


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Modern scientists have a different story



Lol, like this is an issue for science. What was the hypothesis tested? What predictive power did science have on determining what was or wasn't a person.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> Modern scientists have a different story



Unlike feelings and whimsical beliefs, no they don’t. 

And I’m tired of pretending like the Christian Bible has anything to do with how people should live their lives. The founding fathers established separation of church and state for a reason. 

Person A’s faith does not get to govern person B’s life. Full stop. 

Man I love how religious people are the most oppressive about pushing their fairy tales on everyone else. 

Just keep your ovaries to yourself and don’t get a medical procedure you don’t want to. It’s your body. People just don’t deserve a “vote” on someone else’s body. 

It’s a pretty simple point but religious extremists just can’t accept not controlling the lives of others.


----------



## TimmyPage

AMOS said:


> Why don't they amend it instead and just ban late term abortion? If someone doesn't want a kid why wait until they get into late term territory to figure it out?


Late term abortions are extremely rare, (~1% of abortions) and are almost exclusively performed for medical emergencies.

I have a friend who have one, her doctors realised on scans that the child would not survive, and it would threaten her life to attempt to give birth regardless. It was a really hard decision for her because that child was wanted, but it wasn't viable or safe.

Noone is carrying a child for 8 months and suddenly deciding not to have the kid, late term abortions are done for almost exclusively medical emergency reasons and to save lives.


----------



## Mathemagician

TimmyPage said:


> Late term abortions are extremely rare, and are almost exclusively performed for medical emergencies.
> 
> I have a friend who have one, her doctors realised on scans that the child would not survive, and it would threaten her life to attempt to give birth regardless. It was a really hard decision for her because that child was wanted, but it wasn't viable or safe.
> 
> Noone is carrying a child for 8 months and suddenly deciding not to have the kid, late term abortions are done for almost exclusively medical emergency reasons and to save lives.



Oh they already know that. Those statistics are logged and can be looked up by anyone interested in good faith research. 

People trying to take away an individuals autonomy use that angle as another attack vector on abortion access. 

They want access to be zero. So they trot out the 100% incorrect myth that late-terms are being doing for fun like a Botox party in order to try to gain public acceptance that *some* loss of access to safe medicine is acceptable. 

Then they’ll keep pushing and pushing. 

Remember extremists of any sort do not compromise. Hitler didn’t stop with appeasement of annexing countries, Putin didn’t stop with appeasement of annexing countries. 

Extremists of all stripes just keep lying and pushing to get whatever they want in the end. The “compromise” is fake and done in bad faith.


----------



## wankerness

2% of pregnancies are ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies CAN NOT result in a living baby, period, but they very frequently result in a dead mother if not aborted. People like Amos Q Chucklefuck here seem to think these don’t exist and they should all be banned cause they’re just utterly clueless about what they’re so mad about. There have also been some dipshit Republicans that have said “they shouldn’t be aborted, they should just be re-planted in the uterus!” Even though this procedure has never worked and isnt an option as a result. There’s no way we’re going to try having kids in a backwards state that would prioritize a non-viable fetus over the life of the mother. 2% chance of death or imprisonment is not a dice I want to roll. And they are going to be illegal in Wisconsin shortly if the state assembly/senate republicans don’t get swept in the midterms. Spoiler: they won’t.


----------



## narad

wankerness said:


> 2% of pregnancies are ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies CAN NOT result in a living baby, period, but they very frequently result in a dead mother if not aborted. People like Amos Q Chucklefuck here seem to think these don’t exist and they should all be banned cause they’re just utterly clueless about what they’re so mad about. There have also been some dipshit Republicans that have said “they shouldn’t be aborted, they should just be re-planted in the uterus!” Even though this procedure has never worked and isnt an option as a result. There’s no way we’re going to try having kids in a backwards state that would prioritize a non-viable fetus over the life of the mother. 2% chance of death or imprisonment is not a dice I want to roll. And they are going to be illegal in Wisconsin shortly if the state assembly/senate republicans don’t get swept in the midterms. Spoiler: they won’t.



But when a couple mothers die from avoidable complications resulting from not aborting such a pregnancy, don't you think that would be the end of it? A couple Dateline bios on the women and a bill bearing their name gathering majority support? A majority of Americans are in favor of abortions in these circumstances even in heavily red leaning states, but the right wing media spin paints it (as AMOS has clearly taken hook, line, and sinker) as a policy for a bunch of lazy sluts to continue a hedonistic lifestyle. I feel like you just need some real faces and lives attached to these outcomes of such policies to excavate their true stupidity and reveal it to the fairly ignorant and misled American populous (like AMOS).


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> But when a couple mothers die from avoidable complications resulting from not aborting such a pregnancy, don't you think that would be the end of it? A couple Dateline bios on the women and a bill bearing their name gathering majority support? A majority of Americans are in favor of abortions in these circumstances even in heavily red leaning states, but the right wing media spin paints it (as AMOS has clearly taken hook, line, and sinker) as a policy for a bunch of lazy sluts to continue a hedonistic lifestyle. I feel like you just need some real faces and lives attached to these outcomes of such policies to excavate their true stupidity and reveal it to the fairly ignorant and misled American populous (like AMOS).


Fuck that. The law was humane last week.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Fuck that. The law was humane last week.


America has a sort of, "sounds nice, but what has it done for me lately?" Attitude towards laws and precedent.


----------



## KnightBrolaire

narad said:


> I'm in no position really to guess what would happen, but I think we can't necessarily view this through like the lens of the 1960s, i.e., back-alley abortions / intentional harm, etc. I'm imagining this galvanizing the pro-choice groups in establishing transportation corridors for women for moving them into neighboring states with more liberal legislation, having the procedures there, moving them back. That and probably more push for distribution of day-after variety pills (which can actually be like multi-week-after pills these days).
> 
> Then I'm imagining maybe extensions to Texas-style legislation where assisting women to leave the state to have an abortion faces charges, or lawsuits with money given to random citizens who raise the suits. Then new legal restrictions on day-after type pills / things you can do yourself.
> 
> Either way, I think it's really going to make the notion of a red state / blue state more concrete, which is a huge setback. We think that way at voting time, but I don't personally think we think that way on a day-to-day basis.


You grossly misunderestimate what happens when access to safe abortion is oulawed. This has been a recurring issue in predominantly catholic countries and in places like Romania where women either have to get illegal abortions or attempt to get a hold of miscarriage inducing meds/herbs. The human cost from lack of access to safe abortions is millions of women worldwide dying or being seriously injured yearly. 
Not only that but there's a huge correlation between overall destruction of female rights in those countries and their vehemence at keeping abortion illegal.


----------



## wankerness

I can virtually guarantee abortion support will drop sharply as soon as the trumpers all start making it a divisive “it’s just pinkhaired libs, and we have to own them!!” Issue via Facebook/newsmax/tucker Carlson. It sounds good until your side tells you the libs like it. Will be the same drop we saw with initial bipartisan support for lockdowns, masks, police reforms, vaccines, etc. 

No amount of common sense and publicized stories of young mothers dying cause they couldn’t get abortions thanks to republican law is going to change their mind.

I liked the old quote from Amy coney barrett that was dug up from 2008 yesterday where she said we need to increase stock of adoptable babies cause there’s a shortage. Even though there are hundreds of thousands of kids in the system waiting for adoptions and tens of thousands age out every year without ever being adopted. Psychotic.


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> Unlike feelings and whimsical beliefs, no they don’t.
> 
> And I’m tired of pretending like the Christian Bible has anything to do with how people should live their lives. The founding fathers established separation of church and state for a reason.
> 
> Person A’s faith does not get to govern person B’s life. Full stop.
> 
> Man I love how religious people are the most oppressive about pushing their fairy tales on everyone else.
> 
> Just keep your ovaries to yourself and don’t get a medical procedure you don’t want to. It’s your body. People just don’t deserve a “vote” on someone else’s body.
> 
> It’s a pretty simple point but religious extremists just can’t accept not controlling the lives of others.


And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> No they don't


why? because the ignorant Irishman said so?


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.



Your religion blinds you to how close you are. The federal government is protecting women’s right to be their own authority on the issue. 

No one is demanding others get abortions. Simply protecting access to that medical procedure 

Your ridiculous fairy tales do not dictate what others should have ACCESS to.


----------



## wankerness

AMOS said:


> And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.


So you choose to side with people with more backwards thinking on abortion than Saudi Arabia just because liberals annoy you. Way to own the libs. You can at least feel smugly superior now that your backwards minority opinions are going to be enforced on millions who want nothing to do with it.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> why? because the ignorant Irishman said so?


OK then. Show me the medical and scientific consensus that for where humanity begins.

Except, as narad said, you can't because that isn't a scientific claim. It's an empathetic one.

And please, if we're going to resort to name calling, at least let the boot fit.


----------



## DrewH

AMOS said:


> And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.



It has to do with what is a God given right. Having control over one's own body is a God given right. I don't give 2 F's if it violates some twisted sense of morality you have. That has always been the main problem with the Republican party and why I register independent. It's the party of freedom. But, there is this fine print below that says "freedom to do only what conforms to our moral standards". That makes the Republican party the biggest group of hypocrites going.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> it's more like the immoral majority


So now you're just anti-democracy?


----------



## Crungy

It's not the left that wants to limit or criminalize abortion access and ultimately control women's rights. 

More of god's will being done to the detriment of women.


----------



## narad

KnightBrolaire said:


> You grossly misunderestimate what happens when access to safe abortion is oulawed. This has been a recurring issue in predominantly catholic countries and in places like Romania where women either have to get illegal abortions or attempt to get a hold of miscarriage inducing meds/herbs. The human cost from lack of access to safe abortions is millions of women worldwide dying or being seriously injured yearly.
> Not only that but there's a huge correlation between overall destruction of female rights in those countries and their vehemence at keeping abortion illegal.



I think frankly no other country's historical situation is particularly relevant to what would happen in the US if the map became dotted with places that prohibited abortion / were within a day trip to/from places that allow it, together with heavily funded pro-choice groups (that I think will likely have their funding go way up after Roe is overturned). I'm not underestimating what happens when access to safe abortion is outlawed -- I just don't think there is a good comparable situation to what it will be like _for the US_ in 2023.


----------



## wankerness

Here's the kind of news I like to wake up to in Wisconsin:

"An anti-abortion group would seek to remove an exception to Wisconsin's abortion law that permits the procedure to save the life of the pregnant person, if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the country's highest court. 

Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande told USA TODAY Network-Wisconsin Friday that his organization believes there are no situations where an abortion would be medically necessary to save the pregnant person's life. "

So, making it illegal and throwing doctors in jail for six years if the abortion isn't deemed "life-saving" isn't enough, we can't even allow them to save the mothers' lives. These Christian wackos are total savages. No possible way I'm having a kid in this hellhole if these people get their way.


----------



## zappatton2

It's so ironic that the reactionary right obsesses over the word "freedom", while working so diligently to clutch it away on so many fronts. The freedom they want; no civic responsibility, no social safety nets, and no protections against their ability to control and dominate anyone they feel occupies a lower totem in their concept of divine hierarchical order. Equal rights become "special rights" upsetting that perceived order.

This was never about "life". It was always about ensuring reproductive control over pliant wives, or alternately, punishing those "nasty women" with the gall to claim bodily autonomy or sexual agency. We're lucky in Canada that we have the Charter to provide a buffer between us and them, and abortion, though not set out as a right itself, is covered in protection to security of the person. So it's governed as any medical procedure, and the reactionaries could no more outlaw it than they could heart surgery.

My hope is that people wake up to see how insane so much of this is, especially allowing women to die trying to enforce this dystopic vision, and that the blow-back is felt come next election. But the long-game still looks like fascist theocracy, I'm truly shocked they've gained this much ground. Looks like Zappa was right all along


----------



## nightflameauto

I read about this abortion situation and I get the same internal cringe that I used to get when my uncle would scream at his wife, "GET IN THE HOUSE, WOMAN!" because she dared to interject a sane statement into the talk of the men folk out on the farm. It's the same mentality in action. "Woman = inferior, do as we say."

Pricks.


----------



## bostjan

This has probably been pointed out, and it might seem very obvious to some or most or maybe even all of you, but - this is a court decision based on the law.

The Supreme Court does not write the policies, they merely dictate how those written policies apply in various circumstances.

The Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate really should have and still should be settled in congress. Being that it's one of those 3 big single-issue-voter sticking points, though, any federal law declaring that the states cannot determine the matter will, 100% get filibustered in the Senate. Can you imagine how much of a hero a Senator would be to the pro-life base for standing on the Senate floor and reading the entirety of wikipedia to protect babies from being murdered? And, even if the filibuster somehow gets taken off the table, I don't see a room full of politicians ever agreeing on any legislation about this unless it's on the back side of the bill that gives them a pay increase. The most likely outcome of this I see, is that there are a number of years where states crack down, things get bad (probably unrelated to this single issue), and then the government's opinion on the issue sways back the other way, it comes up again in a future version of the SCotUS, and gets double overturned. Who knows, though, it might just keep flipping back and forth until either the federal government gets the legislature to take control of the policy or until the government collapses. Actually, from a philosophical level, I guess all laws are just in place until they are overturned or the government implodes.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> This has probably been pointed out, and it might seem very obvious to some or most or maybe even all of you, but - this is a court decision based on the law.
> 
> The Supreme Court does not write the policies, they merely dictate how those written policies apply in various circumstances.
> 
> The Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate really should have and still should be settled in congress. Being that it's one of those 3 big single-issue-voter sticking points, though, any federal law declaring that the states cannot determine the matter will, 100% get filibustered in the Senate. Can you imagine how much of a hero a Senator would be to the pro-life base for standing on the Senate floor and reading the entirety of wikipedia to protect babies from being murdered? And, even if the filibuster somehow gets taken off the table, I don't see a room full of politicians ever agreeing on any legislation about this unless it's on the back side of the bill that gives them a pay increase. The most likely outcome of this I see, is that there are a number of years where states crack down, things get bad (probably unrelated to this single issue), and then the government's opinion on the issue sways back the other way, it comes up again in a future version of the SCotUS, and gets double overturned. Who knows, though, it might just keep flipping back and forth until either the federal government gets the legislature to take control of the policy or until the government collapses. Actually, from a philosophical level, I guess all laws are just in place until they are overturned or the government implodes.



I feel like probably sometime between now and the 70s we could have had a congress setup well enough to push something like that through, but didn't feel the necessity in making a big fuss since it would not make a big practical difference under the court's previous stance, and now at the moment we're in terrible shape to get anything like that accomplished. That's shitty. In that sense I kind of agree with the court's ruling in that it was ideally something that should have been handled with legislature, but it's also something that I personally imagine would have been worked out that way sometime in the 80s or 90s if the Roe ruling had never happened.

Like can't we get it into law on like a roughly 50% agreement + 40 years "time served"?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> I feel like probably sometime between now and the 70s we could have had a congress setup well enough to push something like that through, but didn't feel the necessity in making a big fuss since it would not make a big practical difference under the court's previous stance, and now at the moment we're in terrible shape to get anything like that accomplished. That's shitty. In that sense I kind of agree with the court's ruling in that it was ideally something that should have been handled with legislature, but it's also something that I personally imagine would have been worked out that way sometime in the 80s or 90s if the Roe ruling had never happened.
> 
> Like can't we get it into law on like a roughly 50% agreement + 40 years "time served"?


Seeing as how this basically boils down to concepts that 50% of nation will likely never ever agree on, and certainly will not ever agree on during this generation, I don't think congress will be able to get anything through any sort of pipeline until we reach a point where things can be discussed in a civil manner.

The whole idea of "this is a person" and "this is not a person" is really something we struggle with, culturally. I'm old enough to remember when Terry Shiavo was in the 24 hour news cycle all of the time. In that case, it was the opposite end of the same debate. Is a person with zero brain activity still a person? Conservatives thought so then, and probably some still think that's the right position. 

When people turn to science for answers about this, science just says "WTF are you talking about?" Because, if you sanitize all of the moral grey areas out of this discussion, we are all clumps of cells. Many of us can hardly make simple decisions about what to eat for dinner, even well into adulthood, so there is really no promising metric that could be used to define personhood down to a simple binary "yes this is a person / no this is not a person" mindset.

But the laws are meant to protect people from other people. So, it sort of depends on defining what is a person.

Here's another doozy that no one wants to think about: if a mad scientist spliced the genes of a homo sapiens with the genes of a bonobo, and made a baby that was half man/half ape (I know, I know, homo sapiens is actually a type of ape, but I think you catch my drift), is that being a person or not a person? If that humanzee ended up growing up, speaking maybe somewhere between how a human speaks and how other great apes have been taught to speak, and then whatever science project this is ends and funding is cut, then the humanzee takes to the streets having to steal to survive, would they be prosecuted as a person? Would they be dealt with by animal control? How would that work?

The law has zero answers for that hypothetical situation right now. Science can't tell you what the law "should" say. It's just a gap in our own culture due to our own self-importance and deliberately poor definitions of things in our laws to fudge a way around these sorts of uncomfortable thought experiments. But, just as abortion became an issue with the advent of modern medicine, and euthanasia became an issue with the advent of pain-free execution, the humanzee conundrum is not only close to becoming an issue, but the technology is already there.

I guess that's a bit of a tangent, but the point is that the laws vary from one location to another so much because we refuse to sit down and have philosophical discussions without turning them into shouting matches or worse. I really don't think we are anywhere near a point where abortion could be discussed by politicians in the USA. I mean, we can't agree on anything else, and abortion is legally much more complex than, say, whether extortion is a high crime or misdemeanor.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.


Devil's advocate, is this any different from conservatives thinking that liberals are _wrong_ about everything, thinking that they (conservatives) are the "silent majority," in Nixon's coinage, and sitting on _their_ high horses about how the liberals are wrong and the Federal branch of government has _no_ role in guaranteeing the rights of American citizens, and that all rights should be states' rights decisions, even if the Bill of Rights is very clear on the subject that American citizens have federally-protected rights, both the ones enumerated in the constitution, as well as others not specifically enumerated, per the 9th Amendment? 

If so, how is it different?


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> And I'm tired of liberals that think they're right about fucking everything. They can't accept not BEING the controlling authority on everything. They sit on their high horse because they feel they're the moral majority, it's more like the immoral majority. But, this decision had nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the federal govt not being the authority on this issue.


The liberal versus conservative thing is often just a distraction.

I know it sounds tin-foil-hat level, but take, for instance, The Patriot Act. It granted the government unprecedented power to violate the Bill of Rights. It was written by Republicans, but only one Senator voted against it. Even after 8 years of public opinion turning sour on it and dozens of promises from Obama to undo the worst parts of it, it not only remained in tact, but was actively renewed under Obama. It finally expired in March of 2020. Probably because of Trump, but not that he wanted to kill it, just that he caused so many distractions maybe congress was too preoccupied with the scandals going on everywhere and forgot until it already lapsed.

In that case, neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor even capital "L" Libertarians in Washington expended the energy to stand up and say "Hey, whoah, this thing is taking it just a little too far. I mean, what if the police arrest an innocent person and just say 'terrorism' to abuse the power? You mean to tell me that we can spy on them without a warrant, arrest them without a warrant, hold them literally forever in jail, literally torture them, and they ultimately never get a trial, regardless of their citizenship?!" No, those shady scros in congress knew it was over-reaching, knew it was unconstitutional, didn't care which political party they were, didn't care about anyone's rights, and didn't hesitate to sign away your freedoms. All in the name of enhanced national security, of course.

So yeah, liberals think that they are right. Conservatives think that they are right. Moderates think that they are right. But also, none of them lose any sleep at all when they find out that they were wrong all along.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I know it sounds tin-foil-hat level, but take, for instance, The Patriot Act. It granted the government unprecedented power to violate the Bill of Rights. It was written by Republicans, but only one Senator voted against it. Even after 8 years of public opinion turning sour on it and dozens of promises from Obama to undo the worst parts of it, it not only remained in tact, but was actively renewed under Obama. It finally expired in March of 2020. Probably because of Trump, but not that he wanted to kill it, just that he caused so many distractions maybe congress was too preoccupied with the scandals going on everywhere and forgot until it already lapsed.


Devil's advocate, I think the Patriot act was an outlier. It was passed in the immediate aftermath of an unprecidented attack on mainland America, in a knee-jerk "rally round the flag" period where W. briefly had 90% approval ratings, and Congress mostly just wanted to be seen as doing _something_. I suspect an awful lot of people who voted for it didn't really understand the full scope of what it did - a bill, after all, that was mostly a collection of intricate line-by-line edits to existing bills, and with 90% of the country supporting Bush, no one wanted to be seen as being against something called "the Patriot Act," that created a "Department of Homeland Security." 

How many other modern-area bills can you think of that passed with near-unanimous support? Just 16 months ago, we couldn't even impeach Trump for his role in staging an attempted coup aimed at stopping the certification of electoral votes sealing his loss. I'm afraid that's the norm, and the Patriot act was the exception., and a bad one at that.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> The liberal versus conservative thing is often just a distraction.
> 
> I know it sounds tin-foil-hat level, but take, for instance, The Patriot Act. It granted the government unprecedented power to violate the Bill of Rights. It was written by Republicans, but only one Senator voted against it. Even after 8 years of public opinion turning sour on it and dozens of promises from Obama to undo the worst parts of it, it not only remained in tact, but was actively renewed under Obama. It finally expired in March of 2020. Probably because of Trump, but not that he wanted to kill it, just that he caused so many distractions maybe congress was too preoccupied with the scandals going on everywhere and forgot until it already lapsed.
> 
> In that case, neither Democrats nor Republicans, nor even capital "L" Libertarians in Washington expended the energy to stand up and say "Hey, whoah, this thing is taking it just a little too far. I mean, what if the police arrest an innocent person and just say 'terrorism' to abuse the power? You mean to tell me that we can spy on them without a warrant, arrest them without a warrant, hold them literally forever in jail, literally torture them, and they ultimately never get a trial, regardless of their citizenship?!" No, those shady scros in congress knew it was over-reaching, knew it was unconstitutional, didn't care which political party they were, didn't care about anyone's rights, and didn't hesitate to sign away your freedoms. All in the name of enhanced national security, of course.
> 
> So yeah, liberals think that they are right. Conservatives think that they are right. Moderates think that they are right. But also, none of them lose any sleep at all when they find out that they were wrong all along.



The presidential debate commission is another good place to look. The two parties essentially get together and agree what questions will be asked, who is allowed to participate, and what things are not going to be discussed. It's not necessarily a secret, they have a whole big document every year that anyone can go to read, but it isn't necessarily publicized either. 

This creates a very substantial barrier to anyone who is not endowed by one of those two parties. Ross Perot was mostly allowed to participate because W thought he was going to "steal" votes from Clinton. He probably wasn't wrong, and Perot's historically comedic showing also conveniently cast third-party candidates as kooky fringe elements rather than legitimate options. This is why folks like Bernie and Ron Paul had no choice but to seek major party endorsement, which will always go poorly for them, because no matter where they're standing they're still seen and portrayed by the establishment as kooky fringe elements.


----------



## zappatton2

bostjan said:


> Seeing as how this basically boils down to concepts that 50% of nation will likely never ever agree on, and certainly will not ever agree on during this generation, I don't think congress will be able to get anything through any sort of pipeline until we reach a point where things can be discussed in a civil manner.
> 
> The whole idea of "this is a person" and "this is not a person" is really something we struggle with, culturally. I'm old enough to remember when Terry Shiavo was in the 24 hour news cycle all of the time. In that case, it was the opposite end of the same debate. Is a person with zero brain activity still a person? Conservatives thought so then, and probably some still think that's the right position.
> 
> When people turn to science for answers about this, science just says "WTF are you talking about?" Because, if you sanitize all of the moral grey areas out of this discussion, we are all clumps of cells. Many of us can hardly make simple decisions about what to eat for dinner, even well into adulthood, so there is really no promising metric that could be used to define personhood down to a simple binary "yes this is a person / no this is not a person" mindset.
> 
> But the laws are meant to protect people from other people. So, it sort of depends on defining what is a person.
> 
> Here's another doozy that no one wants to think about: if a mad scientist spliced the genes of a homo sapiens with the genes of a bonobo, and made a baby that was half man/half ape (I know, I know, homo sapiens is actually a type of ape, but I think you catch my drift), is that being a person or not a person? If that humanzee ended up growing up, speaking maybe somewhere between how a human speaks and how other great apes have been taught to speak, and then whatever science project this is ends and funding is cut, then the humanzee takes to the streets having to steal to survive, would they be prosecuted as a person? Would they be dealt with by animal control? How would that work?
> 
> The law has zero answers for that hypothetical situation right now. Science can't tell you what the law "should" say. It's just a gap in our own culture due to our own self-importance and deliberately poor definitions of things in our laws to fudge a way around these sorts of uncomfortable thought experiments. But, just as abortion became an issue with the advent of modern medicine, and euthanasia became an issue with the advent of pain-free execution, the humanzee conundrum is not only close to becoming an issue, but the technology is already there.
> 
> I guess that's a bit of a tangent, but the point is that the laws vary from one location to another so much because we refuse to sit down and have philosophical discussions without turning them into shouting matches or worse. I really don't think we are anywhere near a point where abortion could be discussed by politicians in the USA. I mean, we can't agree on anything else, and abortion is legally much more complex than, say, whether extortion is a high crime or misdemeanor.


More to your first point, I think it's difficult to assign personhood to something that doesn't have fully functional brain activity for most of it's gestation. I'd sooner ascribe personhood to the animals we farm and eat, which do have more complex awareness and emotional depth than we give them credit for. Though I suppose when I think of my parents, who are pro-life, they don't think in terms of consciousness, but rather, a "soul", so I suppose it boils down to metaphysical concepts for some.

But even if it were in another context, let's say you woke up one day hooked to a machine that was keeping someone else alive (an adult with full cognitive awareness in this scenario) for nine months, while subjecting you to all sorts of adverse health risks along the way. Even if your own actions had landed you in that situation, but _especially _if they hadn't, how many folks in the land of "rugged individuals" would choose to remain bound to that circumstance? I imagine many would, but a whole lot of folks would still like to retain that choice, whether they did or not.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Devil's advocate, I think the Patriot act was an outlier. It was passed in the immediate aftermath of an unprecidented attack on mainland America, in a knee-jerk "rally round the flag" period where W. briefly had 90% approval ratings, and Congress mostly just wanted to be seen as doing _something_. I suspect an awful lot of people who voted for it didn't really understand the full scope of what it did - a bill, after all, that was mostly a collection of intricate line-by-line edits to existing bills, and with 90% of the country supporting Bush, no one wanted to be seen as being against something called "the Patriot Act," that created a "Department of Homeland Security."
> 
> How many other modern-area bills can you think of that passed with near-unanimous support? Just 16 months ago, we couldn't even impeach Trump for his role in staging an attempted coup aimed at stopping the certification of electoral votes sealing his loss. I'm afraid that's the norm, and the Patriot act was the exception., and a bad one at that.


If the USA was under unprecedented economic distress, worse than the Great Depression, and someone penned an Act called "The Act to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Government" with sweeping shifts in political power, explained away as a national emergency, I'm sure congress would have voted for that, too. Even if it enabled the political party in charge to arrest people from the opposing party. Maybe that Act would also install someone from congress as basically dictator, but allow the president to maintain the power to veto anything that doesn't sound quite right. I'm sure the only thing to come out of that would be a car for everyone and a stronger economy. Certainly not an invasion of several neighbouring countries and numerous genocide attempts. Right? Right?!

Well hindsight is 20/20... but those of us who know a little bit of history might be able to benefit from the mistakes of others.



wheresthefbomb said:


> The presidential debate commission is another good place to look. The two parties essentially get together and agree what questions will be asked, who is allowed to participate, and what things are not going to be discussed. It's not necessarily a secret, they have a whole big document every year that anyone can go to read, but it isn't necessarily publicized either.
> 
> This creates a very substantial barrier to anyone who is not endowed by one of those two parties. Ross Perot was mostly allowed to participate because W thought he was going to "steal" votes from Clinton. He probably wasn't wrong, and Perot's historically comedic showing also conveniently cast third-party candidates as kooky fringe elements rather than legitimate options. This is why folks like Bernie and Ron Paul had no choice but to seek major party endorsement, which will always go poorly for them, because no matter where they're standing they're still seen and portrayed by the establishment as kooky fringe elements.


Perot's ideas weren't all bad, but, looking back, there are a lot of parallels with Trump. There's nothing wrong with balancing the budget, kicking lobbyists out of DC, disincentivizing corporations from moving operations overseas, etc. He explained things with graphs, he suggested electronic town-hall meetings to keep the government connected with the people. He was ahead of his time in a lot of respects, but he was also backward in other respects. He made a fool out of Bush Sr. in the first debate. People made fun of him for his Texas accent and his big ears. IDK...

There is some validity to the criticism that people with big new ideas are potentially dangerous. Those big new ideas can take on a life of their own and cause a lot of damage. But sticking with old ideas that no longer work causes just as significant damage. Big new ideas with their teeth pulled out to make them less dangerous can also be just as dangerous as they can cause the harm from both the outdated old ideas and some damage from misguided new ideas. I guess the gist of my thought here is that there are no safe ideas in politics.


zappatton2 said:


> More to your first point, I think it's difficult to assign personhood to something that doesn't have fully functional brain activity for most of it's gestation. I'd sooner ascribe personhood to the animals we farm and eat, which do have more complex awareness and emotional depth than we give them credit for. Though I suppose when I think of my parents, who are pro-life, they don't think in terms of consciousness, but rather, a "soul", so I suppose it boils down to metaphysical concepts for some.
> 
> But even if it were in another context, let's say you woke up one day hooked to a machine that was keeping someone else alive (an adult with full cognitive awareness in this scenario) for nine months, while subjecting you to all sorts of adverse health risks along the way. Even if your own actions had landed you in that situation, but _especially _if they hadn't, how many folks in the land of "rugged individuals" would choose to remain bound to that circumstance? I imagine many would, but a whole lot of folks would still like to retain that choice, whether they did or not.



Great point. A few questions:
1. What constitutes "fully functional brain activity?"
2. I think you already see the potential trouble of the above question, as it relates to things we feel uncomfortable granting "personhood." But, I feel compelled to note that conservatives also insist that a corporation is a "person" in that it has the same rights as any human being, yet not a person, in that, you can't send it to jail if it kills someone. What do you think about the potential logical consequence of this in terms of how it would then be illegal to abort the formation of a corporation during its nascent period?
3. The whole "soul" thing is a slippery slope right into a trash compactor. Whether or not such a thing exists, in general, isn't even the question here. There's absolutely no measurable test for such a thing. I know you are not proposing this as a litmus test, but how would you imagine the world would be if the government were able to determine such, based on belief?

As for your scenario: Personally, I would not want to be such a burden on my loved ones. But my personal philosophy about life is probably nothing like anyone else's. I think that life has a great deal of value, but I don't think there is anything more special about it than that. There are people with whom I have formed my own personal attachments, and, if anything took them away from me, I would be devastated. But honestly, it's based on that attachment. It's selfish.

But we all are born and we will all die. There's nothing anyone can do to stop anyone else from dying indefinitely. Even if we _*could*_ do that, the ultimate implications of overpopulation make it necessary to conclude that we _should not._ There's nothing great for society about keeping someone alive if they contribute nothing to that same society, so, someone with a sentence of life imprisonment with no chance at all for parole might as well, in society's value scheme, be put to death. That's essentially how ancient and medieval society worked. That's not really changed. We are shying away from the death penalty for a number of reasons. But you have, on one hand, Nordic countries who believe that anyone can be rehabilitated to contribute to society, and then you have Russia, who basically just wants to claim that they are too sophisticated for the death penalty, but they just disappear you anyway.

But, coming back to personhood - the US government is all over the damned place about personhood, abortion, death penalty, etc. It depends on the state, the circumstance, etc. Maybe not in terms of policy, but in terms of de facto policy, well, if you are poor or black, you are far more likely to get the death penalty, than if you are white and wealthy.

But what I'm working on getting at, is that convicted felons are generally not granted the rights that go with personhood. That could be nonviolent crime, whatever. And, like I mentioned before, it depends on location and circumstance. But, you mean to tell me that someone who didn't pay their taxes in Alabama is not a person? But, someone who did the same thing in Massachusetts is? How weird is that?!


----------



## wankerness

Well, the Wisconsin republicans are not to be outdone:









Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ or face 'abortion murder' charges


Ohio introduces one of the most extreme bills to date for a procedure that does not exist in medical science




www.theguardian.com





Ohio republicans introduce bill demanding doctors "re-implant" ectopic pregnancies or face charges for abortion, despite this NOT BEING A PROCEDURE THAT CAN BE DONE. It's like telling doctors they have to bring dead people back to life or face charges, or something.



> It also appears to punish doctors, women and children as young as 13 with “abortion murder” if they “perform or have an abortion”. This crime is punishable by life in prison. Another new crime, “aggravated abortion murder”, is punishable by death, according to the bill.



These are things people like Amos believe are good and moral.









Texas Republicans say if Roe falls, they’ll focus on adoptions and preventing women from seeking abortions elsewhere


State leaders say expanding a social safety net for children and prosecuting abortion funders are among their priorities. “We’ll continue to do our best to make abortion not just outlawed, but unthinkable,” said state Rep. Briscoe Cain.




www.texastribune.org





Texas republicans declare plan to prevent pregnant women from going to other states to get abortions, which would run counter to the constitution's freedom of movement, but I bet this supreme court will back them up and aid in stripping more rights from women. Setting the stage for a likely repeat of Dred Scott, but this time with women instead of non-white people.

I think there's going to be a higher than likely chance of the country actually fracturing over this if these morons in the supreme court actually try doing this. Problem is, "blue" states tend to be 60% blue and "red" states tend to be 60% red, and all states are split about that evenly. The only way to properly split the union would be to put all cities in one country and all backwoods in another country and call it a day. Then the red areas could be cut off from all tax dollars from the blue cities and could maybe finally face the consequences of the crap they're trying to subject everyone else to.


----------



## Glades

I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I hate to break it to you, but infidelity is at least as old as the concept of marriage. You can't have one without the other.

There is no moral or ethical stance to be taken here. We can play semantics about what constitutes something being medically "alive" until the sun explodes, but what about the ethical concerns of having a child in the first place? No child is able to consent to being born into a world that is by all accounts a terrible place characterized primarily by suffering as the baseline experience, with exceptions being just that. This is not to take a pessimistic view, but simply to weigh the material conditions that have characterized human existence to the extent they are knowable to me.

Point being, there're ethical stances to be taken on all sides, and outside of arbitrary faith none have any more validity than any other. My ethical conclusions about childbirth may not look very fun, and you and others may hate them entirely and think that I'm a pessimistic fool, but the critical fact is that I do not recommend them for anyone else, let alone desire they should be _enforced_ upon anyone else.


----------



## Demiurge

Glades said:


> women are choosing to have relations outside marriage


Oh, my pearls- they are? Shame on them!


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.


Fuck out of here

Unwanted pregnancies are not a result of moral degeneration, they're the result of defunding education. Only telling people to abstain and then stripping them of healthcare access creates single mothers.

If you want to have a conversation the statistics exist everywhere that the best way to reduce abortions and unplanned pregnancies is to provide proper sex education. It's as simple as that. But based on this unhinged post, you don't care about helping people, so...

Fuck out of here.


----------



## zappatton2

double post


----------



## zappatton2

Glades said:


> I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.


I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the Reagan 80s. Theocratic absolutism is off the charts, women are losing their most basic rights and exercising the choice to terminate is being characterized as murder, which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that has moved to the top issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that denying a woman's bodily autonomy and reproductive choice is evil. Women die when these policies are successful. I think you and your country need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Great point. A few questions:
> 1. What constitutes "fully functional brain activity?"



Creating an SSO account and staying out of OT section.


----------



## Mathemagician

wankerness said:


> Here's the kind of news I like to wake up to in Wisconsin:
> 
> "An anti-abortion group would seek to remove an exception to Wisconsin's abortion law that permits the procedure to save the life of the pregnant person, if Roe v. Wade is overturned by the country's highest court.
> 
> Pro-Life Wisconsin legislative director Matt Sande told USA TODAY Network-Wisconsin Friday that his organization believes there are no situations where an abortion would be medically necessary to save the pregnant person's life. "
> 
> So, making it illegal and throwing doctors in jail for six years if the abortion isn't deemed "life-saving" isn't enough, we can't even allow them to save the mothers' lives. These Christian wackos are total savages. No possible way I'm having a kid in this hellhole if these people get their way.



Look a conservative politician saying the magic words!

“They don’t believe”. There that’s it. That’s the morality police at work. The Christian extremists simply say “they don’t believe” in whatever disproves their beliefs.

Easy to ignore facts and research when you can just say you “don’t believe it”.




Glades said:


> I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.



I really want to say something immature like “found the boomer”. But that’s insulting to regular people that mind their own business and just want to work hard, get paid, and spend time with loved ones like everyone else.

Your religious “beliefs” that other people Do Not Believe In, do not dictate what others can do.

Because if someone said “I think all women should cover themselves up in a Burka/Hijab/etc” due to their religion I would assume you would say “hey their religion doesn’t run my life!”

Separation of church and state. This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution. And other people do not want to be persecuted by your specific chosen fairy tales.

Again, no one is making people get anything they don’t want. You can practice your faith, go to your church, meet up with your friends, all protected. You cannot decide what OTHER’s can do.

Your morality is not someone else’s burden.

Edit: And if you’re trolling? That’s grade A shitposting.


----------



## neurosis

Glades said:


> I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.



There are a few moral issues with this country and not only since the 60s. But that's besides the point.

Single motherhood being of the charts means women are having children outside of marriage despite having the option to abortion. 
You can expect that number to grow if they don't have that option any longer. 

Abortion is not a contraceptive. It doesn't prevent you from getting pregnant. 

Abortion is indeed a dilemma because it is not an easy choice to make for anybody that faces it. It is uncomfortable and not rid of psychological effects regardless of whether you are religious or not. Nobody aborts for fun. You do it out of necessity. What issues should be addressed first? I guarantee you they have much to do with education and health care. 

Abortion is not evil. Sad, Desperate, Traumatic, Unfortunate, Depressing, Pitiful, Unnecessary... MAYBE. That depends heavily on the person and their own experience. It will be their burden not yours. Your heart is likely in the right place. A solid moral foundation is important but not at the expense of other people's freedom and livelihood. You have to build people up, not push them around. Having options in live is everything.


----------



## Glades

The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.
I have no issues with any person doing whatever they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception. That the baby has its own DNA, different of the mother and father.

Someone needs to stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves. Someone needs to show some compassion for the innocent.

In the end. Love will triumph over hate, murder and destruction.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.
> I have no issues with any person doing whatever they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception. That the baby has its own DNA, different of the mother and father.
> 
> Someone needs to stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves. Someone needs to show some compassion for the innocent.
> 
> In the end. Love will triumph over hate, murder and destruction.



Speaking of arguments that fall apart quickly, science doesn't prove that (please point to a scientific paper, if you think this is what science does). Regarding DNA, your lunch had many of its own DNAs. Who is going to stand up for that lunch that could not stand up for itself??


----------



## wankerness

Love is forcing women to term even if it kills them. “Love will triumph!” Sounds like a parody account, I hope.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> Love is forcing women to term even if it kills them. “Love will triumph!” Sounds like a parody account, I hope.



Nah, just Florida.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.
> I have no issues with any person doing whatever they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception. That the baby has its own DNA, different of the mother and father.
> 
> Someone needs to stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves. Someone needs to show some compassion for the innocent.
> 
> In the end. Love will triumph over hate, murder and destruction.



The issue is your presumption of a false equivalency as the default state. 

Abortion does not equal murder because a few cells are not a living breathing person. The living breathing woman is a person, and the woman deserves to be protected from extremists. 

Meanwhile abortion is a valid medical procedure that even several of the Abrahamic faiths acknowledge. 

That’s where your personal feelings differ from reality and science. Science does not in any fashion back your beliefs. 

This isn’t a hypothetical debate, religious men who claim a moral high ground that doesn’t exist are deciding to restrict women’s access to healthcare. 

Phrased another way, not supporting a woman’s access to healthcare goes against the very book Christian extremists try to cite as the source of their divine morality. 

Anything to keep women subservient I guess. Forcing them to carry unwanted children to term and get stuck in bad marriages - just like grandmas in the rose-tinted good times before the 60’s.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.
> I have no issues with any person doing whatever they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception. That the baby has its own DNA, different of the mother and father.
> 
> Someone needs to stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves. Someone needs to show some compassion for the innocent.
> 
> In the end. Love will triumph over hate, murder and destruction.


What the fuck does "living" matter? Your breakfast was living before it was killed for you to eat. So that's obviously not the standard we work to. 

The conversation is about when something becomes a human. That isn't a scientific question, it's for society to decide. By and large we don't think tapeworms are human, and they tick most of the same boxes a fetus does, but it's not murder to deal with the health issue?


----------



## vilk

Question for our local conservative posters @Glades @AMOS and anyone else.


How do you believe that millions of bastard children and dead women will improve the United States? I read a comment online earlier that said, "You lose, libs. Get over it."

... Don't we all lose? How does anyone win from forcing unwanted children to be born to unfit an parent(s) who doesn't want them? Forcing women to die? Forcing the birth of severely handicapped, non-functional "people"? What's supposed to get better from this? Why will it make you happy?

Even if you're religious: don't the aborted souls* go to heaven? So what's the difference to you? It's only going to make _your _life worse when you live in a country full _even more_ of poor, mentally unstable people from broken families. 


*the Bible says that babies don't get souls until they breathe, which is around 26 weeks (which is still amniotic fluid, not air—which is what scripture specifies). Buuut for the sake of argument let's say the soul begins at conception, based on... Nothing, I guess.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

vilk said:


> based on... Nothing, I guess.



Using their own logic against them. Good call.


----------



## zappatton2

Let's not also forget the moral panic ushered in by the right after 9-11, which basically characterized all Muslims as the Taliban, coming here to impose Sharia Law and replace our rights and freedoms with extremist religious edicts. So was illiberal religious extremism ever the fear, or just that it wasn't _your _religious extremism? 

One or two more Trumps or Tuckers or Falwells in office, and that may well be the end of American liberal democracy and the onset of a long, dark age of theocratic tyranny. And saying that _used _to feel like hyperbole. Probably still is at _this _point, but really, it's not nearly far enough off the mark.


----------



## zappatton2

And actually, to add one more thing, a lot of anger here should be reserved for the Democrats, who had plenty of time to codify abortion, but were, and continue to be too cowardly to stand firm on important issues (climate change is probably the biggest one that they continue to be lukewarm about, along with public health care and social safety supports).

Progressives don't need to be as dishonest, absolutist and fact-averse as the Cons to stand firm on real issues, and articulate why they are important. But in America, where the zeitgeist skews right, they've been too timid in their message and their policy, while regressives have zeroed in on specific rights and worked tirelessly for decades to take them away. If nothing else, they understand the long game, and the Democrats (with some exceptions) are wearing their failure with more tepid platitudes.


----------



## iamaom

Mathemagician said:


> religious men who claim a moral high ground


I'm pro-choice, but I hate this liberal bullshit. I used to live in texas and there are plenty of catholic latino women who are against abortion. Justice Barrett is openly against abortion. Stop blaming Men for this. Women have agency, and they can use it to be authoritarian bitches.


----------



## vilk

MaxOfMetal said:


> Using their own logic against them. Good call.


I'm not exactly trying to a-ha! anyone here. I legitimately don't get what they think is going to happen. Do they think there will be fewer homeless? Fewer single mothers? Fewer "welfare queens"? There will be _more _of all these things—and more of it in their own backyard, at that! More drug addicts, more people with mental problems, more shanty towns.

And more tax dollars to pay for it all. Or if not, and we let these people get hungry, then more violent crime.


----------



## wankerness

iamaom said:


> I'm pro-choice, but I hate this liberal bullshit. I used to live in texas and there are plenty of catholic latino women who are against abortion. Justice Barrett is openly against abortion. Stop blaming Men for this. Women have agency, and they can use it to be authoritarian bitches.


There's absolutely a substantial minority of women who are opposed to abortion (living in rural WI, I see a split between sweet-intentioned religious types and nasty trash that just wants to punish women they see as promiscuous), but it's far more annoying when men get involved in trying to ban it since they don't have to deal with the consequences. And it IS men who largely had the power to implement this and are going ahead with it. Amy Coney Barrett is only one fifth of the big problem on the Supreme Court. I do firmly believe that silly old talking point that if men had to carry pregnancies, abortion would never be banned.


----------



## zappatton2

Look, maybe we can find some common ground here. If this really is about saving life and not just controlling women and their bodies, I have a modest proposal, just hear me out. We all know that each time a man self-pleasures, he murders roughly 100 million "potential people". And believe you me, those little swimmers are very much alive.

My solution? Enact laws to bind each post-pubescent male in some sort of chastity device that can preempt wanton and ruthless acts of masturbatory genocide. Who knows how many potential Einsteins and Cowboy Ronnie Reagans have met an unsavoury end within the folds of a crumpled, discarded tissue? How many dreams dashed to a murderous wrist?

After all, as Monty Python said, in totally seriousness (because I have trouble with irony), every sperm is sacred. And I don't know about you, but I'm not keen to make the magic sky-wizard irate with such a casual snuffing of his creation. I mean, that's _his _job, full stop.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.


There's a very simple and obvious answer to this:
The murderer is dealt with because they're a direct threat to the people around them. An abortion doesn't indicate any threat to anyone else. Consequences for murder are about negating a threat to other people. Consequences for abortions are just about punishing people (who are already in a punishing situation if they have to make that choice in the first place).

IMO you can't really be "against" abortion unless you're also against any other kind of loss of life, including death penalties, self defence, hunting and fishing and farming, jerkin' it as previously mentioned, etc. If every life is equally valuable then EVERY life is equally valuable. If you tell anyone else they have no right to pick and chose, then you also lose your right to pick and choose.


----------



## Mathemagician

vilk said:


> I'm not exactly trying to a-ha! anyone here. I legitimately don't get what they think is going to happen. Do they think there will be fewer homeless? Fewer single mothers? Fewer "welfare queens"? There will be _more _of all these things—and more of it in their own backyard, at that! More drug addicts, more people with mental problems, more shanty towns.
> 
> And more tax dollars to pay for it all. Or if not, and we let these people get hungry, then more violent crime.



The reasoning is self-centered. Religious fundamentalists are worried only about their own acceptance to heaven. They worry that when they die and get to judgement that they will not be allowed in because they “didn’t fight hard enough” to prevent others from having abortions. 

They’re concerned they will be blamed for what others do, like a collective punishment. So by doing this and taking away other’s rights they feel like they’re ensuring their spot in heaven. 

Essentially fundamentalists are trying to buy/bribe their spot in the afterlife. “See I did my best on this hot topic”.


----------



## Crungy

If we're going to ban abortion and punish women, we should punish men too. This isn't immaculate conception, the man is just as guilty. Jail time for men that impregnate women out of wedlock. They need to be punished and shamed just as much as women have been since the beginning of time.

Ban male contraceptives. Ban vasectomy procedures. Make it equal.

Might as well ban masturbation since that is wasting potential life. How sick it is to let those innocent sperm die. We'll need companies to verify contents of trash and sewer to find any sperm that weren't used to do god's will.

@AMOS @Glades and anyone that supports banning abortion, if you don't support equality in this situation then politely fuck off. It is absolutely ludicrous to make this only about women, because if it is YOU want to control and punish women plain and simple. There is no way around it.


----------



## TedEH

^ Don't give them too many ideas, man.


----------



## iamaom

wankerness said:


> There's absolutely a substantial minority of women who are opposed to abortion


Literally the same exact as men, 19%








Abortion Trends by Gender


This page outlines Gallup's long-term trends on Americans' views about abortion by gender.




news.gallup.com







> they don't have to deal with the consequences


If you don't consider child support for 18 years a consequence.



> And it IS men who largely had the power to implement this


The US gov is mostly men, so yeah. Kind of hard to make a prediction that women wouldn't if the situation was reversed with a sample size of n=1.



> I do firmly believe that silly old talking point that if men had to carry pregnancies, abortion would never be banned


Well conservatives are also trying to ban sodomy (which conservatives get busted for doing all the time) and contraception; circumcision also became popular in the US to stop boys from masturbating while FGM (which was a thing a brief while) is completely banned; plenty of males still want boys exclusively to die in a draft. There are plenty of examples of men voting against their own bodily interest.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Mathemagician said:


> “See I did my best on this hot topic”.



No no, we're talking about abortion. Banning Hot Topic is next year.


----------



## StevenC

zappatton2 said:


> Look, maybe we can find some common ground here. If this really is about saving life and not just controlling women and their bodies, I have a modest proposal, just hear me out. We all know that each time a man self-pleasures, he murders roughly 100 million "potential people". And believe you me, those little swimmers are very much alive.
> 
> My solution? Enact laws to bind each post-pubescent male in some sort of chastity device that can preempt wanton and ruthless acts of masturbatory genocide. Who knows how many potential Einsteins and Cowboy Ronnie Reagans have met an unsavoury end within the folds of a crumpled, discarded tissue? How many dreams dashed to a murderous wrist?
> 
> After all, as Monty Python said, in totally seriousness (because I have trouble with irony), every sperm is sacred. And I don't know about you, but I'm not keen to make the magic sky-wizard irate with such a casual snuffing of his creation. I mean, that's _his _job, full stop.


Doesn't go far enough. 

We need forced breeding camps if we're going to save all the children.


----------



## Crungy

TedEH said:


> ^ Don't give them too many ideas, man.


Right? Though I sincerely doubt any male contraceptives/vasectomy would ever get banned since men are involved. 

If the sewer/trash check example ever happened we are beyond fucked.


----------



## tedtan

Mathemagician said:


> The reasoning is self-centered. Religious fundamentalists are worried only about their own acceptance to heaven. They worry that when they die and get to judgement that they will not be allowed in because they “didn’t fight hard enough” to prevent others from having abortions.
> 
> They’re concerned they will be blamed for what others do, like a collective punishment. So by doing this and taking away other’s rights they feel like they’re ensuring their spot in heaven.
> 
> Essentially fundamentalists are trying to buy/bribe their spot in the afterlife. “See I did my best on this hot topic”.


Meanwhile, those same folks ignore the teachings of the scriptures written in their own holy book, such as:

“let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7); (essentially, we’ve all sinned and are therefore in no place to judge others); and

”Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Math 7:1) (essentially, don’t judge others, it is not your place to do so); and

”You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Math 7:5) (essentially, don’t be self righteous or a hypocrit): and

“‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19)




Glades said:


> I think there is a terrible moral issue in this country, that has been degenerating since the 60s. The single motherhood rate is off the charts, women are choosing to have relations outside marriage and choose abortion as a contraceptive which is not. Abortion is one of those dilemmas that is way down the line of other issues that should be addressed first. There is no doubt that abortion is evil. A human baby dies every time one is had successfully. I think as a country we need to reassess the definitions of right and wrong, and re-establish a solid moral foundation for generations to come.


The thing here is that morals are not based in fact, so, much like opinions and feelings, they vary considerably from one person to the next. And since they are not based in actual fact, it is no one’s place to enforce their own morals on others.




Glades said:


> The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.


No it doesn’t. Your argument is a false equivalency as murdering someone is causing harm to another whereas abortion is not. The argument that can’t stand here is your own.




Glades said:


> But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception.


No, it hasn’t. If that is your takeaway you need to reevaluate your thoughts and beliefs based on this misunderstanding.


----------



## Demiurge

Crungy said:


> Right? Though I sincerely doubt any male contraceptives/vasectomy would ever get banned since men are involved.


When I got my snippity-snip, my uro was affiliated with a Catholic hospital, and I had to have the procedure done at an offsite surgical center because the hospital proper barred _any_ contraceptive. Can't rule anything out.


----------



## Crungy

I'm guessing that same hospital wouldn't help a mother with an ectopic pregnancy either. Cute.


----------



## Demiurge

Probably not, but there are a number of other hospitals in the area, fortunately. That is not true of many other places in the country, though.


----------



## StevenC

Demiurge said:


> When I got my snippity-snip, my uro was affiliated with a Catholic hospital, and I had to have the procedure done at an offsite surgical center because the hospital proper barred _any_ contraceptive. Can't rule anything out.


I don't know if it's still a thing, but I have heard of religious hospitals denying their employees birth control through insurance. Even in cases where the medication is prescribed for other reasons.


----------



## wankerness

Crungy said:


> I'm guessing that same hospital wouldn't help a mother with an ectopic pregnancy either. Cute.


Catholicism is pretty straightforward and outspoken about abortion being fine for ectopic pregnancies (that said, they also strictly say that it's unacceptable to abort a fetus to save the life of the mother - ectopic is only OK cause the fetus would die anyway and it's not the goal of the procedure). It's mainly just the extremist minority of evangelical christians combined with just general morons that don't know what they are. And of course, those two forces combined currently dominate the republican party so it's going to be illegal in a lot of places soon.

It's funny since the thing that everyone always holds up as most repressive of women, Islamic laws, generally says abortion is fine before 120 days is up. They believe that fetuses aren't "ensouled" until that point.


----------



## Crungy

That's a shock to me, I did assume they were against anything to do with abortion 100%.


----------



## bostjan

vilk said:


> I'm not exactly trying to a-ha! anyone here. I legitimately don't get what they think is going to happen. Do they think there will be fewer homeless? Fewer single mothers? Fewer "welfare queens"? There will be _more _of all these things—and more of it in their own backyard, at that! More drug addicts, more people with mental problems, more shanty towns.
> 
> And more tax dollars to pay for it all. Or if not, and we let these people get hungry, then more violent crime.


Careful with that line of thinking, though. If depopulation is used as the justification for policy, it could lead to genocide pretty easily, like, not even much of a slippery slope there.

The conservative line of thinking is killing babies = bad, abortion = killing babies, therefore, abortion = bad. It's a particularly un-nuanced line of thinking which has tons of its own problems. But I don't think that overpopulation is even a consideration.


Crungy said:


> If we're going to ban abortion and punish women, we should punish men too. This isn't immaculate conception, the man is just as guilty. Jail time for men that impregnate women out of wedlock. They need to be punished and shamed just as much as women have been since the beginning of time.
> 
> Ban male contraceptives. Ban vasectomy procedures. Make it equal.
> 
> Might as well ban masturbation since that is wasting potential life. How sick it is to let those innocent sperm die. We'll need companies to verify contents of trash and sewer to find any sperm that weren't used to do god's will.
> 
> @AMOS @Glades and anyone that supports banning abortion, if you don't support equality in this situation then politely fuck off. It is absolutely ludicrous to make this only about women, because if it is YOU want to control and punish women plain and simple. There is no way around it.


The Bible (Old Testament) vaguely bans masturbation through a parable about a guy named Onan who spilled his "seed" on the ground and was killed by God as a result. There was once a suggestion of catching it in containers, and, as long as not a drop touched the ground, it was okay. I used to firmly believe that the notion was satire, but, that was when I was young and naive. Now that I'm old and cynical, and have experienced decades of stupidity firsthand, I think they might have been serious.


tedtan said:


> Meanwhile, those same folks ignore the teachings of the scriptures written in their own holy book, such as:
> 
> “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7); (essentially, we’ve all sinned and are therefore in no place to judge others); and
> 
> ”Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” (Math 7:1) (essentially, don’t judge others, it is not your place to do so); and
> 
> ”You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” (Math 7:5) (essentially, don’t be self righteous or a hypocrit): and
> 
> “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” (Rom 12:19)


Here's what the Bible says about abortion:



The entire Bible said:


> ?



And here's a somewhat relevant verse:



Exodus 21:22 said:


> If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage, but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.



IDK what to make of that, and I don't want to go down the "Bible as a reference for lawmaking" rabbithole, but it's another case of the notions that basically define the platform of beliefs within a religion as being unsupported by that religion's scriptures.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> IDK what to make of that, and I don't want to go down the "Bible as a reference for lawmaking" rabbithole, but it's another case of the notions that basically define the platform of beliefs within a religion as being unsupported by that religion's scriptures.


Agreed. I was just pointing out the tendency to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they choose to follow while ignoring the rest and the hypocrisy that comes along with it. And being in Texas, I see a lot of this.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The “none of my business” argument falls apart pretty quickly when we still expect the government to punish murderers. Why don’t we just legalize murder? It’s non of my business if some dude in Maine murders his family. Let him walk. This argument can’t stand.
> I have no issues with any person doing whatever they please as long as it doesn’t harm others. But science has proven time and again that life begins at conception. That the baby has its own DNA, different of the mother and father.
> 
> Someone needs to stand up for those who can’t stand for themselves. Someone needs to show some compassion for the innocent.
> 
> In the end. Love will triumph over hate, murder and destruction.


So, a whole bunch of people have already taken up this post, and while I don't disagree with any of them (and along that lines will only note that "science has proven time and time again that life begins at conception" is certainly news to ME), I want to bring up a different angle. 

A lot of this comes down to a fundamental understanding of _how_ the justice system is supposed to function. 

Is criminal justice supposed to "punish" criminals? Or is it supposed to both protect society from criminals, and - hopefully - rehabilitate criminals and allow them to return to society when they're no longer a threat? 

If criminal justice isn't actually criminal justice but is criminal punishment, then we shouldn't lock up murderers. Eye for an eye, we should execute them. Save us all the time and money of locking them up. 

If criminal justice is actually about _justice_, both for the criminal and the victim, then suddenly it's a lot more complex. The risk of a criminal repeating needs to be considered, for one, and I'd hazard that this is a huge part of the reason why we treat someone who accidently kills a family of five in a car crash when they fall asleep at the wheel and veer across the center line, differently from a serial killer who has hunted down and killed five victims - intent matters, likelihood of a repeat crime matters, and the mere fat five people have died is not actually all that material to how the criminal justice system functions. 

And that's 100% because it's about determining what is just, for both sides, and not about mere retribution. 

Abortion needs to be viewed through the same framework. No one sets out to have an abortion. Sometimes, particularly in "late term " abortions, no one WANTS to have an abortion at all, but the fetus is unviable and the life of the mother is at legitimate risk. Is forcing a would-be-mother to bring an unviable fetus to term, very likely resulting in her own death, just? Is forcing a woman who was raped and finds herself carrying a child she did not intend to conceive and will forever serve as a reminder of one of the most harrowing and invasive moments of her life, to bring that child to term, just? Is forcing a woman who was on birth control but got pregnant nonetheless to bring a child to term that she knows she can't support just? Carrying a child to term is extremely taxing on the health of a woman. Is it just for the government to force someone to do just that? 

Justice isn't as simple as punishment, and IMO it's a mistake to view criminal justice through the filter of merely being retribution.


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> So, a whole bunch of people have already taken up this post, and while I don't disagree with any of them (and along that lines will only note that "science has proven time and time again that life begins at conception" is certainly news to ME), I want to bring up a different angle.
> 
> A lot of this comes down to a fundamental understanding of _how_ the justice system is supposed to function.
> 
> Is criminal justice supposed to "punish" criminals? Or is it supposed to both protect society from criminals, and - hopefully - rehabilitate criminals and allow them to return to society when they're no longer a threat?
> 
> If criminal justice isn't actually criminal justice but is criminal punishment, then we shouldn't lock up murderers. Eye for an eye, we should execute them. Save us all the time and money of locking them up.
> 
> If criminal justice is actually about _justice_, both for the criminal and the victim, then suddenly it's a lot more complex. The risk of a criminal repeating needs to be considered, for one, and I'd hazard that this is a huge part of the reason why we treat someone who accidently kills a family of five in a car crash when they fall asleep at the wheel and veer across the center line, differently from a serial killer who has hunted down and killed five victims - intent matters, likelihood of a repeat crime matters, and the mere fat five people have died is not actually all that material to how the criminal justice system functions.
> 
> And that's 100% because it's about determining what is just, for both sides, and not about mere retribution.
> 
> Abortion needs to be viewed through the same framework. No one sets out to have an abortion. Sometimes, particularly in "late term " abortions, no one WANTS to have an abortion at all, but the fetus is unviable and the life of the mother is at legitimate risk. Is forcing a would-be-mother to bring an unviable fetus to term, very likely resulting in her own death, just? Is forcing a woman who was raped and finds herself carrying a child she did not intend to conceive and will forever serve as a reminder of one of the most harrowing and invasive moments of her life, to bring that child to term, just? Is forcing a woman who was on birth control but got pregnant nonetheless to bring a child to term that she knows she can't support just? Carrying a child to term is extremely taxing on the health of a woman. Is it just for the government to force someone to do just that?
> 
> Justice isn't as simple as punishment, and IMO it's a mistake to view criminal justice through the filter of merely being retribution.


Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Glades said:


> Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
> The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
> I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.


have you adopted? If you're going to force a woman to have a kid, it only seems right that you would also adopt.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
> The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
> I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.


Ok, first, the main point of my post was the _other_ 99% of my post, that criminal justice =/= punishment.  

But, no, there is no scientific consensus that "life begins at conception." Honestly, there isn't a great scientific consensus on what life even _is_. There IS, however, a religious consensus that life begins at conception, but that's a matter of faith, and not science.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
> The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
> I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.



Please. Please link a peer reviewed study where the scientific community signs off on the idea that “life begins at conception”.

That is, and has always been, a line that fundamentalists use to rule each other up.

No one anywhere has ever said that. Because it just is not true. It’s YOUR belief.

In 2022, only your fundamentalist peers “believe” that nonsense. The point is, you can’t just say the words “modern science” and then pray that you trick others. It’s not a Harry Potter spell.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> established scientific fact


I'm no scientologist, but I think that's bad science.

More seriously though -
Putting aside that you missed the point of the post you were replying to, you can't "scientifically establish" a philosophical position.

I mean, can you scientifically prove "the soul"?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> So, a whole bunch of people have already taken up this post, and while I don't disagree with any of them (and along that lines will only note that "science has proven time and time again that life begins at conception" is certainly news to ME), I want to bring up a different angle.
> 
> A lot of this comes down to a fundamental understanding of _how_ the justice system is supposed to function.
> 
> Is criminal justice supposed to "punish" criminals? Or is it supposed to both protect society from criminals, and - hopefully - rehabilitate criminals and allow them to return to society when they're no longer a threat?
> 
> If criminal justice isn't actually criminal justice but is criminal punishment, then we shouldn't lock up murderers. Eye for an eye, we should execute them. Save us all the time and money of locking them up.
> 
> If criminal justice is actually about _justice_, both for the criminal and the victim, then suddenly it's a lot more complex. The risk of a criminal repeating needs to be considered, for one, and I'd hazard that this is a huge part of the reason why we treat someone who accidently kills a family of five in a car crash when they fall asleep at the wheel and veer across the center line, differently from a serial killer who has hunted down and killed five victims - intent matters, likelihood of a repeat crime matters, and the mere fat five people have died is not actually all that material to how the criminal justice system functions.
> 
> And that's 100% because it's about determining what is just, for both sides, and not about mere retribution.
> 
> Abortion needs to be viewed through the same framework. No one sets out to have an abortion. Sometimes, particularly in "late term " abortions, no one WANTS to have an abortion at all, but the fetus is unviable and the life of the mother is at legitimate risk. Is forcing a would-be-mother to bring an unviable fetus to term, very likely resulting in her own death, just? Is forcing a woman who was raped and finds herself carrying a child she did not intend to conceive and will forever serve as a reminder of one of the most harrowing and invasive moments of her life, to bring that child to term, just? Is forcing a woman who was on birth control but got pregnant nonetheless to bring a child to term that she knows she can't support just? Carrying a child to term is extremely taxing on the health of a woman. Is it just for the government to force someone to do just that?
> 
> Justice isn't as simple as punishment, and IMO it's a mistake to view criminal justice through the filter of merely being retribution.


The US criminal justice system is a highly convoluted, often self-contradictory, set of codified and de facto norms. It's difficult for people with non-CJ backgrounds, including me, to look at anything through that lens.

But, I would extend your statements in your penultimate paragraph to cover most crimes in general. Very few people set out to become murders. Sure some do. But, I think, most murders happen because of people making bad decisions. Similarly, there are certainly some number of abortions that occur due to bad decisions as well.

I think that there are certain circumstances, such as medical necessity, rape, or incest, that form special cases. To characterize most pro-life people's opinions as to not consider exceptions for those circumstances might be dishonest. Although, I honestly don't know what the polling data looks like for caveats of pro-life opinions. I can speak from my own experiences growing up indoctrinated Southern Baptist as a child, that, at least for some, one or more of those circumstances make it morally acceptable. But, maybe, that's another can of philosophical worms to open up, as it may seem inconsistent with the justifications used to make it taboo in other circumstances. But, anyway, I think it's a dialogue that needs to happen in order for people on both sides to iron out their arguments. And I think we have all grown to expect that the two differing sides on this opinion will have difficulties ever agreeing on anything.



Glades said:


> Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
> The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
> I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.



Not really. A living egg and a living sperm combine their DNA. It doesn't make a new life, since those two parts were already alive, and it doesn't necessarily make a human, either, since both of those cells already contained human DNA. I think that if you think no one is arguing about the definition of personhood in 2022, that you are either making some wildly false suppositions or you have been living under a metaphorical rock.

For a majority of the people who have swayable opinion about this, the most crucial point in the argument is just that.

As I said before, we are all clumps of cells. Do you disagree? The point of contention is how much value that clump of cells has relative to any other clump of cells. A fly buzzing around a dog turd is a clump of living cells flying around an aggregate of dead cells. My body is a clump of cells. Obviously I value my body much higher than a fly or a dogturd.

I think we pretty much all agree that a baby is very special. A baby is a human. Furthermore, a foetus is special. It has the potential to become a baby, but it's not yet a baby. An embryo is special because it has the potential to become a foetus. A zygote has the potential to become an embryo. An egg has the potential to become a zygote. Etc. I think it's fairly universal to believe that an unfertilized egg is not a human being. I think it is fairly universal to believe that a baby is a human being. Somewhere in between those two is where the law needs to draw the line. But, I suggest not even drawing a hard line, but consider having a grey area legally to cover the grey area philosophically. Like I mentioned to Drew, there are exceptional cases. If a baby is born due to a rape, I don't think anyone in the room condones killing it. It has the tendency to get complex in the minutiae of the details of the situation, but that's just part of life, I think.

I don't think the answer to "should abortion be legal" to ever be a 100% yes or a 100% no. In my moral system, it depends. I think that ought to be more of a consideration in any serious legal case. If someone shoots another person, maybe that should be legal in certain circumstances. We could probably find a very specific situation of that to argue about and never come close to an agreement. Like, for example, if someone shot and killed two unarmed people who intended to hurt the killer, but no one knows for sure how much harm they intended to do, and the killer shouldn't have been there nor had a weapon in the first place... it's a caveat on top of a caveat, and you have to weigh out the entire situation and, even then, it can be a difficult decision.

In summary, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion about abortion. It depends. I think that there are definitely cases in which it is wrong and I think that there are definitely cases in which it is not wrong. I tend to think that you probably agree - maybe not - but if it just comes down to a discussion about which circumstances are okay/not okay, then we have to understand the thought process behind why, and, I'm guessing here, but I think that's most likely where people like you and people like me tend to differ the most.


----------



## neurosis

@Glades You're really missing the point. 

This is not about murdering children. Pointing out that somebody is “in favor of abortion” is a simplistic way of explaining a political and social position.

It’s not about being “in favor of abortion” because that implies that we want to promote abortion. What it's really about is being in favor of the decriminalization of abortion and the right for women to decide. It’s about being against any state treating women as criminals for deciding to abort and about providing them with all the information and assistance necessary before and after making such a difficult decision.

Abortions will not stop because you penalize women. You are just going to add more stress and suffering to an already f-ed up situation. Without a framework to protect these women without recourse you put them in danger of seeking clandestine options that do not guarantee their health or survival.

Regarding your prior comparison between the death penalty and abortion:

In the death penalty, the damage that is the subject of the sentence has already occurred. Capital punishment does not allow us to save the victim or protect their mental health before a crime is committed. It is a decision that’s made in regard to a punishable action that is past.

With abortion, there is still harm that can be avoided: whether it is the possible psychological harm of having an unviable pregnancy or the result of rape, or the possible physical harm that a clandestine abortion can cause, etc.

Reducing the debate to a supposed moral inconsistency makes the difficulties some women face invisible. It denies them the possibility of deciding about their own body and health. Those of us who are in favor of the decriminalization of abortion are not defending the imposition of capital punishment, as is the case with those who defend the death penalty. We are respecting a personal decision and seeking to provide all the necessary assistance to those who choose it which should be expected in any fair society.


----------



## bostjan

Right. Science in 2022 still has some grey areas regarding life - for example: is a virus an example of life or not? But that's beside the point!

As has been pointed out a hundred times in the last 10ish pages, life =/= human. A stalk of celery is a living thing. You would be hard pressed to come up with anyone who sees a moral ambiguity in planting a celery seed, watering it, tending it, then someday killing it and eating it.

The question upon which this debate hinges is "What is human life?" or, maybe even more carefully worded "What constitutes a person?"

I am a person. I was, at one point in the past, not a person. I will be, at some point in the future, no longer a person. So my personhood must have started at some point in time and must end at some other point in time.

And science really has nothing to say about that, because, well, first, what is a person or is not a person is not really a topic that falls within the scope of science. Science, if you recall, is the field of study that relies upon the method of observing thing. Whether a thing is a person or not a person is not really an observable outcome, so you can't really do science with that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> As I said before, we are all clumps of cells. Do you disagree? The point of contention is how much value that clump of cells has relative to any other clump of cells. A fly buzzing around a dog turd is a clump of living cells flying around an aggregate of dead cells. My body is a clump of cells. Obviously I value my body much higher than a fly or a dogturd.


I say this not as a critique or an argument against your views - quite the contrary - or even an attempt at humor, but as a legitimate question:

Scientifically speaking, attempting to "prove" you're "alive" is actually extremely difficult to do, and _very_ quickly veers from established scientific fact into philosophy. A heartbeat? Someone who's braindead and on life support will register a heartbeart. A dead body can, with proper electrical stimulation, trigger a heartbeat. Consciousness? That works for your subjective experience, but there's no way to prove objectively to me that _you_ are conscious, since I have no way of experiencing that directly (a Turing test is worth considering here). The only proof of your consciousness I can have is my subjective observation of your claims to experience consciousness, there is no objective way to determine one person experiences consciousness and another doesn't. A soul? No one has actually proven that exists; it's a religious concept, not a scientific one. Basically, the only way you can prove to me that you're alive is to tell me you're alive, and count on me trusting you, and not instead concluding you're a really good computer program or really believable hallucination. 

It's a _fascinating_ philosophical question, but unfortunately one that remains purely philosophical and not scientific.


----------



## nightflameauto

I can't believe how many people fell for the shit-posting that literally used "abortion trolling 101" for a scorecard to start and just escalated from there.

Here's the real question. Do we live in an even slightly democratic society? That's a simple enough question on the surface. If we still believe the answer is yes, then let's look at actual polling and voting status of the issue of abortion when it's not tied to some other overwhelming issue. Pretty consistently, and this is country-wide among diverse left/middle/right constituencies, 2/3rds of people are pro-choice. 2/3rds is not the same as 100%, but it's a large enough majority to make you pause and consider whether you can just magic up an excuse to throw out their opinions on the matter, or if you actually have to consider those opinions as something worth thinking about.

The real problem with the whole "debate" around aborting is that you have reasonable people arguing that there are circumstances where it's acceptable, and intolerant "my way or fuck you" people arguing there's never a time it's OK. Nobody is PRO abortion. Nobody. The fantasy scenario where some girl just repeatedly gets pregnant over and over again and gets abortions as a regular rule is just that, a fantasy. It was conjured up as an argument from the hard-liners that doesn't ever actually take place, but it sure sounds good as an alarm call.

And while we're at it, fuck our profit first, punishment second, reform and reintegrate never criminal justice system.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> I say this not as a critique or an argument against your views - quite the contrary - or even an attempt at humor, but as a legitimate question:
> 
> Scientifically speaking, attempting to "prove" you're "alive" is actually extremely difficult to do, and _very_ quickly veers from established scientific fact into philosophy. A heartbeat? Someone who's braindead and on life support will register a heartbeart. A dead body can, with proper electrical stimulation, trigger a heartbeat. Consciousness? That works for your subjective experience, but there's no way to prove objectively to me that _you_ are conscious, since I have no way of experiencing that directly (a Turing test is worth considering here). The only proof of your consciousness I can have is my subjective observation of your claims to experience consciousness, there is no objective way to determine one person experiences consciousness and another doesn't. A soul? No one has actually proven that exists; it's a religious concept, not a scientific one. Basically, the only way you can prove to me that you're alive is to tell me you're alive, and count on me trusting you, and not instead concluding you're a really good computer program or really believable hallucination.
> 
> It's a _fascinating_ philosophical question, but unfortunately one that remains purely philosophical and not scientific.



For anyone interested in really getting down on this question I highly recommend picking up some Schopenhauer. There are some good, relatively digestible "best of" type collections out there of his notoriously dense writing.

Edit: "The world as will and representation" is his sort of magnum opus on the subject but it's also a tome. I personally have only ever read sections.


----------



## Mathemagician

I’m saying man, it’s just SO on the nose bullet-points that it almost reads like an “own the libs” bingo card.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I say this not as a critique or an argument against your views - quite the contrary - or even an attempt at humor, but as a legitimate question:
> 
> Scientifically speaking, attempting to "prove" you're "alive" is actually extremely difficult to do, and _very_ quickly veers from established scientific fact into philosophy. A heartbeat? Someone who's braindead and on life support will register a heartbeart. A dead body can, with proper electrical stimulation, trigger a heartbeat. Consciousness? That works for your subjective experience, but there's no way to prove objectively to me that _you_ are conscious, since I have no way of experiencing that directly (a Turing test is worth considering here). The only proof of your consciousness I can have is my subjective observation of your claims to experience consciousness, there is no objective way to determine one person experiences consciousness and another doesn't. A soul? No one has actually proven that exists; it's a religious concept, not a scientific one. Basically, the only way you can prove to me that you're alive is to tell me you're alive, and count on me trusting you, and not instead concluding you're a really good computer program or really believable hallucination.
> 
> It's a _fascinating_ philosophical question, but unfortunately one that remains purely philosophical and not scientific.


And even if we could answer that definitively, it still tells us nothing about abortion.

The definition of life is a bit sticky, but not too much, I think. Of course, there is a biological definition and there is a medical definition, and the two vary slightly in concept and those slight variations can cause quite a few conundrums in special circumstances. Growth, metabolism, response to stimulii... Since 1981, medical death has been determined by really only two criteria, as a matter of uniform standard - heartbeat and brain function. After a person is dead, tissues can remain alive for several minutes, not that it really matters unless you are a parasite living on the person or something. There are rare cases, though, that we still can't really explain, but those are rare cases. Look up Velma Thomas. She had a heart attack. Paramedics tried CPR, but it didn't work. They took her to the hospital, where she was connected to life support and tested for brain activity. They found no brain activity. Family members came, said their goodbyes, and doctors pulled the plug so they could begin to harvest her anatomical gift, but then she sat up and started talking.

Unfortunately for science, the hallucination loophole pretty much negates the entire field. Science relies on observations. If we cannot trust our observations, then we cannot trust science. I think we have to assume that hallucinations don't count when it comes to science-related topics. I think with that, the objective way to determine if a person is conscious or not is simply to ask them if they are conscious. If they tell you that they are, then you have to assume that they are. If not, try to rouse them with a tap or shaking their shoulder or whatever. If that doesn't work, then okay, get the EEG and test for gamma band activity.

If you are talking about whether an animal is conscious or not, basically the same test works, but you'd have to know enough about the animal to recognize a "response." If anyone out there is thinking that non-human animals are not conscious, then I have bad news that might shatter their entire world. Animals are indeed conscious and capable of thoughts, emotions, etc. The closer to human the animals are, the closer we share how we experience life. For example, Jane Goodall taught non-human great apes to speak using American Sign Language, and they were able to tell stories with details about how they felt and what sort of thoughts they were thinking. I figure that philosophical debate has been a little more grounded since then, but maybe not.

In terms of machines, I think we need to be careful how we assume AI doesn't have thoughts or emotions. If you program an AI to have thoughts and emotions, then it will have thoughts and emotions, because it will do whatever it is programmed to do. It's not a matter of complex philosophy as much as it is a matter of how we define words and how uncomfortable we are with the fact that, in the universe, we aren't nearly as special as we would like to think we are.

I think we want to overcomplicate the issue of human consciousness in order to justify our exploitation of the world around us. But if you boil things down to their basic elements, you can still have a world that makes logical sense and people still have amoral code, but where we don't think that we have some sort of eternal soul that does (fill in the blank) after we die.


----------



## neurosis

nightflameauto said:


> And while we're at it, fuck our profit first, punishment second, reform and reintegrate never criminal justice system.


Notice I did not elaborate on that because it's quite frankly terrifying. This thread has enough stressors as it is.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> I can't believe how many people fell for the shit-posting that literally used "abortion trolling 101" for a scorecard to start and just escalated from there.



Dogpiling an obvious asshole is an easy dopamine hit. No judgement, I enjoy low hanging fruit as much as the next lazy ape.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Human life beginning at conception is an established scientific fact. Nobody on either side of this issue argues this in 2022. Do a quick search and you will find hundreds of scientific papers and publications from embryologists, researchers and other qualified professionals.
> The moral question is whether it’s moral to terminate the life of a human for the convenience of another human.
> I have a daughter on the way. At 5.5 weeks I saw and heard her heart beating through ultrasound. She was not a clump of cells. She was not a tapeworm. She was not a cyst. She was a human, and my daughter. I cannot understand how anyone look at the face of their child on ultrasound and decide to kill it.


You don't have a daughter. You might some day, and I hope to Almighty Atheismo that she has more rights than you want her to have.


----------



## narad

nightflameauto said:


> Nobody is PRO abortion. Nobody.



Honestly the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm beginning to consider it.


----------



## nightflameauto

narad said:


> Honestly the longer this thread goes on, the more I'm beginning to consider it.


Being pro "fuck closed minded idiots" is not the same as being pro abortion. Just sayin'.


----------



## narad

nightflameauto said:


> Being pro "fuck closed minded idiots" is not the same as being pro abortion. Just sayin'.



They gotta come from somewhere lol


----------



## wankerness

nightflameauto said:


> Being pro "fuck closed minded idiots" is not the same as being pro abortion. Just sayin'.


I think he's just pro 120th trimester abortions or however many have elapsed since these guys were born?


----------



## narad

wankerness said:


> I think he's just pro 120th trimester abortions or however many have elapsed since these guys were born?



I believe that life begins at conception (2), _the forming or devising of a plan or idea._
In these tricky cases it's just difficult to establish that life has begun.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> I believe that life begins at conception (2), _the forming or devising of a plan or idea._
> In these tricky cases it's just difficult to establish that life has begun.


 

I'm not really much of a planner. Does this mean I'm not really alive?


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> I'm not really much of a planner. Does this mean I'm not really alive?


Is anyone really alive, man?


----------



## Crungy




----------



## Flappydoodle

thebeesknees22 said:


> have you adopted? If you're going to force a woman to have a kid, it only seems right that you would also adopt.



This argument doesn't make sense. It isn't anybody's duty to solve problems themselves.



nightflameauto said:


> I can't believe how many people fell for the shit-posting that literally used "abortion trolling 101" for a scorecard to start and just escalated from there.
> 
> Here's the real question. Do we live in an even slightly democratic society? That's a simple enough question on the surface. If we still believe the answer is yes, then let's look at actual polling and voting status of the issue of abortion when it's not tied to some other overwhelming issue. Pretty consistently, and this is country-wide among diverse left/middle/right constituencies, 2/3rds of people are pro-choice. 2/3rds is not the same as 100%, but it's a large enough majority to make you pause and consider whether you can just magic up an excuse to throw out their opinions on the matter, or if you actually have to consider those opinions as something worth thinking about.
> 
> The real problem with the whole "debate" around aborting is that you have reasonable people arguing that there are circumstances where it's acceptable, and intolerant "my way or fuck you" people arguing there's never a time it's OK. Nobody is PRO abortion. Nobody. The fantasy scenario where some girl just repeatedly gets pregnant over and over again and gets abortions as a regular rule is just that, a fantasy. It was conjured up as an argument from the hard-liners that doesn't ever actually take place, but it sure sounds good as an alarm call.
> 
> And while we're at it, fuck our profit first, punishment second, reform and reintegrate never criminal justice system.



I'm not taking a side yet, but I do need to point out a flaw in this argument, and some of your facts. 

If we accept the pro-life assumption that "embryo/fetus = human life" then it shouldn't actually matter what the polling says, because ending that life for convenience would still be wrong. There's a reason why almost every civilised society has got rid of torture, capital punishments etc, even for the worst of the worst criminals. It wouldn't matter even if 99% supported it, because it would still be morally wrong. This is why people in this debate can't see eye to eye.

Also, the last time I checked abortions because of rape, incest or medical necessity were less than 2%. The other 98% simply boil down to it being an unwanted pregnancy. So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.

Also, in the UK, 42% of abortions are by women who have already had one, so it does seem that there are "serial offenders" who are using abortion as birth control https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...20/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 It's definitely not a fantasy.

Personal opinion time: I'm not a fan of abortion, and I do believe it's morally questionable. But I also understand why it happens. I think the fact we have 100,000's per year, and rising every single year, is a travesty. But should we ban it? Probably not, because it doesn't actually fix the problems. We definitely should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. A better economy helps massively, because financial reasons are a leading reason for abortion. We of course need better sex education. Those "at risk" young girls need to be targeted with special help starting at school. We all know who the most likely to get pregnant and have abortions are, and the UK data shows that 19-21 is when most abortions occur. For example, this study https://srh.bmj.com/content/37/4/209 shows that the most likely to have repeat abortions are black, financially less secure, started having sex at a younger age, have more sexual partners, and are less educated and grew up living with only one parent. None of that surprises me. IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls.

I also disagree with you that only one side is unreasonable. People on the pro-choice side also make blanket statements like "just a clump of cells" or "controlling womens' bodies" which leave no room for nuance. For example, if you believe a fetus is a human life then it actually doesn't matter what the woman wants, because you don't get to choose to end a life. The only time you or I can end a life is as self-defence when it is endangering our own, which for abortion would be in that <2%. Again, this is why people are not seeing eye to eye, because that concept is simple common sense to pro-life people but sounds ridiculous to pro-choice people. 

Anyway -maybe in a generation or so we'll have artificial wombs to have our babies for us and this won't be an issue!



wankerness said:


> I think he's just pro 120th trimester abortions or however many have elapsed since these guys were born?


Pretty sure South Park did an episode on that.


----------



## Drew

JSanta said:


> Is anyone really alive, man?


If we are, how could we ever tell? 



Flappydoodle said:


> So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.


Two thoughts - one, considering the massive negative health impact carrying a child to term has on a mother, and how labor is often outright traumatizing (I'm typing this in between texts to a friend who just had her first, but was in labor for 48 hours), I think we have to own up to the fact that giving birth is a wee bit more than an "inconvenience." 

And two, considering states that already have partial abortion bans on books are now taking steps to prepare for a post-Roe word and are working on total bans, notably Louisiana's new proposed legislation that would ban ectopic pregnancy abortions by dropping the "implanted in the womb" requirement before a fertilized egg could be considered a person undeer state laws, I'm not so sure that's a safe assumption to make. 

***

Final thought, to no one in particular - 

End of the day, for the last 60 or so years, starting in the Civil Rights era with decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education and (unfortunately, potentially) cumulating in 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court has been slowly _expanding_ the rights that US citizens have under the US Constitution. If Roe vs. Wade IS to be overturned, then this would be a watershed moment where, for the first time in pretty close to living memory, the Supreme Court is starting to _remove_ rights that American citizens have that are protected under the Constitution. Regardless of whether or not you approve of abortion, that's an awfully troubling precedent to have to contend with.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Flappydoodle said:


> This argument doesn't make sense. It isn't anybody's duty to solve problems themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking a side yet, but I do need to point out a flaw in this argument, and some of your facts.
> 
> If we accept the pro-life assumption that "embryo/fetus = human life" then it shouldn't actually matter what the polling says, because ending that life for convenience would still be wrong. There's a reason why almost every civilised society has got rid of torture, capital punishments etc, even for the worst of the worst criminals. It wouldn't matter even if 99% supported it, because it would still be morally wrong. This is why people in this debate can't see eye to eye.
> 
> Also, the last time I checked abortions because of rape, incest or medical necessity were less than 2%. The other 98% simply boil down to it being an unwanted pregnancy. So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.
> 
> Also, in the UK, 42% of abortions are by women who have already had one, so it does seem that there are "serial offenders" who are using abortion as birth control https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...20/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 It's definitely not a fantasy.
> 
> Personal opinion time: I'm not a fan of abortion, and I do believe it's morally questionable. But I also understand why it happens. I think the fact we have 100,000's per year, and rising every single year, is a travesty. But should we ban it? Probably not, because it doesn't actually fix the problems. We definitely should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. A better economy helps massively, because financial reasons are a leading reason for abortion. We of course need better sex education. Those "at risk" young girls need to be targeted with special help starting at school. We all know who the most likely to get pregnant and have abortions are, and the UK data shows that 19-21 is when most abortions occur. For example, this study https://srh.bmj.com/content/37/4/209 shows that the most likely to have repeat abortions are black, financially less secure, started having sex at a younger age, have more sexual partners, and are less educated and grew up living with only one parent. None of that surprises me. IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls.
> 
> I also disagree with you that only one side is unreasonable. People on the pro-choice side also make blanket statements like "just a clump of cells" or "controlling womens' bodies" which leave no room for nuance. For example, if you believe a fetus is a human life then it actually doesn't matter what the woman wants, because you don't get to choose to end a life. The only time you or I can end a life is as self-defence when it is endangering our own, which for abortion would be in that <2%. Again, this is why people are not seeing eye to eye, because that concept is simple common sense to pro-life people but sounds ridiculous to pro-choice people.
> 
> Anyway -maybe in a generation or so we'll have artificial wombs to have our babies for us and this won't be an issue!
> 
> 
> Pretty sure South Park did an episode on that.



I appreciate the more balanced response to this than sticking to straight talking points/tropes.

That said, even in the case that a pregnancy is aborted due to being unwanted, due to the way I grew up, I still 110% believe it’s in the best interest of all involved that an unwanted pregnancy gets aborted rather than living on a hope and prayer the parents can get their shit together enough to raise a kid.

The childhoods my sister and I had as a result of having a complete fucking moron for a mother and fathers who bailed were absolutely miserable and nothing I’m going to detail here. And it wasn’t just us, it was all around us growing up. Ultimately, in almost every single damn situation, the children had to shoulder the bullshit caused by the parent’s mistakes.

Growing up dirt poor and being told regularly how better our mother/stepfather’s life would have been had we not been born, the way we were treated by others for being born into poverty, getting the shit kicked out of us because stepdad was pissed he couldn’t afford to go drinking because we had a school trip that cost $25, whatever the case. I spent the better part of my teens and adult life getting past that shit and I’m one of the very, very, VERY few people I grew up with who did. The majority are up there repeating the same mistakes their parents made, my sister being one of them.

Even where I’m standing now, as stoked as I am to be alive, I have a real hard time saying “Well, it’s up to the parents to get their shit straight so the kid turns out alright.” because from what I’ve witnessed in my 39 years, that’s such a rare fucking thing to occur.

Do I wish I was aborted? Not now, but for my first 28 years I absolutely did. The only reason I don’t now is because at some point it hit me “Well, you’re here and if you’re not going to take yourself out, you might as well figure this shit out.” Meanwhile, the friends I had as a kid are still struggling with those thoughts in their 30’s while doing their best to raise kids. Not everyone learns from their parent’s mistakes and I don’t know if it’s situational, location-based or what, but the city I grew up in seems to breed a fuck of a lot of people incapable of doing so, it’s a major reason I left.

I’m actually getting ready to move back to that area with some small hope that I’ve unfucked myself enough to play some kind of role in the lives of others who haven’t had the chance or opportunity to do so yet, by the way of addiction counseling. During my graduation, our principal said “A lot of you are leaving Lewiston to go to school or start your adult lives, but please, come back in the future and share with us what you’ve learned because we can only grow stronger as a result.” and while I totally scoffed at that when I was 18, I get it now, because that place _needs _it, desperately.

While obviously this is a more direct/personal experience, after living in 5 different states and working with the general public in each of them, I‘ve seen the same shit in every one of them, regardless the size of the city I was in or what was offered via public assistance.

I have a really hard time justifying the birth of life if it’s going to be born into a world of absolute shit that leaves scars that don’t go away, some deep enough that one can’t be unfucked, despite what assistance is given to them.


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> This argument doesn't make sense. It isn't anybody's duty to solve problems themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking a side yet, but I do need to point out a flaw in this argument, and some of your facts.
> 
> If we accept the pro-life assumption that "embryo/fetus = human life" then it shouldn't actually matter what the polling says, because ending that life for convenience would still be wrong. There's a reason why almost every civilised society has got rid of torture, capital punishments etc, even for the worst of the worst criminals. It wouldn't matter even if 99% supported it, because it would still be morally wrong. This is why people in this debate can't see eye to eye.
> 
> Also, the last time I checked abortions because of rape, incest or medical necessity were less than 2%. The other 98% simply boil down to it being an unwanted pregnancy. So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.
> 
> Also, in the UK, 42% of abortions are by women who have already had one, so it does seem that there are "serial offenders" who are using abortion as birth control https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...20/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 It's definitely not a fantasy.
> 
> Personal opinion time: I'm not a fan of abortion, and I do believe it's morally questionable. But I also understand why it happens. I think the fact we have 100,000's per year, and rising every single year, is a travesty. But should we ban it? Probably not, because it doesn't actually fix the problems. We definitely should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. A better economy helps massively, because financial reasons are a leading reason for abortion. We of course need better sex education. Those "at risk" young girls need to be targeted with special help starting at school. We all know who the most likely to get pregnant and have abortions are, and the UK data shows that 19-21 is when most abortions occur. For example, this study https://srh.bmj.com/content/37/4/209 shows that the most likely to have repeat abortions are black, financially less secure, started having sex at a younger age, have more sexual partners, and are less educated and grew up living with only one parent. None of that surprises me. IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls.
> 
> I also disagree with you that only one side is unreasonable. People on the pro-choice side also make blanket statements like "just a clump of cells" or "controlling womens' bodies" which leave no room for nuance. For example, if you believe a fetus is a human life then it actually doesn't matter what the woman wants, because you don't get to choose to end a life. The only time you or I can end a life is as self-defence when it is endangering our own, which for abortion would be in that <2%. Again, this is why people are not seeing eye to eye, because that concept is simple common sense to pro-life people but sounds ridiculous to pro-choice people.
> 
> Anyway -maybe in a generation or so we'll have artificial wombs to have our babies for us and this won't be an issue!
> 
> 
> Pretty sure South Park did an episode on that.


Great post!

A couple thoughts I had whilst reading it:

1. "I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it." - Probably most, but certainly not all.

Furthermore, how many of those _really are?_ I would be willing to wager that there are a number of pregnancies resultant from those situations that are not reported as such. I don't know how to fix that, but maybe take those numbers with that situation in context. Also important would be the converse of that thought - if abortion was only allowing in those cases, how common would it be for someone who wants an abortion to falsely report an exceptional situation? And, getting kind of meta here, but, once activists from both sides become aware of false reports on one side and the difficulties of making true reports on the other side, how likely is it that the rhetoric goes right back to all-or-nothing?

2. "IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls."

That's another debate. It's also a deep topic to get into. I agree 100% that it's better all-around for contraception to have been used than for an abortion to have been used. But also, contraception is not 100% effective, so keep that in mind.

Other than that, I agree.

Oh, and I remember that South Park episode. Cartman's mom wanted to abort him when he was 8 years old.


----------



## StevenC

Reminder that when life begins is a red herring. 

This is about freedom from forced birth and government overreach.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Great post!
> 
> A couple thoughts I had whilst reading it:
> 
> 1. "I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it." - Probably most, but certainly not all.
> 
> Furthermore, how many of those _really are?_ I would be willing to wager that there are a number of pregnancies resultant from those situations that are not reported as such. I don't know how to fix that, but maybe take those numbers with that situation in context. Also important would be the converse of that thought - if abortion was only allowing in those cases, how common would it be for someone who wants an abortion to falsely report an exceptional situation? And, getting kind of meta here, but, once activists from both sides become aware of false reports on one side and the difficulties of making true reports on the other side, how likely is it that the rhetoric goes right back to all-or-nothing?
> 
> 2. "IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls."
> 
> That's another debate. It's also a deep topic to get into. I agree 100% that it's better all-around for contraception to have been used than for an abortion to have been used. But also, contraception is not 100% effective, so keep that in mind.
> 
> Other than that, I agree.
> 
> Oh, and I remember that South Park episode. Cartman's mom wanted to abort him when he was 8 years old.


Good post here, too. 

Two observations, though: 

1) beyond the issues you raise, I'd say that _requiring_ someone to state that they are the victim of a rape or carrying a child born of incest in order to get an abortion is _itself_ a pretty massive privacy issue for the woman, who in the entirety of the cases in the former and the majority of cases in the later is a victim. 

2) Beyond your points, advocating IUDs as an answer puts the burden on avoiding pregnancy on the woman, and it takes both a man and a woman to lead to a pregnancy. There's a meme going around in pro-life circles asking men how they'd feel about forced vasectomies, which after all are completely reversible medical procedures, and while the point here is a question of bodily autonomy, if we're going to suggest that one way to address a woman losing bodily autonomy and the decision over whether or not to carry a fetus to term is to cause them to lose body autonomy in a different way and be forced to have an IUD, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that both men AND women should have their bodily autonomy equivalently impinged and that men should also be required to get vasectomies once they reach puberty, as well as women being forced to receive IUDs once they reach the same age. It's still a pretty, well, massive civil rights issue, I'd say, forcing men and women to have a particular medical procedure, but I'd say it's at least not discriminatory, whereas requiring IUDs, or banning abortions, is.


----------



## Adieu

Fighting abortion is frikkin pointless because it's been around since before written history.

You don't have to LIKE it, but it's not going away. All you can do is make it underground and unsafe, which is not gonna help anything.

Do you really want your neighborhood drug dealers and the Mexican mob to have a new source of income?


----------



## wankerness

Flappydoodle said:


> Also, the last time I checked abortions because of rape, incest or medical necessity were less than 2%. The other 98% simply boil down to it being an unwanted pregnancy. So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.
> 
> Also, in the UK, 42% of abortions are by women who have already had one, so it does seem that there are "serial offenders" who are using abortion as birth control https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...20/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 It's definitely not a fantasy.


The definition of "medical necessity" is probably very specific in this case. There are MANY medical reasons to have an abortion that I'd wager are not labelled "NECESSITY" by whoever was compiling those statistics (such as aborting for severe birth defects that wouldn't be a stillbirth, but would result in a kid with an extremely short and painful life). Or something less severe, like finding out the kid has down syndrome or something (that can be determined in the first trimester). That's a whole other moral argument, but plenty of people are ill-equipped to deal with a child with that kind of condition that would require lifelong care; they might have been financially/mentally prepared for a healthy child, but being told that their kid is going to have a lifelong condition is certainly going to make plenty of people rethink the whole deal. Plenty of kids with downs syndrome lead long and happy lives with parents who love them, but that's just a bridge too far for many families and the odds of them ever being adopted are far worse than the already low odds of adoption of your average kid.

And "using abortions as birth control?" How on earth do you think these peoples' brains work that you think that's their thought process? Maybe it's different in England, but here in the US, birth control is infinitely cheaper than getting an abortion and infinitely less traumatic besides, physically as well as mentally. Plenty of people use birth control correctly and still get pregnant (pills and condoms are only like 98% effective, with how much people are having sex that's going to be thousands of true mistakes from people doing the right thing). Sure, there's probably some case somewhere you can dig up where you actually have some rich idiot who just keeps having sex with no protection and getting abortions regularly, but I can't imagine that's anything remotely statistically significant in that 42%.

I've known someone personally who had repeated miscarriages and had to have the fetuses removed before they went septic and killed her; I don't know that that is qualified as "abortion" or not in these stats you're looking at, but it's definitely the kind of thing some states are already moving to outlaw. And this was heartbreaking for her, she very much wanted to be a mother, and fortunately she eventually did have a successful pregnancy. But some people's biology is just messed up and these things are going to happen and saying everyone who has multiple is some kind of abortion junkie that just loves having them and should be stopped is ignorant at best.

And on the other side, I know someone who had a kid with a very severe condition (spinal bifida) diagnosed in the womb, and they decided to keep the kid, but they had to several VERY, VERY expensive surgeries on them while they were still in utero to keep them alive. The kid was ultimately healthy, but it was basically a medical miracle and most families absolutely would not have been able to pay for any of that, especially in this country. Yet I'm sure if the kid had been aborted it wouldn't have bene labelled "medical necessity" cause technically with the financial means they were able to make them viable.

If you're going to outlaw abortion you have to provide an actual safety net. Which we all know will NEVER happen with the Republicans.


----------



## spudmunkey

duplicate


----------



## spudmunkey

1/2 to 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop, but are still fertilized eggs, but are naturally discharged by the body.

For IVF, on average 7 eggs are fertilized and form embryos before implantation is even attempted, and the remainder are disposed of. One of the methods is called "compassionate transfer" where the remaining eggs are implanted back into the uterus at a time when she's least likely to cause a viable pregnancy, and then they are discharged during the next normal menstrual cycle. Would the most-restrictive of proposed legislation effectively ban IVF?

At least 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, likely higher because they can happen before you know you're pregnant. If the most-restrictive of proposed legislation becomes law, could someone be charged with a crime if, say, they participated in risk factors that increase the chances of miscarriage? Getting pregnant when your older increases the risk. As does having previous miscarriages. Being overweight, smoking, etc. It's not hard to imagine the slippery slope given the vague language of some of the legislation that's clearly been written in the most imprecise, sledgehammer-y language possible.


----------



## neurosis

RevDrucifer said:


> I appreciate the more balanced response to this than sticking to straight talking points/tropes.
> 
> That said, even in the case that a pregnancy is aborted due to being unwanted, due to the way I grew up, I still 110% believe it’s in the best interest of all involved that an unwanted pregnancy gets aborted rather than living on a hope and prayer the parents can get their shit together enough to raise a kid.
> 
> The childhoods my sister and I had as a result of having a complete fucking moron for a mother and fathers who bailed were absolutely miserable and nothing I’m going to detail here. And it wasn’t just us, it was all around us growing up. Ultimately, in almost every single damn situation, the children had to shoulder the bullshit caused by the parent’s mistakes.
> 
> Growing up dirt poor and being told regularly how better our mother/stepfather’s life would have been had we not been born, the way we were treated by others for being born into poverty, getting the shit kicked out of us because stepdad was pissed he couldn’t afford to go drinking because we had a school trip that cost $25, whatever the case. I spent the better part of my teens and adult life getting past that shit and I’m one of the very, very, VERY few people I grew up with who did. The majority are up there repeating the same mistakes their parents made, my sister being one of them.
> 
> Even where I’m standing now, as stoked as I am to be alive, I have a real hard time saying “Well, it’s up to the parents to get their shit straight so the kid turns out alright.” because from what I’ve witnessed in my 39 years, that’s such a rare fucking thing to occur.
> 
> Do I wish I was aborted? Not now, but for my first 28 years I absolutely did. The only reason I don’t now is because at some point it hit me “Well, you’re here and if you’re not going to take yourself out, you might as well figure this shit out.” Meanwhile, the friends I had as a kid are still struggling with those thoughts in their 30’s while doing their best to raise kids. Not everyone learns from their parent’s mistakes and I don’t know if it’s situational, location-based or what, but the city I grew up in seems to breed a fuck of a lot of people incapable of doing so, it’s a major reason I left.
> 
> I’m actually getting ready to move back to that area with some small hope that I’ve unfucked myself enough to play some kind of role in the lives of others who haven’t had the chance or opportunity to do so yet, by the way of addiction counseling. During my graduation, our principal said “A lot of you are leaving Lewiston to go to school or start your adult lives, but please, come back in the future and share with us what you’ve learned because we can only grow stronger as a result.” and while I totally scoffed at that when I was 18, I get it now, because that place _needs _it, desperately.
> 
> While obviously this is a more direct/personal experience, after living in 5 different states and working with the general public in each of them, I‘ve seen the same shit in every one of them, regardless the size of the city I was in or what was offered via public assistance.
> 
> I have a really hard time justifying the birth of life if it’s going to be born into a world of absolute shit that leaves scars that don’t go away, some deep enough that one can’t be unfucked, despite what assistance is given to them.



Tough to read this and I wish you the best of luck with your future efforts when you return "home". I haven't gone through a situation like that but I get what it feels like to want to move far away from the roots and I still struggle with the idea of potentially going back. I think you have big cojones to go back and try to improve the situation there. 

Back on topic, I appreciate you putting the focus on the kids. It paints a realistic picture of how avoiding abortion is not a guarantee of a positive outcome.

As another poster mentioned earlier education, proper healthcare and other forms of social security are what increases people's chances of personal development and safety. That is what makes the debate so hard. Much pressure from the opposition to this option for the public comes from the oversimplification of the issue at large. They politicize abortion like a goal when tt's more like a symptom of other failures our society struggles with. They really couldn't care less about what happens to anybody involved. All they worry about is if they can take away the options for everybody else based on simple moral principle. Those moral principles quickly go out the window when it's time to debate investment in underserved communities, school programs, proper access to healthcare etc...


----------



## StevenC

Flappydoodle said:


> This argument doesn't make sense. It isn't anybody's duty to solve problems themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not taking a side yet, but I do need to point out a flaw in this argument, and some of your facts.
> 
> If we accept the pro-life assumption that "embryo/fetus = human life" then it shouldn't actually matter what the polling says, because ending that life for convenience would still be wrong. There's a reason why almost every civilised society has got rid of torture, capital punishments etc, even for the worst of the worst criminals. It wouldn't matter even if 99% supported it, because it would still be morally wrong. This is why people in this debate can't see eye to eye.
> 
> Also, the last time I checked abortions because of rape, incest or medical necessity were less than 2%. The other 98% simply boil down to it being an unwanted pregnancy. So most abortions are carried out simply because having a baby would be a massive inconvenience, to their lifestyle, finances, career etc. I reckon if abortions could be reduced down to only that 2% of rape/incest/medical need, pro-life people would be VERY happy to accept it.
> 
> Also, in the UK, 42% of abortions are by women who have already had one, so it does seem that there are "serial offenders" who are using abortion as birth control https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...20/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020 It's definitely not a fantasy.
> 
> Personal opinion time: I'm not a fan of abortion, and I do believe it's morally questionable. But I also understand why it happens. I think the fact we have 100,000's per year, and rising every single year, is a travesty. But should we ban it? Probably not, because it doesn't actually fix the problems. We definitely should work to reduce unwanted pregnancies. A better economy helps massively, because financial reasons are a leading reason for abortion. We of course need better sex education. Those "at risk" young girls need to be targeted with special help starting at school. We all know who the most likely to get pregnant and have abortions are, and the UK data shows that 19-21 is when most abortions occur. For example, this study https://srh.bmj.com/content/37/4/209 shows that the most likely to have repeat abortions are black, financially less secure, started having sex at a younger age, have more sexual partners, and are less educated and grew up living with only one parent. None of that surprises me. IMO we should be strongly encouraging implanting IUDs to prevent pregnancies in those at risk girls.
> 
> I also disagree with you that only one side is unreasonable. People on the pro-choice side also make blanket statements like "just a clump of cells" or "controlling womens' bodies" which leave no room for nuance. For example, if you believe a fetus is a human life then it actually doesn't matter what the woman wants, because you don't get to choose to end a life. The only time you or I can end a life is as self-defence when it is endangering our own, which for abortion would be in that <2%. Again, this is why people are not seeing eye to eye, because that concept is simple common sense to pro-life people but sounds ridiculous to pro-choice people.
> 
> Anyway -maybe in a generation or so we'll have artificial wombs to have our babies for us and this won't be an issue!
> 
> 
> Pretty sure South Park did an episode on that.


Am I the only person reading your post as awfully close to forced sterilisation? 

For starters, lots of women do not do well on IUDs.

And, FYI, yound girls don't get pregnant by themselves. 100% of unwanted pregnancies start with an irresponsible ejaculation. 

All children need better sex ed yesterday. Stop blaming girls and women.


----------



## Mathemagician

I think the core issue is this:

The absolute delusion that makes religious extremists think they should even have a “vote” on what someone else does. 

If a person - for whatever reason at all even if it’s because they had a bad morning - wants access to a medical procedure that’s their choice. 

The end. 

There is no further debate that is deserved. The very act of trying to “appeal” to people “voting no” implies that they are in fact entitled to vote on someone else’s body at all. They are not, that’s the end of the discussion. 

Everything else is religious people not understanding that they don’t own other people.


----------



## narad

Just out of curiosity, in the case of siamese twins, if one twin wants to do a high-risk separation procedure and the other doesn't, what's policy?


----------



## TedEH

Flappydoodle said:


> This argument doesn't make sense. It isn't anybody's duty to solve problems themselves.


To me, that tracks. I mean, would not telling someone what they must do with their body and potential child be considered trying to solve someone elses problem?



RevDrucifer said:


> That said, even in the case that a pregnancy is aborted due to being unwanted, due to the way I grew up, I still 110% believe it’s in the best interest of all involved that an unwanted pregnancy gets aborted rather than living on a hope and prayer the parents can get their shit together enough to raise a kid.


We're leading to some pretty dark places, but it's been my experience that some of the worst mental illness cases I've witnessed were, at least in some meaningful part, the result of some terrible upbringing - unwanted kids by unprepared or uncaring or entirely absent parents. That leads pretty directly to a person who has no support structure, who has warped and unhealthy outlooks and valuation systems, who can end up being self-destructive or directly self-harming, who fear other people and relationships, who ultimately end up being vulnerable, sometimes strait up abused, and pretty rarely equipped to deal with any of the above. We're talking about, ultimately, trying to force (women in particular) to go through traumatic events that lead to a pretty good chance of condemning a person to a very painful kind of existence.


----------



## StevenC

TedEH said:


> To me, that tracks. I mean, would not telling someone what they must do with their body and potential child be considered trying to solve someone elses problem?


Exactly. If one thinks abortions are a problem and one wants to stop them, the fallout of more unwanted children in the system is also one's responsibility.

But that's not what any Republican or pro-choice nut thinks. Big government from conception to birth, small government after that.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

All this talk about religion when that's merely a convenient excuse used to drum up the Cleetuses in Flyoverville and attempt a moral high ground or "greater calling" when those at the top really just need a steady supply of uneducated, desperate slave class to be chewed up and spit out by the system to keep the money flowing to the top. 

That fetus could have been a poverty wage cog in the system of a multi-billion dollar corporation, or a paid-for resident in the prison industrial complex, or even cannon fodder for some overseas freedoming to feed another industrial complex.

Why do you think they don't give a shit once they're born? They need that poor bastard to buy an iPhone and a Netflix subscription between shifts at Wal-Mart and Amazon.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Good post here, too.
> 
> Two observations, though:
> 
> 1) beyond the issues you raise, I'd say that _requiring_ someone to state that they are the victim of a rape or carrying a child born of incest in order to get an abortion is _itself_ a pretty massive privacy issue for the woman, who in the entirety of the cases in the former and the majority of cases in the later is a victim.
> 
> 2) Beyond your points, advocating IUDs as an answer puts the burden on avoiding pregnancy on the woman, and it takes both a man and a woman to lead to a pregnancy. There's a meme going around in pro-life circles asking men how they'd feel about forced vasectomies, which after all are completely reversible medical procedures, and while the point here is a question of bodily autonomy, if we're going to suggest that one way to address a woman losing bodily autonomy and the decision over whether or not to carry a fetus to term is to cause them to lose body autonomy in a different way and be forced to have an IUD, then I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that both men AND women should have their bodily autonomy equivalently impinged and that men should also be required to get vasectomies once they reach puberty, as well as women being forced to receive IUDs once they reach the same age. It's still a pretty, well, massive civil rights issue, I'd say, forcing men and women to have a particular medical procedure, but I'd say it's at least not discriminatory, whereas requiring IUDs, or banning abortions, is.


I agree 100%, especially with the first point. We simply cannot expect a good result from such a set of policies. I know it's another super-controversial issue, but unreported rape happens sadly a lot and also there exist false accusations of rape. That requirement would a) victimize already victims and b) likely make more innocent victims.

There's also something disgustingly ironic and sad about someone proposing that we mitigate unwanted pregnancies (many from non-consensual relations) by non-consensually shoving devices into the potential victims.


spudmunkey said:


> 1/2 to 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop, but are still fertilized eggs, but are naturally discharged by the body.
> 
> For IVF, on average 7 eggs are fertilized and form embryos before implantation is even attempted, and the remainder are disposed of. One of the methods is called "compassionate transfer" where the remaining eggs are implanted back into the uterus at a time when she's least likely to cause a viable pregnancy, and then they are discharged during the next normal menstrual cycle. Would the most-restrictive of proposed legislation effectively ban IVF?
> 
> At least 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, likely higher because they can happen before you know you're pregnant. If the most-restrictive of proposed legislation becomes law, could someone be charged with a crime if, say, they participated in risk factors that increase the chances of miscarriage? Getting pregnant when your older increases the risk. As does having previous miscarriages. Being overweight, smoking, etc. It's not hard to imagine the slippery slope given the vague language of some of the legislation that's clearly been written in the most imprecise, sledgehammer-y language possible.


Imagine the situation where a woman is trying to conceive and has a miscarriage and then is punished for it as if she wanted nothing more than to end a life. There are just too many situations where our idiot lawmakers just can't think like a normal human being. Even though Todd Akin is no longer in power, we have a mound of evidence to believe that plenty of those who are in power currently are even more idiotic with their beliefs about how human reproduction works. And I'm sure at least one of those dummies probably thinks IVF is some sort of witchcraft or satan worship and wants to see it punished by law.



Mathemagician said:


> I think the core issue is this:
> 
> The absolute delusion that makes religious extremists think they should even have a “vote” on what someone else does.
> 
> If a person - for whatever reason at all even if it’s because they had a bad morning - wants access to a medical procedure that’s their choice.
> 
> The end.
> 
> There is no further debate that is deserved. The very act of trying to “appeal” to people “voting no” implies that they are in fact entitled to vote on someone else’s body at all. They are not, that’s the end of the discussion.
> 
> Everything else is religious people not understanding that they don’t own other people.



Well, I don't think that's really the appropriate argument.

Personal freedom is the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing equally whatever they want. For example, killing someone necessarily means that they would not be free to kill anyone else, therefore, killing is not a personal freedom. And abortion is one of those grey areas where it's not widely agreed whether or not it constitutes killing a person. Through the process of pregnancy, the physical material that makes up the pregnant woman is transferred to the child so that it can survive outside of the woman's body. The ethics behind the decision to end that process are contentious and poorly understood by the general populace. Thus the argument.



narad said:


> Just out of curiosity, in the case of siamese twins, if one twin wants to do a high-risk separation procedure and the other doesn't, what's policy?


Conjoined twins are very rare, so I would be surprised if there were any widely held policies about such a situation. Often times, though, there are parents who will decide to separate the twins even when doctors assure them that the odds of survival of one of the twins is very low. Still, though, in those cases, both the doctors and the parents often decide to move forward with the procedure if there is an increased chance of thriving of the other twin. It's a good point to bring up in this discussion, as there are many ethical similarities with he topic at hand.



MaxOfMetal said:


> All this talk about religion when that's merely a convenient excuse used to drum up the Cleetuses in Flyoverville and attempt a moral high ground or "greater calling" when those at the top really just need a steady supply of uneducated, desperate slave class to be chewed up and spit out by the system to keep the money flowing to the top.
> 
> That fetus could have been a poverty wage cog in the system of a multi-billion dollar corporation, or a paid-for resident in the prison industrial complex, or even cannon fodder for some overseas freedoming to feed another industrial complex.
> 
> Why do you think they don't give a shit once they're born? They need that poor bastard to buy an iPhone and a Netflix subscription between shifts at Wal-Mart and Amazon.


"And after the eighth trumpet of the apocalypse sounded, the heavens opened up, and a booming thunderous voice was heard, declaring: 'This shall heretofore be the end of high prices.' And thus was conceived from heaven by a decree of God's servant the Holy Website of Books and of All Things. And God saw the website, and He browsed it, and saw that it was good." - Bezos 13:6-7


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> There's also something disgustingly ironic and sad about someone proposing that we mitigate unwanted pregnancies (many from non-consensual relations) by non-consensually shoving devices into the potential victims.



Not to mention that there is a troubling history of forcibly sterilizing black women until very recently in the US. The suggestion to specifically sterilize young, poor black women in this light is fairly problematic. Forced sterilization is at best infringement of individual agency, and at worst it is full on genocide.

I say this as someone who is very much in favor of making voluntary sterilization widely accessible. I have a vasectomy, and absolutely any adult who wants to be sterilized should be able to do so, without undue questioning, and we should collectively pay for them because it will undoubtedly improve the material conditions of all our lives.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> Not to mention that there is a troubling history of forcibly sterilizing black women until very recently in the US. The suggestion to specifically sterilize young, poor black women in this light is fairly problematic. Forced sterilization is at best infringement of individual agency, and at worst it is full on genocide.
> 
> I say this as someone who is very much in favor of making voluntary sterilization widely accessible. I have a vasectomy, and absolutely any adult who wants to be sterilized should be able to do so, without undue questioning, and we should collectively pay for them because it will undoubtedly improve the material conditions of all our lives.


Yeah, I don't see how it's *not *genocide. It sort of appears that the world is headed toward a point where genocide will once again be something that governments believe that they can do, though.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> Exactly. If one thinks abortions are a problem and one wants to stop them, the fallout of more unwanted children in the system is also one's responsibility.
> 
> But that's not what any Republican or pro-choice nut thinks. Big government from conception to birth, small government after that.


While George Carlin may not have been the greatest philosopher of all time, he did have a few gems. Like his stance on the whole abortion issue and how it was tied up in conservative politics with social services and how they don't give a fuck once someone is born.

"Pre-born? You're cool. Pre-school? You're fucked. You're fucked."


----------



## neurosis

wheresthefbomb said:


> Not to mention that there is a troubling history of forcibly sterilizing black women until very recently in the US. The suggestion to specifically sterilize young, poor black women in this light is fairly problematic. Forced sterilization is at best infringement of individual agency, and at worst it is full on genocide.


Just when I thought I'd read it all this comes up. Dark can get darker I guess... damn.


----------



## Thaeon

Adieu said:


> Fighting abortion is frikkin pointless because it's been around since before written history.
> 
> You don't have to LIKE it, but it's not going away. All you can do is make it underground and unsafe, which is not gonna help anything.
> 
> Do you really want your neighborhood drug dealers and the Mexican mob to have a new source of income?



We know from experience in our culture and the history of others that Prohibition does not work. Period. This will not stop abortions. This will only force them underground and make the practice more dangerous, or force people to cross national borders to get medical treatment in a safe way.



spudmunkey said:


> 1/2 to 2/3 of fertilized eggs fail to develop, but are still fertilized eggs, but are naturally discharged by the body.
> 
> For IVF, on average 7 eggs are fertilized and form embryos before implantation is even attempted, and the remainder are disposed of. One of the methods is called "compassionate transfer" where the remaining eggs are implanted back into the uterus at a time when she's least likely to cause a viable pregnancy, and then they are discharged during the next normal menstrual cycle. Would the most-restrictive of proposed legislation effectively ban IVF?
> 
> At least 20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, likely higher because they can happen before you know you're pregnant. If the most-restrictive of proposed legislation becomes law, could someone be charged with a crime if, say, they participated in risk factors that increase the chances of miscarriage? Getting pregnant when your older increases the risk. As does having previous miscarriages. Being overweight, smoking, etc. It's not hard to imagine the slippery slope given the vague language of some of the legislation that's clearly been written in the most imprecise, sledgehammer-y language possible.



This is a know fact that I don't think many conservative people are very aware of. Or they don't want to talk about it, because its a process by which life is created for their own selfish benefit.



StevenC said:


> Am I the only person reading your post as awfully close to forced sterilisation?
> 
> For starters, lots of women do not do well on IUDs.
> 
> And, FYI, yound girls don't get pregnant by themselves. 100% of unwanted pregnancies start with an irresponsible ejaculation.
> 
> All children need better sex ed yesterday. Stop blaming girls and women.



This right fucking here...

My ex-wife had trouble with them. They were very painful. If we're taking this track of forced medical procedures, then men should also face the same sorts of procedure.

Any sort of rhetoric about legally forcing women to take on the responsibility of not getting pregnant is further removing any responsibility the male half of the equation. If women could just spontaneously get pregnant with no sex, then that's a viable argument. Since they are only 50% of the equation, they hold only 50% of the responsibility. The rest lies with the man. The mental gymnastics required for some of these misogynistic lines of 'logic' baffle me at times.



StevenC said:


> Exactly. If one thinks abortions are a problem and one wants to stop them, the fallout of more unwanted children in the system is also one's responsibility.
> 
> But that's not what any Republican or pro-choice nut thinks. Big government from conception to birth, small government after that.



Also this right fucking here...

We're going to take away a choice and force you to have a child, when you're not capable of taking care of it...

Initially by attempting to block nearly all access to effective sex education, preventing you from having the tools to make responsible choices with your body.

Then we'll make it so that you can't get resources like access to birth control.

Since you're not able to make good decisions, and don't even have access to preventative measures, we're going to take away your ability to undo your now terrible situation that we as a society have essentially forced you into.

Now that you're a parent, broke, and emotionally unprepared, you get no help in providing for the life that we chained you to for the next rest of your life...

All in the name of forcing women into 'purity'. Because that's what this is really about. A dogmatic religious idea about sex being only for inside of a marriage. When biblically, it was 'fornication' and 'adultery'. If you look at the don'ts of the bible. Nearly everything is about the minimization of harmful effect to yourself and others. IE, don't eat pork. An unclean meat, often with parasites in it. If cooked well, this isn't a problem. Having sex with prostitutes (the likely root of the term fornication) is probably good for your health. Especially 2000 years ago before medicine had much of an idea about how to prevent transmissible disease via bodily fluid. You might live longer. Everyone might live longer. The rules once served a survival purpose. Now they don't really. We're surviving too well. And not sleeping with your neighbor's wife is just going to keep you from getting murdered back then. Which is bad. Because now your wife doesn't have a husband, the other dude probably dies from being stoned to death for committing murder, and back then, you die, your wife goes to your brother or cousin or whatever. So you have two women who are now being transferred as property to other men. All that mess because you wanted some strange. The rules weren't there to prevent sin. They were there to prevent chaos, and promote survival. And later, control. But you had some of your greatest servants of god in the bible who were fucking TERRIBLE people. David and basically having the woman he wanted's husband sent to the front line of a war knowing he would die just so he could have her. That's some dirty shit. 

Point being, you can't stop sex from happening in ways that are contrary to your faith. Your faith should not be the standard you hold others not of your faith up to regardless. That's not religious tolerance. That's religious fascism. You can only give people to tools to not have their lives ruined by something that was most likely an accident when its entirely preventable and show them the religious respect you expect them to show you.


----------



## Thaeon

neurosis said:


> Just when I thought I'd read it all this comes up. Dark can get darker I guess... damn.



Were you unaware this had happened?


----------



## Randy

wheresthefbomb said:


> Not to mention that there is a troubling history of forcibly sterilizing black women until very recently in the US. The suggestion to specifically sterilize young, poor black women in this light is fairly problematic. Forced sterilization is at best infringement of individual agency, and at worst it is full on genocide.



I say this pretty much every time abortion rights come up but it's my steadfast belief that this originates with male fear of rejection and especially the rejection of a man's seed/offspring. The idea that a woman can have sex without wanting to carry a man's child totally boils their brain cells. 

The actual child raising part of it is somewhat inconsequential, hence why there's very little conservative support for taking care of poor kids or family's that are poor because the parents were put into the situation of caring for children when they weren't already financially stable. The woman must submit to the sex, and the woman must have the sex because I want it, and she cannot reject any portion of the sex because that's a rejection of me.

That makes the sterilization discussion even darker, especially in the context of black women, considering the long history of white men raping black/native women in this country. It make a nice neat little package where *I* can take whatever I want and bear no responsibility for what happens as a result; like women (black women, especially apparently) only exist as a freely accessible vessel for sex.


----------



## Thaeon

After rereading my last post, it's hard to not see it as an agenda to manufacture cheap labor.


----------



## StevenC

Also some other garbage proposed in this thread that needs to be addressed:

No one is using an abortion as contraception. This is an idea that can only have been concocted by people who have not gone through an abortion.

Abortions are serious medical procedures that can have real physical and mental health side effects. They are not an elaborate morning after pill.

Repeat abortions are not proof of this. Would it surprise you to know that people in positions of abuse and disadvantage, may more frequently use last resort options?


----------



## neurosis

Thaeon said:


> Were you unaware this had happened?


Yeah. I'm not originally from the US so I am missing some details on things here and there. Especially it happening "until recently". That caught me off guard.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I agree 100%, especially with the first point. We simply cannot expect a good result from such a set of policies. I know it's another super-controversial issue, but unreported rape happens sadly a lot and also there exist false accusations of rape. That requirement would a) victimize already victims and b) likely make more innocent victims.


Well, and consider the obvious next steps. 

1) if rape is one of the few permissible reasons for abortion, in response to a sudden increase in the number of women seeking abortion as a result of rape, the GOP would introduce legislation requiring a woman to press charges against their rapist, claiming this was necessary to prevent false claims of rape under the exemption. 
2) And, in response to _that_, you'd have a whole lot of men arguing "it was consensual, she's ony claiming rape now because she got pregnant" in trials, and 
3) with the time from initial filing of charges to conclusion of trial stretching on, at best, several months, by the time the courts decide if it was really rape or not, it's likely too late for an abortion. 

It doesn't work. If you allow abortion in cases of rape, you pretty much have to allow it in all cases because requiring a woman to _prove_ she was raped after she's learned she's pregnant (i.e. - way after you could run a rape test kit) is _wildly_ invasive of her privacy and puts an insane burden of proof on her. To say nothing of the social stigma that still follows rape victims, and our cultural habit of victim shaming. 

I don't think anyone here is really arguing they _like_ rape. Rather, I think there's a broad awareness that sometimes it's necessary, and trying to restrict it to only a few special circumstances where it seems more necessary than not is extremely hard to do and puts completely unfair burdens on the victims, most/all of whom are already dealing with enough trauma of their own at the time.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> The idea that a woman can have sex without wanting to carry a man's child totally boils their brain cells.


Shit man, that's the premise of, like, 40% of my social life.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Well, and consider the obvious next steps.
> 
> 1) if rape is one of the few permissible reasons for abortion, in response to a sudden increase in the number of women seeking abortion as a result of rape, the GOP would introduce legislation requiring a woman to press charges against their rapist, claiming this was necessary to prevent false claims of rape under the exemption.
> 2) And, in response to _that_, you'd have a whole lot of men arguing "it was consensual, she's ony claiming rape now because she got pregnant" in trials, and
> 3) with the time from initial filing of charges to conclusion of trial stretching on, at best, several months, by the time the courts decide if it was really rape or not, it's likely too late for an abortion.
> 
> It doesn't work. If you allow abortion in cases of rape, you pretty much have to allow it in all cases because requiring a woman to _prove_ she was raped after she's learned she's pregnant (i.e. - way after you could run a rape test kit) is _wildly_ invasive of her privacy and puts an insane burden of proof on her. To say nothing of the social stigma that still follows rape victims, and our cultural habit of victim shaming.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is really arguing they _like_ rape. Rather, I think there's a broad awareness that sometimes it's necessary, and trying to restrict it to only a few special circumstances where it seems more necessary than not is extremely hard to do and puts completely unfair burdens on the victims, most/all of whom are already dealing with enough trauma of their own at the time.


I mean, those things are _already happening _ , I think it just makes it more likely that we see it more.

Also also, many places already have a 3+ month wait for the analysis of a rape kit. I don't even want to think about how it's possible for that sentence to represent a coherent thought, but that means that, by the time a victim would be able to prove their case and schedule the procedure, it would already be well past the first trimester, even under the current state of affairs.


----------



## RevDrucifer

TedEH said:


> We're leading to some pretty dark places, but it's been my experience that some of the worst mental illness cases I've witnessed were, at least in some meaningful part, the result of some terrible upbringing - unwanted kids by unprepared or uncaring or entirely absent parents. That leads pretty directly to a person who has no support structure, who has warped and unhealthy outlooks and valuation systems, who can end up being self-destructive or directly self-harming, who fear other people and relationships, who ultimately end up being vulnerable, sometimes strait up abused, and pretty rarely equipped to deal with any of the above. We're talking about, ultimately, trying to force (women in particular) to go through traumatic events that lead to a pretty good chance of condemning a person to a very painful kind of existence.



Absolutely. That’s 100% spot on with the life I was born into and how it effected me through the years and like I said, the overwhelming majority of peers/friends I had growing up in the same situation never escaped it and some are now handing it down to their own kids. While this is harsh, my cousin is an absolute fucking moron, the dude just posted a new motorcycle he bought last week on FB and this morning was asking for help buying diapers and food for his kids. I don’t even need to see how he handles his kids to know they’re getting the shit end of the stick, which is entirely learned behavior he received growing up. 

My sister isn’t too far from that either and it’s brutal knowing my nephew is pretty close to living the same life my sister and I did growing up. What’s crazy to me is that we grew up in the same household aside from 2 years when I moved with my father at 13, then moved back at 15. I know my friends families had a lot to do with my perception of life; my two best friends have amazing families that very much took me in as their own and made me realize I was not the situation I was born into. They ignored seeing my stepfather in the police logs relentlessly for DUI’s or public disturbances, ignored that I lived in the projects and just treated me like I was their own. I’m sure there were other factors at play, but those two families are the biggest thing I can think of that put me on a different path from everyone else I grew up with.


----------



## RevDrucifer

neurosis said:


> Tough to read this and I wish you the best of luck with your future efforts when you return "home". I haven't gone through a situation like that but I get what it feels like to want to move far away from the roots and I still struggle with the idea of potentially going back. I think you have big cojones to go back and try to improve the situation there.
> 
> Back on topic, I appreciate you putting the focus on the kids. It paints a realistic picture of how avoiding abortion is not a guarantee of a positive outcome.
> 
> As another poster mentioned earlier education, proper healthcare and other forms of social security are what increases people's chances of personal development and safety. That is what makes the debate so hard. Much pressure from the opposition to this option for the public comes from the oversimplification of the issue at large. They politicize abortion like a goal when tt's more like a symptom of other failures our society struggles with. They really couldn't care less about what happens to anybody involved. All they worry about is if they can take away the options for everybody else based on simple moral principle. Those moral principles quickly go out the window when it's time to debate investment in underserved communities, school programs, proper access to healthcare etc...



There are a lot of contributing factors in me going back and if you would have asked me my thoughts on it 3 years ago I would have laughed my ass off. Ultimately, it’s an combination multiple things and while I certainly don’t feel like I’m going to be Batman returning to Gotham to clean the place up, if I can make a small dent and help a few people, it’ll certainly give me a lot more than my current career does. 

As for the kid aspect, this just echoes the same thing about conservatives not giving a shit past the initial 9 months and as dark as it is to say “Is it really better to force a child into a life of pure hell than it is to abort the child before it experiences that?” it’s just the way it is. That’s not based off feelings or emotions or whatever the fuck the right likes to think everyone but them thinks with, it’s the fact of the matter. 

If you force someone who does not want to have a child you *might* luck out and when that kid is born the parent will form that bond with them where they want to make a great life for the child. That has absolutely not been the situation I have seen throughout my life and in 98% of what I’ve witnessed, the child becomes a point of resentment for all the hardship “they’re causing” the parent. 

The whole “Oh, I looked into my baby’s eyes and from that point on I knew I had to do all I could to make sure they had a wonderful life.” is the shit people who never grew up in or experienced an impoverished life like to think happens.


----------



## TedEH

I've posted a few times here and there about some friends (and exes) who live in some pretty dire head-spaces, and there's a clear pattern to me: parents who didn't want their kids, and sometimes strait up told their kids so, or sometimes physically abused them, and sometimes abandoned them to live on their own in shitty subsidized apartments in dangerous places, etc.. That's not to say, for anyone who's about to accuse me of this, that I think they should have been aborted - because I don't. That would be a pretty brutal thing to wish upon a person. But it IS to say that the lack of the option has consequences. I'd like to believe that a society that respects autonomy in that way, and has the capacity to look at issues with nuance, would also be society that can productively introspect and learn to build the support structures that everyone involved needs in the first place. In other words: if you want to eliminate abortions - then create a world where an unwanted child can thrive. Until then, that's not the reality we live in.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

RevDrucifer said:


> There are a lot of contributing factors in me going back and if you would have asked me my thoughts on it 3 years ago I would have laughed my ass off. Ultimately, it’s an combination multiple things and while I certainly don’t feel like I’m going to be Batman returning to Gotham to clean the place up, if I can make a small dent and help a few people, it’ll certainly give me a lot more than my current career does.
> 
> As for the kid aspect, this just echoes the same thing about conservatives not giving a shit past the initial 9 months and as dark as it is to say “Is it really better to force a child into a life of pure hell than it is to abort the child before it experiences that?” it’s just the way it is. That’s not based off feelings or emotions or whatever the fuck the right likes to think everyone but them thinks with, it’s the fact of the matter.
> 
> If you force someone who does not want to have a child you *might* luck out and when that kid is born the parent will form that bond with them where they want to make a great life for the child. That has absolutely not been the situation I have seen throughout my life and in 98% of what I’ve witnessed, the child becomes a point of resentment for all the hardship “they’re causing” the parent.
> 
> The whole “Oh, I looked into my baby’s eyes and from that point on I knew I had to do all I could to make sure they had a wonderful life.” is the shit people who never grew up in or experienced an impoverished life like to think happens.



Massive respect to you. I grew up in trailer parks and while I haven't directly experienced everything you have I am intimately familiar with it regardless. Most of the people who stayed in my hometown are on the same trajectory you described and it's why I haven't been back in 13 years. Going there is heartbreaking.


----------



## Randy




----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> View attachment 107609


Holy fuck. Self-awareness really is a lost art these days.


----------



## tedtan

RevDrucifer said:


> …the child becomes a point of resentment for all the hardship “they’re causing” the parent.


In my experience, people who are in the criminal system, people who are addicted to various substances without mental health issues, people who are poor and living on welfare, etc. tend to blame everyone and everything except themselves. They’re all about the excuses rathe than the responsibility, so the cycle repeats with thier children, their children’ s children, and so on. And unfortunately, I don’t know how to help break this thought process.


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> View attachment 107609



"You can't make this stuff up"

I mean, you can kinda make that stuff up though. Seems like a real pro-life person but I just can't trust the internet, I've seen sort of "false flag" stuff. If real, wow.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> "You can't make this stuff up"
> 
> I mean, you can kinda make that stuff up though. Seems like a real pro-life person but I just can't trust the internet, I've seen sort of "false flag" stuff. If real, wow.



It's a bait post meant to setup a bad faith argument to center the conversation on "purity". 

Everyone knows raising kids in this country is a financial and social burden, so the pro-birth retort of all the hooked pro-choicers who took the bait is "well, don't be a whore". 

/Cynicism


----------



## Randy

narad said:


> "You can't make this stuff up"
> 
> I mean, you can kinda make that stuff up though. Seems like a real pro-life person but I just can't trust the internet, I've seen sort of "false flag" stuff. If real, wow.


The legitimacy of the post is less of interest to me, more the illustration of the diverging attitudes toward forcing pregnancy on people once the child becomes the responsibility of those pushing others to bear kids. Kinda wrapped that whole argument up in a neat little package. 

I actually assume(d) the tweet was entirely manufactured, but the real things pro-life conservatives say are no less hypocritical.


----------



## RevDrucifer

tedtan said:


> In my experience, people who are in the criminal system, people who are addicted to various substances without mental health issues, people who are poor and living on welfare, etc. tend to blame everyone and everything except themselves. They’re all about the excuses rathe than the responsibility, so the cycle repeats with thier children, their children’ s children, and so on. And unfortunately, I don’t know how to help break this thought process.



That’s way too wide of a net to throw on all those things for me to agree whole heartedly and has some heavy right-wing trope vibes. 

In my experience, it’s not a lack of responsibility, it’s a lack of knowledge in choices to avoid getting into those situations. There’s now generations of learned behavior that has instilled the idea that there is no other way. If you don’t know there is another choice that can be made and you personally didn’t want to find yourself in the situation you find yourself, is it your own personal fault you’re in that situation? From an outside view it certainly appears to be, but from an internal POV it’s “This isn’t what I wanted but this is what I have to deal with, it’s not my fault, I didn’t create the world we live in”

And aside from those who were prescribed an opiate for medical reasons and got addicted that way, the overwhelming majority, if not all, addiction/alcoholism cases have an underlying mental health issue at hand. My life has been filled with addiction/alcoholism and I personally don’t know a single one who isn’t/wasn’t dealing with depression, whether they knew it or not. No one starts off saying “I want to be a drug addict”, that occurs when the way someone is feeling internally is worse off than the known repercussions of addiction/alcoholism, due to the lack of knowing there’s a different way of dealing with life out there. 

In the context of criminality, while plenty of crimes are committed without a legitimate reason, there are plenty that are, or at least is perceived by the criminal as legitimate. My stepfather got arrested one night for stealing the tires off a car because he had no other way of getting to work. It certainly wasn’t to make the shitty, run down Datsun look good. A reasonable thinking person could say “Well, if he didn’t drink so much he would have had money for new tires” and duh, of course, but when you’re in that situation and know no other way of making things work, when getting sober requires detoxing in a hospital so you don’t seize and missing one day of work takes groceries off the table, there’s no one to borrow money from or hitch a ride from and the job is 25 miles away in the middle of a Maine winter, what other choices are available to the person who is supposed to be holding shit together? The guy had an 8th grade education and learned to survive on his own after being kicked out of his home when he was 13 after a horrid childhood. I can say with 100% certainty he simply didn’t know any better. He knew it was wrong, but knew no other way around it. 

Both my mother and stepfather stole shit all the time and often had my sister and I keep lookout while they did it, food, clothes, random shit. When you’re 6-7 years old and your lead to believe you should have the utmost trust in your parents, what kind of mentality do you think that creates? When you’re that age, your parents do nothing wrong because of that idea they’re supposed to be the arbiters of what’s right and wrong and it’s not like they were telling us “Don’t do this, we only do this because we have to.” so when I got caught stealing pens when I was 11 or 12 and asked why I did it, my reply was “You guys steal shit all the time.” because it was totally learned behavior, despite me knowing it was wrong to do. What I learned from the people I trusted trumped the societal POV on theft. 

To your point, yes, there is a shitload of passing the blame onto someone/something else. My sister is so guilty of it and despite me having numerous come to Jesus talks with her about it, it doesn’t get through. She’s been fired from nearly every job she’s ever held due to her attitude and when she’d call me and ask for money, it was always someone else’s fault for her attitude. That is 110% learned behavior from my mother. 

I certainly had the same POV of “They’re just lazy and not taking responsibility for their lives” for a long time, but time has shown me a different side of things and the not taking responsibility I see as a symptom of not knowing what choices are available. No one wants to live lives like that.


----------



## narad

The tweet raises the point in a nice way, but if it's manufactured, I think that's the type of behavior that just builds distrust and solidifies the "us" vs "them" type of attitude. For me it undermines the whole thing.

But one thing I guess I've made more concrete in my mind is the trend...

1. Men have worries of sexual inadequacy and fear coming up short compared to other men => women should be virgins
2. Women who aren't virgins and get pregnant must have the unwanted child as punishment. Whether the child is raised well is no concern - raising a monster child is all the more punishment.
3. Go to children and show these terrible lives of unwed mothers and use it as an effort to "scared straight" them into waiting until marriage.
4. Those girls grow up to be nice virgin women of the sort wanted in (1)
5. (Optional) Repeat, because giving up on all that fun is only validated if you do it too (or get punished), so having a bunch of promiscuous women having fun and not being punished is THE WORST.

Looking back on sex-ed in NYS, I'm just astounded by how much of it was rooted in Christian values. Might as well of had the church teach those classes.


----------



## tedtan

RevDrucifer said:


> That’s way too wide of a net to throw on all those things for me to agree whole heartedly and has some heavy right-wing trope vibes.
> 
> In my experience, it’s not a lack of responsibility, it’s a lack of knowledge in choices to avoid getting into those situations. There’s now generations of learned behavior that has instilled the idea that there is no other way. If you don’t know there is another choice that can be made and you personally didn’t want to find yourself in the situation you find yourself, is it your own personal fault you’re in that situation? From an outside view it certainly appears to be, but from an internal POV it’s “This isn’t what I wanted but this is what I have to deal with, it’s not my fault, I didn’t create the world we live in”
> 
> And aside from those who were prescribed an opiate for medical reasons and got addicted that way, the overwhelming majority, if not all, addiction/alcoholism cases have an underlying mental health issue at hand. My life has been filled with addiction/alcoholism and I personally don’t know a single one who isn’t/wasn’t dealing with depression, whether they knew it or not. No one starts off saying “I want to be a drug addict”, that occurs when the way someone is feeling internally is worse off than the known repercussions of addiction/alcoholism, due to the lack of knowing there’s a different way of dealing with life out there.
> 
> In the context of criminality, while plenty of crimes are committed without a legitimate reason, there are plenty that are, or at least is perceived by the criminal as legitimate. My stepfather got arrested one night for stealing the tires off a car because he had no other way of getting to work. It certainly wasn’t to make the shitty, run down Datsun look good. A reasonable thinking person could say “Well, if he didn’t drink so much he would have had money for new tires” and duh, of course, but when you’re in that situation and know no other way of making things work, when getting sober requires detoxing in a hospital so you don’t seize and missing one day of work takes groceries off the table, there’s no one to borrow money from or hitch a ride from and the job is 25 miles away in the middle of a Maine winter, what other choices are available to the person who is supposed to be holding shit together? The guy had an 8th grade education and learned to survive on his own after being kicked out of his home when he was 13 after a horrid childhood. I can say with 100% certainty he simply didn’t know any better. He knew it was wrong, but knew no other way around it.
> 
> Both my mother and stepfather stole shit all the time and often had my sister and I keep lookout while they did it, food, clothes, random shit. When you’re 6-7 years old and your lead to believe you should have the utmost trust in your parents, what kind of mentality do you think that creates? When you’re that age, your parents do nothing wrong because of that idea they’re supposed to be the arbiters of what’s right and wrong and it’s not like they were telling us “Don’t do this, we only do this because we have to.” so when I got caught stealing pens when I was 11 or 12 and asked why I did it, my reply was “You guys steal shit all the time.” because it was totally learned behavior, despite me knowing it was wrong to do. What I learned from the people I trusted trumped the societal POV on theft.
> 
> To your point, yes, there is a shitload of passing the blame onto someone/something else. My sister is so guilty of it and despite me having numerous come to Jesus talks with her about it, it doesn’t get through. She’s been fired from nearly every job she’s ever held due to her attitude and when she’d call me and ask for money, it was always someone else’s fault for her attitude. That is 110% learned behavior from my mother.
> 
> I certainly had the same POV of “They’re just lazy and not taking responsibility for their lives” for a long time, but time has shown me a different side of things and the not taking responsibility I see as a symptom of not knowing what choices are available. No one wants to live lives like that.


My original posts stated “in my experience”, so I was speaking anecdotally. And I never said people were lazy, I said they don’t take responsibility for the lot in life. Furthermore, I agree that the system has failed these folks, including their parents.

But ultimately, their situation will never improve unless they take responsibility for getting themselves from wherever they currently find themselves to where they want to be. No one can do that for them, they have to do it for themselves. And while its not easy, and they may not know how to do that, there are resources available to help them; you yourself are looking to become such a resource.

None of this is judging these folks, just acknowledging reality. People can help all they want, but it doesn’t do any good until we are ready to start helping ourselves.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> My original posts stated “in my experience”, so I was speaking anecdotally. And I never said people were lazy, I said they don’t take responsibility for the lot in life. Furthermore, I agree that the system has failed these folks, including their parents.
> 
> But ultimately, their situation will never improve unless they take responsibility for getting themselves from wherever they currently find themselves to where they want to be. No one can do that for them, they have to do it for themselves. And while its not easy, and they may not know how to do that, there are resources available to help them; you yourself are looking to become such a resource.
> 
> None of this is judging these folks, just acknowledging reality. People can help all they want, but it doesn’t do any good until we are ready to start helping ourselves.



This just seems a little too "bootstrappy" to me.

There is just absolutely no way out for a lot of folks. So many live right on the cusp of financial ruin with nothing to pull them back. The feel good stories of homeless folks making it back to the other side are literally one in a million.

It's by no means a bug, but a feature. That reality keeps those folks in line.

That of course doesn't excuse personal responsibility, but the reality is that all the hard work in the world isn't going to do a thing when the system is designed to beat you down and will not budge.

One of the biggest lies we tell is that all you need is to work hard, stay clean, stay between the lines and the system will reward you.

Our system is explicitly designed to keep some folks down, again, feature not bug. So long as we need farm workers, slaughterhouse workers, janitors, line cooks, retail workers, etc.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> My original posts stated “in my experience”, so I was speaking anecdotally. And I never said people were lazy, I said they don’t take responsibility for the lot in life. Furthermore, I agree that the system has failed these folks, including their parents.
> 
> But ultimately, their situation will never improve unless they take responsibility for getting themselves from wherever they currently find themselves to where they want to be. No one can do that for them, they have to do it for themselves. And while its not easy, and they may not know how to do that, there are resources available to help them; you yourself are looking to become such a resource.
> 
> None of this is judging these folks, just acknowledging reality. People can help all they want, but it doesn’t do any good until we are ready to start helping ourselves.



I don't disagree, but every time I read this sort of thing it reads like, "No one can do that for them, they have to do it for themselves,_ like I would if I was in their situation_." Where's the admittance that if you were them, you might not even know where to begin to find those resources or even be aware of their existence? And then also an admittance that it's still going to fail for many, regardless of the resources. This sort of like, "while it's not easy" vibe -- like my life is easy. It was super easy to lay around for years and read books and pretend like understanding some math concept was this nearly insurmountable hurdle. Aw man, I had to spend all week on that chapter!! 

I don't know how much of your world view I'm just imagining from that paragraph, but of course it's the same take on the topic that many people have -- people who certainly have never touched on anything remotely as hard as trying to break out of these sort of lives/situations, but yet are sill giving advice on how to.


----------



## TedEH

tedtan said:


> their situation will never improve unless they take responsibility for getting themselves from wherever they currently find themselves to where they want to be


Nah, I 100% call BS. The whole idea of "only YOU can solve YOUR problems" is BS. Everyone _can_ and _should_ accept outside help for their issues, big or small. I've never seen anyone, whose lot in life was particularly bad, manage to get themselves out of their jam by going the solo / bootstraps / "personal responsibility" route. All of them needed someone around them to take 30 seconds out of their lives to be selfless for a change, and give them the push they needed in the right direction, or provide some level of support that _enables_ them to help themselves. That's what rehab is for. That's what social work and therapy is for. That's what family and friends and reliable partners are for. That's what communities are supposed to be about. Teamwork makes the dream work.

Telling someone that their lot in life is their own problem and would be solved if they just "took responsibility" is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want it to be your concern.


----------



## RevDrucifer

tedtan said:


> My original posts stated “in my experience”, so I was speaking anecdotally. And I never said people were lazy, I said they don’t take responsibility for the lot in life. Furthermore, I agree that the system has failed these folks, including their parents.
> 
> But ultimately, their situation will never improve unless they take responsibility for getting themselves from wherever they currently find themselves to where they want to be. No one can do that for them, they have to do it for themselves. And while its not easy, and they may not know how to do that, there are resources available to help them; you yourself are looking to become such a resource.
> 
> None of this is judging these folks, just acknowledging reality. People can help all they want, but it doesn’t do any good until we are ready to start helping ourselves.



I know what you’re saying and I don’t get the idea you’re intentionally calling people lazy or less-than, but there’s a huge gap between being in a shit situation and using your responsibility to get out of it. Something must occur between those two points for people to know where to direct their responsibility and _that’s _where the issue comes into play. 

You don’t know what you don’t know. 
i


----------



## RevDrucifer

TedEH said:


> Nah, I 100% call BS. The whole idea of "only YOU can solve YOUR problems" is BS. Everyone _can_ and _should_ accept outside help for their issues, big or small. I've never seen anyone, whose lot in life was particularly bad, manage to get themselves out of their jam by going the solo / bootstraps / "personal responsibility" route. All of them needed someone around them to take 30 seconds out of their lives to be selfless for a change, and give them the push they needed in the right direction, or provide some level of support that _enables_ them to help themselves. That's what rehab is for. That's what social work and therapy is for. That's what family and friends and reliable partners are for. That's what communities are supposed to be about. Teamwork makes the dream work.
> 
> Telling someone that their lot in life is their own problem and would be solved if they just "took responsibility" is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want it to be your concern.



Spot on. 

In my case, I had zero faith in myself and was barely getting by in the restaurant business. My ex-wife‘s family was so supportive of me that their encouragement gave me enough faith that I could accomplish more than restaurant work and when I decided to go to HVAC school I went to my ex and said “I’m not going to be able to work as many shifts and I need to come up with the money for this school, can we figure out some kind of plan to make this work?” and for a couple months, she had to chip in a little extra towards bills while I saved/went to school. 

Without that support system, I never would have gotten ahead and unfortunately, the people I grew up with have nothing close to resembling something like that in their own life.


----------



## TedEH

RevDrucifer said:


> unfortunately, the people I grew up with have nothing close to resembling something like that in their own life.


I have a theory that people are not very good at recognizing when another person lacks a support system. The most common one I hear is "why didn't their family deal with this?", forgetting (or ignoring) that not everyone has access to helpful family members.


----------



## bostjan

Even if your family doesn't help you out financially, there is a huge emotional and psychological outlet there that I think that people with functional families take for granted and people without families or with dysfunctional families don't really understand. In fact, if your family is dysfunctional, there's a good chance that a lot of your energy goes into mitigating that, or that your dysfunctional family even sabotages your potential successes. On the other hand, a functional family probably hooks you up with all sort of opportunities, from something as big as getting you an interview for a good job through their connections to something as little as recommending places of business that won't rip you off. When you integrate the value of that out over an entire upbringing, it's probably worth millions of dollars in opportunities.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> This just seems a little too "bootstrappy" to me.
> 
> There is just absolutely no way out for a lot of folks. So many live right on the cusp of financial ruin with nothing to pull them back. The feel good stories of homeless folks making it back to the other side are literally one in a million.
> 
> It's by no means a bug, but a feature. That reality keeps those folks in line.
> 
> That of course doesn't excuse personal responsibility, but the reality is that all the hard work in the world isn't going to do a thing when the system is designed to beat you down and will not budge.
> 
> One of the biggest lies we tell is that all you need is to work hard, stay clean, stay between the lines and the system will reward you.
> 
> Our system is explicitly designed to keep some folks down, again, feature not bug. So long as we need farm workers, slaughterhouse workers, janitors, line cooks, retail workers, etc.


We are not predestined to be what the system dictates we be; we have personal agency.

I agree that the system is fucked up, especially here in the US, but that system will never lift us up in and of itself; at best, it provides a baseline and some resources for improvement. It’s up to us to take responsibility for making use of those resources and, if need be, fighting against the system when its in our best interest to do so. While the system is fucked, we can’t use it as an excuse for failing to exercise personal agency; that’s a cop out.




TedEH said:


> Nah, I 100% call BS. The whole idea of "only YOU can solve YOUR problems" is BS. Everyone _can_ and _should_ accept outside help for their issues, big or small. I've never seen anyone, whose lot in life was particularly bad, manage to get themselves out of their jam by going the solo / bootstraps / "personal responsibility" route. All of them needed someone around them to take 30 seconds out of their lives to be selfless for a change, and give them the push they needed in the right direction, or provide some level of support that _enables_ them to help themselves. That's what rehab is for. That's what social work and therapy is for. That's what family and friends and reliable partners are for. That's what communities are supposed to be about. Teamwork makes the dream work.
> 
> Telling someone that their lot in life is their own problem and would be solved if they just "took responsibility" is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want it to be your concern.


Of couse people need help from others to improve their lot in life - EVERYIONE does, no matter where they happen to start out, including those that start out at the top - none of can do it entirely on our own.

What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter how much someone hepls if the individual in question is not ready to do thier part (including accepting the help). As an extreme example, if you give a severe drug addict a million dollars, are they more likely to 1) automatically check themselves into rehab, get clean, buy a house, and get a job, or 2) do a million dollars worth of their drug of choice and end up back in the same situation where they started? Option 1 is possible, but it requires the individual to exercise personal agency and be willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to effect that outcome. It doesn’t matter how much others try to help that individual if the individual isn’t serious about helping themself first.




RevDrucifer said:


> Spot on.
> 
> In my case, I had zero faith in myself and was barely getting by in the restaurant business. My ex-wife‘s family was so supportive of me that their encouragement gave me enough faith that I could accomplish more than restaurant work and when I decided to go to HVAC school I went to my ex and said “I’m not going to be able to work as many shifts and I need to come up with the money for this school, can we figure out some kind of plan to make this work?” and for a couple months, she had to chip in a little extra towards bills while I saved/went to school.
> 
> Without that support system, I never would have gotten ahead and unfortunately, the people I grew up with have nothing close to resembling something like that in their own life.


This is an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Your ex’s family encouraged you to help yourself in life, but all that encouragement would be nothing but hot air if you yourself hadn’t taken the initiative to make a plan to go to HVAC school and improve your situation.

YOU exercised your personal agency, YOU were willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to improve your situation, and YOU followed through and made it happen. Don’t get me wrong, you had help. From your ex, from her family, from your instructors, from your fellow students, from contacts that you made along the way, etc., etc. But ultimately, YOU made the decision to excercise your personal agency, take responsibility for your life, and do what was necessary to improve things for yourself,

If you hadn’t made that decision, all your ex’s family’s encouragement would have been hot air and you would still be working retail and/or restaurant jobs.

Don’t underestimate the part you played in that equation (I’m using a math analogy for Narad ).

That decision to accept personal agency and responsibility acts as a catalyst that allows us to begin making the necessary changes, to receive the help from others, to recognize the opportunities available to us, etc. It is a necessary first step. Not the be all, end all, but a necessary first step.

And I’ve seen this way, way too many time from people, mostly immigrants, who start with nothing and end up multimillionaires, always via starting a business, to accept that the system, as fucked up as it is, predestines our lot in life. We have FAR more control over where we end up than most of us are willing to admit.


----------



## Thaeon

MaxOfMetal said:


> This just seems a little too "bootstrappy" to me.
> 
> There is just absolutely no way out for a lot of folks. So many live right on the cusp of financial ruin with nothing to pull them back. The feel good stories of homeless folks making it back to the other side are literally one in a million.
> 
> It's by no means a bug, but a feature. That reality keeps those folks in line.
> 
> That of course doesn't excuse personal responsibility, but the reality is that all the hard work in the world isn't going to do a thing when the system is designed to beat you down and will not budge.
> 
> One of the biggest lies we tell is that all you need is to work hard, stay clean, stay between the lines and the system will reward you.
> 
> Our system is explicitly designed to keep some folks down, again, feature not bug. So long as we need farm workers, slaughterhouse workers, janitors, line cooks, retail workers, etc.



This. 100% this. For some to be wealthy, others must be poor. They are two sides of the same coin. By its nature, the concept of wealth is oppressive. I also think that the obsessive pursuit of wealth and power is very similar to the mental illness that causes hoarding. There is a fear associated with the loss of the thing one is obsessively collecting. Under that fear is likely some kind of insecurity. 

Capitalism though specifically functions on the principles of wealth. Thus creating an economic system, that like you said, features the oppression of others for the sake of personal gain. Its financial imperialism. And I think we have enough historical evidence of the horrors that imperialism causes.



bostjan said:


> Even if your family doesn't help you out financially, there is a huge emotional and psychological outlet there that I think that people with functional families take for granted and people without families or with dysfunctional families don't really understand. In fact, if your family is dysfunctional, there's a good chance that a lot of your energy goes into mitigating that, or that your dysfunctional family even sabotages your potential successes. On the other hand, a functional family probably hooks you up with all sort of opportunities, from something as big as getting you an interview for a good job through their connections to something as little as recommending places of business that won't rip you off. When you integrate the value of that out over an entire upbringing, it's probably worth millions of dollars in opportunities.



My family was sort of both sides of this. I had ADHD, and apparently it was suggested to my mom by both my doctor and my teachers, but she wouldn't listen. She also inhibited my growth in a lot of ways by being overly protective. My dad was sort of the opposite. I knew I was loved and supported, but he'd been mostly marginalized and shoved to the side by my mom. He'd never been particularly interested in having kids either. So he was kind of mentally absent. And any time there was any sort of tension between me and my mom, even if I was right and he knew I was right, he'd cave to my mom because she was so overbearing. So while being smart, I struggled with focus and caring about some subjects in school. But I could hyper focus on drawing, comics, music, video games, etc. I have to distract myself from repetitive thoughtless tasks because just thinking about starting them can cause panic. So my mom's unwillingness to come to terms with some of my limitations or willingness to see me as having a brain that was back then, seen as developmentally limited. I was left to struggle. And its only been in recent years after being a parent and seeing my children struggle with ADHD, that I've realized it's been what I'm dealing with all along. And all the depression and self doubt and anxiety are all stemming from this thing that has gone untreated for 35 or so years. Even in meaning well for their kids, parents and families who are insecure or not well adjusted do harm without realizing it. And sometimes, you don't know what you don't know because someone who was responsible for you when you were younger was ignorant, insecure, or prideful and was ill equipped to confront your struggle appropriately setting you down a long difficult road, not even having a clue what kind of help you needed but knowing something is not working. But all you know is how you things look to you.


----------



## eaeolian

narad said:


> Looking back on sex-ed in NYS, I'm just astounded by how much of it was rooted in Christian values. Might as well of had the church teach those classes.


It was still light-years beyond what my kid just got in VA schools. Seriously, Sex Ed may have been mostly scare tactics when I was a kid in WNY, but it's still better than allowing 3/4 of the class to "opt out" of a 1950's-era set of lessons because of their "religious beliefs".


----------



## eaeolian

tedtan said:


> And I’ve seen this way, way too many time from people, mostly immigrants, who start with nothing and end up multimillionaires, always via starting a business, to accept that the system, as fucked up as it is, predestines our lot in life. We have FAR more control over where we end up than most of us are willing to admit.


The problem with that thought process is that you're taking someone who has already seized "Agency" (to use the current vernacular), and comparing them to someone who hasn't. So you're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## TedEH

tedtan said:


> it doesn’t matter how much someone hepls if the individual in question is not ready to do thier part


I guess the problem becomes, how does a person _become_ ready to do their part? What does "ready to do their part" really mean? What happens if there isn't time for them to get into some ideal headspace to accept the kind of help you want to give them? IMO if a person was fully ready to do their part, they probably wouldn't need the assistance. Sometimes the help a person needs is to get them to that point in the first place. I don't disagree that there's an _element of_ personal responsibility involved - but as a talking point, it's just a short walk from "personal responsibility" to "not my responsibility".


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> We are not predestined to be what the system dictates we be; we have personal agency.
> 
> I agree that the system is fucked up, especially here in the US, but that system will never lift us up in and of itself; at best, it provides a baseline and some resources for improvement. It’s up to us to take responsibility for making use of those resources and, if need be, fighting against the system when its in our best interest to do so. While the system is fucked, we can’t use it as an excuse for failing to exercise personal agency; that’s a cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> Of couse people need help from others to improve their lot in life - EVERYIONE does, no matter where they happen to start out, including those that start out at the top - none of can do it entirely on our own.
> 
> What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter how much someone hepls if the individual in question is not ready to do thier part (including accepting the help). As an extreme example, if you give a severe drug addict a million dollars, are they more likely to 1) automatically check themselves into rehab, get clean, buy a house, and get a job, or 2) do a million dollars worth of their drug of choice and end up back in the same situation where they started? Option 1 is possible, but it requires the individual to exercise personal agency and be willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to effect that outcome. It doesn’t matter how much others try to help that individual if the individual isn’t serious about helping themself first.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Your ex’s family encouraged you to help yourself in life, but all that encouragement would be nothing but hot air if you yourself hadn’t taken the initiative to make a plan to go to HVAC school and improve your situation.
> 
> YOU exercised your personal agency, YOU were willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to improve your situation, and YOU followed through and made it happen. Don’t get me wrong, you had help. From your ex, from her family, from your instructors, from your fellow students, from contacts that you made along the way, etc., etc. But ultimately, YOU made the decision to excercise your personal agency, take responsibility for your life, and do what was necessary to improve things for yourself,
> 
> If you hadn’t made that decision, all your ex’s family’s encouragement would have been hot air and you would still be working retail and/or restaurant jobs.
> 
> Don’t underestimate the part you played in that equation (I’m using a math analogy for Narad ).
> 
> That decision to accept personal agency and responsibility acts as a catalyst that allows us to begin making the necessary changes, to receive the help from others, to recognize the opportunities available to us, etc. It is a necessary first step. Not the be all, end all, but a necessary first step.
> 
> And I’ve seen this way, way too many time from people, mostly immigrants, who start with nothing and end up multimillionaires, always via starting a business, to accept that the system, as fucked up as it is, predestines our lot in life. We have FAR more control over where we end up than most of us are willing to admit.



Again, these "penniless immigrant to millionaire" situations are extreme outliers. There is something like 45 million immigrants in this country, what percentage do you think will become millionaires by willing it so?

It's just as big of a cop-out to say that everyone just needs to "take responsibility" vs. addressing some big problems.


----------



## eaeolian

MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, these "penniless immigrant to millionaire" situations are extreme outliers. There is something like 45 million immigrants in this country, what percentage do you think will become millionaires by willing it so?
> 
> It's just as big of a cop-out to say that everyone just needs to "take responsibility" vs. addressing some big problems.


Yeah, I have these arguments all the time - "oh, college is there for you if you try harder, no matter how poor you are. This one homeless person..."
Outliers are not an example, and anyone who tells you otherwise failed to understand the lessons of their statistics course.


----------



## narad

Again it all comes back to math.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I can relate to both sides of this conversation regarding family support. I had a lot of family support, and still do today. My family was and is also highly dysfunctional, and created a lot of barriers for me that I am still slowly figuring out how to navigate, including taking up a lot of my emotional and mental energy when I allow them to.

I also recognize the duality in myself that there are many issues for which I am not able to create an immediate solution (I need mental health counseling, I don't have insurance. I'm looking at jobs with insurance, but I don't have insurance until I do, and in the meanwhile my mental health is just waiting) and likewise issues for which I can directly rest at least a large part of the blame on myself (I don't go to work some days because I'm trapped in a depressive cycle, which makes my depressive cycle worse because I feel worthless and also recognize that I'm not taking care of my financial responsibilities which also feeds the cycle). Recognizing this definitely gives me some level of ability to do something about it, but ultimately, it's not that I'm not "ready," I am ready as fuck, I am tired of myself on the days that is kind of stuff happens. Conversely, in some ways, being able to recognize this cycle inside myself makes me feel even more helpless to do anything about it because of lack of immediate access to counseling/therapy.

On the other hand, I have also dealt a lot with the addiction personally, and the only thing I have ever come to in all of my time dealing with various attempts at sobriety is that I can't get clean until I'm ready to get clean. Wanting sobriety for myself more than I want whatever alcohol (or whatever else) offers me is the only way that I got, and stay, sober. I cannot imagine what the struggle would look like for someone whose life is bad enough not be able to rationalize themselves out of that trap. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine material conditions to which alcohol, or even more powerful numbing agents would be highly preferable on a day to day basis.


----------



## Mathemagician

Funny enough, I actually do believe that people should provided access to “just” a baseline level of help. 

Access to universal healthcare - so they can get preventative care which is WAY cheaper than treating a big problem later. And someone who works hard their life shouldn’t be bankrupted by getting a bad draw on some later health issue like the big C. 

Tax-subsidized Access to University level education. Since all good white collar jobs are essentially “locked” behind ever inflating degree costs, giving people access to education removes a massive barrier to upward mobility. The older generations that think this is “unfair” say this because FOR THEM higher education was optional. The FREE high school education was enough to get started on the path to a good life with hard work. 

Now due to educational inflation we need to offer at least a bachelors degree free. I’m fine with including trade schools as well. Not everybody wants to spend 4 years in a classroom and that A ok. 

We can afford to pay through HS, adding on college isn’t some foreign concept. 

Investments that benefit society as a whole like mass transit. Cars aren’t going anywhere, and they can be fun AF too. But investing in mass transit creates economic mobility as people can expand their job search and smaller brick & mortar business can appeal to clients from further away. It makes hiring and working easier on those who don’t live right next to somewhere hiring. 

All of those have massive economic gains in the intermediate and long term. 

But quite often the reason someone says they don’t support it is whining. “It’s not fair, I had to suffer to pay for something so you should too.”

It’s like being mad they cure a disease just because others have already died from it. Just because something sucked before, doesn’t mean it should keep sucking now. 

But it’s way more fun to absolve oneself of any ability enact positive change and just blame the individual for not being able to hustle their way out of a situation. It’s also a great way to score political points by creating an “other” group and calling them lazy.


----------



## Thaeon

wheresthefbomb said:


> I can relate to both sides of this conversation regarding family support. I had a lot of family support, and still do today. My family was and is also highly dysfunctional, and created a lot of barriers for me that I am still slowly figuring out how to navigate, including taking up a lot of my emotional and mental energy when I allow them to.
> 
> I also recognize the duality in myself that there are many issues for which I am not able to create an immediate solution (I need mental health counseling, I don't have insurance. I'm looking at jobs with insurance, but I don't have insurance until I do, and in the meanwhile my mental health is just waiting) and likewise issues for which I can directly rest at least a large part of the blame on myself (I don't go to work some days because I'm trapped in a depressive cycle, which makes my depressive cycle worse because I feel worthless and also recognize that I'm not taking care of my financial responsibilities which also feeds the cycle). Recognizing this definitely gives me some level of ability to do something about it, but ultimately, it's not that I'm not "ready," I am ready as fuck, I am tired of myself on the days that is kind of stuff happens. Conversely, in some ways, being able to recognize this cycle inside myself makes me feel even more helpless to do anything about it because of lack of immediate access to counseling/therapy.
> 
> On the other hand, I have also dealt a lot with the addiction personally, and the only thing I have ever come to in all of my time dealing with various attempts at sobriety is that I can't get clean until I'm ready to get clean. Wanting sobriety for myself more than I want whatever alcohol (or whatever else) offers me is the only way that I got, and stay, sober. I cannot imagine what the struggle would look like for someone whose life is bad enough not be able to rationalize themselves out of that trap. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine material conditions to which alcohol, or even more powerful numbing agents would be highly preferable on a day to day basis.



Outside of the addiction, I understand your struggle. I have days that I just can't. Until this month, I hadn't had insurance for years. I have a laundry list of issues that need addressing. Now I need the time to address them. But I feel you dude. When the anxiety hits, I am immobile. Literally stuck. I don't want to be stuck. I see the problem clear as day. But its like a war inside my head. Get up to do something about it? Panic. Have to distract myself. Get depressed because I'm having to avoid my issues just to approach addressing them. Panic more. Distract myself again. Its not a game of getting to a place where I want to take responsibility. I want the responsibility. I'm tired of the internal battle. Its exhausting. But I can't without help. And its a lot of, why is simple shit SO FUCKING HARD TO DO? Take responsibility for moving forward... You think I don't want to? I'm DYING to. Currently hoping I can get help quick so my internal issues don't jam up my situation such that I'm back to square one before I can get the help I need.

The entire concept of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps makes a false assumption. That everyone has the means to do so.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> Funny enough, I actually do believe that people should provided access to “just” a baseline level of help.
> 
> Access to universal healthcare - so they can get preventative care which is WAY cheaper than treating a big problem later. And someone who works hard their life shouldn’t be bankrupted by getting a bad draw on some later health issue like the big C.
> 
> Tax-subsidized Access to University level education. Since all good white collar jobs are essentially “locked” behind ever inflating degree costs, giving people access to education removes a massive barrier to upward mobility. The older generations that think this is “unfair” say this because FOR THEM higher education was optional. The FREE high school education was enough to get started on the path to a good life with hard work.
> 
> Now due to educational inflation we need to offer at least a bachelors degree free. I’m fine with including trade schools as well. Not everybody wants to spend 4 years in a classroom and that A ok.
> 
> We can afford to pay through HS, adding on college isn’t some foreign concept.
> 
> Investments that benefit society as a whole like mass transit. Cars aren’t going anywhere, and they can be fun AF too. But investing in mass transit creates economic mobility as people can expand their job search and smaller brick & mortar business can appeal to clients from further away. It makes hiring and working easier on those who don’t live right next to somewhere hiring.
> 
> All of those have massive economic gains in the intermediate and long term.
> 
> But quite often the reason someone says they don’t support it is whining. “It’s not fair, I had to suffer to pay for something so you should too.”
> 
> It’s like being mad they cure a disease just because others have already died from it. Just because something sucked before, doesn’t mean it should keep sucking now.
> 
> But it’s way more fun to absolve oneself of any ability enact positive change and just blame the individual for not being able to hustle their way out of a situation. It’s also a great way to score political points by creating an “other” group and calling them lazy.



Yeah, and I see this as the cost of being in a nation like ours. Of being a citizen. People say they want the choice to help others with these things how they see fit, yet, history shows that given the choice, people shirk that responsibility of citizenship and investing in the people around them. Which means, people only want the choice, so that they can opt out of responsibility to their own society.


----------



## Mathemagician

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, and I see this as the cost of being in a nation like ours. Of being a citizen. People say they want the choice to help others with these things how they see fit, yet, history shows that given the choice, people shirk that responsibility of citizenship and investing in the people around them. Which means, people only want the choice, so that they can opt out of responsibility to their own society.



The truly ironic thing is that it’s done out of pure spite/whining. Out of 330 million people the median us income in 2020 was $60k for men and $51k for women. 

So 50% of the country makes barely enough money to rent a one bedroom apartment and afford groceries and gas and would benefit from these policies. 

Because the bulk of the tax burden should come from a wealth tax on net worths over $1 billion (liquid or not) 

And a progressive tax system that’s easier on those making less than $1mm/yr. Offset by a higher corporate tax system. Because higher corporate taxes encourage companies to pay out more of their earnings to their employees and to invest in more benefits/etc. 

But people are married to the idea that Elon Musk/Tesla should have a low %, and that they themselves should have a higher %. Because somehow when they retire with maybe $2-4 million in retirement assets in their 60’s that they’ll be just like him. 

Like bro $3mm is fucking nothing and a large part of the population needs to realize that they are the broke people. They’re just “less” broke. 

American citizens were fucking killed by companies fighting for labor protections, weekends off, benefits etc. but they think they don’t “need” unions in low wage jobs because they can single handedly rise above their peers and ascend from wage slave to working poor. 

Meanwhile apple is coaching store management on anti-union language and rhetoric. God forbid hard working people get better benefits and more days off.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> The truly ironic thing is that it’s done out of pure spite/whining. Out of 330 million people the median us income in 2020 was $60k for men and $51k for women.
> 
> So 50% of the country makes barely enough money to rent a one bedroom apartment and afford groceries and gas and would benefit from these policies.
> 
> Because the bulk of the tax burden should come from a wealth tax on net worths over $1 billion (liquid or not)
> 
> And a progressive tax system that’s easier on those making less than $1mm/yr. Offset by a higher corporate tax system. Because higher corporate taxes encourage companies to pay out more of their earnings to their employees and to invest in more benefits/etc.
> 
> But people are married to the idea that Elon Musk/Tesla should have a low %, and that they themselves should have a higher %. Because somehow when they retire with maybe $2-4 million in retirement assets in their 60’s that they’ll be just like him.
> 
> Like bro $3mm is fucking nothing and a large part of the population needs to realize that they are the broke people. They’re just “less” broke.
> 
> American citizens were fucking killed by companies fighting for labor protections, weekends off, benefits etc. but they think they don’t “need” unions in low wage jobs because they can single handedly rise above their peers and ascend from wage slave to working poor.
> 
> Meanwhile apple is coaching store management on anti-union language and rhetoric. God forbid hard working people get better benefits and more days off.



I will say, that while I worked for Apple, I was well taken care of as a technician. The benefits were the best I've ever had. The sales people didn't make enough though. But, they were constantly promoting people from sales to better positions. If you took it seriously at all, you got a better position in less than 3-4 months. I have no idea what it looks like now. Most of my coworkers from then are working for big tech either in Austin or for facebook or google.


----------



## tedtan

eaeolian said:


> The problem with that thought process is that you're taking someone who has already seized "Agency" (to use the current vernacular), and comparing them to someone who hasn't. So you're comparing apples to oranges.


What I’m doing is stating that seizing agency is the key transition necessary to improve one’s lot in life and using some people who have seized agency as an example to illustrate my point, not implying that everyone who wants to be rich can get there through hard work. Also, though I used financial success as an example, the same holds for other areas of life such as getting clean, getting help for mental health issues, having a good relationship with a wife or girlfriend, being a goodm parent, etc.

The folks I referenced are from all over the world (off the top of my head, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Nigeria, Mexico, and Venezuela, though I know I’m missing many other countries). Some of these folks have mental health issue, some have substance abuse issues, some have difunctional families, some have no families here with them in the States.

What they have in common is 1) they have seized agency, and 2) they haven’t let a fucked up system hold them back.




TedEH said:


> I guess the problem becomes, how does a person _become_ ready to do their part?


Sometimes it happens organically, where a person simply realizes they have to do something. But that’s probably a small minority of cases, and I don’t know how to motivate someone in the rest of the cases. Someone else may, but I have yet to figure that out.




TedEH said:


> What happens if there isn't time for them to get into some ideal headspace to accept the kind of help you want to give them?


Unfortunately, if someone isn’t ready, the effort expended in order to help them is typically wasted. That doesn’t mean that its not worth trying to help them, only that the effort typically does not bear fruit. Or if it does, it takes a long enough time to show up that it is difficult to link it back to the initial effort to help.




MaxOfMetal said:


> Again, these "penniless immigrant to millionaire" situations are extreme outliers. There is something like 45 million immigrants in this country, what percentage do you think will become millionaires by willing it so?


Those achieving that level of financial success are a small portion of all immigrant, sure. But I only used financial success as an example, not the ultimate goal. The same thing goes for getting clean, getting help with mental health issues, having a good, healthy and happy family life, or whatever other area we want to achieve a change for the better. I won’t happen to us on its own, we have to help make it happen.

Can anyone become a good musician, no matter how talented, without putting in the time practicing and playing with others?




MaxOfMetal said:


> It's just as big of a cop-out to say that everyone just needs to "take responsibility" vs. addressing some big problems.


If you’ve read any of my prior posts, you know I am heavily in favor of improving the social and financial support systems here in the US.

What I’m saying is that you’re not going to get rich without putting in the effort unless you just happen to have a rich uncle with no other heirs to which to leave his estate. And you’re not going to get clean without putting in the effort to get clean. And you’re not going to have a great relationship with you wife without putting in the effort. And you’re not going to be a great parent without putting in the effort.

These things don’t just manifest out of thin air, we have to realize that we need to do our part and then take action to do so before these things can occur. That doesn’t mean that we are left all on our own, but without us seizing agency and doing our part, they won’t happen. No one can give them to us, and, if they could, we probably wouldn’t realize what a gift we had received and would likely squander it.




wheresthefbomb said:


> but ultimately, it's not that I'm not "ready," I am ready as fuck, I am tired of myself on the days that is kind of stuff happens. Conversely, in some ways, being able to recognize this cycle inside myself makes me feel even more helpless to do anything about it because of lack of immediate access to counseling/therapy.


Yeah, I’m not saying being ready is all it takes, only that being ready to do what is necessary is a necessary first step.




wheresthefbomb said:


> On the other hand, I have also dealt a lot with the addiction personally, and the only thing I have ever come to in all of my time dealing with various attempts at sobriety is that I can't get clean until I'm ready to get clean. Wanting sobriety for myself more than I want whatever alcohol (or whatever else) offers me is the only way that I got, and stay, sober. I cannot imagine what the struggle would look like for someone whose life is bad enough not be able to rationalize themselves out of that trap. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine material conditions to which alcohol, or even more powerful numbing agents would be highly preferable on a day to day basis.


This is a good example of what I’m saying. Once you make the decision, the work, and the help from others, can begin. But if you’re not ready, any help offered s probably not going to actually help.



Mathemagician said:


> Funny enough, I actually do believe that people should provided access to “just” a baseline level of help.
> 
> Access to universal healthcare - so they can get preventative care which is WAY cheaper than treating a big problem later. And someone who works hard their life shouldn’t be bankrupted by getting a bad draw on some later health issue like the big C.
> 
> Tax-subsidized Access to University level education. Since all good white collar jobs are essentially “locked” behind ever inflating degree costs, giving people access to education removes a massive barrier to upward mobility. The older generations that think this is “unfair” say this because FOR THEM higher education was optional. The FREE high school education was enough to get started on the path to a good life with hard work.
> 
> Now due to educational inflation we need to offer at least a bachelors degree free. I’m fine with including trade schools as well. Not everybody wants to spend 4 years in a classroom and that A ok.
> 
> We can afford to pay through HS, adding on college isn’t some foreign concept.
> 
> Investments that benefit society as a whole like mass transit. Cars aren’t going anywhere, and they can be fun AF too. But investing in mass transit creates economic mobility as people can expand their job search and smaller brick & mortar business can appeal to clients from further away. It makes hiring and working easier on those who don’t live right next to somewhere hiring.
> 
> All of those have massive economic gains in the intermediate and long term.
> 
> But quite often the reason someone says they don’t support it is whining. “It’s not fair, I had to suffer to pay for something so you should too.”
> 
> It’s like being mad they cure a disease just because others have already died from it. Just because something sucked before, doesn’t mean it should keep sucking now.
> 
> But it’s way more fun to absolve oneself of any ability enact positive change and just blame the individual for not being able to hustle their way out of a situation. It’s also a great way to score political points by creating an “other” group and calling them lazy.


Agreed.


----------



## tedtan

Mathemagician said:


> Because the bulk of the tax burden should come from a wealth tax on net worths over $1 billion (liquid or not)


We already have property taxes on real estate and and capitals gains taxes on profits from investments (when the gain is realized, not while it is merely held), so how would you implement that, though?


----------



## TedEH

tedtan said:


> Unfortunately, if someone isn’t ready, the effort expended in order to help them is typically wasted. That doesn’t mean that its not worth trying to help them, only that the effort typically does not bear fruit. Or if it does, it takes a long enough time to show up that it is difficult to link it back to the initial effort to help.


I remain unconvinced, since that's not been my experience - but then you're talking anecdote vs. anecdote vs. personal philosophies on what "ready to help themselves" means, Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, but in both cases it becomes really easy to say "my help would do nothing" so that you don't have to say "I just don't want to help", whether there's truth to either statement or not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

@tedtan 

I guess what I'm getting at is that I see tons of folks trying their absolute damndest and still failing. That trying isn't really the issue I've ever seen. I can't tell you how many job fairs that I've attended on behalf of my union and the company I work for. There are folks so desperate for a chance and even if they get it they'll never make it. They just won't. Not because they just don't have what it takes, but because it's a coin toss, complete luck or chance or whatever. 

I know you're not some über libertarian, survival of the fittest at the behest of our corporate overlords type. We have a lot of the same beliefs and politics, and as you've expanded on your original point it makes more sense. What I'm saying is I think we agree on a lot of stuff, just not this exactly.


----------



## Thaeon

tedtan said:


> We already have property taxes on real estate and and capitals gains taxes on profits from investments (when the gain is realized, not while it is merely held), so how would you implement that, though?



higher taxes on profits from other sources for one. I also think that not taxing gains on investments while they are still invested is a mistake. If they gain 50% in a stock one year and leave it there while markets trend down in a poor decision and lose 75% the next year, and pull their money at a loss, they get to write that off. Any other business would have been taxed on their profits and held accountable for them and thus forced to make better decisions with the money. Its zero sum in this case because either way it creates a very specific taxation advantage for the investor that allows for a situation where there is only benefit whether or not an investment fails. Its either a write-off or they don't pay taxes on it until they draw on it. Yet for all intents and purposes, its part of their valuation. Meaning they benefit in loans against net worth granting them financial power. Its not a fair practice. Sure, its high risk. But so is opening any business.


----------



## Thaeon

TedEH said:


> I remain unconvinced, since that's not been my experience - but then you're talking anecdote vs. anecdote vs. personal philosophies on what "ready to help themselves" means, Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, but in both cases it becomes really easy to say "my help would do nothing" so that you don't have to say "I just don't want to help", whether there's truth to either statement or not.



To me this is the difference between the perspective of the inability to distinguish impotence and malice, or choosing not to attribute to malice that which can be easily explained otherwise.

The assumption of ill intent is tantamount to paranoia. Best to assume positive intent and act as if the person needing help will respond well. And if they don't, reason out why its not working instead of assuming they're not ready or are unable to receive it.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I think this stuff is a lot more important on a personal level. Recognizing that someone is not in a place to accept your help can be critical on that level. I have been in multiple relationships that I suffered during due ultimately to my prolonged inability to recognize this about someone. It leads to resentment, abuse, and all kinds of dysfunction. You very often can't save people on an individual basis. 

There's a give and take as well. In my experience you may have to offer help a few times before it's received. I know that help I have been offered by others was rarely welcome the first time, especially the younger I was. So it's all about a balance of knowing yourself and knowing at what point you tip over into pouring from and empty cup, because at that point you're both going down together. 

I don't think this kind of reasoning applies as well on a societal level, though. In my way of thinking, our collective responsibility to each other just from a pragmatic perspective of having a better society is limitless. Our collective cup is much more than the sum of its parts, or at least has that very real potential.


----------



## Mathemagician

tedtan said:


> We already have property taxes on real estate and and capitals gains taxes on profits from investments (when the gain is realized, not while it is merely held), so how would you implement that, though?



So I love explaining boring concepts: 

Those trying to punish regular people making under $1mm/yr and run of the mill successful people clearing $20mm/yr gross isn’t how you fix a broken tax system. 

Corporate tax rates are separate from individual tax rates. Corporate rates rates should cap out at 50-65% at the highest marginal rates once revenues start entering the billions per year level. 

Not for mom and pops making $20million/year but for fortune 500’s making hundreds of billions per year. 

A 1% wealth tax per billion dollars of net worth on the individual would mean that for every billion an individual has (of which there are maybe a few hundred people in this country at that level) they need to come up with $10mm no matter what other taxes they do or don’t pay. I won’t get into the financials of how ludicrously easy this is to resolve. The argument “yeah but it’s all invested not liquid”. Doesn’t hold water when you can borrow against the assets for next to nothing and therefore defer paying any actual capital gains tax as it isn’t “sold”. Then they get to keep the securities and continue to experience appreciation on that asset. 

People vote against taxes because the lobbyists ensure politicians write them to punish American citizens that need every dollar they get just to live. Of course that would make for an easy bill to shoot down. And that prevents proper taxation at the highest levels, where the IRS doesn’t have the teeth to go after. 

Regular people shouldn’t be hitting a 30-40% marginal rate in the mid 100k’s is what I’m saying. And making $400k isn’t “rich” that’s just normal hard work/upper middle class. 

But you find someone who thinks there is room to improve things and they say stuff like “tax everyone making over $200k”. Almost missing the point entirely of not punishing regular people. 

Also universal healthcare would mean that smaller businesses could better compete as they won’t have to set aside precious dollars to offer benefits that compete with larger established firms. That’s actually pro-business, but large companies lobby against that. 

Math is boring and it takes time to pick through good ideas versus good propaganda.


----------



## TedEH

Mathemagician said:


> Regular people shouldn’t be hitting a 30-40% marginal


[Cries in Quebec]

(For context, 30% is the _lowest_ tax rate you get in Quebec, once you add federal+provincial together, not counting any credits, etc.)


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> higher taxes on profits from other sources for one. I also think that not taxing gains on investments while they are still invested is a mistake. If they gain 50% in a stock one year and leave it there while markets trend down in a poor decision and lose 75% the next year, and pull their money at a loss, they get to write that off. Any other business would have been taxed on their profits and held accountable for them and thus forced to make better decisions with the money. Its zero sum in this case because either way it creates a very specific taxation advantage for the investor that allows for a situation where there is only benefit whether or not an investment fails. Its either a write-off or they don't pay taxes on it until they draw on it. Yet for all intents and purposes, its part of their valuation. Meaning they benefit in loans against net worth granting them financial power. Its not a fair practice. Sure, its high risk. But so is opening any business.


I agree in principle that we need to do a better job broadening the tax base towards the top, and I'd love to see a few additional higher marginal tax rates. 

Here, specifically, I disagree though. Unrealized gains are just that - paper gains. You can't use unrealized gains in Apple stock to buy a yacht. You can't even use them to buy groceries. They're merely the potential for gains if and when you choose to sell. If Yoy buy shares in Apple and it goes up 50% one year, you continue holding, and then it goes down 75% the next and you sell at a net loss of 62.5% of your initial investment, you get to write that off on your taxes because you _lost money_. It doesn't matter if you lost money because you were really smart or really dumb, the tax code doesn't make moral judgements on _why gains or _losses happen, it just taxes them. This would also likely have the effect of forcing people to sell to pay tax bills if unrealized investment gains or losses are large relative to current income (read: most older Americans approching retirement, during market volatility) which is the kind of thing that isn't great for market efficiency, having a whole bunch of market oarticipants transacting for non-economic reasons. 

Where I would like to see tax reform on investments is in two areas - one, the long term capital gains tax rate being well below most Americans' ordinary income tax rates rewards capital over labor, which to me doesn't make much sense, and I'd support taxing realized investment gains as ordinary income. Two, I'm ultmately agnostic on the estate tax question with one important caveat - we should either have an estate tx, no exceptions, or if we don't, then we should do away with the resetting of cost basis at time of death. If someone leaves me $5mm in appreciated Apple stock bought at a cost basis of $2 a share, that sneaks under the estate tax cap, but those shares come to me both untaxed, and at a cost basis of whatever their market value was when I inherited them (currently about $146 a share). That's a pretty huge way to shelter investment gains. 

I'd also rather see additional higher marginal tax rates than higher corporate taxes - corporations are essentially pass-thru vehicles, I care way less what Amazon pays in income taxes than i do what Jeff Bezos pays in income taxes, and I'd happily trade lower corporate tax rates for higher personal ones on the ultra rich.


----------



## Drew

In other news, anyone heard from our token pro-abortion member?


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I agree in principle that we need to do a better job broadening the tax base towards the top, and I'd love to see a few additional higher marginal tax rates.
> 
> Here, specifically, I disagree though. Unrealized gains are just that - paper gains. You can't use unrealized gains in Apple stock to buy a yacht. You can't even use them to buy groceries. They're merely the potential for gains if and when you choose to sell. If Yoy buy shares in Apple and it goes up 50% one year, you continue holding, and then it goes down 75% the next and you sell at a net loss of 62.5% of your initial investment, you get to write that off on your taxes because you _lost money_. It doesn't matter if you lost money because you were really smart or really dumb, the tax code doesn't make moral judgements on _why gains or _losses happen, it just taxes them. This would also likely have the effect of forcing people to sell to pay tax bills if unrealized investment gains or losses are large relative to current income (read: most older Americans approching retirement, during market volatility) which is the kind of thing that isn't great for market efficiency, having a whole bunch of market oarticipants transacting for non-economic reasons.
> 
> Where I would like to see tax reform on investments is in two areas - one, the long term capital gains tax rate being well below most Americans' ordinary income tax rates rewards capital over labor, which to me doesn't make much sense, and I'd support taxing realized investment gains as ordinary income. Two, I'm ultmately agnostic on the estate tax question with one important caveat - we should either have an estate tx, no exceptions, or if we don't, then we should do away with the resetting of cost basis at time of death. If someone leaves me $5mm in appreciated Apple stock bought at a cost basis of $2 a share, that sneaks under the estate tax cap, but those shares come to me both untaxed, and at a cost basis of whatever their market value was when I inherited them (currently about $146 a share). That's a pretty huge way to shelter investment gains.
> 
> I'd also rather see additional higher marginal tax rates than higher corporate taxes - corporations are essentially pass-thru vehicles, I care way less what Amazon pays in income taxes than i do what Jeff Bezos pays in income taxes, and I'd happily trade lower corporate tax rates for higher personal ones on the ultra rich.




The issue I have with paper gains not being taxable income is that any other means of non-liquid asset are taxed. Yes you have to pull the money out of the stocks by selling the shares. But you also have to do the same with real estate. Which you still have to pay an annual tax on. The share of ownership you have in a privately held company are not considered on paper. And you have to pay out based on that company's profits annually. Why are they factored entirely differently when something has public ownership via the market? You may not have directly benefitted from that profit in spendable cash in a given year, but you still get to count it as an asset for other purposes. If its an asset, and its value grows over a given time frame that is taxable for other assets, then it should also be taxable for that same given time frame. It doesn't matter whether or not you can use the asset immediately to buy groceries. It is part of your total value financially.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> [Cries in Quebec]
> 
> (For context, 30% is the _lowest_ tax rate you get in Quebec, once you add federal+provincial together, not counting any credits, etc.)


I think he's talking about the federal rate.

Take a person in the USA, say in Burlington, VT, making $41k/yr. The Federal rate is 22%, the State is 6.6%, and the city is 1%, so the grand total is 29.6%. That's just income tax, but it combines different levels.

If the same person gets a pay increase to $100k/yr, they'd pay 7.6% state and 24% federal, so total 32.6%. If they suddenly strike oil and make $525k in one year, they get to pay 8.75% state and 37% federal, for a total of 46.75%. That's top bracket. These brackets and the levels of taxes at each bracket vary, sometimes quite wildly, from year to year. 

I'm sure Canadians pay more in taxes than Americans United-Statians people in the USA, but I don't think 30% total income tax is weird here in the USA. Back in the 90's, I was barely making ends meet as a university student and I was paying more than that at roughly 33 1/3%. In the early 80's, a person making $20k/year would be paying like over 50% once you totaled federal, state, and city taxes.

One thing that I think needs to change is the idea of brackets. I'd rather see a continuous scale. For example, say you make $163,299.99. That'd put you in federal bracket 24% and state 7.6%, so total 32.6%, so you take home $110,064.19. Your boss gives you a two cent bonus out of the blue, which puts you up to $163,300.01, which means federal bracket 32%. Now you take home $97000. So two cents just cost you over $13k. Instead, the percentage ought to be calculated as a function of income. Let's say that anyone making less than N pays no tax, and anyone making more than M pays a flat rate xmax=C*(M-N), where C is some government-defined coefficient. Anyone earning an income Y between N and M pays C*(Y-N). With the current setup, C would be .4%/$k for lower-income people and .15%/$k for higher-income people. I think that alone exposes some of the unfairness of the system. If everyone was at C=.4$/$k, and N=$10k/yr, then people making $165k/yr would be paying 62% federal income tax instead of 32%. Also, with this scheme, the tax rate would be continuous, so making a better year-end bonus would never actually cost you tens of thousands of extra tax dollars for jumping out of your bracket.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> @tedtan
> 
> I guess what I'm getting at is that I see tons of folks trying their absolute damndest and still failing. That trying isn't really the issue I've ever seen. I can't tell you how many job fairs that I've attended on behalf of my union and the company I work for. There are folks so desperate for a chance and even if they get it they'll never make it. They just won't. Not because they just don't have what it takes, but because it's a coin toss, complete luck or chance or whatever.
> 
> I know you're not some über libertarian, survival of the fittest at the behest of our corporate overlords type. We have a lot of the same beliefs and politics, and as you've expanded on your original point it makes more sense. What I'm saying is I think we agree on a lot of stuff, just not this exactly.


I don’t mean to imply that there is any degree of guaranteed success, just that you can’t win if you don’t play the game. Or, stated differently, in the case of that old saying that a journey of one thousand miles begins with a single step, realizing that you need to make a change and deciding to do so is that first step. There is no guarantee of completing the journey, but there is no journey at all without that first step.

Unfortunately, many people go through life without ever taking that first step, drifting like a rudderless ship, allowing whatever happens to happen. I say it’s better to go down swinging (e.g., to try and fail for those who aren’t baseball fans) than to sit back and make excuses for not making the effort to achieve something better.




TedEH said:


> I remain unconvinced, since that's not been my experience - but then you're talking anecdote vs. anecdote vs. personal philosophies on what "ready to help themselves" means, Maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong, but in both cases it becomes really easy to say "my help would do nothing" so that you don't have to say "I just don't want to help", whether there's truth to either statement or not.


I don’t want to belabor the point, so I won’t keep posting after this, but perhaps this example may be a bit clearer:

Let’s’ say I have a brother who is addicted to opiates (I don’t IRL, but lets say I do), so I talk with him about getting clean. Unfortunately, he continues taking opiates. After trying this several times with no success, I get my parents, sister, and several of my brother’s friends together and hold an intervention. Afterwards, he continues with the opiates. Then, he gets arrested with opiates and at his trial, the judge sentences him to a drug treatment program where he gets clean while he is going through the program. 

When people get out of these narcotics rehabilitation programs, some stay clean, but many relapse. So will my brother stay clean when he gets out? Or will he relapse?

That depends on him. If he is ready to get clean for himself, and he “seizes agency” and makes the decision to do so and follows through doing what he needs to do in order to stay clean (which can vary from person to person), then he’ll stay clean. But otherwise he’ll relapse because no one can make him get clean. No one can do it for him, he has to do it himself for himself.

So if he stays clean, all that help was beneficial, but if relapses, it didn’t really help him. It was definitely worth trying to help him, but it didn’t achieve the desired outcome.


----------



## tedtan

Thaeon said:


> higher taxes on profits from other sources for one. I also think that not taxing gains on investments while they are still invested is a mistake. If they gain 50% in a stock one year and leave it there while markets trend down in a poor decision and lose 75% the next year, and pull their money at a loss, they get to write that off. Any other business would have been taxed on their profits and held accountable for them and thus forced to make better decisions with the money. Its zero sum in this case because either way it creates a very specific taxation advantage for the investor that allows for a situation where there is only benefit whether or not an investment fails. Its either a write-off or they don't pay taxes on it until they draw on it. Yet for all intents and purposes, its part of their valuation. Meaning they benefit in loans against net worth granting them financial power. Its not a fair practice. Sure, its high risk. But so is opening any business.


Taxing a gain without allowing a write of for a loss is kind of trying to have your cake and eat it, too, so I don’t see that working. Also, a loss is a loss, so even though it provides a write off, it isn’t a true win. It’s kind of like a football team winning a game because the other team didn’t show up. Yeah, it’s a win on paper, but not a real win.




Mathemagician said:


> So I love explaining boring concepts:
> 
> Those trying to punish regular people making under $1mm/yr and run of the mill successful people clearing $20mm/yr gross isn’t how you fix a broken tax system.
> 
> Corporate tax rates are separate from individual tax rates. Corporate rates rates should cap out at 50-65% at the highest marginal rates once revenues start entering the billions per year level.
> 
> Not for mom and pops making $20million/year but for fortune 500’s making hundreds of billions per year.
> 
> A 1% wealth tax per billion dollars of net worth on the individual would mean that for every billion an individual has (of which there are maybe a few hundred people in this country at that level) they need to come up with $10mm no matter what other taxes they do or don’t pay. I won’t get into the financials of how ludicrously easy this is to resolve. The argument “yeah but it’s all invested not liquid”. Doesn’t hold water when you can borrow against the assets for next to nothing and therefore defer paying any actual capital gains tax as it isn’t “sold”. Then they get to keep the securities and continue to experience appreciation on that asset.
> 
> People vote against taxes because the lobbyists ensure politicians write them to punish American citizens that need every dollar they get just to live. Of course that would make for an easy bill to shoot down. And that prevents proper taxation at the highest levels, where the IRS doesn’t have the teeth to go after.
> 
> Regular people shouldn’t be hitting a 30-40% marginal rate in the mid 100k’s is what I’m saying. And making $400k isn’t “rich” that’s just normal hard work/upper middle class.
> 
> But you find someone who thinks there is room to improve things and they say stuff like “tax everyone making over $200k”. Almost missing the point entirely of not punishing regular people.
> 
> Also universal healthcare would mean that smaller businesses could better compete as they won’t have to set aside precious dollars to offer benefits that compete with larger established firms. That’s actually pro-business, but large companies lobby against that.
> 
> Math is boring and it takes time to pick through good ideas versus good propaganda.


I can agree with a lot of what your are saying, but I’m not sure a 65% corporate tax would work. We had something similar during the 50s that worked at the time, but we (e.g., North Americans) also benefitted from a post WWII boom at that time because Europe and Japan were focused on rebuilding after the war whereas we didn’t have that burden here in NA. Without that artificial competitive advantage, 65% may well be too high.

Also, I can see taxing assets simply because they exist, but that’s a it broad; I would want to see carve outs for certain asset classes.


----------



## Mathemagician

tedtan said:


> Taxing a gain without allowing a write of for a loss is kind of trying to have your cake and eat it, too, so I don’t see that working. Also, a loss is a loss, so even though it provides a write off, it isn’t a true win. It’s kind of like a football team winning a game because the other team didn’t show up. Yeah, it’s a win on paper, but not a real win.
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with a lot of what your are saying, but I’m not sure a 65% corporate tax would work. We had something similar during the 50s that worked at the time, but we (e.g., North Americans) also benefitted from a post WWII boom at that time because Europe and Japan were focused on rebuilding after the war whereas we didn’t have that burden here in NA. Without that artificial competitive advantage, 65% may well be too high.
> 
> Also, I can see taxing assets simply because they exist, but that’s a it broad; I would want to see carve outs for certain asset classes.



And you see how we had a conversation? And how no one called anyone else the devil? Normal people can discuss boring things like taxation pretty reasonably even if they don’t agree as long as there are no votes to be fished for. 

I’m not delusional enough to think I’ve got stuff magically figured out, but there are directions that policy discussions can go that makes things more broadly benefit larger swaths of society. 

Like all the normal worker bees barely breaking $80k.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Mathemagician said:


> barely breaking $80k.



I would love to have this problem


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> Taxing a gain without allowing a write of for a loss is kind of trying to have your cake and eat it, too, so I don’t see that working. Also, a loss is a loss, so even though it provides a write off, it isn’t a true win. It’s kind of like a football team winning a game because the other team didn’t show up. Yeah, it’s a win on paper, but not a real win.
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with a lot of what your are saying, but I’m not sure a 65% corporate tax would work. We had something similar during the 50s that worked at the time, but we (e.g., North Americans) also benefitted from a post WWII boom at that time because Europe and Japan were focused on rebuilding after the war whereas we didn’t have that burden here in NA. Without that artificial competitive advantage, 65% may well be too high.
> 
> Also, I can see taxing assets simply because they exist, but that’s a it broad; I would want to see carve outs for certain asset classes.



65% corporate tax decidedly did NOT work

It's what led to lavish unsustainable perks that eventually tanked the big corps in USA

And high personal tax rates like 1980s Japan lead to personal perks and writeoffs instead - slow creep seniority pay, lifetime employment, and mandatory partying on the company credit card, vacations, etc.

Companies simply invent expenses and perks.

The way around it is to low-tax TURNOVER rather than profit. Really low. But on every single movement of every dollar.


----------



## Mathemagician

wheresthefbomb said:


> I would love to have this problem



Oh most Americans would. A little over 50% to be exact. And I use that number specifically because I want to drive the point home that a proper progressive tax rate should tax inflation into account. Even people making low 6 figures aren’t raging due to the costs of living in the markets where that’s possible.

Middle Class Life:
1) Maxed out 401k: $20,500 pretax

2) Marginal taxes on $60k net: $5,550

3) “Low” Rent/Mortgage Estimate: $1,700/mo ($300k home at 5.7% which is “low” for most major metros or equivalent low rent) = $20,400 for anyone saying this number is too high, $1,700/mo rent to live within 45-1hr of work is normal in major metros

4) Health insurance for individual median monthly estimate of $450/mo: $5,400/yr this is typically $1,200+/mo for families

So right now we are at $51,850 in baseline annual expenses before we even start existing.

Food bill
Electric
Water
Internet
Cell phone
Car payment (due to poor public transit)
Car insurance
Surprise Home maintenance (if mortgage)
Gasoline bill
Avocado toast ($200/mo easy)
Medical co-pays/out of pocket maximums

And that’s before anything we’d call fun. Like a single trip/vacation. You know a middle class staple.

Many of these numbers can be tweaked via smart decision making, renting with friends, eating just rice and beans, etc etc.

But that’s a rough idea of what it costs just to live somewhere that pays you $80k. And the way companies work is that if you’re making $80 you likely should be north of $100k+, so proportionally they’re still getting walked over, just less so than someone making $40 when they should be at $55+.

I’m just hoping people see it’s ok to demand more cash mooooney.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> 65% corporate tax decidedly did NOT work
> 
> It's what led to lavish unsustainable perks that eventually tanked the big corps in USA
> 
> And high personal tax rates like 1980s Japan lead to personal perks and writeoffs instead - slow creep seniority pay, lifetime employment, and mandatory partying on the company credit card, vacations, etc.
> 
> Companies simply invent expenses and perks.
> 
> The way around it is to low-tax TURNOVER rather than profit. Really low. But on every single movement of every dollar.


By “worked” I mean that it didn’t cause the companies to file bankruptcy and go out of business.

Optimizing taxes to maximize the overall benefit to society is a different discussion, and, frankly, one that I haven’t looked into in the past decade (likely longer), so I’m not up to date on the details of this topic at the moment.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> Oh most Americans would. A little over 50% to be exact. And I use that number specifically because I want to drive the point home that a proper progressive tax rate should tax inflation into account. Even people making low 6 figures aren’t raging due to the costs of living in the markets where that’s possible.
> 
> Middle Class Life:
> 1) Maxed out 401k: $20,500 pretax
> 
> 2) Marginal taxes on $60k net: $5,550
> 
> 3) “Low” Rent/Mortgage Estimate: $1,700/mo ($300k home at 5.7% which is “low” for most major metros or equivalent low rent) = $20,400 for anyone saying this number is too high, $1,700/mo rent to live within 45-1hr of work is normal in major metros
> 
> 4) Health insurance for individual median monthly estimate of $450/mo: $5,400/yr this is typically $1,200+/mo for families
> 
> So right now we are at $51,850 in baseline annual expenses before we even start existing.
> 
> Food bill
> Electric
> Water
> Internet
> Cell phone
> Car payment (due to poor public transit)
> Car insurance
> Surprise Home maintenance (if mortgage)
> Gasoline bill
> Avocado toast ($200/mo easy)
> Medical co-pays/out of pocket maximums
> 
> And that’s before anything we’d call fun. Like a single trip/vacation. You know a middle class staple.
> 
> Many of these numbers can be tweaked via smart decision making, renting with friends, eating just rice and beans, etc etc.
> 
> But that’s a rough idea of what it costs just to live somewhere that pays you $80k. And the way companies work is that if you’re making $80 you likely should be north of $100k+, so proportionally they’re still getting walked over, just less so than someone making $40 when they should be at $55+.
> 
> I’m just hoping people see it’s ok to demand more cash mooooney.



Unfortunately where I live everyone in my industry uses recruiters. So there’s no real negotiation until after you’ve been at a place for a while. 

I think people don’t understand economics well enough in general to understand that labor is a resource and the goal of resource acquisition is to get not necessarily the best person they can for as far below their market value as they can. If you got snatched up quick, you’re either a well known high performing resource, or you under priced yourself or undercut you competition. You could have asked for more in either circumstance.


----------



## Mathemagician

One piece of advice is to ask the recruiter flat out what the firm has set aside “because I’m happy where I am, and want to know it’s worth my time”.

You can negotiate intel from the recruiter off the bat because they just want bodies to get hired. If you’re interested that motivates them to share more info.

Yeah they can’t promise you anything but they may give up a lot more than whatever the initial “lowball” offer is. They are often told to offer the bottom end of whatever “range” is given. But a good recruiter doesn’t give a shit and after “trying” once they’ll just tell you what you want to know.

Hope that helps.


----------



## StevenC




----------



## RevDrucifer

tedtan said:


> We are not predestined to be what the system dictates we be; we have personal agency.
> 
> I agree that the system is fucked up, especially here in the US, but that system will never lift us up in and of itself; at best, it provides a baseline and some resources for improvement. It’s up to us to take responsibility for making use of those resources and, if need be, fighting against the system when its in our best interest to do so. While the system is fucked, we can’t use it as an excuse for failing to exercise personal agency; that’s a cop out.
> 
> 
> 
> Of couse people need help from others to improve their lot in life - EVERYIONE does, no matter where they happen to start out, including those that start out at the top - none of can do it entirely on our own.
> 
> What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter how much someone hepls if the individual in question is not ready to do thier part (including accepting the help). As an extreme example, if you give a severe drug addict a million dollars, are they more likely to 1) automatically check themselves into rehab, get clean, buy a house, and get a job, or 2) do a million dollars worth of their drug of choice and end up back in the same situation where they started? Option 1 is possible, but it requires the individual to exercise personal agency and be willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to effect that outcome. It doesn’t matter how much others try to help that individual if the individual isn’t serious about helping themself first.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an example of exactly what I’m talking about. Your ex’s family encouraged you to help yourself in life, but all that encouragement would be nothing but hot air if you yourself hadn’t taken the initiative to make a plan to go to HVAC school and improve your situation.
> 
> YOU exercised your personal agency, YOU were willing to make the decisions and changes necessary to improve your situation, and YOU followed through and made it happen. Don’t get me wrong, you had help. From your ex, from her family, from your instructors, from your fellow students, from contacts that you made along the way, etc., etc. But ultimately, YOU made the decision to excercise your personal agency, take responsibility for your life, and do what was necessary to improve things for yourself,
> 
> If you hadn’t made that decision, all your ex’s family’s encouragement would have been hot air and you would still be working retail and/or restaurant jobs.
> 
> Don’t underestimate the part you played in that equation (I’m using a math analogy for Narad ).
> 
> That decision to accept personal agency and responsibility acts as a catalyst that allows us to begin making the necessary changes, to receive the help from others, to recognize the opportunities available to us, etc. It is a necessary first step. Not the be all, end all, but a necessary first step.
> 
> And I’ve seen this way, way too many time from people, mostly immigrants, who start with nothing and end up multimillionaires, always via starting a business, to accept that the system, as fucked up as it is, predestines our lot in life. We have FAR more control over where we end up than most of us are willing to admit.



And none of it would have happened had I not experienced a different outlook on life via people who were not living in the same situation I was in. I got to see when I was younger what people could accomplish if they focused their efforts, there are a lot of people who never see examples of that and even if they do, do not have the support system to back them up while exercising that personal agency.


----------



## Randy

Welp, it's that time again


----------



## narad

Damn, I used to live right around there! I think that's probably not my old Tops, but it's like at most 3 Tops away.

“If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number,” the manifesto begins. “To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman.

“Why did you target those people?” The answer: “They are an obvious, visible, and large group of replacers. From a culture with higher fertility rates and strong, robust traditions that seek to occupy my peoples lands and ethnically replace my own people. It would have eased me if I knew all the blacks I would be killing were criminals or future criminals, but then I realized all black people are replacers just by existing in White countries.”


----------



## TedintheShed

I wrote this rant a few days ago. 


Damnit, Democrats. Damn you all to hell...​


> Your feckless leader just canceled a million acre gas/oil lease. Do you understand the effect this will have on just fuel prices but the economy as well?
> 
> I can't think you and your leaders are that stupid. I think it's intentional. I think you are purposefull inflicting pain in a piss poor attempt to spur the green sector.
> 
> But worse of all, now you got be considering doing something that I have done in over 3 decades: voting.
> 
> I am principally and morally against voting. It's immoral. But still,...
> 
> And worse yet, I'd be casting a vote for a man I loathe and hate. The Tangerine Tyrant. But what choice would I have?
> 
> Assholes.
> 
> Hopefully it won't be so close that I would feel the need. At this rate, thats likely.
> 
> Still...you're assholes.
> 
> /rant


----------



## Randy

TedintheShed said:


> I wrote this rant a few days ago.


Joe Biden sucks but I reckon this is a little oversimplified a gripe or solution.

Sometimes the issue they're chasing down is just (like climate change or banning Russian oil) but not enough effort is made to insulate average Americans from the fallout from those decisions or help move them along to step 2. 

When the gas prices started creeping up the first time, I saw it start with Mayor Pete and then parroted among pundits (Colbert among them) "Oh well, here's the reason you should be driving an electric car". And maybe ultimately driving traditional gas powered cars is something we need to move beyond (maybe not), but telling people driving a 10 year old car that can barely afford their mortgage that they should buy (err.. get on the waiting list for) a $48,000 car is ludicrous. The fact this was an actual talking point they are floated out there tells you everything you need to know about the disconnect between this administration and average Americans.

I think running straight to Trump or anyone else that says drill baby drill is just kneejerk reactionary stuff that's either not gonna get you the outcome you hope for, or it's going to be a bandaid and you're gonna have to revisit your oil dependency another two, three or four years later anyway. There was plenty wrong with Trump and even supposing that specific thing is better while he's in office (gas prices), whatever he did while he was there didn't protect us from the circumstances that happened barely two years after he left. Long term solutions shouldn't be that volatile.


----------



## thraxil

Mathemagician said:


> Yeah they can’t promise you anything but they may give up a lot more than whatever the initial “lowball” offer is. They are often told to offer the bottom end of whatever “range” is given. But a good recruiter doesn’t give a shit and after “trying” once they’ll just tell you what you want to know.



I have some in-demand skills on my resume/LinkedIn and as a result get TONS of recruiter emails. I'm not looking for a new job so I used to just ignore them. Lately, I've been replying to every one that has a salary range listed and telling them that I already make significantly more than the range they stated (sometimes I do, sometimes it's a lie) and that they should tell their clients to adjust to the current market rate if they want to find qualified candidates. Hoping that helps someone else make a bit more.


----------



## Andromalia

bostjan said:


> Your boss gives you a two cent bonus out of the blue, which puts you up to $163,300.01, which means federal bracket 32%. Now you take home $97000. So two cents just cost you over $13k


Taxes don't work that way in *any* country. (that I know of)
The upper brackket only applies to the part of the money that is inside it. To take your exemple, you'd pay 32% only on the 1 cent that is above the previous bracket. Earning more gross money *never* results in a net loss.

In France we pay:
11% for the money between 11K to 26K
30% on the money from 26K to 74K
41% on the money from 74K to 160K
45% on everything over 160K.

I believe brackets in the US work in the exact same way, just with different numbers and tresholds.


----------



## spudmunkey

Andromalia said:


> Taxes don't work that way in *any* country. (that I know of)
> The upper brackket only applies to the part of the money that is inside it. To take your exemple, you'd pay 32% only on the 1 cent that is above the previous bracket. Earning more gross money *never* results in a net loss.
> 
> In France we pay:
> 11% for the money between 11K to 26K
> 30% on the money from 26K to 74K
> 41% on the money from 74K to 160K
> 45% on everything over 160K.
> 
> I believe brackets in the US work in the exact same way, just with different numbers and tresholds.


Indeed. Federal income tax is a progressive tax here in the US, as well.


----------



## profwoot

TedintheShed said:


> I wrote this rant a few days ago.
> 
> 
> Damnit, Democrats. Damn you all to hell...​


Gas prices going up? Just like they are in every country? Welp, better become a fascist.

Cool.


----------



## bostjan

Andromalia said:


> Taxes don't work that way in *any* country. (that I know of)
> The upper brackket only applies to the part of the money that is inside it. To take your exemple, you'd pay 32% only on the 1 cent that is above the previous bracket. Earning more gross money *never* results in a net loss.
> 
> In France we pay:
> 11% for the money between 11K to 26K
> 30% on the money from 26K to 74K
> 41% on the money from 74K to 160K
> 45% on everything over 160K.
> 
> I believe brackets in the US work in the exact same way, just with different numbers and tresholds.


You are correct. I just did my taxes a few months ago, too, so IDK what I was thinking


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> You are correct. I just did my taxes a few months ago, too, so IDK what I was thinking


I've been told a number of times by otherwise very reasonable people that they thought it worked that way (your take-home becomes less because you're in the bottom of a higher bracket vs. the top of the lower bracket) but as far as I know, it's never worked that way. I think it's a very common misconception.


----------



## thraxil

TedEH said:


> I've been told a number of times by otherwise very reasonable people that they thought it worked that way (your take-home becomes less because you're in the bottom of a higher bracket vs. the top of the lower bracket) but as far as I know, it's never worked that way. I think it's a very common misconception.



FWIW, there are a couple very specific situations (at least in the UK) where it can kind of work like that. Over here, there's a threshold where you lose certain credits/exemptions entirely and if you're not careful a £1 salary increase _could_ end up with your take-home actually decreasing a bit. Also, as soon as you cross £100k as an employee, you are required to file taxes independently ("self assessment") which may or may not require you to pay an accountant (or at least spend a lot more time on your taxes than most brits are accustomed to). But, altogether, those exceptions are fairly rare and minimal and it's almost always much better to just take the salary increase.


----------



## Mathemagician

thraxil said:


> I have some in-demand skills on my resume/LinkedIn and as a result get TONS of recruiter emails. I'm not looking for a new job so I used to just ignore them. Lately, I've been replying to every one that has a salary range listed and telling them that I already make significantly more than the range they stated (sometimes I do, sometimes it's a lie) and that they should tell their clients to adjust to the current market rate if they want to find qualified candidates. Hoping that helps someone else make a bit more.



The sheer volume of cold “offers” I get where they are offering “all-in” comp far below even just the median base in the market explains any “hiring shortages” that white collar jobs may be experiencing. 

Flat out they are all, _*all *_offering exactly what they were offering circa 2004-2005. 

These cheap fucks are now looking at Gen Z with hungry eyes excitedly about to offer them the same shit they were offering Gen X and millenials 10-15+ years ago for mid-level roles.


----------



## TedintheShed

profwoot said:


> Gas prices going up? Just like they are in every country? Welp, better become a fascist.
> 
> Cool.



I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. If you are using it in the context of 1920's Italy style fascism, then you've no idea. No president,, not even Trump, has been a dictator. 

If you are using it as an adjective to simply describe autocratic control then that's been every president since the mid 1800's. 

However yiy mean it, you should apply it consistently.


----------



## TedintheShed

Randy said:


> Joe Biden sucks but I reckon this is a little oversimplified a gripe or solution.
> 
> Sometimes the issue they're chasing down is just (like climate change or banning Russian oil) but not enough effort is made to insulate average Americans from the fallout from those decisions or help move them along to step 2.
> 
> When the gas prices started creeping up the first time, I saw it start with Mayor Pete and then parroted among pundits (Colbert among them) "Oh well, here's the reason you should be driving an electric car". And maybe ultimately driving traditional gas powered cars is something we need to move beyond (maybe not), but telling people driving a 10 year old car that can barely afford their mortgage that they should buy (err.. get on the waiting list for) a $48,000 car is ludicrous. The fact this was an actual talking point they are floated out there tells you everything you need to know about the disconnect between this administration and average Americans.
> 
> I think running straight to Trump or anyone else that says drill baby drill is just kneejerk reactionary stuff that's either not gonna get you the outcome you hope for, or it's going to be a bandaid and you're gonna have to revisit your oil dependency another two, three or four years later anyway. There was plenty wrong with Trump and even supposing that specific thing is better while he's in office (gas prices), whatever he did while he was there didn't protect us from the circumstances that happened barely two years after he left. Long term solutions shouldn't be that volatile.



Running to Trump? No- not at all. But the liklihood of Trump being the Republican candidate is pretty high. On there was tons and tons wrong with Trump, however short of tarrifs he.imposed his economic policies were better than the current regime. Not much, but still better. 

And no, this is t all "drill baby drill". That's a simplistic view. It's an amalgamation of monetary policy, spending and shrinking the availability of our domestic energy supply.


----------



## Randy

TedintheShed said:


> Running to Trump? No- not at all. But the liklihood of Trump being the Republican candidate is pretty high. On there was tons and tons wrong with Trump, however short of tarrifs he.imposed his economic policies were better than the current regime. Not much, but still better.
> 
> And no, this is t all "drill baby drill". That's a simplistic view. It's an amalgamation of monetary policy, spending and shrinking the availability of our domestic energy supply.


That's fair. I'm not convinced Trump is the only choice for the Republican Party or that Biden (or Harris) is the only option for the Democrats.

This far out, I think would be a good time for your (IMO) legitimate complaints to sharpen the pool of candidates down to someone better than those two fools. I think we can do better than the world the way it's been the last 6 years.


----------



## TedintheShed

Randy said:


> That's fair. I'm not convinced Trump is the only choice for the Republican Party or that Biden (or Harris) is the only option for the Democrats.
> 
> This far out, I think would be a good time for your (IMO) legitimate complaints to sharpen the pool of candidates down to someone better than those two fools. I think we can do better than the world the way it's been the last 6 years.




Only choice? Obviously not. However they are the most likely, and that's by a long shot. I'd like them to "sharpen the pool of candidates" but the parties have been abject failures when do this for decades now. They do not inspire confidence.


----------



## profwoot

TedintheShed said:


> I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. If you are using it in the context of 1920's Italy style fascism, then you've no idea. No president,, not even Trump, has been a dictator.
> 
> If you are using it as an adjective to simply describe autocratic control then that's been every president since the mid 1800's.
> 
> However yiy mean it, you should apply it consistently.


The Republican party is a fascist movement. The pretense of their being simple country folk on the lookout for government overreach is long over. Trump tried very, very hard to install himself as dictator. That he and his party did not succeed (yet) does not make them any less fascist. Look at what scholars of fascism have said about commonalities among fascist movements, and today's Republicans tick every box.

Meanwhile, Democrats make at least some effort to think about the future. Should Biden have continued buying Putin's oil? Should he be pushing still more giveaways to the corporations grinding the working class into dust? "The economy" would surely be better if he did, in the short term. If voters refuse to consider anything beyond today, then we have no chance.


----------



## TedintheShed

profwoot said:


> The Republican party is a fascist movement. The pretense of their being simple country folk on the lookout for government overreach is long over. Trump tried very, very hard to install himself as dictator. That he and his party did not succeed (yet) does not make them any less fascist. Look at what scholars of fascism have said about commonalities among fascist movements, and today's Republicans tick every box.
> 
> Meanwhile, Democrats make at least some effort to think about the future. Should Biden have continued buying Putin's oil? Should he be pushing still more giveaways to the corporations grinding the working class into dust? "The economy" would surely be better if he did, in the short term. If voters refuse to consider anything beyond today, then we have no chance.


Again, you have not specified the definition of fascist that you are utilizing so your statement is meaningless. But I would assert that in anyway, shape or form that you would apply "fascist" to the Republican Party one certainly could apply it to the Democratic Party as well.

That said, if you review the conversation that @Randy and I had, "Putin's Oil" had little to do with it.

Regarding the cororations commentary, crony capitalism (to which I believe you referring) is easily a bi-partisan issue.


----------



## narad

profwoot said:


> The Republican party is a fascist movement. The pretense of their being simple country folk on the lookout for government overreach is long over. Trump tried very, very hard to install himself as dictator. That he and his party did not succeed (yet) does not make them any less fascist. Look at what scholars of fascism have said about commonalities among fascist movements, and today's Republicans tick every box.
> 
> Meanwhile, Democrats make at least some effort to think about the future. Should Biden have continued buying Putin's oil? Should he be pushing still more giveaways to the corporations grinding the working class into dust? "The economy" would surely be better if he did, in the short term. If voters refuse to consider anything beyond today, then we have no chance.



I hate how Trump does this thing where he floats some before unthinkable idea down the road to fascism/dictatorship. ~"You know, so and so just won re-election. It's a life-term. How about that? That's sounds kinda nice - think we should try that here? <laugh> Nah, I'm just kidding. Or am I? We'll leave that up to you guys."

And yea, if every election that doesn't end with you winning is stolen, and if you should be able to be elected for life, and the media can't say anything against you without being fake (and you can call out for them to be fired or shot), I'll let everyone infer whether that is or is not a dictatorship lol 

I don't recall these ideas being pushed around by the democrats..


----------



## Andromalia

TedintheShed said:


> Again, you have not specified the definition of fascist that you are utilizing so your statement is meaningless. But I would assert that in anyway, shape or form that you would apply "fascist" to the Republican Party one certainly could apply it to the Democratic Party as well.


The assault on the capitol, trying to use organised and planned violence to change the result of an election, is a component of fascist regimes. It failed, but so did the aborted putsch in 1923.


----------



## StevenC

Ah yes

"Voting is immoral" should have been the first sign not to engage with this guy


----------



## loganflynn294

narad said:


> Damn, I used to live right around there! I think that's probably not my old Tops, but it's like at most 3 Tops away.
> 
> “If there’s one thing I want you to get from these writings, it’s that White birth rates must change. Everyday the White population becomes fewer in number,” the manifesto begins. “To maintain a population the people must achieve a birth rate that reaches replacement fertility levels, in the western world that is about 2.06 births per woman.
> 
> “Why did you target those people?” The answer: “They are an obvious, visible, and large group of replacers. From a culture with higher fertility rates and strong, robust traditions that seek to occupy my peoples lands and ethnically replace my own people. It would have eased me if I knew all the blacks I would be killing were criminals or future criminals, but then I realized all black people are replacers just by existing in White countries.”


Where about did you used to live if you don’t mind me asking? I’ve lived in Buffalo and the surrounding ‘burbs my whole life. South Buffalo, Cheektowaga, and Lancaster to be exact. We’ve got problems just like any other city, but this isn’t something I ever thought would happen here. Absolutely sickening.


----------



## narad

loganflynn294 said:


> Where about did you used to live if you don’t mind me asking? I’ve lived in Buffalo and the surrounding ‘burbs my whole life. South Buffalo, Cheektowaga, and Lancaster to be exact. We’ve got problems just like any other city, but this isn’t something I ever thought would happen here. Absolutely sickening.



Elmwood village and later Amherst. Amherst was pretty safe overall.... Elmwood, I was a bit on edge. But I later moved to Baltimore which is just leveling up all threats.


----------



## profwoot

narad said:


> I hate how Trump does this thing where he floats some before unthinkable idea down the road to fascism/dictatorship. ~"You know, so and so just won re-election. It's a life-term. How about that? That's sounds kinda nice - think we should try that here? <laugh> Nah, I'm just kidding. Or am I? We'll leave that up to you guys."
> 
> And yea, if every election that doesn't end with you winning is stolen, and if you should be able to be elected for life, and the media can't say anything against you without being fake (and you can call out for them to be fired or shot), I'll let everyone infer whether that is or is not a dictatorship lol
> 
> I don't recall these ideas being pushed around by the democrats..


Add in their being corporatist, anti-union, anti-democracy, anti-urban, nationalist, populist, sexist, misogynist, racist

Their worship of and alliance with the military and police, including paramilitary terrorist groups that were allowed to run amok during the Trump years

Constant moral panics -- most classically and persistently the fear of immigrants and Marxism, but CRT, vaccines, pedophilia, child cannibalism, etc. also fit here

White nationalism -- the most popular pundit in America is Tucker Carlson, whose nightly Great Replacement Theory rants continue to inspire stochastic terrorism, e.g., the Buffalo shooter's manifesto was mostly GRT conspiracism, much of it seemingly cribbed from Carlson

The need to always have a named bogeyman to whip up fear and rage -- Hillary Clinton being the main one for a long time, but more recently Tony Fauci and various celebrities, with efforts continuing re milquetoast Biden but it's been disappointingly slow for them

Conspiratorial thinking in general, with a large number of baseless stories having become shibboleths serving the same purpose as religious doctrines in identifying who's on your side and who is the enemy -- those not willing to accept obvious bullshit clearly can't be trusted

Hatred of the media who fact check their nonsense, and constant propaganda to flood the national dialogue with bullshit to encourage clear-thinking folk to disengage and generally to divorce the conversation from factual foundation

Belief that a strongman is necessary to counteract the (((globalists)))

All these and various others that I could name are attributes of fascist movements and Republicans. At this point denying that the modern Republican party is a fascist movement can only be due to motivated reasoning.

Democrats, meanwhile, certainly do cling to power when they can get it. They're not nakedly corrupt, most of them, but they do mostly govern out of fear of losing power, so they let the fascists set the agenda and generally suck at getting anything done. Because fascism is the laziest of ideologies, and as social media platforms refuse to tweak their algorithms to avoid being fascist indoctrination machines, I'm not even sure the Democrats' approach is wrong. Maybe just occupying the halls of power and running clock while hoping the people pull their heads out of their asses is the right move. I don't personally believe so, and find their shiftlessness endlessly frustrating, but I acknowledge that battling fascism is dicey, especially when so few people on the left (such as it is) acknowledge what the right in this country has become.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> One piece of advice is to ask the recruiter flat out what the firm has set aside “because I’m happy where I am, and want to know it’s worth my time”.
> 
> You can negotiate intel from the recruiter off the bat because they just want bodies to get hired. If you’re interested that motivates them to share more info.
> 
> Yeah they can’t promise you anything but they may give up a lot more than whatever the initial “lowball” offer is. They are often told to offer the bottom end of whatever “range” is given. But a good recruiter doesn’t give a shit and after “trying” once they’ll just tell you what you want to know.
> 
> Hope that helps.



I'm already at the top of what people are willing to pay for what I do. Took six months to find the job I have now.



Randy said:


> Joe Biden sucks but I reckon this is a little oversimplified a gripe or solution.
> 
> Sometimes the issue they're chasing down is just (like climate change or banning Russian oil) but not enough effort is made to insulate average Americans from the fallout from those decisions or help move them along to step 2.
> 
> When the gas prices started creeping up the first time, I saw it start with Mayor Pete and then parroted among pundits (Colbert among them) "Oh well, here's the reason you should be driving an electric car". And maybe ultimately driving traditional gas powered cars is something we need to move beyond (maybe not), but telling people driving a 10 year old car that can barely afford their mortgage that they should buy (err.. get on the waiting list for) a $48,000 car is ludicrous. The fact this was an actual talking point they are floated out there tells you everything you need to know about the disconnect between this administration and average Americans.
> 
> I think running straight to Trump or anyone else that says drill baby drill is just kneejerk reactionary stuff that's either not gonna get you the outcome you hope for, or it's going to be a bandaid and you're gonna have to revisit your oil dependency another two, three or four years later anyway. There was plenty wrong with Trump and even supposing that specific thing is better while he's in office (gas prices), whatever he did while he was there didn't protect us from the circumstances that happened barely two years after he left. Long term solutions shouldn't be that volatile.



Yeah, I'm tired of people blaming Biden, or any politician for gas prices. The whole world is paying more because of an artificial shortage in a speculative market while an unhinged lunatic tries to violently recapture his idea of the 'glory days' in his country and prevent sharing a border with NATO. I'm not saying that the way we handled Bin Ladin should be on the table. But I'm not saying it should be off the table either. There would certainly be much less suffering happening.



Mathemagician said:


> The sheer volume of cold “offers” I get where they are offering “all-in” comp far below even just the median base in the market explains any “hiring shortages” that white collar jobs may be experiencing.
> 
> Flat out they are all, _*all *_offering exactly what they were offering circa 2004-2005.
> 
> These cheap fucks are now looking at Gen Z with hungry eyes excitedly about to offer them the same shit they were offering Gen X and millenials 10-15+ years ago for mid-level roles.



Yeah, I've made almost the same money for the last 10 years. People keep giving me the opportunity for growth speech, but its always growth in ways that have nothing to do with my career. Taking me away from the technical part of my job and pushing me towards management. There's a part of me that is just wanting to take the risk and open my own business, but I don't have the potential human resources to make that happen in the town I'm in. I KNOW that's even more management, and administration than I'd want to field for an employer, but its different when it's your thing.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> I've been told a number of times by otherwise very reasonable people that they thought it worked that way (your take-home becomes less because you're in the bottom of a higher bracket vs. the top of the lower bracket) but as far as I know, it's never worked that way. I think it's a very common misconception.


I've explained this to a number of_ surprisingly_ intelligent people, too. 

Honestly, part of this is the IRS's fault - they DO explain the nature of the calculation, but for simplicity's sake try to direct you to tax tables where income is broken out by like $1k or $5k increments and they tell you what your tax liability is wihtin that band, so it kind of obscures _how_ your taxes due is calculated. Because of that, it's pretty easy to see that the tax rate increases with income, but not catch that it's only marginal dollars _over_ that breakpoint that are taxed at the higher rate.


----------



## eaeolian

narad said:


> But I later moved to Baltimore which is just leveling up all threats.


Sadly, that's probably the truest statement in this thread.


----------



## eaeolian

Thaeon said:


> Yeah, I've made almost the same money for the last 10 years. People keep giving me the opportunity for growth speech, but its always growth in ways that have nothing to do with my career. Taking me away from the technical part of my job and pushing me towards management. There's a part of me that is just wanting to take the risk and open my own business, but I don't have the potential human resources to make that happen in the town I'm in. I KNOW that's even more management, and administration than I'd want to field for an employer, but its different when it's your thing.



This mindset is incredibly useless. "Hey, let's take this person that's good at this, and make them learn something else to give them more money". Especially in application development, that's just stupid. I get into these policy arguments all the time "well, a team lead shouldn't be coding, they should be interfacing with the client". No, they should be freaking coding! It's what they're good at!


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> The issue I have with paper gains not being taxable income is that any other means of non-liquid asset are taxed. Yes you have to pull the money out of the stocks by selling the shares. But you also have to do the same with real estate. Which you still have to pay an annual tax on. The share of ownership you have in a privately held company are not considered on paper. And you have to pay out based on that company's profits annually. Why are they factored entirely differently when something has public ownership via the market? You may not have directly benefitted from that profit in spendable cash in a given year, but you still get to count it as an asset for other purposes. If its an asset, and its value grows over a given time frame that is taxable for other assets, then it should also be taxable for that same given time frame. It doesn't matter whether or not you can use the asset immediately to buy groceries. It is part of your total value financially.


Not really the same thing, though.

Real estate is not federally taxable. GAINS on real estate are, but only when realized, and with exemptions that allow you to shelter most of the gains on the sale of a primary residence, especially if it in turn will then be reinvested into the purchase of another primary residence.

Real estate is taxed, on assessed and not estimated market, value, on a _local_ basis, as a source of funding for local government initiatives, most notably schools. Even then, even if somehow assessed value and market value agreed closely, you're not taxed by treating unrealized gains as income, you're taxed by paying a nominal percentage of the total asset value of the property on an annual basis.

There are not many assets - none I can think of, in fact - that are taxed federally based on asset value, much less based on unrealized gains.

Taking it one step further, if you were to start taxing the asset value of appreciated investment assets, you'd probably have to stop taxing dividends or income, or realized gains, as doing so would represent double taxation (since you're taxing gains as they occur, and including the value of not-yet-distributed income in the asset value until the dividend is declared, the latter being doubly tricky because this would represent appreciation of the asset until the dividend was declared so you'd be taxing both appreciation, and distribution of income capital). Beyond that, if you were to include unrealized gains as income in tax calculations, then logically you'd need to do the same with unrealized losses, which means whenever the market rolled over suddenly people would have massive unrealized losses to deduct from their income taxes, and in practice recessions would cause very wealthy people to pay no taxes.

It's not as clean a change as you might think. Honestly, equalizing the accounting treatment of salary income/income from labor and investment income/income from capital is going to get you a lot further towards equitable tax treatment, I think, than trying to institute asset-based taxes or taxing unrealized gains.

EDIT - maybe look at it this way. You hypothesized a scenario where someone bought stock, made 50% in unrealized gains that were not taxed in one year, and then had the value depreciate by 75% in year two and sold at the end of the year. Let's say it's $100,000. Your terminal value after two years is $100,000*(1+(0.5))*(1+(-0.75)) = $37,500 or down -62.5%. If you were paying 15% capital gains tax, you'd pay gains of 15% of your yearly gain/loss, which in year 1 would be ($150k-100k=) $50k*15% = $7,500. Year two, your yearly gain loss would be ($150k - $37.5k =) -$115,500*15% or -$16,875, which you could then write off the loss of $115.5k on your taxes to reduce your tax liability by that same $16,875. But, here's the thing - your net tax liability across those two years would be +$7,500 plus -$16,875, or -$9,375, which if you do the math on the current process of just looking at realized gains/losses over cost basis (your purchase value), then you have a loss of $62,500, and sure enough 15% of that is $9,375.

Calculating taxes based on unrealized gains _doesn't actually change the total taxes due over the full two year period_ in your example. It just means in year 1 you pay taxes on an additional $50k in "income," and in year 2 have an additional $115.5k you can write off against other income. There's no net change in how much taxable gains are generated over the full holding period, and the only way this generates _more_ tax revenue, in the long run, than the current approach is if cost basis doesn't reset and mark to market every year when taxes are due, which again is a form of double taxation because you're taxing previously taxed unrealized gains every year, and if prices always go up and no one ever holds assets at a loss.

EDIT 2 - @tedtan actually hit this point too, I see, but without walking through the math. either way, yeah, taxing unrealized gains and losses doesn't actually increase tax revenue in the long run, and causes a lot of operational problems to get there. This is also before we start talking about other practical problems - it's easy to calculate the value of 1,000 shares of Apple, but how do you determine the value of a painting? Or a rate guitar? Or, for that matter, the market value of a house (which is an asset, and normally has realized gains taxed when sold unless certain tests are met)? Do we really want the IRS getting into the weeds about whether or not the house you purchased for $450,000 at the start of last year is now worth $435,000 and you have a $15k tax deduction, or if it's actually worth $475,000 and you owe taxes on another $25k in "income" from the unrealized gains? It gets really messy really quickly once you start talking about the market value of assets in asset classes without highly efficient markets and excellent price discovery.

EDIT 3 - but, here, for me, is the fundamental question. If I buy 100,000 shares of Apple at the start of the year, sell them at the end of the year two years later, and make a gain of $200,000 over two years over and above my original purchase price, why should I pay taxes of 15% on that gain, but if I were to take a second job at Apple, work there for two years at $100k a year, get paid $200k in salary over those two years, why should I be paying a marginal tax rate of 22% on that income? If you want to talk about the taxation of gains, IMO thats the REAL issue.


----------



## TedEH

eaeolian said:


> No, they should be freaking coding! It's what they're good at!


Any call center I've worked in has had this problem. Because promotion always meant being promoted _away_ from what you're good at. So you end up with a bunch of "managers" who are great at being phone agents, but bad at management, and all the shitty agents stay on the phone. Overall quality always just trends down, combated only by new streams of "talent" because of high turnover.


----------



## Thaeon

wheresthefbomb said:


> I hate this band but I'm glad Tim Henson is out here looking like he does making life a little more awkward for all the fucking squares in the house.





Drew said:


> Not really the same thing, though.
> 
> Real estate is not federally taxable. GAINS on real estate are, but only when realized, and with exemptions that allow you to shelter most of the gains on the sale of a primary residence, especially if it in turn will then be reinvested into the purchase of another primary residence.
> 
> Real estate is taxed, on assessed and not estimated market, value, on a _local_ basis, as a source of funding for local government initiatives, most notably schools. Even then, even if somehow assessed value and market value agreed closely, you're not taxed by treating unrealized gains as income, you're taxed by paying a nominal percentage of the total asset value of the property on an annual basis.
> 
> There are not many assets - none I can think of, in fact - that are taxed federally based on asset value, much less based on unrealized gains.
> 
> Taking it one step further, if you were to start taxing the asset value of appreciated investment assets, you'd probably have to stop taxing dividends or income, or realized gains, as doing so would represent double taxation (since you're taxing gains as they occur, and including the value of not-yet-distributed income in the asset value until the dividend is declared, the latter being doubly tricky because this would represent appreciation of the asset until the dividend was declared so you'd be taxing both appreciation, and distribution of income capital). Beyond that, if you were to include unrealized gains as income in tax calculations, then logically you'd need to do the same with unrealized losses, which means whenever the market rolled over suddenly people would have massive unrealized losses to deduct from their income taxes, and in practice recessions would cause very wealthy people to pay no taxes.
> 
> It's not as clean a change as you might think. Honestly, equalizing the accounting treatment of salary income/income from labor and investment income/income from capital is going to get you a lot further towards equitable tax treatment, I think, than trying to institute asset-based taxes or taxing unrealized gains.
> 
> EDIT - maybe look at it this way. You hypothesized a scenario where someone bought stock, made 50% in unrealized gains that were not taxed in one year, and then had the value depreciate by 75% in year two and sold at the end of the year. Let's say it's $100,000. Your terminal value after two years is $100,000*(1+(0.5))*(1+(-0.75)) = $37,500 or down -62.5%. If you were paying 15% capital gains tax, you'd pay gains of 15% of your yearly gain/loss, which in year 1 would be ($150k-100k=) $50k*15% = $7,500. Year two, your yearly gain loss would be ($150k - $37.5k =) -$115,500*15% or -$16,875, which you could then write off the loss of $115.5k on your taxes to reduce your tax liability by that same $16,875. But, here's the thing - your net tax liability across those two years would be +$7,500 plus -$16,875, or -$9,375, which if you do the math on the current process of just looking at realized gains/losses over cost basis (your purchase value), then you have a loss of $62,500, and sure enough 15% of that is $9,375.
> 
> Calculating taxes based on unrealized gains _doesn't actually change the total taxes due over the full two year period_ in your example. It just means in year 1 you pay taxes on an additional $50k in "income," and in year 2 have an additional $115.5k you can write off against other income. There's no net change in how much taxable gains are generated over the full holding period, and the only way this generates _more_ tax revenue, in the long run, than the current approach is if cost basis doesn't reset and mark to market every year when taxes are due, which again is a form of double taxation because you're taxing previously taxed unrealized gains every year, and if prices always go up and no one ever holds assets at a loss.




No, I'm not suggesting taxing it as realized in addition to taxing it as annual profits. As far as real estate goes, I think that when you're using an owned property for the purposes of making profit then it should be taxed differently. That's maybe a whole other conversation. I also understand you're not going to derive more actual funds from changing how something is taxed. But it does change when those funds are available to be taxed. Rather than all at once, on the back end. It may be less convenient for the person holding ownership, but it means that the collective value of the market is getting taxed every year, rather than only what is realized. I'm okay with someone who loses their ass in the market not paying taxes for a year.


----------



## Thaeon

TedEH said:


> Any call center I've worked in has had this problem. Because promotion always meant being promoted _away_ from what you're good at. So you end up with a bunch of "managers" who are great at being phone agents, but bad at management, and all the shitty agents stay on the phone. Overall quality always just trends down, combated only by new streams of "talent" because of high turnover.




The race to mediocrity. I can understand being a coder and leading a team of coders. But you should still be coding. Or compiling the work of your team and testing it. Working with other teams to get everything talking between projects. Etc. But doing administrative things? No. Your skill set isn't managing budgets and negotiating timelines for projects. Your skill set is coding. Or whatever it is that you do. Hire managers to manage. With the ONE caveat, that managers work for their team, not their managers. The biggest problem I see with management is asking for things to be done in time frames that don't make sense because they don't know what they're asking for and don't understand how long the work the project requires takes. They'll hear their teams, but they listen only to what their boss wants.


----------



## Mathemagician

Lmao, “opportunity for growth” just means you’re about to get more worked dumped on you without the pay or title. And then after a while they’ll give you the title with either no raise or an insulting sub 10% “raise”. 

That’s true whether it’s an office job or a retail job changing oil. 

But they’ll sure be free with giving out atta-boys and praise though. ‘Cause that’s gonna pay someone’s mortgage. Gotta keep the hard working Type B personalities just hopeful enough that next time “management approves a bigger raise”.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> Lmao, “opportunity for growth” just means you’re about to get more worked dumped on you without the pay or title. And then after a while they’ll give you the title with either no raise or an insulting sub 10% “raise”.
> 
> That’s true whether it’s an office job or a retail job changing oil.
> 
> But they’ll sure be free with giving out atta-boys and praise though. ‘Cause that’s gonna pay someone’s mortgage. Gotta keep the hard working Type B personalities just hopeful enough that next time “management approves a bigger raise”.



I'm not taking any position changes or increases in responsibility without a raise. Period. I'm 42. I've been in my industry for 10 years. Just, no.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> No, I'm not suggesting taxing it as realized in addition to taxing it as annual profits. As far as real estate goes, I think that when you're using an owned property for the purposes of making profit then it should be taxed differently. That's maybe a whole other conversation. I also understand you're not going to derive more actual funds from changing how something is taxed. But it does change when those funds are available to be taxed. Rather than all at once, on the back end. It may be less convenient for the person holding ownership, but it means that the collective value of the market is getting taxed every year, rather than only what is realized. I'm okay with someone who loses their ass in the market not paying taxes for a year.


That's kind of what we're getting at in the tax code with the exemption for capital gains on the sale of a primary residence - it's an attempt to differentiate between real estate capital gains on a property purchased as an investment, vs one purchased as a residence. So, in that respect, yes, its's already in the tax code. 

As far as the timing of capital gains vs just taxing all gains or losses and resetting the tax basis every year, well, again, I think the practical challenges in doing this are too hard - exchange-traded assets aren't that hard to value, but what about a rental property? What about someone investing in rare art or wine? Or vintage Ferraris? And, considering this doesn't actually increase tax revenue, that means you're adding a _ton_ of complexity and work to the taxation process for no net revenue gain. That's a tough sell. The advantage of taxing realized gains is that your two valuation points needed to determine your realized gain, your buying price (the cost) and your selling price (which, minus the cost, is your gain) are both easily observable market-tested valuations that require no subjectivity. You don't have to know a _thing_ about what a Ferrari or a first growth Bordeaux from a given vintage _should_ be worth, to know how much of a gain someone sold it at. 

It just seems an awfully, well, _weird_ change to want to push for, and I'm not sure I understand what the upside is that would make it worth so much extra complexity, labor, and subjectivity.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I'm not taking any position changes or increases in responsibility without a raise. Period. I'm 42. I've been in my industry for 10 years. Just, no.


I promise I'm not singling you out in this thread.  

But, I'm about the same age as you, have been in my industry even longer, and there's a few situations where I would. 

1) the new responsibilities are more interesting than my old ones, so I'm making the same money, but am enjoying what I do more. 
2) the new responsibilities may not get me paid more in my current job, but allow me to add experience to my resume that will allow me to move into a new job somewhere else either making more money, or doing work that I find more interesting
3) way less likely, but I have reason to believe that the additional responsibilities will translate into more pay or better opportunities down the road at my current employer. 

I'm something like 18 years into my career in my industry, and I've generally tried to take as much responsibility as people will give me, with the expectation that over time the money will follow. For the most part it has.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I promise I'm not singling you out in this thread.
> 
> But, I'm about the same age as you, have been in my industry even longer, and there's a few situations where I would.
> 
> 1) the new responsibilities are more interesting than my old ones, so I'm making the same money, but am enjoying what I do more.
> 2) the new responsibilities may not get me paid more in my current job, but allow me to add experience to my resume that will allow me to move into a new job somewhere else either making more money, or doing work that I find more interesting
> 3) way less likely, but I have reason to believe that the additional responsibilities will translate into more pay or better opportunities down the road at my current employer.
> 
> I'm something like 18 years into my career in my industry, and I've generally tried to take as much responsibility as people will give me, with the expectation that over time the money will follow. For the most part it has.



Seriously, no offense taken. Generally when I've provoked a response from you, there's something from me to take away from it to think about at the very least. I may not always agree, but it gives me a challenge to overcome in HOW I think about a topic. So there's that.

I work in IT infrastructure. Which has had plummeting wages for a long time because so much is getting outsourced to other countries. Without investing $15k in some certs, Its getting harder to negotiate even what I should be making with experience. To make more, I really need to be taking a position either as a director or an executive. Neither of which holds any interest. But I'll probably get pushed in that direction in a few years.


----------



## bostjan

Joe Biden said:


> Anybody who can keep a server running can sure as hell learn to program as well… Anybody who can tell 5500 people per day to turn it off and back on can learn how to program, for God’s sake!


Learn to code.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Seriously, no offense taken. Generally when I've provoked a response from you, there's something from me to take away from it to think about at the very least. I may not always agree, but it gives me a challenge to overcome in HOW I think about a topic. So there's that.
> 
> I work in IT infrastructure. Which has had plummeting wages for a long time because so much is getting outsourced to other countries. Without investing $15k in some certs, Its getting harder to negotiate even what I should be making with experience. To make more, I really need to be taking a position either as a director or an executive. Neither of which holds any interest. But I'll probably get pushed in that direction in a few years.


Well... are there related fields or directions you could move in, rather than staying in your current field but moving into management? I think some of this is cyclical and we're early into a period where onshoring and not offshoring is going to be the prevailing trend, but it seems like if there was a way you could leverage your current background into something where the industry trends were working in your favor, that might beat moving to management if that wasn't really an interest of yours (and being an effective manager reqwuires its own really special skillset too, and already is going to be a significant departure from what you're doing now). 

And I know, it's a lot easier to say this than to do it.  I've considering leaving investment finance for something investment-adjacent here and there in the past, and it's not the easiest transition to make. Probably requires some really active, focused networking, which I haven't wanted to do it enough to invest in yet.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> Learn to code.


I will never stop finding the "anyone can do this" mindset among non-coders amusing. No. They can't. Most websites are a shining example of how things are "coded" among people who don't know what the libraries they're using actually *do*, and never bothered to learn anything about design.


----------



## TedEH

Anyone can? Maybe. Anyone can do it _well_? ....not so much.


----------



## bostjan

eaeolian said:


> I will never stop finding the "anyone can do this" mindset among non-coders amusing. No. They can't. Most websites are a shining example of how things are "coded" among people who don't know what the libraries they're using actually *do*, and never bothered to learn anything about design.


Not sure if my joke came across.

I do some coding at work. Like, when I need a piece of hardware that I'm prototyping to do a thing that I want to do something and record some data into a CSV file, I write a little code in Python or C++. There have been multiple times that someone has mentioned to me that I need to help our programmer (note how I didn't put an "s" at the end of that noun?) write code for a user interface or even something backend for a customer, I bring up that a) I don't have time and b) I'm only paid one salary.

The fact that I don't bring up, because it's too much of a rabbit hole and people are too set in their mindset, is that coding as part of a team making stuff that looks and feels worthy of customer use is a *totally different* skills set than knowing how to randomly fuck around in C++ and make a heap of a bunch of ugly data organized into a skeletal structure of ugly data or make a light blink on a piece of hardware or whatever. I took, like, a half a semester of FORTRAN 77 at the university. If anything, that more disqualifies me than qualifies me for anything near the coding that these guys are thinking.

But anyway, back to complaining about taxes...


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Anyone can? Maybe. Anyone can do it _well_? ....not so much.


Yeah, this. Anyone, or very nearly so, could learn to do what I do, too. It took me close to 20 years to get as good as I am at it, though, so if you want to do it too you'd better get started.


----------



## Adieu

eaeolian said:


> I will never stop finding the "anyone can do this" mindset among non-coders amusing. No. They can't. Most websites are a shining example of how things are "coded" among people who don't know what the libraries they're using actually *do*, and never bothered to learn anything about design.



If most websites are such shining examples...then you just proved their point.

Doing a job WELL is unfortunately NOT a prerequisite for employment in most fields.


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Yeah, this. Anyone, or very nearly so, could learn to do what I do, too. It took me close to 20 years to get as good as I am at it, though, so if you want to do it too you'd better get started.


Can't overstate the benefit of working out in the field, also.

Had a project I was working on where I had to train two people how to use a live 'on air' automation/voiceover system on a short notice. Worked with one for months (year?) on the basics of the system, and another one for a few weeks/month. Both used the system with me there even if I did nothing, both used the system on their own with me not supervising but nearby.

Today was first day 'without a net' both had to actually use the system to go on air on their own. First one suddenly forgot everything I taught them and had to fetch me every two seconds and eventually I had to run the whole production. The second tried to do it on his own and the whole program ground to a halt and he had no idea what he did or how to get it working again. It was a lot of work for me to un-fuck it up.

You can learn something. You can even take a shortcut to getting "competent" are doing something if you can apprentice with someone who's done it. In 99% of cases, most people will still be entirely unprepared and overwhelmed when they get out into the field and try to do 'it' when it doesn't go like the book told them it would. Figuring that out only comes from experience.

There's a lot of the "learn to code" narrative and the various permutations of it for other industries that miss that.


----------



## Millul

Well, guys, I am EXACTLY the guy in THAT position: moved up to manage a team, finding it sometimes hard to match what the team need and what the upper bosses want (project management team for IT projects).

BTW, I'm hiring, so if anyone likes Germany, HMU  (and I'm not really joking, I think...)


----------



## Thaeon

Randy said:


> Can't overstate the benefit of working out in the field, also.
> 
> Had a project I was working on where I had to train two people how to use a live 'on air' automation/voiceover system on a short notice. Worked with one for months (year?) on the basics of the system, and another one for a few weeks/month. Both used the system with me there even if I did nothing, both used the system on their own with me not supervising but nearby.
> 
> Today was first day 'without a net' both had to actually use the system to go on air on their own. First one suddenly forgot everything I taught them and had to fetch me every two seconds and eventually I had to run the whole production. The second tried to do it on his own and the whole program ground to a halt and he had no idea what he did or how to get it working again. It was a lot of work for me to un-fuck it up.
> 
> You can learn something. You can even take a shortcut to getting "competent" are doing something if you can apprentice with someone who's done it. In 99% of cases, most people will still be entirely unprepared and overwhelmed when they get out into the field and try to do 'it' when it doesn't go like the book told them it would. Figuring that out only comes from experience.
> 
> There's a lot of the "learn to code" narrative and the various permutations of it for other industries that miss that.




Not to mention that the first few years you code, you write trash. And they pay you trash. Its not until you actually start writing useful lines that anyone gives a flying fuck about you as a coder. IT infrastructure doesn't work like that though. Regardless of how skilled you are, you're going to get paid trash until one of the guys who's been at it for 30 years decides to retire. They'll give you a 5-10% raise, and save themselves 50-100K a year. Doesn't matter than you've been doing your job and half of that person's job for the last 5 years. People don't want to give up those positions because getting one making the same thing you make where you're at is nearly impossible. So there are tons of cats making 150-250k who will eventually cede their jobs over to someone who will be making 70-80k to do more work.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> I promise I'm not singling you out in this thread.
> 
> But, I'm about the same age as you, have been in my industry even longer, and there's a few situations where I would.
> 
> 1) the new responsibilities are more interesting than my old ones, so I'm making the same money, but am enjoying what I do more.
> 2) the new responsibilities may not get me paid more in my current job, but allow me to add experience to my resume that will allow me to move into a new job somewhere else either making more money, or doing work that I find more interesting
> 3) way less likely, but I have reason to believe that the additional responsibilities will translate into more pay or better opportunities down the road at my current employer.
> 
> I'm something like 18 years into my career in my industry, and I've generally tried to take as much responsibility as people will give me, with the expectation that over time the money will follow. For the most part it has.



Can confirm I’ve done all of those and it’s worked out well. But I still had to move cities and eventually employers to get _any_ of my hours that I put in to improve rewarded. 

I’m not advocating for not working hard. I’m just saying people need to out themselves first and actively seek out ways to cash in their time and energy. 

When it comes to compensation one’s current employer is often like a lazy partner, they feel like they already got you so they don’t need to try anymore.


----------



## TedintheShed

Andromalia said:


> The assault on the capitol, trying to use organised and planned violence to change the result of an election, is a component of fascist regimes. It failed, but so did the aborted putsch in 1923.



Your hyperbole called and it invoked Godwin's Law. 

Ridiculous.


----------



## Andromalia

TedEH said:


> Any call center I've worked in has had this problem. Because promotion always meant being promoted _away_ from what you're good at. So you end up with a bunch of "managers" who are great at being phone agents, but bad at management, and all the shitty agents stay on the phone. Overall quality always just trends down, combated only by new streams of "talent" because of high turnover.



Well, here's the equation:

-Promote the good phone agents and endup in the situation you describe

-Promote the people who will be good at management. Problems arise when the people who work better than them see those promoted over them. Especially in this field as very few people do phone support as a vocation.
Seeing they'll be passed over for promotion, your good agents either leave or stop putting effort into the job.

-Don't promote anyone and hire external people to fill management position. Endsup the same as above: people see the opportunity for promotion is gone and will act accordingly.

It's easier to deal with in companies who offer fulfilling and interesting jobs, as you can help employees progress and become more efficient without having to deal with the fact that your employees are only working for promotion.

I did phone jobs in my carreer but only because they were steps to something else. I don't thin you'd find a lot of people for phone jobs if you stated that it's a lifelong sentence.

In the end, only shitty people remain, because it's a shitty job to begin with.



> Your hyperbole called and it invoked Godwin's Law.
> Ridiculous.



"Oh, no, that person referenced the nazis when asked about fascism references"
/facepalm


----------



## vilk

Lmfao

_How come GOP are fascists but Dems aren't?_

Well, both GOP and Nazis attempted to overthrow fairly elected leaders with a coup.

_Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law!!!_


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

_Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate._
(-Wikipedia)


----------



## bostjan

I mean, I never voted for Trump, but I'd be careful about drawing an equivalency between the Jan 6th people and the rest of Trump's support base. There are some who both look up to Trump and looked down on the Jan 6th people.

That doesn't mean that those people didn't support a man who supported the Jan 6th riots, but it doesn't mean that anyone complaining about high gas prices right now is the same as a 1930's Nazi.

Personally, I think the prices of refined diesel and gasoline are so high because the industry is all kinds of fucked. I see it in all sort of manufacturing right now. People don't want to work in factories. So gas prices are high because refineries are short staffed and because truck drivers aren't trucking. Refineries are short staffed because it's a sort of shitty job and it doesn't pay nearly enough to attract workers. Truckers aren't trucking because corporations are expecting them to pay for their own trucks and maintenance and pay them by the mile instead of by the hour, when they spend all day waiting at a shipyard making no money whilst the supply chain is fucked.

In either case, Biden could be to blame for not taking action to unfuck it, but he didn't fuck it up in the first place. I don't even blame Trump, but I think it's the same root cause that led to Trump that also got us to where we are in the state of the industry right now.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> I mean, I never voted for Trump, but I'd be careful about drawing an equivalency between the Jan 6th people and the rest of Trump's support base. There are some who both look up to Trump and looked down on the Jan 6th people.
> 
> That doesn't mean that those people didn't support a man who supported the Jan 6th riots, but it doesn't mean that anyone complaining about high gas prices right now is the same as a 1930's Nazi.
> 
> Personally, I think the prices of refined diesel and gasoline are so high because the industry is all kinds of fucked. I see it in all sort of manufacturing right now. People don't want to work in factories. So gas prices are high because refineries are short staffed and because truck drivers aren't trucking. Refineries are short staffed because it's a sort of shitty job and it doesn't pay nearly enough to attract workers. Truckers aren't trucking because corporations are expecting them to pay for their own trucks and maintenance and pay them by the mile instead of by the hour, when they spend all day waiting at a shipyard making no money whilst the supply chain is fucked.
> 
> In either case, Biden could be to blame for not taking action to unfuck it, but he didn't fuck it up in the first place. I don't even blame Trump, but I think it's the same root cause that led to Trump that also got us to where we are in the state of the industry right now.


If, this month, you make a post in a politics thread saying "I don't vote, voting is immoral, fuck the Democrats, I might vote Trump" because of oil prices after 4 years of Trump, Jan 6th, and the current SCOTUS, then at very least you're a massively unempathetic dickhead.

If you then start using fallacies to avoid being affiliated with autocrats, fascists and tyrants, then you're building a good case for being sympathetic towards that cause.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You can learn something. You can even take a shortcut to getting "competent" are doing something if you can apprentice with someone who's done it. In 99% of cases, most people will still be entirely unprepared and overwhelmed when they get out into the field and try to do 'it' when it doesn't go like the book told them it would. Figuring that out only comes from experience.
> 
> There's a lot of the "learn to code" narrative and the various permutations of it for other industries that miss that.


100% - I recognize that people have different learning styles, and even for the _most_ part I'd say I learn pretty well in a self-study environment - give me a book on something, and I'll retain a lot. 

But I don't feel like you've really internalized something until you've gone out and gotten your hands dirty. I can learn a ton about a subject from a good book, but I won't _trust_ that knowledge until I've actually gone and done it.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Not to mention that the first few years you code, you write trash. And they pay you trash. Its not until you actually start writing useful lines that anyone gives a flying fuck about you as a coder. IT infrastructure doesn't work like that though. Regardless of how skilled you are, you're going to get paid trash until one of the guys who's been at it for 30 years decides to retire. They'll give you a 5-10% raise, and save themselves 50-100K a year. Doesn't matter than you've been doing your job and half of that person's job for the last 5 years. People don't want to give up those positions because getting one making the same thing you make where you're at is nearly impossible. So there are tons of cats making 150-250k who will eventually cede their jobs over to someone who will be making 70-80k to do more work.


Though, don't underestimate those 5-10% raises over time. 5% a year for ten years comes out at over a 60% increase in salary, 10% a year over 10 years is more like 160%. Nearly double, to nearly triple - it does begin to add up fast.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> If, this month, you make a post in a politics thread saying "I don't vote, voting is immoral, fuck the Democrats, I might vote Trump" because of oil prices after 4 years of Trump, Jan 6th, and the current SCOTUS, then at very least you're a massively unempathetic dickhead.
> 
> If you then start using fallacies to avoid being affiliated with autocrats, fascists and tyrants, then you're building a good case for being sympathetic towards that cause.


Agreed. I even had a red flag to throw over the "voting is immoral" statement but refrained from opening the portal to whatever strange dimension that came from. 

However, rather than drawing the comparison between the most extremist faction of a group of roughly 30% of people over the age of 18 (thus eligible to vote) who voted for Trump in 2020, or make veiled hints of such, and then lining up to high five each other, I'm suggesting that there might be a better approach to go after the logical fallacies themselves, even if we don't expect a response that is any better than "well whatabout..."

At the end of the day, democracy only really works if ideas are open for productive debate. If one side of an argument no longer wants to engage in honest debate, then, the other side of the debate stooping to the same level only serves the function of pointing out why democracy is dumb and I don't really like where that could end up going.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, I never voted for Trump, but I'd be careful about drawing an equivalency between the Jan 6th people and the rest of Trump's support base. There are some who both look up to Trump and looked down on the Jan 6th people.
> 
> That doesn't mean that those people didn't support a man who supported the Jan 6th riots, but it doesn't mean that anyone complaining about high gas prices right now is the same as a 1930's Nazi.
> 
> Personally, I think the prices of refined diesel and gasoline are so high because the industry is all kinds of fucked. I see it in all sort of manufacturing right now. People don't want to work in factories. So gas prices are high because refineries are short staffed and because truck drivers aren't trucking. Refineries are short staffed because it's a sort of shitty job and it doesn't pay nearly enough to attract workers. Truckers aren't trucking because corporations are expecting them to pay for their own trucks and maintenance and pay them by the mile instead of by the hour, when they spend all day waiting at a shipyard making no money whilst the supply chain is fucked.
> 
> In either case, Biden could be to blame for not taking action to unfuck it, but he didn't fuck it up in the first place. I don't even blame Trump, but I think it's the same root cause that led to Trump that also got us to where we are in the state of the industry right now.


Some of the attempts to bring them down haven't really been all that helpful, either. 

At the most fundamental level, gas prices are high because demand for gas exceeds supply of gas, by rather a lot. There are direct reasons for this that we can't control - war in Ukraine and Russian embargoes mean that we lost about 15% of the world's oil supply, so with demand unchanged and supply suddenly falling, oil prices moved up aggressively. You point to some gasoline production factors too, and there are absolutely bottlenecks there - crack spreads have basically doubled since the middle of April and while they're starting to come down a little, there's still a ways to fall. But, for now, demand for refined petroleum products exceed our ability to refine them. 

But, some of the policy responses... When gas prices first started spiking, a lot of governors started talking about temporarily waiving gas taxes to help lower costs to consumers. Every economist, liberal or conservative, immediately chimed in saying that was stupid because high prices were starting to curtail demand, and if you artificially lowered the price without taking steps to increase supply as well, then demand would pick back up and prices would return to equiliberum right where they were with taxes in place. 

So, a number of governors went ahead and temporarily waived gas taxes... and inside a week prices had risen right back to where they were as demand picked up. Shock. Awe.


----------



## Drew

TedintheShed said:


> Your hyperbole called and it invoked Godwin's Law.
> 
> Ridiculous.


I don't want to, well, state the obvious here...

...but the "Stop the Steal" riot on January 6th ended with Trump supporters storming the Capital and trying to seize Vice President Pence so he couldn't certify the election results formally naming President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.

I'm not sure how one would build the argument that this _wasn't_ an attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government, though I suppose to be fair lots of other anti-democratic groups who _weren't_ Nazis have also used this playbook.  No matter who you want to compare them to, though, it's not a good look for Team Trump, and the Republicans who voted to acquit him when he was impeached for it were perfectly honest about the fact the only reason they were doing so was he'd lost and his term ended in a matter of days, so - they claimed - it didn't matter since he was gone anyway.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Some of the attempts to bring them down haven't really been all that helpful, either.
> 
> At the most fundamental level, gas prices are high because demand for gas exceeds supply of gas, by rather a lot. There are direct reasons for this that we can't control - war in Ukraine and Russian embargoes mean that we lost about 15% of the world's oil supply, so with demand unchanged and supply suddenly falling, oil prices moved up aggressively. You point to some gasoline production factors too, and there are absolutely bottlenecks there - crack spreads have basically doubled since the middle of April and while they're starting to come down a little, there's still a ways to fall. But, for now, demand for refined petroleum products exceed our ability to refine them.
> 
> But, some of the policy responses... When gas prices first started spiking, a lot of governors started talking about temporarily waiving gas taxes to help lower costs to consumers. Every economist, liberal or conservative, immediately chimed in saying that was stupid because high prices were starting to curtail demand, and if you artificially lowered the price without taking steps to increase supply as well, then demand would pick back up and prices would return to equiliberum right where they were with taxes in place.
> 
> So, a number of governors went ahead and temporarily waived gas taxes... and inside a week prices had risen right back to where they were as demand picked up. Shock. Awe.


Very well said.

During the pandemic, the supply of nearly every physical thing dropped to unprecedented lows. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see that huge drop in supply and the effort to recover from that drop in supply seems to have largely stalled. Many are pointing to the fact that the US workforce dropped by about 3 million workers coincident with the start of the pandemic, and, despite easing restrictions, hasn't budged in the direction of recovery yet. I've seen the numbers, and I've lived it as an anecdote.

Where I work, we had a bunch of people leave since the start of the pandemic. A few decided to retire early, but a majority of them took jobs elsewhere due to openings from other people either retiring early or quitting to just not work anymore. This is in an area where there is quite a mix of rich and poor people, but I never thought of the working class as the rich people. At any rate, even before the pandemic, businesses here were struggling with employee retention, snap your fingers and magically take away 3% of the workforce and a lot of businesses could no longer remain productive. And the lower the desirability of the job, the more difficult it has become to fill the position. My town had it's McDonald's close down before the pandemic. The next town over now has its McDonald's closing due to the fact that they can't staff it. You'd think that'd ease the tension on the staffing issues, but I don't think it's really going to have much effect right off, because most employers here stopped caring about McDonald's on a resume a decade ago. Also, it's no secret that other shitty fast food restaurants are having issues staying open as well. Maybe a laid-off McDonald's employee will be able to get hired immediately at Taco Bell or Dominos, but why bother? Taco Bell is only open 5 days a week now because no one wants to work there and between the high gas prices and lack of availability of good cars and good car mechanics, delivery is also a precarious career. You could come work at one of our factories, but a bunch of those closed before the pandemic, and besides, all of them want previous factory experience, or else you are only hired as a temporary employee who's exempt from earning benefits and so forth, so it's really not worth it.

I think the only way to solve the supply shortages is to first solve the labour shortages, which will either take years to self-correct, or will have to be expedited somehow by government involvement at a time during which the government is at its worst and just spent too much money on the pandemic response. So, maybe we are in for an exciting ride in the US economy where things randomly flip upside down or become puzzlingly scarce. I don't think it'll be like the Great Depression, but I don't see why we should expect our quality of life in the 2020's to be too great in comparison with the past 4-5 decades.


----------



## Drew

It's a challenge, @bostjan. Labor IS starting to recover - the participation rate fell sharply during the pandemic almost overnight. It's recovered, oh, 2/3 of its losses since it's pre-pandemic peak...but the economy was running about as close as it has in recent memory to theoretical full employment right before the pandemic, and the participation rate is actually pretty close to where it was 2015-16 or so, in a more "normal" economy.

Of course, the economy is unquestionably running hot right now, and participation SHOULD be rising above "normal" levels due to labor demand and the accompanying negotiating power that gives. And the JOLTS survey points to, at last I saw, 11 million job openings. Plenty of anecdotal evidence here suggests some of those jobs are probably not GOING to be filled, due to unrealistic salaries or other offer-sized demands... but even when you account for the fact that pre-pandemic the JOLTS survey was in the 6-7mm range and we're really only looking at an increase of 4-5mm jobs, well, we have about 5.9mm workers meeting the definition of unemployed, namely not working, available to work, and actively seeking work. We could hire every last american in the country somewhere, and maybe just fill the "excess" open positions over the normal level in a fairly strong labor market, which itself is elevated.

I've been paying more attention to the participation rate than the headline jobs report number for a while now, and while the participation rate actually dipped in April, this is around the styart of the summer hiring season and with demand where it's been a lot of usual "seasonal" jobs became full time just to make sure someone was on the books come spring at the end of last year, so I think we might be seeing some noise there. Normally a big new jobs number is considered a bad thing with a low employment rate since it points to too-high labor demand and the possibility of the economy overheating, and that's certainly a concern with inflation where it is now... but I think we're sort of in an upside-down environment at the moment where big jobs gains may not actually be a bad thing, since those workers have to be coming from _somewhere_.... I'll be really curious to see what the next BLS employment report looks like, and if last month's drop in participation ends up being an anomaly.

EDIT - also, re: the Participation Rate, another factor to keep in mind here is that it's been declining for a while due to secular trends (the end of the baby boomer generation, and a lot of the boomers still in the workforce took advantage of a strong market recovery after March 2020 and their being disproportionately at risk from Covid to retire), and the stabilization/increase in participation after 2015 may itself have been an anomaly. If so, then if you extrapolate the trendline from maybe 2002 through 2015, then we're probably _above_ where the participation rate "should" be already, and we may just have an honest-to-god post-Boomer labor shortage... which make's Trump's attempts to clamp down on immigration, both illegal AND legal, that much more dumbfounding; we need workers.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> Though, don't underestimate those 5-10% raises over time. 5% a year for ten years comes out at over a 60% increase in salary, 10% a year over 10 years is more like 160%. Nearly double, to nearly triple - it does begin to add up fast.



Oh no, they’re great when they happen. But they aren’t all THAT much when adjusted for inflation. At my last job, my annual raise was 1%. 1 Per. Cent. They last one I told them to keep it. It’s a slap in the face. The highest raise that business gave to anyone while I was there was 2%.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> Oh no, they’re great when they happen. But they aren’t all THAT much when adjusted for inflation. At my last job, my annual raise was 1%. 1 Per. Cent. They last one I told them to keep it. It’s a slap in the face. The highest raise that business gave to anyone while I was there was 2%.


yeah, and unfortunately that's far more common. I've been fortunate that, in part because I took what was a too-junior role because it seemed like the right firm and because it allowed me to move from the asset servicing to asset management side of the business, I _have_ been seeing raises at awfully close to a 10% annual rate, but one I've worked my ass off here and a few of those years in particular were pretty miserable, and two that was NOT been my experience most places. Sure, a 3% raise isn't bad when inflation is 1.5%, but over time if that's what you're getting the compounding impact isn't nearly as great - 3% a year for 10 years and your salary will have grown by about a 3rd (compounding yielding about a 3% increase over 10 years); 5% a year for 10 years, and that becomes two thirds as much again as your stating salary (compounding yielding about a 12% additional increase over 10 years). At that point you're not making your money by getting annual COLA adjustments, you're making your money by either getting promoted with an accompanying salary adjustment, or job hopping. 

Anyway, we're going a bit far afield.


----------



## Thorsday7

Former Vice President Biden and his most unlikeable VP Harris are doing an amazing job.

I've got to hand it to the major Corporations, too. The policies they are helping form, are quite breathtaking, really. 

What I mean to say is: I dislike everybody in power, and, we're not going to see a change by perpetuating the two party system in America. 

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and leaving the singular issue of late term abortion up to the respective State(s), this hints at a direction of more sovereign State powers... I wish States would secede from this union. The prospect of not having to pay Federal Income Tax has me swollen. Nearly fully engorged. 

Why is Russia trying to take back Ukraine such a big deal? Ukraine wanted to be sovereign. It's symbolic of freedom, and what true American couldn't get behind that?


----------



## TedintheShed

Drew said:


> I don't want to, well, state the obvious here...
> 
> ...but the "Stop the Steal" riot on January 6th ended with Trump supporters storming the Capital and trying to seize Vice President Pence so he couldn't certify the election results formally naming President Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.
> 
> I'm not sure how one would build the argument that this _wasn't_ an attempt to overthrow a democratically-elected government, though I suppose to be fair lots of other anti-democratic groups who _weren't_ Nazis have also used this playbook.  No matter who you want to compare them to, though, it's not a good look for Team Trump, and the Republicans who voted to acquit him when he was impeached for it were perfectly honest about the fact the only reason they were doing so was he'd lost and his term ended in a matter of days, so - they claimed - it didn't matter since he was gone anyway.




It's laughable that you think this was an attempt to overthrow the government. It wasn't organized. 
They were not at all armed, let alone well armed. At worst yiu could call it a riot. At best a demonstration. Either way, it was good to see the politicians afraid of the people for a change. 

Was it a good look for Trump? Well, "look" implies perspective, which them implies subjectivity. But no matter how one thinks it looks, to throw around words like "coup" and "over throw" is ridiculous, no matter which perspective you may invoke.


----------



## Mathemagician

The fact that a secret service agent felt the need to draw their weapon and fire on an American citizen in order to get the armed and murderous mob to realize that they needed to back down explains all there is.


----------



## Adieu

TedintheShed said:


> It's laughable that you think this was an attempt to overthrow the government. It wasn't organized.
> They were not at all armed, let alone well armed. At worst yiu could call it a riot. At best a demonstration. Either way, it was good to see the politicians afraid of the people for a change.
> 
> Was it a good look for Trump? Well, "look" implies perspective, which them implies subjectivity. But no matter how one thinks it looks, to throw around words like "coup" and "over throw" is ridiculous, no matter which perspective you may invoke.



Yup, totally doesn't look like conspiracy to commit anything suspicious


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Yup, totally doesn't look like conspiracy to commit anything suspicious
> 
> View attachment 107869



Wish I had that guy around when I was doing my pedalboard.


----------



## TedintheShed

Adieu said:


> Yup, totally doesn't look like conspiracy to commit anything suspicious
> 
> View attachment 107869




I've never heard of "conspiracy to commit anything suspicious" go to trial before.


----------



## narad

TedintheShed said:


> I've never heard of "conspiracy to commit anything suspicious" go to trial before.



No, it's called "seditious conspiracy" when they're charged and brought to trial for it.

_If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both._


----------



## Adieu

TedintheShed said:


> I've never heard of "conspiracy to commit anything suspicious" go to trial before.



Anything suspicious part was sarcasm

Conspiracy to commit [insert any number of crimes] can certainly be prosecuted, given the will, if a group with unusual equipment (weapons, armor, items for taking hostages and/or kidnapping) collectively violently breaks into somewhere

Breaking into a government building with body armor and zipties? It's in the damn photo.

Some people just don't realize that the legal definition of the crime of sedition is a bunch wider than the dictionary word. 

And even if they manage to get off on that... there's still conspiracy to commit any number of things and attempted even more things


----------



## bostjan

TedintheShed said:


> It's laughable that you think this was an attempt to overthrow the government. It wasn't organized.
> They were not at all armed, let alone well armed. At worst yiu could call it a riot. At best a demonstration. Either way, it was good to see the politicians afraid of the people for a change.
> 
> Was it a good look for Trump? Well, "look" implies perspective, which them implies subjectivity. But no matter how one thinks it looks, to throw around words like "coup" and "over throw" is ridiculous, no matter which perspective you may invoke.


So, to attempt to overthrow the government, according to you, you have to be:
1. Well organized.
2. Not only armed, but everyone at the event has to be "well armed." (Whatever that means.)

If you successfully broke into a government building, armed, with spoken intent to assassinate high ranking government officials, such as the Speaker of the House and the Vice President, murdering a police officer in the process, then, obviously, you're just there to sight-see, I guess, huh? But, lemme guess, anyone at a BLM protesting police officers choking a guy to death whilst he's detained and not resisting, well, those people must be the biggest ever threat to our way of life, right?

Naw, that's all sarcasm, my dude. All of those statements are absolutely ridiculous.

I'm sure there's some idiotic defense that those guys always walk around wearing riot gear with flex cuffs and bear spray. You and I know that that's bullshit as much as anyone. You don't go to see the president give a speech with peaceful intentions and then suddenly find yourself wearing a flack jacket and riot helmet mashing down the door to the capitol building.











TedintheShed said:


> I've never heard of "conspiracy to commit anything suspicious" go to trial before.



Not surprising. You evidently don't know the meanings of words, like "demonstration," so why would anyone expect you to know "conspiracy?"


----------



## Drew

TedintheShed said:


> It's laughable that you think this was an attempt to overthrow the government. It wasn't organized.
> They were not at all armed, let alone well armed. At worst yiu could call it a riot. At best a demonstration. Either way, it was good to see the politicians afraid of the people for a change.
> 
> Was it a good look for Trump? Well, "look" implies perspective, which them implies subjectivity. But no matter how one thinks it looks, to throw around words like "coup" and "over throw" is ridiculous, no matter which perspective you may invoke.


It's way less laughable that I think this was an attempt to stop the formal certification of the election results, and kick off the formal process of changing power from the Trump Administration to the Biden administration, than that you think it _wasn't_.

There's ample evidence of coordination before the attack, TONS of photographic evidence of the attack itself, and while the rioters weren't able to accomplish their primary aim of stopping the certification of election results, they did manage to delay it for nearly 12 hours, after they broke into the Capitol building and forced Congress to flee and take shelter. There are also ongoing criminal prosecutions for about 800 rioters, of which 150 have already plead guilty and about 90 have been sentenced. Clearly _some_ sort of laws were broken here. 

The GOP's approach of challenging subpoenas in court to try to run down the clock and hope they can take control of Congress at the start of 2023 and close down the investigation into how closely the Trump administration was working with members of Congress and leaders of groups like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers doesn't really inspire confidence in their innocence, either. 

EDIT - here, let's spell it out for you.









A second Oath Keeper pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 riot


Brian Ulrich pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and obstruction, and agreed to cooperate with government investigators.




www.npr.org







> "Did you do that sir, agree with Mr. Rhodes and develop a plan to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power by Jan. 20, 2021?" Judge Amit Mehta asked at Friday's hearing.
> 
> "Yes, your honor," Ulrich replied.



One of the members of the Oathkeepers charged with seditious conspiracy has _already plead guilty_ to what you just said did not happen.  You're deluding yourself if you think the events of January 6th were just a "demonstration."


----------



## StevenC

How is a Thorsday post not the dumbest one on a page?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> How is a Thorsday post not the dumbest one on a page?



Some real galaxy brain shit going down.


----------



## Randy




----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> It's way less laughable that I think this was an attempt to stop the formal certification of the election results, and kick off the formal process of changing power from the Trump Administration to the Biden administration, than that you think it _wasn't_.
> 
> There's ample evidence of coordination before the attack, TONS of photographic evidence of the attack itself, and while the rioters weren't able to accomplish their primary aim of stopping the certification of election results, they did manage to delay it for nearly 12 hours, after they broke into the Capitol building and forced Congress to flee and take shelter. There are also ongoing criminal prosecutions for about 800 rioters, of which 150 have already plead guilty and about 90 have been sentenced. Clearly _some_ sort of laws were broken here.
> 
> The GOP's approach of challenging subpoenas in court to try to run down the clock and hope they can take control of Congress at the start of 2023 and close down the investigation into how closely the Trump administration was working with members of Congress and leaders of groups like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers doesn't really inspire confidence in their innocence, either.
> 
> EDIT - here, let's spell it out for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A second Oath Keeper pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6 riot
> 
> 
> Brian Ulrich pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and obstruction, and agreed to cooperate with government investigators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.npr.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the members of the Oathkeepers charged with seditious conspiracy has _already plead guilty_ to what you just said did not happen.  You're deluding yourself if you think the events of January 6th were just a "demonstration."




I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion other than sedition just watching the live news reels of that event. It was clear a day. And I know some conservative people that were cheering them on during the even. As soon as they failed and people were getting in trouble they abandoned ship in a hurry. Lots of people, on both sides of the aisle not speaking and making decisions with more than keyed up emotions. If you look at Trump's stance during the event, he was agitating the mob storming the capital. Encouraging them. And he's largely gotten to skate on ANY responsibility for what happened as a result.

Glad some of these people are taking guilty pleas. Though I don't think that some of them are anything but proud of what they did, and that fuels their testimony. With extreme groups like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, that can make you a martyr. So I see the wash out currently as a net nil. Sure we get some people to pin responsibility on and justice is served... Sort of. The groups those people represent get cemented in the idea that they are right and that they are persecuted. However ill informed that perspective is, it makes them more dangerous. And next time they won't notify us with a grand entrance. It'll be subtle right up until the time the damage is done. Politicians like Trump give these lunatics main stream exposure.


----------



## Mathemagician

Magical religious belief.

People whose personal beliefs align with what the current GQP says they defend have already decided “my side is right”. So now it’s just a matter of working backwards and denying reality until they can claim it’s everyone else that’s wrong/evil/ruining the country.

No one ever said wanting lower taxes was bad. It’s the whole conspiracy/removing women’s rights/trying to push for a Russian-style authoritarian government.

Reason being is that all these disparate groups of people all think they’d be part of the “superior in-group”.

Meanwhile elected officials feed them whatever the fuck lines they need to in order to keep getting elected and grift taxpayers.


----------



## Thaeon

Mathemagician said:


> Magical religious belief.
> 
> People whose personal beliefs align with what the current GQP says they defend have already decided “my side is right”. So now it’s just a matter of working backwards and denying reality until they can claim it’s everyone else that’s wrong/evil/ruining the country.
> 
> No one ever said wanting lower taxes was bad. It’s the whole conspiracy/removing women’s rights/trying to push for a Russian-style authoritarian government.
> 
> Reason being is that all these disparate groups of people all think they’d be part of the “superior in-group”.
> 
> Meanwhile elected officials feed them whatever the fuck lines they need to in order to keep getting elected and grift taxpayers.



Because your politics is a religion. And if its not your religion, then you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Drew

Thaeon said:


> I don't know how you can come to any other conclusion other than sedition just watching the live news reels of that event. It was clear a day. And I know some conservative people that were cheering them on during the even. As soon as they failed and people were getting in trouble they abandoned ship in a hurry. Lots of people, on both sides of the aisle not speaking and making decisions with more than keyed up emotions. If you look at Trump's stance during the event, he was agitating the mob storming the capital. Encouraging them. And he's largely gotten to skate on ANY responsibility for what happened as a result.
> 
> Glad some of these people are taking guilty pleas. Though I don't think that some of them are anything but proud of what they did, and that fuels their testimony. With extreme groups like the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, that can make you a martyr. So I see the wash out currently as a net nil. Sure we get some people to pin responsibility on and justice is served... Sort of. The groups those people represent get cemented in the idea that they are right and that they are persecuted. However ill informed that perspective is, it makes them more dangerous. And next time they won't notify us with a grand entrance. It'll be subtle right up until the time the damage is done. Politicians like Trump give these lunatics main stream exposure.


I mean, I fully agree. The start of every year is busy for me at work, but at some point during the early afternoon someone unmuted themselves on our ongoing audio chat and said, "hey, is anyone watching the news from the capital?" And from maybe 2 oclock onwards I just gave up and watched live coverage in horror. 

It's easy enough to gloss things over after the fact by just being careful which pictures you show and using phrases like "peaceful demonstration" but watching the barricades fall and protestors smash their way through the security perimiter at the doors themselves... The only reason things stopped where it did was that we were able to evacuate Congress and get everyone out of there safely, so suddenly the insurgency didn't have a target anymore. 

The confederate flag never made it into the capital building during the Civil War, but thanks to Trump's supporters, it did in 2021. That's absolutely fucked up.


----------



## Thaeon

Drew said:


> I mean, I fully agree. The start of every year is busy for me at work, but at some point during the early afternoon someone unmuted themselves on our ongoing audio chat and said, "hey, is anyone watching the news from the capital?" And from maybe 2 oclock onwards I just gave up and watched live coverage in horror.
> 
> It's easy enough to gloss things over after the fact by just being careful which pictures you show and using phrases like "peaceful demonstration" but watching the barricades fall and protestors smash their way through the security perimiter at the doors themselves... The only reason things stopped where it did was that we were able to evacuate Congress and get everyone out of there safely, so suddenly the insurgency didn't have a target anymore.
> 
> The confederate flag never made it into the capital building during the Civil War, but thanks to Trump's supporters, it did in 2021. That's absolutely fucked up.



I completely agree. Absolutely fucked up. 

I couldn't believe what I was watching when it was happening...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

We're all doomed.









Live Updates: 14 Students, 1 Teacher Dead in Texas School Shooting


Gov. Greg Abbott, who announced the death toll, said the gunman was also dead. It was the deadliest elementary school shooting since the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## mbardu

Good things Republicans are voting against legislation to fight back domestic terrorism!


----------



## thebeesknees22

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 108163
> 
> 
> We're all doomed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Live Updates: 14 Students, 1 Teacher Dead in Texas School Shooting
> 
> 
> Gov. Greg Abbott, who announced the death toll, said the gunman was also dead. It was the deadliest elementary school shooting since the 2012 massacre in Newtown, Conn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


that was pretty f'n terrible.


they left out in that headline that it's believed the shooter shot his grandma before this went down as well.................................
.....................
.......
.
.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Ted Cruz rushing to be like we must protect rights of citizens. 

Shit maybe if they did abortions with a gun Republicans would be okay with them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Dineley said:


> Ted Cruz rushing to be like we must protect rights of citizens.
> 
> Shit maybe if they did abortions with a gun Republicans would be okay with them.



Maybe we just need to reframe them as "very, very, very late term" abortions. Then maybe they'd do something to stop them. Cowards.


----------



## Randy

I'm not jumping to any conclusions but Abbott's "handgun and maybe a rifle" felt like kneejerk cover for the seemingly high likelihood this was done with an "assault style" rifle and that would be the first thing people would go for.


----------



## spudmunkey

Dineley said:


> Ted Cruz rushing to be like we must protect rights of citizens.
> 
> Shit maybe if they did abortions with a gun Republicans would be okay with them.


Ted Cruz, Texas Governor Abbot and Trump are slated to speak at an NRA event in 3 days, in Texas.


----------



## lost_horizon

mbardu said:


> Good things Republicans are voting against legislation to fight back domestic terrorism!


Democrats control all levels of the government, congress, senate and the executive. But they apparently can't pass any laws? Seems legit.

No one is stopping them. The gun lobby does not take away their right to legislate. The stringent gun rules of New York state, multiple red flags and prior arrest did not prevent the Buffalo shooting. The less stringent Texas laws didn't prevent this. It's almost like the rules don't change the result.

Next excuse?


----------



## narad

lost_horizon said:


> Democrats control all levels of the government, congress, senate and the executive. But they apparently can't pass any laws? Seems legit.
> 
> No one is stopping them. The gun lobby does not take away their right to legislate. The stringent gun rules of New York state, multiple red flags and prior arrest did not prevent the Buffalo shooting. The less stringent Texas laws didn't prevent this. It's almost like the rules don't change the result.
> 
> Next excuse?



Yea, there's nothing we can do, it's a mental health issue.


----------



## narad

Sorry, to clarify I mean that the gun industry convincing paranoid low-IQ wannabe tough guys that their freedom is in trouble if a they don't have the ability to easily kill 10 people in 5 minutes is a mental health issue. Like mentally, those people do not have high-functioning brains. And that's on both sides of the fence - there's a non-trivial amount of NRA democrats.

If you've got as many guns as I've got ESP Horizons, you've got a problem. And that's 30% of gun owners in the US.

Still, it's funny to pitch it like republicans aren't the problem just because dems have a majority. If 90% of dems support legislation and 2% of republicans do, then it's the dems fault it doesn't get passed? And thus we come back to the main issue, how do we get people to be smarter?


----------



## spudmunkey

lost_horizon said:


> Democrats control all levels of the government, congress, senate and the executive. But they apparently can't pass any laws? Seems legit.
> 
> No one is stopping them. The gun lobby does not take away their right to legislate. The stringent gun rules of New York state, multiple red flags and prior arrest did not prevent the Buffalo shooting. The less stringent Texas laws didn't prevent this. It's almost like the rules don't change the result.
> 
> Next excuse?



FWIW, the "red flags" of the New York shooter don't count, apparently, because the law was specifically written to exclude general threats, and a judge is only allowed to file a petition if there is a specific threat, to a specific person. Threats towards groups don't count. It also doesn't consider paranoid delusions or all sorts of other...well...what any rational human being would call "red flags".


----------



## Adieu

What red flags? Can't you like buy automatic weapons on craigslist or something?

EDIT: ok, guess not on craigslist...everywhere else though? And state and local laws don't mean a damn cause you can just drive your lazy ass across one if you're feeling particularly motivated to homicide


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> EDIT: ok, guess not on craigslist...everywhere else though? And state and local laws don't mean a damn cause you can just drive your lazy ass across one if you're feeling particularly motivated to homicide



Yeah, something like 30% of all of the weapons used in Chicago crime comes from neighboring states, and something like 10% of those can be traced to two stores in Indiana near the border (I'm sure I've got some of the numbers wrong, but the jist of it is that a substantial portion comes across state lines, and lots of it from specific hot-spots).


----------



## lost_horizon

spudmunkey said:


> FWIW, the "red flags" of the New York shooter don't count, apparently, because the law was specifically written to exclude general threats, and a judge is only allowed to file a petition if there is a specific threat, to a specific person. Threats towards groups don't count. It also doesn't consider paranoid delusions or all sorts of other...well...what any rational human being would call "red flags".


Yep so once again Democrat majority at every level in New York. They need to legislate better. Its an 80/20 thing. Simple administrative things on the cause of 90% of mass shootings that would cut it down substantially.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

@lost_horizon isn't really wrong. 

Yes, the GOP are against any gun control, reasonable or otherwise, and yes, they're also against most of the structural changes that could help relieve mental health, but the Dems own this problem too. This isn't a new problem. How many times have they had the opportunity to do something the last 20, 30, 40 years? It's just never been a priority. 

Just like they should have legislated abortion access.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> @lost_horizon isn't really wrong.
> 
> Yes, the GOP are against any gun control, reasonable or otherwise, and yes, they're also against most of the structural changes that could help relieve mental health, but the Dems own this problem too. This isn't a new problem. How many times have they had the opportunity to do something the last 20, 30, 40 years? It's just never been a priority.
> 
> Just like they should have legislated abortion access.



"Both sides" (I hate this expression) are wrong, definitely.
Some nuance would lead me to say that one is _actively _harmful and part of the problem (making it worse); but you can't deny the other is very complacent about it and has not solved anything either.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mbardu said:


> "Both sides" (I hate this expression) are wrong, definitely.
> Some nuance would lead me to say that one is actively harmful and part of the problem; but you can't deny the other is very complacent about it and has not solved anything either.



Pretty much. 

Just because Dems are bums here doesn't discount the active courting of the gun nuts by the GOP.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Randy said:


> I'm not jumping to any conclusions but Abbott's "handgun and maybe a rifle" felt like kneejerk cover for the seemingly high likelihood this was done with an "assault style" rifle and that would be the first thing people would go for.



Interestingly, AP article I read called them "military style." 

idc what anyone says, a rifle that is for assaulting people is an assault rifle just like a pole that is for fishing is a fishing pole. That is to say nothing of my views on gun ownership, but euphemism and semantics have no place in a debate where no matter your perspective, lives are at stake.


----------



## mongey

Dineley said:


> Shit maybe if they did abortions with a gun Republicans would be okay with them.


Would be signature worthy if it wasn’t so fucking diabolical and sad, and true


----------



## Louis Cypher

This sums up the events in Texas pretty well
Its from Fred Guttenberg, the father of Jaime Guttenberg, a 14-year-old who was murdered in 2018 during the Parkland school shooting in Florida:
“They fucking failed our kids again.”


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> @lost_horizon isn't really wrong.
> 
> Yes, the GOP are against any gun control, reasonable or otherwise, and yes, they're also against most of the structural changes that could help relieve mental health, but the Dems own this problem too. This isn't a new problem. How many times have they had the opportunity to do something the last 20, 30, 40 years? It's just never been a priority.
> 
> Just like they should have legislated abortion access.


This is a problem as old as my political awareness, which is sadly pretty old at this point.

Republicans have no problem legislating. They talk a big game, and they sell a big game. And hey, if they happen to fuck you over in the process, they'll laugh in your face and fucking own it.

The Democrats have a HORRIBLE time legislating. There was a time I considered it straight cowardice towards anything deemed "action" on their part. Now I consider it part of the inherent design. The Democrats don't legislate, because deep down they really want exactly the same legislation as the Republicans, but they can't own that shit or the public that considers themselves Democrats would drop them like they deserve. So they pay lip service to the "opposition" of the Republicans, while never actually moving on legislation that might make some of the speculative fiction they call "campaign promises" come true.


----------



## zappatton2

My hot take: Democrats care too much about pleasing _everyone,_ and end up accomplishing next to nothing in the process. 

Republicans don't care about anyone but themselves, and their voter base is pleased as punch to see children caged, gay and trans rights assailed, women's rights wrenched away, unarmed black men brutalized and killed, etc. They'll get it done, because they can't fathom a reality where their horrifying policies could be used against "their kind".


----------



## AMOS

Dineley said:


> Ted Cruz rushing to be like we must protect rights of citizens.
> 
> Shit maybe if they did abortions with a gun Republicans would be okay with them.


Now I know where to come when I need a little comic relief


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> What red flags? Can't you like buy automatic weapons on craigslist or something?
> 
> EDIT: ok, guess not on craigslist...everywhere else though? And state and local laws don't mean a damn cause you can just drive your lazy ass across one if you're feeling particularly motivated to homicide


You need a class 3 full auto license which are very hard to come by. In most cases you need to be an instructor. More fake news from the left


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> The shooter in Texas was trans was he not?



To the surprise of absolutely no one, you're full of shit. 









Salvador Ramos Transgender Rumors Spread Like Wildfire Despite No Evidence


"It's a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos," GOP Rep. Paul Gosar claimed in a tweet that has been deleted.




www.newsweek.com


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> To the surprise of absolutely no one, you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvador Ramos Transgender Rumors Spread Like Wildfire Despite No Evidence
> 
> 
> "It's a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos," GOP Rep. Paul Gosar claimed in a tweet that has been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


Every time I see the name Gosar attributed somewhere, my brain instantly goes to Ghostbusters.

Which, as a story, has more credibility than Paul Goser's above claim.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Republicans have no problem legislating. They talk a big game, and they sell a big game. And hey, if they happen to fuck you over in the process, they'll laugh in your face and fucking own it.


How'd that ACA "repeal and replace" thing work out? Or the border wall, where I think they ultimately built about 20 miles of new barriers? And those are some of their rare legislative objectives. For the most part, the GOP platform is to oppose whatever the Democratic platform happens to be. Which, sadly, is both popular with their base, and easier to do than actually passing everything (even if they STILL struggle there - see the ACA). 



zappatton2 said:


> My hot take: Democrats care too much about pleasing _everyone,_ and end up accomplishing next to nothing in the process.
> 
> Republicans don't care about anyone but themselves, and their voter base is pleased as punch to see children caged, gay and trans rights assailed, women's rights wrenched away, unarmed black men brutalized and killed, etc. They'll get it done, because they can't fathom a reality where their horrifying policies could be used against "their kind".


Basically true - the GOP is a "small tent" ideologically pure party, the Democrats are a "big tent" party with large "progressive" and "establishment" wings, who share many of the same fundamental objectives (fight climate change, promote equality, make education better and more affordable, etc) and a belief that government CAN solve problems, but disagree wildly on how to get there. And, often enough, mostly blame the other wing for their failure to achieve their own objectives. 

FWIW, I think the fundamental disagreement between the progressive and establishment wings is the progressives want to push what they think laws SHOULD be, while the establishment wants to push what they think they can actually achieve. It's a heated divide, but they pretty much see eye to eye on the big picture stuff.


----------



## Mathemagician

MaxOfMetal said:


> To the surprise of absolutely no one, you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvador Ramos Transgender Rumors Spread Like Wildfire Despite No Evidence
> 
> 
> "It's a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos," GOP Rep. Paul Gosar claimed in a tweet that has been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com



Lol, fuck it’s like hate-speech bingo.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> You need a class 3 full auto license which are very hard to come by. In most cases you need to be an instructor. More fake news from the left


Exaggeration, perhaps, but it's surprisingly easy to buy a semi-automatic online with no license or background check:









Column | The Gun: How I Bought an AR-15 in a Five Guys Parking Lot


A stranger handed me an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle Monday afternoon in a South Burlington parking lot. I handed him an envelope stuffed with $500 cash....




www.sevendaysvt.com


----------



## MaxOfMetal

One more: 

Fucking "good guy with a gun" central isn't good guy enough.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Adieu said:


> What red flags? Can't you like buy automatic weapons on craigslist or something?
> 
> EDIT: ok, guess not on craigslist...everywhere else though? And state and local laws don't mean a damn cause you can just drive your lazy ass across one if you're feeling particularly motivated to homicide



AMOS has made one correct statement so far; regular civilians can’t buy automatic weapons. 

There’s a lot of language around guns that makes things that much harder to discuss because using one thing out of context or using the wrong wording will cause the other side to do a “Gotcha! You don’t know what you’re talking about so all this is moot!”

But you can’t go out and buy a machine gun (automatic, allowing you to hold down the trigger and bullets keep coming out) unless you have a specific license and those are not easy to get. 

None of these mass shootings have had an automatic weapon involved, it’s pointless to even bring up the word ‘automatic’ in these discussions. More so, I’d be willing to bet someone who has trained with semi-auto weapons is far more accurate than an automatic weapon allows just because of the physical mechanics of it all. 

And it doesn’t really matter at all if you can still get one shot per second with a semi-automatic weapon. 

Bottom line, the type of guns used doesn’t really matter. All that really matters is innocent people dying at the hands of a firearm. 

Laws are different state to state and even then, with loopholes and how much the law is enforced, it’s a crapshoot. There were a few reasons I decided to purchase a pistol and get my conceal/carry license a couple years ago and it wasn’t a decision I made lightly, even after growing up with guns all around me as both sides of my family were BIG on hunting. I mean, ALL my uncles/grandparents have old school gun cabinets without locks/doors, they’re just chilling right there like a guitar rack. 

Anyway, when we went to the shop to pick a gun out we got the rundown that the salesman had clearly spouted off a million times, “Rifle/shotgun purchases just need to wait for the background check to clear, could be 1-72 hours but usually it’s 1-2. Pistol purchases have a 1-week cool-off period unless you have a conceal/carry license and the 1-week period is waved, but requires a federal background check (1-72 hours)”

But the loophole that gets brought up so often is the private sales loophole; background checks are not required for private individuals to transfer ownership of firearms. Just like guitar shows, you’ve got vendors and private citizens showing up with guns and if one private citizen wants to make a deal with another one, there’s no background check at all. While surely there are some vendors out there who will pull some back door bullshit to make a sale, for the most part, the gun dealers I’ve spoken to take the law seriously and don’t want to fuck around and lose their business over selling a felon a firearm. 

Bottom line, if someone wants to get their hands on a gun, it’s not hard, even if you’re a convicted felon. And really, even the convicted felon aspect is a moot point because at this point, how many mass shootings were at the hands of a convicted felon?


----------



## Xaios

"transsexual leftist illegal alien"

If they'd said he was also a pedophile, we'd have the Republican Fear-Mongering Royal Flush.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> Exaggeration, perhaps, but it's surprisingly easy to buy a semi-automatic online with no license or background check:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Column | The Gun: How I Bought an AR-15 in a Five Guys Parking Lot
> 
> 
> A stranger handed me an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle Monday afternoon in a South Burlington parking lot. I handed him an envelope stuffed with $500 cash....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sevendaysvt.com



That’s the language hang-up I referenced in my post above; AMOS is citing fully automatic weapons, your post is for semi-automatic weapons. 

But like I said, it doesn’t really matter; these mass shootings have all been perpetrated with semi-automatic weapons while the left vs. right gets hung up on definitions.


----------



## thebeesknees22

MaxOfMetal said:


> To the surprise of absolutely no one, you're full of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salvador Ramos Transgender Rumors Spread Like Wildfire Despite No Evidence
> 
> 
> "It's a transsexual leftist illegal alien named Salvatore Ramos," GOP Rep. Paul Gosar claimed in a tweet that has been deleted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com



I wish Paul Gosar would go crawl back in whatever sewer he came out of and not show his face ever again. 

What a sorry sack of sh*t that guy is.

I think he's legitimately got a screw loose.


----------



## nightflameauto

thebeesknees22 said:


> I wish Paul Gosar would go crawl back in whatever sewer he came out of and not show his face ever again.
> 
> What a sorry sack of sh*t that guy is.
> 
> I think he's legitimately got a screw loose.


Screw loose / playing to the base / Politician. It's all the same in the end.


----------



## Crungy

Fucked up how something untrue and unrelated to the situation about someone's sexual identify is used to rile up the GOP. What a country we live in.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> That’s the language hang-up I referenced in my post above; AMOS is citing fully automatic weapons, your post is for semi-automatic weapons.
> 
> But like I said, it doesn’t really matter; these mass shootings have all been perpetrated with semi-automatic weapons while the left vs. right gets hung up on definitions.


Yeah, re-read what I said in my post along with it.  It's an exaggeration to say you can buy an automatic weapon on Craigslist (at least, I hope it is), but it's not at_ all_ an exaggeration to say you can go out and buy a semi-automatic, like the AR-15 in this article that virtually all mass shooters seem to favor, over Craigslist with no background check and no waiting period, in an awfully large number of states.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> FWIW, I think the fundamental disagreement between the progressive and establishment wings is the progressives want to push what they think laws SHOULD be, while the establishment wants to push what they think they can actually achieve. It's a heated divide, but they pretty much see eye to eye on the big picture stuff.


So basically young and idealistic vs. old and realistic.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> Yeah, re-read what I said in my post along with it.  It's an exaggeration to say you can buy an automatic weapon on Craigslist (at least, I hope it is), but it's not at_ all_ an exaggeration to say you can go out and buy a semi-automatic, like the AR-15 in this article that virtually all mass shooters seem to favor, over Craigslist with no background check and no waiting period, in an awfully large number of states.



Iiiiii gotcha.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> Iiiiii gotcha.


Yeah. It's an exaggeration, but not by nearly as much as it should be. 

But, you're right, of course, that gun nuts like to focus on things like "well actually, you need a special license to get an automatic weapon" or "an 'assault rifle' is a made up term to drum up fear and is mostly about what a gun looks like," rather than address the bigger picture questions head on, like "if people keep buying AR15s legally and using them to shoot large numbers of people, or are able to get one easily just by bending the law a little, then maybe we need to think about making it a _bit _less easily for anyone to get their hands on an AR15 or similar styles of guns designed to shoot a large number of people in rapid succession."

Because that's the question they don't want to discuss. They'd rather talk semantics about "automatic" or "assault rifle" guns. 

And, honestly, if you want to know what I think the most damning part of this whole debate is, Amos is right - you DO need a very hard to obtain license to get an automatic gun... and no one uses automatic weapons in mass shootings. It's always the AR15 that any idiot can buy that shoots _almost _as fast, because as it turns out, restricting gun ownership fuckin' _works. _


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> FWIW, I think the fundamental disagreement between the progressive and establishment wings is the progressives want to push what they think laws SHOULD be, while the establishment wants to push what they think they can actually achieve. It's a heated divide, but they pretty much see eye to eye on the big picture stuff.


Missed the small print earlier.

While this divide exists and is real, I do wonder why so much effort is expended by both parts of this divide to prevent the other from "getting their way" when the progressive and establishment wings should want *some* of the same things, and maybe, just maybe, could work together to achieve those things they agree on, rather than fight tooth and nail to prevent literally ANYTHING from happening.

And that's my frustrations with the entire Democrat machine. In-fighting and all-or-nothing seems to win the day, rather than cooperative work towards the common goals. Granted, that's our entire government in a nutshell too.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> And, honestly, if you want to know what I think the most damning part of this whole debate is, Amos is right - you DO need a very hard to obtain license to get an automatic gun... and no one uses automatic weapons in mass shootings. It's always the AR15 that any idiot can buy that shoots _almost _as fast, because as it turns out, restricting gun ownership fuckin' _works. _



Even that gets murky due to reporting and language-









Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista


Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 151 different handguns being used in 103 incidents between 1982 and November 2022.




www.statista.com





Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 146 different handguns being used in 98 incidents between 1982 and May 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 128 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 77 percent of mass shootings.

The involvement of semi-automatic rifles in mass shootings​Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 50 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. *This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546*. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Exaggeration, perhaps, but it's surprisingly easy to buy a semi-automatic online with no license or background check:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Column | The Gun: How I Bought an AR-15 in a Five Guys Parking Lot
> 
> 
> A stranger handed me an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle Monday afternoon in a South Burlington parking lot. I handed him an envelope stuffed with $500 cash....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sevendaysvt.com


That's absolutely false, I have a state LTC and a Federal collectors license. This is the only case where you can but it has to be considered a Curio & Relic (over 50 years old and not on the NFA list) All rifles considered assault rifles are on the NFA list. You guys with your misinformation remind me of The View, maybe start up a white liberal male version?  until then, do some research and educate yourselves on the subject. I believe we should have background checks across the board, and mental health screenings. Don't forget it's the FBI that are giving these people the go ahead to buy a firearm.


----------



## RevDrucifer

nightflameauto said:


> Missed the small print earlier.
> 
> While this divide exists and is real, I do wonder why so much effort is expended by both parts of this divide to prevent the other from "getting their way" when the progressive and establishment wings should want *some* of the same things, and maybe, just maybe, could work together to achieve those things they agree on, rather than fight tooth and nail to prevent literally ANYTHING from happening.
> 
> And that's my frustrations with the entire Democrat machine. In-fighting and all-or-nothing seems to win the day, rather than cooperative work towards the common goals. Granted, that's our entire government in a nutshell too.



They do want the same things; the perks and power their positions provide them. I have more belief in a literal Easter bunny than I do a politician with legitimate goals of positive change.


----------



## Xaios

AMOS said:


> until then, do some research and educate yourselves on the subject.


Says the guy spreading false claims about the gender identity of a mass shooter. For a guy so obsessed with correcting other people, you conveniently forgot to recant that little statement before you jumped right back on your high horse.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Missed the small print earlier.
> 
> While this divide exists and is real, I do wonder why so much effort is expended by both parts of this divide to prevent the other from "getting their way" when the progressive and establishment wings should want *some* of the same things, and maybe, just maybe, could work together to achieve those things they agree on, rather than fight tooth and nail to prevent literally ANYTHING from happening.
> 
> And that's my frustrations with the entire Democrat machine. In-fighting and all-or-nothing seems to win the day, rather than cooperative work towards the common goals. Granted, that's our entire government in a nutshell too.


That could be a very long conversation in and of its own right. 

But, the infrastructure debate is worth talking about here - the compromise bill passed, but barely, 228-206, with 13 republicans supporting it and 6 democrats against. Without those 13 Republican votes, it would have been 215-219, and the bill would have failed. The six democratic votes were progressives, who opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough. 

The Build Back Better Act progressive counterpart to the physical infrastructure bipartisan compromise bill failed, largely because a more progressive bill meant no crossover Republican votes, and the bill had to be _too_ progressive to garner support from moderate Democrats who had to run in very red districts, to ensure the support of progressive Democrats. 

The outcome honestly was fairly predictable - Democrats had a 50-50+1 majority in the Senate, but had to depend on the vote of red-state moderate Democrats to get legislation out of the Senate. Meanwhile, with a 4-vote majority in the House, Progressive Democrats were critical for passing legislation and could easily block anything they didn't like. 

People tend to look at this as "ph, the Democrats have the White House and majorities in the House and Senate, and _still_ can't pass anything," but that misses two very important points - one, they have majorities by the narrowest possible of margins, so they can't afford any defections, and two, when you get right down to it, it's really like there are two parties in play here, and the Progressives control the House and the Establishment controls the Senate. Biden can - and has - choose to work with either, but finding a bill progressive enough to pass the House but moderate enough to pass the Senate involves threading a very narrow needle. 

It's almost like the founding fathers had compromise in mind when they wrote the Constitution.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> That's absolutely false, I have a state LTC and a Federal collectors license. This is the only case where you can but it has to be considered a Curio & Relic (over 50 years old and not on the NFA list) All rifles considered assault rifles are on the NFA list. You guys with your misinformation remind me of The View, maybe start up a white liberal male version?  until then, do some research and educate yourselves on the subject. I believe we should have background checks across the board, and mental health screenings. Don't forget it's the FBI that are giving these people the go ahead to buy a firearm.


Mass resident, right? We have significantly more restrictive gun control than most states. It's not like the reporter in the Vermont newspaper (and a well respected one within the state) made up his experience there.  

But, I agree, if we strengthened gun control nationally to the level it is in Massachusetts, that'd be a very good first step. 



RevDrucifer said:


> *This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546*.


Check me if I'm wrong, but the Las Vegas shooting was also semi-automatic, but modified semi-automatics with bump stocks, correct?


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> Check me if I'm wrong, but the Las Vegas shooting was also semi-automatic, but modified semi-automatics with bump stocks, correct?



Yeah, that asshole had an armory of guns….and this goes to show the languages used around them and how they can be mixed up. The Wiki bit below is a list of the guns the Vegas shooter had, while the quote I referenced above mentions automatic weapons, there are no automatic weapons listed below. 



> fourteen AR-15 rifles (some of which were equipped with bump stocks and twelve of which had 100-round magazines), eight AR-10-type rifles, a bolt-action rifle, and a revolver. -Wiki



I remember when Trump banned bump stocks, I didn’t know a single gun owner who was upset by it. From all accounts in my personal life, they were essentially akin to putting a gun in a paint can mixer and holding the trigger down. They’d cause the gun to jerk around that *could* potentially cause it to fire faster or not, but they absolutely removed that much more ability to aim precisely due to the jerking around. So really, just making a semi-auto more effective at shooting a crowd of people where aiming isn’t a priority. 

Bottom line, if someone wants to kill a lot of people really fast, a gun, any gun but a fucking musket, is the most efficient weapon unless they’re playing with bio-chemicals.


----------



## StevenC

But like, why is the second amendment so important*?

(* so important that it was the second thing they remembered to add)


----------



## zappatton2

As an outsider looking in, the concept of lethal, long-range weapon ownership as a "right" makes nothing even close to sense, especially in the face of so many free, liberal democracies with codified civil rights and high standards of living, who also maintain rational gun control policies.

But glob help you if you're a woman expecting the right self-determination over your own body and reproductive capacity. Unless there's a massive generational shift in the American zeitgeist, this tragedy is just going to keep repeating itself. My hope is that young Americans are shifting away from this cultural illness, but in an age of increasing disinformation and radicalization, who can know?


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> But like, why is the second amendment so important*?
> 
> (* so important that it was the second thing they remembered to add)


It doesn’t really matter at this point. From a practical perspective, the US Senate is not likely to pass any significant changes to existing gun laws, but even if they did, or Biden issued executive orders, they would be challenged legally and I don’t see the current sitting US Supreme Court reversing its interpretation of the second amendment.

What that means is that in order to change the current interpretation of the second amendment, we need to amend the constitution to make that change. To do that, we need to convince 2/3 of the US House, plus 2/3 of the US Senate, plus 3/4 of the individual States’ legislatures (all but Nebraska have two houses, so 3/4 of each house), plus 3/4 of the States’ governors. And that’s simply too high a bar to pass at this point in time.


----------



## lost_horizon

tedtan said:


> It doesn’t really matter at this point. From a practical perspective, the US Senate is not likely to pass any significant changes to existing gun laws, but even if they did, or Biden issued executive orders, they would be challenged legally and I don’t see the current sitting US Supreme Court reversing its interpretation of the second amendment.
> 
> What that means is that in order to change the current interpretation of the second amendment, we need to amend the constitution to make that change. To do that, we need to convince 2/3 of the US House, plus 2/3 of the US Senate, plus 3/4 of the individual States’ legislatures (all but Nebraska have two houses, so 3/4 of each house), plus 3/4 of the States’ governors. And that’s simply too high a bar to pass at this point in time.


This or the states could pass laws themselves. America is a constitutional republic. Let the states own their own gun laws and enforce them. New York has different laws to California to Texas.

Yet they all had mass shootings. The laws aren't the divider here. It is the policing of those laws. Useless to have a law if it is not enforced or carried out correctly. There are armed guards at 50% of all hospitals, pharmacies and banks but not schools or campuses? People and NGOs campaigned to NOT have armed guards at schools.

Close your eyes and imagine that tomorrow that the 2nd amendment is overturned tomorrow. What does the practical enforcement of that law look like? Forcibly taking all the firearms from the 99.99% majority of legal, sane and licenced individuals? Or can you have laws that are both able to reward safe firearm owners and hinder unhinged or illegal firearms. 

This issue is not a priority there is the ATF an entire government department focused on this, where are they? I suppose like the head of homeland security who has let in 2.5 million people in 16 months, asleep at the wheel, ideologically opposed to enforcing their role and unaccountable.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

So long as free movement between states exists (and it should) the defacto national gun law is that of the most lenient state or municipality. 

Which means liberal havens like NYC or SanFran can pass extremely restrictive control measures (relatively of course), but it can easily be bypassed by crossing state and county lines. 

While some see that as gun control "not working", it also shows the need for a more stringent federal standard too. It cuts both ways. 

So long as we shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from civil and legal penalties, and don't provide comprehensive mental health care for the populous at large, the only option is to restrict proliferation. Which is my biggest gripe with the GOP/American Right, if they want guns to be available they need to support efforts to curb the other half of the equation.


----------



## mbardu

lost_horizon said:


> This or the states could pass laws themselves. America is a constitutional republic. Let the states own their own gun laws and enforce them. New York has different laws to California to Texas.
> 
> Yet they all had mass shootings. The laws aren't the divider here. It is the policing of those laws. Useless to have a law if it is not enforced or carried out correctly. There are armed guards at 50% of all hospitals, pharmacies and banks but not schools or campuses? People and NGOs campaigned to NOT have armed guards at schools.
> 
> Close your eyes and imagine that tomorrow that the 2nd amendment is overturned tomorrow. What does the practical enforcement of that law look like? Forcibly taking all the firearms from the 99.99% majority of legal, sane and licenced individuals? Or can you have laws that are both able to reward safe firearm owners and hinder unhinged or illegal firearms.
> 
> This issue is not a priority there is the ATF an entire government department focused on this, where are they? I suppose like the head of homeland security who has let in 2.5 million people in 16 months, asleep at the wheel, ideologically opposed to enforcing their role and unaccountable.



Aaaaah, again the states rights argument.
I like how people imagine people with guns just can't (and don't for _a lot _of those shootings) cross jurisdictions' lines in order to go shoot people somewhere else.
Local laws do nothing against guns in the US.

Although as a whole, I'll at least agree it's not _only _a guns issue.
There _are_ a few other countries in the world with high gun ownership and different outcomes.
It's just that in America, you combine _that _with an absolute dystopian hellhole of a society where the newer generations are bred on violence, hyper-polarized, left with basically no hope for the future, no support systems or social safety nets, you name it... At some point some people are bound to go coocoo and then those people _easily _have the arsenal at their disposal to vent their violent urges.

Other countries have guns? Sure, but they usually have a much safer and less aggressive society.
Other countries as shitty as the US's society? Well that's a tough one in the civilized world, but if it were the case, nowhere has as easy an access to mass-killing machines.

Stuff like this is heartbreaking:


----------



## lost_horizon

MaxOfMetal said:


> So long as free movement between states exists (and it should) the defacto national gun law is that of the most lenient state or municipality.
> 
> Which means liberal havens like NYC or SanFran can pass extremely restrictive control measures (relatively of course), but it can easily be bypassed by crossing state and county lines.
> 
> While some see that as gun control "not working", it also shows the need for a more stringent federal standard too. It cuts both ways.
> 
> So long as we shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from civil and legal penalties, and don't provide comprehensive mental health care for the populous at large, the only option is to restrict proliferation. Which is my biggest gripe with the GOP/American Right, if they want guns to be available they need to support efforts to curb the other half of the equation.


Thats cool and all but the Buffalo shooter bought it in New York. I would need some evidence it was from out of state.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> So long as we shield firearms manufacturers and dealers from civil and legal penalties, and don't provide comprehensive mental health care for the populous at large, the only option is to restrict proliferation. Which is my biggest gripe with the GOP/American Right, if they want guns to be available they need to support efforts to curb the other half of the equation.



And please, by "mental health", can we not just do the "let's just medicate people" route .

The large _*LARGE *_majority of "mental health issue" in this shit country would be solved with the same usual suspects. Just give at least a _semblance _of hope and meaning to people ie do basic stuff like education, healthcare and actually livable wages. I bet people most people would think of other things than shooting up their neighbors if they were living an at least _somewhat _happy life.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

lost_horizon said:


> Thats cool and all but the Buffalo shooter bought it in New York. I would need some evidence it was from out of state.



The fact that a vocal white supremacist who espoused violent rhetoric and engaged in confrontational behaviors was able to buy a gun in what some think is a difficult area to buy one isn't the salient point you think it is.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact that a vocal white supremacist who espoused violent rhetoric and engaged in confrontational behaviors was able to buy a gun in what some think is a difficult area to buy one isn't the salient point you think it is.



A salient point, it certainly is not, but just like states rights or constitutional originalism, or cherrypicked statistics, it is certainly a way to distract from the debate.



lost_horizon said:


> Yet they all had mass shootings. The laws aren't the divider here. It is the policing of those laws. Useless to have a law if it is not enforced or carried out correctly. There are armed guards at 50% of all hospitals, pharmacies and banks but not schools or campuses? People and NGOs campaigned to NOT have armed guards at schools.



This is so funny. The fact that having to have guards at so many places is seen as "normal" or needed, and that the answer "we should have _more _armed people! in places like school for example" is an _actual serious answer_ from people really shows how the situation is fucked up beyond repair.
Same line of thinking as people normalizing bulletproof backpacks and ballistic blankets for classrooms.
The rest of the world is looking at the US and absolutely terrified  . I mean, WTF 

No you should not require armed guards in schools. It's not a good thing to normalize those things for kids. Just look at the above clip. This is terrible!
Also you should _not _escalate in an arms war because, just like the dude who got body armor and killed the security guard, people _will _find a way to get bigger and bigger guns.

But I guess as usual America is going to America...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The real red herring here is that there are more armed guards (police or private security) in schools than at any previous point, yet they still don't stop school shootings. 

I mean, they sometimes stop the active ones, but they rarely if ever stop them from happening in the first place. 

What they are good at is funneling kids, mostly minorities, in bad home lives into the meat grinder that is the US correctional system vs. helping them.


----------



## tedtan

mbardu said:


> A salient point, it certainly is not, but just like states rights or constitutional originalism, or cherrypicked statistics, it is certainly a way to distract from the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> This is so funny. The fact that having to have guards at so many places is seen as "normal" or needed, and that the answer "we should have _more _armed people! in places like school for example" is an _actual serious answer_ from people really shows how the situation is fucked up beyond repair.
> Same line of thinking as people normalizing bulletproof backpacks and ballistic blankets for classrooms.
> The rest of the world is looking at the US and absolutely terrified  . I mean, WTF
> 
> No you should not require armed guards in schools. It's not a good thing to normalize those things for kids. just look at the above clip. This is terrible!
> You should _not _escalate in an arms war because, just like the dude who got body armor and killed the security guard, people _will _find a way to get bigger and bigger guns.
> 
> But I guess as usual America is going to America...


The sad thing is that guns in schools is not a new thing. In my grandparents’ generation, they took guns to school, left them with the principal during the day, and used them to shoot rabbits or squirrels on the way home from school. They didn’t have much of a safety net back during the Great Depression era, either, just the possibility of WWII looming over in Europe.

Aside from people living more rural back then, what’s changed? Culture? Video games? Violent music? People losing touch with what death actually means from first hand experience as a result of being removed from the food chain by not having to raise or hunt their own meat these days?


----------



## lost_horizon

mbardu said:


> Aaaaah, again the states rights argument.
> I like how people imagine people with guns just can't (and don't for _a lot _of those shootings) cross jurisdictions' lines in order to go shoot people somewhere else.
> Local laws do nothing against guns in the US.


That's not the argument the argument is you already have a multitude of state laws and regardless of laws they haven't prevented death. The Las Vegas shooter bought 33 guns in 4 different states, what does it matter if the one from Utah or the one from California was the one that killed all those people? Isn't the purpose of laws to address the thing they were designed to address? If they could be bypassed are they even effective? Is someone can enter your state with weapons and shoot your citizens what are they doing to stop it?



MaxOfMetal said:


> The fact that a vocal white supremacist who espoused violent rhetoric and engaged in confrontational behaviors was able to buy a gun in what some think is a difficult area to buy one isn't the salient point you think it is.


I didn't bring up out of state purchase in the first place. Demand more from the people who actually allowed that to happen in their state. Is holding people accountable bad karma or something because people seem really adverse to it and will literally bring in any outside factor possible. Who passed the law? What were the effects meant to be? What was the real impact? How much did it cost?

Those damn White supremacist shootings in Southern California Church and Sacramento. Are people glad people were killed by some other race or motivation? All are bad.

Speaking of Sacramento:
"On May 3, three people — "".."" — were each charged with three counts of murder. The three others killed in the shooting are not being considered murder victims because officials say they were involved in the gun battle between rival groups" 
Way to fudge the murder/gun violence figures in Cali.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> The sad thing is that guns in schools is not a new thing. In my grandparents’ generation, they took guns to school, left them with the principal during the day, and used them to shoot rabbits or squirrels on the way home from school. They didn’t have much of a safety net back during the Great Depression era, either, just the possibility of WWII over in Europe.
> 
> Aside from people living more rural back then, what’s changed? Culture? Video games? Violent music? People losing touch with what death actually means from first hand experience by as a result of being removed from the food chain by not having to raise or hunt their own meat these days?



Your grandparents probably weren't buying AR15s marketed as being part of their virility, to defend against the scary brown people that the loud internet man says are going to rape their kids and replace them with more smelly dark people. 

But yeah, there are tons of societal factors, but a lot of it has to do with just how bad the outlook is for a non-insignificant amount of people in this country, who now have access to more guns than ever and being squeezed ever closer together competing for an even smaller part of the pie than ever. 

The rest of the modern world has music and video games and porn and whatever the most convenient scapegoat of the day is, we're the only ones shooting each other as much.



lost_horizon said:


> That's not the argument the argument is you already have a multitude of state laws and regardless of laws they haven't prevented death. The Las Vegas shooter bought 33 guns in 4 different states, what does it matter if the one from Utah or the one from California was the one that killed all those people? Isn't the purpose of laws to address the thing they were designed to address? If they could be bypassed are they even effective? Is someone can enter your state with weapons and shoot your citizens what are they doing to stop it?
> 
> 
> I didn't bring up out of state purchase in the first place. Demand more from the people who actually allowed that to happen in their state. Is holding people accountable bad karma or something because people seem really adverse to it and will literally bring in any outside factor possible. Who passed the law? What were the effects meant to be? What was the real impact? How much did it cost?
> 
> Those damn White supremacist shootings in Southern California Church and Sacramento. Are people glad people were killed by some other race or motivation? All are bad.
> 
> Speaking of Sacramento:
> "On May 3, three people — "".."" — were each charged with three counts of murder. The three others killed in the shooting are not being considered murder victims because officials say they were involved in the gun battle between rival groups"
> Way to fudge the murder/gun violence figures in Cali.



Listen, if you think I agree with current gun laws and their application you're wrong. They're usually light on forethought and substance.

But that's why they're ineffective, they're bad and easy to sidestep, mostly because they're made at the county and state level.

Anything at the national level is almost impossible to pass at this point, and anything that does is incredibly watered down by nonsense.

So more restrictive laws aren't inherently bad, but I'd argue we've not really tried anything of substance in more than a generation, which is the heart of the issue.


----------



## mbardu

lost_horizon said:


> That's not the argument the argument is you already have a multitude of state laws and regardless of laws they haven't prevented death. The Las Vegas shooter bought 33 guns in 4 different states, what does it matter if the one from Utah or the one from California was the one that killed all those people? Isn't the purpose of laws to address the thing they were designed to address? If they could be bypassed are they even effective? Is someone can enter your state with weapons and shoot your citizens what are they doing to stop it?



"This or the states could pass laws themselves"
Is literally your argument.

What we are trying to say is States making laws to that effect has 0 impact.
You even use as an example the LV shooter buying stuff from all over the place- are you trying to disprove your own argument?

If it's not done at the federal level, laws restricting gun purchases are going to have close to 0 effect because the contiguous US states are just that...contiguous.
Gun bought anywhere can kill people anywhere, that's exactly the point. So local purchasing laws (your argument) have no point.


----------



## mbardu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Your grandparents probably weren't buying AR15s marketed as being part of their virility, to defend against the scary brown people that the loud internet man says are going to rape their kids and replace them with more smelly dark people.
> 
> But yeah, there are tons of societal factors, but a lot of it has to do with just how bad the outlook is for a non-insignificant amount of people in this country, who now have access to more guns than ever and being squeezed ever closer together competing for an even smaller part of the pie than ever.
> 
> The rest of the modern world has music and video games and porn and whatever the most convenient scapegoat of the day is, we're the only ones shooting each other as much.



Yeah and the thing is those things _compound _into each other.
From place to place, the rest of the developed world also has its share of division, and violent culture, and internet hate, and despair of the youth etc etc.
And shit happens in other places too of course; with the much lower frequency that we know.

The US just being _top tier _(America number one ) in Gun Access x Despair x Hate x No care for its people; that just means we mechanically multiply those stats and we end up here.


----------



## lost_horizon

mbardu said:


> "This or the states could pass laws themselves"
> Is literally your argument.
> 
> What we are trying to say is States making laws to that effect has 0 impact.
> You even use as an example the LV shooter buying stuff from all over the place- are you trying to disprove your own argument?
> 
> If it's not done at the federal level, laws restricting gun purchases are going to have close to 0 effect because the contiguous US states are just that...contiguous.
> Gun bought anywhere can kill people anywhere, that's exactly the point. So local purchasing laws (your argument) have no point.


No I'm not disproving my own point. I'm saying the LV shooter bought guns both in state and out of state and people seem to only focus on out of state purchases. What if all the offending guns were bought in Cali and used to kill Californians? The out of state point is moot. If he had 3 guns or 24 he still would have killed.

States can coordinate with each other. Police departments already coordinate. FBI can coordinate. There are 18,000 police jurisdictions in the united states. It is not working.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

lost_horizon said:


> No I'm not disproving my own point. I'm saying the LV shooter bought guns both in state and out of state and people seem to only focus on out of state purchases. What if all the offending guns were bought in Cali and used to kill Californians? The out of state point is moot. If he had 3 guns or 24 he still would have killed.
> 
> States can coordinate with each other. Police departments already coordinate. FBI can coordinate. There are 18,000 police jurisdictions in the united states. It is not working.



But that's exactly why it's not working, it's too fragmented and no one is working with each other based mostly on ideological grounds.


----------



## narad

Can we all take a moment to appreciate this in-between period, after the shooting, but before the right begins claiming it's a false flag with paid actors in order to push tighter gun control?


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> Can we all take a moment to appreciate this in-between period, after the shooting, but before the right begins claiming it's a false flag with paid actors in order to push tighter gun control?



Yesterday afternoon, from the U.S. Representative from Texas's 1st District:


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's just so tiring.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> Yesterday afternoon, from the U.S. Representative from Texas's 1st District:
> 
> View attachment 108216



Wait, is that real? I'm having trouble finding it. Now he has like...


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> Wait, is that real? I'm having trouble finding it. Now he has like...



He deleted it within I think a few minutes. But his later tweet claiming that it was a leftist, trans illegal immigrant stayed up for 2 hours after the original "source" deleted their own tweet.

edit: *CORRECTION:* I was mistaken...the second one was Arizona Congressman Paul Gosar.


----------



## tedtan

MaxOfMetal said:


> Your grandparents probably weren't buying AR15s marketed as being part of their virility, to defend against the scary brown people that the loud internet man says are going to rape their kids and replace them with more smelly dark people.


No, definitely not. They worked worked thier asses off on farms, so they went to school to help get jobs that didn’t involve shoveling shit out of barns. The guns, probably single shot or bolt action .22LR or .410, were just to supplement the dinner table. There was no intent of taking them to school to shoot people; that wouldn’t have even entered their minds. But that’s my point, too - even with the Great Depression and the racism in the south, and so forth, it wouldn’t have entered their minds.




MaxOfMetal said:


> The rest of the modern world has music and video games and porn and whatever the most convenient scapegoat of the day is, we're the only ones shooting each other as much.


They don’t have the gun fetish culture that we do (at least not the first world countries). That, combined with the better social systems, is definitely a big part of the difference.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

tedtan said:


> No, definitely not. They worked worked thier asses off on farms, so they went to school to help get jobs that didn’t involve shoveling shit out of barns. The guns, probably single shot or bolt action .22LR or .410, were just to supplement the dinner table. There was no intent of taking them to school to shoot people; that wouldn’t have even entered their minds.
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t have the gun fetish culture that we do (at least not the first world countries). That, combined with the better social systems, is definitely a big part of the difference.



I grew up with a .22 in the back of the truck in case you had to put roadkill down. I still do.

I'm not anti-gun, it's the culture right now that's just so incredibly toxic.

I started shooting in the 80's. Back then even, there was an air of responsibility and respect for firearms. The kind of ultra-right gun nut that is now the norm was ostracized for being a creepy wacko. Every range had one. You avoided them. 

The shift started in the late 80's and early 90's and it's gotten crazier and crazier since, especially with social media.


----------



## spudmunkey

An interesting read.









We asked every senator what action should be taken on guns. Here's what they said


In the wake of recent shootings, we asked every sitting U.S. senator: What action, if any, do you think should be taken on guns following the school shooting in Texas?




www.pbs.org


----------



## RG503

snoop is all rap and glock!


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> An interesting read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We asked every senator what action should be taken on guns. Here's what they said
> 
> 
> In the wake of recent shootings, we asked every sitting U.S. senator: What action, if any, do you think should be taken on guns following the school shooting in Texas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.pbs.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 108218



“The loss of life in Uvalde, Texas is heartbreaking. As parents, Erin and I stand in prayer with those who have suffered the unimaginable, the loss of a child. As a public official, I believe the time has come to increase penalties for violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms. We must also fully fund our police and local law enforcement and give them the resources they need to keep our kids safe.”

What an idiot. I'm sure if these guys knew they were facing life behind bars, they'd think again before killing 10+ people and getting the typical slap-on-the-wrist from the courts!


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> As a public official, I believe the time has come to increase penalties for violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms. We must also fully fund our police and local law enforcement and give them the resources they need to keep our kids safe.”
> 
> What an idiot. I'm sure if these guys knew they were facing life behind bars, they'd think again before killing 10+ people and getting the typical slap-on-the-wrist from the courts!



But this is Texas... 195 inmates on death row Texas.

Don't see much room for expanding penalties there


----------



## Shoeless_jose

For those people saying just more armed guards/police will help


----------



## RevDrucifer

MaxOfMetal said:


> I grew up with a .22 in the back of the truck in case you had to put roadkill down. I still do.
> 
> I'm not anti-gun, it's the culture right now that's just so incredibly toxic.
> 
> I started shooting in the 80's. Back then even, there was an air of responsibility and respect for firearms. The kind of ultra-right gun nut that is now the norm was ostracized for being a creepy wacko. Every range had one. You avoided them.
> 
> The shift started in the late 80's and early 90's and it's gotten crazier and crazier since, especially with social media.



Agreed. Like I said in a previous post, guns were in every home of my family just chilling in an open gun rack with all the ammo below them. I shot my first .22 when I was probably around 8, so ‘89/‘90. It’s hard to describe their place and the mentality around them in 2022 because it seems like a different world at this point. Those racks still exist in some of their homes. 

I don’t remember ever having a lesson in gun safety back then, but it was common knowledge to us that you don’t fuck around with them and always assume a gun is loaded. 

The fetishizing of guns wasn’t a thing back then, it would have been like fetishizing a fuckin’ hammer. I remember the first time I heard a gun spoken of like a point of pride or power was in some early 90’s rap and it was the first time I felt an uneasy/unsafe feeling towards them. And that’s not putting any blame on rap/hip hop culture, but that aspect of guns had never entered my life previous to that point and it felt very foreign.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Whenever the federal government lowers the flag half-way, we do it on the property I run. I’ve done it a few times in the last 4 years and it’s rare I feel anything at all when doing it, but today was really different and I couldn’t hold back tearing up. Normally, I’ll lower it and tie it off and while I’ll make sure it’s at an appropriate height, I think I adjusted it 4x today before I started tying it off, then re-tied the knot several times until I felt I did it right.


----------



## StevenC




----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> “The loss of life in Uvalde, Texas is heartbreaking. As parents, Erin and I stand in prayer with those who have suffered the unimaginable, the loss of a child. As a public official, I believe the time has come to increase penalties for violent crimes and crimes committed with firearms. We must also fully fund our police and local law enforcement and give them the resources they need to keep our kids safe.”
> 
> What an idiot. I'm sure if these guys knew they were facing life behind bars, they'd think again before killing 10+ people and getting the typical slap-on-the-wrist from the courts!


Texas has the death penalty. What are they going to do, kill 'em twice?!

Here lies the problem. Our legislators all have their heads so far up their asses that they cannot even make a coherent statement. You want better, more effective gun control? It's not going to happen when Boebert, Gaetz, and Taylor-Greene are in control of which laws get written and passed.

Growing up in Militiagan, everybody had a rifle. It was a rite of passage. "Oh, your kid just turned 13? What kind of rifle did you get him?" You might think that this anecdote then goes on to say something about how we were all safer back then, but no, fuck that, it's bullshit. Kids were shooting up schools in Detroit way before it was "cool." The guy who ran the corner store on my street, where I used to ride my bike to buy Laffy Taffy, was shot and killed during a hold up one day. My neighbour across the street was shot by the police when I was 8 years old. About a decade later, the lady who lived next door to the house where he had lived was also hot and killed by a police officer. A coworker of mine was shot 9 times because someone mistook him for someone else. He miraculously survived, but he only barely held on and he's now got to deal with lifelong injuries. All of these things happened before Columbine.

The political people want to bicker over whether Detroit was so shitty in the 80's and 90's because of gun control or in spite of gun control or got better because of gun control or got better because of more concealed carries or whatever. I'd argue it could be shitty in any case of gun control.

If someone wants to do a shooting, allowing them to get a gun is probably the stupidest thing you can possibly do. If you want to prevent a shooting, giving everyone each a gun is probably the stupidest thing you can do. Give everyone a gun and a permit to carry it everywhere except schools and courthouses and watch as shootings at schools and courthouses go up. Take your teachers who are making $40k/yr and trying to pay off debilitating student loans and just generally having a shitty career, and then hand them a gun and instruct them to use it to stop inevitable school shootings and watch as they all quit, because who the hell would want to deal with that level of shit?

The fact of the matter is that we had fixable systematic problems in the 80's and 90's that needed to be addressed. Other nations addressed their issues. The USA, instead, went for the more dark ages approach. Things got much worse in the 00's, yet still went unaddressed. Things got much worse still over the 2010's, and, rather than addressing those issues, we let them divide us into the silly party and the very silly party. Nothing got done, though, and now it's the 2020's and these problems are too deeply rooted to fix without overhauling our society.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Texas has the death penalty. What are they going to do, kill 'em twice?!
> 
> Here lies the problem. Our legislators all have their heads so far up their asses that they cannot even make a coherent statement. You want better, more effective gun control? It's not going to happen when Boebert, Gaetz, and Taylor-Greene are in control of which laws get written and passed.
> 
> Growing up in Militiagan, everybody had a rifle. It was a rite of passage. "Oh, your kid just turned 13? What kind of rifle did you get him?" You might think that this anecdote then goes on to say something about how we were all safer back then, but no, fuck that, it's bullshit. Kids were shooting up schools in Detroit way before it was "cool." The guy who ran the corner store on my street, where I used to ride my bike to buy Laffy Taffy, was shot and killed during a hold up one day. My neighbour across the street was shot by the police when I was 8 years old. About a decade later, the lady who lived next door to the house where he had lived was also hot and killed by a police officer. A coworker of mine was shot 9 times because someone mistook him for someone else. He miraculously survived, but he only barely held on and he's now got to deal with lifelong injuries. All of these things happened before Columbine.
> 
> The political people want to bicker over whether Detroit was so shitty in the 80's and 90's because of gun control or in spite of gun control or got better because of gun control or got better because of more concealed carries or whatever. I'd argue it could be shitty in any case of gun control.
> 
> If someone wants to do a shooting, allowing them to get a gun is probably the stupidest thing you can possibly do. If you want to prevent a shooting, giving everyone each a gun is probably the stupidest thing you can do. Give everyone a gun and a permit to carry it everywhere except schools and courthouses and watch as shootings at schools and courthouses go up. Take your teachers who are making $40k/yr and trying to pay off debilitating student loans and just generally having a shitty career, and then hand them a gun and instruct them to use it to stop inevitable school shootings and watch as they all quit, because who the hell would want to deal with that level of shit?
> 
> The fact of the matter is that we had fixable systematic problems in the 80's and 90's that needed to be addressed. Other nations addressed their issues. The USA, instead, went for the more dark ages approach. Things got much worse in the 00's, yet still went unaddressed. Things got much worse still over the 2010's, and, rather than addressing those issues, we let them divide us into the silly party and the very silly party. Nothing got done, though, and now it's the 2020's and these problems are too deeply rooted to fix without overhauling our society.



Under Texas decree such shooters will be buried without their guns, and will remain forever gunless in the afterlife.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Under Texas decree such shooters will be buried without their guns, and will remain forever gunless in the afterlife.


Aren't they already? Felons in Texas cannot possess a firearm for 5 years after their sentence has ended. (Federal law prohibits felons from ever owning a firearm)


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Yesterday afternoon, from the U.S. Representative from Texas's 1st District:
> 
> View attachment 108216


We need some mechanism to vote politicans off the continent

Not out of office.

Off. The. Continent.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> We need some mechanism to vote politicans off the continent
> 
> Not out of office.
> 
> Off. The. Continent.


You aren't thinking big enough.

Pay-for-play like everything else our government does. If enough is collected for any particular ouster, it gets forwarded to SpaceX for a launch. Enough extra collected, that launch gets a trajectory for the Sun. If the government wines about how they're losing out, let them put the results on PPV. You know we'd all be chomping at the bit to toss our fifty bucks in to watch some underperforming public servants fry slowly.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> We need some mechanism to vote politicans off the continent
> 
> Not out of office.
> 
> Off. The. Continent.


We can't even vote most of them out of office. Voters are, on average, quite dumb. It's kind of frightening, but this is the result of huge cuts to the education budget that started decades ago and ramped up steeply during Bush Jr.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> The fact of the matter is that we had fixable systematic problems in the 80's and 90's that needed to be addressed. Other nations addressed their issues. The USA, instead, went for the more dark ages approach. Things got much worse in the 00's, yet still went unaddressed. Things got much worse still over the 2010's, and, rather than addressing those issues, we let them divide us into the silly party and the very silly party. Nothing got done, though, and now it's the 2020's and these problems are too deeply rooted to fix without overhauling our society.



This is really it right here. Increased militarization of police force around drug war policy, concurrent with massive devastation and incarceration of mostly nonwhite neighborhoods due to Reagan's manufactured CIA crack epidemic. That, combined with increasing precarity for white males has led to a massive rise in fascist ideologies fueled in part by the ongoing social and economic fallout of the drug war, which is blamed squarely on the people who were most victimized by it.

People are just scrambling to feel secure now, and the success of fascism is, as ever, owed to the fact that it offers simple answers, security, and most importantly, _it gets shit done. _The other half of this sad tale, old as time, is simple: _the left can't organize._ We used to have a robust labor movement with real syndicalist style leftism in this country, but the FBI saw to that decades ago. You can still go join some of these groups (I have my IWW card around here somewhere) but they're little more than grey haired peacenick social clubs, and all shot through with "undercover" federal agents. The fucking Teamsters are more successful at organizing non-union workplaces nowadays than the IWW, that's writing on the wall as far as I'm concerned.

What remains of the "left" in this country is center-right politicians and union presidents pandering to corporate interests, and a disapora of center-left to full-out syndicalist plebs gatekeeping each other over who is the most lefty leftist in the land while fascism paves right over us.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> We need some mechanism to vote politicans off the continent
> 
> Not out of office.
> 
> Off. The. Continent.


Or we could send them to a penal colony on an island in the Pacific.

Australia, anyone?


----------



## MFB

tedtan said:


> Or we could send them to a penal colony on an island in the Pacific.
> 
> Australia, anyone?



We tried that once already and look what happened, they evolved into a nation of hunks and babes with zero fear of some of the worst animals to walk this Earth


----------



## mastapimp

narad said:


> Under Texas decree such shooters will be buried without their guns, and will remain forever gunless in the afterlife.


Ted Cruz is prime to develop a chain of restaurants serving gun barrel bacon burgers from said gunless ghosts.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> Or we could send them to a penal colony on an island in the Pacific.
> 
> Australia, anyone?



Nah. Oz is too nice.

Besides, that's where WE will run to if things go too sideways.


----------



## Adieu

mastapimp said:


> Ted Cruz is prime to develop a chain of restaurants serving gun barrel bacon burgers from said gunless ghosts.
> View attachment 108243



What in f's name is that?


----------



## MFB

Adieu said:


> What in f's name is that?



I can't tell exactly, but I think they cooked bacon by wrapping it around the barrel of an AR and fired it until the barrel was consistently hot enough to cook it?


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> This is really it right here. Increased militarization of police force around drug war policy, concurrent with massive devastation and incarceration of mostly nonwhite neighborhoods due to Reagan's manufactured CIA crack epidemic. That, combined with increasing precarity for white males has led to a massive rise in fascist ideologies fueled in part by the ongoing social and economic fallout of the drug war, which is blamed squarely on the people who were most victimized by it.
> 
> People are just scrambling to feel secure now, and the success of fascism is, as ever, owed to the fact that it offers simple answers, security, and most importantly, _it gets shit done. _The other half of this sad tale, old as time, is simple: _the left can't organize._ We used to have a robust labor movement with real syndicalist style leftism in this country, but the FBI saw to that decades ago. You can still go join some of these groups (I have my IWW card around here somewhere) but they're little more than grey haired peacenick social clubs, and all shot through with "undercover" federal agents. The fucking Teamsters are more successful at organizing non-union workplaces nowadays than the IWW, that's writing on the wall as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> What remains of the "left" in this country is center-right politicians and union presidents pandering to corporate interests, and a disapora of center-left to full-out syndicalist plebs gatekeeping each other over who is the most lefty leftist in the land while fascism paves right over us.


IDK if China or North Korea manufactured the political instability of the USA, in fact, I highly doubt that they did, but they 100% sure are smirking as we tear ourselves apart.

There is no longer any status quo political ideology in the USA. The middle is the political minority. Maybe it's even a plurality of the people, but the ones forming policy are the ones with the radical ideas. Do we keep legitimately re-electing the same jerks over and over? After the last election, I'm not so sure our elections are legit anymore. Trump was so strongly convinced that he won that there's no way that he _didn't _try to cheat. You know what I'm saying? Like, if you ran for president of the PTA or whatever, and you acted like Trump acted after you lost, you'd know that level of certainty could only be the result of fixing the election. Like the villain in the cartoon "I stole that fair and square..." but anyway, investigations turned up a fair number of irregularities that tilted things toward Trump. It gets me wondering if maybe he buffered his numbers by 20% or something and just happened to lose the popular vote by more than that, and then though "No way, this cannot be!" I mean, the polls all showed him losing. Hell, the polls in 2016 and all of the analysis in the world showed him losing, and then he won, at least in the Electoral College by a pretty large lead, despite losing the popular vote by a substantial margin the other direction. And if Trump would do that and then have the gaul to try to reverse his scheme... I'm pretty sure that congresspeople are doing the same crap. These congress morons are in the news cycle all of the time now, so how are people silly enough to keep voting for them. You'd think that MTG would get primaried - I guess we'll find out.


----------



## mastapimp

Adieu said:


> What in f's name is that?





MFB said:


> I can't tell exactly, but I think they cooked bacon by wrapping it around the barrel of an AR and fired it until the barrel was consistently hot enough to cook it?


Yes, several years back Cruz made a video for his "machine gun bacon recipe" cooked while firing an AR15 at a gun range. It has not aged well.


----------



## Adieu

mastapimp said:


> Yes, several years back Cruz made a video for his "machine gun bacon recipe" cooked while firing an AR15 at a gun range. It has not aged well.



Wait up... is he seducing the gun nut voters or trolling them???


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> IDK if China or North Korea manufactured the political instability of the USA, in fact, I highly doubt that they did, but they 100% sure are smirking as we tear ourselves apart.
> 
> There is no longer any status quo political ideology in the USA. The middle is the political minority. Maybe it's even a plurality of the people, but the ones forming policy are the ones with the radical ideas. Do we keep legitimately re-electing the same jerks over and over? After the last election, I'm not so sure our elections are legit anymore. Trump was so strongly convinced that he won that there's no way that he _didn't _try to cheat. You know what I'm saying? Like, if you ran for president of the PTA or whatever, and you acted like Trump acted after you lost, you'd know that level of certainty could only be the result of fixing the election. Like the villain in the cartoon "I stole that fair and square..." but anyway, investigations turned up a fair number of irregularities that tilted things toward Trump. It gets me wondering if maybe he buffered his numbers by 20% or something and just happened to lose the popular vote by more than that, and then though "No way, this cannot be!" I mean, the polls all showed him losing. Hell, the polls in 2016 and all of the analysis in the world showed him losing, and then he won, at least in the Electoral College by a pretty large lead, despite losing the popular vote by a substantial margin the other direction. And if Trump would do that and then have the gaul to try to reverse his scheme... I'm pretty sure that congresspeople are doing the same crap. These congress morons are in the news cycle all of the time now, so how are people silly enough to keep voting for them. You'd think that MTG would get primaried - I guess we'll find out.


Here's the thing with Trump. The guy is so up his own ass that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that he just couldn't possibly fathom losing. Like, he's basically Sienfeld's parents, but about himself. "How could anybody not like me? I'm a good boy."

Not to say there weren't people around Trump organized to pull off fucking with the election. But Donald himself? No. I have zero faith the guy could organize a comic book raffle at the deadest comic book store of all time. Let alone election tampering.


Adieu said:


> Wait up... is he seducing the gun nut voters or trolling them???


What's the difference at this point? Alt answer: Yes.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Wait up... is he seducing the gun nut voters or trolling them???


It's politics, so I doubt those two things are separated.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Here's the thing with Trump. The guy is so up his own ass that it's entirely within the realm of possibility that he just couldn't possibly fathom losing. Like, he's basically Sienfeld's parents, but about himself. "How could anybody not like me? I'm a good boy."
> 
> Not to say there weren't people around Trump organized to pull off fucking with the election. But Donald himself? No. I have zero faith the guy could organize a comic book raffle at the deadest comic book store of all time. Let alone election tampering.



Well, my idea of Trump tampering with the election is essentially him instructing a handful of people to interfere with the election in order to ensure a win. I think we actually have recorded proof of exactly that, but I bet there were more conversations we didn't hear about. If Trump wasn't such a douche, those people might have not dropped the ball on actively interfering or actively interfering as much. We'll probably never know the extent with which things were actively interfered. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to look a goon in the eye and tell them to make sure the votes aren't counted above the board. I'm sure anyone he potentially would have hypothetically told to do such things in person would be reluctant to come forward, seeing as how there would be no recorded evidence of such, as well as the fact that, when there WAS such evidence recorded via transcripts, Trump ended up coming out of it scot-free.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Well, my idea of Trump tampering with the election is essentially him instructing a handful of people to interfere with the election in order to ensure a win. I think we actually have recorded proof of exactly that, but I bet there were more conversations we didn't hear about.


Yeah, I mean, I was thinking while reading @nightflameauto 's post that if we want to know what it would look like if Trump were to try to fuck with an election, well, just look to Georgia. 

One of the most interesting things about this week's primaries, if you sort of happen to be the sort of person who would enjoy watching Trump in prison orange getting walked out of a courthouse, is that his attempt to primary everyone who refused to overturn the Georgia election backfired, spectacularly, and either Raffensperger and Kemp, or the Democrats who defeat them (though in this national environment I'm not holding my breath, although if anyone could do it its Abrams), will continue to see through the state investigation into Trump's actions, in a state where "conspiracy to solicit election fraud" is explicitly defined as a crime, which is pretty much exactly what we have Trump doing on a phone call.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Not to dwell on shooting but confirmed the police at school didn't engage shooter, waited an hour for tactical team, glad we had our "good guys with a gun" on site. What a joke. 

Honestly breaks my heart seeing the state of US. I'm in Canada the same rot is spreading here as well.

Privatized hydro resulting in people still without power since thunderstorms on Saturday the same xenophobia as seen in many areas in US is rampant here truly tragic.


----------



## mbardu

bostjan said:


> IDK if China or North Korea manufactured the political instability of the USA, in fact, I highly doubt that they did, but they 100% sure are smirking as we tear ourselves apart.
> 
> There is no longer any status quo political ideology in the USA. The middle is the political minority. Maybe it's even a plurality of the people, but the ones forming policy are the ones with the radical ideas. Do we keep legitimately re-electing the same jerks over and over? After the last election, I'm not so sure our elections are legit anymore. Trump was so strongly convinced that he won that there's no way that he _didn't _try to cheat. You know what I'm saying? Like, if you ran for president of the PTA or whatever, and you acted like Trump acted after you lost, you'd know that level of certainty could only be the result of fixing the election. Like the villain in the cartoon "I stole that fair and square..." but anyway, investigations turned up a fair number of irregularities that tilted things toward Trump. It gets me wondering if maybe he buffered his numbers by 20% or something and just happened to lose the popular vote by more than that, and then though "No way, this cannot be!" I mean, the polls all showed him losing. Hell, the polls in 2016 and all of the analysis in the world showed him losing, and then he won, at least in the Electoral College by a pretty large lead, despite losing the popular vote by a substantial margin the other direction. And if Trump would do that and then have the gaul to try to reverse his scheme... I'm pretty sure that congresspeople are doing the same crap. These congress morons are in the news cycle all of the time now, so how are people silly enough to keep voting for them. You'd think that MTG would get primaried - I guess we'll find out.



Alternatively, Trump knew he lost, but _also _knew he would get a couple hundred millions in his "Election defense fund" (aka his personal bank accounts with extra steps) by riling up his base about made up unfairness and cheating. And it worked.


----------



## Drew

Dineley said:


> Not to dwell on shooting but confirmed the police at school didn't engage shooter, waited an hour for tactical team, glad we had our "good guys with a gun" on site. What a joke.


I'm always reminded of that mass shooting on a California college a number of years ago, where someone in one of the classrooms DID have a gun. When they sheltered in place, he told his classmates he was armed and would protect them if he could, but he also wasn't going to go out and look for the guy, because with reports of an active shooter on campus, the _last_ thing he wanted to do was be another man walking around on campus carrying a gun when the SWAT team showed up. 

The bad guys don't wear Bad Guy Vests or anything, this "good guy with a gun" trope is an outdated vestige of shootouts at the OK Corral.


----------



## narad

mastapimp said:


> Yes, several years back Cruz made a video for his "machine gun bacon recipe" cooked while firing an AR15 at a gun range. It has not aged well.



He's basically Homer Simpson from that one episode where he got a gun.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> He's basically Homer Simpson from that one episode where he got a gun.


It's funny how that episode characterises most gun owners as responsible and appauled at Homer, yet most real life gun owners are Homer.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> It's funny how that episode characterises most gun owners as responsible and appauled at Homer, yet most real life gun owners are Homer.



That's just to appease NRA people from boycotting fox. But spot-on in that a background check identifies someone as "potentially dangerous" and still allows them to purchase a variety of weapons. Though in the Simpsons the restriction was handguns only, and in real life there are no restrictions.


----------



## Randy




----------



## TimmyPage

lost_horizon said:


> Or can you have laws that are both able to reward safe firearm owners and hinder unhinged or illegal firearms.



One point that this argument misses though is that there is no such thing as an "illegal" firearm. They all started their life as legally manufactured and sold, and then they were stolen/lost/'fell off the wagon'/sold in grey markets. Or even more commonly in a lot of these recent mass shootings: The guns were straight up bought legally and then used in a crime. 

Even here in Canada, our 'illegal' guns were almost all smuggled in from the US, where they were originally legally manufactured and/or sold. America's lax gun laws make not only itself less safe, but every country around it as well.


----------



## StevenC

TimmyPage said:


> One point that this argument misses though is that there is no such thing as an "illegal" firearm. They all started their life as legally manufactured and sold, and then they were stolen/lost/'fell off the wagon'/sold in grey markets. Or even more commonly in a lot of these recent mass shootings: The guns were straight up bought legally and then used in a crime.
> 
> Even here in Canada, our 'illegal' guns were almost all smuggled in from the US, where they were originally legally manufactured and/or sold. America's lax gun laws make not only itself less safe, but every country around it as well.


A huge number of guns used by the IRA were smuggled from Florida.


----------



## BigViolin

Regarding the Lewis Black vid, I regret that I only have one like to give.


----------



## StevenC

How come America has so many guns but no biathlon medals?


----------



## BigViolin

Gravy seals don't ski.


----------



## philkilla

I wonder if this guy is an NRA member


----------



## vilk




----------



## High Plains Drifter

philkilla said:


> I wonder if this guy is an NRA member



I got through 3:14 minutes before throwing up in my mouth a little bit and pausing it.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> I wonder if this guy is an NRA member



225% increase in a fancy area? I wonder if that could be a bullshit statistic.


----------



## philkilla

High Plains Drifter said:


> I got through 3:14 minutes before throwing up in my mouth a little bit and pausing it.



That's 2:57 longer than I made it.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> I wonder if this guy is an NRA member




That's his god-given right as an american citizen. Thank you sir for expressing your freedom!


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> That's his god-given right as an american citizen. Thank you sir for expressing your freedom!



*This message brought to you by Mayor Lori Lightfoot.*


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> *This message brought to you by Mayor Lori Lightfoot.*



Maybe it's just me but I don't think the current mayor of a city is responsible for the enormous number of guns on the street. Who do we get to blame for this?


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


> Maybe it's just me but I don't think the current mayor of a city is responsible for the enormous number of guns on the street. Who do we get to blame for this?



Are we absolutely certain Russia hasn't also invaded America?

Because it kinda looks like it has


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Are we absolutely certain Russia hasn't also invaded America?
> 
> Because it kinda looks like it has


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Your grandparents probably weren't buying AR15s marketed as being part of their virility


I think you're into something there. Instead of discussing legislation how about a good marketing campaign explaining that women laugh at those who feel obligated to compensate for their small brains and pp ?

"The rich don't use guns, they give them to the poor and stupid so they kill each other"
"You're a quickshot. That's what she said."


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Maybe it's just me but I don't think the current mayor of a city is responsible for the enormous number of guns on the street. Who do we get to blame for this?



Why is it easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a bottle of beer?

I wish I knew; I can ascertain that someone or a group is profiting from it though.


----------



## narad

Andromalia said:


> I think you're into something there. Instead of discussing legislation how about a good marketing campaign explaining that women laugh at those who feel obligated to compensate for their small brains and pp ?
> 
> "The rich don't use guns, they give them to the poor and stupid so they kill each other"
> "You're a quickshot. That's what she said."


----------



## Xaios

On a non-gun-violence related note, I conjured the following meme this morning, although it requires knowledge of the latest idiocy to escape the frontal maw of "Jewish Space Lasers" Marjorie Taylor-Greene.

Bill Gates, hard at work making hamburgers:


----------



## Adieu

narad said:


>



Maybe we just need the pope and whoever is in charge of the protestants to reiterate that you won't go to hell if you just jerk off instead?


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


>




As someone that owns a lot of guns, that is the cringiest shit. Makes it worse that company is known as shit tier amongst professionals.


And yes, marketing like that just makes it worse.


----------



## zappatton2

So that's real?! I thought it was posted as a joke meme. Lol, wow.

I'm legit starting the worry that reality is gonna put The Onion out of business.


----------



## Xaios

zappatton2 said:


> So that's real?! I thought it was posted as a joke meme. Lol, wow.
> 
> I'm legit starting the worry that reality is gonna put The Onion out of business.


I mean, it _did_ actually put House of Cards out of business (although Kevin Spacey didn't help either).


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> I mean, it _did_ actually put House of Cards out of business (although Kevin Spacey didn't help either).


I blame Netflix on that one. They saw Spacey fall and decided to burn the fucking foundations, rather than let the show either die a natural death, or continue without him.


----------



## philkilla

Amongst the current event VLOGers Russell Brand may not be extremely popular with everyone, but he brings up some good points in regards to guns and government contracts/lobbying:



TL;DW one way for the president to affect change would be eliminating house and senate members from investing/receiving lobbying funds from gun manufacturers.

Also of note, the large Daniel Defense contract he references is highly likely to be aligned to the special operations committee; the largest government gun contract right now would be Sig Sauer.

Options are out there to reduce proliferation of gun violence (barring total confiscation which I'm not a fan of) that could be done, but here we are.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> TL;DW one way for the president to affect change would be eliminating house and senate members from investing/receiving lobbying funds from gun manufacturers.


While I for one would LOVE to see this happen...

...in a post-Citizens United world, this would almost certainly be found to violate gun manufacturer companies' rights to free speech. 

There's also some low hanging fruit - even allowing the CDC to study gun violence as one of the leading causes of American deaths would probably go a long way, but the NRA has ensured that this will never fly.


----------



## Drew

Michael Sussmann Is Acquitted in Case Brought by Trump-Era Prosecutor


The Democratic-linked lawyer was accused of lying to the F.B.I. about his clients when he passed on a tip about possible connections between Donald J. Trump and Russia.




www.nytimes.com





Setback for John Durham's investigation into the genesis of the Russia collusion investigation, and his attempt to present this as a hoax manufactured by the Clinton administration - Michael Sussmann was found not guilty about lying to the FBI about whether he was there on behalf of a client when he contacted the FBI about a suspected covert communications channel between the Trump administration and a Kremlin-linked bank. 

The whole thing didn't make much sense anyway - the investigation had already been opened before Sussmann contacted the FBI, Sussmann claims - with a fair amount of credibility - that if he wanted to create a public scandal his best course of action would have been do do nothing and let the NY Times run with it, as when he contacted the FBI, they reached out to the Times and asked them to slow down reporting on the topic to give them time to research before the cover was blown, so contacting the FBI had the opposite effect Durham had alleged, etc.

But, it was an attempt to call into question Sussmann's credibility, and with it cast doubt on the rest of the investigation, and that just failed.


----------



## bostjan

Serious question - if the NRA spends so much money on lobbying, where do they get all of that money? Does it come from private individuals? Gun manufacturers? Iranian secret agents? WTF?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Serious question - if the NRA spends so much money on lobbying, where do they get all of that money? Does it come from private individuals? Gun manufacturers? Iranian secret agents? WTF?


While "the government wants to take your guns!" is a great way to get their members to open their wallets, they get a LOT of money from gun manufacturers.









National Rifle Association - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





They also may have been a conduit for getting Russian money into American politics: 









Russia-Meddling Uproar Worsens as Probe of NRA’s Role is Dropped


Rejecting a probe of potential links between the Russians and the National Rifle Association has sparked a particularly bitter partisan rift on the Federal Election Commission, resulting in accusations of fake news and ignoring foreign election interference.




about.bgov.com


----------



## bostjan

So...

Maybe we need legislation or executive order or other written enforceable law that bans foreign money from being used for lobbying. Or, if that's too difficult to trace, certain transparency for funding of organizations who lobby. Or both.

For example, if I wanted to start a non-profit that was basically an anti-NRA, which, hypothetically, would fight the NRA dollar-for-dollar on rational calls for responsible gun control laws, there should be no reason why, if more Americans donate more money to my NGO, that it should necessarily not stand a chance against the NRA. Right?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Maybe we need legislation or executive order or other written enforceable law that bans foreign money from being used for lobbying. Or, if that's too difficult to trace, certain transparency for funding of organizations who lobby. Or both.


That's already illegal, which is why there was such a stiff backlash to the Republicans on the Federal Election Commission shutting down the probe into whether they did just that. The NRA very likely broke campaign finance laws, in addition to all the alleged fraud at the heart of their current bankruptcy proceedings.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> That's already illegal, which is why there was such a stiff backlash to the Republicans on the Federal Election Commission shutting down the probe into whether they did just that. The NRA very likely broke campaign finance laws, in addition to all the alleged fraud at the heart of their current bankruptcy proceedings.


Right, but, well, when the NRA was investigated, from what I understand, they stonewalled the investigators and, then, without evidence, the prosecutor dropped the charges.

I mean, if a person was suspected of killing another person, and they simply refused to comply with subpoenas, I'm pretty sure they'd be convicted just the same, only with a contempt charge on top of whatever else. Evidently that's not how things work for the NRA for whatever reason.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> While I for one would LOVE to see this happen...
> 
> ...in a post-Citizens United world, this would almost certainly be found to violate gun manufacturer companies' rights to free speech.
> 
> There's also some low hanging fruit - even allowing the CDC to study gun violence as one of the leading causes of American deaths would probably go a long way, but the NRA has ensured that this will never fly.



You're probably right.

About the NRA, I'm not sure what they even do at this point anymore. Most gun owners can't even stand them or what they stand for.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Right, but, well, when the NRA was investigated, from what I understand, they stonewalled the investigators and, then, without evidence, the prosecutor dropped the charges.
> 
> I mean, if a person was suspected of killing another person, and they simply refused to comply with subpoenas, I'm pretty sure they'd be convicted just the same, only with a contempt charge on top of whatever else. Evidently that's not how things work for the NRA for whatever reason.


It's kind of a perfect analogue for everything Trump did, from the Russian investigation onwards - the Mueller investigation found there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt collusion had occurred, but pointedly noted that had the administration not obstructed his investigation, that might not have been the case. 

But, basically, if you're a pro-Republican group, and Republicans are in charge of overseeing an investigation into whether or not you broke the law supporting the Republican party, well... yeah. You can see how seriously that'll get looked into.


----------



## bostjan

Now there are reports of mass shootings in both Charleston and in New Orleans both today!


----------



## Drew

AnubisGate said:


> And 52 people shot in Chicago over the weekend, oh sorry that doesn't fit your narrative because gun control does nothing to disarm thugs.


Chicago, where 60% of the guns used in crimes come from out of state, with more than 20% from nearly-gun-control-free Indiana? 

You're 100% right, we DO need gun control at the national and not state level!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I don't disagree that something needs to change, but it feels a lot like the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one.

Given the numbers of recent events of gun violence perpetrated by non-felons likely capable of passing a psych eval, what realistically effective gun control measures can we put in place that _aren't _showing up to take people's guns? I'm not advocating that, but I legitimately wonder. 

Given the heavily racist history of gun control, I also have a hard time imagining gun control measures that don't further infringe marginalized peoples' abilities to defend themselves and their communities. Historically gun control has been about keeping guns out of the hands of marginalized peoples, it would be foolish to imagine that current efforts have been completely washed of that legacy:


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> I don't disagree that something needs to change, but it feels a lot like the toothpaste is out of the tube on this one.


Given the number of things that this is true of in America, which is essentially anything that actually effects people's lives, maybe it's time for a refresh? Like, I know it's asking a lot to assume anybody wants to go back and re-write the founding documents, but it seems like our only other option now is to just repeatedly say the above about every single fucking subject that nobody in the entire country is happy about. Which seems to be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of subjects.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> Given the number of things that this is true of in America, which is essentially anything that actually effects people's lives, maybe it's time for a refresh? Like, I know it's asking a lot to assume anybody wants to go back and re-write the founding documents, but it seems like our only other option now is to just repeatedly say the above about every single fucking subject that nobody in the entire country is happy about. Which seems to be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of subjects.



Personally, "a refresh" is the only way I see forward. Idk what that exactly looks like but I know it ain't this. The constitution, bill of rights, founding fathers etc. none of that shit impresses me. Looks a lot like beta software from where I'm sitting.


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> Personally, "a refresh" is the only way I see forward. Idk what that exactly looks like but I know it ain't this. The constitution, bill of rights, founding fathers etc. none of that shit impresses me. Looks a lot like beta software from where I'm sitting.


I think the sad reality is that a "refresh" is going to be bloody, and, far more importantly to the people actually in charge right now, costly. We may have to let a few businesses fall to sort out the corruption to the point where "we the people" are actually given some sort of power beyond how many dollars we have to throw around. I can't see that flying just yet, but if people on the whole get miserable enough, maybe.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> if people on the whole get miserable enough, maybe.



A former coworker said something to the effect of "there won't be any serious revolution in this country until they close the food stamps offices." He was trying to get at some libertarian bootstraps talking point, but he was accidentally dead on. 

Many people's lives are so filled with daily strife that there just isn't time or energy for "paying attention" in terms of being politically engaged. Reasonably, we can only really conclude that it would take extreme circumstances to cause these individuals to become engaged. 

The same can be said of people who lead sheltered/privileged lives. For the most part, they won't care until they have to because there is simply no incentive beyond virtue signaling within their peer groups.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Like, I know it's asking a lot to assume anybody wants to go back and re-write the founding documents,


Don't even have to go that far. The NRA has the second half of the 2nd Amendment engraved in the wall of their lobby, because while they consider that part sacred, they find the first part about "a well-regulated militia" too awkward to address. 

Even then, while the GOP is trying to paint DC vs Heller as carte blanche approval that no gun restrictions can be implemented, the majority opinion itself was pretty clear on the manner: "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns." Clearly Scalia himself found nothing unconstitutional on regulating the use and ownership of handguns, even if he thought a total prohibition was overstepping the letter of the law.


----------



## SpaceDock

Just make guns need the same stuff as cars: license, registration and insurance. Insurance needs to cover the likelihood that the insurer has to pay for the suffering of the families of those hurt by the gun being insured, so an assault rifle is like insuring a sports car and insuring a bolt action is like insuring a Ford Focus. You are safe lifelong gun owner, you get cheap insurance. You are young, suck it up if you really want that gun. Single men, more expensive than married old lady. It makes too much sense for our country to do it, lol.


----------



## StevenC

The US Constitution is a garbage legal document. Literally nothing that happens currently in the American political or judicial systems were set out or envisioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gets its judicial review power, its current main function, from some judges deciding one day in 1803; the 60 vote rule/filibuster in the Senate comes from Aaron Burr in 1806 and wasn't used until 1837, despite the founding fathers acknowledging it would lead to minority rule; we saw with Trump that there are no laws to pen in the president's power.

You desperately need a new constitution. Preferably one that outlines how your country works.


----------



## tedtan

SpaceDock said:


> Just make guns need the same stuff as cars: license, registration and insurance. Insurance needs to cover the likelihood that the insurer has to pay for the suffering of the families of those hurt by the gun being insured, so an assault rifle is like insuring a sports car and insuring a bolt action is like insuring a Ford Focus. You are safe lifelong gun owner, you get cheap insurance. You are young, suck it up if you really want that gun. Single men, more expensive than married old lady. It makes too much sense for our country to do it, lol.


That’s more or less how its done in the UK, except that shotguns are easy to get a license to own/possess, rifles are slightly more difficult, handguns are a little more difficult still, and assault rifles are not readily accessible to anyone not either 1) active duty military, or 2) a competitive shooter. But license/registration and insurance are required and the police may stop by to ensure you have a gun safe or cabinet to lock the gun(s) in so they aren’t easily accessible to children, intruders, and so forth.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> That’s more or less how its done in the UK, except that shotguns are easy to get a license to own/possess, rifles are slightly more difficult, handguns are a little more difficult still, and assault rifles are not readily accessible to anyone not either 1) active duty military, or 2) a competitive shooter. But license/registration and insurance are required and the police may stop by to ensure you have a gun safe or cabinet to lock the gun(s) in so they aren’t easily accessible to children, intruders, and so forth.


A few clarifications. You need a licence to get a gun, but to get a licence you need to have a valid reason, you need to be very specific on what gun(s) you'll be using, and police will visit your home before granting the licence. 

I know a handful of people here who own or have owned guns legally. Mostly ex police and army, plus farmers. I knew about the same number of people again who used their legally obtained guns to end their lives.


----------



## TedEH

SpaceDock said:


> insurance


If you're going to go that far - the rates are based on how many people get shot yearly. Every time there's a mass shooting, _everyone_'s insurance goes through the roof, and the extra money made goes to grieving families.

Everything about this conversation is incredibly sad.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> A few clarifications. You need a licence to get a gun, but to get a licence you need to have a valid reason, you need to be very specific on what gun(s) you'll be using, and police will visit your home before granting the licence.
> 
> I know a handful of people here who own or have owned guns legally. Mostly ex police and army, plus farmers. I knew about the same number of people again who used their legally obtained guns to end their lives.


Yeah, I would guess that most folks that own firearms in the UK live in rural areas and probably use them in that setting. But you guys have a lot of great competitive shooters, too (George Digweed, Mark Windsor, Karl Fields, etc.) and world class shooting coaches (Chris Batha, Alan Rose, Chris Bird, etc.). And the premier driven pheasant, partidge, and red grouse shoots in the world are held in England, Wales and Scotland.

And the valid reason to own a firearm can be as simple as “I want to shoot clays” or “I want to help keep the predator population in check on my uncle’s estate” or “I want to hunt roe deer”, so its not a high hurdle to clear, especially for folks who live in the countryside and have ready access to outdoor pursuits.

But it’s still a much more controlled process than we have here in the States.


----------



## tedtan

TedEH said:


> If you're going to go that far - the rates are based on how many people get shot yearly. Every time there's a mass shooting, _everyone_'s insurance goes through the roof, and the extra money made goes to grieving families.
> 
> Everything about this conversation is incredibly sad.


That would depend on whether the insurance is treated like an auto liability policy or more like a flood/windstorm type of policy. If treated as the latter, what you mention would likely hold true, but auto policies, probably due to a larger risk pool, tend to be affected more by the individual’s behavior and record rather than that of the overall pool’s. And I could see it being implemented either way.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> The US Constitution is a garbage legal document. Literally nothing that happens currently in the American political or judicial systems were set out or envisioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gets its judicial review power, its current main function, from some judges deciding one day in 1803; the 60 vote rule/filibuster in the Senate comes from Aaron Burr in 1806 and wasn't used until 1837, despite the founding fathers acknowledging it would lead to minority rule; we saw with Trump that there are no laws to pen in the president's power.
> 
> You desperately need a new constitution. Preferably one that outlines how your country works.


You know more about US Constitutional law than most Americans, I presume. 

The document is, however, IMO, only a small part of the problem. Every constitution has loopholes. The problem here in the USA is that the loopholes have become more important than the laws. If we actually followed the damned thing, we'd be okay, but everybody wants to cherry pick line items to follow and throw the rest out as if it doesn't exist. And somehow, we put up with that crap, because we have a two-party system (as a consequence of another thing that has nothing to do with our constitution) and both of the parties we have in power have their heads up their own asses (as a consequence of several things, most of which have nothing to do with the constitution). Americans are super polarized about politics, to the point where you can sit down at a bus stop and have a complete stranger sit next to you and start talking to you about Glen Beck, in a year when there is no election and when Glen Beck released zero books, and despite actively showing disinterest in the conversational topic. This polarization is also something that has nothing to do with any consequence of any codified law in our constitution.

It starts with our culture. Our culture started being this way with, well, with our older culture.

So, you could entirely rewrite our US Constitution to be the best all-around document on the planet, and I doubt anyone in our government would even vote for it. Probably a majority of people would even vote against it in a referendum, because we are all stubborn and thick headed and it's in our blood at this point.

Maybe the only permanent solution to this lunacy would be the long-term one where some of the most backward states successfully secede from the USA and then realize what a hellscape the results of their wishes would affect. But IDK even if that would work.


----------



## CapinCripes

The main problem with the bill of rights as it stands is it's extreme vagueness. 
What constitutes a well regulated militia? What would such a militia be used for or authorized to do? Where is the line on allowable weapons in the second amendment? If we do not define a line we are going to be fighting about where it is till the end of time. 
Is the second amendment really advocating that civilians bear arms in the case of oppressive government? If so what use would a bunch of untrained laymen with ar15s be against such a dystopian government armed with tanks, apcs, attack helicopters, jets, and nuclear weapons? Obviously the answer is not privately owned nuclear weapons to create a MAD situation between the government and it's people, that way leads only to madness, but realistically that is what it would take to be at all competitive against the United States military. After all it's not secret that that is exactly why north Korea and Iran peruse nuclear arms, to ensure their own security through mutually assured destruction. So where is the line? It needs to be defined. What is the purpose of the second amendment? It too needs to be defined.


----------



## Drew

CapinCripes said:


> The main problem with the bill of rights as it stands is it's extreme vagueness.
> What constitutes a well regulated militia? What would such a militia be used for or authorized to do? Where is the line on allowable weapons in the second amendment? If we do not define a line we are going to be fighting about where it is till the end of time.
> Is the second amendment really advocating that civilians bear arms in the case of oppressive government? If so what use would a bunch of untrained laymen with ar15s be against such a dystopian government armed with tanks, apcs, attack helicopters, jets, and nuclear weapons? Obviously the answer is not privately owned nuclear weapons to create a MAD situation between the government and it's people, that way leads only to madness, but realistically that is what it would take to be at all competitive against the United States military. After all it's not secret that that is exactly why north Korea and Iran peruse nuclear arms, to ensure their own security through mutually assured destruction. So where is the line? It needs to be defined. What is the purpose of the second amendment? It too needs to be defined.


I think it's very telling that the gun lobby focuses _entirely_ on the second half of the second amendment, right down to truncating the entire first half in their museum dedicated to the history of the second amendment: 




....and entirely ignores the part about "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state." That speaks volumes, I think, about theirt attempt to reframe how the amendment was intended. 

I also share your.... Quixotian mirth, I guess? of the image of a bunch of AR-15 toting rednecks "protecting their liberties" by standing up to an oppressive government with guns. The reason the Bundy standoff lasted as long as it did was because the government chose to treat it as a criminal threat and not a military one. Had they treated it as what the Bundies claimed they were, people seizing control of territory of the US Government and rejecting their rule of law, this would have ended in about as much time as it took to get a F-22 or a Predator into position. A bunch of guys with "military style" rifles wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell against the real thing. 

The "the 2nd Amendment protects all the other rights" line is a load of crap, it's just a way for a bunch of black ops cosplayers to justify not wanting to give up their toys.


----------



## CapinCripes

Drew said:


> I also share your.... Quixotian mirth, I guess?


Less quixotian mirth more sober realistic assessment. The only thing that has reliably provided security in the modern world is a group's possession of nuclear weapons or coverage under a nuclear umbrella. If the American government devolved into the dystopian nightmare envisioned by many militia groups citing the second amendment as their reason for organizing and bearing arms the only sure security would be obtaining nuclear arms. This would of course be literally the worst possible outcome as they are less than rational actors meaning such an outcome would be... Apocalyptic. So the civilian militia vs usgov scenario obviously is not viable. So what could be a good definition of "well regulated militia"? Contrary to many second amendment mythologists it does not I feel refer to the layman taking up arms but rather to militias organized at the state government level. We have that already, it's called the national guard.


----------



## AMOS

SpaceDock said:


> Just make guns need the same stuff as cars: license, registration and insurance. Insurance needs to cover the likelihood that the insurer has to pay for the suffering of the families of those hurt by the gun being insured, so an assault rifle is like insuring a sports car and insuring a bolt action is like insuring a Ford Focus. You are safe lifelong gun owner, you get cheap insurance. You are young, suck it up if you really want that gun. Single men, more expensive than married old lady. It makes too much sense for our country to do it, lol.


Do you think the angry leftist that planned to murder Justice Kavanaugh would get insurance for his guns?


----------



## AMOS

My point is anyone with nefarious intentions are not going to insure their firearms. This will only affect law-abiding citizens. of course..


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> My point is anyone with nefarious intentions are not going to insure their firearms. This will only affect law-abiding citizens. of course..


Whew. Glad that is settled. Hey, everybody - we can go back to thoughts and prayers.


----------



## MFB

AMOS said:


> My point is anyone with nefarious intentions are not going to insure their firearms. This will only affect law-abiding citizens. of course..



But in the same way that we get in trouble for not re-registering our cars/licenses/insurances, there's a system of checks and balances to punish you for doing that; and there's a system behind those that flags them to enforce, which doesn't currently exist for firearms.


----------



## Mathemagician

Again guys, AMOS isn’t commenting for good faith discussion. He’s excited that there was an example of a “leftist” to throw out a “whataboutism” and yell “gotcha!” 

That’s it. It doesn’t change anything about the discussion that regulations of some sort need to be on the table and enacted, it’s just a low-effort “gotcha”.


----------



## Drew

@CapinCripes Quixotian in that it's entirely futile, tilting at windmills in the most literal sense. 

@Mathemagician is right here, but I guess it's also worth explicitly pointing out that the entire point of gun control is a recognition that there are people out there who should _not_ own guns, and we as a society have a strong interest in making it as hard as possible for them to _get_ guns. 

Unless of course @AMOS is saying he thinks that guy should have an AR-15, even if he plans to use it to try to shoot a Supreme Court Justice...?


----------



## AMOS

MFB said:


> But in the same way that we get in trouble for not re-registering our cars/licenses/insurances, there's a system of checks and balances to punish you for doing that; and there's a system behind those that flags them to enforce, which doesn't currently exist for firearms.


Except insurance for firearms is not required by law, it's only required in your imagination. Stick to the facts please.


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> Again guys, AMOS isn’t commenting for good faith discussion. He’s excited that there was an example of a “leftist” to throw out a “whataboutism” and yell “gotcha!”
> 
> That’s it. It doesn’t change anything about the discussion that regulations of some sort need to be on the table and enacted, it’s just a low-effort “gotcha”.


There's no such thing as good faith discussions in here, we have a squad of liberals that think they know everything and they attack everyone that doesn't agree with them. Fairness at it's best. But the great news is none of you geniuses have any say in gun laws. You just sit there and agree with each other on everything because there's no opposition. Have fun with that.


----------



## MFB

OK, cool, I'll tell that to the state of Massachusetts when I don't renew my policy next year; I'm sure they'll high five me as we own the other libtards.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Except insurance for firearms is not required by law, it's only required in your imagination. Stick to the facts please.


Yeah, I'm sorry, you're quick to assume Mass gun laws are national when you want to argue gun laws don't work (see your earlier posts in this thread), but now when we're talking about Mass insurance laws, you're going to draw a distinction between Mass law and the rest of the country? 

Question stands though - do you think the guy who showed up at Kavanaugh's place should be able to own a gun?


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Question stands though - do you think the guy who showed up at Kavanaugh's place should be able to own a gun?



Nope.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> There's no such thing as good faith discussions in here, we have a squad of liberals that think they know everything and they attack everyone that doesn't agree with them. Fairness at it's best. But the great news is none of you geniuses have any say in gun laws. You just sit there and agree with each other on everything because there's no opposition. Have fun with that.



I genuinely like how everyone with an angry “specific” conservative lean in their “beliefs” always says that this place is the only place on earth with “no opposition”.

Most of the posters in this thread are happy, HAPPY to link articles and research backing almost any point that is made.

And what happens? Who ever just posts buzzwords with no data leaves.

Why? Because they cannot just type a few buzzwords from Fox/Newsmax/OAN/AM radio and then be praised for it the way it works in their personal friend groups.

They say some wild outta pocket shit, then a bunch of people start “arguing” by - wait for it - immediately adding context to discussions and explaining things in detail along with data to support for how they reached that viewpoint.

There have been conservative/regressive snowflakes try to create “safe spaces” where they could post irresponsibly incorrect nonsense without anyone addressing it with math, facts, and data.

That makes no sense, because only facts matter. Not feelings. So why are so many regressives so eager to ignore science, research, etc and tested data?

Politicians and regressive media got people saying “it’s not fair, reality has a progressive bias!” Unironically.

But keeping it on the current topic of gun control, we all know Uvalde isn’t the most recent public shooting anymore right? There’s been several since then. Which fucking sucks. I don’t know the single best way to address the issue, but the regressive/conservative approach of “do absolutely nothing and pray to sky fairies” doesn’t work.

The shootings also work to disctract people from the personal liberties regressives are working to destroy via the court system.


----------



## zappatton2

I dunno, just speaking anecdotally here, but it's odd to me, the cultural headspace that ties being armed with feeling free and safe. I grew up in Toronto, in one of the lower-income areas. Sure there's gang activity, sure there's gun violence, but it's a matter of scale. I never _feel_ unsafe, or like I could get shot randomly.

Now I live in Ottawa, and have that feeling even moreso. And I'm currently in Oslo, Norway for my sister's wedding, I intrinsically feel safe, like I can walk through any part of the city or rural communities without running into any "good" or "bad" guys with a gun.

Contrast to almost every time I've been in the States (and yes, it's a big country and there is diversity of culture between states). I've seen people wearing holsters casually, hell, in Philadelphia, the teller at a 7/11 was behind bulletproof glass, I had to slide cash under a slot!! That doesn't make me feel "free" at all! It makes me feel like there's a constant, latent threat of getting shot, whether it's there or not. I sure a hell didn't feel safe; half the city felt completely off-limits, and the people I was visiting would tell me as much.

An odd concept of liberty indeed. Especially when so many nations reject the notion of firearms as a right, and still have managed to avoid falling into tyranny.


----------



## narad

If gun nuts spent more time traveling to other countries, they'd probably be less inclined. It's a very local sort of mindset that makes people think America is the best country on earth and that the founding fathers are infallible figures whose words are as accurate now as they were when originally written, that America is the freest country, etc. Unfortunately it encapsulates basically everyone that's not likely to leave their hometown.


----------



## TedEH

zappatton2 said:


> Now I live in Ottawa, and have that feeling even moreso.


I always sort of feel the other way around -> there are very few parts of Ottawa that feel unsafe to me, and it's not so much guns as it is just sketchy people downtown. I'd feel less safe in Toronto - not because it's actually any more dangerous, but just because I don't know the place well enough to know what to avoid. I know that a lot of people feel that same way about Gatineau - that things suddenly become "more dangerous" when you cross the river, but I'm 100% convinced it's just a fear of the unknown. It's no more dangerous here than anywhere else. There is no place I feel more safe. I've walked the streets on both sides of the river, in Hull, in Vanier, downtown Ottawa, in Toronto, etc - and I've never been armed or felt a need to be armed.

I'd be willing to bet I'd feel pretty different if I knew everyone around me was armed. The most in-danger-of-gun-violence I've ever felt was when visiting a friend of mine who happened to be a gun enthusiast. He had a handgun just sitting out in the open in his kitchen because he was excited about it. I'm maybe 80% sure the way he was storing it wasn't legal, but you'd never convince him he wasn't a responsible gun owner. THOSE are the guns that scare me. Frankly, the average person is an idiot. Arming the average person is a terrifying concept.


----------



## zappatton2

I worded that poorly, I meant I feel even more safe in Ottawa. Though I've never explicitly felt unsafe in either city. Mind you, I'm also not a woman, I'm sure that makes a big difference in perceived safety.

But I'm with you on the concept of self-declared "good guys with guns". A few years back, a gravely mentally ill man lost his shit on a Greyhound bus and killed and decapitated a fellow passenger, thinking he was a demon. At the time, Canadian fans of the U.S. second amendment were declaring that it would have been better if people on the bus were carrying guns to take him out.

Thing is, the bus evacuated immediately, he was locked in, and nobody else was hurt, which is exactly the best-case scenario in that situation. But if a whole bunch of self-proclaimed heroes decided to start firing willy-nilly in a confined space with several bystanders, it could have ended up injuring or killing who knows how many people?


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> Nope.


You're not the guy arguing against gun control, though, I'm curious what @AMOS has to say.


----------



## SpaceDock

AMOS said:


> Do you think the angry leftist that planned to murder Justice Kavanaugh would get insurance for his guns?


Do you think drugs being illegal keeps people from doing them? Does outlawing abortion keep people from getting them? Does having speed limits keep people from speeding? 

Laws and their enforcement is not absolute and of course evil people gonna evil but we have laws to create barriers both real and imaginary. 

Do I believe that having greater paywalls would lead to less deaths, absolutely yes. Is there a way to stop all murder, no of course not. I think you know that as well.


----------



## SpaceDock

Surprised this isn’t up here yet, Trump finally goes on Truth Social to back the insurrection as a great part of MAGA.

“The Unselect Committee didn’t spend one minute studying the reason that people went to Washington, D.C., in massive numbers, far greater than the Fake News Media is willing to report, or that the Unselects are willing to even mention, because January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again. It was about an Election that was Rigged and Stolen, and a Country that was about to go to HELL..& look at our Country now!”









Truth Social


Truth Social is America's “Big Tent” social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.




truthsocial.com


----------



## thebeesknees22

SpaceDock said:


> Surprised this isn’t up here yet, Trump finally goes on Truth Social to back the insurrection as a great part of MAGA.
> 
> “The Unselect Committee didn’t spend one minute studying the reason that people went to Washington, D.C., in massive numbers, far greater than the Fake News Media is willing to report, or that the Unselects are willing to even mention, because January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again. It was about an Election that was Rigged and Stolen, and a Country that was about to go to HELL..& look at our Country now!”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth Social
> 
> 
> Truth Social is America's “Big Tent” social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truthsocial.com



To hell with Trump. 

May he go crawl back in whatever sewer he came out of and never be seen or heard from again. 

And if that's the best the republican party can come up with then to hell with all them too

/me steps down from podium


----------



## Randy

SpaceDock said:


> “The Unselect Committee didn’t spend one minute studying the reason that people went to Washington, D.C., in massive numbers, far greater than the Fake News Media is willing to report, or that the Unselects are willing to even mention, because January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again. It was about an Election that was Rigged and Stolen, and a Country that was about to go to HELL..& look at our Country now!”


I'll tell you... I have not missed seeing this guy's addle-brained writing style every day.


----------



## LordCashew

SpaceDock said:


> Surprised this isn’t up here yet, Trump finally goes on Truth Social to back the insurrection as a great part of MAGA.
> 
> “The Unselect Committee didn’t spend one minute studying the reason that people went to Washington, D.C., in massive numbers, far greater than the Fake News Media is willing to report, or that the Unselects are willing to even mention, because January 6th was not simply a protest, it represented the greatest movement in the history of our Country to Make America Great Again. It was about an Election that was Rigged and Stolen, and a Country that was about to go to HELL..& look at our Country now!”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth Social
> 
> 
> Truth Social is America's “Big Tent” social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truthsocial.com


I wonder if this is strategic, like he knows it's inevitable he'll be implicated so he's openly trying to convince his followers it was a good thing.


----------



## SpaceDock

LordIronSpatula said:


> I wonder if this is strategic, like he knows it's inevitable he'll be implicated so he's openly trying to convince his followers it was a good thing.


Yup.


----------



## Crungy

Isn't he taking the stand sometime soon to be questioned? I was wondering if he's getting them riled up for round two of insurrection activities as a distraction to get him out of it.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

trump did everything possible at every turn to cause the coup attempt... before, during, and after the election... even still to this day, Jan 6th was so premeditated and so well documented. Never any proof ever surfaced from rudy, trump, legal team, fox, the fuckin my-pillow skitz... no one. But you're gonna believe that this obvious con-man was dealt dirty? Anyone who genuinely supports or promotes the blatant lie that he had 2020 stolen from him... why no proof, no findings of significant fraud ( more on GOP side anyway). How does that even work that you believe that level of bullshit? To support him at this point, you're either woefully ignorant, psychologically compromised, or just flat out love riding the high of sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or whatever other murica bullshit justification you wanna cling to. 

Like or dislike her, I feel like Liz is doing a good job so far. 

Such uncharted territory and def more crazy times ahead... like this shit just don't end..


----------



## Drew

Crungy said:


> Isn't he taking the stand sometime soon to be questioned? I was wondering if he's getting them riled up for round two of insurrection activities as a distraction to get him out of it.


Not for this, but he's slated to testify under oath in NY in the investigation into whether he manipulated property valuations for tax benefits and to obtain loans, lowering them for the former and raising them to use them as collateral for the latter, and he's still trying to appeal his way out of that one. I think me may have been subpoenaed for this investigation as well, but is pleading executive privilege and since it'll be a while yet before the Supreme Court can weigh in and the odds are pretty good the Commission will be closed down over the winter if the Republican party retakes Congress, they're moving forward without his testimony.


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> Never any proof ever surfaced from rudy, trump, legal team, fox, the fuckin my-pillow skitz... no one.


That's kind of the crux of the issue, both here and, especially, in Georgia.

There's fairly good evidence (internal memos, for one) that Trump and his team _knew_ they had lost the vote. Had January 6th happened with an administration who had good reason to believe had legitimately won the election, it would still have been a travesty and a tragedy, but it would at least have been... You could maybe make yourself understand it as the work of someone who was fighting for what they velieved was right, even if they did so in some very wrong ways.

But, there's pretty good evidence that the Trump team knew they had lost, knew they had no evidence of electoral fraud, much less enough to flip the outcome of the election... but pushed forward claiming the election had been stolen due to widespread fraud _anyway_, and after losing something like 60 court cases, first tried to get Republican-friendly state legislatures to appoint "alternate" electoral voter panels who would back Trump, and when _that_ failed, organized a riot to storm the Capital while the election results were scheduled to be certified, to try to interrupt that process and stop Biden from formally being declared the winner.

The former would have been unfortunate and wrong headed. The latter probably constitutes treason. "Seditious conspiracy" to overturn the results of a free and fair democratic election.


----------



## Adieu

But since a court full of his appointees has the final say in the land...


----------



## SnowfaLL

zappatton2 said:


> I worded that poorly, I meant I feel even more safe in Ottawa. Though I've never explicitly felt unsafe in either city. Mind you, I'm also not a woman, I'm sure that makes a big difference in perceived safety.
> 
> But I'm with you on the concept of self-declared "good guys with guns". A few years back, a gravely mentally ill man lost his shit on a Greyhound bus and killed and decapitated a fellow passenger, thinking he was a demon. At the time, Canadian fans of the U.S. second amendment were declaring that it would have been better if people on the bus were carrying guns to take him out.
> 
> Thing is, the bus evacuated immediately, he was locked in, and nobody else was hurt, which is exactly the best-case scenario in that situation. But if a whole bunch of self-proclaimed heroes decided to start firing willy-nilly in a confined space with several bystanders, it could have ended up injuring or killing who knows how many people?


I mean, I would have agreed with you whole heartedly until this February's occupation, and I live in downtown Ottawa... the amount of USA/Trump flags I've seen that month.. and the fact that if you wore a mask outside, you get verbally harassed or worse - its disappointing. Overall, downtown is a nightmare, and every weekend in Ottawa right now has USA flags all around downtown with people screaming "FREEDUMB" all day long - I stupidly went to Ribfest one night and you couldnt avoid them, blocking areas of Sparks St.

I talk to people from work who say Ottawa is as kind and calm as usual for them, but they often live in Kanata or some other suburb far away from downtown. I can't wait to move out of this city (hoping next year) to be perfectly honest with you, its basically a mini USA city now.


----------



## zappatton2

SnowfaLL said:


> I mean, I would have agreed with you whole heartedly until this February's occupation, and I live in downtown Ottawa... the amount of USA/Trump flags I've seen that month.. and the fact that if you wore a mask outside, you get verbally harassed or worse - its disappointing. Overall, downtown is a nightmare, and every weekend in Ottawa right now has USA flags all around downtown with people screaming "FREEDUMB" all day long - I stupidly went to Ribfest one night and you couldnt avoid them, blocking areas of Sparks St.
> 
> I talk to people from work who say Ottawa is as kind and calm as usual for them, but they often live in Kanata or some other suburb far away from downtown. I can't wait to move out of this city (hoping next year) to be perfectly honest with you, its basically a mini USA city now.


Yeah, I agree about the convoy clowns, most of them were imports from elsewhere, but it's disappointing to hear about Ribfest.


----------



## SnowfaLL

zappatton2 said:


> Yeah, I agree about the convoy clowns, most of them were imports from elsewhere, but it's disappointing to hear about Ribfest.


Totally agree that 98% of them were out of towners, but that emboldened the idiots living here that they wern't the minority.. not to mention every weekend, these covidiots come from other towns specifically to downtown Ottawa (Wellington St) to protest imaginary "mandates" just to have a reason to wave their F Trudeau flags and scream at anyone who wears a mask walking by.. (Irony being, they only come down here when Parliament is not working, and no politicians are anywhere nearby.. But yeah to give an example, there was a bomb threat on saturday, Wellington from Bronson to Elgin was blocked off by police and investigated. The "Freedumb Team" were all crying on social media that they were being targeted because they were protesting there and police made them move, but what are the chances it WASNT" one of them who called in the bomb threat?? I mean, who else wants to bomb where "Trudeau lives" (lol) these days but a bunch of mentally unstable cultists..

I used to love living so close to Parliament and taking walks there, but now its nearly impossible on the weekends without being harassed for wearing a mask (and I dont even wear it outside, just have it on my chin or holding it even, still yelled at.. wheres my freedumb to do what I want??). Even on weekdays there are usually mini protests with a few F Trudeau and Trump flags flying, as I have to traverse Sparks street to get to my workplace in the byward market (which is already kinda unsafe for other reasons)..


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> But since a court full of his appointees has the final say in the land...


TBH, I'm not sure how much this matters. 

In part, because they're been appointed for life, he cant change that now, and goodwill for that appointment will only go so far. 

In part, because the Georgia suit is for violation of a state, and not federal, law, and it's hard to see the federal government arguing it's unconstitutional for a state to make solicitation of voter fraud illegal. 

And, in part because all of the Congressional investigations won't have time to make it to the Supreme Court before the next election, and incoming Republicans are just going to shut them down, anyway.


----------



## SpaceDock

LMAO about the Lauren Boebert rumors! Probably too good to be true but is from same super pac that got most of the dirt on Cawthorn.


----------



## nightflameauto

SpaceDock said:


> LMAO about the Lauren Boebert rumors! Probably too good to be true but is from same super pac that got most of the dirt on Cawthorn.


One the one hand, it's funny.

On the other, it's just more proof that our entire political process, from the players to the reporting to the "news" agents (they can no longer be reliable referred to as reporters) is corrupt and broken. When we're all just slinging shit at each other, it's gonna be awfully hard to move forward and accomplish anything.

Which some would say is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> LMAO about the Lauren Boebert rumors! Probably too good to be true but is from same super pac that got most of the dirt on Cawthorn.



Like escort Lauren Boebert having Ted Cruz's abortion?
Sounds fan-fiction-y, but these days...


----------



## Crungy

What was the rumor on her?


----------



## SpaceDock

Crungy said:


> What was the rumor on her?


She was working as an escort had multiple abortions from clients getting her pregnant. That she got into politics after being hired by some Koch brother associates and meeting Ted Cruz while “on the job.”


----------



## Crungy

Well goddamn lol


----------



## mbardu

SpaceDock said:


> She was working as an escort had multiple abortions from clients getting her pregnant. That she got into politics after being hired by some Koch brother associates and meeting Ted Cruz while “on the job.”



Ted Cruz, who also _coincidentally and personally_ (in secret until forced to reveal it) contributed about 100 or 200k to kick off her political career.
Very quaint.

The hypocrisy on abortion would be pretty funny (although hardly surprising).
I can't even imagine the hellspawn from those 2.


----------



## Crungy

Seriously, little shitty Colonel Sanders looking brats.


----------



## bostjan

SpaceDock said:


> She was working as an escort had multiple abortions from clients getting her pregnant. That she got into politics after being hired by some Koch brother associates and meeting Ted Cruz while “on the job.”


I mean, I have no reason to believe this, but the official story that she went from an assistant manager at a chain restaurant in a poor neighbourhood to suddenly running for congress and winning makes far less sense.

It could simply be that Cruz wanted some Big Macs and just happened to stop at a ghetto McDonalds two states away, and she pitched her political career to him whilst taking his order... pfft, yeah, IDK, there is no feasible explanation that doesn't sound absolutely insane.


----------



## ArtDecade

Lauren Hoebert.


----------



## Xaios

mbardu said:


> I can't even imagine the hellspawn from those 2.


For once, the term "hellspawn" in this use case seems neither metaphorical nor hyperbolic.


----------



## Xaios

After thinking on it some more, I think they may have terminated the pregnancy for health reasons. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that there's significant risk to the mother for potentially fatal damage to the uterus when giving birth to something with horns.


----------



## Adieu

SpaceDock said:


> She was working as an escort had multiple abortions from clients getting her pregnant. That she got into politics after being hired by some Koch brother associates and meeting Ted Cruz while “on the job.”



That would honestly explain A LOT


----------



## Adieu

Crungy said:


> Seriously, little shitty Colonel Sanders looking brats.



You mean surprisingly non-pale white supremacists?


----------



## Crungy

Or that!


----------



## thebeesknees22

So... 









Almost-Believable Leaked Mark Meadows Texts — The New Yorker


DONALD TRUMP, JR. We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It’s gone too far and got out of hand.




apple.news





The Ginni Thomas one is crazy.

"GINNI THOMAS

Please tell POTUS that the flood of hellfire destined for the wicked will cleanse his presence and restore his righteous power."

"MARK MEADOWS

I agree. Sending."


GINNI THOMAS

"Thanks.
Also Venmo request me for the coup buses BTW."


.....so .....she literally asked for money for busses for people for the coup.   



EDIT: nvmd. was from a humor section. lol my bad. Please disregard


----------



## ArtDecade

@thebeesknees22 

Venmo request for coup buses is code for Matt Gaetz needing his hooker allowance. Also, the above texts are from the New Yorker Daily Shouts humor/satire section.


----------



## thebeesknees22

oh son of a ha

i totally didn't read the top. My bad

sad thing is, those are totally believable from that lot of people ha


----------



## wheresthefbomb




----------



## Randy

Apropos of nothing, do either party currently represent the interests of the middle class?


----------



## spudmunkey

I think one could argue that seems to more often build a support structure/safety net, not only for people already "in the hole", but also for those climbing out of it, or at risk of falling in. One is also more traditionally more pro-union (even if only a little), which is more of a middle-class thing.


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> Apropos of nothing, do either party currently represent the interests of the middle class?



hahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I think one could argue that seems to more often build a support structure/safety net, not only for people already "in the hole", but also for those climbing out of it, or at risk of falling in. One is also more traditionally more pro-union (even if only a little), which is more of a middle-class thing.


That's the pitch but is that who they are in practice in 2022?


----------



## mbardu

Randy said:


> That's the pitch but is that who they are in practice in 2022?



Not to sound too enlightenedCentrist, but both parties are serving the interests of corporate oligarchy, not the middle class.
Maybe one is marginally "better", but that's not saying much.
And you could say at least the other side is honest and makes no effort in hiding that they are morally-corrupt and beholden to their corporate overlords...not trying to play coy 

The dems are certainly not ready for the kind of substantial courage that would be needed to make the changes we need now.
The cynical in me would say they are doing just the bare minimum in order to maintain the status quo. In that they offer the illusion of slow progress and alternative/choice so that we avoid what we truly need, which is nothing short of a frigging revolution  (pardon my French).


----------



## bostjan

The DNC's published party platform in 2020 promised that the party would eliminate homelessness and end the recession if they were elected. Well, they got the White house and both houses of congress...

I think a lot of democrats are well-meaning. Maybe some republicans, too, but I have yet to see proof. Anyway, the ones who only want to fatten their own calves ruin everyone else's picnic. And there's really very little that can practicably be done to fix it. Trump's greatest accomplishment in office was how he proved just how much the president can get away with.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Apropos of nothing, do either party currently represent the interests of the middle class?


No.


Randy said:


> That's the pitch but is that who they are in practice in 2022?


Fuck no.

We got one team that literally spews hatred and bile as their platform.

The other pays lip service to the middle class, then does either fuck-all to help them, or demonstrably take actions that directly have a massive negative impact on them.

I've become convinced that our entire political process, ground up, in the US is dedicated to finishing the country off in an orgiastic feast of plenty for the few while the rest of us are ground under their boots hunting and fighting each other for scraps.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> an orgiastic feast of plenty for the few while the rest of us are ground under their boots hunting and fighting each other for scraps.



it's amerikan as apple pie


----------



## BigViolin

Seems the word "education" has vanished from the US political lexicon. If I were a one issue voter this would be my hill...but there's no hill.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> No.
> 
> Fuck no.
> 
> We got one team that literally spews hatred and bile as their platform.
> 
> The other pays lip service to the middle class, then does either fuck-all to help them, or demonstrably take actions that directly have a massive negative impact on them.
> 
> I've become convinced that our entire political process, ground up, in the US is dedicated to finishing the country off in an orgiastic feast of plenty for the few while the rest of us are ground under their boots hunting and fighting each other for scraps.



We have a single party, with two teams that play dress up as cowboys and Indians and fight each other on behalf of the same handful of billionaires, millionaires, and the companies and conglomerates who they play musical chairs on the boards of. 

In every other modern industrialized nation our GOP would be a fringe facist religious cult and our Democrats would be right-center-right corporate shills. The left just about everywhere else starts with what we call "progressive" and then actually gets progressive. 

Socialized medicine, gun control, restorative justice, better K-12 education, accessible college, powerful organized labor are all things that exist and flourish and work, it's not a fairytale. It just doesn't exist here because fuck you that's why.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Socialized medicine, gun control, restorative justice, better K-12 education, accessible college, powerful organized labor are all things that exist and flourish and work, it's not a fairytale. It just doesn't exist here because fuck you that's why.


And don't you dare compare America to those fascist, socialist shithole countries that have less poverty, better healthcare, better education and happier citizens because also, fuck you.


----------



## wankerness

Eh. I am of two minds about this:

Yes, US Citizens could flee to other countries that have radically better healthcare and radically less corrupt governments. This would result in an immediate gigantic improvement in life, if you're one of the tiny number of people who have the qualifications and/or money to do so. I've thought about it many times myself. I'm not convinced that there are many countries I COULD get in, but I think combined with my partner's skills and cashing out everything I own we'd be able to get into some backwater town in Canada or Ireland or something.

However, climate change is hitting a lot of the world a lot harder than it's going to hit much of the US, and the US is actively taking steps to make it impossible for us as a species to fight it. I think this is largely flying under the radar thanks to the abortion thing, but this has far nastier ramifications - the supreme court is currently working on a case that, if they go the corporate conservative route, would make it so the EPA is completely stripped of any authority to regulate anything without congressional approval, which would require Republicans to get on board with any environmental measures that the country takes from now on, which as we have seen is a complete impossibility unless it's both heavily publicized AND wouldn't make their corporate donors lose money, and even then probably they'd vote against anything "just because" if a democrat came up with it since they're primarily an opposition party. The case is about emission standards, IIRC, but would carry over to any climate measures, new pollution standards, keeping chemicals out of water, etc. Barring some untimely deaths, there's no way the supreme court is going to be less than arch-conservative in the next 20 years, so that will not get reversed until it's way too late.

So yeah, for a while living in Canada would be great. But, as soon as things REALLY start getting bad, you know that the country with the most military might is just going to start pillaging any resources it wants from its neighbors. So, for example, if the US goes full-fascist (very, very likely in the near future), living in Canada would not make a lot of difference as soon as the legions of people that live on the west coast, the southwest, or the deep southeast get displaced and start looking for more hospitable environments that have freshwater and realize the midwest alone can't keep golf courses open in phoenix through the great lakes alone. WTF is Canada going to do to prevent being annexed by the US if it decides it needs their land? I also suspect that if things continue on the political path they're currently on, they're eventually going to see scads of "refugees" trying to get in from the US that are probably not going to make them look favorably at any recent immigrants.

Europe, while at far less risk of the US ever doing anything aggressive towards them, I think is just going to get absolutely cooked. They are doing the right thing and actually implementing climate measures, but without the US helping, I'm not optimistic that large chunks of Spain, Italy, etc are going to remain habitable in the way that they currently are. Everyone's going to have to switch over to desert-style housing/cooling and agriculture is going to be devastated.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> if the US goes full-fascist (very, very likely in the near future)


I guess time will tell, but I think it's just likely enough to warrant one very and not two.  ...


----------



## ArtDecade

American is too lazy to go fascist. We will never have the trains running on time.


----------



## wankerness

ArtDecade said:


> American is too lazy to go fascist. We will never have the trains running on time.


Fascism doesn't require competency or efficiency. Just look at North Korea. I suspect if we go full fascist, for those white and straight among us, it's just going to result in our lives getting worse at a slightly faster clip than before in terms of things like education and environmental regulation getting less and less attention and medicare getting worse and worse. With the occasional big shock, like abortion rights going away.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> Fascism doesn't require competency or efficiency. Just look at North Korea. I suspect if we go full fascist, for those white and straight among us, it's just going to result in our lives getting worse at a slightly faster clip than before in terms of things like education and environmental regulation getting less and less attention and medicare getting worse and worse. With the occasional big shock, like abortion rights going away.


Fun fact - North Korea in the 1950's was actually way more economically successful than South Korea. The people there were initially ready to put in the work to make their form of government the best example of communism possible. But, just like how the early USSR was better off than Tsarist Russia, but then Stalin stifled progress, Kim Il-Sung was more interested in setting up a dynasty of nasties than long term success of the nation.

Fascism is surprisingly difficult to pin down, ideologically. But, the one thing historians mostly agree upon, is that fascists were fanatically devoted to their goals.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I guess time will tell, but I think it's just likely enough to warrant one very and not two.  ...


I dunno, man. If you follow any of the analysis of the Jan 6th bullshit spew, um, I mean, hearings, apparently this is all gonna amount to a fart in the wind by the time it's done. I get that we need to have our ducks in a row on something like this, but with all the information available publicly to show, "Um, yep, that was not just stupid and reckless, but pretty much textbook definition illegal," we're still stuck in first gear going, "Well, maybe, if you squint just right with the sun in your eyes. . ."

There are very few people in this world that I truly despise, but if that fucker doesn't go to prison, there's a good chance he'll fling his dildo in the ring again. And if he's elected, we're done pretending to be a democratic republic. Hell, we might be done with that anyway in the next two to six years.


----------



## wankerness

The only thing that can prevent it is going to be an absolute tidal wave of democrats both in these upcoming midterms and the general election. We're done for at least a while if that doesn't happen. And I definitely wouldn't take a bet that the average voter is going to remember that abortion is now banned in their calculus if gas prices are still high, because the average voter is a total mouth-breathing moron that thinks that we're the only country in the world and that this price shock is 100% controlled by Joe Biden and only punishes the US and is only fixable by US policy.

Ironically I think the main opposing forces here are going to be corporations vs the true believer psychos. Unfortunately the nutballs like Amy Coney Barrett truly believe in trying to force all white women to give birth to try and stem the declining population of whites vs minorities, and will continue voting for any policy that benefits white christians over all (speaking of - today they ruled that public funds can go to explicitly discriminatory Christian schools, essentially negating the separation of church and state). However, a lot of these policies are NOT good for the US economy, and in fact some could be very, very harmful especially if we piss the rest of the world off enough and start getting sanctioned (or, in a much more extreme case, the coastal states secede). If that happens, the corporate overlords that ruled the Republican party the last few decades are going to be in a real spot since their pocketbooks could be really hurt by the forces they've unleashed on the country.

So yeah, we're really in a bad spot, it's going to get worse no matter what thanks to the supreme court having lifetime appointments (unless a meteor hits DC while they're in session), and I think if the next two elections go the way of the republicans and they can codify things like a nationwide abortion ban and more severe voter suppression measures to solidify their minority rule, it's going to get A LOT worse.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

wankerness said:


> today they ruled that public funds can go to explicitly discriminatory Christian schools, essentially negating the separation of church and state



We're already there. Check out the history of the Waldorf program. Eugenics, white supremacy, even occult mysticism. Many of these schools are receiving federal funding.


----------



## ArtDecade

wankerness said:


> The only thing that can prevent it is going to be an absolute tidal wave of democrats both in these upcoming midterms and the general election. We're done for at least a while if that doesn't happen. And I definitely wouldn't take a bet that the average voter is going to remember that abortion is now banned in their calculus if gas prices are still high, because the average voter is a total mouth-breathing moron that thinks that we're the only country in the world and that this price shock is 100% controlled by Joe Biden and only punishes the US and only fixable by US policy.
> 
> Ironically I think the main opposing forces here are going to be corporations vs the true believer psychos. Unfortunately the nutballs like Amy Coney Barrett truly believe in trying to force all white women to give birth to try and stem the declining population of whites vs minorities, and will continue voting for any policy that benefits white christians over all (speaking of - today they ruled that public funds can go to explicitly discriminatory Christian schools, essentially negating the separation of church and state). However, a lot of these policies are NOT good for the US economy, and in fact some could be very, very harmful especially if we piss the rest of the world off enough and start getting sanctioned (or, in a much more extreme case, the coastal states secede). If that happens, the corporate overlords that ruled the Republican party the last few decades are going to be in a real spot since their pocketbooks could be really hurt by the forces they've unleashed on the country.
> 
> So yeah, we're really in a bad spot, it's going to get worse no matter what thanks to the supreme court having lifetime appointments (unless a meteor hits DC while they're in session), and I think if the next two elections go the way of the republicans and they can codify things like a nationwide abortion ban and more severe voter suppression measures to solidify their minority rule, it's going to get A LOT worse.



Hear me out... Maybe the abortion ban is a good thing. Blue States will continue to have abortion. Full stop. The Supreme Court is basically turning it back over to the States and wealthy Republicans will travel to Blue States to get the very abortions they are against. That will mean it will be a time of reckoning in Red States regarding their Republican representatives. Some Red State politicians to move back towards the center because a lot of people are going to be pissed. You might not see Democrats winning elections anytime soon, but you might end up with moderate Republicans again. Maybe... probably not. But I am just spit-balling here.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> Hear me out... Maybe the abortion ban is a good thing. Blue States will continue to have abortion. Full stop. The Supreme Court is basically turning it back over to the States and wealthy Republicans will travel to Blue States to get the very abortions they are against. That will mean it will be a time of reckoning in Red States regarding their Republican representatives. Some Red State politicians to move back towards the center because a lot of people are going to be pissed. You might not see Democrats winning elections anytime soon, but you might end up with moderate Republicans again. Maybe... probably not. But I am just spit-balling here.


Based on the primary situations lately, I'd say moderate Republicans is about as "nope, not happening" as Jesus himself coming down from heaven, stepping to the podium during a White House Press Conference, smacking Joe Biden across the face and saying, "That's it, bitches. You fucked up enough."


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> Based on the primary situations lately, I'd say moderate Republicans is about as "nope, not happening" as Jesus himself coming down from heaven, stepping to the podium during a White House Press Conference, smacking Joe Biden across the face and saying, "That's it, bitches. You fucked up enough."



I hear ya. Right now, it is Republicans versus Democrats. That said, Red States will suffer much more than Blue States if they start overturning things like abortion. Moderate Republicans will provide the counter-weight to Trumpers within Red States. Republicans will have to find candidates that they actually agree with rather than blaming Democrats for everything that is wrong in their lives. LOL.


----------



## wankerness

ArtDecade said:


> Hear me out... Maybe the abortion ban is a good thing. Blue States will continue to have abortion. Full stop. The Supreme Court is basically turning it back over to the States and wealthy Republicans will travel to Blue States to get the very abortions they are against. That will mean it will be a time of reckoning in Red States regarding their Republican representatives. Some Red State politicians to move back towards the center because a lot of people are going to be pissed. You might not see Democrats winning elections anytime soon, but you might end up with moderate Republicans again. Maybe... probably not. But I am just spit-balling here.


Well, if you've seen the documents that the groups who have spearheaded this whole thing are distributing, the overturning of Roe and the majority of the country immediately having illegal abortions (there are a lot of trigger laws like here in WI that have been deactivated for years by Roe V Wade that will all come roaring back into effect immediately - they're already stopping any scheduling of abortions in this state past this week in anticipation) is only phase 1, and the next phase will be attempting to prosecute anyone who even TALKS to a pregnant woman about abortion. Last phase would be a nationwide abortion ban and those rules going nationwide, which I think is EXTREMELY likely if the republicans retake both the house and senate in the midterms.

In the long run it will likely cause a ton of pain and further resentment towards government and already a much larger majority of the country is pro-choice than votes democrat, so I can see what you describe happening. But, it's kind of the supreme court's job to not give a solitary fuck about public opinion, and when they're also religious zealots, I don't see any path towards them not upholding any anti-abortion law passed anywhere by anyone other than the members of the court being given a very personal reason to change their mind. And we already know the republicans also don't give a damn about popularity of individual policies if it won't affect them getting elected, and we already know that when it comes to actual votes that matter, no one on their side in the senate has an actual spine to oppose unpopular policies since Mccain died. Republicans can actually control their members, unlike Democrats, where those two pathetic wastes of life have completely stonewalled any political process because they were bought off by opposing interests.

I wish there'd be public kickstarters to hand them money if they start voting with democrats. I bet it would raise more money than they're currently making from right-wing interests.


----------



## Adieu

Ughh, f*ck this year

We had a massive daytime thunderstorm that started beyond the horizon in SoCal. Rolling thunder and triggered car alarms.

...I actually checked twitter and looked outside. Twice. For mushroom clouds.


----------



## ArtDecade

... ffs.


----------



## philkilla

I wish someone would make one of these for me sometimes


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> I wish someone would make one of these for me sometimes
> View attachment 109639


Gotta be important first.


----------



## Glades

ROE V WADE OVERTURNED! 6-3 DECISION
Praise the Lord!


----------



## coreysMonster

Glades said:


> ROE V WADE OVERTURNED! 6-3 DECISION
> Praise the Lord!


Can't tell if dumb cunt or edgy cunt.


----------



## narad

Shit just got real. State legislatures are going to go crazy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

coreysMonster said:


> Can't tell if dumb cunt or edgy cunt.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Glades said:


> ROE V WADE OVERTURNED! 6-3 DECISION
> Praise the Lord!


This incarnation of the SCOTOS is doing incredible damage that will last for decades to come. 

The US is going to be a totally different country before the year is over thanks to them. And I'm afraid it won't be good.

Their reasoning is a bit bananas as "it's not in the original constitution." That puts a whole lot of stuff on the chopping block.


----------



## StevenC

America: where guns have more rights than women


----------



## StevenC

thebeesknees22 said:


> Their reasoning is a bit bananas as "it's not in the original constitution." That puts a whole lot of stuff on the chopping block.


In the context of US legislation, this is the dumbest reason imaginable.


----------



## Glades

I can't wait to start hearing arguments from disgruntled leftists about the validity of the supreme court, or expanding the court.


----------



## coreysMonster

Clarence Thomas has even said they're coming for same-sex marriage, same-sex sex and contraception next. If anybody thinks this is good they have their head so far up their ass they don't realize just how hard the shit that's coming will hit them too.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> ROE V WADE OVERTURNED! 6-3 DECISION
> Praise the Lord!


Clarence Thomas says that this means they should reconsider contraception, same-sex marriage, and same-sex relationships.

This is not a question of legality, but politics.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> I can't wait to start hearing arguments from disgruntled leftists about the validity of the supreme court, or expanding the court.



Women will die because of this. Children will die because of this. People's lives will be ruined because of this. Families will be destroyed because of this. I'm glad you're enjoying your political victory lap. I'm sure Jesus is just stoked.


----------



## TimmyPage

thebeesknees22 said:


> This incarnation of the SCOTOS is doing incredible damage that will last for decades to come.
> 
> The US is going to be a totally different country before the year is over thanks to them. And I'm afraid it won't be good.
> 
> Their reasoning is a bit bananas as "it's not in the original constitution." That puts a whole lot of stuff on the chopping block.



From Clarence Thomas' portion: "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

Those are the ones that (to my understanding) stop states from banning contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

It's going to get so much worse from here...


----------



## nightflameauto

coreysMonster said:


> Clarence Thomas has even said they're coming for same-sex marriage, same-sex sex and contraception next. If anybody thinks this is good they have their head so far up their ass they don't realize just how hard the shit that's coming will hit them too.


It surprises me that a black judge wants to roll back the clock so hard. You'd think he'd at least kick in enough engagement to think about what rolling back rights for same-sex relations is just a few, very short steps removed from rolling back rights for non-whites.

I mean, my dumb-ass sees it, and I'm a middle aged white dude. WTF?

I am NOT shocked this comes out right before a weekend, during a week when the Jan. 6th hearings are flooding news with other unsurprising bullshit.


----------



## SpaceDock

Only place in bible were abortion is mentioned is God giving instructions on how to do one on an unfaithful wife, got nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus. It’s just extremist American politics.


----------



## Glades

MaxOfMetal said:


> Women will die because of this. Children will die because of this. People's lives will be ruined because of this. Families will be destroyed because of this. I'm glad you're enjoying your political victory lap. I'm sure Jesus is just stoked.


“Children will die because of this”. Every successful abortion results in a dead child. What is your point here?


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> “Children will die because of this”. Every successful abortion results in a dead child. What is your point here?


Interesting that you don't care about women dying.

But, as the old saying goes: you can't ban abortion, you can only ban safe abortion.


----------



## coreysMonster

Glades said:


> “Children will die because of this”. Every successful abortion results in a dead child. What is your point here?


The American government (and that includes state governments) doesn't recognize fetuses as children. There are no legal protections for fetuses. This is a fringe American Evangelical belief that has zero scientific or (mainstream) religious or political support. You're just wrong in every way possible. This is just a political move to reduce the power of the federal government because Republicans and their donors benefit when there is less federal oversight and you're falling for the rhetoric like an idiot.


----------



## TimmyPage

Glades said:


> I can't wait to start hearing arguments from disgruntled leftists about the validity of the supreme court, or expanding the court.



You know, people across the whole political spectrum are going to be hurt by this. Characterising people angry about losing their bodily autonomy as "disgruntled leftists" is extremely callous.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> “Children will die because of this”. Every successful abortion results in a dead child. What is your point here?



Would hate for something to happen to my guitar collection.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> I can't wait to start hearing arguments from disgruntled leftists about the validity of the supreme court, or expanding the court.


The vast majority of Americans support legalized abortion...not just disgruntled leftists. But other than that I totally agree with you. There is nothing more beautiful or wonderful than forcing an unwanted child to come into this world. When somebody does not have the desire or financial ability to be a parent but a third party forces that scenario under penalty of prison? Praise Jesus. Praise him.


----------



## SpaceDock

Three times the amount of embryos are destroyed each year with fertility treatments than abortions. This is not an argument about saving babies even if one believes embryos are babies, it’s about controlling women.


----------



## tedtan

coreysMonster said:


> This is just a political move to reduce the power of the federal government because Republicans and their donors benefit when there is less federal oversight and you're falling for the rhetoric like an idiot.


My wife recently read something from FaceBook re: an analogy of republican voters:

The forest kept shrinking, meanwhile the trees kept voting for the axe, thinking it was one of them because it had a wooden handle.


----------



## Glades

I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> “Children will die because of this”. Every successful abortion results in a dead child. What is your point here?


Infant: between birth and 2 years of age
Child: between 2 and 15 years of age
Youth: between 15 and 24 years of age

I didn't know it was ever legal to abort a 14 year old.



Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.



I'm glad you found your path. But what would Jesus do if a woman was about to die due to an ectopic pregnancy? Would he stop the doctors from treating her, or would he allow her to be healed?


----------



## profwoot

TimmyPage said:


> From Clarence Thomas' portion: "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
> 
> Those are the ones that (to my understanding) stop states from banning contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
> 
> It's going to get so much worse from here...


Notice Thomas doesn't mention Loving, the case that prevents states from banning interracial marriage. He's as corrupt as they come.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


Have you considered Matthew 10:14?

In case you are unfamiliar, it is the bit where Jesus says not to force your religion on other people.

Though, in this case I'm pretty sure turning women into talking incubators makes them the persecuted, and the religious extremists the oppressors, right?


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


You're a deluded fool. An embryo or fetus is not a baby and the bloke named Yeshua that you somehow think lives in your heart died 2000 years ago (inasmuch as he existed at all).


----------



## ArtDecade

Jesus hates Republicans. No one gives him a worse name than those knuckleheads.


----------



## thebeesknees22

TimmyPage said:


> From Clarence Thomas' portion: "we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
> 
> Those are the ones that (to my understanding) stop states from banning contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
> 
> It's going to get so much worse from here...


I assumed they'd gun for that right after they took out roe v wade. 

Friends and family I talked to when the news first leaked on roe v wade didn't believe me when I told they'd go for same sex marriage, but they absolutely are going to. F'n bananas times we're living in.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> I assumed they'd gun for that right after they took out roe v wade.
> 
> Friends and family I talked to when the news first leaked on roe v wade didn't believe me when I told they'd go for same sex marriage, but they absolutely are going to. F'n bananas times we're living in.


Well, if you think about it, three of the conservative justices who dissented against all of the LGBTQ rights cases are still there. It'd come down to Kavanaugh and Barret, and I'm honestly 50/50 as to what I'd expect from them. Kavanaugh might be the softer of the two if it comes to a close argument, and that doesn't look good if a case went before the court today. The only wild card would be if another justice dies or steps down and Biden somehow gets to nominate another. Although, as we've seen in the past, the rules are that, if a Democratic president is in office when a Supreme Court opening occurs, that president cannot nominate anyone in the last half of his term, but if it's a Republican president, he can. This means that the court will just keep getting more and more conservative as time goes on.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


You know that joke about how non-christians don't want to get stuck in heaven because they'd have to tolerate being stuck with Jesus's followers for eternity? You just made me remember it's not really a joke.


----------



## bostjan

If you reread the new testament with the mindset that Jesus was sent to earth by a soul-devouring spacemonster, it really changes the perspective. You can live on for an eternity as part of my father if you merely pledge your spirit to Him. If you don't, you will be punished by eternal separation from Him. Just sayin...

But anyway, fairly moderate win in US congress today with the gun control/mental health bill, so maybe things are looking up.

I'm not exactly sure what the ultimate fall-out will be over the SCotUS decision today. We all knew it was coming. It might simply be that the states that had already effectively banned abortion will now officially ban it, and some other swing states might become battlegrounds over the topic.


----------



## zappatton2

Man, I still remember an old Frank Zappa clip from the 80's where he basically stated America's trajectory since Reagan was Fascist Theocracy, and it feels more relevant now than ever. 

Having just come back from Norway, a nation where religion barely registers in the public consciousness, it was amazing to tour through the entire city of Oslo and see nothing close to the poverty and desperation I see on this side of the Atlantic, and when I got really ill during my trip, I got to see a doctor (as a foreigner without traveler medical coverage), received a diagnosis and medication, and barely paid $100 Canadian out-of-pocket. A nation run by a well-educated and civically involved population, without the poison of dogmatic belief, is a marvel to behold.

it amazes me how folks still can't see the toxic effects of religion on civil rights and public institutions. How magical thinking essentially removes critical faculties and primes citizen to happily part with decades of progress, sign away their most basic rights, and fall victim to the manipulation of political charlatans, to the effect of making their lives demonstrably worse. The more I think about the implications of a Fascist America, the more I think I should join my sister in northern Europe and put some distance between myself and the collapse on an empire.


----------



## BigViolin

Grown ass adults believing in bronze age fairy tales.


----------



## TheBlackBard

My wife and I have been trying to have a child successfully for years now. Each time, doctors would try something new, telling us, "maybe this will work, maybe this will help." So basically, now my wife has to have a pregnancy that's 100 hundred percent smooth, incredibly unlikely due to our history, and as a matter of fact, the fact that she could have died on the operating table largely deterred me, but not her from wanting to try again (I still want a child, but not at the risk of her body). I recently took a large chunk out my 401K in order for her to have a transabdominal cerclage to help her carry full term. My wife is asleep right now and there are two things that as of now she's unaware of: 1.) They overturned Roe V. Wade. 2.) I'm going to start saving for a vasectomy. This is going to upset her, and we both want a child, but there's no way in hell I'm contributing to a risk that large, especially since I was already on the fence after the last incident we had in 2015.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart.


Yeah, I'm just going to say it. Speaking as a Christian, you disgust me.


----------



## MFB

I'm just curious how much that new heart cost him under the US Healthcare system; surely if Jesus gave it to him that'd be socialism right?


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I love you all.


----------



## mmr007

Says "I love you all" after gloating that he can't wait to hear others upset about a life altering event.. Just like Jesus wanted


----------



## eaeolian

mmr007 said:


> The vast majority of Americans support legalized abortion...not just disgruntled leftists. But other than that I totally agree with you. There is nothing more beautiful or wonderful than forcing an unwanted child to come into this world. When somebody does not have the desire or financial ability to be a parent but a third party forces that scenario under penalty of prison? Praise Jesus. Praise him.


Keep in mind that it's just fine if that child starves to death, or gets bombed or shot because they're a different color. Just so long as they're born...


----------



## wankerness

TheBlackBard said:


> My wife and I have been trying to have a child successfully for years now. Each time, doctors would try something new, telling us, "maybe this will work, maybe this will help." So basically, now my wife has to have a pregnancy that's 100 hundred percent smooth, incredibly unlikely due to our history, and as a matter of fact, the fact that she could have died on the operating table largely deterred me, but not her from wanting to try again (I still want a child, but not at the risk of her body). I recently took a large chunk out my 401K in order for her to have a transabdominal cerclage to help her carry full term. My wife is asleep right now and there are two things that as of now she's unaware of: 1.) They overturned Roe V. Wade. 2.) I'm going to start saving for a vasectomy. This is going to upset her, and we both want a child, but there's no way in hell I'm contributing to a risk that large, especially since I was already on the fence after the last incident we had in 2015.


I'd recommend moving to a different state, not giving up on having kids. That's what I plan on doing. I'm right with you - if something goes wrong with the pregnancy in this state, now we'd have to be ready to get charged with murder. Plus in the states that have implemented bans recently, one effect is that a lot of providers will no longer do any in-utero health screenings because they'd risk giving on information that would lead the woman to get an abortion which would lead to them getting prosecuted for aiding an abortion. Fucking insane is what it is. But, move to a state that actually cares about the lives of pregnant women and it's a totally different story.
I'm thinking either Minnesota or Illinois will be easiest.

I would rather stay in WI, but unless hell freezes over there's NO way we're ever overturning the gerrymandered state senate and they have 100% of the power in determining whether to get rid of our brand new 1800s ban on abortions. And I WILL NOT risk the life of my partner to have a pregnancy in a state that refuses to protect the lives of pregnant women.

I heard today about a family friend who had to flee to a different state for a lifesaving procedure cause she lived in a backwater Southern state, had a miscarriage about 20 weeks in (she VERY MUCH WANTED to have kids), and under their laws the "dismemberment and extraction" procedure to get the fetus out of her to avoid her DYING FROM SEPSIS was against the law. The state would have outright killed her and not even to protect the life of her fetus, which was already dead. This is what it's now going to be like in Wisconsin. Fucking barbarians.


----------



## Grindspine

TheBlackBard said:


> My wife and I have been trying to have a child successfully for years now. Each time, doctors would try something new, telling us, "maybe this will work, maybe this will help." So basically, now my wife has to have a pregnancy that's 100 hundred percent smooth, incredibly unlikely due to our history, and as a matter of fact, the fact that she could have died on the operating table largely deterred me, but not her from wanting to try again (I still want a child, but not at the risk of her body). I recently took a large chunk out my 401K in order for her to have a transabdominal cerclage to help her carry full term. My wife is asleep right now and there are two things that as of now she's unaware of: 1.) They overturned Roe V. Wade. 2.) I'm going to start saving for a vasectomy. This is going to upset her, and we both want a child, but there's no way in hell I'm contributing to a risk that large, especially since I was already on the fence after the last incident we had in 2015.


I am really sorry to hear about your specific situation. Cases like this are completely overlooked by the theocratically minded justices currently sitting in SCOTUS.

Personally, I do not want to have children, under any circumstances. I worked in mental health and have taken care of kids who were "not right in the head". After burning out in mental health, I moved to laboratory medicine and currently work in pathology. I have assisted on infant autopsies. I have very regularly seen POC cases (product of conception), where a fetus was unable to be carried to term safely. I have also studied medical ethics, apparently more in-depth than any of the currently sitting justices.

Today is a sad day. This countries policies are becoming a joke to the rest of the industrialized world.

Finally, I would like to share this image that I have saved for years as a reminder.


----------



## mmr007

There is an easy fix for Dems...think outside the box if you want a reversal of what the court did today. There will be tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies. Giving the child up for adoption is still an option. Just pass a law that says adoption centers must teach critical race theory and that use of gender pronouns is optional and not only will will republican leaders and court justices overturn what they did today but they will say a woman can even terminate a pregnancy on stand your ground rights guaranteeing it can never be touched again.


----------



## ArtDecade

Banning abortions is a nice way to get Democrats to vote. And a nice way to make Republican women reconsider_ owning the libs._


----------



## wankerness

ArtDecade said:


> Banning abortions is a nice way to get Democrats to vote. And a nice way to make Republican women reconsider_ owning the libs._


I guess. But no amount of voting is going to fix this with how brainwashed a very large chunk of people that vote is. The damage is done, probably for generations. It's just too late. The only hope here is that it will make some of the purple states flip local governments enough to get them up to par with some of the solidly blue states, but there's no way things are going to improve in Kentucky, TX, etc.

Best we can hope for nationally is just staving off republicans getting a double majority and making this nationally-enforced, aka no longer a matter of states' rights. There's no way to vote out the supreme court that doesn't involve physical action.


----------



## MFB

My vote in 2024 election is for the guillotine personally


----------



## TheBlackBard

I'm not saying who, what, when, where, why but if several bonfires spring up overnight, well... I'm going to use my energy to complain about being somewhat dehydrated and how -I- need that water, and how even if I had it to spare, I wouldn't try to put them out.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


I am sincerely sorry that your mental incapacity has allowed you to fall so far from humanity and reason. And you are a premiere example of how dangerous religion can be to those who are unable to utilize rational thought. You embody the demented hypocrisy that is Christianity and sadly, that seems to work for you.

But if you genuinely believe that the God you worship would ever bless or approve of a right-wing conservative Supreme Court justice impeding upon the rights of millions of women to make decisions that they feel is in the best interest of their bodies, their families, and their emotional and physical health, then you are an absolutely vile individual. This is an unethical, unconstitutional, and inhumane act. 

How you religious extremists are able to sleep at night, able to justify this kind of abomination... and feel as if religion and government should be praised or supported for potentially damaging or destroying the emotional and physical health of any women, only assures me that you are truly brainwashed.


----------



## ArtDecade

wankerness said:


> but there's no way things are going to improve in Kentucky, TX, etc


I'm done trying to improve those Red State shit-holes. Let them sink. They love blaming liberals and everyone else for their problems. Well, let them see what happens when there is no one left to blame and the finger turns on their own.


----------



## Masoo2

On one hand, I hate that I'll be leaving this country (for good) in a few months as it means that I'll just be running away from the very real problems that affect those I love. I _want_ things to improve here.

On the other hand, I simply see no future in the United States. Years of constant regression has pushed me towards a position of outright apathy towards the country, it's political/legislative processes, and the accepted norms/realities of living here. I opt to avoid the problems these days just for the sake of my own wellbeing.

For all of the efforts I've contributed towards on the ground helping out my local community, I find it really disheartening that I'm just going to become another data point in the literature on human capital flight ("brain drain") that I've invested so much time into studying the root causes of. Many of my friends are in the exact same position - years of work supporting their local communities, thousands of hours dedicated to improving the lives of those around them, yet they too are leaving because they view the domestic fight for change as a lost cause.

As more and more realize that voting does not work in this country due to hardcoded "features" from the founders (e.g. electoral college), I fear that the coming months will see increased civil dissent like never before. And of course, as a result, further reduction of rights across the board, particularly enforced through an ever-militarizing and legally-immune police force.

I know apathy isn't a solution - I think don't think there is a solution at all.

The last few years have been the 100th anniversaries for three significant yet often suppressed events in American history. Let's hope the rest of this decade lives to tell a different tale...


----------



## wankerness

ArtDecade said:


> I'm done trying to improve those Red State shit-holes. Let them sink. They love blaming liberals and everyone else for their problems. Well, let them see what happens when there is no one left to blame and the finger turns on their own.


The problem is that every state is a split state. There are vastly more democrats in Texas than in most blue states. There are vastly more republicans in California than most red states. If the US really split politics along geographical lines it would be cities vs everyone else. And many cities have no means to provide for themselves if things ever turned into a real civil war. Something I've seen a lot of utter dipshit city-dwellers advocate for. "Oh, only old BOOMERS are republicans! all young capable people are liberals! we'd totally win a war!" No you wouldn't, you morons, you're all in a city, all they'd have to do would be cut off water supplies and shipping routes and you'd be done. And IIRC people over 65 leaned more democrat than the 30-65 demographic did. Plus conservatives are out-reproducing liberals by close to double the rate. It's not like people are liberal when they're young just because they're young, it depends on education (which is being gutted) and family (which is already radically conservative). If anything I'd expect this country to get LESS liberal over time.


----------



## wankerness

Masoo2 said:


> On one hand, I hate that I'll be leaving this country (for good) in a few months as it means that I'll just be running away from the very real problems that affect those I love. I _want_ things to improve here.
> 
> On the other hand, I simply see no future in the United States. Years of constant regression has pushed me towards a position of outright apathy towards the country, it's political/legislative processes, and the accepted norms/realities of living here. I opt to avoid the problems these days just for the sake of my own wellbeing.
> 
> For all of the efforts I've contributed towards on the ground helping out my local community, I find it really disheartening that I'm just going to become another data point in the literature on human capital flight ("brain drain") that I've invested so much time into studying the root causes of. Many of my friends are in the exact same position - years of work supporting their local communities, thousands of hours dedicated to improving the lives of those around them, yet they too are leaving because they view the domestic fight for change as a lost cause.
> 
> As more and more realize that voting does not work in this country due to hardcoded "features" from the founders (e.g. electoral college), I fear that the coming months will see increased civil dissent like never before. And of course, as a result, further reduction of rights across the board, particularly enforced through an ever-militarizing and legally-immune police force.
> 
> I know apathy isn't a solution - I think don't think there is a solution at all.
> 
> The last few years have been the 100th anniversaries for three significant yet often suppressed events in American history. Let's hope the rest of this decade lives to tell a different tale...


How the heck are you able to move out of the country? It's INCREDIBLY difficult unless you're willing to go to somewhere even worse or have parents/grandparents from a few specific countries. Or unless you're one of about 3-5 professions that are ever in demand elsewhere. Where are you going?


----------



## CapinCripes

Vasectomy time it is. I refuse to be party to this y'all quida bullshit. I will not be the reason for an unplanned pregnancy that removes someone else's autonomy.


----------



## tedtan

wankerness said:


> How the heck are you able to move out of the country? It's INCREDIBLY difficult unless you're willing to go to somewhere even worse or have parents/grandparents from a few specific countries. Or unless you're one of about 3-5 professions that are ever in demand elsewhere. Where are you going?


If you wan to move somewhere, be who they want to welcome - an entrepreneur. Create jobs and taxes and you’ll be welcomed with open arms. You may have to learn the local language, but you’ll be welcomed.


----------



## wankerness

tedtan said:


> If you wan to move somewhere, be who they want to welcome - an entrepreneur. Create jobs and taxes and you’ll be welcomed with open arms. You may have to learn the local language, but you’ll be welcomed.


So all I have to do is start my own successful and movable business?


----------



## Masoo2

wankerness said:


> How the heck are you able to move out of the country? It's INCREDIBLY difficult unless you're willing to go to somewhere even worse or have parents/grandparents from a few specific countries. Or unless you're one of about 3-5 professions that are ever in demand elsewhere. Where are you going?


Without getting into _too_ too many details as my specific niche is very small - I have substantive thematic and practical background in a particular topic that is *much much much* easier to attain a career in outside of the US rather than inside. Like, any efforts to address the issue in the US are often "militantly" opposed. That alone is one of the big drivers pushing me to permanently leave - if I can't have a career here doing what I want, why stay?

As it's hard to keep a career solely in that niche, my academic background (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_studies), research interests, and field experience have been more broadly within the realm of international development and assistance.

It's a very wide ranging field that looks for people of all backgrounds as it encompasses projects and challenges of all types. You don't have to have some gigaSTEM degree or an launched 10 startups or CodeMonkey'd since preschool to get into this work, but there's places for you in the field if you're interested. None of my colleagues have STEM or business backgrounds - all liberal arts, mostly social sciences. Languages (Arabic, French, Spanish) help but aren't 100% required, even for many in-country jobs.

Hard as hell to actually break into the field though. Extremely nepotistic, favoring candidates primarily from select elite academic backgrounds and higher class incomes whose families are able to sustain volunteer work and world travel. Unpaid internships are the norm, often requiring a master's degree to even be considered (+ a year or two of relevant experience). It's not uncommon to see positions paying sub-$50,000 requiring a master's degree + 5-7 years of highly relevant international work + having to immediately relocate for the job within a few weeks of accepting. Especially nowadays, contract positions have all but overtaken permanent positions in the main agencies, organizations, and non-profits/NGOs, so job security is basically nonexistent. Some of my friends in M&E (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitoring_and_evaluation) have 30+ orgs/companies/contracts on their resumes - they have to stay constantly on the job hunt as their current position is never more than a few months away from termination. _If_ you manage to get a permanent position you're set for life.

It's a bit ironic though, don't you think? Going around the world to help others implement the same type of fundamental changes I'd want in my own country? Working to help others instead of helping those in my own community who raised me and shaped me into who I am? That's one of the main internal challenges my peers have all expressed over the years and is the cause for quite a bit of resistance from the general public. It doesn't help that partisan news blasts headlines like "BIDEN SENDING $500 MILLION OF HARD EARNED TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO COUNTRY X" instead of "USAID-backed project to increase arable land access in Country Y resulted in agricultural and economic output growth of 75% compared to 2020."

"unless you're willing to go somewhere even worse" That's the thing really, what do you define as "worse"? Is it purely economic, e.g. "what is the GDP per capita," or something a bit more subjective, like whether or not being there makes you happy? 
Of course I'd love to get a cushy position in a North/Northwestern European country where I can bike to work every day and drink an espresso while receiving free healthcare, but I've felt just as happy living somewhere where I can see the direct impacts of my work.

As much as I hate the term, I probably fall into the category of being a "global citizen" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_citizenship) - I do not and have never demonstrated any significant civic interest or national pride. just don't care to be a citizen of a country.


----------



## Grindspine

SpaceDock said:


> Only place in bible were abortion is mentioned is God giving instructions on how to do one on an unfaithful wife, got nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus. It’s just extremist American politics.


Unfortunately quoting this for truth.

Just remember that the Supreme Court is trying to ban abortions to save babies, but making carrying an AR-15 reasonable... because, you know.. those never kill anyone.

I am exhausted at how violated I feel the entirety of the country is today. I do not even consider myself strongly liberal. For years, I have identified as a centrist. The GOP has gotten so ideologically extreme though, that it is difficult to see living out the rest of my life in this country.

I am dreading my wife's mood when she gets home. 

Whatever happened to HIPAA? Health care privacy was invented to keep politicians' STI history out of public knowledge. It would be amazing if some group of hackers pulled up the history of STIs for every single GOP politician in office and leaked it to the public. Even in the face of that, I doubt few would back down from this zealous conservative movement.


----------



## Grindspine

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.


Your "God" lets babies die every day. Working in pathology, I get to see "God's" mistakes on a cellular level; cancer, infections, auto-immune diseases. This ideology is deeply flawed. The "innocent, the persecuted and the victimized" is now every citizen of this country who used to have bodily autonomy.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Grindspine said:


> Unfortunately quoting this for truth.
> 
> Just remember that the Supreme Court is trying to ban abortions to save babies, but making carrying an AR-15 reasonable... because, you know.. those never kill anyone.
> 
> I am exhausted at how violated I feel the entirety of the country is today. I do not even consider myself strongly liberal. For years, I have identified as a centrist. The GOP has gotten so ideologically extreme though, that it is difficult to see living out the rest of my life in this country.
> 
> I am dreading my wife's mood when she gets home.
> 
> Whatever happened to HIPAA? Health care privacy was invented to keep politicians' STI history out of public knowledge. It would be amazing if some group of hackers pulled up the history of STIs for every single GOP politician in office and leaked it to the public. Even in the face of that, I doubt few would back down from this zealous conservative movement.


 Regarding your wife's understandable devastated or infuriated mood... I watched my wife go off to work today with tears streaming down her face. She was almost trembling. We've texted back and forth today about this and I'm trying to comfort her and encourage her to stay positive that this isn't over yet. She's terrified of being raped. She's talking about getting her tubes tied and scared shitless of that prospect. I feel for you and your wife, brother. 

And because I'm still enraged about this, I want to add that anyone that feels as if it's sane or rational or productive or healthy for religion and politics to be so tightly intertwined, is seriously disturbed (regardless of their religious beliefs). Pushing your idea of "right" or "acceptable" onto others is just absolutely demented... It truly is. If you Christians can't at least understand this, then there's something very wrong with you. You're that self-righteous? Your beliefs trump everyone else's beliefs? Your God is the true God and everyone else that disagrees should suffer? Are you fucking serious??? Sorry, you delusional pieces of shit but you can just fuck right off.


----------



## Randy

Not making any predictions but I've got my "Oh no... Anyway..." jpg at the ready for **something** that seems inevitable.


----------



## tedtan

We’re almost to 1,000 pages and you’d lock the thread?


----------



## Masoo2

tedtan said:


> We’re almost to 1,000 pages and you’d lock the thread?


don't think that's quite what @Randy was getting at.......


----------



## tedtan

Masoo2 said:


> don't think that's quite what @Randy was getting at.......


Sorry, I must not be paying enough attention.

I’m too distracted trying to decide what will happen if my wife gets pregnant and I buy an AR15 and “accidentally” shoot her in the abdomen while cleaning it, will I 1) be heralded an American hero for buying an AR15, or 2) be prosecuted for helping her have an abortion, even though neither of us wanted an abortion (it was an accident, after all).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

But really, it's mean liberals on the internet that's the problem.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> I probably would have agreed with all of you a few years ago. I did not care for the life of babies and largely lived the life that the world wanted me to live. But Christ came into my life and gave me a new heart. We are all sinners in the eyes of God, but Christ came and laid down His life for us, so that in Him we could have eternal life. I am not sure how to argue this topic without invoking His authority, and I’m not sure if any of you can understand what I’m saying without being born again. But the gift is offered to everyone, and I hope some of you opt to receive it and be transformed. Maybe then you’ll heart will be softened and stand for the innocent, the persecuted and the victimized. I love you all.



Well, at least you realize the YMMV factor behind the authority of a wandering activist rabbi who was executed in a political feud 2000 years ago


----------



## coreysMonster

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 109674
> 
> 
> But really, it's mean liberals on the internet that's the problem.


Look I can agree with condemning women to die for no reason, but insults on the internet is where I draw the line!


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 109674
> 
> 
> But really, it's mean liberals on the internet that's the problem.


It's a shame that the states without exceptions for incest are exactly the states that need it.


----------



## Mathemagician

Hey look Christian sharia law strikes again. 

Turns out fundamentalist nut jobs of every faith have the exact same goals, beliefs, and desired outcomes for pretty much topic.


----------



## thraxil

wankerness said:


> How the heck are you able to move out of the country? It's INCREDIBLY difficult unless you're willing to go to somewhere even worse or have parents/grandparents from a few specific countries. Or unless you're one of about 3-5 professions that are ever in demand elsewhere. Where are you going?



In most cases you're right. One option for Americans who can work remotely (which is quite a few fields now) is the Netherlands. The Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) allows Americans to get a visa by starting a business in the Netherlands. A lot of countries have similar business/investment visas but DAFT is particularly attractive because the amount of money that the business has to "invest" (opening a business bank account and depositing some money counts) hasn't been revised since the treaty was ratified in the 50s, so it's currently about $4500, which is a couple orders of magnitude lower than most other desirable countries. Beyond that and some paperwork, there aren't any requirements, eg, no need to demonstrate any income/profit for the business. The visa is for two years but can be indefinitely renewed. We have friends who've used DAFT and we spoke to an immigration lawyer about doing it ourselves (when we first moved to the UK my partner hated her job and were looking at options for leaving without having to return to the US). You'll pay a few thousand in lawyer and accountant fees and there are some tricky details (you need to figure out a way to get a Dutch mailing address before you've technically been able to move there) but it's pretty straightforward compared to a lot of countries' immigration paths.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Mathemagician said:


> Hey look Christian sharia law strikes again.
> 
> Turns out fundamentalist nut jobs of every faith have the exact same goals, beliefs, and desired outcomes for pretty much topic.


Just call them the Republican Taliban. It's what they are.


----------



## Adieu

thraxil said:


> In most cases you're right. One option for Americans who can work remotely (which is quite a few fields now) is the Netherlands. The Dutch-American Friendship Treaty (DAFT) allows Americans to get a visa by starting a business in the Netherlands. A lot of countries have similar business/investment visas but DAFT is particularly attractive because the amount of money that the business has to "invest" (opening a business bank account and depositing some money counts) hasn't been revised since the treaty was ratified in the 50s, so it's currently about $4500, which is a couple orders of magnitude lower than most other desirable countries. Beyond that and some paperwork, there aren't any requirements, eg, no need to demonstrate any income/profit for the business. The visa is for two years but can be indefinitely renewed. We have friends who've used DAFT and we spoke to an immigration lawyer about doing it ourselves (when we first moved to the UK my partner hated her job and were looking at options for leaving without having to return to the US). You'll pay a few thousand in lawyer and accountant fees and there are some tricky details (you need to figure out a way to get a Dutch mailing address before you've technically been able to move there) but it's pretty straightforward compared to a lot of countries' immigration paths.



But is it still subject to the ridiculous global double-taxation rules for "high" (read: normal) incomes that have since a few years back applied to Americans working abroad?


----------



## thebeesknees22

Adieu said:


> But is it still subject to the ridiculous global double-taxation rules for "high" (read: normal) incomes that have since a few years back applied to Americans working abroad?


I think it depends on what country you live in and if they have an agreement with the US. 

ie) Canada - not a problem. I've never paid double tax. Didn't when I lived for a bit in Australia too. 

You basically file your taxes in the country you're in first. The amount you pay in taxes gets applied to the US as a tax credit, and if it's more than what you would have paid in the US then you don't pay any taxes in the US. If it's less you may have to pay the difference.


----------



## Grindspine

Mathemagician said:


> Hey look Christian sharia law strikes again.
> 
> Turns out fundamentalist nut jobs of every faith have the exact same goals, beliefs, and desired outcomes for pretty much topic.


I am not at all happy waking up as an atheist in a theocratic country.


----------



## DrewH

The particularly troubling thing about conservatives, abortion, and the other soon to be taken away rights, is their utter insistence that the rest of us be forced to live by their value system. The concept of people wanting to control how others live is very disturbing and even dangerous. It's all rooted in corrupt organized religion. I was raised to have a choice which you wouldn't expect because my mother was raised strictly catholic. She sent me to a couple of protestant week long bible schools when I was a kid and I made it known after that I was done. She didn't force me to do anything beyond that and, from the age of like 8 or 9 on, religion was totally up to me. I opted not to take part. What I didn't know until later in life is my grandparents disowned my mother for 5 years because she committed the utter sin of marrying a non-catholic man. Think about that. Your parents want nothing to do with you because the love of your life and the person you want to spend that life with and raise a family with doesn't practice the same faith. When I finally was told that, it made sense how I was raised. I'm thankful because I was allowed to develop as a free thinker. It allowed me to see more clearly as I got older what a complete scam organized religion is. I have had friends who were raised differently and didn't have a single thought of their own in their heads. "Abortion is evil and gay is a sin". Well, why do you think that? "It just is!" They've been programmed from an early age to have those thoughts. They are told to live and think a certain way and never question it. The result are a bunch of drones who have all these thoughts but have no idea why they do. College history and political science classes really opened my eyes as to what the true original purpose of organized religion was/is. The perfect way to control a populace is if they all live and think the same way. The most effective way you do this is fear. The never proven to exist invisible all powerful man will strike you down or send you to hell if you don't do this or that or if you DO this or that. This is why conservatives hate education. The more educated you are, the more likely you are to see through the BS you've been fed your entire life. It's not just you are programmed to think a certain way in church. You are also taught that everyone else who isn't part of your faith is a sinner. That's where the real danger comes from and why abortion rights just got the axe. It also exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the church. A house of God that preaches divisiveness instead of acceptance. Prejudice instead of love. Just really sick stuff....

I'm glad my mother didn't live to see this day. She was a strong minded woman who would have been pained by rights for her gender being eroded away.

Oh..and one question for the conservatives. If you are so concerned with preserving "life" then is it just preserving the organic vessel or saving the soul? God assigns our souls at birth, right? Before that, we are just a clump of organic matter. So, why it is so important to you to save that clump? God will just give the soul to the next baby up in the queue. I know I won't get a good answer to this because conservatives don't know how to deal with logic.


----------



## mmr007

Grindspine said:


> I am not at all happy waking up as an atheist in a theocratic country.


If it's any consolation we probably won't be a country much longer the way everyone is itching for a civil war and what with our unregulated militias being more heavily armed than actual ones


----------



## Mathemagician

Grindspine said:


> I am not at all happy waking up as an atheist in a theocratic country.



I love how all the Christian’s think *their* specific sect is the correct one. 

The infighting that would occur as they turn on each other in the eventual endgame of trying to force a theocracy is ironic. 

Sectarian fighting happens in every fundamentalist area. Let’s not pretend like every sect thinks the others are their _equals_, lol.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Mathemagician said:


> I love how all the Christian’s think *their* specific sect is the correct one.
> 
> The infighting that would occur as they turn on each other in the eventual endgame of trying to force a theocracy is ironic.
> 
> Sectarian fighting happens in every fundamentalist area. Let’s not pretend like every sect thinks the others are their _equals_, lol.


----------



## Adieu

Mathemagician said:


> I love how all the Christian’s think *their* specific sect is the correct one.
> 
> The infighting that would occur as they turn on each other in the eventual endgame of trying to force a theocracy is ironic.
> 
> Sectarian fighting happens in every fundamentalist area. Let’s not pretend like every sect thinks the others are their _equals_, lol.



Well, that one's a given.

After all, the son of their god was a RABBI, and their main rival faith was founded by a student and translator of Judaism and Christianity... really hard to maintain a god's chosen identity with such blurry lines unless you preach sectarian strife.


----------



## Louis Cypher

Obviously it's too late now but if at any point in the last 40 yrs Roe v Wade had been enshrined in Federal(??)/Constitutional(??) law then this ruling couldn't have been overturned?

Terrifying they are also threaten to make access to contraception (for women of course), same sex marriage and homosexuality illegal as well.

As is being reported here where America leads many country's around the world follow.... the Vatican has announced its full support for the ruling....

Personal I really don't understand the scenes of women celebrating this decision.... celebrating the fact that they are now 2nd class citizens in their own country when it comes to their own body autonomy and health


----------



## tedtan

Louis Cypher said:


> Personal I really don't understand the scenes of women celebrating this decision.... celebrating the fact that they are now 2nd class citizens in their own country when it comes to their own body autonomy and health


It’s odd, but here in the US, women are more pro-life/anti-abortion than are men.

But even with all the religious nuts against it, 2/3 of Americans still support abortion rights. The difficulty is in getting legislation through the Senate without a large enough majority.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> It’s odd, but here in the US, women are more pro-life/anti-abortion than are men.
> 
> But even with all the religious nuts against it, 2/3 of Americans still support abortion rights. The difficulty is in getting legislation through the Senate without a large enough majority.


?


----------



## Bodes

Sorry if this has been covered, thread got really long in the last few days.

With certain states saying that a foetus is alive at point of fertilisation, do those states have laws that cover when an unborn child is killed in say a car incident?

I.e. a drunk driver hits another car. The unborn dies. Does that count as manslaughter/murder?
Or
A domestic violent act, person kills unborn child when belting their partner?

Surely if they don't, those laws must be brought in, right? Otherwise that would be contradictory laws.

My state government (Victoria, Australia) has grappled with the 'is an unborn a human' thing for years. There was a court case where a driver crashed into a young expecting mother. Foetus died, mother lived. Out laws currently say that the death of the unborn can't be considered murder or manslaughter. So the driver couldn't receive a larger penalty than what he did. Only got a light sentence for dangerous driving under the influence or something similar.


----------



## jco5055

narad said:


> ?
> View attachment 109722



For me I feel like this really shows how un-democratic gerrymandering, the Senate, and electoral college are all of the USA can be in the state it is (not just for abortion but a lot of other hot button issues) seeing how one-sided it is for pro-choice if you don't look at party affiliation


----------



## jco5055

Bodes said:


> Sorry if this has been covered, thread got really long in the last few days.
> 
> With certain states saying that a foetus is alive at point of fertilisation, do those states have laws that cover when an unborn child is killed in say a car incident?
> 
> I.e. a drunk driver hits another car. The unborn dies. Does that count as manslaughter/murder?
> Or
> A domestic violent act, person kills unborn child when belting their partner?
> 
> Surely if they don't, those laws must be brought in, right? Otherwise that would be contradictory laws.
> 
> My state government (Victoria, Australia) has grappled with the 'is an unborn a human' thing for years. There was a court case where a driver crashed into a young expecting mother. Foetus died, mother lived. Out laws currently say that the death of the unborn can't be considered murder or manslaughter. So the driver couldn't receive a larger penalty than what he did. Only got a light sentence for dangerous driving under the influence or something similar.



it is hard to say what would be "right" but considering some conservative posts have said stuff like "democrats know abortion is murder, why else would a person be charged with double homicide if they kill a pregnant woman and no one ever argues against that" I think if nuance isn't allowed it would be better to go with "not born=not a person at all" in all laws vs the opposite of course.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> ?
> View attachment 109722


I think they mean intensity. In my experience it's always women out on the street don't anti abortion stuff, or picketing clinics. 

Abortion only became legal a year or two ago where I live (services still haven't been commissioned) but I've been seeing anti abortion people yelling on street corners for as long as I can remember.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> ?
> View attachment 109722


My comment was based on a poll I saw recently on the news. I don’t know whether or not I can find a link.




Bodes said:


> Sorry if this has been covered, thread got really long in the last few days.
> 
> With certain states saying that a foetus is alive at point of fertilisation, do those states have laws that cover when an unborn child is killed in say a car incident?
> 
> I.e. a drunk driver hits another car. The unborn dies. Does that count as manslaughter/murder?
> Or
> A domestic violent act, person kills unborn child when belting their partner?
> 
> Surely if they don't, those laws must be brought in, right? Otherwise that would be contradictory laws.
> 
> My state government (Victoria, Australia) has grappled with the 'is an unborn a human' thing for years. There was a court case where a driver crashed into a young expecting mother. Foetus died, mother lived. Out laws currently say that the death of the unborn can't be considered murder or manslaughter. So the driver couldn't receive a larger penalty than what he did. Only got a light sentence for dangerous driving under the influence or something similar.


I don’t know about other states, but in Texas, both could be prosecuted as a criminal act.


----------



## nightflameauto

I had a really unsettling thought about the whole abortion thing this weekend. What happens with all the unwanted that are born? Sure, sometimes the mom / parents can turn it around and make a real go of it, but more often than not you end up with a kid that KNOWS they weren't wanted, and grows up to be an undereducated, under-cared-for, unwanted, burden on society, pissed off at the universe and wanting to punish EVERYONE for how horrible they feel about themselves.

That's gonna be a whole lotta future Republican voters getting churned out by this decision. We're basically going to drown in stupid in the coming years if this stands. Well, I guess, technically we'll drown in stupid a little faster than we were already.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> I had a really unsettling thought about the whole abortion thing this weekend. What happens with all the unwanted that are born? Sure, sometimes the mom / parents can turn it around and make a real go of it, but more often than not you end up with a kid that KNOWS they weren't wanted, and grows up to be an undereducated, under-cared-for, unwanted, burden on society, pissed off at the universe and wanting to punish EVERYONE for how horrible they feel about themselves.
> 
> That's gonna be a whole lotta future Republican voters getting churned out by this decision. We're basically going to drown in stupid in the coming years if this stands. Well, I guess, technically we'll drown in stupid a little faster than we were already.



Simple

Good ol' medieval polygamy to reallocate the extra girls and mandatory constant wars to intentionally reduce the population of unwanted males


----------



## eaeolian

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 109674
> 
> 
> But really, it's mean liberals on the internet that's the problem.


This post should literally be the end of the discussion. VA will, of course, try, especially if they somehow control one of the houses of the legislature after November.


----------



## wankerness

tedtan said:


> It’s odd, but here in the US, women are more pro-life/anti-abortion than are men.



What? That's not true at all. I've never seen a poll that came close to supporting that statement.



Mathemagician said:


> Hey look Christian sharia law strikes again.
> 
> Turns out fundamentalist nut jobs of every faith have the exact same goals, beliefs, and desired outcomes for pretty much topic.


People like to throw around terms like Sharia and Taliban in reference to this, but ironically abortion is fine under Sharia law. General Islamic law says up to 120 days, so even more liberal than most of Europe and the US!


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> I had a really unsettling thought about the whole abortion thing this weekend. What happens with all the unwanted that are born? Sure, sometimes the mom / parents can turn it around and make a real go of it, but more often than not you end up with a kid that KNOWS they weren't wanted, and grows up to be an undereducated, under-cared-for, unwanted, burden on society, pissed off at the universe and wanting to punish EVERYONE for how horrible they feel about themselves.
> 
> That's gonna be a whole lotta future Republican voters getting churned out by this decision. We're basically going to drown in stupid in the coming years if this stands. Well, I guess, technically we'll drown in stupid a little faster than we were already.


It goes even deeper than that.

The other side of the coin is that this is also not only an effort to punish women who have abortions, but to disenfranchise them as well. Conservative states have a history of stripping the voting rights felons, likely because they know that anyone who's been through the penal system is going to vote in a way that's contrary to the Republican desire to privatize the American prison system, and the GOP won't stand for anything that opens the doors for a Democrat to be elected who will potentially dismantle their cash cow. Being able to convict women of murder for getting an abortion, women who on the whole will likely lean left statistically, allows for their voting rights to be stripped from them, often permanently if the charge is murder.

So on one hand, you create a likely conservative voter to the pool by forcing their birth and subsequently setting them up for living in a state of perpetual ignorance, or on the other hand, you remove a likely progressive voter from the same pool by convicting them, locking them up, and, most importantly, disenfranchising them.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> I had a really unsettling thought about the whole abortion thing this weekend. What happens with all the unwanted that are born? Sure, sometimes the mom / parents can turn it around and make a real go of it, but more often than not you end up with a kid that KNOWS they weren't wanted, and grows up to be an undereducated, under-cared-for, unwanted, burden on society, pissed off at the universe and wanting to punish EVERYONE for how horrible they feel about themselves.
> 
> That's gonna be a whole lotta future Republican voters getting churned out by this decision. We're basically going to drown in stupid in the coming years if this stands. Well, I guess, technically we'll drown in stupid a little faster than we were already.


That's why they're only "pro-life" between conception and birth.


----------



## mmr007

Theoretical question. Feel free to chime in....the way the ruling reads and the concept of "throwing it back to the states" (which is laughable) means whether or not a woman can have an abortion is up to the government. 

What if....and hear me out on this......the government decides you MUST have an abortion? Whether because routine prenatal screening identify genetic issues like Down syndrome or other health issues. What if you already have 1 child and can't demonstrate the means to support a second one and in each case the state identifies a financial interest in limiting your child bearing ability? The Nazi's called it their T4 euthenasia programs and (aside from being the start of the holocaust with its mobile gas vans) it started with forced abortions on women the state deemed mentally deficient and even forced sterilization on certain classes and races. 

Based on what just happened...why could that scenario not repeat? We just said, it's not a woman's right to choose, it's the state's and guess what? We rarely like the decisions a state makes when it finally realizes it can flex. Who are the pro-lifers going to complain to? Reproductive "rights" are not a right, they are conditional on the whims of "the state". Just hope and pray that your whims always align I guess.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid. The US hasn't demonstrated that it is capable of the political extremism, racism or violence necessary for such a dystopia to come to fruition. Never mind.


----------



## StevenC

mmr007 said:


> Theoretical question. Feel free to chime in....the way the ruling reads and the concept of "throwing it back to the states" (which is laughable) means whether or not a woman can have an abortion is up to the government.
> 
> What if....and hear me out on this......the government decides you MUST have an abortion? Whether because routine prenatal screening identify genetic issues like Down syndrome or other health issues. What if you already have 1 child and can't demonstrate the means to support a second one and in each case the state identifies a financial interest in limiting your child bearing ability? The Nazi's called it their T4 euthenasia programs and (aside from being the start of the holocaust with its mobile gas vans) it started with forced abortions on women the state deemed mentally deficient and even forced sterilization on certain classes and races.
> 
> Based on what just happened...why could that scenario not repeat? We just said, it's not a woman's right to choose, it's the state's and guess what? We rarely like the decisions a state makes when it finally realizes it can flex. Who are the pro-lifers going to complain to? Reproductive "rights" are not a right, they are conditional on the whims of "the state". Just hope and pray that your whims always align I guess.
> 
> Maybe I'm just being paranoid. The US hasn't demonstrated that it is capable of the political extremism, racism or violence necessary for such a dystopia to come to fruition. Never mind.


The wording isn't about a person's right to reproduce, but about their right to decide not to reproduce. This ruling doesn't give states the right to terminate pregnancies, but the right to legislate when a mother can terminate their pregnancy. 

Some states have laws against coerced abortion. I can't find examples of forced abortions which really fit here to discuss. There are cases where hospitals have deemed it medically necessary in the case of the mother being unfit which go to court with mixed results; and there are cases of systemic genocidal forced abortions*. There hasn't really been a case of a pregnancy being viable but with some disability that a hospital or government wants force an abortion to actually test this. But this new ruling doesn't provide a mechanism to allow it, nor did the previous Roe V Wade ruling. 

A judgement that protects the foetus's rights above all others isn't very useful for justifying a forced abortion. Typically when authorities carry out a nonconsensual abortion (of a pregnancy that both mother and child would survive) it leads to a court case that the mother tends to win**. 

*Uyghers in China and border detention centres in the USA

**In places with human rights


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> Theoretical question. Feel free to chime in....the way the ruling reads and the concept of "throwing it back to the states" (which is laughable) means whether or not a woman can have an abortion is up to the government.
> 
> What if....and hear me out on this......the government decides you MUST have an abortion? Whether because routine prenatal screening identify genetic issues like Down syndrome or other health issues. What if you already have 1 child and can't demonstrate the means to support a second one and in each case the state identifies a financial interest in limiting your child bearing ability? The Nazi's called it their T4 euthenasia programs and (aside from being the start of the holocaust with its mobile gas vans) it started with forced abortions on women the state deemed mentally deficient and even forced sterilization on certain classes and races.
> 
> Based on what just happened...why could that scenario not repeat? We just said, it's not a woman's right to choose, it's the state's and guess what? We rarely like the decisions a state makes when it finally realizes it can flex. Who are the pro-lifers going to complain to? Reproductive "rights" are not a right, they are conditional on the whims of "the state". Just hope and pray that your whims always align I guess.
> 
> Maybe I'm just being paranoid. The US hasn't demonstrated that it is capable of the political extremism, racism or violence necessary for such a dystopia to come to fruition. Never mind.


I'd say that, from a legal lens, that scenario is not discussed in the opinion, so, if a state government tried to pass such a law, first, it'd have to get a majority of the state legislature to vote for it, which would be extremely unlikely and unusual, and then it'd have to be challenged in court.

I wouldn't worry about things going in that particular direction. I'd be far more worried about things that Justice Thomas said they were fired up to overturn next - like same-sex marriage and just generally the right for LGBTQ+ people to exist. If the states pass a law that singles out, say 10% of the population, and says "it is not legal for you to breathe anymore, because of what you are," and it makes it to the SCotUS, we now have a number of justices who have indicated (some more clearly than others) that they're okay with siding with the state in such cases. That's more scary and dystopian and also more believable under the current situation.

And it's easy for people in blue states to sit back and shrug this off as "well, this only really affects those backward states like Arkansas and the Dakotas and such," but, there are a lot of urban centers with heavily democratic leanings in Texas, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc., that are just GOP controlled due to gerrymandering. It's a pretty bad can of worms to open up.

I'm not a big fan of abortion. I think it's a sad thing. But, regardless of that, outlawing it across the board with no sense of why it might be necessary is just mind-blowingly stupid to me. If a doctor tells a woman she's pregnant, but the pregnancy is not viable; however, she'll die as a result, and there's nothing that the doctors can do, because of the stupid state law, coupled with the stupid Supreme Court case that reaffirms it - well, I'd like anybody to tell me how that's justice.

It only goes to show that the courts here in the USA aren't even concerned anymore with the "appearance" of serving justice. It's all stupid politics and this is what this country deserves for playing stupid political games for so long.


----------



## ArtDecade

Just remember, the party that hasn't won a popular election in 30 years has placed 7 of the last 9 Justices on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Mathemagician

wankerness said:


> What? That's not true at all. I've never seen a poll that came close to supporting that statement.
> 
> 
> People like to throw around terms like Sharia and Taliban in reference to this, but ironically abortion is fine under Sharia law. General Islamic law says up to 120 days, so even more liberal than most of Europe and the US!




Thank you for educating me on this. I like learning new things.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Just remember, the party that hasn't won a popular election in 30 years has placed 7 of the last 9 Justices on the Supreme Court.



It's been spewed at nauseam lately the idea that there is a super-majority of "conservative" justices in the SCOTUS, as if this "conservative" term was related to the interests of the Republican Party. We have to make an intelligent distinction between political conservativism and constitutional originalism. The reality is that an originalist will not always sway in the manner that Republicans or Conservatives expect them too. It is easy for people to criticize the SCOTUS for the latest decisions as being "conservative", but they are in fact constitutional originalist decisions on the majority. If anyone wants to dig deeper into it, you can easily find examples of cases where originalism ruled against political conservatism. An easy example was the 2020 decision, lead by Neil Gorsuch to expand title VII rights to LGBTQ. Hardly something that a conservative would agree with, but very consistent with an originalist interpretation. The RNC was calling Gorsuch a "turn-coat" for this.
In MY opinion, the SCOTUS should be comprised of 9 originalists. No political conservatives, and no political progressives. This court should not be political. It should be a straight-forward interpretation of the constitution, as written.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> It's been spewed at nauseam lately the idea that there is a super-majority of "conservative" justices in the SCOTUS, as if this "conservative" term was related to the interests of the Republican Party.











Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'


In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.




www.businessinsider.com





If the judges are unrelated to the GOP, why did McConnell refuse to allow Obama to appoint Scalia's replacement on the grounds that his term was ending, but was ok with forcing Barrett through with much less time left in Trump's term?


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
> 
> 
> In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the judges are unrelated to the GOP, why did McConnell refuse to allow Obama to appoint Scalia's replacement on the grounds that his term was ending, but was ok with forcing Barrett through with much less time left in Trump's term?



Because originalism (and in some form textualism) not always aligns with Conservatism, but it almost certainly never aligns with progressivism. And progressivism is highly political and of the interest of the DNC.

Steven, you are very involved in these USA politics discussions. Yet you are not American? Props to you my man! I really could not tell you the first thing about British politics!

Also, every judge will have their own political opinion about each matter, because they are human. The difference is a good judge will rule based on the law as written, despite the outcome of the ruling not aligning with their personal opinion (or not liking the outcome/consequence of the ruling). A bad judge will always analyze the outcome first, and intentionally or unintentionally interpret the law for the desired outcome.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Because originalism (and in some form textualism) not always aligns with Conservatism, but it almost certainly never aligns with progressivism. And progressivism is highly political and of the interest of the DNC.
> 
> Steven, you are very involved in these USA politics discussions. Yet you are not American? Props to you my man! I really could not tell you the first thing about British politics!
> 
> Also, every judge will have their own political opinion about each matter, because they are human. The difference is a good judge will rule based on the law as written, despite the outcome of the ruling not aligning with their personal opinion (or not liking the outcome/consequence of the ruling). A bad judge will always analyze the outcome first, and intentionally or unintentionally interpret the law for the desired outcome.


What has that got to do with the fact that Clarence Thomas is inherently a political and conservative person, and his wife attempted a coup recently? What has that got to do with Barrett having a political agenda?

The Declaration of Independence promises Americans the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But how does that tally with states forcing births and involving themselves in the bedroom? Why does the 2nd Amendment matter more than the 9th for example?


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Because originalism (and in some form textualism) not always aligns with Conservatism, but it almost certainly never aligns with progressivism. And progressivism is highly political and of the interest of the DNC.
> 
> Steven, you are very involved in these USA politics discussions. Yet you are not American? Props to you my man! I really could not tell you the first thing about British politics!
> 
> Also, every judge will have their own political opinion about each matter, because they are human. The difference is a good judge will rule based on the law as written, despite the outcome of the ruling not aligning with their personal opinion (or not liking the outcome/consequence of the ruling). A bad judge will always analyze the outcome first, and intentionally or unintentionally interpret the law for the desired outcome.


I thought you were going a different direction with that at first. The real answer is that conservative legislators aren't in line with constitionalism. So, they don't care what the Constitution says about who nominates justices.

But the way you explain it is really not a clear answer.

The Constitution says nothing about abortion. It does say that whatever isn't clear is reserved for the people and the states. So, again, it's up to interpretation as to which has precedence- but if it's ever a matter of life or death, it should not be up to the State, but rather up to the person.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> It's been spewed at nauseam lately the idea that there is a super-majority of "conservative" justices in the SCOTUS, as if this "conservative" term was related to the interests of the Republican Party. We have to make an intelligent distinction between political conservativism and constitutional originalism. The reality is that an originalist will not always sway in the manner that Republicans or Conservatives expect them too. It is easy for people to criticize the SCOTUS for the latest decisions as being "conservative", but they are in fact constitutional originalist decisions on the majority. If anyone wants to dig deeper into it, you can easily find examples of cases where originalism ruled against political conservatism. An easy example was the 2020 decision, lead by Neil Gorsuch to expand title VII rights to LGBTQ. Hardly something that a conservative would agree with, but very consistent with an originalist interpretation. The RNC was calling Gorsuch a "turn-coat" for this.
> In MY opinion, the SCOTUS should be comprised of 9 originalists. No political conservatives, and no political progressives. This court should not be political. It should be a straight-forward interpretation of the constitution, as written.




I looooooove that I have to pretend to give a shit about what dudes from 250+ years ago thought about human rights and access to medical care.

Many of whom still fucking owned slaves.

The documents were _designed_ to be living documents that would be able to be updated by society as we moved forward in time.

The very act of having a constitutional (representative) democracy was a *PROGRESSIVE* idea for its time. 

Everything that originally made America awesome was progressive ideas and ideals. And allowed mechanisms to update the documents. Like the _inherent_ mistake of the 3/5ths rule.

It was flawed from the get go but it gave guidance.

“Originalists” are just lawyers who don’t want to practice law or the legislative process. Because if they allow no new precedents to be created then there are no challenging decisions that must be made to keep the law of the land updated with the will of the people.

So tired of willfully-lying people who have a vested religious desire for a specific religiously-based outcome do mental gymnastics to defend stripping citizens of rights.

Originalists ignore the fact that they are deifying regular human men, and trying to read their words as gospel.

The founding fathers were just dudes with some good ideas. Not infallible.


----------



## ArtDecade

Mathemagician said:


> The founding fathers were just dudes with some good ideas. Not infallible.


They were ass-hats that didn't want to pay taxes so they set up their own ruling class under the guise of freedom.


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> It's been spewed at nauseam lately the idea that there is a super-majority of "conservative" justices in the SCOTUS, as if this "conservative" term was related to the interests of the Republican Party. We have to make an intelligent distinction between political conservativism and constitutional originalism. The reality is that an originalist will not always sway in the manner that Republicans or Conservatives expect them too. It is easy for people to criticize the SCOTUS for the latest decisions as being "conservative", but they are in fact constitutional originalist decisions on the majority. If anyone wants to dig deeper into it, you can easily find examples of cases where originalism ruled against political conservatism. An easy example was the 2020 decision, lead by Neil Gorsuch to expand title VII rights to LGBTQ. Hardly something that a conservative would agree with, but very consistent with an originalist interpretation. The RNC was calling Gorsuch a "turn-coat" for this.
> In MY opinion, the SCOTUS should be comprised of 9 originalists. No political conservatives, and no political progressives. This court should not be political. It should be a straight-forward interpretation of the constitution, as written.


This is extremely naive. Recent Republican nominees to the supreme court were chosen from a list of names put together by the Federalist Society, an organization with the explicit goal of overturning Roe. Originalism has nothing to do with it. They'll feign originalism when it serves their purposes, sure, but they're always reasoning backwards from the hyper-partisan conclusions everyone already knew they held. Because if they didn't hold them they wouldn't have been nominated.

America was founded on the principle of self-governance. I don't think being governed by 18th century white dudes as channeled by 6 unelected extremists really counts.


----------



## mastapimp

As someone that had to go through a couple of rounds of IVF with my wife, this whole decision to overturn roe v wade scares the shit out of me for what it means going forward with another frozen embryo transfer. My wife had 5 miscarriages before we consulted ART (assisted reproductive technologies) and we were successful with our second transfer (our child is 1 now), but we have another viable embryo on ice that we wish to transfer soon. Lots of things are murky when it comes to storage, disposal, and decisions related to maternal health and safe outcomes. Every IVF pregnancy is labeled high risk and involves lots of things that might get outlawed ex vivo like genetic testing/screening. 

To give you guys an idea of how this works, my wife had about 20 eggs harvested, of which 11 were successfully fertilized, and only 3 were graded healthy and viable for implantation. Are the 8 fertilized embryos that failed to progress considered aborted? Are they going to make some crazy law to require that the transfer (the procedure for a single transfer cost us between $5-6K) to happen for all of these non-viable leftover embryos? We signed papers to allow the discarded embryos to go to research to further advance this kind of medicine which will probably go away in the states that are all riled up about enacting new or old abortion laws.

In our case, it seems the new law that could be coming into effect could prohibit me and my wife from having another child as she cannot carry a pregnancy to term without ART.


----------



## Mathemagician

mastapimp said:


> As someone that had to go through a couple of rounds of IVF with my wife, this whole decision to overturn roe v wade scares the shit out of me for what it means going forward with another frozen embryo transfer. My wife had 5 miscarriages before we consulted ART (assisted reproductive technologies) and we were successful with our second transfer (our child is 1 now), but we have another viable embryo on ice that we wish to transfer soon. Lots of things are murky when it comes to storage, disposal, and decisions related to maternal health and safe outcomes. Every IVF pregnancy is labeled high risk and involves lots of things that might get outlawed ex vivo like genetic testing/screening.
> 
> To give you guys an idea of how this works, my wife had about 20 eggs harvested, of which 11 were successfully fertilized, and only 3 were graded healthy and viable for implantation. Are the 8 fertilized embryos that failed to progress considered aborted? Are they going to make some crazy law to require that the transfer (the procedure for a single transfer cost us between $5-6K) to happen for all of these non-viable leftover embryos? We signed papers to allow the discarded embryos to go to research to further advance this kind of medicine which will probably go away in the states that are all riled up about enacting new or old abortion laws.
> 
> In our case, it seems the new law that could be coming into effect could prohibit me and my wife from having another child as she cannot carry a pregnancy to term without ART.




I am really sorry for everything you and your wife have gone through, and congrats on your child!

This is unfortunately an example of how these laws make things difficult for those trying to have children as well.

I’m sure you are not the only family going through this, and the people voting for these laws don’t know or care what happens in the back end. They just want to see “punishment as a deterrent” policies.



profwoot said:


> This is extremely naive. Recent Republican nominees to the supreme court were chosen from a list of names put together by the Federalist Society, an organization with the explicit goal of overturning Roe. Originalism has nothing to do with it. They'll feign originalism when it serves their purposes, sure, but they're always reasoning backwards from the hyper-partisan conclusions everyone already knew they held. Because if they didn't hold them they wouldn't have been nominated.
> 
> America was founded on the principle of self-governance. I don't think being governed by 18th century white dudes as channeled by 6 unelected extremists really counts



It’s because he’s not naive. This is just the mental gymnastics that controlling people say to try to sound like their toxic beliefs _just happen_ to line up with the abusive removal of women’s rights. 

People who support the removal of access to medicine start from their archaic belief, then work backwards to build a narrative that supports it. If that means deifying a few politicians from centuries ago then so be it. 

It’s never in good faith.


----------



## nightflameauto

Here's something that I think lays at the base level to describe what the differences are in progressive vs. regressive policies and thoughts.

Some people understand that when you raise anyone's status, be it their healthcare, their income, their education, anything, no matter what level of society they happen to sit at, you are raising EVERYONE by just a tiny little bit.

The people that don't understand that seem to think that pushing someone down, no matter what rung of society they reside at, somehow elevates everyone else, including themselves. They don't have the connections in their brain that show them that society falls as individuals fall. They only see, "HA HA! YOU LOSE!" And somehow, that's all the justification they need. They don't realize they could just as well change that to, "HA HA! WE ALL LOSE!" It may not feel like it in the moment, but each take-away, from anyone, lowers the overall prospects for all of us.

It takes the whole of a society to make that society thrive. And no, a few bazillionaires at the top with oodles of lower class does not designate a thriving society. So anybody planning on twisting my words into, "HURR DURR DON'T TAX THE RICH!" is welcome to fuck off.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> The people that don't understand that seem to think that pushing someone down, no matter what rung of society they reside at, somehow elevates everyone else, including themselves. They don't have the connections in their brain that show them that society falls as individuals fall.


They basically see it as a zero sum game. In their worldview, no one can possibly be elevated unless it's to the detriment of someone else, and they're so resolved to not be that someone else that they'll preemptively go out of their way to keep others down. They believe that there can be no winners without losers, and when other people in an ethnic/socioeconomic/political group that they view as being _the other_ starts (air quotes) "winning", it must mean that they're losing, and that cannot stand.


----------



## Glades

who is “they”?


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> who is “they”?


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

Xaios said:


> Yeah, I'm just going to say it. Speaking as a Christian, you disgust me.


Elaborate?


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> who is “they”?



Excellent example of someone pretending not to understand that they are inflicting their religious fantasy on others.

One doesn’t have to admit they may be in the wrong if they just pretend they don’t understand.

It redirects the conversation away from the topic.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> who is “they”?


I'm sorry, we can only accept: "Grandma, who are they?"


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> who is “they”?



You.


----------



## Xaios

DistinguishedPapyrus said:


> Elaborate?


Banning abortions under religious subtext (because, let's face it, that's where this is really coming from) tells women that God values them as no more than birthing machines, and that the Church considers a bundle of cells without consciousness to be more worthy of care and protection than the fully realized woman carrying it, even if the baby is non-viable or even straight-up dead. That's just fucking monstrous. Any so-called Christian who thinks that Jesus's response to a woman getting an abortion (something which, as has repeatedly been pointed out, the Bible contains _explicit instructions on how to perform_) would be "Yeah, throw the bitch in prison, or better yet, execute her" has clearly never met the man. There is no Christ in a purported Christian Church that chooses to treat people like this.

As for those championing the Church's involvement in the legislative process, just as those who practice Christianity have no business forcing adherence to their beliefs on others, the Church has absolutely no business in government.


----------



## SpaceDock

Wondering why Christians think the embryos have souls and are full people but won’t bury them in consecrated ground or baptize them? Seems to me like their church doesn’t treat them the same way they would a born person and are damning that eternal soul.


----------



## tedtan

Xaios said:


> Banning abortions under religious subtext (because, let's face it, that's where this is really coming from) tells women that God values them as no more than birthing machines, and that the Church considers a bundle of cells without consciousness to be more worthy of care and protection than the fully realized woman carrying it, even if the baby is non-viable or even straight-up dead. That's just fucking monstrous. Any so-called Christian who thinks that Jesus's response to a woman getting an abortion (something which, as has repeatedly been pointed out, the Bible contains _explicit instructions on how to perform_) would be "Yeah, throw the bitch in prison, or better yet, execute her" has clearly never met the man. There is no Christ in a purported Christian Church that chooses to treat people like this.
> 
> As for those championing the Church's involvement in the legislative process, just as those who practice Christianity have no business forcing adherence to their beliefs on others, the Church has absolutely no business in government.


Well said.


----------



## Crungy

SpaceDock said:


> Wondering why Christians think the embryos have souls and are full people but won’t bury them in consecrated ground or baptize them? Seems to me like their church doesn’t treat them the same way they would a born person and are damning that eternal soul.


They have to keep pushing so those stupid guilt trip billboards can keep littering our highways and controlling people.


----------



## StevenC

Xaios said:


> Banning abortions under religious subtext (because, let's face it, that's where this is really coming from) tells women that God values them as no more than birthing machines, and that the Church considers a bundle of cells without consciousness to be more worthy of care and protection than the fully realized woman carrying it, even if the baby is non-viable or even straight-up dead. That's just fucking monstrous. Any so-called Christian who thinks that Jesus's response to a woman getting an abortion (something which, as has repeatedly been pointed out, the Bible contains _explicit instructions on how to perform_) would be "Yeah, throw the bitch in prison, or better yet, execute her" has clearly never met the man. There is no Christ in a purported Christian Church that chooses to treat people like this.
> 
> As for those championing the Church's involvement in the legislative process, just as those who practice Christianity have no business forcing adherence to their beliefs on others, the Church has absolutely no business in government.


Not elaborate at all really.


----------



## mmr007

All Chuck Norris memes need to be replaced with Liz Cheney. I don't care that I probably disagree with 90% of her political views. She is bad ass


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus

Xaios said:


> Banning abortions under religious subtext (because, let's face it, that's where this is really coming from) tells women that God values them as no more than birthing machines, and that the Church considers a bundle of cells without consciousness to be more worthy of care and protection than the fully realized woman carrying it, even if the baby is non-viable or even straight-up dead. That's just fucking monstrous. Any so-called Christian who thinks that Jesus's response to a woman getting an abortion (something which, as has repeatedly been pointed out, the Bible contains _explicit instructions on how to perform_) would be "Yeah, throw the bitch in prison, or better yet, execute her" has clearly never met the man. There is no Christ in a purported Christian Church that chooses to treat people like this.
> 
> As for those championing the Church's involvement in the legislative process, just as those who practice Christianity have no business forcing adherence to their beliefs on others, the Church has absolutely no business in government.


no I was wondering why the OP on that reply thread simply gave his testimony type of message, the next guy says he was a Christian as well and was disgusted at him... just threw me a little off there. Its been a few years since ive been active on this forum, kinda getting used to the flow of things again lol, maybe i just didnt read far back enough to catch the other side


----------



## MFB

mmr007 said:


> All Chuck Norris memes need to be replaced with Liz Cheney. I don't care that I probably disagree with 90% of her political views. She is bad ass



It's 2022, who the fuck is still making Chuck Norris memes?


----------



## ArtDecade

MFB said:


> It's 2022, who the fuck is still making Chuck Norris memes?


Chuck, probably.


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> Chuck, probably.



Shit.


----------



## nightflameauto

MFB said:


> It's 2022, who the fuck is still making Chuck Norris memes?


I'mma go with Padalecki, as he rapes the corpse once known as Walker, Texas Ranger.

It's an irony thing for him. Hipster cool while destroying a legacy.


----------



## bostjan

Holy sh.....

Anyone heard or read about the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony about Jan 6?

I'm not sure if this is accurate, but the Independent is reporting that she testified the Trump wrestled with a secret service agent trying to take the wheel of the presidential limo to go to the Capitol, and that several congresspeople were involved in a plot to get themselves pardons for being a part of the plot to attack the Capitol (Gaetz, MTG, and a bunch of others).

If that's really her testimony, brace yourselves for hearing all about how horrible of a person she is from Trump's supporters.


----------



## mmr007

MFB said:


> It's 2022, who the fuck is still making Chuck Norris memes?


Apparently not those who still use Rambo avatars


----------



## High Plains Drifter

mmr007 said:


> All Chuck Norris memes need to be replaced with Liz Cheney. I don't care that I probably disagree with 90% of her political views. She is bad ass


Another one is former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson who testified today.

Nevermind > just saw bostjans post.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Holy sh.....
> 
> Anyone heard or read about the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony about Jan 6?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is accurate, but the Independent is reporting that she testified the Trump wrestled with a secret service agent trying to take the wheel of the presidential limo to go to the Capitol, and that several congresspeople were involved in a plot to get themselves pardons for being a part of the plot to attack the Capitol (Gaetz, MTG, and a bunch of others).
> 
> If that's really her testimony, brace yourselves for hearing all about how horrible of a person she is from Trump's supporters.


I watched the whole thing. Pretty amazing stuff including the revelation that Trump said Pence deserved to be hanged and that he yelled at the secret service because they wouldn't remove the magnetometers so people with weapons could enter. "They're not here to hurt ME!" he yelled


----------



## bostjan

I wonder if there's any proof of any of this or if there's anyone else who was there and can potentially testify whether or not any of these things happened. I would imagine that this stuff basically means that there needs to be criminal charges brought against those congresspeople as well as Trump.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, here's to hoping there's some sort of verification of that testimony and we finally, FINALLY see something done about the nut-job wing of the GOP. Frankly, our whole country is getting way too comfortable with shit that should net someone a stay in a psyche ward, not a god damned public office.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Well, here's to hoping there's some sort of verification of that testimony and we finally, FINALLY see something done about the nut-job wing of the GOP. Frankly, our whole country is getting way too comfortable with shit that should net someone a stay in a psyche ward, not a god damned public office.



Sadly, being batshit crazy is seen by a significant portion of voters as a selling point. I don't even think people like MTG buy their own lines. They're probably still half as crazy as they appear, but play it up to get more attention.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Sadly, being batshit crazy is seen by a significant portion of voters as a selling point. I don't even think people like MTG buy their own lines. They're probably still half as crazy as they appear, but play it up to get more attention.


I would certainly hope that's the case. If MTG buys everything she says she really should be locked up. Frankly, I'm surprised they let her get by with her implied threats and such. Hell, sometimes it's outright threats.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The thing about people like MTG is it doesn't matter what she believes. Her existence normalizes crazier and crazier shit in public discourse. Just like Alex Jones, she's either on some deep state cointel social engineering payroll or she's doing great work for free. 

I promise you in ten years we'll all be waxing nostaglic for the times of Jewish Space Lasers.


----------



## mmr007

Boebert says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’



Lauren Boebert says we’ve been doing it wrong. Why cant strippers just stay strippers. Why do they have to find Jesus.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> Holy sh.....
> 
> Anyone heard or read about the Cassidy Hutchinson testimony about Jan 6?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is accurate, but the Independent is reporting that she testified the Trump wrestled with a secret service agent trying to take the wheel of the presidential limo to go to the Capitol, and that several congresspeople were involved in a plot to get themselves pardons for being a part of the plot to attack the Capitol (Gaetz, MTG, and a bunch of others).
> 
> If that's really her testimony, brace yourselves for hearing all about how horrible of a person she is from Trump's supporters.


Trump already came out and said it was all fabricated and false. J6 is all a show, like russia-gate, the impeachment and all the other clown shows trying to derail the goat.


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


> Boebert says she is ‘tired’ of separation between church and state: ‘The church is supposed to direct the government’
> 
> 
> 
> Lauren Boebert says we’ve been doing it wrong. Why cant strippers just stay strippers. Why do they have to find Jesus.


The only time she ever found Jesus was as she was yelling "OH GOD!" while getting nailed by Ted Cruz.

My work here is done.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> Trump already came out and said it was all fabricated and false. J6 is all a show, like russia-gate, the impeachment and all the other clown shows trying to derail the goat.


WTF?


----------



## mmr007

I know it’s not your fault you didn’t know that I just ate but you had to realize it was entirely possible when you said some thing that forced me to picture Ted Cruz having sex


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


> I know it’s not your fault you didn’t know that I just ate but you had to realize it was entirely possible when you said some thing that forced me to picture Ted Cruz having sex


It could be worse. I could have forced you to picture that while Boebert was getting railed by Cruz, he was also taking it in the keister from Trump at the same time.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> It could be worse. I could have forced you to picture that while Boebert was getting railed by Cruz, he was also taking it in the keister from Trump at the same time.


Isn't that the default way to imagine Ted Cruz?



Glades said:


> Trump already came out and said it was all fabricated and false. J6 is all a show, like russia-gate, the impeachment and all the other clown shows trying to derail the goat.


Yeah, he says everything is all lies before anyone even says anything.

The Russia investigation resulted in tons of arrest warants, and a few convictions (so far). The impeachment resulted in nothing, though.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Isn't that the default way to imagine Ted Cruz?
> 
> 
> Yeah, he says everything is all lies before anyone even says anything.
> 
> The Russia investigation resulted in tons of arrest warants, and a few convictions (so far). The impeachment resulted in nothing, though.


Except impeachment. Goat if your metric is number of times impeached.


----------



## Metalman X

narad said:


> Except impeachment. Goat if your metric is number of times impeached.


I guess impeachment is no big deal?

I mean, I always thought it was a serious measure not to be taken lightly, and meant to safeguard the country from someone unfit for office.

I guess in reality, it's more like a strongly worded warning from a toothless HR department.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Metalman X said:


> I guess impeachment is no big deal?
> 
> I guess in reality, it's more like a strongly worded warning from a toothless HR department.


Pretty much. No impeachment of a US president has ever resulted in their removal from office. 

On a federal level, only eight officials have every actually been convicted and removed from office, all of them federal judges of district courts.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Trump already came out and said it was all fabricated and false. J6 is all a show, like russia-gate, the impeachment and all the other clown shows trying to derail the goat.


Pretty sure there's something in the bible about false idols too.


----------



## nightflameauto

Metalman X said:


> I guess impeachment is no big deal?
> 
> I mean, I always thought it was a serious measure not to be taken lightly, and meant to safeguard the country from someone unfit for office.
> 
> I guess in reality, it's more like a strongly worded warning from a toothless HR department.


Nah. A strongly worded warning from HR would merit a moment's notice. An impeachment is just more proof that "The Other Guys" actually *ARE* out to get you. The only concern you should show if you are impeached, is mock outrage over daring to have someone question your sainthood, bro.

You know that.
"Of course I do, sir."
Everybody knows that.
"OF COURSE WE DO, SIR!" *GRABS BALLS*

Sorry, the classics seem to be slipping out of me today. Probably my brain's natural reaction to the news of the last twenty-four hours and coming to grips with the fact that it'll just be more fodder for the water cooler, while Trump continues to play golf and live in the place he swore he wouldn't make a home.


----------



## bostjan

So, while I know Trump is the focus of the spectacle, I think that Cassidy's testimony carries far more actionable implications for MTG, Gaetz, and other representatives. If they actively sought out pardons for things they were planning to do, that is very strong evidence for _mia culpa_. They knew what they were doing was illegal, and intended to do it if and only if they were able to skate away from legal consequences.

They conspired to willfully break 18 US Code SS 595, which would warrant a trial. If found guilty, they should be barred from ever holding public office for life.

Of course, we all know that there are enough corrupt politicians in office that they'd figure out a way to weasel out of it. With everything being so politicized, Republican senators would be highly unlikely to vote to convict. However, if the public ever comes to their senses, it could lead to some transparency about where the corruption lives, and how to rid both houses of congress of this cancer simply by voting.

Heck, if it could be done swiftly, it might even be used as a political tool by the left to fire up their voting base right before the mid-terms to reduce the effect of the tradition of mid-term elections swinging to the right. That _should_ incentivize a call to action. But only if the left actually gave two shits about anything.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Heck, if it could be done swiftly, it might even be used as a political tool by the left to fire up their voting base right before the mid-terms to reduce the effect of the tradition of mid-term elections swinging to the right. That _should_ incentivize a call to action. But only if the left actually gave two shits about anything.


If there's anything that history has shown us over the past few decades, it's that Democrats know PRECISELY how to squander any advantage. They will absolutely fail to make use of any information gained via these hearings during the election cycle.


----------



## wankerness

January 6 is also about at the end of issues that any voters care about. They need to do something about inflation, housing/homelessness, and rising crime rates or there's going to be a complete republican blowout the next two elections even without them having to put their thumb on the scale.

In IL, I like how the super-wacko the stupid democrats funded against the more reasonable republican candidate for governor won the primary, and is now polling higher than the democratic candidate. Kind of what they did with Trump - idiotically thinking that the more sane candidate would be harder competition for them. If that guy gets in, say goodbye to IL being a reproductive health oasis in the midwest.


----------



## Adieu

Yeah, we DO need a housing market CRASH asap


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> January 6 is also about at the end of issues that any voters care about. They need to do something about inflation, housing/homelessness, and rising crime rates or there's going to be a complete republican blowout the next two elections even without them having to put their thumb on the scale.



This "elect a Democrat to save the world... again" thing has worn out it's welcome. Pitch people on how you're gonna make their life better.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> January 6 is also about at the end of issues that any voters care about. They need to do something about inflation, housing/homelessness, and rising crime rates or there's going to be a complete republican blowout the next two elections even without them having to put their thumb on the scale.
> 
> In IL, I like how the super-wacko the stupid democrats funded against the more reasonable republican candidate for governor won the primary, and is now polling higher than the democratic candidate. Kind of what they did with Trump - idiotically thinking that the more sane candidate would be harder competition for them. If that guy gets in, say goodbye to IL being a reproductive health oasis in the midwest.


75% of Illinois residents live in the greater Chicago area. That's why it's so difficult for Republicans there, generally. Only about 10% of people in Wisconsin live in Milwaukee.

What Democrats should have realized by now is that they are their own worst enemies. Even republican voters don't vote for republican candidates because of their platforms or character. They vote *against* what the democrats stand for - things like women's rights or same-sex marriage, or stricter gun control, or whatever. And it works well for them.

But the worst part of all of this is the greater implication about the integrity of our elections. Trump most likely influenced the 2016 election. Investigators couldn't prove it because he obstructed the investigation. AND GOT AWAY WITH OBSTRUCTING THE INVESTIGATION. In a just world, that shit wouldn't have flew. Then he was impeached for extorting influence over the 2020 election well before it took place, AND GOT AWAY WITH IT in spite of damning evidence. Then he was impeached AGAIN for trying to influence the 2020 election after the fact BY FORCE - AND GOT AWAY WITH IT YET AGAIN! Now this Jan 6th hearing is only telling us what we already know, and the right is mostly just like "yeah, we already knew this, so what?" And that's not a good point at all, but it'll undoubtedly be enough to make none of this matter.

Meanwhile, though, we have taken the wool off from our eyes and it's all public record that the election process here is fucked. Trump didn't just have his thumb on the scale, he had his entire weight on it, plus he had russian hackers try to compromise the scale's firmware, and then tried to threaten the cashier, and when that didn't work, sent an angry mob to the corporate office for good measure.


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> This "elect a Democrat to save the world... again" thing has worn out it's welcome. Pitch people on how you're gonna make their life better.


Seriously. And I fucking hate this empty social justice bullshit they constantly are crowing on about. They're very obviously making these empty performative gestures about supporting trans rights (a TINY, TINY, TINY percentage of the population) or loudly using terms that everyone hates like Latinx in place of doing anything that actually helps anyone. And the emphasis on that stuff is driving away a lot of formerly solid democratic bases (ex, latino voters) and just making them poll even lower. They need a radically blue-collar tough guy that is actually about action on major issues that people care about that has no time for the tiny social justice wedge issues that mainly only hyper-liberal dimwits on twitter who live in NYC or SF and falsely believe they represent a sizable demographic of the country care about. Like, yes, rights for all people are important, but inclusivity officers and all that stuff that they've been pushing so hard the last few years is a gigantic waste of administrative money and basically a scam industry. Improve peoples' lives, focus on issues that regular people care about, and you should easily be able to overcome the Republican platform of "we hate everything that democrats do even if we agreed with it before they proposed it, and have no coherent platform of our own other than turning the US into a fascist christian state that removes all social nets and gives all money straight back to the rich."

Bernie Sanders was the right kind of politician but the wrong age.


----------



## Randy

wankerness said:


> Seriously. And I fucking hate this empty social justice bullshit they constantly are crowing on about.
> 
> Bernie Sanders was the right kind of politician but the wrong age.



Had a thought about this last night. I've been duking it out with Blue Dog establishment Democratic apologists lately, and the thing that's missing is that Progressives _also _believe in LGBTQ+ and minority rights but it's assumed rather than the "Big D" approach of patting themselves about it every chance they get while actively making everyone's lives worse (or standing idly by while they get worse).

This "shut up and vote Democrat" stuff gave us the bottom of the barrel leadership we have now that are fighting for their survival because they don't look like they can do anything. Desperation is not very becoming, and it doesn't win you the independents.


----------



## ArtDecade

Man, I don't like vast swaths of Democrats, but until the Republican Party issues marching orders for the Populists/Trumpers/Fascists we aren't going to have much of a political discourse.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Man, I don't like vast swaths of Democrats, but until the Republican Party issues marching orders for the Populists/Trumpers/Fascists we aren't going to have much of a political discourse.



Democrats used to be reasonable during the Obama years. But it seems Trump triggered a knee-jerk reaction in the party, and the democrats with the loudest voices are usually waayyyyy on the left. They make classical liberals like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan look like righ-wingers.


----------



## Randy

ArtDecade said:


> Man, I don't like vast swaths of Democrats, but until the Republican Party issues marching orders for the Populists/Trumpers/Fascists we aren't going to have much of a political discourse.


That's kind of the issue. There are vast swaths of normies that are not beholden to either party and if they're not impressed with either candidate then they're going to stay home. Or vote for whoever based on whatever weird bullshit thing that crosses their mind that day. That's a problem especially when it comes the level of gerrymandering the SCOTUS has enabled.

Dems have to win and win big if they're combat Fascist/Trumpists, and again, "vote Democrat to save the world" doesn't always work.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Democrats used to be reasonable during the Obama years. But it seems Trump triggered a knee-jerk reaction in the party, and the democrats with the loudest voices are usually waayyyyy on the left. They make classical liberals like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan look like righ-wingers.



Clearly you haven't listened to Rogan in a while since he's gone to the other side of the spectrum and is just insufferable now, current Joe Rogan would hate old Joe Rogan.

Also, compared to the rest of the world, our "leftist" politics are middle-center so I don't think you realize what 'far left' would actually look like. 

And maybe we're "unreasonable" (I use it in quotes because again, compared to the rest of the world politically we're in the stone age) because the right seem hell bent on removing the very things that the country was founded on and legitimately written as the first fucking amendment such as not enacting laws based on religion/separation of church and state so we can throttle ourselves into their Christian Dictatorship they seem so desperate for. Didn't their slogan used to be the "party of values" which is apparently now praising sexism, racism, isolationism, etc? I wish the south had seceded so that all the bible-belts could just emigrate there (but of course that'd make them immigrants, and they'd be the problem somewhere else), but unfortunately we're still stuck with y'all.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> Trump already came out and said it was all fabricated and false. J6 is all a show, like russia-gate, the impeachment and all the other clown shows trying to derail the goat.



Wow he came out and absolved himself? Imagine that. 

Meanwhile Hillary testified in front of congress for hours. 



Glades said:


> Democrats used to be reasonable during the Obama years. But it seems Trump triggered a knee-jerk reaction in the party, and the democrats with the loudest voices are usually waayyyyy on the left. They make classical liberals like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan look like righ-wingers.



Well given that Joe Biden is center right. Then Joe Rogan and Bill Maher are both right at a minimum. 

The issue is that the Fox > OANN crowd is so far right they think they’re the “center”. 

Just Like your denial of women’s right to access to medicine is an accepted fringe-right religious cult belief. But it feels “normal” to you.


----------



## ArtDecade

Joe Rogan, the classical liberal.


----------



## Glades

How is he not? Because he is pro-2A? Being anti-constitution, anti-bill of rights, anti-America is not a concept of traditional liberals. All Americans, left and right, used to see eye to eye on these. It’s only modern leftists (socialists, nazis, fascists, communists) that preach these concepts.

He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> Also, compared to the rest of the world, our "leftist" politics are middle-center so I don't think you realize what 'far left' would actually look like.


I'm not sure where that conjecture originated, but I feel like it's been misquoted and also possibly become outdated.

I believe that the older version of the tidbit is stating that, compared to other "developed" countries, the USA is more conservative than liberal.

But there are a lot of places in "the world" that are _very_ conservative. Look at Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Thailand, etc. I'm sure that the USA is more liberal than most of Africa and even most of Asia. Even places that are classical on the left are full of weird conservative laws. How are LGB people treated in communist countries, let alone TQ+? And even in certain parts western Europe, things are not always hunky-dory when it comes to socially liberal ideas. How liberal is Japan?

Personally, I don't buy it. The US is conservative compared to more liberal places, but compared to the rest of the G20 countries, is maybe bouncing back and forth between just left and just right of center. The reason why it seems worse is because the USA, at one point, was one of the most liberal places, and it's been creeping more and more conservative, starting maybe with Nixon and the counter-counter culture thing and culminating with Trump. But as awful of a president as Trump was, the effects he had on the rest of the federal government will be a slow burn, as we now have his crazed followers in the House of Representatives and his justices fully entrenched into the SCotUS.

And if this Jan 6th thing leads to a nothingburger of consequences for any of those rep's, it'll continue going that direction. But I don't even know if it's going to be so much a swing toward the "classical" right wing as much as it'll be a swing toward more nonsense and open lawlessness from within the government.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> That's kind of the issue. There are vast swaths of normies that are not beholden to either party and if they're not impressed with either candidate then they're going to stay home. Or vote for whoever based on whatever weird bullshit thing that crosses their mind that day. That's a problem especially when it comes the level of gerrymandering the SCOTUS has enabled.
> 
> Dems have to win and win big if they're combat Fascist/Trumpists, and again, "vote Democrat to save the world" doesn't always work.


"Vote Democrat to save the world" might work, if we had any indication that the Democrats would try to save the world. Instead we have a choice between watching the Republicans continue to destroy the world actively, or watching the Democrats get power and sit on their thumbs while the world continues to be destroyed.

I'm beginning to understand the people that said they voted for Trump because they feel like they're watching a giant toilet every time the election cycle comes up, and they'd like somebody to finish flushing it. Maybe destroying the world is the only way out of this quagmire of nothing?

Not saying I'll go Republican anytime soon, but the Democrats need to give me something to vote *FOR* rather than against, or I'm gonna have a hard time thinking my trashed votes on the national level matter. Which they don't, since this state will bleed red until it kills itself.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> How is he not? Because he is pro-2A? Being anti-constitution, anti-bill of rights, anti-America is not a concept of traditional liberals. All Americans, left and right, used to see eye to eye on these. It’s only modern leftists (socialists, nazis, fascists, communists) that preach these concepts.
> 
> He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?


He's a libertarian. He voted for Gary Johnson and then for Jo Jorgensen. That's not republican nor democratic leaning. As far as left/right, that's a mixed bag, dependent on the issue.

Not sure why this is confusing for everyone in this thread. There are tons of people who support third party politics.


----------



## jco5055

Glades said:


> How is he not? Because he is pro-2A? Being anti-constitution, anti-bill of rights, anti-America is not a concept of traditional liberals. All Americans, left and right, used to see eye to eye on these. It’s only modern leftists (socialists, nazis, fascists, communists) that preach these concepts.
> 
> He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?



Imagine thinking nazis and fascists are left wing

Honestly in general, my opinion (and only mine as a kind of disclaimer) is this idea of "where's the sensible middle that doesn't like either party" is shit. Yes the Republican party is worse than Democrats, but even I'll call them "mainstream" Democrats like Biden/Hillary/basically everyone not named Bernie Sanders who is elected higher than like small town mayor is muuuuch more similar to Republicans than any leftists.

Especially in regards to non-identity issues, stuff like "inflation and the economy sucks right now and the Democrats and Republicans don't have solutions, I'm going middle" is an incorrect view, the issue is both of them aren't going left enough.

I mean FDR was on paper the most left president we ever had and look how America post WWII until like Reagan definitely, LBJ arguably was the closest it's ever been to a true "American Dream". And the only reason the New Deal was even passed was because actual socialists had a much stronger presences/could have actually threatened to have a large place at the table in National and State politics that the New Deal was just the actual kind of "meet in the middle" I can get behind.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> "Vote Democrat to save the world" might work, if we had any indication that the Democrats would try to save the world. Instead we have a choice between watching the Republicans continue to destroy the world actively, or watching the Democrats get power and sit on their thumbs while the world continues to be destroyed.
> 
> I'm beginning to understand the people that said they voted for Trump because they feel like they're watching a giant toilet every time the election cycle comes up, and they'd like somebody to finish flushing it. Maybe destroying the world is the only way out of this quagmire of nothing?
> 
> Not saying I'll go Republican anytime soon, but the Democrats need to give me something to vote *FOR* rather than against, or I'm gonna have a hard time thinking my trashed votes on the national level matter. Which they don't, since this state will bleed red until it kills itself.


Why though? It still makes no sense, logically. "Are you sick of voting for the corrupt politician who bends to the will of the megalomaniac business interests? Instead vote for the megalomaniac business interests directly." That's like trying to dodge a bullet by shooting yourself in the head before it hits you.

The democrats are stupid, but the republican are also stupid. The whole government is stupid. The only way to fix this is to flush them all down the toilet at this point.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Why though? It still makes no sense, logically. "Are you sick of voting for the corrupt politician who bends to the will of the megalomaniac business interests? Instead vote for the megalomaniac business interests directly." That's like trying to dodge a bullet by shooting yourself in the head before it hits you.
> 
> The democrats are stupid, but the republican are also stupid. The whole government is stupid. The only way to fix this is to flush them all down the toilet at this point.


The argument I've gotten from those that voted Trump without actually being into the cult of personality was, "We're completely fucked anyway. Voting Democrat just prolongs the agony. The Republican party has the plan to send us to death quicker."

Honestly, watching the hearings is making me think they're right. All of this shit happened. And not a single fucking moment of it will matter at all except for clickbait articles decrying the death of Democracy, as the crowd cheers on.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> How is he not? Because he is pro-2A? Being anti-constitution, anti-bill of rights, anti-America is not a concept of traditional liberals. All Americans, left and right, used to see eye to eye on these. It’s only modern leftists (socialists, nazis, fascists, communists) that preach these concepts.
> 
> He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?


I believe "libertarian" is the word you're fishing for.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Not saying I'll go Republican anytime soon, but the Democrats need to give me something to vote *FOR* rather than against, or I'm gonna have a hard time thinking my trashed votes on the national level matter. Which they don't, since this state will bleed red until it kills itself.


I mean, establishment and progressive Democrats may have different ideas how to get there, and then we have to contend with baaaaarely Democratic votes like Manchin and, somehow, Sinema as part of ourt 50-vote coalition in the Senate, but basically Democrats are for taking action on climate change, for protecting the rights of women, black americans, LBGT+ individuals, and minorities of all stripes, for gun control, for a tax structure that causes the weathiest Americans to pay taxes at a rate more in line with the middle class, and for strengthening the separation of church and state. 

The Republicans, meanwhile, are against whatever the Democrats happen to be for, indiscriminately.

I kind of have to wonder here what this conversation would be like today if the Democrats had a 52 or 53 vote majority in the Senate, and the 20-30 or so vote majority in the House, that they were expected to have coming out of 2020, instead of holding both chambers of Congress by the skin of their teeth and having essentially ungovernable margins given the diversity of their coalitions.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?


It makes me so sad that all of these are not fundamental Republican stances going back to when Repubs motto was “hey federal government, get the hell out of my life and don’t tell me what to do!” But instead their mantra right now is “hey federal government, tell everyone to do what my church says.”


----------



## Glades

jco5055 said:


> Imagine thinking nazis and fascists are left wing
> 
> Honestly in general, my opinion (and only mine as a kind of disclaimer) is this idea of "where's the sensible middle that doesn't like either party" is shit. Yes the Republican party is worse than Democrats, but even I'll call them "mainstream" Democrats like Biden/Hillary/basically everyone not named Bernie Sanders who is elected higher than like small town mayor is muuuuch more similar to Republicans than any leftists.
> 
> Especially in regards to non-identity issues, stuff like "inflation and the economy sucks right now and the Democrats and Republicans don't have solutions, I'm going middle" is an incorrect view, the issue is both of them aren't going left enough.
> 
> I mean FDR was on paper the most left president we ever had and look how America post WWII until like Reagan definitely, LBJ arguably was the closest it's ever been to a true "American Dream". And the only reason the New Deal was even passed was because actual socialists had a much stronger presences/could have actually threatened to have a large place at the table in National and State politics that the New Deal was just the actual kind of "meet in the middle" I can get behind.


Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.


----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government.


Maybe historically, but SpaceDock has a point:



SpaceDock said:


> It makes me so sad that all of these are not fundamental Republican stances going back to when Repubs motto was “hey federal government, get the hell out of my life and don’t tell me what to do!” But instead their mantra right now is “hey federal government, tell everyone to do what my church says.”


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.


Well, no, not really. Have you taken a civics class, like, honestly? Because that's not what any of those words formally mean, like at all.

The political right is the worldview that traditions are more important in defining our social norms than new ideas. The political left is the opposite of that, which places little value on tradition and desires to seek out new social order based upon some non-traditional plan or system.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government.


Didn't you just celebrate right wingers taking away women's rights?


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.


This is wrong for a couple reasons, but not the least of which is that it's self-contradictory. "Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe... Fascism and Nazism are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments." So, socialism is right-wing too now? 

I think it became increasingly hard to associate right wing American politics with small government after the George W. Bush years - the Patriot Act was one of the largest expansions of government power since... the New Deal, maybe? The modern GOP likes big government just fine, they just don't want to pay for it, so they can then bitch about the Democrats needing to make cuts elsewhere to afford social spending because of the size of the national debt, which they conveniently forget about when they're in office.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The political left is the opposite of that, which places little value on tradition and desires to seek out new social order based upon some non-traditional plan or system.


I'd generalize that even further and say that the political right seeks to return to a golden era in the past (that may or may not have ever existed in the first place, but that's besides the point), while the political left believes that we can build a tomorrow that's better than today. Progress versus preservation.


----------



## mmr007

Maybe Civics 100 should be a prerequisite so one can understand Civics 101


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'd generalize that even further and say that the political left seeks to return to a golden era in the past (that may or may not have ever existed in the first place, but that's besides the point), while the political left believes that we can build a tomorrow that's better than today. Progress versus preservation.


I think you meant "right" the first time, but yes, those things kind of work hand-in-hand.

There certainly are a lot of dangers to going with left-leaning ideas to fix things that aren't broken. But we are quickly approaching a time when the political landscape of the USA is more broken than it has been since the reconstruction era


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.



Where did you earn your degrees?


----------



## mmr007

Both sides are corrupt and inept with regards to governance (here in the US)...they just pander to different segments of society to make them THINK they are working to make things better for them


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> Where did you earn your degrees?



Trump University possibly


----------



## mmr007

MFB said:


> Trump University possibly


I thought you couldn't get a degree from Trump University...I thought you just got a certificate for discount Trump water and Trump steak no?


----------



## nightflameauto

MFB said:


> Trump University possibly


There really needs to be a "Brutality" version of the like button here. Maybe with Baraka doing the slicing swords motions?


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> Baraka


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Rand Paul is a doctor js


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> Didn't you just celebrate right wingers taking away women's rights?


But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.


----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.


No, the ruling ignored the fact that the federal government sets forth rights (see the Bill of Rights you mentioned earlier in the thread) in favor of turning that role over to the heavily gerrymandered state legislatures.

There has been no power to the people; that would mean giving the people the choice.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.


But he didn't say "SCOTUS", did he? He said "right wingers", and there are currently several GOP controlled states that are doing their damndest to strip women of their abortion rights.


----------



## Glades

Xaios said:


> But he didn't say "SCOTUS", did he? He said "right wingers", and there are currently several GOP controlled states that are doing their damndest to strip women of their abortion rights.


Those politicians were elected, by the people. That’s how democracy works.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> "Vote Democrat to save the world" might work, if we had any indication that the Democrats would try to save the world. Instead we have a choice between watching the Republicans continue to destroy the world actively, or watching the Democrats get power and sit on their thumbs while the world continues to be destroyed.
> 
> I'm beginning to understand the people that said they voted for Trump because they feel like they're watching a giant toilet every time the election cycle comes up, and they'd like somebody to finish flushing it. Maybe destroying the world is the only way out of this quagmire of nothing?
> 
> Not saying I'll go Republican anytime soon, but the Democrats need to give me something to vote *FOR* rather than against, or I'm gonna have a hard time thinking my trashed votes on the national level matter. Which they don't, since this state will bleed red until it kills itself.



I guess now would be an appropriate time for...


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> Those politicians were elected, by the people. That’s how democracy works.


Tell me, if "democracy" voted to execute all Christians, would you be so blasé? Would you walk to the gas chamber saying "well, that's democracy for ya"?

We both know the answer to that question, but let me be clear, I'm not asking rhetorically. I wanna see you say whatever you plan to say.


----------



## Glades

Xaios said:


> Tell me, if "democracy" voted to execute all Christians, would you be so blasé? Would you walk to the gas chamber saying "well, that's democracy for ya"?
> 
> We both know the answer to that question, but let me be clear, I'm not asking rhetorically. I wanna see you say whatever you plan to say.


If democracy voted to kill 3000 innocent human babies each day, would you be so blasé?


----------



## JSanta

Glades said:


> If democracy voted to kill 3000 innocent human babies each day, would you be so blasé?



And thankfully in your case, as a Republic, the minority have found a way to inflict their will on the majority. No one is celebrating abortions, but what a woman decides to do with her body is her choice. And if a woman is raped or coerced and becomes pregnant, the autonomy of those fetal cells has more rights than the person carrying them. 

And that can be the great thing about this country. You can abhor abortion as a scourge of the planet, but there never should be laws that prohibit an individual autonomy over their own bodies. 

It's also evident that from a legal perspective, cells in a womb are not children. You can't write them off in your taxes and the courts can't go after deadbeat parents for child support for something that isn't real yet. 

Be proud in what you believe, I gladly wore the uniform to support your perspective, even if I disagree. But as soon as self-righteous religious people start demanding that laws reflect their religion, I have a problem with that. We all should. If the GOP in this country actually cared about children, parents wouldn't go broke paying for medical or child care, the poor would have some level of social safety net. We don't. This is not about abortion, it's about control. Instead, red states continue to chip away funding from safety nets and instead of taking care of actual alive children, criticize them for needing the support that has been stripped away.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.


This is outstanding mental gymnastics.

You're just saying that big government is only good at the state level. But then the GOP have stated that they will codify abortion as illegal federally if they win the mid terms.

Regulating someone's rights is big government. Roe v Wade was about constitutional privacy and found (originally) that the government had no say in bodily autonomy. Changing that is increasing government reach.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> If democracy voted to kill 3000 innocent human babies each day, would you be so blasé?


Fuck out of here.

It's not about babies and you know it. Is organ harvesting legal? Is it legal to force someone to donate a kidney when someone's life is at risk?

Turns out the answer is no. Medical ethics and bodily autonomy say time and time again in every other circumstance that my right to my body is more important than sacrificing it for yours. It is no different with abortion. Stop it with the strawmen.


----------



## mmr007

There is absolutely no way to be successful with this discussion until everyone involved has taken biology 101


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> I'd generalize that even further and say that the political right seeks to return to a golden era in the past (that may or may not have ever existed in the first place, but that's besides the point), while the political left believes that we can build a tomorrow that's better than today. Progress versus preservation.




It’s was an imagined golden age when minorities were kept out of the job and housing markets. They weren’t even allowed to vote until the 60’s.

Where women where kept trapped at home and could not open a bank account alone until the 60’s.

They watch liberal hollywood propaganda like Leave it to Beaver of how the 40’s and 50’s used to be and see that their grandparents afforded a house on a middle school education and one job and put the two together.

They ignore the fact that corporate tax rates were greater than 70% and that we had many of the largest government _social_ works projects in US history during that time.

Money flowed down out of companies and into people pockets, and their taxes also provided support systems which boomers have since gutted under the guise of “cutting costs”. 





Glades said:


> But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.



This is disingenuous as always.

1) Due to Roe v Wade, that right to medicine was already decided and guaranteed to ALL women.

2) The GOP thus created *MORE* government waste by turning it into 50 states all deciding whether women had a right to self determination or not. Each with its own made up nonsense based on a fairy tale.

But you know this. The “return it to the people” line is selected on purpose. It’s waved around to gloss over the fact that just because people make a law that allows one group to take away rights from another group does not make it just.

Slavery was legal too. It was “left up to the states”. That doesn’t make it ok.

Not that I expect to convince a troll like Glades. Just drawing the slippery slope parallels for others who might be reading.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

mmr007 said:


> Maybe Civics 100 should be a prerequisite so one can understand Civics 101





mmr007 said:


> There is absolutely no way to be successful with this discussion until everyone involved has taken biology 101



this dude is out here doing free advertising for community college


----------



## mmr007

wheresthefbomb said:


> this dude is out here doing free advertising for community college


To fully appreciate the power of advertising I suggest marketing 101


----------



## tedtan

mmr007 said:


> There is absolutely no way to be successful with this discussion until everyone involved has taken biology 101


Some may need biology 100 first, though. 


EDIT: wheresthefbomb ninja’d me.


----------



## tedtan

wheresthefbomb said:


> this dude is out here doing free advertising for community college


More of a case study of what happens when public school funding Is cut.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> If democracy voted to kill 3000 innocent human babies each day, would you be so blasé?


No, I wouldn't. And guess what, it hasn't. 

And you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.


Sounds a lot more like Quora help-my-SSO-argument101.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> If democracy voted to kill 3000 innocent human babies each day, would you be so blasé?


Guess you haven't heard of original sin.


----------



## fantom

ArtDecade said:


> Hear me out... Maybe the abortion ban is a good thing. Blue States will continue to have abortion. Full stop. The Supreme Court is basically turning it back over to the States and wealthy Republicans will travel to Blue States to get the very abortions they are against. That will mean it will be a time of reckoning in Red States regarding their Republican representatives. Some Red State politicians to move back towards the center because a lot of people are going to be pissed. You might not see Democrats winning elections anytime soon, but you might end up with moderate Republicans again. Maybe... probably not. But I am just spit-balling here.



People won't just excuse the behavior, they will privately envy people like Gaetz trafficking underage girls for both conception and abortion. Why? Because they want to do that too. Nothing will change because people preach whatever it takes to conform. It's about fitting in and being part of the tribe... It isn't about what is right.

If there is one thing I've realized about people who argue about idealistic bs, it is that they believe what they are rambling in the abstract. But they don't seem to think it should change their own behavior. Being human and messing up is ok if you ask for forgiveness. Hypocritically taking advantage of a broken system is fine as long as "they" (not "me") follow the rules. And the lack of immediate smiting reinforces the belief. It doesn't stop at politics. This is just how people live.


----------



## spudmunkey

A chilling post I read earlier: "Rapists now get to chose the mother of their children, whether they want to be or not."


----------



## Hollowway

Glades said:


> Nazis/fascists are right wing in Europe (that’s how a lot of parliaments sit), but not in America. In American politics left vs right has to do with size of government. Left wingers believe in the expansion of the federal government, right wingers in the shrinking of the federal government. Fascism and Nazism (National-Socialism) are perfect examples of extreme large socialist federal governments. This is Civics 101.


This hasn't been true in a generation. The right expands the government just as much as the left these days, just in a different direction, and on different things. The left pushes for socialism for the people, and the right pushes for socialism for the corporations. I realize this is a topic for another discussion, but both sides of the aisle are stuck with wanting to get whatever they can so they can go to their constituents and make the argument that they should be voted back into office. 

Not that anyone is asking, but one of the things that irritates me about many of the right wing politicians is that they enact rules that they don't expect to follow. They talk about freedom of speech, but get pissed if someone says something against them (Disney). They talk about 2nd amendment rights, but they mean only for white people (NRA stance about the 2nd amendment with respect to the Black Panthers, and with the frequency that black men holding a gun are shot for holding a gun.). They talk about not believing in socialized health care, but refuse to pay for their own health care as a member of congress. 

I used to vote republican, because I believed in smaller government. But I switched to independent and voted for Bernie when he ran, because I feel that the GOP just want their way, and don't actually have a particular code they feel they AND the rest of the country can all live by. And the democrats like to just complain, but never lift a damn finger to actually move the needle. The GOP pulls us to the right, then the Dems say, "let's be centrist!" and do nothing for 4 years, thereby deeming this new, rightward position as the new "center." Then the GOP pulls us further right. Then the Dems stay there for 4 years, making a new center, then the GOP pulls us further right. And now we consider "left wing" what the rest of the civilized world is doing. /rant


----------



## Hollowway

Glades said:


> But the opposite happened. The SCOTUS (part of the federal government) rescinded its power to make a determination on such “right” and passed the power over to the people. The overturning of Roe vs Wade is an example of a shrinking federal government.


That's losing the reality in the words, though. Roe was giving the power to the individual people. SCOTUS rescinded that right, and instead handed the right to the majority of the people to determine what should happen to each individual person. And if they codify it, then it will be an example of expanding the federal government.

I'd say it's like the 2nd amendment. Do we want each individual person to have the right to own a gun, or should that be determined at a state level? True freedom would be at an individual level, not at at group (state) level.

EDIT: I see @Mathemagician beat me to this argument!


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> He is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-drug. How is he not a classical liberal again?



That's what makes a liberal? Since when?

Somewhat more socially liberal (or socially libertarian) than Putler or the mullahs running Iran does not a classical liberal make

Hell, Ancient Rome had all of the above and it was the O.G. fascist state.


----------



## StevenC

Dear @Glades, what is your opinion on the 4th and 9th Amendment?


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Hollowway said:


> I used to vote republican, because I believed in smaller government. But I switched to independent and voted for Bernie when he ran, because I feel that the GOP just want their way, and don't actually have a particular code they feel they AND the rest of the country can all live by. And the democrats like to just complain, but never lift a damn finger to actually move the needle. The GOP pulls us to the right, then the Dems say, "let's be centrist!" and do nothing for 4 years, thereby deeming this new, rightward position as the new "center." Then the GOP pulls us further right. Then the Dems stay there for 4 years, making a new center, then the GOP pulls us further right. And now we consider "left wing" what the rest of the civilized world is doing. /rant


THB, I think that sums up what alot of people in the states feel right now. I know alot of people that walked away from the Dem side, and politics in general, when the DNC fucked over Bernie in the 2016 runnings.

I'm actually banned on twitter right now for sharing a meme that summed up my stance on the current two party system we have. Totally worth it.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Dear @Glades, what is your opinion on the 4th and 9th Amendment?


I feel like the pro-Trump pro-Bill-of-Rights thing is necessarily self-contradictory.

You have a man who vowed to ban Muslims (violating 1A), openly threatened the press (also 1A), indirectly threatened comedians for their speech (1A), ordered gassing of protesters (1A), wrote more executive orders restricting guns than any other president (2A), and had people arrested in Portland without cause (4A) and had them held without trial (5A and 6A).

People can stamp their feet and declare that Trump was the greatest protector of rights, but it's no different than North Koreans pointing at the guarantee of freedom of speech in their constitution to defend Kim as he imprisons anyone who doesn't vote for him or shoots his own uncle out of a cannon over a fishing dispute.


----------



## wankerness

Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA can’t regulate greenhouse gases anymore without congressional approval. Presumably this will extend to the epa not being able to regulate ANYTHING without congressional approval. If anyone thinks a republican-controlled congress is going to vote to regulate ANYTHING, I have a bridge to sell you. So much for clean water standards of any sort. This decision is vastly more harmful to the health of the country than repealing Roe was, and unlike that one, this has implications for EVERYONE, not to mention the rest of the world thanks to global warming. This SC is basically international terrorists at this point.


----------



## nightflameauto

wankerness said:


> Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA can’t regulate greenhouse gases anymore without congressional approval. Presumably this will extend to the epa not being able to regulate ANYTHING without congressional approval. If anyone thinks a republican-controlled congress is going to vote to regulate ANYTHING, I have a bridge to sell you. So much for clean water standards of any sort. This decision is vastly more harmful to the health of the country than repealing Roe was, and unlike that one, this has implications for EVERYONE, not to mention the rest of the world thanks to global warming. This SC is basically international terrorists at this point.


I'm numb at this point. I keep thinking we're past the point where we turn the ship around, then somehow they keep finding things to destroy.


----------



## bostjan

This is a test. I guess I'll email my representative and both senators and try to make a case why this is the most important era for congress to get legislation passed since WWII. They kind of punted a little on the gun control law, but it did manage to move maybe 2/3 of the pieces forward that were necessary (although maybe those that moved only moved 1/2 as much as was needed), and now it's clear that we need some federal laws formally defining the EPA's role and either some codification of abortion or else something broader that covers it, if not both.

This court session, there has been _a lot_ reversed. Most of it wasn't picked up by the media in the wake of overturning _Roe_ - but - the EPA was gutted, Native Americans lost their legal right to self-determination, prayer is back in schools, and states have limits on how much gun control legislation they can execute.


----------



## jco5055

wankerness said:


> Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA can’t regulate greenhouse gases anymore without congressional approval. Presumably this will extend to the epa not being able to regulate ANYTHING without congressional approval. If anyone thinks a republican-controlled congress is going to vote to regulate ANYTHING, I have a bridge to sell you. So much for clean water standards of any sort. This decision is vastly more harmful to the health of the country than repealing Roe was, and unlike that one, this has implications for EVERYONE, not to mention the rest of the world thanks to global warming. This SC is basically international terrorists at this point.



yeah not to be a doomer, but this is where I seriously think about trying to find a way to move somewhere else...I'm trying to have clean drinking water at the bare minimum, not even including the whole climate change business.


----------



## wankerness

This obviously has implications for things like the FDA, or basically any other agency that does anything independent to implement safety standards on anything. The FDA definitely has some corruption thanks to corporate lobbying, but removing even those guardrails and having the corporations decide what's safe? It would be like the good ol' days pre-FDA where things are made with sawdust and arsenic cause it's the cheapest and who's going to stop them?


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA can’t regulate greenhouse gases anymore without congressional approval. Presumably this will extend to the epa not being able to regulate ANYTHING without congressional approval. If anyone thinks a republican-controlled congress is going to vote to regulate ANYTHING, I have a bridge to sell you. So much for clean water standards of any sort. This decision is vastly more harmful to the health of the country than repealing Roe was, and unlike that one, this has implications for EVERYONE, not to mention the rest of the world thanks to global warming. This SC is basically international terrorists at this point.


Anything not specifically stipulated in their charter. The argument West Virginia made, that the Court ultimately supported, was the EPA was created to regulate the emission of various forms of pollution and toxic chemicals, and are free to do so as they see fit, but they do not have congressional authority to regulate anything other than the forms of pollution indicated in the law that created them so they have no constitutional authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gasses - CFCs for instance - seem to still be ok. 

In practice this is maybe less impactful than it could be, since pretty much all of corporate America wants to reduce CO2 emissions outside of the energy sector, and even they are coming around here and there. But, it's still pretty stupid, and the optics for the court, as they make a ruling that cuts across public opinion for the second time in a week, with even Republicans gradually warming to the need to tackle climate change, aren't great.


----------



## Adieu

wankerness said:


> Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that the EPA can’t regulate greenhouse gases anymore without congressional approval. Presumably this will extend to the epa not being able to regulate ANYTHING without congressional approval. If anyone thinks a republican-controlled congress is going to vote to regulate ANYTHING, I have a bridge to sell you. So much for clean water standards of any sort. This decision is vastly more harmful to the health of the country than repealing Roe was, and unlike that one, this has implications for EVERYONE, not to mention the rest of the world thanks to global warming. This SC is basically international terrorists at this point.



Dear g-d, the mullahs of the Supreme Court (because lets face it that's pretty much what they are) are now telling government ministries not to minister?

What's next? Will white christian landowner males have immunity from arrest and lawsuits brought by nonwhite nonchristian nonmale broke people?


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Dear g-d, the mullahs of the Supreme Court (because lets face it that's pretty much what they are) are now telling government ministries not to minister?
> 
> What's next? Will white christian landowner males have immunity from arrest and lawsuits brought by nonwhite nonchristian nonmale broke people?


Shh. We no longer have a right to privacy. They're listening. Don't give them any ideas.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

jco5055 said:


> yeah not to be a doomer, but this is where I seriously think about trying to find a way to move somewhere else...



lol where you gonna go, mars?


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Shh. We no longer have a right to privacy. They're listening. Don't give them any ideas.


Geez. I sure hope they don't get on a rocket and launch themselves into the sun.


----------



## Glades




----------



## wheresthefbomb

ArtDecade said:


> Geez. I sure hope they don't get on a rocket and launch themselves into the sun.



The scene in Superman where he puts all the missiles in a big bag and throws it into the sun, except instead of missiles it's everyone I don't like.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> View attachment 109888



Translation - I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about so I'm going to take my ball and go home.


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> Translation - I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about so I'm going to take my ball and go home.



No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA. 
My truck-my choice. Let diesels breathe. No EGR, No DPF, No CATs, No DEF!


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA.


That makes a lot of sense. I didn't know you were taking additional classes at Trump U besides Fascism 101 and Advanced Fluffing 301...


----------



## bostjan

jco5055 said:


> yeah not to be a doomer, but this is where I seriously think about trying to find a way to move somewhere else...I'm trying to have clean drinking water at the bare minimum, not even including the whole climate change business.


You're just across the corner of a lake from a state where residents were being poisoned by municipal water. 



Drew said:


> Anything not specifically stipulated in their charter. The argument West Virginia made, that the Court ultimately supported, was the EPA was created to regulate the emission of various forms of pollution and toxic chemicals, and are free to do so as they see fit, but they do not have congressional authority to regulate anything other than the forms of pollution indicated in the law that created them so they have no constitutional authority to regulate carbon dioxide. Other greenhouse gasses - CFCs for instance - seem to still be ok.
> 
> In practice this is maybe less impactful than it could be, since pretty much all of corporate America wants to reduce CO2 emissions outside of the energy sector, and even they are coming around here and there. But, it's still pretty stupid, and the optics for the court, as they make a ruling that cuts across public opinion for the second time in a week, with even Republicans gradually warming to the need to tackle climate change, aren't great.


I think the deeper implication is the evoking of the non-delegation principle. But maybe it'll lead to nothing (keep in mind, though, that the last ~500 times I said "maybe it'll lead to nothing, it ended up leading to something).


ArtDecade said:


> That makes a lot of sense. I didn't know you were taking additional classes at Trump U besides Fascism 101 and Advanced Fluffing 301?


I guess they don't teach at Trump U that the EPA was actually initially chartered by a Republican administration (Nixon).


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> I guess they don't teach at Trump U that the EPA was actually initially chartered by a Republican administration (Nixon).


Trumpers aren't Nixon Republicans. They aren't Republicans at all.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Trumpers aren't Nixon Republicans. They aren't Republicans at all.



I can't wait to read the majority opinion and dissent tonight. It's interesting for sure.
What is going to be interesting to study from the opinion is if agencies can't make up laws through regulations, what will happen to the ATF (another agency comprised of non-elected officials). There are thousands of gun "laws" in this country that are not laws at all. I will make a bag of popcorn before I start reading this dandy.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA.
> My truck-my choice. Let diesels breathe. No EGR, No DPF, No CATs, No DEF!


And evidently, no one home, despite the lights being on.  

The decision limited, but did not entirely prevent, the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions at power plants. Didn't do a thing to the agency's ability to regulate automobile emissions.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> My truck-my choice.


I have several questions but you won't answer them if history is anything to go by.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> I have several questions but you won't answer them if history is anything to go by.


To be fair, the truck was never his choice. It's his mom's car and he has to ask for the keys and his allowance when he wants to go to the McDonalds for nuggets.


----------



## Xaios

@Glades


Xaios said:


> And you still haven't answered my question.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> Trumpers aren't Nixon Republicans. They aren't Republicans at all.


Republicans are currently defined as whoever is anti-democrat, essentially. Some are moderate (more than usual) conservative Christians who want prayer back in schools and who wanted the band on abortions, and they got their way now that Trump's SCotUS appointees reversed both of those in just the past few days.

Then there are the gun republicans who just want relaxed gun laws (which they never got, since, as I've pointed out to them several times already, Trump's executive branch prosecuted more gun laws and wrote more restrictive gun policies than any other president ever).

Then there were the ones who just want to undo affirmative action and other social-racial policies. Then there were the ones who really wanted to see gay people be punished like it was the 15th century again. Then there were the ones who really wanted big businesses to go unregulated.

The only thing they all have in common is regression on policies. I mean literally regressive as in, their position is "everything is f*cked because these policies were all wrong and we need to set it back the way it was before."

That's really the only thing Republicans have holding them together anymore.

When Nixon was in power, they had a good chance at being the majority. But nowadays, well, Dubya lost the popular vote, Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin... it kind of suggests that the GOP just doesn't hold the popular power anymore. The only way they get their guys elected is through technicalities. And they've really embraced that. But anyway, being a perpetual minority, they don't have the political power anymore to afford making a platform with different line items. It just has to be this way, where they just copy off of the Democrats' test, but put the opposite answer down for each thing.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> @Glades


He's not answering you, because [your choice]:

a) He feels everyone is ganging up on him.
b) There's not time to answer each comment.
c) Too busy "owning the libs" to have time to respond.
d) Doesn't have a good answer, but doesn't want to admit it.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> I guess they don't teach at Trump U that the EPA was actually initially chartered by a Republican administration (Nixon).


 
So you're saying _conservation_ is a _conservative _value?


----------



## mmr007

I honestly can't see the difference between someone who thinks a truck that purposely shoots out black soot into the air is cool and sticking it to the EPA and someone who never flushes a toilet in their own house. You do realize you breath that toxic air too right? It doesn't just seek out lib lungs.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> View attachment 109888


Actually fairly appropriate. Squidding is what they call this. IE when something with no backbone is blasting a bunch of junk out it’s ass to make a distraction so it can run away.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

mmr007 said:


> I honestly can't see the difference between someone who thinks a truck that purposely shoots out black soot into the air is cool and sticking it to the EPA and someone who never flushes a toilet in their own house. You do realize you breath that toxic air too right? It doesn't just seek out lib lungs.


----------



## Hollowway

Glades said:


> No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA.
> My truck-my choice. Let diesels breathe. No EGR, No DPF, No CATs, No DEF!


But don't you worry that if there are no regulations that the individual people will be screwed over? That's my fear. I am very much into personal rights, and live and let live. And, again, it seems to me both sides keep trying to legislate stuff that dictates what we can and cannot do. If there is no one overseeing big companies dumping crap into rivers, or doing a Flint Michigan thing to our water, who is going to protect us? I get that it's your truck, so it's your choice. But if the government doesn't push companies to get better fuel economy, and better fuel, are you comfortable filling up your truck for 8 miles to the gallon with fuel that will kill your engine in 50,000 miles? 

Often, people say that the market will sort this out. But, that only matters if the market is able to operate, and if big companies can sue little companies out of existence, or if they can use the government to squash little companies, we'll always have these monopolies, and never the polypolies needed to allow market forces to work. I'm not saying that a government with oversight can run things best. But I AM saying that a government withOUT oversight can't run things at all. It's actually worse than no government at all, because you have all the crooked politicians taking lobbyist money to screw up the free market and keep the status quo for the biggest companies. 

The other thing is that we have numerous real world examples of how government with oversight and protections of the individual have resulted in better living conditions for the whole of the nation. And we have numerous real world examples of hour government designed to NOT protect the individual have resulted in poorer living conditions for the whole of the nation. So it's not like it's an academic argument. We have very clear paths that we can go down. And it's clear that these recent changes by SCOTUS, and what Trump and some of the right-leaning GOP want, is not the path to a better life for the average American.


----------



## Hollowway

Glades said:


> I can't wait to read the majority opinion and dissent tonight. It's interesting for sure.
> What is going to be interesting to study from the opinion is if agencies can't make up laws through regulations, what will happen to the ATF (another agency comprised of non-elected officials). There are thousands of gun "laws" in this country that are not laws at all. I will make a bag of popcorn before I start reading this dandy.


Also, I think it's cool that you're in here discussing this stuff. I would like to hear more of your thinking on these topics, because I have trouble trying to talk about this stuff with the conservative people I know, because they just get mad, and say a few "I owned the lib" things, and disengage. I try to read about why people vote GOP these days (when it seems to be against their individual interests) but it's really hard to actually talk with someone to try to understand it.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA.
> My truck-my choice. Let diesels breathe. No EGR, No DPF, No CATs, No DEF!



Very partial agree on the DPF part

That's not a filter that's a "burn large soot into micro/nanosoot" device. Not because it's cleaner (FUCK NO it isn't, and the nano stuff actually gets through your skin), but simply because only specific large sizes of soot are regulated.


----------



## CanserDYI

For future reference, Im a leftist so AMOS and other conservative wackos dont think Im on your side...


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Glades said:


> View attachment 109888





Glades said:


> No, that was a proverbial middle-finger to the EPA.
> My truck-my choice. Let diesels breathe. No EGR, No DPF, No CATs, No DEF!



*Jeremiah 2:7*
I brought you into a bountiful country,
To eat its fruit and its goodness.
But when you entered, you defiled My land
And made My heritage an abomination.


----------



## /wrists

US Will Face High Gas Prices ‘as Long as It Takes,’ Biden Says







www.bloomberg.com







> US Will Face High Gas Prices ‘as Long as It Takes,’ Biden Says​


​
CMON MAN


----------



## ArtDecade

Carrion Rocket said:


> *Jeremiah 2:7*
> I brought you into a bountiful country,
> To eat its fruit and its goodness.
> But when you entered, you defiled My land
> And made My heritage an abomination.



Look. We all know that @Glades isn't an avid reader of the Bible or the Constitution. At best, he reads memes on Conservative websites.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

It's almost like being beholden to a small group of robber barons for our energy needs was not a good idea.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

ArtDecade said:


> Look. We all know that @Glades isn't an avid reader of the Bible or the Constitution. At best, he reads memes on Conservative websites.



Hehe. "Reads" hehe.


----------



## nightflameauto

Carrion Rocket said:


> *Jeremiah 2:7*
> I brought you into a bountiful country,
> To eat its fruit and its goodness.
> But when you entered, you defiled My land
> And made My heritage an abomination.


I learned as a kid from my bible-thumper grandma, never, ever quote bible passages to a Christian. It confuses and frightens them.


----------



## Adieu

evade said:


> US Will Face High Gas Prices ‘as Long as It Takes,’ Biden Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bloomberg.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> CMON MAN



It's ok, my V8 runs fine on E85


----------



## TheBlackBard

I'm on the verge of begging a Scandinavian regime to infiltrate and invade my country so that I can have a taste of what their life is like. Problem is, they're more civilized than the US, so it's not going to happen.


----------



## bostjan

Ecclesiates 1:18 said:


> For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.


----------



## Drew

Hollowway said:


> Also, I think it's cool that you're in here discussing this stuff. I would like to hear more of your thinking on these topics, because I have trouble trying to talk about this stuff with the conservative people I know, because they just get mad, and say a few "I owned the lib" things, and disengage. I try to read about why people vote GOP these days (when it seems to be against their individual interests) but it's really hard to actually talk with someone to try to understand it.


Not directed at me, but I'll bite.

This decision is likely to welcome more constitutional challenges to regulatory agencies, absolutely. And some will likely hold up in - at least, with the Supreme Court's current composition - the courts. but, it's very important to keep in mind what this decision does and does not do.

The tl;dr version of yesterdy's decision is the Courts believe that regulatory agencies have a fairly wide degree of latitude when it comes to their purposes as spelled out in the legislation creating them in the first place, but very little lattitude with respect to things outside those clearly demarcated purposes, even if a contemporary understanding would be that these things probably _should_ be within their purview. So, the EPA was charted to regulate the emission of pollutants into the environment - chemical processing byproducts, soot and pollutants emitted during power generation, car emissions, etc etc etc. But, Obama's directive to the EPA to also consider carbon dioxide emissions, due to their contribution to climate change, was outside of their original scope and was not an act of Congress, so for the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions is not within their purview and is, the court decided, unconstitutional.

In my particular corner of the regulatory world, for a convenient example, there have been a LOT of pieces published this week before and after the decision on what it could/will mean for the SEC's recent moves on ESG-related disclosures, and that they're likely to also be challenged in the Courts now, since they're not sources of "financial" risk in the traditional sense that the SEC was authorized to require companies to disclose (I personally disagree with this read - ESG factors certainly CAN be sources of economic risk, and I think if you're doing investment analysis that isn't at least ESG-aware even if ESG isn't a primary investment goal, then you're getting an incomplete risk picture).

But, that's a pretty good example of a corellary - nothing in this decision would impact the SEC creating new rules related to market risk, liquidity risk, credit risk, volatility risk, whathaveyou... but, potentially could limit their ability to promulgate rules related to climate risk or governance risk.


----------



## Drew

TheBlackBard said:


> I'm on the verge of begging a Scandinavian regime to infiltrate and invade my country so that I can have a taste of what their life is like. Problem is, they're more civilized than the US, so it's not going to happen.


It was NOT easy flying back from Italy and Switzerland last weekend, for sure.


----------



## TheBlackBard

Drew said:


> It was NOT easy flying back from Italy and Switzerland last weekend, for sure.



I mean, it's funny, but it's also sad as fuck for me, because like... I only recently, like a few years ago finally came to the grips that this country that I live in is pure bullshit, and not even close to what I was raised believing it was and it's an eye-opener. I went from realizing we have issues and I love this country enough to want it to address and correct these issues, to now? I'm seriously looking at other countries to try and move to. Problem is, I'm not adept at any other languages, I've become accustomed to non-skilled factory work, and my motivation is in the shitter due to my mental health issues that are extremely hard to address because  healthcare.


----------



## bostjan

Seems there may be a bit of misinterpretation going on with the media. The original EPA charter from congress delegates power to the EPA to do the following:



> The EPA would have the capacity to do research on important pollutants irrespective of the media in which they appear, and on the impact of these pollutants on the total environment.
> Both by itself and together with other agencies, the EPA would monitor the condition of the environment--biological as well as physical.
> With these data, the EPA would be able to establish quantitative "environmental baselines"--critical for efforts to measure adequately the success or failure of pollution abatement efforts.
> The EPA would be able--in concert with the states--to set and enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants.
> Industries seeking to minimize the adverse impact of their activities on the environment would be assured of consistent standards covering the full range of their waste disposal problems.
> As states developed and expanded their own pollution control programs, they would be able to look to one agency to support their efforts with financial and technical assistance and training.




The SCotUS opinion concludes:



> Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



What's this 111d? Here:



> (d) Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source​(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this title but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies.
> 
> (2) The Administrator shall have the same authority—
> 
> (A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have under section 7410(c) of this title in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and
> 
> (B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he would have under sections 7413 and 7414 of this title with respect to an implementation plan.
> 
> 
> In promulgating a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this paragraph, the Administrator shall take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the category of sources to which such standard applies.



Section 7408(a) (and (b)):


> (A) emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
> 
> (B) the presence of which in the ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources; and



So, according to the Clean Air Act that established the EPA's regulation power over the air (in 1970), the EPA has the authority to define what is an "air pollutant" (S7408(a)) and can enforce whatever provisions necessary to limit it (S111d2b), but the SCotUS ruled that the EPA was not delegated the power to enforce regulations on whatever it defines as an "air pollutant" in the opinion, simply stating that the EPA doesn't have such authority. That's an odd nut to crack and try to make perfect sense. The court's opinion is very indirect in its reasoning why it reached this decision. That's where the danger for future rulings comes into play. If it's simply the case that congress can pass a law that delegates some specific authority to a government agency, but, the moment it is challenged in court, the court can simply rule that the agency does not have the proper level of authority to enforce the regulations upon private companies, because the law that clearly states such authority only extends toward recommendations for the states, then why _should_ we believe that the IRS, ATF, DHS, FBI, NSA, etc., have _any authority at all_ over companies or private citizens?!


----------



## spudmunkey

And the FTC, SEC, OSHA...maybe even the Federal Reserve?


----------



## Hollowway

Drew said:


> Not directed at me, but I'll bite.
> 
> This decision is likely to welcome more constitutional challenges to regulatory agencies, absolutely. And some will likely hold up in - at least, with the Supreme Court's current composition - the courts. but, it's very important to keep in mind what this decision does and does not do.
> 
> The tl;dr version of yesterdy's decision is the Courts believe that regulatory agencies have a fairly wide degree of latitude when it comes to their purposes as spelled out in the legislation creating them in the first place, but very little lattitude with respect to things outside those clearly demarcated purposes, even if a contemporary understanding would be that these things probably _should_ be within their purview. So, the EPA was charted to regulate the emission of pollutants into the environment - chemical processing byproducts, soot and pollutants emitted during power generation, car emissions, etc etc etc. But, Obama's directive to the EPA to also consider carbon dioxide emissions, due to their contribution to climate change, was outside of their original scope and was not an act of Congress, so for the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions is not within their purview and is, the court decided, unconstitutional.
> 
> In my particular corner of the regulatory world, for a convenient example, there have been a LOT of pieces published this week before and after the decision on what it could/will mean for the SEC's recent moves on ESG-related disclosures, and that they're likely to also be challenged in the Courts now, since they're not sources of "financial" risk in the traditional sense that the SEC was authorized to require companies to disclose (I personally disagree with this read - ESG factors certainly CAN be sources of economic risk, and I think if you're doing investment analysis that isn't at least ESG-aware even if ESG isn't a primary investment goal, then you're getting an incomplete risk picture).
> 
> But, that's a pretty good example of a corellary - nothing in this decision would impact the SEC creating new rules related to market risk, liquidity risk, credit risk, volatility risk, whathaveyou... but, potentially could limit their ability to promulgate rules related to climate risk or governance risk.


I appreciate that insight. My biggest fear is that the GOP and right don’t have an overall plan, and and just making myopic decisions for short term gain. I know that to be a fact with Trump, but I worry about the rest of the party, too. I do my best to seek out people trying to explain how they envision these changes improving lives in the future, but it’s super hard to find someone who can show how things are expected to fold out. Like, it’s plainly evident to me how universals healthcare would help everyone out. But the GOP hasn’t presented any alternative plan. Most of their criticisms of universal health care is based on unfounded rumors. But I’d like to know what is the rationale for keeping the status quo the way it is. And being against gay marriage - in what way will that help the country? (Not directing this at you, Drew. I’m just saying I really want to get a perspective on their thoughts.)

I read a really interesting article about 2 years ago about why poorer white people often vote for policies that will hurt them. “Voting against their interest,” as it’s usually phrased. The author said that they will root hard for tax cuts for rich people, and not taxing billionaires, because in this way they see themselves aligned with these “successful” white people, and are therefore more aligned with them, than the black people who are technically at their socioeconomic status. In other words, it was seen as a subtle racism, where poor white people try to distance themselves from poor black people by hanging around rich white people, pretending their on the team of these “successful” people. 

Anyway, I’m continually baffled by the motivations of the right, because I just cannot relate to it in any way. And it’s hard for find someone on the right who is willing to lay out the plan, so we can see how an individual decision moves things along toward a better future for the country.


----------



## ArtDecade

And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

ArtDecade said:


> And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.




"your campaign is a psyop"

Sickest burn of the year


----------



## DrewH

Hollowway said:


> I appreciate that insight. My biggest fear is that the GOP and right don’t have an overall plan, and and just making myopic decisions for short term gain. I know that to be a fact with Trump, but I worry about the rest of the party, too. I do my best to seek out people trying to explain how they envision these changes improving lives in the future, but it’s super hard to find someone who can show how things are expected to fold out. Like, it’s plainly evident to me how universals healthcare would help everyone out. But the GOP hasn’t presented any alternative plan. Most of their criticisms of universal health care is based on unfounded rumors. But I’d like to know what is the rationale for keeping the status quo the way it is. And being against gay marriage - in what way will that help the country? (Not directing this at you, Drew. I’m just saying I really want to get a perspective on their thoughts.)
> 
> I read a really interesting article about 2 years ago about why poorer white people often vote for policies that will hurt them. “Voting against their interest,” as it’s usually phrased. The author said that they will root hard for tax cuts for rich people, and not taxing billionaires, because in this way they see themselves aligned with these “successful” white people, and are therefore more aligned with them, than the black people who are technically at their socioeconomic status. In other words, it was seen as a subtle racism, where poor white people try to distance themselves from poor black people by hanging around rich white people, pretending their on the team of these “successful” people.
> 
> Anyway, I’m continually baffled by the motivations of the right, because I just cannot relate to it in any way. And it’s hard for find someone on the right who is willing to lay out the plan, so we can see how an individual decision moves things along toward a better future for the country.



Lot of meat on this bone..

That article is complete bullsh&t. Poor white people are poor for a reason. Usually because they are simple, stupid, lazy, or all of the above. GOP strategy has always preyed upon this. Just tell them something is good for them and they will support it. Tell them something is evil or bad for them and they will believe it. Stupid and uneducated people are the easiest to manipulate. Trump said it best in a mid 90s interview. He would run as a Republican for those very reasons. This is why the GOP base doesn't clamor for universal health care. They've been told that progressive policy is evil. Dems who support progressive policy are the devils, even though national healthcare would vastly improve their lives. But, they can't understand things on that level of complexity. The most absurd thing you mentioned from that article is poor white people hanging with rich white people? Since when? We are very much a class based society. That stuff doesn't happen. Why do poor white people distance themselves from poor black people? You can call it racism but it's technically one class viewing another class as inferior and unworthy just as rich white people look down upon poor white people. 

Want to know what the GOP overall plan is? It's the same as it has been for decades. The consolidation of wealth and power. That's it. They throw just enough bones at their base to keep them happy enough so they can carry out that plan. GOP voters, most being very stupid, are simply unaware that is the real motivation of the party. The GOP voters who are successful and have risen in life want to keep what they have and not have any competition for it. Hence why social programs are a no-go. Gotta keep the people low and stupid so they buy your BS while not having the opportunity to rise in life to potentially compete for a piece of your pie.


----------



## wankerness

So, anyone read about the upcoming decision on "Independent Legislature?" It's hard for me to tell what's bullshit with this and what isn't, cause most discussion on articles I've seen on the subject is pitched at a level of "this is the end of democracy period and I'm stockpiling guns in preparation for it." 

Basically, the supreme court is supposed to decide on whether State Legislatures have the authority to completely just throw out any votes they want to from their state, up to and including just plain choosing a different president than the voters of the state selected if they don't like the outcome. If this is truly what it is, there's absolutely no way that Wisconsin will ever vote for another Democratic president, despite usually leaning blue in statewide elections, cause we're gerrymandered to the point where there's no way our horrible legislature (currently on a paid 10 month vacation after refusing to do anything about the 1800s abortion law going into effect) would EVER let a vote that went democratic stand.

Supposedly this would also mean that with statewide elections like supreme court and senate where they couldn't purely just overturn the results, they would have the rights to throw out tons of votes from regions they deem "suspect" (aka, any city in the state, since that's where all the 2020 conspiracy theorists say the liberals cheated and were having widespread voter fraud despite no evidence). Currently 30 states have majority republican legislatures and would be expected to do this. 

Anyway, here's an article on the subject that is really thin on details and speculation:








Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections


The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision this year to throw out the Republican-drawn congressional map for gerrymandering.




www.politico.com





Supposedly 4 of the conservative justices (everyone but Roberts) have already said they support this, with Amy Coney Barrett being THE ONLY one who hasn't voiced an opinion one way or the other. So, if this stuff is actually true, I guess democracy's future is in the hands of Amy Coney Barrett. Not good.


----------



## Xaios

DrewH said:


> Trump said it best in a mid 90s interview. He would run as a Republican for those very reasons.


While I don't doubt there's truth to that sentiment, the Trump quote you're referring to is fake, long since debunked.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Industries seeking to minimize the adverse impact of their activities on the environment would be assured of consistent standards covering the full range of their waste disposal problems



What is this utopian communist mumbo-jumbo?

What kind of idiot actually believes that industries SEEK "to minimize the adverse impact of their activities"???


----------



## Adieu

wankerness said:


> So, anyone read about the upcoming decision on "Independent Legislature?" It's hard for me to tell what's bullshit with this and what isn't, cause most discussion on articles I've seen on the subject is pitched at a level of "this is the end of democracy period and I'm stockpiling guns in preparation for it."
> 
> Basically, the supreme court is supposed to decide on whether State Legislatures have the authority to completely just throw out any votes they want to from their state, up to and including just plain choosing a different president than the voters of the state selected if they don't like the outcome. If this is truly what it is, there's absolutely no way that Wisconsin will ever vote for another Democratic president, despite usually leaning blue in statewide elections, cause we're gerrymandered to the point where there's no way our horrible legislature (currently on a paid 10 month vacation after refusing to do anything about the 1800s abortion law going into effect) would EVER let a vote that went democratic stand.
> 
> Supposedly this would also mean that with statewide elections like supreme court and senate where they couldn't purely just overturn the results, they would have the rights to throw out tons of votes from regions they deem "suspect" (aka, any city in the state, since that's where all the 2020 conspiracy theorists say the liberals cheated and were having widespread voter fraud despite no evidence). Currently 30 states have majority republican legislatures and would be expected to do this.
> 
> Anyway, here's an article on the subject that is really thin on details and speculation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections
> 
> 
> The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision this year to throw out the Republican-drawn congressional map for gerrymandering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly 4 of the conservative justices (everyone but Roberts) have already said they support this, with Amy Coney Barrett being THE ONLY one who hasn't voiced an opinion one way or the other. So, if this stuff is actually true, I guess democracy's future is in the hands of Amy Coney Barrett. Not good.



Maybe this is actually good? If voters actually got motivated and FUCKING TURNED UP, the Republicans would be DONE.

Pretty much everywhere.


----------



## mastapimp

ArtDecade said:


> And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.



No form of parody could ever top the content of this clip. This shit had me struggling to breathe I was laughing so hard.


----------



## bostjan

mastapimp said:


> No form of parody could ever top the content of this clip. This shit had me struggling to breathe I was laughing so hard.


"They're going to have to cheat even harder" ... what's the end of that statement she cut short? "...than us?"

But the best: "Why can't we treat human life in the same way that we would treat alien life that we discovered on an alien planet?"

That guy _clearly_ needs some help, yet instead of a couple weeks in hospital, he's trying to get 4 years in the office that commands the national guard.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> But the best: "Why can't we treat human life in the same way that we would treat alien life that we discovered on an alien planet?"


----------



## Carrion Rocket

We know who he romanced in Mass Effect.


----------



## LordCashew

"No you can't respond to a closing statement!" had me. 

Funny that one of them said they felt they were on SNL. That closing statement part, among others, reminded me so much of those classic celebrity Jeopardy sketches.


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Maybe this is actually good? If voters actually got motivated and FUCKING TURNED UP, the Republicans would be DONE.
> 
> Pretty much everywhere.


Then do what? Destroy the rest of the country the same way the progressive voters destroyed California? Then move because you're pissed then start the same process in another state? You don't learn from your mistakes do you?
It's hilarious that you lefties are never happy about anything, you won the White House, Senate and House and you're still miserable because you don't run the SCOTUS as well. (but let's stack that until it suits our agenda's)
Biden is doing fucking horrible but let's continue to attack Republicans, yeah it's all their fault. You can't even acknowledge the short comings of your own party and expect your voters to march in lockstep anyway. You're going to get crushed in the Midterms, and beyond, and when you do you won't be able to blame the evil GOP. Try some introspection instead.


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Then do what? Destroy the rest of the country the same way the progressive voters destroyed California? Then move because you're pissed then start the same process in another state? You don't learn from your mistakes do you?
> It's hilarious that you lefties are never happy about anything, you won the White House, Senate and House and you're still miserable because you don't run the SCOTUS as well. (but let's stack that until it suits our agenda's)
> Biden is doing fucking horrible but let's continue to attack Republicans, yeah it's all their fault. You can't even acknowledge the short comings of your own party and expect your voters to march in lockstep anyway. You're going to get crushed in the Midterms, and beyond, and when you do you won't be able to blame the evil GOP. Try some introspection instead.



I would settle for just like 1980s republicans that weren't batshit crazy. 15% of Americans believe in Qanon, so basically like 30% of republicans then. How many others believe in a fraudulent election with cuban voting machines sending information to servers in germany. More than any political leanings, I hate to see people that are that blatantly stupid, and a group of politicians who are mostly smart enough to know better, but don't have enough backbone to do anything but kowtow to them anyway. And all the new candidates have to go in front of everyone and pledge allegiance to election fraud to get Trump endorsements. Idiocracy is like a documentary of the republican party right now.

And then we have to base all our judicial decisions on a thousands year old fairy tale book about a man in the sky, despite the constitution specifically saying the man in the sky teachings shouldn't affect government policy. And then we can't do anything about guns because in that case we really care about listening to the constitution.


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> I would settle for just like 1980s republicans that weren't batshit crazy. 15% of Americans believe in Qanon, so basically like 30% of republicans then. How many others believe in a fraudulent election with cuban voting machines sending information to servers in germany. More than any political leanings, I hate to see people that are that blatantly stupid, and a group of politicians who are mostly smart enough to know better, but don't have enough backbone to do anything but kowtow to them anyway. And all the new candidates have to go in front of everyone and pledge allegiance to election fraud to get Trump endorsements. Idiocracy is like a documentary of the republican party right now.


I'd settle for JFK, or someone similar


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> Then do what? Destroy the rest of the country the same way the progressive voters destroyed California? Then move because you're pissed then start the same process in another state? You don't learn from your mistakes do you?
> It's hilarious that you lefties are never happy about anything, you won the White House, Senate and House and you're still miserable because you don't run the SCOTUS as well. (but let's stack that until it suits our agenda's)
> Biden is doing fucking horrible but let's continue to attack Republicans, yeah it's all their fault. You can't even acknowledge the short comings of your own party and expect your voters to march in lockstep anyway. You're going to get crushed in the Midterms, and beyond, and when you do you won't be able to blame the evil GOP. Try some introspection instead.



I'll be happy when I can actually vote _for_ someone instead of against. 

Biden sucks, but was at least on paper better than the dipshits from the other side, and even a few of the dipshits on the same side.

The GOP is absolutely batshit insane these days. They make the boring, corporate shills in blue look like a decent group of people, which is fucking _terrifying_. 

I don't know, maybe travel a little. I don't mean down the street to the "good" Arby's, but like around the world. Fuck, go to Canada if nothing else. Almost everywhere else is happier, richer, and safer than us. Why? Because everyone gets nice things. They get healthcare, they get good education, they get well paying jobs, they get more time off, they spend more time with their families and hobbies, and to top it all off they don't have to I worry about getting shot all the time. 

But nah. We can't have anything nice. We just get to bitch and moan and blame it on fags, or trannies, or whores, or brown people, or CRT, or Jews, or whomever you feel like hating. 

You want some introspection? Good. Try it.


----------



## AMOS

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'll be happy when I can actually vote _for_ someone instead of against.
> 
> Biden sucks, but was at least on paper better than the dipshits from the other side, and even a few of the dipshits on the same side.
> 
> The GOP is absolutely batshit insane these days. They make the boring, corporate shills in blue look like a decent group of people, which is fucking _terrifying_.
> 
> I don't know, maybe travel a little. I don't mean down the street to the "good" Arby's, but like around the world. Fuck, go to Canada if nothing else. Almost everywhere else is happier, richer, and safer than us. Why? Because everyone gets nice things. They get healthcare, they get good education, they get well paying jobs, they get more time off, they spend more time with their families and hobbies, and to top it all off they don't have to I worry about getting shot all the time.
> 
> But nah. We can't have anything nice. We just get to bitch and moan and blame it on fags, or trannies, or whores, or brown people, or CRT, or Jews, or whomever you feel like hating.
> 
> You want some introspection? Good. Try it.


I don't care for any modern Republicans, except for maybe that Russian agent Tulsi Gabbard


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> I'd settle for JFK, or someone similar


JFK supported universal healthcare


----------



## Crungy

ArtDecade said:


> And this is why Republicans shouldn't be allowed to hold office anywhere.




What in the ever living fuck did I just watch. None of these people should be allowed out of a psych ward.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> JFK supported universal healthcare


I'd be for it if it didn't just target a specific group. Unions pushed for it yet they're exempt from having to use it. They don't want to use it because it's horrible. Physicians are instructed to nit pick every medical issue so it doesn't cost the provider anything.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> Then do what? Destroy the rest of the country the same way the progressive voters destroyed California? Then move because you're pissed then start the same process in another state? You don't learn from your mistakes do you?
> It's hilarious that you lefties are never happy about anything, you won the White House, Senate and House and you're still miserable because you don't run the SCOTUS as well. (but let's stack that until it suits our agenda's)
> Biden is doing fucking horrible but let's continue to attack Republicans, yeah it's all their fault. You can't even acknowledge the short comings of your own party and expect your voters to march in lockstep anyway. You're going to get crushed in the Midterms, and beyond, and when you do you won't be able to blame the evil GOP. Try some introspection instead.



Californian stupidity is just Californian stupidity

It doesn't somehow magically make today's Republican party a shining beacon of hope, much less ethics and goodness.


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Californian stupidity is just Californian stupidity
> 
> It doesn't somehow magically make today's Republican party a shining beacon of hope and goodness.


And the Republican party isn't somehow responsible for the current situation we're in.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> And the Republican party isn't somehow responsible for the current situation we're in.



They're responsible for running candidates so bad they make democrats look good. 

Own it. 

If they ran better candidates they'd win. That's how it works.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> And the Republican party isn't somehow responsible for the current situation we're in.



Mishandled covid, geopolitical destabilization, infiltration by or corrupt ties to Russian agents, and an 18th century overpowered mistake called a Supreme Court (which here and now isn't actually a court *at all*, but rather a committee with lifetime appointments and infinite power to dismantle laws and government bodies) packed with radicals....


What ever gave you the idea that Republicans might have anything to do with any of that?


----------



## mmr007

That's why, honestly, I hope Liz Cheney loses this November so she runs for president in 2024. I don't like her policies but there is ZERO chance any dem can win the presidency. We are look at either an incompetent autocrat like Trump or a scary competent one like DeSantis and I for one want Cheney to appeal not normal people and use her scalpel to slice out this cancer in the republican party once and for all.

But as far as the "supreme" court goes....we're fucked

On a personal note...every single 4th of July since I was a kid I watched the musical "1776" with my parents and then as an adult with my kids. Never skipped a year. It was tradition. It is an awesome movie with fabulous dialog and great music. I haven't watched it since Trump was elected...or Biden. I stopped watching it. America is so fucked it has robbed me of my enjoyment of this simple guilty pleasure


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> I'd be for it if it didn't just target a specific group. Unions pushed for it yet they're exempt from having to use it. They don't want to use it because it's horrible. Physicians are instructed to nit pick every medical issue so it doesn't cost the provider anything.


I don't think you know what universal means


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> I'd be for it if it didn't just target a specific group. Unions pushed for it yet they're exempt from having to use it. They don't want to use it because it's horrible. Physicians are instructed to nit pick every medical issue so it doesn't cost the provider anything.




Currently Insurers instruct physician practices to charge a minimum of X dollar amount so that the insurer can then reduce the price 90%, to appear like they are “helping” insurance customers. 

So medical practices take the price they want to earn and multiply it by 10, then are left with 10% of that inflated number. Why? Because if they don’t then insurance won’t cover it. 

It’s why Mark Cuban’s new medicine service does not accept insurance at all. Because the insurers all wanted to fuck with the pricing to make it seem like insurance was a good deal. 

Mark cuban isn’t a saint, he just openly is satisfied charging a flat 15% markup instead of doing whatever game the for-profit insurance companies want to pad their own coffers. 

And if you look at medical care in countries like Germany or France it’s simple - the doctors just fix you, the end. It comes out of taxes. Like a library or public school. 

No filing for medical bankruptcy just because someone drew the short straw and got cancer. 

Private insurance works literally identical to “public” insurance but is worse in every way. Why? Because we as citizens allow our politicians to “gut” every bill that would just create a flat % payment system that covers everything. 

It’s not that public insurance is bad, it’s that our politicians are bad and gut food policy then say they’re “doing it for capitalism/choice/whatever”.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> I don't think you know what universal means


Yes I do, it's what Obama wanted but didn't do. Again, the unions are exempt, the corporations are exempt, town, state and federal workers are exempt. My taxes go up to support the benefits of public unions, but their tax dollars don't support the ACA that I am on. It's supported only by those that pay into it, which in this case is the working class. The low class get the ACA for free and the middle and high class don't need the help. We're Capitalist remember? Except we have an un-Constitutional fine if you're not insured.


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> Mishandled covid, geopolitical destabilization, infiltration by or corrupt ties to Russian agents, and an 18th century overpowered mistake called a Supreme Court (which here and now isn't actually a court *at all*, but rather a committee with lifetime appointments and infinite power to dismantle laws and government bodies) packed with radicals....
> 
> 
> What ever gave you the idea that Republicans might have anything to do with any of that?


That's the tip of the iceberg compared to Biden's mis-steps


----------



## AMOS

mmr007 said:


> That's why, honestly, I hope Liz Cheney loses this November so she runs for president in 2024. I don't like her policies but there is ZERO chance any dem can win the presidency. We are look at either an incompetent autocrat like Trump or a scary competent one like DeSantis and I for one want Cheney to appeal not normal people and use her scalpel to slice out this cancer in the republican party once and for all.
> 
> But as far as the "supreme" court goes....we're fucked
> 
> On a personal note...every single 4th of July since I was a kid I watched the musical "1776" with my parents and then as an adult with my kids. Never skipped a year. It was tradition. It is an awesome movie with fabulous dialog and great music. I haven't watched it since Trump was elected...or Biden. I stopped watching it. America is so fucked it has robbed me of my enjoyment of this simple guilty pleasure


Not one conservative would vote for her. She'll never get the nomination. Nor Romney


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Yes I do, it's what Obama wanted but didn't do. Again, the unions are exempt, the corporations are exempt, town, state and federal workers are exempt. My taxes go up to support the benefits of public unions, but their tax dollars don't support the ACA that I am on. It's supported only by those that pay into it, which in this case is the working class. The low class get the ACA for free and the middle and high class don't need the help. We're Capitalist remember? Except we have an un-Constitutional fine if you're not insured.


The constitution said you couldn't fine people for not having health insurance? Those guys really did think of everything (except voting rights for women/black people).


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> That's the tip of the iceberg compared to Biden's mis-steps



If you mean not arresting Mr. Rump and his family & co-conspirators or not dropping a SEAL Team or drone strike on Mr. Putler, I agree

...but I somehow doubt that's what you mean


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> If you mean not arresting Mr. Rump and his family & co-conspirators or not dropping a SEAL Team or drone strike on Mr. Putler, I agree
> 
> ...but I somehow doubt that's what you mean


I'm not a Trump fan but at least the guy can stay awake past 7 PM


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> The constitution said you couldn't fine people for not having health insurance? Those guys really did think of everything (except voting rights for women/black people).


It was a Socialist President over stepping his authority by imposing $1200 fines on those that exercised Freedom of Choice. And that RINO Justice Roberts voted against the people so Obama could have his legacy. When I become President someday I'm going to impose $1250 fines on anyone that doesn't buy a gun.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> I'm not a Trump fan but at least the guy can stay awake past 7 PM



And we care WHY? Because you have nothing to entertain you on twitter after 7pm EST?


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> And we care WHY? Because you have nothing to entertain you on twitter after 7pm EST?


Biden's gaffes during the day are enough to hold me over until the next day. I just hope he's not needed to make an important decision after 7, but I'm guessing they have a pre made cheat sheet of what he Would say.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> Not one conservative would vote for her. She'll never get the nomination. Nor Romney



Why though? She’s a classical Republican isn’t she?


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> Biden's gaffes during the day are enough to hold me over until the next day. I just hope he's not needed to make an important decision after 7, but I'm guessing they have a pre made cheat sheet of what he Would say.


You say these things as if anyone on the left actually think Biden is a good guy or wanted to vote for him.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> Biden's gaffes during the day are enough to hold me over until the next day. I just hope he's not needed to make an important decision after 7, but I'm guessing they have a pre made cheat sheet of what he Would say.



What kind of tribal-authoritarian tv show world are you living in?

Presidents don't make split second decisions. Or same day decisions. Or usually even same-month decisions.

He's not fucking Ragnar Lothbrok. And he's not supposed to be.

It's 2022. Not 1022 AD or 22 BC.


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> Biden is doing fucking horrible but let's continue to attack Republicans, yeah it's all their fault.


Well, the GOP created a lot of problems during Trump’s term and have mostly blocked Biden from being able to do anything, so…




AMOS said:


> You can't even acknowledge the short comings of your own party and expect your voters to march in lockstep anyway.


This is true of both parties, though, not just dems.




AMOS said:


> Yes I do, it's what Obama wanted but didn't do. Again, the unions are exempt, the corporations are exempt, town, state and federal workers are exempt. My taxes go up to support the benefits of public unions, but their tax dollars don't support the ACA that I am on. It's supported only by those that pay into it, which in this case is the working class. The low class get the ACA for free and the middle and high class don't need the help. We're Capitalist remember? Except we have an un-Constitutional fine if you're not insured.


That’s not universal health care. That was a half-assed, watered down version to get it through a republican controlled congress.

If you want to see how a proper universal healthcare system works, look to Europe. The various countries have different systems, some better than others, but they all seem to work better than what we have here (except for the rich).




AMOS said:


> That's the tip of the iceberg compared to Biden's mis-steps


Biden hasn’t been particularly effective, but from where I sit its due to a combination of ineffectiveness and lacking a supermajority in the senate. What are the missteps to which you refer?




AMOS said:


> Not one conservative would vote for her. She'll never get the nomination. Nor Romney


She’s the epitome of conservative. The folks that won’t vote for her aren’t the conservatives, its the crazy, far right Trumpers.




AMOS said:


> Biden's gaffes during the day are enough to hold me over until the next day. I just hope he's not needed to make an important decision after 7, but I'm guessing they have a pre made cheat sheet of what he Would say.


No one voted for Biden or thought he would be a great president, they voted against Trump because he was the worst president in US history and anyone would be an improvement, even Biden. And they made the right call. But there is still plenty of room for improvement.


----------



## TimmyPage

AMOS said:


> It was a Socialist President over stepping his authority...



My man, not only has America never had anything near a socialist president, it's never even had a president who was left of centre. Both Biden and Obama are small-c conservatives.


----------



## Hollowway

I honestly think that if we had Bernie as president, you’d be happy, AMOS. I agree that Obama gave us a health care system that no one wanted. (I DO agree that healthcare should be mandatory, because it’s not fair to the rest of us to cover their bills, because hospitals are still going to treat them. But he should have gone fully for Medicare for all, like all of the other first world countries.) I agree that Biden isn’t doing a damn thing. I disagree that we have the senate, though. Manchin is blocking a lot of stuff that would help the average citizen.

But if we had Bernie, the middle class would be immensely helped. He’s not taking money from corps, like the gop and dems. (You might say, “he has some fancy houses!” but stop listening to the dems and gop, and actually read his plans. They’re just the kind of thing we all actually want.)

One thing I’m damn sure is that the trump republicans are not going to result in a higher standard of living for any of us. The trumpets are ruining the gop, and it’s going to take people will serious balls to quit cowering in the corner and stand up to him. Cheney and Romney might not have the votes of the Maga group, but at least they believe in something other than keeping their job by kowtowing to trump.


----------



## narad

TimmyPage said:


> Both Biden and Obama are small-c conservatives.


What's the c stand for?


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> What's the c stand for?


conservative. But not, like, self-proclaimed, official "Conservative".


----------



## DrewH

AMOS said:


> It was a Socialist President over stepping his authority by imposing $1200 fines on those that exercised Freedom of Choice. And that RINO Justice Roberts voted against the people so Obama could have his legacy. When I become President someday I'm going to impose $1250 fines on anyone that doesn't buy a gun.



Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Now you have been educated, and are able understand the error of using that word.


----------



## Adieu

FYI, Obamacare is a goddamn abomination of the state gifting a mandate to pay a clique of private companies or face fines.

It should be investigated for the corrupt conspiracy to defraud the public that it is.

What it is NOT, however, is:
* NOT socialism
* NOT universal healthcare
* NOT HEALTHCARE AT ALL, if you select most of the available plans (Golds are sorta-healthcare and Platinums approach some semblance of genuine coverage)


----------



## mmr007

AMOS said:


> Not one conservative would vote for her. She'll never get the nomination. Nor Romney


Not the "conservatives" you mean....the ones who sit outside abortion clinics or child molesting pizza parlors polishing their AR15's in case Clarence Thomas is sitting on the toilet and can't activate the Jewish space cannons in time to prevent fetal harm....but "normal" people who value an American president who won't be Putin's performing monkey or spend 18 hours a day on Twitter will see some value in her. I don't agree with her politics but I agree strongly with her most valuable asset....competency.


----------



## Crungy

I'm not a republican but I find it humorous when trump and his bootlickers call people like Cheney a RINO when it's him pushing far right extremes and not representing what most would consider historically republican.


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> Not the "conservatives" you mean....the ones who sit outside abortion clinics or child molesting pizza parlors polishing their AR15's in case Clarence Thomas is sitting on the toilet and can't activate the Jewish space cannons in time to prevent fetal harm....but "normal" people who value an American president who won't be Putin's performing monkey or spend 18 hours a day on Twitter will see some value in her. I don't agree with her politics but I agree strongly with her most valuable asset....competency.


That's 99% of the reason she won't ever get the nod.

Democrats field a bunch of folks with interesting ideas, some even surprising, then slowly widdle it down to the most milquetoast, boring, addled, dumbass of the bunch.

Republicans field a bunch of folks with some interesting ideas, some even surprising, some a little out there, and some full-blown batshit fucking crazy, then slowly widdle it down to the full-blown batshit fucking craziest one of the bunch.

Maybe she could run as an independent? And get three pity votes from people like me that know their state will go full red no matter what we vote for.


----------



## Crungy

Add "attractive" women to the republican list. Whether it's a male politician wanting to bone someone or someone who fucked their way up the ranks cough Boebert cough... They rely on attractive people, craziness be damned.


----------



## mmr007

That's Cheney....and that's her manhandling McCarthy, election deniers and Trumpism. We are waaay too early yet I agree to start handicapping the field. But 80 million people voted for Biden even tho 79 million didn't want him for president. I do believe if Cheney runs she has a chance and again my only interest in her is she has more balls than all republicans put together


----------



## Randy

Crungy said:


> I'm not a republican but I find it humorous when trump and his bootlickers call people like Cheney a RINO when it's him pushing far right extremes and not representing what most would consider historically republican.


I know a multitude of Republicans that have abandoned the party over the last ~15 years.

First guy I can think of was a literal rocket scientist (worked on the Gemini space mission), lifelong Republican under the belief of small government and low taxes (and the party of Lincoln). His prinicipals started to bother him during the Iraq War, and then when Obama was the nominee, he started getting awful race baiting emails. He was really impressed with Obama as a speaker and as a writer. He had traveled all over the world several times over again, and he thought the attacks on Obama (secret Muslim, not really American, etc) were 100% rooted in racism. When he started getting emails signed by people who were party officals or Republicans he previously respected, he jumped ship.

The Republican Party is definitely splintered. And in the case of post-2016 IMO, hijacked by Trumpists that aren't at all conservative. What's been left are those that took over and Republicans without a moral compass that stay married to the party just to pwn teh libz.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Adieu said:


> Presidents don't make split second decisions. Or same day decisions. Or usually even same-month decisions.



Is this actually true?

Given that POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military, I would assume that he is called on fairly regularly. I recall that Obama had to personally authorise some drone strikes, for example.

I would think that Presidents don't really make boring policy decisions too often. But they certainly do have to make diplomatic decisions on a timely basis.



Hollowway said:


> Cheney and Romney might not have the votes of the Maga group, but at least they believe in something other than keeping their job by kowtowing to trump.


Well, at least one of them believe in magic underwear apparently



MaxOfMetal said:


> Almost everywhere else is happier, richer, and safer than us. Why? Because everyone gets nice things. They get healthcare, they get good education, they get well paying jobs, they get more time off, they spend more time with their families and hobbies, and to top it all off they don't have to I worry about getting shot all the time.



I don't think this is true. The USA has the highest wages in the world, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

You're looking at incomes 20% higher than Germany, UK, Finland, NZ etc.

Of course there is large disparity in the US, but it's false to say that people "don't have" healthcare or well-paying jobs or time off. There are a LOT of jobs that provide amazing healthcare and a good lifestyle. The *quality* of US healthcare is also godlike. If you need some specialist surgery done, the US is almost always going to be the best place in the world to do it. 

Systems like the UK sure won't leave you bankrupt, but you might die waiting for care, or suffer a long time before you get it. Waiting time for cataract operation is 20 MONTHS. My mother is almost blind now, and though they have tons of money there's no feasible private option. A friend of mine has had back pain for two years but can't get an MRI or CT. Again, can't go private without a referral from an NHS doctor, which they won't give. So even if you want to just pay out of pocket, you can't. The only option is go abroad, which is pretty ridiculous.

In terms of happiness, the US ranks 16th (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/19/world-happiness-ranking-2022-where-the-united-states-ranks-now.html) That's higher than the US, France, and basically identical to Germany and Canada. The US is the highest ranking important country. Top ranking are tiny Nordic countries or city states.

IMO what the current generation of "Internet Americans" are currently good at is whining, apparently. You look at reddit et al and it's a massive sea of negativity and complaining. But compared to the rest of the world, Americans still have it fucking SWEET.



Mathemagician said:


> And if you look at medical care in countries like Germany or France it’s simple - the doctors just fix you, the end. It comes out of taxes.


Germany has a good system but it's an insurance-based system. You have to pay mandatory insurance. Basically Obamacare. Higher earners have more private insurance options available.


----------



## bostjan

Trump isn't far-right. He's a grifter and an opportunist. He'll be as far left or right as suits him, since he has no actual moral principles.


----------



## Crungy

True. So he really is a RINO, more deflection from the king.


----------



## DrewH

Adieu said:


> FYI, Obamacare is a goddamn abomination of the state gifting a mandate to pay a clique of private companies or face fines.
> 
> It should be investigated for the corrupt conspiracy to defraud the public that it is.
> 
> What it is NOT, however, is:
> * NOT socialism
> * NOT universal healthcare
> * NOT HEALTHCARE AT ALL, if you select most of the available plans (Golds are sorta-healthcare and Platinums approach some semblance of genuine coverage)



Agree that we should have actual healthcare plans and not these tragedies that are available.

By your logic, auto insurance would also be an abomination too? Yet, many states mandate it. Strange how I don't hear people going for their torches and pitchforks over that. That is the hypocrisy of people that chose Obamacare as their hill to die on.


----------



## nightflameauto

DrewH said:


> Agree that we should have actual healthcare plans and not these tragedies that are available.
> 
> By your logic, auto insurance would also be an abomination too? Yet, many states mandate it. Strange how I don't hear people going for their torches and pitchforks over that. That is the hypocrisy of people that chose Obamacare as their hill to die on.


You have to make a decision to buy a car, you don't have to make a decision to have a body. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone not in the insurance industry thinks healthcare should be for profit only, with no other options available to people.

Oh well. We've done a great job at trimming away the fat when it comes to healthcare. And by trimming away the fat I mean, made it completely out of reach for ever more people. Literally, thanks Obama.


----------



## mmr007

Flappydoodle said:


> Is this actually true?
> 
> Given that POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military, I would assume that he is called on fairly regularly. I recall that Obama had to personally authorise some drone strikes, for example.
> 
> I would think that Presidents don't really make boring policy decisions too often. But they certainly do have to make diplomatic decisions on a timely basis.
> 
> 
> Well, at least one of them believe in magic underwear apparently
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is true. The USA has the highest wages in the world, according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage
> 
> You're looking at incomes 20% higher than Germany, UK, Finland, NZ etc.
> 
> Of course there is large disparity in the US, but it's false to say that people "don't have" healthcare or well-paying jobs or time off. There are a LOT of jobs that provide amazing healthcare and a good lifestyle. The *quality* of US healthcare is also godlike. If you need some specialist surgery done, the US is almost always going to be the best place in the world to do it.
> 
> Systems like the UK sure won't leave you bankrupt, but you might die waiting for care, or suffer a long time before you get it. Waiting time for cataract operation is 20 MONTHS. My mother is almost blind now, and though they have tons of money there's no feasible private option. A friend of mine has had back pain for two years but can't get an MRI or CT. Again, can't go private without a referral from an NHS doctor, which they won't give. So even if you want to just pay out of pocket, you can't. The only option is go abroad, which is pretty ridiculous.
> 
> In terms of happiness, the US ranks 16th (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/19/world-happiness-ranking-2022-where-the-united-states-ranks-now.html) That's higher than the US, France, and basically identical to Germany and Canada. The US is the highest ranking important country. Top ranking are tiny Nordic countries or city states.
> 
> IMO what the current generation of "Internet Americans" are currently good at is whining, apparently. You look at reddit et al and it's a massive sea of negativity and complaining. But compared to the rest of the world, Americans still have it fucking SWEET.
> 
> 
> Germany has a good system but it's an insurance-based system. You have to pay mandatory insurance. Basically Obamacare. Higher earners have more private insurance options available.


Doesn't matter what our average income or wages are when we have amongst the highest costs of living in the world with exorbitant rents and healthcare, secondary education costs etc...

And for happiness index....our report card is not exactly something that gets displayed on the fridge for everyone to see.


----------



## DrewH

nightflameauto said:


> You have to make a decision to buy a car, you don't have to make a decision to have a body. I just can't wrap my head around how anyone not in the insurance industry thinks healthcare should be for profit only, with no other options available to people.
> 
> Oh well. We've done a great job at trimming away the fat when it comes to healthcare. And by trimming away the fat I mean, made it completely out of reach for ever more people. Literally, thanks Obama.



You lost me at decision. Cars are a necessity in day and age.


----------



## ArtDecade

DrewH said:


> You lost me at decision. Cars are a necessity in day and age.


My guess is that you don't live in a metropolis.


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> My guess is that you don't live in a metropolis.



Barring New York/Chicago/Boston, from what I've heard in other cities/states, most public transport is an absolute clusteruck in need of total overhaul


----------



## Adieu

DrewH said:


> By your logic, auto insurance would also be an abomination too? Yet, many states mandate it. Strange how I don't hear people going for their torches and pitchforks over that. That is the hypocrisy of people that chose Obamacare as their hill to die on.



Nope, because owning and operating a motor vehicle is a choice (to some extent at least)

Being between the ages of 18 and 65 isn't really optional


----------



## DrewH

ArtDecade said:


> My guess is that you don't live in a metropolis.



No, and just because you do, doesn't mean you don't have a need for a car. What if you don't work in the city? What about relatives? Screw them, you don't need to visit? Don't take day trips or vacations? You are in the very small minority of people these days if you can get by without owning at least one vehicle in your household. 

What's next? You going to tell me that toilet paper purchasing is a decision just because a small # of people have bidets?


----------



## DrewH

Adieu said:


> Nope, because owning and operating a motor vehicle is a choice (to some extent at least)
> 
> Being between the ages of 18 and 65 isn't really optional


Totaly incorrect. How old are you? 20? Never been outside the security of your rents and college? Yeah, I didn't need a car back then either. For grown up folks, it's not an option. Unless you don't work, get your groceries delivered, and use door dash 100% of the time.


----------



## nightflameauto

MFB said:


> Barring New York/Chicago/Boston, from what I've heard in other cities/states, most public transport is an absolute clusteruck in need of total overhaul


'MERICA! FUCK YEAH!

I've never really gotten patriotism in the form of being proud to be from a place. It's random. I was born here. Big whup. But here lately I've been pretty hardline in actively disliking being born here. I'm stuck in the most backwardass "first world" country in the world. And our leaders are god damned determined to turn us into a third world hellhole as fast as they possibly can.


----------



## Adieu

MFB said:


> Barring New York/Chicago/Boston, from what I've heard in other cities/states, most public transport is an absolute clusteruck in need of total overhaul



It's expensive enough that other choices like Uber/Lyft/taxi or living with someone who has a vehicle may be sufficient and better for some people's needs.

Lot of people work at home these days. I'm fairly sure I only drove ~500 miles in 2021. Those were some stunningly expensive miles and it would probably have been more financially reasonable not to bother with vehicle ownership.

I just like my truck though.


----------



## mmr007

People...people...people....please do not make analogies between health insurance and car insurance unless you make $15 an hour but are able to own a $3 million Bugatti but your car insurance only pays 60% of the replacement cost should someone who is uninsured slam into and decimate your car and kill the passenger inside. The rest is your financial contribution...er...responsibility. That's what health insurance feels like to many people


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> People...people...people....please do not make analogies between health insurance and car insurance unless you make $15 an hour but are able to own a $3 million Bugatti but your car insurance only pays 60% of the replacement cost should someone who is uninsured slam into and decimate your car and kill the passenger inside. The rest is your financial contribution...er...responsibility. That's what health insurance feels like to many people



Also, you can sell a Bugatti. Even a wrecked Bugatti.


----------



## bostjan

Average price of car insurance (basic coverage) $60/month.

Average price of health insurance (basic coverage): $450/month.

No car insurance? Don't drive until you figure it out.

No health insurance? Don't get sick, get in an accident, be attacked, or get old.

Clearly it's the same sort of thing.


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Also, you can sell a Bugatti. Even a wrecked Bugatti.


I have it on good authority you can sell certain organs. So, you know, we got that going for us!


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> Average price of car insurance (basic coverage) $60/month.



Clearly I'm overpaying for car insurance with a clean record if the avg. cost per month is $60, I'm sitting at $110/month.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> I have it on good authority you can sell certain organs. So, you know, we got that going for us!


Not legally, at least since 1984.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> Clearly I'm overpaying for car insurance with a clean record if the avg. cost per month is $60, I'm sitting at $110/month.


Yeah, but we live in New England, where everything costs 2-3x as much.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Yeah, but we live in New England, where everything costs 2-3x as much.



Blame New Hampshire

I once saw a SCHOOL BUS drifting a turn there


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Blame New Hampshire
> 
> I once saw a SCHOOL BUS drifting a turn there


NH: "Live free or die!"
NH Resident: "Why not both?!"

Meanwhile - satire news article


----------



## ArtDecade

DrewH said:


> No, and just because you do, doesn't mean you don't have a need for a car.


Thank you for telling me what I need. I'll be back in touch when I need more direction.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I had physical therapy this morning, and my therapist was very obviously trying not to go into a full-blown rant about American healthcare and the general political climate right now. I am incredibly grateful to be doing this through Worker's Comp., and my PT is obviously aware that's the only reason I can "afford" to see them. I would be_ Absolutely Fucked_ (and very likely suicidal, no joke) if I were trying to figure it out myself.

How fucked up is it that I now often wonder how I can get some of my other chronic issues on a Worker's Comp. claim, just so that I can get affordable healthcare? I have to imagine there are tons of workers comp claims out there that would be considered "fraud" that are basically people who went and got a job at Amazon or something so they can get their fucking knee fixed. As far as I'm concerned, the only fraud taking place there is our healthcare system in the first place.


----------



## mmr007

ArtDecade said:


> Thank you for telling me what I need. I'll be back in touch when I need more direction.





so long as you seem to be open to taking suggestions....


----------



## StevenC

DrewH said:


> Agree that we should have actual healthcare plans and not these tragedies that are available.
> 
> By your logic, auto insurance would also be an abomination too? Yet, many states mandate it. Strange how I don't hear people going for their torches and pitchforks over that. That is the hypocrisy of people that chose Obamacare as their hill to die on.


No because typically car accidents don't just happen because cars exist. They happen because someone drove badly or shouldn't have been driving a car at that time.

In ten years of driving I have had 0 use for my car insurance because I haven't caused any crashes. In the last ten years, by American pricing, I would have probably 7 figures of medical debt right now despite being an otherwise fit and healthy person, because a healthy body can get incredibly sick by themselves. 

Insurance exists to cover liability. Bring alive shouldn't be considered a liability.


----------



## Metalman X

bostjan said:


> Yeah, but we live in New England, where everything costs 2-3x as much.


can confirm, hah. My insurance is about the same for an over decade old Volvo wagon. On top of that, I gotta pay roughly $150 a year to the town in taxes just for having it, even if I never drove it or anything. Meanwhile, my sister in NC pays like under $50 a year for vehicle tax on a 2yo fully loaded SUV.

Though, TBH, I'd still rather live here than down south. Too hot, Too racist, too homophobic (yes, I'm gay, so this matters a LOT). Also, at least here in New England I can pretty much sit on my porch in broad daylight smoking a bong in front of a cop with no hassle. Down south they'd just throw your ass in jail for 5 years (or more, likely if your not white), for having a trace of catnip in your pocket (I smoke Steph Carpenter amounts of weed a day just to make existence slightly bearable, so this also matters a lot)


----------



## wheresthefbomb

pg 999 

praise satan and pay your private insurance premiums


----------



## mmr007

StevenC said:


> Insurance exists to cover liability. Being alive shouldn't be considered a liability.


I think I might need to add another signature quote. What a gem!!!


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> pg 999
> 
> praise satan and pay your private insurance premiums


Reminds me of an old SNL sketch where John Belushi was the spawn of a dog from the Pet Cemetery, and had 666 on his forehead, but everyone kept leaning over him to see it, and were convinced it was 999, so he clearly wasn't evil.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Yes I do, it's what Obama wanted but didn't do. Again, the unions are exempt, the corporations are exempt, town, state and federal workers are exempt. My taxes go up to support the benefits of public unions, but their tax dollars don't support the ACA that I am on. It's supported only by those that pay into it, which in this case is the working class. The low class get the ACA for free and the middle and high class don't need the help. We're Capitalist remember? Except we have an un-Constitutional fine if you're not insured.


Late to the party here and trying to get caught up, but I'm trying to understand your point here, and, well, are you talking about the health care plans purchased on an ACA exchange, vs employer provided? 

That's sort of a difference of delivery mechanism more than it is content - in both cases plans are subject to the same coverage requirements, the individual mandates are still in place, etc etc etc. The difference is mostly that in the former case if you're not eligible for employer provided insurance (and can benefit from the collective bargaining that comes from selling insurance to a company vs a bunch of individuals), then you're able to buy a plan from a marketplace that in theory improves pricing by fostering competition amongst companies, and that in some circumstances you might be eligible for subsidies depending on income level. 

As for how effective this is, well... competition within states still isn't where it should be, but it's worth noting that part of the GOP's strategy for dismantling the ACA was NOT setting up these exchanges in states where they controlled the state government, so pretty clearly the GOP thinks it COULD make health care coverage more affordable.


----------



## Adieu

This system should AT LEAST prohibit employment-tied insurance if it was even pretending to intend to work properly


----------



## Drew

DrewH said:


> No, and just because you do, doesn't mean you don't have a need for a car. What if you don't work in the city? What about relatives? Screw them, you don't need to visit? Don't take day trips or vacations? You are in the very small minority of people these days if you can get by without owning at least one vehicle in your household.
> 
> What's next? You going to tell me that toilet paper purchasing is a decision just because a small # of people have bidets?


I mean, there's a couple key differences between car insurance and health insurance, though. Couple quick ones off the top of my head:

*over a long enough timeline, EVERYONE needs health insurance. Plenty of people never actually end up needing their car insurance - if you never crash, you never have to use it. Everyone at some point in their life will need health insurance, though. We're mortal. We're going to need end of life care.
*If you have a car but no insurance, and crash, and somehow do no damage to any other car or personal property, you have the option of just taking the loss, and not repairing your car. And, relatedly, a repair shop can choose NOT to repair your car, if they know you have no insurance and are not likely to be able to pay for the work. Hospitals, meanwhile, are bound by the Hippocratic oath to treat you first, regardless of if you have any expectations of being able to pay. If you can't, that's a loss to the hospital, and not you. 
*There aren't many ways you can game the car insurance markets - I can't think of a single thing that would make you suddenly very likely to need car insurance in the near term. Health insurance, however, if you have no health insurance and are unexpectedly diagnosed with cancer, suddenly you have a near-certain expectation of very high medical bills in the near future. In a vacuum this creates incentives for healthy people to not get insurance, sick people to get insurance, and increases the cost of coverage for people with insurance, in a world without an individual mandate. This is kind of the gist of why insurance companies cared so much about "pre-existing conditions." 

They function very differently, and are hedges against risks with very different probabilities.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> It was a Socialist President over stepping his authority by imposing $1200 fines on those that exercised Freedom of Choice. And that RINO Justice Roberts voted against the people so Obama could have his legacy. When I become President someday I'm going to impose $1250 fines on anyone that doesn't buy a gun.


See the my post immediately above this one. If you want to call not having health insurance "freedom of choice," then we need to do away with the Hippocratic Oath and empower hospitals to turn away anyone without insurance and without the means to pay for their medical care.

Freedom of choice would be putting your money where your mouth is and saying "I choose to forgo health insurance, and forgo any medical treatment I can't afford without insurance. It's my choice to die rather than pay for insurance to help me pay for life-saving medical care I couldn't otherwise afford." Not having insurance, but still expecting to be treated in a hospital if you ever need it, is better known as "grifting."


----------



## mmr007

Last year the 6 largest health insurance companies brought home $40.1 BILLION in profit. Not revenue...profit. In one fucking year!!! Meanwhile people get denied treatment or lose their homes due to medical bills or otherwise constantly have their lives turned upside down by medical costs. You can make micro arguments all day long about toilet paper and taxis and how this is analogous to XYZ, but it doesn't take a genius to see this system is a giant fucking SCAM. Lobbyists exist for a reason....to help everyone do the smash and grab on the American worker until there is nothing left.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> If you want to call not having health insurance "freedom of choice," then we need to do away with the Hippocratic Oath and empower hospitals to turn away anyone without insurance and without the means to pay for their medical care.


I feel like this could potentially be the direction that things could go with another ~10ish years of Republicans in power.


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> I feel like this could potentially be the direction that things could go with another ~10ish years of Republicans in power.


10 years? I always envy optimists


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I feel like this could potentially be the direction that things could go with another ~10ish years of Republicans in power.


Honestly, if we want to do away with an individual mandate, I say this with 100% seriousness - this is the only fair answer. Anyone who opts not to have health insurance because it's a "personal choice," should not expect to be treated for emergency care unless they hand the hospital a credit card on the way in. They made their "personal choice," and they need to be prepared to live or die by it, rather than just passing the costs of their emergency treatment back to providers, where they have to be absorbed by every _other _participant in the system. If someone doesn't want health insurance, sure, that's their choice, but if they then get hit by a car and need treatment after all, my costs shouldn't increase because they didn't want to pay for private insurance, or vote to nationalize health care coverage so it's paid out of tax dollars.


----------



## ArtDecade

mmr007 said:


> Last year the 6 largest health insurance companies brought home $40.1 BILLION in profit. Not revenue...profit.


Losers. The top 5 gas companies made that in a quarter.


----------



## mmr007

There are several problems with your scenario including everyone WANTS health insurance. Many can't afford it OR....the other real issue is for minor issues like a clinic visit it is cheaper to pay cash as an uninsured patient that pay the deductible amount as an insured so there is no incentive and for catastrophic illness or injury it doesn't matter. many companies will cap the payment at 60% meaning the patient has to pay 40% of say $600,000. Oh that's not much. I'll write you a check....oh sorry...debit card only?


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> There are several problems with your scenario including everyone WANTS health insurance. Many can't afford it OR....the other real issue is for minor issues like a clinic visit it is cheaper to pay cash as an uninsured patient that pay the deductible amount as an insured so there is no incentive and for catastrophic illness or injury it doesn't matter. many companies will cap the payment at 60% meaning the patient has to pay 40% of say $600,000. Oh that's not much. I'll write you a check....oh sorry...debit card only?


AMOS here doesn't - there's definitely a contingent of people - republicans, mostly, with a few libertarians - who considered the individual mandate a "violation of personal liberty and freedom to choose." I was addressing them.

Health insurance affordability is a different story, though one that's closely related (as broadening the risk pool does make it more affordable to provide coverage. And, again, I think it's telling that most of the GOP's efforts to fight the ACA have been focused on attacking measures (individual mandate, state-run exchanges, etc) that _do_ improve affordability, hoping to make the whole thing so cumbersome and expensive that it collapses.


----------



## mmr007

Those people only opposed the ACA and its mandate because a black man dared try to implement it in a clear example of political appropriation from the white republicans who advocated for it first. Same way they opposed a black woman daring to suggest kids should eat a vegetable in school lunches and that pizza and french fries don't count. 

Don't get me wrong I hated Obamacare because I was one of the ones it seriously hurt. I lost my healthcare because of it then was faced with a fine for not having health insurance.

Anyway sorry if I misunderstood but it seemed you were advocating for turning away people from healthcare services if they made a personal choice not to buy it regardless of the reason. Take me for example when Obamacare first went into effect. My employee contribution for me and my kids went from $238 per month to $897 per month. That put me in immediate deficit. I could have insurance or roof over my head (and my kids) couldn't have both. I applied for assistance but was denied. So I MADE a choice. No health insurance. So I should be denied live saving care at a hospital?


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Not legally, at least since 1984.


Our lawmakers see no need to pay attention to the law. Why the fuck should we?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The ACA is a poor people trap. The tax credit is based on a _guess_ of next year's earnings. If you're wrong and you make more, you get to pay it back. How the fuck am I supposed to know the future? I took the shittiest plan because I was terrified of having an even bigger tax burden next spring and I wish I'd just passed entirely because I might as well have no insurance with this insane deductible and I could be spending that $3 a month on literally anything else. 

At least trump removed the individual mandate. Thanks I guess?


----------



## ArtDecade

Call me crazy, but I think we should have universal healthcare in the USA - including all the people that get caught in mass shootings *and* the Trump supporters that put holes in them.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Our lawmakers see no need to pay attention to the law. Why the fuck should we?


Because we aren't the people in charge of the police force.


----------



## TheBlackBard

AMOS said:


> That's the tip of the iceberg compared to Biden's mis-steps


Someone has already told you in this threat that whataboutism is NOT a valid debate tactic, right? Like, we've already had someone in this thread saying Biden isn't ideal. As much as Biden isn't ideal, Trump is just a step further into the circles of hell. Why would anyone want that? Why would anyone want a President who has supporters who among those consist of KKK, Neo-Nazis, those who support forcing women AND pre-adolescent females to have children after they're sexually assaulted. Making a case for a Biden is bad enough, to excuse, attempt to redeem, or even give a sniff of a hint that you're trying to let Trump off the hook? No good, man, no good. The deal is, we're not arguing that we want someone like Biden in office. We want someone better, preferably without someone clinging to someone with truly despicable habits and views, which rules out quite a few Republicans, quite a few "so-called" leftists. You're hung up on the worst examples we had on both sides without trying to look forward. So far it's been shown that TRUE leftists here, the ones who think Biden is terrible and not doing a good enough job simply want someone WAY better. Why can't Republicans do the same?


----------



## bostjan

Tons of workplaces here have moved to "high deductible plans" to save money. Deductibles are in the thousands to tens of thousands range. The punchline of the joke is that the premiums are still 50% higher for the employee. To make up the gap, you get to start a savings account to save up your own money just in case. That's what I call self-insured.


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> Because we aren't the people in charge of the police force.


True enough haven't seen any Proud Boys on here, unless AMOS is one?


----------



## ArtDecade

profwoot said:


> True enough haven't seen any Proud Boys on here, unless AMOS is one?


----------



## Mathemagician

bostjan said:


> Tons of workplaces here have moved to "high deductible plans" to save money. Deductibles are in the thousands to tens of thousands range. The punchline of the joke is that the premiums are still 50% higher for the employee. To make up the gap, you get to start a savings account to save up your own money just in case. That's what I call self-insured.




People will endlessly cite that American salaries are super high, and refuse to acknowledge the built-in costs of health “insurance” and “minimum out of pocket” numbers, along with co-pays.

They’ll cite salary numbers while ignoring the insane cost of childcare for young children. 

If you add the monthly costs up and subtract them from the median salaries then you get a better idea when comparing net take-home numbers. 

Someone with one child making $60k in the US likely keeps a comparable amount as someone making ~$40 in other developed countries. 

And they don’t have $3,000 ambulance rides.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> Anyway sorry if I misunderstood but it seemed you were advocating for turning away people from healthcare services if they made a personal choice not to buy it regardless of the reason. Take me for example when Obamacare first went into effect. My employee contribution for me and my kids went from $238 per month to $897 per month. That put me in immediate deficit. I could have insurance or roof over my head (and my kids) couldn't have both. I applied for assistance but was denied. So I MADE a choice. No health insurance. So I should be denied live saving care at a hospital?


Like I said, this is a fairly complicated subject, made doubly more so because a lot of the GOP opposition to the ACA has been in the form of targeting the parts that are likely to result in cost savings, to try to destabilize the whole thing. 

But, I guess let me reframe this with a question of my own. If you have, for whatever reason, chosen not to take out health insurance, and find yourself needing emergency life-saving medical care, who should pay for that?


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> Like I said, this is a fairly complicated subject, made doubly more so because a lot of the GOP opposition to the ACA has been in the form of targeting the parts that are likely to result in cost savings, to try to destabilize the whole thing.
> 
> But, I guess let me reframe this with a question of my own. If you have, for whatever reason, chosen not to take out health insurance, and find yourself needing emergency life-saving medical care, who should pay for that?


to be honest....you...and you and you and you. All of you. Should a woman be required to carry rape insurance? No. But my tax dollars go to pay for the police I don't need who investigate the crime, the lawyers who will try the case, the judge that presides over it and the inevitable cost of jailing the scum bag. And he never threatened to rape me so why do I pay? Because that's what we do in a society. That's the point of universal healthcare. Our taxes should pay for it but it should not be for profit. But since our society decided to make the ability to heal cost prohibitive based on an arcane notion of employer based healthcare that allows people to buy yachts over my illness...don't be sad when I'm not sad for sticking society with the tab.


----------



## Adieu

The rationale for state universal health insurance isn't about socialism.

It's about collective bargaining/economies of scale and forcing the health insurance bureaucracy to run as a non-profit.

Ultimately, it's just to have Big Brother bully healthcare providers instead of Big Healthcare bullying the people (which is what happens now)

BTW, single payer would NOT eliminate paid healthcare options... just put immense pressure on them to offer truly excellent and competitive premium service or GTFO


----------



## tedtan

mmr007 said:


> to be honest....you...and you and you and you. All of you. Should a woman be required to carry rape insurance? No. But my tax dollars go to pay for the police I don't need who investigate the crime, the lawyers who will try the case, the judge that presides over it and the inevitable cost of jailing the scum bag. And he never threatened to rape me so why do I pay? Because that's what we do in a society. That's the point of universal healthcare. Our taxes should pay for it but it should not be for profit. But since our society decided to make the ability to heal cost prohibitive based on an arcane notion of employer based healthcare that allows people to buy yachts over my illness...don't be sad when I'm not sad for sticking society with the tab.


Sure, if we have truly universal care where everyone pays in. But we don’t have that at this point.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> Sure, if we have truly universal care where everyone pays in. But we don’t have that at this point.



We have a universal nuclear bomb fee too. It's right there in your federal taxes.

There's absolutely no need to make it a separate filing item for the taxpayer.


----------



## wankerness

Adieu said:


> FYI, Obamacare is a goddamn abomination of the state gifting a mandate to pay a clique of private companies or face fines.
> 
> It should be investigated for the corrupt conspiracy to defraud the public that it is.
> 
> What it is NOT, however, is:
> * NOT socialism
> * NOT universal healthcare
> * NOT HEALTHCARE AT ALL, if you select most of the available plans (Golds are sorta-healthcare and Platinums approach some semblance of genuine coverage)


It’s been a godsend to my contractor brother and sister in law who have no ability to get healthcare through any of their jobs. Monthly premiums were radically higher for non-employer provided healthcare before it was a thing. I was paying roughly 300 a month for some bs in Washington back in 2007ish when I had jobs that were too low-paying for employer-provided healthcare.


----------



## Adieu

wankerness said:


> It’s been a godsend to my contractor brother and sister in law who have no ability to get healthcare through any of their jobs. Monthly premiums were radically higher for non-employer provided healthcare before it was a thing. I was paying roughly 300 a month for some bs in Washington back in 2007ish when I had jobs that were too low-paying for employer-provided healthcare.



Please don't confuse slight improvements in regulation with the necessity of busting the insurance cartel...which is the reason behind both the previous and current abuses of the system against the public


----------



## wankerness

Adieu said:


> Please don't confuse slight improvements in regulation with the necessity of busting the insurance cartel...which is the reason behind both the previous and current abuses of the system against the public


Oh I absolutely think it is crap compared to other countries. It’s just also the best we’re going to get probably in our lifetimes. If it gets repealed in this country while the Republican Party still exists I can guarantee you it will not be replaced and we’d be stuck with the same system we had immediately before it, which was far worse thanks to no regulation.


----------



## Mathemagician

Adieu said:


> The rationale for state universal health insurance isn't about socialism.
> 
> It's about collective bargaining/economies of scale and forcing the health insurance bureaucracy to run as a non-profit.
> 
> Ultimately, it's just to have Big Brother bully healthcare providers instead of Big Healthcare bullying the people (which is what happens now)
> 
> BTW, single payer would NOT eliminate paid healthcare options... just put immense pressure on them to offer truly excellent and competitive premium service or GTFO


Yep. Basically we currently have less than 10 insurance providers. So they collude to inflate their own margins at the expense of citizens.

With single payer they would suddenly have a minimum bar of service and care and would have to EARN citizen’s money by offering something worth paying extra for.

A system just like many developed countries have. Private insurers need competition. And an acceptable baseline creates that.

Just look at the number of adults getting heart conditions checked after the age of 64. It’s not just random, it’s when a significant amount of people begin taking social security/Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and can afford to do so.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> We have a universal nuclear bomb fee too. It's right there in your federal taxes.


Not “too”, just “We have a universal nuclear bomb fee” because taxes are actually used for nuclear bombs. They aren’t used for universal health care, so we don’t have that.




Adieu said:


> There's absolutely no need to make it a separate filing item for the taxpayer.


The taxpayer needn’t see it themself, but it does need to be separated for contribution and record keeping purposes.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> The taxpayer needn’t see it themself, but it does need to be separated for contribution and record keeping purposes.



Why?

Because Gsus forbid we get a bit of healthcare off corporate taxes?

Btw, the country is plenty rich in natural resources. We COULD build it into the minerals coal oil gas etc. extraction taxes and literally make ONLY those who profit off the riches of the land pay for national healthcare.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Because we aren't the people in charge of the police force.



Nor, for the most part, the people (and/or things) they exist to protect.



Drew said:


> If you have, for whatever reason, chosen not to take out health insurance, and find yourself needing emergency life-saving medical care, who should pay for that?



Everyone. If I weren't so poor I had to choose between a worthless plan and no plan, I'd be happy to be paying taxes for other peoples' health insurance. That's what we _should _do. We don't, but the question wasn't who does pay or what we currently do, but who _should._



tedtan said:


> Sure, if we have truly universal care where everyone pays in. But we don’t have that at this point.



The question was who _should_ pay, unless I misunderstood. 

If the choices a person has are 1) take out health insurance at the definite detriment of other necessary costs such as food, gas, shelter etc or 2) roll the fucking dice, it seems pretty obvious to me which one most people are going to choose. At that point though it's not a question of who should do what or what's fair to who, we're just describing material conditions of reality as we know it. 

People _are_ choosing not to get healthcare, and other people _are_ footing the bill for it. The question is what can we actually do to change that? I'm not an economic policy expert but I am pretty sure forcing poor people to buy health insurance from insanely corrupt and wealthy corporations isn't it.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> Why?
> 
> Because Gsus forbid we get a bit of healthcare off corporate taxes?
> 
> Btw, the country is plenty rich in natural resources. We COULD build it into the minerals coal oil gas etc. extraction taxes and literally make ONLY those who profit off the riches of the land pay for national healthcare.


Sure, but it still needs to be tracked for accounting purposes.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> Sure, but it still needs to be tracked for accounting purposes.



Doesn't Congress let you access the budget?


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> Doesn't Congress let you access the budget?


Probably, at least at a high level.




wheresthefbomb said:


> If the choices a person has are 1) take out health insurance at the definite detriment of other necessary costs such as food, gas, shelter etc or 2) roll the fucking dice, it seems pretty obvious to me which one most people are going to choose. At that point though it's not a question of who should do what or what's fair to who, we're just describing material conditions of reality as we know it.
> 
> People _are_ choosing not to get healthcare, and other people _are_ footing the bill for it. The question is what can we actually do to change that? I'm not an economic policy expert but I am pretty sure forcing poor people to buy health insurance from insanely corrupt and wealthy corporations isn't it.


I read that as who should pay within the current system (because one has chosen not to buy insurance). Tax payers aren’t paying for that. The hospitals are required to provide treatment, write the treatment off and then charge more for the other treatments they provide that are paid for via insurance or out of pocket. So the people paying for healthcare are paying for the care for those without insurance, too, rather than the overall taxpayer base.

So yes, we should ultimately have a universal healthcare system payed for by taxpayers, but we’re not there yet.


----------



## bostjan

This is all part of the plan.

No abortions, so more babies born. No healthcare means only the strong ones survive. No more functional EPA means more teratogens in the environment, so more mutations. Keep evolution out of school so no one understands what they are doing. It's like eugenics roulette- in 12 generations, we'll either be x-men or x-tinct.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> we'll either be x-men or x-tinct


As long as my mutant super power enables me to escape to another less screwed up timeline.


----------



## Grindspine

So, back to the whole SCOTUS run of late. Have any of you seen that the Moore v. Harper case showed up on the docket?

Apparently, it is known that it is 4 vs 4 with Barret as the swing vote. If this goes through, it could destroy the checks and balances on a state level of governors or courts to object to a legislature gerrymandering.


----------



## Adieu

How the fuck did we get to a place where fanatic Barret can be called a "swing vote"? 

Between WHAT, moderate Taliban vs. fullblown Inquisition?


----------



## thebeesknees22

I think it's safe to say democracy as a whole in the US is going to fall soon. It already has in some of these far right states.

We'll be in a republican dictatorship within the next couple of election cycles. 

It's pretty wild to see everything fall apart so fast. Never thought that would happen in my lifetime.


----------



## jco5055

thebeesknees22 said:


> I think it's safe to say democracy as a whole in the US is going to fall soon. It already has in some of these far right states.
> 
> We'll be in a republican dictatorship within the next couple of election cycles.
> 
> It's pretty wild to see everything fall apart so fast. Never thought that would happen in my lifetime.



The saddest part is that America is TOO powerful on a global scale, where as someone here mentioned, on a personal level if you were to move to another country the shit America does affects the whole world...and that's especially true for something like climate change. I imagine some very small country which has horrible climate practices wouldn't move the needle too much, but (and this is hyperbolic to more easily illustrate an example) if scientists were like "if the world as a whole doesn't radically change their practices in regards to climate change EVERYONE will die by 2075" the US would be one of the places that needs to actually change shit radically


----------



## nightflameauto

jco5055 said:


> The saddest part is that America is TOO powerful on a global scale, where as someone here mentioned, on a personal level if you were to move to another country the shit America does affects the whole world...and that's especially true for something like climate change. I imagine some very small country which has horrible climate practices wouldn't move the needle too much, but (and this is hyperbolic to more easily illustrate an example) if scientists were like "if the world as a whole doesn't radically change their practices in regards to climate change EVERYONE will die by 2075" the US would be one of the places that needs to actually change shit radically


The US would also be the first country to have the millionaire and up class screaming bloody fucking murder for those scientists heads if there was even the tiniest chance it would impact the bottom line.

We're already at the point where there is serious discussions about allowing state legislature to throw out legitimate votes if they disagree. I don't know if we'll have another real presidential election in my lifetime. I mean, the election will take place this next go-round. That's for sure. But if everything falls the way it did last time? We're done. Anybody with the slightest bit of competence in the Republican party will use Trump's tactics, but have the backing of the Supreme Court to make it legit, and be smart enough not to start a fucking riot on the steps of the capital.

To quote an old comedian from long ago, "I think there's problems with being a member of anything called 'Supreme.' I know it really fucked Dianna Ross up."


----------



## bostjan

I don't think that the Supreme Court was a bad idea at all. It's actually smart to have drastically different setups for different branches of government and then have them have some sort of rock-paper-scissors control over each other.

The supreme court got fucked because McConnell refused to play by the rules and let Obama make a nomination when he was supposed to do it. I guess the democrats didn't push back much at the time because they were overconfident that HRC was going to make the nomination and things would be fine, but, instead, Trump.

By slamming 3 justices through in just one term, Trump cemented the court. Keep in mind that Barret was confirmed 8 days before the election, when Republicans refused to consider Obama's nomination 10 months before the election in 2016. So, while the court is fucked, it's a symptom of Congress being fucked and Trump.

In fact, Trump is a symptom of congress being fucked. Keep in mind that, in 1876, when Rutherford B. Hayes beat Tilden in the presidential election, winning by 1 electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by a quarter million votes, it spawned the Compromise of 1877, which allowed the South to pass Jim Crowe laws, and limited Hayes to one term as president.

A few years later, Benjamin Harrison won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote and nominated opposing party cabinet members to placate the plurality.

Then we had Bush lose the popular vote and basically deadlock the electoral vote, get forced into the presidency by the SCotUS, and made absolutely no compromises, despite the majority of voters not choosing him. A much messier version of the same thing happened with Trump.

The minority party is fighting hard to hold majority power. You can't really blame them. But the trouble is that there is no accountability within the government. Congress members can do whatever they please and face zero consequences. Look at how much shit Gaetz has gotten away with! But it went from "well, it's close, so let's strike up a compromise" to "haha, you lose; it doesn't matter that we cheated - you can eat it." And the sentiment amongst the general population of politically aware people is generally the same.


----------



## Glades

We need a socialized healthcare system that works and is accessible to all. The question is how can we afford it given the exorbitant prices of medical care.
Maybe we need to spend less money in foreign wars, or aiding foreign countries in securing their borders, and more money in healthcare and education. Help the people in need. End the days of "America World Police" and put America and Americans first.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I don't think that the Supreme Court was a bad idea at all. It's actually smart to have drastically different setups for different branches of government and then have them have some sort of rock-paper-scissors control over each other.


While everything you say is true, and god DAMN did I get sick of hearing Bush talk about his "clear mandate from the people" during his terms every time there was a disagreement, the problem with all of the checks and balances is that it requires at least *some* part of those checks and balances to be acting in good faith. Add on that sometimes, here or there, you have one side attempting to act in good faith by compromising, or at least paying lip service to compromising as a way to stop themselves from accomplishing anything, the other side would sooner step on every citizen's neck while screaming baby rapists in their faces than compromise. Apparently, literally.

To quote George Costanza, "WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A SOCIETY HERE!"

Somewhere along the way, our entire government lost sight of that.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> While everything you say is true, and god DAMN did I get sick of hearing Bush talk about his "clear mandate from the people" during his terms every time there was a disagreement, the problem with all of the checks and balances is that it requires at least *some* part of those checks and balances to be acting in good faith. Add on that sometimes, here or there, you have one side attempting to act in good faith by compromising, or at least paying lip service to compromising as a way to stop themselves from accomplishing anything, the other side would sooner step on every citizen's neck while screaming baby rapists in their faces than compromise. Apparently, literally.
> 
> To quote George Costanza, "WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A SOCIETY HERE!"
> 
> Somewhere along the way, our entire government lost sight of that.


I don't think there is such a thing as "good faith" within the government. And that's why no form of government will ever work for every society.

First off, democracy sucks, because it's government for the people, by the people, but the people are stupid. Just talk to the average American voter out on the street. So we put representatives as a buffer, sort of like a parent, who knows what the people want and is supposed to try to make sense of it, but, here's another problem, the representatives are also stupid. Just listen to them talk on the television or whatever. They are brainless idiots just like the people they represent. Also, listen to George W. Bush's public speeches and then try to tell me a defensible reason why I should believe that that guy is smart enough to lead a powerful country. And then there's Trump. Now, I'm not going to say that Trump is generally stupid, but he clearly had _no idea_ what he was doing as president.

I think this was _exactly_ what Mike Judge was trying to warn us about with "Idiocracy." Put the idiots in charge and everything goes to shit, because, well, duh'uh! Where are the smart people? They are staying far away from politics. Why? Because the voices of the idiots have gone too far. I blame it all on the 2000 election. Yes, it sounds crazy, but think about it: you had this well-qualified guy who scored 1355 on his SAT, earned decent marks at University, served in Vietnam despite his dad's powerful position to get him out, who was fairly well-spoken (although I didn't generally agree with him on most issues), versus a less-qualified guy, who scored a 1200 (still a respectable score, though), earned C's at university, went AWOL during guard duty within the states, and had the vocabulary of a 3rd grader (and with whom I almost always disagreed). The people chose Gore, the electoral college was probably going to chose Bush, but before anyone could bother, nepotism kicked in and, between his dad's nominees and his dad's boss's nominees to the SCotUS, Bush was appointed president. No compromises were made, no punches were pulled. The governance was given to the minority of the people and it was cited as a divine mandate. Then 911, the Patriot Act, the NSA, the Afghanistan War, the unjustified Iraq War, Gitmo, illegal torture, illegal arrests, government officials profiting openly from the wars, the automotive crash, etc. Worst. president. ever. ...until 2016...

Smart people want nothing to do with trying to fix that mess. It's too messy and there are too many fringe people who will try to kill you for undoing the shit that they are so proud that they helped to make.


----------



## wankerness

Grindspine said:


> So, back to the whole SCOTUS run of late. Have any of you seen that the Moore v. Harper case showed up on the docket?
> 
> Apparently, it is known that it is 4 vs 4 with Barret as the swing vote. If this goes through, it could destroy the checks and balances on a state level of governors or courts to object to a legislature gerrymandering.


Yep, I posted about that the other day. Looks like they plan on hearing it in October, so we might never get another fair election in republican legislature-controlled states like mine. Pending the results of the next election I'm moving out of state. Not that it will matter much, since the way the senate's structured around low-population states with a bunch of bumpkins that are further gerrymandered to be permanently republican there's no way a democratic president will win again if the legislatures are allowed to just say "we vote republican" no matter what the voters do.

Speaking of Wisconsin, I found this graphic to be a good illustration of how permanently fucked we are.




Seriously, even if Barrett decides to uphold democracy, there's no possible way we're going to vote our way out from under these fascists in WI. And if they gain another seat this election (VERY likely with the new gerrymandering that was just approved) the Democratic governor won't be able to veto anything they do.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I don't think there is such a thing as "good faith" within the government. And that's why no form of government will ever work for every society.
> 
> First off, democracy sucks, because it's government for the people, by the people, but the people are stupid. Just talk to the average American voter out on the street. So we put representatives as a buffer, sort of like a parent, who knows what the people want and is supposed to try to make sense of it, but, here's another problem, the representatives are also stupid. Just listen to them talk on the television or whatever. They are brainless idiots just like the people they represent. Also, listen to George W. Bush's public speeches and then try to tell me a defensible reason why I should believe that that guy is smart enough to lead a powerful country. And then there's Trump. Now, I'm not going to say that Trump is generally stupid, but he clearly had _no idea_ what he was doing as president.
> 
> I think this was _exactly_ what Mike Judge was trying to warn us about with "Idiocracy." Put the idiots in charge and everything goes to shit, because, well, duh'uh! Where are the smart people? They are staying far away from politics. Why? Because the voices of the idiots have gone too far. I blame it all on the 2000 election. Yes, it sounds crazy, but think about it: you had this well-qualified guy who scored 1355 on his SAT, earned decent marks at University, served in Vietnam despite his dad's powerful position to get him out, who was fairly well-spoken (although I didn't generally agree with him on most issues), versus a less-qualified guy, who scored a 1200 (still a respectable score, though), earned C's at university, went AWOL during guard duty within the states, and had the vocabulary of a 3rd grader (and with whom I almost always disagreed). The people chose Gore, the electoral college was probably going to chose Bush, but before anyone could bother, nepotism kicked in and, between his dad's nominees and his dad's boss's nominees to the SCotUS, Bush was appointed president. No compromises were made, no punches were pulled. The governance was given to the minority of the people and it was cited as a divine mandate. Then 911, the Patriot Act, the NSA, the Afghanistan War, the unjustified Iraq War, Gitmo, illegal torture, illegal arrests, government officials profiting openly from the wars, the automotive crash, etc. Worst. president. ever. ...until 2016...
> 
> Smart people want nothing to do with trying to fix that mess. It's too messy and there are too many fringe people who will try to kill you for undoing the shit that they are so proud that they helped to make.


I'll be 100% honest here and admit I may have a share of the blame in where we are. I was one of many that when Bush was appointed president (note I did not say elected), I bowed out of Politics until Obama came along. I literally said, "That's enough. Doesn't matter what I do."

Then I voted for Obama, then watched him not just duplicate, but double-down on Bush era policies, even the policies he campaigned on repealing or doing away with altogether. I could not, in good faith, bother voting in 2016 because I had no faith left in the system.

Because Trump was SUCH a disaster, I started voting again, but it's protest votes. I certainly haven't voted *FOR* anyone, even on the local level. I just go, "I know this is a complete dickhole. I vote not complete dickhole, only sorta dickhole."

Am I alone in thinking we'll never see someone to vote for again? Obama was the last, and he proved in one term to not have been what he claimed to be. I mean, I don't believe he INTENDED to come across that way. The guy seems sincere enough. But his actual policies were less than intended by far, and sometimes the direct opposite. It's not like the Patriot Act lost traction during his terms.

I have a hard time with Idiocracy now. Because, in all honesty, it's beginning to look like a Utopia compared to where we may be headed. Stupid is stupid, but our government is filled with malicious intent. People literally out for blood.

Is what it is, I suppose.


----------



## mmr007

The steady decline became a rapid tumble thanks to social media which not only promulgates but celebrates stupidity and allows morons to know the more moronic they are the more popular they can be and they don't need to be part of a greater society, they only need to be an exaggerated version of something to be a part of a specific society of misfits on targeted websites. That is why our societal fabric ripped apart. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses only because tik tok didn't exist back then but now we can soothe our souls with empty calorie videos and not bother learning a single thing necessary to keep this whole project going.


----------



## bostjan

I always vote. I like to research every person who will be on the ballot, and, if I disagree with the incumbent and they are running unopposed, I'll write in a vote for my neighbour or whatever. Shave off one molecule of that person's overinflated ego. If no one good is running, I'll do the same thing. I'll never leave anything blank.

Not that it does any good, but at least I get to say  to those jerks.

When McCain and Obama ran against each other, I was, at first, quite happy. I actually liked McCain, and, I didn't know much about Obama, but he seemed really smart and seemed to share my values. Then McCain chose Palin as a running mate, so, well, at least that made the decision easy. After Obama won, I was thrilled to finally be rid of Bush and now we have this new guy who promised to fix the broken health care system, close Gitmo, wind down the wars, etc. But he did exactly the opposite of those foreign policy things and his big fix for the healthcare system ended up being a bandaid on a severed limb. I was right there with you, @nightflameauto ! I didn't really like Romney, but was starting to feel betrayed by Obama, so I had a moment where I thought maybe I should consider voting for Romney, then quickly came to my senses.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> to be honest....you...and you and you and you. All of you. Should a woman be required to carry rape insurance? No. But my tax dollars go to pay for the police I don't need who investigate the crime, the lawyers who will try the case, the judge that presides over it and the inevitable cost of jailing the scum bag. And he never threatened to rape me so why do I pay? Because that's what we do in a society. That's the point of universal healthcare. Our taxes should pay for it but it should not be for profit. But since our society decided to make the ability to heal cost prohibitive based on an arcane notion of employer based healthcare that allows people to buy yachts over my illness...don't be sad when I'm not sad for sticking society with the tab.


So, I'm with you 100% on the need for universal healthcare. 

But you're also exactly describing why we need a mandate or universal coverage. If you have a healthcare system that will treat you regardless of if you can pay, and you have the choice of whether or not to take out insurance to pay your medical bills rather than stick them on the rest of the system, then the economically rational thing to do is to not take out health insurance, and pass the burden onto the system without actually paying into it, increasing the costs of providing care for all, but at the benefit of your not needing to pay a dime.

So, we need to do one of two things. Either we DO make health coverage compulsory, via a mandate or state funded healthcare, or we stop treating people without coverage who can't or won't pay. The logic may sound kind of brutal, but the reality is this is certainly a contributing factor to rising cost of care, and if we don't fix it then care, and insurance, will continue to get more expensive. 

My _STRONG_ preference is of course universal coverage and care either entirely at the state level, or with an effective public option. But, these are non-starters on the right, and it's not lost on me that as soon as not having coverage actually starts to result in denial of care, then a public taxpayer-funded option will become a lot more popular in a hurry.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> Yep, I posted about that the other day. Looks like they plan on hearing it in October, so we might never get another fair election in republican legislature-controlled states like mine. Pending the results of the next election I'm moving out of state. Not that it will matter much, since the way the senate's structured around low-population states with a bunch of bumpkins that are further gerrymandered to be permanently republican there's no way a democratic president will win again if the legislatures are allowed to just say "we vote republican" no matter what the voters do.
> 
> Speaking of Wisconsin, I found this graphic to be a good illustration of how permanently fucked we are.
> 
> View attachment 110142
> 
> 
> Seriously, even if Barrett decides to uphold democracy, there's no possible way we're going to vote our way out from under these fascists in WI. And if they gain another seat this election (VERY likely with the new gerrymandering that was just approved) the Democratic governor won't be able to veto anything they do.


Wow! 53% of the vote = 36% of the seats?! Just checked this out and it scans. So many small districts where republicans won by small margins and just a few huge districts where democrats won by significant margins. I ran the numbers off of the Wisconsin election board website and got those exact percentages.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Wow! 53% of the vote = 36% of the seats?! Just checked this out and it scans. So many small districts where republicans won by small margins and just a few huge districts where democrats won by significant margins. I ran the numbers off of the Wisconsin election board website and got those exact percentages.


This kind of shit is why I've always thought that a nonpartisan districting process, far more than any other proposed solutions like term limits or whatnot, would do the most to ensure a functional and fair political system. When your only real risk is to a more extreme challenger in the primary, you get extremists. You elect extremists more worried about their primary than the other party, and you create strong incentives not to work with the other party and compromise.

Only silver lining, I guess, is that this kind of "crack-and-pack" gerrymandering comes with a lot of downside risk, and with Roe v Wade being overturned, the sort of blue wave backlash that could lead to Republicans actually losing those narrow majorities and suddenly having the Democrats run the table is at least possible.


----------



## wankerness

Drew said:


> Only silver lining, I guess, is that this kind of "crack-and-pack" gerrymandering comes with a lot of downside risk, and with Roe v Wade being overturned, the sort of blue wave backlash that could lead to Republicans actually losing those narrow majorities and suddenly having the Democrats run the table is at least possible.


That’s exactly what this October Supreme Court hearing is designed to prevent from ever happening again, cause the legislature that’s in there would just proclaim the results to be fraudulent if they lost, allowing them to stay. And the partisan state supreme courts would support it.


----------



## bostjan

Just checked this out for my state of Vermont. The lower house is a little concentrated toward democratic power. 53% of voters went democrat, 57% of seats went to democrats. 29% voted republican, 23% of seats. 6% voted progressive, 8% of the seats.

The upper house, though, heavily biased against republicans - D 44% of the vote = 57% of the seats. R 30% of the vote = 13% of the seats. Progressive 13% of the vote = 13% of the seats.

Hmm...

Thoughts - Vermont is a tiny state. It'd be much more difficult to apportion seats without discrepancies. Still, though, the party with the most votes at least gets the most seats, and the party with the second most votes gets the second most seats, and so on.


----------



## Grindspine

nightflameauto said:


> I'll be 100% honest here and admit I may have a share of the blame in where we are. I was one of many that when Bush was appointed president (note I did not say elected), I bowed out of Politics until Obama came along. I literally said, "That's enough. Doesn't matter what I do."
> 
> Then I voted for Obama, then watched him not just duplicate, but double-down on Bush era policies, even the policies he campaigned on repealing or doing away with altogether. I could not, in good faith, bother voting in 2016 because I had no faith left in the system.
> 
> Because Trump was SUCH a disaster, I started voting again, but it's protest votes. I certainly haven't voted *FOR* anyone, even on the local level. I just go, "I know this is a complete dickhole. I vote not complete dickhole, only sorta dickhole."
> 
> Am I alone in thinking we'll never see someone to vote for again? Obama was the last, and he proved in one term to not have been what he claimed to be. I mean, I don't believe he INTENDED to come across that way. The guy seems sincere enough. But his actual policies were less than intended by far, and sometimes the direct opposite. It's not like the Patriot Act lost traction during his terms.
> 
> I have a hard time with Idiocracy now. Because, in all honesty, it's beginning to look like a Utopia compared to where we may be headed. Stupid is stupid, but our government is filled with malicious intent. People literally out for blood.
> 
> Is what it is, I suppose.


During the Obama election, a radio station friend of mine met Obama and said that he had the softest hands ever. I responded that he was a career politician and had never done work with his hands in his life. I think that can be said of most career politicians.

The last senator for whom I had much respect was Richard Lugar. He was a moderate Republican who was known to often meet with the Democratic side of things and compromise on solutions to issues. I sorely miss anyone being moderate in our current politics. Half of the reason I lean support to Biden is that he had a long history of working with Richard Lugar. I do agree though, most of my votes are toward the person whom I think will be less damaging.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> That’s exactly what this October Supreme Court hearing is designed to prevent from ever happening again, cause the legislature that’s in there would just proclaim the results to be fraudulent if they lost, allowing them to stay. And the partisan state supreme courts would support it.


I haven't really studied up on the intricacies of this case yet, but the very fact the Court is hearing a case on electoral process makes me a little worried. I can't see how you could possibly make the argument that this is consistent with the intent of the Constitution, though.


----------



## ArtDecade

Grindspine said:


> During the Obama election, a radio station friend of mine met Obama and said that he had the softest hands ever.



Soft hands? That is your litmus test?


----------



## mmr007

ArtDecade said:


> Soft hands? That is your litmus test?


Trump spent 6 months diffusing the assertion that he had small hands. Don't underestimate the importance of hands in US politics


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> Trump spent 6 months diffusing the assertion that he had small hands. Don't underestimate the importance of hands in US politics


Hey, he "got no complaints," man. They were a perfectly fine size!


----------



## ArtDecade




----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> We need a socialized healthcare system that works and is accessible to all. The question is how can we afford it given the exorbitant prices of medical care.
> Maybe we need to spend less money in foreign wars, or aiding foreign countries in securing their borders, and more money in healthcare and education. Help the people in need. End the days of "America World Police" and put America and Americans first.


This is the goal, but there are several issues.

First, the majority of Americans have/pay into some type of health care insurance, and in most cases, these are for profit insurers. That means that people pay in more to have insurance than the insurer pays out to cover medicine and medical treatments. And even as we pay to have insurance, those carriers only cover some portion of the medicine/treatment - we still have to pay some amount out of pocket as a co-pay and likely a separate amount towards a co-insurance as well. We also have several insurance providers, so with the number of people who have insurance divided amongst them, they each have less negotiating power with the providers than if we all had a single insurance provider. And don’t forget that we are paying premiums to these carriers.

At the same time, we also pay more for medicine and medical treatments in the US than other countries because our pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers are set up as a for profit system. So even after the insurance companies “negotiate” a lower price, we are paying significantly more for the same pharmaceuticals/services than other countries.

So ultimately, if we take over insurance through a Medicare for All system, we have a single payer with 1) more power to negotiate prices; 2) lower “premiums” because there is no profit to pay out as ROI to investors, 3) everyone paying in, so we each pay in less than through a private carrier; 4) coverage for everyone and 5) reduced or eliminated co-pays and co-insurance. We can also stop paying for our private insurance, cutting our costs significantly. So ultimately, this should cost no more, and possibly less, than we currently pay for our healthcare.

And to take this a step further, I’m generally a capitalist, but there are some situations where capitalism isn’t the best option. Large, necessary industries like power generation, waste water treatment, trash collection and similar generally work better as either a function of a local/regional government agency or as a heavily regulated oligopoly. And healthcare is one of those industries where this is probably the best approach, as we should all have a basic right to healthcare, not just those of us that can afford to pay for it. And going this route, we could further reduce healthcare costs by eliminating the profit margin, eliminating duplication of efforts such as admin functions, and by “outsourcing” the research and development functions to universities and other research focused entities, possibly supported via government grants, rather than allowing the pharmaceutical companies and research/teaching oriented hospitals to charge a great markup to cover their R&D costs.

In short, cutting spending on wars and playing world police is a good thing in and of itself, but it is not necessary to have a functional healthcare system. We just need to collectively pull our heads out of our asses and focus on efficiently prioritizing a functional healthcare system rather than fighting an “us against them” political fight that only serves to benefit the politicians and the lobbyists that control them.


----------



## nightflameauto

Also, to those in congress and the president who continually claim that they talk to "lots of people" that "absolutely love their insurance." Try talking to actual people outside the political circle that get free healthcare for life paid for by us taxpayers. You know, that thing we'd like to see available to all of us. Talk to people in regular, everyday jobs about how they like their health insurance. I guarantee if they talked to the average joe they aren't going to hear much in the way of praise towards constantly rising premiums, constantly increasing deductibles, constantly denied coverage because reasons, constant "in network" lock-ins, and constant fuckery just because they can plans.

I realize my experience is just as anecdotal as theirs, but the only person I've ever spoken with that liked his insurance was an insurance salesman himself, deeply embedded into his own company's coverage that was paid for by the company outright (or so they said on the books) because he was such a big earner for them. Literally no one else.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Also, to those in congress and the president who continually claim that they talk to "lots of people" that "absolutely love their insurance." Try talking to actual people outside the political circle that get free healthcare for life paid for by us taxpayers. You know, that thing we'd like to see available to all of us. Talk to people in regular, everyday jobs about how they like their health insurance. I guarantee if they talked to the average joe they aren't going to hear much in the way of praise towards constantly rising premiums, constantly increasing deductibles, constantly denied coverage because reasons, constant "in network" lock-ins, and constant fuckery just because they can plans.
> 
> I realize my experience is just as anecdotal as theirs, but the only person I've ever spoken with that liked his insurance was an insurance salesman himself, deeply embedded into his own company's coverage that was paid for by the company outright (or so they said on the books) because he was such a big earner for them. Literally no one else.


Yeah, but insurance is kind of like Facebook. Everyone loves to hate it, but no one actually does away with it, you know?


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> Also, to those in congress and the president who continually claim that they talk to "lots of people" that "absolutely love their insurance." Try talking to actual people outside the political circle that get free healthcare for life paid for by us taxpayers. You know, that thing we'd like to see available to all of us. Talk to people in regular, everyday jobs about how they like their health insurance. I guarantee if they talked to the average joe they aren't going to hear much in the way of praise towards constantly rising premiums, constantly increasing deductibles, constantly denied coverage because reasons, constant "in network" lock-ins, and constant fuckery just because they can plans.
> 
> I realize my experience is just as anecdotal as theirs, but the only person I've ever spoken with that liked his insurance was an insurance salesman himself, deeply embedded into his own company's coverage that was paid for by the company outright (or so they said on the books) because he was such a big earner for them. Literally no one else.


We have great insurance. Join a union, kids!


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Yeah, but insurance is kind of like Facebook. Everyone loves to hate it, but no one actually does away with it, you know?


Shows you. I don't do either. pfffffffffft


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Shows you. I don't do either. pfffffffffft


----------



## Grindspine

ArtDecade said:


> Soft hands? That is your litmus test?


No, I usually use a digital pH meter.

To be fair, when I mentioned Lugar often working with Biden, I should have mentioned that he did work with Obama when he first joined the US Senate as well. I suspect many career politicians have soft hands and grew up with money. 

A guy I went to college with had put himself through school, finally earning a master's degree in literature, while working full-time nights at an IHOP as a line cook. I sat in classes with him and knew that he could actually sit in a room with someone of opposing views, debate, consider new facts, adjust his position, and end the debate in compromise. He ran for a local election, but was completely dominated by the incumbent. Unfortunately, the incumbent, who still has that political office, is a conspiracy theorist who happens to have the full catholic vote in the area behind him. Again, I miss when people voted for those who could think, discuss, and compromise. Voting today seems like a lame popularity contest where the vote is strongly swayed by social media popularity.



mmr007 said:


> Trump spent 6 months diffusing the assertion that he had small hands. Don't underestimate the importance of hands in US politics


Tiny hands squeeze in pockets more easily...


----------



## MFB

Small hands? No small hands here!


----------



## nightflameauto

Great. Now I have the Nightman song stuck in my head.


----------



## AMOS

TheBlackBard said:


> Someone has already told you in this threat that whataboutism is NOT a valid debate tactic, right? Like, we've already had someone in this thread saying Biden isn't ideal. As much as Biden isn't ideal, Trump is just a step further into the circles of hell. Why would anyone want that? Why would anyone want a President who has supporters who among those consist of KKK, Neo-Nazis, those who support forcing women AND pre-adolescent females to have children after they're sexually assaulted. Making a case for a Biden is bad enough, to excuse, attempt to redeem, or even give a sniff of a hint that you're trying to let Trump off the hook? No good, man, no good. The deal is, we're not arguing that we want someone like Biden in office. We want someone better, preferably without someone clinging to someone with truly despicable habits and views, which rules out quite a few Republicans, quite a few "so-called" leftists. You're hung up on the worst examples we had on both sides without trying to look forward. So far it's been shown that TRUE leftists here, the ones who think Biden is terrible and not doing a good enough job simply want someone WAY better. Why can't Republicans do the same?


This thread has Biden in the title, not Trump. And it's a thread, not a threat. I don't like Trump, haven't you been following?


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


>


Lick my balls homo


----------



## AMOS

@ArtDecade is the Steven Seagal of keyboard commandos, and that's as far as his bravery will ever go.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> @ArtDecade is the Steven Seagal of keyboard commandos, and that's as far as his bravery will ever go.


I'm pretty sure Steven is a Putin apologist... and that puts him firmly in your camp.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> Lick my balls homo


Come on, mate. With childish comments like that we know they haven't even dropped yet.


----------



## Adieu

AMOS said:


> Lick my balls homo



So wait up... YOU WANT a man to do certain acts upon YOUR scrotum, but that makes the target of your fantasies gay?

Just curious how that works. Is it a conservative thing?


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> What's your camp, The Blue Oyster? I heard you like being the bottom in the men's room


For that kind of content, you need to join my Onlyfans.


----------



## AMOS

Adieu said:


> So wait up... YOU WANT a man to do certain acts upon YOUR scrotum, but that makes the target of your fantasies gay?
> 
> Just curious how that works. Is it a conservative thing?


When someone compares me with a group like the one he did, I have a right to say whatever I like.


----------



## mmr007

AMOS said:


> When someone compares me with a group like the one he did, I have a right to say whatever I like.


You only have that right until the current Supreme Court takes that right away too


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> When someone compares me with a group like the one he did, I have a right to say whatever I like.


You might want to go back and re-read the thread, because my GIF was a response to someone else. Also, you aren't making a great case for yourself when you are tossing off enough homophobic slurs to make a proud boy blush.


----------



## SpaceDock




----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> This thread has Biden in the title, not Trump. And it's a thread, not a threat. I don't like Trump, haven't you been following?


The original title, when the thread was started back in 2016, was ”Will Trump Get Elected?” and it’s had several variations between then and now. It’s all fair game.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> When someone compares me with a group like the one he did, I have a right to say whatever I like.


Pretty sure it's been established that the First Amendment does cover hate speech. And I can't think of anything worse than being in the same league of hatred as white supremacists, but that's the vibe you give off.


----------



## SpaceDock

I just read that the Georgia Guide Stones have been destroyed after a Q candidate for governor calls for their destruction as they were “satanic.” Welcome to the latest evolution of the Vanilla Isis destroying art that offends their religion. SMFH


----------



## TheBlackBard

AMOS said:


> This thread has Biden in the title, not Trump. And it's a thread, not a threat. I don't like Trump, haven't you been following?



I've been following quite well and you're exhibiting a lot of the same traits that him and his followers possess, so you fooled the shit outta me.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

SpaceDock said:


> I just read that the Georgia Guide Stones have been destroyed after a Q candidate for governor calls for their destruction as they were “satanic.” Welcome to the latest evolution of the Vanilla Isis destroying art that offends their religion. SMFH



Kind of torn on this one. Those stones were fuel for all kinds of nutty conspiracy theories in themselves. On the other hand, breaking cool shit is _generally_ not something I'm down with. 

It's a testament to the absurdity of Q that's for sure. The conspiracy theorists are devouring each other.


----------



## spudmunkey

wheresthefbomb said:


> Kind of torn on this one.



Same. They looked cool, but...I don't disagree with the "Hmm..."-ness of some of the inscriptions...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

spudmunkey said:


> Same. They looked cool, but...I don't disagree with the "Hmm..."-ness of some of the inscriptions...
> 
> View attachment 110159



I first heard about them from a dude who believed the pyramids were giant space batteries and that The Gays were using satanic pedophile rituals to turn people trans and control the population because zionist illuminati got anal probed by some annunaki from inside the hollow earth and/or atlantis (paraphrased, barely)


----------



## Randy




----------



## mmr007

Elections have consequences. Vote Democrat!!!! Get out and vote we will protect Roe


----------



## Randy

He's got this look on his face like "I know, sucks, doesn't it?"


----------



## mmr007

Wow...so the NYT is reporting that Andrew McCabe and James Comey both faced the most intensive IRS audits possible while leading the FBI when Trump was president. How odd and coincidental


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> Wow...so the NYT is reporting that Andrew McCabe and James Comey both faced the most intensive IRS audits possible while leading the FBI when Trump was president. How odd and coincidental



I kind of would hope anyone in those positions faces the most intensive IRS audits. Regardless of who is in power you should expect to be under a microscope in that position and also it would help expose if someone were compromised. As they say follow the money.


----------



## mmr007




----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> Same. They looked cool, but...I don't disagree with the "Hmm..."-ness of some of the inscriptions...
> 
> View attachment 110159



"Maintain humanity under 500m"? Wtf is this???


----------



## Adieu

Dineley said:


> I kind of would hope anyone in those positions faces the most intensive IRS audits. Regardless of who is in power you should expect to be under a microscope in that position and also it would help expose if someone were compromised. As they say follow the money.



I don't think that's what is being implied here.

More like the classical "harassment by inspection on orders from up high"? Typical abuse of government position to hassle anyone who crosses you.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Adieu said:


> I don't think that's what is being implied here.
> 
> More like the classical "harassment by inspection on orders from up high"? Typical abuse of government position to hassle anyone who crosses you.



I get what they are driving at. Just feel the implication is a reach especially without knowing what sort of audit past and current people in that role faced


----------



## mmr007

The chances of getting what’s called an intense audit are 1 in 36,000. The chances that the two FBI directors that are investigating a criminal president both get that type of audit? 100% because….he’s a criminal that abuses power


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> The chances of getting what’s called an intense audit are 1 in 36,000. The chances that the two FBI directors that are investigating a criminal president both get that type of audit? 100% because….he’s a criminal that abuses power




Yeah read more into it and the fact it was after they stepped down makes it more suspicious for sure I assumed it was while at head of FBI


----------



## mmr007

That said I'm all for a non-random IRS rape style audit of AG Merrick Garland. I'm dying to see his finances and who's paying him to sit on his hands while Liz Cheney does his job.


----------



## narad

Is AMOS banned already? My birthday's not until saturday.


----------



## tedtan

Adieu said:


> "Maintain humanity under 500m"? Wtf is this???


Essentially, don’t overpopulate the planet as humans are a very destructive species. I’m not sure where the “best” population total would be, but I agree with the general idea.


----------



## ArtDecade

tedtan said:


> Essentially, don’t overpopulate the planet as humans are a very destructive species. I’m not sure where the “best” population total would be, but I agree with the general idea.


I thought that meant meters. We should not populate mountains, use flying machines, and need to develop more infrastructure for underwater housing.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> I thought that meant meters. We should not populate mountains, use flying machines, and need to develop more infrastructure for underwater housing.


I guess Denver is fucked, then.


Dineley said:


> I kind of would hope anyone in those positions faces the most intensive IRS audits. Regardless of who is in power you should expect to be under a microscope in that position and also it would help expose if someone were compromised. As they say follow the money.


We all 100% know that if Trump ever were to be intensely audited, he'd be all like "This is so unfair!!!"


----------



## TheBlackBard

narad said:


> Is AMOS banned already? My birthday's not until saturday.



Mine was this past Tuesday. Maybe they were late on getting me my present.


----------



## RevDrucifer

It’s been interesting seeing the reactions to the Guidestones obliteration. 

I never took them as a “Go forth and do this now”, but a guide for a future civilization. 

It doesn’t say anywhere to go kill billions of people until the population is reduced to 500,000,000, it says to limit it. When there’s a deal on something at the store with quantity limitations, does it say “Buy and return all but two items.”, or does it says “Limit 2 items per customer”? 

And as far as guiding reproduction, we already do that. Do we know why you shouldn’t fuck your sister? Yes. We even have laws against it. Do we not get informed by our doctors of potential hereditary issues when they arise in our lives? We do, so we make a more sound choice when/if one decides to have children. How many illnesses/diseases are we aware of that skip generations? All kinds. And they aren’t held back by doctors out of fear of being eugenicists, it’s fucking important knowledge to have.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> We all 100% know that if Trump ever were to be intensely audited, he'd be all like "This is so unfair!!!"


At which point he would solicit all his followers to donate to his "STOP THE STEAL, IRS EDITION" fund, to which they'll gladly part with their life savings.

Again.


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> At which point he would solicit all his followers to donate to his "STOP THE STEAL, IRS EDITION" fund, to which they'll gladly part with their life savings.
> 
> Again.


Haha, right...  ... 

As you very likely know, it was taxes that finally landed Al Capone in prison. 

Trump's supporters are always like "He's never done anything illegal!" but it's obvious that he has. I mean, if leading an insurrection against the federal government is *not* illegal, then what about Trump's use of the non-classified email server to send classified information? And if that's also not illegal, then threatening to lock up HRC for doing exactly the same thing before Trump was in office should be conspiracy to commit kidnapping.


----------



## Adieu

Prevent Crime - FUND THE THIEVES VOLUNTARILY


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> As you very likely know, it was taxes that finally landed Al Capone in prison.


Capone wasn't a US president with a cult of personality seemingly so strong that it inspires his horde of zealots to commit murder on his behalf without any prompting or promise of reward or acknowledgment. 



Adieu said:


> Prevent Crime - FUND THE THIEVES VOLUNTARILY


----------



## bostjan

Xaios said:


> Capone wasn't a US president with a cult of personality seemingly so strong that it inspires his horde of zealots to commit murder on his behalf without any prompting or promise of reward or acknowledgment.


I guess Al Capone was just ahead of his time, then. 

Maybe you never heard of it, but there was some show with Kevin Bacon, several years ago, where he was trying to take down some serial killer who had this cult around him, I think it was called The Following or something like that. I'd come home and my wife would be watching it, and I'd watch a minute here or there, which is the worst possible way to get exposed to a show, since it skips all of the character development and whatnot, but anyway, I used to get so frustrated seeing these mindless goons do suicide missions for the cult that didn't even make sense. I would think, "these people have no character motivation to do this, and even ignoring that, this whole plan is so incredibly dumb, no one would waste their life like that." Well, Cthulu's tentacles! was I wrong. Trump has so many goons that are willing to die on any hill at any time for any reason as long as it's in his name.

Just imagine that there is an afterlife of some sort, where you get to take your memories of Earthy life with you. Someone would be sitting there reflecting about how they died climbing through a window, despite police shouting to stop, intending to attack a government official who wasn't even there, in order to force a man into an office he had no business holding, based off of a false claim about a fraudulent election... and that guy you died trying in vain to assist in a coup - he never gave you a second thought. To him, you take up less of his memory than the fly he swatted with that classified document he flushed down the toilet shortly after you sacrificed everything for him. Would you be happy with that being the way you went out?!


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I grew up on psyop/COINTELPRO/MKULTRA conspiracy theories, which we have come to find out there was a whole lot of truth to. However, as with so many futurist imaginings, the future we actually got is so much more absurd and trashy. Instead of vast government agencies nefariously shaping our behaviors to bring about whatever political/social change, we have the Blind Idiot God of social media algorithms rewarding humanity for its worst collective attributes because it sells fucking ad space. No propaganda program in history has been anywhere near as successful at making an entire population increasingly insular, ignorant, and myopic. Edward Bernays himself couldn't have predicted such a dystopian trash future.


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> Edward Bernays himself couldn't have predicted such a dystopian trash future.


Nobody could have possibly predicted this kind of _cosmic _dumbfuckery_:


_


----------



## Adieu

Xaios said:


> Nobody could have possibly predicted this kind of _cosmic _dumbfuckery_:
> 
> View attachment 110213
> _



Really?

Cause I'm starting to think Tipper Gore KNEW...since the 80s


----------



## wheresthefbomb




----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> Nobody could have possibly predicted this kind of _cosmic _dumbfuckery_:
> 
> View attachment 110213
> _


President Comacho disagrees.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Haha, right...  ...
> 
> As you very likely know, it was taxes that finally landed Al Capone in prison.
> 
> Trump's supporters are always like "He's never done anything illegal!" but it's obvious that he has. I mean, if leading an insurrection against the federal government is *not* illegal, then what about Trump's use of the non-classified email server to send classified information? And if that's also not illegal, then threatening to lock up HRC for doing exactly the same thing before Trump was in office should be conspiracy to commit kidnapping.


I mean, ignoring the Mueller Report (which listed 10 probable instances of obstruction of justice) or the impeachment over trying to block military funding to Ukraine until they announced a sham investigation naming Hunter Biden in the announcement (and didn't even ask that he then be investigated, just that it be announced he would be)... 

*His Election Defense Fund never actually existed, and the ~$250mm he raised to "fight back against election fraud" was transferred to either his own election fund, or paid to Trump-affiliated businesses, which by any reasonable definition is fraud. 
*The Jan 6th hearing is doing a surprisingly thorough job building a case that he was knowingly trying to disrupt the certification of the election results, by forcefully taking control of the chamber and congress, if necessary
*he almost certainly broke Georgia state laws prohibiting the "solicitation to commit election fraud" when he asked Raffensperger to "find 11,870 votes."
*the NY investigation into whether or not he committed tax fraud by inflating and deflating the appraised value of his assets to, respectively, get approved for loans and to minimize tax liabilities, is still moving ahead, slowly, but again the evidence doesn't look great for Trump. 

Those are just the big ones I'm currently remembering off the top of my head. Any one of those could very plausibly result in a criminal conviction, though in order of liklihood I'd say Georgia, Election Defense Fund, NY, and Jan 6th, with the latter ranking as low as it does because federally prosecuting a former president for crimes he committed while in office is the sort of pandora's box no one wants to touch with a ten foot poll. Yes, Trump almost certainly did it... but unless the GOP turns on him (and, honestly, even then), the GOP will sieze on this as precedent to go after Biden or the next Democratic president for some trumped up charge too the next time they control Congress and the White House just because they think they can get away with it if the Democrats did it first.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> President Comacho disagrees.


Ah, you got me there.


----------



## Grindspine

RevDrucifer said:


> It’s been interesting seeing the reactions to the Guidestones obliteration.
> 
> I never took them as a “Go forth and do this now”, but a guide for a future civilization.
> 
> It doesn’t say anywhere to go kill billions of people until the population is reduced to 500,000,000, it says to limit it. When there’s a deal on something at the store with quantity limitations, does it say “Buy and return all but two items.”, or does it says “Limit 2 items per customer”?
> 
> And as far as guiding reproduction, we already do that. Do we know why you shouldn’t fuck your sister? Yes. We even have laws against it. Do we not get informed by our doctors of potential hereditary issues when they arise in our lives? We do, so we make a more sound choice when/if one decides to have children. How many illnesses/diseases are we aware of that skip generations? All kinds. And they aren’t held back by doctors out of fear of being eugenicists, it’s fucking important knowledge to have.


Of course, in half the country, trigger laws make that important knowledge illegal to act upon. I feel like I am paying attention to the news like old people do at this point, which may be part of the overall problem. The old fuggers who stopped contributing to society decades ago are still voting and still holding more resources than most of the working young at this point. They're the ones who have all day to get riled up at any political newscast.

I may just be ranting at this point.


----------



## SpaceDock

I would have said “unbelievable” but this seems like par for the course nowadays 









Supreme Court justices prayed with conservative Christian legal group, member claims


Liberty Counsel has denied that its members prayed with justices in recent years




www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Randy




----------



## Hollowway

Without to resorting to a rant about "libtards," can anyone use actual data to refute or support California's distribution of $1050 "inflation relief" checks as either raising inflation more, or not affecting it? From where I'm sitting (which is in California, lol) it seems like giving people MORE money is only going to worsen the problem. Apart from supply chain snafus, it seems like everyone agrees that we got in this pickle from the Fed over doing it with the covid relief. i.e. everyone quit their job, because they didn't need money, and that raised wages, because there are less workers to go around. And everyone spent money, because they had more than they needed (fun fact - at least in California, the $600 additional covid bonus to the normal unemployment insurance meant that the effective minimum wage in the state was $25/hr. So people who made less than $25/hr were motivated to stay home and collect the increased pay, vs go back to work and get a pay cut) so they bought a lot of stuff, which allowed companies to raise prices. (This is, of course, apart from gas prices that the invasion of Ukraine.) 

Anyway, I don't feel like looking this up on my own, but I figured my erudite SSO brethren might know what amount additional funding might have on inflation.


----------



## Randy

Hollowway said:


> Without to resorting to a rant about "libtards," can anyone use actual data to refute or support California's distribution of $1050 "inflation relief" checks as either raising inflation more, or not affecting it? From where I'm sitting (which is in California, lol) it seems like giving people MORE money is only going to worsen the problem. Apart from supply chain snafus, it seems like everyone agrees that we got in this pickle from the Fed over doing it with the covid relief. i.e. everyone quit their job, because they didn't need money, and that raised wages, because there are less workers to go around. And everyone spent money, because they had more than they needed (fun fact - at least in California, the $600 additional covid bonus to the normal unemployment insurance meant that the effective minimum wage in the state was $25/hr. So people who made less than $25/hr were motivated to stay home and collect the increased pay, vs go back to work and get a pay cut) so they bought a lot of stuff, which allowed companies to raise prices. (This is, of course, apart from gas prices that the invasion of Ukraine.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel like looking this up on my own, but I figured my erudite SSO brethren might know what amount additional funding might have on inflation.


In my almost neanderthal level of understanding of economics (but typically high grasp of commons sense), I think the operative issue with the arguments that unemployment/stimulus have raised inflation to the hell it is right now is the fact that 

1.) It's over two years since anyone has inherited any substantial levels of stimulus (whether that's direct stimulus or enhanced unemployment benefits)

2.) Parallel to the stimulus, the Fed was buying bonds to the tune of +$6 trillion, which was a program that extended well beyond the last of the direct relief stimulus programs (March 2022). Funny that never comes up.

3.) Blue Dog Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth claiming enhanced unemployment caused the inflation (and soon to be recession) while also saying for a year+ that unemployment is at a record low; implying that people are working in record numbers now.

I think we're just finally reaching the end of this fucked up, drunk bubble economy we've been riding on for the last 6+ years (that was untethered to the reality of the actual supply/demand in this country) and the convenient villain are regular people because they made a few thousand dollars more for a year or two (whether that's from stimulus, or rising employment, or rising wages). 

It's class warfare. There's a dislike for the fact the lower classes have had buying power, so the "correction" is that poor people need to be cut down at the knees. How dare they own property, or work less than 100 hours a week, or actually put money into savings. That's reserved for the executive class.


----------



## SpaceDock

For real, it’s weak to push the idea that giving some poverty level folks a touch of buying power caused what is actually worldwide inflation when we have been pumping the corps and stocks for the last 10 years. Really the corps didn’t get their typical tax cuts or incentives this time around and looked for those gains in direct profits, ie price increases that are seriously backfiring now that their cheap loan money is gonna be much more expensive.


----------



## Hollowway

SpaceDock said:


> For real, it’s weak to push the idea that giving some poverty level folks a touch of buying power caused what is actually worldwide inflation when we have been pumping the corps and stocks for the last 10 years. Really the corps didn’t get their typical tax cuts or incentives this time around and looked for those gains in direct profits, ie price increases that are seriously backfiring now that their cheap loan money is gonna be much more expensive.


That's true - companies got major bailouts, as well. Those PPP loans were apparently so easy to get people were fabricating companies just to get the loans. 

AND, as I understand it, if you were a big restaurant chain, for instance, EACH restaurant was able to apply for the loans (which were all forgiven, so it was more of a grant), and the corp as a whole was able to get around the cap, since each location was considered an independent entity.


----------



## Hollowway

Randy said:


> 2.) Parallel to the stimulus, the Fed was buying bonds to the tune of +$6 trillion, which was a program that extended well beyond the last of the direct relief stimulus programs (March 2022). Funny that never comes up.


That's interesting, I didn't know anything about that. I just looked it up, and it seems pretty obvious this had a huge effect on inflation, since they are apparently cutting back on buying to reduce inflation at this point.


----------



## Randy

StRonGeST EconOmY iN hIStORY


----------



## Glades

Randy said:


> StRonGeST EconOmY iN hIStORY
> 
> View attachment 110234


It's Putin's fault.


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> It's Putin's fault.


I zero percent agree with any of your politics you've posted on here, but the Biden administration is a total clownshow and the only reason there's significant pushback from anyone left of center is because of tribalism. It's been an objective, unmitigated disaster.


----------



## wankerness

Hollowway said:


> Without to resorting to a rant about "libtards," can anyone use actual data to refute or support California's distribution of $1050 "inflation relief" checks as either raising inflation more, or not affecting it? From where I'm sitting (which is in California, lol) it seems like giving people MORE money is only going to worsen the problem. Apart from supply chain snafus, it seems like everyone agrees that we got in this pickle from the Fed over doing it with the covid relief. i.e. everyone quit their job, because they didn't need money, and that raised wages, because there are less workers to go around. And everyone spent money, because they had more than they needed (fun fact - at least in California, the $600 additional covid bonus to the normal unemployment insurance meant that the effective minimum wage in the state was $25/hr. So people who made less than $25/hr were motivated to stay home and collect the increased pay, vs go back to work and get a pay cut) so they bought a lot of stuff, which allowed companies to raise prices. (This is, of course, apart from gas prices that the invasion of Ukraine.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel like looking this up on my own, but I figured my erudite SSO brethren might know what amount additional funding might have on inflation.


I have yet to see anyone who thinks that's a good idea. Seems pretty basic that it will, at best, just make it so rent continues to stay way too high. At worst would cause it to go up as scummy landlords now know all their tenants are $1050 richer.  Either way I doubt it will have any lasting impact either way.

Since California is one of those states that has money flowing out of it instead of into it like your average red welfare state, I don't see this being a huge drain on their state government or leading to inflation in other arenas. It just seems stupid and backwards and a way of putting a tiny bandaid on the housing problem that in no way helps any of the root issues. Kind of a free giveaway to home-sellers and landlords and implied endorsement of the currently insane prices they're charging. 

So no I have no actual data and didn't respond in the way you asked, sorry for the shitpost


----------



## bostjan

Hollowway said:


> Without to resorting to a rant about "libtards," can anyone use actual data to refute or support California's distribution of $1050 "inflation relief" checks as either raising inflation more, or not affecting it? From where I'm sitting (which is in California, lol) it seems like giving people MORE money is only going to worsen the problem. Apart from supply chain snafus, it seems like everyone agrees that we got in this pickle from the Fed over doing it with the covid relief. i.e. everyone quit their job, because they didn't need money, and that raised wages, because there are less workers to go around. And everyone spent money, because they had more than they needed (fun fact - at least in California, the $600 additional covid bonus to the normal unemployment insurance meant that the effective minimum wage in the state was $25/hr. So people who made less than $25/hr were motivated to stay home and collect the increased pay, vs go back to work and get a pay cut) so they bought a lot of stuff, which allowed companies to raise prices. (This is, of course, apart from gas prices that the invasion of Ukraine.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel like looking this up on my own, but I figured my erudite SSO brethren might know what amount additional funding might have on inflation.


Well, great question...

Let's see what Data has to say about California's plan...


----------



## RevDrucifer

wankerness said:


> I have yet to see anyone who thinks that's a good idea. Seems pretty basic that it will, at best, just make it so rent continues to stay way too high. At worst would cause it to go up as scummy landlords now know all their tenants are $1050 richer.  Either way I doubt it will have any lasting impact either way.
> 
> Since California is one of those states that has money flowing out of it instead of into it like your average red welfare state, I don't see this being a huge drain on their state government or leading to inflation in other arenas. It just seems stupid and backwards and a way of putting a tiny bandaid on the housing problem that in no way helps any of the root issues. Kind of a free giveaway to home-sellers and landlords and implied endorsement of the currently insane prices they're charging.
> 
> So no I have no actual data and didn't respond in the way you asked, sorry for the shitpost



Just found out yesterday my 2 bedroom apartment I pay $1450 a month for is going up to $1750 a month. I just about had a panic attack when I got the text because while I make decent money and have no kids/wife, I’m not really able to save a whole lot if I want to actually pay all my bills. 

Thankfully, after a “Do you guys actually know what I do here?” conversation with my boss and CFO, it looks like they’re going to give me a legit raise to counter the rent raise and still leave me feeling like I’m earning a good living. I hope.


----------



## mmr007

The apartment complex my coworker lives in (no A/C btw) raised the rent for a two bedroom from $3750 a month to $5000 a month. My son recently moved out of Anaheim to Nashville. He was paying $1850 per month for a one bedroom. They re-rented his apartment at $2400 a month. I fully look forward to the $600 I am supposed to get which won't even pay 1 month of gas use. Thankfully my landlord has not raised my rent so I'm one lucky fella....I mean...one lucky non-birthing person


----------



## MFB

The fuck are you doing that you use $600 in gas a month?


----------



## mmr007

MFB said:


> The fuck are you doing that you use $600 in gas a month?


Gas where I live has been right around (or briefly above) $7 a gallon. I put my car in ECO mode for all driving. A full tank lasts me 4.5 trips to and from work.


----------



## spudmunkey

California's $1050 checks are from a $96 billion dollar budget surplus, so at least it's not like the state is going into a deficit over it, nor is the government "printing money, causing inflation", so there's that.

According to a study of 2021 published in April 2022 from the Brookings Institute, "work disincentive effects from UI benefits were small during the pandemic, especially when compared to historical standards". An interesting companion podcast: https://www.brookings.edu/podcast-e...oyment-insurance-affect-the-covid-19-economy/


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> My son recently....I mean...one lucky non-birthing person



How'd you end up with a son then?


----------



## Adieu

1050 my ass.

This does NOT look like 1050.




This looks like $250 - $350 per adult and UP TO one child.


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> How'd you end up with a son then?


So....either you're attempting to insult me....or giving you benefit of the doubt which I believe you deserve.....since I have 3 grown children I would be the non-birthing person while their "mother" a term being frowned upon these days would be the birthing person. It was my (apparently failed) attempt at getting a two for one jab in at modern politics and priorities.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> 1050 my ass.
> 
> This does NOT look like 1050.
> 
> View attachment 110260
> 
> 
> This looks like $250 - $350 per adult and UP TO one child.



I'm currently a full-time student, and my girlfriend makes $75k+, so between the two of us, we'll average $300 each. A married couple with a kid could get $1050, which is $525 per tax filer, so it's not $1,000+ for every California like some are hinting at with anger-bait headlines.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> In my almost neanderthal level of understanding of economics (but typically high grasp of commons sense), I think the operative issue with the arguments that unemployment/stimulus have raised inflation to the hell it is right now is the fact that
> 
> 1.) It's over two years since anyone has inherited any substantial levels of stimulus (whether that's direct stimulus or enhanced unemployment benefits)
> 
> 2.) Parallel to the stimulus, the Fed was buying bonds to the tune of +$6 trillion, which was a program that extended well beyond the last of the direct relief stimulus programs (March 2022). Funny that never comes up.
> 
> 3.) Blue Dog Dems talking out of both sides of their mouth claiming enhanced unemployment caused the inflation (and soon to be recession) while also saying for a year+ that unemployment is at a record low; implying that people are working in record numbers now.
> 
> I think we're just finally reaching the end of this fucked up, drunk bubble economy we've been riding on for the last 6+ years (that was untethered to the reality of the actual supply/demand in this country) and the convenient villain are regular people because they made a few thousand dollars more for a year or two (whether that's from stimulus, or rising employment, or rising wages).
> 
> It's class warfare. There's a dislike for the fact the lower classes have had buying power, so the "correction" is that poor people need to be cut down at the knees. How dare they own property, or work less than 100 hours a week, or actually put money into savings. That's reserved for the executive class.


This is REALLY complex, and let me start by saying that there are at least four distinct waves of inflation we can point to:

*Post lockdown, post-stimulus reopening spending spree, beginning in April
*Delta and omicron supply chain disruptions, fall of 2021
*Invasion of Ukraine by Russia, January 2022, still ongoing
*extended Chinese shutdowns due t Zero Covid Policy creating new supply chain issues, Feb-ish, still ongoing.

So, anyone who wants to go and attribute ALL inflation to stimulus spending is lying to you and almost certainly has a political axe to grind.

But, the Trump/Biden stimulus checks were a contributor to the first wave, no doubt. At the start of April, when the checks or direct deposits started clearing, we had significant portions of the population vaccinated with at least one shot, we had consumers in much better shape than after most recessions due to the first round of stimulus and expanded unemployment benefits that were still ongoing (and wouldn't end fully until September of 2021), and US consumers were venturing out and doing things in public again for the first time in two years, during a time when most of the world hadn't yet been vaccinated and therefor global production was lagging (with the US being a net importer, and dependent on the rest of the world for supply of goods).

And, in a period where we were unleashing pent-up consumer demand for the first time in two years, we provided almost double the first round of stimulus to a large portion of the country, many of whom had no shortage of cash to spend after the surge in the saving rate during the pandemic. Of course it contributed. Inflation jumped from 2.7% in March (the last reading before stimulus funds were received) to 4.2% in April, 4.9% by May, and 5.3% by June. It started to trail off from here, and without the next two covid waves or the invasion of Ukraine it probably would have continued to fall, but unfortunately we had a couple supply shocks occur at a time where consumers were still fairly well able to spend, and when inflation was already elevated, so we really didn't have the room for error.





Manchin's generally an idiot, and I thought he was being to cautious at the time, too, and figured there was no harm, but... well... I was wrong, and a broken clock is still right twice a day. But, uou can see the distinct shocks, first of demand and then of supply, hitting the system even in the annual % change series like this.

The case for California is even clearer, unfortunately. Stimulus programs like this are unfortunately pretty broad - some of the recipients are likely in desperate need of the money, but others are just seeing this as a bit more disposable income (those of you who got $2k checks from the government in 2021, how many of you spent it on rent or groceries, vs on a new guitar or a trip somewhere?). And, in a supply-constrained economy, where we're struggling to produce the amount of goods and services being demanded by consumers (and again, every wave of inflation _after_ the stimulus checks has been constrained supply, with overseas supply chains being messed up or the supply of resources like oil, aluminum, or grain being significantly cut), the absolute last thing you want to do is try to stimulate demand. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise. If you want prices to stop rising, you need to either increase supply, or cut demand. Right now, the Federal Reserve is raising short term rates to make credit more expensive, to try to cut demand, until global production can catch up. Newsome indiscriminately dropping about $500 a head in helicoptor money to help people in California keep spending and keep demand high, when it's already running vastly in excess of supply, is one of those things tha's probably very popular politically but from a pure economic standpoint is boneheaded and is going to increase inflation in an economy that's about 15% of the total US economy.

The shitty, shitty reality right now is, if we can't increase global production (and we can't, unilaterally), then if we want inflation to fall, US consumers, private citizens and businesses both, are going to have to cut back on their purchasing so demand falls and rebalances with supply. That's not going to be pleasant, but right now there's too much money chasing not enough goods and services, so prices are rising.

So, again, it's an oversimplification to say Biden and Trump's combined $2,000 stimulus checks got us to a point where we're experiencing headline inflation at nearly 9%... but they were probably a contributor worth a couple percentage points there, and certainly adding MORE stimulus to boost demand when it's already well in excess of supply, as California is doing now, is likely to just end up pushing inflation up a bit higher. Biden and Trump I'm a bit more inclided to give a pass to, since we didn't know what else was in the pipeline, and the expectation (including my own) was that by summer/early fall supply chains would be pretty much back to normal, Covid would be behind us, and the "reopening trade" might boost inflation a little in the short run but that was probably worth it if it also helped the subset of families who really were struggling. Now that we're in a full blown stagflationary supply shock where global shortages are pushing up prices, this is really, really tough to justify.


----------



## wankerness

mmr007 said:


> The apartment complex my coworker lives in (no A/C btw) raised the rent for a two bedroom from $3750 a month to $5000 a month. My son recently moved out of Anaheim to Nashville. He was paying $1850 per month for a one bedroom. They re-rented his apartment at $2400 a month. I fully look forward to the $600 I am supposed to get which won't even pay 1 month of gas use. Thankfully my landlord has not raised my rent so I'm one lucky fella....I mean...one lucky non-birthing person


Boy, occasionally I feel lucky to live in nowheresville, I'm renting a full two story house with basement that's in pretty good condition (modern heating/central AC/etc) for 650 a month


----------



## Drew

Also, in addition to the long post above...

...this is why I've been pretty sure for a while now we're heading for recession. Supply and demand are significantly miscalibrated in the US (really, in the whole world) right now. Demand was a bit too hot to begin with, but then covid made a mess out of Asian supply chains, and then we had 20% of the global oil and wheat supply shut down overnight when Putin invaded Ukraine. Supply shocks like that are stagflationary - output falls, in part from the primary effects of the production of those resources falling, and in part because of the secondary effects of there being less of them to use as inputs in other types of production. But, because demand is unchanged, prices rise because the remaining supply is bid up as there just isn't enough of those resources to meet existing demand. That alone would be enough to slow global growth, but central banks can't do much to fight inflation in supply shock scenarios save for try to make the cost of borrowing high enough that it cools demand and, well, that's extremely hard to get right.

As far as quantitative easing, since you mentioned that, Randy, this is the fourth round of QE we've seen. The first three failed to generate any inflation to speak of, and in fact the Fed was consistently undershooting their 2% target during this time. The fourth, well, the bulk of the increase in the balance sheet pandemic (from about $4T to a high of just under $9T) was completed over the summer of 2020, and it had already reached about $8T before we started to break above 2%. Considering how neatly the distinct waves of inflation we've seen lined up with the arrival of stimulus checks, delta and omicron, and war in Ukraine, I'm a little leery of "this time it's different" explanations involving QE. Though, for whatever this is worth, the Fed not abandoning their stated pace of tapering and beginning balance reduction faster than they did in the interest of preserving forward communication credibility IS generally considered a mistake today - less for the taper itself, and more because they had indicated they wouldn't start raising short term rates until after the taper had been completed. But, again, I have a hard time faulting the Fed for not seeing the magnitude of the delta and omicron impacts in time, or for not seeing war in Ukraine at all - most of the rest of the world got that wrong, too.


----------



## mastapimp

wankerness said:


> Boy, occasionally I feel lucky to live in nowheresville, I'm renting a full two story house with basement that's in pretty good condition (modern heating/central AC/etc) for 650 a month


One of my former interns took his next job in San Francisco. Just his parking space at his apartment was more than your rent.


----------



## Adieu

wankerness said:


> Boy, occasionally I feel lucky to live in nowheresville, I'm renting a full two story house with basement that's in pretty good condition (modern heating/central AC/etc) for 650 a month



Is it safe and clean or in a hellhole?


----------



## wankerness

Adieu said:


> Is it safe and clean or in a hellhole?


Nah, definitely not a hellhole by standards of anyone familiar with actual hellholes. it's a boring version of those idyllic small college towns. There's a few skeezy houses here and there with methheads, and obviously many of the farmers that surround the town are bigtime Trump-heads, but the town proper is mostly families, old people, and college students and there's a decent proportion of educated hippy-dippy organic farmer types too. Kids mostly allowed to run around town unsupervised, half-decent public schools, a couple decently thriving companies, several small independent restaurants, good local grocery store, weekly concerts in the park, etc. Probably about 70/30 middle class/ vs poor people with too many kids and decaying Trump signs in the lawn. About 90 minutes from the two major cultural centers in the state which have massively higher rent costs, I know a few people that commute from them daily which seems nuts. But yeah it's much more Calistoga than Guerneville for a northern CA comparison. Just minus the rich people.


----------



## TheBlackBard

wankerness said:


> Nah, definitely not a hellhole by standards of anyone familiar with actual hellholes. it's a boring version of those idyllic small college towns. There's a few skeezy houses here and there with methheads, and obviously many of the farmers that surround the town are bigtime Trump-heads, but the town proper is mostly families, old people, and college students and there's a decent proportion of educated hippy-dippy organic farmer types too. Kids mostly allowed to run around town unsupervised, half-decent public schools, a couple decently thriving companies, several small independent restaurants, good local grocery store, weekly concerts in the park, etc. Probably about 70/30 middle class/ vs poor people with too many kids and decaying Trump signs in the lawn. About 90 minutes from the two major cultural centers in the state which have massively higher rent costs, I know a few people that commute from them daily which seems nuts. But yeah it's much more Calistoga than Guerneville for a northern CA comparison. Just minus the rich people.



My town is pretty much like what you described.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Hollowway said:


> Without to resorting to a rant about "libtards," can anyone use actual data to refute or support California's distribution of $1050 "inflation relief" checks as either raising inflation more, or not affecting it? From where I'm sitting (which is in California, lol) it seems like giving people MORE money is only going to worsen the problem. Apart from supply chain snafus, it seems like everyone agrees that we got in this pickle from the Fed over doing it with the covid relief. i.e. everyone quit their job, because they didn't need money, and that raised wages, because there are less workers to go around. And everyone spent money, because they had more than they needed (fun fact - at least in California, the $600 additional covid bonus to the normal unemployment insurance meant that the effective minimum wage in the state was $25/hr. So people who made less than $25/hr were motivated to stay home and collect the increased pay, vs go back to work and get a pay cut) so they bought a lot of stuff, which allowed companies to raise prices. (This is, of course, apart from gas prices that the invasion of Ukraine.)
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel like looking this up on my own, but I figured my erudite SSO brethren might know what amount additional funding might have on inflation.



I don't know, but at this point I'm going to be perfectly honest and say that I fully don't care. If we can print trillions of dollars to build bombs and stupid fighter jets that don't even work, we can print some money to pay my fucking rent and buy me a bag of drugs. Inflation be damned, I see climate change and the ensuing unrest fucking us all long before we have to worry about the repercussions of inflation anyway. Maybe that's foolish and absurd, but we live a foolish and absurd world.

I do think that the American working population seeing the very real power it has simply by going to work or not is something we have not had a clear collective sense of for a very long time now. Maybe it's just in my circle, but it seems like people are starting to care more about unions again, and it also seems like unions are starting to try a little bit harder again.

EDIT: I also think it's worth pointing out that the real issue the stimulus checks highlighted is that nobody has been getting paid enough. I worked my ass off through almost the entire pandemic, and everywhere I went I was working for some lazy entitled parasitic piece of shit who wanted to pay $13 an hour for dishwashers and complained about how "nobody wanted to work."

I find it distinctly disturbing that our collective attitude is to be angry at people who have found a way, however brief, to avoid paying one third or more of their entire existence into enriching someone else's bottom-line. Most small business owners are just as bad of tyrants as any corporate executive, often worse because they're on so much narrower margins.

EDIT 2: I'm pretty sure it was on this forum that someone posted the article about Applebee's managers saying rising gas prices are a good thing because it will trap people into working shitty second jobs for whatever they're offered. That tells you everything about the mindset of the people who were complaining that "nobody wanted to work." What they meant was "fewer people are currently being coerced by economic conditions far outside their control to settle for table scraps."

These people should suffer the natural free market consequences of their stupid, unsustainable business plans. Fuck restaurants.









Applebee’s franchise exec slammed for allegedly suggesting employee pay cuts


Payin’ less in the neighborhood.




nypost.com


----------



## Hollowway

wheresthefbomb said:


> I don't know, but at this point I'm going to be perfectly honest and say that I fully don't care. If we can print trillions of dollars to build bombs and stupid fighter jets that don't even work, we can print some money to pay my fucking rent and buy me a bag of drugs. Inflation be damned, I see climate change and the ensuing unrest fucking us all long before we have to worry about the repercussions of inflation anyway. Maybe that's foolish and absurd, but we live a foolish and absurd world.
> 
> I do think that the American working population seeing the very real power it has simply by going to work or not is something we have not had a clear collective sense of for a very long time now. Maybe it's just in my circle, but it seems like people are starting to care more about unions again, and it also seems like unions are starting to try a little bit harder again.
> 
> EDIT: I also think it's worth pointing out that the real issue the stimulus checks highlighted is that nobody has been getting paid enough. I worked my ass off through almost the entire pandemic, and everywhere I went I was working for some lazy entitled parasitic piece of shit who wanted to pay $13 an hour for dishwashers and complained about how "nobody wanted to work."
> 
> I find it distinctly disturbing that our collective attitude is to be angry at people who have found a way, however brief, to avoid paying one third or more of their entire existence into enriching someone else's bottom-line. Most small business owners are just as bad of tyrants as any corporate executive, often worse because they're on so much narrower margins.
> 
> EDIT 2: I'm pretty sure it was on this forum that someone posted the article about Applebee's managers saying rising gas prices are a good thing because it will trap people into working shitty second jobs for whatever they're offered. That tells you everything about the mindset of the people who were complaining that "nobody wanted to work." What they meant was "fewer people are currently being coerced by economic conditions far outside their control to settle for table scraps."
> 
> These people should suffer the natural free market consequences of their stupid, unsustainable business plans. Fuck restaurants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Applebee’s franchise exec slammed for allegedly suggesting employee pay cuts
> 
> 
> Payin’ less in the neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


Yeah, amen to that. I agree that it seems unions are making an effort, now. I'm of mixed feelings on them, because I like that they prevent businesses from being asshats to workers, but I also hate that it keeps really good people from making more than deadbeats. I have a few friends that are teachers, and they are really good, and care a lot. They should be making 2-3x the people phoning it in, and who cannot be fired, because the union says they have to be paid the same.

I think some of this is coming from the fact that it's abundantly clear that the centrist democrats that control the federal side of the equation aren't going to do a damn thing other than wag their finger at the right wing.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Those rent increases are insane. Luckily in Ontario properties that were built before a certain year can only have the rent raised by a set percentage (when occupied) and even that jumped from 1.something percent to like 2.3 highest increase in about a decade.

I pay 1650 for my 3 bedroom place. There are 1 bedrooms in the complex as well they were 1100 when we moved in in 2021 now they are 1525. No clue what the 3 bdrm at now.

Also with supply chain I have seen articles about how stores have too much stuff and are starting to implement no return returns where people just keep the thing and get a refund anyway for lower priced stuff because overhead costs are insane right now. I know that's anecdotal at best but just speaks to how even the constrained supply lines are that much out of whack with demand.

TLDR I hate it here


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Dineley said:


> Those rent increases are insane. Luckily in Ontario properties that were built before a certain year can only have the rent raised by a set percentage (when occupied) and even that jumped from 1.something percent to like 2.3 highest increase in about a decade.
> 
> I pay 1650 for my 3 bedroom place. There are 1 bedrooms in the complex as well they were 1100 when we moved in in 2021 now they are 1525. No clue what the 3 bdrm at now.
> 
> Also with supply chain I have seen articles about how stores have too much stuff and are starting to implement no return returns where people just keep the thing and get a refund anyway for lower priced stuff because overhead costs are insane right now. I know that's anecdotal at best but just speaks to how even the constrained supply lines are that much out of whack with demand.
> 
> TLDR I hate it here


Ugh! That's more than my mortgage payment including the insurance... 4 bdrm/ 2 ba/ 2 car garage/ 1834 sq ft. Although this house is 22 years old and we've had to replace the a/c unit and it has some other problems so it's far from what I would call a nice home... just decent I guess. 

But rent prices were part of what motivated us to buy. If we were still in our old rental house ( 2 bdrm/ 1 ba/ detached 1 car garage/ 1100 sq ft) we'd be paying $1350 mo. We were paying $950 mo when we moved out in 2019 and they were raising rent cost $100 each year. 

I really feel for you, man. Rent prices down here are absolutely insane as well unless you can qualify for low income/ sec 8 and then you're looking at the prospect of a pretty shady property and very small unit with little to no amenities. There are a few gated rental properties around here and one of the nicer ones is currently getting $1355 for a 1 bdrm/ 1 ba and $1672 for a 3 bdrm/ 2 ba. And they require proof of income that is 3x monthly rental.


----------



## Flappydoodle

mmr007 said:


> when we have amongst the highest costs of living in the world with exorbitant rents and healthcare, secondary education costs etc...



Is that true either? There are tons of places with much more expensive rent than the USA. And for healthcare, it varies massively. On a per-person basis, yeah it's very expensive for sure. Education, it also varies massively. There are some super expensive options, but there are also a LOT of very affordable options.



mmr007 said:


> Last year the 6 largest health insurance companies brought home $40.1 BILLION in profit. Not revenue...profit. In one fucking year!!!


Is that number supposed to be a lot? Even if you totally eliminated that profit and put it into the system, it would be a blip that would make no difference to anybody. The England NHS (not UK, just England) for example, spent ~150BN USD (4x more money), for 5x less people. Phrased another way, those insurance companies made $120 per person in the USA.

So basically, insurance company profits are not a major contributor to US healthcare costs. Nor are insurance-based systems inherently bad or expensive. Germany uses them. Pretty sure Japan does too. 

The problem in the US is the implementation, which pretty much took the worst of everything (aside from the actual medical care, which is rather good). It's hilariously complex. There's a weird blend of private and government service. As others mentioned earlier, weird rules about competition and secrecy over prices. There's the whole "game" where the hospital tries to charge X so the insurance can negotiate Y and eventually pay Z. And lastly, America already HAS socialized medicine. Medicare and Medicaid are exactly that - to the tune of more money than the UK NHS costs. 

So really, I just don't sense in people picking ideological sides here. The evidence from other countries is that many types of healthcare system can work, and each has pros and cons.


----------



## Flappydoodle

Drew said:


> I think it's telling that most of the GOP's efforts to fight the ACA have been focused on attacking measures (individual mandate, state-run exchanges, etc) that _do_ improve affordability, hoping to make the whole thing so cumbersome and expensive that it collapses.



Trump, McConnell and others have openly stated that this is their intension, yes.


----------



## RevDrucifer

High Plains Drifter said:


> I really feel for you, man. Rent prices down here are absolutely insane as well unless you can qualify for low income/ sec 8 and then you're looking at the prospect of a pretty shady property and very small unit with little to no amenities. There are a few gated rental properties around here and one of the nicer ones is currently getting $1355 for a 1 bdrm/ 1 ba and $1672 for a 3 bdrm/ 2 ba. And they require proof of income that is 3x monthly rental.



Last year when I was trying to find an apartment I went to several new complexes to check them out. During the process I was informed these were rent controlled complexes that only took low income/sec 8. 

As someone who grew up in low income housing, it’s GREAT that those people have a nice new place that isn’t a run-down roach infested shithole to move into. On the other side of that, the *only* logical place for me to move was a 50 year old complex that I pay way too much money for. It’s not a dump, but damn. 

Being poor left me out of the running for many things growing up. Now I’m making a middle class income and I’m still left out of the running!


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> EDIT: I also think it's worth pointing out that the real issue the stimulus checks highlighted is that nobody has been getting paid enough. I worked my ass off through almost the entire pandemic, and everywhere I went I was working for some lazy entitled parasitic piece of shit who wanted to pay $13 an hour for dishwashers and complained about how "nobody wanted to work."


I think the real issue that the stimulus checks pointed out is there's no good way that the government currently has to direct them to where they're the most needed. 

The stimulus checks (the first round, at least) were intended to help people who were unable to work during the pandemic to continue to put food on the table, pay rent, etc etc, if they had their income impacted by the widespread shutdowns during the pandemic. That's pretty clearly a good and uncontroversial thing for the government to be doing, and to anyone who said at the time "we're just paying people to stay home," well, in the short term, yeah, that was exactly the _point_. 

The problem though is we don't have a good, real time, direct way to do that. So, we based the payments on 2019 taxable income filings at the IRS, as a proxy for wealth, in turn as a proxy for ability to withstand a few months of income disruption. If you had AGI of between $1 and 75k as an individual, $1 and 112k as a Head of Household, or $1 and $150k as a couple, in 2019, you got a check. There's some room to critique the second assumption there, maybe, but by far the biggest issue was the first. 

*If you were not in the labor force in 2019, but were in 2020 (for example, if you graduated from college in 2019 and took a job at the start of 2020, shortly before the world went to hell) and had no taxable income in 2019, then you were not eligible for stimulus checks, even though you pretty clearly were maybe the MOST unable to weather a temporary disruption in income. 
*If you were filthy stinking rich, but had incredibly low taxable income, either because you were living primarily off tax exempt income (muni bond coupon payments, Roth IRA distributions, or sizable loss carryforwards you were able to use to offset tax liabilities and bring your AGI down below $75k), you were eligible for a check, but you clearly didn't need one. 
*if you were, say, a couple living in a part of the country with a relatively low cost of living but had AGI right up just under $150k, and were in the sort of white collar job that lent itself to work from home, then likely your income wasn't impacted at all, and if anything if you had significant commuting related expenses - gas or train tickets, buying lunch at the office, that kind of stuff - that went away during the pandemic, then if anything your disposable income likely increased during the pandemic, and your financial situation was improving with or without an additional stimulus payment.

It's basically a giant data problem. We have very little real-time transparency into Americans whose ability to make ends meet changed drastically for the worse between February and April of 2020, so we decided to eyeball it based on what we knew for all of 2019. That's kind of like driving with the lights off after dark, but knowing you were going 60 and passed an exit just as you killed the lights, the next exit was 2 miles up the road, and figuring if you count to 120 and then veer right, you'll _probably_ find the off-ramp. It's... better than nothing, but hardly a good plan. 

Of course, the flip side is I'm not sure I'd WANT a government that has the kind of real time data that would allow it to tailor stimulus/support programs more accurately to instantaneous need... but I know far more people who got checks and looked at it as bonus spending money, than those who got checks and were able to keep food on the table. 

The first stimulus payment I think was worth the risk - demand was _cratering_ when they went out - but the second, while at the time I thought it was worth doing, with the benefit of hindsight I think it's pretty clear that it stimulated demand to a point where the Fed had very little flexibility, and then when we had a couple supply shocks hit in rapid succession, their hands were tied.


----------



## zappatton2

Is anyone watching Unprecedented? I'm only one episode in, but jeezuz, the whole Trump camp is based on nothing but leveraging their own power by sowing "us vs them" resentment. Based on what I've seen from his support base, it seems like the only "policy decisions" they're interested in are "making liberals cry". Like, where does this even come from?

The self-serving narcissism of the Trump clan is as plain as day, but what motivates people to eat that sh*t up, honestly? I get that times are hard, not sure how "liberals" or "gays" or "minorities" are responsible for that.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> Based on what I've seen from his support base, it seems like the only "policy decisions" they're interested in are "making liberals cry". Like, where does this even come from?


I mean, it's kind of self-fulfilling, isn't it? You win elections by promising to give your base what they want, and re-election by delivering on those promises. If what his base wants is to "pwn the libtards," then your policy decisions should be based on advocating for whatever policy positions will result in the most libtards being pwned.


----------



## bostjan

Might sound great, but it makes no sense in the grand scheme, because a) Trump's policies didn't really align all that well with the GOP's agenda (pre-Trump), b) Trump didn't get re-elected, and c) the permanent damage done to the US's government was not worth it, long term.

I think the GOP is suffering from a sunk cost dilemma. They gave up a lot in order to back Trump. They redefined some of their agenda to back Trump. They bought into too many crazy conspiracy theories in order to back Trump. So, in order to move on from Trump, they have to start over with another cult of personality.

But Biden, he's a big mess. He's old, stodgy, often comes off as confused or bewildered even. His actions have been mostly misses, and now he's pretty well stymied by congress and the SCotUS, despite having a majority of the former on paper. His approval ratings are plummeting, and his own party may likely turn on him. If he decides to run in 2024, and the DNC entertains the idea of primarying him out of office, it'd be a complete disaster. If he gracefully steps down or dies, it'll still be a disaster. The only thing that might save him now is something horrible happening and him showing competent leadership during the crisis. ...and that would also be horrible. So, as a country, we are kind of painted into a corner. The average American doesn't like Biden and doesn't like Trump, and the parties have both burned their bridges to get unstuck from either of them. There don't seem to be a lot of well-liked candidates who could pull off stepping it up. Maybe Desantis for the GOP. Not sure about the democrats.

Maybe it's time to give up on whatever these parties represent and redefine our political values as a nation. If both parties splinter into 3-4 smaller groups that then have to form alliances to get anything done, it might be bad, but... but it might be the only way out of this pickle.


----------



## nightflameauto

There were some poll results in the Times this morning showing that, if Trump and Biden were on a ticket today, it would have a much smaller turn-out, but result in basically the same split percentage wise as they had before.

And there were rumors circulating that Trump, in an attempt to bolster support, was teasing a Desantis as vice ticket. LOLOLOLOLOLburnthewholecountryforfunLOLOLOL.

Realistically, I can't see Biden on the ticket winning against anyone even semi-competent on the Republican ticket. That said, I can't see the Republicans fronting anyone even semi-competent.

Kamala Harris on the ticket would be *almost* as unelectable as Biden. Luckily for her, the headliners have been taking the brunt of the heat over the last couple years. She may be able to eek out some support based on indifference.

Who could either party field at this point that would actually stir the base in a positive way? I can list several options that would stir the opposition, but can't come up with anybody that would really speak to the larger party on the whole.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> I think the real issue that the stimulus checks pointed out is there's no good way that the government currently has to direct them to where they're the most needed.
> 
> The stimulus checks (the first round, at least) were intended to help people who were unable to work during the pandemic to continue to put food on the table, pay rent, etc etc, if they had their income impacted by the widespread shutdowns during the pandemic. That's pretty clearly a good and uncontroversial thing for the government to be doing, and to anyone who said at the time "we're just paying people to stay home," well, in the short term, yeah, that was exactly the _point_.
> 
> The problem though is we don't have a good, real time, direct way to do that. So, we based the payments on 2019 taxable income filings at the IRS, as a proxy for wealth, in turn as a proxy for ability to withstand a few months of income disruption. If you had AGI of between $1 and 75k as an individual, $1 and 112k as a Head of Household, or $1 and $150k as a couple, in 2019, you got a check. There's some room to critique the second assumption there, maybe, but by far the biggest issue was the first.
> 
> *If you were not in the labor force in 2019, but were in 2020 (for example, if you graduated from college in 2019 and took a job at the start of 2020, shortly before the world went to hell) and had no taxable income in 2019, then you were not eligible for stimulus checks, even though you pretty clearly were maybe the MOST unable to weather a temporary disruption in income.
> *If you were filthy stinking rich, but had incredibly low taxable income, either because you were living primarily off tax exempt income (muni bond coupon payments, Roth IRA distributions, or sizable loss carryforwards you were able to use to offset tax liabilities and bring your AGI down below $75k), you were eligible for a check, but you clearly didn't need one.
> *if you were, say, a couple living in a part of the country with a relatively low cost of living but had AGI right up just under $150k, and were in the sort of white collar job that lent itself to work from home, then likely your income wasn't impacted at all, and if anything if you had significant commuting related expenses - gas or train tickets, buying lunch at the office, that kind of stuff - that went away during the pandemic, then if anything your disposable income likely increased during the pandemic, and your financial situation was improving with or without an additional stimulus payment.
> 
> It's basically a giant data problem. We have very little real-time transparency into Americans whose ability to make ends meet changed drastically for the worse between February and April of 2020, so we decided to eyeball it based on what we knew for all of 2019. That's kind of like driving with the lights off after dark, but knowing you were going 60 and passed an exit just as you killed the lights, the next exit was 2 miles up the road, and figuring if you count to 120 and then veer right, you'll _probably_ find the off-ramp. It's... better than nothing, but hardly a good plan.
> 
> Of course, the flip side is I'm not sure I'd WANT a government that has the kind of real time data that would allow it to tailor stimulus/support programs more accurately to instantaneous need... but I know far more people who got checks and looked at it as bonus spending money, than those who got checks and were able to keep food on the table.
> 
> The first stimulus payment I think was worth the risk - demand was _cratering_ when they went out - but the second, while at the time I thought it was worth doing, with the benefit of hindsight I think it's pretty clear that it stimulated demand to a point where the Fed had very little flexibility, and then when we had a couple supply shocks hit in rapid succession, their hands were tied.



Definitely respect your perspective here, I'm nowhere near this well informed on the subject and as a result I take an admittedly simplistic view. 

That said, I am always and forever on team "print money and give it to the poors."


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> Realistically, I can't see Biden on the ticket winning against anyone even semi-competent on the Republican ticket. That said, I can't see the Republicans fronting anyone even semi-competent.



Desantis has done an amazing job in Florida. Kept Florida open during the Chinese virus, got a lot of funding for education, passed bills to protect parental rights, is fighting against the indoctrination of children, has done a lot for Everglades restoration, and a ton of other stuff.
I have zero doubts he would be a great POTUS.

Desantis doesn’t need Trump. He’s a world beater.


----------



## Adieu

nightflameauto said:


> There were some poll results in the Times this morning showing that, if Trump and Biden were on a ticket today, it would have a much smaller turn-out, but result in basically the same split percentage wise as they had before.
> 
> And there were rumors circulating that Trump, in an attempt to bolster support, was teasing a Desantis as vice ticket. LOLOLOLOLOLburnthewholecountryforfunLOLOLOL.
> 
> Realistically, I can't see Biden on the ticket winning against anyone even semi-competent on the Republican ticket. That said, I can't see the Republicans fronting anyone even semi-competent.
> 
> Kamala Harris on the ticket would be *almost* as unelectable as Biden. Luckily for her, the headliners have been taking the brunt of the heat over the last couple years. She may be able to eek out some support based on indifference.
> 
> Who could either party field at this point that would actually stir the base in a positive way? I can list several options that would stir the opposition, but can't come up with anybody that would really speak to the larger party on the whole.



Somebody gonna hire Oprah or some such TV personality and sweep the old political professionals with populism.

It works well.

Hell, that's how we got Trumped last time.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> Who could either party field at this point that would actually stir the base in a positive way? I can list several options that would stir the opposition, but can't come up with anybody that would really speak to the larger party on the whole.



I think _actual_ billionaire, and _actual_ hotel magnate Pritzker (Illinois Governor) could potentially attract some people the same way Trump did, as "a successful businessman", could turn some decent numbers....but probably not enough. I'm not saying he'd be my first choice, to be clear... *cough*Blagojevich*cough* (though Trump's defended Blagojevich, so again...could Pritzker pull some of that Trimpanzee fanbase with his connection to Blagojevich?)



As far as celebrities go, to fight fire with fire, I think Michelle Obama and John Stewart would both pull good turn-out, though from different groups...but again, not sure it'd be enough.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Desantis has done an amazing job in Florida. Kept Florida open during the Chinese virus, got a lot of funding for education, passed bills to protect parental rights, is fighting against the indoctrination of children, has done a lot for Everglades restoration, and a ton of other stuff.
> I have zero doubts he would be a great POTUS.
> 
> Desantis doesn’t need Trump. He’s a world beater.



I hope a meteor hits the Georgia line and removes Florida from the mainland. DeSantis is a world beat-off.


----------



## narad

ArtDecade said:


> I hope a meteor hits the Georgia line and removes Florida from the mainland. DeSantis is a world beat-off.


It would do a lot more for Everglades restoration than Desantis.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> I hope a meteor hits the Georgia line and removes Florida from the mainland. DeSantis is a world beat-off.



I heard this racist comment many times before. We ARE culturally diverse in Florida, and that is our strength. I'm sorry we latinos are running your country ArtDecade. I'm sure you'd want us all to leave. As per Mrs Biden, we are as diverse as breakfast tacos.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I heard this racist comment many times before. We ARE culturally diverse in Florida, and that is our strength.


I didn't know meth head was a race.


----------



## RevDrucifer

I still live down here, guys.


----------



## narad

RevDrucifer said:


> I still live down here, guys.



Collateral damage.


----------



## Adieu

RevDrucifer said:


> I still live down here, guys.



But WHY?


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Desantis has done an amazing job in Florida. Kept Florida open during the Chinese virus, got a lot of funding for education, passed bills to protect parental rights, is fighting against the indoctrination of children, has done a lot for Everglades restoration, and a ton of other stuff.
> I have zero doubts he would be a great POTUS.
> 
> Desantis doesn’t need Trump. He’s a world beater.


Desantis is a *slightly* more competent Trump. He's just as evil, just as self-centered, and twice as manipulative. And you want *THAT* in the White House?

Yikes.

I could see a celebrity coming in and essentially sweeping the politico's legs out from under them. How 'bout Dwayne Johnson? Guy's been campaigning through his own sitcom for a couple years already, and ain't shyin' away from the stuff most politicos would try to bury.

Rock vs. Oprah. Fuck party affiliation.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I heard this racist comment many times before. We ARE culturally diverse in Florida, and that is our strength. I'm sorry we latinos are running your country ArtDecade. I'm sure you'd want us all to leave. As per Mrs Biden, we are as diverse as breakfast tacos.


Latinos are the best thing about Florida. Its the old bigots from the Northeast that retire there that are the problem.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> I heard this racist comment many times before. We ARE culturally diverse in Florida, and that is our strength. I'm sorry we latinos are running your country ArtDecade. I'm sure you'd want us all to leave. As per Mrs Biden, we are as diverse as breakfast tacos.



If you go back to the original comment, you'll see that there was in fact, _zero_ mention of race when he voiced his pro-meteor stance; nice deflection/projection skills though.


----------



## mmr007

Biden will not run again. He already decided. Politically he cant announce it. Based on my conversations with this gentleman I believe he will run


----------



## Adieu

mmr007 said:


> Biden will not run again. He already decided. Politically he cant announce it. Based on my conversations with this gentleman I believe he will run
> View attachment 110611



1 problem...who the hell is that?


----------



## mmr007

An attempt at humor?


----------



## bostjan

Florida, where the cuisine is culturally diverse but united in how bad the food somehow all tastes.

Florida, where the meth heads are *not *the most dangerous drivers out on the roads on any given day.

Florida, the state shaped the most like a dick, yet the shape of the state is the least dickish thing about it.

I'm just joking, mostly. But seriously, I don't get why rich people want to live there. Somebody back in the 1930's owned a bunch of property there and said "damn, this place is just like hell - hot and humid and full of blood-sucking insects, maybe we should get old people here to prepare them for the afterlife  ... wait ...  .. actually... " Without airconditioning or at least a good dehumidifier, it'd be uninhabitable in my book.

But back to guessing who will run in 2024, neither party gives a shit who they'll run at this point, only who the other party will run, and that, right there, ought to tell you everything you need to know about how bad it'll be. 

Hell, maybe I'll run. Nobody knows who I am, so I'd probably have an advantage, and nobody cares who I am, so maybe that'd also be an advantage, considering who is likely going to be running. No political experience, well, Trump had zero political experience as well, so what?


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> I'm just joking, mostly. But seriously, I don't get why rich people want to live there.



No income tax.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> No income tax.


Same situation with seven other states, though... eight if you count New Hampshire. Would you rather live where it's 90°F and 100% humidity, with tiny biting insects that you can't even see without a microscope, giant flying cockroaches that leave their guano everywhere, alligators every 100 feet, and no taxes, or someplace where there are evidently nothing but reasonable weather, gay cowboys, and open space, also with no taxes?


----------



## ArtDecade

*Gay Cowboy & The No Taxes* is a great name for a band.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> I heard this racist comment many times before.


I guess you would know a thing or two about racist comments.


Glades said:


> Desantis has done an amazing job in Florida. Kept Florida open during the Chinese virus, got a lot of funding for education, passed bills to protect parental rights, is fighting against the indoctrination of children, has done a lot for Everglades restoration, and a ton of other stuff.


Let me zoom in for you, as your prejudice has clearly blinded you to the point of nearsightedness.


Glades said:


> Chinese virus


Your raging hypocrisy is so overt that it borders on parody.

Oh, and guess what. You STILL haven't answered my question from a few pages back.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Same situation with seven other states, though... eight if you count New Hampshire. Would you rather live where it's 90°F and 100% humidity, with tiny biting insects that you can't even see without a microscope, giant flying cockroaches that leave their guano everywhere, alligators every 100 feet, and no taxes, or someplace where there are evidently nothing but reasonable weather, gay cowboys, and open space, also with no taxes?



Also where they use recycled sewage to water the lawns. And the smell reflects it.


----------



## zappatton2

If suspect mother nature will have her final say on Florida well before the century is through. With a little help from her friends over at the fossil fuel industry, or course.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I heard this racist comment many times before. We ARE culturally diverse in Florida, and that is our strength. I'm sorry we latinos are running your country ArtDecade. I'm sure you'd want us all to leave. As per Mrs Biden, we are as diverse as breakfast tacos.


Good try, but the Latinos aren't the Floridians anyone has a problem with. It's the white men. 

EDIT - also, I just saw that the guy still talking about the "Chinese virus" has the gall to lecture the rest of the thread about racism.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> No income tax.


A bunch of hedge fund managers moved to Florida during Covid. Then, when the world started to reopen, they realized they were living in Florida and not Manhattan, and a whole bunch of them moved back, figuring that lower humidity and NYC's cultural and culinary attractions were easily worth their state income tax bills.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> Definitely respect your perspective here, I'm nowhere near this well informed on the subject and as a result I take an admittedly simplistic view.
> 
> That said, I am always and forever on team "print money and give it to the poors."


Thanks. If you'll take a suggestion, though, how about consider a transfer to "impliment true progressive taxation, and give it to the poors." it'll introduce a lot less inflation into the economy.


----------



## mmr007

Not racist to pound on Florida. Anytime a truthful news headline begins with "Florida Man...." what follows is something straight out of an Onion headline. Florida is entertaining and embarrassing and it is not racist to notice the things that happen there (albeit it seems to only happen in the white counties)


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> There were some poll results in the Times this morning showing that, if Trump and Biden were on a ticket today, it would have a much smaller turn-out, but result in basically the same split percentage wise as they had before.
> 
> And there were rumors circulating that Trump, in an attempt to bolster support, was teasing a Desantis as vice ticket. LOLOLOLOLOLburnthewholecountryforfunLOLOLOL.
> 
> Realistically, I can't see Biden on the ticket winning against anyone even semi-competent on the Republican ticket. That said, I can't see the Republicans fronting anyone even semi-competent.
> 
> Kamala Harris on the ticket would be *almost* as unelectable as Biden. Luckily for her, the headliners have been taking the brunt of the heat over the last couple years. She may be able to eek out some support based on indifference.
> 
> Who could either party field at this point that would actually stir the base in a positive way? I can list several options that would stir the opposition, but can't come up with anybody that would really speak to the larger party on the whole.


I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more talk of that here, specifically from the progressive left, pointing to the fact that a majority of Democrats don't want Biden to run in 2024. 

Two basic critiques, though. 

1) as of yet, we really don't know if Biden plans on running. He certainly is _saying_ he intends to, but he pretty much has to at this point, else he's positioning himself as a lame duck right before the midterms. In January of 2023, he very well may have a different public position. 

2) For better or worse... Democrats don't want anyone _else_ to run either, and Biden probably has plurality support against any of the other names getting kicked around. Trump is also close to losing majority support on his end, 48% of registered Republicans want someone else and 20% think he tried to directly subvert democracy in 2020, and Trump, as you noted, is still losing to Biden by a couple points in a head-to-head. That could definitely change, but the upshot is the position hasn't really changed all that much from the 2020 election - Biden is the least offensive option of a field without a clear forerunner (or even all that much passion), and Trump is just unpopular, even within his own party.


----------



## Glades

“Chinese” is not a race. There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. Maybe they all look and sound the same to you.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> “Chinese” is not a race. There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. Maybe they all look and sound the same to you.


Ethnicity and race are not the same thing.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> “Chinese” is not a race. There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. Maybe they all look and sound the same to you.


I gotta hand it to ya, bro. Managing to fit that much cognitive dissonance into such a short post is a real talent. I'm golf clapping in your general direction.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

How long before he compares them to breakfast foods?


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> “Chinese” is not a race. There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. Maybe they all look and sound the same to you.



Weren't you just talking of racism against Latinos a couple posts ago?

Chinese = mix of ethnicities unified by an empire and a language into a shared identity

Latinos = totally different story?


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> Weren't you just talking of racism against Latinos a couple posts ago?
> 
> Chinese = mix of ethnicities unified by an empire and a language into a shared identity
> 
> Latinos = totally different story?


As the old white dude in this conversation, I'm waiting with baited breath for my opportunity to call everyone else a racist! I've watched Community. I know my moment is coming!


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Weren't you just talking of racism against Latinos a couple posts ago?
> 
> Chinese = mix of ethnicities unified by an empire and a language into a shared identity
> 
> Latinos = totally different story?


Yeah that was my first thought too.  Latin America is just as big a melting pot as China is, if we're going to be THAT reductive.  

Of course, the fact that Latinx is a catch-all for anyone with cultural ties to Latin America doesn't stop people from discriminating against them without knowing much about who exactly they're discriminating against, just as there's a ton of anti-Chinese racism in the States even if that's a catch-all for a large number of ethnic groups, soooooo..... *where's the upside down smiley face when you need it*


----------



## ArtDecade

You lads are putting a lot more thought into @Glades posts when it is obvious he puts no thought into typing them.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> You lads are putting a lot more thought into @Glades posts when it is obvious he puts no thought into typing them.


It's a bad habit, I know, but it beats the alternative.


----------



## bostjan

Race is a really really touchy topic. Everyone on the internet seems to be saying that it's purely a social construct. While that sentiment is technically incorrect, the entire topic is so nuanced that there's no sense arguing about it.. Just rest assured, though, that, if you fill out a survey or end up part of a police investigation, you will be boiled down into some sort of "race."

But yes, Chinese is not a race, by any standard or definition. It is a nationality, and it's also a pretty yummy type of American food.


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> You lads are putting a lot more thought into @Glades posts when it is obvious he puts no thought into typing them.



We might have to lighten up on him, he might be acoustic which isn't fair, but it's like right there.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Re J6, very curious who the surprise witness is that Cheney says trump called. I still have hopes that some consequence may come from all this.


----------



## spudmunkey

High Plains Drifter said:


> Re J6, very curious who the surprise witness is that Cheney says trump called. I still have hopes that some consequence may come from all this.


Hopefully it's someone with a shred of credibility, and not someone like a Sean Spicer or Michael Cohen...


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> Race is a really really touchy topic. Everyone on the internet seems to be saying that it's purely a social construct. While that sentiment is technically incorrect, the entire topic is so nuanced that there's no sense arguing about it.. Just rest assured, though, that, if you fill out a survey or end up part of a police investigation, you will be boiled down into some sort of "race."
> 
> But yes, Chinese is not a race, by any standard or definition. It is a nationality, and it's also a pretty yummy type of American food.


FYI, the popular position that only like 5? races exist is even more arbitrary than the scientific consensus regarding whether there should be only 8 planets or whether they should keep Pluto and therefore necessarily add hundreds more along with it. Humans have a need to categorize things; nature doesn't. So in that sense (among others), of course race is a social construct. Societies can also settle on dozens of racial categories, with even less regard to the reality of how similar all humans are to each other relative to the variation found in most any other extant species.

Perhaps more to the point, if someone hypothetically hated African Americans but had nothing to say about Africans, I still wouldn't balk if that person got called racist, and diverting the discussion to semantics would be letting that guy off the hook.


----------



## zappatton2

Semantics on race aside, terms like "China flu" were always about using the pandemic to target and blame/marginalize a group of people, and the real-world effect has been increasing levels of random acts of violent against Asian Americans (Chinese or not).

After watching that documentary that delved into the events leading to Jan. 6th, it's very clear going back to the campaign that the language used by the Trump camp was always about "those people" taking something from "real" white Americans. The audience was always being primed for violence against "illegals", "commie liberals" and any other group that provided a handy scapegoat to focus people's disaffection and rage on, as a means of consolidating unquestioned power.

Weather or not "Chinese" is a race is beside the point. It was simply part of the same tactic of demonizing "the other" that has been used by aspiring autocrats and fascists throughout history, and the violence that springs from it is the real consequence of that.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

@zappatton2 That is such an important point to make and you did so with complete accuracy and eloquence.


----------



## nightflameauto

I think those hoping for anything other than more grandstanding from the January 6th hearings are probably going to end up disappointed. This is far more about grandstanding than it is about "punishment for the guilty."


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

zappatton2 said:


> Semantics on race aside, terms like "China flu" were always about using the pandemic to target and blame/marginalize a group of people, and the real-world effect has been increasing levels of random acts of violent against Asian Americans (Chinese or not).
> 
> After watching that documentary that delved into the events leading to Jan. 6th, it's very clear going back to the campaign that the language used by the Trump camp was always about "those people" taking something from "real" white Americans. The audience was always being primed for violence against "illegals", "commie liberals" and any other group that provided a handy scapegoat to focus people's disaffection and rage on, as a means of consolidating unquestioned power.
> 
> Weather or not "Chinese" is a race is beside the point. It was simply part of the same tactic of demonizing "the other" that has been used by aspiring autocrats and fascists throughout history, and the violence that springs from it is the real consequence of that.


Trump is stupid, but him and his handlers are smart enough to know how to appeal those people and how to entice them into getting what he needed from them. This is something I found terrifying.


----------



## Adieu

Dumple Stilzkin said:


> Trump is stupid, but him and his handlers are smart enough to know how to appeal those people and how to entice them into getting what he needed from them. This is something I found terrifying.



He's not stupid.

He's a sly and criminally talented anti-intellectual.


----------



## ArtDecade

Trump is just smart enough to fool his idiot supporters.


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> I think those hoping for anything other than more grandstanding from the January 6th hearings are probably going to end up disappointed. This is far more about grandstanding than it is about "punishment for the guilty."


It’s not grandstanding. The Jan 6th Committee doesn’t have the power to punish anyone, so they’re putting the evidence out there for the DOJ to pick up and run with and are even pushing the DOJ to take action.

But its up to the DOJ to take that action.


----------



## mmr007

I heard not a single iota of grandstanding. I heard Trump get buried by his own associates and supporters with minimal introduction and commentary by the committee members other than to offer perspective in a way that, to quote Thomas Jefferson..."*places before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent"*


----------



## profwoot

Yeah grandstanding is just a GOP deflection. Since the only republicans on the committee are sane, it's unlike most any other congressional hearing where grandstanding is the main thing.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> FYI, the popular position that only like 5? races exist is even more arbitrary than the scientific consensus regarding whether there should be only 8 planets or whether they should keep Pluto and therefore necessarily add hundreds more along with it. Humans have a need to categorize things; nature doesn't. So in that sense (among others), of course race is a social construct. Societies can also settle on dozens of racial categories, with even less regard to the reality of how similar all humans are to each other relative to the variation found in most any other extant species.
> 
> Perhaps more to the point, if someone hypothetically hated African Americans but had nothing to say about Africans, I still wouldn't balk if that person got called racist, and diverting the discussion to semantics would be letting that guy off the hook.


For all political and social purposes, it _is_ a social construct, but biologically, there are races of micro-organisms that share certain genetic information after being separated geographically for a length of time. This same sort of idea could have applied to human beings, but with centuries of globalization it's quickly becoming an entirely outdated concept. However, it is not _purely_ a social construct. Hominids diversified and migrated and interbred for hundreds of thousands of years. But there are African genetic groups that have more in common with European than with other African genetic groups, and whatever sort of genetic diversity was going on in Asia prior to the Mongol expansion probably got so mixed up that it'd be likely impossible to reconstruct from DNA testing of living humans. 

Hating anyone based on their genetic makeup is never any better than stupid. Xenophobia may have developed as a survival mechanism in prehistory, but it lost any last bit of usefulness as soon as feudalism started fading away.

But where the US government defines race, it's all kinds of misinformed. They have check boxes for what? A) White, B) Black, C) Asian, D) Native American, or E) Pacific Islander and then either 1) Non-latino or 2) Latino. And you gave the option of checking "mixed race."

Say you are Roma. Which box do you even check? You're most immediate ancestors probably came from somewhere in Europe, but they may have remained in an isolated group since they came from wherever Roma people original came when they formed a group, which may have been somewhere in India, or may have been somewhere in the middle east, or maybe somewhere else. No one really knows. What if you were adopted? What if it's just too complicated to explain? Maybe people who took the same census in 1800 would have a little easier time answering, but who even knew back then? Also, what does it matter?

Now at least we have DNA testing, but since "race" was so widely misconstrued prior to understanding DNA, there are still tons of misconceptions about it. And what if you don't want to get a DNA test?

Whether or not you see race as a purely social construct, I think we can agree that it gets talked about way too much. If it's not in reference to some sort of anthropological or biological statement, then I think it's pretty much meaningless. We've seen a lot of police reports where a witness gave a statement to police that "he was a black man," and it turns out to be someone with a very light complexion and generally "European" features, but just happened to be standing in the dark or whatever. So even using visual estimations of "race" as a description of a person seems to be a generally shitty way to try to identify them. But I highly doubt that the police care at all, they will keep using whatever methods they used for the last 100 years, and the next census will 100% likely have some racial questions that don't make any sense, even if they do try to take a different approach.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> Yeah grandstanding is just a GOP deflection. Since the only republicans on the committee are sane, it's unlike most any other congressional hearing where grandstanding is the main thing.


Any republican who has anything to do with the Jan 6th investigation is no true Scotsman er, I mean no True Republican™.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

For almost all purposes of discussion in western culture, "races" are defined explicitly by their non-whiteness, or more broadly, their non-membership in the group of people who happened to have the resources and opportunities to become _the _century-and-globe-spanning imperialist force. There have been countless other similar power dynamics between groups of people throughout history, but that is the greatest and most enduring one that has shaped much of our modern world. 

The oft-invoked case of Irish slaves, most often brought up by white people going "not _ALL _slaves," is an excellent illustration of the fact that whiteness is about who is or isn't included in a particular _social construct_. Being "white" skinned wasn't enough for the Irish, or the Italians, or many other "white" European groups in the early US (and sometimes still today). 

So yes, race is a social construct (among other things), but people often use that statement as a way to avoid taking intellectual responsibility for reconciling the above with their meritocratic fantasy worldview.



zappatton2 said:


> Semantics on race aside, terms like "China flu" were always about using the pandemic to target and blame/marginalize a group of people, and the real-world effect has been increasing levels of random acts of violent against Asian Americans (Chinese or not).
> 
> After watching that documentary that delved into the events leading to Jan. 6th, it's very clear going back to the campaign that the language used by the Trump camp was always about "those people" taking something from "real" white Americans. The audience was always being primed for violence against "illegals", "commie liberals" and any other group that provided a handy scapegoat to focus people's disaffection and rage on, as a means of consolidating unquestioned power.
> 
> Weather or not "Chinese" is a race is beside the point. It was simply part of the same tactic of demonizing "the other" that has been used by aspiring autocrats and fascists throughout history, and the violence that springs from it is the real consequence of that.



Precisely. The purpose of a slur is to strip people of their humanity and thusly make their eradication more palatable. That's why words aren't "just words." Nothing happens in a vacuum.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I think those hoping for anything other than more grandstanding from the January 6th hearings are probably going to end up disappointed. This is far more about grandstanding than it is about "punishment for the guilty."


Eh, I expected that, and as it's gone on I've been less sure that that this was just going to be empty grandstanding, especially after Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony.

Word on the street is the Trump camp is already preparing for Meadows, at least, to go down because of this, starting to distance themselves from him, and preparing to - hopefully - use him as a scapegoat. Definitely something to watch in the coming weeks, how Trump talks about Meadows and if Trump starts to downplay how closely they worked together. Of course, if Meadows were to flip on Trump and have receipts, well...


----------



## spudmunkey

"I hardly know him. I think he once brought me a diet coke, although I've never met him except the time I personally told his 6th grade teacher to tell him he was awful and stupid and not-at-all beautiful every day."


----------



## Glades

Did you guys check your Truth Social today? Ivana passed. Great mother. Great children. Sad day.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Great mother. Great children. Sad day.



All three of those are debatable


----------



## vilk

Probably got caught with plans to flip on her husband's fascist mafia


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> Probably got caught with plans to flip on her husband's fascist mafia



For a second I thought you confused her with Ivanka, then I realized it's applicable to both


----------



## Adieu

Reaper got the wrong Trump


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> Did you guys check your Truth Social today?









A shitty day for those who cared about her.


----------



## Randy

Hey so how about the Secret Service?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Did you guys check your Truth Social today? Ivana passed. Great mother. Great children. Sad day.



In the early 80's, around the time Ivanka and Eric were born, Donald raped Ivana in a fit of rage because his head hurt from bald spot coverage surgery, for which he blamed her. 

His "defense"? That it wasn't rape because she was his wife. 

In the 90's, after years of cheating on Ivana with who would become his next wife, he and his mistress leaked to any tabloid who would listen that they were fooling around.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Hey so how about the Secret Service?



Cops gonna cop. This is neither shocking or surprising.


----------



## vilk

MFB said:


> For a second I thought you confused her with Ivanka, then I realized it's applicable to both


Actually I was all mixed up lol
I actually don't know a single thing about Ivana. So I take back what I said.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> But yes, Chinese is not a race



The Chinese government certainly thinks it is, and acts like it is, and overall strongly promotes Han supremacy. Look how they treat Uighyrs, for example.

China is ~93% Han Chinese. So saying "50 different ethnicities" is a real stretch. They're an incredibly homogenous country. If someone says "Chinese" it's pretty unlikely they're talking about one of the 49 minorities which each make up less than 1% of the population.


----------



## narad

So was it the Han virus?


----------



## Glades




----------



## mmr007

I'll be honest as soon as I heard Ivana died all I could think was Jeffrey Epstein...hmmm who does this help?


----------



## bostjan

Flappydoodle said:


> The Chinese government certainly thinks it is, and acts like it is, and overall strongly promotes Han supremacy. Look how they treat Uighyrs, for example.
> 
> China is ~93% Han Chinese. So saying "50 different ethnicities" is a real stretch. They're an incredibly homogenous country. If someone says "Chinese" it's pretty unlikely they're talking about one of the 49 minorities which each make up less than 1% of the population.


I don't think I said anything about 50 ethnicities, but whatever, I don't think I give two shits what the Chinese government thinks about race and ethnicity.

Also, Japan is 98.5% Japanese. So what? That doesn't mean that Japanese is a race, and it doesn't mean that it's not. It is what we call "irrelevant."


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> I'll be honest as soon as I heard Ivana died all I could think was Jeffrey Epstein...hmmm who does this help?


Seems like horribly suspicious timing.


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


>



Man, I was just about to eat lunch, and you gotta show me the most unappetizing video thumbnail..

"She is in jail because she is in love. That’s how I view it. Basically, they’re having a family and they’re keeping the mother in jail because she won’t conform to what society feels should be the perfect American family.”
- Bill Maher, about Mary Kay Letourneau, who fucked her 12 year old student, and had his baby.


----------



## Glades

spudmunkey said:


> Man, I was just about to eat lunch, and you gotta show me the most unappetizing video thumbnail..
> 
> "She is in jail because she is in love. That’s how I view it. Basically, they’re having a family and they’re keeping the mother in jail because she won’t conform to what society feels should be the perfect American family.”
> - Bill Maher, about Mary Kay Letourneau, who fucked her 12 year old student, and had his baby.



So you don’t agree with something Bill Mayer said in the past, so therefore everything else he says you can’t agree with? 
I probably don’t agree with anyone 100%. It doesn’t mean that if I don’t agree with you on one subject, I cannot agree on others.


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> So you don’t agree with something Bill Mayer said in the past, so therefore everything else he says you can’t agree with?
> I probably don’t agree with anyone 100%. It doesn’t mean that if I don’t agree with you on one subject, I cannot agree on others.



Sure...but, like...aren't there better sources? LIke... "Stalin and Pol Pot were right. Ice cream_ is_ delicious." Or like this genius, or maybe this guy, or this dummy.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Maher has shown time and again that he has zero intellectual rigor. It seems like a huge waste of my time even responding to that video but I will say that his biggest "miss" is that nobody is demonizing people from Zika, or Ebola, or the West Nile because the virus came from there (or at all, AFAIK). The same cannot be said of COVID, people *are being attacked* by people who blame "the Chinese" for COVID. That's just what's happening in the real world. Any thought experiment that precludes the material conditions of reality is a fart in the wind.

Back in reality.....

The problem here is that "race" and "ethnicity" in the context of China (and all other imperial projects) are highly politicized and mean different things depending on your perspective.

The fact that China is seen as homogenous is not accidental, the early years of Chinese empire, especially around the advent of rice paddies and capitalism, were characterized by massive efforts to bring the _many_ varied ethnic groups under the banner of the Chinese state, primarily to make them more legible to the authorities for taxation purposes. This meant bringing people out of their traditional subsistence/hill-dwelling lives and into cities to become rice paddy farmers, and simultaneously assimilating them to the prevailing culture of the state. 

On the other hand, this created an inherent dichotomy where subsistence lifestyles become a form of de-facto resistance to the project of state-making, a sort of "folk anarchism" where simply by living as they always had, people made themselves illegible to the state to varying extents. Even the Han as an ethnic group were not homogenous in their assimilation to the state.* Big point being here, it is important to recognize the difference between _*race *_or _*ethnicity* _on one hand _*a state project to create a homogenous national identity*_ on the other. The two can overlap, but are necessarily not the same. Put another way: Chinese national identity and Han ethnic identity have substantial overlap but are necessarily entirely separate entities.

There is a brilliant, if rather dense, book on this exact subject called The Art of Not Being Governed.

*Fun fact: Flight from state centers was a _massive _problem for the empire at this time. The Great Wall of China was built to keep people _in _at least as much as it was built to keep them _out. _


----------



## SpaceDock

I like Bill and watch his show almost every week for years, but let’s keep in mind that he is a comedian trying to entertain by being provocative.


----------



## TimmyPage

Glades said:


>




I always find it interesting when someone brings up the Spanish flu, because it didn't originate in Spain. It originated in Kansas, but WW1 was still chugging along and the wartime censors didn't want to let slip any news that might hurt morale, so they had the media at the time report that it originated in Spain (what was at the time a neural country in the conflict).

The interesting historical allegory here is that the Spanish flu also lead to a conflation between Spanish people and the "Spanish Plague", and lead to an uptick in racism and violence against the Spanish community. There's a good, historical precedent for why the scientific name these days rather than the area of geographical discovery.


----------



## Flappydoodle

bostjan said:


> I don't think I said anything about 50 ethnicities, but whatever, I don't think I give two shits what the Chinese government thinks about race and ethnicity.
> 
> Also, Japan is 98.5% Japanese. So what? That doesn't mean that Japanese is a race, and it doesn't mean that it's not. It is what we call "irrelevant."



I was tagging onto your comment to point out that "Chinese" for all intents and purposes, is a race, at least based on definitions I can find.

Were you making a semantic-based race vs ethnic group argument when you said Chinese is not a race? Looking up the difference, I can't see how "Chinese" doesn't fit the definition of race. I found "a mixture of physical, behavioral and cultural attributes". China is genetically extremely homogenous and culturally homogenous (including by force). 

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't deal much in this social science stuff.

Also, it was this guy who, just earlier, said China had 50+ races. I mistakenly thought it was you. I'll reply directly below.



Glades said:


> “Chinese” is not a race. There are over 50 ethnic groups in China. Maybe they all look and sound the same to you.



95% of Chinese is a single group - Han Chinese. And most of the other larger ethic groups are overtly oppressed in China. Trying to pass China off as some diverse, multi-ethnic country is hilariously wrong.



wheresthefbomb said:


> Big point being here, it is important to recognize the difference between _*race *_or _*ethnicity* _on one hand _*a state project to create a homogenous national identity*_ on the other. The two can overlap, but are necessarily not the same. Put another way: Chinese national identity and Han ethnic identity have substantial overlap but are necessarily entirely separate entities.



The CCP absolutely believes in, and actively promotes, a homogenous, *Han-based* national identity. They actively suppress other ethnic groups. I don't think the two are separate at all.


----------



## Flappydoodle

So the "Chinese flu" thing, yes I agree it's kinda silly to go out of your way to call it that.

However, I do think we unfortunately ignored a lot of evidence that this probably (IMO) was a lab leak out of the Wuhan lab. It's a very really possibility, given all of the things we know for sure. Unfortunately, Trump promoted the idea too early. The natural instinct of people in media and science to backlash against him actually, ironically, ended up protecting China. It ended up discouraging anybody from openly saying it, lest they be labelled a Nazi etc. The Lancet opinion piece had zero supportive evidence but effectively killed any real call for investigation. Now we have a few experts and journalists quietly grumbling that it probably was a leak, but the damage is done and it's way too late for any sort of investigation now.

This is a fantastic, truthful and accurate article written by an investigative journalist. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

And another by Glen Greenwald:








Deconstructed: The Lab Leak Theory


A panel of journalists discuss the latest revelations regarding the theory that Covid-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory.




theintercept.com





If this was a lab leak, I do think China should have some responsibility for all of the damage they've caused. I think the mistake itself could have happened to anybody. But their instinct to deny, cover-up, lie, block all investigations etc has definitely worsened and prolonged this pandemic. While "China flu" is kinda stupid, letting them just kinda quietly fade into the background and absolve themselves of all sins is very wrong IMO,.


----------



## Adieu

What would it be doing in said Wuhan lab?

If it was a sample, it had to have already existed elsewhere, so nope... and as an engineered bioweapon, it doesn't hold up. Too weak yet too persistent.

The idea that there's something fundamentally incriminating about a city of 12m people HAVING labs is ridiculous.

Wuhan City is BIGGER THAN BELGIUM. *All* of Belgium.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Regarding calling COVID the "China virus"... a major part of why I find this so distasteful without even getting into debating the racial implications... is because this was one of the first times that I was closely watching trump. I honestly had never really watched or listened to him very intently prior to covid ramping up in the US. But when I he made that remark, it instantly struck me as him being very insensitive and very much as him going out of his way to blame China. I get that we've pretty much surmised that COVID originated in China, but again... when I watched that vile piece of shit ( and I'll add that at that time I didn't even feel the immense amount of disgust for him that I do now) his mannerisms and his tone and the smirking and all that... just made me feel in a very simplistic sense that he was a man with zero diplomacy and little to no integrity. It seemed that he relished the opportunity to finger-point and blame as a child might do. It's not too hard to be able to get an accurate idea someone's character by the things that they say, their tone, their facial expressions, body language, etc. And whenever I hear other people run with that phrase or whatever you wanna call it... it also comes across as inappropriate and just flat out nasty. And I guess no surprise... it always seems to come from a trump supporter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

If they really believed it was a bio weapon from China why the fuck would they not treat it as such? 

Whatever, we already know the answer.


----------



## Randy

Adieu said:


> Wuhan City is BIGGER THAN BELGIUM. *All* of Belgium.


But *not* as big as the Belgian waffle I had for breakfast this morning.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> But *not* as big as the Belgian waffle I had for breakfast this morning.


Goddammit, now I want waffles. Fuckin' China...


----------



## Ralyks

I have a weird feeling we could see DeSantis vs Newsom. Gavin seems like the left version of DeSantis.

Also, I could probably think of worse candidates than Adam Schiff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But then again, I reregisted as an Independent, so technically I'm whatever as this point.


----------



## Randy

Ralyks said:


> I have a weird feeling we could see DeSantis vs Newsom. Gavin seems like the left version of DeSantis.
> 
> Also, I could probably think of worse candidates than Adam Schiff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But then again, I reregisted as an Independent, so technically I'm whatever as this point.


I'm only registered Democrat because of the closed primary system, since I think the primaries play a big role in the quality of leadership. I think most people that don't get their beliefs from cable news or Facebook would fall in the independent category if you really analyzed what they believe from issue to issue.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> I'm only registered Democrat because of the closed primary system, since I think the primaries play a big role in the quality of leadership. I think most people that don't get their beliefs from cable news or Facebook would fall in the independent category if you really analyzed what they believe from issue to issue.


And to be clear, despite how it seems to some, "independent" does not automatically default to "libertarian".


----------



## Adieu

Ralyks said:


> I have a weird feeling we could see DeSantis vs Newsom. Gavin seems like the left version of DeSantis.
> 
> Also, I could probably think of worse candidates than Adam Schiff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But then again, I reregisted as an Independent, so technically I'm whatever as this point.



Please gawd neither of them

Oh here's another horrifying thought:

Could be the Guilfoyle Hole Brothers.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I doubt Newsom would get the nomination but even if he did, I don't see any way he'd get the win over DeSantis. De-Bag on the other hand could take it and that scares me. Despite the unlikeliness, I'd rather see Cheney at the top if we unfortunately wind up red as a nation.


----------



## spudmunkey

High Plains Drifter said:


> I doubt Newsom would get the nomination but even if he did, I don't see any way he'd get the win over DeSantis. De-Bag on the other hand could take it and that scares me. Despite the unlikeliness, I'd rather see Cheney at the top if we unfortunately wind up red as a nation.


Fun fact: Liz Cheney voted more along the lines of Trump's agenda than nearly everyone in congress, even more than Mark Meadows, who Trump chose as his Chief of Staff


----------



## Glades

Ralyks said:


> I have a weird feeling we could see DeSantis vs Newsom. Gavin seems like the left version of DeSantis.
> 
> Also, I could probably think of worse candidates than Adam Schiff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But then again, I reregisted as an Independent, so technically I'm whatever as this point.



Newsom has no shot against Desantis. During the pandemic Desantis opened the economy and made care readily available to those that needed it. We thrived while caring for the vulnerable. Everybody from Blue states swarmed our state and brought in business. I was in quarantine for a total of 3 days in 2020, then back to work. Like everybody else. Businesses stayed open. And we got over it.
Newsom needlessly shut down an entire state. Last year California recorded the first year with zero population growth. Tons of people left looking for Freedom.


----------



## Randy

Glades said:


> Newsom has no shot against Desantis. During the pandemic Desantis opened the economy and made care readily available to those that needed it. We thrived while caring for the vulnerable. Everybody from Blue states swarmed our state and brought in business. I was in quarantine for a total of 3 days in 2020, then back to work. Like everybody else. Businesses stayed open. And we got over it.
> Newsom needlessly shut down an entire state. Last year California recorded the first year with zero population growth. Tons of people left looking for Freedom.



What's the cost of freedom?

States ranked by COVID-19 death rates

#1: New Mexico
Deaths per 100,000: 0.63
Daily average deaths: 13.3

*#2: Florida
Deaths per 100,000: 0.31
Daily average deaths: 67.0*

#3: Alaska
Deaths per 100,000: 0.23
Daily average deaths: 1.7






States ranked by COVID-19 death rates


As of October 29, more than 743,000 people in the U.S. had died after contracting COVID-19, according to The New York Times.




www.beckershospitalreview.com





#shitholeliving


----------



## Ralyks

Randy said:


> What's the cost of freedom?
> 
> States ranked by COVID-19 death rates
> 
> #1: New Mexico
> Deaths per 100,000: 0.63
> Daily average deaths: 13.3
> 
> *#2: Florida
> Deaths per 100,000: 0.31
> Daily average deaths: 67.0*
> 
> #3: Alaska
> Deaths per 100,000: 0.23
> Daily average deaths: 1.7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States ranked by COVID-19 death rates
> 
> 
> As of October 29, more than 743,000 people in the U.S. had died after contracting COVID-19, according to The New York Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.beckershospitalreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #shitholeliving


C'mon, you know the GOP doesn't give a shit about you after you leave the womb. They'll wipe these numbers under the reg and go about being a where you go for sorting break or old age takes you with the sweet embrace of death.

Oh, also when I said Newson would run, in no time line does he actually win.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

spudmunkey said:


> Fun fact: Liz Cheney voted more along the lines of Trump's agenda than nearly everyone in congress, even more than Mark Meadows, who Trump chose as his Chief of Staff



This. 

"The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend."

This is just a well calculated ploy to basically forever capture the moderate and undecided votes.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> This.
> 
> "The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend."
> 
> This is just a well calculated ploy to basically forever capture the moderate and undecided votes.



Still

As a newly minted American citizen, my position is simple:

I ain't never voting for anybody who boned Guilfoyle. There's a limit to bad taste.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Still
> 
> As a newly minted American citizen, my position is simple:
> 
> I ain't never voting for anybody who boned Guilfoyle. There's a limit to bad taste.



Forgot about Newsom for a minute and thought you had the Cheney kids mixed up.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I mean, I wouldn't vote for either but everything that I know about DeSantis makes me feel that he would be a horrid POTUS. As far as Liz goes, I'm not entirely convinced at this point in time that she wouldn't possess a willingness to reevaluate some of her previous positions on trump-era policies. Not saying that I have much faith in zebras changing their stripes but I do feel as if she has the _ability_ to compromise for the benefit of both sides. I've never seen that with DeSantis ( admittedly, not that I've looked very closely at either). Just my initial gut-feelings here.


----------



## Glades

Desantis has had some terrible calls. Like introducing the 15-week abortion ban bill. I am sure there has been a ton of support he has lost because of this. There is no excuse.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> Forgot about Newsom for a minute and thought you had the Cheney kids mixed up.



Wait. There were more prominent banshee hole brothers?


----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> So the "Chinese flu" thing, yes I agree it's kinda silly to go out of your way to call it that.
> 
> However, I do think we unfortunately ignored a lot of evidence that this probably (IMO) was a lab leak out of the Wuhan lab. It's a very really possibility, given all of the things we know for sure. Unfortunately, Trump promoted the idea too early. The natural instinct of people in media and science to backlash against him actually, ironically, ended up protecting China. It ended up discouraging anybody from openly saying it, lest they be labelled a Nazi etc. The Lancet opinion piece had zero supportive evidence but effectively killed any real call for investigation. Now we have a few experts and journalists quietly grumbling that it probably was a leak, but the damage is done and it's way too late for any sort of investigation now.
> 
> This is a fantastic, truthful and accurate article written by an investigative journalist. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins
> 
> And another by Glen Greenwald:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deconstructed: The Lab Leak Theory
> 
> 
> A panel of journalists discuss the latest revelations regarding the theory that Covid-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theintercept.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this was a lab leak, I do think China should have some responsibility for all of the damage they've caused. I think the mistake itself could have happened to anybody. But their instinct to deny, cover-up, lie, block all investigations etc has definitely worsened and prolonged this pandemic. While "China flu" is kinda stupid, letting them just kinda quietly fade into the background and absolve themselves of all sins is very wrong IMO,.


I've gone into this in depth elsewhere, and probably in this thread. But, really, there are TWO "lab leak scenarios: 

1) Lowercase-l "lab leak conspiracy." The virus that causes Covid-19 was present in a bat in the Wuhan lab, or in a sample stored in that lab, and via accidental mishandling transmitted to a human being at the lab, and spread from there. 
2) Uppercase-L "Lab Leak Conspiracy." China was engineering super viruses in their Wuhan lab, and either accidentally or intentionally released them into the human population, at which point they spread from there. 

It should be pretty obvious, but the veracity of the lowercase-l hypothesis doesn't have any impact on the veracity of the uppercase-L hypothesis. Yet, conspiracy theory minded individuals have taken the moderate-but-inconclusive increase of the body of evidence supporting the lowercase-l hypothesis, as providing growing proof of the uppercase-L conspiracy. That makes no sense. 

It's a plausible theory that either a bat in the Wuhan facility, which did study coronaviruses, managed to transmit covid-19 to a human being directly, or a sample of the virus was mishandled and that led to transmission. There's some decent circumstantial evidence, not the least of which being that this was the epicenter of the outbreak. 

It's an extremely _implausible_ theory that Covid-19 was genetically engineered, and even more implausible that China intentionally released the virus, because it's not clear at all how doing so would actually help them, doubly so now when they've done a worse job protecting their population than essentially any other nation with comparable resources. 

And yet, all over the internet, conspiracy theory types are feeling self-righteous and validated, as the lowercase-l lab leak hypothesis is increasingly held as more plausible, and are saying they were right all along about the uppercase-L Lab Leak hypothesis.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Desantis has had some terrible calls. Like introducing the 15-week abortion ban bill. I am sure there has been a ton of support he has lost because of this. There is no excuse.


The list of Terrible Calls DeSantis Has Made is long enough that believing he would have a ton of support nationally requires some willful optimism. I think he could potentially give Trump (who is losing support in the GOP because he keeps talking about the 2020 election when voters want to move on and talk about inflation and the economy) a run for his money in the primary, but he would have an awfully hard time winning over independents and Democrats even without that abortion ban. He threw a lot of red meat to the GOP party faithful (including that ban), and that's all going to be baggage when it comes time to try to broaden his appeal.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Desantis has had some terrible calls. Like introducing the 15-week abortion ban bill. I am sure there has been a ton of support he has lost because of this. There is no excuse.


I am really intrigued by which people you care about dying


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> I am really intrigued by which people you care about dying


Of course I about saving human life!

That's why I think Desantis should have never proposed a 15-week ban of abortions. Life begins at conception. Anything past that is murder. Abortion should be banned after conception.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Of course I about saving human life!
> 
> That's why I think Desantis should have never proposed a 15-week ban of abortions. Life begins at conception. Anything past that is murder. Abortion should be banned after conception.


But you're also pro-shooting people and pro-covid deaths?


----------



## Glades

StevenC said:


> But you're also pro-shooting people and pro-covid deaths?


Of course not!


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Of course not!


You have said as much in these threads, though. 

You've advocated for legal murder and praised policy that resulted in high deaths from COVID.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Life begins at conception. Anything past that is murder. Abortion should be banned after conception.


I want help, but there is too much science involved for you to be able to handle with your predisposition towards cloud kings.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I've gone into this in depth elsewhere, and probably in this thread. But, really, there are TWO "lab leak scenarios:
> 
> 1) Lowercase-l "lab leak conspiracy." The virus that causes Covid-19 was present in a bat in the Wuhan lab, or in a sample stored in that lab, and via accidental mishandling transmitted to a human being at the lab, and spread from there.
> 2) Uppercase-L "Lab Leak Conspiracy." China was engineering super viruses in their Wuhan lab, and either accidentally or intentionally released them into the human population, at which point they spread from there.
> 
> It should be pretty obvious, but the veracity of the lowercase-l hypothesis doesn't have any impact on the veracity of the uppercase-L hypothesis. Yet, conspiracy theory minded individuals have taken the moderate-but-inconclusive increase of the body of evidence supporting the lowercase-l hypothesis, as providing growing proof of the uppercase-L conspiracy. That makes no sense.
> 
> It's a plausible theory that either a bat in the Wuhan facility, which did study coronaviruses, managed to transmit covid-19 to a human being directly, or a sample of the virus was mishandled and that led to transmission. There's some decent circumstantial evidence, not the least of which being that this was the epicenter of the outbreak.
> 
> It's an extremely _implausible_ theory that Covid-19 was genetically engineered, and even more implausible that China intentionally released the virus, because it's not clear at all how doing so would actually help them, doubly so now when they've done a worse job protecting their population than essentially any other nation with comparable resources.
> 
> And yet, all over the internet, conspiracy theory types are feeling self-righteous and validated, as the lowercase-l lab leak hypothesis is increasingly held as more plausible, and are saying they were right all along about the uppercase-L Lab Leak hypothesis.


A few things that I think might be worth thinking about before going too far down that rabbit hole:

1. There is actually very little evidence that SARS-CoV2 jumped from wild animals to humans; however, there is zero evidence that it was created in a lab. That means that we cannot rule out anything as a possibility. However, there are millions of other possibilities which cannot be ruled out, simply due to lack of evidence. So, that alone means nothing.
2. The WHO was very quick to conclude that it was zoonotic. People see this as fishy. I see it as the WHO being dumb but thinking that they are smart, trying to avoid heating up the political crap between shady China and the shadiest US president in living memory. But when the US president is already concluding that the whole thing is a democrat conspiracy before any evidence can even be considered, it didn't matter if the disease started with a wild bat attacking patient zero on live television and in front of a crowd of girl scouts and grandmothers. These conspiracy theories were bound to fly as soon as a human was infected. Nothing the WHO or CDC or anyone else could have done would have quelled them.
3. I think there's an entire continuum of conspiracy theories in between case 1 and case 2. Just because they get more plausible the closer you get to case one on that continuum doesn't mean that case one is the most plausible answer. I know that you know this, but I still feel like I have to say it out loud for the viewers at home.
4. As silly as this all might seem, and as political as it has all become, I still think it is very important to investigate this the best we can. The world is becoming more connected and more crowded and there is a chance this could happen again. Maybe it's killed less than 7 M of the world's population. But if nastier strains had been more vaccine resistant and had been able to spread more quickly early on through bad luck, we could have been approaching 100 M fatalities by now. Obviously, China will not want anyone poking around in their classified records whether they are guilty of anything or not. And I don't know how to propose to hold China accountable for mishaps, but they already leaked SARS twice (2004 and 2017), so they obviously have a track record.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> I want help, but there is too much science involved for you to be able to handle with your predisposition towards cloud kings.


Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?


That's a meaningless question though. If "life" is the concern, then pulling weeds is also murder. If, on the other hand, you're saying that a zygote should count as a fully-fledged human life in the eyes of the law, then most women should be in jail -- at least half of fertilized ova either don't implant or are later miscarried. Why are you not capable of nuance on this issue?


----------



## ArtDecade

Everyone except @Glades knows we are talking about personhood. Most of us would argue that a zygote is not a human life, but he would probably enjoy talking to one endlessly about all the guns they could have one day.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> A few things that I think might be worth thinking about before going too far down that rabbit hole:
> 
> 1. There is actually very little evidence that SARS-CoV2 jumped from wild animals to humans; however, there is zero evidence that it was created in a lab. That means that we cannot rule out anything as a possibility. However, there are millions of other possibilities which cannot be ruled out, simply due to lack of evidence. So, that alone means nothing.
> 2. The WHO was very quick to conclude that it was zoonotic. People see this as fishy. I see it as the WHO being dumb but thinking that they are smart, trying to avoid heating up the political crap between shady China and the shadiest US president in living memory. But when the US president is already concluding that the whole thing is a democrat conspiracy before any evidence can even be considered, it didn't matter if the disease started with a wild bat attacking patient zero on live television and in front of a crowd of girl scouts and grandmothers. These conspiracy theories were bound to fly as soon as a human was infected. Nothing the WHO or CDC or anyone else could have done would have quelled them.
> 3. I think there's an entire continuum of conspiracy theories in between case 1 and case 2. Just because they get more plausible the closer you get to case one on that continuum doesn't mean that case one is the most plausible answer. I know that you know this, but I still feel like I have to say it out loud for the viewers at home.
> 4. As silly as this all might seem, and as political as it has all become, I still think it is very important to investigate this the best we can. The world is becoming more connected and more crowded and there is a chance this could happen again. Maybe it's killed less than 7 M of the world's population. But if nastier strains had been more vaccine resistant and had been able to spread more quickly early on through bad luck, we could have been approaching 100 M fatalities by now. Obviously, China will not want anyone poking around in their classified records whether they are guilty of anything or not. And I don't know how to propose to hold China accountable for mishaps, but they already leaked SARS twice (2004 and 2017), so they obviously have a track record.


Yeah, I agree with most of this save I guess maybe the first - covid-19 has a very close genetic similarity to known bat-bourne coronaviruses, and the fat that it was likely a bat-bourne virus before it infected humans (in nature, in a poorly-handled captive bat in a lab, or with a poorly handled viral sample in a lab, or even if you want to go down that supervirus rabbithole was a modified bat virus) is the consensus belief with fairly good evidence.

I guess I'd also nitpick that there's probably less grey area between "naturally occurring virus accidentally released from a lab" and "genetically engineered supervirus" simply because the prohibitions against that sort of research are so strong, and the scientific community international enough and internally transparent enough, that it would be extremely hard for that kind of research to have been done in Wuhan and no one knew about it. And, I guess, that particular spectrum doesn't really allow for much grey area - "we only modified this virus an eensy teensy bit, really it was nothing at all" is still editing the genome of a virus, and squarely in Capital-L Lab Leak territory.

On the other hand, there IS still some grey area in the capital-L Lab Leak Conspiracy, I suppose; between the accidental release of a genetically engineered virus and the intentional, say, though the Chinese intentionally releasing a virus they themselves had no way of treating, into their own population, and hoping it would spread overseas does kind of defy belief. It's not technically impossible, but it's hard to see what they could possibly get out of doing so.

But, plenty of credible scientists believe that it's at least plausible the coronavirus was first transmitted to humans at or near (and because of) the Wuhan lab, and I don't know if there are any credible scientists who study infectious diseases who think it's plausible that this was a man-made virus that leaked from the Wuhan lab.


----------



## StevenC

@Glades makes a very strong argument for government sanctioned organ harvestig.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> @Glades makes a very strong argument for government sanctioned organ harvestig.


And also for free Continuing Adult Education classes.... although that was totally unintentional.


----------



## Mathemagician

Multiple religions: actually actively state that personhood/whatever doesn’t begin until birth. Even Christianity explains how to give an abortion in the book of Numbers. 

Fundamentalists: We’ll MY interpretation of religion says it DOES so YOU have to live by MY faith or else god will send ME to hell for not defending my fairy tale hard enough.


----------



## zappatton2

I mean, if you're inclined to believe in a god who sets all things in motion, and you also believe that a fertilized egg has the same value as a person (maybe more, if you're republican), then, considering roughly half on all embryos are expelled naturally before viability, one can only conclude that God is the more prolific abortionist fathomable.


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?


Have you read the study? Of the ~60,000 surveyed biologists who activated the survey, only about about 8% responded with a response to one of the 4 questions, and that was tallied by the survey. That means 92% of the surveyed biologists read the questions and didn't respond.

Life doesn't actually _start_. It flows _through_ people. A fertilized egg or zygote does not always result in a "person" due to MANY biological processes and chance. An estimated 1/3 to 1/2 of all naturally fertilized eggs never attach anywhere in the mother, and are flushed out of the body, for example. The question really is, when does it become a "person" in the eyes of the law?


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> I've gone into this in depth elsewhere, and probably in this thread. But, really, there are TWO "lab leak scenarios:
> 
> 1) Lowercase-l "lab leak conspiracy." The virus that causes Covid-19 was present in a bat in the Wuhan lab, or in a sample stored in that lab, and via accidental mishandling transmitted to a human being at the lab, and spread from there.
> 2) Uppercase-L "Lab Leak Conspiracy." China was engineering super viruses in their Wuhan lab, and either accidentally or intentionally released them into the human population, at which point they spread from there.
> 
> It should be pretty obvious, but the veracity of the lowercase-l hypothesis doesn't have any impact on the veracity of the uppercase-L hypothesis. Yet, conspiracy theory minded individuals have taken the moderate-but-inconclusive increase of the body of evidence supporting the lowercase-l hypothesis, as providing growing proof of the uppercase-L conspiracy. That makes no sense.
> 
> It's a plausible theory that either a bat in the Wuhan facility, which did study coronaviruses, managed to transmit covid-19 to a human being directly, or a sample of the virus was mishandled and that led to transmission. There's some decent circumstantial evidence, not the least of which being that this was the epicenter of the outbreak.
> 
> It's an extremely _implausible_ theory that Covid-19 was genetically engineered, and even more implausible that China intentionally released the virus, because it's not clear at all how doing so would actually help them, doubly so now when they've done a worse job protecting their population than essentially any other nation with comparable resources.
> 
> And yet, all over the internet, conspiracy theory types are feeling self-righteous and validated, as the lowercase-l lab leak hypothesis is increasingly held as more plausible, and are saying they were right all along about the uppercase-L Lab Leak hypothesis.



Easy

Most conspiracy theorists start to get dizzy at the sight of words like "plausible", "veracity", and "circumstantial" in the same general vicinity.

Their ability to somewhat guesstimate the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary is completely insufficient for ranking multiple similar unknown terms by magnitude.


Or, more concisely:
"Circumstantial"? "Plausible"? THE FUCK, WHICH OF THEM MEAN IT TRUE?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> @Glades makes a very strong argument for government sanctioned organ harvestig.



There was a movie where someone got an eye transplant but then she was seeing visions of the last moment of the donor's life and they had been murdered. Imagine seeing visions of Desantis being a strong leader and a good president, or wanting more guns in the US. Frankly I'd rather just stick with the murder visions.


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Easy
> 
> Most conspiracy theorists start to get dizzy at the sight of words like "plausible", "veracity", and "circumstantial" in the same general vicinity.
> 
> Their ability to somewhat guesstimate the meanings of unfamiliar vocabulary is completely insufficient for ranking multiple similar unknown terms by magnitude.
> 
> 
> Or, more concisely:
> "Circumstantial"? "Plausible"? THE FUCK, WHICH OF THEM MEAN IT TRUE?



Yea, covid conspiracy nuts at the inability of scientist to flat-out state dismiss the leak as an impossibility:


----------



## RevDrucifer

Adieu said:


> But WHY?



I thought I already made a post along these lines of explaining why I remain in Florida, maybe it was on another forum. 

I love living in melting pots. For as much shit as Florida gets for being a bunch of rednecks, that’s not what Ft. Lauderdale is like in any way whatsoever. Last I knew, caucasians made up 29% of the population with Latinos and Haitians making up the majority of the rest. There is more culture down here than I’ve experienced anywhere else in the US so far. 

I’ve learned a fuck of a lot more about life from people who weren’t born in this country than anyone born here and it’s fair to say a good amount of my work ethic came from working alongside Brazilians and Haitians and trying to maintain their level of ethic. 

The amount of authentic food I can get my hands on at any given point in the day is so over the top that when I order out, I spend about an hour deciding on what I want to eat. 

And if everyone who voted blue left Florida, bye bye swing state. These bigger cities down here are what keeps the state swinging. 

I’ve almost moved back to New England twice in the last couple of years, there are parts of it I miss, but the small-town mentality is quite strong up there. Even in a city like Boston, well, the whole fuckin’ city is pissy if the Pats of Sox lose a game.  There are aspects of that I love; the close-knit community thing, but that also comes with it’s downsides.

Essentially, when I’ve settled into a relationship, I’m all-too-eager to move back to a slower paced area like New England. When I’m single, I do much better for myself in a place like Ft. Lauderdale for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with this thread.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, I agree with most of this save I guess maybe the first - covid-19 has a very close genetic similarity to known bat-bourne coronaviruses, and the fat that it was likely a bat-bourne virus before it infected humans (in nature, in a poorly-handled captive bat in a lab, or with a poorly handled viral sample in a lab, or even if you want to go down that supervirus rabbithole was a modified bat virus) is the consensus belief with fairly good evidence.
> 
> I guess I'd also nitpick that there's probably less grey area between "naturally occurring virus accidentally released from a lab" and "genetically engineered supervirus" simply because the prohibitions against that sort of research are so strong, and the scientific community international enough and internally transparent enough, that it would be extremely hard for that kind of research to have been done in Wuhan and no one knew about it. And, I guess, that particular spectrum doesn't really allow for much grey area - "we only modified this virus an eensy teensy bit, really it was nothing at all" is still editing the genome of a virus, and squarely in Capital-L Lab Leak territory.
> 
> On the other hand, there IS still some grey area in the capital-L Lab Leak Conspiracy, I suppose; between the accidental release of a genetically engineered virus and the intentional, say, though the Chinese intentionally releasing a virus they themselves had no way of treating, into their own population, and hoping it would spread overseas does kind of defy belief. It's not technically impossible, but it's hard to see what they could possibly get out of doing so.
> 
> But, plenty of credible scientists believe that it's at least plausible the coronavirus was first transmitted to humans at or near (and because of) the Wuhan lab, and I don't know if there are any credible scientists who study infectious diseases who think it's plausible that this was a man-made virus that leaked from the Wuhan lab.


Here's where things get sticky, and it might give conspiracy people the sense that there is some ammo for them, but it all shakes out to nothing but uncertainty.

When you say that SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to bat viruses - the bat virus that is closest is one that hasn't been seen anywhere near Wuhan (the closest being 1600 km away). But there are a *lot* of unidentified bat viruses.  Also, "very close genetic similarity" might sound a bit vague, and is probably misleading. To be clear, every single bat virus investigates so far has been ruled out as a potential ancestor to SARS-CoV-2. But, for emphasis, I'll repeat that there are a shit ton of unidentified bat viruses. So, the case is clearly not "this is fishy, because we keep eliminating possible sources," it's simply a case of "this is extremely complicated and we simply don't know." It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, except all of the hay is painted silver, so you have to poke something with each piece to see if it is the needle. Jumping to the conclusion, after checking 50/>1000000 wisps and finding 0 needles, that the needle was engineered out of top secret materials to self-destruct, just seems batty (if you pardon the pseudo pteropine pun (or artificial anti-phonetic alliteration)).

The reason I brought up the gray area is that genetic modification happens all of the time. Every time a virus infects something, it is likely going to be modified. Viruses modify their envelopes dependent upon their host, incorporate their host's DNA into their own, and mutate randomly based on their surroundings quite rapidly. So, at what point do you call a mutation engineered? I'd say that the sci-fi television world of building a virus from scratch by throwing a bunch of nucleic acid sequences into a computer and then printing a virus with a super-genome is just not at all a thing that happens in real life. And although it's possible to use CRISPR to splice viral genomes together to make a bioweapon, I highly doubt that's really a thing in real life either, at least not resembling anything anyone is thinking when they read that. 

But, if a virus was spliced together for therapeutic reasons, and it went wrong somehow and ended up being a bioweapon, maybe you're on the fringe of possible. If you are doing research and injected the wrong virus into the wrong animal in the wrong environment and it mutated, that's a lot more plausible, but is that "engineered?" I think it's all on a continuum. And I'm saying that the closer on that continuum that you slide toward "not engineered," the more plausible it gets. That's all. I think if you just outright forget everything about genetic engineering you learn from movies and television, it might go without saying. You know, like wheat is genetically engineered grass. Sounds dumb to say out loud, but humans cross-bred different kinds of grass until they made the most worthwhile thing to grow. Without humans, wheat would certainly not exist. But it's not like it was spliced in a lab. But it's not like it's 100% natural, either.

The irony of the last statement is that the virus _is, technically,_ man-made, in that a virus infected a human and that human's cell machinery literally made the virus. But was it made in a lab? There's the scientific answer of "Our clearest indications say no." Did it somehow come from a lab? No idea. And here's the problem of living in the 21st century- no one ever wants to say "I don't know." We get so used to looking up everything on google and then thinking we know the answer because we read something that said so. But there are a lot of things we don't know and probably never will know. I'd say that the exact origin of the virus is one of those things we will almost certainly never know. But so much of the world out there wants to convince themselves that they somehow know. It'd be easier to correctly guess who was Jack the Ripper. In spite of that, our lack of knowledge lends zero credence to whacky conspiracy theories.



Glades said:


> Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?











Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'


Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The



deliverypdf.ssrn.com





There's a link to the paper. I suggest you give it a peek. Might not be the best source for your argument, overall.



Mathemagician said:


> Multiple religions: actually actively state that personhood/whatever doesn’t begin until birth. Even Christianity explains how to give an abortion in the book of Numbers.
> 
> Fundamentalists: We’ll MY interpretation of religion says it DOES so YOU have to live by MY faith or else god will send ME to hell for not defending my fairy tale hard enough.



I think the problem is the conflation of religious scriptures with religious dogma. For example, very little of Christianity is described in the Bible. The general idea that <<the meaning of life is to have to pray to Jesus and metaphorically offer your heart to Him; those who succeed will live forever and those who fail to do so will suffer eternal punishment in hell>> is nowhere in the Bible. It's all formulated from little out-of-context bits of scripture mixed with carryover from other belief systems. That makes it no more nor less valid, though, than any other religious belief.


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> Of course I about saving human life!
> 
> That's why I think Desantis should have never proposed a 15-week ban of abortions. Life begins at conception. Anything past that is murder. Abortion should be banned after conception.



Only a complete moron thinks that life begins at conception and it's been the weak backbone of the conservative argument to ban abortion. Go look at the Merriam Webster definition(s) for life and try to convince me that this clump of cells that doesn't remotely resemble a human qualifies as "life". But, keep being a zombie who only regurgitates what your corrupt church feeds you. The Republican party thanks you for it.


----------



## nightflameauto

Having watched the HBO Carlin two part special over the weekend:
God damn, where is George Carlin when you need him. He summed up the "conservative" thoughts on abortion succinctly nearly thirty years ago and it hasn't changed a bit. Before birth, the fetus should have all the rights. After birth, they don't wanna hear about them. Nothing about school, pre-school, post-natal care, child-rearing, education, feeding, housing, raising, none of that.

"Pre-born, you're cool, pre-school, you're fucked."

In all honesty, the crotchety old man version of Carlin that gave the rants about wanting to see high death tolls during disasters? I'd love to get a full-fledged old-man rant from him about where we are today. Abortion? Trump? January 6th? Covid? Russia? Brexit? Jerrymandering power away from the people? The trend towards violence? Shit. The man would have plenty of material.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> Here's where things get sticky, and it might give conspiracy people the sense that there is some ammo for them, but it all shakes out to nothing but uncertainty.
> 
> When you say that SARS-CoV-2 is very similar to bat viruses - the bat virus that is closest is one that hasn't been seen anywhere near Wuhan (the closest being 1600 km away). But there are a *lot* of unidentified bat viruses.  Also, "very close genetic similarity" might sound a bit vague, and is probably misleading. To be clear, every single bat virus investigates so far has been ruled out as a potential ancestor to SARS-CoV-2. But, for emphasis, I'll repeat that there are a shit ton of unidentified bat viruses. So, the case is clearly not "this is fishy, because we keep eliminating possible sources," it's simply a case of "this is extremely complicated and we simply don't know." It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, except all of the hay is painted silver, so you have to poke something with each piece to see if it is the needle. Jumping to the conclusion, after checking 50/>1000000 wisps and finding 0 needles, that the needle was engineered out of top secret materials to self-destruct, just seems batty (if you pardon the pseudo pteropine pun (or artificial anti-phonetic alliteration)).
> 
> The reason I brought up the gray area is that genetic modification happens all of the time. Every time a virus infects something, it is likely going to be modified. Viruses modify their envelopes dependent upon their host, incorporate their host's DNA into their own, and mutate randomly based on their surroundings quite rapidly. So, at what point do you call a mutation engineered? I'd say that the sci-fi television world of building a virus from scratch by throwing a bunch of nucleic acid sequences into a computer and then printing a virus with a super-genome is just not at all a thing that happens in real life. And although it's possible to use CRISPR to splice viral genomes together to make a bioweapon, I highly doubt that's really a thing in real life either, at least not resembling anything anyone is thinking when they read that.
> 
> But, if a virus was spliced together for therapeutic reasons, and it went wrong somehow and ended up being a bioweapon, maybe you're on the fringe of possible. If you are doing research and injected the wrong virus into the wrong animal in the wrong environment and it mutated, that's a lot more plausible, but is that "engineered?" I think it's all on a continuum. And I'm saying that the closer on that continuum that you slide toward "not engineered," the more plausible it gets. That's all. I think if you just outright forget everything about genetic engineering you learn from movies and television, it might go without saying. You know, like wheat is genetically engineered grass. Sounds dumb to say out loud, but humans cross-bred different kinds of grass until they made the most worthwhile thing to grow. Without humans, wheat would certainly not exist. But it's not like it was spliced in a lab. But it's not like it's 100% natural, either.
> 
> The irony of the last statement is that the virus _is, technically,_ man-made, in that a virus infected a human and that human's cell machinery literally made the virus. But was it made in a lab? There's the scientific answer of "Our clearest indications say no." Did it somehow come from a lab? No idea. And here's the problem of living in the 21st century- no one ever wants to say "I don't know." We get so used to looking up everything on google and then thinking we know the answer because we read something that said so. But there are a lot of things we don't know and probably never will know. I'd say that the exact origin of the virus is one of those things we will almost certainly never know. But so much of the world out there wants to convince themselves that they somehow know. It'd be easier to correctly guess who was Jack the Ripper. In spite of that, our lack of knowledge lends zero credence to whacky conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins'
> 
> 
> Many Americans disagree on ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ because the question is subject to interpretive ambiguity arising from Hume’s is-ought problem. The
> 
> 
> 
> deliverypdf.ssrn.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a link to the paper. I suggest you give it a peek. Might not be the best source for your argument, overall.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the problem is the conflation of religious scriptures with religious dogma. For example, very little of Christianity is described in the Bible. The general idea that <<the meaning of life is to have to pray to Jesus and metaphorically offer your heart to Him; those who succeed will live forever and those who fail to do so will suffer eternal punishment in hell>> is nowhere in the Bible. It's all formulated from little out-of-context bits of scripture mixed with carryover from other belief systems. That makes it no more nor less valid, though, than any other religious belief.



If Wuhan didn't have these "suspicious" labs, how would anyone detect any viruses and how many kilometers away they came from???


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> And although it's possible to use CRISPR to splice viral genomes together to make a bioweapon, I highly doubt that's really a thing in real life either, at least not resembling anything anyone is thinking when they read that.


I'll just hone in on this part - I know people who work in this area. They tell me it's technically possible, but extremely hard to do, and categorically rule out that someone was working in Wuhan and doing this, largely because they don't know anyone working in Wuhan, and if they were, they would.


----------



## Grindspine

DrewH said:


> Only a complete moron thinks that life begins at conception and it's been the weak backbone of the conservative argument to ban abortion. Go look at the Merriam Webster definition(s) for life and try to convince me that this clump of cells that doesn't remotely resemble a human qualifies as "life". But, keep being a zombie who only regurgitates what your corrupt church feeds you. The Republican party thanks you for it.





Glades said:


> Of course I about saving human life!
> 
> That's why I think Desantis should have never proposed a 15-week ban of abortions. Life begins at conception. Anything past that is murder. Abortion should be banned after conception.





Glades said:


> Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?


Is a zygote a "living" ball of cells, as in cellular respiration and chemical reactions are occurring? Sure, but the same could be said of a virus _in vivo_, which is an intracellular parasite. The animal ethicist, Peter Singer, argued that the act of eating clams is an ethically okay act of consuming animal protein. His reasoning was that since clams have no central nervous system, they cannot perceive pain. The same could be said for a zygote or fetus (the not perceiving pain thing, not so much the eating). Arguing that "Life begins at conception" is akin to a child's understanding of "life" in the vaguest possible biological sense. I have worked in medical labs for fifteen years and seen countless tumors that could be considered "alive" with your rational.


Drew said:


> Yeah, I agree with most of this save I guess maybe the first - covid-19 has a very close genetic similarity to known bat-bourne coronaviruses, and the fat that it was likely a bat-bourne virus before it infected humans (in nature, in a poorly-handled captive bat in a lab, or with a poorly handled viral sample in a lab, or even if you want to go down that supervirus rabbithole was a modified bat virus) is the consensus belief with fairly good evidence.
> 
> I guess I'd also nitpick that there's probably less grey area between "naturally occurring virus accidentally released from a lab" and "genetically engineered supervirus" simply because the prohibitions against that sort of research are so strong, and the scientific community international enough and internally transparent enough, that it would be extremely hard for that kind of research to have been done in Wuhan and no one knew about it. And, I guess, that particular spectrum doesn't really allow for much grey area - "we only modified this virus an eensy teensy bit, really it was nothing at all" is still editing the genome of a virus, and squarely in Capital-L Lab Leak territory.
> 
> On the other hand, there IS still some grey area in the capital-L Lab Leak Conspiracy, I suppose; between the accidental release of a genetically engineered virus and the intentional, say, though the Chinese intentionally releasing a virus they themselves had no way of treating, into their own population, and hoping it would spread overseas does kind of defy belief. It's not technically impossible, but it's hard to see what they could possibly get out of doing so.
> 
> But, plenty of credible scientists believe that it's at least plausible the coronavirus was first transmitted to humans at or near (and because of) the Wuhan lab, and I don't know if there are any credible scientists who study infectious diseases who think it's plausible that this was a man-made virus that leaked from the Wuhan lab.


I will just throw the idea here that archaeological evidence indicates that most widespread epidemics started with a commensal virus or bacteria crossing the species barrier. Infectious disease was pretty much non-existent prior to the advent of agricultural lifestyle.


StevenC said:


> @Glades makes a very strong argument for government sanctioned organ harvestig.


Just do not harvest that brain for transplant.


ArtDecade said:


> And also for free Continuing Adult Education classes.... although that was totally unintentional.


So, did you hear about DeVoes (former head of the Dept. of Education) going on record at a conservative event in Florida that the Dept. of Education should be dissolved?


zappatton2 said:


> I mean, if you're inclined to believe in a god who sets all things in motion, and you also believe that a fertilized egg has the same value as a person (maybe more, if you're republican), then, considering roughly half on all embryos are expelled naturally before viability, one can only conclude that God is the more prolific abortionist fathomable.


Yeah, working in a pathology lab, I have seen countless "product of conception" cases, which are essentially miscarriages or non-viable fetuses. The politicians in play have no friggin' clue how to approach biology or medicine. This entire movement for "pro-life" is zealots running with the idea that they actually have any understanding about the world. If there is a god (doubtful), then he aborts human babies, puppies, kittens, all the cute little things, in the most bloody, horrendous ways possible. Anyone who votes pro-life should have to witness POC gross dissection, take care of mentally unstable foster children from a crack-addicted mother, and be forced to see how many abortions really occur (induced or natural) throughout the world every god damned minute of every day.

Between my dual careers (music on the side of a main career in laboratory medicine), I have seen some shit. A lot of it has not been pleasant. But those who have not seen some of what I have seen are pretty ignorant to the complete lack of "intelligent design" that goes into human anatomy.


----------



## Mathemagician

Fundamentalists have already made up their mind beforehand. They work backwards to cherry-pick “support” that doesn’t exist to back their views. 

Nothing a fundamentalist has posted in this thread has been peer-reviewed or backed by science. 

That’s why a conservative talking point is “reality has a liberal bias”. 

It literally amounts to “I cannot find anything that supports what I believe in respected research. But I’m going to believe it anyways.”


----------



## Grindspine

Mathemagician said:


> Fundamentalists have already made up their mind beforehand. They work backwards to cherry-pick “support” that doesn’t exist to back their views.
> 
> Nothing a fundamentalist has posted in this thread has been peer-reviewed or backed by science.
> 
> That’s why a conservative talking point is “reality has a liberal bias”.
> 
> It literally amounts to “I cannot find anything that supports what I believe in respected research. But I’m going to believe it anyways.”


That is true. In some cases, that would even be fine. The problem being that the fundamentalist ideals are spreading like a disease and inflicting oppression on the rest of us who are too enlightened to believe the bullshit.


----------



## Randy




----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization 3.7 million years ago. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?


FTFY.


----------



## profwoot

"Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization 3.7 million *billion* years ago. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?"

FTFY


----------



## nightflameauto

profwoot said:


> "Science? 96% of biologists agree life begins at fertilization 3.7 million *billion* years ago. You know this figure right? Or do you want me to google it for you?"
> 
> FTFY


Thank you. As the consummate 'life' nerd who has spent way too many hours studying the development of life and all the extinction events and repopulation arcs of the Earth for most of my life, that one was gonna eat at me until it was corrected.


----------



## bostjan

D'Oh!


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> D'Oh!


Happens to the best of us, man.

Especially when we're furiously fapping at our keyboards over subjects we're passionate about.

If there were a thread specifically about the Permian / Triassic extinction event, you'd see me dropping fucked up nuggets of half-truths all over the place due to nerdgasm causing my fingers to slip. 

87% permanent species die-off? Fuck yeah, bro. Bring it back! BRING IT BACK!


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Fundamentalists have already made up their mind beforehand. They work backwards to cherry-pick “support” that doesn’t exist to back their views.
> 
> Nothing a fundamentalist has posted in this thread has been peer-reviewed or backed by science.
> 
> That’s why a conservative talking point is “reality has a liberal bias”.
> 
> It literally amounts to “I cannot find anything that supports what I believe in respected research. But I’m going to believe it anyways.”


Is that really a conservative talking point now? I always thought it dated back to Steven Colbert's Correspondents' Dinner speech in the W. era. "The problem with 'facts' is that they're based on 'reality,' and reality has a well-known liberal bias." If conservatives are saying that unironically now, well, that's too rich.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Is that really a conservative talking point now? I always thought it dated back to Steven Colbert's Correspondents' Dinner speech in the W. era. "The problem with 'facts' is that they're based on 'reality,' and reality has a well-known liberal bias." If conservatives are saying that unironically now, well, that's too rich.



We're talking about a world where the "birds are a government conspiracy" joke, meant to poke fun at radicalized idiocy, became a real movement of radicalized idiocy. I wouldn't doubt it's happened.


----------



## Crungy

Mike Judge predicted the future all too well.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Is that really a conservative talking point now? I always thought it dated back to Steven Colbert's Correspondents' Dinner speech in the W. era. "The problem with 'facts' is that they're based on 'reality,' and reality has a well-known liberal bias." If conservatives are saying that unironically now, well, that's too rich.



It's amazing to hear the crowd not laugh at some of those jokes for going too far, like the Katrina joke. What a different time.


----------



## mmr007

Remember you heard it here first....actually that's ambitious of me since I don't know what you hear when I'm not around....but Trump WILL announce that he is running for president which will disrupt the field. Then as it becomes clear that he has popularity but too much baggage to win, he will bow out and enthusiastically support another republican (DeSantis) and will, in return, get a full pardon for EVERYTHING. That is why I believe he will run, to barter a pardon out of getting out of the way.


----------



## tedtan

mmr007 said:


> Remember you heard it here first....actually that's ambitious of me since I don't know what you hear when I'm not around....but Trump WILL announce that he is running for president which will disrupt the field. Then as it becomes clear that he has popularity but too much baggage to win, he will bow out and enthusiastically support another republican (DeSantis) and will, in return, get a full pardon for EVERYTHING. That is why I believe he will run, to barter a pardon out of getting out of the way.


That can only help in federal cases. Hopefully Georgia nails him and someone in New York grows a pair and picks their fraud investigation back up.


----------



## spudmunkey

tedtan said:


> ... and someone in New York grows a pair and picks their fraud investigation back up.


If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the reason the head guy pulled the plug was not because of anything to do with evidence or the laws broken, but that he wasn't sure they had the authority to try a former president? PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I've had bouncing around in my noggin for months.


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the reason the head guy pulled the plug was not because of anything to do with evidence or the laws broken, but that he wasn't sure they had the authority to try a former president? PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's what I've had bouncing around in my noggin for months.


They were going after Trump pretty hard until a new DA was appointed and, once in office, this new DA pretty much dropped the investigation altogether, which leads me to think it was political move rather than a legitimate reason to put the investigation on hold. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Randy

NYS AG been going after Trump hard but he has been able to hide behind appeal after appeal. He's a master of manipulating the court system. 

He was supposed to be deposed in the civil case about the woman who said he raped her, and he went through appeal after appeal to prevent having to testify. After he lost essentially the final case, the judge ordered him to pay $10,000 per day until he finally testified, and he's in the process of appealing that. It's absurd.


----------



## Grindspine

mmr007 said:


> Remember you heard it here first....actually that's ambitious of me since I don't know what you hear when I'm not around....but Trump WILL announce that he is running for president which will disrupt the field. Then as it becomes clear that he has popularity but too much baggage to win, he will bow out and enthusiastically support another republican (DeSantis) and will, in return, get a full pardon for EVERYTHING. That is why I believe he will run, to barter a pardon out of getting out of the way.


So no names or indications of any real person here. If someone is found to have committed treason, and the appropriate punishment were carried out, wouldn't pardons be a non-issue? I mean, some of the punishments listed by the United States House seem pretty final.



https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/[email protected]/part1/chapter115&edition=prelim


----------



## nightflameauto

Amazon to buy primary health-care provider One Medical for roughly $3.9 billion


The deal deepens Amazon's presence in health care, an area that it has expanded by launching an online pharmacy and telehealth services, among other things.




www.cnbc.com





There was also a story earlier this week about Apple wanting to be declared a healthcare company due to its involvement with Apple Watch and the health apps.

Anybody else get a sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach over these massive profit driven behemoths wanting to be so intimately involved in our healthcare? Anybody thinking healthcare isn't utterly fucked in this country should have at least a tiny little pause when they think about the big data collection companies all wanting a piece of the pie.

Because I'm sure shoving Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google into the healthcare situation is going to ultimately make everything more affordable and widely available. Holy fuck.


----------



## MFB

Maybe I have it backwards, but isn't Amazon/Apple entering the health market place also potentially good? Mark Cuban got into the game recently and put a flat cap on prices for I think it was insulin, because he knows it will guarantee $X that comes in and all he has to do is front the cost of starting up the company and he'll make it back quick enough; if more companies see it as a viable marketplace, wouldn't they be competing and driving prices down with each other?


----------



## thebeesknees22

MFB said:


> Maybe I have it backwards, but isn't Amazon/Apple entering the health market place also potentially good? Mark Cuban got into the game recently and put a flat cap on prices for I think it was insulin, because he knows it will guarantee $X that comes in and all he has to do is front the cost of starting up the company and he'll make it back quick enough; if more companies see it as a viable marketplace, wouldn't they be competing and driving prices down with each other?


it depends

there are good monopolies (typically they're Utilities though) on occasion that sometimes have lower prices, and there are bad monopolies that try to gouge people for all their worth.

I suppose only time will tell.

One thing is guaranteed though. They will sell all of your private medical data.


----------



## nightflameauto

MFB said:


> Maybe I have it backwards, but isn't Amazon/Apple entering the health market place also potentially good? Mark Cuban got into the game recently and put a flat cap on prices for I think it was insulin, because he knows it will guarantee $X that comes in and all he has to do is front the cost of starting up the company and he'll make it back quick enough; if more companies see it as a viable marketplace, wouldn't they be competing and driving prices down with each other?


An individual doing something vaguely altruistic to make up for all the millions and millions of dollars they've sucked out of the system? Sure, that could be a good thing.

A profit driven entity looking at a new possible profit center? Nope. Can't see that being good in the long run. And ultimately, Mark's company may end up doing the same shit as everybody else and looking to maximize profit, depending on how he set it up.

And seriously, the data collection / sale is the real motivator here. And not just sales of data, but running that data through algorithmic calculation to try and discover the best potential profit stream, then pushing people to move to that best potential profit stream in the name of "better health?" You *KNOW* that's happening with a company like Amazon at the wheel.


----------



## Crungy

It's like it could be good for the consumer financially but how much more does Apple/Amazon/Walmart need to own us?


----------



## MFB

thebeesknees22 said:


> it depends
> 
> there are good monopolies (typically they're Utilities though) on occasion that sometimes have lower prices, and there are bad monopolies that try to gouge people for all their worth.
> 
> I suppose only time will tell.
> 
> One thing is guaranteed though. They will sell all of your private medical data.





nightflameauto said:


> An individual doing something vaguely altruistic to make up for all the millions and millions of dollars they've sucked out of the system? Sure, that could be a good thing.
> 
> A profit driven entity looking at a new possible profit center? Nope. Can't see that being good in the long run. And ultimately, Mark's company may end up doing the same shit as everybody else and looking to maximize profit, depending on how he set it up.
> 
> And seriously, the data collection / sale is the real motivator here. And not just sales of data, but running that data through algorithmic calculation to try and discover the best potential profit stream, then pushing people to move to that best potential profit stream in the name of "better health?" You *KNOW* that's happening with a company like Amazon at the wheel.





Crungy said:


> It's like it could be good for the consumer financially but how much more does Apple/Amazon/Walmart need to own us?



All valid points, and I guess I'm just desperately trying to find a silver lining given everything else in the past month that's gone down, and I should say it's by no means a ringing endorsement FOR them to do it. Do I know they're doing it with the worst of intentions? Absolutely. Do I _hope_ that as I said, it creates competition for others to try and get into the market and make a lower priced product? Also yes. And if the latter happens, maybe this would be the one that causes people to realize how scummy the two are for trying to nickel and dime you for your legitimate health.


----------



## thebeesknees22

I'm just waiting for the day when they all form into one big giant company, and call themselves The Shinra Corporation


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Not to interrupt but Biden just tested positive for COVID.


----------



## Crungy

thebeesknees22 said:


> I'm just waiting for the day when they all form into one big giant company, and call themselves The Shinra Corporation


I'm more worried about Umbrella Corporation.


----------



## Randy

High Plains Drifter said:


> Not to interrupt but Biden just tested positive for COVID.



President Harris


----------



## Glades

High Plains Drifter said:


> Not to interrupt but Biden just tested positive for COVID.


Oh no! Hopefully the country can stay afloat without him at the helm.
Will we able to sustain the “fastest growing economy in the world” without our Captain?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Glades said:


> Oh no! Hopefully the country can stay afloat without him at the helm.
> Will we able to sustain the “fastest growing economy in the world” without our Captain?


That has nothing to do with my post. His health is a relevant topic as would be any president's. 

Maybe go jerk off to the lord and pray that he dies. Go Christianity!

Man, you're a putz.


----------



## Adieu

Randy said:


> President Harris



Btw, what the hell ever happened to her? Did we put her on ice in a bunker or on a single-digit Air Force # flight for the last few months just in case?


----------



## Glades

High Plains Drifter said:


> That has nothing to do with my post. His health is a relevant topic as would be any president's.
> 
> Maybe go jerk off to the lord and pray that he dies. Go Christianity!
> 
> Man, you're a putz.


I was making a joke.
No need for you to start personally insulting me.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> An individual doing something vaguely altruistic to make up for all the millions and millions of dollars they've sucked out of the system? Sure, that could be a good thing.
> 
> A profit driven entity looking at a new possible profit center? Nope. Can't see that being good in the long run. And ultimately, Mark's company may end up doing the same shit as everybody else and looking to maximize profit, depending on how he set it up.
> 
> And seriously, the data collection / sale is the real motivator here. And not just sales of data, but running that data through algorithmic calculation to try and discover the best potential profit stream, then pushing people to move to that best potential profit stream in the name of "better health?" You *KNOW* that's happening with a company like Amazon at the wheel.


Honestly, healthcare isn't likely to be a major profit center for Amazon, compared to AWS, or Apple, compared to selling iPhones. There's a lot of ways this could go, but I'd almost rather see a company like Amazon accept that they're going to be operating their health care division at a loss, in return for some good PR and tax loss writeoffs to offset cound earnings, than to leave it in the hands of a profit-motivated insurance company focused only on improving their healthcare operating margins to create shareholder value. 

It's an... odd and slightly dystopian future, but I suppose it might be the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> NYS AG been going after Trump hard but he has been able to hide behind appeal after appeal. He's a master of manipulating the court system.
> 
> He was supposed to be deposed in the civil case about the woman who said he raped her, and he went through appeal after appeal to prevent having to testify. After he lost essentially the final case, the judge ordered him to pay $10,000 per day until he finally testified, and he's in the process of appealing that. It's absurd.


Yeah, it's still moving along in the background, and the DA thing ended up mostly being noise, and was talked up a lot by right wing media as proof Trump was innocent, and yet he still got held in contempt of court a couple of weeks ago for failing to turn over requested documents, or even file requesting an extension, until two days AFTER the court-ordered deadline. 

He's stalling. His plan entirely hinges on his erroneous belief he can't be tried for crimes while President, and that he will win in 2024.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Glades said:


> I was making a joke.
> No need for you to start personally insulting me.


In my defense, it's very hard to tell sometimes. But cool... I gotcha. 

And I'll add that sadly, I agree. I'm another one that's really disappointed with Biden as POTUS. I'm still unfortunately in the camp of "better than the alternative" but it is what it is now. Also, I don't joke much about COVID so that kinda struck a nerve. Alright, man... all good.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Honestly, healthcare isn't likely to be a major profit center for Amazon, compared to AWS, or Apple, compared to selling iPhones. There's a lot of ways this could go, but I'd almost rather see a company like Amazon accept that they're going to be operating their health care division at a loss, in return for some good PR and tax loss writeoffs to offset cound earnings, than to leave it in the hands of a profit-motivated insurance company focused only on improving their healthcare operating margins to create shareholder value.
> 
> It's an... odd and slightly dystopian future, but I suppose it might be the lesser of two evils.


Man, I can't imagine seeing Amazon <-> Healthcare and seeing it as a net positive. While I like the thought of it going the way you said, literally everything in Amazon's history points the other direction.

Granted, this may not be a direct profit driver, but you can be damned certain the data-collection will be a future profit driver. Whether that's intended or not up front is sorta beside the point.


----------



## Mathemagician

MFB said:


> Maybe I have it backwards, but isn't Amazon/Apple entering the health market place also potentially good? Mark Cuban got into the game recently and put a flat cap on prices for I think it was insulin, because he knows it will guarantee $X that comes in and all he has to do is front the cost of starting up the company and he'll make it back quick enough; if more companies see it as a viable marketplace, wouldn't they be competing and driving prices down with each other?



A handful of companies all looking at the same data and working to figure out how to maximize profit just leads to things like our current healthcare system. Or the telecom industry and how Verizon/ATT offer identical plans and rates for everything. 




thebeesknees22 said:


> it depends
> 
> there are good monopolies (typically they're Utilities though) on occasion that sometimes have lower prices, and there are bad monopolies that try to gouge people for all their worth.
> 
> I suppose only time will tell.
> 
> One thing is guaranteed though. They will sell all of your private medical data.



Those are heavily regulated industries. It’s why an unregulated energy market like Texas pays more on average than a regulated energy market like FL and other similar states. 

It’s marketed as “freedom of choice/smaller government” but it artificially increases profits of industries selling a necessity. 

Access to power to turn in the light and do homework and to water to clean yourself is a basic necessity to live in a society. Much like healthcare _should_ be. 

So when you don’t heavily regulate and cap expenses you get examples like the US healthcare system and our telecom pricing. 

Instead of like our energy costs (in most states where it’s regulated and our systems don’t freeze/overheat because they are up to code.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> Oh no! Hopefully the country can stay afloat without him at the helm.
> Will we able to sustain the “fastest growing economy in the world” without our Captain?


Plans to continue to grow the economy can proceed while President Biden is in the hospital just like plans to overthrow the government could continue while then-president Trump was in the hospital. I fully believe that the Nasdaq can fluctuate on factors more important than the president having a runny nose


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Granted, this may not be a direct profit driver, but you can be damned certain the data-collection will be a future profit driver. Whether that's intended or not up front is sorta beside the point.


I'm posting half tongue in cheek above there, but if i focus on the more serious half for a moment, two thoughts here: 

1) Who would you rather be doing that data collection and analysis, Amazon or your current insurer? It's going to happen regardless. 
2) There are two main ways to boost profits - increase prices while holding expenses constant, or decrease expenses while holding prices constant. Of the two, it's a lot easier to do the latter since you're not going to have to depend on the consumer's willingness to absorb higher prices, and there's a TON of room in the current healthcare system to reduce expense by using a more data driven approach to determine, say, what tests are truly effective and necessary, and which aren't (right now, doctors have no incentive NOT to order unnecessary tests, and quite a few TO do so, not the least of which that compensation is tied to procedures and not outcomes, and it's a pretty good way to protect yourself from malpractice lawsuits by ordering a bunch of extremely low probability/not clinically indicated tests just in case someone sues you down the road for one of those not clinicallty indicated/unlikely outcomes).

It's an insanely inefficient system with some really perverse and wasteful incentives. I was definitely joking above, but at the same time if we transitioned US healthcare into an innately data-driven world, that honestly wouldn't be the worst thing.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I'm posting half tongue in cheek above there, but if i focus on the more serious half for a moment, two thoughts here:
> 
> 1) Who would you rather be doing that data collection and analysis, Amazon or your current insurer? It's going to happen regardless.
> 2) There are two main ways to boost profits - increase prices while holding expenses constant, or decrease expenses while holding prices constant. Of the two, it's a lot easier to do the latter since you're not going to have to depend on the consumer's willingness to absorb higher prices, and there's a TON of room in the current healthcare system to reduce expense by using a more data driven approach to determine, say, what tests are truly effective and necessary, and which aren't (right now, doctors have no incentive NOT to order unnecessary tests, and quite a few TO do so, not the least of which that compensation is tied to procedures and not outcomes, and it's a pretty good way to protect yourself from malpractice lawsuits by ordering a bunch of extremely low probability/not clinically indicated tests just in case someone sues you down the road for one of those not clinicallty indicated/unlikely outcomes).
> 
> It's an insanely inefficient system with some really perverse and wasteful incentives. I was definitely joking above, but at the same time if we transitioned US healthcare into an innately data-driven world, that honestly wouldn't be the worst thing.


As an IT dude, I'd love to believe that's true.

The problem is when you've got the big tech crunchers involved, you absolutely know the other big money will get wrapped up in it. Who is the other big money when it comes to healthcare now? Insurers and pharma. If only Amazon could own stakes in both! MAXIMIZE THE MAXIMIZE FUNCTIONS YO!

Like the Sanford insurance our company uses that locks employees into only going to Sanford providers, yet totes aren't at all in cahoots to raise prices year over year at all. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. Can't wait until Amazon and Sanford team up to lower our costs even further! I already can't afford insurance. Maybe they'll make it so even mentioning that I can't afford insurance costs me too!


----------



## StevenC

"Freedom"







From what?


----------



## thebeesknees22

StevenC said:


> "Freedom"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what?


sooo.. The Republican Taliban is still acting like the Republican Taliban. 

No surprise there!


----------



## StevenC

thebeesknees22 said:


> sooo.. The Republican Taliban is still acting like the Republican Taliban.
> 
> No surprise there!


I just don't understand how there can be support among any western population for this. I live in a very religiously fundamental* place and I just can't fathom anyone suggesting banning contraception.

*for reference, abortion only became legal here TWO YEARS AGO after our government set a record for not being able to function, and we still don't have abortion services yet


----------



## spudmunkey

StevenC said:


> "Freedom"
> 
> 
> From what?



The freedom of not-yet-born Patriots from being murdered by the radical left. /s

Their issue is that this particular bill, while mentioning condoms or birth control pills which prevent fertilization in the first place, they say that including those is just scare tactics because they they are really targeting, is that they are also "sneaking in" "abortion pills" (aka emergency contraception) and IUDs (many of which don't target fertilization, but instead target the attachment of a fertilized egg...nevermind the fact that 30-50% of these eggs get passed naturally anyway, that doesn't matter).


----------



## Crungy

StevenC said:


> "Freedom"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what?


Intelligence, compassion, health... I think there's some others I'm forgetting


----------



## Glades

I read HR8373 and I can see where some of the concerns arise on the ambiguous vocabulary in the bill. It was introduced on the house floor this week and hastily pushed through without a committee to review and discuss. Maybe if they would have put a bit more bipartisan effort to draft it it would have passed more cleanly. In its current state it will never pass the Senate. It seems the majority of Republicans are not against contraception, but it’s some of the other concerns that had so many vote against. I wonder why Dems decided to rush it, and not get a bipartisan bill drafted instead.


----------



## SpaceDock

We totes need to compromise with the Talibangelists about our rights to bodily autonomy and reproduction.


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> I read HR8373 and I can see where some of the concerns arise on the ambiguous vocabulary in the bill. It was introduced on the house floor this week and hastily pushed through without a committee to review and discuss. Maybe if they would have put a bit more bipartisan effort to draft it it would have passed more cleanly.




_More_ cleanly? This was one of the most bi-bartisain bill passages of the entire session. Heck, it's only 4 votes shy of the house vote to impeach Trump the 2nd time.





I'll bite. What in it is disagreeable, and would have been taken out to appeas Republicans but wouldn't have discounted the entire purpose of the bill? [edit: I've now watched two congresspeople defend their "nay" vote in interview clips on the YouTubez, and so far none of their arguments are logical, much less coherent]




> I wonder why Dems decided to rush it, and not get a bipartisan bill drafted instead.



To slam on the brakes of the states attempting to pass their own laws restricting this access as we speak.


----------



## narad

Probably should have just let it get struck down, then dems would sweep the mid-terms by galvanizing women against the republican party.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

narad said:


> Probably should have just let it get struck down, then dems would sweep the mid-terms by galvanizing women against the republican party.


That'd be a hard sell for the dems considering how they insist on matching the reps in nominating old white guys.


----------



## narad

Carrion Rocket said:


> That'd be a hard sell for the dems considering how they insist on matching the reps in nominating old white guys.



Even if that were true, according to the distribution on votes for that contraception bill, at least they're not voting like old white guys who want to control women's reproductive systems (which is what is going to piss off that demographic).


----------



## Randy

And so it begins


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Randy said:


> And so it begins
> 
> View attachment 111168




Why does nobody ever not charge interest because of the Bible. What a joke.


----------



## nightflameauto

Dunno if anyone else is paying attention at all, but the hearing last night was actually . . . let's say entertaining, since nobody that didn't already believe is going to have their mind changed. But damn, Trump's behind the scenes temper tantrums over being told to say the vote is counted and over were very toddler like. Reminded me of when my dad would drink too much and start throwing fits about when his brother hooked his foot up to a dragster magneto and spun it to 'test it out' when they were kids.

And hearing the secret service detail assigned to Pence talking about calling loved ones to say goodbye was just heartbreaking.

And still I have zero faith anything will come of it. If that man ever gets nominated by one of the two main parties again, we should all be shot. Fuck it. It was a decentish run. We just can't seem to escape our own stupid to continue to progress.


----------



## Mathemagician

Dineley said:


> Why does nobody ever not charge interest because of the Bible. What a joke.



Several religions don’t. People have still found a way around it. Fundamentalists cherry pick what they think will/won’t affect their chances to get into heaven.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I read HR8373 and I can see where some of the concerns arise on the ambiguous vocabulary in the bill. It was introduced on the house floor this week and hastily pushed through without a committee to review and discuss. Maybe if they would have put a bit more bipartisan effort to draft it it would have passed more cleanly. In its current state it will never pass the Senate. It seems the majority of Republicans are not against contraception, but it’s some of the other concerns that had so many vote against. I wonder why Dems decided to rush it, and not get a bipartisan bill drafted instead.


I'm gonna have to second @spudmunkey here - GOP opposition can be summed up best byCathy McMorris Rogers' (R, but you knew that) response that "this bill is a trojan horse for more abortions." The GOP opposed it precisely because it WAS pretty clear in the way it protected access to contraception, including Plan-B contraception. 

This is an all out assault on the rights of women, and the GOP isn't even pretending to give a shit anymore.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Several religions don’t. People have still found a way around it. Fundamentalists cherry pick what they think will/won’t affect their chances to get into heaven.


Say "Islamic finance" as a conservative American and prepare to get primaried. And yet...


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> As an IT dude, I'd love to believe that's true.
> 
> The problem is when you've got the big tech crunchers involved, you absolutely know the other big money will get wrapped up in it. Who is the other big money when it comes to healthcare now? Insurers and pharma. If only Amazon could own stakes in both! MAXIMIZE THE MAXIMIZE FUNCTIONS YO!
> 
> Like the Sanford insurance our company uses that locks employees into only going to Sanford providers, yet totes aren't at all in cahoots to raise prices year over year at all. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. Can't wait until Amazon and Sanford team up to lower our costs even further! I already can't afford insurance. Maybe they'll make it so even mentioning that I can't afford insurance costs me too!


Eh... I mean, one of my favorite factoids about Amazon which I've alluded to a little obliquely here is that what we know them for - an online shopping mall, basically - is not a profit center, and that for much of the company's history they've lost money on selling stuff, with Prime membership's embedded shipping costs being a large contributor. The reason they as a firm are now profitable has everything to do with their cloud computing business. 

As a consumer of, well, buying stuff, this should concern me, because they're trading an operating loss for market share. As a consumer of healthcare, we s_hould be so fortunate _if they were to do the same thing.


----------



## Glades

This is the kind of bipartisan bill I can get behind:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6678

HR6678- Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act of 2022

Now we need one with term limits for our legislators.
​


----------



## MFB

...I want to disagree but I'm actually on-board (in name only, not having read the full details) with that and yes - term limits to legislators; I'd also an age limit to legislators as well, I'm tired of old bags determining a future they won't be alive for.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> Say "Islamic finance" as a conservative American and prepare to get primaried. And yet...



Same thing with “Religious Values” strategies. As soon as you say that the exclusions follow the Arch diocese of the Catholic Church the fundies get all bug-eyed. 

It’s exactly what the person just asked for, but it is tangentially linked to Catholicism versus whatever sect of Protestantism they claim to follow. So now “exclude tobacco/guns” gets politicized. 

Even if 5 minutes earlier they would have been very happy to exclude those two same things. 

The hard part is clearly dileanating what is and isn’t excluded as everyone’s version of faith is different. 

Sharia working the same way. Some say “I don’t want interest income” others say “even owning bank stock as banks make their money through lending is a no-go”. Others still will proportionally carve off an estimate of interest earned gains versus other, etc. 

Regardless of religion they all want the same basic stuff, with slight tweaks. 

But ESG is a swear word. Even though it’s baseline factors within EU investment management.


----------



## mmr007

I did the unthinkable (for me) and put on Fox News Sunday since I saw that Liz Cheney was on. I fully expect that she will lose Wyoming and that she is definitely positioning herself for 2024 and while I sincerely doubt I would agree with her on anything policy wise...her dedication to ridding the world of Trump, Trumpism, election fraud conspiracy theories and yet displaying seemingly unwavering dedication to the constitution and the rule of law, she maybe exactly what we need to return the republican party to "some" normalcy and more center oriented and less fringe which can't be a bad thing overall.


----------



## Adieu

Take a moment and realize that we're at a point when we're considering a DICK CHENEY OFFSPRING as a potential force for good. And that she probably actually is.

Goddamn.

This is somehow reminding me of when Ahmadinejad and the frikkin Taliban were tweeting to condemn Putler's war on Ukraine.

What does this say about the Republican Party today???


----------



## Adieu

Even a product of Penis Cheney's Dick is still somehow better than trumpist maggots.

Well, shit...


----------



## spudmunkey

Your regularly-scheduled reminder/reality checkl that she also voted alongside Trump's agenda more than Mark Meadows, Gym Jordan, and Mo Brooks.


----------



## mmr007

And yet she also voted to impeach him. I will never be a Cheney fan for her politics. I will be her biggest supporter because she seems to value democracy at a time when republicans want to do away with it. She will lose the Wyoming representative election but she won't cry foul or rigged election. I may not value her politics but she is fighting for my right to vote against her and to have that vote count.

Also can we please remember that she represents a state with more nazi cowboys than any other state other than maybe Idaho. She is going to vote right of hard right for her constituents. Manchin is a democrat but won't do a single thing a normal democrat does. I think if Cheney represented the US and not just white separatist Wyoming she might soften her stance.


----------



## gunch

It's all maneuvering to improve her own career


----------



## Randy

gunch said:


> It's all maneuvering to improve her own career



If what she's doing gains her traction in the Republican Party, that's a good sign.


----------



## spudmunkey

If I was a bettin' man, I'd put money on a Pence/Cheney 2024 ticket.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

If people's opinion is that Liz has taken on this role only to advance her career or that people should still at this time in our history dismiss her presence as vice chair of the House Committee because she has in the past aligned with trump's agenda, I would hope for the sake of any tattered remains of democracy in this country, that they would at the very least consider that she made a decision to do what is right and what is necessary to "hold the line" of democracy... so to speak. 

I'm as skeptical as anyone when it comes to politics, the swamp, the GOP, and democrats as well... But when I listen to Liz... when I watch her... her mannerisms, her expressions... and I listen to her words, and I hear her tone... I see a woman that is FED THE FUCK UP with what has happened over the course of trump's end of days in the White House into his plan to overturn the election. And I see a woman that is equally disgusted by the deplorable actions/ in-actions of those that had a hand in hatching this plan to destroy this country and by those constituents who have sat in silence. 

She speaks with integrity and composure and I don't think for a minute that she is being anything but sincere. Her past decisions, ethics, etc doesn't even come into play here... at least not in my opinion. People do reach points in their lives where their priorities change, where they have epiphanies, where they compromise, where they make a stand. And regardless whether any of this applies to her, she has taken responsibility to save whatever democracy might ever still exist in this country... at least in the context of her role in the J6 Committee. 

Liz Cheney may not represent some of my values but she's representing all US citizens currently and for that, I have a great deal of respect for her. Anyone that feels she's full of bullshit or is only doing what she is to advance her career, I'd have to strongly disagree. And if anything, this is not helping her career in the least.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

She's just sacrificing her podunk Wyoming Rep. spot in a low stakes, public inquiry attacking her political competition to set herself up for a bigger national spot, and if she does the math right she could secure a spot on either side. 

She's Dick Cheney's daughter. Political subterfuge for self gain is in her blood. 

Is she better than a lot of the extreme right? Yeah, I can get along with that, but only in comparison to those wackos.


----------



## Glades

If Trump runs in 2024, he will get the nomination. Polls show that Trump is by a long shot the favorite candidate for the GOP. If he doesn’t run it will be Desantis. No other candidate has a chance in 2024. Cruz, Pence, Cheney are all polling at less than 1%. Trump is at 74%.

It would be crazy for Trump not to run. The current failures of this dem administration, the incoming recession, soaring inflation and gas prices, crisis at the border, foreign policy. Its a disaster: It’s all setting up Trump for a slam dunk.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> If Trump runs in 2024, he will get the nomination. Polls show that Trump is by a long shot the favorite candidate for the GOP. If he doesn’t run it will be Desantis. No other candidate has a chance in 2024. Cruz, Pence, Cheney are all polling at less than 1%. Trump is at 74%.
> 
> It would be crazy for Trump not to run. The current failures of this dem administration, the incoming recession, soaring inflation and gas prices, crisis at the border, foreign policy. Its a disaster: It’s all setting up Trump for a slam dunk.


You're delusional. If Trump runs he will lose...again because Rudy and the pillow guy still haven't rid our country of the communist rigged voting machines. That's a thing...remember?


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> You're delusional. If Trump runs he will lose...again because Rudy and the pillow guy still haven't rid our country of the communist rigged voting machines. That's a thing...remember?


You live in California and have that perspective because that’s what you are surrounded with. But I’m telling you, where I’m from I have never seen as much fervor for Trump as I do know. And I live in a blue county. I see MAGA flags daily. It’s brewing. Just saying.


----------



## mmr007

I don't doubt what you see, I just don't think you understand it the way you think. What you see is weather. What I see is climate. Trump is finished nationally. I don't doubt many republicans would still gladly sniff his farts, but they won't vote for him even if they love him because they can do the math.

Biden WILL NOT run again. He cannot announce right now because he can't have 2+ years of being a lame duck president. He is hoping abortion rights will propel dems to keep senate and house. He will bow out officially by next spring.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> If Trump runs in 2024, he will get the nomination. Polls show that Trump is by a long shot the favorite candidate for the GOP. If he doesn’t run it will be Desantis. No other candidate has a chance in 2024. Cruz, Pence, Cheney are all polling at less than 1%. Trump is at 74%.



You have any citations for these numbers?


----------



## mmr007

narad said:


> You have any citations for these numbers?


probably the same source that pillow guy referenced when he said 300 million people voted illegally


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> If Trump runs in 2024, he will get the nomination. Polls show that Trump is by a long shot the favorite candidate for the GOP. If he doesn’t run it will be Desantis. No other candidate has a chance in 2024. Cruz, Pence, Cheney are all polling at less than 1%. Trump is at 74%.
> 
> It would be crazy for Trump not to run. The current failures of this dem administration, the incoming recession, soaring inflation and gas prices, crisis at the border, foreign policy. Its a disaster: It’s all setting up Trump for a slam dunk.



What crisis at the border???


----------



## mmr007

Adieu said:


> What crisis at the border???


Put the lotion on the Fox talking point or it gets the hose again


----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> If Trump runs in 2024, he will get the nomination. Polls show that Trump is by a long shot the favorite candidate for the GOP. If he doesn’t run it will be Desantis. No other candidate has a chance in 2024. Cruz, Pence, Cheney are all polling at less than 1%. Trump is at 74%.
> 
> It would be crazy for Trump not to run. The current failures of this dem administration, the incoming recession, soaring inflation and gas prices, crisis at the border, foreign policy. Its a disaster: It’s all setting up Trump for a slam dunk.






narad said:


> You have any citations for these numbers?



The most recent national polling I’ve seen is indicating that half of republicans are ready to move on to someone new rather than keep looking backwards to Trump. And that number looks to be increasing as we get further away from Jan 6, 2020.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> The most recent national polling I’ve seen is indicating that half of republicans are ready to move on to someone new rather than keep looking backwards to Trump. And that number looks to be increasing as we get further away from Jan 6, 2020.



Yea, I haven't seen anything even remotely in the vicinity of what that guy was saying.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> The most recent national polling I’ve seen is indicating that half of republicans are ready to move on to someone new rather than keep looking backwards to Trump. And that number looks to be increasing as we get further away from Jan 6, 2020.


I mean, in 2014, there were virtually no polls that considered that Trump would win the GOP nom, then, in 2016, the vast majority of polls showed HRC winning the election, sometimes with a high degree of confidence. Yet, here we are.

Not that that leads to any confidence in what @Glades is saying, but only that there is apparently little matter in what any polls say anyway.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> I mean, in 2014, there were virtually no polls that considered that Trump would win the GOP nom, then, in 2016, the vast majority of polls showed HRC winning the election, sometimes with a high degree of confidence. Yet, here we are.
> 
> Not that that leads to any confidence in what @Glades is saying, but only that there is apparently little matter in what any polls say anyway.



Poll results are near meaningless projections, but taking a pulse of what positions get traction today is of value yes. I think the polls generally have some degree of accuracy but attitudes shift VERY fast. 

Biden wasn't favored in the Democratic primary midway through, but the field looked so rudderless that he surged into the front when people started getting nervous there wasn't a clear #1. The polls weren't necessarily conclusive it was going this way if you followed them day by day, but the attitudes of Democratic voters and the concerns about who matched up best against Trump _were _pretty well tracked.

As far as the rise of Trump, I can't say I predicted it but some people I followed did and I also noted he was kind of a prototypical Republicans (rich white man, boomer with no filter or political correctness, no scruples or empathy). The surprise was the fact that "bigger tent" Republican-ism (like Marco, Jeb and some extent Cruz promoted) felt like it was the wave of the future, but I think Trump seized on the center-right malaise (hatred?) of the black guy with the African last name from the simmering WASP base. There were enough Republicans that wanted to revolt against the previous 8-years, but also wanted to revolt against the gays and brown people invading their party. 

The particularly unexpected part (for me) was that the minorities in the party fell in line behind Trump so far, despite the fact he was basically advocating culture to purge them. Had a little bit of the vibe of kissing up to the bully so he'll start picking on someone else instead of you, or currying favor from him counts as abject approval.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I mean, in 2014, there were virtually no polls that considered that Trump would win the GOP nom, then, in 2016, the vast majority of polls showed HRC winning the election, sometimes with a high degree of confidence. Yet, here we are.
> 
> Not that that leads to any confidence in what @Glades is saying, but only that there is apparently little matter in what any polls say anyway.


Polls involving Trump do seem to be a bit less reliable than polls in general, but I’ve heard this from a few sources so there may be something to it. And the overturning of the Roe v Wade ruling does seem like it would turn some percentage of women against the GOP in the short term, so that may explain part of the poll results. Plus, Trump looks pretty bad on the Jan 6th Committee hearings, so that may be a factor, as well.


----------



## Glades

Trafalgar Group poll from yesterday has Trump at 78.7%. Also if you look at the GOP primary records, Trump-endorsed candidates are winning big time vs RINO candidates.

I’m not vouching for the guy. I would rather vote Desantis. I’m just saying don’t count Trump out. His support is still considerable. And no, nobody except the left is paying attention to the J6 kangaroo court.


----------



## jco5055

Glades said:


> Trafalgar Group poll from yesterday has Trump at 78.7%. Also if you look at the GOP primary records, Trump-endorsed candidates are winning big time vs RINO candidates.
> 
> I’m not vouching for the guy. I would rather vote Desantis. I’m just saying don’t count Trump out. His support is still considerable. And no, nobody except the left is paying attention to the J6 kangaroo court.



For the millionth time, I can't take you or any right winger seriously if you think Biden and co = the left. The only people who care about the J6 hearing are liberals who also thought the Comey hearings would result in anything actually happening.


----------



## mmr007

There are some major problems with that poll question because it is slanted towards appealing to likely Trump voters by asking “if Trump runs again…”. That will tell you how likely the Trump core is to remain loyal (once they get out of jail for conspiracy to overthrow). Plus Trafalgar dates all the way back to 2016 so lets not be too enamored with their short term accuracy.


----------



## zappatton2

Speaking as a non-American, the whole world is watching January 6th hearings. America's allies are watching in horror, not just at how close a governing American party came at subverting democracy itself, but at how willing a huge section of America is to let them, just to validate their ignorance, theocratic absolutism and outright hatred of "leftists"(lol), ethnic minorities, gay people and women.

You may think it's all about savoring those "liberal tears", but to quote Jello Biafra, "in the real Fourth Reich, you'll be the first to go".


----------



## Randy

Non Trump candidates are RINOs by default?


----------



## nightflameauto

God damn. Desantis would be like if Trump grew a fuckin' brain stem. All the backstabbing, conniving and shittery, with just enough brain power to know when to curtail it for the cameras and the party.

I dunno, man. Why not just toss MTG up there? Let's fire this shit up. "You thought Trump was bad? Hold my fuckin' beer, newblets!"


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Every single group of upper middle class white tourist that comes through the fancy hotel bar I work in love to talk to other groups of upper middle class white tourists about how they are a "silent majority" of Trump supporters, and they all love to Pat each other on the backs about what great people they are and how they have good hearts and they're just salt of the Earth human beings.

It's really funny to me because they are all operating off of the same script, different groups of people on different days saying the same exact stupid shit. It's hard to be a "silent majority" when you're talking all the fucking time

edit: That, or it's well-meaning white ladies who tell me they used to work in public education but now they're a certified Reiki healer or what the fuck ever that pays way more money


----------



## zappatton2

wheresthefbomb said:


> That, or it's well-meaning white ladies who tell me they used to work in public education but now they're a certified Reiki healer or what the fuck ever that pays way more money


Land of the Grift, home of the Chumps.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

zappatton2 said:


> Land of the Grift, home of the Chumps.



it's all about the hustle, and in this case the hustle is getting money from Yoga moms. I haven't done it in a little while due to Covid and various other issues, but I will absolutely be coming for that Yoga lady money when my friend and I get back to doing soundscape yoga workshops. Yes Karen, I am decalcifying your pineal gland, now give me money.


----------



## mastapimp

Glades said:


> You live in California and have that perspective because that’s what you are surrounded with. But I’m telling you, where I’m from I have never seen as much fervor for Trump as I do know. And I live in a blue county. I see MAGA flags daily. It’s brewing. Just saying.


I also live in a blue county in FL and that's not the case. I might see a trump bumper sticker or sign once a week in the city. When you go out of town, especially on podunk county roads, is where you'll find the giant Trump signs, often with Pence scratched out or a confederate flag nearby. Do you think Trump will be a sure bet now that Rupert Murdoch wants to move on to somebody else? NYPost is dumping him, Fox News might be next.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> You live in California and have that perspective because that’s what you are surrounded with. But I’m telling you, where I’m from I have never seen as much fervor for Trump as I do know. And I live in a blue county. I see MAGA flags daily. It’s brewing. Just saying.


I live in a red county in Northern Colorado and after the election lots of Trump flags stayed up. After Jan 6th about half of those were gone. Now there is only one left, the last few holdouts and LGB flags came down after the Jan 6 committee hearings. 

The reason Trump won against Hil was that she was politically damaged but he was an “outsider” like Repubs love. He lost 2020 because they literally had no platform except a cult of personality. While I could very well see Trump winning the GOP primary, he will lose any election because independents just won’t vote for him again and the people you call Rinos are the majority of registered Republicans.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> God damn. Desantis would be like if Trump grew a fuckin' brain stem. All the backstabbing, conniving and shittery, with just enough brain power to know when to curtail it for the cameras and the party.
> 
> I dunno, man. Why not just toss MTG up there? Let's fire this shit up. "You thought Trump was bad? Hold my fuckin' beer, newblets!"


Not even if he runs with Kristi Noem as VP? You being from SD must love her.


----------



## nightflameauto

FUCK KRISTI NOEM IN HER FUGLY SMELLY FACE.

Good god do I hate that rights stomping piece of shit.

(P.S. Yes I've met her. Yes she stinks.)


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Not even if he runs with Kristi Noem as VP? You being from SD must love her.



With arms like hers I figured the right-wingers would consider her the second coming of Caitlynn Jenner


----------



## Mathemagician

Randy said:


> Non Trump candidates are RINOs by default?



A Cheney is being billed as a RINO. 

A Cheney. 

I can’t even explain that to other people. It’s just….wow. I’ve heard people shit-talk McCain with similar bullet points. The war-hero lifelong patriot, being disparaged by people who claim to be “the most patriotic people”. 

Can patriotism have Pharisees?


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Non Trump candidates are RINOs by default?



Jesus, so much this. Apparently there are two things that need to be true for many of these people being labelled "RINO":
1) One man and his supporters are the only "true" republicans
2) The entirety of the rest of the party, many of them voting the same way and along party lines for decades, and many of these voted for policies are right along Trump's own agenda...are all not _real_ republicans because of the simple fact that they don't believe he won his election.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> FUCK KRISTI NOEM IN HER FUGLY SMELLY FACE.
> 
> Good god do I hate that rights stomping piece of shit.
> 
> (P.S. Yes I've met her. Yes she stinks.)



Most liek Kristi NoMa'am


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Most liek Kristi NoMa'am


Al Bundy nods sagely.

Though in all honesty, I don't care that she's female. I car that she sucks. Literally every single policy she has is the absolute opposite of logical, rational, and / or ethical. So fuck her.

Actually, don't. That smell screams regret.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, in 2014, there were virtually no polls that considered that Trump would win the GOP nom, then, in 2016, the vast majority of polls showed HRC winning the election, sometimes with a high degree of confidence. Yet, here we are.
> 
> Not that that leads to any confidence in what @Glades is saying, but only that there is apparently little matter in what any polls say anyway.


Not to nitpick or re-argue 2016, but the polls were actually pretty good at projecting the _popular_ vote, and Clinton's share of the popular vote was right about where polling suggested it would be. I think there was a lot of confusion about this in the political commentator community, that there was just this assumption that popular vote = electoral vote = control of the White House. 

It's easy to forget with hindsight, but I remember Nate Silver taking a LOT of heat for the fact that in the run up to 2016 he showed Trump's probability of winning in the 25-33% range while everyone else had him <1%, and his final editorial piece, titled something like "Trump is only a normal-sized polling error from winning" was considered deludedly paranoid by much of the political press, because he WAS looking at state-level data and extrapolating the electoral vote that way, while most political commentators were doing some combination of looking first at Clinton's healthy popular vote lead, and then to the dumpster fire that was the Trump campaign, and assuming he had no chance in hell. Turns out the polling data was pretty good, it's just the popular vote doesn't matter much, and the state level votes were accurate within their expected margin of error but the outcome being skewed to Trump outperfoming was enough for him to carry the three necessary states by a combined 80,000 votes. 

Meanwhile, to unabasedly nitpick, what Trafalgar is showing in that poll is not what @tedtan is saying, @Glades. Trafalgar is giving a hypothetical head-to-head, and is saying that if this was the primary ballot and it was held today, then Trump would win the vote. What the poll Tedtan referenced was saying, however, is that a majority of Republicans would prefer that Trump _wasn't_ on the ballot in the first place. The former is pretty typical for high-name-recognition candidates, and while a one-term president being out of office and running for a second term is certainly unusual, that's about what you'd probably expect to see; the most known candidate, the former president, is the default choice for the majority of voters. What tedtan's poll suggests though is that the GOP isn't really happy about this, and that if they could they would rather have _someone else_ on the ticket. They just don't know who yet. 

I'm not sure how many other recent paralells to this exact pattern I could find, but off the top of my head, this is probably a lot like polling looked like for Clinton coming into 2008 - highest name recognition so she did the best in head-to-head "if you had to vote for someone" polling, but fairly weak on favorability or "do you think Clinton should run" in 2008. That's not a great precedent for Trump, really. 

I definitely think he's at this point still the most likely candidate, if he 1) doesn't die, 2) can stay out of jail or 3) the courts... but I also think this is a scenario primed for someone to upset him, if they can get above a certain critical mass.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Not to nitpick or re-argue 2016, but the polls were actually pretty good at projecting the _popular_ vote, and Clinton's share of the popular vote was right about where polling suggested it would be. I think there was a lot of confusion about this in the political commentator community, that there was just this assumption that popular vote = electoral vote = control of the White House.
> 
> It's easy to forget with hindsight, but I remember Nate Silver taking a LOT of heat for the fact that in the run up to 2016 he showed Trump's probability of winning in the 25-33% range while everyone else had him <1%, and his final editorial piece, titled something like "Trump is only a normal-sized polling error from winning" was considered deludedly paranoid by much of the political press, because he WAS looking at state-level data and extrapolating the electoral vote that way, while most political commentators were doing some combination of looking first at Clinton's healthy popular vote lead, and then to the dumpster fire that was the Trump campaign, and assuming he had no chance in hell. Turns out the polling data was pretty good, it's just the popular vote doesn't matter much, and the state level votes were accurate within their expected margin of error but the outcome being skewed to Trump outperfoming was enough for him to carry the three necessary states by a combined 80,000 votes.
> 
> Meanwhile, to unabasedly nitpick, what Trafalgar is showing in that poll is not what @tedtan is saying, @Glades. Trafalgar is giving a hypothetical head-to-head, and is saying that if this was the primary ballot and it was held today, then Trump would win the vote. What the poll Tedtan referenced was saying, however, is that a majority of Republicans would prefer that Trump _wasn't_ on the ballot in the first place. The former is pretty typical for high-name-recognition candidates, and while a one-term president being out of office and running for a second term is certainly unusual, that's about what you'd probably expect to see; the most known candidate, the former president, is the default choice for the majority of voters. What tedtan's poll suggests though is that the GOP isn't really happy about this, and that if they could they would rather have _someone else_ on the ticket. They just don't know who yet.
> 
> I'm not sure how many other recent paralells to this exact pattern I could find, but off the top of my head, this is probably a lot like polling looked like for Clinton coming into 2008 - highest name recognition so she did the best in head-to-head "if you had to vote for someone" polling, but fairly weak on favorability or "do you think Clinton should run" in 2008. That's not a great precedent for Trump, really.
> 
> I definitely think he's at this point still the most likely candidate, if he 1) doesn't die, 2) can stay out of jail or 3) the courts... but I also think this is a scenario primed for someone to upset him, if they can get above a certain critical mass.


Well, I don't think anyone running the polls in 2016 was shortsighted enough to think of it at such a reduced level to ignore the role of battleground states. State-by-state polls showed Clinton winning in states like PA, MI, and WI, and those polls were pretty consistent (very few showed Trump winning any of those three states, yet he won all three in the only poll that actually mattered). For example, out of dozens of major polling groups, only two showed Trump winning in Michigan - Trafalgar, and Ipsos, with Ipsos only having Trump leading by <1% for a couple weeks in September only to fall behind again. So, a lot of people predicted Trump ought to have <20% chance of winning MI, with similar sorts of circumstances for PA and WI, too.

But a 70% confidence level, even in politics, isn't any sort of a guarantee. But as people get more polarized and less likely to participate in polls honestly, polls mean less and less - which is my point. These weren't bad polls, they just predicted incorrectly based on potentially bad data. I mean, if I predicted three contests A, B, and C to all have the same outcome with a confidence level of 84%, 80%, and 77%, yes, my confidence that all three are correct is only 52%, but my confidence that at least one of those three outcomes was predicted correctly is over 99%. And yet Trump won all three states in 2016. I'm not saying that that's how it worked for the entire election, because, obviously, there are tons of other states, but, if you isolate those three, which were honestly just the three biggest upsets, well, it's shocking for a reason, because no one saw it coming in the polls. So, safe to say, that the polls weren't just wrong, but they were wrong multiple times, sometimes in spite of somewhat strong levels of confidence, but, more importantly, they were wrong with consistent bias as to how they were wrong. TL;DR - the polls were essentially worthless in 2016.

So, if someone submits one poll or two polls or even a dozen polls that all say that X is going to be the next nominee for Y party, I don't care.  Whatever the case is for the polls, the question is less easily predictable, more complex, and more easily worded to bias the results than anything we say in the home stretch of the 2016 election...

It seems like we generally agree that Trump is going to be, by default, the 2024 nominee, unless there is a paradigm shift between now and next year's autumn. As much as I'd love to see another McCain vs Obama, where I could have been happy with either candidate, or even another Romney vs Obama, where I could have only been moderately annoyed by the outcome, I think that the default is going to be Trump vs Biden, Round Two, unless something significant occurs to make that less likely.

And it wouldn't even be historic. Rematches have happened several times in our nation's history. Stevenson ran against Eisenhower twice, and lost both times. William Jennings Bryan ran against McKinley twice, and Taft once, and lost all three. Henry Clay ran against virtually everyone for president, and, well, there was never a president Clay. William Henry Harrison ran against Martin van Buren and lost, then ran against him again and won. Jackson, John Quincy Adams, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson - all ran multiple times against the same opponent and both lost and won. So, as much as we all dread it, it looks (at least right now) like 2024 is going to be Biden vs Trump. I do highly doubt Pence will share a ticket with Trump again, but who knows. I suppose if Trump finds a particularly exciting running mate, it could up his chances.


----------



## Randy

Talking spicy


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, safe to say, that the polls weren't just wrong, but they were wrong multiple times, sometimes in spite of somewhat strong levels of confidence, but, more importantly, they were wrong with consistent bias as to how they were wrong. TL;DR - the polls were essentially worthless in 2016.


I mean, the longer version, I'll just defer to Nate Silver here, but polling in 2016 was pretty normal by historical standards: 









The Polls Are All Right


With the 2018 midterm elections approaching, we’ve updated FiveThirtyEight’s pollster ratings for the first time since the 2016 presidential primaries. Based on…




fivethirtyeight.com





To your first point there, though, I think that's actually pretty important, and a large part of why a lot of commentators got it wrong - frankly, the assumption that polling errors should show no serial correlation - a miss to the right in Michigan should neither increase nor decrease the liklihood of a miss to the right in Pennsylvania - is not a very realistic assumption. Polls, by the same polling agencies, across a series of states with similar demographics probably _should_ miss in consistent directions. That could be based on polling agency choices - likely voter models, for example - but it could be due to a whole bunch of other non-methodological reasons; changes in response rates by demographic group, "shy voter" issues, late breaking decisions on voters motivated by similar issues, etc. These are pretty normal, predictable, expected reasons for polls to skew a bit one way or a bit another when random sampling large groups of voters across states with similar demographics. I'm reasonably sure that one of the reasons FiveThirtyEight was giving Trump a 25-33% chance of winning when The New York Times or The Economist's models were pointing to more like 1% was that Fivethirtyeight DID assume some serial correlation was in play whereas the other models did not, and the liklihood of Trump overperforming on one state would increase the liklihood of his ouperforoming in another similar state, and I'm reasonably sure Fivethirtyeight has tweaked their model since to assume an even greater degree of serial correlation. 

Either way - polling was fairly typical, this was mostly a miss in analysis and interpretation than in polling.


----------



## nightflameauto

Senate finally passes a $280 billion bill boosting chip manufacturing


The Senate passage of the chip subsidy package paves the way for a House vote this week. President Biden has indicated support for returning chip manufacturing to the U.S.




www.protocol.com





Wonder if the money will have any actual hand-tying or if it just gets funneled directly into stock buy-backs and executive bonuses while the companies continue to off-shore so they can ask for another hand-out to do what they promised next voting cycle?

Cynicism isn't even rising at this point. It broke the needle years ago on this type of bullshit.


----------



## bostjan

Let me relate this to an anecdote. Say you have a part that needs to go into another thing. The part is specified as 8 mm thick ± 1 mm. The space it fits into is 10 mm thick ± 1 mm. The engineer says it should fit. You buy the part and it doesn't fit all the way in. You measure the part and it's exactly 8.9 mm thick. You measure the gap and it's 9.1 mm wide. The parts are all to spec. But the missing bit of data was in the interpretation. Even though the gap is bigger than the part that needs to fit inside of it, it's not completely straight - there is a tiny curve that means that the part would have to be 8.8 mm to clear it.

So, you can wiggle a little logic and say that the parts were all to spec and say that technically, the engineer was even still correct, you could wiggle logically around and say that the spec was right. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to a binary outcome, either the part fit or did not fit.

Likewise, I don't really think any one poll was wrong, but, as a whole, the polls, which predicted that Clinton would win, taking into account all sorts of different wrenches that could have been thrown into the data, were wrong. The fact that it was multiple wrenches and misunderstandings doesn't make the polls on average right, though, especially when we haven't effectively adjusted our methods to interpret those poll data.


----------



## mastapimp

Randy said:


> Talking spicy
> 
> View attachment 111525


My dick, been there done that
Your dick sits there with dunce cap


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> Let me relate this to an anecdote. Say you have a part that needs to go into another thing. The part is specified as 8 mm thick ± 1 mm. The space it fits into is 10 mm thick ± 1 mm. The engineer says it should fit. You buy the part and it doesn't fit all the way in. You measure the part and it's exactly 8.9 mm thick. You measure the gap and it's 9.1 mm wide. The parts are all to spec. But the missing bit of data was in the interpretation. Even though the gap is bigger than the part that needs to fit inside of it, it's not completely straight - there is a tiny curve that means that the part would have to be 8.8 mm to clear it.
> 
> So, you can wiggle a little logic and say that the parts were all to spec and say that technically, the engineer was even still correct, you could wiggle logically around and say that the spec was right. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to a binary outcome, either the part fit or did not fit.
> 
> Likewise, I don't really think any one poll was wrong, but, as a whole, the polls, which predicted that Clinton would win, taking into account all sorts of different wrenches that could have been thrown into the data, were wrong. The fact that it was multiple wrenches and misunderstandings doesn't make the polls on average right, though, especially when we haven't effectively adjusted our methods to interpret those poll data.


I think you're arguing more than actually disagreeing. Polls are just data, and those data led most commentators and analysts to the "wrong" conclusion. But Comey's meddling only days before the election probably did swing it, or at least plausibly accounts for is perceived as the polling "error", which again, wasn't unusually large -- even if the announcement of an FBI investigation into Clinton right before the election had zero effect on it, which, come on. Seriously, just read this:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

I think a lot of people are just bitter because they put their trust in people who told them Trump would definitely lose and they feel betrayed or something. Anyone who'd been reading 538 knew Trump had a real shot even before the Comey Letter. (Nate Silver went a little crazy during the pandemic, so not necessarily vouching for him now.)


----------



## Mathemagician

mastapimp said:


> My dick, been there done that
> Your dick sits there with dunce cap



Dicke titten


----------



## Carrion Rocket

MFB said:


> With arms like hers I figured the right-wingers would consider her the second coming of Caitlynn Jenner


I think they burnt themselves out after 8 years of Michelle Obama.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Likewise, I don't really think any one poll was wrong, but, as a whole, the polls, *which predicted that Clinton would win*, taking into account all sorts of different wrenches that could have been thrown into the data, were wrong.


First, I think @profwoot is right here and we're disagreeing by less than we think. 

But, the bolded bit is the crux of where we are disagreeing. 

The polls DIDN'T predict that Clinton would win. For that to have been the case, it would have had to be a situation like Obama/Romney 2012, maybe, where state-level polling data showed Obama leading Romney outside the margin of error in enough state level polls to secure an electoral college win, which put another way means that within the embedded probability of those margins of errors the polls WERE predicting Obama would win. 

In 2016, that wasn't the case. The polls were saying that Clinton was leading Trump... but not outside of the margin of error of the polling, at the state level, meaning that the poll could have accurately identified the specified confidence range of outcomes (i.e - statistically speaking, was "accurate,") but that there were outcomes within that range that still entailed a Trump win. 38 used an 80% probability range, and Trump had winning outcomes in a LOT of states, including some he did eventually lose, that fell within that 80% margin of error. 

So, a strictly literal reading of polling data would be that the margin of error, and resulting uncertainty of the "sample" polling values around the underlying "true" population polling values (which are unknowable, but we estimate based on a sampling methodology) contained a range of outcomes but there were more outcomes where Clinton won than Trump. But that's well short of "predicting" anything - it merely states that our sample-based estimations of candidates' support favor Clinton over Trump, but not by such a large amount that we can't rule out random sampling noise as having swayed our sample relative to the true support across the whole population we're trying to assess. 

I suspect none of this is really new or confusing to you, because you DO seem like you have a good grasp of statistical analysis. But, it's extremely important to reiterate, that polling data is often summarized as a single statistic - "Clinton leads Trump, 52-48%" - but those summarized numbers obscure a range of uncertainty that can be REALLY important, and a more comprehensive version of that statement is more like "Clinton's support is estimated at being between 56% and 48% with a median of 52%, and Trump's support is estimated at being between 52% and 44% with a median of 48%, and we can say with 95% confidence that the outcome will fall within this range." And, while with this polling data no one would really push back if you argued that it was _more likely_ that Clinton would win a majority than Trump, there's also a whole range of outcomes entirely consistent with Trump having majority support. 

So, that's what I'm getting at - this was an error of interpretation. A whole lot of people, for a _whole_ lot of reasons, ignored the fact that polling is an estimation and includes a range of uncertainty, and at the state level that range was high enough that Trump could still carry a state while falling within the margin of error in the poll. 

If it makes more sense to phrase it this way, saying "the polling missed the outcome in 2016" is another way of saying "the outcome we got was outside of the confidence interval of the polling." It wasn't.


----------



## Drew

profwoot said:


> I think you're arguing more than actually disagreeing. Polls are just data, and those data led most commentators and analysts to the "wrong" conclusion. But Comey's meddling only days before the election probably did swing it, or at least plausibly accounts for is perceived as the polling "error", which again, wasn't unusually large -- even if the announcement of an FBI investigation into Clinton right before the election had zero effect on it, which, come on. Seriously, just read this:
> 
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
> 
> I think a lot of people are just bitter because they put their trust in people who told them Trump would definitely lose and they feel betrayed or something. Anyone who'd been reading 538 knew Trump had a real shot even before the Comey Letter. (Nate Silver went a little crazy during the pandemic, so not necessarily vouching for him now.)


I personally agree with this, for what it's worth - we were still polling at a point where a Trump win was within the confidence interval of the polling before the release of the Comey letter, but it DID cause a lot of late-deciding voters to break for Trump, which was not the kind of thing you could account for in polling for it happened. "October surprise," etc.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> First, I think @profwoot is right here and we're disagreeing by less than we think.
> 
> But, the bolded bit is the crux of where we are disagreeing.
> 
> The polls DIDN'T predict that Clinton would win. For that to have been the case, it would have had to be a situation like Obama/Romney 2012, maybe, where state-level polling data showed Obama leading Romney outside the margin of error in enough state level polls to secure an electoral college win, which put another way means that within the embedded probability of those margins of errors the polls WERE predicting Obama would win.
> 
> In 2016, that wasn't the case. The polls were saying that Clinton was leading Trump... but not outside of the margin of error of the polling, at the state level, meaning that the poll could have accurately identified the specified confidence range of outcomes (i.e - statistically speaking, was "accurate,") but that there were outcomes within that range that still entailed a Trump win. 38 used an 80% probability range, and Trump had winning outcomes in a LOT of states, including some he did eventually lose, that fell within that 80% margin of error.
> 
> So, a strictly literal reading of polling data would be that the margin of error, and resulting uncertainty of the "sample" polling values around the underlying "true" population polling values (which are unknowable, but we estimate based on a sampling methodology) contained a range of outcomes but there were more outcomes where Clinton won than Trump. But that's well short of "predicting" anything - it merely states that our sample-based estimations of candidates' support favor Clinton over Trump, but not by such a large amount that we can't rule out random sampling noise as having swayed our sample relative to the true support across the whole population we're trying to assess.
> 
> I suspect none of this is really new or confusing to you, because you DO seem like you have a good grasp of statistical analysis. But, it's extremely important to reiterate, that polling data is often summarized as a single statistic - "Clinton leads Trump, 52-48%" - but those summarized numbers obscure a range of uncertainty that can be REALLY important, and a more comprehensive version of that statement is more like "Clinton's support is estimated at being between 56% and 48% with a median of 52%, and Trump's support is estimated at being between 52% and 44% with a median of 48%, and we can say with 95% confidence that the outcome will fall within this range." And, while with this polling data no one would really push back if you argued that it was _more likely_ that Clinton would win a majority than Trump, there's also a whole range of outcomes entirely consistent with Trump having majority support.
> 
> So, that's what I'm getting at - this was an error of interpretation. A whole lot of people, for a _whole_ lot of reasons, ignored the fact that polling is an estimation and includes a range of uncertainty, and at the state level that range was high enough that Trump could still carry a state while falling within the margin of error in the poll.
> 
> If it makes more sense to phrase it this way, saying "the polling missed the outcome in 2016" is another way of saying "the outcome we got was outside of the confidence interval of the polling." It wasn't.


Maybe we could take a step back.

The context of my initial point was what polls say about Trump becoming the 2024 candidate.

I think you and I both know fairly well about the craziness that was 2016 polls. There _were _polls that put the margin of error near zero, but the most trusted polls obviously all had nonzero uncertainty.

Statistic with uncertainty do pretty well when it comes to continuous measurement, like 3.7 ± 0.4 meters or 316 ± 7 kg or whatever. When you are talking about a discrete and binary outcome to a yes/no question that occurs exactly once and then never again, there is only whether or not the predicted outcome happens. So "We are 75% confident that Clinton will win the election" it ultimately meaningless once the outcome is known. It's not like Clinton can win ± 25% or we can repeat the election 9 more times and see if Clinton wins approximately 7 of those repeated elections.

But, I think, in the context of whether or not we can trust polls that say whether or not Trump will be the GOP nominee in 2024, we cannot trust them.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Maybe we could take a step back.
> 
> The context of my initial point was what polls say about Trump becoming the 2024 candidate.
> 
> I think you and I both know fairly well about the craziness that was 2016 polls. There _were _polls that put the margin of error near zero, but the most trusted polls obviously all had nonzero uncertainty.
> 
> Statistic with uncertainty do pretty well when it comes to continuous measurement, like 3.7 ± 0.4 meters or 316 ± 7 kg or whatever. When you are talking about a discrete and binary outcome to a yes/no question that occurs exactly once and then never again, there is only whether or not the predicted outcome happens. So "We are 75% confident that Clinton will win the election" it ultimately meaningless once the outcome is known. It's not like Clinton can win ± 25% or we can repeat the election 9 more times and see if Clinton wins approximately 7 of those repeated elections.
> 
> But, I think, in the context of whether or not we can trust polls that say whether or not Trump will be the GOP nominee in 2024, we cannot trust them.


I think we ARE a lot closer to being in agreement, then. 

The polls didn't "say" anyone was going to win, but indicated that public support for each candidate likely fell within a certain range, the midpoints of that range favored Clinton over Trump, but there was no special reason to expect the midpoint to be the final outcome, even if a lot of casual observers did just that. Sound like a fair description? 

The bigger problem with 2024 polling is, well, that's a long way out.  Polls convey some useful information about the state of the pre-race now, but don't tell us much about what will happen in two years. And, my personal interpretation of current polling showing Trump's support for 2024 very likely covers less than half the electorate, is that this is a scenario primed for a surprise, for someone else to come in and suck up support for a Trump who voters still like what he stood for, but think it's time to shut up about 2020 and instead talk about what you might do in 2024. That's my _personal_ interpretation of polling where Trump still does fairly well in head to head matchups but less well in terms of overall voter enthusiasm.


----------



## spudmunkey

So...which party is going to have their electorate more split by the "Forward" party (which...is it on purpose that it's the Wisconsin state motto?)?


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> So...which party is going to have their electorate more split by the "Forward" party (which...is it on purpose that it's the Wisconsin state motto?)?


Wait, what?


----------



## JSanta

Drew said:


> Wait, what?











Former Republicans and Democrats form new third U.S. political party


Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials announced on Wednesday a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America's dysfunctional two-party system.




www.reuters.com


----------



## Glades

Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.


----------



## spudmunkey

Glades said:


> Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.


You're assuming two things:
1) the people who voted for "the muppet" don't still think it'd actually have been worse if Trump were the current president, especially considering how much the rest of the globe is also in recession.
2) we're not just in the "acceptance" state of grief for who the D candidate ended up being in 2020 in the first place, and that some things he's gotten done were exceedingly important.

edit: actually 3 things:
3) That we "worry" about Trump for some other reason less than an existential threat to the nation.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.



I used to not vote at all, I still sympathize with a lot of the arguments against it, but decided to vote this time around for personal reasons. 

I didn't vote for Biden. I voted for "not Trump," and I'll do it again. So, I didn't vote "the muppet" in so much as vote "the racist cheeto" out. From that perspective I'm completely satisfied with my choices and their consequences which I gather is a fairly rare sentiment among voters. 

It's all about perspective and expectations.


----------



## nightflameauto

JSanta said:


> Former Republicans and Democrats form new third U.S. political party
> 
> 
> Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials announced on Wednesday a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America's dysfunctional two-party system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


Torn between facepalm and running into a brick wall hard enough to put me in a coma.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> What the poll Tedtan referenced was saying, however, is that a majority of Republicans would prefer that Trump _wasn't_ on the ballot in the first place. The former is pretty typical for high-name-recognition candidates, and while a one-term president being out of office and running for a second term is certainly unusual, that's about what you'd probably expect to see; the most known candidate, the former president, is the default choice for the majority of voters. What tedtan's poll suggests though is that the GOP isn't really happy about this, and that if they could they would rather have _someone else_ on the ticket. They just don't know who yet.


This is what I was getting at - many republicans are ready to ditch Trump, and with the election over two years out, there is still time for someone with a massage and money to come along and trump Trump’s name recognition.

Unfortunately, it looks like DeSantis is the front runner to do that at this point; hopefully that changes between now and 2024.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.


Right… Biden caused the global recession….. those Canadians and Chinese should have voted for Trump bro.


----------



## StevenC

spudmunkey said:


> You're assuming two things:
> 1) the people who voted for "the muppet" don't still think it'd actually have been worse if Trump were the current president, especially considering how much the rest of the globe is also in recession.


You're acting like people who vote for Republicans know like there's a rest of the world


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I don't know how productive it is to try to reason with someone that supports the traumatizing and death of women and young girls, the manipulation and brainwashing of children, and the oppression of human rights. These christian extremists replace logic with fascist fantasy. They are just that toxic and pathetic. And I'm not trolling nor levying personal insults upon anyone. They have made it very clear what they stand for.


----------



## SpaceDock

Brutal but true


----------



## Glades

High Plains Drifter said:


> I don't know how productive it is to try to reason with someone that supports the traumatizing and death of women and young girls, the manipulation and brainwashing of children, and the oppression of human rights. These christian extremists replace logic with fascist fantasy. They are just that toxic and pathetic. And I'm not trolling nor levying personal insults upon anyone. They have made it very clear what they stand for.



One day you’ll start doing some thinking for yourself and stop acting like an NPC.

Oh, sorry … beep boop, racist, homophobic, Black Lives Matter, fascist, beep boop


----------



## philkilla

I just wanna know what amphetamines President Biden was on during his most recent press conference.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> One day you’ll start doing some thinking for yourself and stop acting like an NPC.
> 
> Oh, sorry … beep boop, racist, homophobic, Black Lives Matter, fascist, beep boop



Beep boop, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, beep boop.


----------



## TedEH

SpaceDock said:


> those Canadians and Chinese should have voted for Trump bro


You say that jokingly, but there's a (potentially?) shocking number of Trump flags around here.



Glades said:


> acting like an NPC


Lol are you 12? I've only ever heard someone describe someone as an "NPC" with any amount of seriousness in those garbage tiktoks where teens harass people in public for "not getting it" while not realizing there's no "it" to "get".


----------



## Randy

The fuck is this guy on about?

“You know, the first year we were able to, with the Rescue Plan, we were able to send them a check for eight grand,”









Biden: Americans ‘so down’ about economy due to inflation, lack of $8K checks


The annual inflation rate of 9.1% in June was the worst since 1981 and effectively eliminated the average wage gains of US workers.




nypost.com


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> The fuck is this guy on about?
> 
> “You know, the first year we were able to, with the Rescue Plan, we were able to send them a check for eight grand,”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden: Americans ‘so down’ about economy due to inflation, lack of $8K checks
> 
> 
> The annual inflation rate of 9.1% in June was the worst since 1981 and effectively eliminated the average wage gains of US workers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com


It's OK. Our $8k checks are being summed up and handed to tech giants that have off-shored manufacturing over the last few decades on the day-dream promise of bringing manufacturing back to the states. I'm sure, like always, that it'll trickle-down.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Would anyone here who knows more than I do (pretty much everybody here except a couple glaring examples) like to give their take on the news of cooperation with SK Korea and Samsung to bring semiconductor manufacturing to the US? After the last administration pulled out of the TPP leaving China to continue to suck up the resources that will be necessary to be viable with no back up plan but trade wars it seems this might be a huge step. We all know what would happen if China takes Taiwan, the main supplier of semiconductors currently.
I am also afraid of corps using the money for stock buybacks instead of putting it into production, but I see this as possibly the biggest win for the Biden administration in many different ways. I'm not as smart as you guys. What am I missing?


----------



## bostjan

Certain things China has a monopoly over - magnets, antibiotics, semiconductors, etc., and the vast majority of them don't really make sense to be stuck that way. But semiconductors probably can't be manufactured anywhere there are strict environmental laws, just because the process of making them tends to be much cheaper when it pollutes. Right now there is a pretty severe circuit shortage. *If *the USA could manage to get a good production going on circuit boards, as well as the IC's and other components necessary to populate those boards, it could be great for the economy right now. But: a) if we achieved the board manufacturing, or the component manufacturing, but not both, it will do nothing to help, and b) chances are that the shortage will fix itself anyway once Chinese factories get back into gear, meaning that the usefulness of the move has a limited lifespan (probably of months or maybe two years - probably less time than it would take to get this into effect anyway).


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Certain things China has a monopoly over - magnets, antibiotics, semiconductors, etc., and the vast majority of them don't really make sense to be stuck that way. But semiconductors probably can't be manufactured anywhere there are strict environmental laws, just because the process of making them tends to be much cheaper when it pollutes. Right now there is a pretty severe circuit shortage. *If *the USA could manage to get a good production going on circuit boards, as well as the IC's and other components necessary to populate those boards, it could be great for the economy right now. But: a) if we achieved the board manufacturing, or the component manufacturing, but not both, it will do nothing to help, and b) chances are that the shortage will fix itself anyway once Chinese factories get back into gear, meaning that the usefulness of the move has a limited lifespan (probably of months or maybe two years - probably less time than it would take to get this into effect anyway).


The real win is not being dependent on China. Otherwise, if we end up at war with China, we could end up in a situation similar to where Russia is now wherein as we use up our existing stockpile of missiles, etc., we’re fucked because we cannot access the materials necessary to build replacements.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

tedtan said:


> The real win is not being dependent on China. Otherwise, if we end up at war with China, we could end up in a situation similar to where Russia is now wherein as we use up our existing stockpile of missiles, etc., we’re fucked because we cannot access the materials necessary to build replacements.


Exactly. Much more comfortable building our relationship with S Korea/Korean companies that have better capability than we do at least to build a stockpile to use in case of emergency.
It's telling that it so difficult to get American companies to invest in technology that was invented in the US. Remember flat screen displays, anyone?


----------



## bostjan

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Exactly. Much more comfortable building our relationship with S Korea/Korean companies that have better capability than we do at least to build a stockpile to use in case of emergency.
> It's telling that it so difficult to get American companies to invest in technology that was invented in the US. Remember flat screen displays, anyone?


The USA, or, for that matter, the West in general, would be pretty well f*cked if there was hot war with China. Every little bit of independence would help, but we are a long, long way from reaching the point where life as we know it could continue without imports and exports between ourselves and the nations that are either named China or would be named China in the event of an all-out war. But, (luckily, I guess?), China is more-or-less in a similar situation, where they'd have to make some pretty major adjustments, which would be highly uncomfortable, in the event that trade with the West suddenly stopped. It's like a co-dependent relationship where both partners are constantly assholes to each other. Unfortunately, though, relationships like that seldom ever end without making a giant mess. I guess we just hope that the tension continues to wax and wane without reaching a head.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Glades said:


> One day you’ll start doing some thinking for yourself and stop acting like an NPC.
> 
> Oh, sorry … beep boop, racist, homophobic, Black Lives Matter, fascist, beep boop


Aww... I'm going to thank you in advance as you will surely be praying for my soul next Sunday in church... Me being a lost wayward lamb who has strayed from the flock and all of that. Knowing that you are a caring and devout Christian crusader, I'm sure you want nothing more than for me to be saved. I feel truly blessed to have you looking out for my eternal salvation. 

Although... I fail to see where anything that I said isn't true. Surely you've already seen factual reports of a young girl in Ohio, stripped of her privacy and emotional well-being after being raped and forced to seek an abortion in another state... that would have never happened had it not been for the Christian extremist beliefs of our SCOTUS. And surely you've seen reports of a woman not only traumatized, but her physical health severely compromised as a result of abortive restrictions here in Texas... that would have never happened had it not been for the Christian extremist beliefs of our SCOTUS. 

And what of the complications and hazards that inevitably arise from denying a woman the right to choose what happens to her body and her health, potentially leading to her death? This has already been argued and justified by far-right Christians as prioritizing the development of an undeveloped fetus over the health of the expectant mother. Certainly the common subservient woman and her silly mental and physical health deserve absolutely no consideration here. Probably some Jezebel anyway... amirite?

And surely it isn't in the least bit harmful to a young child's undeveloped mind, to be threatened via intimidating Bible passages week after week... drilled into their mind, that Mommy and Daddy will burn in Hell if they don't submit to the play-book of the Great One... and that they must seek forgiveness for all their sinful indiscretions... expecting a child to process all of that even before possessing the means or capabilities to understand much of anything about the world around them. Because worshiping is a healthy thing for children to do and there has never been the least bit of harm that has ever come from such a thing.

And thankfully there are no accounts throughout our history, that place Christianity at the center of any killings, wars, mutilation, or suffering. I mean... Thank God for that, of course. Whoops... I'm sorry... silly me... Thank YOUR God for that! There can be only one true God out of the dozens of religions and entities assumed to exist or "You'll burn in Hell". Good moral, healthy stuff right there!

And certainly there is nothing fanatical or unhealthy about serving a loving yet highly vengeful spirit that no one has ever actually seen or heard... because 'miracles' not 'science' account for so much that happens in the world.

Anyway... I'm a pretty old guy so not even sure what an NPC is. But for the sake of satisfying my curiosity, I'm gonna go with "Not Probably Christian". And if my assumption about that title is correct, then I'd have to give you credit... I'm definitely about as un-christian as they come. I'll get there though... as long as I have your prayers to guide me into the light. 

Thanks, brother. I know you got my back!


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The USA, or, for that matter, the West in general, would be pretty well f*cked if there was hot war with China. Every little bit of independence would help, but we are a long, long way from reaching the point where life as we know it could continue without imports and exports between ourselves and the nations that are either named China or would be named China in the event of an all-out war. But, (luckily, I guess?), China is more-or-less in a similar situation, where they'd have to make some pretty major adjustments, which would be highly uncomfortable, in the event that trade with the West suddenly stopped. It's like a co-dependent relationship where both partners are constantly assholes to each other. Unfortunately, though, relationships like that seldom ever end without making a giant mess. I guess we just hope that the tension continues to wax and wane without reaching a head.


I mean, to be fair we've just seen what a cold war with Russia will do to us; war with any even reasonably major global power, hot or cold, gets messy fast with respect to what it'll do yo our economy.


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Right… Biden caused the global recession….. those Canadians and Chinese should have voted for Trump bro.


Let's not forget the entire EU.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

It should surprise no one here that NPC is a meme that originated on 4Chan.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, to be fair we've just seen what a cold war with Russia will do to us; war with any even reasonably major global power, hot or cold, gets messy fast with respect to what it'll do yo our economy.


That's fair. Maybe a good portion of the USA's economic troubles between WWII and the fall of the USSR were tied to ill-fated proxy wars and trade wars not directly related to the cold war, but everything is somehow connected anyway.


----------



## Grindspine

I ran across a video describing the tactics of fascism in media. I do not think that there is a better place to leave it than here. This is not citing any current political figures as being one or the other, but lists a lot of tactics that I see currently used in D.C. and even here in Indianapolis.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.



After years of covid, rolling lockdowns messing with supply chains in China, and now a climate changed heat wave AND a land war in Europe ---- what'd you expect???

Of course the economy won't be perfect.

On the bright side, maybe we'll finally have a housing market crash.

And if not? Inflation is great news for all you damn debtors.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> That's fair. Maybe a good portion of the USA's economic troubles between WWII and the fall of the USSR were tied to ill-fated proxy wars and trade wars not directly related to the cold war, but everything is somehow connected anyway.



False

Almost all of the USA's economic and technological dominance is entirely due to 2 world wars followed by an arms race.

Without all that shit, we'd be Northern Argentina.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> False
> 
> Almost all of the USA's economic and technological dominance is entirely due to 2 world wars followed by an arms race.
> 
> Without all that shit, we'd be Northern Argentina.


 IDK. The UK/Great Brittain won the same two wars, obtained nuclear capabilities, and followed a totally different path.

Even before WWI, the USA was *heavily* meddling in Central and South American politics, manipulating their economies and governments. I highly doubt that Argentina would have had much impact on the USA if it had decided to attack in the early 20th century, let alone stand a chance to win. And even though people usually point at the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a British ship carrying US supplies, it was Germany's telegram begging Mexico to attack that played the biggest role in the USA joining the war effort. And even if the US had managed to stay out of WWI, there was no way it would have stayed out of WWII, considering Japan's expansion throughout the Pacific and how that was contrary to US imperialism in the same region at that time. Germany was realistically nowhere near developing the nuclear bomb, because nuclear science was considered by German politicians as "impractical," and the fact that the people who powered the Manhattan Project were mostly Jewish or Hungarian, and necessarily had to leave Germany and go someplace safe. Argentina would definitely not be that place for them. Even before D Day, the Germans were in a losing position in Europe with fuel running out and their campaigns in Russia and Africa proving ruinous for them. I guess the only way that would have ultimately played out differently for the USA would have been to stay neutral in WWI and if eugenicists took over the government in the early 40's and allied us with the Axis powers, but that's all pretty far fetched.

Even without any world wars, you already had the USA pre-WWI being the most technologically significant nation with the development of the first electric grid, the first to upgrade to AC power, the first to mass produce automobiles, the first in powered aviation, the telegraph, the cotton gin, major improvements over the steam engine, the telephone, the phonograph, etc.


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> IDK. The UK/Great Brittain won the same two wars, obtained nuclear capabilities, and followed a totally different path.
> 
> Even before WWI, the USA was *heavily* meddling in Central and South American politics, manipulating their economies and governments. I highly doubt that Argentina would have had much impact on the USA if it had decided to attack in the early 20th century, let alone stand a chance to win. And even though people usually point at the sinking of the Lusitania, which was a British ship carrying US supplies, it was Germany's telegram begging Mexico to attack that played the biggest role in the USA joining the war effort. And even if the US had managed to stay out of WWI, there was no way it would have stayed out of WWII, considering Japan's expansion throughout the Pacific and how that was contrary to US imperialism in the same region at that time. Germany was realistically nowhere near developing the nuclear bomb, because nuclear science was considered by German politicians as "impractical," and the fact that the people who powered the Manhattan Project were mostly Jewish or Hungarian, and necessarily had to leave Germany and go someplace safe. Argentina would definitely not be that place for them. Even before D Day, the Germans were in a losing position in Europe with fuel running out and their campaigns in Russia and Africa proving ruinous for them. I guess the only way that would have ultimately played out differently for the USA would have been to stay neutral in WWI and if eugenicists took over the government in the early 40's and allied us with the Axis powers, but that's all pretty far fetched.
> 
> Even without any world wars, you already had the USA pre-WWI being the most technologically significant nation with the development of the first electric grid, the first to upgrade to AC power, the first to mass produce automobiles, the first in powered aviation, the telegraph, the cotton gin, major improvements over the steam engine, the telephone, the phonograph, etc.



No, the UK fought for dear life in those wars and had its whole global empire crumble after.

There's a certain difference.

As to USA vs Japan, Roosevelt sold everyone a huge big lie. He sold a very obviously deliniated colonial-only spat as a menacing supposed full assault on American Soil.

Who here remembers that Hawaii was NOT a state but some hijacked islands with a naval base? Who here realizes that it would never ever in a million years have gotten statehood (like all of the other islands we still keep as ours-but-not-quite) if not for Pearl Harbor?


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> Y’all gotta stop worrying about Trump and worry about the muppet you voted into office. The US is officially in a recession right now. Elections have consequences.


First of all there is no such thing as "officially" in recession. There are indicators that are agreed upon and some of the most significant indicators exist now, but so do contrary ones. AND...even if we were in recession....... Who cares? A recession is not herpes. 

Yes elections have consequences. So does lying about them. They are called lawsuits and the bullshit source you get yours from, OAN, is about to get sued out of existence. Better getcha Alex Jones fix because he's about to disappear too.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> No, the UK fought for dear life in those wars and had its whole global empire crumble after.
> 
> There's a certain difference.
> 
> As to USA vs Japan, Roosevelt sold everyone a huge big lie. He sold a very obviously deliniated colonial-only spat as a menacing supposed full assault on American Soil.
> 
> Who here remembers that Hawaii was NOT a state but some hijacked islands with a naval base? Who here realizes that it would never ever in a million years have gotten statehood (like all of the other islands we still keep as ours-but-not-quite) if not for Pearl Harbor?


Huh? That's what I'm saying.

You can't have the USA's economic success be because it won the wars if other countries who won the same wars subsequently lost their territory and wealth.

And as for FDR and Hawaii, I already said it was all over US imperialism in the Pacific, which is exactly what you are saying.

Not sure why your post started with "No..." since you're just reiterating what I just said.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Huh? That's what I'm saying.
> 
> You can't have the USA's economic success be because it won the wars if other countries who won the same wars subsequently lost their territory and wealth.
> 
> And as for FDR and Hawaii, I already said it was all over US imperialism in the Pacific, which is exactly what you are saying.
> 
> Not sure why your post started with "No..." since you're just reiterating what I just said.



The problem here is winning is not about what side you're on. Britain sustained far worse casualties, basically losing a generation of young men to power industry. London for instance didn't return to it's pre-war population size until ~2015. It put the US in the perfect position, having now a comparatively larger work force, ample raw materials, and now the markets which desperately needed them while their own domestic productions needed time to recover. The allies won, but the US was the real winner.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Huh? That's what I'm saying.
> 
> You can't have the USA's economic success be because it won the wars if other countries who won the same wars subsequently lost their territory and wealth.
> 
> And as for FDR and Hawaii, I already said it was all over US imperialism in the Pacific, which is exactly what you are saying.
> 
> Not sure why your post started with "No..." since you're just reiterating what I just said.


The UK still had war rationing until 1954 because of how heavily the war hurt them. Meanwhile the US was supplying and profiting from the war until 1941 while the rest of Europe was dying, and didn't have the loss of infrastructure the rest of the world did because there was no domestic threat. They got to use the following years to become a major manufacturing exporter to the whole world before any of those countries had rebuilt.

The phrase "American fridge" is in the vocabulary of everyone I know.


----------



## bostjan

Guys, the US would have profitted from the war either way. Even if there was no WWII, the US would have profitted from whatever wars there were. The US had been profitting off of foreign wars since the 1880's, and still does. It just has more trouble avoiding direct involvement than it did 140 years ago.


----------



## vilk

@our local R's: Are Republicans who support health care for veterans RINOs? If I want to be a real Republican and not some shitty RINO, should I be in favor of supporting veterans, or should those losers just fuck off? In your personal opinion, of course.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> That's fair. Maybe a good portion of the USA's economic troubles between WWII and the fall of the USSR were tied to ill-fated proxy wars and trade wars not directly related to the cold war, but everything is somehow connected anyway.


I meant more that we just saw what Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the rest of the world blacklisting Russia for it, will do to the economy. 



mmr007 said:


> First of all there is no such thing as "officially" in recession. There are indicators that are agreed upon and some of the most significant indicators exist now, but so do contrary ones. AND...even if we were in recession....... Who cares? A recession is not herpes.
> 
> Yes elections have consequences. So does lying about them. They are called lawsuits and the bullshit source you get yours from, OAN, is about to get sued out of existence. Better getcha Alex Jones fix because he's about to disappear too.


So... you're kind of both wrong.  

For most of the world, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction. This is as good a definition as any, and as far as I'm concerned the US economy IS in recession - there's room to nit-pick Q1, particularly with the impact of the trade deficit on a quarter where the US recovery led the rest of the world's so exports were going to be weak. But, Q2 was unabashedly bad, I'm shocked I saw as many forecasts for positive growth as I did (Bloomberg median consensus was 0.4%), and data continued to weaken as both Q1 and Q2 went on, with every month weaker than the prior. There are also some technical reasons I kind of think we're going to see a downward revision to June's 374k new jobs number, which is the one thing Biden and the Treasury department keep pointing to to say we're not in a recession, labor market strength. 

But, in the US, there _is_ being "officially" in recession, unlike the rest of the world. The National Bureau of Economic Research has always called the start and end of recessions, and since 1980 when a single quarter drop was so pronounced (ironically, as Paul Volker at the Fed hiked rates to break inflation) the NBER hasn't been afraid to deviate from the informal "two consecutive quarters" rule. The NBER has not yet ruled that we are in recession. I expect them to (and they're independent and not politically appointed so there's not much Biden can do to influence their call) and frankly I expect the ecnomy to get worse before it gets better... but for now, we are not "officially" in a recession, though I do expect when the call comes through it will rule that one has started somewhere in Q1. 

Now, all of that said... If you want to argue "elections have consequences" and we're in a recession because of Biden, well, I'd LOVE to hear what kind of counterfactuals would have caused us to _not_ be in a recession if Trump had managed to cling to power, considering part of what _was_ within White House control dates back to his final stimulus bill (Biden deserves blame here too).


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Drew said:


> I meant more that we just saw what Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the rest of the world blacklisting Russia for it, will do to the economy.
> 
> 
> So... you're kind of both wrong.
> 
> For most of the world, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction. This is as good a definition as any, and as far as I'm concerned the US economy IS in recession - there's room to nit-pick Q1, particularly with the impact of the trade deficit on a quarter where the US recovery led the rest of the world's so exports were going to be weak. But, Q2 was unabashedly bad, I'm shocked I saw as many forecasts for positive growth as I did (Bloomberg median consensus was 0.4%), and data continued to weaken as both Q1 and Q2 went on, with every month weaker than the prior. There are also some technical reasons I kind of think we're going to see a downward revision to June's 374k new jobs number, which is the one thing Biden and the Treasury department keep pointing to to say we're not in a recession, labor market strength.
> 
> But, in the US, there _is_ being "officially" in recession, unlike the rest of the world. The National Bureau of Economic Research has always called the start and end of recessions, and since 1980 when a single quarter drop was so pronounced (ironically, as Paul Volker at the Fed hiked rates to break inflation) the NBER hasn't been afraid to deviate from the informal "two consecutive quarters" rule. The NBER has not yet ruled that we are in recession. I expect them to (and they're independent and not politically appointed so there's not much Biden can do to influence their call) and frankly I expect the ecnomy to get worse before it gets better... but for now, we are not "officially" in a recession, though I do expect when the call comes through it will rule that one has started somewhere in Q1.
> 
> Now, all of that said... If you want to argue "elections have consequences" and we're in a recession because of Biden, well, I'd LOVE to hear what kind of counterfactuals would have caused us to _not_ be in a recession if Trump had managed to cling to power, considering part of what _was_ within White House control dates back to his final stimulus bill (Biden deserves blame here too).


I'm too lazy right now to replay it and try to find out where the speculation came from, but John Oliver had a bit last week where he asserted that without the Biden stimulus the US would have been in a recession by summer 2021. Sorry again I don't know the source.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> I meant more that we just saw what Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the rest of the world blacklisting Russia for it, will do to the economy.
> 
> 
> So... you're kind of both wrong.
> 
> For most of the world, a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction. This is as good a definition as any, and as far as I'm concerned the US economy IS in recession - there's room to nit-pick Q1, particularly with the impact of the trade deficit on a quarter where the US recovery led the rest of the world's so exports were going to be weak. But, Q2 was unabashedly bad, I'm shocked I saw as many forecasts for positive growth as I did (Bloomberg median consensus was 0.4%), and data continued to weaken as both Q1 and Q2 went on, with every month weaker than the prior. There are also some technical reasons I kind of think we're going to see a downward revision to June's 374k new jobs number, which is the one thing Biden and the Treasury department keep pointing to to say we're not in a recession, labor market strength.
> 
> But, in the US, there _is_ being "officially" in recession, unlike the rest of the world. The National Bureau of Economic Research has always called the start and end of recessions, and since 1980 when a single quarter drop was so pronounced (ironically, as Paul Volker at the Fed hiked rates to break inflation) the NBER hasn't been afraid to deviate from the informal "two consecutive quarters" rule. The NBER has not yet ruled that we are in recession. I expect them to (and they're independent and not politically appointed so there's not much Biden can do to influence their call) and frankly I expect the ecnomy to get worse before it gets better... but for now, we are not "officially" in a recession, though I do expect when the call comes through it will rule that one has started somewhere in Q1.
> 
> Now, all of that said... If you want to argue "elections have consequences" and we're in a recession because of Biden, well, I'd LOVE to hear what kind of counterfactuals would have caused us to _not_ be in a recession if Trump had managed to cling to power, considering part of what _was_ within White House control dates back to his final stimulus bill (Biden deserves blame here too).


No not really. How can I be wrong if you say "as far as *you're* concerned we are in a recession" when most economists say otherwise. I may have been cavalier with my statement causing some justified confusion but there is not any "officially we are in recession" because an arbitrary benchmark or threshold was crossed. In fact despite the indicator that say we are in a recession, other indicators state otherwise. Therefore, there is no official recession until a consensus of economists agree that the data which *indicates* a recession is actually upon us.


----------



## Drew

Riff the Road Dog said:


> I'm too lazy right now to replay it and try to find out where the speculation came from, but John Oliver had a bit last week where he asserted that without the Biden stimulus the US would have been in a recession by summer 2021. Sorry again I don't know the source.


I'll look for that, I'd be curious to hear a different point of view from someone I consider thoughtful. 

My perspective is we dumped essentially as much stimulus money into the economy around late March/early April 2021 as we did for both prior rounds combined, right as a significant portion of the US population was gettiing vaccinated and starting to venture out shopping again, after a recession where the savings rate actually surged and US household savings increased significantly. Inflation picked up in earnest right after those checks were cashed, and while correlation isn't causation, in the words of Randall Munroe it's certainly winking from the corner suggestively. 

Of course I think even then we probably would have been ok and it would have been the "transient" inflation wave the Fed was expecting, had we not then had Delta show up and bungle up supply chains all over again, and then omicron, and then war in Ukraine, and then shutdowns in China to control covid there... We'd have seen a temporary spike in inflation up to maybe 4-5%, then drop off as the year went on and normalize pretty well by year end, had we not had a whole series of supply shocks hit the economy at once and keep pushing inflation up. None of this is Biden's fault and none of it is really the Fed's fault, save that it left us without any real capacity to absorb those supply shocks because demand was already running so hot.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> No not really. How can I be wrong if you say "as far as *you're* concerned we are in a recession" when most economists say otherwise. I may have been cavalier with my statement causing some justified confusion but there is not any "officially we are in recession" because an arbitrary benchmark or threshold was crossed. In fact despite the indicator that say we are in a recession, other indicators state otherwise. Therefore, there is no official recession until a consensus of economists agree that the data which *indicates* a recession is actually upon us.


Shit, I can't argue with this. 

But, there _is_ such a thing as "officially" in a recession, and you are correct to point out that we are _not_ "officially" in one.


----------



## bostjan

Economists won't say that we are currently in a recession. They look at data from last year, last quarter, last month, last week, or yesterday and then comment on that data.

What COVID policies did to the economy was massive. The GDP of several nations shrunk more rapidly than they had since WWII. But it wasn't long-lasting most places, and the economy bounced back as quickly as it fell. A deal of that might have been artificial or a bubble economy due to too much optimism.

With the zero covid Chinese policy taking further toll on the Chinese economy, and that trickling through to economic sectors fed by Chinese suppliers; the war between Russia and Ukraine disrupting trade and, moreso, energy distribution in Europe; Brexit; agriculture facing severe water shortages in Africa when it's already on the brink of famine; and pretty much every nation on earth dealing with at least a little bit of political heartburn or worse right now - it's a wonder how the economy has held up as well as it has. I sort of get the feeling that things are a lot worse than anyone believes, because there are just so many rapidly-moving parts right now that we won't even know until things stop spiraling long enough for economists to see some realistic data. Either that, or I'm exceptionally pessimistic. I suppose that's probably more likely.


----------



## mmr007

I will say this....while I could throw a rock at this forum and hit 50 people who understand economics better than I, there is no doubt that traditional economic indicators can be thrown out the window (or at least left to dangle out one) due to Covid and its lasting impact which was an ability for large businesses to fuck consumers over.

The basics of supply and demand have been skewed long term because raising prices did not shrink demand. It actually increased it and corporations have been milking it whether it is gas, housing, cars etc.... (and as we all know guitars) Prices went up significantly but demand didn't fall due to consumer attitudes towards spending and fiscal policy of giving away money to spend.

Businesses have learned that we have accepted scarcity as the new normal and they will milk that until they can't. Supply chain problems? Many of those are self imposed because consumers were spending anyway. Everyone took the diamond model. There are enough diamonds in the world for us to all fucking bathe in them daily but they are held back because demand won't drop and people will pay any price.

They say there is a used car shortage. No there isn't. There are hundreds of thousand of used cars being hidden in the US because auto buyers were using stimulus money and predatory lending to buy cars at 140% over BB value. There is a steady drip of used cars being released so that a $10,000 car fetches $16,000. *Why would new car production increase when consumers are paying as much as 20% OVER MSRP?* If they stopped doing that supply chain problems would magically get fixed. But a reckoning is coming. Car repos are up 100% from last year and an auto loan and housing loan crisis is coming...again

Corporations used the pandemic to justify price inflation but their profits are up because until now our spending has gone up without correction.


----------



## nightflameauto

Never one to miss an opportunity I see:








Will Ivana Trump's burial at Donald's golf club give the former president a tax break?


Under New Jersey law, land being used for cemetery purposes is exempt from a whole raft of taxes.




fortune.com





LOL at both the article contents, and the fact that it's totally believable. And by LOL, I mean alternating between laughing and smashing my forehead into this brick wall next to my desk.


----------



## mmr007

nightflameauto said:


> Never one to miss an opportunity I see:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will Ivana Trump's burial at Donald's golf club give the former president a tax break?
> 
> 
> Under New Jersey law, land being used for cemetery purposes is exempt from a whole raft of taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fortune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL at both the article contents, and the fact that it's totally believable. And by LOL, I mean alternating between laughing and smashing my forehead into this brick wall next to my desk.






Apparently you can do a google image search for shocked but not surprised face


----------



## bostjan

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 111744
> 
> 
> Apparently you can do a google image search for shocked but not surprised face


Hmm probably should know who that is, but he looks like comedian Brad Garrett after a couple of tough years:







Anyway, just imagine how many random dead bodies were buried by the mob in just whichever locations in New Jersey. That little loophole could crash the property tax budget in NJ for sure.


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 111744
> 
> 
> Apparently you can do a google image search for shocked but not surprised face


In comic book circles, this is called "dull surprise." Pat Lee is an expert at it.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> In comic book circles, this is called "dull surprise." Pat Lee is an expert at it.


Pat Lee the transformers artist? I'd be surprised, but not at all shocked, if a robot that turns into a tractor could show such a wide range of emotions. :|


----------



## Xaios

Animated Kirk really embodies this well:


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Pat Lee the transformers artist? I'd be surprised, but not at all shocked, if a robot that turns into a tractor could show such a wide range of emotions. :|


Yes, but it was his humans that always showed dull surprise.

Car just transforms out of nowhere and starts talking to ya? Dull surprise.

Megatron just smashed your brother? Dull surprise.

Trump Trumps? Dull surprise.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Yes, but it was his humans that always showed dull surprise.
> 
> Car just transforms out of nowhere and starts talking to ya? Dull surprise.
> 
> Megatron just smashed your brother? Dull surprise.
> 
> Trump Trumps? Dull surprise.


Yeah, maybe living in a universe where Donald Trump can win a presidential election by promising people that he won't be like other politicians, because they cater to rich corrupt businessmen, it might not be that surprising if a fighter jet fell out of the sky right in front of me and changed into a robot and started asking me where is some device I never heard of.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> Megatron just smashed your brother? Dull surprise.


Just for clarification, by "smashed", do you mean he hit my brother really hard? Or do you mean that Megatron had sex with my brother?

Because in either case, I would likely be more than dully surprised, as I don't _have_ a brother.


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> Just for clarification, by "smashed", do you mean he hit my brother really hard? Or do you mean that Megatron had sex with my brother?
> 
> Because in either case, I would likely be more than dully surprised, as I don't _have_ a brother.


Well, I meant the former, but modern Megs is a pretty liberal tyrant. I could totes see him trying to prop a bro on his codpiece.

(It's wordplay like that that's making my books sell!)


----------



## zappatton2

Doesn't Megatron belong in the other thread? I mean, he literally _is _a gun.


----------



## Xaios

nightflameauto said:


> (It's wordplay like that that's making my books sell!)


Your explanation of Megalibertron encompasses every aspect of your "Fantasy? Sci-fi? Horror? Romance? Comedy?" tagline, so I believe you.


----------



## lost_horizon

mmr007 said:


> I will say this....while I could throw a rock at this forum and hit 50 people who understand economics better than I, there is no doubt that traditional economic indicators can be thrown out the window (or at least left to dangle out one) due to Covid and its lasting impact which was an ability for large businesses to fuck consumers over.
> 
> The basics of supply and demand have been skewed long term because raising prices did not shrink demand. It actually increased it and corporations have been milking it whether it is gas, housing, cars etc.... (and as we all know guitars) Prices went up significantly but demand didn't fall due to consumer attitudes towards spending and fiscal policy of giving away money to spend.
> 
> Businesses have learned that we have accepted scarcity as the new normal and they will milk that until they can't. Supply chain problems? Many of those are self imposed because consumers were spending anyway. Everyone took the diamond model. There are enough diamonds in the world for us to all fucking bathe in them daily but they are held back because demand won't drop and people will pay any price.
> 
> They say there is a used car shortage. No there isn't. There are hundreds of thousand of used cars being hidden in the US because auto buyers were using stimulus money and predatory lending to buy cars at 140% over BB value. There is a steady drip of used cars being released so that a $10,000 car fetches $16,000. *Why would new car production increase when consumers are paying as much as 20% OVER MSRP?* If they stopped doing that supply chain problems would magically get fixed. But a reckoning is coming. Car repos are up 100% from last year and an auto loan and housing loan crisis is coming...again
> 
> Corporations used the pandemic to justify price inflation but their profits are up because until now our spending has gone up without correction.


Covid left people with more money in their savings than before the pandemic. This fueled a rise in discretionary spending on things like bitcoin (1 in 4 adults) and people not wanting to take public transport any more meant people wanted a car which increased demand along with the lack of new vehicles due to the chip shortage. People can say that their money hasn't lost value but it has. Housing has gone up and vehicles have gone up, more money is buying less things putting them further out of reach for low income households. Now the 20% of people that have bought in the last 24 months are the highest risk of defaulting creating sub prime mortgage and car loan conditions.

Try to tell people that Covid cash was not needed to the extent it was spent and they will go blue in the face telling you why it was when it caused the effects above. Then adding on top of that a massive spending bill to 'stimulate' the economy through construction and that has added fuel to the fire. There are not enough people to build these projects, construction materials are some 2-5x more expensive than they were 2 years ago and the cost of this construction will increase significantly. I think this is necessary although stimulus has never worked and never even created enough economic activity to pay it back as taxation or increased GDP ever. You spend $100 on infrastructure and you may get back $17 in local and state taxes but the majority will never be realised. Spending on infrastructure is the price we pay for having nice things but does not help GDP.

80% of all USD has been printed in the last 22 months. $40k for every man, woman and child in america. The average US tax return is $3,200 as it is to cover current debt, let alone the stimulus. Think about that, these actions have consequences. People are not honest about this. We could have paid EVERY SINGLE PERSON a lump sum of $40k, would that have been a better outcome. Probably. Government is bad at this. People are better at spending money and making purchasing decisions than government is. The extra step of bureaucracy achieves nothing and actually costs money to spend money. Speaking of bureacracy, part of the COVID cash bailed out all the deficit states during the pandemic whilst states that didn't have a deficit got less money. Now California will be back to a massive budget deficit

Corporations have real costs increased due to things above, they are still carrying high private debt, wages are up, fuel is up, construction is more expensive, vehicles are more expensive and they can't find enough people. Corporations are the only thing that can pay back these massive taxes. You can't kill them as they are so necessary for this but COVID has changed the world market. Many of these products are tapped out and have reached their real market saturation. Do you think Twitter can find more customers? Or BP? or Guitar Centre? There will be no increased sales. Now the only method to create profit is through price increases (Fender, Epiphone, Squier).

What would the SSO CEO's do? Run their company at a loss? Fire people? Move production to Moldova?


----------



## narad

lost_horizon said:


> What would the SSO CEO's do? Run their company at a loss? Fire people? Move production to Moldova?



Hire a used prestige


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

I don't know. Stop the buybacks to satisfy the stockholders and actually put it back into the company? But I'm sure that horse left the stable a long time ago. It's surely a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## bostjan

lost_horizon said:


> Covid left people with more money in their savings than before the pandemic. This fueled a rise in discretionary spending on things like bitcoin (1 in 4 adults) and people not wanting to take public transport any more meant people wanted a car which increased demand along with the lack of new vehicles due to the chip shortage. People can say that their money hasn't lost value but it has. Housing has gone up and vehicles have gone up, more money is buying less things putting them further out of reach for low income households. Now the 20% of people that have bought in the last 24 months are the highest risk of defaulting creating sub prime mortgage and car loan conditions.


Who says that? I doubt anyone with a half-serious understanding of economics is denying inflation exists.



lost_horizon said:


> Try to tell people that Covid cash was not needed to the extent it was spent and they will go blue in the face telling you why it was when it caused the effects above. Then adding on top of that a massive spending bill to 'stimulate' the economy through construction and that has added fuel to the fire. There are not enough people to build these projects, construction materials are some 2-5x more expensive than they were 2 years ago and the cost of this construction will increase significantly. I think this is necessary although stimulus has never worked and never even created enough economic activity to pay it back as taxation or increased GDP ever. You spend $100 on infrastructure and you may get back $17 in local and state taxes but the majority will never be realised. Spending on infrastructure is the price we pay for having nice things but does not help GDP.


So TL;DR - you are saying that people are irresponsible with money?

I think the missing puzzle piece here is that infrastructure is a prerequisite for the GDP. Improving infrastructure doesn't directly improve the GDP, but if the infrastructure fails on a large enough scale, then we can no longer transport stuff, so we can no longer make stuff and we can no longer get the stuff we made just before to where it needs to go in order to be utilized.



lost_horizon said:


> 80% of all USD has been printed in the last 22 months. $40k for every man, woman and child in america. The average US tax return is $3,200 as it is to cover current debt, let alone the stimulus. Think about that, these actions have consequences. People are not honest about this. We could have paid EVERY SINGLE PERSON a lump sum of $40k, would that have been a better outcome. Probably. Government is bad at this. People are better at spending money and making purchasing decisions than government is. The extra step of bureaucracy achieves nothing and actually costs money to spend money. Speaking of bureacracy, part of the COVID cash bailed out all the deficit states during the pandemic whilst states that didn't have a deficit got less money. Now California will be back to a massive budget deficit



I have no idea where you are going with that or what sort of logic you are using there. Are you saying that if the US mint prints $X, that there is no reason why we cannot just hand everyone $X divided by the total population?! Why would you think that's how money works? Also, did you just get done saying that people are grossly irresponsible with their money, so how does that solve any sort of problem. 



lost_horizon said:


> Corporations have real costs increased due to things above, they are still carrying high private debt, wages are up, fuel is up, construction is more expensive, vehicles are more expensive and they can't find enough people. Corporations are the only thing that can pay back these massive taxes. You can't kill them as they are so necessary for this but COVID has changed the world market. Many of these products are tapped out and have reached their real market saturation. Do you think Twitter can find more customers? Or BP? or Guitar Centre? There will be no increased sales. Now the only method to create profit is through price increases (Fender, Epiphone, Squier).


I guess you're not wrong, but I feel like you are boiling all of the nuances out of economics in general with that sort of statement. There will always be more customers as long as people keep having more babies and the population keeps shooting up. But that's not really how any of this actually works. Companies like BP are dealing with a pretty set demand. They simply have to keep producing stuff and offering their customers a reason to keep doing business with them instead of Exxon or whomever else. The demand for petroleum going down during covid is a temporary thing. If more people are buying their own cars and not using public transit, then refined petroleum products that companies like BP produce are bound to increase in demand. On the other hand, Guitar Center is going to shit the bed at some point. They have no long-term viable business plan. As times get tough, people give fewer shits about guitars. I watched in Detroit as the automotive industry took a dump, and the first things to close down around town were places like Guitar Center. That was circa 2005-2006, when people still liked music and bars were still hiring bands. Nowadays, no one listens to music except nerds. People would much rather listen to Joe Rogan shoot his stupid mouth off about some shit he has no clue about, or listen to people share anecdotes that have no basis on real data via TED talks. Nightclubs either have trivia night or hire a DJ who will play songs that are 20+ years old. Radio stations play either old music or new music, and the new music either has guitar in it or not, and if it does, chances are pretty good that it's a sample from 20+ years ago. Places like SS.O and HC are maybe the last holdout for music nerds, and most of us are now either in our late 30's or 40's or older. The younger generation of guitarists are probably happier playing a used prestige or a used anything rather than a new guitar anyway. So yeah, guitar is going to suffer.



lost_horizon said:


> What would the SSO CEO's do? Run their company at a loss? Fire people? Move production to Moldova?



Huh? Who, Alex? I have no idea if he makes money off of this site, but I get the strong feeling that it's a very small headcount keeping this site running on the backend. For all we know, they could be doing site maintenance from Moldova or Mauritania or Malawi or any of those other smaller "M" countries where labour is cheap. If Alex ever decides to divest from this site, it could very well die an unceremonious death. I've seen far more active sites disappear with no warning just because they very suddenly became unprofitable. I hope not, but you never know.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I sort of get the feeling that things are a lot worse than anyone believes, because there are just so many rapidly-moving parts right now that we won't even know until things stop spiraling long enough for economists to see some realistic data. Either that, or I'm exceptionally pessimistic. I suppose that's probably more likely.


This is a real problem - a lot of economic data is reported on a lag, and is often subject to revision as better data comes out, so it's REALLY hard to assess something like interest rate policy in real time. As an example, housing data is usually a good indicator of economic health, but while we know new house sales and morgage/refi applications are falling, it's hard to tell if that's because of supply side factors or a buyer's strike because the most recent housing price data we have is from May, nearly 3 months old. The last employment release was from June, two months out of date, and like I was saying abive, i think there's a real chance the initial estimation was way too high.

There's enough info out there to be able to say with confidence that the US economy is slowing. How far and how fast though, it's really hard to say for sure.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I will say this....while I could throw a rock at this forum and hit 50 people who understand economics better than I, there is no doubt that traditional economic indicators can be thrown out the window (or at least left to dangle out one) due to Covid and its lasting impact which was an ability for large businesses to fuck consumers over.
> 
> The basics of supply and demand have been skewed long term because raising prices did not shrink demand. It actually increased it and corporations have been milking it whether it is gas, housing, cars etc.... (and as we all know guitars) Prices went up significantly but demand didn't fall due to consumer attitudes towards spending and fiscal policy of giving away money to spend.
> 
> Businesses have learned that we have accepted scarcity as the new normal and they will milk that until they can't. Supply chain problems? Many of those are self imposed because consumers were spending anyway. Everyone took the diamond model. There are enough diamonds in the world for us to all fucking bathe in them daily but they are held back because demand won't drop and people will pay any price.
> 
> They say there is a used car shortage. No there isn't. There are hundreds of thousand of used cars being hidden in the US because auto buyers were using stimulus money and predatory lending to buy cars at 140% over BB value. There is a steady drip of used cars being released so that a $10,000 car fetches $16,000. *Why would new car production increase when consumers are paying as much as 20% OVER MSRP?* If they stopped doing that supply chain problems would magically get fixed. But a reckoning is coming. Car repos are up 100% from last year and an auto loan and housing loan crisis is coming...again
> 
> Corporations used the pandemic to justify price inflation but their profits are up because until now our spending has gone up without correction.


Eh, I disagree with most of this. 

I've seen a ton of memes suggesting inflation is caused by corporate profit taking and corporations are the problem. This might not be why you think corporations are the problem and you may have more sophisticated reasons... but the typical form is pointing to 2021 earnings growth being sky high, and pointing to inflation, and saying "it's because corporations raised prices!" There's a whole slew of problems with that, but the 10,000 foot view is that it compares 2022 inflation to 2021 earnings and ignores pretty huge "base effect" issues with price levels and earnings both being abnormally low in 2020, causing problems with "year over year change" type measures in 2021. 

You're also I'd say putting the cart before the horse on demand and prices - prices rose because demand exceeded supply. Most consumption series have shown strong growth, and you're right, that's because of inflation (or, better, is what's driving it), but when you start adjusting consumption data for inflation to get at "real" consumption, consumption has been falling and actual purchases are dropping in response to high prices. US Retail spending has fallen in real terms for, off the top of my head, every month but one in 2022, I believe. 

If you've got evidence of consumers buying cars and stockpiling them to resell I'm all ears, but to your question why would new car production increase if consumers are paying over MSRP, well, that profit goes to the dealership, not the manufacturer, and companies ARE trying to crack down on dealership markup practices: 



https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-ford-will-crack-down-on-resellers/




https://www.kbb.com/car-news/ford-ceo-warns-dealers-cut-the-markups/



Meanwhile, the only car stockpiling I've seen evidence of is manufacturers finishing cars all the way up to the installation of various microchips, so when they do finally get the chips they need they can quickly finish them, though word is this is starting to improve, and supply will follow. 

There's also plenty of manufacturing index data on supply chains - the most encouraging bit of economic news I've seen this month was the ISM Manufacturing index's "prices paid" subindex for manufacturers, which fell 18.5 points over the month, from multi-decade highs as manufacturers were bidding up the price of raw inputs they needed for production. 

As far as inflation's index on companies, yeah, it's hurting them too - this story spooked the markets, in part because it aligns with a lt of other data abotu inventory buildup: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...utlook-heres-why-that-might-worry-its-rivals/ 

I think one area where traditional economic indicators CAN be thrown out, ironically, is the labor force - companies seem to be _very_ reluctant to let workers go, after having such a hard time attracting them in the first place for the last 6-12 months. For various wonky reasons I think labor market health isn't as good as current indicators show, but I also suspect there's been some under-the-surface behavioral changes here as well further complicating matters.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Who says that? I doubt anyone with a half-serious understanding of economics is denying inflation exists.


This is a popular argument amongst Bitcoin true believers, likely driven by the fact that they believe Bitcoin is an inflation hedge, so if it's price has tanked, then we must not _really_ be having inflation.

So, yes. 



bostjan said:


> I think the missing puzzle piece here is that infrastructure is a prerequisite for the GDP. Improving infrastructure doesn't directly improve the GDP, but if the infrastructure fails on a large enough scale, then we can no longer transport stuff, so we can no longer make stuff and we can no longer get the stuff we made just before to where it needs to go in order to be utilized.



Nitpicking, maybe, but infrastructure is something that is produced, so it does go into GDP. Business infrastructure spending would roll up through Gross Private Domestic Investment through either Structures, Equiptment, or Intellectual Property Products, while State and Federal would be captured in the State and Local and the Federal/Nondefense components, both rolling up into Goverment Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment.

FWIW, all of those groups above were, well, pretty bad in Q2, with Nondefense at -10.5 and Structures at -11.7 quarter over quarter being the worst.



https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/gdp2q22_adv.pdf


----------



## philkilla

Pelosi executes her Taiwan tour and AMTD Digital (AMTD) skyrockets out of no where.

Nothing to see here...


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> Eh, I disagree with most of this.
> 
> I've seen a ton of memes suggesting inflation is caused by corporate profit taking and corporations are the problem. This might not be why you think corporations are the problem and you may have more sophisticated reasons... but the typical form is pointing to 2021 earnings growth being sky high, and pointing to inflation, and saying "it's because corporations raised prices!" There's a whole slew of problems with that, but the 10,000 foot view is that it compares 2022 inflation to 2021 earnings and ignores pretty huge "base effect" issues with price levels and earnings both being abnormally low in 2020, causing problems with "year over year change" type measures in 2021.
> 
> You're also I'd say putting the cart before the horse on demand and prices - prices rose because demand exceeded supply. Most consumption series have shown strong growth, and you're right, that's because of inflation (or, better, is what's driving it), but when you start adjusting consumption data for inflation to get at "real" consumption, consumption has been falling and actual purchases are dropping in response to high prices. US Retail spending has fallen in real terms for, off the top of my head, every month but one in 2022, I believe.
> 
> If you've got evidence of consumers buying cars and stockpiling them to resell I'm all ears, but to your question why would new car production increase if consumers are paying over MSRP, well, that profit goes to the dealership, not the manufacturer, and companies ARE trying to crack down on dealership markup practices:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.kbb.com/car-news/report-ford-will-crack-down-on-resellers/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.kbb.com/car-news/ford-ceo-warns-dealers-cut-the-markups/
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the only car stockpiling I've seen evidence of is manufacturers finishing cars all the way up to the installation of various microchips, so when they do finally get the chips they need they can quickly finish them, though word is this is starting to improve, and supply will follow.
> 
> There's also plenty of manufacturing index data on supply chains - the most encouraging bit of economic news I've seen this month was the ISM Manufacturing index's "prices paid" subindex for manufacturers, which fell 18.5 points over the month, from multi-decade highs as manufacturers were bidding up the price of raw inputs they needed for production.
> 
> As far as inflation's index on companies, yeah, it's hurting them too - this story spooked the markets, in part because it aligns with a lt of other data abotu inventory buildup:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...utlook-heres-why-that-might-worry-its-rivals/
> 
> I think one area where traditional economic indicators CAN be thrown out, ironically, is the labor force - companies seem to be _very_ reluctant to let workers go, after having such a hard time attracting them in the first place for the last 6-12 months. For various wonky reasons I think labor market health isn't as good as current indicators show, but I also suspect there's been some under-the-surface behavioral changes here as well further complicating matters.


I didn't say consumers are stockpiling cars, they are being stockpiled by companies, the ones who either repo'd the cars or otherwise took possession at end of lease or otherwise. They are sitting on a stockpile of cars rather than releasing them because consumers have still been paying a premium for the cars and banks have been loaning 130% of value instead of max 90% of value. Companies have indeed created an artificial shortage and maintained it because the demand line keeps moving. The car loan companies then bundle those loans and sell them off....sound familiar?

There is a housing shortage and SOME is caused by no new building where there needs to be building but it is mostly caused by investment firms teaming with rental companies to buy up all properties in neighborhoods so you can buy a house and now you have to pay rent to live in a house that you could have otherwise mortgaged.

The chip excuse is just that...an excuse. It may have existed but since producing a car costs money in materials, labor, energy and shipping and advertising...no need to ramp up production (and those associated costs) when people are more per vehicle than they ever have because of manufactured scarcity


----------



## tedtan

mmr007 said:


> I didn't say consumers are stockpiling cars, they are being stockpiled by companies, the ones who either repo'd the cars or otherwise took possession at end of lease or otherwise. They are sitting on a stockpile of cars rather than releasing them because consumers have still been paying a premium for the cars and banks have been loaning 130% of value instead of max 90% of value. Companies have indeed created an artificial shortage and maintained it because the demand line keeps moving. The car loan companies then bundle those loans and sell them off....sound familiar?
> 
> There is a housing shortage and SOME is caused by no new building where there needs to be building but it is mostly caused by investment firms teaming with rental companies to buy up all properties in neighborhoods so you can buy a house and now you have to pay rent to live in a house that you could have otherwise mortgaged.
> 
> The chip excuse is just that...an excuse. It may have existed but since producing a car costs money in materials, labor, energy and shipping and advertising...no need to ramp up production (and those associated costs) when people are more per vehicle than they ever have because of manufactured scarcity


But how are the car manufacturers making money in that situation?


----------



## lost_horizon

bostjan said:


> Who says that? I doubt anyone with a half-serious understanding of economics is denying inflation exists.


No what i'm saying is real inflation is much worse than the headline indicators say. It also progressed much faster than reporting could capture. People would actually be getting capital gains on cars, houses etc. I wonder if that will show up in tax returns this FY. When I worked at Toyota people were getting slugged with capital gains as their cars were worth money in Trade in than they had depreciated through tax returns.


bostjan said:


> So TL;DR - you are saying that people are irresponsible with money?


No I am saying the amount of money was greater than what is necessary and that increase money which wasn't needed actually has caused inflation. Now the government is increasing interest rates to tamp self inflicted inflation so it has been one giant merry go round of money punishing the poor, renters and real wages have fallen. Today they are trying to push through a tax increase. This will reduce inflation but also reduce GDP. Government sucks at this.


bostjan said:


> I think the missing puzzle piece here is that infrastructure is a prerequisite for the GDP. Improving infrastructure doesn't directly improve the GDP, but if the infrastructure fails on a large enough scale, then we can no longer transport stuff, so we can no longer make stuff and we can no longer get the stuff we made just before to where it needs to go in order to be utilized.


Well don't call it a stimulus and don't call it an investment. If the road was dirt your container would still have got to the export terminal.


bostjan said:


> I have no idea where you are going with that or what sort of logic you are using there. Are you saying that if the US mint prints $X, that there is no reason why we cannot just hand everyone $X divided by the total population?! Why would you think that's how money works? Also, did you just get done saying that people are grossly irresponsible with their money, so how does that solve any sort of problem.


I didn't say people were irresponsible, i said the amount of money was far greater than needed. I am actually saying people ARE way better at spending money and allocating capital than the government through programs is. It would have been a better outcome all round. This is the same argument people give for raising the minimum wage. It gives the money to the people most likely to spend it and alleviate their needs. But as i showed it will have an inflationary and debt costs that will take 50-100 years to pay back, if ever. Is it worth that? No. So was all that money necessary? No it wasn't. Was it used to bail out bad state governments and schemes with no benefits or relation to COVID and their citizens? Yes.

Last comment was for the wannabe CEO's who know everything about business in this thread. I have worked with 5 of the top 100 companies. What would you do in their position?


----------



## tedtan

lost_horizon said:


> Last comment was for the wannabe CEO's who know everything about business in this thread. I have worked with 5 of the top 100 companies. What would you do in their position?


In terms of the increased costs of manufacturing and distributing goods? They have to be passed on to the customer.

What sucks for people, though, is that wages aren’t keeping up with inflation, so they’re getting squeezed.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

People talking about how much money was put into circulation and not acknowledging quantitative easing are really missing the plot.


----------



## StevenC

Way to go people of Kansas!









Kansans vote to uphold abortion rights in their state


The proposed amendment was the first time anywhere in the U.S. that voters cast ballots on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.




www.nbcnews.com


----------



## MaxOfMetal

StevenC said:


> Way to go people of Kansas!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kansans vote to uphold abortion rights in their state
> 
> 
> The proposed amendment was the first time anywhere in the U.S. that voters cast ballots on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com



Kansas is conservative. Like really conservative. We're talking +15 for Trump in 2020.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> Kansas is conservative. Like really conservative. We're talking +15 for Trump in 2020.



Strength of Evangelism is overrated. 

Lots of Libertarian minded conservatives that crossed into Republican Party for the "fuck everything" mindset of Trump, but that doesn't mean they want to dabble in restricting their own bodies just because of the party's love affair with mysticism. They'll still vote to restrict the rights of others, but if it vaguely hints at restricting them (body autonomy), there's probably enough crossover support to kill bills like this when you take into account a baseline number of Dems.

Republicans overreaching with the Roe V Wade decision. It's hard to appreciate how fringe the beliefs of the conservatives on the court are. Most things either party does are strategies to stay in power even if it violates one of their principals (see: Trump's socialist policy of giving stimulus checks to people in an attempt to buy votes), the Roe V Wade decision was a reach for an ideological win even if it ruins the party's aspirations by driving turnout in the opposite direction. That's what makes this court scary tbh; zero interest in self preservation.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I didn't say consumers are stockpiling cars, they are being stockpiled by companies, the ones who either repo'd the cars or otherwise took possession at end of lease or otherwise. They are sitting on a stockpile of cars rather than releasing them because consumers have still been paying a premium for the cars and banks have been loaning 130% of value instead of max 90% of value. Companies have indeed created an artificial shortage and maintained it because the demand line keeps moving. The car loan companies then bundle those loans and sell them off....sound familiar?
> 
> There is a housing shortage and SOME is caused by no new building where there needs to be building but it is mostly caused by investment firms teaming with rental companies to buy up all properties in neighborhoods so you can buy a house and now you have to pay rent to live in a house that you could have otherwise mortgaged.
> 
> The chip excuse is just that...an excuse. It may have existed but since producing a car costs money in materials, labor, energy and shipping and advertising...no need to ramp up production (and those associated costs) when people are more per vehicle than they ever have because of manufactured scarcity


You/re getting deep into conspiracy theory here, with near as i can see no evidence for any of this, and plenty to the contrary:









Global Chip Shortage Makes It Tough to Buy Certain Cars - Consumer Reports


The global chip shortage is making it tough to buy certain cars, Consumer Reports says. Here are ways you can get through the shortage when buying a new or used car.




www.consumerreports.org







https://www.autoevolution.com/news/heres-how-many-ford-vehicles-are-currently-parked-and-waiting-for-chips-188243.html











Ongoing Chip Shortage Forces GM to Park 95,000 Nearly Finished Vehicles


These new vehicles are essentially complete, but are missing critical components.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> You/re getting deep into conspiracy theory here, with near as i can see no evidence for any of this, and plenty to the contrary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Global Chip Shortage Makes It Tough to Buy Certain Cars - Consumer Reports
> 
> 
> The global chip shortage is making it tough to buy certain cars, Consumer Reports says. Here are ways you can get through the shortage when buying a new or used car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.consumerreports.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.autoevolution.com/news/heres-how-many-ford-vehicles-are-currently-parked-and-waiting-for-chips-188243.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ongoing Chip Shortage Forces GM to Park 95,000 Nearly Finished Vehicles
> 
> 
> These new vehicles are essentially complete, but are missing critical components.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.motortrend.com


*I'm sorry but if you've ever eaten a McRib then you've tasted scarcity marketing first hand.*

Of course I will trust what car companies say...they've never lied even when it causes death.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> *I'm sorry but if you've ever eaten a McRib then you've tasted scarcity marketing first hand.*
> 
> Of course I will trust what car companies say...they've never lied even when it causes death.


I've actually never eaten a McRib. I have SOME Standards. 

I'm not saying that scarcity marketing doesn't exist. Just, that there are plenty of very well documented reasons why we're not dealing with intentional scarcity in the US car market. The sheer fact that the McRib exists doesn't change that.


----------



## mastapimp

mmr007 said:


> *I'm sorry but if you've ever eaten a McRib then you've tasted scarcity marketing first hand.*
> 
> Of course I will trust what car companies say...they've never lied even when it causes death.


The chip shortage is very real. Having to design electronics based on limited availability is a current challenge for just about every engineer in the business these days.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> I've actually never eaten a McRib. I have SOME Standards.
> 
> I'm not saying that scarcity marketing doesn't exist. Just, that there are plenty of very well documented reasons why we're not dealing with intentional scarcity in the US car market. The sheer fact that the McRib exists doesn't change that.


I applaud you for having higher standards than I when it comes to dietary choices. But on the topic of meat it is well documented (after the fact) that the meat industry LIED about meat shortages during covid to keep meat packing plants open. 

Again I am no expert and I dont have the answers but car companies are in flux over electric vs gas vs different countries passing different regs and now is the time since consumers wont stop buying shit to make more per vehicle based on scarcity that is likely manufactured


----------



## mmr007

mastapimp said:


> The chip shortage is very real. Having to design electronics based on limited availability is a current challenge for just about every engineer in the business these days.


The chip shortage may be real....but it it also may likely be "manufactured" as paradoxical as that sounds. Much like California suffered rolling blackouts and $600 a month electric bills for it's residents when there was an electricity shortage because power producing plants were purposely being taken off line for extensive repairs because there was more money in using the stock market to bet on the price of electricity which went up.

I fully agree that yes...there were supply chains problems and some legit ones exist. Everyone was furloughed and no one was making or shipping anything and yet demand did not drop off because of artificially pumping discretionary spending into the economy but there is also growing evidence that the "shortages" claimed everywhere are being artificially maintained because the price per unit of every widget remains high and profitable...again...just like mined diamonds.


----------



## Randy

mastapimp said:


> The chip shortage is very real. Having to design electronics based on limited availability is a current challenge for just about every engineer in the business these days.


I've run into this too. I had to do some technical work for a couple radio stations over the last year that involved repairing/replacing transmitters and audio processors. Two companies just flat out stopped shipping the item, they were sitting half assembled on the benches waiting for chips. One of them re-engineered the unit to work with what they could get. Last one was burning through NOS they had.


----------



## bostjan

I'm fairly closely involved with electronics manufacturing, and we're rationing what little we can get. Prior to covid, the bottleneck was always the custom-milled parts we use to mechanically house things, now 100% of the bottleneck is the processor we use. But, even if we could get enough of those, there are still a few IC components that we have a really rough time getting.

In Mexico, we are dealing with a priority hierarchy: medical equipment is ahead of us in line, which makes perfect sense, but if there's a component that we need that also goes into any piece of medical equipment manufactured in Mexico, it's basically understood that we won't ever see that component come our way. I'm not sure what law, exactly is involved, I just know that it's a real consequence that affects my colleagues in Mexico. Here in the USA, there is some rationing going on, but we've been able to open up some flexibility to our design and keep things rolling.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I applaud you for having higher standards than I when it comes to dietary choices. But on the topic of meat it is well documented (after the fact) that the meat industry LIED about meat shortages during covid to keep meat packing plants open.
> 
> Again I am no expert and I dont have the answers but car companies are in flux over electric vs gas vs different countries passing different regs and now is the time since consumers wont stop buying shit to make more per vehicle based on scarcity that is likely manufactured


I don't know how many other people are going to need to chime into this thread talking about the way chip shortages have impacted _their_ respective industries before you're going to believe me, but there are very real production problems facing US auto makers right now and this is absolutely not a case of their manufacturing scarcity to boost dealership profit margins. You can believe what conspiracies you want, but they don't stand up to the hard data out there.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Drew said:


> I don't know how many other people are going to need to chime into this thread talking about the way chip shortages have impacted _their_ respective industries before you're going to believe me, but there are very real production problems facing US auto makers right now and this is absolutely not a case of their manufacturing scarcity to boost dealership profit margins. You can believe what conspiracies you want, but they don't stand up to the hard data out there.


Cannot there be more than one reason?

Not particularly related, but, what is known is that repossessions from subprime car loans made 2020- are up at an alarming rate, defaults on down payments made with stimulus cash, apparently, according to Jalopnik, Barrons and many others. There is real concern about what would happen if these repossessed vehicles were dumped back on the market at once. Banks are currently holding them back, trickling them out, to avoid what could be a really bad scene.


----------



## bostjan

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Cannot there be more than one reason?
> 
> Not particularly related, but, what is known is that repossessions from subprime car loans made 2020- are up at an alarming rate, defaults on down payments made with stimulus cash, apparently, according to Jalopnik, Barrons and many others. There is real concern about what would happen if these repossessed vehicles were dumped back on the market at once. Banks are currently holding them back, trickling them out, to avoid what could be a really bad scene.


Huh? How many repo'd vehicles are we talking about here? If it's less than 5% of the number of auto sales, I doubt it'd have any consequence at all.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

There doesn't need to be a conspiracy for unscrupulous businesses to take advantage of scarcity. The previously mentioned models of rental agencies buying up property and forcing people to rent isn't a "conspiracy," it's just good business sense to the extent that it is the only obvious conclusion for anyone with a big pile of money in a place with a bunch of property for sale. To be clear I think those people should be guillotined in the street. 

As with most conspiracy theories, the real conspiracy here is just plain old capitalism.


----------



## mastapimp

mmr007 said:


> The chip shortage may be real....but it it also may likely be "manufactured" as paradoxical as that sounds. Much like California suffered rolling blackouts and $600 a month electric bills for it's residents when there was an electricity shortage because power producing plants were purposely being taken off line for extensive repairs because there was more money in using the stock market to bet on the price of electricity which went up.
> 
> I fully agree that yes...there were supply chains problems and some legit ones exist. Everyone was furloughed and no one was making or shipping anything and yet demand did not drop off because of artificially pumping discretionary spending into the economy but there is also growing evidence that the "shortages" claimed everywhere are being artificially maintained because the price per unit of every widget remains high and profitable...again...just like mined diamonds.


No. The chip shortage is not good for the businesses producing the chips. I've been in meetings with Texas Instruments reps where they're outlining how they plan to work around some of these issues by bringing their fab stateside and purchasing facilities in Utah. They are trying to reassure their customers that there will be chips sometime in the future so they do not lose money or future orders that are in limbo with no delivery dates. "Artificially maintaining" a shortage is absurd for them. My uncle is a field ops engineer at Analog Devices and he says this has been disastrous. Please provide your "growing evidence" that these companies don't want to do business...


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

bostjan said:


> Huh? How many repo'd vehicles are we talking about here? If it's less than 5% of the number of auto sales, I doubt it'd have any consequence at all.


Jalopnik say 11% since beginning of 2020 and counting.

Barron's: "subprime repos have nearly doubled since 2020, to around 11% on average"


----------



## bostjan

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Jalopnik say 11% since beginning of 2000 and counting.
> 
> Barron's: "subprime repos have nearly doubled since 2020, to around 11% on average"


You mean since beginning 2020?

Actually, that is a significant number. About 1 in 3 cars is repossessed, so up 11 is about 4% of the market increase.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

bostjan said:


> You mean since beginning 2020?
> 
> Actually, that is a significant number. About 1 in 3 cars is repossessed, so up 11 is about 4% of the market increase.


Yeah, typo. Corrected.


----------



## tedtan

OK, so car manufacturers artificially cut production so they can sell to dealers at the same price they would have if they had continued at full production, the dealers sell the decreased number of units at a slight markup over normal sticker, the manufacturers’ finance arms loan more on the vehicles than they are worth when new and then end up repossessing an increased percentage of their loan portfolio. 

How does that describe capitalism screwing anyone over (except the dealers)?

The manufacturer loses money on the reduced number of units, they lose money again on defaulted loans, and they lose even further by loaning too much on those repossessed units when they sell them. And if they have to hold on to those repo’d units for a long time prior to selling them, the lose even more due to the increased carrying costs resulting from holding those units for an extended period of time.

How is anyone making money on that scenario except the dealers, who are likely making less than they would if they could sell increased volume at a lower price?


----------



## Mathemagician

China’s zero Covid policy where they shut down huge swathes of the of the economy every time Covid is found is one of the primary causes of the global manufacturing shortage.

Like, it’s not made up China owns their decision-making on that. And the west off-shored every every manufacturing job to China over the last 40 years.

Now this is acting as a reckoning that making only 3000% return on a shirt made in Mexico is better than 10000% on a Chinese shirt that can’t get produced.

Many firms are working on diversifying at least a portion of manufacturing out of China’s sole control. But it takes years to build up factories/etc. so that’s “good news” for like late 2023 at the earliest. Really talking more like 2024.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

tedtan said:


> How does that describe capitalism screwing anyone over (except the dealers)?



Everybody who had their car repossessed, for one.


----------



## mmr007

There hasnt been decreased demand for cars. The supply is artificially limited. Cars are still flying over the proverbial shelves at 20% over MsRP and then those loans are getting sold in bundles? Why would want to sell a $60,000 truck for $75,000 instead of $55,000 in incentives and then also sell a shady loan? I dont know.


----------



## tedtan

wheresthefbomb said:


> Everybody who had their car repossessed, for one.


The lenders did play a role in that, but so did everyone else.

The government shouldn’t have given out as much stimulus as they did, the individual shouldn’t buy something they can’t afford, especially on credit, and the lender shouldn’t lend over 100% of the vehicle’s value and, even then, only if the buyer 1) has a 775 or better credit score, and 2) has sufficient income to cover the payment along with all other expenses.

But these days when everyone has a phone/tablet/computer with internet access, there is no excuse for people not checking to see what they can afford, either, so we can’t just blame capitalism.

Capitalism is the only economic theory proven to work in modern times; communism has always failed. Sure, we can add social policy limits on top of capitalism (lez a fair capitalism only works for those who control the resources), but its still capitalism.




mmr007 said:


> There hasnt been decreased demand for cars. The supply is artificially limited. Cars are still flying over the proverbial shelves at 20% over MsRP and then those loans are getting sold in bundles? Why would want to sell a $60,000 truck for $75,000 instead of $55,000 in incentives and then also sell a shady loan? I dont know.


Dealers may be able to get over MSRP, but they aren’t the manufacturers that you claim are reducing supply. The dealers are independent franchisees of the manufacturers; regular business owners allowed to sell the manufacturer’s product line and use thier branding, but separate from the manufacturer.

So how does the *manufacturer* make money by reducing the supply, even if the dealer is able to make more* money (at least, per unit)?



* And I stress per unit, as they can likely make much more by increasing the volume of sales, even at a reduced margin. That’s the whole business model of big box stores, after all. High margin/low volume only really works for exclusive items like luxury brands.


----------



## Glades

tedtan said:


> The government shouldn’t have given out as much stimulus as they did, *the individual shouldn’t buy something they can’t afford, especially on credit*, and the lender shouldn’t lend over 100% of the vehicle’s value and, even then, only if the buyer 1) has a 775 or better credit score, and 2) has sufficient income to cover the payment along with all other expenses.


The majority of Americans are in this situation. They have student loans for a degree that doesn't pay off, mortgage a house that is too expensive, loan for a car they can't afford, and overspend on credit cards on luxuries they don't need. The only people getting rich these days are the banks.
I am thankfully debt-free, but I know a lot of people that burn all their income paying the banks.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

tedtan said:


> Capitalism is the only economic theory proven to work in modern times.



To the extent that nothing else has been tested on a large scale, sure. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't "work," I'm saying it does work, the way it works is fucked, and I personally choose to believe there are better ways to do things even if they're not easily attainable or demonstrated by any conveniently-existing models. I don't care about who is making what profits, what I see is that a bunch of people trying to drive to their stupid jobs got hosed in the process of some rational businesses decisions. That's wrong and it's fucked and I refuse to accept that as the best we can do. 

Im not a communist, but all of the countries in which "communism failed" were subject to extensive US intervention up to and including sanctions, coups, and throwing motherfuckers out of helicopters, there's no basis to claim they failed because they were communist. They may well have failed due to the shortcomings of communism if left alone, but we won't ever know.

Also, while I wouldn't want to live there, nor would I advocate for their policies, China seems to be doing "fine" to the extent that any country is doing "fine." At the very least, I don't think we can point to China and say honestly that "communism has failed."


----------



## Randy

Kinda funny China has the US by the economic balls ten times over again and it's commie.


----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> The majority of Americans are in this situation. They have student loans for a degree that doesn't pay off, mortgage a house that is too expensive, loan for a car they can't afford, and overspend on credit cards on luxuries they don't need. The only people getting rich these days are the banks.
> I am thankfully debt-free, but I know a lot of people that burn all their income paying the banks.


Yeah, and debt sucks*. But as long as they are servicing the debt, they’re not as bad off those having their car repossessed or their house foreclosed.


* Debt can be a good thing when used to leverage the return on an investment, but most people are not sophisticated enough to think in these terms.



wheresthefbomb said:


> To the extent that nothing else has been tested on a large scale, sure. I'm not saying capitalism doesn't "work," I'm saying it does work, the way it works is fucked, and I personally choose to believe there are better ways to do things even if they're not easily attainable or demonstrated by any conveniently-existing models. I don't care about who is making what profits, what I see is that a bunch of people trying to drive to their stupid jobs got hosed in the process of some rational businesses decisions. That's wrong and it's fucked and I refuse to accept that as the best we can do.


I don’t see a better way than a capitalist economy with a set of social oriented social policies in place as controls to prevent the players from going too far to the detriment of the average Joe. If you have an alternative, I’m all ears.




wheresthefbomb said:


> Im not a communist, but all of the countries in which "communism failed" were subject to extensive US intervention up to and including sanctions, coups, and throwing motherfuckers out of helicopters, there's no basis to claim they failed because they were communist. They may well have failed due to the shortcomings of communism if left alone, but we won't ever know.


A major flaw of communism is that it requires every single person to be on board. As soon as you have someone wants more than their allotment, or a narcissist, or whatever, you either have to kill them off, imprison them, or the system fails.




wheresthefbomb said:


> Also, while I wouldn't want to live there, nor would I advocate for their policies, China seems to be doing "fine" to the extent that any country is doing "fine." At the very least, I don't think we can point to China and say honestly that "communism has failed."


China is not communist at this point, and never truly were, though they pay lip service to communism. And the reason that their economy has improved markedly in recent decades is that they are becoming more and more capitalist; that’s what has fueled their economic growth.




Randy said:


> Kinda funny China has the US by the economic balls ten times over again and it's commie.


Only because we’ve outsourced so much manufacturing to them, which is ultimately our own fault.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Randy said:


> Kinda funny China has the US by the economic balls ten times over again and it's commie.


That's because they have adopted and do capitalism better than we do, ruthlessly and with purpose. They're playing the long game and we are only concerned with payoff in the next fiscal period.


----------



## Glades

_*From NPR:*_
_*“*_*Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes*
_Pregnant Georgians can now list their fetus as a dependent on their tax returns. The Georgia Department of Revenue released new guidance this week establishing that the agency "will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat ... as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption.An individual at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can list the fetus as a dependent on their tax returns starting next year, the agency said. Georgian taxpayers can claim an exemption in the amount of $3,000 for each dependent.”_

It looks like legislation is finally catching up to the science.


----------



## Bodes

Glades said:


> _*From NPR:*_
> _*“*_*Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes*
> _Pregnant Georgians can now list their fetus as a dependent on their tax returns. The Georgia Department of Revenue released new guidance this week establishing that the agency "will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat ... as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption.An individual at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can list the fetus as a dependent on their tax returns starting next year, the agency said. Georgian taxpayers can claim an exemption in the amount of $3,000 for each dependent.”_
> 
> It looks like legislation is finally catching up to the science.



I would say that the tax law has quickly caught up with the state law on what the state government deems to be considered a viable living human.

Science is still undecided on the actual definition of what constitutes a living human. Let's not start this conversation up again but acknowledge that the State of Georgia are being consistent here, no matter what side of the fence you as an individual are on.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

tedtan said:


> China is not communist at this point, and never truly were, though they pay lip service to communism. And the reason that their economy has improved markedly in recent decades is that they are becoming more and more capitalist; that’s what has fueled their economic growth.



I mean if we're gatekeeping, neither are any other "communist" countries now or past. So we are back where we started, we've never tried anything else, and any attempts have been stamped out with a fiery rain of freedom. 

It should be obvious how patently ridiculous it is to say you can't imagine anything other than the only thing we've ever known.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> _*From NPR:*_
> _*“*_*Pregnant? Georgia says that fetus counts as a dependent on your taxes*
> _Pregnant Georgians can now list their fetus as a dependent on their tax returns. The Georgia Department of Revenue released new guidance this week establishing that the agency "will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat ... as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption.An individual at least six weeks pregnant on or after July 20 through Dec. 31, 2022, can list the fetus as a dependent on their tax returns starting next year, the agency said. Georgian taxpayers can claim an exemption in the amount of $3,000 for each dependent.”_
> 
> It looks like legislation is finally catching up to the science.



This will end badly.

First off, an unknown but HUGE amount of pregnancies naturally don't result in a baby (probably more than we know, since there was previously no incentive to document all 6 week pregnancies). I can just see it now. Enjoy documenting and proving your non-malicious miscarriages.

Then there's the IVF crowd with their 5-6-7-8 embryos, usually but not always naturally whittled down to 0-1.

Then there'll be potential-daddy-rights movements.

Etc.


----------



## Randy

How is it a dependent if it's not eating your food, flushing your toilet, taking up space in your house, etc? What functional purpose does this serve?


----------



## narad

Randy said:


> How is it a dependent if it's not eating your food, flushing your toilet, taking up space in your house, etc? What functional purpose does this serve?



Isn't it eating your food?


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Isn't it eating your food?


Right?



Randy said:


> How is it a dependent if it's not eating your food, flushing your toilet, taking up space in your house, etc? What functional purpose does this serve?


If it's not eating your food, at what point does it start doing that? Does breast milk count? Do diapers count?

I think that the law needs to at least be consistent with itself. So, if someone is going to say that a fertilized egg is a person the moment the cells start to divide, then that person or entity that says that had better be ready to consider those cells as an actual person. If the expecting parents want to take out a life insurance policy or claim those cells as a dependent, then the law needs to have a consistent explanation. The employer of the expecting parents ought to provide a health insurance policy, too, while we're at it. If we are going to go all in, we need to go all in. "Hey, Lucy gets to bring her kid to the office, why can't I?" "But Brenda, Lucy's kid is negative 4 months old, and your kid is 17 years old!" "So?!"

Actually, with this whole new paradigm, we need to adjust our ages, too. Birthdays are meaningless now. We all became people when we were conceived. Birth certificates are now meaningless. We'll need a conception certificate now. But only in states where an embryo is the same thing as a baby. So, it'll get messy when someone is conceived in Mississippi and born in Massachusetts. I guess that person would have two different ages. Or worse, what if someone is conceived in a state where you aren't a person until birth, and then born in a state where you are a person at conception? I guess you'd have to get a post-dated conception certificate. What about people who move after they are born? Will their age change depending on which state they are currently living in? Of course, social security and selective service are federal programs dependent on age... hmm... We'll have to figure something out, I guess.


----------



## tedtan

wheresthefbomb said:


> I mean if we're gatekeeping, neither are any other "communist" countries now or past. So we are back where we started, we've never tried anything else, and any attempts have been stamped out with a fiery rain of freedom.
> 
> It should be obvious how patently ridiculous it is to say you can't imagine anything other than the only thing we've ever known.


You are correct that we’ve never had a proper communist economy and we never will because it only works “on paper”.

As for imagining other options, sure. But imagining *viable* options is much more difficult given the limited supply of resources and our tendency to compete for them.


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> You are correct that we’ve never had a proper communist economy and we never will because it only works “on paper”.
> 
> As for imagining other options, sure. But imagining *viable* options is much more difficult given the limited supply of resources and our tendency to compete for them.



It's weird to me when someone says something only works "on paper" when it's only really ever existed "on paper". The only argument anyone ever says for the inevitable failure of communism is an appeal to (the worst aspects of) human nature. It's like just saying, we're all slaves to our tribal instincts and no amount of philosophy or intellect can ever stop you from being a selfish asshole.

If you imagine most of production processes being automated but still having billions of humans on the planet... well... that's not going to be a capitalist society. Or if it is, it'd be a hellish experience, as it'd mean an even smaller amount of uber wealthy people having ownership of an even larger proportion of production.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> It's weird to me when someone says something only works "on paper" when it's only really ever existed "on paper". The only argument anyone ever says for the inevitable failure of communism is an appeal to (the worst aspects of) human nature. It's like just saying, we're all slaves to our tribal instincts and no amount of philosophy or intellect can ever stop you from being a selfish asshole.
> 
> If you imagine most of production processes being automated but still having billions of humans on the planet... well... that's not going to be a capitalist society. Or if it is, it'd be a hellish experience, as it'd mean an even smaller amount of uber wealthy people having ownership of an even larger proportion of production.


If communism were a superior system, it should have thrived when introduced and eventually overcome capitalism, even given the sanctions put in place by capitalist economies, but it didn’t.

And as for overcoming human nature, how can you stop Putin from being a selfish asshole? What about Stalin? Or Hitler? Or Pol Pot? Sadam Hussein? Xi Jinping? Trump? DeSantis? Alex Jones? Steve Bannon? The list goes on…


----------



## narad

tedtan said:


> If communism were a superior system, it should have thrived when introduced and eventually overcome capitalism, even given the sanctions put in place by capitalist economies, but it didn’t.
> 
> And as for overcoming human nature, how can you stop Putin from being a selfish asshole? What about Stalin? Or Hitler? Or Pol Pot? Sadam Hussein? Xi Jinping? Trump? DeSantis? Alex Jones? Steve Bannon? The list goes on…


When it was introduced where? It's funny that people usually turn to communism when everything is going to shit. Communism is definitely not some easy mode state that societies naturally gravitate towards, but it still makes a lot more sense. The values of capitalism and consumerism really don't scale well to 8 billion+ people and we're seeing the cracks every day. I mean, would we be struggling to meet climate goals living under a more communist configuration? Is it useful to say that capitalism is the only viable system if it leads to the death of the planet, but hard workers were sort of rewarded along the path to get there, and we had lots of cool stuff?

I feel like probably you need sufficient technology to enable a move to communism. Automation which makes most people's jobs obsolete and really leaves no other choice. Information-based technology to ensure full transparency in the government to prevent corruption. Maybe a certain sort of education in philosophy / Peter Singer type of population before you can pull it off.

But ya, anyway, funny when someone is just like, nope, it could never work, because of like.. hey look at Cuba 60 years ago. Which is of course exactly what the world looks like today, everywhere, and will always continue to do so.


----------



## bostjan

I think that the problem is that the overall situation isn't really that different for the majority of people. If the wealthy own the means of production, it means that the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy. If the government owns the means of production, but the government is owned by the wealthy, which is certainly the case in most places on Earth, then the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy, via the proxy of the government. Even if the means of production are owned by "the community," it very quickly short-circuits to the same situation if a few wealthy people nominate themselves to be "the community."

People get so laser focused on communism or socialism or capitalism, when any of those work equally well when people respect each other and equally poorly when they don't. The fact that capitalism is a little less dishonest about who holds the economic power just means that the people who abuse their power can do it more openly. It's not a good thing nor a bad thing, per se, just a different spin on the same turd in the same toilet bowl.


----------



## profwoot

bostjan said:


> I think that the problem is that the overall situation isn't really that different for the majority of people. If the wealthy own the means of production, it means that the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy. If the government owns the means of production, but the government is owned by the wealthy, which is certainly the case in most places on Earth, then the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy, via the proxy of the government. Even if the means of production are owned by "the community," it very quickly short-circuits to the same situation if a few wealthy people nominate themselves to be "the community."
> 
> People get so laser focused on communism or socialism or capitalism, when any of those work equally well when people respect each other and equally poorly when they don't. The fact that capitalism is a little less dishonest about who holds the economic power just means that the people who abuse their power can do it more openly. It's not a good thing nor a bad thing, per se, just a different spin on the same turd in the same toilet bowl.


This is basically where I'm at. Capitalism sucks because it relies on individuals' greed to fuel production, but it turns out that people are very greedy so it's really effective at fueling production. Late-stage capitalism is when the government abdicates its responsibility of regulating the corporations, the corporations control the government, and the whole system becomes untenable. That's where we are now. But capitalism could still maybe work if we could somehow prevent corporations from buying politicians. Politicians love to be bought, obviously, so they're unlikely to ban the practice, and this dynamic will ultimately doom us.

What could save us is the Republican party figuring out that being pro-corporation is basically the opposite of being pro-capitalism. But since they don't even seem to support democracy anymore I don't see that happening until it's too late.


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> I think that the problem is that the overall situation isn't really that different for the majority of people. If the wealthy own the means of production, it means that the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy. If the government owns the means of production, but the government is owned by the wealthy, which is certainly the case in most places on Earth, then the masses are wage-slaves to the wealthy, via the proxy of the government. Even if the means of production are owned by "the community," it very quickly short-circuits to the same situation if a few wealthy people nominate themselves to be "the community."
> 
> People get so laser focused on communism or socialism or capitalism, when any of those work equally well when people respect each other and equally poorly when they don't. The fact that capitalism is a little less dishonest about who holds the economic power just means that the people who abuse their power can do it more openly. It's not a good thing nor a bad thing, per se, just a different spin on the same turd in the same toilet bowl.


It's true that it boils down to behavior that could be present in either system, but in a capitalist society you're incentivized to be a Bezos. It is a virtue. In a communist society, such disparities would be considered corruption. Personal values showing, but I'd rather reward doctors than Bezoses or banks, but capitalism has a really weird way of doing credit assignment, and we have to act like the man Jeff Bezos personally made all of our lives better to the general proportion of his stake in Amazon x it's valuation.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> When it was introduced where? It's funny that people usually turn to communism when everything is going to shit. Communism is definitely not some easy mode state that societies naturally gravitate towards, but it still makes a lot more sense. The values of capitalism and consumerism really don't scale well to 8 billion+ people and we're seeing the cracks every day. I mean, would we be struggling to meet climate goals living under a more communist configuration? Is it useful to say that capitalism is the only viable system if it leads to the death of the planet, but hard workers were sort of rewarded along the path to get there, and we had lots of cool stuff?
> 
> I feel like probably you need sufficient technology to enable a move to communism. Automation which makes most people's jobs obsolete and really leaves no other choice. Information-based technology to ensure full transparency in the government to prevent corruption. Maybe a certain sort of education in philosophy / Peter Singer type of population before you can pull it off.
> 
> But ya, anyway, funny when someone is just like, nope, it could never work, because of like.. hey look at Cuba 60 years ago. Which is of course exactly what the world looks like today, everywhere, and will always continue to do so.


I’m not a proponent of laissez faire capitalism; we need some form of social oriented laws and policies to prevent those types of things from happening. It’s just easier to do that with capitalism than communism because it is more transparent. When you have government or community owned means of production, self serving individuals ultimately gain control of those means of production creating a pseudo-capitalist economy anyway, just under a veil of communism (see bostjan’ s comments in post 20493), mix in some fascism, and use it to first unite, then control, the populace just as many Middle Eastern countries use religion.


----------



## bostjan

profwoot said:


> This is basically where I'm at. Capitalism sucks because it relies on individuals' greed to fuel production, but it turns out that people are very greedy so it's really effective at fueling production. Late-stage capitalism is when the government abdicates its responsibility of regulating the corporations, the corporations control the government, and the whole system becomes untenable. That's where we are now. But capitalism could still maybe work if we could somehow prevent corporations from buying politicians. Politicians love to be bought, obviously, so they're unlikely to ban the practice, and this dynamic will ultimately doom us.
> 
> What could save us is the Republican party figuring out that being pro-corporation is basically the opposite of being pro-capitalism. But since they don't even seem to support democracy anymore I don't see that happening until it's too late.


That's right. Also, the Republican platform in 2022 is basically just to oppose whatever democrats want to do or had wanted to have done in the last three or so decades. But you're right, as a matter of their virtue, they are quite awful; they have no qualms with lying, cheating, etc., just as long as it allows them to stymie the democrats. I might agree with a couple of their goals (or in other words, disagree with a couple of the democrats' goals), but I cannot get behind them even 1% as long as they are willing to support corruption and tyranny in order to get there. In government, the process of how governing occurs is just as important as meat of the policies themselves.



narad said:


> It's true that it boils down to behavior that could be present in either system, but in a capitalist society you're incentivized to be a Bezos. It is a virtue. In a communist society, such disparities would be considered corruption. Personal values showing, but I'd rather reward doctors than Bezoses or banks, but capitalism has a really weird way of doing credit assignment, and we have to act like the man Jeff Bezos personally made all of our lives better to the general proportion of his stake in Amazon x it's valuation.


Well, honestly, I'd rather have a Bezos than a Stalin or even a Mao. Neither are good, and we certainly have had and could have a capitalist billionaire worse than Bezos. Every societal system has a way to cheat it. And in all societies, whatever behaviours lead to glory are incentivized, and in no societies are bad behaviours disincentivised enough to outweigh the incentive of getting away with cheating the system.

One could argue that Bezos made his money because he provided people with a service that they wanted, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of his business as it is supported solely by private individuals spending private dollars on that service. Same could be said about Henry Ford or whomever. It's more difficult to cheat that system than it is to cheat the voting system or the political appointment system or whatever government system. Even in a fair system, people might be more apt to put an iota of thought into spending a dollar than into casting a vote. However, there are lots of painfully obvious flaws with capitalism. I don't think it's worth defending it. But I don't think that any extreme ideology is ever going to be the answer. Government should be focused on its primary purpose to protect its citizens from outside threats and from each other. I do really believe that communism is a great idea, but in it's pre-Marxist sense, that communities should pool their resources in order to better themselves. Getting the government involved in dictating people's careers and personal choices is only going to end up being a disaster for everyone. And if a large government tries large-scale communism, that means that a small group of people will ultimately corner the decision-making power affecting large scale agriculture and manufacturing, and even if it can work over one or two leaders, it will ultimately break down the moment the wrong people come to power.

So what's great about the USA's system of governance is that it's tiered with the largest amount of day-to-day powers held by smaller government entities, like states, counties, cities, communities, and even individuals. The federal government doesn't get to decide whether we are all going to grow corn or wheat or soybeans or potatoes, and doesn't dictate that everyone tries to smelt iron in their backyard wood-stove or other such nonsense. Communities can still try such things on a smaller level, which leads to smaller-level failures with the same level of learning from mistakes as the large-scale failures that faces a lot of early Marxist-Leninist countries early on. And maybe it's silly for someone to try to become a tennis superstar when they have no aptitude for tennis, and tons of aptitude for welding, but giving them the chance to try it on their own will either result in their striving hard enough to bring a new attitude to win or else they will feel firsthand why they should have just gone into welding in the first place and appreciate the opportunity to go back. Whereas, in a truly communist society, where your career is determined by your aptitude can generate a lot of resentment over time, which, maybe counter-intuitively squelches productivity on a large scale.

But our system in the USA is clearly not perfect, in fact, right now, it's actively breaking down. I don't blame Trump, but I think Trump is a symptom of the bigger problem of many American's knee-jerk recoil reaction to hearing anything about socialism or communism as if it were cancer. Prior to being politician Trump, Trump was a symptom of all the weaknesses in a capitalist economic system and also a symptom of all the weaknesses in a celebrity-based social influencer system. The whole combination was like mixing bleach and ammonia in a confined, poorly-ventilated space. And, rather than reeling back and saying "that was dumb, let's make sure that never happens again," a shockingly large portion of the American people said "huh huh, whoah, that was cool!" and wanted Beavis to do it again. It takes us on a path that leads more toward extremism, and extremism, whether it's socialist or capitalist or any other -ist (imagine an extreme phlebotomist!) is bad. Anything that is good in moderation or in balance with other philosophies is bad when it becomes obsessive and inappropriate.


----------



## tedtan

profwoot said:


> This is basically where I'm at. Capitalism sucks because it relies on individuals' greed to fuel production, but it turns out that people are very greedy so it's really effective at fueling production. Late-stage capitalism is when the government abdicates its responsibility of regulating the corporations, the corporations control the government, and the whole system becomes untenable. That's where we are now. But capitalism could still maybe work if we could somehow prevent corporations from buying politicians. Politicians love to be bought, obviously, so they're unlikely to ban the practice, and this dynamic will ultimately doom us.
> 
> What could save us is the Republican party figuring out that being pro-corporation is basically the opposite of being pro-capitalism. But since they don't even seem to support democracy anymore I don't see that happening until it's too late.


Yeah, capitalism has its downsides, too.

I suppose the problems with either system stem from the selfish assholes that will twist the system to benefit themselves and the politicians that allow it to happen because they are paid to do so.


----------



## zappatton2

I'm no economist, but I'd venture to say that most conversations on this topic tend to devolve into some binary concept of white-hat capitalism on this side and black-hat communism on that side, and I don't think that's how any society functions.

Generally, every country or jurisdiction the world over is some balancing act between private self-interest and the public good. To me, though no society is some post-scarcity utopia, the "social democracy" or "democratic socialism" model seems to come closest to striking the right balance between a productive capitalist economy and a strong social safety net, and the one model I'm most likely to advocate for and vote towards in my own backyard.


----------



## mmr007

So....the next logical step, and I'm not joking can a woman just enter the carpool lane and if she gets pulled over state she missed her period? There are two people in the car.


----------



## mmr007

Capitalism is fine. It is the stock market that sucks in every measure and corrupts capitalism into a grotesque beast, demanding that enough is never enough. Quarterly earnings is the bane of humanity.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

bostjan said:


> Actually, with this whole new paradigm, we need to adjust our ages, too. Birthdays are meaningless now.


Not really. At the risk of appearing anything other but pro-choice, I have to point out that certain Asian cultures/countries have traditionally figured the 9 months into their age calculations. My wife and I were born the same year. In Korea, where she was born and raised, she is a year older than me. They still celebrate birthdays, not Conceived Days.


----------



## bostjan

EDIT: Disregard


----------



## Xaios

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Not really. At the risk of appearing anything other but pro-choice, I have to point out that certain Asian cultures/countries have traditionally figured the 9 months into their age calculations. My wife and I were born the same year. In Korea, where she was born and raised, she is a year older than me. They still celebrate birthdays, not Conceived Days.


You know, one advantage of a passport or birth certificate listing "date of birth" is that the owner doesn't necessarily need to suffer the mental image in their head of their parents having sex whenever they read it. If they started listing "date of conception" instead, no such luck. Might as well read "date of father adding cream to mother's clam chowder."


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

If you're going to say communism is not a superior system because it didn't thrive as well as capitalism I think you have to define what you regard as superior. Does stronger necessarily mean superior? I mean, cockroaches are probably going to survive all of us, so I guess they are superior life forms?

I'll show myself out now.


----------



## Mathemagician

mmr007 said:


> Capitalism is fine. It is the stock market that sucks in every measure and corrupts capitalism into a grotesque beast, demanding that enough is never enough. Quarterly earnings is the bane of humanity.



Stock buy/backs used to be illegal. Then companies lobbied politicians to allow them. So now a firm can use its capital instead of investing in growth or new benefits/perks as a smart way to reduce their taxable income. They now instead can buy back their own shares to artificially inflate the share price. Which only benefits senior managers whose compensation is mostly stocks.

To this point, a little regulation goes a long way. And sometimes you need a bit more than a little. Regulations aren’t “evil” they just set up guardrails to keep things going where a society wants - instead of just maximizing profits above all else.

Like the outdoors and camping/hunting? Good thing they regulated the dumping of waste and sewage instead of allowing it wherever.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Mathemagician said:


> Stock buy/backs used to be illegal. Then companies lobbied politicians to allow them. So now a firm can use its capital instead of investing in growth or new benefits/perks as a smart way to reduce their taxable income. They now instead can buy back their own shares to artificially inflate the share price. Which only benefits senior managers whose compensation is mostly stocks.
> 
> To this point, a little regulation goes a long way. And sometimes you need a bit more than a little. Regulations aren’t “evil” they just set up guardrails to keep things going where a society wants - instead of just maximizing profits above all else.
> 
> Like the outdoors and camping/hunting? Good thing they regulated the dumping of waste and sewage instead of allowing it wherever.


You should check out the film "Downfall" about the modern evolution of the once biggest employer in my state, Boeing. After the merger with McD Douglas in '96, cost cutting became SOP. Most recently, when Airbus introduced the Neo, the more energy-efficient transport the airlines had been screaming for, Boeing had just finished buying back stock to enrich their shareholders and had nothing to invest in a new airliner to compete. So they hung more energy efficient engines on the 40 year old 737, which changed the flight characteristics of the plane, causing a tendency to stall. They called it the MAX. They put a system in called MCAS and didn't tell anybody, didn't even put it in the manuals except the index because their big selling point was that no money would be needed to retrain pilots that already flew the 737. You probably knpw what happened after that. Much more to the story, but that's a pretty good example of a company people were proud to work for, had a history of listening to their workers to find and fix problems. In 1996 the company started working for Wall Street. Hundreds of people died. The company blamed the pilots and the foreign (Indonesian and Ethiopian) airlines and they still will not apologize to the families. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Xaios said:


> You know, one advantage of a passport or birth certificate listing "date of birth" is that the owner doesn't necessarily need to suffer the mental image in their head of their parents having sex whenever they read it. If they started listing "date of conception" instead, no such luck. Might as well read "date of father adding cream to mother's clam chowder."


"laugh out lou... hmmm... dammit."


----------



## narad

bostjan said:


> Well, honestly, I'd rather have a Bezos than a Stalin or even a Mao. Neither are good, and we certainly have had and could have a capitalist billionaire worse than Bezos. Every societal system has a way to cheat it. And in all societies, whatever behaviours lead to glory are incentivized, and in no societies are bad behaviours disincentivised enough to outweigh the incentive of getting away with cheating the system.



These are different things though. I wanted to say you shouldn't have a Stalin or a Mao under communism, but how you structure the ruling party is not really involved in how labor and economy are structured, they can exist on two separate axis. There's certainly nothing about communism that incentivizes a Stalin or a Mao though, whereas there is in capitalism incentives (both financial and cultural) in being a Bezos. There's probably kids right now being told, "hey, if you work really hard, you can be like Bezos!"

But so cheating in communism seems to mostly be about hiding the earnings the decision making into a small set of cronies. I think we have enough technology these days to track all these things and make the process completely transparent to the people. The cheats of capitalism in comparison don't seem nearly as easy to solve IMO, as many are baked into why people like capitalism. 



bostjan said:


> One could argue that Bezos made his money because he provided people with a service that they wanted, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of his business as it is supported solely by private individuals spending private dollars on that service.


That's why I find the credit assignment of capitalism bonkers. There's no real innovation in Amazon -- throw 50 websites with a unified pay platform at the world, and one of them is going to win out. The more one wins, the more people choose it. It's not offering me something I didn't have at any other web retailer, except for scale. I don't want to enter my credit card details into 100 different websites, so Amazon wins out. The more I use Amazon, the more of the sorts of services I use wind up there. It's these sort of inevitable and self-fulfilling companies that really throw a wrench into any sort of "profit as value" equivalences.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> These are different things though. I wanted to say you shouldn't have a Stalin or a Mao under communism, but how you structure the ruling party is not really involved in how labor and economy are structured, they can exist on two separate axis.


I agree that they are different things, but I disagree when you say that they are independent.

Under communism, the government of the community and the management of the agricultural and industrial sectors are the same, consolidated. That necessarily consolidates all power in one place. And within that place, promotion is not naturally incentivized by good results. How labor is structured is dictated by the way the economy is structured.



narad said:


> There's certainly nothing about communism that incentivizes a Stalin or a Mao though, whereas there is in capitalism incentives (both financial and cultural) in being a Bezos. There's probably kids right now being told, "hey, if you work really hard, you can be like Bezos!"



I'm not sure why you think that is the case. If you look at the number of despots that communism has output per capita versus the amount of tycoons capitalism has output per capita, there is no empirical evidence of your conjecture. And, as for your example, I find it odd, because, well, do you know how many children were told that if they worked really hard, they could be like Mao?

Capitalism is not a form of governance as much as a form of an economy where the government restricts its interference. Communism is a form of governance where the economy and the government are merged as one entity. This allows those who have amassed political power to amass economic power directly without added checks and balances. Because of that, we see how despots can infiltrate a communist government and take their power to extreme levels. Additional checks and balances can be artificially added, just as in a capitalist economy, monopoly busting can be artificially added, and it will effectively function as a failsafe.



narad said:


> But so cheating in communism seems to mostly be about hiding the earnings the decision making into a small set of cronies. I think we have enough technology these days to track all these things and make the process completely transparent to the people. The cheats of capitalism in comparison don't seem nearly as easy to solve IMO, as many are baked into why people like capitalism.



IDK. In a communist system, the control of information is assigned by the government, just like how every other job is assigned by the government. All it takes is for the person in charge of controlling the information to be given a little taste of the kickbacks. In capitalism, the news is driven by profits, so the same thing can happen, just through a different route. It's all going to be the same. I don't see how one system is going to have a more free press than the other.  But again, look at what's out there. Who is breaking the big stories that bust corruption? Does that ever come from the press in communist communities? I don't think it ever does, actually. So, in practice, if it never works that way, why would we think that it should work that way?



narad said:


> That's why I find the credit assignment of capitalism bonkers. There's no real innovation in Amazon -- throw 50 websites with a unified pay platform at the world, and one of them is going to win out. The more one wins, the more people choose it. It's not offering me something I didn't have at any other web retailer, except for scale. I don't want to enter my credit card details into 100 different websites, so Amazon wins out. The more I use Amazon, the more of the sorts of services I use wind up there. It's these sort of inevitable and self-fulfilling companies that really throw a wrench into any sort of "profit as value" equivalences.



I agree that it's bonkers. Again, I'm not defending capitalism as the best economic system out there. It has tons of flaws.

Amazon is a giant. Everybody uses it and everybody kind of low key hates it, but supports it anyway. If you really want to do something about it, though, all you have to do is stop buying from them. But what are you going to do, then? Go to Walmart's website instead? Drive to Walmart's stores? Aliexpress? Stop buying cheap shit altogether? I think a lot of people _have _stopped buying cheap shit, but not nearly enough to teach Amazon any sort of lesson.

In a communist society, what would happen to Amazon? Would it disappear altogether? Or would it be run by the government? How would either of those solve the average person's daily problems?

I think it is the sort of lowkey hatred for people like Bezos that leads to the "communist revolution" type of society. It's like heroin - a poison that feels good in the short term but ruins society in the long run. I think it's that sort of thinking that is the problem, not communism nor capitalism as philosophies.

Does Jeff Bezos have way too much money? Yes. Does he use that money to help people? Yes. Does he do that enough? No. But would you or I be better justified to spend Bezos's money? I actually doubt it. If you gave me a million dollars, there's no way I'd not at least spend a little of it on home improvements, fixing my fubar'd car, buying a new piece of gear, or whatever. Those are things that I believe that I need. A tree fell on my house and my house *needs* more repairs. My car has been broken since January, and the chip shortage has meant that I can't properly fix it without spending close to $10k. And, well, I don't need any more gear, but I love gear, and I've always wanted certain pieces of gear to use to make music (which isn't even my job anymore). But no way that there aren't plenty of people out there way more down on their luck than me, so what gives me the right? I should just give it to those in need, right? Well, that's the big ol' burn in charity - the money never goes where it needs to go. Ever. You donate $1 to your local food shelf, likely >70 cents of that goes to administration and community advertising. I think anyone who has extensively worked with the homeless before knows that if you hand a person a wad of cash, the odds that it all gets spent on necessities is far less than 100%. So, you _need_ the people in place to tell people how to spend the money, and those people, even if they usually don't take too much for their own time, we know that the ones who do take too much take enough to effect the system.


----------



## Drew

mastapimp said:


> No. The chip shortage is not good for the businesses producing the chips. I've been in meetings with Texas Instruments reps where they're outlining how they plan to work around some of these issues by bringing their fab stateside and purchasing facilities in Utah. They are trying to reassure their customers that there will be chips sometime in the future so they do not lose money or future orders that are in limbo with no delivery dates. "Artificially maintaining" a shortage is absurd for them. My uncle is a field ops engineer at Analog Devices and he says this has been disastrous. Please provide your "growing evidence" that these companies don't want to do business...


Last Intel earnings report was, for lack of a better word, fucking abysmal, as well.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> There hasnt been decreased demand for cars. The supply is artificially limited. Cars are still flying over the proverbial shelves at 20% over MsRP and then those loans are getting sold in bundles? Why would want to sell a $60,000 truck for $75,000 instead of $55,000 in incentives and then also sell a shady loan? I dont know.


No one has argued there was decreased demand for cars, you're arguing against a straw man. 

Meanwhile, there is _zero_ evidence for artificially limited car supply, and no incentive for car manufacturers, who don't sell cars direct and don't profit from any premium over asking price, to produce too few cars to meet demand. There is also a ton of evidence that they're trying to produce more but microchip supply is hamstringing them. Continuing to say this isn't happening doesn't magically make it so.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Capitalism is not a form of governance as much as a form of an economy where the government restricts its interference. Communism is a form of governance where the economy and the government are merged as one entity. This allows those who have amassed political power to amass economic power directly without added checks and balances. Because of that, we see how despots can infiltrate a communist government and take their power to extreme levels. Additional checks and balances can be artificially added, just as in a capitalist economy, monopoly busting can be artificially added, and it will effectively function as a failsafe.


I think this is something a LOT of people get wrong about capitalism - that they confuse it with a system of government, and specifically an American style regulatory environment, whereas it's simply allowing supply and demand to allocate resources via a free market price-setting mechanism. And, a lot of attacks against capitalism are based on the American regulatory environment rather than the model itself. 

Too be fair you absolutely could say the same about communism, although to your point it's awfully hard to have a centrally-planned resource allocation model without a central government strong enough to enforce it.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Drew said:


> I think this is something a LOT of people get wrong about capitalism - that they confuse it with a system of government, and specifically an American style regulatory environment, whereas it's simply allowing supply and demand to allocate resources via a free market price-setting mechanism.


It's interesting how folks backgrounds in different disciplines see capitalism. Sure, it's economic. But I spent many years studying the effects of the system on a sociogical level, particulary regarding psychology, repressed conflict, pathological "symptoms" effecting the human condition in society and its unque capacity to reaffirm itself. That's what I find really interesting, and, frankly, important to understanding the dynamics of US culture.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Stock buy/backs used to be illegal. Then companies lobbied politicians to allow them. So now a firm can use its capital instead of investing in growth or new benefits/perks as a smart way to reduce their taxable income. They now instead can buy back their own shares to artificially inflate the share price. Which only benefits senior managers whose compensation is mostly stocks.
> 
> To this point, a little regulation goes a long way. And sometimes you need a bit more than a little. Regulations aren’t “evil” they just set up guardrails to keep things going where a society wants - instead of just maximizing profits above all else.
> 
> Like the outdoors and camping/hunting? Good thing they regulated the dumping of waste and sewage instead of allowing it wherever.


Tangental, but while as a bond analyst I don't generally like it when companies engage heavily in buybacks (especially debt fueled ones), I guess when push comes to shove I don't oppose them, at least in theory. 

Companies can issue as much equity as they want, both in an initial public offering, but in subsequent equity offerings. It's not widely done, but it certainly can be and happens often enough. There are also only limited controls on a company's ability to issue debt (whatever their shelf registration limit is, but that can be re-filed easily enough so in practice it's whatever the market will bear), and regardless of what you happen to believe the exact right ratio is, using debt to leverage equity implies that there's some sort of a "target" leverage ratio a company wants to manage itself to. Meanwhile, no one complains if a company retires debt. All together - saying companies can issue equity but not redeem it, can only adjust its target balance sheet by issuing more debt if the company believes its equity-heavy, and there are no restrictions on the abiluty of a company to de-leverage by buying back debt, collectively means you're treating equity as a much more restricted asset class than debt, which to me doesn't make much sense. 

Corporate finance dictates you engage in share buybacks for three basic (and, honestly, related) reasons - when you think your share price is undervalued, when you want to increase leverage modestly without issuing debt, or when your investment opportunities as a business have a lower expected ROI than your stock. The final one is probably the one worth thinking about - in the long run, buybacks of a stock that management believes is undervalued and has a higher expected ROI than investing in the core business should cause the stock ROI and the corporate investment ROI to converge. And, if the problem is the corporate investment ROI just isn't very high, then one of two things happen - either the company doesn't buy back stock and instead issues debt to up leverage and increase the ROI (at the cost of increasing risk), or the company's low growth opportunities mean it's ripe for disruption from a competitor who can generate higher investment returns in the same space. 

Doubt you're writing this saying you're _opposed_ to buybacks, exactly, but in theory I don't have much of a problem with them, it's just in practice if a company wants to increase leverage by issuing debt to buy back equities, that's all well and good, but means they're probably not a great investment as a bondholder since you can start running downgrade risk.


----------



## Drew

Riff the Road Dog said:


> It's interesting how folks backgrounds in different disciplines see capitalism. Sure, it's economic. But I spent many years studying the effects of the system on a sociogical level, particulary regarding psychology, repressed conflict, pathological "symptoms" effecting the human condition in society and its unque capacity to reaffirm itself. That's what I find really interesting, and, frankly, important to understanding the dynamics of US culture.


But that's kind of my point - all that is _very_ rooted in US culture, US market regulation, and US politics and government. Capitalism is just a simple economic mechanism, and the US isn't even an especially good example of capitalism - our health care industry, for example, has essentially no price discovery mechanism and is monopolistic or oligopolistic at the state level.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Drew said:


> But that's kind of my point - all that is _very_ rooted in US culture, US market regulation, and US politics and government. Capitalism is just a simple economic mechanism, and the US isn't even an especially good example of capitalism - our health care industry, for example, has essentially no price discovery mechanism and is monopolistic or oligopolistic at the state level.


Oh, I agree. I believe capitalism grew from original repressed conflict that is unique to American society.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Oh, I agree. I believe capitalism grew from original repressed conflict that is unique to American society.



Agree hugely with this. 

Maybe not exactly what you're getting at, but I have observed often that Amerikan culture is mostly really just a heady blend of exceptionalism and consumerism. That's why you get white ladies in feather head dresses at burning man, people who have no cultural identity tied to any kind of material (as in, existing and experienced in material reality) ethnic existence, and no true coming of age rituals, and the result is people try to cram shoddy approximations of others' identities into the gaping hole in their personality. 

We can also observe this in action among indigenous communities, or at least we sure as hell can where I live, as their traditional culture increasingly and inexorably gives way to the values of amerikan capitalism. It leaves people afloat and causes all kinds of really bad mental health issues including suicide and massive drug epidemics. 

This is also where a lot of the appeal of far right politics comes from. Fascism offers an identity, a place to belong. It neatly answers all of the existential questions that the above scenario saddles us with from birth.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

wheresthefbomb said:


> Agree hugely with this.
> 
> Maybe not exactly what you're getting at, but I have observed often that Amerikan culture is mostly really just a heady blend of exceptionalism and consumerism. That's why you get white ladies in feather head dresses at burning man, people who have no cultural identity tied to any kind of material (as in, existing and experienced in material reality) ethnic existence, and no true coming of age rituals, and the result is people try to cram shoddy approximations of others' identities into the gaping hole in their personality.
> 
> We can also observe this in action among indigenous communities, or at least we sure as hell can where I live, as their traditional culture increasingly and inexorably gives way to the values of amerikan capitalism. It leaves people afloat and causes all kinds of really bad mental health issues including suicide and massive drug epidemics.
> 
> This is also where a lot of the appeal of far right politics comes from. Fascism offers an identity, a place to belong. It neatly answers all of the existential questions that the above scenario saddles us with from birth.


I will only say a little about this because I think it would require a lot more explanation to make any sense. And I should probably start another thread instead of hijacking this one. And also because a lot of people will dismiss this as some kind of historical, sociological conspiracy theory, or even because they have a bias against psychoanalysis theory. Perhaps it hints at their own repressed conflict.

The theory is based on Freudian principles taken to a societal level.The original repressed conflict is the inability to come to grips with the fact that we are not all created equal. The contradiction is that we are all the same but different. Women are the same as men but they are different. This repressed conflict ultimately manifests in pathological symptoms, victim vs. victim violence, a repression of issues necessary to improving the human condition, etc. The folks at the top of the chain, enjoying the perks of the system, build more and more levels/barriers to facing any responsibilty whatsoever (corporations, etc.). Can't change the system as an outsider, but once you are in, the reward/perks are too great. It's a lot more complicated than that and seemed crazy until I suspended disbelief and studied it with the help of some very forward-thinking professors. I would recommend the French philosopher Marcuse, for starters.

This also, to me, helps to explain why we haven't had a woman president in this country and I doubt I will see it in my lifetime. Presidents other than Protestant, check. A black president, yes. But we still cannot accept a woman in that most powerful position.


----------



## tedtan

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Oh, I agree. I believe capitalism grew from original repressed conflict that is unique to American society.


I‘m not following you.

Capitalism began life in Europe, roughly following the French Revolution, and was first put into writing by Scottish economist Adam Smith in the mid to late 1700s. But even that wasn’t a revolution; it built upon existing systems.

Can you elaborate on this (either here or in a different thread)?


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

tedtan said:


> I‘m not following you.
> 
> Capitalism began life in Europe, roughly following the French Revolution, and was first put into writing by Scottish economist Adam Smith in the mid to late 1700s. But even that wasn’t a revolution; it built upon existing systems.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this (either here or in a different thread)?


I didn't say capitalism was invented in the US, or didn't mean to, anyway.The tenets of the system may have originated elsewhere but it was adopted and flourished in America in a very particular way. Hell, I don't even know if it was done consciously. American capitalism is, in my opinion, the most highly evolved form we've got currently, and stronger than anything that's come before. You have to look at how its tenets were uniquely suited to the development and evolution of America and how it grew here.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> Tangental, but while as a bond analyst I don't generally like it when companies engage heavily in buybacks (especially debt fueled ones), I guess when push comes to shove I don't oppose them, at least in theory.
> 
> Companies can issue as much equity as they want, both in an initial public offering, but in subsequent equity offerings. It's not widely done, but it certainly can be and happens often enough. There are also only limited controls on a company's ability to issue debt (whatever their shelf registration limit is, but that can be re-filed easily enough so in practice it's whatever the market will bear), and regardless of what you happen to believe the exact right ratio is, using debt to leverage equity implies that there's some sort of a "target" leverage ratio a company wants to manage itself to. Meanwhile, no one complains if a company retires debt. All together - saying companies can issue equity but not redeem it, can only adjust its target balance sheet by issuing more debt if the company believes its equity-heavy, and there are no restrictions on the abiluty of a company to de-leverage by buying back debt, collectively means you're treating equity as a much more restricted asset class than debt, which to me doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Corporate finance dictates you engage in share buybacks for three basic (and, honestly, related) reasons - when you think your share price is undervalued, when you want to increase leverage modestly without issuing debt, or when your investment opportunities as a business have a lower expected ROI than your stock. The final one is probably the one worth thinking about - in the long run, buybacks of a stock that management believes is undervalued and has a higher expected ROI than investing in the core business should cause the stock ROI and the corporate investment ROI to converge. And, if the problem is the corporate investment ROI just isn't very high, then one of two things happen - either the company doesn't buy back stock and instead issues debt to up leverage and increase the ROI (at the cost of increasing risk), or the company's low growth opportunities mean it's ripe for disruption from a competitor who can generate higher investment returns in the same space.
> 
> Doubt you're writing this saying you're _opposed_ to buybacks, exactly, but in theory I don't have much of a problem with them, it's just in practice if a company wants to increase leverage by issuing debt to buy back equities, that's all well and good, but means they're probably not a great investment as a bondholder since you can start running downgrade risk.



Oh I understand the “textbook/math” reasoning. And academically I admit it’s value as a pricing mechanism.

However in reality it should be heavily regulated due the conflict of interest between the two parties. Management who is compensated in stocks and thus has incentive to artificially inflate share price by reducing the available number of shares are the ones who decide whether the company is over or undervalued. And an easy example is to look at the dogshit airline industry. Stock buybacks for decades while inflating revenue sources in the short term by just cutting corners everywhere, cramming extra seats on flights, charging for everything, etc.

Big established firms annually decide they are undervalued and file to buy back shares. Meanwhile equity analysts would not agree that the % of “undervalued companies” lines up with the amount of companies actually filing to buy back shares.

If they want to increase share price they should have to increase the value of the company. Otherwise share buybacks are incentivized because mgmt/shareholders see share prices move upwards and thus assume mgmt is doing a good job.

Having high cash piles and doing a share buyback mathematically equates to increasing the dividend. I get that.

But a cash dividend is a permanent promise. It holds the company to that new standard even if it comes with the dividend income tax for investors.

Share buybacks are used every chance they get without an inherent promise that the firm will be able to maintain that level of profitability.

I’d just rather see firms unable or restricted to buy back shares and facing higher corporate income taxes with lower individual tax rates. IE a % of the share buyback has to be matched with a permanent dividend increase. And use those regulations to tilt large companies towards better pay versus rewarding financial engineering.

If they want ti manage their ratios and think they have too much equity then issue more debt. That again forces mgmt to think longer term.


----------



## Drew

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Oh, I agree. I believe capitalism grew from original repressed conflict that is unique to American society.


Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 by a Brit, and was based on an earlier work dating back to the 1750s. It was based on Adam Smith's firsthand experience with the Industrial Revolution in the UK.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> However in reality it should be heavily regulated due the conflict of interest between the two parties. Management who is compensated in stocks and thus has incentive to artificially inflate share price by reducing the available number of shares are the ones who decide whether the company is over or undervalued. And an easy example is to look at the dogshit airline industry. Stock buybacks for decades while inflating revenue sources in the short term by just cutting corners everywhere, cramming extra seats on flights, charging for everything, etc.
> 
> Big established firms annually decide they are undervalued and file to buy back shares. Meanwhile equity analysts would not agree that the % of “undervalued companies” lines up with the amount of companies actually filing to buy back shares.
> 
> If they want to increase share price they should have to increase the value of the company. Otherwise share buybacks are incentivized because mgmt/shareholders see share prices move upwards and thus assume mgmt is doing a good job.


TBH, this is a corporate governance problem. Executive incentive programs are set by the board of directors, not management. Stock buyback programs also have to be approved by the board of directors. Board members usually have stock ownership themselves, but not performance-based stock grant plans. A suitably independent board does not have an incentive to closely tie executive comp to the stock price, and then approve buyback plans large enough to potentially impact the stock price. A board that isn't suitably independent, well, you've got bigger fish to fry than this. But the gist is management reports to a (almost always) independent board, that board is elected by stockholders, and this helps align management decisions with the longer-term interest of stockholders. If a board sees management pursuing policies that they think will increase stock price in the short run to hit comp targets in ways they don't believe are beneficual in the long run, then those comp plans, as well as potentially the management slate, will change in a hurry. 

There's also no real reason a dividend can't be cut, aside from the fact equity analysts really don't like this and tend to downgrade stocks who do, simply because equity valuation models tend to either assume a steady dividend or one increasing a a steady rate. 

From a bondholder standpoint, I do have a preference to firms who engage in return of shareholder capital leaning a bit heavier on buybacks than dividend increases, provided management has a track record of aligning them to the business cycle (increase when times are good, slow or halt them when times are bad) simply because - while yes, you can cut a dividend - it gives management a lot more flexibility in ways to retain cash in business contraction. The risk of course is that a change in management or management philosophy could change that in a hurry - look at Oracle's series of downgrades, for example, when after the Tax Cut and Jobs Act's repatriation of overseas capital, they basically blew through their massive cash reserves in a span of a few years, going from AA- to BBB in a span of about three years.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Drew said:


> Wealth of Nations was published in 1776 by a Brit, and was based on an earlier work dating back to the 1750s. It was based on Adam Smith's firsthand experience with the Industrial Revolution in the UK.


Again, as I said already, I didn't mean to say it was invented in America. I give up.


----------



## SpaceDock

FBI raids Mar a Lago


----------



## tedtan

SpaceDock said:


> FBI raids Mar a Lago


I saw that and am wondering what they took.


----------



## StevenC

Reuters is streaming from outside and there's a guy yelling about Joe and Hunter constantly.

There's a lot of traffic going back and forth past the front hassling the police there, including just now a truck flying a blue lives matter flag.


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## Xaios

Holy hell. Whatever dirt they had to authorize an FBI raid on the home of _the former president of the United States_ must be absolutely rock solid. No one would stake their careers on that if it wasn't absolutely iron clad, unless they knew exactly what they were looking for and exactly where to find it.


----------



## philkilla




----------



## mmr007




----------



## Genome

The funniest part for me is that the FBI raided a former President's home and we're not exactly sure which crime it's for


----------



## spudmunkey

Genome said:


> The funniest part for me is that the FBI raided a former President's home and we're not exactly sure which crime it's for


All we know is that Trump is surely furious at the frail, senile dipshit who appointed the current head of the FBI.

*hint: it was Trump.


----------



## Genome

All of the crimes. They really are the best crimes. Great crimes. American crimes.


----------



## nightflameauto

Between this and Alex Jones' lawyer "accidentally" releasing his cell records, holy fuck. This is a good few days for those of us still attempting to hold on by the skin of our teeth to that little thing called sanity that so few of us seem to care about anymore.

Wonder how many years it'll be before that FBI raid turns into something public?


----------



## RevDrucifer

If I actually believed something would come of this FBI raid I’d be excited.


----------



## nightflameauto

RevDrucifer said:


> If I actually believed something would come of this FBI raid I’d be excited.


Come on, man. Something will come of it.

Lots more firings once Trump is re-elected in 2024!

I wish I was joking.


----------



## Randy

RevDrucifer said:


> If I actually believed something would come of this FBI raid I’d be excited.



The chuckle I got when I saw the headline was worth whatever share of my taxes went into raiding the place.


----------



## RevDrucifer

nightflameauto said:


> Come on, man. Something will come of it.
> 
> Lots more firings once Trump is re-elected in 2024!
> 
> I wish I was joking.



That’d happen whether he got raided or not. Now with a flavor of “it’s personal” if he got re-elected. 

And I don’t think I’ve ever had the word “ex-pat” flash through my head as quickly as I did just now thinking about him getting re-elected.


----------



## nightflameauto

RevDrucifer said:


> That’d happen whether he got raided or not. Now with a flavor of “it’s personal” if he got re-elected.
> 
> And I don’t think I’ve ever had the word “ex-pat” flash through my head as quickly as I did just now thinking about him getting re-elected.


I've been hunting for full-stack LAMP developer jobs out of country for years now. Since we're as common as high schoolers that graduated in the nineties, it's a tough one for me.


----------



## RevDrucifer

nightflameauto said:


> I've been hunting for full-stack LAMP developer jobs out of country for years now. Since we're as common as high schoolers that graduated in the nineties, it's a tough one for me.



Hell, I have no clue what I’d do out of the country….which is pretty much how I’d have to get into another country to begin with. While my current job title definitely carries some weight, I didn’t get the job in the traditional way they‘re obtained. I’m FAR underdeveloped for what I do and I just learn as I go, not the best thing to write on a resume!


----------



## nightflameauto

RevDrucifer said:


> Hell, I have no clue what I’d do out of the country….which is pretty much how I’d have to get into another country to begin with. While my current job title definitely carries some weight, I didn’t get the job in the traditional way they‘re obtained. I’m FAR underdeveloped for what I do and I just learn as I go, not the best thing to write on a resume!


Pretty much where I'm at.

I've been here forever and know more than anybody else in the department, and have the ability to roll with bullshit and fight my way to solutions. Anybody traditionally trained tends to drop off in a year or so. Hard to brag yourself up when your main point of pride is, "Ain't got book lernin, got ability to take bullshit and turn it into code." *SHRUG*


----------



## DrewH

RevDrucifer said:


> If I actually believed something would come of this FBI raid I’d be excited.



One of my all time favorite movies lines is "you don't put on a condom unless you're gonna F*** " 

FBI doesn't conduct this search unless they were convinced with 100% certainty there was a felony level offense or more. They also won't let this simmer for months. If charges are coming, they will come within the next 30 days. You don't do a search on the residence of a former president as a fishing expedition. You do it to confirm what you pretty much already know right before you unleash the dogs.


----------



## Drew

Riff the Road Dog said:


> Again, as I said already, I didn't mean to say it was invented in America. I give up.


If you want to go at this from a different tack, I was thinking about this basic question the other night and I think where my head is, is this: America seems to equate capitalism with a _moral_ framework, rather than as a mere resource allocation tool. It's probably due to some sort of Protestant belief in the accumulation of wealth as sign of god's favor, I suppose (which would make it Germanic more than American, I guess) but while in strict capitalism profit motive is a mechanism to ensure all parties are driven to an efficient outcome, and efficiency is the fundamental framework and the morally "good" thing for a market to seek, American capitalism has instead focused on profit, over efficiency, and profit is the morally favored outcome. 

And that shift, itself, I would say, is maybe the most American part of American capitalist - focusing on the solipsistic experience of the individual actor in a capitalist marketplace, rather than focusing on the communal functioning of the market for all participants. I think American capitalism is just too selfish in its scope and omits the fundamental belief that the ultimate goal of capitalism is still going to be as efficient as possible an allocation of scare resources.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> That’d happen whether he got raided or not. Now with a flavor of “it’s personal” if he got re-elected.
> 
> And I don’t think I’ve ever had the word “ex-pat” flash through my head as quickly as I did just now thinking about him getting re-elected.


Think of it this way. 

The standard of evidence necessary to demonstrate probable cause and get a search warrant signed to raid the residence of a _former president_ must be absolutely insanely high. There must be pretty strong evidence that a crime was committed by someone, and evidence of that crime was at Mar-A-Lago, and furthermore that an unannounced raid was necessary or the evidence might be destroyed. 

The fact a raid was executed on Trump's private resident doesn't prove he's the target, either... But the fact his private safe was searched provides pretty strong contextual evidence that he was the likely suspect. 

So, the very fact this raid happened at all suggests Trump is probably in greater legal jeopardy than we had reason to believe before it happened. And in the 48 hours prior to the raid there was a lot of chatter in the rumor mill that Trump's legal team was trying to get him to distance himself from former advisors and was preparing him for the growing possibility of an indictment and criminal charges. The DoJ has been moving very slowly here, but things seem to be picking up and they seem to be focusing on building an absolutely airtight case.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Between this and Alex Jones' lawyer "accidentally" releasing his cell records, holy fuck. This is a good few days for those of us still attempting to hold on by the skin of our teeth to that little thing called sanity that so few of us seem to care about anymore.
> 
> Wonder how many years it'll be before that FBI raid turns into something public?


God, wasn't that glorious? And, even better, there was a ton of incriminating stuff related to Jan 6th on the phone as well, that now that prosecutors happen to have it, they have turned over to the DoJ and Jan 6th committee?


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> God, wasn't that glorious? And, even better, there was a ton of incriminating stuff related to Jan 6th on the phone as well, that now that prosecutors happen to have it, they have turned over to the DoJ and Jan 6th committee?


I giggled harder than a gaggle of teen girls when I heard that this was the same evidence that the January 6th committee had been told, repeatedly, didn't exist. Now that's some happy.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I giggled harder than a gaggle of teen girls when I heard that this was the same evidence that the January 6th committee had been told, repeatedly, didn't exist. Now that's some happy.


 

But, on Trump, I can't stress this enough - from a PR/reputational hit/blowback risk standpoint, raiding Mar-A-Lago isn't _much_ below charging and trying Trump in court. Like, it's not like you can explain something like a FBI raid on the residence of a former President away as some sort of mistake or a case of mistaken identity - "oh shit, this is _Trump's_ safe we just opened? We thought it was Jeff Epstien's!" If you're going to risk something like this, it means 1) you think t's worth hysteria on the part of Trump and his media cronies, and 2) you fully intend on following this through and seeing this through into criminal charges, and you're probably reasonably sure they're gonna stick, too. 

Trump's got major legal problems. This just rips the band-aid off and there isn't really any plausible path where the FBI just drops this now and this doesn't end up in the courts. There's zero way to look at this and NOT conclude that criminal charges are now a matter of when, not if., and you don't charge a former president with breaking the law lightly.


----------



## Mathemagician

Audio from a CEO about buying back shares.

Executives aren’t perfectly rational actors, they are just normal thin-skinned human beings subject to biases and personal bullshit. Have never seen a CEO not take it personal when they can’t buy back stocks or are called out on it being a waste of capital. 

The stock price is dropping for a reason. And blaming investors is a cop out to what is typically poor management.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> But, on Trump, I can't stress this enough - from a PR/reputational hit/blowback risk standpoint, raiding Mar-A-Lago isn't _much_ below charging and trying Trump in court. Like, it's not like you can explain something like a FBI raid on the residence of a former President away as some sort of mistake or a case of mistaken identity - "oh shit, this is _Trump's_ safe we just opened? We thought it was Jeff Epstien's!" If you're going to risk something like this, it means 1) you think t's worth hysteria on the part of Trump and his media cronies, and 2) you fully intend on following this through and seeing this through into criminal charges, and you're probably reasonably sure they're gonna stick, too.
> 
> Trump's got major legal problems. This just rips the band-aid off and there isn't really any plausible path where the FBI just drops this now and this doesn't end up in the courts. There's zero way to look at this and NOT conclude that criminal charges are now a matter of when, not if., and you don't charge a former president with breaking the law lightly.


While this has traditionally all been true, I find it amazing the amount of shit that just rolls off Trump's back. The New York stuff all seemed wrapped in a bow too. Then pfffffffffft.

That said, I'm rooting for whatever's coming to actually stick this time. Fingers crossed.


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> While this has traditionally all been true, I find it amazing the amount of shit that just rolls off Trump's back. The New York stuff all seemed wrapped in a bow too. Then pfffffffffft.
> 
> That said, I'm rooting for whatever's coming to actually stick this time. Fingers crossed.


No shit. It’s like he’s the real Teflon Don instead of John Gotti.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Audio from a CEO about buying back shares.
> 
> Executives aren’t perfectly rational actors, they are just normal thin-skinned human beings subject to biases and personal bullshit. Have never seen a CEO not take it personal when they can’t buy back stocks or are called out on it being a waste of capital.
> 
> The stock price is dropping for a reason. And blaming investors is a cop out to what is typically poor management.


What firm? IG is blocked at work. 

But, in the long run, stock valuation is essentially driven by the expectations of at some point in the future capital being returned to investors, either when they sell shares, or in the form of direct capital returns, dividends or buybacks. The point of a publicly traded company isn't to keep capital locked up forever, it's to invest it in the business when it can be done profitably, and return it to investors when it can't. 

Idunno. As an investor I don't love it when engage in significant shareholder capital returns because, well, I would rather own higher growth names, but that's nmore about my personal risk tolerance and buybacks or dividends can both have their place in corporate cash management.


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> While this has traditionally all been true, I find it amazing the amount of shit that just rolls off Trump's back. The New York stuff all seemed wrapped in a bow too. Then pfffffffffft.
> 
> That said, I'm rooting for whatever's coming to actually stick this time. Fingers crossed.


What sort of FBI director would be crazy enouggh to sign off on this if he wasn't confident he COULD make this stick? Charges are coming. Wouldn't be shocked to see him start vacationing places with a lot of wealth and questionable extradition treaties with the US.


----------



## nightflameauto

Marjorie Taylor Green makes me question if we can't have some form of formal / non-partisan review for sitting congress critters. Every dumb thing you say gets you a demerit. Earn fifty in a year, yer out until the next vote. She wouldn't last a week.

Granted, most of the rest wouldn't make it a month, but it'd sure be interesting to see who the last ones left would be. I'd guess the silent ones that we don't hear from would fuck up if given full spotlight once the yucksters were beaten out of there.


----------



## spudmunkey

CanserDYI said:


> View attachment 112219


In subsequent tweets she's literally inciting civil war.



Former RNC chairman:


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> Marjorie Taylor Green makes me question if we can't have some form of formal / non-partisan review for sitting congress critters. Every dumb thing you say gets you a demerit. Earn fifty in a year, yer out until the next vote. She wouldn't last a week.
> 
> Granted, most of the rest wouldn't make it a month, but it'd sure be interesting to see who the last ones left would be. I'd guess the silent ones that we don't hear from would fuck up if given full spotlight once the yucksters were beaten out of there.



50 DKP MINUS!!!!


----------



## zappatton2

The fact that Alex Jones is finally actually facing real consequences for his actions makes me very slightly optimistic that the concept of American justice isn't completely dead on the vine. Admittedly it's a faint hope, with the way Trump has spent his entire life slithering out of repercussions for his brazen flouting of the law, but still, I'm really pulling for that outside chance there may be some integrity left in the system.


----------



## RevDrucifer

DrewH said:


> One of my all time favorite movies lines is "you don't put on a condom unless you're gonna F*** "
> 
> FBI doesn't conduct this search unless they were convinced with 100% certainty there was a felony level offense or more. They also won't let this simmer for months. If charges are coming, they will come within the next 30 days. You don't do a search on the residence of a former president as a fishing expedition. You do it to confirm what you pretty much already know right before you unleash the dogs.





Drew said:


> Think of it this way.
> 
> The standard of evidence necessary to demonstrate probable cause and get a search warrant signed to raid the residence of a _former president_ must be absolutely insanely high. There must be pretty strong evidence that a crime was committed by someone, and evidence of that crime was at Mar-A-Lago, and furthermore that an unannounced raid was necessary or the evidence might be destroyed.
> 
> The fact a raid was executed on Trump's private resident doesn't prove he's the target, either... But the fact his private safe was searched provides pretty strong contextual evidence that he was the likely suspect.
> 
> So, the very fact this raid happened at all suggests Trump is probably in greater legal jeopardy than we had reason to believe before it happened. And in the 48 hours prior to the raid there was a lot of chatter in the rumor mill that Trump's legal team was trying to get him to distance himself from former advisors and was preparing him for the growing possibility of an indictment and criminal charges. The DoJ has been moving very slowly here, but things seem to be picking up and they seem to be focusing on building an absolutely airtight case.



I’ve already surpassed the amount of times I can hear “This time they’re going to get him” and have any hope. It seemed like the entire 4 years the shithead was in office, especially during the Russia investigation, he was going down for this or that and not a single bit of it came to fruition. 

I’ll believe it when I see it.


----------



## nightflameauto

RevDrucifer said:


> I’ve already surpassed the amount of times I can hear “This time they’re going to get him” and have any hope. It seemed like the entire 4 years the shithead was in office, especially during the Russia investigation, he was going down for this or that and not a single bit of it came to fruition.
> 
> I’ll believe it when I see it.


You're not the only one feeling this way. Hope? A tiny little shred. But I certainly wouldn't try hanging a hat on it.

Nope nope nope.

Chances this pushes the Trump Worshippers to violence are pretty high though. So we got that going for us!


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> I’ve already surpassed the amount of times I can hear “This time they’re going to get him” and have any hope. It seemed like the entire 4 years the shithead was in office, especially during the Russia investigation, he was going down for this or that and not a single bit of it came to fruition.
> 
> I’ll believe it when I see it.


Well, I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised. 

It's not easy to impeach a sitting president, unless there's bipartisan will to get him out. On the other hand, partisan opposition isn't enough to stop the DoJ. And, you don't do something like this unless you've got evidence. He's blustering histerically publically, which itself isn't a good look, but I'm sure privately he's shitting himself. 

Mostly I'm a little surprised this hasn't prompted him to announce his 2024 candidacy yet, considering his game plan has all along been that _when_ he's back in office - his words - these fake news witchhunts - again, his words - will have to stop since you can't persecute a sitting president - also his words.


----------



## Mathemagician

Drew said:


> What firm? IG is blocked at work.
> 
> But, in the long run, stock valuation is essentially driven by the expectations of at some point in the future capital being returned to investors, either when they sell shares, or in the form of direct capital returns, dividends or buybacks. The point of a publicly traded company isn't to keep capital locked up forever, it's to invest it in the business when it can be done profitably, and return it to investors when it can't.
> 
> Idunno. As an investor I don't love it when engage in significant shareholder capital returns because, well, I would rather own higher growth names, but that's nmore about my personal risk tolerance and buybacks or dividends can both have their place in corporate cash management.




Cleveland Cliffs a US steel producer. Held in several common small and mid cap ETF’s/mutual funds.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Cleveland Cliffs a US steel producer. Held in several common small and mid cap ETF’s/mutual funds.


Not familiar with them, not really my space, I'm afraid. 

Idunno, I just don't understand your specific issue with share buybacks, vs other levers management could potentially pull to return capital to shareholders or otherwise try to increase their stock price, but at the end of the day you're a guy I respect around here so whatever, we agree on a lot more than we usually disagree on, so I guess we can agree to disagree here.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I won't believe it when I see it. 

Even if we put Jones and Trump in jail it doesn't change anything, they're pustules, surface indicators of a much deeper infection that is conveniently resilient to traditional remedies. 

Law enforcement in this country has deep roots in white supremacy and imperialism, it should be no surprise that it's toothless when it comes to treating the manifestations of those forces in modern times. This is the same FBI that routinely concocts and foils its own terrorist plots, radicalizing and jailing previously-innocent US citizens with inconvenient political ideas in the process. Whatever they're doing, rest assured it's in the service of those with power and influence.

Shit is bad and getting worse, that's what I see and that's what I believe. You can hang onto hope or you can hang onto your butt, I know which I'll be doing.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> I won't believe it when I see it.
> 
> Even if we put Jones and Trump in jail it doesn't change anything, they're pustules, surface indicators of a much deeper infection that is conveniently resilient to traditional remedies.
> 
> Law enforcement in this country has deep roots in white supremacy and imperialism, it should be no surprise that it's toothless when it comes to treating the manifestations of those forces in modern times. This is the same FBI that routinely concocts and foils its own terrorist plots, radicalizing and jailing previously-innocent US citizens with inconvenient political ideas in the process. Whatever they're doing, rest assured it's in the service of those with power and influence.
> 
> Shit is bad and getting worse, that's what I see and that's what I believe. You can hang onto hope or you can hang onto your butt, I know which I'll be doing.


Eh, still, even if I agreed with _everything_ you wrote here (and I don't - our criminal justice system is deeply flawed, but not irredeemably corrupt), I'd still say that even if we posit the sort of irredeemably corrupt masterminds pulling all the strings from behind the curtain, they still understand the performative value of occasionally throwing some fresh meat to the wolves, and it's hard to see someone as compromised and nakedly self-interested as Trump being any further use to anyone but himself. 

Even if you _do_ believe the US criminal justice system is a hopeless sham, there's value (from the perspective of the people who benefit from retaining control of it) in occasionally letting the crowd crucify someone just to keep the illusion of justice in place. If Trump isn't wearing Depends, he should be.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> I'd still say that even if we posit the sort of irredeemably corrupt masterminds pulling all the strings from behind the curtain,



The reality is much scarier IMO, there is a vast diaspora of criminal masterminds all vying with each other and what we are able to look back and interpret as conspirancy is just the ghoulish manifestation of random chance imbued with rampant self-interest and hedging of bets by those with the means to do so.

I also didn't use the words "irredeemably corrupt," I pointed out rightly that our law enforcement system has largely unexamined roots in practices and institutions that directly call into question their ability to handle cases involving those practices and institutions. I'm not making a case for extent because I wouldn't know, that kind of deep structural analysis comes after collectively recognizing that such analysis ought to happen in the first place. It's not that much different from insisting that police don't use their own internal investigators to clear themselves of wrongdoing, wrongdoing which very often is in the service of people with power or influence. That's not a radical proposition, or at least it shouldn't be. 

It's not a secret that police unions have deep ties with WS groups, nor the now-infamous "FBI terror plot." There is an ongoing investigation into whether elements of the secret service were complicit with Jan 6, and to what extent that complicity runs through the organization. These are the highest law enforcement agencies in this country, I feel pretty comfortable insisting on a higher standard. Who investigates the secret service? Who investigates the FBI? Who investigates whoever investigates them?

I think you're boiling down my perspective to some kind of illuminati conspiracy, and maybe that's because I'm not explaining it very well, but I couldn't be further from believing in a man behind the curtain. Nobody has hands on the wheel, which to me is a whole lot scarier.


On the other hand, you raise a really good point. There is a very common phenomenon in activist circles where once "a" victory has been achieved, people lose steam as they bask in that accomplishment. There was a lot of this around gay marriage, for example, where people pushed really hard for the queer struggle in that very specific sector, and then left trans youth out in the literal and figurative cold. While the overall political climate is still heated, there has also been a big die-off of smaller reactionary leftist political groups since Biden took office. The same happened under Obama, etc. 

Whether there is a conspiracy in place or not is immaterial, the effect is the same. In this case, one effect is the constant de-radicalization and de-motivation of leftists while right wing groups become more radical and militarized. We could call it a conspiracy, we could call it the manifestation of our country's culture and heritage, we could call it whatever, but it's happening and I don't think I need to walk everyone here through the implications.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Not sure about this level, but, generally, you have to convince/prove you have probable cause to a judge to get a search warrant, which is a pretty high burden really. Have to know what it is you're looking for, why that's important to the case, and specifically where you're gonna find it. From what I heard on NPR this AM, at this level everybody had to be on board, including Garland.
But, even then, defense can argue the warrant was drawn either too narrowly or too broadly, etc.

So the first part looks like it could be pretty significant. The question is, did they find what they were looking for and will it stand up in court? Very interesting.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Well at least from his cult, they're uniting under the whole "upcoming election cycle/ dirty dem tricks" argument. Truly amazing, the mental gymnastics his base is willing to perform. Full on martyr mode engaged now. Like I saw in meme-land "Only difference between trump and Jim Jones is that trump would make em pay for the koolaid".


----------



## Adieu

Xaios said:


> Holy hell. Whatever dirt they had to authorize an FBI raid on the home of _the former president of the United States_ must be absolutely rock solid. No one would stake their careers on that if it wasn't absolutely iron clad, unless they knew exactly what they were looking for and exactly where to find it.



Probably.

Or not. The guy's pretty, uh, _polarizing_.

Might be quite a lot of people willing to stake a lot to take his ass down.


----------



## Adieu

spudmunkey said:


> All we know is that Trump is surely furious at the frail, senile dipshit who appointed the current head of the FBI.
> 
> *hint: it was Trump.



WAIT.

Maybe TRUMP was the one who begged him to raid him? And not find jack shit or perhaps something laughable?

It COULD be a pretty devious high-stakes move to gain some points.


----------



## spudmunkey

Adieu said:


> WAIT.
> 
> Maybe TRUMP was the one who begged him to raid him? And not find jack shit or perhaps something laughable?
> 
> It COULD be a pretty devious high-stakes move to gain some points.



The judge that approved the warrant was also a Trump appointee. Conservative media is trying to discredit him by saying he's "linked to Epstein" and therefore can't be trusted...but he was a lawyer defending some of Epstein's employees, before Trump appointed him.


----------



## mmr007

DrewH said:


> One of my all time favorite movies lines is "you don't put on a condom unless you're gonna F*** "
> 
> FBI doesn't conduct this search unless they were convinced with 100% certainty there was a felony level offense or more. They also won't let this simmer for months. If charges are coming, they will come within the next 30 days. You don't do a search on the residence of a former president as a fishing expedition. You do it to confirm what you pretty much already know right before you unleash the dogs.


I dont doubt intent. I doubt results. There were raids conducted for the Mueller probe that resulted in fuck all. My guess though is that many people felt Trump was sharing secrets with the russians and thats why they are so concerned with this classified material


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> The judge that approved the warrant was also a Trump appointee. Conservative media is trying to discredit him by saying he's "linked to Epstein" and therefore can't be trusted...but he was a lawyer defending some of Epstein's employees, before Trump appointed him.


Trump is linked to Epstein too.

Wait, is this that fifth dimensional chess we're always hearing about?


----------



## thraxil

OK, so it sounds like it's reasonably certain now that the search warrant was related to the presidential records act / national archives stuff rather than some other investigation (I haven't seen anything concrete, but there have been a few different news outlets now that are claiming that they have sources for that and since it's a relatively unsalacious claim, I don't have good reason to doubt it).

Going with that, it still raises some questions.

We know that the National Archives already requested documents returned months ago and that Trump sent some back. With this search warrant, the implication is that not all of them were returned but were instead kept at Mar a Lago.

So I'm really wondering what documents those could be? What documents were worth Trump taking from the White House in the first place? In theory, he and everyone on his team was thoroughly aware of the security and presidential records act ramifications of taking them and that they were committing a crime by taking them. But let's be extremely generous and say that it was an oversight. The movers just grabbed everything in a box and took it away. And somehow they didn't notice and return them immediately. Honest mistake. Then months later, the National Archives come calling make them return them. Was it another "honest" mistake to not return all the documents they had? That seems unlikely. At that point there's absolutely no excuse for not cooperating fully and handing everything back.

So, even after being *fully* aware that they're committing a crime, what documents were worth the risk of holding onto?

Anything that was incriminating in some form for Trump or his family I could see being ones that they took out of the White House originally. That would make perfect sense. But there's no upside to *keeping* those documents once they got them back to Mar a Lago. The National Archives didn't sneak in in the middle of the night and take them back. They had plenty of warning on that. If I was Trump and holding onto incriminating documents that the government wanted back, I'd find a fireplace and some matches and sort that out once and for all. The dude apparently chewed up and flushed documents down the toilet while he was in office; he's clearly smart enough to not purposely hold onto incriminating documents for no good reason. Instead they went through the trouble of sorting through them, finding a few boxes that they could return but keeping the rest. But not destroying them.

With self-incriminating documents ruled out, what's left?

Top secret stuff? OK, but why? What personal benefit would Trump get from that? As immoral and unethical as he is, I don't believe that he'd be hoarding top secret documents with the intention of selling them to Russia or something. And if that was his plan, why would he wait? Whatever value they would've had, I'm sure it would decrease the longer he held onto them. He's enough of a businessman to know that the stale information is worth less than fresh.

Incriminating evidence on his rivals? Maybe. Like, if there were documents showing that Biden and Pelosi ate babies, I guess he'd want to keep those to use against them later. But again, it doesn't seem likely that he'd sit on those for a year and a half. If he had super blackmail material like that while he was still in power, he'd have used it to remain in power. Or to shut down the Jan 6 committee or fuck over Jeff Bezos or something. He just doesn't seem like the type to carefully bide his time waiting for exactly the right opportunity to reveal Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. If he had anything juicy on someone he didn't like, he'd have blurted it out long ago. And if he was cunning enough for that kind of long term plan, would he really be dumb enough to keep them at Mar a Lago knowing that someone at the National Archives was doing an inventory and eventually someone would be coming for the rest of them?

So I'm honestly left wondering what documents would be left?

Or is he just even dumber and more narcissistic than even I believed?


----------



## nightflameauto

@thraxil 
Your last sentence, definitely.

Apparently, reading around the web, Trump was so out-of-touch that a lot of documents that were supposed to be archived got flushed down toilets once he "read" them while he was in office. To the point it was jamming up the pipes quite frequently. The man's either the best person ever at acting like an erratic lunatic to play to his base, or he's actually an erratic lunatic.

Which seems the most likely to you?


----------



## High Plains Drifter

I think it's possible just due to the magnificent train wreck that he is, that maybe he held on to documents but didn't really know why. Sort of like hanging onto a rainy-day blackmail arsenal. True that as time passes, certain documents may loose some value or effectiveness but trump has always seemed like a guy that would literally hoard things... documents, photos, text records, ketchup packets, or whatever... as a possible bargaining chip or blackmailing tool for essentially anything or anyone that might eventually come his way. He's obviously committed many illegal and unethical actions so maybe it's just "I better save some of this shit that might save my ass down the road"... like random documents and things. He's just that horrible. 

I also wonder if due to his delusional and lax nature, that maybe he simply held onto stuff thinking "no one's ever going to get me. I get away with all the crimes" and subsequently felt that he would never in a million years be raided, so why worry about getting rid of incriminating evidence... Like out of sight, out of mind or "I'll do it later.. golf and Big Macs be callin me now". Being investigated and scrutinized is nothing new for him but part of me thinks that he has developed ( especially over the last couple years) a true belief that he truly is above the law. The man possesses very little long-term/ proactive thought and very little fear of consequence so it really could just be that he kept shit thinking the feds would never physically be knocking on his door. 

I don't even put it past him that he might hold onto certain things solely out of nostalgia... Sounds unrealistic but this is trump. He could be saving sensitive documents simply as memorabilia or to show someone down the road like "Look what I did when I was prez. Aren't I a little stinker!" Fuck, he's a mess but as long as his base exists, he has no reason to clean up his act.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

I just read Pence's statement regarding the raid. Wow, this guy. After all he went through. Still a worm and a sycophant.


----------



## thebeesknees22

MASS DEFECT said:


> I just read Pence's statement regarding the raid. Wow, this guy. After all he went through. Still a worm and a sycophant.


Republicans will always put the Cult first no matter what.


----------



## nightflameauto

MASS DEFECT said:


> I just read Pence's statement regarding the raid. Wow, this guy. After all he went through. Still a worm and a sycophant.


I can't imagine. The base was chanting for your death, quite rigorously. They constructed a gallows. And your assigned secret service agents were calling loved ones to say goodbye.

How do you go from that moment, to this one, however many years later, and still want to pander to those people? I just can't wrap my head around it.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

nightflameauto said:


> I can't imagine. The base was chanting for your death, quite rigorously. They constructed a gallows. And your assigned secret service agents were calling loved ones to say goodbye.
> 
> How do you go from that moment, to this one, however many years later, and still want to pander to those people? I just can't wrap my head around it.



He just upholds his Conservative Christian and American Values. eeek


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> I think you're boiling down my perspective to some kind of illuminati conspiracy, and maybe that's because I'm not explaining it very well, but I couldn't be further from believing in a man behind the curtain. Nobody has hands on the wheel, which to me is a whole lot scarier.


Actually, and I apologize for not making it clearer, it was more boiling it UP into some kind of conspiracy, and that even if we take the much-=more-moderate argument you made and run with it to extremes, I still can't help thinking Trump is worth more to the puppet-masters-that-may-be dead than he is alive. But, that was probably a little unclear, and therefore came across a bit unfair to you, and I apologize for that.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> WAIT.
> 
> Maybe TRUMP was the one who begged him to raid him? And not find jack shit or perhaps something laughable?
> 
> It COULD be a pretty devious high-stakes move to gain some points.



You know, when I saw the "they even opened my safe!" in his statement that I believe came out while the raid was still wrapping up, and certainly was one of the first official confirmations that it had even happened, that was my initial knee jerk reaction, that he wanted the FBI to think they'd opened his private safe, so they probably _hadn't_. 

But, every single time I've seen someone try to ascribe 11th dimensional chess motives to Trump (and I include myself here, early on), they or I have been disappointed. He's got a certain base craftiness, maybe, but more for knowing what his audience wants to hear, and his tactics rarely go beyond "I know you are, but what am I?" schoolboy-grade bullshit. I think this is just as simple as it looks - Trump tried to keep classified documents, under pressure of legal threat gave some but not all back, and the National Archives believed something Trump had was important enough to call in the FBI to take it back.


----------



## Drew

High Plains Drifter said:


> I think it's possible just due to the magnificent train wreck that he is, that maybe he held on to documents but didn't really know why. Sort of like hanging onto a rainy-day blackmail arsenal. True that as time passes, certain documents may loose some value or effectiveness but trump has always seemed like a guy that would literally hoard things... documents, photos, text records, ketchup packets, or whatever... as a possible bargaining chip or blackmailing tool for essentially anything or anyone that might eventually come his way. He's obviously committed many illegal and unethical actions so maybe it's just "I better save some of this shit that might save my ass down the road"... like random documents and things. He's just that horrible.


This is my guess, too, especially if he had things in his personal safe. He had documents related to something he thought would be beneficial to either himself personally, or his business interests, and tried to keep them after he left the White House. As to what your guesses are as good as mine - potentially embarrassing info about potential rivals, info related to Ukraine he thought he could leverage to get that announcement of a Hunter Biden investigation in 2024, info related to China or Russia he could use to pressure their ruling parties to approve business projects out there, something like that. It seems unlikely it would be information he wanted to bury related to him, simply because it's not likely his copies would be the ONLY ones, and if it was something like his personal notes or whatever, he'd have just destroyed them (it's unclear if the pictures of ripped up paper with his handwriting on it in toilets are legit or not, but there's enough smoke there that there's very likely SOME fire, with all the stories of him flushing paper down the toilers of the white house). 

Also, getting lost in the news cycle, but likely equally damning - Scott Perry's cell phone was seized by the FBI that night, as well. Perry, the Congressman deeply involved in the plot to get alternate electors appointed, have Pence recognize the alternates, and have them count toward electoral college totals so that Trump would be declared the winner, who the morning after the Jan 6th insurrection approached Trump about a presidential pardon. THAT should be some interesting information.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I dont doubt intent. I doubt results. There were raids conducted for the Mueller probe that resulted in fuck all. My guess though is that many people felt Trump was sharing secrets with the russians and thats why they are so concerned with this classified material


One GIANT difference between thhe Mueller investigation, though, and the FBI/DOJ raid, is that the Mueller investigation was referred to Congress and their remedy, impeachment, is an entirely political process, while the DOJ would, if the burden of evidence is there (and from a pure Bayesian standpoint, I'd say this significantly increases the probability it is), it will be referred to the criminal justice system, which is a legal process. 

The Jan 6th committee has an extremely high conviction rate so far and I'd say that isn't a coincidence - in the Mueller report, findings on collusion with Russia were inconclusive, in part as a result of obstruction of the investigation, but the obstruction of justice section included ten instances that Mueller flagged that, without himself expressing an opinion, were referred to Congress to review as potential obstruction of justice. The fact Trump wasn't impeached came entirely down to the fact that there weren't ten Republican senators who were willing to break with their party to vote that Trump HAD obstructed justice, and that they believed that was an impeachable offense. That's a lot of grey area and a lot of political considerations that have nothing to do with the facts of the case. The Jan 6th insurrection impeachment was even clearer - the votes to remove him from office were probably there, had McConnell really wanted to see it through, but he himself voted against impeachment for the sole reason that Trump was leaving office in ten days anyway.

All of these non-legal considerations go out the window when you're in a courtroom and the focus isn't on interpreting what the guidance on impeachment really means, if a particular act is impeachable, and does it make sense to actually go ahead and do it or do we just take away the nuclear football and wait two weeks. It's simply, "did Trump take classified documents and fail to turn them over to investigators?" "Did Trump lie about the value of his real estate assets, inflating them to get approved for loans, deflating them to avoid taxes?" "Did Trump knowingly conspire to commit electoral fraud in Georgia, and did Trump knowingly plan an armed resurrection on January 6th?" 

Trump has avoided serious repercussions so far because he's held enough leverage over his party to stave off political consequences, and because thus far he's managed to stay outside of a criminal courtroom. If the latter changes, yeah, I think we's pretty vulnerable here, on a number of fronts.


----------



## Ralyks

"The mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" 
- Donald Trump, 2016

"I take the Fifth."
- Donald Trump, August 10, 2022


----------



## Drew

I think this story is being overshadowed by the Mar-A-Lago raid last night and Trump's non-testimony today:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/09/rep-scott-perry-says-fbi-seized-his-phone-while-he-was-traveling/?itid=lk_inline_manual_4



tl;dr - Perry was one of the ringleaders of the plan to fire Barr, have Clark named Acting AG, who would then release a statement indicating the DOJ had found significant concerns with the vote totals and ask states to send alternate pro-Trump electoral college slates. After the insurrection on the 6th, he then asked Trump for a preemptive pardon on the 7th. If Trump was a significant part of this plan, and if he knew there were no irregularities (and the first is pretty likely, the second increasingly so), this could be a smoking gun.


----------



## Adieu

thraxil said:


> OK, so it sounds like it's reasonably certain now that the search warrant was related to the presidential records act / national archives stuff rather than some other investigation (I haven't seen anything concrete, but there have been a few different news outlets now that are claiming that they have sources for that and since it's a relatively unsalacious claim, I don't have good reason to doubt it).
> 
> Going with that, it still raises some questions.
> 
> We know that the National Archives already requested documents returned months ago and that Trump sent some back. With this search warrant, the implication is that not all of them were returned but were instead kept at Mar a Lago.
> 
> So I'm really wondering what documents those could be? What documents were worth Trump taking from the White House in the first place? In theory, he and everyone on his team was thoroughly aware of the security and presidential records act ramifications of taking them and that they were committing a crime by taking them. But let's be extremely generous and say that it was an oversight. The movers just grabbed everything in a box and took it away. And somehow they didn't notice and return them immediately. Honest mistake. Then months later, the National Archives come calling make them return them. Was it another "honest" mistake to not return all the documents they had? That seems unlikely. At that point there's absolutely no excuse for not cooperating fully and handing everything back.
> 
> So, even after being *fully* aware that they're committing a crime, what documents were worth the risk of holding onto?
> 
> Anything that was incriminating in some form for Trump or his family I could see being ones that they took out of the White House originally. That would make perfect sense. But there's no upside to *keeping* those documents once they got them back to Mar a Lago. The National Archives didn't sneak in in the middle of the night and take them back. They had plenty of warning on that. If I was Trump and holding onto incriminating documents that the government wanted back, I'd find a fireplace and some matches and sort that out once and for all. The dude apparently chewed up and flushed documents down the toilet while he was in office; he's clearly smart enough to not purposely hold onto incriminating documents for no good reason. Instead they went through the trouble of sorting through them, finding a few boxes that they could return but keeping the rest. But not destroying them.
> 
> With self-incriminating documents ruled out, what's left?
> 
> Top secret stuff? OK, but why? What personal benefit would Trump get from that? As immoral and unethical as he is, I don't believe that he'd be hoarding top secret documents with the intention of selling them to Russia or something. And if that was his plan, why would he wait? Whatever value they would've had, I'm sure it would decrease the longer he held onto them. He's enough of a businessman to know that the stale information is worth less than fresh.
> 
> Incriminating evidence on his rivals? Maybe. Like, if there were documents showing that Biden and Pelosi ate babies, I guess he'd want to keep those to use against them later. But again, it doesn't seem likely that he'd sit on those for a year and a half. If he had super blackmail material like that while he was still in power, he'd have used it to remain in power. Or to shut down the Jan 6 committee or fuck over Jeff Bezos or something. He just doesn't seem like the type to carefully bide his time waiting for exactly the right opportunity to reveal Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. If he had anything juicy on someone he didn't like, he'd have blurted it out long ago. And if he was cunning enough for that kind of long term plan, would he really be dumb enough to keep them at Mar a Lago knowing that someone at the National Archives was doing an inventory and eventually someone would be coming for the rest of them?
> 
> So I'm honestly left wondering what documents would be left?
> 
> Or is he just even dumber and more narcissistic than even I believed?



There IS one other move.

To make something else unrelated that's GENUINELY important arguably or full-on inadmissible in different court case by provoking (or literally asking!) the feds to improperly seize it as part of this recovery


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Conspiracy nuts are full bore loosing their shit now


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

thraxil said:


> OK, so it sounds like it's reasonably certain now that the search warrant was related to the presidential records act / national archives stuff rather than some other investigation (I haven't seen anything concrete, but there have been a few different news outlets now that are claiming that they have sources for that and since it's a relatively unsalacious claim, I don't have good reason to doubt it).
> 
> Going with that, it still raises some questions.
> 
> With self-incriminating documents ruled out, what's left?
> 
> So I'm honestly left wondering what documents would be left?
> 
> Or is he just even dumber and more narcissistic than even I believed?


Obviously it's the Colonel's secret seven herbs and spices.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> I think this story is being overshadowed by the Mar-A-Lago raid last night and Trump's non-testimony today:


To be fair....for over 5 years now every Trump related story has been overshadowed by another Trump related story that happened at the same time or 5 minutes later....and then 5 minutes after that and then....


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> One GIANT difference between thhe Mueller investigation, though, and the FBI/DOJ raid, is that the Mueller investigation was referred to Congress and their remedy, impeachment, is an entirely political process, while the DOJ would, if the burden of evidence is there (and from a pure Bayesian standpoint, I'd say this significantly increases the probability it is), it will be referred to the criminal justice system, which is a legal process.
> 
> The Jan 6th committee has an extremely high conviction rate so far and I'd say that isn't a coincidence - in the Mueller report, findings on collusion with Russia were inconclusive, in part as a result of obstruction of the investigation, but the obstruction of justice section included ten instances that Mueller flagged that, without himself expressing an opinion, were referred to Congress to review as potential obstruction of justice. The fact Trump wasn't impeached came entirely down to the fact that there weren't ten Republican senators who were willing to break with their party to vote that Trump HAD obstructed justice, and that they believed that was an impeachable offense. That's a lot of grey area and a lot of political considerations that have nothing to do with the facts of the case. The Jan 6th insurrection impeachment was even clearer - the votes to remove him from office were probably there, had McConnell really wanted to see it through, but he himself voted against impeachment for the sole reason that Trump was leaving office in ten days anyway.
> 
> All of these non-legal considerations go out the window when you're in a courtroom and the focus isn't on interpreting what the guidance on impeachment really means, if a particular act is impeachable, and does it make sense to actually go ahead and do it or do we just take away the nuclear football and wait two weeks. It's simply, "did Trump take classified documents and fail to turn them over to investigators?" "Did Trump lie about the value of his real estate assets, inflating them to get approved for loans, deflating them to avoid taxes?" "Did Trump knowingly conspire to commit electoral fraud in Georgia, and did Trump knowingly plan an armed resurrection on January 6th?"
> 
> Trump has avoided serious repercussions so far because he's held enough leverage over his party to stave off political consequences, and because thus far he's managed to stay outside of a criminal courtroom. If the latter changes, yeah, I think we's pretty vulnerable here, on a number of fronts.


I hope so but so far the only repercussions he has faced is Trump University was shut down. I'm still waiting for the release of the fucker's taxes. I just heard this morning that they finally got permission to move forward with getting his taxes. I thought that shit was settled 2 years ago? The Manhattan DA dropped charges...its one thing after another


----------



## narad

nightflameauto said:


> I can't imagine. The base was chanting for your death, quite rigorously. They constructed a gallows. And your assigned secret service agents were calling loved ones to say goodbye.
> 
> How do you go from that moment, to this one, however many years later, and still want to pander to those people? I just can't wrap my head around it.



Remember when Trump made fun of Ted Cruz's wife and then Ted failed and he had to come out and support Trump for years after? No one in that party has any backbone.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I hope so but so far the only repercussions he has faced is Trump University was shut down. I'm still waiting for the release of the fucker's taxes. I just heard this morning that they finally got permission to move forward with getting his taxes. I thought that shit was settled 2 years ago? The Manhattan DA dropped charges...its one thing after another


He keeps appealing. It's possible this latest decision will be appealed as well, which would send it to the Supreme Court, but unless they promptly return the case to the lower courts and deny to hear it (possible), it's very possible that it becomes a 2023 decision and Trump does get to run down the clock on the House inquiry. 

The NY State one, however, while not likely to lead to a broad release (unless it's leaked, wink wink, ahem, cough), is pretty likely to go ahead regardless of what happens federally. And, at present at least, the Senate has gone from a tossup to moderately favoring the Democrats, so that will at least check the GOP somewhat. 

Good point on the last five years.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> There IS one other move.
> 
> To make something else unrelated that's GENUINELY important arguably or full-on inadmissible in different court case by provoking (or literally asking!) the feds to improperly seize it as part of this recovery


Doubtful - when the FBI goes in with a warrant like that, they do have to indicate in at least general terms where they will be searching and for what, but if they happen to accidently find something essentially laying out, they can seize it even if it was unrelated to their original search. 

So, if they were searching for National Archive boxes, had indicated they had probable cause to believe some of the records from a box were in Trump's personal safe, and seize a number of archive boxes and search the contents of the safe... if Trump had happened to put _other_ unrelated records in those archive boxes that were later discovered those would be fair game, since reasonably any papers in the safe would need to be searched to determine if they were classified records, then any additional paperwork found or anything uncovered directly as part of the effort of reviewing paperwork could itself be seized. 

Hadn't really thought through the implications of what could and couldn't be searched and seized in depth, but as I do, two things are jumping out at me. 

1) If the FBI was looking for paper copies of documents that rightfully belonged to the NA and were believed to be classified, then that gives them essentially carte blanche permission to search _anything_ that could hold paper records, including filing cabinets, desk drawers, archive boxes, etc. Anything they happen to find in the process of doing so would be permissible. 

2) probably more concerning for Trump - if the concern here is that Trump might be illegally in possession of classified and top secret data, then it's pretty reasonable to assume that his making electronic copies of these files is _also_ a risk, and in turn he hard drives, cell phones, portable flash drives, etc are likely _also_ fair game for the FBI to seize, to ensure there are no electronic copies he made, as well. 

So, if this is National Archive related and an attempt to recover top secret and classified documents, I'd say it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the FBI had purview to search all paper records, filing cabinets, archive boxes, desks, etc as part of their raid, and also seize any electronic storage devices including computers and hard drives as part of their work. If a backup of a cell phone was on one of those computers, or a backup cell phone or burner phone, was found, that could be _very_ interesting for a whole bunch of investigations currently ongoing.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, 
An armed and armored man attempted to break into the FBI offices in Cincinnati. Here we go.

Youtube is live-streaming what's supposed to be an official statement from the US AG, but thus far it's just been babbling talking heads.


----------



## Drew

Garland's speech is going to start in about a minute, 35 minutes later than planned. Possibly related to Cincinatti and the disruptions that's causing? I assume this has to be abotu the Trump raid but I guess that's not a sure bet.


----------



## Drew

Yeah, Garland is unsealing the warrant and property receipts from the Trump raids, in the interest of public interest.

Noted the DOJ under him has, and will continue to, communicate primarily through their actions and filings, and took no questions.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> Well,
> An armed and armored man attempted to break into the FBI offices in Cincinnati. Here we go.
> 
> Youtube is live-streaming what's supposed to be an official statement from the US AG, but thus far it's just been babbling talking heads.


Huh, I guess the 2nd Amendment is still pointless after all.


----------



## Drew

So far, two notable updates coming out of the NY Times live blog on this: 

*It may take a little while to unseal the motion - the DOJ can't actually do it unilaterally, but rather has to submit a motion to the judge to unseal. It's entirely possible Trump or his legal team could petition to KEEP it sealed, which would be somewhat ironic here. 
*the DOJ employee who filed the motion, Jay Bratt, is the head of counterintelligence and export control, which - they don't say as much, but there's an implication - probably speaks to the nature of the case being built.


----------



## zappatton2

It's weird, this projection onto Biden voters that they just looove Biden and looove the Democrats, but show me the liberal or progressive voter, who when the guy they voted for breaks the law and faces consequences, starts grabbing weapons and threatening civil war. I mean...


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Meanwhile, the lady who cried against calls for defunding the popo is doing this: 




I just can't anymore


----------



## nightflameauto

zappatton2 said:


> It's weird, this projection onto Biden voters that they just looove Biden and looove the Democrats, but show me the liberal or progressive voter, who when the guy they voted for breaks the law and faces consequences, starts grabbing weapons and threatening civil war. I mean...


Not just that. I don't know of anybody that voted for Biden that loved him as a candidate. They voted for him to avoid the other guy for the most part. Some did because, hey, he's there and he doesn't seem insane (ultimately, almost the same thing). Nobody on the Democratic side is going to war for Biden, because none of us were pumped by him. He was the boring option, against the lunatic.

If he gets busted for something nefarious, most of us would just shrug and look for the next least frightening candidate.


----------



## zappatton2

nightflameauto said:


> If he gets busted for something nefarious, most of us would just shrug and look for the next least frightening candidate.


I think if he got busted for something truly nefarious, plenty of registered Democrats would be highly critical and keen to see him charged and replaced. Absolute loyalty is for cults, not public figures in genuine positions of power.

*edit* but yes, I am fully agreeing with your point.


----------



## Drew

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-mar-a-lago/



If true, this IS a Big Fucking Deal.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-mar-a-lago/
> 
> 
> 
> If true, this IS a Big Fucking Deal.


Holy shit, that's real treason right there.

Like, how can his cultists even spin that? He had the information because he's a keen amateur rocket engineer?


----------



## Grindspine

...and you know what the constitution says is the penalty for treason...


----------



## narad

“People, this is it,” the message reads. “Leave work tomorrow as soon as the gun shop/Army-Navy store/pawn shop opens, get whatever you need to be ready for combat. We must not tolerate this one. They have been conditioning us to accept tyranny and think we can’t do anything for 2 years. This time we must respond with force.”

Basically reads like a Glades post.


----------



## Mathemagician

MASS DEFECT said:


> Meanwhile, the lady who cried against calls for defunding the popo is doing this:
> 
> View attachment 112353
> 
> 
> I just can't anymore




That is such an easy racket man. They stir people up and then slap the “line” on a shirt or hat, make a few thousand in China for like $.05 each and sell them all day. The longer they tweet it the more “real” it becomes. It’s the new book deal.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MASS DEFECT said:


> Meanwhile, the lady who cried against calls for defunding the popo is doing this:
> 
> View attachment 112353
> 
> 
> I just can't anymore



To be fair, this is an awesome idea. Broken clocks and blind squirrels and all that.


----------



## SpaceDock

Drew said:


> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/11/garland-trump-mar-a-lago/
> 
> 
> 
> If true, this IS a Big Fucking Deal.


Yeah, earlier this week there was some chatter about the documents being seized due to their informant claiming Trump was going to sell the documents in question. Now that we are seeing these are nuclear related, I am gonna call good old Russian dealings. Maybe this was part of the grift all along. Hopefully they have this fucker dead to rights or we are all looking at a social breakdown.

I already got repub friends saying this is planted by the FBI, a big hit job hoax, etc. Just wait to see how the nut jobs flip if they put him in cuffs. No way they are gonna be rational, homeboy at the FBI today was just a warm up.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Mathemagician said:


> That is such an easy racket man. They stir people up and then slap the “line” on a shirt or hat, make a few thousand in China for like $.05 each and sell them all day. The longer they tweet it the more “real” it becomes. It’s the new book deal.


The grift that keeps on grifting.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ohio shooter was a false flag, FBI planted evidence, but also someone "leaked" to the FBI and is a traitor (which is it? It can't be both), the warrant was issued by a not-a-real-judge (a magistrate) who was an Obama donor with links to Epstein, Biden ordered it against his political foe...

It's been amusing doom-scrolling the family Facebook today.


----------



## Xaios

If this is the Kraken that Republicans have been yammering about for two years, it certainly doesn't disappoint.


----------



## Genome

Need I remind you what happened to the last two people convicted of selling nuclear secrets to a foreign country


----------



## nightflameauto

Mathemagician said:


> That is such an easy racket man. They stir people up and then slap the “line” on a shirt or hat, make a few thousand in China for like $.05 each and sell them all day. The longer they tweet it the more “real” it becomes. It’s the new book deal.


I really wish the Biden "Will you shut up, man" hats and t-shirts would have stuck around. My wife and I ordered them that night, but they got canceled and removed from his fund-raising site the next morning. What a bummer.

So, Trumpy-poo with nuclear documents and there's chatter of selling state secrets? Oh boy. As much as all of us are feeling the "I told ya so"s right now, is there any way forward here that doesn't erupt in massive piles of violent stupidity? No way you take down a false idol like Trump without having the militant ignorant going completely batshit fuckin' insane.

This is going to get uglier than what we thought. Eesh.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> No way you take down a false idol like Trump without having the militant ignorant going completely batshit fuckin' insane.



Why not give them a chance to test their theory they can take down a AH-64D with an AR-15.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Why not give them a chance to test their theory they can take down a AH-64D with an AR-15.


The mental image I have of Billy Bobs standing in the bed of their pickups while attack choppers mow them down is quite amusing, I must say.


----------



## MFB

nightflameauto said:


> The mental image I have of Billy Bobs standing in the bed of their pickups while attack choppers mow them down is quite amusing, I must say.



I HIGHLY recommend watching this then, it was from a movie starring Treat Williams and this scene is fucking hilarious; a town is quarantined after an outbreak of genetically modified snakes, and well, just watch what happens. It's honestly not too far off from how I imagine hospitals could've been if you replace "genetically modified snakes" with COVID-19.


----------



## thebeesknees22

nightflameauto said:


> I really wish the Biden "Will you shut up, man" hats and t-shirts would have stuck around. My wife and I ordered them that night, but they got canceled and removed from his fund-raising site the next morning. What a bummer.
> 
> So, Trumpy-poo with nuclear documents and there's chatter of selling state secrets? Oh boy. As much as all of us are feeling the "I told ya so"s right now, is there any way forward here that doesn't erupt in massive piles of violent stupidity? No way you take down a false idol like Trump without having the militant ignorant going completely batshit fuckin' insane.
> 
> This is going to get uglier than what we thought. Eesh.


He took whatever classified information he took for a reason. Trump doesn't do anything unless he thinks he can make money off of it, and you can pretty much bet that whatever he had it's long been sold off. 

If the FBI finds evidence of it, then I see it as nothing less than treason. If dems don't keep congress come mid terms though all this will be washed away as though it never happened.....


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Why not give them a chance to test their theory they can take down a AH-64D with an AR-15.


That's one way to secure the midterms.


----------



## nightflameauto

Can't wait for MTG to post her well reasoned, "Treason is fine and acceptable and we should praise Trump for doing it" tweet.


----------



## mmr007

nightflameauto said:


> Can't wait for MTG to post her well reasoned, "Treason is fine and acceptable and we should praise Trump for doing it" tweet.


Treason doesn't exist according to them. She and Boebert have been preaching that we a christian caliphate....the nation state as we know it shouldn't exist anyway. The only thing you shouldn't disobey is the bible


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> Treason doesn't exist according to them. She and Boebert have been preaching that we a christian caliphate....the nation state as we know it shouldn't exist anyway. The only thing you shouldn't disobey is the bible


I thought the only thing you shouldn't disobey is Trump?


----------



## mmr007

Please don't make me explain the concept of the trinity to you because I don't understand it myself


----------



## nightflameauto

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112401
> 
> Please don't make me explain the concept of the trinity to you because I don't understand it myself


That cover is ripe for a "walk into a bar" joke.


----------



## thebeesknees22

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112401
> 
> Please don't make me explain the concept of the trinity to you because I don't understand it myself


i want to laugh at this, but there are too many republican taliban members that I think believe this is true.


----------



## Grindspine

nightflameauto said:


> That cover is ripe for a "walk into a bar" joke.


----------



## Ralyks

Slightly related maybe possibly, mainly because Trump, but for those of you not familiar with the wrestling world or haven't seen it in business news, Vince McMahon stepped down from WWE following allegations of hush money for, uhh, keeping former employees quiet. And they keep finding more money that was used. And one they just found links to Trump, basically a payment through his Charity. This would be around the time Trump was appearing on Raw and getting payments. Question is why was this through the charity (hint: taxes):








McMahon’s newly discovered payments might be connected to Donald Trump


A new theory about this money pops up after WWE says it is unrelated to the investigation into alleged hush money payments.




www.cagesideseats.com


----------



## Drew

SpaceDock said:


> Yeah, earlier this week there was some chatter about the documents being seized due to their informant claiming Trump was going to sell the documents in question. Now that we are seeing these are nuclear related, I am gonna call good old Russian dealings. Maybe this was part of the grift all along. Hopefully they have this fucker dead to rights or we are all looking at a social breakdown.
> 
> I already got repub friends saying this is planted by the FBI, a big hit job hoax, etc. Just wait to see how the nut jobs flip if they put him in cuffs. No way they are gonna be rational, homeboy at the FBI today was just a warm up.


Yeah, about the only way Trump can spin this, if true, and the only one he probably would anyway, is "this is a plant, why would I sign off on unsealing the warrant and catalogue of what they took if I was guilty?"

To be fair, we don't know if this is true, if true we don't know if it's documents related to the US or a foreign nuclear program, and we don't know a thing about what exactly they were related to (a catalogue of Russia's known arsenal, for instance, is something that stealing to sell to a foreign government is absolutely treason and a big deal, but it's a step or two below selling the design to a US nuclear warhead). 

Worth reiterating is the agent who signed off on the request to unseal the warrant is the DOJ head of counterintelligence. 

"...but his nuclear secrets," amirite?


----------



## Drew

Per the WSJ, a little more info, but not much - there were 11 "sets" of classified files recovered across 20 boxes of files. The most sensitive was flagged as containing "various classified/top secret/sensitive compartmented information," which they elaborate were so protected that they were intended to only be viewed in designated secure areas. The other ten sets were a mix - four bearing top secret designations, three bearing secret, and three bearing classified. One set was purported to be related to "the French President." 

No confirmation on what the contents were beyond the degree to which they were classified, but I suppose that shouldn't be a surprise. If the purported nuclear secrets were in the first group, and there's evidence that Trump had intended to try or had tried to sell them, then yeah, we're probably talking treason. Beyond, you know, trying to overthrow a democratically elected government to hold onto power, which is probably also treason.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112401
> 
> Please don't make me explain the concept of the trinity to you because I don't understand it myself


 
"holy ghost writer"
I'm fucking dead


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Espionage! 

Ruh roh!


----------



## StevenC

Apparently Trump leaked the warrant to Breitbart while the DOJ was trying to have agent names redacted.

As we all saw in court this week that goes exactly one way.

What a scumbag.


----------



## spudmunkey

I've never had goosebumps from the _combination _of schadenfreude and terror...both from what he's _allegedly_ done and planned to do, and what his supporting cult _will_ do.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

"It was an accident. Someone must've put that stuff in my 'McDonald's Collectables' box under my limited edition Hamburglar bobble-head. Was probably my dead ex-wife that did it when she was helping us move.'


----------



## Genome

Anyone else feel like they're living through a period of time that will be in history textbooks 100 years from now (if we're all still here...)?

The 2020's have been genuinely nuts so far.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think he might be sunk by conventional standards if he actually respected laws and norms. I am waiting to see if he tries to “activate” his supporters and start a war to protect his ass.


----------



## Genome

It’s only espionage if it comes from the Espionage region of France. Otherwise it’s just sparkling treason.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Genome said:


> It’s only espionage if it comes from the Espionage region of France. Otherwise it’s just sparkling treason.


----------



## zappatton2

Genome said:


> Anyone else feel like they're living through a period of time that will be in history textbooks 100 years from now (if we're all still here...)?
> 
> The 2020's have been genuinely nuts so far.


My worry is 100 years from now, textbooks will say "Chapter One: Intelligent design". Assuming we aren't blowed up good or runaway climated out of existence by then.


----------



## spudmunkey

zappatton2 said:


> My worry is 100 years from now, textbooks will say "Chapter One: Intelligent design". Assuming we aren't blowed up good or runaway climated out of existence by then.


"Chapter Two: 'Science'' Follies"
"Chapter Three: God of the Gaps" (Sponsored by Brawndo: It's what plants crave!)


----------



## thraxil

But her EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## narad

zappatton2 said:


> My worry is 100 years from now, textbooks will say "Chapter One: Intelligent design". Assuming we aren't blowed up good or runaway climated out of existence by then.



At this rate maybe something more like, "关于中华帝国的伟大"


----------



## thraxil

Normally, if it's discovered that Top Secret documents have been handled improperly, whether criminally or just inadvertantly, there's a serious investigation into who might have had access to them in order to understand and deal with that risk.

18 months sitting in the basement of Mar-a-lago means that it's extremely likely that the FBI is going to want to have a long conversation with every single employee there and subpoena their personal financial records. Hell, Mar-a-lago's basement doesn't sound very secure. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the FBI to use this as a pretty valid excuse to look very closely into anyone who even visited Mar-a-lago. The MAGA folks of course will spin that as "see, this is a false flag operation that the Deep State is using to try to arrest Trump and anyone who supports him." Obviously BS, but if this was a strategic move by some Deep State conspiracy, you've got to hand it to them that it was a good move.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

One good thing about it being Espionage act, (granted take this with huge grain of salt I'm no expert)

But I've heard Snowden talk about it and basically if charged under Espionage Act you don't get chance to like testify in your own defense about motive or circumstances ect. So much harder to spin his nonsense if it did end up going down that path.


----------



## philkilla

The hypocrisy is really


----------



## Grindspine

thraxil said:


> Normally, if it's discovered that Top Secret documents have been handled improperly, whether criminally or just inadvertantly, there's a serious investigation into who might have had access to them in order to understand and deal with that risk.
> 
> 18 months sitting in the basement of Mar-a-lago means that it's extremely likely that the FBI is going to want to have a long conversation with every single employee there and subpoena their personal financial records. Hell, Mar-a-lago's basement doesn't sound very secure. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the FBI to use this as a pretty valid excuse to look very closely into anyone who even visited Mar-a-lago. The MAGA folks of course will spin that as "see, this is a false flag operation that the Deep State is using to try to arrest Trump and anyone who supports him." Obviously BS, but if this was a strategic move by some Deep State conspiracy, you've got to hand it to them that it was a good move.


..but it had an extra lock!
/sarcasm

Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers. 

Of course, there was a motion for articles of impeachment against the head of the DOJ. It is amazing how supporting law will flip as soon as the law is not protecting the interests of the rich.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Isn't it just mind-blowing to consider how many people exist in the US that would defend someone who took steps to share classified information that might ultimately cause unspeakable harm or death to them and their families ( or would defend someone who already might have shared that information). 

If that didn't make sense... I'm basically saying that it's absolutely nuts being able to equate this to handing someone your house-keys and personal info... whom you have never met and know little to nothing about... and saying "I've seen you on TV and you said stuff that I liked so if you ever want, just come over to visit without any notice. If I'm not home, no worries... my wife and children will probably be there. I know you're a good dude so I trust that you won't hurt my family nor lay waste to my home nor compromise any of my most personal information nor do anything to cause harm to our country." 

"Oh and some people said that it's unsafe to give you access to everything that I own as well as that of my country... and obviously that really pissed me off when they said that so because they are suspicious of you causing me harm, Imma go threaten to kill them and their innocent family members because I trust you more than I trust anyone else. Oh, and those people saying that they're looking out for my safety are actually probably just out to get me because we disagree about some other stuff".


----------



## Andromalia

High Plains Drifter said:


> Isn't it just mind-blowing to consider how many people exist in the US that would defend someone who took steps to share classified information that might ultimately cause unspeakable harm or death to them


Well, it's difficult enough for us to maintain the belief that not all of you are Ted Nugent. Trump isn't helping.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Andromalia said:


> Well, it's difficult enough for us to maintain the belief that not all of you are Ted Nugent. Trump isn't helping.


The majority of us aren't. Sadly though, the trump-nuts are insanely vocal and visible and seem to have lots of time on their hands so they're the ones that you always see on the news and on social media. Th rest of us pretty much keep to ourselves and try to do the right thing for ourselves, our family, and our communities.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> The hypocrisy is really


OK, I'll bite... Please tell me more


----------



## mmr007

There is an idiotic truck that drives around my neighborhood that perfectly illustrates that. I and others drive around quietly and nondescript in this little community, while this truck owner drives a big white (obviously) lifted (natch) diesel F350 (what else) with diesel stacks and two 6 foot long flags mounted on tall flagpoles in the bed. One is the American flag and the other is a flag that reads "Assholes live forever" I haven't seen the Trump 2024 sticker on it but I am going to assume it's there.


----------



## mmr007

Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> OK, I'll bite... Please tell me more



Shenanigans at the upper echelons of government.

We could do a 360 of finger pointing towards officials that have violated principles of handling various levels of classified materials (physical and digital...)

I've got a high level clearance; even as a senior NCO in the army if I lost chain of custody of documents that would be it for me; the power of networking outweighs checks and balances it seems.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112448
> 
> 
> Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.




Not American but the truck protest we had in Canada this winter now anytime I see even a reasonable sized flag on a vehicle I just think "oh nice here comes an *sshole"


----------



## RevDrucifer

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112448
> 
> 
> Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.



I fucking love the Rambo Trump pics, they all look like something Steve-O would have tattooed on himself in his partying days.


----------



## Randy

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112448
> 
> 
> Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.


 
1.) The Trump Rambo flag was really popular in my neck of the woods for a while. One guy in particular had it in a plexiglass case on his lawn to make sure it wouldn't get defaced.

Worth noting all of them sun bleached in a couple months because I'm sure they're cheap sweatshop garbage befitting of the man.

2.) Yeah, I'm way way out on the flag. It legit just looks like a Trump campaign banner to me at this point. I wasn't ultra happy about the use of the flag during the "you're not a real Patriot" GWB middle east genocide boner, but thought the symbol of the flag had a quality resurgence when Obama came in. Son of an immigrant, biracial, single parent household, etc. Felt right.

Trump and his fucks dealt a heavy blow, and Biden's America hasn't been inspiring enough to bridge the gap yet. Shit like this didn't help either:


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

mmr007 said:


> I want my flag back.


Me too. I've said the exact same words many times now. Time to take it back.

When did this symbol of our country, supposedly protected by federal law from desecration, alteration, and improper disposal, become a dog whistle for far right nationalist nut jobs? And, not to be misconstrued as any kind of disrespect for law enforcement, bastardized by a black and grey version with one blue stripe in support of propaganda for any subsection of the population of this country?


----------



## Ralyks

mmr007 said:


> I want my flag back.


This. So much this.


----------



## spudmunkey

thraxil said:


> But her EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Funny thing about that...

Even the investigator who oversaw that Department of Justice investigation into Clinton's handling of classified information says this is shocking:


----------



## Grindspine

mmr007 said:


> Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.


Yeah, I agree. Part of patriotism puts national identity above humanity though. Effectively, ever since I finished my degree in anthropology, I have seen flags, in general, as being an exclusive rather than inclusive piece of propaganda. Coming up on this 4th of July though, right after the Supreme Court rolled back Roe vs Wade (ignoring 49 years of legal precedent), I really did not feel like making any salutes to the flag that is supposed to be a symbol of the people of these United States.

Really though, I had to edit the last sentence several times to even find wording that felt appropriate. 


Riff the Road Dog said:


> Me too. I've said the exact same words many times now. Time to take it back.
> 
> When did this symbol of our country, supposedly protected by federal law from desecration, alteration, and improper disposal, become a dog whistle for far right nationalist nut jobs? And, not to be misconstrued as any kind of disrespect for law enforcement, bastardized by a black and grey version with one blue stripe in support of propaganda for any subsection of the population of this country?


It is insane how many people wave flags, often from trucks, also from clothing, that are completely unaware that there are laws detailing the care of that symbol. If I recall, aren't waving tattered flags or wearing flags on clothing expressly forbidden in the flag code?



> §8. Respect for flag
> No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
> (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
> (b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
> (c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
> *(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
> (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.*
> (f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
> (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
> (h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
> (i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
> (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
> (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
> (Added Pub. L. 105–225, §2(a), Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1497.)



The U.S. Flag Code literally prohibits wearing as apparel and also separately prohibits fastening and displaying in a way in which it can be easily torn. I am pretty sure flying it on a truck fits that part E description.


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> 1.) The Trump Rambo flag was really popular in my neck of the woods for a while. One guy in particular had it in a plexiglass case on his lawn to make sure it wouldn't get defaced.
> 
> Worth noting all of them sun bleached in a couple months because I'm sure they're cheap sweatshop garbage befitting of the man.
> 
> 2.) Yeah, I'm way way out on the flag. It legit just looks like a Trump campaign banner to me at this point. I wasn't ultra happy about the use of the flag during the "you're not a real Patriot" GWB middle east genocide boner, but thought the symbol of the flag had a quality resurgence when Obama came in. Son of an immigrant, biracial, single parent household, etc. Felt right.
> 
> Trump and his fucks dealt a heavy blow, and Biden's America hasn't been inspiring enough to bridge the gap yet. Shit like this didn't help either:


Well that particular flag now has a Russian strain of herpes and orange makeup on it so....maybe we get a different one back


----------



## mmr007

some thing seems........off. Can't put my finger on it




Why do I feel less patriotic? Why do I feel less united? Why am I surrounded by tacky? I know this is a guitar forum and I've never romanticized the US flag but damn....how is it that I can't fly one without people wondering if I am one of the ones who wants to overthrow the government? The irony.


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112453
> 
> 
> Why do I feel less patriotic? Why do I feel less united? Why am I surrounded by tacky? I know this is a guitar forum and I've never romanticized the US flag but damn....how is it that I can't fly one without people wondering if I am one of the ones who wants to overthrow the government? The irony.



It's OK to not feel patriotic for this one. That's not an American flag. it has 15 stripes.


----------



## Xaios

Speaking as a Canadian, I was already getting pretty cool on our flag in general these past few years over treatment of the first nations, but what really cemented my dismay for it was the discovery of mass graves of indigenous children.

If nothing else, I was already emotionally divorced from it by the time the trucker convoys rolled around, so seeing assholes waving it around braying and whining about their own selfish interests wasn't nearly as shocking by that point.


----------



## Adieu

Grindspine said:


> It is insane how many people wave flags, often from trucks, also from clothing, that are completely unaware that there are laws detailing the care of that symbol. If I recall, aren't waving tattered flags or wearing flags on clothing expressly forbidden in the flag code?
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Flag Code literally prohibits wearing as apparel and also separately prohibits fastening and displaying in a way in which it can be easily torn. I am pretty sure flying it on a truck fits that part E description.



Who cares? If a country wants to fine and jail its citizens for HOW they display its flag... then it doesn't fucking deserve any loyalty or any citizens that appreciate its flag.

If we start applying some wacky archaic laws to people we don't like, well, fuck us then.

EVEN if said flag-brandishing citizens are assholes.


----------



## spudmunkey

Grindspine said:


> Yeah, I agree. Part of patriotism puts national identity above humanity though. Effectively, ever since I finished my degree in anthropology, I have seen flags, in general, as being an exclusive rather than inclusive piece of propaganda. Coming up on this 4th of July though, right after the Supreme Court rolled back Roe vs Wade (ignoring 49 years of legal precedent), I really did not feel like making any salutes to the flag that is supposed to be a symbol of the people of these United States.
> 
> Really though, I had to edit the last sentence several times to even find wording that felt appropriate.
> 
> It is insane how many people wave flags, often from trucks, also from clothing, that are completely unaware that there are laws detailing the care of that symbol. If I recall, aren't waving tattered flags or wearing flags on clothing expressly forbidden in the flag code?
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. Flag Code literally prohibits wearing as apparel and also separately prohibits fastening and displaying in a way in which it can be easily torn. I am pretty sure flying it on a truck fits that part E description.



The flag code isn't law, just guidelines...and I'm not even sure they pertain to "civilian" usage. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't get, like, a ticket for violating the flag code, unless what you're doing is breaking another law, like littering or having unlicensed fires, etc.


----------



## Grindspine

Xaios said:


> Speaking as a Canadian, I was already getting pretty cool on our flag in general these past few years over treatment of the first nations, but what really cemented my dismay for it was the discovery of mass graves of indigenous children.
> 
> If nothing else, I was already emotionally divorced from it by the time the trucker convoys rolled around, so seeing assholes waving it around braying and whining about their own selfish interests wasn't nearly as shocking by that point.


Yeah, that is why my prior post was difficult to write. I wanted to write something along the lines of "the flag being a symbol of the people of this nation", but that discounts all of the people and nations that preceded the colonies.

I recently read some far right propaganda about illegal immigrants displacing "the original, English-speaking people" and just had to shake my head. There are many who know little of history and have no interest learning of the atrocities on which this country was built. Progress takes a long time. It is hard watching a significant portion of the country want to regress.


----------



## narad

Grindspine said:


> Yeah, that is why my prior post was difficult to write. I wanted to write something along the lines of "the flag being a symbol of the people of this nation", but that discounts all of the people and nations that preceded the colonies.
> 
> I recently read some far right propaganda about illegal immigrants displacing "the original, English-speaking people" and just had to shake my head. There are many who know little of history and have no interest learning of the atrocities on which this country was built. Progress takes a long time. It is hard watching a significant portion of the country want to regress.



But on the other hand you have land acknowledgements, which strike me as the worst sort of wokeism. "I just want to take this time to acknowledge that we took this land. I don't want to get into doing anything about it or ways we could make the lives of indigenous people better, but I do want to acknowledge that there was a travesty roughly where my house/uni/company is now."


----------



## Glades

spudmunkey said:


> The flag code isn't law, just guidelines...and I'm not even sure they pertain to "civilian" usage. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't get, like, a ticket for violating the flag code, unless what you're doing is breaking another law, like littering or having unlicensed fires, etc.


Even flag burning is a protected right, per 1989's SC decision on Texas vs Johnson.

My take on it is that we need as a country some common ground values and symbols to remain united. It used to be the flag, the constitution and national identity.
We are tribal creatures. We always have been. We tend to associate with people that are like us and push away those that are different. Its instinct.
But we live in a tremendously diverse country with people with many cultures, creeds and languages. In order to avoid going to war with each other on every front, we need a symbol of unity to keep us together. I don't think it is a bad thing to use the American flag as that symbol.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Even flag burning is a protected right, per 1989's SC decision on Texas vs Johnson.
> 
> My take on it is that we need as a country some common ground values and symbols to remain united. It used to be the flag, the constitution and national identity.
> We are tribal creatures. We always have been. We tend to associate with people that are like us and push away those that are different. Its instinct.
> But we live in a tremendously diverse country with people with many cultures, creeds and languages. In order to avoid going to war with each other on every front, we need a symbol of unity to keep us together. I don't think it is a bad thing to use the American flag as that symbol.


----------



## Crungy

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112452
> 
> 
> some thing seems........off. Can't put my finger on it
> 
> View attachment 112453
> 
> 
> Why do I feel less patriotic? Why do I feel less united? Why am I surrounded by tacky? I know this is a guitar forum and I've never romanticized the US flag but damn....how is it that I can't fly one without people wondering if I am one of the ones who wants to overthrow the government? The irony.


I hear ya because now when you see someone with an American flag, the majority of the time there's a trump flag/sticker or some other pro trump let's go Brandon bullshit next to it. 

The whole cult is an embarrassment to this country and trump made our country less respectable by making it a brand lifestyle to be a piece of shit.


----------



## nightflameauto

Yeah, I have to admit I have a knee-jerk when I see the flag now in a very negative way. Unless it's also accompanied by one of those now, seemingly, trite "This is a flag for all our nation's people. All of them. Period." type sayings. And even then I have to think about it. I dunno. The people convinced it'd be better if all us libtards died and left them to build the country they wanted are included? I don't know about that.

As a student of conspiracy theories and crackpot lunacy for both protecting myself from the worst of the stupidity (thanks grandma) and so I can properly ridicule those that believe the dumbest of the dumb, I have so much fun playing with the 'prophecies' and 'foretellings' out there. Brace yourself, I'm gonna mix some reality with some stupid here for a moment.

My favorite crackpot nonsense right now is folding together Revelations and some of the Nostradamus predictions. Nostradamus foretold of a prince rising in the west that would bring about "great suffering" and such. The predictions included what most that looked at it in the late twentieth century thought must be nuclear war. (The great fires.). Many tied this coming prince up with the Revelations story, predicting this prince would be "The Beast."

So, Donald Trump / Drumph? Arguably a prince. His dad built an empire. And while the prince has turned it into a global brand, he's also lost that money many times over. Over the last ten years or so, he's deeply embedded himself into the very fabric of our nation, to the point where many would be and / or absolutely are willing to die for him. Now, on the possible cusp of the great prince's fall, we watch warily as we await the outcome. If law enforcement chooses to act on the information they have in their hands, what will actually happen? Will his followers attack their fellow citizens for their new god? Or will they turn and bow their heads in shame when they realize what he is?

I don't think it's hard to see which outcome is more likely.

Back to reality:
Really? What happens if Trump is taken into custody and sent to trial for treason? If we as a country survive the Trumpertantrum that happens after that, what happens when he's found guilty?

There's a legitimate reason to be concerned here, far beyond the conspiracy lunacy. Hell, we're living through the conspiracy lunacy becoming real. What a damned mess.


----------



## Glades

The adoption of the American iconography by the Trump campaign is probably a consequence of his criticism by the radical left. I have been extremely critical of this. The problem is that it disenfranchises the non-radical democrats which are the vast majority. Most democrats still love this country and don’t believe in radical ideologies. The flag belongs to all.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

There's only on flag I stand hand over heart for


----------



## narad

nightflameauto said:


> If law enforcement chooses to act on the information they have in their hands, what will actually happen? Will his followers attack their fellow citizens for their new god?


They going to band together and refuse to ring me up at Auto Zone?


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> The adoption of the American iconography by the Trump campaign is probably a consequence of his criticism by the radical left. I have been extremely critical of this. The problem is that it disenfranchises the non-radical democrats which are the vast majority. Most democrats still love this country and don’t believe in radical ideologies. The flag belongs to all.


No. It is because tacky people did tacky things with it that goes beyond the basic exploitation of the flag used in any campaign over the decades. But Trump fans are in perpetual campaign/rally mode. The flag has been cheapened by Trump and his fans, not by liberal criticism of a crook.

But that is Trump to a T. Gold is beautiful and elegant and even if overdone (a la the ancient egyptians) it is beautiful. Once Trump get a hold of gold it looks checp.


----------



## Adieu

Crungy said:


> I hear ya because now when you see someone with an American flag, the majority of the time there's a trump flag/sticker or some other pro trump let's go Brandon bullshit next to it.
> 
> The whole cult is an embarrassment to this country and trump made our country less respectable by making it a brand lifestyle to be a piece of shit.



I feel like I missed something... who the fuck is Brandon???


----------



## nightflameauto

Adieu said:


> I feel like I missed something... who the fuck is Brandon???


You really missed something.

Let's Go Brandon!

And yes. We are that stupid.


----------



## narad

Even as a liberal the Let's Go Brandon stuff was of a hilarious origin and it was funny and clever to see people pick it up and run with it. It was just when people really were using it in inappropriate situations, like the one pilot that said it over the intercom or the guy who said it on a call to Biden, etc.


----------



## zappatton2

Carrion Rocket said:


> There's only on flag I stand hand over heart for


Enough time under that banner, and I think my last moments on earth really would involve having my hand over my heart.


----------



## Crungy

I see that all the time where I live, and some of my neighbors have shit like that up along with the fuck Biden stuff. 

Don't get me wrong I hate trump and all of the bullshit that comes along with him and his bootlickers but I'm not going to fly a flag that says fuck trump on it. Have some class for fucks sake.


----------



## Crungy

narad said:


> It was just when people really were using it in inappropriate situations, like the one pilot that said it over the intercom or the guy who said it on a call to Biden, etc.


I remember hearing about that, what a joke. If anyone spoke ill of daddy trump like that they'd full on riot more than they have been on airplanes.


----------



## zappatton2

Crungy said:


> I see that all the time where I live, and some of my neighbors have shit like that up along with the fuck Biden stuff.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I hate trump and all of the bullshit that comes along with him and his bootlickers but I'm not going to fly a flag that says fuck trump on it. Have some class for fucks sake.


Yeah, that's getting popular up here too with the alt-right types flying their "F*#k Trudeau" flags everywhere. Like, personally I found our conservative PM before him far more divisive, but flying a flag saying so is as tacky as it gets.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

narad said:


> Even as a liberal the Let's Go Brandon stuff was of a hilarious origin and it was funny and clever to see people pick it up and run with it. It was just when people really were using it in inappropriate situations, like the one pilot that said it over the intercom or the guy who said it on a call to Biden, etc.


I find it to be another case of morons thinking they're clever. I mean, just say it. What is it with all this wink wink nudge nudge secret handshake crap. It's not like everyone doesn't know you're advertising something base, crude and offensive to any reasonable American.


----------



## Drew

Riff the Road Dog said:


> I find it to be another case of morons thinking they're clever. I mean, just say it. What is it with all this wink wink nudge nudge secret handshake crap.


Yeah, this. It's just really sophomoric.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> View attachment 112448
> 
> 
> Here's a horrible thought that I am ashamed to admit but it finally hit me. The Trump supporters and pro Russian anarchists have so sullied the American flag and it's meaning that it looks tacky to me. I used to think it an absolutely beautiful flag. But its association is tainted. Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.


I don't know how old you are, but I've felt a bit that way ever since the W. era, where GWB and his various lieutenants suddenly wouldn't be seen anywhere in public without an American flag lapel pin. The whole thing was just weirdly proto-fascist in ways that made me uncomfortable. 

The Gadsen flag is another great example of this, that thanks to the Tea Party has probably been entirely lost. It's a pity.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I've felt a bit that way ever since the W. era, where GWB and his various lieutenants suddenly wouldn't be seen anywhere in public without an American flag lapel pin. The whole thing was just weirdly proto-fascist in ways that made me uncomfortable.
> 
> The Gadsen flag is another great example of this, that thanks to the Tea Party has probably been entirely lost. It's a pity.


The flag pin was heinous. My bosses even tried to make me wear one at work because every single one of them did and I saw no difference between that and 1984 (the Orwell book) where you could be seen as unpatriotic if you were not seen constantly emoting the appropriate level of love of country and hatred of other. Every politician had to wear that stupid pin to prove they loved their country or they were called out and like I said, that happened even at my work. They would ask me "where's your flag pin?"

I was very ashamed of what this country did...false pretenses for war, Guantanamo, politically motivated terrorist alert color charts, Abu ghraib....but there have been many times this country did shameful things I was not proud of...the flag was noble even if we didn't always live up to what it tried to stand for. But by being ingloriously displayed in constant rally mode by the Trump basket cases of deplorables the very colors themselves now look cheap.

The stars and stripes don't say land of the free home of the brave...they say attention walmart shoppers. As much as I disagree with EVERYTHING a Trump supporter stands for, they have a right to stand for things I don't like. Just...put the fucking flag away. It isn't yours. State your case in YOUR words, not in images you don't own.


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> The flag pin was heinous. My bosses even tried to make me wear one at work because every single one of them did and I saw no difference between that and 1984 (the Orwell book) where you could be seen as unpatriotic if you were not seen constantly emoting the appropriate level of love of country and hatred of other. Every politician had to wear that stupid pin to prove they loved their country or they were called out and like I said, that happened even at my work. They would ask me "where's your flag pin?"


This isn't really the forum for this, I suppose, but ever heard John Prine's "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore"? I thought of that song every single time I saw Bush or Rumsfeld with one of those stupid pins. 

But of course what Trump is trying to do here is pretty blatantly clear - by aligning his campaign so closely with the American flag, he's subtly tying his candidacy to America such that anyone who is opposed to Trump is also opposed to America, and his opponents are un-American. Again, right out of the fascist playbook. W. at least had the decency to never pretend that patriotism was a partisan issue.


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> This isn't really the forum for this, I suppose, but ever heard John Prine's "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore"? I thought of that song every single time I saw Bush or Rumsfeld with one of those stupid pins.
> 
> But of course what Trump is trying to do here is pretty blatantly clear - by aligning his campaign so closely with the American flag, he's subtly tying his candidacy to America such that anyone who is opposed to Trump is also opposed to America, and his opponents are un-American. Again, right out of the fascist playbook. W. at least had the decency to never pretend that patriotism was a partisan issue.


I've actually never heard of it until now and went and listened to a live version of it. Very fitting.

What I don't get is why Trump and his supporters are tying themselves to the American flag when they openly pledge allegiance to this one.....


----------



## ArtDecade

mmr007 said:


> What I don't get is why Trump and his supporters are tying themselves to the American flag when they openly pledge allegiance to this one.....



To them, it still red, white, and blue.


----------



## mastapimp

Drew said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I've felt a bit that way ever since the W. era, where GWB and his various lieutenants suddenly wouldn't be seen anywhere in public without an American flag lapel pin. The whole thing was just weirdly proto-fascist in ways that made me uncomfortable.
> 
> The Gadsen flag is another great example of this, that thanks to the Tea Party has probably been entirely lost. It's a pity.


Over time, that kind of wore out, but immediately post-911 I found it was more unifying. I was in college during 911 and remember a few weeks later receiving a pin from some student organization on campus. Anyone that wanted one and lots of faculty and students would put them on their backpacks. This was at its peak before all the invasions, but I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. This was before twitter and all those hashtags (#bostonstrong, etc...), so I feel like it as just a sign of unity immediately after an enormous tragedy. Over time it kinda bled into the whole 'Murica sentiment during war, so I can definitely relate to your points a year or so after the patriotic surge.


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> To them, it still red, white, and blue.



It's at best a dyslexic's version of the French flag


----------



## Drew

mastapimp said:


> Over time, that kind of wore out, but immediately post-911 I found it was more unifying. I was in college during 911 and remember a few weeks later receiving a pin from some student organization on campus. Anyone that wanted one and lots of faculty and students would put them on their backpacks. This was at its peak before all the invasions, but I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. This was before twitter and all those hashtags (#bostonstrong, etc...), so I feel like it as just a sign of unity immediately after an enormous tragedy. Over time it kinda bled into the whole 'Murica sentiment during war, so I can definitely relate to your points a year or so after the patriotic surge.


I think that probably depended where in the country you were in college at the time. In arch-liberal Vermont, I remember the sense from pretty much Bush's speech that night when he immediately turned to religion in the context of justice, that something was about to go horribly, horribly wrong.

Land wars in Asia, amirite?


----------



## Mathemagician

spudmunkey said:


> "Chapter Two: 'Science'' Follies"
> "Chapter Three: God of the Gaps" (Sponsored by Brawndo: It's what plants crave!)



Wait is chapter 3 about kickflips?



thraxil said:


> But her EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Buttery males. 



Glades said:


> Even flag burning is a protected right, per 1989's SC decision on Texas vs Johnson.
> 
> My take on it is that we need as a country some common ground values and symbols to remain united. It used to be the flag, the constitution and national identity.
> We are tribal creatures. We always have been. We tend to associate with people that are like us and push away those that are different. Its instinct.
> But we live in a tremendously diverse country with people with many cultures, creeds and languages. In order to avoid going to war with each other on every front, we need a symbol of unity to keep us together. I don't think it is a bad thing to use the American flag as that symbol.



The common ground in this country should be not restricting other’s freedoms like access to medicine and healthcare treatments. 

You keep openly supporting policies that force hyper fundamentalist nonsense on innocent non-fundie Americans. 




Crungy said:


> I see that all the time where I live, and some of my neighbors have shit like that up along with the fuck Biden stuff.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I hate trump and all of the bullshit that comes along with him and his bootlickers but I'm not going to fly a flag that says fuck trump on it. Have some class for fucks sake.



I will never spend money on anything with a fucking politicians name on it. They are elected reps whose primary job is to negotiate fucking budgets. I don’t get how people have so little going on in life that politics becomes a sport. 



Drew said:


> Yeah, this. It's just really sophomoric.



I forgot what this was in relation too. But you’re likely right. So I’m leaving it. 



mmr007 said:


> I've actually never heard of it until now and went and listened to a live version of it. Very fitting.
> 
> What I don't get is why Trump and his supporters are tying themselves to the American flag when they openly pledge allegiance to this one.....
> 
> View attachment 112570



That’s the 2021 Haas, and why I refuse to spend a dime supporting them for at least 5 years. Actions have consequences.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I've felt a bit that way ever since the W. era, where GWB and his various lieutenants suddenly wouldn't be seen anywhere in public without an American flag lapel pin. The whole thing was just weirdly proto-fascist in ways that made me uncomfortable.


Like the president needs to periodically look down and be reminded that he's leading the country (or if citizens need to look at them and be reminded that they lead the country)? Anyway, we should just take this to the logical conclusion where you get sworn in and put on the uniform:


----------



## High Plains Drifter

So I don't want to derail the flag portion of the thread... but really curious to get some thoughts at this point. 

What do y'all think that a civil war or whatever you want to call it... would look like? I'm not talking about [likely] continued attacks on govt officials and brick & mortars... but we as citizens, what might we expect?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

High Plains Drifter said:


> So I don't want to derail the flag portion of the thread... but really curious to get some thoughts at this point.
> 
> What do y'all think that a civil war or whatever you want to call it... would look like? I'm not talking about [likely] continued attacks on govt officials and brick & mortars... but we as citizens, what might we expect?



I really think the whole open "civil war" thing is just an ultra-right fever dream. It's the "Trump riding a tank holding a rocket launcher with eagles at his side" thing. All fantasy.

It's like the cops at Ulvade with their Punisher imagery, cowboy hats, and bravado, when it actually came time to do some Punisher shit, they folded, and that's most of these internet tough guy Punisher larpers are: fucking cowards. That's why they need a .44 to go to Denny's.

There will always be an incredibly small group of wackos willing to actually cause harm, but luckily they're usually too crazy to be effective at little more than getting themselves killed.

Honestly, in a country with so much background gun violence, we probably wouldn't even notice.


----------



## StevenC

In the UK, every politician who has used an actual Union Flag in their promotion looks like a fascist, but that's been around way longer than Trump and it's because flags are the things unhinged nationalists care about. 



This local exposé sums up flags, to be honest. Apologies for the accents.


----------



## profwoot

High Plains Drifter said:


> So I don't want to derail the flag portion of the thread... but really curious to get some thoughts at this point.
> 
> What do y'all think that a civil war or whatever you want to call it... would look like? I'm not talking about [likely] continued attacks on govt officials and brick & mortars... but we as citizens, what might we expect?


It will look much like it does now, with increasingly frequent terrorist attacks and increasingly brazen roving militias. This type of warfare is called "insurgency" and the US sucks at fighting against it even when they don't care about civilian casualties. I don't know if the average Boogaloo Boi knows that's what a civil war would look like, but it's not like we're gonna start lining up across from each other with muskets. I'm not saying Civil War II has already begun, just that you know we're on a direct path when it's just "the same, but worse".


----------



## mmr007

I dont see a civil war per se happening. I see is quietly slipping into autocracy.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

mmr007 said:


> I dont see a civil war per se happening. I see is quietly slipping into autocracy.



That's the real threat. It's not as glamorous, but it's a heck of a lot closer to happening.


----------



## Crungy

I feel it's loudly happening with the right and their undying love of daddy trump.


----------



## Mathemagician

High Plains Drifter said:


> So I don't want to derail the flag portion of the thread... but really curious to get some thoughts at this point.
> 
> What do y'all think that a civil war or whatever you want to call it... would look like? I'm not talking about [likely] continued attacks on govt officials and brick & mortars... but we as citizens, what might we expect?



Bruh people are hanging out at “training camps” around the US. All just to LARP a revolution because they have nothing much going on giving their cushy lives value.

It’s so good here, that the stuff citizens argue about have been solved in 20+ other developed nations.

So they keep doing the same stuff they’re doing now like others have said.



Crungy said:


> I feel it's loudly happening with the right and their undying love of daddy trump.



If he said “everybody be cool and be nice” a portion would say “ok he’s playing 5D chess” and the rest would dump him and find a new guy to support.

Because facist leaders give regular tired people an out. Nazi’s used “Jews, gays, gypsies” etc.

The current fundies use “Jews, gays, progressives” as their catch-all boogie men.

It’s about an easy out. The idea that “if we get rid of X, my life will improve through no effort of my own”.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Solid insight... appreciated. And I certainly have never feared a "can't leave the house" kind of thing happening. But with where we're at now, it's definitely interesting to consider some of the different paths this could take. And I know Max nailed it as that's what's already happening. I meant more along the lines of individuals/ citizens. Just mind-blowing that so many people are not only bat-shit insane and hateful, but apparently that they have no place to be either... and have a mega hard-on for showing off their tactical toys to everyone. I remember doing that with a bb gun I got one Christmas but I was like eight yrs old. I keep all my toys hidden these days.


----------



## Ralyks

I feel like it is more like a Civil Cold War. But with more violence and stupidity.


----------



## Grindspine

On the flag front, I actually saw a "Blue Line" bumper sticker that was literally just two thick black lines with a blue line in the middle. It was way more subtle and not a bastardization of the stars & stripes. It got me thinking that I would actually like to see someone actually having a BLM and Blue Line flag together. Really, supporting police and wanting police to be accountable to treating people of all skin color equally should not be mutually exclusive.

But currently those are considered polar opposites, antithesis to each other. A few posts back, someone said that politicians' primary goal is to reconcile budgets. Yeah, they should be civil servants, not cult leaders.


----------



## nightflameauto

Yeah, the problem is a lot of politicians get into the game with good intentions. Then they start getting the money, the adulation of the gregariously stupid clinger class, and start to believe their own hype. Money + power goes to their head and 'wanna be god' status is unlocked.

That's how you get shit-witches like MTG and dumbster fires like Trump. (I spelled it how I wanted to.)

'Real' civil war in America right now? Pffffffftt. We're all too lazy to really fire that shit off. It'll be isolated pockets of violence mostly swatted within a few hours and mostly publicly talked about as individuals that were unhinged.

If the right leaning fundies were anything near what they claim they are, they'd be going door to door, asking for affiliations, and shooting lefties outright for treason. But, even the seemingly completely unhinged aren't so unhinged as to think there would be no consequences for living out their wet dreams of autocratic fascism, so they masturbate to murder fantasy while rubbing down their weapons, polishing their bullets, and posting online about how much better we'd all be if we just bowed down and took Trump's cock up our asses.

How the self-proclaimed freedom brigade thinks that's freedom is beyond me, but if we pulled hypocrites down for being hypocrites, we wouldn't have politics at all.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> Yeah, the problem is a lot of politicians get into the game with good intentions. Then they start getting the money, the adulation of the gregariously stupid clinger class, and start to believe their own hype. Money + power goes to their head and 'wanna be god' status is unlocked.
> 
> That's how you get shit-witches like MTG and dumbster fires like Trump. (I spelled it how I wanted to.)
> 
> 'Real' civil war in America right now? Pffffffftt. We're all too lazy to really fire that shit off. It'll be isolated pockets of violence mostly swatted within a few hours and mostly publicly talked about as individuals that were unhinged.
> 
> If the right leaning fundies were anything near what they claim they are, they'd be going door to door, asking for affiliations, and shooting lefties outright for treason. But, even the seemingly completely unhinged aren't so unhinged as to think there would be no consequences for living out their wet dreams of autocratic fascism, so they masturbate to murder fantasy while rubbing down their weapons, polishing their bullets, and posting online about how much better we'd all be if we just bowed down and took Trump's cock up our asses.
> 
> How the self-proclaimed freedom brigade thinks that's freedom is beyond me, but if we pulled hypocrites down for being hypocrites, we wouldn't have politics at all.



Politicians start getting $ and owing favors during their campaigns. The leading democrat running for senate this November in Florida has $45M in her campaign, and Rubio $25M. These people are in bed deep with corporations and special interests way before they get elected.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Politicians start getting $ and owing favors during their campaigns. The leading democrat running for senate this November in Florida has $45M in her campaign, and Rubio $25M. These people are in bed deep with corporations and special interests way before they get elected.


Yes, only Democrats fall into this.

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> In the UK, every politician who has used an actual Union Flag in their promotion looks like a fascist, but that's been around way longer than Trump and it's because flags are the things unhinged nationalists care about.
> 
> 
> 
> This local exposé sums up flags, to be honest. Apologies for the accents.



Tell me why you fucks still haven't slapped Y Ddraig Goch on your flag. You got the saint andrews cross, the english twat cross allllll up in there but yet no fuckin red dragon. They even included St. Patrick's cross in there and there are twice as many sheep shaggers as you guys!

Cymru am byth bitches.

EDIT: Second gen American pretending to be part of my grandfathers issues, here. Never stepped foot on British soil, but as a typical american, I will PROUDLY fly my flag for a country I've never stepped in hahahahaha


----------



## zappatton2

nightflameauto said:


> Yes, only Democrats fall into this.
> 
> Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?


I mean, it _is _fair to note that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of _certain _things, like being in the back pockets of vested powerful monetary interests. But it's also fair to note that only one side is actively encouraging violence, terrorism and mass social disruption. 

Calls to violence just wouldn't work for the Democrats. Yes, they often work for the private interest, which is why Americans can't seem to get any of the social programs or quality of life many of their European friends enjoy, but they're still trying to sell themselves to moderates and progressives, people who want to build a better future rather than watch it all burn to get back at their perceived enemies. They can't sell violence to their voters, because their voters don't stockpile weapons and glorify combat, they push for civil rights and policy change, and get mischaracterized at every turn by Fox and friends.

Witness the BLM protests. The people coming out weren't selling conspiracies and trying to tear down government because an election didn't go their way. They were there to state clearly that police killing unarmed black citizens was not acceptable, and demand government at all levels build that accountability into law enforcement and the institutions of justice. And they were met with an aggressive police response (much more aggressive than aggrieved right-wingers have faced) and weaponized counter-protests that threw cities into disarray, all the more when opportunistic looters and vandals could exploit that chaos.

So what we're left with is a weird whataboutism where fascists who carry weapons, drive cars into people, and try to potentially assassinate public officials aren't "that bad", because those civil rights protesters on the left are burning down cities (they're not, but in a post-fact mindset, there's no distinction).


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Politicians start getting $ and owing favors during their campaigns. The leading democrat running for senate this November in Florida has $45M in her campaign, and Rubio $25M. These people are in bed deep with corporations and special interests way before they get elected.


I'll be honest - this is the first time I've seen someone try to spin "the GOP is at a massive fundraising disadvantage this cycle" into a GOOD thing.  

The reactionary Right will be paying for Roe vs Wade for quite some time, I think.


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Because facist leaders give regular tired people an out. Nazi’s used “Jews, gays, gypsies” etc.
> 
> The current fundies use “Jews, gays, progressives” as their catch-all boogie men.
> 
> It’s about an easy out. The idea that “if we get rid of X, my life will improve through no effort of my own”.


This was NOT a popular opinion around here, maybe, but I've long held (since the 2016 primary season, really) that Sanders and Trump were essentially running two different versions of the same campaign. Their pitch, at essence, was "everything in the world sucks, and it's NOT YOUR FAULT." Biden it was just billionaires and big corporations, Trump it was Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, and maybe the Jews (that didn't work for him). In both cases, though, populism with a scapegoat.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> Yes, only Democrats fall into this.
> 
> Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?



I never said only Democrats. All politicians do. Why do you guys always try to spin me as the villain here?


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I never said only Democrats. All politicians do. Why do you guys always try to spin me as the villain here?


Villain? The people in your village don't usually call you that when you get lost.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> This was NOT a popular opinion around here, maybe, but I've long held (since the 2016 primary season, really) that Sanders and Trump were essentially running two different versions of the same campaign. Their pitch, at essence, was "everything in the world sucks, and it's NOT YOUR FAULT." Biden it was just billionaires and big corporations, Trump it was Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, and maybe the Jews (that didn't work for him). In both cases, though, populism with a scapegoat.


That's correct. At least at a high level early on in the campaign.

Bernie Sanders, the millionaire politician who ran a campaign that the millionaire (later revised to billionaire) businessmen and politicians have it in for the common man, so you should elect him to protect you and repair the broken system.

Donald Trump, the billionaire businessman who ran a campaign that the millionaire businessmen and politicians have it in for the common man, so you should elect him to protect you and repair the broken system.

Both of them had some legitimate concerns voiced about the system trying to (unfairly) remove them from the running. Ultimately, though, Sanders didn't have the support for those concerns to really get anyone to care from the democratic side of things. Trump, on the other hand, started winning and his campaign started to go off the rails and lean pretty heavily on immigration.

I don't think Sanders would have been good for the country, overall. But I think a lot of that would have to do with the probability that he would end up just being too stubborn to work across the aisles on certain hot-button issues and that it would just breed more animosity between people of differing opinions. Instead, Americans elected Trump, who compromised only on his integrity and mostly just bred more animosity between different factions of Americans. 

But looking at it from an even higher level, Trump and Sanders are more of a symptom of the distrust of mainstream politics than they were ever a cause of any sort of political movement. Even now, with Trump basically owning his own cult of mindless minions, I still think that is the case. Those mindless minions existed before 2015, and would have jumped wholeheartedly at whatever batshit candidate the GOP would have chosen, whether it had ended up being Cruz or Bachmann or Lex Luthor or whatever.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I don't think Sanders would have been good for the country, overall. But I think a lot of that would have to do with the probability that he would end up just being too stubborn to work across the aisles on certain hot-button issues and that it would just breed more animosity between people of differing opinions.


Honestly, this is my thought too, and I suppose you're in part responsible for that, with your insight into VT politics post-Sanders. 

But I think the hot moment there where he became the frontrunner in 2020 makes that case pretty well, as well. When push comes to shove, I have a lot more sympathy for Sanders' policy goals than I do for Trump's - Sanders at least for the most part wants to make the world a better place, build better safety nets, address climate change, make the economy provide fairer outcomes for more participants, etc. And, it's possible to imagine a Sanders presidency actually not ending in disaster. 

But, what Sanders needed to do in 2020, when suddenly he did become the front runner, was to show what he would bring to the Democratic party, how he could be their representative in 2020 and what the party would look like under him, and what sort of future Democrats who voted for him would be voting for. If he was gouing to be the Democratic nominee, how would he represent Democratic voters? Instead, he continued to run an outsider's campaign, and continued to attack the party he wanted to represent, attacking "big businesses and establishment Democrats," rather than campaigning on how we would represent Democrats in Washington and what his vision for the future of the party was. And that's innately self-contradictory; you can't represent a party by attacking it, you can't run an anti-establishment campaign while representing the establishment, etc. Even a token gesture towards party unity and bringing both wings of the party together, and Sanders probably would be president today.

But, if he couldn't do that, even a cursory extended hand across the aisle trying to unite the party... yeah, his presidency would have been an unmitigated mud-flinging fest. He would have tried to go his own way, wouldn't have the votes, and wouldn't have gotten a damned thing done. 

Paradoxically, I don't know if anyone in this thread is really enthused about Biden... but he got a big early stimulus bill across the aisle (which as it turns out he shouldn't have ), got a hard infrastructure bill done, something that had been an objective of a whole bunch of recent administrations but no one could get it across the line, then hit a bit of a stall there before in the last few weeks getting a big climate bill done, a reworked Build Back Better Act under the guise of the Inflation Fighting Act or whatever we finally called it, and then a major US chip production deal right around the same time. It's actually been a while now since an administration has had as many major pieces of legislation to its name as Biden has in the first two years of his presidency, even with large margins in the House and Senate (which Biden absolutely does NOT have) and while it'll be a LONG time before the jury is in, it's possible we'll be looking back at this in ten years time and despite all the chaos and gridlock and frustration we're feeling now, we may look back at Biden as having been unusually effective.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> I never said only Democrats. All politicians do. Why do you guys always try to spin me as the villain here?


Buddy, you need to consider something here. And this is as gentle as I can be while suggesting this.

If you run into an asshole in the morning, that guy may be an asshole.

If you run into assholes all day? Maybe they aren't the assholes.

If "everybody" (you guys) in here is "spinning you as the villain," you may want to, perhaps, think about your posting style. Literally not a single post of yours comes across as anything other than one of two things:
Smear the libs / dems.
Stroke the cons / reps.

That is 100% of your posts, outside of the incessant whining about how unfairly you're being treated.

Food for thought, that I'm certain you'd rather starve than allow yourself to partake in.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

Glades said:


> Politicians start getting $ and owing favors during their campaigns. The leading democrat running for senate this November in Florida has $45M in her campaign, and Rubio $25M. These people are in bed deep with corporations and special interests way before they get elected.


So why don't you go against the fat cats, board members and corps responsible instead of trying to vilify your neighbors?
Yeah, I already know the answer.


----------



## philkilla

Glades said:


> I never said only Democrats. All politicians do. Why do you guys always try to spin me as the villain here?



You'll never beat out the echo chamber here bud.

The general consensus is if you're not BLUE, you're a Russian fanboi and it will never change.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> You'll never beat out the echo chamber here bud.
> 
> The general consensus is if you're not BLUE, you're a Russian fanboi and it will never change.


Real cute that you think anyone who disagrees with you is an echo chamber.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> Real cute that you think anyone who disagrees with you is an echo chamber.



Dude you can't deny that any dissenting opinion is met with hostility.

The only reason I'm a part of this subset of the ss.org community is to witness and perceive different perspectives.

9/10 it's just a show of hypocrisy. I rarely if ever see anyone post views that don't involve flinging literary feces at the other side; nothing to gain and nothing to grow.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Dude you can't deny that any dissenting opinion is met with hostility.
> 
> The only reason I'm a part of this subset of the ss.org community is to witness and perceive different perspectives.
> 
> 9/10 it's just a show of hypocrisy. I rarely if ever see anyone post views that don't involve flinging literary feces at the other side; nothing to gain and nothing to grow.


I think you underestimate how many of those "dissenting opinions" from people who don't agree with you _themselves_ have dissenting opinions with other members who also don't agree with you. See , oh, @Randy or @bostjan and I butting heads with each other. 

People disagree with each other. That's pretty normal. If lots of people disagree with you, that doesn't mean everyone has the same views and you're in an "echo chamber." It _could_ mean that, but it could also just mean that you hold a whole lot of unpopular views, and about the only thing most of the (virtual) room can agree on is YOU are wrong.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> I think you underestimate how many of those "dissenting opinions" from people who don't agree with you _themselves_ have dissenting opinions with other members who also don't agree with you. See , oh, @Randy or @bostjan and I butting heads with each other.
> 
> People disagree with each other. That's pretty normal. If lots of people disagree with you, that doesn't mean everyone has the same views and you're in an "echo chamber." It _could_ mean that, but it could also just mean that you hold a whole lot of unpopular views, and about the only thing most of the (virtual) room can agree on is YOU are wrong.



This is where the popularity contest comes into play friend.


Please, point something out that I'm wrong about.

The current administration is a living breathing caricature of itself; that opinion alone is enough to stir the ire of some members here, and according to you I am still WRONG no matter what.


----------



## TedEH

I was about to post exactly what Drew said but you beat me to it.

I used to have that same "if I'm in the minority opinion, then it must mean I'm trapped in an echo chamber and everyone else is being mean or ignorant" mentality, but that's just not how things work. There are a lot of opinions all over the site about a lot of things. People argue all the time. Sometimes people learn from it too, believe it or not. I've learned a fair bit from some of the more heated arguments that have happened here, and in retrospect when I've gotten a lot of pushback it was usually because I was wrong on some level. You 'ain't the main character - nobody has any obligation to "take your side".


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> The current administration is a living breathing caricature of itself;


Aren’t they all? I mean the Trump admin was such a joke it actually created a golden age of late night comedy shows. Everything from him clogging the toilet, Spicer hiding in the bushes, love letters with lil Kim. Come on bro


----------



## nightflameauto

philkilla said:


> The current administration is a living breathing caricature of itself;


I'd be shocked if any one of us echo-chamber bros would disagree with this. In fact, I'd be shocked if any of us echo-chamber bros would disagree with this statement if it was made about any administration Reagan onward. They're all self-serving morons.

That said, there's degrees of separation between self-serving with a tiny bit of "maybe I can make this look good" and self-serving with a blatant, "AY! FUCK YOU! MY WAY! THERE'S NOTHING ELSE!"

I don't see a lot of that in Democrat circles. Some, but not a lot. I see a TON of it in Republican circles. And it's concerning. If you aren't willing to admit when "your side" is fucked up? It's tough to have a conversation with you.

I vote Democrat because they seem the least outright dangerous. That doesn't mean the Democrats are "my team." They're the team that currently causes me the least damage. But they're absolutely full of shit, and completely self-serving. Like all politicians, the primary "guide" of nearly all of the federal level Democrats is "how do I get elected / stay elected?" That's it. There's no bigger motivation or overriding goal.

There. Spin that into me being a part of the echo chamber.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> I'd be shocked if any one of us echo-chamber bros would disagree with this. In fact, I'd be shocked if any of us echo-chamber bros would disagree with this statement if it was made about any administration Reagan onward. They're all self-serving morons.
> 
> That said, there's degrees of separation between self-serving with a tiny bit of "maybe I can make this look good" and self-serving with a blatant, "AY! FUCK YOU! MY WAY! THERE'S NOTHING ELSE!"
> 
> I don't see a lot of that in Democrat circles. Some, but not a lot. I see a TON of it in Republican circles. And it's concerning. If you aren't willing to admit when "your side" is fucked up? It's tough to have a conversation with you.
> 
> I vote Democrat because they seem the least outright dangerous. That doesn't mean the Democrats are "my team." They're the team that currently causes me the least damage. But they're absolutely full of shit, and completely self-serving. Like all politicians, the primary "guide" of nearly all of the federal level Democrats is "how do I get elected / stay elected?" That's it. There's no bigger motivation or overriding goal.
> 
> There. Spin that into me being a part of the echo chamber.


Well put. I can't say I disagree with any of that.

But what I think @philkilla was referring to is that the vast majority of the posters here more or less align politically (anti-trump, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc). It is not easy posting a dissenting opinion on this board. I know I have been personally insulted. I didn't get insulted for insulting somebody (which I never have), but for stating my opinion. I know I am 2 inches away from getting banned, just for dissenting to some things said here. Either though control or through creating a toxicity for those who disagree, you foster an environment where those who disagree leave and all you have left is like-minded individuals. That is the echo chamber.


----------



## philkilla

The irony is my initial post wasn't about me, Drew just made it about me. Thanks I guess?? My post was only there as a cautionary tale from trends that occur. Deny it all you want, it happens.

@SpaceDock the same could be said about the current golden age of political humor, except you won't see it from any of the puppets via large network broadcast.

@nightflameauto I like your points, but imo referring to it as a team is a bit disturbing.


----------



## mmr007

What I seem to be hearing is when I go on the internet, internet happens. I agree. Many opinions are not greeted with welcome arms but not when those opinions are just different from mainstream for this forum but instead because are aligned with forces that many consider a threat to our lives. 
Trump is not Reagan. He isnt even conservative. He is a real threat to anyone who isnt in possession of his pee pee tape. People are anti gun here for good reason. Many lives have been decimated by hun deaths and when someone pops off about guns you sound tone deaf so thats why the reaction is what it is because the contrary opinion seems to be coming from a place of absurdity. 
People get angry when theyre scared and right now we have reason to be scared. People also get irritated when theyre being trolled and right now we have reason to believe we are being trolled.


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


> Many lives have been decimated by hun deaths


Won't you triggered liberals ever let that go? That was like 1500 years ago, a whole quarter of the age of the universe!


----------



## mmr007

Correction….Gun deaths….lol. That was hood….damnit that was good


----------



## Glades

Haha I also paused for a second when I read that and remembered the band of brother bit “how do you expect to slay Huns with dusty jump wings?” Lol


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> What I seem to be hearing is when I go on the internet, internet happens. I agree. Many opinions are not greeted with welcome arms but not when those opinions are just different from mainstream for this forum but instead because are aligned with forces that many consider a threat to our lives.
> Trump is not Reagan. He isnt even conservative. He is a real threat to anyone who isnt in possession of his pee pee tape. People are anti gun here for good reason. Many lives have been decimated by hun deaths and when someone pops off about guns you sound tone deaf so thats why the reaction is what it is because the contrary opinion seems to be coming from a place of absurdity.
> People get angry when theyre scared and right now we have reason to be scared. People also get irritated when theyre being trolled and right now we have reason to believe we are being trolled.


Just because somebody thinks differently doesn’t mean they are “trolling” you. Just to clarify things: I am pro second amendment, I am not pro-Trump, I am pro women’s rights, I am pro life, I am pro welfare, I am pro public healthcare for all, I am pro public education for all, I am a Christian, I am anti-big government, I am anti war. I am anti troll.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Just because somebody thinks differently doesn’t mean they are “trolling” you. Just to clarify things: I am pro second amendment, I am not pro-Trump, I am pro women’s rights, I am pro life, I am pro welfare, I am pro public healthcare for all, I am pro public education for all, I am a Christian, I am anti-big government, I am anti war. I am anti troll.


If you're pro women's rights it seems difficult to be pro life if that stance means limiting a women's reproductive rights, the main women's rights issue. What other women's rights were you supporting? I heard they already got the vote.


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> If you're pro women's rights it seems difficult to be pro life if that stance means limiting a women's reproductive rights, the main women's rights issue. What other women's rights were you supporting? I heard they already got the vote.


I believe equality of opportunity is fundamental to our western society.
I do not believe a woman has the right to murder her child, born or unborn. She however has a right to decide if she wants to get pregnant.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> Just because somebody thinks differently doesn’t mean they are “trolling” you. Just to clarify things: I am pro second amendment, I am not pro-Trump, I am pro women’s rights, I am pro life, I am pro welfare, I am pro public healthcare for all, I am pro public education for all, I am a Christian, I am anti-big government, I am anti war. I am anti troll.


Ok you HAVE to admit you have made numerous comments very consistent with trolling. There have been times you said things that seemed not hyperbole for amusement sake which you are allowed to do and I agree that you should be allowed to poke fun but if it feels like trolling dont be upset if the reaction from others is to assume youre a troll and respond accordingly. This is a pretty liberal thread and you know what they say….when in Rome


----------



## Grindspine

zappatton2 said:


> Witness the BLM protests. The people coming out weren't selling conspiracies and trying to tear down government because an election didn't go their way. They were there to state clearly that police killing unarmed black citizens was not acceptable, and demand government at all levels build that accountability into law enforcement and the institutions of justice. And they were met with an aggressive police response (much more aggressive than aggrieved right-wingers have faced) and weaponized counter-protests that threw cities into disarray, all the more when opportunistic looters and vandals could exploit that chaos.
> 
> So what we're left with is a weird whataboutism where fascists who carry weapons, drive cars into people, and try to potentially assassinate public officials aren't "that bad", because those civil rights protesters on the left are burning down cities (they're not, but in a post-fact mindset, there's no distinction).


The last time I talked to my parents, a couple of months ago, that was what my dad's reasoning for buying a gun was; "the dems are rioting and burning down cities". I had friends that did walk protests for BLM. They were peacefully assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and met with tear gas by the police. Violence and destruction of property were triggered by police action in that instance from personal stories and all news media that I found relating to the event.



Glades said:


> I never said only Democrats. All politicians do. Why do you guys always try to spin me as the villain here?


Most politicians are shady and make deals. As someone else said, the problem is that the ones on the far right are pushing more violence and enabling more guns in the population. It is dangerous when people are zealous, _en masse_, and armed. Even when "the left" takes to protesting, it is more about physical presence than physical intimidation.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> I believe equality of opportunity is fundamental to our western society.
> I do not believe a woman has the right to murder her child, born or unborn. She however has a right to decide if she wants to get pregnant.


Rape victims have no power to decide


----------



## CanserDYI

Everyone post their political compasses and we can laugh about who's a fascist and who isn't.


----------



## Glades

haha that was fun


----------



## Grindspine

Glades said:


> I believe equality of opportunity is fundamental to our western society.
> I do not believe a woman has the right to murder her child, born or unborn. She however has a right to decide if she wants to get pregnant.


Just gotta say that 1) not all sexual activity that results in pregnancy is consensual. That was one of my major problems with Indiana politics. The GOP hardliners were arguing over exceptions for rape not being included in their bill.

2) Even with consensual sex, birth control can fail. Condoms typically have a 97% effective rate. Spermicides range also in the 90% area. Working in pathology, I have literally removed an IUD (intra-uterine device) from a placenta from a live birth. Obviously, the birth control failed, and the woman decided to keep the pregnancy. However, it was surprising considering that those are designed to prevent implantation.

3) Abstinence is not for everyone. I mean, the Southern Baptists Convention is currently being probed for sexual abuse allegations. Catholic priests have the unfortunate (but not entirely undeserved) reputation of predatory sexual acts. If abstinence does not work for religious leaders, how can anyone expect the common man (or woman) to be entirely abstinent. 

Denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy that she did not want, even if she took precautions and tried to avoid getting pregnant, is relegating her to a second-class citizen. Some women do not want to have kids. Some do not want to have children before a certain point in life. Some already have children and do not want more.

I have difficulty taking it seriously when someone says that they respect women's rights, yet they value a ball of cells without a central nervous system above the choices of the woman who will be the host of that "potential human life". Valuing potential above that of reality is one of the downfalls of the extreme conservative movement.


----------



## Glades

Grindspine said:


> Just gotta say that 1) not all sexual activity that results in pregnancy is consensual. That was one of my major problems with Indiana politics. The GOP hardliners were arguing over exceptions for rape not being included in their bill.
> 
> 2) Even with consensual sex, birth control can fail. Condoms typically have a 97% effective rate. Spermicides range also in the 90% area. Working in pathology, I have literally removed an IUD (intra-uterine device) from a placenta from a live birth. Obviously, the birth control failed, and the woman decided to keep the pregnancy. However, it was surprising considering that those are designed to prevent implantation.
> 
> 3) Abstinence is not for everyone. I mean, the Southern Baptists Convention is currently being probed for sexual abuse allegations. Catholic priests have the unfortunate (but not entirely undeserved) reputation of predatory sexual acts. If abstinence does not work for religious leaders, how can anyone expect the common man (or woman) to be entirely abstinent.
> 
> Denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy that she did not want, even if she took precautions and tried to avoid getting pregnant, is relegating her to a second-class citizen. Some women do not want to have kids. Some do not want to have children before a certain point in life. Some already have children and do not want more.
> 
> I have difficulty taking it seriously when someone says that they respect women's rights, yet they value a ball of cells without a central nervous system above the choices of the woman who will be the host of that "potential human life". Valuing potential above that of reality is one of the downfalls of the extreme conservative movement.


I really don’t wish to restart the entire abortion discussion all over again. But let me state I respect your opinion, even though I disagree. I saw these things with the utmost respect, and I am not “trolling” as some say.

A human has its own genetically unique DNA at conception (week 0), it starts to develop its central nervous system at week 3, a heart at week 3, arms legs ears and eyes at week 4. I saw and heard my daughter’s heartbeat at 5.5 weeks. This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life. 

There is states where a woman can walk Into a clinic during her 3rd trimester and request their baby be dismembered limb by limb. Simply because it is inconvenient. I am pretty libertarian in most aspects, and I think government involvement in most things should be limited to a minimum. But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I really don’t wish to restart the entire abortion discussion all over again. But let me state I respect your opinion, even though I disagree. I saw these things with the utmost respect, and I am not “trolling” as some say.
> 
> A human has its own genetically unique DNA at conception (week 0), it starts to develop its central nervous system at week 3, a heart at week 3, arms legs ears and eyes at week 4. I saw and heard my daughter’s heartbeat at 5.5 weeks. This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.



I'm pretty sure a minimum requirement for being a "human being" is having a functioning brain (not even starting until week six).


----------



## spudmunkey

It's legally permitted to "pull the plug" on someone who's brain dead is a hospital, but not on an in-utero fetus because...reasons.


----------



## Glades

spudmunkey said:


> It's legally permitted to "pull the plug" on someone who's brain dead, but not on an in-utero fetus because...reasons.


Ok so you guys are saying abortion should be illegal after week 6?


----------



## narad

Not to derail the conversation of what makes a human, but when I started grad school in late 2000s there was a rising machine learning star and professor at a good uni. He was newly married and wife was pregnant with twins, but something happened and they were born extremely premature, and were in the incubator beds to keep them developing, but both had severe brain damage. They knew at that point that those kids were never going to be self sufficient in any sense. During an argument with his wife about how to take care of them, he jumped out the window of his high-rise apartment.

By Glades's pov, both of those kids are human beings. But they wouldn't exist in the world without a huge amount of scientific intervention to keep them alive and developing. They're not going to really live -- from what I heard at the time, they were never even really going to be aware of just about anything. Yet, we expect the parents to have no choice but to take on this burden, which basically would ruin their lives. It's crazy. No one wins except for random Christians like, "They have souls!"


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.
> 
> But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.


Kindly requote yourself the next time 30 kids are slaughtered at a preschool and you and your fellow 2A folks argue the right to bear all weapons is more important than the balls of cells with names, faces and families who are now just pools of blood.


----------



## Glades

On other news, Liz Cheney loses the Wyoming primary to Trump-backed Harriet Hageman. Wonder how long it takes her to land a seat on “The View”.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Forcing a person to be born into a cruel, inhospitable world is ethically questionable as a parent, let alone as a random jerkoff with a voter registration. Personally I support those who kill their own babies. Like, have you taken a look around?


----------



## Randy

So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill? 

This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).


----------



## Glades

Randy said:


> So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?
> 
> This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).


It created 87,000 new jobs.


----------



## mmr007

87,000 armed security personnel to guard all the FBI agents and their families getting threatened all across the country? Or is it something else?


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?
> 
> This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).



You mean with all the sick awesome tax credits if you spend thousands of dollars towards new windows, solar panels, electric vehicles and electric vehicle chargers?


----------



## Randy

philkilla said:


> You mean with all the sick awesome tax credits if you spend thousands of dollars towards new windows, solar panels, electric vehicles and electric vehicle chargers?



I mean, if there's substance to that, I wouldn't hate it but the fine print matters. 

In NYS (with help of the utility company) they had programs subsidizing smart thermostats (got them down between $20 and $30) and that did substantially lower my energy usage between setting zones and better schedules for the furnace. Better for me, better for the environment, and the cost was spread out.

So far I'm skeptical of subsidized electric vehicle programs. Battery production and raw material harvesting is incredibly toxic, and the amount of energy used producing the new "zero emission" car is more than the carbon output you're likely putting out from your existing car over the rest of it's life; especially if you take into account the fossil fuels that are generating the power you're using to recharge.

And that's before you get into the money part of it. $5000 to $7000 off a $45,000 car is zero help to most people, just convenient discount for the people who can afford the car already anyway. And even worse of it's all wrapped in tax incentives. The average person doesn't get $5000 to $7000 back in their taxes total, I'd be very skeptical you don't end up getting only a portion of that back or off your tax bill, anyway. 

So again, I'd have to see the fine print on this. Also, if this bill is a little bribery to gain votes (they all do it, ask Trump about his socialist $1200 checks), people looking to spend $45,000 on a new electric car are probably already voting for you even without this bill.


----------



## spudmunkey

Previous EV tax credits were refunds on taxes. The new law applies it to the point of sale for the car at the dealer. 

Keeping an existing car running is of course better than buying a new EV...(it'd be interesting to see programs than help with keeping cars running, like Medicare for cars...) but if you're buying a new car anyway, now there's more incentive. And the only EV that's dust-to-dust worse than the similar gas vehicle is the EV Hummer. Especially as newer battery tech continues to come out with less and less of the harmful stuff being mined. At least half of all Teslas being made right now use batteries without cobalt, for example..but cobalt will still continue to be mined because it's necessary for the refining of diesel fuel.


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> This is where the popularity contest comes into play friend.
> 
> 
> Please, point something out that I'm wrong about.
> 
> The current administration is a living breathing caricature of itself; that opinion alone is enough to stir the ire of some members here, and according to you I am still WRONG no matter what.




The current administration has passed multiple bills aimed at improving things for Americans not the least of which is new infrastructure spending. One of the best and most boring-ly good uses of tax dollars. As a whole this admin has been boring, and that was during a pandemic followed by ongoing supply chain constraints and Russia invading a “soon to be” EU nation.

I don’t own Biden merch, but people are agreeing on budgets to things that need to be completed.



Glades said:


> Well put. I can't say I disagree with any of that.
> 
> But what I think @philkilla was referring to is that the vast majority of the posters here more or less align politically (anti-trump, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc). It is not easy posting a dissenting opinion on this board. I know I have been personally insulted. I didn't get insulted for insulting somebody (which I never have), but for stating my opinion. I know I am 2 inches away from getting banned, just for dissenting to some things said here. Either though control or through creating a toxicity for those who disagree, you foster an environment where those who disagree leave and all you have left is like-minded individuals. That is the echo chamber.



Anti-authoritarian, pro-choice (no one is pro abortion, just pro options for healthcare), and smarter gun regulations. I don’t think we should take away peoples right to hunt or shoot for sport. Biathlon is an Olympic sport ffs. But something’s need to get done to prevent more desperate POS from attacking schools and public events.

Again, I consider my views boring. They’re mostly just “make things better for more people”.

Your right to religion stops at another person’s body. I don’t know how this is hard to understand for others. Mis-quoting scientific papers and opining your feelings as facts won’t change that.




narad said:


> Not to derail the conversation of what makes a human, but when I started grad school in late 2000s there was a rising machine learning star and professor at a good uni. He was newly married and wife was pregnant with twins, but something happened and they were born extremely premature, and were in the incubator beds to keep them developing, but both had severe brain damage. They knew at that point that those kids were never going to be self sufficient in any sense. During an argument with his wife about how to take care of them, he jumped out the window of his high-rise apartment.
> 
> By Glades's pov, both of those kids are human beings. But they wouldn't exist in the world without a huge amount of scientific intervention to keep them alive and developing. They're not going to really live -- from what I heard at the time, they were never even really going to be aware of just about anything. Yet, we expect the parents to have no choice but to take on this burden, which basically would ruin their lives. It's crazy. No one wins except for random Christians like, "They have souls!"



The Christian’s are worried about their own souls. And they think they won’t get into heaven if they don’t force their beliefs on everyone else. It’s self-serving.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?
> 
> This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).




It's pretty good except for the Manchin bits, which might not be so bad and definitely don't outweigh the good.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Well put. I can't say I disagree with any of that.
> 
> But what I think @philkilla was referring to is that the vast majority of the posters here more or less align politically (anti-trump, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc). It is not easy posting a dissenting opinion on this board. I know I have been personally insulted. I didn't get insulted for insulting somebody (which I never have), but for stating my opinion. I know I am 2 inches away from getting banned, just for dissenting to some things said here. Either though control or through creating a toxicity for those who disagree, you foster an environment where those who disagree leave and all you have left is like-minded individuals. That is the echo chamber.


The second I see the word "pro-abortion" my brain goes "fuck off."

Nobody's pro-abortion. Nobody. That's the type of right-wing virtue signaling bullshit that makes you think everybody in here is a member of the echo chamber, because in all honesty, it's impossible to see those words and not have a guttural reaction to it. It's patently false wording designed *SPECIFICALLY* to get a reaction, so you can whine and cry about how unfair people are treating your 'opinion' (that appears to be entirely gleaned from right-wing media).

As for the new bill being signed and the media companies throwing champagne parties over how great the Democrats are for saving the planet? No.

It will do fuck-all for 99.99% of us, and most of it will be gutted the second the Trumpers come storming back into office now that they've cleared out the riff-raff like Cheney for daring to not kiss his ass publicly every other second. As much as I don't care for Cheney policies, I at least respected that there seemed to be a brain stem and spine involved in them. It's depressing to watch the party I least agree with toss out one of the few members I can at least nod at as a human being.

I guess they needed to make more room for the fist pumping morons and the twitter spazzes.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Dude you can't deny that any dissenting opinion is met with hostility.
> 
> The only reason I'm a part of this subset of the ss.org community is to witness and perceive different perspectives.
> 
> 9/10 it's just a show of hypocrisy. I rarely if ever see anyone post views that don't involve flinging literary feces at the other side; nothing to gain and nothing to grow.


Except the problem isn't the dissenting opinion, it's the disinterest in discourse. 

For example:

Guns. USA is the only country where this routinely happens. Most lefty types would like something to be done about this. Pro gun people come in and say something about the 2A. But the problem is the justification for the 2A hasn't been relevant for at least 100 years, and every other country in the world with less tyranny than the USA doesn't have a 2A equivalent. So pro gun peeps just nope out of the conversation or get up in their feelings, instead of saying "I like guns and should be allowed to keep them". The conversation can't go anywhere because one side has solutions and the other does not want solutions. 

Climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human influenced climate change is a real thing. The planet is heating at an unprecedented rate and every year we're having once in a lifetime weather events. All the science and reality says something needs to be done. Right wing types just disagree without justification. 

Vaccines. Literally the greatest technological innovation in human history. Saves untold lives. Incredibly safe. Plenty of research behind them. Antivax exist for some reason. Sometimes they say "my body my choice" while unironically being anti-... 

Abortion. Glades just did this. "pro-women's rights, anti abortion". Literally doesn't mean anything. No interest in a conversation because apparently it's decreed from god, no other justifications offered. Life begins at conception "because scientists said so" but that's the only time we care what science says. But it's literally a philosophical issue. This one is all double think. 

Etc

When dissenting views come in here with good faith arguments they will be taken seriously. That hasn't happened. Meanwhile pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages (seriously guys) of Drew and bostjan bickering over some inane disagreement firing endless articles at each other, because they know how to construct and have a debate. Meanwhile meanwhile, dissenting voices just won't reply when one engages with them.


----------



## bostjan

I think part of the crux of the problem is that people on whichever "wing" of politics distrust authority. On the right, people distrust doctors, on the left, people distrust the police.

The fact of the matter is that we should have some trust in both the police and in medicine, but we should also scrutinize those systems quite heavily to ensure that we can trust them. But we don't. 

The police are allowed to shoot innocent people and explain it away as "I was scared for my safety" when that excuse doesn't work for anyone else. Most police personnel don't have the tendency to shoot innocent people, but the system stands up for those who do. The police also have a strong tendency to lie to people (it's even part of their protocols with suspects) or to misrepresent the levels of their authority in order to get away with breaking the laws. It's not all police, but it is systematic and it continually goes unsatisfactorily addressed.

The medical system is also completely fucked. Not everyone who goes for surgery to get their tonsils out ends up with both of their arms amputated, but it happens. Probably a lot more common is when someone needs medical care, and instead of getting their bone set or their stitches, they end up getting a total cashectomy when the hospital bills them unscrupulous amounts. Again, it is a problem that this happens, but the much bigger problem is that it's systematic, and that the system allows it to happen without appropriate deterrent to keep it from happening over and over again.

Tying those both together is the fact that trust in the court system is also very low. More and more judges are being filmed going on power trips, or getting caught dealing with bribes. We know how the courts have primarily dealt with out-of-control police officers, and even though the courts have held some medical people responsible, the courts have a tendency to disregard problems in the system itself.

Ultimately there are systematic problems. The systems are broken. No one is fixing them. Distrust of authority abounds.


----------



## eaeolian

StevenC said:


> Except the problem isn't the dissenting opinion, it's the disinterest in discourse.
> 
> For example:
> 
> USA is the only country where this routinely happens. Most lefty types would like something to be done about this.


This is a perfect example of dishonest discourse. Most *Americans* want something done about this at the Federal level, regardless of political leanings, at least according to polling.


----------



## StevenC

eaeolian said:


> This is a perfect example of dishonest discourse. Most *Americans* want something done about this at the Federal level, regardless of political leanings, at least according to polling.


My apologies. The correct phrasing was "most people in this thread want something done about it, while people come in with the dissenting opinion that nothing should be done". If at any point in that comment I said "left/right" I meant philkilla's echo chamber versus philkilla's dissenting opinions.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Except the problem isn't the dissenting opinion, it's the disinterest in discourse.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Guns. USA is the only country where this routinely happens. Most lefty types would like something to be done about this. Pro gun people come in and say something about the 2A. But the problem is the justification for the 2A hasn't been relevant for at least 100 years, and every other country in the world with less tyranny than the USA doesn't have a 2A equivalent. So pro gun peeps just nope out of the conversation or get up in their feelings, instead of saying "I like guns and should be allowed to keep them". The conversation can't go anywhere because one side has solutions and the other does not want solutions.
> 
> Climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human influenced climate change is a real thing. The planet is heating at an unprecedented rate and every year we're having once in a lifetime weather events. All the science and reality says something needs to be done. Right wing types just disagree without justification.
> 
> Vaccines. Literally the greatest technological innovation in human history. Saves untold lives. Incredibly safe. Plenty of research behind them. Antivax exist for some reason. Sometimes they say "my body my choice" while unironically being anti-...
> 
> Abortion. Glades just did this. "pro-women's rights, anti abortion". Literally doesn't mean anything. No interest in a conversation because apparently it's decreed from god, no other justifications offered. Life begins at conception "because scientists said so" but that's the only time we care what science says. But it's literally a philosophical issue. This one is all double think.
> 
> Etc
> 
> When dissenting views come in here with good faith arguments they will be taken seriously. That hasn't happened. Meanwhile pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages (seriously guys) of Drew and bostjan bickering over some inane disagreement firing endless articles at each other, because they know how to construct and have a debate. Meanwhile meanwhile, dissenting voices just won't reply when one engages with them.



Guns - It's difficult to compare Western Europe with the USA, though, honestly. We're still the wild wild west here. It's cultural, maybe even genetic at this point. But shootings happen in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, or Congo as well. Those are basically war zones, though. The USA is sort of in the midst of a culture war, and has been since the Vietnam War era. But this is a country with a ton of cultural diversity. We have to remember that there are still people here who survive by hunting for food. It's a small minority, but taking guns away from those people is essentially taking food away from them. I agree that our gun control laws don't work and that our culture is a big part of the problem and that it needs to change, but it's not going to be as simple as passing a single law.

Regarding climate change - it's economic. There are undoubtedly some who disbelieve the evidence no matter what, but there are also plenty who will change their justification for their conclusions, and eventually will fall back on purely economic justifications, which is what it's all about anyway. Nobody wants to give up their car or their air conditioner or whatever. I'd be shocked if anyone could prove that corrupt politicians someplace like Italy actually care any more about climate change than corrupted politicians in the USA. 

I think people who are actually generally anti-vax are pretty rare. There was a lot of pushback on the covid vaccine in particular, because it was "new." Of course, even as rare as it is to be face-to-face with antivax'ers, there are enough of them here in the USA that we are now worried about polio.  But I think it's more nuanced and complex than just people philosophically opposed to boosting their immunity artificially.

I'm not going to equivocate on abortion. I don't really know exactly what the actual reason is to explain why the USA is the way it is.

I know that I've had my mind changed about a lot of things here. It's important to me that my worldview is informed by some sort of rules that can stand up to some form of scrutiny. I'm not the most logical person in the world, so I hold malformed opinions at times. The key thing, though, is to be okay with abandoning an opinion if it doesn't hold any water. It just does you better in the long run. I think that the world would be a better place if, not only did we all keep a more open mind ready to challenge our own views, but if we took a stance where we assumed others were open about challenging their views so that we don't feel discouraged in challenging them. Whether someone refuses to listen to reason or if someone else assumes they will refuse to listen to reason, the result ends up being the same and no one changes their mind.


----------



## narad

eaeolian said:


> This is a perfect example of dishonest discourse. Most *Americans* want something done about this at the Federal level, regardless of political leanings, at least according to polling.


Well, what is "something"? I'm used to the idea that the left wants some controls on guns, and the right wants to do whatever trivial thing that could be put into law that would not really affect the ability of mass shooters to acquire assault-style, but would be something they could hold up and say, "We did it!". Or, to say it's a mental health issue, and change the issue from young disturbed and reckless people acquiring powerful weapons, and instead tackle the simple issue of ...getting them to not want to harm other people.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I'm not going to equivocate on abortion. I don't really know exactly what the actual reason is to explain why the USA is the way it is.


Its as simple as evangelical Christians who feel the need to go out and convert others to their belief system so they can get into heaven. Without that need to force their views on others, we wouldn’t have the abortion issues we have today.


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.



I'm sure you are also a vegan AND a animal rights activist, right? Look at all the cats and dogs who are killed yearly in shelters. How about all the livestock killed yearly for your dinner? Where are the pro-life Republicans when it comes to that? Life is life. You can't just pick and choose what life you want to protect, because then you are just a hypocrite. Or, you are one of these misled zombies who thinks humans are some kind of enlightened beings deserving of better treatment. A Euthanized dog is a conscious life form. A fetus has no soul, no awareness, and can't feel pain or fear. It can't exist outside the womb. For all intents and purposes, a fetus is technically a parasite, and not a "baby" as you people so love to term it.

Just be honest. You want people to live by YOUR very questionable standards and you can't come up with a logical reason why. Maybe it was drilled into your head by your very questionable priest, who might have been doing very questionable things behind closed doors. These ideas put into your head were installed there by other humans, who themselves were very flawed and even more flawed we are finding out as time goes along.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I'm not going to equivocate on abortion. I don't really know exactly what the actual reason is to explain why the USA is the way it is.


This is an easy one. Control and dissuasion.

Control - So long as we keep ourselves all up in arms about abortion and whether it should be "a right" or even "allowed," we aren't paying attention to the more egregious moves our government officials are making behind the scenes.

Dissuasion - Same as above. It's a good *push that emotional button* topic that can have a bomb dropped on it and dissuade any other political discourse for days, weeks, even months, while all sorts of nefarious shit is done that isn't being talked about.

It ties in with our puritanical heritage. There's still a big enough component of our society, even if it is a minority, that are LOUDLY vocal about their anti-abortion stance. GOD DECREES is basically what most of their argument boils down to. And then, any attempt at having a logical or even an emotion based but logically stated argument can get a hammer-stop "stop persecuting my religious beliefs" flame out.

At some point the religious loons decided freedom of religion meant we're all free to choose which fucked up branch of Christianity we want to adhere to. But choosing not to follow Christianity means we should be dismissed, locked up, or better yet, just killed outright for our lack of faith in THE ONE TRUE GOD.

Abortion fights are a symptom of the rot we were founded on. A symptom that too many are all too happy to utilize to better manipulate society with.

Guns have become another. Yes, a farmer in Wyoming or Iowa probably has a call to keep a couple guns around for coyotes, wolves, and culling injured animals. No, some dude living in an apartment in the middle of a city doesn't really need a god damned arsenal of semi-autos with silencers. But god damn if nary the twain shall meet. It's all or nothing with seemingly everybody involved in the discussion. Because the real goal appears to be keeping us too pissed off to think clearly.

Sadly, I think it's working. I alternate between end-game George Carlin levels of both angry and disappointed, and full-blown 'who fuckin' cares' when I think about where we are as a society. We're headed towards the "let it burn" stage of humanity. And I'm starting to get George's stance that he no longer had a stake in it. I'm not yet amused by it like he was, but I get not wanting to care.


----------



## Xaios

tedtan said:


> Its as simple as evangelical Christians who feel the need to go out and convert others to their belief system so they can get into heaven. Without that need to force their views on others, we wouldn’t have the abortion issues we have today.


I despise proselytizers, because their mindset about faith and works is basically the same as an MLM company. "Once you've signed up enough people for Christianity Inc and have them working under you, then you move up to the next tier, which opens up the Eternal Life perk and access to the Heaven timeshare!"


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Its as simple as evangelical Christians who feel the need to go out and convert others to their belief system so they can get into heaven. Without that need to force their views on others, we wouldn’t have the abortion issues we have today.


But where does it say anything about abortion in the Evangelical Christian bylaws? The only scriptures I ever see used to justify extreme views about abortion are the one in Jeremiah about how God knew that Jeremiah was going to be a prophet before he was even born and the similar one in Isaiah that basically just says that Isaiah was born. In fact, there are plenty of examples in Biblical law that make it clear that an unborn fetus is of some less value than a born baby in the case of a crime or an accident. And every word in the Bible about the topic are concentrated in the Old Testament, so then why don't the Jewish people hold just as strong views as Evangelicals?

No, there's something else going on that isn't so easy to explain.

Growing up going to a fundamentalist Christian school, I know intimately what the extra rules are that evangelicals have that have nothing to do with the Bible, but it is 100% not taught where those rules come from. Things like how masturbation is really bad, or how dice are banned from use, even in mundane things like board games (you have to use a spinner), or how dancing of any form is absolutely taboo, or doggy style (even between a married couple), or how playing D&D is absolutely equivalent to open outright devil worship (even if you use a spinner  ). We even had a guy who got caught playing pinochle (outside of school) and got in big trouble, and he was like "the Mormons can play pinochle, why can't we?" and the answer was along the lines of no one knows why we are this way, we just are.



nightflameauto said:


> This is an easy one. Control and dissuasion.
> 
> Control - So long as we keep ourselves all up in arms about abortion and whether it should be "a right" or even "allowed," we aren't paying attention to the more egregious moves our government officials are making behind the scenes.
> 
> Dissuasion - Same as above. It's a good *push that emotional button* topic that can have a bomb dropped on it and dissuade any other political discourse for days, weeks, even months, while all sorts of nefarious shit is done that isn't being talked about.
> 
> It ties in with our puritanical heritage. There's still a big enough component of our society, even if it is a minority, that are LOUDLY vocal about their anti-abortion stance. GOD DECREES is basically what most of their argument boils down to. And then, any attempt at having a logical or even an emotion based but logically stated argument can get a hammer-stop "stop persecuting my religious beliefs" flame out.
> 
> At some point the religious loons decided freedom of religion meant we're all free to choose which fucked up branch of Christianity we want to adhere to. But choosing not to follow Christianity means we should be dismissed, locked up, or better yet, just killed outright for our lack of faith in THE ONE TRUE GOD.
> 
> Abortion fights are a symptom of the rot we were founded on. A symptom that too many are all too happy to utilize to better manipulate society with.
> 
> Guns have become another. Yes, a farmer in Wyoming or Iowa probably has a call to keep a couple guns around for coyotes, wolves, and culling injured animals. No, some dude living in an apartment in the middle of a city doesn't really need a god damned arsenal of semi-autos with silencers. But god damn if nary the twain shall meet. It's all or nothing with seemingly everybody involved in the discussion. Because the real goal appears to be keeping us too pissed off to think clearly.
> 
> Sadly, I think it's working. I alternate between end-game George Carlin levels of both angry and disappointed, and full-blown 'who fuckin' cares' when I think about where we are as a society. We're headed towards the "let it burn" stage of humanity. And I'm starting to get George's stance that he no longer had a stake in it. I'm not yet amused by it like he was, but I get not wanting to care.



I think you are generally correct, but I'd still like to know if anyone knows the specific reason why. Like, I understand that the whole evangelical "thing" is to multiply and spread all over the Earth. But then why, if a pregnant woman is going to die due to pregnancy complications, treat her, even if it means terminating the pregnancy, so that she can live to pop out more babies next year? It seems like it was just an arbitrary decision someone made at one point and then just stonewalled all of the reasonable questions that came up. Something like:

Church leader: "No abortions!"
Other people: "What about rape?"
Church leader: "What part of 'no' did you not understand?"
Other people: "What about incest?"
Church leader: "Did you not hear the word 'no' come out of my mouth?"
Other people: "What if the mother's life is in danger?"
Church leader: "If you question me one more time, _your_ life will be in danger!_"_
Other people: "Yikes, well alrighty then."
Church leader: "Thus sayeth the LORD, amen."

Probably the same thing with dice and dancing and rock-and-roll music and playing cards and whatever else, except I don't think anyone was ever in a position where there were medical complications with a pair of dice and they either had to roll them or probably die painfully during childbirth.


----------



## StevenC

As to abortion, imagine if Jewish people started a campaign to ban consumption of pork or if Muslim people began a campaign to prohibit consumption of alcohol. You'd probably say something like that violates the First Amendment by making a law respecting the establishment of religion. But the Scotus says it's somehow unconstitutional to stop Christian people making laws based on their religion?


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> The irony is my initial post wasn't about me, Drew just made it about me. Thanks I guess?? My post was only there as a cautionary tale from trends that occur. Deny it all you want, it happens.
> 
> @SpaceDock the same could be said about the current golden age of political humor, except you won't see it from any of the puppets via large network broadcast.
> 
> @nightflameauto I like your points, but imo referring to it as a team is a bit disturbing.



Rather, your post wasn't about you, it was about everyone BUT you. I merely called attention to the dichotomy you set up.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> As to abortion, imagine if Jewish people started a campaign to ban consumption of pork or if Muslim people began a campaign to prohibit consumption of alcohol. You'd probably say something like that violates the First Amendment by making a law respecting the establishment of religion. But the Scotus says it's somehow unconstitutional to stop Christian people making laws based on their religion?


Note that the Bible even says not to consume pork, and never says "just kidding" about that, yet show me one good Baptist who doesn't eat bacon.

The religion isn't even based on any scriptures, it's all based on a mindset that is only passed directly through observing the behaviours of the leaders. Honestly it was me actually reading the Bible that got me out of that mindset. Everyone should be legally allowed to practice their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but the problem is that the ones leading the religion don't want it to work both ways for everyone else.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?
> 
> This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).


Nothing in depth, I'm afraid, but high level: 

1) most of the commentary I've seen from pro-environment groups think this is pretty huge; this is by far the largest and most sweeping legislation intended to address climate change that's been passed by Congress, and while almost certainly it doesn't go far enough, it goes a LOT farther than anything that's been done at the federal level. 

2) most market impact commentary I've read thinks it doesn't do a think about inflation in the short term, in the long term since it does generate about $300B in added revenue over the next ten years it might help a ltitle, but that'll be offset by the $280B outlay on the new chip bill in the same period of time... but since the bill focuses on subsidizing clean energy rather than making "dirty" energy more affordable, it at least won't add to inflation. 

3) @Mathemagician and I have talked a lot about share buybacks in recent days. The 1% tax on buybacks, in the short run, doesn't change the incentive much for corporations and won't generate much revenue at all, but this is probably more important as a "cat out of the bag" phenomena than as a nominal tax, as this is the first time there's been any tax consequences for share buybacks, whereas dividends are taxed at 15%. Over time, it's very likely this will increase until they're roughly neutral with dividends from a tax impact standpoint. 

I need to do some more reading on my own to really get my head around the minutia, but at a minimum, I follow the Protect Our Winters nonprofit on IG, and they were through the moon over this bill - should put us on track to cut CO2 emissions by 40% from 2006 levels in the next ten, I think, years, which is pretty material.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> Rather, your post wasn't about you, it was about everyone BUT you. I merely called attention to the dichotomy you set up.



And I gladly pointed out you're the one to initiate the school yard level bully fest without hesitation.

Glad we could meet in the middle as always


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> And I gladly pointed out you're the one to initiate the school yard level bully fest without hesitation.
> 
> Glad we could meet in the middle as always


...by pointing out that the people who disagree with you don't actually all agree with each other on much of anything? 

Sure man, you do you. You're definitely the victim here.


----------



## Glades

Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?


Our entire justice system is based on the US Constitution, which expressly separates church and state. Your whole understanding of our criminal justice system is flawed.


----------



## TedEH

DrewH said:


> A fetus has no soul,


A lot of conversations get much easier when you don't believe in the concept of a "soul". I actually find it weird that nobody ever debates that specific bit. We'll fight and yell and scream over Gods and the what is or isn't "alive", but nobody ever questions the "soul". I think we should.



Glades said:


> The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line?


I agree that law is (or should be) in some way based on some sort of morality system, but I strongly disagree that it is (or should be) based on "judea-christian" values. There are other perfectly valid sources of moral judgement. Alternatively, you could argue that the purpose of law is not to maintain morality, but to maintain the health of society. Religion need not have anything to do with it.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Our entire justice system is based on the US Constitution, which expressly separates church and state. Your whole understanding of our criminal justice system is flawed.


It also disregards that all legal systems punish thieves, killers, and rapists even if they can't find a Jew or a Christian within a thousand miles to help them write the law.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?



Lol. Christianity doesn't have the exclusive rights to "rape is bad" / "murder is bad"


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> It also disregards that all legal systems punish thieves, killers, and rapists even if they can't find a Jew or a Christian within a thousand miles to help them write the law.


It also amuses me how many right-wing Americans think it's "only natural" for the law to be based on "judeo-christian morals," but decry "sharia law" in a country that doesn't recognize any single religion.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?


Not really. I mean, I think I see where you are going with that, but the justice system is not based on morality directly. It's based on written laws. Those written laws are based on our legislative system. Often times, the legislative system makes laws that have shaky moral ground. Many times the legislative system has changed its mind on laws. Our justice system is therefore not closely related to moral code.

I think it should be fairly universal that hurting other people is immoral, but there are tons of more nuanced examples. That's why different states have different laws. A lot of our local laws are even weirder. For example, in Fairbanks, it's illegal for a moose to be on the sidewalk. I'm not sure if a moose ever showed up in court to pay the ticket, but, obviously, not all laws are based on a universal moral code, so let's not try to pretend that they are.

I guess I didn't address your questions, though-

I do think that there should be a universal moral code that dictates what should be done when there are allegations of murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, and other violent crimes. I think that there ought to be another code for what to do about allegations of theft, vandalism, and other property-related crimes. And then there should be a third set of codes to deal with people otherwise infringing each other's rights. But we need to start from a place where it is assumed that everyone has equal rights as everyone else and then we need to be philosophical about where those rights necessarily end in order to not cause a situation where anyone can do something that harms someone else. It might seem very simple at coarse focus, but the details get really sticky. That's why there are so many different forms of government in the world, even amongst the different states in the US, or different cities/towns in the same state.

And that, precisely, is why I'm against the broadened ban on abortions. I don't think abortion should be blanket legal nor blanket illegal. It's going to have to be a subtler approach than that, because it's one of those pesky nuanced subjects.


----------



## nightflameauto

Yeah, this is why I can't get along long-term with indoctrinated "big church" Christians. The idea that morality *HAS* to be tied up with religion is just batshit to me.

I am as non-religious as a person can be, and I still believe it's wrong to do something that would hurt somebody else. That right there should be the basis of law. Does something happening cause harm to people? If the answer is yes, or sometimes even maybe, then there's a discussion to be had. If the answer is no? Then *SHRUG*.

Now, the real horrible arguments happen when me doing something that causes no real harm to anyone somehow offends a Christian's sensibilities and they start claiming we should have no right to do things they don't like because reasons. Well, give me something other than "because rulers hundreds or thousands of years ago that decided what goes into the bible didn't want you to."

DISCLAIMER: I have a very religious neighbor that's not a big church supporter. He and I can converse and even debate things for hours without issue because we can both respect each other. The people that buy the whole package hook, line, and sinker from the big churches are impossible to reason with. Having been raised in a church environment I get why. "My way or the highway" is literally all they've been taught. There is no argument to be made because faith. End. Period.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?



Uh, atheists don’t rape or kill either. Why? Because rape is objectively wrong. It’s bad. And normal people don’t do bad things. 

Without insults or name calling, again I don’t understand how you don’t question the idea the “Judeo-Christian values” guide literally nothing for a significant portion of the population. Not just in one country but globally. 

Nice people don’t do bad things. And they make laws outlawing bad things, to punish those that are bad regardless of religion.


----------



## StevenC

Mathemagician said:


> Uh, atheists don’t rape or kill either. Why? Because rape is objectively wrong. It’s bad. And normal people don’t do bad things.
> 
> Without insults or name calling, again I don’t understand how you don’t question the idea the “Judeo-Christian values” guide literally nothing for a significant portion of the population. Not just in one country but globally.
> 
> Nice people don’t do bad things. And they make laws outlawing bad things, to punish those that are bad regardless of religion.


Inb4 Glades hits you with nobody is born an atheist


----------



## Mathemagician

“Since 2002 more Americans have been killed by domestic far-right extremists than any other group”

Meanwhile, here’s a report from 2020 on domestic gun violence. 

I don’t have any easy “sound-byte” solution. Because I’m not running for office. But there is a real problem and anything other than facing problems head-on is cowardly. 

Somewhere out there are steps we can take to keep kids at school safer. But that requires good-faith discussions.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Not really. I mean, I think I see where you are going with that, but the justice system is not based on morality directly. It's based on written laws. Those written laws are based on our legislative system. Often times, the legislative system makes laws that have shaky moral ground. Many times the legislative system has changed its mind on laws. Our justice system is therefore not closely related to moral code.


Might be a good time to point out that "liberal," before it was a smear term for the right, was the belief in a written code of law, where laws, crimes, and punishments were codified and defied in advance, rather than determined by whim of a king or queen, and the Magna Carta, the document that our Constitution was ultimately based upon, was the ultimate achievement of the liberal movement, when rebels forced King John of England to sign it to at least give them some formal rights and protections in the eyes of the law.


----------



## StevenC

Mathemagician said:


> I don’t have any easy “sound-byte” solution. Because I’m not running for office. But there is a real problem and anything other than facing problems head-on is cowardly.


No matter what you're told, we have to clean the mold


----------



## Xaios

Speaking as a Christian, the argument that irreligious people can't possibly have a strong moral foundation without the imposition of an explicitly religious or culturally religious framework is _heinous bullshit_. All you have to do is look at all the so-called Christian causes throughout history to establish that the proclamation of a person or body being Christian alone does not make one moral.


StevenC said:


> No matter what you're told, we have to clean the mold


Well, these people don't want me to say what I'll do. They want me to do what I'll say.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> A lot of conversations get much easier when you don't believe in the concept of a "soul". I actually find it weird that nobody ever debates that specific bit. We'll fight and yell and scream over Gods and the what is or isn't "alive", but nobody ever questions the "soul". I think we should.


Soul is a weasel word used to define something that cannot actually be defined, which is why the topic never comes up in polite conversation.



nightflameauto said:


> Yeah, this is why I can't get along long-term with indoctrinated "big church" Christians. The idea that morality *HAS* to be tied up with religion is just batshit to me.
> 
> I am as non-religious as a person can be, and I still believe it's wrong to do something that would hurt somebody else. That right there should be the basis of law. Does something happening cause harm to people? If the answer is yes, or sometimes even maybe, then there's a discussion to be had. If the answer is no? Then *SHRUG*.
> 
> Now, the real horrible arguments happen when me doing something that causes no real harm to anyone somehow offends a Christian's sensibilities and they start claiming we should have no right to do things they don't like because reasons. Well, give me something other than "because rulers hundreds or thousands of years ago that decided what goes into the bible didn't want you to."
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I have a very religious neighbor that's not a big church supporter. He and I can converse and even debate things for hours without issue because we can both respect each other. The people that buy the whole package hook, line, and sinker from the big churches are impossible to reason with. Having been raised in a church environment I get why. "My way or the highway" is literally all they've been taught. There is no argument to be made because faith. End. Period.



It's a tough subject to discuss. But everyone out there disbelieves at least one religion. Therefore, the whole faith in what God says through His mouthpiece, who happens to be a human being, it necessarily has to have a limit. If you believe what one prophet says, you necessarily have to disbelieve every prophet who contradicts what the prophet of your choice says.

But my earlier point was that evangelicals don't even have this codified, except maybe Mormons, who have a special book. But there's no Book of Baptist nor Book of Wesley nor Book of Methodists or whatever. It's all stuff passed on through tradition going back to the Puritans.

As for your neighbour, I know a lot of people who I'd describe as being "not a big church supporter" yet "very religious," and even those people, in my experience, have beliefs that fit the same idiom of being passed down from the Puritans through the Quakers/Methodists/whatever-group down through more "modern" groups... And there's one reason why, and that's because every document, no matter how "infallible," cannot be a comprehensive moral code.

As for abortion, no sane person is arguing that the Bible says abortion should be illegal. Because the Bible doesn't ever even come close to saying that. They are arguing that abortion should be illegal because it is wrong. Thus my question earlier about whence that even comes. It's essentially the evangelical equivalent of an Islamic fatwa. Some religious leader at some point decided that was how it was going to be, and that's the way it's been ever since, and no one seems to know who made the decision even. During the Great Depression, abortion went on the rise, because families who had been financially successful were suddenly finding it difficult to cover the expenses of raising children. It doesn't appear that any evangelical Christians got involved at that time in the moral panic, though (surely many were against it). It wasn't until sometime in the 50's, maybe about 25-30 years after abortion found itself on the political radar, and about 15-20 years before _Roe_ that it started to really ruffle their feathers and evangelicals started getting overly vocal. Why, though? The Catholics had always been anti-abortion and anti-birth control even (up to that point). So it seems kind of weird now that the Catholic church is generally pretty quiet about the issue compared to other Christian denominations.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> Soul is a weasel word


Fair enough, although so are a lot of the other words used in these kinds of discussions.


----------



## Glades

Xaios said:


> I despise proselytizers, because their mindset about faith and works is basically the same as an MLM company. "Once you've signed up enough people for Christianity Inc and have them working under you, then you move up to the next tier, which opens up the Eternal Life perk and access to the Heaven timeshare!"





Xaios said:


> Speaking as a Christian, the argument that irreligious people can't possibly have a strong moral foundation without the imposition of an explicitly religious or culturally religious framework is _heinous bullshit_. All you have to do is look at all the so-called Christian causes throughout history to establish that the proclamation of a person or body being Christian alone does not make one moral.
> 
> Well, these people don't want me to say what I'll do. They want me to do what I'll say.



Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
#1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:

_- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned._ 
_- Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
- Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_

#2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:

_- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
- Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Might be a good time to point out that "liberal," before it was a smear term for the right, was the belief in a written code of law, where laws, crimes, and punishments were codified and defied in advance, rather than determined by whim of a king or queen, and the Magna Carta, the document that our Constitution was ultimately based upon, was the ultimate achievement of the liberal movement, when rebels forced King John of England to sign it to at least give them some formal rights and protections in the eyes of the law.


 I didn't think you were _that _much older than me! I think the general sense of the term has come to mean any political desire for things to change to something new, as opposed to "conservatives" who desire to go back to something old. Of course, it's politics, so no one is ever happy with the way things are at the moment in question. 

We're lucky enough to live in an era where we have some small say in how the government conducts itself. For the majority of geopolitical history, governance was (sort of still is) just something that happens to people. Maybe it's easy to forget that a number of nations are still ruled by a monarch. And I'm not talking about the UK, where the Queen holds something akin to de facto ceremonial power, but places like UAE, where the economy is booming and things appear modern, but to be president you have to be a prince. And I think we could basically call North Korea a monarchy at this point. I feel like that could easily be taken away from us, and there'd be honestly nothing the common people could do about it. If there's anything I've learned by watching US elections, it's that elections are frighteningly easy to manipulate. There was definitely an effort to hijack 2020 in favour of Trump, and almost just as certainly an effort to hijack 2016 for him as well. I'm no longer convinced that the 2016 attempt wasn't fruitful. Maybe HRC would have won had it not been for interfering factors, who knows anymore? And who knows, maybe there was an effort by someone on behalf of Biden that made a difference in 2020. There's no evidence of it, but no one will ever be able to disprove a vaguely-enough worded accusation of such.



TedEH said:


> Fair enough, although so are a lot of the other words used in these kinds of discussions.



Oh, for sure. I bet we could have a discussion about religion or politics that was only weasel words and filler with no actual content, and it probably wouldn't even require much effort.

But the validity of concepts pointed to by words like "God" or "soul" will always be nearly impossible to discuss, primarily because they are neither uniquely nor specifically defined. Try this as a philosophical thought experiment: try to define what is a soul. Then ask someone else to do the same, then compare and contrast the concepts. People from different religious or cultural backgrounds will undoubtedly stress different things, probably things that don't even overlap each other's definitions. And without a definition of what something is, there can be little productive discussion about how to respect it or whatever.

Maybe a soul is just a pattern of thought processes that generally describe how a person tends to behave. Maybe it's some sort of concept of some metaphysical entity that essentially cannot be less loosely defined. Maybe, to some people, it's something that has a physical mass of 24 grams and has been proven to exist by non-repeatable experiments that were totally done by actual competent scientists and not just by some quack physician who went around poisoning dogs for no good reason.


----------



## ArtDecade

*Artdecade 18:16-18*
*Jesus said unto them, "You get a car. You get a car. You get a car." Then He pointed to @Glades and sayeth, "Not you. You get this empty barrel that you will fill with your lies about Me and you will look through My gates but never enter. @Glades wept - mostly about not getting a car."*


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_
> 
> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._


The definition of Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ.

James 4:12 "There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"


----------



## Glades

I don’t disagree with that definition @bostjan


----------



## StevenC

I went to a very Catholic school in a part of the world where religion is pretty much the main identifier. I was the only atheist in my year of 150. My friends would all say things like "I don't believe in organised religion but I still believe in God". They're all atheists now.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_
> 
> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._


Grandma? I thought you were dead?

Ain't no gatekeepers like Christian gatekeepers. Grandma.


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_
> 
> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._



So now you are the authority on who is a Christian? What you are saying is complete bullshit anyways and you are quoting a bunch of fictional text. The entire bible is fiction. Oh, and God didn't just strike me down for saying that. I think IF there is a God and it's a big IF, he/she would be laughing his or her ass off at some of this stuff. That people would quote passages from centuries old text that have about as much to do with the truth as a Stephen King novel. This is precisely why women are getting completely F'd right now in regards to abortion because of the brainwashed low IQ masses that spew this utter nonsense . 

If God exists, I believe the rules would be simple. Be good to others, be a benefit to society, and don't F anyone over. Pretty much the opposite of what conservatives are doing now in Gods name.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I don’t disagree with that definition @bostjan


You just don't live it... as you proved by immediately judging @Xaios


----------



## mastapimp

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_
> 
> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._


Are those verses seriously keeping your life going in the right direction? As somebody that's never attended a church service in my life, it's humorous to me when people state their point and play this game of "check out my biblical cross referencing skillz" Does it make you feel like you're in some cool club where only other members truly understand each other? Is it a power play to say that "the word of God is on my side?" 

Again, as a non-Christian, this whole verse referencing swordplay between believers is laughable.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> But where does it say anything about abortion in the Evangelical Christian bylaws? The only scriptures I ever see used to justify extreme views about abortion are the one in Jeremiah about how God knew that Jeremiah was going to be a prophet before he was even born and the similar one in Isaiah that basically just says that Isaiah was born. In fact, there are plenty of examples in Biblical law that make it clear that an unborn fetus is of some less value than a born baby in the case of a crime or an accident. And every word in the Bible about the topic are concentrated in the Old Testament, so then why don't the Jewish people hold just as strong views as Evangelicals?
> 
> No, there's something else going on that isn't so easy to explain.
> 
> Growing up going to a fundamentalist Christian school, I know intimately what the extra rules are that evangelicals have that have nothing to do with the Bible, but it is 100% not taught where those rules come from. Things like how masturbation is really bad, or how dice are banned from use, even in mundane things like board games (you have to use a spinner), or how dancing of any form is absolutely taboo, or doggy style (even between a married couple), or how playing D&D is absolutely equivalent to open outright devil worship (even if you use a spinner  ). We even had a guy who got caught playing pinochle (outside of school) and got in big trouble, and he was like "the Mormons can play pinochle, why can't we?" and the answer was along the lines of no one knows why we are this way, we just are.


Just like the law and order republicans don’t support the law enforcement agencies when it isn’t on their favor (MGT’s “defund the FBI”) or follow the constitution (separation of church and state, and that pesky rule of law thing), most Christians don’t actually follow the Bible. The average Joe Christian is just following what the religious leaders have been teaching for decades/centuries without questioning why. And as for the religious leaders, who knows what their ultimate goal is. Maybe it is just go forth and multiply, maybe there is an ulterior motive known only to those at higher levels of the various religions (kind of like Mormons and the weird soul sucking alien spaceship things) because it would be too ridiculous for the average Joe to believe.




StevenC said:


> As to abortion, imagine if Jewish people started a campaign to ban consumption of pork or if Muslim people began a campaign to prohibit consumption of alcohol. You'd probably say something like that violates the First Amendment by making a law respecting the establishment of religion. But the Scotus says it's somehow unconstitutional to stop Christian people making laws based on their religion?


And in a country where the Constitution specifically separates church and State, at that.




bostjan said:


> Note that the Bible even says not to consume pork, and never says "just kidding" about that, yet show me one good Baptist who doesn't eat bacon.
> 
> The religion isn't even based on any scriptures, it's all based on a mindset that is only passed directly through observing the behaviours of the leaders. Honestly it was me actually reading the Bible that got me out of that mindset. Everyone should be legally allowed to practice their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but the problem is that the ones leading the religion don't want it to work both ways for everyone else.


No, the leaders want to implement their version os Sharia law.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Glades said:


> The definition of a Christian is that who is saved.



This definition is only shared by around 20 Christian sects out of literally hundreds around the world. The Salvation thing varies greatly across the sects, denominations, cults, and big churches. Well, unless you are part of one of the denominations that claim to be the "One True Church". Even so, a lot of churches claim to be the one true church.


----------



## CanserDYI

I dare someone to give a fetus a strat and tell me it has no soul. DARE YOU.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_
> 
> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._



Ah the “no true Scotsman” intellectual fallacy. You do not get to decide who is or is not “Christian”.

Anyone who follows a generally Protestant belief system is Christian. Some churches welcome gay and trans members, others meanwhile put on plays and denounce those same people.

Both are Christian’s.

Logic time: IF a god exists. Then only that god can decide who is and is not correct.

So anyone else claiming to understand an omnipotent being and claiming to speak for that god is a Pharisee and false prophet.

If someone says they are Christian then they must be treated as such.

Also, I called this earlier in this thread - fundamentalists will argue about with sub-group is “more correct” via infighting once they have eliminated everyone else.

One again sharing Bible verses prescribing abortion:

Numbers 5:11-31​King James Version​​11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous of his wife, and she be not defiled:
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The Lord make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the Lord doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the Lord, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth aside to another instead of her husband, and is defiled;
30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him, and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the woman before the Lord, and the priest shall execute upon her all this law.
31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> ...by pointing out that the people who disagree with you don't actually all agree with each other on much of anything?
> 
> Sure man, you do you. You're definitely the victim here.



Once again, I never claimed to be a victim. 

I didn't even make a post about myself; it was a cautionary tale towards @Glades 

YOU and YOU ALONE made this about me.

If you want my number/address want me to cook you dinner just let me know. 


FFS drop the charade dude.


----------



## nightflameauto

I will say Christianity in my life has provided me one positive thing out of all the hundreds and hundreds of negatives: the foundation for a fictional God that is ripe for lampooning.

1. Jealous. If he's the supreme being and has the ultimate power to do anything, why the heck would he be jealous? What's to be jealous of? Snap yer fingers and fix it, dude.

2. Vengeful. Disobey = flood the world. God throws some MASSIVE tantrums, for a supreme being that's supposedly full of love, infinite patience, and understanding. (Maybe jerk it every once in a while and let off some of that love, bro? Might tamp down the temper too.)

3. Arrogant. I could let this slide if he really was the supreme being. But he talks about being the supreme being so much, it starts to give you the impression "he doth protest too much." Even in his own book he can't STFU about being supreme. I've seen no proof he can stand toe-to-toe with Dianna Ross in a sing-off.

4. Whiny and demanding. Have you read the ten commandments? Other than the direct "no other god" and "no graven images" shit, the second of which seems to confuse 99.99999% of "Real Christians" based on the churches I've visited, we're all too busy not doing any of that shit to be bothered by the crazy robed dude screaming about it in the corner.

So, thanks Christianity. You're oppressive descriptions of your 'Father' at least lead to nice fodder for shitty fiction. Hi5s all around.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> Please don't pretend to be a Christian when you clearly are not. The definition of a Christian is that who is saved. You cannot be saved and say these things.
> #1 Christians are called to share the gospel with all nations (as you say proselitize). It is not the point to forcefully convert people, but to share the good news of the Gospel to those that are willing to hear it. The news that there is eternal salvation in Christ. We are commanded directly by Jesus to do so. Some examples:
> 
> _- Mark 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation._ _16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
> - Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"
> - Acts 13:47 "For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”_


This may come as a surprise to you, but there's more to being a beacon for Christ than yelling from the rooftops "Our way is the only way, believe and be saved, don't believe and be damned!" What are we offering by saying that? The promise of an eternal reward? Get in line, there's a boatload of other religions that offer the same. A warning of eternal damnation? Only about 70% of American Christians believe in Hell, so if there isn't even a theological consensus about what happens to the soul after death, how can Christians as a group offer up a warning anymore substantive than "something bad will happen, I promise!"

Being a Christian means trying to be _like Christ._ Feeding the masses, comforting the sick and the poor, speaking truth to power (and one of the major real powers in the US specifically is the greedy and morally corrupt so-called Church, make no mistake), and generally showing compassion for all people. Yet, you yourself said that America's system of law is written so as to define how to punish people based on "moral law". That's not exactly compassionate. Christ himself said that only those without sin can mete out punishment, despite the fact that the "Law of Moses" stated that the adulterous woman should be stoned when he was confronted by the Pharisees. Further, when he was the only one left who _could _conceivably exact punishment on her, all he did was tell her to "go and sin no more", and outright refused to condemn her either. This is an outright rebuke of the notion that Christianity itself should be used as a justification for the punishment of a sinner, and yet you've specifically advocated for such. How is anyone supposed to see this from you and not think that Christianity is full of rampant hypocrisy? Why would anyone beyond the delusionally self-righteous want any part of that? How could people be expected to believe that Christ offers the path of salvation when those who proclaim to be his followers are so sanctimonious and dishonest?



Glades said:


> #2 You cannot buy your salvation through good deeds, according to the Bible. It is only attained by believing and loving Christ. Salvation is in faith alone, not good works. Good works are a result of salvation, not the causal reason for it. So the signing up people argument is not a Christian argument. Some examples:
> 
> _- Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
> - Galatians 2:15 Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified._


- James 2:17-20 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?


----------



## philkilla

Hot take, these new IRS officers look like TSA/Walmart door greeters


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> Grandma? I thought you were dead?
> 
> Ain't no gatekeepers like Christian gatekeepers. Grandma.


Maybe metal gate keepers.


----------



## Xaios

tedtan said:


> Maybe metal gate keepers.


Now just imagine the horror of Christian Metal gatekeepers.


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> Maybe metal gate keepers.


Grandma is pretty metal, though, I'm sure they'll welcome her, even (especially) if Gertrude and Mildred told her she's no longer welcome at the Church pot luck.



Xaios said:


> Now just imagine the horror of Christian Metal gatekeepers.



Is Lamb of God a Christian Metal band? Christians - "no, they use they say 'fuck'", Metal Gatekeepers - "no, they don't say 'fuck' enough"


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I don’t disagree with that definition @bostjan


I'd take it a step further, and note that while a Christian by definition is someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and the Trinity as their one true god, and that while the Christian faith absolutely _does_ ask followers to, as you put it, "spread the good news of the Gospel to those who are willing to hear it," it does NOT tell them to force other people to follow the beliefs of Christ against their will, nor does it tell them to set up a written code of law to codify and enforce those beliefs. 

I suppose there's also some wiggle room on whether accepting Christ is alone grounds for salvation under the Christian faith, and if it's possible to accept Christ as your savior, but then commit mortal sins such that your salvation is jeopardized - the flesh is weak, etc. 

But, in the context of the moral underpinnings of our rule of law, that's all kind of an academic point since nothing about the teachings of Christ really dictates that his followers need to set up an explicitly judeo-christian legal system. Quite a bit from the bible could be taken to imply the reverse in fact - give unto caesar what is caesar's, but give unto god what is god's, etc.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Once again, I never claimed to be a victim.
> 
> I didn't even make a post about myself; it was a cautionary tale towards @Glades
> 
> YOU and YOU ALONE made this about me.
> 
> If you want my number/address want me to cook you dinner just let me know.
> 
> 
> FFS drop the charade dude.


You implied everyone else on the board who disagrees with you is an "echo chamber." Last I checked, I'm part of that group of people on the board who at least occasionally disagrees with you, so yeah, I didn't particularly appreciate you targeting me, which makes it extremely ironic that you now feel like I'm somehow singling you out.


----------



## nightflameauto

OK, as much fun as I have picking on Christianity, now that we've managed to distract ourselves for several pages doing so:
Anybody else with a queasy feeling now that Cheney is primaried out? It's like the GOP in general is doubling down on the negative.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> OK, as much fun as I have picking on Christianity, now that we've managed to distract ourselves for several pages doing so:
> Anybody else with a queasy feeling now that Cheney is primaried out? It's like the GOP in general is doubling down on the negative.


I wonder what the future of the Jan 6 court will be with her gone. Who's picking up the torch?


----------



## Mathemagician

nightflameauto said:


> OK, as much fun as I have picking on Christianity, now that we've managed to distract ourselves for several pages doing so:
> Anybody else with a queasy feeling now that Cheney is primaried out? It's like the GOP in general is doubling down on the negative.



Yeah it’s definitely worrying. I can’t say I agreed with her policy votes much but vanilla low-tax leave people alone conservatives are essentially at the mercy of the vocal minority that has presented itself as the “Conservative party”. 

She was at least willing to openly criticize trump. We saw how fast other “conservatives” folded “in line” like Rubio, Cruz, and Graham. 

I don’t get deification of a rich NY real estate guy’s son. Why? Because he insults immigrants? Or the classic refrain I heard from fundies “He doesn’t have to be Christian to be used by god”. You know, fairy tales. 

Are there no other conservative options that just want to talk about budgets?


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> Yeah it’s definitely worrying. I can’t say I agreed with her policy votes much but vanilla low-tax leave people alone conservatives are essentially at the mercy of the vocal minority that has presented itself as the “Conservative party”.
> 
> She was at least willing to openly criticize trump. We saw how fast other “conservatives” folded “in line” like Rubio, Cruz, and Graham.
> 
> I don’t get deification of a rich NY real estate guy’s son. Why? Because he insults immigrants? Or the classic refrain I heard from fundies “He doesn’t have to be Christian to be used by god”. You know, fairy tales.
> 
> Are there no other conservative options that just want to talk about budgets?


I mean, Reagan's GOP is pretty clearly dead. For better or for worse Trump finished what the Tea Party started and turned the GOP into a hyper-nationalist populist party characterized by a healthy dose of white resentment. Traditional conservative small government republicanism is mostly a regional thing these days - we have a few of them left in the northeast, but even here they're fighting the Trump-remade iteration of the party and with time will probably lose.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> I wonder what the future of the Jan 6 court will be with her gone. Who's picking up the torch?


They are supposed to wrap in September, so they'll be done before the election starts.


----------



## CanserDYI

Lets stop calling it "January 6th" and start calling it "Treason day", please.


----------



## Drew

CanserDYI said:


> Lets stop calling it "January 6th" and start calling it "Treason day", please.


I'm actually ok with the, well, non One American and Fox media has settled on "January 6th Insurrection." It's a pretty apt description, both the fact that it was an armed uprising trying to block the peaceful transfer of power, but it wasn't especially well organized and was for the most part only a loosely organized mob.


----------



## Xaios

CanserDYI said:


> Lets stop calling it "January 6th" and start calling it "Treason day", please.


Be wary, be wary the 6th of January, of Trump Tower treason and plot.
I know of no reason why Trump Tower treason should ever be forgot.


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Lets stop calling it "January 6th" and start calling it "Treason day", please.


No. "Treason Day" is reserved for July 4th, 1776.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> No. "Treason Day" is reserved for July 4th, 1776.


I know we do a lot of chiding each other in this thread, but I'mma wish you luck and peace out on this one.


----------



## zappatton2

On the whole "laws and morals are from religion" thing, I was in Norway over the summer, a nation whose population is roughly 70% atheist, and it was _bedlam_. Chronic mass shootings and murder, people falling between the cracks, cast out on the street, no public health care, everyone being really cruel and uncivil to each other, I tell ya, what a nightmare.

Except that it was the precise opposite of _all _those things. Hell, even their legal institutions don't seem nearly as concerned with punishing lawbreakers to play out that eye-for-an-eye fetishism, but rather seem to focus on rehabilitation and public safety.

And if I cast a glace over the nations that try to weave religion into their government or legal institutions, I get this sense that there may in fact be an _inverse _relationship between theistic absolutism and ethical behaviour. Hmm, funny that.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

zappatton2 said:


> And if I cast a glace over the nations that try to weave religion into their government or legal institutions, I get this sense that there may in fact be an _inverse _relationship between theistic absolutism and ethical behaviour. Hmm, funny that.


...not to mention their economies are for sh*t.


----------



## mmr007

StevenC said:


> Except the problem isn't the dissenting opinion, it's the disinterest in discourse.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Guns. USA is the only country where this routinely happens. Most lefty types would like something to be done about this. Pro gun people come in and say something about the 2A. But the problem is the justification for the 2A hasn't been relevant for at least 100 years, and every other country in the world with less tyranny than the USA doesn't have a 2A equivalent. So pro gun peeps just nope out of the conversation or get up in their feelings, instead of saying "I like guns and should be allowed to keep them". The conversation can't go anywhere because one side has solutions and the other does not want solutions.
> 
> Climate change. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human influenced climate change is a real thing. The planet is heating at an unprecedented rate and every year we're having once in a lifetime weather events. All the science and reality says something needs to be done. Right wing types just disagree without justification.
> 
> Vaccines. Literally the greatest technological innovation in human history. Saves untold lives. Incredibly safe. Plenty of research behind them. Antivax exist for some reason. Sometimes they say "my body my choice" while unironically being anti-...
> 
> Abortion. Glades just did this. "pro-women's rights, anti abortion". Literally doesn't mean anything. No interest in a conversation because apparently it's decreed from god, no other justifications offered. Life begins at conception "because scientists said so" but that's the only time we care what science says. But it's literally a philosophical issue. This one is all double think.
> 
> Etc
> 
> When dissenting views come in here with good faith arguments they will be taken seriously. That hasn't happened. Meanwhile pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages and pages (seriously guys) of Drew and bostjan bickering over some inane disagreement firing endless articles at each other, because they know how to construct and have a debate. Meanwhile meanwhile, dissenting voices just won't reply when one engages with them.


soooo....incredibly well said......


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> I wonder what the future of the Jan 6 court will be with her gone. Who's picking up the torch?


She's not gone. She is there for the rest of the year, just like the rest of the J6 commission....which is more than enough time to to prove Trump has been a crook centered around selling US secrets to Putin since day one. She will get her job done....and IF there really is a god as you contend, her soul is saved and Trump and his supporters can rot in hell for trying to overthrow a Constitution they always thought Jesus had a hand in writing.


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> She's not gone. She is there for the rest of the year, just like the rest of the J6 commission....which is more than enough time to to prove Trump has been a crook centered around selling US secrets to Putin since day one. She will get her job done....and IF there really is a god as you contend, her soul is saved and Trump and his supporters can rot in hell for trying to overthrow a Constitution they always thought Jesus had a hand in writing.


That’s a troll post. No way you believe any of that.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> That’s a troll post. No way you believe any of that.


which part seems incongruent with my belief system?


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> which part seems incongruent with my belief system?


The whole Trump thing. I mean after 2 impeachments, Russiagate, and the J6 hearings they have nothing on the guy.


----------



## philkilla

Glades said:


> The whole Trump thing. I mean after 2 impeachments, Russiagate, and the J6 hearings they have nothing on the guy.



We'll just continue to hear about January 6th for the next two years until Trump or someone else from "team red" takes his place.

I wish the democrats could and would produce an actual candidate, but the party is content with low value meatbags that are easy to control from behind the scenes instead.


----------



## mmr007

Trump immediately demands a pro Russia narrative as part of the GOP platform at the nomination
Trump immediately nominates a disgraced general who hates America and frequently attended Putin meeting in Russia as NSC
Trump has to immediately fire his NSC for trying to establish secret backwater channels for communicating with Russia
Trump shares intel with Russia in the oval office
Trump refuses to let American press or observers in meeting with Russian ambassador or Putin
Trump pushes Russian narrative on Ukraine
Trump nominates a sec of state whose only experience is as an exxon exec who was trying to make an oil deal with Russia
Trump sec of state spends every waking moment hollowing out the state department so America has no ability to lead in the world anymore

I could go one forever....including most recently Trump has been found to be hoarding TS material. Just because idiot republican decided that the glove didn't fit TWICE because of politics does not mean he is not a Russian sympathizing crook.

There have been good presidents and there have been bad presidents and everything in between. Trump was the first ever Russian dick sucking president. That is not a troll comment. Trump has been a traitor since the day he took office


----------



## mmr007

philkilla said:


> We'll just continue to hear about January 6th for the next two years until Trump or someone else from "team red" takes his place.
> 
> I wish the democrats could and would produce an actual candidate, but the party is content with low value meatbags that are easy to control from behind the scenes instead.


Correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like you are saying that Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing. Liberals just can't stop talking about Trump.

I'll meet y'all half way. If Trump will shut the fuck up and stop talking about a stolen election and the deep state out to get him, I'll shut the fuck up about Trump.

Oh and Trump has to admit there is no such thing as "deep state" They are called bureaucrats and every single government needs them to operate and they operate better if they aren't cult members.


----------



## narad

Trump wanted to give himself the medal of honor for his trips to Iraq. There's gotta be some level of pissing all over everything sacred that just auto-enacts impeachment, really.


----------



## profwoot

Glades said:


> The whole Trump thing. I mean after 2 impeachments, Russiagate, and the J6 hearings they have nothing on the guy.


How cloistered are you that you could possibly think this? Publicly available evidence already shows him to have broken a ton of laws. The question is whether the will exists to prosecute him, and for how many crimes.

It should surprise no one to hear that "are they guilty" isn't the top criterion when making the decision to prosecute a public/rich/connected figure. The #1 calculation, it would seem, relates to how doing so would serve the prosecutors' interests and those of their "team", however construed (the department, their party, their "side" in the culture war, etc.).

I mean, didn't he have the presidential seal stickered everywhere at some golf tournament he hosted a couple months ago? It probably doesn't make the top hundred list, but demonstrates his open disregard for the law.


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like you are saying that Trump derangement syndrome is a real thing. Liberals just can't stop talking about Trump.
> 
> I'll meet y'all half way. If Trump will shut the fuck up and stop talking about a stolen election and the deep state out to get him, I'll shut the fuck up about Trump.
> 
> Oh and Trump has to admit there is no such thing as "deep state" They are called bureaucrats and every single government needs them to operate and they operate better if they aren't cult members.



Dude I wish I had the ability to make him shut the fuck up


----------



## Grindspine

Glades said:


> I really don’t wish to restart the entire abortion discussion all over again. But let me state I respect your opinion, even though I disagree. I saw these things with the utmost respect, and I am not “trolling” as some say.
> 
> A human has its own genetically unique DNA at conception (week 0), it starts to develop its central nervous system at week 3, a heart at week 3, arms legs ears and eyes at week 4. I saw and heard my daughter’s heartbeat at 5.5 weeks. This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.
> 
> There is states where a woman can walk Into a clinic during her 3rd trimester and request their baby be dismembered limb by limb. Simply because it is inconvenient. I am pretty libertarian in most aspects, and I think government involvement in most things should be limited to a minimum. But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.


Yet, a human fetus does not develop the complexity of the neural system to perceive pain until week 24-25 per the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/gestational-development-capacity-for-pain I think that the ACOG is a pretty sound source for information on fetal development in humans.

Just because the "central nervous system *starts* to develop at week three, that does not equate to being a perceptive creature. At week three, it is really still just a ball of cells. And really, I work in a medical laboratory. I deal with human tissue all week long. A ball of cells is a ball of cells. The idea that something special happens "at conception" is just a catch phrase that dismisses the actual life that these bans are inflicting damage upon.

And regarding the late-term abortion comment, this resource goes more in depth about specific cases where any states had allowed late term abortions. Roe vs Wade pretty much went by trimesters, which was somewhat arbitrary, but at least fell closely enough to actual lines of viability and development to be arguable.


What States Allow Late Term Abortion 2022





Glades said:


> Our entire justice system is based around a "moral law". It is morally wrong to steal so we punish thieves, it is morally wrong to kill therefore we punish killers, it is morally wrong to rape so we punish rapists, etc. The "moral law" that dictates right from wrong in our legal system is based on judeo-christian values. Where do you guys want to draw the line? Should we not punish murderers, thieves and rapists because this is christians trying to shove their values down your throat?


Have you ever taken an ethics class? Maybe reading up on Hobbes and the concept of social contract will give you an idea of why "morals" such as do not kill and do not steal are present in *all* cultures. Morals and societal rules existed long before Christianity or even Judaism.


----------



## narad

In Glade's mind, Moses came down the hill all, "Thou shalt not kill" and people in the crowd were like:


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> In Glade's mind, Moses came down the hill all, "Thou shalt not kill" and people in the crowd were like:


I never said other cultures don't have moral systems with common ground with ours. I was pointing out to the fact that American laws are based on the English common law, and the English common law has its base in judeo-christian values. Other cultures in the world have a similar understanding of the 3 examples I gave, but widely different in other aspects. This is not hard to understand people.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I never said other cultures don't have moral systems with common ground with ours. I was pointing out to the fact that American laws are based on the English common law, and the English common law has its base in judeo-christian values. Other cultures in the world have a similar understanding of the 3 examples I gave, but widely different in other aspects. This is not hard to understand people.



I'm not saying other cultures don't also breathe. I'm just saying that Americans breathing can be traced back to the English breathing, and ultimately originating with Judeo-Christians breathing. C'mon man, this is a super important point I'm making.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> I never said other cultures don't have moral systems with common ground with ours. I was pointing out to the fact that American laws are based on the English common law, and the English common law has its base in judeo-christian values. Other cultures in the world have a similar understanding of the 3 examples I gave, but widely different in other aspects. This is not hard to understand people.


Try not to trip over this thought.

Judeo-Christian values probably had their origin in cultures before Christianity even existed, since we can find folktales and such about the perils of murder, rape, suicide and several other common "human" rules for behaving as part of a society from groups as far back as the hunter-gatherers. I'd imagine if we could translate cave-paintings into modern English we'd probably find out those rules came about right around the time man went from grunting ape to "hey you."

There's always a deeper root when it comes to human nature. Shit. For the most part, wild animals don't attack their own kind outside of territorial disputes or breeding disputes. And let's face it, we're barely evolved past wild animal state even now.


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> I never said other cultures don't have moral systems with common ground with ours. I was pointing out to the fact that American laws are based on the English common law, and the English common law has its base in judeo-christian values. Other cultures in the world have a similar understanding of the 3 examples I gave, but widely different in other aspects. This is not hard to understand people.


Morality existed long before Christianity. Morality is rooted in human biology. We are programmed as humans to perpetuate the survival of ourselves, our groups, and our species. So, it's natural that we would not be instinctually inclined to kill others or do harm to others in other ways. There are exceptions to this rule and those are biologic anomalies. The fact that Christians try to take ownership of morality is just another example of the fraud that Christianity is.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Glades said:


> Ok so you guys are saying abortion should be illegal after week 6?


As someone who's worked customer service jobs, no. It should be mandatory.


----------



## nightflameauto

Carrion Rocket said:


> As someone who's worked customer service jobs, no. It should be mandatory.


I've always been of the opinion that abortion should be legal up to 225 months. In some cases, up to 261.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Carrion Rocket said:


> As someone who's worked customer service jobs, no. It should be mandatory.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

wheresthefbomb said:


> View attachment 112743


When I'm president every retail worker will be entitled to one murder a year so long as it takes place on work grounds during work hours. Hospitality workers are entitled to two.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Carrion Rocket said:


> Every retail worker is entitled to one murder a year so long as it takes place on work grounds during work hours. Hospitality workers are entitled to two.



Someone I used to work with put real coke into an old diabetic rapist's "diet" coke every day for like two years. 

idk what came of it but I haven't seen dude around


----------



## Ralyks

Soooooo steering back on topic, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to tax fraud. So there goes the Trump Organization.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> Soooooo steering back on topic, Weisselberg pleaded guilty to tax fraud. So there goes the Trump Organization.


Unfortunately, I doubt it will be that bad. They’ll probably have to pay some fines and replace some executives (obviously Weisselberg, but also a new CEO and possibly head of HR), but they’ll survive with only a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The whole Trump thing. I mean after 2 impeachments, Russiagate, and the J6 hearings they have nothing on the guy.


You're kidding, right? 

The Mueller Report followed a DOJ internal protocol that they could form no opinion on guilt of a sitting President since that was Congress's job, but referred ten instances that Mueller believed potentially rose to the level of obstruction of justice, and noted the fact that they could not determine if collusion had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt was largely because of aforementioned obstruction. Barr front-ran it with his own letter to shape the media narrative, but Mueller made it pretty clear he believed obstruction had occurted. 

The first impeachment failed, though did garner a few Republican votes, and a bunch of the Republicans who voted against impeachment fully believed Trump was guilty of the charges, they just didn't think it rose to the level of impeachment. And I'll note that, well, look where we are with Ukraine now. The second impeachment, McConnell was pretty clear that the only reason he didn't vote to convict, and rally the GOP behind him, was that Trump was leaving office in a little more than a week anyway. He fully thought what Trump had done deserved impeacment, and I'm sure with Trump publicly mulling a 2024 run he's regretting not seeing it through now. 

January 6th hearings have thus far covicted virtually everyone they've indicted, are still ongoing, as is the parallel DOJ investigation. So far Stebe Bannon, Trump's former close advisor, is their highest profile conviction. Meanwhile, we now know that Trump is under investigation for alleged violtions of the Espionage Act and that nuclear secrets were some of the documents he was illegally in posession of. You also glossed over the Georgia investigation into solicitation of electoral fraud, which even based on publicly available informtion it's not looking good for Trump, and if Giuliani hasn't been charged yet, he's about to be. 

Like, it's not a matter of if Trump is guilty or not at this point. He's only been tried via political channels, and so far the GOP hasn't been willing to turn on him. The criminal channels, however, are just starting to catch up with him, and not for nothing he's been telling people the main reason he wants to run in 2024 is because he thinks it'll make him immune from criminal prosecution.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> Unfortunately, I doubt it will be that bad. They’ll probably have to pay some fines and replace some executives (obviously Weisselberg, but also a new CEO and possibly head of HR), but they’ll survive with only a slap on the wrist.


They're not a publicly traded corporation, but a privately closely-held one - this is a bit more problematic than if, say, Wells Fargo was accused of fraud. Also, when Trump himself is being investigated for what his CEO just pled guilty to, then either Trump was just woefully oblivious and a victim here, or he was in on it and charges will soon follow once Weisselberg is compelled to testify via subpoena.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> They're not a publicly traded corporation, but a privately closely-held one - this is a bit more problematic than if, say, Wells Fargo was accused of fraud. Also, when Trump himself is being investigated for what his CEO just pled guilty to, then either Trump was just woefully oblivious and a victim here, or he was in on it and charges will soon follow once Weisselberg is compelled to testify via subpoena.


Yeah, I do expect this to be bad for Trump and it sounds like it could be worse for the Trump Org than I first thought, too.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> You're kidding, right?
> 
> The Mueller Report followed a DOJ internal protocol that they could form no opinion on guilt of a sitting President since that was Congress's job, but referred ten instances that Mueller believed potentially rose to the level of obstruction of justice, and noted the fact that they could not determine if collusion had occurred beyond a reasonable doubt was largely because of aforementioned obstruction. Barr front-ran it with his own letter to shape the media narrative, but Mueller made it pretty clear he believed obstruction had occurted.
> 
> The first impeachment failed, though did garner a few Republican votes, and a bunch of the Republicans who voted against impeachment fully believed Trump was guilty of the charges, they just didn't think it rose to the level of impeachment. And I'll note that, well, look where we are with Ukraine now. The second impeachment, McConnell was pretty clear that the only reason he didn't vote to convict, and rally the GOP behind him, was that Trump was leaving office in a little more than a week anyway. He fully thought what Trump had done deserved impeacment, and I'm sure with Trump publicly mulling a 2024 run he's regretting not seeing it through now.
> 
> January 6th hearings have thus far covicted virtually everyone they've indicted, are still ongoing, as is the parallel DOJ investigation. So far *Stebe Bannon*, Trump's former close advisor, is their highest profile conviction. Meanwhile, we now know that Trump is under investigation for alleged violtions of the Espionage Act and that nuclear secrets were some of the documents he was illegally in posession of. You also glossed over the Georgia investigation into solicitation of electoral fraud, which even based on publicly available informtion it's not looking good for Trump, and if Giuliani hasn't been charged yet, he's about to be.
> 
> Like, it's not a matter of if Trump is guilty or not at this point. He's only been tried via political channels, and so far the GOP hasn't been willing to turn on him. The criminal channels, however, are just starting to catch up with him, and not for nothing he's been telling people the main reason he wants to run in 2024 is because he thinks it'll make him immune from criminal prosecution.


I just wanna say that finger-slip is one of the best ever. If ever anybody deserved to be a "Stebe" it's Bannon. Dude looks like what would happen if some homeless dude went on a two-week bender in Alaska and then got picked up for solicitation but was confused about the charge. And that's at his damned press conferences, which you'd think he has time to prepare for.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I just wanna say that finger-slip is one of the best ever. If ever anybody deserved to be a "Stebe" it's Bannon. Dude looks like what would happen if some homeless dude went on a two-week bender in Alaska and then got picked up for solicitation but was confused about the charge. And that's at his damned press conferences, which you'd think he has time to prepare for.


 

And then there's his habit of wearing multiple collared shirts at once...?


----------



## thraxil

So Weisselberg pled guilty to fifteen felonies. And they're saying that they expect him to get somewhere between 100 days and five months in prison. There are people who get years in prison for drug posession. Must be nice to be rich.


----------



## Andromalia

mmr007 said:


> Is there anyone else who has suffered a depreciation in the regard they hold for this symbol? I want my flag back.


In France also, overenthusiastically sporting a national flag tags you as a racist, the exception being football/rugby matches. Rightwing extremists everywhere try to appropriate symbols of patriotism. 
Which is a bit nonsensical, since they were the ones collaborating with the nazis.


----------



## spudmunkey

thraxil said:


> So Weisselberg pled guilty to fifteen felonies. And they're saying that they expect him to get somewhere between 100 days and five months in prison. There are people who get years in prison for drug posession. Must be nice to be rich.


And, from what I understand, the conditions of the plea included no cooperation.


----------



## philkilla

thraxil said:


> So Weisselberg pled guilty to fifteen felonies. And they're saying that they expect him to get somewhere between 100 days and five months in prison. There are people who get years in prison for drug posession. Must be nice to be rich.



....and connected

But checks and balances amirite??


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> And, from what I understand, the conditions of the plea included no cooperation.


He has to testify in any trial(s) against The Trump Organization. And while he doesn’t have to testify against Trump, the questioning can likely be worded such that an answer would implicate Trump and his children.

So it looks like this NY tax fraud case, or the Georgia election interference case, will be the first (of what may be many) to actually lead to trump facing charges.


----------



## Glades

The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator. 
Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


How does one get this drunk before 11am? The weekend comes early in Florida.


----------



## mmr007

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


For his ENTIRE LIFE Trump has been surrounded by the worst of the worst. The smartest and best in finance and tech and business and innovation do not associate with Trump. Never have. That distance from this loser started waaaaay before his political aspirations to get out of debt with Putin. I'm sorry but you need to wake up.


----------



## TedEH

Hey, remember when Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach? Hey, remember when Trump said "we could use a little global warming" because it was too cold outside? Hey, remember when he convinced people he could get _another country_ to pay for a _wall to keep themselves out?_ Remember when he called a bunch of places "shithole countries"? Remember all the times he's been a womanizing creepy old man? Remember when he called 9/11 "7 Eleven"? Remember when he helped incite a mob to attack the capital? Remember when he hoarded a bunch of confidential information he shouldn't have had making a bunch of excuses about "declassifying" without having any idea how declassifying works? There are so many more things - there was no "smear campaign". He's done well enough smearing himself.


----------



## narad

Remember when Glades said he wasn't a Trump supporter? lol


----------



## ArtDecade

narad said:


> Remember when Glades said he wasn't a Trump supporter? lol


ArtDecade 26:34 
“Truly I tell you,” Trump answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, @Glades will disown me three times.”


----------



## nightflameauto

I really don't know why everyone responds to that blatant copy-paste Trump screed. Shit like that is just full-fledged admission of guilt to me. "Yup. My entire purpose is to slurp Trump's cock."

Trump's been a crooked piece of garbage since long before he headed into politics. Ask anyone that's ever had a business dealing with him, or the many, MANY people he's ripped off (but I repeat myself). Nothing's stuck to him because, in the past, he was *just* smart, or lucky, enough to stay a little below the public spotlight level of "threat to our country." Once he crossed that line?

Yeah. I really don't get how, with all the actual evidence that's been publicly analyzed, poured over, analyzed again, and essentially rolled over a roasting fire a million times, someone can still believe he's the chosen one. ESPECIALLY a supposed Christian.

Granted, I suppose it does fit with the actual Christian agenda. They claim they love all, but tend to create suffering everywhere they touch. Much like Trump himself. Sigh.


----------



## mmr007

narad said:


> Remember when Glades said he wasn't a Trump supporter? lol


The forgetful troll.....hmmm sounds like the title of a children's book

Hey Glades....IF Trump is so smart then how were the Kardashians able to parlay a sex tape into a multibillion dollar empire while Trump could only parlay his into an unending debt to a Russian thug getting schooled by Ukrainians led by a former comedic actor

Also...IF Trump knew that the 2020 election was rigged beforehand and as president was unable to stop it and after it was rigged and the outcome was known and as president he couldn't fix it then maybe....just maybe he's too stupid to be president


----------



## DrewH

ArtDecade said:


> How does one get this drunk before 11am? The weekend comes early in Florida.



I live in FL. That level of intelligence is pretty standard BEFORE any alcohol comes into play.


----------



## tedtan

Glades said:


> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


Project much?


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.



That's hilarious. As others have said, Trump was a pretty lousy human before politics, as was the family going back decades. I suppose the recorded phone call to Raffensperger in GA asking him to find votes was just another phony made up thing, right? Pretty ironic the man who made accusations of a fraudulent election was trying to perpetrate fraud in the election. 

I live in FL. I'm not from here. I'm pretty sure the average IQ of the citizenry here went up a couple of points just based on my arrival by itself. I love this state but most of the people here don't even have measurable intelligence levels.


----------



## narad

DrewH said:


> Pretty ironic the man who made accusations of a fraudulent election was trying to perpetrate fraud in the election.



It's like how all the anti-gay rights republican representatives wind up getting caught sending dick pics to guys on Grindr. In analyzing a situation Trump's view of what his opponents did is the worst thing because that's his current thought about what he should be doing. Surprised he didn't accuse Hillary of wanting to sleep with her own daughters.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.



How come devout and Bible-learned Christians can't see through the endless lies, grifting, and massive con that is Donald Trump? How can you go from don't lie/steal to defending this conman? Trump lies too much and has done so many business fraud schemes throughout his career and it makes DeSantis look like a saint if you just compare their careers.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

The dude isn't really a christian. You don't just antagonize people for no reason. You don't go against the most basic principles of christianity... love your neighbor, love your enemies, avoid hypocrisy, forgive others, don't judge others... The dude just on this forum alone, goes against plenty of christian ideals and he's very much aware of this... he relishes it. He doesn't follow the teachings of god or the guidance of the bible in the least.. going off of his behavior on here anyway. I can only imagine how much less of a christian he is in real life but regardless, you don't simply troll others, speak as a hypocrite, and elevate yourself above others as some means of a "gotcha". A christian would pray for someone's soul whom they feel is lost ( as I stated before and he ignored). If you think for a second that someone like him would actually pray for any one on here, well... no. And if this dude does actually believe in god, then I would almost assure that it's only out of fear of eternal barbecue and/ or to keep up appearances to family, friends, and to other parishioners of whatever church that he likely only begrudgingly attends. Feed him if you want, but that's what gets him off and I'll gladly not seek to validate someone like that.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


He hasn't been convicted of much since 2015, true. But he also hasn't been _tried_ for much. Off the top of my head, the only two criminal proceedings that went through while he was in office, which he tried and failed to block on the basis of being the President, were fraud suits brought against the now-defunct Trump University that resulted in a $25 million dollar settlement, and a fraud suit brought against the Trump Foundation for misuse of funds that resulted in $2 million in payments to defrauded nonprofits, and the Trump Foundation being forcefully wound down.

Everything else brought against him was either a political process - two impeachments, the latter of which he barely survived - or has not yet had time to make it to trial. When they do, Trump will have some pretty big problems on his hands, and all this "he's been investigated for so many things but they never managed to convict him for anything" will have aged REALLY poorly.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> And, from what I understand, the conditions of the plea included no cooperation.


He can still be subpoenaed in a federal investigation, even if there's no plea deal in place. And with a criminal conviction for tax fraud already on the books, I understand pleading the fifth around matters related to the conviction is complicated by double jeopardy. I.e - you can't self incrimidate by admitting to something you were already convicted of and cannot be tried for again.


----------



## StevenC

High Plains Drifter said:


> The dude isn't really a christian. You don't just antagonize people for no reason.


Are you talking about Trump or Glades?


----------



## TedEH

In some fairness, I don't think you can no-true-scotsman him immediately after he's been called for doing the same. How did we get here again? Wasn't this about a pro-life/choice conversation?


----------



## Andromalia

DrewH said:


> I live in FL. That level of intelligence is pretty standard BEFORE any alcohol comes into play.


Well, there had to be some upside to global warming. What's needed to flood Florida again ?


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.



Goddamn that is some beautiful trolling. Just wow. 



TedEH said:


> Hey, remember when Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach? Hey, remember when Trump said "we could use a little global warming" because it was too cold outside? Hey, remember when he convinced people he could get _another country_ to pay for a _wall to keep themselves out?_ Remember when he called a bunch of places "shithole countries"? Remember all the times he's been a womanizing creepy old man? Remember when he called 9/11 "7 Eleven"? Remember when he helped incite a mob to attack the capital? Remember when he hoarded a bunch of confidential information he shouldn't have had making a bunch of excuses about "declassifying" without having any idea how declassifying works? There are so many more things - there was no "smear campaign". He's done well enough smearing himself.



Yeah but “those were all clearly just jokes to troll the Libs”.



Andromalia said:


> Well, there had to be some upside to global warming. What's needed to flood Florida again ?



Nothing can stop Florida. We are inevitable.


----------



## vilk

Mathemagician said:


> Nothing can stop Florida. We are inevitable.



You hear that, Mr. Anderson?


----------



## spudmunkey

So Floridians...are crabs?


----------



## zappatton2

spudmunkey said:


> So Floridians...are crabs?


I've found some pretty damning footage, but it might be deepfake;


----------



## Xaios

spudmunkey said:


> So Floridians...are crabs?


Carcinisation will get us all in the end.


----------



## philkilla

zappatton2 said:


> I've found some pretty damning footage, but it might be deepfake;
> View attachment 112839




Real talk


The past few years have no doubt inundated the South Park crew with material for life.


----------



## mastapimp

philkilla said:


> Real talk
> 
> 
> The past few years have no doubt inundated the South Park crew with material for life.


I agree, however, it's kinda fucked up how they make it difficult to see all their recent content in one place. You have a shortened 5-6 episode season on comedy central and then these post-covid and streaming wars specials on paramount plus. When I talked to a few of my coworkers about the latest south park, it's like we're talking about 2 different shows cause you either have access to one network or the other, but rarely both.


----------



## Mathemagician

mastapimp said:


> I agree, however, it's kinda fucked up how they make it difficult to see all their recent content in one place. You have a shortened 5-6 episode season on comedy central and then these post-covid and streaming wars specials on paramount plus. When I talked to a few of my coworkers about the latest south park, it's like we're talking about 2 different shows cause you either have access to one network or the other, but rarely both.



I haven’t had cable in so long Cartman was still hanging out with saddam in hell. But how/why are they splitting seasons like that. Is that a new thing now?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Mathemagician said:


> I haven’t had cable in so long Cartman was still hanging out with saddam in hell. But how/why are they splitting seasons like that. Is that a new thing now?



Money. Because money. 

Streaming rights keep getting sold and moved around amongst the various services and distributors and it gets even more stupid as some of these entities merge and change focus/format.

Matt and Tray cashed out of control long ago.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> The smear campaign and all these phony investigations started in 2015 when he announced his candidacy. And they will not stop until he steps away from the political sphere. He will never be convicted of anything, but they’ll keep trying to get him.
> That is what happens when a billionaire with FU money and BDE steps up against the swamp, corruption, the military complex and warmonger politicians and special interest that run DC. He immediately got a target put on his back the day he came down that escalator.
> Wake up people. Do some critical thinking for yourselves once in a while. You have been deceived by the media and political demagoguery for years.


This is the dumbest shit I've read today. Easily. I just woke up, and you already took that cake. I bet I will go the rest of the day feeling better about all the dumb shit that gets said to me because at least it couldn't top this.


----------



## narad

CanserDYI said:


> This is the dumbest shit I've read today. Easily. I just woke up, and you already took that cake. I bet I will go the rest of the day feeling better about all the dumb shit that gets said to me because at least it couldn't top this.



Can confirm, I'm about to go to bed and it's also the dumbest shit I've read today.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Can confirm, I'm about to go to bed and it's also the dumbest shit I've read today.


It's definitely the dumbest thing I've read all weekend.


----------



## Ralyks

MaxOfMetal said:


> Matt and Tray cashed out of control long ago.


In their defense, would any of us turn down just shy of a billion dollars for their current deal?


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> Money. Because money.
> 
> Streaming rights keep getting sold and moved around amongst the various services and distributors and it gets even more stupid as some of these entities merge and change focus/format.
> 
> Matt and Tray cashed out of control long ago.




Although likely no control over shit like the airings they made landmark deal for 50% split of all digital revenue starting in 2007 and are now rolling in it. They saw what was coming.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Ralyks said:


> In their defense, would any of us turn down just shy of a billion dollars for their current deal?





Dineley said:


> Although likely no control over shit like the airings they made landmark deal for 50% split of all digital revenue starting in 2007 and are now rolling in it. They saw what was coming.



I didn't mean it negatively. They deserve every penny until the end of time.


----------



## CanserDYI

Trump supporters and conservatives: "Stop believing the lies! You're being brainwashed and need to stop listening to the media!" 

Trump supporters and conservatives: Immediately believes the lies and gets brainwashed and listens to the media.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CanserDYI said:


> This is the dumbest shit I've read today. Easily. I just woke up, and you already took that cake. I bet I will go the rest of the day feeling better about all the dumb shit that gets said to me because at least it couldn't top this.



Posts like that are why there's push back. Best case, it's not trolling and it's just a bad actor. 

The context is that our good buddy from Florida has been going after absolutely anyone at the mere insistence that they might be a Trump supporter and then, like clockwork, they post something like this. 

They're full of shit. That's why they're not making any friends. 

It's the quality of discourse, or lack thereof, not necessarily the content.


----------



## mmr007

Alarm over Texas law forcing schools to display ‘In God We Trust’ signs



sigh.......

To be fair people in Texas don't have many options left to trust in since their politicians and police are absolute garbage...what's left


----------



## Shoeless_jose

MaxOfMetal said:


> I didn't mean it negatively. They deserve every penny until the end of time.



Oh for sure I just love to mention that anytime subject gets vaguely breached. Even better because of that episode they did with all the viral YouTube people wanting the "internet money"


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Trump supporters and conservatives: "Stop believing the lies! You're being brainwashed and need to stop listening to the media!"
> 
> Trump supporters and conservatives: Immediately believes the lies and gets brainwashed and listens to the media.



I’m not a troll. Also not a Trump supporter or on the right. I am politically a centrist. But I can attest I don’t suffer from TDS.


----------



## DrewH

Glades said:


> I’m not a troll. Also not a Trump supporter or on the right. I am politically a centrist. But I can attest I don’t suffer from TDS.


You are a centrist? Now THAT is what we call major bullshit where I come from


----------



## mmr007

guys....guys....


----------



## Glades

DrewH said:


> You are a centrist? Now THAT is what we call major bullshit where I come from


----------



## Mathemagician

DrewH said:


> You are a centrist? Now THAT is what we call major bullshit where I come from



Calling oneself centrist doesn’t make them centrist. Most people with aggressive far right-wing beliefs all think “they” are the moderate ones. The tea-party politics started ramping that up nearly 20 years ago.

I have no issue calling my beliefs progressive. Because progressivism is what makes the US so great. Improving things here is what makes everyone want to move here.


----------



## thraxil

It's also important to keep in mind just how far to the right politics in the US are shifted:



(from https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020)

I happen to think that the whole political compass thing is overly simplistic and not very useful, but if you believe in that sort of thing, Glades ought to be a Warren or Sanders supporter if you are just looking at policies.

And there's an aspect of that that's not really that surprising either. A lot of Americans actually have a very Center-Left view when it comes to individual policies and positions (an example would be how basic gun control policies consistently have like 90% approval ratings but still never get passed), but politicians and right wing media have gotten very good at painting anything to the left of Trump as extreme "radical leftist" hippie weirdo stuff. Most Americans don't see themselves that way, so they end up voting against their own interests and supporting the right wing, authoritarian corporate candidates instead.


----------



## Randy

ITT: I discover I'm a Hawkinsite


----------



## Mathemagician

There’s also the very real notion that if one’s opinions go “far enough” to the right OR to the left that they become “authoritarian”. 

Telling people what religion they *HAVE* to behave according to, requires the same control that taking away everyone someone makes and redistributing *all* of it would take. 

That’s why we don’t have 100% tax rates, and why we have freedom of religion. 

Trying to bring taxes to zero is a net negative for society the same way as having a 100% tax rate would be. 

Trying to force religion on people is way different than people having the freedom to practice for themselves. 

Real life is boring and most politics should be budget discussions. Because human rights shouldn’t be up for debate at all.


----------



## Vostre Roy

Being "centric" can also means multiple things.

You can lean hard on some right politics and left on others which will balances out in the end, but that can still be considered "extreme" viewpoints to some (example being pro life in any situation but being in favor of hard gun laws, or being in favor of universal health care but absolutely agains't any form of gun control, etc)

On the other hand, you have those who have a more moderate approach on those topics (in favor of better gun laws without removing the rights to all, right to abortions with better educations, etc.)

Trying to justify having "extreme" viewpoints by using a political compass doesn't cancel out the outrage some will have will have with a more moderate viewpoint on a certain topic in the end


----------



## bostjan

Question about the political compass graphic: If someone was a 100% anarchist, meaning that they just want to do away with all government completely and let everything just rip, where would they even fall on that graph? At the center of the bottom? In the corner? Undefined?

I guess I don't really get it. I used to love the political compass graphic, but the older I get and the more time I've spent thinking about it, the more I think it's just bunk.

Honestly, I don't see how Pence is _not_ more authoritarian (socially) than Trump. But, then again, who actually knows, since virtually everything Trump said on the campaign trail was reversed once he was elected, and he governed as though he was the same thing as Pence, I guess.

Also, how is Bill Weld so far up on the graph?! The guy's 2020 position was to legalize all drugs, legalize abortion, lower the drinking age to 18, guarantee equal rights for LGBTQ+, roll out charter schools nationwide, balance the federal budget, and said that climate change was an existential threat to humanity. That combination of planks on his platform appealed to pretty much no one. But, on the social scale, it makes no sense. Who else was ever saying to legalize all drugs? Hell, most democrats are way more shy about being pro-choice. Was it the charter school thing, or just the fact that he ran in a Republican primary that landed him there? Weird.

But that's the problem... so many people are getting laser focused on one or two, or rarely three, issues. Trump did an excellent job attracting the people who were the most upset about a particular issue in 2016. Whether it was people who were mad that their jobs were going to China or people who were upset about global terrorism or people who thought the political process was too corrupt, or whatever. It seemed like he looked at the voting population and figured out what side of each issue to take based on how many more votes it might score him, so you ended up with a guy who had formerly been a democrat, with little interest one way or the other in transgender rights, suddenly telling people that he was going to dictate where and when people could pee, because it fired up an extra handful of counties that wouldn't have otherwise cared as much about him.

And I guess that's where the idea of authoritarianism gets cloudy. I don't think a narcissist is an authoritarian, because they don't believe the head of state should determine things, they believe that *they* should determine things, so you get people who are libertarian (i.e. "let me do whatever the hell I want") when not in power, and then authoritarian (i.e. "you must do exactly what I say how I would prefer you to do it or else") when in power. A true libertarian should be saying "everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't stop anyone else from doing what they want," regardless of what it is or who is in power. A true authoritarian should be saying "everyone must do as they are told by the authority" when they are not that authority.

And I really truly think that there are very few people out there who could honestly describe their political positions either of those ways. Especially the people who nowadays describe themselves as "libertarian." This 21st century "libertarian" branded politics is just republicans who rejected the neo-con agenda of bulking up the military. The big stand against federalizing health care became the soup de jure for whatever the movement was that hijacked the term "libertarian." But those same Ted Cruz types that were happy to be called "libertarian" were the most openly against civil unions, which, IDK, to me, just indicates more authoritarian lean. And you've got tons of people you run into every day who will tell you that they are libertarian, because they believe in the constitution, or do drugs, or whatever, when that's not at all what it's about. Furthermore, there's this strange idea that wanting a smaller government is libertarianism. No, that's another axis on the graph Anarchism-vs-Bureaucracy. And I guess if you go all the way to total anarchy, none of the other axes hold meaning anymore. If you believe in no government, then it leaves nothing to speak about what that government should be like.

And on a *completely* different note - Lindsay Graham is not going to have to testify about election interference in Georgia, at least for now. Because reasons.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Honestly, I don't see how Pence is _not_ more authoritarian (socially) than Trump. But, then again, who actually knows, since virtually everything Trump said on the campaign trail was reversed once he was elected, and he governed as though he was the same thing as Pence, I guess.


This is maybe a great jumping off point to critique the graph, actually. If the spectrum is defined as "Authoritarian" to "Libertarian," then I think you've got a point, as on one axis (libertarian, I feel like I need to specify, which is another concern ) you have the belief that government should have very little role at all in regulating the lives of citizens, while on the other you have the belief that they should have a very large role. And, here, I'd say Trump very likely is less authoritarian than Pence, since Pence has a lot more of the religious right/legislating morality thing than Trump does. 

But, where I think Trump is way more authoritarian than Pence is the fact that Pence is actually somewhat bound by checks and balances and democratic processes and the will of the people, while Trump is very much an authoritarian in the sense that he recognizes no checks against his own authority. Pence would ban same sex marriage if he could, but would recognize the fact that he lost a presidential election; Trump would only ban same sex marriage if he thought it was within his personal best interest to do so, but would bend or break any law he had to if that's what it took to hold onto power. 

And all this is just a simpler version of the biggest issue with that, that these sort of charts over simplify issues by categorizing people on only two axes, and by assuming that all their views are fairly consistent as you go out on one axis. Neither of those are fair assumptions.


----------



## spudmunkey

He. Hehe. Heheheh...

*snorts*

AHAHAHA!!!

No.









Opinion: Should Joe Biden just pardon Donald Trump to heal growing political division?


Americans who support our Constitution believe that no one is above the law.




www.sandiegouniontribune.com


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> He. Hehe. Heheheh...
> 
> *snorts*
> 
> AHAHAHA!!!
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion: Should Joe Biden just pardon Donald Trump to heal growing political division?
> 
> 
> Americans who support our Constitution believe that no one is above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sandiegouniontribune.com


This is a massively complicated question. 

But, I've heard it argued, and I don't see any immediate flaws, that Ford pardoning Nixon in the interest of moving on and national healing, is a reason both that we have this culture here in the States of former high level elected federal officials being charged with crimes is somehow undemocratic and something you don't see happen outside of "banana republics" even though it happens _all the damned time_ in Europe when presidents break the law, and something that's now directly enabling Trump break the law because there's a tradition of not holding presidents accountable for their actions in the States.


----------



## nightflameauto

spudmunkey said:


> He. Hehe. Heheheh...
> 
> *snorts*
> 
> AHAHAHA!!!
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion: Should Joe Biden just pardon Donald Trump to heal growing political division?
> 
> 
> Americans who support our Constitution believe that no one is above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sandiegouniontribune.com


I've been dreading the day that starts getting floated in Republican circles because once it comes up, it's not going to go away. Sure, it's funny on the surface, until you realize some fucknugget's gonna die on that hill. Likely, multiple very LOUD fucknuggets.


----------



## Glades

One of the things I don't like of the political compass is the proclivity to show republicans higher in the authoritarian scale than democrats. This would have made a lot of sense in the GWB years and before (*cough* patriot act). But the late 2010 libertarians, modern conservatism and post-trump republicans are substantially more libertarian and less authoritarian than the current DNC. Democrats have done a lot more to expand the power and reach of the federal government. Modern conservatism is all about small-government, pull yourself by your bootstraps, anti-woke, pro-America.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> This is maybe a great jumping off point to critique the graph, actually. If the spectrum is defined as "Authoritarian" to "Libertarian," then I think you've got a point, as on one axis (libertarian, I feel like I need to specify, which is another concern ) you have the belief that government should have very little role at all in regulating the lives of citizens, while on the other you have the belief that they should have a very large role. And, here, I'd say Trump very likely is less authoritarian than Pence, since Pence has a lot more of the religious right/legislating morality thing than Trump does.
> 
> But, where I think Trump is way more authoritarian than Pence is the fact that Pence is actually somewhat bound by checks and balances and democratic processes and the will of the people, while Trump is very much an authoritarian in the sense that he recognizes no checks against his own authority. Pence would ban same sex marriage if he could, but would recognize the fact that he lost a presidential election; Trump would only ban same sex marriage if he thought it was within his personal best interest to do so, but would bend or break any law he had to if that's what it took to hold onto power.
> 
> And all this is just a simpler version of the biggest issue with that, that these sort of charts over simplify issues by categorizing people on only two axes, and by assuming that all their views are fairly consistent as you go out on one axis. Neither of those are fair assumptions.



You could play that from the other extreme as well. What if you had a candidate whose only political motivation was to represent what the majority of their constituents (not just supporters) wanted? I think they'd also fall completely undefined on the graph.

The trouble with Trump was that there was zero consistency in anything he did. He could wake up one day deciding that Kim Jong Un was his best pal, and then shortly after wake up wondering if he could just go ahead and nuke North Korea. One of the 9 most fiscally conservative people appearing on the graph, yet the first President to offer direct stimulus checks to people.

But maybe Trump should just be omitted from the graph for those sorts of reasons. If you disregard all of his flip-flopping, discount any wacko conspiracy-theory stuff, and dismiss anything he did by mistake, there is simply not enough left to judge his political position.

I guess pick any topic...

Abortion:


Trump said:


> I hate the concept of abortion, but I am strongly pro-choice.





Trump said:


> This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination. Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times.



LGBTQ:
(regarding the infamous "Bathroom Bill" -


Trump said:


> North Carolina did something that was very strong and they’re paying a big price. There’s a lot of problems. You leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go, they use the bathroom they feel is appropriate, there has been so little trouble.


(regarding Obama's negative response to the Bill above) -


Trump said:


> I believe it should be states’ rights and the state should make the decision. They’re more capable of making the decision.



 It's like he's just necessarily going to be unhappy with whatever decision is made, as long as he's not the one making the decision.


----------



## Glades

@bostjan Although I agree with you that he has had many flip flops during his presidency, the abortion example is perhaps not the best. The pre-2015 Trump was a pro-choice democrat, the 2015+ Trump is pro-life. You could attribute this to him trying to please his electorate, or having a radical change of heart, or just because his "enemies" are pro-choice therefore he must be pro-life, or just being Trump. But this change was prior his election.
People change. I know I was pro-choice a few years ago. But I think Trump just became pro-life because those attacking him were pro-choice. He's that narcissistic so I wouldnt put it past him.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> @bostjan Although I agree with you that he has had many flip flops during his presidency, the abortion example is perhaps not the best. The pre-2015 Trump was a pro-choice democrat, the 2015+ Trump is pro-life. You could attribute this to him trying to please his electorate, or having a radical change of heart, or just because his "enemies" are pro-choice therefore he must be pro-life, or just being Trump. But this change was prior his election.
> People change. I know I was pro-choice a few years ago. But I think Trump just became pro-life because those attacking him were pro-choice. He's that narcissistic so I wouldnt put it past him.


I started to write this with a bit more sarcasm in the tone, but then felt bad - Trump declared his candidacy for his election in June of 2015, and his identifying as pro-life, and promising the religious right to nominate pro-life Supreme Court justices if they'd hold their nose and vote for a serial philanderer, was either a _striking_ coincidence, or was 100% Trump's pandering for votes.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> One of the things I don't like of the political compass is the proclivity to show republicans higher in the authoritarian scale than democrats. This would have made a lot of sense in the GWB years and before (*cough* patriot act). But the late 2010 libertarians, modern conservatism and post-trump republicans are substantially more libertarian and less authoritarian than the current DNC. Democrats have done a lot more to expand the power and reach of the federal government. Modern conservatism is all about small-government, pull yourself by your bootstraps, anti-woke, pro-America.


Republicans have been limiting freedoms of Americans at every opportunity. They are not libertarians. They want to pay lower taxes and limit government spending so they can benefit from privatisation. They are limiting women's rights, they are limiting trans rights, they are limiting gay rights, they are limiting voting rights, etc. 

Protecting human rights is not authoritarian. Limiting human rights is not libertarian.


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> Republicans have been limiting freedoms of Americans at every opportunity. They are not libertarians. They want to pay lower taxes and limit government spending so they can benefit from privatisation. They are limiting women's rights, they are limiting trans rights, they are limiting gay rights, they are limiting voting rights, etc.
> 
> Protecting human rights is not authoritarian. Limiting human rights is not libertarian.


I mean, Trump campaign pledges: 

1) Build the Wall, Make Mexico Pay For it - anti-immigration policy, for one, and before you say anti-_illegal_-immigration, the concept of legal vs illegal immigration itself, aside from being relatively new in our nation's history, itself posits afederal government making decisions on who can and can't immigrate. There;s also the Trump administration's crackdown in _legal_ immigration resulting in sharp drops in immigration into this country even before Covid. These are all authoritarian driven policies
2) Ban Muslims. Same as above, just a different brown person being targeted. 
3) Repeal the ACA, replace it with "something better." A ltitle greyer, repealing a federal health care program could be seen as somewhat libertarian, though we never actually got to see what that "something better" might have been, and if it was in fact another federal health insurance program then that's still well on the authoritarian side of the coin
4) appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe vs Wade - this is rolling back federally protected rights, and eliminating a woman's right to chose, which is strongly authoritartian and anti-libertarian, in its elimination of personal choice. 

Idunno, what else did Trump campaign on that was concrete enough to evaluate as a policy proposal? 

But, the modern GOP is absolutely authoritarian. It just wants to enforce a morality you happen to agree with, so maybe you don't feel the constraints on personal freedom they're trying to force in quite the same way someone who doesn't share your religious views does.


----------



## zappatton2

This whole argument that tearing down the government institutions designed to provide a functional democracy and proper civic protections for its citizens, be they labour protections, environmental protections, civil rights protections, or basic oversight over the bad actors in the marketplace, doesn't make sense in any way.

Government isn't just "Democrats and Republicans". Government is also the tool of the people, through it's public institutions, which are public agencies, not political ones.

I know conservatives the world over have tried politicizing those institutions, or cutting funding to the point of, to paraphrase, "making government so small you could drown it in a bathtub", and those are precisely the tactics of aspiring authoritarians. They try to remove the tools citizens have to hold power to account, and turn them into personal organs of The Leader or The Party, or simply pollute them with private sector money and influence.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> I know conservatives the world over have tried politicizing those institutions, or cutting funding to the point of, to paraphrase, "making government so small you could drown it in a bathtub", and those are precisely the tactics of aspiring authoritarians.


To be fair, Grover Norquist may legitimately have been a libertarian small-government nutjob to the point of bordering on anarchy, I seem to recall reading about him having a pretty big problem with the Trump administration's perceived government overreach as well, though maybe I'm making that up.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I mean, Trump campaign pledges:
> 
> 1) Build the Wall, Make Mexico Pay For it - anti-immigration policy, for one, and before you say anti-_illegal_-immigration, the concept of legal vs illegal immigration itself, aside from being relatively new in our nation's history, itself posits afederal government making decisions on who can and can't immigrate. There;s also the Trump administration's crackdown in _legal_ immigration resulting in sharp drops in immigration into this country even before Covid. These are all authoritarian driven policies
> 2) Ban Muslims. Same as above, just a different brown person being targeted.
> 3) Repeal the ACA, replace it with "something better." A ltitle greyer, repealing a federal health care program could be seen as somewhat libertarian, though we never actually got to see what that "something better" might have been, and if it was in fact another federal health insurance program then that's still well on the authoritarian side of the coin
> 4) appoint Supreme Court Justices who will overturn Roe vs Wade - this is rolling back federally protected rights, and eliminating a woman's right to chose, which is strongly authoritartian and anti-libertarian, in its elimination of personal choice.
> 
> Idunno, what else did Trump campaign on that was concrete enough to evaluate as a policy proposal?
> 
> But, the modern GOP is absolutely authoritarian. It just wants to enforce a morality you happen to agree with, so maybe you don't feel the constraints on personal freedom they're trying to force in quite the same way someone who doesn't share your religious views does.



Pulling the troops out of the ME was another promise, which is in line with libertarian ideas, indirectly I suppose. But he took his time getting it done to the point where Biden could shoulder the blame of the pull-out not going so well.

Cutting the balls off of the EPA is a government reduction thing, but that's just generally an American conservative thing.

"Draining the swamp" with congressional term limits, and whatever, was all 100% driven by populism, the fact that Trump made absolutely no effort on any of those fronts since the day he took office pretty much tells everyone what they need to know about him.

As for 2A rights, Trump's administration prosecuted more procedural gun infringements than any other administration. Considering he served one term, that's saying something.

On a libertarian scorecard, he doesn't get a goose egg, but, objectively, he doesn't really make the Dean's list, either.

But, if you just compare Trump with Bush and, well, other Bush, he's definitely more libertarian, at least with his rhetoric. I'll probably take flack for this, since people seem to have this rosy-eyed view of Bush Jr. saving the nation from a deadly attack, but just look at the amount of privacy everyone gave up and look at the massive sacrifices our troops made all because of that man's dishonest manipulation of the circumstances. With that in the rearview, maybe Trump's attempted policies weren't so bad.

But whatever, execution-wise, Trump was a hot mess.


----------



## zappatton2

Drew said:


> To be fair, Grover Norquist may legitimately have been a libertarian small-government nutjob to the point of bordering on anarchy, I seem to recall reading about him having a pretty big problem with the Trump administration's perceived government overreach as well, though maybe I'm making that up.


I suppose I should have said "populist reactionaries" rather than "conservatives".


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> But, if you just compare Trump with Bush and, well, other Bush, he's definitely more libertarian, at least with his rhetoric. I'll probably take flack for this, since people seem to have this rosy-eyed view of Bush Jr. saving the nation from a deadly attack, but just look at the amount of privacy everyone gave up and look at the massive sacrifices our troops made all because of that man's dishonest manipulation of the circumstances. With that in the rearview, maybe Trump's attempted policies weren't so bad.


I don't know why you'd fear retribution over decrying Bush Jr. now. I remember at the time getting absolutely spit-roasted (not here) over saying I thought it was all bullshit that we had so many people clamoring to sacrifice any and all rights for the illusion of safety. I even remember saying something about how it all felt off, like we're not getting even a partial sliver of the truth. I pretty much got side-railed by long-term friends for it. Those friends haven't come back to me, even though public discourse has pretty much 180ed right to where I was at the time.

Bush Jr. was a hack. Maybe I'd hang and shoot the shit with the guy, but I was never one of the guys that thinks that should be the primary qualification for the office of President of the United States. Too many people did.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I'll probably take flack for this, since people seem to have this rosy-eyed view of Bush Jr. saving the nation from a deadly attack


I’m not sure that was W. My money is on Dick Cheney (Halliburton) and Colin Powell being the primary drivers of the US response in the ME.


----------



## mmr007

tedtan said:


> I’m not sure that was W. My money is on Dick Cheney (Halliburton) and Colin Powell being the primary drivers of the US response in the ME.


I would be doubtful it was Powell. He was one of the most vocal opponents of taking one step towards Baghdad during Desert Storm as he and the military saw it as an unwinnable quagmire to "invade" Iraq and do regime change following extracting Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It would have been Cheney and Wolfowitz and the other neocons. Bush was not a neocon. He was a doofus


----------



## Randy

__





Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## tedtan

mmr007 said:


> I would be doubtful it was Powell. He was one of the most vocal opponents of taking one step towards Baghdad during Desert Storm as he and the military saw it as an unwinnable quagmire to "invade" Iraq and do regime change following extracting Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It would have been Cheney and Wolfowitz and the other neocons. Bush was not a neocon. He was a doofus


Yeah, you’re right. I actually meant Rumsfeld but brain farted while typing.


----------



## mmr007

Powell still doesn't get off scott free. His turnaround made him the poster child for "lying bastard". He should have resigned rather than do what he did. You know you're in trouble when you are going to invade a Muslim country and the people who never served in the military pushing for it don't know the difference between a shiite and a sunni and aren't sure that it matters.

I would still count Cheney as the most despicable person to serve in government during that time so rooting for his daughter has really required some work on my part.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

mmr007 said:


> I would be doubtful it was Powell. He was one of the most vocal opponents of taking one step towards Baghdad during Desert Storm as he and the military saw it as an unwinnable quagmire to "invade" Iraq and do regime change following extracting Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It would have been Cheney and Wolfowitz and the other neocons. Bush was not a neocon. He was a doofus


The same guys with the same m.o. since Nixon years, Wolfowitz and Pearl, is the correct answer.


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

^Edit: sp., Perle


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Glades said:


> ...anti-woke, pro-America.



Funny how these two words can statistically ascertain your age, gender, demography, political leaning, and ethnicity.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I'll probably take flack for this, since people seem to have this rosy-eyed view of Bush Jr. saving the nation from a deadly attack,


Which deadly attack was this? Last I checked, more than 2,000 Americans died in 9/11. Admitted, maybe that feels like small potatoes after two years of Covid where for much of the pandemic that was the body count on a _good_ day, but the Bush adminsitration is still the one that was handed a LOT of Al Qaeda counterintelligence from the Clinton administration indicating we were at fairly high risk for some sort of attack, sat on it, and when an attack came (launched by Afghan nationals with Saudi money and passports), W. responded by... *checks notes* ...invading_ Iraq, _which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. 

Idunno, maybe there was some other attack he saved us from, and that's just why I never heard of it.


----------



## ArtDecade

MASS DEFECT said:


> Funny how these two words can statistically ascertain your age, gender, demography, political leaning, and ethnicity.


.. and IQ.


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> Which deadly attack was this? Last I checked, more than 2,000 Americans died in 9/11. Admitted, maybe that feels like small potatoes after two years of Covid where for much of the pandemic that was the body count on a _good_ day, but the Bush adminsitration is still the one that was handed a LOT of Al Qaeda counterintelligence from the Clinton administration indicating we were at fairly high risk for some sort of attack, sat on it, and when an attack came (launched by Afghan nationals with Saudi money and passports), W. responded by... *checks notes* ...invading_ Iraq, _which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
> 
> Idunno, maybe there was some other attack he saved us from, and that's just why I never heard of it.


Eisenhower warned us in 1961. It does not matter who is the president at the time of a new armed conflict, the warmongers behind the curtains always find the way to turn a profit at the cost of human lives.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Which deadly attack was this? Last I checked, more than 2,000 Americans died in 9/11. Admitted, maybe that feels like small potatoes after two years of Covid where for much of the pandemic that was the body count on a _good_ day, but the Bush adminsitration is still the one that was handed a LOT of Al Qaeda counterintelligence from the Clinton administration indicating we were at fairly high risk for some sort of attack, sat on it, and when an attack came (launched by Afghan nationals with Saudi money and passports), W. responded by... *checks notes* ...invading_ Iraq, _which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
> 
> Idunno, maybe there was some other attack he saved us from, and that's just why I never heard of it.


Of 19 hijackers, 0 were Afghan nationals. They were >75% Saudi nationals funded with >75% Saudi money, Saudi government contacts, Saudi documents, etc. It is now known that the federal government blocked the public release of information linking the attacks to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (I guess it's still a conspiracy theory to say "deliberately," but the more information comes out, the less of a stretch that seems to be becoming). The Bush administration very early claimed that the Taliban was involved, even though there has yet to be any link established. In fact, it came out in 2007 that the Taliban had even tried to warn their contacts with the State Department of the attack beforehand.

I've been saying it since before the wars even officially launched - The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both under totally false pretenses. The actual evidence all points to KSA with probably assistance from the UAE. Neither of those will ever face any sanctions or anything, though.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> the warmongers behind the curtains always find the way to turn a profit at the cost of human lives.


Nice to hear you slamming the NRA for once.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Do people have a rose-tinted glasses with Bush post 9/11? I can’t say I’ve ever caught that idea, from either side of the aisle.


----------



## nightflameauto

RevDrucifer said:


> Do people have a rose-tinted glasses with Bush post 9/11? I can’t say I’ve ever caught that idea, from either side of the aisle.


My father in law (still a staunch Fox Newsie) still asks me what weird organizations I belong to because my wife and I kept saying Bush was a fuckup as all the shit was going down post 9/11. Even at the time we both felt queasy over all the shit people just swallowed from the administration. Freedoms? Nah. GIMME SAFETY, MOMMY!

Proceed to safety theater.

Puke.


----------



## bostjan

RevDrucifer said:


> Do people have a rose-tinted glasses with Bush post 9/11? I can’t say I’ve ever caught that idea, from either side of the aisle.


I mean, he got reelected by a pretty solid margin not only after 911, but after rushing our brightest and best off to two random countries to sweat and struggle in the sand for the next however many years. Bush went from being the AWOL pilot who skated through life as the son of a president to being America's hero in white satin, and all for being your choice of either a) an inept leader who ignored warnings from high-level officials in multiple departments and then flew off to Florida to read a book to some young school children, unaware that the nation's largest city and capital were under attack, or b) something far worse than "a." 

Even in 2015, when all of the GOP Trump primary election drama was unfolding, I heard multiple people pining for the days of good ole dubya. I think, maybe ironically, it was Trump's nomination and presidency that shushed those voices.

I think it's all part of some sort of logical fallacy that's fairly common with political leaders after they cease to be in power but before the next cult-of-personality comes along. Even Nixon had tons of fans still post-Watergate-but-pre-Reagan. Once Reagan was elected, Nixon was no longer cool for those folks.


----------



## RevDrucifer

nightflameauto said:


> My father in law (still a staunch Fox Newsie) still asks me what weird organizations I belong to because my wife and I kept saying Bush was a fuckup as all the shit was going down post 9/11. Even at the time we both felt queasy over all the shit people just swallowed from the administration. Freedoms? Nah. GIMME SAFETY, MOMMY!
> 
> Proceed to safety theater.
> 
> Puke.



Hahaha that’s interesting; my father is a conversation/Trump fan and couldn’t stand Bush. It actually blew my mind he was such a fan of Trump because he used to go off about how fucking stupid Bush was I always thought of Trump as being a more charismatic (in a disturbing way) version of Bush as far as intelligence goes. 

They both remind me of people who are so out of touch with reality due to silver spoons that common sense shit isn’t common at all to them. Bush maybe a little lower down the ladder, like he’s got a sister-Mama.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Eisenhower warned us in 1961. It does not matter who is the president at the time of a new armed conflict, the warmongers behind the curtains always find the way to turn a profit at the cost of human lives.


I think Eisenhower didn't understand the beast he was describing. The military-industrial complex just became the agricultural-industrial complex, and it turns out it was never the military, it was industry that was awfully good at generating its own demand.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Of 19 hijackers, 0 were Afghan nationals. They were >75% Saudi nationals funded with >75% Saudi money, Saudi government contacts, Saudi documents, etc. It is now known that the federal government blocked the public release of information linking the attacks to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (I guess it's still a conspiracy theory to say "deliberately," but the more information comes out, the less of a stretch that seems to be becoming). The Bush administration very early claimed that the Taliban was involved, even though there has yet to be any link established. In fact, it came out in 2007 that the Taliban had even tried to warn their contacts with the State Department of the attack beforehand.
> 
> I've been saying it since before the wars even officially launched - The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were both under totally false pretenses. The actual evidence all points to KSA with probably assistance from the UAE. Neither of those will ever face any sanctions or anything, though.


My bad - they were based in Afghan, and I knew Bin Laden had a LONG history there as a freedom fighter against the Russian communists. I didn't realize he was actually a Saudi national, though. 

The war in Afghanistan was, well, should have never gone beyond a near-immediate strike to take out the Al Qaeda camp there, but even then I have a lot more sympathy for that than I do the war in Iraq. That's not MUCH sympathy, mind.  

But, the point still is that Bush blatantly went after the wrong country.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> ...I always thought of Trump as being a more charismatic (in a disturbing way) version of Bush as far as intelligence goes.


I honestly don't see them that much alike, to be perfectly honest. 

Bush was, well, probably not as stupid as is generally believed, but definitely took a more simple-than-typical view of the world than I'd expect of an American president. He also was someone I rarely agreed with, but I always felt like he was trying to do the right thing, and he and I just didn't agree what that was. 

Trump, I had zero impression at all that he was ever trying to do the right thing. He was a crude con-man, who simply wanted to extract as much personal gain as he could from the White House, at the expense of all the rest of us. W. Had a moral compass, even if I thought it was pointed the wrong way; Trump had either thrown his away decades ago, or never had one to begin with. 

Trump was a moron, too, while we're at it.


----------



## thraxil

RevDrucifer said:


> Do people have a rose-tinted glasses with Bush post 9/11? I can’t say I’ve ever caught that idea, from either side of the aisle.


You and I might not have rose-tinted glasses, but post 9/11 Bush's approval rating was sky high, the republicans were able to create the Department of Homeland Security and pass the Patriot Act with wide support from the public and both parties in Congress. Then he got re-elected in 2004. Somebody had rose-tinted glasses on.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> My bad - they were based in Afghan, and I knew Bin Laden had a LONG history there as a freedom fighter against the Russian communists. I didn't realize he was actually a Saudi national, though.
> 
> The war in Afghanistan was, well, should have never gone beyond a near-immediate strike to take out the Al Qaeda camp there, but even then I have a lot more sympathy for that than I do the war in Iraq. That's not MUCH sympathy, mind.
> 
> But, the point still is that Bush blatantly went after the wrong country.


The wrong two countries.

Since you mentioned Bin Laden - he was a Saudi intelligence officer. In Afghanistan, he specialized in training and arming the Taliban. He was trained by US special forces there. No joke. As soon as the war was done, he was reassigned to Yemen to do the same thing there. He orchestrated assassinations and indoctrination and training all as an agent of KSA's GIP. He started al Qaeda whilst still under the command of the Saudi King. Captured documents show that bin Laden started planning 911 in 1990, when he was still operating under Saudi authority. That might not be definitive, but compared to the case against Iraq and the case against Afghanistan... well, obviously something is not right.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Drew said:


> I honestly don't see them that much alike, to be perfectly honest.
> 
> Bush was, well, probably not as stupid as is generally believed, but definitely took a more simple-than-typical view of the world than I'd expect of an American president. He also was someone I rarely agreed with, but I always felt like he was trying to do the right thing, and he and I just didn't agree what that was.
> 
> Trump, I had zero impression at all that he was ever trying to do the right thing. He was a crude con-man, who simply wanted to extract as much personal gain as he could from the White House, at the expense of all the rest of us. W. Had a moral compass, even if I thought it was pointed the wrong way; Trump had either thrown his away decades ago, or never had one to begin with.
> 
> Trump was a moron, too, while we're at it.



I was speaking to the moron aspect, or maybe better put- when other countries saw a Bush or Trump speech, it didn’t make America look like it was electing it’s brightest bulbs. I can’t speak at all on Bush as far as an actual president/policies because when he was in office I couldn’t even tell you the difference between a republican or a democrat. 

Bush has always come off to me as the type that wouldn’t realize someone is screwing him over because they’re smiling to his face. Trump would be the guy smiling in the face of someone he’s getting ready to screw over, then publicly shaming them once he was finished.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The wrong two countries.
> 
> Since you mentioned Bin Laden - he was a Saudi intelligence officer. In Afghanistan, he specialized in training and arming the Taliban. He was trained by US special forces there. No joke. As soon as the war was done, he was reassigned to Yemen to do the same thing there. He orchestrated assassinations and indoctrination and training all as an agent of KSA's GIP. He started al Qaeda whilst still under the command of the Saudi King. Captured documents show that bin Laden started planning 911 in 1990, when he was still operating under Saudi authority. That might not be definitive, but compared to the case against Iraq and the case against Afghanistan... well, obviously something is not right.


It took us a LOT longer to get out of Afghanistan than Iraq, but my contemporaneous impression was that Afghanistan was an afterthought, and the main response was invading Iraq. WMDs, Powell's UN speech, the whole nine yards. 

And yeah, I thought the story of the US training the Taliban because they were useful against the Commies, and then abandoning them, was pretty well known - "Charlie Wilson's War" and all that.


----------



## zappatton2

RevDrucifer said:


> I was speaking to the moron aspect, or maybe better put- when other countries saw a Bush or Trump speech, it didn’t make America look like it was electing it’s brightest bulbs. I can’t speak at all on Bush as far as an actual president/policies because when he was in office I couldn’t even tell you the difference between a republican or a democrat.
> 
> Bush has always come off to me as the type that wouldn’t realize someone is screwing him over because they’re smiling to his face. Trump would be the guy smiling in the face of someone he’s getting ready to screw over, then publicly shaming them once he was finished.


Can validate. It was always weird to me when Trump cultists would insist Trump was making America stronger in the eyes of the world without actually consulting the eyes of the world. I'm sure a handful of autocratic regimes regarded him in a relatable light, but the rest of us went from laughing at Bush Jr. to gradually losing our sense of humour with Trump.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> My bad - they were based in Afghan, and I knew Bin Laden had a LONG history there as a freedom fighter against the Russian communists. I didn't realize he was actually a Saudi national, though.
> 
> The war in Afghanistan was, well, should have never gone beyond a near-immediate strike to take out the Al Qaeda camp there, but even then I have a lot more sympathy for that than I do the war in Iraq. That's not MUCH sympathy, mind.
> 
> But, the point still is that Bush blatantly went after the wrong country.



One problem: Taliban would've LET us kill the wackjobs if we just ASKED. And let them pose and take selfies and co-credit with us over the rubble.

As to Iraq, that was 100% Junior's (Dubya my ass, what a flimsy excuse to escape being called "junior") daddy issues.

Chimpface wanted to prove to Sr. he could finish his job for him.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

As if the average American, before or after 9/11, could tell the difference between any of the countries in the Middle East.


----------



## Adieu

MaxOfMetal said:


> As if the average American, before or after 9/11, could tell the difference between any of the countries in the Middle East.



Simple: Afghanistan isn't even IN IT


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Adieu said:


> Simple: Afghanistan isn't even IN IT



Don't worry, Bush2 took care of that too. 









Greater Middle East - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## StevenC

I can't believe we've gotten 1048 pages into a thread about US politics without mentioning sun cults and Spelly's War


----------



## mastapimp

StevenC said:


> I can't believe we've gotten 1048 pages into a thread about US politics without mentioning sun cults and Spelly's War


You must have been hibernating during the MetalHex era
https://www.sevenstring.org/threads...sts-shaping-world-events.335992/#post-5003793

*edit* NM i see you replied a few posts later, lol


----------



## Drew

mastapimp said:


> You must have been hibernating during the MetalHex era
> https://www.sevenstring.org/threads...sts-shaping-world-events.335992/#post-5003793
> 
> *edit* NM i see you replied a few posts later, lol


Oh jesus, I forgot all about that.


----------



## Glades

Not gonna lie. As great as Desantis is a governor, this ad is pretty “cringe” (as Gen Zers say)


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> Not gonna lie. As great as Desantis is a governor, this ad is pretty “cringe” (as Gen Zers say)



Not any more cringe than calling Desantis a great governor.


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> Not any more cringe than calling Desantis a great governor.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Not gonna lie. As great as Desantis is a governor, this ad is pretty “cringe” (as Gen Zers say)



Two things ironic about this:

1. "Taking on the corporate media" by airing a campaign ad on corporate media. Yeah, you owned them Ron! Great job!
2. Ron cares about the facts, because... he interrupted that report that one time to say something something false narrative. Forget about what the reporter was asking or what any of the narrative was or whether or not it was accurate. (The reporter asked about the so-called "Don't Say Gay Bill," and when Desantis got combative, the reporter started actually reading the bill itself just before the clip shown in the ad occured.)


----------



## mmr007

Am I the only one that thinks that dude has serial killer eyes?


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> Am I the only one that thinks that dude has serial killer eyes?


So what you're saying is that everyone better vote for him to stay on his good side, right?


----------



## ArtDecade

spudmunkey said:


> So what you're saying is that everyone better vote for him to stay on his good side, right?


Nah. I think he wants to see him put in high security prison to eliminate the risk to society.


----------



## Glades

mmr007 said:


> Am I the only one that thinks that dude has serial killer eyes?


I don’t know about his eyes, but I feel his EARS have tripled in size since his Jag days.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> Not gonna lie. As great as Desantis is a governor, this ad is pretty “cringe” (as Gen Zers say)



There's things that make you go, hm.
There's things that make you go, ah.
There's things that make you go, what?

And then there's this. I don't think I've even heard the standard issue Trump cultists claim Desantis is a great Governor. Unless the primary goal of a Governor is being super embarrassingly, painfully out of touch with reality. He's pretty spectacular at that!


----------



## Xaios

As loathsome as I find DeSantis, his personal appearance isn't really fair game for criticism. There are plenty of other areas that he fully deserves to be criticized heavily without having to dig so deep to attack something so shallow. It's not like Trump where his chosen appearance as the anti-Tobias Funke was a direct reflection of the same vanity which caused him to act like such a jackass.


----------



## StevenC

Ron DeSantis would be a fucking monster even with a bag over his head.


----------



## Metalman X

StevenC said:


> Ron DeSantis would be a fucking monster even with a bag over his head.


well, I mean, he might have one of these lying around?


----------



## Metalman X

This one could be a fun alternative for him


----------



## Masoo2

101st anniversary


----------



## narad

Also Glades' anti abortion arguments about science weighing in on when life begins just got blown way up:









Mouse embryos grown without eggs or sperm: why, and what’s next?


Two research teams grew synthetic embryos using stem cells for long enough to see some organs develop.




www.nature.com


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> Also Glades' anti abortion arguments about science weighing in on when life begins just got blown way up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mouse embryos grown without eggs or sperm: why, and what’s next?
> 
> 
> Two research teams grew synthetic embryos using stem cells for long enough to see some organs develop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nature.com


You mean that the question of "when does life begin?", i.e. when does a living human egg cell and a living human sperm cell become a living human organism, might not be a meaningful question after all?


----------



## narad

Worthwhile: Why does life begin?
Not worthwhile: When does life begin?

But yea, I didn't think to see any interesting science news that would so readily dismiss a lot of the assumptions thrown around in the "life begins at conception" stuff. Like hey, we just immaculate conceptioned a mouse. Where is your sperm meets egg now!?


----------



## Drew

Huh. That's fascinating, @narad


----------



## Ralyks

Any thoughts on the redacted affidavit to search Mar-a-lago being released?


----------



## thraxil

Ralyks said:


> Any thoughts on the redacted affidavit to search Mar-a-lago being released?


  
 
    the  .


  .


----------



## spudmunkey

Close.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

spudmunkey said:


> Close.
> 
> 
> View attachment 113321



"hamberders"


----------



## Ralyks

MASS DEFECT said:


> "hamberders"


Covfefe


----------



## mmr007

Russian-Speaking Immigrant Allegedly Entered Mar-A-Lago Using Fake Identity, Met With Trump, Report Says


The woman reportedly claimed she was a member of the Rothschild banking dynasty and dazzled members of Trump's inner circle with fanciful stories of growing up in Monaco.




www.forbes.com





Why cant the feds just confiscate mar a lago? They do it all the time with cars boats and houses of other criminal enterprises.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Any thoughts on the redacted affidavit to search Mar-a-lago being released?


Couple quick hits: 

1) the affidavit is very careful to point out that violating the Espionage Act doesn't actually require information to be classified, just that it be dangerous to the US or helpful to our enemies. This makes all of Trump's subsequent song-and-dance about standing declassification orders weirdly beside the point. 

2) The affidavit notes that after considerable negotiation, the Trump team handed over a collection of documents that held something obscene like 120 TS/SCI files, which they were NOT expecting, and in the process of doing so they became concerned that Trump may have been lying and this was not the full collection (which proved true, and I believe was the basis of the obstruction of justice the affidavit posited may have happened). This is a pretty strong basis for the raid, and also neatly undercuts Trump's initial suggestions that anything he shouldn't have had might have been planted by investigators. 

3) Not my own observation, but one with merit I think - a Bloomberg Opinion politics correspondent noted that a lot of Trump's closest allies were weirdly quiet after the affidavit was released, hypothesizing this might point to limits of support. I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think it suggests that even they think it's tough to defend Trump here, that the raid appears to have occurred on a strong basis, and if you're going to try to defend Trump maybe this isn't the territory you choose to mount your defense. 

All in, I think from a purely Bayesian standpoint it's hard to not think the likelihood of Trump ending up in an orange jumpsuit has risen, conditioned on what we've seen in the affidavit - he's got a reputation for being able to weasel his way out of responsibility for actions, but escaping political consequences when 35% of the country thinks you're the Second Coming is one thing; evading legal consequences in the face of what's starting to look like it may be pretty clear evidence of pretty serious lawbreaking is going to be a lot harder (and I continue to think the Georgia case is the one where his risk is the greatest, even after this).


----------



## Glades

It’s gonna be interesting to see who will be held responsible if they determine wrong-doing. Probably a staffer.


----------



## mmr007

Trump (2016 onward) "I would love to release my taxes but I am under audit" (citing non-existent rule)

Trump (2022) " I am (was) president (depending on who you ask). I can declassify anything I want at any time so long as it isn't my taxes".

I still have no evidence Garland has grown a pair so I see no reason to believe DOJ is ensuring they have an orange jumpsuit in size extra fat on standby


----------



## Glades

US evacuating embassy in Baghdad. Things are getting spicy in Iraq


----------



## RevDrucifer

For shits and giggles I visited the conspiracy theory forum I use to frequent before it went pro-Trump a few years back. 

Once I got to “Trump is working WITH the FBI to rid our system of corruption” in regards to the classified material he had, I bailed. While nanobots with GPS tracking and German server farm raids were hilarious a little while back, I can’t devolve my brain that fast to lessen the impact of “WTF” to make it through more than one post over there.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> It’s gonna be interesting to see who will be held responsible if they determine wrong-doing. Probably a staffer.


Is it my imagine that I'm reading in this comment no serious doubt that Trump has probably broken a law here, but that he'll succeed in making someone else take the fall for it?


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> Is it my imagine that I'm reading in this comment no serious doubt that Trump has probably broken a law here, but that he'll succeed in making someone else take the fall for it?


The rich and famous don’t go to jail. Jail is for normies like you and I.


----------



## Adieu

Glades said:


> US evacuating embassy in Baghdad. Things are getting spicy in Iraq



Serious question: why the hell would we want an embassy in Baghdad? Have we learned NOTHING over the years?

Leave and let those people be.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The rich and famous don’t go to jail. Jail is for normies like you and I.


That didn't answer my question.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Serious question: why the hell would we want an embassy in Baghdad? Have we learned NOTHING over the years?
> 
> Leave and let those people be.


We have embassies in the capitals of all countries we have diplomatic relationships with. 

This sounds like an internal matter though, and not anything having to do with the US - sounds like we're just keeping our guys from becoming collateral damage.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> We have embassies in the capitals of all countries we have diplomatic relationships with.


It is just a dated idea. Send a link for a Zoom call and call it a day.


----------



## Crungy

Is a Zoom call effective enough to have fingers in all of the pies though?


----------



## Ralyks

Honestly, I could see Trump not going to jail, but being convicted in such a manor that he can't hold any government position ever again.


----------



## ArtDecade

Ralyks said:


> Honestly, I could see Trump not going to jail, but being convicted in such a manor that he can't hold any government position ever again.


Or maybe even pardoned by Biden - with the caveat that he piss off into the sunset never to be seen again. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## mastapimp

ArtDecade said:


> Or maybe even pardoned by Biden - with the caveat that he piss off into the sunset never to be seen again. Stranger things have happened.


I could envision a scenario pre-sentencing where he comes back with a new physical assessment where he's lost 3 inches of height, gained 70 lbs, has low T (and any other affliction to downplay his previously superior manliness) in hopes of getting some kind of medical leniency. If he just shows up without the combover and spray tan, that might be enough to convince the judge that he's falling apart.


----------



## MFB

mastapimp said:


> I could envision a scenario pre-sentencing where he comes back with a new physical assessment where he's lost 3 inches of height, gained 70 lbs, has low T (and any other affliction to downplay his previously superior manliness) in hopes of getting some kind of medical leniency. If he just shows up without the combover and spray tan, that might be enough to convince the judge that he's falling apart.



It's OK, maybe we can get him some new Nugenix Total T, and here to tell you more about it is my friend Frank "The Tank" Thomas; Frank, take it away!


----------



## RevDrucifer

Glades said:


> The rich and famous don’t go to jail. Jail is for normies like you and I.



I think that’s something everyone here can agree on.


----------



## Mathemagician

bostjan said:


> You mean that the question of "when does life begin?", i.e. when does a living human egg cell and a living human sperm cell become a living human organism, might not be a meaningful question after all?



Please tell me you drew that yourself in paint. 



narad said:


> Worthwhile: Why does life begin?
> Not worthwhile: When does life begin?
> 
> But yea, I didn't think to see any interesting science news that would so readily dismiss a lot of the assumptions thrown around in the "life begins at conception" stuff. Like hey, we just immaculate conceptioned a mouse. Where is your sperm meets egg now!?



Just just gave them evidence that Jesus was immaculately conceptioned. Ultimate backfire.


----------



## nightflameauto

Mathemagician said:


> Please tell me you drew that yourself in paint.
> 
> 
> 
> Just just gave them evidence that Jesus was immaculately conceptioned. Ultimate backfire.


Please pardon the completely off-topic, caffeine fueled rant:


Spoiler



Some questions, since the wife and I just restarted the Prophecy movies for the billionth time this weekend.

Was Jesus an immaculate conception? Even the most egregiously simplified version of the story has God sending an angel to do the deed. Hell of a job that. Go kill and bunch of shit and, hey, play your cards right. We got this virgin we're gonna send ya to impregnate if you win the lottery and happen to be available that day.

So, do Nephilim develop faster or slower than human-human babies? If so, at what point would they be considered "alive?" Would it be when they have thoughts? When they have the ability to survive outside the womb? When they start manifesting their powers?

And why the FUCK does nobody talk about the fact that Jesus was a Nephilim? And was Mary still technically a virgin after gettin' popped by a wing bearer? Do we not count cross-species boinking in virgin status?

This is the type of shit the bible doesn't address and the church is loathe to get into. Come on! You want modern followers, this is what you need to address! Ain't nobody from the "give me a real reason" generation gonna join a church that ain't gonna address Nephilim Zombie Jesus. Sheeit. Hollywood ain't even done a Nephilim Zombie movie yet. There's whole acres of creative potential just sitting there and nobody touches it! The church is literally sitting on a licensing goldmine and just ignoring that shit!


So ends today's caffeinated old man rant.


----------



## mastapimp

MFB said:


> It's OK, maybe we can get him some new Nugenix Total T, and here to tell you more about it is my friend Frank "The Big Hurt" Thomas; Frank, take it away!


FIFY


----------



## MFB

mastapimp said:


> FIFY



FUCK! I was so close!


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Please pardon the completely off-topic, caffeine fueled rant:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Some questions, since the wife and I just restarted the Prophecy movies for the billionth time this weekend.
> 
> Was Jesus an immaculate conception? Even the most egregiously simplified version of the story has God sending an angel to do the deed. Hell of a job that. Go kill and bunch of shit and, hey, play your cards right. We got this virgin we're gonna send ya to impregnate if you win the lottery and happen to be available that day.
> 
> So, do Nephilim develop faster or slower than human-human babies? If so, at what point would they be considered "alive?" Would it be when they have thoughts? When they have the ability to survive outside the womb? When they start manifesting their powers?
> 
> And why the FUCK does nobody talk about the fact that Jesus was a Nephilim? And was Mary still technically a virgin after gettin' popped by a wing bearer? Do we not count cross-species boinking in virgin status?
> 
> This is the type of shit the bible doesn't address and the church is loathe to get into. Come on! You want modern followers, this is what you need to address! Ain't nobody from the "give me a real reason" generation gonna join a church that ain't gonna address Nephilim Zombie Jesus. Sheeit. Hollywood ain't even done a Nephilim Zombie movie yet. There's whole acres of creative potential just sitting there and nobody touches it! The church is literally sitting on a licensing goldmine and just ignoring that shit!
> 
> 
> So ends today's caffeinated old man rant.


Spoiler alert!



Spoiler



The real truth is


Spoiler



that all of that stuff in all of those holy scriptures is made up, and in order to make up a better story, you'd have to start a new religion all over again.






@Mathemagician : MS Paint is too good for that level of finger-drawing!


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Spoiler alert!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The real truth is
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> that all of that stuff in all of those holy scriptures is made up, and in order to make up a better story, you'd have to start a new religion all over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Mathemagician : MS Paint is too good for that level of finger-drawing!


Well, sure, but I was just trying to give the Christians a new path to travel within the framework their religion already has laid out. Don't confuse them with the fact it's all fairytales.


----------



## nightflameauto

In more enlightening news, and yes, the link to this site in particular is funny to me:








Trump's social media app facing financial fallout


Truth Social is locked in a bitter battle with one of its vendors claiming that the platform is stiffing the company out of some contractually obligated payments.




www.foxbusiness.com





LO LO LO LO LO LO (<-That sounded like a gallop.)

I find this hilarious. For how low-traffic Truth seems to be, it'd be absolutely hysterical if Trump still didn't / couldn't pay the bills for it.


----------



## Crungy

"These people say RightForge contends that Truth Social has made just three payments and ceased making any payments since around March. RightForge claims that Truth Social owes it around $1.6 million and is threatening legal action to recoup the money, these people add."

trump not paying bills? I declare! 

Also, I've never seen so many "these people" in a short article. Did the author get a degree at trump University?


----------



## nightflameauto

Crungy said:


> "These people say RightForge contends that Truth Social has made just three payments and ceased making any payments since around March. RightForge claims that Truth Social owes it around $1.6 million and is threatening legal action to recoup the money, these people add."
> 
> trump not paying bills? I declare!
> 
> Also, I've never seen so many "these people" in a short article. Did the author get a degree at trump University?


It was posted on Fox Business.


----------



## Drew

Crungy said:


> "These people say RightForge contends that Truth Social has made just three payments and ceased making any payments since around March. RightForge claims that Truth Social owes it around $1.6 million and is threatening legal action to recoup the money, these people add."
> 
> trump not paying bills? I declare!
> 
> Also, I've never seen so many "these people" in a short article. Did the author get a degree at trump University?


Apple doesn't fall far from the pear tree, eh?

Still, bold of Trump to stiff his last remaining platform, while the FBI is circling closer.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> Or maybe even pardoned by Biden - with the caveat that he piss off into the sunset never to be seen again. Stranger things have happened.


Trump is almost genetically incapable of doing that, though. 

And considering the "we don't prosecute former leaders for their crimes" thing is a uniquely American thing, the rest of the developed world has no qualms about doing the same, and in many ways the precedent set by Nixon is directly enabling Trump, I can't see a guy Trump calls "Sleepy Joe" and who Trump still hasn't conceded the 2020 election to granting him a presidential pardon. Setting the alternate precedent that no one, presidents included, is above the law is FAR more important for democracy, I think.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Well, sure, but I was just trying to give the Christians a new path to travel within the framework their religion already has laid out. Don't confuse them with the fact it's all fairytales.





Spoiler



What if...


Spoiler



Don't click this if you are sensitive


Spoiler



Seriously, this is incredibly stupid...


Spoiler



I warned you!


Spoiler



Jesus was a messenger sent by God to bring back more souls for Him to devour?

Think about it - "heaven is just the status of being one with God." "Hell is merely eternal separation from God." I read the New Testament, and I'm picturing God like he's going through a bargain bag of pistachios on judgement day. "This one is yummy. Eeww, this one looks gross. Mmm, this one looks yummy..." Just tossing people's spirits either into his gaping maw (St. Peter's Gate) or into the rubbish bin (Lake of Fire). All you have to do to be considered is pledge your soul to Him.

I mean, Satan in the Bible never asks anyone for their soul. He only wants to turn them away from God and onto a path of self-discovery. In the Book of Genesis, all he wants is for Adam and Eve to have knowledge. In the Book of Job, all he wants is for Job to admit that God is kind of a jerk for, like, murdering his family and stuff.

I don't, of course, believe any of that, but, if you read the Bible stories more objectively, you could see them from that angle. Humans are screwed either way, and the beings that hold the real power in the universe are just sadistic. It falls in line with most general observations of life. If God were some benevolent omnipotent being, then why would He allow thinks like the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Black Death, etc. to have happened? To teach us to have faith?! Faith in what? Faith in the fact that the universe is a dick to children, and that some cosmic being is steering that? Why would anyone want to believe that? Sure, there are lots of great times, too, which makes it all the more puzzling. Like, baby boomers, born after WWII in the USA into the strongest economy maybe ever and the most comfortable lifestyle, they don't need to learn the same faith-lesson people had to learn in 1300 AD?

Anyway, I rant, and literally no one wants to hear it...















I'll believe Trump even has a cookable goose when the time comes and he faces any real repercussions for anything. We've been doing a rain-dance around the drain for the better part of a decade now, pointing at how his ship _has _to go down, but nothing happens. And it's not just Trump, it's all people at that level. They are nigh invincible. What if they find out that he *gasp* had documents he wasn't supposed to have in his personal home? Well, duh, we already know he did. Nothing will happen. Republicans will point at it and scream "witch hunt," like they always do whenever an investigation turns up what everyone already knows. Democrats will cry foul, but the DOJ will do nothing, because money and power. Trump probably doesn't even have money, but he doesn't need it. He has people brainwashed to do anything for him, and that's worth more than all of the money. Liz Cheney thought she had power, and maybe she does have quite a bit, but it's not enough to take a shot at Don Trump. The people running the investigation into these documents are far less powerful. Even if they are granted power from some dark corner of Washington, what's the end game? Charge him with being a massive hypocrite? No, we can't do that, because it'd mean that every other name in Washington would be indicted too.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> What if...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Don't click this if you are sensitive
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, this is incredibly stupid...
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I warned you!
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was a messenger sent by God to bring back more souls for Him to devour?
> 
> Think about it - "heaven is just the status of being one with God." "Hell is merely eternal separation from God." I read the New Testament, and I'm picturing God like he's going through a bargain bag of pistachios on judgement day. "This one is yummy. Eeww, this one looks gross. Mmm, this one looks yummy..." Just tossing people's spirits either into his gaping maw (St. Peter's Gate) or into the rubbish bin (Lake of Fire). All you have to do to be considered is pledge your soul to Him.
> 
> I mean, Satan in the Bible never asks anyone for their soul. He only wants to turn them away from God and onto a path of self-discovery. In the Book of Genesis, all he wants is for Adam and Eve to have knowledge. In the Book of Job, all he wants is for Job to admit that God is kind of a jerk for, like, murdering his family and stuff.
> 
> I don't, of course, believe any of that, but, if you read the Bible stories more objectively, you could see them from that angle. Humans are screwed either way, and the beings that hold the real power in the universe are just sadistic. It falls in line with most general observations of life. If God were some benevolent omnipotent being, then why would He allow thinks like the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Black Death, etc. to have happened? To teach us to have faith?! Faith in what? Faith in the fact that the universe is a dick to children, and that some cosmic being is steering that? Why would anyone want to believe that? Sure, there are lots of great times, too, which makes it all the more puzzling. Like, baby boomers, born after WWII in the USA into the strongest economy maybe ever and the most comfortable lifestyle, they don't need to learn the same faith-lesson people had to learn in 1300 AD?
> 
> Anyway, I rant, and literally no one wants to hear it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll believe Trump even has a cookable goose when the time comes and he faces any real repercussions for anything. We've been doing a rain-dance around the drain for the better part of a decade now, pointing at how his ship _has _to go down, but nothing happens. And it's not just Trump, it's all people at that level. They are nigh invincible. What if they find out that he *gasp* had documents he wasn't supposed to have in his personal home? Well, duh, we already know he did. Nothing will happen. Republicans will point at it and scream "witch hunt," like they always do whenever an investigation turns up what everyone already knows. Democrats will cry foul, but the DOJ will do nothing, because money and power. Trump probably doesn't even have money, but he doesn't need it. He has people brainwashed to do anything for him, and that's worth more than all of the money. Liz Cheney thought she had power, and maybe she does have quite a bit, but it's not enough to take a shot at Don Trump. The people running the investigation into these documents are far less powerful. Even if they are granted power from some dark corner of Washington, what's the end game? Charge him with being a massive hypocrite? No, we can't do that, because it'd mean that every other name in Washington would be indicted too.


I won't spoiler wrap that deep, but:


Spoiler



I wish more people read the bible and tried to get to that level of discernment. I take an alt-path where I mix what's in the bible with the "God" and "Devil" as the big business churches like to claim they are. So God's an egotistical prick that's bought his own bullshit and the Devil is his rebellious son that's sick of his crap.

Which is slowly weaving its way into my books. I've started declaring them my "old man manifesto." With the caveat that I don't advocate blowing anything up in them. Unless you mean figurative. I blow up a lot of shit figuratively.



Yeah, I can't imagine there's any version of the universe we exist in where Trump's ever gonna get anymore than a little public chiding about his behavior. Perhaps we'll see him roasted on Comedy Central for the January 6th butthurtserrection in twenty years or so? Can't imagine there will ever be real consequences.

We may see a few more of his surrounding posse go down, but not him.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I won't spoiler wrap that deep, but:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I wish more people read the bible and tried to get to that level of discernment. I take an alt-path where I mix what's in the bible with the "God" and "Devil" as the big business churches like to claim they are. So God's an egotistical prick that's bought his own bullshit and the Devil is his rebellious son that's sick of his crap.
> 
> Which is slowly weaving its way into my books. I've started declaring them my "old man manifesto." With the caveat that I don't advocate blowing anything up in them. Unless you mean figurative. I blow up a lot of shit figuratively.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I can't imagine there's any version of the universe we exist in where Trump's ever gonna get anymore than a little public chiding about his behavior. Perhaps we'll see him roasted on Comedy Central for the January 6th butthurtserrection in twenty years or so? Can't imagine there will ever be real consequences.
> 
> We may see a few more of his surrounding posse go down, but not him.


Trump is in his 70s, and is a lazy fuck who thinks his hearty has a finite number of beats so he doesn't want to waste any on any needless exercise. I give him approximately 0% chance of being roasted in person 20 years from now.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Trump is in his 70s, and is a lazy fuck who thinks his hearty has a finite number of beats so he doesn't want to waste any on any needless exercise. I give him approximately 0% chance of being roasted in person 20 years from now.


Fair.

Maybe it'll be a tenth anniversary of his death?


----------



## Drew




----------



## vilk

God damn it dude, this isn't gonna help democrats at all.









Joe Biden pledges to ban assault weapons if Democrats control Congress after midterms


US president hails passage of Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and tells Maryland crowd: ‘I promise you, we’re not stopping there’




www.independent.co.uk





Had to go with guns? Couldn't have gone with weed? jfc


----------



## nightflameauto

vilk said:


> God damn it dude, this isn't gonna help democrats at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Biden pledges to ban assault weapons if Democrats control Congress after midterms
> 
> 
> US president hails passage of Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and tells Maryland crowd: ‘I promise you, we’re not stopping there’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had to go with guns? Couldn't have gone with weed? jfc


Clearly, Biden's tired and ready for a break.

You don't say shit like that publicly if you want to remain in office. Sad as it is, while it may play to a very vocal part of his own base, it's gonna make the fence-sitters run screaming the other direction hard and fast.

Sigh.


----------



## zappatton2

It's weird to me that banning assault weapons is seen as "extreme". Especially in contrast to striking down nationally protected abortion rights, which actually _is _extreme, and has the affect of serious curbing real actual civil rights, and not just that weird "right to arms" thing that only seems to exist in the States, and gets taken out of context on its own merits. But what do I know?


----------



## StevenC

zappatton2 said:


> It's weird to me that banning assault weapons is seen as "extreme". Especially in contrast to striking down nationally protected abortion rights, which actually _is _extreme, and has the affect of serious curbing real actual civil rights, and not just that weird "right to arms" thing that only seems to exist in the States, and gets taken out of context on its own merits. But what do I know?


Especially when an overwhelming majority supposedly supports gun control legislation.


----------



## tedtan

zappatton2 said:


> It's weird to me that banning assault weapons is seen as "extreme". Especially in contrast to striking down nationally protected abortion rights, which actually _is _extreme, and has the affect of serious curbing real actual civil rights, and not just that weird "right to arms" thing that only seems to exist in the States, and gets taken out of context on its own merits. But what do I know?


It’s ”extreme” in the sense that some democrats are for banning them, some are on the fence, and some are against; meanwhile, all republicans are against. So its not necessarily that it is extreme in and of itself, but rather that it doesn’t have a shot at actually passing any vote containing language banning them.


----------



## narad

Well it's back to school season


----------



## zappatton2

I dunno, the Repubs have been swinging for the fences, pushing every illiberal fetish and fantasy from their greatest hits collection, and actually moving the needle in their direction, despite the objections of the general population.

Maybe instead of wringing their hands every time another mass shooting claims innocent lives, the Democrats could start getting bolder with their proposals and policy goals. I get that folks seem to love their guns, but a lot of Americans want real change on that file too, and assault weapons are not _all _guns, just ones that can take out a large number of people in a short amount of time (and let's face it, from a "home protection" perspective, not many folks are having their precious belongings stolen by roaming armies).

And a lot of people's malaise with the Democrats is their tepid approach to government and policy ideas that actually motivate people to believe they actually care about governing and ushering in some real change.


----------



## Randy

Fuck this shit.









Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban


The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.




www.newsweek.com


----------



## bostjan

I know a lot of opponents of this sort of thing will rightfully point out that "assault weapons" is a silly term. If it's equivalent to the Clinton-era weapons restrictions, then I emphatically say "good."

But I do wonder how effective round 2 of such a thing would be. Round 1 came at a time before everybody had an AR15. Now that they are fairly ubiquitous amongst gun advocates, what happens to the ones already in circulation? If nothing, will it still have the desired effect of reducing mass shootings?

IDK, honestly, either way (how it's handled), the issue needs to be addressed. Just continuing to pretend that the USA has an open season for shooting people isn't going to work. If Biden ends up being the guy who gets the credit for pulling off gun control reform, that's fine by me.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Fuck this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
> 
> 
> The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


Which part?

It sounds like the ban on charging of electric cars is more of a suggestion to keep people from overloading the grid.

If you are pointing out how, 10 years from now, the California electric grid will still be a mess, and that drivers will be forced to rely on something unreliable for transportation, yes. But it's nothing new. Try taking a bus in any mid-level city. The stupid things are maybe only 50% likely to even bother to show up at their stop at all, and if they do, better leave a ± 20 minute window in case they are too early or too late.

These things _usually _tend to self-correct. So, as 2035 gets closer, California will scramble to update their grid, run out of money, fail, and then eventually give up on the gasoline ban, I figure. It's a nice sentiment, but poorly thought out. Maybe they'll prove me wrong.


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Fuck this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
> 
> 
> The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com


Neat.

Our government once again going to bat for us. LOL.

And while I agree that I'd like to see the Democrats espouse some policy to get behind, any attempt to tackle the gun problem head-on is not just a non-starter, it'll send the center of the country into an absolute tailspin of stupid. It's just fodder for the Republican narrative, "The Democrats want to take all our guns." And sadly, all you have to do is whisper that around here to get three hours of Democrat hate from the usual Republican crowd before they wear down and have to resupply their beer kegs and fast-food.


----------



## CapinCripes

I like how Republicans are more concerned with small inconveniences such as higher taxes for the wealthy so that people struggling have more robust social programs, rather than the grave existential threat that their guy was.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Clearly, Biden's tired and ready for a break.
> 
> You don't say shit like that publicly if you want to remain in office. Sad as it is, while it may play to a very vocal part of his own base, it's gonna make the fence-sitters run screaming the other direction hard and fast.
> 
> Sigh.


Idunno. I'd agree this is a gamble, but I'm not sure exactly how bad politics this actually is. Couple reasons, and I fully admit some of these are getting into inside baseball territory. 

First off, despite what the Republican House and Senate leadership, and the NRA, might want you to believe, stricter gun regulation in SOME form is an issue with broad bipartisan support in America; most Americans think we need at least somewhat more gun regulation than we have now. Even the most die hard gun nuts and the NRA themselves don't really have an answer for the fact the Second Amendment itself directly references regulation, except for perhaps to try to pretend it doesn't. The fact this bill passed with bipartisan support should be proof enough. From there to an "assault rifle" ban is a more challenging step, but I think it's doable. 

Cynical point - today is, at least here in MA, back to school day for most public school districts. If Biden's comments trigger a GOP backlash and someone like DeSantis comes out saying he'd never support an assault rifle ban, and then on monday morning some kid shoots up a Florida school with an AR-15, I think this is going to suddenly look like a winning position for the Democrats. 

Less cynical point - a lot of the GOP's gains in Texas and Florida have come by reaching out to Latinx voters. Gun violence, especially in the wake of Uvalde, is a potential wedge issue; Latinx voters own guns at a lower rate, generally are more concerned about gun violence, and are much more supportive of additional gun regulation than the population as a whole: 









Fewer than one in five U.S. Latinos keep guns in their homes, Axios-Ipsos Latino poll finds


About 93% of the Latino adults surveyed said they support requiring background checks for gun purchases.




www.axios.com





Abortion is a trickier wedge issue given that Latinx voters also tend to be more religious, though even then the sort of total abortion bans the GOP is now pushing are wildly unpopular with even religious voters. But, gun violence, is a VERY winnable wedge issue for Democrats, and by prompting GOP frontrunners to take more extreme gun positions of their own, this could be an issue and a stance that effectively blocks Republican gains amongst Latinx voters in swing states. 

I doubt this was an accident. If I'm right, it's a pretty interesting move.


----------



## Glades

Randy said:


> Fuck this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
> 
> 
> The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com



California makes ZERO sense.

1) Incoming heatwave has officials asking residents to keep their ACs at home at 78 because the grid can’t handle the energy demand. 



https://amp.sanluisobispo.com/news/california/article265113124.html



2) Let’s ban the sale of ICEs!

How about we develop a power grid that can handle charging of EVs? Or EVs that Americans can actually afford? Or EVs that a mechanic can work on and repair? Or an EV that doesn’t cost $30k to change the batteries.

The technology is not there. The infrastructure is not there.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Which part?
> 
> It sounds like the ban on charging of electric cars is more of a suggestion to keep people from overloading the grid.



Exactly this. We're not "told not to". It's just like how another state might say "there's a storm coming, so stay off the roads if you can help it, since the plows can't keep up."

If you gotta, you gotta, and nobody's stopping you.

FWIW, All new residential construction in California is required to have solar, so in theory, the localized production (and storage) should help reduce demand on "the grid" during the peak-usage times.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> California makes ZERO sense.
> 
> 1) Incoming heatwave has officials asking residents to keep their ACs at home at 78 because the grid can’t handle the energy demand.
> 
> 
> 
> https://amp.sanluisobispo.com/news/california/article265113124.html
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Let’s ban the sale of ICEs!
> 
> How about we develop a power grid that can handle charging of EVs? Or EVs that Americans can actually afford? Or EVs that a mechanic can work on and repair? Or an EV that doesn’t cost $30k to change the batteries.
> 
> The technology is not there. The infrastructure is not there.


Great news, then, that the Inflation Reduction Act includes significant investments and tax credits for grid modernization, and for EVs, amirite?!?


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Glades said:


> California makes ZERO sense.
> 
> 1) Incoming heatwave has officials asking residents to keep their ACs at home at 78 because the grid can’t handle the energy demand.
> 
> 
> 
> https://amp.sanluisobispo.com/news/california/article265113124.html
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Let’s ban the sale of ICEs!
> 
> How about we develop a power grid that can handle charging of EVs? Or EVs that Americans can actually afford? Or EVs that a mechanic can work on and repair? Or an EV that doesn’t cost $30k to change the batteries.
> 
> The technology is not there. The infrastructure is not there.



Meh. It's 13 years away. A lot has happened in EV tech in the last two years and it has become significantly cheaper to produce. 

Californians don't go more than 40 miles on average in a day. Say you have a cheap EV (Toyota, Nissan) than can go 200 miles on a charge, you won't need to charge for two days. And you can trickle slow charge at home during the night which is more efficient than your refrigerator. Fords can power your house for two days on a charge as well. If you want to not stress the grid. They can even give power back to the grid.

Charging EVs will not stress the power grid. They take power efficiently. 

I'm more concerned with spontaneous combustion in garages from unplugged EVs. hahaha


----------



## spudmunkey

MASS DEFECT said:


> I'm more concerned with spontaneous combustion in garages from unplugged EVs. hahaha



Indeed, when an EV goes, it *goes*, but gas cars are *way* WAY more likely to suddenly catch fire in the first place. Since my first car in 1995, I've owned four cars that had recalls due to house-fire-and-death-causing issues. From fuel leaking onto hot exhaust to ignition system shorts, there are all sorts of ways cars catch fire, and it's SO common, it never makes the news. Someone dies in a car fire, on average, every single day, and 4 more are injured.

Per mile driven, there are 11x more fires with ICE cars than EVs.

My dad was a fireman, and we never parked our cars in our attached garages, despite living in Wisconsin.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Great news, then, that the Inflation Reduction Act includes significant investments and tax credits for grid modernization, and for EVs, amirite?!?


Yes!

Anyone saying EV technology wasn't there 5 years ago was probably correct-ish. I think we are there now. Yes, the government will have to subsidize EV's, they already subsidize fuel and internal combustion vehicle manufacturers.

There _will_ be growing pains with the power grid. For one, the grid had just been redefined to support tons of wind and solar farms over the past ten (maybe 15) years. The grid is notoriously slow to change. There are still tons of high voltage transformers out there filled with PCBs, which have been officially banned since 1980. Hell, there are still tons of vaportran transformers (filled with illegal freon), and the circuit breakers used in >90% of the nation are still the old oil-type that stopped being manufactured 25 years ago, even though those pieces of equipment have a 20 year life expectancy. But whatever, if you believe in capitalism, the supply side will meet the demand side with whatever lag is typical.

The alternative, though, would be what? The amount of petroleum on planet Earth is some number of some huge number of gallons. Every day we use some much smaller, but still astronomically huge number of gallons, and it gets replenished at a rate of identically zero. So, at some time, the last of it will be gone. If you want to get even more pessimistic, since we use petroleum-based fuels to power petroleum drilling, and drilling gets less efficient as reserves get smaller, there will be a time before when it will simply not be worth it to get any more petroleum out of the ground.

I'm all for biofuels, too, but that's another technology that isn't quite there yet and probably will never be able to keep up with demand once petroleum is off the menu.



MASS DEFECT said:


> Meh. It's 13 years away. A lot has happened in EV tech in the last two years and it has become significantly cheaper to produce.
> 
> Californians don't go more than 40 miles on average in a day. Say you have a cheap EV (Toyota, Nissan) than can go 200 miles on a charge, you won't need to charge for two days. And you can trickle slow charge at home during the night which is more efficient than your refrigerator. Fords can power your house for two days on a charge as well. If you want to not stress the grid. They can even give power back to the grid.
> 
> Charging EVs will not stress the power grid. They take power efficiently.
> 
> I'm more concerned with spontaneous combustion in garages from unplugged EVs. hahaha


The main thing that would drive down price is a supply. Like, we need the Ford Model T of EV's, and then that will push standardization and what not.

Does anyone know that it was the automotive industry that standardized nuts and bolts and screws? Yup, before mass automotive production, screw heads were pretty much just locally specific. Ford wanted to make a car that could be assembled in Detroit and serviced the world over, so they standardized car parts, and that was probably the most key thing to making cars affordable to average people.

If EVs ever take the same approach and make a standardized battery pack or whatever, I bet that will be the biggest missing piece of the puzzle.

I don't know about grid tying the EVs to charge and discharge, since charging them is not very efficient and running an inverter from a car battery back to the grid is also highly inefficient, so there would be a lot of wasted power and a lot of extra heat released in the process.

Exploding batteries is also a huge concern. I'm sure people were rightfully worried about exploding gasoline engines for a time, too, but, luckily, it rarely happens with modern vehicles. Maybe by 2035, exploding batteries will be a super rare thing, too. Once the surface of the Earth is dotted with EV's, though, it is important to think of things like what happens to an EV if it is struck by lightning - something that would be impossibly random with one EV, but almost certain to happen regularly with millions of EVs. Or what about house fires? If I park an EV in the garage, and then the stupid neighbour throws a lit cigarette into a pile of firewood or something, will it blow up my house?

And then there is the main fact that EVs do nothing on their own to address the inevitable energy crisis that will come. Batteries don't just magically get charged, they require energy from outside. What, ultimately, will be the source of that energy? The past few years set EVs up for a lay-up with all of the wind and solar, but it's going to require a lot more than just that to keep people moving. I don't know the answer, and there may not be an answer, long-term, but it's at least one tool that definitely takes us in a better direction than reliance on petroleum.


----------



## Drew

MASS DEFECT said:


> Charging EVs will not stress the power grid. They take power efficiently.


The other thing here of course, is grid stress is as much about timing as it is about volume. Load tends to peak in the middle of the day in the summer, thanks to offices and AC. And, logically, EV charging is something I'd expect to peak at night, which is kind of off-hours for the grid. I'm surprised they're even bringing this up, unless it's as specific as asking people not to charge EVs during peak _daytime _hours....?


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> Great news, then, that the Inflation Reduction Act includes significant investments and tax credits for grid modernization, and for EVs, amirite?!?



I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?

Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> The other thing here of course, is grid stress is as much about timing as it is about volume. Load tends to peak in the middle of the day in the summer, thanks to offices and AC. And, logically, EV charging is something I'd expect to peak at night, which is kind of off-hours for the grid. I'm surprised they're even bringing this up, unless it's as specific as asking people not to charge EVs during peak _daytime _hours....?


California "Flex alerts" are generally either from 4-9PM, or 12-9PM.



Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?


Incredulity doesn't make it untrue. One huge power plant is more efficient than 40,000 tiny ones, both from a squeezing every bit of energy from the source, to pollution the mitigation standpoint. And don't forget the journey that the gasoline has to take to get into the car in the first place.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Cynical point - today is, at least here in MA, back to school day for most public school districts. If Biden's comments trigger a GOP backlash and someone like DeSantis comes out saying he'd never support an assault rifle ban, and then on monday morning some kid shoots up a Florida school with an AR-15, I think this is going to suddenly look like a winning position for the Democrats.


If this happens, I'd give 100% odds on false flag being screamed so loudly that nothing else gets heard.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?
> 
> Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.



Having read (some) of the legal text and the response of the Auto manufacturers, my takeaway is that creating engines is no longer sustainable to meet fuel efficiency targets. The engines become more complicated and stressed to meet emission targets. This is the same for Europe and North America. In order for engines to be fuel efficient at 45-55++ miles to a gallon (which is the target in approx 3 years), you'd have to create engines with smaller displacement and smaller turbos, but it might produce more emissions down the pipe when stressed. So, you have to add a hybrid component to it, which makes it even more complicated. From a business standpoint, it's a losing proposition considering Hybrid ICE vehicles are hitting the efficiency wall. There are plug-in options, but that is another topic. 

An electric vehicle solves all that while reducing the raw materials needed to make the engine. It's far less complicated to make and less moving parts to make repair easier. I think Toyota is making their electric vehicles modular so that repairing and replacing parts will be as easy as doing Lego Technic or changing motors on a Tamiya.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> If this happens, I'd give 100% odds on false flag being screamed so loudly that nothing else gets heard.


Hell, they are doing it before it even happens. 








Alex Jones absurdly claims ‘Deep State’ will stage mass shootings to steal midterms


Jones asserted that leftist ‘Deep State’ globalists would blame staged violence on far-right groups in an effort to take over the country




www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Randy

Drew said:


> And, logically, EV charging is something I'd expect to peak at night, which is kind of off-hours for the grid.



Okay so since we're looking into the future, what happens when we're at 100% EV use and everyone is charging their cars at night at the same time?


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Hell, they are doing it before it even happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex Jones absurdly claims ‘Deep State’ will stage mass shootings to steal midterms
> 
> 
> Jones asserted that leftist ‘Deep State’ globalists would blame staged violence on far-right groups in an effort to take over the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk



Wait this guy is still on?


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?
> 
> Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.


Right now electric vehicles are a warm fuzzy for the "do something" crowd. Not running ICE? Oh you must love the planet! Here's a sticker!

Doing the actual change to non-polluting energy production is probably another generation down the line. But so long as you don't smog up the morning commute, you've done your part and can pat yourself on the back for it. YAY! PARTICIPATION!

I seem to have grown four times more cynical in the last 24 hours. Which, I must say, is a real accomplishment, considering my baseline is "a human might be cool, but as a collective we suck hard."


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?
> 
> Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.


I mean, I was both being flippant and mostly talking about the grid modernization, but I think the reason where you WOULD prioritize fossil fuel usage at a centralized plant vs at the car itself is if they can both generate more efficiently, and with lower emissions, at a power plant than in an internal combustion engine. Not saying that's necessarily the case (though I bet it is), but if that were the case, then you'd absolutely want to centralize production.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> Okay so since we're looking into the future, what happens when we're at 100% EV use and everyone is charging their cars at night at the same time?


Answering that would take some assumptions that I wouldn't even begin to know how to make about the timing and capacity needs of EVs and (easier) assumptions about the number of cars in existence, but as long as the total charging needs of electric vehicles plus routine off-hours electricity usage are still below peak daytime usage, then you've still better distributed load on the grid. 

Of course, the entire point of grid modernization is getting it to better manage these sort of peak cycles anyway.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Hell, they are doing it before it even happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alex Jones absurdly claims ‘Deep State’ will stage mass shootings to steal midterms
> 
> 
> Jones asserted that leftist ‘Deep State’ globalists would blame staged violence on far-right groups in an effort to take over the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk


He's been doing that since Sandy Hook anyway, so this should be kind of a base case at this point, anyway. 

That said - I still think the more interesting angle is setting the stage to turn gun control into a Latinx wedge issue.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> Okay so since we're looking into the future, what happens when we're at 100% EV use and everyone is charging their cars at night at the same time?



Hopefully, by 2035, the charge time will only take 2hrs for the chaepest EVs. Currently an hour's charge at the mall gets you 120 Miles of range. More than enough to last you two days. After that two hours or when you just leave it on for the night, it's just trickle charging like a cell phone. 

And bonus if your building charger can also send the surplus to the grid if you have Solar or Reverse chargers.

But I think, most Ev owners charge at the office garage or in the mall. Not a lot of people own a house with a charging station or their apartment buildings have one. I see Teslas parked on the side streets at night and not charging.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?
> 
> Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.


Well, two things. 

It's waaaaaaaaaay more convenient to manage all the emissions at a power plant than at a million exhaust pipes, and at the same time fossil fuel power plants are able to be way more efficient than the most efficient ICEs. The efficiency gained from burning fossil fuels efficiently destroys the losses in distribution. 

The second thing is that no one wants EVs to be powered from a coal or gas plant, but ideally from nuclear and renewable sources. This can be done largely done in the next 13 years. Its the same reason why electric boilers, stoves and heat pumps are a much better alternative, environmentally, than having a gas burner.


----------



## mastapimp

MASS DEFECT said:


> Hopefully, by 2035, the charge time will only take 2hrs for the chaepest EVs. Currently an hour's charge at the mall gets you 120 Miles of range. More than enough to last you two days. After that two hours or when you just leave it on for the night, it's just trickle charging like a cell phone.
> 
> And bonus if your building charger can also send the surplus to the grid if you have Solar or Reverse chargers.
> 
> But I think, most Ev owners charge at the office garage or in the mall. Not a lot of people own a house with a charging station or their apartment buildings have one. I see Teslas parked on the side streets at night and not charging.


The argument of faster charging of the battery in the future doesn't mean anything in terms of power savings. You're still putting a set amount of energy into the battery to recharge it. If I charge my phone on a 5W charger versus a 30W charger, it'll still put the same amount of energy into the battery at the end of charge. Maybe you're making the case that charging will be more staggered? But at a higher rate (more stress on a the grid at that given time), how much is that going to help?


----------



## Crungy

Man he needs to fuck off, to the grave. What an absolute piece of garbage.

Alex Jones that is, a lot of other replies popped up since I wrote that lol


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Idunno. I'd agree this is a gamble, but I'm not sure exactly how bad politics this actually is. Couple reasons, and I fully admit some of these are getting into inside baseball territory.
> 
> First off, despite what the Republican House and Senate leadership, and the NRA, might want you to believe, stricter gun regulation in SOME form is an issue with broad bipartisan support in America; most Americans think we need at least somewhat more gun regulation than we have now. Even the most die hard gun nuts and the NRA themselves don't really have an answer for the fact the Second Amendment itself directly references regulation, except for perhaps to try to pretend it doesn't. The fact this bill passed with bipartisan support should be proof enough. From there to an "assault rifle" ban is a more challenging step, but I think it's doable.
> 
> Cynical point - today is, at least here in MA, back to school day for most public school districts. If Biden's comments trigger a GOP backlash and someone like DeSantis comes out saying he'd never support an assault rifle ban, and then on monday morning some kid shoots up a Florida school with an AR-15, I think this is going to suddenly look like a winning position for the Democrats.
> 
> Less cynical point - a lot of the GOP's gains in Texas and Florida have come by reaching out to Latinx voters. Gun violence, especially in the wake of Uvalde, is a potential wedge issue; Latinx voters own guns at a lower rate, generally are more concerned about gun violence, and are much more supportive of additional gun regulation than the population as a whole:


If by gun regulation you mean universal background checks, storing guns in locked safes, and maybe even licensing, then the republicans will show some support. But when it comes to banning certain guns, or categories of guns, you won’t see support from the republicans.

Something most of us on this site don’t understand is that the AR15 is to the gun world what the Strat and super Strat are to the guitar world - a collection of easily interchangeable parts bolted together. So if you don’t like your tuners, you can change them out. Same with bridge saddles, neck angle, bridge, etc. You can easily customize your Strat into what you want it to be. And the same holds for the AR platform. The aftermarket community really built up and began offering lots of options 20 or 25 years ago, so the AR can be customixed into what the shooter wants: just change out the grip, the hand guard, the bolt carrier, the barrel, the sights, add a flashlight for night time use, etc. with readily available and easily interchangeable bolt on parts. That’s why it is the most popular rifle platform for shooting competitions, range shooting, pest/varmint control, and smaller big game hunting over the past couple of decades. And its also why you won’t see people lining up to willingly give them up. Not that people ever like to give something up without getting something in return, but especially in this case, there isn’t an equivalent alternative in terms of customizability.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> power plants are able to be way more efficient than the most efficient ICEs. The efficiency gained from burning fossil fuels efficiently destroys the losses in distribution.



Can I see this in writing somewhere? The idea of converting burnt fossil fuel to electricity via generator and sending it over hundreds of miles then bottlenecked through my house or neighborhood grid system being more efficient than the fuel burning and spinning my engine > transmission > wheels just defies my common sense.


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> If by gun regulation you mean universal background checks, storing guns in locked safes, and maybe even licensing, then the republicans will show some support. But when it comes to banning certain guns, or categories of guns, you won’t see support from the republicans.
> 
> Something most of us on this site don’t understand is that the AR15 is to the gun world what the Strat and super Strat are to the guitar world - a collection of easily interchangeable parts bolted together. So if you don’t like your tuners, you can change them out. Same with bridge saddles, neck angle, bridge, etc. You can easily customize your Strat into what you want it to be. And the same holds for the AR platform. The aftermarket community really built up and began offering lots of options 20 or 25 years ago, so the AR can be customixed into what the shooter wants: just change out the grip, the hand guard, the bolt carrier, the barrel, the sights, add a flashlight for night time use, etc. with readily available and easily interchangeable bolt on parts. That’s why it is the most popular rifle platform for shooting competitions, range shooting, pest/varmint control, and smaller big game hunting over the past couple of decades. And its also why you won’t see people lining up to willingly give them up. Not that people ever like to give something up without getting something in return, but especially in this case, there isn’t an equivalent alternative in terms of customizability.


I think, though, where support breaks down is the important thing here. Could it divide the GOP along axes that are beneficial to the Democratic vote? Quite possibly.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

mastapimp said:


> The argument of faster charging of the battery in the future doesn't mean anything in terms of power savings. You're still putting a set amount of energy into the battery to recharge it. If I charge my phone on a 5W charger versus a 30W charger, it'll still put the same amount of energy into the battery at the end of charge. Maybe you're making the case that charging will be more staggered? But at a higher rate (more stress on a the grid at that given time), how much is that going to help?



Yes. I meant the charging will be staggered for everyone and there won't be a lot of people charging at the same time. I think current EV charging cycles address this already. The draw is strongest during the first 20mins and just trickles and tapers off throughout the rest of the charging cycle. People can just charge in the mall or at work for 30mins and that is 80% charged already.

The scenario of everyone charging at night at high draw at the same time in 2035 technology would probably not happen. Airconditioners stress the grid more.


----------



## Randy

I'm also incredibly skeptical of what the cost of charging a vehicle will be once the incentives to transition everyone are exhausted. 

Capitalism and greed doing what they do. At least there's some modest form of competition in gasoline sales. Who's going to police the price when we're all plugged into the same source? Right now the variety of prices to fill up your EV are because there are middlemen rather than you just paying the utility company for drinking their energy. Are they going to cut out the middleman and now your local utility company decides what tens of millions of people pay to drive their car? If you're filling up at home, are they going to be able to decide that charging up your car is a different price per kw than using your normal household stuff?

The fact that charging out of the house is "miraculously" comparable in price to filling your car with gas makes me suspicious this is another cash grab. One of those capitalistic experiments like replacing the oatmeal with drywall until people notice and then dialing it back by .1%. Get everyone on electric, then decide the price structure needs to change because the changes that come from that scale were "unexpected".


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Or you can just go off the grid and go solar to charge your car. At least you harness free renewable energy and support your local solar panel business. The issue in the coming years will be road tax. Since road tax is heavily dependent from fuel sales in CA, the govt will inevitably get tax from EV users from somewhere.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Can I see this in writing somewhere? The idea of converting burnt fossil fuel to electricity via generator and sending it over hundreds of miles then bottlenecked through my house or neighborhood grid system being more efficient than the fuel burning and spinning my engine > transmission > wheels just defies my common sense.


Gas LEV gets up to about 60%. The best ICEs are 40%. There's between 5-10% losses from the grid to transformer to socket to battery.









 The National Academies presents: What You Need to Know About Energy


Want to understand the basics of America's current energy situation? The National Academies, advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine, provides objective information about the United States' current energy sources and uses, as well as a look forward to the future of energy.




needtoknow.nas.edu












Lost in Transmission: World’s Biggest Machine Needs Update


America’s grid carries electricity from over 7,700 power plants across 707,000 miles of high-voltage lines, and through millions of miles of low-voltage lines and transformers to millions of customers. It’s an impressive machine, but like other early 20th century technologies,...




www.nrdc.org





Add to that renewables and nuclear, and you come out ahead easily.


----------



## Randy

MASS DEFECT said:


> Or you can just go off the grid and go solar to charge your car. At least you harness free renewable energy and support your local solar panel business. The issue in the coming years will be road tax. Since road tax is heavily dependent from fuel sales in CA, the govt will inevitably get tax from EV users from somewhere.



Where is solar tech as far as realistically being able to charge your car? Is using one of those solar farm co-ops comparable to just paying your local power company? Is it the same, more or less? Is it just a moral victory?


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> I still don't understand how burning fossil fuels to create energy several hundred miles away and losing energy pumping it to your house/EV charger is more efficient than burning the fossil fuels right at the vehicle itself?
> 
> Investment should be near 100% in fuel efficiency and the grid upgrades before it should be focused on EVs that we don't have the technology to sustain today.


What I don't understand is how a state that claims to be devoted to environmental protection hasn't done its homework when it comes to mining for the components that comprise batteries the size of a refrigerator. I thought fracking was a dirty word. Well not if sells a Tesla. And to achieve the water fracking I guess they'll just use the imaginary excess water flowing in the Colorado river.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> Where is solar tech as far as realistically being able to charge your car? Is using one of those solar farm co-ops comparable to just paying your local power company? Is it the same, more or less? Is it just a moral victory?



Currently, you would need 5-10 solar panels on your home depending on your car and how big the battery is. Then the inverter and the charger. High initial cost to install but would save you $ in fuel costs annually. If you have a Level 2 charger capable car, you save more. Current rate is I think for a Chevy Volt is $0.25 per kwh if your are using the grid with a regular home plug. Solar is $0.08-0.10.

I would assume the charging infrastructure would be more robust in 2035 considering the current Federal package that was just signed plus matching investment from the state.


----------



## spudmunkey

For me, at the beginning of the year, I did "did my own research". One day, I filled up in the morning, and then again at the end of the day after our errands, so that I had one receipt to expense all of the gas used. $31 in gas. Comparing the $/mi cost I pay on average for our similarly-sized EV (ICE 2015 Mazda 3 hatchback vs 2015 VW e-Golf hatchback) cost me about $6 in electricity. If I would have taken city streets, it would have been better. I'll note that I'm in California which has both: expensive gas, and expensive electricity. Should have installed Solar when we re-did the roof 3 years ago. It would have paid itself off by next year or maybe 2024, based on our neighbors who did the same, and our electric bills would be 80-90% less from then-on.



mmr007 said:


> What I don't understand is how a state that claims to be devoted to environmental protection hasn't done its homework when it comes to mining for the components that comprise batteries the size of a refrigerator. I thought fracking was a dirty word. Well not if sells a Tesla. And to achieve the water fracking I guess they'll just use the imaginary excess water flowing in the Colorado river.



It's optimism for the changing/improving technologies on the horizon. For example, one that's brought up all the time is cobalt. Cobalt-free batteries are already hitting the market (half of all Teslas being built right are cobalt free). Cobalt is used to refine diesel, too, don't forget.


----------



## mmr007

spudmunkey said:


> For me, at the beginning of the year, I did "did my own research". One day, I filled up in the morning, and then again at the end of the day after our errands, so that I had one receipt to expense all of the gas used. $31 in gas. Comparing the $/mi cost I pay on average for our similarly-sized EV (ICE 2015 Mazda 3 hatchback vs 2015 VW e-Golf hatchback) cost me about $6 in electricity. If I would have taken city streets, it would have been better. I'll note that I'm in California which has both: expensive gas, and expensive electricity. Should have installed Solar when we re-did the roof 3 years ago. It would have paid itself off by next year or maybe 2024, based on our neighbors who did the same, and our electric bills would be 80-90% less from then-on.
> 
> 
> 
> It's optimism for the changing/improving technologies on the horizon. For example, one that's brought up all the time is cobalt. Cobalt-free batteries are already hitting the market (half of all Teslas being built right are cobalt free). Cobalt is used to refine diesel, too, don't forget.


Lithium is the most important part and it takes 2 million gallons of water to mine one ton of lithium and that water is then extremely poisonous and will affect all ground water, water tables, nearby lakes or streams. And we still have the issue of charging the batteries. Biofuels make way more sense. That's where investment should be happening. Electric cars are fools gold.


----------



## spudmunkey

Personally, EVs are the worthwhile end goal, and by the time that comes to full fruition, "batteries" may not play a part in it. With solid state and capacitor technology, what we think of as "batteries" today may be irrelevant. California being the largest market in the country, forcing innovation, is ballsy and frankly necessary IMO and we obviously disagree on that. But there's 10 years for researchers and policy makers to review the data as years pass, and decide to extend it not. Not to mention the inevitable delays from legal appeals...

The push for EVs now, though, are not about a perfect, holistic "green" solution: the current push to EV is about one thing, 100%: reducing carbon emissions. And the argument that we may be cutting off our nose to spite our face or not comes down to how urgent you or I think man-made climate change needs to be addressed. And make no mistake: I'm not delusional enough to think that this is the ONLY thing that needs to be done, since most pollution of all types comes from industry, not individuals. 

In a more holistic "green" solution, the best and most environmentally-friendly thing we can do is keep an already-built car running. And I think we should have a sort of "automotive MediCare" to help people keep their cars in shape with affordable/cheap maintenance and repairs.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Solid state batteries will be fuckin game changers. The pollution argument would be moot because it would be far more recyclable and does away with the liquid electros. Small, lightweight, charges faster, less need for heat sinking, you can put rows of it to afford you 800 miles in a single charge. The industry players are banking all their money on it.


----------



## Mathemagician

I mean as a planet we should have been on nuclear power 40 years ago. It’s the cheapest and most efficient source of power available currently. Even as things like solar ramp up over the next decade. There’s about 40 years of global lag on what should have been the easy next step.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> The push for EVs now, though, are not about a perfect, holistic "green" solution: the current push to EV is about one thing, 100%: reducing carbon emissions.



Which is fine, but the average American doesn't necessarily have the time or financial stability to function as a "test group" for bleeding edge technology, especially if it stands between them and their day-to-day (like the car you use to drive to work to make a living). 

Theres a clear ramping up effect, from first mild and now major incentives to make EV investment more affordable, to transitioning into EVs as a "requirement". I just don't think EVs as a 50 state solution are there yet, and California is a very large and diverse state. I have a hard time believing a national or even statewide standard for "how people use transportation" should be exacted based on the lifestyle in SoCal.

And yeah 2035 isn't "now" but saying the technology isn't there now (from batteries to chargers to power grid) but we "think" we're going to get there, or we "think" there will be legal limitations that will slow/stop it... That's not how engineer landmark policy.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Right now electric vehicles are a warm fuzzy for the "do something" crowd. Not running ICE? Oh you must love the planet! Here's a sticker!
> 
> Doing the actual change to non-polluting energy production is probably another generation down the line. But so long as you don't smog up the morning commute, you've done your part and can pat yourself on the back for it. YAY! PARTICIPATION!
> 
> I seem to have grown four times more cynical in the last 24 hours. Which, I must say, is a real accomplishment, considering my baseline is "a human might be cool, but as a collective we suck hard."



I'm there with you.

NYS behind CA on environmental standards, and I'm already crippled by silly regs.

I've got a car that is my family's "second car". The gf drives the main car, I carpool to work so I don't need it during the week, but it's my car when I'm home or if the other one needs work done.

Hasn't been on the road in a year because it won't pass NYS inspection for emissions. They've got a pretty much zero tolerance emissions policy that is focused on your CEL. My car passes for everything, exhaust system is complete and stock, stuff like O2s (that are traditionally very fickle) and cat are all 100%. 

But ECU scan won't pass inspection for readiness because the secondary air injection "fails". Secondary injection is only considered an "emissions" device because it heats up the catalytic converter faster so that it captures exhaust gases sooner; like literally in the first minute or two during a cold start. Has negligible effect on the overall emissions of the vehicle, especially since most modern engines would pass a "smog test" even if you straight piped it 

Anyway, I dumped about $1500 into "fixing" the problem, including all the components in the system and it still fails a readiness check. Brought it to the last guy and he said it's because where the ECU reads secondary air volume at the crank case can get carbon build up and will give the ECU a false error of insufficient flow because it just can't get a clean reading. That's going to cost me another $1000 to "see" if it makes the false error, on the fringe "emissions device" to away.

But my neighbors on either side of me can roll coal on their trucks because they're new enough NYS dgaf. 

Somewhere in the mix, overbearing "feel good" legislation always has a donut hole people fall into.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> Which is fine, but the average American doesn't necessarily have the time or financial stability to function as a "test group" for bleeding edge technology, especially if it stands between them and their day-to-day (like the car you use to drive to work to make a living).
> 
> Theres a clear ramping up effect, from first mild and now major incentives to make EV investment more affordable, to transitioning into EVs as a "requirement". I just don't think EVs as a 50 state solution are there yet, and California is a very large and diverse state. I have a hard time believing a national or even statewide standard for "how people use transportation" should be exacted based on the lifestyle in SoCal.
> 
> And yeah 2035 isn't "now" but saying the technology isn't there now (from batteries to chargers to power grid) but we "think" we're going to get there, or we "think" there will be legal limitations that will slow/stop it... That's not how engineer landmark policy.


I agree. The 2035 ban is anti-poor considering CA's demographic. And by that decade, how many Californians can afford to have a home. It would also push used ICE vehicles to be more expensive unless they limit the dealership model of selling.


----------



## Randy

I'm a lefty and a green conscientious one, too. But I grew up on "reduce, reuse, recycle", which is something I take very seriously. I'm mindful of my energy use, wastefulness, not littering, etc. Like I said, I carpool to work for the last 20 years (despite living 45 minutes from the nearest population center).

So I'm all for reversing the course of manmade climate change, keeping the environment clean, sustainable practices for forestry and clean drinking water, so on. 

But I'm still unconvinced on the *current* generation of EVs and the infrastructure to power them as anything more than fringe or transitional technology. Feels like putting 8 track tapes in cars. Except you require every car to have an 8 track player and put the squeeze on to ban all vehicles that didnt come with one. And require all music to be produced on 8 track tape and rewritten so that it can be played on 8 track tape (referring to the grid and charger infrastructure)

If it was the end goal, ultimate solution technology then yeah, I can see a 10-ish year goal to transition everyone over especially because subsidies will help new purchases and volume of new EVs hitting the market will buoy used EV sales as things go forward. Much like transitioning into things like seat belts and safety glass worked out over time.

But if it's shaky, expensive, imperfect and likely to change by the time you hit 2035, why mandate it? By the time I can afford to switch all my cars over to EV and install a suitable charging system into my house, are they going to say my EV is no longer efficient enough and I can no longer drive it or the utility company will no longer charge it? Too many ifs.


----------



## spudmunkey

I'm legitimately curious, as I've never looked into the math. Let's say that this happens in 2035. How long would it actually take for EVs to be, say, 50% of cars on the road? Another 5 years? If so we're looking at 2040 where there will still be 7 million ICE passenger cars on the roads just in California alone.


----------



## Randy

Yeah I mean idk what the saturation number is where the pendulum swings the other way or economies of scale help the EV initiative to become fully realized (supply, parts, charging infrastructure, etc), or for the desired effect of carbon emissions reduction to bear fruit. I say "100%" but what I mean is 100% of the necessary volume to reach the "goal". You'll still have some "classic" cars and ICEs out there in some capacity, functionally "forever" so 100% never means 100%; just prevalent.

There's also some part of this where in the back of my mind there's entities like Elon Musk that spearheaded modern EV (and solar), who are essentially arch capitalists with not a single altruistic bone in their body. There's also the auto industry that feign green energy interest during liberal administrations, then lobby against green regulations and when republicans take over, scrap their efficiency/EV goals and diarrhea dump muscle cars again.

If the "goal" (the legislation basically turns this from a bridge, into a goal) is this high saturation of EVs and an infrastructure that can sustain them, the election cycling and ping-ponging of party controls can kill these things in months. If the auto industry is tepid about any true dedication to the environment (that's being generous, considering how wasteful production and raw material harvesting are), they can undo any of those gains in a year or two easily. 

I'm absolutely afraid of the high probability all these billions of EV infrastructure investment could go the way of the Zune in a year or two. Worse if you're tethering something fundamental like the ability of people to move freely to it.


----------



## Ralyks

Mathemagician said:


> I mean as a planet we should have been on nuclear power 40 years ago. It’s the cheapest and most efficient source of power available currently. Even as things like solar ramp up over the next decade. There’s about 40 years of global lag on what should have been the easy next step.


I'm gonna blame The Simpsons for the portrayal of nuclear power.


----------



## StevenC

Ralyks said:


> I'm gonna blame The Simpsons for the portrayal of nuclear power.


Nah, it's mostly fossil fuel propaganda. That's why they all advertise how much effort they're putting into wind and solar and not a single one is interested in nuclear. It's much easier to let the idiots at Greenpeace fellate them for that, than have an honest conversation about what the planet actually needs. When they've spent decades smearing their actual competition it's super easy to trick people with feelgood platitudes.


----------



## tedtan

Ralyks said:


> I'm gonna blame The Simpsons for the portrayal of nuclear power.


Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the other nuclear disasters (Kyshtym, Windscale, etc.) haven’t done anything to improve the optics of nuclear power, either.


----------



## thebeesknees22

tedtan said:


> Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the other nuclear disasters (Kyshtym, Windscale, etc.) haven’t done anything to improve the optics of nuclear power, either.


they're also sitting targets for militaries that may not care about leaving an area habitable. Plus they're easily used for threats. 

"If you don't do X a meltdown might happen in this nuclear power plant we took over and it "might" just spew radioactive waste all over everything despite all the failsafes." #notourfaultifithappens


----------



## bostjan

Huge disclaimer that no way of living a modern human life is environmentally friendly and that all forms of electricity generation are bad for the environment.

I think once you look at everything with a lens of comparison of what is worst, you see why EVs are generally considered a step in the right direction.

To address efficiency - ICE's are maximized for power-to-size ratio. You *need *them to be small and you need them to output a great deal of power. This means that you are going to be dealing with piss poor efficiency as a matter of compromise with that. Electric generators don't move anywhere, so they can be bulky. And they typically supply a constant amount of power, so they can run more efficiently without stops and starts. They can have larger, more efficient cooling systems, which raise their theoretical efficiency quite a bit, and even then the heat removed by those cooling systems can sometimes be put to good use for something other than keeping passengers warm or defrosting a windshield.

Electric power generation can come from any fuel source. Any. Fossil fuels are most convenient in many cases, because liquid rock is literally dirt cheap. But you can generate electricity out of geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, burning wood, burning poop, burning cow farts, hamsters running on exercise wheels, etc. Internal combustion engines, on the other hand, run only off of fuels that provide ignition upon compression - generally highly flammable organic liquids with very high energy densities. And you can't generally easily switch an engine designed to run off of one fuel to another like you can with a bulky steam generator.

So, from a high level, driving an EV with a rechargeable battery should be better for the environment than driving a car with a gasoline engine.

Lithium mining is horrible for the environment. If we ever develop non-lithium based batteries, it might be possible to swap out the power storage media in your EV, maybe not, though; there is no guarantee. However, we also know that oil drilling and oil refining are also pretty bad for the environment. When crude oil is processed into gasoline, there are tons of chemical wastes that are much worse for the environment than the waste from lithium mining.  It's still the lesser of those two particular evils.

The batteries do have an unimpressive life span, too. And that's an additional problem, environmentally, as well as economically. We are sort of holding out on hope that reclaimed lithium-based batteries (whether ion or polymer or whatever) can be somehow refurbished into functional new batteries. That's apparently not entirely the case presently, and maybe nothing will ever properly pan out. In that case, we will have to be careful, but you have to weigh the bad against the alternative's bad. Fossil fuels _will _run out of reserves some day. And not hundreds of years from now, but tens of years from now. 

Nuclear power is another one that people hate way harder than it deserves. It has some huge issues. But again, compare the negatives of nuclear power with the negatives of everything else.

Nuclear waste is extremely toxic. It is, by far, the most toxic sort of waste from power generation, by weight. But it's super concentrated. Coal burning plants create several orders of magnitude more weight of waste per unit energy than nuclear. Nuclear waste is also super easy to contain. It's heavy solid material. Burning gas or coal or LP or whatever creates gaseous waste full of particulate matter that is impossible to contain. Solar panels only produce the waste of manufacturing and disposal at end-of-life, though, so that might be a better alternative waste-wise, yet it takes several square km of solar panels to compete with the smallest nuclear plant in terms of power generated.

I think wind is great, too, but you can only squeeze so much juice out of that lemon as well. Areas that are not as windy just won't work, and wind generation is also very messy for the power grid, any way you slice it. Wind turbines have shorter lifespans than solar panels and are far bulkier...

Anyone who points at Chernobyl has a great point. The worst possible nuclear power plant disaster is really bad. But that's essentially what happened at Chernobyl - the worst possible outcome. But even better managed disasters like Fukoshima are pretty much nightmare-inducing. But keep in mind that a hydroelectric dam can break and flood a city, an LP plant can explode and burn down a city, wind towers explode all of the time... gotta compare all of the apples if you want to eat.

Of course, the best way to protect the environment is to stop living modern human life. Maybe move into a cave and only eat what you can pick in the forest. Don't use electricity. No one wants to do that, though...


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> What I don't understand is how a state that claims to be devoted to environmental protection hasn't done its homework when it comes to mining for the components that comprise batteries the size of a refrigerator. I thought fracking was a dirty word. Well not if sells a Tesla. And to achieve the water fracking I guess they'll just use the imaginary excess water flowing in the Colorado river.


Not to nitpick, but Elon Musk had a very high profile spat with the state of California a nunber of years back over income taxes, that ultimately resulted in him reincorporating TSLA in Texas. I don't think California is trying to do Musk a solid here.



MASS DEFECT said:


> I agree. The 2035 ban is anti-poor considering CA's demographic. And by that decade, how many Californians can afford to have a home. It would also push used ICE vehicles to be more expensive unless they limit the dealership model of selling.


Two comments here.

CA emissions policies tend to be a harbringer, officially or unofficially, of US emissions policies, and the auto industry is broadly ok with that because it allows them to standardize production of cars for the entire US market. I'd say it's fairly likely that either the US follows suit on a similar timeline, or the Big Three start announcing that they'll cease production of internal combustion engine autos for the US market by 2035 of their own volition. I'd say Newsom is kind of banking on that, in fact.

I also assume - and, just verified - that the ban applies only to _new_ cars sold in California after 2035, and does not ban their operation or ban the sale of internal combustion used cars. This means two things; first, that this is the start, and not the end, of the move away from gas powered cars in California, and as that progression continues more used EVs will be available over time, and second, that this will probably start a used car trade where used cars powered by gas are bought out of state and resold in California, unless we as a society are also well on our way to moving entirely towards EVs.

Personally, my preference is for hybrids over full EVs right now, given the range limitations in place, but I expect that will change with time too.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

spudmunkey said:


> I'm legitimately curious, as I've never looked into the math. Let's say that this happens in 2035. How long would it actually take for EVs to be, say, 50% of cars on the road? Another 5 years? If so we're looking at 2040 where there will still be 7 million ICE passenger cars on the roads just in California alone.


A long tiiiiime. The 2035 mandate is just for new cars. You can still buy a used ice car or via a loophole, import an ice vehicle from another state. And I think big trucks and big suvs are not yet included.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Drew said:


> or the Big Three start announcing that they'll cease production of internal combustion engine autos for the US market by 2035 of their own volition. I'd say Newsom is kind of banking on that, in fact.



Yep. The Big Three is already betting on EVs and slowly moving their portfolio away from big V8s and turbos. The 2023 Mustang will probably be the last pure V8 car. Stelantis is electrifying their Chargers and Challengers and just launched a Plug-In (gasp) Hornet. And GM's Camaro is dead all being replaced by EV Blazers and Trucks. 

Wild world.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> Of course, the best way to protect the environment is to stop living modern human life. Maybe move into a cave and only eat what you can pick in the forest. Don't use electricity. No one wants to do that, though...



Eh, that's a little hyperbolic.

I think there's something valid to be said about lifestyle changes to shift toward being (more) environmentally friendly. 

The issue is the people creating the policy have a responsibility to deaden the blow and too frequently they make the policy and force the individual to still take 80% of the pain (ie: $7000 subsidy on a $45,000 car).

We also went through 2 years of pandemic where remote work was the norm (I ran my business almost exclusively from my house, despite having to manage three remote sites, servers and about a dozen staff). But "back to the office" became the refrain and expected method of doing business, so now I'm back to driving an hour to work every day, and my sales staff are expected to have to drive to meet clients 5 days a week, etc. There was a cheaper, more efficient, more environmentally friendly way that was actually "better" for the workers, but that stubbornly was not allowed to stand.

It's nagging that the pain for reversing climate change comes to the individual while there's this vague "industry will have to do something" despite them producing the majority of pollution, and as pointed out above, big trucks and SUVs are so far excluded. But you and your 35mpg car, you gotta go you fucking slime.

I think there's a lot that can be done lifestyle-wise to reduce waste and reduce pollution but the bigger issue is that we're bumping against the ceiling of what the lobbyists are willing to do to hold up their end.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I don't trust our infrastructure enough to support nuclear, and we have no way to properly store the waste. 

Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, not to mention the dozens of smaller scale "accidents" that could easily have been exponentially more disastrous, how many more "almosts" before we render a country-sized zone of planet uninhabitable for the next eon? 

It's too big a risk. Late stage wal mart capitalism and nuclear power just don't mix.


----------



## StevenC

tedtan said:


> Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the other nuclear disasters (Kyshtym, Windscale, etc.) haven’t done anything to improve the optics of nuclear power, either.


It's funny how for years and years if you googled Fukushima, you would get nothing but pictures of a Chinese oil power plant explosion. You still get a lot of those photos, but now there are actually some of the fairly unspectacular looking Fukushima disaster.

Also remember that together all of these disasters combined killed ⁓31 people. All in Chernobyl.


----------



## StevenC

wheresthefbomb said:


> I don't trust our infrastructure enough to support nuclear, and we have no way to properly store the waste.
> 
> Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, not to mention the dozens of smaller scale "accidents" that could easily have been exponentially more disastrous, how many more "almosts" before we render a country-sized zone of planet uninhabitable for the next eon?
> 
> It's too big a risk. Late stage wal mart capitalism and nuclear power just don't mix.


The fact that they haven't been more disastrous and have been far less so than fossil fuel disasters means that the regulations are working.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Eh, that's a little hyperbolic.
> 
> I think there's something valid to be said about lifestyle changes to shift toward being (more) environmentally friendly.
> 
> The issue is the people creating the policy have a responsibility to deaden the blow and too frequently they make the policy and force the individual to still take 80% of the pain (ie: $7000 subsidy on a $45,000 car).
> 
> We also went through 2 years of pandemic where remote work was the norm (I ran my business almost exclusively from my house, despite having to manage three remote sites, servers and about a dozen staff). But "back to the office" became the refrain and expected method of doing business, so now I'm back to driving an hour to work every day, and my sales staff are expected to have to drive to meet clients 5 days a week, etc. There was a cheaper, more efficient, more environmentally friendly way that was actually "better" for the workers, but that stubbornly was not allowed to stand.
> 
> It's nagging that the pain for reversing climate change comes to the individual while there's this vague "industry will have to do something" despite them producing the majority of pollution, and as pointed out above, big trucks and SUVs are so far excluded. But you and your 35mpg car, you gotta go you fucking slime.
> 
> I think there's a lot that can be done lifestyle-wise to reduce waste and reduce pollution but the bigger issue is that we're bumping against the ceiling of what the lobbyists are willing to do to hold up their end.


That's my point, though. No one will ever live a life that is 100% environmentally friendly. No one. Yet it's still 100% preferable to chose the less negatively impactful of two options, all else being equal.

California (the state government, not the population) is trying to do something. Yet their heads are up their asses, so they cannot come up with an effect and consistent way to legislate environmental protection.

I suppose this will sound hyperbolic as well, but I honestly think we are over the hump of "reversing" climate change. Climate change is happening, and it has been happening, and it's now at the point where we can realistically only maybe slow down its progression, rather than stop it in its tracks. Remember that all of those greenhouse gasses enter the atmosphere and don't instantly disappear when we stop releasing them. They have to be consumed by plant mass and converted back into oxygen and carbon, and we've been clearcutting forests for over a century in order to fuel our industrial boom (that released so much CO2). It might be centuries before the climate can recover, even if humans magically disappeared from the planet overnight.

And yes, me driving my plug-in hybrid IS harming the environment. Me typing this post is harming the environment. Every time a cow on a dairy farm farts, it hurts the environment. But those are each a drop of mist in the ocean. Still, 7+ billion people all adding a drop a day, each, will make a substantial difference over a fairly short span of time, let alone decades. And, as the population on Earth continues to boom, and economies get more and more aggressive about fighting over who gets to burn up the remaining resources available, things will only continue to get worse. People like you and I can cut back from one drop of mist in the ocean a day to one every other day, and pat ourselves on the back, but the truth is that, meanwhile, China is blasting a hundred firehoses into the same metaphorical body of water, so what you or I do makes a negligible difference. Even ten thousand of us can't offset the damage done by big evil industries.

So we could ban SUV's or whatever, in the USA, and reduce the emissions of the 3rd biggest polluter in the US by 10%, maybe. But factories will always be a bigger polluter, and commercial activity (like the air conditioner in the shopping mall or office) will always be a bigger polluter, and Chinese manufacturing will always be a bigger polluter than all of those things. Does that mean not to bother? Of course not. 1. It sets and example that, with any hope for humanity, others will eventually follow, and the sooner we lead, the sooner others can start to follow. 2. Better is better. Even if we can reduce emissions by 1%, that's still 1% better than not doing it. 

It's tempting to blow off making personal changes because it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what the government allows from big business. But if you don't make those changes, and demand changes from big business, your opponents can easily just call you a hypocrite and ignore your concerns.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

StevenC said:


> It's funny how for years and years if you googled Fukushima, you would get nothing but pictures of a Chinese oil power plant explosion. You still get a lot of those photos, but now there are actually some of the fairly unspectacular looking Fukushima disaster.
> 
> Also remember that together all of these disasters combined killed ⁓31 people. All in Chernobyl.


3MI made a lot of people sick, and since there was no attempt to track the health of people in the area there's really no way to say what the extent was, but it seems to be far greater than we were led to believe if you listen to firsthand accounts of people who've lived there. 

I'm not an expert on any of this but I see what I see. 

It could just as well mean we got lucky as it could that "the regulations are working," and we've still got no way to store the massively toxic waste. seems a foolish can to kick.


----------



## mastapimp

Drew said:


> Personally, my preference is for hybrids over full EVs right now, given the range limitations in place, but I expect that will change with time too.


My in-laws had a hybrid, several coworkers, even a few people I know from the gym. In every case, their replacement for that car was not a hybrid. I think all of them went back to a normal ICE. It came down to the costs associated with replacing the battery. The battery would wear out and they were stuck at a decision of a costly replacement, or a trade-in for a less than ideal value because the car wasn't fully functional. I think the out-of-warranty costs for a replacement battery on my mother-in-law's hybrid civic was in the $7-8K range. She loved that car, but couldn't justify sinking that much more money into it just to retain its value, also knowing that the next hybrid would eventually end up in the same predicament.


----------



## StevenC

wheresthefbomb said:


> 3MI made a lot of people sick, and since there was no attempt to track the health of people in the area there's really no way to say what the extent was, but it seems to be far greater than we were led to believe if you listen to firsthand accounts of people who've lived there.
> 
> I'm not an expert on any of this but I see what I see.
> 
> It could just as well mean we got lucky as it could that "the regulations are working," and we've still got no way to store the massively toxic waste. seems a foolish can to kick.


We have plenty of ways to store and treat waste. People just get angry when they're suggested because of decades of "this is a bad idea" from the people who kill more people every day than nuclear power has killed in history.

Genuinely, go ask a nuclear engineer what they think of the safety regulations at a nuclear power plant. They'll tell you they're incredibly redundant. Notice how the last nuclear disaster was a decade ago because Japan cheaped out on building a power plant on a fault line, and the one before that was 20 years prior when literally every step of the process was mishandled in Soviet Ukraine. Meanwhile, there are multiple fossil fuel disasters every year.

This is why it's propaganda, and "seeing what you see" is seeing what they want you to see.


----------



## Mathemagician

Ralyks said:


> I'm gonna blame The Simpsons for the portrayal of nuclear power.



That and the global auto industry latching onto a few egregious meltdowns that were caused almost entirely by ignoring the safety regulations of the time. 

They were used to scare the average person about nuclear for generations. 

Had they been built up to the code of that time the issues wouldn’t have happened. And every year safety design rules get stricter and better. Ugh.


----------



## tedtan

StevenC said:


> It's funny how for years and years if you googled Fukushima, you would get nothing but pictures of a Chinese oil power plant explosion. You still get a lot of those photos, but now there are actually some of the fairly unspectacular looking Fukushima disaster.
> 
> Also remember that together all of these disasters combined killed ⁓31 people. All in Chernobyl.


I’m sure nuclear power has produced far less damage to the planet overall than fossil fuels have, even before taking into account the greenhouse gasses and global warming. Nuclear just has a very bad image, at least here in North America.


----------



## Adieu

wheresthefbomb said:


> I don't trust our infrastructure enough to support nuclear, and we have no way to properly store the waste.
> 
> Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, not to mention the dozens of smaller scale "accidents" that could easily have been exponentially more disastrous, how many more "almosts" before we render a country-sized zone of planet uninhabitable for the next eon?
> 
> It's too big a risk. Late stage wal mart capitalism and nuclear power just don't mix.



Just build it all underground in remote places like Nevada.

Don't cost cut and plan something like the Chernobyl dome over it, NOT if & after something happens, but at initial construction.

Better yet, bury it all inside a mountain.


----------



## Xaios

Adieu said:


> Just build it all underground in remote places like Nevada.


They tried to do exactly that. At least for storage.


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Don't cost cut and plan something like the Chernobyl dome over it, NOT if & after something happens, but at initial construction.


This is a completely unnecessary waste of money, and nuclear plants are expensive enough already.


----------



## spudmunkey

Suggestion: should the US's (and the world's) energy future and in-progress shift to electric transportation be a separate thread/conversation from discussions about the current US administration?


----------



## mmr007

Drew said:


> Not to nitpick, but Elon Musk had a very high profile spat with the state of California a nunber of years back over income taxes, that ultimately resulted in him reincorporating TSLA in Texas. I don't think California is trying to do Musk a solid here.


Not my intention to suggest that Cali was favoring Musk and his brand more....just that I was just letting the epitome of trendy EV's stand as an avatar for all electric cars. I was aware that Musk hated Cali government but I always thought the genesis was OSHA and other regs plaguing the Space-x plant in Hawthorne especially during Covid.

Anyway I have no issue with Cali flexing their muscle and being heavy handed IF it is warranted but I am not sold yet. The whole reason we have catalytic convertors and clean emissions we have now is because Cali did the same thing back in the 70's and every manufacturer back then knew if they wanted to sell a car in the most populous state in America they better put cats on every car sold. The auto manufacturers cried foul and said it would be the end of performance, well tech got better and now we have factory fresh cars making 700hp out of the box (900hp if you want to hook a laptop up to it for 20 minutes). 

But emissions controls on existing technology is different than force feeding a technology that has not proven to be the way because battery components are FINITE. I have no doubt battery tech will get better but I also have no doubt mineral mining companies will tear this earth to pieces and poison every drop of water over the next 75 years in their pursuit of extracting battery minerals from the ground. Again, if you haven't done so I encourage everyone to look into the fracking procedures necessary to mine lithium et al


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Suggestion: should the US's (and the world's) energy future and in-progress shift to electric transportation be a separate thread/conversation from discussions about the current US administration?



Eh. It's relevant since we're talking about the Inflation Reduction Act. It'll go it's course and we'll transition back into something else. If someone wants to make an EV thread that's fine but I doubt it'll get the same traffic.


----------



## Randy

mmr007 said:


> Again, if you haven't done so I encourage everyone to look into the fracking procedures necessary to mine lithium et al



So far the refrain in this thread is "yeah but some day we won't need to." With no indication of when, or how or why they need to keep pumping money into the toxic bullshit in the meantime.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> Genuinely, go ask a nuclear engineer what they think of the safety regulations at a nuclear power plant. They'll tell you they're incredibly redundant. Notice how the last nuclear disaster was a decade ago because Japan cheaped out on building a power plant on a fault line, and the one before that was 20 years prior when literally every step of the process was mishandled in Soviet Ukraine. Meanwhile, there are multiple fossil fuel disasters every year.



The fact nuclear fallout makes the land surrounding the accidents totally uninhabitable for tens, hundreds or thousands of years as the direct result of a single event feels like a kind of big issue to sidestep.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Randy said:


> totally uninhabitable for tens, hundreds or thousands of years



*for humans*


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> So far the refrain in this thread is "yeah but some day we won't need to." With no indication of when, or how or why they need to keep pumping money into the toxic bullshit in the meantime.


That sentiment in a guitar forum is irritating.....that sentiment coming from elected officials of the most populous state is downright terrifying....especially officials who can't figure out how to solve an easy to solve homeless issue, or add mass transit via high speed rail or expand a freeway without it taking 10 years and 2 billion per mile. Sorry Cali but if you can't fix the tenderloin, skid row and venice beach, or figure that people need water more than a thirsty little nut that only tastes good covered in powdered spices, you forfeit your rights to put your thumb on the scale of how the world will travel in the near future and beyond


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> The fact nuclear fallout makes the land surrounding the accidents totally uninhabitable for tens, hundreds or thousands of years as the direct result of a single event feels like a kind of big issue to sidestep.


I should highlight when I say redundant I do not mean unnecessary.

But yes. Chernobyl was bad, but incredibly easy to avoid and was an absolute cacophony of errors.

And, you know, people have moved back to the exclusion zone. "Uninhabitable".


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> That's my point, though. No one will ever live a life that is 100% environmentally friendly. No one. Yet it's still 100% preferable to chose the less negatively impactful of two options, all else being equal.
> 
> California (the state government, not the population) is trying to do something. Yet their heads are up their asses, so they cannot come up with an effect and consistent way to legislate environmental protection.
> 
> I suppose this will sound hyperbolic as well, but I honestly think we are over the hump of "reversing" climate change. Climate change is happening, and it has been happening, and it's now at the point where we can realistically only maybe slow down its progression, rather than stop it in its tracks. Remember that all of those greenhouse gasses enter the atmosphere and don't instantly disappear when we stop releasing them. They have to be consumed by plant mass and converted back into oxygen and carbon, and we've been clearcutting forests for over a century in order to fuel our industrial boom (that released so much CO2). It might be centuries before the climate can recover, even if humans magically disappeared from the planet overnight.
> 
> And yes, me driving my plug-in hybrid IS harming the environment. Me typing this post is harming the environment. Every time a cow on a dairy farm farts, it hurts the environment. But those are each a drop of mist in the ocean. Still, 7+ billion people all adding a drop a day, each, will make a substantial difference over a fairly short span of time, let alone decades. And, as the population on Earth continues to boom, and economies get more and more aggressive about fighting over who gets to burn up the remaining resources available, things will only continue to get worse. People like you and I can cut back from one drop of mist in the ocean a day to one every other day, and pat ourselves on the back, but the truth is that, meanwhile, China is blasting a hundred firehoses into the same metaphorical body of water, so what you or I do makes a negligible difference. Even ten thousand of us can't offset the damage done by big evil industries.
> 
> So we could ban SUV's or whatever, in the USA, and reduce the emissions of the 3rd biggest polluter in the US by 10%, maybe. But factories will always be a bigger polluter, and commercial activity (like the air conditioner in the shopping mall or office) will always be a bigger polluter, and Chinese manufacturing will always be a bigger polluter than all of those things. Does that mean not to bother? Of course not. 1. It sets and example that, with any hope for humanity, others will eventually follow, and the sooner we lead, the sooner others can start to follow. 2. Better is better. Even if we can reduce emissions by 1%, that's still 1% better than not doing it.
> 
> It's tempting to blow off making personal changes because it's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what the government allows from big business. But if you don't make those changes, and demand changes from big business, your opponents can easily just call you a hypocrite and ignore your concerns.



Yeah, I'd say we're treading back into hyperbole again. I don't think growing the umbrella of all human activity as being bad for the environment or equally damaging is all that accurate or useful.

I'd argue most of modern industrialized counties have "made personal changes" over the last hundred years, considering you don't see things like acid rain or opaque black/orange clouds hanging over major cities like you did.

Again, I think the value of "reduce, reuse, recycle" as an actual prevailing principal in our everyday life is underrated. I can't believe the stuff I was throwing away for the first 20+ years of my life. I think things like the plastic bag bans have been ultrabroad transitions away from waste and pollution. I reject the idea people won't take on a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. I think the bigger issue is that over the last 50 years, we've whittled away at how much environmental conservation the individual can do, so the "refusal to do more" is because the ask begins to be too much.

And tbh, EVs feel like the ultimate slactivist solution. Live 100% the same lifestyle but instead I plug my car into my outlet. That feels like the most nothing thing you can do.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> And, you know, people have moved back to the exclusion zone. "Uninhabitable".



People will do a lot of things out of desperation. People are living there but are they healthy?


----------



## mmr007

Randy said:


> And tbh, EVs feel like the ultimate slactivist solution. Live 100% the same lifestyle but instead I plug my car into my outlet. That feels like the most nothing thing you can do.




so well said


----------



## mmr007

I may be wrong but people are not moving into the core exclusion zone in Ukraine but there is talk of relaxing the original mandatory evacuation zone which was not in the exclusion zone but was close enough to be considered unsafe at the time.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> People will do a lot of things out of desperation. People are living there but are they healthy?


Yeah, there's no evidence that the low radiation dose is at all detrimental to health outcomes.


----------



## Randy

Tbh, I like nuclear in a lot of ways and think of the "ugly" ways we have to produce electricity right now, it's the most energy, cleanest production with the least waste. But it's still ugly. And the scale of the fallout, and inability to dispose of it's waste makes it degrees better than fossil fuels rather than orders of magnitude better.

Nuclear is still a "right now", or transitional type energy source. It can be maybe somehow refined/distilled into a safer practice (not how difficult/rare it is for an event to happen, but "how bad it is" when an event happens) or such that the waste can be reused or disposed of more safely. 

Anything that can't handle for tens of thousands of years is going to get low marks from me, especially when we're talking about undertaking measures to "save the planet for our children" and we're creating waste that will live on longer than we can track our earliest ancestors.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Tbh, I like nuclear in a lot of ways and think of the "ugly" ways we have to produce electricity right now, it's the most energy, cleanest production with the least waste. But it's still ugly. And the scale of the fallout, and inability to dispose of it's waste makes it degrees better than fossil fuels rather than orders of magnitude better.
> 
> Nuclear is still a "right now", or transitional type energy source. It can be maybe somehow refined/distilled into a safer practice (not how difficult/rare it is for an event to happen, but "how bad it is" when an event happens) or such that the waste can be reused or disposed of more safely.
> 
> Anything that can't handle for tens of thousands of years is going to get low marks from me, especially when we're talking about undertaking measures to "save the planet for our children" and we're creating waste that will live on longer than we can track our earliest ancestors.


Everyone talks about nuclear power like it's still the 70s, mainly because the only nuclear power stations anyone can name were built in the 70s. That's right, Fukushima was run disastrously for 40 years before anything bad happened. Nuclear power is so safe that it takes 40 years of mismanagement and a tsunami to break a poorly designed one. 1 person died from radiation.

Nuclear power is absolutely a right now energy source. It's also a the rest of human existence energy source unless something fundamental about our understanding of energy and how to extract/produce it changes. And I'm not talking about pie in the sky fusion. Straight up fission is the future of humanity, basically forever.

Modern reactors produce much less, and much more manageable, waste. These 10,000 year things you hear are by and large propaganda. Modern reactors are basically so safe that you need to detonate them intentionally, with a conspiracy so large it would make MetalHex blush. There are waste storage facilities in existence today that will out live our children's children's children's children, with the most optimistic of nuclear expansion programs. Not to mention that treatment is now a thing, and some plants create reusable waste. If we stop using uranium, there are other fuels which eventually decay to non radioactive isotopes within months.

Arguments against nuclear are made up.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> the scale of the fallout, and inability to dispose of it's waste makes it degrees better than fossil fuels rather than orders of magnitude better.


A great point. So often the arguments against *any* step away from fossil fuels is that the replacements (or supplements) _have_ to be perfect, for some reason, or else not acceptable, even if it "evens out" and sort of diversifies our footprint/impact on the globe. And not only is the replacement not allowed to have any down-sides at all, but it so often ignores the issues with the current paradigm, because we're just so godamn used to its own horrors that it's just white noise.

How long ago was Deep Water Horizon, and we're *still* cleaning up after it. On, a Tesla caught fire and made the news? An American does in a car fire every single day, and per mile is 10x more likely than EVs. Oh, so a wind turbine propeller blade isn't recyclable (yet)? When was the last time we had a wind spill? Doesn't the burning of coal for one year in the US release more radiation into the atmosphere than all nuclear accidents in history combined? That last one, I'm genuinely not sure on the exact figures, but it's pretty damn astounding how much radioactive material comes from burning coal.


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> The whole reason we have catalytic convertors and clean emissions we have now is because Cali did the same thing back in the 70's and every manufacturer back then knew if they wanted to sell a car in the most populous state in America they better put cats on every car sold. The auto manufacturers cried foul and said it would be the end of performance, well tech got better and now we have factory fresh cars making 700hp out of the box (900hp if you want to hook a laptop up to it for 20 minutes).


I will point out one thing: the changeover wasn't immediate, and there were indeed multiple versions of the same car sold within the US. For years and years, until the EPA caught up to CARB, every time you saw a car being given away on a Los Angeles-filmed gameshow, the cars always featured "California emissions", listed alongside AM/FM cassette and white wall tires.


----------



## Mathemagician

spudmunkey said:


> Suggestion: should the US's (and the world's) energy future and in-progress shift to electric transportation be a separate thread/conversation from discussions about the current US administration?



Given that the discussion of when not if humanity moves to alternative fuel sources is more of a policy discussion than a broader “should/shouldn’t” it happen, it should likely stay in one thread. No need for multiple threads that will likely overlap.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> Everyone talks about nuclear power like it's still the 70s, mainly because the only nuclear power stations anyone can name were built in the 70s. That's right, Fukushima was run disastrously for 40 years before anything bad happened. Nuclear power is so safe that it takes 40 years of mismanagement and a tsunami to break a poorly designed one. 1 person died from radiation.
> 
> Nuclear power is absolutely a right now energy source. It's also a the rest of human existence energy source unless something fundamental about our understanding of energy and how to extract/produce it changes. And I'm not talking about pie in the sky fusion. Straight up fission is the future of humanity, basically forever.
> 
> Modern reactors produce much less, and much more manageable, waste. These 10,000 year things you hear are by and large propaganda. Modern reactors are basically so safe that you need to detonate them intentionally, with a conspiracy so large it would make MetalHex blush. There are waste storage facilities in existence today that will out live our children's children's children's children, with the most optimistic of nuclear expansion programs. Not to mention that treatment is now a thing, and some plants create reusable waste. If we stop using uranium, there are other fuels which eventually decay to non radioactive isotopes within months.
> 
> Arguments against nuclear are made up.



Would like to see some of that in plain English.

Also worth noting that even if Fukashima was an antiquated facility, it was allowed to remain online and turn into a disaster somewhat recently regardless of being "70s technology". Are there other similarly antiquated facilities still allowed to remain online? Are they being updated/replaced regularly or are all these ultra safe nuclear facilities only the brand new ones, and the old ones are allowed to remain online into perpetuity because they haven't become an issue "yet"?

Maybe anti nuclear propaganda have gotten out ahead of the science when it comes to educating people, but there's also the fact that the catastrophic events are shown to us in our history books and in the news considering we're still seeing fallout from them. No propaganda necessary to remind us of those things. "Good nuclear" has some responsibility to undo that.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I will point out one thing: the changeover wasn't immediate, and there were indeed multiple versions of the same car sold within the US. For years and years, until the EPA caught up to CARB, every time you saw a car being given away on a Los Angeles-filmed gameshow, the cars always featured "California emissions", listed alongside AM/FM cassette and white wall tires.



CARB is still an issue afaik. It's been maybe 4 or 5 years tops since I was in the market, but NYS requirement was CARB compliant cat converter replacements only, which were 4x more than the 48 state legal version.


----------



## narad

Ralyks said:


> I'm gonna blame The Simpsons for the portrayal of nuclear power.



And I've been pro-monorail ever since.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Would like to see some of that in plain English.
> 
> Also worth noting that even if Fukashima was an antiquated facility, it was allowed to remain online and turn into a disaster somewhat recently regardless of being "70s technology". Are there other similarly antiquated facilities still allowed to remain online? Are they being updated/replaced regularly or are all these ultra safe nuclear facilities only the brand new ones, and the old ones are allowed to remain online into perpetuity because they haven't become an issue "yet"?
> 
> Maybe anti nuclear propaganda have gotten out ahead of the science when it comes to educating people, but there's also the fact that the catastrophic events are shown to us in our history books and in the news considering we're still seeing fallout from them. No propaganda necessary to remind us of those things. "Good nuclear" has some responsibility to undo that.


Let me rephrase. 70s technology wasn't unsafe. The two reactors that broke weren't because they were from the 70s but due to comedic mismanagement. Chernobyl was a less safe and good design that had corners cut, so it was the only one of its kind to fail. It was very much USSR at its worst. 

Fukushima happened because diesel generators failed due to flooding from a tsunami, in a uniquely bad planning decision. The reactors otherwise survived the earthquake shakes beyond what they were designed to withstand. This failure literally couldn't happen in France or Ohio. 

There aren't a lot of reactors from the 70s running anymore, mainly because they're at the end of their intended life cycles and have been replaced. A 50 year old nuclear plant is generally still very age to operate, it's just so vastly outdated and a waste of uranium. Older reactors go through a lot of upgrades and maintenance almost constantly. None of them are "problems yet". They are all perfectly safe as long as the procedures are followed, in the same way it's perfectly safe to own a hunting rifle if you follow all the procedures. Only the redundancy and layers of procedure are thick enough that no one can shoot people on a whim. 

Again, we know about nuclear disasters because there are so few. We don't know about oil plant disasters because there are so many. Nuclear power is just so profoundly safe


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Let me rephrase. 70s technology wasn't unsafe. The two reactors that broke weren't because they were from the 70s but due to comedic mismanagement. Chernobyl was a less safe and good design that had corners cut, so it was the only one of its kind to fail. It was very much USSR at its worst.
> 
> Fukushima happened because diesel generators failed due to flooding from a tsunami, *in a uniquely bad planning decision.* The reactors otherwise survived the earthquake shakes beyond what they were designed to withstand. This failure literally couldn't happen in France or Ohio.
> 
> There aren't a lot of reactors from the 70s running anymore, mainly because they're at the end of their intended life cycles and have been replaced. A 50 year old nuclear plant is generally still very age to operate, it's just so vastly outdated and a waste of uranium. Older reactors go through a lot of upgrades and maintenance almost constantly. None of them are "problems yet". They are all perfectly safe as long as the procedures are followed, in the same way it's perfectly safe to own a hunting rifle if you follow all the procedures. Only the redundancy and layers of procedure are thick enough that no one can shoot people on a whim.
> 
> Again, we know about nuclear disasters because there are so few. We don't know about oil plant disasters because there are so many. Nuclear power is just so profoundly safe



Though I think it's obvious when things go to shit that there was a uniquely bad planning decision, but these are basically "known unknowns" until the consequences of these bad decisions are playing out. I do believe in nuclear power, but the fact that these reactors were the results of countless expert manhours and still wind up revealing disasterous faults doesn't paint a picture of like, "nah, nah, we got it now". The idea that any of these are "perfectly safe" is the same kind of hubris that created those sorts of disasters in the first place.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I'd take one terrible nuclear incident a generation to stop relying on autocrats in the Middle East and Asia.


----------



## Xaios

For some perspective, it's estimated that air pollution resulting directly or indirectly from fossil fuel emissions are responsible for up to 8 million deaths per year. Nevermind nuclear reactor meltdowns, that's the equivalent to the bombing of Hiroshimo once every 3 days. There is absolutely *no argument* against the safety of nuclear power and alternative energy sources relative to fossil fuel that could possibly make fossil fuels look safer by comparison. Even if we could only cut that number in half, that's still 4 million people a year who didn't die due to fossil fuel pollution. It would take no less than a nuclear Armageddon to make up for such a shortfall in casualties. Even using the most pessimistic estimates for people who may have died due to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster (roughly 16,000), that's equivalent to 250 Chernobyls per year.


----------



## spudmunkey

One aspect of future energy distribution plan that doesn't get much press is the development of "smart grid", "smart meter" and "smart charger" tech.

Here's an example of how a "smart" system can help with one issue brought up earlier in this thread: neighborhood grids charging a whole street's worth of cars all at once.

So, picture the scenario when the full-freeway's-worth of rush hour traffic gets home to charge. They all plug in, in a large peak in neighborhoods, at the same time they are already cranking their heaters/AC, watching huge TV's, running their gaming rigs, cooking dinners and running their electric dryers. Sounds terrible, right? Well...what if, _by default,_ the car chargers were set up to stagger charging? Let's say everyone plugs in at 6-8PM. Every single car doesn't need to start full-power charging right off the bat to be full at 11PM. What if, _by default_, you set the time you want your car full on a day-to-day basis, and the charger and meter work together to make that happen. _But then_, if you do want to push the full power, you can...just gotta hit a button to bypass the schedule, just like you might on a thermostat where you set the temp schedule, but if you want to bump it down a degree or two, it'll do that during that program window, and then revert back once it's done.

If your car charges for 12 hours overnight using, say, just 1500 watts, which is the rated sustained load of your typical 15a household plug, that'd add half of the average driver's daily usage (20 of 40 miles). Charge at "full power" for just two of those hours of even a 7-year-old EV car's tech, and you've just surpassed the average driver's daily mileage by nearly 50% (60 of 40 miles). So when you look at it that way, an intelligent charging system, even if you could easily bypass it when you wanted, would have minimal impact on the average neighborhood grid. Like...imagine if each house just plugged in one space heater, given that whole homes used to have incandescent and halogen lights. Not likely to make much of a difference.

Now, one can argue that adding complications/friction between you and your car's full "tank" is anti-freedom, but (clearly) that's not an opinion I share. What COULD be, though, is if this shit isn't locked down by regulations right away to keep "full power" charging from being hidden behind a paywall or subscription plan,or a part of one company's "ecosystem"...and I think that's a legit concern.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> For some perspective, it's estimated that pollution from fossil fuel emissions are responsible for up to 8 million deaths per year. Nevermind nuclear reactor meltdowns, that's the equivalent to the bombing of Hiroshimo once every 3 days. There is absolutely *no argument* against the safety of nuclear power and alternative energy sources relative to fossil fuel that could possibly make fossil fuels look safer by comparison. Even if we could only cut that number in half, that's still 4 million people a year who didn't die due to fossil fuel pollution. It would take no less than a nuclear Armageddon to make up for such a shortfall in casualties. Even using the most pessimistic estimates for people who may have died due to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster (roughly 16,000), that's equivalent to 250 Chernobyls per year.



Construction and operation of nuclear facilities require no fossil fuels? Mining materials? All 8 million deaths are from fossil fuel power plants, nowhere else?


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Though I think it's obvious when things go to shit that there was a uniquely bad planning decision, but these are basically "known unknowns" until the consequences of these bad decisions are playing out. I do believe in nuclear power, but the fact that these reactors were the results of countless expert manhours and still wind up revealing disasterous faults doesn't paint a picture of like, "nah, nah, we got it now". The idea that any of these are "perfectly safe" is the same kind of hubris that created those sorts of disasters in the first place.


I mean, how many workplace accidents are a result of inadequate risk assessment or disobeying procedures? 100% of them. Anyone who risk assessed Fukushima knew what was up and didn't make any changes. Every other Chernobyl style reactor didn't blow up because procedures were followed. 

These aren't known unknowns. Go read about how Chernobyl happened. It was layers of incompetence to counter the layers of safety. I can tell you for certain if any competent risk assessor walked around Fukushima between 2004 and 2011 they would have talked about the risk of tsunamis and flooding the generators. In fact it happened before in 1991, the plant was 20m lower than they were granted permission to build, and the cooling system didn't meet regulations at the time of construction. Fukushima was a shithole of corner cutting and cost saving from start to finish. 

I'm not going to argue that every other nuclear reactor on the planet was built properly, but every other one has been built better. And the appalling standard of Fukushima already required a tsunami. Typically, I'd argue against building nuclear plants on, say, the San Andreas fault because that's another recipe for disaster and unnecessary.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> Construction and operation of nuclear facilities require no fossil fuels? Mining materials? All 8 million deaths are from fossil fuel power plants, nowhere else?


Nuclear plants have a lower fossil fuel emission per kWh than wind and solar.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> Construction and operation of nuclear facilities require no fossil fuels? Mining materials? All 8 million deaths are from fossil fuel power plants, nowhere else?


I never said all those deaths were from fossil fuel plants, nor did I say that construction and industry could be completely divorced from it. While the construction of a nuclear plant would result in significant one-time emissions, over the span of its lifetime those emissions would be significantly lower than those of a coal or oil power plant for an equivalent amount of energy.


----------



## narad

Xaios said:


> For some perspective, it's estimated that air pollution resulting directly or indirectly from fossil fuel emissions are responsible for up to 8 million deaths per year. Nevermind nuclear reactor meltdowns, that's the equivalent to the bombing of Hiroshimo once every 3 days. There is absolutely *no argument* against the safety of nuclear power and alternative energy sources relative to fossil fuel that could possibly make fossil fuels look safer by comparison. Even if we could only cut that number in half, that's still 4 million people a year who didn't die due to fossil fuel pollution. It would take no less than a nuclear Armageddon to make up for such a shortfall in casualties. Even using the most pessimistic estimates for people who may have died due to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster (roughly 16,000), that's equivalent to 250 Chernobyls per year.



I completely disagree. The consequences of nuclear disasters linger in timeframes that dwarf any comparison to "deaths per year". Once you exceed the point where radioactive material is prevalent enough to be significantly affecting people's health, it will do so basically ad infinitum. Then try comparing those numbers.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> These aren't known unknowns. Go read about how Chernobyl happened. It was layers of incompetence to counter the layers of safety. I can tell you for certain if any competent risk assessor walked around Fukushima between 2004 and 2011 they would have talked about the risk of tsunamis and flooding the generators. In fact it happened before in 1991, the plant was 20m lower than they were granted permission to build, and the cooling system didn't meet regulations at the time of construction. Fukushima was a shithole of corner cutting and cost saving from start to finish.
> 
> I'm not going to argue that every other nuclear reactor on the planet was built properly, but every other one has been built better. And the appalling standard of Fukushima already required a tsunami. Typically, I'd argue against building nuclear plants on, say, the San Andreas fault because that's another recipe for disaster and unnecessary.


Well I'm certainly glad we've since solved the problems of human incompetence and cost cutting.


----------



## Randy

StevenC said:


> Nuclear plants have a lower fossil fuel emission per kWh than wind and solar.



So we're arguing nuclear over renewable energy now? Alright this has come full circle. 

Also notable that all the "way lower than everything else" deaths metric ignores the fact nuclear is what, less than 10% of power generation in the world and most of that in three to five countries? Would the volume of deaths associated with it remain as low if it was the majority energy source across the globe?

Edit: Would you trust nuclear power to be safe from incompetence in every country?


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> I never said all those deaths were from fossil fuel plants, nor did I say that construction and industry could be completely divorced from it. While the construction of a nuclear plant would result in significant one-time emissions, over the span of its lifetime those emissions would be significantly lower than those of a coal or oil power plant for an equivalent amount of energy.



I guess its a good thing nobody said we should stick to coal and oil. I said anything non renewable or that creates waste that's dangerous for 200,000 years is a bridge solution.


----------



## Xaios

narad said:


> I completely disagree. The consequences of nuclear disasters linger in timeframes that dwarf any comparison to "deaths per year". Once you exceed the point where radioactive material is prevalent enough to be significantly affecting people's health, it will do so basically ad infinitum. Then try comparing those numbers.


That's potentially correct. However, it's assuming that further nuclear disasters happen at all, which is not necessarily a given. Conversely, the effects of fossil fuel emissions are here now and not only are they responsible for millions of deaths per year, but they're well on their way to making earth uninhabitable _far sooner_ than the consequences of nuclear disasters would unless the rate of those failures increased by orders of magnitude from what they already are, which is highly improbable.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> Well I'm certainly glad we've since solved the problems of human incompetence and cost cutting.


If this is how you love your life you'd never get on an aeroplane or drive a car. The solution to these things is training, consultation and regulation. Go to any factory in the world with shitty health and safety culture and you'll see accidents. Go somewhere with a good culture and you won't. Nuclear is a very strictly regulated industry and it's getting easier to detect when corners are being cut. 


Randy said:


> So we're arguing nuclear over renewable energy now? Alright this has come full circle.
> 
> Also notable that all the "way lower than everything else" deaths metric ignores the fact nuclear is what, less than 10% of power generation in the world and most of that in three to five countries? Would the volume of deaths associated with it remain as low if it was the majority energy source across the globe?
> 
> Edit: Would you trust nuclear power to be safe from incompetence in every country?


Yes, I've been arguing that its better than renewables actively for a few posts now and passively for years. It's just better. 

Yes it would remain low because the deaths associated with it are not related to the emissions essential to the process. They're the few deaths linked to meltdowns, and if nuclear was 100% of power generation, 10x that number of deaths is insignificant compared to fossil fuel deaths. 

Provided the IAEA gets to do their job, and on the assumption that we're not building one in current day Yemen, then yes pretty much every country can competently run a nuclear power plant. I'll repeat that international oversight is incredibly important, because that is what avoids corruption.


----------



## StevenC

Randy said:


> waste that's dangerous for 200,000 years


What's with the inflation?


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I completely disagree. The consequences of nuclear disasters linger in timeframes that dwarf any comparison to "deaths per year". Once you exceed the point where radioactive material is prevalent enough to be significantly affecting people's health, it will do so basically ad infinitum. Then try comparing those numbers.


Except based on the disasters we've had, you're wrong. You're arguing for a fantasy disaster.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Except based on the disasters we've had, you're wrong. You're arguing for a fantasy disaster.



I'm not though. It's all additive. It doesn't take a different kind of disaster, it simply takes more of them, creating problems that have half-lifes on the order of 20,000+ years. If you can keep it to a few such examples every 20,000+ years, that'd be great, but we're not off to a great start and to replace fossil fuels, how many do we have to build?


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I'm not though. It's all additive. It doesn't take a different kind of disaster, it simply takes more of them, creating problems that have half-lifes on the order of 20,000+ years. If you can keep it to a few such examples every 20,000+ years, that'd be great, but we're not off to a great start and to replace fossil fuels, how many do we have to build?


Sorry, we'd need to aggressively start blowing up reactors to achieve this fever dream. Chernobyl and Fukushima are literally safe to live near. Basically what's closed off is the grounds of the plant. The dose living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is comparable to that of a radiographer.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> I guess its a good thing nobody said we should stick to coal and oil. I said anything non renewable or that creates waste that's dangerous for 200,000 years is a bridge solution.


It might be a bridge solution, but nuclear could significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels much sooner than renewables if we committed to it, which would slow down the runaway green house effect we've got going. And yes, while the waste is dangerous, it can also be contained, and with further technological developments, it could even itself be further harnessed.

Not to mention, significant investment is being put into the development of thorium reactors, and they're predicted to be both significantly safer from an operational standpoint, and also produce far less waste compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Additionally, what waste they do produce apparently becomes radioactively safe within a few hundred years, as opposed to hundreds of thousands. Thorium is also more abundant than uranium, safer to mine and harder to weaponize.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Sorry, we'd need to aggressively start blowing up reactors to achieve this fever dream. Chernobyl and Fukushima are literally safe to live near. Basically what's closed off is the grounds of the plant. The dose living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is comparable to that of a radiographer.


I'm not talking about just livable zones. I'm talking about just that material going out into the environment, being part the things anyone eats or drinks, over the span of their whole life.


----------



## StevenC

narad said:


> I'm not talking about just livable zones. I'm talking about just that material going out into the environment, being part the things anyone eats or drinks, over the span of their whole life.


Heavy metal isotopes are not analogous to microplastics.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Heavy metal isotopes are not analogous to microplastics.



Well you're right -- at least we could presumably filter out microplastics.

After such radiation leaves the atmosphere, being breathed in or otherwise ingested, I honestly don't know where it goes. I just know it's not going away for a very long time.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I guess the question is if pollution from fossil fuels is worse than radiation, and if so by how much? Over a person's lifetime. 

If it's comparable, I still think nuclear energy is the lesser evil. 

I live a couple hours away from an active nuclear plant, so it's not like I'm being a NIMBY about it.


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> Yeah, I'd say we're treading back into hyperbole again. I don't think growing the umbrella of all human activity as being bad for the environment or equally damaging is all that accurate or useful.



I guess we disagree there. I assumed it was general knowledge amongst the population that it was accurate. What about the statement that modern industrialized life is necessarily harmful to the environment it is inaccurate?



Randy said:


> I'd argue most of modern industrialized counties have "made personal changes" over the last hundred years, considering you don't see things like acid rain or opaque black/orange clouds hanging over major cities like you did.



Hmm. Well, I agree, but only to an extent. We moved manufacturing away from the USA and more toward Mexico and Asia. And cities in Mexico and Asia still have brown air. Maybe some places aren't as bad as they were 10-15 years ago, so industry is doing better than it was then, but they are still notoriously bad, and the world as a whole is blistering worse than ever. 

So, I mean, "make personal changes" sort of means switching to LED bulbs or reusable bags, but it also sort of means buying cheap shit from China instead of buying cheap shit from Pittsburgh. People _have_ made little changes, but my point is that those changes, although positive, have little impact in comparison to changes that can be made in industry. And a lot of the changes that we give ourselves the most credit for are ultimately offset to a large degree by other consequences we might have a tendency to ignore.



Randy said:


> Again, I think the value of "reduce, reuse, recycle" as an actual prevailing principal in our everyday life is underrated. I can't believe the stuff I was throwing away for the first 20+ years of my life. I think things like the plastic bag bans have been ultrabroad transitions away from waste and pollution. I reject the idea people won't take on a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. I think the bigger issue is that over the last 50 years, we've whittled away at how much environmental conservation the individual can do, so the "refusal to do more" is because the ask begins to be too much.



I 100% agree with you there.

But, unfortunately, the most impactful thing people can do to improve the health of the planet at this point in time is to stop having kids, and that's nearly as big of a request as telling people to just off themselves en masse. People will never stop having kids, and the population will continue to grow, and the planet will continue to suffer because of it. Maybe it sounds like you disagree with that conclusion, and maybe there's no sense in arguing about it if you are already convinced that you are right without supporting evidence that I'd want to see before considering your position. If that's not the case, then let's go ahead and present our cases and see where the source of the difference of opinion truly lies.



Randy said:


> And tbh, EVs feel like the ultimate slactivist solution. Live 100% the same lifestyle but instead I plug my car into my outlet. That feels like the most nothing thing you can do.


Hey, if it simplifies your life, it's better for the environment, and it's a personal economic win, why not make the change? We've got 100% electric Ford F150's on the way, and there already are high performance sports cars that are fully electric. I think the biggest thing missing, by far, is something like a 100% electric Honda Civic - you know what I mean? Although, I think we've made it to the point where people aren't as keen to buy new cars in general, so changes in the automotive industry will take 5 years longer to enact on the roads than they did when the economy was booming, but that's not a bad thing, either. We don't want to flood the junkyards with a bunch of vehicles no one wants anymore!



MaxOfMetal said:


> I'd take one terrible nuclear incident a generation to stop relying on autocrats in the Middle East and Asia.


^ This. It's either use less electricity or choose a way to generate electricity. Gas means fracking, oil means UAE and KSA emirs and shahs get richer, hydro means a few cities might get flooded, nuclear means there might be another Fukoshima, wind is already to the point of diminishing returns, solar will likely never provide enough direct power, and biomass means clearcutting more forests. Take your pick. Honestly, I think nuclear is the least evil of those choices, but I don't think we ought to be putting all of our proverbial eggs into that basket, either.


----------



## philkilla

The great unifier, further driving the stake between citizens.


----------



## nightflameauto

philkilla said:


> The great unifier, further driving the stake between citizens.


I wondered if the usual suspects would start bitching about it.

I like that he was very clear that he was not saying all Republicans are a part of the problem. I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of it, as folks absolutely WILL use this as evidence that Biden and the Democrats are trying to paint the entire Republican party with the same evil brush.

Attacking the capital and threatening to kill the vice president is perfectly fine and civilized. Giving a speech where you say those people and their supporters may be a problem? Clearly unacceptable and uncivilized. Burn the witch at the stake.

Fuck sake.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> People have made little changes, but my point is that those changes, although positive, have little impact in comparison to changes that can be made in industry. And a lot of the changes that we give ourselves the most credit for are ultimately offset to a large degree by other consequences we might have a tendency to ignore.



I think this nugget here confirms we're essentially arguing the same point, the rest is details or perspective.

I'm definitely intrigued by EVs, especially if they're affordable on the used market. My two additional concerns would be

1.) the battery issue (price of replacement). I don't think I'm entirely uncommon in how I do things, and I typically have one newer/reliable car that's the main for the family and another that's either the previous "main" or something else as a backup. 

Over the last 20 years I've had cars, I've never wrecked one, pretty much every car I've given up was because the cost to fix it or get it inspected was more than practical (which is obscenely wasteful, btw). I've got concerns about buying a car new or on the secondary used market and giving it up because there's $7000 of battery replacement necessary. It's pretty common knowledge what kind of things you'll have to expect to replace when you get a used car, especially beyond a certain age (catalytic converter, timing belt, etc). Would be shitty to buy a used car because you're on a tight budget, and you're 10,000 miles from the battery pack running out. If the used market isn't practical, than it's not a practical option.

2.) My last issue principally is that range and MPGe, and recharge rate seems to semi-correlate with price which kinda pisses me off. I mean, there are exceptions but the idea you have to pay more to get useable driving range feels cash grab-ish. In the ICE market, budget friendly car usually also meant fuel economy friendly. Saying poor people can't drive as far or somehow shouldn't need to rubs me the wrong way.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> I'm not though. It's all additive. It doesn't take a different kind of disaster, it simply takes more of them, creating problems that have half-lifes on the order of 20,000+ years. If you can keep it to a few such examples every 20,000+ years, that'd be great, but we're not off to a great start and to replace fossil fuels, how many do we have to build?



Half-life =/= danger level.

There are naturally occurring isotopes in the dirt that have half-lives of billions of years (which is why they are still there).

Generally, the longer the half-life, the less violently the material decays, so maybe it's mostly counter-intuitive. The only truly stable elements, on a cosmic scale, are iron, nickel, and cobalt. Literally everything else in the universe will eventually decay. It's just that something as stable as, like carbon-12 will have a half life so long that we cannot accurately measure it over the course of human lifetimes. If half-life was proportional to toxicity, then iron would be the deadliest substance. Realistically, if you handed me a vial of material and then told me that the material you just handed me had a half-life of one zeta-second, I would be extremely concerned for my own health. Even if that material was long gone before you could even pass it over to me, the stuff that it became would likely be dangerous as well, and, well, even more unknown.

The *vast* majority of radiation-related deaths have no link to nuclear power, but are rather from things like smoking tobacco that was grown with radioactive pesticides or people working in manufacturing of glow-in-the-dark wrist watches. Chernobyl is still of note, though. It's easy to point at it and say "look how bad nuclear power is," or, conversely, to say "this was a total fluke and it would never happen again." The more reasonable stance is to acknowledge that it happened, and to acknowledge that it was a fluke, but that it _could_ happen again, because people can be dumbasses, and will continue to be dumbasses.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> I think this nugget here confirms we're essentially arguing the same point, the rest is details or perspective.
> 
> I'm definitely intrigued by EVs, especially if they're affordable on the used market. My two additional concerns would be
> 
> 1.) the battery issue (price of replacement). I don't think I'm entirely uncommon in how I do things, and I typically have one newer/reliable car that's the main for the family and another that's either the previous "main" or something else as a backup.
> 
> Over the last 20 years I've had cars, I've never wrecked one, pretty much every car I've given up was because the cost to fix it or get it inspected was more than practical (which is obscenely wasteful, btw). I've got concerns about buying a car new or on the secondary used market and giving it up because there's $7000 of battery replacement necessary. It's pretty common knowledge what kind of things you'll have to expect to replace when you get a used car, especially beyond a certain age (catalytic converter, timing belt, etc). Would be shitty to buy a used car because you're on a tight budget, and you're 10,000 miles from the battery pack running out. If the used market isn't practical, than it's not a practical option.
> 
> 2.) My last issue principally is that range and MPGe, and recharge rate seems to semi-correlate with price which kinda pisses me off. I mean, there are exceptions but the idea you have to pay more to get useable driving range feels cash grab-ish. In the ICE market, budget friendly car usually also meant fuel economy friendly. Saying poor people can't drive as far or somehow shouldn't need to rubs me the wrong way.



I feel like these are 2015 arguments, not that we're a million years away, but a lot of that is either no longer a real issue, or a fairly known quantity. 

A Chevy Bolt is around $25k, a Kia Rio is like $18k now. That gets you a handsome list of amenities (they don't really make "base" EVs) and about 250 miles of range, which degrades between 5% and 10% between 50k and 200k miles. 

It's not too terrible...if you have a place to charge, which is probably the biggest sticking point. If you can't where you live or work you're pretty much screwed.


----------



## StevenC

The main problem with EVs is that they're perfect for city driving but better for suburban or rural living.


philkilla said:


> The great unifier, further driving the stake between citizens.


It's controversial to call people storming the Capitol terrorists now?


----------



## bostjan

Randy said:


> I think this nugget here confirms we're essentially arguing the same point, the rest is details or perspective.
> 
> I'm definitely intrigued by EVs, especially if they're affordable on the used market. My two additional concerns would be
> 
> 1.) the battery issue (price of replacement). I don't think I'm entirely uncommon in how I do things, and I typically have one newer/reliable car that's the main for the family and another that's either the previous "main" or something else as a backup.
> 
> Over the last 20 years I've had cars, I've never wrecked one, pretty much every car I've given up was because the cost to fix it or get it inspected was more than practical (which is obscenely wasteful, btw). I've got concerns about buying a car new or on the secondary used market and giving it up because there's $7000 of battery replacement necessary. It's pretty common knowledge what kind of things you'll have to expect to replace when you get a used car, especially beyond a certain age (catalytic converter, timing belt, etc). Would be shitty to buy a used car because you're on a tight budget, and you're 10,000 miles from the battery pack running out. If the used market isn't practical, than it's not a practical option.
> 
> 2.) My last issue principally is that range and MPGe, and recharge rate seems to semi-correlate with price which kinda pisses me off. I mean, there are exceptions but the idea you have to pay more to get useable driving range feels cash grab-ish. In the ICE market, budget friendly car usually also meant fuel economy friendly. Saying poor people can't drive as far or somehow shouldn't need to rubs me the wrong way.


Right.

And I think both points 1 and 2 are pretty on track with what most people are thinking. But if there was a mass-produced, low cost, high practical, basic sedan EV that became widely popular, I think it would partially fix both issues.

The battery is the technological bottleneck in the EV. Everything else is pretty much fine with 20 year old technology. If Toyota or Honda or Ford or whoever simply sat down and made an EV that had 90% of the options your average commuter needed and 0 of everything else, and then started cranking them out in black or whatever one colour, and got a government subsidy to get them cheaply from the assembly line into people's garages, then I think everything would self-standardize around it. People who wanted to pay more would get to determine the other 10% of the options available in other EV models, but maybe we could crank out enough batteries to squeeze that price of replacement down from $7000 to $3500, and maybe even lower. Heck, maybe, the battery could be cheap enough that most people would rock two of them per car, so one could charge whilst the other is in use, just like how most people operate battery-powered tools. It'd also make it more likely for the battery refurbishment issue I mentioned earlier to reach a solution, which in turn would allow acceptable low-cost batteries onto the market.

The problem with the above proposal is that the automotive industry, like the California government, has their own head so far up it's ass that it possibly can't pull that off anymore. When Ford introduced the Model T, the industry was in a state of experimentation and rapid growth. Now, the automotive industry is still stagnant from the 2008 recession, and executives have no idea what people want. So we get the Chevy Bolt for $41000 MSRP (and the car reportedly cost nearly $50000 to manufacture, so GM was selling them at a subsidized loss), which sold nearly 100k units in the USA alone, but tended to spontaneously catch fire, leading to tons of property damage and loss of life. Whoops. What happened? It was all in the damned battery technology. The lithium ion batteries couldn't be made powerful enough cheap enough, so GM tried something new- a nickel-lithium ion battery that cost half the price and was reported to last 100k miles (at least that was the warrantee), but it was rushed through R&D and ended up basically being the fuckup that set the EV industry back.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> The main problem with EVs is that they're perfect for city driving but better for suburban or rural living.



In urban areas, it ought to be cheaper to use public transit than to own a car. Not for moral reasons, but just for practical reasons. Yet, every US city I've lived in, that has not been anywhere near the case. Nearly 2/3 of petroleum in the USA goes into small vehicles (as opposed to busses or cargo trucks or farm equipment, etc.). That's surprising for a nation whose population is nearly 85% urban.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like these are 2015 arguments, not that we're a million years away, but a lot of that is either no longer a real issue, or a fairly known quantity.
> 
> A Chevy Bolt is around $25k, a Kia Rio is like $18k now. That gets you a handsome list of amenities (they don't really make "base" EVs) and about 250 miles of range, which degrades between 5% and 10% between 50k and 200k miles.
> 
> It's not too terrible...if you have a place to charge, which is probably the biggest sticking point. If you can't where you live or work you're pretty much screwed.


I've gotten roasted anywhere else I bring this up in EV discussions due to being "an edge case that never really happens," but where I live 250 mile range is fuck-off territory. And good luck finding a charging point, and getting a quick enough charge to not fuck a day-trip, somewhere between Sioux Falls and Spearfish.

And since I've never spent more than 12k on any vehicle, I really can't see buying a used vehicle in the age range I can usually afford if it's an EV because it will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed I'll have to replace the battery immediately if it's within my price range, thus doubling the initial cost.

I would love to see EVs get within my price range to the point I could get one as a daily work driver, and keep my guzzlers for the weekend trips to the relatives and such, but we're a LONG ways from that happening.

I do have battery powered mower, chainsaw, trimmer and all my power tools are battery or direct plug-in now. I just don't think the EV market considers us flyover dwellers as a significant portion of their market. Certainly not sufficient enough to consider our actual priorities and needs.

Let me beat the usual to the punch: If I wanted to matter I shouldn't have been born in the midwest. True, and fair enough.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> I've gotten roasted anywhere else I bring this up in EV discussions due to being "an edge case that never really happens," but where I live 250 mile range is fuck-off territory. And good luck finding a charging point, and getting a quick enough charge to not fuck a day-trip, somewhere between Sioux Falls and Spearfish.
> 
> And since I've never spent more than 12k on any vehicle, I really can't see buying a used vehicle in the age range I can usually afford if it's an EV because it will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed I'll have to replace the battery immediately if it's within my price range, thus doubling the initial cost.
> 
> I would love to see EVs get within my price range to the point I could get one as a daily work driver, and keep my guzzlers for the weekend trips to the relatives and such, but we're a LONG ways from that happening.
> 
> I do have battery powered mower, chainsaw, trimmer and all my power tools are battery or direct plug-in now. I just don't think the EV market considers us flyover dwellers as a significant portion of their market. Certainly not sufficient enough to consider our actual priorities and needs.
> 
> Let me beat the usual to the punch: If I wanted to matter I shouldn't have been born in the midwest. True, and fair enough.



They're definitely not perfect for every use case, no car really is. 

But they're probably just fine for the greater majority of drivers, from a practical standpoint. 

The hardest part is having a place to charge and enough money to buy a new car, but there are workarounds to that where the state can help intervene if they wanted.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like these are 2015 arguments, not that we're a million years away, but a lot of that is either no longer a real issue, or a fairly known quantity.
> 
> A Chevy Bolt is around $25k, a Kia Rio is like $18k now. That gets you a handsome list of amenities (they don't really make "base" EVs) and about 250 miles of range, which degrades between 5% and 10% between 50k and 200k miles.
> 
> It's not too terrible...if you have a place to charge, which is probably the biggest sticking point. If you can't where you live or work you're pretty much screwed.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> I've gotten roasted anywhere else I bring this up in EV discussions due to being "an edge case that never really happens," but where I live 250 mile range is fuck-off territory. And good luck finding a charging point, and getting a quick enough charge to not fuck a day-trip, somewhere between Sioux Falls and Spearfish.
> 
> And since I've never spent more than 12k on any vehicle, I really can't see buying a used vehicle in the age range I can usually afford if it's an EV because it will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed I'll have to replace the battery immediately if it's within my price range, thus doubling the initial cost.
> 
> I would love to see EVs get within my price range to the point I could get one as a daily work driver, and keep my guzzlers for the weekend trips to the relatives and such, but we're a LONG ways from that happening.
> 
> I do have battery powered mower, chainsaw, trimmer and all my power tools are battery or direct plug-in now. I just don't think the EV market considers us flyover dwellers as a significant portion of their market. Certainly not sufficient enough to consider our actual priorities and needs.
> 
> Let me beat the usual to the punch: If I wanted to matter I shouldn't have been born in the midwest. True, and fair enough.


I don't think gasoline powered cars will need to go away, ever. People love _love_* love* classic cars, and that will never change. I don't see anybody ripping the original engine out of a 1957 Chevrolet to make it electric.

And let's also bring up the trucking industry. That's a lot of petroleum. But if you're talking about long haul trucking, batteries are going to need to be quite a bit better than what we currently have to really give trucking the economic incentive to start switching over. Not to mention that there are a lot of semi trucks out there going for 30+ years on the road, so it'll necessarily be a slow changeover, unless we want to fuck with a lot of people's livelihoods.

But even if drivers in major urban areas switched to EV's, it'd be a step in the right direction.


----------



## bostjan

I once brought up the possibility of installing EV charging stations with HR people, since the two biggest employers in my area offer their employees a couple of spots to park and charge EVs, and was laughed out of the room. The mentality is basically, "why should we change anything to accommodate your dumb ideas?" And, honestly, that's fair. But, interestingly, rather than just a "no," there was a fair deal of condescension, like "how dare you ask?"


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> I've gotten roasted anywhere else I bring this up in EV discussions due to being "an edge case that never really happens," but where I live 250 mile range is fuck-off territory. And good luck finding a charging point, and getting a quick enough charge to not fuck a day-trip, somewhere between Sioux Falls and Spearfish.
> 
> And since I've never spent more than 12k on any vehicle, I really can't see buying a used vehicle in the age range I can usually afford if it's an EV because it will be absolutely, 100% guaranteed I'll have to replace the battery immediately if it's within my price range, thus doubling the initial cost.
> 
> I would love to see EVs get within my price range to the point I could get one as a daily work driver, and keep my guzzlers for the weekend trips to the relatives and such, but we're a LONG ways from that happening.
> 
> I do have battery powered mower, chainsaw, trimmer and all my power tools are battery or direct plug-in now. I just don't think the EV market considers us flyover dwellers as a significant portion of their market. Certainly not sufficient enough to consider our actual priorities and needs.
> 
> Let me beat the usual to the punch: If I wanted to matter I shouldn't have been born in the midwest. True, and fair enough.


You're 100% right. EVs aren't currently able to cover everyone's needs. Generally speaking the advice is not "only buy EVs from now on", but "please don't buy new ICE vehicles if you can possibly avoid it".

I bought a car last year and it's only a mild hybrid because the nearest charging point from me is miles away, and there are almost no fast charging stations in the country.


----------



## Randy

bostjan said:


> But even if drivers in major urban areas switched to EV's, it'd be a step in the right direction.



Does the California legislation specify it's only for car sales in urban areas? Does the Inflation Reduction Act offer some kind of vehicle specific incentives for rural Americans where EV isn't currently practical? I'm still seeing donut holes.


----------



## ArtDecade

If you are upset about what Biden said, you are the very Republicans that he was talking about.


----------



## Randy

ArtDecade said:


> If you are upset about what Biden said, you are the very Republicans that he was talking about.


The modern republican party is a terrorist organization, but he didn't need to deliver that messsage from Snoke's Throne Room.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> View attachment 113610



The MSRP starts at $26,595 without a federal tax credit.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> The MSRP starts at $26,595 without a federal tax credit.



Right, and you pointed out the Kia was what, $9000 cheaper?

So the EV option is ~$10,000 and for whatever reason (probably "because it's so cheap") it doesn't qualify for tax credits? My argument almost from the beginning of this debate is that EV as the solution to save the world and the legislation to codify that is 1.) tone deaf 2.) classist 3.) only marginally effective (considering level of accessibility) and most of the answers I've gotten (ie: it's mostly for urban residence) has just reinforce that, not resolved it.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> The MSRP starts at $26,595 without a federal tax credit.
> 
> View attachment 113611


Would it fuckin' kill them to make any of these efficiency focused vehicles less than stab-your-eyes out fugly? Fuck sake that's an ugly motherfucker.

And no, I don't need my shitboxes to be big to be pretty. I drove a fucking nissan four banger and a chevy four banger for decades, but they didn't look like a blunted, squared off turd.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Randy said:


> Right, and you pointed out the Kia was what, $9000 cheaper?
> 
> So the EV option is ~$10,000 and for whatever reason (probably "because it's so cheap") it doesn't qualify for tax credits? My argument almost from the beginning of this debate is that EV as the solution to save the world and the legislation to codify that is 1.) tone deaf 2.) classist 3.) only marginally effective (considering level of accessibility) and most of the answers I've gotten (ie: it's mostly for urban residence) has just reinforce that, not resolved it.



Not sure what's up with the attitude, but I can't forgive shitty math.  

All I'm saying is that EVs are not incredibly more expensive than what most new car purchases are, which seemed to be what you're implying. 

They don't qualify for the credit because they've sold so many of them. When the credit ran dry GM cut the MSRP. 

I never said that EVs or nuclear power or whatever you're jumping to conclusions about is "the answer", just that it can help.


----------



## Randy

nightflameauto said:


> Would it fuckin' kill them to make any of these efficiency focused vehicles less than stab-your-eyes out fugly? Fuck sake that's an ugly motherfucker.
> 
> And no, I don't need my shitboxes to be big to be pretty. I drove a fucking nissan four banger and a chevy four banger for decades, but they didn't look like a blunted, squared off turd.



I've got a big issue with it being $10,000 more expensive than the ICE alternative, and not qualify for federal tax credits. Bridging the price gap between buying an EV and an ICE is exactly what the credits should be for. Braindead lost opportunity, out of touch neo liberal bullshit policy as always.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Would it fuckin' kill them to make any of these efficiency focused vehicles less than stab-your-eyes out fugly? Fuck sake that's an ugly motherfucker.
> 
> And no, I don't need my shitboxes to be big to be pretty. I drove a fucking nissan four banger and a chevy four banger for decades, but they didn't look like a blunted, squared off turd.



New car design in general is terrible. I know it's driven (  ) by efficiency and pedestrian safety, but they all look like shitty toys.


----------



## Randy

MaxOfMetal said:


> I never said that EVs or nuclear power... can help.



Which was my point as well, except the lion's share of responses I'm fielding are that EV and nuclear *are* "the answer" not just a right now thing. And then occasionally someone else jumps in to throw a blow to reinforce a single part and not the overall argument.

I can't believe I'm somehow out of step with the liberal majority on this site saying a technology is unnecessarily expensive for a lot of people, that the government (that mandates it, or encourages it) hasn't been doing enough to ease the pain, the technology could be "greener" and that any energy source that creates dangerous waste product in the course of daily operations is less than 100% solution. Those don't seem like incredibly controversial positions, yet here we are.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> New car design in general is terrible. I know it's driven (  ) by efficiency and pedestrian safety, but they all look like shitty toys.


Neil Peart was right


----------



## nightflameauto

Randy said:


> Which was my point as well, except the lion's share of responses I'm fielding are that EV and nuclear *are* "the answer" not just a right now thing. And then occasionally someone else jumps in to throw a blow to reinforce a single part and not the overall argument.
> 
> I can't believe I'm somehow out of step with the liberal majority on this site saying a technology is unnecessarily expensive for a lot of people, that the government (that mandates it, or encourages it) hasn't been doing enough to ease the pain, the technology could be "greener" and that any energy source that creates dangerous waste product in the course of daily operations is less than 100% solution. Those don't seem like incredibly controversial positions, yet here we are.


FWIW, I agree with your main points, but have learned through repeated beatings to not talk too much about how the liberal agenda misses the mark terribly when it comes to EV / nuclear / finding "now" bridge solutions because anything deemed "not on message" is attacked as if you were threatening to rape babies in front of their mothers.


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> View attachment 113610


You'll note that this review was written before the new law was passed. When this was written, this car was NOT eligible because Chevy had passed the maximum number of EVs sold to qualify for the credit. The same reason Tesla didn't qualify for years. With the new rules, these restrictions are lifted in January, and I believe the Chevy Bolt, Bolt EUV and the lower-cost versions of the Tesla Model 3 and Y would qualify.

Now...there is a bummer in that the domestic-manufacturing-suporting rules means that fewer car models actually qualify in 2023 than with the old rules. For example, the two newest "hot shit" EVs, the Kia EV6 and Hyundai Iconic 5 (and the the older, but still good, Kia Niro and Hyundai Kona) do not currently qualify. But manufacturers who already have factories in North America will be quick to flex ther local lines to start pumping out EVs. Some are already in progress, from what I've read.


----------



## Mathemagician

nightflameauto said:


> Would it fuckin' kill them to make any of these efficiency focused vehicles less than stab-your-eyes out fugly? Fuck sake that's an ugly motherfucker.
> 
> And no, I don't need my shitboxes to be big to be pretty. I drove a fucking nissan four banger and a chevy four banger for decades, but they didn't look like a blunted, squared off turd.



I think that little car looks neat, I drove a Hyundai Accent for years tho. And nothing is less inspiring than that little subcompact.

It’s not “cool” though. I’ll give you that. The ioniq line in comparison looks amazing.



Randy said:


> I've got a big issue with it being $10,000 more expensive than the ICE alternative, and not qualify for federal tax credits. Bridging the price gap between buying an EV and an ICE is exactly what the credits should be for. Braindead lost opportunity, out of touch neo liberal bullshit policy as always.



I’ll give you the initial cost being such a hurdle. But when gas is easily $50/week, and there’s more wear & tear maintenance as well, these suddenly start looking real cheap a year or so in to owning one.

However look at the Tesla example. First offering: roadster was crazy expensive and more just for those who wanted the novelty to show off the tech.

Then model S, a premium/luxury offering that was more affordable but still expensive enough that it was for upper middle class buyers or wealthier. Not an Everyman car.

The model 3 was around $40k initially and has since gone up, but a $40k car is not “cheap” still. It’s just more accessible to more people.

The EV platforms are still new, there is more room for global scaling and cost reduction that will allow the rollout of newer and cheaper models in coming years.

Being vocal about wanting lower price point is good. Being angry that the price isn’t where you want it just means that one has to be patient. It’s coming. So we don’t need to “give up on all progress” just because it’s not perfect first.

Iteration is a good thing.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> I think that little car looks neat, I drove a Hyundai Accent for years tho. And nothing is less inspiring than that little subcompact.
> 
> It’s not “cool” though. I’ll give you that. The ioniq line in comparison looks amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll give you the initial cost being such a hurdle. But when gas is easily $50/week, and there’s more wear & tear maintenance as well, these suddenly start looking real cheap a year or so in to owning one.
> 
> However look at the Tesla example. First offering: roadster was crazy expensive and more just for those who wanted the novelty to show off the tech.
> 
> Then model S, a premium/luxury offering that was more affordable but still expensive enough that it was for upper middle class buyers or wealthier. Not an Everyman car.
> 
> The model 3 was around $40k initially and has since gone up, but a $40k car is not “cheap” still. It’s just more accessible to more people.
> 
> The EV platforms are still new, there is more room for global scaling and cost reduction that will allow the rollout of newer and cheaper models in coming years.
> 
> Being vocal about wanting lower price point is good. Being angry that the price isn’t where you want it just means that one has to be patient. It’s coming. So we don’t need to “give up on all progress” just because it’s not perfect first.
> 
> Iteration is a good thing.



For the record, I'm not mad that they're expensive (to some people), I'm mad at even the remote implication of a mandate **while** they're still out of reach for some people, and imperfect, and while there's a concern our infrastructure can support them today.

Is EV the goal or is EV today? Just feels lost in the delivery.

I'll stick with what you quoted. If taking ICEs off the road is a net positive for the environment, financial incentives and legislative goals should be entirely focused on making them more sustainable (ie: power grid upgrades, cleaner battery development) and making them an equally affordable option for someone buying a car (which $10,000 difference is not). Lowering costs. 

Flexing mandates is the kinda stuff you start doing when you want *raise* the cost of the undesirable alternative, to make buying an ICE more painful. I call it the carrot and the stick, where if the carrot doesn't entice you, we'll hit you with the stick instead.


----------



## Glades

Y’all get your EVs. I’m gonna keep my 17 year old diesel truck. Runs like it was brand new. I service and repair in my driveway for cheap. It has no emission systems on other than a CAT and 3rd injection event. Reliable and an absolute unit towing.
Modern cars are expensive and hard to maintain. I’d like to see one of these EV pickups do 1 million miles. There is nothing like a pre-emissions Cummins.


----------



## Mathemagician

Well it won’t happen in unison unless we have a government that works well at long-term planning. That takes investing in the future which brings problems:

1) Not all politicians wants to support investing in the future because it spends money today that we won’t see benefits of for a while- this gets them branded as “liberal taxers/spenders” if it doesn’t come in a bill that offsets some costs. And even then people get mad when you help anyone but them. Even if it’s future them.

2) It doesn’t help their re-election campaigns unless they are already on a progressive lean

3) Policy discussion is largely funded by large private interest groups. So they don’t bankroll what won’t help them. See the auto industry lobbying against better mass transit. Not to replace cars, it took make travel easier by having updated good working alternatives.
Or the oil & gas industry lobbying against alternatives. Russia purposely fucking up chernobyl sure made great marketing for Russian natural gas huh?
Or the private insurance industry fighting single payer solutions tooth and nail.

So we in the US have to take a patchwork approach and fix things one at a time to work to try to line them up.

The thing about California is purchasing power. If the state mandates it, everyone will make it work. They are not going to give up that audience. Watch how fast things start shifting.
The recent shift in the last decade was because the EU was making Similar time commitments. And manufacturers weren’t going to throw out selling to the entire EU, mandates come first, then producers begrudgingly do what they should have been doing all along.

If large corporations won’t do important things with a carrot you use a stick.


----------



## philkilla

nightflameauto said:


> I wondered if the usual suspects would start bitching about it.
> 
> I like that he was very clear that he was not saying all Republicans are a part of the problem. I'm not sure how I feel about the rest of it, as folks absolutely WILL use this as evidence that Biden and the Democrats are trying to paint the entire Republican party with the same evil brush.
> 
> Attacking the capital and threatening to kill the vice president is perfectly fine and civilized. Giving a speech where you say those people and their supporters may be a problem? Clearly unacceptable and uncivilized. Burn the witch at the stake.
> 
> Fuck sake.



I mean, the optics alone are enough to raise a few eyebrows no matter what your opinion is.

He's said and done enough this week that if a certain other political opponent had, there would be pandemonium throughout the mainstream media.


----------



## Glades

philkilla said:


> I mean, the optics alone are enough to raise a few eyebrows no matter what your opinion is.
> 
> He's said and done enough this week that if a certain other political opponent had, there would be pandemonium throughout the mainstream media.


It reminded me of the bad guy in V for Vendetta, or the first order in Star Wars  whoever thought a red background was a good idea should probably find another job. Not good if you are trying to change the popular perspective that you command an authoritarian regime.


----------



## AMOS

Glades said:


> It reminded me of the bad guy in V for Vendetta, or the first order in Star Wars  whoever thought a red background was a good idea should probably find another job. Not good if you are trying to change the popular perspective that you command an authoritarian regime.


They shoulda went with the golden eagle


----------



## Mathemagician

Hey look it’s Dijon mustard and flag lapel pins, the remix.


----------



## narad

Must be a bad week for conservatives if the color of the background of a speech is where you're allotting your free time.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Must be a bad week for conservatives if the color of the background of a speech is where you're allotting your free time.



It is just the worst. I really feel bad for the conservatives right now..


----------



## SpaceDock

I find it crazy that republicans are offended by Biden’s speech when he was saying “people who voted for Trump weren’t voting for an attack on the capital.” If you want to be offended, be offended by Trump literally financially helping those who attacked the capital and the Maga people who have destroyed your party.


----------



## Glades

Maybe they should have put this banner behind him.


----------



## Adieu

StevenC said:


> This is a completely unnecessary waste of money, and nuclear plants are expensive enough already.



Is it really? I'm not so sure.

Besides, perhaps existing burrows under mountains could be repurposed. Bunkers, mines, whatever.


----------



## CapinCripes

philkilla said:


> I mean, the optics alone are enough to raise a few eyebrows no matter what your opinion is.
> 
> He's said and done enough this week that if a certain other political opponent had, there would be pandemonium throughout the mainstream media.


It was photoshopped to look darker





The backdrop also is conveniently framed in all the shots to cut out that it was red white and blue. 




Also the republican party's official color is red so..


----------



## Randy

Things like this don't inspire much confidence "suggestions" on energy use are always just "suggestions"


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Things like this don't inspire much confidence "suggestions" on energy use are always just "suggestions"



Those are opt-in programs. You give them control for discounts. So they are being paid to do it.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> Those are opt-in programs. You give them control for discounts. So they are being paid to do it.



Fair, although I don't think explanation = justification. I don't think most people read their license agreements on scary tech, or assume the worst thing they claim they can do is the thing they'll actually do.


----------



## philkilla

Randy said:


> Fair, although I don't think explanation = justification. I don't think most people read their license agreements on scary tech, or assume the worst thing they claim they can do is the thing they'll actually do.



Please tell me you've watched the show Silicon Valley, and recall Jared mentioning how he always reads the terms of service .


----------



## spudmunkey

Randy said:


> Fair, although I don't think explanation = justification. I don't think most people read their license agreements on scary tech, or assume the worst thing they claim they can do is the thing they'll actually do.


I can only speak to my own interpretation, but around here they are pretty direct about it, at least from my experience. Kristen Bell even did commercials for it, and they were definitely explicit that you give control when there's "reason. I dont even remember if they mentioned the compensation for it...it was definitely more of a "help us band together and help the grid" sort of message.


----------



## Randy

spudmunkey said:


> I can only speak to my own interpretation, but around here they are pretty direct about it, at least from my experience. Kristen Bell even did commercials for it, and they were definitely explicit that you give control when there's "reason. I dont even remember if they mentioned the compensation for it...it was definitely more of a "help us band together and help the grid" sort of message.



Still feels like boiling the frog a little bit.


----------



## SpaceDock

Guys, I live in NoCo and have xcel. There are two programs you can sign up for to get “ac rewards” for 100 bucks a year, one that is this where they can set your smart thermostat or one where they can turn off your compressor. We get some rolling blackouts in late summer here due to intense sun from high altitude. When they turned up those peoples thermostats this week, there was no blackout. People are mad that they had to participate in the program they signed up for and have been getting 100 dollar credit for each year. My ac was off for a few hours too, I just played guitar in the basement


----------



## Randy




----------



## CapinCripes

Can we be real here for a second. Trump had 43 empty classified information binders. This has been confirmed by the fbi. Where the hell did the documents inside them go?


----------



## spudmunkey

CapinCripes said:


> Can we be real here for a second. Trump had 43 empty classified information binders. This has been confirmed by the fbi. Where the hell did the documents inside them go?


I'm hesitant to jump to too-far of a conclusion. My immature self would absolutely want to grab a stack of empty Top Secret folders in a supply closet as a momento.


----------



## CapinCripes

spudmunkey said:


> I'm hesitant to jump to too-far of a conclusion. My immature self would absolutely want to grab a stack of empty Top Secret folders in a supply closet as a momento.



But even the most innocent answers are conduct that would be unbecoming of a president in any sane and rational time. Why in the world when even the most forgiving assessment of the situation is damning and in any normal world would end a political career would anyone still support him? Our allies and partners do not take even the perception that we are lax with the treatment of our classified material well. this could soil ongoing international projects that we are conducting, from our partners and allies newfound and understandable lack of trust in our ability to keep secrets. At the same time our adversaries are taking notice. Possibly becoming bolder at the mere mention of us dropping the ball this bad. It's not a small thing this completely disqualifies trump from the role of commander in chief even if it was through childish fascination with them as souvenirs. And that's all assuming the most innocent outcome.

If we end up with Saudi Arabia having a breakaway nuclear weapons program we know where information to do it came from. that's the less innocent answer. And the last thing this planet needs is Saudi Arabia and iran both ending up with nukes. After all kushner got a 2 billion dollar investment from the Saudi crown prince himself. And trump's currently doing that LIV golf thing. And his sudden pivot to 9/11 trutherism in response to the criticism of the tournament. It's not like the middle east doesn't have its own intrigue that would support that assumption. Iran and Saudi Arabia are and have been in a cold war of their own for a while. With the death of the jcpoa and the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon has Saudi alarm bells ringing and they saw a way in. Trump saw a way out.

TL;DR : even if the folders were empty souvenirs this is damning and damaging. Worst case scenario is a nuclear cold war in the middle east rife with extremism by two countries equally based in archaic interpretations of religious texts.


----------



## Mathemagician

Apparently here is the full un-cropped photo? This looks a lot more vanilla, lol. The bright red still a bit rough to be fair.


----------



## spudmunkey

CapinCripes said:


> But even the most innocent answers are conduct that would be unbecoming of a president in any sane and rational time. Why in the world when even the most forgiving assessment of the situation is damning and in any normal world would end a political career would anyone still support him?



Because they are "neat" and even an empty folder can be interesting enough to impress people you're trying to show off tkk. Like I said, with Trump I wouldn't doubt the worst, but so often it could also be read as just child-like. Wanting to show off.


----------



## Randy

Mathemagician said:


> Apparently here is the full un-cropped photo? This looks a lot more vanilla, lol. The bright red still a bit rough to be fair.



You know what would've looked great? A regular ass white light background. Or no background, just leave the lights off. Even if the theme was red, white and blow, that looks too much like France.


----------



## Mathemagician

I’m not disagreeing at all. I just think someone tried to go for something more punchy and it backfired.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Mathemagician said:


> I’m not disagreeing at all. I just think someone tried to go for something more punchy and it backfired.



This is what happens without a professional like Bill Shine in the White House to be on top of made for TV moments.


----------



## nightflameauto

CapinCripes said:


> Can we be real here for a second. Trump had 43 empty classified information binders. This has been confirmed by the fbi. Where the hell did the documents inside them go?


Has anyone checked with the plumber at Mar-a-Lago? He probably flushed them all down the toilet. Or tried.


Randy said:


> You know what would've looked great? A regular ass white light background. Or no background, just leave the lights off. Even if the theme was red, white and blow, that looks too much like France.


I just wanna hi-5 the "red, white and blow" whether it was on purpose or not. That's a good giggle either way.


----------



## Drew

Randy said:


> You know what would've looked great? A regular ass white light background. Or no background, just leave the lights off. Even if the theme was red, white and blow, that looks too much like France.


...white flags?


----------



## Drew

Also, don't want to open that can of worms further than I have to, but I've always been very amused that the "bundle of sticks" meaning of the homophobic slur in that other thread is also the root of our term "fascist" as Musolini used a tightly bound bundle of sticks, I believe "fascis" in Italian, as a metaphor for his ultra-nationalist model of state. 

That's an association that always makes me lol whenever homophobes call the "PC police" "fascists."


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Drew said:


> Also, don't want to open that can of worms further than I have to, but I've always been very amused that the "bundle of sticks" meaning of the homophobic slur in that other thread is also the root of our term "fascist" as Musolini used a tightly bound bundle of sticks, I believe "fascis" in Italian, as a metaphor for his ultra-nationalist model of state.
> 
> That's an association that always makes me lol whenever homophobes call the "PC police" "fascists."



Self-awareness is not their greatest trait. lol


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> ...white flags?


Why would he wave the flag of The Confederacy?


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> Why would he wave the flag of The Confederacy?


Those weren’t white flags, they were white sheets.


----------



## mmr007

CapinCripes said:


> Can we be real here for a second. Trump had 43 empty classified information binders. This has been confirmed by the fbi. Where the hell did the documents inside them go?


They are now in Putin's desk drawer right next to the peepee tape


----------



## Rock4ever

CapinCripes said:


> It was photoshopped to look darker
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The backdrop also is conveniently framed in all the shots to cut out that it was red white and blue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the republican party's official color is red so..


I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Here’s a video posted by cbs news. 

Watch what happens at just before 3:00.
I am curious how the dude’s gloves on the right are so white and bright yet nothing else is highlighted. Blocked out by POTUS perhaps? I don’t know


----------



## spudmunkey

Rock4ever said:


> I am curious how the dude’s gloves on the right are so white and bright yet nothing else is highlighted. Blocked out by POTUS perhaps? I don’t know



Looking at the direction of the lighting on the Marine on the right, the light is coming from the lower left. The photo is off center so itxs not super visible, but if you look at the left side you can see there's a row of white spotlights pointing in an angle that would mKe for a direct hit on the Marine if a) he was standing juuuust a bit more forward, or b) maybe the light in the right is pointed juuuust a little further back.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

This whole back lighting thing is soooooo beige suit.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> This whole back lighting thing is soooooo beige suit.


Remember the mustard thing?


----------



## zappatton2

Gawd, I remember when the big controversy was Obama saluting with a coffee in his hand, or fist-bumping his wife. Now it's the background lighting?

It's like no indiscretion is small enough to signal that those darn Demoncrats are imposing autocracy, yet when the Trump gang was actually attempting to _take _steps to subvert democracy and impose autocratic authority over public institutions, it was "Trump derangement" of the part of "leftist extremists." How can down look like up to so many people?


----------



## nightflameauto

The thing we got to remember is the Republicans create such a large target that they feel horribly persecuted for actually causing the erosion of democracy and sanity.

The Democrats are so hard to pin shit on that they can spend days overanalyzing bad backlighting and trying to show how it's a signal that they're um, something, uh, beige suit, coffee, fistbump, um, what?

I still think they both suck ass, but there's levels and one is definitely higher/lower than the other.


----------



## philkilla

nightflameauto said:


> The thing we got to remember is the Republicans create such a large target that they feel horribly persecuted for actually causing the erosion of democracy and sanity.
> 
> The Democrats are so hard to pin shit on that they can spend days overanalyzing bad backlighting and trying to show how it's a signal that they're um, something, uh, beige suit, coffee, fistbump, um, what?
> 
> I still think they both suck ass, but there's levels and one is definitely higher/lower than the other.



This just in:

"So and so influential figure dislikes so and so influential figure."

"Nothing to see here; please return to your respective social media platforms to continue hating each other."


----------



## bostjan

The thing I think is easy to underestimate about being president is that you have to not only be factually correct when you put forth statements like (paraphrasing) "MAGA republicans are a threat to our democracy," but you have to also be making a worthwhile point whilst saying anything like that. So, I guess, what worries me is what Biden was hoping to accomplish with that speech? If it was to build better bridges to work with republicans, then I think it could only ever backfire.

But yes, to compare Biden's poor choice of backlighting with an incident like Trump having police fire rubber bullets at demonstrators so that he could get a selfie holding the Bible upside down, it just makes the GOP's supporters seem like they aren't even worth the effort of trying to be reasonable, and maybe that was Biden's message, in a way. So, as much as I was thinking that it was the wrong message at the wrong time, the number of people dwelling on these sorts of details from within the GOP's ranks of supporters kind of undermines that doubt.


----------



## Mathemagician

StevenC said:


> Remember the mustard thing?



Yep, I mentioned the Dijon when this first came up. Such a waste of airtime. But it keeps real topics out of headlines.




nightflameauto said:


> The thing we got to remember is the Republicans create such a large target that they feel horribly persecuted for actually causing the erosion of democracy and sanity.
> 
> The Democrats are so hard to pin shit on that they can spend days overanalyzing bad backlighting and trying to show how it's a signal that they're um, something, uh, beige suit, coffee, fistbump, um, what?
> 
> I still think they both suck ass, but there's levels and one is definitely higher/lower than the other.



Because “deep state” conspiracies are fucking fun. To many people politics is just a game to “win”. And if they can be convinced that the other side is “evil and cheating” than so much the better. It allows people to feel like the underdogs they desperately want to be.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But yes, to compare Biden's poor choice of backlighting with an incident like Trump having police fire rubber bullets at demonstrators so that he could get a selfie holding the Bible upside down, it just makes the GOP's supporters seem like they aren't even worth the effort of trying to be reasonable, and maybe that was Biden's message, in a way.


Quoted for emphasis. Anyone excusing the right here, stop and re-read this. 

In other news, the Save America PAC was just hit with a few subpoenas, about how the $250mm they raised in their "Stop the Steal" campaign, specifically that they knew accusations of fraud were baseless, and then didn't actually spend it on what they said they were going to but instead funnelled it to organizations owned by, and owned by associates of, the Trump family.



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/politics/trump-save-america-pac-subpoenas.html



I was wondering how long it would take before a fraud allegation was going to be opened into this.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Quoted for emphasis. Anyone excusing the right here, stop and re-read this.
> 
> In other news, the Save America PAC was just hit with a few subpoenas, about how the $250mm they raised in their "Stop the Steal" campaign, specifically that they knew accusations of fraud were baseless, and then didn't actually spend it on what they said they were going to but instead funnelled it to organizations owned by, and owned by associates of, the Trump family.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/politics/trump-save-america-pac-subpoenas.html
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering how long it would take before a fraud allegation was going to be opened into this.


I'm honestly shocked that they bothered. Since everything surrounding Trump seems to be based perpetually on fraud (or one step removed from fraud), I figured anyone with the clout to do anything about it was just going to shrug and turn the other way like they do with everything else.

How long before some lackey takes the fall and Trump can say he never liked them anyway?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Quoted for emphasis. Anyone excusing the right here, stop and re-read this.
> 
> In other news, the Save America PAC was just hit with a few subpoenas, about how the $250mm they raised in their "Stop the Steal" campaign, specifically that they knew accusations of fraud were baseless, and then didn't actually spend it on what they said they were going to but instead funnelled it to organizations owned by, and owned by associates of, the Trump family.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/us/politics/trump-save-america-pac-subpoenas.html
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering how long it would take before a fraud allegation was going to be opened into this.


It's almost as if Trump is following up on the accusations he and his minions made about Clinton by actually doing everything they accused her of doing during the 2016 campaign: mishandling campaign funds, mishandling classified documents, wheeling and dealing with Russia via state affairs, ... how long before Trump opens a pizza restaurant that ends up being a front for a white slavery ring?



nightflameauto said:


> I'm honestly shocked that they bothered. Since everything surrounding Trump seems to be based perpetually on fraud (or one step removed from fraud), I figured anyone with the clout to do anything about it was just going to shrug and turn the other way like they do with everything else.
> 
> How long before some lackey takes the fall and Trump can say he never liked them anyway?



If one or two of your former lackeys turn on you, shame on them, but when the list of former lackeys who have turned on you reads as follows: James Mattis, Jeff Sessions, Omarosa, John Bolton, John Kelly, Tom Bossart, HR McMaster, Cliff Sims, Anthony Scaramucci, Ty Cobb, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Kurt Volker, and much much more - then it seems like there's only one obvious source of the problem.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> It's almost as if Trump is following up on the accusations he and his minions made about Clinton....
> ...


Well, if they accuse a Democrat of X crime and they are found innocent, then Republicans actually do X crime then they'll always say the Democrat did it and got away with it so it's fine. ..then continue to bitch and cry about a double standard.

And republican voters buy into it every time. It doesn't matter if the democrat was found innocent or not, the democrat is always guilty in the eyes of a republican so therefore it's ok if they do crime too.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> If one or two of your former lackeys turn on you, shame on them, but when the list of former lackeys who have turned on you reads as follows: James Mattis, Jeff Sessions, Omarosa, John Bolton, John Kelly, Tom Bossart, HR McMaster, Cliff Sims, Anthony Scaramucci, Ty Cobb, Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Kurt Volker, and much much more - then it seems like there's only one obvious source of the problem.



"Doctor, it hurts when I touch here, here, here, here, and here."

"That's because your finger is broken."

In this exchange, imagine the patient is America, and replace "finger" with "Trump".


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> Well, if they accuse a Democrat of X crime and they are found innocent, then Republicans actually do X crime then they'll always say the Democrat did it and got away with it so it's fine. ..then continue to bitch and cry about a double standard.
> 
> And republican voters buy into it every time. It doesn't matter if the democrat was found innocent or not, the democrat is always guilty in the eyes of a republican so therefore it's ok if they do crime too.


Except, in politics, no one is found innocent.

Trump openly tried to extort personal favours from a foreign government, got caught on tape doing it, and got off scot free. Trump then openly incited a riot on the US Capitol, on video, and then the very people he targeted acquitted (even though 57% voted to convict) him.

Here in the USA, if you are Joe Schmo, and you get tried in court for a crime that could put you to death, you need 12/12 people to be convinced that you are innocent to be declared "not guilty." If 11/12 say you are innocent and 1/12 says you are guilty, you will probably get a retrial, unless, for whatever reason, the prosecution decides to drop the charges. That's a weird two things to try to hold in the same perspective: the guy who's decisions affect literally every person in the nation convincing only 34/100 people that he's not guilty in order to be allowed to continue to be president and continue to affect everyone with his decisions, versus some ground-level chump who's fighting for his life to convince 12/12 people that he's not guilty, and, short of that, will probably remain in jail awaiting trial until he is either convicted or acquitted by unanimous vote.



spudmunkey said:


> "Doctor, it hurts when I touch here, here, here, here, and here."
> 
> That's because your finger is broken."
> 
> In this exchange, imagine the patient is America, and replace "finger" with "Trump".


Sorry, I am American, so analogies involving proper health care are lost on me.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Except, in politics, no one is found innocent.
> 
> Trump openly tried to extort personal favours from a foreign government, got caught on tape doing it, and got off scot free. Trump then openly incited a riot on the US Capitol, on video, and then the very people he targeted acquitted (even though 57% voted to convict) him.
> 
> Here in the USA, if you are Joe Schmo, and you get tried in court for a crime that could put you to death, you need 12/12 people to be convinced that you are innocent to be declared "not guilty." If 11/12 say you are innocent and 1/12 says you are guilty, you will probably get a retrial, unless, for whatever reason, the prosecution decides to drop the charges. That's a weird two things to try to hold in the same perspective: the guy who's decisions affect literally every person in the nation convincing only 34/100 people that he's not guilty in order to be allowed to continue to be president and continue to affect everyone with his decisions, versus some ground-level chump who's fighting for his life to convince 12/12 people that he's not guilty, and, short of that, will probably remain in jail awaiting trial until he is either convicted or acquitted by unanimous vote.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am American, so analogies involving proper health care are lost on me.


Though, again, impeachment is a political and not legal process. 

Trump is currently under the most legal jeopardy he's ever been in, certainly since coming to office, and very likely over his entire life, including the period where he was under investigation for possible Mafia ties in his Atlantic City real estate portfolio. He was able to get out of two impeachments because his own party wasn't quite willing to turn against him, because of his popularity with Republican voters... but that doesn't matter so much when what's at stake is whether or not he broke federal mail fraud laws, or Georgia state solicitation of electoral fraud laws. 

Even Trump, as delusional as he is, has to be aware that things have taken a LOT of turns for the worst for him in the last couple weeks.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Here‘s a pretty good example of why I don’t think anything is going to come of this Trump BS. 



While I see it’s been made by a right-wing channel, it’s exactly what I said when the raid first happened. Been hearing it for years now, over and over and over. And then when I’ve said that, the “but THIS time it’s serious” is the usual retort. Just like it is this time. 

And while I generally get a kick out of the “Trump is just setting them up to fail” comments from the QCAnons/Trumpers, I could actually see something like that playing out with this top secret document thing; he holds onto just enough stuff knowing he’s not going to be left alone and when it turns into another nothingburger, he can rally up his morons and say “See! Another witch-hunt!” 

The dude’s an asshat in every possible way, but I don’t think he’s THAT dumb to put himself in a position where he’s going to face jail time by keeping enough shit on him, or at least in a place where the FBI can just walk in and grab it. That dude surely has lawyers sitting around telling him exactly what he can and can’t do to stay out of prison, while pushing just enough buttons to keep his base fired up. 

I really wish we could just try the “ignore him and them and see if it goes away” because publicizing anything negative about the guy just drives his base up all the more.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> And while I generally get a kick out of the “Trump is just setting them up to fail” comments from the QCAnons/Trumpers, I could actually see something like that playing out with this top secret document thing; he holds onto just enough stuff knowing he’s not going to be left alone and when it turns into another nothingburger, he can rally up his morons and say “See! Another witch-hunt!”
> 
> The dude’s an asshat in every possible way, but I don’t think he’s THAT dumb to put himself in a position where he’s going to face jail time by keeping enough shit on him, or at least in a place where the FBI can just walk in and grab it. That dude surely has lawyers sitting around telling him exactly what he can and can’t do to stay out of prison, while pushing just enough buttons to keep his base fired up.


...except, that's pretty much exactly what he _did_ do...


----------



## youngthrasher9

The government of California is knowingly and willfully apathetic to the wildfires that now plague the state seemingly for the entirety of every summer and early fall. 

Ecological thinning is the best solution by far, and the simplest. I am not saying I disagree with a drive for green energy, and a fight against climate change per se. One could actually say the opposite, because we are essentially burning unfiltered fuel for 4 months at a time in large quantities. If we had less fires, our air pollution would go down substantially and the public healthcare system here would likely see slightly quantifiable relief in that smoke effects a lot of people with breathing disorders, and even basic allergies.


----------



## Drew

youngthrasher9 said:


> The government of California is knowingly and willfully apathetic to the wildfires that now plague the state seemingly for the entirety of every summer and early fall.
> 
> Ecological thinning is the best solution by far, and the simplest. I am not saying I disagree with a drive for green energy, and a fight against climate change per se. One could actually say the opposite, because we are essentially burning unfiltered fuel for 4 months at a time in large quantities. If we had less fires, our air pollution would go down substantially and the public healthcare system here would likely see slightly quantifiable relief in that smoke effects a lot of people with breathing disorders, and even basic allergies.


But you know what ISN'T the answer? Raking the forests.


----------



## youngthrasher9

Drew said:


> But you know what ISN'T the answer? Raking the forests.


Fake neeeewwwwwss lmao


----------



## Drew

I mean, I also don't want to make light of what's really a VERY complicated subject. We're still learning a lot about living with forest ecosystems as we go, and one of the things that has become abundantly clear in recent years is, over and above the impact of climate change (which is a significant added risk here), a lot of our wildfire mitigation efforts are really a tradeoff, as we make forest fires less frequent, but also (as brush and young growth and whatnot has more time to build up) quite a bit more severe. That, on top of the greater frequency with which we're having droughts now, and the fact a lot of towns and cities are built in places that had previously been considered wildfire risks but now "it's safe becase we've gotten better at containing them," is kind of a dangerous combination.


----------



## Grindspine

youngthrasher9 said:


> The government of California is knowingly and willfully apathetic to the wildfires that now plague the state seemingly for the entirety of every summer and early fall.
> 
> Ecological thinning is the best solution by far, and the simplest. I am not saying I disagree with a drive for green energy, and a fight against climate change per se. One could actually say the opposite, because we are essentially burning unfiltered fuel for 4 months at a time in large quantities. If we had less fires, our air pollution would go down substantially and the public healthcare system here would likely see slightly quantifiable relief in that smoke effects a lot of people with breathing disorders, and even basic allergies.


You do know that trees trap carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, so they are a natural carbon trap. Razing the forests will essentially release carbon and not allow that carbon to be trapped in that forest again.


----------



## Mathemagician

Nuclear power would reduce so much ecological damage. So fast. It’s the answer. And it’s safe. But noooo, everybody wanna inhale oil & gas dollars. 

So many discussions could be tabled just by agreeing to move to it asap as we build out the other modern alternatives.


----------



## youngthrasher9

Grindspine said:


> You do know that trees trap carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, so they are a natural carbon trap. Razing the forests will essentially release carbon and not allow that carbon to be trapped in that forest again.


Thinning, not clear cutting. That’s all I have to say.


----------



## LordCashew

Drew said:


> But you know what ISN'T the answer? Raking the forests.


I mean, I still assume Trump didn't know what he was talking about when he said that. But after making fun of him for several days afterward, I learned that a brush rake is an attachment for heavy equipment that has a real application in fuel reduction.


----------



## spudmunkey

youngthrasher9 said:


> The government of California is knowingly and willfully apathetic to the wildfires that now plague the state seemingly for the entirety of every summer and early fall.
> 
> Ecological thinning is the best solution by far, and the simplest. I am not saying I disagree with a drive for green energy, and a fight against climate change per se. One could actually say the opposite, because we are essentially burning unfiltered fuel for 4 months at a time in large quantities. If we had less fires, our air pollution would go down substantially and the public healthcare system here would likely see slightly quantifiable relief in that smoke effects a lot of people with breathing disorders, and even basic allergies.



Last year, for 2022-23 and 2023-24, $800 million has been added in additional funding, for which roughly half specifically goes to "improve forest health by making them more resilient to future wildfires, including removing hazardous fuels." This is in addition to the additional $200 million per year starting this year from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. There's also 30 new programs across 15 agencies created since the 2020 budget specifically aimed at reducing the effects of wildfires, some with protection and some from prevention. The local entities haven't even caught up yet to being able to spend all of the resources they've been allocated from the State. A part of that could be blamed on vague direction from the state level, for sure...and there are plenty of arguments to be made for it being "not enough", but "apathetic to the [...] plague" isn't very accurate. We're *decades* behind in many things, and the current frequency of seriously large and damaging forest fires is a relatively new phenomenon:


----------



## youngthrasher9

spudmunkey said:


> Last year, for 2022-23 and 2023-24, $800 million has been added in additional funding, for which roughly half specifically goes to "improve forest health by making them more resilient to future wildfires, including removing hazardous fuels." This is in addition to the additional $200 million per year starting this year from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. There's also 30 new programs across 15 agencies created since the 2020 budget specifically aimed at reducing the effects of wildfires, some with protection and some from prevention. The local entities haven't even caught up yet to being able to spend all of the resources they've been allocated from the State. A part of that could be blamed on vague direction from the state level, for sure...and there are plenty of arguments to be made for it being "not enough", but "apathetic to the [...] plague" isn't very accurate. We're *decades* behind in many things, and the current frequency of seriously large and damaging forest fires is a relatively new phenomenon:
> 
> View attachment 113948


Yes, very recent. Most of my friends here are firefighters. One of them has been since the late 70’s. He said back then 5 acres was considered a pretty big fire for the average year. 

I’m happy to be proven wrong about what you mentioned. I was not aware that the state actually put that through, that is huge. And yeah, I’m sure it will take a bit for the work to actually get done, the budget to be utilized, etc… that’s to be expected in my opinion.


----------



## BigViolin

I'm a couple hours directly west from you and have already seen some thinning along the HWY 20 corridor, which has served as a pretty important fire break for many small communities.


----------



## Andromalia

Grindspine said:


> You do know that trees trap carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, so they are a natural carbon trap.


Uh, no. Because what photosynthesis does only happens during the day. They release as much during the night. The global carbon count of trees is _zero_. If it was negative, we'd have run out of carbon completely loooong before the appearance of land mammals. The 'lungs of the planet' story is a lie-to-children: it helps explain how they are important, by completely using the wrong analogies so they can be understood. The forests are an overall benefit but the mechanisms are way more complex.


----------



## Bodes

Andromalia said:


> Uh, no. Because what photosynthesis does only happens during the day. They release as much during the night. The global carbon count of trees is _zero_. If it was negative, we'd have run out of carbon completely loooong before the appearance of land mammals. The 'lungs of the planet' story is a lie-to-children: it helps explain how they are important, by completely using the wrong analogies so they can be understood. The forests are an overall benefit but the mechanisms are way more complex.



Ummmm... no.
If trees released all of the carbon at night that they collect during the day, they would not be able to create new DNA/cells to grow, as they are carbon-based lifeforms.


----------



## Andromalia

Bodes said:


> Ummmm... no.
> If trees released all of the carbon at night that they collect during the day, they would not be able to create new DNA/cells to grow, as they are carbon-based lifeforms.


Yes, but that carbon is released again when they die. 

Some interesting reading about this:


https://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/pdf/mahli_pce_1998%2022_715.pdf










Does management improve the carbon balance of forestry?


Abstract. The long-term carbon balance (CB) of unmanaged forest was compared to the CBs of management scenarios which included cuttings. The calculations were d




academic.oup.com





Long story short, you can store more carbon by planting more trees, but what you really did was putting more of it in a capture/release cycle. Everything that is captured by stuff you plant today is going to be released at a later point in time. To peristently reduce CO2 levels by planting, you have to continually plant otherwise you're just raising the cycle threshold. Which might be beneficial short term,mind you, but future generations won't be thankful when all those trees die on them and replacement will become mandatory.
It does mean, however, that we should keep what we have. That is why burning the rainforests is a bad idea, not because they capture carbon today, but because burning them relases the carbon they have been storing for a long time.


----------



## profwoot

Andromalia said:


> Yes, but that carbon is released again when they die.
> 
> Some interesting reading about this:
> 
> 
> https://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/pdf/mahli_pce_1998%2022_715.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does management improve the carbon balance of forestry?
> 
> 
> Abstract. The long-term carbon balance (CB) of unmanaged forest was compared to the CBs of management scenarios which included cuttings. The calculations were d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> academic.oup.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long story short, you can store more carbon by planting more trees, but what you really did was putting more of it in a capture/release cycle. Everything that is captured by stuff you plant today is going to be released at a later point in time. To peristently reduce CO2 levels by planting, you have to continually plant otherwise you're just raising the cycle threshold. Which might be beneficial short term,mind you, but future generations won't be thankful when all those trees die on them and replacement will become mandatory.
> It does mean, however, that we should keep what we have. That is why burning the rainforests is a bad idea, not because they capture carbon today, but because burning them relases the carbon they have been storing for a long time.


Well yes, we obviously need to maintain the increased number of trees after we plant them. Trees are actually really good at doing this by themselves, however -- no additional planting required. In the aggregate, trees store a _ton_ of carbon that would otherwise be in the atmosphere, so increasing the number of trees worldwide is an important part of restoring the global equilibrium that modernity has so disrupted.


----------



## bostjan

Not sure what you guys are arguing about, but I think we all know that plants take in CO2 and release O2, since the carbon they breathe in is converted to organic matter through photosynthesis. Even if that carbon eventually ends up as CO2 again after the plants are eaten by animals, burned, or broken down by fungi (which it really isn't, since those organisms hold a lot of carbon as their own organic matter, and burning produces ash), then the plants are still a net carbon reservoir for the environment that ultimately cuts down on greenhouse gas during their lives and the hundreds of years after their lives during which they still hold the majority of their carbon.

It'd be like arguing that all the water in our lakes and rivers ultimately end up in the ocean, so we might as well drain all of our freshwater reservoirs and dump them in the ocean. (?!)


----------



## Drew

LordCashew said:


> I mean, I still assume Trump didn't know what he was talking about when he said that. But after making fun of him for several days afterward, I learned that a brush rake is an attachment for heavy equipment that has a real application in fuel reduction.


Yeah, he's an idiot, but I thought it was pretty clear that someone had, at one point (probably in a White House briefing about the fires), said something in his presence about that in the context of wildfire _containment_, and he not knowing any better thought it was about _prevention_ and wanting something else to attack California over thought if they were having wildfires then clearly they weren't raking their forests enough and started talking out of his ass. 

Basically, he's an idiot for not really understanding things being said in his presence, that pretty much the core requirement of his job is that he DOES understand, and then running his mouth anyway.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> Yeah, he's an idiot, but I thought it was pretty clear that someone had, at one point (probably in a White House briefing about the fires), said something in his presence about that in the context of wildfire _containment_, and he not knowing any better thought it was about _prevention_ and wanting something else to attack California over thought if they were having wildfires then clearly they weren't raking their forests enough and started talking out of his ass.
> 
> Basically, he's an idiot for not really understanding things being said in his presence, that pretty much the core requirement of his job is that he DOES understand, and then running his mouth anyway.



Thinking about this thread all week as I get my environs ready for winter. Among those activities is.... you guessed it, raking the adjoining woods


----------



## bostjan

So, Alabama has decided to start executing death row inmates by nitrogen hypoxia next week. I expect it to get challenged in court and that the courts will decide to allow the prisons to proceed, people to protest, the government of Alabama to not care, and, within the next 20 years, they'll either be smothering inmates with a pillow or just bashing them in the head with a stick.

The inmate, Alan Eugene Miller, who had previously been turned down trying to join the military, due to his poor mental and physical health, had just lost his job in 1999. He then purchased a 40 caliber Glock pistol and killed three ex-coworkers during an episode of insane delusions in which he blamed the three men for getting him fired. The judge ruled that Mr. Miller was not insane enough to claim an insanity defense, though, and later ruled that he was not insane enough to avoid the death penalty. Anyone with an IQ above 70 in the USA is eligible for the death penalty, Mr. Miller's IQ was estimated by his court-appointed psychiatrist to be in the low eighties.

Personally... I think it all comes down to what we define the purpose of the penal system to be. If its purpose is to reform convicts so that they can reintegrate into society, we're doing it all wrong. If it's purpose is to remove violent people from society, we're still doing it wrong, but, in this case, I guess it fits. In the latter case, the death penalty makes logical sense, at least. That's not even to begin to approach the morality involved, which I can't really even get into, since our legal system is generally so far off track that I can't even try to make sense of any moral dilemma.

If we are going to remain as one of just a couple of 1st world countries to have capital punishment, is there a preferred method? Is putting a plastic bag over someone's head and inflating it with inert gas more humane than injecting the person with drugs to knock them unconscious and then stop their heart? Personally, I say that, if you are going to do it, you might as well use the guillotine. It's quicker and less fussy than anything the courts are proposing. And if you aren't sure whether or not you should do it, then you ought not to do it. Yes, I understand that the victim's families want justice. But, at the end of the day, someone has to be the person who injected the drugs or flicked the switch or opened the valve or pulled the lever or shot the gun that killed someone, and then has to live with that.


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> Personally... I think it all comes down to what we define the purpose of the penal system to be. If its purpose is to reform convicts so that they can reintegrate into society, we're doing it all wrong.


With privately owned, for profit prisons, the purpose appears to be a desire for slave labor rather than reformation.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

We claim to want rehabilitative justice in this country, but the functioning of our courts and the overall wind of individual perspectives states otherwise. On a certain level I believe this is by design, or if not by design, it is certainly permitted to continue because it so obviously privileges those who already have wealth and power over those who do not.

I remember, close to ten years ago now, we had a case here in AK where a teenage girl killed a cyclist because she was driving home from a party drunk. She got off because her dad is one of the biggest lawyers in the state. 

It was Affluenza kid all over again. People wanted blood. Literally, they wanted her locked up for life if not just killed. I certainly understand the outrage, but I was dismayed to find that most of my peers legitimately weren't interested in "justice" in any sense I would define the word. Many people openly admitted to me that they were motivated by vengeance, and that they saw no issue with that. Many had personal connections to people who'd been killed by drunk drivers (as do I). At a certain point I have to assume that's a/the natural effect of our justice system, otherwise why would people unanimously (I exaggerate, barely) clamour for naked vengeance?

It also seemed readily apparent to me that she made the choice she did because she didn't feel safe making a better choice. Imagine a world in which it was totally okay for a teenager to call their parent at 2am and tell them they'd had too much to drink and needed a ride home. Obviously that should result in some kind of a conversation, but I don't think it's too farfetched to state that the cyclist died because, among other things, this child didn't feel she had any better option than driving home drunk. 

I don't believe she should've gotten away without consequences, but when these instances become so polarized with people out for literal, actual blood, it's difficult-impossible to take a nuanced point without being lumped in with everything that isn't guillotining a teenager. By taking the unenviable position that it is wrong to call for the harshest punishment out of principle, _especially_ where a child is concerned, I was necessarily seen to be advocating for no consequences at all.

In the end, what we got was more of the same, the worst of both worlds. Since she got off, everyone clamouring for vengeance is still angry and always will be, and they aren't wrong to be angry. It's monstrous that her father was able to use his power and influence in that way. On the other hand, we also completely lost an opportunity to have a real discussion about the culture around alcohol and intoxicants in general, both in this situation and much more broadly. 

All anyone learned is that the rich and powerful can legitimately kill us with impunity, and that consequences are for the poors. 

Another thought I consistently have when reflecting on this is that it is truly a testament to the destitution and depravity of our society that we have jails for children. Of all the things, that should be a clear sign that we _really _fucked up somewhere along the way.


----------



## Mathemagician

No clearer example of punishments being purely punitive than the fact that voting rights are not automatically reinstated after one has served their time. 

If a crime is committed and a sentence is served, the person should be welcomed back into society all things considered. 

The fact that this is not the case allows for those in power to use the court system as a way to reduce the ability for those who disagree with them to vote for and enact change. 

The average person lives this when it’s used against the “other guys” but not if the power structure is flipped and used “against them.”


----------



## Adieu

Rock4ever said:


> I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. Here’s a video posted by cbs news.
> 
> Watch what happens at just before 3:00.
> I am curious how the dude’s gloves on the right are so white and bright yet nothing else is highlighted. Blocked out by POTUS perhaps? I don’t know




So basically... Gramps discovered LED lighting and everybody has been throwing a fit about it for a good long while now?

I'm confused, I thought the rednecks themselves believed LEDs were THE best thing ever since AR-15's and truck nuts???


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> But you know what ISN'T the answer? Raking the forests.



You've never ever been to CA, have you?

The actual places on fire every year are ever so far from what a non-desert-dweller would consider calling "forest".


----------



## Adieu

bostjan said:


> So, Alabama has decided to start executing death row inmates by nitrogen hypoxia next week. I expect it to get challenged in court and that the courts will decide to allow the prisons to proceed, people to protest, the government of Alabama to not care, and, within the next 20 years, they'll either be smothering inmates with a pillow or just bashing them in the head with a stick.
> 
> The inmate, Alan Eugene Miller, who had previously been turned down trying to join the military, due to his poor mental and physical health, had just lost his job in 1999. He then purchased a 40 caliber Glock pistol and killed three ex-coworkers during an episode of insane delusions in which he blamed the three men for getting him fired. The judge ruled that Mr. Miller was not insane enough to claim an insanity defense, though, and later ruled that he was not insane enough to avoid the death penalty. Anyone with an IQ above 70 in the USA is eligible for the death penalty, Mr. Miller's IQ was estimated by his court-appointed psychiatrist to be in the low eighties.
> 
> Personally... I think it all comes down to what we define the purpose of the penal system to be. If its purpose is to reform convicts so that they can reintegrate into society, we're doing it all wrong. If it's purpose is to remove violent people from society, we're still doing it wrong, but, in this case, I guess it fits. In the latter case, the death penalty makes logical sense, at least. That's not even to begin to approach the morality involved, which I can't really even get into, since our legal system is generally so far off track that I can't even try to make sense of any moral dilemma.
> 
> If we are going to remain as one of just a couple of 1st world countries to have capital punishment, is there a preferred method? Is putting a plastic bag over someone's head and inflating it with inert gas more humane than injecting the person with drugs to knock them unconscious and then stop their heart? Personally, I say that, if you are going to do it, you might as well use the guillotine. It's quicker and less fussy than anything the courts are proposing. And if you aren't sure whether or not you should do it, then you ought not to do it. Yes, I understand that the victim's families want justice. But, at the end of the day, someone has to be the person who injected the drugs or flicked the switch or opened the valve or pulled the lever or shot the gun that killed someone, and then has to live with that.



Our hangups on the METHOD of execution are absolutely batshit insane.

Just hire a dude with an axe or a machine gun.

Dead is dead, let the poor bastard pass already.

As to WHEN we choose to apply the death penalty... idfk, multiple murders seem pretty decent candidates. Insane or not, aren't they all kinda deviant?

And frankly, I think execution is OK for extraordinary circumstances. It's the practice of DEATH ROW than constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## bostjan

Adieu said:


> Our hangups on the METHOD of execution are absolutely batshit insane.
> 
> Just hire a dude with an axe or a machine gun.
> 
> Dead is dead, let the poor bastard pass already.
> 
> As to WHEN we choose to apply the death penalty... idfk, multiple murders seem pretty decent candidates. Insane or not, aren't they all kinda deviant?
> 
> And frankly, I think execution is OK for extraordinary circumstances. It's the practice of DEATH ROW than constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.


Well, considering the people who feel most strongly about capital punishment are the ones who most firmly believe that life is sacred, every aspect of the discussion is bound to get contentious.

The arguments about the "method" usually come back to the "cruel and unusual punishment" ban in the constitution. When you look at the electric chair, it's pretty much impossible to argue in good faith that the punishment is humane and usual. The trouble with lethal injection was twofold: a) getting the necessary medical professionals, who swore an oath to do no harm, to participate in killing another person, proved problematic at times, and b) drug manufacturers didn't want to make lethal injection drugs anymore. Being an executioner comes with a ton of baggage that most people don't really think about, and it requires that person to put all of their faith in the justice system, which we know is systematically flawed. But imagine being the axeman who has to go to the prison a few times a year to chop off the head of some poor slob you never met. If you fuck up your job, not only do you have to witness whatever horroshow spectacle you create, but you'll be subjecting the prison staff and family of the victims with the same nightmare fuel. And then, what if you later find out that the dude was innocent and just got fucked over by the criminal justice system? Because, that happens a lot more often that we'd like to admit.

That's why I'm saying guillotine. It's a lot less prone to malfunction, it can be operated from far away, and you could even have the families of the victims nominate someone to ceremoniously pull the lever.

And I agree that the process of death row is stupid. Give that poor slob 2-3 decades to believe that they can get themselves out of being killed with a whole pile of false hope paperwork. Have you ever seen the appeals that death row inmates get back from the courts? Those appellate courts usually don't even want to hear any of the case, so it'll get dismissed for stuff like "well, you had 60 days to file this after you were first incarcerated, but you waited until after your trial, so fuck you." The government just wants to make it _seem_ like they are going over every case with a fine-toothed comb to make sure nobody sentenced the wrong guy to die, but, in reality, it's just an inconvenience for the courts, so they don't even *look at the evidence*. They just look for whatever technicality allows them to wash their wands and then they rubber stamp it. There have been cases where an investigation into systematic problems that were identified to have been known to have falsely convicted people who were later executed was glossed over on appeals from subsequent inmates, probably just because of the inconvenience it caused the courts.

I don't think it's stupid because it doesn't get anyone off, on the contrary. I think it's stupid that we are _soooo certain _that *this* person committed the crime, that we are going to take their life over it, but, at the same time, we _know_ that there's a fair enough chance we fucked up and that they are innocent, that we have to add a buffer of 20ish years to make sure - yet, during those 20ish years, only a handful of pro-bono lawyers are out there sifting through any actual meaningful documents to see if the person might actually be innocent, whilst the public courts don't give half a shit.

About 12% of death row inmates get their sentences overturned. Of the remaining 1548 people who were executed by the USA since 1973, 3.7% of them are believed, after the fact, to have been innocent of the crime that landed them in the executioner's seat. So, as an executioner, if you executed 27 people during your career, chances are you executed one innocent person.

So, yeah, I do think that there are people out there so dangerous that they need to just be taken off the table, and I think that the sort of people who commit the most heinous crimes are probably impossible to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, and, ethically, I don't see a problem if those people cease to exist. However, a system that is wrong 15% of the time is not good enough to make the choice of life or death. Period.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> So, yeah, I do think that there are people out there so dangerous that they need to just be taken off the table, and I think that the sort of people who commit the most heinous crimes are probably impossible to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, and, ethically, I don't see a problem if those people cease to exist. However, a system that is wrong 15% of the time is not good enough to make the choice of life or death. Period.



Yeah, and if you *do* fix that problem of people sitting on death row for decades, that error rate is only going to go up (a lot of the overturned convictions only happen because new evidence is discovered many years later).


----------



## bostjan

thraxil said:


> Yeah, and if you *do* fix that problem of people sitting on death row for decades, that error rate is only going to go up (a lot of the overturned convictions only happen because new evidence is discovered many years later).


That's correct. But we'd be far better serving justice if we nipped the problem in the bud and did a less half-assed job prosecuting suspects, rather than adding more decades of time to sort through the fuckups of the judicial system (which, let's be honest, if 3.7% of people executed even after 20-30 years on death row are later found out to be most likely innocent, it's not working well enough - not to mention the 12% of people who spend many years living in hell waiting to die before being exonerated).

The #1 problem is that arrests and convictions are incentivized above accuracy for the police and for the prosecutors. The #2 problem is that the police are too lazy to consider other options, and would rather force the evidence to make the easiest option look guilty than actually find out who is guilty. The #3 problem, which isn't far behind, is that the lazy prosecutors don't bother to question the evidence brought in by the police, and are just as willing to try to force weird nonsensical narratives to fit the suspect that they have rather than to actually make sure justice is meted out properly to the proper individuals.

And that #1 problem cannot be overstated. It's why we hear all of the time about dozens of people being arrested for DWI in Georgia, based on officer testimony that they "seemed high," when the arresting officer cannot articulate any specifics as to why the person was stopped in the first place or what made them "seem high." And then the news uncovers later that all of the false arrests were done by one particular officer who got a medal or prize for making so many arrests, and, when the news breaks that those arrests were mostly made under false pretenses, the officer gladly keeps the medal/prize, and life goes on as usual for everybody except the people who were arrested and lost their jobs and had their cars impounded under total bullshit pretenses. It's why you hear stories about how a man was tortured into confessing that he murdered his wife, and then gets exonerated when his wife shows up, alive, to say that he didn't murder her, and then the news goes crazy digging up how the police lied to the guy about having evidence, when the only evidence that got the guy convicted at all was the confession. It's why cops don't typically care what the written laws state, they'll make an arrest first and then scramble to figure out what the arrest is for after the fact. And it's why we have the insane idea of qualified immunity, which means that cops and prosecutors, and even judges, can fuck up as many innocent lives as they want, as long as they get those sweet, sweet arrests and convictions, regardless of how many lies and how much bullshit they are required to make up in order to get those charges to stick.

Address that problem that incentivizes quantity over quality and you've just solved 50% of the trouble with the US justice system.

Then take the prisons out of private for-profit hands and you've got a good head start on the other half.

I know it sounds simpler than it is, but, ethically and morally, it is extremely simple. The fact that it is such a logistical nightmare from a practical standpoint just goes to show how much corruption needs to be rooted out of our system before it can actually function with any level of moral authority.


----------



## thraxil

bostjan said:


> The #1 problem is that arrests and convictions are incentivized above accuracy for the police and for the prosecutors.


Exactly. It's Goodhart's Law in practice: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"

The performance of Police and Prosecutors is measured by the number of arrests they make and convictions they get. The result is that Police disproportionately target low level easy to see street crime over more complicated (but arguably more harmful) large scale white collar and organized crime or even violent crime that might require a little bit of work on their part (rapes are so rarely prosecuted because it's hard to prove lack of consent). Prosecutors spend more of their time going after poor defendants that can't adequately defend themselves and will take plea deals even if they're innocent. If they are forced to deal with something more difficult, they'll manufacture evidence and pretense, strongarm and bully, "lose" or find a technicality to exclude potentially exonerating evidence. At some level you can't even blame them because that's how the system is designed. Doing those things is effectively the definition of doing their jobs well.


----------



## Adieu

thraxil said:


> Yeah, and if you *do* fix that problem of people sitting on death row for decades, that error rate is only going to go up (a lot of the overturned convictions only happen because new evidence is discovered many years later).



Depends.

Which part do we consider the bigger injustice and crueler punishment: stuffing the dude in a concrete box for 20+ years of circular false hope and despair, or just killing them ASAP?

Just cause you let them out 25 years later does NOT mean "justice triumphed".

Especially if it WASN'T a technicality and the guy was a full-blown random innocent.

Maybe more merciful to have guillotined them after 1 appeal?


----------



## StevenC

Adieu said:


> Depends.
> 
> Which part do we consider the bigger injustice and crueler punishment: stuffing the dude in a concrete box for 20+ years of circular false hope and despair, or just killing them ASAP?
> 
> Just cause you let them out 25 years later does NOT mean "justice triumphed".
> 
> Especially if it WASN'T a technicality and the guy was a full-blown random innocent.
> 
> Maybe more merciful to have guillotined them after 1 appeal?


The answer is that wrongly convicted people should have massive reparations paid to them because their whole lives have been destroyed and dehabilitated.

Don't give anyone the death penalty is the easiest answer. And then make people who are wrongly convicted whole again. And make people who have served their sentences functioning members of society.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

StevenC said:


> The answer is that wrongly convicted people should have massive reparations paid to them because their whole lives have been destroyed and dehabilitated.
> 
> Don't give anyone the death penalty is the easiest answer. And then make people who are wrongly convicted whole again. And make people who have served their sentences functioning members of society.



This is really it for me, I agree with everything in this post. The mere possibility of wrongful conviction is far more margin of error than I'm comfortable with when we're talking about ending a life. Nobody has that kind of prescience, and nobody ought to have that kind of power. 

I am comfortable with individual vengeance. Someone hunts down their rapist and murders them? Cool with me. Of course, that opens the previous can of worms regarding margins of error, but the important difference here is I am not advocating individual vengeance as a good public policy, I'm just okay with it on an individual basis and I'm comfortable with whatever level of contradiction that entails.



With all that said, our justice system is clearly not about obtaining or creating justice in any sense I would define it, and we _are_ executing people, so.....

#teamguillotine


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I say get rid of death penalty especially with how long some of these people spend on death row anyways they basically are serving life in prison anyway and then get executed so just do a straight up life with no chance if parole for the ones that are really all that dangerous.


----------



## nightflameauto

So, seems Lindsey Graham is pretty much the Democrat's biggest ally right now. He's proposing a nationwide ban on aborting and publicly stating, repeatedly, that the entire country wants this and everybody will be so happy with them if they just do it.

While 2/3rds of the country, including Republicans, talk about how bass-ackwards abortion bans are.

And it sounds like the rest of the Republicans keep shushing Lindsey, but he ain't got time to listen to that shit.

I can only hope that enough people are paying attention to notice. That's one way we can prevent the Republican looney fringe from gaining the upper hand this next cycle. It may not stick, but it's something.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> So, seems Lindsey Graham is pretty much the Democrat's biggest ally right now. He's proposing a nationwide ban on aborting and publicly stating, repeatedly, that the entire country wants this and everybody will be so happy with them if they just do it.
> 
> While 2/3rds of the country, including Republicans, talk about how bass-ackwards abortion bans are.
> 
> And it sounds like the rest of the Republicans keep shushing Lindsey, but he ain't got time to listen to that shit.
> 
> I can only hope that enough people are paying attention to notice. That's one way we can prevent the Republican looney fringe from gaining the upper hand this next cycle. It may not stick, but it's something.


They're playing a gambit.

Case A.1 - People _are_ paying attention, and democrat-leaning folks _are_ going to care enough to get out and vote some of the republicans out, then the democrats take over, and the abortion ban is blocked. The next two years, people are happy with the government and the democrats score a huge win.

Case A.2 - People _are_ paying attention, and democrat-leaning folks _are_ going to care enough to get out and vote some of the republicans out, then the democrats take over, and the abortion ban is blocked. The next two years, people are unhappy with the government and the GOP scores a long-term win.

Case B.1 - People _are not _paying attention and/or democrat-leaning folks _are not_ going to care enough to get out and vote some of the republicans out, then the democrats lose power, but the abortion ban is blocked anyway. The next two years, people are happy with the government, and the GOP takes a huge win.

Case B.2 - People _are not _paying attention and/or democrat-leaning folks _are not_ going to care enough to get out and vote some of the republicans out, then the democrats lose power, but the abortion ban is blocked anyway. The next two years, people are unhappy with the government, and the GOP takes a huge long-term L.

Case C (for crazy) - People don't care, the GOP wins, the abortion ban gets passed, Trump once again becomes president, Graham is appointed Secretary of State, the prophecies of the Book of Revelation are fulfilled, and the apocalypse begins, with Graham realizing his dream of becoming the grand duke of the legions of hell.

I can only think that Graham is playing a long-term strategy with this, if this is even strategic at all. I suppose his intentions don't matter so long as the results are strategic.

We found out long ago, and it was reinforced during Trump's presidency, that the national attention span is about 3 controversies with a half-life of about 30 days. By the election, less than 25% of voters will have anything happening today in their mind. If they can spin up a couple of other news stories in between now and then, they could get that number into single digits. Since democrats hardly ever bother to vote in the mid-terms, there are bound to be GOP gains. After the election, Graham can easily use those facts to state that it was a mandate that the American people indeed want an abortion ban.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> So, seems Lindsey Graham is pretty much the Democrat's biggest ally right now. He's proposing a nationwide ban on aborting and publicly stating, repeatedly, that the entire country wants this and everybody will be so happy with them if they just do it.
> 
> While 2/3rds of the country, including Republicans, talk about how bass-ackwards abortion bans are.
> 
> And it sounds like the rest of the Republicans keep shushing Lindsey, but he ain't got time to listen to that shit.
> 
> I can only hope that enough people are paying attention to notice. That's one way we can prevent the Republican looney fringe from gaining the upper hand this next cycle. It may not stick, but it's something.



You ever listen to catholic radio? These motherfuckers are building a brand, setting up franchises, there's pro choice cell phone plans, pro choice investment portfolios, etc.

I think there's a much larger portion of the country that wants this than most people are comfortable admitting. The Catholic church has been setting them up and knocking them down for 2000 years and change. It brings me no joy to say this, but I'd put my money on shit getting a lot worse.


----------



## spudmunkey

wheresthefbomb said:


> You ever listen to catholic radio? These motherfuckers are building a brand, setting up franchises, there's pro choice cell phone plans, pro choice investment portfolios, etc.
> 
> I think there's a much larger portion of the country that wants this than most people are comfortable admitting. The Catholic church has been setting them up and knocking them down for 2000 years and change. It brings me no joy to say this, but I'd put my money on shit getting a lot worse.



It's a soup. The volume is reducing, but it's getting more concentrated and saltier.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

spudmunkey said:


> It's a soup. The volume is reducing, but it's getting more concentrated and saltier.



Definitely a valid metaphor. I'd still put my money on salty Catholic soup, but I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> You ever listen to catholic radio?


On purpose? No. Not in the last thirty years or so.


wheresthefbomb said:


> These motherfuckers are building a brand, setting up franchises, there's pro choice cell phone plans, pro choice investment portfolios, etc.
> 
> I think there's a much larger portion of the country that wants this than most people are comfortable admitting. The Catholic church has been setting them up and knocking them down for 2000 years and change. It brings me no joy to say this, but I'd put my money on shit getting a lot worse.


Yet public sentiment is unchanged an nearly seventy-percent, across the board, in support of allowing access to abortion. They are loud and scary, I'll give you that. And while we recently had proof that loud and scary can end up dangerous, I'll put my hopes on this being the last gasp of a soon to fade power. The Catholic Church wants to stick around? They may want to consider that they're either going to become even more niche in America than they are today, or start considering the majority's opinion on matters of healthcare and sexuality.

They've started accepting 'gay' as a valid reality. Maybe in the next century or two they'll start catching up with other aspects of modern life.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> On purpose? No. Not in the last thirty years or so.
> 
> Yet public sentiment is unchanged an nearly seventy-percent, across the board, in support of allowing access to abortion.


...among people willing to talk to pollsters.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

I would say the Kansas vote should have been a wake up call that outright banning abortion is not what most want.


----------



## bostjan

No doubt that staunch Catholics don't like abortion, but the various nations that are majority catholic have a wide variety of abortion laws.

It's an issue with a wide variety of opinions for sure, worldwide, it's just that people in the USA are maybe more primed to argue about it.

Pre-_Roe_, the line between pro-choice and pro-life was _not_ a party line or a culture wars line or whatever. Except maybe in the extremes, which went a little more contrary to what we see nowadays... A lot of far right people wanted to make abortions available because they thought it would encourage poor people to reproduce less, and a lot of far-left people aligned with the opposite opinion, probably just out of disgust for the far-right reaction. Now, in 2022, the division is largely along party lines with republicans wanting to pass strict anti-abortion laws and democrats generally wanting it to be left up to the doctors and families.

Public opinion doesn't seem to have quite so strong an effect at the national level. Remember that, in the senate, it's the states that vote, so Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota can outvote California and New York, despite the huge difference in population. The GOP usually has no problem controlling the Senate, unless they get massively unpopular (which we will find out in a couple months), but also the minority party in the senate also gets extra tools to make sure that they can block any legislation they don't like. The democrats have seldom used this move, whilst the GOP has no qualms spamming it.

So, if the GOP pushes for a bill to outlaw all abortions at the federal level, with no exceptions, they can probably just wait until they have a simple majority in both houses and ramrod it through, and the democrats will shrug. Likewise, if the democrats try to pass anything to loosen the restrictions the states have through some federal law, the GOP will just filibuster it until it goes away, because the democrats are horrible at the political game, and honestly don't really care anyway.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> ...among people willing to talk to pollsters.



While I agree with the sentiment of considering polling biases in these conclusions, they've been done so many times, in so many different circumstances, with a reasonably consistent outcome that it's safe to say - an outright ban on abortions is not favorably policy.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> You've never ever been to CA, have you?
> 
> The actual places on fire every year are ever so far from what a non-desert-dweller would consider calling "forest".


Maybe a half dozen times, but thankfully I've managed to avoid forest fires, earthquakes, and the worst of your traffic. 

But, I hope you recognize that post as mocking Trump's suggestion that the wildfires were California's fault and the Federal government shouldn't offer aid, because California didn't do enough raking of their forests.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> So, if the GOP pushes for a bill to outlaw all abortions at the federal level, with no exceptions, they can probably just wait until they have a simple majority in both houses and ramrod it through, and the democrats will shrug. Likewise, if the democrats try to pass anything to loosen the restrictions the states have through some federal law, the GOP will just filibuster it until it goes away, because the democrats are horrible at the political game, and honestly don't really care anyway.


I think @Shoeless_jose has the right of it here. There's been a surge of voter registration amongst women since Roe was overturned, and there's a crystal clear demarcation where suddenly Democrats began handily ourperforming epxectations in post-Roe special elections, either running up huge margins in what should have been somewhat competitive races, making what should have been easy GOP wins uncomofrtably tight, and outright winning races that they had no right to expect to win. 

My only concern here is that there's still a couple months before November and maybe th GOP finds some middle ground to message their position on abortion in such a way that it doesn't piss off 3/4 of the women in this country and 2/3 of moderates... But the GOP navigated an uneasy peace between the libertarian pro business wing of the party and the religious right wing of the party for, well, since Roe by talking tough on repealing abortion rights but not actually doing all that much to get it done, uintil that was about the only bone Trump could throw the religious right - supreme court justices. Now they're paying for that backlash. This is a winning issue for the Democrats and they know it. Not only is it now very unlikely that the Republicans will take both chambers of Congress (they face increasingly long odds in the Senate, which they were favored to win right up until Roe was overturned), but if somehow they did, took the White House, and then passed a national abortion ban, the Democrats would ride that tidal wave of a backlash all the way to a generation of Democratic control echoing the way they lost the south after passing the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## mbardu

Drew said:


> My only concern here is that there's still a couple months before November and maybe th GOP finds some middle ground to message their position on abortion in such a way that it doesn't piss off 3/4 of the women in this country and 2/3 of moderates... But the GOP navigated an uneasy peace between the libertarian pro business wing of the party and the religious right wing of the party for, well, since Roe by talking tough on repealing abortion rights but not actually doing all that much to get it done, uintil that was about the only bone Trump could throw the religious right - supreme court justices. Now they're paying for that backlash. This is a winning issue for the Democrats and they know it. Not only is it now very unlikely that the Republicans will take both chambers of Congress (they face increasingly long odds in the Senate, which they were favored to win right up until Roe was overturned), but if somehow they did, took the White House, and then passed a national abortion ban, the Democrats would ride that tidal wave of a backlash all the way to a generation of Democratic control echoing the way they lost the south after passing the Civil Rights Act.



Plus you're ignoring the elephant in the room here. The GOP hasn't had anywhere _close _to a majority of voters for the last 20+ years. No difference here where yes- they do have a large majority _against _them in this case. But it just doesn't matter and they don't even care.

They will just keep redistricting, vote-suppressing, actually outright frauding (all _actual _fraud cases have actually been Republican backed...), and now likely also challenging election results in court with Trump/Turtle-appointed partisan judges....to a point where a smaller and smaller minority will get to decide.

We might already be past the point of no-return in November for all we know.


----------



## nightflameauto

Well, here we go








New York sues Donald Trump, company and family members over widespread fraud claims, seeks at least $250 million in penalties


Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and others are accused in a major new lawsuit of widespread fraud involving allegeldy false financial statements.




www.cnbc.com





Particularly funny is the bit about none of the Trumps holding officer position in companies in New York.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Well, here we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York sues Donald Trump, company and family members over widespread fraud claims, seeks at least $250 million in penalties
> 
> 
> Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and others are accused in a major new lawsuit of widespread fraud involving allegeldy false financial statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly funny is the bit about none of the Trumps holding officer position in companies in New York.


Yeah, this should be great. 

One of the things I don't think Trump realized at the time is he may have fucked himself when he pleaded the 5th to every single question when subpoenaed in the federal investigation - yes, he has that right, and yes, it means none of his responses can be used against him in a federal court... but in a civil trial, jurors are 100% allowed to form negative inferences when someone invokes their right to not answer a question to avoid self-incrimination, and assume they probably had a reason for not wanting to answer the question. I haven't read a transcript of the whole disposition but I'd be shocked if a number of questions he pled the fifth to aren't going to be very embarrassing to him here.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, this should be great.
> 
> One of the things I don't think Trump realized at the time is he may have fucked himself when he pleaded the 5th to every single question when subpoenaed in the federal investigation - yes, he has that right, and yes, it means none of his responses can be used against him in a federal court... but in a civil trial, jurors are 100% allowed to form negative inferences when someone invokes their right to not answer a question to avoid self-incrimination, and assume they probably had a reason for not wanting to answer the question. I haven't read a transcript of the whole disposition but I'd be shocked if a number of questions he pled the fifth to aren't going to be very embarrassing to him here.


Also, in a criminal trial (even at the investigation phase), the prosecuting party has the burden of building a case against the accused. In a civil trial, the defendant has the burden of bringing more evidence than the plaintiff, and whoever has better overall evidence generally gets to win.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> Well, here we go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York sues Donald Trump, company and family members over widespread fraud claims, seeks at least $250 million in penalties
> 
> 
> Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and others are accused in a major new lawsuit of widespread fraud involving allegeldy false financial statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly funny is the bit about none of the Trumps holding officer position in companies in New York.



Sue 'em all, let God sort 'em out.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Also, in a criminal trial (even at the investigation phase), the prosecuting party has the burden of building a case against the accused. In a civil trial, the defendant has the burden of bringing more evidence than the plaintiff, and whoever has better overall evidence generally gets to win.


Yeah, two sides of the same principle, really, I guess. 

For everyone who's saying Trump won't be held accountable for anything because he always seems to wiggle out of every charge laid against him, remember that 1) he's no longer president, and that the situations you're thinking of as examples here - the Mueller investiation, two impeachements - were political and not criminal processes, and 2) his track record outside of the white house in criminal and civil suits is not good - look at the Trump University settlement, and the Trump Foundation, that was wound down under state supervision for tax fraud. 

He probably won't go to jail for this, but this will be _highly_ embarrassing and should rather publicly blow holes in his claim of being a billionaire.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Yeah, two sides of the same principle, really, I guess.
> 
> For everyone who's saying Trump won't be held accountable for anything because he always seems to wiggle out of every charge laid against him, remember that 1) he's no longer president, and that the situations you're thinking of as examples here - the Mueller investiation, two impeachements - were political and not criminal processes, and 2) his track record outside of the white house in criminal and civil suits is not good - look at the Trump University settlement, and the Trump Foundation, that was wound down under state supervision for tax fraud.
> 
> He probably won't go to jail for this, but this will be _highly_ embarrassing and should rather publicly blow holes in his claim of being a billionaire.


Embarrassment?

Not sure how much embarrassment can be doled out to the guy who tear gassed a crowd so that he could get a photo op holding a Bible, and then fumble around with the thing as if he had never touched one before once he finally was being filmed. The guy who flaunted his power to pardon himself, threw paper towels at Puerto Ricans, coined both the terms "shithole countries" and "covfefe," etc.

If he's committed any criminal offenses, I doubt anyone will consider a little public embarrassment as a worthy stand-in for proper punishment. But yeah, no way this guy ever does any actual jail time, regardless of what he's done. Even if he's not the current president, he's still a former president and a cult of personality. (Look in his eyes, what do you see?)


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Yeah, two sides of the same principle, really, I guess.
> 
> For everyone who's saying Trump won't be held accountable for anything because he always seems to wiggle out of every charge laid against him, remember that 1) he's no longer president, and that the situations you're thinking of as examples here - the Mueller investiation, two impeachements - were political and not criminal processes, and 2) his track record outside of the white house in criminal and civil suits is not good - look at the Trump University settlement, and the Trump Foundation, that was wound down under state supervision for tax fraud.
> 
> He probably won't go to jail for this, but this will be _highly_ embarrassing and should rather publicly blow holes in his claim of being a billionaire.


I will say, the enjoyment of watching this happen will be interesting.

But in the end, yeah. He'll get a little slap on the wrist, unless they pull "officer of a company in New York" on him and actually force him out of his Trump Orginization. That could be quite teehee inducing.

Jail is never gonna happen for the guy. And the chances are sadly high that if he were to run for president again and win, we'd let him take office without issue because we're fucking idiots and far more interested in looking nice up-front than risking a little political hooha to protect democracy at large.


----------



## nightflameauto

Did I hear right? Did Trump actually say in an interview that as an ex president he can declassify documents just by thinking that they're declassified?

WTF?


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> Did I hear right? Did Trump actually say in an interview that as an ex president he can declassify documents just by thinking that they're declassified?
> 
> WTF?


Unless this is something new, he's been arguing that when he was president he could declassify documents by thinking it. And legally, this might technically be correct that it's all he needs to do. But also legally, a document isn't declassified until some stamps "declassified" on it. That's the definition of the term.

So basically the argument is that he declassified them as president, beginning the process, but didn't tell anyone. Since he didn't tell anyone, they didn't get stamped, so they hadn't finished being declassified. This means that he did steal classified documents, but if he mistook them as being declassified it was his own idiocy.

This is also entirely irrelevant because there are documents he is alleged to have taken that even the president doesn't have authority to declassify. Namely nuclear documents.


----------



## thraxil

StevenC said:


> This is also entirely irrelevant because there are documents he is alleged to have taken that even the president doesn't have authority to declassify. Namely nuclear documents.


And that the potential crime just involves documents that are of a sensitive nature wrt national security whether they are classified or not.

I *think* the big-brain move he was trying to pull was just to get all the classified stuff excluded from the DOJ's investigation so they couldn't use any of it in a case against him. That would've required the special master going along with him and it looks like even that wouldn't have worked since his lawyers were never willing to assert in a court that he had any claim of ownership.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> But in the end, yeah. He'll get a little slap on the wrist, unless they pull "officer of a company in New York" on him and actually force him out of his Trump Orginization. That could be quite teehee inducing.


I can't promise they'll succeed... but they're trying - they want to ban Don, Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka from ever serving as an officer in a company in New York in response to what they characterize as a massive pattern of fraud.



nightflameauto said:


> Did I hear right? Did Trump actually say in an interview that as an ex president he can declassify documents just by thinking that they're declassified?
> 
> WTF?


He did indeed.

Keep in mind this is all smoke and mirrors anyway, as none of the charges he's being investigated for - violations of the espionage act - actually require the documents to have been classified, and the search warrant was based on the unexpected amount of classified information he had turned over a few months earlier after a year of negotiation, and the fact that given how little access to Mar-A-Lago the National Archives had been given prior to the warrant, they had a strong suspicion that this wasn't close to the extent of White House records and classified files that were there. 

So, while this is insane to say... Trump could absolutely be right that he used his Jedi mind powers to declassify these documents, but if there's a reasonable basis to believe that 1) he had them, and 2) they could either hurt American allies or help American enemies if let into the wrong hands, then Trump still ran afoul of the law.


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> And that the potential crime just involves documents that are of a sensitive nature wrt national security whether they are classified or not.
> 
> I *think* the big-brain move he was trying to pull was just to get all the classified stuff excluded from the DOJ's investigation so they couldn't use any of it in a case against him. That would've required the special master going along with him and it looks like even that wouldn't have worked since his lawyers were never willing to assert in a court that he had any claim of ownership.


I think it was even simpler than that - I think he was hoping to find grounds to launch appeal after appeal to run down the clock until not just the midterms had passed, but it was too close to a presidential election to charge him with a crime. The fact that this court, where he had appointed two of the three justices, absolutely bitchslapped him, and the special master increasingly looks prepared to do the same, doesn't mean that his strategy has failed either. It just means its much more likely the DOJ will be able to continue building a case against him while he tries to stall in the courts.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I can't promise they'll succeed... but they're trying - they want to ban Don, Don Jr, Eric, and Ivanka from ever serving as an officer in a company in New York in response to what they characterize as a massive pattern of fraud.
> 
> 
> He did indeed.
> 
> Keep in mind this is all smoke and mirrors anyway, as none of the charges he's being investigated for - violations of the espionage act - actually require the documents to have been classified, and the search warrant was based on the unexpected amount of classified information he had turned over a few months earlier after a year of negotiation, and the fact that given how little access to Mar-A-Lago the National Archives had been given prior to the warrant, they had a strong suspicion that this wasn't close to the extent of White House records and classified files that were there.
> 
> So, while this is insane to say... Trump could absolutely be right that he used his Jedi mind powers to declassify these documents, but if there's a reasonable basis to believe that 1) he had them, and 2) they could either hurt American allies or help American enemies if let into the wrong hands, then Trump still ran afoul of the law.


Absolutely. Despite the wording of the search warrant, the law in question makes no mention to classified status. Trump's defense is not only ridiculous, it's also irrelevant. His strategy of stalling for time and throwing lawyers at every problem until those problems just go away is the far more effective one, though.

I guess the thing that bothers me the most, is that, if this was any average person, they'd be in jail immediately, and then the investigation would proceed faster than they could offer explanations. With someone like Trump, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is nor how guilty he looks, people will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to both demand that Bill Clinton be charged with a crime for accidentally losing the nuclear launch codes and yet defend Trump for deliberately copping 15 boxes of government secrets upon leaving the White House.

So now that it's established that whether or not the documents were spooky-force-at-a-distance declassified by Trump is irrelevant...

Declassifying documents can absolutely be done unilaterally by the president, but it is still a process. The president can tell his subordinates that a document is declassified, and they have to take it through the process of declassifying, which includes reviewing it and publishing it. The president cannot, however, ex-post-facto declare a document he stole away as declassified. Why? Because if he tucked it away, it literally cannot be declassified, i.e. go through the review and publication process, unless he actually tells someone else that such is the case. So, in short, there is no psychic declassification.

From the standpoint of the law or even basic logic, Trump's goose is cooked, but, from a practical standpoint, his same goose should have been cooked, what, five, maybe six times, by now. And yet here he is still razing hell. With enough support that no one can do anything about his goose, even though it's so cooked now that all that's left of it is the titanium screw it got in its wing from a car accident in 1994.


----------



## thraxil

Trump called Letitia James "racist" for filing a lawsuit against him. That makes literally zero sense until you remember that Trump's default defense is to accuse others of whatever he is/does.


----------



## CanserDYI

Whats ironic is that he actually tweeted out calling her quote "Letitia 'Peekaboo' James" which apparently was an autocorrect for a much much much uglier word.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> From the standpoint of the law or even basic logic, Trump's goose is cooked, but, from a practical standpoint, his same goose should have been cooked, what, five, maybe six times, by now. And yet here he is still razing hell. With enough support that no one can do anything about his goose, even though it's so cooked now that all that's left of it is the titanium screw it got in its wing from a car accident in 1994.


Though, the progression here isn't great, if you're Trump. 

Mueller Report: Ended with Barr pre-emptively determining Trump was innocent despite some evidence of collusion and clear evidence of obstruction, dropped. 
Ukrainian impeachment: letter of impeachment filed after lengthy investigation, a few GOP votes picked off, but mostly went down on party line votes. No further investigation, no charges. 
Jan 6th Impeachment - letters of impeachment filed almost immediately, several more GOP votes, with many of the rest saying they only voted against impeachment since he was out of office in a few days. Investigation still ongoing, appears to be picking up speed, and is closing on Trump in a number of directions. 
Classified documents at Mar-A-Lago - investigation ongoing, no charges, but investigators have let it leak rather pointedly that they don't intend to chrge Trump until after the midterms. Charges appear fairly likely. 
NY Civil suit - filed 26 hours ago. With the massive amount of evidence and lower standard of evidence in a civil trial, Trump is facing stiff odds here. 

Like, for all this "Teflon Don" talk, I think it's hard to argue that things are generally going _worse_ for him today than when it was the "Russia hoax," back in 2017.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Not sure how much embarrassment can be doled out to the guy who tear gassed a crowd so that he could get a photo op holding a Bible, and then fumble around with the thing as if he had never touched one before once he finally was being filmed.



Reporter: "Is that your bible?"
Trump: "It's A bible"

One of his more accidentally hilarious moments, heavily reminiscent of my favorite Fight Club scene and one of my all-time favorite joke formats, fun with articles:




"Of course it's company policy never to imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo."

I also enjoy extrapolating the Trump format to other realms. Talking about radical politics with a buddy, "Is that your praxis?" "it's A praxis."

Also used to drop this one on the spouse: "I heard that place is the business." "It's A business."

and so on


----------



## Drew

thraxil said:


> Trump called Letitia James "racist" for filing a lawsuit against him. That makes literally zero sense until you remember that Trump's default defense is to accuse others of whatever he is/does.


I mean, also that "white racism" and "reverse racism" is a popular GOP/MAGA talking point these days.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> I mean, also that "white racism" and "reverse racism" is a popular GOP/MAGA talking point these days.



Even when I was a young teenage edgelord Libertarian I understood the ridiculousness and implied/inherent racism of the term "reverse racism."


----------



## Randy




----------



## tedtan

Randy said:


>



Well, she’s not wrong…


----------



## Randy

Cheap slave labor uniparty


----------



## SpaceDock

This is a huge part of the problem with the immigration policy right now. We should be letting people who want to work the jobs that Americans don’t want to work come here, do these jobs, pay taxes, and spend money here on a path to citizenship.


----------



## spudmunkey

Immigrants make up 17% of the overal labor force in the US.

In farming: 73% overall.
California: 80%+
Texas: 45%
Florida 65%

And the average age is going up quite fast, meaning there's fewer new workers coming in to the industry. In the 5 years from 2014 to 2019, the number of workers under 25 dropped by 40%, and the percentage of those over 45 went up 35%.

I think a lot of aspects of our civilization are coming to a head right now, and will over the next decade or two, where we're realizing that we've been getting away with not really paying enough for basically anything, for the benefit of the few at the top.


----------



## Drew

spudmunkey said:


> Immigrants make up 17% of the overal labor force in the US.
> 
> In farming: 73% overall.
> California: 80%+
> Texas: 45%
> Florida 65%
> 
> And the average age is going up quite fast, meaning there's fewer new workers coming in to the industry. In the 5 years from 2014 to 2019, the number of workers under 25 dropped by 40%, and the percentage of those over 45 went up 35%.
> 
> I think a lot of aspects of our civilization are coming to a head right now, and will over the next decade or two, where we're realizing that we've been getting away with not really paying enough for basically anything, for the benefit of the few at the top.


Yeah, that's the awkward part that she just said out loud - migrant labor has been a significant source of seasonal manual labor in the US, in red AND blue states near the border, for a long time now, and Republicans may be quick to condemn "illegal imigrants taking hard-working American jobs," but it's not like "hard working Americans" are lining up to take these farming jobs today, and Republicans still want cheap avocados and limes for their avocado toast and margaritas.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> Yeah, that's the awkward part that she just said out loud - migrant labor has been a significant source of seasonal manual labor in the US, in red AND blue states near the border, for a long time now, and Republicans may be quick to condemn "illegal imigrants taking hard-working American jobs," but it's not like "hard working Americans" are lining up to take these farming jobs today, and Republicans still want cheap avocados and limes for their avocado toast and margaritas.



damn I thought blue haired millennial hipsters were eating all the avocado toast 

mind=blown


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> damn I thought blue haired millennial hipsters were eating all the avocado toast
> 
> mind=blown


Sorry, you're right. The GOP is courting the white resentment vote, so it's totally the Angus Avocado Smashburger and Big Gulp Skinnyritas down at TGI Friday's that they're pissed are no longer $9.99!


----------



## philkilla

Definitely no specific timing with this, nope not one bit.

What an absolute unit of a crones douchebag.










Biden pardons thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession, orders review of federal pot laws


Biden also ordered a review of how marijuana is classified under federal law, saying the current schedule system "makes no sense."




www.cnbc.com


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Definitely no specific timing with this, nope not one bit.
> 
> What an absolute unit of a crones douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden pardons thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession, orders review of federal pot laws
> 
> 
> Biden also ordered a review of how marijuana is classified under federal law, saying the current schedule system "makes no sense."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


You're absolutely right, he should have done this on 4/20. 

IMO, long overdue.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> You're absolutely right, he should have done this on 4/20.
> 
> IMO, long overdue.



Jokes aside that would've been worth a few votes.

Changing the scheduling of Marijuana could've been done many many many years ago as well (prior to the orange dick) but here we are.

I don't know the stats, but imagine being locked up for years over a plant.


----------



## nightflameauto

Gonna be a massive teehee if, after voting it all legal and being told by our state government that we just didn't understand what we were voting for, therefore no its not, the fed legalizes it. I mean, aside from the grossness of constantly being told by our governor that we're all children with broken moral compasses. Which is fuckin' rich coming from her.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Jokes aside that would've been worth a few votes.
> 
> Changing the scheduling of Marijuana could've been done many many many years ago as well (prior to the orange dick) but here we are.
> 
> I don't know the stats, but imagine being locked up for years over a plant.


Well, he should have done it last year, but this is Biden finally delivering on a campaign promise, so good for him.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Definitely pandering. Also definitely long overdue. At the very least, state governments should have been doing this as the legalize. The legal weed industry has seen primarily rich white men getting more rich while primarily POC continue to serve prison sentences for the same thing. This doesn't undo that... but at least it gets a lot of people out of jail.


----------



## Glades

Politicians seem to “care” a lot about their citizens around election time. Both left and right.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> Definitely pandering. Also definitely long overdue. At the very least, state governments should have been doing this as the legalize. The legal weed industry has seen primarily rich white men getting more rich while primarily POC continue to serve prison sentences for the same thing. This doesn't undo that... but at least it gets a lot of people out of jail.



Ya, I mean, the difference between "pandering" and "representing your constituents", (i.e., also known in the political sphere as doing your job), seems entirely dependent on whether or not the person doing it is your guy. I don't see any real distinction.


----------



## mmr007

If I have to choose between what is more egregious, Biden releasing people jailed for simple possession right before the election or Bush releasing fictional terrorist alerts before an election, I'm gonna say the latter.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> Ya, I mean, the difference between "pandering" and "representing your constituents", (i.e., also known in the political sphere as doing your job), seems entirely dependent on whether or not the person doing it is your guy. I don't see any real distinction.



For sure. I'm pretty cynical in general, I wouldn't say he's "my guy," but I did vote for grandpa (that is to say, I voted against Trump) and I'm happy about this as well as the loan forgiveness despite seeing both as pretty naked plays for votes, but then again, that's the game. I'll vote for grandpa again if it's him vs. whatever the GOP comes up with, and planned to without either loan forgiveness or this, so I guess at this point I'm at a net-positive.

I have to appreciate the absurdity of the fact that this is the more "honest" approach relative to many other efforts we see to secure the Win.


----------



## spudmunkey

Speaking of using the mid-terms timing as a tool to pander for votes...








Senate Democrats push same-sex marriage vote until after election


The request for a delay by senators who have been pushing for the legislation follows Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the lead senator championing the bill, predicting that they would be able to get the 10 Republican votes they need to break a filibuster.




www.pbs.org





Though, to be fair, the (R) are paying the same game, being the ones (along with R-in-disguise Sinema) asking for the delay...so both sides are flipping the coin, hoping it lands on "their" side.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Politicians seem to “care” a lot about their citizens around election time. Both left and right.


When was the last time the GOP did something good close to an election?


----------



## Flappydoodle

I've been pretty impressed with Biden, to be honest. I didn't have that much confidence when he became POTUS. But foreign policy he's done a good job. Surprisingly tough on China. Obviously he's going hard against Russia. Hell, he might even be about to get tough against Saudi Arabia and OPEC.

Domestic policy-wise he's also done a good job. And a lot of the worst things we heard haven't come true. He hasn't gone radical leftist. He hasn't gone crazy with all the politically correct "woke" stuff. He's just being a pretty reasonable, centrist, POTUS. Well done.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> When was the last time the GOP did something good close to an election?


Why don't we start with, "When was the last time the GOP did something good?"


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> Why don't we start with, "When was the last time the GOP did something good?"


I came here to post this.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> Politicians seem to “care” a lot about their citizens around election time. Both left and right.


Fucking duh? Are you mad when politicians deliver on their promises? Who gives a shit if they do it for votes, that's the fucking point of politics.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Flappydoodle said:


> He hasn't gone radical leftist.



Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## CanserDYI

Flappydoodle said:


> He hasn't gone radical leftist.


He's barely went radical centrist.


----------



## Xaios

wheresthefbomb said:


> Oh well, maybe next time.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Politicians seem to “care” a lot about their citizens around election time. Both left and right.


Considering voting is supposed to be one of the feedback loops that keeps politicians aligned with their voters' interests, that's another way of saying that's the system doing what it was designed to do.


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## Drew

Flappydoodle said:


> I've been pretty impressed with Biden, to be honest. I didn't have that much confidence when he became POTUS. But foreign policy he's done a good job. Surprisingly tough on China. Obviously he's going hard against Russia. Hell, he might even be about to get tough against Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
> 
> Domestic policy-wise he's also done a good job. And a lot of the worst things we heard haven't come true. He hasn't gone radical leftist. He hasn't gone crazy with all the politically correct "woke" stuff. He's just being a pretty reasonable, centrist, POTUS. Well done.


Honestly, I'll be curious to see how history views him. 

In hindsight it undoubtedly contributed a bit to subsequent inflation (though, nothing to the degree that delta/omicron and then Ukraine did), but I was really surprised he managed to get through his stimulus package in almost exactly the terms and levels he initially laid it out, shortly after coming to office. He then pulled off the long-elusive "bipartisan infrastructure bill" that the last several administrations had been chasing, and while "Build Back Better" initially failed, stripped down a little it formed the core of the Inflation Reduction Act, which name notwithstanding was the single largest climate bill the US has ever passed. Then there are his executive actions - partial student loan forgiveness has been a Democratic priority for a long time now, and while this does nothing to fix the long term outlook and will have to withstand court challenges (and I think Biden has a decent shot here) that took some balls to do, and this marijuana pardon is hugely significant as a recognition of the costs that marijuana's oddly harsh classification took on Black america (part of the reason it was criminalized as hard as it was was the Nixon administration's desire to disenfranchise as much of the anti-war hippie movement, and the black community (where weed had long been popular with black jazz musicians). 

On foreign policy, he absolutely bungled Afghanistan, but seems to have learned a lot from that and has handled Russia fairly deftly and seems to still be learning and finessing his approach (recently backing away from characterizing this as democracy vs authoritarianism, and instead rule of law vs anarchy, to help get authoritarian nations lined up to appose Russia, as well). 

Also, this is one that no one on this board other than me is likely to GAF about... but he's allowing Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve to operate without political interference. Powell is in the middle of the most aggressive series o rate hikes since the Volker era to break inflation in the US, and while there's some grumbling from the left (Warren in particular, who should know better), it's a far cry from when Powell was slowly normalizing policy in 2018-19 and Trump took every opportunity he could to bitch about higher rates and threaten to can Powell if he didn't stop. Biden's silence here is refreshing.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> He then pulled off the long-elusive "bipartisan infrastructure bill" that the last several administrations had been chasing, and while "Build Back Better" initially failed, stripped down a little it formed the core of the Inflation Reduction Act, which name notwithstanding was the single largest climate bill the US has ever passed.


MetalHex warned you about electing Catholics!


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> MetalHex warned you about electing Catholics!





Actually, IS Biden Catholic? Didn't know that, that would make him our second Catholic president after Kennedy. Odd how it was much less of an issue this time around, if the Pope would have undue influence over his policies.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Actually, IS Biden Catholic? Didn't know that, that would make him our second Catholic president after Kennedy. Odd how it was much less of an issue this time around, if the Pope would have undue influence over his policies.


He is indeed! And before you know it there will be pyramids and all seeing eyes on your money!


----------



## Drew

StevenC said:


> He is indeed! And before you know it there will be pyramids and all seeing eyes on your money!


*checks wallet*

Holy shit!!!!!!!


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> MetalHex warned you about electing Catholics!



Precisely why the student loan forgiveness act is now more commonly referred to as "Spelly's Folly"


----------



## bostjan

This is a dumb question, but how are younger people surviving if they are not working? Did they figure out a way to survive without food and water or something?

Regarding legalization of cannabis, didn't it take an awfully long time between the president admitting that he used the drug and the other president decriminalizing it at the federal level? Better late than never, I suppose. 

The entire War on Drugs is stupid. I mean, coke is legal in Colombia, and they have a perfectly function society...








Err, umm, well, at least they aren't any worse off because of the drug laws. Anyway, drug use shouldn't be a problem to be solved with the same methods as dealing with murder or assault. I'm not going to condone drug use, but jailing drug users to reduce addiction in our communities is like locking up fat people in a donut factory to try to cut down on obesity.


----------



## Crungy

The never ending "war" that will always be lost, no matter the cost. I completely agree with your analogy, it doesn't address the root of the issue. People are always going to be addicted to something and they'll find it regardless.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> drug use shouldn't be a problem to be solved with the same methods as dealing with murder or assault


Maybe they should - to a point. By which I mean address their root causes rather than just punishing the offense. I've been under the impression that crime rates, regardless of what the crime is, tend to be higher in the presence of other societal problems. I'd be willing to bet that both cases of just spontaneous murder and cases of spontaneous substance abuse are less frequent than our punishment methods would suggest - like you don't murder people when you're happily cruising through life, nor do you feel a need to resort to vices to cope with a life that is great already.

Dunno why it makes me think of that old saying "happy wife, happy life", but instead - "happy life, happy... er, society?" I think you get what I'm going for.


----------



## CanserDYI

It's like the whole view on African Americans/Black people doing a disproportionate amount of crime, so it must be a racial trait. No. _Poor_ people do a disproportionate amount of crime compared to their wealthy counterparts (petty crimes, mind you , but that's a different conversation). And who have we forced and oppressed into lesser and poorer economic situations for generations and generations? Who have we put laws and systems in place to _keep _in poverty and undereducated? 

If you have, you have no reason to take. If you have, you have no reason to want. If you have, you have no reason to covet. And we have plenty.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> Maybe they should - to a point. By which I mean address their root causes rather than just punishing the offense. I've been under the impression that crime rates, regardless of what the crime is, tend to be higher in the presence of other societal problems. I'd be willing to bet that both cases of just spontaneous murder and cases of spontaneous substance abuse are less frequent than our punishment methods would suggest - like you don't murder people when you're happily cruising through life, nor do you feel a need to resort to vices to cope with a life that is great already.
> 
> Dunno why it makes me think of that old saying "happy wife, happy life", but instead - "happy life, happy... er, society?" I think you get what I'm going for.


Yes, I agree that addiction is a huge societal problem. What I disagree with is trying to pretend that locking them up with their dealers for a few months at a time is going to solve the problem.

Violence does indeed come from desperation and addiction leads to desperation. But locking up nonviolent people due to behaving in a way that statistically links them to a crime is a little too eugenic for me. Instead, it would be nice to hook them up with some sort of rehab program that gets them involved with positive, constructive activities that take their minds off of their addiction. Locking them up in a place where boredom is the name of the game isn't going to help, and locking them up together with other addicts and dealers is only going to establish more powerful drug supply networks.

40 years ago, I might have agreed with the tactics with enough convincing, but, now, we've tried it and seen how it worked out, and it's an abysmal failure. Drugs are a worse problem in the USA than they ever were before the War on Drugs. And that was fully apparent that such was our trajectory even back during Bush and the War on Terror. In general, declaring war on any abstract thing is just going to end worse than it started. We need to fight ideas with better ideas, not with brute force.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Maybe they should - to a point. By which I mean address their root causes rather than just punishing the offense. I've been under the impression that crime rates, regardless of what the crime is, tend to be higher in the presence of other societal problems. I'd be willing to bet that both cases of just spontaneous murder and cases of spontaneous substance abuse are less frequent than our punishment methods would suggest - like you don't murder people when you're happily cruising through life, nor do you feel a need to resort to vices to cope with a life that is great already.
> 
> Dunno why it makes me think of that old saying "happy wife, happy life", but instead - "happy life, happy... er, society?" I think you get what I'm going for.


Yeah, you're exactly right. No one wakes up one morning and says, "hmm, what a beautiful day... I think I'll become addicted to heroin." People turn to drugs because they're trying to escape something, be it a shitty living situation, stress and anxiety, chronic pain, etc. 

It's belatedly occurring to me that drug probably got a fairer-than-typical depiction in Stranger Things, of all places, in season 4, when the cheerleader wanted moly, I think, because she thought it would help her escape from, well, what she thought was just a psychotic break, but actually turned out to be demonic possession. Still, the escape from _something_ rather than just being a social degenerate.


----------



## TedEH

For the record, bostjan, I think we're on the same page. I don't think locking people up tends to solve _any_ real problem other than when it's to take a real immediate / imminent threat out of the equation - which is never the case when you're talking about someone being locked up for having some weed on him.


----------



## mmr007

I say this as someone who has never done drugs...locking up anyone who does drugs is beyond stupid (if that is their only crime) therefore simple use of drugs should not be a crime. Consider...

If you apply for the FBI you can admit to using certain drugs and still get hired (no meth or heroin...cocaine is ok so long as no more than say 5 times and not within 5 years of the date of application yadda yadda etc etc) BUT...if you've ever been arrested for drug use, not only are you instantly disqualified, you are disqualified from most jobs including walmart. What fucking sense does that make? You can use drugs in the past and admit you used drugs in the past but if you got caught in the past? Well fuck off....run along now. So its the getting caught that is the disqualifier. Makes sense.


----------



## CanserDYI

mmr007 said:


> I say this as someone who has never done drugs...locking up anyone who does drugs is beyond stupid (if that is their only crime) therefore simple use of drugs should not be a crime. Consider...
> 
> If you apply for the FBI you can admit to using certain drugs and still get hired (no meth or heroin...cocaine is ok so long as no more than say 5 times and not within 5 years of the date of application yadda yadda etc etc) BUT...if you've ever been arrested for drug use, not only are you instantly disqualified, you are disqualified from most jobs including walmart. What fucking sense does that make? You can use drugs in the past and admit you used drugs in the past but if you got caught in the past? Well fuck off....run along now. So its the getting caught that is the disqualifier. Makes sense.


It's the classic, "Drugs are bad and will ruin your life, so if we catch you with them, we're going to treat you badly and ruin your life."


----------



## TedEH

CanserDYI said:


> so if we catch you


I suppose the reality is swapping that "so" for "because".



mmr007 said:


> you are disqualified from most jobs including walmart


Of course, working at a walmart might lead to to drugs just to help cope with working at a walmart.


----------



## LordCashew

Drew said:


> No one wakes up one morning and says, "hmm, what a beautiful day... I think I'll become addicted to heroin."


Challenge accepted.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

TedEH said:


> Of course, working at a walmart might lead to to drugs just to help cope with working at a walmart.



The struggle is real. I've never worked at wal-mart, but working service industry with nothing to dull the edges is rough. I still tend bar part time, but it's a constant challenge being sober in that industry, especially when one of the unspoken perks (even at jobs that explicitly forbid it) is that you get to drink. My worst drinking has always coincided with shit jobs that have huge liquor stocks, no cameras, and no inventory control. 

It almost became a point of principle, stealing product was a way of giving myself a raise as well as dealing with my depression and toxic work environments. Some of these places even caught me and gave me pretend-discipline talks but the truth was they needed me there worse than they needed me to not-steal a half rack of PBR every night, and they paid me so little it was a wash. As long as I wasn't getting caught they were happy to pretend it wasn't happening.

I never got into uppers thankfully, but the attitude there is the same. Yeah, the grill cook is a tweaker, but he does a great job keeping the tickets organized because he's on meth and will stick around long after closing scrubbing fryers as long as the voices keep telling him to. Until they inevitably burn out, management is happy to pretend it isn't happening. The amphetamine crisis is a secret boon to owners of shitty restaurants everywhere.

A lot of it makes for funny stories now, but I was in a bad place and fortunate to have lifted myself out of that to the extent I've been able to. I worked with a lot of dudes who are still sliding down that hole today and probably will be until they've got nothing left.


----------



## Metaluna

Crungy said:


> The never ending "war" that will always be lost, no matter the cost. I completely agree with your analogy, it doesn't address the root of the issue. People are always going to be addicted to something and they'll find it regardless.


drug wars always help create a thriving black market and more people end up taking the illegal drug. So, if you want to pump endless money into policing, with zero outcome (end steady corruption of cops) by all means declare a War On Drugs.


----------



## vilk

philkilla said:


> What an absolute unit of a crones douchebag.



Yeah, fucking d bag doing policy I agree with... And just for votes! Well guess what! I'm gonna vote for the _other _guy who _doesn't _enact policy I agree with!! Let's go Brandon!


----------



## Metaluna

vilk said:


> Yeah, fucking d bag doing policy I agree with... And just for votes! Well guess what! I'm gonna vote for the _other _guy who _doesn't _enact policy I agree with!! Let's go Brandon!


Dark Brandon will see to it


----------



## nightflameauto

Metaluna said:


> Dark Brandon will see to it


Now I see Biden with a mustache hangin' out with Dark Abed plotting the destruction of the other timelines. As long as they wipe out this one, I'll consider it a win.


----------



## Metaluna

nightflameauto said:


> Now I see Biden with a mustache hangin' out with Dark Abed plotting the destruction of the other timelines. As long as they wipe out this one, I'll consider it a win.


Ya know I voted Giant Meteorite in ‘16 and was massively disappointed. I think SM Sterling wrote a lot about wiping timelines, we should ask him how it’s done. In his novels from the Peshawar Lancers the evil russkies have a way to bring about the nothing.
check this poem by John Donne on similar theme. Very metal 

A Nocturnal upon St. Lucy's Day​BY JOHN DONNE
'Tis the year's midnight, and it is the day's,
Lucy's, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks;
The sun is spent, and now his flasks
Send forth light squibs, no constant rays;
The world's whole sap is sunk;
The general balm th' hydroptic earth hath drunk,
Whither, as to the bed's feet, life is shrunk,
Dead and interr'd; yet all these seem to laugh,
Compar'd with me, who am their epitaph.

Study me then, you who shall lovers be
At the next world, that is, at the next spring;
For I am every dead thing,
In whom Love wrought new alchemy.
For his art did express
A quintessence even from nothingness,
From dull privations, and lean emptiness;
He ruin'd me, and I am re-begot
Of absence, darkness, death: things which are not.

All others, from all things, draw all that's good,
Life, soul, form, spirit, whence they being have;
I, by Love's limbec, am the grave
Of all that's nothing. Oft a flood
Have we two wept, and so
Drown'd the whole world, us two; oft did we grow
To be two chaoses, when we did show
Care to aught else; and often absences
Withdrew our souls, and made us carcasses.

But I am by her death (which word wrongs her)
Of the first nothing the elixir grown;
Were I a man, that I were one
I needs must know; I should prefer,
If I were any beast,
Some ends, some means; yea plants, yea stones detest,
And love; all, all some properties invest;
If I an ordinary nothing were,
As shadow, a light and body must be here.

But I am none; nor will my sun renew.
You lovers, for whose sake the lesser sun
At this time to the Goat is run
To fetch new lust, and give it you,
Enjoy your summer all;
Since she enjoys her long night's festival,
Let me prepare towards her, and let me call
This hour her vigil, and her eve, since this
Both the year's, and the day's deep midnight is.


----------



## Shoeless_jose

For the record, zero people released from prison with this pardon, Biden also could have had the classification of it changed but instead is recommending a study to look into the possibility, literally he did nothing but blow hot air.


----------



## spudmunkey

Shoeless_jose said:


> For the record, zero people released from prison with this pardon, Biden also could have had the classification of it changed but instead is recommending a study to look into the possibility, literally he did nothing but blow hot air.


Under the Controlled Substance Act, no, the president can't reclassify it on his own, not even by Executive Order. All he can do is basically what he did, and appoint people to positions who support it.

What it does right now though, is now several thousand (but less than 10k, if I remember right) people no longer have a felony to report on their job or apartment applications.


----------



## philkilla

vilk said:


> Yeah, fucking d bag doing policy I agree with... And just for votes! Well guess what! I'm gonna vote for the _other _guy who _doesn't _enact policy I agree with!! Let's go Brandon!


----------



## bostjan

philkilla said:


>


Whoah, what drugs did the put in my coffee this morning?! It looks like you have 67 thumbs...



spudmunkey said:


> Under the Controlled Substance Act, no, the president can't reclassify it on his own, not even by Executive Order. All he can do is basically what he did, and appoint people to positions who support it.
> 
> What it does right now though, is now several thousand (but less than 10k, if I remember right) people no longer have a felony to report on their job or apartment applications.



Anyway, it might sound like the president is powerless, and, in terms of written law, he is; however, the president *is* the head of the executive branch, so, he can very easily dictate that the law enforcing criminalization of drugs _not be enforced_. It's not only a theory, but it's a governing tactic that has been used several times throughout history with various laws congress passed but presidents didn't like. Effectively, Biden could declare cannabis to be legal at the federal level, in that, it's "illegal" only at the nominal level, then, if Biden leaves office or croaks, the next person in charge could reverse it just as easily. But, I suppose, the hope here is that congress gets their poop in a group and officially amends the laws. Either that, or, maybe this is nothing but hot air, and Biden intends to do nothing actionable (or "inactionable," since we are talking about willfully not enforcing the law).

Again, please don't take my cheerleader-level advocacy for me being pro-drug. I really think drugs are highly dangerous things, especially for children and people operating automobiles and other large equipment. I'd strongly advise anyone against self-prescribing medication of any sort in any artificially concentrated form, or any medicine with a known strong effect in its natural form, even cannabis; however, be it a joint or a half gallon of krokodil, punishment by incarceration, for merely possessing such a substance, is dumb policy. Drugs are bad, mmkay, don't do drugs, mmkay. But... let's not pretend that locking up addicts for 6-12 months in the state pen does anybody any good.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Drugs are bad, mmkay, don't do drugs, mmkay. But... let's not pretend that locking up addicts for 6-12 months in the state pen does anybody any good.


I cannot stress enough, in these contexts, how much of the "War on Drugs" was a very conscious attempt to disenfranchise generally liberal voter blocks like Black americans and the anti-war movement, and that after Nixon it was racheted up largely as an attempt to differentiate the GOP from the left and paint the left as "soft on crime," until even Clinton started to talk like a Republican on drugs and crime. 

This was 100% a political calculation on the American right.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> I cannot stress enough, in these contexts, how much of the "War on Drugs" was a very conscious attempt to disenfranchise generally liberal voter blocks like Black americans and the anti-war movement, and that after Nixon it was racheted up largely as an attempt to differentiate the GOP from the left and paint the left as "soft on crime," until even Clinton started to talk like a Republican on drugs and crime.
> 
> This was 100% a political calculation on the American right.


This is why the GOP's current war on women's reproductive rights is basically "War On Drugs 2: Electric Boogaloo".


----------



## Mathemagician

I cannot get over how some people will see a politician run on “X” policy, delivery on that policy and then scream “They only did it for votes”. Yes that’s exactly how politics works. 

That’s like being angry a band released a good album and crying “they only did it for the fame/money”. Yep, that’s how a musician makes money. 

But, when a politician removes women’s access to healthcare as a matter of policy they cheer and claim “it’s different”. 

Just like how the FBI is corrupt if they investigate Trump, but was hunky dory when they investigated Clinton. 

Hella bad-faith arguing going on all the time.


----------



## nightflameauto

Mathemagician said:


> I cannot get over how some people will see a politician run on “X” policy, delivery on that policy and then scream “They only did it for votes”. Yes that’s exactly how politics works.
> 
> That’s like being angry a band released a good album and crying “they only did it for the fame/money”. Yep, that’s how a musician makes money.
> 
> But, when a politician removes women’s access to healthcare as a matter of policy they cheer and claim “it’s different”.
> 
> Just like how the FBI is corrupt if they investigate Trump, but was hunky dory when they investigated Clinton.
> 
> Hella bad-faith arguing going on all the time.


I used to think the Republican base had double standards. Then I realized my error: They have no standards at all.

Here's their philosophy, in its entirety:
What I want? Awesome. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. IN. YOUR. FACE!
What I don't want? Fuck you. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. Loudly.


----------



## philkilla

I used to think the Democrat base had double standards. Then I realized my error: They have no standards at all.

Here's their philosophy, in its entirety:
What I want? Awesome. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. IN. YOUR. FACE!
What I don't want? Fuck you. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. Loudly.


----------



## narad

Doesn't really work to copy/paste since so much of current republican worldview is based around "me, me, me!". I don't recall the last time the democrats walked around in matching hats to turn everyday meetups into awkward political confrontations. They're the vegans/karens of the political landscape.


----------



## Mathemagician

It’s bad faith. The democratic platform is largely “let’s provide access to services that will elevate society on a broad level”. 

The conservative platform is predicated on stripping away as many protections as possible while promising voters that “the free market will provide”. 

The same way that the free market polluted lakes and rivers until the government regulated that shit away and made nature great again.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Doesn't really work to copy/paste since so much of current republican worldview is based around "me, me, me!". I don't recall the last time the democrats walked around in matching hats to turn everyday meetups into awkward political confrontations. They're the vegans/karens of the political landscape.



Spend much time with both parties in Tokyo do you??



EDIT:

With general elections coming up, I have to wonder what the various candidates are like from state to state:

For example:

Mark E. Green is running for the house - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Green#Abortion

his competition...

Odessa Kelly; within 15 seconds of a speech her major talking points are "Republicans are greedy, racist, homophobic and they cheat"


Is this really the best Democrats have to offer for candidates? No talent, just more finger pointing.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> Spend much time with both parties in Tokyo do you??


Although that was meant as a dig, it's actually really useful to be able to look at things from outside the bubbles. It's kind of like sixth sense: I see idiots, only they don't know they're idiots.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

philkilla said:


> Spend much time with both parties in Tokyo do you??
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> With general elections coming up, I have to wonder what the various candidates are like from state to state:
> 
> For example:
> 
> Mark E. Green is running for the house - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Green#Abortion
> 
> his competition...
> 
> Odessa Kelly; within 15 seconds of a speech her major talking points are "Republicans are greedy, racist, homophobic and they cheat"
> 
> 
> Is this really the best Democrats have to offer for candidates? No talent, just more finger pointing.



I'm not here to stand up for Odessa Kelly, I have never heard of either of these people, but this guy "rejects the theory of evolution" in 2022. I'm sure that slays with his constituents but it's a pretty questionable standard for "talent" unless the talent in question is believing verifiable nonsense.

Also, if Republicans don't want to be characterized as greedy, racist, homophobic cheaters, it's incumbent upon the party and its constituents to distance themselves from the greedy, racist, homophobic cheaters who, if they don't comprise the majority, are certainly at least the loudest among them. I don't know you, maybe you're not those things, but the party you're implying your support for certainly embodies those traits in a very public, intentional, and even prideful way.

Don't misunderstand me, democrats are scarcely better where it counts and at the end of the day are center-right neoliberal pawns who mostly function to shore up the illusion of choice while we ratchet further and further toward all-out technocratic police state fascism, they just tend to average out to being the less-shitty short-term option if you care about stuff like human rights. That's not to say they're even a _good_ options where human rights are concerned, simply that their administrations tend to erode those rights just a _little_ more slowly.

TL;DR voting is a game of "choose your enemy's fighter," I will always choose the least-accelerationist neoliberal pawn on the ballot.


----------



## philkilla

narad said:


> Although that was meant as a dig, it's actually really useful to be able to look at things from outside the bubbles. It's kind of like sixth sense: I see idiots, only they don't know they're idiots.



So you spend a lot of time looking at yourself than; tell me something I didn't know.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> So you spend a lot of time looking at yourself than; tell me something I didn't know.


then*


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Spend much time with both parties in Tokyo do you??
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> With general elections coming up, I have to wonder what the various candidates are like from state to state:
> 
> For example:
> 
> Mark E. Green is running for the house - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_E._Green#Abortion
> 
> his competition...
> 
> Odessa Kelly; within 15 seconds of a speech her major talking points are "Republicans are greedy, racist, homophobic and they cheat"
> 
> 
> Is this really the best Democrats have to offer for candidates? No talent, just more finger pointing.


If you feel like having a not bad faith argument, Odessa Kelly has like a whole website with positions on it that you could read. Turns out it's the top result when you Google the name.

Though, I agree it's easier just to name call instead. Honesty is difficult.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> I used to think the Democrat base had double standards. Then I realized my error: They have no standards at all.
> 
> Here's their philosophy, in its entirety:
> What I want? Awesome. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. IN. YOUR. FACE!
> What I don't want? Fuck you. And I will squeal about it until the end of time. Loudly.


Imagine being this butthurt about people standing up for themselves and not wanting to suck the cock of millionaires and billionaires.

We get it buddy, you want it back like it was in the 50s when people of color and women were quiet.


----------



## nightflameauto

The true difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the year 2022?

Democratic candidates can pretend to be decent human beings here or there, and at least pay lip-service to making the world a better place.

Republican candidates tend to just flat out start from a position of, "I'm ignorant, I'm mad, and god damn it, I WILL fuck shit up over it." There's no lip service to decency or making the world a better place. It's 100% about "fuck you, gimme."

Now, in practice the Democrats do about the same thing once elected, but at least you get a nice sheen of civility to go with the ass-rape. Republicans just come into office screaming, "GET READY, FUCKERS! LET'S BREAK SHIT!"

I'd kill for a decent third party that was viable.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> If you feel like having a not bad faith argument, Odessa Kelly has like a whole website with positions on it that you could read. Turns out it's the top result when you Google the name.
> 
> Though, I agree it's easier just to name call instead. Honesty is difficult.



I read her positions, then I listened to her speak. She spouts the same drivel that other radical left leaning politicians do.

@wheresthefbomb is correct; there's scores of Republicans that are insolent, racist and total pieces of shit. 

Guess what, so are scores of Democrats. I proposed the question that "this is the best TALENT democrats have to offer in TN?"

@StevenC I am failing to see where I resorted to name calling.

@CanserDYI I suggest you scroll up just a little bit more bud


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> @StevenC I am failing to see where I resorted to name calling.


You can't just call people names and go "nuh-uh" every time people call you on it. That's very immature.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> I read her positions, then I listened to her speak. She spouts the same drivel that other radical left leaning politicians do.
> 
> @wheresthefbomb is correct; there's scores of Republicans that are insolent, racist and total pieces of shit.
> 
> Guess what, so are scores of Democrats. I proposed the question that "this is the best TALENT democrats have to offer in TN?"
> 
> @StevenC I am failing to see where I resorted to name calling.
> 
> @CanserDYI I suggest you scroll up just a little bit more bud


I have read pretty much everything you've put in these threads and my statement stands.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> You can't just call people names and go "nuh-uh" every time people call you on it. That's very immature.



Please tell me where I called someone a name.

@CanserDYI you need help.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

philkilla said:


> other radical left leaning politicians



There is no leftist political establishment in this country. Democrats are center-right, appearing "leftist" only by contrast to other far-right politicians. This is the pattern in many nations around the world currently, and it's not by accident. 

Even if you entertain democrats as center-left, they aren't "radical left-leaning" by any stretch of the imagination. The most radical leftists we have even approaching legitimacy are folks like Bernie and Jill Stein, and they're both completely moderate on a global spectrum of leftist politics, as well as being thoroughly marginalized by the establishment. Again, not by accident.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> Please tell me where I called someone a name.
> 
> @CanserDYI you need help.


I was actually going to suggest the same for you, man. If you think leftists/liberals/democrats are just yelling to yell for "stuff we want" (ie rights, the ability to walk alone at night as a woman without fear, the ability to be black and not be profiled, a living wage that reflects the economy we live in, billionaires and the like to pay their fair share, the list goes on and on and on), then you're not opening your eyes and seeing the world we live in. We're not yelling for "stuff we want". We're yelling for "STUFF WE FUCKING NEED TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE YOU ABSOLUTE PSYCHOPATH".

EDIT: And yeah, @wheresthefbomb nailed it up there. If you actually think Joe Biden and his contemporaries are "leftist" or even on the left of the spectrum, you have literally never read about anything that you are crying about. Read a book.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> Please tell me where I called someone a name.
> 
> @CanserDYI you need help.





philkilla said:


> TIL "perk" and "reason" aren't useful words if you're a blatant useless asshole.





philkilla said:


> So you spend a lot of time looking at yourself than; tell me something I didn't know.


We could go round on this all day, or you could do some serious introspection.

I hope you do the latter, man. Nobody needs to carry around that rage.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> I was actually going to suggest the same for you, man. If you think leftists/liberals/democrats are just yelling to yell for "stuff we want" (ie rights, the ability to walk alone at night as a woman without fear, the ability to be black and not be profiled, a living wage that reflects the economy we live in, billionaires and the like to pay their fair share, the list goes on and on and on), then you're not opening your eyes and seeing the world we live in. We're not yelling for "stuff we want". We're yelling for "STUFF WE FUCKING NEED TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE YOU ABSOLUTE PSYCHOPATH".
> 
> EDIT: And yeah, @wheresthefbomb nailed it up there. If you actually think Joe Biden and his contemporaries are "leftist" or even on the left of the spectrum, you have literally never read about anything that you are crying about. Read a book.



The erratic pay raises to work at McDonald's haven't been enough for you?


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> The erratic pay raises to work at McDonald's haven't been enough for you?


Was that supposed to be an insult? That really shows your mentality if you thought it was. You people show your ass any time you can, don't you?


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> We could go round on this all day, or you could do some serious introspection.
> 
> I hope you do the latter, man. Nobody needs to carry around that rage.



So you've been sitting on this for weeks? Bravo

Says a lot coming from a guy that sits on ss.org all day just to thumbs up the people he agrees with


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> So you've been sitting on this for weeks? Bravo
> 
> Says a lot coming from a guy that sits on ss.org all day just to thumbs up the people he agrees with


Are you sad you're not getting thumbs ups?


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Was that supposed to be an insult? That really shows your mentality if you thought it was. You people show your ass any time you can, don't you?



I wouldn't dare insult anyone that works in fast food. That's a thankless job, and if anything a gateway position for young people to learn what it means to work a job.

You claimed I was crying about something didn't you? Seems like the shoe is on the other foot.

I could care less about a thumbs up; my ego is flat.


----------



## bostjan

I mean, looking at Green's website and Kelley's website, there are honestly positions on both sites with which I agree, as well as positions on both sites with which I disagree. That said, Green's site is clearly more vague and self-contradictory. Several issues start with a sentence explaining why that issue is Green's #1 priority. You can't have everything be your #1 priority. Also, the use of highly parroted talking points is rampant within both sites, but at least Kelly expounds upon those points a little more- several of Green's topic pages simply restate those contrite talking points with no further information.

But yeah, this is the sad state of US politics. It's essentially two candidates with the standard party firmware uploaded into their brains reading off of the same scripts as all of the other political candidates and seemingly having perhaps no thoughts of their own.

I've never liked the Democratic Party. But when you look at the terrible stuff the government has done, and how the very worst of it all in recent times has come out of the Republicans, there's just no way that I want them to have any more control over the legislature. I've voted for republicans in local and state-level elections, but I just can't bring myself to do it at the federal level. Even if I agree with their positions a tiny bit more, they are generally so much more gooney and hypocritical than the Democrats... Look at the wars that the Republicans started. Looks at the lies the Republicans told in order to justify those wars. Look at the fallout that created for the western world! Look at how much shit has come out about 911 that makes the Bush administration look insane. It proves that they knew the lies were lies, whereas I knew all along, now there's so much evidence made public! How can anyone get behind that party now? You think these guys want to save the babies! Then you have Trump, at the first sign of danger from the corona virus he explicitly stated was all blown out of proportion by the democrats, injecting human embryonic cells with no second thought. It's hypocrisy at the most obvious and blatant level, yet, when they are confronted about it, they just gaslight and deny. They do it all the way to the bank. Do the democrats do the same thing? Sure they do. They suck really hard at government. But the devastation left in their wake is an order of magnitude smaller. Clinton's administration's negligence led to the massacre at Waco, TX, and that was awful, but a high double-digit number of people who probably could have been saved is nothing compared to Bush's administration's "strategic" ignorance toward the situation that led to several thousands dying in 911, which totally could have been stopped. And if Trump had been re-elected, who knows. I have no confidence that that scumbag would not have tried to get the US involved in active fighting in Ukraine, probably to help the Russians... 

Fuck all of these scummy politicians, anyway...


----------



## TedEH

Is it resort-to-ad-hominem-because-you're-in-the-minority-opinion-o-clock already? I haven't even had my second coffee this morning yet. Uuugh.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> I wouldn't dare insult anyone that works in fast food. That's a thankless job, and if anything a gateway position for young people to learn what it means to work a job.
> 
> You claimed I was crying about something didn't you? Seems like the shoe is on the other foot.
> 
> I could care less about a thumbs up; my ego is flat.


Then what was that comment about? Like what other way could you have meant that? Like holy shit the amount of mental gymnastics you must have to do daily to rationalize the absurd things that you must think and say out loud.


----------



## tedtan

The US Constitution rewards a two party system, so while both parties suck ass, and the two party system sucks ass, and politicians in general suck ass, we’re stuck with what we have until the Consitution is amended. So in other words, get used to voting for the lesser of two evils during your lifetime, as I don’t see anything changing that in the short to mid term.


----------



## TedEH

philkilla said:


> That's a thankless job, and if anything a gateway position for young people to learn what it means to work a job


Super tangential to anything being discussed, but not really. It's a gateway to even more shitty working environments. It's where you learn how to work in an environment where you're devalued as a person and have to navigate a bunch of abusive and defensive machismo - while convincing you that this is what is "means to work", and leaving you with a work ethic that only really fits into other entry-level kinds of work. It sets a terrible precedent, both for what you should expect from working, and for what other kinds of work environments exist out there.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Waco, TX


----------



## bostjan

tedtan said:


> The US Constitution rewards a two party system, so while both parties suck ass, and the two party system sucks ass, and politicians in general suck ass, we’re stuck with what we have until the Consitution is amended. So in other words, get used to voting for the lesser of two evils during your lifetime, as I don’t see anything changing that in the short to mid term.


You're right. There's no way the two parties are going to ever agree on a constitutional amendment to remove the power system that feeds them, just like they will never ever vote for congressional term limits, no matter how much they promise that they will (which Green does in his site, and which Trump promised in 2016, etc.) It'll never happen. The irony is that the Constitution doesn't ever matter one iota when it's stopping the government from doing something that benefits its own power structure. I've harped on plenty of examples where the government wipes its ass with the constitution whenever the constitution says something inconvenient for the government.



TedEH said:


> Super tangential to anything being discussed, but not really. It's a gateway to even more shitty working environments. It's where you learn how to work in an environment where you're devalued as a person and have to navigate a bunch of abusive and defensive machismo - while convincing you that this is what is "means to work", and leaving you with a work ethic that only really fits into other entry-level kinds of work. It sets a terrible precedent, both for what you should expect from working, and for what other kinds of work environments exist out there.



"This is how you kids will learn good work ethics" - "No, these jobs suck" then the 2010's proves to be when the young people do their darndest to figure out alternative sources of income, and by the early 2020's virtually no one is willing to work those jobs, even if the alternative is to be impoverished.

I mean, when I was in college, I worked two part-time jobs with no benefits. But the pay was at least enough to cover my automobile expenses and chip away at my college expenses. You can't tell me that a minimum wage job in 2022 would cover either of those expenses, if you had to buy a car or go to college now. So yeah, the minimum wage is so low it's meaningless. If you don't gain anything by working, people won't agree to work, which is exactly what is happening. Good job, conservatives!


----------



## nightflameauto

TedEH said:


> Super tangential to anything being discussed, but not really. It's a gateway to even more shitty working environments. It's where you learn how to work in an environment where you're devalued as a person and have to navigate a bunch of abusive and defensive machismo - while convincing you that this is what is "means to work", and leaving you with a work ethic that only really fits into other entry-level kinds of work. It sets a terrible precedent, both for what you should expect from working, and for what other kinds of work environments exist out there.


There may be other kids of work environments out there, but thus far I've found it's just a level of schmooze pasted over the same root behaviors everywhere I've been. I say that as management in a company where the people, in general, are really good to each other, but policy and our entire FUCKING HR DEPARTMENT (sorry, bit of a peeve this week) are geared towards fucking over everyone under CEO/CFO/VP level. Seriously, at what point do we see evidence there are better working environments?

Best to dehumanize yourself when you're young so you're used to it. You'll have to eventually if you want to survive.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> Super tangential to anything being discussed, but not really. It's a gateway to even more shitty working environments. It's where you learn how to work in an environment where you're devalued as a person and have to navigate a bunch of abusive and defensive machismo - while convincing you that this is what is "means to work", and leaving you with a work ethic that only really fits into other entry-level kinds of work. It sets a terrible precedent, both for what you should expect from working, and for what other kinds of work environments exist out there.



Stop destroying the up-by-your-bootstraps republican narrative. If you get a job at McDonald's and work real hard, you could be the next Bezos!


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Then what was that comment about? Like what other way could you have meant that? Like holy shit the amount of mental gymnastics you must have to do daily to rationalize the absurd things that you must think and say out loud.



You still haven't realized I copy pasta'd nightflameauto's post, except I changed the political demographic.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> You still haven't realized I copy pasta'd nightflameauto's post, except I changed the political demographic.


Funny thing is that it still fits your normal chatter. And the comment I was referencing in that quote you quoted was about the McDonalds job. Explain how that wasn't a dig.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Trust me, nobody missed your brilliant and incisive rhetorical sleight-of-hand.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Trust me, nobody missed your brilliant and incisive rhetorical sleight-of-hand.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Trust me, nobody missed your brilliant and incisive rhetorical sleight-of-hand.


----------



## philkilla

wheresthefbomb said:


> Trust me, nobody missed your brilliant and incisive rhetorical sleight-of-hand.



The irony is, if I truly believed the angry rant and posted that I'd be instabanned.

Anyone else? Nahhhh it's fine.

@CanserDYI you're offended I made a joke about you working at McDonald's, and made a cherry picking comment about your living wage opinion?


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> The irony is, if I truly believed the angry rant and posted that I'd be instabanned.
> 
> Anyone else? Nahhhh it's fine.
> 
> @CanserDYI you're offended I made a joke about you working at McDonald's, and made a cherry picking comment about your living wage opinion?


Peace be with you, broham.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> So you've been sitting on this for weeks? Bravo
> 
> Says a lot coming from a guy that sits on ss.org all day just to thumbs up the people he agrees with


I wouldn't say sitting on so much as noticing a pattern emerging. Sometimes lovely things just fall into your lap.

Oh yeah, I wish I was well enough to leave the house too. Thanks for the vote of confidence.



philkilla said:


> I wouldn't dare insult anyone that works in fast food. That's a thankless job, and *if anything a gateway position for young people* to learn what it means to work a job.
> 
> You claimed I was crying about something didn't you? Seems like the shoe is on the other foot.
> *
> I could care less about a thumbs up; my ego is flat*.


If you want to call @narad an idiot (and I'm not disagreeing) you probably shouldn't say things like these.


----------



## philkilla

StevenC said:


> I wouldn't say sitting on so much as noticing a pattern emerging. Sometimes lovely things just fall into your lap.
> 
> Oh yeah, I wish I was well enough to leave the house too. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
> 
> 
> If you want to call @narad an idiot (and I'm not disagreeing) you probably shouldn't say things like these.


A pattern? "This guy says things we don't like; lets write biased conjecture a d hope our online friends agree"

Shame on me for starting this shindig off with an opinion the hivemind disagrees with; I'll go flog myself accordingly.


I can only imagine what a face to face interaction with any of you would be like at this point


----------



## Drew

I'm just amazed by the high quality of discourse in this thread. Truly I am. 

The problem with the GOP's platform these days, though, is that while the Democrats have policy proposals, the GOP's are "we oppose whatever the Democrats are for." 

And before you say I'm joking, exaggerating, or don't know what I'm talking about, let me provide a link to the "platform" the GOP adopted in 2020, which I only _slightly _simplify when I describe it as "we support Donald Trump, and oppose whatever the Democrats support." 



https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf



This, in a nutshell, is a failed party that hasn't quite died yet, but is most assuredly pining for the fjords. 


(because that's where the while folks at)


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> I'm just amazed by the high quality of discourse in this thread. Truly I am.
> 
> The problem with the GOP's platform these days, though, is that while the Democrats have policy proposals, the GOP's are "we oppose whatever the Democrats are for."
> 
> And before you say I'm joking, exaggerating, or don't know what I'm talking about, let me provide a link to the "platform" the GOP adopted in 2020, which I only _slightly _simplify when I describe it as "we support Donald Trump, and oppose whatever the Democrats support."
> 
> 
> 
> https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> This, in a nutshell, is a failed party that hasn't quite died yet, but is most assuredly pining for the fjords.
> 
> 
> (because that's where the while folks at)



It's the battle of extremes vs extremes.


----------



## TedEH

Drew said:


> I'm just amazed by the high quality of discourse in this thread. Truly I am.


Can't tell if sarcasm, but I'm definitely filling out my anrgy-minority-opinion bingo card. You can't criticize the hivemind is a classic.

I kid, but I get it. I've done it. It's hard not to get defensive because being in the minority opinion on anything does feel, in the moment, like the majority is dogpiling. That feeling doesn't really justify being condescending or antagonistic though.



philkilla said:


> It's the battle of extremes vs extremes.


Only relatively speaking. The two sides of this odd cultural divide we have are _extremely opposed_ to eachother, but are not, in themselves, all that extreme most of the time.


----------



## philkilla

TedEH said:


> Can't tell if sarcasm, but I'm definitely filling out my anrgy-minority-opinion bingo card. You can't criticize the hivemind is a classic.
> 
> I kid, but I get it. I've done it. It's hard not to get defensive because being in the minority opinion on anything does feel, in the moment, like the majority is dogpiling. That feeling doesn't really justify being condescending or antagonistic though.
> 
> 
> Only relatively speaking. The two sides of this odd cultural divide we have are _extremely opposed_ to eachother, but are not, in themselves, all that extreme most of the time.



I'd insert a diplomatic approval meme of Deniro if I had one handy.


----------



## Ralyks

....... See this is why if I don't leave the US, I'm moving to some obscure part of Maine where nobody is paying attention.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> A pattern? "This guy says things we don't like; lets write biased conjecture a d hope our online friends agree"
> 
> Shame on me for starting this shindig off with an opinion the hivemind disagrees with; I'll go flog myself accordingly.
> 
> 
> I can only imagine what a face to face interaction with any of you would be like at this point


No, the pattern is the name calling followed by the denial of name calling.

But if you have a problem with conjecture, you could start posting comparisons of policy positions or discussing policy or engaging with the reality of how politics works.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

philkilla said:


> Shame on me for starting this shindig off with an opinion the hivemind disagrees with; I'll go flog myself accordingly.



I provided a couple of thoughtful responses to your opinions and you conveniently ignored what I had to say about it, choosing instead to feed the exchange of nonsense. Considering how thoroughly I holed your "arguments," I can't say that surprises me, but I gave you a few pages worth of benefit-of-doubt. 

I routinely express wildly unpopular minority opinions on here, but I don't act victimized by "the hive mind" when nobody cares or agrees with me. I've been around enough to know my opinions don't make for the kind of discourse most folks are interested in. Fuckin way she goes.


----------



## TimmyPage

philkilla said:


> It's the battle of extremes vs extremes.


What's one extreme policy that the Democrats have?


----------



## zappatton2

TimmyPage said:


> What's one extreme policy that the Democrats have?


That's what I'd like to know as well. The Democrats seem decidedly tepid next to actual progressive, or "left-wing" parties outside the States. I mean, Fox News loves to create firestorms around culture-war touchstones like "trans rights", "CRT", etc., but they only do so by wildly mischaracterizing those sorts of proposals and ideas, so they can turn them into fodder for their business model of stoking rage in the ignorant for profit.

An honest, fact-based examination of most generally progressive social ideas tends to reveal them as consummately reasonable and just, whereas deep-diving into Republican talking points exposes them as hypocritical, and deeply, aggressively hostile to fact, reason, or basic human decency and civility.


----------



## Mathemagician

TimmyPage said:


> What's one extreme policy that the Democrats have?



Better access to higher education. 

Better access to medical care. 

Funding public works like roads, parks, 

Better access to trade schools/community colleges. 

Ensuring religion is kept out of education and only taught from a historical perspective. “X region was predominantly Y religion during Z period.” 

You know, straight devil stuff.


----------



## spudmunkey

Mathemagician said:


> Socialism
> 
> Communism Drag Shows
> 
> Che Guevara CRT-shirts
> 
> Can't define "woman"
> 
> Littler boxes in schools for kids who identify as cats
> 
> You know, straight devil stuff.



FTFY /s


----------



## narad

All you need to know about the parties is that in the republican party you can say things like "they let you grab em by the pussy" and not only not be thrown out of the race for office as a vile person, but rewarded for it, because they equate sexual assault with some sort of alpha dog behavior. In the democratic party, you can pantomime grabbing boobs for a goofy photo and then you have to remove yourself from politics altogether because we need to equate bad jokes with sexual assault.


----------



## philkilla

TimmyPage said:


> What's one extreme policy that the Democrats have?


See California and Illinois


----------



## Mathemagician

spudmunkey said:


> FTFY /s



I wanna laugh, ‘cause those are funny. But I’ve heard some of those “lines” from clients and people and now I’m thinking maybe people actually are getting riled up/played by being told this stuff is real?


----------



## Mathemagician

philkilla said:


> See California and Illinois



Philliam, that’s not a policy. That’s barely even a dog whistle. It was a fair question - Like, what is an example of an extremist democratic policy?


----------



## TedEH

The best argument is totally "when you know, you know, amirite"?


----------



## narad

Mathemagician said:


> Philliam, that’s not a policy. That’s barely even a dog whistle. It was a fair question - Like, what is an example of an extremist democratic policy?



What are republican policies? Florida and Wyoming?


----------



## mmr007

What were we arguing about again?


----------



## spudmunkey

mmr007 said:


> What were we arguing about again?


Tastes Great v. Less Filling


----------



## Mathemagician

mmr007 said:


> What were we arguing about again?



Xbox vs. PlayStation


----------



## Xaios

mmr007 said:


> What were we arguing about again?


Deep Impact vs. Armageddon.


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> See California and Illinois


----------



## philkilla

TimmyPage said:


> What's one extreme policy that the Democrats have?



Sorry, I had chores to do.


You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced? I don't live there, and no sympathy to people that defend it.

An EXTREME policy? Well no has been put up against the wall yet, so that's nice.

The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.

All that said, good luck with the elections fellas; can't wait for Biden to croak.


----------



## TedEH

philkilla said:


> You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced?


No, just one. An extreme one. Still waiting.

I'd be willing to bet there _is_ a good example out there for you to dig out, and this would be a great opportunity to do so.


----------



## spudmunkey

1


philkilla said:


> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.



Just read the list. None seem "extreme".








Here are the executive actions Biden signed in his first 100 days


President Joe Biden has signed a flurry of executive actions in his first 100 days in office, primarily aimed at rapidly addressing the coronavirus pandemic and dismantling many of former President Donald Trump's policies. See them all here.




www.cnn.com






edit: OK, I see I mis-read, your issue is with the pace/qty of orders, not their content. Got it.


----------



## TimmyPage

philkilla said:


> Sorry, I had chores to do.
> 
> 
> You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced? I don't live there, and no sympathy to people that defend it.
> 
> An EXTREME policy? Well no has been put up against the wall yet, so that's nice.
> 
> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.
> 
> All that said, good luck with the elections fellas; can't wait for Biden to croak.



I'd like a concrete example though. One extreme policy, please.


----------



## narad

philkilla said:


> Sorry, I had chores to do.
> 
> 
> You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced? I don't live there, and no sympathy to people that defend it.
> 
> An EXTREME policy? Well no has been put up against the wall yet, so that's nice.
> 
> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.
> 
> All that said, good luck with the elections fellas; can't wait for Biden to croak.



Damn dude, this is an open-book quiz. Shit's like Sarah Palin's supreme court answer:


----------



## Shoeless_jose

Believing global warming is pretty extreme too, I mean what if they are wrong about that and we're all just stuck with cleaner air and not held hostage by OPEC. Somebody needs to bump the breaks on the wreckless extremists glad at least one person on here is awake (


----------



## StevenC

philkilla said:


> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.


This is grade A projection


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> Sorry, I had chores to do.
> 
> 
> You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced? I don't live there, and no sympathy to people that defend it.
> 
> An EXTREME policy? Well no has been put up against the wall yet, so that's nice.
> 
> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.
> 
> All that said, good luck with the elections fellas; can't wait for Biden to croak.


MOD EDIT: Let's not get down to name calling.


----------



## CanserDYI

Why do right wingers fellate politicians and expect left wingers to have the same weird idolization to their politicians? They did this with Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr, Trump, etc. It's fucking weird.


----------



## zappatton2

CanserDYI said:


> Why do right wingers fellate politicians and expect left wingers to have the same weird idolization to their politicians? They did this with Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr, Trump, etc. It's fucking weird.


100%! They'll take a personal dig at Biden like those who voted for him would be horrified (when more folks who voted Biden have no problem holding his feet to the fire), yet when Trump sends food back for being too cold, the wait staff can expect death threats and front-lawn encampments from literal gun-stroking maniacs.


----------



## CanserDYI

Wait till we hear that we ALSO think Nancy Pelosi and the bunch are crooked capitalist crooks....not the gods among men they paint our affinity as, mirroring the cult like love they have for their own politicians. 

"Hey Leftards, look at how much Nancy Pelosi made behind the scenes, isn't that against your ideals?"
"Yes."
"I bet it makes you so mad." 
"It does." 
"Good!" 
"Okay".


----------



## narad

CanserDYI said:


> Why do right wingers fellate politicians and expect left wingers to have the same weird idolization to their politicians? They did this with Reagan, Bush Sr and Jr, Trump, etc. It's fucking weird.



We kinda had that with Obama, but it's not the status quo it is for the right.


----------



## nightflameauto

narad said:


> We kinda had that with Obama, but it's not the status quo it is for the right.


The only thing is, with Obama? We may have had some faith in him at the beginning, but by the second term we were all eying him suspiciously and wondering WTF his problem was.


----------



## CanserDYI

nightflameauto said:


> The only thing is, with Obama? We may have had some faith in him at the beginning, but by the second term we were all eying him suspiciously and wondering WTF his problem was.


I was a fan of Obama in the grand scheme of things. I thought he represented a lot of things that I want to see in a Politician. That being said, he didn't nudge the trench forward that far, unfortunately.


----------



## nightflameauto

CanserDYI said:


> I was a fan of Obama in the grand scheme of things. I thought he represented a lot of things that I want to see in a Politician. That being said, he didn't nudge the trench forward that far, unfortunately.


On the surface, sure. But behind the shiny veneer he did a lot of Bush Junior level things that were a direct opposite of what he campaigned on. And while I get there needs to be compromise, Obama himself rarely, if ever, addressed those issues, and it seems like the entire party was happy to just ignore it outright rather than deal with any perceived failure. Those are hard gotchyas for me, when he came in on the promise of hope, then quickly smashed that hope to be just another milquetoast, barely there entity of rage inducement for the other party.

It was cool he could speak like an adult though. I'll grant him that.


----------



## bostjan

Obama was hugely popular for a wide variety of reasons. He was well-spoken (coming out of the era of Bush with every third word being some made-up nonsense), he was young and new (therefore not corrupted yet), he was willing to promise people affordable healthcare and promised to fix foreign issues (which he arguably made some attempt at doing but ultimately didn't succeed), and he was black (which offered the opportunity for there to be a black president - a lot of people were excited about the historical event of such). I think John Kerry and John Edwards left a bitter taste in people's mouths, and I think people saw Al Gore as a bit of a blow-hard whom they didn't particularly like. Bill Clinton was young and charismatic, but he was just too steeped in scandals to look back on fondly. Dukakis didn't know how to talk to people, and, before that, you were getting the point where people didn't really remember who the democrats were.

But yeah, I think it is no secret that I was sorely disappointed with Obama for the reason that he promised so much and delivered so little.


----------



## Mathemagician

So, asking for cited sources counts as hivemind dog-piling I’m guessing.

Not sure why it comes as a surprise that like yeah bro, jokingky saying “California” doesn’t get the cool points outside a tiny group of people. An echo chamber if you will.


----------



## MFB

Mathemagician said:


> So, asking for cited sources counts as hivemind dog-piling I’m guessing.
> 
> Not sure why it comes as a surprise that like yeah bro, jokingky saying “California” doesn’t get the cool points outside a tiny group of people. An echo chamber if you will.



Meanwhile in his head after dropping that sweet Cali bomb:


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Sorry, I had chores to do.
> 
> 
> You want me to list every policy in the shit states I referenced? I don't live there, and no sympathy to people that defend it.
> 
> An EXTREME policy? Well no has been put up against the wall yet, so that's nice.
> 
> The deluge of Biden executive orders during the first two weeks was extreme, in regards to "let me continue to stomp my feet about the previous guy" mannerisms.
> 
> All that said, good luck with the elections fellas; can't wait for Biden to croak.


Yeah, what @TedEH said, this should be an absolute layup for you. If "every policy in California and Illinois is an example of Democratic extremism, how much work could it possibly be to name one? Like, how much can a banana _possibly_ cost, ten dollars? lol


----------



## MFB

Drew said:


> Yeah, what @TedEH said, this should be an absolute layup for you. If "every policy in California and Illinois is an example of Democratic extremism, how much work could it possibly be to name one? Like, how much can a banana _possibly_ cost, ten dollars? lol



Republicans when asked to back up their opinions:


----------



## Ralyks

I just want leadership that isn't trying to force me to be Christian.


----------



## philkilla

TimmyPage said:


> I'd like a concrete example though. One extreme policy, please.



Slept on this one; mandated vaccines for government employees. The sharp decline of skilled talent following the mandate is still hurting the workforce.

Oh, @CanserDYI thanks for the kind words you twat


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> Slept on this one; mandated vaccines for government employees. The sharp decline of skilled talent following the mandate is still hurting the workforce.
> 
> Oh, @CanserDYI thanks for the kind words you twat


Only an extremely uneducated, and Ill informed person would think mandated vaccines are tyranny. You people are the type of people to reject basic reasoning, logic, and scientific research just because you have some weird thing for "tHeY cAnT tReAd oN mE" even though you just love treading all over anyone not white, straight, and brandishing.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Only an extremely uneducated, and Ill informed person would think mandated vaccines are tyranny. You people are the type of people to reject basic reasoning, logic, and scientific research just because you have some weird thing for "tHeY cAnT tReAd oN mE" even though you just love treading all over anyone not white, straight, and brandishing.



Way to assume I'm uneducated because I don't agree something is a great solution to a problem. 

I never claimed they were tyranny, just an example of an extreme policy; it's exactly what was requested from me.

You "people" are the type to embrace logic, but only when it comes from your circle. If the shoe is on the other foot, forget about it.

Yes, thank you for pigeon holing me as a racist, bigoted gun lover. All the friends and associates I've developed overseas from years abroad mean nothing, because according to Canser I'm a racist piece of shit .

I don't tread on the after-mentioned stereotypes of people or people in general unless they're trash human beings.

With your demeanor though...you must win all the trophies.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> Way to assume I'm uneducated because I don't agree something is a great solution to a problem.
> 
> I never claimed they were tyranny, just an example of an extreme policy; it's exactly what was requested from me.
> 
> You "people" are the type to embrace logic, but only when it comes from your circle. If the shoe is on the other foot, forget about it.
> 
> Yes, thank you for pigeon holing me as a racist, bigoted gun lover. All the friends and associates I've developed overseas from years abroad mean nothing, because according to Canser I'm a racist piece of shit .
> 
> I don't tread on the after-mentioned stereotypes of people or people in general unless they're trash human beings.
> 
> With your demeanor though...you must win all the trophies.


Vote red, you're a racist, sexist, homophobic piece of shit by association. You will never change my mind about this.

Voting red means you are voting to keep minority and women's voices suppressed, bodily autonomy in the hands of old white men, and keeping the needs of 10 rich white men met while forgetting about the other 299,999,990 people in this country exist.

I don't care about civility anymore. Republicans, Centrists, Right wingers, oh shit sorry, "fascists" would be the best word (Read a book dipshits, fascism is a right wing ideology...), can suck the fatttttttttest dick.


----------



## bostjan

I don't think there are many fascist out there who still follow Mussolini's brand of ideas, so anyone referring to anyone else as fascist is likely doing so as metaphor. But, there is the level of metaphor that is essentially "Your ideas are radical to me and you are hard set on them, like a fascist," and then there is the level of metaphor of "You literally condone violence against people who stand in your ideological way, literally believe that some races/ethnicities are inferior to others, and literally believe that your leader should have unchecked power." I leave it as an exercise to figure out which is which.


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> I don't think there are many fascist out there who still follow Mussolini's brand of ideas, so anyone referring to anyone else as fascist is likely doing so as metaphor. But, there is the level of metaphor that is essentially "Your ideas are radical to me and you are hard set on them, like a fascist," and then there is the level of metaphor of "You literally condone violence against people who stand in your ideological way, literally believe that some races/ethnicities are inferior to others, and literally believe that your leader should have unchecked power." I leave it as an exercise to figure out which is which.


Last time I checked it wasn't leftists showing up at LGBT gatherings with firearms, keeping regulations in place or establishing new regulations that suppress minority rights and voting capabilities, and starting an insurrection to force a leader out of power and establish a cult leader in his place. That quite literally sounds like fascism to me, just saying. 

But thank you for always being a good voice of reason.


----------



## nightflameauto

Jon Oliver called out Christy Noem for her stupidity on his show this week. As a South Dakotan that's been less than enthused with her time in office, it warmed my heart. Even if it is a preaching to the choir situation.

It's sounding like Republicans and Democrats are trying desperately to focus the public on abortion as the only issue that matters, while the public themselves are torn up about the economy. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why folks who are traditionally voting Democrat are considering Republican votes this go just, specifically, to "get the economy back on track." Which leaves me with a lot of questions about how informed folks are, and how many make voting decisions based on knee-jerk gut-reactions to whatever the latest talking point was they shoved in their ear-holes.

Every day I seem to get another reminder we aren't worth saving. If we literally vote to throw away our country, there's nothing that will stop it from happening. The Republican party has made it exceedingly clear they're coming after rights that most have taken for granted for a long time. And if you folks voting that way think they'll stop with "the gays", "the trans people", "those darker skin tones", and women? You're both sadly misinformed, and completely oblivious to history.

I wish I had the means to get the fuck out of here before it implodes. As much as I want to see the country do better, my faith is gone. I'll vote, because it's the last little smidgen of 'do something' I have left to me. But my vote is less than worthless because I live in a red state. Ultimately, I'll be counted as a Republican vote even though I won't vote for a single Republican candidate that hasn't publicly spoken out against the looney fringe. That's just the South Dakota way. Forever red. Forever hopeless.


----------



## CanserDYI

nightflameauto said:


> Jon Oliver called out Christy Noem for her stupidity on his show this week. As a South Dakotan that's been less than enthused with her time in office, it warmed my heart. Even if it is a preaching to the choir situation.
> 
> It's sounding like Republicans and Democrats are trying desperately to focus the public on abortion as the only issue that matters, while the public themselves are torn up about the economy. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why folks who are traditionally voting Democrat are considering Republican votes this go just, specifically, to "get the economy back on track." Which leaves me with a lot of questions about how informed folks are, and how many make voting decisions based on knee-jerk gut-reactions to whatever the latest talking point was they shoved in their ear-holes.
> 
> Every day I seem to get another reminder we aren't worth saving. If we literally vote to throw away our country, there's nothing that will stop it from happening. The Republican party has made it exceedingly clear they're coming after rights that most have taken for granted for a long time. And if you folks voting that way think they'll stop with "the gays", "the trans people", "those darker skin tones", and women? You're both sadly misinformed, and completely oblivious to history.
> 
> I wish I had the means to get the fuck out of here before it implodes. As much as I want to see the country do better, my faith is gone. I'll vote, because it's the last little smidgen of 'do something' I have left to me. But my vote is less than worthless because I live in a red state. Ultimately, I'll be counted as a Republican vote even though I won't vote for a single Republican candidate that hasn't publicly spoken out against the looney fringe. That's just the South Dakota way. Forever red. Forever hopeless.


iF yOu DoNt LiKe It LeAvE


----------



## bostjan

Even my mom, a dedicated hard left democrat, used to say stuff like "well, the rich people will always vote for the republicans to bolster the economy." As if Trump's 2.6% average annual growth or Dubya's 2.4% average so obviously outshines Clinton's 4.4% average. Or how they always bash Carter for the price of gasoline and the recession, and fail to mention that the average economic growth under his presidency was 3.4% per year, which is still better than all but two Republican presidents.

Maybe the best thing, long term, for the country, could be if the GOP does win the next two election cycles and then people suffer and see just how much bullshit it is, but, honestly, after the Trump years, and people still believing that Trump was such a good idea... well, gee, you know, I don't think this nation has the aptitude to learn anything.


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> Even my mom, a dedicated hard left democrat, used to say stuff like "well, the rich people will always vote for the republicans to bolster the economy." As if Trump's 2.6% average annual growth or Dubya's 2.4% average so obviously outshines Clinton's 4.4% average. Or how they always bash Carter for the price of gasoline and the recession, and fail to mention that the average economic growth under his presidency was 3.4% per year, which is still better than all but two Republican presidents.
> 
> Maybe the best thing, long term, for the country, could be if the GOP does win the next two election cycles and then people suffer and see just how much bullshit it is, but, honestly, after the Trump years, and people still believing that Trump was such a good idea... well, gee, you know, I don't think this nation has the aptitude to learn anything.


We should have learned this from Trickle Down Economics.


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> We should have learned this from Trickle Down Economics.


Or, shit, Herbert Hoover, who took office at the height of the roaring 20's, promised to end poverty, shifted economic policy to deregulation of banks and corporations, which fueled the stock market crash turning into the Great Fucking Depression, then blamed Mexican-Americans, and doubled down on his bet that corporations would lift the nation out of the depression on their own without prodding from the government, earning him a spot in almost every bottom ten presidents list made by historians. Even during his retirement, he wouldn't shut up about how FDR's economic policies were just going to make the depression worse, even long after FDR died and the depression was over and the facts were set straight.


----------



## TedEH

philkilla said:


> Slept on this one; mandated vaccines for government employees. The sharp decline of skilled talent following the mandate is still hurting the workforce.


Is it really fair to call that "extreme" when the vast majority agreed with it?

Also.... sharp decline of talent? When? Where? I've seen or heard of zero evidence that vaccine requirements have had any impact on the skill levels at any job. If you've got something to back that up, I'm sure we're all ears.


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Vote red, you're a racist, sexist, homophobic piece of shit by association. You will never change my mind about this.
> 
> Voting red means you are voting to keep minority and women's voices suppressed, bodily autonomy in the hands of old white men, and keeping the needs of 10 rich white men met while forgetting about the other 299,999,990 people in this country exist.
> 
> I don't care about civility anymore. Republicans, Centrists, Right wingers, oh shit sorry, "fascists" would be the best word (Read a book dipshits, fascism is a right wing ideology...), can suck the fatttttttttest dick.



Well you're certainly entitiled to your opinions.

Do you have real life, worldly or dare I say anecdotal experience to bolster said opinions?


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> Is it really fair to call that "extreme" when the vast majority agreed with it?
> 
> Also.... sharp decline of talent? When? Where? I've seen or heard of zero evidence that vaccine requirements have had any impact on the skill levels at any job. If you've got something to back that up, I'm sure we're all ears.


IDK, the vaccine mandate might be a good example in retrospect.

The vaccine, turns out, doesn't really stop the spread of the virus (most likely does slow it to some extent, but to a disbeliever, those are just inconvenient details). At the time, the democrats were touting the vaccine as the end of the pandemic. I was in the covid thread trying to convince everyone that there was plenty of evidence that the vaccine was not going to be the end of the pandemic, but people's political ideas got in the way of having a rational and productive discussion about it weighing out the evidence. (Mainly it was a productive debate between three or four of us, but there were also a lot of peanut gallery rude comments directed toward me).

I. personally, don't feel that the vaccine mandates were the best policy, but I can certainly understand the logic that was used behind them, but I also think that, if people had been willing to listen to reason at that time, better policies could have been promoted. On the other hand, comparing the worst of the democrats' covid policies with even the best of the republicans' covid policies probably makes this a poor example overall of how democrats' policies were bad in contrast. That said, though, anyone wishing to improve ought to be willing to examine mistakes made in the past and, well, at least admit mistakes and move on. I think both major political parties have trouble wrestling with that.


----------



## CanserDYI

philkilla said:


> Well you're certainly entitiled to your opinions.
> 
> Do you have real life, worldly or dare I say anecdotal experience to bolster said opinions?


Fucking look at gerrymandering, abortion rights, immigrant treatment, the fetish of capitalism and American consumerism, the sheer amount of white supremacists that vote red (that can't be a coincidence), dude the list goes on.

Bring up ONE leftist ideology that isn't completely fueled by a desire for humans to survive and THRIVE. Like seriously, bring up one, JUST ONE, argument that the left gives that doesn't attempt to help humans, or isnt overall attempting to build something better for us. Its insane how you cannot see this.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Extreme leftist policy would be things like making utilities publicly owned, making universities 100% free, increasing minimum wage to match inflation at the _very least,_ breaking up monopolies and using their holdings to rebuild infrastructure and create massive, robust social safety nets.

We aren't even close, and really, even the things I listed are just a start because they still all presuppose reforming capitalism as the prevailing model. Even Bernie, OAC, Jill Stein etc wouldn't touch these suggestions because it would completely alienate them from the establishment. 

All it tells me when people talk about "radical leftists" in the US is that they don't actually know what that means or looks like.


----------



## CanserDYI

wheresthefbomb said:


> Extreme leftist policy would be things like making utilities publicly owned, making universities 100% free, increasing minimum wage to match inflation at the _very least,_ breaking up monopolies and using their holdings to rebuild infrastructure and create massive, robust social safety nets.


Is it getting hot in here? Shit. Might take my shirt off. STAHHHHP it you're getting me randy.


----------



## bostjan

Gotta figure in the red-coloured glasses effect.

Leftist - "We need more effective gun control to keep children under 18 from buying military-style weapons."
What you hear through red-coloured glasses - "We'll take yer jobs!"


----------



## MFB

CanserDYI said:


> Is it getting hot in here? Shit. Might take my shirt off. STAHHHHP it you're getting me randy.



No, that was posted by wheresthefbomb, not Randy.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> No, that was posted by wheresthefbomb, not Randy.


Surely, Leslie Nielsen would be proud of that joke.


----------



## MFB

bostjan said:


> Surely, Leslie Nielsen would be proud of that joke.



If there was ever a man who knew how to rip a joke, it was him!








Spoiler



...and don't call me Surely


----------



## TedEH

I suppose I don't know what would have counted as a "better" policy re: vaccine mandates.

Realistically, they didn't apply to many people - the average person was free not to get the vaccine, even if it was at the risk of a sort of social consequence, but social consequences are not a "mandate". Quebec had a pretty extreme measure, by comparison, with the curfew, IMO.

I think any place where getting jabbed was "mandated" was pretty reasonable: people in places of authority, people who have to cross borders and therefor are a significant vector for spread, jobs where there wasn't an expectation of autonomy to begin with (military), etc.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> I suppose I don't know what would have counted as a "better" policy re: vaccine mandates.
> 
> Realistically, they didn't apply to many people - the average person was free not to get the vaccine, even if it was at the risk of a sort of social consequence, but social consequences are not a "mandate". Quebec had a pretty extreme measure, by comparison, with the curfew, IMO.
> 
> I think any place where getting jabbed was "mandated" was pretty reasonable: people in places of authority, people who have to cross borders and therefor are a significant vector for spread, jobs where there wasn't an expectation of autonomy to begin with (military), etc.


Agreed. My workplace never forced anyone to do anything, but greatly encouraged us to get the vaccine, and I think that was perfect. Why? 1) Most people who don't want to do something will extra not want to do it if you tell them that they have to. 2) Ultimately, it ended up being that the jab mostly only helped the person getting the jab to have an overall better recovery if they ended up getting sick from it.

I've been out of the government worker game myself for a number of years now. But, back when I was dealing with government workers face-to-face on a regular basis, I thought it was weird how many people worked for the US government and also happened to be full-on tinfoil hat-level conspiracy theorists about the US government. So, I wouldn't doubt that there ended up being a disproportionate amount of federal employees who happened to believe that 5G microchip nonsense. And, if I'm going to be totally frank, good riddance! You're free to hold whatever wacky beliefs, but if you are going to be the one transporting guided missiles from the Raytheon plant into military custody, I'd really feel more comfortable if you kept those sorts of fantasies to yourself.

I'm kind of surprised that no one went for the low-hanging fruit criticizing the Afghanistan withdrawal. I was all geared up to bring up the fact that Trump's administration were the people responsible for drafting the plan. Oh well.

That's not to say that there are not plenty of stupid things associated with Biden or other democrats. But notice lately, how few crowds have been teargassed, or how the US Capitol has not been stormed, or how few racist people have ran over other people with cars, or how few plots to kidnap state governors have been attempted... I mean, I'll take Biden-as-president level shitty over Trump-as-president level shitty any day of the week.


----------



## Glades

@CanserDYI is trolling you all. Don’t feed the troll.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> @CanserDYI is trolling you all. Don’t feed the troll.






This reminds me, I'm still waiting on my George Soros check from taking part in occupy.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> @CanserDYI is trolling you all. Don’t feed the troll.


I'm not sure you understand what trolling is.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> Surely, Leslie Nielsen would be proud of that joke.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> (Mainly it was a productive debate between three or four of us, but there were also a lot of peanut gallery rude comments directed toward me).


We may have gotten pretty heated at times, but I DO think it was a good debate, and my whole argument all along wasn't that it was guaranteed to stop the spread, so much that if we could inoculate the population fast enough, the 6-9 months of immunity I was hoping it might buy us might be enough to get us back to a point of contact tracing and containment, and in that way we might have a shot at eradication. 

Problem was, we never found out because neither of us expected vaccination to blow up into a huge political issue as an attack on "personal liberty."


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> Slept on this one; mandated vaccines for government employees. The sharp decline of skilled talent following the mandate is still hurting the workforce.
> 
> Oh, @CanserDYI thanks for the kind words you twat


Can't resist jumping on the dog-pile for this one though. 

First, because there's a ton of _other _vaccines you're required to get as a government employee, so this was hardly radical simply because it was hardly _new_. 

Second, because I have no fucking clue what "sharp decline of skilled talent" in government employees you're referring to here is. A couple cops quit, so what?


----------



## philkilla

CanserDYI said:


> Fucking look at gerrymandering, abortion rights, immigrant treatment, the fetish of capitalism and American consumerism, the sheer amount of white supremacists that vote red (that can't be a coincidence), dude the list goes on.
> 
> Bring up ONE leftist ideology that isn't completely fueled by a desire for humans to survive and THRIVE. Like seriously, bring up one, JUST ONE, argument that the left gives that doesn't attempt to help humans, or isnt overall attempting to build something better for us. Its insane how you cannot see this.



I'm glad we're here:

Any of the excellent bills and policies that COULD be enacted to ensure Americans thrive are almost always compiled in a gigantic omnibus bill.

The shit is always thrown together in a bloated 800+ page package with tons of shit to scratch the back of lobbyists on both sides; the great stuff in the package is hard to enact/campaigned on and used as a carrot on a string to drive constituents down the road.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Even my mom, a dedicated hard left democrat, used to say stuff like "well, the rich people will always vote for the republicans to bolster the economy." As if Trump's 2.6% average annual growth or Dubya's 2.4% average so obviously outshines Clinton's 4.4% average. Or how they always bash Carter for the price of gasoline and the recession, and fail to mention that the average economic growth under his presidency was 3.4% per year, which is still better than all but two Republican presidents.
> 
> Maybe the best thing, long term, for the country, could be if the GOP does win the next two election cycles and then people suffer and see just how much bullshit it is, but, honestly, after the Trump years, and people still believing that Trump was such a good idea... well, gee, you know, I don't think this nation has the aptitude to learn anything.


A couple thoughts here... 

To the degree that a president can impact economic growth at all, the time it takes for policies to be proposed, implemented, and have time to show up in quarterly and annual GDP numbers is so long to begin with, that you might almost be better off attributing a year's GDP growth to whoever was president four years before. That's before you start considering the fact that we're really just taking arbitrary chunks out of a long term continuous process when we talk about a Presidents average GDP growth rate. 

But, I think the one thing where I've actually seen any kind of impact at all, is with business optimism. It does tend to increase a bit under Republicans and decrease a bit under Democrats because the business community historically has been a bit right-leaning, and beyond that coming out of an election cycle, rallies are not uncommon simply because the market likes certainty, and a clear outcome gives them that. Trump liked to talk about how the stock market rose after his win was announced, or at least he did before he desperately didn't want to talk about the stock market, but the main reason for that was the prospect of a contentious litigation cycle as Trump refused to acknowledge his loss to Clinton was lifted. That, and a bit of "deregulation" magic pixie dust. 

Its tough to even talk about things like Democrats generally doing a better job balancing budgets than Republicans, because you have to account for the fact that Clinton was able to balance the budget in part becaue he benefited from a strong stock market and an influx of capital gains... but, by and large that HAS been pretty consistent, and factors like the GOP not minding running up the deficit because then when a Democrat is in office they can become fiscal hawks and fight progresive policies not on their own merit, but because "we can't afford this," and just ignore the fact the reason we can't was increases in military spending and unfunded tax cuts when they were in power.


----------



## CanserDYI

I'm done arguing with people on here. I get so riled up sometimes.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> We may have gotten pretty heated at times, but I DO think it was a good debate, and my whole argument all along wasn't that it was guaranteed to stop the spread, so much that if we could inoculate the population fast enough, the 6-9 months of immunity I was hoping it might buy us might be enough to get us back to a point of contact tracing and containment, and in that way we might have a shot at eradication.
> 
> Problem was, we never found out because neither of us expected vaccination to blow up into a huge political issue as an attack on "personal liberty."


I agree 100%. I was in line for the jab just as soon as I was eligible to get one, and I encouraged everyone else to get one. I just never thought it would realistically start the end of the pandemic. I think that, for the most part, though, people in Vermont, at least, got vaccinated, and the effects of the pandemic here really did go into a holding pattern, even when things were still spiraling out of control in redder states.



philkilla said:


> I'm glad we're here:
> 
> Any of the excellent bills and policies that COULD be enacted to ensure Americans thrive are almost always compiled in a gigantic omnibus bill.
> 
> The shit is always thrown together in a bloated 800+ page package with tons of shit to scratch the back of lobbyists on both sides; the great stuff in the package is hard to enact/campaigned on and used as a carrot on a string to drive constituents down the road.



I'd say that the GOP is just as guilty of that as the DNC, though. Maybe we're off of the topic by now, but I guess I get the strong impression that whatever the democrats are accused of doing, the republicans do the same damned thing. What it really seems to boil down to is whether you are down with the democrats' agenda of gun control reform, legally protected 1st trimester abortions, more federal public funding for community programs like higher education or food stamps, OR NOT. It seems to me like a lot of republicans strongly dislike just two or even only one of those things, so they become republicans, even if they like the other ideas.

But the worst examples from either party are just as stomach-churning to me. But then you have people like Ilhan Omar, who the right absolutely hates, and certainly has done some shady shit, but ultimately says a lot of things that I can't help but admire. 



Drew said:


> A couple thoughts here...
> 
> To the degree that a president can impact economic growth at all, the time it takes for policies to be proposed, implemented, and have time to show up in quarterly and annual GDP numbers is so long to begin with, that you might almost be better off attributing a year's GDP growth to whoever was president four years before. That's before you start considering the fact that we're really just taking arbitrary chunks out of a long term continuous process when we talk about a Presidents average GDP growth rate.
> 
> But, I think the one thing where I've actually seen any kind of impact at all, is with business optimism. It does tend to increase a bit under Republicans and decrease a bit under Democrats because the business community historically has been a bit right-leaning, and beyond that coming out of an election cycle, rallies are not uncommon simply because the market likes certainty, and a clear outcome gives them that. Trump liked to talk about how the stock market rose after his win was announced, or at least he did before he desperately didn't want to talk about the stock market, but the main reason for that was the prospect of a contentious litigation cycle as Trump refused to acknowledge his loss to Clinton was lifted. That, and a bit of "deregulation" magic pixie dust.
> 
> Its tough to even talk about things like Democrats generally doing a better job balancing budgets than Republicans, because you have to account for the fact that Clinton was able to balance the budget in part becaue he benefited from a strong stock market and an influx of capital gains... but, by and large that HAS been pretty consistent, and factors like the GOP not minding running up the deficit because then when a Democrat is in office they can become fiscal hawks and fight progresive policies not on their own merit, but because "we can't afford this," and just ignore the fact the reason we can't was increases in military spending and unfunded tax cuts when they were in power.



Yup.

But, still, democrats, on average, have had better economic growth with their person in the oval office. It says nothing about establishing a cause-effect relationship, but it kind of shoots holes in the statement that implies that there _is_ a cause-effect relationship AND that republicans cause the economy to run stronger.

Just anecdotally, since I obviously didn't live through more than a handful of presidents, but, who was in office during the worst financial crises of our lifetimes? The Great Recession? Bush. The Dot-Com Recession? Bush. The Covid-19 Recession? Trump. The 1990 Oil Price Shock Recession? Other Bush. The 80's Energy Crisis? Reagan. Was there a recession since the 1980 recession (Carter) that happened during a democratic presidency?

And if there is an eight-year delay, then why? I think it's difficult to pin it that way on some of these. It's not like the Iranian revolution cut oil supplies, and then 8 years later, the effects of that hit. No, it's maybe a few months, depending on the root cause. Maybe Clinton had some hand in policies that led to the Dot-Com problem, maybe it was all of that "inventing the internet" that Al Gore was misquoted to have been doing. But I don't believe it. I don't believe that the president ever pulls a lever that sends the economy onto a train track directly toward a recession, but I do believe that every national policy has national consequences, and that republicans are no better at managing to boost the economy than democrats... in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Dubya and Trump were both bad for our long-term economic development. Sure, things like revving up the war machine or rebating a bunch of taxes will have short-term stimulating effects, but it seems like these guys didn't have a follow-up to make the plan stick. But I never took economics, so I'm just talking mostly out of my ass.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> @CanserDYI is trolling you all. Don’t feed the troll.


Very curious about the word all in this sentence


----------



## ArtDecade

Imagine a world where @Glades isn't a troll.


----------



## zappatton2

ArtDecade said:


> Imagine a world where @Glades isn't a troll.


Nothing to kill or die for,
and no religion too...


----------



## Xaios

zappatton2 said:


> Nothing to kill or die for,
> and no religion too...


Too soon.


----------



## ArtDecade

That morning Gal and her friends decided to murder a song. Much like that morning when @Glades and his buddies decided to wake up on Jan 6 and murder a democracy. Things were never quite the same.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yup.
> 
> But, still, democrats, on average, have had better economic growth with their person in the oval office. It says nothing about establishing a cause-effect relationship, but it kind of shoots holes in the statement that implies that there _is_ a cause-effect relationship AND that republicans cause the economy to run stronger.
> 
> Just anecdotally, since I obviously didn't live through more than a handful of presidents, but, who was in office during the worst financial crises of our lifetimes? The Great Recession? Bush. The Dot-Com Recession? Bush. The Covid-19 Recession? Trump. The 1990 Oil Price Shock Recession? Other Bush. The 80's Energy Crisis? Reagan. Was there a recession since the 1980 recession (Carter) that happened during a democratic presidency?
> 
> And if there is an eight-year delay, then why? I think it's difficult to pin it that way on some of these. It's not like the Iranian revolution cut oil supplies, and then 8 years later, the effects of that hit. No, it's maybe a few months, depending on the root cause. Maybe Clinton had some hand in policies that led to the Dot-Com problem, maybe it was all of that "inventing the internet" that Al Gore was misquoted to have been doing. But I don't believe it. I don't believe that the president ever pulls a lever that sends the economy onto a train track directly toward a recession, but I do believe that every national policy has national consequences, and that republicans are no better at managing to boost the economy than democrats... in fact, I'd go so far as to say that Dubya and Trump were both bad for our long-term economic development. Sure, things like revving up the war machine or rebating a bunch of taxes will have short-term stimulating effects, but it seems like these guys didn't have a follow-up to make the plan stick. But I never took economics, so I'm just talking mostly out of my ass.


Yeah, I agree with all of this. Correlation certainly doesn't imply causation, as the saying goes, but in the modern era we're at a point where the GOP either has really awful luck, or they legitimately have been less good financial stewards. 

There's probably some basis for this too - I remember being somewhat surprised that, in the entirely apolitical CFA curriculum, in the macroeconomic textbook they assigned, the authors noted that direct stimulus spending had a materially higher multiplier than tax cuts, as far as growth stimulus went. So, with correlation and a reasonable causal basis...


----------



## Glades

> *Biden set to release oil from emergency reserve in bid to lower US fuel prices*
> 
> LINK
> 
> The Biden administration plans to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a bid to dampen fuel prices before next month’s congressional elections, three sources familiar with the matter have said.
> 
> Joe Biden’s announcement is expected this week as part of the response to Russia’s war on Ukraine, one of the sources said.
> 
> The sale would market the remaining 14m barrels from Biden’s previously announced, and largest ever, release from the reserve of 180m barrels that started in May.
> 
> The administration has also spoken with oil companies about selling an additional 26m barrels from a congressionally mandated sale in fiscal year 2023, which began October 1, a fourth source said.
> 
> The Department of Energy will also release further details on eventually buying the oil back, reflecting the White House’s desire to combat rising pump prices while supporting domestic drillers.
> 
> Rising retail gasoline prices have helped boost inflation to the highest in decades, posing a risk to Biden and his fellow Democrats ahead of the November 8 midterm elections, in which they are seeking to keep control of Congress.


----------



## narad

Republicans should love this.


----------



## Mathemagician

https://www.today.com/parents/family/texas-parents-schools-dna-kits-identify-kids-bodies-rcna52769

Ok, so I’m not smart enough to claim to have the solution for gun violence. But I feel pretty safe in saying this ain’t it. 

And I’m not trying to shit on an entire state. They have bbq and Tex mex. They have a whole ‘mex named after them. 

But wtf is this?


----------



## spudmunkey

Good news! We won't tax you to pay for better metal health care, but here's a way you can make sure that pile of hamburger is _YOUR _pile of hamburger. Oh, and we'll *definitely* not sell the DNA info to 3rd parties for profit...definitely not.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

spudmunkey said:


> Good news! We won't tax you to pay for better metal health care, but here's a way you can make sure that pile of hamburger is _YOUR _pile of hamburger. Oh, and we'll *definitely* not sell the DNA info to 3rd parties for profit...definitely not.



soylent green is texas schoolchildren


----------



## bostjan

Mathemagician said:


> https://www.today.com/parents/family/texas-parents-schools-dna-kits-identify-kids-bodies-rcna52769
> 
> Ok, so I’m not smart enough to claim to have the solution for gun violence. But I feel pretty safe in saying this ain’t it.
> 
> And I’m not trying to shit on an entire state. They have bbq and Tex mex. They have a whole ‘mex named after them.
> 
> But wtf is this?


Guess what's in the chili... 

Sorry for the horrible taste joke, but this is already about as bad of a taste in etiquette as it gets.

How could you explain to a kindergartener that they have to spit in a cup so that mommy and daddy can identify them if they get gibbed by a disgruntled teenager, and them not end up needing therapy later in life?!

But maybe that's the point of this legislation? Maybe our 5D chess playing politicians know that this will rile people up and get them to finally come to grips with the fact that we need significant changes to our culture so that we can remove the roadblocks standing in the way of later solving these really serious problems.







... oh neverfuckingmind


----------



## Crungy

In other GOP news









Arizona GOP candidate arrested for allegedly masturbating near preschool


‘I f***** up’




www.independent.co.uk


----------



## mmr007

bostjan said:


> Guess what's in the chili...
> 
> Sorry for the horrible taste joke, but this is already about as bad of a taste in etiquette as it gets.
> 
> How could you explain to a kindergartener that they have to spit in a cup so that mommy and daddy can identify them if they get gibbed by a disgruntled teenager, and them not end up needing therapy later in life?!
> 
> But maybe that's the point of this legislation? Maybe our 5D chess playing politicians know that this will rile people up and get them to finally come to grips with the fact that we need significant changes to our culture so that we can remove the roadblocks standing in the way of later solving these really serious problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... oh neverfuckingmind


At least Gohmert is being proactive....unlike Trump who just ignored climate change but sought to use nuclear bombs to change the path of hurricanes and adverse weather.

Honestly I would prefer my reality consisted of a striped cat grinning at me and tell me stories of walruses and carpenters. It would feel more tethered to reality


----------



## Mathemagician

Crungy said:


> In other GOP news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona GOP candidate arrested for allegedly masturbating near preschool
> 
> 
> ‘I f***** up’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independent.co.uk



Look another person in a position of power claiming to “protect the children” turns out to be a creepy abuser. 

It’s almost like those screaming the loudest are projecting.


----------



## StevenC

Quick reminder that Clarence Thomas hates democracy and the rule of law


----------



## mmr007

StevenC said:


> Quick reminder that Clarence Thomas hates democracy and the rule of law


I guess Putin has more than one peepee tape.....I mean c'mon. Thomas isn't even pretending to be impartial anymore


----------



## Drew

Mathemagician said:


> https://www.today.com/parents/family/texas-parents-schools-dna-kits-identify-kids-bodies-rcna52769
> 
> Ok, so I’m not smart enough to claim to have the solution for gun violence. But I feel pretty safe in saying this ain’t it.
> 
> And I’m not trying to shit on an entire state. They have bbq and Tex mex. They have a whole ‘mex named after them.
> 
> But wtf is this?


Texas style chili is the one without beans, right? Say no more. 

And yeah, that's fucked.



Mathemagician said:


> Look another person in a position of power claiming to “protect the children” turns out to be a creepy abuser.
> 
> It’s almost like those screaming the loudest are projecting.


Hey, now, let's not be hasty. There are PLENTY of valid reasons to masturbate near a school. The first four Black Sabbath albums. A Taco Bell Crunchwrap Supreme. The Phillies' playoff run. Being a fucking pedophile. All I'm saying is, not ALL of these are bad things!!


----------



## Drew

mmr007 said:


> I guess Putin has more than one peepee tape.....I mean c'mon. Thomas isn't even pretending to be impartial anymore


I didn't realize this at the time, but_ Dobbs_ wasn't the first time Thomas suggested all due process decisions, which also include the right to contraception, consensual same-sex sex, and same sex-marriage, should also be thrown out. Fuck that guy.


----------



## narad

mmr007 said:


> I guess Putin has more than one peepee tape.....I mean c'mon. Thomas isn't even pretending to be impartial anymore



Could be the same tape?


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> Could be the same tape?


----------



## nightflameauto

My morning newsletters were filled with "How Republicans are becoming Trumpism without Trump" stories that are depressing as hell.

At what point do we stop calling Republicans conservative? Is it conservative to believe every lie that forwards your backwards thinking? Isn't there a point where the radicalism of the entire movement makes it cease to be conservative? They're no longer looking to "conserve" anything. They want radicalized change backwards. That doesn't seem in line with what we traditionally think of as "conservative" values.

Also, totes on board with the "Fuck Thomas" train. Dude's been an arrogant douche from the moment he took the bench, he just seems to be getting a lot more vocal about it now.


----------



## ArtDecade

The irony is that people using the term RINO to describe actual Conservatives don't know that they themselves are not Republicans. That said, the party is at fault for allowing Trump and his supporters to dismantle them from the inside.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> The irony is that people using the term RINO to describe actual Conservatives don't know that they themselves are not Republicans. That said, the party is at fault for allowing Trump and his supporters to dismantle them from the inside.


Dismantle?

Trump was the seed that let the ugly caterpillar become the demonic, rotting, live undead corpse of a brain-eating zombie butterfly. All of which has been there a long time, just waiting for its opportunity to spring up and become what it truly was all along.


----------



## ArtDecade

nightflameauto said:


> Dismantle?
> 
> Trump was the seed that let the ugly caterpillar become the demonic, rotting, live undead corpse of a brain-eating zombie butterfly. All of which has been there a long time, just waiting for its opportunity to spring up and become what it truly was all along.



Democrats have a hard time organizing because they serve too many masters - and that is both a strength and weakness. That said, trying to get all of them onboard with a single candidate is like trying to herd cats. Democrats have the numbers, but not the unity. Republicans voted as a block even if it was against their best interests. They are now experiencing what it means to have more voices in their party and cats like Romney aren't thrilled by what they are hearing. They have lost control of their party because they sought power at all costs - even if it meant giving voice to an army of demonic, rotting live undead corpse like brain eating zombie butterfly snowflakes. I am enjoying watching Republicans reap what they have sown.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> Democrats have a hard time organizing because they serve too many masters - and that is both a strength and weakness. That said, trying to get all of them onboard with a single candidate is like trying to herd cats. Democrats have the numbers, but not the unity. Republicans voted as a block even if it was against their best interests. They are now experiencing what it means to have more voices in their party and cats like Romney aren't thrilled by what they are hearing. They have lost control of their party because they sought power at all costs - even if it meant giving voice to an army of demonic, rotting live undead corpse like brain eating zombie butterfly snowflakes. I am enjoying watching Republicans reap what they have sown.


Yeah, I guess you could compare the Republican party to a bundle of sticks, and their leader, or duke, maybe call him El Duce, is like an axe. Each stick is weak and can be broken on its own, but when you tightly bundle them to the handle of the axe, it makes them together unbreakable. I can see the GOP adapting this symbolism soon, as it seems to suit them more and more. Next thing, maybe they'll pacify Libya all these years after Benghazi and who knows, conquer Ethiopia?


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I guess you could compare the Republican party to a bundle of sticks, and their leader, or duke, maybe call him El Duce, is like an axe. Each stick is weak and can be broken on its own, but when you tightly bundle them to the handle of the axe, it makes them together unbreakable. I can see the GOP adapting this symbolism soon, as it seems to suit them more and more. Next thing, maybe they'll pacify Libya all these years after Benghazi and who knows, conquer Ethiopia?


There's a fascist joke in here somewhere isn't there?


----------



## ArtDecade

Antifa gonna Antifa.


----------



## Crungy

If anyone can get them on board with that (and their supporters having no idea what it is), it's these guys.


----------



## nightflameauto

ArtDecade said:


> Democrats have a hard time organizing because they serve too many masters - and that is both a strength and weakness. That said, trying to get all of them onboard with a single candidate is like trying to herd cats. Democrats have the numbers, but not the unity. Republicans voted as a block even if it was against their best interests. They are now experiencing what it means to have more voices in their party and cats like Romney aren't thrilled by what they are hearing. They have lost control of their party because they sought power at all costs - even if it meant giving voice to an army of demonic, rotting live undead corpse like brain eating zombie butterfly snowflakes. I am enjoying watching Republicans reap what they have sown.


Maybe if the Democrats tried to put forward a decent candidate with a real message, and didn't shove them aside at the last moment for some milquetoast mannequin that's easily pushed around or an egomaniacal "gimme my turn" non-candidate they'd have better luck?

Lockstep in the Republican party is definitely another sign of decay. Though how do you convince lock-steppers that lock-stepping isn't healthy while they're mid lock-step? That's a conundrum not even cartoon superheroes like Bernie Sanders' public persona can fix.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> The irony is that people using the term RINO to describe actual Conservatives don't know that they themselves are not Republicans. That said, the party is at fault for allowing Trump and his supporters to dismantle them from the inside.


At some point, the Republican Party becomes whatever the Republican Party says it is, but there's no denying that no one in The Party of Reagan would recognize the Republican party today (and that for all the hero worship, Reagan would be marginalized were he an up and coming Republican today.


----------



## thebeesknees22

ArtDecade said:


> Antifa gonna Antifa.



Needs more axes.



Drew said:


> At some point, the Republican Party becomes whatever the Republican Party says it is, but there's no denying that no one in The Party of Reagan would recognize the Republican party today (and that for all the hero worship, Reagan would be marginalized were he an up and coming Republican today.


I would take republicans at their word at this point for any batshit crazy thing they say they're going to push for. 

Federal abortion ban? - yep, they're gonna do it
get rid of Social security and Medicaid. - you bet they'll try just to try and give Biden and dem's a bloody nose. 
--governmment shutdown just to do it. yep. they'll set everything on fire out of spite. 
Union rights - oh yes that's already in the supreme court as we speak. they're going to try and break unions, and make them as powerless as possible.
attempts to impeach biden, garland, and everyone under the sun. Yep. they're gonna do it.

at this point if republicans take back the house or both the house and senate (God forbid), then they'll go scorched earth as much as they can.

Hold onto yer socks. Things are going to get even more bananas if they get power again.


----------



## bostjan

Man, I'm having flashbacks of Obama and McCain. McCain running (R) - cool, I like that guy. Obama running (D) - cool, I like that guy. Oh, Sarah Palin is McCain's VP choice, ohhh, umm, hmm. Biden is Obama's VP choice, oh errm, umm, ugh, well, okay.

We just can't get a homerun, ever. I didn't hate Romney, but I did sort of dislike him. I have more respect for him now that he has stood up against Trump's sycophants, but that's not saying a lot, I suppose.



thebeesknees22 said:


> Needs more axes.
> 
> 
> I would take republicans at their word at this point for any batshit crazy thing they say they're going to push for.
> 
> Federal abortion ban? - yep, they're gonna do it
> get rid of Social security and Medicaid. - you bet they'll try just to try and give Biden and dem's a bloody nose.
> --governmment shutdown just to do it. yep. they'll set everything on fire out of spite.
> Union rights - oh yes that's already in the supreme court as we speak. they're going to try and break unions, and make them as powerless as possible.
> attempts to impeach biden, garland, and everyone under the sun. Yep. they're gonna do it.
> 
> at this point if republicans take back the house or both the house and senate (God forbid), then they'll go scorched earth as much as they can.
> 
> Hold onto yer socks. Things are going to get even more bananas if they get power again.



And, if they lose, what will be different? The not so secret secret is that they don't care. This is the party that openly stormed the capitol to try to overturn the election, and got away with it. Where do you think they will draw the line?


----------



## nightflameauto

Yeah, we're at the point now where even historically moderate Republican candidates aren't directly answering the question, "Will you accept the election results if you lose?"

Those fuckers will do their damndest to impeach and, if at all possible, remove Biden from power. And if it works, they'll have the impeachment for Harris right behind Biden's. And then they'll start doing shit that make us wish for the days of the Democratic deflation that started with Biden and Harris's removal. Each move they make successfully will embolden them more. And if they manage to field a candidate with any intelligence and capacity for stringing a coherent sentence together along with the Trumper attitude?

Buh bye, 'Merica. It was a good attempt there for a brief moment, long ago. People more educated than me will get to sift through the corpse for the core cause.


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> ......
> And, if they lose, what will be different? The not so secret secret is that they don't care. This is the party that openly stormed the capitol to try to overturn the election, and got away with it. Where do you think they will draw the line?


If they lose that means they won't have the power to do the things they say they're going to do unless it's things going through the SCOTUS. As small as that may seem, it's a big deal imho. 

But for real change, which never happens quickly, dems need more than the pseudo 50/50 split they have. They would need a clear majority of like minded members, and they would need to maintain that for at least a decade if not longer to really force a change in the political landscape. ...and well... I don't see that happening in the US. At this point, I don't see how the US can keep from becoming completely broken for the next couple of decades if not longer.


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> Needs more axes.
> 
> 
> I would take republicans at their word at this point for any batshit crazy thing they say they're going to push for.
> 
> Federal abortion ban? - yep, they're gonna do it
> get rid of Social security and Medicaid. - you bet they'll try just to try and give Biden and dem's a bloody nose.
> --governmment shutdown just to do it. yep. they'll set everything on fire out of spite.
> Union rights - oh yes that's already in the supreme court as we speak. they're going to try and break unions, and make them as powerless as possible.
> attempts to impeach biden, garland, and everyone under the sun. Yep. they're gonna do it.
> 
> at this point if republicans take back the house or both the house and senate (God forbid), then they'll go scorched earth as much as they can.
> 
> Hold onto yer socks. Things are going to get even more bananas if they get power again.


I mean, that was the lesson for the first hundred days of the Trump administration. I'm still pissed that (without my knowedge no less) our marketing department edited a draft of our macro outlook to better align with what our equity guys were saying, when I argued that if Trump said he wanted a trade war, we should take him seriously, to something like "we don't believe he would actually go through with this." He of course did.


----------



## Mathemagician

bostjan said:


> Man, I'm having flashbacks of Obama and McCain. McCain running (R) - cool, I like that guy. Obama running (D) - cool, I like that guy. Oh, Sarah Palin is McCain's VP choice, ohhh, umm, hmm. Biden is Obama's VP choice, oh errm, umm, ugh, well, okay.
> 
> We just can't get a homerun, ever. I didn't hate Romney, but I did sort of dislike him. I have more respect for him now that he has stood up against Trump's sycophants, but that's not saying a lot, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> And, if they lose, what will be different? The not so secret secret is that they don't care. This is the party that openly stormed the capitol to try to overturn the election, and got away with it. Where do you think they will draw the line?



Senator McCain would have been a fantastic president. Straight up the last good option that came through the old-school “let’s not go overboard on spending” republican camp. 

Then President Obama won and a group of people got so mad they haven’t let it go for 14+ years. And his (main) legacy? Mildly improving access to healthcare for US citizens.


----------



## nightflameauto

Mathemagician said:


> Senator McCain would have been a fantastic president. Straight up the last good option that came through the old-school “let’s not go overboard on spending” republican camp.
> 
> Then President Obama won and a group of people got so mad they haven’t let it go for 14+ years. And his (main) legacy? Mildly improving access to healthcare for US citizens while pushing pricing for it out of reach for millions.


FTFY


----------



## vertibration

Watch John Stewarts show on Apple tv I think....He absolutely dismantles his Maga guests with logic and finesse.


----------



## Mathemagician

nightflameauto said:


> FTFY



The original version was similar to Massachusetts’ version and included many cost control measures/etc. the final version got stripped down unfortunately.


----------



## vertibration

I agree that Dems need unity. The bullshit letter to the President to have talks with Russia sent from the super liberal Dems that they said was a mistake and they retracted was straight BS. Thats the kind of BS that will set a party back, because the R's dont give AF. They are living on another planet, and dont give AF about what happens to the world if Russia gains power


----------



## thebeesknees22

vertibration said:


> I agree that Dems need unity. The bullshit letter to the President to have talks with Russia sent from the super liberal Dems that they said was a mistake and they retracted was straight BS. Thats the kind of BS that will set a party back, because the R's dont give AF. They are living on another planet, and dont give AF about what happens to the world if Russia gains power


oh dude I just saw that. I'm a straight left voter, but I really can't stand the far left wing sometimes. They can just pull some real dumb crap from time to time. 

Jayapal and her little crew can just be as dense as they come. Just utterly clueless to what's going on in the world.


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> oh dude I just saw that. I'm a straight left voter, but I really can't stand the far left wing sometimes. They can just pull some real dumb crap from time to time.
> 
> Jayapal and her little crew can just be as dense as they come. Just utterly clueless to what's going on in the world.


To be fair, I'm inclined to take them at face value when they say it was a mistake, and the war has changed a LOT since they drafted it.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Drew said:


> To be fair, I'm inclined to take them at face value when they say it was a mistake, and the war has changed a LOT since they drafted it.


it's one hell of a mistake though this close to midterms   

I'm 50/50 on it being a mistake. It's not the first time her group has tried to pull a power play within the party. But then again her group can be quite dense at times so it legitimately could have been a mistake. lol


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> it's one hell of a mistake though this close to midterms
> 
> I'm 50/50 on it being a mistake. It's not the first time her group has tried to pull a power play within the party. But then again her group can be quite dense at times so it legitimately could have been a mistake. lol


Yeah, it's... pretty damned big of a fuckup, at that.


----------



## vertibration

Desantis looked possessed by Chucky on stage last night when Criste (thats how you spell his name?) dismantled him by asking him if he would run a full 4 year term as Governor


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I legit don't get the Romney love. He's in a really safe seat, was one of the first to kiss the ring when Trump won in 16', and hasn't done much outside of some fairly tame Twitter posts.


----------



## ArtDecade

MaxOfMetal said:


> I legit don't get the Romney love. He's in a really safe seat, was one of the first to kiss the ring when Trump won in 16', and hasn't done much outside of some fairly tame Twitter posts.


I'm not a fan of Romney, but he voted to impeach Trump. That goes a smidge beyond tame Twitter posts.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

My home state's Senator Lisa Murkowski is pretty alright as Republicans go. I trust her more than a lot of Democrats, even. I don't always like what she stands for but she's consistent and more honest than not. The MAGA republicans are trying to oust her which is something of an endorsement. 

We also got an indigenous woman, Mary Peltola, who took Don Young's seat when he died (may he rust in piss). Hopeful that she gets elected for a full term. 

Our newer generation of R governors ironically campaign on literally giving people (more) money. Alaska is such a weird state, R conservatives and even "libertarians" are so possessive of their yearly "handout" in the form of the PFD check.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> I legit don't get the Romney love. He's in a really safe seat, was one of the first to kiss the ring when Trump won in 16', and hasn't done much outside of some fairly tame Twitter posts.


I think its a mix of what @ArtDecade said, where voting to impeach Trump, twice, and once when he was the only Republican to do so, shows at least some spine, and partly just nostalgia, remembering back to the days where his "binder full of women" was the worst we had to worry about from the GOP, that he might be an ultra-risk bumbling and out of touch technocrat. 



wheresthefbomb said:


> My home state's Senator Lisa Murkowski is pretty alright as Republicans go.


An R's an R, when it comes time to determine control of the Senate. Still, she - and to a lesser extent Collins - at least seem like they still have a _few_ principles kicking around. Both women got unfairly shadowed by McCain in the ACA showdown, I think. 



wheresthefbomb said:


> Alaska is such a weird state, R conservatives and even "libertarians" are so possessive of their yearly "handout" in the form of the PFD check.


Yeah, Alaska behaves like no other state in the union, and this is in a large part because yours is the only state whose economy is still primarily driven by resource extraction.


----------



## mmr007

I just heard Trump will be reinstated on Twitter by Monday. I am such a horrible human being because honestly if i had a choice between eliminating only one thing off the face of the earth between…twitter or world hunger….I would have to figure out a way to tell millions of kids around the world that I elected them to take one for the team. 

I am so glad Trump will be back to undermining democracy just before the election but DOJ “guidelines” dont allow charges for this fucker before an election


----------



## philkilla

mmr007 said:


> I just heard Trump will be reinstated on Twitter by Monday. I am such a horrible human being because honestly if i had a choice between eliminating only one thing off the face of the earth between…twitter or world hunger….I would have to figure out a way to tell millions of kids around the world that I elected them to take one for the team.
> 
> I am so glad Trump will be back to undermining democracy just before the election but DOJ “guidelines” dont allow charges for this fucker before an election


----------



## Carrion Rocket

mmr007 said:


> I just heard Trump will be reinstated on Twitter by Monday. I am such a horrible human being because honestly if i had a choice between eliminating only one thing off the face of the earth between…twitter or world hunger….I would have to figure out a way to tell millions of kids around the world that I elected them to take one for the team.



Know what else is coming back Monday? The McRib. Nothing to worry about.


----------



## narad

Carrion Rocket said:


> Know what else is coming back Monday? The McRib. Nothing to worry about.



And balance has been restored to the force.


----------



## vilk

Yeah but I actually like McRib. I hope we get them this side of the other pond.


----------



## MFB

vilk said:


> Yeah but I actually like McRib. I hope we get them this side of the other pond.



Don't waste your money on a McRib, you're way better off getting a Ribwich!


----------



## Carrion Rocket

MFB said:


> Don't waste your money on a McRib, you're way better off getting a Ribwich!


Now without lettuce.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

"Ribbed for absolutely no-one's pleasure.


----------



## zappatton2

So this is just regular news now I guess... https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paul-pelosi-home-attack-1.6632866


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> So this is just regular news now I guess... https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paul-pelosi-home-attack-1.6632866


Total coincidence, definitely a run of the mill burglary gone wrong, definitely not politically motivated. Nothing to see here folks!


----------



## zappatton2

Well, in a related article, the assailant kept demanding "where's Nancy, where's Nancy?!". The only logical conclusion is that it was Freddy Krueger finally looking for revenge.


----------



## eaeolian

zappatton2 said:


> Well, in a related article, the assailant kept demanding "where's Nancy, where's Nancy?!". The only logical conclusion is that it was Freddy Krueger finally looking for revenge.


Clearly.


----------



## Drew

zappatton2 said:


> Well, in a related article, the assailant kept demanding "where's Nancy, where's Nancy?!". The only logical conclusion is that it was Freddy Krueger finally looking for revenge.


Maybe someone didn't like the will they/won't they with Nancy, Jonathan, and Steve, and wanted to have a word with someone about it?


----------



## Drew

But no, seriously, folks, this is actually a kind of _thing_ in alt-right circles, and was definitely not an attempt on Pelosi's life. I guess they just... walk into strangers' rooms, and start yelling "where's Nancy?" and that's just like a greeting or something amongst them? I thought it was crazy at first too, but a whole bunch of them were doing it in the Capital back in January, so evidently this is pretty normal and we shouldn't make anything of it.


----------



## CanserDYI

Drew said:


> But no, seriously, folks, this is actually a kind of _thing_ in alt-right circles, and was definitely not an attempt on Pelosi's life. I guess they just... walk into strangers' rooms, and start yelling "where's Nancy?" and that's just like a greeting or something amongst them? I thought it was crazy at first too, but a whole bunch of them were doing it in the Capital back in January, so evidently this is pretty normal and we shouldn't make anything of it.


Reminded me of this *semi homophobic vibes but still made me laugh*


----------



## Crungy

It's just the kind of thing self-hating deeply closeted right wingers do, yet hate on gays and minorities along the way. 

If they'd just come out, get some dick on the regular and stop living the lie they'd be much happier.


----------



## thebeesknees22

zappatton2 said:


> So this is just regular news now I guess... https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/paul-pelosi-home-attack-1.6632866


not just attacked. Attacked with a friggin' hammer. More like attempted murder.


----------



## tedtan

thebeesknees22 said:


> not just attacked. Attacked with a friggin' hammer. More like attempted murder.


He’ll probably be charged with either aggravated assault or assault with a deadly weapon rather than attempted murder, along with breaking and entering and whatever other charges they think can prove.


EDIT: Looks like they are charging him with attempted homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, and some additional charges for booking purposes, but those may change when a prosecutor brings formal charges in the next several days.


----------



## spudmunkey

Everyone's got their "Where's Nancy" t-shirts from etsy already, right? /s

Looks like they took down this version, but are still allowing the ones with only text.





This item is unavailable - Etsy


Find the perfect handmade gift, vintage & on-trend clothes, unique jewelry, and more… lots more.




www.etsy.com





Par for the course, though...


----------



## fantom

Drew said:


> Total coincidence, definitely a run of the mill burglary gone wrong, definitely not politically motivated. Nothing to see here folks!


Fox News actually mentioned he was a Republican once in the article. But the amount of "nudist" references they printed to mask the right wing hate machine they helped create was on full display. I mean, it isn't that he is a hateful, murderous Republican that is the problem. It's that he is morally bankrupt because he associated with someone who doesn't have a religious objection to being naked in public?


----------



## fantom

And Elon now victim blaming Paul Pelosi because with conspiracy theory about him bringing the dude home from a gay bar... Even if Paul Pelosi did go to a gay bar, how does that make it ok for him to be assaulted with a hammer while someone is after his wife?! FFS people.

If there was ever a douchebag bigger than Kanye, Musk is up there. Unfortunately the only way to deplatform him is to boycott Twitter. Despite never really using Twitter, I really feel for their employees.


----------



## narad

fantom said:


> And Elon now victim blaming Paul Pelosi because with conspiracy theory about him bringing the dude home from a gay bar... Even if Paul Pelosi did go to a gay bar, how does that make it ok for him to be assaulted with a hammer while someone is after his wife?! FFS people.
> 
> If there was ever a douchebag bigger than Kanye, Musk is up there. Unfortunately the only way to deplatform him is to boycott Twitter. Despite never really using Twitter, I really feel for their employees.



Don't turn to Elon for an opinion that can't be pulled from a 1950s scifi short story.


----------



## spudmunkey

fantom said:


> Fox News actually mentioned he was a Republican once in the article. But the amount of "nudist" references they printed to mask the right wing hate machine they helped create was on full display. I mean, it isn't that he is a hateful, murderous Republican that is the problem. It's that he is morally bankrupt because he associated with someone who doesn't have a religious objection to being naked in public?


I'd hesitate to call the guy "a republican". He's got extreme views on "both sides" of the spectrum. If the spectrum were a sphere, he'd be all over the place.


----------



## TimmyPage

spudmunkey said:


> I'd hesitate to call the guy "a republican". He's got extreme views on "both sides" of the spectrum. If the spectrum were a sphere, he'd be all over the place.



They uh, all seem pretty right wing to me.


----------



## spudmunkey

TimmyPage said:


> They uh, all seem pretty right wing to me.
> 
> View attachment 116427


He was also a green party supporter, hemp jewelry maker, and actively campaigned/protested against a proposed public nudity ban in San Francisco. According to his ex: "he was very much in alignment with my views and I've always been very progressive. I absolutely admire Nancy Pelosi." The right-wing twist he's taken is a recent one, but he railed nearly as much against industry and capitalist robber barrons just as much as the media and tech.


----------



## Glades

The dude’s obviously mentally ill. It reminds me on Nicholas Roske.


----------



## nightflameauto

I just figured the guy that attacked Mr. Pelosi was a Republican that woke up two years late for the party at the capitol and decided he'd go get some on his own.

I had been doing alright developing a fanbase on Twitter for my book. I closed out my account last week when I saw what was coming from the Musk brigade charging forward. Oh well. There's bound to be better options somewhere.

Didn't much dig Twitter at any rate. And while I'm a fan of some Musk started companies, SpaceX forefront, fuck Musk himself. The guy's so up his own ass it's amazing he manages to communicate with the outside world at all.


----------



## CTID

nightflameauto said:


> Didn't much dig Twitter at any rate. And while I'm a fan of some Musk started companies, SpaceX forefront, fuck Musk himself. The guy's so up his own ass it's amazing he manages to communicate with the outside world at all.


not that it's super relevant, but in 2016 i briefly worked for a small tech startup that had an ex-employee of SpaceX who had nothing but horrible things to say about management and how much of a meat grinder the company is to work for. it's a shame, because the concept of the company is great and they're doing cool things, but ever since then i've been very wary of Musk and his latest activity has all but confirmed that that's the sort of culture he seems to cultivate


----------



## nightflameauto

CTID said:


> not that it's super relevant, but in 2016 i briefly worked for a small tech startup that had an ex-employee of SpaceX who had nothing but horrible things to say about management and how much of a meat grinder the company is to work for. it's a shame, because the concept of the company is great and they're doing cool things, but ever since then i've been very wary of Musk and his latest activity has all but confirmed that that's the sort of culture he seems to cultivate


The little smattering of communication I've seen with SpaceX employees? The engineering department gets treated fairly so-so to OK, the rest? Not so much. The biggest problem for engineering? Not exactly a shock, but it's public statements by the Musk-man himself, saying shit that doesn't take anything they've told him into account.

Which is why we're three years away from his original projected permanent Mars colony, and we haven't even launched a Starship to orbit yet.

But I digress.

Blowhard = blowhard. Maybe he should run for office? With his twice-weekly pot-fueled twitter fests, he's a shoe-in.


----------



## /wrists

nightflameauto said:


> The little smattering of communication I've seen with SpaceX employees? The engineering department gets treated fairly so-so to OK, the rest? Not so much. The biggest problem for engineering? Not exactly a shock, but it's public statements by the Musk-man himself, saying shit that doesn't take anything they've told him into account.
> 
> Which is why we're three years away from his original projected permanent Mars colony, and we haven't even launched a Starship to orbit yet.
> 
> But I digress.
> 
> Blowhard = blowhard. Maybe he should run for office? With his twice-weekly pot-fueled twitter fests, he's a shoe-in.


Do you think we should have a businessman run for president? Have people with a background in politics done great recently? 

I'm truly curious.


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> Do you think we should have a businessman run for president? Have people with a background in politics done great recently?
> 
> I'm truly curious.


....have you looked at the history of our presidents? Were any _not _businessmen? Maybe Obama?


----------



## spudmunkey

CanserDYI said:


> ....have you looked at the history of our presidents? Were any _not _businessmen? Maybe Obama?


Clinton, if I remember right, went straight from law school to state government.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> ....have you looked at the history of our presidents? Were any _not _businessmen?


You're not wrong, I suppose. 

I wouldn't mind Elon Musk running for president. I don't really know what his politics are necessarily, but he's a better candidate than Trump or Biden in my opinion.


----------



## wheresthefbomb




----------



## CanserDYI

Fuck Elon Musk. And when he's good and fucked, fuck him again. Do not put that man in office.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> Fuck Elon Musk. And when he's good and fucked, fuck him again. Do not put that man in office.


Very rational post.


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> Very rational post.


Glad you think so.


----------



## TedEH

evade said:


> I wouldn't mind Elon Musk running for president.


I'm starting to wonder if you're just playing "rile up the SSO members" bingo at this point. 

Musk is probably the least grounded-to-reality person in the public eye at the moment. Imagine the shit-show that is twitter right now, except it's not a micro-blog site, it's the whole country.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> Do you think we should have a businessman run for president? Have people with a background in politics done great recently?
> 
> I'm truly curious.


I mean, if you can remember all the way back to 2016, that was the bull case for Trump, that he was a successful businessman who would run the country like the Trump Organization, and all the racist shit about Mexicans and Muslims was just a bit of innocent pandering to get elected. 

If anything, I'd say the ensuing four years underscored how important bureaucratic experience actually is, in the White House. And I know Biden isn't really beloved by the left OR the right, but if anything that underscores just how remarkable it is that he's been able to pass as much of his agenda as he has, in Washington.


----------



## /wrists

TedEH said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you're just playing "rile up the SSO members" bingo at this point.
> 
> Musk is probably the least grounded-to-reality person in the public eye at the moment. Imagine the shit-show that is twitter right now, except it's not a micro-blog site, it's the whole country.


I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what's really going on with Elon Musk at the moment that would make you say that.

Twitter, yes, he backed out of the deal when he found out that a significant userbase turned out to be bots, he ended up buying it anyway, let go of top executives, and I think this happened today, he had Tesla engineers perform code review of Twitter. Why wouldn't he?

In case you're not aware, he has pioneered fully self-driving, electric vehicles, did so after cofounding paypal, and other forms of advancement in technology in space, etc.

In general, I remember Elon Musk by the advancements he's pioneered and at the end of the day, I do see a lot of Tesla's on the street. I see Paypal being used, and I see SpaceX rockets successfully launched.

If there's anything I get from Elon Musk, is that he has a vision. Something I haven't seen in our presidents lately. I think Obama and Romney were the last strong presidential candidates, and that was probably the last candidates who had a vision for this country.

I don't know that Musk necessarily has a vision for the country, but he has a vision and has demonstrated successful iterations of pioneering his visions, multiple times over.

I would have Musk over Kayne, Trump, or Biden in office any day.

Of course he's not grounded to reality, he's redefined reality. What are you talking about?

I don't own a Tesla, or any Tesla stock. I actually have never even seen a SpaceX live stream, but I still believe he can continue to bring positive results. It's not that deep.


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> I mean, if you can remember all the way back to 2016, that was the bull case for Trump, that he was a successful businessman who would run the country like the Trump Organization, and all the racist shit about Mexicans and Muslims was just a bit of innocent pandering to get elected.
> 
> If anything, I'd say the ensuing four years underscored how important bureaucratic experience actually is, in the White House. And I know Biden isn't really beloved by the left OR the right, but if anything that underscores just how remarkable it is that he's been able to pass as much of his agenda as he has, in Washington.


I think what you're forgetting about Trump is that he wasn't a successful businessman, but a failure of one. He was openly racist and I didn't want him to win. If I'm not mistaken, Trump's election was also driven by 4channers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...resident-how-4chan-celebrated-trumps-victory/ 

Hopefully, we can not meme a president into presidency this time.


----------



## CanserDYI

Man, Elon Musk adoration is like the O in Alt Right Edgelord bingo.


----------



## TedEH

evade said:


> he had Tesla engineers perform code review of Twitter


He tried to get everyone to PRINT their code so he could review it personally. "Allegedly". Then got called on how stupid that is and made them all shred it. He also tweeted a mockery of a standard "you've joined the company" management training thing that is standard practice for tech companies.

He didn't personally "pioneer" much - he inherited a bunch of money, and payed people to do whatever he thought was "cool tech stuff". Then he became an online troll. His twitter buyout was just because he was mad at them. He spent an ungodly amount of money on that in the name of trolling for "free speech" when he could have..... done anything productive with that money. In the meantime, people are running from twitter like it's on fire.


----------



## TedEH

Even if I took that "tesla engineers" thing at face value - barging in, day one, and claiming that you'll just review/revamp everything before you know anything about the business is incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## /wrists

TedEH said:


> He tried to get everyone to PRINT their code so he could review it personally. "Allegedly". Then got called on how stupid that is and made them all shred it. He also tweeted a mockery of a standard "you've joined the company" management training thing that is standard practice for tech companies.
> 
> He didn't personally "pioneer" much - he inherited a bunch of money, and payed people to do whatever he thought was "cool tech stuff". Then he became an online troll. His twitter buyout was just because he was mad at them. He spent an ungodly amount of money on that in the name of trolling for "free speech" when he could have..... done anything productive with that money. In the meantime, people are running from twitter like it's on fire.





TedEH said:


> Even if I took that "tesla engineers" thing at face value - barging in, day one, and claiming that you'll just review/revamp everything before you know anything about the business is incredibly short-sighted.


Easy to belittle other's accomplishments on the internet.


----------



## TedEH

Buying Twitter is not an accomplishment. And yes, it's very easy to belittle the mangling of a process I'm pretty familiar with. If you can demonstrate to me any shred of evidence why _printing your source code out_ so that Elon Musk can review it isn't insane, then you've got an argument to stand on. Until then, suggesting he be president is equally insane.


----------



## /wrists

TedEH said:


> Buying Twitter is not an accomplishment. And yes, it's very easy to belittle the mangling of a process I'm pretty familiar with. If you can demonstrate to me any shred of evidence why _printing your source code out_ so that Elon Musk can review it isn't insane, then you've got an argument to stand on.


I didn't say Twitter was an accomplishment, but Paypal, Tesla, and SpaceX were huge ones. 

I didn't bring up his latest twitter acquisition to argue except for the fact that he bought it and made some changes. I wasn't the one who called it a "shitshow" and attributed it to some arbitrary capacity he has for running a country. 

I said he had multiple visions that allowed for the advancement of technology. Something you're overlooking.


----------



## CanserDYI




----------



## StevenC

evade said:


> I don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what's really going on with Elon Musk at the moment that would make you say that.
> 
> Twitter, yes, he backed out of the deal when he found out that a significant userbase turned out to be bots, he ended up buying it anyway, let go of top executives, and I think this happened today, he had Tesla engineers perform code review of Twitter. Why wouldn't he?
> 
> In case you're not aware, he has pioneered fully self-driving, electric vehicles, did so after cofounding paypal, and other forms of advancement in technology in space, etc.
> 
> In general, I remember Elon Musk by the advancements he's pioneered and at the end of the day, I do see a lot of Tesla's on the street. I see Paypal being used, and I see SpaceX rockets successfully launched.
> 
> If there's anything I get from Elon Musk, is that he has a vision. Something I haven't seen in our presidents lately. I think Obama and Romney were the last strong presidential candidates, and that was probably the last candidates who had a vision for this country.
> 
> I don't know that Musk necessarily has a vision for the country, but he has a vision and has demonstrated successful iterations of pioneering his visions, multiple times over.
> 
> I would have Musk over Kayne, Trump, or Biden in office any day.
> 
> Of course he's not grounded to reality, he's redefined reality. What are you talking about?
> 
> I don't own a Tesla, or any Tesla stock. I actually have never even seen a SpaceX live stream, but I still believe he can continue to bring positive results. It's not that deep.


Musk's whole career is government subsidies.


----------



## nightflameauto

evade said:


> Do you think we should have a businessman run for president? Have people with a background in politics done great recently?
> 
> I'm truly curious.


A businessman? I think we already tried that. It didn't do much better than the run-of-the-mill pandering morons we call politicians.


TedEH said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you're just playing "rile up the SSO members" bingo at this point.
> 
> Musk is probably the least grounded-to-reality person in the public eye at the moment. Imagine the shit-show that is twitter right now, except it's not a micro-blog site, it's the whole country.


Musk did one thing right: hired people more versed in whatever far-future visions he had to do the grunt-work.

Musk consistently does one thing wrong: Wouldn't know how to STFU if somebody smashed his face with a STFU stamp.

We already tried the loudmouth with "vision" and no clue how to implement as president. Didn't work any better than the usual brigade of half-truth tellers and outright assholes. Musk is fine as a babbling CEO. I mean, it'd be better if legal and marketing could put a muzzle on the boy, but whatever. He's got the cash, he can do what he wants. But he needs to stay far, FAR away from politics if we don't want to further divide the public and make an even bigger mess of Washington.

I wouldn't have thought that was possible before 2016, but hey, we got proof that it was.

There is a LOT of Musk worship, and trying to peg it as a right wing only thing is an odd concept to wrap my head around. Hang out on the science focused forums and you'll get some weird Musk worship from people that know tons of stuff about SpaceX, maybe Tesla (the company) and only know about Musk himself from his wildly off-base predictions for the $next_big_space_thing. They swing from his nuts harder than Trump supporters swing from Trump's. It's egregiously stupid in the science circles, since it takes all of thirty seconds to find Musk saying something stupid, and twenty seconds of that is waiting for the laptop to boot from a cold start.

I'll even admit I admire some of what Musk's money has been able to accomplish. I'm sure that sentence is going to throw some into a tizzy. Analyze what's actually being said though. The man knows how to invest to at least look, on the surface to us plebe fucks trying to live our lives, like he'll eventually get what he publicly says he wants: Multi-planetary humanity.

I'm no longer certain that's a positive thing. Maybe we're meant to just destroy ourselves before we can take our destructive tendencies solar system / galaxy / universe wide.


----------



## CTID

i mean i know we're all speaking hypothetically anyway, but he was born in South Africa, he could never be a US pres anyway


----------



## nightflameauto

CTID said:


> i mean i know we're all speaking hypothetically anyway, but he was born in South Africa, he could never be a US pres anyway


Supposedly, neither could a con-man reality-tv star. Oh wait.

When does the Schwarzenegger act pass?


----------



## bostjan

Elon Musk is a celebrity and a rich guy.

How did he strike it rich?

People on the street will almost always say that he struck it rich from PayPal, but that's not quite right. PayPal was a service offered through Confinity Bank. Musk was CEO of X.com, which was bought out by Confinity Bank _after _they had started offering PayPal as a service. Musk just happened to be in the right place at the right time and was already a wealthy CEO (his parents were very rich) to get his name pinned to it, and he scored all of the street cred from it.

Tesla? Tesla motors was started by Eberhard and Tarpenning, and Musk came along after the fact again, to throw his money and celebrity status at it to try to make more money. There were only four employees at the time Musk took over the company, but they had already developed the technology to make it all happen. Musk's inflated ego led to him suing the other four guys over the right to boast that he was a cofounder of the company.

SpaceX? Another idea Musk bought from someone else, only this time, it was a nonprofit that he bought and de-non-profit-ized.

All of his other ideas have been delusions of grandeur to inflate his own ego. He is officially the chief engineer of this and the founder of that, but it's all only on paper. The guy is 90% ego, 9% stupid ideas and maybe 1% luck. I will hand it to him that he's made some really good business decisions, but he's also made a shit ton of bad ones. Maybe he lost his mind, or maybe his luck wore off, or maybe he covered up most of his earlier failures more easily since no one was watching. Who knows. But he's not this megamind genius people make him out to be, he's just your average douchey rich white man who can't get enough of the smell of his own farts. He's the Paris Hilton of investors - everyone knows him as a celebrity, but the things he's most famous for are things he only ever did on paper and not in real life.


----------



## Ralyks

The only way he could win me over is if he had a campaign slogan along the lines of "A chicken in every pot, and a flamethrower to cook it stuff." And then I'd probably go back after getting my flamethrower.


----------



## CTID

nightflameauto said:


> Supposedly, neither could a con-man reality-tv star. Oh wait.
> 
> When does the Schwarzenegger act pass?


i see your point but at the same time it's literally the law that only a naturalized US-born citizen can run. until that changes, Musk will thankfully be kept out.

on the other hand, our country has spawned plenty of lunatics on its own so it's not like we have a shortage just bc they're born out of the country


----------



## CanserDYI

CTID said:


> i mean i know we're all speaking hypothetically anyway, but he was born in South Africa, he could never be a US pres anyway


Tomorrow's news clippings:

"Elon Musk has his literal plot of South African Land he was born on shipped to Sparks, NV and assimilated into the ground around Tesla Factory. Announcing entrance into US Presidential Race, Musk tweets a picture of sunglasses to his followers with a caption, 'Suck it, Nerds'. "

And that will be all for this week's horrifying episode of "Black Mirror".


----------



## bostjan

CTID said:


> i see your point but at the same time it's literally the law that only a naturalized US-born citizen can run. until that changes, Musk will thankfully be kept out.
> 
> on the other hand, our country has spawned plenty of lunatics on its own so it's not like we have a shortage just bc they're born out of the country


"Natural born" - which no one knows what exactly that means. Mom had a c-section? IDK. IVF? IDK. Delivered by robots? IDK. Spawned directly from hell in an encircled pentangle by the chanting of devil worshippers? Probably technically not, but yet it hasn't stopped any of the recent people summoned into existence that way from entering politics. 

Arnold probably cannot be president, because we all know that he is a machine under his skin. Can Elon Musk be president? I think if you manage to hoard away enough money, you could just buy your own private "natural born" human to do your bidding and make them be the president anyway. So it really doesn't much matter if you are resourceful enough.


----------



## bostjan

The SCotUS (temporarily) blocked the court order for Donald Trump to submit his tax returns to the Jan 6th committee. I think that should surprise no one, since this is like the 4th or 5th thing the SCotUS has blocked from the Jan 6th committee so far. Anyone who thought the Jan 6th committee was anything but a nothingburger can go ahead and show their disappointment whilst the rest of us shrug in numbness.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> The SCotUS (temporarily) blocked the court order for Donald Trump to submit his tax returns to the Jan 6th committee. I think that should surprise no one, since this is like the 4th or 5th thing the SCotUS has blocked from the Jan 6th committee so far. Anyone who thought the Jan 6th committee was anything but a nothingburger can go ahead and show their disappointment whilst the rest of us shrug in numbness.


I'll be very curious how Bolsonaro handles his defeat. If he goes full pouty child, will Brazil be as meh about it as we've been? I would think most countries would deal with that level of traitor fairly quickly. We're gonna sit on our hands until the traitor can run again because, well, apparently, half the country wants to and the other half is too tired to do shit about it.


----------



## Mathemagician

I personally want business owners to stick to running businesses. We already know they lobby for laws that will help their businesses and hurt other’s businesses, and the population at large. - Looking at you to private insurance industry. 

Government is by definition a non-profit. It does not exist to “turn a profit” it exists to allow a nation to have baseline levels of access to societal needs - clean air, clean water, electricity, schooling, roads, etc. 

That’s not a right/left thing. Free accessible parks and rivers are enjoyable by anyone. 

Do you know how many people could never start businesses from home if their only options were UPS/DHO/FedEx? The US postal system may operate at a loss but it allows anyone to mail anything at a reasonable price/provides baseline competition for the 3 providers who would otherwise cut service outside major metros and Jack up prices higher. So even people who don’t use USPS directly benefit from it. 

I want boring people with deep understanding of politics/government/laws to have a focus on creating good policy. They’re gonna get lobbied anyways. 

We already know most will be in some company’s pockets/industry’s, but it beats letting wolf run the henhouse directly. 

No version is perfect, but the amount of “hero worship” a business owner has is so weird. I don’t understand why people feel a need to deify ANYONE, regardless of whatever successes they may have had. 

Guy runs some cool space/tech firms. Great, but he’s not iron man. He’s a union busting, government-subsidy accepting person. Not a “higher being” which is what many people seem to look for to elect someone. But he runs a company and is focused on its share price. 

It would be awesome to have a Leslie Knope have a real shot, but it’s either Ron Swanson’s (cut everything forever) or Jeremy Jams (gimme gimme cause I’m rich). Or outright foreign assets. 

Deifying people is the problem not the solution.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> Twitter, yes, he backed out of the deal when he found out that a significant userbase turned out to be bots, he ended up buying it anyway, let go of top executives, and I think this happened today, he had Tesla engineers perform code review of Twitter. Why wouldn't he?


This requires some context.

He claimed he was backing out of the deal because he thought the approach used to estimate the number of bots was flawed, yes.

For very technical reasons that wouldn't have risen to the level of a lack of disclosure that could have terminated the deal _anyway_ since Twitter disclosed how they came to their estimated number of bots in their regulatory filings, which Musk had access to when he made his initial offer... but his inital offer to buy Twitter was predicated on the belief that he could do a better job eliminating bots than they could, and that, to quote, if his offer succeeded, he wold "eliminate bots, or die trying!"











Elon Musk plots Twitter changes: ‘Defeat the spam bots or die trying’


Elon Musk has several specific changes in mind for Twitter if he succeeds in his bid to buy the embattle social media platform – with a campaign against armies of spam bots near the top of his list…




nypost.com





So, he wanted to buy twitter because there were too many bots, and he thought he could get rid of them... and then he got cold feet because of bots, which were central to his whole investment thesis?

Or, it could be because when Musk made his offer to buy Twitter at $53.20 a share, the TSLA stock he would need to sell and/or borrow against to secure his part of the funding was worth around $340 a share, but by mid-May when the deal was suddenly "temporarily on hold" over bots, TSLA had fallen to $240 a share, wiping roughly 30% off his net wealth and making it much harder for him to get the deal done.

The main reason he went ahead with the deal anyway, with TSLA now at around $230 a share, was it was increasingly clear even to Musk that if this went to trial, he was going to lose.


----------



## /wrists

Drew said:


> This requires some context.
> 
> He claimed he was backing out of the deal because he thought the approach used to estimate the number of bots was flawed, yes.
> 
> For very technical reasons that wouldn't have risen to the level of a lack of disclosure that could have terminated the deal _anyway_ since Twitter disclosed how they came to their estimated number of bots in their regulatory filings, which Musk had access to when he made his initial offer... but his inital offer to buy Twitter was predicated on the belief that he could do a better job eliminating bots than they could, and that, to quote, if his offer succeeded, he wold "eliminate bots, or die trying!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk plots Twitter changes: ‘Defeat the spam bots or die trying’
> 
> 
> Elon Musk has several specific changes in mind for Twitter if he succeeds in his bid to buy the embattle social media platform – with a campaign against armies of spam bots near the top of his list…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nypost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, he wanted to buy twitter because there were too many bots, and he thought he could get rid of them... and then he got cold feet because of bots, which were central to his whole investment thesis?
> 
> Or, it could be because when Musk made his offer to buy Twitter at $53.20 a share, the TSLA stock he would need to sell and/or borrow against to secure his part of the funding was worth around $340 a share, but by mid-May when the deal was suddenly "temporarily on hold" over bots, TSLA had fallen to $240 a share, wiping roughly 30% off his net wealth and making it much harder for him to get the deal done.
> 
> The main reason he went ahead with the deal anyway, with TSLA now at around $230 a share, was it was increasingly clear even to Musk that if this went to trial, he was going to lose.



A true businessman. Dirty at the core.


----------



## Drew

evade said:


> A true businessman. Dirty at the core.


If by that you mean he was swimming naked and the tide went out, then sure.


----------



## CanserDYI

evade said:


> A true businessman. Dirty at the core.


You flipped on your boy Musk quick.


----------



## TedEH

evade said:


> A true businessman. Dirty at the core.


So, perfect presidential material then? Boy is there egg on my face for judging so quickly.

(That's sarcasm, for those playing at home.)


----------



## CTID

bostjan said:


> "Natural born" - which no one knows what exactly that means. Mom had a c-section? IDK. IVF? IDK. Delivered by robots? IDK. Spawned directly from hell in an encircled pentangle by the chanting of devil worshippers? Probably technically not, but yet it hasn't stopped any of the recent people summoned into existence that way from entering politics.


i realize you're riffing (and please continue) but note i said naturalized, not natural-born

edit: fwiw, for the part of your quote i snipped, you're totally right that someone ineligible for the actual position could just push a stooge in place to do their bidding. i'm fairly certain a lot of people were certain that's exactly what trump was, so there's some merit to the idea.


----------



## bostjan

CTID said:


> i realize you're riffing (and please continue) but note i said naturalized, not natural-born
> 
> edit: fwiw, for the part of your quote i snipped, you're totally right that someone ineligible for the actual position could just push a stooge in place to do their bidding. i'm fairly certain a lot of people were certain that's exactly what trump was, so there's some merit to the idea.


I know you said naturalized, but the law says "natural born," which is the cause of the confusion around the topic.

AFaIK, the US government has never explained WTF that clause means, thus my jokes... those were not directed toward you.

It has been called into question a few times throughout history, probably most notable, though, was Obama, when Trump led the charge of accusing him of being Nigerian or whatever. None of it made any sense at all, of course, being that it all came from Trump, but it'll just continue to be a WTF in history as we push forward with no idea what the clause means nor whether it will ever succeed at limiting foreign influence on the US when Putin has a pee tape of our former and potentially future president.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The SCotUS (temporarily) blocked the court order for Donald Trump to submit his tax returns to the Jan 6th committee. I think that should surprise no one, since this is like the 4th or 5th thing the SCotUS has blocked from the Jan 6th committee so far. Anyone who thought the Jan 6th committee was anything but a nothingburger can go ahead and show their disappointment whilst the rest of us shrug in numbness.


They also forced Lindsay Graham to comply with a subpoena from the state of Georgia today, to testify into their investigation into whether or not Trump "conspired to solicit electoral fraud." Which it's pretty likely he did, based on what we already know.

I also wouldn't write off the tax return release yet, as I understand the nine day delay is to give the Trump team the opportunity to file their objection to the release. I'm not expecting them to have especially compelling reasons to stave it off.


----------



## nightflameauto

I'm just sad nobody picked up on my Demolition Man joke about AHNOLD as president. And remembering when that used to sound like the most far-fetched thing ever, back when that movie first hit.


----------



## /wrists

CanserDYI said:


> You flipped on your boy Musk quick.


lmao

I said I'd rather have him in office than Trump, Biden, or Kayne. Learn to read.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> The SCotUS (temporarily) blocked the court order for Donald Trump to submit his tax returns to the Jan 6th committee. I think that should surprise no one, since this is like the 4th or 5th thing the SCotUS has blocked from the Jan 6th committee so far. Anyone who thought the Jan 6th committee was anything but a nothingburger can go ahead and show their disappointment whilst the rest of us shrug in numbness.


Trump, like all other billionaire investors don’t pay taxes. The reason they want to bring this up is purely political, and to skew public perception. The average voter might think “he doesn’t pay taxes and he’s rich, I pay taxes and I’m poor … he is doing something illegal”. But he is not.

You and I have income, and we pay taxes. The richest people don’t, because they don’t have income. Zuckerberg’s salary is $1. If you don’t have income, you have no income-tax to pay. They live off debt, which is not taxable. If you get a mortgage, do you get taxed on that money? Trump, like many others is a billionaire in debt.


----------



## /wrists

Glades said:


> Trump, like all other billionaire investors don’t pay taxes. The reason they want to bring this up is purely political, and to skew public perception. The average voter might think “he doesn’t pay taxes and he’s rich, I pay taxes and I’m poor … he is doing something illegal”. But he is not.
> 
> You and I have income, and we pay taxes. The richest people don’t, because they don’t have income. Zuckerberg’s salary is $1. If you don’t have income, you have no income-tax to pay. They live off debt, which is not taxable. If you get a mortgage, do you get taxed on that money? Trump, like many others is a billionaire in debt.


This doesn't seem like it's fault of the billionaire investors as it is the fault of the government for not doing anything about it.

I don't have a solution, but the government seems very incompetent as is so I doubt they'll find any remedy to this issue, if you want to call it that, any time soon.

(I am also not saying you're faulting anyone)


----------



## narad

It also has nothing to do with not releasing taxes. It's kind of a "trust me, there's nothing there" excuse.


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> It also has nothing to do with not releasing taxes. It's kind of a "trust me, there's nothing there" excuse.


Guys like him get audited by the IRS every single year. If there was fowl play they would know by now.
It all has to do with perception. If he showed America that he pays nothing, Bubba would be upset because Bubba is an idiot and doesn’t understand how wealth works in America.


----------



## spudmunkey

The IRS has been saying for years that they don't have the staff to go after the big boys outside of targeted investigations because their taxes are SO complicated, so they end up going after smaller fish because they are easier.


----------



## /wrists

spudmunkey said:


> The IRS has been saying for years that they don't have the staff to go after the big boys outside of targeted investigations because their taxes are SO complicated, so they end up going after smaller fish because they are easier.


Imagine having a system that not even your own citizens can be trained to be enough of an expert to address any particular wrongdoings. 

oh wait, no imagination is necessary.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Guys like him get audited by the IRS every single year. If there was fowl play they would know by now.
> It all has to do with perception. If he showed America that he pays nothing, Bubba would be upset because Bubba is an idiot and doesn’t understand how wealth works in America.


He doesn't have to show that, it's known and has been known for a long time. Exactly what his related finances are... would be nice to know...


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Trump, [...] billionaire


[citation needed]


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Trump, like all other billionaire investors don’t pay taxes. The reason they want to bring this up is purely political, and to skew public perception. The average voter might think “he doesn’t pay taxes and he’s rich, I pay taxes and I’m poor … he is doing something illegal”. But he is not.
> 
> You and I have income, and we pay taxes. The richest people don’t, because they don’t have income. Zuckerberg’s salary is $1. If you don’t have income, you have no income-tax to pay. They live off debt, which is not taxable. If you get a mortgage, do you get taxed on that money? Trump, like many others is a billionaire in debt.


That's a wild guess, just like anyone else who says anything about Trump's finances, outside of anyone who has actually seen inside his books. 

For example, if I suddenly won Wimbledon, and no one knew who the hell I was, and they asked me how I did it, and I said that I had a magical box at home with a genie inside and all I had to do was wish to be the world's best tennis player, people would be suspicious, right? And if I kept having things go my way for no apparent reason, and just kept brushing it off as being the magical genie in a box that I had at home, don't you think that people would want to see this box or meet this genie? And if, after talking about it and basing my career success off of it, I was adamant about refusing to allow anyone to see the box or meet the genie, I mean, sure, there would be people out there who would say "Well, of course he doesn't want anyone to see it, they might take it or steal away the genie," but, most people would be extremely suspicious and think I was just blowing hot air and was cheating, because there are no magic genies, of course. No, most likely, I took some sort of sports-enhancing drugs that allowed me to win Wimbledon without working up through the ranks.

And Trump is similar in many ways, his wealth, according to him, is essentially endlessly vast; however, his businesses all falter and crumble. He flies around in gold jets, whilst his university scams people out of money, his hotels are not paying their employees, and the plumbing in his mansions doesn't work (maybe the pipes are clogged with classified documents). But pay no mind to the man behind the curtain and revel in the greatness of the magical wizard!

EDIT: Typo


----------



## nightflameauto

I hover back and forth these past few weeks between completely disengaged in politics, and wanting to do something drastic politically. Not, like, Trumper drastic. I'm not storming any buildings or trying to kidnap lawfully elected officials I disagree with. No, more just writing an open letter summing up what it's like to live in middle class America, and how utterly, completely, uselessly bungled the message about living the way we live seems to get by the time it reaches any of the decision makers and the people that supposedly represent us, but seem to only really represent big business and huge money holders.

Then I realize I barely have time to write my stupid books for entertainment. And who the fuck would want to read a political diatribe from a dork in the midwest? We're flyover country. We're supposed to be ignored.


----------



## TedEH

nightflameauto said:


> I hover back and forth these past few weeks between completely disengaged in politics, and wanting to do something drastic politically. Not, like, Trumper drastic.


I always feel like the gut-reaction "obvious" answer to this is that we need a new political party to be built up to actually represent the best interests of the people - just normal Joes, a good sampling of all the people being represented, and no off-the-wall political shenanigans.

Then I remember that this is what pretty much every existing political team _thinks_ they're already doing. (Or at least claims so, convincingly enough for some people.)


----------



## nightflameauto

TedEH said:


> I always feel like the gut-reaction "obvious" answer to this is that we need a new political party to be built up to actually represent the best interests of the people - just normal Joes, a good sampling of all the people being represented, and no off-the-wall political shenanigans.
> 
> Then I remember that this is what pretty much every existing political team _thinks_ they're already doing. (Or at least claims so, convincingly enough for some people.)


The only real solution in America right now is impossible. We'd have to get our lawmakers to repeal all the shit that allows them to take money directly from those who have the money to do their bidding. Lobbying shouldn't be legal, but trying to convince a person to give up big fat paychecks for turning a blind eye to their constituents isn't something many will get onboard with, even if they pay lip-service to getting money out of politics.

Which makes me fear the only true real solution is going to be an ugly one. Tearing it all down to build it back up again later. And if we start the process today, it won't be finished in my lifetime.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Guys like him get audited by the IRS every single year. If there was fowl play they would know by now.
> It all has to do with perception. If he showed America that he pays nothing, Bubba would be upset because Bubba is an idiot and doesn’t understand how wealth works in America.


Interesting that he's under a state investigation, that he ALSO fought tooth and nail to have his taxes withheld from, for tax fraud then, specifically about whether or not he tactically misstated asset values, inflating or deflating them when it was most advantageous from a tax standpoint, and that he'd also had the Trump Foundation wound down two years ago for fax fraud and misappropriation of funds. 

You also misunderstand his supporters. If he shows America he pays nothing, Bubba would be proud because it just shows how good a businessman Trump is.


----------



## CanserDYI

EDIT: Nope, not prodding anymore. I'm learning for once.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> The only real solution in America right now is impossible. We'd have to get our lawmakers to repeal all the shit that allows them to take money directly from those who have the money to do their bidding. Lobbying shouldn't be legal, but trying to convince a person to give up big fat paychecks for turning a blind eye to their constituents isn't something many will get onboard with, even if they pay lip-service to getting money out of politics.
> 
> Which makes me fear the only true real solution is going to be an ugly one. Tearing it all down to build it back up again later. And if we start the process today, it won't be finished in my lifetime.


It sounds like you are ready to storm the capitol building


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> It sounds like you are ready to storm the capitol building


Just a MAGA hat and a lobotomy away


----------



## Glades

Has anybody been listening to the oral arguments on Students for Fair Admissions vs UNC? Opinions?


----------



## nightflameauto

So, Liz Cheney is actively campaigning for Democratic candidates? I wonder if she's gonna end up a switch-hitter? Lord knows the Republican party as it exists today would never take her back. Any form of integrity and even so much as flirting with the truth are instant blackball scenarios for the Republicans now.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Fuck Liz Cheney. 

The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend. 

She bolstered the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim. She supports the use of torture, defends the Iraq war (even though it's pretty much a fact she knew her dad helped fabricate the basis of the war), and is for using nukes first.

So she hates Trump, so what? Who doesn't? She's down with gays now...kinda. I wonder why. On yeah, because it was bad PR and cost her a Senate race already. 

She's not even center-right. The Dems who've convinced themselves she's just another Blue Dog in waiting are delusional.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Has anybody been listening to the oral arguments on Students for Fair Admissions vs UNC? Opinions?



It's the same old arguments, but with this crop of judges I guess it'll get repealed.

It's a hard issue to understand and a very small percent of Americans are going to get it. If you work in academia and have done admissions like I have, then you see a student as their resume, then maybe you meet the student in further interviews, or you take the student on and see their performance and outcomes long-term. From that perspective, the things people typically think of as merit-based just show themselves to be poor predictors. As my friend would say, sure, but is race better? No, but overcoming adversity is. That's not determined by race, but race and class and location and income and culture all work together to paint a picture of not just this student's achievements, but to also calibrate how difficult it was for this person to accomplish them, and what kinds of values they have. So I prescribe to a wholistic approach to admissions, absolutely.

I don't think it's really going to matter though. If schools want a racially diverse class, race correlates so strongly with other socioeconomic features in america that it's pretty easy to select for them without actually observing it. In the short term though, it's just going to mean a lot more white people at the expense of blacks and hispanics though (at least in the Ivies).


----------



## bostjan

The GOP is already pulling shady shit. In a fair system, I think it would be about time to start considering disbanding the GOP due to this continuously ongoing unapologetic nonsense.


----------



## CanserDYI

People in my neighborhood (black and Hispanic population mostly) have one spot to vote and the past few years guys in huge trucks with gigantic trump flags peeling out in the parking lot and intimidating people. But they want democracy lol


----------



## Crungy

Man that pisses me off. Fuck that shit.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> Fuck Liz Cheney.
> 
> The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
> 
> She bolstered the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was a foreign-born Muslim. She supports the use of torture, defends the Iraq war (even though it's pretty much a fact she knew her dad helped fabricate the basis of the war), and is for using nukes first.
> 
> So she hates Trump, so what? Who doesn't? She's down with gays now...kinda. I wonder why. On yeah, because it was bad PR and cost her a Senate race already.
> 
> She's not even center-right. The Dems who've convinced themselves she's just another Blue Dog in waiting are delusional.


I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan, I just find it hilarious that somebody that high profile in the Republican party is campaigning across the aisle, basically on the premise that she has a (small) conscience, and the rest of the party doesn't.

What could the American people actually do about the completely out-of-control Republican party? It seems the law doesn't matter to them. Human decency doesn't matter to them. The vote doesn't matter to them, as even when it goes their way they still complain that it should have been a bigger win.

It doesn't much seem like a political party anymore. It seems like a terrorist group, attempting to spread its tyranny through intimidation, while proclaiming loudly and vociferously that they're being oppressed.


----------



## thebeesknees22

nightflameauto said:


> So, Liz Cheney is actively campaigning for Democratic candidates? I wonder if she's gonna end up a switch-hitter? Lord knows the Republican party as it exists today would never take her back. Any form of integrity and even so much as flirting with the truth are instant blackball scenarios for the Republicans now.



she'll definitely never become a Democrat herself, but she is trying her damndest to route out the Trump Maga crowd out of the republican party. She'll fail at that of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if she and others that are like minded with her try to form a new conservative party within the next 10 years.

She's too die hard conservative in her policies to become an actual Democrat.

If/when the maga crowd get power, it'll only take so long before people will get tired of that shit show and want an alternative within the conservative circles.

my 2 cents anyway


edit: annnnd it took me way too long to type that and now the thread is way farther along ha. Got distracted by work.


----------



## bostjan

I don't know for sure, and probably never will, but I *think* that the majority of the GOP is not the full-blown MAGA crowd, but rather, maybe 10-20% of them are, and the vast majority of the rest are tolerant of them. Because they essentially have no choice. The Democratic Party will never appeal to them, and third parties are completely meaningless in the USA. So you either have to choose the MAGA tribe or the commies, because the extremes are unwilling to allow anyone else to spent any time on the soapbox.

So, while people like Biden and Obama are lambasting the GOP (for good reason), and there are real problems there independent of other issues - there is also an underlying issue here that poses a threat to America. And that is the fact that our system of government gives extremists disproportionate amounts of control over power. And if you expanded the two-party system to a three-party or four-party system, it'd honestly only be a matter of time before the extremists worked their way into those parties as well.

The problem lies in the fact that the parties get de facto complete power over government to divide amongst themselves, yet have no outside governance whatsoever placed over them. That's truly where things don't make sense and where all of the exploits are happening. If the GOP had to answer to some authority for its behavioural transgressions, then I wouldn't need to be posting about this. But, as an organization, it can step in and immunize its followers from consequences by saying that they were doing stupid shit not as individuals, but as members of the organization, yet, you cannot pose those consequences on the entire organization, even as the organization behaves wholly antagonistic toward the American people. I say either you sanction the organization or you prosecute the individuals for terrorist activity and let them suffer the full consequences without help from the organization. You can't eat all of your dessert and also save it for dinner tomorrow.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

nightflameauto said:


> I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan, I just find it hilarious that somebody that high profile in the Republican party is campaigning across the aisle, basically on the premise that she has a (small) conscience, and the rest of the party doesn't.



I've been getting mailers telling me to vote for Mary Peltola (D-AK representative) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK senator), like together on the same mailer. They're not directly endorsed by the candidates, but presumably they both "approve this message." This isn't so novel in AK, but I think the new MAGA Republican party has even further alienated moderate Rs. Lisa's main competition in the race is Kelly Tshibaka, a MAGA import from the states.

We have ranked choice voting here now, which is rad. I'll likely vote D on principle of establishing a majority to get shit done, but Lisa will be my second choice for sure (and a close second at that).


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I don't know for sure, and probably never will, but I *think* that the majority of the GOP is not the full-blown MAGA crowd, but rather, maybe 10-20% of them are, and the vast majority of the rest are tolerant of them. Because they essentially have no choice. The Democratic Party will never appeal to them, and third parties are completely meaningless in the USA. So you either have to choose the MAGA tribe or the commies, because the extremes are unwilling to allow anyone else to spent any time on the soapbox.



I don't know about that. 

There isn't a huge difference between MAGA and the mainstream conservative agenda the last half century. It's more about the messaging and the means in which to execute said agenda. 

What that means is that your average solid red voter is less "hold your nose and vote MAGA" and more "vote MAGA, but be quiet about it."

I'm in the Midwest, in the Rust Belt, work in manufacturing, in a traditionally conservative state, and you'd be surprised just how much buy-in there is on the MAGA/Alt-Right/QAnon stuff from folks who you wouldn't immediately identify as such. 

Again, it's just not as loud, but it's the same message. The same goal. 

That's just been my observations having lived out here almost 15 years. There were hints during the Obama years, but post-2016 things just got weird, but in a bad way.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MaxOfMetal said:


> I'm in the Midwest, in the Rust Belt, work in manufacturing, in a traditionally conservative state, and you'd be surprised just how much buy-in there is on the MAGA/Alt-Right/QAnon stuff from folks who you wouldn't immediately identify as such.



Shit, I work in public schools and have noticed the same thing. Conversations in the staff lounge have gotten fucking _weird. _I miss back when it was just middle-aged adults slut-shaming (see: sexualizing) teenage girls and complaining about cellphones.


----------



## nightflameauto

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> There isn't a huge difference between MAGA and the mainstream conservative agenda the last half century. It's more about the messaging and the means in which to execute said agenda.
> 
> What that means is that your average solid red voter is less "hold your nose and vote MAGA" and more "vote MAGA, but be quiet about it."
> 
> I'm in the Midwest, in the Rust Belt, work in manufacturing, in a traditionally conservative state, and you'd be surprised just how much buy-in there is on the MAGA/Alt-Right/QAnon stuff from folks who you wouldn't immediately identify as such.
> 
> Again, it's just not as loud, but it's the same message. The same goal.
> 
> That's just been my observations having lived out here almost 15 years. There were hints during the Obama years, but post-2016 things just got weird, but in a bad way.


Yeah, in SoDak here, there's four or five office folks that will babble the Q / MAGA talking points even during meetings, and a huge swath of folks that clearly don't disagree, but rarely say anything out loud when the MAGAts are being told to STFU by the people smart enough to realize talking politics of any stripe at work is just ugly behavior all around.

Granted, I'm in a company where the original president would hold company-wide meetings to describe, in DETAIL, why we needed to vote precisely the way he told us, or the entire universe would implode. Some of the old guard can't get over the fact we aren't obligated to listen to their shit.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wheresthefbomb said:


> Shit, I work in public schools and have noticed the same thing. Conversations in the staff lounge have gotten fucking _weird. _I miss back when it was just middle-aged adults slut-shaming (see: sexualizing) teenage girls and complaining about cellphones.



Yeah, the guys used to just be crude, but mostly harmless generational stuff, but it's an absolute minefield of the latest RWNJ tabloid nonsense. It's just so weird and fringe and regardless of how silly they're absolutely irate about everything. 

I think that's probably what's so terrible, just how angry they've become, on top of how strongly they cling onto the most irrelevant bullshit.


----------



## Crungy

It's frightening to me how much the era of people that listened to Limbaugh and believed in Newt Gingrich as well as his minions subscribing to "If you're not in 'The Washington Post' every day, you might as well not exist" has roots and dare I say stability to where it allows conspiracy theories to run wild as hard truths. And the election of trump to give it all a green light. 

New Zealand or Australia are sounding tempting. I was under the impression they're difficult to gain citizenship in, though I do not know for certain.


----------



## Drew

MaxOfMetal said:


> She's down with gays now...kinda. I wonder why. On yeah, because it was bad PR and cost her a Senate race already.


The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, but can be useful, if kept on a tight enough leash. 

Flagging the point above, though, because I don't think it was bad PR and a Senate loss, so much as her sister. Don't necessarily disagree with a lot of the rest of your points, but this one I think isn't politics.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know about that.
> 
> There isn't a huge difference between MAGA and the mainstream conservative agenda the last half century. It's more about the messaging and the means in which to execute said agenda.
> 
> What that means is that your average solid red voter is less "hold your nose and vote MAGA" and more "vote MAGA, but be quiet about it."
> 
> I'm in the Midwest, in the Rust Belt, work in manufacturing, in a traditionally conservative state, and you'd be surprised just how much buy-in there is on the MAGA/Alt-Right/QAnon stuff from folks who you wouldn't immediately identify as such.
> 
> Again, it's just not as loud, but it's the same message. The same goal.
> 
> That's just been my observations having lived out here almost 15 years. There were hints during the Obama years, but post-2016 things just got weird, but in a bad way.


In my circles, I only know maybe 2 full-blown QAnon people. Both of them are former Democrats, too. There are tons of traditional conservatives in my family, at my workplace, and even more in my wife's family. They've almost all be pretty silent about politics since Jan 6th, aside from a handful of rather benign Biden-slamming (maybe I say that just because I happen to agree that Biden has a lot of problems).

But you certainly could be correct that they just don't see me as one of their tribe or whatever, and are keeping things hush-hush.



Crungy said:


> It's frightening to me how much the era of people that listened to Limbaugh and believed in Newt Gingrich as well as his minions subscribing to "If you're not in 'The Washington Post' every day, you might as well not exist" has roots and dare I say stability to where it allows conspiracy theories to run wild as hard truths. And the election of trump to give it all a green light.
> 
> New Zealand or Australia are sounding tempting. I was under the impression they're difficult to gain citizenship in, though I do not know for certain.


I never thought I'd say this, but 90's Limbaugh and Gingrich look pretty tame in light of the rhetoric of Jones and Trump. The sad thing is, that the democrats are no better than they were back then, which was pretty bad, but the right has gotten so toxic that people like me, who were really disgusted by the Clinton administration's handling of Waco, really skeptical of Gore, really disgusted by Kerry/Edwards, really unhappy with HRC, etc., that I would vote for any of them if they ran against Trump. Just because 4 years of Trump was that bad.

And, to be clear, I've never voted for a Republican president. I would have if there had ever been a GOP candidate who was better than the DNC candidate, but that's just never happened. So the GOP will certainly not shed a tear when I say that all of this ignorant stuntwork by them this election will cost them my consideration moving forward, but I mean it when I say that I'm done with them. I will make it a point to go out and vote against everyone who has anything to do with their little terror club until they do something proportionately drastic to put a stop to this insanity that they are currently endorsing with voter intimidation and crying foul sans evidence any time an election goes against their will.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> In my circles, I only know maybe 2 full-blown QAnon people. Both of them are former Democrats, too. There are tons of traditional conservatives in my family, at my workplace, and even more in my wife's family. They've almost all be pretty silent about politics since Jan 6th, aside from a handful of rather benign Biden-slamming (maybe I say that just because I happen to agree that Biden has a lot of problems).
> 
> But you certainly could be correct that they just don't see me as one of their tribe or whatever, and are keeping things hush-hush.
> 
> 
> I never thought I'd say this, but 90's Limbaugh and Gingrich look pretty tame in light of the rhetoric of Jones and Trump. The sad thing is, that the democrats are no better than they were back then, which was pretty bad, but the right has gotten so toxic that people like me, who were really disgusted by the Clinton administration's handling of Waco, really skeptical of Gore, really disgusted by Kerry/Edwards, really unhappy with HRC, etc., that I would vote for any of them if they ran against Trump. Just because 4 years of Trump was that bad.
> 
> And, to be clear, I've never voted for a Republican president. I would have if there had ever been a GOP candidate who was better than the DNC candidate, but that's just never happened. So the GOP will certainly not shed a tear when I say that all of this ignorant stuntwork by them this election will cost them my consideration moving forward, but I mean it when I say that I'm done with them. I will make it a point to go out and vote against everyone who has anything to do with their little terror club until they do something proportionately drastic to put a stop to this insanity that they are currently endorsing with voter intimidation and crying foul sans evidence any time an election goes against their will.


It's worse than crying foul when an election goes against their will. They cry foul before the elections even take place, screaming about fraud everywhere, telling everyone that if they don't win in a huge landslide the only possible reason is massive fraud. Because they all seem to think the had Jerry's parents (How could anybody not like him? He's such a good boy!).

I envy you, only having 2 Q folks in your circles. There are enough in my workplace that when the dude got drug to the CEOs office with HR in tow, twice, for sending company-wide emails with huge manifestos proclaiming a specific date signifies the "end of the Democrats" with very detailed take-out lists, action items, places to be bombed, people to be assassinated or jailed, and specific Trumpians to be installed in their stead, there were very public "discussions" all up and down the hallways about how unfairly the poor guy was being treated for his political beliefs.

Or, and here's a truly crazy idea, practice your politically religious activities outside of work hours and don't use official company email for your crazy manifestos? I don't send everybody at work electronic copies of my shitty books, I'm pretty sure it's not THAT difficult to keep your crazy to yourself. I do it every fuckin' day. You can too, pal.


----------



## Crungy

bostjan said:


> I never thought I'd say this, but 90's Limbaugh and Gingrich look pretty tame in light of the rhetoric of Jones and Trump. The sad thing is, that the democrats are no better than they were back then, which was pretty bad, but the right has gotten so toxic that people like me, who were really disgusted by the Clinton administration's handling of Waco, really skeptical of Gore, really disgusted by Kerry/Edwards, really unhappy with HRC, etc., that I would vote for any of them if they ran against Trump. Just because 4 years of Trump was that bad.


I agree to a point. I think the extremes of what they were saying or doing isn't far off track from what has become the norm. Maybe it's not as incendiary, but I'd say their language and ideas conveyed were fairly radical for the time. I hate to say it but they were trailblazing in the mindset of saying the things they've said to rile up the base. I know my dad unfortunately believed in some of that stuff, and my previous boss really drinks all of the gop/q Kool aid.


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> I agree to a point. I think the extremes of what they were saying or doing isn't far off track from what has become the norm. Maybe it's not as incendiary, but I'd say their language and ideas conveyed were fairly radical for the time. I hate to say it but they were trailblazing in the mindset of saying the things they've said to rile up the base. I know my dad unfortunately believed in some of that stuff, and my previous boss really drinks all of the gop/q Kool aid.


I should be careful how I express that thought. I should have said that, I 100% disagree with Limbaugh's disgusting comments about pretty much everything. Just that Alex Jones somehow made everything so much worse, that, in hindsight, Limbaugh isn't quite as shocking as he was at the time he was relevant. If they could resurrect him, it would be bad, unless maybe if they had to sacrifice Jones in the process, in which case, ...meh...


----------



## Crungy

I know you are not supportive of any of those people whatsoever and did not get that impression from you. I agree Alex Jones definitely made things worse is is much more incendiary. They're all turds.


----------



## Glades

Democrats say:
- "*Republicans denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election*". But democrats denied the validity of the 2016 election, and cried "Russian collusion" for 4 years, and how the election was stolen. All this was false.
- "*Republicans are a threat to our democracy and fair elections*". But democrats want to send out mail-in ballots at free will, and bypass the requirement to present a IDs to vote because of the democrat's racist theory that "black people don't have IDs".
- "*Republicans want to start WW3*". But democrats are funneling billions of dollars to fund a proxy-war with Russia, which could eventually lead to WW3 and nuclear war. All this after staging a Coup in Ukraine in 2014 and breaking the pacts established with Russia regarding NATO presence in the soviet block countries established after the fall of the soviet union.
- "*Republicans commit political violence because of incendiary speech by GOP politicians*". Yet Chuck Shumer and co. called for the heads of the SCOTUS and a gunman was stopped planning to kill Kavanaugh. Last week a Marco Rubio canvasser was violently attacked. And let's not forget about the 2020 riots, incited and funded by Democrats. Or that kid that got murdered a month ago by a leftist because he was a republican.
- "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore. And they certainly don't care about the millions of women killed in the womb every year.
- "*Republicans are a bunch of QAnon conspiracy theorists*". But democrats have no issue fomenting conspiracies of their own: Trumps collusion with Russia, J6, systemic racism, global warming alarmism, etc
- "*Republicans are racists*". Yet democrat mayors make a living out of keeping black people poor in the inner cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago are all manufactured havens of poverty. Democrats have pushed for years to have school zoning laws remain intact so inner city kids can only go to inner city schools.
- "*Republicans are fascists*". Yet democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. This was extremely obvious during the pandemic. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the federal government, democrats have no problem blowing up the power of the federal government. Democrats would also love for the people of this country to lose their ability to own weapons, and delegate possession of guns solely to federal and state governments.

I can go on and on. There are 2 sides to every coin folks.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Democrats say:
> - "*Republicans denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election*". But democrats denied the validity of the 2016 election, and cried "Russian collusion" for 4 years, and how the election was stolen. All this was false.
> - "*Republicans are a threat to our democracy and fair elections*". But democrats want to send out mail-in ballots at free will, and bypass the requirement to present a IDs to vote because of the democrat's racist theory that "black people don't have IDs".
> - "*Republicans want to start WW3*". But democrats are funneling billions of dollars to fund a proxy-war with Russia, which could eventually lead to WW3 and nuclear war. All this after staging a Coup in Ukraine in 2014 and breaking the pacts established with Russia regarding NATO presence in the soviet block countries established after the fall of the soviet union.
> - "*Republicans commit political violence because of incendiary speech by GOP politicians*". Yet Chuck Shumer and co. called for the heads of the SCOTUS and a gunman was stopped planning to kill Kavanaugh. Last week a Marco Rubio canvasser was violently attacked. And let's not forget about the 2020 riots, incited and funded by Democrats. Or that kid that got murdered a month ago by a leftist because he was a republican.
> - "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore. And they certainly don't care about the millions of women killed in the womb every year.
> - "*Republicans are a bunch of QAnon conspiracy theorists*". But democrats have no issue fomenting conspiracies of their own: Trumps collusion with Russia, J6, systemic racism, global warming alarmism, etc
> - "*Republicans are racists*". Yet democrat mayors make a living out of keeping black people poor in the inner cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago are all manufactured havens of poverty. Democrats have pushed for years to have school zoning laws remain intact so inner city kids can only go to inner city schools.
> - "*Republicans are fascists*". Yet democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. This was extremely obvious during the pandemic. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the federal government, democrats have no problem blowing up the power of the federal government. Democrats would also love for the people of this country to lose their ability to own weapons, and delegate possession of guns solely to federal and state governments.
> 
> I can go on and on. There are 2 sides to every coin folks.


Oh good lord.  

1) Clinton conceded in 2016. Trump still denies he lost in 2020. Democrats suspect the Trump team may have been working with Russia during the election, and while evidence is solidly inconclusive, there's plenty of evidence that Russia was pro-Trump and taking steps to help Trump, and Trump was pro-Russia and modified the GOP platform to make it more pro-Russian. That stops short of collusion, however, and no one denies that Trump won more electoral votes than Clinton did in 2016. Democrats don't _like_ that, but no one questioned the validity of the election. 
2) Absentee mail-in ballots have been used for decades in American elections, by both sides, with no controversy before 2020. It helps that, in order to mail someone a ballot, you have to have a record of that person living at that address in the voting registry, so it's not quite the free for all you're making it out to be - that's the same level of control over in person voting here in Mass, where if I show up at the right polling place and give them the right name and address, they ask for no further ID. This hardly compares with GOP attempts to move as much of the voting infrastructure under the control of paertisan (Republican) elected officials.
3) Republicans want to start WW3? Firsrt I've heard of this. 
4) Schumer was a bit out of line there, sure. But, right wing poltiical violence is the most prevalent form of terrorism in the US, and a couple examples of conservative figures beinig threatened or attacked (odd you're not mentioning McCartney being shot multiple times here, by the way) also getting attacked is not proof to the contrary. I also have no clue what you're talking about by 2020 riots being "funded by Democrats." We have a political violence problem in the US, 100%. However, the VAST majority of it is coming from the right. 
5) Republicans being religious zealots that want to take away abortion rights - um, yeah. They overturned Roe v Wade, and Lindsay Graham is trying to pass a national ban as we speak. 
6) To be fair, not ALL Republicans are QAnon conspiracy theorists... But, Trump collusion with Russia, there isn't conclusive evidence it was a tit-for-tat, but there's clear evidence they were acting in mutuqlly beneficial ways. January 6th, I assume? Whole bunch of people are already in jail for that one, and more are coming - the big remaining question is if there's enough evidence to indict Trump himself. Systemic racism, hi, meet the US judicial system. Global warming? Have you been payung attention this year? Like, if you're trying to help your case here, you're really not.  
7) I thin what you're trying to say here is Democrats oppose charter schools' eroding public school funding, and support public schools. 
8) Fascist =/= socialist. For the record, I don't think Democrats are socialists, either - haven't seen anyone propose we nationalize Facebook yet, for one. Healthcare, sure, but that's basically the Nordic model, and those guys are doing just fine. Some of them even still own guns! 

You aren't making nearly the argument you think you are.


----------



## nightflameauto

Shaking my head, literally. Why does anyone respond to that guy? It's regurgitated talking points sure to confuse anyone that hasn't watched the news at all in the last five to seven years.

Careful with #8 there Drew. You just laid the blueprint down for the "can't possibly work in a country as big as the USA" rant that GOP supporters are so fond of. It's healthy and good and proper for us to pay four to seven times any other developed country pays for healthcare! It's also good and proper that private insurance companies decide whether you live or die, and not government "death panels." Yeah, much better that's decided in a for-profit company that hires entire departments of folks dedicated to nothing but finding cause to deny claims.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Careful with #8 there Drew. You just laid the blueprint down for the "can't possibly work in a country as big as the USA" rant that GOP supporters are so fond of. It's healthy and good and proper for us to pay four to seven times any other developed country pays for healthcare! It's also good and proper that private insurance companies decide whether you live or die, and not government "death panels." Yeah, much better that's decided in a for-profit company that hires entire departments of folks dedicated to nothing but finding cause to deny claims.


 

Every once in a while he shows some capacity for free thought, rather than just regurgitating Fox and Breitbart talking points. It's probably a waste of time, but... 

I really love the conspiracy one, though. It's like, yes, these are all things that Democrats believe, with ample evidence. The January 6th in particular is pretty rich, considering it's th _right_ that's been trying to push this "it was an antifa false flag operation!" narrative, much to the anger of the "red-blooded American patriots" who were there. 

But as they say in Philly, fuck around and try to violently block the peaceful transfer of power in a democracy, an find out!


----------



## CanserDYI

Lol @Glades who thinks Democrats are leftists and fascists are socialists. Just waiting on an Orwell quote ...


----------



## narad

Regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, there's still good takes and bad takes. And a bunch of laughably false equivalences is not "two sides of the same coin". 

In particular, I like the one about political violence. There's a violent storming of the capital where people want to attack Pelosi and Pence, and then someone breaks in and fracture's Pelosi's husband's skull with a hammer. This is violence directed towards the highest elected officials in the country. And that's supposed to be somehow equivalent to a Marco Rubio canvasser being attacked, or "that kid". Repeat similarly for other points.


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Lol @Glades who thinks Democrats are leftists and fascists are socialists. Just waiting on an Orwell quote ...


I am just trying to inspire some critical thinking and highlight the rampant hypocrisy of the democrat leftists.

With regards to fascism, please explain to me what the American radical right looks like and what the radical left looks like. 
Government 1: small government, free market economy with very little regulation, power of the government is very limited and freedom and power is mostly in the hands of the people. People get to live their lives with minimal intervention and small taxation. 
Government 2: big government that controls means of production, extreme regulations on the market, where the power of the government constantly erodes people’s freedoms, where disagreement with the government results in prison or death, extreme federal militarization, and extreme taxation.

Tell me which one sounds more like fascism?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Democrats say:
> - "*Republicans denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election*". But democrats denied the validity of the 2016 election, and cried "Russian collusion" for 4 years, and how the election was stolen. All this was false.
> - "*Republicans are a threat to our democracy and fair elections*". But democrats want to send out mail-in ballots at free will, and bypass the requirement to present a IDs to vote because of the democrat's racist theory that "black people don't have IDs".
> - "*Republicans want to start WW3*". But democrats are funneling billions of dollars to fund a proxy-war with Russia, which could eventually lead to WW3 and nuclear war. All this after staging a Coup in Ukraine in 2014 and breaking the pacts established with Russia regarding NATO presence in the soviet block countries established after the fall of the soviet union.
> - "*Republicans commit political violence because of incendiary speech by GOP politicians*". Yet Chuck Shumer and co. called for the heads of the SCOTUS and a gunman was stopped planning to kill Kavanaugh. Last week a Marco Rubio canvasser was violently attacked. And let's not forget about the 2020 riots, incited and funded by Democrats. Or that kid that got murdered a month ago by a leftist because he was a republican.
> - "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore. And they certainly don't care about the millions of women killed in the womb every year.
> - "*Republicans are a bunch of QAnon conspiracy theorists*". But democrats have no issue fomenting conspiracies of their own: Trumps collusion with Russia, J6, systemic racism, global warming alarmism, etc
> - "*Republicans are racists*". Yet democrat mayors make a living out of keeping black people poor in the inner cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago are all manufactured havens of poverty. Democrats have pushed for years to have school zoning laws remain intact so inner city kids can only go to inner city schools.
> - "*Republicans are fascists*". Yet democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. This was extremely obvious during the pandemic. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the federal government, democrats have no problem blowing up the power of the federal government. Democrats would also love for the people of this country to lose their ability to own weapons, and delegate possession of guns solely to federal and state governments.
> 
> I can go on and on. There are 2 sides to every coin folks.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> With regards to fascism, please explain to me what the American radical right looks like and what the radical left looks like.
> 
> Government 1: small government, free market economy with very little regulation, power of the government is very limited and freedom and power is mostly in the hands of the corporations. Corporations get to live their lives with minimal intervention and small taxation.


FTFY


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, there's still good takes and bad takes. And a bunch of laughably false equivalences is not "two sides of the same coin".
> 
> In particular, I like the one about political violence. There's a violent storming of the capital where people want to attack Pelosi and Pence, and then someone breaks in and fracture's Pelosi's husband's skull with a hammer. This is violence directed towards the highest elected officials in the country. And that's supposed to be somehow equivalent to a Marco Rubio canvasser being attacked, or "that kid". Repeat similarly for other points.


Scalise and Kavanaugh aside, in 2020 and 2021 dozens of federal buildings were breached looking for federal employees, billions of dollars worth of buildings were damaged, police were attacked and killed, people were attacked and killed. Please don’t talk to me about violence.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> I am just trying to inspire some critical thinking and highlight the rampant hypocrisy of the democrat leftists.
> 
> With regards to fascism, please explain to me what the American radical right looks like and what the radical left looks like.
> Government 1: small government, free market economy with very little regulation, power of the government is very limited and freedom and power is mostly in the hands of the people. People get to live their lives with minimal intervention and small taxation.
> Government 2: big government that controls means of production, extreme regulations on the market, where the power of the government constantly erodes people’s freedoms, where disagreement with the government results in prison or death, extreme federal militarization, and extreme taxation.
> 
> Tell me which one sounds more like fascism?



But if the free market has very little regulation, how can I know if I'm buying legitimate Seymour Duncan pickups and not outright knockoffs?


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Scalise and Kavanaugh aside, in 2020 and 2021 dozens of federal buildings were breached looking for federal employees, billions of dollars worth of buildings were damaged, police were attacked and killed, people were attacked and killed.


There's that false equivalence I was talking about. 



Glades said:


> Please don’t talk to me about violence.


You kinda brought it up.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> I am just trying to inspire some critical thinking and highlight the rampant hypocrisy of the democrat leftists.
> 
> With regards to fascism, please explain to me what the American radical right looks like and what the radical left looks like.
> Government 1: small government, free market economy with very little regulation, power of the government is very limited and freedom and power is mostly in the hands of the people. People get to live their lives with minimal intervention and small taxation.
> Government 2: big government that controls means of production, extreme regulations on the market, where the power of the government constantly erodes people’s freedoms, where disagreement with the government results in prison or death, extreme federal militarization, and extreme taxation.
> 
> Tell me which one sounds more like fascism?


Your "Government 2" is called Stalinism and is quite literally fascism painted red. Stalinists or "Tankies" are pretty few and far between and are generally not very welcomed in most socialist/communist thought communities. So yes, your cherry picked example of a political ideology that is literally modelled after fascism, is fascism, and has never been debated, at least not by me or this community that I've seen. 

And read up about fascism, you'll learn things like voter suppression and intimidation, anti union rhetoric, anti immigration, etc ... And Nazis and fascists hated communism, by the way.


----------



## Xaios

Glades said:


> billions of dollars worth of buildings were damaged


If I walk around Manhattan and lightly scratch the exteriors of ten skyscrapers with a putty knife, I've also damaged billions of dollars worth of buildings.


----------



## TedEH

Y'all got this covered already, but I'll nitpick while I'm here:



Glades said:


> "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore.


It doesn't matter how you define who, if you're taking rights away from all of them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Glades said:


> J6


You mean.... things that are real.....? January 6th isn't a conspiracy theory - the capital was stormed and it was broadcast live to everyone as it happened.



Glades said:


> democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government


I won't speak for anyone else, but I always understood this as wanting to take power away from _specific people_, and give it to _all people_ - the government in this case being nothing more than an extension of the people's power, because the point of government is not to _rule_ but to _serve_.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

As far as I can tell, support for the proxy war in Ukraine seems to be wildly bipartisan.

There was that letter a couple weeks ago from some Dems, but it was weak shit that basically said "keep giving them all the weapons, also try some diplomacy if you have a minute" and they immediately revoked it anyway.


----------



## Mathemagician

…did this guy just imply that the American democrat party is responsible for Russia’s land invasion and annexation of the Crimean region?


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> As far as I can tell, support for the proxy war in Ukraine seems to be wildly bipartisan.
> 
> There was that letter a couple weeks ago from some Dems, but it was weak shit that basically said "keep giving them all the weapons, also try some diplomacy if you have a minute" and they immediately revoked it anyway.



Trump-ish republicans are weirdly Putin apologists though. You'd think people who basically live their lives like Red Dawn was non-fiction would support standing up to Russia.


----------



## Grindspine

Glades said:


> Democrats say:
> - "*Republicans denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election*". But democrats denied the validity of the 2016 election, and cried "Russian collusion" for 4 years, and how the election was stolen. All this was false.
> - "*Republicans are a threat to our democracy and fair elections*". But democrats want to send out mail-in ballots at free will, and bypass the requirement to present a IDs to vote because of the democrat's racist theory that "black people don't have IDs".
> - "*Republicans want to start WW3*". But democrats are funneling billions of dollars to fund a proxy-war with Russia, which could eventually lead to WW3 and nuclear war. All this after staging a Coup in Ukraine in 2014 and breaking the pacts established with Russia regarding NATO presence in the soviet block countries established after the fall of the soviet union.
> - "*Republicans commit political violence because of incendiary speech by GOP politicians*". Yet Chuck Shumer and co. called for the heads of the SCOTUS and a gunman was stopped planning to kill Kavanaugh. Last week a Marco Rubio canvasser was violently attacked. And let's not forget about the 2020 riots, incited and funded by Democrats. Or that kid that got murdered a month ago by a leftist because he was a republican.
> - "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore. And they certainly don't care about the millions of women killed in the womb every year.
> - "*Republicans are a bunch of QAnon conspiracy theorists*". But democrats have no issue fomenting conspiracies of their own: Trumps collusion with Russia, J6, systemic racism, global warming alarmism, etc
> - "*Republicans are racists*". Yet democrat mayors make a living out of keeping black people poor in the inner cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago are all manufactured havens of poverty. Democrats have pushed for years to have school zoning laws remain intact so inner city kids can only go to inner city schools.
> - "*Republicans are fascists*". Yet democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. This was extremely obvious during the pandemic. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the federal government, democrats have no problem blowing up the power of the federal government. Democrats would also love for the people of this country to lose their ability to own weapons, and delegate possession of guns solely to federal and state governments.
> 
> I can go on and on. There are 2 sides to every coin folks.


@Glades, thank you for adding bold font to emphasize the true parts of your post!

edit: I see that some more thoughtful conversation has taken place on the thread after the original of that quoted post was made. However, then Glades posted some more nonsense again.

More importantly, I voted early in my township today. It was a legitimate, in person, with government-issued ID, registered, lawful vote. As someone who works for a living, getting out of work on election day (a Tuesday) to stand in line for hours (mostly within "normal" day shift business hours) is not practical. My township offered early voting, so I took advantage of that. Frankly, with the size of population and the limited number of polling places, early voting makes sense. If no early or absentee voting existed, only retirees would have the opportunity to vote.

Besides, the 2020 vote had the nearest polling place to me in a church--churches make my skin crawl.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Mathemagician said:


> …did this guy just imply that the American democrat party is responsible for Russia’s land invasion and annexation of the Crimean region?



To be fair, the US has a far bigger and longer-standing role in that whole situation than just giving military aid to Ukraine since the invasion begun. A proxy war it most certainly is.

Also though, as I mentioned above, support for that role is and has always been widely bipartisan.


----------



## Glades

Mathemagician said:


> …did this guy just imply that the American democrat party is responsible for Russia’s land invasion and annexation of the Crimean region?


Under Obama’s watch, the US and NATO installed a pro-western government in Ukraine in 2014 by a western-sponsored coup. I don’t think the invasion was good for anybody, but let’s not be idiots and think the attack was unprovoked. Putin did what we all knew was gonna happen. 


narad said:


> Trump-ish republicans are weirdly Putin apologists though. You'd think people who basically live their lives like Red Dawn was non-fiction would support standing up to Russia.


Red Dawn is one of my favorite movies! Wolverines!


----------



## Mathemagician

You mean Ukraine which democratically elected it own leader after ousting the Russian-approved puppet has on balance supported the EU and largely enjoyed its connection to the west? 

That Ukraine? The sovereign independent nation that is allowed to do whatever it wants and under no circumstance was did that include bowing to Russia? 

Bro, plenty of countries use the United States as its proxy to defend their own sovereignty. It’s weird as hell that any American conservative would suddenly think that’s bad when it involves “going against Russia”. 

But then again it happened under a Democrat so that makes it easy to apply double-think.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I'm actually with Glades on this one. Let us never forget the immortal words of Elon "We'll coup whoever we want" Musk.



Glades said:


> Under Obama’s watch, the US and NATO installed a pro-western government in Ukraine in 2014 by a western-sponsored coup. I don’t think the invasion was good for anybody, but let’s not be idiots and think the attack was unprovoked. Putin did what we all knew was gonna happen.



You might be surprised to know this is a common narrative on the left as well. Not what we in amerika know as "the left," mind you, the _actual_ left:









The 2014 coup in Ukraine






www.wsws.org


----------



## nightflameauto

Mathemagician said:


> …did this guy just imply that the American democrat party is responsible for Russia’s land invasion and annexation of the Crimean region?


The number of times I've heard, "Hey! It didn't happen under Trump's watch!"

Don't try logic. Logic need not apply.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Democrats say:
> - "*Republicans denied the validity of the 2020 presidential election*". But democrats denied the validity of the 2016 election, and cried "Russian collusion" for 4 years, and how the election was stolen. All this was false.
> - "*Republicans are a threat to our democracy and fair elections*". But democrats want to send out mail-in ballots at free will, and bypass the requirement to present a IDs to vote because of the democrat's racist theory that "black people don't have IDs".
> - "*Republicans want to start WW3*". But democrats are funneling billions of dollars to fund a proxy-war with Russia, which could eventually lead to WW3 and nuclear war. All this after staging a Coup in Ukraine in 2014 and breaking the pacts established with Russia regarding NATO presence in the soviet block countries established after the fall of the soviet union.
> - "*Republicans commit political violence because of incendiary speech by GOP politicians*". Yet Chuck Shumer and co. called for the heads of the SCOTUS and a gunman was stopped planning to kill Kavanaugh. Last week a Marco Rubio canvasser was violently attacked. And let's not forget about the 2020 riots, incited and funded by Democrats. Or that kid that got murdered a month ago by a leftist because he was a republican.
> - "*Republicans are religious zealots that want to take away women's rights*". But democrats can't even define what a woman is anymore. And they certainly don't care about the millions of women killed in the womb every year.
> - "*Republicans are a bunch of QAnon conspiracy theorists*". But democrats have no issue fomenting conspiracies of their own: Trumps collusion with Russia, J6, systemic racism, global warming alarmism, etc
> - "*Republicans are racists*". Yet democrat mayors make a living out of keeping black people poor in the inner cities. Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago are all manufactured havens of poverty. Democrats have pushed for years to have school zoning laws remain intact so inner city kids can only go to inner city schools.
> - "*Republicans are fascists*". Yet democrats are the ones that want to socialize everything, take power away from the people and put it in the hands of the government. This was extremely obvious during the pandemic. Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to reduce the power of the federal government, democrats have no problem blowing up the power of the federal government. Democrats would also love for the people of this country to lose their ability to own weapons, and delegate possession of guns solely to federal and state governments.
> 
> I can go on and on. There are 2 sides to every coin folks.


Except:

1. Is a true statement.

2. We'll come back to.

3. Debatable.

4. Is true.

5. Is demonstrably true.

6. QAnon is linked to the GOP, yes, so that's true.

7. Their leader was the one who said Mexicans were rapists.

8. If the shoe fits...

Back to 2 - if 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are true, then there is an extremely strong case that 2 is true as well.


Your arguments aren't even to say that these points are false, generally, but rather that Democrats are just as bad. If you prove such, you don't disprove any of the points, though, since that's not how logic works. If you want to disprove A, then you can prove not A, or if B is mutually exclusive with A, you can prove B, however, Democrats can be shitbags and Republicans can still be shitbags. No one in their right mind thinks that either of these excludes the other, so none of your arguments even prove anything relating to what you are trying to prove. It's a classic chewbacca defense.

For the record, yes, I believe that most democrat politicians are shitbags. But, the GOP is way more out of control right now. They literally just got caught systematically attempting to intimidate voters. Maybe democrats have done the same, but, if you give two shits about evidence, and you have evidence of A, and A and B are not mutually exclusive, and you suspect B, but have no evidence, then it means nothing at all about the validity of B, and it means that you have reason to believe the validity of A.

So yeah, the GOP is full of shitbags. Period. You want to gripe about democrats, that's a separate conversation, which, if you prove anything, then you don't make a case for endorsing the GOP, you instead make a case for moving on from the two-party system. That's it.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> Except:
> 
> 1. Is a true statement.
> 
> 2. We'll come back to.
> 
> 3. Debatable.
> 
> 4. Is true.
> 
> 5. Is demonstrably true.
> 
> 6. QAnon is linked to the GOP, yes, so that's true.
> 
> 7. Their leader was the one who said Mexicans were rapists.
> 
> 8. If the shoe fits...
> 
> Back to 2 - if 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are true, then there is an extremely strong case that 2 is true as well.
> 
> 
> Your arguments aren't even to say that these points are false, generally, but rather that Democrats are just as bad. If you prove such, you don't disprove any of the points, though, since that's not how logic works. If you want to disprove A, then you can prove not A, or if B is mutually exclusive with A, you can prove B, however, Democrats can be shitbags and Republicans can still be shitbags. No one in their right mind thinks that either of these excludes the other, so none of your arguments even prove anything relating to what you are trying to prove. It's a classic chewbacca defense.
> 
> For the record, yes, I believe that most democrat politicians are shitbags. But, the GOP is way more out of control right now. They literally just got caught systematically attempting to intimidate voters. Maybe democrats have done the same, but, if you give two shits about evidence, and you have evidence of A, and A and B are not mutually exclusive, and you suspect B, but have no evidence, then it means nothing at all about the validity of B, and it means that you have reason to believe the validity of A.
> 
> So yeah, the GOP is full of shitbags. Period. You want to gripe about democrats, that's a separate conversation, which, if you prove anything, then you don't make a case for endorsing the GOP, you instead make a case for moving on from the two-party system. That's it.


Finally somebody with critical reading skills (not being sarcastic). 
I never said any of the statements are untrue, or any of them are true. I was simply bringing to light the hypocrisy of the left. The nerve to stand on that podium of untouchable wisdom and blame republicans for all the problems on planet earth. Both sides are equally flawed. Like I’ve said before I’m a centrist. I stand with republicans on some issues, and with democrats on others. I’m not a binary NPC. But some of the people on this forum have taken tribalism to the extreme, and it shows. No free thought, no critical thinking, just spewing the hateful, racist, violent narrative of the left and the mainstream media.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> Both sides are equally flawed


Both flawed, sure. But equally so? I think you'll have a hard time convincing this crowd of that. And I say that because....



Glades said:


> spewing the hateful, racist, violent narrative of the left


If you're not on the same team, a statement like this will read as laughable.

Serious question: What makes the left fit any of those labels?

If I try to preempt your answers, I would guess - you think they're hateful because they "cancel" people, racist because "inclusivity" is being framed as "to the detriment of white dudes", and violent because...... I honestly don't know with that one. Antifa or something? Maybe abortions?

The abortion argument seems to basically come down to religion - if you're told by religious morality that it's wrong, then you'll feel it's wrong, but if you're not religious enough, autonomy wins out. I'll take this moment to remind you that abortion sucks for everyone and _literally nobody does it as a form of birth control or just because they like to murder or whatever other crazy narrative might be attributed to that_. I've know some people who have had it done. It's traumatizing. It's awful. It's a last resort only. But because it's tied to religion for so many people, I don't think that's something the two political sides can easily reconcile.


----------



## CanserDYI

@Glades can you cite some examples of times you "sided with Democrats"? Because so far all I hear is "guns are good libs can't take em, abortions are bad libs want to kill babies, the left are all hypocrites" without hyperbole, kinda. What is one of your left leaning beliefs?


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Finally somebody with critical reading skills (not being sarcastic).
> I never said any of the statements are untrue, or any of them are true. I was simply bringing to light the hypocrisy of the left. The nerve to stand on that podium of untouchable wisdom and blame republicans for all the problems on planet earth. Both sides are equally flawed. Like I’ve said before I’m a centrist. I stand with republicans on some issues, and with democrats on others. I’m not a binary NPC. But some of the people on this forum have taken tribalism to the extreme, and it shows. No free thought, no critical thinking, just spewing the hateful, racist, violent narrative of the left and the mainstream media.


Ok, I'm sorry, I'm going to say this as politely, but as forcefully, as I can.

IF you're going to say, "Democrats are hypocrites, because when they say these things about the GOP, they're also saying this list of things I'm going to give you now at the same time," then yeah, it _kind of fucking matters_ if you think that list is true or false.

If the list is true, then it's not hypocritical at ALL of them to say those other true things about the GOP. That's just telling the truth. Last I heard, that was a good thing. And, if Democrats are just telling the truth about the GOP AND their positions, your whole argument kind of falls apart.

If you don't believe the list of things they're saying is true, well, most of them are so you're wrong, but at least OWN that you're claiming these things are false, however incorrectly, rather than hedging and refusing to take a stand. Unless you have conviction here, there's _also _no hypocrisy.

Trying to act "above it all" as a cover for spewing Fox and Breitbart talking points, but then when called on it saying it's not YOUR talking points, just the "hypocrisy of the left," is absolute bullshit, and deep down inside I'm pretty sure you know that.


----------



## Ralyks

Soooo any thoughts on Clarence Thomas "allegedly" being an insider for trying to overturn the election?


----------



## thebeesknees22

Ralyks said:


> Soooo any thoughts on Clarence Thomas "allegedly" being an insider for trying to overturn the election?


Not the least bit surprised given his wife is at the center of it all. 

They're both batshit crazy. If republicans take both the house and senate, he'd overturn the election in a heartbeat if he gets the opportunity. If Dem's can hold onto at least the Senate then he won't out of fear of not being able to get away with it scot-free

Better pray dems can hold onto at least one house of congress. 

If not then it's game over for whatever true democracy might be left. 

(can't say there's any true democracy left in some states that are extremely gerrymandered like WI is now)


----------



## TimmyPage

wheresthefbomb said:


> I'm actually with Glades on this one. Let us never forget the immortal words of Elon "We'll coup whoever we want" Musk.
> 
> You might be surprised to know this is a common narrative on the left as well. Not what we in amerika know as "the left," mind you, the _actual_ left



I don't know if I necessarily agree that America interfered in Ukraine, but I will say that America has a very open history of interfering in international politics to install governments that benefit them so it's possible. It happens often enough that it has its own Wikipedia page dedicated to it. 

I think one thing that a lot of Americans either don't realise or haven't come to terms with yet is that on a global scale, they aren't the "good guys", and they've actually actively made a lot of places in the world worse to support their ambition.


----------



## Adieu

Oh for ef's sake, Ukraine had a tradition of both electing leaders and ousting them via public voicing of discontent long before America was *invented*.

Also, nobody couped Yanukovich - he ran away all on his own when faced with protests and impeachment.

He chose to run away to his Russian sponsors, who proceeded to invade several days later.


----------



## Ralyks

TimmyPage said:


> I think one thing that a lot of Americans either don't realise or haven't come to terms with yet is that on a global scale, they aren't the "good guys", and they've actually actively made a lot of places in the world worse to support their ambition.


Pretty sure I came to terms with this when Obama was still in office. And I don't necessarily blame Obama for that.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

Glades said:


> ..., just spewing the hateful, racist, violent narrative of the left and the mainstream media.



"Centrist." But sounds like Marjorie Taylor Greene.


----------



## narad

TimmyPage said:


> I don't know if I necessarily agree that America interfered in Ukraine, but I will say that America has a very open history of interfering in international politics to install governments that benefit them so it's possible. It happens often enough that it has its own Wikipedia page dedicated to it.
> 
> I think one thing that a lot of Americans either don't realise or haven't come to terms with yet is that on a global scale, they aren't the "good guys", and they've actually actively made a lot of places in the world worse to support their ambition.



There aren't a lot of "good guys". If you're important enough to be anything more than a footnote on the global stage, you've done some shitty things.


----------



## Andromalia

Glades said:


> I was simply bringing to light the hypocrisy of the left.


Let's put in context, that your "left" would be qualified as rightwing in most other occidental countries. What the americans get to pick is a choice between moderate rightwing and far right religious zealots, a significant number of whom are racist.
It then makes sense that the lower income population is going to be stuck there forever.


----------



## SpaceDock

Alright boys, can’t bitch if ya don’t vote! Let’s start a roll call on who actually did it! I got mine in today!


----------



## Dumple Stilzkin

Sent mine in on Thursday.


----------



## narad

I'm still gonna bitch


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I will be voting in person just down the street on Tuesday, but I 100% respect an individual's choice not to vote. I didn't for a long time. I still see it as an exercise in sustaining the illusion of choice, but it helped when a friend described it as "choose your enemy's fighter."


----------



## CanserDYI

I have two psychopaths on my ballot, JD Vance and JR Majewski, so I have to vote.


----------



## Glades

I did yesterday.


----------



## CanserDYI

@Glades y'all can shut the fuck up about government spending, take a look at the military budget and shut your mouth. Absolutely bonkers that you have the nerve to talk about government spending. We spend two fucking billion dollars a day, Fucking PER DAY, on the military budget. You realize the _entire _food stamps budget per YEAR is only $40bn? It takes the right wing supported US military fucking 20 days, not even a month to blow through that entire amount of money. 

Also, you seem to have skipped over my question a few days ago, I know you saw it. Let's hear those times you sided with the Democrats, Mr. Centrist?


----------



## CanserDYI

I'm 99% sure most centrists are just closet Maga-t's that are afraid of losing their social credibility so they call themselves centrists, but support the cult in secret.


----------



## narad

CanserDYI said:


> @Glades y'all can shut the fuck up about government spending, take a look at the military budget and shut your mouth. Absolutely bonkers that you have the nerve to talk about government spending. We spend two fucking billion dollars a day, Fucking PER DAY, on the military budget. You realize the _entire _food stamps budget per YEAR is only $40bn? It takes the right wing supported US military fucking 20 days, not even a month to blow through that entire amount of money.
> 
> Also, you seem to have skipped over my question a few days ago, I know you saw it. Let's hear those times you sided with the Democrats, Mr. Centrist?



Dude's not a centrist at all. Democrats have issues, but none of these "pull at the heartstrings" are particularly leftist. What solutions do republicans have to these? Wait, quick, look over there, someone's teaching CRT to 5 year olds!!


----------



## SpaceDock

CanserDYI said:


> I'm 99% sure most centrists are just closet Maga-t's that are afraid of losing their social credibility so they call themselves centrists, but support the cult in secret.


It’s like how most Republicans I know say they are independent libertarians but down ballot R every time.


----------



## nightflameauto

Anybody else puke in their mouth a little when they read Glades trying to lecture us about critical thinking? It's a wonder the kid don't choke on the irony.

This weekend is the fifth election in a row we've done absentee ballots and tried to drop them off for counting. It also marks the fourth change in where you are allowed to drop the ballots. Every time around it becomes clear that Democrat and Libertarian voters (some Libertarians make the ballot here) vote absentee something like 75% more often than Republican voters. So? Every time around it's a game of whack-a-mole for the Republicans in charge of voting trying to hide where to drop the ballots.

County Auditors office? Cool.
Ballot boxes by the courthouse? Cool.
Ballot boxes by the Auditor's office? OK, but why go back and forth?
Ballot boxes outside the courthouse, behind it, hidden away. Um. Alright. But uh? What?
---MUST DELIVER IN PERSON TO THE AUDITORS OFFICE NOW MOVED INTO THE 3RD FLOOR OF THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDNG AND MUST BE DROPPED OFF DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS - (this notice is only available in the fine-print on the bottom of the instruction sheet for filling out your absentee ballot)

I imagine by next time it'll be some "must be delivered through the wormhole created when light speed is broken in the year 3476 and survive the backwards timelash to be counted" bullshit. WTF, man. Why the fuck are Republicans so fucking scared people will be able to have their vote counted? Couldn't possibly be because they know, 100%, without even the tiniest doubt, that if they don't stack the deck completely in their favor they'd be wiped off the board altogether. Nope. No sir. Everybody that doesn't like them is illegal! Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!

And I still wonder why I bother. It's not like my vote means a fuckin' thing in the aggregate, but at least I can tell the "if you don't vote you can't complain" crowd to STFU for another two years.


----------



## TedEH

nightflameauto said:


> It's not like my vote means a fuckin' thing in the aggregate


Except that it does. IMO, anyone who tries to convince you that your vote carries no weight just doesn't want you to vote. How convenient it would be if you discourage enough of the opposite team by making them think it doesn't matter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

TedEH said:


> Except that it does. IMO, anyone who tries to convince you that your vote carries no weight just doesn't want you to vote. How convenient it would be if you discourage enough of the opposite team by making them think it doesn't matter.



Actually, depending on the state and district and particular election, your (our?) vote doesn't matter in as far as deciding who gets elected. 

I mean, I'm 100% for voting, even if it doesn't "count", but there is truth to what he's saying.


----------



## nightflameauto

TedEH said:


> Except that it does. IMO, anyone who tries to convince you that your vote carries no weight just doesn't want you to vote. How convenient it would be if you discourage enough of the opposite team by making them think it doesn't matter.


Pffffft.

It's a silent protest for a non-hardcore Republican living in South Dakota. The only reason I do it is to show them that we still exist. Though they're doing their damndest to oust us at least I can shake my utterly useless fist at them in that silent protest.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> Except that it does. IMO, anyone who tries to convince you that your vote carries no weight just doesn't want you to vote. How convenient it would be if you discourage enough of the opposite team by making them think it doesn't matter.


Elections in the USA are a little weird.

But literally everyone on my ballot is polling super hard one way or the other; even down to the really mundane stuff like town constable. I 100% expect my former representative to be elected to replace the retiring senator, and for the democratic candidate to win the contest for representative. Other than that, incumbents in local elections will very very likely win all around in my district. One local senator is retiring, and there is someone running unopposed for that seat. We have two ballot measures; both of which all major candidates endorse, except the proposal to write abortions into our state constitution, which one of the republican gubernatorial candidates who got defeated in the primaries with, I think <1% of the vote, opposes.

I think any surprise for anything I can vote on would end up being a pretty huge surprise. I'm all ready to hand in my ballot tomorrow anyway. Civic duty blah blah, but honestly, I have no power to change anything whatsoever this time around, or, for that matter, the last six times.


----------



## wankerness

nightflameauto said:


> Pffffft.
> 
> It's a silent protest for a non-hardcore Republican living in South Dakota. The only reason I do it is to show them that we still exist. Though they're doing their damndest to oust us at least I can shake my utterly useless fist at them in that silent protest.



Oh god. South Dakota. I was there this summer and those kristi noem ads were insane. My favorite line from them was how totally non-ironically with no explanation they’d say “south Dakota has the strongest economy in the country.” All while she rides a horse in some cgi landscape. Meanwhile almost everywhere I drove in the state was a depressed shithole even by Wisconsin standards. If there was any requirement whatsoever for political ads to tell the truth I would have immediately looked up what insane metric had been used to come up with that line.


----------



## nightflameauto

wankerness said:


> Oh god. South Dakota. I was there this summer and those kristi noem ads were insane. My favorite line from them was how totally non-ironically with no explanation they’d say “south Dakota has the strongest economy in the country.” All while she rides a horse in some cgi landscape. Meanwhile almost everywhere I drove in the state was a depressed shithole even by Wisconsin standards. If there was any requirement whatsoever for political ads to tell the truth I would have immediately looked up what insane metric had been used to come up with that line.


Noem is the worst in a lot of ways, and we've had some true shit governors in this state.

She's one of the most preachy people you'll ever hear about. Constantly telling people they don't understand what they need, what they want, or how to behave themselves. When something is put on the general ballot and doesn't go the way she wants? She has her lackeys block the things, spends months telling the voting public they aren't smart enough to understand the measure as written, then attempting to explain her stance (and usually failing on logic alone), then gets super pissed off about it if it goes through a second vote with the public voting against her.

The state rep that stopped by my place and chatted with me talked about how dealing with her personally is sometimes worse than what you'd think by the public persona. Which is a lot to process. He was one of the people who has been trying to legally prevent the governor from using the state funded jet for private family functions. He's been trying to get it in the books since long before Noem was governor, and it still hasn't passed.

She was recently busted, yet again, using the private jet for family vacations.

I've met her a few times, as the old company boss is a personal friend of hers so she'd stop here when campaigning. You know how there are certain folks where you just get this sense of eesh the second they step into the room? I got that sense as she came down the hallway from my cube. There's just an eerie quality of "no" surrounding her.

Her ads are sadly par for the course around here. I'm particularly fond of the family values commercials they still play that involve tons of guns cocking, over and over again. *FACEPALMS*


----------



## Xaios

wankerness said:


> If there was any requirement whatsoever for political ads to tell the truth I would have immediately looked up what insane metric had been used to come up with that line.


"Most Corn Palaces per capita."


----------



## nightflameauto

Xaios said:


> "Most Corn Palaces per capita."


Even as a kid that place was fucking depressing.

Why not go see one of the other unfinished memorials we have? Crazy Horse or Mount Rushmore are good alternatives to being depressed by that fuckin' Corn Palace. You can be depressed in many other ways, and be outside!


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> Even as a kid that place was fucking depressing.
> 
> Why not go see one of the other unfinished memorials we have? Crazy Horse or Mount Rushmore are good alternatives to being depressed by that fuckin' Corn Palace. You can be depressed in many other ways, and be outside!


I’ve been to SD a couple of times in my lifetime. 2 years ago I was in the Black Hills turkey hunting, and I thought SD was one of the most beautiful states I’ve ever been to. Hoping to go back next year for spring gobbler.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I did yesterday.


Beyond all the points @CanserDYI raised, your habit of posting bullshit, and then just ignoring people when they call you out on it line by line is extra-special. I know how triggering the phrase "inconvenient truth" is for you people, but if the shoe fits...


----------



## wankerness

nightflameauto said:


> Her ads are sadly par for the course around here. I'm particularly fond of the family values commercials they still play that involve tons of guns cocking, over and over again. *FACEPALMS*


To be fair I'd take insane optimistic bullshit over crazy paranoia-inducing attack ads, but I'm sure her campaign went to that eventually. As far as I could tell at the time she didn't even have an opponent. Wisconsin on the other hand has been getting hammered by billionaires hell-bent on getting ron johnson re-elected to represent their interests (keep poor people poor, rich people rich, and remove any regulation for things like chemicals in drinking water) and it's really made anything with ads completely unwatchable (I had to quit youtube for the last couple months cause every two minutes I'd get the same psychotic attack ads about how democrats are going to release black people into the suburbs that are going to come take your guns and kill you, basically).

What was really weird is infamously red Montana had ZERO political ads of any sort. I don't recall ever seeing a single political sign in anyone's "yard" the entire time I was there, either. Again this was back in July so maybe things changed. But WI sure had tons of signs everywhere by that point.

I'm hoping the polls are drastically wrong cause if they aren't I'm going to have to move out of this state. Either Michels getting elected or Republicans increasing their majority means good bye to any drinking water regulations and no possible chance of anything improving in terms of public school funding, medicare, legalized marijuana, or further oppression of the lower class, just getting worse. It's going to be unlivable if you want to have kids without rolling the dice on your wife's life, and avoid early-onset cancer. Fortunately seems like MN and IL are going to be fine and MI would even be an improvement. I like the region alright besides the political situation and I think it would be a great place to be as the climate continues heating up, since we're not going to get overheated or have any shortage of drinking water. As long as the republicans don't poison it all or sell it to Nestle, which they will.


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> I’ve been to SD a couple of times in my lifetime. 2 years ago I was in the Black Hills turkey hunting, and I thought SD was one of the most beautiful states I’ve ever been to. Hoping to go back next year for spring gobbler.


Oh sure, the land is quite lovely outside of the 90% of it that's just flat, featureless wastelands. Even that can be pretty if you just want to not see people for a bit.

But get where there are people and you will see cesspools. Some are even quite proud of it.


----------



## Glades

nightflameauto said:


> Oh sure, the land is quite lovely outside of the 90% of it that's just flat, featureless wastelands. Even that can be pretty if you just want to not see people for a bit.
> 
> But get where there are people and you will see cesspools. Some are even quite proud of it.


It really depends on the person I guess. I don’t know a lot about SD, but I’ve spent a lot of time in Rural ND, NE and KS hunting ducks and turkeys and they are my favorite part of the world. For a long time I’ve thought about moving there. I love the outdoors and the Midwest.


----------



## CanserDYI

Crickets over here.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

My vote in AK literally doesn't count in national elections. They announce the winners before they even count ours.

I'm mostly excited to vote for Mary Peltola this year. The more indigenous people in office, the better. She won Yon Dung's seat after he died, I really hope she gets a full term.

A lot of the other State stuff I'm just voting against assholes, no strong feelings about their competition aside from not-being-the-asshole.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I tended bar at an event two nights ago where they had some R candidates come speak the usual talking points. They were auctioning guns off all night, one of them was to raise money "for the children." That's right folks, Guns for the Children! It was insane but I enjoyed getting paid to be a fly on the wall.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> My vote in AK literally doesn't count in national elections. They announce the winners before they even count ours.
> 
> I'm mostly excited to vote for Mary Peltola this year. The more indigenous people in office, the better. She won Yon Dung's seat after he died, I really hope she gets a full term.
> 
> A lot of the other State stuff I'm just voting against assholes, no strong feelings about their competition aside from not-being-the-asshole.
> 
> EDIT: Oh yeah, I tended bar at an event two nights ago where they had some R candidates come speak the usual talking points. They were auctioning guns off all night, one of them was to raise money "for the children." That's right folks, Guns for the Children! It was insane but I enjoyed getting paid to be a fly on the wall.


I've been getting this sort of vague charity bullshit a lot at the checkouts here in VT. "Do you want to round up your total for charity?" "IDK, what charity?" "IDK." "Then no LOL"

When they started doing this, it was for the local food bank or a local charity that helped find a place for victims of domestic violence to stay or stuff like that, but lately, it's all just "for charity." I happen to think my change of $0.09 probably won't do a hell of a lot of good, but I do like donating to charities that I've properly researched, so, just the quick conversation about which charity the book store or coffee shop or whatever is supporting could ultimately help the charity a lot more... but I am starting to get the feeling that the "charity" might be the owner of the store's "I want a Jamaican vacation" fund or something. Hell, maybe even something worse, like guns for kids...

Didn't Sasha Cohen do something like this, though, as a satire? I seem to recall him dressed up as a former Israeli spy, trying to get funding from congressmen for teddy bears that had guns hidden in them.


----------



## ArtDecade

My wife and I dropped our ballots off this morning. I miss getting stickers.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> I've been getting this sort of vague charity bullshit a lot at the checkouts here in VT. "Do you want to round up your total for charity?" "IDK, what charity?" "IDK." "Then no LOL"
> 
> When they started doing this, it was for the local food bank or a local charity that helped find a place for victims of domestic violence to stay or stuff like that, but lately, it's all just "for charity." I happen to think my change of $0.09 probably won't do a hell of a lot of good, but I do like donating to charities that I've properly researched, so, just the quick conversation about which charity the book store or coffee shop or whatever is supporting could ultimately help the charity a lot more... but I am starting to get the feeling that the "charity" might be the owner of the store's "I want a Jamaican vacation" fund or something. Hell, maybe even something worse, like guns for kids...
> 
> Didn't Sasha Cohen do something like this, though, as a satire? I seem to recall him dressed up as a former Israeli spy, trying to get funding from congressmen for teddy bears that had guns hidden in them.



I never round up for charity because those businesses are calculating those donations as _their_ tax write-off. I donate lots of my own time, when, how, and to whom I see fit.


----------



## spudmunkey

wheresthefbomb said:


> I never round up for charity because those businesses are calculating those donations as _their_ tax write-off.



That's actually a myth, unless a specific store is purposefully circumventing the law.

You are free to claim the round-up donation in your own taxes with your receipt.

The only point-of-dale donations they can write off is if they are doing some sort of "10% of the profits from every sale is donated to Kalashnikovs 4 Kids."


----------



## nightflameauto

Glades said:


> It really depends on the person I guess. I don’t know a lot about SD, but I’ve spent a lot of time in Rural ND, NE and KS hunting ducks and turkeys and they are my favorite part of the world. For a long time I’ve thought about moving there. I love the outdoors and the Midwest.


Come on down, man. You're almost red enough to fit in. And right on the edge of crazy enough.

You'll be pissing off an HR rep within a few months if you approach business communications the way you do political discourse.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

spudmunkey said:


> That's actually a myth, unless a specific store is purposefully circumventing the law.
> 
> You are free to claim the round-up donation in your own taxes with your receipt.
> 
> The only point-of-dale donations they can write off is if they are doing some sort of "10% of the profits from every sale is donated to Kalashnikovs 4 Kids."



TIL


----------



## CanserDYI

Just saw this and remembered this glorious day we had two years ago to this day...


----------



## wheresthefbomb

CanserDYI said:


> Just saw this and remembered this glorious day we had two years ago to this day...
> 
> View attachment 116755



I love how if it weren't for Trump and his entourage this could be a random small town punk show, complete with the shitty PA and wires running all over the place.


----------



## Crungy

Could have been a sick hardcore show with people killing invisible ninjas left and right, BUT NOOO


----------



## Xaios

Rudy secretly crushes it slam dancing in the pit, but the world isn't ready for that.


----------



## RevDrucifer

Crungy said:


> Could have been a sick hardcore show with people killing invisible ninjas left and right, BUT NOOO



The Republican form of ‘picking up change’ usually entails locking someone up for years over a plant, causing the taxpayers to foot the bill, in turn the prison’s owner takes some of that money and gives it to a lobbyist who then goes to DC and buys hookers and blow for the politicians so they’ll keep supporting privately owned prisons. 

Takes a lot longer than a hardcore song generally lasts for, but you can usually catch some minorities in that net, so it’s all worth it.


----------



## Xaios

Crungy said:


> Could have been a sick hardcore show with people killing invisible ninjas left and right, BUT NOOO





Xaios said:


> Rudy secretly crushes it slam dancing in the pit, but the world isn't ready for that.



This is what *they* don't want you to see...



Spoiler


----------



## StevenC

So glad Twitter became terrible in the run up to an election


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> So glad Twitter became terrible in the run up to an election


"became"

LOL.


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> "became"
> 
> LOL.


It's gotten, at least, different.

Eh @jephjacques ?


----------



## CanserDYI

I think @StevenC meant "Thank god people are fleeing twitter like wildfire in the run up to the election", yes twitter has always been awful.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> It's gotten, at least, different.
> 
> Eh @jephjacques ?


True.

I never much paid attention to it until I started trying to sell my books. Got on it for about a month or so. Had a few folks that were decent, but mostly it was what I expected. Until the week before the sale completed. Shit got weird. Well, weirder.

I decided I can sell my books elsewhere. Even if I can't, that whole zero sales I got from twatter didn't seem worth the ever-escalating flail of stupid.

I really don't see how anybody gets wrapped up in it. Too brutal, too stupid.


----------



## Mathemagician

I hope everyone votes. Everyone. 

Fuck I would love to see ranked choice voting, along with term limits. One day. 

The most non-partisan things that could go on a ballot.


----------



## wankerness

Apparently they're suing in my state to get mail-in ballots thrown out if there's any "error" like a "wrong address" on the witness section (how would they even know?? check voter records for wherever that person's from??), while all the messaging to republicans has been VOTE ON ELECTION DAY!! Functionally trying to separate political persuasion by method of voting, and toss out all the ones from the other side. Nice. That's what I get for voting by mail instead of wanting to hang out in line in a cramped room with the Trump psychos for a while.


----------



## spudmunkey

wankerness said:


> while all the messaging to republicans has been VOTE ON ELECTION DAY!!.



To be clear, they are only pushing that for specific populations. To retirees, students, etc, they are absolutely pushing early and mail-in voting. When when Pillow Guy went on a rant recently about how voting early gives the Demicrats more time to steal/delete/change your vote, the next person on the stage (an actual GOP politician) was all like, "Um, nope, ignore that, vote as soon as you can!!!"


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CanserDYI said:


> I'm 99% sure most centrists are just closet Maga-t's that are afraid of losing their social credibility so they call themselves centrists, but support the cult in secret.


----------



## Glades

I’m actually mostly with democrats on a number of fiscal issues and in securing funding for social programs (welfare and education). I would wish that this country could eventually have free and accessible medical care for all. I would wish that inner city kids had access to good public education. And for my entire life I have sided with democrats on America not being the police of the world anymore, and cutting military funding to instead spend in social programs. Although it is funny how warmongers are now in both sides of the aisle, and starting wars in foreign land is the only thing that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on in 2022 (I.e.: War in Ukraine).


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> starting wars in foreign land [...] (I.e.: War in Ukraine).


Say what?


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> I’m actually mostly with democrats on a number of fiscal issues and in securing funding for social programs (welfare and education). I would wish that this country could eventually have free and accessible medical care for all. I would wish that inner city kids had access to good public education. And for my entire life I have sided with democrats on America not being the police of the world anymore, and cutting military funding to instead spend in social programs. Although it is funny how warmongers are now in both sides of the aisle, and starting wars in foreign land is the only thing that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on in 2022 (I.e.: War in Ukraine).




There have always been warmongers on both sides of the aisle. And there have pretty much always been at least one or two anti-war people on each side as well.

After 911, when Bush wanted to invade Afghanistan, a nation whence exactly zero of the bombers hailed, he got almost unanimous support. When he wanted to invade Iraq citing WMD, which everyone knew was bullshit, he got almost unanimous support. When Obama wanted to bomb Libya, he had quite a bit of supporters on the Right. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the congressional act that kicked off the Vietnam War, was penned by Democrats and only opposed in the Senate by two senators, both of whom were Democrats. 

I know there is a lot of talk about the USA being responsible for the war in Ukraine, but I think the true answer is somewhere in the middle with a lot of subtlety around it. We have this narrative in the West that Ukraine just happened to oust its pro-Russian government without any external prodding, and that Russia took it personally and got all up in arms as a result. While that's mostly true, there was a lot happening behind the scenes. And it's not really at all accurate to characterize all Ukrainians as having a monolithic disdain for Russian influence. But Russia has been, over the past 7 or 8 years, playing almost a perfectly poor strategy to push everyone off of the fence and away from their side of the debate. And while the USA has definitely been pulling some strings here and there, I don't buy into the idea that the Pentagon sparked all of this somehow.

But, then again, look at the examples I posted. We've known now since 2005 that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was made up by the military to push a congressional resolution to authorize a draft for a ground war. We knew right away that the Bush administration totally pulled the WMD in Iraq argument out of their asses. We know that Bin Laden was ultimately found in Pakistan, not in Afghanistan, and that a great degree of the radicalization of the bombers occurred in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and we also now know that the Pentagon knew that the KSA government was in contact with the bombers after they started their mission. So all of the punitive actions conducted by the US military were 100% for sure directed at the wrong nations, and the Pentagon knew it was at the time.

I know it sounds like conspiracy city, but the documents confirming all of this are now declassified.  So that seems to verify that, if you wait long enough before the truth comes out publicly, most people won't care anymore, and you can keep on doing business as usual.

So, in terms of conspiracies involving the US military, history tends to favour the donners of tin foil hats over the status quo.

---------------------------

All that aside, today is election day. And it's an important one. It's likely that the democratic party will lose steam for the next two year, at a time when the GOP is really pushing, probably harder than they have ever pushed before. They are going to be going after people's rights, but, moreso, they are going to be going after their handle on power. That means that they will set objectives to meddle in future elections and they will be blocking any and every supreme court nomination that might happen over the next two years. They are going to be doing everything in their power to set up a layup for the 2024 presidential election so that Trump can win, and then once Trump is in there, they'll mobilize a campaign to replace as many justices as possible with young conservative judges.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> I’m actually mostly with democrats on a number of fiscal issues and in securing funding for social programs (welfare and education). I would wish that this country could eventually have free and accessible medical care for all. I would wish that inner city kids had access to good public education. And for my entire life I have sided with democrats on America not being the police of the world anymore, and cutting military funding to instead spend in social programs. Although it is funny how warmongers are now in both sides of the aisle, and starting wars in foreign land is the only thing that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on in 2022 (I.e.: War in Ukraine).


Then why did you post some weird screenshotted tweet about "looking at government spending"? You lost me here.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

CanserDYI said:


> Then why did you post some weird screenshotted tweet about "looking at government spending"? You lost me here.



Because it's easy to just say: "well, I agree with this" without actually doing anything. They'll just vote against whatever they say, but "guns are cool" doesn't have as nice of a ring to it as "insulin for grandma" and they're still trying to act like they have the moral high ground because American Jesus (not to be confused with Jesus...Jesus) is on their side.


----------



## bostjan

Conservative Christians be like:


----------



## jephjacques

StevenC said:


> It's gotten, at least, different.
> 
> Eh @jephjacques ?


I will forever cherish the day I made Elon so mad he made everybody add "PARODY" to their jokes


----------



## ArtDecade

I’m actually mostly with democrats on a number of fiscal issues and in securing funding for social programs (welfare and education). I would wish that this country could eventually have free and accessible medical care for all. I would wish that inner city kids had access to good public education. And for my entire life I have sided with democrats on America not being the police of the world anymore, and cutting military funding to instead spend in social programs. Although it is funny how warmongers are now in both sides of the aisle, and starting wars in foreign land is the only thing that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on in 2022 (I.e.: War in Ukraine).... but guns get me so hard. So, so hard.


----------



## CanserDYI

jephjacques said:


> I will forever cherish the day I made Elon so mad he made everybody add "PARODY" to their jokes


Dude hell yeah you were one of the parody Elon Musk accounts?


----------



## TedEH

CanserDYI said:


> why did you post some weird screenshotted tweet


It feels like there's this deliberate distancing tactic with this kind of "debate" all the time.

- Post a screenshot / link / video that has your talking points in it, but teeechnically being spoken by someone else
- Add a snarky comment that _implies_ that you agree, but keeping enough careful distance from _explicitly_ agreeing so that you have deniability.
- Get into the same argument you would have if you had just been explicit about your point.
- Dodge the uncomfortable points completely.
- Back out of the rest of the criticism by saying "I never said I agreed / I was just observing / thought it was interesting"
- .... profit?


----------



## CanserDYI

TedEH said:


> It feels like there's this deliberate distancing tactic with this kind of "debate" all the time.
> 
> - Post a screenshot / link / video that has your talking points in it, but teeechnically being spoken by someone else
> - Add a snarky comment that _implies_ that you agree, but keeping enough careful distance from _explicitly_ agreeing so that you have deniability.
> - Get into the same argument you would have if you had just been explicit about your point.
> - Dodge the uncomfortable points completely.
> - Back out of the rest of the criticism by saying "I never said I agreed / I was just observing / thought it was interesting"
> - .... profit?


Exactly like Kyrie Irving posting that "Yahweh" documentary and telling people to check it out, then when questioned about anti semitism, he's like "i just posted it, that doesn't mean I'm promoting it." Okay, buddy.


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> Exactly like Kyrie Irving posting that "Yahweh" documentary and telling people to check it out, then when questioned about anti semitism, he's like "i just posted it, that doesn't mean I'm promoting it." Okay, buddy.


I think the most obvious part was where they asked him flat out "Are you an anti-semite," and, rather than answering yes or no, he hemmed and hawed and then didn't answer. I like to think that a rational person, when confronted like that, would take the opportunity to deny the belief if they truly think it's a hurtful belief. But, who knows. That guy clearly has a lot of issues with weird toxic beliefs, as do so many other celebrities these days.


----------



## nightflameauto

TedEH said:


> It feels like there's this deliberate distancing tactic with this kind of "debate" all the time.
> 
> - Post a screenshot / link / video that has your talking points in it, but teeechnically being spoken by someone else
> - Add a snarky comment that _implies_ that you agree, but keeping enough careful distance from _explicitly_ agreeing so that you have deniability.
> - Get into the same argument you would have if you had just been explicit about your point.
> - Dodge the uncomfortable points completely.
> - Back out of the rest of the criticism by saying "I never said I agreed / I was just observing / thought it was interesting"
> - .... profit?


Add a non-point about "trying to get people to think critically." All while never showing the ability to discern critical thought from Republican talking point.


----------



## CanserDYI

I'm gonna say it, Christianity is the problem. It's a diseased branch in our historical tree.


----------



## nightflameauto

CanserDYI said:


> I'm gonna say it, Christianity is the problem. It's a diseased branch in our historical tree.


Religion in general is a problem. Christianity just gets the biggest pole in that tent since so many succumb to it.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> Add a non-point about "trying to get people to think critically." All while never showing the ability to discern critical thought from Republican talking point.


"Do your own research" whilst only quoting youtube videos from shady creators. It's the mating call of the conspiracy theorist these days.

IDK, it makes me very sad in so many ways. Flat Earth folks who chant the mantra of "do your own research," when you can debunk pretty much any and all of their "proof" with very simple searches for information, or, IDK, like, visiting an airline website to look at flights that go between two locations in the southern hemisphere, or even watching a sunset or a solar eclipse. You can buy a pair of cheap binoculars for like $15. If you live near a large body of water, all you have to do is try to spot a ship far enough away with the binoculars and see that the bottom part of the ship is obscured by the water due to the curvature of the Earth. I've done it myself- anyone can do it. But it costs $15 more and takes another five minutes of effort the next time you are at the beach than it does to watch some ignorant youtuber spout nonsense. Or, like, how is Lima, Peru in the same time zone as New York City, if the Earth is Flat and the sun is a table lamp that moves like a spotlight over different areas?

But I don't want to slag too hard on just flat earth people, because there are hundreds of other crazy conspiracy theories that require just as much parroting and spoonfeeding. "The world ended in 2012, but we haven't realized it yet." Huh? "The moon doesn't exist." Wha? "Hitler is still alive." You mean the guy born in 1889?! "The Titanic sinking was a hoax." You watch too much history channel and read too few history books, I think...

But that's just kind of the corner we've painted ourselves into. 

When I was a kid, I was pretty smart (hard to believe, I know), and I enrolled in a college astronomy class. This was 1990, long before google existed, but after the internet existed as a thing you could log into. I wanted to write a paper and use the internet as a resource, so I dusted off the old MODEM and plugged it into my parents' phone line, dialed into a server, and started trying to search for the nearest star systems. Even back then, most of the data I was able to track down was from Star Trek fans, and, often times, it wasn't clearly presented as such, so it suddenly became very frustrating to write a report based on information I found on the internet. So I went back to relying on reference books. And the situation has not really improved. It's just that there is ten million times as much information, but the fact:bullshit ratio is worse, if anything. Welcome to the future, where virtually every person has a connection to all of the misinformation in the world in their pocket, and we use our vast network of information to show each other what our food looks like and tell stupid fake stories about things our toddlers definitely didn't say as if they are all going to be the next Stephen Hawking.

Which just makes it all the more tempting to entertain the idea that the world really did end in 2012 and this is actually just the hell our dying brains dreamt up before we check out for good. But don't take my word for it, "do your own research."


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Which just makes it all the more tempting to entertain the idea that the world really did end in 2012 and this is actually just the hell our dying brains dreamt up before we check out for good. But don't take my word for it, "do your own research."


I prefer the theory the aliens that took over and started to test us just forgot to warn us that the test was ongoing. They'll check us out at the end of the test period, and those found worthy will be unplugged. The rest will be left to fester in this cesspool that is our shared virtual hell.

I mean, why not just make up our own shit? Everybody else is doing it. It's all the rage with the kids.


----------



## Drew

wheresthefbomb said:


> I love how if it weren't for Trump and his entourage this could be a random small town punk show, complete with the shitty PA and wires running all over the place.


Please. I've PLAYED better shitty small town punk shows than this.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> "Do your own research" whilst only quoting youtube videos from shady creators. It's the mating call of the conspiracy theorist these days.


It's also the ultimate extension of the right's anti-intellectual bent; the idea that your ignorance, and a 15-minute YouTube search into an algorithm that's most likely to return results that align with your previous biases, is worth just as much as someone else's expertise, earned from four years of college, a further seven years earning a PhD and defending a thesis, and then ten years of publicly funded scientific research. Sure, of course, that google search turned up a link saying that hurricanes are only appearing to get stronger and more common because we just used to miss a lot more of them 50 years ago, that's definitely far more credible than all of the experts who have studied this exact subject longer than you've been _alive_ who are all telling you that study is bullshit and riddled with methodological flaws. Really, either of them is just as likely to be true, so it's gotta be the one the experts _don't want you to know about_ that's true, right? 

A kind of useful thought exercise here is there's always something that you as an individual know a lot more about than the average person off the street. You might not rise to the level of "renowned expert," but you certainly know a lot more than most, right? So, picture someone talking about _that exact thing_ and think about all the stupid things people who don't know as much about it as you do tend to say, and how _sure _they are they're right, and how they're not and how stupid they seem to you. 

And, remember that feeling, the next time you put forward an opinion on something you definitely HAVEN'T spent most of your life studying. Ask yourself if you really should be as confident in your lack of expertise as you want to be, and proceed accordingly.


----------



## zappatton2

nightflameauto said:


> I prefer the theory the aliens that took over and started to test us just forgot to warn us that the test was ongoing. They'll check us out at the end of the test period, and those found worthy will be unplugged. The rest will be left to fester in this cesspool that is our shared virtual hell.
> 
> I mean, why not just make up our own shit? Everybody else is doing it. It's all the rage with the kids.


Personally, I liked the "birds aren't real" conspiracy. A conspiracy theory started to spoof conspiracy theorists, who still managed to fall for it.


----------



## AMOS

CanserDYI said:


> I'm gonna say it, Christianity is the problem. It's a diseased branch in our historical tree.


Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?


      

My middle name is Christian, why do you think that is? The church I grew up in started in my damn basement.

Let me guess, you've never actually BEEN on one of those mission trips? If you had, like I HAVE, you'd know they hardly do anything for the communities they are "helping" and half the people just did it to have some badge so they can get into their preferred White School. Seriously, when we went down to help for Katrina, they literally had us going through the rich neighborhoods to help, guess who's house I got to help clean up? Emeril Legasse's.

The next year? We did fundraisers and some of us (unfortunately I was not able to fund my own ticket so I was not allowed to join, HAHA) visited in Sudan to help build a well for a small village. We raised $14k, and half of it got stolen by one of the Youth Leaders, no well was made, and they essentially just gave the rest of the funds to the local leaders and told them "here's some help", which I suppose yes, helped, but the best part, the BEST PART OF ALL OF THIS, is the fucking RACIST, HATEFUL, HORRID things that came out of my peers mouth's when they came back. EDIT: Forgot to add here, when asked what was done mostly in Sudan (the money fundraising was done here), the answer was spreading the word of the lord, and showing them the wonders that god can give you by believing in him, and essentially shaming them and blaming the way they live on not believing in god, etc. 

Don't talk about Missionary bullshit, I'm sure there is some good happening, but it's mostly just white people trying to get some sort of card to play, then come back home and live, laugh, love their way into their coffee cup and cuddle up and listen to "Our God is an Awesome God" for the 1500th time.

And by the way, your numbers about "Atheist Killings" have nothing to do with "Killing in the name of God". No one is killing in the name of atheism, that doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Xaios

AMOS said:


> Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?


Tell me you've never heard of the Taiping Rebellion without telling me you've never heard of the Taiping Rebellion.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?


To answer your question, here's a partial list of Atheist charities in the USA:

American Atheists 
American Ethical Union 
American Humanist Association
American Secular Union
Americans United for Separation of Church and State 
The Atheist Agenda
Atheist Alliance International
Atheist Community of Austin
Atheists of Florida 
Camp Inquiry
Camp Quest
Center for Inquiry
City Congregation for Humanistic Judaism
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Ex-Muslims of North America
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Foundation Beyond Belief
Freedom From Religion Foundation
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
North Texas Church of Freethought
Practice What You Preach Foundation i
Rational Response Squad
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance
United Coalition of Reason


----------



## CanserDYI

It'd be better for my hands and typing @AMOS if you'd just do a quick google search on "List of Christian Atrocities" or something super simple like that. The results are fucking STAGGERING.

And also, how am I supposed to even google "Athiest killings?", and I've heard this argument before, I'll be told its because of Mao and Stalin. They killed people out of fascist authoritarian policy, not because they were religious...whereas there are so many documented examples of people being murdered in religious holy wars.... regardless of the religion honestly, as @nightflameauto pointed out. Religion is the disease, I'll go ahead and adjust my original point.

I want to know, what are your examples of someone killing in the name of "atheism" outside of maybe one or two isolated incidents. I want a war, or crusade, or a militant move against those who believe in a god committed by an entity/country/group using atheism as their motive for killing these people?


----------



## bostjan

Just a point of discussion: There exist 11 countries where a person can be legally put to death for being atheist. There are zero where a person can be put to death for believing in a certain god.


----------



## CanserDYI

EDIT: God damnit, not worth it. Nvm.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?


----------



## nightflameauto

I can't imagine living a life so sheltered that I could believe Christians killing in the name of god began and ended with the Crusades. What a wonderful world that must be.


----------



## wankerness

CanserDYI said:


> I'm gonna say it, Christianity is the problem. It's a diseased branch in our historical tree.


This is a very dated perspective IMO, it's the kind of argument that held a LOT more water during the Bush 2 era. Now, it's certainly the problem with the supreme court since we've got those Catholic whackjobs in there deciding things based on religion. But a VERY substantial percentage of the Qanoners and Trumpers these days are not religious at all. They're just aggrieved, miserable, angry people. A lot of them don't support anti-abortion stuff cause they care about babies, they support it cause it makes liberals upset and there's no joy in their life other than trying to make others as miserable as them. Church attendance has been plummeting over the last couple decades. If there's any reference to Christianity in their words, there's almost never any in their actions. Sure, most people that go to Evangelical churches end up voting Republican. But I truly don't think that most people that vote Republican are dedicated church-goers. And there are plenty of Christians out there that are extremely liberal or at a minimum were completely turned off by Trump.

If you took religion out of the picture entirely you'd still have all the same people voting republican for the same reasons. They're on team republican. They're members of a cult. They literally can't fathom ever voting for anyone that's not a republican no matter what that candidates' beliefs are and how they overlap with what will help the voter with.


----------



## Mathemagician

CanserDYI said:


> People in my neighborhood (black and Hispanic population mostly) have one spot to vote and the past few years guys in huge trucks with gigantic trump flags peeling out in the parking lot and intimidating people. But they want democracy lol



That’s become huge the last few election cycles. The republicans have reduced voter drop off locations in areas deemed to be more likely to vote Democrat - poorer areas, high minority, underfunded school districts, etc. 



TedEH said:


> It feels like there's this deliberate distancing tactic with this kind of "debate" all the time.
> 
> - Post a screenshot / link / video that has your talking points in it, but teeechnically being spoken by someone else
> - Add a snarky comment that _implies_ that you agree, but keeping enough careful distance from _explicitly_ agreeing so that you have deniability.
> - Get into the same argument you would have if you had just been explicit about your point.
> - Dodge the uncomfortable points completely.
> - Back out of the rest of the criticism by saying "I never said I agreed / I was just observing / thought it was interesting"
> - .... profit?



Bonus points if you post from your car wearing a pair of oakleys and preface everything with “I’m just sayin’”. 

And then spew something fucking dumb as hell, lol. 



CanserDYI said:


> I'm gonna say it, Christianity is the problem. It's a diseased branch in our historical tree.



Evangelical religions are the problem. Whatever the biggest religion in a given country is, will have a large contingent of nutjobs. And that group hates EVERYONE they deem “different.” 

With evangelicals it’s always a rat race to try to present oneself as “more pious”. So the hate-speech just ramps up over time. 



AMOS said:


> Yeah I can see how volunteering your time on missions to help others can create a diseased branch. When's the last time a bunch of Atheists paid their own way to Uganda to help people they've never met? I'm neither a Christian or an Atheist, but the Christians definitely have a leg up on the selfish Atheists when it comes to helping others. Look it up, Atheists are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, where as Christians are responsible for a few hundred thousand back in the dark ages. Who is the diseased branch?



This has already been addressed. You can’t just say something and not cite your sources. 

Where in history has an atheist army killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of atheism? 

Remember folks, being asked to cite sources is not an attack. It’s the basic premise for a discussion.


----------



## TedEH

I have nothing to contribute, just to say that this thread has really gone places today.


----------



## Crungy

Mathemagician said:


> This has already been addressed. You can’t just say something and not cite your sources.



Idk, he did say look it up


----------



## profwoot

I'm also a bit surprised when I hear folk blaming Christianity for the ills of society these days. I mean, the sentiment isn't wrong, per se, it's just that we've all just witnessed the birth of a brand new religion in QAnon, and frankly I'd trust an actually-devout Christian over any single person that buys into Q. Granted, the Q-cumbers don't consider it to be a religion and many of them are also ostensibly Christian, even if they mostly worship Q/Trump.

I'm a grizzled vet of the online religious wars of the aughts, and even gained a modicum of [pseudonymous] notoriety at the time for my de-conversion story and anti-religious sentiments, but it's never been more clear that humans will believe the absolute dumbest shit imaginable if it feels good to do so, whether it's about Zombie Jesus or pedophilic cannibal politicians coming to steal your adrenochrome.


----------



## ArtDecade

profwoot said:


> I'm also a bit surprised when I hear folk blaming Christianity for the ills of society these days. I mean, the sentiment isn't wrong, per se, it's just that we've all just witnessed the birth of a brand new religion in QAnon, and frankly I'd trust an actually-devout Christian over any single person that buys into Q. Granted, the Q-cumbers don't consider it to be a religion and many of them are also ostensibly Christian, even if they mostly worship Q/Trump.
> 
> I'm a grizzled vet of the online religious wars of the aughts, and even gained a modicum of [pseudonymous] notoriety at the time for my de-conversion story and anti-religious sentiments, but it's never been more clear that humans will believe the absolute dumbest shit imaginable if it feels good to do so, whether it's about Zombie Jesus or pedophilic cannibal politicians coming to steal your adrenochrome.


Evangelical Christians make up the ranks of QAnon. If anything Q, is simply the finishing school for extreme stupidity.


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> This has already been addressed. You can’t just say something and not cite your sources.
> 
> Where in history has an atheist army killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of atheism?
> 
> Remember folks, being asked to cite sources is not an attack. It’s the basic premise for a discussion.


Stalin killed 50 million of his own, then there's Hitler, the French revolution, Pol Pot and two different Chinese Dictators. In the name of Atheism? How can anything be based on that? They were just retards that just happened to be Atheists.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> Stalin killed 50 million of his own, then there's Hitler, the French revolution, Pol Pot and two different Chinese Dictators. In the name of Atheism? How can anything be based on that? They were just retards that just happened to be Atheists.


Literally your entire paragraph is correct sir. My god you don't understand how you just bolstered my point.

Edit: and don't use the R word, that's cancelled remember?


----------



## AMOS

CanserDYI said:


> Literally your entire paragraph is correct sir. My god you don't understand how you just bolstered my point.


Get ready for some more, China outlawed all forms of Religion, in the name of Atheism would be the only logical choice. But there will be another huge bloody revolution there BECAUSE of Atheism. What are the odds of all of the worlds most brutal mass murderers all being Atheists? Naaaa there's nothing behind that... The leaders see themselves as Gods because of their power, and because they see no supreme beings above them that they feel they'll need to answer to at some point. There are no modern Christians that compare to what they have done.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> Get ready for some more, China outlawed all forms of Religion, in the name of Atheism would be the only logical choice. But there will be another huge bloody revolution there BECAUSE of Atheism. What are the odds of all of the worlds most brutal mass murderers all being Atheists? Naaaa there's nothing behind that... The leaders see themselves as Gods because of their power, and because they see no supreme beings above them that they feel they'll need to answer to at some point. There are no modern Christians that compare to what they have done.


Correlation is not causation. You can't think of, you know, just a couple of other traits that Hitler, Mao, and Stalin shared? No? Just the fact that they don't have a god they worshipped? I think you can think a little harder, friend.

And also, no modern Christian has done what they have done because we haven't allowed them to...

Edit: sorry I keep thinking back to how bad these takes are, you are one Google search away from figuring out that China did not outlaw religion, they did this, (seriously one Google search, buddy)

"Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. *No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion*; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion."


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> in the name of Atheism





AMOS said:


> The leaders see themselves as Gods


Phrasing like this makes it sound like you fundamentally misunderstand what atheism is.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> Stalin killed 50 million of his own, then there's Hitler, the French revolution, Pol Pot and two different Chinese Dictators. In the name of Atheism? How can anything be based on that? They were just retards that just happened to be Atheists.



So then atheism wasn’t the cause, nor would religion have helped. Because those guys were dictators consolidating power. And they killed anyone they felt threatened their power. 

The fundamentalists are currently trying to “get rid of everyone different”.


----------



## Glades

Atheism is a godless religion.
Pick a pink-haired, self proclaimed atheist, woke university student. 10/10 that’s one the most extreme religious zealots you’ve ever met. 

See everybody is religious. Question is who/what is your God?


----------



## zappatton2

Uuugh, no. Atheism is just a lack of faith, not a faith unto itself. Generally, atheists are evidence-based thinkers. Show your work, as "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". 

To claim that "atheism kills more than fundamentalism" is an absurdity. Aside from the fact that the Nazis and modern China were/are perfectly happy harnessing super-natural beliefs to control their populace, ever the "atheist" Soviets never killed in the name of atheism, the killed because they were brutal autocrats maintaining beneficial power structures.

As many have said before me, "atheism doesn't fly planes into buildings". And in my experience, atheists are more open to the broad human experience, less absolutist and less tribal than theists.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> Atheism is a godless religion.
> Pick a pink-haired, self proclaimed atheist, woke university student. 10/10 that’s one the most extreme religious zealots you’ve ever met.


Weird how few of those people shoot up mosques and synagogues.


----------



## zappatton2

I should also add, I don't judge anyone for having faith, I have no interest in convincing anyone otherwise. I understand that mortality is difficult, and a sense of spiritualism and transcendence has been an undeniably beneficial evolutionary adaptation, likely to help cope with our ability to contemplate our own mortality.

My issue is with people trying to direct policy along supernatural and tribal lines, rather than evidence-based ones.


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> Weird how few of those people shoot up mosques and synagogues.


cue not-a-true-scotsman

I'm all for stupid debates but this is in the running for the stupidest. Hypothetically, if we had the numbers of how many murderers there were by faith/non-faith, what would that show? You'd also need to have a denominator, since there are more non-christians than christians. You'd also have to posit different schools of thought for atheists (i.e., amount of people killed by religious people vs. non-religious people, or amount of people killed by some-school-of-philosophy-under-atheism vs. some-school-of-philosophy-under-religion (read: christianity)). And then also normalize them! And then take into account the places and times these people lived! And then take into account the extent to any of these people actually believed in these things! Did X kill Y because of belief in Z, or in spite of it?

And even apart of that, some main theme seems to be pinning things on certain people. Hitler didn't murder millions of people -- he ordered that millions of people should die. The only thing separating Hitler's death count from that of some anti-semitic random is the means available to him.

Not only can no one argue these points well with numbers, but the calculation is undefined, and the conclusions meaningless. Therefore, while I usually take part in the dumb arguments, in this case let's just destroy it and move on.


----------



## CanserDYI

Sorry guys, I started some new meds today and kinda took it off the rails, I apologize.

In other shitty news, polls not looking good here in Ohio.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Time to rename the Biden/Harris Politics thread to the religion vs atheism thread /S 

in other other shitty news, herschel walker just pulled ahead in GA with 82% in. One truly has to not give one ounce of a damn about one's state government to vote a guy like him in. ....imho of course. Good Luck GA..... Good luck..


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## MaxOfMetal

The Onion is on fire.


----------



## Crungy

A girl can dream!


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> Atheism is a godless religion.


Not sure if I regret prompting this. Dunno why I expected anything else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is like describing walking as carless driving. It's only "true" if you blatantly stretch semantics so far as to not be meaningful to the conversation anymore.


----------



## narad

TedEH said:


> Not sure if I regret prompting this. Dunno why I expected anything else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> This is like describing walking as carless driving. It's only "true" if you blatantly stretch semantics so far as to not be meaningful to the conversation anymore.


That man pushed me over because, not believing in the one true car, he saw himself as being a car.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I just did my civic doody. TIL the best thing about Ranked Choice Voting is you can write-in your friends for everything and also still cast your "real" vote.


----------



## TimmyPage

I did my part* too!


_* by not illegally voting in a foreign election, good luck guys!_


----------



## wankerness

WI re-elected our democratic governor and the GOP didn't get a super-majority in the house, so we're going to continue on just being crappy instead of turning into a scorched-earth hellscape.

MI is looking WAY more appealing, after they redrew their maps to get rid of gerrymandering democrats won a full majority for the first time since '83. I pray that WI is going to flip the supreme court in April so we can follow their lead, but I'm not that optimistic. We just elected one of the worst people in the world to the senate after all. Ah well, I'm still in a wayyyyy better mood than I expected to be.

Seems like the Trump investigation getting cancelled isn't going to matter, since this election has just shown that Trump is killing the GOP and Desantis is the future - looks like the party leadership's going to be dumping him as fast as they can and his career in politics is effectively over. Fortunately Trump won't shut up about how much he hates Desantis. I hope Trump lives long enough for there to be a massive GOP civil war in 2024. You know he'd run 3rd party if Desantis gets the presidential nomination, and that a HUGE portion of GOP voters would vote for him (so many morons around here are purely motivated by spite and are going to disengage from politics again if they don't have some comical asshole as their candidate - guessing it's like that in most states).


----------



## spudmunkey

In rural-ish Wisconsin at my parent's polling place, a guy went into the polling place with a knife threatening people to "stop the votes".


----------



## CanserDYI

spudmunkey said:


> In rural-ish Wisconsin at my parent's polling place, a guy went into the polling place with a knife threatening people to "stop the votes".


That guy just had to be one of those radical leftists they keep warning us about....right?!

Nah, he voted for the R's, republicans and hard R's.....


----------



## thebeesknees22

wankerness said:


> WI re-elected our democratic governor and the GOP didn't get a super-majority in the house, so we're going to continue on just being crappy instead of turning into a scorched-earth hellscape.
> 
> MI is looking WAY more appealing, after they redrew their maps to get rid of gerrymandering democrats won a full majority for the first time since '83. I pray that WI is going to flip the supreme court in April so we can follow their lead, but I'm not that optimistic. We just elected one of the worst people in the world to the senate after all. Ah well, I'm still in a wayyyyy better mood than I expected to be.
> 
> Seems like the Trump investigation getting cancelled isn't going to matter, since this election has just shown that Trump is killing the GOP and Desantis is the future - looks like the party leadership's going to be dumping him as fast as they can and his career in politics is effectively over. Fortunately Trump won't shut up about how much he hates Desantis. I hope Trump lives long enough for there to be a massive GOP civil war in 2024. You know he'd run 3rd party if Desantis gets the presidential nomination, and that a HUGE portion of GOP voters would vote for him (so many morons around here are purely motivated by spite and are going to disengage from politics again if they don't have some comical asshole as their candidate - guessing it's like that in most states).I



I was actually surprised by the WI overall results given how heavily gerrymandered the state is on this round. 

I was hoping ya'll would kick out Ron Johnson in the senate race, but it looks like he miiiight squeak by.


----------



## CanserDYI

Welp they called it for JD Vance.








At least we kept Marcy Kaptur, she's a Toledoan from way back, and she owns a piece of my artwork from high school


----------



## StevenC

CanserDYI said:


> Welp they called it for JD Vance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least we kept Marcy Kaptur, she's a Toledoan from way back, and she owns a piece of my artwork from high school


Shouldn't it be Toledodor or Toledor?


----------



## CanserDYI

StevenC said:


> Shouldn't it be Toledodor or Toledor?


Oooooh yeah, I'm changing the Toledo Wiki, for sure.


----------



## Crungy

No Toledonites? What the frick


----------



## Ralyks

Doesn't seem like much change here in NY. Houchel got elected for a full term, which I'm fine with. Zeldin won't concede, which, given his recent history, seems about right.
So I'm guessing with what's being called a "Pink Splash" instead of a "Red Wave", the two two years really aren't going to change much.

Also, am I the only one thinking, with voting (mostly) over now, that they'll try to indict Trump any minute now so to cut him off before he declares to run?


----------



## thebeesknees22

Innnnnteresting. Lauren Boebert may actually get the boot! It's a close call, but she's losing as of right now. 

Now if we could just do the same to MTG and the other loonies in that circle.


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Doesn't seem like much change here in NY. Houchel got elected for a full term, which I'm fine with. Zeldin won't concede, which, given his recent history, seems about right.
> So I'm guessing with what's being called a "Pink Splash" instead of a "Red Wave", the two two years really aren't going to change much.
> 
> Also, am I the only one thinking, with voting (mostly) over now, that they'll try to indict Trump any minute now so to cut him off before he declares to run?


No. I'm pretty sure Trump's gonna skate forever. We insist on believing that stopping lawbreakers from breaking the law is tantamount to destroying the foundations of democracy, so we refuse to do it.

I glanced at the results for my state this morning. Fucking puke. Seriously? It's Rs down the board, and not softly either. It's all 60%+. Fuckin' hells.


----------



## ArtDecade

Pennsylvanian here. Crushed it. You are welcome, America. Again.


----------



## thebeesknees22

ArtDecade said:


> Pennsylvanian here. Crushed it. You are welcome, America. Again.


thank you sir. 

I thought surely there's no way ya'll would want Dr. Oz to represent you over Fetterman, but I wasn't quite sure how it would really go. I think Fetterman will be a solid individual.


----------



## Glades

thebeesknees22 said:


> thank you sir.
> 
> I thought surely there's no way ya'll would want Dr. Oz to represent you over Fetterman, but I wasn't quite sure how it would really go. I think Fetterman will be a solid individual.


It looks like it will be a 50/50 split again in the senate with Kamala at tie-breaker, if #34 doesn't win the runoff (AZ and GA to DNC, NV to GOP). But Murkowski seems to be losing in AK to Tshibaka, which is basically a senate seat flip.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Atheism is a godless religion.
> Pick a pink-haired, self proclaimed atheist, woke university student. 10/10 that’s one the most extreme religious zealots you’ve ever met.
> 
> See everybody is religious. Question is who/what is your God?


As someone who in high school had orange hair for a while, you have NO fucking clue what you're talking about. 

Absence of faith =/= faith in absence. This is sort of anther riff on the paradox of tolerance, and I'm sorry, but trying to understand the absence of faith through the filter of faith just doesn't work.


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Doesn't seem like much change here in NY. Houchel got elected for a full term, which I'm fine with. Zeldin won't concede, which, given his recent history, seems about right.
> So I'm guessing with what's being called a "Pink Splash" instead of a "Red Wave", the two two years really aren't going to change much.
> 
> Also, am I the only one thinking, with voting (mostly) over now, that they'll try to indict Trump any minute now so to cut him off before he declares to run?



Don't count on anything swinging away from Trump's favour.



nightflameauto said:


> I glanced at the results for my state this morning. Fucking puke. Seriously? It's Rs down the board, and not softly either. It's all 60%+. Fuckin' hells.


Did any democrats even run?

____

Not that anyone cares about little ol' VT, but we've now got two constitutional amendments coming- one to outlaw indentured servitude and one to guarantee the right to an abortion.

The incumbents pretty much took everything here. That's counting our new senator, who was out old representative. The old senator, I guess decided to retire before his 160th birthday.  Seriously, though, the guy had been holding a Senate seat since Watergate. But nothing is really changing from our end here.

The election is over. Now comes the worst part- the deep divide between political parties continuing to grow over the next two years. Every piece of legislation that ends up passing now will be a miracle.


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> Innnnnteresting. Lauren Boebert may actually get the boot! It's a close call, but she's losing as of right now.
> 
> Now if we could just do the same to MTG and the other loonies in that circle.


Honestly, while the narrative could change a bit depending on how some of the outstanding races break, if they continue to come in as they are now, this is going to be a _really_ bad day for the GOP, though I'm sure they won't see it as such. 

The very probable loss of the House DOES sting, and I'm not looking forward for the 1/6 resurrection committee being swapped out for one looking at whether Biden was "motivated by politics" when he tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to take pressure off gas prices, or "Hunter Biden's emails" or Benghazi round 3. I don't want to minimize how important control of a chamber is in national politics. 

But... Long term average is a net loss of 26 seats for the president's party in midterms. The modal forecast in the 538 model was for "only" 17. And, in an electoral environment where inflation is maybe just retreating from 40 year highs and the sitting president is only polling at 42%, the Democrats are looking at probably a loss of about 12 votes in the House, meaning the GOP will inherit the Democrats' single digit majority. Meanwhile, the two most likely outcomes in the Senate right now are a 50-50 split with Harris as the tiebreaker, or the Democrats net _gaining_ a seat, and controlling the chamber 51-49. 

Again, if a whole bunch of close races break GOP in the coming days, we might look back at this differently (much as in the moment 2020 felt awfully close, but a week down the road the Democrats actually had a fairly decent night). But, in the moment, from where we sit now... The red wave was barely a puddle.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The incumbents pretty much took everything here. That's counting our new senator, who was out old representative. The old senator, I guess decided to retire before his 160th birthday.  Seriously, though, the guy had been holding a Senate seat since Watergate. But nothing is really changing from our end here.


That was a big win, on abortion access.


----------



## ArtDecade

Boebert lost her restaurant and her seat, but she will making a killing on a Republican OnlyFans.


----------



## wankerness

ArtDecade said:


> Boebert lost her restaurant and her seat, but she will making a killing on a Republican OnlyFans.


Great. I wish her luck. As long as we don't have to hear from her ever again.

Honestly I am almost glad Trump's now definitely not going to get indicted. This election just proved his hold over the party is shaking and that him being allowed to run (ESPECIALLY if they try and nominate anyone else and Trump's still a public figure allowed to run as a third party) is the worst possible thing that could happen to the GOP.


----------



## Glades

The scary thing is that if Dems retain status quo in House/Senate, and the economy doesn't get better by 2024, it will leave the door wide open for a change president (aka Trump).
He is set to make a statement on the 15th. Hopefully he is not running again. We don't need Trump Season 3.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> It looks like it will be a 50/50 split again in the senate with Kamala at tie-breaker, if #34 doesn't win the runoff (AZ and GA to DNC, NV to GOP). But Murkowski seems to be losing in AK to Tshibaka, which is basically a senate seat flip.


I would hold off before jumping to conclusions here. 

Neither Murkowski nor Tshibaka are on track to win 50% and avoid a runoff. Under ranked choice voting, the last candidate is then eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to their second picks. Wit Tshibaka at 44.4%, even if every single one of Buzz Kelley's 2.9% go to Tshibaka that only puts her at 47.3% to Murkowski's 42.7%. With no candidate at 50% with Kelley out, Democrat Pat Chesbro's 9.5% is redistributed, and the odds of a Trump-aligned Republican getting votes from a Democrat in Alaska are essentially nil - most to all should go to Murkowski, which would put her to 52.7% to Tshibaka's 47.3%, and sending Murkowski back to Washington. 

Nothing's set in stone until the votes are counted... But Tshibaka's odds get awfully long if she doesn't finish the first round of voting better than 47%.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The scary thing is that if Dems retain status quo in House/Senate, and the economy doesn't get better by 2024, it will leave the door wide open for a change president (aka Trump).
> He is set to make a statement on the 15th. Hopefully he is not running again. We don't need Trump Season 3.


He's running again, he thinks he needs to if he wants yo stay out jail. Problem is, DeSantis pretty likely to run, too, so the GOP is shaping up to have an ugly primary season. 

Which, if I were a Republican, I'd think is a real shame, because I think a recession is pretty likely in 2023. Economy might be back on track by 2024 in time for the presidential election, but it would be a pretty compelling story to try to run on (ignoring for the moment that pinning this on the Democrats is actually a lot harder than it looks).


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> Boebert lost her restaurant and her seat, but she will making a killing on a Republican OnlyFans.


Let's Go Brandon-ing on pay per view? I wouldn't hate that.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Drew said:


> Honestly, while the narrative could change a bit depending on how some of the outstanding races break, if they continue to come in as they are now, this is going to be a _really_ bad day for the GOP, though I'm sure they won't see it as such.
> 
> The very probable loss of the House DOES sting, and I'm not looking forward for the 1/6 resurrection committee being swapped out for one looking at whether Biden was "motivated by politics" when he tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to take pressure off gas prices, or "Hunter Biden's emails" or Benghazi round 3. I don't want to minimize how important control of a chamber is in national politics.
> 
> But... Long term average is a net loss of 26 seats for the president's party in midterms. The modal forecast in the 538 model was for "only" 17. And, in an electoral environment where inflation is maybe just retreating from 40 year highs and the sitting president is only polling at 42%, the Democrats are looking at probably a loss of about 12 votes in the House, meaning the GOP will inherit the Democrats' single digit majority. Meanwhile, the two most likely outcomes in the Senate right now are a 50-50 split with Harris as the tiebreaker, or the Democrats net _gaining_ a seat, and controlling the chamber 51-49.
> 
> Again, if a whole bunch of close races break GOP in the coming days, we might look back at this differently (much as in the moment 2020 felt awfully close, but a week down the road the Democrats actually had a fairly decent night). But, in the moment, from where we sit now... The red wave was barely a puddle.


agreed. honestly dem's maintaining a 50/50 split was the best realistic outcome I could hope for. If ..IF ..they could gain one even better. Just so long as it's not a completely R controlled congress, I'll count that as a win this round.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Also, am I the only one thinking, with voting (mostly) over now, that they'll try to indict Trump any minute now so to cut him off before he declares to run?


The DOJ was very pointed in letting it be subtly known that they had no intent of indicting Trump before the midterms. Which, well, is the kind of thing you sort of float out there if you're thinking about _when_ you're going to indict him, and not _if_. 

If Trump plans to announce on 11/14, I'd say we've got an interesting couple days on our hands.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> The scary thing is that if Dems retain status quo in House/Senate, and the economy doesn't get better by 2024, it will leave the door wide open for a change president (aka Trump).
> He is set to make a statement on the 15th. Hopefully he is not running again. We don't need Trump Season 3.


Stop trying to sound like some moderate Republican now that you see your Cheetos King has a powerless base. Everyone here knows what you are.


----------



## bostjan

Interesting no one is really talking much about the proposals...

Kentucky tried to outlaw abortion in the constitution, but people voted no.
Missouri tried to pass some sort of abortion law, but people appear to have voted no, but it's still in the air.
California, Michigan, and Vermont now have voted to make abortion protected in their constitutions.

A bunch of states had ballot proposals to ban slavery as a punishment for crime: Oregon, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Vermont (although worded maybe more awkwardly). Louisiana, maybe surprisingly, maybe not, voted no, but it appears to have passed everywhere else. Louisiana, I believe, is the only of the states where this was on the ballot, where a large portion of labour is done by prisoners.

Cannabis will still be illegal in the Dakotas, as well as in Arkansas, but will move to legalization now in Maryland and Missouri. Colorado might be on the path to legalize psychedelics, but it's also still in the air.

Arkansas also voted "no" to guaranteeing religious freedom. That one quite upsets me. Oh well, it's Arkansas.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Kentucky tried to outlaw abortion in the constitution, but people voted no.
> Missouri tried to pass some sort of abortion law, but people appear to have voted no, but it's still in the air.
> California, Michigan, and Vermont now have voted to make abortion protected in their constitutions.


No, this was definiely a big takeaway - where abortion access was actually at risk, either in these initiatives or in state contests where Republican control of a chamber would likely result in a ban, it was a STRONG motivator. This flies a little in the face of the "conventional wisdom" coming into the election that voters didn't care about abortion, they cared about inflation and gas prices, and crime (which surprised me that the GOP seemingly had made that as big of an issue as they had). 

Here in MA, we had four ballot initiatives: 
1) 4% "millionaire's tax" on income over $1mm - passed narrowly
2) regulating dental insurance to require at least 83% of premiums to go to patient care or improvements, similarly to medical insurance - passed comfortably. 
3) expansion in the number of stores a single business is able to apply for a beer and wine retail sales license from 9 to, over time 18 - failed narrowly. 
4) uphold an existing state law to not make proof of citizenship a requirement for a state driver's license (but, still require it for a Real ID license) - passed narrowly. 

#4 was confusingly worded enough that I think it would have passed with a wider margin if the measure was better worded - I had to read it twice to be sure I was voting the way I wanted to.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> No, this was definiely a big takeaway - where abortion access was actually at risk, either in these initiatives or in state contests where Republican control of a chamber would likely result in a ban, it was a STRONG motivator. This flies a little in the face of the "conventional wisdom" coming into the election that voters didn't care about abortion, they cared about inflation and gas prices, and crime (which surprised me that the GOP seemingly had made that as big of an issue as they had).
> 
> Here in MA, we had four ballot initiatives:
> 1) 4% "millionaire's tax" on income over $1mm - passed narrowly
> 2) regulating dental insurance to require at least 83% of premiums to go to patient care or improvements, similarly to medical insurance - passed comfortably.
> 3) expansion in the number of stores a single business is able to apply for a beer and wine retail sales license from 9 to, over time 18 - failed narrowly.
> 4) uphold an existing state law to not make proof of citizenship a requirement for a state driver's license (but, still require it for a Real ID license) - passed narrowly.
> 
> #4 was confusingly worded enough that I think it would have passed with a wider margin if the measure was better worded - I had to read it twice to be sure I was voting the way I wanted to.


Yes, there were a few states that had alcohol propositions, and it seemed like a majority of voters don't want easier access to alcohol. I forget which state, but one had something about alcohol deliveries, and it looks like it failed. I think that's a bit weird, since, if you were getting alcohol delivered, you'd be probably marginally _less _likely to drink and drive than if you had to go pick up alcohol somewhere... but whatever.

So, if you make over a million dollars, you have to pay 4% of that extra margin in income tax to Massachusetts now? Interesting. I assume that applies to lotto winnings as well?

I love ballot measures, it really works much better than just having the state legislature assume that they know what people want. But, just like any other democratic process, it also makes me nervous every time there is something important, because as smart as most individuals I know seem to be on their own, groups of people seem to be unpredictably stupid so often. The Arkansas ban on religious freedom being the most obvious one to pick on. Like, having religious freedom there would harm what group of people and in what way? Not like voting "yes" makes you an atheist or muslim. I guess the majority of voters there are scared of people with different ideas than them, and that's pretty thinly veiled, IMO, when you vote "no" to telling the state to mind their own business when it comes to people's personal religions.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yes, there were a few states that had alcohol propositions, and it seemed like a majority of voters don't want easier access to alcohol. I forget which state, but one had something about alcohol deliveries, and it looks like it failed. I think that's a bit weird, since, if you were getting alcohol delivered, you'd be probably marginally _less _likely to drink and drive than if you had to go pick up alcohol somewhere... but whatever.
> 
> So, if you make over a million dollars, you have to pay 4% of that extra margin in income tax to Massachusetts now? Interesting. I assume that applies to lotto winnings as well?


I actually don't know, on lottery winnings - normally I'd assume yes, but CA for example doesn't tax them, and I'd think at a minimum state lotteries might be exempt, since they're technically a "tax" to fund education...

The MA one was complex, but I kinda figured it would pass. The root of the bill was a compromise between small businesses and big ones, and the big ones - chain supermarkets and the like - wanted something that would go farther and would let them sell beer and wine broadly, and if possible liquor in most/all outlets, but thought this was better than noting, while the small businesses, locally owned liquor stores, figured this was at least a workable compromise where big chains got somewhat better access, but they wouldn't get completely pushed out by better funded players. I think some of the larger grocery store chains were opposed, and I'm wondering if they were able to drum up enough opposition, or if this failed because there's still enough of a Puritan streak in MA for enough people to have opposed ANY loosening of our blue laws. But, pretty much all sides involved figured this bill wasn't the end of it, so I imagine we'll see a few more iterations over the long run.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Don't count on anything swinging away from Trump's favour.
> 
> 
> Did any democrats even run?
> 
> ____
> 
> Not that anyone cares about little ol' VT, but we've now got two constitutional amendments coming- one to outlaw indentured servitude and one to guarantee the right to an abortion.
> 
> The incumbents pretty much took everything here. That's counting our new senator, who was out old representative. The old senator, I guess decided to retire before his 160th birthday.  Seriously, though, the guy had been holding a Senate seat since Watergate. But nothing is really changing from our end here.
> 
> The election is over. Now comes the worst part- the deep divide between political parties continuing to grow over the next two years. Every piece of legislation that ends up passing now will be a miracle.


We had a shocking number of Democrats and even Libertarians showing up on the ballot. Not that it did them any good.


bostjan said:


> Interesting no one is really talking much about the proposals...
> 
> Kentucky tried to outlaw abortion in the constitution, but people voted no.
> Missouri tried to pass some sort of abortion law, but people appear to have voted no, but it's still in the air.
> California, Michigan, and Vermont now have voted to make abortion protected in their constitutions.
> 
> A bunch of states had ballot proposals to ban slavery as a punishment for crime: Oregon, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Vermont (although worded maybe more awkwardly). Louisiana, maybe surprisingly, maybe not, voted no, but it appears to have passed everywhere else. Louisiana, I believe, is the only of the states where this was on the ballot, where a large portion of labour is done by prisoners.
> 
> Cannabis will still be illegal in the Dakotas, as well as in Arkansas, but will move to legalization now in Maryland and Missouri. Colorado might be on the path to legalize psychedelics, but it's also still in the air.
> 
> Arkansas also voted "no" to guaranteeing religious freedom. That one quite upsets me. Oh well, it's Arkansas.


Yeah, we passed Recreational Marijuana with flying fucking colors last time around, then spent years being lectured by our monster governor about how stupid we are and that we need to know better and, well, I guess our little boot-licker brigade fell in line. Good for them. Fuckin assholes.

Sorry, sick of watching the usual political wackos at work strut around like peacocks today. At least I've only heard one of them chanting for Trump as they walk up and down the hall. Better than usual.


----------



## StevenC

Drew said:


> Let's Go Brandon-ing on pay per view? I wouldn't hate that.


Joe is a good traditional Catholic Solar Cultist. He'd never take part in that.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> The scary thing is that if Dems retain status quo in House/Senate, and the economy doesn't get better by 2024, it will leave the door wide open for a change president (aka Trump).
> He is set to make a statement on the 15th. Hopefully he is not running again. We don't need Trump Season 3.



That's a sour grapes post if I ever saw one. Compared to expectations, this was basically a worst-case outcome for republicans, and especially Trump, whose endorsements proved to be useful only in getting people the republican nomination, but not ultimately any advantage over dems (and possibly a disadvantage)..


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Drew said:


> I would hold off before jumping to conclusions here.
> 
> Neither Murkowski nor Tshibaka are on track to win 50% and avoid a runoff. Under ranked choice voting, the last candidate is then eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to their second picks. Wit Tshibaka at 44.4%, even if every single one of Buzz Kelley's 2.9% go to Tshibaka that only puts her at 47.3% to Murkowski's 42.7%. With no candidate at 50% with Kelley out, Democrat Pat Chesbro's 9.5% is redistributed, and the odds of a Trump-aligned Republican getting votes from a Democrat in Alaska are essentially nil - most to all should go to Murkowski, which would put her to 52.7% to Tshibaka's 47.3%, and sending Murkowski back to Washington.
> 
> Nothing's set in stone until the votes are counted... But Tshibaka's odds get awfully long if she doesn't finish the first round of voting better than 47%.



I voted for Chesbro, but Murkowski was my second choice. Fingers crossed.

We got Mary Peltola and no constitutional convention so I'm happy about those results.


----------



## CanserDYI

CanserDYI said:


> Oooooh yeah, I'm changing the Toledo Wiki, for sure.
> 
> View attachment 116862


Some Toledo nerd already changed it back. Shame.


----------



## bostjan

Sounds like a pokemon...
"Toledodor use a radioactive splash attack!"


----------



## CanserDYI

bostjan said:


> Sounds like a pokemon...
> "Toledodor use a radioactive splash attack!"


I swear our east siders are essentially the three eyed fish from the Simpsons, so this is quite accurate 

Edit: btw @bostjan I'm baffled that 9000 Vermontonians (were just using whatever demonym we want now) voted against banning slavery. Mind boggling.


----------



## bostjan

I'm not so surprised. Vermont is basically one city, a few small towns, and then a bunch of farmland. The city is probably one of if not the most left-leaning in the nation. The small towns are mostly rich Massachusettsanians and poor government-dependent Vermonteroians, with a smattering of other out-of staters and a handful of middle class workers. The countryside is mostly hippies, but there are also patches of extremely extremely conservative Appalachianites, the kind of folks who might as well still be loyal to King George III, they are so set in the old ways.

Also, it's not like we have slavery here. This was a vote to make sure that we never do in the future, by taking the law and codifying it into the Constitution in a clearer way than it was already in there. I'm not sure why, but there might be a small group of people who, for whatever reason, don't want to amend the constitution, even for something that seems like it'd be a good idea to solidify as a law from the highest level. But we already had a constitutional ban on slavery - this was more to reword the language around it so that for-profit prisons couldn't find a loophole.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, Louisiana voted not to ban slavery in their constitution, when they literally still have slavery, it's just reserved there for prisoners. If you get convicted of a crime, and then wind up being transported to a Louisiana prison, you can become a slave. And now the people of Louisiana have spoken to say that they want it to stay that way. It's a little ogreish to me, but since this is about rich people's ability to make lots of money, it's simply something that is going to take federal enforcement to stop it. And with the GOP poised to take over the house and block anything they don't want in the Senate, there's basically zero chance of a slavery band coming from congress. Which is sad and ironic, no? The Republican Party, formed in the mid 1800's with the purpose of abolishing slavery, is likely going to be the political force that prevents the loopholes that still allow slavery in the 21st century from being closed up.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe I should mention that there's actually quite a bit of tension here since the Bush era. There are still a lot of barns and old farm houses donned in pro-Bush murals and inflammatory stuff about gay rights and such. I've lived here for what will be 13 years next month, and I know that there will always be ~10% of the population here that will always see me as a foreigner.

I think you'll run into stuff like that no matter where in the USA you go. Certainly it's not as bad here as it would be someplace like rural western Virginia or whatever, but even in the most hippie place east of the Mississippi River, it still exists.


----------



## RevDrucifer

I’m not surprised in the least bit that Dade/Miami flipped. I’ve seen it said several times in the last few years that “the Dems will get the latino vote” and while they may true in some areas, Dade county is more than South Beach/Miami/pastel buildings; just south of it is all farmland largely owned by Cuban, Christian, right-leaning families that had immigrated here legally in the 70’s and had to fight tooth and nail for everything they have. 

Rubio wasted no ad time in pointing out how the Dems wanted to open the borders “and take everything you’ve worked so long and hard for”. These people were not welcomed with open arms when they came here in the 70’s, they were lumped in with all the prisoners Castro was sending us and got treated like shit by the majority white population that existed in that time. 

Telling a bunch of Cuban, Christian, gun owning farmers that the Left is trying to take away everything they’ve worked for to hand it to people coming here illegally was all Rubio needed to do. 

The last time I was in Hialeah was for a Metallica drive-in concert, it was on a huge farm in the center of a shitload of other huge farms. The only white people I saw were in their vehicles watching Metallica, the land owners sitting on their fences were all latino and in EVERY SINGLE YARD was a Trump 2020 sign. 

It seems as if it was assumed that “Oh, Miami is full of latinos, they won’t vote right, no way!” and the surrounding areas were neglected, or the Dems just didn’t want to admit that there’s THAT big of a right-leaning populace of latinos down there, but dey fucked up with that one.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Not to derail things, but holy smokes. That stock market today on the latest inflation report. 




Hope it stays that way for a while lol ...I wish. It'll probably tank hard again not long from now, but I'll take some good times while I can.


----------



## Glades

ArtDecade said:


> Boebert lost her restaurant and her seat, but she will making a killing on a Republican OnlyFans.


 Boebert has the lead in CO3. If she wins the seat, you might have to eat your mysogynistic comment for lunch.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Boebert has the lead in CO3. If she wins the seat, you might have to eat your mysogynistic comment for lunch.



For the sake of all of us, I hope she does win. No one deserves that type of punishment on Onlyfans - not even Republicans. And the fact that she is barely winning proves just how much Trump and his darlings have fallen down the cliff. Still a victory. You sad?


----------



## SpaceDock

If any of y’all saw her um “modeling” pics, you wouldn’t want to see her in an only fans….


----------



## ArtDecade

SpaceDock said:


> If any of y’all saw her um “modeling” pics, you wouldn’t want to see her in an only fans….


Why pay for what her high school football team saw for free... and baseball team... and field hockey... and basketball... chess club... stage crew... etc etc...


----------



## Crungy

Is there an explanation for the amount of time it's taking to count votes in Colorado? I don't even live there and it's stressing me out lol


----------



## bostjan

Crungy said:


> Is there an explanation for the amount of time it's taking to count votes in Colorado? I don't even live there and it's stressing me out lol


You want the real explanation or the one you're going to get from most people?

Real reason - The count is so close, that everything is probably going to have to be counted twice to avoid a lawsuit in case there is some sort of error. Also, some of these districts are large by both geography and population.

Tin-foil reason - {Whichever party you don't like} has to print more ballots to make sure that they win.

Personally, I wish Boebert would just go away. I know she thinks she means well or whatever, but her agenda is so misinformed and she is so dumb, that I don't imagine she'd ever be able to be a part of anything constructive. What has she managed to do since she's been in office other than weasel her way out of reckless driving and disturbing the peace charges?


----------



## Crungy

I may have misread about the recounting process but I also don't know what their procedure is for current vote counting... Are they recounting as they go? 

I thought an automatic recount happened if the totals are within .5% or something like that.


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> she thinks she means well






EDIT: There are lots of Republicans who, even though I find their politics repellant, I could believe "mean well". She is absolutely not one of them.


----------



## bostjan

Yes, but the people counting the votes are responsible for the accuracy of their own counts before they submit them to the state. Just like how you are "supposed" to proceed out of the building the same way in the event of a fire drill or a real fire, but we know that things will be different if you hear the fire alarm and then the hallway is filled with smoke. I'm sure they are at least a little more careful when they know that the count is going to be hotly contested and especially once the count comes out so close.


----------



## Glades

What is taking all the western states so long ... Nevada, Arizona, California
Lack of resources? How other states getting done so quickly, and some states are still at 60% 24 hours later?


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> What is taking all the western states so long ... Nevada, Arizona, California
> Lack of resources? How other states getting done so quickly, and some states are still at 60% 24 hours later?



People actually prefer to live in those states compared to the midwest so they have to count the votes on more than one-hand (even if that midwestern hand does have high single digits on it)


----------



## wankerness

MFB said:


> People actually prefer to live in those states compared to the midwest so they have to count the votes on more than one-hand (even if that midwestern hand does have high single digits on it)


Uhhh...Nevada's down at #33 in terms of state populations, and AZ is behind 13 states from all different regions that all finished counting much earlier, so not sure what you're on about. California's the only one that makes sense with that weirdly aggressive anti-everyone but the SW statement!


----------



## wankerness

Glades said:


> Boebert has the lead in CO3. If she wins the seat, you might have to eat your mysogynistic comment for lunch.


Oh boo hoo, concern trolling bullshit. She's a hateful garbage person and no one should regret saying anything bad about her. Her and MTG have shown absolutely no decency in anything they've done since being in office. If she gets in it will be what everyone expected. I hope she doesn't cause I'm so sick of having to hear about her. She's the younger Louis Gohmert.


----------



## bostjan

MFB said:


> People actually prefer to live in those states compared to the midwest so they have to count the votes on more than one-hand (even if that midwestern hand does have high single digits on it)


I know some folks who grew up near Fermi who can count to 143 on their fingers. Because they are smart enough to count fingers up and down with two digits on two hands, but also because they have six fingers (may or may not be related to the radiation from the plant, I won't say).


----------



## SpaceDock

They do a recount in Co when less than a 0.5% difference so the CO3 is gonna take a while….


----------



## MFB

wankerness said:


> Uhhh...Nevada's down at #33 in terms of state populations, and AZ is behind 13 states from all different regions that all finished counting much earlier, so not sure what you're on about. California's the only one that makes sense with that weirdly aggressive anti-everyone but the SW statement!



Is Nevada really that low? I figured with all the geezers that have nothing better to do than gamble away their money in Reno/Vegas that they'd be all over moving to there for that + dry heat.


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> I love ballot measures, it really works much better than just having the state legislature assume that they know what people want.


Be careful what you wish for. In California, where we have a robust ballot initiative system, it's becoming an "initiative industrial complex" (a term I just came across a few weeks ago, and it resonated with me) due to the sheer number of people and dollars involved. Since the 60's, the number of initiatives have increased by 7x. There's a lot of big money being thrown around in the campaigns for the propositions.


----------



## spudmunkey

In a lot of states, they have a large number of provisional and other types of ballots that get set aside unless they would potentially swing the result, because they are much more time-consuming to process and tally. In a lot of states, they can call the results before even touching that stash because it wouldn't be enough to change the result. The votes still get counted and added to the final totals, but you don't hear about those because the checkmark stays on the same side of the Red vs Blue chart. It could be that they held off on those until they had to.


----------



## wankerness

MFB said:


> Is Nevada really that low? I figured with all the geezers that have nothing better to do than gamble away their money in Reno/Vegas that they'd be all over moving to there for that + dry heat.


My understanding of Nevada was always it was mostly big desert wasteland apart from Las Vegas and Reno. My understanding is not based on any facts.


----------



## wankerness

Recounts almost never change results, we should know for sure when they finally finish counting unless it's like sub-10 votes.


SpaceDock said:


> They do a recount in Co when less than a 0.5% difference so the CO3 is gonna take a while….


----------



## narad

RevDrucifer said:


> I’m not surprised in the least bit that Dade/Miami flipped. I’ve seen it said several times in the last few years that “the Dems will get the latino vote” and while they may true in some areas, Dade county is more than South Beach/Miami/pastel buildings; just south of it is all farmland largely owned by Cuban, Christian, right-leaning families that had immigrated here legally in the 70’s and had to fight tooth and nail for everything they have.
> 
> Rubio wasted no ad time in pointing out how the Dems wanted to open the borders “and take everything you’ve worked so long and hard for”. These people were not welcomed with open arms when they came here in the 70’s, they were lumped in with all the prisoners Castro was sending us and got treated like shit by the majority white population that existed in that time.
> 
> Telling a bunch of Cuban, Christian, gun owning farmers that the Left is trying to take away everything they’ve worked for to hand it to people coming here illegally was all Rubio needed to do.
> 
> The last time I was in Hialeah was for a Metallica drive-in concert, it was on a huge farm in the center of a shitload of other huge farms. The only white people I saw were in their vehicles watching Metallica, the land owners sitting on their fences were all latino and in EVERY SINGLE YARD was a Trump 2020 sign.
> 
> It seems as if it was assumed that “Oh, Miami is full of latinos, they won’t vote right, no way!” and the surrounding areas were neglected, or the Dems just didn’t want to admit that there’s THAT big of a right-leaning populace of latinos down there, but dey fucked up with that one.



Yea, a German friend of mine here was talking about how dems rely too much on minority votes and that we should all be concerned by Trump's performance with hispanics, as if "performance with minorities" was somehow a more useful metric than "performance with people who agree with you on most issues". Dade is like ...MINO? Minority in name only. So I think it's not an interesting point / no need to make this a racial thing. The short answer for why there is a contingency of recent hispanic immigrants in Florida voting republican is that they should be -- they're embodying basically the worst aspects of "patriotic" americans -- the anti-immigrant stances, with the hypocrisy of being immigrants or 1-gen removed themselves. Yet we don't talk about how dems should be catering to try and get the white-guys-volunteering-for-border-patrol-in-arizona, but apart from racial demographics, they're very similar voting groups (guns, god, and no more immigrants).


----------



## Riff the Road Dog

bostjan said:


> I love ballot measures, it really works much better than just having the state legislature assume that they know what people want.


Governing by initiative? Ever heard of Tim Eyman? Might wanna google him and see where that can lead.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> My understanding of Nevada was always it was mostly big desert wasteland apart from Las Vegas and Reno. My understanding is not based on any facts.



That's how it is in all those desert states, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, etc.


----------



## MASS DEFECT

spudmunkey said:


> Be careful what you wish for. In California, where we have a robust ballot initiative system, it's becoming an "initiative industrial complex" (a term I just came across a few weeks ago, and it resonated with me) due to the sheer number of people and dollars involved. Since the 60's, the number of initiatives have increased by 7x. There's a lot of big money being thrown around in the campaigns for the propositions.



Truth. I work for San Francisco Elections and it's a PAIN to work through translations, arguments, and legal text for Propositions A to O! One stupid measure got killed before election day but still, that is a total of 14 ballot measures. The information book was 200 pages thick. How do you expect voters to read through all of that? 

The propositions/measures are backed by big corporations, billionaires, socialites, and landlords. Only 1 or 2 are truly citizen initiatives.


----------



## spudmunkey

spudmunkey said:


> In a lot of states, they have a large number of provisional and other types of ballots that get set aside unless they would potentially swing the result, because they are much more time-consuming to process and tally. In a lot of states, they can call the results before even touching that stash because it wouldn't be enough to change the result. The votes still get counted and added to the final totals, but you don't hear about those because the checkmark stays on the same side of the Red vs Blue chart. It could be that they held off on those until they had to.


Oh, and also: there are always a number of ballots rejected for any number of reasons. Many states have a window to allow time to "cure" them. Flipped digits on an address, a signature that doesn't look close enough, etc. When a race is close enough that enough of these votes could swing it, they need to count these, and it takes time. I believe Colorado has a 5-7 day window to rectify submitted ballots.


----------



## Glades

Maricopa County still has hundreds of thousands of ballots left count. Officials saying they are ready to work through Thanksgiving and Christmas. Wut?


----------



## bostjan

spudmunkey said:


> Be careful what you wish for. In California, where we have a robust ballot initiative system, it's becoming an "initiative industrial complex" (a term I just came across a few weeks ago, and it resonated with me) due to the sheer number of people and dollars involved. Since the 60's, the number of initiatives have increased by 7x. There's a lot of big money being thrown around in the campaigns for the propositions.


As opposed to the legislation written by the goons elected off of the financial backing of the same big corporations?

When in doubt with initiatives, you can a) leave it blank and trust that the majority will do their research and vote appropriately or b) vote "no," as that keeps things the same as before, and maybe, if the issue is important, lawmakers will try again, but make it clearer the next time.

I get it, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.

People can be really dumb, and also extremely fickle. If we went to 100% of legislation being ballot measures, I imagine that people would initiative all of their personal rights away within 20 years at most. That was kind of supposed to be the idea behind the Bill of Rights, except no one really sticks to the Bill of Rights anymore, because often times, it's annoying when other people exercise their rights. But, as horrible as it is to have the blowhard down the street waving his "FUCK BIDEN" flag around right in front of the elementary school, it's a very slippery slope once we start telling people that they cannot express their feelings, because in order to enforce that, there has to be an "or else..." and "you cannot express your feelings or else ..." should make us all a lot more uneasy than some douchenozzle using profanity around kindergarteners.

That's where community comes in, typically, except community is not really a thing anymore. But here's the thing, there is what you should do and what you shouldn't do, then there is what you ought to be punished for doing or not doing, and I think that there's a pretty important distinction between those. Like, you shouldn't spit your chewing gum onto the sidewalk, because someone else will inevitably step in it. But what do you do to enforce that? I think it'd be stupid to imprison someone for that, or cane them across the ass for it. Maybe slap 'em with a small fine and call it a day, but I'd rather see the community take up the issue than the government. When people were more willing to stop you and say "hey, don't do that," people used to care a little more about coming off as an asshole. Nowadays, it seems like anyone can be an asshole out in public and no one steps in. Even if you say "hey, don't do that" to someone and they respond with "or else whaddya gonna do?" it kind of forces the person to mentally come to grips with the fact that they are doubling down on being an asshole. And yes, some people enjoy that, but it comes from years of reinforcement. By confronting them, you shave off a tiny little bit of their points.


----------



## RevDrucifer

narad said:


> Yea, a German friend of mine here was talking about how dems rely too much on minority votes and that we should all be concerned by Trump's performance with hispanics, as if "performance with minorities" was somehow a more useful metric than "performance with people who agree with you on most issues". Dade is like ...MINO? Minority in name only. So I think it's not an interesting point / no need to make this a racial thing. The short answer for why there is a contingency of recent hispanic immigrants in Florida voting republican is that they should be -- they're embodying basically the worst aspects of "patriotic" americans -- the anti-immigrant stances, with the hypocrisy of being immigrants or 1-gen removed themselves. Yet we don't talk about how dems should be catering to try and get the white-guys-volunteering-for-border-patrol-in-arizona, but apart from racial demographics, they're very similar voting groups (guns, god, and no more immigrants).



You mean MINO in that the majority of the population is hispanic? 

The only reason I ‘made it a racial thing’ was because I’ve specifically heard it repeated that “the Dems will always get the latino/hispanic vote” or “Dems don’t have to worry about the Latino vote” based off, what I’m assuming, is the assumption that since they’re immigrants _of course _they’re going to vote with the party that wants immigration rights loosened up, which I’ve been told directly by Cuban immigrants is absolutely not the case whatsoever.


----------



## bostjan

Why would a bunch of people who immigrated to the USA legally and who are 110% catholic, want to vote for anyone other than the guy who is guaranteeing to deport all of the illegals and outlaw abortion whilst bringing back 1960's moral values and lowering taxes?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Why would a bunch of people who immigrated to the USA legally and who are 110% catholic, want to vote for anyone other than the guy who is guaranteeing to deport all of the illegals and outlaw abortion whilst bringing back 1960's moral values and lowering taxes?


Yeah, this. I'd even discount the legal/illegal side of that, and say that the tendency to look at Latinx voters as a unified bloc is a mistake, since there are some strong divides within the population, religious faith being a big one.

I wouldn't even call this especially savvy politics on the part of the right - they were talking up abortion to fire up their white evangelicals, and just happened to get some latinx evangelical support along the way. Either way, in a national environment where you have significant Cuban and Puerto Rican populations of various catholic denominations in Florida, where nationally abortion is a major wedge issue, it makes competing in Florida tough. It's been like that for a few cycles now, it just seems that RvW fired up the base there, too.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> What is taking all the western states so long ... Nevada, Arizona, California
> Lack of resources? How other states getting done so quickly, and some states are still at 60% 24 hours later?





https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/elections/nevada-vote-count.html











Why Arizona’s ballot count takes longer than Florida’s


Why can’t Arizona count ballots as quickly as Florida? In the last few days, this has become a common refrain




www.azmirror.com


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> Not to derail things, but holy smokes. That stock market today on the latest inflation report.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope it stays that way for a while lol ...I wish. It'll probably tank hard again not long from now, but I'll take some good times while I can.


Market reaction was nonsensical, IMO. 

Year over year inflation slowed fro, 8.2% to 7.7%... but, that was entirely due to base effects. It was expected to slow to 7.9%, with monthly inflation accelerating from 0.1% two months ago to 0.4% last month to 0.6% this month. The amount of commentary I read about how a drop to 7.9% would increase the odds of a Fed pivot was, well, special... but instead we got a 0.4% monthly print, pulling headline annual inflation down to 7.7%. 

So, inflation merely _failed to get worse_, and the stock market rises 5.5%. Gotcha. 

Equity traders, man.


----------



## Randy

I've never met a Cuban Democrat. And like 50/50 Puerto Rican Democrats.


----------



## RevDrucifer

bostjan said:


> Why would a bunch of people who immigrated to the USA legally and who are 110% catholic, want to vote for anyone other than the guy who is guaranteeing to deport all of the illegals and outlaw abortion whilst bringing back 1960's moral values and lowering taxes?



Don’t ask me, man, ask the Dems who thought they had that community on lock. Not a single ad for Crist seemed to be paying them any mind at all, while Rubio’s were very clearly going for those votes, along with the stereotypical red Florida residents.

I think they absolutely could have targeted them and probably gotten some votes if they put some effort into it, but that‘s definitely not what happened. I mean, if candidates started ignoring large groups of people just because they assume they’ll vote one way or the other, it just doesn’t seem like a good time to be doing that.

Miami hasn’t been red since 2002, ignoring that group probably wasn’t the best idea.


----------



## Mathemagician

RevDrucifer said:


> You mean MINO in that the majority of the population is hispanic?
> 
> The only reason I ‘made it a racial thing’ was because I’ve specifically heard it repeated that “the Dems will always get the latino/hispanic vote” or “Dems don’t have to worry about the Latino vote” based off, what I’m assuming, is the assumption that since they’re immigrants _of course _they’re going to vote with the party that wants immigration rights loosened up, which I’ve been told directly by Cuban immigrants is absolutely not the case whatsoever.



Anyone who says that has never met Latin people. Shit, SNL did a bit with almost that exact line the week after the 2016 election with Chapelle and Chris Rock.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> I think they absolutely could have targeted them and probably gotten some votes if they put some effort into it, but that‘s definitely not what happened. I mean, if candidates started ignoring large groups of people just because they assume they’ll vote one way or the other, it just doesn’t seem like a good time to be doing that.


TBH, I think the reverse was probably true - the lack of targeting advertising was an implicit capitulation to the fact that the Democrats no longer really saw them as winnable votes, in the current political climate.

What were they going to run on, "protect abortion rights!" "Make it easier for _other_ immigrants to come to America!"? That coupled with DeSantis's huge Republican registration push of the last couple years, and I think it'll be a while yet before people start thinking of Florida as a swing state again, due to simple demographic shifts in the last decade.


----------



## narad

RevDrucifer said:


> You mean MINO in that the majority of the population is hispanic?
> 
> The only reason I ‘made it a racial thing’ was because I’ve specifically heard it repeated that “the Dems will always get the latino/hispanic vote” or “Dems don’t have to worry about the Latino vote” based off, what I’m assuming, is the assumption that since they’re immigrants _of course _they’re going to vote with the party that wants immigration rights loosened up, which I’ve been told directly by Cuban immigrants is absolutely not the case whatsoever.


btw, I'm not saying you specifically made it a racial thing, but yea, on this topic it's the general politics vibe and assumptions. But I don't think that's what the dem party thinks, more that it's what the american population thinks the dem party thinks. It's not surprising that there are coalitions of minorities that are voting republican, since they share with the republican party most values, including being paradoxically anti-immigration. And of course the fact that Cubans vote this way is well known and no surprise to the party (although it may be a surprise to the everyday american who believes the dem party has minority votes on lock). 

Personally I like this direction where we just throw away Florida and take Texas. Then we can stop paying attention to Florida the couple of times we do every 4 years. I hate having to watch politicians campaigning there tip-toe around south american issues like they matter to the US, trying not to anger the voting block. It would be like having a bunch of chinese immigrants move into PA and then we'd have to go on the campaign trail and try not to mention Taiwan being a separate counttry.


----------



## tedtan

narad said:


> It's not surprising that there are coalitions of minorities that are voting republican, since they share with the republican party most values, including being paradoxically anti-immigration.


There are some fundamental misunderstandings surrrounding this.

First, to assume that all Latinos/hispanics are a homogenous group is no different than assuming that all Asians are a homogenous group or that all white people are a homogenous group. It’s at least bordering on racism-based-on-ignorance if not something more nefarious.

Second, _legal_ immigrants voting against _illegal_ immigration is only paradoxical from the most superficial perspective. It’s no different than people who have paid off their student loans being against others receiving student loan forgiveness (and that “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is something of a republican characteristic, at that).

On top of that, Many Hispanics/Latinos are religious. Some are Catholic, some are evangelical, some are devout, some play fast and loose with their beliefs, some are atheists, etc. 

But the key takeaway is that Latinos/Hispanics are a large, diverse group that doesn’t fit neatly into the nice, clean, homogenous group people on both sides of the isle want to put them in. There are simply too many of them to be that homogenous.


----------



## SpaceDock

I think all the Latinos just vote Republican because the Democrats keep calling them LatinX


----------



## spudmunkey

SpaceDock said:


> I think all the Latinos just vote Republican because the Democrats keep calling them LatinX



FWIW, the Guatemalan professor of my Colonial History of Latin America class, a man in his 60s who has lead excavations of ancient civilizations in central America and at every turn makes sure we're using more indigenous words (like Mexica rather than Aztec), also uses "LatinX". 




narad said:


> It's not surprising that there are coalitions of minorities that are voting republican, since they share with the republican party most values, including being paradoxically anti-immigration. And of course the fact that Cubans vote this way is well known and no surprise to the party (although it may be a surprise to the everyday american who believes the dem party has minority votes on lock).





tedtan said:


> There are some fundamental misunderstandings surrrounding this.
> 
> First, to assume that all Latinos/hispanics are a homogenous group is no different than assuming that all Asians are a homogenous group or that all white people are a homogenous group. It’s at least bordering on racism-based-on-ignorance if not something more nefarious.
> 
> Second, _legal_ immigrants voting against _illegal_ immigration is only paradoxical from the most superficial perspective. It’s no different than people who have paid off their student loans being against others receiving student loan forgiveness (and that “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is something of a republican characteristic, at that).
> 
> On top of that, Many Hispanics/Latinos are religious. Some are Catholic, some are evangelical, some are devout, some play fast and loose with their beliefs, some are atheists, etc.
> 
> But the key takeaway is that Latinos/Hispanics are a large, diverse group that doesn’t fit neatly into the nice, clean, homogenous group people on both sides of the isle want to put them in. There are simply too many of them to be that homogenous.



I think @narad's specific verbiage of "there are coalitions of" was specifically meant to indicate that it's groups _within_ the all-encompassing group of "latinos/hispanics", and purposefully meant to note that some groups think different than others. Maybe I misread it, but I took it exactly you're explaining.


----------



## narad

spudmunkey said:


> I think @narad's specific verbiage of "there are coalitions of" was specifically meant to indicate that it's groups _within_ the all-encompassing group of "latinos/hispanics", and purposefully meant to note that some groups think different than others. Maybe I misread it, but I took it exactly you're explaining.



Yea, there's nothing racist about talking about trends in demographic voting blocks. The demographic can be a whole race, if we're talking about like "the black vote", or it can be more specific, as in "the hispanics in florida" -- neither rules out exceptions to the trend. These are -observations- about voting patterns, not some sort of predictive thing. It's the difference between saying dems received 90% of the black vote in 2020, and blacks should/will vote democratic.

My main point is that every few years we have to pretend like we care what happens in FL/PA/OH, and then we have to bend over backwards to appeal to groups with very specific niche issues, like on Cuba, which we otherwise would say something akin to, "Yea, in terms of relations with Cuba, we're probably gonna do what the majority of the people / my party think is best for the country". 

Like coal miners - there are many other things we should care more about producing than coal, but we have to bend the whole country's will around them because of where they happen to be in the country. (In the PA case, I think it's a part the government working as intended, since the interests of the urban areas shouldn't outweigh the working interests of more rural areas. But that it should be so exaggerated in PA is really the failure). In Florida we have the same sort of situation, except we have to be careful not about american issues (like what's going to happen to miners), but about South American issues, based on the histories of people that came before. I'm not over in Japan voting for certain parties because of how they talk about pearl harbor. Because I can't vote  But still, it's the past, in a different country. It shouldn't be a part of contemporary politics, the way it is in Florida.

And so yea, back on topic, if dems let Dade flip, just forget about FL altogether, and focus on getting electors from a state where the issues actually sort of matter to larger swaths of americans, life would be so much better. Why struggle for some "minority vote" when the values of many of these demographics there are just inherently lined up with republican values? Just imagine, 4 years go by, 8 years go by, you only hear about FL in passing on some late night comedy news program where some guy had to wrestler a gator because it ate his lucky hat. No dangling chads. No recounts into forever. Just let it go red and get the electors from a more sensible place.



tedtan said:


> Second, _legal_ immigrants voting against _illegal_ immigration is only paradoxical from the most superficial perspective. It’s no different than people who have paid off their student loans being against others receiving student loan forgiveness (and that “I got mine, fuck you” mentality is something of a republican characteristic, at that).



The difference primarily being that many of the people we are talking about who came here legally basically won the political version of a coin toss. If you flee from Cuba, fine, come in. If you flee from Mexico, fuckin' illegals takin our jobs. It's not merit based, it's just political luck. So it's not just a matter of I earned mine and you should too (like the student loans), it is ya, as you say, "I got mine, fuck you". I understand that attitude, it's just like, the worst sort of attitude. It would be basically at odds with the teachings of any major moral code since before christ.


----------



## Andromalia

Closing the door after oneself is a common strategy when discussing individual scales.
You had a place built in city X? Then you become an opponent to any further building because it would devalue your property.
You got promoted to manager from employee pool X ? You then make sure none of them is promoted again, because then they become your competition.
Etc.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

In my 30+ years of life, most of which has been in Texas, I can count on one hand the amount of Hispanic people I've met who are, or have voted, Democrat.

And based on what I've seen online, the overwhelming majority not like nor accept the term "LatinX".


----------



## narad

Carrion Rocket said:


> In my 30+ years of life, most of which has been in Texas, I can count on one hand the amount of Hispanic people I've met who are, or have voted, Democrat.
> 
> And based on what I've seen online, the overwhelming majority not like nor accept the term "LatinX".


Ya, I mean, me either, but that's why there's polling. Most Hispanics vote democrat and don't care about Latinx.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Every complaint about "LatinX" I've heard in person either began or ended with "woke" being also complained about.


----------



## CanserDYI

Why are people capitalizing the X? Just to highlight it? Genuinely curious as I usually just type Latinx.


----------



## SpaceDock

I was just making a dumb joke about LatinX, but I think it does highlight some of the ridiculousness in the Democratic approach in the last decade to lose what should be winning messages, they are better for personal freedom, monetary policy, and what affects middle to lower income voters.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

SpaceDock said:


> I was just making a dumb joke about LatinX, but I think it does highlight some of the ridiculousness in the Democratic approach in the last decade to lose what should be winning messages, they are better for personal freedom, monetary policy, and what affects middle to lower income voters.



Psshh, as if any of that shit matters to these folks.

You're just never going to make traction with these folks unless you water down the message so much. 

I'm sick of catering to religious zealot ammo-sexuals with a loose grasp on reality and a permanent bone to pick. 

If they want to vote away their money and freedom, let them. 

I rather lose some folks to the GOP than make the Democratic Party any more right wing than it already is. 

The Dems trying so hard to be less progressive has gotten us into the Hellscape we're already in.


----------



## tedtan

spudmunkey said:


> I think @narad's specific verbiage of "there are coalitions of" was specifically meant to indicate that it's groups _within_ the all-encompassing group of "latinos/hispanics", and purposefully meant to note that some groups think different than others. Maybe I misread it, but I took it exactly you're explaining.


I didn’t mean to attribute the idea to narad, I was just elaborating on the point he made.




narad said:


> The difference primarily being that many of the people we are talking about who came here legally basically won the political version of a coin toss. If you flee from Cuba, fine, come in. If you flee from Mexico, fuckin' illegals takin our jobs. It's not merit based, it's just political luck. So it's not just a matter of I earned mine and you should too (like the student loans), it is ya, as you say, "I got mine, fuck you". I understand that attitude, it's just like, the worst sort of attitude. It would be basically at odds with the teachings of any major moral code since before christ.


Here racism wasn’t the best term. I should have said discrimination within the group based on differences like country of birth, religion, etc.


----------



## AMOS

MaxOfMetal said:


> The Dems trying so hard to be less progressive has gotten us into the Hellscape we're already in.


How do you plan on being appealing to Independents? Are you willing to have your party become exclusively progressive? Then why not break away from the Democratic party instead of hijacking it? There are still moderates and some old fashioned Democrats left, especially down south. You either cater, or lose them to the GOP, because they'll have no place left to go if you go full Seattle on them.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> How do you plan on being appealing to Independents? Are you willing to have your party become exclusively progressive? Then why not break away from the Democratic party instead of hijacking it? There are still moderates and some old fashioned Democrats left, especially down south. You either cater, or lose them to the GOP, because they'll have no place left to go if you go full Seattle on them.



Because outside the crazy RWNJ world you live in, what you think of as "moderate" is actually fairly far right. 

There's no middle ground to be had with folks who are so vehemently anti-progress on just about every issue. 

We've tried the whole "meeting in the middle" and it's only driven things further right and absolutely insane. 

Make no mistake, your politics are dying. Maybe not as quickly as to make anyone our ages lives' better, but generationally the outlook isn't bad. 

Now go have a meltdown about CRT, gays, LIBTARDS, and cities that you're never going to visit.


----------



## AMOS

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because outside the crazy RWNJ world you live in, what you think of as "moderate" is actually fairly far right.
> 
> There's no middle ground to be had with folks who are so vehemently anti-progress on just about every issue.
> 
> We've tried the whole "meeting in the middle" and it's only driven things further right and absolutely insane.
> 
> Make no mistake, your politics are dying. Maybe not as quickly as to make anyone our ages lives' better, but generationally the outlook isn't bad.
> 
> Now go have a meltdown about CRT, gays, LIBTARDS, and cities that you're never going to visit.


See? I ask a simple question and you respond with personal attacks and typical progressive "you suck" instead of answering the question. My politics are simple, whatever you decide your personal freedoms are should be honored and protected. I have nothing against gays and immigrants. My oldest niece is gay, I went to her wedding and I wish her well. You're the party that melts down over people not buying into your progressive agenda's. Resulting in personal attacks because people think differently than you.

Europe has countries with 6-12 political parties and it seems to work for them. So why not form your own progressive party and keep your politics within that instead of demonizing the rest of the planet for keeping their traditional values close to their heart? Let's see if you can answer that without making it all about me like you just did. I don't think it's possible because you're like Stalinist Authoritarians that want to absorb the whole planet into your ideals whether they approve of them or not. You're about collectives, not individuals.


----------



## AMOS

MaxOfMetal said:


> Because outside the crazy RWNJ world you live in, what you think of as "moderate" is actually fairly far right.
> 
> There's no middle ground to be had with folks who are so vehemently anti-progress on just about every issue.
> 
> We've tried the whole "meeting in the middle" and it's only driven things further right and absolutely insane.
> 
> Make no mistake, your politics are dying. Maybe not as quickly as to make anyone our ages lives' better, but generationally the outlook isn't bad.
> 
> Now go have a meltdown about CRT, gays, LIBTARDS, and cities that you're never going to visit.


You know, being a moderator you really should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many hate this website.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> See? I ask a simple question and you respond with personal attacks and typical progressive "you suck" instead of answering the question. My politics are simple, whatever you decide your personal freedoms are should be honored and protected. I have nothing against gays and immigrants. My oldest niece is gay, I went to her wedding and I wish her well. You're the party that melts down over people not buying into your progressive agenda's. Resulting in personal attacks because people think differently than you.
> 
> Europe has countries with 6-12 political parties and it seems to work for them. So why not form your own progressive party and keep your politics within that instead of demonizing the rest of the planet for keeping their traditional values close to their heart? Let's see if you can answer that without making it all about me like you just did. I don't think it's possible because you're like Stalinist Authoritarians that want to absorb the whole planet into your ideals whether they approve of them or not. You're about collectives, not individuals.


You should know better than us independent voices are hardly heard here in the United states and we are _forced _to use the Democratic party as our voice. None of us want to be associated with the weird centrist libs that occupy the Democratic party at the moment any more than you do.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> See? I ask a simple question and you respond with personal attacks and typical progressive "you suck" instead of answering the question. My politics are simple, whatever you decide your personal freedoms are should be honored and protected. I have nothing against gays and immigrants. My oldest niece is gay, I went to her wedding and I wish her well. You're the party that melts down over people not buying into your progressive agenda's. Resulting in personal attacks because people think differently than you.
> 
> Europe has countries with 6-12 political parties and it seems to work for them. So why not form your own progressive party and keep your politics within that instead of demonizing the rest of the planet for keeping their traditional values close to their heart? Let's see if you can answer that without making it all about me like you just did. I don't think it's possible because you're like Stalinist Authoritarians that want to absorb the whole planet into your ideals whether they approve of them or not. You're about collectives, not individuals.



Your attacks are little more than the death-rattles of your tired and failed ideologies.

They're neither original or grounded in any sense of reality, just clippings from the abyss of right wing propaganda.

You lash out because you're frustrated. It's okay. I would be too if I always thought I was under attack.

But I promise it'll get better, whether you like it or not.



AMOS said:


> You know, being a moderator you really should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many hate this website.



As a human being, you should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many people hate your politics.


----------



## AMOS

MaxOfMetal said:


> Your attacks are little more than the death-rattles of your tired and failed ideologies.
> 
> They're neither original or grounded in any sense of reality, just clippings from the abyss of right wing propaganda.
> 
> You lash out because you're frustrated. It's okay. I would be too if I always thought I was under attack.
> 
> But I promise it'll get better, whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> As a human being, you should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many people hate your politics.


I disagree with RINO's and the modern GOP completely. I feel the Constitution represents all of us equally regardless of what our beliefs are. Progressivism didn't exist when it was written, so you're the new comers here, not me. When was it that you offered to meet us in the middle? The last President that actually united us was Reagan, and before him JFK, and I've seen the progressives here attack them as well. Go ahead and hate my politics, that's a testament to your platform. I don't hate yours, I just strongly disagree with them. Keep pointing those fingers at me, that's another testament to your platform. Because other than criticism for your opponents, you don't have one. Your extreme left supporters will dwindle just like they are in Europe. Sweden, France and many others are seeing the error in their ways and are swinging more to the right.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> I disagree with RINO's and the modern GOP completely. I feel the Constitution represents all of us equally regardless of what our beliefs are. Progressivism didn't exist when it was written, so you're the new comers here, not me. When was it that you offered to meet us in the middle? The last President that actually united us was Reagan, and before him JFK, and I've seen the progressives here attack them as well. Go ahead and hate my politics, that's a testament to your platform. I don't hate yours, I just strongly disagree with them. Keep pointing those fingers at me, that's another testament to your platform. Because other than criticism for your opponents, you don't have one. Your extreme left supporters will dwindle just like they are in Europe. Sweden, France and many others are seeing the error in their ways and are swinging more to the right.


----------



## Crungy

I don't know how to take someone seriously when they say something like "so many hate this website", about a niche web forum dedicated to 7 string guitars and talking about "rinos" when parroting phrases from trump, who is the true RINO as far as I'm concerned. He's flirted enough on both sides to the point where you can't say he's a dyed in the wool republican. The man is a con.


----------



## narad

CanserDYI said:


> Why are people capitalizing the X? Just to highlight it? Genuinely curious as I usually just type Latinx.



I do that unconsciously because I keep thinking of "Weapon X"


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> You know, being a moderator you really should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many hate this website.



"So many hate " SSO because the moderator is too hot-headed when it comes to addressing the same exhausted arguments by the like 3 hard right leaning posters in a democratic thread of a politics sections of a guitar forum? lol. There aren't even "so many" people who care at all about talking politics on a guitar forum. Your rigtalk is showing.


----------



## Crungy

narad said:


> I do that unconsciously because I keep thinking of "Weapon X"


Which makes me think


----------



## Ralyks

Anyway, Cortez Masto kept Nevada, so the Dems hold the Senate regardless of Georgia. And if theres any sense of hope left in this dark world, we won't be on the timeline that has Herschel Walker as a senator.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> See? I ask a simple question and you respond with personal attacks and typical progressive "you suck" instead of answering the question. My politics are simple, whatever you decide your personal freedoms are should be honored and protected. I have nothing against gays and immigrants. My oldest niece is gay, I went to her wedding and I wish her well. You're the party that melts down over people not buying into your progressive agenda's. Resulting in personal attacks because people think differently than you.
> 
> Europe has countries with 6-12 political parties and it seems to work for them. So why not form your own progressive party and keep your politics within that instead of demonizing the rest of the planet for keeping their traditional values close to their heart? Let's see if you can answer that without making it all about me like you just did. I don't think it's possible because you're like Stalinist Authoritarians that want to absorb the whole planet into your ideals whether they approve of them or not. You're about collectives, not individuals.



What is the “progressive agenda”? 

Aside from:

Affordable Access to education

Affordable access to medical care

Leaving LGBTQ/Minority people alone, and not passing bills that disadvantage them

Keeping Politicians out of personal matters like medical decisions

Freedom of religion, maintaining that the IS has no state-sponsored religion thus treating all equally

Fixing the economic issues that wildly inappropriate corporate tax cuts create. Tax cuts for individuals earning below $1.000.000/yr I can get behind. The largest companies in the SP500 don’t need tax breaks in one of the strongest economy. 

“Leaving people alone and helping the less fortunate” actually sounds pretty conservative when it isn’t coming from a tv talking head. 



AMOS said:


> You know, being a moderator you really should consider being more level headed and less biased. That's why so many hate this website.



There’s like 8 people who read this website. And a million sites where people can repeat Fox News talking points with zero oversight. 

So what, one website doesn’t turn into an echo chamber because we request people cite sources? 




AMOS said:


> I disagree with RINO's and the modern GOP completely. I feel the Constitution represents all of us equally regardless of what our beliefs are. Progressivism didn't exist when it was written, so you're the new comers here, not me. When was it that you offered to meet us in the middle? The last President that actually united us was Reagan, and before him JFK, and I've seen the progressives here attack them as well. Go ahead and hate my politics, that's a testament to your platform. I don't hate yours, I just strongly disagree with them. Keep pointing those fingers at me, that's another testament to your platform. Because other than criticism for your opponents, you don't have one. Your extreme left supporters will dwindle just like they are in Europe. Sweden, France and many others are seeing the error in their ways and are swinging more to the right.



You haven’t listed a political position that “republicans support” that you support. That is likely where you’re seeing people disagree with you. 

On the constitution: 
The same constitution that labeled one race as 3/5 of a person? 

The same constitution that was designed to be modified by future generations by allowing the senate and congress to make majority vote changes?

The one which even when it was being written also included some founding fathers like Jefferson who felt it should automatically be up for update every 20 or so years? 

New Republic Article from 2008
University of Illinois Article from 2007


----------



## Randy

Would like to point out "progressive" became a slur after Democrats started making significant gains running on things like affordable healthcare and living wages. 

There's a reason political rivals specifically target the word "progressive"; because it was a label to specifically invoke populist, pro-middle class policies that poll well among all major demographics. Yet the "other side" don't want to talk about those policies because those are lobbies that pay their way, so instead they defame "progressives" to not have an actual discussion on the issues.


----------



## wankerness

Randy said:


> I've never met a Cuban Democrat. And like 50/50 Puerto Rican Democrats.


One of my coworkers is a cuban (gen z) with most of his relatives down in Miami. He is pretty liberal as are his parents, but he says that a lot of his relatives just buy into the super-conservative talk radio aimed squarely at latinos down there. Guess they basically just have entire right-wing propaganda radio stations set up down there telling them all that democrats = socialism which is an effective fear tactic on a population that were generally fleeing a communist regime. But he says it's mostly just lack of education and lack of any opposing viewpoints. The democrats' complete inability to get mainstream propaganda networks ala Fox News/Newsmax/OAN/basically all AM radio (and now CNN, post being bought out by the conservative wacko that wants to turn it into another Fox) is really a great example of how the conservatives have been effectively playing the long game.


----------



## wankerness

SpaceDock said:


> I think all the Latinos just vote Republican because the Democrats keep calling them LatinX


That's absolutely the reason with some of them. Others of them like it. I think the whole thing was a gigantic well-intention mistake, before it was introduced there was no divisiveness and it really annoys the hell out of a ton of people that formerly (and may still) leaned democrat.


----------



## narad

Well I mean...it was a term born to suit basically the non-gender-binary and hispanic intersection. If you go and poll some 50 year old hispanic guy and ask him how he feels about it, you're like to get the same sort of response you'd get asking some 50 year old white guy if he's on board with ze/zhem or whatever. It's not a surprise that it confuses the mainstream, just as all sorts of non-gender-binary concepts do.


----------



## wankerness

narad said:


> Well I mean...it was a term born to suit basically the non-gender-binary and hispanic intersection. If you go and poll some 50 year old hispanic guy and ask him how he feels about it, you're like to get the same sort of response you'd get asking some 50 year old white guy if he's on board with ze/zhem or whatever. It's not a surprise that it confuses the mainstream, just as all sorts of non-gender-binary concepts do.


It's not really comparable to that since it's basically saying "nope, your language is wrong." It's not like the English style of inclusivity where you have additional tacked on pronouns and you get the old cranks going "I'm not adding those words to my vocabulary, use normal pronouns!!", it's more easily interpreted as liberals telling latinos "don't use that basic word for yourselves that you've always used cause it's non-inclusive." And considering the entire language is based around binary male/female gender concepts it's a pretty ridiculous conceit anyway. I haven't looked into it - do the LATINX zealots also suggest removing el/la and replacing every single noun/adjective's last letter with an X to avoid binary gender concepts?? I doubt it, but I'm often surprised by the outer rim of crazy with some of those types.

It would be more comparable if politicians started referring to the population of white people as WITE PEOPLX or something, trying to replace a basic word. But worse, since it would also be attacking the fundamental construction of the language.

Again I know plenty of people aren't bothered by it at all, appreciate it, or just think it's silly and harmless. But it really does feel scoldy to some, especially when it's primarily used by non-latino people. And considering latinos trend more religious/socially conservative than white people, it seems like a bad idea to alienate all but the most progressive of them if you don't want to lose a gigantic voter bloc. Just ditch the term and you would barely lose anyone. Take the loss, IMO. I think it's almost as big of a misfire as that briefly used defund the police slogan that's become far more of an anti-progressive rallying cry than it ever was in its original intended usage.


----------



## RevDrucifer

wankerness said:


> One of my coworkers is a cuban (gen z) with most of his relatives down in Miami. He is pretty liberal as are his parents, but he says that a lot of his relatives just buy into the super-conservative talk radio aimed squarely at latinos down there. Guess they basically just have entire right-wing propaganda radio stations set up down there telling them all that democrats = socialism which is an effective fear tactic on a population that were generally fleeing a communist regime. But he says it's mostly just lack of education and lack of any opposing viewpoints. The democrats' complete inability to get mainstream propaganda networks ala Fox News/Newsmax/OAN/basically all AM radio (and now CNN, post being bought out by the conservative wacko that wants to turn it into another Fox) is really a great example of how the conservatives have been effectively playing the long game.



Yeah, it’s definitely interesting how things change the further south of Miami you go. Within Miami you’ll certainly find a ton of Cubans/hispanics who vote left, but once you drop into the farm land there’s a hard divide. And it really does feel like you’re in a whole different world once you drive out of Miami and into the farm territory, like stepping back in time a few decades. 

Back when my ex-wife was doing the animal rights activism, I’d tag along so I could see some things for myself. There was one day we started in Wynwood, which is the art district of Miami; a beautiful city full of awesome murals and so much culture mixed together that it really gives you an optimistic outlook when you see the awesomeness that can occur when people are able to express their creativity within the city. And the food!! Then we went down to Hialeah to this place called Mary’s Ranch where you pick out the pig you want and they slaughter it right there. Same county, but the complete opposite feeling of being in Miami. My employee who grew up and still lives in that area would tell me, “Andrew, be careful down there, you guys piss off the wrong people and they’ll feed you to the pigs. It’s not like Miami”

And like I said, all Rubio’s ads were hitting on that particular voter base really hard. It would have done the Dems some good to maybe focus on things like “We’re trying to make this country more open to expressing your culture freely, so your children and grandchildren don’t face the same exclusion you felt when you first came here.” I really think that alone would have hit home with many of them because it’s the main reason why they take the stance of “I had to fight to make something of myself here so fuck everyone else”.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

No one is not voting for a particular side because of this shit. None. Zero.

It's just a bad faith excuse.

Saying that a large group of people just don't understand the message of one of two giant political parties that have been around for ages is far more patronizing.

I also think it's fucking stupid to try and trick them into voting blue. They're just very conservative, it is what it is. They'll always be conservative, and vote in that direction because there are a handful of single issues that are toxic to progress.

Again, making the left head far right just for votes is not the great idea folks think it is.

Generationally, they'll move left as their children and children's children naturally realize that the right is full of shit.

There will always be folks who think guns are more important than school lunches, or limiting abortion access is more important than cheaper prescription drugs, or that immigration should be more limited vs. cleaner air. You're not going to magically change these folks' minds. You win the battles you can, and you hope the other side trips over their dick hard enough that more people go to vote.


----------



## bostjan

So democrats, if you want to neutralize the Trump threat, which you must see as an existential threat to you in the USA, the time to mobilize is now, and the urgency is full throttle. I don't think exposing him or whatever is going to do jack shit. His ardent followers all already know that he's a criminal, and they don't care, because they've reached the point where he is the means to an end for them. The only way to keep him from ruining everyone's day again is to get him banned from holding public office. If that, for whatever reason, is deemed impossible, then that's essentially going to be defeat.

Pence has a book coming out tomorrow. No one has read it yet, but it is rumoured to have some very unkind things to say about Trump. There are already tons of negative reviews out there by people who admittedly hadn't read it yet. They heard the rumours, and decided that they didn't like that, and couldn't help but log into literary websites and post reviews. As of today, for all we know, the book could be 200 pages of flattering verbal fellatio for Trump. Even if it's the opposite of that, it's not like it's going to make any difference.


----------



## Glades

MaxOfMetal said:


> Generationally, they'll move left as their children and children's children naturally realize that the right is full of shit.


I don’t think this is true. I think generations, as they become older will be more conservative. The only constant across the board is that young people tend to be more progressive and older people more conservative.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> I don’t think this is true. I think generations, as they become older will be more conservative. The only constant across the board is that young people tend to be more progressive and older people more conservative.



You're right. No progress has been made generationally or will happen. 

Now that that's settled, I can go home to my barefoot wife who isn't allowed to vote, beat my slaves, and report my neighbor for sodomy. 

Nope. No progress ever. 

I get that you're programmed to disagree because, but at least try sometimes.


----------



## tedtan

Trump and his candidates didn’t do well in the 2018 mid term election, the 2020 election, or the mid term last week. Now Trump is poised to announce that he is running for POTUS in 2024.

At this point, the GOP has enough proof that Trump is bad for them and their chances of winning that he won’t win the primary, leaving Trump to run as an independent. If it goes down this way, that will split the republican vote between the GOP candidate and Trump, making for a relatively easy win for the democrats.

The key is making sure Trump can’t/doesn’t win the GOP primary.


----------



## wankerness

tedtan said:


> Trump and his candidates didn’t do well in the 2018 mid term election, the 2020 election, or the mid term last week. Now Trump is poised to announce that he is running for POTUS in 2024.
> 
> At this point, the GOP has enough proof that Trump is bad for them and their chances of winning that he won’t win the primary, leaving Trump to run as an independent. If it goes down this way, that will split the republican vote between the GOP candidate and Trump, making for a relatively easy win for the democrats.
> 
> The key is making sure Trump can’t/doesn’t win the GOP primary.


My ideal scenario is Trump stays out of jail and runs as a loudmouth third party spoiler candidate so the diehard followers either vote for him or stay home. Worst case scenario would be him and Desantis teaming up (seems like the odds of this are almost nonexistent, but it would still be the nightmare scenario). Trump winning the nomination would be bad, but I think he'd get trounced even harder than last time even if he was the nominee and there wasn't a spoiler candidate.

Amusingly, in the last week, the two houses I drive past every day that had HUGE trump signs in their lawn and flags all over with Trump 2024 on them took EVERYTHING down. So it seems like maybe it's not going to ultimately be that hard to get all those crazies to turn on Trump and join whatever cause the right wing takes up, but who knows. I hold out hope that Desantis's incredible lack of charisma will sink him. I just am terrified of what terrible candidate the dems will likely put forth.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> Well I mean...it was a term born to suit basically the non-gender-binary and hispanic intersection. If you go and poll some 50 year old hispanic guy and ask him how he feels about it, you're like to get the same sort of response you'd get asking some 50 year old white guy if he's on board with ze/zhem or whatever. It's not a surprise that it confuses the mainstream, just as all sorts of non-gender-binary concepts do.


Yeah, I don't buy this either. 

Spanish has gendered nouns. English doesn't. "The Latino vote," if you want to be technically accurate, is how _men_ of Latin-American decent vote. Using it as a catch-all to also include the Latina vote, how women of Latin-American decent vote, is a bit problematic. It has nothing to do with supporting nonbinary rights, and everything to do with the fact that verb tense in Spanish defaults to masculine.


----------



## wankerness

MaxOfMetal said:


> Saying that a large group of people just don't understand the message of one of two giant political parties that have been around for ages is far more patronizing.


I think a large percentage of people of every color and creed don't understand the message of EITHER political party. Probably even a majority of them. I see it daily with the cavalcade of dipshits that still think Ron Johnson is going to fight for their rights, when really all he's ever done is get tax breaks that benefit his corporations while doing nothing for the working class.


MaxOfMetal said:


> I also think it's fucking stupid to try and trick them into voting blue. They're just very conservative, it is what it is. They'll always be conservative, and vote in that direction because there are a handful of single issues that are toxic to progress.
> 
> Again, making the left head far right just for votes is not the great idea folks think it is.


I think there's absolutely a segment of hispanic voters that are tired of the Latrinx thing and I think that it might have helped with their well-documented shift to the right over the last few years. It might not be a large segment, but I bet it's comparable to the segment of white people that were whipped into a frenzy over say, litterboxes in classrooms, which is a not-insignificant number of people and is completely bullshit, as opposed to a kind of well-intentioned idea that usually comes off as virtue signaling. Not to mention I regularly hear about (from the standard anecdotal stories they like running oN NYT or whatever) latino voters that are sick of the democrats just assuming they'll vote for them, and not doing any work to appeal to them. THAT I don't think is a problem that is solved by the democrats "becoming more right." I don't think they should. I just think they should make clear what they're doing for the community over republicans as opposed to the current strategy from some Democratic areas, which seems to be just sort of assuming they'll figure it out cause hey, everyone knows Republicans are racists, right?

I think the democrats should ditch the latinx thing and also do more outreach with actual targeted spanish-language messaging. They're getting destroyed in Florida partly due to the huge influx of conservative propaganda that's broadcasting in Spanish.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Generationally, they'll move left as their children and children's children naturally realize that the right is full of shit.
> 
> There will always be folks who think guns are more important than school lunches, or limiting abortion access is more important than cheaper prescription drugs, or that immigration should be more limited vs. cleaner air. You're not going to magically change these folks' minds. You win the battles you can, and you hope the other side trips over their dick hard enough that more people go to vote.


I'm not sure about the generational shift. I mean, there's definitely one going right now between the millennials/gen z and the older ones. But around here at least I'm definitely seeing the fallout in the schools of the fact that most of the well-to-do liberals I know either don't have kids or waited till they were 35 and now have like one kid, while the schools are loaded with virulent redneck kids since most of them seem to have at least two siblings since the parents got started right after high school. So I think while Millennials are reliably moving left and the current 20-somethings sure are, that sharp disparity in political affiliation of parents is going to balance it out somewhat. I can tell you all the virulent little jerks that drive lifted pickup trucks to high school every day around here are not going to be any more liberal than their parents. I'm guessing few of those crazy anti-mask parents that took over so many school boards around here were parents of children that could be described as anything other than nasty little reflections of them. Though I'm sure there were probably at least a few kids that were mortified by their parents' behavior and will end up moving far away from home and distancing themselves from anything right wing!

Plus there is that old adage that everyone gets personally more conservative as they age, though I think that's massively overstated. I mean, generally, yes, I kinda believe it and have seen it with some of those in my generation that started out open-minded but turtled up with guns and anti-vaccine rhetoric as soon as they had kids. But, I know a lot of "boomers" who are extremely liberal and always have been. I think you turn into an old crank and get annoyed by new ideas, but you don't totally lose what you used to think and join the other side of the political asile unless you were an idiot to begin with. Or unless you get extremely rich, which is certainly a big motivation for people to turn conservative, and is happening to fewer and fewer lower-class people as time goes on.


----------



## CanserDYI

If a right winger calls something "woke" I'm probably all about it, but what happened to just using the word "Latin"? Actual question, I'm not sure if there is a negative connotation to that way of phrasing it, but I felt we already had a gender neutral word for that?


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> How do you plan on being appealing to Independents? Are you willing to have your party become exclusively progressive? Then why not break away from the Democratic party instead of hijacking it? There are still moderates and some old fashioned Democrats left, especially down south. You either cater, or lose them to the GOP, because they'll have no place left to go if you go full Seattle on them.


If you want a serious answer and aren't fishing here...

...because most "progressive" goals are fairly common sense and our broadly popular. 

I don't know anyone who doesn't want easier access to more affordable healthcare. I don't know anyone who doesn't want to see their kids have the option to go to college and not be saddled with crippling debt. I don't know anyone, even "progressives," who really wants to see large chunks of prime real estate in Florida underwater because we failed to take action on climate change. I don't know anyone who thinks someone working 80 hours a week should be struggling to make ends meet. I don't know anyone who thinks we should do away with Social Security. 

I've always said the biggest split between the progressive and establishment wing of the Democratic party is the latter is more concerned with what _can_ be done, while the former what _should_ be done - it's actually not all that big a split, even if at times it's fairly heated. 

Where you see pushback on the "progressive agenda," it seems to generally come in two forms - religious ("my religion believes life begins at conception, so abortion is murder") or tax-based ("I don't want my taxes to go up so someone _else_ can benefit," even when more often than not the speaker is _actually_ that someone else who would benefit). 

Somehow, though, Fox News has gotten the GOP to see "progressive" as a slur, rather than "we want to make life better tomorrow than it is today."


----------



## Drew

CanserDYI said:


> If a right winger calls something "woke" I'm probably all about it, but what happened to just using the word "Latin"? Actual question, I'm not sure if there is a negative connotation to that way of phrasing it, but I felt we already had a gender neutral word for that?


Kind of calls back to the Roman Empire, doncha think?


----------



## wankerness

CanserDYI said:


> If a right winger calls something "woke" I'm probably all about it, but what happened to just using the word "Latin"? Actual question, I'm not sure if there is a negative connotation to that way of phrasing it, but I felt we already had a gender neutral word for that?


I've NEVER seen the word latin used in place of hispanic or latino as an adjective for people. I don't know that it can't, but I only ever see it in context of the old language. Well, and weirdly I see it with "Latin American", like in an adjective for countries. I dunno. I'm sure there's some reason.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

wankerness said:


> I think a large percentage of people of every color and creed don't understand the message of EITHER political party. Probably even a majority of them. I see it daily with the cavalcade of dipshits that still think Ron Johnson is going to fight for their rights, when really all he's ever done is get tax breaks that benefit his corporations while doing nothing for the working class.
> 
> I think there's absolutely a segment of hispanic voters that are tired of the Latrinx thing and I think that it might have helped with their well-documented shift to the right over the last few years. It might not be a large segment, but I bet it's comparable to the segment of white people that were whipped into a frenzy over say, litterboxes in classrooms, which is a not-insignificant number of people and is completely bullshit, as opposed to a kind of well-intentioned idea that usually comes off as virtue signaling. Not to mention I regularly hear about (from the standard anecdotal stories they like running oN NYT or whatever) latino voters that are sick of the democrats just assuming they'll vote for them, and not doing any work to appeal to them. THAT I don't think is a problem that is solved by the democrats "becoming more right." I don't think they should. I just think they should make clear what they're doing for the community over republicans as opposed to the current strategy from some Democratic areas, which seems to be just sort of assuming they'll figure it out cause hey, everyone knows Republicans are racists, right?
> 
> I think the democrats should ditch the latinx thing and also do more outreach with actual targeted spanish-language messaging. They're getting destroyed in Florida partly due to the huge influx of conservative propaganda that's broadcasting in Spanish.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the generational shift. I mean, there's definitely one going right now between the millennials/gen z and the older ones. But around here at least I'm definitely seeing the fallout in the schools of the fact that most of the well-to-do liberals I know either don't have kids or waited till they were 35 and now have like one kid, while the schools are loaded with virulent redneck kids since most of them seem to have at least two siblings since the parents got started right after high school. So I think while Millennials are reliably moving left and the current 20-somethings sure are, that sharp disparity in political affiliation of parents is going to balance it out somewhat. I can tell you all the virulent little jerks that drive lifted pickup trucks to high school every day around here are not going to be any more liberal than their parents. I'm guessing few of those crazy anti-mask parents that took over so many school boards around here were parents of children that could be described as anything other than nasty little reflections of them. Though I'm sure there were probably at least a few kids that were mortified by their parents' behavior and will end up moving far away from home and distancing themselves from anything right wing!
> 
> Plus there is that old adage that everyone gets personally more conservative as they age, though I think that's massively overstated. I mean, generally, yes, I kinda believe it and have seen it with some of those in my generation that started out open-minded but turtled up with guns and anti-vaccine rhetoric as soon as they had kids. But, I know a lot of "boomers" who are extremely liberal and always have been. I think you turn into an old crank and get annoyed by new ideas, but you don't totally lose what you used to think and join the other side of the political asile unless you were an idiot to begin with. Or unless you get extremely rich, which is certainly a big motivation for people to turn conservative, and is happening to fewer and fewer lower-class people as time goes on.



That's the thing, messaging doesn't matter nearly as much as you think, because that doesn't tend to change individual beliefs as much as folks think it will. 

You can explain how gun control could make us all safer, or that sex education will lead to less abortions, but they don't care because they love their guns and God. 

But folks don't just become right wing zealots as they get older. Sure, they can lose some of the naivity that youth tends to allow, but minus a few setbacks here and there, each generation is getting more progressive. 

I'm in Racine County, I drive by a farm with an effigy of Obama handing from it. I know it seems like everything is shit, but it's not, and it will get better. All this bullshit is the crazies trying their damndest to discourage the changes that are happening. Don't fall for it.


----------



## CanserDYI

Drew said:


> Kind of calls back to the Roman Empire, doncha think?


I mean, you're not wrong, but don't we already say "Latin America" and "Latin Americans"?


----------



## CanserDYI

In other insane news from my state:


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> So democrats, if you want to neutralize the Trump threat, which you must see as an existential threat to you in the USA, the time to mobilize is now, and the urgency is full throttle. I don't think exposing him or whatever is going to do jack shit. His ardent followers all already know that he's a criminal, and they don't care, because they've reached the point where he is the means to an end for them. The only way to keep him from ruining everyone's day again is to get him banned from holding public office. If that, for whatever reason, is deemed impossible, then that's essentially going to be defeat.
> 
> Pence has a book coming out tomorrow. No one has read it yet, but it is rumoured to have some very unkind things to say about Trump. There are already tons of negative reviews out there by people who admittedly hadn't read it yet. They heard the rumours, and decided that they didn't like that, and couldn't help but log into literary websites and post reviews. As of today, for all we know, the book could be 200 pages of flattering verbal fellatio for Trump. Even if it's the opposite of that, it's not like it's going to make any difference.


You mean we have to prop up Pence to trounce Trump? 

Will this is one fine, how ya doin', fine, thank you mess. /Kelly Bundy


wankerness said:


> My ideal scenario is Trump stays out of jail and runs as a loudmouth third party spoiler candidate so the diehard followers either vote for him or stay home. Worst case scenario would be him and Desantis teaming up (seems like the odds of this are almost nonexistent, but it would still be the nightmare scenario). Trump winning the nomination would be bad, but I think he'd get trounced even harder than last time even if he was the nominee and there wasn't a spoiler candidate.
> 
> Amusingly, in the last week, the two houses I drive past every day that had HUGE trump signs in their lawn and flags all over with Trump 2024 on them took EVERYTHING down. So it seems like maybe it's not going to ultimately be that hard to get all those crazies to turn on Trump and join whatever cause the right wing takes up, but who knows. I hold out hope that Desantis's incredible lack of charisma will sink him. I just am terrified of what terrible candidate the dems will likely put forth.


Man, if Trump were a even slightly wiser man, he'd have seen that Desantis is taking his rhetoric and tempering it with a modicum of control and would have hopped on board with him by now. The two together would be an unstoppable force for degrading society on the whole, and there'd be fuck-all the rest of the country could do to stop them if their people came together. Luckily for us, Trump is not a wiser man, and he'll likely bury himself in his own stupidity while Desantis continues his climb.

As for the Democrats? It'll either be Biden or Harris. Neither of which does much more than make me try to hold back the gag reflex while voting for them, which fits the Democrat MO to an absurd degree.


----------



## wankerness

nightflameauto said:


> You mean we have to prop up Pence to trounce Trump?
> 
> Will this is one fine, how ya doin', fine, thank you mess. /Kelly Bundy
> 
> Man, if Trump were a even slightly wiser man, he'd have seen that Desantis is taking his rhetoric and tempering it with a modicum of control and would have hopped on board with him by now. The two together would be an unstoppable force for degrading society on the whole, and there'd be fuck-all the rest of the country could do to stop them if their people came together. Luckily for us, Trump is not a wiser man, and he'll likely bury himself in his own stupidity while Desantis continues his climb.
> 
> As for the Democrats? It'll either be Biden or Harris. Neither of which does much more than make me try to hold back the gag reflex while voting for them, which fits the Democrat MO to an absurd degree.


I fully anticipate Biden to be wayyyy too doddering to even handle the office in another two years. But, I'd still take zombie Biden over Harris - she's absolutely radioactive as a candidate. She enrages conservatives since she's a black woman, and I've NEVER heard of anyone that was enthusiastic about her on the left. She seems to be heavily marginalized within her own party, and she was at the bottom of most peoples' lists during the last round of primaries. I would think she'd be an even more guaranteed-to-lose candidate than Hillary Clinton (I hope I don't give them any ideas...).

Ideally they'd go with someone pretty noncontroversial and with a generally likable persona. Not sure who they really have at this point like that who's not tied up in some other elected office. Buttigieg?

I think the best candidate they could possibly run in terms of mass appeal and not turning off swathes of voters for some stupid reason (ex, having talked about defunding the police or having some soundbite about how the USA sucks bigtime) would be Mark Kelly. Not sure if he'd do it, considering he just got elected to the senate. But the guy's a frickin astronaut AND Veteran and will be a spry (ha!) 60 years old in 2024. I really like what I've seen of Fetterman and Pritzker, too.


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> I mean, you're not wrong, but don't we already say "Latin America" and "Latin Americans"?


Latin America is kind of that. The term "Latino" or "Latina" is a contraction of latinamericano/latinamericana - 

But "Latin America" is, or at least should be a controversial term. The term originates from the time when France was desperately trying to take over Mexico by military force, a couple decades after their independence from Spain. Justifying that France was the rightful continuation of the Roman Empire, so it somehow "deserved" to own Mexico as a colony. In order to try to gain some sentiment among the people, they introduced the term, and, for reasons mostly unknown, the term actually took off, whereas the invasion was booted out after less than a decade.

I think it's a silly term, too, besides being rooted in colonialism. Like, what about Belize? Is it part of Latin America? English is the official language, and it's not derived from Latin.

If I had my way, we'd just use more appropriate terms that generate less confusion further down the line.



nightflameauto said:


> You mean we have to prop up Pence to trounce Trump?
> 
> Will this is one fine, how ya doin', fine, thank you mess. /Kelly Bundy



Huh? Hell no. Fuck Pence. I'm saying that Trump's core doesn't care about facts at all. Reviewing a book that no one has read yet and saying it is full of lies is just the perfect example of that.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> I fully anticipate Biden to be wayyyy too doddering to even handle the office in another two years. But, I'd still take zombie Biden over Harris - she's absolutely radioactive as a candidate. She enrages conservatives since she's a black woman, and I've NEVER heard of anyone that was enthusiastic about her on the left. She seems to be heavily marginalized within her own party, and she was at the bottom of most peoples' lists during the last round of primaries. I would think she'd be an even more guaranteed-to-lose candidate than Hillary Clinton (I hope I don't give them any ideas...).
> 
> Ideally they'd go with someone pretty noncontroversial and with a generally likable persona. Not sure who they really have at this point like that who's not tied up in some other elected office. Buttigieg?
> 
> I think the best candidate they could possibly run in terms of mass appeal and not turning off swathes of voters for some stupid reason (ex, having talked about defunding the police or having some soundbite about how the USA sucks bigtime) would be Mark Kelly. Not sure if he'd do it, considering he just got elected to the senate. But the guy's a frickin astronaut AND Veteran and will be a spry (ha!) 60 years old in 2024. I really like what I've seen of Fetterman and Pritzker, too.


I was never much of a fan of Harris, but the sentence "She enrages conservatives since she's a black woman" is a pretty compelling argument to convert.

I don't think that the majority of Trump's base would have a problem voting for a black woman if, say Trump ended up in prison and endorsed her from behind bars.

But things are kind of setting up for 2024 to be another nasty primary season. As democrats grapple with Biden and republicans come to grips with the fact that Trump's issues are not only worse than 2020 but now all out in the open more (although, like I said before, people will forget about Jan 6th and forget about covid and forget about the 4 years straight of a new controversy every week), it could lead into an election where everything is just super unpredictable, just like the crazy primaries did for 2016.

The only thing that's really for sure right now is that the USA is more polarized and more dangerously precarious than it has been since the 1860's.


----------



## Mathemagician

Glades said:


> I don’t think this is true. I think generations, as they become older will be more conservative. The only constant across the board is that young people tend to be more progressive and older people more conservative.



Anecdotally most who I know that vote progressive under about age 40 became more progressive as they got older & made more money. 

A lot of people don’t forget where they came from, and watching less fortunate people struggle doesn’t make them feel “more accomplished” than others. 

I don’t ever want kids for example, however I still think the child tax credit should be higher, and that there should be more affordable year round child care accessible to all. 

That’s not some wild hippy agenda, and it would likely resonate with plenty of conservatives who have/want big families. 

But in the US it would get politicized into another directional argument instead of “hey yeah better childcare would be great for our citizens of all stripes.”

A reasonable worldview is to not get mad when “someone else gets something I won’t use”. I just don’t like seeing families struggle.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Huh? Hell no. Fuck Pence. I'm saying that Trump's core doesn't care about facts at all. Reviewing a book that no one has read yet and saying it is full of lies is just the perfect example of that.


Somewhere my brain skipped a few beats and landed on, "get Pence's word out there by supporting the book the Trumpers are already lambasting." Don't mind me. My mind is mush after a weekend of orchestral scoring and general fuckery.

Subject switch:
I'm married, but am in a marriage where both people don't want children. That said, we both think it's spectacularly nearsighted of folks to think holding families down is a positive way to move forward as a nation. We want the best for people raising kids, AND we want those kids to get a better education than what we offer in public schools today. We're tired of watching our nation's children slip on the world-scale just because people don't want to "waste money" on education. For fuck sake, that's our future you're stealing from, dumbasses. Even if they ain't your kids.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I have a hard time accepting the whole "Latinx" thing, but that's largely because I have a BA in Spanish so it's just super weird to see, haha. Honestly, I think people should just stick with that as a reason for being opposed to it, because none of the linguistic arguments people are making against it really hold much water.

Yes, Spanish has grammatical gender, and it is binary. Guess what? English used to, too. We had gendered nouns, complete with gendered definite articles. We don't anymore, because languages change over time for a variety of reasons. It's what they do. There is no avoiding it.

There's even precedent among Romance languages with regards to shifts in grammatical gender. Latin had three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), but now _most_ of the Romance languages that came from it only have two.

I'm not saying Spanish should or will change how it genders its nouns, of course. Just that we shouldn't use "It has binary grammatical gender (in its current state)" to shut down any conversation about it.

One interesting thing I've seen done to promote inclusivity in Spanish was from a Spanish streamer I watch (Spanish-speaking _and_ Spanish from Spain). When he addresses his followers in tweets, he uses "[email protected]" instead of "vosotoros" or "vosotras." Obviously there's no way to convey that same concept in _spoken _Spanish, and it doesn't include non-binary people, but... it's something, and I thought it was interesting.


...And all of that isn't even touching on grammatical gender not even being purely a masculine/feminine thing. Some languages also distinguish based on things like animacy/inanimacy or human/non-human. I've been studying isiZulu just for funsies, and it has FIFTEEN noun classes, _none _of which have anything to do with masculine or feminine. I know that's a bit of a tangent, but I love the topic and once I get rolling it's hard to stop myself, haha.


Side note for Drew: gender has no bearing on verb tense in Spanish, unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you mean by "verb tense defaults to masculine." Verb _conjugation _is determined by gender (EDIT: Nope!), number, and tense (which itself is further determined by mood and aspect). I can see how it could be said that the gender portion of conjugation defaults to masculine, but _tense _does not.

EDIT: Now that I think about it-- and should have thought about it in the first place, lol --gender doesn't affect verb conjugation, either. The verb will be conjugated the same whether it was done by el or ella. Gender affects nouns, articles, pronouns, and adjectives.


----------



## wankerness

Isn't vosotros basically only used in Spain? That was what they always taught us in spanish class, anyway (don't use this word/conjugation unless you're in spain or everyone will look at you funny for not just saying Ustedes!!)

I just thought of another person I think might be a decent presidential candidate - Gretchen Whitmer. She might be an even better counter to Desantis than a manly man already would be.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

wankerness said:


> Isn't vosotros basically only used in Spain? That was what they always taught us in spanish class, anyway (don't use this word/conjugation unless you're in spain or everyone will look at you funny for not just saying Ustedes!!)



Yeah, haha. Most of my professors early on were from South America, so I never got into the habit of using "vosotros." When I eventually had some profs who used the Spanish variety of... erm... Spanish (all of whom were Americans whose first language was English, interestingly), I had to remind myself of the 2nd person plural conjugations because I never use them myself, lol.

That said, "@" could be used in similar constructions that do exist in all varieties of Spanish, like nosotros or ellos. I don't think it'll ever really catch on in any meaningful way, but from a linguistic viewpoint it was still cool to see.


----------



## ArtDecade

This thread is all over the place. Dig.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I know plenty of latinx people who use latinx. Obviously we all also know counter examples. 

Ultimately this is a really stupid debate for a bunch of predominately white dudes to be having. Ironically, it is ally culture which informs this perspective of looking for an example of a marginalized individual to tell you what to think/validate what you already think instead of thinking critically and/or simply recognizing when is a good time to stfu.


----------



## LordCashew

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Obviously there's no way to convey that same concept in _spoken _Spanish


vosotrx


----------



## SexHaver420

It makes my gay transgender heart very happy when right wing white supremacist fascist nutjobs lose elections lol


----------



## Mathemagician

Man look. A thread discussing major political and economic topics got derailed by a bunch of people talking about “pronouns”.

Just call people what they asked to be called and move it along. The only issue w/the X is some people’s unwillingness to learn a few new words. 

The earth in burning, we’re all on the same page there right?

The US Supreme Court is actively trying to dismantle basic rights.

I mean half jokingly half serious-



Thankfully the less “based in reality” politicians seem to be losing seats.


----------



## spudmunkey

ArtDecade said:


> Dig.


Mudvayne for President?


----------



## Crungy

spudmunkey said:


> Mudvayne for President?
> View attachment 117098


Fuck yes


----------



## SpaceDock

Kari Lake lost, just leaves Bobo and we got a clean sweep of all the Maga candidates.


----------



## wankerness

SpaceDock said:


> Kari Lake lost, just leaves Bobo and we got a clean sweep of all the Maga candidates.



I think we’re stuck with Boebert, but she has way less power than Kari Lake would have and is way more of an idiotic clown than an evil ghoul so I can live with that.


----------



## spudmunkey

Wasn't she the one live-tweeting Pelosi's status during the Capitol occupation?


----------



## nightflameauto

I've heard some interesting takes on Trump's planned "announcement" that's coming. Like we don't know what that announcement is going to be.

1. Historically, when the Republicans appear the weakest, Trump seems to gain the most strength. He's making his announcement right after a fairly solid backhand from the American Public to the Republican Party. It's entirely possible he could build momentum from the simple fact that the current Republican Party is looking pretty beat down.

2. Pence's book release coincides nicely with the timing, which may all be circumstantial, or may be something calculated by someone on Trump's team (few think it could be the man himself) specifically as backlash to the book's criticisms of Trump builds within his base.

3. (Hopeful) There is a lot of anti-Trump sentiment in conservative corners at the moment. Apparently even the Murdoch brigade are calling him the Republican Party's Biggest Loser, which has to gall him to no end. Chances are high that between his rabid fans, and the scattered remains of the sane wing of the Republican Party that have mostly kept their mouths shut until they sensed a moment of weakness, and even now hesitate, his announcement could split the party and lead to a real banger of an election cycle reminiscent of what happened the last time we had a viable third party candidate piss it down his leg by being indecisive. But Trump is no Perot. He's not smart enough to scare himself out of the race.

4. (Personal favorite) The timing of his announcement being in such close proximity to the next scheduled Artemis launch is no coincidence. I would go deeper here, but it's a conspiracy theory for the ages, well worth googling for those looking for a laugh. You have to start with the premise that Artemis will actually launch to believe any of it though, and somehow, even with as crazy as the theory gets, that seems the least sensical part of the whole shebang.

Buckle up, bitches. Here we go again.


----------



## bostjan

Grammatical gender is pretty weakly connected to biological gender anyway. Take the word for "girl" for example. In German, "das Mädchen" (neuter), or in Slovene, "dekele" (neuter). Not sure if you can think of anything more feminine than the word "girl," other than maybe the word "woman." But, for example, in German, the direct translation of "woman" is sort of a rude word these days, so the German people say "die Frau" meaning literally "the lady." And that's feminine, but the word for "female" is "weiblich," derived from the now offensive noun stem "das Weib," literally meaning "the female" (don't ever call someone this, though, it's connotation is more like "dumb broad" in modern usage) is neuter.

There might be a whole other conversation about why a word that simply means "the female" could become so culturally offensive in the first place, but my point is that I think it's incorrect or misguided to equate grammatical gender with biological gender. I just picked two languages that I know fairly well and the most obvious example. There are plenty of other examples in those two languages, and I'm sure there are tons of other examples from tons of other languages.

But gender is baked into our language history, whether we like it or not. Language is definitely a fluid thing that changes all of the time, but it has to get widespread support of a change in order to make that change stick.

So, on one hand, if people just don't feel like adopting more pronouns into their lexicon, those pronouns won't get used enough to stick around, and, on the other hand, a few backward people in the woods are powerless to stop the change from happening if the majority of people allow it.

Even in English, which has no grammatical gender at all, still has archaic gendered nouns for professions, like "actress," comedienne," "policewoman," and some ridiculous-sounding ones like "fishwife" (a female person who sells fish at a market). Most of those are now considered archaic, because they are unnecessary and the majority of people seem to agree. But, then there are familial relationships that are going to be much more difficult to adopt changes - son/daughter, father/mother, aunt/uncle, brother/sister, husband/wife, etc. Luckily, we have only cousin, and we have neutral words that are seeing more usage recently, like child, parent, sibling, and spouse, but I honestly couldn't tell you the gender-neutral word for an aunt or uncle without looking it up.

They haven't added a single count to the CO-3 vote for the last, what, 5 days now? If they announce now that Boebert lost, the Trumpers are going to flip their shit. I've taken a peek at other forums and I see a lot of the usual complainers complaining a lot about that one.


----------



## SnowfaLL

jephjacques said:


> I will forever cherish the day I made Elon so mad he made everybody add "PARODY" to their jokes



Dude.. I'm sure you know, but CBC wrote an article about you impersonating Elon, thats hilarious hahah.. At first, I noticed Halifax and was like cool.. thats basically my home (despite living in Ottawa since the pandemic) then I noticed the name and was like wait.. isnt that the name of someone on SS.org? And sure enough, it was haha. Crazy.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> They haven't added a single count to the CO-3 vote for the last, what, 5 days now? If they announce now that Boebert lost, the Trumpers are going to flip their shit. I've taken a peek at other forums and I see a lot of the usual complainers complaining a lot about that one.


From what I understand, the votes are counted, but overseas ones are still coming in, and they have a grace period where people's ballots are "cured" (mail-in ones) which can restore thousands of votes that are currently sitting aside not having been counted (usually for things like "signature discrepancies" which are all at the discretion of that particular clerk). Here's an article on it and the most relevant portions:









Ballot curing in Colorado: How does it work?


The result of Colorado’s highest profile election could come down to the thousands of ballots rejected over signature discrepancies — but there is a way for those ballots to still




denvergazette.com






> In Colorado, voters can “cure” their ballots to allow their vote to be counted if they forgot to sign the ballot envelope, if the ballot signature doesn’t match the signature on file, or if they are first-time mail-in voters who forgot to include a copy of their ID.
> 
> As of Monday morning, the race for Colorado's 3rd Congressional District is still too call to close, with incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert leading against Democratic challenger Adam Frisch by only 1,122 votes. But, as of Thursday, Mesa and Pueblo counties within CD3 have 1,166 ballots awaiting curing, and that is only two of the 27 counties in the district.
> 
> During the 2020 election, 11,085 ballots were cured and counted that otherwise would have been thrown out, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. That year, 21,838 ballots with signature discrepancies were rejected and not cured.
> 
> County clerks are required to notify voters if there is a signature discrepancy with their ballot. Clerks will mail an affidavit asking the voter to confirm they signed their ballot to the address the voter is registered at. They will also reach out via email, if there is one on file. County clerks are required notify these voters no later than two days after Election Day, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.



So, the article's badly written and confusing (using "rejected" after "awaiting to be cured" makes it sound like ballots can be fully rejected or put in the cured pile and I don't THINK that's the case), but it sounds like basically there's 20,000 votes sitting out there waiting to see if the voters bother to come in and fix them. So it's going to depend on how diligent voters are. I am guessing that Boebert's voters are going to be more fired up than Democrats, cause Democrats are usually a lot lazier about voting stuff if they have to do anything in person.

From what I've read there's no chance we know who won before December unless someone concedes, and they'd be stupid to do so at this point.


----------



## wankerness

SpaceDock said:


> Kari Lake lost, just leaves Bobo and we got *a clean sweep of all the Maga candidates.*


I'm confused by statements like this. I've seen some in the mainstream, too. How can anyone say that when we had extremist MAGA ghouls like JD Vance elected?


----------



## SpaceDock

@wankerness I suppose not all.


----------



## CanserDYI

wankerness said:


> I'm confused by statements like this. I've seen some in the mainstream, too. How can anyone say that when we had extremist MAGA ghouls like JD Vance elected?


Don't get me started on JD fucking Vance.....I about PUNCHED the Tim Ryan section of the screen. Even though Ryan is still a centrist, he's better than psychopath JD Vance.

EDIT: I wish for once I could offensively vote instead of defensively voting over and over and over and over again and always feel like I'm taking an L even when we "win"...


----------



## nightflameauto

@CanserDYI
You may have just solved the problem of getting people to vote. What do Americans love? Being able to vociferously decry something. If our votes were against, rather than FOR candidates, that'd probably bring a lot more people out to vote. Not sure how that'd work in the primaries, but at the final vote? We've already whittled the field down to the worst, and we're forced to choose to "support" one of them.

Allow me to vote, "ANYBODY BUT..." for candidates. This is a message I can get behind.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> @CanserDYI
> You may have just solved the problem of getting people to vote. What do Americans love? Being able to vociferously decry something. If our votes were against, rather than FOR candidates, that'd probably bring a lot more people out to vote. Not sure how that'd work in the primaries, but at the final vote? We've already whittled the field down to the worst, and we're forced to choose to "support" one of them.
> 
> Allow me to vote, "ANYBODY BUT..." for candidates. This is a message I can get behind.


I love this!

I bet your average, common denominator voter would be confused as hell, though, if you asked them to vote for who they wanted to win and also vote for who they wanted to lose. And presidential elections might end up being a total wash. Imagine 2016! I bet the majority of people would have voted against either candidate and _*for* _neither. I still hold that most people who voted for Trump, at the time, just didn't want HRC, and possibly most who voted for HRC just didn't want Trump. Very few people were happy with the outcome of the primaries here in VT, and likewise back in MI where most of my friends and family live. What would they do then, just start over?! With inauguration day a couple months away, there wouldn't be time to start from scratch.

But I still lay full blame of 2016 on the two party system. The primaries are run by the parties, not by the people. When both relevant parties nominate people with approval ratings well below 50%, the parties are simply telling us that they don't deserve to have power anymore. Period. DJT vs HRC, how about no thanks? Maybe have a self-destruct mechanism built in such that, if the party's candidate gets more against votes than for votes, say, two out of any three presidential elections, next time, that party has to sit the election out entirely?


----------



## Glades

The 2 party system is built for gridlock, and gridlock is a beautiful thing. The worst possible outcome is President, house and senate all from the same party. That’s when crazy partisan legislation gets passed.

New legislation should only pass when everybody is in agreement.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I love this!
> 
> I bet your average, common denominator voter would be confused as hell, though, if you asked them to vote for who they wanted to win and also vote for who they wanted to lose. And presidential elections might end up being a total wash. Imagine 2016! I bet the majority of people would have voted against either candidate and _*for* _neither. I still hold that most people who voted for Trump, at the time, just didn't want HRC, and possibly most who voted for HRC just didn't want Trump. Very few people were happy with the outcome of the primaries here in VT, and likewise back in MI where most of my friends and family live. What would they do then, just start over?! With inauguration day a couple months away, there wouldn't be time to start from scratch.
> 
> But I still lay full blame of 2016 on the two party system. The primaries are run by the parties, not by the people. When both relevant parties nominate people with approval ratings well below 50%, the parties are simply telling us that they don't deserve to have power anymore. Period. DJT vs HRC, how about no thanks? Maybe have a self-destruct mechanism built in such that, if the party's candidate gets more against votes than for votes, say, two out of any three presidential elections, next time, that party has to sit the election out entirely?


That second paragraph is just a sign that the infection is throughout the entire two party system right now. "The people don't really know what they want" is a pretty common theme from politicians locally in this area, but the national fuckwads tend to keep that sentiment partially under wraps except at primary time, where it comes out exactly as you're saying.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Nevada has a voting option of "None of these Candidates".


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> The 2 party system is built for gridlock, and gridlock is a beautiful thing. The worst possible outcome is President, house and senate all from the same party. That’s when crazy partisan legislation gets passed.
> 
> New legislation should only pass when everybody is in agreement.


Fuck meet-in-the-middle politics when the one side is literally stripping humans of basic rights and opportunities and heavily favoring one specific sector of elites.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Weirdly, you don't hear calls for bipartisanship when the right has unfettered power. Like, where is this spirit of consensus on shit like climate change?


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> I've heard some interesting takes on Trump's planned "announcement" that's coming. Like we don't know what that announcement is going to be.
> 
> 1. Historically, when the Republicans appear the weakest, Trump seems to gain the most strength. He's making his announcement right after a fairly solid backhand from the American Public to the Republican Party. It's entirely possible he could build momentum from the simple fact that the current Republican Party is looking pretty beat down.
> 
> 2. Pence's book release coincides nicely with the timing, which may all be circumstantial, or may be something calculated by someone on Trump's team (few think it could be the man himself) specifically as backlash to the book's criticisms of Trump builds within his base.
> 
> 3. (Hopeful) There is a lot of anti-Trump sentiment in conservative corners at the moment. Apparently even the Murdoch brigade are calling him the Republican Party's Biggest Loser, which has to gall him to no end. Chances are high that between his rabid fans, and the scattered remains of the sane wing of the Republican Party that have mostly kept their mouths shut until they sensed a moment of weakness, and even now hesitate, his announcement could split the party and lead to a real banger of an election cycle reminiscent of what happened the last time we had a viable third party candidate piss it down his leg by being indecisive. But Trump is no Perot. He's not smart enough to scare himself out of the race.
> 
> 4. (Personal favorite) The timing of his announcement being in such close proximity to the next scheduled Artemis launch is no coincidence. I would go deeper here, but it's a conspiracy theory for the ages, well worth googling for those looking for a laugh. You have to start with the premise that Artemis will actually launch to believe any of it though, and somehow, even with as crazy as the theory gets, that seems the least sensical part of the whole shebang.
> 
> Buckle up, bitches. Here we go again.


I'm not gonna touch 4, lol, but the thing is, 1-3 could ALL be true. 

I guess I'm less inclined to read more sinister motives into #1, since the GOP, including Trump, kind of expected to be riding high here, and the original plan was likely to cement Trump's reputation as a kingmaker by launching his 2024 presidential run. But, as a plan B, he absolutely could be looking at this and seeing a power vacuum just ripe to be filled. Relatedly, I'd want to know how long in advance Pence's book was slated to be published now - again, I think it's more likely they coincided for related but independent reasons, Pence also wanted to publish immediately after the midterms so as not to color the outcome, but Trump does like to suck up all the air in a room. This would be a good way to get ahead of a bad news cycle. 

Your third point, again, I don't think Trump expected the red wave to fizzle the way it did, but I have no doubt that he planned to announce right after the midterms, and telegraph his intent to do so well in advance, to try to discourage other cadidates from themselves declaring. Problem is, it's pretty clear that DeSantis is starting to pivot from Florida to the White House, and is the current Fox News darling, because evidently it's not just Trump who prefers winners to losers, in the GOP. 

There's also the fact that Trump has been very clear privately to advisors that he needs to win the White House in 2024 to stay out of jail, and he thinks he's way less likely to be indicted if he's a presidential candidate. To a point he's probably right; he's less likely to be indicted for something minor while he's a major party presidential hopeful, but conspiracy to solicit election fraud and treason aren't exactly minor offenses. 

I think we're about to get an ugly GOP primary. And, say what you will about Biden, I think that's the most compelling reason for him to stay on - yeah, he's old as dirt, and has the advantage of being the least offensive candidate to the largest number of Democrats... but if the GOP spends the next year and a half tearing themselves apart and Biden is running against no real opposition, then 2024 becomes a bit of a layup.


----------



## Drew

Grand Moff Tim said:


> One interesting thing I've seen done to promote inclusivity in Spanish was from a Spanish streamer I watch (Spanish-speaking _and_ Spanish from Spain). When he addresses his followers in tweets, he uses "[email protected]" instead of "vosotoros" or "vosotras." Obviously there's no way to convey that same concept in _spoken _Spanish, and it doesn't include non-binary people, but... it's something, and I thought it was interesting.


That's a fair point I almost raised here - I've adopted Latinx in text as a more gender neutral form, but I'd never say "latin-ex" in conversation. Haven't actually had an in-person discussion on this in a while, but I think I'd be between "Latino/Latina" or just "Latino" to save an absolute mouthful. 

But, otherwise, Latinx doesn't actually take any longer to type than Latino, and may actually be a hair easier as the X and O are handled by different hands on a keyboard. It would, for the same reason, be exactly the same as Latina, so if any of you feel really offended by my use of Latinx, I'd be happy to start using Latina as the gender neutral, since it's no less mechanically efficient to type...?


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The 2 party system is built for gridlock, and gridlock is a beautiful thing. The worst possible outcome is President, house and senate all from the same party. That’s when crazy partisan legislation gets passed.
> 
> New legislation should only pass when everybody is in agreement.


Easy to say when your party is about to baaaaaaaaaarely control one of the three houses. 

Republican sweep of Congress, "Biden better respect the will of the voters," amirite?!?


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> Easy to say when your party is about to baaaaaaaaaarely control one of the three houses.
> 
> Republican sweep of Congress, "Biden better respect the will of the voters," amirite?!?


"Come on, guys. Just work with us this one time. We'll be cooperative later."

We've been hearing that from the GOP for as long as I can remember. Funny how they don't even pretend when they have the power to care about "the other guys." 

In fact, winning by .001% gives them a "clear mandate of the people to do whatever we want," is about the only thing I ever remember hearing from them once they have any power at all.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> "Come on, guys. Just work with us this one time. We'll be cooperative later."
> 
> We've been hearing that from the GOP for as long as I can remember. Funny how they don't even pretend when they have the power to care about "the other guys."
> 
> In fact, winning by .001% gives them a "clear mandate of the people to do whatever we want," is about the only thing I ever remember hearing from them once they have any power at all.


Considering the amount of gerrymandering it took to get to the ~5 vote margin they're settling into in the House, I'm not sure they can credibly claim a margin to do much of anything beyond whine.


----------



## wankerness

I don't think anyone's *offended* by it here. I'm mainly just annoyed by the usual context of it in my experience, since it seems like usually when I hear it (frequently at work from white leadership while the actual hispanic people in the Diversity center NEVER used it, or from people like Nancy Pelosi), it's performatively used by people in leadership positions who are otherwise doing nothing whatsoever for any progressive causes. It's like, a cheap attempt to try and appeal to ultra-liberals without actually having to work on any legislation. "oh, listen to how progressive we are, now you should vote for us while we just continue supporting tax cuts for rich people, tending to our retirement funds, and saying anything that would materially improve the lives of non-rich people just isn't politically expedient." So yeah, you use it all you want. You aren't doing anything wrong!


Drew said:


> That's a fair point I almost raised here - I've adopted Latinx in text as a more gender neutral form, but I'd never say "latin-ex" in conversation. Haven't actually had an in-person discussion on this in a while, but I think I'd be between "Latino/Latina" or just "Latino" to save an absolute mouthful.
> 
> But, otherwise, Latinx doesn't actually take any longer to type than Latino, and may actually be a hair easier as the X and O are handled by different hands on a keyboard. It would, for the same reason, be exactly the same as Latina, so if any of you feel really offended by my use of Latinx, I'd be happy to start using Latina as the gender neutral, since it's no less mechanically efficient to type...?


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> In fact, winning by .001% *-2.1%* gives them a "clear mandate of the people to do whatever we want," is about the only thing I ever remember hearing from them once they have any power at all.


FTFY

(Trump won in 2016 by negative 2.1% of the popular vote.)


----------



## wankerness

Glades said:


> The 2 party system is built for gridlock, and gridlock is a beautiful thing. The worst possible outcome is President, house and senate all from the same party. That’s when crazy partisan legislation gets passed.
> 
> New legislation should only pass when everybody is in agreement.


Yeah, the best thing we can hope for is for nothing to ever improve. You absolute clown.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> Yeah, the best thing we can hope for is for nothing to ever improve. You absolute clown.


Well, for once, I sort of see where he's coming from. When congress is trying to pass a piece of legislation, and the president is from an opposing party, they do tend to be more careful with how it is worded to avoid a veto.

The problem is that it all breaks down when one of the two parties decides to brand itself as the party that opposes anything that the other party wants to get done, which seems to be the case in the USA anymore. So, you are trying to compromise with a group of people who pride themselves on their lack of willingness to compromise. So nothing will get done. But it's not the fault of the party divide, it's the fault of the philosophy of one of the parties. It's really not too different from the democrats holding all three and the republicans just filibustering everything.

We are now heading into two years of a GOP house and a democrat senate (assuming the independents caucus with the democrats as they have been doing) with a democrat president. I highly doubt much legislation at all is going to get done. Even if the number of non-Trumpian republicans is large enough that it doesn't cover the gap between parties, I doubt that even the most moderate republican is going to vote for any bill that has widespread democrat support.

But still, better to make no progress than to backslide even further, although, look at the last two years and how the dems controlled the house, the senate, and the whitehouse, and still the SCotUS reversed a _Roe _and made other decisions that basically move us back to the 1960's. At least a handful of states have taken the initiative to sort things out at the state level, but I'm not looking forward to inevitably hearing something about someone being tried for murder for having a miscarriage in some backwards-ass state.


----------



## Glades

wankerness said:


> Yeah, the best thing we can hope for is for nothing to ever improve. You absolute clown.



“Improve” is a tricky word. I am sure you wouldn’t like for the GOP to “improve” things based on their value system, like banning abortions and gay marriage nationwide.

The system is built so that only national emergencies and problems are resolved, when there is bi-partisan support.

Change is good. But it needs to be restrained to some degree. A country that changes radically every 4 years will come apart like a bottle rocket.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> The system is built so that only national emergencies and problems are resolved, when there is bi-partisan support.


Like Katrina? The GOP did such a great job handling that. Or 911? Remember how that happened and then the GOP's response was to go ahead and invade two nations with no ties to the attacks? Remember the Patriot Act and how their response to mostly Saudi foreigners hijacking airplanes to blow us up was to spy on Americans. Good thing we have so many examples of emergencies that were handled by Bush whilst he had a GOP house and senate from 2001-2007, so that we could see just how great the GOP is at building a system that national emergencies and problems are resolved.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> Like Katrina? The GOP did such a great job handling that. Or 911? Remember how that happened and then the GOP's response was to go ahead and invade two nations with no ties to the attacks? Remember the Patriot Act and how their response to mostly Saudi foreigners hijacking airplanes to blow us up was to spy on Americans. Good thing we have so many examples of emergencies that were handled by Bush whilst he had a GOP house and senate from 2001-2007, so that we could see just how great the GOP is at building a system that national emergencies and problems are resolved.


Exactly my point.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> Change is good. But it needs to be restrained to some degree. A country that changes radically every 4 years will come apart like a bottle rocket.


Sounds to me like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that diversity is a net positive - which strikes me as a pretty progressive take.

On paper, I think I can agree with the idea that no one world view should dominate unchecked - in practice though, opposing viewpoints don't need to be as extremely opposed as this. "Lets think about this a different way" is good for checks and balances - "let's take rights away from minorities" is an awful way to "balance power".


----------



## Mathemagician

TedEH said:


> Sounds to me like you're saying, in a roundabout way, that diversity is a net positive - which strikes me as a pretty progressive take.
> 
> On paper, I think I can agree with the idea that no one world view should dominate unchecked - in practice though, opposing viewpoints don't need to be as extremely opposed as this. "Lets think about this a different way" is good for checks and balances - "let's take rights away from minorities" is an awful way to "balance power".



That’s where the wiggle room in the language was. “Improve things as per their value system”.

It’s objectively bad to disenfranchise anyone. But religious nuts have no problem taking away rights from women/LGBT/minorities and then hiding behind saying “my religious MADE me do it. If I don’t vote for this I’ll go to hell.”

Politics should be about boring budget discussions. But as a society there is a portion of the population that does not view some others group as humans and their equals, with a right to self-determination.

So instead of talking about funding school lunches and by how much which would be a nice boring budget discussion. You instead have some people screaming that they’re done with school so why do kids today get two warm mediocre meals, and another group that wants to focus on creating second class citizens with fewer rights.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> The problem is that it all breaks down when one of the two parties decides to brand itself as the party that opposes anything that the other party wants to get done, which seems to be the case in the USA anymore. So, you are trying to compromise with a group of people who pride themselves on their lack of willingness to compromise. So nothing will get done. But it's not the fault of the party divide, it's the fault of the philosophy of one of the parties. It's really not too different from the democrats holding all three and the republicans just filibustering everything.


To be fair, I've now had to speak to the _market_ impact of an election for a number of electoral cycles now, and at least in that limited context, this is actually a theme I do hit a lot. 

Markets like when things are predictable, and gridlock is a pretty sure-fire way to keep things predictable. If you're a Fortune 500 CEO making capital allocation decisions, when the House almost certainly breaks GOP in the next 24 hours, they've got about three years now (the next two, and then probably the next year before any new laws can come into effect) where they can be reasonably sure that there will be no major changes in the regulatory environment within which they'll be working. Interest deductibility of capital spending is very likely not to change. Taxability of stock buybacks is not likely to change. Federal programs supporting green energy or chipmakers are not likely to be repealed. The status quo, for all practical purposes, is going to hold for the next three years, so you're not likely to be blindsided by a new domestic job creation program making a technology investment program less cost-effective, or your tax rate falling and making the after-tax cost of debt issuance to fund capex suddenly higher. 

Now, of course, what's good for the market isn't necessarily what's good for the average American, which is something the right often forgets... but from a pure market standpoint, gridlock removes legislative risk pretty effectively.


----------



## bostjan

2000 - "I don't think our military should get involved in nation-building" (Actual Bush quote)
2004 - "The gays want to get married!"
2008 - "Obama is an African!!!"
2012 - "Obama is a Muslim!!!"
2016 - "Dey took err jerbs!!!!"
2020 - "Dare gunna take err guuuns!!!"
2024 - "Trumpa dumpa durkka durr!" (Seems to be the way we're going)

Definitely not all conservatives or even most, by any means, but you got to admit that this is the perception that they're putting out there and you don't hear conservatives often correcting the outspoken ones.

Meanwhile, the democratic party:

2000 - "This guy deserves credit for the internet"
2004 - "This guy, umm, he umm, he isn't Bush"
2008 - "This guy isn't a scumbag... yet"
2012 - "This guy gave you affordable _some sort of_ health care"
2016 - "Remember Bill Clinton? Remember Obama? This woman was there for both of those!"
2020 - "This guy isn't Trump! Also, remember Obama? Do you?!"
2024 - "Vote for this guy or else remember Trump? Yeah, seriously!"

I mean, it's not really a great track record, honestly. I liked Obama at first, but I did feel betrayed when everything he had laid out for changes he would bring just kind of eroded away into either nothing happening or into something that was, like, the monkey's-paw-wish of what he said he'd do.

It's time for both parties to hang it up. They aren't doing a good job for the nation. Unfortunately, that'd mean a bunch of third party whackos fighting over the power vacuum, so I guess we are just screwed.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

I think that most "apathetic" non-voters are really votes for nobody and should be counted as such. There's obviously a high degree of mistrust and disenfranchisement at all levels, but there's no way to vote for "something other than this bullshit," not at the ballot box anyway.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> I mean, it's not really a great track record, honestly. I liked Obama at first, but I did feel betrayed when everything he had laid out for changes he would bring just kind of eroded away into either nothing happening or into something that was, like, the monkey's-paw-wish of what he said he'd do.


This reminds me of the infamous South Park "turd sandwich" perspective that got so popular back when I was in college with people saying "who cares who's in charge everything sucks no matter who's in charge so why even vote." Obama had exactly 4 months with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate (thanks to deaths and replacements), lost the house after two years, and after that it was 6 years of pure obstructionism thanks to the magic of "bipartisanship" which has been a completely unworkable concept since the republicans lost their goddam minds during the clinton years. What on earth was he going to do without the ability to institute any changes? It was completely impossible. And one of those 60 votes in those 4 months was joe lieberman, the infamously conservative "independent" asshole that was almost singlehandedly responsible for the massive dumbing down of the affordable care act. The filibuster got removed for SOME things as a reaction to the total gridlock, but not for anything that would have actually allowed passing new laws. 

Voting for split governments thinking it's going to cause bipartisanship to happen has been an idiotically idealistic thought since the 2000s at least. Republicans will destroy anything they have the power to destroy just so democrats don't get the credit for it. To say "bipartisanship is good" is a great philosophical concept but has been totally untenable in this country for over 20 years, and anyone that continues to think voting for republicans will make democrats play nice and get bipartisan work done is a member of the deluded fruitcake society.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> I mean, it's not really a great track record, honestly. I liked Obama at first, but I did feel betrayed when everything he had laid out for changes he would bring just kind of eroded away into either nothing happening or into something that was, like, the monkey's-paw-wish of what he said he'd do.


Eh, that's probably not really doing justice to the Democrats and the Biden administration. 

Even ignoring the small policy wins under Trump... The Biden administration has passed the biggest infrastructure bill America has seen in decades, and while the "Inflation Reduction Act" had very little to do with inflation, it was the biggest clean energy bill we as a nation had _ever_ passed. The first stimulus bill right after he came to office almost certainly contributed to the first wave of inflation but was shocking to the degree that what he proposed was actually what passed, and while Afghanistan was a clusterfuck, the Biden team learned from their mistakes and has done a pretty good job managing the war in Ukraine. And while student debt relief is going to the courts, that was pretty big too. 

And that's sticking solely to things they HAVE accomplished, and not the ones they're currently trying to do, like a law protecting abortion nationally. I think it's a lot more nuanced than you're giving them credit for.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> This reminds me of the infamous South Park "turd sandwich" perspective that got so popular back when I was in college with people saying "who cares who's in charge everything sucks no matter who's in charge so why even vote." Obama had exactly 4 months with a filibuster-proof majority in the senate (thanks to deaths and replacements), lost the house after two years, and after that it was 6 years of pure obstructionism thanks to the magic of "bipartisanship" which has been a completely unworkable concept since the republicans lost their goddam minds during the clinton years. What on earth was he going to do without the ability to institute any changes? It was completely impossible. And one of those 60 votes in those 4 months was joe lieberman, the infamously conservative "independent" asshole that was almost singlehandedly responsible for the massive dumbing down of the affordable care act. The filibuster got removed for SOME things as a reaction to the total gridlock, but not for anything that would have actually allowed passing new laws.
> 
> Voting for split governments thinking it's going to cause bipartisanship to happen has been an idiotically idealistic thought since the 2000s at least. Republicans will destroy anything they have the power to destroy just so democrats don't get the credit for it. To say "bipartisanship is good" is a great philosophical concept but has been totally untenable in this country for over 20 years, and anyone that continues to think voting for republicans will make democrats play nice and get bipartisan work done is a member of the deluded fruitcake society.


Well, that's all true, but who is to blame for Obama's promises that he could reach across the aisle to get everything done?

He was elected, not just because he was saying the right things, but because he was supposed to be smart. Yet, the moment he was questioned about where to put all of the inmated in Gitmo when it was shut down, his answer was, "Gee, er, umm, well, I guess I hadn't thought about that." Durr, did Obama seriously think he would just make all of those people illegally detained by the CIA just magically disappear? That was kind of the whole point. Either have them brought to trial or let them go free.

And the ACA - sure I might sound as if I'm being hard on him, but nobody at the time thought that it was going to be an easy bill to get passed. So Obama is supposed to get a free pass because what he wanted to do was going to be difficult? Sorry, that logic doesn't really work. He could have been tough on it the way it was written, but he got lazy.

Republicans will destroy as much stuff as they can, but democrats are prone to just let them do it, whether they have a majority or not. If they have a majority, it's "oh, we don't have a filibuster-proof majority" and if they have a filibuster-proof majority, then it's "oh, well, now we have a few of our party members who disagree with the party line." Get yourselves together or else don't be a party anymore. It's fine to be a coalition instead and get done certain things but not others, what's not okay is making an excuse for every situation no matter how much it favours you.



Drew said:


> Eh, that's probably not really doing justice to the Democrats and the Biden administration.
> 
> Even ignoring the small policy wins under Trump... The Biden administration has passed the biggest infrastructure bill America has seen in decades, and while the "Inflation Reduction Act" had very little to do with inflation, it was the biggest clean energy bill we as a nation had _ever_ passed. The first stimulus bill right after he came to office almost certainly contributed to the first wave of inflation but was shocking to the degree that what he proposed was actually what passed, and while Afghanistan was a clusterfuck, the Biden team learned from their mistakes and has done a pretty good job managing the war in Ukraine. And while student debt relief is going to the courts, that was pretty big too.
> 
> And that's sticking solely to things they HAVE accomplished, and not the ones they're currently trying to do, like a law protecting abortion nationally. I think it's a lot more nuanced than you're giving them credit for.


I don't even blame Biden that much for Afghanistan. But the rest of those things, I think we have yet to really see how they pan out. They haven't fixed any of the roads in my neck of the woods yet.

Any word yet on how many student debts were relieved?

And even if I don't think Biden is doing particularly great, he's outperformed my expectations. But, to be fair, Trump also outperformed my expectations, at least at first, for a little while. But then again, I halfway expected the nation to be total chaos while he was in office, oh wait...


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Well, that's all true, but who is to blame for Obama's promises that he could reach across the aisle to get everything done?
> 
> He was elected, not just because he was saying the right things, but because he was supposed to be smart. Yet, the moment he was questioned about where to put all of the inmated in Gitmo when it was shut down, his answer was, "Gee, er, umm, well, I guess I hadn't thought about that." Durr, did Obama seriously think he would just make all of those people illegally detained by the CIA just magically disappear? That was kind of the whole point. Either have them brought to trial or let them go free.
> 
> And the ACA - sure I might sound as if I'm being hard on him, but nobody at the time thought that it was going to be an easy bill to get passed. So Obama is supposed to get a free pass because what he wanted to do was going to be difficult? Sorry, that logic doesn't really work. He could have been tough on it the way it was written, but he got lazy.


I'll give you the gitmo stuff. He also is deservedly notorious for nuking 2389789234 people with drones. He was not a good guy because of the war hawk crap. But the rest of your criticisms are bogus, IMO.

He DID reach across the aisle as he promised. He got "we refuse to help no matter what you try to assuage us with cause we hate you and refuse to compromise one iota even if you wrote exactly the bill we would have written if it were up to us." So, he did what he said, he just wasn't counting on the opposition being 100% unreasonable at all times.

What do you think he could have done with the ACA? Joe Lieberman was like "I refuse to vote on this. I have 100% of the power to shut this down. So water it down incredibly or you get nothing." What amount of smarts could he have done to get past that kind of asshole? I mean, what I'd say is blackmail the hell out of Lieberman and force him to vote yes against his will, but unless THAT'S what you think Obama should have done I have no idea what you think he could have done differently.

What you say is continuing to read like the nihilist "oh yeah both sides suck equally so politics is pointless, why vote" argument that leads to things like people who unequivocally think what Republicans are doing is terrible but won't even put the 30 minutes of work in every year or two to actually vote to stop anything from happening. Politics is terrible. Both sides suck. One side sucks MASSIVELY more than the other and is going to continue stripping freedoms like they just did with abortion rights and destroying what is left of our already pathetic social net if you give them power. The best we can do without 50+ senators who won't get bought off by corporations (ala Sinema) is stop things from getting worse.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Any word yet on how many student debts were relieved?



zero yet afaik 

I applied right away when the beta site was up, got my confirmation and nothing since


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

bostjan said:


> Grammatical gender is pretty weakly connected to biological gender anyway. Take the word for "girl" for example. In German, "das Mädchen" (neuter), or in Slovene, "dekele" (neuter). Not sure if you can think of anything more feminine than the word "girl," other than maybe the word "woman."



For what it's worth, the German word for "girl" isn't neuter because of a lack of correlation between grammatical gender and biological gender in German, it's neuter for perfectly common grammatical/etymological reasons. "Mädchen" is a diminutive noun, and all diminutives are neuter in German, regardless of the gender of the word from which it derives. Think "der Hund" (the dog) > "das Hündchen" (the small dog/puppy). Take the original noun, make it neuter, slap on a -chen or a -lein (die Frau > das Fräulein), occasionally sprinkle in some umlauts, and boom. Diminutive noun. It makes perfect sense that "girl" is neuter in German, given how German words are formed.

That of course leads one to wonder wtf "Mädchen" is the diminutive form of, or rather, it leads language nerds such as myself to wonder, lol. If anyone else is curious, it's the diminutive form of the now archaic word "die Magd," which translates to "the maid," though more in the original sense of an unmarried woman as opposed to a house servant. Take "die Magd," add an umlaut, the "g" is absorbed for reasons I can't explain, add -chen, and there you have it. Das Mädchen. Of course, there are plenty of other examples one could use to demonstrate that grammatical gender and biological gender aren't always related in German (why are dogs masculine? Why are bridges feminine? Why are houses neuter?), this just happens to be a case where there's a perfectly sensible reason that "girl" isn't feminine.

Yes, I realize that was all just a long, useless tangent. In the interest of trying to be somewhat on the topic that provoked the tangent...

I don't actually have a problem with people using LatinX, and I hope that wasn't the impression I gave to anyone. It does look and feel weird to me, but that's purely just because of my specific academic background and that I sometimes struggle with change, lol. I have no objection to it on principle or on linguistic grounds. I also struggle with using they/them as a singular pronoun, for similar reasons. I'm working on it, though! (Bonus Fun Fact: The word "you" used to be a plural pronoun, too. Specifically, it's the accusative plural form of "thou." That shifted over time and now we all use it in the plural AND the singular. Feel free to bring that up the next time you see someone complain about they/them!)


----------



## Glades

It’s official, DJT is running again in 2024.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> It’s official, DJT is running again in 2024.



Prior to the midterms, this would probably be bad news to me. But now, I'm loving the Trump/DeSantis drama that's gonna go down.


----------



## SpaceDock

My highest hope is that the GOP does not give him the nomination and then he runs a spoiler campaign as like “patriot party” or some bs to siphon of 30% of the Republican vote.


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> Prior to the midterms, this would probably be bad news to me. But now, I'm loving the Trump/DeSantis drama that's gonna go down.


Some positive things he is proposing:

- Term limits for congress
- lifetime ban of members of congress for lobbying
- ban of members of congress to inside trading


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Some negatives:

_Gestures broadly_


----------



## Glades

The rest of the speech has not been very different from his usual: bring back the economy, drain the swamp, protect the family, protect the border, become energy independent, bring down gas prices, etc etc etc


----------



## spudmunkey




----------



## wheresthefbomb

NGL I'm liking what I'm hearing from the new DJT

please feel free to distribute widely


----------



## wankerness

Glades said:


> The rest of the speech has not been very different from his usual: bring back the economy, drain the swamp, protect the family, protect the border, become energy independent, bring down gas prices, etc etc etc



That’s a charitable read. He also suggested the death penalty for anyone that sells drugs. Though if that applied to the Sacklers I guess it would be a net win.


----------



## narad

wankerness said:


> That’s a charitable read. He also suggested the death penalty for anyone that sells drugs. Though if that applied to the Sacklers I guess it would be a net win.


Well he simultaneously said "hey, isn't this great" and then "ah, that's bad though". But I enjoyed the idea that every drug dealer kills 500 people in their lifetime. Like dude...there's a lot of drug dealers...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Imagine looking at the War On Drugs in 2022 and going "yeah, we _definitely_ need more of that."


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Kill all drug dealers! Purdue Pharma, Duramed Pharmaceutical, etc....


----------



## Crungy

wheresthefbomb said:


> NGL I'm liking what I'm hearing from the new DJT
> 
> please feel free to distribute widely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 117152


"Big beautiful guillotines, the best really. Many people are saying they're the most beautiful ones they've ever seen."


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Somehow, though, Fox News has gotten the GOP to see "progressive" as a slur, rather than "we want to make life better tomorrow than it is today."


Affordable health care doesn't fix peoples problems, all these PCP's just feed people meds because the insurance companies don't want to fork up the cash to fix the problems with surgeries or other procedures. My brother is living proof of that, living in pain for years because his ACA insurance sucks. Not enough people pay into it because your precious Unions are exempt. Get more people to pay into it and I'll support it.


----------



## AMOS

Glades said:


> It’s official, DJT is running again in 2024.


My support will be behind someone that won't divide the country, not that it isn't already..


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> I'll give you the gitmo stuff. He also is deservedly notorious for nuking 2389789234 people with drones. He was not a good guy because of the war hawk crap. But the rest of your criticisms are bogus, IMO.
> 
> He DID reach across the aisle as he promised. He got "we refuse to help no matter what you try to assuage us with cause we hate you and refuse to compromise one iota even if you wrote exactly the bill we would have written if it were up to us." So, he did what he said, he just wasn't counting on the opposition being 100% unreasonable at all times.
> 
> What do you think he could have done with the ACA? Joe Lieberman was like "I refuse to vote on this. I have 100% of the power to shut this down. So water it down incredibly or you get nothing." What amount of smarts could he have done to get past that kind of asshole? I mean, what I'd say is blackmail the hell out of Lieberman and force him to vote yes against his will, but unless THAT'S what you think Obama should have done I have no idea what you think he could have done differently.
> 
> What you say is continuing to read like the nihilist "oh yeah both sides suck equally so politics is pointless, why vote" argument that leads to things like people who unequivocally think what Republicans are doing is terrible but won't even put the 30 minutes of work in every year or two to actually vote to stop anything from happening. Politics is terrible. Both sides suck. One side sucks MASSIVELY more than the other and is going to continue stripping freedoms like they just did with abortion rights and destroying what is left of our already pathetic social net if you give them power. The best we can do without 50+ senators who won't get bought off by corporations (ala Sinema) is stop things from getting worse.


If, by "reach across the aisle" you mean get taken as a sucker, then, okay. The ACA had one concession because of Lieberman, and to Lieberman's credit, he did vote for it in the end, but ultimately, fuck Lieberman, because they didn't really need his vote anyway. As the boss of the democratic party, Obama could have strategized ways around the filibuster. 

The republicans, on the other hand, got tons of concessions on it, and still not a single one voted for it. If the tables had been turned and democrats had gotten so many concessions on a GOP backed bill, and then reneged, the republicans would have razed hell. So, yeah, say it is bogusa ll you want, but Obama's stretegy to meet his campaign promises were all one dimensional. That alone doesn't make him bad, but it means that his strategies were all undercooked and makes him less good. When you sum up the fact that his gitmo endgame strategy was worse than what your average person would have concocted, the fact that his ACA strategy was less robust than the average presidential strategy, his taking a hard stance against Snowden for exposing the truth we all already knew, less than average quality of his handling of ISIS, the gun running scandal... but ultimately, I still think he meant well, and just quickly got sick of playing the games that they play in congress and mostly just didn't want to sink to their level. I wouldn't rate him as a bad president, just as disappointing. It was disappointing that he was touted by the DNC as this huge game changer, and then, ultimately, nothing changed for the better. It was disappointing that he had so much charisma, but then none of the compromises he made ever led to more widespread support. It was disappointing that so few of his specific promises ever came to fruition.

And I understand that it's not totally his fault, but when you promise me something, and verbally acknowledge that it's not going to be easy, but you will do it anyway, when you don't do it because it ended up being too hard to do, that's not going to disappoint me any less.

Remember, all I'm justifying is why I liked Obama at first, and then felt betrayed by the end of his tenure. I don't hate him.



wheresthefbomb said:


> zero yet afaik
> 
> I applied right away when the beta site was up, got my confirmation and nothing since


Wow, okay, so the jury is still way out on whether that ends up becoming a win or a gaffe.


Grand Moff Tim said:


> For what it's worth, the German word for "girl" isn't neuter because of a lack of correlation between grammatical gender and biological gender in German, it's neuter for perfectly common grammatical/etymological reasons. "Mädchen" is a diminutive noun, and all diminutives are neuter in German, regardless of the gender of the word from which it derives. Think "der Hund" (the dog) > "das Hündchen" (the small dog/puppy). Take the original noun, make it neuter, slap on a -chen or a -lein (die Frau > das Fräulein), occasionally sprinkle in some umlauts, and boom. Diminutive noun. It makes perfect sense that "girl" is neuter in German, given how German words are formed.
> 
> That of course leads one to wonder wtf "Mädchen" is the diminutive form of, or rather, it leads language nerds such as myself to wonder, lol. If anyone else is curious, it's the diminutive form of the now archaic word "die Magd," which translates to "the maid," though more in the original sense of an unmarried woman as opposed to a house servant. Take "die Magd," add an umlaut, the "g" is absorbed for reasons I can't explain, add -chen, and there you have it. Das Mädchen. Of course, there are plenty of other examples one could use to demonstrate that grammatical gender and biological gender aren't always related in German (why are dogs masculine? Why are bridges feminine? Why are houses neuter?), this just happens to be a case where there's a perfectly sensible reason that "girl" isn't feminine.
> 
> Yes, I realize that was all just a long, useless tangent. In the interest of trying to be somewhat on the topic that provoked the tangent...
> 
> I don't actually have a problem with people using LatinX, and I hope that wasn't the impression I gave to anyone. It does look and feel weird to me, but that's purely just because of my specific academic background and that I sometimes struggle with change, lol. I have no objection to it on principle or on linguistic grounds. I also struggle with using they/them as a singular pronoun, for similar reasons. I'm working on it, though! (Bonus Fun Fact: The word "you" used to be a plural pronoun, too. Specifically, it's the accusative plural form of "thou." That shifted over time and now we all use it in the plural AND the singular. Feel free to bring that up the next time you see someone complain about they/them!)


Understood.

It still stands to reason, though, why the diminutive form of anything should change gender to something less feminine. And that doesn't address why the (archaic/modern pejorative) word for "the female" is neuter.

But everything you said is 100% relevant and accurate. And it also applies to tons of Indo-european languages that have genders for masculine, neuter, and feminine things, and also sometimes strong and weak and weak... at least animate/inanimate makes some sort of logical sense...

I'd go so far as to say that I don't care about "Latinx" until I hear from whomever fits that demonym and they either approve or disapprove of it. I think there is a historical case for why "Latin America" might be a somewhat offensive term for some people, so, if we are going to go ahead and change the terminology, why not create something new that doesn't already have a stain on it? Or let the demographic determine for themselves whether they even want to be lumped into a monolithic demographic with all of those other cultures in the first place before we even go describing them that way.



Glades said:


> Some positive things he is proposing:
> 
> - Term limits for congress
> - lifetime ban of members of congress for lobbying
> - ban of members of congress to inside trading



1. Same shit he promised in 2016.
2. Same reasons why he can't actually deliver any of those things.
3. Even more reason why he has to understand why he can't deliver on those things, since he already promised them and learned first hand why they won't ever happen. Therefore, he is being purposefully deceptive already, right off the bat.
4. Those are actually great ideas, though. Too bad he doesn't care about them and they'll never happen anyway.
5. Fuck that guy. He cried about term limits for congress in one breath and jokes about abolishing term limits for himself in the next breath. He wants to ban insider trading in one breath, and then does insider trading moments later when he thinks no one is looking.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> Affordable health care doesn't fix peoples problems


What? It absolutely fixes a LOT of problems. Isn't the US basically the land of "if you get hurt and you aren't rich, you're fucked for life"? That's not normal.

You know what happens if something happens over here and I need some kind of life saving medical thing done? It just happens. And my life isn't destroyed in the process. How is that NOT a million times better than having your life destroyed (or ended) over an expensive medical procedure?

I know someone who was hit by a car a couple of years back, and that resulted in 3+ surgeries, tons of physio, etc. - and there is NO way she could have afforded that in the US. She'd have no choice but to suffer through it, and probably lose the use of both limbs on the right side. Another ex cracked her head on some ice - and it was also dealt with at practically zero cost even though she was lacking the paperwork because she'd moved provinces and not finished transferring things. My dad has COPD and could never have afforded everything that comes with that. I can keep listing examples of just normal people whose lives would be wrecked in a system like what the US has.

Edit: Here's a really good one - I know two people with bone diseases, one with osteoporosis, and the other with OI. These are spontaneous mutations, so you can't pin them on "poor choices" or whatever else you might want to counter with. The one with OI has been taking treatments for it that would have never been available in the US - since it's costs in the thousands per treatment (just for the drug itself), and that has to happen every 3-ish months. You know how much it actually costs us in the end? About $20, plus the hospital parking for the day. The alternative would have been to just suffer through constant bone breaks.

The system you have in the US of making people deal with prohibitively expensive medical _anything_ is strait up inhumane - full stop. If someone is hurt, you fix that shit. The money doesn't matter.


----------



## bostjan

Well, according to the GOP, people in the USA need to stop being so clumsy and start taking better care of themselves. That's why the GOP only endorses Iron Lung Brand tobacco, clearly the healthier choice.

As far as medical stuff goes, I know I caught a lot of shit for saying this before, but I won't change my tune until I see evidence. The cost of treatment in the USA is high because the big pharma companies and the health insurance companies are making megabucks off of sick people. We can't just pass that buck on to the public, because the public can't afford it. The greedy congress members are making sure that there are no consequences for this sort of medical robbery. So when you buy a life-saving drug at the pharmacy in Canada, maybe you pay $40 USD for it, but in the USA, we pay $80 USD for it or more. There have been multiple times that I've gone to the pharmacy to pick up medicine for my wife, and it's been over five hundred dollars for a month's supply of something she needs. And that's out of pocket, so that's after insurance covers whatever they will cover. And now my health insurance provider told me that by 2025, employers here will likely not offer to cover an employee's spouse anymore. So, if your spouse is off work or works part time, and they get sick, then I guess they are just fucked. Hopefully someone pulls the e-brake on whatever the hell cash grab that is, but if they can get away with it, why not? And if everyone does it all at once, then who is going to benefit? The insurance companies who no longer have to cover multiple people per policy, that's who. These companies, we all in the USA know their game. I've been saying it for over a decade now - you get sick, they weasel out of paying any way they can, even if you are paying $1000/month and your employer is paying another $2000/month for your policy, and you never file a claim for 20 years, until you break your leg and need $100k. Over that time period, the insurance company took $720k to protect you, so that $100k is just a drop in the bucket. It's real shitty. It shouldn't cost $100k for a broken leg and it shouldn't cost $3k/month for insurance. None of this makes any logical sense aside from the fact that they charge as much as they can get away with charging.


----------



## wankerness

TedEH said:


> What? It absolutely fixes a LOT of problems. Isn't the US basically the land of "if you get hurt and you aren't rich, you're fucked for life"? That's not normal.
> 
> You know what happens if something happens over here and I need some kind of life saving medical thing done? It just happens. And my life isn't destroyed in the process. How is that NOT a million times better than having your life destroyed (or ended) over an expensive medical procedure?
> 
> I know someone who was hit by a car a couple of years back, and that resulted in 3+ surgeries, tons of physio, etc. - and there is NO way she could have afforded that in the US. She'd have no choice but to suffer through it, and probably lose the use of both limbs on the right side. Another ex cracked her head on some ice - and it was also dealt with at practically zero cost even though she was lacking the paperwork because she'd moved provinces and not finished transferring things. My dad has COPD and could never have afforded everything that comes with that. I can keep listing examples of just normal people whose lives would be wrecked in a system like what the US has.
> 
> Edit: Here's a really good one - I know two people with bone diseases, one with osteoporosis, and the other with OI. These are spontaneous mutations, so you can't pin them on "poor choices" or whatever else you might want to counter with. The one with OI has been taking treatments for it that would have never been available in the US - since it's costs in the thousands per treatment (just for the drug itself), and that has to happen every 3-ish months. You know how much it actually costs us in the end? About $20, plus the hospital parking for the day. The alternative would have been to just suffer through constant bone breaks.
> 
> The system you have in the US of making people deal with prohibitively expensive medical _anything_ is strait up inhumane - full stop. If someone is hurt, you fix that shit. The money doesn't matter.


I just saw yesterday that the USA’s life expectancy rank fell to #50- the top 49 all had some kind of public healthcare. Oof.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> What? It absolutely fixes a LOT of problems. Isn't the US basically the land of "if you get hurt and you aren't rich, you're fucked for life"? That's not normal.
> 
> You know what happens if something happens over here and I need some kind of life saving medical thing done? It just happens. And my life isn't destroyed in the process. How is that NOT a million times better than having your life destroyed (or ended) over an expensive medical procedure?
> 
> I know someone who was hit by a car a couple of years back, and that resulted in 3+ surgeries, tons of physio, etc. - and there is NO way she could have afforded that in the US. She'd have no choice but to suffer through it, and probably lose the use of both limbs on the right side. Another ex cracked her head on some ice - and it was also dealt with at practically zero cost even though she was lacking the paperwork because she'd moved provinces and not finished transferring things. My dad has COPD and could never have afforded everything that comes with that. I can keep listing examples of just normal people whose lives would be wrecked in a system like what the US has.
> 
> Edit: Here's a really good one - I know two people with bone diseases, one with osteoporosis, and the other with OI. These are spontaneous mutations, so you can't pin them on "poor choices" or whatever else you might want to counter with. The one with OI has been taking treatments for it that would have never been available in the US - since it's costs in the thousands per treatment (just for the drug itself), and that has to happen every 3-ish months. You know how much it actually costs us in the end? About $20, plus the hospital parking for the day. The alternative would have been to just suffer through constant bone breaks.
> 
> The system you have in the US of making people deal with prohibitively expensive medical _anything_ is strait up inhumane - full stop. If someone is hurt, you fix that shit. The money doesn't matter.


One surgery on my brothers back a few years ago was a failure and they're not doing another one, so he's living on meds for the rest of his life.


----------



## CanserDYI

I'm already 10K in debt to the local medical provider for about a collective hour speaking to doctors over the course of 4 months earlier in the year, which never really pinpointed my problem, and still dealing with it


----------



## SpaceDock

Please clap: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ncement-2024-speech-crowd-video-b2226346.html


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> What? It absolutely fixes a LOT of problems. Isn't the US basically the land of "if you get hurt and you aren't rich, you're fucked for life"? That's not normal.
> 
> You know what happens if something happens over here and I need some kind of life saving medical thing done? It just happens. And my life isn't destroyed in the process. How is that NOT a million times better than having your life destroyed (or ended) over an expensive medical procedure?
> 
> I know someone who was hit by a car a couple of years back, and that resulted in 3+ surgeries, tons of physio, etc. - and there is NO way she could have afforded that in the US. She'd have no choice but to suffer through it, and probably lose the use of both limbs on the right side. Another ex cracked her head on some ice - and it was also dealt with at practically zero cost even though she was lacking the paperwork because she'd moved provinces and not finished transferring things. My dad has COPD and could never have afforded everything that comes with that. I can keep listing examples of just normal people whose lives would be wrecked in a system like what the US has.
> 
> Edit: Here's a really good one - I know two people with bone diseases, one with osteoporosis, and the other with OI. These are spontaneous mutations, so you can't pin them on "poor choices" or whatever else you might want to counter with. The one with OI has been taking treatments for it that would have never been available in the US - since it's costs in the thousands per treatment (just for the drug itself), and that has to happen every 3-ish months. You know how much it actually costs us in the end? About $20, plus the hospital parking for the day. The alternative would have been to just suffer through constant bone breaks.
> 
> The system you have in the US of making people deal with prohibitively expensive medical _anything_ is strait up inhumane - full stop. If someone is hurt, you fix that shit. The money doesn't matter.


Are you talking Canada? We're not Socialist down here, and like I already mentioned not enough people pay into the ACA to make it work properly. We need everyone if it's going to work, but the corporations, unions and rich folk are all exempt. And of course the lucky ones who are fortunate enough to have their employer provide healthcare. The ACA is a quagmire of red tape.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> One surgery on my brothers back a few years ago was a failure and they're not doing another one, so he's living on meds for the rest of his life.


What point are you trying to make here?


----------



## TimmyPage

Regarding healthcare, here in Canada, my father passed away a few years ago from cancer. From diagnosis to death it was 2 years. He had twice-weekly chemo, multiple operations, several weeks stay in the hospital, a personal support worker, and an in-home nurse who would stop by a few times a week to treat him. 

The total monetary cost to my family? Maybe about a hundred dollars in hospital parking (which is a rip-off, mind you), and another hundred or so in over-the-counter meds.

In the US we would have been bankrupted by that level of care, or would have had to sacrifice his quality of life or our family's financial future for something entirely outside of our control. "Affordable" healthcare will never be enough, it has to be universal.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> One surgery on my brothers back a few years ago was a failure and they're not doing another one, so he's living on meds for the rest of his life.





CanserDYI said:


> What point are you trying to make here?


^ Exactly - how is this a counter-argument. Imagine having to suffer through all that - PLUS be gouged on the price of meds for the rest of your life, IF you can afford it at all instead of just, I dunno, dying or something.



AMOS said:


> Are you talking Canada?


I am! It's fantastic, ain't it? eh?



AMOS said:


> We're not Socialist down here


If you think Canada is "socialist", you don't know much about either Canada or socialism. We're not very far removed from the US politically, despite what some might like to think, IMO.



AMOS said:


> not enough people pay into the ACA to make it work properly


Don't get me wrong - there's no "perfect" system to healthcare - and I make zero claims that specifically that one program is the way to go, since I know little to nothing about it - but even if ACA is / was /whatever / a failure, doesn't suddenly mean "health care fixes nothing". If I misinterpreted your point before to be talking about some specific implementation, rather than just a blanket "health care for everyone is bad", than that's partially on me - but spiraling into "well, we're not socialists" for who knows what reason is still on you.

"This attempt was imperfect" does not equal "distributed/subsidized/"socialized" medical costs would help nobody".
Health is a right. Any system that reserves access to health for the financially privileged is in opposition to human decency.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> ^ Exactly - how is this a counter-argument. Imagine having to suffer through all that - PLUS be gouged on the price of meds for the rest of your life, IF you can afford it at all instead of just, I dunno, dying or something.
> 
> 
> I am! It's fantastic, ain't it? eh?
> 
> 
> If you think Canada is "socialist", you don't know much about either Canada or socialism. We're not very far removed from the US politically, despite what some might like to think, IMO.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong - there's no "perfect" system to healthcare - and I make zero claims that specifically that one program is the way to go, since I know little to nothing about it - but even if ACA is / was /whatever / a failure, doesn't suddenly mean "health care fixes nothing". If I misinterpreted your point before to be talking about some specific implementation, rather than just a blanket "health care for everyone is bad", than that's partially on me - but spiraling into "well, we're not socialists" for who knows what reason is still on you.
> 
> "This attempt was imperfect" does not equal "distributed/subsidized/"socialized" medical costs would help nobody".
> Health is a right. Any system that reserves access to health for the financially privileged is in opposition to human decency.


A doctor flat out told me that they are instructed to take baby steps for people that are on Obamacare. With that being said they are not instructed to take care of people. That would mean giving them the surgeries they need to actually fix the problem instead of meds to make you feel better


----------



## AMOS

CanserDYI said:


> What point are you trying to make here?


That Obamacare sucks. Yes it's affordable but so are Fender Squiers. Most of the people that say how good it is don't have to use it


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> That Obamacare sucks. Yes it's affordable but so are Fender Squiers. Most of the people that say how good it is don't have to use it


I don't think anyone in here is praising Obamacare homie....


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> That Obamacare sucks. Yes it's affordable but so are Fender Squiers. Most of the people that say how good it is don't have to use it


If I were a Squier owner, I would be offended. 

The ACA was a BandAid to place over the puncture to the carotid artery of the US health care system. There are tons and tons of problems, and congress really cannot be expected to do anything about fixing it as long as a portion of their members are profiting off of the brokenness of the system. Just like how congress will never vote to give themselves term limits or vote to ban themselves for life from trading stocks or lobbying for big companies. It all needs to change, but there is no way to change it as long as we have the two-party system in power, and the only way to remove it is if the people snap out of the trance they are under and start voting better people into office. But the GOP and the democrats both know what they are doing. They keep us all divided against each other, and all of the focus against the other side keeps us distracted from the shady shit they are doing. These people are all mortal enemies out in public, but are sipping from the same bottle of single malt whisky behind closed doors whilst laughing at each other's stories.


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> A doctor flat out told me that they are instructed to take baby steps for people that are on Obamacare. With that being said they are not instructed to take care of people. That would mean giving them the surgeries they need to actually fix the problem instead of meds to make you feel better





AMOS said:


> That Obamacare sucks. Yes it's affordable but so are Fender Squiers. Most of the people that say how good it is don't have to use it



You can thank the GOP for watering down the original proposal so that the wealthy, et. al. can avoid the ACA in favor of something better (and more expensive).

For a risk pool to work its best, you need everyone paying in, but then people (republicans) would call that socialism even though it is not.


----------



## RevDrucifer

bostjan said:


> I love this!
> 
> I bet your average, common denominator voter would be confused as hell, though, if you asked them to vote for who they wanted to win and also vote for who they wanted to lose. And presidential elections might end up being a total wash. Imagine 2016! I bet the majority of people would have voted against either candidate and _*for* _neither. I still hold that most people who voted for Trump, at the time, just didn't want HRC, and possibly most who voted for HRC just didn't want Trump. Very few people were happy with the outcome of the primaries here in VT, and likewise back in MI where most of my friends and family live. What would they do then, just start over?! With inauguration day a couple months away, there wouldn't be time to start from scratch.
> 
> But I still lay full blame of 2016 on the two party system. The primaries are run by the parties, not by the people. When both relevant parties nominate people with approval ratings well below 50%, the parties are simply telling us that they don't deserve to have power anymore. Period. DJT vs HRC, how about no thanks? Maybe have a self-destruct mechanism built in such that, if the party's candidate gets more against votes than for votes, say, two out of any three presidential elections, next time, that party has to sit the election out entirely?



Man, I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone who shares the same sentiments I do in regards to politics as you do, or at least no one who has stated it as clearly as you have, as consistently. Literally, every post you’ve made in this thread I’m over here nodding my head saying “YES!!”, so thanks for that!


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> A doctor flat out told me that they are instructed to take baby steps for people that are on Obamacare. With that being said they are not instructed to take care of people. That would mean giving them the surgeries they need to actually fix the problem instead of meds to make you feel better


That doctor was lying to you. That, or every _other_ medical professional I know, including both my parents, my wife, and probably half her friends, as well as my own doctors, are lying to me for some reason. You choose.  

The ACA is far from perfect... but the fact the GOP is going from doing everything they can to block it, to now even conservative states are backing Medicaid expansion under the ACA, with South Dakota being the most recent. The lack of a public option, or just going full single-payer, in the ACA was the biggest weakness, IMO, but let's be honest - health care affordability under America's broken quasi-market was a huge problem long _before_ the ACA, and we still have a lot to do to fix it. The ACA was at least a start, but with the individual mandate now gutted, the freeloader opportunity cost is now a lot lower than it was.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Affordable health care doesn't fix peoples problems, all these PCP's just feed people meds because the insurance companies don't want to fork up the cash to fix the problems with surgeries or other procedures. My brother is living proof of that, living in pain for years because his ACA insurance sucks. Not enough people pay into it because your precious Unions are exempt. Get more people to pay into it and I'll support it.


Not at all. You're confusing a couple key players here. 

From an insurance company standpoint, preventive care is _far_ cheaper than ongoing treatment. One of the things that the ACA unquestionably got _right_ is increasing the role of a primary care physician in health care, and focusing on building a longer term relationship between patient and doctor, to try to make it easier to identify problems before they became chronic, and nip them in the bud. 

You could argue it's in the best interest of the _pharmaceutical _industry to treat a chronic condition with 40 years of medication, than prevent it in the first place, and you wouldn't be wrong. But, they don't provide insurance coverage, and insurers don't make money by prescribing drugs, they make money by finding ways to minimize the all-in cost of health care (which, again, favors preventive care over chronic treatment). 

I have no problems with unions paying into the ACA risk pool, but working class white voters are a Republican-leaning demographic these days. But, again, bringing as many people into the coverage system as possible to broaden and diversify the risk pool was the point of the individual mandate in the first place.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Some positive things he is proposing:
> 
> - Term limits for congress
> - lifetime ban of members of congress for lobbying
> - ban of members of congress to inside trading


Didn't do that the first time around. Why'd you believe him now? 



Glades said:


> The rest of the speech has not been very different from his usual: bring back the economy, drain the swamp, protect the family, protect the border, become energy independent, bring down gas prices, etc etc etc


As it happens, I want to give every American a puppy, a unicorn, and a hundred thousand dollars. And that's just as easy to say as all of Trump's goals. Once he starts putting actual policy proposals forward, we can evaluate how likely he is to succeed, and whether or not his approach makes sense. 

Like, technically speaking, Trump DID bring down gas prices. Gas was even cheaper than $2 a gallon for a bit there in Trump's last year in office, the cheapest regular unleaded prices had been since 2016. However, his approach of "letting a deadly pandemic run unchecked, sending most of the country into lockdown, and decimating retail demand" was, ahem, probably not an effective way of doing so.


----------



## TedEH

Gatta love the attitude of prioritizing who pays for shit over whether or not your public is healthy.

And entertaining the idea of, once again, electing to President a reality TV show host who told people to inject themselves with bleach on camera.


----------



## Drew

TedEH said:


> Gatta love the attitude of prioritizing who pays for shit over whether or not your public is healthy.
> 
> And entertaining the idea of, once again, electing to President a reality TV show host who told people to inject themselves with bleach on camera.


But hey, it's better than "socialism," amirite?!?


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Wow, okay, so the jury is still way out on whether that ends up becoming a win or a gaffe.


The way I'm interpreting your last two posts about this, you're phrasing the student loan forgiveness not having happened yet as a Biden failure. Yet the damn thing was blocked in many states by conservative assholes filing lawsuits all over the country saying "if you forgive some people's debt, that causes harm to my client," and thus all refunds are on pause until the incredibly partisan supreme court inevitably says "yes, rich people ARE hurt when poor people have their debt cancelled, call off the whole program." And this is Biden's fault how?

I had zero loans myself and my girlfriend has FIFTY DOLLARS remaining on hers so it doesn't affect me, but I think it definitely was THE RIGHT move, even though it seems to have backfired cause it made all the uneducated Jethros, unsympathetic assholes who already paid theirs off and don't think it's fair that everyone doesn't have to suffer as much as them, and rich people who didn't have loans cry about how unfair the whole thing is, and now it seems like it's probably going to get scuttled by our POS Supreme Court anyway.

One of the two main fuckheads suing over the student loan forgiveness was some rotten lady who'd previously received 50,000 in PPP loans for her shitty business and had the whole thing forgiven. OF COURSE.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> The way I'm interpreting your last two posts about this, you're phrasing the student loan forgiveness not having happened yet as a Biden failure.


Well, that's unfair. If I say that the jury is still out about whether it's a win or a failure, and you interpret that to mean that I am saying it is a failure, then I'd say that misunderstanding is 100% on you, not me.



wankerness said:


> Yet the damn thing was blocked in many states by conservative assholes filing lawsuits all over the country saying "if you forgive some people's debt, that causes harm to my client," and thus all refunds are on pause until the incredibly partisan supreme court inevitably says "yes, rich people ARE hurt when poor people have their debt cancelled, call off the whole program." And this is Biden's fault how?


It depends on how he handles it. Like I've said twice before, it's up in the air at the moment. If Biden drops the ball and provides no further support for the action, then yes, that'd be a failure for him. In politics, you don't get brownie points for proposing an idea that helps people out and not seeing it through. Maybe that's why I see Obama as a disappointment and so many other people on the forum see him as the greatest politicians ever. 



wankerness said:


> I had zero loans myself and my girlfriend has FIFTY DOLLARS remaining on hers so it doesn't affect me, but I think it definitely was THE RIGHT move, even though it seems to have backfired cause it made all the uneducated Jethros, unsympathetic assholes who already paid theirs off and don't think it's fair that everyone doesn't have to suffer as much as them, and rich people who didn't have loans cry about how unfair the whole thing is, and now it seems like it's probably going to get scuttled by our POS Supreme Court anyway.
> 
> One of the two main fuckheads suing over the student loan forgiveness was some rotten lady who'd previously received 50,000 in PPP loans for her shitty business and had the whole thing forgiven. OF COURSE.


I agree 100%. College has gotten too damned expensive. I went to college part time from 1991 to 1998 and full time from 1998 all the way to 2004, and I was able to pay it off by 2006 off of wages I made at shitty part-time jobs. People enrolling by the time I paid mine off were paying twice or three times as much in tuition. That's insane. Something went wrong. There's no way that I could have paid for my tuition by working the counter at a pawn shop and waiting/bussing tables/washing dishes if I hadn't just barely enrolled in time to take advantage of affordable tuition. Granted, I was lucky enough to have a little help from scholarships, too, but they honestly only took a nibble off of the bottom line for me, grateful as I am to have had them.

People who want to block people from getting relief, just because they had whatever luckier circumstances, need to STFU. This doesn't concern them. If you are Gen X, you got subsidized tuition. If you went to college after Bush Jr. spent all of the college subsidies on Haliburton contracts, then you had to pay extra because of that. Why should they have to pay to line Dick Cheney's pockets?


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> That doctor was lying to you. That, or every _other_ medical professional I know, including both my parents, my wife, and probably half her friends, as well as my own doctors, are lying to me for some reason. You choose.
> 
> The ACA is far from perfect... but the fact the GOP is going from doing everything they can to block it, to now even conservative states are backing Medicaid expansion under the ACA, with South Dakota being the most recent. The lack of a public option, or just going full single-payer, in the ACA was the biggest weakness, IMO, but let's be honest - health care affordability under America's broken quasi-market was a huge problem long _before_ the ACA, and we still have a lot to do to fix it. The ACA was at least a start, but with the individual mandate now gutted, the freeloader opportunity cost is now a lot lower than it was.


I believe he was being honest, the Insurance companies want the PCP's to try cheap things before they move on to more expensive procedures. So it takes forever to take care of any serious issues. I have Glaucoma and my Ophthalmologist had to fight with the insurance company so they would cover the drops that worked for me. He already tried all the cheap ones and they didn't work, yet the IP was still telling him to try the cheap ones first. They don't fucking listen because they cling to their $$ like Linus and his blanket.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Well, that's unfair. If I say that the jury is still out about whether it's a win or a failure, and you interpret that to mean that I am saying it is a failure, then I'd say that misunderstanding is 100% on you, not me.
> 
> 
> It depends on how he handles it. Like I've said twice before, it's up in the air at the moment. If Biden drops the ball and provides no further support for the action, then yes, that'd be a failure for him. In politics, you don't get brownie points for proposing an idea that helps people out and not seeing it through. Maybe that's why I see Obama as a disappointment and so many other people on the forum see him as the greatest politicians ever.
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. College has gotten too damned expensive. I went to college part time from 1991 to 1998 and full time from 1998 all the way to 2004, and I was able to pay it off by 2006 off of wages I made at shitty part-time jobs. People enrolling by the time I paid mine off were paying twice or three times as much in tuition. That's insane. Something went wrong. There's no way that I could have paid for my tuition by working the counter at a pawn shop and waiting/bussing tables/washing dishes if I hadn't just barely enrolled in time to take advantage of affordable tuition. Granted, I was lucky enough to have a little help from scholarships, too, but they honestly only took a nibble off of the bottom line for me, grateful as I am to have had them.
> 
> People who want to block people from getting relief, just because they had whatever luckier circumstances, need to STFU. This doesn't concern them. If you are Gen X, you got subsidized tuition. If you went to college after Bush Jr. spent all of the college subsidies on Haliburton contracts, then you had to pay extra because of that. Why should they have to pay to line Dick Cheney's pockets?



I interpreted it as that cause it was part of your posts about how Obama's at fault for not finding some magic workaround to our political system to achieve his goals, as if it was potentially going to be the same thing - like "will this thing Biden did that's now getting blocked by our horrible legal system/supreme court go through or not? If not, he is a bad politician!" It seems to me like that was the correct interpretation! Seriously, what can he do when something goes to the supreme court? The President has ZERO control over what they decide. ZERO ability to appeal anything they decide. The only way to change that would be constitutional amendments, which would require 66 senators to vote yes on them.

Again, I'm not saying Obama was a great president. I'm saying Obama really did try to do a bunch of this stuff you're blaming him for failing on, and our political system and especially the Republican party are set up in such a way that no matter what his goals were, there was absolutely no way he could possibly have achieved them given our country's laws unless he used the military to execute his enemies like a fascist dictator. I really don't think he anticipated how insane the Republican party would react to him trying to do things in a bipartisan fashion.

Biden has been a better president so far by virtue of actually achieving some impressive things via the only super-limited things he could possibly pass anything with (reconciliation, basically). If the republican party and Manchin and Sinema weren't all completely terrible, he could probably do a lot more (like the voting rights bills that got scuttled by republicans in the senate, or codifying abortion rights which also got scuttled by republicans in the senate, or putting a price cap on insulin which also got scuttled by republicans in the senate). Though now we ALSO have the unelected and unaccountable supreme court enforcing their will on everyone - here, the only recourse would be to get a majority of politicans to agree that expanding the court is a fine idea (obviously no republicans would ever do this cause it would hurt them if we had a counterbalance to the three total insanity people on the court that are currently enforcing the will of the minority on the majority). And you seem to think that there has to be some magic lever that presidents can pull to make people do what they want! I mean, it would be great if there was, but it seems like the fact of the matter is that all it takes is one or two compromised assholes in key positions to completely scuttle any progress in this country. It's amazing how little you have to pay off Sinema relative to the amount of destruction that can be done to the country.

Working at a college, I see the "college is too expensive" argument getting tossed around a lot, but am privy to the behind-the-scenes info at least at non-profit institutions. It probably IS too expensive at a lot of places (mainly ivy league schools where you get tons of rich people enrolling), but a lot of other places are barely scraping by. You have to give students monstrous discounts to get them to come, and that results in barely having enough money to pay employees and faculty, which results in them leaving education, which results in students leaving because the education they're getting isn't good enough. It's a big negative feedback loop. I think it's largely cause colleges used to be propped up by the government a lot more than they are now, and it results both in students AND colleges hurting financially in a big way.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> I interpreted it as that cause it was part of your posts about how Obama's at fault for not finding some magic workaround to our political system to achieve his goals, as if it was potentially going to be the same thing - like "will this thing Biden did that's now getting blocked by our horrible legal system/supreme court go through or not? If not, he is a bad politician!" It seems to me like that was the correct interpretation! Seriously, what can he do when something goes to the supreme court? The President has ZERO control over what they decide. ZERO ability to appeal anything they decide. The only way to change that would be constitutional amendments, which would require 66 senators to vote yes on them.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying Obama was a great president. I'm saying Obama really did try to do a bunch of this stuff you're blaming him for failing on, and our political system and especially the Republican party are set up in such a way that no matter what his goals were, there was absolutely no way he could possibly have achieved them given our country's laws unless he used the military to execute his enemies like a fascist dictator. I really don't think he anticipated how insane the Republican party would react to him trying to do things in a bipartisan fashion.
> 
> Biden has been a better president so far by virtue of actually achieving some impressive things via the only super-limited things he could possibly pass anything with (reconciliation, basically). If the republican party and Manchin and Sinema weren't all completely terrible, he could probably do a lot more (like the voting rights bills that got scuttled by republicans in the senate, or codifying abortion rights which also got scuttled by republicans in the senate, or putting a price cap on insulin which also got scuttled by republicans in the senate). Though now we ALSO have the unelected and unaccountable supreme court enforcing their will on everyone - here, the only recourse would be to get a majority of politicans to agree that expanding the court is a fine idea (obviously no republicans would ever do this cause it would hurt them if we had a counterbalance to the three total insanity people on the court that are currently enforcing the will of the minority on the majority). And you seem to think that there has to be some magic lever that presidents can pull to make people do what they want! I mean, it would be great if there was, but it seems like the fact of the matter is that all it takes is one or two compromised assholes in key positions to completely scuttle any progress in this country. It's amazing how little you have to pay off Sinema relative to the amount of destruction that can be done to the country.
> 
> Working at a college, I see the "college is too expensive" argument getting tossed around a lot, but am privy to the behind-the-scenes info at least at non-profit institutions. It probably IS too expensive at a lot of places (mainly ivy league schools where you get tons of rich people enrolling), but a lot of other places are barely scraping by. You have to give students monstrous discounts to get them to come, and that results in barely having enough money to pay employees and faculty, which results in them leaving education, which results in students leaving because the education they're getting isn't good enough. It's a big negative feedback loop. I think it's largely cause colleges used to be propped up by the government a lot more than they are now, and it results both in students AND colleges hurting financially in a big way.


Try doesn't mean jack to most people. In the words of Yoda, "do or do not." Being a former college professor, I like the idea of partial credit. If the president tried really hard to deliver on a promise, I say give them partial credit for it. If it seems they hardly tried and the answer was magically delivered into their lap, full credit. Ultimately, you promised to do XYZ, and you didn't do it. If you have an excuse why it didn't get done, I'll take that into account, but you'll never get full credit for having done the thing you didn't do. I feel like that is simple and fair, if we are going to have any accountability at all. You can't have there be a magic lever or an easy button, but you can't have it to the other extreme, either, where a leader declares something to be so, and then buckles at the first sign of push-back from the opposition. That's why there's a sliding scale of success and not just a binary GOOD/BAD, even if the answer to "goal achieved?" is YES or NO.

In Biden's case, he's in the midst of all of these promises. Maybe he'll be the best president ever. IDK. Honestly, his track record hasn't been that bad so far.

I guess I don't understand all of the defense of Obama. Look, being president is not as simple as you say what you want and everyone claps and you get ranked as a great leader. Being a great leader is hard, and you have to do things that are very difficult, which is why hardly any of them ever make it into the hall of fame. Promising everyone a bunch of cool shit is a great start, but it's only a start. Pushing it through congress without losing its vision is the rabbit out of the hat.

The average in-state state college tuition is over $100k for a four-year degree, according to google. My entire academic career cost just over a third of that out of pocket, including graduate school, going to an in-state university that wasn't the cheapest nor the most expensive in-state option.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Try doesn't mean jack to most people. In the words of Yoda, "do or do not." Being a former college professor, I like the idea of partial credit. If the president tried really hard to deliver on a promise, I say give them partial credit for it. If it seems they hardly tried and the answer was magically delivered into their lap, full credit. Ultimately, you promised to do XYZ, and you didn't do it. If you have an excuse why it didn't get done, I'll take that into account, but you'll never get full credit for having done the thing you didn't do. I feel like that is simple and fair, if we are going to have any accountability at all. You can't have there be a magic lever or an easy button, but you can't have it to the other extreme, either, where a leader declares something to be so, and then buckles at the first sign of push-back from the opposition. That's why there's a sliding scale of success and not just a binary GOOD/BAD, even if the answer to "goal achieved?" is YES or NO.
> 
> In Biden's case, he's in the midst of all of these promises. Maybe he'll be the best president ever. IDK. Honestly, his track record hasn't been that bad so far.
> 
> I guess I don't understand all of the defense of Obama. Look, being president is not as simple as you say what you want and everyone claps and you get ranked as a great leader. Being a great leader is hard, and you have to do things that are very difficult, which is why hardly any of them ever make it into the hall of fame. Promising everyone a bunch of cool shit is a great start, but it's only a start. Pushing it through congress without losing its vision is the rabbit out of the hat.


The point is just that even if Jesus H.Christ himself was president, if he wasn't a republican, he would not be able to do ANYTHING because our system is set up in a way that allows an opposition party to completely shut down almost every single avenue besides scheduled Reconciliation. The truly great presidents in history, famous for huge, sweeping legislation, all would have been completely impotent when faced with the current climate. The new deal was passed when the president had 60 senators on his side, for example, and bipartisanship really was a thing before Newt Gingrich in the 90s and his even nastier protegees like Mitch Mcconnell killed it dead.

So like, of course presidents that can't pass anything are never going to go in any hall of great presidents. But they're the best thing we can ask for and disengaging from the political system cause they can't get anything done is exactly the wrong response. While they can't do much to improve our lives, they're at least actively fighting against the opposition party's attempt to make our lives worse. Again, things in this country get worse all the time thanks to corporate overlords basically having politicians in their pocket, and staying the same is unfortunately about the best we can hope for right now.

Basically I just can't figure out if you actually think they could violate all the laws of this country and succeed at things that are quite literally legally impossible if they wanted to, or if you're just saying "sure it's completely impossible, but I'm not going to rank them over presidents who actually accomplished things in the distant past if they don't get anything done!" The latter, fair enough. The former just seems to be ignoring reality.


bostjan said:


> The average in-state state college tuition is over $100k for a four-year degree, according to google. My entire academic career cost just over a third of that out of pocket, including graduate school, going to an in-state university that wasn't the cheapest nor the most expensive in-state option.


Yeah, that sounds about right. It seems like a ton of the increase nationwide is largely due to huge cuts to funding of education on state levels. Like, my college had similar enrollment for the last 30 years, but staffing levels have declined something outrageous like 40%, salary increases haven't kept pace with inflation, while tuition has gone up as much as everywhere else in the country, cause there's just so much less money coming in. Students used to pay a much higher percentage of the "sticker price" back in the days when the economy was good (80s/90s), and as their expectations for things like scholarships balloon the actual cash flow per student has gone way, way down. It's a bad scene. I think most private colleges in the midwest (and a number of public schools, too) are going to close down over the next 5-10 years. Doesn't help that there's a huge population crash coming down the pipeline soon (corresponding to the recession in 2006 massively decreasing the number of people having kids).


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> I believe he was being honest, the Insurance companies want the PCP's to try cheap things before they move on to more expensive procedures. So it takes forever to take care of any serious issues. I have Glaucoma and my Ophthalmologist had to fight with the insurance company so they would cover the drops that worked for me. He already tried all the cheap ones and they didn't work, yet the IP was still telling him to try the cheap ones first. They don't fucking listen because they cling to their $$ like Linus and his blanket.


Ok, but that's a _very_ different thing from "they're instructed not to take care of you," and "they're instructed to give you meds rather than the surgery to fix your condition."

That's also generally pretty consistent with best medical practices, too - "first, do no harm," and all of that. Start with the easiest and least invasive treatment, and if that fails try progressively more invasive options. 

Speaking from my own experience, I've had surgery a couple times now, the most recent for a torn tendon in my shoulder. We started that with physical therapy, since it's entirely non-invasive, and the opportunity (and economic) of a couple months of twice-weekly appointments is pretty low. If at the end of that period all issues had been addressed, that would have been the end of it. They weren't, so we then moved on to surgery. And, being completely honest here, it's still not a 100% improvement, though that's complicated by the fact I got hit by a turning car at speed a year and a half later and broke my collar bone in that shoulder so some of the occasional pain may be related to that, but at least the weakness/stability issues are fully resolved.

And I think that's worth considering here - from a practitioner standpoint, surgery isn't always even all that good of an issue. It's risky (particular back surgery where you run the risk of paralysis if you're doing anyting involving the spinal column, which for back pain you almost certainly are), the recovery is long and comes with its own risks (fused vertebrae, lost range of motion, etc) and success rates are nowhere near 100%, so you're rolling the dice on a not all that great outcome. 

Honestly, this may have a lot less to do with insurance and a lot more to do with a clear-eyed assessment of risks and benefits. That doesn't mean insurers can't _also_ be shitty - my wife deals with issues similar to yours with glaucoma all the time, and while insurers can usually be brought to heel, you have to jump through hoops to demonstrate that you have tried the approved coverage and it was deemed not medically appropriate for some reason or another. It's a frustrating, time consuming process, and it shouldn't be. But, again, that was the case _long_ before the ACA.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Try doesn't mean jack to most people. In the words of Yoda, "do or do not." Being a former college professor, I like the idea of partial credit. If the president tried really hard to deliver on a promise, I say give them partial credit for it. If it seems they hardly tried and the answer was magically delivered into their lap, full credit. Ultimately, you promised to do XYZ, and you didn't do it. If you have an excuse why it didn't get done, I'll take that into account, but you'll never get full credit for having done the thing you didn't do.


I'm with @wankerness here - you and I have talked about this before, at length, and I think we need to interpret campaign promises as more like a "mission statement" than an actual road map of what a president expects to do in office. "These are my priorities, and if you send me to the White House, these are the things I'm going to fight to do for America," and not "this is an agenda for the next four years of what I expect to accomplish." 

If a president were to run on a promise of "I believe in universal access to health care, so if you elect me, I'm going to propose a nationalized health care plan that I expect to be gutted by special interest groups given the narrowness of my expected legislative majority, but I still think odds are pretty good I can get a national health care plan where in return for an universal mandate insurers can no longer refuse to provide coverage due to pre-existing conditions, but realistically single payer or even a public option is probably going to die on the House floor" then they would probably be factually accurate... but they would almost certainly lose to the other guy running on "I'm going to repeal the ACA, and replace it with _something better_!" Campaign promises are a statement of priority and intent. They're not realistic to-do lists. 

And that's before you get into the wrinkle about when campaigning, a president has _no clue_ what the composition of the Congress he or she will have to work with is. Biden may have fallen short of what he outlined on the campaign trail, but I think it's remarkable how much he DID do, with a 50-50+1 majority in the Senate (very moderate) and a 4-seat majority in the (very progressive) House. Looking at that as "Democrats control all chambers of congress, why can't they give us single-payer healthcare?" (to continue with the previous example) makes the mistake of treating a diverse coalition like a homogenous bloc.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> The point is just that even if Jesus H.Christ himself was president, if he wasn't a republican, he would not be able to do ANYTHING because our system is set up in a way that allows an opposition party to completely shut down almost every single avenue besides scheduled Reconciliation. The truly great presidents in history, famous for huge, sweeping legislation, all would have been completely impotent when faced with the current climate. The new deal was passed when the president had 60 senators on his side, for example, and bipartisanship really was a thing before Newt Gingrich in the 90s and his even nastier protegees like Mitch Mcconnell killed it dead.


Yeah, well, if Jesus Christ promised to turn Lake Michigan into wine if he was elected, and then got elected, and said he couldn't do it because of a filibuster, yeah, I'd say he would make a bad president then.

And we've seen the situation before where the president has a supermajority and then the excuse is just that there are internal disagreements within the party or whatever. If you are a good enough leader, you push through. It doesn't have to be anything illegal, but it boils down to you promised X and didn't deliver X. 

Congress is horrible, but it's kind of always been horrible. Sure it's particularly extra horrible now, but I have the feeling that we'll see it get worse, too. But somehow, still, some presidents get some of the shit done that they promised to do, and others get nothing done.

Coming back to Obama, if you look at what he promised he would do, and you look at what he actually delivered, it's not good. You can make excuses for him, that's fine, but, even if you give him half credit for wanting to do the things he promised, I still don't think you could come up with a grade above a B- for him. Ultimately, gitmo stayed open, capital gains tax increases were totally ball-less, the ACA was gutted, the public contracts and influence database never got started, the promises to solve the housing crisis fell way short of goals, chemical emissions on industrial plants were gutted, his promise to solve the voter access problems were never really addressed, the Cures Act passed but was never federally funded, he didn't end the Iraq War, China's trade practices went on unchecked, he never marched with unions symbolically like he promised, there was nothing that ever happened with standards for securing personal data, funding for basic scientific research never doubled like he promised, $50B USD was never allocated for fuel efficiency, he didn't stop the North Korean nuclear program as he promised on the campaign trail, sexual orientation nor gender identity were not added to the Employment Nondiscrimination Act during his tenure, he didn't get the assault weapons ban renewed as he promised, law enforcement never banned racial profiling like he promised, he totally unequivocally missed his goal on reducing US oil consumption, he never ended tax deductions for offshore companies ... the list goes on and on and on. What he did do that I credit him for is that he made good on his promise to get more wind turbines going and he made good on the tax credit for new home buyers.

His overall track record on promises is maybe 1 for 3 if you count all of the little piddly stuff, but, what's worse is that the biggest promises mostly were either failed or totally gutted.

If these things were impossible to ever do, then don't promise them. He got elected based on those promises!

If you count an attempt, then you'd have to say that Trump actually had almost as good a track record, and Trump was clearly one of the worst presidents in US history!



Drew said:


> I'm with @wankerness here - you and I have talked about this before, at length, and I think we need to interpret campaign promises as more like a "mission statement" than an actual road map of what a president expects to do in office.



Promises are promises. A mission statement should serve as a road map of what the person will try to do. If the person fails to do what they set out to do, it needs to be acknowledges as a failure to do what they set out to do.

Anything much rosier than that is needless equivocation.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Ok, but that's a _very_ different thing from "they're instructed not to take care of you," and "they're instructed to give you meds rather than the surgery to fix your condition."


My exact words were, they're instructed to take baby steps. Which they do. Imagine pro athletes having to go the same route.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> My exact words were, they're instructed to take baby steps. Which they do. Imagine pro athletes having to go the same route.


Referring back to this:



AMOS said:


> With that being said they are not instructed to take care of people. That would mean giving them the surgeries they need to actually fix the problem instead of meds to make you feel better


...the other half of your post. 

Pro athletes are a slightly different situation - can't speak to them intimately, but as a ready example, I know my wife has a huge additional coverage policy on her hands, because as a medical proceduralist any injury there would have a _very_ immediate impact on her livelihood, and (as a non-professional but very serious endurance athlete, something I've had a LOT of conversations with providers about) insurance companies have a treatment objective of returning you to "normal" function, suitable to handling most day to day tasks, which is _not_ the same as "good as new, like it never happened" recovery. I'm just lucky I'm pretty resilient, hard to break, and generally heal very well.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Promises are promises. A mission statement should serve as a road map of what the person will try to do. If the person fails to do what they set out to do, it needs to be acknowledges as a failure to do what they set out to do.
> 
> Anything much rosier than that is needless equivocation.


You know as well as I that's an impossible standard when you're running with no control over what the Congress you'll be working with will look like.


----------



## wankerness

I'm trying to figure out what a successful president would look like to Bostjan. One that campaigns on "i will not try to do anything" and thus fulfills all his promises? Or one that campaigns on "I'll try to pass these things but the republicans will block all of them if they get more than 40 seats in the senate" instead of "i'll try my hardest to pass these things?" I guess that would also live up to promises. Clearly saying "I'll do X" and then trying to do X and failing because of reasons outside of their control is unacceptable behavior. But, no one would EVER get elected if they said "I won't get anything done" even if it will usually end up true thanks to the law of the land.

Speaking of which, that's the major difference between the Trump campaign statements and the Obama/Biden ones - the latter generally made a good-faith effort to follow through on them. While Trump tried following through on the awful ones (ex immigration bans) and all the liberal-sounding ones he tossed around on the campaign trail like "suggesting a new healthcare plan to replace the ACA" never had one iota of work done with them. I think technically Trump did keep some of his promises since he mainly just ordered tons of executive orders that have since been overturned - by Bostjan standards, is he a better president for doing things that were awful that he said he'd do, vs trying to do things that were good and being stopped by awful people? I guess if you're defining quality by "success on [temporarily] implementing campaign promises," yes.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Drew said:


> Referring back to this:
> 
> I'm just lucky I'm pretty resilient, hard to break, and generally heal very well.



I hope you have a guitar close at hand to knock on, and it isn't an Aristides.


----------



## Ralyks

Trump’s Longtime CFO Implicated Him in Yearslong Tax Fraud Scheme Hours Before 2024 Announcement — Vanity Fair


Allen Weisselberg told a Manhattan supreme court jury that Trump “authorized” the payments at the heart of the criminal case against the Trump Organization.




apple.news





So this is fun. Weisselberg implicated Trump in a yearslong tax fraud scheme just before Trumpdeclared his run.


----------



## Mathemagician

AMOS said:


> That Obamacare sucks. Yes it's affordable but so are Fender Squiers. Most of the people that say how good it is don't have to use it



Bro I mean this with zero jokes, everything you’re saying sounds like you want the US to make it better, not remove it. 

As it is it’s a band-aid and it helps some people. Which is more than zero. 

But proper universal healthcare would eliminate the bullshit your family is unfortunately having to deal with. 

That’s truly awful, and a good example of why so many are still going to push for attempts to improve things, not throw in the towel. 

I hope he is able to get a real resolution eventually.


----------



## narad

Mathemagician said:


> Bro I mean this with zero jokes, everything you’re saying sounds like you want the US to make it better, not remove it.
> 
> As it is it’s a band-aid and it helps some people. Which is more than zero.
> 
> But proper universal healthcare would eliminate the bullshit your family is unfortunately having to deal with.
> 
> That’s truly awful, and a good example of why so many are still going to push for attempts to improve things, not throw in the towel.
> 
> I hope he is able to get a real resolution eventually.



Yea, seems like we should be on the same side. 

Why do you think healthcare costs in the US are crazy? Because of these vicious pricing/response behaviors between US pharma/hospitals and insurance companies. So why's your bros health costs crazy high? Yea, because of that. ACA was a step towards fixing that at the source rather than more slapping bandaids on the problem (ha) which led to how out of whack the US healthcare situation is vs. the rest of the world. 

I had some crazy medical treatment in Japan with several hours under with a whole team and a super expensive surgical robot, and you wouldn't even be able to buy a BKP set for the amount I had to pay. The private room in the hospital for recovery... that was pricey, but also optional.


----------



## spudmunkey

narad said:


> I had some crazy medical treatment in Japan with several hours under with a whole team and a super expensive surgical robot, and you wouldn't even be able to buy a BKP set for the amount I had to pay. The private room in the hospital for recovery... that was pricey, but also optional.


These stories are always hilarious to me. "I had an organ replaced, and the bill I got was for the valet parking, and the optional upgrade to orange juice from tea for my in-patient breakfast."

Amusingly when I was on private employer-based insurance for the health issue I'm going through for the last year and half (I basically don't leave the house for more than 30 minutes at a time), they had me waste 6 months on dietary changes which I knew wasn't going to do squat, then all sorts of cheaper medications. It wasn't until I went on the California state insurance (managed by the county) where we started getting more aggressive. Last week I got my first loading dose of a treatment that was previously declined by the private insurance, but fully covered by my state plan. Depending on how many treatments per year I'm prescribed, this medication sells for $26k-$45k ($4-7k per dose) for an un-insured patient....and it's not costing me a dime. I wish I had the app that my previous private insurance had, because the jumble of phone numbers I have now and the waiting on hold sucks...but the actual health care I'm getting is much better, and costs me less. My mom in Wisconsin has had similar experiences with her state plan.


----------



## AMOS

Mathemagician said:


> Bro I mean this with zero jokes, everything you’re saying sounds like you want the US to make it better, not remove it.
> 
> As it is it’s a band-aid and it helps some people. Which is more than zero.
> 
> But proper universal healthcare would eliminate the bullshit your family is unfortunately having to deal with.
> 
> That’s truly awful, and a good example of why so many are still going to push for attempts to improve things, not throw in the towel.
> 
> I hope he is able to get a real resolution eventually.


The last Physicians Practice I went to, dropped me because I had ACA insurance. They feel they didn't get properly re-imbursed so they restructured and dropped a bunch of patients. I had to hunt for one that did accept my insurance. It's not right that they force this on us, fine you if you're un-insured, then allow practices to drop you.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> The last Physicians Practice I went to, dropped me because I had ACA insurance. They feel they didn't get properly re-imbursed so they restructured and dropped a bunch of patients. I had to hunt for one that did accept my insurance. It's not right that they force this on us, fine you if you're un-insured, then allow practices to drop you.


Don't you find that a fault of capitalism and not a fault of trying to socialize medicine though?


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> You know as well as I that's an impossible standard when you're running with no control over what the Congress you'll be working with will look like.



If it's an impossible standard to not make promises you cannot keep, then I give up.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> The last Physicians Practice I went to, dropped me because I had ACA insurance. They feel they didn't get properly re-imbursed so they restructured and dropped a bunch of patients. I had to hunt for one that did accept my insurance. It's not right that they force this on us, fine you if you're un-insured, then allow practices to drop you.


Don't you live in Massachusetts?


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Don't you live in Massachusetts?


Yes.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Yes.


So, right off the bat, you don't have an "ACA plan." Your plan might be ACA-compliant, but it would have been purchased on the Mass Connector, which predates the ACA implementation by nearly a decade, and was created under state and not federal law.


----------



## AMOS

CanserDYI said:


> Don't you find that a fault of capitalism and not a fault of trying to socialize medicine though?


I see it as a lack of control and oversight. I would definitely say that the practice that dropped me are selfish. But when they put this system into place nobody bothered to lower the prices of the procedures to match what they receive as compensation


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> So, right off the bat, you don't have an "ACA plan." Your plan might be ACA-compliant, but it would have been purchased on the Mass Connector, which predates the ACA implementation by nearly a decade, and was created under state and not federal law.


I used to have Romney care which wasn't that bad. I now get my insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector. It does fall under the Affordable Care Act because states are made to have their own portals. I don't know a hell of a lot about it but I do know you will be fined $1,200 if you don't have it.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> So, right off the bat, you don't have an "ACA plan." Your plan might be ACA-compliant, but it would have been purchased on the Mass Connector, which predates the ACA implementation by nearly a decade, and was created under state and not federal law.


I just Googled it and this is a copy and paste from the results.
Most Massachusetts residents are eligible to buy health insurance through Massachusetts Health Connector, *the state's Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace*, during open enrollment, which began Nov. 1, 2022, and runs through Jan. 23, 2023.Nov 1, 2022


----------



## Drew

Back to Biden, we just had a "Respect for Marriage Act" pass the Senate 62-37, a large enough margin to avoid minority party filibuster, providing legal protection for same-sex and multi-racial marriages, which absolutely was NOT a Biden campaign promise, because Clarence Thomas hadn't threatened to overturn judicial precedent here when Biden was campaigning yet. Again, I'm kind of amazed just how effective Biden HAS been at working with a razor thin margin in Congress, all things considered.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> I used to have Romney care which wasn't that bad. I now get my insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector. It does fall under the Affordable Care Act because states are made to have their own portals. I don't know a hell of a lot about it but I do know you will be fined $1,200 if you don't have it.


...at the state and not federal level, because there's no federal tax penalty anymore. But, yes, the Mass Health Connector was set up in 2006 by the state itself. Blaming the ACA for your prior provider dropping coverage of your plan isn't really accurate.


----------



## Drew

Pelosi stepping down, as well - staying in the House, but not running for a leadership position. Hell of a run, there, she kept a tight grip on a very narrow majority the last two years, and kicked the crap out of Trump the two years before that.


----------



## ArtDecade

Tired of career politicians like Pelosi, but she has a pair of brass balls on her and rose to the occasion more than once. If you are going to spend decades in power, you might as well have a spine - unlike McTurtle.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> ...at the state and not federal level, because there's no federal tax penalty anymore. But, yes, the Mass Health Connector was set up in 2006 by the state itself. Blaming the ACA for your prior provider dropping coverage of your plan isn't really accurate.


If you go to the federal website and apply for health insurance you will be directed to the Massachusetts website to apply


Drew said:


> ...at the state and not federal level, because there's no federal tax penalty anymore. But, yes, the Mass Health Connector was set up in 2006 by the state itself. Blaming the ACA for your prior provider dropping coverage of your plan isn't really accurate.


If you go to the federal website you will be redirected to the State website to apply. I was blaming the practice for dropping me unless I'm wrong about that as well


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Back to Biden, we just had a "Respect for Marriage Act" pass the Senate 62-37, a large enough margin to avoid minority party filibuster, providing legal protection for same-sex and multi-racial marriages, which absolutely was NOT a Biden campaign promise, because Clarence Thomas hadn't threatened to overturn judicial precedent here when Biden was campaigning yet. Again, I'm kind of amazed just how effective Biden HAS been at working with a razor thin margin in Congress, all things considered.


Wow! That's fundamental!

25+ years of DOMA and we can finally walk away from that dumpster fire of a policy. The fact that this passed by a healthy margin gives me hope after all.



Drew said:


> Pelosi stepping down, as well - staying in the House, but not running for a leadership position. Hell of a run, there, she kept a tight grip on a very narrow majority the last two years, and kicked the crap out of Trump the two years before that.



That's also been forever since she stepped up. I'm cautiously excited to see new talent at the helm.


----------



## AMOS

AMOS said:


> If you go to the federal website and apply for health insurance you will be directed to the Massachusetts website to apply
> 
> If you go to the federal website you will be redirected to the State website to apply. I was blaming the practice for dropping me unless I'm wrong about that as well


Yes I said the practice dropped me because I had a ACA insurance


----------



## TedEH

Did you just reply to yourself....?


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> Yes I said the practice dropped me because I had a ACA insurance


These problems (yours, your brother’s, etc.) are all the result of a private, for profit healthcare system as enabled by the republicans under the guise of a free market (forget that the US healthcare system is anything but a free market).

If we had something akin to Medicare as the only insurance option, and everyone in the US had it, then healthcare providers would have to either 1) accept it and the prices it negotiates, or 2) bow out of the insurance system and deal with only wealthy people that can pay out of pocket for their healthcare (think of the quacks that lead to Prince and Michael Jackson overdosing). This is the progressive/liberal/whatever you want to call it option that benefits almost everyone. Literally the only people not benefiting from this approach are those that are profiteering from the current system (and note that I am not talking about making a reasonable profit here, I’m talking about ripping people off when they are at their most vulnerable).

So why stick with the current, broken (conservative) system rather than push for something better?


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> Yes I said the practice dropped me because I had a ACA insurance


I want you to have insurance. Please vote for liberals that also want you to have universal healthcare.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> If you go to the federal website and apply for health insurance you will be directed to the Massachusetts website to apply
> 
> If you go to the federal website you will be redirected to the State website to apply. I was blaming the practice for dropping me unless I'm wrong about that as well


Yes, the Mass Connector website, which was a marketplace set up in 2006, well before Obama was even elected.  

And practices have some discretion over what insurance they do and do not take - if they can't break even at a reimbursement rate, then you as a socialism-decrier don't expect the government to force them to take insurance, no? Did you change insurers, incidentally, before they dropped you? Or had you been going there for some time and then they decided to stop accepting your insurance?


----------



## nightflameauto

tedtan said:


> These problems (yours, your brother’s, etc.) are all the result of a private, for profit healthcare system as enabled by the republicans under the guise of a free market (forget that the US healthcare system is anything but a free market).
> 
> If we had something akin to Medicare as the only insurance option, and everyone in the US had it, then healthcare providers would have to either 1) accept it and the prices it negotiates, or 2) bow out of the insurance system and deal with only wealthy people that can pay out of pocket for their healthcare (think of the quacks that lead to Prince and Michael Jackson overdosing). This is the progressive/liberal/whatever you want to call it option that benefits almost everyone. Literally the only people not benefiting from this approach are those that are profiteering from the current system (and note that I am not talking about making a reasonable profit here, I’m talking about ripping people off when they are at their most vulnerable).
> 
> So why stick with the current, broken (conservative) system rather than push for something better?


I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a long, long time and the only real conclusion we can come to is, "I don't want other people to benefit."

Americans on the whole are still stuck in retribution mode. Call it hangover from the Boston Tea Party or what have you, but our entire collective make-up is essentially a giant middle finger pointing wherever we look saying, "FUCK YOU! MINE!"

Now, the Republican party will literally just come right out and say it that way. Points for honesty.

The Democrats are a bit more sinister with their approach. They'll talk a good game until it comes time to actually do something, then suddenly it's very important to take care of these utterly fictitious twats that have decided they really love their current health insurance and would never, ever, in a million years, want to change it for anything, better or not, because battered wives syndrome is a thing that exists, and I guess that works for health insurance too. Except, I have yet to ever speak with a single human being other than the guy that ran this company I work at in the beginning that loved their insurance plan. How shocking. A multi-millionaire that didn't want the little people to have other options.

Nobody can offer a cogent argument for why adding a single-payer option that ANYBODY could buy into that could then become a player in the supposedly open market can't possibly work in America. Except for this argument: It would eventually lead to lower profits for the current insurance companies. And ultimately lower profits for the pharmaceutical companies.

And if there is one sin our politicians WILL NOT ALLOW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, it's lowering profit in the hopes of bettering life for anybody, anywhere, other than themselves.

And there's the rub. If we could find a way to lower healthcare costs while shoving the difference into our politician's pockets? It'd be passed so fast we wouldn't even know the bill existed.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Nobody can offer a cogent argument for why adding a single-payer option that ANYBODY could buy into that could then become a player in the supposedly open market can't possibly work in America. Except for this argument: It would eventually lead to lower profits for the current insurance companies. And ultimately lower profits for the pharmaceutical companies.


I mean, over a long enough timeline, it would either render them irrelevant, or force them to become some sort of supplimental insurance model. Main reason I was in favor of a public option was over time it would drive the private insurers out of business, but wouldn't do it overnight so they'd have time to downsize more gradually and staff to transition out either to the single payer or to other careers.


----------



## nightflameauto

Drew said:


> I mean, over a long enough timeline, it would either render them irrelevant, or force them to become some sort of supplimental insurance model. Main reason I was in favor of a public option was over time it would drive the private insurers out of business, but wouldn't do it overnight so they'd have time to downsize more gradually and staff to transition out either to the single payer or to other careers.


Yup. It's the path that makes the most sense in every direction if we ever want to stop being an also-ran when it comes to healthcare on when looking at other first world countries. That would give us options as we transition, and allow the slow(ish) wind-down of the for-profit healthcare industry.


----------



## tedtan

nightflameauto said:


> I've been trying to wrap my head around it for a long, long time and the only real conclusion we can come to is, "I don't want other people to benefit."
> 
> Americans on the whole are still stuck in retribution mode. Call it hangover from the Boston Tea Party or what have you, but our entire collective make-up is essentially a giant middle finger pointing wherever we look saying, "FUCK YOU! MINE!"
> 
> Now, the Republican party will literally just come right out and say it that way. Points for honesty.


That’s a very zero sum approach to looking at the world, which fits in with how conservatives tend to think. ”For me to get my piece of the pie, someone else has to miss out on their piece”.

But in reality, there are enough resources to make pies for everyone.




nightflameauto said:


> The Democrats are a bit more sinister with their approach. They'll talk a good game until it comes time to actually do something, then suddenly it's very important to take care of these utterly fictitious twats that have decided they really love their current health insurance and would never, ever, in a million years, want to change it for anything, better or not, because battered wives syndrome is a thing that exists, and I guess that works for health insurance too. Except, I have yet to ever speak with a single human being other than the guy that ran this company I work at in the beginning that loved their insurance plan. How shocking. A multi-millionaire that didn't want the little people to have other options.


This only has one explanation: lobbyists. Not that lobbyists only target democrats by any means, just that there isn’t any other explanation here in this case.




nightflameauto said:


> Nobody can offer a cogent argument for why adding a single-payer option that ANYBODY could buy into that could then become a player in the supposedly open market can't possibly work in America. Except for this argument: It would eventually lead to lower profits for the current insurance companies. And ultimately lower profits for the pharmaceutical companies.
> 
> And if there is one sin our politicians WILL NOT ALLOW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, it's lowering profit in the hopes of bettering life for anybody, anywhere, other than themselves.
> 
> And there's the rub. If we could find a way to lower healthcare costs while shoving the difference into our politician's pockets? It'd be passed so fast we wouldn't even know the bill existed.


Yeah, this is just profit driven.


----------



## bostjan

I don't think that there are enough pies for everyone, though, considering how many damned people there are and how many pies each person feels they are entitled to... Maybe you could make one pie for each person, but then at least one person would complain that they didn't want the sort of pie that they got, others would eat their pie in one sitting and then complain the next day about not having leftovers, and other still would steal pies from each other...

But that's only appropriate for a conversation about the philosophy of different socio-economic models than this thread.


----------



## Glades

We need free public healthcare for all. But the only way for public healthcare to work is a complete restructuring of the medical system in our country. Taxpayers could not afford to foot the bill for the exorbitant prices that big pharma, hospitals, etc are charging. It is simply impossible at this time for any american to not have healthcare insurance. Any minor medical procedure will bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Yes, the Mass Connector website, which was a marketplace set up in 2006, well before Obama was even elected.
> 
> And practices have some discretion over what insurance they do and do not take - if they can't break even at a reimbursement rate, then you as a socialism-decrier don't expect the government to force them to take insurance, no? Did you change insurers, incidentally, before they dropped you? Or had you been going there for some time and then they decided to stop accepting your insurance?


The practice changed names (they were bought out) and they decided they would no longer accept my insurance. I found a new practice that did. Romney Care came into effect in 2006, which was not ACA. That didn't come in until Obama did, obviously.. When the ACA did become effective, people like me had to sign up on the NEW website and apply for coverage. The name of the website may have stayed the same but it was no longer the same URL, or the same anything. Romney Care was dead at that point. We're in 2022, not sure why you brought 2006 into this. It was about 7 years ago that I was dropped. Which was during the ACA, not Romney Care. If you go out and get your own health care these days look to pay about $1200 a month. I remember back when my company paid for it, it kept going up and up until my boss said no more.


----------



## AMOS

Glades said:


> We need free public healthcare for all. But the only way for public healthcare to work is a complete restructuring of the medical system in our country. Taxpayers could not afford to foot the bill for the exorbitant prices that big pharma, hospitals, etc are charging. It is simply impossible at this time for any american to not have healthcare insurance. Any minor medical procedure will bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.


Nothing is free, someone pays for everything. The only people that get it for free are the poor, or immigrants that have kids, but only the kids are covered. Or a pregnant woman


----------



## zappatton2

Glades said:


> We need free public healthcare for all. But the only way for public healthcare to work is a complete restructuring of the medical system in our country. Taxpayers could not afford to foot the bill for the exorbitant prices that big pharma, hospitals, etc are charging. It is simply impossible at this time for any american to not have healthcare insurance. Any minor medical procedure will bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.


It is worth noting that here in Canada, speaking generally, we do single-payor healthcare funded by tax dollars, and we actually pay _less _in taxes toward healthcare than Americans on average. It's just that US taxes tend to find their way to middle-men and private insurers, and the citizen see substantially less of it come back in direct, government-funded services. 

Mind you, we don't have public pharmacare, but that is an ongoing conversation.


----------



## Drew

,


Glades said:


> We need free public healthcare for all. But the only way for public healthcare to work is a complete restructuring of the medical system in our country. Taxpayers could not afford to foot the bill for the exorbitant prices that big pharma, hospitals, etc are charging. It is simply impossible at this time for any american to not have healthcare insurance. Any minor medical procedure will bankrupt you if you don't have insurance.


Have you ever read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe series? In one of the later books, they introduce the concept of "bistronomics," wherein a space ship is able to do impossible calculations by carefully replicating the experience of dining in an Italian bistro, because the tabulation of the bill _never_ makes sense there. 

Health care in the US is kind of like that. 

You as a consumer pay a monthly premium, but one you don't negotiate, your employer does. It comes out of your paycheck, so you don't even really see yourself "paying" it. In return, you get health care that you pay for at either a specified rate (co-pay to see a doctor, a fixed prescription drug price, etc), or pay out of pocket up to a fixed amount (your "deductible"), and then don't pay anything else after that. But, the prices you pay aren't real, either - the provider writes down way they say a procedure costs, the health care provider writes down what they say they'll pay, and then what portion of that you have to pay. And you don't comparison-shop to find the best price, you just go to an "in-network" provider that your insurer has agreements in place with, and whatever their negotiated price is, that's what you pay. In some jurisdictions (MA I believe being one of the first) you can request a good-faith estimate of what the cost will be, but that's rare. 

So, basically, you pay an insurance premium that you don't _really_ see because it's a payroll deduction, that you have no part in setting a price. When you need care, you pay to a point, then stop paying... and when you do pay, you pay an arbitrary portion of the made up price that your insurer decided they'd pay, but are quoted an even more arbitrary price from the hospital. And you don't have price transparency if you want to see what it would cost you at a few other providers, or even just pay yourself out of pocket without insurance (which, you CAN do, and the hospital would give you a different rate than the one they charge your insurer). 

All in all... I mentioned shoulder surgery here. I think the hospital "charged" me something like $60k, my insurance "paid" them something like 20k, and "charged" me something like 5k, and of that I didn't pay a penny because I'd already hit my deductible on PT before surgery. 

It's bistronomics. No one has any clue how you get to the bottom line, but you do. It's so far removed from a free market its laughable, and the reality is, if we started actually treating medical care like a free market instead of an italian restaurant, the "total cost" of healthcare would fall radically, because most of that "cost" is made up numbers no one expects anyone to pay with OR without insurance.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> The practice changed names (they were bought out) and they decided they would no longer accept my insurance.


As someone who's far enough removed to not know what or when any of those programs really are, your timeline is really hard to follow - which makes your point really hard to follow.

It sounds to me like you'd have a great argument for "we have a far too complicated medical system", but I see nothing that points towards the suggestion that "socializing" it up a bit would be a bad idea. Then again, if your point is nothing other than complaining about the current system, then have at it, I suppose.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> The practice changed names (they were bought out) and they decided they would no longer accept my insurance. I found a new practice that did. Romney Care came into effect in 2006, which was not ACA. That didn't come in until Obama did, obviously.. When the ACA did become effective, people like me had to sign up on the NEW website and apply for coverage. The name of the website may have stayed the same but it was no longer the same URL, or the same anything. Romney Care was dead at that point. We're in 2022, not sure why you brought 2006 into this. It was about 7 years ago that I was dropped. Which was during the ACA, not Romney Care. If you go out and get your own health care these days look to pay about $1200 a month. I remember back when my company paid for it, it kept going up and up until my boss said no more.


You know how whenever the subject of gun control comes up and someone advocates for an assault rifle ban, and gun nuts are all like "well actually, there's no such thing as an assault rifle"? That's what you sound like.  

Fun fact - any practice doesn't have to take ANY kind of insurance, and what they choose to carry is their decision. Who was your insurer? This may be as simple as an out-of-network company provider bought your formerly-in-network provider. 

We could, of course, require all providers to take ALL insurance, if you're cool with socialism...


----------



## tedtan

bostjan said:


> I don't think that there are enough pies for everyone, though, considering how many damned people there are and how many pies each person feels they are entitled to... Maybe you could make one pie for each person, but then at least one person would complain that they didn't want the sort of pie that they got, others would eat their pie in one sitting and then complain the next day about not having leftovers, and other still would steal pies from each other...
> 
> But that's only appropriate for a conversation about the philosophy of different socio-economic models than this thread.


I was speaking in terms of healthcare within the US. If we go beyond that scope, then there will be many situations where there are not enough pies for everyone. But as you say, that’s a different discussion.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

tedtan said:


> That’s a very zero sum approach to looking at the world, which fits in with how conservatives tend to think. ”For me to get my piece of the pie, someone else has to miss out on their piece”.



That's the world we live in. Every dollar, every resource, every opportunity that you have, is one someone else somewhere didn't get. It's not a nice or fun thought but that's the reality of life under capitalism. Everything we enjoy is built on the backs of people who don't/didn't get to.


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> You know how whenever the subject of gun control comes up and someone advocates for an assault rifle ban, and gun nuts are all like "well actually, there's no such thing as an assault rifle"? That's what you sound like.
> 
> Fun fact - any practice doesn't have to take ANY kind of insurance, and what they choose to carry is their decision. Who was your insurer? This may be as simple as an out-of-network company provider bought your formerly-in-network provider.
> 
> We could, of course, require all providers to take ALL insurance, if you're cool with socialism...


Assault Rifles exist, they use them in the Military. They're normally referred to as Full-Auto's

What you're saying then is the ACA was greatly exaggerated by Mr Obama himself, What good is it if no one accepts it? I had Tufts Silver, many people had to find a new practice when this happened.


----------



## vilk

AMOS said:


> Assault Rifles exist, they use them in the Military. They're normally referred to as Full-Auto's
> 
> What you're saying then is the ACA was greatly exaggerated by Mr Obama himself, What good is it if no one accepts it? I had Tufts Silver, many people had to find a new practice when this happened.



As you know, the ACA was gutted by Republicans. Did you vote for them? If so, you should blame yourself for these unfortunate healthcare situations that you and your brother have had to deal with. It's not _only _your fault—we should blame _everyone _who helped to elect those Republicans that ruined the ACA.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> As someone who's far enough removed to not know what or when any of those programs really are, your timeline is really hard to follow - which makes your point really hard to follow.


I don't know why it's hard to follow, everything I've mentioned is post Romneycare, which means the ACA is the system I was under when all these events transpired. It's not too complicated, not enough homework was done. It was known that not all practices would participate, but it was unknown that entire practices would lose hundreds of patients because non participating practices took over practices that formerly participated. To make a long story short, they treat you like dregs.


----------



## AMOS

vilk said:


> As you know, the ACA was gutted by Republicans. Did you vote for them? If so, you should blame yourself for these unfortunate healthcare situations that you and your brother have had to deal with. It's not _only _your fault—we should blame _everyone _who helped to elect those Republicans that ruined the ACA.


None of the republicans I vote for win elections here in Massachusetts, you should know that. It's a token party and conservatives have no voice here. Exactly what was gutted? besides removing the Mandate? which didn't matter. What was gutted that affected me?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The mandate was removed after the fact by Trump, arguably the one decent thing he actually did. #ThanksTrump


----------



## tedtan

wheresthefbomb said:


> That's the world we live in. Every dollar, every resource, every opportunity that you have, is one someone else somewhere didn't get. It's not a nice or fun thought but that's the reality of life under capitalism. Everything we enjoy is built on the backs of people who don't/didn't get to.


When I say zero sum thinking, I’m referring to the tendency to think that there is a finite amount of resources available, and that for one person to gain in a given resource, another (or multiple others) has to lose an equivalent amount of that resource such that the gain plus the loss(es) equal zero.

This holds true for some things, like non-renewable resources that can’t be replaced quickly enough to keep up with demand, but doesn’t hold true for most day to day resources we deal with. Money, for example, is not in finite supply; the supply is in constant flux, and one person earning a raise at their job (or a capital gain on their retirement account) doesn’t prevent anyone else (or everyone else) from achieving a raise (or capital gain) of their own. If someone owns a property and the value of that property increases, that person made money “on paper”, but no one else lost money. No one has to lose money for someone else to make money. Likewise, food is not in finite supply. It is both a renewable resource and is produced in excess of demand, so if I were to go buy some corn to have with dinner, as an example, it doesn’t prevent anyone else from buying corn. There are tons of corn available and there will be more next year, and the year after, and so on.

And that’s what I’m getting at with healthcare - it is not a scarce resource or in finite supply. There is ample supply in the US to meet demand (hospital beds during the Covid era being a notable exception) and the only reason we don’t have more healthcare practitioners than we currently do is the cost of tuition in the US combined with the limited number of H1B visas available in a given year. Otherwise we would likely end up with a massive oversupply because healthcare workers tend to be paid better in the US than elsewhere.


----------



## vilk

AMOS said:


> None of the republicans I vote for win elections here in Massachusetts, you should know that. It's a token party and conservatives have no voice here. Exactly what was gutted? besides removing the Mandate? which didn't matter. What was gutted that affected me?



Well then at least we can agree to blame all the people who voted for the Republicans in states where they did actually win. 

IIRC the original plan was to have a public option that medical providers are obligated to accept. That's what we have here in Japan, and while it's not as great other systems in other countries, it's a hell of a lot better than what's going on in the US.


----------



## narad

"Hey, I got an idea: instead of us all going out in the woods to shit, what if we implement a thing where you do it into a hole in the ground in your own house, and then a bunch of pipes wash it all away?"

Dems: "That's great. Everyone would like that. We approve."

Reps: "We don't like your know-it-all attitude and what about those of us who get paid to carry everyone's shit away in buckets? So we'll pass it, but get rid of the pipes."

...

Dems with houses full of shit: "This sucks."

Reps with houses full of shit: "This sucks. Stupid idea."


----------



## nightflameauto

narad said:


> "Hey, I got an idea: instead of us all going out in the woods to shit, what if we implement a thing where you do it into a hole in the ground in your own house, and then a bunch of pipes wash it all away?"
> 
> Dems: "That's great. Everyone would like that. We approve."
> 
> Reps: "We don't like your know-it-all attitude and what about those of us who get paid to carry everyone's shit away in buckets? So we'll pass it, but get rid of the pipes."
> 
> ...
> 
> Dems with houses full of shit: "This sucks."
> 
> Reps with houses full of shit: "This sucks. Stupid idea."


Let me add what would actually be said:
Dems with houses full of shit: "We reached across the aisle is cooperation with the other side, and this is the compromise we reached. Houses full of shit are terrible, yes, but we've made great progress from where we were when we were shitting outside. if we just keep shitting in our houses, it will eventually be better. Trust us. We're working hard towards the ultimate goal, and will continue to work with our brothers and sisters across the aisle to constantly improve all our lives."

Reps with houses full of shit: "The dumb fucks across the aisle thought shitting in the house would be a good idea! And look! Just as we told you all at the time, all we did was make our houses fill up with shit! Can you believe those stupid bastards! Repeal the Shit In The House law! It was a mistake, and we'd all be better off if we started shitting outside again. Stupid fucking Democrats. They tell you to believe the science! I believe my nose: houses full of shit stink. And it was all their fault!"

That seems a little more realistic.


----------



## bostjan

narad said:


> "Hey, I got an idea: instead of us all going out in the woods to shit, what if we implement a thing where you do it into a hole in the ground in your own house, and then a bunch of pipes wash it all away?"
> 
> Dems: "That's great. Everyone would like that. We approve."
> 
> Reps: "We don't like your know-it-all attitude and what about those of us who get paid to carry everyone's shit away in buckets? So we'll pass it, but get rid of the pipes."
> 
> ...
> 
> Dems with houses full of shit: "This sucks."
> 
> Reps with houses full of shit: "This sucks. Stupid idea."


Damn, that's probably the best analogy of the ACA I've ever heard, and I've heard a shitload of them.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

At least Trump made it so we don't have to pay to shit outside. 

Also for the record I literally shit outside.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> None of the republicans I vote for win elections here in Massachusetts, you should know that. It's a token party and conservatives have no voice here. Exactly what was gutted? besides removing the Mandate? which didn't matter. What was gutted that affected me?


Recent governors of Massachusetts: 

Charlie Baker (R) - 2015-2022
Deval Patrick (D) - 2007-2015
Mitt Romney (R) - 2003-2007
Jane Swift (R) - 2001-2003
Paul Cellucci (R) 1997-2001
Bill Weld (R) 1991-1997
Michael Dukakis (D) 1983-1991

Incoming Governor-elect Maura Healy will be only the third Democrat governor in Massachusetts in the past 40 years. But sure, no voice.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Assault Rifles exist, they use them in the Military. They're normally referred to as Full-Auto's


I'll expect you to jump in, then, the next time a conservative gun nut argues that "assault rifle is a made up term for a gun that looks 'scary.'"


----------



## bostjan

Lots developing this afternoon:

Evidence was uncovered that both the RNC and at least one GOP super-PAC have made payments to Trump's criminal defense law firms. (Which would be a quite illegal use of public/campaign funds)
The DOJ is appointing another special counsel to head the ongoing investigations into Trump.
Several of Trump's former allies have turned their backs on him: Murdoch, Fox, Mercer, NYP, etc.
E. Jean Carrol filed another lawsuit against Trump.

It might be nothing we didn't already know, but maybe all of these things will finally start to coalesce into a somethingburger.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Lots developing this afternoon:
> 
> Evidence was uncovered that both the RNC and at least one GOP super-PAC have made payments to Trump's criminal defense law firms. (Which would be a quite illegal use of public/campaign funds)
> The DOJ is appointing another special counsel to head the ongoing investigations into Trump.
> Several of Trump's former allies have turned their backs on him: Murdoch, Fox, Mercer, NYP, etc.
> E. Jean Carrol filed another lawsuit against Trump.
> 
> It might be nothing we didn't already know, but maybe all of these things will finally start to coalesce into a somethingburger.


Yeah, this has been a bad week for Trump.

*Bad with names, but three high profile GOP backers with billions each at their disposal have indicated they'll be supporting other candidates - guy from Citadel, Blackstone, and Interactive Brokers.

*former CEO of Trump Organization testified under oath in a plea bargain deal that he was never actually fired by Trump after fraud allegations came out and was still on the payroll, and that Trump was closely involved in the alleged fraud.

...Beyond of course the fact that the GOP choked in the midterms, the Democrats continue to control the senate and the GOP will have a single-digit margin of control in the House, many of Trump's preferred candidates lost, hurting his reputation as a "kingmaker," and DeSantis emerged much stronger than before.

Interesting that Garland decided to appoint a special counsel now. Concerned about political interference from the House? EDIT #2 - or, because he's now an active presidential candidate, you dummy.  Never mind.

EDIT - oh, and I suppose we should include that his favorite mouthpiece, Twitter, appears to be imploding just as he's approved to get back on it. There's serious speculation that, while temporary, it will likely crash over the weekend when the World Cup gets underway from volume.


----------



## bostjan

Yeah, I heard about the twitter problems, and I think it's hilarious. One of our very own well-known members appears to have been part of the early onslaught of pandemonium, but now it's throttled up. I don't have an account, so I'm getting all of this information second-hand.

Honestly, my desire to see Trump get what he deserves has only grown more and more the longer he has managed to skate. As much as I expect him to continue to skate and react as if he's got a pocket full of Super Mario starmen, I'd be absolutely over the moon if he gets successfully indicted. It'll be a long process to open another federal investigation, issue reports, hold committee hearings, call a grand jury, write up charges, go to trial, etc., but oh man, if things finally start to turn around and he gets an actual fair trial... I guess I can dream, right...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Yeah, I heard about the twitter problems, and I think it's hilarious. One of our very own well-known members appears to have been part of the early onslaught of pandemonium, but now it's throttled up. I don't have an account, so I'm getting all of this information second-hand.
> 
> Honestly, my desire to see Trump get what he deserves has only grown more and more the longer he has managed to skate. As much as I expect him to continue to skate and react as if he's got a pocket full of Super Mario starmen, I'd be absolutely over the moon if he gets successfully indicted. It'll be a long process to open another federal investigation, issue reports, hold committee hearings, call a grand jury, write up charges, go to trial, etc., but oh man, if things finally start to turn around and he gets an actual fair trial... I guess I can dream, right...


Hey, his track record of avoiding _political_ consequences while in the White House, and even for a while thereafter, has been impressive. But he's facing growing serious legal jeopardy, and his track record there isn't great.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

word games can fuck off 

room for working=work room
truck for dumping=dump truck
rifle for assaulting=assault rifle


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> word games can fuck off
> 
> room for working=work room
> truck for dumping=dump truck
> rifle for assaulting=assault rifle


<< Shhh, not so loud. Now that there's just a technicality.

You see, the Democrats have passed a lot of laws trying to stop us from shooting people. They say we can't shoot certain people anymore, unless they're posing an immediate threat. Therefore, before we shoot somethin', we have to say 'It's coming right for us.' >>


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> I'll expect you to jump in, then, the next time a conservative gun nut argues that "assault rifle is a made up term for a gun that looks 'scary.'"


I don't believe in Gun Nuts, I believe in Americans exercising their right to own firearms. I know some good spots in Chelsea you should go for a walk at night if you'd like me to prove my point. Have you seen the new concrete pier near the salt piles? I put that there.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> word games can fuck off
> 
> room for working=work room
> truck for dumping=dump truck
> rifle for assaulting=assault rifle



If it's not a hunting rifle it's an assault rife to me. I'm not sure what other purposes for rifles there are. Not really going to count self defense if it's at 100m+.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

AMOS said:


> I don't believe in Gun Nuts



and yet


----------



## AMOS

wheresthefbomb said:


> and yet


My AR is a chick, I don't care for nutsack forends.


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> If it's not a hunting rifle it's an assault rife to me. I'm not sure what other purposes for rifles there are. Not really going to count self defense if it's at 100m+.


I guess my 300 Win Mag bolt action Tactical falls into your acceptable parameters then. You can hunt Elk with it. At 800 yards.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I'd say a bolt action rifle in 300 win mag fits comfortably in the "for hunting" category, yeah. What's """tactical""" about it, out of curiosity?


----------



## Xaios

AMOS said:


> You can hunt Elk with it. At 800 yards.


I hope so, cause if you're having to defend yourself from elk at 800 yards...

God_damn_, those elk are *badass*!


----------



## tedtan

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'd say a bolt action rifle in 300 win mag fits comfortably in the "for hunting" category, yeah. What's """tactical""" about it, out of curiosity?


A bolt action 300 Win mag is a common hunting rifle, but with an effective range out to ~1,200 yards, it is also used by military snipers to fill in the gap in range between the standard 7.62 NATO sniper rifle (~800 yards) and the 338 Lapua mag (~1,900 yards).


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

tedtan said:


> A bolt action 300 Win mag is a common hunting rifle, but with an effective range out to ~1,200 yards, it is also used by military snipers to fill in the gap in range between the standard 7.62 NATO sniper rifle (~800 yards) and the 338 Lapua mag (~1,900 yards).



I know that much, I was asking specifically about his rifle and what makes it "tactical" as opposed to... just a bolt action hunting rifle. Is that potential military use enough for any 300 win mag bolt action to be considered "tactical?"

Like the Ruger Hawkeye comes in 300 win mag, and I'd struggle to call it anything other than a hunting rifle.




Would some sort of aesthetic/configuration change be enough for it to be tactical and thus for some reason an "assault" rifle? If so, what changes?


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I know that much, I was asking specifically about his rifle and what makes it "tactical" as opposed to... just a bolt action hunting rifle. Is that potential military use enough for any 300 win mag bolt action to be considered "tactical?"



Free 24 pack of Monster Energy and a subscription to r/StolenValor/ with purchase.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

And now I've inadvertently demonstrated how any discussion on gun control will inevitably devolve into a discussion of specs and what is or isn't a certain kind of gun, instead of actually talking about gun control, lol.


----------



## tedtan

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I know that much, I was asking specifically about his rifle and what makes it "tactical" as opposed to... just a bolt action hunting rifle. Is that potential military use enough for any 300 win mag bolt action to be considered "tactical?"
> 
> Like the Ruger Hawkeye comes in 300 win mag, and I'd struggle to call it anything other than a hunting rifle.
> 
> View attachment 117261
> 
> 
> Would some sort of aesthetic/configuration change be enough for it to be tactical and thus for some reason an "assault" rifle? If so, what changes?


I can’t speak for AMOS, but a bolt action isn’t really tactical IMO.




Grand Moff Tim said:


> And now I've inadvertently demonstrated how any discussion on gun control will inevitably devolve into a discussion of specs and what is or isn't a certain kind of gun, instead of actually talking about gun control, lol.


Well, it always helps to be as precise as possible to avoid confusion. If a non-guitar player popped onto SSO and read a thread about whammy bars, humbuckers and scalloped fretboards they wouldn’t know what the hell we were talking about.

So I think some people in gun discussions are just trying to establish a common vocabulary. But there are definitely people trying to deflect, too.


----------



## AMOS

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'd say a bolt action rifle in 300 win mag fits comfortably in the "for hunting" category, yeah. What's """tactical""" about it, out of curiosity?


Heavy barrel, custom trigger, military optics, robust design. Some guys use them for hunting but they're a little heavy. I have a Savage 110, don't use it that often as it's expensive to shoot and it hurts. I prefer a good .308


----------



## AMOS

tedtan said:


> I can’t speak for AMOS, but a bolt action isn’t really tactical IMO.


It depends on the use really, but some use the designation in the model name








110 Tactical | Long Range Tactical Rifle | Savage Arms


When the stakes are high, settle for nothing less than the precision of the 110 Tactical in your long range rifle.




www.savagearms.com


----------



## tedtan

AMOS said:


> It depends on the use really, but some use the designation in the model name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 110 Tactical | Long Range Tactical Rifle | Savage Arms
> 
> 
> When the stakes are high, settle for nothing less than the precision of the 110 Tactical in your long range rifle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.savagearms.com


Don’t get me wrong - snipers can absolutely be deployed tactically. I just don’t see any tactical advantage to a bolt action rifle outside the hands of a sniper in a situation where long range accuracy comes into play.

Otherwise, modern small unit tactics (kill box, etc.) are better served with a semi- or full- auto carbine or rifle if for no other reason than cover fire.


----------



## Adieu

Drew said:


> Hey, his track record of avoiding _political_ consequences while in the White House, and even for a while thereafter, has been impressive. But he's facing growing serious legal jeopardy, and his track record there isn't great.



Wdym?

For a guy running a family business literally called an "Organization", scamming everybody for decades, not properly paying taxes, using government office to collect bribes and evade legal consequences... the man's a poster boy for RICO

And yet he's free as a bird

His legal record far outshines his past political achievements, imho


----------



## AMOS

tedtan said:


> Don’t get me wrong - snipers can absolutely be deployed tactically. I just don’t see any tactical advantage to a bolt action rifle outside the hands of a sniper in a situation where long range accuracy comes into play.
> 
> Otherwise, modern small unit tactics (kill box, etc.) are better served with a semi- or full- auto carbine or rifle if for no other reason than cover fire.


Police/SWAT use them all the time in take downs, where it's not long range at all, but precision accuracy is required so hostages aren't accidentally shot. They normally use heavy barreled Remington 700 bolt actions. I spent a good amount of time being trained by real deals that served as Military Snipers. They refer to them as Tactical Rifles. Don't shoot the messenger (no pun intended)


----------



## tedtan

I was thinking in terms of military applications, but SWAT snipers are definitely a thing, too.


----------



## Adieu

tedtan said:


> I was thinking in terms of military applications, but SWAT snipers are definitely a thing, too.



Modern military applications are largely irrelevant, unless you're looking to play with talking points like "private open carry of bazookas should be A-OK since they're old as shit and US Army doesn't use them anymore"


----------



## narad

Adieu said:


> Modern military applications are largely irrelevant, unless you're looking to play with talking points like "private open carry of bazookas should be A-OK since they're old as shit and US Army doesn't use them anymore"



You might need to perform SWAT maneuvers against a tyrannical over-reaching government.


----------



## Andromalia

MaxOfMetal said:


> Generationally, they'll move left as their children and children's children naturally realize that the right is full of shit.


Unfortunately, I don't believe so. The right wing communication is deliberately engineered to mislead, and targets the cheapest targets to be won: the uneducated.
From what I can see, old racists educate their kids into young racists.
That said, I'm still a universalist and believe the breaking down of people into communities is creating problems, not solving them.
As a 49 years old white hetero guy, who voted waaaaay more left than all that's available in the USA for most of his life, I dislike the current constant noise about stupid issues that is a boon to the conservatives since it hides the main issue, which is standards of living for the poor and taxation of the rich. 
Supporting the dividing of the population into communities feels very right wing to me to begin with. The Way of the Left, if you want a name for it, should be to unite people, not divide them in so many snowflake communities that they become irrelevant. (Which, I believe, is why the rightwingers actually love them)

As a general rule, I also dislike the hysterical tone of address used by the LGBT/feminists/vegans/jeovahs who all try to make me their scapegoat. People aren't going anywhere with me with claims such as "all men are rapists".
Doesn't help that a lot of the supporters of community X and Z also earn a living through "the cause". Feels more like a business to me, especially since when you listen to some feminists, they're absolutely not aiming for equal rights, but to swap places.

I'd appreciate if all those people could shut up so we can get back to economics and the 1% can stop rolling on the floor at us being stupid.


----------



## spudmunkey

AMOS said:


> I don't believe in Gun Nuts, I believe in Americans exercising their right to own firearms.


The latter can definitely be the former. You don't invite strangers out to your truck in the parking lot to show off your new firearm purchases, at your aunt's funeral, unless you're a gun nut. *cough*cousintommy*cough*


----------



## narad

Andromalia said:


> As a general rule, I also dislike the hysterical tone of address used by the LGBT/feminists/vegans/jeovahs who all try to make me their scapegoat. People aren't going anywhere with me with claims such as "all men are rapists".
> Doesn't help that a lot of the supporters of community X and Z also earn a living through "the cause". Feels more like a business to me, especially since when you listen to some feminists, they're absolutely not aiming for equal rights, but to swap places.
> 
> I'd appreciate if all those people could shut up so we can get back to economics and the 1% can stop rolling on the floor at us being stupid.



I think you're making the same mistake though. Of course all men are not rapists, etc., but neither are all, or even a significant amount, of LGBT/feminists (let's not necessarily extend this to vegans) are out there shouting hyperboles or earning a living from "the cause".

And that rage against cultural issues feels like a very intentional diversion from the republicans so they don't have to do anything about the 1%. If you want to do something about the 1%, don't make a big deal about it when a statistical crumb of the LGBT or feminist community say something outrageous on twitter. You can't stop people from voicing opinions, but you can stop caring about them, which is something the right would do if it wasn't in their best interests to promote these opinions as an adversary that requires immediate attention before it's the end of america.


----------



## spudmunkey

The world needs to figure out how to take the megaphones away from the extremists on both sides.


----------



## AMOS

spudmunkey said:


> The latter can definitely be the former. You don't invite strangers out to your truck in the parking lot to show off your new firearm purchases, at your aunt's funeral, unless you're a gun nut. *cough*cousintommy*cough*


Who the hell does that? I keep a low profile, no stickers on my SUV, no stickers on my door saying Beware of Owner. I don't agree with open carry but I think all law abiding citizens should conceal, providing they took a course.


----------



## CanserDYI

AMOS said:


> Who the hell does that? I keep a low profile, no stickers on my SUV, no stickers on my door saying Beware of Owner. I don't agree with open carry but I think all law abiding citizens should conceal, providing they took a course.


You sound like a responsible gun owner. Almost like you're following some guidelines, spoken and unspoken, and support some sort of...._regulation?_ Is that the word I'm looking for?


----------



## AMOS

CanserDYI said:


> You sound like a responsible gun owner. Almost like you're following some guidelines, spoken and unspoken, and support some sort of...._regulation?_ Is that the word I'm looking for?


I do support background checks at gun shows and for private sales. The reason is what if someone commits a felony or has been found psychologically un-suitable, and tries buying another gun and still has his physical license in his wallet? His license can be revoked in the system but he'll still have it on his person. A background check can prevent the sale. As long as the FBI doesn't drop the ball, which has happened.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> all law abiding citizens should conceal


I don't understand this logic. We should all have guns, but not let everyone know that we all have guns.....? That sounds exactly like the kind of thinking I'd expect from the mythical "gun nut" that supposedly doesn't exist. It's a self-fulfilling setup: you only _need_ a gun when everyone else potentially has one. If nobody had a gun, then nobody would need a gun. The suggestion that everyone should be secretly armed serves just to create the exact scenario that you needed the gun to defend yourself from in the first place.



Andromalia said:


> the breaking down of people into communities is creating problems, not solving them


Community is good when it means _everyone_ is collaborating in some form. It's the breaking people down into bespoke teams that fails to serve _the overall community_ that is everyone. IMO.


----------



## zappatton2

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/colorado-nightclub-shooting-1.6657675



And still, we argue the semantics of guns, while 5 more people who woke up Saturday, with lives, dreams, families and friends who loved them, did not get that same luxury come Sunday.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> I don't understand this logic. We should all have guns, but not let everyone know that we all have guns.....? That sounds exactly like the kind of thinking I'd expect from the mythical "gun nut" that supposedly doesn't exist. It's a self-fulfilling setup: you only _need_ a gun when everyone else potentially has one. If nobody had a gun, then nobody would need a gun. The suggestion that everyone should be secretly armed serves just to create the exact scenario that you needed the gun to defend yourself from in the first place.
> 
> 
> Community is good when it means _everyone_ is collaborating in some form. It's the breaking people down into bespoke teams that fails to serve _the overall community_ that is everyone. IMO.


If you're carrying on your hip a bad guy could grab it no? Or follow you home to see which house they can case? The beauty of conceal carry is bad people don't know who is armed and who isn't.


----------



## AMOS

I think we can all agree that the "bad guy" problem isn't going to magically go away on it's own. Change the culture, have a better system for the mentally ill. refurbish the poor neighborhoods instead of turning our backs on them. No political party has done that. Do away with the bad guys and I'll gladly disarm, but until then I won't be a sheep among wolves. My choices are mine, yours are yours. Doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> I think you're making the same mistake though. Of course all men are not rapists, etc., but neither are all, or even a significant amount, of LGBT/feminists (let's not necessarily extend this to vegans) are out there shouting hyperboles or earning a living from "the cause".
> 
> And that rage against cultural issues feels like a very intentional diversion from the republicans so they don't have to do anything about the 1%. If you want to do something about the 1%, don't make a big deal about it when a statistical crumb of the LGBT or feminist community say something outrageous on twitter. You can't stop people from voicing opinions, but you can stop caring about them, which is something the right would do if it wasn't in their best interests to promote these opinions as an adversary that requires immediate attention before it's the end of america.



Feminism, queer rights, CRT, and other social justice/sociological projects are based on decades of research, observation, and struggle the understanding of which requires a deeper dive than skimming surface level reactionary online behaviors on twitter, tumblr, etc. can provide. Holding up those examples as wholly representative of these struggles and fields of study is intellectually lazy and dishonest. 

Marginalized people have every right to be angry, and to defend themselves with (at the _very _least) slogans which meet the overwhelming violence our world enacts on them with equal and opposite force. It should go without saying that "all men are rapists" is meant as a commentary on the fact that men broadly are socialized to push, ignore, and disrespect the boundaries of others, and that these acts are routinely normalized or excused. The result is that men are statistically much more likely to rape, and much more likely to get away with rape. 

Policing marginalized peoples' expressions of anger is another form of oppression, and refusing to understand the implications of those expressions is just plain lazy thinking.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> Feminism, queer rights, CRT, and other social justice/sociological projects are based on decades of research, observation, and struggle the understanding of which requires a deeper dive than skimming surface level reactionary online behaviors on twitter, tumblr, etc. can provide. Holding up those examples as wholly representative of these struggles and fields of study is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
> 
> Marginalized people have every right to be angry, and to defend themselves with (at the _very _least) slogans which meet the overwhelming violence our world enacts on them with equal and opposite force. It should go without saying that "all men are rapists" is meant as a commentary on the fact that men broadly are socialized to push, ignore, and disrespect the boundaries of others, and that these acts are routinely normalized or excused. The result is that men are statistically much more likely to rape, and much more likely to get away with rape.
> 
> Policing marginalized peoples' expressions of anger is another form of oppression, and refusing to understand the implications of those expressions is just plain lazy thinking.


I agree with what you're saying, but simultaneously, slogans like "all men are rapists" "all white people are racist" "all cops are bastards" "defund the police", etc., the slogans that over-generalize in order to cause shock and be edgy may work in some context or some groups. But on the US political stage as a whole, they have given the right tons of fuel in recruiting votes from people who are taking them at face value, and not diving deeper into their intended role as a deeper commentary (because those people are not running in those sort of circles and because there's no pamphlet or singular leader of such slogans to provide a definitive discussion of their meanings and intentions). 

So I'm sure some people want to police/ban these sorts of expressions. I simply think they're a terrible, terrible idea in terms of bettering the lives of marginalized people via the political system. And what are people doing out there creating these slogans if not to create change? And it is similarly sad that an edgy slogan from a super far left side of things will get promoted by the right as a mainstream left viewpoint, which is probably what was happening here-ish in the thread.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> I'm sure some people want to police/ban these sorts of expressions.





narad said:


> I simply think they're a terrible, terrible idea in terms of bettering the lives of marginalized people via the political system.



it's you

you're "some people"

it's respectability politics all over, it shouldn't be radical to reject the proposal that marginalized people are responsible for their own oppression. no amount of respectability has ever slowed, much less reversed the march of imperialism.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> it's you
> 
> you're "some people"
> 
> it's respectability politics all over, it shouldn't be radical to reject the proposal that marginalized people are responsible for their own oppression. no amount of respectability has ever slowed, much less reversed the march of imperialism.



Nah, not at all. My stance on what you should do: whatever you want. An observation: it's not working.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> If you're carrying on your hip a bad guy could grab it no?


Or... and get this... if neither person had a gun, it would be a non-issue.



AMOS said:


> Or follow you home to see which house they can case?


Guns don't need to be involved for people to be followed home.



AMOS said:


> The beauty of conceal carry is bad people don't know who is armed and who isn't.


Beauty? You meant to say terror. That's terrifying. Walking into a place and thinking "any of these people could be armed" is terrifying.



AMOS said:


> I think we can all agree that the "bad guy" problem isn't going to magically go away on it's own.


What "bad guy problem"? Crime has been trending downward and isn't a problem for most people in most places in North America day-to-day as far as I'm aware. Society's biggest "bad guys" are rich assholes and politicians etc. - your Trumps and Musks of the world. That's not a problem solved by arming everyone.

Edit:
I'll grant you that there's currently a "school shooting problem", if that's what you mean - but this is very distinct from any other trend in overall crime - and once again not something that's solved by throwing more guns into the equation. My hot take: I think part of the problem with school shootings is how much coverage they get - we're demonstrating that it gets the attention one might be seeking.


----------



## Glades

TedEH said:


> I don't understand this logic. We should all have guns, but not let everyone know that we all have guns.....? That sounds exactly like the kind of thinking I'd expect from the mythical "gun nut" that supposedly doesn't exist. It's a self-fulfilling setup: you only _need_ a gun when everyone else potentially has one. If nobody had a gun, then nobody would need a gun. The suggestion that everyone should be secretly armed serves just to create the exact scenario that you needed the gun to defend yourself from in the first place.
> 
> 
> Community is good when it means _everyone_ is collaborating in some form. It's the breaking people down into bespoke teams that fails to serve _the overall community_ that is everyone. IMO.


I open carry when I’m out hunting. Here in Florida it is the only situation in which is legal to do so, and it is a very smart thing to do with panthers, bears, hogs and alligators around. I spend a lot of time in the Everglades and I wouldn’t imagine being out there and not have a handgun with me. I’ve had some close calls.

That being said, open/constitutional carry is tactically idiotic in public. In the case you need to use your firearm, you don’t want the bad guy to know you are carrying. You’ll be the first to die if you are open carrying.

I don’t think everybody should conceal carry. But I think everybody should have the right to do so. It takes training. And it’s not easy. It is a massive responsibility to bear and not for everybody.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> when I’m out hunting


If you're "hunting" in the grocery store, you're the "bad guy with a gun".


----------



## Andromalia

AMOS said:


> Do away with the bad guys and I'll gladly disarm, but until then I won't be a sheep among wolves. My choices are mine, yours are yours. Doesn't make me wrong.


What you endup being in the end, is the motive why the bad guys endup shooting just in case. The bad guys will always be better armed than you, since they won't respect limitations anyway. I'd rather have it stop at the fists vs knife stage, rather than have it escalate to bazooka vs Hellfire rockets.


----------



## thraxil

I lived in NYC for 15 years, most of that in either Harlem or Bed-Stuy. One of the largest drug busts in NYPD history was on the street that I lived on while I was there. Not for one second in those 15 years did I feel like I would've been safer if I'd been carrying a gun or had one in my apartment.

I'm not even particularly anti-gun; I grew up in rural Maine owning and shooting guns. Guns are a lot of fun. But if you think you need one to feel safe... I think you're a bit of a coward.

When I was about 11 or 12 I had a gun pointed at me. My friend Lonnie and I had gotten into some kind of dispute with an asshole kid down the street (I don't remember exactly what; stupid kid stuff like someone built a tree fort in the wrong place or something) and he confronted us with his hunting rifle. I was honestly a bit frozen and didn't really know what to do with someone pointing a gun at me. In one of the most memorable lines of my life though, Lonnie, standing next to me, just goes "Oooh! BIG man with his BIG gun!" and turns his back on him and we both walked away.

That kind of set the tone for how I feel about guns ever since. You're either the cowardly little shit that has to wave a gun around to feel like a tough guy, or you're Lonnie, who just sees through that bullshit. (Last I heard, Lonnie was in the Air Force working as an MP).


----------



## CanserDYI

I absolutely hate my city and open carry, its everywhere here. Want to pop in a SaveALot or Kroger? Guaranteed to be at least 1 person with a firearm on their hip, just hanging off their person. Wanna go for a nice dinner at a restaurant? Table next to me is a fake Texan with a friggin gun on his hip.

I obviously agree open carry is okay in hunting situations, but that's not open carry to me, that's just hunting....

The crazy thing to me is these people are most likely open carrying for 2 reasons: 1.) Intimidation. "Best not mess with me boys, I will resort to shooting your ass" and 2.) Inability to acquire a CCW, which is even MORE terrifying. Both are fucking terrifying.


----------



## CanserDYI

Also just wondering how many bad guys would still be bad guys if everyone had the resources and social safety nets and support they need? How many people would be using drugs/selling drugs dangerously on the street if their needs were met? How many cars would be stolen for parts if everyone had the means to get around with no issue? How many stores would still be robbed if everyone had the food they needed to survive? 

We have all this. We have all the resources, energy, food, and intelligence to make everyone on earth feel like a billionaire.


----------



## TedEH

thraxil said:


> When I was about 11 or 12 I had a gun pointed at me.


In our family, we've only ever once had anyone (as far as we're aware) keep a gun accessible for self-defense. There was only once that it was ever grabbed during an incident, and then never again, because the "intruder" who got threatened at gunpoint was just his own son who happened to come home a bit late. It's a great way to turn a misunderstanding into a tragedy.


----------



## bostjan

I've only ever had cops point guns at me, never just a normal person. And I grew up in a city where pretty much everyone had a gun on them somewhere at any given moment.

It's probably fine as long as no one starts acting crazy, but the biggest problem with the philosophy, is that when one person starts acting crazy, everyone starts acting crazy, and people stop caring about who is causing pandemonium and only start worrying about getting ready to shoot at moving objects.



CanserDYI said:


> Also just wondering how many bad guys would still be bad guys if everyone had the resources and social safety nets and support they need?


Singapore has famously low crime levels. Part of their national policy to prevent crime is to make sure no one gets desperate.

In the USA, we're so enamoured by the idea of a wild-west-style free economic market, yet make a surprised pikachu face whenever someone with few vocational skills realizes that the fastest way to make money in an unregulated free market is to rip people off, and then those same people start robbing people once their ripoff schemes get regulated out of business.

We need better vocational guidance and our education system needs to be more effective at sticking people into programs where they have ample aptitude to make a successful career out of their schooling. I saw it a lot as a college teacher: people with no mathematics skills whatsoever in engineering programs, convicted felons in criminal justice programs with expectations of going into law enforcement, people who were squeamish around blood in nursing programs. And the colleges and universities don't care as long as they are getting money either from the person, the person's family, or the government. Once college where I worked had "remedied" this by requiring an entrance exam into some of the programs. For example, the one for nursing was a combination of true/false and multiple choice questions (with, at most 4 answer options) and required a minimum score of 23% to be admitted into the programme. So if a group of random number generators applied, a majority of them are still getting into the program just by spitting out random answers. Cool.

Kids in secondary school are told they can do whatever they want for a career and even at the best schools in the US, nobody is telling them the harsh truth. Like, hey, you want to play in the NBA, but you couldn't even make the JV team, why not look at a plumbing apprenticeship? Or, hey, you want to make your living as a youtuber, but you are camera shy, have zero charisma, and don't have a gimmicky angle to work, so here's an application for a landscaping company who is hiring.

But then there's the other issue that the jobs people don't want all have shitty pay and no benefits. Who wants to be a seasonal landscaper, when you get minimum wage, your position is "part time full time" (US jargon for you work as many hours as your employer wants you to work, but they don't have to provide you with any insurance or paid time off), and have zero upward mobility within the company, since the management positions are all filled with the owners family members and their friends. Meanwhile that minimum wage is only about 33% enough to cover basic living expenses, so you either need to find two roommates who all want to live in a one-bedroom apartment with you, or live with your parents. There's nothing wrong with living with your parents, as long as both you and your parents agree that it's a viable lifestyle. No one really in the USA sees it that way, though, between what we are told growing up is expected of us and what our parents and colleagues expect of us.

The USA is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but what opportunities are there here nowadays?


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Opportunities are a legacy feature.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> the biggest problem with the philosophy, is that when one person starts acting crazy, everyone starts acting crazy


In the words of Grand Moff Tim:


Grand Moff Tim said:


> Gestures broadly


----------



## eaeolian

spudmunkey said:


> The world needs to figure out how to take the megaphones away from the extremists on both sides.


The world needs to ignore the extremists on both sides and actually work toward the middle, but that doesn't get clicks, now, does it?


----------



## TedEH

IMO the sentence should have ended at the word megaphones. It's not all that extreme that people have wacky world-views. It's extreme that we give everyone the tools to broadcast them, and then we listen to them as if every wacky idea carries the same weight.


----------



## CanserDYI

Can someone give me an example of extreme leftism that's being shouted into megaphones? I am quite the staunch leftist here, so maybe I'm seeing through Commie Red colored glasses, but most of the stuff on the left being "megaphoned" seems to be quite tame to me. 

I'm not here to argue, but just wondering from my peers here what you all consider "radical leftism" and where and who seems to be megaphoning it?


----------



## eaeolian

CanserDYI said:


> Can someone give me an example of extreme leftism that's being shouted into megaphones? I am quite the staunch leftist here, so maybe I'm seeing through Commie Red colored glasses, but most of the stuff on the left being "megaphoned" seems to be quite tame to me.
> 
> I'm not here to argue, but just wondering from my peers here what you all consider "radical leftism" and where and who seems to be megaphoning it?


Oh, it's mostly right-wing stuff. There's some people on the left that could do with stopping with the "Grand Conservative Conspiracy" (Hint: It's not a conspiracy if they're doing it IN THE OPEN) bullshit, but otherwise the right is the major offender here.
This is the US, though, so things like cutting greenhouse emissions and, oh, I don't know, providing health care for non-rich citizens is considered "radical leftism".


----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> Can someone give me an example of extreme leftism that's being shouted into megaphones? I am quite the staunch leftist here, so maybe I'm seeing through Commie Red colored glasses, but most of the stuff on the left being "megaphoned" seems to be quite tame to me.
> 
> I'm not here to argue, but just wondering from my peers here what you all consider "radical leftism" and where and who seems to be megaphoning it?


Stuff I hear shouted is generally regarding special interested within the left and not the left in general.

From my perspective (I typically consider myself "moderate" as do most people, including extremists  ), Biden has been pretty centered politically. Stuff like "cancelling" student debt _does_ seem really lefty, on the surface, but once you understand the nuances of it, it really is just a common sense reaction to 20ish years of failed policies from the federal government and education expenses running out of control with little appropriate oversight. The biggest blunder that gets blamed on Biden is Afghanistan, but anyone who is going to be honest with themselves has to keep in mind that Biden was largely limited in his options by Trump-era policies and budgets. He probably could have done better, or just reneged on whatever was in his way, but ultimately, the taliban was going to retake the country anyway... But conservatives will likely be really upset about student debt relief, since they feel that it's their hard earned money that is paying for a bunch of millennials and gen-z-ers to get their degrees in critical race theory and then somehow both be unemployed and also, at the same time, be teaching CRT to kindergarteners. And I think that's just because political discussion in the USA has no room for any nuance anymore - if you want to make any sort of point, you have to resort to memes with fewer than ten words in them.


----------



## Glades

thraxil said:


> I lived in NYC for 15 years, most of that in either Harlem or Bed-Stuy. One of the largest drug busts in NYPD history was on the street that I lived on while I was there. Not for one second in those 15 years did I feel like I would've been safer if I'd been carrying a gun or had one in my apartment.
> 
> I'm not even particularly anti-gun; I grew up in rural Maine owning and shooting guns. Guns are a lot of fun. But if you think you need one to feel safe... I think you're a bit of a coward.
> 
> When I was about 11 or 12 I had a gun pointed at me. My friend Lonnie and I had gotten into some kind of dispute with an asshole kid down the street (I don't remember exactly what; stupid kid stuff like someone built a tree fort in the wrong place or something) and he confronted us with his hunting rifle. I was honestly a bit frozen and didn't really know what to do with someone pointing a gun at me. In one of the most memorable lines of my life though, Lonnie, standing next to me, just goes "Oooh! BIG man with his BIG gun!" and turns his back on him and we both walked away.
> 
> That kind of set the tone for how I feel about guns ever since. You're either the cowardly little shit that has to wave a gun around to feel like a tough guy, or you're Lonnie, who just sees through that bullshit. (Last I heard, Lonnie was in the Air Force working as an MP).


I grew up in a 3rd world country and have been robbed at gun point 6-7 times. Worst occasion they broke into my house and had my parents, my brother and I belly down with guns to the back of our head. I was 12 and saw a man with a hammer cocked and finger in the trigger, pushing the barrel end into the back of my mom's head. In the country where I come from, if you defend yourself with lethal force, you go to jail. There is no castle law, there is nothing to protect the homeowner.
That is why I believe so strongly in the laws of this country. Americans really don't fully appreciate what they have because they never had to live in a violent place. They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> I grew up in a 3rd world country and have been robbed at gun point 6-7 times. Worst occasion they broke into my house and had my parents, my brother and I belly down with guns to the back of our head. I was 12 and saw a man with a hammer cocked and finger in the trigger, pushing the barrel end into the back of my mom's head. In the country where I come from, if you defend yourself with lethal force, you go to jail. There is no castle law, there is nothing to protect the homeowner.
> That is why I believe so strongly in the laws of this country. Americans really don't fully appreciate what they have because they never had to live in a violent place. They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


While I respect what you've dealt with, the instability in the area you grew up in (please forgive me if I'm misremembering, but I am remembering you saying you are from Central America) can definitely be traced back to US/North American intervention and ironically I believe could be argued that the country's traditions and affairs that you believe so strongly in are what put you in the position you were in to start with.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> I grew up in a 3rd world country and have been robbed at gun point 6-7 times. Worst occasion they broke into my house and had my parents, my brother and I belly down with guns to the back of our head. I was 12 and saw a man with a hammer cocked and finger in the trigger, pushing the barrel end into the back of my mom's head. In the country where I come from, if you defend yourself with lethal force, you go to jail. There is no castle law, there is nothing to protect the homeowner.
> That is why I believe so strongly in the laws of this country. Americans really don't fully appreciate what they have because they never had to live in a violent place. They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


Hmm, well, if you had a magic cheat code and could shoot all of the home invaders, then what, the cops who were too lazy to investigate the home invasion are suddenly at your door? I don't believe it. I think the issue is more succinctly stated that, without criminal connections, it'd be too difficult for an honest family to obtain the materials required to dispatch such a group of gun-equipped home invaders. And then, from that perspective, the general situation is not that different from what has been brought up here.

Why is a school shooting so bad? Well, you send your kids to school, or you yourself as a kid goes to school, to learn. So, you don't have access to guns or whatever. When a shooter enters the school with an assortment of firearms, and no one else has a firearm there, it turns into a slaughter. If the US government decided to pass a law that says that it's okay to shoot anyone in a school who enters with a gun, it won't make the situation any different, right? And if you arm teachers, but don't train them how to use firearms, then other very bad situations occur inevitably.

And even with castle laws or whatever here, if you are an adult, and you live in America, you own a pistol, and a group of teenagers breaks into your house and they are all armed with firearms, what possible positive outcomes are there? Maybe that they see that you are armed, and they leave? But I doubt that'd be the most likely outcome. No, the fact that there's another gun involved just makes it more likely that either: a) the teens steal your gun before you can get to it, or b) someone gets shot. And yes, if you mow down a group of teenage burglars with a pistol, there are laws that will protect you from getting the lethal injection, but your life might still not ever be the same. Cops here generally love to come up with charges, so they'll be suspicious that maybe you invited them over for a costume party and then murdered them all, or maybe it's as stupid as that there is an ordinance against firing a weapon or whatever.

I've had to call 911 before. I found a stranger passed out in a bathroom at a restaurant where I was dining. Could have been an OD or who knows. I just knew someone was in trouble, so I called 911 and said I found a guy in a pile of vomit in a public restroom, and guess what? They sent an ambulance and a bunch of cop cars, and I got interrogated by the police, as if I had anything to do with anything. "What had he taken?" IDFK, I never saw him before. "Did he buy it from you?" WTF?! They wanted me to submit to all sorts of tests. Even got a nasty letter from the guy's family's lawyer. I ignored that crap, but it was still stressful. I guarantee that the stress level from the police would be 100x worse if I had called 911 because I had shot someone who broke into my house. No way they'd just be like, "oh ok, you say he broke in and it was self defense- so case closed then." If you think it would go anything even half like that then you are too naïve about US law enforcement agencies.


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> I grew up in a 3rd world country and have been robbed at gun point 6-7 times. Worst occasion they broke into my house and had my parents, my brother and I belly down with guns to the back of our head. I was 12 and saw a man with a hammer cocked and finger in the trigger, pushing the barrel end into the back of my mom's head. In the country where I come from, if you defend yourself with lethal force, you go to jail. There is no castle law, there is nothing to protect the homeowner.
> That is why I believe so strongly in the laws of this country. Americans really don't fully appreciate what they have because they never had to live in a violent place. They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


I grew up in a country going through a civil war. Literally we are most known for terrorism. 

All of the guns from that conflict came from the USA and predominantly Florida. 

The solution is not more people with guns and laws that protect shooters. The answer is way fewer guns.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


I feel like there's some missing irony here -
Everyone carrying guns around is a direct result of being paranoid of everyone else who also has guns.
I realize that guns in the US aren't as simple an issue as just "take em all away and suddenly all violence is solved forever", but there's something to be said about trying to change whatever attitudes lead to people thinking their neighbors want to kill them.


----------



## nightflameauto

StevenC said:


> I grew up in a country going through a civil war. Literally we are most known for terrorism.
> 
> All of the guns from that conflict came from the USA and predominantly Florida.
> 
> The solution is not more people with guns and laws that protect shooters. The answer is way fewer guns.


While I can't argue with this on the wide-view, diving in I'd say the bigger answer is changing society is such a way that there aren't so many people feeling angry, burnt-out, put-on, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat.

I'm somebody that tries, and I'm not above having a moment here or there where all I want to do is put my fist through somebody for causing me yet more trauma when it seems that all of the entire universe is set up specifically to cause us trauma. A lot of us, especially in the USA, are tired. Tired of being told to work harder to support the 1%. Tired of being told if we're poor, it's our fault. Tired of being told that we've been given every gift, while we lose more net worth year over year to simple shit like "healthcare" that any civilized country had figured out long enough ago we don't understand why it's even a debate anymore. Tired of watching our public education system be gutted because dumb = easily led, and really, if anybody wanted an education, they should have been born to a rich family.

Everything in our world is geared towards being told, "No, you don't belong." It's no wonder so many of us are angry at times.

While fewer guns would be a good idea, there's a lot more to the story. We, as a country, have a lot of shit we need to fix, and thus far all the solutions handed to us have been about shuffling more money out of the lower and middle classes and into the upper classes. With zero sign that's going to change anytime soon.

I'd say our top list of "needs remedied in some method" includes (but is not limited to):

Infrastructure being updated. Note, I did not say signing a bill that will sit for years unattended with a big payout that will eventually suddenly fall into some contractors hands, whether anything is actually done or not. No. Actual upgrades and updates and fixes. Tearing holes in bridges to measure concrete longevity may be a cool, "see, we're doing something!" But when we see concrete crumbling off the side of same bridges, we are not reassured.

Public education that's world class should be available to anyone that can dedicate the time to it. This should be a no-brainer, but everybody on the right screams bloody fucking murder if you dare talk about giving everyone an opportunity to be educated and start screaming about indoctrination and grooming. Fuck you assholes. If you had a decent education where you were taught to think critically, you wouldn't freak out about every little attempt at bettering our entire society, including for you and your poor kids, who are stuck with you as parents.

Healthcare available to all, including mental healthcare. This shit should be fundamental in a functional society, and we've been treating it as a luxury item that we scold poor people for not doing more of when things go poorly for them. Healthcare should not be used as a method of class differentiation. Yet, here we are.

If we managed to somehow get any one of those things done, we'd probably start to see a mild uptick in overall happiness. Though that's tough to quantify, it's obvious that this state of literally everybody thinking everything sucks mostly, I think we should be able to do better.

Unfortunately, my inner realist and my inner dreamer get into heated debates about this shit constantly, because I'm American. I know we can't actually do any of it, yet I dream we should be able to. My entire adult life has shown me zero tangible progress on any of it.

"Progress takes time." Yet regress takes one dead-brain election where Republicans get a whisper of a chance. Ain't it fuckin' grand!


----------



## John

Glades said:


> I grew up in a 3rd world country and have been robbed at gun point 6-7 times. Worst occasion they broke into my house and had my parents, my brother and I belly down with guns to the back of our head. I was 12 and saw a man with a hammer cocked and finger in the trigger, pushing the barrel end into the back of my mom's head. In the country where I come from, if you defend yourself with lethal force, you go to jail. There is no castle law, there is nothing to protect the homeowner.
> That is why I believe so strongly in the laws of this country. Americans really don't fully appreciate what they have because they never had to live in a violent place. They never had to deal with the constant paranoia and fear of leaving your house.


I understand your situation and what respect what you have gone through, but I respectfully disagree about the last part about this country. There's too many shortcomings with it considering how people have been killed for so little, at this point like it's another Monday, such as but definitely not limited to:

-Going to school, extra insult to injury considering how some moron news anchor kept yelling and propagating such a shooting was a hoax.
-Going to the movies
-Getting groceries
-Chilling at home, eating ice cream
-Video games and chill with the girlfriend, authorities were called in due to some Karen-esque neighbor
-Doing one's job with pest extermination
-Running a clinic/hospital
-Attending a concert


----------



## RevDrucifer

zappatton2 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/colorado-nightclub-shooting-1.6657675
> 
> 
> 
> And still, we argue the semantics of guns, while 5 more people who woke up Saturday, with lives, dreams, families and friends who loved them, did not get that same luxury come Sunday.



Going slightly off the main topic of the thread, but some of you know I recently started a new gear forum with some buddies, with the intent of making it less-restrictive than TGP but not as off-the-rails as Rig-Talk. Someone on Rig-Talk made a post asking if anyone knew what we (TheGearForum) were about and since I’ve been an RT member (mostly lurker) for 11 years, I made a post basically stating what I did above, but also adding how we don’t WANT to ban people or censor posts. I never said we _wouldn’t _do it. 

Our T&C clearly states that politics, religion, racism and/or bigotry is not allowed. It’s our first rule. 

So what happens next? Someone who I actually found to be quite hilarious and never saw any bullshit/racist/bigoted posts on RT signs up and immediately starts posting homophobic phrases, I tell him to cut the shit and further went into why we don’t want that shit, as if it actually needs to be fucking said, but the fact that people are dying/being mistreated and that language absolutely lends a hand to that, is a big reason why we don’t want it on our forum, aside from the fact it’s fucking archaic bullshit and frankly, I find racists/bigots to be equal to kid touchers and murderers. 

So the shithead goes back to RT and has been ranting about me and our forum ever since. I haven’t seen the posts and I won’t even bother going back to engage, but based off my previous years, I can safely assume the words “woke”, “libtard”, and “soy boy” are being used. 

And then Saturday night happens and it hit me a little harder just because I was speaking directly in reference to shit like that just days before. I know I’m preaching to the choir here and I don’t mean to rant, but that incident really set me the fuck off.


----------



## eaeolian

At this point, the U.S. gun culture is so twisted that it will literally take generations to fix. Literally the only thing manufactured that has no legitimate use (the handgun) has become one of the most coveted things to a huge group people in this country. If that's not mass psychosis, I don't know what is.



RevDrucifer said:


> So the shithead goes back to RT and has been ranting about me and our forum ever since. I haven’t seen the posts and I won’t even bother going back to engage, but based off my previous years, I can safely assume the words “woke”, “libtard”, and “soy boy” are being used.


Isn't it nice when adults act like ignorant 12-year olds?


----------



## StevenC

nightflameauto said:


> While I can't argue with this on the wide-view, diving in I'd say the bigger answer is changing society is such a way that there aren't so many people feeling angry, burnt-out, put-on, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat.
> 
> I'm somebody that tries, and I'm not above having a moment here or there where all I want to do is put my fist through somebody for causing me yet more trauma when it seems that all of the entire universe is set up specifically to cause us trauma. A lot of us, especially in the USA, are tired. Tired of being told to work harder to support the 1%. Tired of being told if we're poor, it's our fault. Tired of being told that we've been given every gift, while we lose more net worth year over year to simple shit like "healthcare" that any civilized country had figured out long enough ago we don't understand why it's even a debate anymore. Tired of watching our public education system be gutted because dumb = easily led, and really, if anybody wanted an education, they should have been born to a rich family.
> 
> Everything in our world is geared towards being told, "No, you don't belong." It's no wonder so many of us are angry at times.
> 
> While fewer guns would be a good idea, there's a lot more to the story. We, as a country, have a lot of shit we need to fix, and thus far all the solutions handed to us have been about shuffling more money out of the lower and middle classes and into the upper classes. With zero sign that's going to change anytime soon.
> 
> I'd say our top list of "needs remedied in some method" includes (but is not limited to):
> 
> Infrastructure being updated. Note, I did not say signing a bill that will sit for years unattended with a big payout that will eventually suddenly fall into some contractors hands, whether anything is actually done or not. No. Actual upgrades and updates and fixes. Tearing holes in bridges to measure concrete longevity may be a cool, "see, we're doing something!" But when we see concrete crumbling off the side of same bridges, we are not reassured.
> 
> Public education that's world class should be available to anyone that can dedicate the time to it. This should be a no-brainer, but everybody on the right screams bloody fucking murder if you dare talk about giving everyone an opportunity to be educated and start screaming about indoctrination and grooming. Fuck you assholes. If you had a decent education where you were taught to think critically, you wouldn't freak out about every little attempt at bettering our entire society, including for you and your poor kids, who are stuck with you as parents.
> 
> Healthcare available to all, including mental healthcare. This shit should be fundamental in a functional society, and we've been treating it as a luxury item that we scold poor people for not doing more of when things go poorly for them. Healthcare should not be used as a method of class differentiation. Yet, here we are.
> 
> If we managed to somehow get any one of those things done, we'd probably start to see a mild uptick in overall happiness. Though that's tough to quantify, it's obvious that this state of literally everybody thinking everything sucks mostly, I think we should be able to do better.
> 
> Unfortunately, my inner realist and my inner dreamer get into heated debates about this shit constantly, because I'm American. I know we can't actually do any of it, yet I dream we should be able to. My entire adult life has shown me zero tangible progress on any of it.
> 
> "Progress takes time." Yet regress takes one dead-brain election where Republicans get a whisper of a chance. Ain't it fuckin' grand!


Yes, sure. You could fix literally everything that's broken and unequal about the USA, and invest in a several generation long campaign to change the culture surrounding guns. And then you could live in a country with a general right to bear arms. 

Or, you could get rid of the guns now and do all the work that takes decades too, while saving countless lives. 

That's all there is to it.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

TedEH said:


> IMO the sentence should have ended at the word megaphones. It's not all that extreme that people have wacky world-views. It's extreme that we give everyone the tools to broadcast them, and then we listen to them as if every wacky idea carries the same weight.


Most of them don't even need specific tools. When I worked in retail, just being in their field of vision was enough to have some moonbat or wingnut thrust their ideology upon you as you're trying to stock a shelf.


----------



## eaeolian

Carrion Rocket said:


> Most of them don't even need specific tools. When I worked in retail, just being in their field of vision was enough to have some moonbat or wingnut thrust their ideology upon you as you're trying to stock a shelf.


It has a lot less impact that way, though. When you have a significant chunk of the media spewing "alternate facts", it causes problems. It's almost like people are influenced by what they see/read!


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Yes, sure. You could fix literally everything that's broken and unequal about the USA, and invest in a several generation long campaign to change the culture surrounding guns. And then you could live in a country with a general right to bear arms.
> 
> Or, you could get rid of the guns now and do all the work that takes decades too, while saving countless lives.
> 
> That's all there is to it.


That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think?

It'd be like saying to North Korea, "You have starving people? Just grow more food!"

In order to "get rid of the guns now," we'd need a constitutional amendment, which would require 2/3 of the states to be on board with it. that means just 7.5% of the population can stop it from happening. The only other way is to have a revolution and overthrow the government by force, but it'd be silly to expect to do that with no guns.

It all goes back to the first colonial days, when the Kingdom of Great Britain baked paranoia into the pilgrims so that they'd be more weaponized against the native people here. The descendants of those colonial people baked that paranoia into the nation's constitution. But it's not just a straight thread of paranoia, it's like a thread is the american people and the paranoia is a tangle in the thread and the government is like a toddler that keeps balling up the tangle over time. Saying just "get rid of the guns now" is like saying, just snap your fingers and have the thread be untangled. Not that simple - it's going to take a long time to untangle 400 years of paranoia or else we'll need to throw away the whole thing and start with a fresh one.


----------



## TedEH

eaeolian said:


> It has a lot less impact that way, though. When you have a significant chunk of the media spewing "alternate facts", it causes problems. It's almost like people are influenced by what they see/read!


It's not just that - a random guy shouting nonsense in public doesn't carry the kind of weight and authority that a youtube channel or something like that would. We've created systems that are very good at turning people influential, whether they know what they're talking about or not.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> It's not just that -* a random guy shouting nonsense in public* doesn't carry the kind of weight and authority that a youtube channel or something like that would. We've created systems that are very good at turning people influential, whether they know what they're talking about or not.








Trump gestures broadly in conservative.


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> That's a bit of an oversimplification, don't you think?
> 
> It'd be like saying to North Korea, "You have starving people? Just grow more food!"
> 
> In order to "get rid of the guns now," we'd need a constitutional amendment, which would require 2/3 of the states to be on board with it. that means just 7.5% of the population can stop it from happening. The only other way is to have a revolution and overthrow the government by force, but it'd be silly to expect to do that with no guns.
> 
> It all goes back to the first colonial days, when the Kingdom of Great Britain baked paranoia into the pilgrims so that they'd be more weaponized against the native people here. The descendants of those colonial people baked that paranoia into the nation's constitution. But it's not just a straight thread of paranoia, it's like a thread is the american people and the paranoia is a tangle in the thread and the government is like a toddler that keeps balling up the tangle over time. Saying just "get rid of the guns now" is like saying, just snap your fingers and have the thread be untangled. Not that simple - it's going to take a long time to untangle 400 years of paranoia or else we'll need to throw away the whole thing and start with a fresh one.


That slightly misses my point, which is that there are two ways to go about solving this problem. The long difficult and arduous one where you keep guns, or the long difficult and arduous one where we get rid of guns. 

Suggesting the one where you keep guns just kicks the can down the road. All those things need to be done in America regardless of gun policy. But they aren't going to be done because they'll need such a dramatic overhaul of the entire social structure of the country. 

It would actually be easier to abolish, or properly define, 2A than get sensible mental health care and a social safety net.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> That slightly misses my point, which is that there are two ways to go about solving this problem. The long difficult and arduous one where you keep guns, or the long difficult and arduous one where we get rid of guns.
> 
> Suggesting the one where you keep guns just kicks the can down the road. All those things need to be done in America regardless of gun policy. But they aren't going to be done because they'll need such a dramatic overhaul of the entire social structure of the country.
> 
> It would actually be easier to abolish, or properly define, 2A than get sensible mental health care and a social safety net.


I guess we are both missing each other's points then.

Maybe I'd like to hear more details about this idea to properly define the second amendment. Seeing as how 50% of the population in the USA is convinced that they know exactly what it says, yet don't have a fucking clue what it actually says, it's not going to be easy, but it's a lot more doable than repealing the 2A, that's for sure.

But in terms of realism and what can actually happen here, I'd say that spending effort on abolition of the 2A is a waste of resources. Establishing a social safety net and proper mental health care is shit that we desperately need anyway, even if it's going to be a horrible uphill battle. If there was a google translator for democrat to republican and vice verse, maybe we could start by trying to make it clear that the only way to get people to stop worrying about repealing the second amendment is to get people better mental health care and a reasonable social safety net, we could convince a handful of republicans to actually get some shit done in congress, and that's all it would take to actually start shaking things up.

But, right now, as it stands in the US congress, there are two political parties. Only two. One wants to promise everyone a bunch of cool shit and doesn't particularly care _that much _about making it actually happen, and the other solely wants to stimey everything the other party wants to do; and now the obstructionist party controls one house of the legislature, so there goes anything happening that isn't "bipartisan" as they say.

From my perspective, _my_ options are to buy my family body armor and hope it lasts the next two years or to just try to remain quiet and hope that the murderers don't notice me. But it's okay, I grew up in Detroit. I'm used to it.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> Trump gestures broadly in conservative


Trump wasn't just some random guy on the street shouting nonsense - he's always had social power that the average person doesn't. I'm talking specifically about how the internet turns every nobody into _an influencer_.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> Trump wasn't just some random guy on the street shouting nonsense - he's always had social power that the average person doesn't. I'm talking specifically about how the internet turns every nobody into _an influencer_.


I know, I was just being cheeky. Plus, I'm just some random guy on the internet posting nonsense on a seven string guitar site that isn't even really about seven string guitars much anymore.


----------



## CanserDYI

MOD EDIT: Replying to the troll < reporting the troll


----------



## RevDrucifer

TedEH said:


> Trump wasn't just some random guy on the street shouting nonsense - he's always had social power that the average person doesn't. I'm talking specifically about how the internet turns every nobody into _an influencer_.



For sure. Something I’ve come across lately as I watch a lot of trial footage and occasionally a few streamers who comment on it; some of them flat out start off by saying “I’m not a lawyer, I have no legal knowledge, I just like streaming and talking to people about it, I’m not here to give advice, just commentary”

And people _still _view these people as some kind of institute of information, regardless of the streamer’s own words. The chat will fill up with people asking anything from legal advice to life advice and occasionally I’ll hear a “I appreciate people asking me questions about important aspects of their life, but I‘m just another person trying to figure shit out, the amount of followers I have or how successful my channel is has no reflection on my ability to provide you with vital life information”

Of course, that’s a bit rare and more often than not, once someone is given that kind of podium, earned/deserved or not, people tend to run with it and get the idea in their heads they ARE some kind of source of valuable information when all they’re doing is providing opinionated commentary.


----------



## RevDrucifer

nightflameauto said:


> While I can't argue with this on the wide-view, diving in I'd say the bigger answer is changing society is such a way that there aren't so many people feeling angry, burnt-out, put-on, and ready to fight at the drop of a hat.
> 
> I'm somebody that tries, and I'm not above having a moment here or there where all I want to do is put my fist through somebody for causing me yet more trauma when it seems that all of the entire universe is set up specifically to cause us trauma. A lot of us, especially in the USA, are tired. Tired of being told to work harder to support the 1%. Tired of being told if we're poor, it's our fault. Tired of being told that we've been given every gift, while we lose more net worth year over year to simple shit like "healthcare" that any civilized country had figured out long enough ago we don't understand why it's even a debate anymore. Tired of watching our public education system be gutted because dumb = easily led, and really, if anybody wanted an education, they should have been born to a rich family.
> 
> Everything in our world is geared towards being told, "No, you don't belong." It's no wonder so many of us are angry at times.
> 
> While fewer guns would be a good idea, there's a lot more to the story. We, as a country, have a lot of shit we need to fix, and thus far all the solutions handed to us have been about shuffling more money out of the lower and middle classes and into the upper classes. With zero sign that's going to change anytime soon.
> 
> I'd say our top list of "needs remedied in some method" includes (but is not limited to):
> 
> Infrastructure being updated. Note, I did not say signing a bill that will sit for years unattended with a big payout that will eventually suddenly fall into some contractors hands, whether anything is actually done or not. No. Actual upgrades and updates and fixes. Tearing holes in bridges to measure concrete longevity may be a cool, "see, we're doing something!" But when we see concrete crumbling off the side of same bridges, we are not reassured.
> 
> Public education that's world class should be available to anyone that can dedicate the time to it. This should be a no-brainer, but everybody on the right screams bloody fucking murder if you dare talk about giving everyone an opportunity to be educated and start screaming about indoctrination and grooming. Fuck you assholes. If you had a decent education where you were taught to think critically, you wouldn't freak out about every little attempt at bettering our entire society, including for you and your poor kids, who are stuck with you as parents.
> 
> Healthcare available to all, including mental healthcare. This shit should be fundamental in a functional society, and we've been treating it as a luxury item that we scold poor people for not doing more of when things go poorly for them. Healthcare should not be used as a method of class differentiation. Yet, here we are.
> 
> If we managed to somehow get any one of those things done, we'd probably start to see a mild uptick in overall happiness. Though that's tough to quantify, it's obvious that this state of literally everybody thinking everything sucks mostly, I think we should be able to do better.
> 
> Unfortunately, my inner realist and my inner dreamer get into heated debates about this shit constantly, because I'm American. I know we can't actually do any of it, yet I dream we should be able to. My entire adult life has shown me zero tangible progress on any of it.
> 
> "Progress takes time." Yet regress takes one dead-brain election where Republicans get a whisper of a chance. Ain't it fuckin' grand!



Great post and I strongly agree. 

This was an aspect of Bernie’s interview on Rogan’s podcast a few years back, but it was brought up in the context of decriminalizing drugs. Bernie said he didn’t think decriminalization was the answer, but treating the root cause of why people turn to drugs to begin with was the better choice to make and cited many of those exact things with his reply.

The feeling of helplessness, especially after extended periods, often brings a strong overreaction lending itself to the idea it’ll solve the problem when it’s really just an invitation for more problems; “I’m depressed all the time but this meth makes me feel really good”, or “Someone just stole all my shit, I’m going to make sure this NEVER happens again and I’m going to arm myself to the teeth”

That said, I can understand Glades POV, I wouldn’t wish what he’s experienced on anyone and while I’ve never been in a situation quite as severe as that, I’ve been jumped, I’ve had my apartment broken into and experienced a _lot_ of abuse at a young age, all things that helped create this idea of helplessness, I just went down the self-destruction route more than playing offense. When I was married and we had a string of armed robberies/carjackings on the next street over from my house, my ex and I made the decision to purchase a handgun after a _lot _of discussion and it basically came down to the thought that we’d rather have _some _form of protection because the thought of something happening to either of us while we were unprotected as the result of _choosing_ not to be protected would be too much to bear. 

And one of the first things our instructor said to us when we signed up for our CCW’s was “We have Stand Your Ground laws here, but do not think for a second that you won’t be sued to hell and back if you shoot someone trying to break into your house, even if they’re trying to kill you. If they live, they’ll do it, if they don’t, their family will do it, if they don’t, a lawyer looking to make a buck will do it. You WILL be sued and you WILL be tied up in the court/legal system for a long time after and it will most likely bankrupt you, along with knowing that you fired a weapon with the intent to kill someone and many people have a hard time living with that thought after they’ve pulled the trigger, but rarely before.”

(And FWIW, I currently do not own a firearm, but I have a shitload of throwing stars next to my bed!)


----------



## bostjan

Trump's IRS records are going over to congress, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Guess we finally, after 7ish years, get to find out, secondhand, what all of the fuss has been about all this time.

I'll just try not to get my hopes up that this whole saga starts to wrap up one way or the other finally.


----------



## Drew

Adieu said:


> Wdym?
> 
> For a guy running a family business literally called an "Organization", scamming everybody for decades, not properly paying taxes, using government office to collect bribes and evade legal consequences... the man's a poster boy for RICO
> 
> And yet he's free as a bird
> 
> His legal record far outshines his past political achievements, imho


Ok, off the top of my head - 

*Had to pull out of the Atlantic City casino business, I believe at a heavy loss, to avoid persecution or being shut down by the feds. 
*Trump University was shut down, lost a civil lawsuit for ripping off his students, settled for around $100mm if memory serves. 
*The Trump Foundation was shut down by New York for tax fraud, and put into conservatorship while it was wound down. 
*Trump lost a lawsuit and paid back most of the payments related to improper payments to his hotel by the inauguration committee.

...and, roughly two years after leaving office, for open investigations working their way through the courts: 
*sexual assault cases are ongoing, both for sexual assault itself, and for defamation for attacking his accusors. Trump testified under oath less than a month ago in one of them. 
*Trump, and a number of members of his team and prominent supporters, are under investigation for conspiracy to commit election fraud in Georgia. So far every legal challenge they've launched to either toss the case or block testimony has failed. 
*literally moments ago the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear Trump's arguments to keep his tax returns from being handed over to the House, who should be receiving them shortly. 
*the SC has also refused to weigh in on the subject of classified documents seized at Mar-A-Lago
*In addition to the House January 6th investigation, there's a DOJ investigation running in the background that will not be shut down when a new House is sworn in, overseen by a Special Council. 
*Trump is under investigation for tax fraud in New York, and the former CEO of the Trump Organization's testimony last week was pretty damning, and made it much harder for Trump to plausibly argue he was unaware. 
*He's also under investigation by the House oversight committee for alleged embezzlement, wildly overcharging foreign dignitaries who were at the time trying to curry favor with his administration, though it's less clear this will survive the turnover of the House unless the DOJ picks it up.

Idunno, what am I missing? Trump's criminal liabilities continue to pile up, and his attempts to appeal them in the courts have broadly failed. The closest to a win he's had was the appointing of a special master to oversee the MAr-a-lago files, who very quickly made it clear that Trump's arguments that the files were declassified, but they didn't need to provide proof of declassification, were both bullshit and beside the point. He's floundering.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Change the culture, have a better system for the mentally ill.


The whole world has a mental health problem. Only America has a "angry people shooting up nightclubs" problem. I don't think mental health is the problem, I think the problem is we don't have the political resolve to put barriers up to stop people with histories of violence from going out and buying guns.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Trump's IRS records are going over to congress, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Guess we finally, after 7ish years, get to find out, secondhand, what all of the fuss has been about all this time.
> 
> I'll just try not to get my hopes up that this whole saga starts to wrap up one way or the other finally.


Well, Congress? The people that make simple measures into thousand page bills before voting on them? It'll take at least six or seven more years for them to read a few financial statements. Decisions will have to wait until then.


----------



## bostjan

Might also be worth mentioning that, despite Trump having appointed 3 of the 9 justices, *not a single one* dissented from sending the documents to congress.

But yeah, maybe congress will never get the documents or maybe the GOP will take over and shut it down before they can take action or maybe no one will care or maybe the papers will get blown away in the wind on the way to the capitol building or maybe Major (Biden's dog) will eat the papers or poop on them... it'd take a lot to actually surprise me at this point...


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Might also be worth mentioning that, despite Trump having appointed 3 of the 9 justices, *not a single one* dissented from sending the documents to congress.
> 
> But yeah, maybe congress will never get the documents or maybe the GOP will take over and shut it down before they can take action or maybe no one will care or maybe the papers will get blown away in the wind on the way to the capitol building or maybe Major (Biden's dog) will eat the papers or poop on them... it'd take a lot to actually surprise me at this point...


The story in the press: SECRET SERVICE STILL IN TRUMP'S EMPLOY INTERCEPTS DOCUMENTS ON WAY TO CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW AND SEQUESTORS THEM

Truth: Some intern didn't remember where he left a cache of the documents, and nobody bothered to follow up for several weeks until there was no chance of tracking them down.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> In order to "get rid of the guns now," we'd need a constitutional amendment, which would require 2/3 of the states to be on board with it. that means just 7.5% of the population can stop it from happening. The only other way is to have a revolution and overthrow the government by force, but it'd be silly to expect to do that with no guns.


Not really, no. There's literally nothing prohibiting the government from banning the production of certain types of weapons, other than, you know, millions of dollars in campaign contributions. There's nothing to prevent Congress from revoking the manufacturers' immunity. The previously existing Assault Weapons ban has already survived a Constitutional test. There are solutions short of binary "all or nothing" that make sense and make a difference, despite what the NRA propaganda says.


----------



## Drew

nightflameauto said:


> Well, Congress? The people that make simple measures into thousand page bills before voting on them? It'll take at least six or seven more years for them to read a few financial statements. Decisions will have to wait until then.


Though, this is one of those opening-pandora's-box things. Trump fought this so hard because he knows once that box is open, it can never be closed. Even if the investigation gets shut down before it can go anywhere, the minority party will have all seen it, and high-level takeaways are going to be public knowledge now in the 2024 campaign. 

Trump wasn't fighting this because he was bored.


----------



## tedtan

eaeolian said:


> Not really, no. There's literally nothing prohibiting the government from banning the production of certain types of weapons, other than, you know, millions of dollars in campaign contributions. There's nothing to prevent Congress from revoking the manufacturers' immunity. The previously existing Assault Weapons ban has already survived a Constitutional test. There are solutions short of binary "all or nothing" that make sense and make a difference, despite what the NRA propaganda says.


And Roe v. Wade was challenged and upheld prior to the current SCOTUS, too, so I doubt that any gun restrictions will withstand legal challenges as long as we have the currently sitting court.


----------



## eaeolian

tedtan said:


> And Roe v. Wade was challenged and upheld prior to the current SCOTUS, too, so I doubt that any gun restrictions will withstand legal challenges as long as we have the currently sitting court.


If they re-instate the former law (which expired and can be renewed, IIRC), it cuts off a lot of the possible court challenges. Roe v. Wade's lack of action by Congress is what was really at the core of the argument to overturn the decision by the current court. It would be very interesting to see how far they'll overreach with something codified by Congress.


----------



## nightflameauto

eaeolian said:


> If they re-instate the former law (which expired and can be renewed, IIRC), it cuts off a lot of the possible court challenges. Roe v. Wade's lack of action by Congress is what was really at the core of the argument to overturn the decision by the current court. It would be very interesting to see how far they'll overreach with something codified by Congress.


Considering the very vocal public statements by some of the sitting justices, Thomas particularly, about what's next on the chopping block? They'll overreach until somebody smacks the shit out of them, legally speaking of course. That's the problem with lifelong god-tier jobs. The people sitting in them sometimes forget that it's meant to be a service position that's an essential oversight of our country. It's not meant to be a personal agenda platform.


----------



## TedEH

nightflameauto said:


> The people sitting in them sometimes forget that it's meant to be a service position that's an essential oversight of our country. It's not meant to be a personal agenda platform.


I tend to wonder if some can't tell the difference. 'Cause obviously someone with such an important job, with so much power and authority, _must_ know what's best for everyone.


----------



## eaeolian

TedEH said:


> I tend to wonder if some can't tell the difference. 'Cause obviously someone with such an important job, with so much power and authority, _must_ know what's best for everyone.


Oh, yeah, I totally trust Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas to do what's right for me.


----------



## tedtan

eaeolian said:


> If they re-instate the former law (which expired and can be renewed, IIRC), it cuts off a lot of the possible court challenges. Roe v. Wade's lack of action by Congress is what was really at the core of the argument to overturn the decision by the current court. It would be very interesting to see how far they'll overreach with something codified by Congress.


Even a law passed by Congress can be challenged on the basis of constitutionality, so in the case of anything gun related comes down to interpretation of the Second Amendment and so far the SCOTUS seem to lean _*very*_ far in the conservative direction.


----------



## Glades

tedtan said:


> Even a law passed by Congress can be challenged on the basis of constitutionality, so in the case of anything gun related comes down to interpretation of the Second Amendment and so far the SCOTUS seem to lean _*very*_ far in the conservative direction.


The SCOTUS doesn’t have a “conservative” majority, it has an Originalist/Textualist majority. This idea that these justices are just political pawns for the GOP is unfounded and idiotic. The ruling on Dobbs v Jackson is not a pro-life ruling, and it is not a pro-choice ruling, it is a neutral ruling. And in my opinion the correct ruling regardless of whether I like the outcome or not.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

When your politics are so caustic that you can't even call them what they are.


----------



## bostjan

2A said:


> A well regulated Militia[,] being necessary to the security of a free State[,] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms[,] shall not be infringed.



I put the commas in brackets, since different versions have different commas, or, sometimes no commas.

Obviously, this is quite vague.

So what did it mean when it was written?

I think that's not even entirely clear, but we have some idea that the drafters of the constitution meant this to determine that the government shall not prevent the people from arming themselves with weapons for the purposes of self defense. There are tons of revisions of the amendment that we can read and tons of written opinions regarding its language, so there is a rich dataset for interpretation. A lot of it falls upon the idea that the US Army should not be a standing army, but rather that the people should have weapons in their homes and be ready to fight in case of a foreign invasion, unless they have philosophical objections against doing so. This probably made a hell of a lot more sense as a form of domestic military protection back in the 18th century, when a US invasion would involve people loading onto wooden sailboats with muskets and then sailing across the Atlantic Ocean before lining up for battle on US soil.

In this day and age, we have tons of SCotUS written opinion about it, but the original concept makes no sense anymore. Foreign militaries have ICBMs and submarines and jets and whatnot. Machine guns exist. Hell, handguns that can fire somewhat accurately exist. Handguns that can fire multiple shots in seconds exist. None of that stuff existed when 2A was written. The USA has a standing army. And what's this about militias? Well, we know that the original phrase intended for militias to replace the army, but we have an army, so then what's with the militias? Well, we have the national guard, and also some places have militias as well, and still the SCotUS has _consistently _ruled that the 2A means that everyone who wants a gun gets a gun, unless they are a convicted felon or mentally ill, or you conceal the weapon, or if you take the weapon with you to a school or a government building (all outlined in _DC v. Heller_).

If congress passes a law that says "no assault weapons," then that might never make it to the SCotUS, and, if it did, I don't know how they'd interpret it. According to case precedent, you cannot even become a US citizen if you are a pacifist, since you might need to own a gun (_US v Schwimmer_). So, I doubt that any sort of legislation that "takes away people's guns" would be defensible under a Supreme Court challenge. Maybe legislation preventing certain types of guns would be fine (for example _US v Miller_ prevents people from transporting sawn-off shotguns over state lines), but anything sweeping would probably never pass congress anyway. 

So, to all of the people outside of the USA saying "it's easy, just ban guns" - it's not that easy. People here generally love to shoot their guns. What's more important is that the majority of dollars in the US economy are tied to organizations that want people to want guns. Congress has no interest in passing laws that stop people from buying guns. The people in a majority of states have no interest in electing congresspeople who would pass such a law. And, even if some sort of bill defied all odds and _did_ pass, the court would just shoot it down, probably immediately. And, furthest it would go is maybe disrupting gun sales. Anyone going door-to-door to collect people's guns is just going to get shot, because there are a huge number of people here in the USA who have deep seated fantasies about shooting some government employee who wants to take their guns. Sounds like hyperbole, but I guarantee to you that, if the government tried this in 2022, scores of people would be shot. If you don't believe me, just look at how the people in the USA have treated census employees historically.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> If congress passes a law that says "no assault weapons," then that might never make it to the SCotUS, and, if it did, I don't know how they'd interpret it. According to case precedent, you cannot even become a US citizen if you are a pacifist, since you might need to own a gun (_US v Schwimmer_). So, I doubt that any sort of legislation that "takes away people's guns" would be defensible under a Supreme Court challenge. Maybe legislation p*reventing certain types of guns* would be fine (for example _US v Miller_ prevents people from transporting sawn-off shotguns over state lines), but anything sweeping would probably never pass congress anyway.


The arms of 1791 were weapons of war. People were allowed under the original intent of the amendment to own and carry weapons of war. The idea is the enemy would also have weapons of war, and the scale of power would be balanced.
Weapons of war are illegal in 2022. You cannot obtain one other than under special FFL licensing, but you or I can't buy them. If the enemy has weapons of war, and the citizens are only allowed to own sporting platforms, there is a firepower discrepancy, and scale is tilted in favor of the enemy. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on what a citizen can own. Any and all restrictions are unconstitutional and violate the intent of the amendment.

EDIT


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> The arms of 1791 were weapons of war. People were allowed under the original intent of the amendment to own and carry weapons of war. The idea is the enemy would also have weapons of war, and the scale of power would be balanced.
> Weapons of war are illegal in 2022. You cannot obtain one other than under special FFL licensing, but you or I can't buy them. If the enemy has weapons of war, and the citizens are only allowed to own sporting platforms, there is a firepower discrepancy, and scale is tilted in favor of the enemy. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on what a citizen can own. Any and all restrictions are unconstitutional and violate the intent of the amendment.
> 
> EDIT


Yeah about that, I'll take the risk of being invaded by peoples with weapons of war over giving the American public access to weapons of war any day of the week. I'm sure most people who don't perform intercourse with their holsters on agree with me.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> The arms of 1791 were weapons of war. People were allowed under the original intent to own and use weapons of war.
> Weapons of war are illegal in 2022. You cannot obtain one other than under special FFL licensing, but you or I can't buy them.


Hmm. Well, not really no.

What weapons were used in warfare in 1791? Muskets for sure, and bayonets, but also cannons. But the minutemen didn't haul cannons around, probably because it was impractical. Grenades existed as well, but likewise, there aren't really reports of people storing those in their homes in the 1790's, either. Muskets were definitely used for hunting, and bayonets could be a knife of any purpose affixed to a musket. Shortly after, rifles started to become common, but we're talking still muzzle-loading single shot rifles.

But, many old towns still have their public cannons, which, if a foreign invader had came to the town to take it over, would have been used by the townspeople to repel the invasion. However, since the American Civil War, most of those cannons have been modified such that they are no longer operable as weapons.

Think about this, too, the War of 1812 was just two decades after the ratification of the US Constitution. Congress refused to have a standing army, so the British were kicking the shit out of the US, because our minutemen had no training and no proper equipment for war. A lot of people in the northern US were not too keen on having a war and, even if they were in the militia, didn't bother to report for duty.  So British casualties were about half of American casualties despite the home field advantage. A year after the war ended, congress finally admitted that the US needed a proper military and reversed the plan of just having militias of regular folks to fight in wars. So the US navy became a proper navy, as opposed to being a coast guard, in 1815. Same with the US army. It existed before 1812, but it wasn't until the middle of the war that it started to properly organize, despite objections from congress. After the end of the war, the Army never again disbanded. So, I'd say that the whole idea of a citizen army that was proposed in the 2A was already proven useless by the first war after the ratification of the amendment. And a huge part of that is the fact that the regular people were *not* properly armed for war.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The SCOTUS doesn’t have a “conservative” majority, it has an Originalist/Textualist majority. This idea that these justices are just political pawns for the GOP is unfounded and idiotic. The ruling on Dobbs v Jackson is not a pro-life ruling, and it is not a pro-choice ruling, it is a neutral ruling. And in my opinion the correct ruling regardless of whether I like the outcome or not.


Oh, you're SO close. Now if only you could take that next step and see that an "originalist/textualist" ideology IS a "conservative" ideology, you might begin to understand the rest of this thread.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> The arms of 1791 were weapons of war. People were allowed under the original intent of the amendment to own and carry weapons of war. The idea is the enemy would also have weapons of war, and the scale of power would be balanced.
> Weapons of war are illegal in 2022. You cannot obtain one other than under special FFL licensing, but you or I can't buy them. If the enemy has weapons of war, and the citizens are only allowed to own sporting platforms, there is a firepower discrepancy, and scale is tilted in favor of the enemy. Therefore, there should be no restrictions on what a citizen can own. Any and all restrictions are unconstitutional and violate the intent of the amendment.
> 
> EDIT


Why do you people always forget the first half of the Second Amendment? 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." 

The 2nd was the ONLY amendment in the Bill of Rights that provided a reason for the right being included. So, if you're an "originalist/textualist," it should immediately jump out at you as a pretty important and critical inclusion. And, given the focus on authorial intent that Originalism entails, it should also not be lost on you that the main concern here was that the British Government had disbanded Massachusetts Bay Colony goverment (including militias) under the Intolerable Acts in response to the Tea Party, and in part through the Quartering Act, which triggered its own Bill of Rights amendment, replaced them with British militias. In part, the intent here was to ensure British officials could not be tried by American courts.

So, looking at this through both a textual and an originalist filter, this was a very direct response to a British attempt to disband militias used as part of the Intolerale Acts to punish the Mass Bay Colony for the Boston Tea Party, and was an attempt to write the ability of the state to raise militias into the Constitution of the United States, to help balance the power of the state governments against the newly minted federal one. 

The whole thing has nothing to do with individual citizens, when viewed from a constitutional originalism/teztualism (i.e. - conservative) standard, and it's kind of insane to me that conservatives who on one hand preach constitutional originalism and authorial intent, and on the other 2A rights, fail to see the inherent contradiciton here.


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> Oh, you're SO close. Now if only you could take that next step and see that an "originalist/textualist" ideology IS a "conservative" ideology, you might begin to understand the rest of this thread.


You're completely ignoring the Willful Ignorance Elephant standing in the corner.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> it is a neutral ruling


A ruling, by definition cannot be neutral. The only way to be neutral is to not make a ruling at all, but even then, you could argue that it's not a neutral choice, since you had to choose that, given the context the decision was made in, and knowing there are consequences of that choice.

In the words of Geddy Lee: If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

But lets not kid ourselves, there was _nothing_ neutral about wanting to overturn Roe.


----------



## CanserDYI

Guys, it's a crazy Thanksgiving. For the last decade or so, my wife has had to tell me to keep politics away from my dad as we always fight about stuff, mainly him being an ultra conservative, Reaganomics fan boy, etc. Well he told me today, somewhat cringily but I'll allow it, that he is enjoying his life as a new "woke democrat" and denouncing his involvement with the Republican party.

This is shocking news, although I knew I could turn him once my sister/his daughter married a wonderful woman who he has grown to see as a daughter, and finally he wants to fight for their rights to be together and be comothers.

This is a major win. I don't see many 72 year olds change their views like this.


----------



## LordCashew

CanserDYI said:


> Guys, it's a crazy Thanksgiving. For the last decade or so, my wife has had to tell me to keep politics away from my dad as we always fight about stuff, mainly him being an ultra conservative, Reaganomics fan boy, etc. Well he told me today, somewhat cringily but I'll allow it, that he is enjoying his life as a new "woke democrat" and denouncing his involvement with the Republican party.
> 
> This is shocking news, although I knew I could turn him once my sister/his daughter married a wonderful woman who he has grown to see as a daughter, and finally he wants to fight for their rights to be together and be comothers.
> 
> This is a major win. I don't see many 72 year olds change their views like this.


The most powerful way my parents got me to change my mind about something was by acting like _they_ liked it. For example, hearing my dad sing along to Disturbed in the shower in operatic bass voice = Disturbed is ruined, no more listening to them.

Could it be that your dad is playing a long game here and the cringe factor is intentional?


----------



## Glades

Mod Edit:

Unless you want a week off, either polish your sense of humor or stop insulting people. This is not your first warning.


----------



## TedEH

I can't tell which parts of the above post are sarcastic. Rather than trying to unpack it, I'll just say [citation needed].


----------



## tedtan

I’ve seen people become more conservative as they get older, but it’s more a case of having paid a big chunk of their mortgage off, having a retirement account, etc., so they become more _fiscally_ conservative as they have more to lose.

But I haven’t seen anyone become more _socially_ conservative as they get older. IME this tends to stay the same or maybe even become more progressive as they have more life experience and start to see that people are people, regardless of any differences they may have.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Most men become more conservative as they grow older, but past a certain age they can become more progressive. It is usually because they become more compassionate as their testosterone drops at old age. I have seen this with my dad. Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.



Get tossed, fascist.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> Most men become more conservative as they grow older, but past a certain age they can become more progressive. It is usually because they become more compassionate as their testosterone drops at old age. I have seen this with my dad. Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.


This post made my jaw drop not out of shock that someone could be this heartless, disgusting, and repulsive, but that the sheer stupidity that you have spewed in the past in this forum has been overshadowed by the absolute miniscule amount of thought that it took to come up with a statement like this. I don't know if you're serious or if this is rage bait, but I genuinely feel bad for you because this is brain rot that you might suffer from until you yourself are 70 years old or older.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Most men become more conservative as they grow older, but past a certain age they can become more progressive. It is usually because they become more compassionate as their testosterone drops at old age. I have seen this with my dad. Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> Most men become more conservative as they grow older, but past a certain age they can become more progressive. It is usually because they become more compassionate as their testosterone drops at old age. I have seen this with my dad. Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.


This is not only repugnant but incorrect.

Traditionally people became more conservative as they became more successful in their careers. This is the old boomer “well I got successful by working hard, anyone who didn’t can only blame themselves!” This has started to change a lot in the last 15 years many see that no amount of hard work can guarantee success in the modern era.


----------



## TimmyPage

Glades said:


> Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.



And here I thought conservatives were all against gender affirming therapy!


----------



## Ralyks

Glades said:


> Most men become more conservative as they grow older, but past a certain age they can become more progressive. It is usually because they become more compassionate as their testosterone drops at old age. I have seen this with my dad. Maybe you should recommend your dad to get on testosterone replacement to fix the issue.


----------



## MFB

From here on out I'm just going to assume that every Glades' post comes with an endorsement for Neugenix Total T, as well as what other ass backwards nonsense he's spouting.


----------



## narad




----------



## spudmunkey

Holy shit, I've got him on mute and thought people's reactions were to something bad, but I "unhid" the post in question, and it's more delusional than I thought possible.


----------



## Carrion Rocket

Damn, found bedrock and went deeper.


----------



## nightflameauto

I can't believe people still respond to that shit-posting flame-magnet. Granted, that was a minimal effort toilet bomb with some seriously disturbing logic, but seriously. Why encourage it?

I did have a deep-thought post brewing in my mind about the blame game and how we're all so wrapped up in it we can't solve any political problem because we don't care to solve it, we're far more interested in finding out who to blame.

Reading his post made what I assume at one time was a rational point in my mind into that little run-on of stupid. So fuck him.t

I wonder if HR would accept, "Read a Glades post by accident" as a reason for a mental health day?


----------



## CanserDYI

nightflameauto said:


> I can't believe people still respond to that shit-posting flame-magnet. Granted, that was a minimal effort toilet bomb with some seriously disturbing logic, but seriously. Why encourage it?
> 
> I did have a deep-thought post brewing in my mind about the blame game and how we're all so wrapped up in it we can't solve any political problem because we don't care to solve it, we're far more interested in finding out who to blame.
> 
> Reading his post made what I assume at one time was a rational point in my mind into that little run-on of stupid. So fuck him.t
> 
> I wonder if HR would accept, "Read a Glades post by accident" as a reason for a mental health day?


I suppose I took it personally as he's taking a shot at my father, but yeah, I gotta stop feeding the trolls.


----------



## ArtDecade

CanserDYI said:


> I suppose I took it personally as he's taking a shot at my father, but yeah, I gotta stop feeding the trolls.



Mod Edit: Don't feed the trolls.


----------



## bostjan

Anyone know any odds that congress will get Trump's taxes before the session expires?

Last press I've seen about it is that no one knows what's in there, but that most news outlets are now convinced that the whole thing is just going to be another nothingburger that will prove to conservatives that there is a witch hunt for Trump. No one is saying how long before anyone knows anything, though.

If there's really nothing incriminating in there, it seems weird that he fought so hard for 7ish years to keep those documents totally secret. But maybe this is another 5D chess move.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> Anyone know any odds that congress will get Trump's taxes before the session expires?
> 
> Last press I've seen about it is that no one knows what's in there, but that most news outlets are now convinced that the whole thing is just going to be another nothingburger that will prove to conservatives that there is a witch hunt for Trump. No one is saying how long before anyone knows anything, though.
> 
> If there's really nothing incriminating in there, it seems weird that he fought so hard for 7ish years to keep those documents totally secret. But maybe this is another 5D chess move.



If nothing else, the taxes will be in the hands of the DOJ.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Anyone know any odds that congress will get Trump's taxes before the session expires?
> 
> Last press I've seen about it is that no one knows what's in there, but that most news outlets are now convinced that the whole thing is just going to be another nothingburger that will prove to conservatives that there is a witch hunt for Trump. No one is saying how long before anyone knows anything, though.
> 
> If there's really nothing incriminating in there, it seems weird that he fought so hard for 7ish years to keep those documents totally secret. But maybe this is another 5D chess move.


Yet another time we'll get proof that, as incompetent and Trump and his team appear to be, the "functional" parts of our government are just so much more incompetent than that that it makes them appear smart.

This too shall pass. About all I can say about that.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Anyone know any odds that congress will get Trump's taxes before the session expires?


I'd say pretty good, but not with enough time to do more with them than release them to the public, or turn them over to the (still Democratically controlled) Senate. 

Both of which the House is empowered to do, for what it's worth.


----------



## Drew

A bill protecting same-sex marriage just passed the Senate 61-39, prohibiting states from denying the validity of out of state marriages based on sex, race, or ethnicity.  It should pass the House and go to Biden's desk next week.


----------



## CanserDYI

Drew said:


> A bill protecting same-sex marriage just passed the Senate 61-39, prohibiting states from denying the validity of out of state marriages based on sex, race, or ethnicity.  It should pass the House and go to Biden's desk next week.


Here's the list of assholes who voted against it, if anyone is interested. 









Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Interracial Marriage Law


The bill is now one step closer to becoming law as it heads to the House and then, if passed, to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature.




www.google.com


----------



## narad

"What next - marrying animals!?" -- 39 republicans


----------



## Glades

CanserDYI said:


> Here's the list of assholes who voted against it, if anyone is interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Interracial Marriage Law
> 
> 
> The bill is now one step closer to becoming law as it heads to the House and then, if passed, to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com



I am confused about this law ….

Wouldn’t forcing states to recognize marriage licenses from other states be in violation of the Tenth Amendment? I didn’t think the Federal government had the authority over the states on marriage. But I’m not a lawyer so what do I know? Maybe someone can explain this.

My Florida Conceal Carry Permit is not recognized or valid in NY or CA. Will this extend to other forms of state-issued documents/permits?

I am sure this will eventually be reviewed by the SCOTUS, and make a ruling on its constitutionality.


----------



## narad

Let me get my basket...looks like sour grapes are back in season.


----------



## TedEH

I'm no law-ologist, or constitutional scholar, but I'm sure there are tons of things that cross some theoretical line set out by the 10th and "interpreted" whatever way is convenient to get your own way. Like everything else, it only starts to "matter" when someone doesn't get what they want. (Or when someone _does_ get something that conservative types think they shouldn't.) If you have to lean on some arbitrary text to be able to tell what's wrong or right, maybe it's worth rethinking why you're digging for that justification in the first place - as in, introspect why it bothers you that gay people are legally protected in their right to get married if they want to.

The constitution - _any_ constitution - is a flawed document that does not serve as a source of truth or justice. It's just a tool, like any other document. And it really needs to get with the times.


----------



## MaxOfMetal




----------



## bostjan

CanserDYI said:


> Here's the list of assholes who voted against it, if anyone is interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Interracial Marriage Law
> 
> 
> The bill is now one step closer to becoming law as it heads to the House and then, if passed, to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com


Fucking Rand Paul.

So many who point to that guy when they say "libertarian." The idea of libertarianism is that it shouldn't be banned by law if it doesn't hurt anybody. This bill was the definition of removing legal bans on something that doesn't hurt anybody, and he voted against it. 

Anyway...



Glades said:


> I am confused about this law ….
> 
> Wouldn’t forcing states to recognize marriage licenses from other states be in violation of the Tenth Amendment? I didn’t think the Federal government had the authority over the states on marriage. But I’m not a lawyer so what do I know? Maybe someone can explain this.
> 
> My Florida Conceal Carry Permit is not recognized or valid in NY or CA. Will this extend to other forms of state-issued documents/permits?
> 
> I am sure this will eventually be reviewed by the SCOTUS, and make a ruling on its constitutionality.



Well, before you get all fired up, let's look at the actual tenth amendment, shall we?



> *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people*.



How does forcing a state to recognize a license from another state violate that?

And then your analogy. I suppose it'd be a good analogy, if, say, the state of NY didn't recognize any marriages. But they do. So, I'm not sure what your point is, actually. But, no state refuses to recognize marriages across the board, and, in fact, if you are married in any state, or even overseas, every state *will* recognize that marriage, unless it is a same sex marriage.

So that's a specific exclusion. We are Americans, and we don't historically like specific exclusions of people based on race, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. Basically anything to do with identity.

Another example: you cannot get a concealed carry permit here in VT. Not because VT doesn't want you to concealed carry, but because they don't license that behaviour- anyone here can do it. So, technically, your CCW is no good here in VT, either. However, you can still concealed carry here because anyone can do it... the sort of unintentional effect is that residents of Vermont cannot get a license for something that doesn't require a license, so, if they travel to FL, they can no longer concealed carry. Yet, who is complaining about that?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> And then your analogy. I suppose it'd be a good analogy, if, say, the state of NY didn't recognize any marriages. But they do. So, I'm not sure what your point is, actually. But, no state refuses to recognize marriages across the board, and, in fact, if you are married in any state, or even overseas, every state *will* recognize that marriage, unless it is a same sex marriage.



okay but what about gay concealed carry permits


----------



## Crungy

Would that be treated along these lines?


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> okay but what about gay concealed carry permits


In VT, all of the gay guns are out in the open, so we only conceal the bisexual ones.

Totally OT, but this weirdly reminds me of when people asked one of the puppeteers on Sesame Street (maybe Frank Oz, I don't recall) if Burt and Ernie were gay and he said something to the effect of "They are puppets who teach preschoolers the alphabet, not humans" or something of the same gist, or, what I read as "Dafuq you asking?" But, for whatever reason, people seem to be way overly concerned with the private preferences of other people. On one level, it's just comical, but it stops being funny the moment you realize that they are hurting people.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> But, for whatever reason, people seem to be way overly concerned with the private preferences of other people.


I always read that as people fishing for representation opportunities, rather than trying to tear down Muppets (although I'm sure that also happens). Still weird, but I can understand the motivation.

But hey, we live in modern times, where identity is everything to some people.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> I always read that as people fishing for representation opportunities, rather than trying to tear down Muppets (although I'm sure that also happens). Still weird, but I can understand the motivation.
> 
> But hey, we live in modern times, where identity is everything to some people.


It's great for someone's identity to be super important to them. It's not so great when people, for whatever reason, get concerned about someone else's identity more than that person is comfortable. And, in the case of an object, rather than a person, I'd say that it's more ludacris than dangerous, but whoever is exhibiting that behaviour might likely have the same problem projecting onto people.

But, growing up in a private fundamentalist school and being around tons of fundamentalist people might have my perception skewed toward people being anti-Muppet over Bert and Ernie. In that case, it seems to me to be more a sign of mental illness than a silly nonsequitor.

And if people want to read into it something that they feel is positive, whether it's there or not, I'd prefer to disagree to myself, because, well, who cares?

And also, come on, why are people so crazy when it comes to Burt? Remember that joke site someone started about how Burt was evil, and a bunch of people ran with that as though it was all serious?


----------



## Xaios

bostjan said:


> so we only conceal the bisexual ones.


Soooo... do they shoot both ways?


----------



## ArtDecade

Xaios said:


> Soooo... do they shoot both ways?


Nah, you shoot the same but have more diverse targets.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> it seems to me to be more a sign of mental illness than a silly nonsequitor.


I just meant to say that it's very normal for people to project themselves, or look for themselves, in whatever media they're consuming. If identity is very important to a person, it's not a shock that they'd read really far into the identities they see. In the same way that a musician might make a dumb facebook post about "which Muppet represents each music genre" or those obnoxious youtube videos that are just "what if popular song BUT METAL?!?!"


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> I am confused about this law ….
> 
> Wouldn’t forcing states to recognize marriage licenses from other states be in violation of the Tenth Amendment? I didn’t think the Federal government had the authority over the states on marriage. But I’m not a lawyer so what do I know? Maybe someone can explain this.
> 
> My Florida Conceal Carry Permit is not recognized or valid in NY or CA. Will this extend to other forms of state-issued documents/permits?
> 
> I am sure this will eventually be reviewed by the SCOTUS, and make a ruling on its constitutionality.


I shouldn't feed the trolls...

...but Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, the "Commerce Clause," allows the federal government to "....regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." And, with marriage recognized under the US tax code as a valid filing status, and conveying economic benefits to married couples, this would seem to be pretty squarely under the purview of the Commerce Clause to have the federal government step in to ensure that a marriage recognized in one state isn't nullified if a federal taxpayer moves across state lines.

Unless of course you want to do away with the preferred tax status conveyed to married couples under the US tax code, at which point it would no longer fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause.


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> I just meant to say that it's very normal for people to project themselves, or look for themselves, in whatever media they're consuming. If identity is very important to a person, it's not a shock that they'd read really far into the identities they see. In the same way that a musician might make a dumb facebook post about "which Muppet represents each music genre" or those obnoxious youtube videos that are just "what if popular song BUT METAL?!?!"



I mean, sure. But when I watch Muppets, I usually go for more boring and less inferential ways to see myself in the characters. Like, if I see Fozzy Bear, I'll think, oh, he's trying to be funny, but he sucks at telling jokes, I can relate to that, or if I see Dr. Bunsen, I think, oh cool, he's a scientist, like me. But I don't look at Rawlf the Dog and think "oh wow, Rawlf likes short brunettes, like me," because that makes no sense and is just taking things too far in all sorts of ways. But you do you, as long as it doesn't stop me from being me.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

bostjan said:


> I mean, sure. But when I watch Muppets, I usually go for more boring and less inferential ways to see myself in the characters. Like, if I see Fozzy Bear, I'll think, oh, he's trying to be funny, but he sucks at telling jokes, I can relate to that, or if I see Dr. Bunsen, I think, oh cool, he's a scientist, like me. But I don't look at Rawlf the Dog and think "oh wow, Rawlf likes short brunettes, like me," because that makes no sense and is just taking things too far in all sorts of ways. But you do you, as long as it doesn't stop me from being me.



I don't know, have you ever seen those videos of black, Asian, etc. children getting toys that look like them? Or seeing movies with similar representation for the first time?

I'm no expert, but the amount of joy it sparks has to mean something, especially at that age. There's no way that's not a boon to self-esteem. 

So I can see a young person coming to know who they are get some sort of comfort and joy in seeing inate parts of themselves, parts that unfortunately aren't often spoken of or represented in the best light, as "normal" or even "good" just like all the other kids. 

It's not that you look at a gay Muppet and go "I wonder if he's a top or a bottom", that's just weird and far more sexual than the audience it's aimed for, it's "hey, that Muppet is gay, and no one cares, no one is hostile, they can just be themselves like everyone else", which I think children can grasp if not articulate. 

I know "Representation" can get sort of weird and has really been co-opted by folks looking to stir shit or make a buck, but I think this particular case isn't objectively bad.

Also, can we reflect for a second about discussing Muppet sex? What a time to be alive.


----------



## bostjan

MaxOfMetal said:


> I don't know, have you ever seen those videos of black, Asian, etc. children getting toys that look like them? Or seeing movies with similar representation for the first time?
> 
> I'm no expert, but the amount of joy it sparks has to mean something, especially at that age. There's no way that's not a boon to self-esteem.
> 
> So I can see a young person coming to know who they are get some sort of comfort and joy in seeing inate parts of themselves, parts that unfortunately aren't often spoken of or represented in the best light, as "normal" or even "good" just like all the other kids.
> 
> It's not that you look at a gay Muppet and go "I wonder if he's a top or a bottom", that's just weird and far more sexual than the audience it's aimed for, it's "hey, that Muppet is gay, and no one cares, no one is hostile, they can just be themselves like everyone else", which I think children can grasp if not articulate.
> 
> I know "Representation" can get sort of weird and has really been co-opted by folks looking to stir shit or make a buck, but I think this particular case isn't objectively bad.
> 
> Also, can we reflect for a second about discussing Muppet sex? What a time to be alive.



Your last sentence is exactly my point.

The scenario is not that the creators of the show/characters are saying "Burt and Ernie are gay, deal with it." It's that some insane southern pastors started harping about how Burt and Ernie were gay back in the early 1990's, and, people are still talking about it, even though the creators of the show were asked in interviews about it and basically just pointed out how insanely stupid the whole argument is.

And kids at 4-6 years old, according to our best science right now, aren't even developing psycosocial identity associations. So that makes this whole argument even weirder.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> taking things too far


I need to save that *gestures broadly* quote from a while back so I can paste it into every situation where it applies. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> It's not that you look at a gay Muppet and go "I wonder if he's a top or a bottom"


I wish I didn't know people who did this.


----------



## StevenC

MaxOfMetal said:


> Also, can we reflect for a second about discussing Muppet sex? What a time to be alive.


It is the anniversary of Mahna Mahna after all, which originated in an Italian sexploitation film Jim and Frank watched.


----------



## nightflameauto

Let's pull up the political discussion thre.....

Gay muppet sex and wondering if a specific muppet is a top or bottom?

I'm not sure if that's a new high or a new low, but it's something. It's definitely something.


----------



## Xaios

StevenC said:


> It is the anniversary of Mahna Mahna after all, which originated in an Italian sexploitation film Jim and Frank watched.


"Do-doooo do-doo do" is probably an invitation to scat play.


----------



## TedEH

Between this, the new Metallica song, and climate change - maybe we need to add "SSO turns things sexual" to the bingo card.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

nightflameauto said:


> Let's pull up the political discussion thre.....
> 
> Gay muppet sex and wondering if a specific muppet is a top or bottom?
> 
> I'm not sure if that's a new high or a new low, but it's something. It's definitely something.





TedEH said:


> Between this, the new Metallica song, and climate change - maybe we need to add "SSO turns things sexual" to the bingo card.



I was making fun of that sort of thing, since being LGBTQ isn't just about sex, so watering it down to such just seemed to miss the point.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MaxOfMetal said:


> Also, can we reflect for a second about discussing Muppet sex? What a time to be alive.



Speaking of topically inappropriate sexualization by adults....

Working in public schools, all the olds like to complain about new dress codes that have been updated so as not to single out students of any gender identity. Specifically, they like to complain about teenage girls dressing like sluts, and it's always seemed really gross to me, like sure maybe they are but I don't think about whether teenage girls are sluts or not because it's not my business and also because I'm not a fucking pedophile. 

Equally unpopular in the staff lounge is my opinion that instead of saying "these teenagers dressing like sluts are distracting the male students!" I say we should teach teenage boys that they aren't entitled to girls' and women's bodies and to mind their own goddamn eyeballs. Teenagers are distracted by fucking tiktok too but we still expect them to turn their phones off during class and learn algebra. It seems patently obvious to me that thinking like these other adults do requires placing teenage girls into a sexualized category in their minds.


----------



## nightflameauto

wheresthefbomb said:


> Speaking of topically inappropriate sexualization by adults....
> 
> Working in public schools, all the olds like to complain about new dress codes that have been updated so as not to single out students of any gender identity. Specifically, they like to complain about teenage girls dressing like sluts, and it's always seemed really gross to me, like sure maybe they are but I don't think about whether teenage girls are sluts or not because it's not my business and also because I'm not a fucking pedophile.
> 
> Equally unpopular in the staff lounge is my opinion that instead of saying "these teenagers dressing like sluts are distracting the male students!" I say we should teach teenage boys that they aren't entitled to girls' and women's bodies and to mind their own goddamn eyeballs. Teenagers are distracted by fucking tiktok too but we still expect them to turn their phones off during class and learn algebra. It seems patently obvious to me that thinking like these other adults do requires placing teenage girls into a sexualized category in their minds.


Every time I hear some conservative windbag blowing air about sexualizing little girls my instant gut reaction is, "Then stop sexualizing little girls," to the person complaining. The projection is strong among that crowd.


----------



## Drew

Also, been thinking about this for the last day or so. I'm all for civil, respectful, and at time spirited debate, but at what point does questioning the constitutionality of federal prohibition of discriminating on the recognition of marriage based on sex, race, or ethnicity stop being civil debate, and start being raw discrimination that we have a moral duty not to tolerate? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Anyone know any odds that congress will get Trump's taxes before the session expires?


They got them last night.


----------



## Ralyks

Also, appeals court struck down appointing a Special master for the Mar-A-Lago documents. So, um, get fucked, Aileen Cannon.


----------



## StevenC

So Trump wants to terminate the Constitution now?


----------



## narad

StevenC said:


> So Trump wants to terminate the Constitution now?



_now_?


----------



## Glades

So it appears that there was collusion between the FBI, Twitter and the DNC to interfere in the 2020 election. Matt Taibi reporting on Twitter , about suppressing the story about Hunter and Joe colluding with the Ukrainian government. Elon might have single handedly saved America, our democracy and freedom of speech. Wow.
Trump was right. The election WAS stolen in 2020z


----------



## StevenC

Glades said:


> So it appears that there was collusion between the FBI, Twitter and the DNC to interfere in the 2020 election. Matt Taibi reporting on Twitter , about suppressing the story about Hunter and Joe colluding with the Ukrainian government. Elon might have single handedly saved America, our democracy and freedom of speech. Wow.


No. 

That didn't happen.

The DNC asked Twitter to take down revenge porn.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> So it appears that there was collusion between the FBI, Twitter and the DNC to interfere in the 2020 election. Matt Taibi reporting on Twitter , about suppressing the story about Hunter and Joe colluding with the Ukrainian government. Elon might have single handedly saved America, our democracy and freedom of speech. Wow.


----------



## narad

There's only two things Elon has done single handedly. One of them is accusing a rescue diver of being a pedophile. The other doesn't involve saving democracy.


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> So it appears that there was collusion between the FBI, Twitter and the DNC to interfere in the 2020 election. Matt Taibi reporting on Twitter , about suppressing the story about Hunter and Joe colluding with the Ukrainian government. Elon might have single handedly saved America, our democracy and freedom of speech. Wow.
> Trump was right. The election WAS stolen in 2020z


Sucked straight from Tucker Carlson's penis, Glades gives us the truth! Finally!


----------



## narad

At times like these, please remember that Glades is not a Trump supporter nor a fan of Trump lol


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> At times like these, please remember that Glades is not a Trump supporter nor a fan of Trump lol


I am not. I am a centrist.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I am not. I am a centrist.


And I thought you hated identity politics. But it's clear now you believe people should be able to self-identify as anything they want to


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> I am not. I am a centrist.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> I am not. I am a centrist.


You aren't. You are a fascist puppet.


----------



## Glades

MaxOfMetal said:


> View attachment 117840


I don’t really know what this means. Don’t watch cartoons.





ArtDecade said:


> You aren't. You are a fascist puppet.


I’m more of a small government guy myself.


----------



## SpaceDock

So…. How come republicans aren’t acknowledging that the Trump admin who was in charge at the time also had stories removed from Twitter? That is an actual first amendment violation. Interesting how republicans are okay with revenge porn but fail to mention whatever stories got removed for Trump. Maybe they would be okay with Ivanka revenge porn?


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> I’m more of a small government guy myself.


----------



## StevenC

Literally the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment and silence from the right.


----------



## CanserDYI

Small government as in a few guys telling a lot of people what to do? Sounds about right.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> I don’t really know what this means. Don’t watch cartoons.



It's satire. It's from a South Park episode talking about how all the scientologists believe these incredibly crazy things, but instead of trying to make a metaphor for how detached the scientologists are from reality or have them openly mocked by other characters (the usual South Park ways of poking fun at something), it was actually more effective to just have the characters earnestly recite the beliefs of scientologists while having that banner "This is what scientologists actually believe" play below it. It doesn't need to be exaggerated or caricatured to be funny. There'd be no point in making the characters interact with the scientologists about their beliefs because those beliefs are blatantly stupid, and a person gullible enough to believe in scientology has their mind full of alternate "facts" (that we're brainwashed souls from aliens from another galaxy, whose frozen bodies were dropped into volcanoes, now trapped on earth, etc.), so there'd be no reason to bother trying to find common ground or a valuable lesson through dialogue. Instead the most effective way of making a scientologist look stupid is just to give them an opportunity to talk for several pages about their beliefs.


----------



## TimmyPage

Glades said:


> I am not. I am a centrist.


----------



## TimmyPage

In a more serious note, the most interesting tweet from that thread was this:




The rest of the thread was really nothing that interesting or important, but it's weird that he just glanced over the part where he found evidence that the sitting government had asked for tweets to be removed (which is, to be clear, a much bigger scandal than a political campaign asking to delete some nudes).


----------



## nightflameauto

When I read Trump wants to terminate the Constitution I thought, "Yup. He's preparing his followers for another run. A run where he *literally* destroys the country from the foundation up, rather than figuratively doing it by pissing all over every thing we stand for while holding the highest office in the land."

I also find it amusing that it look like Iowa will no longer be #1 in the whole primary rigamarole. They're gonna move that shit to the "important" states in the East. Granted, I never really understood why Iowa was first, since the entirety of this part of the country is viewed as "flyover" by the entire electorate and candidates. I'm just really looking forward to my relatives losing their fucking shit about no longer mattering at all again, just like the rest of us.


----------



## Glades

Trump needs to shut up and retire from politics.

The DNC must be salivating at the mouth at the thought of him running in 2024. They can beat him with anybody.


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Trump needs to shut up and retire from politics.
> 
> The DNC must be salivating at the mouth at the thought of him running in 2024. They can beat him with anybody.


Well, I mean, yeah. Biden vs Trump. Biden already won that matchup once. Biden doesn't really look any worse than he did in 2020 at the moment. The right might think that he does, but they only think that because of things Biden has done that everyone expected anyway. Trump, on the other hand, is out there saying that he wants to do away with the Constitution, which makes zero sense to me from a public relations perspective.

The worst thing for this country right now is for Trump to run for president in 2024. Because, if Biden was considering retiring, and Trump runs, then Biden's going to be basically forced to run again. If Trump doesn't run, maybe Biden retires and two younger and more competent people run against each other. As long as Trump and his camp are wanting to take over the country by hook or by crook, we can't turn over a new leaf. Even if DJT ends up in prison or chokes himself on a taco or something, it's likely that one of his kids or kids-in-law will try to take his place, although there's the possibility of factions splitting and support going down the drain.

And, as much as I quite dislike Trump, the worst part of the problem isn't the man himself, it's the worst of his supporters. That's something I cannot say about any other president during my lifetime. Obviously, those people (the most far-out-there Trump supporters) aren't going away any time. They'll glam onto whomever the next thing is. And if the GOP establishes a new era of distancing themselves from Trump, it means that would could very well see factions splitting anyway. I think that once these Aryan Nation and KKK types had a taste of legitimacy via political power, they simply won't go away quietly.


----------



## Ralyks

Dang, Trump Organization found guilty for scheming to defraud taxes authorities.


----------



## eaeolian

Glades said:


> So it appears that there was collusion between the FBI, Twitter and the DNC to interfere in the 2020 election. Matt Taibi reporting on Twitter , about suppressing the story about Hunter and Joe colluding with the Ukrainian government. Elon might have single handedly saved America, our democracy and freedom of speech. Wow.
> Trump was right. The election WAS stolen in 2020z


At this point you're either completely out of touch with reality or just trolling, because that's not what Taibbi said AT ALL about Hunter's Tommy Lee moment.


----------



## wankerness

nightflameauto said:


> When I read Trump wants to terminate the Constitution I thought, "Yup. He's preparing his followers for another run. A run where he *literally* destroys the country from the foundation up, rather than figuratively doing it by pissing all over every thing we stand for while holding the highest office in the land."
> 
> I also find it amusing that it look like Iowa will no longer be #1 in the whole primary rigamarole. They're gonna move that shit to the "important" states in the East. Granted, I never really understood why Iowa was first, since the entirety of this part of the country is viewed as "flyover" by the entire electorate and candidates. I'm just really looking forward to my relatives losing their fucking shit about no longer mattering at all again, just like the rest of us.


I think probably it was a good bulwark against having like, I dunno, NY or CA being first and then all the momentum going to someone totally unelectable by "purple states" as opposed to milquetoast like Biden who would win the nomination in a state like Iowa.

However they apparently are switching to SC, who keeps electing Joe Manchin, so that seems like a step in the wrong direction. Though I know he partly gets elected because of all the bipartisan support, and that in an actual democrats-only presidential primary they probably wouldn't select someone THAT conservative. Who knows. Primaries are dumb. But I get it. It's a lot more fair than if it was nationwide cause it's a lot cheaper to advertise in a state like Iowa or SC than it would be across the country or in NYC or CA, so there's at least theoretically more chance of the candidate with all the money not being the one who wins.


----------



## eaeolian

TimmyPage said:


> In a more serious note, the most interesting tweet from that thread was this:
> 
> View attachment 117870
> 
> 
> The rest of the thread was really nothing that interesting or important, but it's weird that he just glanced over the part where he found evidence that the sitting government had asked for tweets to be removed (which is, to be clear, a much bigger scandal than a political campaign asking to delete some nudes).


I highly suspect he didn't just gloss over it. It'll be the next thing he's getting paid for. Taibbi started out as someone trying to do the right thing (albeit in a smarmy "I'm better than you" way) and has turned into the worst kind of hack journalist imaginable.


----------



## eaeolian

Ralyks said:


> Dang, Trump Organization found guilty for scheming to defraud taxes authorities.


There really wasn't much doubt with the mountain of evidence presented.


----------



## bostjan

...and Trump is referred for criminal charged from the Jan 6 committee to the DOJ. He just can't stop "winning"


----------



## nightflameauto

Ralyks said:


> Dang, Trump Organization found guilty for scheming to defraud taxes authorities.





bostjan said:


> ...and Trump is referred for criminal charged from the Jan 6 committee to the DOJ. He just can't stop "winning"


Small hopes he goes down before he finds a way to croak from all that healthy living. Or his ego exploding his brain.


----------



## Ralyks

Warnock projected to win. Thank God I never have to see "Senator Herschel Walker".


----------



## Randy

Walker fucking braindead, his supporters even worse. 

If I was Warnock I'd spend my entire victory speech castigating them for running such an idiot. Keep running people like that, keep losing. Or win and send your state back to the stone age. Political Darwinism.


----------



## spudmunkey

Ralyks said:


> Warnock projected to win. Thank God I never have to see "Senator Herschel Walker".



Now he'll be free to dedicate all of his time running as someone else's VP in 2024.


----------



## bostjan

That was too close, considering how much of an easy choice this ought to have been...

Crazy to think that Georgia had a statewide runoff election and called a result in less time than it took for one district in Colorado to do a recount (which is still ongoing).

And now Trump is more vulnerable than ever, yet still seems to have a penchant for dodging bullets. With the DOJ considering whether to bear down on him with criminal charges, his corporation held criminally liable for tax fraud, his IRS receipts in congress's hands, his civil suits imploding on him, and now one of the candidates he ran for senate losing, his armour might be wearing off soon. The GOP is certainly not happy about Walker, not happy about his statements about "terminating" the US Constitution, and likely even more unhappy with the outcome of his pending litigation. But I think that the _only way_ to get him to stop committing more crimes to try to cover up his past crimes is to get the dude, along with his cleaners, into a jail cell. Since every defense he has is a lie, his overall defense is like a Jenga tower of lies and coverups. If someone could just manage to remove the lowest block...


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaaand more classified documents were found in Trumos storage unit in Qest Palm Beach. Apparently next to "swords and wrestling belts".


----------



## spudmunkey

bostjan said:


> Crazy to think that Georgia had a statewide runoff election and called a result in less time than it took for one district in Colorado to do a recount (which is still ongoing).


That's not really surprising. In Colorado, they can start counting mail-in and early ballots for over two weeks before election day. And, if the margin is wide enough when they get done with the "easy" to count votes, they can call the results before they even get to the ones that take a long time to count. They eventually do complete the count, but it's often weeks later, and it was already mathematically impossible for the result to change, so all that happens is a brief news update about the final tally being updated...but it rarely garners much attention.

With a recount, they have to make up that 2 week head start the first count had, and because the margin is so slim, they still have to go through all of the time-consuming ballots like ones that the machines have dfficult reading, plus all of the processing that happens to incoming mailed-in ballots (like millitary absentee) before they can be counted, etc.

That said...for state elections, Colorado state law says they have to be complete by 35 days after the election...and we're gettin' near that...


----------



## Glades

Brittney Griner is free!!!!


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> Brittney Griner is free!!!!



I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or not


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> Brittney Griner is free!!!!


Thank a Democrat.


----------



## bostjan

I have no ill will toward Griner, but it's got to weigh heavy on her that a most likely innocent man still sits in a cell in a gulag and now the USA has traded their leverage to get her out of a situation caused by her own irresponsible behaviour.


----------



## Ralyks

Yeah, I can't see this situation not getting ugly.


----------



## Glades

bostjan said:


> I have no ill will toward Griner, but it's got to weigh heavy on her that a most likely innocent man still sits in a cell in a gulag and now the USA has traded their leverage to get her out of a situation caused by her own irresponsible behaviour.


We should send Zelensky to Moscow in trade for Paul Whelan.


----------



## bostjan

Respect for Marriage Act passed!


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> Respect for Marriage Act passed!


That's honestly a bit shocking. I really figured it'd be a loop-da-loop for a while yet while everybody hemmed and hawed about wanting to while not actually wanting to pass it.

Every once in a great while our Washington Overseers stumble on something right. Granted, there'd be no need for it in a sane country as the DoM wouldn't have passed, but this is one way to prevent us from thinking about the other ways they're screwing with us for a moment.

Yay?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Ralyks said:


> Aaaaaand more classified documents were found in Trumos storage unit in Qest Palm Beach. Apparently next to "swords and wrestling belts".



Weird, that's also what I keep in my storage unit.



bostjan said:


> Respect for Marriage Act passed!



It's not much and it's long overdue but I'm glad to see it regardless.


----------



## bostjan

nightflameauto said:


> That's honestly a bit shocking. I really figured it'd be a loop-da-loop for a while yet while everybody hemmed and hawed about wanting to while not actually wanting to pass it.
> 
> Every once in a great while our Washington Overseers stumble on something right. Granted, there'd be no need for it in a sane country as the DoM wouldn't have passed, but this is one way to prevent us from thinking about the other ways they're screwing with us for a moment.
> 
> Yay?





wheresthefbomb said:


> It's not much and it's long overdue but I'm glad to see it regardless.



I know it's not anything new to celebrate, but it stops the current bleeding of rights from one wound, at least for now. If it didn't pass, you'd have a bunch of states in the south with yet another way to encroach on the rights of ~10% of the population. But the federal government now has a stop on that. If this goes to the SCotUS and gets shot down, that'll be another story, but if the law didn't pass, it'd be just as bad or worse than if it was shot down.

I know this is a bad couple of weeks for conservatives. This just puts another "L" on the board for them. But that's not the point, it's a win for the rights of Americans. We should be able to do whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting anybody. And this law that passed reinforces that in one way that might only be a little win for Americans, but a bunch of little wins can add up quickly, especially if they come in quick succession.


----------



## nightflameauto

bostjan said:


> I know it's not anything new to celebrate, but it stops the current bleeding of rights from one wound, at least for now. If it didn't pass, you'd have a bunch of states in the south with yet another way to encroach on the rights of ~10% of the population. But the federal government now has a stop on that. If this goes to the SCotUS and gets shot down, that'll be another story, but if the law didn't pass, it'd be just as bad or worse than if it was shot down.
> 
> I know this is a bad couple of weeks for conservatives. This just puts another "L" on the board for them. But that's not the point, it's a win for the rights of Americans. We should be able to do whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting anybody. And this law that passed reinforces that in one way that might only be a little win for Americans, but a bunch of little wins can add up quickly, especially if they come in quick succession.


I want to be happy about it, but with the public statements from certain members of SCOTUS being on public record as wanting to deconstruct gay marriage it feels pretty hollow at the moment. Our government is real good at putting up a nice smokescreen of happy right before they find a way to pull the rug out from under us again.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> I know it's not anything new to celebrate, but it stops the current bleeding of rights from one wound, at least for now. If it didn't pass, *you'd have a bunch of states in the south with yet another way to encroach on the rights of ~10% of the population.* But the federal government now has a stop on that. If this goes to the SCotUS and gets shot down, that'll be another story, but if the law didn't pass, it'd be just as bad or worse than if it was shot down.
> 
> I know this is a bad couple of weeks for conservatives. This just puts another "L" on the board for them. But that's not the point, it's a win for the rights of Americans. We should be able to do whatever we want as long as we aren't hurting anybody. And this law that passed reinforces that in one way that might only be a little win for Americans, but a bunch of little wins can add up quickly, especially if they come in quick succession.


It doesn't really stop them from doing that, tbh. This is a very narrow and specific law which basically makes it so if you get married in a state where gay marriage is legal, that has to be recognized in other states where it's illegal (leaving the door open for the possibilty of the supreme court throwing out gay marriage rights so hellholes like Wisconsin and Alabama can immediately either ban it or leave outdated old laws on the books that leave it banned and refuse to pass anything updated). It leaves in the ability for states to ban it, as well as the ability for old anti-gay laws to take effect if the supreme court does their thing. It just sort of makes it so you could flee to a civilized state and then return to the one where gay marriage is illegal and still be legally considered married, if you were so inclined.

Basically it's a good thing to pass but barely did anything.


----------



## bostjan

wankerness said:


> It doesn't really stop them from doing that, tbh. This is a very narrow and specific law which basically makes it so if you get married in a state where gay marriage is legal, that has to be recognized in other states where it's illegal (leaving the door open for the possibilty of the supreme court throwing out gay marriage rights so hellholes like Wisconsin and Alabama can immediately either ban it or leave outdated old laws on the books that leave it banned and refuse to pass anything updated). It leaves in the ability for states to ban it, as well as the ability for old anti-gay laws to take effect if the supreme court does their thing. It just sort of makes it so you could flee to a civilized state and then return to the one where gay marriage is illegal and still be legally considered married, if you were so inclined.
> 
> Basically it's a good thing to pass but barely did anything.



It does for now. The reason why it's important is that Louisiana has said that it will refuse to recognize marriages performed in other states at its discretion. Now there is a federal law explicitly preventing that from being a valid stance.

So, while a state could still say that they won't allow same sex marriage licenses to be issued there, now they can't cherry pick which marriage licenses from other states they will recognize. If that seems inconsequential to you, just think about how things like insurance and inheritance work.

The door for the SCotUS to ban same sex marriage has been wide open for a long time already. This might hasten a case coming to them, but it isn't the problem by a long shot.

And now that the bill passed with bipartisan support, and has the popular support of American voters, if the supreme court nullifies it, they'll face a lot of political backlash. That might not seem like a big deal, since they are never elected, but I think that the GOP might finally be starting to see how these things tend to pan out, so they might pressure the court not to do this, since this would cause future problems for them, mainly in congressional elections, and, perhaps more directly in presidential elections, as people will be less likely to vote for a republican who will appoint justices that want to ban gay marriage, when the majority of the population is finally okay with it. Really only the most right-leaning religious right wants to see gay marriage banned outright. The left wants the opposite, and the more libertarian branch of the right doesn't care about this (and now seems to think it's a stupid hill to try to die on).

So it's clearly a step in the right direction. This law essentially picks a fight with Louisiana over some backwards laws they just passed. If this spurs a fight and they make it all about states' rights, they might win a battle victory and get the supreme court to punt gay marriage back to the states, but, ultimately, that move will be a disaster for staunch conservatives.



nightflameauto said:


> I want to be happy about it, but with the public statements from certain members of SCOTUS being on public record as wanting to deconstruct gay marriage it feels pretty hollow at the moment. Our government is real good at putting up a nice smokescreen of happy right before they find a way to pull the rug out from under us again.



I think there's a good chance that they will, and I think that there is a good chance that there will be consequences for them trying.

Best case is that the supreme court never hears a case about this until the justices who have vocalized disdain for equal rights are gone. Worst case is that Louisiana sues the federal government and fast tracks it to the SCotUS, the SCotUS decides that Louisiana has the right to ban gay marriage, a bunch of states rush to join in on the ban, and gay people have to move to Vermont. Eventually, though, this will come back around, and people will see how much of a mistake it was and the GOP will pay the price of losing clout in the process. There are also, of course, hundreds of outcomes to this everywhere in between on the continuum. I don't think any of them end well for the GOP, and certainly none of them end better with this bill passing than with it failing, so it's still a win.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Best case is that the supreme court never hears a case about this until the justices who have vocalized disdain for equal rights are gone. Worst case is that Louisiana sues the federal government and fast tracks it to the SCotUS, the SCotUS decides that Louisiana has the right to ban gay marriage, a bunch of states rush to join in on the ban, and gay people have to move to Vermont. Eventually, though, this will come back around, and people will see how much of a mistake it was and the GOP will pay the price of losing clout in the process. There are also, of course, hundreds of outcomes to this everywhere in between on the continuum. I don't think any of them end well for the GOP, and certainly none of them end better with this bill passing than with it failing, so it's still a win.


This is what I think is going to happen unless the GOP reallllly takes the lessons of this midterm to heart. Which I don't think they're going to, based on Tucker Carlson and Andrew Mccarthy still being just as unhinged as ever and in two of the highest positions of GOP leadership (head propagandist and likely speaker of the house).

What you say about that bill is true. It definitely does good stuff. It's just it's being interpreted by a lot of people as meaning they just put gay marriage into law so no one can ban it or something when it's way, way, way more watered down than that. I mean, it couldn't have passed if they did, but it's to gay marriage rights what obamacare was to public health care. Definitely good, but...argh. Bipartisanship.


----------



## ArtDecade

Glades said:


> We should send Zelensky to Moscow in trade for Paul Whelan.


We should send you to Moscow in trade for a milk crate of old LA Guns records. I'm not even picky - they don't even have Tracii on them, but there is some value there.


----------



## spudmunkey

nightflameauto said:


> I want to be happy about it, but with the public statements from certain members of SCOTUS being on public record as wanting to deconstruct gay marriage it feels pretty hollow at the moment. Our government is real good at putting up a nice smokescreen of happy right before they find a way to pull the rug out from under us again.



And that fact that there are powerful people brought to tears because they are afraid that they will lose the ability to discriminate against "others".


----------



## narad

ArtDecade said:


> We should send you to Moscow in trade for a milk crate of old LA Guns records. I'm not even picky - they don't even have Tracii on them, but there is some value there.



"Nice try. You can't trade us one of our own spies."


----------



## CanserDYI

spudmunkey said:


> And that fact that there are powerful people brought to tears because they are afraid that they will lose the ability to discriminate against "others".



That wasn't a cry, that was a straight up whine that my toddlers have grown out of doing. My lord, that was cringe to the highest degree, and while I usually absorb cringe into my body and makes me stronger like some weird energy vampire, this made me cringe into oblivion and couldn't watch it more than once.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

I can appreciate that Sinema waited until the results of the Georgia runoff to switch affiliations.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> I can appreciate that Sinema waited until the results of the Georgia runoff to switch affiliations.



Ah yes, the dolt that stopped the carried tax loophole from being fixed. If it quacks like a duck and gets bought by duck-associated special interest groups...


----------



## MaxOfMetal

narad said:


> Ah yes, the dolt that stopped the carried tax loophole from being fixed. If it quacks like a duck and gets bought by duck-associated special interest groups...



For real.


----------



## eaeolian

nightflameauto said:


> I want to be happy about it, but with the public statements from certain members of SCOTUS being on public record as wanting to deconstruct gay marriage it feels pretty hollow at the moment. Our government is real good at putting up a nice smokescreen of happy right before they find a way to pull the rug out from under us again.


Someone from a Southern state will be suing over it before Biden's sig is dry. Then we'll see just *how* hypocritical the current SCOUTS is.


----------



## Glades

narad said:


> "Nice try. You can't trade us one of our own spies."


Спасибо, Joe. Добро пожаловать домой, Виктор!


----------



## MaxOfMetal

The irony of RWNJs bemoaning the release of an arms dealer is really something.


----------



## eaeolian

MaxOfMetal said:


> The irony of RWNJs bemoaning the release of an arms dealer is really something.


If it was a trade for a white all-American guy they'd be all for it.


----------



## Andromalia

Over here in France we also discuss the validity of this trade. Not that getting somone out of a russian jail is a problem, but arguing that a basketball player isn't worth the possibly-top military weapons dealer in the world seems a valid point, if not necessarily clear-cut.
I suppose that person is going to sell/broker deals for a lot of arms to Wagner, that's going to kill way more people than a lone basketball player.


----------



## Crungy

This organization needs to be shut down and tax the churches. What a bunch of horrible shit. 









Cult 'prophet' Samuel Bateman was 'disgusted' over his child bride's bedwetting, the FBI says


Samuel Bateman demanded that a man hand over his youngest daughter to be his child bride and then complained when the girl wet the bed, the FBI says.




www.insider.com


----------



## narad

I don't get how these QAnon jerks can get so uppity over the thought of a democratic led child sex slavery ring that they bust into to pizza places and shoot people, and not go out and stop this bullshit. Like hey -- it'd actually be supported by everyone if they went out vigilante on the legit child sex cults that exist in reality.


----------



## bostjan

...and...

Boebert won another term. I'm disappointed, but that's how it goes.

As for Trump, he's going to need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to win in 2024. The GOP is now reading polls that show DeSantis outperforming Trump by large margins. Trump's facing tons of attacks against his policies, against his scruples, against his legality, against his income, etc. The gambit, though, knowing how Trump can turn any situation into something his followers will see as a win, is that if he doesn't wind up in jail by 2024, he's probably going to claim it as a 'uge win, and if his followers are still engages, that could get them mobilized.


----------



## TedEH

bostjan said:


> he's going to need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to win in 2024


I made the mistake of thinking nobody would be stupid enough to let Trump win last time. He doesn't need to pull a rabbit out of a hat, he just need to convince enough rubes that he's already done so, and it's the biggest rabbit you've ever seen. The best rabbit. From the most American hat that's ever been made, handed down by God Himself, as foretold by Q, or scribbled on a bathroom wall somewhere, what's even the difference anymore.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> ...and...
> 
> Boebert won another term. I'm disappointed, but that's how it goes.



9MM Barbie is the perfect candidate for that district and still almost lost.



bostjan said:


> As for Trump, he's going to need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to win in 2024. The GOP is now reading polls that show DeSantis outperforming Trump by large margins. Trump's facing tons of attacks against his policies, against his scruples, against his legality, against his income, etc. The gambit, though, knowing how Trump can turn any situation into something his followers will see as a win, is that if he doesn't wind up in jail by 2024, he's probably going to claim it as a 'uge win, and if his followers are still engages, that could get them mobilized.


He's not going to jail. No one rich ever goes to jail in the US, especially if they've been in government.


----------



## bostjan

eaeolian said:


> 9MM Barbie is the perfect candidate for that district and still almost lost.
> 
> 
> He's not going to jail. No one rich ever goes to jail in the US, especially if they've been in government.


I thought that was supposed to be changing. Epstein ended up in jail, and that guy was possibly the most connected rich guy to get busted. But I think you are right. I don't think there's much chance, if any, of Trump going to jail. Which means that he will win again in 2024. He's already sewn the seeds that the official vote counts don't matter, so, even if Biden gets 60% of the popular vote, Trump will just threaten enough people and finagle a win, and then the zombie president returned from ex-presidency with his senile brain will probably get us involved in some sort of eugenics program or something. At least he'll probably avoid war with outside forces. But if this leads the US into a civil war right at the height of Russia and China's shenanigans, say hello to WW3, as the two of them decide that the US is in no position to keep them in check and that they assess that they are more powerful than Europe and that NATO means nothing without US backing.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> I thought that was supposed to be changing. Epstein ended up in jail, and that guy was possibly the most connected rich guy to get busted. But I think you are right. I don't think there's much chance, if any, of Trump going to jail. Which means that he will win again in 2024. He's already sewn the seeds that the official vote counts don't matter, so, even if Biden gets 60% of the popular vote, Trump will just threaten enough people and finagle a win, and then the zombie president returned from ex-presidency with his senile brain will probably get us involved in some sort of eugenics program or something. At least he'll probably avoid war with outside forces. But if this leads the US into a civil war right at the height of Russia and China's shenanigans, say hello to WW3, as the two of them decide that the US is in no position to keep them in check and that they assess that they are more powerful than Europe and that NATO means nothing without US backing.


I'm not *quite* that bleak on it, but that is a possible outcome. I think the midterms showed us his level of bullying wasn't going to work with state elections, as AZ was the test case and the idea of fraud got clobbered pretty handily there.
Still, though, it could be a mess.


----------



## bostjan

From the standpoint of principle, there is an existential-level problem with allowing a guy who not only verbally vowed not to accept the results of the election if he lost, but participated in an attempted coup in order to preserve his power, to run for office. I know he was impeached and that he was found "not guilty" because the Senate vote fell just short of 2/3rd. But then again, a pretty solid majority of Senators voted him guilty. The majority of the American people understood him to be guilty.

There ought to be some sort of ultimatum to the GOP itself. If you endorse this candidate for office, after the shit he pulled, then you ought to get sanctioned into oblivion. That'd force Trump to run as an independent and it'd probably cost the GOP the election, though, so if the sanctions do not extend beyond the 2024 election, they'll just take the hit and rebuild. So it'd have to be something that really hurt. But, there is no repercussion available for either of the two main political parties no matter what shit they pull, so it won't happen.

That pretty much leaves the only potentially effective check on Trump assuming power to be the Biden administration. IDK - might be just as likely that Cthulhu himself will awaken from his slumber and devour North America. Ia! Ia!


----------



## RevDrucifer

Andromalia said:


> Over here in France we also discuss the validity of this trade. Not that getting somone out of a russian jail is a problem, but arguing that a basketball player isn't worth the possibly-top military weapons dealer in the world seems a valid point, if not necessarily clear-cut.
> I suppose that person is going to sell/broker deals for a lot of arms to Wagner, that's going to kill way more people than a lone basketball player.



Oh come on, the world is clearly a safer place now that we traded someone who carelessly packed their bag with a substance illegal in other countries for someone who knowingly sold a lot of weapons of war. 

Surely the arms dealer learned their lesson and will never sell another boom boom again cuz that’s bad.


----------



## Drew

RevDrucifer said:


> Oh come on, the world is clearly a safer place now that we traded someone who carelessly packed their bag with a substance illegal in other countries for someone who knowingly sold a lot of weapons of war.
> 
> Surely the arms dealer learned their lesson and will never sell another boom boom again cuz that’s bad.


Eh, being a black market arms dealer is something where your reputation for discretion is pretty critical, and thinks like "you can sell to or buy from me without worrying the US government is snooping on me in preparation of a raid" is pretty critical. If you were a former supplier or former client, how quickly would you be reaching out to a man just out of US grey site detention, looking to do a deal? 

tl;dr - I'm not so convinced this was a bad deal, even before you account for the fact that Russia is losing the war, has few non-military options, and coming into these negotiations their list of US assets was a WNBA basketball player held on trumped up charges, and an ex-Marine who'd been court martialed.


----------



## Drew

So, I spent the last week in northern Baja, Mexico, drinking surprisingly excellent wine and Tecate. What'd I miss?!


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> So, I spent the last week in northern Baja, Mexico, drinking surprisingly excellent wine and Tecate. What'd I miss?!



The Republicans apologized for everything they have done to protect Trump.


----------



## Drew

ArtDecade said:


> The Republicans apologized for everything they have done to protect Trump.


No, what REALLY happened.


----------



## Glades

RevDrucifer said:


> Oh come on, the world is clearly a safer place now that we traded someone who carelessly packed their bag with a substance illegal in other countries for someone who knowingly sold a lot of weapons of war.
> 
> Surely the arms dealer learned their lesson and will never sell another boom boom again cuz that’s bad.


We also learned that:

Minor Drug Charge abroad + Celebrity Status= Victim worth trading a convicted terrorist for

Minor Drug Charge in US + non-celebrity = Jail Time


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> We also learned that:
> 
> Minor Drug Charge abroad + Celebrity Status= Victim worth trading a convicted terrorist for
> 
> Minor Drug Charge in US + non-celebrity = Jail Time


You're a little out of date. 

Marijuana posession isn't a crime in large chunks of the US, including Griner's home state of California, and Biden issued a sweeping pardon for anyone federally convicted of marijuana posession a few months back. The DoJ has also been directed not to prioritize marijuana-related prosecution. 

So, "charged with something that's a minor crime abroad but not here + celebrity status = victim worth trading a convicted terrorist for. Charged with something that's no longer a crime in the US + non celebrity = federal pardon." 

Of course, you're in "anti-woke" Florida, so maybe you're still locking people up for minor marijuana violations down there. I wouldn't know.


----------



## philkilla

Drew said:


> So, I spent the last week in northern Baja, Mexico, drinking surprisingly excellent wine and Tecate. What'd I miss?!


----------



## SpaceDock

philkilla said:


> View attachment 118272


I guess both parties are even now since the Dems got a creepy balding man who wears make up and is accused of crimes. Only difference is that the Dems fired this dude.


----------



## philkilla

SpaceDock said:


> I guess both parties are even now since the Dems got a creepy balding man who wears make up and is accused of crimes. Only difference is that the Dems fired this dude.



Now he's just some un-employed Matt Damon cosplayer.


----------



## StevenC

Weird how everyone says "WNBA player" or celebrity to make her seem unimportant, whereas any other "2x Olympic Gold Medalist" would be some sort of significant patriot.


----------



## ArtDecade

StevenC said:


> Weird how everyone says "WNBA player" or celebrity to make her seem unimportant, whereas any other "2x Olympic Gold Medalist" would be some sort of significant patriot.


Shhh. You are going to make our racists feel racist.


----------



## Ralyks

So here's a neat one: Biden just released 98% of all of the documents on the Kennedy Assassination.


----------



## Drew

philkilla said:


> View attachment 118272


I don't even know what that IS. I don't like it though.


----------



## Drew

Jan 6th committee just referred Trump to the DOJ for prosecution on four counts, including obstruction of justice and insurrection. Curious to see what the DOJ does from here, but they'd been running their own parallel investigation for some time, so...


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Jan 6th committee just referred Trump to the DOJ for prosecution on four counts, including obstruction of justice and insurrection. Curious to see what the DOJ does from here, but they'd been running their own parallel investigation for some time, so...



Good. I hope Trump has a horrible Christmas.


----------



## Ralyks

Looks like John Eastman got referrals too, and some House members got sanctions.


----------



## wankerness

bostjan said:


> Which means that he will win again in 2024. He's already sewn the seeds that the official vote counts don't matter, so, even if Biden gets 60% of the popular vote,* Trump will just threaten enough people and finagle a win, *and then the zombie president returned from ex-presidency with his senile brain will probably get us involved in some sort of eugenics program or something. At least he'll probably avoid war with outside forces. But if this leads the US into a civil war right at the height of Russia and China's shenanigans, say hello to WW3, as the two of them decide that the US is in no position to keep them in check and that they assess that they are more powerful than Europe and that NATO means nothing without US backing.


He tried that in 2020 and failed spectacularly. And his base has shrunk since then and more and more republicans are attempting to distance themselves from him. There's no doubt in my mind that if he's the nominee they'll line up to kiss the ring again, but I don't see any scenario where he gets more of a percentage of the popular vote than he did in 2020, nor any where he's any more successful in getting any of his attempts to overturn the election past the "thrown out of court immediately" stage.

Even if the supreme court does the worst thing they can possibly do and says that state legislatures can override election results, I still don't see him getting elected. Desantis is who we should be worried about, cause all the suburbanites that went for Biden and democrats these last couple elections will be right back in Republican's camp as soon as they think their racism and hatred of poor people will at least be conducted with some veneer of respectability that you'd get from someone that isn't an obviously raving moron. If Trump is the nominee, the GOP doesn't have the slightest chance of winning the presidency again.


----------



## Drew

wankerness said:


> He tried that in 2020 and failed spectacularly. And his base has shrunk since then and more and more republicans are attempting to distance themselves from him. There's no doubt in my mind that if he's the nominee they'll line up to kiss the ring again, but I don't see any scenario where he gets more of a percentage of the popular vote than he did in 2020, nor any where he's any more successful in getting any of his attempts to overturn the election past the "thrown out of court immediately" stage.


I think 2022 (and, honestly, 2020 before it, in hindsight even if it was scary as shit at the time) showed the limits of "my opponents are engaging in widespread electoral fraud to steal the election" as an election strategy. If you think the whole outcome is rigged against the candidate that you support, well, that doesn't do much to boost voter enthusiasm, does it? 



wankerness said:


> Desantis is who we should be worried about, cause all the suburbanites that went for Biden and democrats these last couple elections will be right back in Republican's camp as soon as they think their racism and hatred of poor people will at least be conducted with some veneer of respectability that you'd get from someone that isn't an obviously raving moron.


I agree, but for different reasons. DeSantis is the "where woke goes to die" guy now, that veneer is awfully thin. He's less Trump with a veneer of respectability, and more Trump with a bit more competence, and I think it'll still be hard to find ENOUGH voters who think "pwning the libtards" is a viable enough election outcome. The danger of course is if he does tick over that electoral vote margin, he'll be able to out-Trump Trump that much more effectively. 

And, I mean, it's not like the MAGA crowd ever acted like they thought it was obvious Trump was a raving moron - look at Q and all these 11th dimensional chess explanations those whackjobs keep coming up with. This was all going according to a master plan, right?


----------



## bostjan

As I'm typing this, a congressional committee is voting on whether or not to make Trump's tax returns public.

No idea what the strategy is there. If there's nothing wrong with those tax receipts, releasing them would totally backfire. And if there are tons of things wrong with them, but those problems would go over the average Americans' heads, then it'll probably backfire anyway. My guess is that they vote not to release them and then this whole discussion ends up being a waste of time again.


----------



## LordCashew

bostjan said:


> And if there are tons of things wrong with them, but those problems would go over the average Americans' heads, then it'll probably backfire anyway.


Yeah, sounds like an easy thing to spin if your audience doesn't really know how it works.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> As I'm typing this, a congressional committee is voting on whether or not to make Trump's tax returns public.
> 
> No idea what the strategy is there. If there's nothing wrong with those tax receipts, releasing them would totally backfire. And if there are tons of things wrong with them, but those problems would go over the average Americans' heads, then it'll probably backfire anyway. My guess is that they vote not to release them and then this whole discussion ends up being a waste of time again.


IMO, now that they;ve decided to put it to a vote, they pretty much have to release, all this notwithstanding. 

A vote no would be spun as "They put so much work into getting my taxes, and you know what? It was all a big nothingburger, they knew they had nothing so they _didn't even release them! I_t was all a giant witch hunt!" 

Putting them out into the public domain both risks reprisals (though maybe only limited, Trump is the first presidential candidte NOT to release his taxes, so what are they going to do, threaten to release Joe Biden's?) and risks getting lost in the weeds - "if you're explaining, you're losing" - with a bunch of folks who think if Trump IS guilty of cheating the tax code, that's just proof of how briliant a businessman he is. 

But, if this vote is even happening, you gotta think that the Committee thinks they have a better-than-even shot of winning that fight, you know?


----------



## Glades

Trump doesn’t pay taxes. There is not a single billionaire investor that does. Why does that bother people?


----------



## CanserDYI

Glades said:


> Trump doesn’t pay taxes. There is not a single billionaire investor that does. Why does that bother people?


Shut up, you know the answer to this question and are just rage baiting at this point.


----------



## narad

You remember when Trump was running and said he was being audited and couldn't release them? Becoming the first president and one of the only presidential candidates in the past like 35 years to refuse to do so?

Anyway, it's through the house, so I guess we'll see. I'm assuming it shows how shitty of a financial state he was in prior to his candidacy, and very little taxes being paid, neither of which is going to be news to people who were paying attention but it'll still be nice to know what the facts are. It'll basically add another 10k to Trump's public lie count, but .. a mere drop in the bucket.


----------



## SpaceDock

Glades said:


> Trump doesn’t pay taxes. There is not a single billionaire investor that does. Why does that bother people?


First off, he is not a billionaire. 

You ever see those old newspaper stands where you could put a quarter in and you took one paper even though the stack was there for the taking? I remember vending machines that had a coin bin but didn’t actually tabulate how much you put in. You know why we can’t do that? Because people who have enough never think it’s enough. Those who will never be poor need to push the rest of us into poverty. 

Why does it bother me that the rich exploit our laws? Maybe a better question is why are you okay with validating those who exploit our society?


----------



## narad

"The Internal Revenue Service failed to audit former President Donald J. Trump during his first two years in office despite a program that makes the auditing of sitting presidents mandatory"

No surprise there. Why hold Trump to mandatory standards?


----------



## Glades

SpaceDock said:


> First off, he is not a billionaire.
> 
> You ever see those old newspaper stands where you could put a quarter in and you took one paper even though the stack was there for the taking? I remember vending machines that had a coin bin but didn’t actually tabulate how much you put in. You know why we can’t do that? Because people who have enough never think it’s enough. Those who will never be poor need to push the rest of us into poverty.
> 
> Why does it bother me that the rich exploit our laws? Maybe a better question is why are you okay with validating those who exploit our society?


I am sure he doesn't have $1B in the bank. But he can easily have $1B in assets.
Rich people don't pay taxes because they don't take an income. Income is taxable but debt is not. Their wealth is in debt and assets. Trump is a billionaire in debt.


----------



## TedEH

Glades said:


> Rich people don't pay taxes because they don't take an income.


He owns a bunch of real-estate and businesses, a "University", I'm sure he has other investments, licensing deals, etc. - that's all income. Just because the source of the money isn't directly working for a person who hands you a check doesn't mean you don't have "income".

Rich people don't pay taxes because that's part of the game of becoming and staying rich in the first place.


----------



## narad

And steaks, I think. All those hats.


----------



## vertibration

Hollowway said:


> Oddly, I like Trump and Sanders over any of the other candidates. Or perhaps not oddly. I'm definitely antiestablishment at this point. Clinton is practically frothing at the mouth she wants the power and prestige of the presidency so much. She'll say and do anything to get there, and I like her far, far less than Bill. I think Trump the person is much more reasonable and centrist than Trump the candidate. I think we'd be better off with him leading than Cruz or Rubio because he deposit have any particular loyalty to the party. But, who knows. I do hope he gets the nomination so that the Republicans address all the crap that got him there, and try to come up with some sort of decent candidates in the future. And I think the Democrats need to look at all these banks giving Clinton money, and address the fact that she is moving much closer to the right than the rest of the party.


The Republican party is a shit show man. Trump broke them, and they are riddled with awful people who have awful views about religion and how people should live their lives. Democrats arent perfect, but they stick up for people of color and lgbtq community.


----------



## bostjan

vertibration said:


> The Republican party is a shit show man. Trump broke them, and they are riddled with awful people who have awful views about religion and how people should live their lives. Democrats arent perfect, but they stick up for people of color and lgbtq community.


I'd go so far as to say that the democratic party is a shit show, but the republican party is so bad that we don't have a set of words to truly describe how awful it is. I propose a new word: *Trumpshow* - (noun) a situation that you thought could not get any worse, then continually gets worse. I want that to be added to the lexicon the same way we made Santorum into a new nasty word. Next time a crack house full of garbage and human waste explodes into a giant fireball and rains burning garbage and excrement all over the neighbourhood, I want people to say "I feel bad for the emergency responders who had to deal with that whole trumpshow!" Or when the medical research center on fatal communicable diseases accidentally releases their monkeys, and the monkeys overrun the wastewater treatment plant, flooding the entire city with disease-laden shit: "Did you hear about the trumpshow downtown?"


----------



## tedtan

Trump is into NFTs now, too.  

Looks like they’re down 70% since Friday.


----------



## RevDrucifer

narad said:


> "The Internal Revenue Service failed to audit former President Donald J. Trump during his first two years in office despite a program that makes the auditing of sitting presidents mandatory"
> 
> No surprise there. Why hold Trump to mandatory standards?



They‘re too busy auditing servers in restaurants who don’t claim 10% of their cash tips and make $30K a year. 

(Not really joking)


----------



## RevDrucifer

bostjan said:


> I'd go so far as to say that the democratic party is a shit show, but the republican party is so bad that we don't have a set of words to truly describe how awful it is. I propose a new word: *Trumpshow* - (noun) a situation that you thought could not get any worse, then continually gets worse. I want that to be added to the lexicon the same way we made Santorum into a new nasty word. Next time a crack house full of garbage and human waste explodes into a giant fireball and rains burning garbage and excrement all over the neighbourhood, I want people to say "I feel bad for the emergency responders who had to deal with that whole trumpshow!" Or when the medical research center on fatal communicable diseases accidentally releases their monkeys, and the monkeys overrun the wastewater treatment plant, flooding the entire city with disease-laden shit: "Did you hear about the trumpshow downtown?"



Hahahaha, Dan Savage had a column in one of the local mags around here, I remember reading that exact column where he declared he was going to make Santorum the definition of…..hahaha, I won’t even write it. 

I didn’t hear anything about it for a while after, but saw on Reddit years later Santorum had caught on and he was successful.   

That’s fucking glorious.


----------



## Ralyks

Read how much Trump paid — or didn't pay — in taxes each year


Donald Trump has guarded his income tax returns from public disclosure. A House committee has voted to release them in redacted form.




www.cnbc.com





Not the full report, but I guess a sampler?


----------



## bostjan

Ralyks said:


> Read how much Trump paid — or didn't pay — in taxes each year
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has guarded his income tax returns from public disclosure. A House committee has voted to release them in redacted form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the full report, but I guess a sampler?


The biggest questions I have involve his deductions of tens of millions of dollars in unreimbursed employee expenditure during his years as president, and also the foreign tax credits as president. Those don't make any sense to me, but, of course, I've never been president. But, as I understand it, the president shouldn't be working as an employee of other businesses, and if he has expenses as president, those certainly would be reimbursed, no? So it's got to be either he was working for someone else whilst he was president, which is a big problem, or else he lied on his tax return, which is also a big problem. Is there a third option? 

Will the final report released to the public say anything new? I suppose it must, if there's anything even having had been discussed here. Maybe finally a "smocking" gun, as Trump had put it.


----------



## Drew

narad said:


> "The Internal Revenue Service failed to audit former President Donald J. Trump during his first two years in office despite a program that makes the auditing of sitting presidents mandatory"
> 
> No surprise there. Why hold Trump to mandatory standards?


_So far_, that's the closest thing to a smoking gun I've seen come out of his tax release, in two ways - first, he managed to block a mandatory audit, which having that kind of the control over the IRS adds a LOT of credence to allegations he had them target pilitical opponents for lengthy audits, as well. And second, when he repeatedly said he wasn't releasing his taxes, as was the norm for a president in office, because "he was under audit" and would do so after the audit was finished, he was absolutely full of shit and lying through his teeth. 

His supporters don't care about the second, of course; the first could get ugly for him with time. 

That said, the extent I've read so far is a couple headlines, so there could be a lot more in there.


----------



## AMOS

vertibration said:


> Democrats arent perfect, but they stick up for people of color and lgbtq community.


Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.




So the Democratic party is made up of - hold your breath - Democrats. Those Democrats believe in things like sticking up for people of color and other minority groups. Therefore, the politicians that get elected by Democrats have to toe that line or they won't get votes. Do I think any politician from any party is clean from corruption? Nope. But unlike the other party in American politics, Democrats believe in a little thing called accountability.


----------



## bostjan

[email protected] News:
Article is about Donald Trump Jr.'s comments regarding Zelensky's surprise visit to Washington to meet with Biden...



> In a follow-up tweet, Mr Trump Jr – whose father contributed zero to the US economy in the way of federal income tax in 2020 – added: “Zelensky is basically an ungrateful international welfare queen.”


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.


I frankly don't give a shit what a politician believes. I care about what they vote for.


----------



## vertibration

AMOS said:


> Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.


I do think some politicians do, however, I also think the longer you are in the establishment, the less you care. I think some good politicians go in with good intentions, and over time, they become jaded.

Furthermore, Dems have continued to push and vote for policies that help people of color, lgbtq, the working class, and parents with children. Unfortunately, a lot of policies didnt pass because the other party loves to cause pain


----------



## TedEH

Even if I don't think any politicians care about anyone, it's in their best interest to at least act like they do, since that would be how they represent the people who elected them and would be their best bet to maintain whatever power they have, given that it's the basis on which their voters vote. Doing the right thing "just to pander to the libs" is still doing the right thing. It's not their job to care, it's their job to represent the people who elected them.


----------



## vertibration

Here is something to think about. Soooooooo many republicans talk about "Bring Christian values back" into politics and government. If Jews, or Muslims were saying the same thing, Republican heads would rotate like the exorcist. Could you imagine if a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician said "Bring Jewish values, or Muslim values back" into government? GTFOH LMAO


----------



## spudmunkey

vertibration said:


> Here is something to think about. Soooooooo many republicans talk about "Bring Christian values back" into politics and government. If Jews, or Muslims were saying the same thing, Republican heads would rotate like the exorcist. Could you imagine if a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician said "Bring Jewish values, or Muslim values back" into government? GTFOH LMAO


No, no, that's totally different, because the country was never _theirs; i_t's ours. This is a _ CHRISTian_ nation, and you can't get something _back _if it was never yours, and it was always meant for us. /s.


----------



## narad

vertibration said:


> Here is something to think about. Soooooooo many republicans talk about "Bring Christian values back" into politics and government. If Jews, or Muslims were saying the same thing, Republican heads would rotate like the exorcist. Could you imagine if a Jewish politician or a Muslim politician said "Bring Jewish values, or Muslim values back" into government? GTFOH LMAO



The amount of potential examples of republican hypocrisy are too many to enumerate -- that's basically a defining characteristic of the party.


----------



## thraxil

AMOS said:


> Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.



I don't disagree that there are plenty of disingenuous politicians on both sides, but the way this is framed, it seems to imply that you have a hard time believing that anyone might genuinely care about the rights of people of color and the lgbtq community.

That attitude seems common on the right, where they understand on a rational level someone fighting for the rights of a group that they're part of but someone standing up for a marginalized group that they're not in or any cause that doesn't directly benefit them MUST just be pandering. It's a worldview that just doesn't seem to even be able to comprehend empathy or principles beyond "rational self-interest". What a sad world to live in.


----------



## ArtDecade

thraxil said:


> I don't disagree that there are plenty of disingenuous politicians on both sides, but the way this is framed, it seems to imply that you have a hard time believing that anyone might genuinely care about the rights of people of color and the lgbtq community.
> 
> That attitude seems common on the right, where they understand on a rational level someone fighting for the rights of a group that they're part of but someone standing up for a marginalized group that they're not in or any cause that doesn't directly benefit them MUST just be pandering. It's a worldview that just doesn't seem to even be able to comprehend empathy or principles beyond "rational self-interest". What a sad world to live in.


You are politely dancing around it. Republicans are the party of obstruction and wealth. Full stop. When in control, they don't make laws protecting civil liberties or infrastructure improvement. They pass tax laws to to funnel money up the ladder.


----------



## RevDrucifer

AMOS said:


> Only because they want their votes, do you think lefty politicians actually give a shit about anyone? Do you think ANY politician gives a shit about anyone? If your answer is yes you're smoking some really good weed, or some really bad weed. Depends how you look at it.



Bad weed doesn’t get you high. 

I don’t believe politicians care about anyone but themselves, even the seemingly nice ones, but _I _do, so my vote goes for the people that are at least selling the line that they care, opposed to the ones who make it clear they don’t give a shit and have zero interest in making the country an equal place for all the citizens, instead of just the rich ones. 

It doesn’t even mean I’ll have faith they’re going to do anything (whether it’s because they can’t or won’t is besides the point here), but if I’m going to plug my nose and vote, it sure as fuck won’t be for a party that watches Handmade’s Tale with a bottle of lube.


----------



## bostjan

Guys, we all (most) took the bait. @AMOS is literally making a false equivalency between a bunch of very specific examples of government corruption and unfair play with the overarching corruption and unfair play of politics in general, which is most contributed by the people in those specific examples.

It's like if someone pointed at Madoff and said "wow, what a piece of shit for stealing people's money" and someone defended him by saying "yeah, but whatabout people in general being pieces of shit and stealing from each other every day?"

Just because it's a generally broadly true statement, doesn't mean it adds anything at all of note to the conversation, nor does it mean that it logically flows.


----------



## narad

There hasn't been a good post from the Trumpy people in this thread for like 15 pages at this point. The bait is stale.


----------



## thraxil

Depositions of witness transcripts from the Jan 6th committee are out: https://january6th.house.gov/news/press-releases/release-select-committee-materials

Have a look through the ones for Charlie Kirk (https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20220524_Charlie Kirk.pdf), Alex Jones (https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20220124_Alex Jones.pdf), Roger Stone (https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211217_Roger Stone.pdf), and Michael Flynn (https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20220310_Michael Flynn.pdf).

All of them invoke the fifth amendment on every single question asked.

Can you imagine the unrelenting howling and screaming for blood we'd have been subjected to from the right if Hillary Clinton had invoked the fifth even a single time during her 12 hours of testimony during the Benghazi hearings?


----------



## StevenC

bostjan said:


> Guys, we all (most) took the bait. @AMOS is literally making a false equivalency between a bunch of very specific examples of government corruption and unfair play with the overarching corruption and unfair play of politics in general, which is most contributed by the people in those specific examples.
> 
> It's like if someone pointed at Madoff and said "wow, what a piece of shit for stealing people's money" and someone defended him by saying "yeah, but whatabout people in general being pieces of shit and stealing from each other every day?"
> 
> Just because it's a generally broadly true statement, doesn't mean it adds anything at all of note to the conversation, nor does it mean that it logically flows.


Sure, we all know these are bad faith arguments. But this is a really low stakes place to discuss them, and that is the level at which this dishonesty should be stamped out.


----------



## bostjan

StevenC said:


> Sure, we all know these are bad faith arguments. But this is a really low stakes place to discuss them, and that is the level at which this dishonesty should be stamped out.


I agree. But this sort of argument is not just not right, it is not even wrong. And Trumpers don't care about being right or wrong or whatever, they only care about making what they perceive as their point and then dipping, only to come back later as if no one ever engaged with them.


----------



## Crungy

It's hard to expect much from people that were swayed by lines like "we're going to be so tired of winning".


----------



## Glades

Since March 2022, according to the DoD, the US has given Ukraine $70B.That’s almost $2B a week, almost $300M a day. Why isn’t Europe footing the bill?

Don’t let these scumbags tell you we can’t afford better public education, free healthcare or free college education. 

The warmongers are deeply entrenched in our federal government. Starting with Mitch.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> Don’t let these scumbags tell you we can’t afford better public education, free healthcare or free college education.



We don't. We're the democrats...


----------



## bostjan

Glades said:


> Since March 2022, according to the DoD, the US has given Ukraine $70B.That’s almost $2B a week, almost $300M a day. Why isn’t Europe footing the bill?
> 
> Don’t let these scumbags tell you we can’t afford better public education, free healthcare or free college education.
> 
> The warmongers are deeply entrenched in our federal government. Starting with Mitch.


Although that seems like a rhetorical question, it's fair in a number of ways.

It could be taken one of two ways - why should the USA be involved or why aren't European countries more involved?

Why is the USA involved? The USA is actually bound by an international treaty to defend Ukraine from foreign invasion. Why? Because, after Ukraine split from the USSR, the USA wanted Ukraine not to have nuclear weapons, and, as incentive to get Ukraine to disarm, the USA guaranteed that we would step in actively given the chance that any country would invade. Obviously, we are not doing that, so we've basically said that the treaty signed in the early 1990's means nothing to us now. To average people, that might not seem like a big deal, but I tell you that it is. If the USA signs treaties and then forgets about them, it not only destroys our international credibility when it comes to treaties, but it also negatively affects our credit rating and other more immediate things, since lenders see that our word isn't good for shit.

We spent even more in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. I mean individually. We never had a treaty guaranteeing that we would defend Afghanistan from Al Qaeda; we just did, and we wanted revenge against the suicide bombers who harmed us. So, in typical devoid-of-any-logic American fashion, we attacked a sovereign nation because some people from another, totally different sovereign nation blew themselves up to kill a bunch of us. Then we changed the reason to be that they were harbouring someone we wanted, who turned up in another different nation. Then we invaded another sovereign nation because they had something to do with the attack they had nuclear weapons they had some kind of large scale weapons they had links to Al Qaeda they umm, hang on... *insert reason later*, and now we look like huge assholes because of all of that. And now that the GOP got us into both of those messes, they want to sit back and bitch about Ukraine, as if making any halfassed attempt to honour a treaty is wrong, yet all of the bullshit of the Bush administration was righteous.

Why doesn't the UK cough up more money? Well, I guess they are assholes, too, since they also signed the damned treaty. What are we going to do? Tell them they are assholes? Threaten them? What? Well, IDK if any of that will work, considering that we are ignoring the treaty ourselves.

Honestly, I'm with not honouring that treaty. It was a stupid treaty in that there was no insight at all into what if this exact situation occurred, despite this specific situation being pretty obvious. If we go into hot war with Russia, best case scenario is that a lot of Americans die; worst case everyone in the world dies. It's too horrible of a risk/reward balance. Destroying our credibility is still better than WWIII. If the USA nopes out and the UK invades, it's more or less the same outcome of mutually assured world destruction. I don't want the planet to be mashed into a meteor shower by thermonuclear weapons, because this is where I keep all of my guitars and stuff.

Biden, as the chief diplomatic leader or chief executive of foreign policy, has to make a tough decision whether to escalate this or not. There's no winning scenario for him. You escalate, you lose, you turn your back, you lose, you rattle your saber, maybe you can kick the problem down the road until either Putin dies or another leader is elected and inherits the problem.


----------



## MaxOfMetal

Glades said:


> Don’t let these scumbags tell you we can’t afford better public education, free healthcare or free college education.


----------



## ArtDecade

@Glades trying to join the cool kid's party.







But we know what you are.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Since March 2022, according to the DoD, the US has given Ukraine $70B.That’s almost $2B a week, almost $300M a day. Why isn’t Europe footing the bill?
> 
> Don’t let these scumbags tell you we can’t afford better public education, free healthcare or free college education.
> 
> The warmongers are deeply entrenched in our federal government. Starting with Mitch.


They are. 

EU alone has contributed nearly $20B EUR since the start of the war. 








EU assistance to Ukraine


Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the EU is supporting Ukraine's overall economic, social and financial resilience, and providing military assistance




eu-solidarity-ukraine.ec.europa.eu





The DOD's figure is closer to $40B all in, of which nearly $22B is "security assistance."








$1.85 Billion in Additional Security Assistance for Ukraine


On December 21, as part of President Zelenskyy's visit to the White House, the Department of Defense announced $1.85 billion in additional security assistance for Ukraine.



www.defense.gov





I'm seeing two straight years of $2.3B each in security assistance from the UK, as well, plus however much humanitarian aid they're also providing: 


https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9477/



...and if you wonder why our number is higher than the EU's (which to be fair doesn't include individual country contributions), it's worth remembering that we produce the weapons that both the US AND the EU are providing, so if we donate $22B in weapons to Ukraine, we also inject $22B of stimulus into our economy to make those weapons. 

Glad to hear you're a dirty pinko commie scum underneath all the Florida Republican trappings, though, and I trust that we can count on your vote in 2024 when we run on a platform of free healthcare and education.


----------



## SCJR

This


bostjan said:


> Although that seems like a rhetorical question, it's fair in a number of ways.
> 
> It could be taken one of two ways - why should the USA be involved or why aren't European countries more involved?
> 
> Why is the USA involved? The USA is actually bound by an international treaty to defend Ukraine from foreign invasion. Why? Because, after Ukraine split from the USSR, the USA wanted Ukraine not to have nuclear weapons, and, as incentive to get Ukraine to disarm, the USA guaranteed that we would step in actively given the chance that any country would invade. Obviously, we are not doing that, so we've basically said that the treaty signed in the early 1990's means nothing to us now. To average people, that might not seem like a big deal, but I tell you that it is. If the USA signs treaties and then forgets about them, it not only destroys our international credibility when it comes to treaties, but it also negatively affects our credit rating and other more immediate things, since lenders see that our word isn't good for shit.
> 
> We spent even more in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq. I mean individually. We never had a treaty guaranteeing that we would defend Afghanistan from Al Qaeda; we just did, and we wanted revenge against the suicide bombers who harmed us. So, in typical devoid-of-any-logic American fashion, we attacked a sovereign nation because some people from another, totally different sovereign nation blew themselves up to kill a bunch of us. Then we changed the reason to be that they were harbouring someone we wanted, who turned up in another different nation. Then we invaded another sovereign nation because they had something to do with the attack they had nuclear weapons they had some kind of large scale weapons they had links to Al Qaeda they umm, hang on... *insert reason later*, and now we look like huge assholes because of all of that. And now that the GOP got us into both of those messes, they want to sit back and bitch about Ukraine, as if making any halfassed attempt to honour a treaty is wrong, yet all of the bullshit of the Bush administration was righteous.
> 
> Why doesn't the UK cough up more money? Well, I guess they are assholes, too, since they also signed the damned treaty. What are we going to do? Tell them they are assholes? Threaten them? What? Well, IDK if any of that will work, considering that we are ignoring the treaty ourselves.
> 
> Honestly, I'm with not honouring that treaty. It was a stupid treaty in that there was no insight at all into what if this exact situation occurred, despite this specific situation being pretty obvious. If we go into hot war with Russia, best case scenario is that a lot of Americans die; worst case everyone in the world dies. It's too horrible of a risk/reward balance. Destroying our credibility is still better than WWIII. If the USA nopes out and the UK invades, it's more or less the same outcome of mutually assured world destruction. I don't want the planet to be mashed into a meteor shower by thermonuclear weapons, because this is where I keep all of my guitars and stuff.
> 
> Biden, as the chief diplomatic leader or chief executive of foreign policy, has to make a tough decision whether to escalate this or not. There's no winning scenario for him. You escalate, you lose, you turn your back, you lose, you rattle your saber, maybe you can kick the problem down the road until either Putin dies or another leader is elected and inherits the problem.


This was a genuinely good read.


----------



## MFB

ArtDecade said:


> But we know what you are.



Glades and ArtDecade, name a better love story, I'll wait


----------



## ArtDecade

MFB said:


> Glades and ArtDecade, name a better love story, I'll wait



... I want to be the Werewolf guy ...


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> But unlike the other party in American politics, Democrats believe in a little thing called accountability.


Except when it comes to themselves.


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> I frankly don't give a shit what a politician believes. I care about what they vote for.


Which is usually along party lines regardless of what it actually is. They're supposed to have their own minds and vote to represent ALL of the people from their respective states, but they only care about their parties agenda's. Screw the ones that didn't vote them into office.


----------



## AMOS

thraxil said:


> I don't disagree that there are plenty of disingenuous politicians on both sides, but the way this is framed, it seems to imply that you have a hard time believing that anyone might genuinely care about the rights of people of color and the lgbtq community.
> 
> That attitude seems common on the right, where they understand on a rational level someone fighting for the rights of a group that they're part of but someone standing up for a marginalized group that they're not in or any cause that doesn't directly benefit them MUST just be pandering. It's a worldview that just doesn't seem to even be able to comprehend empathy or principles beyond "rational self-interest". What a sad world to live in.


I'm too old to give a shit, I'm leaving the voting and caring crap to everyone else from the 2024 election and onwards. I create my own little world within the world and everyone else stay the fuck out. I won't let any politician tell me how to live or what guns I can't own. It's my life, not theirs, not yours either, so I don't care what anyone has to say. Vote for who you like, doesn't mean diddle to me. As far as I'm concerned I'm not political and I no longer trust any of them. I'm living out my last 20 years (hopefully that long) in peace.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> Except when it comes to themselves.


EDIT: Why bother.


----------



## TedEH

AMOS said:


> They're supposed to have their own minds and vote to represent ALL of the people from their respective states


And how exactly does someone vote to represent opposing ideas at the same time? Do they flip a coin? Do they try to work out the demographics and make sure they vote 56% of the time one way, and 44% of the times the other way? If any one person was capable of representing every possible idea at the same time in this way, then what was the point of having political parties in the first place?


----------



## bostjan

TedEH said:


> And how exactly does someone vote to represent opposing ideas at the same time? Do they flip a coin? Do they try to work out the demographics and make sure they vote 56% of the time one way, and 44% of the times the other way? If any one person was capable of representing every possible idea at the same time in this way, then what was the point of having political parties in the first place?


Quantum voting. Everyone specifies the probability that they will vote each way, then, when the votes is finished being recorded, the probability functions all collapse into a singular binary yes/no outcome.

Obviously, that is a joke. I used to love the idea of direct democracy. I wanted them to put all of the laws to a ballot measure-style vote. That way, anything that is dumb would go off the books. But, back then, I was young and naive. Now I have realized that voters are stupid and don't know what's best for them. But, alas, having an autocrat decide for you inevitably leads to worse problems as autocrats tend to be narcissistic and don't care what is best for anyone other than themselves. So here we are with a representative democracy. It's a horrible form of government, but it might be the least horrible form of government we've figured out so far.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> Isn’t that the chick that changed her name to Elliott?


No, and would it kill you to at least _try_ to respect trans identity, as a man who swears he's not a Trump-aligned conservative?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Quantum voting. Everyone specifies the probability that they will vote each way, then, when the votes is finished being recorded, the probability functions all collapse into a singular binary yes/no outcome.


Honestly, no one would like this more than the politicians themselves.


----------



## narad

Drew said:


> No, and would it kill you to at least _try_ to respect trans identity, as a man who swears he's not a Trump-aligned conservative?



Haven't you paid any attention to how the right rolls? You don't go that far out of your way to make fun of trans unless you _are trans_. So have a little patience and respect Glades' self delusions until her public transition in ~2031.


----------



## AMOS

TedEH said:


> And how exactly does someone vote to represent opposing ideas at the same time? Do they flip a coin? Do they try to work out the demographics and make sure they vote 56% of the time one way, and 44% of the times the other way? If any one person was capable of representing every possible idea at the same time in this way, then what was the point of having political parties in the first place?


They're paid to represent everyone from their states, otherwise large groups of people would have no representation at all. Which isn't far from the case.


----------



## bostjan

Any thoughts regarding Santos and his admitted lies about his qualifications?

I bet there are other elected officials who have similarly lied and not come clean about their education and job history, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was common. However, if a regular person lies on their resume, it is considered fraud, since they are gaining employment (monetary compensation) out of it. I think elected officials _have _to be held to *at least *the same standard. I guess they could charge him with fraud and, if he's indicted, impeach him and have a special election so another nutty politician can represent NY.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> Any thoughts regarding Santos and his admitted lies about his qualifications?
> 
> I bet there are other elected officials who have similarly lied and not come clean about their education and job history, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was common. However, if a regular person lies on their resume, it is considered fraud, since they are gaining employment (monetary compensation) out of it. I think elected officials _have _to be held to *at least *the same standard. I guess they could charge him with fraud and, if he's indicted, impeach him and have a special election so another nutty politician can represent NY.



Paraphrased - I never said I was Jewish... sometimes I just feel Jew_-ish_.

That dude needs a kick in the nuts - right after he is barred from public office.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> Paraphrased - I never said I was Jewish... sometimes I just feel Jew_-ish_.
> 
> That dude needs a kick in the nuts - right after he is barred from public office.


Yeah, I saw that quote and my eyebrow furled so hard it nearly touched my lips. This guy is either dumber than a box of rocks or he thinks he's the funniest comedian in congress.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Any thoughts regarding Santos and his admitted lies about his qualifications?
> 
> I bet there are other elected officials who have similarly lied and not come clean about their education and job history, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was common. However, if a regular person lies on their resume, it is considered fraud, since they are gaining employment (monetary compensation) out of it. I think elected officials _have _to be held to *at least *the same standard. I guess they could charge him with fraud and, if he's indicted, impeach him and have a special election so another nutty politician can represent NY.


The problem is while employment-at-will contracts are common for non-elected positions, there aren't really that many avenues for removing a politician from office short of impeachment/recall (does NY even have recall laws?). 

My bet is he becomes the laughingstock of his district, gets relegated to the back bench of the GOP, and unless he's a goddamn political mastermind loses his seat to a Democratic challenger in 2024, if he even makes it through the primary.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> The problem is while employment-at-will contracts are common for non-elected positions, there aren't really that many avenues for removing a politician from office short of impeachment/recall (does NY even have recall laws?).
> 
> My bet is he becomes the laughingstock of his district, gets relegated to the back bench of the GOP, and unless he's a goddamn political mastermind loses his seat to a Democratic challenger in 2024, if he even makes it through the primary.



Can you imagine wanting to pwn liberals so bad that you allow that muppet be sworn in...? Just about any other Republican with a pulse would be a better option.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> The problem is while employment-at-will contracts are common for non-elected positions, there aren't really that many avenues for removing a politician from office short of impeachment/recall (does NY even have recall laws?).
> 
> My bet is he becomes the laughingstock of his district, gets relegated to the back bench of the GOP, and unless he's a goddamn political mastermind loses his seat to a Democratic challenger in 2024, if he even makes it through the primary.


Yeah, it's not so easy to fire an elected official.

New York has no means of recall. State officials are automatically removed from office if they are convicted of a felony. I'm not sure about federal officials, but I'd assume they'd have to go through impeachment. That's why I said that I'd recommend (not that anyone cares) treating this the same as they would if a regular schmuck like me had done something like this, and press charges. If he weasels out of the charges, then, I suppose, that's that. If he's indicted, then proceed with impeachment and, if that sticks, you'd have to call a special election.

But honestly, no one expects that to happen. This guy is one of the federal government bro's now, so he'll never see any actual consequences for anything, just like the rest who make it into that club.

Just seems frustrating that, if he were a democrat, his ass would be out of his congressional seat faster than you could say Al Franken. As a republican, I think this is just kind of the standard behaviour.


----------



## Glades

I wonder if he got arrested with Mandela, and was raised by Puerto Ricans too.


----------



## Ralyks

Let me make something clear: I am a New Yorker. If/when I move, I will have no shame in saying I'm from New York. I am thankful for everything New York has done for me.

But man, sometimes I fucking hate New York.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> But honestly, no one expects that to happen. This guy is one of the federal government bro's now, so he'll never see any actual consequences for anything, just like the rest who make it into that club.
> 
> Just seems frustrating that, if he were a democrat, his ass would be out of his congressional seat faster than you could say Al Franken. As a republican, I think this is just kind of the standard behaviour.


I think in almost any other scenario, he might face consequences from his party.

But, McCarthy has a 4-seat majority in the House, and a number of members of _his own party_ who don't want to support him for Speaker of the House. He can't afford a single defection, so he's gotta look the other way and hope no more thn four Republicans refuse to support him, because he needs a majority of the House to be elected speaker.

If he can't get that, things get a wee bit more interesting, both overall, and for this charlatan. It's not especially likely any other Republican can get majorority support as well - possible, but it will be a challenge. So, an entirely plausible path forward here is a more moderate compromise candidate, in return for enough Democratic votes to reach a majority. And if I were Hakeem Jeffries, one thing I'd certainly be willing to consider in return for supporting a less moderate majority leader than I might like, would be having Santos thrown out of Congress and a special election called to replace him. You get a more partisan Speaker, though that's only a matter of degrees... and, in all likelihood, you narrow the GOP margin of control from four to three, leaving the party with an even narrower path to legislating. It's interesting.


EDIT - also, neither here nor there... The sense I've gotten over the years, especially as over time it's become clea the evidence against Franken was far from bulletproof, is that the Democratic Party thinks they fucked up forcing Franken to resign without going through due process. I think if Santos was a Democrat, well... it changes things that he's basically confessed to lying about his resume, so it's no longer just an accusation. But I don't think the Democrats would force out an effective senator again based only on allocations. I DO think they would see it through due process, though, and not try to shelter someone who was clearly guilty.


----------



## Drew

May as well share this seperately rather than just alluding to it - it's skirting under the radar because it's all back-channel negotiations for now, but there's a palace coup going on in the GOP right now, with enough committed holdouts refusing to back McCarthy that on January 3rd, when he goes up for a vote, it looks like he'll be voted down.









Time is running short for McCarthy to lock up Speakership


It’s crunch time for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Members of Congress departed Washington on Friday with the group of House Republicans voicing opposition to McCarthy for …




thehill.com





Ironic, that the anti-government party, is itself becoming ungovernable.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> May as well share this seperately rather than just alluding to it - it's skirting under the radar because it's all back-channel negotiations for now, but there's a palace coup going on in the GOP right now, with enough committed holdouts refusing to back McCarthy that on January 3rd, when he goes up for a vote, it looks like he'll be voted down,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is running short for McCarthy to lock up Speakership
> 
> 
> It’s crunch time for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Members of Congress departed Washington on Friday with the group of House Republicans voicing opposition to McCarthy for …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com


Good. I hope he wears that embarrassment all over his smug face.


----------



## bostjan

Unrelated topic, but the guy who plotted the Michigan governor kidnapping plot got sentenced to 19+ years.



Drew said:


> I think in almost any other scenario, he might face consequences from his party.
> 
> But, McCarthy has a 4-seat majority in the House, and a number of members of _his own party_ who don't want to support him for Speaker of the House. He can't afford a single defection, so he's gotta look the other way and hope no more thn four Republicans refuse to support him, because he needs a majority of the House to be elected speaker.
> 
> If he can't get that, things get a wee bit more interesting, both overall, and for this charlatan. It's not especially likely any other Republican can get majorority support as well - possible, but it will be a challenge. So, an entirely plausible path forward here is a more moderate compromise candidate, in return for enough Democratic votes to reach a majority. And if I were Hakeem Jeffries, one thing I'd certainly be willing to consider in return for supporting a less moderate majority leader than I might like, would be having Santos thrown out of Congress and a special election called to replace him. You get a more partisan Speaker, though that's only a matter of degrees... and, in all likelihood, you narrow the GOP margin of control from four to three, leaving the party with an even narrower path to legislating. It's interesting.
> 
> 
> EDIT - also, neither here nor there... The sense I've gotten over the years, especially as over time it's become clea the evidence against Franken was far from bulletproof, is that the Democratic Party thinks they fucked up forcing Franken to resign without going through due process. I think if Santos was a Democrat, well... it changes things that he's basically confessed to lying about his resume, so it's no longer just an accusation. But I don't think the Democrats would force out an effective senator again based only on allocations. I DO think they would see it through due process, though, and not try to shelter someone who was clearly guilty.


There have been a handful of times when no one has won a majority vote as speaker on the first vote, but I don't think we've ever had a session without a speaker, so it always gets worked out somehow. I don't think it's happened in modern times, though I could be mistaken.

With the current uncompromising attitude in the House, it might end up being a historic event if two different GOP members deadlock. Also, and this is going off into wacko land speculation here, but, you don't technically have to be a member of the House to be Speaker of the House. With politics as weird as they are, I would say that just might mean that no one can expect anything to be off the table at this point.

Long-term, if we see the GOP splinter into whatever pro-Trump faction and a more traditional majority in 2024, this could become a perpetual topic at play until the differences resolve. I think that allowing that schism to take place would be the worst thing for the GOP maybe so far, but, as much as they want to avoid it, it does seem like it's the way things will play out if everything stays on its current path for the next 2 years (which isn't likely with the rate things are changing now).


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> There have been a handful of times when no one has won a majority vote as speaker on the first vote, but I don't think we've ever had a session without a speaker, so it always gets worked out somehow. I don't think it's happened in modern times, though I could be mistaken.


If McCarthy doesn't win on the first vote, it will be the first time in more than a hundred years.

This certainly could be the first step in that schism. Wouldn't that be funny.

Hope to god they don't try to elect Trump speaker.  I could almost see a few of 'em being crazy enough to try it. It'd put him third in the line of succession (in which case, may god have mercy on Biden and Harris's secret service detail), but no way in hell would Trump have the capacity and attention span to deal with the day to day tasks of running the House od Representatives, and I think everyone else involved knows it. 

Like, is there any serious doubt anymore, outside the Q-Anon nutjobs who think he's a 14th dimensional chess grandmaster, that Trump has the intellect and attention span and attention to detail of an 8 year old child? I feel like that's pretty well settled at this point.


----------



## Ralyks

Any thoughts on Trumps tax returns, and the fact that the IRS didn't even audit him until 2019?


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Any thoughts on Trumps tax returns, and the fact that the IRS didn't even audit him until 2019?


Haven't gone through them myself, and the content of the returns I would be surprised if they move the needle one way or another - his supporters see any shenanigans as just proof of how good a businessman he is, his detractors already know he's a criminal. 

But the audit question is big. One, because he'd been saying the whole time he wasn't publishing them while in the White House because he was being audited, which is plainly false. And two, FAR more concerning, is that this comes at a time where speculation that the invasive audits of James Comey's and Andrew McCabe's tax returns during the Trump Administration may have had something to do with Trump himself, as there were some irregularities in the winnowing process that selected them for a deeper look. 

Combined, that's two points of data that Trump may have had an improper amount of influence on the IRS while president.


----------



## bostjan

Oh, no surprise, but those taxes are shady as shit. Interest amounts all paid in super round numbers like $24,000.00, and declared expenses all being exact, to the penny, the same as declared incomes from other things. Like, what are the odds that you buy a thing that costs you $42,965, and then use the thing to earn money and made exactly $42,965 that year? And then what are the odds that the same thing just coincidentally happened with a dozen other expenses that year.

But, like I thought, there is nothing here that can't be glossed over with more lies with the same level of patency. I'm sure Trump will just shrug and say, "I dunno, it's crazy, but coincidences like that seem to just always happen to me," and then refuse to turn over any proof to back up any of the claims.

Personally, I'm convinced that he lied on his taxes. Is anyone surprised that I think that?


----------



## thraxil

Paying more taxes to Jina than the US....


----------



## Ralyks

So uhhh, who the fucks going to be Speaker of the House)


----------



## thebeesknees22

Ralyks said:


> So uhhh, who the fucks going to be Speaker of the House)


I'm hoping no one, and the republicans just flounder with infighting for the next two years so they don't do too much damage to the rest of us.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe it's time to think about the future and how the House Rules might need to change to allow things to move forward in the event of a small minority hell-bent on creating a stalemate. 

It's only two votes so far, though, so we'll see how things progress. I could totally see Gaetz just nominating someone different each time and fishing around to see if anyone can get more than 19 votes, and eventually someone relenting and McCarthy becoming speaker. I read somewhere that, the last time the vote failed, they had to vote nine times before anyone won a majority. I guess we will see if people are more or less stubborn now than they were 100 years ago.


----------



## Ralyks

So congress adjourned for today. No speaker. No congress. The schadenfreude is astounding.


----------



## tedtan

And its the Freedom Caucus causing the problems. Gee, who’d a thunk?


----------



## SpaceDock




----------



## Ralyks

I'm just gonna leave this here...


----------



## Drew

thebeesknees22 said:


> I'm hoping no one, and the republicans just flounder with infighting for the next two years so they don't do too much damage to the rest of us.


Honestly, that's the outcome I'm worried about. 

I figure McCarthy is now toast short of a minor miracle, now that Trump has endorsed him and asked the GOP to vote for him, because "he could be a good, perhaps even GREAT speaker!" Trump is the anti-midas and everything that man touches turns to shit. Either McCarthy continues to lose share and drops out, or has to make concessions to his opposition such that he's left in a position where he essentially can't govern. 

It's hard to see a clear consensus candidate the rest of the GOP could rally around, as well, and it's also hard to see a moderate consensus forming where the GOP makes enough concessions to the Democrats that they agree to support a moderate candidate. 

So, there's a real possibility this continues to drag on. And I worry maybe at some point the GOP decides the least bad option is to NOT appoint a speaker, effectively shutting down the government, and allowing the current budget to expire with no House of Representatives around to originate the next one, figuring if they can't find an agreeable candidate, they may as well take Biden down with them and force a government shutdown until 2024.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Drew said:


> Honestly, that's the outcome I'm worried about.
> 
> I figure McCarthy is now toast short of a minor miracle, now that Trump has endorsed him and asked the GOP to vote for him, because "he could be a good, perhaps even GREAT speaker!" Trump is the anti-midas and everything that man touches turns to shit. Either McCarthy continues to lose share and drops out, or has to make concessions to his opposition such that he's left in a position where he essentially can't govern.
> 
> It's hard to see a clear consensus candidate the rest of the GOP could rally around, as well, and it's also hard to see a moderate consensus forming where the GOP makes enough concessions to the Democrats that they agree to support a moderate candidate.
> 
> So, there's a real possibility this continues to drag on. And I worry maybe at some point the GOP decides the least bad option is to NOT appoint a speaker, effectively shutting down the government, and allowing the current budget to expire with no House of Representatives around to originate the next one, figuring if they can't find an agreeable candidate, they may as well take Biden down with them and force a government shutdown until 2024.


McCarthy just lost vote #4. It's gonna be awkward when he has to move all his stuff out of the speaker's office that he just hauled in lol

on the shutdown. oh that'll happen at some point. The extreme members of the republican party have already said numerous times they'll hurl the US economy off a cliff when it comes time to raise the debt ceiling, and no one really doubts that they'll try and do it. 

Life has a way of working out. I'm hoping that there are enough sensible people left in that circus to avoid letting everything grid to a halt. It'll hurt their pocket books just as much as anyone else's so I think at the end of the day more level heads will prevail at some point.

It's already happened at the state level in a few states where republicans banded together with democrats to overcome the extreme right so there's still hope for that happening at the federal level. (although less hope since it's a bigger clown show)


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> Honestly, that's the outcome I'm worried about.
> 
> I figure McCarthy is now toast short of a minor miracle, now that Trump has endorsed him and asked the GOP to vote for him, because "he could be a good, perhaps even GREAT speaker!" Trump is the anti-midas and everything that man touches turns to shit. Either McCarthy continues to lose share and drops out, or has to make concessions to his opposition such that he's left in a position where he essentially can't govern.
> 
> It's hard to see a clear consensus candidate the rest of the GOP could rally around, as well, and it's also hard to see a moderate consensus forming where the GOP makes enough concessions to the Democrats that they agree to support a moderate candidate.
> 
> So, there's a real possibility this continues to drag on. And I worry maybe at some point the GOP decides the least bad option is to NOT appoint a speaker, effectively shutting down the government, and allowing the current budget to expire with no House of Representatives around to originate the next one, figuring if they can't find an agreeable candidate, they may as well take Biden down with them and force a government shutdown until 2024.


Seems to fit their modus operandi.

Sometimes, though, no pain = no gain. The extreme faction of the government has reached the point where they believe that, even with only a small percentage of the vote, that they can leverage anything that they want. Maybe if they cannot learn that there are consequences to their wrong approach, the American voters have to learn a hard lesson about why we cannot vote these dipshits into office and expect it to accomplish anything. But it's going to really suck when a bunch of federal workers have to get laid off or work for no pay and all of the essential government services all shut down.

Is there a recall mechanism in Arizona or Florida? That seems to be the two places whence the representatives causing the most damage are coming. Honestly, after everything that was uncovered about Gaetz conspiring with Trump's people over the impeachment, he probably ought to be out anyway. But it's too late to impeach that asshat now. Oh well, we all knew that the US was going into its death throes when Trump was elected - I guess we got a good run for that bonus two years. Now to find out if we get taken over by Russia or China once our current government implodes.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Honestly, after everything that was uncovered about Gaetz conspiring with Trump's people over the impeachment, he probably ought to be out anyway.


I suspect Gaetz will be in jail before the end of his term. It looks like needing his vote is the only reason the GOP hasn't tossed Santos, too, though he's being ostracised and there's a ton of pressure on him to resign so once someone is seated I don't think he'll last long either and while Gaetz is likely to be replaced with a Republican, Santos is not.


----------



## Glades

Drew said:


> Honestly, that's the outcome I'm worried about.
> 
> I figure McCarthy is now toast short of a minor miracle, now that Trump has endorsed him and asked the GOP to vote for him, because "he could be a good, perhaps even GREAT speaker!" Trump is the anti-midas and everything that man touches turns to shit. Either McCarthy continues to lose share and drops out, or has to make concessions to his opposition such that he's left in a position where he essentially can't govern.
> 
> It's hard to see a clear consensus candidate the rest of the GOP could rally around, as well, and it's also hard to see a moderate consensus forming where the GOP makes enough concessions to the Democrats that they agree to support a moderate candidate.
> 
> So, there's a real possibility this continues to drag on. And I worry maybe at some point the GOP decides the least bad option is to NOT appoint a speaker, effectively shutting down the government, and allowing the current budget to expire with no House of Representatives around to originate the next one, figuring if they can't find an agreeable candidate, they may as well take Biden down with them and force a *government shutdown until 2024.*


----------



## Glades

Rep. Jim Jordan rejected the nomination. The Freedom Caucus nominating Rep. Byron Donalds. Calling out McCarthy for being a RINO.

*Round 5* 

The anti-McCarthy 20 (+1) 

Andy Biggs-AZ (Byron Donalds) 
Dan Bishop-NC (Byron Donalds) 
Lauren Boebert-CO (Byron Donalds) 
Josh Brecheen-OK (Byron Donalds) 
**Michael Cloud-TX (Byron Donalds) **missed vote 
Andrew Clyde-GA (Byron Donalds) 
Eli Crane-AZ (Byron Donalds) 

:: THE ROLL CALL IS RIGHT HERE :: 

_Byron Donalds-FL (Byron Donalds) 
Matt Gaetz-FL (Byron Donalds) 
Bob Good-VA (Byron Donalds) 
Paul Gosar-AZ (Byron Donalds) 
Andy Harris-MD (Byron Donalds) 
Anna Paulina Luna-FL (Byron Donalds) 
Mary Miller-IL (Byron Donalds) 
Ralph Norman-SC (Byron Donalds) 
Andy Ogles-TN (Byron Donalds) 
Scott Perry-PA (Byron Donalds) 
Matt Rosendale-MT (Byron Donalds) 
Chip Roy-TX (Byron Donalds) 
Keith Self-TX (Byron Donalds) 
Victoria Spartz-IN (Present)_


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I suspect Gaetz will be in jail before the end of his term. It looks like needing his vote is the only reason the GOP hasn't tossed Santos, too, though he's being ostracised and there's a ton of pressure on him to resign so once someone is seated I don't think he'll last long either and while Gaetz is likely to be replaced with a Republican, Santos is not.


How does Gaetz end up in jail and how can I help? 

I think it's dumb if caving to his demands because someone needs his vote results in not getting his vote... kind of like giving the terrorists the money and letting them keep the hostages, you know?


----------



## bostjan

I guess, I don't understand... what is the freedom caucus trying to accomplish here. I thought McCarthy was Trump's lap dog during the Trump years. Do they not like that he's distanced himself from that? Do they just plain old not like the guy? Either way, other than forcing a government stalemate, what is the point? If McCarthy never wins, does Trump never get prosecuted for his crimes or something?


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> I guess, I don't understand... what is the freedom caucus trying to accomplish here. I thought McCarthy was Trump's lap dog during the Trump years. Do they not like that he's distanced himself from that? Do they just plain old not like the guy? Either way, other than forcing a government stalemate, what is the point? If McCarthy never wins, does Trump never get prosecuted for his crimes or something?



I'm guessing the freedom caucus want swanky positions on some committees. Or they want some kind of power. I'm guessing MTG was promised something since she's all in on McCarthy, and now the rest of the parasites want theirs too. 

I can only guess though. Who knows what they're really after.


----------



## bostjan

thebeesknees22 said:


> I'm guessing the freedom caucus want swanky positions on some committees. Or they want some kind of power. I'm guessing MTG was promised something since she's all in on McCarthy, and now the rest of the parasites want theirs too.
> 
> I can only guess though. Who knows what they're really after.


Gawd, I hope Gaetz isn't trying to hold out until McCarthy grants him open ended immunity or something. But, if that's _really_ all this is, then I wonder what these goons' voters think now. Are they proud of them causing this ruckus over personal favours, or is this one of the long list of things that never goes beyond pwning the libtards (by blocking a republican) in their minds?


----------



## thebeesknees22

bostjan said:


> Gawd, I hope Gaetz isn't trying to hold out until McCarthy grants him open ended immunity or something. But, if that's _really_ all this is, then I wonder what these goons' voters think now. Are they proud of them causing this ruckus over personal favours, or is this one of the long list of things that never goes beyond pwning the libtards (by blocking a republican) in their minds?


No telling. He definitely wants something though with as hard lined as he's being. I'm guessing it didn't take much to get those other dipwads to draw a line in the sand on something too.


----------



## ArtDecade

From CNN:

CNN is learning about some of Rep. Matt Gaetz's demands from Kevin McCarthy on Monday evening before the speaker’s vote. He demanded a subcommittee gavel on the powerful* House Armed Services Committee*, a source said, which McCarthy rejected. This has enraged some other Republicans, who say the hardliners came to McCarthy with personal asks.

FFS.


----------



## thebeesknees22

ArtDecade said:


> From CNN:
> 
> CNN is learning about some of Rep. Matt Gaetz's demands from Kevin McCarthy on Monday evening before the speaker’s vote. He demanded a subcommittee gavel on the powerful* House Armed Services Committee*, a source said, which McCarthy rejected. This has enraged some other Republicans, who say the hardliners came to McCarthy with personal asks.
> 
> FFS.


ah that's interesting. mmmm..mmm.... that's the last place someone like Gaetz needs to be.


----------



## bostjan

Round 6 is already hopeless for McCarthy.

So, what if...this is crazy, but hear me out... what if democrats offer McCarthy a half dozen or so votes with the deal that Gaetz and Santos get impeached for their various illegal activities. Gaetz would just be replaced with another republican anyway, and I'd bet, at this point, McCarthy is not going to be too sad about chopping him, and the democrats could possibly pick up one more seat, which would still allow the GOP to control the House. Could be a small win for democrats and a huge win for McCarthy. It's not like the republicans are going to offer up anyone better than McCarthy anyway. I guess the dems who voted for him would "look bad," but if they knew how to properly play politics, that ought to be explained away.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> How does Gaetz end up in jail and how can I help?


I'm not making up the fact he's under investigation for bringing a minor across state lines for sex, and an accomplice has flipped and is cooperating with authorities, am I?  

Sixth vote is on track to fail, too.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Could be a small win for democrats and a huge win for McCarthy. It's not like the republicans are going to offer up anyone better than McCarthy anyway. I guess the dems who voted for him would "look bad," but if they knew how to properly play politics, that ought to be explained away.


I think it's less about the Dems "looking bad," that would stop this - though the progressive far left likely would harp back on that vote for years to come as proof the party can't be trusted - so much as McCarthy would piss off a whole bunch of MAGA Republicans if he agreed to throw Gaetz out of Congress as a condition of the vote, he knows it, the Dems know it, nothing legally binding culd happen until after the Speaker is seated, and accordingly he can't really be trusted to honor that deal.

That's why I think Gaetz is safe. That, and the fact that it's probably a net wash for the GOP anyway (and, because, honestly, I do think he winds up in jail, and I suspect the Democrats are willing to take those odds). Santos, however... if there's a deal with the Democrats, I'd alluded to that possibility several pages ago that if McCarthy didn't get seated quickly and the resistance was more than token, impeaching Santos from the House (and with it very likely shrinking the GOP's majority from 4 to 3) could very well be part of the terms of a deal. That, subpoena power, shared committee power... McCarthy's position is ungovernable anyway, so Republican Speaker overseeing a House with truly bipartisan committees might not be unfathomable when all this is said and done - it's certainly no more unlikely than Donalds becoming Speaker.


----------



## bostjan

Drew said:


> I'm not making up the fact he's under investigation for bringing a minor across state lines for sex, and an accomplice has flipped and is cooperating with authorities, am I?
> 
> Sixth vote is on track to fail, too.


Like, I am not a fan of L Graham, but, AFAIK, he's done nothing that constitutes fraud. He's just kind of dumb and hypocritical. Maybe he's got a freezer full of severed heads in his basement for all I know, but from what I can tell, I don't hate the guy, he just frustrates me. Gaetz, OTOH, just makes my skin crawl, and in different ways, too.



Drew said:


> I think it's less about the Dems "looking bad," that would stop this - though the progressive far left likely would harp back on that vote for years to come as proof the party can't be trusted - so much as McCarthy would piss off a whole bunch of MAGA Republicans if he agreed to throw Gaetz out of Congress as a condition of the vote, he knows it, the Dems know it, nothing legally binding culd happen until after the Speaker is seated, and accordingly he can't really be trusted to honor that deal.
> 
> That's why I think Gaetz is safe. That, and the fact that it's probably a net wash for the GOP anyway (and, because, honestly, I do think he winds up in jail, and I suspect the Democrats are willing to take those odds). Santos, however... if there's a deal with the Democrats, I'd alluded to that possibility several pages ago that if McCarthy didn't get seated quickly and the resistance was more than token, impeaching Santos from the House (and with it very likely shrinking the GOP's majority from 4 to 3) could very well be part of the terms of a deal. That, subpoena power, shared committee power... McCarthy's position is ungovernable anyway, so Republican Speaker overseeing a House with truly bipartisan committees might not be unfathomable when all this is said and done - it's certainly no more unlikely than Donalds becoming Speaker.



The time of MAGA came and went, though, and, not that the GOP knows any better, but anyone holding out at this point is going to do more damage to the party than they could ever do good.

This is, in fact, an example of that. The government is about to implode, at least temporarily, and now it's coming out in the open that this is all about one man's powertrip and his idiot followers. Again, not that the GOP has any idea what is best for it, but, just saying that the US government would be cutting a lot of liabilities by throwing Gaetz under the bus after this. Even for the GOP, dislodging Gaetz would solve this problem from happening again, and also cut off some of the gangrene that had once taken over the party. Canning him might not bring back integrity to the party, but who could argue that it wouldn't be a step in the right direction?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Like, I am not a fan of L Graham, but, AFAIK, he's done nothing that constitutes fraud. He's just kind of dumb and hypocritical. Maybe he's got a freezer full of severed heads in his basement for all I know, but from what I can tell, I don't hate the guy, he just frustrates me. Gaetz, OTOH, just makes my skin crawl, and in different ways, too.


I hate the guy for being an opportunistic, hypocritical, spineless coward, but, like, I can at least understand him. Gaetz is like every sleazy jock at every state football school. I wouldn't worry for her safety if I left my sister alone with Graham, but Gaetz, different story.


----------



## AMOS

I think it's refreshing to see so many stand up against the Establishment. McCarthy is nothing but a younger Mitch McConnell. We need fresh blood on all levels, or you're just in for more of the same. I'd rather see dissent than marching in lock-step over something they all don't agree on. That isn't Democracy, but we are seeing a minority with power, which is what a Constitutional Republic is all about. CR's are supposed to favor the minority.


----------



## SpaceDock

I see Jeffries with more votes than McCarthy each round. How can Jeffries get 6 moderate Republicans to vote for him, or maybe even some of the crazies like Gaetz? That would be epic.


----------



## tedtan

I agree that new blood is needed, but don’t necessarily agree that the opposition to McCarthy are necessarily altruistic. Some, like Spartz, seems to be, while others like Gaetz, seem self serving at the expense of the electorate.

Also, I don’t follow regarding republics. They are just a for of representative democracy so we can all focus on something other than the day to day details of government, so why would they be intended to favor ther minority?


----------



## AMOS

tedtan said:


> I agree that new blood is needed, but don’t necessarily agree that the opposition to McCarthy are necessarily altruistic. Some, like Spartz, seems to be, while others like Gaetz, seem self serving at the expense of the electorate.
> 
> Also, I don’t follow regarding republics. They are just a for of representative democracy so we can all focus on something other than the day to day details of government, so why would they be intended to favor ther minority?


Republics give a voice to the minority, Democracies do not. A true Democracy is nothing more than mob rules.


----------



## narad

It really should go without saying, but I suppose civics classes aren't what they used to be: both favor majorities.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> I think it's refreshing to see so many stand up against the Establishment. McCarthy is nothing but a younger Mitch McConnell. We need fresh blood on all levels, or you're just in for more of the same. I'd rather see dissent than marching in lock-step over something they all don't agree on. That isn't Democracy, but we are seeing a minority with power, which is what a Constitutional Republic is all about. CR's are supposed to favor the minority.


I love watching this weasel getting a public flogging every few hours, but don't for a moment believe that a group of utter grand-standers led by Gaetz and Bobo are doing anything for the sake of the Republic.


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> I love watching this weasel getting a public flogging every few hours, but don't for a moment believe that a group of utter grand-standers led by Gaetz and Bobo are doing anything for the sake of the Republic.


The RINO's don't do anything for the sake of the Republic either, Byron Donalds and the rest want to change that, that's what he came out and said.


----------



## StevenC

AMOS said:


> Republics give a voice to the minority, Democracies do not. A true Democracy is nothing more than mob rules.


Come on, you're not even being clever with the jokes anymore.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

the big scary RINO is coming to gobble us all up!


----------



## AMOS

StevenC said:


> Come on, you're not even being clever with the jokes anymore.


Well if you lived in one you'd know more about it.


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> Well if you lived in one you'd know more about it.



Yea, because when you ask random Americans basic questions about how their government works, you typically get an informed and correct answer. Because they _live_ it.


----------



## AMOS

narad said:


> Yea, because when you ask random Americans basic questions about how their government works, you typically get an informed and correct answer. Because they _live_ it.


And I know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy


----------



## AMOS

OMG Hannity has Lauren Boebert on. Would someone please put something in her mouth to shut her up


----------



## AMOS

AMOS said:


> OMG Hannity has Lauren Boebert on. Would someone please put something in her mouth to shut her up


I don't care if she's on the right side of it or wrong side of it she is f****** annoying


----------



## narad

AMOS said:


> And I know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy



Since it can be summarized in a couple sentences and caught in a few minutes, I'm not sure it's worth boasting about. But that's the American education system for you.


----------



## Ralyks

So from Axios, McCarthy floated these concessions:


One member motion to vacate, instead of five.
More House Freedom Caucus members on the House Rules Committee.
Promises to hold votes on controversial term limit and border security bills.
Hoo boy.


----------



## spudmunkey

If McCarthy loses two more votes, he gets a free sub, and it goes to penalty kicks.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> The RINO's don't do anything for the sake of the Republic either, Byron Donalds and the rest want to change that, that's what he came out and said.


Look, if you want anyone to take a thing you say seriously, you can't toss around MAGA terminology. You aren't in an over 65 assisted living facility in Florida.


----------



## bostjan

Question: If the majority of republicans are RINO's, does that not actually mean that the MAGA ones are the real RINO's, glamming onto an existing philosophy in name only in order to attract more votes?

Answer: We ALL already know the answer. I just felt like it needed to be said once more.

Meanwhile, Santos has inadvertently admitted to check fraud and no one cares because of the mess in the house.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

bostjan said:


> Question: If the majority of republicans are RINO's, does that not actually mean that the MAGA ones are the real RINO's, glamming onto an existing philosophy in name only in order to attract more votes?



You have to be RINOcerousey enough for the RINOcerous club.


----------



## ArtDecade

People that use the term RINO are really saying that the current Republican establishment isn't racist enough for them.


----------



## bostjan

Maybe they should start their own separate political party: RASHOBALLSTIT - racism aimed specifically (at) hispanics only, but also, largely levied specifically toward immigrants, too.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> Maybe they should start their own separate political party: RASHOBALLSTIT - racism aimed specifically (at) hispanics only, but also, largely levied specifically toward immigrants, too.



Kinda wordy... how about RANWAL?

Republicans Against Non Whites And Liberals.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> Kinda wordy... how about RANWAL?
> 
> Republicans Against Non Whites And Liberals.


That's just general republicans, though, no?

Needs more symbolism of embarrassing rashes in inconvenient places, kind of like how their caucus is causing embarrassment for us right now, right in a sensitive part of our government. Maybe they could cop the GOP's red colour symbolism, but add a hint of green to signify the freedom caucus, or maybe to represent the pus associated with the rash they are causing on our nation's sensitive areas.


----------



## ArtDecade

bostjan said:


> That's just general republicans, though, no?
> 
> Needs more symbolism of embarrassing rashes in inconvenient places, kind of like how their caucus is causing embarrassment for us right now, right in a sensitive part of our government. Maybe they could cop the GOP's red colour symbolism, but add a hint of green to signify the freedom caucus, or maybe to represent the pus associated with the rash they are causing on our nation's sensitive areas.


Nah, general Republicans are more like let's pretend to be fiscally conservative so we can write a new tax code that benefits the wealthy regardless of color and leave the culture wars to our less sophisticated voters.


----------



## bostjan

ArtDecade said:


> Nah, general Republicans are more like let's pretend to be fiscally conservative so we can write a new tax code that benefits the wealthy regardless of color and leave the culture wars to our less sophisticated voters.


Mostly true.

Maybe the freedom caucus, since they do have some nonwhite members, should separate from the GOP and call themselves the "Stop Hispanic Illegal Immigration Today party." Is that catchy enough?

No?

Maybe "Conservatives Upholding National Traditions?"


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Republics give a voice to the minority, Democracies do not. A true Democracy is nothing more than mob rules.


Slight technical correction.

A constitutional republic ensures that the minority has protections and _a_ voice, through various checks and balances, but does not give control to a minority. A democracy meanwhile is simple majority rule, and does give unchecked power to the majority over the minority. And, we in the US have a consitutional republic.

But, and I think you can see where I'm going with this, it's a far cry from that to say that a minority gets to run the government, and that a minority voice has unchecked power over the majority.

The radical wing of the GOP has essentially found a loophole in our constitution - with the GOP majority in the House of Representatives being a mere four votes, and with a majority of the _House_ and not winning party being required to pick a Speaker since the Founding Fathers didn't think through the implications of their Constitution all the way and never really imagined the two party system that quickly formed as a way to corral votes into a majority, then a very small number of Republicans can rob the Republican leader of enough votes to become Speaker, effectively shutting down the whole chamber.

But, ensuring their voice is part of the discussion is one thing. Letting that voice shout down the entire discourse is another. I hate to say something that even approaches a kind thing for the GOP, but looking at what's going down now and thinking the 203 votes for McCarthy are the mob and not the 19 against takes some real creativity.

Also, it has to be said - Pelosi faced a revolt of her own, with the same 222-seat majority. She was ultimately elected without issue on her first vote. This is just burnishing her reputation, and say what you will about older representatives, it does kind of suggest experience matters.


----------



## Ralyks

Vote 7 for McCarthy failed. Let's see if he can break the record.


----------



## bostjan

So, halfway through the 7th vote, and McCarthy has already lost.

All of those concessions evidently meant nothing. Why make a deal with your foes, if they won't honour the deal?

I think this means that McCarthy is basically done. Nothing he says or promises will get him over the finish line here. So now the GOP needs to nominate someone else to be speaker, I guess, and then hope that the "Conservatives Upholding National Traditions" caucus lets a dozen votes go on board. If they don't then government stalemate...

EDIT:  'd

But also interesting - Gaetz voted for Trump this round. ... Do I win a cookie?


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> EDIT:  'd
> 
> But also interesting - Gaetz voted for Trump this round. ... Do I win a cookie?


Oh god. LAST thing we need.  Biden and Harris would be dead inside the week, once those Q nutjobs realized Trump was that close to the top of the chain of succession.


----------



## Ralyks

Round 8 failed. One more to tie the record!


----------



## Drew

With 50 Republican votes cast so far, there have already been six defections, including Boebert for Kevin Hern. This was perobably just theater - she made a big show of voting for "Kevin" before giving his full name. 

Still, that makes it fairly likely that Vote 8 will fail as well, and for the second time inn 100 years this will go to nine votes.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> Round 8 failed. One more to tie the record!


Sniped me.  The record is actually something like 100 votes, dating back to the Civil War era. Still, this is clearly a low point of the modern era, and is shaping up to be a low point of the post-Civil War era, as well.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> Oh god. LAST thing we need.  Biden and Harris would be dead inside the week, once those Q nutjobs realized Trump was that close to the top of the chain of succession.


Is that something that they can actually do? Vote for someone who's not actually an elected member of the House? Cause if so, that's pretty fucked.

EDIT: Or am I misconstruing the statement that "Gaetz voted for Trump this round" as being literal, rather than an indication that his vote was cast for McCarthy, Trump's man?

If so, then nevermind.


----------



## Drew

Wonder when Trump tweets he doesn't like losers, and tells the GOP to nominate someone else? That might actually be a good sign for McCarthy.


----------



## Drew

Xaios said:


> Is that something that they can actually do? Vote for someone who's not actually an elected member of the House? Cause if so, that's pretty fucked.


Yes, actually - there's no constitutional requirement the Speaker be a voting member of the House. This was floated around during the impeachment hearings as a way to put Clinton back into the chain of succession, but never gained any real traction (and, honestly, Pelosi probably earned the right to be the first female president, based on how much better than McCarthy she did at an impossible job.  )

I don't think it's fucked, per se - I could see arguments that having a more independent speaker is actually kind of a good thing. And while I don't see Trump getting elected, and while I think he doesn't have the attention span to actually run the House, I do think a relatively independent non-Representative is at least one of the more vialble possible compromises I could see coming out of this.


----------



## Xaios

Drew said:


> *Wonder when Trump tweets he doesn't like losers,* and tells the GOP to nominate someone else? That might actually be a good sign for McCarthy.


In that case, he must really dislike most of the people he endorsed.


----------



## tedtan

Xaios said:


> In that case, he must really dislike most of the people he endorsed.


Trump’s endorsement is based on 1) kissing Trump’s ass, and 2) winning. If you don’t kiss his ass to begin with, you won’t get Trump’s initial endorsement and if you do get the initial endorsement and then fail to keep winning, he’ll revoke it. He’s truly that petty.


----------



## ArtDecade

"America doesn't want more talk," Boebert said. "They want action."



She's right, you know.... for once.


----------



## Ralyks

Round 9. Fight!

EDIT: Wait, no, he lost round 9 too.


----------



## thebeesknees22

Just a few more in that "other" vote and McCarthy is down for loss #9


----------



## AMOS

ArtDecade said:


> People that use the term RINO are really saying that the current Republican establishment isn't racist enough for them.


I think Racism is a term too easily thrown around and too many assumptions and generalizations are being made, and directed towards an entire group of people. No the entire Conservative base are not Racist. (contrary to what they're saying on MSNBC) even Byron Donalds is a symbol of White Supremacy according to them. I do not like the Republican party, I left during GWB's 2nd term. I'm into small govt, low taxes and guns, those are the only reasons I vote for them. RINO to me is Mitt Romney and the like (progressive republicans)


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> No the entire Conservative base are not Racist. (contrary to what they're saying on MSNBC) even Byron Donalds is a symbol of White Supremacy according to them.


Oh, you're SO close.

What they're saying isn't that all Republicans are racist, it's that after Trump there's no denying that to all Republicsns, even Byron Donalds, racism is no longer a_ deal-breaker. _It's something they're willing to tolerate if it gets lower taxes for the rich and more guns.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> I think Racism is a term too easily thrown around and too many assumptions and generalizations are being made, and directed towards an entire group of people. No the entire Conservative base are not Racist. (contrary to what they're saying on MSNBC) even Byron Donalds is a symbol of White Supremacy according to them. I do not like the Republican party, I left during GWB's 2nd term. I'm into small govt, low taxes and guns, those are the only reasons I vote for them. RINO to me is Mitt Romney and the like (progressive republicans)


Romney is more aligned with small gov't, low taxes, and guns than you might think. Trump prosecuted more administrative gun crimes than any other president, and did nothing to balnce the federal budget. His trimming back of federal agencies did more self service and didn't do much to curb spending. Of course, GWB blew up the federal budget and pulled back individual liberties.

As for racism, anyone who believes that making America great means getting rid of brown and black people, well, that is racism. Yes, even if you don't plan to get rid of all of them. And, based off of Trump's campaign promises, his voters were racist due to that line of thought.


----------



## ArtDecade

AMOS said:


> RINO to me is Mitt Romney and the like (progressive republicans)


Mitt is super progressive. I remember when the Republicans were bulk ordering office supplies and he made a point to order *#2.5* pencils - not #2 - nope - he wanted *#2.5* pencils. It just about shut down the whole Senate. Everyone thought he had lost his mind. What next? Is he going to stop using the Oxford comma?! Madness reigns in the mind of the progressive Romney.


----------



## Glades

Chip Roy is my spirit animal


----------



## wheresthefbomb

Glades said:


> Chip Roy is my fursona



FTFY


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> FTFY



What is a fursona, if not, a spirit _animal_?


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MFB said:


> What is a fursona, if not, a spirit _animal_?



spirit animal is an indigenous cultural tradition

fursona is a western cultural tradition

I'll admit I don't actually know whether or not Glades is indigenous so may or may not have actually been on the mark there, but I stand by my distinction. if you're not indigenous, the correct term is fursona.


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> spirit animal is an indigenous cultural tradition
> 
> fursona is a western cultural tradition
> 
> I'll admit I don't actually know whether or not Glades is indigenous so may or may not have actually been on the mark there, but I stand by my distinction. if you're not indigenous, the correct term is fursona.



I mean, what's more white than stealing another culture's term and claiming it as our own? But I'll yield that fursona is Western spirit animal in this case. 

I also 100% read your statement as "[...] Glades is disingenuous" instead of 'indigenous' and had a heart chuckle, like the Indians from South Park would have


----------



## ArtDecade




----------



## MFB

I know it's 'shopped, but I want to believe


----------



## AMOS

bostjan said:


> Romney is more aligned with small gov't, low taxes, and guns than you might think. Trump prosecuted more administrative gun crimes than any other president, and did nothing to balnce the federal budget. His trimming back of federal agencies did more self service and didn't do much to curb spending. Of course, GWB blew up the federal budget and pulled back individual liberties.
> 
> As for racism, anyone who believes that making America great means getting rid of brown and black people, well, that is racism. Yes, even if you don't plan to get rid of all of them. And, based off of Trump's campaign promises, his voters were racist due to that line of thought.


Different people voted for Trump for different reasons, for me I thought we needed a business man in there. His campaign promise was secure borders, not getting rid of brown skinned people. As for Romney, he reached a compromise here in MA that made our AWB permanent. Not something a real conservative would do. All gun owners got out of it was a Review Board if you got denied a license, and a 6 year license term instead of 3.

You know, people are not guilty of something that was carried out by someone they voted for. A lot of liberals have that mindset that if they lived in 1935 Berlin they would not have supported Hitler


----------



## AMOS

Drew said:


> Oh, you're SO close.
> 
> What they're saying isn't that all Republicans are racist, it's that after Trump there's no denying that to all Republicsns, even Byron Donalds, racism is no longer a_ deal-breaker. _It's something they're willing to tolerate if it gets lower taxes for the rich and more guns.


You're not even close


----------



## MFB

AMOS said:


> Different people voted for Trump for different reasons, for me I thought we needed a *(bad)* business man in there. His campaign promise was secure borders *(by building a literal wall)*, not getting rid of brown skinned people.



Just had to make some minor tweaks


----------



## AMOS

MFB said:


> Just had to make some minor tweaks


Why don't you edit me out of the photo where I'm posing with your buddy Stalin? Since you can't handle opposing opinions you might as well. That is the direction your party has been going in.


----------



## narad

wheresthefbomb said:


> spirit animal is an indigenous cultural tradition
> 
> fursona is a western cultural tradition
> 
> I'll admit I don't actually know whether or not Glades is indigenous so may or may not have actually been on the mark there, but I stand by my distinction. if you're not indigenous, the correct term is fursona.



At first I thought you were joking but if you want western analog that is "correct", it's definitely not going to come from the furry fandom


----------



## Glades

AMOS said:


> Why don't you edit me out of the photo where I'm posing with your buddy Stalin? Since you can't handle opposing opinions you might as well. That is the direction your party has been going in.


Amos, please don’t sidetrack the conversation. We are talking about furries here …


----------



## MaxOfMetal

AMOS said:


> The RINO's don't do anything for the sake of the Republic either, Byron Donalds and the rest want to change that, that's what he came out and said.





AMOS said:


> I think Racism is a term too easily thrown around and too many assumptions and generalizations are being made, and directed towards an entire group of people. No the entire Conservative base are not Racist. (contrary to what they're saying on MSNBC) even Byron Donalds is a symbol of White Supremacy according to them. I do not like the Republican party, I left during GWB's 2nd term. I'm into small govt, low taxes and guns, those are the only reasons I vote for them. RINO to me is Mitt Romney and the like (progressive republicans)





AMOS said:


> Different people voted for Trump for different reasons, for me I thought we needed a business man in there. His campaign promise was secure borders, not getting rid of brown skinned people. As for Romney, he reached a compromise here in MA that made our AWB permanent. Not something a real conservative would do. All gun owners got out of it was a Review Board if you got denied a license, and a 6 year license term instead of 3.
> 
> You know, people are not guilty of something that was carried out by someone they voted for. A lot of liberals have that mindset that if they lived in 1935 Berlin they would not have supported Hitler





AMOS said:


> Why don't you edit me out of the photo where I'm posing with your buddy Stalin? Since you can't handle opposing opinions you might as well. That is the direction your party has been going in.



The most meta part about posts like these is that if you're this scared, angry, and divorced from reality, you probably shouldn't own a gun.


----------



## narad

MaxOfMetal said:


> The most meta part about posts like these is that if you're this scared, angry, and divorced from reality, you probably shouldn't own a gun.



Hence why gun ownership comes with a huge bump in suicide rate.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

narad said:


> At first I thought you were joking but if you want western analog that is "correct", it's definitely not going to come from the furry fandom



Most developed western societies, the US especially, have had their cultural heritage largely supplanted by consumerism. I can't think of a more apt analog in that context.


----------



## bostjan

AMOS said:


> Different people voted for Trump for different reasons, for me I thought we needed a business man in there. His campaign promise was secure borders, not getting rid of brown skinned people. As for Romney, he reached a compromise here in MA that made our AWB permanent. Not something a real conservative would do. All gun owners got out of it was a Review Board if you got denied a license, and a 6 year license term instead of 3.
> 
> You know, people are not guilty of something that was carried out by someone they voted for. A lot of liberals have that mindset that if they lived in 1935 Berlin they would not have supported Hitler


I'm aware that not everyone who voted for Trump did so because he wanted to ban Arabs from the USA, but I also am not stupid enough to discount the fact that some people did make the effort to go out and vote for him because he said shit like that.

Basically, a lot of people voted for Trump the first time because they wanted a business man in the oval office, wanted less corruption in the federal government, or wanted to bring back American industry. But, then, after 4 years of some of the most horribly failed deals, different scandals every day, and a shortlived bump in the economy that was obliterated by covid policies that did way more harm than good because the president was suggesting that people inject fishbowl cleaner, bleach, or sunlight - anyone who voted for him the second time couldn't defend any of those reasons without a heap of dishonesty or deliberate ignorance.

If you voted for him, because you hate Biden, then, well, that's a reason, I guess. But also that raises the question of why you hate Biden so much, and, inevitable, down the road of whatever reason given applying more or less to Trump as well (usually more).

I don't have anything against Trump supporters, other than to feel frustrated by the painfully poor logic. I feel similarly toward Biden supporters, but, honestly, I don't think I've ever come across an actual Biden supporter IRL. Usually the argument was that Biden would be a better president than Trump and was the only one who had an icecube's chance of winning. And I do believe that at least the first statement is true, but that's an "opinion*." (*There could be various metrics assigned to this, which I would contend would make this somewhat objective, and I think that anyone defending Trump as a better president based on any checklist of actual metrics would have a really tough time making that work without a hell of a lot of handwaving and shrugging.)

Trump was an experiment, and, to me and millions of other Americans, the experiment failed. I didn't vote for Trump, but, when he was elected, I infamously said "maybe it won't be so bad, because he's got some good ideas in his platform..." welp, now that the truth of the matter is in the open, I can shamefully say that I was wrong. Not only was he a bad president, he was so bad, that I cannot find any way to defend him as being "not that bad" without willfully ignoring a lot of BS he pulled. Again, that doesn't make me angry at people who support him for supporting him, but it does make me frustrated at the seemingly loss of touch with reality.

I know you aren't saying that he was a great president, either. But, any time his name comes up, you seem to materialize to defend him. I don't know what that's all about - maybe just providing some other perspective to the discussion? IDK.

The current event at hand is the election of a new Speaker. And that's gone off the rails. People like Boebert and Gaetz are doubling down and saying that this is what the American people want or maybe even implying that this is what the American people need. And, of course, as usually, outlets like MSNBC are making it out to be worse than it is (up to this point). While I do generally admire people willing to hold out on their principles, this mess just doesn't make any sense.

Why? Because the freedom caucus keeps moving the goalposts. They'll say "we want X, Y, and Z" and McCarthy says "how about Y and Z, but not X," and then they agree that, although it's not what they want, it's a step in the right direction. Then, another vote, and not a single new vote for McCarthy.

And what is X, this hold out point? It's the motion to vacate. Basically, the freedom caucus wants to grind the house to a halt every time one member moves to try to remove the speaker. McCarthy offered to make it 5, which, with 20 votes, they obviously have anyway, but they want this permanent, and they know that they are going to take a beating in the next election cycle, so this isn't about discourse or pruning deadwood off the government, nor any of that bullshit that they use as talking points. No, this is about the power for them to obstruct not this session, but every following session of congress. The fact that this is the hill that they are choosing to die on says a lot to me.

Maybe you have a different explanation in your own mind, or maybe not. But that's my interpretation based on what we know as fact. And, maybe not even all of these freedom caucus members are on board for the same reason, but I think that they are. I'm darned certain that the ones leading the charge are doing this, not for the best interest of the republic, but for their own personal political insurance for the future. For that, I think that they ought to be voted out, preferably in the next primary, or, in the case of Gaetz, who has been involved in criminal conspiracies, much sooner.


----------



## Drew

AMOS said:


> Different people voted for Trump for different reasons, for me I thought we needed a business man in there. His campaign promise was secure borders, not getting rid of brown skinned people.


This is some extremly selective memory.

He wanted to build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, along our southern (but _not_ northern) border, because "Mexico is sending us their murderers, rapists, and drug dealers... and I'm sure plenty of fine people too." Most people arriving at the Mexico-US border are not Mexican, and are asylum seeker refugees. Meanwhile, he wanted to, and after several rounds in the courts managed to more or less succeed, ban Muslims entering the country, as well.

As Bostjan pointed out, not everyone voted for Trump because they wanted fewer Muslims and Mexicans in America. But, everyone who voted for him, knmew Trump _wanted_ to block Mexicans and Muslims from coming into this country by sheer virtue of their racial and religious background. 

I'll even grant you that the _first_ time, in 2016, it was possible that you could believe Trump was just posturing to court racially-motivated voters, and while that was kinda sleazy, it's politics and he wouldn't really mean it. But, for the next four years, he tried to build that wall, ban _legal_ immigration from Muslim-majority and majority black (aka "shithole") countries, and couldn't resist making comments about "plenty of good people on both sides" when neo-Nazis clashed with anti-fascist protestors. If you voted for Trump a second time, in 2020, because you thought getting a businessman in the White House was worth a little bit of light racial and religious discrimination, well, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## bostjan

Looks like McCarthy has lost round 13 now. How much of this could have been avoided by making a deal with the democrats (hell, just get a few of them to vote "present")? Oh well, maybe he'll win in round 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, ...


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Looks like McCarthy has lost round 13 now. How much of this could have been avoided by making a deal with the democrats (hell, just get a few of them to vote "present")? Oh well, maybe he'll win in round 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, ...


He did get a whole bunch of defectors in the 13th vote, though, and seems pretty optimistic that he can pick up enough to win the 14th at 10pm tonight. 

Though, of course, at what cost. He's shown his coalition is ungovernable, and making further concessions to weaken the power of the Speaker in this particular congress isn't going to make it easier on him, exactly, to get anything done.

The Democrats may have lost control of the house in 2022, but McCarthy just made it abundantly clear that the Republicans sure as hell didn't gain _control_ of it, even if they nominally have a majority of seats.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

The car is on fire, and there's no driver at the wheel.... 

...we're all trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.


----------



## bostjan

wheresthefbomb said:


> The car is on fire, and there's no driver at the wheel....
> 
> ...we're all trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.








Maybe everyone is familiar with this, but it was an art exhibit of a robot that was bleeding hydraulic fluid. At first, the machine seemed playful and interacted with spectators by dancing it's arm around, but, as time went on, it got more and more desperate to scoop up the fluid and keep itself lubricated, until it was just spending 100% of the time trying to keep itself alive. RIP "Can't Help Myself" 2016-2017.

This is basically the story of the US government, perhaps many governments. We started out strong and cocky, but, the longer it goes, the more it bleeds itself out, and it's probably only a matter of time before it can no longer operate at all.


----------



## Drew

bostjan said:


> Maybe everyone is familiar with this, but it was an art exhibit of a robot that was bleeding hydraulic fluid. At first, the machine seemed playful and interacted with spectators by dancing it's arm around, but, as time went on, it got more and more desperate to scoop up the fluid and keep itself lubricated, until it was just spending 100% of the time trying to keep itself alive. RIP "Can't Help Myself" 2016-2017.
> 
> This is basically the story of the US government, perhaps many governments. We started out strong and cocky, but, the longer it goes, the more it bleeds itself out, and it's probably only a matter of time before it can no longer operate at all.


That's dark.


----------



## wheresthefbomb

@bostjan I was not familiar, that is indeed dark. I just took a Stop the Bleed course and one of the things I learned is that bleeding is the number one cause of death after an injury, and that most of the time it's preventable. Puts an even darker spin on the robot.


----------



## spudmunkey

Drew said:


> He [...] seems pretty optimistic that he can pick up enough to win the 14th at 10pm tonight.
> 
> Though, of course, at what cost.


----------



## Ralyks

Gaetz is grinding this thing to a halt. Sounds like McCarthy and Gaetz had to be separated. This is our government. Fucking embarrassing.


----------



## tedtan

As much oof a shit show as this is, we can at least hope that this splits the Republican Party into two separate groups that won’t work together as they traditionally have.


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaaand we're done until Monday. Again, fucking embarrassing.


----------



## tedtan

Nope, they changes heir minds, so here’s to another vote.


----------



## Ralyks

Aaaaaand there it is on try 15.


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> The car is on fire, and there's no driver at the wheel....
> 
> ...we're all trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death.



I've been overdue for an F#A# listen, so this is my sign


----------



## wheresthefbomb

MFB said:


> I've been overdue for an F#A# listen, so this is my sign



One of my prized vinyls. A friend in high school gave me the CD originally, he said "I didn't like this but you might." Boy was he ever right....


----------



## MFB

wheresthefbomb said:


> One of my prized vinyls. A friend in high school gave me the CD originally, he said "I didn't like this but you might." Boy was he ever right....



I started with _Lift Yr Skinny Fists..._ as my entry into them after a friend of mine recommended them (he was into really eclectic/obscure music because of a different forum, also how I got into Mars Volta, and shit) and I don't want to say I hated it, but I was like, "this is fucking boring, there's barely anything happening?" and tried desperately to get into them because other people were like, "it's so GOOD!" It didn't click with me for a few more years, not until after I got more into indie stuff and probably after I started smoking pot and mellowed out, that I re-tried _LYSF..._ and was like, so god damn moved by it. I've said that Explosions in the Sky LIVE is the closest I've had to religious experience, but GY!BE for the first time was goosebumps for sure when it clicked.


----------



## Ralyks

“House Democrats,” he said, “will always put American values over autocracy, benevolence over bigotry, the Constitution over the cult, democracy over demagogues, economic opportunity over extremism, freedom over fascism, governing over gaslighting, hopefulness over hatred, inclusion over isolation, justice over judicial overreach, knowledge over kangaroo courts, liberty over limitation, maturity over Mar-a-Lago, normalcy over negativity, opportunity over obstruction, people over politics, quality of life issues over QAnon, reason over racism, substance over slander, triumph over tyranny, understanding over ugliness, voting rights over voter suppression, working families over the well-connected, xenial over xenophobia, ‘yes, we can’ over ‘you can do it,’ and zealous representation over zero-sum confrontation.”


Pretty sure I'm a Hakeem Jeffries fan.


----------



## Glades

Ralyks said:


> “House Democrats,” he said, “will always put American values over autocracy, benevolence over bigotry, the Constitution over the cult, democracy over demagogues, economic opportunity over extremism, freedom over fascism, governing over gaslighting, hopefulness over hatred, inclusion over isolation, justice over judicial overreach, knowledge over kangaroo courts, liberty over limitation, maturity over Mar-a-Lago, normalcy over negativity, opportunity over obstruction, people over politics, quality of life issues over QAnon, reason over racism, substance over slander, triumph over tyranny, understanding over ugliness, voting rights over voter suppression, working families over the well-connected, xenial over xenophobia, ‘yes, we can’ over ‘you can do it,’ and zealous representation over zero-sum confrontation.”
> 
> 
> Pretty sure I'm a Hakeem Jeffries fan.


This is hilarious coming from a democrat.


----------



## narad

Glades said:


> This is hilarious coming from a democrat.



It was preceded by McCarthy setting forth his agenda, in which he addressed the house, "Guuns, God, and more gunnss!! Yeee haaawW!!!", enumerating several key republican values,


----------



## Ralyks

Glades said:


> This is hilarious coming from a democrat.


Better than starting your speech with "Our first thing is to get rid of the 78,000 IRS agents". You're the house speaker. Stop slobbing Trumps knob and getting a hard on for Hunter Biden and maybe do something a bit more positive with your opening message?


----------



## Glades

Ralyks said:


> Better than starting your speech with "Our first thing is to get rid of the 78,000 IRS agents". You're the house speaker. Stop slobbing Trumps knob and getting a hard on for Hunter Biden and maybe do something a bit more positive with your opening message?


McCarthy is a partisan politician with dreams of grandeur. A big fat swamp creature. The last thing he cares about is helping the American people. Much like the rest of his party.


----------



## MFB

Glades said:


> McCarthy is a partisan politician with dreams of grandeur. A big fat swamp creature. The last thing he cares about is helping the American people. Much like the rest of his party.



How can we have swamp creatures if Trump "drained the swamp," Glades? HE "DRAINED THE SWAMP!"


----------



## Glades

MFB said:


> How can we have swamp creatures if Trump "drained the swamp," Glades? HE "DRAINED THE SWAMP!"


Until we have separation of lobbies and state, draining the swamp is impossible. Trump mistakenly thought you can drain the swamp by removing swamp creatures. But the swamp has a ways of turning lambs into snakes in no time.


----------



## thraxil

Glades said:


> McCarthy is a partisan politician with dreams of grandeur. A big fat swamp creature.





Glades said:


> Trump mistakenly thought you can drain the swamp by removing swamp creatures.



Trump endorsed McCarthy for house speaker.


----------



## ArtDecade

thraxil said:


> Trump endorsed McCarthy for house speaker.


Stop trying to reason with the Russian bot.


----------



## bostjan

Kevin McCarthy said:


> We will address America's long-term challenges: the debt and the rise of the Chinese Communist Party.



Wait, which McCarthy said that? What year is it?!


----------



## eaeolian

Drew said:


> I don't even know what that IS. I don't like it though.


Horrible. That's what it is, horrible.


----------



## eaeolian

bostjan said:


> Wait, which McCarthy said that? What year is it?!


Sounds like he's planning a witch hunt. Last name checks out.


----------



## zappatton2

And they've still got Hollywood in their sights to boot!


----------



## Drew

tedtan said:


> As much oof a shit show as this is, we can at least hope that this splits the Republican Party into two separate groups that won’t work together as they traditionally have.


Fuckin' Marjorie Taylor Greene was speaking somewhat enviously in an interview at one point about how unified the Democrats were. The _Democrats_.


----------



## Drew

Glades said:


> This is hilarious coming from a democrat.


Have you been asleep the last 15 years? Serious question.


----------



## ArtDecade

Drew said:


> Fuckin' Marjorie Taylor Greene was speaking somewhat enviously in an interview at one point about how unified the Democrats were. The _Democrats_.


Getting Democratic voters to agree on anything is like herding cats. Once elected, Democrats typically work together on legislation in Washington.
Republican voters just pull the R regardless of the candidate (Santos). Once elected, Republicans grandstand rather than legislate in Washington.


----------



## tedtan

Drew said:


> Fuckin' Marjorie Taylor Greene was speaking somewhat enviously in an interview at one point about how unified the Democrats were. The _Democrats_.


I didn’t see that, but that’s funny.

Not only a republican praising the democrats for unity, but coming from one of the primary reasons for the fracture in the GOP (not on this specific vote for speaker, but otherwise).


----------



## Ralyks

So is finding the documents in Bidens office not really a big deal yet the GOP with pounce on it anyway, or did Biden really fuck up there?


----------



## ArtDecade

Ralyks said:


> So is finding the documents in Bidens office not really a big deal yet the GOP with pounce on it anyway, or did Biden really fuck up there?


If he fucked up, he will own it and suffer the consequences. That is basically the difference between the parties - accountability.


----------



## RevDrucifer

ArtDecade said:


> If he fucked up, he will own it and suffer the consequences. That is basically the difference between the parties - accountability.



Well, politician accountability is still far different than civilian accountability. They just have to publicly say “Sorry bout dat, my b” and never face any real consequences aside from becoming political cannon fodder, which doesn’t really seem to mean much of anything these days because they’re all a joke.


----------



## ArtDecade

RevDrucifer said:


> Well, politician accountability is still far different than civilian accountability. They just have to publicly say “Sorry bout dat, my b” and never face any real consequences aside from becoming political cannon fodder, which doesn’t really seem to mean much of anything these days because they’re all a joke.


If he is knee deep in shit, Democrats won't allow him to run for a second term and spend that time obfuscating the truth and defending the crime. That is a type of political accountability. Beyond that, no politician really suffers the same accountability as a civilian - unless they defraud the IRS. The IRS always wins.


----------



## RevDrucifer

ArtDecade said:


> If he is knee deep in shit, Democrats won't allow him to run for a second term and spend that time obfuscating the truth and defending the crime. That is a type of political accountability. Beyond that, no politician really suffers the same accountability as a civilian - unless they defraud the IRS. The IRS always wins.



The guy shouldn’t be running for a second term to begin with! Jesus Christ there’s not enough fruit cups on the planet that can motivate the guy to read TV prompters for another 4 years!


----------



## Glades

Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Hillary, Trump and now Biden. All of them mishandled classified documents. 0 days in jail.
That’s why they are better than you and I.


----------



## ArtDecade

RevDrucifer said:


> The guy shouldn’t be running for a second term to begin with! Jesus Christ there’s not enough fruit cups on the planet that can motivate the guy to read TV prompters for another 4 years!


That is a totally different discussion.


----------



## bostjan

At least Biden's people caught this internally without the Justice Department having to intervene, like with HRC or DJT. But, either way, this snafu probably does more PR damage to the democrats than any of them will admit. Sure, only-blue voters are going to stick by them, but people on the fence aren't going to be happy about this, no matter the outcome of it.

The election is almost two years away, so this will get swept under the rug in that time, but there will likely be more talking points to come to bolster republicans. Biden's definitely not the most popular president to begin with, and before democrats get too comfy thinking that Trump will run and split the GOP, you gotta remember that the only votes that matter are swing voters in swing states, and those people tend not to like any of the options either party offers them and then vote for whomever is less unlikable. Trump beat Clinton exactly because Clinton was more unlikable than democrats counted on. Biden is quite a bit less unlikable, but with every news story like this, that discontent is growing slowly. If Trump stays in the race and then, at the last minute, quits and endorses Desantis or whomever, then Biden might lose, and it'll probably be by some negative percentage of the popular vote, but that doesn't matter. If Biden decides to retire after one term, that'll leave a vacuum with no obvious frontrunner, which could be great or it could be horrible. I know I've been harping on this for 2 years already, but the democrats really need to establish a hierarchy with a good strong candidate in short order, like they had done in the past with Obama. Although I had a few bones to pick with Obama, that guy was definitely likeable and charismatic, and I felt like he at least did a good job representing what his party was all about. Biden hasn't really had universal charisma since the 1980's, and even though he's enjoyed a unified democratic party, if the dems get overconfident, I feel like that could quickly evaporate. Harris has been surprisingly absent from the media coverage - I'd be surprised if even half of Americans at this point know that she's the VP, let alone, historically, the first ever female VP of the USA.

I guess we'll see. The GOP definitely doesn't look like it's having any luck at all getting behind an acceptable leader. No one likes McConnell, no one likes McCarthy, and, in general, it seems like the only thing republicans hate more than democrats is the other kind of republicans right now. I guess it'll be a race to see who can find the leader before 2024, but if neither do, and Biden steps down for retirement, we'll be on track to say hello to president Desantis in 2025.


----------



## RevDrucifer

ArtDecade said:


> That is a totally different discussion.



Fair. I’m being cantankerous today.


----------



## Drew

Ralyks said:


> So is finding the documents in Bidens office not really a big deal yet the GOP with pounce on it anyway, or did Biden really fuck up there?


Evolving story, and I think a lot of the details that we don't have will matter. But, from what I know:

* ~10 classified documents were found
*none of them contained nuclear secrets
*when found, Biden't lawyers immediately contacted the National Archives to facilitate their return.

...this is a PR issue but not remotely comparable with Trump.

And, ironically, Trump's earlier defense of focusing on whether or not they were classified, and rather than the fact he was under investigation for national security issues, may help Trump here. 

The issue really is that Trump is arguing the raid on Mar-a-Lago occurred because he had classified files. That's not entirely true. First, the issue was that he had materials that could be damaging to America's interests or helpful to our enemies in the wrong hands, and the classified status was actually kind of irrelevant (though, the media fousing on TS/SCI data as not even being allowed outside a controlled area was very sensationalist, and did stress how much of a fuckup this was). And second, was after an intial round of "ok, we're sorry, here's all our classified files we took," and then a second round of "ok, ok, now for real, here's the rest," the NA thought Trump was lying to them, had strong enough reasons that they were able to get a warrant approved, and found still more sensitive information in a raid. 

Biden, well, the "why" is going to matter a lot. But, so far we know it's a very small (compared to Trump) amount of information, it likely dd not impact national security, and it looks a LOT like it wasn't kept knowingly, in part because Biden's attorneys were immediately forthcoming when they found it.

So the thing Trump is missing - knowingly, I'm sure, for political convenience - is it's much more of a big deal to try to _steal_ classified information, than to have it, realize you have it, and try to return it. So, it's not really comparable... but the Biden team better get ahead of this and manage the perception in the court of public attention, because allowing Trump to frame it as "i had classified documents and got raided, he had classified documents and nothing!" isn't going to do them any favors.


----------

